Contact Me By Email


What To Do When You're Stopped By Police - The ACLU & Elon James White

What To Do When You're Stopped By Police - The ACLU & Elon James White

Know Anyone Who Thinks Racial Profiling Is Exaggerated? Watch This, And Tell Me When Your Jaw Drops.


This video clearly demonstrates how racist America is as a country and how far we have to go to become a country that is civilized and actually values equal justice. We must not rest until this goal is achieved. I do not want my great grandchildren to live in a country like we have today. I wish for them to live in a country where differences of race and culture are not ignored but valued as a part of what makes America great.

Thursday, May 13, 2021

Vaccinated Americans May Go Without Masks in Most Places, Federal Officials Say - The New York Times

"The agency said that vaccinated Americans would have to continue to abide by existing state, local or tribal laws and regulations and follow local rules for businesses and workplaces. But many local officials and business operators will be hard-pressed to maintain mask requirements now that the federal agency has spoken.

“While we all share the desire to return to a mask-free normal, today’s C.D.C. guidance is confusing and fails to consider how it will impact essential workers who face frequent exposure to individuals who are not vaccinated and refuse to wear masks,” said Marc Perrone, the president of the United Food and Commercial Workers union.

About two dozen states currently mandate masking in public. Connecticut, Pennsylvania and Washington State promptly lifted mask mandates on Thursday after the C.D.C.’s announcement. Governors in states like New York and New Jersey said they would study the C.D.C. recommendations before making any moves."



"Vaccinated Americans May Go Without Masks in Most Places, Federal Officials Say

Fully vaccinated people do not have to wear masks or maintain social distance indoors or outdoors, with some exceptions, the C.D.C. advised.


May 13, 2021Updated 10:05 p.m. ET

Jonathan Marque, 15, received his first Covid vaccination in East Hartford, Conn., on Thursday, the same day the C.D.C. lifted mask restrictions.

Jonathan Marque, 15, received his first Covid vaccination in East Hartford, Conn., on Thursday, the same day the C.D.C. lifted mask restrictions.Christopher Capozziello for The New York Times

Federal health officials on Thursday advised Americans who are fully vaccinated against the coronavirus that they could stop wearing masks or maintaining social distance in most settings, the clearest sign yet that the pandemic might be nearing an end in the United States.


The new recommendations caught state officials and businesses by surprise and raised a host of difficult questions about how the guidelines would be carried out. But the advice came as welcome news to many Americans who were weary of restrictions and traumatized by the past year.


“We have all longed for this moment,” Dr. Rochelle P. Walensky, the director of the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, said at a White House news conference on Thursday. “If you are fully vaccinated, you can start doing the things that you had stopped doing because of the pandemic.”


Masks had come to symbolize a bitter partisan divide. Setting them aside in restaurants and sidewalks, in museums and shops, would represent not just the beginning of the end of the pandemic but hope for a return to normalcy.


Permission to stop using masks also offers an incentive to the many millions who are still holding out on vaccination. As of Wednesday, about 155 million people had received at least one dose of a Covid-19 vaccine, but only about one-third of the nation, 119 million people, had been fully vaccinated.


And the pace of vaccination has slowed: Providers are administering about 2.09 million doses per day on average, about a 38 percent decrease from the peak of 3.38 million reported in mid-April.


At the White House on Thursday, President Biden hailed the new recommendations as a “milestone” in the nation’s effort to beat back the pandemic and urged Americans to roll up their sleeves for vaccinations.


Still, Mr. Biden urged Americans not to turn on those who were not yet vaccinated. “Please treat them with kindness and respect,” he said. “We’ve had too much conflict, too much bitterness, too much anger, too much politicization of this issue about wearing masks.”


While there may well be scientific justification for the guidelines, they raised a host of questions for which there are no easy answers: How to trust that unvaccinated neighbors will wear masks when they should? What about younger children, for whom no vaccinations have been authorized, and schools? Is it possible to enforce such guidelines?


The new advice arrived just two days after Senate Republicans tore into the C.D.C. for what they called outdated and overly conservative guidance on mask-wearing, accusing the agency at a hearing on the government’s pandemic response of losing the trust of Americans looking to return to normal life.


