« First...102030...444445446447448...460470480...Last »

Vonnegut Library gets $50000 grant from Gannett Foundation. Here’s how they’ll use it. – IndyStar

Posted on by

The Kurt Vonnegut Museum and Library had been open in its new home for barely four months when the pandemic swept in, forcing cultural institutions to shut down temporarily. But it put the ensuing closureto work.

The museum applied to the American Library Association's United for Libraries to become a Literary Landmark, which designates a location that's linked to a deceased literary figure. It was selected, becoming the first of such landmarks in Indiana and joining the likes of Mark Twain and Zora Neale Hurston, among other famous names.

Now, "A Community Thrives" grant from the Gannett Foundationfor $50,000 will allow the museum to properly celebrate the designation and host programs around free speech in 2022, which is also the 100th anniversary of Vonnegut's birth.

Gannett is the parent company of IndyStar, USA TODAY and hundreds of other newspapers across the country.

The library is one of 16 recipients of grants ranging from $25,000 to $100,000 across the country. All grant recipientsraised money through crowdfunding before receiving a grant.

Vonnegut's love letters: 226 letters were found in an attic. Read and see them.

The $2.3 million initiative supports organizations working to address a range of social issues. This year, those issues included homelessness, mental health care for LGBTQ people, reproductive care and girls' education, to name a few. Since 2017, A Community Thrives has distributed $17 million in grants and donations to community-based organizations.

Now in its fifth year, A Community Thrives awards grants to many significant causes helping to improve lives. Each of our grant winners is making a positive impact, and we are proud to support organizations that share our purpose,"Gannett CEO Mike Reed said.

Its a great day when IndyStar through our companys foundation helps arts and literature thrive in Indianapolis, and we can be aligned with an organization like the Kurt Vonnegut Museum and Library," said Bro Krift, interim executive editor of IndyStar. "But whats truly awesome is how the museum will use the money to promote free speech, vital to how we live and how we learn to live better across society.

The Vonnegut Library's celebration for the Literary Landmark designation will be April 10, 2022, on Palm Sunday. Fittingly, it's also the name of a collection of essays, speeches and letters by Vonnegut, from which they'll read excerpts. Speakers and performers that day will include producer and author A'Lelia Bundles as well as artists and musicians Tim Youd, David Sasso, Kat Wallace and Rob Dixon.

Free hula hoops for the first 100 students with ID will nod to Vonnegut's quote: "I am an American fad of a slightly higher order than the hula hoop."Brics will give away free ice cream, and 100 students also will receive a free copy of "Slaughterhouse-Five." Comedian Gary Gulman will appear at an evening fundraising event.

"It's not just celebrating the actual books that Vonnegut wrote,"founder and executive director Julia Whiteheadsaid."It's celebrating the creative process and the fact that this person from Indianapolis went off and served his country in World War II and had a very important story to tell and continued to use the arts and humanities throughout his life to cope with that war experience and to engage with his audience.

The grant also will go toward discussions and programs around free speech, the women who shaped Vonnegut, and the author and neighborhood's connection to jazz. For "Vonnegut and Banned Stories," the museum will work with the Underground Railroad Museum, among others, for discussions that show how stories that come from conflict reveal the history of the First Amendment and build compassion.

"It's the process of sharing your story with the public that makes it more real and representative of the human condition. Vonnegut was great about not only telling his story but telling creative fictional character stories that make the reader think differently about life," Whitehead said. "It's basically feeling like you're not alone."

Stories of Vonnegut's mother Edith Lieber Vonnegut, family cook and housekeeper Ida Young, and Vonnegut's first wife Jane Cox will be part of "The Women Who Shaped Vonnegut" exhibit. Young, who was a descendant of people who had been enslaved, taught the young author about civil rights andChristianity.Vonnegut's mother was friends with writers and wrote creatively herself. Cox edited a lot of Vonnegut's early work and advocated for him to help the world discoverhis talent.

Unstuck in time, unstuck from development hell: A Kurt Vonnegut documentary more than 30 years in the making is heading to theaters

An upcoming sidewalk exhibition,"Vonnegut and Jazz," will highlight the musicians who performed in Indianapolis between 1922 and 1945, along with the author's love for it, Whitehead said. The museum, at 543 Indiana Ave., sits in the neighborhood that once hosted an iconic jazz scene. The Gannett Foundation grant will support the final phase of the exhibit, most of which will be free.

The Vonnegut museum physically opened in 2011 atat 340 N. Senate Ave. and remained there until January 2019, when the lease was up. As the museum raised money to buy its permanent home on Indiana Avenue, it opened a temporary gift shop in Circle Centre Mall.

Since the institution's 2019 grand opening in its new home, it has fleshed out its collection and made building improvements. It now has a wheelchair rampby the front doorand a stocked shop with a storefront visible from the street. Art includes a screen print of Vonnegut's doodle ad for Absolut Vodka and an enlarged 1973 letter from the author to a North Dakota school board chair after the board had "Slaughterhouse-Five" copies burned.

Moving forward, the museum is raising money to receive matching grants from the National Endowment for the Humanities so it canupdate and repair its historic building, Whitehead said.She's in talks with a restaurant to open a first-floor cafe.And the museum has been expanding its youth writing program and developing relationships with students at Shortridge, Crispus Attucks, George Washington and Arsenal Tech high schools.

The institution also is setting its gaze nationally.Starting next year, it will take programs about Vonnegut's free speech and common decency ideals into all 50 states, Whitehead said. The Vonnegut museum is continuing diversity, equity, inclusion and access work by broadening the voices on its board and on committees that put together programming, she said.

"That's been quite possibly the most exciting change over the past year and a half, is just getting more people involved," Whitehead said. "In some cases, it was a matter of people just not knowing we were here, people who were already Vonnegut fans. But in other cases, it has been introducing people to the work we do."

In addition to the national grants,leaders across Gannett's USA TODAY Network of more than 250 news sites in 46 states selected other nonprofit organizations to receive community operating grants that start at $2,500. Organizations that focus on building up historically under-resourced and underserved groups were especially be considered. Twelve organizations were selected in Indiana.

