Daily Archives: December 3, 2021

By TEE NGUGI

Over the past one week, there have been riots in the Netherlands and Belgium over lockdowns due to a spike in Covid-19 cases. Authorities blame vaccine hesitancy for the spike.

Vaccine hesitancy across the developed world is fuelling spread of the disease. Frustrated by increasing infections and deaths, some jurisdictions in these countries have announced vaccine mandates.

But mandates, just as with the lockdowns, are being vigorously opposed. In other words, significant numbers of people have refused to take the vaccine, and yet see reasonable restrictions or mandates as an affront to their human rights.

Vaccine sceptics give various reasons for their stance. Some say the vaccines were developed unusually fast and there could be unforeseen serious side effects. Others claim that Covid-19 is a government fabrication meant to control them.

Some sceptics are driven by a nihilistic instinct. The rights-based sceptics argue that it is their absolute right to decide whether to take the jab. Other reasons advanced by sceptics hark back to medieval thinking.

While low levels of vaccination in Africa are attributable to unavailability of vaccines, there are still those who have refused to be inoculated for reasons not dissimilar to those in the West. This is particularly worrisome because our health facilities would be catastrophically overwhelmed should we experience the numbers of Covid cases seen in Europe.

In frustration, some countries in Africa, including Kenya, have announced some form of vaccine mandates. But just as in Europe, those refusing vaccination are also opposed to lockdowns and mandates. Cases are beginning to rise again and there is fear of a devastating fourth wave.

Contrast this attitude to that in some Asian countries like China, South Korea and Singapore. These have high vaccine uptake levels. People here are not so vehemently opposed to lockdowns, wearing masks or vaccine mandates. Not surprisingly, they are also the countries that are the most successful in suppressing spread of the virus.

South Korea and Singapore are relatively functional democracies while China is not. But in all of them, there is a strong sense of community. There is trust that government Covid protocols are well-meant and not some conspiracy. People have faith in medical science. Crucially, they accept restrictions or some inconvenience for the sake of the larger community. In these countries, rights and responsibilities, privileges and obligations, go hand-in-hand.

Over the last two decades, Western democracy has been infected by scepticism about science, cynicism about community, distrust of government, and nihilism. Individual rights, regardless of consequences to others, have become an absolute right.

What an individual feels is the only truth that matters. An individuals experience, not matter how subjective, is the only factor that counts. This attitude is the biggest threat to Western democracy, not China or jihadists. As we in Africa continue to nurture a culture of democracy and human rights, we must place personal responsibility towards others at the centre of this process.

Tee Ngugi is a Nairobi-based political commentator

More:

Rights of individuals now a big threat to Western democracy - The East African

What does it say that Charlie Baker of Massachusetts isnt running for governor again but Paul LePage of Maine is?

It says that the Yankee Republican, a political species that has long been a stabilizing force in New England public life, is one step closer to going from being endangered to being extinct.

Baker, like Bill Weld, his predecessor and former boss, embodied the classic Yankee Republican: Ivy League, patrician, pragmatic, not especially partisan, moderate to liberal on social policy, more conservative on spending, and a bulwark against one-party rule.

Massachusetts voters like a Republican in the corner office at the State House if only to serve as a check on the unbridled power of Democrats who overwhelmingly control the legislative branch of state government.

That explains why, since just before the turn of the 20th century, Republicans have been elected governor in Massachusetts nearly twice as often as Democrats. It explains why, since John Volpe was elected in 1964, six of the last nine Massachusetts elected governors have been Republicans, even as the Democratic stranglehold on seats on Beacon Hill and in Washington has solidified.

Yankee Republicans were the duck boots of New England politics, the embodiment of what was on offer in an L.L. Bean catalogue: nothing flashy, but well-made and reliable, able to withstand the muck.

In Maine, Paul LePage, who served as governor from 2011 to 2019, likes to say he was Trump before there was Trump, a self-assessment that is hard to dispute. Riding a wave of resentment, musing about using violence against those he disagrees with, LePage was elected twice, first with a plurality of just 38 percent, then a plurality of 48 percent. He left office with one of the lowest approval ratings of US governors.

In 2016, LePage, like Baker, endorsed former New Jersey governor Chris Christie for president. But when Christie dropped out, LePage hitched his wagon to Trump and never looked back.

LePage became Trumps biggest cheerleader in New England, even while the other Republican governors in the region Baker, Phil Scott of Vermont, and Chris Sununu of New Hampshire openly criticized Trumps divisive and dishonest rhetoric, lamenting the hyper-partisanship they said is ruining the country.

The Yankee Republican governor most like Baker is Phil Scott. As a Republican in a state that sends Bernie Sanders to Washington, Scott is more popular with Vermonters than Sanders is. He is the most popular governor in the nation, and by that same metric Baker and Sununu come in at No. 2 and No. 4, respectively.

I asked Scott for an appraisal of Bakers governing style.

He has been an incredible leader for Massachusetts during difficult times, and I believe his approach of finding common ground, being practical, pragmatic and deliberate, while putting the needs of his constituents ahead of his own political interests is the exact kind of leadership we need more of in America, Scott said.

Whenever a group of governors are on a call together and Charlie speaks, we all listen, Scott added.

Sadly, the common-sense pragmatism that made Yankee Republicans a durable political class in New England has run headlong into the partisan nihilism of Trumpism, which has come to dominate the state party apparatus of even those states that, against the national tide of hyper-partisanship, have popular Republican governors despite having a majority of Democratic voters.

Like Baker, Scott is more popular in his state with Democrats and independents than with Republicans.

