Sunday, July 26, 2020

BACKGROUNDER
'White as hell': Portland protesters face off with Trump but are they eclipsing Black Lives Matter?

On another night of confrontation with federal agents, activists said their message was in danger of being forgotten


Chris McGreal in Portland, Oregon
The Observer
Portland Sun 26 Jul 2020

 
Federal law enforcement officers detain a demonstrator during a protest against racial inequality and police violence in Portland, Oregon. Photograph: Caitlin Ochs/Reuters


Teal Lindseth surveyed the sea of mothers she was about to lead into the firing line.

“I look at this crowd and I don’t see many black people,” lamented the 21-year-old African American activist. “Oregon is white as hell. Whitewashed.”

'That’s an illegal order': veterans challenge Trump's officers in Portlan

Lindseth has been a stalwart of the Black Lives Matter protests that have continued for nearly 60 days without interruption in a city that was derided as “Little Beirut” over the intensity of its demonstrations against a visit by George HW Bush four decades ago.

Portland has cemented that reputation in the Trump era, as the protests evolved into nightly showdowns with federal paramilitaries sent by the president to end what he described as anarchy.

But Portland has another reputation alongside its radical image. That of the whitest large city in America in a state with a constitution that once barred African Americans from living there. An 1850s law required black people to be “lashed” once a year to encourage them to leave Oregon, and members of the Ku Klux Klan largely controlled Portland city council between the world wars. Housing was effectively segregated in large parts of the city.

Many of today’s protesters say their support for racial justice in a city where the police department has a history of disproportionately killing African Americans is driven at least in part by an attempt to atone for Oregon’s racist past. But as Portland’s battles play out on the national stage, and Donald Trump stokes unrest for political advantage, some black leaders are asking whose interests the televised nightly confrontations really serve – and whether they are a continuation of white domination at the expense of black interests.


The children of the privileged are dancing on the stages of those that gave their lives for this movementED Mondainé, NAACP

The president of the Portland branch of the National Association for the Advancement of Colored People (NAACP), ED Mondainé, warned that the Black Lives Matter movement in the city is being coopted by “privileged white people” with other agendas. He said the confrontations with the federal officers sent by the president are little more than a “spectacle and a distraction that do nothing for the cause of black equality”.

Mondainé accused groups of young white people at the forefront of confronting federal officers of rising to Trump’s bait and using the campaign against racial injustice to provoke a fight in pursuit of other causes, such as anti-capitalism.


“The children of the privileged are dancing on the stages of those that gave their lives for this movement,” he told the Guardian.

Trump’s dispatch of a Department of Homeland Security (DHS) taskforce reinvigorated the protests in Portland as federal agents in camouflage snatched protesters off the streets in unmarked vans and severely beat others.


Outrage in the city, and nationally, at what smacked of police state tactics only fuelled the demonstrations, which did not displease the president. Trump presented the pictures of protesters in helmets and gas masks confronting federal agents as evidence of a city overrun by anarchists and antifa, and the Democrats as either helpless or complicit in the chaos.

Trump raised the ante by vowing to send a “surge” of federal forces to other Democratic-run cities such as Chicago, ostensibly to quell gun killings. He said Operation Legend, named after a four year-old boy shot dead in Kansas City, would see thousands of agents from the FBI, US Marshals Service and other agencies deployed to end a “rampage of violence”.

The mayors of Chicago, Los Angeles, Atlanta and 11 other cities wrote to the administration on Tuesday, accusing the president of an abuse of power and alleging that “federal law enforcement is being deployed for political purposes” amid suspicions that Trump is more interested in creating conflict than ending it in the run-up to the election.

“Unilaterally deploying these paramilitary-type forces into our cities is wholly inconsistent with our system of democracy and our most basic values,” they wrote.

The mayors also said they were disturbed at the actions of federal agents in Portland, calling their failure to wear proper identification and the snatching of protesters off the streets “chilling”.

“These are tactics we expect from an authoritarian regime – not our democracy,” the letter said.

Mondainé, who led a rally on Thursday evening to “bring back the focus” on to Black Lives Matter, said “empty battles” were serving Trump’s agenda because the president creates political theatre for electoral advantage. He said Trump is baiting protesters in Portland to light the fuse on a racist backlash across the country before the presidential election.

“We have to change that narrative. We cannot let teargas and rubber bullets define the moment that we’re in now. We must seize the moment and assure the world that this time racism will no longer live,” he said.
A dark stain

Mondainé and other black leaders want to shift the focus of protests in Portland back to one of the enduring legacies of Oregon’s racist past – reform of a police department with a long history of violence against the supposedly liberal city’s relatively small black population, and which has seen a sharp rise in the killing of African American men since Trump came to power.

African Americans make up just 6% of Portland’s 650,000 residents but accounted for 30% of shootings by police over the past three years. Black people were also several times more times likely to be arrested or stopped. The police department has proved so trigger happy that the Obama administration placed it under federal court oversight, although it sidestepped the issue of race in doing so.

But African Americans in Portland remain sceptical that the city or the police department are committed to change, particularly when officers are accused of siding with far-right groups such as the Proud Boys who regularly use the city as a platform for protests knowing it will create a backlash. 

Members of the Proud Boys and other rightwing demonstrators march in Portland in 2019. Photograph: Noah Berger/AP

Accusations that the force tolerates neo-fascist sympathies are not new. Critics regard the case of Mark Kruger as a particularly dark stain on the police department and city government.

