Old Dominion University professor on leave amid protests over research on pedophilia



Erin Doherty
Sat, November 20, 2021

Old Dominion University put a professor on administrative leave following an uproar over their research into people who are sexually attracted to children.

Driving the news: "Reactions to Dr. Walker's research and book have led to concerns for their safety and that of the campus," the public university wrote in a statement on Nov. 16, adding that Professor Allyn Walker's leave is "effective immediately."

Walker, an assistant professor of sociology and criminal justice, sparked controversy over the use of the term "minor-attracted people" in their academic research.

Walker in their book, "A Long, Dark Shadow: Minor-Attracted People and Their Pursuit of Dignity," challenges "assumptions that persons who are ... attracted to minors — often referred to as 'pedophiles' — are necessarily also predators and sex offenders," the University of California Press writes of the book.

Students launched an online petition and protested on campus calling for Walker's removal upon learning of their research. The petition as of Friday afternoon has received more than 12,000 signatures.

The controversy "disrupted the campus and community environment and is interfering with the institution's mission of teaching and learning," the university said in a statement.

"I want to state in the strongest terms possible that child sexual abuse is morally wrong and has no place in our society," said the university’s president, Brian O. Hemphill.

Walker told the Washington Post that their research was misunderstood, saying: "The idea that I’m somehow condoning child sexual abuse is absolutely outrageous. I really think it’s a coordinated effort about attacking the LGBTQ community," said Walker, who is transgender.

Walker's research, they told the Post, talks to people "who have unwanted attractions and never want to harm a child, but they’re unable to get the help that they want because they’re scared" of the response.


Walker did not immediately respond to requests for comment from Axios.

Go deeper:


U.S. universities face an existential challenge


"Understanding Resilience Strategies Among Minor-Attracted Individuals"

Opinion: The chilling effect on campuses isn't because of left-wing ideology

Jena Heath
Sun, November 21, 2021

When news broke that a group of academic heavyweights and conservative firebrands plans to launch a new university in Austin dedicated to “the fearless pursuit of truth,” by which the founders mean combatting what they see as left-wing ideology flooding college campuses, the Twitter bomb-throwing made for amusing reading.

Critics pointed out that the University of Austin isn’t conferring degrees, isn’t accredited, doesn’t have a location for its campus, and wasn’t shy about fundraising. The word “grifter” appeared frequently, along with comparisons to scandal-ridden Trump University. Just this week, two prominent advisory board members announced they were stepping down.

The founders, among them a former Harvard University president and one-time New York Times Opinion editor turned right-wing darling, say they are defending free speech by creating a place where no idea is off limits. Their announcement paints a picture of left-wing terrorism silencing students and ousting academics, “for having a wrong opinion about hot-button issues such as gender differences or immigration,” and other cancel culture concerns. “The reality is that many universities no longer have an incentive to create an environment where intellectual dissent is protected and fashionable opinions are scrutinized,” the announcement proclaimed.

As a professor at a private liberal arts university, I am well aware of the challenges facing higher education. I don’t disagree with the group’s critique of low graduation rates, opaque financing formulas, and top-heavy administrative structures, and I’m glad to see students and families asking questions. It also seems to me that real dissent and disagreement has been less evident on campus.

But here’s a thought: The reason for the silence isn’t left-wing bullying, it’s money. Nothing puts a pall over the workplace like financial fear.

For too many colleges and universities, the COVID pandemic is exacerbating what birthrate demographics had already made clear: Fewer babies are in the pipeline and that means fewer college students to recruit. In a recent article headlined “Are Liberal Arts Colleges Doomed?” the Washington Post cites an economist’s prediction that, starting in 2026, the four-year-college applicant pool may shrink by almost 280,000 per class, over four years — impending doom known to admissions officials as “the Apocalypse.” While the loosely regulated for-profits have been most susceptible to financial peril, small, private colleges have also been shutting their doors or pursuing reorganization plans.

Stir into this stew the isolation and passivity the pandemic has imposed on us all, pepper with recent news reports questioning whether college is even necessary and what you get is deep insecurity — a state of mind my colleagues in administration quietly refer to as an existential crisis. This isn’t the sort of atmosphere that yields discussion of tough issues. As the gloom has descended, I’ve lost count of the number of meetings I’ve attended where hard questions about how we can best recruit and retain students in this climate get asked, much less answered. I hear the same from colleagues around the country, all of whom are committed, across disciplines, departments and ideologies, to helping their students learn to think independently and make their way in the world.

The University of Austin founders start their announcement by quoting the Yale and Harvard mottos, both in Latin and both proclaiming lofty thoughts about truth and freedom. The founders profess to close the “gaping chasm between the promise and the reality of higher education” with their old-school approach to the culture wars.

Down here on earth, the campus where I teach just held a week-long first-generation celebration to honor students for whom legacy admissions is as distant a concept as taking a gap year in Europe. We could use some smart higher ed experts to join us as we work across our differences for meaningful solutions to what ails higher education.

Heath is an associate dean at the School of Arts and Humanities at St. Edward's University, an associate professor of journalism and digital media, and coordinator of the Journalism and Digital Media program.

This article originally appeared on Austin American-Statesman: Opinion: The chilling effect on campuses isn't because of left-wing ideology

Move to hinterland triggers brain drain at Korea's mega pension fund


FILE PHOTO: The logo of National Pension Service (NPS) is seen at its branch office in Seoul


Sun, November 21, 2021, 3:03 PM·4 min read
By Cynthia Kim, Jihoon Lee and Yena Park

SEOUL (Reuters) - Earlier this year, Lee left her fund management job at South Korea's national pension fund, the world's third-largest, fed up with long commutes between her home in Seoul and her office in Jeonju, 200 kilometers away.

