It’s possible that I shall make an ass of myself. But in that case one can always get out of it with a little dialectic. I have, of course, so worded my proposition as to be right either way (K.Marx, Letter to F.Engels on the Indian Mutiny)
Friday, October 22, 2021
SCOTLAND Sturgeon told to get involved in long-running rail dispute as staff set to strike during Cop26 A Caledonian Sleeper train at Edinburgh Waverley Station
A RAIL union has told Nicola Sturgeon that she must personally intervene and try to resolve a long-running rail dispute which could see staff take strike action during the Cop26 climate summit.
RMT general secretary Mick Lynch accused rail bosses of having “dragged their heels over further talks,” despite the fact that the “clock is ticking” to the start of the summit.
Thousands of delegates from across the globe, including world leaders such as US President Joe Biden, will be in Scotland for the crucial UN Cop26 climate change talks, which get underway on October 31.
With that in mind, Mr Lynch said he had now written to the First Minister “calling on her to intervene as a matter of urgency to bring about a fair resolution” to the dispute.
In his letter, he said it is completely within the Scottish government’s powers to resolve these disputes before Cop26 commences.
Earlier this week, members of another rail union, the TSSA, voted to accept the pay offer from ScotRail.
It comes after Scotland’s railways have seen months of industrial action.
Mr Lynch said: “It is frankly disgraceful that, rather than getting all parties round the table for meaningful talks to bring about a fair resolution to these disputes, the Scottish government is still failing to intervene — despite being in control of the ScotRail franchise and having a major interest in the Sleeper service.
“RMT has made clear from the outset that it is open to meaningful talks.
“Therefore, it is disappointing that with the clock ticking and just days to go until Cop26, ScotRail and the Sleeper have dragged their heels over further talks, preferring instead to issue inflammatory and misleading communications to its workforce.”
A spokeswoman for Transport Scotland, the Scottish government’s transport agency, said it was “disappointing” that the RMT had not put the pay offer to its members in a ballot.
She said: “We are keen to see this issue resolved ahead of Cop26 so everyone who works in Scotland’s railways can play their part in welcoming the world to our country and showcase our efforts towards building a greener, cleaner railway.”
A ScotRail spokesman said it was disappointing to see the RMT continue with strike action, calling for workers and bosses to come together to rebuild the railways.
DON'T HIRE MALE DRIVERS
Lyft recorded more than 4,000 cases of sexual assault including 360 reports of rape over just three years
Ride-share company Lyft has recorded more than 4,000 sexual assault cases between 2017 to 2019
The company had previously received criticism for not detailing safety methods for riders in situations such as sexual assault
The report was released two years after Uber made public their own with 5,981 cases recorded
Lyft's new report is one of many safety measures that the company is implementing for their riders and drivers
The ride-share company Lyft recorded more than 4,000 sexual assault cases between 2017 to 2019, its first safety report released on Thursday reveals.
The Lyft report comes after fellow ride sharing company Uber released similar data in a 2019 report which revealed around 6,000 reported cases between 2017 to 2018.
In total, Lyft reported 1,096 reports of sexual assault in 2017, 1,255 in 2018 and 1,807 in 2019. There were also 360 total reports of rape between the three years.
The company, which received criticism for not addressing sexual assault, was initially seen as the safer ride-sharing option as compared to Uber. The ride-share company Lyft has recorded more than 4,000 sexual cases between 2017 to 2019 in their new safety report that was released on Thursday
Fellow ride-share company Uber had released their own report two years earlier with 5,981 cases recorded between 2017 to 2018
'We recognize that sexual assault is chronically underreported, and it can sometimes be months or years before a survivor is ready to come forward and report what happened — if they choose to do so at all,' the company wrote in a statement, according to the Washington Post.
'Knowing this, Lyft included any incident reported in 2017, 2018 and 2019, regardless of when the incident was reported to have occurred.'
'Lyft intentionally uses broad definitions … to classify instances of sexual assault.'
The report also states that the highest number of these assaults were determined to be in relation to nonconsensual touching of a sexual body part.
Nonconsensual touching of a sexual body part was one of five categories included in the safety report.
The others included were nonconsensual kissing of both sexual and nonsexual body parts as well as attempted and nonconsensual sexual penetration.
Lyft had previously received criticism for their alleged lack of 'awareness' in the treatment of incidents such as sexual assault
The Lyft report appears to be one of the first steps for the company in recognizing sexual assault and ensuring the safety for their riders.
'In putting the safety of its community members as its top priority, Lyft takes all reported incidents seriously and thoroughly investigates each one,' Jennifer Brandenburger, the company's head of policy development and research wrote in the report.
'Lyft’s Safety Specialists are trained to approach each case with respect and care. Doing so helps protect drivers and riders and makes the Lyft community safer for all.'
