Monday, January 04, 2021

Threat to Journalism Remains, Warn Critics, After Assange Extradition Rejected Solely Due to Brutal US Prison System

"That a British court has ruled that the U.S. prison system is too barbaric to guarantee the safety of Assange tells its own story. But this is about something much bigger than Assange: it's about journalism, the free press, and...  the ability to expose atrocities committed by the world's last remaining superpower."


by
by

Julian Assange's partner Stella Moris speaks to the media outside the

Old Bailey on January 4, 2021 in London.

 (Photo: Chris J Ratcliffe/Getty Images)

Why did a British judge reject the Trump administration's attempt to extradite Julian Assange, despite accepting "virtually all of the allegations" the U.S. government leveled against the WikiLeaks founder?

The answer lies not in the dire threat extradition would pose to press freedoms across the globe, but in the dangerous abomination that is the U.S. prison system.

In her 132-page ruling (pdf) issued Monday, Judge Vanessa Baraitser of the Westminster Magistrates' Court on Monday described the conditions Assange would face in the U.S. as "harsh" even compared to London's notorious maximum-security Belmarsh jail, where the publisher has been held since April of 2019.

"The one fact that swayed her into refusing the extradition was that the U.S. prison system is so brutal that it would increase the risk of suicide."
—John Rees, Don't Extradite Assange campaign

After dismissing arguments against extradition brought by Assange's legal team—including their warnings that the WikiLeaks founder would be denied a fair trial in the U.S.—Baraitser said (pdf) she believes that if confined to a U.S. supermax prison, "Mr. Assange's mental health would deteriorate causing him to commit suicide."

"Faced with the conditions of near total isolation without the protective factors which limited his risk at [Her Majesty's Prison] Belmarsh, I am satisfied the procedures described by the U.S. will not prevent Mr. Assange from finding a way to commit suicide," said Baraitser, "and for this reason I have decided extradition would be oppressive by reason of mental harm and I order his discharge."

As Shadow Proof managing editor Kevin Gosztola—who has been covering the extradition case from its inception—put it, "The United States government's mass incarceration system just lost them their case against WikiLeaks founder Julian Assange."

Lawyers for the U.S. government, which in 2019 charged Assange with 17 counts of violating the Espionage Act, said they will appeal Baraitser's decision as Assange's attorneys fight for his release on bail. If extradited to the U.S., Assange—whose health has declined precipitously in recent months due to conditions that physicians have condemned as torture—would face up to 175 years in a maximum-security prison.

The aggressive effort by U.S. authorities to extradite and punish Assange for publishing classified documents that exposed American war crimes in Iraq and Afghanistan has been decried as a major threat to press freedoms everywhere, given that journalists regularly obtain and report on secret materials.

"We continue to believe that Mr. Assange was targeted for his contributions to journalism, and until the underlying issues here are addressed, other sources, journalists, and publishers remain at risk."
—Rebecca Vincent, Reporters Without Borders

While raising alarm over her dismissal of press freedom concerns, human rights groups organizations welcomed Baraitser's ruling against extradition as an important step in protecting Assange and other journalists around the world.

"Today's ruling is a huge sigh of relief for anyone who cares about press freedom," Trevor Timm, executive director of the Freedom of the Press Foundation, said in a statement. "While the judge's opinion contains many worrying assertions that disregard journalists' rights, her rejection of the Trump administration's extradition request means the U.S. government likely won't be able to obtain any precedent that would criminalize common newsgathering and publishing practices. And that is a very good thing."

After joining others in applauding the judge's decision to reject the U.S. extradition request, Rebecca Vincent of Reporters Without Borders said she has "serious concerns about the substance of the judgment."

"We disagree with the judge's assessment that this case is not politically motivated, that it's not about free speech," said Vincent. "We continue to believe that Mr. Assange was targeted for his contributions to journalism, and until the underlying issues here are addressed, other sources, journalists, and publishers remain at risk."

In a column for The Guardian on Monday, Owen Jones wrote that "it is not to critique the soundness of Baraitser's legal judgment to argue that this was the right decision, but for the wrong reason."

"That a British court has ruled that the U.S. prison system is too barbaric to guarantee the safety of Assange tells its own story," Jones added. "But this is about something much bigger than Assange: it's about journalism, the free press, and most importantly of all, the ability to expose atrocities committed by the world's last remaining superpower."

John Rees of the U.K.'s Don't Extradite Assange campaign said Monday that "it's an incredible judgement," noting that "95% of this judge's remarks supported the prosecution."

"She said there's no public interest defense, there's no journalistic defense, there's no political opinion defense," said Rees. "The one fact that swayed her into refusing the extradition was that the U.S. prison system is so brutal that it would increase the risk of suicide, and she wasn't willing to put him into an oppressive prison system."

Noting that the U.S. will appeal, Rees argued Monday's ruling marks "the beginning of the fight, not the end of the fight."

"But it's a terrific day," Rees added. "And if the bail application—which they're discussing inside the court right at this moment—goes through and Julian walks free, that will be a terrific watershed in this case."

Speaking to the media Monday, Stella Moris, Assange's partner, expressed a similar sentiment, calling the ruling "the first step towards justice in this case."

"As long as Julian has to endure suffering and isolation as an unconvicted prisoner in Belmarsh Prison, and as long as our children continue to be bereft of their father's love and affection, we cannot celebrate," said Moris. "We will celebrate the day he comes home."

"We are pleased that the court has recognized the seriousness and inhumanity of what he has endured and what he faces. But let's not forget: the indictment in the U.S. has not been dropped," Moris added. "It continues to want to punish Julian, and make him disappear into the deepest, darkest hole of the U.S. prison system for the rest of his life. That can never happen. We will never accept that journalism is a crime in this country or any other."

