07 October 20
Barely a Trickle of Donations, What Gives Folks?
Our readership is humming right along, but the donations are at a crawl.
This organization does everything it was ever intended to do. The reader donations allow us to do that.
“Reasonable” support is all it has ever taken.
Marc Ash
Founder, Reader Supported News
If you would prefer to send a check:
Reader Supported News
PO Box 2043
Citrus Hts, CA 95611
07 October 20
It's Live on the HomePage Now:
Reader Supported News
Dahlia Lithwick and Mark Joseph Stern | This Supreme Court Term Will End With Either Catastrophe or 13 Justices
Dahlia Lithwick and Mark Joseph Stern, Slate
Excerpt: "When Republicans gathered at the White House on Sept. 26 to celebrate the nomination of Amy Coney Barrett to the Supreme Court, they placed themselves at the epicenter of a likely superspreader event."
If Amy Coney Barrett is seated before the election, Democrats will need to act quickly.
hen Republicans gathered at the White House on Sept. 26 to celebrate the nomination of Amy Coney Barrett to the Supreme Court, they placed themselves at the epicenter of a likely superspreader event. Several senators in attendance—in addition to the president, the first lady, Chris Christie, and multiple GOP operatives—reported COVID-19 infections in the following days. Trump remains hospitalized while key Republicans on the Senate Judiciary Committee are in quarantine. Yet on Friday, Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell insisted that he will move “full steam ahead” with confirmation hearings to install Barrett on the Supreme Court, even if that means endangering themselves and Senate staff. McConnell understands they’ll have to act fast to make it happen.
Democrats, meanwhile, have been slow to catch up. At the first debate between Joe Biden and Donald Trump, Biden refused to say whether he’d expand the Supreme Court if Republicans confirm Barrett, insisting that the issue is a “distraction.” He’s wrong. Broaching the conversation about systemic reform after the election will be too late. And the coming Supreme Court term, which begins Monday, reflects just some of what’s at stake, this week, this month, and in the months ahead. The debate about structural changes to the court can’t wait until a hypothetical future in which everything has settled down. That future has already vanished.
On the docket just in the weeks to come, there is a blockbuster case that seeks to put a stake through the heart of the Affordable Care Act, in the midst of a pandemic—a challenge Barrett would seem to favor. Also on the docket is a case about a Philadelphia foster care agency that refuses to work with same-sex couples and claims that it constitutes religious discrimination if the city refuses to subsidize it with taxpayer dollars. In case that weren’t enough, the court may also hear a case that could strip same-sex couples of equal parenting rights. Moving from religion to guns, the court has been itching to expand the Second Amendment, and Barrett has made plain that she would go further than even most conservative judges to permit guns. The court will also hear a case that could kill off what’s left of the Voting Rights Act. Plus, there are multiple reproductive freedom cases hurtling toward the court, many from states that have already overruled Roe v. Wade in practice: outright abortion bans, sham regulations designed to shutter clinics, medically unnecessary restrictions on medication abortions. All that, plus an election in which the court may pick the next president and further restrict voting rights. And did we mention a census case that could strip congressional representation from states with large immigrant populations?
If a 6–3 conservative majority decides all these cases, they would swiftly transform American life and put millions in danger. By the end of this term, SCOTUS could revoke more than 20 million Americans’ health insurance and legalize odious discrimination against same-sex couples. It could not just greenlight abortion bans but allow states to prosecute women who terminate their pregnancies. It could abolish dozens of states’ gun safety laws, further flooding our communities with weapons of war. And as the cherry on top, the court could throw the election to Trump, then rubber-stamp his plan to manipulate the census to further entrench Republican power in Congress.
In the face of these impending calamities for democracy, Democrats have a binary choice. They can accept the legitimacy of a court whose membership has been yanked far to the right by Republicans’ anti-democratic schemes. Or they could add seats to the court and spare the country from the Sarlacc pit into which it’s poised to tumble.
Democrats are hesitant to talk about expanding the Supreme Court, preferring to focus on the fight against Amy Coney Barrett. But her confirmation now seems all but inevitable, and progressives are urging Democrats to start considering their counterattack. Senate Minority Leader Chuck Schumer has said that “nothing is off the table next year” if Republicans ram Barrett through the Senate, a vague gesture toward at least the possibility of court expansion. Sen. Joe Manchin, a moderate Democrat, has disavowed it altogether. Joe Biden has tried to split the difference: He generally refuses to talk about court expansion but has implied that he opposes it—for now. “We need to deescalate, not escalate,” Biden said on Sept. 20. “That’s why I appeal to those few Senate Republicans, the handful who really will decide what happens.”
Because court expansion remains relatively unpopular among the American public, a cautious approach makes sense in this political moment. But in the longer term, it is a recipe for disaster. Say Democrats decide against expanding the court after Barrett’s confirmation, instead choosing to pass their progressive agenda and then wait a few years to see whether the new 6–3 conservative majority strikes it down. Due to the slow pace of litigation, the Supreme Court might not consider the constitutionality of Democratic measures until Republicans have retaken the Senate.
