SPY VS SPY

Public Information vs. Propaganda: The Battle for Truth in Conflict

John Davis / Aug 7, 2022
INTELLIGENCE

A careful study of events in Ukraine is a security education in itself. Examples of compromised public information appear almost daily in the Russian invasion of Ukraine. Soldiers’ private cell phone calls are monitored and war crimes they allude to, or clearly state, are reported to media outlets. The names of potential war criminals appear in the leaked list of names of Russians who were present in Bucha. In that killing field, civilian victims with their hands tied were discovered, shot in the head.

Governments can access this data from a host of sources. Sometimes the source is government technology. Other times, hacktivists who are skilled at discovering weak links in controlled access information elicit the information through means such as phishing. Those with cleared access to the information are deceived into releasing information to someone they believe is authorized to receive it, but who is really an adversary. An astounding release of the names of Russian FSB employees allowed into the Moscow headquarters of that espionage organization was recently compromised, according to Wired Magazine. With these names, other hacktivists or government counterspies can track the activities of these people around the world.

RELEASED INFORMATION BATTLES PROPAGANDA’S LIES

Lies by an opponent about virtually anything can be contested when controlled information is compromised. The BBC validated a photograph of the Russian ship Moscow which showed two gigantic holes in the side of the vessel. This runs directly counter to the Russian statement that ‘a fire’ broke out onboard. How this information was accessed is not given. Taken from the side of vessel, it could have been a Russian citizen, a sailor, or a drone. We won’t know, but the damage was done to those on the Russian side whose job it was to lie about the nature of the damage.

Monitoring information around the world also contributes to information collection and validation. Recruitment of Russian-trained Syrian soldiers is happening, and a number of them have departed for employment against Ukraine. U.S. government and hacktivists who monitor activities in Syria are reported to be the source of this information by the Associated Press. What this means in practice could come down to a single person with access to the government information in Syria, or of an unwitting leak by that government. Or, it could not have come from Syria at all, but was leaked from Russia, thus protecting the source of the leak.

The point security professionals should take away is that our adversaries will search everywhere for information to defeat us, our allies, or our interests. Look out for possible spies in your midst, but don’t forget that you could be your own worst enemy. If you are accidentally leaking information on insecure communication devices (as many who lost their secure communication equipment in Ukraine have done) don’t look to spies betraying you. You did it to yourself. We’ve seen how easy it is for others to compromise unsecured cell phone traffic. In fact, once artillery rounds started coming in when the first conflict between Russian and Ukraine began in 2014, cell phones were banned from front line trenches altogether. How easily lessons are forgotten when a new battle arises.

Consider what is most important to your side, and protect it. Whether you are engaged in combat, potential combat, or simply preparing equipment for transfer, all of that has timely security requirements. Know what you need to protect, and for how long. If your company makes equipment necessary for the defense of an allied country, protect it as if your own country was at stake. If the arrival of special equipment is important to success on the battlefield, be sure you take care to protect all delivery information until it arrives safely. Make sure you protect your shipment information as much as the equipment itself. Think holistically. See the many ways your adversary can collect against you.


John William Davis was commissioned an artillery officer and served as a counterintelligence officer and linguist. Thereafter he was counterintelligence officer for Space and Missile Defense Command, instructing the threat portion of the Department of the Army's Operations Security Course. Upon retirement, he wrote of his experiences in Rainy Street Stories.

Canada is home to 'some of the most liveable cities in North America'

Country ranks highly in Economist Intelligence Unit’s global survey


Kelly Clarke
Aug 07, 2022

Canada has topped the list for being home to some of the most liveable cities in North America, dominating four of the top five spots for the region.

Calgary was named the most liveable city in North America and the third most liveable city in the world.

Vancouver, Toronto and Montreal were named the second, third and fourth most desirable places to live in the region.

The list, compiled by the Economist Intelligence Unit’s global survey, ranked 173 cities on stability, culture and environment, education and infrastructure, and health care.

Calgary received perfect 100 scores for health care, education and infrastructure, while culture and environment received 90.

Per the report, more than 630,000 people moved to North America from other parts of the world in the first half of 2022, a rise of 51 per cent from the same period a year earlier.

For decades, Canada has proved to be a big hit for people looking to start a new life abroad, including those from the UAE.

The country has some of the world's top universities, according to some people. With cold, snowy winters and hot summers, the climate is a big selling point for people, too.

Cities across the country are well regarded for their accepting and tolerant society and great quality of life.

Calgary secured an impressive overall score of 96 points out of 100 in the survey. This was the most of any North American city.

Calgary came first in the region twice before in the past decade, followed by Vancouver, Toronto and Montreal, who all scored high in the healthcare and education categories.

“Canada’s roll-out of Covid-19 vaccine boosters and the quick reopening of schools during the pandemic aided its high marks,” the report said.

Here, The National has put together the top five most and least liveable cities of the 25 ranked in North America.

Most liveable cities in North America

 

1. Calgary, Canada: 96

A general view of Stephen Avenue in Calgary downtown in Canada.

 

2. Vancouver - 96.1

 

3. Toronto - 95.4

4. Montreal - 92.9

5. Atlanta - 92.3

Least liveable cities in North America

 

21. New York 

 

22. Cleveland 

 

23. Houston 

 

24. Detroit 

25: Lexington, US: Old historic city downtown of Lexington, Kentucky.

Chile sinkhole grows large enough to swallow France's Arc de Triomphe

A sinkhole is exposed close to Tierra Amarilla town, in Copiapo,Chile

Sun, August 7, 2022 

(Reuters) - A sinkhole in Chile has doubled in size, growing large enough to engulf France's Arc de Triomphe and prompting officials to order work to stop at a nearby copper mine.

