World news

Subterms

    More stories

    • 100 Shares129 Views

      in World Politics

      Making the Right Decisions to Combat the Coronavirus

      by

      If the current pandemic is a test of the global emergency response system, the international community is flunking big time. It has done just about everything wrong, from the failure to contain the coronavirus early on to the lack of effective coordination thereafter. As the predicted second wave begins to build — the world is now adding over 400,000 new cases per day — it is truly disheartening to think that the international community hasn’t really learned any lessons from its snafu.

      Sure, some countries have successfully managed the crisis. South Korea, despite several super-spreading outbreaks, has kept its death toll to below 450, which is fewer than Washington, DC, alone has suffered. Thailand, Vietnam, Uruguay and New Zealand have all done even better to address the public health emergency. After its initial missteps, China has managed not only to reopen its economy but is on track for modest growth in 2020, even as virtually all other countries confront serious economic contractions.

      Scientists’ Social Engagement Is Needed to Stem the COVID-19 Pandemic

      READ MORE

      It’s not too late for the rest of the world. Robust testing, tracing and quarantining systems can be set up in all countries. Richer nations can help finance such systems in poorer countries. Governments can penalize non-compliance. Even before a vaccine is universally available, this virus can be contained.

      But perhaps the most important takeaway from the COVID-19 experience so far has little to do with the coronavirus per se. The pandemic has already killed more than a million people, but it is not about to doom humanity to extinction. COVID-19’s mortality rate, at under 3%, is relatively low compared to previous pandemics (around 10% for SARS and nearly 35% for MERS). Like its deadlier cousins, this pandemic will eventually recede, sooner or later depending on government response.

      Other threats to the planet, meanwhile, pose greater existential dangers. At a mere 100 seconds to midnight, the doomsday clock of the Bulletin of Atomic Scientists now stands closer to the dreaded hour than at any point since its launch in 1947. As the quickening pace of this countdown suggests, the risk of nuclear war has not gone away while the threat of climate change has become ever more acute. If fire and water don’t get us, there’s always the possibility of another, more deadly pandemic incubating in a bat or a pangolin somewhere in the vanishing wild.

      Despite these threats, the world has gone about its business as if a sword were not dangling perilously overhead. Then COVID-19 hit, and business ground to a halt.

      Embed from Getty Images

      The environmental economist Herman Daly once said that the world needed an optimal crisis “that’s big enough to get our attention but not big enough to disable our ability to respond,” notes climate activist Tom Athanasiou. That’s what COVID-19 has been: a wake-up call on a global scale, a reminder that humanity has to change its ways or go the way of the dinosaur.

      Athanasiou is one of the 68 leading thinkers and activists featured in a new report from the Institute for Policy Studies, the Transnational Institute, and Focus on the Global South. Now available in electronic form from Seven Stories Press, “The Pandemic Pivot” lays out a bold program for how the international community can learn from the experience of the current pandemic to avoid the even more destructive cataclysms that loom on the horizon.

      The Path Not Taken

      Let’s imagine for a moment how a reasonable world would have responded to the COVID-19 pandemic when it broke out late last year. As the virus spread from Wuhan in January, there would have been an immediate meeting of international leaders to discuss the necessary containment measures. The Chinese government closed down Wuhan on January 23 when there were fewer than 1,000 cases. At the same time, the first cases were appearing in multiple countries, including the United States, Japan and Germany. On January 30, the World Health Organization (WHO) declared the pandemic a global health emergency.

      Instead of working together on a plan, however, countries pursued their own approaches that ranged from the sensible to the cockamamie, the only common element being the restriction of travel and the closure of borders.

      The US and China, embroiled in a full-spectrum conflict over trade, technology and turf, were barely talking to each other, much less working together to contain this new threat. The United Nations didn’t get around to discussing the pandemic until April. There was precious little sharing of resources. In fact, many countries took to hoarding medical supplies like drugs and personal protective equipment.

      To be sure, scientists were sharing knowledge. The WHO brought together 300 experts and funders from 48 countries for a research and innovation forum in mid-February.

      Political leaders, however, were not really talking to each other or coordinating a cross-border response. Indeed, a number of leaders were running screaming in the opposite direction. US President Donald Trump stepped forward to head up this denialist camp, followed by Jair Bolsonaro of Brazil and Andres Manuel Lopez Obrador of Mexico. Authoritarian leaders like Rodrigo Duterte of the Philippines and Daniel Ortega of Nicaragua focused on consolidating their own power rather than fighting the COVID-19 disease.

      As the global economy went into a tailspin, there was no international effort to implement measures to contain the damage. Countries like the US refused to lift economic sanctions on countries hard hit by the coronavirus. International financial institutions issued debt moratoria for the poorest countries but have yet to consider more substantial restructuring (much less loan forgiveness). Trade wars continued, particularly between Beijing and Washington.

      Conflict has not been confined to the level of trade. A sane world would have not only rallied around the UN secretary-general’s call for a global ceasefire in conflicts around the world, it would have actually enforced a cessation of hostilities on the ground. Instead, wars have continued — in Yemen, Libya, Afghanistan. New violence has erupted in places like the disputed Nagorno-Karabakh region between Armenia and Azerbaijan.

      Military spending and the arms trade have continued unchecked. At this time of unprecedented economic need, countries continue to pour funds into defending against hypothetical threats rather than to defeat the enemy that is currently killing people on their territory. Both the US and China are increasing their military spending for next year, and they’re not the only ones. Hungary announced in July an astonishing 26% increase in military spending for 2021, while Pakistan is increasing its military expenditures by nearly 12% for 2020-21.

      Meanwhile, on this economically polarized planet, the ones who have borne the brunt of this pandemic are the poor, the essential workers, and all the refugees and migrants currently on the move. The stock market has recovered its value. Everyone else has taken a hit.

      Looking Ahead

      The international community took a giant step backward in its fight against COVID-19. Rather than build on the cooperation established in the wake of the 2003 SARS epidemic, countries suddenly acted as if it were the 19th century all over again and they could only fall back on their own devices. The hottest heads prevailed during this crisis: right-wing nationalists like Trump, Bolsonaro, Vladimir Putin and Narendra Modi, who not coincidentally head up the four most-afflicted countries.

