RSN Fundraising Banner
FB Share
Email This Page
add comment
Politics
FOCUS: Can Democrats Win Georgia - and the Senate? Print
Written by <a href="index.php?option=com_comprofiler&task=userProfile&user=57685"><span class="small">Charles Bethea, The New Yorker</span></a>   
Saturday, 02 January 2021 12:04

Bethea writes: "When news networks called Georgia for Joe Biden, on November 13th, Nsé Ufot, the C.E.O. of the New Georgia Project, was atop Stone Mountain, a hunk of granite east of Atlanta that is home to the largest Confederate monument on earth."

Democratic U.S. Senate candidates Jon Ossoff (L) and Rev. Raphael Warnock (R) wave to supporters during a 'Get Out the Early Vote' drive-in campaign event. (photo: Justin Sullivan/Getty Images)
Democratic U.S. Senate candidates Jon Ossoff (L) and Rev. Raphael Warnock (R) wave to supporters during a 'Get Out the Early Vote' drive-in campaign event. (photo: Justin Sullivan/Getty Images)


Can Democrats Win Georgia - and the Senate?

By Charles Bethea, The New Yorker

02 January 21


In order to do so, the candidates will need high voter turnout in a state where it tends to drop during runoffs, especially among the Party’s own supporters.

hen news networks called Georgia for Joe Biden, on November 13th, Nsé Ufot, the C.E.O. of the New Georgia Project, was atop Stone Mountain, a hunk of granite east of Atlanta that is home to the largest Confederate monument on earth. She was with colleagues, taking a staff photo and celebrating the work they’d done to turn out voters in record numbers. As word of Biden’s victory spread, some people teared up, Ufot said, but not her. Her organization, which was founded, in 2014, by Stacey Abrams, had made three million phone calls, sent two million text messages, and carefully knocked on half a million doors. Biden won the state by around twelve thousand votes. The New Georgia Project’s efforts, and those of a handful of similar groups, put him over the top. They also insured that Georgia would have not one but two runoff elections for the U.S. Senate, on January 5th, pitting a pair of Republican incumbents against Democratic challengers. I asked Ufot whether Georgia had “turned blue,” as headlines proclaimed. “I get the desire to, like, make scorching takes,” she said. “But can we just enjoy this before we get back to work?”

The deadline to register new voters for the runoffs was a few weeks away. Early voting would begin on December 14th and end December 31st. The New Georgia Project planned to knock on roughly a million doors in metro Atlanta and another million in the state’s rural areas. The incumbents, David Perdue and Kelly Loeffler, “do not give a damn about the fact that Black folks are dying at an alarming clip in our state,” Ufot said. (Neither senator responded to multiple interview requests.) Health disparities are particularly stark in Georgia’s rural Black Belt, she noted, where the pandemic has taken a heavy toll. “What an incredible holiday gift it would be to send Raphael Warnock and Jon Ossoff to the United States Senate so they can go there to do the people’s work,” she added.

Warnock, the senior pastor at Ebenezer Baptist Church—a position once held by Martin Luther King, Jr.—has not run for office before. Ossoff, the C.E.O. of a company that produces investigative documentaries, ran for the U.S. House of Representatives three years ago, losing but raising a lot of money and getting a lot of press in the process. “Their audiences will bleed over to one another,” Ufot said. “White suburban moms of Atlanta, who ride for Jon Ossoff, will get introduced to Warnock, this Black pastor from the historic Ebenezer Baptist Church. And Warnock lends credibility to Ossoff in the Black pockets around the state that he couldn’t buy.” Ufot believes that progressive politics can win in the South. “But it all depends on getting out the vote and making sure the votes are counted,” she said.

Bernard Fraga, a professor of political science at Emory and the author of “The Turnout Gap,” told me that turnout tends to drop by forty per cent or more for runoff elections. In Georgia, he explained, the drop-off is typically more severe among Democrats. But he didn’t expect this runoff to be typical. We might see a drop-off as small as fifteen per cent, he suggested. “But will that historically low drop-off be disproportionately Republican or Democratic?” he asked. “That’s what these groups on the ground are trying to decide.”

“Most folks have taken their foot off the gas and turned their eyes towards the holidays,” Ufot told me. But she was counting on early and mail-in voting to help close the usual gap between young and old voters and white voters and voters of color. “I’ve got to figure out how to make the ‘Twelve Days of Voting-mas’ not sound corny,” she said.

On the first day of December, I opened my laptop to watch Ossoff and Warnock speak to metro Atlanta chapters of Alpha Phi Alpha and Alpha Kappa Alpha, two venerable Greek organizations for Black students. It seemed like a chance for Ossoff to ride Warnock’s coattails a bit; among the illustrious past members of A.P.A. is Warnock’s legendary predecessor at Ebenezer. Ossoff, who’s thirty-three, grew up in the suburbs northeast of Atlanta and attended a local private school before going to Georgetown and the London School of Economics. He sat, a tad rigidly, in his home office, and spoke, as he tends to do, somewhat grandly—about joining “the political arena at this moment in history” and about the mentorship of the late congressman John Lewis, whom he first met in his teens. He described his investigative film work at a “twenty-eight-year-old company.” He also talked about housing and health care, student debt and equal justice under the law.

