Friday, July 24, 2020

Next coronavirus aid package may not become reality until second week of August, analysts say

Analysts see the potential for delays ‘beyond the very early August timeline we have been expecting’


Published: July 23, 2020 By Victor Reklaitis


How long will it take for McConnell, Pelosi and the White House to make a deal on fresh coronavirus relief? BLOOMBERG

As Democrats and Republicans take stances on another big coronavirus financial aid package, analysts are predicting that the next measure is likely to become reality in the first week of August, but warn that it could take until next month’s second week.

“It’s clear no Phase Four deal will be made until the week of August 3rd, which remains our base case,” said analysts at Beacon Policy Advisors in a note Thursday. “But given the current lack of unity among Republicans, which could slow down the pace of the negotiations with Democrats, a final deal could even slip a few days further into the week of August 10th.”

The next package has been called Washington’s “Phase 4” response to the coronavirus crisis as it would follow April’s $484 billion “Phase 3.5” measure, which came after the $2 trillion CARES Act that passed in late March. Before that, Washington delivered a mid-March package costing an estimated $192 billion, and an $8 billion measure that was finalized in early March.

Other analysts see a similar timeline for the upcoming relief measure, after it previously was expected in June and then late July.

“It continues to be our base case expectation that this bill will pass in the first week of August, likely after the $600/week booster UI payments have expired, but there is a very long time between now and then and plenty could happen in the interim,” said Henrietta Treyz, director of economic policy research at Veda Partners, referring to enhanced unemployment insurance that’s going away. “The bill could pass next week (a low probability event at the moment), or they could pass the week of August 10th, something House Democrats are specifically prepared to incur.”

See:The extra $600 in unemployment benefits ‘gave people a real lifeline,’ Trump says, so ‘we’re doing it again’ but in smaller increments

And read:Pelosi opens door to no August break for House if next coronavirus relief bill isn’t done

Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell and his fellow Republicans have said they expect the next measure to include coronavirus-related liability protections for businesses, another round of direct payments for households, an extension of the Paycheck Protection Program for small businesses and $105 billion for schools to help them deal with the virus and reopen. But Senate Republicans have moved more slowly than expected in releasing the text of their Phase 4 legislation.

“This slow rolling pushes negotiations around a final bill further into next week, potentially delaying final passage beyond the very early August timeline we have been expecting,” said Height Capital Markets analysts in a note on Thursday.

Related:Senate GOP closing in on COVID aid bill deal with White House

White House ends payroll tax cut bid as Republicans unveil virus aid package

House Speaker Nancy Pelosi and her fellow Democrats made their opening offer in the negotiations on May 15 by passing their $3 trillion HEROES Act, which includes almost $1 trillion in additional aid for state and local governments, an extension for a $600 enhanced unemployment benefit and a second round of stimulus check to households.

U.S. stocks SPX, -1.23% DJIA, -1.30% are trading below their February peaks after the coronavirus pandemic triggered the shutdown of businesses, but they have rallied from their March lows thanks in part to optimism around Washington’s aid efforts. The S&P 500 and Dow industrials were recently trading flat to slightly lower on Thursday.
New Yorkers allowed back into federal travelers program, as DHS admits lying to court

DHS admits it misled court in attempting to justify expulsion of New York over driver’s license dispute

Published: July 23, 2020 By Associated Press

In this Aug. 4, 2005, file photo, traffic traveling from Niagara Falls, Ontario, Canada, lines up on the Rainbow Bridge to enter the United States through a border checkpoint at Niagara Falls, N.Y. ASSOCIATED PRESS

ALBANY, N.Y. — Five months after it kicked New Yorkers out of trusted traveler security programs in a spat over immigration policy, the U.S. Department of Homeland Security reversed itself Thursday and told a court it had misrepresented the facts in a lawsuit over the matter.

The department announced that New Yorkers would once again be allowed to enroll and re-enroll in Global Entry and other federal travel programs that allow vetted travelers to avoid long security lines at airports and the U.S. border.

President Donald Trump’s administration in February booted New Yorkers from the programs, saying it was taking the action because a newly enacted state law allowing unauthorized immigrants to get driver’s licenses had cut off some federal access to state motor vehicle records.

In its announcement Thursday, Homeland Security said it was reversing New York’s expulsion from the program because the state legislature in April had amended the law to allow federal officials to access the records of people applying for trusted traveler status.

