content
stringlengths 186
41.5k
| id
stringlengths 17
19
|
|---|---|
WASHINGTONβFederal regulators this week are expected to unveil their plans for reversing Obama-era rules that require internet-service providers to treat all web traffic equally , a move that could fundamentally reshape the internet economy and consumers β online experience .\nThe changes , expected to be adopted at the Federal Communications Commission meeting in mid-December , would open the door to a wide range of new opportunities for internet providers , such as forming alliances with content firms to serve up their webpages or video at higher speeds and quality than those without such deals .\nSuch β paid prioritization β was explicitly blocked under the 2015 rules , which required internet service providers to keep all corners of the internet equally accessible to consumers , and limited the providers β ability to favor content , including their own .\nThe new rules are expected to thoroughly dismantle the β open internet β plan adopted by the Obama administration β s FCC , say industry officials familiar with them . Advocates of the current approach , including consumer groups and big internet companies , argued that such regulation is needed to curb the power of the broadband providers to unfairly dominate the online environment through their control over the pipes .\nProponents of reversing them , including current FCC Chairman Ajit Pai , say hard-and-fast rules can stifle investment and innovation in a fast-moving industry . Internet service providers worried the Obama administration rules could open the door to eventual rate regulation and other heavy-handed oversight . They also viewed the rules as a solution in search of a problem , given the internet β s relative openness historically .\nβ The winners are clearly the network operators , β said Recon Analytics Inc. researcher Roger Entner . He said the internet service providers would be able to more aggressively pursue specialized services for medical customers and self-driving cars , both of which could benefit from faster broadband speeds .\nIt remains to be seen how much the rules β demise might help the telecommunications industry β s bottom line , however , said Cowen Co. analyst Paul Gallant .\nBig internet companies , which supported the Obama administration rules , protested the move through their industry trade association .\nβ There is simply no reasonable justification for repealing the net neutrality protections currently on the books , β said Michael Beckerman , president and chief executive officer of the Internet Association . β Consumers are paying for access to the entire internet , and [ internet providers ] should not be able to discriminate against websites and apps . β\nMr. Pai began the process of reversing the 2015 rules earlier this year .\nIf the rollback survives likely legal challenges , it has the potential to reorder the online business environment . It could give internet providers such as AT & T Inc. , Comcast Corp. , Charter Communications Inc. and Verizon Communications Inc. more flexibility to use bundles of services and creative pricing to make their favored content more attractive to consumers .\nGetting Online Largest broadband providers at the end of the third quarter 2017 . Phone company Cable company Subscibers Comcast 25.5 million Charter
|
allsides-corpus-300
|
During a conversation held Wednesday night on the invite-only Clubhouse appβan audio social network popular with venture capitalists and celebritiesβentrepreneur Balaji Srinivasan , several Andreessen Horowitz venture capitalists , and , for some reason , television personality Roland Martin spent at least an hour talking about how journalists have too much power to `` cancel '' people and wondering what they , the titans of Silicon Valley , could do about it .\nThe call shows how Silicon Valley millionaires , who have been coddled by the press and lauded as innovators and disruptors , fundamentally misunderstand the role of journalism the moment it turns a critical eye to their industry . It also suggests they β re eager to find new ways to hit back at what they see as unfavorable and unfair press coverage .\nMotherboard obtained a recording of the conversation , which took place on Clubhouse , an app which as of late May had just 1,500 users . The app was valued at $ 100 million after a reported $ 12 million investment from Andreessen Horowitz , and requires an invite to join . In May , New York Times internet culture reporter Taylor Lorenz wrote that the app is `` where venture capitalists have gathered to mingle with one another while they are quarantined in their homes . ''\n`` Sometimes there is a tarot card reader critiquing a member β s Instagram account ; sometimes it is a dating advice show ; sometimes bored people sound off about anything that pops into their mind , '' she wrote .\nOn Wednesday night , the topic of conversation was Lorenz herself , who had been listening earlier in the conversation but left partway through . After she left , the participants began discussing whether Lorenz was playing `` the woman card '' when speaking out about her harassment following a Twitter altercation with Srinivasan .\n`` You ca n't fucking hit somebody , attack them and just say , 'Hey , I have ovaries and therefore , you ca n't fight back , ' '' Felicia Horowitz , founder of the Horowitz Family Foundation and wife of Andreessen Horowitz cofounder Ben Horowitz , said .\nIn recent days Lorenz , who criticized luggage startup Away co-CEO Steph Korey on Twitter Wednesday , has been harassed and impersonated on Twitter .\nOn the call , Srinivasan suggested that Lorenzβwho earlier in the day had accused him on Twitter of `` constantly trying to destroy my career on the internet and in private '' βwas overreacting and that she was perhaps scared of him , and that this was why she left the conversation that night on Clubhouse .\n`` Is Taylor afraid of a brown man on the street ? Then she should n't be afraid of a brown man in Clubhouse , '' Srinivasan said . `` I have literally done nothing other than one previous tweet . Number one , right ? So the whole , you know , talking about tweeting as you know , harassmentβcompletely illegitimate , completely wrong , completely fabricated and just false . ''\nThe audio chat had spiraled wildly out of control from a broader conversation earlier in the call about the state of journalism and what VCs should do to receive better coverage . Srinivasan , formerly a general partner at Andreessen Horowitz , claimed that `` the entire tech press was complicit in covering up the threat of COVID-19 , '' and claimed that relying on the press is `` outsourcing your information supply chain to folks who are disaligned with you , '' comparable to the United States having outsourced its medical supply chain . He proposed that the approaches to truth and accountability offered by GitHub , venture capital funding , and cryptocurrency all offer better models for journalism than `` the East Coast model of 'Respect my authori-tay . ' ''\nWhen asked for comment about the Clubhouse chat , Srinivasan screenshotted our request and tweeted about it .\n`` When it comes to our industry , there β s a really , really toxic dynamic that exists right now , '' Nait Jones , an Andreessen Horowitz VC , said on the call while speaking about recent reports about abuse in the tech industry . `` Because those stories were so popular and drove so much traffic , they also created a market for more of those stories . They created a pressure on many reporters to find the next one of those stories inside of a fast growing tech company because those stories play very well on Twitter , especially around protecting vulnerable people . ''\n( In 2020 , the idea that fishing for β clicks β to drive ad revenue is a successful or even common business model is a fallacy . Publications that rely exclusively on advertising are failing at an astonishing rate ; financially , many journalistic outlets are increasingly moving away from an ad-based revenue model driven by traffic , and instead focus on live events , subscriptions , optioning their articles to movie studios , and other models that rely on having a dedicated readership that trusts the publication ) .\nThe exclusive users of Clubhouse on the call seemed to conceive of themselves as humble citizens preyed upon by corrupted elites cravenly lusting after money and power ; this reached a bizarre apogee when Srinivasan boasted of standing up for the CEO of a scandal-plagued luggage brand , depicting her as all but powerless because of her relatively low Twitter follower count . The conversation essentially resembled a Gamergate chat , with people obsessing over minute drama and , at times , suggesting that Lorenz had crossed a line on Twitter and must be punished .\n`` How can there be an accountability function that 's implementable across all media that allows for that to happen , that pushback to happen without it being turned around and can become some toxic thing where all types of power dynamics are being used , and people have their weapons out , '' Jones said .\n`` Her employer should be saying , you cross the line with your editorial comments , '' Martin said , adding that `` If I 'm [ Srinivasan ] , the argument that I would make to her bosses is you should be instructing your reporters not to be making editorial judgments about someone . Stick to reporting . ''\nβ Taylor is an excellent reporter doing incredibly relevant reporting for this moment . She , and all reporters , should be able to do their jobs without facing harassment , β Choire Sicha , editor of the NYTimes Styles desk , told Motherboard in an email .\nClubhouse founders Rothan Seth and Paul Davison did n't respond to a request for comment . Jones did not respond to a request for comment . Andreessen Horowitz declined to comment .\nThe conversation was set off by a series of exhausting , insidery events from the last two weeks . Some in the Silicon Valley set turned their sights on the Times after Scott Alexander , a psychiatrist who ran the philosophy blog SlateStarCodex , deleted the entire blog because he said the Times was going to `` dox '' him by publishing his real name in an upcoming story . ( It is worth noting that Alexander has republished SlateStarCodex blogs in books using his full name . ) This event resurfaced an ongoing and tedious discussion among venture capitalist types about journalism ethics , business models , and publishing incentives .\nWednesday , Korey , the co-CEO of Away , a direct to consumer luggage brand that was the subject of an expose in The Verge last year , published a series of Instagram Story posts in which she suggested that she was unfairly targeted by The Verge in part because she is a woman . She also said that journalists should be easier to sue , and suggested that the main thing driving journalism is `` clicks . '' The Verge story focused on a culture of abuse at Away under Korey 's leadership ; workers there said they were prevented from taking vacation , were banned from emailing each other , and worked extremely long hours .\nWhile Korey β s Instagram comments were a supposed critique of the journalism industry , they looked at times a lot more like a claim that The Verge story was unfair or inaccurate in ways she didn β t actually address .\nAfter Korey posted her stories on Instagram , a number of journalists commented on them , including Lorenz , who tweeted `` Steph Korey , the disgraced former CEO of Away luggage company , is ranting on IG stories about the media . Her posts are incoherent and it β s disappointing to see a woman who ran a luggage brand perpetuate falsehoods like this abt an industry she clearly has 0 understanding of . ''\nLorenz 's tweet was immediately tweeted about by several Silicon Valley venture capitalists , most notably Srinivasan , who eventually made a seven-tweet thread in which he suggested Lorenz , and journalists like her , are `` sociopaths . ''\nThat same day , a self-described Taylor Lorenz `` parody '' Twitter account started retweeting Srinivasan and other tech investors and executives critical of her work . The account 's bio also links to a website , also self-described as parody , which is dedicated to harassing Lorenz . ( Twitter told Motherboard it deleted another account for impersonating Lorenz . )\nYesterday Lorenz called out Srinivasan on Twitter by tagging him and asked his friends , like Andreessen Horowitz co-founder Ben Horowitz , to help end the conflict , which eventually continued on Clubhouse .\nIn Korey 's analysis , exposing the conditions of workers is clickbait designed to attract eyeballs ; she also argued that female founders were more likely to be attacked , especially by young female reporters . The story about Korey β s alleged misconduct was written by a young reporter named Zoe Schiffer . Korey added a few minutes later that she β d gotten word her comments were filtering through to Twitter , and wrote , in part , β I believe the overwhelming majority of young female reporters are truly excellent . It has been the case that the female-founder takedowns tend to be written by young women , but I do not think they represent the whole demographic whatsoever . β\nKorey β s avid defenders in the Clubhouse conversation agreed with that analysis .\nβ The coverage seems to be so one-sided around the people running the companies , β one person on the call whom Motherboard could not immediately identify complained . β They 're all abusers , they 're all trying to get rich . It 's just down , down , down . It 's almost depressing to watch , as someone who 's an advocate for building things . It 's hard to watch the coverage , it 's almost anti-building things ... The whole entire DNA of Silicon Valley has been optimism from day one . ''\nArticles like the Verge 's investigation into Away do not appear out of thin air . People who work at tech companiesβoften burdened with non-disclosure agreementsβtake risks to discuss labor conditions at their company . At the time the Verge article was published , Korey apologized . Wednesday , she was suggesting she 'd been unfairly targeted , and that `` a few who are using the media platform they have access to further their careers by knowingly misrepresenting female founders for clicks & their own profile/fame . ''\n`` I spoke up for her because she had , you know , 8,000 followers , and she was being attacked by a New York Times reporter as a disgraced former CEO and she 's actually still , you know , current co-CEO , '' Srinivasan said . `` I believe in standing up for those people who do n't have a voice , who can not stand up for themselves . ''\nLost in the shuffle are the employees who say this apparently powerless CEO still presides over a broken company . Thursday afternoon , a coalition of Away employees emailed Away 's leadership to say that `` Steph 's Comments Are Hurting Us . ''\nWe β have been hurt and left deflated by Steph Korey β s recent action on Instagram and Twitter , '' they wrote in the email , which was obtained by Motherboard and was acknowledged by Away 's cofounder Jen Rubio . `` We are writing to you as the employees of Away and asking that something is done to address the story that is building around Steph 's Instagram and Twitter comments over the last several days .\nSteph has been largely absent during this health pandemic , the company 's layoffs and the civil unrest surrounding Black Lives Matter . This made sense . She was on mat leave and taking time to focus on her personal life over her professional one . This is why her social media activity over the last few days has been so surprising and frankly hurtful as employees of this company . ''\nKorey and Away 's cofounders did not immediately respond to a request for comment .\nIn response to a request for comment from Motherboard , Away 's βββ president of communications and corporate affairs shared two screenshots . The first was an email from Jen Rubio , Away 's co-founder , president , and Chief Brand Officer , addressed to the employees who had complained about Korey 's comments . ( The email comes from Rubio 's email account ; it 's also cosigned by Stuart Haselden , the company 's co-CEO ) .\nRubio wrote that Korey 's comments `` do not reflect or affect our current company priorities and the deep work we 're doing about diversity , equity and inclusion . '' The email also stated that Stuart Haselden will take on the role of sole CEO at Away in 2020 , and that Korey has updated her social media profiles to state that her views are her own .\nIn her own Slack response , Korey wrote : `` I understand that I have a responsibility as co-founder and co-CEO to commit to using my personal platforms to support our priorities , not distract by them . '' She apologized to `` anyone I hurt by shifting the focus away from these important cultural moments this past week , '' referring to the Black Lives Matter movement and the company 's stated commitment to `` Diversity , Equity and Inclusion , '' as Korey put it . Both statements say Away 's priority is `` becoming an anti-racist company . ''
|
allsides-corpus-301
|
In Wednesday 's televised impeachment hearing , U.S . Ambassador William Taylor and State Department official George Kent `` did not paint a flattering portrait of our president , and his bootlickers in the House did n't look too good , either , '' Jimmy Kimmel said on Wednesday 's Kimmel Live . `` The president called the hearing a 'joke , ' a 'sham , ' and a 'hoax , ' and he said he did n't watch it . A White House spokesperson said the president was too busy working . Right . They might as well have said he was at a Zumba class . ''\nIn reality , Trump spent the hearing `` tweeting and retweeting all of these things from right-wing Twitter feeds , in between hosting one of his favorite foreign strongmen , Turkish President Erdogan , '' Kimmel said . `` Trump says he 's a big fan of Erdogan , who last month notably slaughtered our allies , the Kurds . ''\n`` Trump got things off to a great start by mispronouncing President Erdogan 's name , '' Stephen Colbert said on The Late Show . He also dismissed Trump 's claim he was too busy to watch the hearings : `` No you 're not ! For Pete 's sake , you live-tweeted Sean Spicer on Dancing with the Stars ! ''\nYes , `` apparently Trump did n't watch , '' Jimmy Fallon said at The Tonight Show . `` Trump wanted to , but he threw his TV remote out the window when he was n't named People Magazine 's Sexiest Man of the Year . '' Taylor 's testimony `` was brutal for Trump , '' Fallon said . `` He clearly outlined how the president tried to get Ukraine to investigate Biden in exchange for aid . Which means it 's the second time in Trump 's life that his cover-up did n't work . ''\n`` Trump claimed he did not watch the televised impeachment hearings , '' Conan O'Brien said on Conan . `` When asked what he was doing , Trump said , ' I was cleaning out my desk . ' '' On Wednesday , he added , `` new evidence against President Trump was called damning . Some say this could end his presidency . No , wait , I 'm sorry , this joke is from two years ago . ''\n`` Today was the first time in over 20 years that Congress has held a public impeachment hearing , '' Seth Meyers said at Late Night . `` And if this one is anything like the last one , Trump will be impeached , then be acquitted in the Senate , and then in 20 years his wife will lose an election to some idiot . ''
|
allsides-corpus-302
|
The left is in a veritable state of hysteria as the Federal Communications Commission ( FCC ) moves to vote on Chairman Pai 's deregulatory `` Restoring Internet Freedom '' ( RIF ) order on Dec. 14 . It 's gotten so bad that incensed supporters of so-called `` net neutrality '' have taken to harassing commissioners ' children and even threatening to kill a congressman .\nIt 's a nasty state of affairs , and it 's one unfortunately driven by a lot of false rhetoric and outright fearmongering over how policy is actually changing . Telling people that a policy change will `` end the internet as we know it '' or `` kill the internet '' can agitate troubled people into doing crazy things .\nIn truth , the Obama administration-era `` Open Internet Order '' ( OIO ) that the FCC is overturning has little to with `` net neutrality '' at all . In fact , the OIO would still allow internet service providers ( ISPs ) to block contentβto say nothing of the many non-ISP tech companies that can and do openly suppress access to content .\nFurthermore , repealing the OIO does not mean that the principles of `` net neutrality '' will not be upheld , nor that ISPs will be `` unregulated . '' Rather , the RIF will rightly transfer oversight of ISPs to other regulatory bodies in an ex post fashion .\nOne of the biggest misconceptions of the OIO saga is that it achieved `` net neutrality . '' It did n't . While proponents like to spin a lot of rhetoric about `` treating all traffic equally , '' the actual implementation of the Obama administration 's regulations did nothing of the sort .\nAs my Mercatus Center colleague Brent Skorup has tirelessly pointed out , the OIO did not require all internet actorsβranging from ISPs to content platforms to domain name registrars and everything elseβto be content-blind and treat all traffic the same . Rather , it erected an awkward permission-and-control regime within the FCC that only affected a small portion of internet technology companies .\nNot even ISPs would be truly content-neutral under the OIO . Because of First Amendment concerns , the FCC could not legally prohibit ISPs from engaging in editorial curation . The U.S. Court of Appeals made this very clear in its 2016 decision upholding the OIO . ISPs that explicitly offer `` 'edited ' services '' to its customers would be virtually free from OIO obligations . It 's a huge loophole , and it massively undercuts any OIO proponent 's claims that they are supporting `` net neutrality . ''\nBut importantly , the OIO still allowed the vast majority of internet companies to filter and block away to their heart 's content . Indeed , one could argue that content aggregators and search engines , like Facebook and Google , have proven to be much more draconian in their censorship of controversial but legal content than the ISPs over which so many agonize . Consider the recent incident where Twitter decided to block the political speech of a pro-life American politician . Most people are far more worried that social media companies will block their content rather than Comcast or Verizon .\nFCC Chairman Ajit Pai made this very point last week at an R Street Institute event on the repeal . Major edge service providers like Google , Facebook , Reddit , and Twitter have made their opposition to OIO deregulation loud and clear to their user base . Some have displayed automatic messages on their front pages , urging visitors to take action and encourage others to do the same . Yet at the same time , these services engage in kinds of content blocking that they say broadband providers could possibly do .\nThis hypocrisy is relevant for more than just ideological inconsistency . It 's about economic power . By encouraging harsh regulation of ISPs that effectively controls the rates that major tech companies can be charged for bandwidth , these companies are engaging in a kind of regulatory capture . ( It should be noted that there is some division within these firms : Google 's Eric Schmidt , for instance , famously discouraged the Obama administration from pursuing these regulations in 2014 . )\nNot only is it unfair , it is absolutely disingenuous to the user bases that they have so inflamed with their rhetoric . These companies are not taking principled stands at all . They are trying to use the force of the state to improve their economic outlook . In Pai 's words , `` they might cloak their advocacy in the public interest , but the real interest of these Internet giants is in using the regulatory process to cement their dominance in the Internet economy . ''\nThe second biggest misconception about the OIO repeal is that consumers will simply be at the mercy of unscrupulous broadband service providers without recourse or protection . This has never been true , and will not be true under the RIF either .\nOIO supporters imagine a world where ISPs slice and dice internet access into tiered packages , similar to cable subscriptions . This misleading image is a popular one : It shows a hypothetical broadband package where consumers are forced to pay $ 10 for a `` Hollywood '' package including YouTube and Hulu , and a $ 5 `` Playground '' offering access to Steam and World of Warcraft . Of course , no ISP has ever come close to proposing anything like this arrangement , but this scenario has curiously lodged itself as a chief anxiety of many `` net neutrality '' supporters .\nRecently , this hypothetical fear metastasized into a seemingly real threat . None other than Tim Wu himself , the brains behind the concept of `` net neutrality , '' shared a scary story about the dystopian world of Portuguese broadband provision , where ISPs had seemingly started to act more like cable companies . An image shared by Silicon Valley congressman Ro Khanna seemed to confirm this worst-case-scenario , sharing an image of a breakdown of Portuguese telecom packages by category .\nBut there was a huge problem with this story , as an excellent post by Ben Thompson pointed out . That Portuguese telecom provider was not slicing and dicing the 'net for no βββ , but rather was an offer for an extra 10 GB of access to a collection of apps on top of the existing family data plan for β¬25 a month , or about $ 30 . There are examples from the U.S. , too . In 2010 , then-tiny MetroPCS began offering zero-rated , or discounted , access to YouTube content to be competitive . But net neutrality activists went berserk over this benefit to MetroPCS customers , putting this and similar services in legal jeopardy . Consumers like these kinds of plans because they can be cheaper than all-inclusive data packages while giving them access to the services that they really need .\nThese kinds of unhelpful hoaxes underscore the fears that `` net neutrality '' rhetoric has instilled into the public . Sometimes , as is the case with Portuguese example , an alleged `` violation '' is actually a valued ( and voluntary ! ) option for many consumers . But in general , people believe that the OIO repeal will usher in a world where ISPs can do whatever they want without having to answer to anyone . Of course , this was not true before the OIO was instituted in 2015 , and it will be even less true under the RIF .\nThe debate has never been over `` regulation '' vs. `` no regulation '' of ISPs . Rather , it 's a question of whether it is more appropriate for an oversight body to observe market activities and intervene when foul play is suspected , called `` ex post regulation , '' or whether a beefed-up precautionary regulator should preemptively prohibit new service innovations until private bodies can prove them to be in the public interest , known as `` ex ante regulation . ''\nThe latter approach obviously stems new innovation and investment considerably , and in fact a study from the Phoenix Center found that broadband investment was choked to the tune of some $ 30 billion each year due to the OIO . Furthermore , introducing a Soviet-style ex ante regulator into the mix creates opportunities for regulatory capture and corruption .\nThe RIF will actually provide a more robust regulatory framework that then one that proceeded the OIO . It will transfer oversight of ISPs to the Federal Trade Commission , which has decades of experience ensuring consumer protection , privacy , and security . It will return to transparency rules established by the FCC in 2010 , which would require broadband providers to disclose their network management practices , thereby cutting down on the potential for sneaky behavior . And most importantly , it would achieve these `` neutral network '' goals without erecting a Depression-era system of permission and control that is both costly and susceptible to corruption .\nThe OIO allowed content filtering anyway . The RIF is a far better way to promote a fair and innovative internet that does not bring the many costs of the OIO .\nPeople who maintain that the sky will fall and the internet will forever change for the worse after the FCC votes to ratify the RIF later this month are either misinformed or unfortunately opportunistic . Moving oversight of ISPs from a permissioned ex ante regulatory regime to a permissionless ex post one not only makes plain sense , it is the kind of framework that allowed the internet to develop into the powerhouse of innovation that we enjoy today . The internet is important in our lives , and it is easy to see how people can get upset when they are told that a policy change will ruin it forever . But a brief examination of the facts shows no such threat , and in fact the RIF is what can actually preserve the internet that we all know and love .
|
allsides-corpus-303
|
Well , it was bound to happen eventually . After near three years of all-out rhetorical war against tech giants , for politically-shifting sins including bigness , too much censorship , not enough censorship , data hoarding , and being too irresistible , policymakers are ready to move beyond cheap talk and start slapping wristsβor more .\nSpecifically , regulators and Congress recently announced new antitrust scrutiny against Silicon Valley . The House Judiciary Committee cheerfully launched a `` bipartisan investigation into competition into digital markets . '' Nothing can bring us all together these days quite like hating the online services we use most . No particular firms have been named , but we can expect the usual suspects are due for a thrashing .\nRegulators , on the other hand , are dividing and conquering . The Department of Justice ( DOJ ) and Federal Trade Commission ( FTC ) sliced up the pig , with DOJ taking on Google and Apple , and the FTC going after Facebook and Amazon . The Wall Street Journal reports that Google and Facebook are the real targets , for now .\nTech companies knew this was coming . How could they not ? Presidential hopefuls compete over who wants to break up tech giants the most . New books like The Curse of Bigness : Antitrust in the New Gilded Age by superstar law professor ( and father of `` net neutrality '' ) Tim Wu warn that lax antitrust enforcement could spawn a new Nazism ( really ) . In February , the FTC set up an antitrust taskforce for the sole purpose of preparing actions against the big guys . It was always a question of when , not if .\nBigness is badness in the minds of most people . But in terms of U.S. law at least , being big is not a crime .\nRather , as an essay by my Mercatus colleagues Adam Thierer and Jennifer Huddleston points out , American antitrust is only intended to be used when `` a firm has the ability to monopolize a sector , or it possesses an 'essential facility ' that can not be replicated . ''\nLaws like the Sherman Antitrust Act and the Clayton Act give agencies substantial powers to clamp down on monopolies . So antitrust enforcers have developed a robust jurisprudence on what is and is not kosher . Some things , like price fixing , are so `` inherently harmful '' that they are always illegal .\nBut in general , the U.S. antitrust approach places the consumer at the center of the analysis . We do n't punish businesses because they have been exceptional at meeting consumer demand . Rather , the government steps in if a business engages in anti-competitive activities that harm customers , like obliterating the competition with low prices before jacking them up on consumers that have no other optionβclassic monopolistic behavior .\nDoes n't that just make sense ? Consider the alternative . The government could break up or limit any firm that is simply a great competitor . Consumers are actually served well by this giant . But their competitors of course will grumble for their nemesis to be taken down a few pegs .\nIn this conception of antitrust , the government essentially protects the bottom lines of competitors who ca n't keep up . Before U.S. courts settled on the economics-grounded consumer welfare standard that has guided U.S. antitrust for decades , trust-busting activities were often little more than handouts to interest groups .\nNot only would court cases counterintuitively seek to keep prices high , to the detriment of consumers , judges worked a host of non-antitrust hobbyhorses into their decisions . Maybe one judge had a particular fondness for `` social equality . '' The antitrust decisions he handed down might have aimed for that totally unrelated , arguably impossible outcome .\nThe European approach to antitrust is more like the muddled U.S. approach before it settled on the consumer welfare standard . Some in the U.S. would like our antitrust posture to be more like Europe 's , but at least for now , it is limited to the scribblings of theorists in the land of the free .\nWith that crash course in antitrust theory under our belt , we can now ask : What will the U.S. do about Facebook and Google ?\nSome people would like to see the companies broken up . They propose surgical cuts : Facebook must relinquish WhatsApp and Instagram , while parent company Alphabet could spin off feeder products from advertising-funded search .\nOn what grounds ? We know that bigness per se is no crime . Are these companies `` essential facilities '' that left fewer , more expensive options for consumers ?\nThe problem is that many of these companies ' products cost us nothing , at least in terms of dollars . It does n't look like Facebook or Google have been lowering product quality , either . In general , there 's a lot of competition when it comes to social media platforms and search , even if people choose not to use them very much .\nOnline platforms like Facebook and Google are tricky when it comes to antitrust because they essentially serve two markets : users and advertisers .\nWhen it comes to users , there are plenty of alternatives . Advertisers , too have plenty of alternatives : they can buy spots on television , the radio , billboards , in newspapers , and even via costumed sign-waver on the side of the road .\nBut for online ads , there are basically two games in town : Facebook and Google . My colleague Brent Skorup pointed out to me that recent precedent could indicate that the courts will consider `` the ad market and the social media market as components of a single relevant market . '' If so , Facebook and Google could be looking at serious antitrust enforcement .\nAntitrust actions take a long time , and by the time a remedyβgood or badβis chosen , the market may have already moved on . This is particularly the case in a fast-moving space like tech . Consider the drawn-out cases against IBM and Microsoft . On the other side of the decades-long court cases , the issues that so vexed regulators had long ago become moot . What were the costs to consumers and innovation in the process ?\nThe problem is that regulators have a static mindset . They see a slice of a market in time , deem one actor too powerful , and seek to artificially create `` more competition '' to freeze this market in time . But that 's not how markets progress . As venture capitalist Benedict Evans points out , `` Tech anti-trust too often wants to insert a competitor to the winning monopolist , when it 's too late . Meanwhile , the monopolist is made irrelevant by something that comes from totally outside the entire conversation and owes nothing to any anti-trust interventions . ''\nIn the meantime , antitrust actions are often wasteful , distracting , and can limit consumer choice . We still do n't how this new round of trust-busting will shake out . But it 's a good chance that by the time we 're on the other side , a new class of unassailable giants will have cropped up without regulators noticing . And then we can start the theatrics all over again .\nThis column has been updated to correct Tim Wu 's occupation .
|
allsides-corpus-304
|
Republicans on Monday blasted Secretary of State John Kerry for suggesting in a letter to his Iranian counterpart that the administration could help the country get around new visa restrictions passed by Congress .\nβ Instead of bending over backwards to try to placate the Iranian regime , the White House needs to be holding it accountable for its recent missile tests , its continued support for terrorism , and its wrongful imprisonment of Americans , β House Foreign Affairs Committee Chairman Ed Royce , R-Calif. , said in a statement to FoxNews.com .\nAt issue are tightened security requirements for America β s visa waiver program , which allows citizens of 38 countries to travel to the U.S. without visas . Under changes in the newly signed spending bill , people from those countries who have traveled to Iran , Iraq , Syria and Sudan in the past five years must now obtain visas to enter the U.S .\nTop Tehran officials , however , complained the changes violate the terms of the nuclear deal , which says the U.S. and other world powers will refrain from any policy intended to adversely affect normalization of trade and economic relations with Iran .\nKerry responded to these concerns in a Dec. 19 letter to his Iranian counterpart , Mohammad Javad Zarif -- and suggested the administration could simply bypass the rules for Iran .\nβ I am also confident that the recent changes in visa requirements passed in Congress , which the Administration has the authority to waive , will not in any way prevent us from meeting our [ nuclear deal ] commitments , and that we will implement them so as not to interfere with legitimate business interests of Iran , β he said .\nKerry β s letter to Zarif assured that the U.S. would β adhere to the full measure of our commitments. β As for changes to the visa program , Kerry floated several alternative options for easing any impact on Iran β including waiving the new requirements .\nβ To this end , we have a number of potential tools available to us , including multiple entry ten-year business visas , programs for expediting business visas , and the waiver authority provided under the new legislation , β he wrote .\nThe legislation indeed includes a provision allowing the Homeland Security secretary to waive the requirements if the secretary determines this β is in the law enforcement or national security interests of the United States . β\nBut House Majority Leader Kevin McCarthy , R-Calif. , voiced concern on Monday that Kerry was proposing a β blanket β waiver to accommodate Iran β s complaints . He said that is not Congress β intent .\nβ Contrary to what the Secretary of State seems to be saying to Iranian Foreign Minister Javad Zarif , it was not and has never been Congress β s intent to allow the Administration to grant a blanket waiver to travellers from Iran in order to facilitate the implementation of the Iran deal , β he said in a statement .\nMcCarthy said the point of the legislation was to strengthen security and β keep the American people safe from terrorism and from foreign travelers who potentially pose a threat to our homeland . β\nKerry β s assurances also raised concerns that the U.S. may be backing down to Iran β s complaints while at the same time reluctant to punish Tehran for its own potential violations .\nβ Instead of undermining Congressional intent regarding the visa waiver program , the White House should instead focus on Iran β s repeated violations of the U.N. Security Council 's bans on missile tests , β McCarthy said . β Iran β s unwillingness to follow these international agreements should be a red flag that the Iran nuclear deal isn β t worth the paper it is written on . β\nOmri Ceren , with the Washington , D.C.-based Israel Project , also told The Washington Free Beacon , β According to the Obama administration β s latest interpretation , the nuclear deal allows Iran to test ballistic missiles in violation of international law , but does not allow Congress to prevent terrorists from coming into the United States . β\nThe same article noted that the State Department official in charge of implementing the nuclear agreement warned Congress last week that the new visa rules β could have a very negative impact on the deal . β\nIndeed , Kerry β s letter came as top-ranking Iranian officials accused the U.S. of flouting the nuclear agreement .\nIran β s Deputy Foreign Minister Abbas Araghchi said Sunday that the change β contradicts β the nuclear deal .\n`` Definitely , this law adversely affects economic , cultural , scientific and tourism relations , β Araghchi was quoted by state TV as saying .\nAsked about Kerry β s assurances at Monday β s daily briefing , State Department spokesman John Kirby said the secretary made clear they would β implement this new legislation so as not to interfere with legitimate business interests of Iran . β\nKirby said the law would be followed , but there are a β number of potential tools β to ensure this does not violate the nuclear deal . As for the DHS waiver authority , he said it β s too soon to say β if and when β that might be used .\nThe Kerry letter initially was obtained and published by the National Iranian American Council .
|
allsides-corpus-305
|
WASHINGTON β Secretary of State Rex Tillerson was fired via Twitter after returning from an Africa trip during which he was out of the loop on North Korean talks and contradicted the White House position on Russia 's responsibility for poisoning a former double agent in the United Kingdom .\nIn other words , his last week on the job was like many others in his 405-day tenure as the nation 's top diplomat β the shortest of any secretary of State to begin an administration since Elihu B. Washburne 's 11-day service in 1869 .\nTillerson often found himself on the outer ring of President Trump 's inner circle , trying to interpret the president 's mercurial and contradictory foreign policy to the rest of the world .\nHe reassured NATO allies that the United States remained committed to the alliance after the president threatened to pull out over `` dues '' that Trump said were owed directly to the United States . ( They were n't . )\nHe engaged with North Korea despite the president 's protests β again via Twitter β that he was `` wasting his time trying to negotiate with Little Rocket Man . β\nAnd he tried to salvage the Iran nuclear deal through a European-brokered fix to the Obama-era agreement rather than having Trump scuttle the deal completely .\nIn explaining his break with Tillerson on Tuesday , Trump specifically cited those differences over the Iran deal : `` I think it 's terrible . I guess he feels it was OK . ''\nBut Trump 's comments give a glimpse into why he 's making this move now .\nTrump is heading into an unprecedented face-to-face meeting with North Korea 's Kim Jong Un over that country 's nuclear program . The timing of Tillerson 's dismissal was designed to allow Trump to put a new team in place before those talks , a White House official said on condition of anonymity to discuss a personnel decision .\nTrump 's nominee to replace Tillerson is CIA Director Mike Pompeo , whose hard-line stances on Iran and North Korea are closer to Trump 's .\nTrump conceded Tuesday that he and Tillerson often were not on the same page . `` I actually got along well with Rex , but really , it was a different mind-set . It was a different thinking .\n`` With Mike Pompeo , '' he said , `` we have a similar thought process . ''\nNorth Korea hawks applauded Pompeo 's nomination . `` No one understands the threat posed by North Korea and Iran better than he does , '' said Sen. Lindsay Graham , R-S.C .\nBut Sen. Ben Cardin , D-Md. , said he feared Trump was stocking his Cabinet with yes men . `` It is disturbing to see such a high-level change in our diplomatic team as negotiations with North Korea move into a new and delicate stage , '' he said .\nWhile Tillerson was in Africa last week , it was Pompeo who explained Trump 's unexpected rapprochement with North Korea on CBS ' Face the Nation Sunday .\nPompeo would not be pinned down on whether he or the secretary of State would lead the preliminary talks before the Trump-Kim summit . His appointment to Tillerson 's post would resolve that conflict and put him unambiguously in charge of getting Trump and Kim to the table .\nThe White House announced the personnel moves through an increasingly common playbook : a leak , a tweet and written statements from those involved . In this case : Trump , Pompeo and CIA nominee Gina Haspel .\nTillerson 's side of the story came from Steve Goldstein , undersecretary of State for public diplomacy .\n`` The secretary had every intention of staying because of critical progress made in national security , '' he said . `` The secretary did not speak to the president and is unaware of the reason . ''\nGoldstein was then fired for contradicting the White House 's account of Tillerson 's dismissal .\nLater , Tillerson appeared in a State Department auditorium to give a statement to reporters . He talked about the hard work it took to get North Korea to the table : ending President Obama 's policy of `` strategic patience '' and replacing it with a maximum-pressure campaign to rally the world to impose punishing sanctions on the North Korean regime .\nHe thanked his diplomats , the military and the American people β but not Trump .
|
allsides-corpus-306
|
The Obama administration acknowledged Monday that the FBI found at least 14,900 more email messages former Secretary of State Hillary Clinton never turned over to the government , and officials are facing intense pressure to release them ahead of November β s election .\nA federal judge ordered the State Department to speed up the process , and the Republican National Committee said the administration should strive to release an initial set of the secret emails within a month , or when the first states conduct early voting .\nThe existence of the emails marks yet more trouble for Mrs. Clinton , the Democratic presidential nominee , who insisted she turned over all of her work-related messages in December 2014 .\nRep. Lamar Smith , Texas Republican and chairman of the House Science , Space and Technology Committee , issued subpoenas Monday demanding answers from three technology companies that helped set up or maintain Mrs. Clinton β s unique email arrangement and demanding to know what kind of security she took to prevent hacks .\nAnother part of Mrs. Clinton β s email story β that former Secretary Colin L. Powell gave her the idea of using a secret account β also crumbled after Mr. Powell disputed it . He said he sent Mrs. Clinton a memo a year after she took office , meaning she couldn β t have been relying on his suggestion .\nβ Her people have been trying to pin it on me , β Mr. Powell said , according to the New York Post and People magazine , who caught up with him at a social function in New York over the weekend .\nMrs. Clinton refused to use an official State Department email account during her four years in office . Instead , she conducted all of her business , including sending classified emails , from an account tied to a server she kept at her New York home . That arrangement effectively thwarted open-records laws and shielded her communications from the public for more than six years .\nState Department officials said they would try to work through the newly discovered messages as quickly as possible , but their initial timeline meant the first disclosure wouldn β t be until the middle of October .\nJudge James E. Boasberg rejected that estimate Monday and ordered a faster schedule , saying the State Department has one month to appraise the first 14,900 emails and must report back by Sept. 23 on how it will release them .\nSome critics fear the Obama administration may try to slow the process and push the release of most of the messages past the November election .\nβ If they wanted the records out quickly , they β d be out quickly . If they don β t want the records out quickly , they β ll let politics intrude on the process and the American people won β t see them until Election Day , β said Tom Fitton , president of Judicial Watch , which sued to get a look at all of Mrs. Clinton β s emails .\nState Department spokesman Mark Toner couldn β t explain why the nearly 15,000 messages were coming to light now , after Mrs. Clinton assured federal judges that she had turned over all of her work-related messages .\nThe 14,900 messages are on one disk in a set of eight that the FBI turned over to the State Department last month , after the law enforcement agency completed a yearlong probe into Mrs. Clinton β s emails .\nAmong the other seven disks are one containing what has been described as β classified β material and another containing the 30,000 or so messages Mrs. Clinton did turn back to the Obama administration in December 2014 . The contents of the remaining five disks are unclear , though the Obama administration says the set contains a lot of emails .\nβ There are tens of thousands , β Lisa A. Olson , a Justice Department lawyer handling the case for the State Department , told Judge Boasberg .\nFor now , the first disk is the focus of Judicial Watch , the State Department and the judge , because all 14,900 of its emails are among those Mrs. Clinton didn β t turn over . Some of them may be personal β the messages about her yoga schedule or her daughter β s wedding plans β that Mrs. Clinton mentioned last year .\nBut FBI Director James B. Comey also has said thousands are work-related . They were obtained from Mrs. Clinton β s server and various email devices she used .\nThe State Department said it will finish β ingesting β all eight disks β contents this week and then will appraise the contents . After that , it will know the total number of documents and have a general idea of what is on them , and then it must process them , redacting private or protected information and asking other agencies to weigh in on potentially classified material .\nMs. Olson originally said the State Department would have an update in October and begin releasing documents on Oct. 14 , with releases to follow on Oct. 21 , Oct. 28 and Nov. 4 β each of the Fridays preceding the Nov. 8 election . The releases would likely continue well after the election .\nJudge Boasberg , though , said the department can work faster by focusing on the first disk β s emails . He said they will set a schedule when they meet next month .\nThe Republican National Committee insisted that the schedule be expedited so the first emails are released as early voting begins in the states near the end of September . It said all of the messages should be released before Election Day .\nIt β s unclear what sort of information will be found on the newly discovered emails or whether any of them contain classified information .\nThe FBI concluded that Mrs. Clinton was negligent in handling classified information on her server but doubted a criminal case could be made because the former senator , first lady and top diplomat was not β sophisticated β enough to understand the information she was looking at or the risks she was running with the technology .\nMr. Smith , the science committee chairman , issued subpoenas Monday to three tech companies that helped with Mrs. Clinton β s email . He said the companies were defying his requests for information .\nThe companies were Datto , Inc. , which handled the backup of Mrs. Clinton β s server ; Secnap Network Security Corp. , which sold a threat monitoring application for Mrs. Clinton β s server after she left the State Department ; and Platte River Networks , which helped run the server .\nMr. Smith said Secnap and Datto refused to cooperate voluntarily , insisting they needed permission of their client first . Meanwhile the attorney for Platte River ducked attempts to communicate with him , Mr. Smith said .\nRep. Donald S. Beyer Jr. , a Virginia Democrat who serves on the science committee , called the subpoenas β a wasteful use of taxpayer dollars β¦ for blatantly partisan purposes . β
|
allsides-corpus-307
|
President Donald Trump came into office promising to run the federal government like a private business , and , like almost any new chief executive officer , he β s looking to restructure .\nConversations with more than a dozen people in and outside of State who are involved in or monitoring the administration 's plans suggest some broad outlines are emerging about State 's future , including from proposed budget cuts accepted by Secretary of State Rex Tillerson and from a 2016 Heritage Foundation report that laid out some dramatic ways to reshape the department .\nDeep cuts are expected to hit State β s environmental and cultural programs , while divisions that deal with arms control and military affairs may see consolidation . The number of special envoys , who focus on everything from climate change to LGBT issues , will be pared down . The counterterrorism bureau will likely escape unscathed , but diplomats who deal with economics or women β s issues may see some changes .\nAlthough it 's still early and much is in flux , anxiety is rife at State . That 's because , unlike in the past , the staffers are expecting not simply reshuffling or additional departments , but rather large cuts and the elimination of entire divisions . Even if Congress rejects the budget cuts proposed by the administration , as several leading lawmakers have indicated it will do , Tillerson is still expected to make major changes .\nβ I think there are some in the administration who are looking at this like a corporate reorganization , but one of the problems with a corporation , a business , is that the bottom line is earnings . But at the State Department , what is your bottom line ? β asked Ronald Neumann , president of the American Academy of Diplomacy . β Your bottom line involves the political part of security operations , the possibility of an unknown future crisis . It involves the protection of American citizens abroad and the promotion of American business . It β s very difficult to quantify . β\nThe prospect of reorganization is especially weighing on staffers dealing with issues that do n't seem to be a top priority for the Trump administration , such as human rights . While many career officials said they β re not reflexively opposed to restructuring some operations , many are worried about shielding programs that have long been considered core to the U.S. diplomatic mission β and some β are creatively trying to figure out how to make a case for keeping some of the programs running that they built , '' said a former State official who regularly speaks to current employees .\nEvery new secretary of state wants to make his or her mark on the department , which employs about 75,000 people worldwide . In a 2006 speech , Condoleezza Rice outlined a plan to shift hundreds of diplomatic positions from Europe to countries like China , India and Lebanon . And Hillary Clinton established a number of new positions at the department , including the ambassador-at-large for global women β s issues and the Office of Global Youth Issues .\nβ My sense is that Tillerson wants to go big , β said a State Department official who 's familiar with the discussions . β In terms of streamlining , he seems to like straight lines , direct lines , clear hierarchies with a small number of people reporting to him . β\nTrump issued an executive order in mid-March asking Cabinet leaders for proposals by mid-September on how to restructure their agencies . The State Department declined to comment on Tillerson β s plans .\nIn the meantime , U.S. diplomats and others in the foreign policy realm are reading up on Trump β s budget proposals , looking for clues in administration officials β public and private statements and leafing through the Heritage report to game out likely scenarios . In some cases , Trump aides are willing to confirm their guesses .\nA Trump administration official told βββ that the president will not name a special envoy for climate change . The climate envoy helped lead international global warming talks during the Obama administration and played a central role in clinching the nearly 200-nation Paris climate agreement .\nAlready , State β s political appointees have largely ceded their work on international climate issues to the White House , according to two people briefed on the arrangement , a move that gives warring factions in the West Wing heavy influence over whether the United States should pull out of the Paris deal .\nThere 's plenty of support across the State Department for scaling back the overall number of special envoys . Depending on how you count such envoys β a category some take to include so-called special representatives , coordinators and other advisers β there are about five dozen . Many of the slots have stayed vacant under Tillerson .\nThe envoys tend to reflect an administration β s priorities , so few expect the Trump team to keep the one dedicated to , say , closing the prison at Guantanamo Bay . But Congress may intervene to protect some of the slots : On March 10 , a bipartisan group of about 170 lawmakers wrote to Trump urging him to fill and keep the special envoy position dedicated to combating anti-Semitism , calling it a β crucial office . β\nPeople familiar with Trump transition talks told βββ earlier this year that there was a belief that State should focus more on fighting terrorism and less on β soft power β subjects such as democracy promotion . And in proposing cutting the State Department β s fiscal year 2018 budget by about 30 percent , Trump aides specifically cast it as a β hard power β blueprint focused on boosting military might .\nBut former and current State officials say they don β t expect the elimination of the Bureau of Democracy , Human Rights and Labor β the very embodiment of β soft power β Trump aides dismiss . That β s because there β s strong support in Congress for that bureau , especially among Republicans worried about the rights of Christians in the Middle East .\n`` You can imagine a very long line of Democratic and Republican members of the Senate that would be very concerned '' if that bureau were axed , said a Senate Democratic aide who 's been in touch with Trump transition and administration officials about reorganization plans .\nMultiple sources pointed to the Bureau of Conflict and Stabilization Operations as one ripe for elimination . The bureau was established in 2011 under Clinton with the goal of trying to prevent and defuse conflicts . But critics say its role has never been well-defined , concerns echoed in a 2014 inspector general β s report .\nThe administration last month also proposed cutting some $ 2.9 billion from what remains of the current fiscal year β s budget for State and related programs . That proposal , which also has met resistance in Congress , includes plans to whack State β s educational and cultural programs , its reproductive health initiatives , which affect many women , and its spending on international organizations .\nAlready , Tillerson has made what appear to be permanent changes to State 's top leadership . He has emptied the slots of the department 's deputy secretary for management and its counselor position and has indicated he will not fill those roles .\nTillerson is expected to appoint a policy-focused deputy secretary for the department β the choice is reported to be GOP attorney John J. Sullivan . But Tillerson has left most of the other leadership slots at State vacant , another reason employees suspect he is pondering serious restructuring .\nThe Democratic Senate aide stressed that it β s very early days and it β s not clear where some of the possibilities bandied about presently stand .\nBut some of the changes that have been discussed include streamlining what β s known at State as the β T β family , which includes bureaus that deal with arms control , political-military affairs and nuclear nonproliferation , the aide said . Another idea floated is bringing the U.S. Agency for International Development entirely under the purview of State , the aide said .\nThe aide also noted that there 's been talk of rejiggering the State Department bureaus devoted to specific regions of the world to be more aligned with the Department of Defense β s Combatant Commands .\nThis is not a new idea unique to the Trump administration , but it could mean major shifts in which desk officers and deputy assistant secretaries report to which division . For example , South America falls under the Pentagon β s Southern Command , while Canada and Mexico are under its Northern Command . But at State , the Bureau of Western Hemisphere Affairs includes South America as well as Canada and Mexico .\nSome of the changes , such as making USAID part of State , will likely require authorization from Congress , officials and analysts said . The exact level of congressional involvement will depend in part on whether bureaus or various functions were somehow mandated by legislation .\nβ We β re not reflexively or allergically against changes , β the Democratic Senate aide said . β But exactly what they propose and the logic for it is something that we need to see . β\nVarious stakeholders nearly all mentioned the 2016 report by the Heritage Foundation β s Brett Schaefer . A former senior State Department official said Trump transition aides were β enamored β of the report and took it into meetings .\nThe report has numerous recommendations , including culling the number of special envoys , eliminating the slot of deputy secretary for management and resources , and bringing USAID under the leadership of an undersecretary of state . It also suggests changes to State β s Bureau of Economic and Business Affairs that include limiting activities that are primarily the responsibility of other U.S. agencies , such as the Treasury Department .\nSchaefer said he talked to a range of people as he prepared his recommendations and found there was a broad consensus that State could be more efficient .\n`` Every administration makes changes , but I suspect there β s going to be a little bit more along the way of changes under this administration than in previous ones , '' he said .\nEven if every idea the Trump administration proposes doesn β t become a reality , Schaefer added , it β s worth simply having the debate . β Ultimately , in the end this is a healthy process , β he said .
|
allsides-corpus-308
|
Trump Picks Heather Nauert , Former Fox News Anchor , As U.N . Ambassador\nFrom Fox & Friends to the State Department , and now likely to the United Nations .\nPresident Trump says he will nominate Heather Nauert , the State Department spokeswoman and a former Fox News host , to become the next ambassador to the U.N .\n`` She 's very talented , very smart , very quick , and I think she 's going to be respected by all , so Heather Nauert will be nominated for the ambassador to the United Nations , '' Trump told reporters Friday .\nIf confirmed by the Senate , Nauert will replace Nikki Haley , who is leaving the post at the end of the year .\nNauert was camera-ready when she came to the State Department in April 2017 , having worked at ABC and Fox . She never traveled with and was not close to her first boss at the department , former Secretary of State Rex Tillerson . With Mike Pompeo in charge of State , Nauert has been on the road much more .\nYet she faced some criticism for a tourist-like Instagram post from Riyadh , Saudi Arabia , on a trip that was meant to focus on the killing of Washington Post columnist Jamal Khashoggi .\nThere have been other missteps , including the time when she cited D-Day β the Allied invasion of Normandy against the Nazis β as an example of America 's strong relationship with Germany .\nShe has been a strong defender of Trump 's at the podium , something he has clearly noticed .\n`` She 's excellent , she 's been with us a long time , she 's been a supporter for a long time , '' Trump told reporters on Nov. 1 .\nThe State Department used to hold daily briefings . That has been scaled back to two a week , at most .\nNauert , 48 , has been back and forth between her husband and two sons in New York and her job in Washington , D.C .\nBefore joining the Trump administration , she had no government or foreign policy experience , though she did work on some overseas assignments for ABC , including in Baghdad .
|
allsides-corpus-309
|
But the American ambassador to the United Nations , Nikki R. Haley , suggested that such a process was doomed as long as Mr. Assad was in power . β We know there β s not any sort of option where a political solution is going to happen with Assad at the head of the regime , β she said on CNN . β If you look at his actions , if you look at the situation , it β s going to be hard to see a government that β s peaceful and stable with Assad . β\nThat statement stood in contrast not only to Mr. Tillerson β s comments but also to Ms. Haley β s own remarks a week ago β before Mr. Assad carried out his latest chemical weapons attack on civilians β in which she insisted that his departure from office was not a diplomatic priority for the United States .\nStill , the overall tone of suspicion and condemnation of Russia β s actions in Syria indicated that Mr. Trump β s top national security advisers were nudging him back to a more traditional Russia policy . During his days as the chief executive of Exxon Mobil , Mr. Tillerson received a friendship award from Mr. Putin , and he is aware of the suspicions surrounding those ties and has gone the furthest in the administration in separating himself from the Russian leader .\nThe challenges have only multiplied in recent days . The Russians , angry about the attack on the air base , have threatened to cut off a communication line that the American and Russian militaries have used to notify each other about air operations in Syria . And the attack has forced Mr. Putin into a tighter relationship with Mr. Assad , perhaps tighter than the Russian leader wants .\nMs. Haley , who , like Mr. Tillerson , is new to diplomacy , has also apparently concluded that a hard line toward Russia is the safest course . The contrast between her remarks and Mr. Trump β s warm words for Mr. Putin on the campaign trail β as well as his refusal to acknowledge Russian meddling in the 2016 presidential election β has been striking .\nThe Trump administration β s Syria policy has been difficult to parse . Mr. Tillerson , in his first television appearances since taking office , seemed to describe two different strategic objectives : halting chemical attacks and ultimately negotiating a cease-fire . But he made it clear that he had no intention of backing a military intervention that would overthrow Mr. Assad . That suggested that as long as the dictator used conventional means to kill his own people β barrel bombs instead of sarin gas β the United States would keep its distance .\nβ I think what the United States and our allies want to do is to enable the Syrian people to make that determination β about Mr. Assad β s fate , Mr. Tillerson said on CBS β s β Face the Nation β β a line that was often used by his predecessor in the Obama administration , John Kerry . β You know , we β ve seen what violent regime change looks like in Libya and the kind of chaos that can be unleashed . β
|
allsides-corpus-310
|
Newly released internal FBI emails showed the agency 's highest-ranking officials scrambling to answer to Hillary Clinton 's lawyer in the days prior to the 2016 presidential election , on the same day then-FBI Director James Comey sent a bombshell letter to Congress announcing a new review of hundreds of thousands of potentially classified emails found on former Rep. Anthony Weiner 's laptop .\nThe trove of documents turned over by the FBI , in response to a lawsuit by the transparency group Judicial Watch , also included discussions by former FBI lawyer Lisa Page concerning a potential quid pro quo between the State Department and the FBI -- in which the FBI would agree to effectively hide the fact that a Clinton email was classified in exchange for more legal attache positions that would benefit the FBI abroad , and allow them to send more agents to countries where the FBI 's access is ordinarily restricted .\nThe quid pro quo would have involved the FBI providing some other public reason for withholding the Clinton email from disclosure amid a Freedom of Information Act request , besides its classification level . There are no indications the proposed arrangement ever took place .\nAnd , in the face of mounting criticism aimed at the FBI , the documents revealed that Comey quoted the 19th century poet Ralph Waldo Emerson by assuring his subordinates , `` To be great is to be misunderstood . ''\nThe FBI did not respond to Fox News ' request for comment on the released emails .\nOn Oct. 28 , 2016 , Comey upended the presidential campaign by informing Congress that the FBI would quickly review the Weiner laptop . The Justice Department 's internal watchdog later faulted the FBI for failing to review the Weiner laptop through much of the fall of 2016 , and suggested it was possible that now-fired FBI Agent Peter Strzok may have slow-walked the laptop analysis until other federal prosecutors pressured the FBI to review its contents .\nOn the afternoon of Oct. 28 , Clinton lawyer David Kendall demanded answers from the FBI -- and the agency jumped into action , the emails showed .\nSTRZOK DEMANDED DECLASSIFICATION , OTHER POWERS BEFORE BECOMING NO . 2 ON MUELLER TEAM\nMany of the emails found on the computer were between Clinton and her senior adviser Huma Abedin , Weiner 's now-estranged wife . Despite claims by top FBI officials , including Strzok , several of those emails were determined to contain classified information .\n`` I received the email below from David Kendall and I called him back , '' then-FBI General Counsel James Baker wrote to the agency 's top brass , including Comey , Page and Strzok , in an email . `` Before doing so I alerted DOJ via email that I would do that . ''\nPage and Strzok eventually were revealed to be having an extramarital affair , and Strzok was terminated after a slew of text messages surfaced in which he and Page derided Trump and his supporters using their government-issued phones . Republicans , citing some of those text messages , have accused Strzok and Page of orchestrating a coordinated leak strategy aimed at harming the president .\nGOHMERT UNLOADS ON 'SMIRKING ' STRZOK : 'HOW MANY TIMES DID YOU LOOK SO INNOCENT INTO YOUR WIFE 'S EYES AND LIE ? '\nAlthough a portion of Kendall 's email was redacted , Baker continued : `` He said that our letter was 'tantalizingly ambiguous ' and made statements that were 'inchoate and highly ominous ' such that what we had done was worse than transparency because it allows people to make whatever they want out of the letter to the prejudice of Secretary Clinton . ... I told him that I could not respond to his requests at this time but that I would discuss it with others and get back to him .\n`` To be great is to be misunderstood . '' β Fired FBI Director James Comey , quoting Emerson\n`` I suggest that we have some kind of follow up meeting or phone call with this group either this evening or over the weekend to address this and probably other issues/questions that come up in the next 24 hours , '' Baker concluded . `` Sound reasonable ? ''\nDOJ BLAMES SYSTEM-WIDE SOFTWARE FAILURE FOR MISSING STRZOK-PAGE TEXTS ; STRZOK 'S PHONE TOTALLY WIPED\nIn a partially redacted response , Strzok agreed to spearhead a conference call among the FBI 's top officials the next day .\nOn Nov. 6 -- just two days before Election Day -- Comey sent another letter to Congress stating that agents had concluded their review of `` all of the communications '' to or from Clinton while she was secretary of state that appeared on the laptop , and that the review did not change his assessment that Clinton should not be prosecuted .\nIn an email also sent Nov. 6 and unearthed by Judicial Watch , Strzok wrote to the FBI 's leadership : `` [ Redacted ] , Jon and I completed our review of all of the potential HRC work emails on the [ Anthony Weiner ] laptop . We found no previously unknown , potentially classified emails on the media . β\nStrzok added that a team was coming in to `` triple-check '' his methodology and conclusions .\nHowever , at least 18 classified emails sent from Abedin 's account were found by the FBI on the Weiner laptop . And , despite Strzok 's apparent claim , FBI officials later conceded they had not manually screened all of the nearly 700,000 emails on the laptop , but instead used computer technology to prioritize which emails to screen as Election Day rapidly approached .\nON FOUR OCCASIONS , FBI INCORRECTLY ASSURED FISA COURT THAT YAHOO ARTICLE WAS INDEPENDENT REASON TO SURVEIL TRUMP AIDE\nβ It is big news that , just days before the presidential election , Hillary Clinton β s personal lawyer pressured the top lawyer for the FBI on the infamous Weiner laptop emails , β Judicial Watch President Tom Fitton said in a statement . β These documents further underscore that the fix was in for Hillary Clinton . When will the Justice Department and FBI finally do an honest investigation of the Clinton email scandal ? β\nSeparately , another email from Page , apparently sent in response to a Judicial Watch lawsuit , discussed an apparent attempt by the State Department to pressure the FBI to downgrade the classification level of a Clinton email .\n`` Jason Herring will be providing you with three 302s [ witness reports ] of current and former FBI employees who were interviewed during the course of the Clinton investigation , '' Page wrote . `` These 302s are scheduled to be released to Congress in an unredacted form at the end of the week , and produced ( with redactions ) pursuant to FOIA at the beginning of next week .\nPage continued : `` As you will see , they describe a discussion about potential quid pro quo arrangement between then-DAD in IOD [ deputy assistant director in International Operations Division ] and an Undersecretary at the State Department whereby IOD would get more LEGAT [ legal attachΓ© ] positions if the FBI could change the basis of the FOIA withhold re a Clinton email from classified to something else . ''\nFox News has previously reported , citing FBI documents , that a senior State Department official proposed a quid pro quo to convince the FBI to strip the classification on an email from Clinton β s server β and repeatedly tried to β influence β the bureau β s decision when his offer was denied , even taking his plea up the chain of command .\nIn a statement at the time , the FBI acknowleged that an agency official had been in touch with the State Department about overseas positions , but denied that the conversation was tied to the classification of a Clinton email .\n`` Prior to the initiation of the FBI β s investigation of former Secretary Clinton β s personal email server , the FBI was asked to review and make classification determinations on FBI emails and information which were being produced by the State Department pursuant to FOIA [ a Freedom of Information Act request ] . The FBI determined that one such email was classified at the Secret level . A senior State Department official requested the FBI re-review that email to determine whether it was in fact classified or whether it might be protected from release under a different FOIA exemption , '' the FBI said .\nThe statement continued : `` A now-retired FBI official , who was not part of the subsequent Clinton investigation , told the State Department official that they would look into the matter . Having been previously unsuccessful in attempts to speak with the senior State official , during the same conversation , the FBI official asked the State Department official if they would address a pending , unaddressed FBI request for space for additional FBI employees assigned abroad .\n`` Following the call , the FBI official consulted with a senior FBI executive responsible for determining the classification of the material and determined the email was in fact appropriately classified at the Secret level , '' the FBI 's statement continued . `` The FBI official subsequently told the senior State official that the email was appropriately classified at the Secret level and that the FBI would not change the classification of the email . The classification of the email was not changed , and it remains classified today . Although there was never a quid pro quo , these allegations were nonetheless referred to the appropriate officials for review.β ''\nThrough it all , the trove of documents suggested that top to bottom , FBI brass were convinced they were acting appropriately .\nIn response to a press release from Iowa Republican Sen. Chuck Grassley that criticized the FBI for failing to provide unclassified information on its Clinton probe in a timely and thorough manner to Congress , Comey quoted Emerson 's 1841 essay `` Self Reliance . ''\n`` Outstanding . ... I should have added that I 'm proud of the way we have handled this release [ of unclassified information ] , '' Comey wrote to his subordinates , including Strzok , on Sept. 2 , 2016 . `` Thanks for the work on it . Just another reminder that Emerson was right when he said , 'To be great is to be misunderstood . ' Have a great and quiet weekend . ''\nPage forwarded the email along to her colleagues , including Strzok , and added a smiley face .\nTrump fired Comey in 2017 , leading to Special Counsel Robert Mueller 's investigation after Comey leaked a series of memos he recorded while speaking with Trump privately .\nComey acknowledged in closed-door testimony in December that as of July 2016 , investigators `` did n't know whether we had anything '' implicating Trump in improper Russia collusion , and that `` in fact , when I was fired as director [ in May 2017 ] , I still did n't know whether there was anything to it . ''
|
allsides-corpus-311
|
WASHINGTON β Former FBI director James Comey will soon testify in open session before the Senate Select Committee on Intelligence , following revelations Friday that President Trump told Russian leaders that Comey is a `` nut job '' who was adding pressure to the high-stakes investigation of possible interference in the 2016 election .\nComey , abruptly fired by Trump last week , has agreed to testify in public sometime after Memorial Day , the committee said in a statement .\nβ I hope that former Director Comey β s testimony will help answer some of the questions that have arisen since Director Comey was so suddenly dismissed by the President , '' said Sen. Mark Warner , D-Va. , the committee 's vice chairman . `` I also expect that Director Comey will be able to shed light on issues critical to this Committee β s investigation of Russian interference in the 2016 election . Director Comey served his country with honor for many years , and he deserves an opportunity to tell his story . Moreover , the American people deserve an opportunity to hear it . β\nA current White House official has drawn the scrutiny of federal investigators in the widening inquiry into Russia 's interference in the 2016 election , a person familiar with the matter said Friday .\nThe person , who is not authorized to comment publicly , declined to identify the White House official . The development was first reported by the Washington Post .\nThe New York Times reported that Trump told Russian officials that Comey is a `` nut job , '' and that dismissing him meant the pressure of the FBI 's Russia probe has been `` taken off . ''\nWhite House officials did not deny either story , but only stressed that Trump and his staff had no collusion with Russia .\nβ As the President has stated before , a thorough investigation will confirm that there was no collusion between the campaign and any foreign entity , '' White House spokesman Sean Spicer said in response to the Post story that a White House official is now ensnared in the probe .\nThe president himself labeled the ongoing FBI probe a `` witch hunt '' this week after the Justice Department appointed a special counsel to oversee it in the wake of Comey 's firing . Earlier this week , revelations that Comey kept memos detailing his conversations with Trump , including one in which the president apparently pressed his former FBI director to drop the inquiry into former national security adviser Michael Flynn , roiled Washington .\nSen. Richard Burr , R-N.C. , chairman of the Senate Select Committee on Intelligence , said he hopes Comey 's testimony brings some much-needed clarity .\nβ The Committee looks forward to receiving testimony from the former Director on his role in the development of the Intelligence Community Assessment on Russian interference in the 2016 US elections , and I am hopeful that he will clarify for the American people recent events that have been broadly reported in the media , β Burr said .\nTrump travels to Saudi Arabia as bombshells multiply in Washington\nCalling impeachment talk 'ridiculous , ' Trump denies pressing Comey to drop Michael Flynn investigation\nAs for the conversation with the Russians about Comey , Spicer essentially put the onus on the ex-FBI director .\n`` The President has always emphasized the importance of making deals with Russia as it relates to Syria , Ukraine , defeating ISIS and other key issues for the benefit and safety of the American people , '' Spicer said . `` By grandstanding and politicizing the investigation into Russia 's actions , James Comey created unnecessary pressure on our ability to engage and negotiate with Russia . ''\nSpicer denied that Trump fired Comey to block the Russia investigation , saying , `` the investigation would have always continued , and obviously , the termination of Comey would not have ended it . The real story is that our national security has been undermined by the leaking of private and highly classified conversations . ''\nOn May 10 , the day after he fired Comey , Trump met with Russian Foreign Minister Sergey V. Lavrov and the Russian ambassador to the United States , Sergey I. Kislyak , in a meeting that has generated furious controversy .\nThe Times , citing a report on the meeting a source read to them , said that Trump told the Russians : β I just fired the head of the F.B.I . He was crazy , a real nut job ... I faced great pressure because of Russia . That β s taken off. β The president also reportedly said : β I β m not under investigation . β\nThe news said the documents that included the president 's comments were based on notes taken from inside the Oval Office and have been circulated as the official account of the May 10 meeting . The report says one official read quotations to The Times , and a second official confirmed the broad outlines of the discussion . Other news reports also said that , during that same meeting , Trump discussed classified counter-terrorism information with the Russians .\nDemocrats said the new stories underscore their belief that Trump fired Comey in order to shut down the Russia probe . `` If there was any question as to why Comey was really fired , @ realDonaldTrump just answered it . As I said , Nixonian , '' said Sen. Bob Casey , D-Pa .\nCNN reported that at one point during the 2016 campaign , Russian officials bragged in conversations that they had cultivated a strong relationship with Flynn and believed they could use him to influence Donald Trump and his team .\nCiting two unidentified sources , CNN also reported that White House lawyers have begun researching impeachment procedures in an effort to prepare for what officials still believe is a distant possibility that Trump could have to fend off attempts to remove him from office .\nWhite House officials believe the President has the backing of Republican allies in Congress and that impeachment is not in the cards , CNN reported . Even Democrats have tried to calm impeachment talk out of concern it is premature . But lawyers in the White House counsel 's office have consulted experts in impeachment during the past week and have begun collecting information on how such proceedings would work , a person briefed on the matter told CNN .\nTrump 's glibness in private - and even public - statements has apparently caused his staff some consternation . The Wall Street Journal reported Friday that Trump β s aides have been pressing for more restraint by the president on Twitter , and some weeks ago they organized what one official called an β intervention. β Aides have been concerned about the president β s use of Twitter to push inflammatory claims , notably his unsubstantiated allegation from March that his Democratic predecessor , Barack Obama , had wiretapped his offices , the Journal reported .\nIn that meeting , aides warned Mr. Trump that certain kinds of comments made on Twitter would β paint him into a corner , β both in terms of political messaging and legally , an unnamed official told the Journal .\nThe top Democrat on the House Oversight and Government Reform Committee , Rep. Elijah E. Cummings , D-Md. , called on Republican leaders to obtain the documents related to Trump 's comments to Russian officials about Comey .\nβ This new report that President Trump openly admitted to the Russians that he β faced great pressure β from the FBI β s criminal investigation that was β taken off β when he fired Director Comey is astonishing β and extremely troubling , '' Cummings said in a statement .\n`` If these White House documents in fact exist memorializing the President β s statements to the Russians , the Oversight Committee needs to obtain copies immediately , '' he continued . `` Chairman ( Jason ) Chaffetz should request these White House documents today and have his subpoena pen readyβ just as he did earlier this week with the memos written by Director Comey . β
|
allsides-corpus-312
|
Former Deputy Attorney General Rod Rosenstein testified Wednesday that he would not have signed a Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act warrant renewal for former Trump campaign aide Carter Page had he known about the since-revealed misconduct surrounding those warrants -- while faulting the FBI for its handling of the documents .\nRosenstein confirmed that he signed a FISA warrant renewal application for Page , during a hearing before the Senate Judiciary Committee where he was the first witness as part of the panel β s fresh investigation into the origins of the Russia probe .\n`` If you knew then what you know now , would you have signed the warrant application ? '' committee Chairman Lindsey Graham , R-S.C. , asked Rosenstein .\nGRAHAM REQUESTS NAMES OF OFFICIALS WHO SOUGHT TO 'UNMASK ' TRUMP CAMPAIGN , TRANSITION OFFICIALS\nRosenstein , in his opening statement , defended his own actions related to the FISA warrant , saying that β every application I approved appeared to be justified based on the facts it alleged. β Rosenstein implicitly pointed the finger at the FBI for since-revealed problems in that process .\nβ The FBI was supposed to be following protocols to ensure that every fact was verified , β Rosenstein said , going on to cite Justice Department inspector general findings last year revealing that the FBI actually β was not following the written protocols , and that β significant errors β appeared in applications filed in connection with the Crossfire Hurricane investigation . β\nRosenstein repeatedly claimed to be unaware of details that have since been used by critics to raise questions about the probe . Rosenstein said he `` obviously didn β t know there was exculpatory evidence '' with regard to the origins of the Russia investigation , including details about Michael Flynn and George Papadopoulos .\nRosenstein also noted that β one of the most important matters β during his time at the Justice Department as deputy attorney general was the β investigation of Russian election influence schemes . β\nHe defended his handling of that process , including the appointment of Special Counsel Robert Mueller .\nβ Attorney General Sessions had complied with a legal obligation to recuse himself from that investigation , β Rosenstein said , referring to former Attorney General Jeff Sessions β decision to recuse himself from the probe due to his involvement with the Trump campaign in 2016 . β As a result of events that followed the departure of the FBI Director , I was concerned that the public would not have confidence in the investigation and that the acting FBI Director was not the right person to lead it. β Rosenstein had recommended Trump remove James Comey as director , effectively making his deputy , Andrew McCabe , the leader of the bureau .\nβ I decided that appointing a Special Counsel was the best way to complete the investigation appropriately and promote public confidence in its conclusions , β Rosenstein said , noting that the appointment of Mueller was β consistent with Department of Justice precedent . β\nLIST OF OFFICIALS WHO SOUGHT TO UNMASK FLYNN RELEASED : BIDEN , COMEY , OBAMA CHIEF OF STAFF AMONG THEM\nβ I asked the Special Counsel to review each criminal allegation the FBI considered relevant to Russian election influence operations and recommended whether to close the matter ; investigate because it might be relevant to Russian election meddling ; or refer the matter to another prosecutor , β Rosenstein explained , noting that he ensured that Mueller had to go through a β supervisory chain of command β with β highly qualified β DOJ attorneys and officials .\nβ Crossfire Hurricane β is the FBI β s internal code name for the bureau β s original investigation into whether members of the Trump campaign were colluding with Russia to influence the 2016 presidential election . That investigation was launched by the FBI in July 2016 . Mueller 's team eventually announced that it found no evidence of criminal conspiracy or coordination .\nRosenstein also said that β whenever agents or prosecutors make serious mistakes or engage in misconduct , β the DOJ β must take remedial action . β\nβ Ensuring the integrity of governmental processes is essential to public confidence in the rule of law , β Rosenstein said .\nRosenstein is the first witness as part of the Senate Judiciary Committee β s fresh Russia probe review .\nGraham last month outlined the parameters for that investigation , which included , among other things β whether Robert Mueller should have ever been appointed as special counsel . β\nGraham , R-S.C. , during his opening statement Wednesday , acknowledged the importance of allowing Mueller to run his investigation , recalling legislation that he and GOP senators introduced to protect Mueller from firing .\n`` Now it is important to find out what the hell happened , '' Graham said . `` How could it have gotten to be where it wound up being ? ''\nGraham also prompted Rosenstein to acknowledge there was scant collusion evidence in August 2017 .\n`` The whole concept that the campaign was colluding with the Russians , there was no there there in August 2017 . Do you agree with that statement ? '' he asked .\nAugust 2017 is when Rosenstein penned the β scope memo β for Mueller β s investigation , which outlined the authority of Mueller . Last month , the memo was released in full , and revealed for the first time that Mueller β s authority went significantly beyond what was previously known .\nPreviously , it had been revealed that in May 2017 , Rosenstein authorized Mueller to probe `` i ) any links and/or coordination between the Russian government and individuals associated with the campaign of President Donald Trump ; ii ) any matters that arose or may arise directly from the investigation ; [ and ] iii ) any other matters within the scope of [ obstruction of justice laws ] . β\nBut , Rosenstein 's later August 2017 scope memo had remained largely redacted . The newly released version of the document makes clear that Rosenstein did n't hesitate to authorize a probe into the Trump team that extended beyond general Russian interference efforts .\nDECLASSIFIED SUSAN RICE EMAIL SHOWS COMEY SUGGESTED 'SENSITIVE ' INFO ON RUSSIA NOT BE SHARED WITH FLYNN\nThe newly released version of the 2017 scope memo further makes clear that Mueller could look into whether Michael Flynn `` committed a crime or crimes by engaging in conversations with Russian government officials during the period of the Trump transition . β\nAdditionally , the scope memo stated that Mueller was charged specifically with investigating whether several former Trump officials -- including Carter Page , Papadopoulos and Paul Manafort -- had `` committed a crime or crimes by colluding with Russian government officials with respect to the Russian government 's efforts to interfere with the 2016 election for President of the United States . β\nMeanwhile , Rosenstein β s appearance comes just one day before the committee votes on potential subpoenas for documents and testimony from top Obama officials .\nDOJ DROPS CASE AGAINST MICHAEL FLYNN , IN WAKE OF INTERNAL MEMO RELEASE\nThe potential subpoenas would cover documents , communications and witness testimony in a public setting or behind closed doors for any β current or former executive branch official or employee involved in the 'Crossfire Hurricane ' investigation . β\nGraham is seeking testimony from former FBI Director James Comey , former FBI Deputy Director Andrew McCabe , former Director of National Intelligence James Clapper , former CIA Director John Brennan , former Deputy Attorney General Sally Yates and others .\nGraham announced earlier that his investigation would specifically focus on unmasking and abuses of the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act . It comes amid swirling controversies surrounding the unmasking of Flynn 's name in intelligence reports , as well as the DOJ 's effort to drop the Flynn case citing problems with the FBI 's handling of it .
