Boris Johnson Partygate pictures: It is now clear Prime Minister lied to Parliament over parties - Ruth Davidson

Former Scottish Conservatives leader Ruth Davidson said the latest Downing Street pictures show it is clear Boris Johnson lied to Parliament and that his position is “untenable”.

By Alan Young
Tuesday, 24th May 2022

Baroness Davidson was speaking after the images emerged of the Prime Minister raising a glass at a leaving party in Downing Street during lockdown restrictions.

ITV News published four images on Monday showing the Prime Minister with a drink in his hand while standing behind a table littered with wine bottles and food.

The pictures were taken at a leaving party for then-director of communications Lee Cain on November 13 2020, eight days after Mr Johnson imposed England’s second national coronavirus lockdown.

For four weeks, people were banned from social mixing, other than to meet one person outside.

“There is now photographic evidence that when the Prime Minister stood up in Parliament and was asked directly was there a party in No 10 on this date and he replied ‘no’, he lied to Parliament,” Baroness Davidson said.

“I don’t think his job is tenable and his position is tenable. The office of Prime Minister should be above being traduced by the person who holds it.”

Scottish Tory leader Douglas Ross, who U-turned on an earlier demand for the Prime Minister to stand down, said Mr Johnson had to explain why he believes his behaviour was “acceptable” when most will think the pictures “seem unjustifiable and wrong”.



The pictures showed the Prime Minister with a glass in his hand behind a table filled with alcohol and food

Mr Johnson was not fined by the Metropolitan Police over the event seen in the images, which show at least nine people in close proximity along with six bottles of wine.

Downing Street declined to defend the scene portrayed, saying the Prime Minister will comment after the Sue Gray report into partygate is published in the coming days.

A No 10 spokeswoman said: “The Cabinet Office and the Met Police have had access to all information relevant to their investigations, including photographs.

Sue Gray is due to publish her report this week

“The Met have concluded their investigation and Sue Gray will publish her report in the coming days, at which point the Prime Minister will address Parliament in full.”

Mr Ross said: “These images will rightly make people across the country very angry.

“The Prime Minister must outline why he believes this behaviour was acceptable. To most, these pictures seem unjustifiable and wrong.”

Mr Johnson told MPs in December that “the rules were followed at all times” when asked during Prime Minister’s Questions about Mr Cain’s leaving party.

Deputy Labour leader Angela Rayner said: “While the British public were making huge sacrifices, Boris Johnson was breaking the law.

“Boris Johnson said repeatedly that he knew nothing about law-breaking – there’s no doubt now, he lied.

“Boris Johnson made the rules, and then broke them.”

SNP Westminster Leader Ian Blackford MP said: "These pictures clearly show, as the police investigation concluded, that parties did indeed take place at Downing Street during lockdown, and that the Prime Minister was there. It is sickening.

"Boris Johnson told us firstly that no parties took place during lockdown, then he said he wasn't at them and that he was angry about them. He is a serial liar and cannot be allowed to get away with it.

"It is truly a disgrace that Tory MPs are keeping him in Downing Street – he demeans the office that he holds. It is time for them to do the decent thing, for once, and get rid of him. This charlatan should be an ex-Prime Minister by now."

Liberal Democrat deputy leader Daisy Cooper urged the Independent Office for Police Conduct to investigate why the Met did not fine the Prime Minister over the leaving party, as she joined the SNP in calling on the Tories to remove him from office.

“Conservative MPs must do their duty and sack this law-breaking Prime Minister,” she said.

“Every day he remains in office will do more damage to public trust and to our democracy.”

Jo Goodman, co-founder of Covid-19 Bereaved Families for Justice, said the emergence of the photographs would “twist the knife” into the wounds of those who had lost loved in the pandemic.

“Like the rest of the country we struggle to see how these pictures show anything other than the Prime Minister breaking the laws the rest of us lived by,” she said.

“They raise serious questions as to how he has only been issued with a solitary fine.”

Controversy before Sue Gray report published

The images emerged after No 10 admitted it did instigate a meeting between Ms Gray and the Prime Minister during the run up to the much-anticipated publication of her partygate inquiry.