Watch:

Nils Muižnieks, Amnesty International's Europe director, said in a statement Monday morning that "we welcome the fact that Julian Assange will not be sent to the USA and that the court acknowledged that due to his health concerns, he would be at risk of ill-treatment in the U.S. prison system."

"But the charges against him should never have been brought in the first place," added Muižnieks. "The fact that the ruling is correct and saves Assange from extradition does not absolve the U.K. from having engaged in this politically-motivated process at the behest of the USA and putting media freedom and freedom of expression on trial. It has set a terrible precedent for which the U.S. is responsible and the U.K. government is complicit."

Committee to Protect Journalists (CPJ) deputy executive director Robert Mahoney echoed Muižnieks, saying in a statement that the U.S. government's "decision to charge the WikiLeaks founder set a harmful legal precedent for the prosecution of journalists around the world simply for interacting with their sources."

"We urge the U.S. Department of Justice to refrain from further pursuing extradition through appeals and to drop all charges against Assange," said Mahoney.

Our work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-Share Alike 3.0 License. 
Posted by at No comments:
UPDATED

'A Huge Relief': British Judge Rejects Trump Administration Attempt to Extradite Julian Assange

"Let this be the end of it," said whistleblower Edward Snowden.

by Jake Johnson, staff writer


"The decision was based on the U.S. prison system being so awful and repressive that Assange would be at significant suicide risk," noted Trevor Timm, executive director of the Freedom of the Press Foundation. (Photo: Claire Doherty/Getty Images)

This is a breaking news story... Check back for updates...

A British judge early Monday rejected the Trump administration's attempt to extradite Julian Assange to the United States, citing the risk such a move would pose to the WikiLeaks founder and publisher's life.

Judge Vanessa Baraitser of the Westminster Magistrates' Court warned that extradition "would be oppressive by reason of Assange's mental health" and said the risk of the publisher committing suicide in a U.S. prison would be "substantial."

"Wow. The decision was based on the U.S. prison system being so awful and repressive that Assange would be at significant suicide risk," tweeted Trevor Timm, executive director of the Freedom of the Press Foundation (FPF).

This is one thing Americans should really reflect on. The British are as authoritarian as it gets in W. Europe, deeply subservient to the US. Yet this is the third time they're refused to extradite on the grounds that the US prison system is barbaric:pic.twitter.com/ZDqLT2McB7
— Glenn Greenwald (@ggreenwald) January 4, 2021

The U.S. is expected to appeal the ruling (pdf). Pending U.S. appeal, Assange's lawyers are asking that he be released on bail from London's notorious Belmarsh prison, where the WikiLeaks founder has been detained since 2019.

While the judge did not reject the U.S. request due to the threat extradition would pose to press freedoms, advocates nevertheless celebrated the judge's decision as "a huge relief to anyone who cares about the rights of journalists."

If extradited to the U.S., Assange would face a sentence of up to 175 years in prison for publishing classified documents—something journalists do all the time.

"The case against Julian Assange is the most dangerous threat to U.S. press freedom in decades," noted FPF. "The extradition request was not decided on press freedom grounds; rather, the judge essentially ruled the U.S. prison system was too repressive to extradite. However, the result will protect journalists everywhere."

In response to Baraitser's decision, NSA whistleblower Edward Snowden tweeted simply, "Let this be the end of it."

Julian Assange Has Been Offered Asylum In One Of The Most Dangerous Countries For Free Speech

A British judge rejected the US’s request for Assange’s extradition. Now Mexico has stepped in.

Karla Zabludovsky BuzzFeed News Reporter
Posted on January 4, 2021

Henry Nicholls / Reuters
Julian Assange leaves court in London after being sentenced on May 1, 2019.


MEXICO CITY — Mexico has offered political asylum to WikiLeaks founder Julian Assange shortly after the US’s request to extradite him was rejected by a judge in the UK.

“It is a triumph of justice. I celebrate that England acted in this way because Assange is a journalist and deserves a chance,” Mexican President Andrés Manuel López Obrador said as he made his offer.

On Monday, a British judge ruled that Assange, who faces 17 espionage charges, would be at risk of killing himself if he were placed in isolation in a US prison given the state of his mental health. The Department of Justice said it would continue to seek his extradition to the US.

Vanessa Baraitser, a district judge in England, rejected arguments by Assange’s lawyers — that the charges were an attack on press freedom and politically motivated — and accepted the US's claim that his alleged activities did not count as journalism. The judge based her ruling on medical evidence about his mental health: “The overall impression is of a depressed and sometimes despairing man, who is genuinely fearful about his future. I find that the mental condition of Mr Assange is such that it would be oppressive to extradite him to the United States of America,” she concluded.

Baraitser referenced Jeffrey Epstein's 2019 death in prison as evidence that it's not feasible to prevent suicides in US prisons. She also noted that Assange’s diagnosis of autism spectrum disorder could cause him to kill himself with “single minded determination.”

In the US, prosecutors have indicted Assange on 17 counts of violating the Espionage Act and one charge of computer misuse over the publication on WikiLeaks of military and diplomatic documents, which carry a sentence of up to 175 years in prison.

Assange’s legal team announced that it would make a new appeal for his release from prison in the UK, citing COVID-19 rates at the high-security prison where he is being held.

In 2010, Swedish authorities requested Assange's arrest after two women accused him of rape and sexual assault. The UK arrested Assange, but he jumped bail in 2012, seeking refuge in the Ecuadorian Embassy. In April 2019, Ecuador expelled him from the embassy, and he was arrested and sentenced to 50 weeks in prison for jumping bail. In November, Sweden dropped the charges against him, saying that the evidence it had found was not strong enough to support an indictment.