Consider the Affordable Care Act saga. The Supreme Court first ruled on the ACA’s constitutionality 27 months after it was signed into law. It came one vote away from invalidating the entire law. And while the justices let most of the law survive, they kneecapped its most crucial component, Medicaid expansion, by making it optional, a compromise that has cost thousands of lives. More than 10 years after the law’s passage, a dozen states still haven’t expanded Medicaid. Then, in 2016—six years after the ACA’s passage—the Supreme Court came two votes away from sending the law into a death spiral. Today, the court may yet again be on the brink of eradicating the entire act. Judicial time is glacial, yes, but it also means that—like light from a faraway star—what happens in the courts can take years to travel to Earth. But this isn’t starlight, it’s a meteor.
That means that even if Democrats win Congress and the White House, then pass ambitious laws, this cycle will play out over the next few years. Essentially all of their priorities are extremely vulnerable to invalidation at the hands of an ultra-conservative 6–3 court. The Democrats’ bill on ethics, voting rights, and redistricting reform would probably be strangled by this judiciary. Their attempt to grant statehood to the District of Columbia could founder on the shoals of a ridiculous constitutional theory. Any effort to expand the ACA would be suspect, as would efforts to limit carbon emissions. The leading plans to protect abortion rights if SCOTUS overturns Roe v. Wade would get eviscerated by the courts. After years of health care litigation, it is painfully clear that conservative justices will embrace frivolous legal arguments that the vast majority of lawyers find meritless to reach their preferred policy outcomes. This coming term, we will see the beginning of that, with a few strategic defections in a handful of cases, but a steady and marked trend toward clawing back Democrats’ efforts to protect the vote, protect the planet, and expand protections for workers and vulnerable communities. We will see a systematic effort to deregulate big businesses, constrain federal agencies, undo gun control, and loosen protections for women’s health. That is coming and it is coming sooner than you may think.
If Democrats plan to expand the court, then, they have to do it quickly. They must strike before the conservative supermajority has a chance to undermine them. If they wait for sufficient provocation, give this a few years to play out in the judicial branch, they will simply see their agenda torn to shreds by the court two years later, after Republicans have wrestled back the Senate. Court expansion is not a hypothetical response to some future SCOTUS outrage. It is a proportional response to Republicans’ constitutional hardball—and a necessary precursor to any meaningful Democratic reform.
Is there a political cost to announcing that Democrats plan to play constitutional hardball, effective immediately, whether it be scaring off moderate voters or emboldening Mitch McConnell to implement these selfsame ideas if he still controls the Senate come January? Sure there is. But the cost of hanging around for a few years, hoping that statesmanship and comity rise like a phoenix from the ash heap of the Senate is far greater, the equivalent of bringing a sparkly pony to a knife fight. The court is already lost for a generation. Retaking the White House and the Senate in November will do nothing to solve that problem. Bold and big action on court reform on Day One of a new administration isn’t a fanciful hope. It may be the only lifeline that remains.
Trump's Supreme Court nominee Amy Coney Barrett. (photo: Anna Moneymaker/AP)
Amy Coney Barrett Served as a 'Handmaid' in Christian Group People of Praise
Emma Brown, Jon Swaine and Michelle Boorstein, The Washington Post
Excerpt: "While Supreme Court nominee Amy Coney Barrett has faced questions about how her Catholic faith might influence her jurisprudence, she has not spoken publicly about her involvement in People of Praise, a small Christian group founded in the 1970s and based in South Bend, Ind."
Barrett, a federal appellate judge, has disclosed serving on the board of a network of private Christian schools affiliated with the group. The organization, however, has declined to confirm that she is a member. In recent years, it removed from its website editions of a People of Praise magazine — first those that included her name and photograph and then all archives of the magazine itself.
Barrett has had an active role in the organization, as have her parents, according to documents and interviews that help fill out a picture of her involvement with a group that keeps its teachings and gatherings private.
A 2010 People of Praise directory states that she held the title of “handmaid,” a leadership position for women in the community, according to a directory excerpt obtained by The Washington Post.
Also, while in law school, Barrett lived at the South Bend home of People of Praise’s influential co-founder Kevin Ranaghan and his wife, Dorothy, who together helped establish the group’s male-dominated hierarchy and view of gender roles. The group was one of many to grow out of the charismatic Christian movement, which sought a more intense and communal religious experience by embracing such practices as shared living, faith healing and speaking in tongues.
Barrett’s ties to the group, which has conservative stances on the role of women in society and other social issues, did not come to light until after she was questioned by senators considering her nomination to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 7th Circuit in 2017. Senators are preparing to question her next week over her nomination to the high court.
Barrett has said that judges are not policymakers and that she does not impose her personal convictions on the law.
Responding to questions about Barrett’s membership in People of Praise and her tenure as handmaid, Sean Connolly, a spokesman for the group, said: “Like many religious communities, People of Praise leaves it up to its members to decide whether to publicly disclose their involvement in our community.”