In about 2000, the then Portland police sergeant built a shrine in a public park to five Nazi soldiers including a member of Hitler’s SS and a war criminal. Kruger nailed plaques with their names to what he called an “Ehrenbaum” or honour tree. They were positioned so he could see them from the road when driving to work as a police officer, and he kept them polished.

The shrine remained in the park for several years until Kruger removed it when he was the target of federal lawsuits for use of excessive force against anti-Iraq war protestors. Portland attorney’s office stored the plaques until they were discovered years later by an internal affairs investigator.

That led to an investigation which concluded Kruger brought “discredit and disgrace” upon Portland police and the city. But he kept his job after a brief unpaid suspension for illegally posting the plaques on public property, and was later promoted to captain and head of the vice squad.


Trump ripped the band aid off of the racism that was bubbling under the surface of the country for a very long timeDan Handelman, Portland Copwatch

Kruger admitted wearing Nazi uniforms but said it was because of his interest in history. He said the plaques were to honour the Germans’ military prowess not their crimes against humanity.

“Many military historians have erected similar remembrances all over the world,” he claimed at the time.

He remained a captain in the police department until his recent retirement.

People pressing for police reform saw Kruger’s continued employment and promotion as a reflection of the values of a police department with a reputation for brutality. The Obama justice department finally intervened over the level of police shootings in Portland, prompted by the case of Aaron Campbell in 2010.

The young black man’s brother had died earlier in the day. Campbell’s family feared he might be suicidal and called the police. The officers who went to check on him quickly established that he was not a threat to himself or anyone else, and even exchanged a lighthearted text message that put everyone at ease. But a second police unit arrived as Campbell emerged from a building. They shot him with a bean bag.

When he instinctively reached for where he had been hit, officers said he was going for a gun and shot him dead. Campbell was unarmed.

The civil rights leader Jesse Jackson called Campbell’s killing “an execution”. A Portland grand jury said the officer who shot him acted within the law but that did not mean he was innocent.

“This was very difficult for us as a grand jury, as our sympathies lie with the Campbell family and the mood of the community. As a group, we are outraged at what happened,” the grand jury said in a letter to the district attorney. The city paid Campbell’s family $1.2m.


The Obama administration demanded reforms and placed the police department under federal court oversight in 2014. But in a move some critics suspected was to save Portland’s Democratic leadership from embarrassment, the justice department said Campbell had been shot because the police had a pattern of using excessive force against people with mental health problems, not because he was black. Campbell’s family disagreed.
‘An often tense relationship’

A justice department report found “a pattern of dangerous uses of force against persons who posed little or no threat” but who had mental illness. These include the case of a 42-year-old local musician with schizophrenia, James Chasse, who was shot multiple times with a taser and beaten so badly by the police he had a punctured lung, 16 fractured ribs and 26 broken bones in all. He died in custody.

In another case, Portland police repeatedly tasered a naked and unarmed man who was acting oddly because he was suffering a diabetic emergency.

Although the justice department sidestepped a full investigation of racism by the Portland police, it did note “the often tense relationship” between the force and the African American community. It said there was a widespread perception among black people of racial profiling and that the police “protect the white folk and police the black folk”.

Dan Handelman of Portland Copwatch, which monitors police killings, said eight years of justice department oversight has not fundamentally changed how the Portland police act because, while the agreement between the city and the federal government requires new policies and training, it does not measure whether they are successful.

“If the Portland police continue to use violence against the general public, they’re still in compliance with that agreement. Have some changes have been made? Yes. But does it did it get at the root problems and the issues that people were worried about the first place? Not at all,” he said. 

Federal police officers in Portland on 23 July. Photograph: Nathan Howard/Getty Images


Handelman said that if anything, the situation has worsened.

“We had not actually had a shooting death of an African American Portlander by the police between early 2010 and February of 2017, which is rather remarkable. A seven-year stretch with no black man being killed. Since then, there have been at least five shootings of African Americans, and four of them died,” he said.

“For me, part of that is the national situation that we’re in. That the election of President Trump kind of ripped the Band-Aid off of the racism that was bubbling under the surface of the country for a very long time.”

The police response to protests in Portland after the killing of George Floyd in Minneapolis in May reinforced the perception that the force was resistant to change and raised questions about accountability.

In recent days, Portland’s mayor, Ted Wheeler, has made a show on national television of denouncing Trump’s deployment of federal forces, accusing the president of conducting “urban warfare” in his city. But when Wheeler turned out to speak at a protest on Wednesday, he faced hostility from demonstrators who accused him of hypocrisy.

The mayor is also the city’s police commissioner. In May, Wheeler declared a state of emergency amid escalating protests over Floyd’s death which saw storefronts smashed and some looted. Critics accused the police of overreacting by being too quick to fire teargas to break up demonstrations until a federal judge barred its use except where the police declare a riot.

When Wheeler arrived at Wednesday’s demonstration, a protester emptied a bag of spent teargas canisters at his feet as others peppered him with questions and accusations about his oversight of the police. Later, the mayor faced a barrage of derision after he denounced federal agents for an unprovoked firing of teargas that left him gasping for breath.
FacebookTwitterPinterest Demonstrators in Portland have accused the mayor, Ted Wheeler, of hypocrisy. Photograph: Gillian Flaccus/AP


Teressa Raiford, the African American founder of Don’t Shoot Portland, accused the mayor of using the presence of the federal agents as cover for his own failure to address police reform.

“Our leaders now say: ‘Donald Trump’s attacking you and we care about you’. But the people on the front line realise we were being attacked by them before Donald Trump started attacking us,” he said. “They’re trying to claim that they stand as allies with the protesters. It is political. What you’re seeing with the mayor being sprayed with teargas, that is political propaganda.”