López Obrador’s announcement was seen by many in Mexico as ironic. His government has been criticized for its harsh treatment of asylum-seekers from neighboring crime-ridden countries in Central America, as well as for the president’s frequent and hostile tirades against journalists, which have included comparing them to criminal gangs. Mexico is the most dangerous country for journalists in the Western Hemisphere, according to the New York–based Committee to Protect Journalists.

His offer to Assange is likely to irritate the incoming US administration, especially after López Obrador’s initial refusal to congratulate President-elect Joe Biden after his win. In his eventual letter to Biden, López Obrador issued an implicit warning against any involvement in Mexico’s internal affairs.

If Assange, 49, is able to take up Mexico’s offer of political asylum, he will land in a country struggling to control the pandemic. Mexico has the fourth-highest rate of deaths in the world, and its capital city is currently in lockdown as its hospitals, virtually out of beds, is bracing for a postholiday surge of patients.

But Assange will find an unlikely ally in the Mexican president.

“We will give him protection,” López Obrador promised.

Mexico's Lopez Obrador Wants to Give Asylum to Julian Assange

"Assange is a journalist and deserves a chance," the Mexican president said Monday.

by Andrea Germanos, staff writer COMMON DREAMS

Mexican President Andres Manuel Lopez Obrador speaks at a press conference in Mexico City on Dec. 8, 2020. (Photo: by Francisco Canedo/Xinhua via Getty Images)

Mexican President Andrés Manuel López Obrador on Monday called a U.K. judge's decision not to extradite Julian Assange to the United States "a triumph of justice" and said his country would offer the WikiLeaks founder political asylum.

"Assange is a journalist and deserves a chance," López Obrador, or AMLO as he is frequently called, said at a press conference Monday. The president said that he's in favor of a pardon for Assange, who's been at the maximum-security Belmarsh prison in London since April 2019 and faces 17 counts of violated the Espionage Act.

"I'm going to ask the foreign minister... to ask the U.K. government about the possibility that Mr. Assange go free and that Mexico offer him political asylum," said López Obrador, pointing to "our tradition, which is protection." The asylum offer, he added, would be on the condition that Assange not "interfere in the political affairs of any country."


Mexico's President AMLO announces that Mexico is offering political asylum to Julian Assange, citing not only Mexico's tradition of protecting people from political persecution but also its "responsibility" to do so. https://t.co/3SfM4rEBSi

— Glenn Greenwald (@ggreenwald) January 4, 2021

The asylum offer came the same day Judge Vanessa Baraitser of the Westminster Magistrates' Court rejected the Trump administration's attempt to extradite Assange. Her decision was based not on press freedom grounds but a "substantial" risk Assange would commit suicide in the face of the American incarceration system's harsh conditions.

"Faced with the conditions of near total isolation without the protective factors which limited his risk at Belmarsh, I am satisfied the procedures described by the U.S. will not prevent Mr. Assange from finding a way to commit suicide," said Baraitser, "and for this reason I have decided extradition would be oppressive by reason of mental harm and I order his discharge." 

Lopez Obrador has previously spoken out about Assange's plight and previously called Assange's treatment in the London prison torturous.

The president's comment about his country's "tradition" of granting protection is well-grounded. In an op-ed last month at the Washington Post, historian Debbie Sharnak pointed to Mexico's asylum offer to former leftist Bolivian leader Evo Morales. She wrote, in part:

For decades, Mexico has served as a place of asylum for exiles, and this history has become embedded in the fabric of Mexican politics and identity. While Mexico's domestic history often involved political repression and hostility to migrants, the country has consistently projected an image of what scholars have called "revolutionary progress" through its high-profile offers of asylum to exiled leaders. Seeking to consolidate this reputation in the decades after the Mexican Revolution in the early 20th century, Mexico framed itself as a welcoming place for progressive ideas and persecuted people, a policy that has continued. [...]

López Obrador's offer of asylum to Morales is far from an aberration—and is perhaps part of a strategy to distract the public from Mexico's own treatment of migrants from Central American countries.

Mexico is also the deadliest country in the western hemisphere for journalists, according to the Committee to Protect Journalists.

"When he took office in December 2018, Mexican President Andrés Manuel López Obrador pledged to take concrete steps to end violence against the press and impunity for journalist murders," the press freedom group said last month. "Yet this cycle continues unabated."

British judge blocks extradition of Julian Assange to U.S.


Wikileaks co-founder Julian Assange, shown leaving a London courtroom in May 2019, cannot be extradited to the United States, a British judge ruled Monday. 
File photo by Neil Hall/EPA-EFE

Jan. 4 (UPI) -- A British judge ruled Monday that WikiLeaks co-founder Julian Assange cannot be extradited to the United States, where he faces charges for publishing official defense documents.

District Judge Vanessa Baraitser, in a ruling delivered at London's Old Bailey court, said Assange could not be extradited due to his risk of suicide in the U.S. penal system.

Assange, she said, is "a depressed and sometimes despairing man genuinely fearful about his future," and if extradited, would be "housed in conditions of significant isolation," hampering contact with family.

There was evidence of a risk to Assange's health if he were to face trial in the United States, Baraitser said, adding that the 49-year-old activist's risk of committing suicide appeared to be "substantial."

RELATED Assange lawyer: Trump offered pardon to reveal DNC hack source

Lawyers for the United States immediately said they would appeal the ruling.

Assange was arrested in April 2019 and has since been held in a high-security prison. He had been living in the Ecuadorian Embassy in London since 2012, where he sought asylum to dodge sexual assault charges in Sweden.

Assange was arrested after Ecuador withdrew its offer of asylum. Ecuador's President Lenin Moreno said the country's patience for Assange had "reached its limit" after "repeated violations to international conventions and daily life."