For four years, Lee lived in a studio apartment in Jeonju, a city of 658,000, on weekdays, and traveled back to Seoul for the weekend. She feared her family would break up if she didn't make the hard decision to quit.

Lee is one of some 140 money managers who has left the 930.5 trillion won ($788 billion) National Pension Service since 2016, shortly before it moved to Jeonju, a sleepy provincial capital, as part of the government's relocation of major agencies away from the capital Seoul.

That is almost half the 320 currently working at the fund's investment arm, an alarming brain drain for the main public retirement plan of Asia's fourth-largest economy and a major investor in Korean blue-chips such as Samsung Electronics and Hyundai Motor Co..

"Staying in Jeonju for the weekdays, I felt I was missing out on so much of my life, I couldn't stand it anymore and decided to head up to Seoul," said Lee, who now works for an asset manager based in Seoul's financial district and agreed to be identified only by her surname.

With assets valued at nearly half the nation's gross domestic product, the NPS manages pensions for private sector workers and self-employed South Koreans.

A massive wave of retirements due in coming years in the world's fastest aging society has raised the stakes for management at the fund.

Over the past five years, however, the NPS has only filled 57% of jobs it opened.

An NPS official said that partly reflects the greater number of openings as the fund grows investments but acknowledged the issues around the relocation.

"Although it has stabilised a lot compared to before our relocation to Jeonju, the issue regarding manpower seems to have re-emerged because we recently increased job openings in a large scale which seemingly pushed up the relative vacancy rate," the official told Reuters in response to queries.

"As our overseas investment expands, so are opportunities to work abroad, and efforts are being made to motivate talent to stay in service by improving working conditions, and we also have talent development programmes."

To plug staff shortages, it removed the mandatory one-year work experience requirement for the first time from its job postings in September and began offering opportunities to work abroad, even to domestic equity fund managers.

The NPS's annualised investment return for 2020 was 9.7%, below 25.15% for Japan's GPIF in fiscal 2020 and 20.4% at Canada Pension Plan Investment Board.

That partly reflects the more conservative nature of its investments, fund managers say, which also means it is less exposed during downturns.

However, the NPS now plans to expand its overseas investment allocations to 50% by 2024 from 34% in 2019.

It has 30 staff across branches in New York, London and Singapore as of 2020, far fewer than the 351 staff at Canada's CPPIB and 252 at Norway's NBIM in their various overseas offices, 2020 data from the NPS shows.

More ambitious returns would demand a deeper pool of investment talent, which has become harder to attract and retain since the relocation in 2017.

"When I was a manager there about eight to 10 applicants used to compete for one fund manager position, after we screened out inexperienced ones, and that's when the fund's pay level was even lower," said Hong Chun-uk, who resigned from a senior fund manager position at the NPS in 2015.

He left the fund after it announced its relocation and has since become an economist at Seoul-based brokerage.

BIG MONEY, SMALL TOWN

The NPS is one of about 150 state agencies and public corporations that have moved out of Seoul since 2005, with another batch of about 100 institutions, including part of the National Assembly, also planned for relocation.

The major shift was part of a government plan to decentralise economic and political power away from Seoul, ease congestion in the capital and develop regional cities.

The struggle to fill roles at the fund has fueled debate over the merits of relocating crucial public institutions.

Two fund managers who left the NPS said the brain drain issue hasn't adversely affected the fund's performance yet but pension experts say it will.

"In Korea, there's strong preference to live in the capital Seoul, among families, for schools and lifestyle," Yun Suk-myung, head of the Korean Pension Association said. "Obviously the political push ignored that and having inexperienced, incompetent fundies will eventually hurt its investment returns."

For many fund managers used to a certain standard of urban living, Jeonju has its limitations.

"There is one popular restaurant I went to often and I used to meet my boss and folks from other teams all there," Lee said. "Everyone at the NPS kind of expects colleagues to be around the town."

(Reporting by Cynthia Kim; Editing by Sam Holmes)

After eviction moratoriums, prices soaring at 'almost shocking' speed


Andy Knight, The Herald Bulletin, Anderson, Ind.
Fri, November 19, 2021

Nov. 19—ANDERSON — A federal eviction moratorium — one of the more controversial measures taken by the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention last year in the fight against the coronavirus pandemic — may be indirectly and partially responsible for a nearly unprecedented surge in apartment rental rates.

Driven in part by an influx of prospective tenants, those rates have soared by 16.4% since January 2021, according to a report by Apartment List, a national online marketplace for apartment listings. For perspective, the report noted that rent rate growth from January through October averaged 3.2% from 2017-2019.

Local property managers find those statistics easy to believe. Gold Key Properties, Madison County's largest property management company, has seen demand for its listings skyrocket, and prices in some cases have gone up by more than 80%.


"(The market is) considerably higher, to the point that it's almost shocking, but supply and demand is pushing that market," said Kevin Holladay, an administrator and property inspector for Gold Key. "It is sustaining itself because inventory is also low, and people are willing to do what they need to do to move forward."

The federal moratorium on evictions took effect in September 2020 and was extended four times by Congress before a Supreme Court ruling let it lapse at the end of August. During that time, Kim Townsend, executive director of Anderson Housing Authority, estimates at least 85 local families were able to remain in their apartments.

