Sunday, September 12, 2021

Republicans once called government the problem – now they want to run your life


Robert Reich
Sat, September 11, 2021

Photograph: Dennis Cook/AP

I’m old enough to remember when the Republican party stood for limited government and Ronald Reagan thundered “Government is not the solution to our problem, government is the problem.”

Today’s Republican party, while still claiming to stand for limited government, is practicing just the opposite: government intrusion everywhere.

Related: Republicans threaten our children’s freedom as well as their basic safety | Robert Reich


Republican lawmakers are banning masks in schools. Iowa, Tennessee, Utah, Texas, Florida, Arkansas, Oklahoma, Arizona and South Carolina are prohibiting public schools from requiring students wear them.

Republican states are on the way to outlawing abortions. Texas has just banned abortions after six weeks of pregnancy, before many women even know they’re pregnant. Other Republican states are on the way to enacting similar measures.

Republican lawmakers are forbidding teachers from telling students about America’s racist past. State legislatures from Tennessee to Idaho are barring all references to racism in the classroom.

Republican legislators are forcing transgender students to play sports and use bathrooms according to their assigned gender at birth. Thirty-three states have introduced more than 100 bills aimed at curbing the rights of transgender people.

Across the country, Republican lawmakers are making it harder for people to vote. So far, they’ve enacted more than 30 laws that reduce access to polling places, number of days for voting and availability of absentee voting.

This is not limited government, folks. To the contrary, these Republican lawmakers have a particular ideology, and they are now imposing those views and values on citizens holding different views and values.

This is big government on steroids.


Many Republican lawmakers use the word “freedom” to justify what they’re doing. That’s rubbish. What they’re really doing is denying people their freedom – freedom to be safe from Covid, freedom over their own bodies, freedom to learn, freedom to vote and participate in our democracy.

Years ago, the Republican party had a coherent idea about limiting the role of government and protecting the rights of the individual. I disagreed with it, as did much of the rest of America. But at least it was honest, reasoned and consistent. As such, Republicans played an important part in a debate over what we wanted for ourselves and for America.

Today, Republican politicians have no coherent view. They want only to be re-elected, even if that means misusing government to advance a narrow and increasingly anachronistic set of values – intruding on the most intimate aspects of life, interfering in what can be taught and learned, risking the public’s health, banning what’s necessary for people to exercise their most basic freedoms.

This is not mere hypocrisy. The Republican party now poses a clear and present threat even to the values it once espoused.


Robert Reich, a former US secretary of labor, is professor of public policy at the University of California at Berkeley and the author of Saving Capitalism: For the Many, Not the Few and The Common Good. His new book, The System: Who Rigged It, How We Fix It, is out now. He is a Guardian US columnist
Arizona sells Unilever bonds over Ben & Jerry's Israel move
SO THEY CAN PAY FOR THE FAKE AUDIT


 In this July 20, 2021, file photo, truck sare parked at the Ben & Jerry's ice-cream factory in the Be'er Tuvia Industrial area in Israel. The state of Arizona has sold off $93 million in Unilever bonds and plans to sell the remaining $50 million it has invested in the global consumer products company because its subsidiary Ben & Jerry's decided to stop selling its ice cream in Israeli-occupied territories in the latest in a series of actions by states with anti-Israel boycott laws. (AP Photo/Tsafrir Abayov, File)


BOB CHRISTIE
Fri, September 10, 2021, 

PHOENIX (AP) — Arizona has sold off $93 million in Unilever bonds and plans to sell the remaining $50 million it has invested in the global consumer products company over subsidiary Ben & Jerry's decision to stop selling its ice cream in Israeli-occupied territories, the latest in a series of actions by states with anti-Israel boycott laws.

The investment moves state Treasurer Kimberly Yee announced this week were mandated by a 2019 state law that bars Arizona government agencies from holding investments or doing more than $100,000 in business with any firm that boycotts Israel or its territories.

Arizona appears to be the first of 35 states with anti-boycott laws or regulation to have fully divested itself from Unilever following Ben & Jerry's actions. Illinois warned the company in July that it had 90 days after its investment board met to change course or it too would sell. Florida and other states have taken similar action, according to IAC For Action, the policy and legislative arm for the Israeli-American Council.


While Ben & Jerry's, which is based in Vermont, is owned by London-based Unilever, it maintains its own independent board, which Unilever said makes its own decision on its social mission. Ben & Jerry's announced on July 19 that maintaining its presence in the occupied territories was “inconsistent with our values.”

Ben & Jerry's decision brought a strong reaction from Israel, which vowed to “act aggressively" in response to the move, including by urging U.S. governors to punish the company under anti-boycott laws. Arizona and 34 other states have laws against boycotts of Israel.

U.S. groups that support Israel are split on whether pushing back on Unilever for Ben & Jerry's decision is appropriate. The Israeli-American Council urged governors to act through IAC For Action.

IAC for Action Director Joseph Sabag called boycotts of Israel antisemitic and said it is important to fight them at the state level.

“The Israeli American community is sensitive to it, because I would say more than other parts of the Jewish American community, we experienced the national origin aspect of antisemitism in a more pronounced way,” Sabag said Friday. "That’s really why we’re very proactive. It’s our children who are being affected by this in the classrooms and are being made fearful and intimidated and to feel harassed. ... That’s definitely what our community’s interest is in the matter.'

But the head of J Street, a Washington, D.C.-based pro-Israel organization that backs a two-state solution, supported Ben & Jerry’s decision and said punishing the company is “gravely dangerous.”

“It’s not anti-semitic to criticize Israeli policy or to not sell ice cream in illegal settlements,” President Jeremy Ben-Ami tweeted in July. “It’s actually a truly pro-Israel decision.”

The anti-boycott laws face court challenges, as Arizona's did after it was first enacted in 2016. A Flagstaff lawyer who contracted to help defend jailed people sued on First Amendment grounds, arguing that the law violated his free speech rights.

A U.S. District judge in Arizona blocked enforcement while the case proceeded, but the Legislature changed the law so it only applied to contracts worth more than $100,000, effectively ending the case because it no longer applied to the Flagstaff man. The state was ordered to pay $115,000 for his attorney fees.