RELATED Judge threatens to remove Assange on 2nd day of extradition hearing

Assange was indicted on 17 new charges of violating the Espionage Act in 2019 and already faced a charge from March 2018 of conspiring to commit unlawful computer intrusion, which carried a maximum five years in prison.

He was accused of working with former intelligence analyst Chelsea Manning to obtain and publicly release classified information. The new charges brought his total charges to 18 counts with each violation of the Espionage Act carrying a maximum 10-year sentence.

Assange has consistently claimed he was acting as a journalist but Baraitser said earlier in extradition hearing that his receipt of thousands of classified files went beyond investigative journalism.

RELATED WikiLeaks founder Julian Assange appears at extradition hearing

In her Monday ruling, the judge dismissed arguments from Assange's legal team that he couldn't be afforded protections under the U.S. Constitution, but agreed that he could not be extradited on health grounds.

Posted by at No comments:
UPDATED

 

Google Workers Form Union to 'Promote Solidarity, Democracy, and Social and Economic Justice'

The tech titan "has a responsibility to its thousands of workers and billions of users to make the world a better place," two of the union's leaders wrote. "We can help build that world." 


by

Activists held a rally during Google's annual shareholders meeting in Mountain View, California on May 14, 2014. (Photo: John Green/MediaNews Group/Bay Area News via Getty Images)

Decrying numerous policies and practices they say violate Google's "don't be evil" founding principle, more than 200 of the Silicon Valley tech giant's workers on Monday announced they are forming a union, a move that was applauded by progressive lawmakers and labor advocates nationwide. 

The Alphabet Workers Union (AWU)—named after Google's parent corporation—says it "strives to protect Alphabet workers, our global society, and our world," and to "promote solidarity, democracy, and social and economic justice." It will operate as part of the Communications Workers of America and will be open to all 120,000 of the company's employees.

"We deserve a workplace that respects us, where we can work for a fair wage without fear of abuse or discrimination. We deserve meaningful control over the projects we work on and the direction of this company."
—Parul Koul and Chewy Shaw, AWU

"For far too long, thousands of us at Google and other subsidiaries of Alphabet... have had our workplace concerns dismissed by executives," Parul Koul and Chewy Shaw, respectively AWU's chair and vice chair, wrote in a New York Times op-ed on Monday.

"Our bosses have collaborated with repressive governments around the world," Koul and Shaw said. "They have developed artificial intelligence technology for use by the Department of Defense and profited from ads by a hate group. They have failed to make the changes necessary to meaningfully address our retention issues with people of color."

"Most recently, Timnit Gebru, a leading artificial intelligence researcher and one of the few Black women in her field, said she was fired over her work to fight bias," Koul and Shaw continued. "Her offense? Conducting research that was critical of large-scale AI models and being critical of existing diversity and inclusion efforts. In response, thousands of our colleagues organized, demanding an explanation."

"Both of us have heard from colleagues—some new, some with over a decade at the company—who have decided that working at Alphabet is no longer a choice they can make in good conscience," added Koul and Shaw.

They then listed some of the successful employee activism that has borne results in recent years, including ending participation in the Project Maven AI warfare project with the Pentagon; terminating the Dragonfly censored search engine in China; winning a $15 per hour minimum wage for some subcontracted workers; and an end to forced arbitration of sexual harassment and other claims. 

Koul and Shaw stressed that Alphabet "has a responsibility to prioritize the public good. It has a responsibility to its thousands of workers and billions of users to make the world a better place."

"As Alphabet workers, we can help build that world," they wrote. 

Unionization is the exception to the rule in Silicon Valley. And unlike traditional labor unions, AWU is a so-called minority union—it represents only a small percentage of the company's 260,000-strong global workforce—that will not negotiate contracts. 

"Our goals go beyond the workplace questions of, 'Are people getting paid enough?' Our issues are going much broader," Shaw, an engineer in the San Francisco Bay Area, told the Times in a report about the new union. "It is a time where a union is an answer to these problems."

Veena Dubal, a law professor at the University of California Hastings College of the Law in San Francisco, called AWU a "powerful experiment."  

"If it grows—which Google will do everything they can to prevent—it could have huge impacts not just for the workers, but for the broader issues that we are all thinking about in terms of tech power in society," Dubal told the Times. 

Progressive lawmakers and labor advocates hailed Monday's announcement. 

"The time is long overdue for the workers who built Big Tech to have a voice in their workplace," said Rep. Mark Pocan (D-Wis.), co-chair of the House Labor Caucus. 

"The future of tech is stronger with the power of a union," tweeted AFL-CIO secretary-treasurer Liz Shuler. "We stand in solidarity with Alphabet workers who are courageously organizing for a better future at Google!"

Yasemin Zahra, chair of Labor Against Racism and War, asserted that by unionizing, "Google workers are not just standing up to management but also Lockheed-Martin and ICE [U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement] ties in the company. Silicon Valley giants are military-intel contractors. Incredible!"

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

Union at Google parent Alphabet seeks bigger role for workers

by Rob Lever 
JANUARY 4, 2021
A labor drive has begun at Google and its parent firm Alphabet aiming to improve conditions for contractors and give employees a bigger role in company decisions

Employees at Google and other units of parent firm Alphabet announced the creation Monday of a union, aiming for a bigger role in company decisions in a move which steps up the activism brewing in Silicon Valley giants.

The Alphabet Workers Union, affiliated with the Communications Workers of America, aims to represent well-compensated tech workers as well as temporary workers and contractors, according to a statement.

The new labor group is focusing not only on pay and benefits but also a role in ethical decisions by the tech giant and protection from allegedly arbitrary firings for activism.

"We hope to create a democratic process for workers to wield decision-making power; promote social, economic, and environmental justice; and end the unfair disparities between TVCs (temporary, vendors and contractors) and FTEs (full time employees)," the union's website said.

