CRIMINAL CAPITALI$M
Former Florida GOP lawmaker caught up in FBI investigation into multi-million dollar 'bilking' of taxpayers: report

Tom Boggioni
August 12, 2022

Allen Bense (Photo via Florida State University)

According to a report from the Palm Beach Post, a former Florida Republican lawmaker who served as Speaker of the House is under investigation and accused of ripping off taxpayers to the tune of millions after a company he heads reportedly submitted invoices for hurricane clean-up that was never done.

Allan Bense, who served in the state legislature from 1998 to 2006 where he rose to speaker before being replaced by Marco Rubio, is one of the subjects mentioned in an investigation into GAC Contractors according to court documents.

According to the report, the investigation centers around "millions" billed to local governments in 2018 for Hurricane Michael clean-up.

"The company’s top executives, including Bense and its late CEO Derwin White, commanded its crews to visit work sites with equipment but not perform any work, and then billed Bay County, the school district and other government municipalities, federal investigators allege in an affidavit filed with a search warrant carried out last year at the company’s headquarters," the report states before adding, "Federal law enforcement authorities, in the affidavit, said that Bense and White ordered GAC's workers to clean up their own homes or properties and that of other top public officials, including state Sen. George Gainer, Lynn Haven City Attorney Adam Albritton's house and Bay County School Superintendent Bill Husfelt, among others."

The report adds, "The search warrant itself called for government review of any and all records, documents and supporting documentation relating to owner account expenditures and accounting entries for Derwin White and Allan Bense."

"Bense, who served in the Florida House of Representatives from 1998 to 2006 and as House Speaker between 2004-06, has been a managing partner of GAC Contractors, alongside Derwin White, since 1996. This year he is listed by the Florida Division of Corporations as the company's chairman," the Post is reporting.

ICYMI

Cognitive biases and brain biology help explain why facts don’t change minds
The Conversation
August 12, 2022

Human anatomy illustration, central nervous system with a visible brain (Shutterstock)

“Facts First” is the tagline of a CNN branding campaign which contends that “once facts are established, opinions can be formed.” The problem is that while it sounds logical, this appealing assertion is a fallacy not supported by research.

Cognitive psychology and neuroscience studies have found that the exact opposite is often true when it comes to politics: People form opinions based on emotions, such as fear, contempt and anger, rather than relying on facts. New facts often do not change people’s minds.

I study human development, public health and behavior change. In my work, I see firsthand how hard it is to change someone’s mind and behaviors when they encounter new information that runs counter to their beliefs.Your worldview, including beliefs and opinions, starts to form during childhood as you’re socialized within a particular cultural context. It gets reinforced over time by the social groups you keep, the media you consume, even how your brain functions. It influences how you think of yourself and how you interact with the world.

For many people, a challenge to their worldview feels like an attack on their personal identity and can cause them to harden their position. Here’s some of the research that explains why it’s natural to resist changing your mind – and how you can get better at making these shifts.

Rejecting what contradicts your beliefs

In an ideal world, rational people who encounter new evidence that contradicts their beliefs would evaluate the facts and change their views accordingly. But that’s generally not how things go in the real world.

Partly to blame is a cognitive bias that can kick in when people encounter evidence that runs counter to their beliefs. Instead of reevaluating what they’ve believed up until now, people tend to reject the incompatible evidence. Psychologists call this phenomenon belief perseverance. Everyone can fall prey to this ingrained way of thinking.

Being presented with facts – whether via the news, social media or one-on-one conversations – that suggest their current beliefs are wrong causes people to feel threatened. This reaction is particularly strong when the beliefs in question are aligned with your political and personal identities. It can feel like an attack on you if one of your strongly held beliefs is challenged.

Confronting facts that don’t line up with your worldview may trigger a “backfire effect,” which can end up strengthening your original position and beliefs, particularly with politically charged issues. Researchers have identified this phenomenon in a number of studies, including ones about opinions toward climate change mitigation policies and attitudes toward childhood vaccinations.

Focusing on what confirms your beliefs

There’s another cognitive bias that can get in the way of changing your mind, called confirmation bias. It’s the natural tendency to seek out information or interpret things in a way that supports your existing beliefs. Interacting with like-minded people and media reinforces confirmation bias. The problem with confirmation bias is that it can lead to errors in judgment because it keeps you from looking at a situation objectively from multiple angles.

A 2016 Gallup poll provides a great example of this bias. In just one two-week period spanning the 2016 election, both Republicans and Democrats drastically changed their opinions about the state of the economy – in opposite directions.

But nothing was new with the economy. What had changed was that a new political leader from a different party had been elected. The election outcome changed survey respondents’ interpretation of how the economy was doing – a confirmation bias led Republicans to rate it much higher now that their guy would be in charge; Democrats the opposite.

Brain’s hard-wiring doesn’t help

Cognitive biases are predictable patterns in the way people think that can keep you from objectively weighing evidence and changing your mind. Some of the basic ways your brain works can also work against you on this front.


It can feel really satisfying to get the better of an opponent, even if you’re not actually right.

Rob Lewine/Tetra images via Getty Images

Your brain is hard-wired to protect you – which can lead to reinforcing your opinions and beliefs, even when they’re misguided. Winning a debate or an argument triggers a flood of hormones, including dopamine and adrenaline. In your brain, they contribute to the feeling of pleasure you get during sex, eating, roller-coaster rides – and yes, winning an argument. That rush makes you feel good, maybe even invulnerable. It’s a feeling many people want to have more often.

Moreover, in situations of high stress or distrust, your body releases another hormone, cortisol. It can hijack your advanced thought processes, reason and logic – what psychologists call the executive functions of your brain. Your brain’s amygdala becomes more active, which controls your innate fight-or-flight reaction when you feel under threat.

In the context of communication, people tend to raise their voice, push back and stop listening when these chemicals are coursing through their bodies. Once you’re in that mindset, it’s hard to hear another viewpoint. The desire to be right combined with the brain’s protective mechanisms make it that much harder to change opinions and beliefs, even in the presence of new information.

You can train yourself to keep an open mind

In spite of the cognitive biases and brain biology that make it hard to change minds, there are ways to short-circuit these natural habits.

Work to keep an open mind. Allow yourself to learn new things. Search out perspectives from multiple sides of an issue. Try to form, and modify, your opinions based on evidence that is accurate, objective and verified.

