Daily Archives: January 17, 2021

Nothing makes sense anymore.

The party of law and order just rampaged through the Capitol, bludgeoning a police officer to death and calling for the lynching of the vice president. The partys leader, President Trump, has pardoned a rogues gallery of thieves and murderers. And now, in a last-gasp effort to prove there is nothing that Trump wont defile, hes been handing out Medals of Freedom like Chiclets to his unprincipled political acolytes and enablers.

For the record:

11:09 AM, Jan. 16, 2021An earlier version of this article said Trump incited a crowd that stormed the White House. The crowd stormed the U.S. Capitol.

The Presidential Medal of Freedom, created by President Kennedy in 1963, was established to recognize individuals who have made an especially meritorious contribution to the security or national interests of the United States, or world peace, or cultural or other significant public or private endeavors.

There have been a few recipients who fell from grace after receiving the medal. Bill Cosby, for example, got one from President George W. Bush in 2002 and was later convicted of aggravated indecent assault. But presidents have generally maintained a high bar, awarding the medal to popes, astronauts, scientists, statesmen, military heroes, thinkers and artists. In 1985, President Reagan gave the award to Mother Teresa.

Then came Trump. Over the course of his tenure, Trump has awarded the medal to 24 civilians, 14 of whom are athletes. He has honored only three women, including golfer Annika Srenstam; Miriam Adelson, the wife of his largest campaign contributor, the late Sheldon Adelson; and Olympic gold medalist Babe Didrikson Zaharias (who died in 1956).

Trump has used the countrys highest civilian honor to reward his most fervent supporters angry, divisive partisans like Rush Limbaugh (who coined the term feminazi), Rep. Jim Shouty Jordan and, of course, his favorite cow-suing congressman, Rep. Devin Nunes.

Just as he has done with the presidency, Trump has debased the Medal of Freedom.

Everything about Donald Trump screams narcissism, so its hardly a surprise he turns the highest civilian award into a tool to reflect his own interests, said Rob Weissman, president of the government watchdog group Public Citizen. He gave the Medal of Freedom to individuals for their service to him.

Exactly. Nunes was cited for uncovering the greatest scandal in American history and helping thwart a plot to take down a sitting United States president.

Congressman Nunes, said the White House announcement, pursued the Russia Hoax at great personal risk and never stopped standing up for the truth. He had the fortitude to take on the media, the FBI, the Intelligence Community, the Democrat Party, foreign spies, and the full power of the Deep State. Devin paid a price for his courage.

The price? Columnists wrote mean things about him.

On Sunday, I asked Democratic Rep. Adam B. Schiff how he reacted to Nunes receiving the Medal of Freedom. I feel like I am living in Alice in Wonderland, Schiff said. It grieves me to think about what that means to others who have received the honor.

Now, I dont mean to pick on Nunes. Oh, who am I kidding? Yes, I do.

He has distinguished himself as Congress most thin-skinned member, suing for defamation newspapers, magazines, television networks, a fellow congressman, an organic fruit farmer and, of course, the anonymous author of a Twitter account who purports to be a cow. As the Washington Posts Dana Milbank wrote last March, Thats a lot of litigation for a guy who co-sponsored the Discouraging Frivolous Lawsuits Act of 2017.

The other day, Nunes seemed to excuse Trumps incitement of the crowd that stormed the U.S. Capitol and killed Capitol Police Officer Brian Sicknick. Look, he told Sean Hannity, the president makes a lot of mistakes. All presidents make mistakes.

Nunes unhinged performance during the Houses first impeachment inquiry in 2019 should go down as one of the most bizarre political displays of all time. He showed no interest in Trumps alleged crimes but continually tried to drag an unknown Democratic National Committee operative named Alexandra Chalupa into the proceedings by implying with absolutely no proof that shed sabotaged Trumps 2016 campaign.

He and his colleagues, including most notably his fellow medalist Jordan, tried to out the anonymous whistleblower who first raised concerns about Trumps phone call with the new president of Ukraine. That was, of course, the call during which Trump asked Volodymyr Zelensky, who wanted Trump to allow the release of nearly $400 million in aid to Ukraine, to do us a favor though and dig up dirt on Joe Biden.

Trump himself, youll recall, had already endangered the safety of the unnamed whistleblower by accusing him of treason. During the impeachment inquiry, Nunes repeatedly tried to get witnesses like Lt. Col. Alexander Vindman to reveal the identity of the whistleblower, a CIA officer who was detailed to the White House.

