RSN Fundraising Banner
FB Share
Email This Page
add comment
Politics
Over There Is Now Over Here: America's Pandemic Role Reversal Print
Written by <a href="index.php?option=com_comprofiler&task=userProfile&user=29696"><span class="small">Karen J. Greenberg, TomDispatch</span></a>   
Monday, 18 May 2020 08:28

Greenberg writes: "With Covid-19, the very idea of American exceptionalism may have seen its last days. The virus has put the realities of wealth inequality, health insecurity, and poor work conditions under a high-powered microscope."

Lindsey Graham. (photo: Tom Williams/CQ-Roll Call/Getty Images)
Lindsey Graham. (photo: Tom Williams/CQ-Roll Call/Getty Images)


Over There Is Now Over Here: America's Pandemic Role Reversal

By Karen J. Greenberg, TomDispatch

18 May 20

 


It’s old news by now that President Trump has compared the arrival of the coronavirus in America to the Japanese attack on Pearl Harbor in 1941 and al-Qaeda’s 9/11 assault on key symbols of this country -- the World Trade Center in New York, the Pentagon in Washington, and possibly even the White House (had hijacked United Airlines Flight 93 not crashed in a field in Pennsylvania thanks to resistance from its passengers). In fact, he’s claimed that, when it comes to sneak attacks, this “invisible enemy” has been the worst by far.

However, given the president’s urge to ignore the coronavirus for essentially months -- remember when “the heat” in April was going to “miraculously” make it disappear? -- two somewhat different historical sneak-attack scenarios come to mind. What if, on December 7, 1941, planes from the U.S. Army Air Forces had attacked the Navy’s fleet at Pearl Harbor in a devastating scene of destruction or the Bush administration had dispatched suicidal killers to hijack commercial jets and send them diving into those symbolic buildings?

In truth, Trump, Vice President Pence, and the rest of the crew have a remarkable record when it comes to hijacking a pandemic and sending it crashing into the U.S., while leaving our country remarkably unprepared for it. In fact, to truly grasp our moment, you might have to alter those previous scenarios even more and imagine that the Trumpian Covid-19 version of Flight 93 didn’t go down in that field, but made it all the way to Washington and crashed directly into a White House that visibly had no interest in either social distancing or wearing face masks -- even insisting that others take them off. (Before the coronavirus hit, of course, Trump & Company had already crashed the equivalent of more than one plane into the American environment in the service of Big Energy, threatening to turn the country’s air, land, and waters into first-class hellholes.)

While the record of the president and his administration has seemed almost uniquely destructive and inept, as TomDispatch regular Karen Greenberg points out today, you need to give that crew credit for one thing: they managed to bring “war” home big time and destroy what could prove to be the last vestiges of a sense of American exceptionalism. Quite an accomplishment, all in all!

And one small historical footnote, given how fast this country reached Great Depression-level unemployment figures: while, historically, the Great Depression brought the U.S. President Franklin Delano Roosevelt and the New Deal, in Germany it brought to power Adolf Hitler and the Nazi Party. So, in a White House run by you-know-who in the midst of a spreading pandemic, who knows what the future holds?

-Tom Engelhardt, TomDispatch


emember the song “Over There”?

“Over there, over there

Send the word, send the word over there

That the Yanks are coming,

The Yanks are coming,

The drums rum-tumming everywhere...”

Maybe not, since it was popular so long ago, but it was meant to inspire American troops saying goodbye to their country on their way to a Europe embroiled in World War I. Written by George M. Cohan, the song paid homage to an American wartime urge to do good in the world, to take what was precious about this country and spread it to less fortunate, endangered peoples elsewhere. As Jon Meacham and country music star Tim McGraw reminded us, that song’s message couldn’t have been simpler: The good guys are coming.

A century later, that sentiment in Cohan’s lyrics had merged with a related but ultimately contrary message: the supposed determination of America’s leaders to keep at bay and away the dangers rife in so much of the rest of the world. As President George W. Bush repeatedly assured Americans after the 9/11 attacks, this country would keep the threat of terrorism “over there” -- and so away from our shores. “We will fight them over there so we do not have to face them in the United States of America,” he typically told American legionnaires back in 2007.

More than a decade later, Republican Senator Lindsey Graham offered a reminder of the lingering persistence of such an “over there” mindset. Defending President Trump’s decision to keep American forces in Iraq, Syria, and Afghanistan, he explained: “I want to fight the war in the enemy’s backyard, not ours.”

Trump’s version of keeping danger “over there” manifested itself most notably in his attempts to keep the immigrant version of the dangerous Other over there. Beginning with his “big, fat, beautiful wall” and his Muslim ban, such efforts, including most recently his April 22nd proclamation of a 60-day suspension on immigration by those seeking green cards, have never ended.

One “immigrant” he could not keep out, however, was the coronavirus, which -- owing significantly to his acts (or lack of them) -- has played havoc with the over-there conceit. When it comes to Covid-19, undeterred by a military presence abroad or border walls, keeping the threat to this nation at bay is no longer a possibility. Instead, an array of dangers, deprivations, and fears that have long beset the rest of the world -- and from which the United States considered itself largely immune -- have now entered our supposedly separate, well-guarded, very exceptional American world. Like the giant “murder hornets” from Asia detected for the first time in the United States in April, perils once reserved for places abroad are now squarely in our own backyard.

Like it or not, Over There is now Right Here.

America as a War Zone

The stage for bringing “there” to the homeland was aptly set when President Trump declared the country at war with a disease. Suddenly, America’s forever wars of the twenty-first century were no longer distant affairs. "War" was here and now, and this time we weren’t the invaders, but the ones who had been invaded.