"I have heard that there were a lot of (eviction) filings once the moratoriums were lifted," she said. "There were evictions during the moratoriums, but they were for nonrental issues."

The demand for housing has long been seen by many economists as a barometer of economic optimism. But for the last few months, many of them have taken those numbers with a grain of salt. Costs of raw construction materials, more rigorous tenant screening and higher deposits are also seen as factors that have made some rental properties unfeasible for many would-be renters.

"If landlords were losing out on money because they weren't able to collect rent (during the moratoriums), they are looking for ways to recoup that lost income," said Brian Carberry, senior managing editor of content marketing for Rent.com, a leading apartment search engine and online marketplace. "In many places across the country, rents are up year over year, so landlords might have the ability to ask for more for their properties now, especially if there is competition and low supply in their area."

Those circumstances exist in Madison County and elsewhere in Central Indiana, where the housing market rebounded strongly from the early days of the pandemic. The phenomenon, Carberry believes, is driven in part by people who moved in with friends or family to consolidate household expenses are now beginning to look around again.

"As people are looking for places to live, they are more likely to snatch up the more affordable options on the market," he said. "This leaves more higher priced available units, which will skew that average (rental cost) higher."

Bringing those costs down, Holladay said, will require a complex chain of events, and the individual links haven't begun to show themselves yet — and may not do so for a while.

"I don't know that (the rental market) is going to be able to stay where it is forever, but I don't know what's going to turn it back around, if I'm just being real honest," he said. "Some people are locking down and they're staying in because they're struggling to find that extra money, and some people are trying to get out there because they have gotten back to work, but once all the moving parts are back in place, I think it will evolve toward a more sustainable market for everybody."

DINOS

GOP Donors Back Manchin and Sinema as They Reshape Biden's Agenda

Kenneth P. Vogel and Kate Kelly
Sun, November 21, 2021,

Sen. Kyrsten Sinema, D-Ariz., right, holds the door open for Sen. Joe Manchin, D-W.Va., left, after they attended a Democratic policy luncheon, Tuesday, Nov. 16, 2021, on Capitol Hill in Washington. (AP Photo/Jacquelyn Martin)

WASHINGTON — Over the summer, as he was working to scale back President Joe Biden’s domestic agenda, Sen. Joe Manchin of West Virginia traveled to an $18 million mansion in Dallas for a fundraiser that attracted Republican and corporate donors who have cheered on his efforts.

In September, Sen. Kyrsten Sinema of Arizona, who along with Manchin has been a major impediment to the White House’s efforts to pass its package of social and climate policy, stopped by the same home to raise money from a similar cast of donors for her campaign coffers.

Even as Sinema and Manchin, both Democrats, have drawn fire from the left for their efforts to shrink and reshape Biden’s proposals, they have won growing financial support from conservative-leaning donors and business executives in a striking display of how party affiliation can prove secondary to special interests and ideological motivations when the stakes are high enough.

Sinema is winning more financial backing from Wall Street and constituencies on the right in large part for her opposition to raising personal and corporate income tax rates. Manchin has attracted new Republican-leaning donors as he has fought against much of his own party to scale back the size of Biden’s legislation and limit new social welfare components.

It is not unusual for well-heeled political activists and business interests to spread a smattering of cash across party lines. Rep. Liz Cheney, R-Wyo., collected a handful of checks from major Democratic donors this year as she bucked her party leadership’s defense of former President Donald Trump.

But the stream of cash to the campaigns of Sinema and Manchin from outside normal Democratic channels stands out because many of the donors have little history with them. The financial support is also notable for how closely tied it has been to their power over a single piece of legislation, the fate of which continues to rest largely with the two senators because their party cannot afford to lose either of their votes in the evenly divided Senate.

Their influence has been profound. The domestic policy bill, which would expand the social safety net and efforts to fight climate change, started out at $3.5 trillion and has been shrunk — mainly at the insistence of Manchin — to around $2 trillion; it could get smaller as the Senate takes up the version passed Friday by the House. New spending measures were originally to have been paid for mostly through tax-rate increases on the wealthy and corporations — a component of the plan that had to be substantially rewritten because of Sinema’s opposition.

This month, billionaire Wall Street investor Kenneth G. Langone, a longtime Republican megadonor who has not previously contributed to Manchin, effusively praised him for showing “guts and courage” and vowed to throw “one of the biggest fundraisers I’ve ever had for him.”

In a statement to The New York Times, Langone, who has given an overwhelming majority of his millions of dollars in federal political donations to Republicans, said, “My political contributions have always been in support of candidates who are willing to stand tall on principle, even when that means defying their own party or the press.”

Stanley S. Hubbard, a billionaire Republican donor, wrote his first check to Sinema in September and said that he was considering doing the same for Manchin because of their efforts to trim the sails of the Democrats’ agenda. “Those are two good people — Manchin and Sinema — and I think we need more of those in the Democratic Party,” he said.

Cash has also poured in for Manchin and Sinema from political action committees and donors linked to the finance and pharmaceutical industries, which opposed proposals initially included in the domestic policy bill that the lawmakers helped scale back, including changes to Medicare and the tax-rate increases.

John LaBombard, a spokesman for Sinema, rejected any suggestion that campaign cash factored into her approach to policymaking. She was a lead negotiator on the bipartisan infrastructure deal that Biden signed last week, and during her time in the Senate, she has positioned herself as an ideologically flexible centrist willing to buck her party in representing a purple state.

“Sen. Sinema makes decisions based on one consideration: what’s best for Arizona,” LaBombard said.

