Doctors say they're dealing with significantly more patients who resist their advice because of misinformation they read online

Sarah Al-Arshani INSIDER•August 17, 2020

Co-director of the intensive care unit at CommonSpirit's Dignity Health California Hospital Medical Center, Dr. Zafia Anklesaria, 35, who is seven months pregnant, attends to a COVID-19 patient, Los Angeles, May 18, 2020. Lucy Nicholson/Reuters

Doctors say it's hard to get some patients to heed medical advice because they're convinced of misinformation about COVID-19 that they read online, The New York Times reported.

Some patients demanded their doctors prescribe them hydroxychloroquine, despite reputable evidence that the medicine is not effective for treating COVID-19 and has potentially dangerous side effects.


Others drank bleach because they believed it would be a cure.


Some waited until it was almost too late to seek medical help because they didn't believe the virus was a big deal.
Doctors have said they are struggling to get patients to adhere to some medical advice because they are convinced of misinformation they read online, The New York Times reported.

"This is no longer just an anecdotal observation that some individual doctors have made," Daniel Allington, a senior lecturer at King's College London told the Times. "This is a statistically significant pattern that we can observe in a large survey."

Allington is also a coauthor of a recent study that found people who got their news online were more likely to believe in conspiracy theories and not follow public health guidelines compared to those who got their news from radio or television.

Some patients have demanded prescriptions for hydroxychloroquine, a medication that the Food and Drug Administration revoked from emergency hospital use for COVID-19 in June after studies found it was not effective against the virus and had potentially dangerous side effects.

Last month, clips of a Breitbart video touting misinformation about the coronavirus and hydroxychloroquine quickly went viral on Facebook, Twitter, and YouTube, and were retweeted by President Donald Trump and his son Donald Trump Jr.

The Times reported that some people have gone to hospitals to demand doctor's notes so they don't have to wear a face mask because they believed online rumors that masks lower their oxygen levels.

Dr. Ryan Stanton, an emergency room physician in Kentucky, told The Times a number of patients waited until it was almost too late to benefit from treatment before going to the hospital with COVID-19 symptoms. The patients, according to Stanton, didn't believe the coronavirus was a "big deal."

"They thought it was just a ploy, a sham, a conspiracy," Stanton told The Times. "It just blew my mind that you can put these blinders on and ignore the facts."

Last week, a study from the American Journal of Tropical Medicine and Hygiene found that at least 800 people died in the first three months of 2020 because of false information that claimed drinking bleach could cure coronavirus. Almost 6,000 people were also hospitalized because of that claim, Business Insider previously reported.

Parinda Warikarn, a doctor in New York, told The Times she saw a patient who ingested bleach because he thought it would prevent the virus.

"He clearly really believed that he was going to prevent Covid," she said. "Luckily, his wife and two young children didn't take this solution."

Dr. Howard Mell, an emergency room physician in Illinois told The Times that the wife of a patient who died from the novel coronavirus yelled at him for writing COVID-19 on the man's death certificate and accused him of doing it for profit.

"She yelled, 'We've seen online how you guys get more money,'" Mell said.

Mell told The Times he deals with several patients each week who strongly believe false information they read online.

Read the original article on Insider

Marco Rubio Decimated For Tweet Criticizing DNC For Celebrity Host Eva Longoria

Josephine Harvey,HuffPost•August 17, 2020

Sen. Marco Rubio (R-Fla.) was ripped Monday on Twitter after he criticized the Democratic National Convention for having actor and activist Eva Longoria host the event.

“Brilliant move! No one is more in touch with the challenges & obstacles faced by everyday Americans than actors & celebrities,” Rubio tweeted alongside a video of Longoria emceeing the event.

Longoria, known best for her role on “Desperate Housewives,” has a long-running history of political activism, philanthropy and advocacy for disadvantaged groups. She’s been a vocal advocate of political issues faced by Latino communities and in 2012 created the Eva Longoria Foundation to help Latino families through education and entrepreneurship. She was also a top fundraiser for former President Barack Obama and national co-chair of his 2012 reelection campaign. She’s spoken at the last two Democratic National Conventions, in Charlotte, North Carolina, in 2012 and Philadelphia in 2016. She also co-founded the Latino Victory Fund, an organization that works to build Latino representation in politics, which was the first national Latino group to endorse Joe Biden for president.

Longoria’s political résumé aside, some critics noted that a former reality TV star and real estate mogul currently leads Rubio’s party and happens to be president of the United States. Others noted the lineups at previous Republican National Conventions.

