Tag Archives : Build House

Virginia school district moves to restrict bathroom, locker room access for transgender students

A policy under consideration in a central Virginia school district would require transgender students and their families to obtain written permission from the school principal to use facilities like restrooms or locker rooms consistent with their gender identity.

Administrators may ask transgender students to provide documentation that certifies their “persistently and insistently expressed” gender identity, as well as signed statements from the students’ families and doctors, according to the policy currently under review by the Hanover County School Board.

Should the policy be adopted, students may also be asked to provide their disciplinary or criminal records in order to use the appropriate bathroom or changing room – a clause which those in favor of the measure said would help keep those facilities safe.

America is changing faster than ever! Add Changing America to your Facebook or Twitter feed to stay on top of the news.

Proponents of similar measures in other states have suggested that more lenient policies could encourage cisgender male students to harm their female classmates in places like restrooms by pretending to identify as transgender.

A 2019 study published in the journal Pediatrics found that the opposite is more likely true, and 26 percent of transgender middle and high school students surveyed by researchers at Harvard University said they had been sexually assaulted or harassed in the last year. Among students whose schools had restrictive bathroom and locker room policies, 35 percent reported being assaulted or harassed.

According to the Movement Advancement Project, 18 states – including Virginia – have laws in place that prohibit discrimination in schools based on sexual orientation and gender identity.

Just two states – Missouri and South Dakota – have enacted laws that prevent individual schools or school districts from adding LGBTQ+ protections to nondiscrimination policies, and three states – Tennessee, Alabama and Oklahoma – have banned transgender students from using facilities consistent with their gender identity altogether.

The Human Rights Campaign last week filed a lawsuit against Tennessee’s “bathroom bill,” alleging it violates transgender students’ constitutional rights and singles them out for “disfavored treatment.”

In a statement on Wednesday, the American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU) of Virginia called Hanover County School Board’s proposed policy discriminatory and invasive.

“This is not just about bathrooms or locker rooms,” Breanna Diaz, policy and legislative counsel at the ACLU of Virginia, said Wednesday. “It’s about the right of transgender students to exist in public spaces without having to justify or explain themselves.”

“Yet, the Hanover County School Board’s proposed policy seeks to do just that by imposing an invasive policy that will deter youth from accessing school facilities,” Diaz said, and urged the school district to adhere to model policies put forward by the Virginia Department of Education in 2020.

The department’s model policies for the treatment of transgender public school students provide evidence-based recommendations intended to foster an inclusive learning environment, including guidelines for name and pronoun usage and access to school facilities and sports teams.

All school boards were required to adopt policies consistent with the model policies by the beginning of the 2021-2022 school year.

According to the ACLU of Virginia, while the Hanover County School Board did implement some of the required policies, it declined to address restroom or locker room access for transgender students.

A vote on the proposed policy is expected to take place at a special school board meeting at the end of the month.

Source: TEST FEED1

Scary links: Russia, al-Zawahiri and Ukraine’s destruction

For those who dismiss aid to Ukraine as pivotal to our security, at home and abroad, perhaps 9/11 will resonate. Here’s the backstory to the backstory of our July 31 drone strike that killed Ayman al-Zawahiri, head of al Qaeda, and the apparent connection.

In the 1970s, Ion Pacepa, head of Romanian foreign intelligence, visited General Alexander Sakharovsky, head of the KGB’s First Chief Directorate (foreign operations). “Terrorism has to become our main weapon,” he reportedly told Pacepa. Pointing to a world map bristling with red pins, each representing a hijacked airplane, Sakharosvky continued: “Airplane hijacking is my own invention.”

In 1987, GRU (the military counterpart of the KGB) defector Vladimir Rezun (aka, Viktor Suvorov), laid out a scenario: two successive plane crashes into the White House, the second one timed to obliterate the first responders and command structure who arrived the scene after the first crash.

In 1997, having spent six months in Russia, al-Zawahiri decamped to Afghanistan, becoming Osama bin Laden’s lieutenant and mastermind of 9/11. There promptly followed the 1998 U.S. embassy bombings in Africa, the 2000 bombing of the USS Cole, the 2005 London bombings, and more.  

Alexander Litvinenko was the defecting FSB officer in London who Vladimir Putin incinerated from the inside out with Polonium 210, nuclear terrorism in the Magna Carta’s backyard. A year before his 2006 assassination, and then again on his hospital deathbed, Litvinenko revealed that while in Russia-controlled Dagestan in the Caucasus, al-Zawahiri had undergone training by the FSB, Russia’s Federal Security Service and successor to the KGB. Dagestan was also the springboard for the subsequent two Boston Marathon bombers. 

The Russia connection was raised earlier by others, and Litvinenko’s disclosures are consistent with other information. Konstantin Preobrazhensky, a former lieutenant colonel in the KGB, confirmed and also wrote about the connection, via an Iraqi intelligence agent, between Mohammed Atta, the pilot of the first plane to crash into the World Trade Center, and Russian intelligence.