But in a court filing later Thursday, attorneys for the U.S. attorney’s office in Manhattan, which had been representing the Department of Homeland Security in the legal fight over the state’s expulsion, disclosed that federal officials had also misled the court about some key facts in the dispute.

The Trump administration had claimed that New York’s policy limiting access to criminal history information found in motor vehicle records was unique among the states, and made it impossible to determine whether someone qualified for trusted status.

In truth, several states plus Washington D.C. also don’t provide access to driving history information, the lawyers wrote. And yet all of those states, including California, were allowed to remain in the program.

“Defendants deeply regret the foregoing inaccurate or misleading statements and apologize to the Court and plaintiffs for the need to make these corrections at this late stage in the litigation,” the government attorneys wrote.

They also asked the judge to permit them to withdraw motions and briefs that sought dismissal of the lawsuit, filed by New York Attorney General Letitia James, and informed the court that New Yorkers were being let back into Trusted Traveler programs “effective immediately.”

James said in a statement that the removal of the ban was “a victory for travelers, workers, commerce, and our state’s economy.”


The announcement comes at a time when international travel has been severely curtailed because of the pandemic, and a number of countries have barred U.S. travelers because of the high number of cases in the country.

Gov. Andrew Cuomo, who met with Trump at the White House to try to allow New Yorkers to rejoin the program and restart the importation and exportation of vehicles, said the fix protected New Yorkers’ privacy while addressing federal concerns.

“I am glad that this issue has finally been resolved for all New Yorkers,” he said.

In its announcement that the state was being readmitted to the program, DHS officials said New York’s amended law, while restoring some federal access, is still “antithetical” to the agency’s mission and data access policies.

“Nonetheless, local New York law continues to maintain provisions that undermine the security of the American people and purport to criminalize information sharing between law enforcement entities,” Acting Secretary Chad Wolf said.
Almost half of Republicans believe a debunked conspiracy theory about Bill Gates — here’s his response

Published: July 23, 2020 By Shawn Langlois

Microsoft principle founder Bill Gates GETTY IMAGES
I hope it’ll die down as people get the facts. We need to get the truth out there.’

That’s Bill Gates answering a question that he really shouldn’t need to, but considering 44% of Republicans in a recent poll said they believe the Microsoft MSFT, -4.34% co-founder is plotting to use a coronavirus vaccine to implant tracking devices on people, well...

“There’s no connection between any of these vaccines and any tracking type thing at all,” Gates told CBS Evening News anchor Norah O’Donnell Wednesday. “I don’t know where that came from.”

Gates, who has poured millions into vaccine research through the Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation, dismissed the false theory in the past, but the believers are sticking with it.

Meanwhile, the number of confirmed cases of coronavirus worldwide climbed above 15 million on Thursday and the U.S. case tally edged closer to 4 million, as California’s case tally rose above New York’s, the early U.S. virus hotspot, following a surge in new infections in recent weeks.

Gates also criticized the U.S. response and shared some regrets.

“Serious mistakes were made, some of which were because we didn’t understand the virus very well — the understanding about the importance of masks came later than we wish it had, and then the U.S. had the lowest compliance with mask use of any country, didn’t have the leadership message there,” Gates said, adding that he hopes to put this behind us by the end of next year. .

He also explained that President Trump’s recent assertion that the U.S. has the one of lowest mortality rates in the world is not even close to accurate.

“I mean, by almost every measure, the U.S. is the one of the worst and I think we can change that, but it’s an ugly picture,” Gates said. “We actually had criteria for opening up that said you had to have cases declining and we opened up with cases increasing. We somehow got masks as this politicized thing ... and some like, harbinger of freedom, that just covering your mouth was awful.”

Watch the full interview


The FDA’s list of toxic sanitizers is surging—now at 75. Here’s why
Published: July 23, 2020 By Mark DeCambre

The initial list back in June was for nine hand sanitizers but has surged in recent weeks amid an ongoing investigation of products by the FDA amid the coronavirus pandemic

The FDA says it will continue to take action when quality issues arise with hand sanitizers. AFP/GETTY IMAGES

The Food and Drug Administration has expanded its list of toxic hand sanitizers to 75 products that it says contain methanol, a toxic substance that could ultimately result in death if absorbed through the skin or ingested and is therefore are unsafe for human use.


The warning includes some products that claim to have ethanol, or ethyl alcohol, which is safe to use, but which test positive for methanol.