Raiford said Portland’s political leadership did not care to substantially change the system of policing because much of the city was comfortable with policies that, as the justice department noted, protect whites and police blacks.
‘All these liberal cities have extreme inequality’

The failure of so many American cities run by Democrats to address reform of racially biased policing hangs over Democratic political leaderships that claim to support the Black Lives Matters campaign.

Hyung Nam, who has been closely observing police reform as a member of a city committee that advises on how the police budget is spent, said the lack of political will reflects economic realities.

“All these liberal cities have extreme inequality, economic inequality, and there’s a major racial dimension to that. As long as we have that kind of economic inequality we’re going to see some form of policing like this,” he said.


Inequality has grown enormously and the way we’re dealing with that is through tougher policingHyung Nam

Nam said there is a pattern of more prosperous whites gentrifying black Portland neighbourhoods and then demanding increased policing which often makes the remaining African American residents feel insecure.

“Just the other day when I was testifying at the city council, there were people from the Irvington neighbourhood complaining to the council about homeless people that were engaged in illicit activities and basically calling for the cops to do something, which means criminalise them and sweep them somewhere.

“This is what’s happening in all these Democratic liberal cities. Inequality has grown enormously and the way we’re dealing with that is through tougher policing.”

However, Nam thinks that the scale of popular protest over Floyd’s death may finally have pushed the administration to get serious about reform including “significant” cuts to the police budget for its paramilitary teams and enforcing proper civilian oversight.

For now though, attention in and on Portland remains focused on the nightly theatre outside the federal courthouse – and where Trump will target next.
‘We’re living in fear’: LGBT people in Italy pin hopes on new law

Debate on long-awaited bill that would punish discrimination and hate crimes towards LGBT people opens on Monday
A Pride demonstration in Bari, southern Italy, earlier this month. Far-right politicians have spoken out against the proposed changes in legislation Photograph: NurPhoto/Getty

Angela Giuffrida in Rome 
Sun 26 Jul 2020

For 15 years, Marco and his boyfriend had lived together fairly peacefully in a town outside Rome. Then, in early June, a neighbour started harassing them.

“It began quite lightly, with him being provocative whenever we met in the street,” the 38-year-old said. “Then he came to our home and forced his way in, calling us ‘dirty faggots’. My boyfriend managed to get rid of him but he returned with a baton and threw himself against the door, repeating the same insults and threatening to set us alight when we were asleep.”

The man, who had recently moved into the same building, has incessantly taunted the couple over the past month, threatening to also torch their car. Marco has been recording evidence on his mobile phone, but his pleas to the police for help have so far been ignored.


“We’re living in fear,” Marco said, citing the example of a gay friend who was almost killed by his antagonist following repeated harassment. “Twice the police came, and twice they did nothing.”

The couple are hoping they will soon be protected by a long-awaited law that would punish discrimination and hate crimes towards LGBT people. Politicians will begin debating the draft legislation, already being virulently contested by far-right parties and religious groups, in parliament on Monday.

“We need this law,” Marco said. “This guy came to us simply because he hates gays. This isn’t anything new, it happens to gay people all the time, but many do not report it through fear.”

Although Italy approved same-sex civil unions in 2016, the country lags behind its EU partners in creating anti-homophobia measures. An EU-wide survey published last autumn showed that 55% of Italians accepted LGBT people – far below the EU average. Attempts at progress or even just meaningful debate have been stymied by a macho culture, Catholicism and support for far-right parties. LGBT rights associations have linked a rise in hate crimes in 2019 to the prominence of Matteo Salvini’s far-right League, which continues to poll as Italy’s most popular party.
People mark the global Pride celebrations in Rome’s San Lorenzo neighbourhood in June. Photograph: Riccardo Antimiani/EPA

Attempts by various governments over the past three decades to enshrine gay rights in law have either been stifled or sabotaged. If approved, the new law would be an extension of an existing law that punishes racist violence, hatred and discrimination. In addition, it would criminalise misogyny.

After a spate of recent attacks against gay people, proponents argue that the legislation is urgently needed. In late June, a 25-year-old man was brutally attacked by a gang of seven people as he walked hand-in-hand with his boyfriend in the city of Pescara. Less than two weeks later, a gay couple were assaulted by a group of six after they kissed each other at a train station in Cinque Terre, Liguria. At a recent demonstration in Rome in support of the law, two teenage girls, who were holding hands, were spat at and insulted by a man attending a nearby counter-protest organised by the League and its political partner, Brothers of Italy.

Fabrizio Marrazzo, a spokesperson for Gay Centre, a Rome-based association, said it received about 20,000 reports of discrimination against LGBT people a year, of which about 9% are severe.

“But many do not report the discrimination as their families do not know about their sexuality,” he added.

Alessandro Zan, a gay politician with the Democratic party, part of the ruling coalition, and architect of the draft legislation, was threatened with death by an online opponent unless he withdrew the bill.

Detractors, including Salvini and his Brothers of Italy counterpart, Giorgia Meloni, claim the law would suppress freedom of expression. At the protest in Rome, Salvini said: “I’m here to defend the right of a child to have a mother and a father … tomorrow I don’t want to be tried for defending family rights.” Meloni described Zan’s law as “a crime against opinion”.
Rightwing politician Giorgia Meloni at a protest against the proposed law in Rome on 16 July, calling it an attack on freedom of speech. Photograph: Piero Tenagli/IPA

“The idea that the law would restrict free speech is such fake news,” said Zan. “The law works to fight discrimination, not limit the freedom of thought. They are using LGBT people as an enemy to fly an ideological flag and ignite hatred, rather than discuss the merits of the law.”