In Arkansas, the publisher of a weekly newspaper sued to block that state's law on similar grounds. A trial judge dismissed the case, ruling that “a boycott of Israel is neither speech nor inherently expressive conduct” protected by the First Amendment. But a split three-judge panel of the 8th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals revived the Arkansas Times' lawsuit in February, finding that “supporting or promoting boycotts of Israel is constitutionally protected ... yet the Act requires government contractors to abstain from such constitutionally protected activity.”

The ruling is not the last word: In June, 8th Circuit judges agreed to hear the case and vacated the three-judge panel's decision. They are set to hear arguments in the case later this month.

Both cases were brought by the American Civil Liberties Union.

Meanwhile in Arizona, Yee wrote to Unilever's investor relations department on Sept. 2 to tell the company that although Ben & Jerry's is run independently, Arizona law would require her to sell Unilever assets if the decision was not rescinded.

“I gave Unilever PLC, the parent company of Ben & Jerry’s, an ultimatum: reverse the action of Ben & Jerry’s or divest itself of Ben & Jerry’s to come into compliance with Arizona law or face the consequences," Yee, a Republican who is running for governor, said in a statement. "They chose the latter.”

Unilever said in an Aug. 2 letter to Deputy Treasurer Mark Swenson that it has never supported boycotts of Israel, commonly called Boycott Divestment Sanctions, or BDS, but that Ben & Jerry's operates independently. The company had no additional comment.

The Arizona investments were in bonds and commercial paper held in the state's short-term fixed-income investment fund.

The Arizona law enacted in 201 6 and revised in 2019 had broad, bipartisan support and was signed by Republican Gov. Doug Ducey. He tweeted that the Ben & Jerry's decision “is discrimination.”

“Arizona will not do business with a company that boycotts Israel — in 2016 and 2019, I signed bills to make sure of it,” the tweet said. “Arizona stands with Israel."
AND THE WINNER IS
Canadian Pacific Railway to acquire Kansas City Southern after reopened talks



Dan Primack
Sun, September 12, 2021, 11:17 AM·1 min read

Kansas City Southern on Sunday said it has agreed to be acquired by Canadian Pacific Railway, in a deal that would create the only railway to run from Canada to Mexico.

Behind the scenes: This is the second time that KCS has agreed to be acquired by Canadian Pacific. It first accepted a takeover offer in March, but then walked away in May after a higher bid was submitted by rival railroad operator Canadian National Railroad.

But Canadian National ran into regulatory troubles, causing Kansas City to reopen talks with Canadian Pacific (which had upped its offer in early August, and which doesn't face the same regulatory issues).

Details: Canadian Pacific plans to pay $31.1 billion in cash and stock, including $3.8 billion of assumed debt. That's more than Canadian Pacific's original bid, but less than what Canadian National was prepared to pay.

Kansas City Southern picks Canadian Pacific bid for railroad




Kansas City Southern-Bidding WarFILE - In this May 23, 2012, file photo, surveyors work next to Canadian Pacific Rail trains which are parked on the train tracks in Toronto. A planned shareholder vote on Canadian National's $33.6 billion offer has been delayed, Wednesday, Sept. 1, 2021, after regulators rejected a key part of the plan, so now Kansas City Southern can consider all of its options, including a competing $31 billion offer from Canadian Pacific Railway.
(Nathan Denette/The Canadian Press via AP, File)More


Sun, September 12, 2021,

KANSAS CITY, Mo. (AP) — Kansas City Southern has decided that a $31 billion bid from Canadian Pacific is the best of two offers on the table to buy the railroad.

The Kansas City, Missouri, company said in a statement Sunday that it has notified rival bidder Canadian National that it intends to terminate a merger agreement and make a deal with Canadian Pacific.

But it's not final yet. Canadian National still has five business days to negotiate amendments to its offer, and the Kansas City Southern board could determine that a revised CN offer is better.

In its own statement, Canadian National said it's evaluating its options. "CN will make carefully considered decisions in the interests of all CN shareholders and stakeholders and in line with our strategic priorities,” the railroad said.

Under the Canadian Pacific offer, each share of Kansas City Southern common stock would be exchanged for 2.884 CP shares and $90 in cash.

“We are pleased to reach this important milestone and again pursue this once-in-a-lifetime partnership,” said Canadian Pacific President and CEO Keith Creel.

Canadian National's bid was $33.6 billion, but regulators rejected a key part of the offer last month.

The Surface Transportation Board said Canadian National won’t be able to use a voting trust to acquire Kansas City Southern and then hold the railroad during the board’s lengthy review of the overall deal.

In contrast, regulators have already approved Canadian Pacific’s use of a voting trust because there are fewer competitive concerns about combining Canadian Pacific and Kansas City Southern.

Canadian Pacific set a deadline of Sunday for its offer. Both Canadian bids include a mix of cash and stock and the assumption of about $3.8 billion in Kansas City Southern debt.

It’s not yet clear whether Canadian National has any appetite to increase its bid because it is facing pressure from a major shareholder to abandon the deal. London-based investment firm TCI Fund — which owns about 5% of CN’s stock — maintains that CN should overhaul its board, get a new CEO and refocus its efforts on improving its own operations.

For more than two decades the railroad industry has been stable, with two railroads in the Western United States — BNSF and Union Pacific — two in the Eastern United States — CSX and Norfolk Southern — Kansas City Southern in the Midwest and the two Canadian railroads that serve part of the United States. Regulators have said that any merger involving two of the largest railroads generally needs to enhance competition and service the public interest to get approved.
Not easy voting green: Germans wary of getting climate bill

TOO LATE THE BILL IS ALREADY DUE
FRANK JORDANS
Fri, September 10, 2021


HALLE, Germany (AP) — It's a scorching September day and the Green party candidate hoping to succeed Angela Merkel as German chancellor leaps on stage in front of hundreds of supporters for what should be a home run.

Surveys show climate change is among the top concerns for many voters, and the audience in the eastern city of Halle is made up largely of students and retirees eager to hear how Annalena Baerbock plans to safeguard their future — or that of their grandchildren.

The Greens have long championed the fight against global warming. Ahead of Germany's Sept. 26 vote they offer arguably the most comprehensive program for making Europe's biggest economy carbon neutral, with a mix of government incentives and penalties for polluters.


But while voters readily admit they are worried about the state of the planet, especially after the deadly floods that hit Germany in July, many are wary of committing to the kind of radical transformation required — fearing the bill they might receive for it.

“The climate crisis is now," Baerbock tells the rally. "That’s why we need to act now, in the year 2021.”