Warnock speaks with a rousing fluency that befits his day job. Earlier, I had asked him whether he saw Biblical precedent for the country’s predicament, and he’d told me about sermons he preached after the pandemic began, paraphrasing a passage from the Book of Joel—“Even upon the slaves, the most marginalized members of the human family, I will pour out my spirit,” the verse reads, more or less—and offering a gloss: “There is a word of hope even in the midst of this sick darkness.” He spoke to A.P.A. and A.K.A. about growing up as the eleventh of twelve children in a Savannah housing project and getting a Pell Grant, calling himself “the embodiment of what happens when personal responsibility meets good public policy.” He talked about COVID-19 and “COVID-1619,” by which he meant “the ongoing struggle with race and justice in our country.”

Warnock and Ossoff have raised more than two hundred million dollars since late October. You cannot turn on a television or radio without hearing their ads, many of which emphasize Loeffler and Perdue’s twin stock-trading scandals and the failure of the Senate, until recently, to secure additional pandemic relief. Volunteers outside the state are calling, texting, and sending postcards to Georgia residents. (I have received more handwritten postcards asking me to vote than holiday cards from friends and family.) Various show-business people—Pearl Jam, Eva Longoria, the cast of “Elf”—are touting Warnock and Ossoff on social media and hosting virtual get-out-the-vote events.

I’ve heard the occasional grumble from fellow-Georgians about the deluge, and there are those who believe that the waves of out-of-state cash in other Senate races made it easier for Republicans to portray Democratic challengers as beholden to their party’s leadership or to its left wing. Andrew Yang, who announced in November that he was temporarily moving to Georgia, told me that “some very well-known folks” had said they wanted to join him. But then, he said, there were “crosscurrents” from “various folks in the Democratic party, about not wanting to nationalize the race,” and “people who were on the fence about it just stood down.” Some Democrats feared energizing the other side, he said. “So you’re resisting trying to maximize our vote because you’re afraid it’s going to maximize their vote?” he asked.

We spoke in early December, as Yang knocked on doors in southwest Atlanta with Martin Luther King III. The pair, in suits and masks—Yang’s said MATH—passed an elderly man bathing in his yard with a bucket. They waved and continued on. Yang said that he’d sold knives door-to-door as a teen in Westchester. “I don’t know how we’d do it without you here, Martin, though,” he added, chuckling—and feeling, perhaps, like a bit of an outsider. At two of the first five homes they visited, people told King that they had been his childhood playmates. (He wasn’t sure that all of them recalled correctly.) Few recognized Yang, who participated in seven Presidential primary debates.

In between stops, Yang pulled up a CNN op-ed on his phone, which argued that Democrats should treat the races as national campaigns. “ ‘Move the Biden transition headquarters to Atlanta,’ ” he read aloud. He and King said, in near unison, “Yes!”

Yang went on, “ ‘Send in the ex-presidents.’ ”

“Yes!”

Fraga told me that nationalizing the races had been a boon for Democrats in the fall, that it spurred interest and brought in money that helped drive turnout. Ufot said that things like the postcard barrage simply work. “It’s part of our ‘ten touches,’ ” she said, explaining that receiving ten reminders about an election increases the likelihood that a registered voter will actually show up.

Yang stepped up to another porch and was soon talking with an elderly man in a mask. He introduced King—which triggered a story. “You know,” the man said, “I got registered April 4, 1969.”

“Wow,” King said, with real surprise. His father was assassinated exactly one year earlier.

“God is good,” Yang said. “Well, fantastic. Let’s win this one.”

“We gonna win it,” the man said. “This a good thing y’all doing. Hit the streets. Let the people see faces.” The man mentioned that he had a picture of Maynard Jackson, Atlanta’s first Black mayor, knocking on doors to get out the vote fifty years ago.

After they left the porch, King explained to Yang who Jackson was.

Twelve days later, Biden came to Georgia. Early voting had just begun. Around a hundred sixty eight thousand Georgians voted in person on the first day, a thirty per cent increase from the first day of the general election. I spoke to the former Atlanta mayor Kasim Reed, who lives in southwest Atlanta. “We lost fourteen out of the last fifteen runoffs,” he said, of his fellow-Democrats. “But I think that there is something in the air that’s going on.” He added, “I got up and drove my area today, and the lines for early voting are just substantial.” Warnock, in particular, he told me, had excited Black voters he’d talked to. “I spend a lot of my time in local stores, barber shops, beauty salons,” he said. “I think that Warnock is catching on at a good time. I think that his performance will impact Jon Ossoff’s performance in a positive way.”