See some of the reaction below:

Yeah, man.
Cuz Trumps & Kushners are so in-touch w/challenges & obstacles of everyday Americans.
Unlike Trump, @EvaLongoria is self-made. She didn’t get millions in bail-outs from her daddy.
Unlike you, she doesn’t remain in complicit silence while our community is demonized. https://t.co/chojIBk1kD
— Ana Navarro-Cárdenas (@ananavarro) August 18, 2020

Eva Longoria has a Master’s degree in Chicano Studies, you buffoon. https://t.co/LDIwV1EAbQ
— Kaivan Shroff (@KaivanShroff) August 18, 2020

Eva Longoria has literally fought to help farmworkers, immigrants and working people more than you have, Marco. https://t.co/llxAJZ09we
— Abel Iraola (@miamiabel) August 18, 2020

.@marcorubio, shame on you. I am involved in this convention but not an actor or celebrity. My daughter was murdered in the state you represent because of the gun violence you fail to address. This convention represents me & all others wanting leadership. Real Americans.
— Fred Guttenberg (@fred_guttenberg) August 18, 2020

You literally elected a Reality TV star to be the President.
— Mrs. Krassenstein (@HKrassenstein) August 18, 2020

Eva Longoria has a BS in kinesiology from Texas A&M University-Kingsville & a Masters in Chicano Studies from CSUN. Her thesis was titled: “Success STEMS From Diversity: The Value of Latinas in STEM Careers"
Trump supporters: Why is the chick from Desperate Housewives speaking?
— Meredith Lee (@meralee727) August 18, 2020

You traded your dignity for a racist reality show celebrity, Marco. https://t.co/AU2r0sj8NT
— John Fugelsang (@JohnFugelsang) August 18, 2020

Remind me, is Scott Baio appearing at the GOP Convention?
— Brian Tyler Cohen (@briantylercohen) August 18, 2020

I mean, the president is literally a game show host. https://t.co/8W6baBxxxU
— andrew kaczynski🤔 (@KFILE) August 18, 2020

you literally spoke directly after Clint Eastwood at the 2012 RNC. https://t.co/zugkqkBhV3
— Jesse Lehrich (@JesseLehrich) August 18, 2020

THE FIRST ACTOR GOP POTUS; RONALD REAGAN  
You all made an actor celebrity President. This is like the least aware tweet ever. https://t.co/r5TXZpT6Yy
— Neera -Wear a Mask -Tanden (@neeratanden) August 18, 2020

Eva Longoria plays starring role at Democratic National Convention

Giovanni Lavoile Writer, Yahoo News•August 17, 2020

The actress Eva Longoria, best known for her TV roles as Isabella Braña on “The Young and the Restless” and Gabrielle Solis in “Desperate Housewives,” played a prominent role on the first night of the Democratic National Convention. 

Eva Longoria hosts the the virtual Democratic National Convention on August 17, 2020. (via Reuters TV)

The Golden Globe and SAG nominee is also a producer, activist and businesswoman. She has a history of political involvement, having served as a co-chair of President Barack Obama’s 2012 reelection campaign, and she spoke at the 2012 and 2016 Democratic conventions. As an activist, she created the Latino Victory Project to raise awareness and funding for candidates, and she has been prominent in advocating for immigrants.

Longoria was born in Texas to parents who were immigrants from Mexico.

Longoria served as the moderator for the first night of the convention. She began the night with a stirring introduction, delivering a call to arms, emphasizing how essential voting is, and referring to the upcoming election as a “chance to save our country.”

Longoria followed this impassioned plea to vote with a discussion featuring individuals affected by the COVID-19 pandemic, including a small-business owner struggling to stay afloat, a farmer who was pessimistic about the future of his farm, and a young girl attempting to find some semblance of normalcy as the disruption caused by the coronavirus persists for months longer than she ever anticipated.

L-R: Teri Hatcher, Brenda Strong, Eva Longoria Parker, Nicollette Sheridan and Felicity Huffman, of "Desperate Housewives," celebrated the 100th episode of the ABC TV show in 2008. (Ron Tom /Walt Disney Television via Getty Images)More

In a convention held entirely online, Longoria cited President Trump’s failure as a leader to prevent the pandemic from ravaging the country. She spoke of the toll of the virus on the American people, especially on minorities, who have been disproportionately affected. “We need to stop this,” she said. She urged support for former Vice President Joe Biden, arguing that his experience in the Obama administration, which successfully handled the Ebola epidemic and prepared a plan for future epidemics, qualifies him as the candidate for the position.

LEBANON CRISIS Urgent support is needed – donate now with 2x match.

WEB VERSION

Families in Lebanon still need your help

100,000 children are still in urgent need in Lebanon. Give today to help support vital aid efforts. Your help can't wait.