The company had previously begun enforcing safety measures in 2019 by adding in new features on the app.
Some of these features include hiding contact information between the drivers and riders, using a check-in option for users during their trips as well as a partnership with security company ADT for emergency services.
President and co-founder John Zimmer has commented on the company's new efforts and said 'Safety is fundamental to Lyft'
'Safety is fundamental to Lyft,' the company president and co-founder John Zimmer said.
'That means creating features and policies to give riders and drivers peace of mind, and being clear about what happens on our platform.'
'Our report is just that: a look at where our company has been and where we're heading, in order to help everyone have a safe ride from beginning to end.'
The ride-sharing company also has said that they do not automatically report sexual assault cases to the police unless it is requested by the victim.
They also are providing support services to victims such as counseling, crisis interventions and detailing how to properly contact law enforcement.
Lyft is also providing background checks for the company's drivers to further ensure that their riders in safe hands.
Besides sexual assault, Lyft has also documented 105 motor vehicle deaths and 10 physical assault related fatalities in its three-year report.
Uber's previous 2019 report documented a total of 5,981 cases between 2017 to 2018.
Despite the report, the company was still faced with a $59 million fine by the California Public Utilities Commission (CPUC) for not releasing further details on the sexual assault victim's private information in December of last year.
The fine was reduced in July to $150,000 following an agreement after the pair had reached a preliminary agreement.
As part of the agreement, Uber would pay $9million to supp
ort a state victims' fund and help create industry-wide safety and reporting standards.
Alison Turkos, 33, was one of 14 plaintiffs in 2019 to report a Lyft assault after had been gang raped by her driver and two other men a couple years earlier
Lyft had also faced a California lawsuit of their own in 2019 by 14 plaintiffs who claimed that the company did not take steps to prevent sexual assault or violence from its drivers.
One suit involved Alison Turkos, 33, who claimed she was kidnapped and gang raped by her driver and two men in 2017 while on a trip from Brooklyn to a park in New Jersey.
After notifying Lyft of the terrifying incident, she was still forced to pay the fee for the ride and was 'unpaired' her from the driver.
She also reported to the incident to the NYPD who opened an investigation and contacted the FBI. It was said to be handled as a human trafficking case.
UN chief Guterres 'very worried' over possible COP26 failure United Nations Secretary-General Antonio Guterres arrives to addresses the 76th Session of the UN General Assembly on September 21, 2021 in New York. -
UN chief Antonio Guterres said Thursday that the current climate situation was "a one-way ticket for disaster" and stresed the need to "avoid a failure" at the COP26 climate conference in Glasgow.
The 2015 Paris Agreement on climate change, struck at the COP21 summit, called for capping global warming at well below 2C above the pre-industrial level, and ideally closer to 1.5C. But current UN estimates indicate a "catastrophic" warming of 2.7C is on the cards.
Guterres said the present indications "show a pathway of at least 2,7C heating above pre industrial levels, and that’s obviously a one way ticket for disaster."
"The carbon pollution of a handful of countries has brought humanity to its knees and they bear the greatest responsability," he told an online press conference with members of the Covering Climate Now international project.
"I hope we are still on time to avoid a failure in Glasgow, but time is running short, and things are getting more difficult and that is why I’m very very worried. I’m afraid things might get wrong," he said. "The G20 leaders will meet in Rome and they know their economies are responsible for four-fifth of planet carbon pollution," Guterres said. "If they do not stand up ... we are headed for terrible human sufferings," he added. He said: "China and the United States must do more than what they have announced so far."
Held between October 31 and November 12, the Glasgow gathering is seen as a crucial step in setting worldwide emission targets to slow global warming.
Alabama executes Willie B. Smith III, an intellectually disabled prisoner, after US Supreme Court fails to intervene
Willie B. Smith III, 52, was executed Thursday night in Alabama, despite overwhelming evidence of his intellectual disability. The US Supreme Court declined to hear an 11th-hour appeal on Smith’s behalf, clearing the way for his execution.
Smith was convicted and sentenced to death for the 1991 murder of Sharma Ruth Johnson, 22. Smith robbed Johnson, the sister of a police officer, then forced her into the trunk of her car, shot her and set her car on fire. Smith spent close to three decades on death row.
Smith’s jury voted 10-2 to recommend the death penalty, and his trial judge sentenced him to death. Alabama is the only state that still allows a death sentence to be imposed without a unanimous recommendation from the jury.
His execution was delayed by several hours while the US Supreme Court considered a petition by his lawyers over the method of execution. Smith later died by lethal injection in the execution chamber of the Holman Correctional Facility in Atmore, Alabama. He was pronounced dead at 9:47 p.m., according to the Associated Press (AP).