White House spokesman Judd Deere called Barrett an “independent jurist with an exceptional record” and called The Post’s questions offensive.
The title of handmaid was adopted by People of Praise in reference to the biblical description of Mary as “the handmaid of the Lord,” according to the group.
Former members including Art Wang, a member from the late 1980s until 2015, told The Post that handmaids, now known as “women leaders,” give advice to other women on issues such as child rearing and marriage.
But the role did not carry authority equivalent to positions held by men in the group’s formal hierarchy, the former members said. The community is led by an overall coordinator and a board of governors. They oversee coordinators of each branch across the country, who in turn oversee coordinators of areas within the branches.
In 2010, Barrett was one of three handmaids in the South Bend branch’s northwest area, according to the directory obtained by The Post. She and 10 other area handmaids were overseen by the branch’s principal handmaid.
Barrett’s position was in keeping with her family’s prior service in the community. Her mother, Linda Coney, served in the New Orleans branch as a handmaid, the Associated Press previously reported, and her father, Michael Coney, led that branch as principal coordinator and sat on the national group’s all-male board of governors.
Connolly said in an email that the group replaced the title of handmaids with “women leaders” in 2017.
Connolly said in a 2018 statement that the title was dropped out of a recognition that its meaning had “shifted dramatically in our culture in recent years.” The phrase took on a particular meaning in popular culture after Margaret Atwood’s dystopian 1985 novel “The Handmaid’s Tale” was adapted for television in 2017. Atwood said in a tweet last month that she was inspired by “a different but similar” group.
Women leaders “help other women who are seeking advice and guidance” and lead retreats and events, Connolly said in the email, adding that they are “appointed after consultation with members of a branch.”
'Much more intense'
People of Praise was established in 1971 by Ranaghan and Paul DeCelles, then young academics at the University of Notre Dame. It was formed as a “covenant community,” in which members looking for close community promise to abide by a common agreement.
While People of Praise is open to all Christians, the vast majority are Catholic, like Barrett. At the time the group was founded, many denominations — including the Catholic Church — looked warily at groups that adopted different practices and created insular, separate communities. That wariness has largely subsided.
People of Praise now claims about 1,700 members in 22 cities in the United States, Canada and the Caribbean.
At its formation, People of Praise wanted “to have a more intense Christian community,” said the Rev. James Connelly, a historian of religion based at the University of Notre Dame who was close to some early members. “They wanted to talk about religion, spiritual life, their experiences, to do things together that might not be to the average person’s liking. Not just Mass on Sunday, but something much more intense.”
The community was led by men, who taught members to run their families according to their interpretation of biblical views of gender roles, according to former members and group documents.
“Women were homemakers; they were there to support their husbands,” one former member said in an interview. “My dad was the head of the household and the decision-maker.”
A person who was raised in the community said she was instructed by elders not to “emasculate” her male peers by getting the better of them in conversation. “I was made aware of the difference from a young age,” the person said. “I was aware that it would have been better if I had been born a boy.”
The people spoke on the condition of anonymity to speak about their experiences because they feared negative consequences for members they care about who remain active in People of Praise.
Connolly said that telling girls not to seem smarter than boys does not align with People of Praise teachings.
A 1986 community handbook obtained by The Post said each member is “personally accountable to God for his or her decisions,” but also emphasized “obedience to authority and submission to headship.”
Members are typically assigned a “head” to give them spiritual leadership and guidance on life matters such as buying a car or finding a romantic partner. Younger men and women are led by older members of the same sex, according to former members, but husbands typically take over as “heads” for their wives following marriage.
Men’s “headship” of their wives, and the male-dominated governance of the community, has been the basis of accusations from some critics of Barrett that People of Praise is built on the sexist expectation that women defer to men.
The summer 2015 issue of People of Praise’s magazine, Vine & Branches, featured an article titled “Holiness in Marriage,” which it said was based on a talk given to women in the community in the 1980s by Jeanne DeCelles, wife of co-founder Paul DeCelles.
“Make it a joy for him to head you,” Jeanne DeCelles said, according to the article. “It is important for you to verbalize your commitment to submission. . . . Tell him what you think about things, make your input, but let him make the decisions, and support them once they are made.”
Connolly said every People of Praise member is responsible for his or her own decisions. “In the People of Praise we live by the Gospel of Jesus Christ, which recognizes that men and women share a fundamental equality as bearers of God’s image and sons and daughters of God,” he said. “We value independent thinking, and teach it in our schools.”
The group declined to make current members available for interview, and some members reached by The Post declined to comment.
John Fea, a prominent historian of U.S. religion at Messiah University, said Barrett would be the first Supreme Court justice to come from a charismatic Christian background.
Fea said he believes it is fair for senators to ask Barrett how she views the blending of her small, insular community and a job judging for a nation. But he said People of Praise’s belief in distinct gender roles is similar to what is lived and preached across much of America today, in faiths as different as Catholicism, the Southern Baptist Convention and orthodox Islam and Judaism.