It was shocking to see Devin Nunes receiving the medal for his work in the first impeachment and [Russian election interference] investigations, said Irvin McCullough, a national security analyst who specializes in military and intelligence community whistleblowing for the Government Accountability Project. How did I react? With a mixture of disgust and disappointment.

In Trumps first impeachment, McCullough said, Republicans just abandoned the bipartisan tradition of whistleblower protection.

And it hasnt gotten any better.

In December, Foreign Policy magazine reported, Nunes blocked reforms to the Whistleblower Protection Act that would have strengthened those protections. Among other things, the reforms would have imposed criminal penalties on anyone who shares a whistleblower complaint with the target of an investigation without the whistleblowers permission (as happened with the complaint about Trumps Ukraine call), McCullough said.

Supporting whistleblowers is supporting the safeguards that prevent our democracy from going off the rails, McCullough added. Opposing strengthening protections for whistleblowers is the same as opposing oversight. From a national security standpoint, that makes us all less safe.

I would certainly not lump Nunes in with his fellow medalist Cosby, a serial assaulter of women. But no one should get a Medal of Freedom for assaulting the Constitution, either.

@AbcarianLAT

Read this article:

How Trump cheapened the Presidential Medal of Freedom - Los Angeles Times

The Ridgefield Republican Party has had bi-weekly editorials printed in the Ridgefield Press, alternately with Democrat editorials, for many, many years. You will no longer see them.

When pressed for an explanation, the response is that the editorials violate our community standards. One wonders what those might be, since not one has been submitted that is factually incorrect, libelous, or calls for violence of any sort.

They have, however, often pointed out harmful policies by our government leaders in Hartford or misguided, in our opinion, actions by the federal government or our legislative representatives. We have also received complaints from citizens whose Letters to the Editor have been rejected, no doubt because their letters didnt fall in line with community standard opinions. It is a sad day when free speech is disallowed in our small town.

The Press is owned by the Hearst Corporation, a mega-corporation with $11.5 billion in revenue, and has interests in more than 360 companies in print media, radio, TV, and cable ventures, real estate, tech, and more. One would think that, being so heavily involved in communications, they would value free speech and a free press. But no, they are allied with those who would control what we see and hear and shut down all diverse views they dont want us to consider.

If history is any teacher, eventually those with greater power will shut them down, also. The question for every one of us is: Do we value freedom of speech and press? And, if so, how do we stem this ugly tide of censorship? Whether we remain a free people depends on the answer.

Linda Lavelle

Ridgefield, CT

See original here:

Ridgefield Letter to the Editor: Freedom of Speech - HamletHub

President Donald Trump is presented with a New England Patriots helmet and jersey from Patriots head coach Bill Belichick during a ceremony on the South Lawn of the White House in 2017. (Jabin Botsford / The Washington Post via Getty Images)

Subscribe now for as little as $2 a month!

Subscribe now for as little as $2 a month!

Subscribe now for as little as $2 a month!

Donald Trump has always viewed sports as central to his authoritarian political project. His attacks on Colin Kaepernick and LeBron James, his call to fire players for protesting police violence, and his bragging that he saved college football from those concerned that the sport would lead to super-spreading the coronavirus (it did) are all examples of the ways he has used our games as his own poisonous platform.

Trump has also delighted in the sycophancy of athletes, coaches, and franchise owners who are willing to bend the knee before him and pledge their allegiance. Yet there is no category of sportsman more appealing to Trump than the ones that mirror his own toxic masculinity. He has no regard for womens sports at all. He loves the Ultimate Fighting Championship and their fake, macho tough-guy president Dana White. He preens with joy when hearing that golfers like Tiger Woods or Jack Nicklaus show him affection. Trump is not a lover of sports. He is a lover of a noxious goulash of alpha male horseshit that represents the worst of sports.

No one exemplifies this quite like Bill Belichick. The New England Patriots coach with the six Super Bowl rings, a demeanor that redefines gruff, and a belief that his own workers should have no days off is everything Trump loves: a winner who loves him back. In 2016, the night before the election, Trump read a letter written to him by Belichick, effusive in its praise. It included the lines, You have dealt with an unbelievable slanted and negative media, and have come out beautifullybeautifully. Youve proved to be the ultimate competitor and fighter. Your leadership is amazing. I have always had tremendous respect for you, but the toughness and perseverance you have displayed over the past year is remarkable. Hopefully tomorrows election results will give the opportunity to make America great again.