"Across the country, A Community Thrives grants link USA TODAY Network brands to the communities in which we operate and beyond,"said Sue Madden, director of the Gannett Foundation. "Our reporters work every day to empower communities to thrive, and this program helps fulfill that core purpose."

For the full list of grantees, go towww.gannettfoundation.org/act.

Looking for things to do? Our newsletter has the best concerts, art, shows and more and the stories behind them

Jeanine Santuccicontributed to this report.

Contact IndyStar reporter Domenica Bongiovanni at 317-444-7339 or d.bongiovanni@indystar.com. Follow her on Facebook, Instagram or Twitter: @domenicareports.

Go here to read the rest:

Vonnegut Library gets $50000 grant from Gannett Foundation. Here's how they'll use it. - IndyStar

Can Texas Force Lawyers to Pay the Prevailing Party’s Legal Fees in Federal Litigation? – JD Supra

Posted on by

The second modification to the Texas Code creates a cause of action against litigants and their lawyers who challenge the enforceability of any Texas law that regulates or restricts abortion, including but not limited to S.B. 8. See SB 8 4 (amending Texas Civ. Prac. & Remedies Code 30.022). The provision applies to cases filed in state or federal court. If the party defending the Texas law prevails, that party can seek fees and costs in a new action filed in Texas state court within three years of final judgment in the underlying action. Id. 30.022(c). The lawyer is jointly and severally liable with the client for the fees and costs. The fee-shifting provision, although somewhat ambiguous, appears to be entirely one-way; i.e., if the party challenging the law prevails, that party is not entitled (through 30.022) to recover fees and costs from the opposing party or counsel.

Many other statutes and rules expose lawyers to attorneys fees for misconduct during litigation, but as a few commentators have explained, S.B. 8 appears to be the first law that makes lawyers liable based solely on the issue they are litigating. In view of other provisions in S.B. 8 that intentionally frustrate judicial challenges of the statute, it seems beyond doubt that one purpose of 30.022(c) is to impede a litigants attempt to obtain counsel to challenge a Texas abortion law.

For cases litigated in federal court, 30.022 violates at least the spirit of 28 U.S.C. 1654, which provides that In all courts of the United States the parties may plead and conduct their own cases personally or by counsel as, by the rules of such courts, respectively, are permitted to manage and conduct causes therein. Section 1654 traces back to the Judiciary Act of 1789. See 1 Stat. 73, 35 (Sep. 24, 1789). Thus, the right to private (or retained) counsel in federal judicial proceedings is older than the Sixth Amendment and the rest of the Bill of Rights, and the right to retained counsel is so accepted that case law defining its limits in federal civil cases is sparse. Most case law under 1654 relates to the right to proceed pro se, but the statute also codifies a right to proceed with private counsel of ones choice. See Texas Catastrophe Property Ins. Assn v. Morales, 975 F.2d 1178, 1181 (5th Cir. 1992); McCuin v. Texas Power & Light Co., 714 F.2d 1255, 1262 & n.24 (5th Cir. 1983); Bottaro v. Hatton Assocs., 680 F.2d 895, 897 (2d Cir. 1982). As the text of the statute provides, the right is subject to reasonable rules of such [i.e., United States] courts. A body of precedent makes clear that the right to counsel does not override, for instance, the requirement that an attorney hold a valid license, which typically is conferred and regulated in the first instance by state law. E.g., Eagle Assocs. v. Bank of Montreal, 926 F.2d 1305, 1308 (2d Cir. 1991). But ethics and licensing requirements are laws of general applicability, and federal courts usually adopt them through their own local rules. As far as I can tell, no state law seeks to impede access to counsel in federal courts more clearly and directly than S.B. 8.

Nevertheless, it is hard to predict whether a federal (or state) court would strike down 30.022 under 1654 or some other doctrine1 protecting the right to counsel in federal courts. In the criminal context, where the Sixth Amendment protects a right to appointed counsel for indigent defendant and to retained counsel of ones choice for others, see Powell v. Alabama, 287 U.S. 45, 53 (1932), the Supreme Court has upheld a federal statute prohibiting the use of forfeitable funds to retain defense counsel. Caplin & Drysdale, Chartered v. United States, 491 U.S. 617 (1989). The four dissenting justices observed that the reluctance of any attorney to represent the defendant in the face of the forfeiture threat effectively strips the defendant of the right to retain counsel. Id. at 654 (Blackmun, J., dissenting). The majority nevertheless concluded that the government had a substantial property interest in the forfeitable funds. Id. at 627-28. That rationale would not apply to 30.022, of course, as the federal government has no competing interest in the Texas fee-shifting scheme.

Because the right to counsel at issue here is primarily statutory rather than constitutional2, the argument would be pre-emption rather than unconstitutionality under the Sixth Amendment. The most pertinent pre-emption doctrine is obstacle pre-emption, which applies when a state law imposes obstacles to the purposes and objectives of Congress. E.g., Hines v. Davidowitz, 312 U.S. 52, 67 (1941). In Felder v. Casey, 487 U.S. 131 (1988), for instance, the Court held that state-law requirements that prospective plaintiffs notify government officials before filing suit were pre-empted when applied to federal civil rights claims under 42 U.S.C. 1983. See also El-Tabech v. Clarke, 616 F.3d 834, 840 (8th Cir. 2010) (although state law establishing procedure for payment of federally awarded attorneys fees was not completely pre-empted, if state claims board rejected an attorneys fee award that specific executive or legislative action would almost surely be conflict preempted). Although these cases are not directly on point, it seems intuitive that a state law requiring lawyers to pay attorneys fees for unsuccessful federal claims filed in federal courts is a serious obstacle to the federal right to counsel. By all appearances, that is exactly what the Texas legislature intended it to be.

Whether the obstacle to retained counsel imposed by S.B. 8 would lead a federal (or state) court to strike it down is a novel question that may itself evade judicial resolution3. But the question deserves its day in court. Like the bounty cause of action that S.B. 8 creates against abortion providers or aiders and abettors, the fee-shifting cause of action against federal litigants and their lawyers is transportable to other states and other rights. The right to counsel in civil proceedings is not as prominent as the right to abortion, but it is an important right nonetheless, and federal courts should have the last word on whether states can impede the right through legislation like S.B. 8.

