#CIVILIZATION 

Naturally perforated shells one of the earliest adornments in the Middle Paleolithic

Simulations and microscopic analysis confirm that ancient shells were hung on strings and painted with ochre

Summary:Ancient humans deliberately collected perforated shells in order to string them together as beads, according to a new study

Date:July 8, 2020

Source:PLOS

Ancient humans deliberately collected perforated shells in order to string them together as beads, according to a study published July 8, 2020 in the open-access journal PLOS ONE by Daniella Bar-Yosef Mayer (Tel Aviv University, Israel), Iris Groman-Yaroslavski (University of Haifa, Israel), and colleagues.

Shells are one of the oldest ways humans have adorned and expressed themselves, with examples of deliberately-collected shell assemblages at human sites dating as far back as 160,000 years ago found across North Africa, South Africa, and the Eastern Mediterranean. Shells from one Mediterranean Paleolithic site, Qafzeh Cave (dated to 120,000 years ago) are all naturally perforated (in contrast to the unperforated shells found at a nearby older site, Misliya Cave), suggesting that these shells were deliberately collected and strung together as beads.

To investigate the possibility of deliberate suspension to create strings of shell beads, Bar-Yosef Mayer and Groman-Yaroslavski collected the same species of perforated clamshells (Glycymeris) and simulated the potential use and wear present on the original shells: first systematically abrading the shells against different materials like leather, sand, and stone to produce a catalogue of wear patterns, then hanging the shells on strings made from wild flax to to identify wear patterns specific to string suspension. They then compared these wear patterns to those of the original Qafzeh Cave shells.

Microscopic analysis of the five best-preserved Qafzeh Cave shells revealed traces consistent with those created in the simulated shells via contact with a string, as well as traces of shell-to-shell contact (indicating the shells hung closely together). Four of the five original shells also revealed traces of an ochre coloring treatment.

Though it's not possible to determine the precise symbolic meaning of the shell bead strand from Qafzeh Cave, the fact that bivalve shells are a frequent hallmark across Paleolithic sites gives a sense of their importance. Additionally, the presence of a string seems to suggest that not only was shell collection important -- the ability to display the shells to others also likely held significance. As one of the earliest instances of perforated objects hung on strings, the Qafzeh Cave shells also bring us closer to understanding the origins of string-making technology probably between 160-120,000 years ago.

Bar-Yosef Mayer adds: "Modern humans collected unperforated cockle shells for symbolic purposes at 160,000 years ago or earlier, and around 120,000 they started collecting perforated shells and wearing them on a string. We conclude that strings, which had many more applications, were invented within this time frame."
th.

Journal Reference:
Daniella E. Bar-Yosef Mayer, Iris Groman-Yaroslavski, Ofer Bar-Yosef, Israel Hershkovitz, Astrid Kampen-Hasday, Bernard Vandermeersch, Yossi Zaidner, Mina Weinstein-Evron. On holes and strings: Earliest displays of human adornment in the Middle Palaeolithic. PLOS ONE, 2020; 15 (7): e0234924 DOI: 10.1371/journal.pone.0234924

PLOS. "Naturally perforated shells one of the earliest adornments in the Middle Paleolithic: Simulations and microscopic analysis confirm that ancient shells were hung on strings and painted with ochre." 

ScienceDaily.

 ScienceDaily, 8 July 2020. 

The best (and worst) materials for masks

People making homemade masks might want to reach for a vacuum cleaner filter

Summary:It's intuitive and scientifically shown that wearing a face covering can help reduce the spread of the novel coronavirus that causes COVID-19. But not all masks are created equal, according to new research.

Date:July 8, 2020

Source:University of Arizona

It's intuitive and scientifically shown that wearing a face covering can help reduce the spread of the novel coronavirus that causes COVID-19. But not all masks are created equal, according to new University of Arizona-led research.

Amanda Wilson, an environmental health sciences doctoral candidate in the Department of Community, Environment and Policy in the Mel and Enid Zuckerman College of Public Health, is lead author on a recent study published in the Journal of Hospital Infection that assessed the ability of a variety of nontraditional mask materials to protect a person from infection after 30 seconds and after 20 minutes of exposure in a highly contaminated environment.

When the researchers compared wearing masks to wearing no protection during 20-minute and 30-second exposures to the virus, they found that infection risks were reduced by 24-94% or by 44-99% depending on the mask and exposure duration. Risk reduction decreased as exposure duration increased, they found.

"N99 masks, which are even more efficient at filtering airborne particles than N95 masks, are obviously one of the best options for blocking the virus, as they can reduce average risk by 94-99% for 20-minute and 30-second exposures, but they can be hard to come by, and there are ethical considerations such as leaving those available for medical professionals," Wilson said.

The next best options, according to the research, are N95 and surgical masks and, perhaps surprisingly, vacuum cleaner filters, which can be inserted into filter pockets in cloth masks. The vacuum filters reduced infection risk by 83% for a 30-second exposure and 58% for a 20-minute exposure. Of the other nontraditional materials evaluated by the researchers, tea towels, cotton-blend fabrics and antimicrobial pillowcases were the next best for protection.

Scarves, which reduced infection risk by 44% after 30 seconds and 24% after 20 minutes, and similarly effective cotton t-shirts are only slightly better than wearing no mask at all, they found.

"We knew that masks work, but we wanted to know how well and compare different materials' effects on health outcomes," said Wilson, who specializes in quantitative microbial risk assessment.

Wilson and her team collected data from various studies of mask efficacy and created a computer model to simulate infection risk, taking various factors into consideration.