We also know that former KGB head Yurij Andropov, Putin’s pedagogue, reportedly saw the Islamic world “as a petri dish in which Moscow could nurture a virulent strain of America-hatred.” Moscow encouraged Arab nationalism in the 1970s and 1980s as the genome for Islamic terrorism, and helped train, finance, arm and direct the terrorist assault against us and our allies. Generic terrorism evidently was fine, too. Remember Paris, Athens, Vienna, London, West Berlin? The bomb attack in Brussels on Gen. Alexander Haig, commander of NATO? The murders of U.S. Ambassador Cleo Noel and his deputy, George Moore, in Sudan? The assassination of U.S. Ambassador J. “Chris” Stevens in Libya?

Yasser Arafat reportedly received a KGB makeover, and yet won the Nobel Peace Prize. Home-grown, non-Arab terrorists and agents were even better. Among those with alleged KGB involvement: Venezuelan Ilich Ramirez Sanchez, known as Carlos the Jackal, Germans Ulrike Meinhoff and Hans-Joachim Klein, Frenchman Regis Debray, adviser to President Mitterrand, Italian Prime Minister Romano Prodi, and Irish Republican Army luminary Sean Garland.

Western intelligence evidently knew perfectly well about Moscow’s role but was muzzled by the politicians for fear of “provoking” Moscow. Sounds familiar. Three British prime ministers bravely remained mum after Litvinenko’s murder. 

The German Stasi reportedly was a key player in Moscow’s terror network. There are plenty of reasons to conclude that in Dresden, Putin had a connection to the terror networks established by his mentors. Promptly after President Bush declared Iraq, Iran and North Korea the “axis of evil,” Putin reinstituted weapons sales and nuclear assistance to Iran. Iraq received a $40 billion trade deal. And North Korea’s despot, Kim Jung Il, was celebrated in Moscow. In 2003, Putin declared at a meeting of the Organisation of the Islamic Conference (OIC) that Russia was Islam’s historical defender, and Russia received associate status. The USSR was the first state to recognize Saudi Arabia in 1926 and initiated the World Muslim Congress in Mecca, the prototype of the OIC. And Russian operatives, in an apparent false flag operation, posed as ISIS and threatened to kill U.S. military families.

No surprise here. The rejection, subversion and destruction of Western values and its social fabric overlaps Russian fundamentalism with radical Islamic fundamentalism. Both market a vitriolic anti-Western, anti-American ideology, a faux morality playing the “America is immoral” card. Both are propelled to kill, to savage, to destroy. For both, it’s more than a duty; it’s an entitlement. 

Demonstrative affirmation of anniversary dates is a KGB passion. Putin critic Anna Politkovskaya was murdered on his birthday. And 9/11 saw Putin’s celebration of the birthday of the notorious Felix Dzerzhinsky, founder of the Cheka, precursor to the KGB/FSB. Dzerzhisnky had enthused: “We stand for organized terror — this should be frankly admitted. Terror is an absolute necessity.” The smoke hadn’t cleared before Putin was on the line to the American president with his professed condolences. Ditto after the Boston Marathon bombing.

Where are we today? 1997 also saw the appearance of Russia’s blueprint calling for, among other measures, an Islamic/Russian alliance against America. It specifically highlighted a  Russian/Iranian joint venture. The destruction of Ukraine was pivotal.

Fifty-one NATO and allied nations, including Ukraine, aided the U.S. in Afghanistan. After Russia’s invasion of Ukraine on Feb. 24, 2022, 141 nations signed the UN resolution condemning Russia. But for more than eight years, since the 2014 Russian invasion, Ukraine was alone in battling against the terrorist state that launched Islamic terrorism against the West. To add to the irony, for a generation Ukraine has contributed “boots on the ground” to our war on terror and peacekeeping missions. During our shambolic exit at Kabul airport last August, it was the Ukrainians who, in a special ops, rescued refugees the U.S. or NATO would not or could not rescue. 

Our post-9/11 war on terror cost $8 trillion and 22,000 casualties. Our aid to Ukraine, so far, is less than 1 percent of that, with no American casualties. Ukraine’s losses are staggering. One estimate placed Ukraine’s losses, in 2 ½ months, equal to America’s losses in Iraq and Afghanistan in over 20 years.

Now, following renewed shelling of Ukraine’s Zaporizhzhia nuclear power plant, Europe’s largest, Ukraine’s Energoatom nuclear agency reports the threat by Major General Valery Vasiliev. He’s in charge of Russia’s radiation, chemical and biological troops and has occupied the plant. “There will be either Russian land or a scorched desert. … As you know, we mined all the important objects of the Zaporizhzhia nuclear plant. And we do not hide this from the enemy. We warned them. The enemy knows that the plant will be either Russian or nobody’s. We are ready for the consequences of this step. And you, liberating soldiers, must understand that we have no other. And if there is the toughest order — we must fulfill it with honor!”