The audience responds with polite applause; a listener then asks her about people in rural areas who worry that the changes required to combat climate change — such as banning cars with combustion engines — could threaten their way of life.

Baerbock says she wants electric vehicles to be affordable for everybody within a decade, if necessary with a subsidy of up to 9,000 euros (over $10,600) for low earners, but some are skeptical.

“They don’t say enough where the money is going to come from," said Sonja Solisch, a health care worker.

Solisch sympathizes with the Greens' goals but says voters like her have other worries too.

"Good train connections, good road connections, things like that need to be paid for too,” she said.




A survey this month for public broadcaster ZDF found climate and environment ranked as the most important election issue for 38% of respondents — ahead of the coronavirus pandemic and migration. The same poll, a representative phone survey of about 1,250 voters with a margin of error of 2 percentage points, showed the Greens trailing the center-left Social Democrats and Merkel's Union bloc.

Steffi Lemke, a long-time Greens lawmaker, argues that the two governing parties are shying away from telling voters the brutal facts about climate change, including about the cost.

“The problem is that it will be far more expensive if we do nothing," she told The Associated Press, citing the 30 billion euros that federal and state governments recently agreed to spend on rebuilding western regions hit by devastating flash floods this summer. “If we don’t change the economy and our society, it’s going to be unaffordable.”

The party, which wants to earmark 50 billion euros a year to make the country cleaner and more equitable, has attracted large donations from rich individuals worried about climate change.

In April, a bitcoin millionaire gave half his fortune to the Greens in the hope that they will regulate the energy-hogging virtual currency.

This week the party received a record donation of 1.25 million euros ($1.48 million) from Steven Schuurman, the Dutch founder of software company Elastic.

“It’s very obvious that Germany is a political and economic force to be reckoned with in Europe and the world” he told the AP, adding that the Greens offer “pragmatic solutions" to the climate crisis.

Baerbock, who at 40 is significantly younger than her two main rivals, cites a recent U.N. report showing that time is running out to prevent catastrophic planetary warming. She urges her audience in Halle to reach out to colleagues, friends and family — even their ex-spouses — to drive home the urgency of electing politicians willing to tackle the problem.

“I honestly don’t want my children, who are 6 and 9, or your children and grandchildren, to ask us in 20 years’ time: ‘Why didn’t you turn the rudder around back then?’”

___

Follow AP’s coverage of Germany’s election at https://apnews.com/hub/germany-election




Germany Election Green ChallengeFILE - In this Thursday June 24, 2021 file photo,German Chancellor Angela Merkel, left, welcomes the top candidates for the upcoming national elections Annalena Baerbock, right, of the Green Party and Armin Laschet, center, of Christian Democratic Union's prior to a session of the German parliament Bundestag in Berlin, Germany. Climate change is among the top concerns for Germans going into this year's national election that will determine who replaces Angela Merkel as Chancellor. But while voters admit they are worried about the state of the planet, especially after last the deadly floods that hit Germany in July, many fear the cost of backing the environmentalist Green party that's campaigned strongest for meeting the Paris climate accord's goals. (Kay Nietfeld/dpa via AP, file)More


















Salesforce said it will help relocate employees and their families who want to leave Texas after a restrictive abortion law took effect


Kelsey Vlamis
Fri, September 10, 2021, 

Noam Galai/Contributor/Getty Images

A law banning abortion after six weeks of pregnancy took effect in Texas last week.

Salesforce said it would help employees relocate if they had concerns about access to reproductive healthcare.

Other companies have spoken out or offered assistance as a result of the law.


Salesforce is offering assistance to its employees after a restrictive abortion law took effect in Texas last week.

In a Friday slack message obtained by CNBC, the cloud computing company said it would assist any employees and their families who are looking to relocate over their state's reproductive laws.

"These are incredibly personal issues that directly impact many of us - especially women," the message said, without taking a stance on the law. "We recognize and respect that we all have deeply held and different perspectives. As a company, we stand with all of our women at Salesforce and everywhere.

"With that being said, if you have concerns about access to reproductive healthcare in your state, Salesforce will help relocate you and members of your immediate family," it continued.

According to its website, Salesforce has offices in many US cities, including one in Dallas.

The Texas law, which was signed in May, went into effect on September 1 after the US Supreme Court declined to block it. The law bans all abortions in the state after six weeks of pregnancy, and does not allow for exemptions in cases of rape or incest.

It also invites private citizens to enforce the ban by allowing them to sue an abortion provider or anyone who helps someone obtain an abortion. The citizens would then be rewarded for successful lawsuits.

Other companies have spoken out against the law or offered up assistance to people impacted.

Uber and Lyft have both offered to pay the legal fees of drivers who get sued under the law for transporting someone to get an abortion.

The company behind the dating app Bumble said it started a relief fund for women in Texas who are seeking abortions.
With Roe v. Wade in jeopardy, abortion rights advocates plan a change in strategy

Jon Ward
·Chief National Correspondent
Sun, September 12, 2021


For half a century, the pro-abortion-rights movement in America has been confident that abortion would remain legal nationwide due to the Supreme Court’s 1973 ruling in Roe v. Wade.

But now that confidence is shaken. The Supreme Court’s recent decision to let a Texas law limiting abortion stand is a sign that the court very well could overturn Roe v. Wade next year in a Mississippi case, Dobbs v. Jackson Women’s Health Organization.

It’s a brave new world for those who believe abortion should remain legal for all Americans. If national legalized abortion is overturned by the current Supreme Court, it would create a system where it is mostly illegal in some states and broadly legal in others.

Pro-abortion-rights protesters march outside the Texas Capitol on Sept. 1 in Austin. (Sergio Flores/the Washington Post via Getty Images)

The question is, what comes next? Where should the pro-abortion-rights movement focus its energy?

The most immediate issue is the law in Texas that has essentially banned the practice as soon as medical professionals can detect a heartbeat, which is usually at around six weeks of pregnancy. The Justice Department on Thursday announced it was suing the Lone Star State. But it’s not clear how strong a case the federal government will have. On Thursday, Vice President Kamala Harris met at the White House with abortion rights advocates, many of whom are most focused right now on helping women in Texas get to other states, where they can legally have an abortion.

In Congress, House Speaker Nancy Pelosi has promised to pass a law this month that would codify abortion protections similar to those under Roe v. Wade into law.