DONATE NOW

"The impact of this crisis will be felt for years," – Jessica Capasso, Director of Emergency and Humanitarian Assistance, Plan International Canada

Dear ,

Every day we learn more from our colleagues on the ground about the devastating crisis in Lebanon. Approximately 100,000 children have been displaced by the blast and they critically need life-saving protection, shelter and food. Your support is crucial – please give today.

BREAKING UPDATE: Given the severity of this emergency and urgent need for support, the Government of Canada has now raised their maximum match to $5 million, so you can help even more children and families by donating today.

DONATE NOW

Need for aid is at an all-time high as 15 hospitals and health care facilities were severely damaged in the blast that injured over 5,000 people. Also, COVID-19 cases have reached their highest number yet in the country.

Additionally, the country is already facing its most devastating economic crisis, worsening poverty, putting more children at risk of hunger and making this disaster even harder for families to recover from.

Please don't wait, lives and livelihoods are at stake – donate now and double your impact. The deadline is August 24th, so time is running out.

, your matched donation will help provide:

• Child protection to children affected by displacement and trauma
• Nourishing meals, food packs and water access for those most in need
• Hygiene kits, sanitary pads, diapers, disinfectant and masks to support families' health and safety

I urge you to act now to reach even more children and families in this dire situation while the match lasts.

With my utmost gratitude and well wishes,

Tanjina Mirza

Chief Programs Officer
Plan International Canada

Trump wants to take America down with him

Joel Mathis THE WEEK
August 17, 2020

Thirty years ago this month, Iraqi forces commanded by Saddam Hussein invaded and occupied the tiny nation of Kuwait. A few months later, a coalition led by the United States drove those forces back into Iraq. The retreating army did not go quietly. Instead, fleeing soldiers set fire to hundreds of oil wells, blackening the sky with smoke for months and creating a terrible environmental disaster. The message was clear: If Saddam couldn't have Kuwait's oil, nobody could.

President Trump is now running the United States government using Saddam-like logic.

There are fewer than 90 days left before the election, and Trump — who lost the popular vote but won the Electoral College in 2016 — is in bad shape. RealClearPolitics' roundup of polls shows presumptive Democratic nominee Joe Biden leading Trump by almost eight points nationally, and by 4.3 points in battleground states. Trump has never had an approval rate above 50 percent during his term — but Gallup now puts his approval rating at 41 percent, which is better than George H.W. Bush and Jimmy Carter had at the same point in their first terms, but worse than the last four presidents who actually achieved re-election.

The president's response to the growing prospect of losing the White House has been to set fire to, well, everything — our national cohesion, our institutions, and our elections.

Trump has always been divisive, willing to wage ugly attacks on Gold Star parents and former prisoners of war who had the audacity to criticize or disagree with him. The hopes that he would become "presidential" in office have been dashed so many times by now that "this is the day Donald Trump became president" has long been a running gag on Twitter.

As his position has become vulnerable, though, the president has become ever more willing to dissolve the already-fragile ties that bind Americans together. Trump draws lines daily. He warns suburbanites that minorities will invade their neighborhoods if he loses the election. He raises questions about the eligibility of Sen. Kamala Harris (D-Calif.) to serve as president. (She's eligible.) He even retweets fans of his who urge conservatives to "Leave Democrat cities. Let them rot." Has any president ever expressed such contempt for his fellow citizens? President Abraham Lincoln waged a bloody Civil War against the Confederacy, and he managed to urge Americans not to have malice against their once and future neighbors. Trump has no time for the rhetoric of unity.

Trump has also spent his presidency hollowing out important American institutions — most notably bending and breaking the Department of Justice to short-circuit investigations of his cronies while using it as a weapon against his perceived enemies. And while he has long been interested in undermining the United States Postal Service, those efforts have taken on new urgency as the election nears. Sorting machines and post office boxes have been removed in cities across the country in a clear attempt to disrupt absentee voting during the COVID-19 pandemic. Trump has admitted this is his aim.

These moves to divide Americans and wreck long-trusted institutions are in service to the president's most fundamental goal: destroying confidence in the November presidential election. Democracy is only as strong as Americans' belief in the fairness and accuracy of election results results. Trump regularly asserts that the election will be rigged against him via the mail, or because vote-counting might extend past election night. There is little reason to believe either assertion is true, but the threat gives Trump a public reason to hold onto power even if the vote goes against him. At best, it will be an excuse to salve his ego.

As the election draws near, and the danger to Trump's position becomes more clear, the characteristics that make him a terrible president are amplifying and accelerating. He will only get more destructive — acting out, raging, burning our institutions to the ground out of petulance and protest.