“Free at last,” a maskless Senator Mitch McConnell of Kentucky, the Republican leader in the Senate, said as he left the Capitol on Thursday.


The agency said that vaccinated Americans would have to continue to abide by existing state, local or tribal laws and regulations and follow local rules for businesses and workplaces. But many local officials and business operators will be hard-pressed to maintain mask requirements now that the federal agency has spoken.


“While we all share the desire to return to a mask-free normal, today’s C.D.C. guidance is confusing and fails to consider how it will impact essential workers who face frequent exposure to individuals who are not vaccinated and refuse to wear masks,” said Marc Perrone, the president of the United Food and Commercial Workers union.


About two dozen states currently mandate masking in public. Connecticut, Pennsylvania and Washington State promptly lifted mask mandates on Thursday after the C.D.C.’s announcement. Governors in states like New York and New Jersey said they would study the C.D.C. recommendations before making any moves.


In some ways, the C.D.C.’s mask guidance has now come full circle. In the early days of the pandemic, health experts expressed ambivalence about whether masks were useful outside hospital settings. It was only in April 2020 that C.D.C. officials determined that masks could slow the spread of the virus and urged Americans to wear cloth masks they could make at home.


President Trump famously resisted wearing a mask, and many of his ardent supporters followed suit. Still, masking became ubiquitous in many parts of the country, and federal health officials have been relentless in advocating their use.


Dr. Walensky said on Thursday that the new recommendations had resulted from a steep drop in coronavirus cases — infections have declined by about a third in the last two weeks — and an increase in the availability of vaccines. She also cited a “coalescence” of new research that showed the vaccine’s effectiveness against virus variants and in preventing transmission.


Dr. Rochelle Walensky, the C.D.C. director, appearing before a Senate committee on Tuesday.

Dr. Rochelle Walensky, the C.D.C. director, appearing before a Senate committee on Tuesday.Pool photo by Greg Nash

Some scientists, even those who approved, were startled that an agency renowned for its caution had executed such a swift about-face. Just two and a half weeks ago, the C.D.C. advised fully vaccinated people that they could remove their masks outdoors but not in crowded spaces.


“If you’re healthy and vaccinated, and don’t have any household members who are vulnerable — and if you’re willing to accept risk of mild illness — then it seems like it’s time,” said Linsey Marr, an expert on aerosols at Virginia Tech and a vigorous critic of the agency’s past advice on transmission of the virus.


Still, she warned, “In places where the numbers are still high, it’s riskier even if you are vaccinated.”


Other researchers were unconvinced by the agency’s reasoning. “I am shocked,” said Dr. Leana Wen, former health commissioner for the city of Baltimore. “We have gone from one extreme to the other.”


Dr. Wen said she was hoping that mask recommendations would be lifted locally in regions that had achieved vaccination rates of 70 percent. “We now have a free-for-all,” she said. “No one is checking who is fully vaccinated. What is to stop people from doing whatever they want to do and making everyone else unsafe?’’


Some health leaders in underserved communities also expressed concern that restrictions were being lifted too soon. “You’re still dealing with a situation where an overwhelming majority of the community is not fully vaccinated,” said Dr. Shereef Elnahal, a former New Jersey state health commissioner and chief executive of University Hospital in Newark.


“To lift restrictions without vaccine verification in those areas, which are predominantly minority communities that have had a tough time with the pandemic, would be high risk,” he said.


The C.D.C.’s new advice was sprinkled with caveats. Even vaccinated individuals must cover their faces and physically distance when going to doctors, hospitals or long-term-care facilities like nursing homes and homeless shelters; when traveling by bus, plane, train or other modes of public transportation or while in transportation hubs like airports and bus stations; and when in prisons and jails.


The agency was not specific about masking in some settings, including schools. Dr. Walensky said that agency recommendations would be refined in the coming weeks.


The new federal advice is likely to galvanize Americans who have grown unaccustomed to appearing in public unmasked — or to seeing others do so. “We’ve got to liberalize the restrictions so people can feel like they’re getting back to some normalcy,” Dr. Anthony S. Fauci, the Biden administration’s senior adviser on the pandemic, said in an interview.