The agency’s initial list of harmful hand sanitizers started with a batch of nine alcohol-based cleaning products manufactured by Eskbiochem SA de CV in Mexico that it said contained wood methanol.


However, since then the list has ballooned amid a continuing search for sanitizers that contain toxic substances.




The FDA says it has been worried about “false and misleading claims for hand sanitizers,” including those suggesting that products can provide prolonged protection, “such as 24-hours” against COVID-19, since there is no basis for such claims.


Here’s a link to the list of the 75 products that the FDA says it has so far identified in its investigation into hand-sanitizer products that are “contaminated with methanol that has led to recent adverse events including blindness, hospitalizations and death:”



Following are some of the brands that have been deemed harmful by the FDA.
Blumen Clear Advanced Hand Sanitizer with 70% Alcohol
Blumen Advanced Instant Hand Sanitizer Clear Ethyl Alcohol 70%
BLUMEN Advanced Instant Hand Sanitizer Clear
KLAR AND DANVER Instant Hand Sanitizer (labeled with Greenbrier International Inc.)
MODESA Instant Hand Sanitizer Moisturizers and Vitamin E
BLUMEN Advanced Hand Sanitizer
BLUMEN Advanced Hand Sanitizer Aloe
BLUMEN Advanced Instant Hand Sanitizer Lavender
BLUMEN Clear LEAR Advanced Hand Sanitizer
BLUEMEN Clear Advanced Hand Sanitizer
The Honeykeeper Hand Sanitizer
BLUMEN Advanced Hand Sanitizer Clear
BLUMEN Clear Advanced Instant Hand Sanitizer
BLUMEN Clear Advanced Instant Hand Sanitizer Aloe
BLUMEN Clear Advanced Instant Hand Sanitizer Lavender
BLUMEN Aloe Advanced Hand Sanitizer, with 70 Alcohol
Blumen Advanced Hand Sanitizer Lavender, with 70% alcohol
Blumen Advanced Hand Sanitizer Aloe, with 70% alcohol
Blumen Antibacterial Fresh Citrus Hand Sanitizer
Blumen Hand Sanitizer Fresh Citrus
KLAR and DANVER INSTANT HAND SANTIZER
Hello Kitty by Sanrio Hand Sanitizer
Assured Instant Hand Sanitizer (Vitamin E and Aloe)
Assured Instant Hand Sanitizer (Aloe and Moisturizers)
Assured Instant Hand Sanitizer Vitamin E and Aloe
Assured Instant Hand Sanitizer Aloe and Moisturizers
BLUMEN Instant Hand Sanitizer Fragrance Free
BLUMEN Instant Hand Sanitizer Aloe Vera
Assured Aloe
bio aaa Advance Hand Sanitizer
LumiSkin Advance Hand Sanitizer 4 oz
LumiSkin Advance Hand Sanitizer 16 oz
QualitaMed Hand Sanitizer
Earths Amenities Instant Unscented Hand Sanitizer with Aloe Vera Advanced
Hand Sanitizer Agavespa Skincare
Vidanos Easy Cleaning Rentals Hand Sanitizer Agavespa Skincare
All-Clean Hand Sanitizer
Esk Biochem Hand Sanitizer
Lavar 70 Gel Hand Sanitizer
The Good Gel Antibacterial Gel Hand Sanitizer
CleanCare NoGerm Advanced Hand Sanitizer 80% Alcohol
CleanCare NoGerm Advanced Hand Sanitizer 75% Alcohol
CleanCare NoGerm Advanced Hand Sanitizer 80% Alcohol
Saniderm Advanced Hand Sanitizer
Hand sanitizer Gel Unscented 70% Alcohol
Andy’s Best
Andy’s
Gelclor
NeoNatural
Plus Advanced
Optimus Lubricants Instant Hand Sanitizer
Shine and Clean Hand Sanitizer
Selecto Hand Sanitizer
Mystic Shield Protection hand sanitizer
Bersih Hand Sanitizer Gel Fragrance Free
Antiseptic Alcohol 70% Topical Solution hand sanitizer
Hand sanitizer (labeled with Wet Look Janitorial and Gardening Corp.)
Britz Hand Sanitizer Ethyl Alcohol 70%
DAESI hand sanitizer


“Consumers who have been exposed to hand sanitizer containing methanol should seek immediate treatment, which is critical for potential reversal of toxic effects of methanol poisoning,” the FDA wrote on June 19.