The far-right parties are in sync with the Italian bishops’ conference, which said the bill would mark “the death of liberty”. A priest in Puglia recently held a vigil among parishioners to pray for the law’s failure. Another in Sicily who opposed the law said during a sermon: “If you express an opinion against homosexuals, or don’t agree with two men adopting a child, you could end up in jail.”

The Eurobarometer survey, published last autumn, showing 55% of Italians accepted LGBT people was far below the EU average of 72%. However, campaigners believe a significant part of the population would accept the new law.

“Those who attack it with such aggression are in the minority,” said Luisa Rizzitelli, an LGBT activist. “Italy is behind in respect of accepting diversity … but if we ask people if they want to make hatred against LGBT people a crime, I truly believe they would say yes.”

Zan said: “While it is true that there is still strong homophobia, stemming from a patriarchal culture, the country has also made progress. If you look at the pride events across the country, they are full of young people and this gives hope that, in the future, citizens will be much more open.”

If you’re not terrified about Facebook, you haven’t been paying attention

Carole Cadwalladr



Facebook and America are now indivisible, says the Observer journalist who broke the Cambridge Analytica scandal – and the world is a sicker place for it

Cutouts of Facebook CEO Mark Zuckerberg placed outside the Capitol in protest ahead of his testimony before a joint hearing of the Senate Judiciary and Commerce Committees in 2018. Photograph: Michael Reynolds/EPA
Published onSun 26 Jul 2020 10.00 BST

In 2016, we didn’t know. We were innocent. We still believed social media connected us and that connections were good. That technology equalled progress. And progress equalled better.

Four years on, we know too much. And yet, it turns out, we understand nothing. We know social media is a bin fire and that the world is burning. But it’s like the pandemic. We understand in outline how bad things could get. But we remain hopelessly human. Relentlessly optimistic. Of course, we believe there’ll be a vaccine. Because there has to be, doesn’t there?

In Facebook’s case, the worst has already happened. We’ve just failed to acknowledge it. Failed to reckon with it. And there’s no vaccine coming to the rescue. In 2016 everything changed. As for 2020… well, we will see.
In 2016, a hostile foreign government used Facebook to systematically undermine and subvert an American election. With no consequences

We have already been through the equivalent of a social media pandemic – an unstoppable contagion that has sickened our information space, infected our public discourse, silently and invisibly subverted our electoral systems. It’s no longer about if this will happen all over again. Of course, it will. It hasn’t stopped. The question is whether our political systems, society, democracy, will survive – can survive – the age of Facebook.

We are already through the looking glass. In 2016, a hostile foreign government used Facebook to systematically undermine and subvert an American election. With no consequences. Nobody, no company, no individual or nation state has ever been held to account.

Zuckerberg says Black Lives Matter and yet we know Donald Trump used Facebook’s tools to deliberately suppress and deny black and Latino people the vote. With no consequences.

People queue to vote in the Wisconsin presidential primary in April. Photograph: Tannen Maury/EPA

And though we know the name “Cambridge Analytica” and were momentarily outraged by Facebook’s complicity in allowing 87 million people’s personal data to be stolen and repurposed including by the Trump campaign. A $5bn fine was paid but no individuals were held to account.

And that’s just in America. For us here in Britain, there’s an even bigger reckoning that has not come. If it wasn’t for Facebook, there would be no Brexit. The future of our country – our island nation with its 1,000 years of continuous history of which we’re so proud – has been set on its course by a foreign company that has proved itself to be beyond the rule of parliament.

Who in Britain understands that? Almost no one. The intelligence and security committee, perhaps, who reported their astonishment this week that no attempt had been made to investigate foreign interference in the EU referendum. And maybe Dominic Cummings, the man who sits in 10 Downing Street by Boris Johnson’s side.

Dominic Cummings understands the role that Facebook played in Brexit. He wrote about it. In excruciating Cummings detail. He described the deliberate use of misinformation targeted at unknown individuals in an election operation the scale of which had never been seen before. He deployed more than a billion Facebook ads, he says. At a cost of pennies per view.

Was there Russian meddling in the Brexit referendum? The Tories just didn't care
Jonathan Lis

Read more


He doesn’t talk about this now, of course. And though the intelligence committee noted media companies “hold the key and yet are failing to play their part”, it also says “DCMS informed us that [REDACTED]”.

The fact is that we now know how the platform was systematically abused by the Leave campaigns. We know that loopholes in our laws were deliberately exploited. And we know that these actions were proved to be illegal and “punished” by “regulators” whose “regulations” have been exposed to be not worth the paper they are written on.
Donald Trump and senior White House staff meeting with Mark Zuckerberg in the Oval Office in September last year. Photograph: Alamy

Will Facebook be used to subvert the 2020 US presidential election? Yes. Will Facebook be held to account? No. Are we looking at a system shock that will change America for ever? Yes. Because Trump will either win this election using Facebook or he will lose it using Facebook. Both ways spell disaster. On Sunday, interviewed by a Fox reporter, he refused to say if he would leave the White House if he lost the election.

America, the idea of America, is on the brink. And at the cold, dead heart of the suicide mission it has set itself on, is Facebook. Facebook and America are now indivisible. Facebook, WhatsApp, Instagram, these are now the bloodstream of American life and politics. A bloodstream that is sick.


And so the world is sick, because American capitalism has been the vector that has brought this infection across the globe. Algorithmically amplified “free speech” with no consequences. Lies spread at speed. Hate freely expressed, freely shared. Ethnic hatred, white supremacy, resurgent Nazism all spreading invisibly, by stealth beyond the naked eye.