As of the end of December, the union had some 200 members. It will be open all employees at Google and Alphabet units including autonomous car division Waymo, connected device maker Fitbit and life sciences division Verily.

In a New York Times op-ed, the union's chair Parul Koul and vice chair Chewy Shaw said that the focus will be "to ensure that workers know what they're working on, and can do their work at a fair wage, without fear of abuse, retaliation or discrimination."

They said they would press Google on ethical decisions including in the use of artificial intelligence.

"Its motto used to be 'Don't be evil,' " they wrote "We will live by that motto."

The move comes with Google and other tech giants under heightened scrutiny by antitrust enforcers in the US and elsewhere for their growing dominance of key economic sectors.

New deal for tech?

"There is a growing techlash against the large technology companies as they are accumulating great wealth and a number of their workers are unhappy with the high cost of living in Silicon Valley, working conditions, AI ethics, and corporate decision-making," said Darrell West, a fellow at the Brookings Institution's Center for Technology Innovation.
Google workers held a sit-in to protest sexual harassment at the company, on May 1, 2019 at the tech giant's headquarters in Silicon Valley

"Tech employees want a greater say in what is happening and want to see greater social responsibility from the sector. This unionization drive differs from past ones from the industrial era in focusing not just on pay and benefits, but the broader role of technology in society."

Large tech firms, which offer generous compensation to software engineers and other skilled workers, have largely avoided labor drives but have faced growing unrest over workplaces issues in recent years.

At Amazon, which has tens of thousands of warehouse workers, organizing drives have focused on working conditions and safety during the pandemic.

One of the catalysts at Google was the recent firing of Timnit Gebru, a Black artificial intelligence ethics researcher and outspoken diversity activist.

The company also faced a backlash from employees over its involvement with a Pentagon project known as Project Maven, which Google eventually ended.

"This union builds upon years of courageous organizing by Google workers," said Nicki Anselmo, a Google program manager and union member.











"From... opposing Project Maven, to protesting the egregious, multimillion dollar payouts that have been given to executives who've committed sexual harassment, we've seen first-hand that Alphabet responds when we act collectively."

Google's director of people operations Kara Silverstein, said in a statement: "We've always worked hard to create a supportive and rewarding workplace for our workforce.

"Of course our employees have protected labor rights that we support. But as we've always done, we'll continue engaging directly with all our employees."

Arthur Wheaton, a researcher at Cornell University's school of industrial and labor relations, said the union could face challenges if it seeks recognition by the company, needing some 30 percent to force an election and a majority to win representation.

"Union organizing drives take a long time with no guarantees of success," Wheaton said. "US labor law is not very good for workers rights. It is tilted heavily in management's favor."

Explore further  Amazon girds for challenge in warehouse union drive

© 2021 AFP

Google employees form new union in secret
ALL WORKERS ORG.S BEGIN IN SECRET

Google employees said Monday they have formed a union, a first in Silicon Valley. 

JAN. 4, 2021 / 12:29 PM

File Photo by Mohammad Kheirkhah/UPI | License Photo

Jan. 4 (UPI) -- More than 200 Google employees have formed a union, the group said Monday, creating a credible challenge to Silicon Valley culture that has shied away from union workforces.

The new Alphabet Workers Union, to cover 225 engineers and other workers at Google's parent company, elected its leadership in secret last month and earned affiliation with the Communication Workers of America.

The CWA represents union workers in the telecommunications and media industry throughout the United States and Canada.

"This union builds upon years of courageous organizing by Google workers," Nicki Anselmo, Google's program manager said in a statement.

RELATED Nearly 40 states file antitrust lawsuit against Google

"From fighting the 'real names' policy to opposing Project Maven, to protesting the egregious, multimillion-dollar payouts that have been given to executives who've committed sexual harassment, we've seen first-hand that Alphabet responds when we act collectively.

"Our new union provides a sustainable structure to ensure that our shared values as Alphabet employees are respected even after the headlines fade."

Google issued a statement about the union's announcement, saying it supports its employees' rights to organize.

RELATED EU proposes major changes to bar unfair practices by web 'gatekeepers'

"We've always worked hard to create a supportive and rewarding workplace for our workforce," said Kara Silverstein, Google's director of people operations. "Of course, our employees have protected labor rights that we support. But as we've always done, we'll continue engaging directly with all our employees."

Dylan Baker, a Google software engineer, said the union will help the company reflect the values of its workers.

"This is historic; the first union at a major tech company by and for all tech workers," Baker said.

"We will elect representatives, we will make decisions democratically, we will pay dues, and we will hire skilled organizers to ensure all workers at Google know they can work with us if they actually want to see their company reflect their values."


Posted by at No comments:
Ga. election official: Trump spreading 'misinformation and disinformation'

JAN. 4, 2021 

Georgia election officials said President Donald Trump was trying to undermine faith in the system. Photo by Tami Chappell/UPI | License Photo

Jan. 4 (UPI) -- A Georgia election official said Monday that President Donald Trump and his lawyers were spreading "misinformation and disinformation" about the state's election tallies and trying to undermine faith in the system.

Gabriel Sterling, voting system implementation manager for Georgia's Secretary of State office, said in a news conference the president's efforts to overturn the results of the Georgia election were based on allegations that were "all easily, provably false."

He said the president's persistent claims "undermine Georgians' faith in the system. Especially Georgia Republicans."

Secretary of State Brad Raffensperger did not appear at the news conference, where Sterling discussed a phone call from Trump pressuring his office to "find 11,780 votes" to overturn the state's certified election results.

"The secretary of state wants you to know that your vote counts and your vote counted," Sterling said.

President-elect Joe Biden was certified as the winner of the election in Georgia after a recount and audit. Biden won the state's 16 electoral votes, with 306 votes overall, surpassing the 270 needed to win. Trump garnered 232.