The guidelines come with caveats: Vaccinated people must continue to cover their faces when going to doctors, hospitals or nursing homes, when traveling by public transportation, or when in transportation hubs, shelters and jails.Whitten Sabbatini for The New York Times

But the move could raise alarms among more cautious Americans, who may be reluctant to engage in public activities when more people are unmasked. There is no way to know who is vaccinated and who is not, and the majority of the population is not yet fully vaccinated.


John Moore, a virologist at Weill Cornell Medicine in New York, said people would need to assess their own comfort in different situations, depending on the size of the gathering and the number of cases in the area.


“Would I go to a modest dinner party with vaccinated friends?” he said. “Absolutely. But walking into a bar in a poorly vaccinated state, or walking into a large gathering of people — I would be uncomfortable doing that without a mask.”


“I know people who are of my age who are very very skittish about any form of mingling,” added Dr. Moore, who said he is in his 60s. “It’s going to take a lot of adjustment, but I think it’s a good idea, and appropriate on the science.”


In a sense, the agency is asking that neighbors, colleagues and complete strangers trust one another to do the right thing, some scientists noted. Shedding masks may rekindle a national debate on vaccine passports, as verification of immunity becomes more important in unmasked settings like offices and restaurants.


Ellie Murray, an epidemiologist at the Boston University School of Public Health, said, “Basically, what that relies on, then, is individuals policing people around them, or business owners checking vaccination status in some way or just relying on some sort of honor code.”


In justifying the recommendations, agency officials pointed to several recent studies showing that vaccines are more than 90 percent effective at preventing mild and severe disease, hospitalizations and deaths from Covid-19 in real world settings.


Among them was a study of 6,710 health care workers in Israel, including 5,517 fully vaccinated workers, that found that the Pfizer-BioNTech vaccine was 97 percent effective at preventing symptomatic infections among the fully vaccinated and 86 percent effective at preventing asymptomatic infections among them.


“Vaccinated people are much less likely to transmit than we were worried they might be before, and they are protected themselves,” said Angela Rasmussen, a virologist at the Vaccine and Infectious Diseases Organization in Saskatchewan, Canada. Vaccines in use have proven effective against preventing serious illness and death from known variants of the coronavirus, she added.


Discarded syringes and other waste after a day of inoculations in East Hartford. In justifying the move, agency officials pointed to recent studies showing that vaccines are more than 90 percent effective at preventing disease, hospitalizations and deaths from Covid.Christopher Capozziello for The New York Times

Some critics have said the agency’s caution may be undermining faith in the vaccines. The new guidelines may help restore confidence, said Bill Hanage, an epidemiologist at the Harvard T.H. Chan School of Public Health.


“Given vaccination rates in some places, there’s the possibility that things might go awry locally,” he said, referring to possible outbreaks. But “the benefit in terms of encouraging people to get the shot among those who don’t like their masks might well outweigh it.”


The new guidelines contrasted with rising concerns about indoor air quality. On Thursday, a group of scientific experts called on policymakers and building engineers to prioritize clean air in public buildings to minimize the risk of respiratory infections.


Reduced masking “makes it even more important that workplaces and other buildings ensure that they have good ventilation,” Dr. Marr, a member of the group, said.


It’s unclear whether the C.D.C. plans to modify its recommendations for children. The agency had said that children must wear masks even outdoors while at summer camps, a measure critics have derided as unnecessary.


“I think no matter what, people are always going to be unhappy with the C.D.C.’s recommendations,” Dr. Rasmussen said. “It is always going to be criticized for being either too conservative or not conservative enough.”

Vaccinated Americans May Go Without Masks in Most Places, Federal Officials Say - The New York Times

Judge Delays Trial For Ex-Officers Tied To George Floyd Killing

Marjorie Taylor Greene confronts Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez

Georgia to discontinue extra $300 federal unemployment benefits next month – WSB-TV Channel 2 - Atlanta

Georgia to discontinue extra $300 federal unemployment benefits next month
This ad will end in 5 seconds
Kemp is truly evil.  He cares nothing about the poor.  We must throw him out of office in 2022 and into the garbage can of history where he belongs.

"ATLANTA — Gov. Brian Kemp said Thursday morning that the state will end its participation in federal COVID-19 unemployment programs, including weekly additional benefits.

The last week people will receive the extra $300 checks in their bank accounts is June 26.

