Time to ‘spruce up’ your pathogen safety measures with wooden surfaces?


ByDr. Tim Sandle
DIGITAL JOURNAL
PublishedJune 23, 2024


Panshanger Park woodland. — image by © Tim Sandle.

Viruses, including the coronavirus that causes COVID-19, can get passed from person to person via contaminated surfaces. Depending on the type of surface, enveloped viruses, like the coronavirus, can survive up to five days on surfaces; whereas, nonenveloped viruses, including the enteroviruses linked to the common cold, can survive for weeks even if the surfaces are disinfected.

Healthcare facilities have for a long time been concerned about surface transmission and this has been met by the use of different surface finishes and disinfection regimes.

Over the past few decades wooden surfaces have been removed from clinical practices, with such surfaces being considered challenging to disinfect. In some cases, antimicrobial surfaces have been installed, such as those based on copper or with silver ions added.

However, it appears that wood might not be the unsuitable surface for wood has been found to possess anti-viral properties. Wood has natural antiviral properties that can reduce the time viruses persist on its surface — and some species of wood are more effective than others at reducing infectivity.

New research has considered for how long enveloped and nonenveloped viruses remained infectious on the surface of six types of wood: Scots pine, silver birch, grey alder, eucalyptus, pedunculate oak and Norway spruce.

To determine viral activity, the virologists flushed a wood sample’s surface with a liquid solution at different time points and then placed that solution into a Petri dish that contained cultured cells.

After incubating the cells with the solution, the scientists measured the number of cells (if any) infected with the virus.

Results from the study with an enveloped coronavirus showed that pine, spruce, birch and alder need one hour to completely reduce the virus’ ability to infect cells, and with eucalyptus and oak needing two hours.

Overall, pine had the fastest onset of antiviral activity, beginning after five minutes. Spruce came in second, showing a sharp drop in infectivity after 10 minutes.

For a nonenveloped enterovirus, the researchers found that incubation on oak and spruce surfaces resulted in a loss of infectivity within about an hour, with oak having an onset time of 7.5 minutes and spruce after 60 minutes. Pine, birch and eucalyptus reduced the virus’ infectivity after four hours, and alder showed no antiviral effect.

Across both types of virus, spruce emerges as the best ‘all-rounder’.

The research appears in the journal ACS Applied Materials & Interfaces, titled “Tree Species-Dependent Inactivation of Coronaviruses and Enteroviruses on Solid Wood Surfaces..”

Adidas scores success with pink Germany shirt


AFP
June 24, 2024


Midfielders Ilkay Gundogan Jamal Musiala in Germany's pink and purple jerseys after winning the UEFA Euro 2024 Group A football match against Hungary on June 19 - Copyright AFP/File Philippe LOPEZ

Derided at its unveiling, Germany’s pink-and-purple away kit has become the breakout style star of Euro 2024, where it has added a splash of colour to the stands at the host’s fixtures.

The gaudy number has sold “almost as much” as Germany’s traditional white home strip, Adidas spokesman Stefan Pursche told AFP.

Under normal circumstances, four out of every five shirts sold would be the home kit, but the pink change has had “exceptional” success, Pursche said.

The huge demand has made it Germany’s “best-selling away kit in history”, ahead of previous iconic green or black jerseys.

Despite initial scepticism over the away shirt’s daring palette — and some homophobic or sexist commentary about the choice of colours — the kit has been embraced by fans.

“I think it is courageous to choose such a colour,” fan Alex Mueller, 39, told AFP outside Germany’s game against Switzerland on Sunday, sporting a pink shirt received as a gift.

The shirt was out-of-stock on Adidas’s website on Monday morning, with new supplies to be put online at 0830 GMT on Tuesday.

Most of the Adidas’s stores in Germany were also running very low, with only a few very small sizes or children’s models still available.

The popularity of the shirt has made it a hot commodity. Leo, 17, told AFP by Adidas’s Frankfurt shop on Friday that he would take the four pink shirts he had put his hands on to “resell on eBay” at a markup.

“They are the most difficult to get, so it’s there that I can make the biggest gains,” he said.

Sales of the pink kit could continue to rise if Germany progresses deeper into the tournament.

Julian Nagelsmann’s side sealed a first-placed finish in the group stage on Sunday with a 1-1 draw against Switzerland.

For the 2014 World Cup, Adidas sold some three million Germany shirts, with around half-a-million being sold in the days following Germany’s final victory over Argentina.

The pink strip however figures to be one of the last kits Adidas makes for their home team after decades during which the sportswear company’s three stripes were a fixture on German kits.

US rival Nike has secured the contract to outfit the German national team from 2027.

On Dobbs anniversary, advocates mark '2 years of outrage' and rally for abortion rights

Julia Conley, Common Dreams
June 24, 2024 

Abortion rights activists rally in Miami in June 2022 after the US Supreme Court struck down the right to abortion

Exactly two years after the right-wing majority on the U.S. Supreme Court cleared the way for nearly half of U.S. states so far to ban or severely restrict abortion care, reproductive justice advocates convened in Washington, D.C. on Monday to mark the anniversary and speak out ahead of another ruling that could have deadly consequences for pregnant people across the country.