On October 17, a federal district court denied for a second time Smith’s claim that putting him to death by lethal injection violated his rights under the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA). Smith was set to die by lethal injection, Alabama’s default method of execution, after he failed to fill out a form from the Alabama Department of Corrections in which he could have designated the alternative method of execution, nitrogen hypoxia.
State death row inmates, including Smith, were given 30 days from June 1, 2018, to choose lethal injection or nitrogen hypoxia as their means of execution. They were required to sign, date and return the provided form. The Montgomery Adviser reports that several inmates received the notice “a few days before the deadline and described a scramble to contact attorneys and understand the offer to them.”
Smith’s legal team said he needed assistance to understand the form and what to do with it. They said their client’s “significant cognitive deficiencies” qualified him for protection under the ADA and required Alabama to provide him reasonable accommodations to designate a method of execution. A successful appeal on this issue would have stayed Smith’s execution, not prevented it outright.
Alabama is one of three states, the others being Oklahoma and Mississippi, that authorizes nitrogen hypoxia as an execution method. No state has used it. In a nitrogen hypoxia execution, the prisoner would breathe pure nitrogen, depriving the body of oxygen and causing asphyxiation.
Oklahoma, the only state other than Alabama to have publicly discussed plans to use
nitrogen hypoxia executions, said in 2019 that at least seven companies declined to sell them a
“gas delivery device” for executions. Pharmaceutical companies in the past have refused to sell drugs to states to be used for lethal injection, saying the use of their products for executions violates their terms of business.
“In a very real sense, execution by nitrogen hypoxia is experimental,” Death Penalty Information Center Executive Director Robert Dunham told Newsweek. “It has never been done before and no one has any idea whether it is going to work the way its proponents say it will. And there is no way to test it because it is completely unethical to experimentally kill someone against their will.”
Alabama says that its nitrogen hypoxia execution protocol and facilities are nearly complete, but the state has not indicated whether it plans to carry out nitrogen-gas executions by filling a specially designed chamber with the gas or by administering a lethal dose of the gas through a breathing apparatus strapped to the prisoner’s face.
Arizona announced in June that it is ready to revive another method of execution, saying it has
“refurbished” its gas chamber and is prepared to use cyanide gas, which was used by the Nazis to murder more than a million people during the Holocaust.
Willie Smith’s final appeal, and its deadly outcome, was the latest in a series of legal developments in his case. The US Supreme Court ruled in 2002 in Atkins v. Virginia that the use of capital punishment against individuals with intellectual disabilities violates the Eighth Amendment’s ban against cruel and unusual punishment. In July 2020, however, the high court declined to review Smith’s appeal of Alabama state and federal courts’ denial of his Atkins claim.
Alabama denied Smith’s claim on the basis that he had not proved that his intellectual and adaptive functioning were sufficiently impaired to be diagnosed as intellectually disabled. The state courts ruled that Smith’s IQ score was 72, unadjusted for measurement errors. This was just two points above the state’s IQ cutoff of 70. Focusing on his adaptive skills, the courts claimed these skills outweighed his intellectual disability.
In 2014, the Supreme Court ruled in Hall v. Florida that the use of IQ cutoff scores is unconstitutional, and subsequently ruled in Moore v. Texas that the focus of a determination of adaptive functioning should be on the presence or absence of deficits, not on whether there are counterbalancing strengths.
The US Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit agreed that Smith would have been ineligible for execution if Alabama had applied a constitutionally valid standard for determining intellectual disability. However, it ruled that his execution could proceed because Hall and Moore should be applied only to cases that had not yet been decided on appeal at the time of the Supreme Court decision. It was, they argued, simply “a matter of timing”—timing that arbitrarily condemned Smith to death.
On February 10, 2021, a three-judge panel of the Eleventh Circuit voted to enjoin Alabama from carrying out Smith’s execution on the basis of the state’s refusal to allow his spiritual adviser to attend to him in the execution chamber. The Supreme Court left the injunction in place unless the state would allow Smith’s pastor to be present in the execution chamber, which they agreed to in June, removing that barrier to his execution.
Willie Smith was the eighth person to be executed in the US in 2021, including three federal prisoners. Since the Supreme Court reinstated the death penalty in 1976 after a brief hiatus, 1,537 condemned prisoners have met their deaths, including the intellectually disabled, those convicted of crimes committed as juveniles and foreign nationals denied their consular rights. Victims of capital punishment in the US are overwhelming poor and working class. Ethnic minorities are disproportionately represented among them.
NOT CHEMTRAILS THEY ARE;
Contrails: How tweaking flight plans can help the climate
Beth Timmins - Business reporter, BBC News Fri, October 22, 2021, Aircraft condensation trails can have a significant impact on the climate, say researchers
Those wispy white lines that crisscross the skies after an aeroplane flies overhead are far less benign than their fluffy patterns might suggest.