"One big component of risk is how long you're exposed. We compared risk of infection at both 30 seconds and 20 minutes in a highly contaminated environment," she said.

Other conditions that impact risk of infection are the number of people around you and their distance from you, she said.

The size of virus-transporting droplets from sneezes, coughs or even speech is also a very important factor. Larger, heavier droplets carrying the virus drop out of the air faster than smaller, lighter ones. That's one reason distance helps reduce exposure.

"Aerosol size can also be affected by humidity," Wilson said. "If the air is drier, then aerosols become smaller faster. If humidity is higher, then aerosols will stay larger for a longer period of time, dropping out faster. That might sound good at first, but then those aerosols fall on surfaces, and that object becomes another potential exposure route."

The study also showed that the more time a person spends in an environment where the virus is present, the less effective a mask becomes.

"That doesn't mean take your mask off after 20 minutes," Wilson said, "but it does mean that a mask can't reduce your risk to zero. Don't go to a bar for four hours and think you're risk free because you're wearing a mask. Stay home as much as possible, wash your hands often, wear a mask when you're out and don't touch your face."

Masks protect the wearer and others in a number of different ways. Wilson said there are two "intuitive ways" that masks filter larger aerosols: mechanical interception and inertial impaction.

"The denser the fibers of a material, the better it is at filtering. That's why higher thread counts lead to higher efficacy. There's just more to block the virus," she said. "But some masks (such as those made from silk) also have electrostatic properties, which can attract smaller particles and keep them from passing through the mask as well."

The model developed by Wilson and her colleagues included parameters such as inhalation rate -- the volume of air inhaled over time -- and virus concentration in the air.

"We took a lot of research data, put it into a mathematical model and related those data points to each other," Wilson said. "For example, if we know people's inhalation rates vary by this much and know this much virus is in the air and these materials offer this much efficiency in terms of filtration, what does that mean for infection risk? We provide a range, in part, because everyone is different, such as in how much air we breathe over time."

Wilson also said it's important for a mask to have a good seal that pinches at nose, and she noted that people shouldn't wear a mask beneath the nose or tuck it under the chin when not in use.

"Proper use of masks is so important," Wilson said. "Also, we were focusing on masks protecting the wearer, but they're most important to protect others around you if you're infected. If you put less virus out into the air, you're creating a less contaminated environment around you. As our model shows, the amount of infectious virus you're exposed to has a big impact on your infection risk and the potential for others' masks to protect them as well."

COVID-19 brain complications found across the globe

Cases of brain complications linked to COVID-19 are occurring across the globe, a new review has shown. The research found that strokes, delirium and other neurological complications are reported from most countries where there have been large outbreaks of the disease.

NOT A SLIGHT COLD OR JUST A FLU

Date:July 8, 2020

Science News from research organizations

Source:University of Liverpool

Cases of brain complications linked to COVID-19 are occurring across the globe, a new review by University of Liverpool researchers has shown.

Published in The Lancet Neurology, the study found that strokes, delirium and other neurological complications are reported from most countries where there have been large outbreaks of the disease.

COVID-19 has been associated mostly with problems like difficulty breathing, fever and cough. However, as the pandemic has continued, it has become increasingly clear that other problems can occur in patients. These include confusion, stroke, inflammation of the brain, spinal cord, and other kinds of nerve disease.

A recent Liverpool-led study of COVID-19 patients hospitalised in the UK found a range of neurological and psychiatric complications that may be linked to the disease.

To get a sense of the wider picture, the researchers brought together and analysed findings from COVID-19 studies across the globe that reported on neurological complications. The review, which included studies from China, Italy and the USA among others, found almost 1000 patients with COVID-19-associated brain, spinal cord and nerve disease.

Research Fellow, Dr Suzannah Lant, who was working on the project, said: "Whilst these complications are relatively uncommon, the huge numbers of COVID-19 cases globally mean the overall number of patients with neurological problems is likely to be quite large."

One of the complications found to be linked to COVID-19 is encephalitis, which is inflammation and swelling of the brain.

Dr Ava Easton, CEO of the Encephalitis Society, and co-author on the paper said: "It is really important that doctors around the world recognise that COVID-19 can cause encephalitis and other brain problems, which often have potentially devastating, life-changing consequences for patients."

Professor Tom Solomon, senior author on the paper and Director of the Global COVID-Neuro Network, added: "Although such patients are being seen everywhere the virus occurs, many of the reports are lacking in detail. We are currently pooling data from individual patients all around the world, so that we can get a more complete picture. Doctors who would like to contribute patients to this analysis can contact us via the Global COVID-Neuro Network website."

For more information about the Global COVID-Neuro Network please visit https://braininfectionsglobal.tghn.org/covid-neuro-network/
make a difference: sponsored opportunity

Journal Reference:
Mark A Ellul, Laura Benjamin, Bhagteshwar Singh, Suzannah Lant, Benedict Daniel Michael, Ava Easton, Rachel Kneen, Sylviane Defres, Jim Sejvar, Tom Solomon. Neurological associations of COVID-19. The Lancet Neurology, 2020; DOI: 10.1016/S1474-4422(20)30221-0

Can Anti-Trump Republican Groups Bring About a Biden Landslide?

They may be giving enough conservatives permission to vote their conscience.

by Nancy LeTourneau July 8, 2020 POLITICAL ANIMAL

Gage Skidmore/Wikimedia Commons Carly Fiorina


According to Jonathan Martin, Republican leaders who don’t support Trump’s reelection have chosen one of three different paths.

State publicly that they won’t vote for him and plan to vote for Biden (Colin Powell and Carly Fiorina).