As the country marks two years since the Dobbs v. Jackson Women's Health Organization decision, which overturned the 1973 ruling that affirmed Americans have the constitutional right to obtain abortions, advocates expressed a need to acknowledge the harm caused by Dobbs while also looking ahead to the pro-forced pregnancy movement's desire to further restrict reproductive rights.

"Women shouldn't have to wait to see if the Supreme Court will decide if they can get lifesaving healthcare in all states. This is a direct result of the disastrous Dobbs decision two years ago," said Margaret Viggiani, a campaigner who joined the National Mobilization for Reproductive Justice Monday at the rally and press conference in the nation's capital.

The decision expected by the end of the month is Idaho and Moyle, et al. v. United States, which stems from Idaho's near-total ban on abortion care. In August 2022, a federal judge barred the state from enforcing the ban due to its conflict with the Emergency Medical Treatment and Labor Act (EMTALA), which requires hospital emergency departments that accept Medicare to provide treatment to any patient with an emergency medical condition, including people facing pregnancy complications who need abortions.


Since the Dobbs decision was handed down two years ago, the real-world implications of abortion bans have become clear to many Americans as advocates have shared the stories of women like Kate Cox, who was forced to flee Texas to obtain abortion care when she learned her fetus had a fatal condition; Anya Cook and Shanae Smith-Cunningham, who faced the dangerous condition preterm prelabor rupture of the membranes (PPROM) but were unable to receive the standard of care recognized by obstetricians under Florida's 15-week abortion ban; and Amanda Zurawski, who was forced to become "sick enough" from a rapidly spreading infection before doctors would provide an abortion in Texas.

The life-threatening experiences of those women and others, said Human Rights Watch on Monday, exemplify "two years of outrage" since Roe v. Wade was overturned.

"The Supreme Court's revocation of national protections for abortion access, and the restrictive state laws that followed, means the United States is violating the rights to life, health, privacy, nondiscrimination, and freedom from cruel, inhuman, or degrading treatment, among others," said the global organization. "Access to legal abortion is essential to achieve gender equality. Every year, more leaders, legislatures, and courts abroad understand this. U.S. states should repeal restrictions on abortion, enshrine access to abortion in state constitutions, and advance the global trend of recognizing women's autonomy."

Last month, polling from the Pew Research Center suggested the stories of Zurawski, Cox, and other women have struck a chord with many Americans; more than 60% said they believed abortion should be legal in all or most cases, a four-percentage-point jump from 2021.

At the rally in Washington on Monday, reproductive rights advocates joined union members in calling on the American Federation of Labor and Congress of Industrial Organizations (AFL-CIO) to convene a national labor conference for reproductive justice, arguing that the largest federation of unions in the U.S. "is in the most powerful position to mobilize thousands of workers in defense of this fundamental right."

With 1 in 3 women of reproductive age in the U.S. now living in states with abortion bans, Reproductive Justice Maryland executive director Jakeya Johnson said at the rally that the Dobbs decision has "disproportionately impacted those who are marginalized and struggling to make ends meet."

"Today we're here to say, enough is enough," said Johnson. "The power of our collective voices cannot be underestimated. When labor and reproductive justice movements join forces, we are unstoppable. We're a force for change, and our strength lies in our numbers."

Meanwhile, groups including Reproductive Freedom for All, the Center for Reproductive Rights, the National Women's Law Center, and Planned Parenthood Federation of America marked the Dobbs anniversary by launching their Abortion Access Now campaign, pledging a $100 million investment to advance abortion rights and access through lobbying, grassroots organizing, public education, and other communications strategies.

"We envision a future where abortion, and all sexual and reproductive healthcare, is not only legal but also accessible, affordable, and free from stigma or fear," said the campaign. "This campaign is committed to building and leading a broad, inclusive vision for abortion access, ensuring everyone can make fundamental decisions about their health and bodies with dignity and support. Together, we will secure the freedom to control our own bodies and care for ourselves, our families, and our communities."

A separate campaign launched by the judicial reform group Stand Up America similarly marked the Dobbs anniversary and focused on warning U.S. voters that a victory by presumptive Republican presidential nominee Donald Trump in November would "ensure MAGA control of the [U.S. Supreme] Court for decades to come," with an impact on abortion rights and other crucial issues.


"We can't let that happen," said executive director Christina Harvey.

Egypt tomb find may shed light on ancient diseases: ministry

Agence France-Presse
June 24, 2024

The top fragment of a sarcophagus discovered at the Aswan site © - / Egyptian Ministry of Antiquities/AFP

A new discovery of 33 ancient tombs in Egypt's southern city of Aswan could reveal "new information on diseases" prevalent at the time, the tourism and antiquities ministry said Monday.

The tombs date back to the Ancient Egyptian Late Period and the Greco-Roman Periods, which collectively lasted from the seventh century BC until around the fourth century AD.

The burials were found by a joint Egyptian-Italian archaeological mission.

Ayman Ashmawy, who heads the Supreme Council of Antiquities' Egyptian Antiquities Division, said studies of the mummies "indicate that 30 to 40 percent of those buried died in their youth, as newborns or as adolescents".

Patrizia Piacentini, professor of Egyptology and archaeology at the University of Milan, headed the Italian side of the mission.

She said preliminary studies on the remains showed that "some suffered from infectious diseases, while others had bone disorders".