1A second basis for pre-emption might be the Texas laws incompatibility with 42 U.S.C. 1988, which allows reasonable attorneys fees to the prevailing party in actions to enforce provisions of the federal civil rights statutes, including 42 U.S.C. 1983. But 1988 does not allow recovery of fees from opposing counsel. Roadway Express, Inc. v. Piper, 447 U.S. 752, 761 (1980).

2Some courts hold that the right to retained counsel in civil cases is implicit in the due process clause. See, e.g., Morales, 975 F.2d at 1180; contra Kentucky W. Va. Gas Co. v. Pennsylvania Public Util. Commn, 837 F.2d 600, 618 (3d Cir. 1988). Like most rights, it is not absolute, and may be overridden for compelling reasons. See 975 F.2d at 1181.

3The bounty statute may fall before the fee-shifting provision is tested; the United States complaint against Texas, for instance, does not clearly challenge the fee-shifting provision. In addition, because the prevailing party can file the attorneys fee claim in a new case in state court, that claim might evade judicial review by federal courts. See Bill Johnsons Restaurants, Inc. v. NLRB, 461 U.S. 731 (1983) (party had First Amendment right to file nonfrivolous claim in state court and NLRB could not order party do dismiss the claim before determination of its merits in state court); 28 U.S.C. 2283 (anti-injunction act). Nevertheless, state courts would have authority to consider the pre-emption argument, and the Supreme Court ultimately could decide the issue on discretionary review.

Read more:

Can Texas Force Lawyers to Pay the Prevailing Party's Legal Fees in Federal Litigation? - JD Supra

Edward Snowden reveals the funny side of the apocalyptic leaks of Pandoras Papers – Market Research Telecast

Posted on by

Former US secret agent Edward Snowden has spoken on Twitter about the Pandora Papers, a leak published this Sunday by the International Consortium of Investigative Journalists (ICIJ, for its acronym in English).

The funny side of this serious story is that even after two apocalyptic leaks from a law firm and offshore finance, those industries are still compiling vast databases of ruin, and still securing it with a post-it marked as Do not filterReads the text. I take my hat off to the source! , he adds.

The document, which is the most comprehensive exposition of financial secrets of the ICIJ, is the result of extensive journalistic work that reveals that the offshore money machine operates in every corner of the planet. A total of 35 world leaders (active or who have already left power), more than 100 billionaires and more than 300 senior public officials from more than 90 countries would be involved.

Snowden, who lives asylum in Russia, faces accusations in the US of violation of the Espionage Law and theft of government property after he caused a large international scandal in June 2013 after handing over thousands of classified documents from the National Security Agency (NSA) to major outlets such as The Washington Post and The Guardian.

The US Justice indicts him at least 17 crimes of espionage for having published confidential information, while activists from around the world support the former CIA contractor for having brought to light such activities of the US intelligence agencies in collaboration with several allied countries.

Did you find it interesting? Leave your opinion in the comments!

Disclaimer: This article is generated from the feed and not edited by our team.

See original here:
Edward Snowden reveals the funny side of the apocalyptic leaks of Pandoras Papers - Market Research Telecast

New life in Canada for family that helped Edward Snowden flee to Hong Kong – Todayville.com

Posted on by

Facebook along with its Instagram and WhatsApp platforms suffered a worldwide outage Monday that has extended more than three hours. Facebooks internal systems used by employees also went down. Service has not yet been restored.

The company did not say what might be causing the outage, which began around 11:40 a.m. ET. Websites and apps often suffer outages of varying size and duration, but hourslong global disruptions are rare.

This is epic, said Doug Madory, director of internet analysis for Kentik Inc, a network monitoring and intelligence company. The last major internet outage, which knocked many of the worlds top websites offline in June, lasted less than an hour. The stricken content-delivery company in that case, Fastly, blamed it on a software bug triggered by a customer who changed a setting.

Facebooks only public comment so far was a tweet in which it acknowledged that some people are having trouble accessing (the) Facebook app and that it was working on restoring access. Regarding the internal failures, Instagram head Adam Mosseri tweeted that it feels like a snow day.

But the impact was far worse for multitudes of Facebooks nearly 3 billion users, showing just how much the world has come to rely on it and its properties to run businesses, connect with communities of affinity, log on to multiple other websites and even to order food.

It also showed that, despite the presence of Twitter, Telegram, Signal, TikTok, Snapchat and a bevy of other platforms, nothing can truly replace the social network that has evolved in 17 years into all but critical infrastructure. Facebooks request Monday that a revised antitrust complaint against it by the Federal Trade Commission be dismissed because it faces vigorous competition from other services seemed to ring a bit hollow.

The cause of the outage remains unclear. Madory said it appears Facebook withdrew authoritative DNS routes that let the rest of the internet communicate with its properties. Such routes are part of the internets Domain Name System, a central component of the internet that directs its traffic. Without Facebook broadcasting its routes on the public internet, apps and web addresses simple could not locate it.

So many people are reliant on Facebook, WhatsApp or Instagram as a primary mode of communication that losing access for so long can make them vulnerable to criminals taking advantage of the outage, said Rachel Tobac, a hacker and CEO of SocialProof Security.

They dont know how to contact the people in their lives without it, she said. Theyre more susceptible to social engineering because theyre so desperate to communicate. Tobac said during previous outages, some people have received emails promising to restore their social media account by clicking on a malicious link that can expose their personal data.

Jake Williams, chief technical officer of the cybersecurity firm BreachQuest, said that while foul play cannot be completely ruled out, chances were good that the outage is an operational issue caused by human error.

Madory said there was no sign that anyone but Facebook was responsible and discounted the possibility that another major internet player, such as a telecom company, might have inadvertently rewritten major routing tables that affect Facebook.

No one else announced these routes, said Madory.

Computer scientists speculated that a bug introduced by a configuration change in Facebooks routing management system could be to blame. Colombia University computer scientist Steven Bellovin tweeted that he expected Facebook would first try an automated recovery in such a case. If that failed, it could be in for a world of hurt because it would need to order manual changes at outside data centers, he added.