Sterling disputed as false claims about illegal voting in Georgia, which he likened to "whack a mole" and "Groundhog's Day."

He said Trump's lawyers had made fraudulent claims, including that tens of thousands of votes allegedly cast by felons, underage voters, dead voters, unregistered voters, or voters registered to a P.O. box.

Sterling said election officials had followed up on every claim and found them all false.

"No one is changing parts or pieces of Dominion voting machines," Sterling said. "That's not real. That is not happening. I don't even know how to explain that."

RELATED 10 ex-U.S. defense chiefs warn Pentagon against interfering in election

Sterling said the facts were posted on the secretary of state's Securevotega.com, which crashed several times during his press conference.

On Tuesday, voters in Georgia will choose both U.S. senators in a runoff election that could swing control of the U.S. Senate from a Republican to a Democrat majority. The election pits GOP incumbent David Perdue against Democrat Jon Ossoff and Republican Kelly Loeffler against Democrat Raphael Warnock.

Trump and Vice President Mike Pence will appear at last-minute rallies in Georgia supporting Loeffler and Perdue, while Biden will address voters at an Atlanta rally for Democrats Ossoff and Warnock.

Trump called Raffensperger and the Georgia secretary of state's general counsel, Ryan Germany, last week and asked them to "find 11,780 votes."

Trump cited unfounded claims of fraud and tried to cajole the officials with threats of legal and political consequences.

"All I want to do is this: I just want to find 11,780 votes, which is one more than we have. Because we won the state," Trump said.

The recording of the phone call was published Sunday by the Washington Post and other news outlets.

Raffensperger and the attorney are heard on the call refusing Trump's demands.

"Well, Mr. President, the challenge that you have is, the data you have is wrong," Raffensperger told the president.

On Monday, two U.S. Congress members asked FBI Chief Christopher Wray to "open an immediate criminal investigation" of Trump's call. Ted Lieu, D-Calif., and Kathleen Rice, D-N.Y., accused Trump of election fraud and conspiracy to commit election crimes.


Trump Begged And Threatened A Georgia Official To Change The Election Results During A Phone Call

"There's nothing wrong with saying, you know, um, that you’ve recalculated," the president said in an audio recording of the phone call obtained by the Washington Post

 Rep. Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez called Trump's actions "an impeachable offense" and said "if it was up to me, there would be articles on the floor, quite quickly."

Ellie Hall BuzzFeed News Reporter
January 3, 2021


SAUL LOEB/AFP via Getty Images
President Donald Trump


President Donald Trump begged, berated, and threatened Georgia's top election official while asking him to overturn the election results in his favor, citing disproven statistics and conspiracy theories, in a rambling phone call Saturday, according to audio obtained by the Washington Post.

During the hourlong phone call, Trump pressured Georgia Secretary of State Brad Raffensperger to "find" him enough votes to overturn the election. At one point, the president even suggested that Raffensperger could face criminal charges if these nonexistent votes weren't found.

Trump's desperate phone call — which some legal experts described as "extortion" and "mob talk" — comes as a dozen Republic lawmakers, citing election irregularities, have said they will object to certifying Joe Biden's Electoral College win on Jan. 6. Trump has refused to accept the election results, engaging in largely futile legal efforts and endorsing his Republican allies' baseless attempts to undermine the electoral process. On Saturday, Vice President Mike Pence's chief of staff said that Pence "welcomes" the GOP senators' efforts to contest the election results, adding that he "shares the concerns of millions of Americans about voter fraud and irregularities in the last election."

“The people of Georgia are angry, the people in the country are angry, and there’s nothing wrong with saying, you know, um, that you’ve recalculated," Trump said on the call with Raffensperger and his office's general counsel, Ryan Germany, according to audio excerpts released by the Post and other media outlets on Sunday.

Following a recount, Biden was named the winner of Georgia's election in a narrow victory on Nov. 14. He won by 11,779 votes and is the first Democrat to win the state since 1992.

"So look. All I want to do is this. I just want to find 11,780 votes, which is one more than we have. Because we won the state," Trump said on the call.

White House chief of staff Mark Meadows and several conservative lawyers were also present on the call, the Post reported.

Throughout the call, Raffensperger, a Republican, pushed back against Trump's wild and unproven assertions about Biden's victory in Georgia and called out the president for citing blatantly false conspiracy theories about the state's voting process and postelection audit.


"Mr. President, the challenge that you have is, the data you have is wrong," Raffensperger said.


John Bazemore / AP
Georgia Secretary of State Brad Raffensperger

"There’s no way I lost Georgia,” Trump said on the call. "There’s no way. We won by hundreds of thousands of votes."

In an exchange with Ryan Germany, Raffensperger’s general counsel, Trump pushed the lawyer to validate the false conspiracy theory that Dominion Voting Systems, a company that provides hardware and software for ballot counting, somehow rigged the election.

“Do you think it’s possible that they shredded ballots in Fulton County? ’Cause that’s what the rumor is," Trump said. "And also that Dominion took out machines. That Dominion is really moving fast to get rid of their, uh, machinery. Do you know anything about that? Because that’s illegal.”

When Germany told the president that Dominion hadn't moved any machinery out of Fulton County, Trump then asked if the company had "moved the inner parts of the machines and replaced them with other parts."


"No," Germany said.

"Are you sure, Ryan?" Trump asked.

"I'm sure. I'm sure, Mr. President," Germany replied.

During the call, Trump suggested that Raffensperger could face criminal prosecution and that it was a "big risk" if he didn't do as Trump asked.

"You know what they did and you’re not reporting it," Trump said. "You know, that’s a criminal — that’s a criminal offense. And you know, you can’t let that happen. That’s a big risk to you and to Ryan, your lawyer. That’s a big risk."