Read: FDA lists 59 hand sanitizers that can be toxic if absorbed by the body after expanding initial list


“Substantial methanol exposure can result in nausea, vomiting, headache, blurred vision, permanent blindness, seizures, coma, permanent damage to the nervous system or death,” the report indicated. The agency said the risk of possible ingestion centered mostly on young children or adolescents who might use alcohol-based sanitizers as a substitute for grain alcohol.



Meanwhile, demand for hand sanitizer across the globe has increased as the coronavirus has spread, infecting about 13 million people, with 3.3 million in the U.S. alone, according to data compiled by Johns Hopkins University.


Back in March, a number of retailers, including Costco Wholesale Corp. COST, -0.66%, BJ’s Wholesale Club Holdings Inc. BJ, -1.20% and Kroger Co. KR, -0.08%, reported surging sales in hand-cleaning products and other sanitizing merchandise. In the week ending April 25, Nielsen said hand sanitizer saw the highest in-store week-over-week sales growth.


Individuals have even taken to attempting to make their own hand sanitizer. However, the U.S. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention has said that washing hands with plain soap and water is the best way to kill the novel strain of coronavirus that causes COVID-19.


Moreover, hand sanitizer requires at least 60% alcohol. Alcohol dissolves the lipid membrane and disrupts other supramolecular interactions in viruses but you need a fairly high concentration of the alcohol to get a rapid dissolution of the virus. Vodka or whiskey—usually 40% ethanol—won’t dissolve the virus as quickly. “Overall, alcohol is not as good as soap at this task,” wrote Palli Thordarson, a professor at the School of Chemistry at the University of South Wales, Sydney in a column for MarketWatch in April.
US House passes act to reverse Trump’s ‘Muslim ban’

Republicans who oppose bill accuse backers of undermining president’s ability to protect country


The vote on Donald Trump's travel ban was preceded by a debate. AP

A majority in the US House of Representatives on Wednesday voted to reverse President Donald Trump's “Muslim ban”, which restricts arrivals from some countries in the Middle East.

The No Ban Act passed the Democratic-majority House with members voting mainly along party lines.

The final vote was 233-183 in favour of the bill, with only two Republican legislators voting yes.

Palestinian-American Congresswoman Rashida Tlaib clapped in celebration as she announced the final vote to the chamber.



🚨 BREAKING🚨: The House just passed the #NOBANAct with me, a proud Muslim member of Congress, presiding over the vote! pic.twitter.com/8Brclfxm6P— Congresswoman Rashida Tlaib (@RepRashida) July 22, 2020

Maya Berry, executive director of the Arab American Institute, described the House vote as a milestone in “rejecting bigotry".


“We applaud the House on this important milestone of officially rejecting the bigotry enshrined in President Trump’s Muslim ban,” Ms Berry said.

She credited the passage to a broad coalition of advocacy groups, including hers, and described it as evidence that the House had “heard the demands of the American people in support of immigrants, refugees and asylum seekers".

The bill is designed to repeal Mr Trump's executive orders since 2017, which placed immigration and visa restrictions on mostly Muslim-majority countries.

These included Libya, Iran, Somalia, Syria and Sudan, as well as Nigeria and Venezuela.

The act imposes limits “on the President's authority to suspend or restrict aliens from entering the United States", a Congressional summary of the bill read.

It also “prohibits religious discrimination in various immigration-related decisions”.

The vote was preceded by a debate on the bill.

Congressman Hakeem Jeffries, chairman of the House Democratic Caucus, called the ban “hateful” and “unconscionable”.



Donald Trump’s Muslim Ban is hateful.

It is unacceptable and unconscionable.

We’re going to make it unlawful. Vote YES on the #NoBanAct. pic.twitter.com/VmQVG3JKhL— Hakeem Jeffries (@RepJeffries) July 22, 2020

Republican politicians who opposed the ban's reversal accused its sponsors of undermining the president’s ability to keep the country safe.

House Democrats are determined to undermine President Trump's ability to keep our nation safe with the #NoBanAct. We saw first-hand just how important this authority was when @POTUS took swift action to restrict travel from China in an effort to combat COVID-19.— House Republicans (@HouseGOP) July 22, 2020



Republicans have called Mr Trump’s ban this year on travel from China another measure that has saved lives during the pandemic.