Biden’s event, a drive-in rally, was at a former train yard in a gentrifying Atlanta neighborhood. Jeffrey Brower, the owner of a construction company, waited for the President-elect in a leather jacket and vintage Nikes, holding a plastic cup of whiskey and another of beer. “God gave me two hands for a reason,” he said. “I don’t know why I didn’t get an invite inside,” he half-joked, explaining that he’d given Warnock and Ossoff a few thousand dollars. “I’d rather make donations to cancer charities, the homeless,” he said. “But times aren’t normal.”

A retiree named Linda sat nearby on a chair and smoked. She said that she’d voted for Mitt Romney but had no trouble choosing the Democrats this time. “We need to bring back some normalcy to this country,” she said. “And health insurance, too.” As Stacey Abrams took the stage, I spoke with a man in his fifties named Darrell White, who’d grown up across the street and happened upon the event as he went for a walk. “We used to play football and fly kites right here,” he said. Warnock “has been through some of the stuff I been through,” he added. “So I know exactly what he’s talking about.”

A few protesters stood outside the event, holding signs that read “Wearing The Mask To Stop The Virus Is Like Wearing A Diaper To Stop A Fart! #science” and “Just Say No To Communism.” They chanted “China owns Joe” and “stop the steal.” One, a man named Caesar Gonzales, had a brief exchange with a Biden supporter—which ended with Gonzalez saying, “I’ll break your motherfucking nose.” Gonzalez told me that he was going to run for Congress in 2022.

A volunteer from Los Angeles named Michael watched all this unfold. “I’m trying to ignore them and not catch COVID,” he said of the protesters. He’d been in Atlanta for two weeks. “I’m mostly doing get-out-the-vote rallies and registration for the Asian community,” he explained, noting that “the A.A.P.I. community made a difference in November.” Fraga had made the same point to me. “I don’t think anyone was anticipating this level of engagement of Asian-American” turnout, he said. Michael told me, “It’s probably going to drop off, but we’re doing everything we can.”

Biden thanked Georgians for his win in the state, adding, “Guess what? Now you’re going to have to do it again.” He called Abrams a “hero” and mocked an attempt by the Texas attorney general to overturn election results in four states, including Georgia, an effort that Loeffler and Perdue supported. “Maybe your senators were just confused,” he said. “Maybe they think they represent Texas.” But Biden mostly focussed on what lay ahead, mentioning voting rights and health care in particular. “We need senators who are willing to do it, for God’s sake,” he said.

A week later, I called Ufot. “I feel really good,” she told me. She had just left an early-voting location, where she’d been giving out water and “delicious pudding.” She was headed to a suburban Atlanta county that went for Biden. “People are definitely voting,” she said, despite “how hard the G.O.P. is going after voting rights and voting locations.” She said that there were eighty counties where Republicans were challenging the voter rolls, mostly unsuccessfully. Of these efforts, she said, “We feel like they’re designed to put up hurdles that make it difficult for people to vote.” But she sounded optimistic. By the end of early voting, more than three million Georgians had cast their ballots, and the early data appeared to favor the Democrats: there were thousands of new voters, a high percentage of Black voters, and somewhat lower turnout—so far; Election Day voting may rebalance things—in conservative parts of the state. The county that had come closest to matching its November total was Randolph, a poor county in the Black Belt, which has been ravaged by the pandemic. Ufot’s hopeful tone reminded me of the biggest applause line at the Biden rally, which was delivered, not surprisingly, by Warnock. “It’s dark,” he’d said. “But morning is on the way. Hold on.”

e-max.it: your social media marketing partner
 
Don't Blame Sharia for Islamic Extremism - Blame Colonialism Print
Written by <a href="index.php?option=com_comprofiler&task=userProfile&user=57762"><span class="small">Mark Fathi Massoud, The Conversation</span></a>   
Friday, 01 January 2021 13:28

Excerpt: "Fundamentalism and violence are a post-colonial problem - not a religious inevitability."

Jihadist fighters in Syria. (photo: Getty)
Jihadist fighters in Syria. (photo: Getty)


Don't Blame Sharia for Islamic Extremism - Blame Colonialism

By Mark Fathi Massoud, The Conversation

01 January 21

 

arning that Islamic extremists want to impose fundamentalist religious rule in American communities, right-wing lawmakers in dozens of U.S. states have tried banning Sharia, an Arabic term often understood to mean Islamic law.

These political debates – which cite terrorism and political violence in the Middle East to argue that Islam is incompatible with modern society – reinforce stereotypes that the Muslim world is uncivilized.

They also reflect ignorance of Sharia, which is not a strict legal code. Sharia means “path” or “way”: It is a broad set of values and ethical principles drawn from the Quran – Islam’s holy book – and the life of the Prophet Muhammad. As such, different people and governments may interpret Sharia differently.

Still, this is not the first time that the world has tried to figure out where Sharia fits into the global order.

In the 1950s and 1960s, when Great Britain, France and other European powers relinquished their colonies in the Middle East, Africa and Asia, leaders of newly sovereign Muslim-majority countries faced a decision of enormous consequence: Should they build their governments on Islamic religious values or embrace the European laws inherited from colonial rule?