Appropriately enough, in these last months, New York City, the epicenter of the pandemic in this country, has been described by many in terms normally reserved for a war zone: the bodies of the dead laid out in rows as after battlefield encounters; tents like those seen at the outskirts of battle zones serving as makeshift hospitals in parks; sirens screaming day and night as emergency vehicles transport severely ill casualties of the virus to exhausted and overworked medical teams. And in the context of such a war at home, the military -- along with the various National Guard units -- has been on hand to help build temporary hospitals and distribute food and supplies.

Inside this new war zone, the basic circumstances of life have begun to resemble those long considered forever distant. For years now, we’ve been reading about casualty figures from places where Washington has pursued its “over there” war on terror. As Brown University’s Costs of War Project has reported, since 9/11 more than 800,000 people have been killed in U.S. wars in Iraq, Afghanistan, and the Pakistani borderlands alone.

Now, by far the largest numbers of deaths are no longer over there but right here in the United States, thanks to the invisible virus among us. The world watches us as we lose Americans by the thousands on an almost daily basis. Health systems worldwide, and particularly in Africa, have long been a focus of the World Health Organization (WHO) and other medical groups. For decades, specialists have tried to ameliorate a lack of doctors, an absence of medical equipment, a need for more hospitals and greater access to healthcare on that continent. That was over there. No longer.

Life in the U.S. Becomes Precarious

Alongside images of war, the U.S. healthcare system is now experiencing the kind of shortages and incapacity that had previously been associated with those in impoverished countries. As a 2017 WHO report concluded, “Half the world lacks access to essential health services.”

This past month, as Covid-19 patients overwhelmed New York City hospitals, conditions there began to resemble those in such lands. The most basic things like access to emergency rooms or to urgent care for people with the virus (but also for those with other problems entirely) became less certain. As the numbers of Covid-19 patients soared, those experiencing other life-threatening symptoms began to be treated according to a new, far grimmer calculus. At the same time, individuals in need of emergency care for other reasons came to fear going to ERs and exposing themselves to the pandemic, sometimes dying at home instead.

In these months, for instance, the number of organ transplants fell precipitously. On March 31st, the Regional Emergency Medical Advisory Committee of New York City announced that adults in cardiac arrest were not to be transported to the hospital for additional attempts at revival if their hearts had not restarted after 20 minutes. Many cancer surgeries have been delayed until further notice.

And it’s not just emergency care that’s under siege. Doctors have become unavailable for non-urgent matters. Messages like this one from a medical group tell it all: “If you are young, healthy, and sick but otherwise stable at home, please limit your calls to your doctor’s office so we can manage the high volume of calls incoming from high-risk patients.” While tele-health appointments with your general practitioner have become a way of life, they are no substitute for a yearly physical, let alone in-person attention to medical disorders and diseases. Dentists are, of course, not performing regular services. How many of us will have to forego our yearly mammograms, our regular dental check-ups, our annual physicals during this pandemic?

If lack of access to adequate healthcare is a measure of a country under wartime-like stress, the United States is no longer an exception.

An American World of Deprivation

Other normal expectations about American life are also breaking down in ways once associated with foreign lands. As George Packer recently wrote in the Atlantic, the federal government now looks more like a failed state than a vibrant democracy. As he put it, the Trump administration’s reaction to the coronavirus crisis was more “like Pakistan or Belarus -- like a country with shoddy infrastructure and a dysfunctional government whose leaders were too corrupt or stupid to head off mass suffering.” In fact, the government’s response to the crisis has failed in a striking set of ways, ranging from the unpreparedness of the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) to the failure of diplomatic and domestic efforts to procure ventilators and protective masks or implement the distribution of stockpiles of medical equipment.

Meanwhile, the socio-economic level of the country has plummeted as middle-class Americans lose their jobs and begin the long fall into another existence. Since March, significant parts of the economy have been shut down and more than 33 million people laid off with 6% of the labor force filing for unemployment in the last two weeks of that month alone. Official U.S. unemployment recently hit 14.7%, a figure unseen since the Great Depression of the 1930s. Unemployment claims have surged catastrophically and are still climbing weekly.

For an increasing number of Americans, food insecurity has become a fact of life. Empty shelves for some products are increasingly common in grocery stores nationwide. While predictions of shortages and price increases vary from cautious denials to measured concern, certain aspects of the usual food chain do seem to be breaking down. As Shub Debgupta, an economist who focuses on supply-chain risks to food, has pointed out, supplies from other countries that the United States depends on are likely to dwindle in the coming months. So, too, will farm labor, often made up of guest workers from across the southern border.

In the food industry and elsewhere, from grocery stores to hospitals, safe working conditions have deteriorated as the pandemic spreads, heading in directions previously associated with exploitative, impoverished, and corrupt countries. The proximity of workers inside the country’s meat-processing plants has, according to the CDC, already led to the infection of an estimated 5,000 workers (1,000 in a single plant).

Meanwhile, as the homelessness rate grows, many shelters have closed and those that remain open, social distancing being impossible and sanitary conditions bleak, are now potential hotbeds of infection, or as Emma Grey Ellis put it in Wired, “Homelessness is incompatible with health.” And let's not forget the nightmare of nursing homes, some of which have become literal graveyards for the aged and infirm.

Prisons and detention centers have similarly become incubators for the spread of the disease, as our incarceration system suffers the kinds of deaths that might once only have been possible in countries like Chile, El Salvador, Peru, or elsewhere in Latin America (where notoriously overcrowded prisons have led to the rampant spread of Covid-19). Authorities in Arizona, for instance, now predict a 99% infection rate in its prison system and, despite the release of prisoners and immigration detainees across the country, unsanitary conditions and overcrowding still make prisons, as one expert remarked, “a ticking time bomb.”

In these and other areas where deprivation is being enhanced as the coronavirus runs wild in America, the burden has fallen overwhelmingly on low-income groups, blacks and Hispanics in particular. In doing so, it has heightened an already all-American reality. Though billionaires continue to prosper, low-income groups with heightened health-risk factors are now suffering disproportionately from Covid-19.