He said that believing men should be the spiritual leaders of the family does not mean that women cannot be professionally ambitious. “Everything about Amy Coney Barrett’s career contradicts the idea that women in People of Praise can’t have careers or be successful,” he said.
When President Trump introduced Barrett as his nominee in the White House Rose Garden on Sept. 26, Barrett described her own husband as doing “far more than his share of the work” in raising their seven children.
“To my chagrin, I learned at dinner recently that my children consider him to be the better cook,” she said. “For 21 years, Jesse has asked me every single morning what he can do for me that day. And though I almost always say, ‘Nothing,’ he still finds ways to take things off my plate.”
Since its earliest days, some People of Praise members have lived in communal homes or lodged with elders before marrying. Former members said this was a way for older members to show a model of family life. Over the years, multiple members stayed at the Ranaghans’ nine-bedroom house in South Bend, often while studying at Notre Dame and after graduating, former members said.
Barrett lived with the Ranaghans when she was a Notre Dame law student, according to a person who knew her at the time.
“Let’s just say it was one of the better experiences of our life. She is just a gem. But I don’t feel comfortable talking right now,” Dorothy Ranaghan told the Guardian, which first reported the fact that Barrett lived with the Ranaghans on Tuesday.
Kevin Ranaghan, a theology scholar and teacher, was already a major figure in charismatic Catholicism, speaking internationally and hosting prayer events at Notre Dame that drew hundreds and sometimes thousands of people in the movement’s early years.
Dorothy Ranaghan, a former high school religion teacher, co-wrote two books on charismatic Christianity with her husband in the years around People of Praise’s founding.
She lamented the impact of modern feminism in a 1991 essay that said “the basic differences between men and women should be respected and given cultural expression” and promoted the traditional roles of husbands as decision-makers and wives as homemakers, even as women pursue professional ambitions.
“The wife for her part is called to submit to her husband, not as a slave, but as a companion,” Ranaghan wrote, while stressing that there was “no room here for domination, oppression or of thinking of her as less than a full and free human person.” The Post obtained a copy of the essay from a former People of Praise member.
The essay also criticized a magazine for Girl Scout leaders as presenting an “overly aggressive idealization of girls and women.”
After Barrett graduated from law school in 1997, she worked in D.C. as an intern and then as a judicial clerk, according to biographical details she has submitted to the Senate.
Meanwhile, her future husband, Jesse Barrett — whose family also had long ties to People of Praise, according to an obituary he wrote for his grandfather — remained in South Bend to finish law school. In a court record for a February 1998 speeding offense, Jesse Barrett’s address is listed as the Ranaghans’ home.
Jesse graduated in 1999 and married Amy later that year.
Kevin Ranaghan referred interview requests in recent days to Connolly, and on Tuesday he and his wife did not respond to questions about Amy Coney Barrett’s time living with their family.
A Web purge
Questions about Barrett’s Catholic faith in 2017 prompted a backlash from conservative critics, who accused Democratic senators of trying to impose an unconstitutional religious test on a judicial nominee.
Barrett did not mention her membership in People of Praise in response to questions from the Senate about groups with which she has been affiliated, either that year or in conjunction with her current nomination.
Recent Supreme Court nominees have not listed their houses of worship among the organizations to which they belong. People of Praise says on its own website that it is not a church but a “Christian community” whose members come from more than a dozen Christian denominations and churches.
But some have reported participation in organizations that have religious associations. When he was nominated to the Supreme Court by Trump in 2018, Brett M. Kavanaugh reported having volunteered for Catholic Charities, a philanthropic arm of the Archdiocese of Washington. And Barrett reported that she served on the board of directors of Trinity Schools, a group of independent Christian schools in South Bend; Eagan, Minn.; and Falls Church, Va. She did not mention that Trinity was established by People of Praise and requires directors to be members of the group.
Numerous references to Barrett and her family that previously appeared on People of Praise’s official website have since disappeared from the site, according to a Post review of versions of the site that are hosted by the Internet Archive.
Links to at least 10 issues of Vine & Branches that included mentions of Barrett or members of her family were removed from the site during the first half of 2017, the review found. On May 8, 2017, Barrett was nominated by Trump to serve as a judge on the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 7th Circuit.
In one of the removed issues, from May 2006, Barrett was pictured at the group’s 2006 Leaders Conference for Women in South Bend. An accompanying article described the gathering as “three days of talks, sharings and conversations, all of which revealed the explosive power of love.”
Other issues of the magazine that disappeared from the site included announcements of the births of some of Barrett’s children and articles that mentioned relatives of Barrett and her husband, Jesse.
The section of the People of Praise website that for years featured a gallery of links to full issues of the magazine dating back 14 years was removed from the site altogether soon after Supreme Court Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg’s death last month, the archives show.
Connolly said the changes to the website were made “after discussions with members and nonmembers raised privacy concerns with the heightened media attention.”
Stephen Miller walks on the South Lawn of the White House in July after returning from a trip to Morrisville, N.C. (photo: Alex Wong/Getty)
White House Adviser Stephen Miller Tests Positive for the Coronavirus
Alana Wise, NPR
Wise writes: "White House adviser Stephen Miller has tested positive for the coronavirus, the White House press office told NPR, days after President Trump and several others at the White House have also tested positive for the virus."