Like Baker, Sununu has had to endure unseemly protests outside his residence by Trump cultists.

Scott and Sununu have ruled out running for Senate seats, saying they prefer to get things done in their states rather than get stuck in the mud that figuratively overflows from the Potomac.

And now, Charlie Baker has declined to seek a record third term that was his for the taking. His state party is determined to nominate a no-hope Trump loyalist to replace him.

The Yankee Republican is not dead yet, but the prognosis isnt exactly promising.

Kevin Cullen is a Globe columnist. He can be reached at kevin.cullen@globe.com.

Read the original:

Charlie Baker and the demise of the Yankee Republican - The Boston Globe

Most days, its hard to fully comprehend our current dystopian nightmare.

We now accept that 777,000 Americans are dead in the COVID pandemic and the death toll continues to climb day after day, even when weve had life-saving vaccines widely available for eight months.

We accept that millions of parents refuse to get their children vaccinated or even send them to school in masks and then angrily demand to be worshipped as heroes for endangering their kids and untold numbers of others.

We accept that leaders of the GOP, one of our two major political parties, have bluntly told us that mass death is inevitable, while trafficking in conspiracy theories and quack science as alternatives to vaccines, and then cravenly blame Democrats when herd immunity cant be reached and people continue to get sick and die.

While the majority of Americans are vaccinated, we are being held hostage by the millions who arent and politicians practicing pandemic nihilism. How do you ever come back from that? Many of us have lost hope that we ever fully will.

Ive thought a lot in recent months about how weve become so unmoored from our collective humanity and moral decency. And I keep coming back to Sandy Hook.

Ive thought a lot in recent months about how weve become so unmoored from our collective humanity and moral decency. And I keep coming back to Sandy Hook.

After 20 little children and six adults were brutally murdered in a Connecticut elementary school in 2012, President Barack Obama addressed the nation. With tears in his eyes, the father of two spoke of the tragedy and the need for common-sense gun reforms, something that the vast majority of Americans supported then and now.

First Republicans and a few NRA-backed Democrats blocked any progress on policy. Then the GOP launched a ghastly ad mocking Obama for comforting a grieving parent. The lesson here is that the right will always lecture that its too soon to talk about gun control after a mass shooting, but its not to disparage victims and those trying to help. Meanwhile, far-right media, like Alex Jones Infowars which became highly influential in the Trump era spent years spreading conspiracy theories that Sandy Hook parents were crisis actors, subjecting them to threats and harassment after the greatest loss imaginable.

When it became acceptable for right-wing leaders to gleefully embrace their monstrousness after first-graders were blown away, all bets were off.

Is it a surprise that the GOPs next and current leader, Donald Trump, made his political bones by slandering Mexicans as rapists, separating migrant children from their parents at the border and egging on his supporters to assault his enemies at rallies?

Is it a surprise that hours after our nation was rocked Tuesday by yet another school shooting, this time at Oxford High School, that a GOP operative would slam Gov. Gretchen Whitmer a mother of two who knows firsthand what its like for our kids to be subjected to Kafkaesque lockdown drills for coming out and mourning with parents?

No. The cruelty is the point, as essayist Adam Serwer noted during the Trump era. And so is the brazenness.

Now almost two years into the COVID-19 pandemic, weve managed to normalize a breathtaking loss of human life.

Whats more, we dont expect Republicans who run the Legislature to have a plan to stop any more than our over 24,000 friends and neighbors in Michigan from dying in the fourth surge, because theyve never had one.

We dont even expect them to be responsible and OK billions from the feds to respond to COVID and aid people and businesses who have suffered during the crisis. (House Appropriations Chair Thomas Albert (R-Lowell) blithely said theres no emergency even though Michigan hospitals broke records again this week for COVID hospitalizations). It goes without saying that Republicans are playing politics as the 2022 election looms, hoping that the continued horror show will cost Whitmer reelection.

All along the way, Republicans have propped up the ridiculously dangerous medical freedom movement. Its the logical endpoint of right-wing propaganda about what freedom is.

Freedom isnt free. In America, its really the freedom to die.

For decades, Republicans have sold people on the idea that universal health care is communism and true freedom can only be achieved by keeping a free-market system that can bankrupt you after a single visit to the ER.

Theyve told us that climate change isnt real, but even if it is, corporations must have the freedom to poison our planet or else theyll take away jobs or raise prices on everything.

And of course, theyve idolized guns as the ultimate symbol of freedom so much so that theyre good with domestic abusers and felons being able to buy firearms, while terrified parents get to instruct children on what to do in case of mass shootings at school, the mall, really anywhere which occur almost daily.

Freedom isnt free. In America, its really the freedom to die.

We are still free, of course, to reject this right-wing culture of death. But after years of living with savagery, too many of us seem too exhausted to fight.

Continue reading here:

Susan J. Demas: From guns to COVID, we're all trying to survive the GOP's culture of death Michigan Advance - Michigan Advance

As you would expect, this Supreme Court case has generated the usual briefs from gun rights advocates: the N.R.A., gun clubs, libertarian scholars, Republican politicians. What is strange, and disheartening, is that the petitioners have also received support from a group of prestigious and seasoned New York public defenders, who argue that the New York law should be overturned not really on Second Amendment grounds, but because of the way the law is enforced against their clients, Black and brown, poor defendants who need to carry guns for self-defense. The public defenders argue that, historically, permits have been issued unevenly, and that still today, in many places, it is easier for whites and members of the middle class to get permits than it is for people of color and the poor. And they argue their clients should have guns just like other Americans do. In other words, the progressive left has met far right in describing dangerous streets and the need to be armed on them.