      It’s not too late for a pandemic pivot, a major shift in strategy, perspective and budget priorities. “The Pandemic Pivot” looks at how COVID-19 is changing the world by showing us (briefly) what a radical cut in carbon emissions looks like, dramatically revealing the shortcomings of economic globalization, distinguishing real leadership from incompetent showboating, and proving that governments can indeed find massive resources for economic restructuring if there’s political will.

      Our new book lays out a progressive agenda for the post-COVID era, which relies on a global Green New Deal, a serious shift of resources from the military to human needs, a major upgrade in international cooperation and a significant commitment to economic equity. Check out our new video to hear from the experts quoted in the book.

      The coronavirus forced leaders around the world to hit the pause button. Even before the pandemic recedes, many of these leaders want to press rewind to return to the previous status quo, the same state of affairs that got us into this mess in the first place.

      We can’t pause and we can’t rewind. We need to shift to fast forward to make our societies greener, more resilient and more just — or else we will sleep through the wake-up call of COVID-19. We won’t likely get another such chance.

      *[This article was originally published by FPIF.]

      The views expressed in this article are the author’s own and do not necessarily reflect Fair Observer’s editorial policy. More

    • 113 Shares149 Views

      in US Politics

      Sudan and Israel agree US-brokered deal on normalising relations

      by

      Donald Trump seeks to score points from deal; Palestinians call it ‘a new stab in the back’Israel and Sudan have agreed to work towards normalising relations in a deal brokered by the US that would make Sudan the third Arab country to set aside hostilities with Israel in the past two months.Donald Trump sealed the agreement in a phone call on Friday with the Israeli prime minister, Benjamin Netanyahu, his Sudanese counterpart, Abdalla Hamdok, and Abdel Fattah al-Burhan, the head of Sudan’s transitional military council. Continue reading… More

    • 138 Shares159 Views

      in US Politics

      Biden’s pledge to ‘transition’ from oil draws praise – and Republicans’ anger

      by

      Conservatives say Biden’s comments likely to lose support from Democratic supporters in oil-producing areasJoe Biden’s promise to “transition” away from the oil industry during Thursday’s presidential debate has caused uproar among conservatives while being praised by environmentalists as being a candid acknowledgment of the scale of the climate crisis. Related: Mitch McConnell says he has no health concerns after photos show bruising Continue reading… More

    • 88 Shares99 Views

      in World Politics

      The New York Times Under the Influence

      by

      Is it the run-up to the election or just our imagination? Has the team of journalists at The New York Times been instructed to turn every allusion to political messaging into a crusade against Russia? Thursday’s edition offers yet another example of The Times providing confused propaganda for American voters to ponder, though this time, Russia has the rare privilege of being accompanied by Iran.

      It’s almost as if The Times itself had positioned itself as one of the occult powers it consistently accuses of spreading misinformation to foment disorder in the electoral processes in the US. Adding to the irony is the fact that the source of the latest news is none other than John Radcliffe, President Donald Trump’s Director of National Intelligence whom the paper took to task a day earlier for dismissing the insistence by The Times, Politico and Senator Adam Schiff that the story about Hunter Biden’s laptop was “a Russian information operation” as being without foundation.

      The Russian Pathology Deepens at The NY Times

      READ MORE

      How does The Times make its case this time? First by reminding us of Trump’s complaining “that the vote on Nov. 3 will be ‘rigged,’ that mail-in ballots will lead to widespread fraud and that the only way he can be defeated is if his opponents cheat.” “Now, on the eve of the final debate,” The Times tells us, Trump “has evidence of foreign influence campaigns designed to hurt his re-election chances, even if they did not affect the voting infrastructure.”

      Here is today’s 3D definition:

      Influence campaigns:

      Insincere communication on the internet where nothing is real and, as in politics itself, in order to exist, any powerful message must attain the status of hyperreality and show itself worthy of attracting the attention of the architects of hyperreality.

      Contextual Note

      The comedy of paranoid reporting by The Times and other “liberal” outlets’ continues, with ever-increasing humorous effects. MSNBC’s Rachel Maddow, for example, took literally the content of the comical Proud Boys email described by Radcliffe as a spoof launched by Iran. After crying havoc and announcing fire in the theater, The Times article describes the factual outcome of Iran’s terrifying assault: “There was no indication that any election result tallies were changed or that information about who is registered to vote was altered.”

      Here is what The Times’ message might sound like if it were framed in more rational and objective terms: “We should all be very alarmed. We may even be thinking about going to war or at least showing how righteously indignant we feel about the evil countries that may (or may not) be trying to emulate what our intelligence agencies have been doing for decades, even though these cowardly enemies apparently lack the will or competence to effectively tamper with our electoral system, and in fact maybe never even tried since the most damning evidence shows that they never go beyond doing what most ordinary citizens do: use emails and social media outbursts to bombard others with their deranged ravings.”

      Yes, Russians and Iranians are guilty of using the internet. Worse, they drafted their messages in English and targeted voters in the US who also happen to use the internet. The voters who received these texts were instantly brainwashed into changing their intention to vote. In this pre-electoral pantomime, we can always count on politicians and particularly members of the Senate Intelligence Committee for well-timed comic relief. Senator Angus King, an independent from Maine, dramatically proclaimed: “We are under attack, and we are going to be up to Nov. 3 and probably beyond. Both the American people have to be skeptical and thoughtful about information they receive, and certainly election officials have to be doubly cautious now that we know again they are targets.” King makes it sound like a 9/11 redux. But none of the evidence cited in the article resembles an attack, more an adolescent prank. The comedy continues as the article explains that these incidents fall into the category of “perception hacks,” communications with no concrete outcome that supposedly produce some mysterious psychological effect.

      They do deliver one alarming fact: “The consumer and voter databases that we discovered hackers are currently selling significantly lowers the barrier to entry for nation-states to execute sophisticated phishing, disinformation and intimidation campaigns.” But what on the web isn’t disinformation, starting with every political story in The New York Times? 

      Free speech means everyone has the right to exaggerate and lie. And in politics, even in news stories, lying and exaggerating generally serve to create apprehension and fear. Many articles in The Times should simply begin with the sentence: “We’re going to tell you what you should now be afraid of.”

      It’s time we realized that spying and hacking are a well-established feature of contemporary culture. They fit perfectly with the ethics of competitive influencing inculcated into generations of citizens in our consumer society. It’s a culture that rewards “influencers” (i.e. hustlers) or anyone with the appropriate “assertive” traits that facilitate success.