For Trump 2020, the band is back together. The chief data scientist of Cambridge Analytica, Matt Oczkowski has launched a new firm, Data Propria, which is working with the digital director of Trump’s 2016 campaign Brad Parscale. And Trump is testing his limits. Can he place ads that feature Nazi symbols? Yes. (Taken down but only after accruing millions of views.) Can he spread lies about mail-in fraud? Yes. Can he threaten Black Lives Matter protesters with violence? Yes. Will be he be able to use Facebook to dispute the election? Watch this space.

In a world without consequences, the bad man will be king. And an aggressive multinational company whose business model is threatened by the bad man’s opponent is, at best, conflicted; at worst, complicit.

This week, Mark Zuckerberg was forced to deny he had a “secret deal” with Trump. “A ridiculous idea,” he said. It was an uncanny echo of the “pretty crazy idea” he cited in November 2016 when it was first suggested fake news on Facebook might have played a role in electing Trump.

It wasn’t crazy. It was true. We know this because of the painstaking work the FBI and congressional committees did in investigating foreign interference in the US election. Work that hasn’t even been begun in the UK. That was not an accident we discovered this week. It was because of another populist who didn’t want the truth to come out: Boris Johnson.

Facebook is at the centre of this too. It’s Facebook that enables hostile nation states like Russia to attack us in our homes. A geopolitical war being fought in front of our noses, in our pockets, on our phones.

This is Facebook’s world now. And we live in it. And if you’re not terrified about what this means it’s because you haven’t been paying attention.

Ted Yoho: Christian group obtains resignation over Ocasio-Cortez attack

Nonpartisan organisation Bread for the World says Yoho agreed to step down following incident with congresswoman
Ted Yoho, right, has been asked to resign from the board of a Christian organisation after being accused of using a sexist insult against Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez, left. Photograph: AP
Associated Press
Published onSun 26 Jul 2020 04.32 BST
A nonpartisan Christian organisation that seeks to end hunger says it has asked for and received the resignation of Republican congressman Ted Yoho from its board of directors, following what it called his “verbal attack” on Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez.
Democrat congresswoman Ocasio-Cortez had accused Yoho of using a vulgar and sexist insult while upbraiding her during a confrontation last Monday on the steps of the Capitol. Yoho maintained he did not use the words cited, though a reporter who witnessed the incident confirmed the language as she described it.
In a statement on Saturday, Bread for the World said its board met Friday with Yoho and sought his resignation “as an action that reaffirms our commitment to coming alongside women and people of colour, nationally and globally, as they continue to lead us to a more racially inclusive and equitable world”.
On its website, Bread for the World says its “collective Christian voice” lobbies Congress and the administration on ending hunger nationally and worldwide.
“As a bipartisan Christian organization committed to alleviating hunger and poverty through sound public policies, Bread for the World upholds the values of respect, dignity, and compassion that Jesus calls us to when engaging decision makers from across the political spectrum,” the statement said.
“We believe that Rep. Ted Yoho’s recent actions and words as reported in the media are not reflective of the ethical standards expected of members of our Board of Directors.”
A spokesman for Yoho did not immediately respond to an email seeking comment.
In an extraordinary speech in the House on Thursday, Ocasio-Cortez offered a dramatic account of the incident and broadened her remarks to assail what she called a sexist culture of “accepting violence and violent language against women”. More than a dozen colleagues joined her in casting the incident as all-too-common male behaviour.
Yoho has described the encounter as a brief policy discussion and said that “no one was accosted, bullied, or attacked”. He expressed regret for his “abrupt manner”.
Ocasio-Cortez, 30, is a freshman progressive who has gained praise and criticism for her outspokenness. Yoho, 65, one of the most conservative members of the House, is retiring at the end of his fourth term.
Forget Putin, it's meddling by America's evangelical enforcer that should scare us

Secretary of state Mike Pompeo has a track record of pursuing the worst impulses of the US political right
Mike Pompeo speaking at the Richard Nixon Presidential Library in California on 23 July. Photograph: David Swanson/EPA

Simon Tisdall
Published Sun 26 Jul 2020

US sheriff Mike Pompeo rode into town last week, telling whoppers as is his wont. The secretary of state – Donald Trump’s top enforcer – accused Tedros Adhanom Ghebreyesus, the World Health Organization chief, of cutting a secret pre-pandemic deal with China. Because of this, “you’ve got dead Britons,” he claimed. Pompeo offered no proof. It was an outrageous smear. But Tedros is a wanted man in Washington. He verbally gunned him down.

Pompeo justified January’s real-life assassination of Iran’s Gen Qassem Suleimani by saying he posed an “imminent” threat to US interests.

Declaring the killing unlawful, the UN investigator, Agnès Callamard, ruled this month there was not a shred of evidence to support this. Iran hawk Pompeo had reportedly urged the hit for months. It was he who finally convinced Trump to order the killing.


Pompeo was caught out again last year before Trump’s impeachment. He initially denied detailed knowledge of the phone call in which Trump tried to persuade Ukraine’s president to investigate the son of his White House rival, Joe Biden, saying he had not read the transcript. It later emerged Pompeo had listened in on the call. Democrats accused him of obstructing justice.

Speaking at Texas A&M University last year, Pompeo cheerfully confessed to telling lies when it suited him during a political career that began with election to Congress as a far-right Tea Party member in 2010 and took him to the CIA and state department. “I was the CIA director. We lied, we cheated, we stole. It was like we had entire training courses,” he said, as if reprising Marlon Brando’s role in The Ugly American.