READ MORE
Dr. William Foege, a physician and epidemiologist, received the Medal of Freedom in 2012. He called on Dr. Robert R. Redfield, the C.D.C. director, to admit to the administration’s pandemic failures. (photo: Kevin Lamarque/Reuters)
"It Is a Slaughter": Infectious Disease Icon Asks CDC Director to Expose White House, Orchestrate His Own Firing
Brett Murphy and Letitia Stein, USA TODAY
Excerpt: "A former director of the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention and public health titan who led the eradication of smallpox asked the embattled, current CDC leader to expose the failed U.S. response to the new coronavirus, calling on him to orchestrate his own firing to protest White House interference."
Dr. William Foege, a renowned epidemiologist who served under Democratic and Republican presidents, detailed in a private letter he sent last month to CDC director Dr. Robert Redfield his alarm over how the agency has fallen in stature while the pandemic raged across America.
Foege, who has not previously been a vocal critic of the agency's handling of the novel coronavirus, called on Redfield to openly address the White House’s meddling in the agency’s efforts to manage the COVID-19 crisis and then accept the political sacrifice that would follow. He recommended that Redfield commit to writing the administration's failures — and his own — so there was a record that could not be dismissed.
“You could upfront, acknowledge the tragedy of responding poorly, apologize for what has happened and your role in acquiescing,” Foege wrote to Redfield. He added that simply resigning without coming clean would be insufficient. “Don’t shy away from the fact this has been an unacceptable toll on our country. It is a slaughter and not just a political dispute.”
The CDC did not immediately respond to a request for Redfield's response. Redfield, an HIV/AIDS expert and former military physician, lacked experience running a public health agency when Trump selected him to head the CDC in 2018.
White House spokesman Judd Deere did not respond to the contents of the letter but said in a statement that the CDC has not been compromised. "This dishonest narrative that the media and Democrats have created that politics is influencing decisions is not only false but is a danger to the American public," Deere said.
Foege's Sept. 23 letter, which was obtained by USA TODAY and has not been previously reported, is a striking condemnation from a legendary public health figure who has spent decades helping prevent the spread of diseases while earning the respect of peers.
In an interview, Foege said he felt compelled to write to Redfield after the White House appointed Dr. Scott Atlas to the coronavirus task force, even though he is not an infectious disease expert.
The Washington Post and other outlets have reported that Atlas has endorsed the controversial strategy of herd immunity, although Atlas has denied doing so. Nevertheless, such reports prompted Foege, who helped successfully steer India away from such a strategy during the smallpox epidemic, to reach out to Redfield.
Now Foege sees an opportunity for Redfield to help the U.S. to turn around its response to COVID-19 if he helps implement the lessons learned from decades of fighting pandemics.
“So much of this is the deaths. It's the deaths,” Foege told USA TODAY, noting that he did not want the letter to become public for fears that it may create a political sideshow and add to Redfield’s burden.
“Going public can only embarrass him and it doesn't allow him to redeem himself,” Foege said, explaining his motivations. “By doing this privately, he has a chance to do the right thing.”
Foege’s opinion carries extraordinary weight within a public health community that credits him with decades of accomplishments even beyond the eradication of smallpox. His public health credentials include helping to improve millions of lives with his work to eliminate guinea worm disease and river blindness as executive director of the Carter Center. He also helped to shape the public health efforts of the Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation.
In 2012, President Barack Obama awarded him the Presidential Medal of Freedom for his contributions.
Nancy Cox, former director of the CDC’s influenza division, who worked at the agency for 37 years, told USA TODAY that Foege crystallized how many scientists and experts are feeling.
“The fact that Bill Foege went to the trouble to write this is a testament to how much he values the reputation of the CDC,” Cox said after reviewing the letter, “and how concerned he is that the reputation is being besmirched by what is happening.”
Dr. Tom Frieden, also a former CDC director, said Foege is not known for being especially partisan, having served in both the Carter and Reagan administrations. Frieden called him the “best CDC director in history.”
“Bill Foege is the Babe Ruth of public health,” said Frieden, now the president and CEO of Resolve to Save Lives, an initiative aimed at preventing deaths from cardiovascular disease and epidemics. “Bill Foege really is in a league of his own in terms of accomplishment and is revered with reason by essentially everyone in the public health field.”
Foege's letter to Redfield lamented how the CDC’s scientific experts have been rendered impotent during the most significant health crisis in a century while decades of experience have been ignored.
“This will go down as a colossal failure of the public health system of this country,” Foege wrote. “The biggest challenge in a century and we let the country down. The public health texts of the future will use this as a lesson on how not to handle an infectious disease pandemic.”
Foege added that the CDC's scientific reputation was tainted under White House pressure, citing examples such as publishing official guidance not rooted in science.
“The White House has had no hesitation to blame and disgrace CDC, you and state governors,” he wrote. “They will blame you for the disaster. In six months, they have caused CDC to go from gold to tarnished brass.”