|
allsides-corpus-313
|
Republicans finally got their chance Thursday to publicly question senior FBI agent Peter Strzok about his politically charged text messages with Lisa Page , a former FBI attorney he was personally involved with . It did not go exactly as the lawmakers hoped .\nIf the House GOP β s goal in grilling Strzok at length was to distract from the ongoing investigation of Trump campaign ties to Russia and the president β s conspicuously pro-Kremlin behaviorβincluding his recent suggestions that the US might withdraw from NATOβthen Thursday β s hearing was a success . But the showdown also cost Republicans : They were forced to let Strzok openly defend himself for the first time . And their own eagerness to continue a purely partisan attack on special counsel Robert Mueller β s investigation was on glaring display .\nAt the joint hearing of the House Judiciary and the Oversight and Government Reform committees , GOP members mostly spent their time leveling accusations of extreme bias against Strzok , who played a key role in the bureau β s investigations into Hillary Clinton β s use of a email and allegations that the Trump campaign conspired with Russia . They read aloud Strzok β s text messages to Page , and forced him to read some aloud too . But those texts have long been public and widely discussed in the media . What was new Wednesday was that Strzok had the chance to explain them , and he made the most of it .\nStrzok was able to explain why he sent the famous text in which he told Page that β we β ll stop β Trump from becoming president . He said the text was a response to events that included β Trump insulting the immigrant family of a fallen war hero , and my presumption based on that horrible , disgusting behavior that the American people would not elect someone demonstrating that behavior to be president of the United States. β ( Strzok was referring to Trump β s attacks on Khizr Khan , who famously criticized Trump at the Democratic National Convention in 2016 ; his son , Captain Humayun Khan , was killed in Iraq in 2004 . )\nStrzok continued : β I can assure you , Mr. Chairman , that at no time in any of these texts did those personal beliefs ever enter into the realm of any action I took . He added that the committee did not need to rely on his word , due the multiple layers agents involved in investigative decisions . β They would not tolerate any improper behavior in me any more than I would tolerate it in them , β he said . β That is who we are as the FBI . β\nStrozk also told the panels that the β we β he β d referred to in the text about β stopping β Trump was not the FBI , as Republicans have asserted , but American voters . His forceful remarks did not appease his critics , but they served to deflate the anti-Trump partisan narrative about him that his critics constructed over months while he remained silent . His statement in defense of himself and the FBI drew applause from some hearing attendees .\nStrzok had used his opening statement at the hearing to make an obvious but overlooked point : If he wanted to β stop β Trump β s election , he could have leaked information on the Trump campaign β s extensive contacts with Russia . But β the thought of exposing that information never crossed my mind , β Strzok said . That made for an interesting contrast : As Democratic lawmakers noted , senior FBI officials in 2016 believed that agents in the FBI β s New York bureau were leaking information intended to damage Hillary Clinton β s campaign . The Justice Department β s Inspector General concluded this year that concerns about leaks from that FBI field office influenced former FBI Director James Comey β s possibly fateful decision to make public that the FBI had reopened its investigation of Hillary Clinton β s emails just ahead of Election Day .\nStrzok , citing advice from FBI lawyers , declined to detail his work on the Trump-Russia investigation . But he managed to highlight the significance of the Trump campaign β s alleged actions . β If there were people within the campaign who were colluding or working with the government of Russia , then there is very little that is more important for β¦ the FBI [ to ] get to the bottom of , β he said . Strozk also expressed concern that Russia succeeded in influencing the outcome of the 2016 election by β putting their finger on the scale β of American public opinion .\nDemocrats used the hearing to highlight Republican efforts to hinder the investigation into Trump . When Republicans threatened to hold Strzok in contempt of Congress for failing to answer some questions about the Russia probe , Democrats responded by forcing a joint committee vote aimed at subpoenaing former White House advisor Steve Bannon , who earlier this year refused to comply with a subpoena from the House Intelligence Committee . Republicans voted down that effort . Notably , Rep. Trey Gowdy ( R-SC ) appeared less than eager on this front : He said β pass β during the roll call vote .\nDemocrats also used the hearing to point out that House Judiciary Committee Chairman Robert Goodlatte and Gowdy previously justified their refusal to look into Trump β s ties to Russia by asserting they wanted to avoid interfering with Mueller β s investigation .\nRep. Jerry Nadler ( D-NY ) , the ranking member of the Judiciary Committee , noted that Goodlatte said last year that β until Mr. Mueller β s investigation is complete , it is redundant for the House of Representatives to engage in fact-gathering on many of the same issues. β Goodlatte has also claimed that his committee β would never intrude on an active criminal investigation , β Nadler pointed out . But Nadler said that was belied by the fact that the Republicans , during an 11-hour private interview earlier in the week , asked Strzok more than 200 questions about the special counsel β s investigation , including about the FBI β s use of confidential sources .\nβ Are we no longer going to wait until special counsel Mueller concludes his work , Mr. Chairman ? β Nadler asked , adding : β Or perhaps the rules of this joint investigation , such as they are , operate differently now that we are approaching the midterm elections and special counsel Mueller is closing in on the President β s close associates . β
|
allsides-corpus-314
|
The minute that self-appointed militiamen stepped onto the property of the Malheur National Wildlife Refuge , liberals started worrying that these folks would not be held accountable for their criminal behavior . The group , led by the two sons of right wing radical Cliven Bundy , took over the refuge , demanding that the taxpayers turn over federal lands so that folks like the Bundys and other farmers , miners and other private interests could profit handsomely off the land without having to pay for it . It 's clear that the militiamen expected the feds to rush the compound , causing a firefight in which they could be martyrs for the right wing cause of giving white conservatives a lot of free money while leaving the rest of us out to dry .\nBut that did n't happen . Instead , the federal government seemingly did n't do anything for many weeks , letting these guys get comfortable at the refuge and even go back and forth from it for grocery-shopping , media events , and whatever else their hearts desired . Only one occupier was arrested , for using a stolen vehicle to drive to the store .\nThis lack of interest in having a big ol ' shootout right away on government property did n't just disappoint the militiamen . A number of liberal commentators were miffed that the feds seemed to be twiddling their thumbs , often arguing that if the occupiers were people of color , the shootout would have happened already . The criticism had some merit , of course , but the solution for such a double standard is n't to have more shootouts , so much as it 's an argument against the quick-to-violence reactions law enforcement regrettably has when dealing with non-white suspects .\nThe occupation was expensive and disruptive , of course , leading the Democratic governor of Oregon to ask for the feds to step in . This only reinforced liberal suspicions that the feds were blowing this off and were not going to hold these yahoos accountable for their actions .\nWell , those fears were proven most dramatically wrong Tuesday afternoon , when law enforcement confronted the militiamen on the open highway . A shootout did ensue , which was expected since these folks all have ridiculous martyr fantasies , and one person was killed . So far , there have been eight arrests , and the leaders of this fiasco are in custody . Now the feds have closed in on the refuge , closing roads and access . Without leadership or access to the outside , it wo n't be surprising if the rest of the people inside just give up soon enough .\nThe worrywarts were getting all worked up over nothing . Despite all the hand-wringing over whether the feds were taking this seriously enough , in the end , it turns out that the feds were right and the worrywarts were wrong . Waiting this out a bit , while unfortunately disruptive to the area , ended up being a far more sensible way of dealing with this than trying to raid the wildlife refuge .\nRaiding the refuge was always a bad idea . For one thing it would give these wannabe martyrs exactly what they want , an opportunity to get hurt or die at government hands and become fuel for radical right wing propaganda . They even brought children onto the property to raise the stakes . In the past , federal raids under similar circumstances involving children -- -most notably in Waco -- -not only resulted in innocent lives being lost , but in providing right wing radicals even more justification to demonize federal authorities .\nAnd while the occupation was disruptive and expensive , it would have been far more costly to give the militia the shootout at the refuge they wanted . These guys bragged about how they anticipated violence . They openly threatened that this would become another Waco . Rushing them at the compound would have caused expensive damage to the building , and possibly a fire if the militiamen made good on these threats . Repairing that would have cost a fortune and kept the refuge employees on leave even longer .\nInstead , the feds let the militia get complacent and bored . They let the media attention drift away , forcing the militia to have to take more risks and leave the refuge more to get attention . What looked like federal inattention now looks a whole lot more like it was a trap being set to draw the militia members out .\nIf so , it worked perfectly . The militia members felt emboldened enough to travel 100 miles away from the refuge , and it was out there , without the shelter of the refuge , the presence of cameras , or the ability to use children or neighbors as human shields , that they were finally nabbed by law enforcement . No expensive destruction of property , no dead kids , no officers killed . Only one would-be martyr lost his life .\nBut this was n't just a success from a damage control perspective , either . The federal strategy also kneecapped the propaganda value of this occupation . As I wrote earlier this month , the lengthy occupation gave the militiamen near-daily opportunities to show the world their true colors , proving that they are n't manly warriors taking a stand so much as a bunch of clowns playing dress-up .\nThe arrest is more of the same . Instead of staging some Alamo-inspired last stand in the refuge , they apprehended in the middle of nowhere because they were stupid enough to go on a road trip . The only way this could have been more demoralizing for their cause is if they were wearing adult diapers when they got caught .\nThe entire debacle is n't quite over yet . There are still some militia members holed up in the refuge . But their leaders have all been apprehended . Considering what idiots the leaders were , it 's not unreasonable to think the people who were left to hold down the fort are even less capable of managing this situation . The federal strategy of being patient and waiting for an opportunity will most likely continue to pay off .\nInstead of being angry that the feds did n't rush this compound , liberals should use this story to push for smarter , less aggressive policing generally . We 're in the midst , prompted by the Black Lives Matter movement , of a nationwide discussion about the dangers of the `` shoot first '' philosophy of policing . This story if a perfect example of why it 's better for police to be patient and focused on minimizing damage rather than trying to strong-arm the suspects in every situation . It 's not just the right thing to do , but it 's often the most effective way to get the bad guys without hurting innocent people in the process .
|
allsides-corpus-315
|
In a single moment , the Orlando shooting brought together three of the most contentious issues in the United States .\nWithin 12 hours of the attack , President Obama disparaged lax gun laws , Donald Trump tweeted about radical Islamic terrorism , and gay and lesbian celebrities decried a hate crime that took the lives of 49 people at a popular gay nightclub .\nIn the days since the attack , it has become increasingly clear that the actions of Omar Mateen did not fit into a single category of hate crime , mass shooting , or jihadist terror .\nβ I would call it a hate crime . I would call it terrorism . It β s both , β said Federal Bureau of Investigation Special Agent Ronald Hopper on Wednesday .\nThe question for federal officials now is : How should they respond ?\nOrlando is further evidence that the nature of terrorism in the US is changing , making the job of federal investigators harder .\nThe Islamic State , in particular , is less concerned with strategic goals than simply spreading fear as widely as possible . It preys on any disgruntled Muslim angry enough to pick up a gun .\nIt doesn β t require them to go to Syria for training . It doesn β t require them to talk to jihadists online for instructions . It doesn β t require them even to know how to build bombs ; guns will suffice .\nFederal agencies are coping with this evolving threat . But the fact that Mateen was investigated twice by the FBI but not stopped speaks to vulnerabilities . Without more resources to cope with an exploding caseload , federal agencies will be hard-pressed to do more .\nFor this reason , the ultimate solution lies in fixing the issues in American society that are giving rise to lone wolf terrorists , some say .\nThere have been signs this was coming . β The threat has changed from simply worrying about foreigners coming here , to worrying about people in the United States , β said then-Attorney General Eric Holder to ABC News in 2010 . β You didn β t worry about this even two years ago β about individuals , about Americans , to the extent that we now do . β\nWhat 's made the issue much more urgent is the rise of Islamic State and its approach to terrorism . While Al Qaeda aimed at winning the hearts and minds of Muslims , the Islamic State is determined to scare them β and everyone else β into submission .\nβ Most people , al-Qaeda β s leaders among them , can β t imagine that political success could come from enraging the masses rather than charming them , β wrote William McCants , a terrorism expert at the Brookings Institution in Washington , in a Politico article last year .\nSince the goal is pure terror , there 's no need for spectacular , highly planned attacks like 9/11 . Any act of mass violence will do . Proper training is no longer a must , only the will to commit violence .\nβ The biggest change in terrorism since 9/11 is the jihadists β embrace of mass shootings , β Mr. McCants writes in an e-mail . β They , like many other terrorists , used to be fixated on building bombs . But they β ve learned that mass shootings are easier to organize without detection and generate just as much media attention . ISIS has been exceptionally good at inspiring young men to carry out these attacks in its name . β\nMateen , an American citizen born to Afghan parents in New York , offers a picture of the difficulties in sniffing out such terrorists .\nThe FBI put him on a watch list in May 2013 after he made comments to coworkers claiming he had family and friends affiliated with Hezbollah and Al Qaeda . ( That seemed unlikely since the two groups are enemies . )\nAgents interviewed him twice before closing the investigation in March 2014 with too little evidence , according to FBI Director James Comey .\nMateen again came to their attention shortly afterward when the agency found he attended the same mosque as a Syrian suicide bomber . Again , the investigation was closed when the agency found β no ties of consequence , β according to Director Comey .\nSo , two years later , when Mateen walked into the St. Lucie ( Fla. ) Shooting Center to purchase a semiautomatic rifle and pistol , it raised no flags . He had the valid licenses . He passed the background check .\nThe owner of a different local gun store , however , says that his employees refused to sell Mateen body armor and bulk ammunition after he began asking `` suspicious '' questions , according to ABC News . Robert Abell of Lotus Gunworks in Jensen Beach , Fla. , says he contacted authorities about Mateen before the massacre ; the FBI did not respond to ABC News 's request for comment .\nIn its defense , the FBI notes that it is already stepping up antiterror efforts . As of last fall , there were some 900 active investigations of ISIS sympathizers who live in the United States , according to the report from George Washington University β s Program on Extremism . Last year , officials arrested 56 of them , the highest number of terror-related arrests in any year since the 9/11 terror attacks .\nYet the FBI has to walk a fine line , says Seamus Hughes , deputy director of the program and coauthor of the report . The FBI investigates thousands of potential domestic terrorists at any given time , the vast majority of whom never plan a terrorist act .\nFrances Townsend , who served as Homeland Security adviser to President George W. Bush , worries that the current guidelines for domestic counterterror investigations may constrain investigators . Specifically , she says they harm agents β ability to include social media activity and postings in their investigations .\nβ We have to make sure we don β t let the attorney general β s guidelines become what β the wall β was to 9/11 , β said Ms. Townsend , referring to the firewall preventing the sharing of information among intelligence agencies that existed before the 9/11 terrorist attacks .\nBut even if everything works , there β s an element of guesswork in figuring out who will move from being a mere sympathizer to taking up arms . β In most cases the motivations are complicated , β says Mr. Hughes at George Washington University . β People are complex and they do things for a variety of reasons . β\nThat β s certainly true for Mateen , who proclaimed allegiance to ISIS in a 911 call during the shooting and often angrily denounced gays to friends and family , but also frequently attended the gay nightclub he attacked , according to reports .\nAddressing the rising lone wolf threat isn β t just a matter of what can and can β t be done in an investigation but will almost certainly entail additional resources , said Ms. Townsend .\nβ The question is , if we want the FBI to cover more threats , do we give the FBI more resources , more agents ? β she asked in a conference call with reporters Monday .\nOthers suggest that the answers could lie beyond law enforcement alone .\nMany lone wolf terrorists are driven to suicide for the same reasons that ordinary people are , as they try to cope with depression and marital strife , argues Adam Lankford , a University of Alabama criminology professor and author of a 2013 book , β The Myth of Martyrdom . β\nβ The Orlando shooter and many mass shooters fall within this demographic and seek to die , even when they claim to be β martyrs β or attempt to hide their psychological pain , β says Mr. Lankford , via e-mail . β If we can make major progress on reducing suicides and helping people with suicidal thoughts , that would be an incredibly important step for America , and I believe a side effect would be a reduction in mass shootings . β\nAnother option is a comprehensive preventative approach to radicalization , argues Hughes of George Washington University . β You have a number of cases where there β s not enough evidence to prosecute , but the FBI is still concerned about the individual . β\nThat would mean targeted intervention from other groups than law enforcement . For example , the World Organization for Resource Development and Education has developed an innovative program in Maryland 's Montgomery County that aims to empower community members to intervene with vulnerable youth before they choose a path of violence .\nGet the Monitor Stories you care about delivered to your inbox . By signing up , you agree to our Privacy Policy\nThe model could spread to other jurisdictions . It 's better that it 's a local rather than federal government solution , Hughes says , reducing the footprint of government intervention . At the federal level , too , he is confident Congress can push beyond partisan divisions to come up with ways to reduce lone-wolf terrorism .\nβ You tend to see a coalescing of congressional and other leaders to search for solutions β after events such as the Orlando shooting , Hughes says . β I am ever the optimist .... I think there β s always going to be a reevaluation . β
|
allsides-corpus-316
|
Senate liberals know they are going to lose the battle over fast-track trade authority . But they β re doing all they can to prolong the fight β perhaps even past the Memorial Day recess into June β in hopes that a long delay will damage the bill β s already difficult prospects in the House .\nA coalition of Senate Democrats who β ve long opposed new trade agreements , led by Sherrod Brown of Ohio , say they are planning to throw up procedural roadblocks and offer amendments that would expand worker protections and undermine GOP support for the fast-track measure . While they can β t win the battle , Brown and his allies hope their resistance will stoke popular sentiment against the bill and encourage Democrats to vote against it in the House , where Republican leaders warn they still need about 20 more votes for approval .\nβ The handwriting β s on the wall , β Brown said of the prospects of beating the bill in the Senate . But , he said : β There β s real opportunity in the House to defeat it . β\nβ We β re going to work as hard as we can to defeat this legislation , β added Sen. Bernie Sanders ( I-Vt. ) in an interview Thursday . β Time is on our side . The longer we keep it on the floor , the more the American people understand what a disastrous agreement this is , the better it is for us . β\nSenate rules will work in their favor , given that any single member can drag out debate for days by objecting to time and amendment agreements . Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell β s promise to have an open amendment process will also help liberals , as they mull offering amendments on currency manipulation and additional worker protections that could be tough for vulnerable Republicans to oppose . And lawmakers need to deal with the expiring PATRIOT Act next week , along with transportation law , putting the squeeze on the Senate β s tight schedule .\nThe White House and Senate Republicans are pressing the pace to keep momentum on their side after they broke a filibuster this week . Fast-track Trade Promotion Authority is the centerpiece of President Barack Obama β s economic agenda , and it is necessary if he wants to speed a huge trade pact with 12 Pacific Rim nations through Congress without amendment .\nRepublicans even tried to schedule a rare Friday Senate session to begin debating amendments , an effort that proved unsuccessful . The GOP is already blaming Senate Minority Leader Harry Reid ( D-Nev. ) for delaying votes and debate on the bill .\nMeanwhile , liberal Democrats huddled this week with Brown to plot the measure β s defeat and are continuing to formulate a plan of attack . They remain tight-lipped about what exactly they will do to jam up McConnell β s priorities , but they β ve promised to make it an ugly skirmish .\nβ The procedural tools will come out , β warned Sen. Brian Schatz ( D-Hawaii ) .\nThe time crunch is going to work against McConnell . Dealing with the high-stakes trade measure and a controversial extension of surveillance programs at the same time is going to be difficult , if not impossible . When push comes to shove , Republicans may be forced to punt trade until after the recess to deal with the more pressing PATRIOT Act .\nβ Sen . McConnell has written more checks than he can cash on the schedule , β said Adam Jentleson , a spokesman for Reid . β Something β s got ta give , it β s just not clear what . β\nMcConnell ( R-Ky. ) shrugged off the pessimism . β We will finish it next week , β he said of TPA on Thursday afternoon .\nβ We β re running out of time , β added McConnell β s whip , Sen. John Cornyn of Texas . β My goal is to finish it next week . I β m an optimist . β\nBut Republicans are already preparing for the worst . Senate Finance Chairman Orrin Hatch ( R-Utah ) said in an interview that if he had his way , the Senate would stay in through the recess to finish his bill . That β s highly unlikely given that four senators are already running for president ; and the Senate barely works on Fridays anymore .\nβ Anything beyond next week is obstructionism , β Hatch said of Democrats β threats to hold up the bill . This week β s filibuster , he added , smacked of a Democratic strategy β so that they can claim that they don β t have enough time to bring up amendments . β\nPotentially problematic amendments began piling up as soon as the Senate voted to begin debate on the bill . Brown wants to crank up spending on the Trade Adjustment Assistance program , which could appeal to several Rust Belt Republicans looking to assure their constituents that any job losses from new trade bills will be blunted by the TAA program .\nβ If McConnell wants to keep us in , late nights and all , I β m fine , β Brown said . β I want to make sure we get these amendments out there . β\nRepublicans already have begrudgingly agreed to move a trade assistance measure along with the fast-track bill , but expanding the TAA protections even further could erode GOP support for the fast-track measure it β s paired with .\nRepublicans have offered an amendment to strip the bill of the trade-assistance program , which likely would fail if it gets a vote but serves as a direct challenge to Brown .\nβ If they want to defeat it , they might be able to defeat it with some amendments that just make it improbable to use , β Hatch said of fast-track .\nSen. James Lankford ( R-Okla. ) wants the Senate to attach a provision that would require that religious liberty be factored into any new trade deals , injecting a social issues debate into an already fraught battle over economics and prosperity . He and Brown will get votes on their proposals on Monday evening .\nAnd Sens . Jeff Sessions ( R-Ala. ) and Ted Cruz ( R-Texas ) have offered amendments aimed at cracking down on illegal immigration . Cruz says he won β t support anything that doesn β t include his amendment .\nβ We should put it in writing and make it binding law . I am a strong supporter of free trade , but I can not support legislation that would allow the president to once again circumvent Congress to enact his own immigration laws , β Cruz said .\nDemocrats say that even if McConnell moves to block or limit the amendment jockeying early next week , their liberal members are likely to object to swift consideration of the fast-track bill . That could drag out the bill until the end of the week , which would then crash into the McConnell β s efforts to extend portions of the PATRIOT Act .\nRepublicans privately complained that Reid was playing both sides by working to delay the bill and block amendments , only to then complain about not getting votes on Democratic amendments .\nLiberals and libertarians are vowing to fight McConnell β s effort to offer a clean extension of current surveillance law , including the bulk data-collection program , meaning the Senate may have to devote significant time to that , too .\nIn the middle of it all is Sen. Ron Wyden ( D-Ore. ) , Hatch β s primary dance partner on trade issues . And though he said in an interview he β s doing everything he can to move the trade bill before the recess , he β s also vowed to filibuster any effort to extend the PATRIOT Act without reforms to bulk data collection .\nβ I β m going to pull out all the stops to do both , β Wyden said .
|
allsides-corpus-317
|
Democratic congressional leaders are loath to acknowledge it , but President Trump has them cornered with his threat to terminate NAFTA if his new trade deal with Mexico and Canada isn β t approved .\nScrapping the North American Free Trade Agreement without a replacement would deliver a heavy blow to the U.S. economy . In the short term , it would reduce real U.S. gross domestic product β the total output of goods and services β by as much as $ 231 billion , more than 1 percent during the first five years , according to an analysis commissioned by the Business Roundtable .\nβ Terminating NAFTA would have negative impacts on jobs , exports and output even after new supply chains are formed . In this longer run , we estimate that U.S. GDP would remain depressed by over 0.2 percent , permanently , β said the report for the Business Roundtable , an association of chief executive officers from major U.S. corporations .\nThe impact on the U.S. GDP , about $ 19.3 trillion in 2017 , would depend on the reactions of Mexico and Canada . Alternative scenarios in the analysis pegged the reduced annual GDP at $ 119 billion to $ 231 billion , with job losses from 1.8 million to 3.6 million in the five-year window .\nSen. Charles E. Grassley , the Iowa Republican who next year will take charge of the Senate Finance Committee , which oversees trade agreements , said the president has Congress over a barrel .\nβ It seems to me it is going to force Congress to act β even if you disagree with parts of it , β he said in an interview on the β Adams on Agriculture β program on the American Ag Radio Network .\nβ Now that is a hard-nosed approach , but sometimes a president has to use that if he wants to get things accomplished , β Mr. Grassley said .\nCapitol Hill Democrats shrugged off Mr. Trump β s threat and vowed to tinker with the proposed U.S. Mexico Canada Agreement ( USMCA ) , potentially derailing a deal that legislatures in all three countries must approve .\nMr. Trump and his counterparts in Mexico and Canada signed the agreement on Nov. 30 , capping a year of intense negotiations that produced a trade deal that many said would be impossible to make .\nTwo days after signing the accord in Buenos Aires while the three leaders were attending the Group of 20 summit , Mr. Trump put Congress on notice .\nβ I will be formally terminating NAFTA shortly , β he told reporters on the Air Force One flight back to Washington . β Then Congress will have a choice of approving the USMCA , which is a phenomenal deal . Much , much better than NAFTA . A great deal . β\nThe president threatened to rip up NAFTA , which he called the β worst trade deal ever made. β The threat helped force Mexico and Canada to the negotiating table .\nMr. Trump has found more agreement with Democrats than his fellow Republicans in criticizing the 24-year-old NAFTA , which is blamed for shipping jobs to Mexico and hastening the demise of U.S. manufacturing .\nBut Democrats , who take control of the House next month , have been less than enthusiastic about approving an agreement that would allow Mr. Trump to check off a major campaign promise .\nThe USMCA sets new rules on agriculture , technology and auto imports , protects autoworkers β jobs in the U.S. and opens Canada to American dairy products .\nHouse Minority Leader Nancy Pelosi , the California Democrat who is poised to become speaker of the House , described the new pact as a warmed-over NAFTA that doesn β t go far enough .\nShe joked that it was β the bill formerly known as Prince , β a reference to the late musician who once changed his name to an unpronounceable symbol .\nMrs. Pelosi said Democrats will fight for measures to accompany USMCA that enforce labor and environmental requirements , as well as legislation in Mexico to address wages and working conditions .\nβ I said it was a work in progress , β she said . β I know it β s work ; I hope it β s progress . β\nRep. Bill Pascrell Jr. of New Jersey , the top Democrat on the House Ways and Means Committee β s trade panel , said he doesn β t believe Mr. Trump would carry out the threat .\nβ He β s not someone I take at his word . Trump boasted about what a great deal the USMCA was , yet a day after signing is resorting to threats to force Congress β hand , β he said . β This doesn β t display confidence in the deal he made . I have more confidence in Congress continuing to work with [ U.S. Trade Representative Robert Lighthizer ] than it would seem Trump does . β\nβ Continuing the status quo of NAFTA is not an option . Too many jobs have been outsourced and wages lost to let the old agreement stand , β he said . β But simply withdrawing won β t do anything to raise wages here or in Mexico or reverse NAFTA β s destruction . β\nMr. Trump has the authority to terminate the deal under NAFTA β s Article 2205 , which is the exit clause for member countries . Invoking it would begin a six-month waiting period before Mr. Trump could quit the deal .\nInvoking Article 2205 would impose a six-month deadline on Congress to approve USMCA or revert to trade laws that were in effect in 1993 before NAFTA .\nCongress might test Mr. Trump β s resolve , but the president has insisted that the U.S. would be just fine without NAFTA .
|
allsides-corpus-318
|
As the president β s trade agenda approaches reality this week , misconceptions about it abound β partly because the noisy arguments for and against it have obscured the issue , and partly because of the emotionalism that trade stirs up .\nThe trade debate is a combination of both factual information about what β s actually in the legislation and of emotions about job loss , says Gary Chaison , a professor of labor relations at Clark University in Worcester , Ma .\nβ Trade agreements are always difficult because they are very emotional things , β he says . They invariably benefit some people and negatively affect others . β For the winners we look at the facts , and for the losers we look at emotions . β\nOn Wednesday , the Senate passed `` fast track , '' which prevents Congress from amending trade bills negotiated by President Obama , by a 60-to-38 vote . That now goes to Mr. Obama 's desk for a signature . It also approved assistance for workers displaced by global trade . That goes back to the House for final approval .\nWith all that in mind , here are five common misconceptions about free trade agreements and the president β s trade agenda .\nFiguring job losses and gains from trade is not an exact science .\nOpponents argue vigorously that trade deals such as the 1993 North American Free Trade Agreement ( NAFTA ) are job killers and wage suppressors , while proponents argue they lead to economic growth .\nBut in April , the independent Congressional Research Service reported that β the overall economic impact of NAFTA is difficult to measure β because trade and investment are influenced by many variables . β NAFTA did not cause the huge job losses feared by the critics or the large economic gains predicted by supporters , β it concluded .\nPredicting losses or gains from the pending Trans-Pacific Partnership β the historic trade deal that the US is negotiating with 11 other Pacific Rim nations β is even harder because it involves so many countries , says Steve Bell , senior director of economic policy at the Bipartisan Policy Center think tank in Washington .\nIt β s β virtually impossible to estimate with any reliability the job impact or the cost impact or the [ economic ] impact . People who say that are pretty much making that stuff up , β he says .\nFor that reason , he and others argue , trade deals should be judged on whether they expand America β s positive influence in the world , whether they break down export barriers to US goods , and whether they improve labor , environmental , and human rights standards abroad .\nProfessor Chaison argues they must be accompanied by assistance for displaced American workers , because β we don β t fully appreciate β the radical way in which real people β s lives can be harmed by trade .\nChina is not part of the Pacific trade agreement , or any US trade deal .\nLawmakers and labor often point to jobs lost to a China trade deal . For example , Rep. Barbara Lee ( D ) of California recently said that communities of color have disproportionately suffered because of a β US-China trade deal . β\nYes , minorities have disproportionately suffered job losses over the years , but the way it 's described makes it sound like the losses come from America 's trade agreement with China . There is no US-China trade deal .\nRepresentative Lee is getting her data β 35 percent of minority jobs lost to China along with a 30 percent drop in wages β from the Communications Workers of America . The union cites β the China deal , β but what it β s really referring to is China joining the World Trade Organization in 2001 .\nBeing in the WTO is not the same as entering into a negotiated free trade agreement , which could be potentially stricter , between two countries or even a dozen countries . Some argue that China should be part of the Pacific Rim deal or some future US free trade agreement because it β s too big to ignore .\nBut for now , the Obama administration is arguing that the Pacific agreement is needed as a geostrategic counterweight to China .\nGlobalization and free trade deals are not the same thing .\nWhen opponents of free trade agreements cite job losses , lower wages , or outsourcing , they often lump in the phenomenon of β globalization β with free trade agreements .\nGlobalization is what β s happening with the world economy and culture β the spread of interconnectedness hastened by the digital age . Its downside can mean Americans losing business to international retailers over the Internet , losing call centers to India ( with which the US has no trade agreement ) , or being undercut by Chinese currency manipulation .\nFree trade agreements try to bring structure to this free-wheeling world by setting up common standards . They , too , have downsides that result in job losses in some sectors , but the deals are an attempt to bring order to globalization .\nβ Globalization is an economic evolution . A trade agreement is just the opposite . It β s a construct , β says Bell .\nThe secrecy surrounding the Pacific trade deal is not so unusual .\nIt β s true that members of Congress have to go to a special room to read the draft Pacific trade agreement ; that they must surrender their cell phones before going in ; that they can take notes β but not with them when they leave ; that they may not divulge its contents to outsiders , even experts who might help them better understand the contents .\nWhy the secrecy ? The administration says it β s to protect its negotiating power . How can it negotiate sensitive points with 11 countries while 535 members of Congress and the general public weigh in ? Besides , any member of Congress will be able to go to the trade negotiations or consult with the administration . And the final deal will be available to the public for 60 days before it β s voted on in Congress .\nDeal-making in secret is not an unusual negotiating strategy , supporters say .\nβ This is really not substantially different than how labor unions themselves negotiate their contracts , β says Rep. Gregory Meeks ( D ) of New York , one of the president β s few Democratic trade supporters in the House . For example , top union officials negotiate contracts , and then take the results back to the members for ratification .\nOn Wednesday , the Senate approved fast track trading authority for the president .\nBut this was a vote about process , not a vote on a trade agreement . Fast track allows the president to negotiate a trade deal with the assurance that Congress can β t change it once he β s sealed the deal ; it can only approve or disapprove it . The actual vote on a trade deal would come only after it β s finalized .\nGet the Monitor Stories you care about delivered to your inbox . By signing up , you agree to our Privacy Policy\nThis week β s votes also include assistance to help workers displaced by global trade . Republicans generally view such aid as welfare , but it β s the price that Democrats , including the president , are demanding because trade deals inevitably displace some workers ( see point No . 1 ) .\nAfter a difficult journey through Congress , both fast track and help for displaced workers are expected to reach the president for signature by the end of this week .
|
allsides-corpus-319
|
Abe to Congress : Japan wo n't shy away from reforms needed for trade pact\nJapanese Prime Minister Shinzo Abe said his country will not shy away from domestic reforms vital for its participation in a massive Asia-Pacific trade deal Tokyo is trying to close with the U.S. and other Asia-Pacific countries .\nβ Japan β s agriculture is at a crossroads , β Abe said in his historic address to a joint session of Congress on Wednesday , the first by a Japanese prime minister . β In order for it to survive , it has to change now . β\nThe U.S. is pressing Tokyo to open access to a number of so-called sacred sectors , such as rice , dairy , beef and pork , through the Trans-Pacific Partnership talks . Japan has been cautious in meeting those demands , and Abe β s ruling Liberal Democratic Party is seen as tightly under the grip of the country β s powerful agriculture lobby .\nThe Japanese leader , however , said he is bringing β great reforms β to agricultural policy , noting that the average Japanese farmer is older than 66 and Japanese farming is shrinking as a percentage of the country β s economy .\nAbe also said he is committed to overhauling regulations in medicine , energy and other areas .\nβ Please do come and see the new Japan , where we have regained our spirit of reform and our sense of speed , β he said . β Japan will not run away from any reforms . β\nThe prime minister has sought to turn around Japan β s stagnant economy through his β Abenomics β plan , which rests on regulatory reforms and participation in the Trans-Pacific Partnership trade deal . The β goal is near β in the U.S. and Japan β s talks on agriculture and auto trade issues important for the success of the broader Asia-Pacific pact , he said .\nβ Let us bring the TPP to a successful conclusion through our joint leadership , β he said . U.S. lawmakers are currently considering trade promotion authority legislation considered vital to closing the trade deal and expediting its passage in Congress .\nAbe also stressed the strategic importance of the trade deal , highlighting its role in spreading the shared values of rule of law and democracy in the region .\nβ We must take the lead to build a market that is fair , dynamic , sustainable and is also free from the arbitrary intentions of any nation , β he said , an apparent reference to China β s growing dominance in the region .\nβ In the Pacific market , we can not overlook sweatshops or burdens on the environment , β he said . β Nor can we simply allow free riders on intellectual property . β\nAbe β s trip to Washington this week also focused on strengthening security ties with the U.S. through new defense cooperation guidelines .\nIn a meeting with President Barack Obama on Tuesday , Abe said the two leaders fully agreed on the significance of the new defense policy .\nThe reforms , which will be fully implemented by this summer , will give the East Asian country more leeway to deploy its military forces to intervene in foreign conflicts and move away from constitutional self-defense restrictions .\nJapan is keen to expand its military operations to counter China β s claims over a group of islands in the East China Sea and respond to North Korea β s growing nuclear arsenal .\nAbe capped his visit to Washington with the speech to Congress β the first time a Japanese leader has addressed both chambers β where he also spent some time addressing his country β s past transgressions during World War II .\nβ Our actions brought suffering to the peoples in Asian countries , β he said . β We must not avert our eyes from that . β\nThe conciliatory statements to U.S. lawmakers , however , stopped short of a full apology for Japan β s wartime conduct in the Asia-Pacific region , including its World War II practice of providing so-called comfort women , by and large non-Japanese sex slaves , to Japanese soldiers .\nβ History is harsh , β he said . β What is done can not be undone . β
|
allsides-corpus-320
|
We hear quite a bit of misleading rhetoric against China these days . Let 's grant , for argument 's sake , that the Chinese overproduce steel , dump some of that steel into Canada and Europe before it makes its way to the United States , pilfer intellectual property and have a plan to dominate the world by 2025 . It 's still not a good βββ to protect a few privileged American producers by slapping tariffs on the stuff other U.S. firms use to manufacture their goodsβor for the government to restrict the supply of goods that households consume to raise their standard of living .\nSince when do free market advocates believe that a communist authoritarian regime like the one in China can successfully and centrally plan and execute economic growth ? These days , newspapers are full of quotes by noted free marketeers who would usually oppose trade barriers such as those put in place by the Trump administration but nevertheless support such barriers because they worry that China 's 2025 `` plan '' will successfully lead to its domination of many industries .\nIt 's puzzling . George Mason University economist Don Boudreaux correctly commented on this inconsistency by writing that those on the political right who usually believe in markets `` correctly understand that the U.S. government can not out-perform the market at 'picking ' winners , but they β¦ nevertheless believe that foreign governments , especially those governments with authoritarian histories and that currently possess authoritarian powers , are invested with uncanny abilities to improve the performance of their economies with subsidies , trade restraints , and industrial policies . ''\nIf these guys really believe that such a top-down government-controlled economy can work in China , why not try it here ? And if it works so well in China , why does n't it work in Venezuela or Cuba ?\nAlso puzzling is the constant refrain about China producing more than it needs . Even if this overcapacity were a boon for China , it would still be to the benefit of millions of American consumers . It lowers costs for thousands of small U.S. manufacturers and steel consumers . But in reality , this `` overproduction '' is a tragedy for the Chinese people because their government 's subsidization of steel production inevitably diverts resources from other areas of the Chinese economy . I do n't hear Americans and Europeans complaining about all the stuff China is n't producing because its government stupidly wants to produce a lot of steel . So the next time you encounter someone lamenting China 's overcapacity , shed a tear or two for the Chinese people and recognize that some American non-steel production might fall if ( and when ) Beijing stops diverting so many resources into Chinese steel factories .\n`` But what about American steel producers ? ! '' some plead . If you think trade is the main culprit in the steel-industry woes , think again . For decades , Americans have imported between 25 and 30 percent of our steel . That leaves domestic steel with a healthy 70 to 75 percent of the market . To the extent that steel jobs were lost , the βββ is that American steel executives implemented labor-saving innovations ( read : technology ) just like the rest of the manufacturing industries . These innovations made individual steel workers more productive and raised their wages . As a reminder , steel employment in the United States actually peaked in 1956 , long before China entered in the picture .\n`` But the Chinese steal intellectual property from us ! '' others say . Still , the best way to protect the property rights of some Americansβmany of whom freely choose to operate in China under these conditionsβis n't to impose import taxes ( tariffs ) and thereby penalize millions of American consumers . Such `` retaliation '' by the U.S. government is a policy of picking winners and losers , which is unfair and inefficient . It also puts thousands of other American jobs in jeopardy , exposes us to retaliation and causes U.S. companies ( like Harley-Davidson ) to move their production abroad . The best solutions use international organizations to challenge China 's actions and form alliances with like-minded allies .\nI hope you wo n't read this piece as a defense of the Chinese regime . There 's no excuse for the way it treats its people , abuses human rights and deprives the Chinese from free market economic policies . However , many of the arguments levied against China as they relate to trade either misidentify the true victims or advocate the wrong remedies . And let 's not forget that new U.S. trade and investment restrictions wo n't make China more like us , but more government control over the U.S. economy will make us more like China .
|
allsides-corpus-321
|
CLOSE After a week of hints and uncertainty , President Donald Trump on Thursday announced tariffs on imported steel and aluminum but with temporary exemptions for Canada and Mexico as he seeks to revise the North American Free Trade Agreement . ( March 8 ) AP\nWASHINGTON β Despite warnings by allies that a trade war will increase prices for consumers worldwide , President Trump signed proclamations Thursday imposing tariffs on steel and aluminum imports and said they are designed to protect American industries .\nIn statements from the White House , Trump said his plan does exempt Canada and Mexico from the tariffs , pending the outcome of ongoing trade negotiations , and allows other countries to apply for relief from the new duties .\n`` We have to protect and build our steel and aluminum industries , while at the same time showing great flexibility and cooperation toward those that are really friends of ours , '' Trump said while surrounded by steel and aluminum workers invited to the White House .\nCLOSE The last time a trade war happened in the U.S. , things did n't go well for the economy . Will history repeat itself as Trump puts a tariff on steel and aluminum ? Here are the facts . Just the FAQs\nHe also described the move as `` vital to our national security , '' and said more trade policy changes are on the way .\nTrump said there would be 25 % tariffs on steel and 10 % on aluminum , but there would be exemptions and possible changes .\n`` I 'll have a right to go up or down , depending on the country , and I 'll have a right to drop out countries or add countries , '' he told his Cabinet earlier in theb day . `` We just want fairness . Because we have not been treated fairly by other countries . ''\nWhen Trump announced his tariff plans a week ago , aides said there would be no exemptions or carve outs .\nThe European Union and other allies have threatened to retaliate with tariffs of their own on American products , from Florida orange juice to Wisconsin motorcycles to Kentucky bourbon . Trump 's decision `` will put thousands of European jobs in jeopardy and it has to be met by firm and proportionate response , '' said Cecilia MalmstrΓΆm , the EU commissioner for trade .\nIn addition to threatening to go after American products , other countries ridiculed Trump 's claim that the tariffs serve the need of national defense , saying the penalties fall more on allies like Canada than potential adversaries like China .\nMany fellow Republicans also objected to Trump 's tariffs , predicting a trade war that will increase costs for consumers everywhere .\nOutgoing Sen. Jeff Flake , R-Ariz. , who vowed to introduce legislation nullify Trump 's action , ridiculed the notion of `` flexible '' tariffs : `` What does that mean ? One day you wake up and you say , β I don β t like Australia ? β ... That β s unbelievable . β\nLooking forward to 3:30 P.M. meeting today at the White House . We have to protect & build our Steel and Aluminum Industries while at the same time showing great flexibility and cooperation toward those that are real friends and treat us fairly on both trade and the military . β Donald J. Trump ( @ realDonaldTrump ) March 8 , 2018\nThe critics include House Speaker Paul Ryan , R-Wisc. , who said that `` I 'm just not a fan of broad based and across the board tariffs because there are a lot of unintended consequences . ''\nTrump justified the decision by citing `` shuttered plants and mills , '' laid-off workers , and `` the decimation of entire communities , '' all the result of what he called decades of unfair foreign trade practices that targeted U.S. industries . Economists said automation has killed off more factory jobs , and that free trade has bolstered many sectors of the U.S. economy .\nDuring the signing ceremony , Trump invited some of the steel workers , hard hats in hands , to speak about how their town have been hurt by the decline of the industry .\nThe trade debate played a major role in Trump 's 2016 presidential campaign .\nDuring the Cabinet meeting , Trump said he would flexible with `` real friends . '' In addition to Canada and Mexico , Trump mentioned Australia β `` we have a trade surplus with Australia '' β while criticizing Germany for what he considers a lack of defense spending .\n`` We have some friends and some enemies , where we have been tremendously taken advantage of over the years , on trade , and on military , '' Trump said .\nMore : Trump claims 'trade wars ' are 'easy to win ' day after tariff talk roils stock market\nMore : Trump escalates trade war rhetoric with threat of European auto tariffs\nTrump said Canada and Mexico , the U.S. partners in the North American Free Trade Agreement , could avoid tariffs if they grant concessions during ongoing negotiations to re-work NAFTA , a trade deal the president has long criticized .\n`` With Mexico and Canada , we 're going to be throwing NAFTA into the loop , '' Trump told his Cabinet , though officials in those countries have denounced the president 's plan to link tariffs to the long-term trade deal .\nTrump announced his pledge in a surprise move a week ago , telling a group of executives he would impose 25 % tariffs on steel imports and 10 % on aluminum imports .\nThe tariff issue created major divisions within the White House itself , and led in part to this week 's resignation announcement by top economic adviser Gary Cohn .\nDuring his session with aides , Trump noted that it would be Cohn 's last Cabinet meeting . He also joked about his soon-to-be-ex-aide 's support of free trade , saying that Cohn β may be a globalist , but I still like him . ''\nA number of Republicans , nominal allies of Trump , have criticized the tariffs .\nMore : Free trade foes are winning in economic battle in Trump 's White House\nHouse Republicans focused on trade , however , were not as hard on Trump as their Senate colleagues .\nRep. Kevin Brady , the Texas Republican who chairs the Ways and Means Committee , said exempting Canada and Mexico was β a good first step . β\nβ I urge the White House to go further to narrow these tariffs so they hit the intended target β and not U.S. workers , businesses , and families , β Brady said .\nRep. David Reichert , R-Wash. , said the process for excluding countries needs to be effective .\nβ With 40 % of jobs tied to trade in my home state of Washington , we can not take actions that hurt the ability of our exporters to sell their American-made goods and services around the world , β said Reichert , chairman of the trade subcommittee of Ways and Means .\nIn a letter released Wednesday , 107 House Republicans led by Brady urged Trump to β tailor β the tariffs to punish β bad actors who trade unfairly and hurt America β such as China .\nSen. Charles Schumer , D-N.Y. , minority leader in the Senate , said he sympathizes with Trump 's criticism of trade rules , but the main culprit is China . Trump 's plan does n't address the Chinese , he said , because other countries supply more steel and aluminum to the U.S .\n`` Instead of getting right at China , the president β s across-the-board tariffs will cause more damage to key allies and other domestic industries , '' Schumer said . He also hit `` the haphazard way these tariffs were put together , '' and that Trump `` makes up his mind one day and changes it the next . ''\nTrump cast the tariffs at a first step in a series of trade changes . During the signing ceremony , he outlined a `` reciprocal tax '' to combat duties that China and other countries place on U.S. products .\nLike other business groups , the National Retail Federation called the tariffs `` a self-inflicted wound '' that will lead to `` higher prices for products ranging from canned goods to cars to electronics . ''\nSome economists defended Trump 's plan , saying trade has sucked the life out of American manufacturing .\nPeter Morici , a business professor at the University of Maryland , tweeted that Trump `` is not starting a trade war '' because `` we are already in one , '' especially with China .\n`` The other side has bazookas & we have been using water pistols , '' Morici said . `` China has targeted one U.S. industry after another , thrown millions of Americans out of work . Time to fight back . ''
|
allsides-corpus-322
|
In a move met by applause from at least one congressman , the Energy Department announced a pilot program for research into domestic mining of rare earth elements .\nRare earth elements are a series of seemingly obscure elements on the Periodic Table that are crucial for production of electronics , military equipment and some medications .\nAccording to Rep. Lou Barletta ( R-Pa. ) , 100 percent of America 's supply of these elements comes from China .\nChina supplies 85 percent of the world 's overall production , according to the congressman .\nThe elements - which include Yttrium , Scandium , Neodymium and Cerium - can be extracted in a variety of ways , including in the aftermath of coal mining .\nThe Energy Department said it will invest nearly $ 7 million into researching ways to mine and produce these elements in the United States .\nFirst New Coal Mine of Trump Era Opens in Pennsylvania\nHuckabee : Trump Supporters Being Subjected to 'Terrorism ' for Their Vote\nPirro Blasts GOP : 'You 're In Power - Do Something ' to Pass Trump Agenda\nBarletta said one of the sites the grant will fund is on the site of the Jeddo coal operation in Hazleton , Pa. , near Tamaqua .\n`` Studies have shown that the Appalachian coal fields throughout northeastern Pennsylvania contain some of the highest concentrations of rare earth elements , '' Barletta said in a press release .\nHe said it was a matter of national security that the U.S. be able to mine its own rare earth elements so that sectors like the military and healthcare do not need to depend on China .\nOther areas targeted by the Energy Department for the program include Albany , Ga. , Tuscaloosa , Ala. and Bluefield , Va. , on the West Virginia border .\nEarlier this month , President Trump celebrated the opening of the first American coal mine in recent times ..\nWatch the clip above to find out more about the administration 's plans for mining .\nScalise Shooter Had List of at Least 6 GOP Lawmakers ' Names
|
allsides-corpus-323
|
Americans are being subjected to a massive public relations assault attempting to persuade them that β fracking β for natural gas and oil is the key to America β s energy future and that this change will free them forever from the bondage of oil imports .\nWhat has really changed is the nation β s energy conversation . Until recently , it was about how the United States should reduce its dependency on climate-changing fossil fuels . Now the β conversation β has become a harangue about the energy , jobs , and tax revenues the industry insists will flow from fracking and how these outweigh environmental concerns .\nThe data do not adequately support these claims . Though the fracking revolution is only a few years old , it β s already losing steam . There are several reasons why .\nFracking , or hydraulic fracturing , is a method of extracting natural gas and oil from low-permeability ( usually shale ) rock formations that don β t yield to conventional technologies . In the process , water , sand , and various chemicals are injected into shale rock at high pressure to open fractures in the rock and release gas or oil .\nA few years ago , fracking for shale gas or tight oil was still novel and confined to small regions , but now tens of thousands of wells have been drilled . Millions of Americans have personal experience with the noise , truck traffic , fumes , and local political turmoil that seem inevitably to follow in fracking β s wake . Hundreds of anti-fracking citizen groups have formed , public sentiment seems to be turning , and communities have begun seeking bans or moratoriums on the practice .\nEnvironmental problems can β t be swept under the carpet any longer . The image of a home-owner lighting his tap water on fire in Josh Fox β s documentary film β Gasland β has become a clichΓ© ; still , for a while the natural gas industry successfully argued that adverse effects from fracking on water , air , soil , wildlife , livestock , and human health are negligible .\nIndustry-funded studies declared the practice safe , and the Environmental Protection Agency appeared to back them up . Drilling companies tended to target economically depressed regions , where poverty forced most townsfolk to take whatever short-term jobs and production royalties were offered . Meanwhile , citizens who have suffered ill health effects or property damage that they link to fracking were led to sign non-disclosure agreements in order to receive settlement payoffs ( including two children ages 7 and 10 who have been given lifetime bans from speaking about fracking ) .\nBut the bad news just keeps leaking , like methane through a bad well casing . Former Mobil Oil vice president , Louis W. Allstadt , who spent his career running oil production operations and company mergers , now speaks on behalf of anti-fracking resistance groups . He points to studies revealing that compromised casings ( and resulting instances of water contamination ) are far more common than the industry claims .\nMeanwhile the Los Angeles Times has uncovered documents suggesting that the EPA has ignored evidence of environmental harms from fracking , choosing not to publicize or act on data collected by its own staff .\nWayne County , Pa. , activists are currently celebrating the cancellation of 1,500 drilling leases covering 100,000 acres of land . New York State β s moratorium on fracking remains in effect , despite massive industry efforts to end it . Meanwhile the Colorado city of Longmont has voted to ban fracking altogether , and the State of Colorado is suing the city in an attempt to overturn the ban .\nBut fracking has another problem that is even bigger than environmental and health problems or shifting public opinion , though less publicized : Its production potential seems to have been oversold .\nEveryone who pays attention to energy issues has heard that America has a hundred years or more of natural gas thanks to the application of fracking to shale reservoirs , and that the US is on track to outproduce Saudi Arabia now that oil is flowing from fracked fields in North Dakota and Texas . To most , the news at first sounded hopeful and reassuring . Yet as actual production numbers accumulate , it appears that claims made for fracking were simply too good to be true .\nIt turns out there are only a few geological formations in the US from which shale gas is being produced . In virtually all of them , except the Marcellus ( in Pennsylvania and West Virginia ) , studies such as one from the Post Carbon Institute show that production rates have plateaued or are in decline .\nWhy so soon ? A major challenge bedeviling drillers is the high variability within shale . Each tight oil or shale gas-bearing geologic formation tends to be characterized by a small core area ( usually a few counties ) where production is profitable and plentiful , surrounded by a much larger region where per-well production rates are lower to start with and drop fast β often falling 60 percent during the first year .\nGiven the expense of horizontal drilling and fracking , it β s hard to make money in noncore areas unless oil and gas prices are stratospheric . As the β sweet spots β get drilled to capacity , producers are being forced to the fringes , taking on more debt because sales of product don β t cover operating expenses .\nWith decline rates so high , promised production volumes are turning out to be more hype than reality . America β s hundred years of natural gas , heralded by President Obama as a national energy game changer , is based on unrealistic estimates β the amount of gas the Energy Information Administration says is β technically recoverable. β But this quantity includes resources that will never be produced for economic reasons . Some estimate that shale gas and tight oil production will top out and start to decline before 2020 .\nIn August , Shell took a $ 2 billion write-down on its liquids-rich shale assets in North America . While no details were released , it β s likely the company was simply acknowledging the unprofitability of leases in noncore regions . It could be that the oil industry itself is starting to learn that the shale revolution just ain β t all it was fracked up to be .\nGet the Monitor Stories you care about delivered to your inbox . By signing up , you agree to our Privacy Policy\nIt is highly important that we return America β s energy focus to the most critical imperative of our time β the necessary and inevitable transition away from our current dependence on fossil fuels .\nRichard Heinberg is senior fellow of the Post Carbon Institute and author of 11 books , most recently β Snake Oil : How Fracking β s False Promise of Plenty Imperils Our Future . β
|
allsides-corpus-324
|
Lawmakers are pushing to impose federal standards for protecting the country 's electric grid from attack in the wake of a new report about a sniper assault on a California electrical substation last year that has raised fears the power grid is vulnerable to terrorism .\nThe Wall Street Journal reported Thursday that Sen. Dianne Feinstein , D-Calif. , said she and fellow senators plan to ask the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission , which has jurisdiction over the electric grid 's reliability , to `` set minimum security standards for critical substations . ''\nThe April 16 , 2013 the attack on Pacific Gas & Electric β s Metcalf transmission substation involved snipping AT & T fiber-optic lines to knock out phone and 911 service , and firing shots into a PG & E substation , causing outages . The assault had not been widely publicized until The Wall Street Journal reported new details in a story on Wednesday .\nThe FBI is the lead agency in the investigation and an agency spokesman told the newspaper it doesn β t think the incident was a terror attack . However , Jon Wellinghoff , chairman of the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission at the time , called it `` the most significant incident of domestic terrorism involving the U.S. power grid that has ever occurred . ''\nThe incident began when intruders lifted heavy manhole covers at about 1:30 a.m. in two places on Monterey Highway south of San Jose , climbed under the road , and cut AT & T fiber optic cables , temporarily knocking out 911 service and phone service .\nIn a 19-minute period , gunmen fired more than 100 rounds into substation equipment , disabling 17 of 20 big transformers , causing about $ 16 million in damage , according to The Wall Street Journal . No arrests have been made in the case .\nIn December , during an oversight hearing , Rep. Henry Waxman , D-Calif. , described `` an unprecedented and sophisticated attack on an electric grid substation with military-style weapons . Communications were disrupted . The attack inflicted substantial damage . ''\nHe said he would withhold details of the incident to avoid harming the investigation but added he had been in touch with the FBI about it .\nOne proposal being discussed in Congress is would give the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission the power to write and impose interim rules on grid defenses . The utility industry would still be able to influence any permanent requirements , according to the Journal .\nRep. Trent Franks , R-Ariz. , said `` the last thing I want to do is regulate any industry . '' But he told the newspaper utilities must do more to protect the grid for the sake of national security .\nUnder current law , the commission has to accept or reject proposals written by an industry-dominated group , but can not alter them , according to the report .\nSome utility industry executives told the Journal it would be difficult to come up with rules for improving security that would work in both urban and rural areas .\n`` One size fits all may not get you true resiliency , '' said Lisa Barton , executive vice president of transmission for American Electric Power , adding that increasing protections could be costly . `` I 'm not saying it is n't worth it , '' she said .