Treasury minister Simon Clarke had insisted on Monday morning that it was the senior civil servant who “instigated” the meeting in the weeks leading up to her widely anticipated report into lockdown breaches in Downing Street.

But hours later Downing Street admitted it was “No 10 officials” who had requested the meeting earlier this month so that the Prime Minister could discuss the “timings and publication process”.

No 10 also insisted Mr Johnson did not support allegations attributed to his allies that Ms Gray had been “playing politics” ahead of her report.

The Prime Minister refused to comment on the details of the meeting during a visit to a school in south-east London, but said “of course” Ms Gray remained independent.

Labour leader Sir Keir Starmer warned of the Government hitting a “new low” with attempts to “undermine” Ms Gray and her report.

The Commons Privileges Committee is due to investigate whether Mr Johnson lied to Parliament with his denials of rule-breaking.

Intentionally misleading the House would normally be a resigning matter.

On December 8, Labour MP Catherine West asked Mr Johnson in the Commons whether there had been a party in Downing Street on November 13 2020.

The Prime Minister replied: “No, but I am sure that whatever happened, the guidance was followed and the rules were followed at all times.”

ITV’s images show Mr Johnson standing closely with seven others in one image.

Including the photographer and the Prime Minister, that makes at least nine people in the room.

Six wine bottles are on the table, one is clearly half empty.

ITV described Mr Johnson as holding half a glass of fizz in the images, while a ministerial red box is perched on a chair in front of him.

The Prime Minister only received one fine during the Met’s investigation, for the gathering for his 56th birthday in June 2020.

Scotland Yard did issue a fine to at least one individual who attended a gathering on the date of Mr Cain’s leaving do, but the force declined to say what the offending event was.

But it was clear the breach, or breaches, were in relation to restrictions on indoor gatherings consisting of two or more people.

The Metropolitan Police declined to explain why the Prime Minister was not fined over the leaving party.

‘How did he get away with this?’ What the papers say about new Johnson Partygate photos

Boris Johnson shown raising a glass at event during a national Covid lockdown, in newly released photos

British newspaper headlines for 24 May, 2022 Photograph: The Guardian

Samantha Lock

@Samantha__Lock

Tue 24 May 2022 

Images have emerged of Boris Johnson raising a glass at a No 10 party during a national Covid lockdown, sparking fresh acrimony across the UK front pages on Tuesday.

The prime minister is facing fresh claims of lying to MPs after four pictures,      first published by ITV News, showed him toasting a senior aide at a Downing Street leaving drinks event.

“Fresh danger for Johnson over No 10 drinks pictures”, the Guardian front         page reads, alongside a photo of the prime minister raising his glass. The paper reported the Metropolitan police were under pressure too after Johnson            escaped   a fine despite attending the leaving do for director of communications Lee Cain.

The Mirror asks: “How did he get away with this?” in its headline, with a    subhead saying: “Johnson pictured drinking champagne at office party during lockdown … but no fine.”

The Times goes with: “Partying PM ‘misled Commons’” and also displays the parliamentary exchange from last December in which the prime minister, when asked by the Labour MP Catherine West about events on the date in question, insisted “the rules were followed at all times”.

The Telegraph focuses on the Met’s response to the ongoing Downing Street scandal. “Pressure on Met over pictures of PM raising a toast in No 10,” its headline reads.

“Police asked why Johnson avoided Covid fine for aide’s lockdown leaving        party that was ‘so obviously a breach’,” the paper adds.

The customarily loyal Express joins in focusing on the questions the police face over their inquiry, with its headline: “Nothing to see here! Yard says Boris broke no rules”. It notes that the Metropolitan police believe the prime minister was    not partying at the leaving do.

Metro puns with “Lockdown in one, PM”, adding its own voice to the           general query: “How did Boris not get fined for this booze-up?”

The Independent takes a slightly more matter-of-fact approach. “PM        pictured drinking at lockdown party in No 10,” its headline reads.

“Lockdown party photos hit PM,” says the i, noting the PM is awaiting Tory       and public reaction to the latest Covid revelation.

Staying away from the subject entirely, the Daily Mail opts to splash on a possible rail strike, warning of “power blackouts, petrol shortages and empty shelves” alongside a picture of the Queen riding in a buggy at the Chelsea      Flower Show.