They accuse the Democrats of trying to strip away the authority for the president to save lives.

The White House has repeatedly defended the ban as being in the interests of US national security.

In 2018, the US Supreme Court in a narrow vote, 5-4, upheld the legality of the ban and said Mr Trump acted lawfully in imposing travel restrictions.

Civil rights groups including the Human Rights Campaign, the American Civil Liberties Union and the AAI threw their support behind the bill since it was introduced last year.

But it is unlikely to pass the Republican-led Senate.

On Monday, the Democratic Presidential nominee Joe Biden told the Muslim-American group Emgage Action that he was committed to scrapping the ban as a priority.

"If I have the honour of being president, I will end the Muslim ban on day one," Mr Biden said.
DHS threatens Netflix filmmakers to keep damning footage from airing before the election: report
Published July 23, 2020 By Matthew Chapman


On Thursday, The New York Times reported that a pair of Netflix filmmakers shooting a behind-the-scenes documentary about President Donald Trump’s immigration policy were threatened by federal officials, ordered to delete footage unflattering to Immigration and Customs Enforcement Officers, and told to delay release of the documentary until after the 2020 election.

“In early 2017, as Immigration and Customs Enforcement prepared to carry out the hard-line agenda on which President Trump had campaigned, agency leaders jumped at the chance to let two filmmakers give a behind-the-scenes look at the process,” reported Caitlin Dickerson. “But as the documentary neared completion in recent months, the administration fought mightily to keep it from being released until after the 2020 election. After granting rare access to parts of the country’s powerful immigration enforcement machinery that are usually invisible to the public, administration officials threatened legal action and sought to block parts of it from seeing the light of day.”

“In heated phone calls and emails, they said, [an] official pushed to delay publication of the series, currently set to air on Netflix next month,” continued the report. “He warned that the federal government would use its ‘full weight’ to veto scenes it found objectionable. Several times, the filmmakers said, the official pointed out that it was their ‘little production company,’ not the film’s $125 billion distributor, that would face consequences. The filmmakers said they were told that the administration’s anger over the project came from ‘all the way to the top.'”
According to the report, the filmmakers responded by “using an encrypted messaging service to communicate with their production team,” putting security cameras in their office, and concealing the hard drives on which they were storing raw footage.

Over the past four years, immigration policy has been one of the most controversial and contentious aspects of the Trump presidency, from the Muslim travel ban, to the “zero tolerance” family separation policy, to the recent effort to exclude undocumented immigrants from apportionment, which experts consider unconstitutional.

You can read more here.
Dark history of transatlantic slavery traced through DNA study


Published  July 23, 2020
By Agence France-Presse


A new DNA study published Thursday sheds fresh light on the horrors of the transatlantic slave trade, from the legacy of rape that can be seen in today’s genetics to how disease likely decimated some groups forced to work in deadly conditions.

For example, DNA from one African region may be under-represented in the US because so many slaves from there died of malaria on American plantations.

The grim results from a paper, which appeared in the American Journal of Human Genetics, compiled genetic data from 50,000 consenting research participants from both sides of the Atlantic.

It cross-referenced these with detailed records from slave ships that transported 12.5 million men, women and children between 1515 and 1865. Some two million died on the journey.

“We wanted to compare our genetic results to those actual shipping manifest to see how they agreed and how they disagreed,” Steven Micheletti, a population geneticist at 23andMe, which recruited most of the participants, told AFP.

“And in some cases, we see that they disagree, quite strikingly,” he added.

The researchers found that while the genetic contributions from major African populations largely correspond to what they expected based on historic records, there are major exceptions.




For instance, most Americans of African descent have roots in Angola and the Democratic Republic of the Congo, in line with the major slave route.

But Nigerian ancestry was over-represented in African Americans in the US, probably because of the intra-continental slave trade which brought them from the Caribbean.

By contrast, there were fewer genetic connections between African Americans and the Senegambia region than would be expected given the number who disembarked on slave ships in North America.

The probable reasons are grim.

“Because Senegambians were commonly rice cultivators in Africa, they were often transported to rice plantations in the US,” said Micheletti.

“These plantations were often rampant with malaria and had high mortality rates, which may have led to the reduced genetic representation of Senegambia in African Americans today.”

– Racial ‘whitening’ –

Government and slave-owner practices had an enormous impact on African genetics too.