      The article offers us the cherry on the cake when, toward the end, after spelling out the risk to election infrastructure, the authors  admit: “So far, there is no evidence they have tried to do that, but officials said that kind of move would come only in the last days of the election campaign, if at all.” That last phrase, “if at all,” tells it all.

      Historical Note

      This is our third article this week on the lengths to which The New York Times is willing to go to spread misinformation about the Russian threat. It’s part of a campaign that has already lasted more than four years. In every case, there has been a build-up of evidence, like a balloon inflated to capacity and apparently ready to pop before someone loses their grip on the balloon’s neck and lets the air come gushing out. It happened most dramatically with the Mueller report and then again with Trump’s impeachment. It has happened on a nightly basis for all of the past four years on Rachel Maddow’s MSNBC nightly broadcast.

      Alireza Miryousefi, the spokesman for the Iranian Mission to the United Nations, denied Radcliffe’s accusations and indignantly countered: “Unlike the U.S., Iran does not interfere in other countries’ elections.” That may be true. Or the opposite may be true, which would produce this statement: “Like the US, Iran does interfere in other countries’ elections.”

      If the second statement is true, Iran would nevertheless be trailing woefully behind the US in its ability to effectively tamper with other countries’ elections. The Times notes that Miryousefi was apparently referencing the CIA’s successful collusion with Britain’s MI6 to depose Iran’s Prime Minister Mohammed Mossadegh in 1953. But the authors of the article even distort that event, calling it, with studied imprecision: “the C.I.A.’s efforts to depose an Iranian leader in the 1950s.” They didn’t just try. As history tells us, they succeeded.

      Embed from Getty Images

      Miryousefi added another comment whose truthfulness it would be legitimate to doubt given Trump’s alignment with Israel and his demonizing of Iran: “Iran has no interest in interfering in the U.S. election and no preference for the outcome.” If cooperation and peace are better than conflict and war, Iran should clearly prefer an outcome in which Donald Trump is no longer the president of the US.

      But this may be the diplomat’s way of indicating that the Iranians don’t expect anything radically different from Joe Biden. They may even fear that Biden and the Democratic establishment, being more closely identified with the interests of the military-industrial complex, could be more dangerous than Trump, a man who temperamentally prefers reducing the US military engagement in the Middle East.

      As the intelligence and the media continue to voice their obsession with influence campaigns while designating their favorite enemy of the month (and sometimes two), the world needs to come to grips with the fact that the real battle in the next year or two will be between reality and hyperreality. For some time, hyperreality has had the upper hand. But one of the effects produced by an authentic crisis — whether of health, the economy or politics or all three — could be finally to give reality a fighting chance.

      *[In the age of Oscar Wilde and Mark Twain, another American wit, the journalist Ambrose Bierce, produced a series of satirical definitions of commonly used terms, throwing light on their hidden meanings in real discourse. Bierce eventually collected and published them as a book, The Devil’s Dictionary, in 1911. We have shamelessly appropriated his title in the interest of continuing his wholesome pedagogical effort to enlighten generations of readers of the news. Read more of The Daily Devil’s Dictionary on Fair Observer.]

      The views expressed in this article are the author’s own and do not necessarily reflect Fair Observer’s editorial policy. More

    • 63 Shares169 Views

      in World Politics

      Trump’s Gift to America: Spectacle

      by

      Time: January 3, 2015. Place: Trump Tower Bar and Grill, 5th Avenue, New York

      Overheard conversation between two diners.

      “Another great show, Don. You were terrific as usual. Your bluster is so intimidating. I loved the way you thundered on about that one guy’s shortcomings and made him cry.”

      “Yeah, I thought I was excellent. Most of these ‘Apprentice’ wannabes are useless. They couldn’t run a newsstand where there’s no television.”

      “You know, Don, I think you could do anything you want. You should run for president. You’d do a better job than some of these clowns. Last year, Obama had his worst year in office: He accused Russia of invading Ukraine, ordered airstrikes in Syria and, now, he’s got protesters chanting ‘black lives matter.’  He’s even talking about bypassing Congress’ opposition to his plan to allow 4 million immigrants to apply for work permits. Man, he’s in trouble.”

      “I could take care of business.”

      360˚ Context: The 2020 US Election Explained

      READ MORE

      “Then why don’t you? Run for the big job. Think about it: You could do for America what you’ve done for TV. It’s been running since 2004 and you’ve made it one of the most popular shows in history. You can use ‘The Apprentice’ formula, nominating project leaders who can take responsibility and make strategic decisions. You can call them into the Situation Room and tell them to brief you. If you don’t like their work, you know what to say, right? You’re dismissed! Just kidding, Don.”

      The World’s Most Famous Bouffant

      When people thought they’d seen enough of the world’s most famous bouffant, they were treated to “The further adventures of … .” Except not in another reality TV show, but an American presidency, a presidency that had the thrills and creative destruction of “The Apprentice.” No one, surely not even Trump himself, thought he stood a chance when he decided to take on established figures in the GOP and the hugely experienced Democrats, in particular Hillary Rodham Clinton.

      His upset election triumph over her was so improbable that it briefly managed the impossible, making people forget North Korea’s nuclear tests, the Syrian Civil War, the election of openly anti-American President Rodrigo Duterte in the Philippines and the surprising decision by Britain to leave the European Union. All people were thinking and talking about was Trump, who became a member of an exclusive club: He was one of only five presidents to win office while losing the popular vote.

      What happened? Had Americans lost their senses? After all, Trump had no political experience whatsoever. Even the most inexperienced presidents in history had either served at senior levels in the military or in the legal system. Trump was an entrepreneur-turned-reality TV star. But his leap into the unknown came in the second decade of the 21st century when small matters like this seemed of secondary importance.

      What mattered more was Trump’s ability to deliver a booming, rumbling, roaring performance and easy-on-the-intellect messages that people could understand. Cut taxes. Ban Muslims. Bomb the shit out of ISIS. Build a wall with Mexico. Bring home American troops. Tear up trade agreements. Move the US embassy from Tel Aviv to Jerusalem.

      There were other similarly attention-grabbing commitments. Trump’s gift to America was spectacle. There had never been such a spectacular candidate, and perhaps that’s what nearly half of America wanted: a captivating leader. America has developed a culture in which everything, no matter how solemn, can be alchemized into handsome if meretricious entertainment. And, if you disagree, I have a two-word response: Kim Kardashian.