Blacks, for instance, have so far made up 25% of the deaths in this country from the virus, nearly twice their numbers in the general population. In New York alone, as the disease engulfed the city, black and Latino residents are estimated to have perished at twice the rate of whites. In states like Michigan and Illinois, the disparities have been similarly pronounced, while unemployment rates among African Americans now overshadow that of whites to a degree that is breathtaking. William Rodgers, former chief economist at the Department of Labor, has estimated that, as early as March, the real unemployment rate for African Americans may already have climbed to 19% and has only increased since.

The world, in other words, is coming home.

Long-Simmering Realities

In many ways, the current crisis has, of course, just exposed conditions that should have been attended to long ago. Much that suddenly seems broken was already on the brink when the coronavirus appeared. If anything, the pandemic has simply accelerated already existing trends. As a December 2019 Century Foundation report on “racism, inequality, and health care for African Americans” concluded, “The American health care system is beset with inequalities that have a disproportionate impact on people of color and other marginalized groups.” In fact, in 2019, the London-based Legatum Institute’s Prosperity Index had already ranked the American healthcare system 59th in the world for its standard of services.

As bad as Donald Trump and his administration have been, the growing American coronavirus disaster can’t simply be blamed on them. Covid-19 has brought home to the rest of us how over here over there really was. And now, the pathetic White House leadership in this crisis has raised another possibility: autocracy.

The Trump administration’s failure to handle the crisis competently stems in part from the president’s perception that whatever he says, in autocratic fashion, goes -- or, as he has often put it, “I can do whatever I want.” From his early assertion that the virus was destined to go from 15 cases to one or disappear in the warmth of April to his fantasy numbers when it came to virus testing or obtaining crucial medical equipment to his recent advocacy of ingesting disinfectants as an antidote for Covid-19, the leader of the United States has come to resemble a run-of-the-mill autocrat spreading disinformation in his own interests. It’s one thing to point to the power-grabbing of Russian President Vladimir Putin, the underhanded machinations of the dictator of North Korea, or the ruthlessness of the crown prince of Saudi Arabia. It’s quite another to have a power-hungry leader as our own head of state. Once again, we are not immune. There is here.

With Covid-19, the very idea of American exceptionalism may have seen its last days. The virus has put the realities of wealth inequality, health insecurity, and poor work conditions under a high-powered microscope. Fading from sight are the days when this country’s engagement with the world could be touted as a triumph of leadership when it came to health, economic sustenance, democratic governance, and stability. Now, we are inside the community of nations in a grim new way -- as fellow patients, grievers, and supplicants in search of food and shelter, in search, along with so much of humanity, of a more secure existence.

The world, in other words, has turned upside down. Perhaps it’s sadly time to change those famed lyrics of George M. Cohan accordingly:

“Over here, over here
Send the word, send the word over here.”

Whether from there or from here, the sooner the good guys arrive, the better.



Karen J. Greenberg, a TomDispatch regular, is the director of the Center on National Security at Fordham Law, as well as the editor-in-chief of the CNS Soufan Group Morning Brief. She is the author of Rogue Justice: The Making of the Security State, the editor of Reimagining the National Security State: Liberalism on the Brink, and host of the Vital Interests Podcast. Julia Tedesco and Sofia Cimballa contributed research to this article.

Follow TomDispatch on Twitter and join us on Facebook. Check out the newest Dispatch Books, John Feffer’s new dystopian novel (the second in the Splinterlands series) Frostlands, Beverly Gologorsky's novel Every Body Has a Story, and Tom Engelhardt's A Nation Unmade by War, as well as Alfred McCoy's In the Shadows of the American Century: The Rise and Decline of U.S. Global Power and John Dower's The Violent American Century: War and Terror Since World War II.

e-max.it: your social media marketing partner
 
Refusing to Wear a Mask Is a Uniquely American Pathology Print
Written by <a href="index.php?option=com_comprofiler&task=userProfile&user=15772"><span class="small">Dahlia Lithwick, Slate </span></a>   
Monday, 18 May 2020 08:28

Lithwick writes: "It is strange, about the masks. That it's masks that have become charged objects, signifying the difference between Americans who want to protect themselves and others from COVID-19 and those who refuse to believe in COVID-19, is no longer in doubt."

The debate over masks in America has its roots in a misunderstanding of personal freedom. (image: Getty Images Plus/Slate)
The debate over masks in America has its roots in a misunderstanding of personal freedom. (image: Getty Images Plus/Slate)


Refusing to Wear a Mask Is a Uniquely American Pathology

By Dahlia Lithwick, Slate

18 May 20


The obsession with individualism and the misinterpretation of constitutional freedom collide into a germy mess.

t is strange, about the masks. 

That it’s masks that have become charged objects, signifying the difference between Americans who want to protect themselves and others from COVID-19 and those who refuse to believe in COVID-19, is no longer in doubt. As Ryan Lizza and Daniel Lippman wrote in early May, as the pandemic has progressed, the American left has largely been willing to sacrifice personal liberties in exchange for containing the virus. And while most on the political right have agreed to take precautions like staying home, a “vocal activist wing of conservatism that has enormous influence on social media and Fox News, has been far more willing to attack the various infringements on where people can go and what they have to wear.” As a result, Lizza and Lippman conclude, “the mask has become the ultimate symbol of this new cultural and political divide.” 