Foege also described how morale among the agency’s staff had broken down. “At the moment, they feel you accepted the White House orders without sufficient resistance,” he wrote. “You have a short window to change things.”
In his letter, Foege called on Redfield to take a strong, public stance against the White House and accept that he would lose his job as a result.
“When they fire you, this will be a multi-week story and you can hold your head high. That will take exceptional courage on your part,” Foege wrote in closing. “I can't tell you what to do except to revisit your religious beliefs and ask yourself what is right.”
Foege, in his interview with USA TODAY, said he’d like to see the CDC reclaim its leadership role from the White House.
“Dr. Redfield could still be a savior in all of this,” he said.
Members of conspiracy theorist group QAnon demonstrate in Los Angeles. (photo: Kyle Grillot/Getty)
Facebook to Ban QAnon-Themed Groups, Pages and Accounts in Crackdown
Julia Carrie Wong, Guardian UK
Wong writes: "Facebook will ban any groups, pages or Instagram accounts that 'represent' QAnon, the company announced Tuesday, in a sharp escalation of its attempt to crack down on the antisemitic conspiracy movement that has thrived on its platform." VVVVVVV
Policy update comes after the company’s initial attempt failed to stem misinformation and harm from the conspiracy movement
acebook will ban any groups, pages or Instagram accounts that “represent” QAnon, the company announced Tuesday, in a sharp escalation of its attempt to crack down on the antisemitic conspiracy movement that has thrived on its platform.
The policy will apply to groups, pages or Instagram accounts whose names or descriptions suggest that they are dedicated to the QAnon movement, a Facebook spokesperson explained. It will not apply to individual content, nor to individual Instagram users who post frequently about QAnon but do not explicitly identify themselves as representing the QAnon movement.
The new, broader ban represents the second update to Facebook’s policy against QAnon in less than two months, and signals that the company’s initial efforts were insufficient to curb the spread of a movement that has been identified as a potential domestic terror threat by the FBI.
Just two months ago, Facebook had no policy on QAnon, which is a baseless internet conspiracy theory whose followers believe, without evidence, that Donald Trump is waging a secret battle against an elite global cabal of child-traffickers.
The conspiracy theory began on the niche image boards 4chan and 8chan, but exploded in popularity on Facebook and Instagram in recent months. Facebook’s recommendation algorithms encouraged cross-pollination between QAnon communities and groups dedicated to anti-vaccine or anti-mask activism, Trump, New Age spirituality and wellness, among others.
The growing movement, which has its roots in antisemitic conspiracy theories such as the Protocols of the Elders of Zion, is increasingly influential among Republican voters and politicians. Trump has praised QAnon followers and refused to debunk its false claims. The movement has co-opted the hashtags #SaveTheChildren and #SaveOurChildren in a highly successful rebranding effort that helped introduce QAnon ideas to new audiences.
Facebook’s first attempt at a crackdown came on 19 August, when the company announced a host of restrictions on QAnon-promoting accounts that stopped short of an outright ban. Under those rules, in addition to removing QAnon groups from recommendation algorithms, Facebook said it would ban QAnon-themed groups, pages or Instagram accounts if they discussed potential violence. This led to the removal of more than 1,500 Facebook groups and pages, the company said Tuesday.
“We’ve been vigilant in enforcing our policy and studying its impact on the platform but we’ve seen several issues that led to today’s update,” the company said in a blog post. “For example, while we’ve removed QAnon content that celebrates and supports violence, we’ve seen other QAnon content tied to different forms of real world harm, including recent claims that the west coast wildfires were started by certain groups, which diverted attention of local officials from fighting the fires and protecting the public.”
The new rules will be enforced by Facebook’s Dangerous Organizations Operations team, the same group that enforces Facebook’s bans on terrorist and hate groups. The team will “proactively detect content for removal instead of relying on user reports”, study the movement, and adjust to changes in terminology or tactics, the company said.
“QAnon messaging changes very quickly and we see networks of supporters build an audience with one message and then quickly pivot to another,” the company said. “We expect renewed attempts to evade our detection, both in behavior and content shared on our platform, so we will continue to study the impact of our efforts and be ready to update our policy and enforcement as necessary.”
The new policy against QAnon is not as strict as Facebook’s rules against the terror and hate groups that it designates as “dangerous organizations”. The company is not banning individual users from posting in support of QAnon, for example, and the requirement for Instagram accounts to “represent” themselves as QAnon in order to be banned also leaves a large loophole for influencers who promote QAnon under their own identities. Many popular wellness influencers on Instagram have become major promoters of QAnon conspiracy theories.
A Facebook spokesperson acknowledged the loophole and said the company was still addressing how to deal with such accounts.
The QAnon movement has for months been preparing for a crackdown from social media platforms. Many Facebook groups began using codes – for instance, using “17” as a substitute for “Q” – as early as April and May. On 17 September, the anonymous internet poster who goes by “Q” and whose messages QAnon followers believe include clues to the vast conspiracy, warned followers: “Deploy camouflage. Drop all references re: ‘Q’ ‘Qanon’ etc. to avoid ban/termination.”