      Over the past four years, Trump has dominated world affairs. His foreign policy decisions have effectively redefined US relations with the rest of the world. His fiscal policies have made Wall Street deliriously happy. His attitudes toward racism have divided his own nation as well as huge parts of the world. Trump has angered and delighted, probably in a rough ratio of 60:40. Whatever the world thinks about Trump, the undeniable reality is that he is the most ubiquitous American president in history. There hasn’t been a day in the last four years when Donald Trump has not been reported as doing or saying something headline-grabbing. Reality TV shows that hog our attention are doing their jobs. Presidents who do it are probably doing something other than politicking.For many politicians, a scandalous claim of an affair would be embarrassing, if not ruinous. But porn star Stormy Daniels’ charge that she and Trump had a liaison in 2006 seemed entirely congruent. In fact, it would have been more of a surprise had the president not been entangled in some sort of sex imbroglio.

      There is even a global movement that regards Trump as far more than a politician. For QAnon, Trump is waging a surreptitious war against a cabal of Satan-worshipping Democrats, plutocrats and Hollywood celebrities who engage in pedophilia, sex trafficking and harvesting blood from dead children. Not even a drama, let alone a reality TV show, could have scripted a more fantastic narrative than this. The nearest equivalent I can think of is in Yaohnanen, on the South Pacific island of Tanna, where Britain’s Prince Philip is worshipped as a sort of messiah, a son of the ancestral mountain god.

      Trump has not repurposed himself as president. He has adapted the presidency to his own requirements, surrounding himself with senior-level advisers, assigning them tasks, then firing or promoting them. His staff turnover as of October 7, it was 91%. No one has been safe while Trump has been behind the Oval Office desk, not even the first senator to endorse Trump’s presidential candidacy in early 2016, Jeff Sessions; he was fired in 2017. Many others have resigned, but the revolving door approach to senior political appointments and dismissals suggests a style of leadership in which delegation is key, much like in TV.

      Still Fresh

      Now the big question is whether this novelty is still fresh. Even the most fascinating, amusing and engaging celebrities have a shelf life. Trump has delighted and infuriated people in roughly equal measures. Every faux pas — and there have been a good few of them — is somehow glossed over as blithely as if he’d thrown up in the back of an Uber. Every success is hailed, usually by him, as a groundbreaking masterstroke. Sometimes, to be fair, it is. The rapprochement with North Korean leader Kim Jong-un was genuinely significant.

      But awarding himself an A+ for the “phenomenal job” he had done during his tenure grated with as many as it amused. And the response to the COVID-19 pandemic has provided his opponent Joe Biden with a gift-wrapped opportunity to expose him. “We have it under control. It’s gonna be just fine,” Trump assured everyone in January. A month later, he called the coronavirus a “hoax.” “The virus will not have a chance against us,” he claimed as the death rate climbed toward the current figure of 222,000. He blamed “China’s cover-up” and criticized the World Health Organization. His complacency was unnerving even to skeptics.

      Embed from Getty Images

      When Trump and Melania were stricken only a month before the election, many must have muttered something about hubris. But, with characteristic bravado, Trump used his brief incapacitation as an occasion to show he doesn’t scare easily. Nor should anyone else. “Don’t be afraid of Covid,” he tweeted. “Don’t let it dominate your life.” Once more, he treated an abstract malefactor as if it were a challenge on “The Apprentice.” “Covid isn’t that serious,” he concluded dismissively. It was typical Trump, making light of what is, to others, a near-irresolvable problem. Then again, that’s been his modus operandi throughout his presidency. For Trump, there hasn’t been a problem that doesn’t have a solution. It’s just that most people are “losers” and don’t want to discover it. He always can. This is why he’s intolerant of journalists whom he calls negative when they attack him. The problems may be larger and more complex than those on “The Apprentice,” but they all have resolutions.

      Most Americans have made up their mind about how they’re going to cast their ballot. Trump’s illness might evoke sympathy, but it won’t affect anyone’s choice. Trump is already back on the road, swatting away criticisms with his usual humorous self-assurance. His flamboyant, often preposterous, occasionally laughable and always entertaining style of leadership has dazzled America and, indeed, the world for four years now. Polls suggest Americans are satiated and ready for a return to a more traditional leader.  

      What worries them most? An extravagantly bombastic president who never doubts the wisdom of his own choices or a more measured and reflective personality who will probably lead competently but never offer the kind of extravaganza to which Americans, as well as the rest of the world, have become accustomed?*[Ellis Cashmore is the author of “Kardashian Kulture.”]

      The views expressed in this article are the author’s own and do not necessarily reflect Fair Observer’s editorial policy. More

    • 200 Shares129 Views

      in US Politics

      Snap polls give Joe Biden edge over Trump in final TV debate – US politics live

      by

      Key events

      Show

      4.47am EDT04:47
      Pompeo to meet foreign ministers of Azerbaijan and Armenia in attempt to halt Nagorno-Karabakh conflict