Nowhere has the split been more pronounced than within the White House itself, where the Trump administration’s own guidelines ask Americans to wear masks in public spaces to slow the spread and yet the president himself does not. After a White House valet tested positive for COVID-19 last week, President Donald Trump announced that the valets who serve food and work around him are now required to wear masks, although he and Vice President Mike Pence continue to refuse to do so. As Ron Elving notes, political leaders often do symbolic things to model behavior they want emulated, and House Speaker Nancy Pelosi has been adamant that modeling such public safety measures is essential. (She matches her masks to her pantsuits.) But for Trump and those around him, refusing to don face coverings—even during visits with vulnerable populations like 95-year-old World War II veterans—seems to signal, well, something. But what? 

Frank Bruni argues that the message from the White House is that “masks are emblems, maybe the best ones, of the Trump administration’s disregard for, and degradation of, experts and expertise.” Lippman and Lizza wonder whether the rejection of masks says something like “I don’t have to wear a mask because I have access to regular testing,” adding that “in that sense, being in close proximity to people without covering your face is a kind of new status symbol for the pandemic era.” Liz Plank argues that Trump would rather endanger himself and others. Anna North makes a parallel argument: “Such militaristic, tough-guy messaging, along with Trump’s refusal to wear a mask, may encourage ordinary people—especially men—to minimize the risk of coronavirus for the sake of appearing manly.” North further points out that American racial bias also plays a fundamental role in the refusal to cover one’s face: Whereas young black men are perceived as doubly dangerous when they are masked, some white men like to perform their own immunity from criminal consequences by refusing to cover up. 

And that is the point. Trump and Pence’s public defiance of the guidance that suggests covering one’s face is best for your own safety and the safety of others is itself contagious. When Trump visited Phoenix recently, some of his fans harassed and insulted local journalists who were wearing masks, insisting that the reporters were “only wearing masks to instill fear,” BrieAnna Frank, with the Arizona Republic, later said. She posted a viral Twitter thread of journalists derided for being “on the wrong side of patriotism” and “like communists.” One man said of assembled male journalists in masks, “It’s submission, it’s muzzling yourself, it looks weak—especially for men.” Around the country, we’ve seen retail workers and restaurant employees violently assaulted for asking customers to cover up. The guiding theory seems to be that since only the weak will die, the burden shifts to them alone to protect themselves. 

There is no question that there are race, gender, and power distortions that lead some Americans to see face covering as a sign of vulnerability, weakness, or surrender. But it strikes me that there is another layer—even above and beyond a denial of facts and science—that must be at play: There is an obsession with being seen and recognized that feels quintessentially American, even in situations of life and death. 

It can’t be mere coincidence that some of the loudest objectors to masking try to advance First Amendment arguments about their right to express who they are. Paradoxically perhaps, state laws that ban the wearing of masks have been on the books for centuries in this country—and almost always survive constitutional scrutiny. (Many were adopted in response to the Ku Klux Klan’s use of hoods and masks to hide identities as members terrorized black communities. Now that mask wearing is allowed, and encouraged by the left, perhaps it shouldn’t surprise us that the California man who wore a Klan mask to go shopping last week will not be charged.) But there is something about the affirmative choice to refuse to wear a mask right now that feels connected to yet another distinctly American pathology. Just as some dissenters resoundingly fail to understand that the First Amendment doesn’t give them the right to be heard and seen by everyone at all times, or to say whatever they wish without consequences, some appear to believe that their right to perform their freedom, up to and including with weapons of war, is constitutionally limitless. Right now, the right to breathe unobstructed into everyone in your path is, in its way, a weapon. And wanting the world to see your face unobstructed as you do so feels like a damaged idea of freedom. Historically, masks were preferred by mobs who wanted to do violence unrecognized. Now the masks impair the performance of violence, and the credit and fame that go with it. 

Because we are in the midst of a reality show presidency, in which the unending public performance of self by the president is the only coin of the realm, it is hardly surprising that Donald Trump refuses to be masked. The carnival, the play, the show, after all, is the entirety of governance. And that people who believe that the hallmark of constitutional democracy is the loud, unfettered performance of self, regardless of its consequences for others, similarly refuse to go unseen and uncredited, is the obvious corollary. If you maintain that your freedom to ritually enact your ineffable you-ness at the expense of everyone else is what makes America different, it stands to reason that masks feel akin to tyranny. As Lydia Denworth put it in Scientific American, one of the reasons the wearing of masks has never become a norm in America is that the impulse to think collectively about disease was never necessarily fully integrated: “The point is that masks do not just protect the wearer, they protect others. Such community-minded thinking fits with collectivist cultural norms in some parts of Asia, where masks are routinely worn when one is sick—and where there is more experience with serious epidemics.” 

This may even explain why some root their refusal to cover up in religious arguments, also swept in under the First Amendment. An Ohio lawmaker, Republican state Rep. Nino Vitale, declined to wear the mask required by his state’s Department of Health director, because, as he explained in a Facebook post last week, “This is the greatest nation on earth founded on Judeo-Christian principles. One of those principles is that we are all created in the image and likeness of God. That image is seen the most by our face. I will not wear a mask.” His logic was uniquely illogical: “No one is stopping anybody from wearing a face mask. But quite frankly everyone else’s freedom ends at the tip of my nose. You’re not going to tell me what to do and there’s a lot of people that feel that way.” The idea that God wants to see our faces so very badly that we should be allowed to harm and possibly kill everyone with whom we come in contact is a uniquely self-regarding view of religious faith. But if one believes that the self is the only meaningful actor in a democracy, or a theocracy, it perhaps stands to reason. 