The big debate

Invariably, my historical research shows, political leaders of these young countries chose to keep their colonial justice systems rather than impose religious law.

Newly independent Sudan, Nigeria, Pakistan and Somalia, among other places, all confined the application of Sharia to marital and inheritance disputes within Muslim families, just as their colonial administrators had done. The remainder of their legal systems would continue to be based on European law.

To understand why they chose this course, I researched the decision-making process in Sudan, the first sub-Saharan African country to gain independence from the British, in 1956.

In the national archives and libraries of the Sudanese capital Khartoum, and in interviews with Sudanese lawyers and officials, I discovered that leading judges, politicians and intellectuals actually pushed for Sudan to become a democratic Islamic state.

They envisioned a progressive legal system consistent with Islamic faith principles, one where all citizens – irrespective of religion, race or ethnicity – could practice their religious beliefs freely and openly.

“The People are equal like the teeth of a comb,” wrote Sudan’s soon-to-be Supreme Court Justice Hassan Muddathir in 1956, quoting the Prophet Muhammad, in an official memorandum I found archived in Khartoum’s Sudan Library. “An Arab is no better than a Persian, and the White is no better than the Black.”

Sudan’s post-colonial leadership, however, rejected those calls. They chose to keep the English common law tradition as the law of the land.

Why keep the laws of the oppressor?

My research identifies three reasons why early Sudan sidelined Sharia: politics, pragmatism and demography.

Rivalries between political parties in post-colonial Sudan led to parliamentary stalemate, which made it difficult to pass meaningful legislation. So Sudan simply maintained the colonial laws already on the books.

There were practical reasons for maintaining English common law, too.

Sudanese judges had been trained by British colonial officials. So they continued to apply English common law principles to the disputes they heard in their courtrooms.

Sudan’s founding fathers faced urgent challenges, such as creating the economy, establishing foreign trade and ending civil war. They felt it was simply not sensible to overhaul the rather smooth-running governance system in Khartoum.

The continued use of colonial law after independence also reflected Sudan’s ethnic, linguistic and religious diversity.

Then, as now, Sudanese citizens spoke many languages and belonged to dozens of ethnic groups. At the time of Sudan’s independence, people practicing Sunni and Sufi traditions of Islam lived largely in northern Sudan. Christianity was an important faith in southern Sudan.

Sudan’s diversity of faith communities meant that maintaining a foreign legal system – English common law – was less controversial than choosing whose version of Sharia to adopt.

Why extremists triumphed

My research uncovers how today’s instability across the Middle East and North Africa is, in part, a consequence of these post-colonial decisions to reject Sharia.

In maintaining colonial legal systems, Sudan and other Muslim-majority countries that followed a similar path appeased Western world powers, which were pushing their former colonies toward secularism.

But they avoided resolving tough questions about religious identity and the law. That created a disconnect between the people and their governments.

In the long run, that disconnect helped fuel unrest among some citizens of deep faith, leading to sectarian calls to unite religion and the state once and for all. In Iran, Saudi Arabia and parts of Somalia and Nigeria, these interpretations triumphed, imposing extremist versions of Sharia over millions of people.

In other words, Muslim-majority countries stunted the democratic potential of Sharia by rejecting it as a mainstream legal concept in the 1950s and 1960s, leaving Sharia in the hands of extremists.

But there is no inherent tension between Sharia, human rights and the rule of law. Like any use of religion in politics, Sharia’s application depends on who is using it – and why.

Leaders of places like Saudi Arabia and Brunei have chosen to restrict women’s freedom and minority rights. But many scholars of Islam and grassroots organizations interpret Sharia as a flexible, rights-oriented and equality-minded ethical order.

Religion and the law worldwide

Religion is woven into the legal fabric of many post-colonial nations, with varying consequences for democracy and stability.

After its 1948 founding, Israel debated the role of Jewish law in Israeli society. Ultimately, Prime Minister David Ben-Gurion and his allies opted for a mixed legal system that combined Jewish law with English common law.

In Latin America, the Catholicism imposed by Spanish conquistadors underpins laws restricting abortion, divorce and gay rights.

And throughout the 19th century, judges in the U.S. regularly invoked the legal maxim that “Christianity is part of the common law.” Legislators still routinely invoke their Christian faith when supporting or opposing a given law.

Political extremism and human rights abuses that occur in those places are rarely understood as inherent flaws of these religions.

When it comes to Muslim-majority countries, however, Sharia takes the blame for regressive laws – not the people who pass those policies in the name of religion.

Fundamentalism and violence, in other words, are a post-colonial problem – not a religious inevitability.

For the Muslim world, finding a system of government that reflects Islamic values while promoting democracy will not be easy after more than 50 years of failed secular rule. But building peace may demand it.

e-max.it: your social media marketing partner
 
Meet the Trump Saboteur in Charge of Undermining Biden - and America Print
Written by <a href="index.php?option=com_comprofiler&task=userProfile&user=51492"><span class="small">Dana Milbank, The Washington Post</span></a>   
Friday, 01 January 2021 13:28

Milbank writes: "What Russ Vought is very good at is sabotage. He's sabotaging national security, the pandemic response and the economic recovery - all to make things more difficult for the incoming Biden administration."