Kemp said the move is necessary to help the economy, especially small businesses."

Georgia to discontinue extra $300 federal unemployment benefits next month – WSB-TV Channel 2 - Atlanta

Why Did The Republican Party Oust Liz Cheney From Its Leadership?

Fauci Spars With Sen. Rand Paul Over Origins Of Covid-19 | NBC News

Morning Joe Panel On What Cheney Ouster Means For The GOP

Opinion | Fatigue Is a Luxury You Can’t Afford - The New York Times

Fatigue Is a Luxury You Can’t Afford


Doug Mills/The New York Times


"As columnists, we often test the boundaries.

We want to write in provocative ways that inspire readers to think and discuss. But we don’t want to descend into hyperbole or, worse yet, hysteria.

As many of our critics are quick to remind us, we often slide right into that abyss. Sometimes they are right. There is no real science or formal methodology to this form of commentary. We write it not only as we see it, but also as we feel it, and our feelings fluctuate.

The danger, of course, is the Chicken Little problem: If you inflate everything into a sky-is-falling panic, what does one write when the sky really does begin to fall? What credibility does one have left among the watchful when the country truly nears the possibility of a political apocalypse?

Well, I’m not sure how to answer that. It seems to me that the possibility of destruction came in waves during the Trump administration, with more near-misses than the heart could handle.

Defcon 1 became our political default, and they wore down our anxieties about the danger. We are human beings; our panic can’t be permanent. Our minds and bodies simply aren’t meant to sustain it.

But here we are again facing another very real threat to our democracy, and it would be a shame if we were so weary of Donald Trump and his supporters’ attacks on the pillars of this country that we dismissed warnings about what it all means, as with all others that preceded it.

With the ouster of Liz Cheney from her leadership position in the House of Representatives, the Republican Party has made absolutely clear that it is fully committed to Trump and the lie that he continues to propagate about the election: that he won and the election was stolen from him.

According to an Ipsos poll, 55 percent of Republicans believe that the outcome of the 2020 election was the result of illegal voting or election rigging, and 60 percent agree with the statement that “the 2020 election was stolen from Donald Trump.” Furthermore, 63 percent don’t agree that Trump was even partly to blame for the Jan. 6 insurrection.

The Republican Party is now fully committed to a lie and a liar — this even after he was forced from office, even after he caused the party to lose control of both houses of Congress. Time to panic yet? Some of us held out hope that Trump’s influence would diminish once his presidency ended, but as Senator Lindsey Graham told the Fox News host Sean Hannity on Monday:

To try to erase Donald Trump from the Republican Party is insane. And the people who try to erase him are going to wind up getting erased. It’s impossible for this party to move forward without President Trump being its leader because the people who are conservative have chosen him as their leader.

Trumpism will not go gentle into that good night. It will rage; it is raging.

The Republican Party belongs to Trump, full stop. And it controls a large majority of statehouses that will redraw congressional districts this year, after last year’s census. That could set up an electoral imbalance for another decade, as it did in 2010.

Republicans in many of those statehouses are also pushing through voter suppression measures, and possibly even more important, some laws would allow local boards to refuse to certify election results.

Not only did Republicans support subverting the last election; they are well on their way to building the architecture to better subvert the next one.

Democracy cannot exist in a society in which nearly half the participants have abandoned it, a lie is elevated to the position of truth, participation becomes the thing being poisoned.

So is panic now appropriate? Or do we simply carry on, hoping for the best and against the worst? Do we pretend that is it not possible that our democracy is being stolen right out from under us while we whistle?

Panic fatigue is real. I get it.

Anger is exhausting. I get it.

But what are your options? Acquiescence? Passivity? Ignoring the blare of the alarms because you have tired of the tension?

The Republican Party as it is now positioned is no longer simply a part of our political system; it is a threat to our political system. The party has converted itself into the enemy within.

The question is whether we’re too tired from the Trump years to see what is happening and mount an actual defense."

Opinion | Fatigue Is a Luxury You Can’t Afford - The New York Times

Opinion | What Your Taxes Are Paying For in Israel - The New York Times

What Your Taxes Are Paying For in Israel

Mohammed Abed/Agence France-Presse — Getty Images

"Saying Hamas must pay a “very heavy price” for belligerence, Israeli bombs destroyed a 13-story apartment building in Gaza that had a Hamas presence. And saying Israel “ignited fire” and is “responsible for the consequences,” Hamas launched more rockets at Israel.