But such a proposal will go nowhere in the U.S. Senate as long as the filibuster is in place, requiring any controversial bill to gain 60 votes to pass. And even if the filibuster were not in place, not all Democrats would vote for such a bill. Sen. Joe Manchin, D-W.Va., describes himself as pro-life.

The White House has also called for Congress to codify Roe v. Wade, although President Biden — a Catholic who has said he personally opposes abortion while supporting the right to choose — spent most of his long political career advertising himself as a moderate on the issue.

Those who understand the political reality know the pro-abortion-rights future looks dim in the courts, in Congress and at the state level in much of the country. This is in large part because the Republican Party made a concerted effort to control state legislatures starting over a decade ago.

“It’s a tough reality that we are going to have to deal with. There’s not going to be tons of quick fixes. That’s just the reality of it,” Lala Wu, co-founder and executive director of Sister District, a progressive nonprofit launched in 2016 to focus on helping Democrats win elections in state legislatures, told Yahoo News.

Speaker of the House Nancy Pelosi at a press conference on Capitol Hill on Wednesday. (Jabin Botsford/the Washington Post via Getty Images)

And so, just as it has with Wu’s organization, the focus of many Democrats and pro-abortion-rights organizations is beginning to shift to the state level — not only as a way to preserve abortion rights in some states, but also as a path to power at the national level that Republicans have utilized and Democrats have neglected.

“It’s well documented that earlier in the past decade there was not the emphasis on state and local elections that there needed to be from the broader progressive movement, despite the intense warning signs given by people on the ground — largely women of color — who were bearing the brunt of the attacks,” Sam Lau, a spokesman for Planned Parenthood Federation of America, told Yahoo News. “The anti-abortion movement has attacked abortion with a layer-by-layer strategy, with a very long-term strategy. There is no magic wand.”

The structural roots of the pro-abortion-rights movement’s losses are the same as they are for many other issues important to Democrats. Republicans have dominated the battle for control of state legislatures over the past decade, starting with the 2010 elections. At a time when Democrats were riding high after the election of President Barack Obama in 2008, top Republican operatives targeted state legislatures.

“Definitely, the [Republican] play has been largely on the state legislatures. And I think our vehicle at the time had been the courts,” Planned Parenthood president and CEO Alexis McGill Johnson told the New York Times almost a year ago.

Alexis McGill Johnson at a rally against white supremacy in Lafayette Square in 2019 in Washington, D.C. (Marlena Sloss/the Washington Post via Getty Images)

Prior to 2010, Democrats controlled 27 state legislatures, and had full control of the state government — meaning they had the trifecta of both chambers of the legislature and the governorship — in 16 states. Republicans, prior to 2010, controlled only 14 state legislatures, and had trifectas in just nine.

But in the fall of 2010, while most national attention focused on Republicans retaking the House of Representatives in Congress, there was a subterranean earthquake at the state level. Republicans flipped around 680 seats in state legislatures around the country that had been held by Democrats (there are just over 7,300 seats in all statehouses in total), and when all the dust had settled, Republicans then controlled 26 state legislatures, and had trifectas in 21 states. Democrats were down to 17 legislature majorities and just 11 trifectas.

The control of state legislatures gave Republicans the ability to do numerous things that affected national political issues. It gave them far greater control of the once-a-decade redistricting process, in which each state redraws the maps for its congressional seats and its state legislature districts. This allowed the GOP to cement its majority in the House and its control of state legislatures. To this day Republicans are dominant at the state level, with a 30-to-18 advantage in controlling state legislatures, and 23 trifectas to the Democrats’ 15.

This pronounced Republican advantage has given the GOP the ability to pass numerous restrictions on abortion in state legislatures, which mostly went unnoticed in the national conversation.

An anti-abortion activist outside the U.S. Supreme Court during the 48th annual March for Life on Jan. 29. (Alex Wong/Getty Images)

So while the Supreme Court routinely upheld the right to abortion broadly at the national level over the past two decades, Republicans continued to chip away at access in Republican-controlled states, and they also continued to implement a long-term strategy of remaking the federal judiciary. This plan of attack was spearheaded by the Federalist Society — a powerful association of conservative lawyers and legal scholars — and resulted in an overhaul of federal appeals courts during the Trump presidency. Donald Trump appointed 226 federal judges in one four-year term, a rapid pace compared to the previous three presidents, who all appointed between 320 and 367 judges in eight years.

Trump appointed 54 federal appeals court judges compared to Obama’s 55. There are 13 appeals courts, and they “have the final word on most legal appeals around the country,” according to the Pew Research Center. And then of course Trump appointed three Supreme Court justices, moving the court firmly into a 5-4 conservative majority that has also taken shape as a 6-3 majority on issues such as restricting voting rights.

Interestingly, abortion rates had fallen by last year to the lowest level ever since Roe v. Wade was decided in 1973 — and were in fact lower than before the ruling. But it’s noteworthy that the reductions in abortion rates were not limited to Republican-controlled states, but were spread broadly across red and blue states. Liberal states like California and New York were among the majority of states that saw reduced abortion rates during the Obama presidency.

U.S. Supreme Court Associate Justices Amy Coney Barrett, Brett Kavanaugh and Neil Gorsuch at Joe Biden’s inauguration at the U.S. Capitol on Jan. 20. (Alex Wong/Getty Images)

But when it comes to Democrats being able to build power structures that have long-term impact, the consequences of the party’s lack of focus on state politics during the Obama era means it will take them a while to move the needle.

“Democrats are catching up when it comes to infrastructure,” Wu said. “It’s been decades of this kind of scheming [by Republicans].”

Planned Parenthood’s McGill Johnson has been talking about this approach for a while now, well before the Texas law.

“I think that the progress that conservatives have made over the last 10 years, in terms of capturing courts, state legislatures on a bunch of issues that are really not in line with where the majority of the populations are even in their own state, have a lot to do with their understanding of how to change the world to maximize power,” McGill Johnson said late last year.

“And while we’ve been very issue-focused and very ideologically focused, it hasn’t always matched the kind of power-building structural focus. And that’s where I think the shift will happen,” she said.

Why women – including feminists – are still attracted to 'benevolently sexist' men

 A VARIATION ON WHY WOMEN LIKE BAD BOYS

Tom R. Kupfer, Marie Curie Research Fellow, Vrije Universiteit Amsterdam
  Pelin Gül, Post-doctoral Research Fellow, Iowa State University


Sun, September 12, 2021

What sort of signal does holding a door for a woman send? KOLOTAILO LIDIIA

If a man offers to help a woman with her heavy suitcase or to parallel park her car, what should she make of the offer?