Russell Vought at the White House in October 2019. (photo: Jabin Botsford/The Washington Post)
Russell Vought at the White House in October 2019. (photo: Jabin Botsford/The Washington Post)


Meet the Trump Saboteur in Charge of Undermining Biden - and America

By Dana Milbank, The Washington Post

01 January 21

 

f, in the new year, pandemic vaccines aren’t available as promised, Americans can’t return to work because economic relief isn’t delivered or an adversary successfully attacks the United States because national security agencies couldn’t pay for new defenses, a hefty share of the blame should be placed on a man you’ve probably never heard of: One Russell Thurlow Vought.

As President Trump’s budget director, he conspicuously failed in his stated goal of controlling the debt. Despite his efforts, the debt increased by $6 trillion on his two-year watch as director of the Office of Management and Budget, the biggest jump in history.

He also has been disastrous in his fiscal forecasts. On Feb. 10, he predicted 2.8 percent growth for the year, saying, “our view is that, at this point, coronavirus is not something that is going to have ripple effects.” A few weeks later, the economy collapsed.

But what Russ Vought is very good at is sabotage. He’s sabotaging national security, the pandemic response and the economic recovery — all to make things more difficult for the incoming Biden administration. That he’s also sabotaging the country seems not to matter to Vought, who has spent nearly two decades as a right-wing bomb thrower.

He has blocked civil servants at OMB from cooperating with the Biden transition, denying President-elect Joe Biden the policy analysis and budget-preparation assistance given to previous presidents-elect, including Barack Obama and Trump himself. Transition figures warn that it will likely delay and hamper economic and pandemic relief and national security preparation (the Pentagon is the other key agency resisting transition cooperation with the incoming administration).

Thursday afternoon, Vought released a bombastic letter accusing the Biden transition of making “false statements” about OMB’s uncooperativeness — and then essentially confirming that it would not cooperate: “What we have not done and will not do is use current OMB staff to write the [Biden transition’s] legislative policy proposals to dismantle this Administration’s work. . . . Redirecting staff and resources to draft your team’s budget proposals is not an OMB transition responsibility. Our system of government has one President and one Administration at a time.”

Nobody should have expected otherwise from Vought.

He was the author of a Sept. 4 memo attacking critical race theory and canceling racial sensitivity programs, which he called “divisive, anti-American propaganda.” The issue, apparently prompted by a segment Trump viewed on Fox News, became key to the final weeks of Trump’s race-baiting campaign.

Vought was also the mastermind of Trump’s executive order that attempts to reclassify tens of thousands of civil servants who work in policy roles so they can be easily fired. Vought has proposed reclassifying 88 percent of OMB staff (425 people).

He was a key figure in the Ukraine imbroglio, freezing military aid to the country as Trump pushed for Ukraine’s president to announce a probe of Joe and Hunter Biden and the Democrats. The Government Accountability Office determined the budgetary freeze violated the Impoundment Control Act. Vought also ignored a subpoena during the impeachment inquiry.

Vought’s 2017 nomination to be OMB deputy director (he later served 18 months as acting director and has served five as director) was nearly undone over a 2016 article in which he wrote: “Muslims do not simply have a deficient theology. They do not know God because they have rejected Jesus Christ, his Son, and they stand condemned.”

Vought spent seven years on the vanguard of conservative extremism as a senior official at Heritage Action, the political wing of the Heritage Foundation. The group fought GOP leadership and pushed lawmakers into unyielding positions.

During that time, Vought wrote a series of rambling posts for RedState.com arguing that “incrementalism doesn’t work for the right,” that Republicans “are fundamentally in their DNA unwilling to fight” and that Republicans needed to have “a willingness” to shut the government down. He exhorted Republicans to “embrace the sort of brinkmanship that shows they are playing to win.” He railed against a 2012 infrastructure bill as “communism.”

Before Heritage, Vought worked for the right-wing House Republican Study Committee whose job, he said, “is to push leadership as far to the right as is possible and flat out oppose it when necessary.”

He has continued to lob grenades from inside the White House. At an antiabortion rally, he claimed credit for blocking Planned Parenthood’s funding. He infuriated Democrats by refusing to share projections with Congress.

But when it comes to governing, Vought has been a loser. He ran the botched White House response to the 2019 government shutdown, issuing legally dubious decisions and, as one Republican budget expert told The Post, “making up the rules as they go along.” It became the longest-ever shutdown and ended in Trump’s surrender.