The Sun makes only a fleeting mention of the No 10 allegations, with its          front page dedicated to an off-duty policewoman celebrating on the football    pitch. Directing readers to a page six story on Johnson, the front page        reference is:  “Only here for the cheers”.

VIDEO Labour leader Sir Keir Starmer warned of the Government hitting a “new low” with attempts to “undermine” Ms Gray and her report.

Why I quit as a Russian diplomat to the United Nations

WRITTEN BY

Boris Bondarev

23 May 2022

My name is Boris Bondarev, in the Ministry of Foreign Affairs (MFA) of Russia since 2002, since 2019 until now — Counsellor of the Russian Mission to the UN Office at Geneva.

For twenty years of my diplomatic career I have seen different turns of our foreign policy, but never have I been so ashamed of my country as on February 24 of this year. The aggressive war unleashed by Putin against Ukraine, and in fact against the entire western world, is not only a crime against the Ukrainian people, but also, perhaps, the most serious crime against the people of Russia, with a bold letter Z crossing out all hopes and prospects for a prosperous free society in our country.

Today, the Ministry of Foreign Affairs is not about diplomacy. It is all about warmongering, lies and hatred.

Those who conceived this war want only one thing - to remain in power forever, live in pompous tasteless palaces, sail on yachts comparable in tonnage and cost to the entire Russian Navy, enjoying unlimited power and complete impunity. To achieve that they are willing to sacrifice as many lives as it takes. Thousands of Russians and Ukrainians have already died just for this.

I regret to admit that over all these twenty years the level of lies and unprofessionalism in the work of the Foreign Ministry has been increasing all the time. However, in most recent years, this has become simply catastrophic. Instead of unbiased information, impartial analysis and sober forecasting, there are propaganda clichés in the spirit of Soviet newspapers of the 1930s. A system has been built that deceives itself.

Minister Lavrov is a good illustration of the degradation of this system. In 18 years, he went from a professional and educated intellectual, whom many of my colleagues held in such high esteem, to a person who constantly broadcasts conflicting statements and threatens the world (that is, Russia too) with nuclear weapons!

Today, the Ministry of Foreign Affairs is not about diplomacy. It is all about warmongering, lies and hatred. It serves the interests of the few, the very few people thus contributing to further isolation and degradation of my country. Russia no longer has allies, and there is no one to blame but its reckless and ill-conceived policy.

I studied to be a diplomat and have been a diplomat for twenty years. The Ministry has become my home and family. But I simply cannot any longer share in this bloody, witless and absolutely needless ignominy.

This text is from the statement issued by Boris Bondarev on his resignation from the United Nations.

Boris Bondarev was Counsellor of the Russian Mission to the United Nations in Geneva. He resigned in protest to Russia's invasion of Ukraine on May 23 2022.

No, monkeypox didn’t leak from Wuhan

23 May 2022, 

It’s a familiar story. Close contacts of individuals infected by a dangerous illness are being asked by UK officials to isolate as government concern about the outbreak grows. Just 57 cases have been reported in Britain so far – 168 globally – but already questions are being asked about the virus’s origins. One theory involves the Wuhan Institute of Virology.

The lab, which is considered by a growing number of scientists to be the origin of the original Covid pandemic, specialises in so-called ‘gain of function experiments’. These experiments aim to genetically enhance viruses (like Covid) so they are more likely to jump species to humans. Reports emerged last year that researchers at the lab fell ill before the first cases of Covid-19 were recorded.

Now, a February study (submitted last August) has come to light suggesting similar experiments may have been carried out in Wuhan on a monkeypox virus. The paper, ‘Efficient assembly of a large fragment of monkeypox virus genome as a PCR template using dual-selection based transformation-associated recombination’, was published in the journal Virologica Sinica (the Wuhan lab’s own journal). It looked to create a monkeypox virus that could be identified on PCR tests. The researchers successfully produced a ‘genomic fragment of monkeypox virus’. The paper identified the potential risks of such research:
“This DNA assembly tool applied in virological research could also raise potential security concerns, especially when the assembled product contains a full set of genetic material that can be recovered into a contagious pathogen.