The sinkhole, which emerged on July 30, now stretches 50 meters (160 feet) across and goes down 200 meters (656 feet). Seattle's Space Needle would also comfortably fit in the black pit, as would six Christ the Redeemer statues from Brazil stacked head-to-head, giant arms outstretched

The National Service of Geology and Mining said late on Saturday it is still investigating the gaping hole near the Alcaparrosa mine operated by Canadian company Lundin Mining, about 665 km (413 miles) north of Santiago.

In addition to ordering all work to stop, the geology and mining service said it was starting a "sanctioning process." The agency did not provide details on what that action would involve.

Lundin did not immediately reply to a request for comment. The company last week said the hole did not affect workers or community members and that it was working to determine the cause.

Lundin owns 80% of the property and the rest is held by Japan's Sumitomo Corporation.

Initially, the hole near the town of Tierra Amarilla measured about 25 meters (82 feet) across, with water visible at the bottom.

The geology and mining service said it has installed water extraction pumps at the mine and in the next few days would investigate the mine's underground chambers for potential over-extraction.

Local officials have expressed worry that the Alcaparrosa mine could have flooded below ground, destabilizing the surrounding land. It would be "something completely out of the ordinary," Tierra Amarilla Mayor Cristobal Zuniga told local media.

(Reporting by Marion Giraldo; Writing by Daina Beth Solomon; Editing by Lisa Shumaker)

Opinion
The GOP is Viktor Orban’s party now

By Max Boot

Columnist| 

 August 7, 2022

Hungarian Prime Minister Viktor Orban gestures to the audience after speaking at the Conservative Political Action Conference in Dallas on Aug. 4. (Brian Snyder/Reuters)

All you need to know about the state of the Republican Party today is what happened at the Conservative Political Action Conference in Dallas on Thursday. Hungarian Prime Minister Viktor Orban, who has been destroying his country’s democracy, received a standing ovation less than two weeks after he gave a speech in Romania in which he endorsed the white supremacist “replacement theory” and denounced a “mixed-race world.”

One of Orban’s longtime advisers quit over what she described as a speech “worthy of Goebbels” before backtracking a bit. But Orban hasn’t recanted his repugnant views, and right-wingers in Dallas thrilled to his denunciations of immigration, abortion, LGBTQ rights and “the Woke Globalist Goliath.” He even excoriated Jewish financier George Soros, a Hungarian native, as someone who “hated Christianity.” The racist and anti-Semitic signaling was not subtle.

You can trace the current iteration of the Republican Party to the 1990s Gingrich revolution, as my brilliant Post colleague Dana Milbank does in a new book. Or you can go further back to the Goldwater revolution in the 1960s, as I did in my own book. But we must also acknowledge that something profound has changed in recent years

Ten years ago this month, Republicans nominated a national ticket of Mitt Romney and Paul D. Ryan, a centrist former governor and a budget policy wonk. Now we have the coup-coup caucus cheering Viktor Orban. This is the Trump effect: The former president has made the marginal into the mainstream of the Republican Party, and vice versa.

Some observers were deceived by the success in Georgia of Gov. Brian Kemp and Secretary of State Brad Raffensperger in handily defeating Trumpist challengers in May despite certifying President Biden’s victory. That was an aberration. In other races across the country, Republicans are nominating far-right fanatics who claim that the 2020 presidential election — and any election that they lose, for that matter — was “rigged.” By refusing to accept electoral defeat, they embrace authoritarianism.

In four key swing states — Arizona, Michigan, Nevada and Pennsylvania — the GOP nominees to oversee state elections deny the legitimacy of Biden’s election. Two of those candidates, Arizona secretary of state nominee Mark Finchem and Pennsylvania governor nominee Doug Mastriano, were outside the U.S. Capitol on Jan. 6, 2021. If elected, they are no more likely to certify a Democratic victory in 2024 than they are to embrace critical race theory. Meanwhile, most House Republicans who voted to impeach Trump for inciting an insurrection are being driven out of Congress. Michigan Rep. Peter Meijer was the latest to lose a primary last week to a proponent of the “big lie.”

Taking a cue from Trump, the winners of Republican primaries traffic in authoritarian imagery and rhetoric. Guns have become a de rigueur accessory in GOP campaign commercials. Arizona U.S. Senate nominee Blake Masters wants to lock up Anthony S. Fauci for trying to slow the spread of covid-19. And Arizona gubernatorial nominee Kari Lake wants to lock up her opponent for certifying Biden’s election victory.

Masters and Ohio U.S. Senate nominee J.D. Vance are both bankrolled by tech tycoon Peter Thiel, who has concluded that freedom and democracy aren’t “compatible.” Thiel’s “house political philosopher” is far-right blogger Curtis Yarvin, who is also close to Masters and Vance. Yarvin has mused that we may need an “American Caesar” to take control of the federal government. Trump is auditioning for the role; his henchmen are plotting to fire tens of thousands of civil servants and replace them with ultra-MAGA loyalists in 2025.

The libertarian-leaning Republican Party I grew up with in the 1980s is long gone and not coming back. Republicans still use the language of “freedom,” but their idea of freedom is warped: They want Americans to be free to carry weapons of war or spread deadly diseases but not to terminate a pregnancy or discuss gender or sexuality in school.