Theirs is not a legal argument, but a political one, and is unlikely to sway a Supreme Court focused on the text and original meaning of the Constitution (though the court may find it a useful fig leaf if it decides against New York). It is meant to shock, and it does, in its nihilism a nihilism that echoes the far right champions of the men we have seen on trial. Instead of taking guns out of the hands of the Rittenhouses and McMichaels of the world, these progressive public defenders want to level up to make guns more readily available to their clients, to all of us. Their vision, if realized, would make the self-defense claims of Mr. Rittenhouse and Mr. McMichael unremarkable, not only in red states, but across the country.

The audacious position taken by these New York public defenders should give pause to anyone tempted to understand, and maybe even discount, the Rittenhouse and McMichael defenses as essentially conservative arguments playing to conservative juries in conservative states. If we start to think of guns only as a problem in the hands of the Other (white supremacists, the far right, criminals), we will miss the simple fact that unregulated guns escalate violence across ideological lines. Their presence tends to create a need for self-defense on both sides of the trigger, about which the law has very little to say. If Mr. Rosenbaum and Mr. Arbery did indeed reach for those guns, werent they, no doubt, acting in self-defense? More guns, no matter in whose hands, will create more standoffs, more intimidation, more death sanctioned in the eyes of the law.

Tali Farhadian Weinstein (@talifarhadian), a former federal and state prosecutor in New York, is a legal analyst on NBC News and MSNBC.

Read more here:

Opinion | Kyle Rittenhouse, Travis McMichael and the Problem of Self-Defense - The New York Times

Mark Toias film is set during the pivotal moment when the creature escapes its maker in this case, when military robots acquire the ability to think for themselves, go rogue and decide to kill everything in sight.

Three computer nerds run what they think is a navigation test involving four mechanical soldiers being airdropped into a jungle in the Golden Triangle. They dont have a problem with black ops involving secret weapons until things go haywire, and Monsters of Man is quite good at describing the techies hubris and utter lack of morals, as well as their terminal navet: What did they think they were building, exactly? Not that the trios handlers are any better.

The films ruthlessness in killing off almost every character, including women and children, may feel exploitative, but there is honesty in showing the full range of casualties caused by American weaponry. If you thought drone attacks were bad, wait until you see what autonomous robots that were built to kill are capable of.

The film overstays its welcome by a solid half-hour (it is not about a time loop but feels like one because the last third is so repetitive) but its nihilism and violence are unsettling because the action feels as if its set just minutes into the future.

Rent or buy from Amazon and Vudu.

So, what happens after the killer mechs become sentient? Daniel Raboldts debut feature, thats what.

In it, the robots have fully taken over and exterminated as much of humankind as they could details are fuzzy but it looks as if there are few people left. A banged-up survivor, Tomasz (Stefan Ebel), moves around in a foil-lined van and sets up camp in an empty house in the woods, which he protects with a jury-rigged force field. He meets Lilja (Siri Nase), a member of the local resistance with a plan to vanquish the killing machines, and together they take off for a long walk to a mysterious destination.

Much of this, along with flashbacks showing how the world ended up in this mess, is told wordlessly to avoid alerting the new overlords the German A Living Dog is a bit like A Quiet Place with robots instead of aliens. Raboldt shot in a Finnish forest by the Arctic Circle, an inspired location that gives the film a natural grandeur and beauty while suggesting a forlorn emptiness. Another asset is that unlike too many C.G.I. creations, the robots project a real sense of massive weight. Add a steady, deliberate pace that is mostly absorbing, and you have a solid debut that doesnt always match its ambition, but at least puts up a valiant fight.

Stream from Starz or buy from most major platforms.

Do not confuse this movie with the schlocky (in a bad way) Monster Hunters.

This Monster Hunter is the one in which a feline cook, the Meowscular Chef, prepares a meal Benihana-style for a crew of desert pirates led by Ron Perlman, who then asks a flabbergasted Milla Jovovich: Whats the matter? You dont have cats in your world?

If this makes you laugh I did by all means cue up the preposterously entertaining latest by Jovovich and her husband, Paul W.S. Anderson, one of the best action directors around.

Based on a video game, as is so often the case with Anderson, the film is essentially an extended dash-and-fight sequence. Jovovichs Captain Artemis finds herself marooned in a strange landscape packed with bloodthirsty creatures, which she must defeat if she ever wants to go home. Every time a beastie goes down, a bigger one pops up. Good thing a badass warrior played by Tony Jaa (from the Ong-Bak series) is there to lend a hand. The film is big, loud, boisterous and proudly nutty. Naturally for such an unabashed exercise in pulp fiction, the ending invites a sequel. Bring it on.

Has there ever been a movie where hopscotching between dimensions went smoothly? The various strands and timelines tend not to interact in harmonious ways, creating headaches for everybody involved (including screenwriters trying to overcome niggling paradoxes). Those problems are at the core of Gaurav Seths indie film, in which a student experiment exploring the coexistence of multiple planes spins out of control: This is what happens when STEM education spills from physics into metaphysics.

A car accident at the very beginning is just one in a cascade of consequences and choices, many of them deeply personal for the students. In one world, for example, a deaf woman (Sandra Mae Frank) can hear, but is that better? Another character gets so carried away that he forgets all about ethics and basic decency, raising quandaries on how to handle him. The film is at its most interesting when it juggles a series of interlocking tendrils you may feel compelled to rewatch the beginning to search for missed clues about the final plot twist. Seth probably had a fraction of Paul W.S. Andersons catering budget for Monster Hunter, so the Multiverse description of alternate realities relies on dialogue and a goldfish rather than explosions and rampaging Black Diablos. But the issues it raises are almost as infinite as the universes it posits.