What it boils down to: running a LARGE, even by Internet standards, distributed system is very hard, even for the very best, Bellovin tweeted.

Facebook was already in the throes of a separate major crisis after whistleblower Frances Haugen, a former Facebook product manager, provided The Wall Street Journal with internal documents that exposed the companys awareness of harms caused by its products and decisions. Haugen went public on CBSs 60 Minutes program Sunday and is scheduled to testify before a Senate subcommittee Tuesday.

Haugen had also anonymously filed complaints with federal law enforcement alleging Facebooks own research shows how it magnifies hate and misinformation, leads to increased polarization and that Instagram, specifically, can harm teenage girls mental health.

The Journals stories, called The Facebook Files, painted a picture of a company focused on growth and its own interests over the public good. Facebook has tried to play down the research. Nick Clegg, the companys vice president of policy and public affairs, wrote to Facebook employees in a memo Friday that social media has had a big impact on society in recent years, and Facebook is often a place where much of this debate plays out.

Twitter, meanwhile, chimed in from the companys main Twitter account, posting hello literally everyone as jokes and memes about the Facebook outage flooded the platform. Later, as an unverified screenshot suggesting that the facebook.com address was for sale circulated, Twitter CEO Jack Dorsey tweeted, how much?

___

AP technology writer Matt OBrien contributed to this report from Providence, R.I.

Frank Bajak And Barbara Ortutay, The Associated Press

See the rest here:
New life in Canada for family that helped Edward Snowden flee to Hong Kong - Todayville.com

Lava from eruption in Canary Islands pours into the sea – UPI News

Posted on by

Sept. 29 (UPI) -- Slow-moving lava from the volcano that erupted on La Palma in the Canary Islands has finally reached the ocean, releasing steam and possibly dangerous gases as the magma hit the water.

The eruption began on Sept. 19 and for days the lava has slowly been making its way to the edge of the island.

As the lava pours into the sea, it naturally releases large plumes of steam -- and also possibly toxic gases dangerous to humans.

The lava fell from a 330-foot cliff in the area of Los Guerres beach. The water there is shallow and the lava deposits form land quickly.

At one point, a large deposit measuring 160-feet formed in less than an hour, scientists said.

Authorities have evacuated everyone in the immediate surrounding areas of the lava flow, and advised those outside the zone to remain in doors in case there were harmful gases coming from the magma.

The lava flow has destroyed hundreds of homes since it began more than a week ago.

The Volcanic Ash Advisory Center in Toulouse issued a warning Wednesday about volcanic ash rising 17,000 feet into the air and moving southeast.

Go here to read the rest:
Lava from eruption in Canary Islands pours into the sea - UPI News

INCCCCC – BBC News

Posted on by

Later that night, the clear-up began. Fifteen vehicles were taken away for forensic examination. Seventy-eight bullet holes were found.

Mrs Pascoe, safe with her neighbours in a community centre, was playing cards with the children to distract them from the horror outside.

At about 02:00 she looked out of the window and saw the bodies from South View being collected and driven away.

Later, police told her they believed her life had been saved by the fact she'd kept her curtains drawn as she pottered about, doing her housework in her nightgown.

She was still wearing it, soaked now with Lisa Mildenhall's blood, when she was finally allowed back home.

In the ambulance on the way to hospital in Swindon, Ivor Jackson's heart had twice stopped beating.

He had lost lots of blood, had bullets in his head and chest, his lung had been shot through and his arm was barely attached to his body.

He needed numerous operations and still suffers, both physically and mentally.

His wife, who had a bullet in her spine, was not expected to walk again.

It's testament to her own strength of mind that she did.

"I just thought to myself, I'm a mother. I need to get better and I will walk again. I knew I had to be the strong one of the family, I knew Ivor wouldn't cope."

Even now Mr Jackson has not been back to South View. He cannot even pass the end of the road.

He can barely speak about his friend, George White.

"He was a good man. We were good friends," he says.

"Ill never forget what I saw that day, what happened to him, but I can't tell you.

"Nothing's been right since."

The Jacksons had loved their home on South View, with its large garden, and were in the process of buying it.

But, although the house was cleaned and modernised and made available for them, they could not bear to return.

The couple and their two grown-up sons now live in a two-bedroom council house a few streets away.

"After what happened, lots of people split up," says Ivor Jackson. "They couldnt cope. But we've stuck by each other."

The couple have been married for 60 years and celebrated their diamond wedding anniversary in January.

"We got a letter from the Queen," Mr Jackson adds. "My daughter arranged it."

The letter, complete with golden tassel, is still in its recorded delivery envelope and is kept in a basket in the Jacksons' kitchen.

They keep meaning to frame it and put it up on the wall.

Their younger son Trevor, who had been 18 in 1987, is being treated for PTSD while his older brother Peter, who was in the same year as Ryan at school, refuses to talk about that day.

If it comes up, he leaves the room or goes to sit in the greenhouse.

Trevor Jackson had first heard of the shootings when a colleague asked: "What's happened to your parents?"

He returned to South View to find bodies on the ground and was asked by police to identify them.

Then he and his brother Peter went into their home, released the dogs from the cupboard, and started to clean the blood and glass from their kitchen.

As the brothers were cleaning up, a reporter burst in. There was a police guard on the front door so he had sneaked through the garden and into the house through the back door.

Another reporter followed their sister home from the hospital.

I just broke down in tears."

Press intrusion is something the Jacksons continue to feel very strongly about. They usually hang up if a journalist approaches them and refuse to have their photograph taken in connection with the shooting.

Similarly the Whitings, for years, simply drew their curtains and refused to answer the door.

When, in March 1996 Thomas Hamilton shot dead 16 schoolchildren and their teacher in the Stirling town of Dunblane, Trevor Wainwright decided to write to the Scottish police.

He explained who he was and his experience, and offered sympathy. Then he tore his heartfelt letter up.

"I just thought: 'They dont want outsiders. They'll do what we did. The help will come from within the community'.

"Writing the letter did me good, but I don't think it would have helped the people of Dunblane."