|
allsides-corpus-325
|
The Senate on Monday confirmed Dan Brouillette as the next U.S. energy secretary . Brouillette succeeds Rick Perry , who leaves the job as questions swirl in the impeachment inquiry about whether his dealings with Ukraine .\nBrouillette , 57 , has served as the Energy Department 's deputy secretary since 2017 , and he previously worked for the department under the administration of former President George W. Bush . In between those administrations , he was an executive at the United Services Automobile Association ( USAA ) and the Ford Motor Company . He is also a longtime Republican donor .\nThe Senate confirmed Brouillette 70-15 . Several Democrats voted against him after alleging that he failed to give sufficient answers about Perry 's dealings with Ukraine . Senator Ron Wyden , a Democrat from Oregon , accused Brouillette of waging a `` full-court stonewall , '' while Senator Joe Manchin , a Democrat from West Virginia , '' called Brouillette a `` good man . ''\n`` He has been forthcoming , '' Manchin said . `` He has not held anything back . ''\nDan Brouillette seen Monday , September 9 , 2019 . Jon Gambrell / AP\nPerry β whose last day on the job was Sunday β is facing scrutiny about whether he was involved in the withholding of military aid for Ukraine . President Trump 's tying that aid to a request for Ukraine to investigate the Bidens is now the center of the House 's impeachment inquiry against him .\nGordon Sondland , the U.S. ambassador to the European Union , testified in an impeachment hearing that he worked with Perry on Ukraine matters `` at the express direction '' of Mr. Trump . Sondland , Perry and former special envoy Kurt Volker were the so-called `` three amigos '' Mr. Trump tapped to handle Ukraine matters .\nTrump says Energy Secretary Rick Perry asked him to call Ukrainian president\nDuring his confirmation hearings , Brouillette said he was not a part of any conversation tied to the matters behind the impeachment inquiry . `` I 'm not aware of the conversations that Secretary Perry had or did not have '' with Ukraine , he said .
|
allsides-corpus-326
|
Some who follow the issue say Keystone remains a tough call for the administration . Keystone foes pin hopes on Obama\nGreen activists aren β t resigned to losing the Keystone battle . But Friday β s latest blow was yet another disappointment in their often strained relationship with President Barack Obama .\nThe new State Department report that discounted most of the environmental community β s warnings about the Keystone XL oil pipeline puts the final decision on the project closer to Obama β s desk , after years in which he β s been able to dodge rendering a verdict .\nIt all may come down to which Obama makes the final call : the president who declared in Tuesday β s State of the Union that β climate change is a fact β or the one who , in the same speech , touted an β all of the above β approach to energy policy β a phrase that environmentalists had specifically urged him to stop using .\nThis is also the same White House that picked health care over a giant cap-and-trade bill in 2010 but three years later launched the biggest-ever regulatory attack on carbon pollution from coal-burning power plants .\nAdding to the tension for deep-pocketed , politically connected greens is the fact that Friday β s unwelcome message on Keystone came from a department led by one of their most passionate champions , Secretary of State John Kerry .\nSome environmentalists fumed , while others looked for silver linings , including some additional language in the sprawling final document that could be used to bolster their arguments .\nβ It β s just a study ; it doesn β t recommend a course of action , β said Kenny Bruno , a lead spokesman in the campaign against tapping Canadian oil sands . Pipeline critics , he said , have β the winds at our backs β because the decision is β no longer in the hands of lower-level bureaucrats in the State Department . It β s in the hands of climate champions Barack Obama and John Kerry . β\nSierra Club Executive Director Michael Brune said the analysis gives Obama and Kerry β everything β they need to reject the pipeline . β We are cautiously confident that he will make the right choice , β Brune said of Obama .\nThe analysis is β just an input , β billionaire climate activist Tom Steyer said . β So we don β t have an answer yet , and the fight is far from over . β\nBut others denounced the entire review process so far as corrupt and flawed .\nβ This document will be seen by the entire environmental community β in which I certainly include myself β as a sham , β said Rep. Raul Grijalva ( D-Ariz. ) . He was one of several Keystone opponents who complained about news reports in which oil industry groups or Canadian officials offered previews of what they had heard the study would say .\nβ The fact that the Canadian government and the oil industry were reportedly briefed on today β s news before Congress was given the courtesy of a heads-up speaks volumes , β Grijalva said . β It encourages the already widely held impression that the fix was in from the beginning . If the administration expects to avoid the lasting stink of having ignored every red flag in the book , it needs to explain itself . β\nThe added details in the final version will allow Obama and Kerry to use them as they see fit , said one former Obama administration official closely following the Keystone process .\nβ I think it would be wrong to conclude that this is a rubber stamp for the project and right to conclude it provides additional information that the administration will be looking at before a final decision is made , β the former official said . β The administration is looking to keep its options open here . β\nObama has offered some hints that he thinks both sides have overstated the impact of the Alberta-to-Texas oil pipeline , which the State Department study indicates will be neither a major environmental problem nor a powerhouse job creator . But by letting the decision linger for years , Obama has also allowed pipeline opponents to elevate its political significance β adding it to the holy trinity of green litmus tests alongside drilling in Alaska β s Arctic National Wildlife Refuge and saving the Pacific Northwest β s spotted owl .\nβ I don β t necessarily think that there β s a real climate change impact in this decision , β said another former administration official who worked on energy issues . β The oil is there . It β s going to be extracted . Its going to be sold to someone . By trying to frame this as a big political battle and a test of the president β s courage , I think it was a strategic miscalculation by the environmental community . β\nPolitically , though , some who follow the issue say Keystone remains a tough call for the administration . It plays green activists and Democratic donors against each other headed into this year β s midterm elections . And several party activists offered contrasting arguments for whether a pro-Keystone or anti-Keystone decision works more to the Democrats β benefit .\nThe second former administration official said Obama would have reason to consider making a pro-Keystone decision now to take away a potent Republican talking point . Keystone has become β a dog whistle for their [ GOP ] base , probably because the environmental community made it one , β the ex-official said .\nBut Chris Lehane , a longtime party operative who worked for Al Gore β s 2000 campaign and is now affiliated with Steyer β s anti-Keystone super PAC , said Obama would risk dampening midterm turnout among two critical Democratic voting demographics β Hispanics and under-30s β by permitting the pipeline . β If you β re talking about the raw politics of this , if you β re a Democrat and trying to maximize turnout , you have to look at which cohorts you β re trying to maximize , β he said .\nLehane also recalled Obama β s recent comments to The New Yorker β s David Remnick about a president having a chance to influence only one paragraph in the history books . β This would fall square in the type of paragraph the president was addressing in that conversation , β Lehane said .\nβ Is it politically easier for him to approve this thing ? Maybe , β said Roger Ballentine , a former environmental adviser to Kerry and President Bill Clinton . β But I don β t think it β s politically hard to reject it . β\nHe argued that the need for a new pipeline to send Canadian oil to the Gulf Coast is unwarranted when U.S. oil production levels have topped exports for the first time since 1995 .\nβ If I β m a senator and someone tries to beat me up on this , I say , β Look , what we should be doing is focusing on the infrastructure we need to responsibly develop , β β said Ballentine , now president of Green Strategies .\nObama is in a no-win situation as he weighs the appeals from greens , Republicans , industry and Canada , which is both a leading U.S. trading partner and β one of our best friends in the world , β said former State Department spokesman P.J . Crowley .\nβ The politics are complicated and to a large extent zero-sum , β Crowley said . β Which is why the administration is taking its time trying to manage a least-bad outcome . β\nOn the pipeline β s merits , people on both sides said the final State Department report left Obama some room to either kill or reject the project . For instance , the report said building Keystone is unlikely by itself to cause Canada to dramatically expand production from its western oil sands , increasing greenhouse gas emissions . That may happen β or not happen β for reasons besides the pipeline .\nThe analysis was clearly a disappointment to many pipeline critics , who wanted the State Department to deem the pipeline an outright climate and environmental hazard .\nBut pipeline opponents also offered differing interpretations on whether the report had softened the State Department β s past view that the project wouldn β t pose significant environmental harm .\nβ In this report , for the very first time , the State Department acknowledges a scenario in which the Keystone XL tar sands export pipeline dramatically increases carbon pollution , β said National Wildlife Federation CEO Larry Schweiger . β That β s a welcome and long overdue change , and it gives President Obama all the evidence he needs to reject Keystone XL . β\nClimate activist Bill McKibben , a Vermont-based author spearheading the fight against the pipeline , was less optimistic . He said the report β reflects some grudging movement β by the State Department to recognize the environmental impact of the pipeline . β They β re at the point of saying night is late afternoon , β he said .\nMeanwhile , at the State Department on Friday afternoon , Assistant Secretary Kerri-Ann Jones repeatedly told reporters , β Whether one pipeline specifically would affect the overall development of the oil sands , that specific answer is not in this document . β
|
allsides-corpus-327
|
After spending more than five years and billions of dollars trying to re-create the U.S. shale boom overseas , some of the world β s biggest oil companies are starting to give up amid a world-wide collapse in crude prices .\nChevron Corp. CVX -0.02 % , Exxon Mobil Corp. XOM -0.78 % and Royal Dutch Shell PLC have packed up nearly all of their hydraulic fracturing wildcatting in Europe , Russia and China . The reasons vary from sanctions in Russia , a ban in France , a moratorium in Germany and poor results in Poland to crude prices below what it can cost to produce a barrel of shale oil .\nChevron halted its last European fracking operations in February when it pulled out of Romania . Shell said it is cutting world-wide shale spending by 30 % in places including Turkey , Ukraine and Argentina . Exxon has pulled out of Poland and Hungary , and its German fracking operations are on hold .\nThe result : Outside the U.S. , where fracking has produced a historic glut of oil , only China , Argentina and Canada have commercial shale production , the U.S. Energy Information Administration says , though America holds less than 10 % of the world β s estimated shale reserves . Europe , including Russia , and China alone have nearly triple the reserves of the U.S. , according to the EIA .\nβ The pace of development outside North America is slower everywhere than people thought it would be , β Simon Henry , Shell β s chief financial officer , said in a recent interview .\nA recovery in oil prices could change the equation , giving big companies more room to take risky bets on shale . And bright spots for shale prospectors outside North America still exist .\nRegions of Argentina and Algeria appear to be β as good as the U.S. , β says Faouzi Aloulou , an EIA project manager who analyzes shale prospects . Two French companies and a British firm are planning to drill in the U.K. , where there is a debate over the practice β s health and environmental effects . In Poland , small companiesβthe kind that pioneered the U.S. shale boomβare still drilling despite their big rivals β discouraging results .\nβ The publicity is bad , but the reality is it β s going to be down to the smaller companies to prove the play , as they did in the U.S. , β says OisΓn Fanning , the executive chairman of San Leon Energy PLC , a U.K.-listed explorer that announced a commercial gas discovery in Poland in February and expects its first sales in early 2016 .\nFracking works by using water , sand and chemicals to fracture underground rock and hold the cracks open , allowing oil and gas trapped in the rocks to flow . Unlike the long-term projects that the world β s biggest oil companies specialize in , shale wells tend to have short lives , and developing a shale field requires drilling many holes over a short period .\nThe technology worked well for small producers in North America , but oil giants like Exxon and Shell , with their thick layers of management and slow drilling-approval processes , largely missed out on the profits there .\nKnowing other countries had shale , the big companies last decade looked elsewhere to see if they could build a boom from scratch . Eastern European officials who were eager to wean their nations off Russian gas welcomed the explorers .\nChevron beginning late last decade invested in Romania , Lithuania and Poland , which some geologists and oil-business-development specialists said had Europe β s most attractive shale potential .\nβ In Poland you had a mix of a higher resource estimate plus a government keen on promoting shale gas to reduce dependence on Russian gas , β said Richard Sarsfield-Hall of Finnish consulting and engineering firm PΓΆyry .\nChevron kept drilling , even after the EIA in 2013 lowered its estimates of Poland β s shale-gas reserve by about 20 % and other producers like France β s Total SA threw in the towel .\nBy 2014 , Chevron β s Eastern Europe bet wasn β t looking good . It exited Lithuania last summer . Last fall , Romania β s president said the country didn β t appear to have any shale resources . Then , in January , Chevron said it had decided to leave Poland .\nβ Shale gas opportunities across Central and Eastern Europe do not compete with other opportunities within Chevron β s global portfolio , β a spokeswoman said . The company is still evaluating shale gas exploration in South Africa , a spokesman said ..\nConocoPhillips is the only large oil company still working in Poland .\nExxon had similar letdowns in Hungary , which it left in 2009 , and Poland , which it exited in 2012 . Exxon β s efforts in Germany have been thwarted by a fracking moratorium , and Western sanctions over Ukraine have kept it and other international oil companies from developing Russian shale .\nNow , an Exxon spokesman says , the company β s only ongoing non-North America shale exploration is in Argentina and Colombia .\nOne problem the companies have faced is the high cost of shale drilling outside the U.S. when oil prices are low . Exploration wells in new areas require experimentation and lack the economies of scale in a more developed area . Wells in Poland and China can cost up to $ 25 million each , while American wells on average cost about $ 5 million , said Melissa Stark , lead author of a 2014 shale report by Accenture LLP .\nShell first discussed shale exploration with Chinese officials in 2006 , said people familiar with the matter . At the time , the Anglo-Dutch company was looking for shale resources around the world , and struck deals in Sweden , Turkey , Russia and Ukraine .\nThe Ukraine conflict and resulting sanctions derailed plans in Russia and Ukraine . Shell left Sweden in 2011 after exploration was unsuccessful . A Shell spokeswoman said the company is analyzing the results of wells drilled with a partner in Turkey , and is waiting to hear from the South African government about proceeding with shale projects there .\nIn China , Shell found shale gas in 2011 . But problematic geology , infrastructure and local protests delayed progress , company officials and documents say . Last fall , Shell decided to pull back efforts there .\nMs. Stark of Accenture said countries with strong national oil companies such as China , Argentina and Saudi Arabia were more likely to lead shale development outside the U.S . They have a mandate to extract their countries β resources , government support , and lots of money .\nβ You need a player with deep pockets and who can be there for several years , β she said . State-run companies β are there for the long term so they can invest for the long-term . β
|
allsides-corpus-328
|
Brussels ( AFP ) - Europe 's refugee and migrant crisis has escalated over the summer , leaving the continent divided over how to deal with a flood of people led by Syrians fleeing war in their homeland .\nA record surge in numbers , and the opening up of new routes over the Balkans in addition to the Mediterranean sea route , have prompted the EU to call a special meeting on the issue in two weeks .\nHere are the key questions and answers about the biggest crisis of its kind to face Europe since World War II :\nThe situation in Syria , the origin of the largest number of refugees , has worsened because of the rise of the Islamic State extremist group and continuing civil war , so more people are fleeing .\nMore people are coming directly to Europe instead of staying in refugee camps in neighbouring countries that are bursting at the seams , says Melissa Fleming , spokeswoman for the UN refugee agency .\nBut also the longer people spend in refugee camps in Lebanon , Jordan and Turkey , the more likely they are to realise they can not start a new life there and want to leave , especially with no sign of the four-year civil war ending anytime soon .\nRecently people are being drawn by Germany 's announcement that it expects to process 800,000 asylum applications this year , and Berlin 's decision to become the first EU state to stop automatically returning Syrian asylum-seekers to their first EU port of entry .\nNearly 340,000 refugees and migrants illegally crossed the border into Europe from January to July 2015 , according to the EU 's border agency Frontex . The figure compares to 280,000 for the whole of 2014 .\nThe UN refugee agency separately gives the figure of more than 300,000 migrants and refugees having crossed the Mediterranean so far this year , compared to 219,000 crossings in the whole of 2014 .\nAround 2,500 have died this year so far , compared to 3,500 for the whole of last year , it says .\nSyria and Afghanistan were the two countries most represented among migrants entering the EU , according to Frontex .\nThe top five countries for arrivals in Europe on all sea crossings are Syria ( 43 percent ) , Eritrea ( 10 percent ) , Nigeria ( 5 percent ) , Somalia ( 3 percent ) , and others ( 27 percent ) , according to the UN .\nNine out of ten of those making the Mediterranean crossing to Italy are Africans , however .\nBut nearly a fifth of those coming over the Balkans are Kosovans , leading Germany and other EU states to call for a register of 'safe ' countries to which migrants can be returned .\n- WHERE ARE THEY ARRIVING , AND BY WHAT ROUTES ? -\nGreece , Hungary and Italy are bearing the brunt of the problem .\nGreece had the most landings with nearly 200,000 this year , the UN says . Greece sees so many because of people getting boats from Turkey for the islands of Lesbos , Chios , Samos and Kos .\nItaly has seen 110,000 landings this year , with people taking the central Mediterranean route on rickety boats from Libya . But numbers have slowed due to the breakdown of order in Libya and the danger of the route .\nThe Western Balkans have seen a huge surge in arrivals of mostly asylum seekers fleeing Middle East wars , who cross the region after crossing by boat from Turkey to Greece .\nHungary alone reported more than 34,800 detections from January to July , and the area as a whole has seen 102,342 , Frontex says .\nThe most popular final destinations are Germany , Sweden and Britain .\n- WHAT HAS THE EU DONE , AND WHAT MORE CAN IT DO ? -\nThe EU was stung into action after a horrific Mediterranean shipwreck in April that left 700 migrants dead .\nThe bloc boosted its maritime search and rescue efforts and set up a military naval task force aiming to tackle people smugglers .\nIt is also setting up `` hot spots '' in frontline European countries to expedite the classification of newcomers as either refugees or economic migrants .\nBut plans for the compulsory relocation of 40,000 migrants , to take the strain off Greece and Italy , collapsed because of bickering between EU countries .\nIn the end they merely agreed to voluntary pledges to take in 32,000 , plus another 22,500 Syrian asylum seekers currently in camps outside the EU .\nMany believe those numbers are dwarfed by the scale of the problem and European Commission chief Jean-Claude Juncker will unveil new proposals in his state of the union speech next week .\nThey may include relaxing the `` Dublin rules '' that Germany has already waived , which currently mean asylum requests must be dealt with by the country where the person first arrives .\nMeanwhile , rights groups advocate other solutions , such as giving work visas to refugees and migrants , arguing that it would reduce the smuggling that leads to tragedies .
|
allsides-corpus-329
|
The EU β s chief negotiator , Michel Barnier , has welcomed Dominic Raab to Brussels with a thinly veiled critique of Theresa May β s Chequers plan and a 13-week deadline in which to solve the problem of the Irish border .\nAppearing with Barnier for the first time in the Belgian capital , the new Brexit secretary , clutching a copy of the UK β s recently published Brexit white paper , called for more β vim , vigour and energy β in the troubled negotiations .\nThe former Foreign Office lawyer told reporters he was β looking forward to intensifying , heating up , the negotiations β , after stepping into the role following the resignation of David Davis over the paper , which sets out how the UK is in effect seeking to stay in the single market for goods by following a raft of EU laws .\nThe differing priorities between the two negotiators were clearly evident , however , as they stepped out in front of reporters together at the European commission headquarters .\nTory MP casts doubt on claim pairing breach was honest mistake as row escalates - Politics live Read more\nWhile Raab conceded there were some β gaps β in the withdrawal agreement that needed to be filled , Barnier emphasised the β urgency β of finding a solution for the most thorny issue in that deal : avoiding a hard border on the island of Ireland .\nBarnier told reporters : β We have a lot of work to do with our teams . There are , as you know , 13 weeks left , before the October European council . In this time , short time , we have two things to do . We must finalise the withdrawal agreement and we are not yet there on governance .\nβ We must also prepare a political declaration on our future relationship . On the withdrawal agreement it is a matter of urgency to agree to a legally applicable backstop on Ireland and northern Ireland . We need an all-weather insurance policy . β\nHe added : β On the future relationship , the EU proposed in March an unprecedented partnership not only in economic and trade where we want an ambitious free trade agreement that respects the integrity of the market but also on internal and external security , where a close partnership between us means more important than ever given the geopolitical context .\nβ Our challenge will be to find common ground between the fundamental principles that define the EU and the UK positions . That is all for now , more is to come . Stay tuned . β\nThe two men took part in a short discussion on the UK β s white paper before dining together at the British embassy in Brussels .\nBarnier gave Raab the book Going to the Mountain by Nelson Mandela β s grandson , Ndaba Mandela , as a gift .\nRaab , in turn , gave the former French minister a copy of Isaiah Berlin β s The Hedgehog and the Fox . The philosopher β s most popular essay explores the difference between thinkers who view the world through a single defining idea and those who base their world view on experience .\nIt is understood Raab also insisted to Barnier that the Brexit talks should continue throughout the summer , despite the offer of a two-week break from the European commission .\nFollowing his first talks with Barnier , the new cabinet minister made it clear he would be spending more time in Brussels than Davis , who spent only four hours in face-to-face negotiations with his counterpart .\nRaab said : β We had a very good , constructive conversation . We talked about the progress we β ve made on the withdrawal agreement . It was also an opportunity to present the white paper on the future relationship we want with the EU .\nβ We β ve only got 12 weeks really left to nail down the details of the agreement , so I set out our proposals , and offered to meet with Michel Barnier throughout the summer to intensify negotiations , to get some energy , get some drive and get some heat on them to make sure we can conclude this agreement in good time . I β m sure in good faith , if that energy and that ambition is reciprocated , as I β m confident it will be , we will get there . β\nAsked if a no-deal scenario was more likely after cabinet resignations , Raab declined to directly respond but said domestic battles would not undermine his role .\nHe said : β I think as you get closer to the line , the preparations need to be intensified. β We β re going to be increasing the preparations for no deal , but we β re focused above all on the negotiations to get the best deal . β\nThe meeting came as the EU issued a warning to member states in a 16-page document on the risks of a no-deal Brexit . It notes the impact of a no-deal scenario would be β very real β for citizens , and leaves open the possibility of a visa requirement for Britons travelling to the continent after Brexit should a deal not be in place ..\nA senior EU diplomat said the β very volatile β political situation in London and the lack of progress in the talks in Brussels on key issues had led many to believe that the risk of a no-deal scenario had increased in recent weeks .\nβ Contingency planning for the worst possible outcome is not a sign of mistrust in the negotiations , β the paper says . β The commission is devoting very significant resources and committing great efforts to achieve an agreement . This remains our goal . However , the outcome of negotiations can not be predicted . β\nBrexit : Raab and Barnier to meet as EU steps up no-deal warnings Read more\nThe UK government also appeared to be stepping up warnings about the possibility of no deal , by asking up to 250,000 small businesses who export to the EU to prepare to make a customs declaration . The idea is intended to be one of a series of public warnings issued over the summer about the possible impact of a no-deal scenario on the UK economy .\nBarnier will discuss Brexit with European affairs ministers from the EU27 on Friday . An official said there would be a lot of questions on the white paper , which was β detailed but still unclear to a certain extent β .\nStressing the unpredictability of British politics , the senior EU official said they might as well β read the entrails of animals β to know what is happening .
|
allsides-corpus-330
|
β She doesn β t just believe in Europe , she embodies that and radiates it , β says Jan Techau , a political analyst at The German Marshall Fund of the United States . β That is a huge part of the deal . β\nBut Dr. von der Leyen , the first woman to take the European Union β s top job , has impeccable credentials for the post , observers say . She was born in Brussels where her father was one of the pioneer pan-European diplomats , she speaks fluent English and French , and in her ministerial career she has forged close ties with Germany β s neighbors .\nAs president of the commission she will shape the EU β s policy agenda and sit atop the institution that supervises member states β budgets , handles international trade negotiations , and acts as a competition watchdog .\nDr. Ursula von der Leyen , the new president of the European Commission , arrives in Brussels with the reputation of a resilient and determined survivor . And she is taking over at a delicate moment , with the union β s 28 members divided over issues such as immigration and climate change , and Britain expected to pull out of the EU early next year .\nWhen Daniel Goffart and Ulrike Demmer published their biography of Dr. Ursula von der Leyen five years ago , the reason for their interest in Germany β s then-defense minister was clear from the book β s title : β The Chancellor in Waiting . β\nNow their publisher is rushing out a new edition , titled simply β Ursula von der Leyen. β She is not going to be Angela Merkel β s successor , as her biographers had expected . Instead , to continent-wide surprise , Dr. von der Leyen has become president of the European Commission , her term having started on Dec. 1 .\nDr. von der Leyen emerged unexpectedly as a compromise presidential nominee in July , breaking an EU summit deadlock over how to share out the bloc β s top jobs . She is taking over at a delicate moment , with the union β s 28 members divided over issues such as immigration and climate change , and Britain expected to pull out of the EU early next year .\nAs president of the commission she will shape the EU β s policy agenda and sit atop the institution that supervises member states β budgets , handles international trade negotiations , and acts as a competition watchdog .\nBut Dr. von der Leyen , the first woman to take the European Union β s top job , has impeccable credentials for the post , observers say . She was born in Brussels where her father was one of the pioneer pan-European diplomats , she speaks fluent English and French , and in her ministerial career she has forged close ties with Germany β s neighbors .\nβ She doesn β t just believe in Europe , she embodies that and radiates it , β says Jan Techau , a political analyst at The German Marshall Fund of the United States think tank in Berlin . β That is a huge part of the deal . β\nDr. von der Leyen arrives in Brussels with the reputation of a resilient and determined survivor , the only minister to have served in all of Chancellor Merkel β s cabinets since 2005 ( while raising seven children ) .\nShe has politics in her blood . Her father became state premier of Lower Saxony and Ursula was his favorite daughter , says Mr. Goffart . β She would sit next to him and follow his discussions with his political visitors . She was infected with politics from childhood . β\nBut she did not immediately choose a political career . She studied economics and then medicine , going on to practice as a gynecologist . Only when she was 42 did she follow in her father β s footsteps .\nShe may have started late , but she moved fast , propelled by her famous pedigree , her TV-friendly style , and her appetite for work . No sooner had she won her first election to the state parliament in Lower Saxony than she was made a state minister . Two years later Ms. Merkel tapped her to be family affairs minister in her first government .\nIn that job , and later as labor minister , she made a name for herself as a briskly modern reformer dragging her party , the center-right Christian Democratic Union , kicking and screaming into the 21st century .\nThe CDU was largely a party of old white men who thought a woman β s role should be limited to β kinder , kΓΌche , kirche β β children , kitchen , church β says Mr. Goffart . β Merkel and von der Leyen abolished that . β\nHannibal Hanschke/Reuters German Chancellor Angela Merkel and EU Commission President Ursula von der Leyen attend the Christian Democratic Union ( CDU ) party congress in Leipzig , Germany , Nov. 22 , 2019 . The general perception in Germany three months ago was that Ms. von der Leyen 's political career appeared to be reaching its end .\nAmong Dr. von der Leyen β s hallmark policies with a strong feminist flavor : providing daycare for all infants over 12 months , two months β paternity leave for new fathers , and women β s quotas in the boardroom ( though parliament voted this down ) . She also supported same-sex marriage .\nSuch reforms β were a very important cornerstone of her career , β says Mr. Goffart .\nThough she comes from a conservative background , β she is on the progressive wing of the CDU , β says Mr. Techau . β She is not a conservative hardliner . β\nDr. von der Leyen herself has spoken of an β inner freedom β that she acquired in London during a year studying at the London School of Economics in the late 1970s , although she also admitted , in an interview with the German weekly β Zeit , β that β I lived much more than I studied .\nβ London was the epitome of modernity : freedom , the joy of life , trying everything , β she recalled in the interview . β For me , coming from the rather monotonous , white Germany , that was fascinating . β\nShe also has fond memories of her years in California , where she lived when her husband was teaching at Stanford University , Mr. Goffart says . β She found Americans much more tolerant of noisy kids than Germans . She said it was a lot easier to live with children there . β\nWhile her years abroad may have given Dr. von der Leyen an international outlook , she honed her political skills in Germany , where negotiation and compromise form the bedrock of political life . β That β s her strength , β says Mr. Goffart . β She is used to finding compromises and that β s what you need in the EU . β\nAlready Dr. von der Leyen has shown signs of her inclination to be a conciliator , coming up with a policy platform striving for balance , that offers something to as many competing interest groups as possible .\nBut she is by no means a pushover , argues Mr. Techau . When she took over the Defense Ministry soon after Berlin abolished conscription , he recalls , she brought in measures to make military life more family friendly so as to attract more volunteers . β Old soldiers and pundits gave her a lot of stick for that , but she showed no nerves and it paid off , β he recalls .\nHer public image , he adds , is of a β strong-minded β woman . β There is a strictness to her , a directness , even a certain hardness . β\nDr. von der Leyen has also attracted criticism from CDU colleagues for grandstanding , reveling in photo ops that advance her own career and β sometimes going a little over the top , β explains Mr. Goffart , such as when she visited a German Air Force base looking like Tom Cruise , in β Top Gun β -style aviator sunglasses .\nIf such behavior has made her enemies in her own party , her performance at the Defense Ministry β where she had several run-ins with the top military brass β has disappointed many Germans ; she left office as the second least popular minster in the cabinet . β She was a falling star , β says Dr. Gero Neugebauer , who teaches politics at the Free University of Berlin . β She started strong and ended weak . But she survived . β\nGet the Monitor Stories you care about delivered to your inbox . By signing up , you agree to our Privacy Policy\nThe general perception that she had failed at the Defense Ministry , however , put an end to her ambition to succeed her boss , Ms. Merkel , and three months ago her political career appeared to be reaching its end .\nβ Perhaps she was surprised by her good luck , β says Mr. Goffart . β I think she must be really happy now to have a chance that she never expected . β
|
allsides-corpus-331
|
Elchingen , in the German state of Bavaria is not used to foreigners . And when townspeople in the village , hemmed in by corn fields , found out in late 2013 that they were going to be hosts to dozens of asylum seekers , many fought back , going door-to-door gathering some 800 signatures to say β no . β\nβ I felt so ashamed to be an Elchingener , β says Renate Willbold-Vajagic , a local .\nSo when asylum-seekers from Syria , Afghanistan , Iraq , Somalia , and beyond arrived in this upper middle-class community , she and a group of residents , many retired , created an organization called the β Friends of Asylum-seekers . β\nTheir grassroots effort has grown into an impressive operation , based in a community center . Newcomers can borrow bikes to get from the village to the nearest city 6 miles away , take German classes , and get maps , orientation , or whatever else they need , from backpacks for children to thick winter coats .\nThis is the new face of Germany , where a sense of responsibility , position of strength , and confidence at integrating others before has turned it into Europe β s beacon of humanity amid the largest movement of people since World War II .\nAnd yet , for as much as it is willing β and able β to do , it can β t do everything . On Sunday , Germany shocked Europe by introducing border controls with Austria , from where thousands of migrants have passed into Munich β 13,000 on Saturday alone . The move is seen not just as a response to record inflows into Germany but also a plan to push the European Union into sharing the burden as justice and interior ministers meet today in Brussels .\nGermany 's new Willkommenskultur , or β welcome culture , β has been celebrated across the country , but it is not universally embraced . Germany finds itself at a fragile moment , where the welcome could wither , as the world looks to how Germany leads amid a crisis that is testing Europe β s union arguably more than any issue since its founding .\nHajo Funke , a professor of political culture at the Free University of Berlin , says it β s a historic moment if Germany is able to maintain this β new mentality of empathy . β\nβ This wave of hundreds of thousands in each and every city and town is unique in the history of Germany , β he says . β As much as [ politicians ] really do their job , that empathy can hold . β\nMunich has become the gateway into Germany for asylum-seekers , and ground zero of Willkommenskultur . On Saturday , as a large group of weary asylum-seekers arrived in Munich β s Hauptbahnhof , or main train station , people gathered to clap . β Thank you , thank you , β said one man , holding a toddler in his arms .\nThe migrants are shuttled to an unofficial reception center that is staffed , at any given time , with anywhere from 30 to 200 volunteers . Many of them are men and women who have taken vacation time to be here and offer what they can , from organizing the mounting bags of food and clothes to translating in Arabic . One woman is turned away from volunteering , told it would be unfair to the others who have placed their names on waiting lists . Another man tries to give the group cash , twice , but they reject it .\nThe images of Alan Kurdi , the dead Syrian boy washed ashore , of migrants stranded in Hungary after borders were shut , and of others suffocated in the back of a truck in Austria have washed away apathy and passive observation here . But the shock was felt viscerally , touching a historic nerve .\nIt is in Germany where a small but vicious group has led the Continent β s most violent backlash to refugees , including arson attacks on refugee centers and demonstrations for the past year by the `` anti-Islamization '' group Pegida . Such protest has been louder in eastern Germany , with high unemployment rates and less exposure to foreigners . In big cities like Munich , which has a thriving community of Turks , Albanians , and Greeks , foreigners are often seen as a source of cultural enrichment β not as burdens on schools and health systems or as sources of cultural and religious clashes .\nBut hate-fueled actions have not been limited enough to explain them away as a geographical phenomenon . And Germans across the country have been horrified as they have stirred disturbing memories of the right-wing rise of Hitler , especially in Munich , the birthplace of national socialism .\nGerman political observers say it would be wrong to view the rush of volunteerism as an act of redemption . It is rather a counter-backlash . β When I saw the images of [ anti-refugee sentiment ] , I felt like people had fallen out of time , using arguments and terms and sentences which in my view reflect the ones I know from the 1920s and '30s , β says Magnus Brechtken , deputy director of the Institute of Contemporary History in Munich .\nThe Willkommenskultur , then , is a defense of Germany of the 21st century .\nOr as Willbold-Vajagic in Elchingen puts it : β Now we have the chance to say , β We are Germany . We are welcoming . β β\nEven a decade ago , Germany wasn β t able to so easily say that . When waves of southern Europeans and Turks came to the country in the '50s and '60s , they were called β guest workers β because Germany expected them to go home . In the '90s , when waves of refuges came in after the Iron Curtain fell and the Balkan wars pushed so many out , the government β s position β bluntly stated by Chancellor Helmut Kohl β was that Germany is β not an immigrant country . β\nToday he would be wrong to say the same . Last year the Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development ( OECD ) released figures showing that Germany had surpassed all countries except the US to become the world β s No . 2 recipient of immigrants .\nIt has gotten here through both learned experience and pragmatics . Mr. Funke says the Willkommenskultur is not simply a reaction to β bad memories β but an authentic expression built over the decades . After the silence surrounding Nazi atrocity in the '50s , the country came to terms with what it actually meant to reject β others. β It learned from failing to integrate β guest workers. β And it learned from the riots against refugees that flared in the '90s . From that history it was able to β start a dialogue β with Islam a decade ago and today recognizes its role as a diverse nation .\nPerhaps more important , it also recognizes that its rapidly aging society needs those immigrants .\nβ The public opinion has been for a long time that additional immigrants are part of the strategy to tackle Germany β s aging problem , β says Thomas Liebig , senior administrator at the OECD 's international migration division .\nGermany has liberalized its laws for foreign workers and been trying to woo high-skilled ones from as far as China . Now some see hope in refugees , too , especially high-skilled Syrian refugees . Chambers of commerce have pushed for Germany to allow businesses to more easily hire them β underlining Germany β s views that taking people in can be a boon , not a burden .\nAnd in many towns low-skilled workers are in demand as well , the kind of jobs that Mr. Liebig says β people don β t move for . β\nChristoph Karmann , who connects refugees to apprentices for the Chamber of Trade and Crafts for Munich and Upper Bavaria , says that in 2014 , 4,700 apprenticeship positions were vacant in Bavaria β s small trades . Jobs particularly in demand include butchers , bakers , and construction workers . Through this year they β ve filled 130 positions with young refugees from Syria , Afghanistan , and Iraq .\nIt is this economic security that has turned Germany into Europe β s leader today . And many Germans are facing the migrant rush with the optimism and confidence that befits a superpower nation .\nMathias Wendeborn closes the windows of his cheerful pediatrician practice in a wealthy community of Munich at mid-day and zips off to the gates of the city β s largest refugee center . Here he has founded the nongovernmental organization Refudocs , after pushing for two years for a full-time β refugee medical practice β founded on more than idealism and goodwill . It needed a β concept , β he says : a professional , paying structure that would stand amid ebbing emotions .\nSara Miller Llana Mathias Wendeborn ( c. ) , a pediatrician who founded Refudocs , sees his first patient of the day , the child of newly arrived asylum seekers in Munich . A translator ( far l. ) helps .\nDr. Wendenborn says the will to create this management structure was not there at first . The local government wanted to close its eyes to the problem in hopes it would go away , he says . It did not .\nBefore Refudocs was running , asylum-seekers here received care when doctors were available β a system that became unworkable amid mounting pressure on service providers across the country . Today some 70 doctors , many retired , share shifts , paid for by the state government , to keep the practice regularly humming .\nβ Everyone wants to help for a few weeks . But in the long-term that is not enough , β Wendeborn says . β This problem will accompany us for years , so we must have good standards . β\nWendenborn is convinced Germany will cope , just as his practice is amid record arrivals , most of them through Munich . β Seven thousand people can arrive in the Hauptbahnhof at one moment and it β s not a problem now , β he says . β Now they have a concept . β\nAnd many are convinced Germany soon will as well . β We are one of the richest countries in the world , why not ? β says Wendeborn β s colleague Hilda Hadorn , who on this day alone has provided therapy to mothers who have been forced to leave their children behind in Turkey and entire families exhausted and scarred from an interminable trek . β Why not ? β\nBut everyone is clear that Germany can β t do it alone , and now eyes are turning to Brussels to see how it responds to Germany β s decision to close its doors temporarily . Will that spur more support for a quota system to redistribute refugees across the EU , seen here as necessary to keeping support for refugees robust ?\nAt the Hauptbahnhof on a recent weekday morning , four trains of asylum-seekers have arrived in the span of an hour . Gunther Wohrle , an engineer , has come by on his bike as he commutes to work .\nβ The ideal is to make this a win-win situation , β he says . β They need us , and we need them . β\nBut he admits to a certain skepticism about how to make it work without getting overwhelmed . β One million people , that is a lot of people , β he says of the numbers that could arrive in Germany this year alone .\nThose questions loom large in the communities on the front lines . On a recent day , at the β Friends β center in Elchingen , it is clear that camaraderie has bloomed here . Willbold-Vajagic easily lists off the names of wives and children β s ages of the refugees that now call Bavaria home . She says that among her hardest personal challenge so far was Ramadan this summer . Not because she fasted , but because β their faces were white , and we saw them getting thinner and thinner , and it was so hot , β she says . β It was terrible . β\nAmar Abo Udeh , from Daraa in Syria and who arrived in Elchingen a year and a half ago , laughs .\nFasting during Ramadan isn β t hard , he says . But such care is one reason that migrants trekking across Europe , by foot or rail , are chanting , β Germany , Germany , Germany. β β In Daraa , every day you wake up and you don β t know if you will go to sleep , β he says .\nSara Miller Llana Mayor Joachim Eisenkolb ( l. ) has coffee with two Syrian refugees who say they feel at home in the tiny Bavarian village of Elchingen .\nMayor Joachim Eisenkolb , who fully supports the integration work of the β Friends , β says this town of 9,000 could see 150 more arrivals by the end of the year , or double the current number . When he heard the chancellor β s welcome of refugees , he admits he felt fear . β Until now , we β ve been able to soak up these refugees like a sponge , β he says . β But now the sponge is full . β\nHis skepticism is not just a political equation . The volunteers here say they can β t cope with more numbers either . Everything takes time , space , and organization , including things one hardly thinks of , like having to bring in local police officers to give lessons on riding bikes on Germany β s roadways .\nGet the Monitor Stories you care about delivered to your inbox . By signing up , you agree to our Privacy Policy\nFor now the mayor is looking to the past to reassure the community that they can deal with the present . β In my head , I know we can do this , β says Mayor Eisenkolb . `` I try to give people the confidence that we have faced the same challenges before , in harder times , and we can manage this . β
|
allsides-corpus-332
|
BUDAPEST , Hungary ( AP ) β Hungary on Tuesday declared a state of emergency in two of its southeastern counties in response to the migration crisis , a move that paves the way to deploy the army to the border with Serbia to stop the flow of migrants that has been entering the country .\nThe state of emergency gives authorities greater powers to deal with the crisis , allowing them to shut down roads and limit the working of public institutions . It also speeds up court processes for asylum-seekers .\nTechnically , parliament must still approve the deployment of the military . However , Associated Press reporters at the border have already spotted heavily armed military personnel with vehicles and dogs at the border in recent days .\nThe announcement on the state of emergency comes as tougher laws also came into effect on Tuesday aimed at preventing asylum-seekers from entering the country . The legislation makes it a crime to try to breach a razor-wire fence along the border with Serbia and also includes longer prison terms for convicted human traffickers .\nHungarian officials closed two of seven border crossings with Serbia Tuesday morning . The night before , officials deployed a boxcar covered with razor wire to close a key border crossing along a railroad track that had been the main entry point for migrants .\nThere were chaotic scenes at the main border crossing near Roszke , Hungary , as the Hungarians opened a small temporary office to process people on the edge of no man β s land and crowds tried to squeeze inside . A first group of about 20 managed to get in , but thousands remained outside .\nA group of migrants also blocked the main highway connecting Serbia and Hungary , saying they will refuse food and water until they are allowed to cross into Hungary . The sit-in protest is happening on the no man β s land between Roszke and Horgos , Serbia , which is the main border crossing between the two countries .\nThose who were lucky enough to make it into Hungary the day before were boarding buses . One Hungarian police officer said they were being sent directly to Austria .\nPeople had dashed to make it into the country in recent days , hoping to reach Western Europe before it was too late . A record 9,380 migrants entered Hungary on Monday , beating the previous record of 5,809 set just a day earlier .\nSome 200,000 migrants have entered Hungary so far in 2015 , nearly all by walking across the southern border with Serbia . Almost all , however , simply transit Hungary on their way to Germany or other Western European nations .\nUnder the new laws , most migrants entering the country from Serbia can be turned away because that country is considered safe and could theoretically provide them asylum .\nThe new law also makes it a crime to damage the 4-meter ( 13-foot ) razor-wire fence that Hungary has built on the 110-mile ( 175-kilometer ) border with Serbia , giving police the power to detain anyone trying to breach it .\nThe state of emergency allows the government to mobilize the army β pending parliamentary approval next week β to help police with border control , and forces courts to prioritize cases involving migrants caught entering Hungary illegally . Police can enter and search homes where migrants who entered Hungary illegally are believed to be hiding .\nGermany β s interior minister , Thomas de Maiziere , on Tuesday said he supports the idea of cutting European Union funding to countries that refuse to share the burden of hosting refugees .\nSeveral EU countries , particularly in the former Eastern bloc , have rejected calls from Germany and the EU β s executive Commission for mandatory quotas to spread refugees out among the 28-nation bloc .\nDe Maiziere told ZDF television that there needs to be discussion of how to exert pressure and that the countries rejecting quotas often receive significant amounts of EU funding .\nHe said that Commission chief Jean-Claude Juncker has suggested β β and I find that right β β that β we should talk about ( them ) getting less money from the structural funds . β
|
allsides-corpus-333
|
Boris Johnson faces a fresh pummeling in the Commons today as he tries to win support for a snap General Election .\nA furious Mr Johnson last night called for Britain to go to the polls , handing the future of Brexit back to the public after Remainers seized control of Parliament in a bid to rule out No Deal .\nThe Prime Minister had lost a crunch vote , giving a rebel alliance control of Commons business with the aim of passing a law to stop the UK crashing out of the EU at the end of October , by an unexpectedly large margin of 328 to 301 .\nMr Johnson responded seconds later by declaring he will call a snap election , almost certainly on October 15 , however he faces an uphill battle to get his plan through the Commons tonight , as the law dictates that two-thirds of MPs must agree to hold an early election .\nDespite spending years demanding a poll , Jeremy Corbyn said last night that the No Deal legislation must be passed before a snap poll can happen .\nDescribed as the 'mother of all U-turns ' by a Government source , the change of heart was slammed by members of his own party , with Labour MP John Mann accusing him of 'splitting on the working class ' by blocking Brexit .\nSenior Labour sources said Mr Johnson would be left to 'stew in his own juices ' while they decided whether or not to back holding an election . In return , Tories accused Labour of 'running scared ' of the electorate .\nFurious Boris Johnson ( pictured , last night in the Commons ) has called for a snap election after rebel MPs seized control of the house by 328 to 301\nLabour leader Jeremy Corbyn is pictured in the Commons last night after rebel MPs seized control of the house , infuriating the Prime Minister\nYesterday 's victory for pro-EU MPs came despite Mr Johnson threatening to end the careers of Tories who joined the revolt by deselecting them .\nWHAT HAPPENS TODAY ? HOW UK COULD GO TO THE POLLS ON OCT 15 A furious Boris Johnson will today table a Commons motion calling for an early General Election . If only getting it passed was so easy . Mr Johnson 's proposal must be backed by two-thirds of MPs , a requirement under the Fixed-Term Parliaments Act to stop Prime Ministers skewing the system by calling elections when their opponents are weak . The motion likely to be debated and voted on in the Commons this evening . But Jeremy Corbyn says Labour will not support it β hobbling its chances of success β unless a no-deal Brexit is already taken off the table . Labour fear a 'trap ' whereby Mr Johnson , who can still decide the exact timings of an election after winning the ability to call one , changes the proposed date from October 15 to after October 31 , dissolving Parliament and stopping MPs preventing No Deal from happening . Before any of this can happen , MPs will this afternoon debate taking No Deal off the table β the move made possible by Mr Johnson 's lost vote last night . If passed , the catchily titled European Union ( Withdrawal ) ( No . 6 ) Bill 2019 would force the Government to ask the EU to delay Brexit until January 31 2020 unless the Commons has agreed a deal by October 19 . No Deal would be off the table , for now . But the Bill would still need to clear all stages in the Commons and the Lords to become law β a process that should take weeks and at the minimum would take days . It means when Mr Johnson 's election motion is debated later in the day , No Deal will still be on the table β and barring a change of heart from Labour it is likely to fail . Other options include the government calling a motion of no confidence in itself , or attempting to pass a law that declares the next election must be on a certain date . That would only need support of a majority of MPs . Either way we would be in uncharted territory .\nSome 21 Conservatives - including eight former Cabinet ministers - took part in the mutiny and will now be stripped of the Tory whip , leaving Mr Johnson running a minority government .\nIt was the first vote of Mr Johnson 's premiership . 'Not a good start , Boris ! ' shouted one Labour MP as the result came in .\nSenior figures such as Ken Clarke and Philip Hammond face being brutally ejected from the party in what one government source described as a 'bloodbath ' .\nThat will leave the government an eye-watering 43 MPs short of a majority , and completely unable to control the House . Speaking after the result , Mr Johnson said Parliament was 'on the brink of wrecking ' the Brexit negotiations .\n'The people are going to have to choose , ' he said last night . ' I can confirm tonight we are tabling a motion under the Fixed Term Parliaments Act . '\nThe scale of the Tory rebellion was larger than many had expected at Westminster , with the 'aggressive ' government tactics failing to whittle down numbers .\nThe combative attitude of Commons Leader Jacob Rees-Mogg during the debate on the business motion seemed to infuriate many who were wavering .\nThe roll call of rebels included ex-Chancellor Mr Hammond , who has already vowed to fight efforts to deselect him , as well as former ministers Justine Greening and Alistair Burt - who both pre-empted their punishments earlier by announcing they would be standing down at the election .\nOther Cabinet veterans were Sir Oliver Letwin , Dominic Grieve , Mr Clarke , Greg Clark , Rory Stewart , and Caroline Nokes . Sir Nicholas Soames , grandson of Winston Churchill , also rebelled .\nA Downing Street spokesman said last night : 'The Chief Whip is speaking with those Tory MPs who did not vote with the Government this evening . They will have the whip removed . '\nA rebel source said No10 was 'removing the whip from two former chancellors , a former lord chancellor and Winston Churchill 's grandson ' .\n'What has has happened to the Conservative Party ? ' they added .\nIt was a frustrating session for Prime Minister Boris Johnson last night , as the Prime Minister was left furious while his predecessor Theresa May watched on from the backbenches\nPictured are the Tory rebels who are now facing the sack after voting against Boris Johnson . ( Left to right top row ) David Gauke , Alistair Burt , Stephen Hammond , Philip Hammond , Margot James , Ken Clarke and Caroline Nokes . ( Left to right middle row ) Rory Stewart , Anne Milton , Richard Harrington , Guto Bebb , Antoinette Sandbach , Sam Gyimah and Justine Greening . ( Left to right bottom row ) Richard Benyon , Steve Brine , Greg Clark , Dominic Grieve , Ed Vaizey , Nicholas Soames and Oliver Letwin\nThe 21 Tory rebels who are now facing the sack Philip Hammond Ex-Chancellor and bete noir of Brexiteers ( pictured , right ) . Points out he voted for the Withdrawal Agreement three times . Constituency : Runnymede . Leave vote : 50 per cent Dominic Grieve Second referendum supporter who says he wants to 'save the Tory party ' from Mr Johnson . A QC , he has been legal brains behind much of opposition to No Deal . Constituency : Beaconsfield . Leave vote : 49 per cent Kenneth Clarke Tory big beast , former Chancellor and , at 79 , the 'Father of the House of Commons ' . Has said he would vote to bring down Tory government to stop No Deal . Constituency : Rushcliffe . Leave vote : 41 per cent Sir Oliver Letwin Gaffe-prone MP who was David Cameron 's policy chief . Has argued that to stop No Deal MPs would have to take over the role of the government . Constituency : West Dorset . Leave vote : 51 per cent David Gauke Ex-Justice Secretary and leader of the 'Gaukeward Squad ' of rebels ( right ) . Accused the PM of a 'purge ' for threatening to deselect rebels and of trying to turn the Conservatives into the Brexit Party . Constituency : South West Hertfordshire . Leave vote : 46 per cent Rory Stewart Former Development Secretary who ran an enthusiastic , if futile , leadership bid . Tory Remainer pin-up . Constituency : Penrith and the Border.Leave vote : 55 per cent Sir Nicholas Soames Sir Winston Churchill 's grandson ( pictured , right ) . Compared Brexiteers to a 'growling Alsatian that must be kicked really hard in the balls ' . Constituency : Mid Sussex . Leave vote : 46 per cent Antoinette Sandbach The 6ft 4in MP longstanding rebel . Branded PM 'staggeringly hypocritical ' for threatening to deselect rebels . Constituency : Eddisbury . Leave vote : 52 per cent Alistair Burt Former Foreign Office minister who quit government in March after joining anti-No Deal rebels . Refused to rule out standing against Tories . Constituency : North East Bedfordshire . Leave vote : 53 per cent Sam Gyimah Quit as science minister in protest at Mrs May 's 'naive ' deal and backed a second referendum . Constituency : East Surrey . Leave vote : 54 per cent Caroline Nokes Ex-immigration minister who said yesterday her constituents 'mean a whole lot more to me than keeping the Conservative whip ' . Constituency : Romsey . Leave vote : 46 per cent Margot James Self-made millionaire who resigned as culture minister after rebelling against Mrs May to stop No Deal ( pictured , right ) . Constituency : Stourbridge . Leave vote : 64 per cent Guto Bebb Ex-defence minister who quit to stop No Deal . Is standing down at the election . Constituency : Aberconwy . Leave vote : 52 per cent Richard Harrington Ex-business minister . Quit this year to stop No Deal and last week announced he would stand down as a Tory MP at the election . Constituency : Watford . Leave vote : 51 per cent Justine Greening Ex-Education Secretary who will stand down at the next election ( pictured , right ) . Constituency : Putney . Leave vote : 28 per cent Anne Milton Spiky-haired Guildford MP . The rebels ' unofficial whip . Constituency : Guildford . Leave vote : 41 per cent Greg Clark Ex-member of May 's Cabinet who once told Business leaders 'we ca n't have No Deal ' . Constituency : Tunbridge Wells . Leave vote : 45 per cent Stephen Hammond Ex-Transport minister ( right ) and MP for a seat under threat from Lib Dems . Constituency : Wimbledon . Leave vote : 29 per cent Ed Vaizey A friend of David Cameron 's sacked as Arts Minister by Mrs May . Constituency : Wantage . Leave vote : 46 per cent Steve Brine Low-key ex-public health minister who quit government in March . Constituency : Winchester . Leave vote : 40 per cent Richard Benyon Former Army lieutenant who served in Northern Ireland and the Far East and an ex-agriculture minister . Constituency : Newbury . Leave vote : 48 per cent\nThe bitter Tory civil war exploded after frantic developments yesterday , which saw :\nFormer Tory minister Phillip Lee dramatically stripped the government 's majority by crossing the floor of the chamber to defect to the Lib Dems while Mr Johnson was speaking ;\nMr Johnson was embroiled in a bitter clash with Mr Hammond during 'peace talks ' at No10 during which he accused him of trying to 'hand power over to a Junta that includes Jeremy Corbyn ' ;\nNigel Farage said there will be no Brexit pact with the Tories unless Mr Johnson explicitly adopts No Deal as his policy ;\nOpposition MPs applauded Speaker John Bercow as he ridiculed the Prime Minister 'do or die ' pledge to secure Brexit by October 31 ;\nDowning Street delayed the planned election by a day after being warned that October 14 clashed with a Jewish holiday ;\nBrexiteer peers tabled 90 amendments to the rebel Bill as they geared up to try and filibuster when it reaches the Upper House later this week ;\nAfter the result was declaring in a hushed Commons chamber last night , a clearly angry PM rose to his feet to condemn the decision .\n'Let there be no doubt about the consequences of this vote tonight , ' he said .\n'It means that parliament is on the brink of wrecking any deal we might be able to strike in Brussels .\n'Because tomorrow 's Bill would hand control of the negotiations to the EU . And that would mean more dither , more delay , more confusion .\n'And it would mean that the EU themselves would be able decide how long to keep this country In the EU .\nAnd since I refuse to go along with that plan , we are going to have to make a choice .\n' I do n't want an election . The public do n't want an election . But if the House votes for this Bill tomorrow , the public will have to choose who goes to Brussels on Oct 17 to sort this out and take this country forward . '\nMr Corbyn said : 'He wants to table a motion for a general election , fine .\n'Get the Bill through first in order to take no deal off the table . '\nDame Margaret Hodge and his shadow foreign secretary Emily Thornberry appeared to back his position .\nDame Margaret said : ' I will not be supporting a snap general election because it is nothing more than a trap set by the most untrustworthy PM in living memory .\n'This is just part of Johnson 's ploy to get a No Deal Brexit over the line regardless of the disastrous consequences . We must reject it . '\nEmily Thornberry then added : 'There 's not going to be a general election tomorrow , because we 're not going to vote for it . '\nBut Mr Mann was outraged , tweeting : 'Oh these clever people . Let 's spit on the working class and a majority of the electorate . Stop brexit .\n'Then ask them to vote us into power . We are dealing with people who do n't respect the views of the people . '\nEarlier , sources close to shadow Brexit secretary Keir Starmer said the party was looking at 'mechanisms ' that could bind the PM to a specific election date .\nChallenged during the debate in the Commons to say he will back an election , Mr Corbyn had again refused to give a straight answer .\n'We are ready for a general election , we are ready to take on this Government and ready to win a General Election to end austerity and poverty across the country , ' he said .\nIn an extraordinary interview , shadow foreign secretary Emily Thornberry even boasted about blocking a poll .\n' I 'm not sure . We might vote against , we might abstain . It does n't matter , ' she said .\nDuring another day of high drama in Westminster , former minister Phillip Lee crossed the floor in the Commons and joined the Lib Dems .\nAs the PM was struggling to defend his Brexit stance in the chamber , Dr Lee walked away from his colleagues and went to sit with Jo Swinson 's pro-EU party .\nKicking off the debate in Parliament yesterday , former Cabinet minister Sir Oliver Letwin insisted that the 'threat ' of No Deal was not a 'credible negotiating strategy ' .\nHe said it was 'decision time ' for MPs and they had to take their 'last chance ' to stop the UK from crashing out .\n'Over the last six weeks the Government has not produced a single indication of any viable proposal to replace the backstop by any alternative likely to prove acceptable to the EU , ' Sir Oliver said .\n'The likelihood of the Government reaching a deal at the council meeting on October 17 and 18 on the terms the Government itself has set is accordingly slight . '\nHe warned this was the last week Parliament will have to block a no-deal exit on October 31 , noting : 'It 's decision time .\n'If MPs across the House want to prevent a no-deal exit on October 31 they will have the opportunity to do so if , but only if , they vote for this motion this evening . '\nBut Commons leader Jacob Rees-Mogg barely bothered to disguise his anger as he took to the despatch box , saying the business motion tonight was a 'subversion of democracy ' .\nHe also swiped viciously at the Speaker for bending procedures to permit the move .\nMr Bercow was applauded by the House as he boasted about bending Commons rules to trigger a crunch vote .\nAmid fury from Eurosceptics , he insisted he would keep 'facilitating the House of Commons ' .\nIn a reference to Mr Johnson 's solemn 'do or die ' pledge to secure Brexit by Halloween , he said :\n' I 've done it , I am doing it , I will continue to do it to the best of my ability without fear or favour - to coin a phrase , come what may , do or die . '\nIn a statement yesterday , Dr Lee said the 'party I joined in 1992 is not the party I am leaving today ' .\n'This Conservative government is aggressively pursuing a damaging Brexit in unprincipled ways , ' he said .\nLosing his overall majority is a symbolic blow to the PM , although in reality the Brexit issue has been splitting parties to such an extent that it will not make a big difference to the challenges he faces .\nHowever , Mr Johnson was defiant as he addressed MPs immediately after the extraordinary scenes this afternoon .\nAttacking Remainer plans to seize control of the Commons and pass legislation ruling out No Deal , Mr Johnson said : 'It is Jeremy Corbyn 's surrender bill . '\nIn a stinging barb about the concessions to Brussels he added : 'They would be able to keep us in the EU for as long as they like and on their terms . '\nMr Johnson stressed that there will be 'no further pointless delay ' to Brexit . 'Enough is enough . The country wants this done and they want the referendum respected , ' he said .\n'We are negotiating a deal and though I am confident of getting a deal , we will leave by October 31 in all circumstances . '\nPrior to the defection the PM had an effective majority of just one .\nDr Lee switching sides made it a minority government - although the premier can also rely on the support of Charlie Elphicke , who is currently suspended from the Tory whip .\nBut the axing of another 21 MPs who rebelled takes the government a long way into the red .\nPrior to the introduction of the Fixed Term Parliaments Act in 2011 , it would have been impossible for a government to survive in such circumstances .\nBut Mr Johnson 's problem is that Remainers want to wound him , but fear allowing an election would give him an opportunity to force No Deal .\nEarlier , the PM met senior rebels including Mr Hammond and Mr Gauke ahead of the crucial vote .\nBut the discussion quickly descended into acrimony , with government sources accusing Mr Hammond of behaving 'disrespectfully ' and 'chuntering ' .\nThe premier accused the former chancellor during the encounter of 'handing power to a Junta including Jeremy Corbyn ' by backing the anti-No Deal legislation .\nLib Dem leader Jo Swinson gloated about the new addition to her ranks . 'Welcome @ DrPhillipLeeMP - you have joined us at the most crucial time .\n' I look forward to working with you to prevent a disastrous Brexit , and to fight for a fairer , more equal society , ' she wrote on Twitter .\nIn a challenge to the PM , Mr Hammond was reselected in Runnymede and Weybridge by executive members of the Conservative Association at a private meeting on Monday night .\nEarlier today he slammed the government 's 'aggressive ' tactics , saying the PM will have the 'fight of a lifetime ' if he tries to deselect him .\nMr Bercow ridiculed Mr Johnson 's 'do or die ' pledge to deliver Brexit by October 31 as he gave a favourable ruling to the Remainer rebels\n' I am going to support the Bill ... I think we have the numbers , ' he told BBC Radio 4 's Today programme .\nHe also launched an excoriating attack on maverick No10 Brexit chief Dominic Cummings .\n'This is my party , I am going to defend my party against people who are at the heart of this government who care nothing about the future of the Conservative party , ' he said .\nAllies of the PM said the rest of the group were 'civil ' and 'respectful ' during the meeting with the PM , but Mr Hammond 'interrupted ' and 'chuntered ' .\nMr Johnson is said to have made very clear that he 'would not tolerate ' the Bill . Rebels have accused Mr Johnson of using the election to try and 'purge ' Tory opponents of No Deal and turn the party into a Eurosceptic vehicle .\nWork and Pensions Secretary Amber Rudd yesterday warned against taking action against 'very valued colleagues who made a very different choice ' .\n'We should consider carefully the consequences of dividing the party . But I do support the PM in his commitmentβ¦ to get a deal , ' she told reporters outside her London home .\nTo take effect the anti-No Deal legislation must clear all its Parliamentary stages and receive Royal Assent before the Houses prorogue for the party conference break - which is due to happen as early as next Monday .\nIn his appearance in the chamber this afternoon , Mr Johnson conceded for the first time that he would be obliged to obey the law if it is passed .\nCorbyn 'running scared ' of a general election Jeremy Corbyn was accused of running scared of a general election last night after Labour suggested it would block one unless a No Deal Brexit had been ruled out . The Labour leader insisted yesterday that he wanted a general election to end austerity . But his party said they would sanction this only if a parliamentary mechanism could be found to prevent a No Deal Brexit . Mr Corbyn indicated Labour would not vote for an election unless a bill to block No Deal had already been passed . Foreign Secretary Dominic Raab said it would be the 'mother of all U-turns ' if the Labour leader decided not to support an election in the vote , expected today . And Jacob Rees-Mogg , the Leader of the House , said opposition MPs were 'white with fear ' that an election could lead to Mr Corbyn in No 10 . Labour MPs warned their leader not to fall for a 'trap election ' which would still give Mr Johnson the chance to leave the EU without a deal . They are concerned that Mr Johnson will end up reneging on his promise to hold the vote on October 15 , and would instead move it until after October 31 β denying Parliament the opportunity of preventing No Deal . It has been claimed that Mr Johnson could respond to a defeat on a motion under the Fixed-term Parliaments Act simply by introducing a one-line bill which stated that , notwithstanding the Act , a general election will be held on October 15 . That would need only a simple majority to pass , not a two-thirds one .\n'We will of course uphold the constitution and obey the law , ' he said .\nMs Greening confirmed today that she would not stand for re-election in Putney . 'It 's very clear to me that my concerns about the Conservative party becoming the Brexit party , in effect , have come to pass , ' she told Today .\n'So my decision is that if I really want to make a difference on opportunity and social mobility , I need to do that outside parliament . '\nMr Hammond rejected the idea Downing Street could prevent him from standing as a Tory at the next election .\n' I do n't believe they do and there would certainly be the fight of a lifetime if they tried to , ' he said .\nAsked whether he would be prepared to take such a fight to the courts , he said : 'Possibly . A lot of my colleagues have come under immense pressure . Some have responded to that by saying 'enough , I 'm going ' .\n'That is not going to be my approach . This is my party . I have been a member of this party for 45 years . '\nFormer attorney general Dominic Grieve said : ' I simply do not see the Conservative Party surviving in its current form if we continue behaving like this towards each other .\n'This is now becoming a heavily ideological party being led in a way I do n't identify as being conservative at all . '\nThe primary aim of the so-called European Union ( Withdrawal ) ( No.6 ) Bill 2019 is to stop the UK leaving the EU without a deal on October 31 .\nBut it goes much further and demands the PM ask the EU for a Brexit delay to January 31 2020 in the event Britain and Brussels are unable to agree a new deal at an EU Council meeting on October 17 .\nThe Bill states that if the EU does agree to the request for an extension the PM must immediately accept the offer .\nIf the EU propose a different extension date the PM must accept it within two days - unless it is rejected by the House of Commons .\nThe Bill does say that the UK can leave the bloc without a deal but only if MPs explicitly vote in favour of such an outcome .\nPictured : Boris Johnson speaks with arch-Brexiteer Jacob Rees-Mogg in the Commons last night , when the government suffered a blow to their agenda\nThe government last night lost a vote in Westminster which handed control of the House of Commons to an alliance of rebel MPs , leading to calls for a general election from Boris\nThe victory for pro-EU MPs - by a big margin of 328 to 301 - came despite Mr Johnson threatening to end the careers of Tories who joined the revolt by deselecting them\nSajid Javid ( left ) , Boris Johnson ( centre ) , and Dominic Raab ( right ) appeared glum-faced as they left the Commons last night following a defeat for the government\nFormer Prime Minister Theresa was spotted smiling as she left Parliament following a defeat for her successor , Boris Johnson , last night\nJeremy Hunt is pictured , left , leaving the Commons after last night 's vote as Rory Stewart , right , headed home from Parliament after attending the GQ Men of the Year Awards earlier in the evening\nNoisy pro-EU protests were taking place outside the Houses of Parliament as the political drama unfolded last night\nProtesters are pictured outside Parliament last night as Boris Johnson suffered defeat in the Commons and rebel MPs took control in Westminster\nDay the PM lost his majority : Red face for Boris as MP defects as he delivers statement\nTory MP Phillip Lee crossed the floor of the House to join the Liberal Democrats in dramatic fashion yesterday , wiping out Boris Johnson 's Commons majority .\nThe shock move β which Downing Street had no advance warning of β happened just hours before the Government lost the crunch Brexit vote by 328-301 .\nBefore Dr Lee 's defection , Mr Johnson only had a working majority of one in the Commons thanks to his deal with the DUP . At a stroke , Dr Lee 's decision turned the Prime Minister 's administration into a minority government of minus one .\nDr Lee , MP for Bracknell , crossed the floor as Mr Johnson delivered a statement to MPs in the wake of the G7 summit yesterday\nLib Dem leader Jo Swinson ( left ) looked delighted as she sat alongside Phillip Lee ( right ) after he defected yesterday\nJacob Rees-Mogg takes a lie down in the Commons last night , as Anna Turley MP slammed him for 'the physical embodiment of arrogance , entitlement , disrespect and contempt for our parliament '\nThe defection came just as Mr Johnson prepared to deliver a statement to MPs on the G7 summit , and hours before an alliance of Tory and Opposition MPs attempted to seize control of the Commons ' order paper to prevent a No Deal Brexit .\nFarage says PM must vow 'clean break ' Brexit Nigel Farage today held out the prospect that the Brexit Party could line up behind Boris Johnson in an election - but only if he vows to deliver a 'clean break ' from the EU . The MEP said he was ready to put 'country before party ' and 'help in any way we can ' if a snap poll is triggered . But he warned that the PM seemed 'intent on reheating Theresa May 's Withdrawal Agreement ' and that meant there was no chance of a pact . The intervention came after Mr Johnson pledged to call an election for October 14 if Remainers win a crunch vote last night aiming to block No Deal . The PM said the move would 'chop the legs off ' the goverment 's negotiating strategy , and warned he will never ask Brussels for an extension to the Halloween deadline . But Tory success in a poll could rely on Mr Farage 's Brexit Party not splitting the Eurosceptic vote in key marginal seats .\nThe former justice minister , a prominent supporter of a second EU referendum , said the Government was 'aggressively pursuing a damaging Brexit in unprincipled ways ' .\n'It is putting lives and livelihoods at risk unnecessarily and it is wantonly endangering the integrity of the UK , ' he said in a statement .\nDr Lee , a qualified doctor , also said his decision was made after Commons Leader Jacob Rees-Mogg behaved 'disgrace-fully ' to a fellow doctor during a radio-phone row over whether anyone might die as a result of a No Deal Brexit .\nIn his resignation letter to the Prime Minister , Dr Lee claimed Brexit had 'helped to transform this once great party into something more akin to a narrow faction , where an individual 's 'conservatism ' is measured by how recklessly one wishes to leave the EU ' .\nDr Lee later hinted at further defections from the Tories , telling Sky News : ' I guess the elevation of Boris Johnson to the Prime Minister 's position has accelerated events .\n' I do n't think that everybody who 's currently siting as a Conservative is going to be sitting as a Conservative after the next election .\n'Whether they join the Liberal Democrats or not , it 's an individual decision but I really would n't be surprised if more come to this conclusion over the next few days . '\nIn his letter to the Prime Minister , Dr Lee also said the Tories had 'become infected by the twin diseases of English nationalism and populism ' .\nHe told BBC Radio 4 's PM the 'bullying ' of MPs opposed to No Deal showed the 'tone and culture ' of the Conservative Party had fundamentally changed , and he knew of other like-minded colleagues who were also considering their futures . Dr Lee 's decision to cross the floor was greeted with cheers on the opposition benches .\nFormer PM Theresa May positioned herself alongside Tory Remainer Ken Clarke for the statement yesterday and appeared to be enjoying Mr Johnson 's discomfort\nBut last night former Tory leader Iain Duncan-Smith criticised Dr Lee . 'It looked like [ Dr Lee ] should be joining RADA [ Royal Academy of Dramatic Art ] ... The whole thing was stage-managed , ' he said .\n'It 's pretty deceitful if you move from one party to the next , when the British people voted for you and you were supported by the Conservative Party , its money and its organisation . '\nThe MP 's defection wipes out the Tory-DUP majority , though suspended Dover MP Charlie Elphicke is expected to vote with the Government . It also brings the number of Lib Dem MPs to 15 after his fellow former Tory MP Sarah Wollaston joined the party last month .\nFormer ministers Justine Greening and Alistair Burt also said yesterday that they would not seek re-election as Conservatives in the next general election , expected in weeks .\nAnd Tory MP Keith Simpson said he was stepping aside , though said it was to do with his turning 70 , rather than Brexit . Announcing her decision to stand down as a Tory MP at the next election yesterday , Miss Greening , the former education secretary , said the Prime Minister was 'narrowing down ' the Tories ' appeal to the public .\nShe vowed to support a rebel bill tabled by Labour 's Hilary Benn to force Mr Johnson to seek an extension to the Brexit deadline .\nSecond referendum-backer Miss Greening said her fears that the Tory Party would morph into Nigel Farage 's Brexit Party had 'come to pass ' .\nThe Conservative Party rebel told the BBC Radio 4 Today programme that the Prime Minister was offering the country a 'lose-lose ' situation by threatening a general election .\nExplosion of loathing at No10 : From ex-Chancellor 's savage attack on Boris 's Brexit tactics to PM thumping Cabinet table , the incendiary row that led to Tory defeat\nIf Boris Johnson woke up yesterday thinking the prospect of an early election , combined with his threat to deselect Tory MPs who try to thwart his Brexit plans , would cow the rebels , he was swiftly disabused of the notion yesterday morning .\nAt 8.10am on Radio 4 's Today Programme , Philip Hammond β 22 years a Tory MP , a former defence and foreign secretary and until a few short weeks ago Chancellor of the Exchequer β was defiant .\nNot only would he vote for a Labour-backed Bill designed to stop No Deal and force Mr Johnson to ask for a three-month extension to Article 50 , but he believed the rebels had the numbers to force the controversial legislation through .\nTaking clear aim at Mr Johnson 's de facto chief of staff Dominic Cummings , he added : ' I am going to defend my party against incomers , entryists , who are trying to turn it from a broad church to narrow faction .\nBoris Johnson first PM to be defeated in first Commons vote in 236 years Last night , Tory rebels handed Boris Johnson a humiliating defeat , leading one MP to shout : 'Not a good start , Boris . ' He became the first Prime Minister to be defeated on his first Commons vote in 236 years . King George III dismissed the government of Lord North and Charles James Fox in , who had the support of MPs in 1783 . Controversially he appointed Pitt the Younger at the end of 1783 , as First Minister . The 24-year-old managed to form a government , but was unable to pass any legislation , in a situation that mirrors the conundrum faced by Mr Johnson in the present day . But unlike Mr Johnson , Pitt did not call for an election straight away , fearing a possible loss . Instead he waited in government , mobilised public opinion and eroded the opposition in the Commons by giving peerages to Fox 's MPs . Then he called for an election early the next year , in 1784 , and secured a dominant majority .\n'People who are at the heart of this Government , who are probably not even members of the Conservative Party , who care nothing about the future of the Conservative Party , I intend to defend my party against them . '\nLast night 's vote set the seal on a battle that raged around the Palace of Westminster yesterday on what , it is no exaggeration to say , was one of yet another of those extraordinary and exhausting political days .\nAt the start of the day , the number of Tories publicly committed to rebellion was in the single figures . If Downing Street could keep the numbers down , there was at least some hope of averting defeat .\nBoth in public and private , No 10 aides condemned a law they called a 'blueprint for legislative purgatory ' , which would cost taxpayers Β£1billion a month , which was 'very clearly in Brussels ' interests not in the British interest ' . One , invoking the kind of classical allusion enjoyed by Mr Johnson , called it 'the worst terms since Rome and the Carthaginians ' .\nThe Romans took Carthage , killed most of the inhabitants , sold the rest into slavery and destroyed the city . Just before 10.15am , around 15 rebels entered Downing Street .\nNobody was calling them peace talks , and by the end it was clear they had only served to expose the Brexit civil war tearing the Conservative Party apart .\nOne attendee described it as 'the most extraordinary meeting I have ever been in ' . The rebel group included former Chancellor Philip Hammond , former justice secretary David Gauke and ex-business secretary Greg Clark β as well as a raft of former junior ministers and senior backbenchers including Sir Nicholas Soames , the grandson of Sir Winston Churchill .\nThe meeting was held in the Cabinet room , around which many of the rebels had sat as ministers only weeks earlier .\nOn the Prime Minister 's left sat Work and Pensions Secretary Amber Rudd who has urged him not to pull the trigger on the rebels but to 'hold our party together ' .\nThe Prime Minister began by arguing that progress was being made with the EU , and the threat of No Deal was having a real impact on Brussels .\nRebels including ( left to right ) Stephen Hammond , Antionette Sandbach , Richard Benyon , Margot James and Nicholas Soames walked out of Downing Street after a tense discussion with Mr Johnson\nIf the Bill was to pass , he argued , it could result in a second referendum or even the revocation of Article 50 β the death of Brexit . And he made clear to the rebels that , yes , they really would lose the whip if they did not back down .\nFrom his seat in the corner , next to Mr Gauke and Michael Gove , Mr Hammond could n't hide his displeasure . In truth , he argued , No 10 did n't have a negotiating strategy or even team in place .\nThey were n't really trying to get a deal . Even if Mr Johnson could secure a last-ditch deal at the European Council on October 17 , there was n't time to pass the required legislation ahead of Brexit day on October 31 , he insisted .\nNo , Mr Johnson said , there was in fact time . What 's more , he said , there would also be time for the rebels to try again to stop No Deal after the Council .\nTory rebels including David Gauke ( left ) and Philip Hammond ( right ) looked grim-faced after leaving their talks with the PM yesterday . Sources said Mr Hammond had been 'disrespectful '\nBut Mr Hammond was n't listening . 'Hammond and Boris were just refusing to listen to one another . Hammond kept talking over him , tutting and shaking his head , ' one source said . 'Boris was doing the same . '\nAt one point the exasperated PM declared : 'You all just want to keep us in the EU . ' Hammond hit back : 'We voted for the deal three times . ' The row escalated .\nPM : ' I will not tolerate a Bill that hands over power to Corbyn . ' Hammond : 'We are handing over power to Parliament . ' PM : 'You are handing power over to a junta that includes Jeremy Corbyn . '\nHe added : 'Extension [ of Article 50 ] would be an extinction-level event for the Conservative Party . ' 'Their mutual loathing was very apparent , ' a source told me .\nDominic Cummings was not present throughout the meeting , but had spoken to a group of rebels waiting outside . One later accused him of 'hectoring ' them and starting a row , a claim denied by Government sources . ' I 've seen Dom argue and it was not a Dom argument ' .\nDominic Cummings ( pictured with Mr Johnson at Downing Street yesterday ) is believed to be masterminding the Brexit strategy\nHe did , though , make one short cameo appearance in the room , described as 'deliberate trolling ' of the rebels . 'Dom turned up just to needle Hammond . ' ( Insiders also say that while they were waiting for the meeting to start Mr Cummings had told the waiting rebel MPs : ' I do n't know who any of you are ! ' )\nOne hour and 25 minutes after the meeting began , Mr Johnson banged the table , urged the rebels to 'trust my position ' and the meeting was over . The PM concluded : ' I assume everyone is with me . ' It would quickly become clear they were not . Then the briefing war began . Government sources accused Mr Hammond of having mentioned EU 'legal advice ' in a discussion about the extension .\nHad he unwittingly revealed his connivance with the enemy in Brussels ? No , rebel sources insisted . A Hammond spokesman called the claim 'ridiculous and categorically untrue ' . He was simply citing the 'established view of the EU legal service ' .\nNo 10 was not convinced . Rebels accused Mr Johnson of offering an 'unconvincing ' account of how he would pass a deal and providing 'no convincing proof ' that a negotiation is even taking place .\nAs that meeting finished , another began in the parliamentary offices of Jeremy Corbyn where the Labour leader and other opposition parties agreed to back the Bill . No such clarity , however , on whether to back an election .\nDuring the morning and early afternoon , the number of confirmed rebels began to tick up . Former minister Sam Gyimah and Sir Nicholas both confirmed they would be voting against the Government . Yet some still had hope .\nAt lunchtime , Tory chief whip Mark Spencer told junior ministers that Labour Leavers could come to the rescue , with somewhere between three and ten prepared to vote with the Government .\nBut by the time the Commons began sitting at 2.30pm the number of publicly declared rebels was up to 15 and several more were still making up their minds . What was n't expected was Tory Phillip Lee 's public defection to the Lib Dems . When Mr Johnson stood up to make his Commons statement on the G7 , Dr Lee stood up and crossed the floor of the House to sit with Lib Dem leader Jo Swinson and at a stroke he erased Mr Johnson 's majority .\nTory MPs were deflated . Only when Mr Johnson baited Jeremy Corbyn with accusations of 'surrender ' did they cheer up .\nSir Oliver Letwin ( pictured standing right ) was surrounded by fellow Remainer rebels including Philip Hammond ( front left ) as he kicked off the debate last night , insisting that the 'threat ' of No Deal was not a 'credible negotiating strategy '\nIn the briefing for journalists afterwards , Mr Cummings popped up again , in the background , refusing to answer questions on whether he was a member of the Tory party . At a little after 6.30pm , it took barely a minute for leading rebel Sir Oliver Letwin to set out his unprecedented proposal to take control of the House away from the Government , and for the Speaker John Bercow to agree it should be discussed . The fix was on . The House was in uproar .\nAt one point , the Speaker openly mocked the Prime Minister by throwing a Brexit quote back in his face . To applause from Labour MPs he said he would 'facilitate ' the House of Commons 'come what may , do or die ' .\nMr Hammond was n't finished , though . Standing in central lobby with the vote only hours away , he spoke of his 'outrage ' that the party he has been a member of for 45 years was 'thinking of throwing me out ' .\n'Some of my colleagues have chosen to call it a day because they do n't like what 's going on . My approach is to stay and fight and I will fight for the party I joined and the party that I believe the Conservatives must be , a broad inclusive centre-Right party , for as long as I am able to do so , ' he said . Backing down ? Not a chance .