Thats why it came as no surprise in the aftermath of the fascist riot on Capitol Hill when it was announced that Trump would bestow the Presidential Medal of Freedom later this week upon Bill Belichick. And thats also why it came as an even greater surprise when Belichick turned it down. Here is the at times tortured, at times sincere, statement that Belichick released, announcing his refusal:

Recently I was offered the opportunity to receive the Presidential Medal of Freedom, which I was flattered by out of respect for what the honor represents and admiration for prior recipients. Subsequently, the tragic events of last week occurred and the decision has been made not to move forward with the award. Above all, I am an American citizen with great reverence for our nations values, freedom and democracy. I know I also represent my family and the New England Patriots team. One of the most rewarding things in my professional career took place in 2020 when, through the great leadership within our team, conversations about social justice, equality and human rights moved to the forefront and became actions. Continuing those efforts while remaining true to the people, team and country I love outweigh the benefits of any individual award.

Before anyone gives Belichick a cookie, we should be clear that if he had accepted this award, it would have been a scar on his reputation; an indelible mark that no number of Super Bowl rings would have been able to cover up. To be used as a prop by this president while Capitol Hill police officers were still having their funerals planned would be beyond the pale, even for Belichick. In addition, it is difficult to imagine any social justice initiative taken up by the Patriots ever being taken seriously by anyone again.

Then there is the issue of the Patriots players themselves. Belichick depends upon his mystique as a leader of men. If players dont want to come to New England, then Belichicks plan of rebuilding and proving that he can win without former quarterback Tom Brady goes by the wayside. And imagine if current players took to social media to express their disgust or disdain. His mystique would quickly become a depreciating asset.

Make no mistake, Belichick did the right thing. Whether he did it for the wrong reasons is something worth pondering, especially as Trumps allies begin to disembark from his sinking, rat-infested ship. Trumps presidency is coming to an end. His exploitation of sports has now been mortally wounded as well, and by someone he assumed would never brandish the blade.

Read the original here:

In a Shocker, Bill Belichick Spurns Trumps Medal of Freedom - The Nation

For Greg Johnson, 2020 was a momentous year on his professional journey.

Executive Vice President and General Manager of Intuits Consumer Group, Johnson was part of the largest financial technology acquisition to date when Intuit bought Credit Karma last month for $8.1 billion in cash and stock paving the way for new consumer services.

Based in San Diego, Johnson oversaw a 13 percent jump in revenue for Intuits consumer division, which includes TurboTax, TurboTax Live and Mint, despite the COVID-19 pandemic.

And after resisting overtures from recruiters for two years, Johnson joined his first corporate board this fall, becoming a director at Qualcomm.

As a minority executive overseeing a multi-billion-dollar business unit, Johnson has been highly sought after by companies looking to increase diversity on their boards. In those talks, he tried to ascertain whether he could genuinely contribute, or whether he was being courted because of his race.

It is a weird thing. You do not want to be considered because you are Black. You want to be considered because you are the right person, he said. But that is kind of nave.

We do need to course correct and address it. So, you know that (race) plays a role, and it should play some kind of a role as you look to diversify your board. But you dont want that to be the reason for being offered a seat.

Johnson, 52, grew up in a military family. His father attended Tuskegee University and served in the Air Force. Five of seven brothers served in the military, including an older brother who went to West Point.

Johnson chose the U.S. Air Force Academy, where he was a two-time all-conference running back. He graduated with a degree in Operations Research.

After the Air Force, he spent 20 years working in the U.S. and abroad for Kraft Foods, SC Johnson, Kodak, Gillette and Best Buy. He joined Intuit in 2012 and was named head of the Consumer Group in 2018.

Today, Johnson has profit and loss responsibility for a $3.1 billion business unit that he is transforming beyond do-it-yourself tax preparation software. His strategy is to empower households with technology and services to take control of their financial lives not only by maximizing tax refunds but also by saving more, paying off debt and lowering loan/credit card payments.

Johnson spoke with the Union-Tribune about his vision for the Intuits Consumer Group, what he brings to Qualcomms board and his perspective as a minority executive. Here are some excerpts, which have been condensed for clarity.

Q: What brought you to Intuit?

A: Eight years ago, I had an opportunity, and I came for two things. It is a technology company. That is something I really wanted to be part of because of the relevance that technology has in shaping future experiences for customers, and Intuit is just a highly relevant company. And the second attribute was the values of Intuit.

We have made some really big changes in the organization, the biggest of which was a vision for our Consumer Group. That vision is we want to fight for financial freedom for all consumers.

Q: What do you mean by that?oA: What I have learned over the years, and I knew this but to do it first-hand through things like Follow Me Home where we spend time with consumers in their homes, is the role that financial stress plays in their lives, and the havoc it wreaks on their lives in general.