Is it an innocuous act of courtesy? Or is it a sexist insult to her strength and competence?

Social psychologists who describe this behavior as “benevolent sexism” firmly favor the latter view.


But researchers have also revealed a paradox: Women prefer men who behave in ways that could be described as benevolently sexist over those who don’t.

How could this be?

Some say that women simply fail to see the ways benevolent sexism undermines them because they’re misled by the flattering tone of this brand of kindness. Psychologists have even suggested that benevolent sexism is more harmful than overtly hostile sexism because it is insidious, acting like “a wolf in sheep’s clothing.”

As social psychologists, we had reservations about these conclusions. Aren’t women sophisticated enough to be able to tell when a man is being patronizing?

Surprisingly no previous research had tested whether women do, in fact, fail to recognize that benevolent sexism can be patronizing and undermining. And given our backgrounds in evolutionary theory, we also wondered if these behaviors were nonetheless attractive because they signaled a potential mate’s willingness to invest resources in a woman and her offspring.

So we conducted a series of studies to further explore women’s attraction to benevolently sexist men.
What does benevolent sexism really signal?

The concept of benevolent sexism was first developed in 1996. The idea’s creators argued that sexism is not always openly hostile. To them, attitudes like “women should be cherished and protected by men” or behaviors like opening car doors for women cast them as less competent and always in need of help. In this way, they argued, benevolent sexism subtly undermines gender equality.

Since then, social psychologists have been busy documenting the pernicious effects that benevolent sexism has on women.

According to studies, women who acquiesce to this behavior tend to become increasingly dependent on men for help. They’re more willing to allow men to tell them what they can and can’t do, are more ambivalent about thinking for themselves, are less ambitious and don’t perform as well at work and on cognitive tests.

Given these documented downsides, why are women still attracted to this behavior?

The answer could lie in what evolutionary biologists call “parental investment theory.”

Whereas men can successfully reproduce by providing a few sex cells, a woman’s reproductive success must be tied to her ability to complete months of gestation and lactation.

During much of human history, a woman’s ability to choose a mate who was able and willing to assist in this process – by providing food or protection from aggressors – would have increased her reproductive success.

Evolution, therefore, shaped female psychology to attend to – and prefer – mates whose characteristics and behaviors reveal the willingness to invest. A prospective mate’s muscular physique (and, today, his big wallet) certainly indicate that he possesses this ability. But opening a car door or offering his coat are signs that he may have the desired disposition.
Women weigh in

In our recently published research, we asked over 700 women, ages ranging from 18 to 73, in five experiments, to read profiles of men who either expressed attitudes or engaged in behaviors that could be described as benevolently sexist, like giving a coat or offering to help with carrying heavy boxes.

We then had the participants rate the man’s attractiveness; willingness to protect, provide and commit; and his likelihood of being patronizing.

Our findings confirmed that women do perceive benevolently sexist men to be more patronizing and more likely to undermine their partners.

But we also found that the women in our studies perceived these men as more attractive, despite the potential pitfalls.

So what made them more attractive to our participants? In their responses, the women in our study rated them as more likely to protect, provide and commit.

We then wondered whether these findings could only really be applied to women who are simply OK with old-fashioned gender roles.

To exclude this possibility, we studied participants’ degree of feminism with a widely used survey that measures feminist attitudes. We had them indicate their level of agreement with statements such as “a woman should not let bearing and rearing children stand in the way of a career if she wants it.”

We found that strong feminists rated men as more patronizing and undermining than traditional women did. But like the other women, they still found these men more attractive; the drawbacks were outweighed by the men’s willingness to invest. It seems that even staunch feminists may prefer a chivalrous mate who picks up the check on a first date or walks closer to the curb on a sidewalk.

In this time of fraught gender relations, our findings may provide reassurance for women who are confused about how to feel towards a man who acts chivalrous, and well-meaning men who wonder whether they should change their behavior towards women.

But several interesting questions remain. Does benevolent sexism always undermine women? It might depend on context. A male being overly helpful to a female co-worker in a patronizing way might hurt her ability to project professional competence. On the other hand, it’s tough to see the harm in helping a woman move heavy furniture in the home.

Understanding these nuances may allow us to reduce the negative effects of benevolent sexism without requiring women to reject the actual good things that can arise from this behavior.

This article is republished from The Conversation, a nonprofit news site dedicated to sharing ideas from academic experts.

Read more:

Who wears the pants in a relationship matters – especially if you’re a woman


What happens to men who stay abstinent until marriage?


What the ‘Fearless Girl’ statue and Harvey Weinstein have in common

The authors do not work for, consult, own shares in or receive funding from any company or organization that would benefit from this article, and have disclosed no relevant affiliations beyond their academic appointment.
From COVID to Ida: Louisiana's marginalized 'see no way out'


CHALMETTE, La. (AP) — Darkness set in for Natasha Blunt well before Hurricane Ida knocked out power across Louisiana.

Months into the pandemic, she faced eviction from her New Orleans apartment. She lost her job at a banquet hall. She suffered two strokes. And she struggled to help her 5-year-old grandson keep up with schoolwork at home.

Like nearly a fifth of the state’s population — disproportionately represented by Black residents and women — Blunt, 51, lives below the poverty line, and the economic fallout of the pandemic sent her to the brink. With the help of a legal aid group and grassroots donors, she moved to Chalmette, a few miles outside New Orleans, and tried to settle into a two-bedroom apartment. Using a cane and taking a slew of medications since her strokes, she was unable to return to work. But federal benefits kept food in the fridge for the most part.

Then came Hurricane Ida.

The storm ravaged Louisiana as the fifth-strongest hurricane to ever hit the U.S. mainland, wiping out the power grid before marching up the coast and sparking devastating flooding in the Northeast. Among survivors of the deadly storm, the toll has been deepest in many ways for people like Blunt — those who already lost livelihoods to the COVID-19 pandemic in a region of longstanding racial and social inequality. Advocates say the small wins they’d made for marginalized communities and people of color since the pandemic began have been quickly wiped out.

“The government is really disconnected from what it’s like for people who have little to no safety net,” said Maggie Harris, a documentarian and grassroots organizer who last year created a fundraiser for Blunt and other women economically devastated by the pandemic. “You marginalize people, you don’t pay them enough, they have health problems and aren’t insured, you offer little cash assistance or rent assistance, and you allow them to be evicted.