|
allsides-corpus-334
|
( CNN ) -- Did waterboarding and other coercive interrogation techniques that were used on al Qaeda detainees in CIA custody eventually lead to the Navy SEAL operation that killed Osama bin Laden in Pakistan early in the morning of May 2 , 2011 ?\nThe Senate Intelligence Committee report released Tuesday has a simple answer to that : Hell , no !\nAccording to the Senate report , the critical pieces of information that led to discovering the identity of the bin Laden courier , Ahmed al-Kuwaiti , ( Ahmed the Kuwaiti ) whose activities eventually pointed the CIA to bin Laden 's hiding place in Pakistan , were provided by an al-Qaeda detainee before he was subjected to CIA coercive interrogation , and was based also upon information that was provided by detainees that were held in the custody of foreign governments . ( The report is silent on the interesting question of whether any of these unnamed foreign governments obtained any of their information by using torture . )\nFurther critical information about the Kuwaiti was also provided by conventional intelligence techniques and was not elicited by the interrogations of any of the CIA detainees , according to the report .\nEven worse for the CIA -- which has consistently defended the supposed utility of the interrogation program , including in the hunt for bin Laden -- a number of CIA prisoners who were subjected to coercive interrogations consistently provided misleading information designed to wave away CIA interrogators from the bin Laden courier who would eventually prove to be the key to finding al Qaeda 's leader .\nThe Senate report provides the fullest accounting so far of the exact sequence of intelligence breaks that led the CIA to determine that the courier , the Kuwaiti , was likely to be living with bin Laden in Pakistan .\nThis reads more like a careful Agatha Christie detective story than a story about the efficacy of coercive interrogations , which some have characterized as torture .\nThe report points out that the courier was in touch with Khalid Sheikh Mohammed , the operational commander of the 9/11 attacks , and that it was SIGINT ( signals intelligence ) from phones and email traffic that made this link first in 2002 , well before any CIA detainees made such a connection .\nIndeed , in a fascinating footnote , the report makes the case that it was `` voice cuts '' of the courier that were first collected in 2002 that were matched eight years later to the Kuwaiti and were `` geolocated '' to an area of Pakistan in 2010 where he was traveling around . This was a crucial lead that helped prompt the CIA to examine the mysterious compound in Abbottabad , Pakistan , where bin Laden was hiding .\nIn 2002 , reports from four different detainees held by foreign governments provided important information about the courier 's age , physical appearance and family , information that was also acquired prior to any information about the courier being obtained from CIA detainees . Detainees held by foreign governments also said that the courier was close to bin Laden .\nIt was Hassan Ghul , an al Qaeda operative captured in Iraqi Kurdistan , who provided the most detailed account of bin Laden 's courier and his relationship to bin Laden in January 2004 , before he entered CIA custody .\nAccording to a CIA official cited in the report , Ghul , who was in Kurdish custody , `` sang like a tweetie bird . He opened up right away and was cooperative from the outset . ''\nGhul described the courier as bin Laden 's `` closest assistant '' and `` one of three individuals likely to be with '' al Qaeda 's leader . And he correctly surmised that bin Laden would have minimal security and `` likely lived in a house with a family somewhere in Pakistan . ''\nIf there was good intelligence coming from sources that were not in CIA custody , the Senate report demonstrates that the detainees who were in CIA custody and were subjected to coercive interrogations made every effort to hide the significance of bin Laden 's courier .\nFive of the most senior al-Qaeda detainees in CIA custody , all of whom were subjected to some of the most intensive coercive interrogation techniques , variously said that the courier worked only with low level members of al Qaeda ; that he was not a courier for bin Laden ; that he was n't close to al Qaeda 's leader , and that he was focused only on his family following his marriage in 2002 . None of this , of course , was true .\nThe CIA , of course , is not happy about the portrayal of its work in the Senate report , and in a rebuttal on its website on Tuesday the agency pushed back , saying that detainees `` in combination with other streams of intelligence '' played a role in finding bin Laden .\nIn particular the CIA cites a detainee , Ammar al-Baluchi , who was coercively interrogated and provided what it terms the first information indicating that the Kuwaiti was indeed bin Laden 's courier , rather than just someone who was an ordinary member of al Qaeda .\nThe CIA rebuttal is not , however as persuasive as the very detailed history laid out in the Senate report , which is buttressed by copious source notes .\nAnd , in any event , were interrogations of al Qaeda detainees really the key to how bin Laden ultimately was found ? After all , it still took almost a decade after the first identification of the courier to find bin Laden .\nIndeed , there were a number of key breaks that had little to do with the interrogations of al Qaeda detainees , which I discovered in the course of reporting my book `` Manhunt . ''\nA large break , according to U.S. counterterrorism officials , came in 2007 , when a foreign intelligence service that they wo n't identify told the CIA that the Kuwaiti 's real name was Ibrahim Saeed Ahmed .\nIt would still take three more years for the CIA to find Ibrahim Saeed Ahmed in Pakistan , a country with a population of 180 million . This involved painstaking work going through reams of phone conversations to try to locate him through his family and circle of associates .\nIn June 2010 , the Kuwaiti and his brother both made changes in the way they communicated on cell phone , which suddenly opened up the possibility of the `` geolocation '' of both their phones , according to U.S. counterterrorism officials .\nFinally , sometime in the late summer of 2010 , the Kuwaiti received a call from an old friend in the Persian Gulf , a man whom U.S. intelligence officials were monitoring . `` We 've missed you . Where have you been ? '' asked the friend . The Kuwaiti responded elliptically . `` I 'm back with the people I was with before . '' There was a tense pause in the conversation as the friend mulled over that response . Likely realizing that the Kuwaiti was back in bin Laden 's inner circle , the caller replied after some hesitation , `` May God facilitate . ''\nThe CIA took this call as a confirmation that the Kuwaiti was still working with al Qaeda , a matter that officials were still not entirely sure about .\nThe National Security Agency was listening to this exchange and through geolocation technologies was able to zero in on the Kuwaiti 's cell phone in northwestern Pakistan . But the Kuwaiti practiced rigorous operational security and was always careful to insert the battery in his phone and turn it on only when he was at least an hour 's drive away from the Abbottabad compound where he and bin Laden were living . To find out where the Kuwaiti lived by monitoring his cell phone would only go so far .\nIn August 2010 , a Pakistani `` asset '' working for the CIA tracked the Kuwaiti to the crowded city of Peshawar , where bin Laden had founded al Qaeda more than two decades earlier . In the years when bin Laden was residing in the Abbottabad compound , the Kuwaiti would regularly transit though Peshawar , as it is the gateway to the Pakistani tribal regions where al Qaeda had regrouped in the years after 9/11 .\nOnce the CIA asset had identified the Kuwaiti 's distinctive white Suzuki SUV with a spare tire on its back in Peshawar , the CIA was able to follow him as he drove home to Abbottabad , more than two hours ' drive to the east .\nThe large compound where the Kuwaiti finally alighted immediately drew interest at the agency because it did n't have phone or Internet service , which implied its owners wanted to stay off the grid .\nSoon , some CIA officials would come to believe that bin Laden himself was living there .
|
allsides-corpus-335
|
Meet Gina , a spy for over 30 years , a devoted public servant and a devotee of Johnny Cash . β She β s dedicated her life to protecting our nation. β Meet Gina , a spy for over 30 years , an overseer of torture , and a destroyer of valuable documents . β She believes that waterboarding should be something that we use. β This is Gina Haspel , the nominee to head the C.I.A . with two distinct storylines about her . A C.I.A . P.R . blitz aimed at bolstering her nomination tells us most of what we know about Haspel . β Gina Haspel is the best prepared person ever to be nominated for this job. β β A nonpartisan person. β β She β s got a spine of steel. β β Her only goal is to live out the agency β s mission. β The C.I.A . tells us that she joined towards the end of the Cold War . She wanted adventure and meaning in her life . We don β t get too much detail . We know she first deployed to Africa , then later overseas during the Gulf War . At one point she helped catch two terrorists linked to an embassy bombing . They don β t say where . But pretty much everything else about her 33 years at the agency is classified . And all the while , the C.I.A . says she remained a big fan of her alma mater β s basketball team : the University of Kentucky Wildcats . Now critics of Haspel are more concerned with what the C.I.A . isn β t saying about her . β America shouldn β t be known for torture. β β She was supportive of the program. β β A cover-up from A to Z. β β A dirty past. β After 9/11 . she managed a secret C.I.A . prison in Thailand . And at that prison she oversaw the torture of a detainee . And then , later , she helped execute an order to destroy videotapes of brutal interrogations . Here β s her then-boss explaining why he didn β t want the tapes kept : β It would make the C.I.A . look bad. β And it would actually , in my view , it almost destroyed the clandestine service because of it. β The president decided to focus on β good Gina. β Gina the trailblazer . β Gina , by the way , who I know very well β who I worked very closely with ... β will be the first woman director of the C.I.A. β Critics worry that the president β s embrace of torture won β t get any pushback from Haspel . β What do you think about waterboarding , Mr. Trump ? β β I said , I love it. β β And I β d bring back a hell of a lot worse than waterboarding. β β Torture works , O.K. , folks. β Haspel recently gave a very rare public appearance on Capitol Hill . Her aim : to woo some of her critics . She smiled and appeared approachable , more public servant than controversial public official .
|
allsides-corpus-336
|
CIA Deputy Director Michael Morell is stepping down and being replaced by White House lawyer Avril Haines , who will be the first woman to hold the post .\nWhen President Barack Obama named a successor to former CIA Director David Petraeus in January , Morell was passed over in favor of the White House counterterrorism adviser , John Brennan . Morell had been acting director since Petraeus ' resignation .\nMorell , 54 , announced his retirement Wednesday , saying he will leave his CIA post Aug. 9 . The White House announced he has been appointed to the President 's Intelligence Advisory Board , a group of mostly retired intelligence officers who advise the president on intelligence policy .\n`` While I have given everything I have to the Central Intelligence Agency and its vital mission for a third of a century , it is now time for me to give everything I have to my family , '' Morell said in a statement released Wednesday by the agency .\nMorell is retiring after 33 years at the CIA , including two stints as acting director β during the last stint he managed the fallout inside the agency after Petraeus resigned over an extramarital affair . Morell ordered an internal investigation into his former boss ' conduct that is ongoing .\n`` I was most looking forward to ... the opportunity to work side-by-side once again with Michael Morell , '' said Brennan , noting that they 'd begun their careers at the CIA in 1980 . `` As much as I would selfishly like to keep Michael right where he is for as long as possible , he has decided to retire to spend more time with his family and to pursue other professional opportunities . ''\nHaines , 43 , has been a White House deputy assistant and deputy counsel for national security affairs since 2010 . Before that , she was assistant legal adviser for treaty affairs at the State Department , according to a White House statement .\nHaines had been nominated to serve as the State Department 's legal adviser earlier this year , but Brennan chose her for the deputy post when Morell made clear that he was retiring .\nBrennan said that Haines had participated in virtually every senior-level meeting at the president 's National Security Council over the past two years and chairs the White House legal team that reviews the CIA 's most sensitive programs .\n`` In every instance , Avril 's command of substance , sense of mission , good judgment , and keen insights have been outstanding , '' Brennan said in his statement announcing the personnel changes .\nMorell bore the brunt of defending before Congress the CIA 's performance after the attack on the diplomatic outpost in Benghazi , Libya , last September , which killed the U.S. ambassador and three other Americans .\n`` Each time , his testimony has been thorough and forthright , '' said the top Democrat on the House Intelligence Committee , Rep. C.A . Dutch Ruppersberger of Maryland .\nMorell did the final edit of the controversial `` talking points '' memo meant to describe to the public what happened in that attack . Emails exchanged by administration officials that week show Morell deleted references to the CIA warning the State Department of previous militant attacks in Benghazi .\nU.N . Ambassador Susan Rice used those notes on Sunday talk shows , triggering a controversy in which House Republicans accuse the administration of covering up any connections to terror groups in the attack during the presidential campaign .\nRice was named national security adviser last week , replacing long-serving staffer Tom Donilon as part of the Obama administration 's second-term turnover of its national security team .\nMorell also put himself on a political collision course with the White House and top Democrats on the Senate Intelligence Committee by publicly defending the results of harsh CIA interrogation techniques like waterboarding while not defending the techniques themselves . Morell had said in a statement to CIA employees that while the film `` Zero Dark Thirty '' was wrong to depict harsh techniques as key to finding Osama bin Laden , those interrogations did produce some useful intelligence .\n`` Some came from detainees subjected to enhanced techniques , but there were many other sources as well , '' Morell said .\nA Senate Intelligence Committee investigation into the CIA 's detainee interrogation program completed last December concluded that interrogation methods such as waterboarding , which simulates drowning , produced no useful intelligence . And Morell 's new boss , Brennan , told lawmakers during his confirmation hearing that after reading a summary of that report , he is now not sure those techniques produced any useful information .\nBrennan further called the use of such techniques during the George W. Bush administration `` something that is reprehensible and should never be done again . ''\nMorell 's defense of the program won him many backers at agency headquarters at Langley , Va .\n`` Morell is beloved in the building , '' former House Intelligence Committee member Jane Harman said Wednesday . `` But it will be nice to have a woman in the job . ''\nGet the Monitor Stories you care about delivered to your inbox . By signing up , you agree to our Privacy Policy
|
allsides-corpus-337
|
The opinions expressed by columnists are their own and do not represent the views of βββ.com .\nMany debates over politics and policy begin with a battle over language . Before all sides can hash out their differences , there must be an understanding of what their words mean .\nFrom the months following 9/11 right up to the current CIA confirmation hearings for Gina Haspel , the misuse of a vital term has hindered clarity and progress on a key issue . On the first day of her answers before the Senate Intelligence Committee , the word even impeded what should be a clear path to the title she seeks .\nSince our nation began undertaking special lengths to extract vital intelligence from high-value detainees , the questions have reverberated : β Does America torture ? β β Do we approve of torture ? β β Does torture work ? β\nThe crucial error has been defining lawful and justifiable questioning techniques as β torture , β a term that denotes abuse of power , motivated by a desire to punish , or even by sadistic satisfaction .\nThe opponents of enhanced interrogation will affix the term to American practices in order to discredit them . Sadly , even defenders of these valuable procedures have allowed themselves to be dragged into absurd arenas of debate in which they β defend torture . β\nThere is no defense for torture , as properly defined . It is what the North Vietnamese did to our soldiers in Hanoi . It is what drug cartels do to captured enemies . It is what North Korea did to Otto Warmbier . It is not what American intelligence officers have done to save lives .\nIf this seems like an assertion that it β s not torture if we do it , that is precisely my point -- as long as our intentions remain noble , our behaviors clearly defined , and the practices closely supervised . β Torture β has always had a negative connotation presuming a sinister motivation . This is the exact opposite of what Haspel and the CIA have been about , and it is an offense to logic to continue labeling our practices as such .\nOne may favor or oppose sleep deprivation , cramped confinement or waterboarding , but these practices and others were employed in the cases of carefully screened detainees in an attempt to secure information vital to defeating jihadists and saving lives .\nWaterboarding has always been a particularly ill fit for torture designation . It is not torture if we do it to our own people . I have spoken to special forces veterans who endured the practice in training , so as to better brace for it if captured . One told me : β It β s hell while it β s happening , but twenty minutes later I was drinking a cup of coffee without a mark on me . β\nIt may be tempting to invoke the views of John McCain , who was indeed tortured by the North Vietnamese . Today , he unfortunately equates that horror to what his fellow Americans honorably did to serve our nation as he has done .\nSo where do I get off questioning McCain β s view on the subject ? I rest on two answers , one broad , one specific . The broad anecdotal testimony is the nearly two decades I have spent speaking to veterans and active duty military , on and off the radio . They do not unanimously support enhanced interrogations , but I can count on one hand those who have shared the McCain view that we are torturers .\nThe specific voice I rely on the most is Rep. Sam Johnson ( R-TX ) , retiring after nearly 30 years in Congress and his own seven years in the Hanoi Hilton . Like McCain , he was brutally tortured by the North Vietnamese . Unlike McCain , he did not return to America with the willingness to smear our post-9/11 war effort with such harsh criticism .\nIn answering questions Wednesday , Haspel seemed to stub her toe on this years-long mischaracterization of CIA techniques as torture . Under fire from disapproving Democrats , she revealed that she would not oversee a return to such procedures , even under a lawful order from the President : β I support the higher moral standard that this country has decided to hold itself to . I would never , ever take CIA back to an interrogation program , β she said .\nCount me among those who have strongly supported Haspel β s nomination . But more importantly , count me among those who would expect her to follow lawful orders from the Commander-in-Chief without bogging the nation down in needless moments of introspection .\nOur discourse will be unburdened if we can resist attempts to hijack the language for political gain . The left must be congratulated for its multiple successes . Abortion is β reproductive freedom , β confiscatory taxation is β investment β and enhanced interrogations are torture .\nOpponents of such practices are free to characterize them as unduly harsh , unnecessary , discordant with β American values , β or whatever . I would disagree on all counts , but those are matters of opinion .\nTo fine-tune a famous Daniel Patrick Moynihan quote , we are entitled to our own opinions ; we are not entitled to redefine words . Once we free ourselves from the years of miscast debate over American β torture , β we can honestly argue the pros and cons of how our nation has extracted intelligence from certain sources .\nAnd who knows ? Once we stop surrendering to the language of the CIA β s detractors , even its future director might rethink her contrived objections to orders she may one day receive .
|
allsides-corpus-338
|
WikiLeaks on Tuesday released what it said is the full hacking capacity of the CIA in a stunning 8,000-plus page disclosure the anti-secrecy website contends is β the largest ever publication of confidential documents on the agency . β\nThe 8,761 documents and files -- released as β Vault 7 Part 1 β and titled β Year Zero β -- were obtained from an β isolated , high-security network β at the CIA β s Center for Cyber Intelligence in Langley , Va. , a press release from the website said . The trove had been β circulated among former U.S. government hackers and contractors , β one of whom β recently β gave the archive to WikiLeaks . The CIA allegedly employs more than 5,000 people in its cyber spying operation and had produced more than 1,000 programs as of 2016 .\nβ We do not comment on the authenticity or content of purported intelligence documents , '' a CIA spokesperson told Fox News .\nThe collection of purported intelligence documents includes information on CIA-developed malware -- bearing names such as β Assassin β and β Medusa β -- intended to target iPhones , Android phones , smart TVs and Microsoft , Mac and Linux operating systems , among others . An entire unit in the CIA is devoted to inventing programs to hack data from Apple products , according to WikiLeaks .\nSome of the remote hacking programs can allegedly turn numerous electronic devices into recording and transmitting stations to spy on their targets , with the information then sent back to secret CIA servers . One document appears to show the CIA was trying to β infect β vehicle control systems in cars and trucks for unspecified means .\nWikiLeaks hinted that the capabilites revealed in Tuesday 's disclosure could have even darker utility than simply spying .\nβ It would permit the CIA to engage in nearly undetectable assassinations , β the release stated .\nWikiLeaks # Vault7 confirms CIA can effectively bypass Signal + Telegram + WhatsApp + Confide encryptionhttps : //t.co/h5wzfrReyy β WikiLeaks ( @ wikileaks ) March 7 , 2017\nThe site said the CIA additionally failed to disclose security vulnerabilities and bugs to major U.S. software manufacturers , violating an Obama administration commitment made in January 2014 . Instead , the agency used the software vulnerabilities -- which could also be exploited by rival agencies , nations and groups -- for its own ends , WikiLeaks said .\nCIA hackers celebrated what they saw as the financial largesse of Obama towards them with `` Make It Rain '' gifhttps : //t.co/M8LJ03ZoiC pic.twitter.com/zjV5uqQ68P β WikiLeaks ( @ wikileaks ) March 7 , 2017\nβ As an example , specific CIA malware revealed in β Year Zero β is able to penetrate , infest and control both the Android phone and iPhone software that runs or has run presidential Twitter accounts , β the WikiLeaks release stated .\nDigital rights non-profit Access Now said in a statement on Tuesday it was `` fantasy to believe only the 'good guys ' '' would be able to use the discovered vulnerabilities .\nβ Today , our digital security has been compromised because the CIA has been stockpiling vulnerabilities rather than working with companies to patch them , '' Senior Legislative Manager Nathan White said .\nThe CIA allegedly also maintains a database of malware created in other nations -- WikiLeaks specifically cites Russia -- in order to disguise its own hacking attempts as the work of another group .\nIn what is described by WikiLeaks as `` one of the most astounding intelligence own goals in living memory , '' the CIA is said to have made most of its programs unclassified to avoid legal consequences for transmitting classified information through the Internet -- a move that increased the risk of outside groups pirating the cyber spying tools .\nWikiLeaks also revealed the U.S. Consulate in Frankfurt is a hacking base , and the website provided the methods by which agents obfuscate customs officers to gain entry to Germany , pretending to provide technical consultation .\nWikiLeaks said its source released the files because they believed questions surrounding the CIA β s reach β urgently need to be debated in public , β echoing the motives of many previous leakers .\nStill working through the publication , but what @ Wikileaks has here is genuinely a big deal . Looks authentic . β Edward Snowden ( @ Snowden ) March 7 , 2017\nOne such former leaker , Edward Snowden , tweeted Tuesday afternoon about the WikiLeaks release .\n`` Still working through the publication , but what @ Wikileaks has here is genuinely a big deal . Looks authentic , '' wrote Snowden , who has been granted asylum in Russia as he seeks to avoid criminal prosecution in the U.S .\nSome of the WikiLeaks files include redacted information , such as tens β of thousands of CIA targets and attack machines throughout Latin America , Europe and the United States . β
|
allsides-corpus-339
|
While the nomination of former Sen. Chuck Hagel , R-Neb. , to be secretary of defense has drawn opposition from groups who question his views on policy toward Israel and Iran , the nomination of White House counterterrorism adviser John Brennan to be CIA director may be delayed by senators who want to know more about last September 's attack on the U.S. mission in Benghazi , Libya .\n`` Said the Senate should not confirm any Obama nominee for the nation 's top spy post until the administration elaborates on the attack on the diplomatic mission in Benghazi , '' The Associated Press writes. `` 'My support for a delay in confirmation is not directed at Mr. Brennan , but is an unfortunate , yet necessary , action to get information from this administration , ' the South Carolina senator said in a statement . ' I have tried β repeatedly β to get information on Benghazi , but my requests have been repeatedly ignored . ' `` He added that the administration 's 'stonewalling on Benghazi ' must end . ''\nTo which White House spokesman Jay Carney responded that such talk is `` unfortunate . '' As Politico reports :\n`` 'This question was answered , I believe , in briefings on the hill , ' White House press secretary Carney said , noting that it was edited in the process of declassifying classified information. `` ' It would be unfortunate , I think , if in pursuit of this issue , which was highly politicized , the Senate would hold up the nomination of John Brennan to be director of the Central Intelligence Agency . ' ``\nAs The Hill has reported , Republican Sen. John McCain of Arizona has `` also indicated he might look to block Brennan 's nomination over concerns about so-called `` enhanced '' interrogation techniques at the agency . ' I appreciate John Brennan 's long record of service to our nation , but I have many questions and concerns about his nomination to be director of the Central Intelligence Agency , especially what role he played in the so-called enhanced interrogation programs while serving at the CIA during the [ George W. Bush ] administration , as well as his public defense of those programs , ' McCain said . ''\nMcCain was tortured when he was a prisoner during the Vietnam War .
|
allsides-corpus-340
|
A year after the deadly `` Unite the Right '' rally in Charlottesville , Va. , white nationalist groups are treading cautiously into the anniversary weekend .\nThe violence in Charlottesville sparked damaging lawsuits against the organizers and a crackdown from tech companies that has complicated recruitment and fundraising efforts , splintering the movement just as it 's trying to show solidarity heading into Sunday 's `` Unite the Right 2 '' demonstration in Washington .\nJason Kessler , a lead organizer of both events , is discouraging participation by the more hard-core elements of the white supremacist movement , and some are happy to sit this one out .\nβ These post-Charlottesville marches have no purpose , other than to make anyone who supports white self-determination look like a fringe lunatic , β Andrew Anglin , publisher of the Daily Stormer , a neo-Nazi website , wrote this month in a blog post disavowing Sunday β s rally . β We do not want the image of being a bunch of weird losers who march around like assholes while completely outnumbered and get mocked by the entire planet . β\nRichard Spencer , a key organizer of the Charlottesville rally , is even steering clear and urging others to do the same .\nβ I know that many have good intentions in going , but a rally like this [ does n't ] make sense at this time . I do n't know exactly what will happen , but it probably will not be good , β tweeted Spencer , head of the National Policy Institute , which aims to β give voice to the interests of white peoples . ''\nThe long-term effect of the Charlottesville violence on the larger white nationalist movement is still unknown . But the initial consequence , experts say , has been a new degree of internal discord that β s expected to dampen turnout at Sunday β s rally across the street from the White House .\nβ I don β t know that β s it β s substantially grown or shrunk , β said Keegan Hankes , senior research analyst at the Southern Poverty Law Center β s Intelligence Project , which tracks hate groups around the country . β What I can say is , since the previous Unite the Right , it is far more disorganized . β\nβ Every one of these groups is afraid they β re going to be associated with any potential violence , but also be further associated with the violence last year , β he added .\nDon Black , founder of Stormfront , a white nationalist website , said the reverberations of Charlottesville β financially and strategically β are still being felt a year later .\nβ A lot of people have reevaluated the tactic , β Black told βββ on Saturday in a phone call . `` I don β t have a problem with Jason Kessler . β¦ But some other people do because he β s a β¦ very recent convert to our side and they feel that β¦ his events haven β t been properly planned . ''\nβ Most of the organization leaders who supported the Charlottesville event are not supporting this one , β he added .\nThe division and infighting suggests a movement still licking its wounds in the aftermath of last year β s demonstration , when hundreds of white supremacists gathered to protest the city β s removal of a Robert E. Lee statue β the largest march of its kind in decades .\nThe event quickly devolved into a series of violent clashes between marchers and counterprotesters . Amid the tumult , a car sped into a group of counterprotesters , injuring dozens and killing Heather Heyer , a 32-year-old paralegal . James Alex Fields Jr. , a then-20-year-old white nationalist from Ohio , has been charged with first degree murder .\nSeparately , two Virginia state police officers monitoring events from the air were killed when their helicopter crashed .\nThe backlash came quickly . Numerous lawsuits , still pending , were filed against the organizers , including Kessler and Spencer , who are accused of promoting violence . And the giants of the technology world β Facebook , Google , Twitter and YouTube β also intervened in an effort to cull racist voices from their platforms .\nβ That β s probably been one of the most damaging things that β s happened to the movement in the last couple years , β said Hankes . β They can β t disseminate propaganda as easily [ and ] it β s a lot harder to raise money . β\nBlack , of Stormfront , confirmed the trend . After Charlottesville , his website was frozen for a month , and in December he was kicked off Twitter β an event he called β the great purge . β\nβ A lot of people depended on social media , and they still use it but it β s always iffy . Their accounts are regularly canceled and posts deleted , β he said . β It β s hard to even find a credit card processor now . ''\nβ We β re more under siege than we β ve ever been , '' Black said .\nKessler had initially sought to stage the anniversary rally in Charlottesville . The city denied his petition , and last week he dropped a lawsuit seeking reconsideration , saying he would focus instead on the demonstration in Washington .\nIt β s unclear how many people will attend Sunday β s march , which will follow Pennsylvania Avenue from Foggy Bottom to Lafayette Square . Kessler has taken steps to avoid a repeat of last year β s violence , prohibiting shields , weapons of any kind and β non-approved flags , β all of which were featured elements of the Charlottesville marches . American and Confederate flags , however , are welcome .\nTorches , another prominent feature of the Charlottesville marches , are also forbidden , given the National Park Service β s ban on fire in Lafayette Square .\nβ No fire allowed , β Kessler wrote on Facebook in May , in a post obtained by the Southern Poverty Law Center ( SPLC ) . β We need to forget about the torch thing . β\nPeter Montgomery , an expert on right-wing extremism at the liberal advocacy group People For the American Way , said the changes reflect a rebranding effort on the part of some white nationalists following β a real blow to their public relations β with the death of Heyer .\nβ You had people who wanted to disassociate themselves from who they saw as more embarrassing manifestations β people who come to these rallies holding Nazi signs and swastikas , β he said . β There β s a part of the movement that wants to be a kinder gentler face of the alt-right , but as a result it β s kind of splintered . β\nUnite the Right 2 organizers did not respond to questions posed through the rally β s website . Questions sent directly to Spencer and Anglin also went unanswered .\nThe Charlottesville violence shone a bright light on a white nationalist debate that was already percolating with the rise of President Trump Donald John TrumpWhite House says Turkey will soon launch Syria operation Trump associates pressured Ukraine over gas firm in order to benefit allies : report Trump praises Woodward , slams other journalists over 'Face the Nation ' segment MORE in 2016 β a victory cheered by racist leaders who see the president as a vindication of their own views , particularly on issues such as guns and immigration .\nTrump β s inner circle has featured figures like Stephen Bannon β the Breitbart News executive who has boasted of using the conservative news site as β a platform for the alt-right. β And the president β s equivocal response to the Charlottesville violence β there were β very fine people β on both sides , he said at the time β only fueled the view among white nationalists that they have an ally in the White House .\nIn its annual census of hate groups , released in February , SPLC identified 954 such organizations across the country in 2017 , marking a 4 percent increase over the previous year and a 20 percent jump over 2014 . More than 600 of those were associated with the white nationalist movement .\nAnti-hate groups are quick to warn that whatever troubles white nationalists are facing , those political conditions remain . Indeed , a number of Republican candidates with nationalistic , if not outwardly racist views , are running for House and Senate seats this cycle , including Arthur Jones in Illinois , Seth Grossman in New Jersey and Paul Nehlen in Wisconsin .\nTrump has endorsed Virginia Senate GOP nominee Corey Stewart , a controversial figure who is a vocal supporter of Confederate heritage and has said the Civil War was not ultimately fought over slavery . The National Republican Senatorial Committee has not pledged support for Stewart .\nβ In that big-picture sense , Trump β s campaign really electrified and energized white nationalists who had been quite marginalized in American political discourse , β Montgomery said . β He really opened up space for them to move more into the political conversation . And they β ve taken advantage of that . β\nSophie Bjork-James , an anthropologist at Vanderbilt University who has researched the white supremacist movement , agreed , saying β both sides have been galvanized β since the Charlottesville clashes .\nβ While there is an increased organized response against white nationalism , many in the movement still feel emboldened by the broader political climate and are trying to use anti-immigrant sentiment as a recruitment tool , β she told βββ .\nHankes , of the SPLC , said white nationalists aren β t bowing out post-Charlottesville , even though they may be rethinking their tactics .\nβ I don β t think it β s had a chilling effect ; I think basically they β re being more careful , β he said . β What was illustrated to me very clearly β¦ last year is they had more to lose than they thought . β
|
allsides-corpus-341
|
More than 45 million Americans live under the poverty line , and roughly 30 million more are near-poor ( defined as 1 to 1.5 times the poverty line ) , according to the latest Census Bureau data .\nthinking about poverty as being only about income levels obscures the important dimension of income uncertainty\nPoverty , of course , is determined simply by figuring out who earns below a certain threshold . Leaving aside the obvious problems with how we calculate that threshold , thinking about poverty in this way also obscures an important dimension of what it means to be low-income : uncertainty .\nAs author Linda Tirado explained to βββ last week , being poor is n't just about money being tight ; it 's about an inability to plan for the future . Volatile income wreaks havoc on finances as workers hope each month goes perfectly , both when it comes to money inflows and outflows . In a passage from her upcoming book `` Hand to Mouth , '' she tells about her life among the working poor :\n`` If I 'm saving my spare $ 5 a week , in the best-case scenario I will have saved $ 260 a year . ... Of course , you will never manage to actually save it ; you 'll get sick at least one day and miss work and dip into it for rent , '' she writes . Or any other litany of misfortunes could strike , she adds : high gas prices , work pants could tear and need replacing . And those sorts of things will almost certainly happen several times per year , which can easily deplete any sort of savings .\nIn other words , it 's not just about how much you 'll put on your tax return ; it 's about how much you 'll get in your next paycheck and the one after that , and what emergencies that money might have to cover .\nAnd that sentiment is borne out by recent research . According to the US Financial Diaries Project ( whose research on savings circles I highlighted yesterday ) , which follows the spending and savings habits of 200 low-to-moderate-income households over the course of a year , volatility makes life much harder . One of their reports from 2013 shows just how this looks more specifically for struggling families . Here 's a look at two different months ' income for one Kentucky family where the mother ( `` Molly '' in the charts below ) works in a school cafeteria and does n't get any income in the summer months .\nMolly may in fact be lucky , because her job is at least regular , despite the three-month summer gaps . The real troubles are for the many people who have temporary or seasonal jobs . Up and down the spectrum of one sample of low-to-moderate-income households , the project found that incomes could swing widely for various jobs .\nThis is n't a representative sample of Americans , but it does illustrate that many of these people 's jobs leave them guessing each month about how they will fare .\nThere 's other evidence of this as well . Fully 20 percent of Americans in the bottom quintile of earners experienced an income drop of 50 percent or more within a year , according to a 2010 paper from the Urban Institute . That 's not a huge share of Americans , but it is a higher share than for any other quintile , and those swings are likely to be more meaningful for a poorer family .\nWhat any of this information means is that poverty is a much more complex phenomenon than it may seem on the surface , and that fixing it might be a question of targeted policies like the EITC and a higher minimum wage , but also simply of boosting the economy to create better , steadier jobs .
|
allsides-corpus-342
|
The places that have the very highest rates of mobility for black men , like Boston , actually have lower rates of upward mobility than the very worst places of upward mobility for white men , like Charlotte .\nChetty 's research showed that job growth and investment happening in Charlotte and Atlanta , for example , are n't creating opportunities evenly , and black male youths are disproportionately being left behind .\nWhat they did : The researchers analyzed outcomes of about 4 million families that moved across neighborhoods and tracked the outcomes of children of low-income parents over 30 years .\nWhat they found : Childhood environments are stronger indicators of upward mobility than where individuals go to college or move as young adults .\nMoving to a better neighborhood at a very young age correlated with much stronger upward mobility as adults . In fact , every extra year of exposure to better childhood environments improved outcomes .\nDownward mobility is also critical . White men from affluent families are likely to stay affluent as adults . But black men from affluent backgrounds are nearly just as likely to end up in the bottom tier of the income distribution than the top tier .\n`` If you think of achieving the American dream as climbing an income ladder for white Americans , it β s more like being on a treadmill for black Americans . Even after you 've made the climb up in one generation , there are tremendous structural forces that tend to push you back down in the next generation and you have to make the climb again . ''\nβ Raj Chetty , speaking at the Results for America Summit in Washington , D.C .\nAnd the disparities are likely to worsen over the next decade .\nBy 2030 , African American workers stand to lose hundreds of thousands of jobs as a result of increased automation , widening the racial wealth gap and weighing down overall U.S. growth , according to a report from McKinsey & Co .\nThe bottom line : A strong national economy only goes so far . The most important factor in determining upward mobility is the conditions in the half-mile radius around where you live , Chetty said .\n`` While we often think of the decline of the American dream as a national problem β a challenge we β d like to solve through federal policy solutions β I really think the roots of these issues are at the very local level . ''
|
allsides-corpus-343
|
Across America , there are pockets of poverty , communities that have been left behind or deprived of the basics needed to develop , like Pembroke Township , a small community south of Chicago along the Indiana border . In this community , one-third of the families live below the poverty line . It is one of the poorest communities in the country , with a median income that is among the lowest .\nIn the 1860s , newly freed slaves β Freedmen β settled into the rich farmland of the region . It was a land of promise and opportunity . During the Great Migration and the Great Depression , waves of black farmers settled here . Land was still available for black farms in part because much of it was seen as marginal .\nColumnists In-depth political coverage , sports analysis , entertainment reviews and cultural commentary .\nThe land is so bad , the joke became , as Rev . Hezekiah Brady Jr. , reported , β you can β t raise hell on it . β\nToday , the residents of Pembroke Township are denied the hope that their ancestors once held . In Pembroke , residents lack heat and access to basic necessities . They are the victims of economic violence in many ways . They can β t develop basic infrastructure without capital investment . Investment won β t come without basic infrastructure . They face a Catch 22 all too familiar to poor communities in this country .\nIn recent months , this has begun to change for the 2,100 residents of Pembroke . Wi-Fi has come to the community . Now Nicor Gas is joining with local officials trying to work out a plan to bring natural gas to Pembroke . A secure source of energy would help kickstart other development β and in turn create jobs and generate hope .\nTo bring energy to Pembroke will require regulatory changes , millions in investment and support from the business community , the residents of Pembroke , the state of Illinois and the U.S. Department of Agriculture . Nicor has made a serious commitment . Now it is time to turn up the heat on the others to ensure that the residents of Pembroke have heat .\nDr. Martin Luther King always envisioned the civil rights struggle in three different movements or phases . First would come basic civil rights , the end of segregation . The Supreme Court and the Civil Rights Act of 1965 helped achieve that . Then came political rights : The Voting Rights Act helped move toward that . It wasn β t just African Americans who profited , but women , young people and other minorities all made great strides to equal justice .\nThe final movement , which Dr. King knew would be the most difficult , was the movement for economic justice . Sadly , the war on poverty that was making great strides was lost in the jungles of Vietnam , and then abandoned under Ronald Reagan in 1980 .\nNow , as America suffers extreme inequality , a declining life expectancy , rising deaths of despair β from alcohol , or drugs or suicide β we need a new push for economic justice . It should focus on the pockets of poverty like Pembroke . It must engage the efforts of private enterprise and public and private resources .\nKeystone legislation like that proposed by Rep. James Clyburn , D-S.C. , that would target federal spending to the communities that have been mired in poverty for decades , joining the urban and the rural poor , across regional and racial lines , as the focus for new energy and new hope .\nWhat β s clear is that our current course won β t do it . Unemployment is low , but poor urban and rural communities still have not recovered . Communities like Pembroke won β t recover without focused energy .\nAs Dr. King taught us , that will happen only if citizens organize and lead the way .
|
allsides-corpus-344
|
Despite lingering gloom from the economic recession , life is getting much better for the most distressed people all over the world . Since the 1980s , the share of people living on less than $ 1.25 day has plummeted from 53 % to just 17 % in 2011 . Globally , those at the bottom of the economic ladder is β falling faster than ever , β according to Oxford economics Fellow , Max Roser .\nIndeed , the World Bank is so elated by the trend that it believes , for the first time in human history , poverty can be completely eliminated by 2030 .\nYet , at the same time , the global rich-poor class gap is skyrocketing ; as of 2014 , the richest 80 people in the world now control more wealth than the bottom 50 % combined [ PDF ] .\nLund University economist , Andreas Bergh , has a contentious , if fascinating , theory : greater inequality means a greater portion of the population exists at the lowest income , making it cheaper to provide goods to a larger share of lower-income consumers . The more people need cheap products , the more incentive companies have to streamline non-luxury versions of food , education , and other goods . In other words , lower-income people scale .\nIn this way , rather than having an even distribution of income over many economic classes ( e.g . low , low-middle , middle , upper-middle , and upper ) , an economy with only a few classes allows companies to focus on making products for greater portion of similar customers .\nIn his paper , β When More Poor Means Less Poverty , β Bergh finds that as inequality increases around the world , the cheaper rice and Big Macs become .\nOn average , a 10 point increase in the Gini coefficient ( corresponding to shifting from the level of inequality in Latvia to Kenya ) decreases the time required to buy a kilo of rice by 7 minutes ( compared to the 2007 global average of 22 minutes ) . Similarly a corresponding inequality increase would on average decrease the time required for a Big Mac by 16 minutes ( compared to the 2007 global average of 37 minutes ) .\nThink of the difference between the global poor and rich as the difference between the iOS and Android operating systems . Apple designed a phone that only a relatively small portion of the world can afford . But the iPhone opened up an entirely new mobile market , allowing Google to create its free mobile operating system for the rest of the non-iPhone-toting world . Android especially thrives in countries with a broad lower-income base .\nThe more people need a cheap operating system , the more demand Google and its hardware partners have in making smartphones accessible . In other words , the co-existence of an influential rich class and large lower-income class can have economic benefits .\nIndeed , this could be one reason why even in Sweden , the former poster-child for financial equality , poverty is decreasing while the rich are getting richer [ PDF ] .\nNow , careful readers will note that an inverse relationship between poverty and equality is not an iron law of economics . It β s often the opposite . In many nations and U.S. states , increasing inequality makes life worse for the poor . The rich get richer , and nothing trickles down . Moreover , in nations where poverty is decreasing , it is often because welfare services have expanded . The market itself is not eliminating poverty .\nBut inequality and a shrinking middle class is not inherently bad for the poor . This is not to say we should cheer inequality or that the middle class should donate their money to the rich in the interests of alleviating poverty .\nThere is a nuanced relationship between income distribution and extreme poverty . We must be careful how we model welfare systems and taxes so that we maintain the productive parts of inequality while reducing its ill effects .
|
allsides-corpus-345
|
The notion that racism is solely about institutionalized white power simply doesn β t compute for most Americans .\nA couple of weeks ago , the New York Times editorial board hired a technology writer , Sarah Jeong . When it was revealed that she had tweeted barbs against white people , conservatives formed a Twitter mob to demand her dismissal . While a few on the right said β or claimed β that they were offended by the substance of her tweets , the overriding passion derived from an understandable outrage about liberal double standards .\nThe argument took a familiar form : β If a white or conservative person said something like this about any other group , her career would be over ! β\nMany liberals responded that conservatives just don β t get it . There is no such thing as anti-white racism because racism is all about power . Whites β or white men β have power and other groups don β t .\nPerhaps because this theory defies lived experience , progressives offered a new defense : β We don β t really mean it when we attack the pale patriarchy . β\nVox β s Ezra Klein recalled that he didn β t enjoy the Twitter hashtag # KillAllMen , which apparently became popular in his progressive circle a while back . β I didn β t like it . It made me feel defensive . It still makes me feel defensive . β\nβ But , β Klein added , β I also knew that wasn β t what they were saying . They didn β t want me put to death . They didn β t want any men put to death. β They just wanted things to be better for women .\nKlein has a point , but he also misses one . I have no doubt that many of his female β or male ! β compatriots aren β t much interested in wholesale androcide . Nor do I think Jeong is interested in β canceling β white people . These are shibboleths of the Woke Establishment .\nBut what Klein and others miss is that they can β t play Humpty Dumpty when it comes to the language they use . β When I use a word , β Humpty Dumpty famously said , β it means just what I choose it to mean β neither more nor less . β\nThe notion that racism is solely about institutionalized white power simply doesn β t compute for most Americans . In common parlance , racism means prejudice or bigotry on account of race or skin color . Period . The pathetic racists who marched on Washington this weekend don β t have much cultural power . Surely that explains their racism more than it mitigates or absolves it .\nIf a neo-Nazi paints a swastika on a Jew β s front door , no decent person withholds judgment pending an audit of the victim β s social or institutional power . We just call it anti-Semitism . Would you wait for a clever explanation if someone launched the hashtag # KillAllJews or # CancelBlackPeople ? It makes no sense to claim that Louis Farrakhan is not a racist when he says β White people are potential humans β they haven β t evolved yet β but that David Duke is a racist when he says something similar about blacks .\nEven if we were to collectively accept that β racism β means structural oppression by whites , we β d still need a word for hating or degrading people solely on account of their race . Why reinvent the wheel ? And why muddle the principle that this is bad ?\nThink of it this way : Would you want your kids to go to a school where the white kids were taught that the slightest racial insensitivity was a profound sin but all the non-white kids were free to say whatever they wanted about the white kids ?\nIt is right and proper to teach kids that bigotry against blacks or other particular groups is especially evil for historical reasons . But it is morally daft to celebrate or condescendingly explain away bigotry against whites as some sort of historical comeuppance for the sins β real or alleged β of their ancestors . ( It β s also counterproductive : There β s ample evidence that calling non-racist people racist actually makes them more racist . )\nDouble standards breed resentment and rage , regardless of ideological orientation . There β s a reason white supremacists co-opt the language of the Left , demanding identity politics for white people . β I consider myself a civil- and human-rights advocate focusing on the underrepresented Caucasian demographic , β Jordan Kessler , the racist β Unite the Right β rally organizer , told NPR .\nThe double standard that says the Left can say whatever it damn well pleases , but the Right must constantly check its privilege , fuels hateful buffoons like Kessler .
|
allsides-corpus-346
|
Feeling maligned by the media , Donald Trump is threatening to weaken First Amendment protections for reporters if he were president and make it easier for him to sue them .\n`` I love free press . I think it 's great , '' he said Saturday on βββ Channel , before quickly adding , `` We ought to open up the libel laws , and I 'm going to do that . ''\nThe changes envisioned by the celebrity businessman turned Republican front-runner would mean that `` when they write purposely negative and horrible and false articles , we can sue them and win lots of money , '' he said at a rally Friday in Fort Worth , Texas .\nTrump added that , should he win the election , news organizations that have criticized him will `` have problems . '' He specifically cited The New York Times and The Washington Post .\nTrump last month threatened to sue the Post after the newspaper wrote an article about the bankruptcy of his Atlantic City casino . On Twitter , Trump has routinely criticized reporters who cover him and their news organizations , including The Associated Press .\n`` The press has to be fair , '' he said in the broadcast interview .\n`` His statement shows why we need libel protections , '' said Gregg Leslie , legal defense director for the Washington-based Reporters Committee for Freedom of the Press . `` Trump gets offended , he gets upset and he wants to sue to retaliate . That 's not a good reason to sue someone . ''\nLibel law in the United States generally makes it difficult for public figures to sue reporters or other people who criticize them . To win such a case , the plaintiff must demonstrate that factually incorrect statements were made with actual malice or a reckless disregard for the truth .\nTrump said he would like to lower that standard . `` We 're going to have people sue you like you never got sued before , '' he said .\nBecause the Supreme Court has repeatedly endorsed the existing legal standard , Trump could not change libel laws as they affect public figures by executive order or even with an act of Congress , Leslie said .\n`` I 've never heard of politicians say they would repeal case law established under the First Amendment , '' he said . `` You 'd really need a constitutional amendment to do that . ''\nTrump 's comments on libel law are not the first time he has disagreed with widely held conceptions of constitutional law . Last year , he said he saw no obstacle to deporting children born to undocumented immigrants in the United States .\nCourts have regularly found that such children are natural born citizens entitled to the same rights as any other American . Trump has said he does not believe a constitutional amendment would be necessary to get his way .\n`` You do n't have to do a constitutional amendment . You need an act of Congress . I 'm telling you -- you need an act of Congress , '' he said in an interview with Bill O'Reilly of βββ last year .