      Live feed

      Show

      5.41am EDT05:41

      With the new rules on mic muting at the second presidential debate, the two candidates were able to, on the whole, advance more substantive arguments on a range of topics than the insult-slinging the first debate degenerated into. Here are some of the key things each man said on the main themes raised in the debate
      Coronavirus
      Trump: We’re fighting it and we’re fighting it hard… We’re rounding the corner. It’s going away. I caught it. I learned a lot. We have to recover. We can’t close up our nation. We’re learning to live with it. We have no choice. We have a vaccine that’s coming, it’s ready, it’s going to be announced within weeks.
      Biden: If you hear nothing else I say tonight hear this. Anyone who’s responsible for that many deaths should not remain as president of United States of America. This is the same fellow told you this is going to end by Easter last time. This is the same fellow who told you that, don’t worry, we’re going to end this by the summer. We’re about to go into a dark winter, a dark winter, and he has no clear plan.
      Environment
      Trump: If you look at what he wants to do — if you look at his plan, his environmental plan — you know who developed it? AOC plus three. We are energy-independent. I know more about wind than you do. It is extremely expensive, kills all the birds, it’s very intermittent. Basically what he is saying is he is going to destroy the oil industry. Will you remember that, Texas? Will you remember that, Pennsylvania, Oklahoma? Ohio?
      Biden: I would transition from the oil industry, because the oil industry pollutes, significantly. We can capture emissions from the factory and capture the emissions from gas, we can do that. And we can do that by investing money. He takes everything out of context. But the point of it is, look, we have to move toward net-zero emissions.
      Race and criminal justice
      Trump: Nobody has done more for the Black community than Donald Trump, with the exception of Abraham Lincoln – the possible exception – but the exception of Abraham Lincoln, nobody has done what I’ve done. The criminal justice reform bill, prison reform, opportunity zones, I took care of Black colleges and universities.
      Biden: I never had to tell my daughter, if she’s pulled over, make sure she puts — for a traffic stop — put both hands on top of the wheel and don’t reach for the glove box, because someone may shoot you. But a Black parent, no matter how wealthy or how poor they are, has to teach their child: When you are walking down the street, don’t have a hoodie on when you go across the street. Making sure that you in fact, if you get pulled over, just ‘Yes sir,’ ‘no sir,’ hands on top of the wheel. The fact of the matter is, there is institutional racism in America.
      Healthcare
      Trump: He wants socialized medicine. Bernie Sanders wants it. The Democrats want it. No matter how well you run the Affordable Care Act (Obamacare), it’s no good. What we’d like to do is terminate it.
      Biden: What I’m going to do is pass Obamacare with a public option. It will become Bidencare. If you qualify for Medicaid you and do not have the wherewithal in your state to get Medicaid, you automatically are enrolled, providing competition for insurance companies. Secondly, we’re going to make sure we reduce the premiums and reduce drug prices by making sure that there’s competition that does not exist now, by allowing Medicare to negotiate drug prices with the insurance companies. He’s never come up with a plan.
      Two very different closing arguments
      Trump: I am cutting taxes, and he wants to raise everybody’s taxes, and he wants to put new regulations on everything. He will kill it. If he gets in, you will have a depression the likes of which you have never seen. Your 401(k)s will go to hell and it will be a very, very sad day for this country.
      Biden: I [will] represent all of you, whether you voted for me or against me. And I’m going to make sure that you’re represented. I’m going to give you hope. What is on the ballot here is the character of this country. Decency, honor, respect, treating people with dignity, making that sure that everyone has an even chance. And I’m going to make sure you get that. You have not been getting it the last four years.

      5.32am EDT05:32

      Ben Collins and Brandy Zadrozny have written for NBC News this morning about the vexed question for journalists on the extent to which they should be covering fringe conspiracy theories about the election.
      One factor in the decision is that, compared to 2016, the stories seem to have crept way more into the official Republican campaign and American consciousness than the most extreme conspiracy theories about Hillary Clinton ever did four years ago. They write:

      Some of the same people who pushed a false conspiracy theory about Hillary Clinton that first emerged in 2016 are now targeting Hunter Biden, Joe Biden’s son, with similar falsehoods. Their online posts are garnering astronomical numbers of shares on social media.
      The fantastical rumors, which NBC News is declining to repeat verbatim, echo specific plot points central to “pizzagate,” a viral disinformation campaign that predates QAnon but also falsely alleges a vast conspiracy of child abuse.
      There is an important difference, however. The pizzagate-style rumors in 2016 were largely confined to far-right message boards like 4chan and parts of Reddit. But the Hunter Biden iteration of the same conspiracy theory took off last weekend with the help of speculation from conservative TV hosts and members of Congress. Their theorizing can be traced back to a new website that has been promoted by president Donald Trump and his surrogates.
      The path of the conspiracy theory highlights how once-obscure and fringe claims are now able to reach mainstream conservative media and even elected officials in the run-up to the 2020 election.
      The disinformation campaign appears to have been successful in its goal of generating a smear against the former vice president’s son. According to Google Trends, “human trafficking” is now the third-most common related search term for “Hunter Biden” in the last year, after “laptop” and “New York Post,” which point to search interest around the unconfirmed allegations that a laptop belonging to Hunter Biden contained evidence of crimes.

      Collins and Zadrozny go on to say that conspiracy theories about Hunter Biden “began swirling before the New York Post article and can be traced to associates of former White House aide Steve Bannon”.
      NBC News was moved yesterday to issue a strong statement of support for its reporter Brandy Zadrozny who herself was targeted in a segment on Fox News’ Tucker Carlson show. “Fox News has chosen to smear Brandy. In so doing they have shamefully encouraged harassment and worse,” the network said.

      Brandy Zadrozny
      (@BrandyZadrozny)
      I am so proud to be a reporter at NBC News, so grateful for the support I’ve received from colleagues and former employers (not including Fox News), so lucky to work with @oneunderscore__, and so very psyched to be logging off for the night. See y’all tomorrow.

      October 22, 2020

      Read more here: NBC News – Inside the campaign to ‘pizzagate’ Hunter Biden

      5.23am EDT05:23

      With a record amount of early and mail-in voting for a US presidential election already accounted for, it may have been too late for any debate performance to shift the dial. Amanda Holpuch in New York has been looking for us at one dial that – according to the polls, anyway – appears to have already shifted in Joe Biden’s favor. Nationally, the Democratic nominee has the largest lead among women in modern history.

      In Pennsylvania on 13 October, Trump asked: “Suburban women, will you please like me?” On 17 October in Michigan, he implored: “I saved your suburbs – women – suburban women, you’re supposed to love Trump.” And the next day in Nevada, Trump begged: “Suburban women, please vote for me. I’m saving your house. I’m saving your community. I’m keeping your crime way down.”
      These half-hearted pleas are about three years too late for voters like Becky, who lives in a suburb of Des Moines and asked for her last name not to be used because she was worried about being targeted for her opinions.
      It didn’t take the 63-year-old long to regret her vote for Donald Trump, who she wanted out of office within weeks of him becoming president.
      “I remember thinking, ‘Oh my God, what did I do? What did we all do? What would’ve been so bad about Hillary?’” Becky said. “He’s so good with his lies. He made you believe she was hiding her emails, doing all these things she shouldn’t be doing.”
      At this point, Becky can’t stand the president and laughed before calling him the antichrist. “That’s how badly I feel about him,” she said. “If we don’t get him out, we’re in a load of trouble here.”

      Read more of Holpuch’s report here: ‘What did we all do?’ – why women who voted for Trump could decide the 2020 election

      5.01am EDT05:01

      That is the the verdict of the New York Times fact-checkers on the deabte this morning.