Three decades later, Kuwait is still dealing with financial and environmental issues lingering from the destruction of all its oil wells in 1991. The example is instructive. Even if Trump ends up leaving the White House in January — voluntarily or involuntarily — it may be years or decades before America recovers from the damage done in the last months before the 2020 election. The message is clear: If Trump can't have America, nobody can.

St. Louis couple who pointed guns at protesters to participate in Republican National Convention

OF COURSE THEY ARE Catherine Garcia, The Week•August 17, 2020



Republican National Convention organizers are hoping that the allure of a St. Louis husband and wife photographed pointing guns at Black Lives Matter protesters will be enough to pull in viewers.

Republican Party officials said the armed couple, lawyers Patricia and Mark McCloskey, will participate in next week's convention and share their support of President Trump, The Washington Post reports. The McCloskeys were photographed in late June outside their home, wielding guns and pointing them at Black Lives Matter protesters who were marching by on their way to the mayor's house down the street.

Last month, both McCloskeys were charged with one felony count of unlawful use of a weapon. They claim they were defending their home from the protesters, with Mark McCloskey telling Fox News, "We're not going to apologize for doing what's right."

The Republican National Convention's schedule is still mostly shrouded in mystery. Trump has said he will speak from the White House, with Vice President Mike Pence delivering his address from Fort McHenry in Maryland. Nikki Haley, the former governor of South Carolina and U.N. ambassador, Sen. Joni Ernst (R-Iowa), and Sen. Tim Scott (R-S.C.) are also expected to make appearances.

BIDEN HARRIS CAMPAIGN 
WALL ST. JOURNAL SUMS UP AMERICA'S CHOICE BEST WITH THE TITLE OF THEIR ANTI BIDEN HARRIS EDITORIAL

How the Supreme Court Dropped the Ball on the Right to Protest

Kia Rahnama, Politico•August 17, 2020


In recent months, American cities have seen widespread protests denouncing police brutality against unarmed Black people. Local and national law enforcement agencies, responding to crowds of unprecedented size and scale, relied on methods that were equally unprecedented. In Portland, federal officers unleashed torrents of tear gas and paintballs, pulled protesters into unmarked vans and severely injured one demonstrator in front of a federal courthouse.

Police in Orlando, Chicago, New York, and other cities resorted to the use of long-range acoustic devices (LRADs), a weapon frequently used by the U.S. military in sonic warfare and one with the potential to cause permanent hearing loss to those exposed to it. Other tactics were harsh enough to cause severe injuries, such as loss of vision, in at least 12 reported cases. National Guard helicopters hovered dangerously close to protesters in Washington, capturing images and videos of the crowds, kicking up shards of broken glass and sending many looking for cover.

For many Americans, this seemed to be exactly how the federal government is not supposed to respond to demonstrations in a country that has a constitutionally protected freedom of assembly. To be sure, in some cases, the harsher tactics were in response to outbreaks of crowd violence, including attempted arson of local police buildings in cities such as Portland. But independent expert reviews of police responses showed a clear pattern in which use of excessive force by the police escalated many confrontations. And to many watching at home or on the street, the police response was widespread enough in cities that it appeared the line between how law enforcement responds to mob violence and how it responds to regular assembly had been blurred.

There’s a reason for that: For more than 30 years, the Supreme Court has failed to take up a freedom-of-assembly case. As a result, this fundamental constitutional right is in sore need of an update, such as a ruling that would protect protesters from the unduly harsh police response that has become all too common as a response to demonstrations in recent years.


The First Amendment to the U.S. Constitution explicitly describes the right of the people to peaceably assemble. This right is recognized separately from the right to freedom of speech because the founders believed that the act of organizing a large crowd for a demonstration, parade or protest could be more powerful than individual speech, and was therefore even more susceptible to government encroachment. Like the right to religious expression, the founders gave the right to protest its own listing intending for the courts to give it special treatment and fashion unique legal standards that would ensure its protection. This has happened with the other specifically enshrined rights. With free speech, for example, the Supreme Court has in recent years defined specific kinds of modern speech—computer code, or speech on the internet—and protections for them.

But over the past 50 years, the courts have ducked that responsibility to protect the freedom of assembly, laying the groundwork for the hyperaggressive police response to protests that is observed in the streets today.