The remains of several adult women showed signs of pelvic bone trauma.

Other mummies indicated "anemia, malnutrition, chest diseases, tuberculosis and signs of osteoporosis", Piacentini said in a ministry statement.

Since 2018, the mission has been excavating the area around the Aga Khan mausoleum where Sir Sultan Mahomed Shah is buried, on the west bank of the Nile River just across from Aswan city centre.

Among the remains found were "an adult, perhaps a woman, and a child who may have died at the age of one or two", said Abdelmoneim Said, General Director of Aswan and Nubia Antiquities.

"The two bodies were still attached to each other inside a stone coffin," he added.

Dopamine: brain chemical helps us understand other people

The Conversation
June 24, 2024 

Brain

The neurotransmitter dopamine is commonly known for its role in brain networks regulating pleasure and reward.

But many people with disorders that affect the dopamine system, such as Parkinson’s disease or schizophrenia, also struggle with social abilities. These include recognizing or understanding the emotions and mental states of others, something scientists call the “theory of mind”.

These social difficulties can significantly impact the social relationships and quality of life of those affected. However, it has remained unclear whether these challenges are directly caused by dopamine imbalances or by other factors that co-occur with these disorders.

Now our new research, published in PLOS Biology, shows that a lack of dopamine seems to directly cause social difficulties. This suggests that dopamine-based drugs could one day also help treat the social difficulties in disorders with dopamine imbalances.

People with Parkinson’s disease often display fewer facial expressions than healthy individuals. Others may respond to this in negative ways – eventually leading sufferers to withdraw from social situations altogether. And people who are socially withdrawn for a long time can struggle more with social interactions as they don’t get a chance to practice (remember how difficult it was to return to the social world after lockdown?).

This is one possible explanation for why people with Parkinson’s might experience difficulties in understanding others.

However, it is not the only explanation. Parkinson’s is linked to the death of dopamine neurons in the brain. So some scientists have suspected that dopamine plays a key role in our ability to understand others.
Experimental design

Our latest study tested this latter explanation in 33 healthy individuals. We did this by giving people a drug intended to lower dopamine levels in parts of the brain by blocking the receptors that the neurotransmitter binds to.

We then assessed their theory of mind abilities by using an adaptation of a classical scientific experiment. In the original study introducing this experiment, the authors observed that when people are shown short videos of interacting triangles, they readily attribute social roles and mental states to the moving objects.

We used similar videos. Some were “mental state interactions”, which involved one triangle acting upon or causing a mental state in the other triangle, such as “surprising” it. We also had control videos, involving simpler, action-based interactions, such as one triangle following the other. This is a great way to investigate people’s ability to understand others because you exclude other factors that may influence participants’ performance, such as how they process language or faces.




Triangle gets surprised. Bianca Schuster, CC BY-SA

All participants completed the test twice, once after receiving the dopamine drug, and once after receiving a placebo pill. The order in which they received the interventions was randomised.

We found that taking the drug, in comparison to the placebo, reduced participants’ ability to accurately label both types of triangle videos. This suggests that dopamine is crucial for interpreting social interactions, whether they involve understanding mental states (such as surprise) or not (following).


Interestingly, those participants who showed reduced ability to accurately attribute mental states to triangles were also more likely to struggle with recognising emotions (as measured by another test showing a human form walking in angry, sad and happy emotional states) after receiving the drug.

This indicates that there might be a shared mechanism underlying both emotion recognition and theory of mind abilities in the brain. It is possible that dopamine regulates these abilities via its reward network, encouraging us to seek out those things that make us feel good, and repeating those behaviours. In the social context, dopamine might help us to pay specific attention to the subtle social cues communicated by other people.

Our results suggest that people who suffer from dopamine imbalances might find it hard to adequately recognise the social signals communicated by others. But we also discovered a second possibility. Beside its role in processing rewards, dopamine is well known to play a crucial role in movement. This is why the main symptoms of Parkinson’s disease include difficulties in this domain, such as problems with initiating movements.


Previous research suggests that we use (representations of) our own movements to understand others’ movements. The way people move is often a telltale sign of their emotions and mental states. We typically move slower, and slouch, if we’re sad and walk faster if we’re happy.

We showed that people were better at interpreting triangle movements when the triangles moved around in a way that was similar to their own movements. This suggests that people who struggle with movements may find it harder to interpret the movements of others, and therefore their mental states.

That said, the drug we used in the study made them move more slowly. But this did not have any effect on participants’ ability to interpret the triangle videos.


This is likely because, over a lifetime, we associate our own movements with certain mental states and use these patterns to understand others’ movements. This means that if someone gives you a drug that temporarily changes your movements, you still continue to use your long-held patterns to interpret other people’s actions.

But it is possible that in the later stages of Parkinson’s, long-term dopamine depletion might change their stored movement patterns – making it harder to interpret them in others.

Possible treatments


We believe these new insights represent a significant step forward in our understanding of the neurochemical bases of social cognition.

Our results can also help us better understand the social effects of dopaminergic drugs, which are prescribed to millions of people every day, including to people with Parkinson’s and schizophrenia. People with schizophrenia, for example, have too much dopamine in some parts of their brain. And research suggests this may also lead to problems with understanding others – with balanced levels being optimal. What we previously didn’t know is that the dopamine blockers aimed at treating hallucinations and delusions may also help with their mentalising abilities.