      In their final debate, president Trump unleashed an unrelenting series of false, misleading and exaggerated statements as he sought to distort former vice president Biden’s record and positions and boost his own re-election hopes. The president once again relied heavily on well-worn talking points that have long been shown to be false.

      Among Trump’s claims they ranked as false or misleading were
      I was put through a phony witch hunt – false
      We are rounding the turn on coronavirus – false
      We have the best testing in the world by far — that is why we have so many cases – false
      We have a vaccine that’s coming, it’s ready, it’s going to be announced within weeks – this lacks evidence
      He wants to raise everybody’s taxes – false
      He doesn’t come from Scranton – false
      He called [the Black community] super predators, and he said it, super predators – false
      China is paying. They are paying billions and billions of dollars – false
      The [Trump Chinese] bank account was in 2013. That’s what it was. It was opened — it was closed in 2015, I believe – false
      They want to take buildings down because they want to make bigger windows into smaller windows – false
      We have the best carbon emission numbers that we’ve had in 35 years under this administration – misleading
      We’re rebuilding it, and we’re doing record numbers. 11.4 million jobs in a short period of time – misleading
      Look at China, how filthy it is. Look at Russia. Look at India. It is filthy. The air is filthy – misleading
      For Biden, they singled out these moments:
      He has caused the deficit with China to go up, not down – false
      Look at the states having a spike, they are the red states, the states in the Midwest, in the upper Midwest, that is where the spike is occurring significantly – exaggerated
      Read it in full here: New York Times – Fact-checking the final presidential debate

      4.47am EDT04:47

      Pompeo to meet foreign ministers of Azerbaijan and Armenia in attempt to halt Nagorno-Karabakh conflict

      Another day, another diplomatic grumble from China about US behaviour. Chinese foreign ministry spokesman Zhao Lijian told a news briefing this morning that the US is bullying countries to pick sides over their ties to China, but such efforts will not succeed,
      The US is urging Sri Lanka to make “difficult but necessary choices” to secure its economic independence instead of choosing opaque practices, a senior state department official had said yesterday, in an apparent reference at China deepening its influence over the South Asian country.
      Secretary of state Mike Pompeo, meanwhile, is now scheduled to meet the foreign ministers of Azerbaijan and Armenia in a new attempt to end nearly a month of bloodshed in Nagorno-Karabakh, during which Russian president Vladimir Putin said 5,000 people may have been killed.

      4.12am EDT04:12

      NBC News had three experts grade the Trump and Biden performances last night, and to be honest it doesn’t make for comfortable reading for either camp. Biden got a higher grade than Trump from all three, but nobody was scored higher than a B+.
      Mitchell McKinney, director of the political communication institute at the University of Missouri, said:

      Biden was prepared for Trump’s attacks on him and his family and “didn’t get rattled,” McKinney said. Biden was able to project empathy, and he took an effective page out of the Obama playbook while declaring that he’d be a president of “not red states and blue states but the United States.” Most important, he was “able to avoid any major gaffes or blunders that would have had supporters wringing their hands,” McKinney said.

      Susan Millsap, and communications professor, said:

      It started better than the first one, but it slowly devolved a bit. The last 20 minutes or so, the interruptions were increasing again, and Trump was slowly turning it into a campaign speech. I was like, ‘Oh, no — don’t do it.’ Towards the end, Trump was back on his hyperbole and bombastic style.

      Read more here: NBC News – Who won the Trump-Biden debate? Experts grade the candidates

      4.03am EDT04:03

      Also published last night was a very strong op-ed from David Ignatius in the Washington Post, asking the blunt question of director of national intelligence John Ratcliffe: Can Trump’s spy chief be trusted?

      The mission statement for the director of national intelligence stresses nonpartisan values: excellence, courage, respect and integrity. Regrettably, the performance of current DNI John Ratcliffe has often seemed to emphasize another metric — serving the political interests of the man who appointed him, President Trump.
      Trump wants Ratcliffe’s help as Nov. 3 approaches. The president is desperately seeking a silver bullet to fire at former vice president Joe Biden — some nugget from the intelligence world that would justify Trump’s wild accusations of “hoaxes” and “criminals.” Sources tell me Trump has been raging inside the White House for Ratcliffe to deliver the goods.
      Ratcliffe, a former Republican congressman, is facing a moment of truth: Will he serve the intelligence community that he heads, protecting information that — in making a momentary splash for Trump — could disclose sources and methods and damage the country? Or will he join Trump in an assault on the very agencies he leads, treating them as part of an imaginary “deep state” that the president sees as his enemy?

      Ignatius goes on to claim:

      Intelligence officials have told me they fear Ratcliffe was appointed DNI for a simple reason: Trump wanted a loyal supporter in charge of the spy agencies as the country headed toward election day. That’s the kind of raw self-interest the country has come to expect from Trump, but we don’t often assess the consequences for the intelligence community.

      Read more here: Washington Post – Can Trump’s spy chief be trusted?

      3.59am EDT03:59

      Again, leaving the debate aside for a second, Molly O’Toole filed a report yesterday evening for the Los Angeles Times about the growing scandal of women at a Georgia immigration facility forced into “overly aggressive” or “medically unnecessary” surgery without their consent, including procedures that affect their ability to have children. A new report examines the cases of 19 women. She writes:

      The 19 women were all patients of Dr. Mahendra Amin, the primary gynecologist for the Irwin County Detention Center, the report says. The records, including pathology and radiology reports, prescriptions, surgical impressions and consent forms, sworn declarations and telephone interviews, detail and support the women’s allegations of medical abuse by the doctor, according to the report.
      The medical experts found an “alarming pattern” in which Amin allegedly subjected the women to unwarranted gynecological surgeries, in most cases performed without consent, according to the five-page report, which was submitted Thursday to members of Congress.
      “Both Dr. Amin and the referring detention facility took advantage of the vulnerability of women in detention to pressure them to agree to overly aggressive, inappropriate, and unconsented medical care,” the report states.