"The message that people get is their lives are expendable.”

As Ida approached Louisiana, Blunt knew it was intensifying rapidly. She evacuated to a hotel in Lafayette, more than two hours west of her new home, a day ahead of landfall. But she could afford only a short stay, and the hotel was booked with other evacuees. She had to return to Chalmette, despite officials’ warnings not to go back to hot, humid cities with boil-water advisories and no power.

Her apartment was pitch black. Ida’s Category 4 winds had blown in the windows of her upstairs bedroom. Her few possessions — beds, clothing, furniture — were waterlogged. She’d spent her last dollars getting to the hotel, with no federal aid to evacuate.

“It’s like I’ve got to start all over again,” Blunt said, sobbing as she surveyed the first floor of her apartment, where she sleeps now that the bedroom is uninhabitable. “Every time I get a step ahead, I get pushed back down. And I’m tired. I don’t see no way out.”

Now, Blunt faces eviction for the second time in a year. Her only hope, she said, is Social Security and other disability benefits. She applied before the storm, she said, but has yet to hear back — social safety net programs are often disrupted in the wake of disasters.

Blunt wants to find a new home, preferably far from the storm-battered Gulf Coast — a place where grandson Kamille can resume schooling without worrying about power and Internet outages. But she’s far from optimistic.

“This is the end of the road; I can’t go on much longer,” she said. Kamille put down his kindergarten worksheet to gently rub his grandma’s leg.

“Don’t cry,” he told her. She managed a tender reply: “Do your ABCs, baby.”

____

Anti-poverty and housing advocates in Louisiana bemoan links between being Black or brown, living in impoverished areas, and being underserved by governmental disaster response. Available aid from anti-poverty programs often fails to meet the heightened needs of storm victims in states of emergency.

And that, the advocates say, is what happened during Ida. In Louisiana, where 17 storms that caused at least $1 billion in damage have hit since 2000, nonprofits see some of the most dire need and the starkest divide along socioeconomics lines.

“One of the things that we get really frustrated about, in terms of the narrative, is people saying, ‘Ugh, Louisiana is so resilient,” said Ashley Shelton of the Power Coalition for Equality and Justice, a statewide nonprofit that provides resources and encourages civic participation in underserved communities of color.

“We don’t want to be resilient forever,” she said. “Yes, we’re beautiful and resourceful people. But when you force people to live in a constant state of resilience, it’s just oppression. Fix the systems that are structurally broken.”

It doesn’t help that Louisiana’s poverty rate is higher than the national average, according to the Census Bureau 's American Community Survey. High poverty makes the prospect of temporary or permanent relocation precarious for people who were already teetering on the edge before disaster struck, said Andreanecia Morris of HousingNOLA, a program of the Greater New Orleans Housing Alliance.

“Housing is a foundational issue for all of these catastrophes, whether that be COVID, economic crisis, criminal justice, or education,” Morris said. “Our failure to address racial bias, gender bias and poverty bias in housing impedes all of those things. There is nowhere that is more clear than in our government’s response to disasters. And this one is no different.”

Less than a week after Ida hit, Morris spent a day canvassing areas of New Orleans where her organization helps the neediest cases. In the Lower Ninth Ward, a New Orleans neighborhood that suffered immensely after Hurricane Katrina, 57-year-old Lationa Kemp found herself cut off from most aid.

Kemp said she had been relying on neighbors with cars to get ice, hot meals and bottled water. To stay cool, Kemp left her front door open for fresh air. She’d gone days without power, and Ida had caused roof leaks and fence damage.

To Morris, the situation was urgent. Kemp had disputes with her landlord over the home’s condition, and the threat of eviction loomed. The landlord listed on her eviction notice did not respond to AP’s calls for comment.

Morris wants to get Kemp and her 25-year-old son, Alvin, moved elsewhere permanently. In the meantime, Morris suggested a cooling center.

“Thank you, baby, but I’m fine,” Kemp told her, explaining that she’d rather stay in a dilapidated home — past experiences make her fear the shelter system. “I already told the Lord, I’m praying that when I leave out of here, I’m going to a better house. I’ll have better income so I won’t have to go through this anymore.”

The Biden administration set aside nearly $50 billion for rental assistance during the pandemic, but the money has been slow to get out the door. Advocates in Louisiana say they hoped those COVID-19 funds could be transitioned for storm aid, too, but that it hasn't been so easy. And, for people like Blunt and Kemp, the technological savvy needed to apply online can be a hurdle.

Eventually, the Kemps will probably get the help they need, but it takes time, said Cynthia Wiggins, a tenant and property manager at New Orleans public housing development Guste Homes, one of just a few resident management corporations left in the U.S., where tenants share the responsibilities that landlords typically shoulder.

“There’s nothing that we can do to get around the process,” Wiggins said. “We have the available units, but we paused processing applications when the storm hit.”

____

Like many in Louisiana, Blunt has survived her share of storms — starting with her birth, during the fallout of Hurricane Camille in 1969. As she tells it, her pregnant mother had been moved to a naval medical ship to give birth. Today, Blunt can chuckle over the coincidence of her grandson’s name, Kamille.

“It’s like the storms keep coming for me,” she said, laughing.

The memory of Katrina is scarier. Blunt evacuated to Alabama and then Chicago. When it was safe, she and Kamille’s grandfather returned to their home in New Orleans’ seventh ward to find floodwater damage. But even with the horror stories of Katrina, Blunt said, Ida has been worse for her.

“This here was my worst-ever life experience, coming back to this, coming back to darkness,” she said. “I’m mad enough, I’m sick and scared as it is. Now, I’m tossing and turning at night.”

It might be enough for the lifelong Louisiana resident to leave for good. As she finds herself trashing her storm-damaged belongings, she said she sees no way to find peace in the state.

She’s not alone. Many people have fled the state after major storms, data show. In metro New Orleans, and even in Chalmette in particular, the U.S. Census Bureau recorded signification population loss from its 2000 to 2020 counts. After Katrina, in 2006, nearly 160,000 Louisiana residents in total moved to Texas, Georgia and Mississippi. Louisiana's population rebounded as people returned to rebuild, but it's been in decline again since 2016.

For families who stay in spite of natural disasters, it seems each new generation learns new lessons of survival, said Toya Lewis of Project Hustle, a New Orleans nonprofit that organizes Black and brown street vendors who work in the informal economies.