Three names have been circulating as potential candidates for the role of crown prince in the small Gulf state. (photo: EPA)
Who Will Be Kuwait's Next Crown Prince?
Arwa Ibrahim, Al Jazeera
Ibrahim writes: "With the crown prince to become the deputy of the new monarch [...] and likely to become the next emir, the heir apparent is considered one of the most powerful political figures in the country."
READ MORE
Exxon Mobil's Baytown complex. (photo: Houston Chronicle)
Exxon's Plan for Surging Carbon Emissions Revealed in Leaked Documents
Kevin Crowley and Akshat Rathi, Bloomberg
Excerpt: "Internal projections from one of world's largest oil producers show an increase in its enormous contribution to global warming."
xxon Mobil Corp. had plans to increase annual carbon-dioxide emissions by as much as the output of the entire nation of Greece, an analysis of internal documents reviewed by Bloomberg shows, setting one of the largest corporate emitters against international efforts to slow the pace of warming.
The drive to expand both fossil-fuel production and planet-warming pollution has come at a time when some of Exxon’s rivals, such as BP Plc and Royal Dutch Shell Plc, are moving to curb oil and zero-out emissions. Exxon’s own assessment of its $210 billion investment strategy shows yearly emissions rising 17% by 2025, according to internal projections.
The emissions estimates predate the Covid-19 pandemic, which has slashed global demand for oil and thrown the company’s finances into distress, making it unclear if Exxon will complete its plans for growth. The internal figures reflect only some of the measures Exxon would take to reduce emissions, the company said. The largest U.S. oil producer has never made a commitment to lower oil and gas output or set a date by which it will become carbon neutral. Exxon has also never publicly disclosed its forecasts for its own emissions.
But the internal documents show for the first time that Exxon has carefully assessed the direct emissions it expects from the seven-year investment plan adopted in 2018 by Chief Executive Officer Darren Woods. A chart in the documents lists Exxon’s direct emissions for 2017—122 million metric tons of CO₂ equivalent—as well as a projected figure for 2025 of 143 million tons. The additional 21 million tons is a net result of Exxon’s estimate for ramping up production, selling assets and undertaking efforts to reduce pollution by deploying renewable energy and burying carbon dioxide.
In a statement released after the publication of this story, Exxon said its internal projections are “a preliminary, internal assessment of estimated cumulative emission growth through 2025 and did not include the [additional] mitigation and abatement measures that would have been evaluated in the planning process. Furthermore, the projections identified in the leaked documents have significantly changed, a fact that was not fully explained or prominently featured in the article.” Exxon declined to provide any details on the new projections.
The internal estimates reflect only a small portion of Exxon’s total contribution to climate change. Greenhouse gases from direct operations, such as those measured by Exxon, typically account for a fifth of the total at a large oil company; most emissions come from customers burning fuel in vehicles or other end uses, which the Exxon documents don’t account for.
That means the full climate impact of Exxon’s growth strategy would likely be five times the company’s estimate—or about 100 million tons of additional carbon dioxide—had the company accounted for so-called Scope 3 emissions. If its plans are realized, Exxon would add to the atmosphere the annual emissions of a small, developed nation, or 26 coal-fired power plants.
The emissions projections are “an early assessment that does not include additional mitigation and abatement measures that would have been considered as the next step in the process,” Exxon said in an earlier statement. “The same planning document illustrates how we have been successful in mitigating emissions in the past.”
Exxon often defends its growth plans by citing International Energy Agency estimates that trillions of dollars of new oil and gas investments are needed by 2040 to offset depletion from existing operations, even under a range of climate scenarios. However, experts say a reduction in global oil and production is necessary to limit warming to 1.5 degrees Celsius above pre-industrial levels.
Exxon’s ambitious growth plans, calling for higher cash flow and a doubling of earnings by 2025, are a vestige of pre-pandemic times, before global oil demand evaporated. In its earlier statement, Exxon maintained its intention to pursue growth plans in the future: “As demand returns and capital investments resume, our growth plans will continue to include meaningful emission mitigation efforts.”
The collapse of oil demand forced Exxon to cut its spending budget by a third in April, and its share price is currently hovering near an 18-year low. Exxon was removed from the Dow Jones Industrial Average earlier this year. The company last week warned of a third consecutive quarterly loss, meaning it’s relying on debt to pay capital expenditures and dividends.
As recently as July, however, Exxon indicated that it’s merely delaying many projects to preserve cash during the downturn rather than canceling them. Fulfilling the plan would mean producing an additional 1 million barrels of oil a day. The emissions generated by the extra drilling and refining would increase the company’s greenhouse gas emissions to 143 million tons of CO₂ equivalent per year, the internal documents show.
“Exxon has repeatedly shopped for growth over the last 10 years, and their returns have suffered,” said Andrew Grant, head of oil, gas and mining at Carbon Tracker, a financial think tank. “Exxon is explicit that their business plan is informed by their own business outlook, which assumes continued demand growth for fossil fuels.”