The Supreme Court shirked this responsibility first by holding that the right to assembly did not protect anything like the right to protest in the streets, beginning with a formative ruling in 1886. At the time, labor unrest and revolt were widespread, and many state governments were passing laws aimed at preventing potential insurrections by workers’ organizations. It had also become common practice for state police and troops to violently disperse labor union meetings and demonstrations, and in response to this practice, many labor groups began arming their members. When one group of German-American socialist workers organized a parade in Chicago, in which members carried unloaded rifles, members of the group were prosecuted for marching in the streets without a license from the governor. In addition to claiming that their Second Amendment right to bear arms had been violated, the members claimed that by marching in the streets, they were exercising their right to assembly.

The Supreme Court ruled that the right to assembly did not give a blanket right to protest in the streets. Instead, the court ruled that the First Amendment protected the right to speak to the government only through activities such as forming a political group or lobbying Congress. In effect, the justices subsumed the right to protest within the more expansive right of freedom of speech, suggesting that the right to protest would be subject to the same protections as individual speech.

But that’s not what happened. In fact, the court has over the years declined to protect the right to protest with one of the most important legal standards they have used to protect freedom of speech: the chilling-effect doctrine. This doctrine, first used by the Supreme Court and then frequently cited afterward in free-speech decisions in lower courts, holds that fear of government punishment can deter free expression as strongly as application of actual punishment. In cases involving individual speech, the courts rely on the chilling-effect doctrine to prohibit government action that makes people afraid to speak on a certain topic.

The origins of the chilling-effect doctrine go back to the Cold War. The U.S. government knew that it could not prohibit individuals from producing communist literature or joining communist organizations without violating the First Amendment right to free speech. Instead, to achieve the same goal, states and federal government passed laws that would have revealed to the government the identity of those sympathetic to the communist cause. For example, state employees were asked to take an oath of allegiance to the government of the United States, and those wanting to receive communist literature were asked to give their information to the U.S. Postal Service before receiving such material through mail.

Although none of these actions would have directly punished individuals for expressing their beliefs, the Supreme Court was quick to see the new threat they posed to the freedom of speech. It was enough, the Court ruled, that these requirements created an atmosphere of fear around certain expressions and that many might self-censor in the future out of fear of punishment. The Supreme Court found both of the above-mentioned laws to be unconstitutional in two separate rulings, citing the chilling-effect doctrine.

The court had already made the suggestion earlier that the freedom of assembly was essentially an extension of the freedom of speech, which would also seem to mean that the chilling-effect should apply to the freedom of assembly, too. But that is not how courts have ruled. For decades, lower-level courts ignored requests to apply the chilling-effect doctrine to harsh crowd-control tactics, finding the advocates’ plea that such practices can impact future participation in protests to be tenuous.

The courts’ failure to update Americans’ understanding of the freedom of assembly has given law enforcement free rein to deploy strategies that increasingly have the potential to deter future participation in protests. This is nowhere more evident than in the type of the cases that make their way to the courts. Whereas 10 years ago the courts had to decide whether NYPD’s use of mounted police that frequently stepped on protesters’ feet was objectionable (they decided that it was not), today they hear cases about armies of special forces equipped with riot gear, chemical weapons and other top-level military-grade weaponry. Every step of this transformation in policing crowds has been fueled by the courts’ refusal to rein in the proclivity for an increasingly stronger show of force.

But a slew of new cases gives the courts a new chance to revisit many of the faulty assumptions that have long bedeviled their approach to the right to protest.

This month, Oregon Attorney General Ellen Rosenblum, sued the federal government over the exercise of harsh protest-suppression methods in Portland. Rosenblum asked the federal court to declare such “police-state tactics,” to be unconstitutional, citing its potential to have a chilling effect on future lawful participation in protests. Similar lawsuits have been initiated by local activist groups in Chicago and in Minneapolis. In other cities, such as Seattle, legislative authorities are filling the gaps left by the courts, banning the use of nonlethal weapons, such as acoustic weapons and chemical irritants. In Oregon, Rosenblum’s request was blocked due to standing—meaning that someone else will have to raise the issue—and the pace of the other decisions will likely be slow because of the pandemic.

But the courts could finally have a chance to revisit the role they have played in shaping the slow eradication of the right to protest in the United States, the right that gave us the march to Selma and the women’s vote. And we should hope that this time, they find it worth protecting.

COMEUPPANCE 
FBI agents arrest Puerto Rican representative for alleged involvement in conspiracy to defraud to government

Danielle Zoellner, The Independent•August 17, 2020

Wikipedia

FBI agents have arrested Puerto Rico Representative María Milagros Charbonier over her alleged connection with a long-term conspiracy theory to defraud the government through means of bribery, theft, kickbacks and money laundering.