So could it have leaked? The researchers say that this would be impossible because the monkeypox DNA fragment they produced was so small – ‘less than one-third [...] of the genome’. So the experiment was: ‘fail-safe by virtually eliminating any risk of recovering into an infectious virus.’

So it’s very unlikely that any experiment on monkeypox in the Wuhan lab would have leaked. But the discovery of these experiments raises alarm given the experience of Covid. Emails uncovered between the Wellcome Trust’s Jeremy Farrar and America’s Antony Fauci suggested that the lab ‘accidentally created a virus primed for rapid transmission between humans.’ In the same emails, the former director of the US National Institutes for Health warned publication could damage ‘international harmony.’ Without more transparency within the scientific community, particularly in China, any outbreak or any virus will immediately lead to more and more suspicion.

WRITTEN BY

Michael Simmons is a data journalist at The Spectator

Monkeypox outbreak ‘is containable’ says

World Health Organization

AMELIA HANSFORD MAY 24, 2022

The stages of monkeypox. (UK Health Security Agency)

The emerging monkeypox outbreak is a “containable situation” in “non-endemic countries”, according to experts at the World Health Organization (WHO).

The virus, which has seen more than 100 cases in Europe, the Americas, and Australia, is expected to spread further, but the overall risk to the wider population is low, WHO experts said on Monday. (23 May).

The virus is most common in remote parts of Central and West Africa and hasn’t seen an outbreak this significant outside the region in 50 years.

However, WHO’s emerging diseases lead Maria Van Kerkhove stressed that “this is a containable situation”.

“We want to stop human-to-human transmission,” Kerkhove said. “We can do this in the non-endemic countries.”

A big reason monkeypox is containable is its low transmissibility, as Kerkhove explained: “Transmission is really happening from skin-to-skin contact, most of the people who have been identified have had more of a mild disease.”

It also “tends not to mutate and [tends] to be fairly stable,” noted WHO’s smallpox secretariat lead Rosamund Lewis. There’s no current supporting evidence to suggest the spreading virus is a mutation.

According to the BBC, Andrea Ammon of the European Centre for Disease Prevention and Control noted the “likelihood of spread is very low”, but is higher through close contact during sex.

“The likelihood of further spread of the virus through close contact, for example during sexual activities amongst persons with multiple sexual partners, is considered to be high,” Ammon said.

UK officials have confirmed that cases in the country have predominantly been found among gay, bisexual and other men who have sex with men, though a sexual health expert told PinkNews that it’s unclear whether this is because of queer men attending more regular sexual health screenings.

Symptoms of monkeypox include fever, headaches, swellings, aching muscles, and exhaustion. Rashes and lesions may start to appear on the face, hands, and feet.

Monkeypox is not currently considered a sexually transmitted infection, but can still be transmitted through sex. Residents in the UK who have come into contact with a confirmed case are now being asked to isolate themselves for 21 days.

The UN has previously condemned reporting on the virus as “racist and homophobic,” with UNAIDs deputy executive director Matthew Kavanagh telling The Guardian: “Stigma and blame undermine trust and capacity to respond effectively during outbreaks like this one.”

Slashing carbon dioxide emissions isn't enough! We also need to reduce other planet-warming pollutants to avert catastrophic climate change, study shows

Most mitigation strategies currently focus on slashing carbon dioxide emissions

But a new study warns this isn't enough to limit warming to 2.7°F (1.5°C)

Instead, researcher say we should also focus on reducing 'largely neglected' pollutants including methane, ground-level ozone smog, and nitrous oxide

By SHIVALI BEST FOR MAILONLINE

PUBLISHED: 24 May 2022


In the fight against global warming, the importance of slashing our carbon dioxide (CO2) emissions is regularly hammered home.

But a new study has warned that cutting CO2 isn't enough on its own.

Instead, researchers from Georgetown University say that strategies to avert catastrophic climate change should also focus on reducing other 'largely neglected' pollutants including methane, ground-level ozone smog, and nitrous oxide.

'Tackling both carbon dioxide and the short-lived pollutants at the same time offers the best and the only hope of humanity making it to 2050 without triggering irreversible and potentially catastrophic climate change,' the team explained.