A few days after the murders, Mr Wainwright - who had carried out the routine checks for Ryan's firearms licence - was astonished to see the Today newspapers front page splash.

"PC Signs Own Fathers Death Warrant".

"I just broke down in tears," Mr Wainwright says.

"It hit at the heart of my professionalism, of everything I'd ever done for the town. I probably did three or four of these checks a week.

"It was just routine. Hungerford is a big shooting area, farmers and gun clubs and that sort of thing. I mean, there's no legitimate reason anyone would need to have a Kalashnikov - but it was legal.

"There was a picture of my dad, dead in a car with a blanket over him.

"And I kept thinking, if it was true that I'd signed my dad's death warrant, it meant I'd also signed all those other people's too. At the time, the idea crucified me.

"At the hospital, where my mum was, everyone who'd been shot had been put into the same ward. I was due to go and visit her, but I thought I couldn't.

"I thought: 'How the hell can I go and see her if they're all blaming me?'

"She told me to get my arse straight down there. No-one blamed me."

He says he was helped by a discovery made at the post-mortem examination - that his father had developed lung cancer.

"If he had the choice - to die from a horrible disease like that, or be shot, I know he'd choose the bullet. Every single time."

He is still haunted, he says, by the photograph of his father dead in his car. If there is a shooting elsewhere in the world, he braces himself for his phone to ring.

"As soon as there's been a shooting, some journalist will call.

"And I hear the arguments of the gun lobby, who want to preserve the right to bear arms, and I think: 'You should come here and see what guns did to Hungerford.'"

The Firearms (Amendment) Act 1988 was passed in the wake of the massacre. It banned the ownership of semi-automatic firearms and pump-action weapons and made registration mandatory for shotgun owners.

A Thames Valley Police report to the Home Office found that - given the limitations imposed by the remote location and the difficulties in radio and telephone communication - the force's response "went well".

The local police station had only two working phone lines that day and the police helicopter was being repaired, delaying its deployment.

Further delays were caused by the firearms squad being in training about 40 miles away.

The report also said the operation was hampered by press helicopters making so much noise it was difficult for police on the ground to hear or relay instructions.

Hungerford is a pretty canalside town famous for its antiques shops and upmarket boutiques.

Its inhabitants refer to the shooting as "The Tragedy", almost as if it were a natural disaster.

The names of the 16 people who were killed are listed on a stone set into the wall of the town's war memorial garden, with no mention of how they died.

The town had long been a tourist destination. After the murders, though, visitors were less satisfied by remaining in the attractive main street.

"The tourist buses would just park where they usually did and then people used to come up here on foot," Trevor Jackson says.

"They were looking for bullet holes and spent shell cases to collect. Whenever they asked me where it all happened I'd say it was down the A4. Sent them away."

The description of the shootings as a "tragedy" doesnt sit well with Mrs Jackson.

"It was a massacre," she says. "Theres no two ways about it.

"We cope by taking every day as it comes. It's difficult. Healthwise, we're struggling.

"Ivor has very limited mobility, and his lungs are damaged from the bullet. I still get dreadful pain in my back. Trevor can't move out to his own place.

"It hasn't got any easier. Were just waiting until life gets back to normal.

"It hasn't happened yet."

Originally posted here:

INCCCCC - BBC News

Conservative Activist Calls Out Facebook for Suppressing His Posts – Daily Signal

Posted on by

For more than a decade, Texas native Don Kirchoff has used Facebook to share news and information with fellow conservatives. The longtime Heritage Foundation supporter and Heritage Action Sentinel frequently posts articles from The Daily Signal as well as content from other conservative organizations and media outlets.

But is anyone seeing them?

Many of Kirchoffs Facebook posts have zero likes or comments, prompting him to take his case directly to Facebook. While that worked in the past, he has noticed the problem more often.

Kirchoff captured screenshots and shared them with The Daily Signal, which is Heritages multimedia news organization, as well as Facebook. He joins The Daily Signal Podcast to explain the situation and raise awareness for other conservatives.

Listen to the interview or read a lightly edited transcript below.

Rob Bluey: You and I first met at a Heritage Foundation event back in 2018. At which point, you shared some of the troubling experiences you had at Facebook, and I attempted to intervene and put you in touch with some folks there to help sort this out.

Sadly, three years later, it seems that youre still fighting to make sure that your content is being seen on the platform. Can you tell our listeners your story?

Don Kirchoff: I had learned how to use Facebook probably at least 10 years ago, and Facebook continued more and more to prevent me from posting things. I would be blocked three days at a time, a week at a time. And then eventually, I think it was in April of about 2018, they just completely shut down my account. It was as if I never existed on Facebook.

And Rob, thats of the time I spoke with you and you put me in touch with a person in Facebook, and two or three days later, I was back up posting as normal, as if I had never been shut off.

And for the last two or three years, most of my posts have not had difficulty, unless I crossed, I guess, values with a group of liberals out there. And I believe what they would do is they would send messages to Facebook that I was doing something against their community standards, and Facebook gradually, more and more, began, I believe, shadow banning me.

So when that would happen, I would simply do a screenshot of the evidence I had and Id send it to this contact I have, you gave me, in Facebook and things would seem to get better, but in the last couple of months, this shadow banning has become severe.

In fact, some of the just outstanding information, fact-based conservative information, that I would post would get no views, no attention whatsoever. So Ive, again, in the last couple months, began sharing screenshots of that type of information with Facebook. And I really dont know what theyre doing about it because I dont know whats being done behind my screen.

Bluey: Don, for our listeners who might not know the term shadow banning, its something that members of Congress here in Washington have experienced, as well as users like yourself. Can you explain what you are sharing when you contact Facebook and what you mean by shadow banning?

Kirchoff: When I contact Facebook, its because [of] a post of mine, which could be an article prepared by The Heritage Foundation or The Daily Signal, or the New York Post, any of these really great fact-based conservative pieces of information.

And I believe shadow banning to me means that when I post it, theres no activity. There are no likes, no dislikes, no comments, no shares, or very, very few. To me, thats what shadow banning is. In other words, I put something out there, but nobody can see it or do anything with it.