A federal grand jury of the District of Puerto Rico returned a 13-count indictment against Ms Charbonier, as well as her husband Orland Montes-Rivera, their son Orland Gabriel Montes-Charbonier, and her assistant Frances Acevedo-Ceballos for their alleged participation in the conspiracy.

US Attorney Stephen Muldrow said the scheme involved Ms Charbonier allegedly receiving some $100,000 in bribes and kickbacks after she increased the pay of her assistant. His pay went from $800 to nearly $3,000 every two weeks, and she would then receive about $1,000 to $1,500 in return from each paycheck.

"It wasn't very complicated," Mr Muldrow said about the alleged scheme, which went on from 2017 to 2020.

Ms Charbonier allegedly inflated her assistant's salary only after they agreed to the kickback scheme. That kickback was paid through a variety of means, including directly to Ms Charbonier, her husband or her son.

All four were charged with one count each of conspiracy and theft of federal funds, bribery and kickbacks using federal funds, and wire fraud. Ms Charbonier and her family were also charged with money laundering.

She additionally was charged with obstruction of justice for allegedly destroying data on her cell phone. The indictment stated that Ms Charbonier "deleted nearly the entire call log, nearly all WhatsApp messages, and nearly all iMessages" on her phone once she learned there was an investigation into her office.

"Puerto Rico legislator María Milagros Charbonier-Laureano, her family, and her associates allegedly carried out a brazen scheme to defraud the Commonwealth of Puerto Rico through bribery, kickbacks, theft, and fraud," said Acting Assistant Attorney General Brian C Rabbitt of the Justice Department's Criminal Division. "When elected officials betray the people's trust in order to enrich themselves at the public's expense, the Justice Department will hold them accountable."

Ms Charbonier is one of Puerto Rico's most conservative legislators and was first elected to the country's House of Representatives in 2012.

Her career in politics is a controversial one, as she lands more conservative on issues relating to LGBTQ rights, marijuana legalisation, and other more progressive policies.

As part of her anti-LGBTQ initiatives, she attempted to block same-sex marriage through the Supreme Court by claiming the United States' 2016 decision did not apply to Puerto Rico. The Supreme Court of Puerto Rico dismissed her claim.

Ms Charbonier has served as a representative since 2012, but she lost in Sunday's primary election.The politician was expected to appear in court later on Monday to address the 13-count indictment against her.

Dem convention's racial justice talks omits demands of BLM protesters

Janell Ross,
NBC News•August 17, 2020

The first night of the Democratic National Convention featured a series of voter testimonials, speeches and a reserved conversation that centered on racial justice.

The first hour of the convention brought repeated references to the Black Lives Matter movement, the disproportionate number of Black Americans killed by police each year and the multi-city protests which roiled the nation this summer. But there was little talk about specific policy commitments to address various forms of racial injustice.

Former Vice President Biden facilitated a conversation with social justice activist Jamira Burley, Chicago Mayor Lori Lightfoot, Houston Police Chief Art Acevedo, NAACP President Derrick Johnson, and activist and author Gwen Carr, mother of Eric Garner, a Black man killed during an arrest in 2014. “Most cops are good but the fact is that the bad ones have to be identified and prosecuted and out – period,” Biden said.

Image: Mayor Muriel Bowser (DNC)

In the moments before the conversation, Muriel Bowser, mayor of Washington, D.C., stood on a balcony overlooking the capital city area previously known as Lafayette Square. It was renamed Black Lives Matter Plaza by the Bowser administration when federal law enforcement clashed with and removed protesters from the square to make way for a Trump photo opportunity at a nearby church earlier this summer. Bowser’s decision to have the words “BLACK LIVES MATTER” painted on a street that runs between the White House and a nearby historic church where Trump addressed reporters and posed with a Bible, inspired similar public art in other cities.


However, in recent weeks, protesters in Washington, D.C. have criticized Bowser’s opposition to one of the protest movement’s chief demands: reallocating funding from the city’s police department to social programs and services. Bowser, who backed the billionaire former New York City mayor Michael Bloomberg during the Democratic primary, described the plan to reallocate police funding as unsound and actively worked to block the change. Bloomberg’s candidacy ran aground, in part, because of his vociferous support for Stop and Frisk while mayor of New York City. A federal court ruled that police stopped and frisked black and Latino residents in a discriminatory and grossly disproportionate way. Bloomberg disavowed the policy when he launched his presidential campaign.

The seeming gap between Bowser’s convention night speech — describing support for a “reimagining of the nation” — and her position on police funding was not unique.