State publicly that they won’t vote for him, but won’t vote for Biden (Mitt Romney and John Bolton).


Stay silent (George W. Bush, Paul Ryan, and John Boehner).
There’s one thing that all of those Republicans except Romney have in common: none of them currently hold elective office. What is even more interesting is what Martin heard about those who do.

“I’ve had five conversations with senators who tell me they are really struggling with supporting Trump,” said [Democratic Senator Chris] Coons, who declined to give names.

Indeed, one Republican senator, who is publicly supporting the president, said in an interview that he might prefer a Biden victory if the G.O.P. managed to preserve its Senate majority. This lawmaker, like a number of Republicans, is uneasy with Mr. Trump’s behavior and weary from the near-weekly barrage of questions from reporters about the latest presidential eruption.

As former Senator Claire McCaskill of Missouri, a moderate Democrat who was friends with a number of her former Republican colleagues, put it: “It’s easier to count the ones who are definitely voting for Trump.”

That demonstrates the kind of political cowardice that has plagued Republicans ever since Trump was elected. But in talking to GOP campaign consultants, Tim Miller explains the dilemma faced by those up for reelection in 2020, like Senator John Cornyn of Texas.


[R]ather than addressing this by creating some strategic separation from Trump to solidify the historically conservative Dallas and Houston suburbs where Trump is bleeding out, Cornyn has become a Mr. Trump fan girl, echoing his virus denial and defending the attack on nonviolent protestors in Lafayette Square.

Why? According to one: “You have 25% of the state is rural and Trump gets like Saddam Hussein level numbers here. 87% in 25% of the state… Cornyn gets 69. And so Cornyn can’t find a place to break from because he could really put that in jeopardy.”

And thus the polarizing nature of Trump makes it impossible for Cornyn to make a move that helps him in the swingy suburbs without risking the floor falling out from under him in West Texas.

That is why I find the number of Republican groups forming to defeat Trump extremely significant. The ranks include the Lincoln Project, Right Side PAC, 43 Alumni for Biden, and Republican Voters Against Trump. The proliferation of these groups strikes me as unprecedented in modern political history, so it deserves our attention. Here is something Republican strategist John Weaver said about the goal of the Lincoln Project.

“Republicans are hierarchical,” Weaver said. “So what’s not getting a lot of attention right now is the structure we are building — the permission ramp for Republicans so that they will have some comfort that they are not alone in doing the right thing.”

The fact that Republicans are hierarchical is an astute observation. But that’s not the only reason why building a permission ramp is important. As Andrew Levison wrote, conservatives have actually built a three-level ideological cocoon that these kinds of efforts could puncture. The first level is a national media structure headlined by Fox News. Behind that are local news sources such as Sinclair TV stations and talk radio. A permission ramp is more likely to affect the third level, which Levison describes as the most significant.

Finally, and most importantly, it is the network of personal relationships between neighbors and friends that works to validate and confirm the broader messages. Casual conversations with friends, Facebook messages and e-mails from relatives, and jokes passed among co-workers all reinforce the sense that Democrats are the “other” and lead people who once supported Democrats to mute their views, creating what sociologists call a “spiral of silence.” The result makes support for the Republican Party seem not just dominant but unanimous.

This last, most intimate level of influence is the most important because it validates and provides the “proof” that what the conservative national and local media are saying is actually right. In this environment, political life ceases to be a debate or dialog between candidates or parties. Instead people come to accept that you would have to be completely out of your mind to ever vote for a Democrat.

As an example of how to puncture that “spiral of silence,” this is the kind of video from Republican Voters Against Trump that might break through to some white evangelical Christians—even in Texas.

Notice how Tommy says that he reluctantly voted for Trump in 2016 because the “at least he’s not Hillary Clinton” rallying cry was strong in his part of the country. That is a perfect example of how the “spiral of silence” works. Now Tommy is part of building a permission structure to give others an option that he didn’t take advantage of four years ago.

It is a fact that there are some Trump supporters who will hang on until the bitter end. But the reason a possible landslide for Biden is even being discussed is that there are Republicans out there who are beginning to see that “dark path” that Tommy says Trump’s reelection would take us down. The seeds of doubt are being planted.

Nancy LeTourneau

Nancy LeTourneau is a contributing writer for the Washington Monthly. Follow her on Twitter @Smartypants60.

DON'T CALL BIDEN PROGRESSIVE

The left gets rolled on legalizing pot — and legal protections for cops

A "unity" task force on criminal justice reform created by Biden's campaign rejects policies pushed by Sanders supporters.

ONLY WHEN THE LEFT OF THE PARTY AND THOSE NOT APPROVED BY THE DNC GET ENOUGH CANDIDATES ELECTED WILL THEY BE ABLE TO TAKE THE PARTY AWAY FROM THE REACTIONARIES, CAREERISTS AND OPPORTUNISTS AS AOC AND OTHERS HAVE SHOWN REMEMBER 1968 THE RIOTS WERE AT THE DEMOCRATIC CONVENTION OVER THE VIETNAM WAR, JOHNSON AND HUBERT HUMPHREY THE LATTER WHO WAS THE DNC FAVORITE

Progressives celebrated Wednesday after pushing presumptive Democratic nominee Joe Biden left on climate change, immigration and economic policy. But they struggled to persuade Biden’s team on criminal justice policy beyond what he has already embraced. | AP Photo/Patrick Semansky
By HOLLY OTTERBEIN and LAURA BARRÓN-LÓPEZ

07/08/2020

Joe Biden’s “unity” task forces were created to bring the progressive wing of the Democratic Party into the fold after the sting of Bernie Sanders’ defeat.