Republicans, once suspicious of government power, are now eager to use it to impose their agenda. Florida Gov. Ron DeSantis, next to Trump as the most likely 2024 GOP nominee, is establishing his culture-war credentials by, most recently, suspending an elected prosecutor who vowed not to “criminalize personal medical decisions,” such as abortion or “gender-affirming healthcare.” DeSantis even threatened to investigate parents who take their kids to drag shows.

These Republican extremists are often described as the “New Right,” but the term doesn’t fit. The New Right was the movement in the 1960s-1970s that produced Barry Goldwater and Ronald Reagan. You can argue that the New Right helped lead to the present imbroglio, but it’s hard to imagine Goldwater or Reagan flashing Viktor Orban a thumbs-up, as Trump did.

Some other term is needed. “Christian nationalism” and “nationalist conservatism” have been bandied about, but the most apt phrase for this American authoritarianism is the New Fascism, and it is fast becoming the dominant trend on the right. If the GOP gains power in Washington, all of America will be in danger of being Orbanized.


Opinion by Max BootMax Boot is a Washington Post columnist, a senior fellow at the Council on Foreign Relations and the author of “The Road Not Taken: Edward Lansdale and the American Tragedy in Vietnam.” Twitter

NO LONGER 'ELITIST' 
Game of chess teaches kids problem-solving, patience and creativity skills

On 'Fox & Friends Weekend,' Mark Kurtzman of Tri-State Chess touted the benefits of chess for kids

By Maureen Mackey | Fox News

UCF Life Master Mark Kurtzman and four-time national chess champion Adam Maltese share their love for the game of chess and ways kids can get involved with the classic game.

Speaking this morning on "Fox & Friends Weekend," two accomplished chess players shared their enthusiasm for the game of chess — and noted the many ways that kids today can get involved in the game and gain a host of benefits from learning and playing chess.

"Chess is just so much fun," said Mark Kurtzman, a United States Chess Federation (UCF) life master, on the program on Sunday morning.

He added that when he was growing up, there weren't many programs and offerings for kids as there are now in so many communities across the country.

NEW JERSEY 12-YEAR-OLD IS WORLD'S YOUNGEST CHESS GRANDMASTER

"Now there's so much structure around it. There are programs [for kids] and places to learn … Kids love it and it's so much fun."

Adam Maltese, a four-time national chess champion, spoke about the first time he won a multi-round chess tournament when he was just nine years old.

This giant chess set is perfect for an outdoor living space — and can work for adults or kids. (Donald Mensch)

"It's gotten a little bit tougher since I've been a kid," he said, commenting on the computerization of chess games today.

So what is the number-one tip for novice players?

"Think before you move," said Kurtzman.

Problem-solving skills, patience, creativity and consequences for one's actions are some of the many benefits of learning to play chess.

He noted that there are many skills that kids learn from the game of chess — including problem-solving skills, patience, creativity and consequences for one's actions.

Chess is a game of strategy and tactics that anyone of almost any age can learn to play. (iStock)

Players were deeply involved in their chess games on Fox Square this morning as the chess masters evaluated some of the matches.

Some of the children were as young as five as they played chess.

Kurtzman commented on the kids that he teaches today — "We get 250 players," he said, who are rated by the chess foundation.

"Students enjoy themselves while learning to become mature and well-respected chess players."

He also said there are chess camps available to kids, too.

"The players are developing their pieces … preparing for the battle," noted Kurtzman of a game that had just begun.

This young person learned how to play chess when he was four years old. (Kori McConnell)

Kurtzman runs Tri State Chess (tristatechess.com), an organization based in New York City and in operation for over 30 years.

It is "devoted to establishing competitive chess programs in elementary schools throughout the Tri-State area," its website says.

TEEN EARNS NATIONAL CHESS MASTER TITLE AFTER 4TH BRAIN SURGERY: ‘UNHEARD OF’

"In order to maintain the highest possible standards," the group adds, "experienced chess coaches are personally trained by our professional staff."

It also said, "All coaches are instructed to implement an established teaching system, proven effective through years of use."

"In this way, students enjoy themselves while learning to become mature and well-respected chess players."

To learn more about chess and its benefits, watch the video Student chess players face off at Fox Square

Opinion: Putin is still king at world chess organization FIDE

The world chess federation FIDE has chosen to continue with Russian Arkady Dvorkovich as the head of the organization. This despite the international sanctions on Russia following the invasion of Ukraine.


Putin likes to be seen with prominent chess players, including Dvorkovich (far left) in 2014

In the world of chess, everything is apparently still in perfect order. While there are sanctions in place against Russia and Belarus in the sport, they only apply to the players. At the FIDE Congress in Chennai, India, on August 7, the incumbent president Arkady Dvorkovich was re-elected.

Until 2018, Dvorkovich was Russia's deputy prime minister and chairman of the board of the (wartime essential) Russian Railways. Since then, he has been the head of the World Chess Federation, and will remain in the post for another four years.

Among chess officials, there's a pretense that President Vladimir Putin's war in Ukraine does not exist — a politically and morally bankrupt declaration. Dvorkovich's opponent could not even achieve respectable success: The Ukrainian chess grandmaster Andrii Baryshpolets received just 16 of the 173 votes. The German Chess Federation — as announced two months ago — supported the defeated Ukrainian.

Arkady Dvorkovich has been re-elected as the president of FIDE

Chess is also politics in Russia

Sports federations like to claim they are apolitical. This has never been true for chess, particularly not in Russia. Chess is much more than just a niche sport for nerds. Putin, a chess enthusiast, always likes to be seen with prominent chess players, although Dvorkovich has tried to distance himself a bit publicly from the Russian war of aggression.