There was a woman, I remember, speaking about pacing her room. She could not sleep at night because of the stress, the financial worries she had.

When you think about the role that the tax refund plays in a consumers life, for over 80 percent of Americans, it can be the biggest check of their year. It is the check that allows them to get their life back on track annually. They come into tax season with a whole bunch of bills and they rely upon that tax refund.

When I first got here, it was not about financial freedom. It was about maximizing your refund. But when we started to understand why it is so important and the role that it plays, we started asking how can we help them make a difference with that check?

That led us to innovate beyond tax to what we call Turbo, which is an application that allows people to re-engineer their financial lives and leverage their refund to improve their credit score, find other ways to save and make better financial decisions.

So, the journey kind of started with tax and the role that the refund played in their lives, and then realizing we can help them do more with that refund and make better decisions with that refund. And that kind of gave birth to a broader strategy around financial freedom.

Q: How does it work?

A: Our strategy for unlocking smart money decisions is two-fold. Number one, we have an app called Mint. Mint is a financial planning app that is focused on helping consumers figure out how to spend less, save more, and hopefully we are extending it to help them make more money. We have about 3 million active users.

The second part of our strategy is the acquisition of Credit Karma, which has 105 million users. What they effectively do is enable customers to get access to products that help them to re-engineer their financial lives.

In other words, if they have a credit card where they are overpaying, how do they get to a lower interest rate? Do they need debt consolidation? Are they overpaying for auto insurance or an auto loan or a mortgage? Refinancing? All of those transactions lead to putting more money in the consumers pocket. That is why Credit Karma became a very important part of our broader strategy.

Q: Tell me about TurboTax Live.

A: Strategically, our roadmap is to extend our lead in the do-it-yourself (tax prep) category by leveraging data and artificial intelligence to remove friction and ensure customers maximize their returns.

The second part is to transform the assisted tax market (using a tax professional). The assisted tax market is a $20 billion market. Eighty-four million customers use assisted tax, and many do not need to. So, TurboTax Live is an offering that we brought to market that effectively says we are going to create a virtual expert platform that connects consumers to pros. This allows them to access a pro on demand. By pros, I mean CPAs, Enrolled Agents and tax attorneys.

The third leg of our strategy would be to disrupt traditional consumer finance. Imagine creating this virtual platform that is artificial intelligence-driven that autonomously helps you optimize your financial decisions. Think about the ability for us to realize that there is an opportunity for you to get a higher yield savings account. Most customers put their money into an account and leave it there. But we could identify the opportunity and help them move their money autonomously so it works harder for them.

Q: Why did you decide to join Qualcomms board?

A: I had been approached about being on boards in the past, but having just become general manager of the Consumer Group a couple of years ago, and running a $3 billion division, it is all-consuming.

When I first got the job, I talked with (Intuit Executive Chairman) Brad Smith and (Chief Executive) Sasan Goodarzi. Their advice to me was, Look Greg, we wont stop you from joining a board. But our advice is you get a little bit of time under your belt.

I had some conversations, but I always said the time is not right. About nine months ago, I was approached by recruiters who were exposing me to board opportunities because I had finally let them know that I am interested.

Qualcomm was one of those. The fact that it is a technology company is a big plus for me. Not only technology but 5G and how 5G is going to fundamentally change the world.

I bring that perspective from more of the demand side versus the supply side of the 5G technology revolution. So, I saw a chance to be very relevant, to bring another perspective more from consumer-use cases and demand that might help inform them about their roadmap and business model going forward. I saw the opportunity to add value there.

Q: How did you approach the diversity issue with these board opportunities?

A: The boards that I got exposed to, I asked the question of not just Qualcomm, I asked the question of other boards because I was very skeptical about why I was being considered. The question I would ask it would never be my first question; it would be my last question was why me at this time and this point?

And if it did not come up around diversity, then I would bring it up more practically and say, the reason I am asking the question is because I want to make sure this is not just trying to check the box. I want to hear the contributions and expectations you have of me first. Those are the table stakes. You want me because of what I can contribute.

Now given that, as you discuss diversity of the board and the need to be more diverse, absolutely. So I feel privileged to be an example of moving in that direction.

Q: Were those uncomfortable conversations?

A: It was uncomfortable for me to ask. But the reality of it is, now that I am at this point, I am having to talk about it more. It has become more central. It is a story I need to share, and maybe I am leaning into it more.

I remember I used to say I wanted to be viewed by my contributions and my merits, not as a Black person because I thought being Black was a liability. That is the part I grew to understand. I had been so long thinking about it as a liability. How do you communicate that now and talk to people, particularly talk to other Blacks in my organization?