Stream it on Hulu.

Some of the best what-if scenarios provoke tangible emotional responses. Such is the case of Chad Hartigans film, which is lovely and heartbreaking without ever feeling manipulative or sappy. The hypothetical here is as simple as it is soul-crushing: What would happen if a virus destroyed the afflicted persons memory? Emma (Olivia Cooke, just as good in a subtly poignant role as she was as a powerful rock frontwoman in Sound of Metal) narrates her experience watching her husband, Jude (Jack OConnell), progressively forget who he is and what they mean to each other. Emma sees some of the practical consequences of the pandemic at the animal shelter where she works people forget to look after their dogs, who are then brought in and euthanized since nobody claims or adopts them. She also watches the couple formed by their friends Ben (Ral Castillo) and Sam (Soko) sink when Bens mind goes. And still, Emma is not prepared when the illness hits home. You, the viewer, can be: make sure to have a box of tissues ready when watching this most romantic, and sad, of love stories.

See the rest here:

Five Science-Fiction Movies to Stream Now - The New York Times

Dusty Donaldson is definitely an inspiration to anybody who has the opportunity to meet her. Dusty was diagnosed with lung cancer in 2005 and founded the Dusty Joy Foundation (LiveLung) in 2010. She has served as executive director for more than a decade, focused on helping anybody who is diagnosed with lung cancer. LiveLung is a 501(c)(3) nonprofit public charity, part of the Dusty Joy Foundation, with a mission of advancing lung cancer awareness and early detection and increasing compassion for people impacted by lung cancer.

Dusty co-authored the book The ABCs of Lung Cancer for Patients and Advocates with Kimberly Lester. Dusty also is cochair of the Lung Cancer Action Network (LungCAN), an association of U.S.-based nonprofit groups focusing on lung cancer. In addition, Dusty is a contributing writer for Health Unions http://www.lungcancer.net and a member of the National Lung Cancer Roundtables Survivorship, Stigma and Nihilism Task Group.

For the past 10 years, Dusty has worked so hard to support patients like me. She serves a large number of patients locally and in other states and is always eager to create partnerships with other organizations to better serve all of us. She is an amazing lung cancer advocate and an inspiration to us all. As one of the members of LiveLung, I have learned to admire her commitment, her energy and her engagement with other supporting groups locally and nationally.

Prior to being diagnosed with early-stage lung cancer in 2005, Dusty had been an award-winning journalist and a media and public relations professional. She uses her knowledge of communication and personal and professional experience to advocate for all of us and help us continue the fight. I am honored to be a part of her group, and I am delighted to nominate her for the Lung Cancer Heroes award.

For more news on cancer updates, research and education, dont forget tosubscribe to CUREs newsletters here.

See the original post here:

A Lung Cancer Survivor, Hero and Inspiration to Many - Curetoday.com

Summary

First U.S. case of Omicron variant discovered in CA. Jan. 6 Committee votes to refer ex-Trump DOJ Official Jeffrey Clark for contempt of Congress. Meadows reveals strategy for 1/6 deposition. Some GOP threaten shutdown over vaccine mandates. Scotus hears arguments over Mississippi abortion law that undermines Roe v. Wade.

LAWRENCE O`DONNELL, MSNBC HOST: My dear friend Holum Taylor (ph), and all of you K.I.N.D. contributors get tonight`s "LAST WORD." THE 11TH HOUR WITH BRIAN WILLIAMS starts now.

BRIAN WILLIAMS, MSNBC HOST: Well, good evening, once again. Day 316 of the Biden administration, the nation has been bracing for the arrival of this new Omicron variant. And this afternoon, the first U.S. case was indeed confirmed in a patient in the San Francisco Bay Area.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

DR. ANTHONY FAUCI, CHIEF MEDICAL ADVISER TO PRESIDENT BIDEN: The individual was a traveler who returned from South Africa on November the 22nd. And tested positive on November the 29th. The individual is self-quarantining, and all close contacts have been contacted and all close contacts thus far have tested negative.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

WILLIAMS: Dr. Fauci went on to say, this patient in question had received two shots of the Moderna vaccine but no booster as of yet and is experiencing mild symptoms. Fauci offered this to those who might be holding off on getting that booster shot.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

FAUCI: People say, well, if we`re going to have a booster specific vaccine, should we wait? If you are eligible, namely six months with a double mRNA dose or two months with the J&J, get boosted. Now, we may not need a very specific boost. The mistake people would make is to say, let me wait and see if we get one. If you`ve eligible for boosting, get boosted right now.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

WILLIAMS: Tomorrow, the President lays out his strategy to try to control and contain this variant as we head into the colder months. NBC News among those reporting. He`s going to extend the federal mask mandate for public transportation into mid-March. There`s much more on the potential impact of this new variant just ahead in our hour.

Also tonight, the January six committee is keeping the pressure on witnesses who refuse to comply with their subpoenas. Just a few hours ago, they voted unanimously to refer former Trump DOJ official Jeffrey Clark for criminal contempt of Congress, but the committee is also giving Clark one last chance to testify.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

REP. BENNIE THOMPSON, (D) MISSISSIPPI JAN.6 SELECT COMMITTEE CHAIR: Around eight o`clock last evening, Mr. Clark`s attorney sent a letter to the committee, another in a long series of long letters stating that Mr. Clark now intends to assert his fifth amendment privilege even though Mr. Clark previously had the opportunity to make these claims on the record. The Select Committee will provide him another chance to do so.