Lightfoot, whose Monday night convention comments amounted to a call for increased economic opportunity for more Americans, has also faced criticism from protesters and other social justice advocates in Chicago. Those critiques intensified Friday when Lightfoot announced plans to form a task force responsible for tracking protester social media activity for early indications of planned looting. Lightfoot also said at the same press conference that she would consider using tear gas should looting recur in that city.

Acevedo, the Houston police chief, offered convention viewers an uplifting take on the protests and debates that spread across the country this summer. Many police officers recognized the death of George Floyd as a departure from American norms, he said. But Acevedo has been the subject of long-running critiques from Houston police accountability activists who argue that he has refused to release police body cam footage from a recent series of Houston police shootings.

“What a motley crew,” said Mary Frances Berry, a professor of American social thought and history at the University of Pennsylvania. “You should not expect the party to have anybody who might deviate from the party line and say something like the policing bill passed in the House,” which the Democrats control, “would not do much of anything. I don’t expect hard truths to be told during a convention. It is about packaging and marketing. That’s what they are doing.”

Among the racial justice event’s most poignant speakers were relatives of George Floyd, a Black man killed by police in Minneapolis earlier this year.

“Our brother should be alive today,” said Philonise Floyd, the brother of George Floyd. “Breonna Taylor should be alive today. Ahmaud Arbery should be alive today. Eric Garner should be alive today. Stephon Clark, Atatiana Jefferson, Sandra Bland -- they should all be alive today. So it's up to us to carry on the fight for justice. Our actions will be their legacy.”

Floyd ended his comments by asking for a moment of silence.
Our goal is to create a safe and engaging place for users to

Armed pro-Confederacy groups faced off with antifa protesters at Georgia's Stone Mountain. Alt-right Proud Boys in clashes after church vigil in Michigan.

insider@insider.com (Sophia Ankel),
INSIDER•August 16, 2020

Armed pro-Confederacy groups faced off with antifa protesters in Georgia

A series of clashes between far-right militia, pro-Confederacy groups, and anti-fascist counter-protesters erupted across the country on Saturday.

At Stone Mountain Park, Georgia — home to the Stone Mountain Confederate Memorial — heavily armed far-right protesters attacked anti-fascist protesters with pepper spray.

In Kalamazoo, Michigan, a rally organized by the alt-right group Proud Boys also turned violent after the group started punching counter-protesters.

Four arrests were also made in Portland after a small group of alt-right demonstrators started shooting paintballs at counter-protesters.

A counter-protester raises his hands in front of a far right militia as various militia groups stage rallies in downtown Stone Mountain, Georgia, U.S. August 15, 2020. REUTERS/Dustin Chambers

Clashes between far-right militia, pro-Confederacy groups, and antifa counter-protesters erupted at Stone Mountain Park, Georgia, on Saturday.

Videos on social media showed a small number of heavily armed far-right protesters attacking anti-fascist protesters with pepper spray and yelling at them. Some fistfights also broke out.

Statues of Confederate leaders and other controversial figures, like slaveholders and colonists, have become a focal point for protesters around the country.

At one point, a man with a "Don't Tread on Me" flag and an assault weapon pointed his gun on the crowd, according to the Daily Beast.

The confrontation prompted police in riot gear and members of the National Guard to disperse the crowd. It is unclear whether any arrests were made.
—Maura Sirianni 11Alive (@MauraSirianni) August 15, 2020

A far-right paramilitary group called Three Percenters militia initially asked to hold a 2,000-person rally at the park on Saturday but were denied by police.

In preparation, authorities closed off entry points to the monument, suspended bus services, and asked locals to avoid the city center.
—Ford Fischer (@FordFischer) August 15, 2020

Stone Park wasn't the only place that saw tense confrontations in the country on Saturday.

In Kalamazoo, Michigan, a rally organized by the alt-right group Proud Boys also turned violent after the group started fighting with counter-protesters.

The First Congregational Church hosted a gathering of anti-racism counter-protesters.

"The Proud Boys, they not only have hatred for Jewish people and Muslim people, but they're also very hateful of anybody who doesn't look like them or act like them," Rev. Nathan Dannison, the church's pastor, told local outlet MLive.

The mask-less Proud Boys, who were chanting and waving American, Trump, and Gadsen flags, were later dispersed by police in riot gear.

One Black local reporter who was filming the scenes at the protest was arrested by police but was later let go. Police said, "a few arrests" were made, according to local affiliate WOOD-TV.
—Samuel J. Robinson (@samueljrob) August 15, 2020

Four arrests were also made in Portland after a small group of alt-right demonstrators started trading paintballs and pepper spray with counter-protesters.

In Oregon's state capital, Salem, scuffles also broke out between several groups of differing ideologies.