Being Black is a brotherhood so to speak, a sisterhood. It is a sense of community. There is something that is just very different about being Black that I cherish. So how do you start to have those conversations and create an environment and a dialog and educate and just try to enlighten?

Q: What needs to happen to increase diversity?

A: My starting point, to increase diversity on the board level, you must increase diversity in the C-suite, and to do that you are going to have to create some diversity through middle management. There is a pipeline.

I was used to being the only Black guy. I remember joining Kraft Foods with 30 MBAs from all kinds of different schools and different areas, but there were two of us who were Black. That has to change. That is where it starts. That is the part that is so important. And then just role models. It will be a journey. It will not be a light switch. But I believe there is a higher level of commitment to that journey now than I can recall at any point in my career.

Read more:

Intuit's Greg Johnson crafts strategy beyond TurboTax, aims to helps consumers gain financial freedom - The San Diego Union-Tribune

This Religious Freedom Day, January 16th, we want to highlight the idea that religious freedom is inescapably linked with reproductive freedom. We cannot fully have one without the other.

Religious Freedom Day was designated by Congress to commemorate the enactment of the Virginia Statute for Religious Freedom in 1786. The first such legislation in the history of the world, it has informed the highest aspirations of American democracy ever since.

While some of our many religious traditions wont acknowledge it, when individuals make reproductive decisionscontraception, fertility treatment, termination of a pregnancy, adoption, etc.theyre exercising their right to conscience. This may not have been anticipated by the gentlemen of 18th century Virginia, but it is consistent with their view that people have the right to decide matters of conscience without the interference of government or powerful religious institutionswhat we still call religious freedom.

But this and other foundational values of democracy have been under siege, as political, legislative and judicial deference is increasingly granted to a narrow band of religious authoritarians we sometimes call Christian Nationalists or Dominionists. (Contrary to stereotype, its not just white evangelicals. There are, for example, plenty of allied Catholics who have instigated the otherization and assault on people who dont share their views.)

We saw some of them participate in the recent insurrectionist events at the U.S. and State capitol buildings. These events reveal how exclusivist notions of Christianity have been allowed to run roughshod over people of other religious traditions, including many fellow Christians. Throughout history, the rise of such religious supremacism has led to brutality. But one of the strengths of a democratic, pluralist society is that we have the capacity and potential resilience to overcome such singular drives for power. Its that very resilience we are calling for this Religious Freedom Day, as we recognize the strengths of diversity and equality under the law.

A civil body politic

Were reminded that the history of the idea of religious freedom in North America harkens further back, to the PilgrimsCongregationalists who were fleeing oppression by the Anglican Church, the official church of the British Empire. In 1620, the signers of the Mayflower Compact declared we solemnly and mutually in the presence of God, and one another, covenant and combine our selves together into a civil body politic, for our better ordering and preservation.

But soon, the supposed better order established by the colonists of Massachusetts Bay tended towards exclusivism, dominance, and supremacyas other religious groups arrived; in bloody relation to indigenous peoples; and as some people deviated from the orthodoxy of the day.

In the face of all this, suffice to say, it took time to identify and to agree on shared democratically framed principles to guide a civil body politic in all of the colonies. But this, and the paradox of seeking freedom for some while denying it to othersand worseis part of the story of religious freedom in the U.S. that evolves and continues to this day. Paradoxes notwithstanding, it remains important to follow the through line of one of the most powerfully liberatory ideas in history lest we lose sight of who weve been, and who we need to become and the opportunities afforded us all by knowing in our bones the authentic meaning of religious freedom in our time. And this means, by the way, being able to say without hesitation or qualification what religious freedom is, and not only what it is not.

A century and a half later, Thomas Jefferson, fresh from having drafted the Declaration of Independence in Philadelphia, went home and drafted the Virginia Statute for Religious Freedom in 1777. The bill helped rally Virginias Baptists and Presbyterians to the cause of the Revolution, which envisioned a future free from persecution by the Anglican Church. It took nearly a decade for the liberatory promise of Jeffersons bill to become law under the legislative leadership of James Madison. From there, the vision of religious freedom slowly advanced to become a central feature of the framework of American constitutional democracy.

The Virginia Statute declared, all men shall be free to profess, and by argument to maintain, their opinions in matters of religion, and that the same shall in no wise diminish, enlarge, or affect their civil capacities. Worried about backsliding and revisionism regarding this legacy, Jefferson later wrote that the vision of religious freedom intended by the Statute encompasses the Jew and the Gentile, the Christian and Mahometan, the Hindoo, and infidel of every denomination.