But on key policies involving the biggest issue of the day — criminal justice — the left flank got rolled.

Amid nationwide protests against police brutality, the criminal justice panel formed by Biden and Sanders got into heated debates in recent weeks over qualified immunity, a legal doctrine that shields police from being sued for misconduct. Progressives pushed to end it, but Biden appointees agreed only to sign onto a commitment to rein in the rule.

Another flashpoint over marijuana ended similarly: Sanders’ team argued in private meetings that they should legalize cannabis, but that idea was rejected. One task force member described the disagreements over qualified immunity and pot as “huge battles,” and multiple people involved said the criminal justice panel presented some of the biggest challenges for compromise.

“The vice president needs to figure out how he can step up and also catch up, frankly, to where the American people are headed in terms of wanting to have a real significant shift in how we think about things like policing and criminalization of marijuana and other drugs,” said Scott Roberts, senior director of criminal justice campaigns for the civil rights organization Color of Change. “He still seems to embrace kind of a law-and-order lite." Roberts, who was not on the task force, added that Biden is fortunate that he's running against President Donald Trump, whom he called a "white supremacist and vocal opponent of the Black Lives Matter movement."

On several other task forces created by Biden and Sanders, progressives celebrated Wednesday that they won concessions, nudging allies and aides to the presumptive Democratic nominee to the left on climate change, immigration and economic policy. But they struggled to persuade Biden’s team on criminal justice policy beyond what he has already embraced.

The challenges suggest that Biden’s beliefs on policies such as marijuana are strongly held. He supports decriminalization and medical pot, but his aides have said he needs to see more evidence that weed doesn’t endanger people’s health before he backs legalization. Progressives also believe it demonstrates that the Biden campaign is wary of alienating police unions, which oppose changes to qualified immunity, and the larger labor movement of which they are a part.

At the same time, the task force's criminal justice recommendations suggest that Biden supporters are confident that the Sanders wing will back him in the end despite his refusal to budge, given the alternative.

Liberals are all the more frustrated by their inability to make more gains on criminal justice in the task forces because voters have been moving leftward on the issue. Polls show two-thirds of Americans support legalizing marijuana, and majorities among all racial and ethnic groups say they back the Black Lives Matter movement.

“There will never be a safer time to be bold on these issues and push for change, and Joe Biden is missing the mark,” said a Sanders ally who requested anonymity to speak frankly. “I think people are going to rightly feel as if we didn’t meet the moment. I think a lot of people are going to feel let down. Every progressive, when they read the sentence ‘rein in qualified immunity,’ are going to find it laughable.”


Analilia Mejia, Sanders’ political director who oversaw the task forces, said their overall recommendations are a victory for progressives, and represent an even larger achievement than the left-wing proposals adopted in the Democratic Party’s platform in 2016.

Liberals were especially glad to see the panels embrace transitioning to zero-emission new buildings by 2030, moving to clean electricity in 15 years, and creating “jobs programs like those effectively used during the New Deal.”

“You have the Biden campaign very publicly accepting a list of very progressive recommendations from quote-unquote both sides of the party and kind of making a tacit agreement that, if victorious, he's going to work to achieve these things,” said Mejia. “Irrespective of not being able to transform Joe Biden into Bernie Sanders, I honestly believe that this would be the framework for a progressive policy agenda across six vital issues. So I do think it’s a win.”

On criminal justice, Sanders appointees pointed to some wins, such as the task force’s goals of financing a "civilian corps of unarmed first responders," removing a "budget rider blocking [Washington] D.C. from taxing and regulating legal marijuana," and holding back money from states that use cash bail. Biden has also previously come out in favor of progressive criminal justice policies such as ending cash bail, expunging prior marijuana use convictions and banning chokeholds by police.

"Police spend so much of their time on nonviolent 'order maintenance' situations and health crises — circumstances that definitely do not call for someone with a gun," said Chiraag Bains, co-chair of the criminal justice task force, who was selected by Sanders. "A 24/7 nonpolice responder corps aimed at supporting people, not arresting them, could have saved the lives of Rayshard Brooks, George Floyd and so many others."

“They really pushed them,” added Sara Nelson, the Flight Attendants Association union leader who was chosen by Sanders to co-chair the economic task force. “Using the federal purse strings to push state and local governments to end cash bail is extraordinary.”

Still, she added, “It was always recognized that [the criminal justice panel] was going to be one of the toughest groups to make improvements.”

Stacey Walker, a Sanders appointee on the criminal justice task force, said, “Obviously, we did not get everything we wanted, but this work represents an encouraging start to the important conversations around much-needed reforms.”

Republicans said the panels' advice show that Biden is a tool of the far left. Steve Guest, rapid response director for the Republican National Committee, said the recommendations "crib straight from Bernie Sanders’ radical agenda," including Sanders' primary proposal of establishing a group of first responders without guns.

The unity task forces focused on six areas — health care, the economy, criminal justice, climate change, education and immigration — and submitted policy recommendations to Biden and the Democratic National Committee. For each panel, Biden tapped five members and Sanders three, who met each week via Zoom and on calls. Their input is not binding.

Some Biden members on the criminal justice task force personally support legalizing marijuana, and even debated putting the policy in their recommendations to the former vice president and the Democratic National Committee, two people familiar with the deliberations said.

Likewise, Vanita Gupta, a former acting assistant attorney general chosen by Biden to serve on the criminal justice task force, supports ending qualified immunity. Gupta said on a POLITICO panel in June that the Democratic and Republican presidential platforms should adopt the House Democrats' police reform bill that eliminates the rule.