Stone Mountain Park is home to the Stone Mountain Confederate Memorial, a giant granite carving that depicts Confederate figures Gen. Robert E. Lee, Confederate President Jefferson Davis, and Gen. Thomas J. "Stonewall" Jackson mounted on horseback.

The memorial, which is the largest Confederate monument in the US, has become a point of friction over the years.

Calls for its removal first came after the Charleston church shooting in 2015 but intensified in recent months following the death of George Floyd.

Former Democratic gubernatorial candidate Stacey Abrams once called the carving "a blight on our state," according to the Daily Beast.

Violent clashes across the US between far-right and counter protesters
Danielle Zoellner,
The Independent•August 16, 2020

Members of far right militias and white pride organizations rally near Stone Mountain Park in Georgia on August 15: AFP via Getty Images

Violent clashes erupted across the US this weekend between protesters at opposite ends of the political spectrum.

Confrontations reached boiling point in both Kalamazoo, MIchigan, and Stone Mountain, Georgia, after far-right groups were met with counter protesters.

The Three Percenters, a far-right militia group, called for a 2,000-person rally on Saturday at Georgia's Stone Mountain Park "to defend and protect our history and Second Amendment rights".

The group was criticising calls to remove Confederate monuments and other memorabilia that have rippled across the nation in the wake of large protests over police brutality and systemic racism following the killing of George Floyd in police custody.


Stone Mountain Park is home to the largest Confederate monument in the US, honouring Robert E Lee, Thomas "Stonewall" Jackson, and Thomas Jefferson. The area was also considered the symbolic location of where the Ku Klux Klan formed.

Ahead of the event, the city announced that it would be closing Stone Mountain Park amid fears the rally would lead to clashes between protest groups.

Video footage and reports from Saturday showed the Three Percenters clashing with counter-protest groups. These counter-protesters represented several civil rights organisations including NAACP, as well as left-leaning groups like Black Lives Matter and Antifa, the Atlanta Journal Constitution reported.

"Go home, racists, go home," counter protesters chanted at the far-right group.

“Go home, racists, go home!” Members of BLM, Antifa and independents chant during protest in the town of Stone Mountain @11AliveNews pic.twitter.com/Rr75W36hrv
— Maura Sirianni 11Alive (@MauraSirianni)

August 15, 2020

By early afternoon, it was reported that an estimated 500 people were gathered near the park. Both sides had members carrying rifles, the Associated Press reported.

The gathering remained rather peaceful for a few hours before it turned violent around 1pm. Members of the militia group reportedly sprayed insect repellent and other chemical sprays at the counter-protesters. Several members of both groups were violently brought to the ground by others.

Police showed up in riot gear and were able to disperse the crowd. No one was arrested, according to reports.

In Kalamazoo, Michigan, a rally organised by the far-right group, Proud Boys, also turned violent. Clashes started once the Proud Boys – who have been accused of being anti-Muslim, anti-Semitic, and anti-women – arrived in downtown Kalamazoo Saturday morning and were met with counter-protesters, some of whom represented Black Lives Matter and other left-leaning groups.

The Proud Boys were seen pepper-spraying counter protesters as violence broke out, MLive reported. Multiple protesters were seen brandishing weapons while others used street signs as weapons.

Kalamazoo police arrived on the scene after the protests turned violent.

"Once we as law enforcement noticed or observed that it was no longer peaceful, we then began to establish a police line and disburse the large crowd from fighting," KDPS Assistant Chief Vernon Coakley said.

Multiple people were arrested as protesters clashed, including MLive's reporter Samuel Robinson, a black journalist, who was covering the protests for his publication. He was later freed on $100 bond.

Hell has broken loose pic.twitter.com/SBj5GqdhFq
— Samuel J. Robinson (@samueljrob)
August 15, 2020

The unrest seen in the two cities has been witnessed across the nation, as Americans have taken to the streets to demonstrate against ongoing issues of police brutality and racism in the US.

In Portland, Oregon, protests continued for the 80th straight day on Saturday, and again turned violent between protesters and police. Alt-right protesters joined the crowds in Portland, in an apparent bid to distract from the original movement.

Multiple alt-right protesters were seen on Saturday brandishing paintball guns and using pepper spray against counter protesters.

"There were reports of a scuffle, pepper spray use, and a paintball gun," Portland Police Sergeant Kevin Allen confirmed to KOMO News. "No one reported being a victim of a crime."

Other demonstrators have also displayed violence against police officers while protesting police brutality. Almost daily there have been reports of protesters throwing rocks and other items when met with police. Participants have also repeatedly broken into the offices of the Portland Police Association, vandalized them, and set fires.