Following his historic legislative victory with the Virginia Statute, Madison traveled to Philadelphia in 1787 where he was a principal author of the Constitution, and, two years later, of the First Amendment. Unsurprisingly, the Virginia Statute has long been understood by scholars and by the U.S. Supreme Court to be an authoritative source for the meaning of religious freedom.

While Madison, Jefferson and the seminal documents they helped frame in their time had a broad understanding of the importance of freedom of religion and conscience for the well-being of the civil body politic, they didnt recognize how critical gender justice and reproductive freedom are, not only for the health of the democracy but religious freedom itself. That work is ours in this era.

The two of us who co-author this essay have come togethera white man whose body was always considered as part of the civil body politic from the early colonies, and a Black woman whose body never was considered a partto invite all Americans to a closer examination of religious freedom and its critical connection with reproductive freedom.

The Virginia Statute places the locus of the right of religious freedom with individual citizens and not with powerful institutions of religion and government. The most important words in the Virginia Statute are about religious equalityessentially thatones religious identity should be neither an advantage nor a disadvantage under the law.

Rolling back a natural right

Jefferson also cast a weather eye to the futurewriting in the Statute itself that, the rights hereby asserted, are of the natural rights of mankind, and any legislation that repeals the statute will be an infringement of a natural right.

Today we must extend this foundational principle for ordering society first articulated in the Virginia Statute, that ones religious identity must also be neither an advantage nor a disadvantage to individuals as they make private life decisions.

The modern descendants of the early Congregationalists is the United Church of Christ (UCC), a national denomination that has long recognized that different religions approach matters of reproductive decision-making differently, and that for one group to impose its views on others is a violation of religious freedom under the First Amendment.

We think its time for us all to seek religious freedom for reproductive freedom, and to recognize that persistent efforts to interfere in reproductive decisions is an infringement of a natural right in the sense the Virginia Statute warned.

Of course, women didnt share in this natural right at the timebut the right to believe differently than the rich and the powerful as codified in the Statute and the First Amendment, is what allowed for every advance in human and civil rights sinceincluding the extension of this right to women.

We recognize that the Christian Right argues that for Christians to take a pro-choice stance and advocate for reproductive freedom is accommodating to modern secular beliefs and it flies in the face of the Bible and the historical position of the church. But contrary to this Manichaean suggestion, reproductive freedom isnt necessarily an entirely secular matter.

Indeed, in addition to the UCC, a number of Christian and Jewish traditions with roots in the colonial era, and many others since have come to embrace the values of reproductive choice and justice within their belief systems and therefore the principle of religious freedom that protects them all under the Constitution. They understand that how and when and under what circumstances women bring children into the world is a matter for their own conscience, not for other individuals or other religious institutions or the government.

These and members of all and no religious traditions have the equal right of individual conscience, as Madison put it. Or as Jefferson put it, the freedom of the mind to make their own decisions. This is why the ideas of religious freedom that made democracy possible are the root of what makes reproductive freedom possible today.

The rollback of religious freedom that the sponsors of the Virginia Statute warned us about is well underway. We can see it in the recent and likely future decisions of the Supreme Court, the damage done by the Trump administration, and in the theocratic agenda of the Christian Right, a movement that continues to grow in political power. But their day is not forever.

We know that it will take time and struggle to regain what has been lost to the theocratic operatives of the Christian Right and their enablers in politics and government. But we also know that the prochoice religious community is vast and growing, and that, along with non-religious Americans, they constitute a majority.

We may be on the verge of action on how the promise of religious freedom can deliver reproductive freedom in our time. And we can envision a time when people wont be able to remember that there was ever a time when reproductive freedom was in doubt. What they may call history, could be our future.

Original post:

We Can't Have Religious Freedom Without Reproductive Freedom - Religion Dispatches

Suppose, for the sake of argument, that Covid were to claim 10,000 lives next winter. How would we react? Logically, we should take it in our stride. As Chris Whitty said the other week: There will be more deaths, probably for the foreseeable future, but at a much lower level just as every year there are flu deaths, on an average year maybe 7,000, and in a high year up to 20,000. No one ever suggested that we respond to a bad flu year by banning sports and closing shops.

Then again, not every death counts equally, at least not when it comes to public policy. Deaths resulting from terrorism are far more newsworthy than deaths from domestic violence, because a governments legitimacy rests partly on its ability to protect its people from external attack.