REP. LIZ CHENEY, (R) WYOMING VICE CHAIR, JANUARY 6 COMMITTEE: We will not finalize this contempt process if Mr. Clark genuinely cures his failure to comply with the subpoena this Saturday.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

WILLIAMS: Meanwhile, former Trump`s Chief of Staff Mark Meadows today revealed how he plans to handle his upcoming appearance before that same committee. Meadows has been resisting, asserting that he was following Trump`s claim of executive privilege. Well, yesterday the panel said he started complying with a subpoena for records and plan to testify but comments from Meadows today raise questions about just how much cooperating he plans to do.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

MARK MEADOWS, FORMER WHITE HOUSE CHIEF OF STAFF: The President has made it very clear that he is claiming executive privilege and not because he has anything to hide. I`m going to be honoring his executive privilege, is not something that I have the ability to waive. Even with my interview that potentially is coming up with the House. We`ll be talking about non privileged information.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

WILLIAMS: We`ll see how that goes over. Even as he claims to honor his old boss, The Guardian in Great Britain was first to report this revelation from Meadows forthcoming book he reveals Trump first tested positive for COVID three days before that September 26, 2020 debate against then candidate Joe Biden.

New York Times and NBC News have since confirmed that initial positive test. According to the Guardian, Meadows writes, "Nothing was going to stop Trump from going out there." He ads "Trump received a negative result from a separate test just before the debate. But the public didn`t learn about Trump`s COVID case until the early hours of October 2." Today, the former president in a statement stayed on brand saying, "The story of me having COVID prior to or during the first debate is fake news." Which of course doesn`t answer the question of whether he had received a positive test before the debate.

By the way, tonight we`re just a little more than two days from a potential government shutdown. The deadline to pass a funding bill to keep things open is midnight Friday in the Saturday morning.

[23:05:01]

Washington Post, among those reporting tonight one faction of Republicans on Capitol Hill is trying to hold up efforts to vote on that bill over federal vaccine and testing mandates. Senate Majority Leader Schumer today urged Republicans to abandon their protest.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

SEN. CHUCK SCHUMER, (D) NEW YORK MAJORITY LEADER: It`s always easy to shut down, to say you want to shut down the government something I care about, this one cares about that one, everyone did that we`d have chaos. We need to come together and keep the government open.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

WILLIAMS: The House Freedom Caucus today appeal to Mitch McConnell in a letter asking that he helped them out by blocking any temporary funding bill that includes federal dollars to enforce vaccine mandates. McConnell appears to be resisting so far and has said a shutdown is not an option.

As all that was going on in Congress across the street in front of the Supreme Court building this morning, protests were underway as the justices sat down to hear oral arguments on the Mississippi abortion law, banning abortions after 15 weeks of pregnancy. For two hours, the justices questioned the legality of the statute and the possibility of letting it stand.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

CHIEF JUSTICE ROBERTS: Viability, it seems to me, doesn`t have anything to do with choice. But if it really is an issue about choice, why is 15 weeks, not enough time?

JUSTICE BARRETT: It doesn`t seem to me to follow that pregnancy and then parenthood are all part of the same burden.

JUSTICE KAVANAUGH: If you think about some of the most important cases, the most consequential cases in this Court`s history, there`s a string of them where the case is overruled precedent.

JUSTICE SOTOMAYOR: Now, the sponsors of this bill, the House bill, in Mississippi, said we`re doing it because we have new justices. Will this institution survive the stench that this creates in the public perception that the Constitution and its reading are just political acts? I don`t see how it is possible.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

WILLIAMS: Most experts who were listening agreed the six conservative members of the court appear to lean toward upholding the Mississippi law. Should Roe versus Wade be overturned abortion could be severely restricted or banned right away in at least 26 states over half of our union.

With that, let`s bring in our starting line on this Wednesday night, Peter Baker, longtime journalist and author, Chief White House Correspondent for The New York Times, Sam Stein, Veteran Journalist and White House Editor at Politico, and Barbara McQuade, Veteran Federal Prosecutor, former U.S. Attorney for the Eastern District of Michigan. She worked with the DOJ during the Biden transition, is a professor at her alma mater University of Michigan Law School, who badly wants you to know they beat Ohio State, she co-hosts the podcast, Sisters in Law along with Kimberly Atkins Stohr, Joyce Vance, Jill Wine-Bank. Good evening, and welcome to you all.

Indeed, Counsellor, I`d like to begin with you, what signals did your trained ears pick up listening to oral arguments this morning?

BARBARA MCQUADE, FORMER U.S. ATTORNEY: Well, Brian, I appreciate the chance for shock, because I think that`s the last left, I`ll be doing for a while in light of the arguments that we heard today. I think, you know, all ears were on some of the justices who might be swing justices, maybe Chief Justice Roberts, maybe justice Kavanaugh, maybe Justice Barrett, but all of them I think signaled very strongly an indication that they would be willing to uphold this Mississippi abortion ban after 15 weeks, which of course, is much more stringent than we had under Roe v. Wade, which is the pre viability standard of 22 to 24 weeks.

It`s not clear whether they`re willing to overturn Roe versus Wade, but I think they can effectively do that in this two-step dance that Chief Justice Roberts often likes to do. You know, we`re not going to overrule Roe v. Wade right now, we`re just going to uphold this Mississippi law. But we`re left without the kind of standard that we`ve had before. So essentially, it`s a -- all is fair game now for states on abortion laws.