Don’t let yourself be swayed by outliers. For example, give more weight to the numerous doctors and public health officials who describe the preponderance of evidence that vaccines are safe and effective than what you give to one fringe doctor on a podcast who suggests the opposite.

Be wary of repetition, as repeated statements are often perceived as more truthful than new information, no matter how false the claim may be. Social media manipulators and politicians know this all too well.

Presenting things in a nonconfrontational way allows people to evaluate new information without feeling attacked. Insulting others and suggesting someone is ignorant or misinformed, no matter how misguided their beliefs may be, will cause the people you are trying to influence to reject your argument. Instead, try asking questions that lead the person to question what they believe. While opinions may not ultimately change, the chance of success is greater.

Recognize we all have these tendencies and respectfully listen to other opinions. Take a deep breath and pause when you feel your body ramping up for a fight. Remember, it’s OK to be wrong at times. Life can be a process of growth.

Keith M. Bellizzi, Professor of Human Development and Family Sciences, University of Connecticut

This article is republished from The Conversation under a Creative Commons license. Read the original article.

Why the Republican insurgency will not be a second civil war

John Stoehr
August 11, 2022

Supporters of President Donald Trump riot at the U.S. Capitol 

in Washington, D.C., on Wednesday, Jan. 6, 2021.

 - Yuri Gripas/Yuri Gripas/TNS

A pattern emerged in the hours after the FBI lawfully searched the Florida home of the former president. Indeed, it was deeply familiar.
It goes something like this.

When Bad Thing X happens to Donald Trump – and, given who we’re talking about, there’s always a Bad Thing X – it’s actually Good Thing Y, because it’ll arouse the resentments of his supporters. It doesn’t matter what Bad Thing X is. What matters, for the purposes of propaganda, is that this pattern is used at Trump’s convenience. And, given who we’re talking about, that convenience has come in handy.

READ MORE: Trust the plan': QAnon conspiracy theorists believe Mar-a-Lago search will benefit Trump

But what started as convenience, effective though it may have been, has evolved into a habit, which has evolved into a tic, which has evolved into a tell. Whenever someone says Bad Thing X is actually Good Thing Y, we can have confidence that it’s no such thing.

A new civil war?

After the FBI searched the former president’s home for secret government documents that, according to the Wall Street Journal, he would not surrender voluntarily, online chatter among his supporters tsunamied, according to Vice News, into calls for a new civil war.

“A total war on dissidents is about to unfold,” wrote an anonymous member of a far-right channel on Telegram, Vice reported. “Not behind closed doors but blatantly, in public. Attacks on Alex Jones, Trump, and Patriot Day defendants are only setting the precedent for the future of us as the only opposition to the Deep State.”

READ MORE: Republicans in freefall over FBI seizure of Congressman's phone

Georgia Congresswoman Marjorie Taylor Greene, a J6 seditionary who asked Trump for a pardon, said that, “This is the rogue behavior of communist countries, NOT the United States of America!!! These are the type of things that happen in countries during civil war.”

A respectable white journalist said: “It’s true that ours is a government of laws, not of men, and that nobody — not even a president — is exempted from those laws. It’s also true that we are now closer to civil war than we have been at any time since 1865.”

Stuck and stayed stuck

After news broke, the Washington press corps, as if incapable of breaking past bad habits, immediately fell into wondering how the former president’s supporters would react to the FBI’s search, and whether it might make his grip on the Republican Party tighter.

It won’t.

The only time Bad Thing X turned out to be Good Thing Y was when all things Trump were weighed against all things Hillary Clinton. Yeah, OK, he’s a pussy grabber, people would say, but at least he’s not the subject of an FBI investigation over handling state secrets.

Since then, every Bad Thing X has remained a Bad Thing. For all of his ballyhooed Teflon-coating, everything has stuck and stayed stuck. Anyway, now he’s the one who’s the subject of such an investigation.

“Take our country back”

You might say that’s peachy, but it doesn’t mean his supporters won’t act violently. To which, I’d say you’re absolutely right.

But before we allow fear of civil war to affect our minds, allow me to remind you that we’ve been in a soft one-sided civil war since the mid-1990s, and that that soft one-sided civil war has been getting harder, especially since the election of the first Black president.

As I wrote last week, former House Speaker Newt Gingrich opened the doors of the Republican Party to mutinous paramilitaries who had already made plans to attack and overthrow the US government.

Along with the GOP House sweep of 1994, Gingrich brought with him a new and “decidedly insurrectionist interpretation of the Second Amendment, namely that the founders had written the amendment precisely so that individual citizens would have guns to use against government tyrants,” wrote historian James R. Skillen in 2021.

That faction, to whom guns equaled rule by right of melanin, grew rapidly after Sept. 11 and again after a multiracial democracy, from the ashes of the Iraq War, created conditions for President Obama.

In one way or another, every shooting massacre since then – from Sandy Hook to Highland Park – has been a white-power reaction punctuating a long-term insurgent effort to “take our country back.”

Theory of government

The Second Amendment wasn’t the only thing to receive a “new, decidedly insurrectionist interpretation” during this period.

So did the Republican Party’s theory of government.

Instead of being for the people, the federal government was seen as being against the people. Instead of being by the people, the federal government was seen as being by rich white Christian men who also believed America was a gift from God and they were His majordomos.

One consequence has been, over the years, a slow-motion bleed-out of the federal government such that now it can hardly collect the taxes owed and hidden by these same rich white Christian men.

Meanwhile, the ideological roots of this “new, decidedly insurrectionist interpretation” of the Second Amendment and the federal government have grown so deeply that there’s no other idea remaining in the GOP that’s robust enough to compete with it.

So when Trump’s paramilitaries smashed into the US Capitol in a bid to take over a government that their allies had bled for years, it wasn’t a disaster. It was just another white-power reaction punctuating a long-term insurgent effort to “take our country back.”

The Republican insurgency


This brings us to a couple of conclusions.

On the one hand, future violence will be part of a pattern of regular though intermittent violence that has been with us for years.

On the other hand, it won’t be a civil war, as such. It will be violence of the lone wolf variety that, again, has been with us for years.

Takeaway: It’s not a civil war. It’s an insurgency – like wildcat terrorists planting roadside bombs to kill Iraqis and otherwise throw the Iraqi government into chaos. The Republican insurgency has been building for decades, first outside the party, then from the inside.