Pressed on the decision not to recommend ending the practice in the task force, Gupta said that six weeks ago “very few people were even talking about qualified immunity and recognizing the ways in which it's been a major impediment to accountability.”

“This isn't a framework that just seeks to reinstate the status quo that existed at the end of the Obama administration,” Gupta said in an interview Wednesday. “There is an effort to really recognize the importance of moving even beyond what was accomplished given what we know now and where the American public is on so many of these issues.”

She also cited the expansion of the Justice Department’s jurisdiction to prosecute police misconduct as a key step.

Last month, Biden announced that he supports reforming qualified immunity, but a spokesperson declined to provide more details on what that means. Multiple task force members said the proposal's language leaves flexibility for advocates to push Biden in the future to end the practice, though some progressives worry it is too vague.

“It's hard to really put your finger on what exactly they mean,” said a Sanders ally familiar with the task force, referring to the recommendation to rein in qualified immunity.

SEE https://plawiuk.blogspot.com/2020/07/lesser-of-two-evils-dept.html

LESSER OF TWO EVILS DEPT.

Biden Defends Undying Allegiance to For-Profit Healthcare During Interview With Dying Medicare for All Advocate Ady Barkan

The question: "What does preserving private insurance really do for people?" Biden's answer: "It depends on the plan. Look..."

by

Jon Queally, staff writer July 08, 2020 Common Dreams

Medicare for All advocate Ady Barkan along with his wife, Rachael, and his two young children Carl and Willow, as they speak via conference with presumptive Democratic Party presidential nominee Joe Biden and his wife, Dr. Jill Biden. (Photo: Screengrab/BeAHeroFund/NotThisNews)

After studiously avoiding a face-to-face interview during the Democratic presidential primary, presumptive nominee Joe Biden finally agreed to answer questions from Medicare for All advocate Ady Barkan, a progressive activist who suffers from the terminal and degenerative disease known as ALS.

"Health care guaranteed as a human right, but taking away the right to have a private plan if you want a private plan, I disagree with."
—Joe BidenIn a video of their exchange posted online Wednesday, the former vice president defends his commitment to the nation's private insurance industry and says that while "he fully gets" why so many people are fed up with for-profit insurance companies and the employer-based coverage—and even amid a raging pandemic that many argue has further exposed the system's cruelty and inefficiencies—he still remains steadfastly opposed to Medicare for All as a viable alternative.

"It's no secret that I support Medicare for All," says Barkan about mid-way through their exchange to which Biden interjects: "I don't."

During the primary, Barkan was able to interview most of the top Democratic contenders—including Medicare for All champion Sen. Bernie Sanders (I-Vt.) and Sen. Elizabeth Warren (D-Mass.), who Barkan later endorsed—but Biden refused to accept repeated invitations.

Finally given a chance to challenge the former vice president with pointed questions on the subject of healthcare, Barkan asks Biden: "Do you see a future where health insurance is no longer tied to employment? Will America ever have a single payer system where health care is guaranteed as a human right?"

"Health care guaranteed as a human right," Biden responds, "but taking away the right to have a private plan if you want a private plan, I disagree with."

Surprise! Joe Biden and I disagree about #MedicareForAll.

But I know that we will win our struggle to guarantee health care as a human right someday very soon. pic.twitter.com/QJxC1FlqgU

— Ady Barkan (@AdyBarkan) July 8, 2020

Healthy California Now, which advocates for both Medicare for All and a state-based single-payer solution, lamented that Biden—"running for president during a global pandemic and economic collapse"—had the ability to look Barkan "in the eye" and tell him "flippantly" he opposes Medicare for All, "the only compassionate and efficient solution" to the national crisis.

While Biden repeats that he believes healthcare "is a right, not a privilege" several times, Barkan presses him on specific features of the private insurance industry and the frustrations of navigating it as a terminally-ill person in the United States.

"Vice President, I hope you understand this issue is personal for me," Barkan says. "This isn't abstract or theoretical. When I say I'm Medicare for All advocate, I hope you understand it's because I've spent hours on hold with insurance companies when they won't cover the cost of my care. It's because I've had to sue insurance companies when they tell me I need to pay thousands of dollars out of my own pocket for the cost of full-time care. And I have a great private insurance plan."

"I understand what you are saying about keeping private plans," Barkan continues, "but I guess my question is, what does preserving private insurance really do for people?"

"It depends on the plan," Biden responds. "Look, you know what my bills were for my hospitalization? They were $280,000. I get it, man. I'm not new to this. I'm not where you are, but I get it. I fully get it."

Progressives and human rights advocates, however continue to ask if Biden really does get it.

The fact that Joe Biden isn't out in front embracing Medicare for All while a lethal pandemic is reaching new record highs every day and claiming thousands of lives every week is both very puzzling and extremely disappointing

— Carl Gibson (@crgibs) July 7, 2020

If you truly believed health care is a right & not a privilege, @JoeBiden, you would support guaranteeing coverage to everyone regardless of their ability to pay. No premiums. No deductibles. No co-pays.

Will you start supporting Medicare for All? Or are your words empty?

— Ben Spielberg (@BenSpielberg) July 8, 2020

Instead of Medicare for All, Biden has pushed for expanding the Affordable Care Act (ACA), passed under the Obama administration, by adding a public option, further subsidizing "Gold Plans" on the private market, and adding home care costs to benefits that could be covered.

Experts and economists have long argued that simply adding a public option or other tweaks to the private system will never achieve the kind of efficiencies, universal coverage, and cost-savings that a Medicare for All system would achieve.