Now Vought is intentionally botching the transition, without regard for the dire consequences Americans could suffer. This is what happens when you put an arsonist in charge of the fire department.

e-max.it: your social media marketing partner
 
Unsurprisingly, Trump's Rollout of the COVID Vaccine Is an Utter Fiasco Print
Written by <a href="index.php?option=com_comprofiler&task=userProfile&user=55431"><span class="small">Michael Hiltzik, Los Angeles Times</span></a>   
Friday, 01 January 2021 13:28

Hiltzik writes: "For some mysterious reason, people are shocked - shocked! - that distribution of COVID-19 vaccines in the U.S. has been screwed up."

Critical care pharmacist Jennifer Cortes prepares the first Pfizer COVID-19 vaccine at Memorial Hermann Hospital in Houston on Dec. 15, 2020. (photo: Annie Mulligan/The Texas Tribune)
Critical care pharmacist Jennifer Cortes prepares the first Pfizer COVID-19 vaccine at Memorial Hermann Hospital in Houston on Dec. 15, 2020. (photo: Annie Mulligan/The Texas Tribune)


Unsurprisingly, Trump's Rollout of the COVID Vaccine Is an Utter Fiasco

By Michael Hiltzik, Los Angeles Times

01 January 21

 

or some mysterious reason, people are shocked — shocked! — that distribution of COVID-19 vaccines in the U.S. has been screwed up.

And screwed up it is. As of Monday, about 11.4 million doses of the Pfizer and Moderna vaccines have been distributed, according to the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. But only 2.1 million people have been vaccinated.

By the administration’s own standards, this is a massive failure. On Dec. 10, Health and Human Services Secretary Alex Azar promised that 20 million Americans would be vaccinated in “the next several weeks.”

Considering that it will be three weeks since then this weekend, that’s obviously not going to happen. So the White House moved the goalposts, promising that 20 million doses would be distributed by the end of the year. Then it revised its pledge to 20 million doses by the first week of January. Either way, the prospect of meeting that self-imposed mark is dim.

Projecting the pace of actual vaccinations into the future yields a grim conclusion.

Based on the judgment that 80% of Americans, or 264 million people, would need to be inoculated for the nation to reach herd immunity — that is, enough immunity that the virus can’t spread significantly even among the unvaccinated — public health expert Leana Wen of George Washington University estimated that “at the current rate, it would take the United States approximately 10 years to reach that level of inoculation.”

President-elect Joe Biden spoke out about the lagging effort. In a statement Tuesday, he said the country would have to step up its vaccination rate five- or six-fold to meet his own goal of fully vaccinating 50 million Americans (that is, with both doses of the two-shot Pfizer and Moderna vaccines) in his first 100 days in office.

At the current rate, he said, “It’s going to take years, not months, to vaccinate the American people.”

It’s proper to acknowledge that major public health projects such as mass vaccinations are difficult and prone to missteps and disappointment in their early stages.

The launch, for instance, of the government website for Affordable Care Act health plan signups starting Oct. 1, 2013, was a landmark in botched technology. But the Obama administration took matters in hand, and within weeks the site was up and fully functioning.

The Trump administration had seven years to absorb lessons from the Obamacare debacle but doesn’t seem to have done so. It blindsided several states in mid-December by informing them that their allocations of the Pfizer vaccine, the first to be approved for widespread use, would be as much as 40% below initial expectations.

Government officials attributed the confusion to misunderstandings of the original promises, but for many governors that explanation didn’t hold water.

Gen. Gustave Perna, the chief operating officer of the government’s Operation Warp Speed funding program for the vaccines and other anti-pandemic products, later acknowledged that the confusion resulted from “a planning error, and I am responsible.”

At a press briefing Wednesday, Moncef Slaoui, the chief scientific adviser to Operation Warp Speed, acknowledged that the vaccinate rate as a proportion of available doses is “lower than what we hoped for.”

But Perna, at the same briefing, tried to put a happy gloss on the record. “Everybody collectively should be very proud,” he said. “It has been a whole of America approach.”

Yet many of the factors slowing the pace of vaccinations are obvious. They include inadequate planning and the administration’s refusal to take more of the task in hand. The latter reflects Trump’s approach to the pandemic from the start. Boiled down to its essence, that approach has been: “It’s not our problem.”

As recently as Tuesday, Trump was blaming any problems on state governments. “It is up to the States to distribute the vaccines once brought to the designated areas by the Federal Government,” he tweeted. “We have not only developed the vaccines, including putting up money to move the process along quickly, but gotten them to the states. Biden failed with Swine Flu!”

But experts say that leaving vaccine administration solely to the states is no answer at all. What was needed—and isn’t coming—is federal coordination.

There has been “no real planning on what happens when vaccines arrive in state,” Ashish Jha, dean of the Brown University School of Public Health, tweeted this week. “No plan, no money, just hope that states will figure this out.”

The state health departments likely to inherit the task of vaccine management are already hopelessly overstretched, Jha observed. All year long they’ve been grappling with the need to “manage all the testing, data analysis & reporting, providing advice to businesses, schools, doing public campaigns, etc. Non-stop.” Now they’ll have vaccination loaded on their plates.