When, in 2017, Khalid Masood used his car to kill four people on Westminster Bridge, the machinery of state was fully mobilised. Yet four people die as a result of being hit by vehicles every day each of them as much the centre of their own universe as the victims of terrorism.

Will coronavirus deaths be treated like stroke or cancer deaths an ugly reality in an imperfect world? Or will they become the medical equivalent of terrorist fatalities, blamed on state policy? Early signs point to the latter.

For a year, now, the worlds media have exaggerated the impact of human agency on the virus. Every international disparity in infection or death rates is presented as a result of policy, rather than of differences in demographics, population density, pre-existing immunity, climate or, indeed, luck.

With most diseases, we take for granted that prevalence varies geographically; but, when it comes to the coronavirus, we pretend otherwise.

It is possible that we will eventually treat Covid as an endemic seasonal illness as we do with, say, Spanish flu, whose virulence has declined over the years. But it is equally possible the reverse will happen, that other diseases will be treated like Covid, that every lethal virus will trigger demands for a lockdown.

Read more from the original source:

Freedom wont survive a world where every lethal virus triggers another lockdown - Telegraph.co.uk

Across the world, the state of civil liberties has declined throughout COVID-19 pandemic, according to a recent study. In their annual review, Civicus Monitor, a global alliance of civil society groups, found that 87% of the worlds population is now living in countries deemed to be closed, repressed or obstructed an increase of over 4% from the previous year. Under the guise of the COVID-19 pandemic, many governments have sought to curtail basic human rights, including freedom of speech, peaceful assembly and association, often as a means to suppress dissidence and consolidate their hold on power. Of particular concern are the growing obstructions of civic freedoms in the Americas, where four countries including the United States have dropped a rating since the previous year. In response, Civicus Monitor and other human rights groups are calling on governments across the world to push back on authoritarianism and any attempts to undermine the inalienable rights afforded to all individuals.

According to Doug Rutzen and Nikhil Dutta, writers for the Just Security organisation, pandemics are fertile breeding grounds for governmental overreach. Certainly, as we have witnessed, this has been the case in many parts of the world since the beginning of the COVID-19 crisis. China, for instance, sought to expand its surveillance technology to an even more dangerous level, far beyond what is needed to trace the spread of the virus. Even the United States, a country that prides itself on upholding democratic freedoms to the highest standard, has witnessed a noticeable decline in the civic space, largely seen through restrictive laws, the excessive use of force against protesters, and an increasingly hostile environment for the press,according to the Civicus Monitor. Ultimately, as put by Belalba Barreto, in most regions this year the story around civic freedoms looks bleak. At a time when civic rights are needed more than ever to hold governments accountable, the space for this is further being restricted.

Measures employed by governments to suppress civic freedoms, whether it be in the form of censorship, attacks on the press or harassment of human rights defenders, go far beyond what is acceptable under international law. Certainly, given the severity of this public health crisis, there is a space for emergency actions to be taken. Nevertheless, governments have a responsibility to ensure that efforts to contain the COVID-19 virus are proportionate and time-restricted, preventing such powers from being exploited after the pandemic subsides. Other countries also have a responsibility to keep non-abiding states accountable by identifying and condemning human rights abuses as they occur.

Even prior to the COVID-19 outbreak, many countries across the world had been moving towards increasingly closed or shrinking civic spaces. Since the early 2000s, an increasing number of governments have sought to impose legal or extra-legal measures to limit the capacity and space of civil society actors, according to Freedom House. It is also important to note that no longer are such trends confined to authoritarian states such as China or Russia. The state of political rights and civil liberties has also become increasingly under threat in many of the worlds most free societies, which has had profound effects on their credibility and power to promote democracy on a global scale.

Whilst we may be embarking upon a new year, it is clear that the COVID-19 pandemic, and all its ensuing repercussions, will continue to permeate our lives for the foreseeable future. Going forward, it is vital that we no longer tolerate governments who seek to capitalise upon the conditions of the pandemic to dismantle the civic rights and liberties of their own people. Whilst recognising the challenges associated with dealing with this unprecedented public health crisis, measures that can have harmful and discriminatory effects on basic civic freedoms, whether intentional or not, should ultimately be resisted.

Read the original:

COVID-19 And The Decline Of Global Civic Freedom - The Organization for World Peace

The civil liberties campaigner wants to stop cancel culture taking root in centres of higher education and is alarmed at resistance to hearing uncomfortable opinions. Mr Davis argues that free debate and a willingness to challenge accepted ideas is central to Britains success. He said: The right tochallenge and dispute has been critical to the growth of our culture.