 


Researchers from Georgetown University say that strategies to avert catastrophic climate change should also focus on reducing other 'largely neglected' pollutants including methane, ground-level ozone smog, and nitrous oxide

A: If CO2 emissions are cut alone (orange line), temperatures could exceed the 2.7°F (1.5°C) level by 2035, but if other pollutants are also targeted (green line), warming will be significantly reduced. B: the rate of warming with CO2 emissions cut (orange) versus CO2 plus other pollutants cut (green)

What other pollutants should we focus on?

The researchers say we must adopt a 'dual strategy' that also reduces non-CO2 pollutants, including:

 Methane
Hydrofluorocarbon refrigerants
Black carbon soot
Ground-level ozone smog
Nitrous oxide

They calculate that together, these five pollutants currently contribute almost as much to global warming as CO2.

In the study, the researchers analysed the impact of cutting CO2 alone, versus cutting the pollutant alongside other non-CO2 climate pollutants, in both the near-term and mid-term to 2050.

Their findings suggest that cutting CO2 alone can't prevent global temperatures from exceeding 2.7°F (1.5°C) above pre-industrial levels – the limit set in the 2015 Paris Agreement.

In fact, the researchers say that focusing on CO2 alone won't even stop temperatures from exceeding 3.6°F (2°C).

Instead, the researchers say we must adopt a 'dual strategy' that also reduces non-CO2 pollutants, including methane, hydrofluorocarbon refrigerants, black carbon soot, ground-level ozone smog, and nitrous oxide.

They calculate that together, these five pollutants currently contribute almost as much to global warming as CO2.

However, while CO2 lasts for a long time in the atmosphere, most of these pollutants only last a short time, according to the team.

This suggests cutting them could slow warming even faster than any other mitigation strategy.



Several other pollutants are released into the air from a range of industries, including road transport, energy industries and agriculture

A recent report by the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) found that cutting fossil fuel emissions and shifting to clean energy will actually make global warming worse in the short-term.

Burning fossil fuels also emits sulphate aerosols, which cool the climate – and these are reduced along with CO2 when switching to clean energy.

However, while much of the CO2 released from the burning of fossil fuels lasts hundreds of years in the atmosphere, sulphate aerosols only linger for a few weeks.

This leads to overall warming for the first decade or two.

The new study accounts for this effect, and concludes that only focusing on reducing fossil fuel emissions could result in 'weak, near term warming'.

Worryingly, this could potentially cause temperatures to exceed the 2.7°F (1.5°C) level by 2035 and the 3.6°F (2°C) level by 2050.

However, if non-carbon dioxide pollutants are also reduced, it will 'significantly improve the chance of remaining below the [2.7°F] 1.5°C guardrail,' according to the team.

'Continuing to slash fossil fuel carbon dioxide emissions remains vital, the study emphasises, since that will determine the fate of the climate in the longer term beyond 2050,' the researchers explained in a press release.

'Phasing out fossil fuels also is essential because they produce air pollution that kills over eight million people every year and causes billions of dollars of damage to crops.'

The study come shortly after researchers warned that there is at most a 10 per cent chance of limiting global warming to 2.7°F (1.5°C) unless 'substantially' more is done to hit net-zero pledges this decade.

IPCC release new climate report outlining effects of global warming

Researchers analysed climate targets of 196 countries from the time of the Paris Agreement until the end of the COP26 meeting in Glasgow last November.

Adopted in 2016, the Paris Agreement aims to hold an increase in global average temperature to below 3.6°F (2°C) and pursue efforts to limit the temperature increase to 2.7°F (1.5°C).

Climate pledges made at COP26 could keep warming to just below 3.6ºF, but only if all commitments are implemented as proposed, the scientists say.

However, the more ambitious goal of the Paris Agreement – to keep warming to 2.7°F (1.5°C) or below – has only a 6-10 per cent chance of being achieved, they say.

WHAT IS NET ZERO?

Net zero refers to achieving an overall balance between emissions produced and emissions taken out of the atmosphere.

Net-zero organisations should be actively reducing their emissions aligned to a 1.5ᵒC science-based target in line with the Paris Agreement.

There will be some carbon emissions that cannot be eliminated with current technology, so to achieve net zero, it is essential that certified greenhouse gas removals are also in place.