Contrails are water vapour that condenses as ice onto soot particles emitted from aircraft engines. They don't always occur as it requires certain atmospheric conditions: the air must be very cold, humid and "supersaturated" for ice to form.
They trap and absorb outgoing heat which otherwise escapes into space. This worsens at night when it is colder and the contrail has a longer lifetime. They can also have a less significant cooling effect, blocking incoming sunlight - but only during daytime. Contrails: What changes might help? Flight to the moon
Adjust flight routes so aircraft can avoid areas where they form
Teach pilots how to change altitude mid-flight without disrupting passengers' comfort
Introduce a contrails tax, and give airlines a refund if their flights are contrail-free
Contrails can last for seconds, hours or even a day in the atmosphere - and this determines the climate impact of a particular contrail will have. But recent research shows there could be a solution for this overlooked issue.
Prof Marc Stettler, transport and environment lecturer at Imperial College London, says changing the altitude of fewer than 2% of flights could potentially reduce contrail-linked climate change by a staggering 59%. "Tweaking the flight elevation by just a thousand feet can stop some contrails from forming," he explains.
Adjustments would mean an aircraft could avoid some of the regions of the atmosphere that are cold and humid enough to create contrails in the first place. The HALO research aircraft which measures the impact of contrails
"A relatively small proportion of flights contribute to the majority of climate impact. So if we can alter these flights, we can significantly reduce the climate impact," says Prof Stettler.
Recent research from Prof Christiane Voigt, head of the cloud physics department at Mainz University, Germany, underlines this.
She has been conducting trials with the German Aerospace Centre (DLR) to measure and mitigate the impact of contrails.
Her team use high-altitude long-range (HALO) G550 research aircraft to gather their data. The aircraft carries wing-mounted instruments measuring contrail properties and the light scattered by radiation. This allows them to evaluate their forecasts' accuracy and investigate the impact of radiation.
"Our results have been really positive. We were able to predict and avoid around 80% of the contrails with little cost," she says. Prof Voigt adds that very few flights would have to be deviated to win a "large climate impact". Contrail sensors and measuring apparatus on HALO
While there were some uncertainties, her team were able to track down most of the contrails and avoid the correct areas.
"We are at the beginning of a race to avoid them. And I have the impression that [companies] such as Lufthansa and Airbus, are really interested, as it is low cost and effective," she says.
Royal Aeronautical Society fellow, Prof Keith Hayward, is optimistic it may only need a software tweak to adjust many flight plans to avoid contrail creation, and that this could be done at a relatively low cost.
Compared to the typical $200m cost of a passenger aircraft or engine changes which can run to $12m, a software change is relatively inexpensive, he says.
Prof Hayward says the next challenge is for airlines to work out how altitude changes of a "few thousand feet" can be made mid-flight to avoid contrails while also not disrupting passengers' comfort. A pilot would need to spot these in "sufficient time for an aircraft to adapt gracefully", he adds. A Flightkeys cockpit system prototype, visualising the cost-optimum speed and altitude range at every point along a flight
But Prof Voigt does not believe this is necessarily a problem. She thinks flight comfort could improve as flight paths would avoid some of the sky's water vapour areas - which both form contrails and cause bumpy turbulence.
Raimund Zopp, former pilot and co-founder of Austrian flight services software company, Flightkeys, is working on contrail visualisations to programme into flight plan technology. The company plans to include contrail avoidance in their airline customers' flight plan trajectories by 2023.
"Only a very small portion of flights are causing the problem so you only need to change a few flight plans to have a huge effect," he says.
As a former pilot, Mr Zopp says that from a flight procedure perspective, adding this information would be easy. "The flight plans get programmed into the navigation of the plane system, but pilots need training on this new contrail aspect of the flight plan profile". Marc Settler: "Tweaking the flight elevation by just a thousand feet can stop some contrails from forming" Reducing contrails
Any action on climate change that doesn't relate directly to cutting emissions is lower down the priority list for governments and industry, because CO2 is the most important greenhouse gas for most sectors.
Yet unlike other sectors, aviation also has very significant non-CO2 impacts.
Prof Settler believes that people have hesitated to reduce contrails by diverting flights because of fears it would be completely unfeasible - that all flights might have to be changed or it would hugely increase fuel consumption. This latest research shows this is not the case.
Dr Jarlath Molloy, senior environmental affairs manager at the air traffic service provider, NATS, agrees that up until now, there has been a lack of focus on non-CO2 problems from the entire industry.
Yet from an operational perspective, tackling contrails is "just one extra element the aircraft would have to compute", he says, and it could even be managed in a similar way to how authorities already orchestrate groups of flights to avoid big winter storms.