But the bottom line is that the signal sent by chess is fatal: once again, Russia's overwhelming influence in the sport has not been contained. On the contrary, despite global sanctions, Russia has managed to keep one of its own at the helm of an international sports federation. For Putin, that's cause for celebration.

Sure, Dvorkovich had a comparatively good record. After decades in which FIDE had been marked by chaos and corruption, he had brought professionalism and (mostly Russian) sponsorship to the notoriously cash-strapped sport. He also had the smart idea of choosing the universally esteemed former world champion Viswanathan Anand as his deputy, as a representative of the up-and-coming chess nation India.

Magnus Carlsen does not intend to defend his world title

FIDE on the sidelines?

But it's doubtful that FIDE under Dvorkovich can simply carry on as before. Western sponsors have deserted the sport and Dvorkovich himself may soon appear on international sanctions list. "If that happens, it's over," even Putin-affiliated former world champion Anatoly Karpov speculated before Dvorkovich's re-election.

It is all a disaster for chess. After all, the board game is actually booming. In the COVID era, the sport has partly shifted online. Chess has long since ceased to revolve around the somewhat cumbersome official world championships.

The still reigning champion, Norwegian Magnus Carlsen, has recognized the signs of the times. The 31-year-old does not intend to defend his title for the time being, but the world's best chess player by far will continue to play the game — on his own. He brings money into the sport with his listed Play Magnus Group.

A world chess federation that stands closely alongside the economically and politically isolated Russia will find it difficult to keep up. Other major chess federations — like Germany's — will distance themselves even more. It is quite possible that game has checkmated itself.

CHESS: THE GAME OF KINGS AND ARTISTS
Pastime of the stars
American Western actor John Wayne (right) was an enthusiastic chess player. German film diva Marlene Dietrich (left) is said to have always traveled with a huge chess board. The board game was particularly popular among Hollywood stars in the 1930s to 1950s. Dietrich and Wayne are pictured here in 1942 on the set of the film "Pittsburgh."
12345

This article was translated from German.

AMERIKA
Sterilization Laws Are Still on the Books — and Pose New Dangers Post-“Roe”

The front of the U.S. Supreme Court, seen through a fence line on Capitol Hill in Washington, D.C., on July 14, 2022.

TOM BRENNER FOR THE WASHINGTON POST VIA GETTY IMAGES

BY J oaquín M. Lara Midkiff, 

Truthout

PUBLISHED August 7, 2022

The repudiation of Roe v. Wade and Planned Parenthood of Southeastern Pennsylvania v. Casey awakens fears around the repercussions of an unchecked and compromised high court. Now as a result, in a period when the protections against the deprivations of privacy and liberty are weakened, the U.S. must brace itself as the legacy of eugenics threatens to break forth.

Recall Carrie Buck, a 16-year-old in a muggy Virginia town, almost a century ago. In the summer of 1923, Buck — who had lived her whole life under the guardianship of foster parents, John and Alice Dobbs — was raped by a Dobbs family nephew. Buck’s mother, Emma, was locked away at the Virginia State Colony for Epileptics and Feebleminded in Lynchburg under the auspices of clinical “immorality,” prostitution and the crime of having syphilis.

Carrie Buck became pregnant as a result of the rape. In her third trimester, Buck was committed to the very same Virginia State Colony as her mother, on the basis of “mental incompetence,” “incorrigibility” and “promiscuity.” By early 1924, Virginia had passed the Eugenical Sterilization Act, meant to protect the state’s right to strip “defective” and “socially inadequate” people of their reproductive potential. Early that same year, against her will, Carrie Buck’s fallopian tubes were gutted.

In a cruel legal wile, Buck’s attorney, Irving Whitehead, was not only a vehement eugenicist but also a close friend of the superintendent of the residential facility that had sterilized her. He called no witnesses. He made no effort to dispute claims, later revealed to be false, that questioned Buck’s intelligence and mental fortitude, nor did he challenge the idea that people’s reproductive capacity should be forcibly excised due to disability. His counsel was a sham.

Robert Shelton, a justice of the peace who served as Buck’s guardian while she was institutionalized, appealed the Amherst County judge’s decision to side with the Virginia State Colony. By 1927, Buck v. Bell had reached the Supreme Court. Justice Oliver Wendell Holmes Jr., in an 8-to-1 decision, delivered the now-infamous majority opinion.

The Court found that, under the Fourteenth Amendment, the State is within its right to sterilize somebody should they become institutionalized and found to be “afflicted with a hereditary form of insanity or imbecility.” The “imbecility” in the Buck case was a euphemism for her involuntary pregnancy. In his measly 1,000-word opinion, Holmes wrote, “It is better for all the world if, instead of waiting to execute degenerate offspring for crime or to let them starve for their imbecility, society can prevent those who are manifestly unfit from continuing their kind.”

“Three generations of imbeciles are enough,” he concluded.More than 60,000 people were forcibly sterilized in the wake of the Buck ruling.

It is almost a century later and Buck v. Bell, while weakened, has not been overruled. States retain the right to sterilize their citizenry on the basis of “defect” or disability. In its most pernicious interpretation, the state may determine defect to include, as it did in the 1920s, categories as unspecific and sinister as social inadequacy, immorality and promiscuity. Buck remains one of the most twisted cases in U.S. history — and today, in a world of judicial dynamism and precariousness, is a latent tool in service of the ugliest currents of society.

With Roe v. Wade being nullified on the basis of a narrowed Fourteenth Amendment, it is imperative to remember the ways in which, when it is not providing equal protection under the law, the Fourteenth Amendment has been weaponized as a tool of oppression and state control. More than 60,000 people were forcibly sterilized in the wake of the Buck ruling. This century, under the Trump administration, immigrant women were detained and carved out through medically unnecessary hysterectomies.