Manchin’s office did not respond to requests for comment. But he has long expressed concern that the legislation, if not pared back to the level he is seeking, would add to the budget deficit and could fuel inflation.

The lawmakers share a campaign finance consultant, who helped organize fundraising swings through Texas for both lawmakers that yielded cash from Republican donors, as well as a fundraiser for Sinema in Washington in late September with business lobbying groups that oppose the domestic policy bill.

Nelson Peltz, a billionaire investor who brought a Republican-heavy group of CEOs to have lunch with Manchin in Washington a few months ago, said the senator “understands that you can’t spend, spend, spend and feel there’s no recourse for it.”

Peltz, who donated to Manchin in 2017, has not given to Sinema, but he said that she had requested a meeting, which will take place in a few weeks.

Individual donors like Peltz, who over the years has donated nearly three times as much to Republicans as he has to Democrats at the federal level, offer the two Democratic senators a way to restock their campaign coffers — both are up for reelection in 2024 — at a time when they are unlikely to get an enthusiastic reception from some more traditional Democratic donors.

Manchin has long been to the right of his party on litmus-test issues like abortion rights and fossil fuels, while Sinema started her political career as a liberal activist before shifting to the center. One Wall Street executive joked that in his industry, Sinema — who as a young politician once likened political donations to “bribery” — was now referred to as “Saint Sinema” for opposing most of Biden’s proposed taxes on the wealthy. (She has, however, supported a 15% corporate minimum tax and other revenue-raising measures that will help pay for Biden’s legislative spending.)

Progressives are less amused and have accused both senators of undermining their party’s agenda at the behest of special interests.

Wealthy liberals recently began an effort to lay the groundwork for a primary challenge to Sinema in 2024, and liberal group Demand Progress wrote in a petition that “a small group of right-wing Democrats backed by corporate cash, including Joe Manchin and Kyrsten Sinema, are trying to destroy” Biden’s legislative agenda.

This year, Manchin and Sinema have received donations from major Republican donors who had never before given to them, including James A. Haslam III, who owns the Cleveland Browns football team, and Dallas real estate developer Harlan Crow, who is close to Supreme Court Justice Clarence Thomas.

Several other prominent Republican donors who supported Trump also wrote their first checks to Manchin in the last few months. They include Oklahoma oil and gas billionaire Harold Hamm, who pushed the former president to deregulate the energy industry; Dallas-based lobbyist and investor Roy W. Bailey, who helped lead fundraising for Trump’s inauguration and a pro-Trump nonprofit group; and banker Andrew Beal, who donated a total of $3 million to a super PAC supporting Trump from 2018 through last year.

Executives at Goldman Sachs, including the firm’s president, John Waldron, combined to donate tens of thousands of dollars to Sinema in the spring and summer. In July, she attended a meet-and-greet at the offices of the Blackstone Group, which is headed by a major Republican donor; some Blackstone employees made donations around the same time. A handful of employees from investment firm Apollo Global Management, including Marc J. Rowan, the CEO and a major donor to predominantly Republican candidates and causes, donated to Sinema in late September after the firm sent a plea to industry contacts seeking donations for her.

G. Brint Ryan, the Republican donor who hosted the fundraisers in Dallas for Manchin and Sinema, said the senators were “out of step with their party, but I tend to believe that they’re in the right.”

Ryan had not previously donated to Sinema and had not held fundraisers for either before this year, though he donated $1,000 to Manchin’s 2018 reelection campaign.

The website for Ryan’s tax consulting firm says it works at “liberating our clients from the burden of being overtaxed.”

The firm’s lobbyists have been monitoring the debate in Congress over the tax implications of the domestic policy bill, according to disclosure filings. Ryan, who said in an email that the measure would “make a bad tax code worse and kill economic growth,” has ties to Republicans who have helped lead opposition to it.

He advised Trump on tax policy during his presidential campaign in 2016. One of the partners in Ryan’s tax consulting firm is Jeff Miller, a corporate lobbyist and close political adviser to Rep. Kevin McCarthy of California, the House Republican leader.

Miller, who is a top Republican fundraiser, helped steer Ryan’s team to people who could assist in planning the fundraisers for Sinema and Manchin. And Miller’s wife gave to Sinema’s campaign.

In the days around the fundraisers at his home, Ryan, his employees, his company’s political action committee and a relative’s law firm combined to donate nearly $80,000 to Sinema’s campaign and more than $115,000 to Manchin’s.

The $2.6 million raised by Sinema’s campaign through the first nine months of this year was 2 1/2 times as much as she raised in the same period last year, while the $3.3 million raised by Manchin’s campaign was more than 14 times as much as his haul through the end of September last year.

Overall, Sinema’s campaign took in about $6.1 million in donations between the beginning of 2019 and the end of September, and it had $4.5 million in the bank with three years to go until she faces the voters in Arizona. Manchin’s campaign raised about $3.8 million and had $5.4 million on hand.

© 2021 The New York Times Company

NYT INTERVIEW
Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez on Why Democrats' 'Talking Points Are Not Enough'

Astead W. Herndon
Sun, November 21, 2021

Rep. Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez, D-N.Y., speaks during a House Financial Services Committee hearing on financial stability, on Capitol Hill, Thursday, Dec. 5, 2019, in Washington. (AP Photo/Jose Luis Magana)

Last year, after Joe Biden won the Democratic presidential nomination, a group of progressive lawmakers rallied around him to project party unity at a critical time.