"We're exploring the feasibility of it and what we'd have to do to manage flights looking for the same routes" Dr Molloy adds. Preventing most of the damaging climate impact of contrails could cost less than $1bn a year
The Department for Transport says it is "currently considering" a range of responses to its Jet Zero consultation on how to "make the sector cleaner and greener", and that this strategy "will aim to address" aviation's non-CO2 impact.
Meanwhile atmospheric scientist Prof Ken Caldiera, from the Carnegie Institution for Science, makes a compelling case. He estimates preventing most of the damaging climate impact of contrails would cost less than $1bn (£720m) a year and the net value of the benefit could be more than a thousand times that.
So could a financial penalty focus minds in aviation more quickly? Dr Andrew Gettleman of the US National Center for Atmospheric Research says while more research is needed, a contrail tax or avoidance rebate could be introduced if a carbon tax were approved.
"We haven't seen the overall regulatory scheme yet for carbon in aviation, but once we get a larger regime in place for mitigating climate change and reducing carbon - then we can tackle the contrail problem properly."
Magnesium Buyers Warn Crunch Threatens Millions of European Jobs
Mark Burton Fri, October 22, 2021
(Bloomberg) -- Europe’s magnesium shortage could shutter industrial operations within weeks, threatening thousands of businesses and millions of jobs in sectors from cars to packaging, associations warned.
Chinese exports of magnesium -- a critical material for hardening aluminum alloys and used in everything from power tools to laptops -- has plunged as the nation cuts output because of an energy crunch. That’s caused prices to spike and left buyers worldwide exposed.
Europe, which buys 95% of its magnesium from China, is expected to run out of the metal by the end of November, a group of industry associations including European Aluminium, Eurometaux and industriAll said on Friday. Production shortages, factory closures and job losses could follow unless reserves are replenished, they said.
The magnesium shortfall is among a growing list of headaches for a wide range of industries that have been hit by record gas and power prices, higher prices of materials such as copper and snarled supply chains.
“Supply of magnesium originating from China has either been halted or reduced drastically since September 2021, resulting in an international supply crisis of unprecedented magnitude,” the group said. It urged governments and the European Commission “to urgently work toward immediate actions with their Chinese counterparties to mitigate the short-term, critical shortage issue, as well as the longer-term supply effects on European industries.”
There have been similarly stark warnings in the U.S., where a leading producer of aluminum billet told customers it may curtail output and ration deliveries as soon as next year due to the shortage. Alcoa Corp., the largest U.S. maker of raw aluminum, has also voiced concerns about magnesium scarcity and has seen some suppliers suspending deliveries.
Abortion, guns, and religion: How to think about creating a counter-conservatism
John Stoehr October 22, 2021 Milwaukee, Wisconsin / USA - January 14th, 2020: Many supporters of 45th United States American President Donald Trump attended the Make America Great Again Rally at UW-Milwaukee Panther Arena.
Yesterday, I said the Republican Party isn't conservative in the way it defined the term for 50 years. With exceptions, it meant opposition to "state intervention" in the economy, business, or civil affairs. These days, however, Republican voters want elected officials to use the power of the state to ensure the superiority of white people. You can call that conservative, too. But that's not how the GOP defined it. Until very recently, the party at least paid lip-service to political equality.
What about the Democrats? Well, they are more liberal than they have ever been in my lifetime. But the fact remains the party is very big — on account of Donald Trump chasing away people who really did believe in conservatism as defined for half a century, with privilege for private property, private enterprise and individual liberty. Those voters have to go somewhere, even if they call themselves independents. This is one reason the Democrats are now fighting among themselves.
With so much attention paid in recent years to the liberal drift of the Democratic Party, there's been less attention paid to its conservative character. That might be a blessing. After all, "conservative" as applied to the Democrats is not the same as "conservative" as applied to the Republicans. But because these modes of thinking are different and distinct, there's an opportunity to redefine what it means to be a Democratic conservative. Or at least what it should mean by centering political equality. If the GOP can define it, why can't the Democrats?
The following is my attempt to shake the dust off the term as it applies to only three controversial issues. My hope is that by characterizing a kind of counter-conservatism, we can, first of all, see the fuller breadth of human understanding. Second, give conservatives who might still be in thrall to right-wing propaganda a means of seeing there's room for them in the Democratic Party as long as they commit to equality. Abortion
This one's easier than you think. Lots of Democrats sit on the line between pro-choice and anti-abortion. Joe Biden has said for his entire career he's personally opposed to it, because he's a Catholic, but he supports the right of women to control their own bodies. I said the difference is a line, but I think it's more than a gap. You can oppose abortion but simultaneously oppose state regulation of an individual's very body. That's conservative political equality. If you don't think women ought to have such rights, well, there's always the fascist party. As for the fetus being a person, any idiot can see a fetus is not a person until it's born. Then it's a person entitled to full rights and privileges.