Watch the full interview below:

Barkan said in a tweet that while he and Biden "have meaningfully different perspectives on the world," he was glad to hear the Democratic nominee out and also issued an official endorsement for his candidacy. During the interview, Barkan told Biden he was "fully committed" to seeing President Donald Trump defeated in November. 

Despite Biden's refusal to embrace Medicare for All, said Barkan, "I left the conversation knowing that putting him in the White House is a critical step in our struggles for justice."

SEE https://plawiuk.blogspot.com/2020/07/the-merits-of-medicare-for-all-have.html

https://plawiuk.blogspot.com/2020/07/dont-call-biden-progressive-left-gets.html

NATURAL CAPITAL

New Report Finds Economic Benefits of Protecting 30% of Planet's Land and Ocean Outweigh the Costs 5-to-1

"Protecting nature halts biodiversity loss, helps fight climate change, and lessens the chance of future pandemics. This is sound public policy, economically, ecologically, and morally."


by Jessica Corbett, staff writer

Second growth redwood trees are seen in a grove at Joaquin Miller Park in Oakland, California, on April 29, 2020. Save the Redwoods League is now focusing on preserving and restoring forests that have been clearcut in the past 100 or so years, after studies showed these forests sequester more carbon, faster than any other forest in the world. (Photo: Carlos Avila Gonzalez/The San Francisco Chronicle via Getty Images)

"This report unequivocally tells us that the time to finance nature—for people and for planet—is now."
"The benefits to humanity are incalculable, and the cost of inaction is unthinkable."
—Jamison Ervin, UNDP

That's how Jamison Ervin, manager of the Global Program on Nature for Development at the United Nations Development Program (UNDP), summed up a new study commissioned by Campaign for Nature (CFN), a coalition of over 100 conservation groups and scientists who support protecting at least 30% of the planet's land and ocean by 2030.

Protecting 30% of the Planet for Nature: Costs, Benefits, Economic Implications (pdf) was released Wednesday and "is the first ever analysis of protected area impacts across multiple economic sectors, including agriculture, fisheries, and forestry in addition to the nature conservation sector," according to CFN.

An online tracker managed by a U.N. Environment Program center with support from the International Union for Conservation of Nature (IUCN) shows that about 15% of land and 7% of ocean worldwide currently have some level of protection. The over 100 scientists and economists behind the CFN report found that the economic benefits of protecting 30% of the world's land and ocean outweigh the costs at least 5-to-1.

An independent report out today shows the benefits of protecting nature outweigh the costs by at least 5-to-1. The report from over 100 experts reinforces the viability of the global effort to protect at least 30% of the planet by 2030 #CampaignForNature https://t.co/EtkO0dhfsG pic.twitter.com/RFeFZe0inU
— Wyss Campaign for Nature (@WyssCampaign) July 8, 2020

The CFN report's authors conducted a financial analysis which found that expanding protected areas to hit or surpass the 30% target could generate overall revenues of $64 billion–$454 billion per year by 2050, depending on implementation. Considering multiplier effects, the report says, the final boost to global economic output could be over $1 trillion annually.

They also conducted a partial economic analysis that focused on forests and mangroves, and found that "in those biomes alone, the 30% target had an avoided-loss value of $170–$534 billion per year by 2050, largely reflecting the benefit of avoiding the flooding, climate change, soil loss, and coastal storm-surge damage that occur when natural vegetation is removed."

Currently, the international community invests about $24 billion per year in protected areas, according to CFN. The 30% target requires an average annual investment of about $140 billion by 2030.

REPORT LAUNCH: How much will it cost to protect 30% of our planet by 2030 and ensure effective management? $140 billion per year, or just .016% of annual global GDP. #CampaignForNature #30x30 https://t.co/Ov709XfluQ pic.twitter.com/jh5o1ZzQE5
— Dynamic Planet (@Dynamic_Planet) July 8, 2020


As Ervin, who is among the report's authors, explained in a statement Wednesday:

The cost to protect 30% of our planet, ranging from about $103 to $178 billion, is not inconsequential. However, nature provides more than $125 trillion in benefits to humanity, global GDP is about $80 trillion, and the total global assets under management is about $125 trillion. In this context, the cost of creating a resilient, planetary safety net for all life on Earth barely even registers as a statistical rounding error. The benefits to humanity are incalculable, and the cost of inaction is unthinkable.

The new economic findings bolster ecological and moral arguments often at the heart of calls for increasing conservation efforts. As report co-author Stephen Woodley, vice-chair for science and biodiversity at IUCN's World Commission on Protected Areas, put it: "Expanding the global protected area estate to at least 30% by 2030 is an essential policy requirement to halt the loss of fellow species on our planet."

The Intergovernmental Science-Policy Platform on Biodiversity and Ecosystem Services (IPBES) warned in May 2019 that destructive human activities have pushed a million plant and animal species to the brink of extinction. More recently, the Covid-19 pandemic has directed more attention to the consequences of humanity's destruction of nature by provoking concerns about future zoonotic diseases.

"Expanding the global protected area estate to at least 30% by 2030 is an essential policy requirement to halt the loss of fellow species on our planet."
—Stephen Woodley, IUCN

"We must give space for nature. The analysis led by Anthony Waldron shows we can gain financially and economically by implementing this policy," Woodley said, noting that some governments have already committed to the 30% target. "Protecting nature halts biodiversity loss, helps fight climate change, and lessens the chance of future pandemics. This is sound public policy, economically, ecologically, and morally."

Waldron, an ecologist at the University of Cambridge, delivered a similar message.