Our study will hopefully pave the way for future studies aiming at the development of new therapeutic interventions for people who find it hard to understand others. Besides people with Parkinson’s and schizophrenia, this might be beneficial for a range of other conditions affected by dopamine imbalances, such as Huntington’s disease or Tourette’s syndrome.


Bianca Schuster, Postdoctoral Reseracher in cognitive Neuroscience and Psychology, Universität Wien and Jennifer Cook, Professor of Cognitive Neuroscience, School of Psychology, University of Birmingham

This article is republished from The Conversation under a Creative Commons license. Read the original article.

Is social media fueling political polarization?

The Conversation
June 24, 2024 

What role do social networks really play in political polarization? (Shutterstock)


Once upon a time, newly minted graduates dreamt of creating online social media that would bring people closer together.

That dream is now all but a distant memory. In 2024, there aren’t many ills social networks don’t stand accused of: the platforms are singled out for spreading “fake news”, for serving as Russian and Chinese vehicles to destabilize democracies, as well as for capturing our attention and selling it to shadowy merchants through micro targeting. The popular success of documentaries and essays on the allegedly huge social costs of social media illustrates this.

One of those critical narratives, in particular, accuses digital platforms and their algorithms of amplifying political polarisation and hostility online. Some have gone so far as to say that in online discussions, “anyone can become a troll”, i.e., turn into an offensive and cynical debater.

Recent scholarship in quantitative social sciences and scientific psychology, however, provides important nuance to this pessimistic discourse.
The importance of social context and psychology

To start with, several studies suggest that if individuals regularly clash over political issues online, this is partly due to psychological and socioeconomic factors independent of digital platforms.

In our large scale cross-cultural study, we surveyed more than 15,000 people about their experiences of online conversations about social issues. Interviews were carried out via representative panels in 30 countries across six continents. Our first finding is that it is in economically unequal and less democratic countries (e.g., Turkey, Brazil) that individuals are most often victims of online hostility on social media (e.g., insults, threats, harassment, etc.). A phenomenon which seems to derive from frustrations generated by more repressive social environments and political regimes.



These graphs show the statistical association between exposure to online political hostility and the liberal democracy index (V-dem) or the level of economic inequality (World Bank Gini estimates) in 30 countries. Bor, Marie, Pradella, Petersen, Provided by the author


Our study also shows that the individuals who indulge most in online hostility are also those who are higher in status-driven risk taking. This personality trait corresponds to an orientation towards dominance, i.e., a propensity to seek to submit others to one’s will, for instance through intimidation. According to our cross-cultural data, individuals with this type of dominant personality are more numerous in unequal and non-democratic countries. Similarly, independent analyses show that dominance is a key element in the psychology of political conflict, as it also predicts more sharing of “fake news” mocking or insulting political opponents, and more attraction to offline political conflict, in particular.



The level of online political hostility as a function of the level of status-driven risk taking (15 000 users surveyed). The light grey lines are estimates by country, the dark line represents the overall average association. Bor, Marie, Pradella, Petersen, Provided by the author


Replicating a previous study, we also find that individuals high in status-driven risk taking, who most admit to behaving in a hostile manner online, are also those most likely to interact in an aggressive or toxic manner in face-to-face discussions (the correlation between online and hostility is quite strong: β = 0.77).

In summary, online political hostility appears to be largely the product of the interplay between particular personalities and social contexts repressing individual aspirations. It is the frustrations associated with social inequality that have made these people more aggressive, activating tendencies to see the world in terms of “us” vs “them”. On a policy level, if we are to bring about a more harmonious Internet (and civil society), we will likely have to tackle wealth inequality and make our political institutions more democratic.
Networks: prisms exaggerating ambient hostility


Although our study puts online political hostility into perspective, it does not deny social media platforms any causal role in fuelling political polarisation and hostility.

Social networks allow content to be spread faithfully to millions of people instantaneously (unlike verbal communication, where inevitable distortions occur). Because of this, they make it possible to misinform or anger millions of people at very little cost. This is true whether the false or toxic information is intentionally created to generate clicks, or whether it is the unintended side-effect of the political biases of a given political group.

If exchanges on social networks often lack civility, it’s also because of the possibility they offer of exchanging with anonymous and depersonalised strangers. This experience, unique to the Internet age, reduces our sense of personal responsibility and empathy towards interlocutors whom we no longer see as individuals but as the interchangeable members of political “tribes”.


Recent analyses also remind us that social networks operate less as a mirror than as a distorting prism for the diversity of opinions in society.

Indeed, outraged and potentially insulting political posts are generally written by people who are more committed to express themselves and more radical than the average person, whether it’s to signal their commitments, express anger, or mobilise others to join political causes. Even when they represent a relatively small proportion of the written output on the networks, moralistic and hostile posts tend to be promoted by algorithms programmed to push forward content capable of attracting attention and triggering responses, of which divisive political messages are an important part.

On the other hand, the majority of users, who are more moderate and less dogmatic, are more reluctant to get involved in political discussions that rarely reward good faith in argumentation and often escalate into outbursts of hatred.