It reacted and grew after Sept. 11. It reacted and grew after 2008. It reacted and grew after the Republican Party welcomed efforts by the Russian government to contribute to a long-term insurgent effort to “take our country back” by sabotaging Trump’s campaign opponent.

And by the time Trump called on them to attack, they had been standing back and standing by long before Trump asked them to.

They don’t mean it

As I said at the top, we can have confidence that Bad Thing X isn’t going to become Good Thing Y, because, since the moment Donald Trump arrived at the White House, that’s never been true.

So when they say civil war is coming, on account of something they don’t like, they don’t mean it. They can’t. They don’t have the numbers. They don’t have the courage. They sure as hell don’t have the attention span required to prosecute a war, civil or otherwise. They don’t have anything to justify using the words “civil war.”

But they do have guns.

They do have plenty of white Christian men, who, though not rich, believe multiracial democracy is robbing them of their birthright.

READ MORE: 'Lock and load': MAGA extremists lash out after Mar-a-Lago search

John Stoehr is a fellow at the Yale Journalism Initiative; a contributing writer for the Washington Monthly; a contributing editor for Religion Dispatches; and senior editor at Alternet. Follow him @johnastoehr.

THIRD WORLD U$A
Food pantry for Disney employees still fights hunger as donations fall

2022/8/13 
© Orlando Sentinel

A statue of Walt Disney with Mickey Mouse outside the entrance to Cinderella's Castle at Disney World in Orlando, Florida. - Libo Tang/Dreamstime/TNS

Hit with a hefty dental bill, a Disney employee faced the choice of paying it or buying groceries.

Another Disney worker’s infant son was diagnosed with food allergies and needed a specific, pricey formula when formula shortages were intensifying nationwide. The family found the bulk of their grocery budget was going toward feeding him.

Both came to a Disney employee food bank called Cast Member Pantry for help. The nonprofit organization is not affiliated with the company, though Disney has donated money to it, founder Emily Lartigue said.

Similar stories of people facing financial difficulties are becoming more common as food, housing and other costs have soared to record highs in recent months. Though a historic increase raised the theme park’s minimum wage to $15 an hour in October 2021, union leaders say inflation has offset workers’ gains, and many are struggling to pay their bills.

“A lot of it does have to do with inflation, the rising costs of rents — just being able to afford to live somewhere in Orlando right now is tough,” Lartigue said.

But as the need has remained strong, donations have fallen at the pantry, which relies entirely on gifts, Lartigue said. She said that could be due to tightening budgets or a lack of awareness of the ongoing need.

Cast Member Pantry, founded in March 2020 to serve Disney employees furloughed or laid-off because of the pandemic, has not yet had to turn away anyone for lack of donations thanks to careful financing. Pantry volunteers have become savvy coupon cutters to save money where possible, Lartigue said, and the organization is looking into applying for grants.

“The only concern is what the future looks like: for how long we are going to be able to continue serving cast members?” Lartigue said.

When asked about the pantry and workers’ perspectives on pay, Disney pointed to its array of employee benefits and its development of 1,300 affordable housing units for employees and others.

“For our Cast Members, we continue to make significant and personal investments to employee careers and lives through benefits like our 100% tuition payment Disney Aspire program, affordable health care plans, paid time off and more, building on our earlier success leading a community standard for a $15 an hour starting wage,” spokeswoman Andrea Finger said in a statement.

Lartigue said Disney hosted a community support program in mid-2021 where employees could donate via a payroll deduction, with the company matching their contributions.

The amount was “very significant,” she said, but Disney asked her to keep the number private. Disney would not comment on the donation.

Gathering first groceries

Lartigue, a former organization development consultant for Disney’s Parks, Experiences and Products division, founded Cast Member Pantry after helping laid-off Disney College Program participants move out of their Walt Disney World housing and realizing the groceries they left behind could be put to use.

She loaded her car with the food and advertised it on social media to fellow Disney employees, starting the first distribution. Donations grew from a trunk load of groceries to a garage full and eventually enough to fill a storage unit staffed by dozens of volunteers, many current or former Disney employees.

The pantry started inviting employees to shop at the storage unit by appointment that March. Once volunteers identified the top groceries people needed, they started assembling bags with necessities and distributing them in July 2020.

The pantry was able to serve around 300 workers weekly that way, Lartigue said. She estimated it has distributed around 8,000 bags of groceries to nearly 6,000 families to date.

“It’s a really special thing,” she said.

Now, it delivers food directly to employees through the grocery service Instacart, eliminating the potential hurdle of transportation for recipients. It still has a small storage unit for fundraisers and events instead of food.

“I really think that’s just the future of food pantries in general, right? It’s utilizing technology and making things as easy as it can be to help individuals in need,” Lartigue said.

Cast members in Florida, California and Hawaii can register for distributions once per month via the pantry’s website or social media pages. Workers are eligible for a free delivery once the organization verifies their employment status.

The pantry budgets about $65 per family for a delivery, including Instacart fees. That total cost has risen by $10, or about 18%, in recent months due to inflation, Lartigue said.

“We try to be really, really frugal where we can to get them the most bang for their buck,” she said.

The pantry accepts donations through its website and is always looking for volunteers, Lartigue said. She hopes it can officially partner with Disney someday for further support.

‘Max out my credit cards’

Though Disney’s starting wages range from $15 to $21 per hour depending on the position — rates that influenced other local employers, like Universal, to raise their pay — Disney’s union members say that isn’t enough as costs climb.

Kadejha Reid, who works in quick service food at Harambe Market in Disney’s Animal Kingdom, said her income cannot feed herself and her young son.

“I do not qualify for food stamps,” she said. “I was denied four times because I make ‘too much money,’ and the $15 that I do have is not enough. I had to max out my credit cards that I had and even open a new credit card.”

Reid shared her story during a recent roundtable discussion with Orange County Commissioner Maribel Gomez Cordero hosted by Unite Here Local 737. The union ran a food bank for Disney workers during the first year of the pandemic, when many were furloughed or had been laid off, but closed it in 2021.

Tiara Moton, a cook at theBe Our Guest restaurant at the Magic Kingdom, said she struggles to afford basic groceries, like milk, for herself and her nearly 3-year-old daughter. The restaurant charges $62 per adult.

“We can’t keep living like this,” she said. “... They say, ‘work harder, work harder.’ You could work yourself to death and still have nothing to show for it. I don’t want to be working every day and then I go home and I have nothing left to give to my child; I have nothing left to give myself.”