The UK government says it is committed to ensuring emissions generated by the UK re offset by removing the same amount of carbon from the atmosphere.

There are two main ways this can be achieved – by planting more trees and by installing 'carbon capture' technology at the source of the pollution.

Source: Carbon Trust

THE PARIS AGREEMENT: A GLOBAL ACCORD TO LIMIT TEMPERATURE RISES THROUGH CARBON EMISSION REDUCTION TARGETS

The Paris Agreement, which was first signed in 2015, is an international agreement to control and limit climate change.

It hopes to hold the increase in the global average temperature to below 2°C (3.6ºF) 'and to pursue efforts to limit the temperature increase to 1.5°C (2.7°F)'.

It seems the more ambitious goal of restricting global warming to 1.5°C (2.7°F) may be more important than ever, according to previous research which claims 25 per cent of the world could see a significant increase in drier conditions.

The Paris Agreement on Climate Change has four main goals with regards to reducing emissions:

1) A long-term goal of keeping the increase in global average temperature to well below 2°C above pre-industrial levels

2) To aim to limit the increase to 1.5°C, since this would significantly reduce risks and the impacts of climate change

3) Governments agreed on the need for global emissions to peak as soon as possible, recognising that this will take longer for developing countries

4) To undertake rapid reductions thereafter in accordance with the best available science

Source: European Commission

PAKISTAN
Authorities urged to take measures against climate change

By Bureau report
May 24, 2022

PESHAWAR: Journalists, university students and civil society activists have called for coordinated planning and concerted actions by government and non-government authorities against heatwave and climate change.

A press release said that an online training session was held on Heatwaves and Climate Change, organised by Resilient Future International Private Limited, an Islamabad-based research and training company. Aftab Alam Khan, Chief Executive of Resilient Future International and lead trainer, explained that numerous research reports had confirmed that heatwaves had been increased due to climate change. The most notable among them are recent publications of the Sixth Assessment Report (AR6) by the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC).

These reports are prepared by thousands of scientists and approved by almost all governments in the world. For instance, ‘Impacts, Adaptation and Vulnerability’ publication of IPCC-AR6 launched in February 2022 had already warned that Pakistan and other South Asian countries would face higher frequency of heatwaves with greater intensity and longer duration.

Aftab Alam underscored the disproportional impact of heatwaves on poor and marginalised communities, particularly women, children, outdoor labourers, elderly, disabled and transgender persons. Heatwaves have negative impacts on physical and mental health. Besides heatstroke, heart and kidney patients are also vulnerable. Heatwaves lead to mental stress and increased violent behaviours by individuals and groups.

The current heatwave in the country, according to estimates by the Space and Upper Atmosphere Research Commission (SPARCO), has caused 10 per cent losses in wheat production, amounting to around 3 million tons of wheat. He suggested water-smart and climate-resilient methods in agriculture and industrial production. The recent outburst of Shisper Glacier lake is connected with the heatwave. Normally these lakes are formed in May or June. However, the heatwave that started in March resulted in the formation of the lake in April, Aftab added. This year March was the hottest month in the history of Pakistan. The temperature in Jacobabad reached 51 Celsius against the average of 43.8 Celsius.

Nawabshah faced 50.5 Celsius against an average of 44.6 and Moenjodaro reached 50 Celsius against its average temperature of 44 Celsius. Ali Jabir, a climate journalist, emphasised training needs for journalists to improve climate-related stories. He explained various climate-related terminologies to the participants. Jabir also explained zig-zag technology to convert brick kilns into climate-smart production units. Amir Sohail, a journalist from Swabi, noted that highway construction in Khyber Pakhtunkhwa should avoid tree cuttings and ensure timely plantation of trees.

Imran Baloch of Green Rural Development Organization, Hyderabad Sindh, emphasised regular training programmes on climate change. Hamza Yousaf, a student of IIU, talked about pollution created by plastic bags and stressed the need for community and government actions against that.