Bluey: Youre absolutely right. And well share some of those screenshots, so our users can log onto dailysignal.com and see for themselves what you mean. Youve shared them with me, and its really interesting. We certainly appreciate that you help sharing Daily Signal stories and Heritage Foundation content.

My question for you is, does it appear to you that Facebook is taking issue with the specific sources of news and information, or is it posts from conservatives like yourself, as you said earlier, whose values might not align?

Kirchoff: I really believe its both. I think some of the material Ive posted such as The Daily Signal or New York Post, from what I hear and read in the media, those sources are already being censored by Facebook. So its not a surprise to me that when I post them, they are also censored on my Facebook page, but I think they are censoring me personally.

And I think thats driven most of the time when there is an issue or contentand it might be on socialism or the border problem. If I post something like that on a more liberal Facebook page, its then that I can associate with that a higher frequency of censorship on my own page.

So I think that part is personal because I become too visible out there in the liberal posting groups.

Rob Bluey: I think thats interesting because youve said youve investigated some of these liberal or left-leaning Facebook groups, and youve discovered that in looking at some of their own posts and the content in those groups, the same type of thing isnt happening.

So what did you discover as you poked around yourself on the platform, and what did you find?

Kirchoff: What I find is on those liberal groups, postings on the same content but a liberal-leaning view, there can be hundreds and even thousands of activity actions on those posts. Whereas if I post conservative content on my Facebook page, it is what I call banned. Nobody can see it, therefore, theres no action on it. Same issue, just a different point of view.

Bluey: Don, taking a step back, you mentioned that youve been active on Facebook now for about a decade. Why is Facebook an important platform for you to be sharing this type of political or policy type of information?

Kirchoff: Thats a great question because on Facebook, you could put out more information and you can engage people. These discussion threads become very educational. For example, my view is that I need to help push back on false information on some of these subjects put out by the liberal media, and therefore, engage people in discussions, both who have the same view as mine or who have an opposing view. Thats welcome on my Facebook page.

Its really interesting how people with both my view and a more liberal view on a subject will get engaged in Facebook discussions, but if the conservative view is shadow banned or prevented from reaching the public, those intellectual discussions cant even take place.

Bluey: Thats so true, and we appreciate you taking the time, that you want to engage with your fellow users on Facebook, those friends and others who may be in Facebook groups with you, to have those types of conversation and discussions. Ive noticed a change myself on Facebook, and Im wondering if you can pinpoint a moment when you feel that Facebook started to change in terms of how it was allowing you to share content?

Was it sometime during the Trump presidency? Was it before that? Was it just recently? Or has this been changing over the course of the last five years, in a way that is increasingly restrictive?

Kirchoff: I think its been changing gradually over a long period of time. I think it got significantly worse this summer. Why? I dont know. I just dont know why, because I cant see whats going on in Facebook. All I can see in my view is what the outcome is, as impacting conservative information I try to post.

Bluey: Facebook, unlike some of the other social media platforms, has created an Oversight Board. Its separate from the company. It makes big decisions, including things like, should President [Donald] Trump be banned from the platform? Of course, that was a decision earlier this year that they said, Facebook cant indefinitely do that. They have to come up with some criteria.

Do you think that something like an Oversight Board is a good development, and have you thought about appealing some of your cases to the Oversight Board, to see if maybe you can escalate it to that level?

Kirchoff: Well, the answer is yes. In fact, I have been sharing some information, the same information that I send to the Facebook content. I also am copying an attorney in Washington, D.C. And you may not remember, Rob, but it is the same attorney who you put me in touch with in 2018. And for a while, he would respond every time I provided information.

He even got me involved with a Facebook questionnaire that was helping to sort of, I guess, define who would be on this kind of board. And I continue to send that information to him, but I dont know what, if anything, is being done with it.

Bluey: Well, I think that thats the frustration. They do take a limited number of cases, and usually the ones that they do take are fairly high profile. But Don, whatever we can do to help, certainly, consider us. I know youre sharing a lot of content that we produce, so we certainly have a stake in this game as well.

I wanted to ask you what your advice is to others who might find themselves in a similar situation and be listening to this interview today?

Kirchoff: Again, thats a good question, too, because I see people making comments about being banned themselves or blocked completely. So when that happens, I direct message them and ask them to contact me on my email address. And when they do, I give them the contact in Facebook to whom they can send detailed information on whats happening to them.

So yes, I can be contacted by email. The problem is there are so many direct messages every day, I just cannot see them. But if I know somebodys going to direct message me in a narrow window of time with a problem and can contact me by email, I happily put them in contact with this Facebook person.

Bluey: Well, Don, we appreciate the work that youre doing to help others, and also to spread the conservative message. As we wrap-up the interview here, I want to give you a moment to just share what it is about conservative principles and the values that you believe in that inspired you to become active. As a grassroots activist, involved with Heritage Action and The Heritage Foundation, was there something in your life that motivated you to take this step?

Kirchoff: Yes. When it became apparent that the only two nominees for president of the Democrat Party was going to be either Barack Obama or Hillary Clinton, that got my wifes and my attention. Up until that point, we simply had our careers. We raised our family, we minded our own business, and we voted, and that was the extent to which we became politically involved.

But when the Democrats were going to have only one of those two as a candidate, we joined tea parties. And we began traveling, particularly to Washington, and attending conferences on how to become an activist. Its there that we became involved with The Heritage Foundation.

It is at that time they set up Heritage Action. We joined immediately. We were among the first to join. This group, more than any others we became in contact with, [was] action-oriented. We wanted to do something, not just talk about it. And thats what were enabled to do in Heritage Action because of the great resources we get in that group.

Bluey: Well, and of course, Heritage is the parent organization of The Daily Signal, and Heritage Action is a strong, independent partner of ours. So Don, we appreciate your leadership and your efforts there in Texas, and well continue to keep in touch.

Thank you for speaking out and giving voice to some of the concerns that I think so many other conservatives have experienced on platforms like Facebook.

Kirchoff: Well, Rob, thank you for being there when we needed help. We really appreciate everything Heritage Foundation and Heritage Action provides for us.

Bluey: Thank you, Don.