The simplest explanation for the insistence that wearing masks is for thee, but not for me, rests in the fundamental narcissism of Donald Trump, and the booming cottage industry on the part of right-wing media in so-called vice-signaling—the performative acting out of malice and cruelty toward the weak. The more complicated answer, it seems, is that in a country founded on a long mythology of the Lone Ranger, Batman, Zorro, and Captain America, the mask has somehow come to signal invisibility, and the death of rugged individualism—perhaps even more so because everyone is now wearing one. For those who have come to feel devalued, degraded, left behind, or shunted aside, being asked to hide one’s face must be the ultimate act of public cruelty. If we have come to believe that each of us is only as important as our ability to be seen and heard, the mask must make that erasure complete. It’s not just the toxic myth of rugged individuals pitted against government and the weak that is gutting us. It’s the poisonous notion that unless we are being seen acting out rugged individualism, we don’t even exist. 

e-max.it: your social media marketing partner
 
The News from Manhattan: Thursday, May 13, 2020 Print
Written by <a href="index.php?option=com_comprofiler&task=userProfile&user=47905"><span class="small">Garrison Keillor, Garrison Keillor's Website</span></a>   
Sunday, 17 May 2020 13:02

Keillor writes: "The White House is a joke and the reporters in the briefing room may as well be writing about squirrels in the park."

Garrison Keillor on Grand Avenue in St. Paul, near his bookstore Common Good Books in 2014. (photo: Jean Pieri/Pioneer Press)
Garrison Keillor on Grand Avenue in St. Paul, near his bookstore Common Good Books in 2014. (photo: Jean Pieri/Pioneer Press)


The News from Manhattan: Thursday, May 13, 2020

By Garrison Keillor, Garrison Keillor's Website

17 May 20


How long will this corona stay?
I’m sleeping ten hours a day.
How long will I be
Writing limericks daily
When I don’t have much left to say?

t’s a useful time when people learn what keeps them going in stressful times. Family, conversation, books, jigsaw puzzles, work — life is reduced to basics and you get a new view of your own life, uncluttered. Conservatives have been campaigning against a powerful federal government for decades, and now they’ve found the perfect way to prove their case: elect a world-class fool to the presidency. His comments yesterday were the stupidest of any president in my lifetime. The emperor is naked and the country will get through this by individual enterprise and ingenuity and leadership on the state level, which is what conservatives have been saying for years. The White House is a joke and the reporters in the briefing room may as well be writing about squirrels in the park.

I come from anxious people and quarantine offers a life without anxiety. I am not going to die from this and be buried wrapped in plastic and instead of pallbearers, a fork lift. It isn’t going to happen that way. I’m married to a fabulous woman and I have a happy daughter who falls apart laughing when she catches me out on the balcony and throws a glass of water at me. I assumed I’d get a dark neurotic daughter who writes angry incomprehensible poems and instead I get one who screams with laughter when her dad has wet pants. I’m writing a funny novel and it’s going to come out in September because my people found a daring publisher who wants to take me on and maybe do the memoir too. My friend George read the first fifteen pages of the memoir and gave me the first glowing compliment he’s ever given. The man is from Schenectady, a very rough town where kids learn to curse by the age of five, and he is an agnostic and he is 85 and has seen everything and is not easily impressed, but he told me over the phone that he loves me. I was shocked and had to go lie down. If a Schenectadian is willing to express same-sex affection, either he is on powerful medication or you’ve done something worthwhile. A happy day to you. Spring is on the way.

e-max.it: your social media marketing partner
 
Bats Are Not Our Enemies Print
Written by <a href="index.php?option=com_comprofiler&task=userProfile&user=54381"><span class="small">Timothy Treuer, Ricardo Rocha and Cara Brook, Scientific American</span></a>   
Sunday, 17 May 2020 13:00

Excerpt: "Bats get a bad rap. From horror films to tabloid pages to Halloween, media and cultural depictions of our planet's only volant, or flying, mammals have long generated and reinforced unfounded fear."

Bats. (photo: Getty Images)
Bats. (photo: Getty Images)


Bats Are Not Our Enemies

By Timothy Treuer, Ricardo Rocha and Cara Brook, Scientific American

17 May 20


The viruses they carry spill over into humans mostly when we encroach on their territory or drag them into ours—and bats do great good as well

ats get a bad rap.

From horror films to tabloid pages to Halloween, media and cultural depictions of our planet’s only volant, or flying, mammals have long generated and reinforced unfounded fear. Their evident role as original source of the SARS-CoV-2 virus that produced the COVID-19 epidemic has exacerbated their unfortunate public image and even led to calls and active measures to cull or harass bat populations.

Such hostile attitudes make it harder to conserve bats and thereby safeguard the many critical benefits they provide us. What’s more, persecuting bats because of the diseases they harbor could easily backfire.

Before getting into that, let’s back up for a second.

THE TRUTH ABOUT BATS AND DISEASE

The kernel of truth regarding bats and disease is that the former do host an unusual variety of the latter, including viruses that can be deadly when they spill into the lives of other mammals like us. Other authors have thoughtfully covered the direct and indirect role bats played in the emergence of the likes of Ebola, Nipah and SARS. Rather than rehashing that here, we’ll just point out that recent research has suggested a reason why bats have been the source of an eyebrow-raising number of disease outbreaks. In short, the unique stress of flight may have supercharged bats’ ability to tolerate aggressive immune responses to certain pathogens, triggering the co-evolution of virulent viruses. The more pedestrian immune systems of earthbound mammals struggle to cope when those bad boy virions enter their system.

But before throwing bats out with the bathwater on the grounds of disease risk, we must consider the rich range of benefits they provide us, including several ways they keep us healthy. Bats help regenerate our forests and provide us with fertilizer. They pollinate our food plants, from mangos to agave, in total more than 300 species of crops. They also gobble up so many insect pests in fields of cacao, cotton, corn and countless other cultivated species that without them we’d see more than $3.7 billion per year in lost production in North America alone. These hungry mouths are particularly important in less economically developed countries, where a number of different species offer free-of-charge pest control services by feasting on multiple agricultural pests each.