Trump-Endorsed Candidate Wants to Ruin Your Sex Life by Making This 1 Thing IllegalFacebook

TwitteRedditEmail

by Michael Hayne

 May 24th, 2022

Jacky Eubanks, a Trump-endorsed candidate running for a state representative seat in Michigan’s 63rd House District, is just the right amount of batshit to win in today’s clownish and deranged Republican party. If you don’t have any actual ideas or sound policy to help better people’s lives socially and economically, then you might be running as a Republican. And boy does Eubanks lack ideas and policy.

As concern grows over the future of reproductive rights across the United States after a leaked Supreme Court majority opinion showed the court appeared poised to overturn Roe v. Wade, many red states are taking the chance to ban abortion themselves.

But if you’re a psychotic, far-right Christian who has never actually read Jesus’ teachings, then why just stop abortion? Moreover, why not just ban birth control and really force those loose ladies to have a kid so you can deny any type of benefits for the child once they’re actually born? That’s exactly what Eubanks wants to do.

In an interview with far-right Christian Michael Voris, Eubanks was pressed on whether she would vote to make contraception illegal in Michigan.

“All of this could be avoided if we were actually a truly pro-life nation, which means conceiving a child is a beautiful and sacred thing. And that is why sex ought to be between one man and one woman in the confines of marriage, and open to life,” she said.

Yes, if only we actually were a nation based on the distorted Christian views of a crazy church lady, as opposed to say a secular nation of laws. It’s almost as if people like Eubanks not only can’t hear themselves talk but also don’t even try to conceal the fact that they’re total wackos not fit to serve ice cream. So it only seems fitting that Donald Trump would endorse her candidacy.

Our only advice is if you’re sleeping someone who supports either of these politicians, first, get your head checked, and second, BYOP (bring your own protection)!

SPORTS
Remembering 'New Yorker' editor and renowned baseball writer Roger Angell

May 24, 2022
Heard on Fresh Air
TERRY GROSS

Angell's writing earned him a place in the Baseball Hall of Fame, when he received a career excellence award in 2014. He died May 20 at the age of 101. Originally broadcast in 2001.

TERRY GROSS, HOST:

This is FRESH AIR. For many fans of good sports writing, baseball season was also Roger Angell season. He wrote about the game for The New Yorker, where he was published most of his adult life. His first piece was published in 1944. In 1956, he became the magazine's fiction editor. He described The New Yorker as the family store. His mother, Katharine Sergeant Angell White, had worked there as an editor. His stepfather, essayist E.B. White, was a New Yorker writer and contributing editor. Angell's writing earned him a place in the Baseball Hall of Fame when he received a Career Excellence Award in 2014. Roger Angell died last week at the age of 101. We're going to listen back to an excerpt of the interview I recorded with him in 2001 after he'd written a book about pitcher David Cone.

(SOUNDBITE OF ARCHIVED NPR BROADCAST)

GROSS: Roger Angell, let's talk about your writing career a bit. You've been writing for The New Yorker since 1946, so that's 45 years. When you started writing for The New Yorker, your mother was the fiction editor. Your stepfather, E.B. White, was one of the magazine's star writers. Did it feel like the family business to you?

ROGER ANGELL: Yeah, it did. I mean, I didn't think in those terms then, but I really wanted to be a writer, I guess, and an editor, too, so I ended up doing both. And writing for The New Yorker seemed the natural thing. And I did write a couple of little fiction pieces when - back in those days, we could have tiny little back-of-the-book fiction pieces that got me going. But I think I learned from my stepfather really how hard writing is. I mean, his writing always - E.B. White's writing always looks absolutely like the easiest thing in the world, just nothing to it. There's no strain in anything he ever wrote.

But I'd watched him as a teenager when he was writing the Notes and Comment page for The New Yorker every week, and he'd go into his study up in Maine and close the door and be there all day long, and there were long silences between the little rips and sounds from the typewriter. And he'd come out, and he'd be silent and pale, not say anything at lunch, and at the end of the day, he'd file it off. And then the next day, he'd say, wasn't good enough. He'd try to get it back again. Writing is hard. And I think that there aren't many writers who write with ease. So I got that idea early on, too.

GROSS: Your mother was fiction editor of The New Yorker, and this was in an era where not that many women even worked, and certainly most of the women who did work worked in traditional women's professions, and being fiction editor of The New Yorker doesn't fall in that category. Were you aware of how unusual it was to have your mother do what she was doing?