As of June 2022, a new generation has fewer constitutional rights than the one who preceded it. Justice Clarence Thomas’s concurring opinion in Dobbs v. Jackson outlines a path for rescinding a string of rights — some long protected under the Fourteenth Amendment — such as a right to contraceptives, gay marriage, sexual privacy and even interracial marriage.

These efforts are rooted in the very same legal illogic as Buck and motivated by the same contempt for justice that Irving Whitehead harbored.Today, 31 states unabashedly have laws sanctioning the sterilization of disabled people. In Nevada and Iowa, these laws, only three years old, are fresh.

We mustn’t forget this soft mandate, handed down by the courts, for states to intervene, not in pregnancy, but in the ability to reproduce in anybody institutionalized with anything the state deems an inadequacy. Historically, the communities that have been violated and exploited the most by this mandate include Black and Indigenous women, immigrants, trans folks — and, critically, people with disabilities.

In a post-Roe world, the promises of societal progress and bodily liberty, long the roar of a country constantly seeking to better itself, are duller. Today, 31 states unabashedly have laws sanctioning the sterilization of disabled people. In Nevada and Iowa, these laws, only three years old, are fresh. Seventeen of these states consider disabled children eligible for forced sterilization. This most recent assault on reproductive rights, decades in the making, renders conceiving of a future free from state control of our bodies, persecution of disability and intolerance of difference markedly more difficult.

Carrie Buck’s story reminds us that draconian laws last. It is not only a question of abortion and forced sterilization. The role that eugenics can play in an era of conservative and quasi-theological judicial activism is expansive: medical experimentation, forced institutionalization, marriage equality for people with disabilities, access to health care, and beyond. At a time when the court of the land has the appetite to obliterate half a century of precedent and progress, we are faced with immediate uncertainty. The legal apparatus that has, for over a century, functioned as a bludgeon for disabled Americans (and others) now threatens indiscriminately — and no one has the luxury of not knowing the consequences.

Joaquín M. Lara Midkiff is a human rights commissioner for the City of Salem, Oregon. He is also a fellow at the MacMillan Center, researcher at the Peabody Museum, and was founding editor of the Yale Review of Disability Experience. He is senior advisor (and former president) to DEFY, a disability justice organization advocating on behalf of students with disabilities in higher education.

Drop box for babies: Anti-abortionists promote anonymous ‘newborn deposits’

By Dana Goldstein
August 8, 2022 —


New York: The Safe Haven Baby Box at a firehouse in Carmel, Indiana, looked like a library book drop. It had been available for three years for anyone who wanted to surrender a baby anonymously.

No one had ever used it, though, until early April. When its alarm went off, Victor Andres, a firefighter, opened the box and found, to his disbelief, a newborn boy wrapped in towels.

A drop-off box for parents to surrender their newborns at a fire station in Carmel, Indiana.

The discovery made the local TV news, which praised the courage of the mother, calling it “a time for celebration”. Later that month, Andres pulled another newborn, a girl, from the box. In May, a third baby appeared. By summer, three more infants were left at baby box locations throughout the state.

The baby boxes are part of the safe haven movement, which has long been closely tied to anti-abortion activism. Safe havens offer desperate mothers a way to surrender their newborns anonymously for adoption, and, advocates say, avoid hurting, abandoning or even killing them. The havens can be boxes, which allow parents to avoid speaking to anyone or even being seen when surrendering their babies. More traditionally, the havens are locations such as hospitals and fire stations, where staff members are trained to accept a face-to-face handoff from a parent in crisis.

All 50 states have safe haven laws meant to protect surrendering mothers from criminal charges. The first, known as the “Baby Moses” law, was passed in Texas in 1999 after a number of women abandoned infants in trash cans or dumpsters. But what began as a way to prevent the most extreme cases of child abuse has become a broader phenomenon, supported especially among the religious right, which heavily promotes adoption as an alternative to abortion.

Over the past five years, more than 12 states have passed laws allowing baby boxes or expanding safe haven options in other ways. And safe haven surrenders, experts in reproductive health and child welfare say, are likely to become more common after the Supreme Court’s decision to overturn Roe v. Wade.

The Safe Haven drop-off box, as seen from inside the fire station, where a baby was left in April, the first in the three years since the box was installed, in Carmel.

During oral arguments in the case Dobbs v Jackson Women’s Health Organisation, Justice Amy Coney Barrett suggested that safe haven laws offered an alternative to abortion by allowing women to avoid “the burdens of parenting.” In the court’s decision, Justice Samuel Alito cited safe haven laws as a “modern development” that, in the majority’s view, obviated the need for abortion rights.

But for many experts in adoption and women’s health, safe havens are hardly a panacea.

To them, a safe haven surrender is a sign that a woman fell through the cracks of existing systems. They may have concealed their pregnancies and given birth without prenatal care, or they may suffer from domestic violence, drug addiction, homelessness or mental illness.

The adoptions themselves could also be problematic, with women potentially unaware that they are terminating parental rights, and children left with little information about their origins.

Demonstrators on both sides of the abortion issue outside the US Supreme Court after it struck down federal abortion rights protections.

CREDIT:ANNA ROSE LAYDEN/THE NEW YORK TIMES

If a parent is using a safe haven, “there’s been a crisis, and the system has already in some way failed,” said Ryan Hanlon, president of the National Council for Adoption.