In a week when parliament’s report into Russian interference in British life provoked deep soul-searching, the behaviour of Britain’s best friend bears closer examination, too.

In terms of overt and covert influence-peddling, arm-twisting and behind-the-scenes meddling, the US leaves Russia in the shade. And by hook or by crook, Washington, unlike Moscow, usually gets its way.

The US government shows two faces to the world. One is benign, open, and high-minded. The other is darkly dominated by selfish calculation, ultimately reliant on brute force. Pompeo, Trump’s most influential adviser and possible successor, is the undisguised, snarling face of this latter form of manipulative, intrusive and mendacious American power.
He once told Israelis Trump was sent by God to save the Jews from the Persians

In less turbulent, less polarised times, the “special relationship” brought advantages for Britain. In many respects, the opposite is now true. The latest example of US pressure tactics, detrimental to the national interest, was Pompeo’s hysterical appeal last week for a united front of “free nations” to battle China’s “new tyranny”. Manufacturing a cold war with Beijing may suit Trump and the Republicans as they cling to office. It does not suit Britain.

Similarly ill-judged and unwelcome is the Trump administration’s attempt to destroy the International Criminal Court, a part-British creation of which the late Labour foreign secretary, Robin Cook, was rightly proud. Pompeo has imposed sanctions and launched a bogus corruption probe. The ICC’s offence? It dared to investigate alleged US war crimes in Afghanistan.

Pompeo and fellow hawks have done all in their power to prevent Britain and its European allies keeping lines open to Iran after Trump reneged on the 2015 nuclear deal.

They now appear embarked, with Israel, on a covert war of sabotage against Tehran. If it comes to a fight, they will expect UK support. The US has dismissed British views on the climate emergency and the Paris treaty, undermined the UN and Nato, ducked its obligations in Syria and the joint fight against Isis, and sought to drag the UK into half-baked regime-change plots in Venezuela and Cuba.


Pompeo claims private property and religious freedom are 'foremost' human rights
Read more


None of this double-dealing will surprise those who recall Ronald Reagan’s secret deployment of nuclear-armed cruise missiles in Britain in the 1980s.

Clement Attlee’s government quickly discovered the high cost of American friendship after 1945. The Suez humiliation confirmed it. Today, Britain is still paying for the damaging impact of the US “war on terror” and its Iraq adventurism on national security, human rights and international law.

Pompeo’s evangelical faith and apocalyptic “End Times” views help explain US efforts to thwart another long-held British aim: a two-state solution in Israel-Palestine. The support for Israel of Pompeo and fellow Christian Zionists is unconditional and uncompromising. He once told Israelis Trump was sent by God to save the Jews from the Persians. “I am confident the Lord is at work here.”

A recent Pompeo speech elevating religious and property freedoms over other human rights, such as on abortion, was seen in Washington as a further fleshing out of an ultra-conservative platform in preparation for a 2024 presidential bid. Pompeo is an energetic networker. He has been investigated for using taxpayer-funded state department “Madison dinners” to cultivate wealthy political donors. In London last winter, he attended an “off-the-books” meeting of the Hamilton Society, a private US-UK group of well-connected business leaders.

Days before last week’s UK visit, when he condescendingly praised Boris Johnson for dumping China’s Huawei and again ignored calls for justice for British hit-and-run victim Harry Dunn, Pompeo was in backwoods Iowa, a key state for any future presidency. Lauding what he called his “100% pro-life foreign policy”, he declared: “This administration appreciates and knows that our rights come from God, not government. Can I get an amen to that?”

Some Americans may put their hands together. But ungodly Britons who value hard-won, not divinely conferred, democratic rights should beware. Here was an unscrupulous, ambitious and dangerous man – far smarter than Trump – feeding the prejudices, fears and schisms of an alien, alienated society. With friends like these, who needs Russia?


Trump can't shift public attention from coronavirus to the streets of America

Robert Reich


The president shows no leadership on public health but wants to be a strongman on law and order. Voters won’t buy it
Donald Trump gestures to a map while speaking about his administration’s response to the coronavirus pandemic. Photograph: Drew Angerer/Getty Images
Published Sun 26 Jul 2020

Donald Trump has said he has “no responsibility” for the coronavirus pandemic, fobbing it off on governors and mayors whose repeated requests for federal help he’s denied. Yet he’s now sending federal troops into cities he says are controlled by the “radical left”, whose mayors and governors don’t want them there.


New testing shortages hit California's vulnerable hardest amid record Covid-19 infections
Read more


The president wants to shift public attention from the virus, which he can’t “dominate”, to the streets of America, which he and his secret police can.

It’s an especially cynical re-election strategy because coronavirus deaths are rising again. More Americans are on track to be hospitalized with the virus than at any other point. Rates of new infections repeatedly shatter single-day records. As a result, the US economy is backsliding.

Trump has never offered a national strategy for testing, contact tracing and isolating those who have the disease. He has provided no standards for reopening the economy, no plan for national purchasing of critical materials, no definitive policy for helping the unemployed, no clear message about what people and businesses should do. He rushed to reopen without adequate safeguards.
When it comes to assaulting Americans, Trump has been asserting strong leadership

The hapless White House “coronavirus taskforce” is in perpetual disarray. Trump has downgraded the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC). His Department of Labor hasn’t even put out standards for workplace safety.

Trump won’t use the Defense Production Act to secure supplies to perform tests – swabs, chemicals, pipette tips, machines, containers – so public health officials can’t quickly identify and isolate people who are infected and trace their contacts.