And Britain would never have become a scientificsuperpower if scientists from Newton to Darwin to Crick and Watson had not been able to challenge orthodoxy.

The cancel culture, the unwillingness to hear uncomfortable opinions, the refusal of platforms to people you disagree with, puts all this at risk.

Universities, of all places, should never allow the suppression of free speech.

Conservative Lee Anderson, Ashfield MP, a supporter of the Bill, said people are afraid of challenging political agendas in universities because they fear that if they speak out, opponents would come down on them like a ton of bricks.

The Bill, he said, would give people protection and the confidence to debate without being persecuted.

The legislation will likely need Government support to become law but the Conservative manifesto contains a pledge to strengthen academic freedom and free speechin universities.

The Civitas think-tank has sounded the alarm bell about freedom of expression on campuses with a major report.

A spokesman said: Our recent study found that 48 of our universities are most restrictive on free speech while a further 70 (over half) are still moderately restrictive.

Ruth Smeeth, chief executive of campaigning group Index on Censorship, said: Universities are the home of debate and investigation in society and should always be a home for exploring new and controversial ideas. We must ensure free speech exists on campus.

A spokeswoman for umbrella body Universities UK said: There are already significant legal duties placed on universities to uphold freedom of speech and they are required to have a code of practice and update this regularly.

Link:

New legislation could see universities forced to protect freedom of speech - Express

H.L. Mencken, journalist and essayist, wrote in 1940, Freedom of the press is limited to those who own one.

Twenty years later, the same thought was reprised by A.J. Liebling of The New Yorker.

Today, these thoughts can be revived to apply, on a scale inconceivable in 1940 or 1960, to Big Tech, and to the small number of men who control it.

These men Jack Dorsey of Twitter, Mark Zuckerberg of Facebook, and Sundar Pichai of Alphabet Inc., and its subsidiary Google operate what, in another time, would be known as common carriers. Common carriers are, as the term implies, companies which distribute anything from news to parcels to gasoline. They are a means of distributing ideas, news, goods, and services.

Think of the old Western Union, the railroads, the pipeline companies, or the telephone companies. Theirbusiness was carriage, and they were recognized and regulated in law as such: common carriers.

The controversial Section 230 of the Communications Decency Act recognizes the common carrier nature of Big Tech internet companies by exempting them from libel responsibility. It specifically stated that they shouldnt be treated as publishers.Conservatives want 230 repealed, but that would only make the companies reluctant to carry anything controversial, hurting free speech.

I think the possible repeal of 230 should be part of a large examination of the inadvertently acquired but vast power of the internet-based social media companies. It should be part of a large discussion embracing all the issues of free speech on social media which could include beefed-up libel statutes possibly some form of the equal-time rule which kept network owners from exploiting their power for political purposes in days when there were only three networks.

President Donald Trump deserves censure, which he has gotten: He has been impeached for incitement to insurrection.I take second place to no one in my towering dislike of him, but I am shaken at the ability of Silicon Valley to censor a political figure, let alone a president.

That Silicon Valley should shut out the voice of the president isnt the issue. It is that a common carrier can dictate the content, even if it is content from a rogue president.

This exercise of censor authority should alarm all free-speech advocates. It is power that exceeds anything ever seen in media.

The heads of Twitter, Facebook and Alphabet are more powerful by incalculable multiples than were Joseph Pulitzer, William Randolph Hearst and Henry Luce, or is Rupert Murdoch. They can subtract any voice from any debate if they so choose. That is a bell that tolls for all. They have the power to silence any voice by closing an account.

When Edward Murrow talked about the awesome power of television, he was right for that time. But now technology has added a multiplier of atomic proportions via the internet.

The internet-based social media giants didnt seek power. They are, in that sense, blameless. They pursued technology, then money, and these led them to their awesome power. What they have done, though, is to use their wealth to buy startups which offer competition.

Big Tech has used its financial clout to maintain its de facto monopolies. Yet unlike the newspaper proprietors of old or Murdochs multimedia, international endeavors today, they didnt pursue their dreams to get political power. They were carried along on the wave of new technologies.

It may not be wrong that Twitter, Facebook, and others have shut down Trumps account when they did, at a time of crisis, but what if these companies get politically activated in the future?

We already live in the age of the cancellation culture with its attempt to edit history. If that is extended to free speech on the internet, even with good intentions, everything begins to wobble.

The tech giants are simply too big for comfort. They have already weakened the general media by scooping up most of the advertising dollars. Will the freedom of speech belong to those who own the algorithms?

Go here to read the rest:

Silicon Valley and Its Unique Challenge to Freedom of Speech - White House Chronicle