|
allsides-corpus-347
|
A major insight into human behavior from pre-internet era studies of communication is the tendency of people not to speak up about policy issues in publicβor among their family , friends , and work colleaguesβwhen they believe their own point of view is not widely shared . This tendency is called the β spiral of silence . β\nSome social media creators and supporters have hoped that social media platforms like Facebook and Twitter might produce different enough discussion venues that those with minority views might feel freer to express their opinions , thus broadening public discourse and adding new perspectives to everyday discussion of political issues .\nWe set out to study this by conducting a survey of 1,801 adults . It focused on one important public issue : Edward Snowden β s 2013 revelations of widespread government surveillance of Americans β phone and email records . We selected this issue because other surveys by the βββ at the time we were fielding this poll showed that Americans were divided over whether the NSA contractor β s leaks about surveillance were justified and whether the surveillance policy itself was a good or bad idea . For instance , Pew Research found in one survey that 44 % say the release of classified information harms the public interest while 49 % said it serves the public interest .\nThe survey reported in this report sought people β s opinions about the Snowden leaks , their willingness to talk about the revelations in various in-person and online settings , and their perceptions of the views of those around them in a variety of online and off-line contexts .\nOverall , the findings indicate that in the Snowden case , social media did not provide new forums for those who might otherwise remain silent to express their opinions and debate issues . Further , if people thought their friends and followers in social media disagreed with them , they were less likely to say they would state their views on the Snowden-NSA story online and in other contexts , such as gatherings of friends , neighbors , or co-workers . This suggests a spiral of silence might spill over from online contexts to in-person contexts , though our data can not definitively demonstrate this causation . It also might mean that the broad awareness social media users have of their networks might make them more hesitant to speak up because they are especially tuned into the opinions of those around them .\nPeople reported being less willing to discuss the Snowden-NSA story in social media than they were in personβand social media did not provide an alternative outlet for those reluctant to discuss the issues in person .\nFully 86 % of Americans reported in the Pew Research survey they were β very β or β somewhat β willing to have a conversation about the government β s surveillance program in at least one of the physical settings we queried βat a public meeting , at a family dinner , at a restaurant with friends , or at work . Yet , only 42 % of those who use Facebook or Twitter were willing to discuss these same issues through social media .\nOf the 14 % of Americans who were not willing to discuss this issue in person , almost none ( 0.3 % ) said they were willing to have a conversation about this issue through social media . This challenges the notion that social media spaces might be considered useful venues for people sharing views they would not otherwise express when they are in the physical presence of others .\nNot only were social media sites not an alternative forum for discussion , social media users were less willing to share their opinions in face-to-face settings .\nWe also did statistical modeling allowing us to more fully understand the findings by controlling for such things as gender , age , education levels , race , and marital statusβall of which are related to whether people use social media and how they use it . That modeling allowed us to calculate how likely people were to be willing to express their views in these differing settings holding other things constant .\nThe results of our analyses show that , even holding other factors such as age constant , social media users are less likely than others to say they would join a discussion about the Snowden-NSA revelations .\nIn both offline and online settings , people said they were more willing to share their views on the Snowden-NSA revelations if they thought their audience agreed with them .\nPrevious research has shown that when people decide whether to speak out about an issue , they rely on reference groupsβfriendships and community tiesβto weigh their opinion relative to their peers . In the survey , we asked respondents about their sense of whether different groups of people in their lives agreed or disagreed with their positions on the Snowden leaks . There was some notable variance between those who feel they know the views of their peers and those who do not know what others think . Generally , the more socially close people wereβe.g . spouses or family membersβthe more likely it was that the respondents felt their views matched .\nWe again calculated how likely it was that someone would be willing to share their views in different settings , depending on their sense of whether their audience agreed with them . We found that , in the case of Snowden β s revelations about the NSA , it was clear that if people felt their audience supported them , they were more likely to say they would join a conversation :\nAt work , those who felt their coworkers agreed with their opinion on the government β s surveillance program were 2.92 times more likely to say they would join a conversation on the topic of Snowden-NSA .\nAt a family dinner , those who felt that family members agreed with their opinion were 1.90 times more likely to be willing to discuss the Snowden-NSA issue .\nAt a restaurant with friends , if their close friends agreed with their opinion people were 1.42 times more likely to be willing to discuss the Snowden-NSA matter .\nOn Facebook , if a person felt that people in their Facebook network agreed with their position on that issue , they were 1.91 times more likely to be willing to join a conversation on the topic of Snowden-NSA .\nThose who do not feel that their Facebook friends or Twitter followers agree with their opinion are more likely to self-censor their views on the Snowden-NSA story in many circumstancesβin social media and in face-to-face encounters .\nIn this survey on the Snowden-NSA matter , we found that when social media users felt their opinions were not supported online , they were less likely to say they would speak their minds . This was true not only in social media spaces , but also in the physical presence of others .\nThe average Facebook user ( someone who uses the site a few times per day ) was half as likely as other people to say they would be willing to voice their opinion with friends at a restaurant . If they felt that their online Facebook network agreed with their views on this issue , their willingness to speak out in a face-to-face discussion with friends was higher , although they were still only 0.74 times as likely to voice their opinion .\nThe typical Twitter user ( who uses the site a few times per day ) is 0.24 times as likely to share their opinions with colleagues at work as an internet user who does not use Twitter . However , Twitter users who felt that their online Twitter followers shared their opinion were less reserved : They were only 0.66 times less likely to speak up than other internet users .\nThe survey did not directly explore why people might remain silent if they felt that their opinions were in the minority . The traditional view of the spiral of silence is that people choose not to speak out for fear of isolation . Other Pew Research studies have found that it is common for social media users to be mistaken about their friends β beliefs and to be surprised once they discover their friends β actual views via social media . Thus , it might be the case that people do not want to disclose their minority views for fear of disappointing their friends , getting into fruitless arguments , or losing them entirely . Some people may prefer not to share their views on social media because their posts persist and can be found laterβperhaps by prospective employers or others with high status . As to why the absence of agreement on social media platforms spills over into a spiral of silence in physical settings , we speculate that social media users may have witnessed those with minority opinions experiencing ostracism , ridicule or bullying online , and that this might increase the perceived risk of opinion sharing in other settings .\nPeople also say they would speak up , or stay silent , under specific conditions .\nIn addition to exploring the impact of agreement/disagreement on whether people were willing to discuss the Snowden-NSA revelations , we asked about other factors that might shape whether people would speak out , even if they suspected they held minority views . This survey shows how the social and political climate in which people share opinions depends on several other things :\nTheir confidence in how much they know . Those who felt they knew a lot about the issues were more likely than others to say they would join conversations .\nThose who felt they knew a lot about the issues were more likely than others to say they would join conversations . The intensity of their opinions . Those who said they had strong feelings about the Snowden-NSA matter were more willing than those with less intense feelings to talk about the subject .\nThose who said they had strong feelings about the Snowden-NSA matter were more willing than those with less intense feelings to talk about the subject . Their level of interest . Those who said they were very interested in the Snowden-NSA story were more likely than those who were not as interested to express their opinions .\nPeople β s use of social media did little to increase their access to information about the Snowden-NSA revelations .\nWe asked respondents where they were getting information about the debates swirling around the Snowden revelations , and found that social media was not a common source of news for most Americans . Traditional broadcast news sources were by far the most common sources . In contrast , social media sources like Facebook and Twitter were the least commonly identified sources for news on this issue .\nThere are limits to what this snapshot can tell us about how social media use is related to the ways Americans discuss important political issues . This study focuses on one specific public affairs issue that was of interest to most Americans : the Snowden-NSA revelations . It is not an exhaustive review of all public policy issues and the way they are discussed in social media .\nThe context of the Snowden-NSA story may also have made it somewhat different from other kinds of public debates . At the time of this study , the material leaked by Edward Snowden related to NSA monitoring of communications dealt specifically with β meta-data β collected on people β s phone and internet communications . For a phone call , the meta-data collected by the NSA was described as including the duration of the call , when it happened , the numbers the call was between , but not a recording of the call . For email , meta-data would have included the sender and recipient β s email addresses and when it was sent , but not the subject or text of the email .\nAdditional information leaked by Snowden after our study was completed suggests that Western intelligence agencies monitored and manipulated the content of online discussions and the NSA recorded the content of foreign phone calls . In reaction to these additional revelations , people may have adjusted their use of social media and their willingness to discuss a range of topics , including public issues such as government surveillance . However , given the limited extent of the information leaked by Snowden at the time the survey was fielded , it seems unlikely that the average American had extensively altered their willingness to discuss political issues . Future research may provide insight into whether Americans have become more or less willing to discuss specific issues on-and offline as a result of government surveillance programs . While this study focused on the Snowden-NSA revelations , we suspect that Americans use social media in similar ways to discuss and get news about other political issues .\nAn informed citizenry depends on people β s exposure to information on important political issues and on their willingness to discuss these issues with those around them . The rise of social media , such as Facebook and Twitter , has introduced new spaces where political discussion and debate can take place . This report explores the degree to which social media affects a long-established human attributeβthat those who think they hold minority opinions often self-censor , failing to speak out for fear of ostracism or ridicule . It is called the β spiral of silence . β\nThis report is a collaborative effort based on the input and analysis of the following individuals :\nOther major reports from the βββ Internet Project on the social and political impact of social networking sites on social and political activity can be found at :\nThis report contains findings from a nationally representative survey of 1,801 American adults ( ages 18+ ) conducted by the βββ and fielded August 7-September 16 , 2013 by Princeton Research Associates International . It was conducted in English and Spanish on landline ( N=901 ) and cell phones ( N=900 ) . The margin of error for the full sample is plus or minus 2.6 percentage points . Some 1,076 respondents are users of social networking sites and the margin of error for that subgroup is plus or minus 3.3 percentage points .
|
allsides-corpus-348
|
Gloria Alvarez , the young woman from Guatemala I wrote about last week , just got blocked by Facebook . Why ? Because she criticizes socialism .\nAfter Alvarez joined me in my American studio to make a video we titled `` Socialism Fails Every Time , '' she flew to Mexico City to make a speech .\nA few days later she wrote me that `` some leftist 'students ' posted on a fanpage called 'Marxist and Leninist Memes ' : 'BOYCOTT Gloria Alvarez in our University ! We wo n't let her in ! ' ''\nSo Alvarez posted ( in Spanish ) on her own Facebook page : `` My dear Mexican socialists intolerants : Thank you ! for trying to boycott my eventβ¦ showing that panic that you have for the debate of ideas . Given yours are so bad , that only with bullets they can be obeyed just like in Venezuela and Nicaragua . You demonstrate once again that you are the intolerant ones against freedom . ''\nShe ended her riff with a wise defense of free speech : `` Where words are exchanged , bullets are no longer exchanged . ''\n`` You recently posted something that violates Facebook policies , '' wrote Facebook .\nWhat violated Facebook policies ? Was it calling the people who demanded that she not be allowed to speak `` socialists intolerants '' whose ideas `` are so bad that only with bullets they can be obeyed '' ?\nWhen social media companies block you , the βββ is often mysterious .\nFacebook did say , `` For more information , visit the Help Centerβ¦ ( U ) nderstand Facebook 's Community Standards . '' Good luck getting an explanation that way .\nAlvarez suspects she was blocked because her opponents , boycott advocates , complained about her . Leftists are good at launching campaigns to shut people up .\nFortunately , Alvarez has connections . A few days later she wrote , `` a friend of mine that has a cousin working on Facebook Latin America ( helped ) me to unblock my page this morning . ''\nExcept , most of us do n't have a friend whose cousin works for Facebook .\nFacebook , YouTube , Twitter , and other social media platforms promote themselves as sites that enhance communication , not censor it .\nI should n't use the word `` censor . '' When a private company blocks someone , it 's called editing . Companies edit to increase civil communication , improve the quality of discussion , delete threats and lies , etc . Editing helps make their sites more pleasant places to visit .\nCensorship and the First Amendment apply to governments . America 's Founders feared government censorship because government can use force , and we have just one government .\nBut if Facebook blocks me , I still can communicate via Twitter , my YouTube videos , or Instagram .\nBut wait . Facebook bought Instagram . And Google bought YouTube . If these big companies edit me out , it will be hard to reach people .\nConservatives claim social media companies are quicker to censor conservative speech . That 's probably true . The people who work for social media companies lean left . Twitter CEO Jack Dorsey admitted that , telling CNN , `` We need to constantly show that we are not adding our own bias , which I fully admit is more left-leaning . ''\nThat 's why conservative sites like PragerU have been limited by YouTube . Restricting Prager University 's videos is absurd . The site has millions of followers . It offers dignified lectures on conservative philosophy . They explain things my Princeton professors never taught me .\nThe lectures violate neither YouTube 's standards nor Facebook 's standards . But recently , PragerU discovered that some of its Facebook videos were watched by no one . Zero people .\nFacebook later apologized , saying someone flagged PragerU 's videos as `` hate speech , '' and at least one Facebook human `` content monitor '' agreed . He was being `` retrained , '' said Facebook .\nRight-winger Alex Jones was banned by all major social media platforms . Milo Yiannopoulos was banned by Twitter .\nBut I have n't seen enough data to convince me that the sites actively limit conservative speech alone . Facebook just deleted 800 political pages , including some that criticize police brutality .\nLeftist Glenn Greenwald tweeted after that purge , `` those who demanded Facebook & other Silicon Valley giants censor political content β¦ are finding that content that they themselves support & like end up being repressed . That 's what has happened to every censorship advocate in history . ''\nThe best answer to speech we do n't like is : more speech .\nI like being able to hear numerous opinionsβeven if I disagree with them .
|
allsides-corpus-349
|
If CNN reporter Jim Acosta is such a troublous force inside the White House Briefing Roomβa β rude , terrible person β as President Donald Trump recently put itβdeserving of being banned from White House grounds , then why did Trump and press secretary Sarah Huckabee Sanders routinely call on him during the televised question and answer periods at the White House over the past 22 months ?\nHad Acosta β s behavior truly offended them , Sanders and Trump could have permanently stifled the pesky reporter by treating him like a ghost , averting their gazes and picking other reporters during question time . Acosta couldn β t have done anything about it . Instead , Sanders and Trump regularly called on Acosta , counting on the likelihood that he would do that Acosta thing of speechifying and playing microphone hog as he attempts to turn a question into an extended back-and-forth . Sanders and Trump have pretended exasperation at Acosta β s posturingβposturing that hasn β t broken much news , by the wayβbut not so secretly they happily wallow in his pomposity . By getting Acosta to play the preening , self-aggrandizing , sanctimonious reporter and using him as the punching bag for the White House β s anti-press strategy , Sanders and Trump have created a unique public venue to exhibit their hatred for the β fake news β of CNN .\nThe TV moments created by Acosta 's clashesβsee the Guardian 's reel of their best sparring matchesβhave served him , too . If you β re a fan of reporters who are better at lecturing than asking a question and think White House briefings and presidential press conferences should resemble the bloodsport of duels , then you probably find the Acosta clashes sufficiently enriching to make CNN your cable news destination .\nAcosta β s forced exile and the lawsuit filed by CNN today demanding that Sanders and Trump return the β hard pass β that will allow him to roam the White House grounds have turned him into a free speech martyr , which I suppose he is . Like all First Amendment radicals , I deplore the Acosta ban and look forward to the day that he β s back in the White House making a pest of himself again . The case law cited in the suit by lawyer Theodore J. Boutrous , a top cock in the First Amendment bar β s pecking order , appears to prevent the White House from arbitrarily banning reporters from White House press facilities β for less than compelling reasons. β Even Fox News Channel β s legal analyst Andrew Napolitano predicts that the matter will be resolved β quickly β in CNN β s favor .\nThe original charge Sanders made when barring Acostaβthat he had placed β his hands β on the White House intern trying to retrieve his microphone during the presserβhas been disproved . Today , attempting to argue against the CNN suit , Sanders shifted her rationale for the de-Acostafication of the White House , accusing him additionally and accurately for not surrendering the microphone when approached by the intern .\nBut as Sanders herself acknowledges , this was not the first time Acosta had resisted yielding the floor . So where is the common justice in ejecting him from White House grounds without so much as a warning ? Sanders and Trump have thrilled in Acosta β s bad manners not only because his acting out helped personify their critique of CNN but also because it has made great TV drama for the president . Anything that β s good for ratings is good with Trump . It β s obvious from viewing the Acosta-Trump faceoff that Trump was spoiling for a fightβ β Here we go , β Trump interrupted as Acosta began the wind-up on his first questionβand started swinging back from the get-go . He wanted what Acosta was bringing so he could re-assume his old reality-TV role as the heavy who banishes the pretentious upstart . When the CNN lawsuit rolled in today , Trump must have clicked his heels in joy at the prospect of kicking Acosta and CNN around some more .\nTelevised White House briefings have always been political theater but under Trump β s management they β ve generated as much genuine news as a low-wattage kitchen microwave . The endless bickering between Sanders and the press corps and her obfuscations have become the story , much to the detriment of journalism . I wouldn β t go so far to call the briefings uselessβthey can connect reporters to otherwise hard-to-find facts and get the administration on the recordβbut for real news you have to rely on reporters like Maggie Haberman who spend little time in the daily briefings waiting for news to arrive .\nLike so many episodes of The Trump Show , the martyrdom of Jim Acosta provides an entertaining sideshow . While it β s true that he β s more of a pain in the neck than a true newshawk , we can still call for his return to the White House briefing room in good conscience because being a pain in the neck is often a necessary part of the job . Besides , Sanders and Trump already miss him .
|
allsides-corpus-350
|
President Donald Trump on Thursday afternoon signed his much-hyped executive order on campus free speech β which he deemed a `` historic action to defend American students and American values '' that have `` been under siege '' on campuses .\n`` Under the guise of speech codes and safe spaces and trigger warnings , these universities have tried to restrict free thought , impose total conformity and shutdown the voices of great young Americans , '' Trump said Thursday before signing the order .\nThe order , however , essentially reinforces what schools are already supposed to be doing by formally requiring colleges to agree to promote free inquiry in order to get billions of dollars in federal research funding .\n`` While many schools β or all schools β are frankly supposed to follow this currently , it will ensure that grant dollars are associated through the grant-making process , and schools will have to certify that they β re following this condition , '' a senior administration official said earlier Thursday .\nStill the move , and the president 's rhetoric surrounding it , raised alarms for some civil liberties groups and conservatives β including at least one Republican lawmaker β who expressed concerns about federal overreach .\n`` I don β t want to see Congress or the president or the department of anything creating speech codes to define what you can say on campus , '' Sen. Lamar Alexander ( R-Tenn. ) , who chairs the Senate HELP Committee , said in a statement . `` The U.S. Constitution guarantees free speech . Federal courts define and enforce it . The Department of Justice can weigh in . Conservatives don β t like it when judges try to write laws , and conservatives should not like it when legislators and agencies try to rewrite the Constitution . β\nThe order directs 12 federal agencies that fund university research to add language to existing agreements that colleges have to sign to get the money . Public universities will have to vow to uphold the First Amendment β something they already must do β and private universities will have to promise to uphold their own `` stated institutional policies regarding freedom of speech , '' essentially setting their own rules .\nIt will be up to the agencies to enforce the agreements , as they already do .\n`` Today we β re delivering a clear message to the professors and power structures trying to suppress dissent and keep young Americans β and all Americans , not just young Americans β¦ from challenging rigid , far-left ideology , '' Trump said . `` If the university does n't allow you to speak , we will not give them money β it 's very simple . ''\nThe president vowed it was `` the first in a series of steps we will take to defend students ' rights . ''\nThe executive order is `` plainly unnecessary , '' the president of a group of public universities said .\n`` Public universities are already bound by the First Amendment and work each day to defend and honor it , '' Peter McPherson , president of the Association of Public and Land-grant Universities , said . β As institutions of higher learning , public universities are constantly working to identify new ways to educate students on the importance of free expression , provide venues for free speech , and advance our world through free academic inquiry .\nβ This executive order doesn β t do much with regard to free speech , '' ACLU Senior Legislative Counsel Kate Ruane said in a statement . `` Instead , it tells public universities to abide by the First Amendment , as they are already required to do , and private universities to abide by their existing policies . ''\nSome conservatives , however , believe colleges have n't done that , and are regularly stifling speech β especially conservative speech β by banning speakers , creating speech zones and pushing trigger warnings .\n`` College campuses are ground zero in the campaign by the liberal left to shut down conservative dissent , '' said Chandler Thornton , chairman of the College Republican National Committee . `` President Trump 's executive order is critically needed because college and university bureaucrats have absolutely failed to protect free speech on campus . ''\nTrump previously threatened to withdraw federal funding to the University of California , Berkeley , after riots on campus led it to cancel an event at which far-right provocateur Milo Yiannopoulos was scheduled to speak . At Trump 's CPAC speech where he first mentioned the executive order , the president brought to the stage Hayden Williams , a conservative activist who was punched in the face while recruiting on the Berkeley campus for the conservative youth group Turning Point USA .\nThe Justice Department under the Trump administration , meanwhile , has backed lawsuits against colleges it believes are suppressing speech , including Berkeley .\nDonald Trump , Jr. , touted the move on Twitter Thursday morning as `` A big momentous day ! ''\n`` Super excited today that @ realDonaldTrump is signing an executive order today to protect free speech rights for ALL students ! '' he wrote . `` Great work by @ TPUSA and @ charliekirk11 who have been pushing this since the first time I met him years ago . ''\nSome , however , remained skeptical of federal intrusions into campus speech , especially given the president β s framing of the issue . The conservative Charles Koch Institute pointed to a statement the White House issued in which Trump slammed β oppressive speech codes , censorship , political correctness , and every other attempt by the hard left to stop people from challenging ridiculous and dangerous ideas . ''\nβ We are concerned that wrongly framing censorship as an ideological issue works against efforts to foster open intellectual environments on campus , '' Sarah Ruger , director of Free Speech Initiatives at the Koch Institute , said in a statement . β The best policies are those that empower the academy to uphold its core ideals of academic independence and free inquiry . ''\nThe Foundation for Individual Rights in Education , which has sued colleges it believes are stifling speech , said in a statement that the order could result in `` unintended consequences that threaten free expression and academic freedom . ''\n`` To the extent that today β s executive order asks colleges and universities to meet their existing legal obligations , it should be uncontroversial , '' the group said . `` We note that the order does not specify how or by what standard federal agencies will ensure compliance , the order β s most consequential component . FIRE has long opposed federal agency requirements that conflict with well-settled First Amendment jurisprudence . We will continue to do so . ''\nThe American Council on Education , the leading higher education lobbying group , meanwhile , said the order is `` unnecessary and unwelcome , a solution in search of a problem . ''\n`` What remains to be seen is the process the administration develops to flesh out these requirements and the extent to which it is willing to consult with the communities most affected β especially research universities , '' said Ted Mitchell , the group 's president , in a statement . `` No matter how this order is implemented , it is neither needed nor desirable , and could lead to unwanted federal micromanagement of the cutting-edge research that is critical to our nation β s continued vitality and global leadership . β\nThe order makes some moves beyond free speech , as well .\nIt directs the Education Department to add program-level data , including information on debt , earnings , repayment and default rates , to the existing College Scorecard . In addition , the order directs the department to publish the performance , by college , of PLUS loans for parents and graduate students . It also orders up a report from the department with recommendations on how the administration can put colleges on the hook for how well their students do after graduation .\n`` We β re going to make them have an incentive to keep their costs down , '' Trump said . `` I β ve watched this over a period of time . I figured it out very , very quickly . I just see their numbers go up very rapidly , because they do n't have the burden on them . ''
|
allsides-corpus-351
|
Twitter 's verification program put the company at the center of another political headache this week , with the social media giant stuck between liberals who demand stricter rules about hate speech and misinformation and conservatives who fear the site will target them for their political views .\nTwitter 's `` blue checkmark '' verification program is meant to authenticate the identities of high-profile users . But it 's also come to be seen as an endorsement or mark of approval from Twitter , sparking outrage when the checkmarks were bestowed on white nationalists like Richard Spencer or Charlottesville , Va. , `` Unite the Right '' rally organizer Jason Kessler .\nThe social media site responded to the criticism Wednesday by taking checkmarks away from several users affiliated with the far right or white nationalism , as well as kicking one prominent Charlottesville marcher off the platform permanently .\nFurther changes are expected next week , when Twitter says it will implement more rules . Twitter declined to comment on the changes .\nWhile liberals cheered the crackdown , conservatives worried that they 'll be punished next . Describing the crackdown , a Breitbart headline declared that β conservative figures β had been β purged . β\nOne user who lost her verification , Laura Loomer , charged that Twitter was trying to β annihilate conservatives from the internet . β\nβ They β re absolutely targeting people on the right , β said Tim Gionet , an internet troll better known as Baked Alaska who attended the Charlottesville march with white supremacists and has made anti-Semitic statements on Twitter . β Can you name one liberal that was deverified ? β\nWhile several far-right and white nationalist figures affected by Twitter β s policy change on Wednesday lost their verified checkmarks , Gionet appears to be the only one who was outright banned from the platform .\nWhile the punishments focused on Twitter β s fringe right , some more mainstream conservatives raised concerns about taking away verifications .\n`` If they want to ban people , ban them . But verification is to prevent fraud , not to endorse viewpoints , '' tweeted conservative pundit Ben Shapiro in response to the changes .\nOthers took issue with a specific provision in the company β s new rules , which states that Twitter can deverify users based on behavior that occurs off Twitter .\nβ It 's worth noting that Twitter can remove your verified badge for behaviors made /off/ the platform , β tweeted Ian Miles Cheong , a contributor to Tucker Carlson β s The Daily Caller . β Just as well , the company can take action against your account for supporting any group or individual that it claims promote certain behaviors . β\nβ You know what this means for # MAGA , β he warned , referring to President Trump β s campaign promise to β make America great again . β\nCheong told βββ that he doesn β t support the views of white nationalists like Spencer and Kessler , but argues that it β s damaging for Twitter to censor speech .\nβ The reason why is : if you drive them underground ... they β re going to radicalize further , β Cheong argued . β The best way to counter arguments is to provide good arguments . β\nThe Twitter crackdown comes amid concerns that other Silicon Valley firms are discriminating against the right .\nInternet conservatives similarly fumed after YouTube began to strip their videos of ads , cutting into the revenue right-wing internet pundits receive from them . Some of the community β s most extreme members were also incensed when Reddit moved to purge Nazi subreddits from its site .\nNew decisions from tech companies are frustrating members of the fringe-right , whose communities had blossomed on sites like Reddit , Twitter and YouTube in recent years .\nTwitter once declared itself β the free speech wing of the free speech party. β While the company still prides itself on being a forum for open discussions , it β s now less comfortable with that characterization .\nβ I thought once everybody could speak freely and exchange information and ideas , the world is automatically going to be a better place , β Twitter co-founder Evan Williams told The New York Times in May . β I was wrong about that . β\nGab β a Twitter rival with laxer content rules that British provocateur Milo Yiannopoulos and other fringe right figures have taken to after being banned from Twitter β agreed with calls from some right-wing figures for Twitter to be regulated as a utility .\nβ Twitter essentially is like a telephone , β Gab β s Chief Operating Officer Utsav Sanduja told βββ . β It is a public utility and it needs to be regulated one . β\nSpencer made a similar argument , calling on β Washington to regulate Silicon Valley β on Twitter .\nTheir sentiments echo former White House chief strategist Stephen Bannon β s push to regulate massive Silicon Valley tech firms like Google , Facebook and Amazon .\nSuch arguments have been made more typically by Democrats like Sen. Al Franken Alan ( Al ) Stuart FrankenAl Franken to host SiriusXM radio show βββ 's Morning Report - Presented by National Association of Manufacturers - The impeachment of President Trump has begun GOP Senate candidate said Republicans have 'dual loyalties ' to Israel MORE ( D-Minn. ) , who has advocated for net neutrality-styled regulations of major internet firms .\nDespite increasing calls for tighter oversight of internet firms , such policies are still unlikely in the short term . In the meantime , some high-profile members of the online right see Gab as their next best bet β albeit one with far less reach than Twitter .\nGab says that Twitter β s stricter verification rules have benefited it . Sanduja said over email on Wednesday night that the platform saw a spike of 2,000 new user sign ups on Thursday , the day the new Twitter rules went into effect .\nGab platform has 310,000 users in total , according to Sanduja .\nβ These unforced errors from Twitter have been fantastic for Gab , β the company said in a statement .
|
allsides-corpus-352
|
Earlier this month , I wrote a column asking what Democrats should do about sexual assault allegations against Joe Biden , the party 's presumptive nominee for president . My answer ? Not much . The accusation made by Tara Reade , a former Biden staffer from his days in the Senate during the early 1990s , did n't strike me as especially convincing , so Democrats , I suggested , could move forward without much concern . Though toward the end of the column I included two caveats : If Reade offered further corroboration of her claims or if evidence emerged of a larger pattern of abusive actions toward women on Biden 's part , that could well change my views of the matter .\nJust two weeks later , both of my conditions have been met .\nLast week we learned that Reade 's mother called into the Larry King Show in 1993 to talk about how her daughter had quit working for a `` prominent senator '' after unspecified `` problems '' as a staffer . Then earlier this week Business Insider reported that a former neighbor of Reade 's ( a self-described `` strong Democrat '' ) recalls a conversation with her in 1995 or 1996 in which Reade tearfully described being sexually assaulted by Biden . Together , those two stories help to corroborate Reade 's specific claim about herself .\nFinally , on Tuesday , a 2008 essay by the late Alexander Cockburn surfaced in which the journalist reported that Biden had made `` unwelcome and unwanted '' sexual advances against a woman in 1972 or 1973 . That establishes a possible longstanding pattern of Biden 's behavior that further validates Reade 's accusation ( and potentially opens the door to others ) .\nIn light of these revelations , the time has come for a two new questions : Can Biden survive the gathering storm around Tara Reade 's allegations ? And if so , will that fact be good or bad for the Democratic Party in November ?\nThe first question is the easier one to answer : Biden 's presumptive nomination is quite likely to survive the corroboration of Reade 's claims . That 's because members of Biden 's electoral base in the Democratic Party β older , culturally moderate white working-class voters in the Midwest and older , culturally moderate African Americans β are unlikely to be turned against him by one corroborated allegation of sexual assault from nearly three decades in the past . If anything , rank-and-file Democrats have expressed regret that some # MeToo allegations have taken down popular members of the party ( former Minnesota Sen. Al Franken is the example cited most frequently ) β and they 're also irritated that Democrats are expected to adhere to standards their opponents openly flout .\nThe factions of the party most likely to turn on Biden because of a sexual-assault scandal are those who 've been least wedded to his candidacy from the start β those firmly on the left , who supported Sen. Bernie Sanders ; and white urban progressives , who tended to favor Sen. Elizabeth Warren 's candidacy . Neither group possesses the numbers or influence in the party to get it to overrule the preferences of the other two electorally crucial factions β and obviously their opinions will also carry little weight with the candidate himself . This means that , so long as no additional corroborated accusations materialize , Biden will most likely get to hold onto the nomination if he wants to .\nThat might turn out to be a very bad thing for the party come November .\nBut how could this be ? How could a sexual assault allegation place Biden at a disadvantage in the general election against President Trump , a man who has openly bragged on tape of sexual assault and has himself been accused of rape on multiple occasions ?\nOn substance , Trump will have zero moral ground to stand on . But he wo n't be taking a stand in the name of treating women with respect . Neither will he be accusing Biden of being a sexual predator . Instead , he and the entire Republican noise machine will constantly , relentlessly hammer Biden , leading Democrats , and the media for flagrant hypocrisy and double standards . The moral content of the issue wo n't matter one bit . What will matter is that Biden has set himself up as a moral arbiter on issues of sexual harassment and violence , insisting we must `` believe all women , '' and that in the fall of 2018 he and many other members of his party sought to destroy the reputation of Trump 's Supreme Court nominee Brett Kavanaugh for allegations of sexual assault that were less convincingly corroborated than those Reade has lodged against Biden .\nThe Democratic nominee for president and his party are ruthless political operators who seek above all else to destroy their enemies and help themselves , all the while setting themselves up as impartial moral authorities . This will be the message , driven home over and over again : that claims of purity and impartiality are pretense , transparent fakes . Democrats might posture like they 're better than Republicans , including the president , but they are n't . They 're every bit as bad . They 're just more dishonest about it .\nThe Biden campaign 's effort to portray itself as a moral reset from the debasement of the Trump years will run into this counter-message like a power sander . The Trump campaign will strip it away with a barrage of paid ads , prime-time cable news diatribes , and a hailstorm of tweets β all of it repeating the message ( illustrated with clips from and about the Kavanaugh hearings ) that Biden and his fellow Democrats are every bit the BS artists that Trump is , only they wo n't admit it . They 'll lie about it , right to your face .\nTo Democrats this prediction may sound implausible . There 's no way that Trump , a man whose mendaciousness is well established and total , can possibly succeed in portraying Biden as more dishonest than he is . But he wo n't have to show that Biden is worse , just that he 's no better .\nThat 's Trump 's ( perhaps only ) winning move β to bring the playing field down to his level , to lower Biden 's favorability rating , to make him seem less admirable , less likable , less morally upstanding , less β¦ superior than Trump . He did the same thing against Hillary Clinton in 2016 , using the FBI investigation of her email practices while secretary of state as a cudgel . Last summer , the strategy was to impugn Biden 's son , making them both look like corrupt wheeler dealers in Ukraine . That did n't work out , but now Reade 's allegations have made it possible for Trump and his party to do what they love most of all , which is to accuse Democrats and the media of smarmy double standards instead .\nOf course this wo n't work with most Democratic voters , but that wo n't be its aim . The aim will be to ensure maximal turnout and Trump loyalty among Republicans β and the destruction of Biden 's reputation among independents in crucial swing states .\nWill it succeed ? Trump will be facing re-election while presiding over a deadly pandemic and the early stages of an economic depression , so who knows . What I do know is that the behavior Tara Reade has plausibly alleged about the presumptive Democratic nominee is going to be a major liability for him as we head toward Election Day .\nWant more essential commentary and analysis like this delivered straight to your inbox ? Sign up for The Week 's `` Today 's best articles '' newsletter here .
|
allsides-corpus-353
|
The head of US media giant CBS , Les Moonves , has resigned with immediate effect following allegations of sexual misconduct .\nCBS had been investigating Mr Moonves since allegations appeared in the New Yorker in July - and fresh accusations from six more women appeared on Sunday .\nMr Moonves , 68 , denies the allegations , calling the latest `` appalling '' .\nIn a statement CBS said a $ 20m ( Β£15.4m ) would be paid immediately in support of the # MeToo movement .\nIt said one or more organisations that supported # MeToo and female workplace equality stood to benefit , but did not specify which .\nThe donation has been deducted from any severance benefits that may be due to Mr Moonves - the amount of which is pending the results of an ongoing independent investigation into his conduct .\nThey appear in a new article in the New Yorker by Ronan Farrow , who also authored the July piece and this year shared a Pulitzer Prize for detailing assault accusations against Hollywood producer Harvey Weinstein .\nThe six women in the latest piece allege sexual harassment or assault by Mr Moonves between the 1980s and the first decade of this century .\nSome allege he forced them to perform oral sex or exposed himself without their consent .\nSome say he damaged their careers when they rebuffed him .\nTV executive Phyllis Golden-Gottlieb and writer Jessica Pallingston are two of the women who give graphic descriptions of the misconduct they accuse Mr Moonves of carrying out .\nUnder Mr Moonves ' leadership , CBS has been the most-watched network in the US . He developed hits like CSI and The Big Bang Theory , while his $ 69.3m ( Β£53m ) earnings in 2017 made him one of the highest paid chief executives in the world .\nHis tenure at the top of CBS , which he joined in 1995 , has been marked by a power struggle with Shari Redstone who , through her family 's business National Amusements , is the controlling shareholder in both CBS and the media conglomerate , Viacom .\nMs Redstone and Mr Moonves had been engaged in a court battle as he tried to thwart her plan to merge CBS and Viacom .\nBut the announcement of Mr Moonves ' departure came at the same time as CBS said it was ending legal action against National Amusements . For its part , National Amusements said it would not seek a merger between the two companies for the next two years .\nIn a statement it announced that Mr Moonves would step down as chairman , president and CEO with immediate effect .\nThe Financial Times said Mr Moonves was resigning because this would entitle him to a hefty severance package , including stock options .\nUS media said the resignation package for Mr Moonves could amount to $ 100m .\nHowever , CBS said he would not receive any severance benefits until the result of an independent investigation into him .\nIn a separate move , six directors have stepped down and six new ones have been elected .\nMr Moonves issued a statement on Sunday saying : `` Untrue allegations from decades ago are now being made against me that are not consistent with who I am . ''\nThe New Yorker quoted a statement in which he says : `` The appalling accusations in this article are untrue . What is true is that I had consensual relations with three of the women some 25 years ago before I came to CBS .\n`` And I have never used my position to hinder the advancement or careers of women . In my 40 years of work , I have never before heard of such disturbing accusations . ''\nA further six women also accused Mr Moonves earlier this year . All of them said they believed their careers had suffered because they rejected his advances .\nAt the time Mr Moonves said he `` may have made some women uncomfortable '' in the past , adding : `` Those were mistakes , and I regret them immensely . But I always understood and respected ... that 'no ' means 'no ' .\nOn Monday , CBS This Morning presenter Norah O'Donnell told viewers that `` he 's my boss - or he was my boss - and that makes it hard to comment on it '' .\nShe discussed her conversation over the weekend with co-host Gayle King about how it had been less than a year since their fellow CBS presenter , Charlie Rose , resigned amid sexual misconduct allegations against him .\nShe then turned to the camera and said : `` There is no excuse for this alleged behavior . It is systemic and it is pervasive in our culture . ''\n`` And this I know this is true to the core of my being : Women can not achieve equality in the workplace or society until there is a reckoning and a taking of responsibility . ''
|
allsides-corpus-354
|
Speaker Ryan On Sexual Harassment : 'We Are Having A Watershed Moment In This Country '\nHouse Speaker Paul Ryan , R-Wis. , says the rash of sexual harassment and sexual assault allegations coming to light could end up being a `` watershed moment '' in changing the culture β including on Capitol Hill β that has covered them up far too long .\n`` We are having a watershed moment in this country . I think this is a defining moment in this country . And I think it needs to be a defining moment in this country , '' Ryan told Morning Edition 's Steve Inskeep in an interview on Capitol Hill on Thursday .\nPolitics Listen : House Speaker Paul Ryan Defends GOP Tax Plans In 'Morning Edition ' Interview Paul Ryan Defends GOP Tax Plans Listen Β· 7:02 7:02\n`` I think we 're all horrified at these stories we 've been seeing unfold in the last few weeks . I think we 're all realizing that sexual harassment in America is absolutely pervasive and it 's got to go and we need to end it , '' Ryan continued . `` And nowhere more is this important to set a standard and an example than elected officials . We should be held to a high standard . ''\nPoliticians in both parties have been accused of sexual misconduct in recent weeks . On Thursday , Ryan called for Rep. John Conyers , D-Mich. , to resign after a former aide made public her allegations of sexual harassment against the veteran lawmaker . House Minority Leader Nancy Pelosi , D-Calif. , also called on Conyers to step down . The Michigan Democrat has been hospitalized for stress .\nAnother accuser also came forward on Thursday against Sen. Al Franken , D-Minn. , alleging that he groped her during a 2003 photo opportunity , bringing his total accusers to five women who say the senator groped or forcibly kissed them in recent weeks . The Senate Ethics Committee confirms it has launched an initial inquiry into the allegations against Franken .\nMeanwhile , Republicans are continuing to grapple with Alabama GOP Senate nominee Roy Moore , who has been accused by multiple women of sexual assault when they were teens and he was in his 30s . Several women say he pursued them romantically , and one woman said he had sexually assaulted her when she was 14 .\nPresident Trump himself was accused of sexual assault by several women during the 2016 campaign , allegations he continues to deny . And in a 2005 Access Hollywood tape that surfaced just ahead of the election Trump bragged about groping and forcibly kissing women . According to reports , Trump has now begun to privately assert that tape was a fake , despite acknowledging its veracity last year .\nInskeep asked Ryan about the differences between the allegations against Moore β which the House speaker reiterated he believed were `` very , very credible '' β and the accusations against Trump .\nThe speaker said he was `` focused on Congress '' because that 's where Moore wants to go . `` My job here as speaker of the House is to help make sure that Congress is an institution that we 're proud of and that 's what I 'm focused on , '' he said .\nAsked again about the differences , Ryan said , `` I have n't spent my time reviewing the difference in these two cases . ''\nRyan admitted , `` It 's no secret that [ Trump ] and I have had our differences of opinions , '' but he underscored they still align on policy issues and goals .\n`` What I see is a president who is fighting for the things that I 'm fighting for . I see a president who 's fighting for an agenda that will make a positive difference in people 's lives , '' Ryan said . `` Is this president unconventional ? No two ways about it . He 's very unconventional . But if we make good by the American people by actually improving their lives and fixing problems and finding solutions that are bothering them ? That 's a good thing . ''\nAll these recent political allegations are in addition to women coming forward with stories of sexual assault against high-profile Hollywood moguls such as Harvey Weinstein and journalists like NBC 's Matt Lauer , CBS ' Charlie Rose and top NPR executives as well .\nRyan told NPR that , as a father , the issue is a personal one for him as he has watched the swirl of scandal over the past few weeks .\n`` I want my daughter to grow up in a country β she 's 15 years old β where she is empowered and respected . Wherever she goes , wherever she works , and whatever she does . And I think nowhere should that be more obvious and apparent than working here on Capitol Hill , '' Ryan said .\n`` So I think here in Congress we should set ourselves to standards that we expect of other people , '' the House speaker added . `` We should set high standards for ourselves , so that we can be role models and set examples , and clearly people have been falling short of that , and I think we always have to endeavor to do a better job on that . ''\nCongress has recently passed legislation to adopt mandatory training on harassment and discrimination for lawmakers and Capitol Hill employees . In a news conference on Thursday , Ryan applauded the legislation but also said , `` This is an important step , but it 's one step . ''
|
allsides-corpus-355
|
A new piece of evidence has emerged buttressing the credibility of Tara Reade β s claim that she told her mother about allegations of sexual harassment and assault related to her former boss , then-Sen. Joe Biden . Biden , through a spokesperson , has denied the allegations . Reade has claimed to various media outlets , including βββ , that she told her mother , a close friend , and her brother about both the harassment and , to varying degrees of detail , the assault at the time . Her brother , Collin Moulton , and her friend , who has asked to remain anonymous , both confirmed that they heard about the allegations from Reade at the time . Reade β s mother died in 2016 , but both her brother and friend also confirmed Reade had told her mother , and that her mother , a longtime feminist and activist , urged her to go to the police . In interviews with βββ , Reade also mentioned that her mother had made a phone call to β Larry King Live β on CNN , during which she made reference to her daughter β s experience on Capitol Hill . Reade told βββ that her mother called in asking for advice after Reade , then in her 20s , left Biden β s office . β I remember it being an anonymous call and her saying my daughter was sexually harassed and retaliated against and fired , where can she go for help ? I was mortified , β Reade told me . Reade couldn β t remember the date or the year of the phone call , and King didn β t include the names of callers on his show . I was unable to find the call , but mentioned it in an interview with Katie Halper , the podcast host who first aired Reade β s allegation . After the podcast aired , a listener managed to find the call and sent it to βββ .\nOn August 11 , 1993 , King aired a program titled , β Washington : The Cruelest City on Earth ? β Toward the end of the program , he introduces a caller dialing in from San Luis Obispo , California . Congressional records list August 1993 as Reade β s last month of employment with Biden β s Senate office , and , according to property records , Reade β s mother , Jeanette Altimus , was living in San Luis Obispo County . Here is the transcript of the beginning of the call : KING : San Luis Obispo , California , hello . CALLER : Yes , hello . I β m wondering what a staffer would do besides go to the press in Washington ? My daughter has just left there , after working for a prominent senator , and could not get through with her problems at all , and the only thing she could have done was go to the press , and she chose not to do it out of respect for him . KING : In other words , she had a story to tell but , out of respect for the person she worked for , she didn β t tell it ? CALLER : That β s true . King β s panel of guests offered no suggestions , and instead the conversation veered into a discussion of whether any of the men on set would leak damaging personal information about a rival to the press .\nReade , after being read the transcript of the call , said that it gelled with her memory of it , and , after the video was surfaced , confirmed it is her mother β s voice on the call . β Aww , I have not heard my mom β s voice in awhile , β she said . There are several notable things about the emergence of the call . On the one hand , the caller does not specifically mention β sexual harassment β or retaliation , as Reade had recalled . On the other hand , the reference to being unable to β get through with her problems β aligns with Reade β s claim that she complained to superiors in Biden β s office and got nowhere , and the reference to going to the press makes clear that the caller is talking about more than just generic problems at the office . The problems , she makes clear , would damage the senator if exposed . Reade β s inability to remember the exact date of the alleged assault , or its precise location , or the precise location of the office where she picked up the form needed to file a complaint , has been used by skeptics to suggest the allegation is fabricated . What the emergence of the call shows is that even if Reade β s memory is off on timing or details , the substance of her claims β in this case , that her mother called Larry King and discussed her situation β can still be true .\nThe call also calls into question the credibility of Biden β s denial . Reade said that she filed a complaint about Biden β s harassment with Marianne Baker , effectively the office manager in the Biden office . The Biden campaign released a statement from Baker , which said that neither Reade nor any other employee had ever complained about improper behavior . β In all my years working for Senator Biden , I never once witnessed , or heard of , or received , any reports of inappropriate conduct , period β not from Ms. Reade , not from anyone , β Baker said in the campaign β s statement . β These clearly false allegations are in complete contradiction to both the inner workings of our Senate office and to the man I know and worked so closely with for almost two decades. β For Baker β s statement to be true , Reade would have had to have lied to her friend , brother , and mother about having complained to Biden β s office . There is no obvious reason Reade would make up a story to those closest to her about the Senate office not taking Biden β s harassment seriously , while at the same time resisting pressure to go to the press . Reade has said that the complaint she filed was related to the harassment she said she faced , and did not address the assault . The complaint was left with Biden β s office , and if it still exists , is with Biden β s papers at the University of Delaware . The school recently told reporter Rich McHugh that the papers are sealed until two years after Biden leaves public life .\nAnd @ UDelaware -- which houses the collection of Joe Biden 's senatorial papers -- just confirmed to me that the papers `` will remain closed to the public until two years after Mr. Biden retires from public life . '' β Rich McHugh ( @ RichMcHugh ) April 21 , 2020
|
allsides-corpus-356
|
Former Vice President Joe Biden addresses a campaign rally in Cedar Rapids , Iowa , April 30 , 2019 . ( Jonathan Ernst/Reuters )\nIt β s just basic American due process , so why is Betsy DeVos getting slammed ?\nWhy should Joe Biden get due process , but not others accused of sexual misconduct ?\nThat β s the question raised by the progressive reaction to Tara Reade β s accusation against Biden on the one hand , and Education Secretary Betsy DeVos β s new rules for handling sexual-harassment cases on college campuses on the other .\nThere have been voices on the left who believe Reade , but generally the note has been one of skepticism about her allegation , along with admonitions that the evidence must be considered carefully .\nMany of the popularizers of the phrase β believe women β have climbed down to simply saying that women β s accusations should be heard and then evaluated in light of the facts .\nIn other words , what any fair-minded person has maintained throughout the # MeToo era , including during the Brett Kavanaugh battle .\nAnd yet there is still progressive outrage over the new Title IX rules developed by DeVos that seek to bring balance and fairness to the consideration of accusations against people who aren β t the presumptive Democratic nominee for president of the United States .\nThe actor/activist Alyssa Milano , an erstwhile vocal advocate of β believe women , β has now modulated her view to accommodate her continued support of Biden . She explains that we need to shift our mindset β to believing women . But that does not mean at the expense of giving men their due process and investigating situations , and it β s got to be fair in both directions . β\nThis is an unassailable position , and one that obviously has implications for the Title IX debate . Even if it doesn β t entail supporting every particular of DeVos β s reforms , it should mean an openness to them . Nonetheless , late last year Milano slammed DeVos over the proposed changes in highly personal terms .\nThe upshot of Milano β s inconsistency is that a famous and powerful man , whom she happens to know and support , should get more consideration than a young , politically powerless , unknown student somewhere .\nA piece from Vox on what β believe women β means in the context of Reade β s allegation quoted Sage Carson , manager of an advocacy organization called Know Your IX . According to Carson , the concept has been twisted β into this idea that you never provide a fair process for folks to go through . β\nAn article in Mother Jones reported that anti-sexual-assault activists still supporting Biden have a number of reasons . One of them is β an eagerness to replace Trump β s cabinet , including Education Secretary Betsy DeVos , whose overhaul of campus sexual assault policy has prompted outcry from survivors . β\nIn other words , Biden gets the benefit of the doubt on Tara Reade explicitly as a means to continue to deny the accused on campus any such benefit of the doubt .\nThe DeVos changes are meant to inject elementary fairness into proceedings that went off the rails in response to Obama-administration guidance in 2011 . Students punished by these kangaroo courts have had considerable success appealing their cases in the courts .\nThe DeVos rules reverse the single-investigator model that empowered one person to investigate a case and recommend a decision .\nNow the investigator and adjudicator must be different . Students must have access to evidence , and the accused must know what is alleged and by whom and when .\nThere must be a live hearing and an opportunity for cross-examination by both sides .\nTitle IX coordinators and investigators can β t be biased one way or the other .\nThese measures are so in keeping with basic American traditions that it β s hard to believe that anyone could oppose them .\nThe ultimate irony is that Joe Biden was a prime mover behind the Obama-era Title IX rules . As Robby Soave of Reason magazine notes , β If the allegation against Biden were being decided by the kind of adjudication system that he helped enshrine on college campuses , it β s quite likely that he would be found guilty . β\nThere β s a lesson there , although it β s doubtful anyone β emphatically including Biden himself β is willing to learn it .
|
allsides-corpus-357
|
House Democratic Leader Nancy Pelosi is facing a backlash for defending Rep. John Conyers and even questioning those accusing him of sexual harassment during a Sunday interview .\nPelosi , D-Calif. , touted Conyers , D-Mich. , on NBC β s β Meet the Press β as an American icon .\nβ John Conyers is an icon in our country , β she said . β He has done a great deal to protect women . β\nShe added : β I believe he understands what β s at stake here . He will do the right thing . β\nPelosi said Conyers , and the women accusing him , were entitled to β due process , β but also asked : β I don β t know who they areβdo you ? β\nHost Chuck Todd asked whether Pelosi believed the women alleging Conyers treated them inappropriately .\nPelosi β s interview drew harsh criticism on Twitter from those who accused her of playing party politics and focusing on β power . β\nβ Pelosi is a survivor and knows she can β t lose support in black caucus so she is gentle w Conyers . It β s always about power , β Chairman of the American Conservative Union Matt Schlapp tweeted Monday .\nPolitical editor for TownHall.com and Fox News contributor Guy Benson pointed to Pelosi β s interview as an example of a β double standard β used by Democrats in regard to sexual harassment allegations . Benson cited Alabama Republican Senate candidate Roy Moore , who has been accused of pursuing teenage girls when he was in his 30s , and even sexual assault -- claims he denies .\nβ I β m no Roy Moore defender , to put it mildly . But for those unable to comprehend why many conservative voters are willing to stand by him , look no further than Pelosi β s MTP performance today . Many GOP voters see Dems as ruthless defenders of power & are sick of double standards , β Benson tweeted Sunday .\nDespite Pelosi β s defense of Conyers ' record , she applauded the Democratic congressman 's decision later Sunday to step down from his leadership position on the House Judiciary Committee while the Ethics Committee reviews the harassment allegations against him .\nβ Zero tolerance means consequences , β Pelosi said in a statement Sunday , noting that she asked for an ethics investigation into Conyers and that he β agreed to step aside β as ranking member on the committee .\nβ We are at a watershed moment on this issue , and no matter how great an individual β s legacy , it is not a license for harassment , β Pelosi said . β I commend the brave women coming forward . β\nPelosi β s statement seemed to add more fuel to the Twitter fire , as pundits and journalists pointed out the difference in tone from her comments earlier that day .\nThe ethics committee announced last Tuesday that it began an investigation into Conyers , after receiving allegations of sexual harassment and age discrimination involving staff members and about the congressman using β official resources for impermissible personal purposes . β\nThe announcement followed a BuzzFeed News report last Monday that Conyers β office paid a woman more than $ 27,000 under a confidentiality agreement to settle a 2015 complaint that she was fired from Conyers β staff for rejecting his sexual advances .\nAlso last week , Melanie Sloan , a lawyer who worked with Conyers on the House Judiciary Committee , alleged that she was called into Conyers β office to discuss an issue and found him β walking around in his underwear. β It is unclear when the alleged incident occurred . She also claimed Conyers screamed at her , fired and re-hired her , and criticized her for not wearing stockings .\nConyers has continued to deny the allegations , but said he would fully cooperate in the probe .
|
allsides-corpus-358
|
Yesterday the New York Post reported that Congresswoman Ilhan Omar is having an affair with Democratic strategist Tim Mynett . The allegation was made in divorce papers filed by his wife . In July , Omar filed for divorce from her current husband . A refresher :\nDr. Beth Jordan Mynett says her cheating spouse , Tim Mynett , told her in April that he was having an affair with the Somali-born US representative and that he even made a β shocking declaration of love β for the Minnesota congresswoman before he ditched his wife , alleges the filing , submitted in DC Superior Court on Tuesday .\nIt turns out Mynett 's firm was funneled a boat load of Omar 's campaign cash . He was paid more than $ 200,000 for consulting and the campaign reimbursed at least $ 21,000 for his personal travel . That travel was n't properly reported or itemized .\nAn official complaint regarding the large payments to Mynett 's firm has already been filed , alleging she broke the law .\n`` Today , NLPC filed a Complaint with the Federal Election Commission ( FEC ) against Rep. Ilhan Omar ( D-MN ) alleging that she and her campaign violated the prohibition on the personal use of campaign funds by reimbursing political consultant Tim Mynett for his travel in 2019 . The Complaint also alleges that Omar and her campaign failed to itemize the travel reimbursements , as required , '' the National Legal and Policy Center released in a statement Wednesday .\n`` Although Mynett 's formal relationship with Rep. Omar 's campaign began in July 2018 , with the payment of $ 7000 directly to Mynett , the reimbursements for Mynett 's travel did not commence until April 2019 , the same month that Dr. Mynett alleges in her filing that her husband told her of the affair , and made a 'shocking declaration of love ' for Rep. Omar , '' the complaint states .\nAccording to the divorce filing , Mynett 's `` more recent travel and long work hours now appear to be more related to his affair with Rep. Omar than his actual work commitments . ''\nAnd then there are these timing details from the Washington Examiner :\nHere 's the odd thing : The overwhelming majority of Omar 's funds spent on the E Street Group were paid after she won the contested primary and during the totally noncompetitive general election race in her D+26 district . Contrary to FEC rules , Omar 's filings did not designate whether her E Street Group disbursements ( or any of her disbursements ) were for the primary election or the general election .\nOmar is refusing to discuss her `` personal life '' and has not commented on the issue of campaign funds being improperly used .\n`` I have no interest in allowing the conversation about my personal life to continue and so I have no desire to discuss it , '' Omar told CBS Minnesota today .\nIn June , Omar was ordered to payback thousands of dollars to her campaign after breaking campaign finance laws .
|
allsides-corpus-359
|
Judge Rules Fewer Political Groups Can Keep Their Donors Secret\nA U.S. district court judge awarded a victory to campaign finance reform advocates on Tuesday when she ruled the Federal Election Commission was too loosely enforcing a campaign finance regulation passed in 2007 , allowing some big-money donors to remain anonymous .\nThe Bipartisan Campaign Reform Act required the identification of contributors giving $ 1,000 or more to fund `` issue ads '' near Election Day . But since it was enacted , only a few of those contributors have been revealed , because the FEC ruled those disclosures were n't required for ads supporting specific candidates . The Los Angeles Times reported the details of the ruling :\n`` The decision concerns a type of issue ads that became ubiquitous in recent elections . Typically , the ads suggest that voters call a senator or congressman and give an opinion about something . When those ads mention a candidate and are run close to elections , they 're known as 'electioneering ' communications , and the amount of spending has to be reported . ''\nRep. Chris Van Hollen ( D-Md . ) , along with reform advocacy groups Campaign Legal Center , Public Citizen and Democracy 21 , sued the FEC in 2011 to overturn the 2007 regulation . The Associated Press reported that Democracy 21 's president , Fred Werthiemer claimed the FEC allowed loopholes in the regulation to fund federal elections with `` dark money . ''\nVan Hollen called Judge Amy Berman Jackson 's Tuesday decision `` a victory for democracy . '' His partners in the lawsuit also hailed the ruling .\n`` We are seeing a full-throated endorsement of disclosure by the lower courts , '' said Tara Malloy with the Campaign Legal Center . `` We are enjoying the victory , though I am sure the fight will continue . ''\nConservative groups that attempted to intervene in the case have voiced their disappointment . Thomas Kirby , an attorney who represents the Center for Individual Freedom , told The Washington Post that `` the ruling created an upside-down world in which greater burdens are imposed on those who merely refer to a candidate than on those who expressly advocate election or defeat of a candidate . ''\nIn Tuesday 's decision , Jackson ruled that the FEC `` overstepped '' when it wrote the 2007 regulation into the campaign finance laws . That regulation , among other cases , led to the victory of the 2010 Citizens United case in the Supreme Court , which allowed nonprofits to hide their funding sources .\nThat decision essentially deleted the restrictions of the McCain-Feingold Act . The Los Angeles Times reported Tuesday that over $ 140 million of the so-called `` dark money '' was spent in the 2014 election . Bloomberg 's Businessweek reports that tens of thousands of TV ads run this year by GOP fundraising operation Crossroad GPS , founded by former Bush administration adviser Karl Rove , `` helped Republicans win control of the Senate . ''\nJackson 's decision that the regulation was `` arbitrary , capricious and contrary to law '' recalled an original report by the Sunlight Foundation in January . The report stated that Crossroads GPS violated election laws by failing to register itself as a political group instead of a nonprofit , social-welfare operation β a distinction that came with a huge impact .\n`` In recent years , the group Crossroads GPS has spent tens of millions on political ads fueled by anonymous donors . Registering as a political group would have forced the nonprofit to begin naming its big-time benefactors . Crossroads has also become a model for hundreds of other committees that during the last election cycle pumped more than $ 300 million into the campaign β an estimate that is undoubtedly low because of the lack of disclosure required of these organizations . ''\nIt was also noted in the judge 's ruling that the FEC reported their findings in 2007 at 5:05 p.m. before a weekend β what 's known in the news industry as a `` Friday night news dump '' because people are believed to be paying the least attention to the news during that portion of the week .\nThe FEC now has the option of either appealing Jackson 's decision or change its regulations . The six members are evenly divided between Republicans and Democrats and likely will have a difficult time agreeing on a course of action .\nFEC Chairman Lee Goodman told The Washington Post , `` I 've always said that I 'm open to judicial guidance on this issue , and now we 'll have to study the court 's opinion to determine exactly what obligation the FEC has in response . ''
|
allsides-corpus-360
|
More trouble is looming for Sen. Robert Menendez ( D ) of New Jersey : According to an Associated Press investigation , the embattled New Jersey Democrat sponsored legislation that , if passed , would have aided one of his biggest donor 's investment in a natural gas vehicle conversion company .\nThe report , published Monday , stated that Senator Menendez sponsored a bill to give tax credits and grants to truck and heavy vehicle fleets that converted to natural gas . The bill could have benefited Salomon Melgen , the Florida eye doctor whose close relationship with Menendez has spurred a Senate ethics investigation . Dr. Melgen is an investor and member of the board of directors of Gaseous Fuel Systems Corp. , which designs , manufactures , and sells products to convert diesel- and gas-fuel vehicles to natural gas .\nMenendez β s backing of the natural-gas bill marks another convergence of interest between the politician and a major donor and is a thorn for the senator . But political watchers in New Jersey say the bill sponsorship is one part of a larger clean-energy agenda from the senator , who has a history of supporting environmental causes . As such , it is unlikely this latest allegation represents a conflict of interest , says Brigid Harrison , a political scientist at Montclair State University , who predicts that Menendez will survive the latest storm .\nβ I β m still not convinced ... that this kind of behavior reaches to the status where it becomes enormously problematic in voters β minds , β says Professor Harrison . β I β m not seeing any illegality or conflict of interest here . β\nThe bill-sponsorship revelation revives the larger issue of the senator β s relationship with Melgen , with recent reports suggesting that Menendez was providing political favors for Melgen in exchange for campaign support .\nMenendez used Melgen β s private jet for two personal trips to the Dominican Republic in 2010 , flights that were not reimbursed until three years later , when news reports called the senator β s conduct into question .\nMenendez also intervened in a Medicare billing dispute between Melgen and federal authorities , as well as a port security contract , allegedly in order to protect the interests of his friend and donor , according to news reports . The allegations are compounded by a $ 700,000 donation Melgen made to Majority PAC , a `` super political-action committee '' created to elect Senate Democrats that ultimately made a $ 582,500 contribution to Menendez β s 2012 reelection campaign , according to the Center for Responsive Politics .\nMenendez has vehemently denied all allegations of impropriety , including any allegations of conflict-of-interest stemming from this latest report . His office did not respond to calls regarding his sponsorship of the natural gas bill .\nAccording to the AP report , Menendez joined Senate majority leader Harry Reid ( D ) and Utah Sen. Orrin Hatch ( R ) as a key backer of the natural gas bill . Soon after , Melgen joined the board of directors of Gaseous Fuel Systems Corp. , which makes technology to perform such conversions . Though his investment in the company is confidential under US Securities and Exchange Commission rules , the company required a minimum investment of $ 51,500 , according to the AP .\nUltimately , the bill didn β t get enough votes to make it out of the Senate . However , while it was under consideration , a consultant for Gaseous Fuel Systems spent $ 220,000 lobbying Menendez and other congressional officials , according to interviews and Senate records as reported by the AP .\nβ There is no evidence that Menendez offered direct help or intervened on behalf of the company or Melgen , β the AP said in its report . β Instead , the connection between the two men β s interests in natural gas is the latest example of the close symmetry between the senator β¦ and his millionaire backer . β\nEvidence of β close symmetry β in this latest development , say analysts , is not enough to topple Menendez .\nβ Menendez has been involved in clean-energy technology for a long time , β says Ross Baker , a political scientist at Rutgers University in New Brunswick , N.J. β In light of Melgen 's apparently limited and distant role in GFS , I think it is more of a coincidence than anything more sinister . I think it is as likely that Menendez got Melgen interested in converting truck fleets to natural gas as it was the other way around . β\nOther clean-energy initiatives the senator has supported include co-sponsoring legislation aimed at jump-starting offshore wind energy , extending solar energy tax credits , and creating block grants to spur green-energy projects .\nMenendez recently reintroduced the Repeal Big Oil Tax Subsidies Act and Close Big Oil Tax Loopholes Act , legislation he originally introduced in the 112th Congress to end tax subsidies for the β Big 5 β oil companies .\nβ It isn β t that this came out of the blue , it β s part of a larger cohesive agenda ... to deal with energy issues the country is facing , β says Harrison of Montclair State University . β His record is an accurate reflection of his policy concerns , and this is one part of that . β\nAnd though the AP report singled out Menendez , the senator isn β t alone in supporting the natural gas bill β or in sharing a passion with supporters for similar causes . In fact , the House version of the natural gas legislation had 181 co-sponsors .\nThe natural gas industry spends hundreds of thousands of dollars lobbying members of Congress , including Menendez and his staff . β They are not alone in being lobbied , β says Harrison .\nMenendez β s ethics controversy has had an impact on his poll numbers , and this latest development may further damage the senator β s image .\nA Quinnipiac University poll found Menendez β s approval ratings plummeted 15 percentage points between January and February , as news reports emerged about his relationship with Melgen . His approval rating dropped form 51 percent in mid-January to 36 percent in mid-February . The same poll found only 28 percent of New Jersey voters said the senator was β honest and trustworthy . β\nGet the Monitor Stories you care about delivered to your inbox . By signing up , you agree to our Privacy Policy\nβ I don β t think these microbial issues that deal with campaign finance and sponsorship of legislation are enough to make a difference in most voter 's minds in this state , β says Harrison .