These selection and perception biases combine to produce the misleading impression that radical and hostile beliefs are more widespread and more morally tolerated than they actually are.
When exposure to opposing views annoys

That said, the social media use seems to contribute to increasing political hostility and polarisation through at least one mechanism: exposure to caricatural versions of the political convictions of one’s rivals.


Contrary to widespread belief, most of our virtual connections don’t typically take on the form of “echo chambers”, isolating us into silos of homogeneous political worldviews.

Although some networks are indeed constructed in this way (4Chan or certain sub-Reddits), the largest platforms such as Facebook (three billion users) and X (550 million) typically present us with a certain diversity of opinions. This diversity is often greater than the political diversity of our friendships: are you still in regular contact with school friends who took a far right turn? Probably not, but it’s more likely that you read their Facebook posts.

This exposure to ideological otherness is desirable, in theory, as it should help us discover the blind spots in our political knowledge and convictions, acknowledge our common humanity, and therefore make us both more humble and more respectful of each other. Unfortunately, the way in which most people express their political convictions – both on social media and at the coffee machine – is rather lacking in nuance and tactfulness. It tends to reduce opposing positions to demonised caricatures, and is less concerned with persuading the other side than with signaling devotion to particular groups or causes, galvanising people who already agree with you, and maintaining connections with like-minded friends.


Based on field experiments carried out on Twitter and interviews with Democrat and Republican activists, sociologist Chris Bail has issued a warning to us in his book The Prism of Social Networks. He explains that repeated exposure to unconvincing claims or headlines produced by our political enemies (a fortiori posts attacking one’s ingroup) can paradoxically reinforce partisans from each side in their pre-existing positions and identities, rather than bringing them closer to each other in terms of worldviews and sentiments.



Users were invited to follow Twitter bots (algorithms) retweeting political messages opposed to their own opinions for one month. The horizontal axis represents their ideological shift following this exposure to opposing views at different levels of participation in the study. For both Republicans and Democrats, more participation in the study (i.e., more exposure to opposing views) seems to lead to a strengthening of pre-existing political attitudes, in a direction opposite from content disseminated by the bots. However, these effects were statistically significant only among Republican users, likely because the sample size was too small. Bor, Marie, Pradella, Petersen, Provided by the author


However, this relationship between social media use and political polarization seems to depend a lot on duration of exposure and does not appear in all the samples surveyed. Thus, recent studies exploring the effects of stopping Facebook and Instagram use failed to observe that social media noticeably polarize users’ political opinions.

Let us always remember that narratives pointing to threats on society enjoy a considerable competitive advantage on the market of ideas and conversations, due to their attractiveness to our minds. One should thus approach the question of the relationship between social media, and political hostility and polarisation, by avoiding the symmetrical pitfalls of naive optimism and collective panic.

Antoine Marie, Chercheur post-doctorant, École normale supérieure (ENS) – PSL

This article is republished from The Conversation under a Creative Commons license. Read the original article.

Christian Nationalists seek to 'infiltrate' schools: Suit challenges Ten Commandments law

Daniel Hampton
June 24, 2024 


"Stock Photo: Gods Ten Commandments" on Shutterstock

A new lawsuit seeks to block Louisiana legislation that would require a copy of the Ten Commandments be displayed in every public school classroom.

In announcing the legislation Monday, Rachel Laser, president and CEO of Americans United, said the lawsuit was necessary to "protect the religious freedom of public schoolchildren and their families."

"Christian Nationalists are trying to infiltrate our public schools," she said. "Not under our watch."

Republican Gov. Jeff Landy signed the bill into law Thursday and bragged that he welcomed civil rights groups who threatened to sue based on First Amendment violations. He later cast doubts on whether the separation of church and state actually exists.

"You know, the interesting thing about the First Amendment — I heard it in one of the comments that you played — is this separation of church and state. I challenge anyone who says that to go find me those words in the First Amendment. They don't exist," he told Fox News on Friday.

Landry then referred to the section — known as the Establishment Clause — as a "metaphor breathed into the First Amendment by a liberal Supreme Court in the 1930s.

"The hardline conservative governor then continued to lay out his argument, saying the founding documents were based on "Judeo-Christian" principles.

"We've got it on our money, we've got it all over our Capitol. We've got it in the Supreme Court. It is those that want to extract that out of the foundation of this country that really and truly want to create the chaos that ultimately is the demise of this nation," he said.

In a Monday post on X, Laser aimed squarely at Landry.

"See you in court, Governor Landry," she said. "Forcing public schools to display the Ten Commandments in every classroom is unconstitutional. It flagrantly violates church-state separation and the religious freedom of students and their families."

Laser pushed back against his comments in a statement saying secular, inclusive public schools that welcome all students "regardless of their belief system form the "backbone" of the country's diverse communities.

"This nation must recommit to our foundational principle of church-state separation before it's too late," she warned. "Public education, religious freedom and democracy are all on the line."

Nine Louisiana families sued to block the law. The plaintiffs include rabbis and pastors.