The discussion came as the union coalition representing Disney’s workers, the Service Trades Council Union, is preparing to renegotiate its contract with Disney this fall. Pay and benefits are a priority in these negotiations, union leaders said.

Lartigue remembers living paycheck-to-paycheck early in her Disney career and agrees that employees should be paid more. But she said low pay is not unique to Disney and is something workers are fighting across all industries.

“I don’t like placing the blame on one company,” she said. “I really think that’s a broader problem that has to be addressed at a larger level.”

AMERICAN RELIGION OF PATRIARCHY & MISOGYNY

Southern Baptist Convention leadership under DOJ investigation

Matthew Chapman
August 12, 2022

Reading the Bible (Shutterstock)


On Friday, Christianity Today reported that the Justice Department has opened a federal investigation into the Southern Baptist Convention over allegations that leadership hushed up allegations of sexual abuse.

"The SBC Executive Committee confirmed on Friday that the Justice Department 'has initiated an investigation into the Southern Baptist Convention, and that the investigation will include multiple SBC entities,'" reported Kate Shellnutt. "The general counsel for the Executive Committee — which oversees day-to-day business for the convention and was the subject of the SBC’s own abuse investigation — said the EC has received a subpoena, but no individuals have been subpoenaed at this point."

"“While we continue to grieve and lament past mistakes related to sexual abuse, current leaders across the SBC have demonstrated a firm conviction to address those issues of the past and are implementing measures to ensure they are never repeated in the future,” said the SBC in a statement vowing to cooperate with federal investigators.

"An independent investigation by Guidepost Solutions into the EC, released in May 2022, found that over the past 20 years, its leaders had compiled a secret list of more than 700 abusive pastors and mistreated the victims who asked them for help," said the report. "The investigation, which cost over $2 million, spanned 330 interviews and five terabytes of documents collected over eight months."

The Southern Baptist Convention is one of several major Christian denominations facing such allegations.

For years, the Roman Catholic Church has been accused of shuffling around priests who abused children, with former Pope Benedict XVI even admitting — after years of denial — that he mishandled multiple abuse cases while he was archbishop of Munich, Germany. Another recent report revealed that leaders of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-Day Saints was aware of child abuse cases and had a policy of keeping them concealed.

Monkeypox conspiracy theories may be spreading faster than the virus, survey reveals

Vacutainer with monkeypox blood sample for testing. 

(© blackday - stock.adobe.com)

AUGUST 3, 2022
by Matt Higgins

PHILADELPHIA — As if dealing with a deadly pandemic isn’t bad enough, another virus has now exploded onto the scene. The World Health Organization declared the monkeypox outbreak a public health emergency in July 2022, as cases are rising across the United States and throughout the world. While many people may fear they’ll contract the virus, it turns out few actually know all the facts about monkeypox.

Even though monkeypox has come to the public forefront and has been blasted across the news, a new national survey from the Annenberg Public Police Center finds that many Americans know little about the virus. Overall, 80 percent have seen, read, or heard something about monkeypox in the past month.

While one in five are concerned about contracting monkeypox, 48 percent don’t know whether monkeypox is more or less contagious than COVID-19. Another 66 percent are not sure or don’t believe there is a monkeypox vaccine, even though there is.

“It’s important that the public calibrate its concerns to the reality of the risk of COVID-19 and monkeypox and act appropriately,” says Kathleen Hall Jamieson, director of the Annenberg Public Policy Center, in a media release.

Monkeypox, discovered in 1958, is a less deadly member of the same family of viruses as smallpox. According to the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, the virus is transmitted by direct contact with an infectious skin lesion, scabs, body fluids, respiratory secretions, infected animals, or by touching items contaminated by infectious body fluids.

Worry about contracting monkeypox or Covid-19 over the next three months. Asked of 1,580 adults on the Annenberg Public Policy Center ASK survey, July 12-18, 2022. CREDIT: Annenberg Public Policy Center

Pathways to infection are a mystery to many

The survey reveals that many Americans are familiar with monkeypox but lack information about the disease and how to protect themselves. Sixty-nine percent of respondents know that monkeypox usually spreads by close contact with an infected person, however 26 percent are not sure whether that is true or false. Only 34 percent said they know that a monkeypox vaccine exists.

Fourteen percent incorrectly believe that monkeypox is as contagious as COVID, while only 36 percent correctly said that monkeypox is less contagious.

When asked about monkeypox and the COVID-19 vaccine, 67 percent think that getting the COVID-19 vaccine doesn’t increase the likelihood of contracting monkeypox. However, 28 percent were not sure. Researchers say there is no evidence that this is true.

Researchers also asked survey takers if they thought people working with animals have a higher risk of contracting monkeypox. A third said no, nine percent said yes, and 57 percent were not sure.

Another survey question revolved around the concern that there’s a higher risk of infection for men who have sex with other men. Thirty-three percent of Americans said yes, while 66 percent either said this is false or they did not know. The WHO says that most cases outside of Africa during this outbreak have been mainly among men who have sex with other men.

“The time to reduce susceptibility to misinformation about monkeypox is now,” notes Jamieson. “It is critically important that public health professionals offer anxious individuals accurate information about the ways in which this virus is transmitted and infection prevented. Vaccinating those who are at higher risk should be a national priority.”

Monkeypox conspiracy theories are already circulating

Jamieson adds that there are a number of Americans who have embraced conspiracy theories about monkeypox. The survey found that 34 percent are not sure if monkeypox was bioengineered in a lab and 12 percent believe that this is probably or definitely true. However, over half of Americans rejected that conspiracy.

Fourteen percent believe monkeypox was intentionally released into the global population, while 30 percent say they aren’t sure. One in 10 think it’s “probably or definitely true” that scientists released the virus to deflect attention away from the failures of the Biden Administration, while 19 percent are not sure. Another 21 percent of respondents are unsure if monkeypox infections are the result of 5G exposure.

“As one would expect, conspiracy theorists have incorporated monkeypox into their pre-existing beliefs that, instead of emerging through natural processes, a spreading virus must have been bioengineered, intentionally released to accomplish a political objective, or is the byproduct of exposure to a pervasive new technology such as 5G,” says Jamieson.

The Annenberg Public Policy Center surveyed 1,580 American adults from July 12-18.