More than a year later, as the president seeks to pass a robust spending package of social policies that represent the bulk of his domestic agenda, many of the same leaders are looking for a return on their political investment.

In an interview with The New York Times, Rep. Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez of New York, one of the country’s most prominent progressives, questioned whether Democratic leaders and the White House understood the scope of the demands coming from the party’s base.

The interview has been lightly edited and condensed for clarity.

Q: Why do you feel this social policy bill has to pass as soon as possible, at the biggest scale possible?

A: I think the stakes are really, really high.

The entire reason that the Progressive Caucus gave their votes [for the infrastructure bill] was based on direct promises from the president, as well as direct promises from more conservative Democratic holdouts. And from House leadership as well. So if those promises don’t follow through, it’s going to be very, very difficult for them to get votes on anything moving forward, because the trust that was already so delicate will have been broken.

Q: Do you think these extended negotiations and the stuff that was cut will have an electoral effect? Obviously the Senate will have its say, but if the spending bill largely looks like what the House passed, will Democrats say it fulfills the promise of Election Day?

A: I think that if we pass the Build Back Better Act as the House passed it, that we have a shot to go back to our communities and say we delivered. But that’s not to say that this process has not been demoralizing for a lot of folks, because there were enormous promises made. Not just at the beginning, and not just during the election, but that continued to be made.

And this is where I have sounded the alarm, because what really dampens turnout is when Democrats make promises that they don’t keep.

With the bipartisan infrastructure plan, there’s all of these headlines going around. And I understand the political importance of making a victory lap. But I think that the worst and most vulnerable position we could be in is to overpromise and under-deliver.

So let’s not go around and say, “We’re going to replace every lead pipe in this country,” because according to the bipartisan infrastructure plan, that is not going to happen. That has not been funded. And if the Build Back Better Act gets cut even further, then that’s definitely not going to happen.

Q: You and other progressives backed Biden during the general election. Do you feel that this White House has continued to be open to the left?

A: And that created trust, because trust requires vulnerability from all parties.

There was some good faith with the American Rescue Plan [Democrats’ $1.9 trillion economic stimulus package, signed in March]. But after that, which was quite early, it’s been a bit of a slog.

I actually don’t direct this critique directly at the White House. I think, in general, the party doesn’t quite fully grasp what is happening in deep-blue communities.

Q: What is it that you say they’re missing?

A: The talking points are not enough.

Yes, is child care great? Absolutely. Universal pre-K, this is something I’m deeply, deeply supportive of. But we also have too much of a top-down strategy when it comes to our base. We’re always giving them the medicine and telling them what they need to accept, as opposed to really monitoring where the energy is and being responsive to it. And allowing that to shape our strategy.

And even with the infrastructure plan, this kind of investment is deeply needed in underserved communities like the Bronx. However, if we as a party are asking every single person in this party to take a victory lap, and do a news conference in front of a bridge or pothole, and we aren’t funding and actually fixing that pothole, I’m very concerned about how people are going to interpret that a year from now.

Q: But doesn’t the White House agree — didn’t it propose a more robust package? The obvious response here is that the administration faces the reality of a 50-50 Senate.

A: There is an enormous amount of executive action that they’re sitting on that I think is underutilized. On student loans. We’ve got executive action on the table with respect to climate. There are certainly things that we can do with immigration.

So why are we taking this as a legislative compromise, when the opportunity is so much greater, or when Biden could do this stuff with a stroke of a pen, and is just reminding us that he’s choosing not to?

We always try to tell people why they need to settle for less, instead of being able to harness the energy of our grassroots and take political risks in service of them, the same way that we take political risks in service of swing voters. We can do both.

Q: Is this frustration a growing sentiment in the Democratic congressional caucus? Or is this just you?

A: Frustration is there, and it’s part of why the Progressive Caucus was holding out on passing both of these two pieces of legislation together, because we’re like, listen, we’re not going to take these empty promises anymore.

We went from the American Rescue Plan to six months of watching us just hand the pen to Joe Manchin and Kyrsten Sinema. If you even look at the [infrastructure bill], it was drafted in the Senate, and they didn’t even allow conferencing with the House version. They said you just need to take this legislation as is — no compromises, no edits, nothing.

You’ve got to give me something to work with, with my communities. And if you’re not, how can I make the argument that they should turn out again? And this notion that saying “We’re not Trump” is enough — this is such a deeply demoralizing message.

Democrats have a trifecta and have been unable to pass voting-rights protections. And so people can wring their hands and say “but Manchin” all they want or “but the filibuster” all they want, but at the end of the day, what people see are the results of their actions and the results of investing their time.

We are up against political nihilism. The idea that nothing we do matters, because as long as I live in the Bronx, the political reality of this country is that no one’s going to fight for me. That is why it’s so important that we take some of these risks for our base.

Q: Your party is trying to project political victory at this moment — and pulling out all the stops to do so. You’re sounding the alarm.

A: Before the Virginia elections, it was very clear that our help and our participation was not wanted or asked for, which is fine. I’m not here to tell people how to run their races. But at the same time, to consider the members here that have some of the tightest relationships to our political base as just a uniform liability — and not something that can be selectively deployed or consulted or anything — I think it’s just sad. I think it was a mistake.

And we saw a big youth turnout collapse. Not a single person asked me to send an email, not even to my own list. And then they turn around and say, “It’s their fault.” When I think it was communicated quite expressly that we were unwelcome to pitch in.

The idea that we just accept a collapse in youth turnout — and essentially turn it into a self-fulfilling prophecy — in times when races are decided by such narrow margin points: I think it’s ill-advised.