“No one was prepared to be without power in New Orleans for more than eight days,” Lewis said. “We’re taking all of this lived experience and organizing to thrive. We must begin organizing around our survival.”

And Blunt knows that no matter where she ends up, she’ll survive. Even in the darkness, she finds some light by helping her community — trying to secure a power source for a neighbor's breathing machine, sharing her car as a way for folks to charge cellphones. She tells herself: “I’m going to be OK. ... I do good. I don’t hurt nobody. I’m still standing.”

There's solace in the glimmers of light, but she wants more — not just for her, but for her grandson. “I want us to go somewhere better," Blunt said, helping Kamille with the TV remote, the power finally restored in their apartment.

"Somewhere I can be stable. I just want to be stable.”

___

AP writers Seth Borenstein in Kensington, Maryland, and Michael Schneider in Orlando, Florida, contributed to this report.

___

Morrison is a member of the AP’s Race and Ethnicity team. Follow him on Twitter: https://www.twitter.com/aaronlmorrison.









Hurricane Ida Virus Perfect StormIn the aftermath of Hurricane Ida, Lationa Kemp, 57, walks into her home, Saturday, Sept. 4, 2021, in the Lower Ninth Ward of New Orleans. (AP Photo/Matt Slocum)More

Serbs protest against lithium mining, other eco problems

DARKO VOJINOVIC
Sat, September 11, 2021, 


BELGRADE, Serbia (AP) — Several thousand people protested in Serbia on Saturday demanding a ban on planned lithium mining in the Balkan country as well as a resolution to scores of other environmental issues that made the region one of the most polluted in Europe.

The rally in downtown Belgrade was organized by about 30 ecological groups who recently gained popularity in Serbia amid widespread disillusionment with mainstream politicians and amid major pollution problems facing the region.

The protesters held banners demanding protection of Serbia’s rivers, nature and air which they say have been endangered by profit-seeking government policies and decades of neglect.

The protesters later blocked one of the main bridges in the capital for a while as they announced several other blockades in the rest of the country in the coming months.

More than 100,000 people have signed a petition against international Rio Tinto mining company, which has sought to construct a lithium mine in the western parts of the country that is rich in the mineral used in the production of electric car batteries.

“Our demand is that the government of Serbia annul all obligations to Rio Tinto,” said Aleksandar Jovanovic, one of the organizers. “We have gathered to say no to those who offer concentrated sulphuric acid instead of raspberries and honey.”

A number of experts have warned that nature in western Serbia would suffer in the case of exploitation of lithium in the area that is rich in fertile land and agriculture. Serbia has also faced huge pollution problems caused by coal-powered plants run by Chinese companies.

In addition to mining, Serbia has faced mounting problems that include poor garbage management and high air pollution caused by the use of poor-quality coal and other pollutants. Rivers have been polluted by toxic industrial waste and many cities, including Belgrade, lack good sewage and waste water systems.

“We were thirsty this summer, we breathe toxic air and land is being sold out,” organizers of the protest said in a statement. “Forests are being cut and mines are expanding.”

The Balkan nations must substantially improve their environmental protection policies if they want to move forward in their bids to join the 27-nation EU. Impoverished and marred by corruption after years of wars in the 1990s, many Balkan countries have pushed environmental issues to the sidelines.

Rio Tinto has committed $2.4 billion to the project in Serbia which would make it one of the world’s largest producers of lithium amid increasing demand for electric cars








Serbia Protest
People attend a protest against pollution and the exploitation of a lithium mine in western part of the country, in Belgrade, Serbia, Saturday, Sept. 11, 2021. Hundreds activists gathered to protest against the exploitation of a lithium mine by international Rio Tinto company. (AP Photo/Darko Vojinovic)
.



The Climate Museum is the first of its kind in the U.S. - and its founder is on a mission







Tatiana Schlossberg, Special To The Washington Post
Fri, September 10, 2021

Miranda Massie said she was going to do it herself, whatever it was.

That morning, the last of July, Massie, the founder and director of the Climate Museum, stood in an old military officer's house on Governors Island, one of the emerald studs in New York City's shimmering harbor necklace.

First, she rehung a giant orange poster that had fallen overnight. Then she stepped outside, answered a question from a volunteer, another from a staff member, scraped a Dole sticker off a bunch of organic bananas set out for future visitors, tucked on a baseball cap, posed for a picture and quickly shifted gears, her eyes flashing when asked about the fossil fuel industry's role in climate change.

"Their disinformation has delayed action, resulting in the mayhem we see. But just as there are bad actors isn't the point, the community and art and coming together we are facilitating today isn't the point either," she said, lighting up as she continued to explain.

"The point is to stop their influence on policy. How can you explain their influence on climate policy to a rational person?" She paused. "You can't."

Massie was on Governors Island that day to launch a poster campaign called "Beyond Lies," a collaboration between the museum and Mona Chalabi, data editor at the Guardian US, as well as a journalist and illustrator. The campaign explores the culpability of the fossil fuel industry in stalling climate action.

This mission - better informing the public about the industry's actions over the last few decades - is a piece of Massie's larger project with the Climate Museum, which is the first of its kind in the United States.

In the last several years, the organization has had about 80,000 visits to its in-person programming - probably an underestimate, as it's impossible to know how many people come across a public art installation. It has always aspired to bring discussions about climate change out of the science silo to the broader public. Since its inception in 2015, though, the institution has transformed from an organization using art to raise awareness about climate change to an institution focused on the intersection of art, climate science, justice and activism - and how each can be used in service of the others to urge meaningful climate action in our political system and our culture.

Rather than building an explicitly educational space or a climate-art gallery, Massie has created a museum that aims to make people feel that collective action is both possible and necessary, and the only hope we have of saving the planet.

"The real change comes in what people feel in relation to each other, and in relation to their own capacity, their own agency in the world," she said. "That's where the transformation comes, and that's when people are able to decide to act."

But Massie used to be like so many of us, kind of. She avoided reading climate change news. For years, she repeatedly rented but never got around to watching "An Inconvenient Truth," Al Gore's 2006 documentary about climate change, because she feared the resulting sense of dread would be overwhelming. And in her one small act of youthful rebellion against her Earth-conscious father, she decided that environmentalism was "the province of the privileged - for people who didn't have more pressing and immediate concerns."