ANGELL: Terry, I don't think I was sufficiently aware. I mean, I always admired her. And she thought of herself - she said - she didn't use the word feminist, but she spoke of herself as being a working woman. But work was so much a part of her life, and The New Yorker was the main event in her life, really, and it surrounded her every day. And I think of her now, and I think of her with galleys in a manila envelope under her arm or around the house or even in bed in the mornings or something, a bunch of galleys and brown - soft brown pencils and soft - and erasers, a lot of erasing, the stuff that comes off erasers around her and smoking cigarettes. And that was the standard of her life, and she was deeply involved with the magazine and with her writers. I think that if any way it inspired me to be a writer, then certainly she inspired me to be an editor. I actually ended up as the fiction editor of The New Yorker myself. I'm still a fiction editor there. And at one point, I would - I inherited her old office. And a shrink that I was seeing at the time heard that I'd moved into her old office and had the same job that she'd had, and he said, this is the greatest single act of sublimation in my experience.

(LAUGHTER)

GROSS: Your stepfather, E.B. White, was the co-writer of, you know, the most used style book, Strunk and White. Is that a stylebook you've used over the years?

ANGELL: Oh, sure. Yeah. They're a set of general - there's general advice in there. Be clear; don't be fancy. I don't have them by heart. But that's the heart of the book. There are lots of helpful hints about punctuation. And anyway, he once told me the rule about that and which, which I memorized on the spot. He said, The New Yorker is the magazine that cares about which; The New Yorker is a magazine that cares about that (laughter). No, I'm sorry - a magazine which cares about that, a Magazine.

GROSS: Oh, see - this never helps me.

ANGELL: All right.

GROSS: I'm still as confused as ever (laughter).

ANGELL: One is the defining - the magazine that. Or nondefining - a magazine, comma, which (laughter).

GROSS: You know, with that and which, I always say to myself, should I struggle again to figure out what the difference is between the two, or should I give up and figure most people don't really care anyways? What advice would you have for me on that?

ANGELL: I think you're right, that...

GROSS: Give up?

ANGELL: I don't stop and think about it. I just put down what - I mean, part of my mind does this anyway. It usually gets it right. And I don't stop and say, is this the correct form? And I will - the big thing is to look at what you've written and to - when it's done and to see if it's any good and to also to think about how it sounds. I think a lot about how writing sounds. Even a perfect sentence that sounds terrible in the end, if you almost say it to yourself as you're closing in at the end, you'll probably get it right. I still edit John Updike, and this is what he does. He corrects over and over, and he corrects on page proofs. The last day things are going in, he will rewrite and rewrite. And he will say on the phone to me, how does that sound? How does that sound to you, Roger? And I do the same thing to myself. How does that sound? Writing is meant to be heard as well as looked at.

GROSS: My interview with Roger Angell was recorded in 2001. He died last week at the age of 101.

Tomorrow on FRESH AIR. My guest will be poet Diana Goetsch. Her new memoir, "This Body I Wore," is about transitioning to living as a woman when she was in her late 40s. We'll also talk about what it was like to grow up trans in a time when she didn't have the language, literature or subculture to help her understand what it meant to be trans. I hope you'll join us.

(SOUNDBITE OF DAVE MCKENNA'S "A SHINE ON YOUR SHOES")

GROSS: FRESH AIR's executive producer is Danny Miller. Our technical director and engineer is Audrey Bentham. Our interviews and reviews are produced and edited by Amy Salit, Phyllis Myers, Sam Briger, Lauren Krenzel, Heidi Saman, Therese Madden, Ann Marie Baldonado, Thea Chaloner, Seth Kelley and Joel Wolfram. Our digital media producer is Molly Seavy-Nesper. Roberta Shorrock directs the show. I'm Terry Gross.

(SOUNDBITE OF DAVE MCKENNA'S "A SHINE ON YOUR SHOES")

Copyright © 2022 NPR. All rights reserved. Visit our website terms of use and permissions pages at www.npr.org for further information.

NPR transcripts are created on a rush deadline by an NPR contractor. This text may not be in its final form and may be updated or revised in the future. Accuracy and availability may vary. The authoritative record of NPR’s programming is the audio record.