Trump had earlier tweeted about the phone call with Raffensperger, saying that he was "unwilling, or unable, to answer questions such as the 'ballots under table' scam, ballot destruction, out of state 'voters', dead voters, and more. He has no clue!"

Raffensperger simply responded: "Respectfully, President Trump: What you're saying is not true. The truth will come out."

A senior adviser for Biden, Bob Bauer, told MSNBC, "We now have irrefutable proof of a president pressuring and threatening an official of his own party to get him to rescind a state's lawful, certified vote count and fabricate another in its place."

BuzzFeed News has reached out to the White House and the Georgia secretary of state's office for comment.

Soon after the Washington Post published its story — and the full hourlong audio and transcript of the call — elected officials began blasting Trump, with many saying that his actions merited criminal charges.

"Trump’s call pushing the GA Secretary of State to doctor the election outcome is an immoral attempt to manipulate the election and a potential criminal act," said Sen. Jeff Merkley, an Oregon Democrat.

"This disgraceful effort to intimidate an elected official into deliberately changing & misrepresenting the legally confirmed vote totals in his state strikes at the heart of our democracy and merits nothing less than a criminal investigation," Democratic Whip Sen. Dick Durbin said. "The President is unhinged and dangerous. Those who encourage and support his conduct, including my Senate colleagues, are putting the orderly and peaceful transition of power in our nation at risk."

On a press call, Rep. Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez called Trump's actions "an impeachable offense" and said "if it was up to me, there would be articles on the floor, quite quickly."

Former vice presidential candidate Sen. Tim Kaine, describing Trump as "a spoiled rich kid who's talking about our democracy like it's a real estate deal," said, "News flash to the current President: It's not a negotiation, it's an election. The voters decided — and you lost."

Georgia Rep. Hank Johnson described Trump's phone call as "a violation of state and federal law" and said that he would introduce a motion to censure Trump in the House on Monday.

Meanwhile, only a few members of the Republican party have publicly commented on the story so far.

"This is absolutely appalling," Republican Rep. Adam Kinzinger said. "To every member of Congress considering objecting to the election results, you cannot- in light of this- do so with a clean conscience."

GOP Sens. Ted Cruz and Josh Hawley, who are at the forefront of the Republican efforts to contest the election results, did not respond to a request for comment on Sunday.
Posted by at No comments:
Traditional stereotypes about masculinity may help explain support for Trump

by Pennsylvania State University
JANUARY 4, 2021
Credit: Pixabay/CC0 Public Domain

American politicians have long been expected to uphold a certain veneer: powerful, influential and never vulnerable. New Penn State research has found that these idealized forms of masculinity may also help explain support for Donald Trump in the 2016 presidential election and in the days leading up to the 2020 election.


Across several studies, the researchers found that when men and women endorsed "hegemonic masculinity"—a culturally idealized form of masculinity that says men should be strong, tough, and dominant—they were more likely to vote for and have positive feelings about Trump.

The researchers found this was true even when they controlled for political party, gender and how much the participants trusted the government.

Nathaniel Schermerhorn, a dual doctoral candidate in psychology and women's, gender, and sexuality studies, said the findings—published in the Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America—suggest that while American society seems to be ready for a female president, an active rejection of hegemonic masculinity may need to happen first.

"The pervasiveness of hegemonic masculinity exists because we do not always know that our attitudes and behaviors are contributing to it," Schermerhorn said. "The success of Donald Trump's 2016 campaign shows that even if we, as a society, have made progress in saying that discrimination and prejudice is undesirable, we have not, as a society, fully interrogated the systematic ways in which those prejudices are upheld."

Because American politics are largely dominated by men, the researchers said political campaigns often emphasize traditionally masculine characteristics to convince voters of a candidate's competence and skill.

"Historically, American politics have been a masculinity contest about proving which candidate is better," Schermerhorn said. "Since the 1980s, the Republican party has used this to their rhetorical advantage by presenting the Republican candidate as masculine and feminizing the entire Democratic party, for example by calling them 'snowflakes.'"

Theresa Vescio, professor of psychology and women's, gender, and sexuality studies, said Trump's 2016 campaign was no exception—he often criticized his opponent's masculinity and displayed sexist attitudes toward Hilary Clinton while positioning himself as a tough, powerful and successful businessman.


Vescio said that while this may resonate with voters who share similar ideals of masculinity, such attitudes may not actually be realistic.

"In contemporary America, idealized forms of masculinity suggest that men should be high in power, status and dominance, while being physically, mentally and emotionally tough," Vescio said. "But this is an incredibly high standard that few can achieve or maintain. Therefore, this is an idea that many men strive to achieve, but few men actually exhibit."

Vescio said that while Trump's success with voters has been attributed to many different possible factors, she and the other researchers were specifically interested in to what extent hegemonic masculinity played a role with constituents.

The researchers recruited a total of 2,007 participants for seven different studies. In the first six studies, participants answered questions about their endorsements of hegemonic masculinity, trust in the government, sexism, racism, homophobia and xenophobia. They also indicated their political affiliation, how they voted in the 2016 presidential election, and their evaluations of Trump and Clinton.

In a seventh and final study, participants answered similar questions but also provided information about how they were going to vote in the 2020 presidential election, as well as their evaluations of Trump and Biden.

After analyzing the data, the researchers found that across all studies, participants who endorsed hegemonic masculinity were more likely to vote for Trump and to evaluate him positively. This was true for women and men, white and non-white participants, Democrats and Republicans, and across level of education.

"Additionally, we found that stronger endorsement of hegemonic masculinity was related to greater sexism, racism, homophobia, xenophobia, and Islamophobia," Vescio said. "But, hegemonic masculinity continued to predict support for Trump even when controlling for these prejudices."