WILLIAMS: Peter Baker, let`s talk about where this may be going with the help of something said on this network earlier by a frequent guest of ours NYU Law Professor Melissa Murray who clerked for Sotomayor, at the federal level.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

MELISSA MURRAY, NYU LAW PROFESSOR: This has been a long game of the conservative legal movement for some years we have never allowed fundamental rights to be subjected to the whims of the Democratic process, to be subject to the whims of the majority. And if you think that gay marriage is not on deck after a day like this, then you are frankly completely delusional because yes, they are coming for that too.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

[23:10:00]

WILLIAMS: So, Peter, if you would put today`s oral arguments and the comments Barbara just added to the conversation in the context of the long game, i.e., Mitch McConnell`s life`s work.

PETER BAKER, THE NEW YORK TIMES CHIEF WHITE HOUSE CORRESPONDENT: Yeah, no, that`s exactly right. This is the combination of a half century campaign on the part of conservatives to get to the point where they could overturn Roe v. Wade, or at least, you know, this right, a lot of the tenants of it, right? The big question that of today`s oral argument seems to be as Barbara said, whether or not they actually overturn Roe v. Wade, or simply allow the Mississippi law 50 weeks ago forward, signaling that they`re open to other states that want to restrict, even if not completely ban abortions going forward.

There has been an effort over years to build a court system, to put more conservatives on the bench through Mitch McConnell`s efforts. He obviously worked in tandem with Donald Trump. One of the few things, the two of them really worked well together on was putting conservatives in district courts, in circuit courts, and three seats on the Supreme Court.

Mitch McConnell, of course, was the one who held open that seat that Antonin Scalia vacated when he passed away in 2016, rather than let President Obama fill it in the final year of his presidency, arguing that they should wait until the election. But as a result of that, that seat went to Neil Gorsuch. And if Neil Gorsuch as a more conservative judge, ends up voting to over to uphold the Mississippi rule here or even overturn Roe v. Wade. That`s a startlingly different result than you probably would have had with Merrick Garland, who, of course, was President Obama`s choice for that seat.

If this is six, three takes, it may not make that big of a difference in that one seat, but it`s certainly, as you say, the culmination of a half century of work on the part of conservatives to get to this point where they could overturn or at least, you know, take out a lot of the fundamental tenets of Roe v. Wade.

WILLIAMS: Sam Stein, because so many of these nine justices are at time so nakedly political, I feel less gross asking a nakedly political question. And that is, this we heard the phrase over and over today, a lot of it on social media elections have consequences. Will the Democrats be able to convert this?

SAM STEIN, POLITICO WHITE HOUSE EDITOR: That`s a great question. The conventional wisdom would say, yes. The country, if you look at public opinion polls, still, by and large, supports the right to choose about whether or not you want to have an abortion, usually around a 60/40 percentage.

But you know, you can`t just judge things in that type of vacuum. What we`ve seen time and again, is that conservatives get incredibly more passionate about these types of fights than their liberal counterparts. We also have seen a change in sort of the voting dynamics in this country where what was sort of traditionally suburban women who were Republican voters have already drifted to the Democratic Party. Those are the types of people that would have had a backlash against Republican politicians than a court if they had overturned Roe v. Wade. Already, they are in the Democratic camp. So, I`m not totally convinced that this will rebound to the Democratic favor, we`d have to see, you know, both whether this is eclipsed by other issues like COVID, and the economy entering into the midterms. And of course, we have the decision, it`s up.

WILLIAMS: Barb, I never could have dreamed a switch in topic to 1/6 would be preferable subject but here we are. Let`s talk about Mr. Clark. They voted to hold him in contempt tonight, while also agreeing to bring him back and hear him out, I believe, on Saturday at a session where he may take the Fifth. Opinion seems split on whether this shows weakness or wisdom. Where do you come down?

MCQUADE: I think it`s wisdom, Brian, but you know, I think they have to proceed cautiously here. A Fifth Amendment privilege is a little different from the executive privilege that we saw with Steve Bannon. People have an absolute right under the Constitution to invoke the Fifth Amendment right against self-incrimination.

But there are certainly indications that Jeffrey Clark is kind of playing games here. As Chairman Bennie Thompson has pointed out, Jeffrey Clark did not assert the Fifth Amendment right back when he testified before the committee. He at least appeared for a deposition on November 5. And so, if this isn`t said simply a stall tactic, then I think this vote keeps the heat on him. It forces him to at least show up and go through question by question the issues on which he is going to plead the Fifth Amendment.

WILLIAMS: And Peter, back over to your bet, hard as it is to believe life in this White House and for this administration has changed once again in the past 24 to 48 hours with the arrival of this variant forcing the administration to scramble. It throws certainly a wrench in the national works when this nation has zero appetite for new restrictions?

[23:15:02]

BAKER: No, I think that`s exactly right obviously. President Biden came to office on the promise of getting a hold of this pandemic and getting us past it. Now, whether this Omicron variant is actually going to be as serious as some people fear, we don`t know yet. Obviously, it`s still a little early, there`s not enough data yet to tell us whether the current vaccines will manage to handle it, or whether or not this is something that`s going to require a whole new set of restrictions or responses, as you say. But if it does, it puts this White House once again, back in the position where it was months ago, trying to get hold the Delta variant, and make sure that people can, you know, be healthy, get vaccinated, find ways of avoiding that the changing nature of this pandemic, while not doing anything to hold back the economy that`s just begun to really take off again, after so many, you know, starts and fits. And I think that this for a White House is not what they want heading into the holiday season. We`ve already expecting a winter surge, even of regular COVID Omicron, just as one more, you know, uncertain factor on top of that.

WILLIAMS: Indeed. And Sam, speaking of uncertainty, the deadline for our government shutdown is roughly two days away. As a McConnell watcher, Sam, what`s your bet on McConnell? Does he do the right thing? Or does he joined the GOP nihilism caucus?