The more than $30 billion-per-year investment plan was the centerpiece of Exxon’s March 2018 Investor Day. Woods declared an ambition to build a suite of high-quality operations that would produce large volumes of oil and gas for decades into the future, regardless of changes in policy or price. After years of struggling with stagnant production, Woods zeroed in on five key projects: shale oil in the Permian Basin, offshore oil in waters belonging to Guyana and Brazil, and liquefied natural gas in Mozambique and Papua New Guinea.
“It’s the richest set of opportunities since Exxon and Mobil merged,” Woods told investors, a line executives have repeated ever since.
Even though Exxon lags far behind Europe’s biggest oil companies in setting targets to address global warming, it recently stepped up efforts to curb methane, a super-potent greenhouse gas. The company has also joined a voluntary industry effort to lower its “carbon intensity,” producing oil and gas on a cleaner per-barrel basis. “Emissions intensity reduction targets by a company that was setting out to dramatically increase its production won’t result in lower absolute emissions,” said Kathy Mulvey, a campaign director at the Union of Concerned Scientists.
Exxon’s internal projections credit the company with the beneficial impact of two dozen emission-lowering measures, such as projects to capture carbon, reduce methane leaks and flaring, and use renewable energy. Without adjusting for these projects, which are termed “self-help” measures in the planning documents, Exxon’s direct emissions in 2025 would surge to 154 million tons of CO₂ equivalent—a 26% increase from 2017 levels.
These emissions figures represent only a fraction of the total. Exxon doesn’t disclose Scope 3 figures, unlike other big, publicly traded oil producers. A recent effort by Bloomberg Opinion to estimate the total emissions of the world’s largest fossil-fuel producers put Exxon at 528 million metric tons of carbon dioxide equivalent in 2019. CDP, an independent group that tracks and encourages carbon disclosures, estimated Exxon’s total emissions at 577 million metric tons for 2015. Exxon’s most recent public disclosures for its direct emissions, called Scope 1 and Scope 2, recognized only 127 million metric tons in 2018.
Planning documents showing the surge in emissions that would result from the investment strategy were widely circulated in internal Exxon meetings as recently as early this year, before the coronavirus spread beyond China. Unlike earnings targets, Exxon never publicly announced its 2025 emissions goals, leading some employees to question whether the company was committed to reductions. More than a third of Exxon’s self-help measures rely on carbon capture, an expensive process that stores carbon dioxide underground.
Allegations of inadequate disclosures related to the dangers of global warming have become a source of legal trouble for Big Oil. In June, Minnesota sued Exxon, Koch Industries Inc. and the American Petroleum Institute for allegedly withholding critical information about the impact of fossil fuel use on climate change. All told, Exxon and other oil companies are being sued by about a dozen cities, counties and states seeking compensation for consumers and taxpayers over the cost of adapting to climate change. (Exxon denies wrongdoing in the suits, which it says are baseless and politically motivated; at the end of last year, the company won a related case brought by New York’s attorney general.)
The pandemic has accelerated European oil majors’ transition toward cleaner sources of energy, while giving Exxon an opportunity for a different type of strategic reset. So far that has meant cutting headcount and employee benefits, shelving major projects and reducing its global capital expenditure by $10 billion this year. Exxon’s dividend yield now tops 10%, an indication investors expect the payout to be cut for the first time in decades.
Exxon and its European peers have split over adaptation to a world in which major economies are moving to phase out fossil fuel. The U.S. oil giant has long aligned with the conservative wing of American politics: Woods’s mentor and predecessor, Rex Tillerson, served as President Donald Trump’s first secretary of state, and earlier this year Woods joined fellow energy CEOs at the White House to discuss reopening the U.S. economy. Exxon has benefited from Trump’s policy of “unleashing energy dominance.” But the company also donates to candidates from both parties and rejected some of Trump’s measures, such as rolling back methane regulations.
Whether or not Woods decides, in the wake of the pandemic or a political shift in the U.S., to follow his European peers toward net-zero emissions remains to be seen. But the trend from many of the world’s largest countries and corporations is unmistakable, and it’s not clear that Exxon’s approach to growth reflects these big changes.
Just last month China pledged to be carbon neutral by 2060, a shift that would set into motion a more than 65% drop in its oil consumption and a 75% cut in gas, according to government-affiliated researchers. The EU is aiming to reach neutrality across all greenhouse gases by 2050, which will be partly funded by the Green Deal that invests in electrification of transport and the promotion of clean hydrogen. California announced a new plan to end the sale of gasoline-powered cars by 2035, in a state that alone accounts for 1% of global oil demand.
“It’s past time for Exxon Mobil to take responsibility for the harmful impacts of its oil and gas products,” said Mulvey of the Union on Concerned Scientists. “The world at large and its own investors would benefit from Exxon redirecting its strategy toward the energy we need in a low-carbon future.”
No comments:
Post a Comment
Note: Only a member of this blog may post a comment.