100 Degrees Fahrenheit Is Just a Number
But it sure feels bad.

Alexi Rosenfeld / Getty

By Jacob Stern

THE ATLANTIC

AUGUST 3, 2022

It’s hot outside. It’s been hot outside pretty much everywhere this summer. On five continents. In China, which is less than halfway through a predicted 40 days of extreme heat. In the United Kingdom, which recently set its new all-time heat record. In Seville, which for the first time named a heat wave. (Hi, Zoe.) And in the United States—very recently in Northern California, where a historic drought and the heat have conspired to create ideal conditions for wildfires, and in Oregon, where authorities have preliminarily blamed heat for at least 14 deaths; now in Kentucky, where it will compound deadly flash flooding that has left whole communities without electricity to power air-conditioning or refrigerators, or other relief from the heat; soon in the Northeast.

Many U.S. cities are breaking (or repeatedly breaking) the threshold of triple-digit temperatures. Salt Lake City tied its all-time mark for most consecutive 100-degree days. Boston and Denver each recently broke 100 degrees to set daily heat records. And Newark, New Jersey, did the same—on its fifth straight day in the triple digits.

Read: The world is burning once again

It’s worth keeping in mind that, as the NASA climate scientist Alex Ruane told me, daily temperature records are being broken year-round. For all the news it makes, the 100-degree cutoff is totally arbitrary. (Just ask anyone who doesn’t live in the U.S., the Bahamas, the Cayman Islands, Liberia, Palau, the Federated States of Micronesia, or the Marshall Islands—they’ll set you straight.) There’s nothing magical about 100: It’s a big round number that our minds latch on to, a quirk of psychology rather than a fact of physiology. And yet, nonsense or not, 100 degrees feels somehow commensurate with the experience it’s meant to capture. “I think this is the one place where the Fahrenheit scale is better than the Celsius scale, just in terms of resonance,” Daniel Horton, a climate scientist at Northwestern University, told me. “When it hits triple digits, you know it’s bad.” The people seem to agree. “America is wrong about everything except fahrenheit,” the writer Erin Chack tweeted over the weekend. “Farenheit is the correct way to measure temperature. fahrenheit is like ‘man, it’s so hot out. it’s gotta be like.......100 hots.’” The tweet racked up more than 298,000 likes.

That said, assessing actual danger requires a more sophisticated calculus. To do so, scientists who study heat’s effects on the human body, one of whom is the Indiana University professor Zachary Schlader, speak of the limits of “compensability,” which basically means the point at which the body can no longer offset ambient heat and, unable to cool itself, begins to warm internally. This is when the really bad stuff happens: heat cramps, heat exhaustion, heatstroke. The threshold for that depends on a number of factors. Sheer heat matters, but so too do humidity, activity, and your personal risk profile. “The evaporation of sweat is our air conditioner,” Schlader told me. “It’s our most powerful way to get rid of the heat. But it only works if that sweat evaporates.” The more humid it is outside—i.e., the more water vapor there is in the air—the harder it is for sweat to evaporate and the body to cool down. Which is why a triple-digit day in Phoenix, Arizona, can feel so much more pleasant than a double-digit day in Baton Rouge, Louisiana. (The heat index works by taking both temperature and humidity into account.)

Activity, too, strains our ability to regulate body temperature, because the more we exert ourselves, the more heat we produce and must then shed. And the longer the heat persists, the more dangerous it gets, Horton told me. The body relies on the nighttime to cool down, and although after-dark temperatures aren’t hitting 100, they’re not dipping as low as they used to either.

Even well below that tolerance threshold, though, heat can do serious damage, Schlader told me. Cooling the body is a major physiological production: The heart and kidneys, in particular, must kick into overdrive. For people with underlying conditions, that extra exertion can turn deadly long before the body hits the theoretical limits of compensability. If you look at hospitalization data, Schlader said, the biggest absolute increases come not in heat illness itself but in heart problems, kidney problems, and dehydration. As a result, we likely underestimate the true toll of some heat waves.

At both an individual and a societal level, we know how to mitigate these threats. Access to air-conditioning is key, but generally, Schlader told me, the people most vulnerable to the heat are also the ones without AC. Electric fans are a good alternative, he said, though only to a point; beyond a certain temperature—as low as 95 degrees, by some estimates—fans do more harm than good. Soaking your shirt or wetting your skin with a sponge may also help, as can drinking cold water. At a societal level, Horton told me, governments can set up neighborhood cooling centers, park buses with air-conditioning on street corners, and offer utility discounts, so that people who have AC are not scared to use it.

When I asked Horton what distinguishes this current American heat wave from the one in Europe I spoke with him about two weeks ago (or, for that matter, the ones last summer or the summer before), his answer was simple: Nothing. “It’s another heat wave, another extreme heat wave, but it’s kind of boring,” he told me. “If these things become so common, they’re just not that interesting.” By that, he did not mean to diminish anyone’s suffering. But when the same thing happens over and over, you run out of new things to say. You lose interest.

That, in short, is our predicament. The heat has become so regular that it no longer interests us—and yet the fact of its regularity is exactly why it should.

Jacob Stern is a staff writer at The Atlantic.

Habitual mask-wearing is likely helping Japan, Singapore and South Korea bring daily Omicron deaths down,
epidemiologists say

1 August 2022
RNZ/ABC

As the mask mandate debate rages on, epidemiologists and medical specialists suggest looking to countries where citizens are perfectly happy to wear them to see how powerful the simple infection-control measure can be.

Nearly two-and-a-half years into the Covid-19 pandemic, countries where mask-wearing is a cultural norm are seeing some signs of success as the persistent Omicron sub-variants spread throughout their communities.

University of Otago public health professor and epidemiologist Michael Baker said underlying the widespread acceptance of masks in some counties was a sense of personal responsibility to protect others from Covid-19.

"I'm looking at the countries that appear, on paper, to be keeping their mortality very low - despite having lots of circulating virus, and it's basically the Asian countries, particularly Japan, South Korea, Singapore," he said.

Asia's advantage in taming the impact of Omicron may be its culture of "mass masking". 

Baker said Singapore was a good comparison.

"They did have elimination for a long time, and then they decided that it wasn't compatible for their economic model so they switched to allowing transmission. And, really, they're still keeping case numbers and, particularly, deaths down," he said.