'It would mean everything': Boeing whistleblower lauds prosecutors for urging charges

Matthew Chapman
June 24, 2024 

The Boeing logo is seen on the side of a Boeing 737 MAX jet during the Farnborough International Airshow 2022 on July 18, 2022, in Farnborough, England. (Photo by John Keeble/Getty Images)

Federal prosecutors have reportedly recommended criminal charges against the aircraft manufacturer Boeing for mismanaging safety features that led to the deadly crashes of two 737 MAX jets, killing hundreds of people, and a whistleblower called it an encouraging sign.

"I guess my first reaction is that's encouraging, very encouraging news, but quite honestly, I'm reluctant to get my hopes up right now," Ed Pierson told CNN's Wolf Blitzer on Monday.

"Why is that?" asked Blitzer.

"Well it was a recommendation, right?" said Pierson. "So the attorney general, Merrick Garland, I guess will have the final say. I just hope that he really considers what's best for the public. It's not just that these families deserve justice, but if you don't hold Boeing accountable, they're going to continue to do their criminal behavior and that's not good for aviation safety."

"If the attorney general and the Justice Department does — if they do pursue this, what kind of impact would that have on Boeing if it's formerly criminally charged and ultimately convicted?" asked Blitzer.

"That's a great question," said Pierson. "I think some people will automatically say, oh, well, Boeing will not be able to get contracts because they're a felon. I think Congress would probably run out and do whatever they have to do to pass an exemption to allow that. And I don't really understand why they can pursue prosecution anyhow, because we're really talking about individuals — individuals that made conscious decisions. Those are the ones that need to be held accountable. And I think that that can be done without really harming the company. It's going to help the company. I mean, something that's way more dangerous than a trial is another disaster, preventable disaster."

"What could this mean for the families of people who died on those Boeing planes?" Blitzer asked.

"Wolf, it would mean everything to those individuals," said Pierson. "Those individuals have been ... forever harmed and they're the ones out here fighting the hardest to get justice and accountability because they want the truth. It would mean everything to them. We talk to them every day and it just breaks their heart — they keep fighting ... every other month there's a new revelation of a criminal — something that was done that should have, should never have happened. I think it would just be an amazing vindication to them."

Watch the video below or at the link here.

Ed Pierson weighs in on Boeing being recommended for criminal chargeswww.youtube.com

WikiLeaks founder Julian Assange to take plea deal that may secure prison release: report

Matthew Chapman
June 24, 2024

WikiLeaks founder Julian Assange (AFP)

WikiLeaks founder Julian Assange is reportedly set to plead guilty to U.S. charges in a deal that could lead to his release from British prison.

According to NBC News, "Assange was charged by criminal information — which typically signifies a plea deal — with conspiracy to obtain and disclose national defense information, the court documents say. U.S. charges against Assange stem from one of the largest publications of classified information in American history, which took place during the first term of Barack Obama's presidency."

"Starting in late 2009, according to the government, Assange conspired with Chelsea Manning, a military intelligence analyst, to disclose tens of thousands of activity reports about the war in Afghanistan, hundreds of thousands of reports about the war in Iraq, hundreds of thousands of State Department cables and assessment briefs of Guantanamo Bay detainees using his WikiLeaks website," the report noted.

Assange, who has served five years in British prison awaiting extradition to the U.S. after he had spent several years prior holed up in the Ecuadorian embassy in London to avoid arrest, was also separately wanted as part of a rape investigation in Sweden for years, but that case was dropped in 2019, as Swedish prosecutors believed that the evidence was too stale to secure a conviction.

Supporters of Assange argue he has fought to hold governments accountable; his detractors often argue his leaks were not journalism, but a rogue private intelligence operation calculated to help Russia, as demonstrated by accusations that the Belarusian dictatorship, a key ally of Moscow, used WikiLeaks information to target dissidents.


"Assange has been fighting extradition to the U.S. for more than a decade," noted the report. "In March, the High Court in London gave him permission for a full hearing on his appeal as he sought assurances that he could rely upon the First Amendment at a trial in the United States. In May, two judges on the High Court said he could have a full hearing on whether he would be discriminated against in the U.S. because he is a foreign national. A hearing on the issue of Assange's free speech rights had been scheduled for July 9-10."

‘We Could Not Provide Any Credible Alternatives to NATO’: Interview With Finnish Left Alliance’s Henrik Jaakkola

Henrik Jaakkola
Oleksandr Kyselov
25 June, 2024


First published at Commons.

Oleksandr Kyselov interviews Henrik Jaakkola, of Finland's Vasemmistoliitto/Vänsterförbundet (Left Alliance)

Initially, Left Alliance (Vasemmistoliitto/Vänsterförbundet) was fiercely against Finland joining NATO to the point of making it a condition of your participation in the government. What was the reasoning behind V’s security policy back then?

Not only was our party Vasemmistoliitto against Finland joining NATO, but so was also the overwhelming majority of both Finnish citizens and Finnish politicians, including even our right-wing conservative president. Four out of five Finns would not have wanted Finland to join NATO prior to the 2022 Russian invasion of Ukraine.

Our view was that military non-alignment was the most stable solution for Finland. It gave Finland a bigger role in promoting mediation in international arenas. Membership in NATO was a big change in Finland’s foreign and security policy line, which had previously remained rather constant within this area of politics. We’d valued our own highly effective military and our independent defense policy. We did not see a military alliance with countries like the USA, Turkey, Poland, and Hungary to be a reliable securer of human rights and democracy in the world. We saw our role as an independent country outside of military alliances to be beneficial in negotiating for peace in the world.