We’re now seeing the worst fighting in seven years between Israelis and Palestinians, and again a basic pattern asserts itself: When missiles are flying, hard-liners on each side are ascendant. Civilians die, but extremists on one side empower those on the other.

The late Eyad el-Sarraj, a prominent psychiatrist in Gaza, described this dynamic when I visited him during a past cycle of violence: “Extremists need each other, support each other.” He lamented that Israel’s siege of Gaza had turned Palestinian fanatics into popular heroes.

The recent fighting was prompted in part by Israel’s latest land grab in East Jerusalem, part of a pattern of unequal treatment of Palestinians. Two prominent human rights organizations this year issued reports likening Israel’s treatment of Palestinians to apartheid. One group, B’Tselem, described a “regime of Jewish supremacy” and concluded, “This is apartheid.” Human Rights Watch published a 224-page report declaring that Israeli conduct in some areas amounts to “crimes against humanity of apartheid and persecution.”

Personally, I’m wary of the term apartheid because there are significant differences from ancien régime South Africa. But putting aside nomenclature, there is no doubt that the ongoing Israeli misrule of Palestinians is both unjust and creates a tinderbox.

It’s also true that Hamas not only attacks Israeli civilians but also oppresses its own people. But as American taxpayers, we don’t have much influence over Hamas, while we do have influence over Israel and we provide several billion dollars a year in military assistance to a rich country and thus subsidize bombings of Palestinians.

Is that really a better use of our taxes than, say, paying for Covid-19 vaccinations abroad or national pre-K at home? Shouldn’t our vast sums of aid to Israel be conditioned on reducing conflict rather than aggravating it, on building conditions for peace rather than creating obstacles to it?

The obvious way out of the Middle East morass is a two-state solution, but that is becoming difficult to cling to even as a dream. A recent survey showed that Israeli Jews and Palestinians actually agree on something: Only 13 percent, with little variation among groups, think Israel wants a two-state solution.

Hard-liners in Israel sometimes accuse Americans of being naïve about what works in a tough neighborhood. But those hard-liners have repeatedly shown their own naïveté in pursuing policies that backfired. Consider that it was Israel itself that helped nurture Hamas back in the late 1980s and the 1990s. Israel was then concerned with Yasir Arafat’s Fatah movement, so it cracked down on Fatah and allowed Hamas to rise as a counterforce.

Since then the Middle East has been caught in a “Boomerang Syndrome,” in which extremists on each side mount violent assaults, which ultimately lead to attacks against their own side as well. Hamas’s past shelling undermined political moderates in Israel. And Israel’s siege of Gaza destroyed a Palestinian business community that could have been a moderate counterweight to Hamas, while land grabs in the West Bank and East Jerusalem made the Palestinian leadership seem irrelevant.

It’s true that force sometimes works. In my conversations in Gaza over the years, I’ve found that many Palestinians have complicated views. Some resent Hamas as oppressive and incompetent, and many dislike missile launches at Israel because they know they will face retaliation. Then again, they have endured economic distress, fear and funerals because of Israel, so some acknowledge a bitter satisfaction to seeing missile launches and anticipating that Israeli mothers will grieve as they do.

Israel’s future security depends in part on good will in America and on some modus vivendi with Palestinians, yet Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu has frittered both away. History suggests that Israel cannot consistently deter nonstate terrorists, but it can very effectively deter nation-states — so it should welcome a Palestinian state. Yet as extremism on each side foments extremism on the other, that possibility fades.

The Biden administration has been timid and restrained, slowing the U.N. Security Council’s engagement on the issue, and it has yet to name an ambassador to Israel. But the stakes are too high for evasions, and President Biden should stand with others on the Security Council to demand a cease-fire before this escalates further.

Secretary of State Antony Blinken helpfully said “it’s vital now to de-escalate.” The administration should also express strong concern about the planned evictions of Palestinians that provoked the crisis. Dithering and vacillation help no one.