      One woman says she’s still not sure what Amin did in surgery, because she hasn’t subsequently been able to afford to go to the doctor to establish it. Dr. Amin strongly denies all of the allegations.
      Read more about this worrying case here: Los Angeles Times – 19 women allege medical abuse in Georgia immigration detention

      3.53am EDT03:53

      Politico this morning have a reaction piece to last night which is eye-catchingly headlined: “The debates, like everything else in 2020, were a dumpster fire”

      American voters only got two presidential debates in the 2020 general election, and in a normal year this one would have been hotly anticipated and carefully picked over, as Donald Trump and Joe Biden jabbed at each other over money, immigration, racial justice and their support for the oil industry. But as of the start time, close to 50 million Americans had already voted, and polls are locked in as they’ve ever been—so perhaps the biggest question is whether it was possible for this debate to change anything at all. And after this bizarre debate season—a meltdown, a cancellation, a rogue fly and this almost shockingly orthodox interaction, with a mute button—is it time to change what we really expect from debates?

      They’ve gone on to ask what they describe as ‘operatives, campaign analysts and other political insiders’ what they think about the whole debate process, and some of it is quite enlightening, including the observation that “Debates are supposed to be televised job interviews, not a form of reality TV” and just maybe “It’s fair to wonder whether debates have run their course”.
      Read more here: Politico – The debates, Like Everything Else in 2020, Were a Dumpster Fire

      3.43am EDT03:43

      Away from the debate a second, there’s a quick foreign policy snap here from Reuters. Russia’s deputy foreign minister has said today that Moscow and Washington were still not close to reaching an agreement over the New Start arms control treaty, the RIA news agency reported.
      The two countries’ positions on the nuclear pact, which expires in February, appeared to have moved closer when Washington this week welcomed a Russian proposal to extend it if they agreed to freeze their stocks of nuclear warheads. It is the last remaining nuclear treaty between the two nations.

      3.41am EDT03:41

      Richard Wolffe was very busy last night. As well as contributing to our podcast debate on the debate, he also had time to pen his own verdict.

      Normal presidents get their third debate right. They flunk their first in a fit of presidential pique about standing on stage with their upstart rivals. They over-correct their second after a frantic period of long-delayed rehearsals. By the time the third comes along, they usually remember what got them elected in the first place. Donald Trump is not a normal president.

      Wolffe goes on to observe:

      Not to put too a fine point on his presidency, this might just be the fatal flaw in the entire Trump project: the cosmic chasm between Donald’s self-regard and the way the rest of the sentient universe sees him. Donald apparently sincerely believes he is an elite political athlete, while the majority of American voters keep telling pollsters that his gameplan isn’t working.
      For some reason unknown to political strategists of all persuasions, Trump is closing this election by attacking 60 Minutes for being mean to him, and attacking Joe Biden’s son for business dealings with China. This in the week we all learned that Trump has a secret bank account in China, where he has paid more taxes to the People’s Republic than he has to his own country.

      Read more here: Richard Wolffe – Donald Trump reverts to type in debate – and it isn’t ‘magnificently brilliant’

      3.25am EDT03:25

      Post-debate polls and focus groups may have given Joe Biden the win, and plaudits may have gone to Kristen Welker, but there was only one winner as far as the Trump campaign was concerned. Trump’s comms chief Tim Murtaugh tweeted out a picture of the president “just before the debate victory” this morning.

      Tim Murtaugh
      (@TimMurtaugh)
      Just before the debate victory. pic.twitter.com/gcAjOlEgjT

      October 23, 2020

      Trump was also boasting about poll numbers handing victory to him, although in this case he was posting screenshots of self-selecting Twitter votes from conservative-leaning sources.

      Donald J. Trump
      (@realDonaldTrump)
      pic.twitter.com/4qwCKQOiOw

      October 23, 2020

      The little tick next to his name in the results on the screenshot suggests that the president had just voted for himself in the poll. Fair enough, he was hardly going to vote that the other guy had won, was he?

      3.18am EDT03:18

      If you’d like to get your ears around something this morning, as soon as last night’s debate was over, Guardian columnist Jonathan Freedland sat down with his trans-Atlantic counterpart Richard Wolffe to discuss what had just gone down. You can listen to it here.

      The Guardian UK: Politics Weekly
      A much calmer affair – so who won debate night?: Politics Weekly Extra

      Sorry your browser does not support audio – but you can download here and listen https://audio.guim.co.uk/2020/10/23-19392-gdn.pw.201023.ds.Final_Presidential_Debate.mp3

      00:00:00

      00:25:41

      3.14am EDT03:14

      Kristen Welker succeeded where Chris Wallace failed in the first debate, and came out widely praised for the way that she handled the debate. Max Benwell reports:

      Welker, 44, the only person of color chosen to moderate presidential debate this year, quickly earned plaudits as the event unfolded in a calmer and less chaotic manner than the first presidential debate in Cleveland. The winner of Thursday night’s debate was “obviously” Welker, tweeted New York Times opinion writer Jamelle Bouie.
      Wallace, whose own moderation was widely criticized after the first debate, was asked on air what he thought of the tenor of the final debate moderated by Welker. “First of all, I’m jealous,” he said.
      Trump, who is trying to appeal to female voters as he trails Biden in national polling, also praised Welker after spending the days before the debate criticizing her.
      “So far, I respect very much the way you’re handling this,” Trump said to Welker when she gave him time to respond to Biden at one point.
      The praise came after Trump attacked her on Twitter over the weekend. She has “always been terrible and unfair, just like most of the Fake News reporters”, he tweeted at the time.

      Read more here: The ‘obvious’ winner of the final debate: moderator Kristen Welker

      3.00am EDT03:00

      Racial injustice was another area where the two men clashed last night. Accusing Trump of being “one of the most racist presidents we’ve had in modern history”, Biden said that the president “pours fuel on every single racist fire. … This guy has a dog whistle about as big as a foghorn.”
      Trump asserted that “I am the least racist person in this room.”

      The debate between them on the topic wasn’t entirely well received.
      “Blackness and criminality are not the same,” Phillip Atiba Goff, a leading researcher on racial bias in policing, wrote on Twitter. “Would really love Black communities to be on the agenda outside of questions about punishment.”
      And Gene Demby, the co-host of Code Switch, National Public Radio’s podcast on race and identity, wrote: “This conversation about race in the US with two rich, powerful septuagenarians is going about as well as anyone could have anticipated.”

