I find it astoundingly foolish that as nations open up and SARS-CoV-2 causes more cases of COVID-19 and deaths from it, many of those same places not only don't end the opening but actually increase its rate.
It's extremely clear that opening up society concerning COVID-19 (lifting the lockdowns) was totally premature. I was hoping I wouldn't have to be an "I told ya so," but I told ya so.
Trump banks on the stock market. However, his own "reopen" the economy talk has slapped him across the face. Stock investors know it too. All that happened is a prolonging of the lockdowns, prolonging the recession.
The Republicans are going to have to open up the federal governments wallet even more.
Don't hold your breath waiting for them to issue the money without borrowing, even though they know they could legally do it. They don't work for the People. They work for the banksters.
The Republicans will want to get right back to cutting taxes on the super rich just as soon as possible, and they'll want to be able to whine that government doesn't work, even though government has been the only thing that's kept the economy afloat. Don't imagine the corporate Democrats don't work for the banksters, though. Both parties are still corporatist.
Unfortunately, this is a DUH moment.
Everyone who called for reopening was wrong. It doesn't mean there weren't things we could have been doing and should have been doing to increase the immune systems of the general population without over doing it. Yes, one can over do it, which can lead to autoimmune responses in the body. What we could have been doing and should start doing as a national policy paid for by the national government is promote truly healthy eating (organic) and supplement taking as warranted, promote proper exercise, and clean up the environment.
Coronavirus cases surge in more than 20 states
If the Trump administration has any real hard evidence against Saab, I'll be mightily surprised. So far, Trump's approach to Venezuela follows the CIA's false-propaganda playbook to a T. To me, it's all been greedy imperialism at work.
Last year, critics said Trump pressured new Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelenskiy to investigate the Bidens, in a phone call that sparked demands for his impeachment. The Senate acquitted him this past February.
Former Ukrainian prosecutor-general Viktor Shokin has alleged he was pushed out by Joe Biden's delaying of a $1 billion loan to the country, to prevent him from investigating Hunter Biden's role at Burisma. But, Joe Biden said he pushed for Shokin's dismissal to encourage Ukraine's anti-corruption efforts[, which investigation was immediately shut down after Shokin was fired with Joe Biden not uttering a word against the shutdown].
It will be interesting if they can follow the trail back to whoever ordered the "bribe."
This one explains the operation a bit more.
Anti-corruption bureau director Artem Sytnyk implicated Zlochevsky, another former Burisma employee and two former tax officials.
Turley said there is a national standard when it comes to "use of lethal force" by police.
"It is found in Tennessee v. Garner, 471 U.S. 1 (1985)," he said.
Turley continued, "In that case, the Supreme Court handed down a standard barring the use of deadly force to prevent escape unless 'the officer has probable cause to believe that the suspect poses a significant threat of death or serious physical injury to the officer or others.'"
I watched the video and thought Brooks was completely wrong to resist. However, I couldn't make out whether Brooks had the taser on him when he refused to stop running away. If he did not, then I say the officer didn't have enough reason to believe Brooks posed a "significant threat of death or serious physical injury to the officer or others." If he did have it still, it becomes a debate as to whether the officer was justified in making the snap judgment that Brooks might use the taser on someone else or the officers were they to have caught up with him. Personally, I would not have come to that conclusion at that point.
Was the weapon discharged accidentally, or was it on purpose?
Standing among a group of peaceful anti-racism protesters in downtown Seattle on a recent Saturday afternoon, Mando Avery held his seven-year-old son’s hand as he and three generations of his African American family finished a prayer with members of their church.
Only feet away, Evan Hreha, 34, a hairstylist, arrived at the protests alone.
That was when, Avery said, out of nowhere, a police officer fired mace at the group. It hit his son square in the face.
On Saturday 30 May, Avery said, his family drove nearly an hour north from Tacoma, Washington, to be a part of the anti-racism movement and fight for police reform. The family has received some criticism online about bringing their young child to the protests. But when they circled the blocks around the demonstrations, looking for parking, they spotted other families with young children and pets. It felt completely safe, they said.