|
allsides-corpus-361
|
Democratic Massachusetts Sen. Elizabeth Warren has made her opposition to pricey fundraisers a staple of her presidential campaign . β I don β t do big-dollar fundraisers at all , β she told β Tonight Show β host Jimmy Fallon on Wednesday .\nBut Warren has carved out a workaround to her pledge by speaking at high-dollar fundraisers for the Democratic National Committee ( DNC ) , whose financial support in the general election will be crucial to Warren if she is the party β s nominee .\nWarren on Thursday spoke at the DNC β s IWillVote Gala fundraiser in Boston . The DNC didn β t publicize ticket prices for the event , and didn β t return an email inquiring about the costs , but an archived invitation shows the DNC charged up to $ 50,000 per ticket package when it held the same event in Atlanta earlier in 2019 .\nContribution levels for the DNC β s IWillVote Gala in Atlanta in June ranged from $ 1,000 to $ 50,000 , with donors receiving better perks for larger donations , according to the Internet Archive β s Wayback Machine .\nWarren , whose campaign did not return an email seeking comment , also spoke at another high-dollar fundraiser , the DNC β s Women β s Leadership Forum Conference , which took place over two days in mid-October . ( RELATED : Elizabeth Warren Denied Sending Her Kids To Private School , Despite Sending Son To Elite Private School )\nContribution levels for the event ranged from $ 100 for a β young professional , β to $ 50,000 for a β WLF Ambassador , β the perks of which included ten VIP tickets to the Women Will Vote Gala , according to an archived version of the invitation page .\nThe liberal senator in August spoke to party donors at another DNC fundraiser in San Francisco , Politico reported .\nWarren in October defended attending high-dollar fundraisers for the DNC . β I will help the party , β The Associated Press quoted her saying . β I am not going to ask Democrats to unilaterally disarm in the face of an onslaught of money . β
|
allsides-corpus-362
|
Democratic Rep. Anna Eshoo has dipped into her campaign fund to buy more than $ 2,000 in gifts for her good friend and fellow Californian , House Minority Leader Nancy Pelosi , from swank stores such as Neiman Marcus and Bergdorf Goodman .\nRep. Henry Cuellar ( D-Texas ) has dropped nearly $ 3,400 in campaign cash servicing his BMW in Alexandria , Virginia .\nOther lawmakers have used their war chests for European travels , upgrade airline seats and access the American Airlines Admirals Club in airports across the country . In one case , a retired member of Congress with money left in his account used the cash to pay his wife roughly $ 20,000 since Election Day .\nDisgraced former Rep. Aaron Schock ( R-Ill. ) resigned after a firestorm of criticism over his use of campaign dollars to underwrite a lavish lifestyle , among other alleged misdeeds . But the truth is , while Schock was by all accounts an extreme case , he is far from the exception . It fact , elected officials routinely tap their campaign accounts to pay for things that appear to have little to do with seeking another term in Congress , according to a βββ review of campaign documents .\nIndeed , donor dollars can , at times , resemble a slush fund . And experts say the reason is because lawmakers have almost complete latitude to decide what constitutes a campaign expense .\nβ The House Ethics Committee typically gives ( members of Congress ) a wide berth in defining what is considered campaign or officially connected activities , β said Kenneth Gross , a veteran ethics and election lawyer at Skadden , Arps , Slate , Meagher & Flom . β However , under House and [ Federal Election Commission ] rules , personal use of campaign funds is strictly prohibited . β\nIn the wake of revelations that Schock allegedly misrepresented his congressional expenses by tens of thousands of dollars , Michigan Republican Rep. Candice Miller β s House Administration Committee is reviewing internal procedures and controls on the spending of taxpayer dollars . A grand jury is currently hearing testimony related to Schock β s alleged misspending of taxpayer dollars .\nBut unlike official expenditures , campaign expenditures are barely monitored . Case in point : Schock publicly admitted to several errors on FEC reports and promised to file amendments . More than a month after resigning , the Illinois Republican still has not filed any corrected records .\nCongress ' petty cash problem Members of Congress have almost total discretion to determine what is a legitimate campaign expense . Here are some of the more unusual ways they have used donor dollars : Rep. Anna Eshoo ( D-Ca . ) : Gifts for House Minority Leader Nancy Pelosi from swank stores such as Neiman Marcus and Bergdorf Goodman , more than $ 2,000 . Rep. Bob Brady ( D-Pa. ) : Christmas gifts from Capital Grille , upwards of $ 10,000 per year . Rep. Henry Cuellar ( D-Texas ) : Servicing his BMW in Alexandria , Virginia , nearly $ 3,400 . Sen. John Cornyn , ( R-Texas ) : β Beverages for meal β while on a congressional delegation trip to South Africa , $ 336 . Rep. Jason Smith ( R-Mo . ) : 18 trips to Smoothie King since June 2014 , $ 20.39 on six occasions . Rep. Raul Grijalva ( D-Ariz. ) : Regular visits to Tune Inn , a dive bar on Pennsylvania Avenue , more than $ 1,000 for over 20 trips since Sept. 2013 . Rep. Louie Gohmert ( R-Texas ) : Three expenditures at the Andaz Hotel in London in November and December , more than $ 5,400 . Rep. Gene Green ( D-Texas ) : Gifts for his D.C. and district staff , roughly $ 3,000 . Retired Rep. Buck McKeon ( R-Ca . ) : Money left in campaign post-retirement in January , $ 250,000 .\nPaying for gifts is one of the unique ways that members of Congress use their campaign accounts . Most corporations wouldn β t allow the boss to withdraw thousands of dollars from business coffers without any oversight to hand out cash gifts to employees , yet that β s essentially what Rep. Gene Green does . At the end of each year , the Texas Democrat takes roughly $ 3,000 from his reelection fund and gives each staffer in his Washington and district offices $ 200 as a holiday present .\nβ I don β t buy gifts , β Green said . β I give , typically , [ it ] started out at $ 100 and now I give the staff whether D.C. staff or district staff $ 200 at Christmas . β\nDozens of members of Congress reward people who work on their reelection campaigns .\nRep. Robert Brady , a powerful Democrat from Philadelphia , shells out more than $ 10,000 every year at Capital Grille , buying Christmas gifts for campaign aides . He hasn β t won with less than 74 percent of the vote since he was first elected in 1998 .\nβ Since members run for reelection every two years , it β s important to say β thank you β to the men and women who volunteer so much of their time and energy to his campaigns , β said Stanley V. White , Brady β s chief of staff . β These gifts were for political activists and ward leaders who are integral to Congressman Brady β s reelection efforts . β\nHouse Majority Whip Steve Scalise ( R-La . ) has gone on a shopping spree at Vineyard Vines , the Connecticut-based preppy clothing company β to the tune of $ 12,295 in the past five months . He likes to buy gifts at the beginning of each session of Congress for members of his vote-counting team , a spokesman said .\nEshoo , who also has not faced a serious reelection threat in two decades , says she is β grateful to colleagues and constituents who support me in my reelection efforts . β\nβ I tend to express my appreciation with a token of thanks and to remember them on birthdays and holidays , β Eshoo said in an interview . β Why give to the leader ? Why have I done that for the leader , amongst others ? No one has been more consistently thoughtful or actively supportive than she has been . I always think a β thank you β should be as memorable as the kindness that prompted it , and they carry memorable items . β\nEshoo said she couldn β t recall what she has bought for Pelosi , but said she believes she β s given the Democratic leader scarves .\nOther lawmakers have tapped their campaign kitties to travel abroad .\nRepublican Rep. Louie Gohmert represents a district on the eastern border of Texas , but one of his campaign line items last year was $ 272 for a meeting room at the Intercontinental Victoria Island in Lagos , Nigeria . In three expenditures in November and December , Gohmert paid more than $ 5,400 at the Andaz Hotel in London . He also spent time in Oxford at the Old Bank Hotel .\nGohmert β s spokesman , Kimberly Willingham , said Gohmert was giving political speeches in England , but did not respond to questions about whom Gohmert addressed . She suggested βββ write an β unbiased article about a congressman saving taxpayers significant amounts of money by legally using funds he has raised instead of taxpayer funds . β\nSen. John Cornyn , the No . 2 Senate Republican who is also from Texas , spent $ 336 for β beverages for meal β while on a congressional delegation trip to South Africa . Cornyn bought the drinks at La Combe in Cape Town , which is located on an organic wine estate and considered one of the top restaurants in the world . Cornyn β s office didn β t respond to multiple requests for comment .\nRep. Dan Lipinski ( D-Ill. ) , whose district includes the suburbs Chicago , went to the Tango Hotel Roma and Villa Tucolana Roma last year , running up a bill of more than $ 750 . A spokesman said the congressman was in Rome for the International Catholic Legislators Network conference .\nDublin , Ireland , also appeared on campaign disclosure forms . In 2013 , Rep. John Larson ( D-Conn. ) had a β political β meal at The Merrion Hotel there that cost $ 112 . Rep. Richard Neal ( D-Mass . ) also visited Dublin on the campaign dime in both 2011 and 2012 , shelling out thousands of dollars for stays at the Shelbourne Meridien and the Westbury Hotel , and the Europa Hotel in Belfast . Neal β s office said he spoke at the Ireland-U.S. Council β s annual meeting and the annual political conference of Sinn FΓ©in .\nFromer Rep. Aaron Schock , Rep. Steve Scalise , Rep. Anna Eshoo and Rep. Howard P. β Buck β McKeon are pictured . | AP and Getty Photos\nOther politicians have favorite dining spots in Washington that they frequent on the campaign dime . Rep. Jason Smith ( R-Mo . ) has gone to Smoothie King in D.C. and Missouri more than a dozen times since June .\nJosh Haynes , his chief of staff , says Smith β doesn β t drink coffee , and when he meets in the morning with elected officials , donors or staff they oftentimes will get a smoothie. β However , during his campaign last year , Smith set a goal of having coffee with every member of Congress by the end of this term .\nRep. RaΓΊl Grijalva ( D-Ariz. ) , meanwhile , is a regular at Tune Inn , a dive bar blocks away from the Capitol . His campaign has foot the bill for meals there more than 20 times since September 2013 , totaling more than $ 1,000 . Sometimes the bill is as small as $ 20 , other times $ 130 . Grijalva β s spokesman provided receipts that show that his political director , Jose Miranda , was reimbursed for the political meals , not the congressman .\nCuellar β s office , meanwhile , says it β s perfectly permissible for his campaign to pay for repairs on his BMW in Washington . His political aide Colin Strother said he drives the vehicle 90 percent of the time for political work , including to and from the Capitol , to events on K Street and to the airport when he flies home to Laredo .\nβ Using campaign funds for things like maintenance and repair of a vehicle used for campaign purposes is completely legal , β Strother said .\nBuck McKeon β s campaign spending is perhaps the most eye-popping β because he β s not even in Congress anymore . The California Republican retired from the House in January after more than two decades with more than a quarter of a million dollars left in his campaign coffers .\nHe β s used the money to pay his wife about $ 20,000 since Election Day . Patricia McKeon worked for the congressman for years without pay , the ex-congressman said in an interview , and she β s now helping him close out his campaign operation .\nβ If you average that all out over the 22 years , it β s a lot less than the indication , β the ex-congressman asserted . β People think we paid her that much forever , β he added , but the fact is β she worked for years for free . β
|
allsides-corpus-363
|
Several key nuances were lost in Donald Trump β s boasts about his fundraising haul on Tuesday , nearly 24 hours after the debate . | AP Photo Trump fundraising record not all it appears While the GOP nominee raised big money after debate , he may not be able to use much of it .\nWAUKESHA , Wis. β Donald Trump β s campaign was desperate to change the subject after his shaky debate performance on Monday , and it found just the story to do it β a record fundraising surge that Trump says was powered by small donors , proving he actually got a boost from the debate .\nBut a closer examination of the claims around Trump β s fundraising surge β which the campaign says yielded $ 18 million in the 24 hours after the debate through online donations and a big-donor phone bank β suggests the haul might not be quite as significant to Trump as he and his campaign have made it out to be .\nBased on the information voluntarily released by the campaign , it β s unclear how much of the windfall will go to campaign versus the Republican National Committee , or how much of the total came in pledges as opposed to actual cash . Nor is it clear how much came from the small donors about whom Trump boasts .\nSome of those answers wo n't be revealed until the middle of October , when the campaign and its joint fundraising committees with the RNC will be required to file financial reports with the Federal Election Commission . But other details β including the amount raised from small donors in the 24 hours after the debate β may never be independently verifiable , thanks to the nuances of campaign finance reporting requirements .\nThose nuances were lost in Trump β s boasts about the fundraising haul during a Tuesday evening speech in Melbourne , Florida , nearly 24 hours after the debate .\nβ Today , we had something where I understand through largely small donors and some others , we had the biggest day we β ve ever had , β Trump told the crowd in a humid airplane hangar . β Because of the success last night of the debate , they raised almost $ 18 million today . Can you believe it ? $ 18 million . That β s a lot . $ 18 million in one day , think of that . And that was largely because of last night . β\nTrump carried the theme through Wednesday night , boasting to a raucous crowd at the Waukesha County Expo Center about the $ 54 million he β d put into his campaign , and adding β but we β re being helped by the small donors . And yesterday , because of the tremendous success of the debate , we raised almost $ 18 million in one day . β\nIf Trump β s post-debate fundraising haul is anywhere near $ 18 million , it would be a major boost for a campaign that has lagged behind that of Hillary Clinton in fundraising and advertising . ( In fact , Trump 's campaign has said it plans to spend the cash infusion on a planned $ 140 million ad buy . ) And it would stand as the biggest single-day fundraising haul , by far , of Trump 's campaign , though it β s not possible to track such tallies precisely .\nBut it β s become an increasing political tactic to embellish selective details about fundraising β especially small-donor fundraising β to enhance the appearance of grass-roots momentum at critical moments of a campaign . Clinton used the tactic during her unsuccessful 2008 presidential campaign and again after her party β s nominating convention in July . Her campaign boasted that in the 24 hours after she accepted the Democratic presidential nomination , it raised $ 8.7 million β which at the time stood among the biggest single-day fundraising tallies .\nA Trump campaign source said that only $ 5 million of the $ 18 million haul came in online donations made directly to the campaign , which tend to be the types of donations most driven by organic grass-roots energy . Online donations also usually are smaller and can be more useful in the long term since the donors who give them can continue to contribute without hitting the cap on donations of $ 2,700 for the primary election and $ 2,700 for the general election .\nThe remaining $ 13 million came through phone call solicitations made as part of a campaign β call day β in which about 100 major donors and campaign insiders β including Trump β s children and his vice presidential running mate Mike Pence β made telephone solicitations from the campaign β s headquarters in Manhattan β s Trump Tower .\nThose donations would most likely be larger , since they would come from donors who either had a track record of writing big checks or who knew the person making the call .\nThe campaign source said that the call day donations were about equally split between the campaign and a joint fundraising committee called Trump Victory that includes the Trump campaign , the RNC , and about a dozen state party committees .\nTrump Victory can accept checks as large as $ 449,500 , making it easier to bring in huge sums of cash quickly . But , no matter how large the check to Trump Victory , only $ 2,700 can go to the Trump campaign , with the rest going to the RNC and the state parties .\nSteve Mnuchin , the Trump campaign β s finance chairman , would not say how much of Tuesday β s haul would end up in the campaign β s coffers , but he pointed out that having a well-funded RNC also helps the campaign .\nβ From our standpoint , we were raising money for the joint fundraising committee and the campaign , it β s all very important because it β s all going to support either the ground campaign or more media , β said Mnuchin .\nHe participated in the call day and issued a statement afterward declaring that β with this kind of energy and generous support behind us , we are going to have President Donald J. Trump in the White House . β\nMnuchin would not comment , however , on how much of the money raised during the call day was in the form of pledges versus actual cash donations .\nβ We have a very high collectability rate on any pledges we get , β he said . β We are at close to 100 percent . β\nBut a leading Republican fundraiser said that , with call days , there β s often a β difference between pledged and collected β contributions , so finance professionals are β always skeptical when a call day is included in any explanation . β\nAdditionally , GOP finance professionals have raised concerns about the return on investment from Trump β s small-dollar fundraising operation , which is run largely through a San Antonio-based Web design firm with no previous political experience that has been paid $ 12.5 million by the Trump campaign .\nThe online fundraising effort has relied on heavy spending to rent email lists and place digital ads soliciting small donations , sometimes producing duplicative or poorly targeted results .\nAnd on Wednesday , Trump β s campaign sent three very similar emails from his son Eric Trump boasting that the campaign was β on path now to shatter a 48-hour fundraising record , and you could help us do it , Friend . β
|
allsides-corpus-364
|
A protestor outside the location for the 2017 β Congress of Tomorrow β Joint Republican Issues Conference in Philadelphia , Pennsylvania , January 25 , 2017 . REUTERS/Mark Makela\nConservatives who enter progressive domains like the academy or elite media are quite familiar with the idea of tolerance . Such institutions place an enormous amount of emphasis on it , in fact , so much so that they reserve the right to be intolerant to preserve the tolerant ethos of the community , sometimes explicitly . In one of my favorite First Amendment cases , I sued a university that declared in no uncertain terms , β Acts of intolerance will not be tolerated . β\nYes , it used those exact words . Think for a moment β isn β t every act of enforcement a new violation that requires a new act of enforcement , triggering another violation ? Ah , never mind . We know what the university wanted , a catch-all provision it could use to expel , punish , and silence anyone who ran afoul of the prevailing campus orthodoxy .\nBut I don β t want to focus on intolerance . Let β s talk about tolerance , instead . Earlier this week I read an old post by β Scott Alexander , β a pseudonymous psychiatrist who writes at the blog Slate Star Codex . Called β I can tolerate anything except the outgroup , β it blows up the notion that the kind of inclusion the Left claims it values bears any relationship at all to true tolerance .\nAs Alexander notes , a person on the left will claim that they β re tolerant because of their regard for β gays , lesbians , bisexuals , asexuals , blacks , Hispanics , Asians , transgender people , and Jews. β But ask that same person a simple question , β What β s wrong with gay people ? β and the answer is immediate : β What do you think I am , some kind of homophobic bigot ? Of course I have nothing against gay people . β\nThen , guess what , you β re not tolerating anything . You β re mistaking tolerance for fellowship or tolerance for tribalism . The word β tolerance β of course implies that there is something to tolerate .\nTo the very marrow of their being , they believe that they β re something they β re not . They have taken the vice of their particular brand of tribalism and transformed it into the false virtue of fake tolerance .\nI like Alexander β s definition of true tolerance : β Respect and kindness toward members of an outgroup β β not respect and kindness toward members of what others would define as an outgroup , but rather respect and kindness toward people that are out of your group . His concept reflects Christian values like grace or charity , which imply that there is something to forgive or something to overlook in your relationships with others . When there is nothing to forgive or nothing to overlook and no patience required , there β s no tolerance . There β s no grace . There β s no charity .\nThe result of this flawed understanding is that millions of people misapprehend their own values . To the very marrow of their being , they believe that they β re something they β re not . They have taken the vice of their particular brand of tribalism and transformed it into the false virtue of fake tolerance .\nTo be clear , there are some progressives who are wise to this game . They β ve read their Herbert Marcuse , and they know quite well that the new tolerance β what Marcuse called β liberating tolerance β β means β intolerance against movements from the Right and toleration of movements from the Left. β But most progressives haven β t read Marcuse . They β ve never heard of him , and they β d be shocked at the notion that one of the alleged defining characteristics of their lives is a fiction .\nI β m of course thinking of all this in connection with The Atlantic β s termination of my friend and former colleague Kevin Williamson yesterday . The justification for Kevin β s firing β as repeated endlessly on Twitter β is that women don β t want to β share office space with a man who wants them dead. β There are two easy responses to this assertion .\nFirst , it β s false . As Kevin has explained elsewhere , he β s generally against the death penalty , he β s against lynching , and he β s against ex post facto laws . So , no , women would not be sharing office space with someone who β wants them dead . β\nSecond , is there no appreciation for Kevin β s tolerance ? He β s the son of a teen mom , born shortly before Roe v. Wade , and narrowly escaped being aborted . He β d be sharing office space with people who believe it would have been totally fine , completely morally acceptable , and possibly virtuous if a doctor had ripped him to pieces in his mother β s womb .\nThe bottom line is that one party in this controversy β Kevin Williamson β was willing to be tolerant . As Atlantic editor Jeffrey Goldberg related in his termination memo , Kevin had been β nothing but professional β in his interactions . In other words , Kevin had β shown kindness and respect toward members of [ his ] outgroup . β\nBut all too many progressives don β t see that . To them , there was nothing for Kevin to tolerate . Their views on abortion aren β t just tolerable , they β re glorious . They β re liberating . They β re the linchpin of the sexual revolution , the key to women β s liberation . What was intolerable was the notion that a man β no matter how courteous and professional in person β could sit next to them advocating ideas they hate .\nThere is a conversation to be had about whether a writer β s views should disqualify him from employment at any given magazine . Mission-driven journals , like Reason or The Nation or βββ , hire people who share and broadly advance the mission of the magazine ( while of course permitting and encouraging debate from within their respective ideological camps ) . Journals like The Atlantic at least seem to aspire to something different . They β re left-leaning , to be sure , but do not have an explicit ideological bent . In fact , the magazine explicitly claims to be β of no party or clique β and has certainly published works from left and right . It β s printed my work , for example . I doubt The Nation would be interested in doing the same .\nBut in polarized times , β of no party or clique β is a hard space to occupy . It requires moral courage . It requires the ability to withstand considerable internal and external pressure . It requires the ability to treat with respect and kindness even people you might otherwise despise . The Atlantic has the right to define its own mission and message . It has the right to hire and fire writers according to their viewpoints . It β s not the government . It β s a private actor with its own rights to free speech and freedom of association .\nExercise those rights , but progressives be honest about your purpose . You can call it tribalism . You can call it social justice . Just , please , do not lie and call it tolerance .
|
allsides-corpus-365
|
A hair βββ owner in Dallas , Texas ; then , armed protestors in Michigan and other states ; recently , images of packed boardwalks and swimming pools ; and now the `` mass debate '' urging parishioners to attend regular religious services .\nAll of this in the face of dire consequences for public health amid an unrelenting global pandemic . These events are a mere smattering of a series of protests throughout the country that seek to resist the `` tyranny '' of state governors who have imposed lockdown restrictions in their states . These protests took what has now become a far too familiar form in American politics , connecting extremists waving Confederate `` battle flags '' and brandishing assault weapons to people demanding a right to shop without taking health precautions .\nAs Republican lawmakers assert that the `` cure ca n't be worse than the disease '' and the need to reopen the economy , they extol a neoβSocial Darwinist worldview that privileges a survival of the fittest β or , at least , those who are wealthy enough and have the health insurance to cloister themselves for the duration .\nTo some , this problem may seem to pose a genuine paradox : on the one hand , the rights of the individual and individual choice ( liberty ) and the restriction of that liberty in the face of government actions to protect public health . But this is no paradox at all β in fact , it reflects a deeper degeneracy of the concept of freedom in contemporary American politics and culture . The cracks and fissures in American society that we have seen opening during this pandemic are rooted in a broader change in Americans ' understanding of the concept of freedom and the ways that this has been exploited and manipulated by the powerful . Understanding this requires some sense of where the modern idea of freedom came from and how it was defended .\nThe birth of modern political philosophy had at its core a crucial idea about what political freedom actually meant . According to many early modern political theorists , the concept of liberty denoted the capacity to follow rules and norms that one was able to accept based on one 's conscience . Laws , norms and institutions were not to be arbitrarily enforced upon individuals β i.e. , according to the whim or interest of some powerful agent β but , rather , were to be ratified by one 's own reason and reflection . Liberty was a freedom from dependence and control as well as a freedom to create and follow laws that had the common interest as the foundation of their legitimacy .\nThis idea of liberty as freedom from the domination of others as well as a freedom to create laws and impose them upon one 's own actions in accordance with the common good and interest was worked out by thinkers such as Machiavelli and Spinoza no less than Locke and Jefferson , among others . It was weaponized during the age of democratic revolutions in Britain , the United States , France , and Haiti and formed the basis for a modern view of politics and human freedom .\nBut defenders of monarchy and feudal hierarchy , status and privilege demonized the concept of liberty , likening it to a devolution of order and the slide into chaos . Thinkers such as Thomas Hobbes , Robert Filmer and others saw any notion of liberty as essentially linked to a decay of social order . Hobbes saw liberty as a cause of chaos and a state of nature where each did as he pleased . And as Filmer famously put the matter in the opening chapter of his `` Patriarcha '' ( 1680 ) that it was a new and `` dangerous opinion '' where liberty was essentially the power of each to act without the guidance of a sovereign .\nLocke pointed out that these thinkers confused liberty with license , and later philosophers such as Jean-Jacques Rousseau would argue that our freedom as persons was dependent on our ability to think in terms of a `` general will , '' or in the common interest , even as Immanuel Kant would later make the concept of autonomy the cornerstone to any modern notion of freedom . All agreed , in the end , that liberty was the capacity for one to make laws of action for oneself according to reason , and this reason was one that was anchored in the common , universal parameters of our living in a social world with and among others . All agreed that freedom required responsibility : that to be free meant to take on the burden of self-legislation as a member of a free community . Only in this way could the principle of self-determination and self-rule be secured . Without the ethos of social responsibility , freedom would devolve back into tyranny and dominance : if you could not govern yourself as a member of the community , then others would step in to govern for you .\nMuch of American political history took a similar course with respect to the idea of liberty . Initially concerned with the conscience of the individual and the ability to protect property , the concept of liberty gradually matured into one where the freedom of each was interdependent on the freedom of others . After the Civil War and the emergence of the Gilded Age , the Progressive movement began to rework the concept of liberty more extensively . Thinkers such as George Herbert Mead , Charles Cooley and John Dewey reworked liberalism into a doctrine that held that the freedom of the individual was not a matter of removing their constraints to accumulate property or do as they pleased , but one that was a function of the extent to which each could partake in the highest caliber of public goods . The expansion of intelligence , the enrichment of one 's capacity to make choices , deliberate about the problems of their community , were all dependent upon this new concept of the individual . Castigating the persistence of the older , individualistic conception of liberty , Dewey argued in 1935 : `` It is absurd to conceive liberty as that of the business entrepreneur and ignore the immense regimentation to which workers are subjected . . . . [ F ] ull freedom of the human spirit and of individuality can be achieved only as there is effective opportunity to share in the cultural resources of civilization . ''\nThe cultivation of this kind of freedom required a rich nexus of public goods and regulation . Dewey and other progressives rightly saw that modern technological society needed this sense of responsibility even more to guarantee individual freedom . The New Deal and the social democratic welfare state of post-World War II America can be seen as an application of this reworked theory of liberty . But today this has degenerated as we see a reprise of the very narrow conception of liberty that Dewey and his contemporaries attacked as outmoded and out of step with the modern world . Neoliberalism has pushed this reductive , anti-social form of liberty against the social liberalism of the preceding decades . In many ways , the presence of a pathological understanding of freedom has its foundations in the very ways we conducted our pre-pandemic lives . Over the last four decades , neoliberal policies have chipped away at our public institutions , drained state budgets , marginalized public goods like education , and de-regulated our economy . Public life has shriveled as a consequence . Privatization has only reinforced our separateness from the public realm . Ideas about freedom have therefore been retuned to a condition not unlike a Hobbes ' state of nature where a war of all against all prevails .\nThe ideological project of neoliberalism has been to re-appropriate the concept of liberty and circumscribe it to the narrow realm of property , privacy and economic interest . What use are common goods when each lives according to one 's own efforts ? Liberty now is the absence of restraint , the elimination of any kind of direction over your life and your choices . The political right has made much of this simplistic philosophy : they convinced many citizens to sign on to a corporate agenda that has been able to undo the reforms made throughout much of the twentieth century in economic and social policy . The backlash against technical experts , unions , a robust social safety net , and other struts of an enlightened , socialized democracy is only gaining in momentum .\nBut there are other forces sustaining this culture of degenerate liberty . Alongside the undermining of the public institutions and spaces that interconnect us , neoliberalism has fostered a hyper consumerist culture . We are a nation of frantic consumers . Those individuals who , in highly publicized instances , stockpiled urgently needed medical supplies were trained by a culture that eagerly awaits Black Friday and Cyber Monday sales . Freedom is the freedom to violently consume . Deprived of the addiction to consumption or confronted by the idea that someone else might need something more urgently than you , it is easy to see why the closure of the economy might inspire rage . Entangled with the false conception of freedom is a false conception of human needs and human dignity .\nAnd so , when we consider again the protests against instructions to stay at home or consider the well-being of fellow citizens by social distancing or wearing masks , we should be aware that these behaviors are the product of the long cultivation of a particularly malign understanding of freedom β one forged to legitimate a public philosophy of anomic individualism that could justify neoliberalism and that is now quite literally making our republic sick . Freedom without responsibility no longer is freedom , it is a kind of licentiousness that is socially as well as personally damaging . Neoliberalism helped rot out the ethos of social responsibility that accompanied modern norms of freedom . The paranoia that accompanies relentless economic competitiveness and social inequality , extended working hours , a culture of senseless consumption and hedonism β all have contributed to the sense that one is in this alone for one 's own benefit . Indeed , it is no accident that the largest percentage of victims of this pandemic have been essential workers deprived of the right unionize , elderly residents of for-profit nursing homes with little regulation , and people of color whose communities have been marginalized by austerity budgets .\nIn many respects , what Bernie Sanders calls democratic socialism owes far more to the brand of liberalism advocated by Dewey and other philosophers of the Progressive and New Deal eras than to any socialist thinker . Indeed , Sanders has been right that this tradition of thought is more authentically American than the more recent short-sighted and acquisitively individualistic public philosophy nurtured by neoliberalism . In planning its strategy to combat the pandemic , the Biden campaign will also have to confront the pathological conception of freedom that has made the United States one of the worst victims of this pandemic . It will have to show that an orientation toward the common good is requisite for any vital sense of individual liberty . For now we are once again facing the prospect that an unmanaged form of license , masquerading as liberty , will force us to accept more coercive forms of political life .\nAnd as Americans reflect on what the COVID-19 crisis means for the future of American politics and culture , they may want to reflect anew on the ways our ideas about freedom have devolved and instead seek to retrieve once more a sense of social purpose to our degenerated culture of freedom . As Democrats suit up for their match with Donald Trump , this renewed sense of freedom should be the cornerstone for a new public philosophy : one that has democratic purpose , common interest and individual liberty together at its center . To lose this fight will give aid to the enemies of human progress and the culture of freedom that many fought and died for over the course of centuries .
|
allsides-corpus-366
|
β The 360 β shows you diverse perspectives on the day β s top stories and debates .\nDebates over masks and other face coverings have been at the center of discussion since the early days of the coronavirus outbreak in the U.S. For much of that time , the conversation focused largely on practical matters , like how effective masks are at stemming the spread of the virus and questions about shortages for health care workers .\nThe debate has shifted in recent weeks . There are no longer questions about whether masks prevent infection . Experts agree that even homemade ones help . The current conversation is more contentious . Those who refuse to wear masks have been accused of ignorance or selfishness while the mandates that they be worn outside or in shops have been painted as violations of civil liberties .\nThe discontent over masks has been strong enough to force some politicians to change their policies . Ohio Gov . Mike DeWine , who has been praised for his early and aggressive response to the virus , has lifted the state β s order requiring masks be worn inside stores , saying , β People were not going to accept the government telling them what to do. β The city of Stillwater , Okla. , rescinded its mask policy after employees at some stores faced threats of violence .\nThe disagreements over masks have even turned violent . In Michigan a security guard was killed after reportedly demanding a patron wear a mask .\nHow did the discussion of masks morph from a conversation about their medical merits to a clash over politics and liberty ?\nOne of the most obvious answers is the partisan divide over how best to respond to the pandemic . After facing criticism for his administration β s actions during the onset of the outbreak , President Trump has turned his focus to reopening the country and accused skeptics of his largely unpopular plan of playing politics . Declining to wear a mask could be , for many , a gesture of support for the president and his vision that it β s time to start returning to normal .\nTrump may have solidified this view by refusing to wear a mask at recent public appearances despite the administration β s recommendations for U.S. residents .\nWearing a mask can be a symbol of trust in leaders and scientists who set health policies . Refusing to wear one suggests a rejection of that authority . The mishmash of laws from state to state combined with confusing messaging from medical authorities like the World Health Organization may be contributing to doubts about the importance of face coverings .\nThe intensity of the disagreement may have more emotional roots , some psychiatrists say . In times of difficulty , humans are wired to look for someone to blame for the challenges they face . Mask wearers may see the bare-faced as responsible for exacerbating the health risks of the outbreak . Non-wearers might believe that overzealous restrictions are causing severe economic pain . For these groups , masks can be a symbol of a disagreement that goes much deeper than whether someone has a piece of cloth over their face .\nβ The wearing of masks is morphing into an unnecessary and unhealthy political test in which your face is the bumper sticker. β β Jim Galloway , Atlanta Journal Constitution\nβ The way we do things is right . The way others do things is wrong . Usually the gulf between the two is a matter merely of frustration ; now it β s also a matter of fear . And for those of us who are told we β re not being careful enough when we β re convinced we β re being very careful indeed , it β s a matter of resentment tinged with guilt. β β Molly Roberts , Washington Post\nMasks are symbolic of big government control to some people\nβ The decision not to wear a mask has , for some , become a rebellion against what they regard as an incursion on their personal liberties. β β Rick Rojas , New York Times\nTrump β s strategy of reopening the country made masks a political statement\nβ Trump has apparently decided that the way out of the current crisis is to be bold about reopening as quickly as possible in as many places as possible . β¦ So we can expect to see the president out and about around the country , projecting confidence in the nation β s health and resilience . And that is what he is modeling by not wearing a mask. β β Ron Elving , NPR
|
allsides-corpus-367
|
Remember when the scariest kid in your neighborhood was the football jock who terrorized the high school with his minions in tow , and got bailed out by his rich parents when he went too far ? Or it was the gothic malcontent with the switchblade and the swagger . Either way , what made these high-status alphas so terrifying was that they came at you in numbers . They travelled in packs . This has been our narrative , in the stories we tellβfrom Henry Bowers in Stephen King β s It , to Biff Tannen in Back to the Future , to Billy Hargrove in Stranger Things , central-casting bullies attracted followers . They belonged .\nAs any grade eight schoolgirl who β s been bullied off Instagram can attest , this stereotype still holds . But when it comes to the most dangerous and sociopathic actors , the opposite is true . All three of the young mass shooters who terrorized the United States in recent nationally reported scenes of carnageβConnor Betts in Dayton , Ohio ; Patrick Crusius in El Paso , Texas ; and Santino William Legan in Gilroy , Californiaβacted alone . The old image of the bully as locker-room alpha or goth leader now seems passΓ© . Often , it is the kid who used to be the fictional protagonist , the social outcast , the member of the Losers Club from It , whose face now appears on our screens with a nightmarish empty stare .\nThese recent shooters fit a similar profile . They were outsiders , all seemingly socially awkward , who became emboldened through fringe online communities that act as mutual-support societies for violent malcontents . This phenomenon is fuelled by hate , guns , mental illness and ideological extremism . But there is another factor at play here , too . Before a youth makes the decision to murder , before the gun is stashed in his backpack , before his state of mental health is so deteriorated that he commits the unthinkable , what has happened to him ? It β s important to remember that these murders are also , in most cases , suicides .\nIn his 2008 article School Shooting as a Culturally Enforced Way of Expressing Suicidal Hostile Intentions , psychiatrist Antonio Preti summarized existing research on school shootings to the effect that β suicidal intent was found in most cases for which there was detailed information on the assailants. β The research also indicated that β among students , homicide perpetrators were more than twice as likely as their victims to have been bullied by their peers , and also were described as loners and poorly integrated into school activitiesβ¦In most of the ascertained cases , perpetrators prepared a well-organized plan , and often communicated details about it to acquaintances or friends , who failed to report threats because they did not consider them serious or were embarrassed or ignorant of where to go for help . The most antisocial peers sometimes approved the plan , sharing the same anger against the stated target of violence . β\nPreti β s article predated the rise of some of the most notorious web sitesβincluding 8chan , which was shut down this week after several mass shootings were linked to its users . But the nihilistic phenomenon these killers represent predates modern social-media culture . Indeed , it predates digital communication , and even broadcast media more generally .\nIn 1897 , French sociologist Γmile Durkheim noted that suicides overall were increasing in society . But there were differences among the affected populations , he noticed . Men were more likely than women to commit suicideβthough the chances decreased if the man was married and had children . Durkheim observed that social groups that were more religious exhibited lower suicide rates . ( Catholics were less likely to commit suicide than Protestants , for instance . ) Durkheim also noted that many people who killed themselves were young , and that the prevalence of such suicides was linked to their level of social integration : When a person felt little sense of connection or belonging , he could be led to question the value of his existence and end his life .\nDurkheim labelled this form of suicide as β anomic β ( others being β egoistic , β β altruistic β and β fatalistic β ) . Durkheim believed that these feelings of anomie assert themselves with special force at moments when society is undergoing social , political or economic upheavalβespecially if such upheavals result in immediate and severe changes to everyday life .\nDurkheim came from a long line of devout Jews . His father , grandfather and great grandfather had all been rabbis . And so even though he chose to pursue an academic career , his experiences taught him to respect the mental and psychological support that religious communities supplied to their members , as well as the role that ritual plays in the regulation of social behavior . In the absence of such regulation , he believed , individuals and even whole societies were at risk of falling into a state of anomie , whereby common values and meanings fall by the wayside . The resulting void doesn β t provide people with a sense of freedom , but rather rootlessness and despair .\nDurkheim β s thesis has largely stood the test of time , though other scholars have reformulated it for modern audiences . In his 1955 book The Sane Society , for instance , Erich Fromm wrote that , β in the nineteenth century , the problem was that God is dead . In the twentieth century , the problem is that man is dead. β He described the twentieth century as a period of β schizoid-self alienation , β and worried that men would destroy β their world and themselves because they can not stand any longer the boredom of a meaningless life . β\nIn her 2004 book Rampage : The Social Roots of School Shootings , Katherine Newman described findings gleaned from over 100 interviews in Arkansas and Kentucky . The male adolescent shooters at the center of her study , she concluded , β shared a belief that demonstrating strength by planned attacks on their respective institutions with ( too ) easily available guns would somehow mitigate their unbearable feelings of inadequacy as males and bring longed-for respect from peers. β Ten years later , in a 2014 article titled The Socioemotional Foundations of Suicide : A Microsociological View of Durkheim β s Suicide , sociologists Seth Abrutyn and Anna Mueller set out to update Durkheim β s theory about how social integration and moral regulation affect suicidality . β The greater degree to which individuals feel they have failed to meet expectations and others fail to β reintegrate β them , the greater the feelings of shame and , therefore , anomie , β they concluded . β The risk of suicidal thoughts , attempts , and completions , in addition to violent aggression toward specific or random others , is a positive function of the intensity , persistence , and pervasiveness of identity , role , or status-based shame and anomie . β\nWriting in the 1890s , Durkheim was highly conscious of all the ways that industrial capitalism corroded traditional forms of social regulation in society , often at the expense of religiousβand even governmentalβauthorities . ( β Depuis un sieΜcle , en effet , le progreΜs eΜconomique a principalement consisteΜ aΜ affranchir les relations industrielles de toute reΜglementation . Jusqu β aΜ des temps reΜcents , tout un systeΜme de pouvoirs moraux avait pour fonction de les disciplinerβ¦En effet , la religion a perdu la plus grande partie de son Empire . Le pouvoir gouvernemental , au lieu d β eΜtre le reΜgulateur de la vie eΜconomique , en est devenu l β instrument et le serviteur. β ) But if he were to visit us in 2019 , Durkheim would be surprised at the extent to which once-dominant ideas with no connection to economics have been marginalized as regressive and hatefulβsuch as nationalism , patriotism and even masculinity .\nThis is one reason why so many people now feel unmoored . As Canadian science fiction writer Donald Kingsbury eloquently put it in his novel Courtship Rite , β Tradition is a set of solutions for which we have forgotten the problems . Throw away the solution and you get the problem back. β Faith in god , country and manhood might be seen as regressive by modern lights . But insofar as they were holding back male anomie , we perhaps neglected to consider what damage would be done if we discredited those ideas before finding replacements .\nIn the history of our species , there has never been ( to the knowledge of modern scholars ) a human society that did not express belief in some sort of supernatural forceβwhich suggests that we are programmed by a need to believe in something bigger than ourselves . Sociologist Max Weber warned in 1919 that β science deals with facts . It can β t tell us what to do or what β s important. β This is to say that while the scientific revolution did a good job of helping us explain and harness the natural world , it did nothing to fill the god-shaped hole that Blaise Pascal identified in the 17th-century : β What else does this craving , and this helplessness , proclaim but that there was once in man a true happiness , of which all that now remains is the empty print and trace ? This he tries in vain to fill with everything around him , seeking in things that are not there the help he can not find in those that are , though none can help , since this infinite abyss can be filled only with an infinite and immutable object ; in other words by God himself . β\nIf we are to resign ourselves to the fact that β God himself β isn β t going to intercede any time soon , then we are left with the ordinary tools of policy , such as Robert Putnam outlined in his famous 2000 book , Bowling Alone : The Collapse and Revival of the American Community , in which he pointed to the value of β the connections among individuals β social networks and the norms of reciprocity and trustworthiness that arise from them. β These connections could be strengthened , Putnam argued , through improved civics education , more extra-curricular activities for youth , smaller schools , family-oriented workplaces , a more enlightened approach to urbanism , technology that reinforces rather than replaces face-to-face interaction , as well as a decentralization of political power . These recommendations were written 19 years ago , before Facebook , Twitter or 4chan existed . It would be interesting to know how he would revise his recommendations now that we have a better appreciation for the massive effects of digital culture on our social dynamics .\nIn a 2017 article I wrote , titled Towards a Theory of Virtual Sentiments , I argued that real-time empathy generation often requires some degree of eye contactβwhich is hard to generate through online interaction . Moreover , it is shockingly easy to get worked up into a rage when you are interacting with an online avatar of a person you have never met . Simply put , the more we physically see each other , the less likely we are to be awful to each other . As Louis CK said in an interview about youth and technology , β They don β t look at people when they talk to them and they don β t build empathy . You know , kids are mean , and it β s cause they β re trying it out . They look at a kid and they go , β You β re fat , β and then they see the kid β s face scrunch up and they go , β Oh , that doesn β t feel good to make a person do that. β But when they write β You β re fat β [ online ] then they just go , β Mmm , that was fun , I like that. β β Even putting aside the extreme cases of forums that cater to homicidal shooters , I remain unconvinced that any community that exists primarily in online form can be a force for long-term good . Perhaps more time offline is a good start for anyone seeking to enhance β the norms of reciprocity and trustworthiness . β\nDo we need a new nationalism ? A new religion ? What common human project can we collectively embrace that gives a sense of mission to everyone , regardless of skin color , religion , economic class or ideology ? It would be presumptuous for me to suggest I have the answers . All I know is that men who see human life as meaningless are symptoms of a larger sense of anomie that , in less dramatic and destructive form , increasingly grips us all .\nTerry Newman is currently an MA student in the Sociology Department at Concordia University in Montreal . Her SSHRC-funded research is on the candidate controversies that took place during the 2015 Canadian federal election . She is also a Teaching Assistant in Concordia β s Engineering Department . She tweets from @ tlnewmanmtl . She is the author of the βββ article Through the Looking Glass at Concordia University .
|
allsides-corpus-368
|
Below are some further comments and our speculations on how the tribes will evolve in Culture War 2.0 .\nWhile this tribe engages in full-out war with other tribes , they continue to make gains in legacy media , corporate HR and PR departments , and government institutions . With increased embeddedness of SJA values in institutions and corporations , expect a right-wing countervailing response . Also watch for a fight to define leftism against class-first analysis .\nThis tribe has made a large impact on the cultural landscape , but has not yet made an impact on government policy . Watch for potential conflicts with masculinist black nationalists and the β leaving the plantation β narrative of Candace Owens . Also , keep a look-out for BLM to distance themselves from white allies capitalizing on wokeness .\nPerhaps the fastest growing tribe in recent times , it has moved quickly to redefine the social consensus . Watch for further revelations concerning men in power , followed by more conservative and reactionary backlash .\nThe feminists left behind by trans-inclusive feminists are fighting an uphill battle inside the left . Watch for future mixing with non-left tribes , and more offline culture war .\nNeo-Marxists , while still alive and well in a critical capacity on college campuses , have lost significance since the fall of the Soviet Union . Communism is seen across the political spectrum as discredited . However , given the rising popularity of Democratic Socialists , the memes that Marx birthed could see a revival . If Neo-Marxists can offer a compelling narrative and escape the capitulation and nihilism of Accelerationist thought , they might be able to piggy-back on the DSA β s popularity . Watch for Douglas Lain β s Zero Books imprint to capitalize on this opportunity .\nEven without identifiable chieftains , Antifa has played an important part in the culture war and continues to benefit from people β s fear of Trump and dissatisfaction with mainstream responses . Watch for the normalization of a violent offline culture war .\nThe tribe that coalesced around radical leftism , hope , and physical presence has been shattered . Dormant , it lives on in the 99 % meme and in the pages of Adbusters .\nThe drama of the Bernie campaign and dissatisfaction with the lack of leftism in the Democratic Party has led to a surge in a radical wing of the American left . The ironic fringe still rests at the top of the podcasts , and the push for mainstreaming socialism has been growing ever since Trump β s election . Watch for further infighting with Social Justice Activists .\nIn reaction to the polarization and catastrophizing they see on both the left and right , this nascent tribe has coalesced around the idea that the world is in fact improving , and whatever challenges society faces can be solved through the institutions and values we currently hold . Watch for an increased presence as neoliberalism converts libertarians and shifts to be embraced as a contrarian ideology .\nThe zeitgeist of our times gives the palpable sense that the establishment left and right are dramatically on the decline , especially amongst millennials and Generation Z . Those in power within the establishment are experiencing increased pressure from rapidly rising elements within their parties . Democratic and liberal parties worldwide are contending with socialist and far-left elements . Conservative parties have seen populists and illiberal democrats take over . And everyone , everywhere , has been blindsided by the rise of white identitarian and nationalist elements . Watch for these tribes to make a last grasp at power during the 2020 elections .\nThe atheist tribes are indirect participants in the culture war . Their shared objective is to attack the religious truth-claims and to plant doubt in the epistemic methodology of believers . The New Atheists lost the relevance they had during the Bush Era when the β Four Horsemen β had great popularity , but their impact has been felt in the noosphere . They contributed to the religious right β s defeat in Culture War 1.0 by weakening it on philosophical grounds . The Street Epistemologists are the New Atheists β potential successor in Culture War 2.0 .\nIncubated on Overcoming Bias and LessWrong , this is an observer tribe in the culture war . Though similar to the New Atheists in that they prize rationality , they do not define themselves in opposition to religion . Thanks to the strength of Eliezer Yudkowsky and Scott Alexander β s writing , and the beliefs and epistemic virtues of the diaspora , they command increasing respect in the culture war . Watch for a popularity boost to Effective Altruism , a struggle with the downsides of increased attention , and possible pressure from the SJAs for the Rationalists to commit to progressive values .\nThis is another observer tribe , and possibly the most interesting one . If the rationalist motto is β the map is not the territory , but it is important to create the most accurate map possible , β then the post-rationalist motto is β the canvas is not the territory , but it is important to create the most interesting canvas possible. β This observer tribe has the potential to generate innovative solutions to the seemingly intractable problem of the differend .\nKen Wilber , who lost some momentum in his β Wyatt Earp β incident , is steadily gaining a strong following amongst cultural influencers . Like the Rationalists and Post-Rationalists , Integralists are an observer tribe . Unlike them , they have a teleological narrative that instills existential hope . This will be a tribe to watch if it moves away from its observer capacity and becomes more active in the war .\nJordan Peterson is the common denominator of these two tribes . One of the most important figures in Culture War 2.0 , his central message emphasizes free speech and the importance of truth-speaking . His following of mostly young men , which we dub the Sorters , are attracted to Peterson β s style and message of personal responsibility . The β Intellectual Dark Web , β coined by Eric Weinstein , consists of thinkers who have experienced what they view as thought-policing by politically correct elements of the left . With the ever-increasing popularity of Peterson β s brand and related platforms such as Quillette , the Rubin Report , and the Joe Rogan Experience , watch for both of these tribes to gain members and make a strong push for a return to a classically liberal center in our culture .\nWith a religious right increasingly subservient to Trump , it is becoming incumbent for Christians who put faith first to organize collectively . This memetic tribe is aware of its own mortality and is putting survival before the culture war . Watch for a siphoning of disillusioned Christians and rightists .\nThe religious right is quickly transitioning into a nationalist right . The culture war goals of the Moral Majority have largely been set aside in favor of punishing the left via Trump . Unless there is a public evangelist revival , watch for this tribe to dissolve into Trumpists and Benedictines over the next few years .\nSince its decline following the 2013 government shutdown , this tribe has largely been subsumed by the Trumpists . Watch for a continued decline in libertarian activism as believers drift towards Trump or neoliberalism .\nThis new tribe makes up for a lack of experience and policy through power and β high energy. β They are engaged in a fight for control over the mainstream perception of conservatism with a blindsided establishment right . Watch for a push for votes from racial minorities and a scramble to stay in line with Trump β s thought .\nThese are the conspiracy theory tribes of the culture war . Alex Jones and Infowars represent β established β conspiracies such as the New World Order and Illuminati . With his manic energy , Jones has successfully turned conspiracy into a profitable business . QAnon is a grassroots emergence of conspiracy theories originating on /pol/ . Given the intense passion their reality tunnel engenders , we speculate that QAnon will grow amongst Trumpists and will be censored on social media platforms , which will only further fuel its growth .\nThese three tribes are concerned with issues surrounding white people and are often lumped together by the mainstream media , but they are actively fighting amongst themselves ( β punching right β ) in order to create distance and avoid conflation . The Alt-Lite would be quick to point out that they are less defined by white identity and more by western chauvinism , an unapologetic view that western culture is the best . Watch for massive fluctuations and changes in the composition of all three , and a continued fight amongst themselves to gain adherents .\nThis semi-dormant tribe has partly been subsumed into the Alt-Right . Lack of public direction from its key figures has led to a decline in influence . Watch for Nick Land β s return to the blogosphere and keep an eye on Social Matter and the Hestia Society for a potential revival .\nLike the dissident right tribes , these masculine tribes are usually lumped together . Like the far-right tribes , these masculinist tribes also signal to create distance from each other . The Manosphere , the largest of the three tribes , reached its peak around Gamergate and has lost momentum due to its lack of a non-hedonistic strategy , and due to men β s attention being divided by the competing message of Jordan Peterson . See a continued declined with these three groups , unless new voices emerge .\nThese self-described involuntary celibates could be placed in the masculinist cluster if not for their view of themselves as having been β black-pilled β instead of β red-pilled. β They agree with most of the descriptive views of the masculinist tribes , but see their situation as radically hopeless and unfair . The more extreme adherents have a belief space that shares more with terrorist groups like ISIS than any of the memetic tribes listed above . Copycat attacks mimicking Elliot Rodger and Alek Minassian might grow in number unless a memeplex emerges that can inspire and provide meaning to sexually unsuccessful males in society .\nWe conclude this white paper by offering speculative proposals that are not meant to treat the culture war as a solvable problem , but as an opportunity for personal and collective growth .\nWe view the noosphere as an emergent phenomenon , a consequence of globalization and digitalization . When Pierre Teilhard de Chardin introduced the term , he adopted a teleological perspective and saw the collective consciousness of humanity developing towards an β Omega Point. β While we are agnostic about whether there is an endpoint , we do think that looking at the noosphere as being in the process of evolution can help with regards to making speculative proposals . In this section we shift our focus from seeing memetic tribes as individual entities to viewing them as fragments of the larger noosphere .\nBruce Tuckman , a psychology researcher in group dynamics , established his famous β stages of group development β model in 1965 . He believed that there were four necessary stages that newly formed groups need to progress through in order to tackle their shared challenges . The first stage is forming , when a team first comes together and individuals , mainly focused on themselves , operate with a degree of politeness . The second stage is storming , when comfort within the group allows for conflicting opinions to be voiced . Team members may wrestle for control of the group β s values and goals . The third stage is norming , when β resolved disagreements and personality clashes result in greater intimacy , and a spirit of cooperation emerges. β The fourth stage is performing , where , with β group norms and roles established , group members focus on achieving common goals , often reaching an unexpectedly high level of success . β\nNot all groups are successful . Some abort during the storming phase β and if we apply this model to the noosphere , we see that all the memetic tribes are in the midst of it . The emergent collective consciousness of the internet began as the relatively innocent forming stage of Web 1.0 . Now that we are in the storming phase , we are plagued by mobs , trolls , and doxxing .\nIf we are to survive as a species , we must address our collective challenges and existential risks β from rogue A.I . to environmental disaster . To do so , we β re going to have to build the bridge from storming to norming . This norming phase may not involve feel-good utopianism , but it must involve deep negotiations and compromises between tribes , or alternatively , a peaceful geopolitical instantiation of the growing memetic divides .\nThese eight speculative proposals are meant as a launching pad for discussion . They are not proposals for government or corporate policy . Rather , they are ideas for readers to explore , small but meaningful steps to push against the overwhelming whirlwind of the culture war . It is our hope that interested minds and entrepreneurial spirits will take these proposals and advance them further .\nThe Hippocratic Oath was an oath that physicians were required to take before they began practicing medicine . Its modern iteration is a rite of passage for graduates of some medical schools . While today the oath is not a binding contract , there is a degree of ritualistic magic in formally committing to ideals . Could there be a Culture War equivalent to the Hippocratic Oath ? One that chieftains of the memetic tribes could affirm ? It would prove beneficial if journalists , authors , bloggers , and professors alike took this oath , but any social media user could take the oath , by pledging their name and accepting some sort of e-badge . Promises can be broken , but breaking public promises can generate swift social feedback .\nWhat would this Oath consist of ? At the bare minimum : a commitment to good faith dialogue , the principle of charity , and intellectual humility . The last virtue is critical . A caveat of β I could be wrong β underlying strongly held beliefs helps even the most difficult conversations , a shared commitment to that caveat helps even more . If enough culture warriors take such an Oath , it could pave the way for a Geneva Convention of the Culture War .\nIt is increasingly hard for media outlets to approximate β performative neutrality , β thanks to the perverse incentives of outrage porn and the need to appease dwindling subscribers for survival . Is there a way to satisfy the collective hunger for β unbiased news β ? While we try to figure that out , cynicism spreads , as rightists increasingly find traditional media β s claims of neutrality laughable . Is there an alternative ?\nWe could all start by putting our skin in the game , by being honest about our biases and tribal affiliations . We could abandon the pretense to neutrality and more honestly engage with each other , knowing where we stand . Arguments could go to our philosophical foundations more quickly , instead of expending themselves on object-level disagreement .\nWe call this β clean bias , β an admission of an epistemic framework and value structure . It is in contrast to β dirty bias , β unspoken and denied framework and values while purporting universality . Thanks to the reality crisis , we are shedding our faith in universally imposed and agreed-upon truths . Clean bias is a necessary part of a new peace in our fractured reality . A first step could be for memetic creators , from journalists to bloggers , to commit to including their foundational presumptions in their bios .\nDebate is broken . Nobody actually likes β gotcha interviews β or debates plagued with strawmanning , question-begging , bad faith , and side-stepping . Debate needs to be rebuilt . We suggest that debate currently tries to inhabit two contradictory roles . On the one hand , it is a source of entertainment through combat ; On the other , it is an avenue for improved understanding and wisdom . We propose that these two roles should be formally separated into distinct types of debates : Sport Debates and Sensemaking Debates .\nIn Sport Debates , participants debate for combat and entertainment . This would gamify the desire to engage in verbal combat for its own sake , with truth as a potential byproduct . They could be viewed as the UFC of the mind . While it may seem cynical to sponsor an avenue for the fiery and often toxic form debates can take , we think that diverting those urges away from sensemaking desires is a good harm-reduction strategy .\nIn Sensemaking Debates , participants debate for understanding and exploration . This would allow the purported values of debate to actually flourish . This can also include philosophical sandboxing , the adoption of ideologies as a method actor . Spaces could be made where participants take on ideological roles so as to better understand them , and to develop the skill to take them off .\nDavid Brin β s idea of β Disputation Arenas β and William MacAskill β s β Anti-Debates β can map over to the two types of debates , with Bryan Caplan β s β Ideological Turing Test β as another potential modality that falls somewhere between both types . Peter , the co-author of this white paper , has been experimenting with both of these debate modalities inside his Intellectual Explorers Club . He welcomes suggestions and participants .\nDue to technological innovation , industries are being disrupted the world-over , from the sharing economy to AI developments . We suggest that it is time for philosophy to endure similar disruptions . In Disabling Professions , Ivan Illich argues that professionalization can have a damaging effect on society , as expert culture induces knowledge-distance , blindness , and reliance on experts by non-experts . While Illich β s focus was the medical establishment , this also applies to philosophy , which has been inaccessible to most non-professionals for decades . This has in turn led to a sense of philosophy β s irrelevance amongst non-academics .\nBut as practical philosopher Andrew Taggart points out , philosophy is much more than an academic discipline , it is as a way of life : β Philosophy is not theoretical discourse but a way of being . Philosophical discourse , accordingly , appears only when necessary and is always put in the service of leading a certain kind of life. β Indeed , we are seeing the beginnings of a reclaiming of philosophy as a way of life in the new popularity of the longform podcast and of philosophies of virtue , such as Stoicism .\nOur hope is that with these and other disruptions to the philosophical status quo , people will gain the tools to think critically and avoid being drawn into convenient and prepackaged worldviews . Philosophy could be a guard against the pressure to join an existing memetic tribe . R.J. Hollingdale β s aphorism may come to fruition : β If we thought more for ourselves we would have very many more bad books and very many more good ones . β\nA new role might be required in the Culture War , that of the Memetic Mediator . This mediator would be a pan-tribalist participant who has the ability to communicate across tribes in a way that seems fair and reasonable to each tribe . They would have the mental agility , empathy , and wisdom needed to shift between a multitude of perspectives .\nMemetic mediators could be called in for memetic battles where both participants prefer peace to continued civil decay , but can not come to an accord without facilitation . These mediators would require a multitude of tools at their disposal . They would need to be fluent in multiple tribal paradigms and give the impression of fairness . And because each tribe has their own method and claims to truth , Memetic Mediators would have to be skilled at finding any common ground and building from it .\nAs we do not have an existing example to point to , we can only speculate that the role will emerge out of necessity in the coming war . They could even emerge as consultants for social media companies .\nVenkatesh Rao has introduced the term β grey pilling , β which he views as the third pill in the blue-red pill dichotomy . Blue pills are unquestioned consensus realities we are socialized into . A red pill , as Venkatesh puts it , is :\na dose of information that awakens you to the existence of a world beyond the one you are unconsciously immersed in , like a fish being taken out of water . Red-pill moments sensitize you to the previously invisible boundaries and structural lies of the world you knew , and make you alive to astounding possibilities beyond it .\nA grey pill , according to Venkatesh , is the process of β relearning the value of questioning and doubt after you β ve been seduced by answers and certainties ; it β s leaving comforting β secret β societies for continued intellectual growth. β Grey pills can engender an existential crisis , but at the right dose they can provide a confident unknowing and a sexy uncertainty , what Stephen Fry calls β passionate and positive doubt. β In a world of tyrannical certainty , grey pilling may be an ethical act .\nIn 1964 , Ken Kesey , smitten with the experience that LSD provided him , drove around the country with his Merry Band of Pranksters and offered β acid tests β to anyone they could find with the intent to open minds and transform the consciousness of society . Some may argue that they were successful in doing so , as his adventures chronicled in Tom Wolfe β s book The Electric Kool-Aid Acid Test are credited with giving birth to the hippie movement . What if we grey-pilled the way Kesey acid-tested ?\nThis would be the return of Socrates , the original gadfly , who grey-pilled anyone who dared to converse with him . The method of the Street Epistemologists are instructive and may be repurposed for this proposal . Their conversational method of innocently starting dialog is well-structured , but instead of atheists inquiring into the epistemic methodology of their β irrational β interlocutors , performative agnostics could inquire with the intention to get mutually , philosophically lost . This may be our most dangerous , and most fun , speculation .\nManagement theorist Robert Katz made a distinction between three critical skills for professional success : technical skills , conceptual skills , and human skills . Technical skills are practical skill-sets that can be mastered . Conceptual skills are effective ways of thinking about complex problems . And human skills can be understood as the ability to connect with what is β human β about another person . While the β marketing mentality β invokes the need for social skills , which are instrumental towards salesmanship or leadership persuasion , β human skills β invokes the framework of authentic relationships with other humans . It has the potential to lend itself to a non-instrumental view of relationships . In Buberian terms , this is a movement from an I-It way of relating to one of I-Thou .\nThe Authentic Relating and Circling Movement aims to cultivate WE Spaces , which are intersubjective I-Thou spaces where collective consciousness can emerge . For individuals concerned by their own culpability in the Culture War , these spaces give an opportunity to develop Human Skills . We speculate that if one becomes skilled at relating to another for its own sake , across tribal affiliation , it may allow people to bypass tribalistic affinities and a Protean Tribalism to emerge . One β s tribe would be fluid and context-based , in contrast to the increasingly rigid identities we currently find comfort in .\nThe Culture War is a vicious cycle β those who suffer from it feel they have to perpetuate it . Initiating conversations about alternatives can be the start of a positive feedback loop . Individuals looking to improve the atmosphere in their communities could initiate workshops to that end .\nA promising example to this end is the OpenMind platform . As per its website , β OpenMind is a psychology-based educational platform designed to depolarize campuses , companies , organizations , and communities . OpenMind helps people foster intellectual humility and mutual understanding , while equipping them with the essential cognitive skills to engage constructively across differences. β A combination of online program and workshop , OpenMind is one avenue to develop viewpoint diversity and diffuse political tensions in relationships . Any organized , good faith approach to repairing fraying communities is likely to have a positive effect .
|
allsides-corpus-369
|
Manson and his β family β became notorious for the murder of Sharon Tate and six others during the summer of 1969\nCharles Manson , the pseudo-satanic sociopath behind a string of killings that shocked California out of its late 1960s cultural reverie , died on Sunday after almost a half century in prison .\nThe 83-year-old , who died of natural causes , had been serving multiple life sentences in state prison in Corcoran , California , for orchestrating the violence in 1969 that claimed the lives of Sharon Tate , the heavily pregnant wife of film director Roman Polanski , and six others .\nWhile his death prompted the inevitable and renewed questioning around why his grim notoriety had been so enduring , Michele Hanisee , president of the Association of Deputy District Attorneys for Los Angeles County , said : β Today , Manson β s victims are the ones who should be remembered and mourned on the occasion of his death . β\nShe went on to quote the late Vincent Bugliosi , the prosecutor who put Manson behind bars , who had said : β Manson was an evil , sophisticated conman with twisted and warped moral values . β\nAs the leader of a cult known as the Manson Family , Manson had instructed his followers , made up mostly of disaffected young women , to carry out the killings . The brutality of the murders set Los Angeles on edge , and ended the sunny optimism of the 60s counterculture and its aspirations to a new society built on peace and love . Manson presented himself as a demonic force : at trial , he carved a Nazi swastika into his forehead .\nThe five received the death penalty but were spared when capital punishment was temporarily abolished following a ruling by the supreme court in 1972 .\nManson and three female followers , Susan Atkins , Patricia Krenwinkel and Leslie Van Houten , were convicted of murder and conspiracy to murder . Another defendant , Charles β Tex β Watson , was convicted later .\nThe second summer of Charles Manson : why the cult murders still grip us Read more\nTate , the wife of Polanski , who was out of the country the night of her murder , was eight and a half months pregnant when Manson β s followers broke into her home in Los Angeles . They stabbed and shot Tate and her visitors , Jay Sebring , Voytek Frykowski , coffee heiress Abigail Folger and Steven Parent . The word β Pig β was written in blood on the front door . Tate , who had starred in The Valley of the Dolls , was stabbed 16 times , and an β X β was carved into her stomach .\nThe next night , his followers murdered couple Leno and Rosemary LaBianca .\nAlthough the followers committed the murders , Manson had ordered them . At the LaBianca home , he tied up the couple before leaving others to carry out the killings .\nAfter his death on Sunday night , Tate β s sister Debra told NBC : β One could say I β ve forgiven them , which is quite different than forgetting what they are capable of . It is for this reason I fight so hard to make sure that each of these individuals stays in prison until the end of their natural days . β\nIn the 2004 book Sharon Tate Recollection , Polanski wrote : β Even after so many years , I find myself unable to watch a spectacular sunset or visit a lovely old house or experience visual pleasure of any kind without instinctively telling myself how much she would have loved it all . β\nProsecutors at the time said Manson and his cult were trying to spark a race war that he believed was foretold in the Beatles song Helter Skelter , and hoped the Black Panthers would be blamed for the killings .\nBefore the murders , Manson spent most of his teens and 20s in and out of prison , and he later became a singer-songwriter . He got a break in the music industry when he met the Beach Boys drummer Dennis Wilson . The group later recorded Never Learn Not to Love , which Manson had written .\nHe became friends with the Byrds producer Terry Melcher ( the son of Doris Day ) and even recorded 13 folksy songs for an album that eventually was titled Lie : The Love and Terror Cult ; it was released in March 1970 to help pay for his defense .\nManson had established himself as a would-be cult leader in the Haight-Ashbury district of San Francisco . He took a handful of followers , some of whom would later be convicted in the killings , to the old Spahn Movie Ranch north of LA and turned it into a hedonistic commune .\nVan Houten , the youngest member of the original Manson Family , later said that Manson had used sex , LSD , Bible readings , repeated playing of the Beatles β White Album and rambling lectures about triggering a revolution to brainwash her .\nVan Houten , 68 , was convicted of the killings of Leno and Rosemary LaBianca . She was recommended for parole in September but California β s governor , Jerry Brown , has yet to approve the recommendation . He rejected an earlier decision , concluding that Van Houten posed β an unreasonable danger to society if released from prison β .\nIn June , officials denied a parole request by Krenwinkel , the state β s longest-serving female prisoner , after her attorney said she had been abused by Manson or another person . She has been denied parole multiple times in the past .\nManson β s lawyer , Irving Kanarek , claimed his client was innocent during a 2014 interview with βββ . β No question he was legally innocent . And , more than that , he was actually innocent , β Kanarek said , arguing that there was no evidence connecting him to the case .\nAt a 2012 parole hearing , which was denied , Manson was quoted as having said to one of his prison psychologists : β I β m special . I β m not like the average inmate . I have spent my life in prison . I have put five people in the grave . I am a very dangerous man . β\nAccording to the LA Times , Manson committed hundreds of rules violations while being held at the Corcoran state prison , including assault , repeated possession of a weapon and threatening staff . Officials said he has spat in guards β faces , started fights , tried to cause a flood and set his mattress ablaze .\nIn 2014 , Manson and Afton Elaine Burton , a 26-year-old Manson devotee , were granted a marriage license , but it expired before the two could marry . She had faithfully visited him in prison for seven years . Manson had been denied parole 12 times , with his next hearing set for 2027 .\nHis death is unlikely to end interest in his crimes . Quentin Tarantino is believed to be preparing a film that uses the murders as a backdrop for its main plot , and an adaptation of Emma Cline β s bestselling 2016 novel , The Girls , is on the way .\nWriter Joan Didion interviewed Linda Kasabian , the Manson family member who acted as a lookout in the Tate and LaBianca killings and later gave evidence at the trial , and described the atmosphere in Hollywood in an essay from her collection The White Album ( 1979 ) .\nβ Everything was unmentionable but nothing was unimaginableβ¦ β Didion wrote . β A demented and seductive vortical tension was building in the community . The jitters were setting in . I recall a time when the dogs barked every night and the moon was always full .\nReached at home in Manhattan , Didion , 82 , told βββ : β Manson β s legacy was never obvious to me . It wasn β t obvious when I went to talk with Linda Kasabian , and it isn β t obvious to me now . But I do find it easy to put him from my mind . β\nIn 2008 , California officials ordered the search of a deserted ranch in Death Valley where Manson and his family briefly resided . The search turned up no evidence of human remains .\nManson may be gone but the persistence of his dark vision endures . β I am crime , β he proclaimed in a telephone call to the New York Post from prison in the mid-2000s .