"Our report shows that protection in today's economy brings in more revenue than the alternatives and likely adds revenue to agriculture and forestry, while helping prevent climate change, water crises, biodiversity loss, and disease," he said. "Increasing nature protection is sound policy for governments juggling multiple interests. You cannot put a price tag on nature—but the economic numbers point to its protection."

The report comes ahead of the next meeting of the Conference of the Parties (COP 15) to the U.N. Convention on Biological Diversity (CBD), which was supposed to be held in Kunming, China this October but has been delayed until next year due to the pandemic. As CFN noted Wednesday, the CBD included the 30% protected area goal in its draft 10-year strategy that is expected to be finalized at next year's meeting.

USA

'The Public Has a Right to Know': Fed Refuses to Release Documents on Fossil Fuel Industry's Covid-19 Bailouts

"As the climate crisis demands an abrupt shift away from fossil fuels, the federal government should not be creating programs to bail out these polluters."

Jake Johnson, staff writer

(Photo: Tony Webster/Flickr/cc)

"The Federal Reserve was tasked with creating a massive program to protect workers' livelihoods during an intense economic and public health crisis. We should, at the very least, expect transparency about how the program is structured," said Food & Water Action attorney Adam Carlesco. 

The Federal Reserve has missed a deadline to release documents requested by environmental group Food & Water Action in May to reveal the extent to which the central bank has used one of its major Covid-19 lending programs to rescue the faltering oil and gas industry.

"The public has a right to know if the Fed created an oil and gas bailout at the behest of an industry that has wreaked havoc on our air, water, climate, and potentially the global financial system," Food & Water Action attorney Adam Carlesco said in a statement. "As the climate crisis demands an abrupt shift away from fossil fuels, the federal government should not be creating programs to bail out these polluters."

"There is evidence that the Main Street Lending program was altered to assist oil and gas companies that were already becoming insolvent before the pandemic."
—Adam Carlesco, Food & Water Action

The deadline for the Fed to release the documents requested through the Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) was June 17. On Wednesday, Food & Water Action filed a complaint (pdf) demanding that the U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia compel the Fed to "disclose records wrongfully withheld in failing to respond within the statutory deadline."

Food & Water Action's May 4 FOIA request asked the central bank to turn over all "records and communications related to accessibility of lending for oil and gas industry businesses" in the Main Street Lending Program, which was designed to provide credit for mid-size companies.

"The Federal Reserve was tasked with creating a massive program to protect workers' livelihoods during an intense economic and public health crisis," said Carlesco. "We should, at the very least, expect transparency about how the program is structured, and whether or not corporate interests have improperly influenced the terms of this relief program."

"There is evidence that the Main Street Lending program was altered to assist oil and gas companies that were already becoming insolvent before the pandemic, and that the changes were precisely what these powerful industries were demanding," Carlesco added.

On April 30, following a lobbying campaign by the oil and gas industry, the Fed announced an expansion of the Main Street Lending Program to include businesses with as many as 15,000 employees or up to $5 billion in annual revenue.

Bharat Ramamurti, a member of the Congressional Oversight Commission formed to monitor bailout money, tweeted at the time that the changes to the lending program "mirror the top requests of the oil and gas industry."

In a May 12 interview on Bloomberg TV, Energy Secretary Dan Brouillette openly admitted that the Trump administration "worked very closely with the Federal Reserve" to open the Main Street Lending Program to oil and gas companies.

Brouillette, a former corporate lobbyist, said President Donald Trump personally directed the Energy Department and Treasury Secretary Steve Mnuchin to "evaluate the programs that were passed by the Congress and ensure that there is access for these energy industries to those programs."

The Guardian reported Tuesday that more than 5,600 fossil fuel companies in the fossil fuel industry have received at least $3 billion in federal loans under the Paycheck Protection Program (PPP), which was established by Congress in late March to provide relief to small businesses.

"Federal aid should be going to help small businesses and frontline workers struggling as the result of the pandemic, not the corporate polluters whose struggles are a result of longstanding failing business practices," Melinda Pierce, legislative director at Sierra Club, told The Guardian.

Our work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-Share Alike 3.0 License. Feel free to republish and share widely.

INTER-IMPERIALIST RIVALRY
Libya: Foreign interference at 'unprecedented levels', says UN chief
Antonio Guterres tells UN Security Council that the conflict in Libya has 'entered a new phase'

Forces loyal to internationally recognised government prepare their weapons before heading towards Sirte, in eastern Libya (Reuters)

By MEE staff Published date: 8 July 2

UN Secretary-General Antonio Guterres told the Security Council on Wednesday that the conflict in Libya had entered a new phase, "with foreign interference reaching unprecedented levels".

Libya has been wracked by conflict since 2015, with the country split between rival administrations in the east and west, each backed by armed groups supported by foreign governments.

The internationally recognised government, known as the GNA, is backed by Turkey, while military commander Khalifa Haftar, who controls much of the country's east, is supported by the United Arab Emirates (UAE), Egypt and Russia.

"The conflict has entered a new phase, with foreign interference reaching unprecedented levels, including in the delivery of sophisticated equipment and the number of mercenaries involved in the fighting," Guterres said on Wednesday.

United States Africa Command told Middle East Eye last month that the Russian private military contractor Wagner Group had deployed as many as 2,000 people in Libya.



Libya war crimes probe: More bodies exhumed from Tarhuna's mass graves

Read More »

Russia has repeatedly denied media reports that the Wagner Group, believed to be owned by Yevgeny Prigozhin, a businessman with close links to Russian President Vladimir Putin, is operating in Libya. Still, a recent UN report said the group had at least 800 military contractors on the ground, including snipers and specialised teams.