While several infection-control specialists have warned that fatigue around Covid-19 control measures is likely contributing to the spread of Omicron in both Australia and New Zealand, the World Health Organization has urged countries seeing surges in the BA.4 and BA.5 sub-variants to accelerate vaccine uptake and bring back mask-wearing.

New Zealand has a much wider mask mandate than Australia but, even if face coverings are required, there is no established culture of wearing them.

Deakin University epidemiologist and associate professor Hassan Vally said wearing masks was just one example of how cultural differences were contributing to Covid-19 success in some Asian countries.

Wearing masks is the norm in countries like South Korea. Photo: AFP

"Clearly there's the uptake of masks in those areas, which is a really positive and useful tool in our toolkit, but I think there are a lot of things going on," Vally said.

"We have a very individualistic culture in the West and it's the mirror image in the East.

"The emphasis rather, [than] being on freedoms and individuality and independence, is on community and unity and looking at things in a holistic way.

"And, so, I think that's a really quite important cultural difference that underpins a lot of the success that has happened in Asian countries."

Mask mandates in Singapore

Masks are required in indoor public places in Singapore. Photo: AFP

In Singapore, there is a requirement for masks to be worn in indoor public spaces, including libraries, markets, shopping centres, schools and weddings.

The bride and groom are allowed to switch their mask for a face shield as the ceremony takes place, but the mandate only allows guests to take their face coverings off while eating and drinking.

Associate Professor Ashley St John - from Singapore's Programme in Emerging Infectious Diseases - said that, largely, there had been acceptance of the rules.

"Mask-wearing is still required indoors [when] outside the home in Singapore, when not actively eating or drinking," she said.

"From my perspective, most are supportive of maintaining this measure."

Just as the population is happy to wear masks, St John noted, there were few barriers to the uptake of vaccines.

"Mask-wearing is effective in limiting the spread of Covid-19, but probably the most important aspect of the response to Covid-19 now, that is lowering Covid-associated deaths, is vaccination," she said.

"Vaccine compliance is high in most Asian countries."

St John said efforts had been made to communicate the evidence behind Singapore's mask policy to the public and there was an understanding that masks worked to limit transmission.

Vally said Australians had made a huge shift in their awareness of masks, but there needed to be clear messaging about what their behaviour should be right now as the country sees more than 100 people a day die from the disease and more than 5000 people admitted to hospital.

"We might not have the level of conformity and social pressure that some Asian countries have, and I think right now there is confusion in the messaging because people seem to think that if the government doesn't mandate it, they don't think it's actually important," he said.

"If there is a time to sort of dust off mask-wearing, it's exactly in this situation as part of pulling out all stops to do the right thing for ourselves and our community to try [to] bring transmission down," he said.

Japanese reminded to take masks off

Tokyo residents were warned about the risk of heat stroke while wearing masks during a heatwave in June. Photo: NANAKO SUDO

In Japan, face masks have come to be known as "face pants".

"It sounds like the throwaway line, but it's actually really important," Vally said.

Such is the social pressure to wear a mask in Japan, residents report being stared at should they venture outside without one.

Japan's laws do not allow the government to order the population to wear masks nor into lockdown, but the country has managed to keep the Covid-19 mortality rate low.

Even as Japan sweltered during a heatwave in May and June, residents did not lose their commitment to outdoor face masks, so much so, the government was forced to issue heat stroke warnings.

Public broadcaster NHK reported that local authorities struggled to convince people to remove their masks during the periods of high heat, with one local governor committing to going mask-free just to set an example.

"Wearing masks has become a daily custom, so people seem resistant to removing them and people also might feel it's difficult to stop wearing them when many around them continue to do so," Miyagi Governor, Murai Yoshihiro, said.

A history of 'mass masking' in South Korea

In pre-Covid times, South Koreans were accustomed to wearing face masks due to seasonal dust that would blow across the country. Photo: AFP or licensors

When South Korea dropped its mandate on outdoor mask usage in May, Reuters reported many people were reluctant to give up the face coverings, due to ongoing Omicron infections.

From there, South Korea managed to bring the number of daily new Covid-19 deaths down, but it is also now dealing with the stickier BA.4 and BA.5 sub-variants.

According to modelling from its Centres for Disease Control, the country will see 200,000 daily confirmed cases from August to October.

"It is one third of the amount of confirmed cases that we experienced with Omicron last year, when we experienced a peak of confirmed cases in Korea," Dr Yujin Jeong told a Covid-19 conference in Sydney last week.

"So what is the main strategy with the new surge in Korea? It is still minimising severe illness in high-risk groups and maintaining our lives."

In recent decades, environmental factors also laid the foundations for the "mass masking" of Koreans, including concerns about pollution and the seasonal Hwangsa phenomenon, which sees dust blow eastward from China, across the Korean Peninsula.

Koreans were quick to turn to masks as an infection-control measure at the outbreak of Covid-19.

Mask-wearing has been "an entrenched feature in the public responses against infectious diseases since the early 20th Century" in South Korea, according to an article published in the East Asian Science, Technology and Society journal in April.

"Now, wearing facial masks was not merely a means for individual protection. It was also an act of social responsibility and solidarity," the authors argued.

Making mask-wearing a habit

Pressure from family and friends can help embed new social norms around mask-wearing, according to research. Photo: AFP / David Gray

Earlier this year, Canadian psychologists conducted research into mask-wearing, looking specifically at how attitudes and behaviours were split along cultural lines.

Their research - which was published in Frontiers in Psychology journal in March - analysed sentiments towards mask-wearing among East-Asian Canadians and non-East Asian Canadians.

"The frequent use of masks may be reinforced by the relatively favourable attitudes [that] Chinese Canadians held toward public mask-wearing, such as perceiving mask-wearers to be respectful and responsible," the findings read.

"In contrast, the early mask use hesitancy among non-East Asian Canadians might be associated with their ambivalent attitudes toward public mask use. Specifically, although some non-East Asian Canadians perceived mask-wearers to be socially responsible, others perceived mask-wearers to be ill, strange and overreacting."

The researchers said cultural and social norms were "a powerful force in shaping health-related behaviours" and recommended policy makers utilise the power of personal connections to bring about long-lasting change.

They said "increased use among one's family, friends, neighbours and colleagues may induce the pressure for one to conform to avoid social disapproval".

In cultures where masks are widely adopted, there appears to be both an individualistic motivation and a responsibility to the greater good.

And the act of wearing a mask is not political, so much as a logical, infection-control measure.