© 2021 The New York Times Company

FOR PROFIT HEALTHCARE USA
Cap on drug price hikes for privately insured sparks battle

By RICARDO ALONSO-ZALDIVAR

FILE - Pharmaceuticals are seen in North Andover, Mass., June 15, 2018. Workers and families with private health insurance would reap savings on prescription drugs from a little-noticed provision in President Joe Biden's sweeping social agenda bill. Drug companies would have to pay rebates to Medicare if they increase prices above the rate of inflation. Business groups are paying close attention, and the issue has divided them in a fierce lobbying battle. (AP Photo/Elise Amendola, File)


WASHINGTON (AP) — Workers and families with private health insurance would reap savings on prescription drugs from a little-noticed provision in President Joe Biden’s sweeping social agenda bill. It’s meant to break the cycle of annual price increases for widely used medicines.

That provision would require drug companies to pay rebates to Medicare if they increase prices above the rate of inflation. Drugs sold to private plans would count in calculating the penalty, like a tax on price increases. The issue is dividing business groups in a fierce lobbying battle.

Corporate groups focused on affordable employee benefits want to keep the language as is so it would provide price-increase protection for companies and their workers and not just Medicare enrollees. Other groups such as the influential U.S. Chamber of Commerce are backing the pharmaceutical industry’s drive to block restraints on pricing, including inflation caps, saying they would stifle innovation.

House Democrats passed the roughly $2 trillion social agenda legislation on Friday and sent it to the Senate. The bill resets national priorities on issues from climate to family life and faces more scrutiny in that evenly divided chamber. Prescription drugs are but one component, and most of the attention has focused on Medicare provisions to slash out-of-pocket costs for seniors and allow the program to negotiate prices for a limited number of medicines.

But the inflation caps would have far-reaching impact for as many as 180 million Americans with private insurance.

“A lot of people don’t realize that the bill applies to, and will help, privately insured people,” said Shawn Gremminger, health policy director at the Purchaser Business Group on Health. “But that isn’t a sure thing. As currently structured, that would be the case. But we have been worried and continue to be worried that will change.” His coalition represents nearly 40 large employers that cover more than 15 million workers, retirees and their families.

Inflation caps would be a “game changer,” said James Gelfand, a vice president of ERIC, a group that represents major national companies as providers of employee benefits.

Earlier legislation would have based the “inflation rebates” on sales to Medicare plans, but the House-passed bill broadens the formula to include private plans.

“If they raise prices in private markets faster than the economy grows, they will be required to pay that money back to the government,” Gelfand said. The goal is to deter drug companies from extravagant price increases.

Polls show that Americans across the political spectrum overwhelmingly favor government action to reduce drug prices. The chief cost complaints are: high out-of-pocket costs for patients, high and rising list prices, and high launch prices for new medicines. The Biden package would tackle the first two issues, but Democrats were unable to agree on authorizing Medicare to negotiate prices of new drugs.

Annual price increases for established prescription drugs usually outpace inflation, although there have been periods of moderation in recent years.

Gremminger said his group estimates that the privately insured market could save $250 billion over 10 years under the inflation caps currently in the bill. Without them, Gelfand estimates that employers could face an additional 3.7% annual increase in health care costs over the usual medical inflation because drug companies could in effect raise prices on privately insured patients to make up for rebates paid on behalf of Medicare enrollees.

“It’s true that not all the business groups are in the same place,” Gelfand said of divisions in the business community. “If you look at groups on either side of the issue, there are groups that protect the business interests of pharma, and then there’s everybody else.”

The main drug industry lobbying group, the Pharmaceutical Research and Manufacturers of America, says inflation rebates would undermine innovation that continues after medicines are approved.

The generic drug industry wants their products exempted. Dan Leonard, president of the generic lobbying group Association for Accessible Medicines, said he fears his members will be penalized for price increases that amount to pennies on the dollar. “When generics are not exempted ... they’ll get caught up in the jet wash,” he said.

In the Senate, Finance Committee Chairman Ron Wyden, D-Ore., who has taken a lead role on prescription drugs, supports keeping the inflation caps for privately insured people.

Opponents could pursue a parliamentary challenge under Senate rules, arguing that penalizing price increases by one private company on another has no bearing on federal budgetary issues. If the challenge succeeds, costs to private insurance plans would be stripped from the inflation rebates. Supporters of the caps say they do have a budgetary purpose because they would raise revenue and generate savings for Medicare.

Katie Mahoney, the top health policy expert for the U.S. Chamber of Commerce, said her organization has “very real concerns” that the drug pricing provisions would undermine incentives for industry to develop new medicines, and is pressing that point in the Senate.

“We continue to hammer on the damage that such policies would do,” she said. “We feel that message is making headway with senators and with some members of Congress.”

Asked about other business groups that are supporting inflation caps, Mahoney said they don’t reflect private enterprise generally.

“When you look at those other organizations, first of all they’re significantly smaller and their policy focus is very narrow,” she said. “They don’t represent business across the board, they represent a very discreet and narrow slice of issues.”

GENTRIFICATION OF ABATTOIR

Dinner on the patio? First, hold the stench

By SCOTT McFETRIDGE

Des Moines Downtown Neighborhood Association president Brandon Brown stands on the roof of his condo building, Friday, Nov. 12, 2021, in Des Moines, Iowa. After decades of downplaying or simply ignoring the problem, Des Moines officials here recently began a comprehensive study that will lead to tighter regulations on some smelly manufacturing plants near downtown. (AP Photo/Charlie Neibergall)


DES MOINES, Iowa (AP) — Parts of downtown Des Moines have been so transformed in the past decade by new apartments, trendy shops and microbreweries, it’s sometimes hard to reconcile the present with the not-so-distant past.