Better late than never.
Wow. This is pulling no punches.
It bans chokeholds and does the following:
... force officers to face criminal charges for not intervening if a fellow officer is violating use of force policies, and also will prevent officers fired for misconduct from being rehired at other departments.
This is a huge deal because people are rightly cynical and skeptical and not being ignored about it in the MSM.
I don't doubt for a moment that there were discussions well before hand to move the protests back because of what happened to the Secret Service at the White House. However, I also think the following is correct.
... the plan to move the perimeter was "hurried up" when Trump decided to walk to the church.
You'll learn more listening to this than you will by simply reading the MSM.
Source article: Seattle Now: What's going on in Capitol Hill?
“It’s been super peaceful,” said Lindsey Teschner. “Everyone has been really nice. They get quiet around 11 o’clock at night and I can sleep.”
Teschner lives just one block away from the intersection that’s hosted speakers, DJs and at times, live music.
“I walked through actually this morning. Was offered a face mask, hand sanitizer. A bunch of ‘hellos’ and ‘good mornings,’” she said.
I largely agree. However, I take some exception to the notion that the history of an organization is that organization's future. Perhaps Alex isn't going that far.
'End of Policing' Author: How we should reimagine the police's role
Author of 'The End of Policing' Alex Vitale explains how much policing communities really need to create a more equitable society.
I tend to agree.
Saagar Enjeti: Media PUSHES Cultural Revolution, Weaponizes Race To Purge Dissenters
Saagar Enjeti blasts liberals for using identity politics to bolster their narrative on a moral high ground.
When it comes to changing the power dynamic, one demand — democratic community control of the police — stands out among the others. Communities being able to hire and fire police officers, review their budgets,
impanel a grand jury to investigate crimes, and approve police contracts among other changes, reverse the power dynamic. The people would be in democratic control of how their communities are policed and by whom.
The Act should have been amended to include them rather than the Supreme Court legislating.
... the justices decided that gay and transgender people are protected under Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 ....
“An employer who fires an individual for being homosexual or transgender fires that person for traits or actions it would not have questioned in members of a different sex,” Gorsuch wrote in the ruling.
I'm not in favor of discriminating against these people. They have a right to earn livings in our mixed economy. However, an employer discriminating against someone engaged in a same-sex sexual relationship is not discriminating on account of that person's sex. It doesn't matter if the person is male or female. It's the same-sex sexual activity that's at issue. That's why the Act should have been amended if the legislature wants to extend the protections to include homosexuals. To handle it Gorsuch's way is to make a mockery of language and make it impossible to define terms and communicate. The court needs to say that to those who bring law suits. The courts need to tell such people to take their issues to their legislators to change the laws in ways that make the meanings clear, define the terms unambiguously. This is why various states passed laws doing exactly that.
The phenomenon puts governments under pressure to craft policies which help viable firms to survive and workers navigate to different jobs, but which ideally don’t prop up companies that are no longer sustainable and just drain resources.
The potential for structural shifts has also given rise to ideas that might have once seemed non-starters -- from job guarantees to universal income.
In the U.S., an employer-of-last-resort idea won support among some Democrats earlier in the primary election cycle. Economists who’ve worked on versions of the plan, including Darrick Hamilton at the University of Ohio, sought to revive it during the coronavirus slump, citing the example of federal employment programs during the New Deal in the 1930s.
Even if you agree with just one thing beyond the tan suit, that's enough. To a certain degree, I agree with everything Ben lists in his article. He left a few things out too.
As my readers know, I'm no Trump fan. However, I was never an Obama fan either.
Truth is too much for most people so far. I pray that changes. The current crises are screaming out for it.
Age 13 Teen Lyrical Solo
Becky Nalevanko's Dance and Tumbling Studio
Rainbow Omaha 2020