Boosting the movement

Safe haven surrenders are still rare. The National Safe Haven Alliance estimates that 115 legal surrenders took place in 2021. In recent years, there have been more than 100,000 domestic adoptions annually and more than 600,000 abortions. Studies show that the vast majority of women denied an abortion are uninterested in adoption and go on to raise their children.

But the safe haven movement has become much more prominent, in part because of a boost from a charismatic activist with roots in anti-abortion activism, Monica Kelsey, founder of Safe Haven Baby Boxes.

Firefighter Ben Krieg at the station where a baby was left in its Safe Haven drop-off box in April.

With Kelsey and allies lobbying across the country, states like Indiana, Iowa and Virginia have sought to make safe haven surrenders easier, faster and more anonymous — allowing older babies to be dropped off or allowing relinquishing parents to leave the scene without speaking to another adult or sharing any medical history.

Some who work with safe haven children are concerned about the baby boxes in particular. There are now more than 100 across the country.

“Is this infant being surrendered without coercion?” asked Micah Orliss, director of the Safe Surrender Clinic at Children’s Hospital Los Angeles. “Is this a parent who is in a bad spot and could benefit from some time and discussion in a warm handoff experience to make their decision?”

Kelsey is a former medic and firefighter, and an adoptee who said she was abandoned at birth by her teenage mother, who had been raped.

She first encountered a baby “safe” – a concept dating back to medieval Europe – on a 2013 trip to a church in Cape Town, South Africa, where she was on a pro-abstinence speaking tour.

She returned home to Indiana to found a nonprofit, Safe Haven Baby Boxes, and installed her first baby box in 2016.

To use one of Kelsey’s boxes, a parent pulls open a metal drawer to reveal a temperature-controlled hospital bassinet. Once the baby is inside and the drawer is closed, it locks automatically; the parent cannot reopen it. An alarm is triggered, and the facility’s staff members can access the bassinet. The box also sends out a 911 call. Twenty-one babies have been left in the boxes since 2017, and the average amount of time a child is inside the box is less than two minutes, Kelsey said.

She has raised money to put up dozens of billboards advertising the safe haven option. The advertisements feature a photo of a handsome firefighter cradling a newborn, and the Safe Haven Baby Box emergency hotline number.

Monica Kelsey, founder of Safe Haven Baby Boxes.

Kelsey said she was in contact with legislators across the country who wanted to bring the boxes to their regions, and she predicted that within five years, her boxes would be in all 50 states.

“We can all agree a baby should be placed in my box and not in a dumpster to die,” she said.

Because of the anonymity, there is limited information about the parents who use safe havens. But Orliss, of the Los Angeles safe haven clinic, performs psychological and developmental evaluations on some 15 such babies annually, often following them through their toddler years. His research found that more than half the children have health or developmental issues, often stemming from inadequate prenatal care. In California, unlike in Indiana, safe haven surrenders must be done face to face, and parents are given an optional questionnaire on medical history, which often reveals serious problems such as drug use.

RELATED ARTICLE
‘Republicans don’t have a clue’: Biden builds on Kansas abortion rights victory, signs fresh directive

Still, many children do well. Tessa Higgs, 37, a marketing manager in southern Indiana, adopted her 3-year-old daughter, Nola, after the girl was dropped off at a safe haven just hours after her birth. Higgs said the biological mother had called the Safe Haven Baby Box hotline after seeing one of the group’s billboards.

“From day one, she has been so healthy and happy and thriving and exceeding all developmental milestones,” Higgs said of Nola. “She’s perfect in our eyes.”
Legal grey areas

For some women seeking help, the first point of contact is the Safe Haven Baby Box emergency hotline.

That hotline and another maintained by the Safe Haven National Alliance tell callers where and how they can legally surrender children, along with information about the traditional adoption process.

Safe haven groups say they inform callers that anonymous surrenders are a last resort, and give out information on how to keep their babies, including ways to get diapers, rent money and temporary child care.

“When a woman is given options, she will choose what’s best for her,” Kelsey said. “And if that means that in her moment of crisis, she chooses a baby box, we should all support her in her decision.”

But Kelsey’s hotline does not talk about the legal time constraints for reunifying with the baby unless callers ask for it, she said.

In Indiana, which has the majority of baby boxes, state law does not specify a timeline for terminating birth parents’ rights after safe haven surrenders, or for adoption. But according to Don VanDerMoere, the prosecutor in Owen County, Indiana, who has experience with infant abandonment laws in the state, biological families are free to come forward until a court terminates parental rights, which can occur 45 to 60 days after an anonymous surrender.

Because these relinquishments are anonymous, they typically lead to closed adoptions. Birth parents are unable to select the parents, and adoptees are left with little to no information about their family of origin or medical history.

Hanlon, of the National Council for Adoption, pointed to research showing that over the long term, birth parents feel more satisfied about giving up their children if biological and adoptive families maintain a relationship.

And in safe haven cases, if a mother changes her mind, she must prove to the state that she is fit.

According to Kelsey, since her operation began, two women who said they had placed their infants in boxes have tried to reclaim custody of their children. Such cases can take months or even years to resolve.

Birth mothers are also not immune from legal jeopardy and may not be able to navigate the technicalities of each state’s safe haven law, said Lori Bruce, a medical ethicist at Yale.

RELATED ARTICLE

Abortion
The Pink House at centre of America’s abortion wars

While many states protect surrendering mothers from criminal prosecution if babies are healthy and unharmed, mothers in severe crisis – dealing with addiction or domestic abuse, for example – may not be protected if their newborns are in some way affected.

The idea of a traumatised, postpartum mother being able to “correctly Google the laws is slim,” Bruce said.