Guns
This one's not as hard as you think either. To a conservative, human beings are inherently evil. Evil people, even when occasionally good, should not be allowed to own serious firepower. The more guns around, the more likely someone's going to get hurt. Case in point: every single shooting massacre. The government should ban AR-15s and the like. It should compensate owners by buying their guns at fair market prices. The only guns available to private citizens should be for hunting and home defense. As for open and concealed carry, why? We're not trained peace officers. Let's not make-believe we are. You can call this "state intervention," but a conservative who believes in equality as well as the inherent evil of human beings might call this leveling the playing field so that no one has an unfair advantage.
Religion
Conservatives are more likely than liberals to believe their religion is the right one. But conservatives who center equality have not been as vocal as they should be about the need to maintain and defend the establishment clause of the First Amendment. The separation between church and state is not for the advancement of secularism, as some conservatives would have you believe. It's for the advancement of religion itself, yours and everyone else's. Some historians suggest the establishment clause is how the US became the most religious among industrialized nations. Without the thumb of government on the scales, religions had to compete in the marketplace of religions. For all religions to be equal in the eyes of the state is best for all of them.
I'll talk about other controversial issues another time. In the meanwhile, why not give it a try? Explain as well as you can how you think a conservative who centers equality might approach a given issue. Or tell me I'm full of it. After all, maybe a conservative who centers equality isn't conservative. Maybe they're just liberal! John Stoehr is a fellow at the Yale Journalism Initiative; a contributing writer for the Washington Monthly; a contributing editor for Religion Dispatches; and senior editor at Alternet. Follow him @johnastoehr
The seedy history behind gerrymandering and the fight to preserve white power Mia Brett October 22, 2021 FILE PHOTO: Demonstrators rally in front of the Supreme court before oral arguments on Benisek v. Lamone, a redistricting case on whether Democratic lawmakers in Maryland unlawfully drew a congressional district in a way that would prevent a Republican candidate from winning, in Washington, U.S., March 28, 2018.
REUTERS/Joshua Roberts/File Photo
Maps are being redrawn all over the country in response to last year's census. Unfortunately, the process currently leaves a lot of room for partisan gerrymandering. It is the first time since the passage of the Voting Rights Act that district maps will be drawn without the preclearance requirement of the Voting Rights Act for many states.
A 2019 Supreme Court case also makes it impossible to bring gerrymander cases to federal courts on the basis of partisanship. Luckily some states have passed redistricting reforms since the last census. Others have divided legislatures where partisan abuse is less likely. But there are states that will attempt to draw maps in blatantly partisan ways, particularly to protect Republican political power.
The practice of manipulating voting districts for political power — ie, gerrymandering — wasn't invented in the US but it's hard to say we didn't perfect it. In 18th-century Britain, districts called "rotten boroughs" were drawn with few voters to ensure certain representatives were elected to Parliament. Gerrymandered districts have existed since the inception of US congressional districts, but initially the districts were still drawn in relatively normal ways.
The term "gerrymander" was coined after an 1812 Massachusetts state senate district map was drawn and signed into law by then Governor Elbridge Gerry. The map drew a long thin district that sliced up Essex County, which usually voted for the Federalist Party, in order to help the Democratic-Republicans. As a result, a county that had elected five Federalist representatives elected three Democratic-Republicans and only two Federalists. Federalists won over 1,500 more votes statewide but elected only 11 representatives while Democratic-Republicans elected 29. Ultimately, the extreme district map caused a backlash and Federalists soon regained power and redrew the district map.
The bill was seen as a partisan vendetta by many Federalists and when a satirical cartoon was drawn Elbridge Gerry's name was used to describe the salamander-like monster. Thus the term "gerrymander" was born. While obviously not the first time districts were drawn in a way to consolidate political power, the Massachusetts map was the first example of a district drawn in a clearly ridiculous way.
In 1842, Congress passed the Apportionment Act. It required districts to be geographically contiguous but there's little evidence it was enforced. Once Black men gained the right to vote, the use of gerrymandering grew with a vengeance. States redrew their maps more often after the Civil War to advantage the Republican and the Democratic parties. Democrat-controlled Ohio redrew its congressional districts six times between 1878 and 1890 to ensure Democrats were in control of the state. In 1888, Pennsylvania redrew its map so Republicans could retain their majority in the state House.