A basic truth of the Middle East is that anyone who predicts with any confidence what’s going to happen is too dogmatic to be worth listening to. But for now it appears that the winners in the current fighting are Netanyahu, who may be able to use the upheaval to get another chance to continue as prime minister, and Hamas, which is showing itself relevant in a way that the Palestinian Authority is not.

Meanwhile, millions of Palestinians and Israelis lose, and the Boomerang Syndrome spirals on."

By Nicholas Kristof’


Opinion | What Your Taxes Are Paying For in Israel - The New York Times

Potential Trump Indictment Moves Closer With McGahn's Testimony

Tuesday, May 11, 2021

The Republican War On Voting!

Tucker Carlson destroyed in brutal Jim Acosta segment

Opinion: It’s time for Democrats to force Joe Manchin to show his hand

Opinion: It’s time for Democrats to force Joe Manchin to show his hand

Image without a caption

“Senate Democrats on Tuesday are planning to mark up their voting-rights legislation, known as the For The People Act, with a series of amendments from the version of the bill that the House passed in March. The expected changes are not all that dramatic, including adding waivers for automatic registration rules, easing same-day registration requirements and scaling back a 15-day early voting requirement of small jurisdictions.

No one should be under the illusion that these amendments will persuade any Republicans to support a voting-rights bill. They instead appear to be designed to address complaints from Sen. Joe Manchin III (W.Va.), the sole Democrat who has not co-sponsored the bill and who has raised concerns about the lack of flexibility for local voting officials. He seems firmly opposed to dramatic voting reform, but it is unclear what voting provisions he would support. If, as some voting-rights advocates suspect, he is looking to be an obstacle to preserve his standing in a conservative state, they are wasting their time trying to accommodate his demands.

Rather than throwing out proposals with the hope to get Manchin’s buy-in, perhaps it is time to force him to show his hand. What voting reform is he prepared to accept? (It is bizarre, frankly, that Democrats are obsessing about going too far to protect voting rights.)

Let’s say for the sake of argument that Manchin is operating in good faith and would support a limited but substantial list of voting reforms (e.g., independent redistricting, guaranteed early and no-excuse absentee voting, a mandatory paper trail subject to audit) and H.R. 4, which would reauthorize preclearance provisions of the Voting Rights Act. He would then still need 10 Republican votes, which he seems to think can emerge from open debate and negotiation.

Manchin almost certainly will not find 10 Republicans willing to acknowledge that the problem is not voting fraud but voting restrictions. Given that House Republicans are about to excommunicate one of their leaders for refusing to go along with the Big Lie that the election was stolen, I would guess the task of finding any Republican senator who is willing to dispense with the lie about voting fraud and circumvent state legislatures seeking to suppress voting is virtually impossible. (Are there even 10 Republicans to support a stand-alone H.R. 4?)

That means Manchin will have to make a decision that he seems determined to avoid: If no voting rights bill will ever garner 10 Republican votes, what is he prepared to do about it? The answer may be “nothing.” He currently enjoys cover to avoid tough votes (on voting reform and anything else) if the 60-vote cloture rule remains in place. So long as the filibuster makes passage of controversial bills impossible, he need not go up against home-state conservatives on any issue. He could, of course, support a limited exception to the filibuster (as reconciliation has done) to requires a simple majority to pass legislation that entails constitutional protections, but it is far from clear that would pass muster with him.

Manchin must surely realize that Democratic voters, donors and activists — as well as his fellow officeholders — will not accept a senator who refuses to defend voting rights in the midst of an onslaught of Jim Crow-style legislation. Voting rights and protection of multiracial democracy are so fundamental to the ethos of the party (more so than abortion rights, taxes or any other topic) that Manchin risks an irreparable breach with his fellow Democrats should he refuse to block the Republicans’ assault on voting rights. (Many Democrats would support a primary challenge against Manchin, even at the risk of losing the seat, if he impedes voting rights reform.)

Democrats should make clear that party members cannot remain in good standing unless they prioritize voting rights over the filibuster. If the red line for Republicans is embrace of the Big Lie, the red line for Democrats is embrace of the Big Truth — namely that democracy is imperiled by Jim Crow-style legislation. Ultimately, Manchin will have to decide whether he stands with advocates of voter suppression or his own party.”