STEIN: I think they`ll have a very small shutdown, but to suspect that Joe Biden would sign a government funding bill and restricts his ability to fight the pandemic is ludicrous. Frankly, that won`t happen. And so, you know, this seems to me to be sort of traditional congressional theatrics to throw a stone saying, look, we`re going to stop all funding for the government unless you end these private mandates for vaccination. It`s hard to imagine that McConnell can wrangle 10 Republicans to eventually say, yes, we`ll allow this bill to go through.

WILLIAMS: So, Sam, backup just one second, a closing the seconds of this segment, you feel we will go to the brink and indeed, go officially to a shutdown period before pressure brings both sides together?

STEIN: It`s -- yeah, but I -- it`s possible they cut a deal before then. It`s not likely, but I would not be surprised, honestly, if we had a day or two of a government shutdown after which everyone comes to their senses.

WILLIAMS: Great. Thanks tonight to our starting line, Peter Baker, Barbara McQuade, Sam Stein. Thank you very much. I wish we had happier material to pass along.

Coming up, new, tougher travel restrictions just hours away. We`ll ask one of our leading physicians what more should be done to protect against COVID newest variant.

And later, the man who wants so badly to be Speaker struggling to keep his half of the House in order. While the other party works to avoid a government shutdown. Our political experts will zero in on the Republican dilemmas. All of it as the 11th Hour is just getting underway on this Wednesday night as a tree driven in from California lights up Capitol Hill.

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

[23:21:48]

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

DR. GRANT COLFAX, SAN FRANCISCO HEALTH DIRECTOR: We knew that Omicron was going to be here. We thought it would -- it was already here. We just haven`t detected it yet. So, this is cause for concern. But is also certainly not a cause for us to panic.

San Francisco is relatively well positioned to respond to variants. Our vaccine rate is high. More boosters are going to arms every day.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

WILLIAMS: In a beautiful place where you can hold a news conference outdoors and December that was San Francisco`s Health Director with assurances today that the city is prepared for this new variant despite being the home to the only known so far U.S. patient.

But medical experts can see a lot is still unknown about the threat here. And to walk us through it all, we welcome back Dr. Nahid Bhadelia, an Infectious Disease Physician, Founding Director of Boston University`s Center for Emerging Infectious Diseases Policy and Research.

Doctor, so glad to have you. And I`m afraid, I`m going to launch a very broad question your way, what questions do we still need answers to considering it is so young and the lifespan of this variant just emerging, there will surely be new cases in the United States?

DR. NAHID BHADELIA, INFECTIOUS DISEASES PHYSICIAN: So, Brian, and I should start by saying that we probably will hear about a few more cases over the next few days. But having said that, you know, our sequencing has gotten better compared to a year from now. So even if it`s here, it`s probably not at high rates yet.

So, what do we know, I think the biggest concern is how many mutations this variant has? And that combined with some really concerning epidemiology from South Africa, one of the countries that sort of really sounded the alarm were both the cases have been going up, but actually also they`re seeing about a 65% increase in hospitalizations in the last week or so.

Now, the question here is that, you know, are they just seeing that because South Africa is under vaccinated, only 30% of their population has gotten vaccinated. But there is concern looking at even in the data of the last couple of days, that`s the cases are going up that we may be looking at a more transmissible variant, however, until we see this variant, sort of do the same thing and other communities and other, you know, in other settings, other vaccination rates in other countries, we won`t really know for sure about its true transmissibility.

Over the next few weeks, Brian, I think what we`re going to learn, right, in the next couple of weeks, you`re going to learn a bit more about the laboratory results that tell us a bit more about the effectiveness of these vaccines. And I think most people in my field, feel that based on these mutations, you may see some decrease in infections. And what you`re likely to see is increase in -- decrease in protection against infections, but that protection is probably going to be linked to how many doses of vaccine you had. So, if you had three doses, you had your booster, you`re most likely to be protected. Having said that, everybody, I think most people agree that there might still be very good protection against severe disease in that setting.

WILLIAMS: I want to see if you agree or disagree with the following. These are the comments this morning on CNBC by former FDA commissioner Scott Gottlieb, who full disclosure, is a member of the Board of Pfizer.

[23:25:06]

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

DR. SCOTT GOTTLIEB, FORMER FDA COMMISSIONER: There`s a presumption that the growth in cases in South Africa is comprised of this Omicron variant. But the reality is that they were having a mini-Delta surge, we don`t know how brisk before this emerge. We don`t know whether or not the increased number of cases that they`re seeing is this new variant. Think of all the variants that have emerged in the vaccine still demonstrated efficacy is no reason to believe that we`re going to lose them against this one.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

WILLIAMS: Doc, do you agree with the central point he`s making there?

BHADELIA: Yes, which is that we still don`t know a lot of others epidemiology, right? A lot of this is observation and gathering up that data. And really, it is seeing what Omicron does in other settings. One other further example I`ll give is that there have been other variants like the Delta variant that haven`t taken foothold, that we were really concerned about a lot of these mutations that could have decreased the effectiveness of vaccines. But it is something to keep watching. But I take that also, as a lesson to see, look, there are multiple states in our union that have less than 50% vaccination, you know, Alabama versus Virginia and Mississippi, when we`re looking at vulnerability in the potentially in the face of a more transmissible, you know, variant. The best thing that we can do, if we`re not panicking and getting ready, right, best thing that we can do is to make sure we get those rates up, and that we continue that vigilance going into this winter surge.