Vally said as well as getting booster shots, wearing a mask was "one of the easiest things we can do" right now to help prevent transmission and to protect vulnerable people.

"With wearing masks and with mandates, it's reached this kind of emotionally charged position where it seems to be a symbol of other things," he said.

"At the end of the day, it's a piece of fabric that you put over your nose and your mouth to act as a bit of a barrier to help us reduce your likelihood of being exposed to the virus or exposing other people to the virus. That's all it is."

- ABC

Clarence Thomas Will No Longer Be Teaching Law at George Washington University After Student Protests

By Rashad Grove
| August 1, 2022

Image: Drew Angerer/Getty Images.

Supreme Court Justice Clarence Thomas has informed George Washington University (GWU) that he won’t be returning to teach at its law school this fall after student protests, reports NPR.

Thomas has taught the constitutional law seminar at the university since 2011.

“The students were promptly informed of Justice Thomas’ decision by his co-instructor who will continue to offer the seminar this fall,” said GWU spokesperson Joshua Grossman.

Thomas has been under fire by some of the GWU law students after voting to overturn the 1973 landmark Roe v. Wade decision, which deemed abortion a constitutional right for Americans.

Since the court ruling,”we have heard from members of our community who have expressed feelings of deep disagreement with this decision,” GWU Provost Christopher Alan Bracey and Law Dean Dayna Bowen Matthew wrote in an email to the university community.

“Justice Thomas’ views do not represent the views of either the George Washington University or its Law School,” Bracey and Matthew said. “Additionally, like all faculty members at our university, Justice Thomas has academic freedom and freedom of expression and inquiry.”

Additionally, the law school cited the school’s guidelines on academic freedom which state that the university should not shield its students from “ideas and opinions they find unwelcome, disagreeable, or even deeply offensive.”

Did the US violate Doha accord by taking out Al Qaeda chief Zawahiri?

UMER BIN AJMAL
3 AUG 2022

In a first drone strike since the Taliban took over, the US targeted a key Al Qaeda leader in Afghanistan’s capital city Kabul, raising concerns about whether the attack was in violation of the Doha agreement between the two parties.

Al Qaeda chief Ayman al Zawahiri’s killing in Kabul has sparked a debate whether the Doha agreement, which paved the way for ending America's 20-year war in Afghanistan, will hold and ensure continuation of peace in the war-stricken country.

The United States Secretary of State Antony Blinken revealed on August 1 that Zawahiri was struck by an American drone that killed him instantly. Calling the world “a safer place following the death of Zawahiri”, Blinken also accused the Taliban of violating its peace accord with the US, signed in 2020 in the Qatari capital of Doha, by hosting and sheltering the Al Qaeda supremo.

Was the Doha pledge violated? Here's what experts say.

Obaidullah Baheer, lecturer at the American University of Afghanistan and visiting scholar at The New School in New York City, calls it a "chicken-and-egg problem".

“I think both sides violated the agreement. One in violating Afghanistan’s sovereignty with the attack, and the other by hosting Al Qaeda affiliates and leadership within Kabul,” he says. So, Baheer adds, “the Doha agreement is whatever both parties make it to be.”

The Doha agreement was signed as the US sought to end its 20-year war in Afghanistan, and a joint declaration, comprising four interrelated and interdependent parts, was made public. The declaration spoke about guarantees to prevent the use of Afghan soil by terrorists, timeline of the US withdrawal, intra-Afghan political settlement and a permanent and comprehensive ceasefire.

While the deal explicitly mentions a key commitment on part of Afghanistan to prevent any international terror groups or individuals from using its soil, in the overall context of the agreement, the US drone strike could also be seen as a violation of the ceasefire and in extension a violation of the agreement.

“I guess the Taliban's understanding was if they are not active militarily then it should be fine,” says Baheer, adding that it will have to be seen what the Taliban communicate to the American officials.

However, this isn’t the first occasion when an accusation has been levelled by one party against the other for not upholding the accord.

Consensual act?

Zawahiri’s killing comes at a time when Al Qaeda has lost much of its operational capabilities due to several factors ranging from the loss of much of its senior leadership to lack of funding.

Ashok Swain, professor of peace and conflict research at Uppsala University, thinks it’s unlikely the Taliban were unaware of the US strike.

“I think the Taliban had direct knowledge about the American operation, and also, it had given its consent either directly or indirectly for it,” he says. “Otherwise, it wouldn’t have waited for President Biden’s press conference to issue a formal and mild criticism of it.”

Baheer, too, thinks the messaging on part of the Taliban, which is not too aggressive and appears to be cautious, is worth reading into.

“The Taliban’s response really says a lot,” he says.

“The fact that it hasn’t been too aggressive shows that there is willingness to work towards some sort of understanding and I guess we’ll have to see if both sides can sit down and maybe discuss the appendices to the actual Doha agreement — that were never released (and) had some mechanisms to enforce the deal.”

However, he cautions and says it will have to be seen how both parties react moving forward, but doubts that this is the end of engagement between the US and the Taliban.

The reason Baheer says so is because of late the US and the Taliban have been quite satisfied with each other on the security front. “It’s just that this came very abruptly … so, if both sides do sit down and certain guarantees and mechanisms are provided, (then) maybe this is a one-off thing,” he says.

Swain, too, does not foresee the new-found peace between the two sides getting derailed. “I think it is business as usual,” he says. “Zawahiri was a big name but had been reduced to almost nothing. So, his killing is a win-win for everyone.”

What the Al-Qaeda Drone Strike Reveals About U.S. Strategy in Afghanistan

AARON DAVID MILLER
AUGUST 02, 2022
COMMENTARY

Summary: It was a victory for Biden, but the jihadi threat to United States is not nearly acute as the challenges that ail the nation internally.


Saturday’s U.S. drone strike that killed al-Qaeda leader Ayman al-Zawahiri in Kabul, Afghanistan, carries important political and symbolic implications for President Joe Biden’s administration and substantive ramifications for U.S. counterterrorism strategy. Here are some key takeaways.

YES, THE UNITED STATES CAN OPERATE OVER THE HORIZON

In the chaotic withdrawal from Afghanistan last August, critics charged that the United States would not be able to operate effectively without on-the-ground intelligence, including the deployment of special forces, however limited, to act against terror assets. The U.S. intelligence community warned that a failing Afghan state shaped by the Taliban’s own relationships with terror groups would allow the groups’ presence to grow. And within a year, the number of operatives of both the self-proclaimed Islamic State in Khorasan (IS-K) and the smaller al-Qaeda organization had doubled.