Munching moths and other insects indirectly improves our health. The loss of bats following the spread of white-nose syndrome in the United States led to a measurable rise in infant morbidity and mortality in agricultural regions as toxic pesticide use rose to compensate for missing insectivores. Bats also eat disease-spreading nasties like mosquitoes, including the growing number of malaria-spreading Anopheles that have evolved resistance to insecticides.

Setting all that aside, culling or otherwise directly harming bats in an attempt to tamp down the risk of a future SARS or Ebola is based on faulty assumptions and may paradoxically lead to higher disease risk. Culling vampire bats to prevent rabies in Peru failed to contain the disease and may have disproportionately killed the bats that were least likely to spread the infection. In Uganda, an attempt to wipe out a large colony of Egyptian fruit bats led to a far higher incidence of Marburg virus when the site was recolonized by more susceptible individuals. Even stressing bats may lead to higher risk of disease transmission; such is the case with Hendra virus in Australian little red flying foxes.

In March, officials in Indonesia ordered the culling of captive bats in markets. There are rumors of officials in Rwanda blasting straw-colored fruit bat colonies with a firehose. These actions will have no impact on their stated purpose of helping address the current outbreak.

We are still perfecting the recipe for heading off the next zoonotic pandemic. It certainly includes a heaping portion of enhanced disease surveillance and a healthy dollop of improved public health infrastructure. Less obvious though, is the mélange of ingredients united in their requirement that we stop treating bats as some sort of sinister “other.”

First, we need a range of targeted bat conservation efforts. Spillovers happen when we encroach into their world or drag them into ours. When inadequate forest resources led Pteropus fruit bats in Bangladesh to visit date palm trees, people unwittingly drank Nipah virus along with their customary raw date palm sap. More commonly, bat viruses hop into living stepping-stones including pigs (Nipah virus), horses (Hendra virus) or camels (MERS-related coronavirus). In their native habitats, bats are very unlikely to shed these viruses into dense concentrations of domesticated animals.

With their homes in good shape, there is less need for bats to spend time in ours. Large-scale habitat restoration could decrease problematic contact between bats and people or our domesticated animals, a side perk of global reforestation efforts. We may even be able to take targeted steps like establishing artificial bat roosts and native fruit trees in appropriate settings, reducing dangerous contact while still retaining the valuable services bats provide us. Building support for all these efforts, however, is vastly more difficult if we continue demonizing bats.

More empathy for bats could bolster efforts to limit or even outright end the wildlife trade, since it’s another common way in which bats are forced into direct or indirect contact with people. Indeed, a live-animal market in Wuhan was the apparent epicenter of the early weeks of the outbreak. The fact that bats may not have been sold there illustrates the need to crack down broadly against the commercial sale of nondomesticated creatures, given the diversity of animals that can be intermediary and amplifying hosts.

At the very least, we need commonsense constraints on the most dangerous practices (such as ending the trade of live wild animals; stopping the housing of large numbers of different species in close quarters; and preventing contact between captive animals and wild bats). Thankfully, China seems to be stepping up to the plate, but preventing a black market requires curbing demand for wildlife products, a task made that much easier by better bat public relations.

Staying safe also demands continued effort to illuminate the distribution, habitat associations and population trends of the lion’s share of the 1,400 recognized bat species, not to mention the diseases they harbor. Information is particularly limited in many of the most biodiverse areas of the planet, where new emerging infectious diseases are more likely to originate. Researchers struggle to fund expeditions to collect this basic natural history data when the public’s attitude to bats is more fear and loathing than respect and admiration.

Fortunately, we have some new tools at our disposal. Modern genome sequencing methods have begun prying open a window into the previously mysterious realm of bat viromes. Modern-day swashbuckling explorers are scaling cliffs in Madagascar and scouring caves in Sierra Leone to collect samples of all sorts of bodily fluids and solids from bats, sequencing the genetic material from the viruses contained within. Some are tracking how the risk of disease tracks with the seasons, reproductive cycles and climate, while others are dusting off clinical samples from patients that presented with high fever but went undiagnosed for known diseases. (Unfortunately, one of the key groups conducting this type of research recently had its funding cut by the current administration.)

Though we laud our colleagues’ efforts and attempt to walk the walk with our own research initiatives, it is also important to remember that the way we present our science matters too. Negative media representations of bats can arise directly from the framing of academic journal articles. We scientists must emphasize the good alongside the risk, and consistently drive home the message that it’s only by knowing, accepting and even celebrating bats that we can achieve the healthiest possible future.

e-max.it: your social media marketing partner
 
FOCUS: The KKK and Georgia Cops Print
Written by <a href="index.php?option=com_comprofiler&task=userProfile&user=51099"><span class="small">Akela Lacy, The Intercept</span></a>   
Sunday, 17 May 2020 11:47

Lacy writes: "When the Georgia Bureau of Investigation announced last week that it would be probing the Glynn County Police Department's dismissal of the killing of Ahmaud Arbery, some people breathed a sigh of relief."

A young girl looks at a memorial for Ahmaud Arbery near where he was shot and killed May 8, 2020 in Brunswick, Georgia. (photo: Sean Rayford/Getty Images)
A young girl looks at a memorial for Ahmaud Arbery near where he was shot and killed May 8, 2020 in Brunswick, Georgia. (photo: Sean Rayford/Getty Images)


The KKK and Georgia Cops

By Akela Lacy, The Intercept

17 May 20

 

hen the Georgia Bureau of Investigation announced last week that it would be probing the Glynn County Police Department’s dismissal of the killing of Ahmaud Arbery, some people breathed a sigh of relief. It was a welcome development after the lynching of a 25-year-old black man, whose white killers had been walking free for 74 days — even though the entire incident was caught on tape. 

But those familiar with the GBI responded with warranted skepticism. Sure, it was a step in the right direction. But at that point, almost anything would have been. Local police and elected officials for over two months had found reasons not to arrest either of the men — Gregory and Travis McMichael — who chased and killed Arbery while he was jogging. After all, one was their former colleague. The other, his son. 