After the Civil War, gerrymandering not only caused partisan results but was used to disenfranchise Black voters, specifically as a response to the Black political power gained during reconstruction. In 1876, a Texas newspaper commented that the racist gerrymanders disenfranchised Black voters by "indirection." Mississippi created a "shoestring district" and South Carolina drew a "boa constrictor" district in order to disenfranchise Black voters. This "boa constrictor" district linked every Black precinct that could be connected by even the smallest land continuity. By isolating Black voters , the violent intimidation or outright fraud needed to disenfranchise them became much easier. Along with poll taxes, literacy tests and all-white primaries, racist gerrymanders successfully disenfranchised Black voters in the South until the civil rights movement.
In the 1960s, the Supreme Court issued a number of opinions dubbed the "redistricting revolution" to address gerrymandered districts. In 1960, the court found that district lines drawn with the intention of disenfranchising Black voters violated the 15th Amendment in Gomillion v. Lightfoot. Justice Frankfurter's opinion held that an Alabama act that created a Tuskegee district that excluded nearly all Black voters effectively denied people their vote to vote on the basis of race. Overturning the 1946 decision Colegrove v. Green, which held that malapportioned congressional districts were not the purview of the federal judiciary, Baker v. Carr in 1962 held that redistricting issues could be brought to federal courts under the 14th amendment. Two years later the Supreme Court decided two cases, Wesberry v. Sanders and Reynolds v. Sims, requiring that electoral districts be established based on equal population and the principle of "one person, one vote."
While important precedent that forced maps to be redrawn, the requirement of uniform population did not stop districts from being drawn in bizarre shapes to protect partisan power. In 1993, in Shaw v. Reno, the Supreme Court held that a bizarrely shaped district is strongly indicative of "racial intent" and therefore will be struck down for violating the Equal Protection Clause if no other reason for the shape can be given. While certainly a step in the right direction, Shaw didn't exactly end the practice of drawing ridiculously shaped districts. Additionally, Shelby v. Holder will likely make it easier to get racist gerrymanders into effect because preclearance is no longer required.
In 2019, the Supreme Court dealt a huge blow to efforts at fixing partisan gerrymandering. In Rucho v. Common Cause the court held that partisan gerrymandering is not an issue for federal courts to consider and is only the purview of state courts or legislative action. Under the 2017 decision Cooper v. Harris, cases can bring issues of racist gerrymandering to the federal court system, but they have to prove race was the predominant factor in drawing the district and that the state didn't have a compelling state interest, like protecting minority voting rights at which time race can be a consideration.
Two weeks ago, Texas released a redistricting map that prompted a lawsuit alleging intentional discrimination against Hispanic voters. Since the lawsuit concerns racist gerrymandering and not just partisanship, it can be brought in federal court. But it's not yet clear how it will be received. Under the proposed Freedom to Vote Act, this type of gerrymandering would not be allowed and neutral redistricting standards would be imposed. The act also would provide more power to courts to adjudicate issues with gerrymandering more quickly.
Unfortunately in the most recent Senate vote, the bill was blocked in a 51-49 vote because Democrats don't have enough votes to override the filibuster. Republicans are blocking the bill but the current redistricting reform is actually based on a 30-year-old Republican proposal. Senate Majority Leader Chuck Schumer is still promising to fight for the bill but we likely will continue to need West Virginia Senator Manchin and Arizona Senator Kyrsten Sinema to agree to filibuster reform if we have any hope of passing the legislation. Mia Brett, PhD, is a legal historian. She lives with her gorgeous dog, Tchotchke. You can find her @queenmab87
America is growing skeptical of the Gospel of Big Business Rod Graham October 22, 2021 Amazon worker
My mother is a firm believer in Jesus Christ as her personal Lord and Savior. When she receives an unexpected windfall, or a report of good health from her doctor, she says she's been blessed. When things are not going well, it is God testing her faith in Him. Never, absolutely never, does she question decisions by her personal Lord and Savior.
This is the relationship many Americans have with business.
Except for a contingent on the far left, local companies, major firms and multinational corporations are revered. CEOs are venerated as job creators. The decisions filtering down about wages, benefits, and work environment are justified through the gospel of the free market.
But we need to be skeptical of our relationship to businesses. Tributes and sacrifices
We all know about efforts made by local and state governments to court business. They are like "tributes." But the scale of these tributes can be mind-boggling. Consider Amazon. Good Jobs First has been tracking subsidies — grants and tax incentives — Amazon receives yearly. According to the nonprofit, Amazon has received over $4.1 billion in subsidies since 2000. One could imagine tax breaks for a smaller, or emergent, company. But Amazon recorded revenues of $280 billion last year. It is No. 2 on the Fortune 500 list (behind Walmart). Yet the tributes keep coming. The company has gotten $650 million in tax breaks from local and state governments this year.
There's no reason subsidies shouldn't go to a profitable company instead of an emergent one. If one sees subsidies as investment, it makes sense to give a tribute to Amazon. But what Amazon gives in return are modest wages to warehouse workers and delivery drivers plus horrible working conditions. On March 17, an Amazon warehouse worker testified at a Senate Budget Committee hearing about her warehouse's "grueling" working conditions in Bessemer, Alabama.