It’s been an abominable, chaotic mess – which is why the virus is back.

Yet when it comes to assaulting Americans, Trump has been asserting strong leadership. He’s deploying unidentified federal agents against protesters in Portland, Oregon: attacking them, pulling them into unmarked vans, detaining them without charges.

Trump is also sending troops to Kansas City, Albuquerque and Chicago. He says he’ll send them to New York, Philadelphia, Detroit, Baltimore and Oakland as well – not incidentally, all cities with Democratic mayors, large black populations and no violent unrest.

Trump can’t find federal personnel to do contact tracing for the coronavirus but has found thousands of agents for his secret police, drawn from the departments of Justice and Homeland Security.

Trump doesn’t want to know about the coronavirus but he’s keeping careful track of the battles in the streets, demanding up-to-the-minute briefings from the front.

Public health authorities don’t have adequate medical equipment to quickly analyze coronavirus tests but Trump’s police have everything they need to injure protesters, including armored vans, teargas, and tactical assault weapons – “the best equipment”, Trump boasted last week.

There is no legal authority for this. The founders denied police power to the national government. The local officials in charge of keeping public order reject Trump’s troops. The mayor of Portland was teargassed this week. The mayor of Kansas City calls them “disgraceful”. Albuquerque’s mayor announced: “There’s no place for Trump’s secret police in our city.” Chicago’s mayor does “not welcome dictatorship”.

The one encouraging note – analogous to Sherlock Holmes’ dog that didn’t bark – is the absence of the US military. Unlike Trump’s lapdog attorney general, William Barr, the generals don’t want any part of it.

The Trump campaign is running fictitious ads portraying cities as overrun by violent leftwing mobs, and Trump’s shameless Fox News lackeys are depicting protesters as “rioters” and the “armed wing of Democratic party”.

At the same time, Trump is trying to suppress the truth about the coronavirus. The White House is instructing hospitals to report cases to the Department of Health and Human Services rather than to the CDC. Trump has muzzled the federal government’s most prominent and trusted virologist, Dr Anthony Fauci, while the White House tries to discredit him. In the upcoming coronavirus relief bill, Trump doesn’t even want to fund more testing and tracing, or the CDC.


A lively nursing director, an outspoken phlebotomist: US healthcare workers who died from Covid-19
Read more


After railing against the CDC’s guidelines for reopening schools as “very tough [and] expensive”, Trump this week pressured the CDC to issue more lax guidelines, some of which were written by White House officials instead of CDC experts.

Yet Trump won’t be able to shift public attention from the virus to the streets of America. The violence he’s trying to fuel and exaggerate is far less frightening to average voters than the virus, which is worsening by the day, especially in Texas, Florida, and other states that went for Trump in 2016. His blatant failure to contain it is causing people to die.


Robert Reich, a former US secretary of labor, is professor of public policy at the University of California at Berkeley and the author of Saving Capitalism: For the Many, Not the Few and The Common Good. His new book, The System: Who Rigged It, How We Fix It, is out now. He is a columnist for Guardian US
RIP PETER GREEN 
THE BLUESMAN'S BLUESMANThe Observer Fleetwood Mac

Peter Green: guitar pioneer who made the blues his own

The Fleetwood Mac co-founder spiralled into drug abuse and schizophrenia but never lost his electrifying technical ability

Peter Green as vocalist and lead guitarist with Fleetwood Mac in around 1969. Photograph: George Wilkes Archive/Getty Images

Ed Vulliamy
Published on Sun 26 Jul 2020

The occasion was as unlikely as it was unforgettable: Peter Green playing in Frome, Somerset, 10 years ago, but feels like yesterday. Peter Green, who seemed to play the blues guitar from the far side of some borderline between wherever he was out there, and what passes for reality; Peter Green of Fleetwood Mac when they really were Fleetwood Mac, at the outset. Peter Green who died on Saturday.

Green spoke little that night in May 2010, and sometimes made little sense. It was not his last concert, but not many others followed. At one point, he said something about fish then, prompted by rhythm guitarist Mike Dodd, ventured effortlessly into a sparkling account of John Mayall’s Sitting in the Rain, played with delicate, crystalline sonority. Not long after came Black Magic Woman: electrifying, but more introverted than the Carlos Santana cover we know so well. Green was portly, sitting on a stool, wearing a khaki shirt and headscarf, smiling to himself and his guitar.

He had never fully “recovered” from the existential and later clinical journey – begun in 1969 – from stardom to schizophrenia to whatever this was. But later that evening, when he gave his signature instrumental Albatross, Green’s musicianship had progressed from the technical and emotional cogency of his earlier work to something bordering, frankly, on sublime. As though the agony and ecstasy he had long abandoned formulating into words or conventional communication could be spoken more articulately than ever through music.
Green was born Peter Allen Greenbaum, spotted by the playmaker of British blues, John Mayall, for his band, the Bluesbreakers, which Green infused with a resonant power that flourished with Fleetwood Mac. I saw them in spring 1970, at the Roundhouse in London, enthralled not just by Green’s technique, but some inner understanding of what “blue” meant in music, specifically black music, despite the colour of Green’s skin.

He seemed to wrestle with, and gouge, his own compositions, such as the bedazzling demands of Oh Well, with the same intensity as one of his idols, Buddy Guy, as if seeking something within a piece he had yet to fathom. This command of the blues – technical and empathetic – was tried and tested triumphantly when Fleetwood Mac went head-to-head for a double album with Guy, Otis Spann and Willie Dixon in Chicago in 1969.