With the demise of Roe, “we know we are going to see more abandoned babies,” she added. “My concern is, that means more prosecutors are going to be able to prosecute women for having unsafely abandoned their children – or not following the letter of the law.”

On Friday, the Indiana governor signed legislation banning most abortions, with slim exceptions.

And the safe haven movement continues apace.

Higgs, the adoptive mother, has stayed in touch with Monica Kelsey of Safe Haven Baby Boxes. “The day that I found out about Roe v Wade, I texted Monica and was like, ‘Are you ready to get even busier?’”

This article originally appeared in The New York Times.

PHOTO CREDIT:KAITI SULLIVAN/THE NEW YORK TIMES

WHAT THE “WOKE” LEFT AND THE ALT-RIGHT SHARE

BY SLAVOJ ŽIŽEK.

AUGUST 8, 2022

What is the link between the war in Europe and the conflict between the liberal mainstream and the new populist right in North America and Europe? Ultimately, both sides are fighting over the spoils of a system in which they are wholly complicit writes political philosopher Slavoj Žižek.

.

T

he Canadian psychologist and alt-right media fixture Jordan Peterson recently stumbled onto an important insight. In a podcast episode titled “Russia vs. Ukraine or Civil War in the West?,” he recognized a link between the war in Europe and the conflict between the liberal mainstream and the new populist right in North America and Europe.

Although Peterson initially condemns Russian President Vladimir Putin’s war of aggression, his stance gradually morphs into a kind of metaphysical defense of Russia. Referencing Dostoevsky’s Diaries, he suggests that Western European hedonist individualism is far inferior to Russian collective spirituality, before duly endorsing the Kremlin’s designation of contemporary Western liberal civilization as “degenerate.” He describes postmodernism as a transformation of Marxism that seeks to destroy the foundations of Christian civilization. Viewed in this light, the war in Ukraine is a contest between traditional Christian values and a new form of communist degeneracy.

This language will be familiar to anyone familiar with Hungarian Prime Minister Viktor Orbán’s regime, or with the January 6, 2021, insurrection at the U.S. Capitol. As CNN’s John Blake put it, that day “marked the first time many Americans realized the U.S. is facing a burgeoning White Christian nationalist movement,” which “uses Christian language to cloak sexism and hostility to Black people and non-White immigrants in its quest to create a White Christian America.” This worldview has now “infiltrated the religious mainstream so thoroughly that virtually any conservative Christian pastor who tries to challenge its ideology risks their career.”

The fact that Peterson has assumed a pro-Russian, anti-communist position is indicative of a broader trend. In the United States, many Republican Party lawmakers have refused to support Ukraine. J.D. Vance, a Donald Trump-backed Republican Senate candidate from Ohio, finds it “insulting and strategically stupid to devote billions of resources to Ukraine while ignoring the problems in our own country.” And Matt Gaetz, a Republican member of the House of Representatives from Florida, is committed to ending U.S. support for Ukraine if his party wins control of the chamber this November.

But does accepting Peterson’s premise that Russia’s war and the alt-right in the U.S. are platoons of the same global movement mean that leftists should simply take the opposite side? Here, the situation gets more complicated. Although Peterson claims to oppose communism, he is attacking a major consequence of global capitalism. As Marx and Engels wrote more than 150 years ago in the first chapter of The Communist Manifesto:

“The bourgeoisie, wherever it has got the upper hand, has put an end to all feudal, patriarchal, idyllic relations. … All fixed, fast-frozen relations, with their train of ancient and venerable prejudices and opinions, are swept away, all new-formed ones become antiquated before they can ossify. All that is solid melts into air, all that is holy is profaned, and man is at last compelled to face with sober senses his real conditions of life, and his relations with his kind.”

This observation is studiously ignored by leftist cultural theorists who still focus their critique on patriarchal ideology and practice. Yet surely the critique of patriarchy has reached its apotheosis at precisely the historical moment when patriarchy has lost its hegemonic role—that is, when market individualism has swept it away. After all, what becomes of patriarchal family values when a child can sue her parents for neglect and abuse (implying that parenthood is just another temporary and dissolvable contract between utility-maximizing individuals)?

Of course, such “leftists” are sheep in wolves’ clothing, telling themselves that they are radical revolutionaries as they defend the reigning establishment. Today, the melting away of pre-modern social relations and forms has already gone much further than Marx could have imagined. All facets of human identity are now becoming a matter of choice; nature is becoming more and more an object of technological manipulation.

The “civil war” that Peterson sees in the developed West is thus a chimera, a conflict between two versions of the same global capitalist system: unrestrained liberal individualism versus neo-fascist conservativism, which seeks to unite capitalist dynamism with traditional values and hierarchies.

There is a double paradox here. Western political correctness (“wokeness”) has displaced class struggle, producing a liberal elite that claims to protect threatened racial and sexual minorities in order to divert attention from its members’ own economic and political power. At the same time, this lie allows alt-right populists to present themselves as defenders of “real” people against corporate and “deep state” elites, even though they, too, occupy positions at the commanding heights of economic and political power.

Ultimately, both sides are fighting over the spoils of a system in which they are wholly complicit. Neither side really stands up for the exploited or has any interest in working-class solidarity. The implication is not that “left” and “right” are outdated notions—as one often hears—but rather that culture wars have displaced class struggle as the engine of politics.