Mass vaccination programs like that needed for COVID-19 aren’t unprecedented. The oft-cited model is a smallpox vaccination campaign conducted in New York City after an outbreak was detected in 1947.

The city set up vaccination stations in police precincts, municipal buildings, community centers and “practically every hospital in the city,” Israel Weinstein, the city health commissioner, reported a few months later. Shots were given free of charge.

Mayor William O’Dwyer called for universal vaccination and received one himself, as did President Harry Truman, who traveled to the city for the purpose. The program enjoyed a level of cooperation between officials and the public, government support and popular faith in science that have all been undermined today.

“In a period of less than a month, more than 6,350,000 people were vaccinated,” Weinstein wrote, “over 5,000,000 of them within the two week period following the appeal for universal vaccination made by the Mayor.”

By contrast, the vaccine rollout is being ceded to pharmacies, whether local or parts of big chains such as Walgreens and CVS. But those retailers don’t have the ability to coordinate local or regional vaccination programs, which involve ensuring that everyone in a vaccination group, whether designated by age, health condition or job description, can be found and prompted to report for vaccination when it’s his or her turn.

Furthermore, the Trump White House hasn’t exploited all the capabilities it has available for manufacturing and distributing the COVID-19 vaccines.

For example, despite the constraints on vaccine supply caused by limited manufacturing capacity, the government has left to Moderna and Pfizer the sole right to contract with manufacturers — even though federal law gives the government the right to “march in” and make its own manufacturing deals in exactly this situation.

Murky advice from the CDC about which cohorts should receive priority for vaccination during a period of straitened supply has left states to craft their policies on their own. Even in ideal circumstances, not every state might adhere to CDC recommendations, but the situation isn’t helped by the Trump administration’s systematic destruction of the reputation of the CDC, once the gold standard for public health agencies.

Florida and Texas, for example, have started giving shots to residents over 65, moving “essential” workers — those who need to come into frequent contact with the public to do their jobs — further back in line.

“The problem is people that are 73, 74 would be in the back of the line for a young 21-year-old worker who’s considered ‘essential,’” Florida Gov. Ron DeSantis said. “That doesn’t, I think, make sense.”

According to one account, elderly residents in southwest Florida were prompted to report personally to vaccine centers, where they waited in maskless crowds for hours.

No system for enforcing priority rules for vaccines appears to exist, leading to the likelihood of line-jumping by people with low priority but a surfeit of pull. Moderna announced Tuesday that it would make its vaccine available to its “workers, contractors and board members” and adult members of their households “to reduce the risk of absenteeism and disruption due to a COVID-19 infection.”

That’s a good case to be made for workers. As for board members, this privileged group of nine includes, in addition to Moderna CEO Stephane Bancel, three business executives (two retired), an MIT professor and four venture investors.

Among other early recipients are White House staffers, Vice President Mike Pence and members of Congress and designated staff members. Under normal circumstances, this would make sense in the interest of the continuation of government in a crisis.

But it’s a hard pill to swallow, so to speak, when so many of the newly inoculated will be legislators and other political leaders who have spent much of the last year dismissing the seriousness of the pandemic, refusing to set an example of responsible mask-wearing and social distancing, and voting against assistance for ordinary Americans facing death, illness and economic hardship.

Pence, for instance, was blaming “the media” back in June for promoting alarm about a second wave of COVID-19 infections, since daily average new cases had fallen to 20,000 from 30,000 in April and 25,000 in May. Average new case rates currently stand at 194,500 per day. This happened on his watch as head of the White House coronavirus task force, a job at which he has been majestically ill-prepared.

President-elect Biden and Vice President-elect Kamala Harris also received shots, in public, but that’s consistent with their approach to the pandemic and their support for public health initiatives in the crisis.

It’s possible, even likely, that the vaccine program is just experiencing birth pains. That’s the view of Kevin Drum of Mother Jones, who writes that “this problem will probably get sorted out in the next few weeks and people will soon forget that it ever happened.”

He may be right. But if so, that will likely be because the program will be taken over by a new administration starting on Jan. 20, one that has already started assembling a pandemic task force of experienced experts in epidemiology and public health, devoid of the sycophants and incompetents who have predominated in the Trump administration.

Biden at least knows he’s facing an elemental challenge, and he hasn’t shown any inclination thus far to shun responsibility for meeting it.

e-max.it: your social media marketing partner
 
RSN: Execution Will Mark MLK's Birthday Print
Written by <a href="index.php?option=com_comprofiler&task=userProfile&user=57362"><span class="small">Barbara Koeppel, Reader Supported News</span></a>   
Friday, 01 January 2021 13:19

Koeppel writes: "Shakespeare got it right. Something is definitely rotten, but not in Denmark. The decay is made in America and engulfs the fortress at 1600 Pennsylvania Ave."