But one strong reminder of the city’s heritage remains: the stench. A pungent smell of rancid meat regularly wafts through all the shiny new development, a reminder of the region’s less polished history as a pork processing center.

“You can’t escape it,” said Brandon Brown, president of the Des Moines Downtown Neighborhood Association, calling it “very frustrating.”

Many cities eager for new investment and vitality have welcomed urban housing and entertainment venues into older sections of town that housed grittier industries, only to be stumped by what happens when someone like Brown, who moved into an upscale downtown apartment, actually wants to enjoy a latte or meal at an outdoor patio.

After decades of downplaying or simply ignoring the problem, Des Moines officials recently began a comprehensive study that will lead to tighter regulations on some smelly manufacturing plants to finally clear the air.

Similar difficulties are cropping up in other cities with smelly businesses, especially rendering plants that are common in agricultural regions and even some big cities. Angry residents are deluging officials with complaints and filing lawsuits, while some leading companies are installing new equipment, making payments to neighbors or even closing down.

No one tracks such disputes, but Iowa State University professor Jacek Koziel, who studies air quality and livestock odors, said he thinks the conflicts may be increasing. Sometimes, as in Des Moines, it’s because more noses are nearer the bad smells, but in other spots, it’s that residents are simply pushing harder for changes.

“It’s very common in this juncture of animal agriculture in general and meat packing plants or feed processing plants,” Koziel said. “It’s very tough. For us engineers, we know there are technologies to minimize the impact but then come all the fiscal realities of doing that.”

In Des Moines, residents and workers have for decades complained about the smells from an industrial area little more than a mile from downtown, describing the scent as putrid or akin to animal waste. Brown takes a more charitable view, labeling the smell “yeasty.”

People typically blame two companies: pork processor Pine Ridge Farms and rendering plant Darling Ingredients. Although the city created an odor board and odor hotline, its efforts were ineffective and largely abandoned until recently, when people who moved into expensive apartments that had replaced warehouses and scrap yards complained of nauseating smells periodically settling over their neighborhoods.

City officials agree there’s a problem, but say they need more data before deciding what to do.

“You’ve got to know what is the truth that’s out there, and then make the plans work for each of the industries,” said SuAnn Donovan, deputy director of Des Moines’ Neighborhood Services Department. The new study will take air samples and figure out a baseline for air quality.

Iowa is an agricultural powerhouse and Donovan is quick to note that the city wants to work with Pine Ridge, Darling and other companies.

Darling didn’t respond to an inquiry about its Des Moines operations.

Pine Ridge Farms is owned by meat industry giant Smithfield, which said in a statement that its pork plant, which employs about 1,000 people, opened in 1937 and slaughters about 4,000 hogs daily. As more people moved nearby, the company said, it had invested millions of dollars on new technology, such as air treatment equipment, to reduce odors.

“We also follow a rigorous daily cleaning schedule during and after each production run,” the statement said. “At the end of each week, we perform a top-to-bottom deep cleaning to keep odor to a minimum.”

Even with efforts to reduce smells, rendering is an especially pungent business. The plants use heat, centrifuges and other techniques to convert waste animal tissue into fats and proteins for many uses, including as animal feed, fertilizer and cosmetics. There are more than 200 plants in the U.S. and Canada, according to recent estimates.

In Fresno, California, a citizens group filed a lawsuit against a Darling rendering plant that produced a stench so strong that residents complained of health problems. Last year, the company agreed to close the plant. Another rendering plant near the Sacramento suburb of Rancho Cordova that had operated for more than 50 years also opted to close after concluding it couldn’t coexist with new nearby housing.

Rendering plants in an industrial area of Los Angeles have been ordered to abide by strict new rules. And in Denver, where new urban development has been especially extensive, there have been sharp clashes between new residents and old industries.

“People moving in are savvy and they’re not afraid to complain,” said Greg Thomas, the city’s director of environmental quality.

Residents in South St. Paul, Minnesota, filed a class action lawsuit over fumes from a rendering plant, and neighbors received up to $1,000 payments as part of a $750,000 settlement.

Still, though, smells of rancid meat remain.

“The lawsuit didn’t seem to make a difference,” said Chris Robinson, who lives less than a mile from the plant. “Just last night, my husband couldn’t sit out on the deck. It’s still really bad.”

Brown, of Des Moines, said with new outdoor projects underway, from a soccer stadium to a whitewater rafting course, the city has little option but to clear the air.

“You don’t want the smell to contaminate the experience,” Brown said.

___

Follow Scott McFetridge on Twitter: https://twitter.com/smcfetridge

Rare Einstein manuscript set to fetch millions


Einstein was a genius scientist. He later earned pop culture icon status (AFP/TIMOTHY A. CLARY)

Sun, November 21, 2021

A rare manuscript by theoretical physicist Albert Einstein goes under the hammer in Paris on Tuesday, with auctioneers aiming for a stratospheric price tag.

The manuscript, containing preparatory work for Einstein's key achievement the theory of relativity, is estimated at between two and three million euros (2.3-3.4 million), according to Christie's which is hosting the sale on behalf of the Aguttes auction house.

"This is without a doubt the most valuable Einstein manuscript ever to come to auction," Christie's said in a statement.