|
allsides-corpus-370
|
Donald Trump likes to deliver big promises on infrastructure . Delivering an actual infrastructure plan , though , is a different matter . ( Sound familiar ? ) Trump β s problem is that while strengthening the nation β s infrastructure would be very popular with voters , who would benefit from the improved transit and water systems and new schools and the millions of jobs that would come from repairing or building all of that , Republican politicians are not interested in making rich people pay for any of that . ( Trump , you may recall , is a Republican politician . ) Also , Trump β s strong suit has not exactly been delivering workable plans to fulfill his positive campaign promises . He β s good at signing orders and bills undoing things President Obama did , but he β s not so good at coming up with his own policies , from health care to infrastructure .\nAnd so Trump keeps talking about infrastructure in his speeches :\nBut at this point , White House spokesman Sean Spicer has only said the Trump Administration is in the β beginning phases β of putting together an infrastructure plan β which means there is no legislative text ready for action in the Congress .\nThere have been indications that any infrastructure bill coming out of the Trump White House will be less about investing in America and more about gutting environmental regulations and selling roads and bridges off to corporations , but at this point even that is extremely hazy , and while Republicans seem content about it , Democrats are getting impatient :\nβ Every conversation or any interaction I have had with the president has been infrastructure , infrastructure , infrastructure , β House Democratic leader Nancy Pelosi of California said at a news conference last week . β Where 's the bill ? Show us the bill . β\nDemocrats would love a real infrastructure bill that put people to work repairing or replacing crumbling bridges , building tunnels to improve transit in congested areasβyou could list important projects pretty much all day . But with Trump β s popularity and credibility in the basement , Democrats don β t seem like they plan to roll over and gratefully accept a massive privatizing giveaway to the wealthy . And Trumpβor at least some of the people around himβmay realize that continuing to talk vaguely about a popular idea serves his ego more as an applause line than unveiling a disappointing betrayal of an actual plan would . Don β t hold your breath on a solid infrastructure plan that Congress could vote on , in other words .
|
allsides-corpus-371
|
Story highlights `` Too early to conclude pilot error , '' NTSB chief says\nThe agency is also looking to see if the plane 's computer was handling landing\nSaturday marked the pilot 's first time landing a Boeing 777 at the San Francisco airport\nAsiana Airlines Flight 214 was flying far slower than recommended as it approached San Francisco International Airport just before its crash landing on Saturday , the head of the National Transportation Safety Board said Monday .\nThe Boeing 777 was traveling at approximately 106 knots ( 122 mph ) upon impact and at about 118 knots ( 136 mph ) 16 seconds before impact at an altitude of about 200 feet ; the recommended speed upon approach to the runway threshold is 137 knots ( 157 mph ) , Deborah Hersman told reporters .\nThe onboard systems warned the crew the plane was about to stall four seconds before the crash , she said .\nThat warning comes in the form of a `` stick-shaker , '' said Arthur Rosenberg , a pilot , engineer and partner with the New York-based law firm Soberman & Rosenberg , which specializes in litigation stemming from plane crashes . `` It 's basically saying , 'Hey idiot , wake up and do something ... Now ! ''\nThat something typically is to lower the nose of the plane and apply power , he said .\nJUST WATCHED Young plane crash survivors speak Replay More Videos ... MUST WATCH Young plane crash survivors speak 02:26\nJUST WATCHED NTSB : Plane angle was n't abnormal Replay More Videos ... MUST WATCH NTSB : Plane angle was n't abnormal 03:18\nJUST WATCHED First responder : 'We had no time ' Replay More Videos ... MUST WATCH First responder : 'We had no time ' 02:58\nJUST WATCHED Asiana 214 's fateful last seconds Replay More Videos ... MUST WATCH Asiana 214 's fateful last seconds 01:27\nThe plane was already close to the ground and could n't be lowered much further . But the crew apparently boosted the power to the engines , which were increasing from 50 % capacity three seconds before impact , according to Hersman .\nOne-and-a-half seconds before impact , the crew called for a `` go-around , '' meaning that they wanted to abort the landing and go around in the air to try to make another landing , she said .\nBut they did n't make it . `` There just was n't enough room to recover , '' Rosenberg said .\nInvestigators have found a path of wreckage that started at the seawall and continued to the main wreckage site hundreds of feet up the runway , Hersman added .\nThe pavement itself was scarred from contact with the landing gear , the engines and the fuselage , Hersman said .\nThe tail 's lower portion was in the rocks at the seawall and `` a significant piece of the tail '' was in the water , she said . Additional aircraft parts were visible at low tide . On the path that leads along the pavement away from the seawall were horizontal stabilizers , a vertical stabilizer and an upper portion of the tail cone , she said .\nThe air-traffic control team found no evidence on voice communications of any distress calls before the accident , she said .\nBut investigators have found that the pilots had the appropriate charts for the airport and approach in place in the cockpit , she added . The NTSB was working to find out what the four pilots had done during the 72 hours before the crash in an attempt to determine whether fatigue or sickness may have played a role , she said .\nA preliminary review of FAA radar data indicates that there was `` no abnormally steep descent curve that 's been detected '' in the landing approach of the jet , she said , reacting to media reports citing a steeper descent .\nAnd a preliminary review of the engines indicates that both engines were producing power when the plane crashed , she said .\nInvestigators were focusing on the crew and aircraft as they try to learn why the giant jet clipped the end of runway before crashing , she had said earlier in the day .\n`` We 're certainly looking at the crew and how they operated , how they were trained , at their experience , '' Hersman told CNN 's New Day .\n`` We 're also looking at the aircraft . We 're looking to see if the crew was using automation or was flying on autopilot , or they were hand-flying the airplane , '' she said .\nBoeing 777s can land automatically , but it was unclear if the plane 's computer was handling Saturday 's attempted landing or if it was being done by the pilot , who Asiana said was making his first San Francisco landing at the controls of that model of aircraft .\nThe flight , with 307 people on board , originated in Shanghai , China , and stopped in Seoul , South Korea . It was preparing to land Saturday in San Francisco when the rear of the plane struck the edge of the runway , severing the tail . Most passengers were able to escape before the plane erupted in smoke and flames .\nJUST WATCHED Up-close look at crash scene Replay More Videos ... MUST WATCH Up-close look at crash scene 00:52\nJUST WATCHED Man catches plane crash on camera Replay More Videos ... MUST WATCH Man catches plane crash on camera 00:57\nJUST WATCHED Flight 214 's communications revealed Replay More Videos ... MUST WATCH Flight 214 's communications revealed 01:43\nBoth of the girls had been seated in the rear of the plane , which suffered significant structural damage , Hersman said .\nInvestigators said they were looking into reports that one of the girls may have been run over by an emergency vehicle . `` We are still looking at this issue , '' she said . `` The coroner has not yet determined the cause of death and so we want to make sure we have all the facts before we reach any conclusions . ''\nLee Kang-kuk , the pilot who was in the captain 's seat of Flight 214 , had flown from Seoul to San Francisco several times between 1999 and 2004 , the airline said .\nBut Saturday marked his first time landing a Boeing 777 at San Francisco International Airport and was the ninth time he had flown the model , with 43 hours at the controls , the airline said . He has about 10,000 hours as a pilot , Asiana said .\nHersman , who has discouraged speculation about whether the crew bore responsibility for the crash , downplayed the significance of the pilot 's experience in her New Day interview .\n`` It 's not unusual for crew to change aircraft types , '' she said . And with air crews flying all around the world , it 's not unusual for pilots to fly into unfamiliar airports for the first time either .\nShe said it 's important for the two pilots in charge of the aircraft during the `` very risky '' landing phase to work closely together , and while she said investigators have no evidence of cockpit communications problems , it 's something investigators will be looking at .\nMary Schiavo , a former inspector general for the U.S. Department of Transportation , said video and other data related to the crash suggest the crew `` lost situational awareness '' while approaching the airport .\n`` They 're low and slow , and that 's a problem , '' Schiavo said .\nAll four pilots have been interviewed by NTSB and South Korean investigators , said Choi Jeong-ho , the head of South Korea 's Aviation Policy Bureau .\n`` We can not reveal what 's been said as it is an ongoing investigation , '' Choi said .\nThe pilots represented two teams -- a crew and a relief crew , said Hersman .\n`` I think it really is too early to conclude pilot error , because there is so much that we do n't know , '' she told CNN 's Wolf Blitzer .\nThe cockpit voice recorder -- which has been flown to Washington for analysis -- contains conversations between the pilots that were carried out in a combination of English and Korean , she said .\nHersman said that in most airplane crashes , investigators rarely find a single explanation for what went wrong .\n`` In most of our investigations , we find that it 's not just one thing , it really is a combination of factors that lead to an accident , '' she said .\nWhile weather has been ruled out as a factor , other factors officials are investigating include whether construction at the airport may have played a role , Hersman said Sunday .\nWork to extend a runway safety area required the temporary shutdown of a system designed to help pilots land planes safely , she said .\nThe pilots apparently tried to speed up seven seconds before the crash , cockpit voice and flight data recorders showed .\nA stall warning sounded three seconds later , telling the pilots the plane was about to lose its ability to stay in the air .\nThen -- just 1.5 seconds before the plane slammed into the runway -- the crew decided to call off the landing and try to pull up for another try , Hersman said .\nWith no warning from the cockpit , survivors said , the plane 's rear struck the sea wall at the end of the runway . The impact severed the plane 's tail and sent the rest of the body spinning on its belly .\nIn addition to the two deaths , 182 people were hospitalized with injuries ranging from severe scrapes to paralysis .\n`` We 're lucky there has n't been a greater loss of life , '' San Francisco Fire Chief Joanne Hayes-White said .\nSome injured passengers remained hospitalized Monday , including six in critical condition at San Francisco General Hospital , said Dr. Margaret Knudson , the hospital 's chief of surgery .\nAbout half of those admitted to the hospital had spinal fractures , she said . Others have head trauma .\n`` Their recovery could be months and months and maybe not even to full recovery , '' she said .\nMany of the injured said they were sitting toward the rear of the aircraft , Knudson said .\nBut 123 of the 307 people on board walked away uninjured . Benjamin Levy was among them .\n`` Honestly , I was waiting for the plane to ... start flipping upside down , in which case I think a lot of people would have not made it , '' Levy said .\n`` If we flipped , none of us would be here to talk about it , '' he said .
|
allsides-corpus-372
|
The co-pilot of the Germanwings plane that slammed into the Alps appears to have practiced for the deadly descent by setting controls to dangerously low altitudes during a flight earlier that day , French investigators said Wednesday .\nThe revelation contained in a 30-page interim report from the French accident investigation agency BEA appeared to support the theory that the crash was deliberate and premeditated .\nThe Airbus 320 co-piloted by Andreas Lubitz crashed in the French Alps on March 24 , killing all 150 people aboard , while on a flight to Duesseldorf , Germany , from Barcelona .\nThe agency said Lubitz set the plane into a descent several times during the earlier flight into Barcelona from Duesseldorf that morning . The plane 's `` selected altitude '' changed repeatedly and several times was set as low as 100 feet above sea level .\nThe report said Lubitz also put the engines on idle , which gives the plane the ability to descend quickly .\nOn the doomed flight from Barcelona to Duesseldorf , Lubitz set a 100-foot altitude before the plane crashed into the Alps .\n`` Several altitude selections towards 100 ft. were recorded during descent on the flight that preceded the accident flight , while the co-pilot was alone in the cockpit , '' the preliminary report said .\nAccording to the report , the resetting of automatic flight controls occurred during a four-minute period that begins after sounds picked up on the voice recorder indicate that the pilot had left the cockpit .\nAviation experts say it would be highly unusual for a pilot to repeatedly set a plane for such a low altitude for no apparent reason .\nThe report said Lubitz did so while air traffic controllers were asking him to bring the airplane down gradually from 35,000 feet to 21,000 feet for its descent to Barcelona .\nA BEA chart showed the plane did n't actually descend sharply while Lubitz was repeatedly adjusting the settings , so the passengers and crew might not have noticed any change .\n`` The captain did n't realize at all , because the co-pilot 's tests during the outgoing flight took place during a normal , preprogrammed descent and it never had an impact on the plane 's trajectory , '' said Remi Jouty , the director of BEA\nBecause the plane was already on descent into Barcelona , the setting of 100 feet minimum would not be noticeable to air traffic control or others on the plane . Lubitz kept the plane on this trajectory for about a minute and a half , leveling off at 25,000 feet shortly before the voice recorder notes the return of the pilot .\n`` I ca n't speculate on what was happening inside his head ; all I can say is that he changed this button to the minimum setting of 100 feet and he did it several times , '' Jouty said .\n`` These very brief actions on the previous flight were a sort of rehearsal of the maneuver , '' Jouty said .\nOn the flight that crashed into the Alps , only hours later , French and German prosecutors say Lubitz locked the pilot out of the cockpit and deliberately steered the plane into a ravine .\nHelmut Tolksdorf , a spokesman for Lufthansa , the parent company of Germanwings , told the Associated Press that the airline had not had time to analyze the new details and planned no immediate comment .\nThe BEA report also showed that the Lufthansa aeromedical center twice turned down Lubitz 's bid for a medical certificate re-validation in April 2009 because of depression and the medication he was taking to treat it , according to DPA , the German news agency .\nWhen he was eventually issued a new certificate in July 2009 , a note was attached specifying that he was required to undergo regular medical examinations . The limitation also required the medical examiner to contact the issuer of the license before conducting an evaluation for a medical certificate renewal .\nLubitz 's most recent medical certificate was issued in July 2014 and was valid until August 2015 .\n`` We are in a situation where the medical problem was known , was investigated and a decision was made , '' Jouty said .\nLubitz , who struggled with depression , had a doctor 's note excusing him from flying the day of the crash , but he had hidden it and been cleared for flying by Germanwings .
|
allsides-corpus-373
|
Trump β s proposal would be a step in the right direction .\nIf you think about the businesses you really hate , you β ll notice that many of them have something in common : They are in industries with a big federal footprint β banks , cable companies , health-insurance providers , and , bane of my personal existence , airlines .\nIf the word β capitalism β makes you think of the Apple Store , then it gives you a nice fuzzy Milton Friedman vibe ; if the word β capitalism β makes you think of Wells Fargo β s shenanigans or trying to get Nasty McEvil Stupidface Health Partners to approve your mom β s dialysis , then it gives you more of a Karl Marx , Shining Path kind of a feeling .\nAir travel in the United States is terrible , both in absolute terms and relative to air travel in other parts of the world . President Donald Trump has proposed trying to fix one of its defects β air-traffic control β by privatizing the activity and entrusting it to a new nonprofit corporation . The model here isn β t some Rothbardian fantasyland or a hypercapitalist city-state such as Singapore but our nice neighbor to the north , Canada , which keeps out-scoring the United States on the Heritage Foundation β s economic-liberty rankings in spite of its commie health-care system . Canada β s air-traffic control is managed by a truly private corporation , Nav Canada , which receives no government funding but instead operates on fees charged to airlines and other flight operators and raises capital in the private markets the same as any other business . It seems to work pretty well , and Nav Canada recently β get this β lowered its fees . The Trump administration , taking up legislation authored by Bill Schuster ( R. , Pa. ) , wants to emulate that model in the United States .\nThis is one of those blessed occasions when corporate management ( the airlines ) is on the same side as labor , with the air-traffic controllers β union friendly toward the idea : Privatization would not change the union β s status , and the FAA is so screwed up that even American union bosses shake their heads in dismay and disbelief at its incompetence . The main opposition comes from . . . people like Donald Trump , i.e. , the private-jet set and the firms that serve them . The general-aviation crowd fears that the board of the new nonprofit corporation will be too entirely dominated by the big commercial airlines , who may be tempted to use their position to shift some costs onto the smaller and less powerful private-flight industry . A few left-wing ideologues who oppose the privatization of anything also have made it known that air-traffic control falls within the category of β anything , β and that they oppose privatizing it .\nWhile the eternal plight of the private-jet owner must never be far from our thoughts , arranging the new nonprofit corporation in such a way that their interests are not overwhelmed by those of the major carriers ought not be too difficult . It certainly does not represent , on its own , a persuasive argument against privatization .\nIs this proposal an instance of β corporatism β ? Of course it is : Organizing industry and government interests into a cartel in the form of a nonprofit charged with serving the public interest is classical corporatism . Our progressive friends have a great affection for corporatism when it is the Corporation for Public Broadcasting , and some of our Chamber of Commerce friends seem to think that they would wither up and die without the Overseas Private Investment Corporation or the Export-Import Bank . But a genuine free-market alternative is not on the table . So , setting aside the question of nomenclature : Is this likely to improve air travel in these United States ? Put another way : Will this corporatist cartel represent an improvement over the current monopoly model ?\nWill this corporatist cartel represent an improvement over the current monopoly model ?\nThe problems with air travel are legion , and there is no single reform that will address all of them . The airlines are part of the problem in that they are poorly managed but big and politically connected enough to protect themselves from more nimble competition ( for example , foreign carriers are prohibited from operating domestic flights within the United States ) , which explains why airline incompetence rather than weather trouble was the biggest cause of flight delays in 2016 , according to the FAA ; the various unions are part of the problem , inflicting work rules on the industry that inhibit innovation and flexibility , contributing to those flight delays by making flight crews unavailable ; antiquated regulation is part of the problem . And the FAA is a big part of the problem , too : Supporters of privatization point out that its defective procurement process means that equipment often is outdated by the time it is installed , and a recent program to modernize its traffic-control practices descended into fiasco . And part of the reason the FAA is a problem is that Congress is part of the problem , with its unsteady budget practices making it difficult for federal agencies to commit convincingly to long-term projects .\nYou know what else is part of the problem ? New York . As recently as 2012 , problems originating in the New York air space accounted for more than half of all flight delays in the United States .\nAir-traffic control is one part of a very big picture , but making it more effective and more efficient would do a great deal to improve the overall functionality of the air-travel system , which would give airlines , airport authorities , and other responsible parties some breathing room to work on their own particular reforms . β Privatization β is a word that warms libertarian hearts , but institutional design matters a great deal here , too : The new private nonprofit will be theoretically accountable to federal regulators , but how that actually works in practice will end up mattering more than whether the new entity is formally private .\nThis is a step in the right direction , and we should take that step β carefully .
|
allsides-corpus-374
|
The Trump administration on Tuesday ended the most popular forms of U.S. travel to Cuba , banning cruise ships and a heavily used category of educational travel in an attempt to cut off cash to the island 's communist government .\nCruise travel from the U.S. to Cuba began in May 2016 during President Barack Obama 's opening with the island .\nIt has become the most popular form of U.S. leisure travel to the island , bringing 142,721 people in the first four months of the year , a more than 300 % increase over the same period last year .\nFor travelers confused about the thicket of federal regulations governing travel to Cuba , cruises offered a simple , one-stop , guaranteed-legal way to travel .\nBanned : Tourists ride inside a vintage car as they pass by the Norwegian Sky cruise ship in Havana . Cruises from U.S ports will be banned from Wednesday\nMassive activity : Tourists such as these near the Majesty of the Seas cruise ship , owned by Royal Caribbean , have become a key part of the Cuban economy - prompting the move by the Trump administration\nLocal concern : In Havana , businesses are concerned that the ban on U.S. cruise tourists will hit their income\n'Cruise ships as well as recreational and pleasure vessels are prohibited from departing the U.S. on temporary sojourn to Cuba effective tomorrow , ' the Commerce Department said in a statement to The Associated Press .\nThe new restrictions are part of a broader effort by the administration of President Donald Trump to roll back the Obama-era efforts to restore normal relations between the United States and Cuba , which drew sharp criticism from the more hardline elements of the Cuban-American community and their allies in Congress .\nU.S. national security adviser John Bolton , who declared Cuba part of a 'troika of tyranny ' along with Nicaragua and Venezuela as he outlined new sanctions in November , said the new policy is intended to deny the Cuban government a vital source of revenue .\n'The Administration has advanced the President 's Cuba policy by ending 'veiled tourism ' to Cuba and imposing restrictions on vessels , ' Bolton said on Twitter .\n'We will continue to take actions to restrict the Cuban regime 's access to U.S . dollars . '\nCruise lines carrying passengers booked before Tuesday had been hoping that they could request specific federal permits to complete their trips to Cuba , said Pedro Freyre , a Miami-based attorney who represents Carnival and three other major cruise lines .\n'For now , it 's prohibited unless the cruise lines requests a specific license , ' Freyre said . He said cruise lines had been trying to determine 'if there 's any opening there to at least complete trips that have been booked and passengers that have made travel plans . '\nNorwegian Cruise Line said in a statement that it was scrutinizing the new rules and consulting with lawyers and trade experts .\n'We are closely monitoring these recent developments and any resulting impact to cruise travel to Cuba , ' Norwegian Cruise Line said in a statement . 'We will communicate to our guests and travel partners as additional information becomes available . '\nShore excursions from cruise ships tend to be organized by the cruise lines in cooperation with Cuban government tour agency Havanatur .\nA smaller number hire private tour guides or drivers of restored classic cars who wait outside Havana 's cruise docks .\n'This affects all of us , ' said William MΓ‘rtinez , 58 , a Cuban-born American who lived in Florida for 46 years but returned five years ago to drive a classic car for tourists . 'It 's inhuman , the sanctions that they 're putting on Cuba . '\nHardline move : John Bolton , Donald Trump 's national security adviser , unveiled the action against Cuba earlier this year , accusing it , Venezuela and Nicaragua of being a 'troika of tyranny '\nTreasury Secretary Steven Mnuchin said the measures are a response to what it calls Cuba 's 'destabilizing role ' in the Western Hemisphere , including support for the government of President Nicolas Maduro in Venezuela .\n'This administration has made a strategic decision to reverse the loosening of sanctions and other restrictions on the Cuban regime , ' Mnuchin said . 'These actions will help to keep U.S. dollars out of the hands of Cuban military , intelligence , and security services . '\nCruise ships have brought thousands of Americans to Cuba since the U.S. began restoring full diplomatic relations with the communist government in December 2014 and have provided an important economic lifeline to the island .\nAlong with the cruise ships , the U.S. will also now ban most private planes and boats from stopping in the island .\n'Consequently , private and corporate aircraft , cruise ships , sailboats , fishing boats , and other similar aircraft and vessels generally will be prohibited from going to Cuba , ' according to the new rules published by the Commerce Department .\nThe new restrictions take effect Wednesday , but the government will allow anyone who has already paid for the trip to go ahead with it .\nCruises have become more popular than flights for leisure travelers to Cuba - nearly 30,000 more came by cruise ship than flights this year . The figures exclude Cuban-born Americans visiting family on the island .\nCommercial airline flights appear to be unaffected by the new measures and travel for university groups , academic research , journalism and professional meetings will continue to be allowed .\n'It kills the people-to-people category , which is the most common way for the average American to travel to Cuba , ' said Collin Laverty , head of Cuba Educational Travel , one of the largest Cuba travel companies in the U.S .\nThe new restrictions had been previewed by national security adviser John Bolton in an April speech in Miami to veterans of the failed 1961 Bay of Pigs invasion but details of the changed were not made public until Tuesday . Treasury said the sanctions would take effect on Wednesday after they are published in the Federal Register .
|
allsides-corpus-375
|
WASHINGTON ( βββ ) - Democrats in Congress will press U.S. President Donald Trump at a White House meeting on Wednesday for details on how to pay for a massive boost in U.S. infrastructure spending after agreeing in April to try to win approval of a $ 2 trillion package .\nHouse Speaker Nancy Pelosi and Senate Democratic Leader Chuck Schumer said in a joint statement late on Tuesday that Trump in April had agreed to provide β ideas for pay-fors , β a term used in Washington for new taxes or government spending reductions .\nβ On Wednesday , we look forward to hearing the President β s plan for how to pay for this package , β they said . The pair will be joined by other key Democrats in Congress , including those on committees overseeing infrastructure issues .\nThe Democrats made no mention of Trump β s demand on Tuesday that Congress first approve a new North American free trade deal before moving to infrastructure . Trump also suggested Congress use a surface transportation measure that expires in September 2020 as a vehicle for infrastructure spending .\nOn April 30 , Trump and Democratic leaders agreed to build roads , bridges , power grids , water and broadband infrastructure , but delayed the tough decisions on how to fund it to another meeting .\nAdministration officials and congressional aides are skeptical that 18 months before the election both sides will have the political will to find substantial new revenue .\nSenator Tom Carper , the top Democrat on the Environment and Public Works Committee , said in an interview on Tuesday that the United States has an $ 800 billion backlog of badly needed projects .\nβ We need for ( Trump ) to show some leadership , β Carper said , saying Trump needs to explain how he will fund repairs . β If he does ... he will not be by himself . β\nFitch Ratings said last week that any U.S. plan for boosting infrastructure β will need to provide for consistent , continued federal funding and more diverse funding sources to fully address the infrastructure deficit . β\nFitch noted that as the federal government has failed to act , 31 states have raised gas taxes since 2013 , including four in 2019 . But Fitch said state and local governments are unable to raise adequate funds to fully address infrastructure needs on their own .\nRepublicans are not willing to roll back tax cuts from Trump β s 2017 tax reform legislation , an idea Democrats who largely opposed that measure have floated as a way of financing the infrastructure plans .\nU.S. President Donald Trump delivers remarks on the Infrastructure Initiative at the Local 18 Richfield Training Site in Richfield , Ohio , U.S. , March 29 , 2018 . βββ/Yuri Gripas\nLast month , top economic adviser Larry Kudlow said Trump has not decided whether he would support an increase in fuel taxes to fund infrastructure projects .\nOn Tuesday , Representative Earl Blumenauer , a Democrat , introduced legislation to hike the fuel tax by five cents a year over five years and index it to inflation to pay for repairs .
|
allsides-corpus-376
|
The left generally supports the deal as a marginal improvement on NAFTA and a win for organized labor .\nβ While this measure has some things not to like , it has others that are worthy . The USMCA would do away with a back-channel dispute resolution mechanism that corporations have used to demand concessions from the member governments . And the pact includes significant provisions on e-commerce , which was in its infancy when NAFTA was passed , as well as protections for U.S. copyright holders . The simple truth is that NAFTA has been a success , so a modest update is not a bad thing . Critics point to job losses in manufacturing since it went into effect . But most of the losses were from technological change or trade with countries like Chinaβ¦ While not perfect , and leaving out some crucial areas like climate change , the USMCA is worth passing . β\nβ The most important improvement β the one for which workers β advocates fought for hardest β is the facility-specific labor enforcement measures , because without those , the improved labor standards mean nothing . For the first time in any trade agreement , tariffs and fines can be imposed against specific products produced in facilities that are determined to deny workers collective-bargaining rights . If there are repeated violations , goods can be blocked at the borderβ¦\nβ The AFL-CIO has vehemently opposed almost every significant trade deal since NAFTA , but after playing an active role in the USMCA negotiations and forcing labor standards and enforcement improvements in Trump β s 2018 deal , they told their members , β We have secured an agreement that working people can proudly support . β β\nβ Democrats seem to have secured other important concessions in the deal . The original USMCA was widely considered a giveaway to pharmaceutical companies because it guaranteed the makers of expensive biologic drugs 10 years of protection from cheaper competition . That provision , which could have made it harder for the U.S. to lower its own drug costs , is out . The new agreement also adds more enforcement on environmental rules . The deal isn β t perfect : Nancy Pelosi failed to remove protections for internet companies that could make it more difficult for the U.S. to amend its own lawsβ¦\nβ But , at first glance , it looks like an improvement over both the original-recipe NAFTA and the first draft of the USMCA , and it could help set better standards for America β s future trade deals . β\nCritics , however , contend that β The United States International Trade Commission predicts the measures will succeed in the narrow purpose of shifting work to the United States , but only at a high cost : Consumers will pay more for new vehicles , resulting in fewer sales , and economic growth will suffer . There is a broader threat , too . Shifting work to Mexico has allowed American car companies to reduce costs , and to compete more effectively with foreign producers . Without NAFTA , there might be even fewer car-making jobs in the United States today . And as a result of the changes , there may be fewer in the futureβ¦\nβ The best argument for passage is prophylactic . President Trump has threatened to abandon NAFTA in the absence of a new deal , and the changes are less important than the part that would stay the same : a free-trade area for most goods encompassing the three largest nations of North America . β\nβ Just what would the USMCA do for the economy in 2020 ? Not much , it turns outβ¦ One of the two big economic projections on the deal , performed by the U.S. International Trade Commission ( ITC ) , estimated it would add 176,000 jobs to the economy over the next six years . For context , that 's about as many jobs as we add in any single month of decent economic growthβ¦\nβ The USMCA will add 51,000 new jobs to manufacturing , mining , and farming over its first six years of operation . For context , those three industries employ something in the vicinity of 14 million people . That 's an increase of less than one percent β and not even in 2020 , but spread out over six years . Similarly , employment in the auto sector would increase by about three percent over the deal 's first six years . The idea that such minute changes will lead to meaningful differences that workers in Michigan , Ohio , Pennsylvania , Indiana , Iowa , and Wisconsin would see and feel in their lives and communities before November 2020 seems like a stretch . β\nβ By declaring that the United States will respond with airstrikes to any attacks on American targets or assets , Mr. Trump is drawing a bright red line that Iran can not cross . And yet , Iran relies on a network of proxy actors from Yemen , Syria , Iraq and Lebanon . Must they all respect Mr. Trump β s red line ? There are plenty of hotheads in those proxy forces that will be incensed by the assassination , the same way young men with weapons and minimal discipline often areβ¦ Mr. Trump can β t keep an entire region from crossing his red line , making violent conflict all the more likely if the president holds to itβ¦ β β It is crucial that influential Republican senators like Lindsey Graham , Marco Rubio and Mitch McConnell remind Mr. Trump of his promise to keep America out of foreign quagmires and keep Mr. Trump from stumbling further into war with Iran . β
|
allsides-corpus-377
|
The Trump administration has quietly altered its handling of visas granted to immigrants who cooperate with criminal investigations , allowing people to be deported even while they are waiting for their visas .\nThe change to U visas will make immigrants far less likely to report serious crimes , say immigration attorneys , who argue it also reflects the Trump administration β s efforts to deport as many immigrants as they can from the United States .\nβ This is going to have a chilling effect , β Eileen Blessinger , a Falls Church , Va.-based immigration attorney , told βββ , because β by applying , you β re essentially reporting yourself to ICE but now there β s a risk that ICE might pick you up . β\nThe change was announced in a revised Immigration and Customs Enforcement ( ICE ) directive released on Aug. 2 .\nThe directive allows ICE to give permission for people to stay in the country as they await their U visas , which is a class of visa given to people who are cooperating with criminal investigations . But it also allows ICE to deport pending U visa applicants at their discretion .\nApplications for U visas can take up to four years . The government issues 10,000 per year but puts no limit on the number of visas that can be issued to spouses and children of applicants or to parents of applicants who are themselves under 21 .\nThe directive reserves the right for the agency to β review the totality of the circumstances , including any favorable or adverse factors , and any federal interest ( s ) implicated and decide whether a Stay of Removal or terminating proceedings is appropriate . β\nICE adds in the directive that it will β exercise its discretion β in determining whether to grant stay of removal requests , but cautions that the agency β no longer exempts classes or categories of removable aliens from potential enforcement . β\nIn a statement to βββ , an ICE spokesperson defended the change as necessary due to the volume of applications .\nβ As the number of U visa petitions submitted increased , this process became burdensome on both agencies and such determinations didn β t reflect a qualitative assessment of any assistance provided to law enforcement , '' the spokesperson said .\nBlessinger said the new directive piggybacks on another policy change that began about a year ago , when United States Citizenship and Immigration Services ended its practice of waiving fees for U visa applicants . This change cut down the number of people who could even seek out U visas .\nWhile the application itself does not cost any money , applicants with past criminal or immigration violations must pay a $ 585 fee to apply for a waiver .\nBlessinger told βββ that her firm , Blessinger Legal , had a client who had been deported twice before whose daughter was a victim of child sexual abuse and who had cooperated with the investigation .\nThe man was able to file for a U visa , which was eventually approved , and will be able to stay in the United States and continue to cooperate with the sexual abuse investigation .\nIf he had applied for the U visa under the terms of the new ICE directive , however , he could have been deported .\nAnother of her clients , Blessinger said , is a Salvadoran immigrant and victim of domestic violence who came to the U.S. in 2004 and has been detained in Caroline Detention Facility in Fort A.P . Hill , Va. , after failing to appear in court in El Paso , Texas , after receiving a notice to appear that Blessinger said did not include her hearing β s date or time .\nβ She missed the court hearing and got a deportation order and the motion to reopen was denied , but while it was pending we were able to get U visa certification signed off saying she was a victim of domestic violence and cooperated with the investigation , β Blessinger told βββ .\nβ She β s not a criminal , she β s someone that in the past would be released on an ankle bracelet , β added Blessinger .\nβ The U visa was created in 2000 by a bipartisan majority in Congress with two important purposes : one , to be a tool for law enforcement to investigate or prosecute criminal activity , and the other is to provide protection for immigrant survivors in coming forward and seeking protection , β Cecelia Friedman Levin , senior policy counsel at ASISTA Immigration Assistance , told βββ .\nβ What we see here with new ICE policies that impact the U visa program is that some of these changes really contravene the purpose that Congress created these protections for , β she added .\nComplicating the process further , Friedman Levin said , ICE has yet to publicly issue the full guidance for the new U visa policy .\nβ It β s leaving everyone in the dark in terms of what they β re actually supposed to do , β she said , calling the change β just another way of just continued and deliberate erosion of access to protection . β\nKristian Ramos , communications director at the immigrant advocacy group Define American , told βββ the change was indicative of the administration β s general handling of long-standing immigration policy .\nβ This administration β s reckless changing of long-standing laws has very human casualties , β Ramos told βββ .\nThe client β came forward under the auspices that the law would protect her from deportation and it β s incredibly unfair to literally just change the rules on someone who is just trying to get help , β he added .
|
allsides-corpus-378
|
A federal appeals court ruled Tuesday that the Trump administration can make asylum seekers wait in Mexico for immigration court hearings while the policy is challenged in court , handing the president a major victory , even if it only proves temporary .\nThe 9th U.S . Circuit Court of Appeals β a frequent target of the president 's complaints β reversed a decision by a San Francisco judge that would have prevented asylum seekers from being returned to Mexico during the legal challenge .\nThe case must still be considered on its merits and could end up at the Supreme Court . But allowing the policy to remain in effect in the meantime lets the administration carry out an unprecedented change to U.S. asylum practices .\nThe administration has said it plans to rapidly expand the policy across the border , which would have far-reaching consequences for asylum seekers and Mexican border cities that host them while their cases wind through clogged U.S. immigration courts . Cases can take several years to decide .\nThe policy was challenged by 11 Central Americans and advocacy groups that argued it jeopardized asylum seekers by forcing them to stay in Mexico , where crime and drug violence are prevalent .\nU.S. District Court Judge Richard Seeborg agreed April 8 and said the policy should be halted because it failed to evaluate the dangers migrants faced in Mexico .\nThe administration introduced its `` Migrant Protection Protocols '' policy on Jan. 29 in San Diego and later expanded it to Calexico , California , and El Paso , Texas . Under the policy , asylum seekers report to a border crossing in the morning . The U.S. government provides transportation to immigration court and returns them to the border after the hearing .\nThe U.S. has returned 3,267 Central American asylum seekers through three border cities , Mexico 's immigration agency said Monday .\nThe administration briefly halted the policy after Seeborg 's ruling but resumed on April 16 , sending 673 people to Tijuana from San Diego since then , 298 to Mexicali from Calexico and 967 to Ciudad Juarez from El Paso .\nThe policy was introduced to deal with a growing number of asylum-seeking families from Guatemala , Honduras and El Salvador arriving at the U.S. border with Mexico . Under a court order , children generally can not be detained more than 20 days , which has led to widespread releases of families almost immediately after they are stopped by authorities .\nThe January launch followed months of delicate talks between senior U.S. and Mexican officials that culminated in dual announcements after a meeting in November in Houston . Both sides characterized it as a unilateral move by the Trump administration and Mexican officials have made clear that they do not endorse the policy .\nThe three-judge appeals court panel cited Mexico 's position to reject the argument that asylum seekers were at risk .\nThe judges said the `` likelihood of harm is reduced somewhat by the Mexican government 's commitment to honor its international law obligations and to grant humanitarian status and work permits to individuals returned under the ( Migrant Protection Protocols ) . '' In fact , Mexico said Dec. 20 that it would allow foreigners to apply for a work permit , not necessarily get one .\nJudge Diarmuid O'Scannlain , who was appointed by President Ronald Regan , offered the strongest backing for the administration 's position . Judges William Fletcher , an appointee of Bill Clinton , and Paul Watford , who was named by Barack Obama , were more critical .\nThe American Civil Liberties Union , Southern Poverty Law Center and Center for Gender & Refugee Studies sued over the policy .\nOmar Jadwat , director of the ACLU 's Immigrants ' Rights Project , said remarks by two of the three judges give reason to believe that the policy will eventually be halted but also raised concern about the impact of Tuesday 's decision .\n`` Asylum seekers are being put at serious risk of harm every day that the forced return policy continues , '' he said .\nJustice and Homeland Security Department officials did not immediately respond to requests for comment late Tuesday , and neither did Mexico 's Foreign Relations Secretary officials .\nMexicans and children who travel alone are exempt from the policy .
|
allsides-corpus-379
|
WASHINGTON β Acting White House Chief of Staff Mick Mulvaney said President Trump is β deadly serious β about imposing tariffs on Mexico to push the country to stop the flow of migrants crossing the US southern border .\nβ He is absolutely , deadly serious , β Mulvaney said on β Fox News Sunday. β β I fully expect these tariffs to go on to at least the 5 percent level on June 10th . The president is deadly serious about fixing the situation at the southern border . β\nTrump announced the tariffs via tweet on Thursday , saying they would gradually increase .\nβ On June 10th , the United States will impose a 5 % Tariff on all goods coming into our Country from Mexico , until such time as illegal migrants coming from Mexico , and into our country , STOP , β Trump wrote . β The Tariff will gradually increase until the Illegal Immigration problem is remedied at which time the Tariffs will be removed . β\nThe White House later said that the tariffs would go to 10 percent on July 1 , 15 percent on August 1 , 20 percent on September 1 and 25 percent on October 1 .\nβ The purpose of this is not to create uncertainty . The purpose is to fix the situation on the southern border . We β ve tried all the ordinary things , β Mulvaney said on β Meet the Press , β blaming Congressional Democrats β including House Speaker Nancy Pelosi ( D-Calif. ) β for there not being a legislative fix .\nsee also Trump announces escalating tariffs on Mexico over migrant surge President Trump said Thursday that his administration will impose tariffs ...\nActing Homeland Security Secretary Kevin McAleenan expressed that he agreed with the tactic .\nβ I think what the president said , what the White House made clear is we need a vast reduction in the numbers crossing , β McAleenan said on CNN β s β State of the Union β Sunday .\nHe said that the Mexican government should be able to put resources toward stemming the flow of migrants , which are coming from the β northern triangle β countries β Guatemala , Honduras and El Salvador β south of Mexico .\nβ These crossings into Mexico are happening on a 150-mile stretch of their southern border , β McAleenan said . β This is a controllable area . We need them to put their authorities down there and interdict these folks before they make this route all the way to the U.S . β
|
allsides-corpus-380
|
The Trump administration has reportedly found a way to force asylum seekers to wait in Mexico during the months , or longer , that it takes to apply for protection in the US , making the tens of thousands of Central Americans and others who flee northward to the US each year essentially Mexico β s problem to solve .\nOn Saturday , Nick Miroff and Joshua Partlow of the Washington Post reported that the Trump administration had made a deal with the incoming president of Mexico , AndrΓ©s Manuel LΓ³pez Obrador , to implement a β Remain in Mexico β policy .\nThe incoming Mexican administration released a statement Saturday night that looked like a denial of the Washington Post story β but didn β t actually contradict that a deal was being discussed , or even that they β re close to finalizing one .\nContemplated since the earliest days of the Trump administration ( one of the first executive orders the president signed instructed the Department of Homeland Security to look into the prospect ) , the policy would bar asylum seekers from entering the US until their applications were approved , or until they got deported , unless they had a β reasonable fear β of staying in Mexico .\nWhile the two countries are still hammering out the details , it appears that the biggest question β whether Mexico would cooperate β has now been settled .\nThe appeal to the Trump administration is clear . The administration is desperate to reduce the number of people entering the US without papers to the anomalously low levels of Donald Trump β s first few months in office β even if it means asylum seekers face a bevy of human rights concerns while they remain in Mexico , from criminal victimization to concerns about food and shelter .\nThe US could start implementing the new policy in the coming days or weeks , likely starting at ports of entry ( official border crossings ) in San Diego , where thousands of asylum seekers have been waiting on the other side .\nThere β s a lot we still don β t know about how this is going to work , either because it hasn β t actually been worked out yet or because details aren β t yet public . As it stands , this could be a temporary inconvenience β or lead to the US essentially creating refugee camps just across the border . Here β s what we do and don β t know .\nWhat we know about the US-Mexico asylum deal and the β Remain in Mexico β policy\nThe Washington Post reported that the Trump administration has negotiated a tentative deal with AndrΓ©s Manuel LΓ³pez Obrador , or AMLO , the incoming president of Mexico , who takes office December 1 . The Washington Post confirmed the tentative deal in an interview with Olga Sanchez Cordero , AMLO β s incoming interior minister .\nLopez Obrador β s administration-in-waiting responded to the Post story with a non-denial denial . On Saturday night , a lot of press outlets reported that the Mexicans had denied there was a deal . But the actual statement , issued by Sanchez Cordero β s office , didn β t actually deny that the incoming administration is working on a deal with the Trump administration , or even that they have agreed in principle to allow asylum seekers to stay in Mexico and are just working out the details .\nThe statement said that β there is no agreement of any sort between the government-elect of Mexico and the government of the United States , as the next president , Andres Manuel Lopez Obrador , will take office on December 1. β In other words , they deny that the incoming government was already making official deals behind the outgoing government β s back .\nAnd it said that the incoming Mexican government isn β t considering becoming a β safe third country β for asylum seekers trying to enter the US β referring to a specific kind of diplomatic agreement that is different from the plan the Post reported on .\nUnder the deal , asylum seekers would have to demonstrate a reasonable fear of remaining in Mexico to be allowed to stay in the United States . The initial screening interview for asylum seekers requires them to show a credible fear of persecution if they β re deported to their home countries . If they meet that standard , they β re allowed to stay in the US while their full application for asylum is pending ; if they don β t ( and they don β t appeal the decision ) , they β re deported .\nUnder the agreement , as the Post describes it , asylum seekers who meet the credible fear standard would also be asked about the prospects of staying in Mexico . If they couldn β t show a reasonable fear ( a higher standard than credible fear ) of staying in Mexico , they β d still be allowed to apply for asylum in the US , but they β d wait in Mexico until their case was completed .\nAs a result , in theory , the majority of Central Americans and other asylum seekers who travel through Mexico would be required to stay in Mexico while their asylum cases were pending in the United States . Right now , it can take months , or years , for an asylum seeker who β s not detained in a US immigration detention center to have her asylum case evaluated . It β s not clear whether asylum seekers waiting in Mexico would be processed on an expedited schedule , and , if so , whether that wouldn β t further delay processing for people waiting for asylum in the US .\nKey details of the plan are still being worked out . According to the Post article , β Senior U.S. officials said they want more assurances on how Mexico intends to keep asylum seekers safe and to ensure they don β t get deported back to Central America before their asylum claims get resolved. β Those are substantial questions , not least because the US is obligated under international law not to send an asylum seeker back to persecution β even if it is not the country doing the deporting .\nAsylum officers are already being sent to San Diego to prepare for implementing the policy . An email from a senior official at US Citizenship and Immigration Services , sent out late Wednesday , asked for volunteers who might be sent to San Diego β as early as Friday , β though details were scarce . The Post believes the officers are being sent to implement the new policy , as the US will need a lot of asylum officers at ports of entry to conduct the interviews that will ensure they β re not sending anyone back to danger in Mexico .\nWhat we don β t know about the US-Mexico asylum deal and the β Remain in Mexico β policy\nWhen the US will start implementing a β Remain in Mexico β policy . LΓ³pez Obrador takes office on December 1 , so it β s probable that the US-Mexico agreement will be signed no sooner than that . ( And it could take several more days or even weeks to work out remaining details . )\nBut it β s not totally clear that the US is going to wait to have a formal agreement . On Wednesday , the Post reported that Trump senior policy adviser and immigration guru Stephen Miller wanted to start implementing a β Remain in Mexico β policy immediately β even while negotiations with Mexico were ongoing . The Saturday report from the Post doesn β t clarify whether this possibility is still on the table .\nWhat legal authority the US will use to implement β Remain in Mexico. β There is a provision in US law that allows the US to force applicants for admission to remain in a β contiguous country β while their claims are being processed . But it β s not clear whether they β re using this provision for the β Remain in Mexico β plan . Because that β s ambiguous , there are lots of other unresolved questions , including ...\nWhether the policy will apply to people apprehended by Border Patrol after crossing into the US , or whether it will only apply for people presenting themselves legally at official ports of entry to seek asylum . The β contiguous countries β provision applies to both cases . But the Post β s reporting implies that β Remain in Mexico β will only apply at ports .\nOn the one hand , pushing people back to Mexico after they β ve crossed into the US could run afoul of the statutory US right to seek asylum . On the other hand , allowing people who cross into the US illegally to stay , while barring those who enter legally by presenting themselves at a port of entry , would make it even harder for the Trump administration to argue they β re trying to encourage asylum seekers to come legally . ( That β s the argument the White House is currently using to defend the asylum ban in federal court . )\nWhether the US will need to do anything beyond signing an agreement with Mexico to ratify the policy . In theory , if the policy requires the US to do things differently than the current regulations regarding asylum specify , they β ll have to rewrite those regulations . ( That β s something the executive branch can do without Congress , as long as it follows proper procedures and doesn β t contradict the law . )\nThey could propose a regulation that would take effect immediately , as they did with the asylum ban . Such a change would probably be challenged in court ( as the asylum ban was ) but might be on firmer legal ground than the asylum ban .\nHow people will be taken care of while waiting in Mexico . Migrant shelters along the border are already overcrowded , and Tijuana is currently struggling to house 5,000 asylum seekers . Thousands of them have arrived in the past week as part of the fall β caravan , β but others have been waiting for weeks or months to be admitted at the port of entry .\nThe Post says the US doesn β t appear to be offering any financial support to Mexico to feed , shelter , and care for asylum seekers while they wait . Some business owners in Tijuana have reportedly offered to give jobs to asylum seekers , but it β s not clear how they β d be able to work legally in Mexico without seeking legal status there β and getting legal status in Mexico could make it much harder for them to get asylum in the US .\nHow this will be challenged in court and if it will ultimately be found legal . It is inevitable that advocates will sue to block the β Remain in Mexico β policy . But because so many things about it are still unclear , it β s not apparent what exactly their basis for a lawsuit will be . The β Remain in Mexico β policy is another legally aggressive step on asylum , an area of law where Congress has pretty clearly spelled out what β s supposed to happen . On the other hand , the judicial branch tends to extend the executive branch a lot of deference when foreign policy is involved .\nUltimately , the prospects of the Remain in Mexico policy might not be apparent until the policy has already been put in place β and in the meantime , asylum seekers will be the subjects of a binational experiment .
|
allsides-corpus-381
|
The US and Canada struck a last-minute NAFTA deal Sunday night .\nHours before the midnight deadline , the two countries agreed to a framework for a renewed trilateral agreement between the United States , Mexico , and Canada . Newly dubbed the β USMCA β β the US-Mexico-Canada Agreement β it β s basically an updated version of the original North American Free Trade Agreement between the three countries .\nUS Trade Representative Robert Lighthizer and Canadian Foreign Minister Chrystia Freeland β the two top negotiators on USMCA β said in a joint statement late Sunday night that , together with Mexico , they had reached a β new , modernized trade agreement . β\nβ USMCA will give our workers , farmers , ranchers , and businesses a high-standard trade agreement that will result in freer markets , fairer trade and robust economic growth in our region , β the statement read . β It will strengthen the middle class , and create good , well-paying jobs and new opportunities for the nearly half billion people who call North America home . β\nThe breakthrough marked a reversal of a weeks-long impasse and a flurry of tough rhetoric , especially on the part of President Donald Trump and his administration . Both Trump and Lighthizer made it known last week that the US was prepared to move ahead with a bilateral deal between the US and Mexico , leaving Canada out .\nBut on Friday , the US and Mexico agreed to hold off publishing the bilateral text , in the hopes of using the weekend to hammer out an agreement between the US and Canada to update the decades-old NAFTA .\nAnd now a deal has been reached , and both sides notched victories . Canadian Prime Minister Justin Trudeau called it a β good day for Canada . β\nTrump , tweeting Monday morning , congratulated Canada and Mexico and called it a β great deal for all three countries . β\nLate last night , our deadline , we reached a wonderful new Trade Deal with Canada , to be added into the deal already reached with Mexico . The new name will be The United States Mexico Canada Agreement , or USMCA . It is a great deal for all three countries , solves the many ...... β Donald J. Trump ( @ realDonaldTrump ) October 1 , 2018\n.... deficiencies and mistakes in NAFTA , greatly opens markets to our Farmers and Manufacturers , reduces Trade Barriers to the U.S. and will bring all three Great Nations together in competition with the rest of the world . The USMCA is a historic transaction ! β Donald J. Trump ( @ realDonaldTrump ) October 1 , 2018\nSenior Trump administration officials are calling this a big win for the US , Canada , and Mexico and say the deal β represents fulfillment of one of the president β s most important campaign promises . β\nA peek at what the US and Canada agreed to during negotiations\nA few notable issues stalled the negotiations between Canada and the US over the past month β and at the outset , these appear to have been mostly resolved , giving each side a chance to declare victory .\nThe US wanted greater access to Canada β s dairy market , and according to senior Trump administration officials , they won β a good deal for American farmers β on that front . The deal also calls for the elimination of Class 7 milk pricing , a new class of dairy Canada created that US dairy farmers said decreased their ability to export to Canada .\nCanada wanted to preserve NAFTA β s Chapter 19 , an independent panel set up to resolve special trade disputes . Though it β s renumbered in the final USMCA agreement , the provision stays mostly intact .\nOttawa also wanted some protections from Section 232 tariffs β the mechanism the Trump administration used to impose steel and aluminum tariffs on countries , including Canada , which requires a national security justification . Senior Trump administration officials said accommodations would be made to protect Canada from tariffs on automobiles . Canada did not get guarantees over those over steel and aluminum tariffs , and they β ll be dealt with separately .\nThese , of course , are not the only components of the deal , and this new agreement incorporates the components of the bilateral agreement between the US and Mexico , including rules of origin for automobiles ( meaning a certain percentage of parts have to be manufactured in each country to avoid tariffs ) as well as new digital trade rules , intellectual property protections , and strengthened labor rules .
|
allsides-corpus-382
|
A defiant Prime Minister Alexis Tsipras urged Greeks on Wednesday to reject an international bailout deal , wrecking any prospect of repairing broken relations with EU partners before a referendum on Sunday that may decide Greece 's future in Europe .\nLess than 24 hours after he wrote a conciliatory letter to creditors asking for a new bailout that would accept many of their terms , Tsipras abruptly switched back into combative mode in a television address .\nGreece was being `` blackmailed , '' he said , quashing talk that he might delay the vote , call it off or urge Greeks to vote yes .\nThe remarks added to the frantic and at times surreal atmosphere of recent days in which acrimonious messages from the leftist government have alternated with late-night offers of concessions to restart negotiations .\nA day after Greece became the first advanced economy to default on debt to the IMF , long lines at cash machines provided a stark visual symbol of the pressure on Tsipras , who came to power in January vowing to end austerity and protect the poor .\n`` A 'No ' vote is a decisive step toward a better agreement that we aim to sign right after Sunday 's result , '' he said , rejecting repeated warnings from European partners that the referendum would effectively be a vote on whether Greece stays in the euro or returns to the drachma .\nEuropean Council President Donald Tusk retorted in a tweet : `` Europe wants to help Greece . But can not help anyone against their own will . Let 's wait for the results of the Greek referendum . ''\nEuro zone finance ministers held an hour-long conference call to discuss the previous night 's offer from Tsipras , but were adamant that no further discussions would be held until after the Sunday vote . The head of the currency zone ministers ' Eurogroup , Jeroen Dijsselbloem , said he saw `` little chance '' of progress after Tsipras ' latest comments .\nGlobal financial markets have reacted remarkably calmly to the widely anticipated Greek default , strengthening the hand of hardline euro zone partners who say Athens can not use the threat of contagion to weaker European sovereigns as a bargaining chip .\nIn his overnight letter to creditors , seen by Reuters , Tsipras agreed to accept most of their demands for taxes and pension cuts and asked for a new 29 billion euro ( $ 32.21 billion ) loan to cover all debt service payments in the next two years .\nHowever even if negotiations do restart after the referendum , Germany and others made clear that any talks on a new program would have to start from scratch with different conditions .\nThe exasperated tone to public comments of European leaders exhausted by the chaotic turnarounds of the past few days offered little hope of a breakthrough .\nTsipras has suggested he would step aside if Greeks vote yes in Sunday 's referendum , and many other euro zone countries have made little secret that they see no point in negotiating with him before then .\n`` This government has done nothing since it came into office , '' German Finance Minister Wolfgang Schaeuble said in a speech in the lower house of parliament in which he accused Athens of repeatedly reneging on its commitments .\n`` You ca n't in all honesty expect us to talk with them in a situation like this , '' he said .\nFrench Finance Minister Michel Sapin , among Greece 's strongest sympathizers in the euro zone , told RTL radio : `` The aim is to find an agreement before the referendum if possible ... But it 's dreadfully complicated . ''\nOn the third day of a bank closure , the costs of the capital controls were biting deeper , with long lines forming at many ATMs and limited amounts of cash being doled out to pensioners . Even with a withdrawal limit of only 60 euros a day , there were signs of banknote shortages , with bankers saying 50-euro and 20-euro notes were running low .\nKiki Rizopoulou , a 79 year-old pensioner from Lamia in central Greece had to travel to Athens to collect her pension , spending 20 euros of the 120 euros she was allowed to take out .\n`` I already have to pay back 50 euros that I owe . It 's embarrassing , '' she said .\nAn opinion poll showed opposition to the bailout in the lead but also that the gap had narrowed significantly as the bank closure and capital controls began to bite . But the hardship facing pensioners added to the pressure facing Tsipras , who has indicated he will resign if he loses the referendum .\nEurope 's top human rights watchdog criticized the haste with which the vote had been arranged but posters from the ruling Syriza party calling for a `` No '' vote started to appear in central Athens . The center-right opposition also ran television spots mocking previous comments from the government that capital controls would never be imposed .\nThe Tsipras letter contained only a single sketchy reference to labor market reform , which was one of the creditors ' key demands to make the Greek economy more competitive , and no mention at all of frozen privatizations , another bugbear .\n`` The new framework will be legislated in autumn 2015 , '' it said without saying what measures it contained . Tsipras ' leftist government wants to restore collective bargaining rights scrapped under previous bailout-driven reforms , and opposes a demand to make collective layoffs easier in the private sector .\nTsipras did agree to implement immediately a range of measures recommended by the Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development to make it easier to do business and open up closed business sectors .\nIn the letter , he asked to keep a discount on value added tax for Greek islands , stretch out defense spending cuts and delay the phasing out of an income supplement to poorer pensioners .\nEuropean financial markets remained strikingly calm in the light of the upcoming referendum , the IMF default and heightened concerns about the risk of Athens sliding out the euro .\nThe lack of panic or contagion to other euro markets stood in marked contrast to 2011 , when the Greek crisis was perceived as a threat to the future of the single currency .\nAnd this lack of overspill has emboldened the more hawkish of Greece 's sovereign creditors , including those in Berlin , who insist Greece had been effectively ringfenced by a host of financial buffers and its fate would not undermine the integrity of the euro in the same way it did four years ago .\nFrench Finance Minister Michel Sapin , who has been Greece 's strongest sympathizer in the euro zone , told RTL radio : `` The aim is to find an agreement before the referendum if possible ... But it 's dreadfully complicated . ''\nThe ECB 's policymaking governing council was to meet in Frankfurt to decide whether to maintain , increase or curtail emergency lending that is keeping Greek banks afloat despite a wave of deposit withdrawals and the state 's default .\nGermany 's Bundesbank was leading hawks who argue that the ECB can not go on providing funds through the Greek central bank as before to lenders that are backed by an insolvent sovereign .\nOne possible move would be to increase the `` haircut '' charged on Greek government bonds presented as collateral for funds in light of the IMF default .\nA poll by the ProRata institute published in the Efimerida ton Syntakton newspaper showed 54 percent of those planning to vote would oppose the bailout against 33 percent in favor .\nHowever a breakdown of results between those polled before and after Sunday 's decision to close the banks and impose capital controls showed the gap narrowing .\nOf those polled before the announcement of the bank closures , 57 percent said they would vote `` No '' against 30 percent who would vote `` Yes . ''\nHowever among those polled after , the `` No '' camp fell to 46 percent against 37 percent for `` Yes . ''
|
allsides-corpus-383
|
While many Americans have used their stimulus checks to cover basic needs such as groceries , mortgage or rent , there β s evidence people are also spending the money on non-essentials including electronics , clothes and toys , according to major retailers .\nβ Call it relief spending , as it was heavily influenced by stimulus dollars , leading to sales increases in categories such as apparel , televisions , video games , sporting goods and toys , β Walmart WMT , +0.06 % Chief Executive Doug McMillon said during the company β s earnings call Tuesday .\nTarget TGT , -1.13 % , BJ β s Wholesale Club Holdings Inc. BJ , -2.03 % and Best Buy Co. BBY , +4.62 % also saw increased consumer demand for discretionary goods in mid-April as the stimulus payments from the $ 2.2-trillion CARES Act flowed into Americans β bank accounts , the companies β CEOs said this week . Apple AAPL , +0.25 % saw an uptick in demand for its products β across the board , β CEO Tim Cook said April 30 .\nRelated : Best Buy β s stock rises after profit , revenue and same-store sales fall less than expected\nβ At Walmart and Target , shoppers bought more TVs , electronics , gaming equipment and apparel . Walmart also saw more demand for adult-sized bikes . β\nAt Walmart , Target , shoppers bought more TVs , electronics , gaming equipment and apparel . Walmart also saw increased demand for adult-sized bikes .\nBJ β s CEO Lee Delaney told investors on Thursday that the company saw β relatively significant growth β in discretionary categories , including electronics and TVs .\nβ We would imagine that there is certainly an impact from stimulus checks that are impacting the business , β Delaney said . β But I think it β s right to assume there is some benefit flowing through from stimulus checks in the business . β\n( BJ β s did not respond to a request for a further comment . )\nAt Best Buy , customers used their stimulus checks to buy computing and gaming equipment , Corie Barry , the company β s CEO , said on it Thursday earnings call .\nβ Like many other retailers , we saw sales benefit during the last three weeks of the quarter as customers undoubtedly chose to spend some of their government stimulus money on the products and services we provide , β Barry said .\n( Best Buy did not respond to a request for a further comment . )\nThe different phases of the pandemic have shaped shoppers β choices . As stay-at-home orders were enacted across the country , β parents became teachers , β McMillon said on Walmart β s earnings call . β Adult bicycles started selling out , as parents started to join the kids . An overlapping trend then started emerging related to DIY and home-related activities . β\nConsumers also bought sewing machines and bandanas to make their own face masks , he said .\nSales took off in mid-April when many Americans began to receive their $ 1,200 stimulus checks . Within 10 days of receiving their stimulus checks , households spent around one quarter to one third of it , research shows .\nSee also : Walmart spent nearly $ 900 million on the coronavirus in Q1 and says it β s a β reasonable assumption β that they β ll spend that much in Q2\nBefore the checks were issued on April 15 , there was β not as much demand β for discretionary goods at Walmart , said spokesman Randy Hargrove , adding that sales increased β towards the end of the quarter . β\nTarget Corp. also experienced β a rapid increase in traffic and sales β for discretionary goods driven by the distribution of stimulus checks , CEO Brian Cornell said on the company β s Wednesday earnings call . β We certainly saw an uptick as we reported starting on April 15 , as those checks arrived across America , β Cornell said on the company β s call .\nβ Before the checks were issued on April 15 , there was β not as much demand β for discretionary goods at Walmart , said spokesman Randy Hargrove β\nCustomers , he said , are β still seeing the benefits of the stimulus check. β People are shopping across all categories including apparel , which has been especially hard hit by the coronavirus-driven economic downturn .\n( Costco COST , +0.99 % declined to comment on whether it has experienced the same trend in sales related to stimulus payments . )\niPhone maker Apple also saw sales increase after stimulus payments went out , Cook said on the company β s April 30 earnings call . β A part of it is due to just our new products , β Cook said . But another part of it is also β due to the stimulus programs taking effect in April. β ( Apple did not respond to βββ β s request for a further comment . )\nUnlike Target and Walmart , which have remained open during the coronavirus outbreak and can sell apparel in-stores , β non-esential β clothing retailers including Gap GAP , +8.84 % , Nordstrom NRD , +2.77 % and Nike NKE , +3.49 % have been forced to close many stores across the country . As a result , retailers in the apparel industry have offered consumers online deals comparable to Cyber Monday .\nStill , many Americans have used their stimulus checks to stock up on essentials . That β s especially true for those who received their checks in the first wave of stimulus payments , said Stuart Sopp , CEO and founder of Current , a New York City-based mobile-banking startup .\nIn mid-April when payments were initially distributed , β most people immediately spent on groceries , β said Sopp . Many Current members , he said , also took cash out of ATMs to β pay friends back and pay their bills. β He added , β People were struggling for basic life essentials and the stimulus payments really helped them , which I think is what it was all about . β\nIn the next wave of payments , which occurred towards the end of April , more people used the funds β for everyday means , β Sopp said . That included ordering more food delivery and takeout , and gas .\nThe $ 3 trillion coronavirus aid package the House of Representatives passed last week , dubbed the HEROS Act , calls for a second round of stimulus checks . President Donald Trump and Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell indicated that they are in no rush to sign the relief package to law . Trump has shown support for a second round of stimulus checks .\nIf people do end up receiving a second stimulus check , Sopp predicts most will use the money for the same purposes .\nBest Buy β s Barry said Thursday that β the impact of current to potential future government stimulus actions β is something the company will keep an eye on β for the remainder of the year . β
|
allsides-corpus-384
|
Tony ( last name not included for fear of reprisal on the job ) has worked at Bank of America for 11 years as a customer service associate . He takes phone calls from customers whose needs range from a simple change of address to a family crisis that leaves the caller unable to pay their bills , and he tries to help them solve their problems . And Tony and his coworkers are organizing .\nBank of America has had more complaints filed with the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau than any other American financial institution , according to a July report from Mother Jones magazine . And according to Tony , many of those complaints could be fixed with better training for workers , who instead feel squeezed , wanting to provide good service to the customers they talk to daily and on the other hand scapegoated when something goes wrong . Tired of the inadequate training they receive , tired of watching associates get fired for mistakes they did n't know were mistakes , tired of feeling like they 're hurting customers rather than helping them , a group of around 40 workers got together to try to make , in Tony 's words , a positive change .\nβ We started the group because we were tired of seeing good people walked out , β Tony says . β It 's tough when you 've got to work in an environment where they tap you on the shoulder , say 'Can you come to a meeting ? ' and as you walk away , another manager walks up to your desk with a box and starts packing your stuff . If you look over your shoulder , you see them packing your stuff as you walk away . And we all sit there in shock saying 'What did they do ? ' β\nHe continues , β When we 're not trained properly it 's hurting the customer , it 's hurting us . What 's sad is that , when we 're not trained properly our mistakes tend to favor the bank , when we 're trained properly we do n't favor the bank . Some people feel that the bank would rather us not be trained because the money they make off of that is in their favor . β\nFor example , he says , associates received just a brief training on doing balance transfers in the computer system that they use to manage customers ' accounts . For a while , he was n't aware that at the end of the call , a disclosure statement would pop up that was to be read to the customer , a legal statement of how the interest would accrue and what the fee would be for the transfer . Instead , he says , they were told that they should never end a call until the customer is finished , so if the customer ended the call , the next call would come in without the disclosure ever appearing . One of his coworkers , he says , was fired when the quality control department , which listens to two recorded calls from each worker each month to make sure they 're doing their jobs correctly , caught her not reading the disclosure . β This disclosure where the customer can say ' I do n't want a 4 % fee , ' this favors the bank when we do n't read it to them , β he says . β You 've already got the balance transfer , we ca n't do anything about the fee . β\nAnother person , he says , was fired for taking a hold off of a deposited check at the request of a manager . The managers , he notes , get the same training on the system as the associates , but often have even less time to pay attention to them .\nTony worries that the computer-based trainings they do receive are inadequate . Instead of a class where they might be able to ask questions , he says , they get computer-based trainings that they are often pushed to rush through in less time than the training says it will take . Additionally , he says , β The first thing it does is tell you 'here 's what the training is about , acknowledge you 've taken it and you know the subject matter . ' To get into the course to learn about the subject matter you have to click a button that says we know about the subject matter . After you take the course , if you do n't understand it , they go 'Well you learned about it , you clicked that button . ' There 's no way to take the course unless you acknowledge it . We feel that 's their way of saying it 's on you now . It 's not the bank , you acknowledged you know it , so you do it wrong , that 's your fault . β\nThe training they do get , he says , is often about how to β deepen the relationship , β with the customer . β Deepening the relationship is a nice word for selling you something , β he says . Instead of upgrading a customer 's credit card , for instance , they are pushed to open a new card , one which might have a higher interest rate than their existing card . According to Chi Chi Wu , a staff attorney at the National Consumer Law Center , this process could violate the Truth in Lending Act , which prohibits β unsolicited issuance β of a credit card .\nβ Deepening the relationship β means something different , perhaps , to Tony than it does to the bank higher-ups . He says , β I once sat in a training was about selling more credit cards , how to 'deepen that relationship , ' using what the customer says as a tool to sell them this new credit card . One of the associates in the meeting says , 'This woman 's overdrawn , she 's told me she 's unemployed , I ca n't sell her a credit card , she ca n't afford to pay any of her bills now , that 's going to hurt her . ' The manager said 'How do you know she does n't need the credit card to buy milk or formula ? This could be just right at the right time . Sell her the credit card , it is n't our responsibility if she ca n't pay it . ' β\nβ That 's the kind of thinking that sunk this economy , β Tony adds .\nWith the help of the Committee for Better Banks , a labor-community coalition that includes Alliance for a Greater New York ( ALIGN ) , Make the Road New York , New York Communities for Change ( NYCC ) and the Communications Workers of America union ( CWA ) , Tony 's group started a petition on Coworker.org this June . The petition calls for β independent , federally-guided training be implemented immediately , for employees and managers alike . β\nTony and his coworkers are not the first Bank of America employees to worry that they are being pushed to do wrong by their customers . As David Dayen reported for βββ in June of 2013 , former employees testified that they were denied training on mortgage procedures under federal programs , given bonuses for putting accounts into foreclosure , and pressed to lie to customers . Tony says , β Maybe they 're like us , maybe certain things were left out because it favored the bank . As long as managers and site leaders are making their quotas , making their numbers , maybe that 's all they care about . β\nβ I look at Bank of America and like I said I 've worked there for years , I see them , they 're selling things off left and right , they 're selling branches in Michigan , they 're selling branches in Maine , we 're shrinking the bank , β Tony continues . β I wonder if they 're shrinking the bank to pay the bills and to make the bank look good ? Because it 's all about profit and money and we have to return to the shareholders . Do I think shareholders really care if the customers get burnt ? No , I really do n't . They 're more concerned with the return on their stock . Maybe if banks listened to their employees and listened to their customers , it would be much better world . β\nThey began organizing with the idea of getting better at their jobs , being better able to serve their customers , and Tony says that though it 's slow , they are seeing some results . No one has acknowledged their petition , though he says he 's overhead remarks from higher-ups about their organizing , but after the workers took their yearly β associate engagement survey , β the Human Resources department sent someone to look into their complaints and one site leader was removed . This survey was given after about forty people had been let go for things that Tony says they 'd never have done if they were trained properly .\nOnce the workers began standing together to try to solve their problems , Tony says , there have been fewer firings and somewhat better communication , though information about practices still too often comes from other associates who have been reprimanded for doing something wrong and who share that information .\nTony hopes that if workers and customers stand up for each other , they can change the banking industry. β Our customers are all our families , our friends , our communities , this country is in a dire situation because so many systems , of which banking is one , are failing them , because banking has become more about greed , β he says . β This is all of us together trying to make a better situation and until we all come together this is n't going to change . β
|
allsides-corpus-385
|
The storm clouds of the next global financial crisis are gathering despite the world financial system being unprepared for another downturn , the deputy head of the International Monetary Fund has warned .\nDavid Lipton , the first deputy managing director of the IMF , said that β crisis prevention is incomplete β more than a decade on from the last meltdown in the global banking system .\nβ As we have put it , β fix the roof while the sun shines β . But , like many of you , I see storm clouds building and fear the work on crisis prevention is incomplete . β\nLipton said individual nation states alone would lack the firepower to combat the next recession , while calling on governments to work together to tackle the issues that could spark another crash .\nβ We ought to be concerned about the potency of monetary policy , β he said of the ability of the US Federal Reserve and other central banks to cut interest rates to boost the economy in the event of another downturn , while also warning that high levels of borrowing by governments constrained their scope for cutting taxes and raising spending .\nLipton said the IMF went into the last crash under-resourced before it was handed a war chest worth $ 1tn ( Β£790bn ) from governments around the world , while adding that it was important that national leaders had agreed to complete a review of the fund β s financial firepower next year .\nβ One lesson from that crisis was the IMF went into it under-resourced ; we should try to avoid that next time . β\nSpeaking to an audience at Bloomberg in London , Christine Lagarde β s deputy called on China to take urgent steps to open up its economy to global competition .\nSign up to the daily Business Today email or follow Guardian Business on Twitter at @ BusinessDesk\nAgainst a backdrop of Donald Trump engaging in a bitter trade dispute with Beijing , he said China needed to lower trade barriers , while also impose tougher rules to protect intellectual property β a key complaint of the US president .\nLipton suggested that Chinese trade policies that were once considered acceptable when it joined the World Trade Organization in 2001 as a $ 1tn economy may now be inappropriate as it had become a $ 16tn international superpower .\nHowever , he did warn that the US should not take an overly heavy-handed approach to reform , adding : β China has many reforms that it could carry out that would be in its own interest and in the interest of countries around the globe . But China feels they can β t take those steps , as they put it , with a gun to their head , in the midst of trade tensions . β\nThe warning from the IMF marked the latest intervention from the Washington-based fund as the outlook for the global economy deteriorates , with particular flashpoints being the US-China trade dispute and central banks raising interest rates .\nGlobal growth is forecast to slow as a result of the trade war , while financial markets have also been rattled in recent weeks . Last week , the FTSE 100 recorded its worst day since the Brexit vote , prompted by fears over the dispute , wiping more than Β£56bn off the value of the UK β s leading companies .\nAfter almost a decade of low interest rates , the total value of global debt , both public and private , has risen by 60 % to hit a record high of $ 182tn , so if central banks raise borrowing costs that would create difficulties for businesses and governments .\nLipton warned that sustained trade conflict between the US and China would be likely to trigger β far-reaching and long-lasting consequences β for the global economy , with a risk that Trump β s rhetoric could encourage China to shift its economy away from the rest of the world .\nβ Trade barriers if they are sustained could lead to a fragmentation of the global economy . β\nβ If this [ trade dispute ] leads to stalemate , China may decide to reorientate its economy not to trade with the US . To accept sustained trade barriers β¦ could lead to a slowdown [ for the global economy ] , β he said .