Hinesville District Attorney Tom Durden, the third prosecutor to take on the case, formally requested the GBI’s assistance on May 5. It was a critical moment: The disturbing graphic video of Arbery’s death had been broadcast on national television and shared thousands of times, following revelations that the Glynn County Police Department, where Gregory McMichael once worked, and local district attorneys had gone to great lengths to smear Arbery’s name and protect his killers. The public outcry that followed is the reason the McMichaels were arrested at all. 

The GBI — which is generally revered throughout the state and is often brought in to investigate police-involved shootings of current or former officers, like Gregory McMichael, to get around conflicts of interest — has repeatedly been accused of mishandling such investigations — in some cases intentionally. The agency has botched cases in which the investigating officers appeared to be motivated by racism, leading to wrongful convictions. The agency has also repeatedly failed to hold accountable and break up powerful networks of officers who broke laws in the course of their work — causing and covering up overwhelming violence. 

In Georgia, where the Klu Klux Klan once infiltrated every level of law enforcement, racism can play a role in violent crimes and the way they are investigated. Arbery’s case is no different: There are clear parallels to the lynch mobs that routinely chased, tortured, and murdered black Americans from the time of slavery through the 1960s. Between 1877 and 1950, more than 4,000 black people in the U.S. — including 589 people in Georgia — were killed in lynchings. The KKK’s stranglehold over Georgia’s law enforcement apparatus decades ago laid the groundwork for a historically deadly relationship between the cops, white people, and black people. The white supremacist underpinnings of U.S. law enforcement continue to echo throughout the country, as shown by the multiple other police-involved shootings and others murders that have taken place since Arbery was killed — and are being covered up and drowned out during the ongoing pandemic. 

Some lawyers in the state are optimistic that the GBI’s new director, former Cobb County DA and Chief Magistrate Judge Vic Reynolds, will give the case the attention it deserves. Still, a closer look at the agency’s record raises questions about whether it can be trusted to do so.

“There are communities that absolutely are skeptical about whether the GBI or whether any law enforcement agency is going to adequately investigate its law enforcement brethren,” Jon Rapping, a professor and director of the criminal justice certificate program at Atlanta’s John Marshall Law School, told The Intercept. “That suspicion undoubtedly is going to create a lot of skepticism about whether the GBI is going to do justice in this case.”

The KKK and Georgia Cops

The history of the GBI, established in 1937, is interwoven with the history of the Ku Klux Klan, which was a terrorizing force in Georgia in the mid-20th century. One of the earliest directors of the GBI, who later served as an Atlanta police officer, Sam Roper, was a local Klan leader when he took over the GBI after former Georgia Gov. Gene Talmadge won another reelection in 1946. Roper, whose links to the agency have been all but wiped from public records, later recruited Klan members into his police department, Frederick Allen wrote in the 1996 book, “Atlanta Rising.” Roper campaigned in support of Talmadge’s 1946 reelection and planned to install Klan members in “every Georgia County and pay him $125 a month to ‘assist’ the local sheriff” after Talmadge won, Allen wrote. Roper left the GBI shortly afterward and became an Imperial Wizard of the KKK in 1949

Stetson Kennedy, a human rights activist famous for infiltrating the Klan in the 1940s, wrote in his 1990 book that when Klan leader David Duke asked him who was “running the Klan now,” he told Duke that it was the GBI’s former director, Roper. “I know Roper all right!” Duke said. 

Over the years, including in one unsolved 1946 lynching case currently under plans for appeal to the U.S. Supreme Court, the GBI and other Georgia law enforcement agencies have been accused of improperly handling investigations, including those related to Klan-linked killings. In more recent history, the agency has failed to hold police accountable for deadly violence — or for detaining, arresting, and extrajudicially killing people, many of whom were bystanders. (Just last year, the GBI investigated 84 cases of officer-involved shootings, the Atlanta Journal-Constitution reported. The agency does not track officers who were disciplined or charged in those cases.) 

In two recent cases that cost local governments over $3 million in settlements, the GBI failed to adequately investigate a narcotics task force that conducted a violent 2014 raid that put an infant in a burn unit under a medically induced coma, and killed a reverend in 2009. In both cases, the GBI cleared agents of wrongdoing, even blaming the reverend for his own killing. In the case of  the 2014 raid, which the GBI at the time denied that the local task force had approved — the agency, a former district attorney, and a grand jury failed to find “what the feds found — that this entire raid was based on a series of lies,” wrote Washington Post columnist Radley Balko. In the case of the reverend, in which the GBI investigated and cleared agents of wrongdoing and said they followed appropriate procedures, his family eventually won a $2.3 million settlement against the officer who shot him. These cases left Balko with the following conclusion: “The Georgia Bureau of Investigation probably shouldn’t be trusted to conduct unbiased, thorough investigations of other law enforcement officers.” 

The GBI and Wrongful Convictions

The GBI has a mixed record in cases involving wrongful convictions, sometimes failing to pursue obvious leads or otherwise mishandling an investigation. In 1979, testimony from a GBI agent helped send John White to prison for a rape, burglary, and robbery that he did not commit. Later, GBI helped with White’s exoneration; he was released in 2007 after serving more than 20 years of a life sentence. 

In the case of Kerry Robinson, who was released in January on a wrongful conviction after serving close to 18 years of a 20-year sentence, a GBI DNA analyst provided “inaccurate and overstated testimony,” according to the Georgia Innocence Project.

Perhaps the most troubling of recent examples is the 1999 wrongful indictment of Devonia Inman, whose case is the subject of a podcast and a series of articles by The Intercept’s Liliana Segura and Jordan Smith. Inman has been in prison since the day before his 23rd birthday for the murder of Donna Brown, even though the GBI has matched DNA found at the scene of the crime to another man. The person whose DNA the GBI identified went on to kill at least two other people and is currently serving a federal life sentence without parole. 