Have an opinion about this article? To sound off, please email[emailprotected]and well consider publishing your edited remarks in our regular We Hear You feature. Remember to include the url or headline of the article plus your name and town and/or state.

Read the original post:

Conservative Activist Calls Out Facebook for Suppressing His Posts - Daily Signal

Justice Alito slams "efforts to intimidate" the Supreme Court over Texas abortion ban – Salon

Posted on by

Justice Samuel Alito gave a blistering defense of several of the Supreme Court's recent rulings on contentiouscases, including its decision to allow the Texas law banning all abortions after six weeks.

Critics have accused the majority-conservative Supreme Court of abusing the ideaof a"shadow docket" over the past few months an idea which Alito rejected wholeheartedly ina speech at the University of Notre Dame on Thursday.

"The catchy and sinister term 'shadow docket' has been used to portray the court as having been captured by a dangerous cabal that resorts to sneaky and improper methods to get its ways," he said. "This portrayal feeds unprecedented efforts to intimidate the court or damage it as an independent institution."

The "Texas Heartbeat Act" which the Supreme Court bench declined to block in early September has been seen as a near nullification of Roe v. Wade. Alito, however, referred to these claims as "false and inflammatory."

"We did no such thing," he said. "And we said so expressly in our order." Quoting from the order, Alito stressed that the ruling was not an evaluation of the constitutionality of the law, but rather that the majority (5-4) made its decision following procedural bases.

Want a daily wrap-up of all the news and commentary Salon has to offer? Subscribe to our morning newsletter, Crash Course.

In this case, and in other extreme emergency cases, Alito favors a different term to describe the group: the "emergency docket." Much like how first responders, in dire circumstances, do not have the same luxury of careful considerationas a nurse or doctor in a hospital, the Supreme Court couldnot use its regular deliberation strategies, according to Alito.

"You can't expect the E.M.T.s and the emergency rooms to do the same thing that a team of physicians and nurses will do when they are handling a matter when time is not of the essence in the same way," he explained.

In a dissenting opinion, Associate Justice Elena Kagan wrote that the ruling "illustrates just how far the Court's 'shadow-docket' decisions may depart from the usual principles of appellate process." She added that their decision making becomes more "un-reasoned, inconsistent, and impossible to defend," by the day.

The strict abortion rules that came into effect after the passing of the act, S.B No. 8, was a celebratory moment for conservatives and a dreaded point for women, abortion activists and practitioners and the left in general.

The restrictions, which took effect on Sept. 1, are extreme. Implementing a cutoff date that is often too early for a person to identify that they are pregnant, the act also follows a "vigilante-style system of policing Texans' right to choose" that punishes nearly everyone involved in facilitating a clandestine abortion including the Uber driver. It also does not grant exceptions in cases of rape, incest or sexual abuse.

But all hope is not lost for Texas abortion rights.

Want a daily wrap-up of all the news and commentary Salon has to offer? Subscribe to our morning newsletter, Crash Course.

Earlier this month, the Justice Department filed a lawsuit against the state of Texas over the law, claiming that it was enacted "in open defiance of the Constitution." Judge Robert Pitman of the U.S. District Court for the Western District of Texas is presiding over the arguments presented by the Justice Department in their plea to block the ban. Meanwhile, the state has been enjoining the court to deny motion and dismiss the case out of hand.

"The federal government has not clearly shown that the Texas Heartbeat Act is unconstitutional, that a preliminary injunction would remedy irreparable harm, or that the balance of equities and public interest favor extraordinary relief," the state said in a filing, as reported by NPR.

There is currently no time table for the decision. In the meantime,people seeking abortions continue to travel to neighboring states to evade the harsh laws set out by the state.

The rest is here:

Justice Alito slams "efforts to intimidate" the Supreme Court over Texas abortion ban - Salon

De Blasios Vaxx Mandate Led to an Avalanche of Shots for Teachers – New York Magazine

Posted on by

Photo: Michael Loccisano/Getty Images

In August, Mayor Bill de Blasio made an enormous bet to reopen New York City schools for in-person learning. By requiring all of the citys 150,000 public-school employees to get a shot, he hoped to prevent a third academic year from going remote because of the virus. Employees who did not, he warned, would be suspended without pay.

So on Monday morning, the first day the mandate was enforced, about 8,000 employees were unable to report for work because they refused to be vaccinated. De Blasio took a victory lap at a press conference where he announced that 95 percent of employees were vaccinated, including 96 percent of teachers. A surge of last-minute vaccinations seemed to have avoided the sort of mass suspensions that officials feared and the relative few who were suspended, de Blasio said, had been replaced by vaccinated substitutes. As of today all of the employees in our 1,600 schools are vaccinated, he triumphantly said.

The Department of Education reported that 43,000 shots have been administered since the mandate was announced in August, with 18,000 coming in the past 10 days alone. About 1,000 teachers were vaccinated over the weekend, according to Michael Mulgrew, president of the United Federation of Teachers, which held its own press conference on Monday. (Mulgrew added that UFT members who are vaccinated before the end of the month will be able to return to work the following day.) Teachers who choose to remain unvaccinated will have to make a decision at the end of the month: voluntarily resign or remain on unpaid leave for a year. Both options allow teachers to retain health insurance benefits until early September, 2022. Teachers who choose neither option will be fired in December, according to an email sent to employees who had yet to comply.

Although the mayor had said all employees must be vaccinated by Friday at 5 p.m. or be placed on unpaid leave, the Department of Education told staff they could be vaccinated as late as Monday morning and still show up for work. While its unclear exactly how many teachers were unable to report for work on Monday morning, the mandate did trigger concerns about staffing shortages. The citys substitute-teacher portal listed thousands of slots available over the weekend, while the city said roughly 9,000 vaccinated substitutes were standing by to fill in. Mulgrew said staff shortages could hit some areas of the school system particularly hard, especially those that work with children who have special needs and school safety agents.

Of particular concern was Staten Island, where the vaccination rate has lagged behind the citywide average. Chancellor Meisha Ross Porter allayed fears about staffing shortages at schools there, such as New Dorp High School. Twenty staff members in a school of that size, while not insignificant, was fully covered by the work of the superintendent, by the work of the central staff, and by the work of the subs, she said at Mondays press conference.