The 54-page document was handwritten in 1913 and 1914 in Zurich, Switzerland, by Einstein and his colleague and confidant, Swiss engineer Michele Besso.

Christie's said it was thanks to Besso that the manuscript was preserved for posterity.

This was "almost like a miracle" since the German-born genius himself would have been unlikely to hold on to what he considered to be a simple working document, Christie's said.

Today, the paper offers "a fascinating plunge into the the mind of the 20th century's greatest scientist", it said.

Einstein, who died in 1955 aged 76 and is considered to be one of the greatest physicists ever, revolutionised his field with the theory of relativity and made major contributions to quantum mechanics theory.

He won he Nobel physics prize in 1921 and was later adopted by pop culture as a genius scientist icon, helped by his trademark unruly hair, moustache and bushy eyebrows.

hh-pr/jh/har

Evicted villagers pay the price for MotoGP's Indonesia return

Haeril Halim with Lucie Godeau in Jakarta
Sun, November 21, 2021, 5:37 AM·5 min read

The holiday island of Lombok welcomed thousands of fans Sunday for Indonesia's first superbike race on a new circuit that is part of a mega tourism infrastructure project denounced by the UN over the eviction of local families.

With a population of more than 270 million people, many of whom get around on two wheels, Indonesia has one of the world's biggest communities of bike-race fans.

But the archipelago had not hosted a major race since 1997.

Several villages have been relocated voluntarily or by force for construction of the new Mandalika circuit. But around 40 families -- along with their cattle and dogs -- are still holding out in the centre of the track despite intimidation to cede their land.

Environmentalists also question the wisdom of hosting large-scale events on an island under threat from natural disasters.

The superbike spectacle on the 4.3-kilometre (2.7-mile) circuit Sunday was a prelude to a MotoGP race -- the top tier of the motorcycle Grand Prix -- to be held on the island in March 2022.

"I am here to watch World Superbike. It is very cool and I almost could not believe (Indonesia has this circuit) ... The event will help the economy here," said Rini Yuniarti, a fan from Bali.

The government hopes to create thousands of jobs and attract up to two million foreign tourists a year with the circuit complex, which covers more than a thousand hectares bordered by white-sand beaches.

But the gleaming new project has been the subject of bitter conflict between authorities and local residents.

Near one village in the area the houses have been abandoned and a metal sign reads: "This land belongs to the state."

But Abdul Latif, 36, and his four children have so far stayed behind because they have not received any compensation for leaving.

"Life is difficult here now... Access is very restricted," he said. "We play cat-and-mouse with security personnel guarding the area."

Another villager, 54-year-old Abdul Kadir, said young people struggled to get to school because they were blocked by security.

"We have to go through a tunnel to go to school," said her 10-year-old daughter. "I would like to go to school easily like before."

Making matters worse, local wells have run dry for six months since tunnels were built under the circuit, leaving residents without water.

- 'They dragged me away' -

Many villagers have lost their livelihoods, with farmers confiscated of their land and fishermen relocated from the coast.

Security forces have been deployed to remove some families while others have been coerced into accepting meagre compensation packages, said human rights lawyer Widodo Dwi Putro, who is defending the villagers.

Sibawai, a 53-year-old farmer, has lost most of his land.

He said the authorities tried to evict him several times before police came for him in January 2021.

"They deployed around 700 personnel just for my land. I tried to prevent the bulldozers from entering but they dragged me away," he said.

United Nations experts in March called on the Indonesian government and the companies involved in the project "to respect human rights".

Special rapporteur on human rights and extreme poverty Olivier De Schutter said the project had seen "complaints about land grabbing, evictions of indigenous communities in the Sasak ethnic group and intimidation and threats against defenders of local populations".

Several international companies previously associated with the $3 billion-dollar project denied still being a part of it, including construction giant Vinci and holiday operator Club Med.

The Accor group operates a Novotel on the site and is building a Pullman hotel.

The company told AFP it did not own the land or the hotel but would manage it on behalf of the Indonesian public company Indonesia Development Tourism Corporation.

The Asian Infrastructure Investment Bank, which is due to contribute $250 million to the project, said it had carried out a study and did not identify any human rights violations.

- 'Just the start' -

Lombok is one of 10 new locations that Indonesian authorities want to develop into tourism destinations in the same vein as Bali.

The impoverished island has struggled to rebuild since a major earthquake struck in 2018, killing more than 500 people.

For most locals, tickets to the motorbike races are too expensive and many have to settle for watching from a hill overlooking the circuit.

But authorities are hopeful the venture will suck in investment.

Superbike and Moto GP events represent "one of the best ways to attract visitors and for significant investments to be made in our region", said Zulkieflimansyah, governor of West Nusa Tenggara province, of which Lombok is a part.

"This international road circuit will be just the start."

Asked about the accusations of human rights violations, Zulkieflimansyah -- who like many Indonesians goes by one name -- said he was "very optimistic" that the disputes would be settled to the satisfaction of investors and the local community.

Maharani, an environmental activist with NGO the Lombok Research Centre, said the risks from earthquakes and tsunamis were a worry.

"A landslide could directly come down to hit and cover the circuit area. In the case of a tsunami the circuit could become a water pit," he said.

Abdul Latif, stuck in the centre of the circuit clinging to his home, had no desire to watch the race.

"I feel abandoned and isolated," he said. "Like a bird in a cage."

hrl-lgo/axn/leg

Evicted villagers pay the price for MotoGP's Indonesia returnA sign on an abandoned hut reads: "This land belongs to the state" (AFP/BAY ISMOYO)More