Much of our criticism towards NATO remains similar in essence today, even though now the situation has changed drastically, — and so did our position towards Finland’s membership in NATO.

The media frequently relates NATO scepticism to the alleged ties with or sympathy towards Russia. What was your record on that? Have there ever been any illusions within your party?

There have never been sympathies towards the Russian leadership or their military incursions and ambitions in our party. Ever since Putin took power in Russia, our party has been very vocal in criticizing his reign and policies both inside Russia and when waging war with Russia's neighbors.

There has, however, always been a persistent urge within the media and our political opponents to accuse our party and politicians of Putinism. No matter how vocally and consistently we voice our opposition to Russia — the right wing automatically labels anyone they consider “unpatriotic” as “pro-Russian”. This is something that is not unique to Finland but is perhaps amplified by our history and proximity to Russia.

Our opposition to NATO was never based on the idea that Russia needs to be protected from the western military alliance, or that NATO has somehow wronged Russia by gaining new members in the Baltic countries for instance. We’ve opposed both NATO and Russia based on their respective track records and have refrained from pledging allegiance to any geopolitical block.

Then the full-scale war in Ukraine begins, and the party makes a complete turn-around on the NATO ascension. This is at the time when the Russian invasion is seen by many on the left as NATO-provoked. How did the discussion go, and what did it end up with in Vänsterförbundet? Something that is often cited is a shift in public opinion, including among the party members and supporters. Why do you think this happened?

The discussion regarding Finnish membership in NATO escalated very quickly after the February 2022 invasion. The Finnish public opinion changed completely from almost everyone opposing the membership to almost everyone being in its favor.1 Pretty much everyone was frightened and genuinely feared that Finland could very well be the next target of Russian aggression. This was reflected in our membership and voters as well. Where before the party and its supporters were all very much of one mind, now we have different, and justified, views... Roughly one half still opposed Finland’s membership in military alliances, while the other half, slightly larger, was in favor of Finland joining NATO.

But why? The consensus among the party members seems to be that we had basically failed to provide any credible alternatives to NATO. We’d always emphasized that Finland has an independently strong military, something Russia would not dare to challenge – and had no reason to since we were outside of NATO.

After the 2022 invasion, this was not perceived as an adequate defense policy. In retrospect, it truly was not. We should have worked harder in the years leading up to the war in planning and proposing a Nordic-European alternative, something to counterbalance the threat from Russia that would not have to rely on countries like the USA and Turkey. But we had no such well-prepared alternative to offer, so our members and supporters turned to something that was already there, concrete and widely discussed.

Nonetheless, the deliberation took a while, pluralism of opinions was constantly underlined, the parliamentary group voted in disarray, and the party leader did not make her position known for several months. Why was it like this?

There has never been a top-down enforced policy regarding NATO in our party. In our programs, we’ve naturally spoken against NATO, but the discussion within the party had been minimal, at least in the years leading up to 2022. Everyone in Vasemmistoliitto had quite naturally been in total opposition towards the military alliance and especially Finland’s potential membership in it, so there had really been no need to even consider what we would do as a party if the opinion would start to divide.

Now that opinion started to divide, we very early on decided not to enforce any stance on our politicians or members. Everyone had the freedom to form their own opinion on the matter, as they eventually did. The vote in the parliament, with most voting in favor of joining and a large minority voting against it, is very reflective of the opinion in our membership.

As far as the party leader is concerned, she has stated that she wanted to leave room for the party membership to form their opinion without forcing one on them or seeming to do so. This I think was very important in keeping the party together, despite the differences of opinion. In fact, there never has been any threat of a real split in the party due to NATO. Even now we have politicians who voted in favor of and also those who voted against the NATO ascension in our party's leadership.

What is precisely the party’s position towards NATO now? Do you ignore it for now, embrace out of necessity as a lesser evil, or accept only with certain reservations? What about other connected collaborations, such as the Defense Cooperation Agreement (DCA) with the US?

The Left Alliance sees that Finland should emphasize that Finland’s membership in NATO is defensive in nature and that we do not want nuclear weapons, or permanent NATO bases or troops in Finland.

As regards to the Defense Cooperation Agreement between Finland and the United States, we have not yet taken a final position. We are still waiting for the government bill on the agreement.

The Left Alliance hopes that the DCA agreement will be carefully and thoroughly discussed in Parliament, as this is a significant change in foreign and security policy. We also have concerns about the legal responsibility of the soldiers, as we want to ensure no Finnish victim is compelled to face trial in a U.S. military court. Also, the question about nuclear weapons on Finnish soil is important to us. We do not want nuclear weapons here.

One of the constant debates, including on security matters, is whether the left should be focused on defending book principles no matter what or pragmatically assess every situation and make the best out of it for the common good. What is your take on that?

My opinion is that Leftist politics cannot achieve what we aim to achieve without socialist theory and an understanding of our world that is based on the material reality of our society. This said, theories are never something you can apply to the real world as such. For instance, we could have chosen to die on the hill opposing the Finnish NATO membership out of principle and totally disregard the shifting opinion of the Finnish people, our party members and our voters. Would this have brought us closer to peace, a democratic socialist society, and a better world? I think we will have to continue to balance ourselves between book principles and the real world.