Schermerhorn said the results can help shine a light on how both men and women respond to masculine and feminine candidates. He said that because hegemonic masculinity is embedded in social and political institutions, people may internalize the status quo as beneficial, even when it isn't.

"While endorsing hegemonic masculinity predicted a higher likelihood of supporting Trump, it did not necessarily predict negative support for Democratic candidates," he said. "This could suggest that hegemonic masculinity may actually be a predictor of maintaining the status quo and not the inverse—working against the status quo."


Explore further Toxic masculinity is unsafe... for men

More information: Theresa K. Vescio el al., "Hegemonic masculinity predicts 2016 and 2020 voting and candidate evaluations," PNAS (2020). www.pnas.org/cgi/doi/10.1073/pnas.2020589118
Posted by at No comments:
Fluoride to the rescue? 
Addressing the challenge of antibiotic-resistant bacteria

by James Badham, University of California - Santa Barbara
JANUARY 4, 2021

Artist's concept illustration depicting cells treated with antibiotics (red) propagating in a river environment, while those that have been genetically modified to remove the gene that produces the fluoride exporter (green) die off in the presence of fluoride. Credit: Lillian Mckinney

Scientists have long been aware of the dangerous overuse of antibiotics and the increasing number of antibiotic-resistant microbes that have resulted. While over-prescription of antibiotics for medicinal use has unsettling implications for human health, so too does the increasing presence of antibiotics in the natural environment. The latter may stem from the improper disposal of medicines, but also from the biotechnology field, which has depended on antibiotics as a selection device in the lab.

"In biotech, we have for a long time relied on antibiotic and chemical selections to kill cells that we don't want to grow," said UC Santa Barbara chemical engineer Michelle O'Malley. "If we have a genetically engineered cell and want to get only that cell to grow among a population of cells, we give it an antibiotic resistance gene. The introduction of an antibiotic will kill all the cells that are not genetically engineered and allow only the ones we want—the genetically modified organisms [GMOs]—to survive. However, many organisms have evolved the means to get around our antibiotics, and they are a growing problem in both the biotech world and in the natural environment. The issue of antibiotic resistance is a grand challenge of our time, one that is only growing in its importance."

Further, GMOs come with a containment issue. "If that GMO were to get out of the lab and successfully replicate in the environment, you could not predict what traits it would introduce into the natural biological world," O'Malley explained. "With the advent of synthetic biology, there is increasingly a risk that things we're engineering in the lab could escape and proliferate into ecosystems where they don't belong."

Now, research conducted in O'Malley's lab and published in the journal Nature Communications describes a simple method to address both the overuse of antibiotics, as well as containment of GMOs. It calls for replacing antibiotics in the lab with fluoride.

O'Malley described fluoride as "a pretty benign chemical that is abundant in the world, including in groundwater." But, she notes, it is also toxic to microorganisms, which have evolved a gene that encodes a fluoride exporter that protects cells by removing fluoride encountered in the natural environment.

The paper describes a process developed by Justin Yoo, a former graduate student researcher in O'Malley's lab. It uses a common technique called homologous recombination to render non-functional the gene in a GMO that encodes a fluoride exporter, so the cell can no longer produce it. Such a cell would still thrive in the lab, where fluoride-free distilled water is normally used, but if it escaped into the natural environment, it would die as soon as it encountered fluoride, thus preventing propagation.

Prior to this research, Yoo was collaborating with the paper's co-author Susanna Seppala, a project scientist in O'Malley's lab, in an effort to use yeast to characterize fluoride transport proteins that Seppala had identified in anaerobic fungi. A first step in this project was for Yoo to remove native yeast fluoride transporters.

Shortly after generating the knockout yeast strain, Yoo attended a synthetic biology conference where he heard a talk on a novel biocontainment mechanism intended to prevent genetically modified E. coli bacteria from escaping lab environments. At that talk, he recalled, "I realized that the knockout yeast strain I had generated could potentially act as an effective biocontainment platform for yeast."

"Essentially, what Justin did was to create a series of DNA instructions you can give to cells that will enable them to survive when fluoride is around," O'Malley said. "Normally, if I wanted to select for a genetically engineered cell in the lab, I'd make a plasmid [a genetic structure in a cell, typically a small circular DNA strand, that can replicate independently of the chromosomes] that had an antibiotic resistance marker so that it would survive if an antibiotic was around. Justin is replacing that with the gene for these fluoride exporters."

The method, which O'Malley characterized as "low-hanging fruit—Justin did all of these studies in about a month," also addresses a simple economic limitation to antibiotic-driven cell selection in biotechnology labs. Aside from fueling the rise of resistant strains of bacteria, she continued, "from a biotech standpoint, the process of creating antibiotic-resistant organisms is also pretty darn expensive. If you were going to run a ten-thousand-liter fermentation, and it may cost you thousands of dollars per fermentation to add some antibiotics, that's a crazy amount of money." Notably, using fluoride at a low concentration would cost only about four cents per liter.

Clearly, said Seppala, "we'd much rather use a chemical like fluoride that's relatively benign, abundant and cheap, and can be used to do the same thing that is achieved using a conventional antibiotic."

Yoo explained that the role of the fluoride transporters had only recently been elucidated, in 2013, when this project began. Emerging approaches to implementing biocontainment have focused on using biological parts that are foreign to the organism of interest, shifting focus toward what Yoo described as "brilliant, yet complex, systems," while perhaps diverting attention from this simpler approach.

Explore further How bacteria battle fluoride

More information: Justin I. Yoo et al. Engineered fluoride sensitivity enables biocontainment and selection of genetically-modified yeasts, Nature Communications (2020).

Journal information: Nature Communications


Posted by at No comments:
Subscribe to: Posts (Atom)