Like with Arbery, the GBI’s involvement in Inman’s case was initially seen as a step in the right direction. In the early 2000s, the GBI was ahead of local police regarding access to new DNA technology and “routinely” took over cases in South Georgia’s rural towns, The Intercept reported

Inman’s is “a story about racism, bad policing, and people who looked the other way,” Segura and Smith say in the “Murderville” podcast. Much of the same can be said of Arbery’s. 

The Arbery Case

The GBI entered Arbery’s case after Brunswick-area police dismissed it, and one prosecutor deemed the killing “perfectly legal.”

Having reviewed the tape, Waycross Judicial Circuit District Attorney George Barnhill the day after the killing told the first prosecuting attorney’s office that he thought it was justified, AJC reported. The two district attorneys, including Brunswick DA Jackie Johnson, recused themselves from the case — McMichael had worked under Johnson’s direction with Barnhill’s son to prosecute Arbery two years ago. 

In a widely circulated letter from April 1 to the Glynn County police captain, Barnhill said he saw no grounds to arrest the McMichaels, that Arbery was “aggressive” and capable of the crime, and that his family was “not strangers to the local criminal justice system,” using the deceased’s mental health and a previous conviction to paint that picture. Michael Mears, an associate professor at Atlanta’s John Marshall Law School, said more scrutiny should be put on both prosecutors, particularly Johnson, who has protected violent police officers in other cases.

The attempts to smear Arbery continued after the video of his killing was released. When one video showed Arbery at a home under construction in the neighborhood, right-wing and even some mainstream outlets used it in an attempt to support the McMichaels’s claim that they believed Arbery was a suspect in a string of burglaries. Those looking to justify his killing used the opportunity to try to poke holes in the shooting video. 

Georgia criminal defense attorneys are approaching the GBI’s involvement in the Arbery case with cautious optimism, drawing contrasts to its controversial past and pointing to Vic Reynolds, the agency’s new director, who has made public assurances that the investigation, and the organization as a whole, would operate professionally. 

When asked why people should trust the GBI to hold its own accountable in this case, and what the agency has done recently to combat suspicion given its record in cases detailed above, Nelly Miles, a GBI spokesperson, pointed to Reynolds’s May 9 press conference, where he recounted how the agency moved swiftly to arrest the McMichaels and said he understood concerns from the community and across the country as to whether others would be charged. “I will tell you that this case is an active, ongoing investigation,” Reynolds said.

Another factor differentiating the Arbery case from GBI’s usual docket, two lawyers told The Intercept, is that the agency is tasked with holding accountable the network of people who covered up and dismissed Arbery’s killing, not just those who actually carried it out. 

“I think everyone was relieved to see the GBI get involved,” said criminal defense attorney Page Pate, “just because they didn’t have direct relationships with the potential suspects in the case.” 

The Long Road to Justice

Georgia’s need to grapple with Arbery’s killing comes against the backdrop of a long and dark history violence against black people in Georgia — including decades-old lynchings that remain unsolved.

A 1946 case involving a summer ambush and murder of two black couples, Mae and George Dorsey, and Roger and Dorothy Malcom, who were shot more than 60 times, their bodies further mutilated after being left at an unsecured crime scene, is one example. No one was ever prosecuted for the lynching, which the GBI and FBI deemed a cold case. An eyewitness who was 10 years old at the time said a Georgia police officer participated in the killing, and that he saw a police patrol car at the bridge when it happened, the AJC reported in 2017. Investigators never verified his claim — even as the FBI convened a 16-day grand jury and conducted 2,790 interviews.

Journalist Anthony Pitch in 2016 wrote an exhaustive book on the case, “The Last Lynching: How a Gruesome Mass Murder Rocked a Small Georgia Town,” replete with examples of relationships between the 1946 grand jurors and people who testified before them. (1946 was also the first year that black people could vote in Georgia’s Democratic gubernatorial primary. Maceo Snipes was the only black person to vote that day in his district, and the first ever in Taylor County. The next day, men thought to be members of the Klu Klux Klan found him at his grandfather’s farmhouse and shot him. His shooter was acquitted on claims of self-defense, and the federal investigation was closed in 2010.)   

In March of this year, a federal court ruled that the records in the case must remain under seal. The attorney on the case, who took it up at Pitch’s request, is planning to appeal it to the U.S. Supreme Court. 

The legal system at the time made it fairly easy for lynchings to continue unpunished. In 1938, eight years before the lynching that Pitch would later describe as Georgia’s last, the state’s two Democratic senators successfully tanked a federal anti-lynching bill that, with 70 sponsors, had some potential. Sen. Richard Russell, a former governor who had also stymied an earlier version of the bill, said the proposal was a top priority of the Communist agenda, lynching was on its way out, and that the law would portray an image to the world that Southerners were “a clan of barbarians,” Pitch wrote in his book. 

More than 80 years later, even as public consciousness has grown around state-sanctioned anti-black violence, Congress continues to debate anti-lynching measures. Largely symbolic, the bills would establish a new federal criminal civil rights violation and subsequent penalties for lynching. One passed the Senate on a voice vote early last year, and another passed the House in February. 

Still, little has been done to hold perpetrators of racist violence accountable. Even in highly publicized cases of killings of black people in recent years, few people have been held responsible. 

“I don’t think what happened in the Arbery case is necessarily that unusual. I think a light was shined on it, and it was exposed,” said Rapping of John Marshall. “And I think bringing the GBI in was an attempt to put a lid on a pot that was bubbling over.”

e-max.it: your social media marketing partner
 
<< Start < Prev 481 482 483 484 485 486 487 488 489 490 Next > End >>

Page 483 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