Despite the fact that more than 60 percent of enslaved people brought to the Americas were men, comparisons of genetics reveal a strong bias toward African female contributions in the modern gene pool of African heritage people across the region.

Much of this can be attributed to the rape of enslaved African women by white men, and other forms of sexual exploitation, like the promise of freedom if they birthed enough children.

But the imbalance is even more pronounced in Latin America, where 70 percent of the slaves who survived the ship voyages disembarked, compared to the United States, the new study showed.

In the US, slave-owners promoted marriages among slaves to ensure their children would form the next generation of the forced labor pool.

In countries like Brazil and Cuba, though, the governments implemented immigration policies in the 1900s, which involved women with African ancestry marrying whites.

These whitening or “branqueamento” policies were meant to cleanse or purify Black people toward a supposed ideal of whiteness.

“We have some regions that are essentially showing 17 African females reproducing for every one African male. We never expected the ratio to be that high,” said Micheletti.

In the British-colonized Americas, the ratio is closer to 1.5 or two African women for every African man contributing to the gene pool.

The researchers also found evidence of frequent mixing between enslaved indigenous people with enslaved Africans in Latin America, something which previous work has shown to be the case in the US.


The researchers said they hoped to not only help people of African descent find their roots, but also to understand the historic experiences that had shaped their genes today.

© 2020 AFP
In defiance of Trump, every player took a knee at MLB return


Published July 23, 2020 By Bob Brigham


President Donald Trump has long complained about players taking a knee before professional sporting events to protest police brutality.

But as Major League Baseball returned on Thursday night, every single player took a knee.

The protesters were started by former San Francisco 49’ers quarterback Colin Kaepernick in 2016.

Before the game, “BLM” was painted on the pitcher’s mound to show support for Black Lives Matter.

Both the New York Yankees and Washington Nationals wore “Black Lives Matter” warm-up jerseys.

The first pitch was thrown out by Dr. Tony Fauci, 79, whose pitch was not a strike.


Every player on the #Yankees and #Nationals takes a knee prior to the National Anthem. pic.twitter.com/kbYeanpusp
— Bryan Hoch (@BryanHoch) July 23, 2020


Every player and coach on the Yankees & Nationals took a knee before the national anthem tonight in D.C.
(via @MarkZuckerman)pic.twitter.com/PrPKv4Gs1Z
— FOX Sports: MLB (@MLBONFOX) July 23, 2020


Every Yankees and Nationals player and coach took a knee during the opening ceremonies of tonight’s MLB opener. Morgan Freeman spoke, addressing social injustice. pic.twitter.com/ldK3TMzRtT
— Brad Galli (@BradGalli) July 23, 2020


Equality is not just a word, it’s our right. pic.twitter.com/LvmW9NqTT2
— MLB (@MLB) July 23, 2020


Playing for more than ourselves.#BlackLivesMatter // #NATITUDE pic.twitter.com/su8AxUxTSt
— Washington Nationals (@Nationals)
July 23, 2020

BP in DC #OpeningDay #NYYforNY pic.twitter.com/pZ2NLc3tWf
— New York Yankees (@Yankees) July 23, 202

Dr Fauci’s #OpeningDay first pitch is a metaphor for 2020 pic.twitter.com/on8zSip91L
— Aaron Rupar (@atrupar) July 23, 2020


Game has been called. Yankees win, 4-1. This is 2020.
— Lindsey Adler (@lindseyadler) July 24, 2020

Looking forward to live sports, but any time I witness a player kneeling during the National Anthem, a sign of great disrespect for our Country and our Flag, the game is over for me!
— Donald J. Trump (@realDonaldTrump) July 21, 2020

Tony Fauci has nothing to do with NFL Football. They are planning a very safe and controlled opening. However, if they don’t stand for our National Anthem and our Great American Flag, I won’t be watching!!!
— Donald J. Trump (@realDonaldTrump) June 19, 2020


Could it be even remotely possible that in Roger Goodell’s rather interesting statement of peace and reconciliation, he was intimating that it would now be O.K. for the players to KNEEL, or not to stand, for the National Anthem, thereby disrespecting our Country & our Flag?
— Donald J. Trump (@realDonaldTrump) June 8, 2020
ACLU wins restraining order against Trump’s DHS agents ‘terrorizing’ Portland
Published on July 23, 2020
By Bob Brigham


The American Civil Liberties Union on Thursday announced that they had won a restraining order against the Department of Homeland Security agents terrorizing protesters on the streets of Portland.