There was something intangibly but palpably generous about Green, the way he shared sound-space with musicians, played to an audience. In contrast to many of his kind, he seemed to possess an almost mystic modesty. He protested to other members of Fleetwood Mac that the money the band was earning was not really theirs to keep.

Green’s departure from what we call “normal” consciousness was announced by one of the most poignant songs of the age: Man of the World, of 1969: a searing, lonely but lyrical musical-poetic departure, which Green himself then followed in person.
Peter Green in 1996. Photograph: Robert Judges/Rex

Throughout the 1970s, he wandered between diagnoses of schizophrenia, misadventures with drugs – markedly LSD – and what showbusiness calls “obscurity”, even sleeping rough on park benches. A BBC Four film of 2009 afforded glimpses into what happened, but was inconsequential, and its illustrious cast over-edited.

The mystery – and the story – was in the music when Green returned, occasionally during the 1980s, then convincingly, with his Splinter Group during the late 1990s, polished but always spontaneous. The revival was almost therapeutic, thanks largely to guitarist Nigel Watson and former Jeff Beck Group and Black Sabbath drummer Cozy Powell. Green retained his technique, smiled as he played and chatted in between, seemed “himself” again, whatever strange place that was.

During the early 1980s, I went to hear then 70-something Charley Booker – one of the last Mississippi Delta blues greats of his generation still playing – at the Halstead Blues bar on Chicago’s Near North Side. Booker was living in Indiana nearby, and his band was young and white, which raised the question, during the break: can they do it? Can white men play the blues?

“There’s three white kids can play the blues good as any black man,” replied Booker. Which? “Johnny Winter, Stevie Ray Vaughan and, oh, that Englishman of yours, er… now what’s his name…?”

“Eric Clapton?” I volunteered.

“No, NO! Not him, the other one – Peter Green.”
SPOTLIGHT

Kurfi Instissar: Mother Nature’s Advocate

BY RUKEVWE OCHUKO

26 JULY 2020 | 9:12 AM
THE GUARDIAN NIGERIA
 

Kurfi Instissar

In a bid to keep the environment free from toxins, Kurfi Instissar, an environmental advocate has devised a new form of recycling disposed waste materials. Specifically, plastic bags commonly called nylon bags. These waste materials are recycled and transformed into interlocking tiles, which is equivalent to the conventional tiles used as building materials. Her initiative has proved effective and rewarding to her community and the environment at large. This dynamic development in sustaining our ecosystem has gained recognition in various world media platforms such as the BBC news amongst others.

Instissar speaks to The Guardian Life on the processes, challenges, and impact of recycling waste materials and the human input that can contribute to keeping our ecosystem clean.


What fueled your need to be a part of the recycling business?
I was triggered when I saw the amount of plastic pollution the environment was plagued with. Everywhere is littered with Nylon bags. And over the years, research has shown that these plastics are very harmful to our environment and people. Locally and internationally, plastic pollution is listed as one of the enormous problems disturbing communities and the world at large. So this became a major concern of mine. Therefore, in doing my bid to rid the world of pollution, I decided to research ways on how to stop plastic pollution.

Why did you choose to recycle nylons rather than other recyclable materials?
I chose to recycle nylons because they are single-use plastics. I needed a recyclable material that would make a huge difference in ridding our environment of plastic pollution. Nylons litter our environment more than any other plastics such as plastic bottles. Plastic bottles are reusable, people use them to create artworks and as containers for liquid soaps, drinks, air fresheners, and many more. Unlike nylons that are found lying around in different places and also being eaten by animals which are very harmful to them and individuals.



Describe the process involved in creating the interlocking tiles?
The process involved in creating the interlocking tiles is first, we source for nylons around and sort them out. Afterwards, we melt it with the use of heat and mix it with sand. Then its contents are poured into molds. When it dries, it can be used immediately unlike the other conventional concrete tiles that you have to wait for 28 days before it can be in use.

Are there any hazards involved in processing the tiles?
There are hazards involved. Although we are putting in the effort on how it can be reduced. That is why the workers are given glasses, hand gloves, and nose masks during production.


What challenges and criticism do you encounter?
Sourcing and sorting out the raw material is one of our biggest challenges. Many people, especially households, are not used to sorting their waste, so getting the material we need can prove difficult. More so, we are currently producing the tiles manually so we face criticism from people due to the flames that are produced during production. People say that ‘the initiative claims to be ridding the environment of pollution but our production causes flames that are hazardous to the environment’. However, we try to make them understand that recycling one ton of waste that emits flames is negligible compared to the destruction the waste would cause if left on the streets. Nevertheless, we are looking at ways to reduce the fire flames during production.

What is the goal of your initiative?
Our goal is to rid Abuja and Nigeria of plastic waste and create empowerment for the unemployed youths

Do you plan on embarking on other ecosystems projects?
Yes, we plan on embarking on more ecosystem projects. With our plastic recycling, we plan on doing more because there are a variety of things that can be done with plastic waste. We plan on partaking in the planting of trees around the environment, carrying out environmental advocacies, and developing eco-friendly energy cooking technology.

In what ways can we contribute to keeping our ecosystem safe?
People need to be conscious of their environment. They need to have knowledge of the factors harmful to the environment and what can be done to improve our environment. Most importantly, it has to be inculcated in the growing youths of today. It could be introduced to schools as part of their curriculum so that children would be taught from their nursery stage how to dispose of waste properly and know about all the essential environmental practices. This need has also led our initiative to introduce sustainable development growth in some schools so it can be part of school clubs which will make children realise that the environment is part of them. This is because whatever harmful deeds we do to the environment comes back to us the people.