The precision strike against Zawahiri, ensconced in a safe house in Kabul, was a master class in intelligence and operational capacity and an affirmation that U.S. intelligence could still be effective in Afghanistan. The intelligence community had been tracking Zawahiri for months, establishing a pattern of his routine and activity much like the period leading up to the strike on Osama bin Laden in May 2011. And it managed to carry out an operation that reportedly caused no civilian deaths or injuries. The strike was a counter-argument to those who believed a permanent presence on the ground was essential to what President Joe Biden had declared in August 2021 was the only U.S. vital interest in Afghanistan: preventing a terror attack on the homeland. Indeed, Saturday’s strike was a much needed corrective to the failed U.S. drone strike a year earlier against IS-K that killed ten Afghan civilians.

NO, THE TERROR PROBLEM IN AFGHANISTAN HAS NOT BEEN SOLVED

Whether the strike against Zawahiri is part of a trend line of stepped-up U.S. counter-terrorism activity remains to be seen. After all, Saturday’s strike was the first significant operation in Afghanistan since the U.S. withdrawal. And the Zawahiri’s presence in Afghanistan—in a Kabul neighborhood where Taliban officials also resided—reflected the challenge of al-Qaeda’s presence in the country. It’s one thing to plan an operation to eliminate a high-profile target and another to track, infiltrate, and destroy an active cell involved in carrying out specific terrorist operations without an on-the-ground presence and an intelligence network.

It should have come as little surprise that ties between the Taliban and al-Qaeda remain strong. Historical connections run deep, and senior Taliban officials—especially Sirajuddin Haqqani, Afghanistan’s acting interior minister and a U.S.-designated terrorist—have close ties with al-Qaeda leaders. The 2020 Doha agreement commits the Taliban leadership to preventing terrorist activity against the United States from its soil, but attacks by the Pakistani Taliban in Pakistan have increased. And IS-K—a key Taliban adversary with as many as 4,000 members—continues to operate.

The strike against Zawahiri seems all the more impressive in view of the fact that the withdrawal had reportedly weakened U.S. cooperation with partners on the ground, undermined a sustainable foundation to collect intelligence, and eliminated in-country bases of operation. There’s much that we don’t know about how the CIA pulled off this operation, and perhaps its assets in Afghanistan are stronger than believed. In any event, the Taliban is already reeling from international pressure and isolation, and it will face greater pressure to act against remaining al-Qaeda assts. It’s doubtful that it will. Still, the threat to the United States from al-Qaeda in Afghanistan—or even IS-K—is not nearly acute as the challenges that ail the nation internally.

WHAT HAPPENS TO AL-QAEDA

Zawahiri never had the charisma and leadership skills of bin Laden. Reportedly in ill health and in hiding for more than a decade, Zawahiri clearly was not the day-to-day tactician and manager of al-Qaeda operations. More likely, his real significance lay in his ability to keep al-Qaeda’s brand and image intact after bin Laden’s death. Bin Laden might well be satisfied in what al-Qaeda has accomplished in the past decade: while it may not have regained its operational effectiveness after September 11, 2001, it has spread far and wide into local affiliates throughout the Middle East and Africa. Groups such as Hurras al-Din in Syria, al-Shabab in Somalia, and al-Qaeda in the Arabian Peninsula in Yemen are far more capable of carrying out operations against U.S. interests in the areas in which they operate, and they’re perhaps a longer-term threat to planning operations against the United States than al-Qaeda in Afghanistan. Indeed, the most likely threat against U.S. interests emanate from ISIS-K in Afghanistan.

As for successors to Zawahiri, it’s not entirely clear. A number of established al-Qaeda senior leaders in Africa and Iran could serve in the role, though it’s possible a struggle might ensue and a new, younger face could emerge. To keep itself viable and demonstrate continuity, al-Qaeda will likely announce the new leader soon.

THE IMPACT ON BIDEN’S POLITICAL FORTUNES

Presidential fortunes ebb and flow, and lately, Biden has had some good news. His alliance management of the war in Ukraine has been as adept as any since the administration of President George H.W. Bush’s handling of the first Gulf War. At home, legislation on gun safety, drug prices, and climate change has improved his image. While Americans more often than not want as little to do with foreign policy as possible, the announcement of the Zawahiri strike will help somewhat counter the chaotic images of the U.S. withdrawal from Afghanistan.

Much of the president’s remarks announcing the strike on Monday centered on fostering the image of a strong president determined to protect Americans and deliver justice to those who have harmed them. Biden’s moving words sought to mark the 9/11 attacks, remember the lost, grieve with the living, honor the troops, and never give up or abandon the effort to protect Americans. It was one of the few moments of the Biden presidency, aside from statements issued in the wake of mass shootings, that the president could speak to the nation as commander in chief seemingly above the political fray. If the past is any guide, Biden is likely to get scant credit in the November midterms.

A NEW DEFINITION OF HOMELAND SECURITY

Killing Zawahiri won’t eliminate the threat from jihadi groups, but it does strengthen the argument that the presence of U.S. forces and bases on the ground, which comes at a severe cost, may well be the best way to guarantee maximum protection of the United States but not necessarily the only way. Since September 11, with one potential exception, there has not been a successful attack organized, directed, and carried out by a foreign terror organization. And while the threat from these jihadi groups demands a robust counterterrorism strategy, the United States can’t allow itself to be guided by a one-dimensional approach to homeland security. The core threats to the United States, including the coronavirus pandemic and climate change, have taken a far greater toll on U.S. security, prosperity, and human suffering than jihadi threats.

And none of this even begins to address an increasingly polarized nation, a dysfunctional political system, and the rise of white nationalist extremist groups and militias—all of which pose a much greater danger to America’s stability, democracy, security, and prosperity than any threat from al-Qaeda or other groups. As vigilant as Washington must be to confront the threats and challenges from abroad, we need to look inward to see where the far greater danger lies.

End of document

Aaron David Miller is a senior fellow at the Carnegie Endowment for International Peace, focusing on U.S. foreign policy.

Carnegie does not take institutional positions on public policy issues; the views represented herein are those of the author(s) and do not necessarily reflect the views of Carnegie, its staff, or its trustees.