“A federal court just issued a restraining order on the federal agents in Portland, Oregon,” the ACLU reported. “We said we would deploy the full firepower of the ACLU in this fight to save our democracy — and we meant it.”

The ruling, which comes in a case brought by the [ACLU of Oregon], temporarily blocks federal agents from attacking or arresting journalists and legal observers at Portland protests,” the ACLU explained.
“This order is a victory for the rule of law,” Jann Carson, interim executive director of the ACLU of Oregon, said in a statement. “Federal agents from Trump’s Departments of Homeland Security and Justice are terrorizing the community, threatening lives, and relentlessly attacking journalists and legal observers documenting protests. These are the actions of a tyrant, and they have no place anywhere in America.”

The Trump administration launched chemical weapons on protesters, journalists, and medics.

Unmarked federal agents abducted protesters from the street into unmarked vehicles without probable cause.

Tonight's restraining order is nothing short of a win for the rule of law. pic.twitter.com/GeoGihL7lC
— ACLU (@ACLU) July 24, 2020
Low-wage service workers are facing new emotional hazards in the workplace during COVID-19

July 23, 2020

The Research Brief is a short take about interesting academic work.
The big idea

Low-wage service workers increasingly are facing new physical and emotional hazards in the workplace as a result of the coronavirus pandemic, according to interviews with workers we conducted in April. We found that in addition to being afraid and anxious about their own health and possible exposure to COVID-19 while working, these employees said dealing with unpredictable customer emotions was taking an additional toll.

The workers we spoke with reported that interactions with customers were becoming emotionally charged over issues such as mask requirements and other safety guidelines. Workers of color said they were experiencing increased racial harassment.

Exposure to these emotional hazards was widespread among the workers we interviewed and was also spilling over into their home lives. A grocery worker with underlying health conditions told us her son “was super worried, like borderline tears, because he didn’t want me to go [to work] because he knows it’s not safe. And I felt horrible because I didn’t want to go, but I knew that I had to.”
Why it matters

As states and businesses try to reopen with a mix of safety guidelines and protocols, workers have often been on the front lines of enforcing health measures such as requiring customers to wear a mask or maintain social distancing. Some customers have even turned violent, which adds a threat of physical harm to workers who are already disproportionately exposed to a lethal virus.

The experiences of the workers in our study, most of whom worked throughout the shutdown, reveal the need for government and companies to address these new emotional hazards and protect them from customer harassment. Without clear governmental safety mandates, for example, workers easily become the targets of harassment as they tried to enforce their companies’ policies. Workers also said their companies often had weak enforcement mechanisms, frequently adjusted their policies and didn’t provide support in dealing with intense interactions with customers.
What’s next

These results are part of a series of ongoing studies we’re conducting with essential workers in a variety of roles, such as home care and food processing, to examine how they are navigating these new emotional risks during the pandemic. We are also looking at efforts by workers to organize to demand better protections and how these challenges are affecting their families.
How we do our work

As a team of sociologists at the University of Oregon, we rely on rich qualitative data from in-depth interviews, focus groups and participant observation. Our results here come from interviewing dozens of workers in Oregon’s hospitality, retail and food services industries whom we first met in 2019 as a part of an ongoing longitudinal study.




Authors
Lola Loustaunau

Ph.D Candidate, University of Oregon
Ellen Scott

Professor of Sociology, University of Oregon
Larissa Petrucci

Research Assistant at the Labor Education & Research Center, University of Oregon , University of Oregon
Lina Stepick

Labor Policy Research Faculty, University of Oregon
Disclosure statement

Lola Loustaunau and this research team has received funding from the Ford Foundation, United Food and Commercial Workers Local 555, the United Association for Labor Education, the University of Oregon Sociology, and the University of Oregon Labor Education and Research Center.

Ellen Scott receives funding from UFCW555, UALE, the Ford Foundation, and the University of Oregon.

Larissa Petrucci receives funding from Ford Foundation, United Food and Commercial Workers Local 555, United Association for Labor Education, University of Oregon Sociology and University of Oregon Labor Education and Research Center.

Lina Stepick and this research team has received funding from the Ford Foundation, United Food and Commercial Workers Local 555, the United Association for Labor Education, the University of Oregon Sociology, and the University of Oregon Labor Education and Research Center.
Partners




University of Oregon provides funding as a member of The Conversation US.