WILLIAMS: Does the variant mean we have to change our behavior or return to our prescribed behavior? And I`m asking in light of, what I`m assuming as your support for an extended mask mandate on public transportation in this country into the spring into next March? Is this a way of not putting something new on us, but extending getting us back into what we know to be best behavior?

BHADELIA: I think we have to realize that, you know, the end of the pandemic is not around the corner, you know, this -- but we always knew this. We knew that before Omicron, we knew that we were going into a winter surge. And even from that perspective, leaving the variant out, Brian, I think, you know, in many parts of this country we`re already seeing in winter surge, and that`s before full-on holiday travel case numbers start to go up again.

And so, from that perspective, I think requiring masks, you know, and I would encourage people to wear a good quality mask as they`re travelling, doing testing and getting, you know, vaccinating and getting boosted before holiday travel is a way that we can ensure that those protections are in place.

I think that what I would say is let`s not panic. Let`s be concerned and let`s go back to what we know protects us. And that`s doubling down on those things that keep us safe from both getting infected and passing that infection on to others.

WILLIAMS: Our medical guest again tonight has been Dr. Nahid Bhadelia, our thanks as always for taking our questions.

Another break for us and coming up whatever the justices say, about choice, about abortion, the political fallout will be immediate and immense in a country where choice has been the law of the land for half a century.

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

[23:31:48]

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

CLAIRE MCCASKILL, (D) MISSOURI FORMER U.S. SENATOR: I was a pro-choice senator that won statewide elections time after time in this state. They are not going to accept the in vitro fertilization is illegal in Missouri, or the morning after pill or exceptions for rape and incest, which they did not put in the Missouri law that is going to be galvanizing to Democrats in this country.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

WILLIAMS: To that end, one of our next guests writes this, "If Roe is reversed, then the political cold war over abortion will flare immediately into a roaring blaze. As if our politics needed more heat."

Read the original:

Transcript: The 11th Hour with Brian Williams, 12/1/21 - MSNBC

The current Somerset House exhibition in London, Beano: The Art of Breaking the Rules, revels in the joyful impudence of the 83-year-old comic magazines characters. A tribute to the publications impact seems long overdue; as curator Andy Holden says: Beanos irreverent sensibility is something that appeals to you as a child, but also, for some, never leaves you.

The Beano plays an important role in childrens lives because, along with other Beano readers, you become part of a community, through the readers letters page, fan art and fan club.

Beanos longevity can be attributed to what educator Carol Tilley calls the participatory culture of comics and its diversity of characters.

Of all the Beanos characters, no one better exemplifies the essence of sheer impertinence and anarchic subversiveness - as represented in the exhibitions title - than Dennis the Menace himself.

Indeed, the 70-year-old character has helped maintain the Beano as a long-running publication. Dennis debuted in a black-and-white half-pager tucked inside the issue of March 17 1951. From that pivotal moment, growing demand for Denniss adventures led him to the colour back cover in 1954 and then to the cover replacing Biffo the Bear.

I first discovered Dennis when he was 20 years old, and I was all of eight. In December 1971, I was growing up in Quebec, Canada, and my UK grandparents sent me the 1972 Beano Book as a Christmas present. Dennis was introduced as a large red and black drawing that depicted him shaving his name into his dog Gnashers fur. As Beano characters often do, Dennis broke the fourth wall, gazing beyond the page. I immediately identified with this cheeky chap.

Journalist David Mapstone observes that, until recently, the UKs weekly printed comics, such as Beano and Dandy (among others), were a massive influence on the lives of children for decades and then they were gone. All apart from the best - the Beano - still read weekly by thousands.

Dennis the Menaces influence on culture in the past is undeniable, from raves to professional darts, to RuPauls Drag Race.

However, todays Dennis (formerly the Menace) appears more influenced by society rather than the other way around. For instance, he wears new trainers instead of old boots, and hes addicted to the internet rather than bent on disturbing lines of communication.

Read more: How Beano and Dandy artist Dudley D. Watkins made generations of comic fans roar with laughter

Those original themes of subversion appealed to young readers; Dennis would try to fight the law, but the law would generally win a timeless lesson that can almost be considered a sort of delinquent rite of passage. Denniss charm lay in being an anarchic figure who expressed others feelings of rebellion vicariously through him.

Cartoonist David Law was the artist behind the characters adventures from 1951 until 1970.

I dont think the two Dennis stories in my 1972 Beano Book were drawn by Law, but the team that took over from him when he died. Laws original Dennis the Menace, on the other hand, presented a comparatively raw, crude, and proto-punk aesthetic: irreverance, nihilism and amateurism.

There are visual links between this chaotic Dennis the Menace and the UKs Viz comic, which began as a do-it-yourself fanzine in 1979.

In researching this article, I rang up Viz co-editor Graham Dury and we talked about the influence that Beano, and Dennis the Menace specifically, had on the comics scene in the UK, and Viz in particular. Beano and Dandy were a major influence on the wonderfully rude and crude Viz, which even satirised some of its characters, Dury told me.

Denniss anarchist appeal is not what it used to be; in fact, he is not even featured on the cover of a recent issue of Beano (week of November 27 2021). He does appear in a two-page story, but he is an ally (rather than a menace) to his family, who all work together to escape to a world unspoiled by internet and mobile phones. Contrast this with Denniss first adventure in 1951, where we are introduced to a very different relationship: Dennis wants to be free to play on the grass and climb trees. Denniss dad, meanwhile, decides to control the cheeky chap by tying a dogs leash around his neck.

The art of breaking the rules is, apparently, knowing what the limits are.

Continue reading here:

Dennis the Menace lives on: the influence of this 70-year-old on everything from darts to raves - The Conversation UK