Dustin Higgs, a 48-year-old Maryland man who was convicted of killing three women in 1996, will be executed on January 15. (photo: Alex Wong/Getty)
Dustin Higgs, a 48-year-old Maryland man who was convicted of killing three women in 1996, will be executed on January 15. (photo: Alex Wong/Getty)


Execution Will Mark MLK's Birthday

By Barbara Koeppel, Reader Supported News

01 January 21

 

hakespeare got it right. Something is definitely rotten, but not in Denmark. The decay is made in America and engulfs the fortress at 1600 Pennsylvania Ave.

Just before Christmas and with true holiday spirit, the master of the White House manor pardoned 41 convicted criminals (aka friends and relatives) and commuted the sentences of eight others. When added to earlier pardons, the total is a whopping 94. But who’s counting? The number will mount before he exits the stage.

The list is noteworthy. First in line is the cabal of white-collar criminals – such as those who fraudulently charged over $1 billion in nursing home claims, those who tried to block Congressional investigations, those who turned public funds into personal piggy banks, those who buried millions in overseas banks to dodge U.S. taxes, and those who defrauded charities. Next, there’s the long list of those who lied and lied and lied to prosecutors, Congress, and the FBI.

Trump has also conferred his compassion on convicted killers, such as the Blackwater Security guys who gunned down 17 unarmed Baghdad men, women, and children and injured 20 in 2007; the Prince Georges County (Md.) police officer who unleashed her police dog on an unarmed homeless man in 1995; and the two Border Patrol agents who killed a man (again unarmed) suspected of carrying drugs who was fleeing to Mexico.

However, his benevolence has yet to reach two Black men who’ve been on death row since the 1990s and are slated to be killed in mid-January at the federal government’s maximum security prison in Terre Haute, Indiana. Nor was his kindness extended to the 10 inmates who have been executed since July.

Cory Johnson, a 52-year-old Virginia man, will be executed on January 14. When he was 23, Johnson, along with other gang members, was convicted of killing rival gang members in 1992. Johnson’s lawyer says he is “intellectually disabled,” which should prohibit him from being executed: a 2002 U.S. Supreme Court decision barred the death penalty for those in this category. The lawyer also argues that no jury or court has heard evidence to determine if he suffers from intellectual disability.

Dustin Higgs, a 48-year-old Maryland man who was convicted of killing three women in 1996, will be executed on January 15. Former attorney general William Barr picked who would be put to death and when. And since January 15 happens to be Martin Luther King’s birthday, one has to wonder if he was clueless (and none of his staff knew it either, to inform him) or he thought it was a meaningful way to mark the date.

It’s worth noting that at Higgs’s trial, all the witnesses said he didn’t do the shooting; rather, his co-defendant, Willis Haynes, pulled the trigger. For this, Haynes was sentenced to life in prison. Higgs’s lawyer insists the jury wasn’t given this evidence. Instead, it based its verdict on the testimony of one man who struck a deal in exchange for cooperating.

In a remarkably passionate November 20, 2020, press release, the Department of Justice discarded its usual lawyerly language to announce it would execute these men because of their “staggeringly brutal murders.”

In the U.S., while 61 percent of Whites and 47 percent of Blacks support the death penalty, some who work in the prison system do not. A now-retired warden at a federal prison (who asked for anonymity) says executions “serve no purpose other than vengeance. Because some innocent people have been executed in error, I oppose it. Even if there was just one execution of an innocent person, that’s one too many. The other reason is that I was in the system long enough to see young men, say 20 years old, who changed completely after decades in prison and were no longer a threat to society.”

She adds that she’s not alone. “Just before one execution set for the early 2000s, the Bureau of Prisons had to ask staff at other federal prisons to volunteer to work at Terre Haute temporarily, to help with the event – since many of that prison’s staff refused to participate: They needed health professionals to administer the injections and psychologists to treat the prison staff who had developed mental problems related to the state-sponsored killings.”

Robert Hood (now retired), the warden at the federal super-max penitentiary in Colorado from 2002 to 2005 and who worked in the system for 45 years, says he turned down the warden’s job at Terre Haute for two reasons. “If I took it, I would have had to participate in executions. I would also have had to direct my staff to take part. I didn’t think either action was desirable,” he says.

Robert Dunham, director of the Death Penalty Information Center, says no president before Trump has carried out more than one execution in the transition period before a new president is sworn in. Yet under the current administration, the number is now 10, and the next two will make it 12.

Wouldn’t it be great if President Trump would pardon just two more? Alas, the likelihood is close to zero.



Barbara Koeppel is a Washington DC-based investigative reporter who covers social, economic, military, political, foreign policy and whistleblower issues.

Reader Supported News is the Publication of Origin for this work. Permission to republish is freely granted with credit and a link back to Reader Supported News.

e-max.it: your social media marketing partner
 
<< Start < Prev 241 242 243 244 245 246 247 248 249 250 Next > End >>

Page 242 of 3432

THE NEW STREAMLINED RSN LOGIN PROCESS: Register once, then login and you are ready to comment. All you need is a Username and a Password of your choosing and you are free to comment whenever you like! Welcome to the Reader Supported News community.

RSNRSN