Where does that leave Europe? The Guardian’s Simon Tisdall paints a bleak but accurate picture:

“Putin’s aim is the immiseration of Europe. By weaponising energy, food, refugees and information, Russia’s leader spreads the economic and political pain, creating wartime conditions for all. A long, cold, calamity-filled European winter of power shortages and turmoil looms. … Freezing pensioners, hungry children, empty supermarket shelves, unaffordable cost of living increases, devalued wages, strikes and street protests point to Sri Lanka-style meltdowns. An exaggeration? Not really.”

To prevent a total collapse into disorder, the state apparatus, in close coordination with other states and relying on local mobilizations of people, will have to regulate the distribution of energy and food, perhaps resorting to administration by the armed forces. Europe thus has a unique chance to leave behind its charmed life of isolated welfare, a bubble in which gas and electricity prices were the biggest worries. As Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelensky recently told Vogue, “Just try to imagine what I’m talking about happening to your home, to your country. Would you still be thinking about gas prices or electricity prices?”

He’s right. Europe is under attack, and it needs to mobilize, not just militarily but socially and economically as well. We should use the crisis to change our way of life, adopting values that will spare us from an ecological catastrophe in the coming decades. This may be our only chance.

Copyright: Project Syndicate, 2022.

About

Slavoj Žižek

:

Slavoj Žižek, Professor of Philosophy at the European Graduate School, is International Director of the Birkbeck Institute for the Humanities at the University of London and the author, most recently, of Heaven in Disorder (OR Books, 2021).

The views presented in this article are the author’s own and do not necessarily represent the views of any other organization.

AFGHANISTAN

Hekmatyar rejects claims that al-Qaeda leader was killed in Kabul drone strike

Published August 8, 2022
By Ariana News


(Last Updated On: August 8, 2022)

Gulbuddin Hekmatyar, the leader of Hizb-e-Islami, on Monday blasted the United States for violating Afghanistan’s national sovereignty and territory by conducting a drone strike in Kabul and said Washington’s claims of having killed al-Qaeda leader Ayman al-Zawahiri were false.

Hekmatyar said the strike was a “terrorist act” and that there was no evidence of al-Zawahiri having been killed in the Sherpur house in Kabul.

He also said despite the US having withdrawn from Afghanistan, Washington still wanted to continue the war and carried with it a “sense of revenge”. He said this was clear in statements and words expressed by American political and military officials.

Hekmatyar also said that the US operation against the leader of al-Qaeda shows that the US still has intelligence activities in Afghanistan.

US President Joe Biden claimed last week that the US had killed al-Zawahiri in a drone strike while he was standing on a balcony at his house in Kabul.

However, until now, no evidence of al-Zawahiri’s death has yet been provided.

Radio Azadi meanwhile quoted the Islamic Emirate of Afghanistan’s (IEA) spokesman Zabihullah Mujahid as having said no body was found at the scene of the strike.

He said an investigation was launched into the strike and that “everything was destroyed, but we did not find a body there.” he said.

The IEA also said last week that they had no knowledge of al-Zawahiri having been in the country as claimed by the US.

‘Marijuana express’ trucks drive into fashion in Bangkok’s streets

Online News EditorAugust 8, 2022

By Nayara Batschke

Bangkok, Aug 8 (EFE).- Following in the footsteps of the food trucks phenomenon, the new craze in the streets of Bangkok are “marijuana express trucks,” which drive around the city after the decriminalization of cannabis in Thailand two months ago.

Where until recently it was only possible to find marijuana for furtive – and illegal – consumption in some tourist spots, it is now common to find cannabis trucks and dispensaries that openly and legally sell marijuana products and buds across the Thai capital.

On a busy street in the Thonglor neighborhood, known for its vibrant nightlife, several trucks parked side-by-side advertise their cannabis products under the curious gaze of passers-by.

At their window-bars, customers can choose from a menu of various strains, offering consumers buds labeled by their different effects.

“We have all types. We have this one that is more for excitement, we also have some if you want to feel creative, talkative, focused, to go partying or to feel relaxed,” says Kornpatthipong or “Buddee,” who works in a weed truck strategically parked next to a famous nightclub.

According to the seller, this kind of establishment experienced a real boom after Thai authorities legalized the use of cannabis and removed the substance from its narcotics list in early June.

“We have a lot of customers on Friday and Saturday – they go drinking and partying, and come to buy a joint, and go back to the party,” says Buddee.

In the midst of growing competition, creativity is an essential factor. Each vehicle is different, whether through flashy lights, music, the friendliness of the vendors or the services offered.

“So far so good. We are creating a list of frequent customers and we’re always thinking of what we can do to innovate,” a partner in one of the vehicles, who a month ago left behind life as a salesman to open his own business, told EFE.

Customers are given a wide range of menu items and prices and can choose between buying only the buds, sold in grams, or pre-rolled joints.

“It is nice, this legalization, because many people already smoked before and now they will keep doing it, but legally. And for those who don’t like it, they can simply choose not to smoke,” said one Thonglor patron.

However, while cannabis was delisted to promote the medicinal use of the plant, regulation of its consumption is still in the works, which has left much confusion among sellers and consumers.

“It’s tricky because since there is no regulation – it’s still a very grey area in terms of what you can do and what you cannot,” Yada Tianprasit, a Thammasat University Criminal Law and Criminology Department professor, told EFE.

Despite the euphoria and potential associated with the cannabis business, most stores are cautious and ask customers to consume the substance privately.

The sale of cannabis is also prohibited to anyone pregnant and those under 20.

“For people under 20 it is nice that the government put laws because they are young and impressionable. They can decide if they want to do it or not when they are older,” said the owner of a weed truck located in the crowded downtown neighborhood of Asoke, another of Bangkok’s nightlife hubs. EFE nbo-sm/tw-lds