      2.57am EDT02:57

      Lois Beckett last night was keeping an eye for us on how viewers rated the performances of the two men in the debate. She writes:

      Democratic presidential candidate Joe Biden was perceived as the winner of the final debate with Donald Trump on Thursday night, according to a CNN poll of debate viewers and a panel of undecided North Carolina voters.
      The CNN poll found it was perceived as a slightly weaker Biden performance compared to the first, chaotic presidential debate last month, when 60% of viewers perceived the Democratic nominee as the winner, compared to 53% on Thursday night.
      Participants in a CNN panel of undecided North Carolina voters said that Trump’s strength in the debate was his focus on the economy, while Biden’s strength was his emphasis on “unifying” Americans.

      But there were mixed reviews for Biden in a panel assembled by the Los Angeles Times:

      Words that the undecided voters in that panel used to describe Biden’s debate performance included: “vague”, “cognitively impaired”, “I don’t want to say senile, so I’ll say old”, “uncomfortable”, “grandfatherly”, “defensive”, and “ambiguous”.
      Trump was described by the same group as “controlled”, “constrained”, “petulant” “reserved”, “surprisingly presidential”, and a “con artist”.

      You can read more here: Biden the winner of final debate, TV viewers and undecided voters say

      2.49am EDT02:49

      With over 223,000 Americans dead to date from the coronavirus pandemic, it was a significant topic in last night’s debate. While Donald Trump promised a vaccine would be available within weeks, Joe Biden questioned the veracity of his claims, citing the president’s previous predictions the pandemic would end by Easter.

      2.45am EDT02:45

      Hello, and welcome to Friday’s live coverage of US politics. The debate is done, there’s 11 days to go. Will it have changed anybody’s minds?
      Trump and Biden sparred over the coronavirus pandemic, with the president defending his response to a pandemic that has already claimed 223,000 American lives. Trump said of the pandemic, “I take full responsibility. It’s not my fault that it came here. It’s China’s fault.”
      Biden criticized Trump as “one of the most racist presidents we’ve had in modern history”. Biden said, “He pours fuel on every single racist fire. … This guy has a dog whistle about as big as a foghorn.”
      Trump reiterated that he wanted the supreme court to dismantle Obamacare. Amy Coney Barrett’s nomination process was moved to the next stage by the judiciary committee yesterday despite a Democratic party boycott.
      Moderator Kristen Welker of NBC News was praised for her orderly management of tonight’s debate. Unlike the first debate, which devolved into chaos as Trump repeatedly interrupted Biden, Welker successfully kept the debate on task
      Overall, the debate seems unlikely to sway many voters, which is a victory for Biden. Snap polls taken after the debate showed viewers favored Biden’s performance by about 10-15 points. But victory wasn’t as clear-cut as the first debate, with an undecided voters panel characterising his performance as “vague”.
      You can have a scroll back through last night’s live coverage here: Biden slams Trump on coronavirus response, family separations and racism in final debate – as it happened
      Covid cases continue to increase across the US, as the upper midwest sees rapid rise.
      The US signed an anti-abortion declaration with a group of largely authoritarian governments.
      Legendary Watergate reporter Bob Woodward will discuss the Trump presidency at a Guardian Live online event on Tuesday 27 October. You can find our more details and book tickets here. More

    • 163 Shares129 Views

      in US Politics

      How Trump success in ending Obamacare will kill Fauci plan to conquer HIV

      by

      In his State of the Union address in February 2019, Donald Trump vowed to end the HIV epidemic by 2030.
      But if Trump has his way and the supreme court strikes down the Affordable Care Act (ACA), the resulting seismic disruption to the healthcare system would end that dream.
      Democrats have expressed grave concern that if Amy Coney Barrett is seated on the supreme court, the conservative jurist could cast a decisive vote to destroy the ACA in the California v Texas case scheduled for oral argument starting 10 November. The Senate judiciary committee will vote on Barrett’s nomination on Thursday. A full Senate vote is expected on Monday.
      The brainchild of Dr Anthony Fauci and other top brass at the Department of Health and Human Services, the ambitious Ending the HIV Epidemic: A Plan for America has received for its debut year $267m in new federal spending, largely targeted at HIV transmission hotspots across the US. More

    • 150 Shares189 Views

      in US Politics

      Biden the winner of final debate, TV viewers and undecided voters say

      by

      Democratic presidential candidate Joe Biden was perceived as the winner of the final debate with Donald Trump on Thursday night, according to a CNN poll of debate viewers and a panel of undecided North Carolina voters.Though the groups are not representative of actual US voters, they offered a snapshot of the reaction to the debate, which came just two weeks before election day, as Trump trails his opponent in national polls and was seeking to reset his appeal with more moderate Republican supporters.The CNN poll found it was perceived as a slightly weaker performance compared to the first, chaotic presidential debate last month, when 60% of viewers perceived Biden as the winner, compared to 53% on Thursday night.Participants in a CNN panel of undecided North Carolina voters said that Trump’s strength in the debate was his focus on the economy, while Biden’s strength was his emphasis on “unifying” Americans.The CNN undecided voter panel praised the final debate as “more controlled” and “much better”. Almost all of the voters on that panel said that Biden won the debate.But the takeaways from a focus group of undecided voters assembled by the Los Angeles Times and pollster Frank Luntz was less positive for Biden.Words that the undecided voters in that panel used to describe Biden’s debate performance included: “vague”, “cognitively impaired”, “I don’t want to say senile, so I’ll say old”, “uncomfortable”, “grandfatherly”, “defensive”, and “ambiguous”, Associated Press reporter Jill Colvin tweeted.Trump was described by the same group as “controlled”, “constrained”, “petulant” “reserved”, “surprisingly presidential”, and a “con artist”, Colvin wrote.A small group of voters who watched the debate for PBS NewsHour and said the debate left them feeling “informed.” They praised moderator Kristen Welker, an NBC White House correspondent. A woman on CNN’s undecided panel also hailed the debate’s much-touted mute button. “That made a big difference,” she said.Even on a day when the United States saw the third-highest total number of new coronavirus cases, at more than 73,000, according to the Atlantic’s Covid Tracking Project, some undecided voters shared Trump’s emphasis on keeping businesses open, whatever the public health cost.“Like Donald Trump said, if we shut down the economy at the expense of the people, there’s not going to be a country to come back to,” one voter on CNN’s undecided panel said.As they did in the first debate, pro-Trump viewers spent a lot of time complaining about perceived bias of the debate moderator towards Biden, and claiming that Trump was cut off more often. More