This is going to be a total nightmare, said Rachel Maniscalco, 36, who taught English and special education at Concord High School in Staten Island. Maniscalco received an email from the DOE on Saturday notifying her that she had been placed on unpaid leave. Maniscalco said she would not be getting a shot before the end of the month because she did not feel drug manufacturers had been transparent about the makeup of their vaccines. The mayor wants to say that were replaceable, but the truth of the matter is that this week is going to be so detrimental to the DOE employees, their students, and their kids families, she said.

The school systems mandate comes nearly a week after New York began requiring vaccinations at health-care facilities statewide. That order resulted in a surge of vaccinations but left some hospitals with staffing shortages, forcing administrators to cancel elective surgeries in some instances. In Brooklyn, SUNY Downstate Medical Center postponed radiology appointments and canceled elective C-sections, according to Gothamist. Unlike mandates in other states and cities, New Yorks mandates do not allow for educators or health-care workers to rely on regular testing as an alternative to vaccination.

I never considered getting the shot at all. I dont even do flu shots, said Jo Rose, 30, a teachers assistant in the Bronx who was suspended over the weekend. Rose said she was one of only a handful of holdouts at her school; most of her unvaccinated co-workers caved to the pressure the mandate had placed on them since it was announced. Rose has not been vaccinated because she believes the government has too much control over people.I had to tell my kids on Friday that I was leaving. They thought I was cracking a joke on them, she said. They really thought I wasnt being serious. They were like, Why dont you just go get it? And I just tried to explain to them that I have a right to decide over my body.

The mandate survived a number of legal challenges, including a last-ditch appeal to Supreme Court Justice Sonia Sotomayor, which was denied. About 3,000 UFT members applied for religious exemptions or medical accommodations, Mulgrew said, but only 1,000 had been granted. Michael Kane, 43, a teacher in Queens, was originally denied a religious exemption but is in the process of appealing that decision. As of Monday morning, Kane was not allowed inside his school building, but he has yet to be placed on unpaid leave.

Its been very conflicting, said Paulette ONeal, a 52-year-old teachers assistant at P.S. 307 in Brooklyn, who said she was denied a religious exemption. ONeal said she had not gotten vaccinated because she was concerned about the shadow-banning and censoring of information about vaccines. They dont want us in the building. Or to let us talk to our children or their parents. They just want us to disappear, she said.

De Blasio said he was considering whether to extend the mandate to other city employees but would not say which departments might be next.

Daily news about the politics, business, and technology shaping our world.

Excerpt from:

De Blasios Vaxx Mandate Led to an Avalanche of Shots for Teachers - New York Magazine

Justice Alito Calls Criticism Of The Shadow Docket ‘Silly’ And ‘Misleading’ – NPR

Posted on by

Supreme Court Justice Samuel Alito dismissed criticism of the so-called shadow docket. Erin Schaff/AP hide caption

Supreme Court Justice Samuel Alito dismissed criticism of the so-called shadow docket.

Supreme Court Justice Samuel Alito launched a litany of acerbic barbs at critics of the Supreme Court's so-called shadow docket on Thursday.

Noting that the term was coined in a 2015 law review article, Alito said that the term has been adopted by "journalists and some political figures" in order to convey the idea that "something sneaky and dangerous" is going on at the high court when it rules on emergency appeals seeking the court's intervention.

"This picture is very sinister and threatening, but it is also very misleading," he said in a lecture at the University of Notre Dame. "There is nothing, absolutely nothing new about emergency applications."

He added: "The catchy and sinister term 'shadow docket' has been used to portray the court as having been captured by a dangerous cabal that resorts to sneaky and improper methods to get its way. And this portrayal feeds unprecedented efforts to intimidate the court or damage it as an independent institution."

Addressing the court's most recent and controversial shadow docket decision, which allowed a Texas law banning abortions after about six weeks to go into effect, Alito said it is "false and inflammatory" to contend, as some critics have, that the decision "nullified Roe v. Wade."

"We did no such thing, and we said so expressly in our order," he said. Indeed, the court's 5-to-4 decision specifically left open the possibility that the court could re-examine the state law in a future case. But Alito did not address the fact that the court's decision to let the law go into effect meant that for the foreseeable future at least, almost all abortions in Texas are banned.

In dissent, Justice Elena Kagan wrote that the unsigned majority opinion "illustrates how far the court's 'shadow docket' decisions may depart from the usual principles of appellate process."

But Alito fiercely denied that, contending that the court's processes for dealing with emergency appeals has not, in reality, changed over the years.

"The truth of the matter," he said, "is that there is nothing shadowy" or really new about the process.

Indeed, the Supreme Court has long been willing to grant temporary relief in a limited number of cases to preserve the status quo, especially when there is a strong case that individuals will be harmed if the court does not act. Most often in the past these emergency orders have been used in death penalty cases to halt executions if there is a real likelihood that the death row inmate's sentence may have violated the constitution.

But there was an explosion of these emergency applications when the Donald Trump became president. From 2001 to 2017, during the presidencies of George W. Bush and Barack Obama, the solicitor general filed a total of eight applications with the Supreme Court seeking to halt lower court orders dealing most often with administration policies. That is one every other term, according to University of Texas law professor Stephen Vladeck. Of those eight applications, the court granted just four, one every other term.

In contrast the Trump administration filed 41 emergency relief requests, securing a win from the court 28 times.

"It's a silly criticism," Alito said of the notion that the court has issued more emergency rulings in recent years. Addressing some of these numbers, he said "the real complaint of the critics is that we should have granted relief when they think it should have been denied ... and denied relief when they think it should have been granted."

The justice maintained that he had no problem with legitimate criticism, but he contended that most of the criticism of the way the current court handles the shadow docket is politically motivated and that it erroneously "seeks to convey ... that a dangerous cabal is deciding important issues in a novel, secretive, improper way in the middle of the night."

See the article here:

Justice Alito Calls Criticism Of The Shadow Docket 'Silly' And 'Misleading' - NPR


« First...102030...444445446447448...460470480...Last »