|
allsides-corpus-386
|
NEW YORK ( βββ ) - Wall Street sold off sharply on Wednesday as recession fears gripped the market after the U.S. Treasury yield curve temporarily inverted for the first time in 12 years .\nAll three major U.S. indexes closed down about 3 % , with the blue-chip Dow posting its biggest one-day point drop since October after 2-year Treasury yields surpassed those of 10-year bonds , which is considered a classic recession signal .\nDire economic data from China and Germany suggested a faltering global economy , stricken by the increasingly belligerent U.S.-China trade war , Brexit woes and geopolitical tensions .\nGermany reported a contraction in second-quarter gross domestic product , and China β s industrial growth in July hit a 17-year low .\nβ It was all negative and not much positive today , β said Chuck Carlson , chief executive officer at Horizon Investment Services in Hammond , Indiana . β We β re outside of the earnings season and markets are being batted around by news . β\nβ It β s a reactionary market right now and probably will continue to be , β Carlson added . β My guess is we β re probably in for this until after Labor Day . β\nWednesday was the first time that yields for 2-year and 10-year Treasuries had inverted since June 2007 , months before the onset of the great recession , which crippled markets for years .\nThe U.S. yield curve has inverted before every recession in the past 50 years .\nβ It could be different this time , β Carlson said . β When you β ve got $ 15 trillion in global government debt at negative yields , that β s a new animal .\nβ Even if it is accurate in foreshadowing a recession , that doesn β t mean it β s coming tomorrow , β he added .\nA trader works on the floor at the New York Stock Exchange ( NYSE ) in New York , U.S. , August 14 , 2019 . βββ/Eduardo Munoz\nThe CBOE volatility index , a gauge of investor anxiety , jumped 4.58 points to 22.10 .\nThe Dow Jones Industrial Average fell 800.49 points , or 3.05 % , to 25,479.42 , the S & P 500 lost 85.72 points , or 2.93 % , to 2,840.6 , and the Nasdaq Composite dropped 242.42 points , or 3.02 % , to 7,773.94 .\nOver 300 of the S & P 500 β s components are down 10 % or more from their 52-week highs , according to Refinitiv data . More than 180 of those stocks have fallen more than 20 % from their 52-week highs , putting them in bear market territory .\nAll of the 11 major sectors in the S & P 500 closed in negative territory , with energy , financials , materials , consumer discretionary and communications services all falling 3 % or more .\nMacy β s Inc β s shares plunged 13.2 % after the department store operator missed quarterly profit estimates and cut its full-year earnings estimates .\nRival department store operators Nordstrom Inc and Kohls Corp slid 10.6 % and 11.0 % , respectively .\nA U.S. House of Representatives oversight panel called on Mylan NV and Teva Pharmaceutical Industries Ltd to turn over documents as part of a review into generic drug price increases .\nFacebook Inc slid 4.6 % on news that the European Union β s lead regulator is investigating how the social media company handled data during the manual transcription of users β audio recordings .\nDeclining issues outnumbered advancing ones on the NYSE by a 4.44-to-1 ratio ; on Nasdaq , a 5.33-to-1 ratio favored decliners .\nThe S & P 500 posted eight new 52-week highs and 51 new lows ; the Nasdaq Composite recorded 23 new highs and 282 new lows .\nVolume on U.S. exchanges was 8.68 billion shares , compared with the 7.47 billion average over the last 20 trading days .
|
allsides-corpus-387
|
House Speaker Nancy Pelosi of Calif. , speaks about the so-called Heroes Act , Tuesday , May 12 , 2020 on Capitol Hill in Washington . Pelosi unveiled a more than $ 3 trillion coronavirus aid package Tuesday , providing nearly $ 1 trillion for states and cities , β hazard pay β for essential workers and a new round of cash payments to individuals . ( Saul Loeb/Pool via AP )\nHouse Speaker Nancy Pelosi of Calif. , speaks about the so-called Heroes Act , Tuesday , May 12 , 2020 on Capitol Hill in Washington . Pelosi unveiled a more than $ 3 trillion coronavirus aid package Tuesday , providing nearly $ 1 trillion for states and cities , β hazard pay β for essential workers and a new round of cash payments to individuals . ( Saul Loeb/Pool via AP )\nWASHINGTON ( AP ) β House Speaker Nancy Pelosi unveiled a more than $ 3 trillion coronavirus aid package , a sweeping effort with $ 1 trillion for states and cities , β hazard pay β for essential workers and a new round of cash payments to individuals .\nThe House is expected to vote on the package as soon as Friday . But Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell has said there is no β urgency. β The Senate will wait until after Memorial Day to consider options .\nβ We must think big , for the people , now , β Pelosi said Tuesday from the speaker β s office at the Capitol .\nLines drawn , the latest pandemic response from Congress will test the House and Senate β and President Donald Trump β as Washington navigates the extraordinary crisis with the nation β s health and economic security at stake .\nThe Democrats β Heroes Act is built around nearly $ 1 trillion for states , cities and tribal governments to avert layoffs , focused chiefly on $ 375 billion for smaller suburban and rural municipalities largely left out of earlier bills .\nThe bill will offer a fresh round of $ 1,200 direct cash aid to individuals , increased to up to $ 6,000 per household , and launches a $ 175 billion housing assistance fund to help pay rents and mortgages . There is $ 75 billion more for virus testing .\nIt would continue , through January , the $ 600-per-week boost to unemployment benefits . It adds a 15 % increase for food stamps , new subsidies for laid-off workers to pay health insurance premiums under a COBRA law and a special β Obamacare β sign-up period . For businesses , it provides an employee retention tax credit .\nThere β s $ 200 billion in β hazard pay β for essential workers on the front lines of the crisis .\nPelosi drew on U.S. history β and poetry β to suggest β no man is an island β as she called on Americans to respond to the crisis with a strategy of science , virus testing and empathy .\nβ There are those who said , β Let β s just pause , β β she said . β Hunger doesn β t take a pause . Rent doesn β t take a pause . Bills don β t take a pause . β\nBut the 1,800-page package is heading straight into a Senate roadblock .\nRepublicans are wary of another round of aid and McConnell declared the Democratic proposal a grab bag of β pet priorities. β He said Tuesday it is not something that β deals with reality . β\nHouse Republicans also took a pass . β I can β t believe that that would be real , β said Rep. Andy Biggs , R-Ariz. , leader of the hard-right House Freedom Caucus , said in an interview .\nThis would be the fifth coronavirus package . It β s a starkly partisan offering with no real input from Republicans , who prefer to assess the impact of earlier expenditures before approving more .\nBut the political peril of doing nothing during an election year could prove challenging for Congress and the White House . As states experience flareups of virus outbreaks , and more than 30 million Americans remain unemployed in the shutdown , the near-term health and economic outlook remains daunting .\nThe Senate Democratic leader , Chuck Schumer of New York , warned that Trump and Republicans risk the same path as Herbert Hoover , the former president roundly criticized for failing to act to stem the Great Depression .\nβ What is it going to take for Mitch McConnell to wake up and see the American people need help , and they need it now ? β Schumer said .\nThe latest package extends some provisions from previous aid packages , and adds new ones .\nThere is $ 25 billion for the U.S . Postal Service . There is help for the 2020 Census , including the bureau β s request to delay deadlines for turning over apportionment and redistricting data . For the November election , the bill provides $ 3.6 billion to help local officials prepare for the challenges of voting during the pandemic .\nThe popular Payroll Protection Program , which has been boosted in past bills , would see another $ 10 billion to ensure under-served businesses and nonprofit organizations have access to grants through a disaster loan program .\nFor hospitals and other health care providers , there β s another $ 100 billion infusion to help cover costs and additional help for hospitals serving low-income communities .\nThere β s another $ 600 million in funding to tackle the issue of rapid spread of the virus in state and federal prisons , along with $ 600 million in help to local police departments for salaries and equipment\nMcConnell said he is working with the White House on next steps . His priority is to ensure any new package includes liability protections for health care providers and businesses that are reopening . Trump is expected to meet Tuesday with a group of Senate Republicans .\nβ I don β t think we have yet felt the urgency of acting immediately , β McConnell told reporters earlier this week at the Capitol .\nAs states weigh the health risks of re-opening , McConnell said Tuesday the nation needs to find a β middle ground between total lockdown and total normalcy . β\nTop GOP senators flatly rejected the House bill . β What Nancy Pelosi is proposing will never pass the Senate , β said Sen. John Barrasso of Wyoming , the third-ranking Republican .\nThe Senate recently reopened its side of the Capitol while the House remains largely shuttered due to the health concerns .\nSenators have been in session since last week , voting on Trump β s nominees for judicial and executive branch positions and other issues . The Senate majority , the 53-member Senate Republican conference , is meeting for its regular luncheons most days , spread out three to a table for social distance . Democrats are convening by phone . Many senators , but not all , are wearing masks .\nAt least a dozen Capitol police officers and other staff have tested positive for the virus , and at least one senator , Lamar Alexander of Tennessee , is in isolation at home after exposure from a staff member who tested positive . Other lawmakers have cycled in and out of quarantine .
|
allsides-corpus-388
|
Washington ( CNN ) Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu will face voters on Tuesday , just two weeks after he took a major political gamble by giving a controversial speech to the U.S. Congress against the Obama administration 's wishes .\nThe White House , clearly angered by an address criticizing its Iran deal-making , denied Netanyahu an Oval Office meeting during the visit . The reason , according to an official statement , was to `` avoid the appearance of influencing a democratic election in a foreign country . ''\nSnubbing an Israeli prime minister , though , can influence Israeli voters as much as giving him a West Wing photo-op . And with U.S.-Israel tensions at a peak , many in Washington see telltale signs of an effort to oust a leader standing in the way of the Obama administration 's Middle East policies .\n`` This election cycle in Israel fits the hallmark of an American administration that seeks to influence the outcome , '' said David Weinberg , a senior fellow at the Foundation for Defense of Democracies who has studied American influence in Israeli elections .\nThe White House denied it was attempting to influence the Israeli elections by rebuffing Netanyahu and pointed to the well-circulated statement on why the prime minister was n't offered a meeting : `` As a matter of long-standing practice and principle , we do not see heads of state or candidates in close proximity to their elections . ''\nBut such visits -- or the lack thereof -- have historically been one of the diplomatic weapons U.S. administrations have deployed to sway the Israeli public .\nLess than a month before the 1996 Israeli elections , President Bill Clinton organized the signing of an anti-terror pact before the cameras with Shimon Peres , the Labor Party prime minister whom Netanyahu ended up defeating for his first term in office . In 1999 , Clinton similarly pursued what some call `` snub diplomacy '' when his administration denied Netanyahu meetings amidst a tight race with Labor 's Ehud Barak , to whom Netanyahu ultimately lost .\nThe state of the `` special relationship '' with the United States is of crucial importance to Israeli voters , who see America as their closest and most important ally . So in risking a rupture with the White House , Netanyahu is also risking a break with Israeli voters .\n`` Traditionally , the Israeli public has been very sensitive to how the relationship is going and how well the Israeli leadership is managing that relationship , '' said Daniel Kurtzer , a former U.S. ambassador to Israel .\nJUST WATCHED Netanyahu rails against Iran nuclear deal - in 100 seconds Replay More Videos ... MUST WATCH Netanyahu rails against Iran nuclear deal - in 100 seconds 01:26\nBut Netanyahu 's move to address Congress on Iran , a top concern for the Israeli public , was also seen as a bid to boost his electoral appeal by reinforcing that he is a leader on the world stage and will do everything he can to protect Israel . When Republican House Speaker John Boehner extended the invitation to Netanyahu , many jumped on the House leader for helping the prime minister politically . This week , footage of Netanyahu being warmly received on Capitol Hill made it into a campaign ad .\nThe partisan nature of the invitation and that it was done without White House coordination -- Boehner is a chief Obama rival and disagrees emphatically with his Iran policy -- heightened Democratic pique over Netanyahu 's appearance .\nPrevious presidents have bristled at the hawkish , unflinching posture -- especially when it comes to the Israeli-Palestinian peace process -- that Netanyahu and other Likud party leaders have often struck . But the current antagonism , exacerbated by the speech , has become particularly personal .\nObama himself dismissed Netanyahu 's speech as `` theater '' and slammed his Israeli counterpart for offering `` nothing new . '' And a host of officials offered further criticism , including National Security Adviser Susan Rice , who called Netanyahu 's address `` destructive '' to the U.S-Israeli relationship .\nNetanyahu 's allies deny a political motive to the speech and have maintained that the hit to U.S.-Israeli ties was necessary because of the existential danger posed by Iran and fears that negotiations on its nuclear program would lead to a disastrous agreement as they reach a key deadline .\nFormer State Department official Aaron David Miller said the Obama administration is now sending `` certain unmistakable signals '' that Netanyahu is n't the right prime minister to manage the U.S.-Israel relationship .\nMiller witnessed the sending of similar signals in 1996 as one of the top officials coordinating Arab-Israeli negotiations in the Clinton administration .\n`` We clearly had our favorites and we wanted Peres to win , '' Miller recounted .\nIt has n't just been Netanyahu whom U.S. presidents have opposed . In the run-up to the 1992 Israeli elections that eventually saw Labor 's Yitzhak Rabin elected , George H.W . Bush tied up American loan guarantees to punish the right-wing Israeli government and pressure it to change its policy on settlements .\n`` [ The idea ] that we do n't intercede in Israeli politics is as foolish an assumption as that they do n't interfere in ours , '' Miller said .\nOne of many developments seen as souring the Obama-Netanyahu relationship was the widespread accusation that the prime minister all but endorsed Republican presidential nominee Mitt Romney in his campaign to unseat Obama in 2012 .\nBut just as Netanyahu -- if he indeed tried -- was unsuccessful in swaying that election , American presidents have also come up short .\nThere 's no clear indication right now that Netanyahu will be hurt by the U.S.-Israel row come Election Day . Netanyahu 's party saw a modest boost in one poll after Netanyahu 's speech to Congress . Several polls in recent days , however , suggest leading opposition party Zionist Union is gaining momentum in the wake of Netanyahu 's American saga . And the large number of undecideds and polling see-sawing throughout the race leave the final result very much in question .\nZionist Union leader Isaac Herzog has been taking every opportunity to use Netanyahu 's frayed ties with the U.S. administration against him .\n`` The painful truth is that after all the applause , Netanyahu is alone and Israel is isolated , '' Herzog said after Netanyahu 's speech to Congress .\nBut there are other issues -- such as economic woes and questions about Israel 's security -- that are also spelling trouble for Netanyahu .\nAnd for all those alienated from Netanyahu 's Likud party by the breach with the United States , there are many in Israel who could reward him for it . Israelis have been mistrustful of Obama and have disliked many of his Middle East positions . Some believe being seen as standing up to the U.S. president will work in the prime minister 's favor .\n`` I think the people of Israel understand that the prime minister is representing our needs , '' said Danny Danon , a Likud Knesset member . `` I do n't think criticism from the administration will affect them . ''\nAnd while Netanyahu faces condemnation from the Obama administration and top Democratic officials , he 's also enjoying widespread praise from Republicans . The White House may have panned Netanyahu 's speech , but on Capitol Hill , the prime minister got standing ovations reminiscent of State of the Union addresses .\nZalman Shoval , a former ambassador to the U.S. and Netanyahu confidant , said the lack of uniform condemnation and public wariness about Obama could cancel out any loss of support due to U.S.-Israel tensions .\n`` It 's very difficult to gauge how much of an influence any sort of statement or implication or whatever insinuation can really have on the election battle here , '' he said .\nSeveral Israeli lawmakers -- on both sides of the aisle -- doubted whether the Obama administration was actively trying to influence the election .\nA skeptical Danon was joined by Labor 's Nachman Shai . He said that U.S. officials had simply `` reacted and responded '' to the `` unprecedented '' nature of Netanyahu 's visit .\nErel Margalit , another Labor Knesset member , agreed . `` The administration responded to what was a frontal attack on its strategy in a way that was unprecedented . ''\nHe added , however , `` Let 's distinguish between two things : What they want in their heart and what they 're doing . ''\nObama 's unpopularity is part of the reason Netanyahu 's opponents on the left are careful not to play up any White House role in the elections . And Netanyahu and his allies are cautious not to reinforce the notion of a rift or go on the offensive against an administration they hope to mend relations with if Netanyahu is reelected .\nThe Netanyahu campaign would n't comment on whether the White House was trying to unseat the prime minister . But in the media , the candidate has lashed out at a `` worldwide effort '' to remove him from office .\nAides explained his remarks as referring to a campaign aiming to change the government . One Netanyahu campaign official said money was coming from `` every corner of the Earth . ''\nThat effort 's being led by V15 , a grassroots progressive movement with Obama campaign field director Jeremy Bird as a leading consultant .\nJUST WATCHED Some Israelis rally for political change Replay More Videos ... MUST WATCH Some Israelis rally for political change 02:08\nBird is just the latest in a long line of American political operatives and pollsters who have traveled across the ocean to help Israeli politicians .\nDemocratic consultants James Carville and Stanley Greenberg helped Barak in 1999 , and Democratic veteran Paul Begala ( who is also a CNN analyst ) is now aiding Herzog . On the Republican side , digital strategist Vincent Harris , who now works for Sen. Rand Paul , signed up to help Netanyahu 's campaign this year .\nProminent Republican donors have also offered him support , perhaps no one more so than Sheldon Adelson . Adelson , the American casino magnate who spent more than $ 200 million backing Republicans in the 2012 presidential election , launched an Israeli newspaper , `` Israel Today , '' that vocally supports Netanyahu .\nDistributed in the street and at train stations , the newspaper is free and has become the most-read in Israel .\nAdelson was also present as Netanyahu delivered his address to Congress . His support is yet another reason some Democrats in Washington are less than fond of the prime minister .\nWhile the Obama administration may not be leading an overt effort to undermine Netanyahu , Miller , the former State Department official , said there 's no doubt `` corks will be popping at the White House and State Department if Netanyahu loses . ''
|
allsides-corpus-389
|
Israel 's Election : Exit Polls Show Netanyahu 's Likud , Opposition In Tight Race\nExit polls released after the close of voting in Israel 's national election show that the race is too close to call .\nIsrael 's Channel 1 and Channel 10 both said Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu 's Likud party and Isaac Herzog 's Zionist Union secured 27 seats each in the 120-seat Knesset . Channel 2 , meanwhile , have Likud 28 seats and the Zionist Union 27 . The numbers were published by Haaretz .\nWhat that is likely to mean is , as NPR 's Emily Harris tells our Newscast unit , Israel 's new government wo n't be immediately known .\n`` The new government will need approval from a majority of the newly elected parliament . No party has ever won a straight majority in Israel , so the leader of the party with the most votes gets several weeks to try to negotiate a coalition among parties with sometimes very different agendas . For a while during this tight race , there was talk that the center-left Zionist Union party led by Yitzak Herzog and the center-right Likud party led by Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu could potentially join the same government . Netanyahu ruled that out in the last days of campaigning . ''\nAnd , the Israeli prime minister , in a Facebook post , claimed a `` great victory against all odds . ''\nHerzog , meanwhile , told his supporters : `` These results will bring Labor back into power . '' He called the results a `` big victory for the Labor Party , which has n't done this well since Yitzhak Rabin won in 1992 . '' The comments were reported by Haaretz .\nHe added that a negotiating team has been formed in an effort to form a government .\nPrime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu and his Likud party face challenges from the left and right in today 's Israeli elections β in which approaches to a potential Palestinian state and the economy have emerged as top issues .\n`` Netanyahu trailed in the final opinion polls [ behind ] the center-left Zionist Union ticket , which says it will focus on economic issues and trying to restart peace negotiations with the Palestinians , '' NPR 's Emily Harris reports from Jerusalem . `` Hours before voting started , Netanyahu came out against a Palestinian state at this time β a position long held by his main rival on the right . ''\nThe voting began this morning and will continue until 10 p.m. local time ; that 's when the first exit poll results should come out β around 4 p.m . ET .\nIsrael 's Election : Exit Polls Show Netanyahu 's Likud , Opposition In Tight Race Listen Β· 2:40 2:40\nIsraeli newspaper Haaretz is live-blogging today 's vote ; it reports that in the first three hours of polls being open , nearly 14 percent of eligible voters had cast their ballots . It adds that the rate is `` 20 percent higher '' than the previous two elections .\nNetanyahu has been the focus of controversy over his recent speech to a joint meeting of the U.S. Congress , a trip that deepened tensions with the White House . The prime minister 's opponents seized on the opportunity to say they would work to strengthen ties with America 's leaders to ensure their country 's security .\nEmily tells Morning Edition that if his party does n't win outright , Netanyahu could still remain in power .\n`` Even if his Likud party does n't emerge with the most votes , '' she says , `` he could be the one who could negotiate successfully among the 11 or 12 parties that are supposed to get in parliament , and build a coalition government out of that , with him at the helm . ''\nBecause election day is a holiday in Israel , many people are expected to get outdoors to take advantage of what the Haaretz newspaper says will be nice weather .
|
allsides-corpus-390
|
In a parting , spiteful shot at Israel , the Obama administration permitted a U.N. Security Council resolution to pass that seeks to permanently change the international legal status of so-called Israeli β settlements β in Jerusalem and the disputed West Bank . Departing from almost 50 years of bipartisan American precedent β and from the administration β s own past practice β the Obama administration abstained from a vote for the resolution demanding that Israel β cease all settlement activities β and declaring that all existing settlements were in β flagrant violation β of international law .\nJust yesterday the resolution appeared dead , as Egypt , the resolution β s original sponsor , withdrew it under pressure from the incoming Trump administration . The president-elect took the unusual step of injecting himself into a U.N. controversy before taking office precisely because the Obama foreign-policy team was broadcasting its intent to abstain . Incredibly , however , four nations with precisely zero security interests at stake in the Middle East β New Zealand , Malaysia , Venezuela , and Senegal β revived the resolution and forced a vote .\nThe administration β s fecklessness has harmed Israel , endangers ordinary Israelis , and hurts the elusive quest for an enduring peace . Moreover , the Trump administration is powerless to revoke the resolution : It would have to introduce and pass a new resolution , and either Russia or China would be sure to veto it . Thus , Israel will find itself at the bargaining table in any future peace negotiation with Palestinian territorial demands backed by the U.N. β s most powerful body .\nBy declaring that settlements β including β settlements β in Israel β s capital β violate international law , the resolution purports to carve into stone the armistice lines that existed at the end of Israel β s war for independence . Yet these lines didn β t become lawful permanent borders precisely because hostile Arab nations specifically refused to recognize the existing battle lines as Israel β s border , specifically declined to create a Palestinian state , and instead maintained a posture of armed hostility to Israel . Indeed , since the West Bank hasn β t been part of a sovereign nation since the fall of the Ottoman Empire , the so-called occupied territories aren β t truly β occupied β under international law . They β re more accurately termed β disputed β territories , with the precise resolution of the dispute to be negotiated by the relevant parties .\nThe administration β s fecklessness has harmed Israel , endangers ordinary Israelis , and hurts the elusive quest for an enduring peace .\nThere are implications for ordinary Israelis as well . If an Israeli lives in a suburb of Jerusalem , is he or she now a criminal ? Can he be arrested and tried in activist courts in Europe or in international legal tribunals ? Radical U.N. action will only harden Palestinian intransigence and worsen already rising anti-Semitism ( thinly disguised as anti-Zionism ) on the international left . To put this radical resolution in context , under its terms , it is now an alleged violation of international law that the Western Wall remains in Israeli hands .\nIt β s difficult to interpret the Obama administration β s actions as anything other than a parting shot at Israel and its prime minister , Benjamin Netanyahu . The Obama administration β s frustrations with the Netanyahu government are well known , but now was hardly the time to break with almost 50 years of American policy , and frustration or spite were hardly sufficient reasons . As Trump said in his statement , if there is to be peace between the Israelis and the Palestinians , β it will only come through direct negotiations between the parties and not through the imposition of terms by the United Nations . β\nThe world will soon move on from Barack Obama , but he β s doing his best to extend his legacy of failure and appeasement . The Palestinians deserved a rebuke . Instead they received a gift . Our closest Middle Eastern ally will pay the price .
|
allsides-corpus-391
|
Egypt 's president on Thursday issued constitutional amendments that placed him above judicial oversight and ordered the retrial of Hosni Mubarak for the killing of protesters in last year 's uprising .\nMohammed Morsi also decreed immunity for the Islamist-dominated panel drafting a new constitution from any possible court decisions to dissolve it , a threat that had been hanging over the controversial assembly .\nLiberal and Christian members withdrew from the assembly during the past week to protest what they say is the hijacking of the process by Morsi 's allies , who they saw are trying to push through a document that will have an Islamist slant marginalizing women and minority Christians and infringing on personal liberties . Several courts have been looking into cases demanding the dissolution of the panel .\nThe Egyptian leader also decreed that all decisions he has made since taking office in June and until a new constitution is adopted and a new parliament is elected -- which is not expected before next spring -- are not subject to appeal in court or by any other authority . He also barred any court from dissolving the Islamist-led upper house of parliament , a largely toothless body that has also faced court cases .\nThe moves effectively remove any oversight on Morsi , the longtime Muslim Brotherhood figure who became Egypt 's first freely elected president last summer after the Feb. 11 , 2011 fall of autocrat Hosni Mubarak . They come as Morsi is riding high on lavish praise from President Barack Obama and Secretary of State Hillary Rodham Clinton for mediating an end to eight days of fighting between Israel and Gaza 's Hamas rulers .\nMorsi not only holds executive power , he also has legislative authority after a previous court ruling just before he took office on June 30 dissolved the powerful lower house of parliament , which was led by the Brotherhood . With two branches of power in his hands , Morsi has had repeated frictions with the third , the judiciary , over recent months .\n`` Morsi today usurped all state powers & appointed himself Egypt 's new pharaoh , '' pro-reform leader Mohamed ElBaradei wrote on his Twitter account . `` A major blow to the revolution that could have dire consequences . ''\nThe president made most of the changes Thursday by issuing a declaration amending what has become a patchwork interim constitution in effect since Mubarak 's fall . The military , which took power after Mubarak , set the precedent for the executive unilaterally issuing constitutional changes , which it did several times during its 16-month rule .\nMorsi on Thursday extended by two months the deadline for the assembly to produce a draft for a new constitution , apparently to give members more time to iron out their differences .\nThe moves are likely to fuel growing public criticism that Morsi and his Muslim Brotherhood have monopolized power while doing little to tackle the country 's endemic woes . Thousands of demonstrators gathered in downtown Cairo for the fourth day running to protest against Morsi 's policies and criticize the Muslim Brotherhood , the fundamentalist group from which the Egyptian leader hails .\nThe decree for a retrial of Mubarak appeared aimed at making a gesture to the public . The decree called for `` new investigations and trials '' against those who held `` political or executive '' positions in the old regime and who are accused of killing protesters .\nMubarak was convicted in June to life in prison for failing to stop the killing of protesters during last year 's uprising against his rule , but many Egyptians were angered that he was n't convicted of actually ordering the crackdown and that his security chief , Habib el-Adly , was not sentenced to death . Several top police commanders were acquitted , and Mubarak and his sons were found not guilty of corruption charges .\nBut the decree would not mean retrials for the dozens of lower-level police officers who have been acquitted or received suspended sentences in trials for killing protesters -- verdicts that have outraged many Egyptians .\nThat exclusion will guarantee Morsi the loyalty of the powerful but hated police force which had abandoned the streets for more than a year after Mubarak 's ouster by a popular uprising motivated in large part by the human rights violations of the police and the notorious security services .\nMorsi on Thursday also fired the country 's top prosecutor , Abdel-Maguid Mahmoud , who has been in the job since 2006 . A Mubarak-era appointee , Mahmoud has faced widespread accusations that his office did a shoddy job collecting evidence against Mubarak , el-Adly and the police commanders .\nMorsi first fired Mahmoud in October but had to rescind his decision when he found that the powers of his office do not empower him to do so . So on Thursday , he decreed that the prosecutor general could serve in office only for four years , with immediate effect . Morsi replaced Mahmoud with Talaat Abdullah , a career judge .\nShortly before Morsi 's decisions were announced , hundreds of Morsi supporters gathered outside Mahmoud 's office chanting slogans against him and demanding the `` cleansing of the judiciary . ''\nThursday 's decisions were read on state television by Morsi 's spokesman , Yasser Ali . In a throwback to the days of the authoritarian Mubarak and his predecessor Anwar Sadat and Gamal Abdel-Nasser , the television followed up with a slew of nationalist songs . The introductions of the decrees declared that they were designed to `` protect '' the revolution and dismantle the old regime , a nod to the revolutionaries who have long complained that not enough was being done to reform the country after Mubarak 's 29-year rule .\nMorsi narrowly won the presidency -- about 52 percent of the vote -- to become Egypt 's first freely elected and civilian president , ending nearly six decades of de facto military rule .
|
allsides-corpus-392
|
Story highlights President Obama is visiting Israel , will meet with Benjamin Netanyahu\nAaron David Miller : Obama 's attempt to repair relationship with Netanyahu is smart\nHe says Netanyahu is mindful of his legacy to avoid being seen as a do-nothing leader\nMiller : Fighting has n't worked before ; Obama and Netanyahu can try to cooperate instead\nDo you want to understand why President Obama is visiting Israel so early in his second term ? Think of two words : Management and legacy . And they go together .\nRight now in the cruel and unforgiving foreign policy world in which America is trapped , Barack Obama stands to be the American president on whose watch two catastrophes loom : Bomb Iran or see Iran with a bomb , and the demise of the two-state solution .\nIsrael figures centrally in both issues . If the president is to manage these issues effectively , he needs to find a way to work with Benjamin Netanyahu and the new Israeli government . That effort begins this week .\nSince the state of Israel was created in 1948 , only four American presidents have visited the country while in office ( Nixon , Carter , Clinton and Bush 43 ) . And only one -- Jimmy Carter -- achieved a truly significant result by brokering the terms of an Egyptian-Israeli peace treaty that was signed at the White House in March 1979 .\nSo a visit by an American president can be important ; but it is rare . The logic behind Obama 's visit , however , is not to hammer out immediate results or to achieve a breakthrough in a box .\nObama is already an historic president -- but he is not yet a great one . If he were to achieve that status , it would probably be through big pieces of domestic agenda such as health care , immigration reform , gun control , and of course , economic recovery . He 's unlikely to get there by chasing windmills abroad like Syria or Israeli-Palestinian peace .\nStill , he ca n't forget about the world , least of all the broken , angry and dysfunctional Middle East that could cause him more headaches and undermine his domestic agendas if left unattended . The Iranian nuclear issue could rattle regional stability , send markets plunging and oil prices rising .\nObama needs a new approach . Trying to repair his relationship with Netanyahu is smart politics . If the president wants to regain control of the House in 2014 and take an issue away from the Republicans in the process , he needs to remove the image that somehow he 's against Netanyahu and does n't care emotionally about Israel . An early trip to Israel that allows him a chance to connect is just what the doctor ordered .\nJUST WATCHED Obama on Iran : 'All options on the table ' Replay More Videos ... MUST WATCH Obama on Iran : 'All options on the table ' 00:48\nJUST WATCHED What will 2013 bring for Iran , Israel ? Replay More Videos ... MUST WATCH What will 2013 bring for Iran , Israel ? 03:17\nThe president spent most of his first term unsure of whether to pander to Bibi or pressure him . Now , he can test to see if he and Netanyahu can get on the same page .\nWill it work ? Israel , of course , is n't the only actor in these stories . There are Iranians and Palestinians , too . But working with Netanyahu may give the president the time he needs to pursue diplomacy with Iran and perhaps a deal with the Palestinians . The Israeli election has weakened Netanyahu and brought in new coalition partners who may well want to improve relations with a U.S. president .\nNetanyahu knows that his political career ca n't last forever . At the moment , he 's being challenged by two newcomers -- Yair Lapid and Naftali Bennett . Both are remarkably popular . Netanyahu 's best chance in regaining momentum is to shift the conversations to Iran and foreign policy where he 's strongest . And for this , paradoxically , he needs Obama 's help .\nMoreover , next year Netanyahu will have served longer than any other prime minister in Israel 's history . He may be thinking about his legacy and avoiding the charge that he was a do-nothing leader . Again , the U.S. is the key ; and Bibi ca n't afford to alienate Obama .\nWhat makes all of this potentially realistic -- and not a fantasy -- is that the deals on the table are not transformational ones where weak and constrained leaders need to push for impossible goals or make decisions beyond their capacities .\nNo grand bargains or conflict-ending agreements are possible now with the mullahs or between Israelis and Palestinians . There 's not enough confidence , too little trust , too much domestic politics and too many gaps on the big issues . But smaller deals may be possible .\nFor example , the two leaders can pursue an interim approach that caps Iran 's uranium enrichment in exchange for sanctions relief which would give Iran and the international community a way out of the current choices -- bomb or allow Teheran to get the bomb .\nOn the Palestinian issue , the Israelis and Palestinians can quietly explore with the U.S. and with one another how much common ground they may have on the core final status issues while trying to improve the interim situation through security cooperation , loosening up of economic restrictions , and international support for Palestinian institutions .\nNone of these strategies are perfect , but they are starters . And so smartly and rightly , President Obama is going to Israel early ( when there are no expectations ) and with a view toward giving himself time to reshape his relationship with Netanyahu , building one with the Israeli public , and testing the proposition that he can try to develop some consensus in Israel .\nFighting off and on over the past four years clearly has n't worked . Maybe trying to cooperate over the next four just might .
|
allsides-corpus-393
|
Iran has backed Syria 's `` right to defend itself '' after Israel launched strikes on what it said was Iranian military infrastructure inside Syria .\nIn the first comments by Iran since Thursday 's wave of strikes , the foreign ministry condemned the `` blatant violation of Syria 's sovereignty '' .\nThe strikes were the heaviest carried out by Israel on Syria in decades .\nThey came after 20 rockets were fired at Israeli military positions in the occupied Golan Heights .\nIsrael said Iranian fighters had carried out that attack . Iran has neither directly confirmed or denied this but has said that Israel 's attacks on Syria were founded `` on self-proclaimed , baseless pretexts '' .\nIran has deployed hundreds of troops in Syria , ostensibly as military advisers to the Syrian military . Thousands of militiamen armed , trained and financed by Iran have also been battling rebel forces alongside Syrian soldiers .\nOn Thursday , in response to the Golan Heights attack , Israel said its fighter jets had struck almost all of Iran 's military infrastructure inside Syria - some 70 targets - in its biggest assault since Syria 's civil war started in 2011 .\nIran and Israel are enemies but have never fought a direct war .\nForeign ministry spokesman Bahram Qasemi was quoted on Iranian state TV as saying : `` Iran strongly condemns ... [ Israel 's ] attacks on Syria . The international community 's silence encourages Israel 's aggression . Syria has every right to defend itself . ''\nMr Qasemi said Israel `` can not stand peace and stability in the region and sees its own safety in making the region all the more unstable '' .\nHe said Israel 's `` baseless pretexts amount to a blatant violation of Syria 's sovereignty and goes against all international conventions '' .\nHe did not refer to Iran 's military presence inside Syria .\nMr Qasemi said the attacks were an attempt by international supporters of rebel groups fighting Syrian President Bashar al-Assad to shore them up after their `` many failures '' and to try to `` tip the scales in their favour '' .\nThe Syrian government , backed by Iran and Russia , has made significant gains over the rebel groups in the past year .\nA defiant Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu said on Thursday that Iran had `` crossed a red line '' and Israel 's action `` was a consequence '' of that .\nHe said : `` We will not allow Iran to entrench itself in Syria . I delivered a clear message to the Assad regime - our action is directed against Iranian targets in Syria . However , if the Syrian military acts against us , we will act against it . ''\nHe added : `` Whoever hurts us , we will hurt them sevenfold , and whoever is preparing to hurt us , we will act to hit them first . ''\nVisiting the Golan Heights on Friday , Defence Minister Avigdor Lieberman urged Mr Assad to `` throw the Iranians out '' , saying `` they are only hurting you '' .\nDanny Danon , Israel 's ambassador to the United Nations , called for a UN condemnation of Iran 's `` acts of aggression '' and for the Security Council to `` demand that Iran remove its military presence from Syria '' .\nThe Israel Defence Forces ( IDF ) said that early on Thursday morning 20 rockets had been launched at its forward posts in the Golan Heights by the Quds Force , the overseas operations arm of Iran 's Islamic Revolution Guards Corps .\nThe Golan Heights is a rocky plateau in south-western Syria , about 50km ( 30 miles ) from the capital Damascus . Israel occupied most of the area in the 1967 Middle East war and later annexed it in a move not recognised internationally .\nThe IDF said four rockets were intercepted by the Israeli Iron Dome aerial defence system , while 16 fell short of their targets . No injuries or damage were reported .\nThe IDF has published satellite images of sites that it struck inside Syria in response . They include what it said were :\nInstallations at Tel Gharba , Tel Kleb , Nabi Yusha and Tel Maqdad\nAn `` Iranian Logistics Compound '' , 10km north-west of the capital ( pictured below )\nUS President Donald Trump 's abandonment on Tuesday of a landmark international deal to curb Iran 's nuclear programme - an agreement fiercely opposed by Mr Netanyahu - has certainly raised tensions .\nBut Israel had already become increasingly worried about Iran 's military support of Syria . Mr Netanyahu said the Revolutionary Guards had moved advanced weapons to Syria , including surface-to-surface missiles and anti-aircraft batteries that would threaten Israeli fighter jets .\nIsrael 's military had been anticipating an attack by Iranian forces after reportedly carrying out a number of strikes on their facilities in Syria in recent months .\nThey included one on an airbase in April that killed seven Iranian troops .\nThe deal lifted sanctions on Iran from 2015 , allowing some big names - Boeing , Airbus , Total and Peugeot - to start doing business again .\nThe re-imposition of sanctions has thrown all that into doubt . US firms have six months to stop trading with Iran . European companies , for instance Airbus , are affected too as they buy parts from the US .\nThe sanctions issue has added to tensions between the US and its European allies over the nuclear deal . French Foreign Minister Jean-Yves Le Drian says European companies should not have to pay for the US decision .\nThe economy of Iran , a big exporter of oil and gas , is likely to be adversely affected .
|
allsides-corpus-394
|
ROMEβJust when you thought the Vatican β s image problem couldn β t get any worse , what with endemic clerical child abuse and a near bankrupt American arm of the church , it does . A new report pulls back the red velvet curtain on a bizarre new tidbit about the Vatican β s other dirty little secret : its finances .\nThe latest twist started to unravel in October when Pope Francis ordered Swiss Guard gendarmes to raid the Holy See β s Financial Information Authority ( AIF ) office inside Vatican City , carrying out boxes of papers and computer hard drives . They tacked up what amounted to a β Wanted Dead or Alive β sign on the Vatican β s fortified gates to keep out the administrators while they started sifting through reams of curious expenditures in the Vatican β s financial books .\nThey came up with quite a few surprises about the way money donated for the poor was being used , including some dubious real estate interests , connections to an even more dubious Maltese financier , and investments in movies that , good or bad , don β t exactly square with church doctrine .\nOne of the more peculiar items on the spreadsheet was property on Sloane Avenue in London . It included luxury apartments in a former Harrods warehouse . The Vatican press office said at the time further investigations would be β carried out over time . β\nAmong the latest of those investigations is a tie to the Centurion Global Fund based in Malta , which has proven itself to be a hotbed of corruption . The Maltese prime minister is currently spending most of his time blockaded in his office in Valletta while angry protesters demand he resign over his alleged ties to the assassination of anti-corruption journalist Daphne Caruana Galizia two years ago .\nβ While investing in mainstream entertainment is hardly sinful , the great contradiction is that the Catholic Church preaches to the devout that homosexuality is a sin . β\nAt least two-thirds of the Centurion Global Fund β s capital assets are fed by the Vatican Secretariat of State , under which the Vatican financial authority operated , according to documents seen by Corriere Della Sera newspaper in Italy . The fund is run by Enrico Crasso , a 71-year-old Italian with a Swiss fiscal address who also runs Sogenel Holding , referred to as a β reference point β for key financial transactions for the Vatican Bank .\nCrasso β s office walls are lined with personal letters signed by various Vatican secretaries of state and he has even been awarded a gold medal of merit from the pope . He alone decides how the Vatican moneyβabout $ 78 millionβentrusted to him through the Malta fund is spent to get the highest return .\nThe documents seen by Corriere Della Sera list his recent investments with the church β s money . Among them are around $ 2.2 million in a company called Italian Independent , run by Fiat founder Gianni Agnelli β s flamboyant grandson Lapo Elkann , who was arrested in New York in 2017 for faking his own kidnapping , allegedly to pay off a drug debt owed to a male escort .\nAnother $ 11 million went to an Italian businessman named Enrico Preziosi , who is an entrepreneur who owns the Genoa soccer team and who was caught up in a little legal trouble in the early 2000s for manipulating the price of soccer players to falsify accounting . He was fined around $ 15,000 and banned from soccer for four months .\nβ Investigations are in progress . β β The Vatican Press Office\nBut the most curious item on the report to come out so far is a $ 4.5 million expenditure recorded in February of this year related to finance for the 2019 films Men in Black : International and Elton John β s rather steamy biopic Rocketman , which portrays the entertainer β s drug problems and is the first studio movie to portray gay sex between men in an authentic way .\nWhile investing in mainstream entertainment is hardly sinful , the great contradiction is that the Catholic Church preaches to the devout that homosexuality is a sin .\nThe βββ reached out to Crasso in both his Swiss and Maltese offices and was told that he did not wish to comment at this time .\nThe Vatican press office has issued a statement that sheds very little light on the matter . β Investigations are in progress , and lines of enquiry which may help clarify the position of the Holy See with respect to the aforementioned funds and any others , are currently being examined by the Vatican judiciary , in collaboration with the competent authorities , β the statement reads .\nThe money that feeds the Centurion Fund reportedly comes from investments made by the pope β s β Peter β s Pence β charity , which is fed by global dioceses that collect the money specifically for the poor on one given day of the year , often the last Sunday in June which is close to the feast days of saints Peter and Paul .\nPeter β s Pence is not part of a local church β s Sunday collection basket , but a separate collection earmarked specifically for the papal fund . According to the charity β s website , the money is supposed to be channeled directly to the poor .\nβ The Peter β s Pence collection is a gesture of solidarity , β the site states . β Through it , every member of the faithful can participate in the Pope β s activity . It is an activity that supports the most needy and ecclesial communities in difficulty who approach the Apostolic See for help . β\nWednesday , the Wall Street Journal reported that the fund , which brings in more than $ 55 million annually and is worth about $ 700 million to date , is also spent on filling the gaps in the Vatican β s internal administrative budget . The paper alleges that just 10 percent is spent on charitable works , according to documentation it obtained .\nWhether the pope knows the intricate details about where the money goes that he entrusts to his charity is unclear . But when he was asked about the growing financial scandal related to Peter β s Pence on a papal flight last month , the pontiff did little to clear it up .\nβ When the money from Peter β s Pence arrives , what do I do ? I put it in a drawer ? No , β he said . β This is bad administration . I try to make an investment and when I need to give , when there is a need , throughout the year , the money is taken and that capital does not devalue , it stays the same or it increases a bit. β Or , it goes to Elton John β s biopic .
|
allsides-corpus-395
|
As leaders sitting on two of Donald Trump 's business councils took stock of Trump 's repulsive defense of neo-Nazi and white supremacist violence , many concluded they just could n't stomach a continued alliance with Trump 's administration and decided to cut ties .\nBut what of religious leaders who also prize their access , like those sitting on Trump 's Evangelical Council ?\nx Not a single member of Trump 's Evangelical Council has resigned . We have learned corporate America has a greater moral compass . So so sad . β Matthew Dowd ( @ matthewjdowd ) August 16 , 2017\nThe fact that institutional leaders of conservative religious groups have entirely ceded their moral authority to the business community on issues of basic decency and human rights is a lesson LGBTQ Americans have learned repeatedly over the last decade . It was on full display last year in North Carolina , for instance , where businesses like PayPal led the charge in opposing HB2 , a bill targeting transgender individuals for discrimination .\nThe same was true the year before when companies like Salesforce and Angie 's List took on then-Gov . Mike Pence after he signed an Indiana law protecting businesses that discriminate against LGBTQ customers . That story repeated itself again this year during the right-wing push in Texas to prohibit transgender folks from using public restrooms corresponding to their gender . The bill just died this week .\nBut as all of those measures made national headlines , leaders of the evangelical and Catholic faiths fell silent , just like they have been in directly challenging Trump 's disastrous handling of the violence that took one life and injured 19 others last weekend .\nWhile the President of the U.S. Conference of Catholic Bishops , Cardinal Daniel DiNardo , swiftly issued a statement last Saturday condemning the `` abhorrent acts of hatred '' in Charlottesville as `` an attack on the unity of our nation , '' he has said nothing following Trump 's defense of that very same violence .
|
allsides-corpus-396
|
Media that focus on scandals and spread fake news to smear politicians risk becoming like people who have a morbid fascination with excrement , Pope Francis said in an interview published on Wednesday .\nFrancis told the Belgian Catholic weekly Tertio that spreading disinformation was β probably the greatest damage that the media can do β and using communications for this rather than to educate the public amounted to a sin .\nUsing precise psychological terms , he said scandal-mongering media risked falling prey to coprophilia , or arousal from excrement , and consumers of these media risked coprophagia , or eating excrement .\nThe Argentine-born pontiff excused himself for using such terms in order to get his point across while answering a question about the correct use of the media .\nβ I think the media have to be very clear , very transparent , and not fall into β no offense intended β the sickness of coprophilia , that is , always wanting to cover scandals , covering nasty things , even if they are true , β he said .\nβ And since people have a tendency towards the sickness of coprophagia , a lot of damage can be done . β\nThat section of the interview , all of which was distributed to reporters in an Italian translation of the interview in the pope β s native Spanish , contained some of the most blunt language the pontiff has ever used about the media .\nHe also spoke of the danger of using the media to slander political rivals .\nβ The means of communication have their own temptations , they can be tempted by slander , and therefore used to slander people , to smear them , this above all in the world of politics , β he said . β They can be used as means of defamationβ¦ β\nβ No one has a right to do this . It is a sin and it is hurtful , β he said .\nHe described disinformation as the greatest harm the media can do because β it directs opinion in only one direction and omits the other part of the truth , β he said .\nThe pope β s comments on disinformation followed widespread debate in the United States over whether fake news on the internet might have swayed voters toward Republican candidate Donald Trump .
|
allsides-corpus-397
|
Religion is apparently weakening in America . A new report from the Pew Research Center shows that the percentage of Americans who say they believe in God , pray daily and attend church regularly is declining .\nThe share of Americans who say they are `` absolutely certain '' that God exists has dropped 8 percentage points , from 71 percent to 63 percent , since 2007 , when the last comparable study was made .\nThe percentage of adults who describe themselves as `` religiously affiliated '' has shrunk 6 points since 2007 , from 83 percent to 77 percent .\nThe shares of the U.S. adult population who consider religion `` very important '' to them , pray daily and attend services at least once a month have declined between 3 and 4 percentage points over the past eight years .\nThe shift is small but statistically significant , according to the authors , given that the changes have taken place in a relatively short period of time , and the survey sample is large enough ( about 35,000 U.S. adults ) to be considered reliable .\nSkepticism about religion is especially evident among young people . The Pew study found that barely a quarter of `` millennials '' ( born between 1981 and 1996 ) attend church services on a weekly basis , compared with more than half of U.S. adults born before 1946 . Only about 4 in 10 millennials say religion is important in their lives , compared with more than half of those who are older , including two-thirds of those born before 1946 .\nThe Pew researchers acknowledge that some young people may become more religious as they grow older , but their data suggest that the generational differences in religiosity could well endure . `` The oldest Millennials , now in their late 20s and early 30s , are generally less observant than they were seven years ago , '' the authors write . `` If these trends continue American society is likely to grow less religious even if those who are adults today maintain their current levels of religious commitment . ''\nThe weakening of religious beliefs and practices has clear political overtones . The growth in the number of religiously unaffiliated people is largely benefiting Democrats , for whom `` nones '' are now the single largest religious constituency . Evangelicals , meanwhile , constitute the largest religious group in the Republican Party , and the share of evangelicals who identify with the Republicans has grown since 2007 .\nIndeed , the Pew report suggests that polarization along religious lines may be increasing in the United States . While the percentage of Americans who say they do n't affiliate with any religious tradition is growing , those people who still identify with a religion are becoming even more devout . A growing share of the `` religiously affiliated '' say they regularly read scripture , participate in prayer groups and share their faith with others .
|
allsides-corpus-398
|
A striking display of compassion from the brother of a murder victim to his killer was , to some , a heart-wrenching example of empathy . But to others , it was a painful example of African Americans forced to respond to acts of violence with understanding , writes Barrett Holmes Pitner .\nOn Wednesday , former Dallas police officer Amber Guyger , 31 , who is white , was sentenced to 10 years in prison for the murder of her neighbour Botham Jean , who was black . She will be eligible for parole in 5 years .\nGuyger 's conviction was seen as a moment of justice for many observers since it is still relatively rare for police officers to be convicted of unlawful killings in America , yet many onlookers also thought her sentence was too lenient . However , the true shock occurred as Guyger received a profound - and controversial - amount of compassion from her victim 's family and the judge .\nFollowing Guyger 's sentencing , Jean 's 18-year-old brother Brandt took the stand and said `` I forgive you '' and `` I love you as a person and I do n't wish anything bad on you , '' before leaving the stand so that he could embrace Guyger .\nTheir hug lasted nearly a minute as those in the courtroom openly wept from this stunning show of compassion .\nSome seasoned court commentators described it as the most powerful moment they had ever seen in a courtroom . And it generated headlines all around the world .\nAfter Guyger and Brandt Jean 's embrace , Judge Tammy Kemp , who is black , left her judge 's bench and also embraced Guyger . Kemp gave Guyger a Bible and the two of them prayed together before Guyger was led away from the courtroom .\nIn most situations , compassion and empathy do not prompt heated debates , but in the US , the actions of Brandt Jean and Judge Kemp have rekindled a complex conversation about race and inequality . Some observers celebrated the humanity on display in the courtroom , and others questioned if it is just for African Americans to repeatedly take the moral high ground without an exception of reciprocity across America 's racial divide .\nFrequently , African American communities have responded to terror by expressing compassion and forgiveness to the perpetrators of terror , and have often invoked their Christian faith as the ideological foundation for their acts of forgiveness .\nFollowing the attack on Emanuel AME Church in Charleston , South Carolina by Dylann Roof on 17 June , 2015 that killed nine African American parishioners , the family members of the victims also told Roof that they forgave him . Roof has never admitted any remorse for his killings .\nDespite the clear religious overtones of the victim 's families actions , Justin Hansford , the executive director of the Thurgood Marshall Civil Rights Center at Howard Law , contends that the culture of forgiveness that emanates from America 's black community derives from the US never condoning black anger when directed towards white Americans .\n`` We see the black community take the moral high ground because you do n't get the right to be angry with white people in America . If you 're angry it is seen as unjustified , '' says Hansford .\nAmerican culture has historically depicted slave rebellions as unwarranted acts of black aggression against white Americans , and as the black community has pursued freedom and equality there has always been a profound debate about the level of anger black America can constructively express towards white America .\nTitans of the black intelligentsia have long debated various approaches for black equality and the best ways to channel and express black anger . During the civil rights struggle of the 1960s , the conflicting philosophies of Martin Luther King Jr. and Malcolm X highlighted this tension .\n`` There has always been a dichotomy between the Christian way of responding to injustice - turn the other cheek - and the black Muslims and their willingness to express anger and have a dignity with their expression of anger , '' says Hansford .\nMany black Americans have embraced the black Muslim community and the Black Panther movement because they can provide a constructive platform for expressing black anger at the systemic racial oppression the white community has created .\nWhen looking at the facts of the case , there are ample reasons for the black community to be angry .\nOn 6 September , 2018 , Guyger returned home to her apartment complex after finishing work as a Dallas police officer . Guyger claims to have mistakenly parked her car on the wrong floor , and walked into Jean 's apartment believing it to be her own . Upon seeing Jean on his couch eating ice cream , Guyger claims to have thought he was an intruder and , in a moment of fear , used her government issued handgun to shoot and kill Jean .\nInitially , Guyger was only charged with manslaughter and kept on the police force , but following public outrage she was then charged with murder and fired .\nGuyger has always contended that the killing was a tragic accident , and former Dallas police chief Craig Miller said that Guyger 's killing of Jean was `` justified '' because Guyger suffered from a temporary condition called `` inattentional blindness , '' which is defined as `` the failure to notice a fully-visible , but unexpected object because attention was engaged on another task , event , or object . ''\nEssentially , Miller believed that Guyger should not be charged with murder because she was not paying attention when she murdered Jean .\nAccording to Hansford , America 's cultural stifling and stigmatising of black anger has made forgiveness one of the few recourses for the black community . The alleged illegitimacy of African American anger has many American manifestations - notably the `` Angry Black Woman '' and `` dangerous '' black men - and America has long mythologized the alleged benefit of the black community forgiving white America .\nEven Harriet Beecher Stowe 's Uncle Tom 's Cabin , published in 1852 , which re-shaped American views on slavery , professed the supposed benefit of Christian love and black forgiveness as a way to overcome the cultural degradation of American slavery . Yet over 150 years later black Americans are still being unjustly murdered and terrorised , and forgiveness is still depicted as an adequate solution .\nBrandt Jean 's decision to forgive Guyger remains a personal decision , but Judge Kemp 's decision forces America to contend with the tragic subjectivity of our justice system .\nUnless Judge Kemp normally embraces , prays , and gifts a Bible to those she sends to prison , America must ask why Guyger warranted this degree of compassion and others did not . Does this undermine Kemp 's impartiality ?\n`` What is justice in this case ? If you 're going to bust into someone 's house and shoot them dead , and then get five years in prison and a hug from the judge . Are you okay with that ? And why do n't similar sentences and shows of compassion happen more often ? '' says Hansford .\nFor many members of the black community , who also struggle to express their anger at America 's systemic oppression , this trial represents one of many examples of how precarious and under threat black life has always been in America . Compassion might feel right in the moment , but the debate still rages as to whether it brings America closer to a semblance of racial equality .\nBarrett is a writer , journalist and filmmaker focusing on race , culture and politics
|
allsides-corpus-399
|
Subsets and Splits
No community queries yet
The top public SQL queries from the community will appear here once available.