Can we say then that the public opinion, not security considerations, was the deciding factor?

We could say that the lack of any credible competing security alternatives for NATO was the reason for change in the public opinion, our supporters included. And realizing this was the deciding factor.

Has the change in your party's position on NATO affected your relationship with the radical left in other countries, given that the left is largely anti-NATO?

Not really as far as I know, judging from discussions with international comrades, largely other European leftists. Most of them are also members of leftist parties in other NATO countries. Now we are also a leftist party in a NATO country. Most of the leftist parties don’t campaign for withdrawal from NATO as their main objective, even though that would be a part of their core manifesto.

It’s also important to stress that we are not explicitly pro-NATO either. We are still just as critical of Western imperialism as before and have common ground regarding these issues with our sister parties. Especially with those who also recognize and are vocal in opposing Russian imperialism as well.

What could be or maybe is a viable security arrangement other than NATO for our part of the world?

That is exactly the question that we should have been able to answer in a credible way well before February 2022. It could be something that relies more on Europe and the other Nordic countries.

The alternative we had prior to 2022 was a strong and reliable national defense based on universal conscription. This was deemed to be too little by the public, but it was basically all we had.

I think we still need to strive to answer this question of alternatives to NATO. A military alliance led by western countries contributing to war crimes and committing atrocities of their own cannot be our only salvation from another imperialist-expansionist regime in the east.

Could the reliance on national defense be ever feasible for smaller countries, at the very least economically? Or if we leave the US behind, is further development of the EU mutual defense an alternative you could imagine or rather shifting to regional collaborations like the idea of the Scandinavian defense union?

The short history of this discussion in our party is that before February 2022 there was widely a consensus that best for Finland is to remain militarily non-aligned and to uphold a strong independent military.

Then in the weeks and months after February 2022 it became clear that this is no longer a viable position in the eyes of our supporters, party members and politicians. So what followed was a very rushed discussion of these possible alternatives, but it was too little, too late. As party leader Li Andersson summarized, the left had been saying no to the Nordic defense alliance since NATO countries and non-NATO countries could not build defense together, and, on the other hand, had failed to understand in time the importance of deepening defense cooperation in the EU under Article 42.7 of the Treaty of Lisbon.

The media and the public discussion was pushing very, very hard for Finland to join NATO and for all the parties to be of one mind in this. Unless they wanted to be shamed as "Putinists". Thus, after just a few months, the discussion transformed into what we want to do now that Finland will surely be in NATO. How we can stop nuclear weapons and foreign bases to be places in Finland and so on. So, now there is really now discussion of alternatives to NATO.

The Finnish model is sometimes offered as an option for Ukraine's future. Could you elaborate on what it was and what it meant for your country?

In the Nordic countries, we talk of “the Nordic model”. This includes at least strong labor unions, strong social security, public services like education and health care for all, multi-party representative democracy and progressive taxation. It’s the social democratic mixed-economy model that the workers movement in Nordic countries managed to achieve after decades of struggle.

It’s also something we learned to take for granted, but which is being gradually dismantled by right-wing governments in Finland as well as in Scandinavia. Nowadays we therefore often find ourselves fighting a defensive battle against the right, trying to defend our old model, instead of fighting for radical socialist reforms.

The Nordic model is something that we are very proud of and for very good reasons. I find no reason why this model would not be something that Ukraine could and should also adopt. Actually, it should maybe not be called “the Nordic model”. It’s not something that has to do with our geography or culture. It’s something that workers managed to achieve here, and it’s something that Ukrainian workers could surely achieve as well.

This is something we will definitely note. But there is another Finnish model that usually comes up first in the discussions, that is so-called “Finlandization”. What was it, how does the left in Finland assess this period in their history, and whether it can really be considered as a credible solution one can offer to other lands?

Ah! I misunderstood.

We are not used to calling it the Finnish model, but Finlandization is a familiar term. In Finland our official policy towards the Soviet Union was called “the Paasikivi-Kekkonen doctrine”. This was a foreign policy doctrine of neutrality and friendship between both the eastern and the western blocs, which has been both praised as savvy political realism and criticized as capitulation and self-censorship. I think both viewpoints are present and considered partly valid among leftists today, decades after the Cold War ended.

It can be argued that neutrality was something that was necessary to guarantee our independence after the defeat against the Soviet Union in the Second World War. This said, I’m not sure how viable this doctrine would be for Ukraine in today's world. Even if we would imagine that the war ends with a defeat against Russia as Finland was defeated, Ukraine in 2024 is not the same as Finland in 1944. Of course there are similarities. Finland lost lots of territory in the east to Russia. These areas are Russian now, and will likely always be. Is this something that would be acceptable to Ukrainians, in regard to the areas that are now occupied by Russia?

I think this is something that only Ukrainians can decide, and I’m not sure how helpful outside meddling in this discussion can be. I don’t think Finnish people should ever try to argue that our war experiences from 80 years ago or foreign relations during the Cold War are something we could just export abroad as something other countries could implement. It is very important to learn from history. It’s also very important to realize that the world is very different now.1

Public support for NATO membership in Finland shifted from 24% in Oct 2021 to 85% in Oct 2022.