Guterres denounced the situation during a ministerial-level Security Council video conference, expressing particular concern about military forces massing around the city of Sirte, halfway between Tripoli in the west and Benghazi in the east.

Egypt has warned that any Turkish-backed effort to take Sirte could lead its army to directly intervene.

"We are very concerned about the alarming military build-up around the city, and the high level of direct foreign interference in the conflict in violation of the UN arms embargo, UNSC resolutions, and commitments made by member states in Berlin," Guterres said.

Guterres said the UN mission in the country had documented at least 102 civilian deaths and 254 civilian injuries between April and June this year - a 172 percent increase compared with the first quarter of 2020.

He added that there also had been at least 21 attacks on medical facilities, ambulances and medical personnel.

‘Unlike anything we’ve seen in modern history’: Attacks against journalists soar during Black Lives Matter protests

Arrests of US journalists halfway through 2020 outnumber similar arrests in China in 2019
Alex WoodwardNew York The Independent JULY 9,2020

At least 50 journalists in the US have been arrested during Black Lives Matter demonstrations across the US, while dozens of others have also been injured by rubber bullets, pepper spray and tear gas.

The US Press Freedom Tracker has collected more than 500 incidents from 382 reports, from the unrest in Minneapolis in the wake of George Floyd‘s killing by police in late May, to demonstrations in more than 70 cities across 35 states since.

At least 46 journalists were arrested between the end of May and the beginning of June, according to data collected by the organisation. Dozens of others reported injuries from law enforcement, firing “less lethal” projectiles, tear gas canisters and other weapons into crowds or directly at reporters during demonstrations, even when they had identified themselves and shown credentials, the organisation reports.

Two reporters have suffered permanent eye injuries.

The latest reports mark a significant spike since the end of May, when nationwide protests started, at which point the organisation had recorded only five arrests and 26 attacks for the entire year by that point.

Read more

Judge stops Portland police using physical force against journalists

Attacks on American journalists have become severe and dangerous

Trump said journalists ‘should be executed’, ex-aide Bolton claims

But by the end of the month, the number of attacks had increased nearly five times, after more than a month of nightly protests, vigils and other demonstrations against police violence and racial injustice.

“The importance of documenting these – and doing it as quickly as we can – is not lost: the conversations and reckoning that lie ahead of us as a country are taking shape right now,” Press Freedom Tracker managing editor Kristin McCudden said in a statement.


“No matter where we’re talking about it, the message is the same: what’s happened in 70 cities in more than 30 states across the nation in one month is unlike anything we’ve seen in modern history and surpasses the Tracker’s entire three-year history of documentation.”

Minneapolis has had 71 reported incidents against reporters, followed by Washington DC with 33, New York with 27, and Los Angeles with 20, the Press Freedom Tracker reports.

By the Fourth of July weekend, demonstrations had been going for more than 40 days, from memorials and rallies for victims of police violence to groups of people attempting to dislodge monuments to Confederates and slaveholders, including prominent US figures and former presidents.

Reporters used social media to capture several of these incidents, while news networks were devoting significant live coverage to protests in the first weeks of demonstrations and finding themselves targets.

CNN correspondent Omar Jiminez spent an hour in custody after he was arrested live on television while covering the aftermath of protests in Minneapolis in May.

“Put us back where you want us, we are getting out of your way, just let us know,” he told police in riot gear as the camera captured his arrest.

CNN reporter Omar Jimenez arrested live on TV at Minneapolis protest

That same day, a local television reporter in Louisville, Kentucky covering unrest after the police killing of Breonna Taylor captured an officer appear to take aim and fire a pepper ball directly into her camera.

Photojournalist Linda Tirado, who recently testified to a congressional committee about police violence at protests, had pulled her camera away from her face for a brief moment while shooting images in Minneapolis when she was hit by what she believes was a rubber bullet.

The impact permanently blinded her left eye.

On 1 July Andrew Buncombe, chief US correspondent with The Independent, was arrested in Seattle while covering the police clearance of the so-called CHOP protest zone. He was charged with failure to disperse despite repeatedly identifying himself as a journalist and held for at least eight hours before being released.

As journalists continue to report police violence against them in the field, which press advocates argue underlines the diminishing trust among law enforcement for the news media, Donald Trump‘s message to his supporters remains the same.

The president has broadly derided journalists as “fake news” at his own press conferences while encouraging supporters at his rallies to mock the ”enemy of the people” in the room. Amid his 2020 re-election campaign fury on Independence Day, he attacked reporters as part of a “far-left fascism” staging a mutiny against him.

His attacks against the press have been derided as a creeping threat of authoritarianism, as arrests of journalists under his administration have begun outpacing those under authoritarian regimes.

In its 2019 survey, the Committee to Protect Journalists discovered that at least 250 journalists worldwide were jailed in retaliation for their work that year. Its annual survey found 255 reporters were jailed in 2018.

The highest number of journalists imprisoned in any year since the organisation began its annual survey was 273 in 2016.

But the numbers of arrests of journalists in other countries in 2019 pales in comparison to the number of reporters arrested in the US only halfway through 2020.

More than 60 journalists in the US have been arrested within the first six months of the year.

Last year, at least 48 journalists were jailed in China, followed by 26 in Saudi Arabia and 26 in Egypt, the organisation reported.

The US currently ranks 45th among 180 counties on the 2020 World Press Freedom Index by Reporters Without Borders.

The scale of attacks on journalists in the US has alarmed international human rights groups, which called on city and state officials and law enforcement to immediately halt the arrests of reporters and to appoint independent commissions to investigate assaults.

https://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/americas/journalist-attacks-black-lives-matter-protests-usa-blm-police-brutality-a9607036.html