But she had the nagging sense that climate change was going to come into her life eventually. If she watched the movie, she thought, she knew deep down she'd have to give up everything else she was doing to try to change the world.

Before that happened, Massie tried to change the world in a different way: She worked as a civil rights attorney and public interest lawyer, fighting for civil rights, affirmative action, environmental justice, immigrant justice and disability rights in Detroit and New York.

But as the crisis inched closer, Massie felt like she couldn't avoid it anymore.

Starting in 2008, she was working on environmental justice issues in New York. Her main case was about the city's public schools, where PCBs - highly toxic industrial compounds that can result in severe developmental and neurological problems with prolonged exposure in fetuses, infants and young children - were leaking from light fixtures into several hundred classrooms, including one led by a pregnant teacher.

While fighting that case, she said, she recognized "that without the right and the ability to thrive in your environment, all other claims to equality, all other civil rights, are at best much more difficult to enforce, and at worst, kind of irrelevant."

In 2012, she further bore witness up close to the reality of environmental justice and the destruction of climate change in the form of Hurricane Sandy. Those events also coincided with a major professional setback - being turned down for a leadership role at her public interest law organization - which taught her not to be afraid of failing in public.

The confluence of those different story lines pushed her to become, rather suddenly, someone completely committed to climate issues. She became someone who, without curatorial training or a background in art, climate science, public education or fundraising, quit her job and changed careers, taking on a significant risk to start the country's first museum dedicated to climate change.

Getting it off the ground - putting together exhibitions and programming, raising nearly $4 million, amassing grants from the Mellon Foundation and the Rockefeller Brothers Fund, along with governmental grants - hasn't been easy work. But close observers say that if anyone can do it, it's Massie, though she is practically allergic to centering herself in the narrative or taking credit for almost anything the museum has achieved.

Peter Knight, an early adviser to the Climate Museum and chair of its board, said of Massie, "Many of us in public service are trying to figure out our highest and best use. The fact that she could pivot at that point in her life to say, 'I was doing some important things, but my highest best use could and should be to solve this problem,' . . . well, it's hard to put into words, but that takes a great deal of courage to do."

In 2015, the Climate Museum was born.

But this past summer, that day in July at the old officer's home, it felt a bit like a party. There was music by Dr. Drum, an Afro Rican bomba drummer and social justice activist from the Bronx, joined by two bandmates. Student volunteers from local high schools handed out smaller versions of the posters to passersby for them to read at their leisure, or, preferably, to take home and hang in their own neighborhood or share with others. All of the posters are also downloadable, so people everywhere can participate in the campaign.

It was the museum's first event since the covid-19 pandemic stalled previous plans for exhibitions and opportunities to bring people together to learn and organize for climate action in person. Massie, with a shock of so-white-it's-almost-purple hair atop a petite frame, was thrilled by how many people stopped by the event, including many who had never heard of the museum before, engaging with her brand of climate activism for the first time.

The Climate Museum still doesn't have a physical location, though Massie hopes to move into a permanent home in New York in the next few years. The Trust for Governors Island, a nonprofit created by the city to manage and develop the former military base for greater public use, has granted the museum a seasonal exhibition space.

Since each project or exhibition is a negotiation for space and funding, the museum has managed to stay nimble, which was an asset during the pandemic - the staff already knew how to leverage their following and their online presence to engage the community Massie calls "the climate curious" - a group of people identified by researchers as those who are interested and "freaked out" about climate change, but don't have anyone to talk to about it.

Part of the museum's ability to adapt, close observers say, comes from the example Massie sets for the organization. Sloan Leo, an artist and community designer who has worked for years in the world of environmental and social justice non-profits, said of Massie, "She is willing to fail without judgment. She is open not just for pushback but also critique as a way to improve," they said. "She is a very rare bird."

The museum's success also derives from Massie's unique ability to engage and inspire. Those who encounter the museum sense that there is work to be done that they, particularly and specifically, can do.

Maggie O'Donnell started as a curatorial intern at the Climate Museum in 2019 after graduating from college, and has stayed to work at the museum since then. She now serves as the research and program coordinator. O'Donnell was previously inclined toward environmentalism and climate action, though she viewed her activism as "more personal," she said.

Working at the museum, specifically as a docent during the "Taking Action" exhibition, changed how she thought of collective action and movement building, she said. The way that the Climate Museum practices engaging new communities and bringing people along is "not forceful, but a celebration of where people are at on their climate journeys and how can we help you take action and feel part of something bigger than yourself."

The act of gathering is one thing that generally makes people feel part of something bigger than themselves, and assembling has been difficult during the pandemic. But the museum found a way by putting together a series of virtual panel discussions recorded and uploaded to YouTube entitled "Talking Climate," covering everything from climate law to displacement, to public health and the food system. According to Massie, 85 percent of viewers surveyed said it would make them take some form of action on climate change.

But one of the museum's most successful events - in terms of public engagement and press attention, at least - was its 2018 show, "Climate Signals."

For that, the museum worked with Justin Brice Guariglia, an artist and photographer, and placed solar-powered LED highway signs - far away from roadways so as not to distract drivers - with varying messages about climate change in locations around all five boroughs of New York City. In partnership with neighborhood groups, it targeted locations where the city is especially vulnerable to sea level rise.

Massie also wanted to ensure that the installations drew attention to the social and environmental injustices, placing signs in neighborhoods where people of color experience disproportionately higher temperatures and more pollution than White neighborhoods, as well as sites in Lower Manhattan and Wall Street - icons of global finance and wealth.

For several months, people could see in the languages most commonly spoken in each neighborhood - English, Spanish, Chinese, Russian and French - signs heralding warnings and messages about climate change: "Climate Change at Work," "No Icebergs Ahead," "Alt Facts End Now," "Abolish Coal-onialism," "End Climate Injustice," "Vote Eco Logically" and others.

One day the staff sent scientists out to stand at some of the signs and answer questions visitors might have about climate change. They anticipated questions about climate science. Most of what they got, however, were questions like, "What can I do to make a difference?"

That, Massie said - along with her own evolution as the world hurtles ever faster toward mass extinctions, rising sea levels, increasingly furious forest fires and more - helped change what she wanted to accomplish with the museum.

"Art is built into who we are and how we're communal," she said. "We always try to bring art and science together, and without the science, we'd be nowhere. . . . But it's not as important for people to learn the details of climate science as it is for them to feel connected in the human project of changing the world."