Maybe the tributes are more like sacrifices, and meager blessings are given in return for taking the heart out of a tax base.
One interpretation of this is that the COVID relief benefits have dampened interest in working. Fox Business asked in a recent story, "Are unemployment benefits the new welfare?" Quoting from a research fellow at the conservative Foundation for Government Accountability, the story claims: "Unfortunately, due to the recent COVID-19-related changes, unemployment insurance has been morphed into more of a long-term benefits program."
Yes, many people decided to receive COVID benefits instead of seeking low-paid employment. The "unemployment as welfare" line of reasoning ignores the responsibility of employers to employees. It assumes that if an employer "graces" us with a job offer, we should accept, regardless of how much it pays or the quality of work conditions. Businesses give us what we need, not always what we want. We should be thankful for what we have received. A great awakening
Around 2015, my university decided to offer a degree in cybersecurity. The nation had coalesced around a narrative that there was a shortage of cybersecurity professionals. Our nation's president at the time, Barack Obama, allocated money for institutions that began offering degrees in this field. Our governor at the time, Terry McAuliffe, doubled down with even more money. As a result of government funding and some bright, industrious academics and administrators, we now have a fantastic School of Cybersecurity at my university.
Around this time I stopped singing from the business hymnal. I was on the front lines of my university's program development. The extent to which we attempted to meet business needs was problematic.
We wanted course content reflecting what students would be doing on the job. We even hosted seminars during which we listened to what business leaders wanted from graduates. This was already a problem for me, because I don't see universities as job-training programs.
At the same time, it became apparent to me that the tasks companies needed done did not require a four-year or two-year degree. Firms could train bright, hardworking people out of high school if they wished.
I worked with my university to create an elaborate feeder program, helping absolve businesses of their responsibility for identifying good workers and preparing them. My university's relationship with the cybersecurity industry is indicative of a broader problem.
We complain about the expense of higher education, and rightfully so. It is insane that a college graduate can expect to be saddled with $30,000 in debt. That is the average, but some end up owing much more. Universities deserve some blame. But remarkably, there are few complaints about businesses not hiring people out of high school.
Yet that is the central issue. Even if college were cheaper, a student, instead of owing $100,000 in loans for a job they could've gotten out of high school, would instead owe $50,000. Better, but they shouldn't owe anything or spend four years doing something they don't want.
Our deification of businesses makes it heretical to question this. But they also have a responsibility to identify, screen and train people. Be a skeptic
We should question our relationships with businesses. Do localities need to offer all these tax breaks? Suppose no one offered them? I am sensing a growing pushback about these tax breaks, with evidence accumulating that these sacrifices do not lead to blessings.
On the minimum wage front, there is still an energetic Fight For 15 movement. Pushback will come from free-market proselytizers. But there are solid arguments for raising the minimum wage. Improving working conditions is a moral argument that must be articulated.
And the responsibility for worker training? I don't see anyone talking about this, which is unfortunate. The closest I have seen are commentaries about raising the profile of two-year colleges.
Understanding that everyone does not need a four-year degree is a step in the right direction but still does not put any responsibility on businesses. There is still a lot of work to do, but I feel good about where we are headed. We as a nation are becoming more skeptical. Rod Graham is a sociologist. A professor at Virginia's Old Dominion University, he researches and teaches courses in the areas of cyber-crime and racial inequality. His work can be found at roderickgraham.com. Follow him @roderickgraham
Sotomayor blasts fellow Justices after SCOTUS agrees to take up US case against Texas abortion ban but not block law
The U.S. Supreme Court has just agreed to hear arguments in federal government's case against Texas' abortion ban, after the Dept. of Justice petitioned the Court to intervene. DOJ had asked the justices to uphold a district court's ruling that blocked the law but Friday afternoon conservatives on the nation's highest court refused to do so, allowing the near-total ban to remain the law of the land.
Contrary to several breaking news reports, the Supreme Court will not be hearing arguments on the "substance" of the federal government's case against the Texas abortion ban itself, known as SB 8, but merely "whether the US can sue 'the State, state court judges, state court clerks, other state officials, or all private parties to prohibit S.B. 8 from being enforced,'" University of Texas law professor Stephen Vladeck notes:
Supreme Court Justice Sonia Sotomayor blasted her conservative colleagues for not placing a hold on the law itself, as Slate's Mark Joseph Stern reports, saying: "Every day the Court fails to grant relief is devastating, both for individual women and for our constitutional system as a whole." Arguments are set for November 1. The Court at that time will also hear arguments from Whole Women's Health, which is also suing Texas over its abortion ban.