The global catastrophe would make Chornobyl a petty event. Let that sink in.  

We remain bulletproof against reality. Russia is not simply a state sponsor of terrorism. It was and remains the quintessential terrorist state. After eight years, we’re still rolling out sanctions? We must match Ukraine’s will and share its purpose. Strategic aphasia won’t cut it. 

Victor Rud has practiced international law in New York and New Jersey for 35 years. He is the past chairman of the Ukrainian American Bar Association and now chairs its Committee on Foreign Affairs. He is a senior adviser to Open Ukraine, a nongovernmental organization in Ukraine, and the senior adviser to the Centre for Eastern European Democracy in Toronto.

Source: TEST FEED1

US workers lost $28 billion in wages during pandemic: report

U.S. workers without paid sick leave during the first two years of the coronavirus pandemic lost an estimated $28 billion in wages, according to a new report.  

The report, released by the Urban Institute with support from the Robert Wood Johnson Foundation on Wednesday, found that work absences due to illness, childcare, or other family matters increased by 50 percent when compared to the previous two years. 

Most absences were due to a worker’s personal illness. 

Women were 40 percent more likely to miss work without pay, while they were also among several groups – including self-employed, Black and Hispanic workers –who experienced the biggest increase in missed days.  

“The pandemic caused unpaid work absences across the entire workforce, but data on gender and race highlight the greater toll on women and minority populations,” Mona Shah, senior program officer at the Robert Wood Johnson Foundation, said in a media release. 

America is changing faster than ever! Add Changing America to your Facebook or Twitter feed to stay on top of the news. 

The report noted that nearly two-thirds of Hispanic workers and 57 percent of Black workers were not paid for days they were absent due to childcare needs, personal illness, or other family obligations. 

Employee absences were especially high depending on socio-economic status, according to the report. Workers from households earning less than $25,000 per year were three times more likely to miss work without pay compared to those from households making more than $100,000 annually. 

“Missed wages from unpaid leave have affected populations already at greater risk of severe COVID infection and of economic and material hardship, compounding existing economic, racial, and gender disparities,” Chantel Boyens, principal policy associate at the Urban Institute, added in the release. 

“Workplace safety standards and public health policies combined with comprehensive paid leave policies that cover all workers, could help reduce the spread of COVID while protecting workers and families from missed wages due to medical and caregiving needs,” Boyens said. 

Source: TEST FEED1

Facebook profits from ads on searches for hate group pages: report

Facebook has profited from searches and ads for white supremacist groups on its social media platform, according to a report released Wednesday from the Tech Transparency Project (TTP). 

The TTP investigation found ads monetizing search results for some white supremacist groups, of which there are more than 80 using Facebook as a hub, according to the report. The ads weren’t for the white supremacist groups themselves, but generated revenue for the social media giant when they appeared in searches.

A Facebook spokesperson said on Wednesday that the platform has corrected the issue.

The 80-group count found in the report amounts to more than a third of 226 total white supremacist groups labeled as hate groups by the Southern Poverty Law Center, the Anti-Defamation League and Facebook. 

Meta says it has designated 270 groups under that label and have banned them all from the platform.

Even with clear flags of white supremacy like “Ku Klux Klan” in the name, searches for some groups showed users ads for Black churches, which the TTP flagged as possibly “highlighting potential targets for extremists.”

The platform has often come under fire for the facilitation of extremist groups and the spread of misinformation. 

Facebook announced in 2019 that it would ban white nationalist and white separatist content, adding to its existing ban on white supremacist content, noting in a release that the company had “confirmed that white nationalism and white separatism cannot be meaningfully separated from white supremacy and organized hate groups.” 

In 2020, Facebook updated its policies “to more specifically account for certain kinds of implicit hate speech, such as content depicting blackface, or stereotypes about Jewish people” and banned a number of white supremacist groups.

The new TTP report, though, suggests hate groups still find footing on the site.

The investigation found that 24 of the 119 Facebook pages identified had been auto-generated by Facebook, likely after a user noted one such group as an interest or employer. 

“We immediately resolved an issue where ads were appearing in searches for terms related to banned organizations and we are also working to fix an auto generation issue, which incorrectly impacted a small number of pages,” Facebook spokeswoman Dani Lever said in a statement.

“We will continue to work with outside experts and organizations in an effort to stay ahead of violent, hateful, and terrorism-related content and remove such content from our platforms.”

Source: TEST FEED1

Are COVID-19 rapid tests working against new omicron variants?

Antigen tests that are ready in 15 minutes and can be stored and used at home have been crucial for many who are trying to mitigate risk of contracting the coronavirus. But now some people with COVID-19 related symptoms are reporting that they are repeatedly testing negative on at-home rapid tests. This has brought up the question of whether these tests are working for newer omicron variants. 

This might also happen if the SARS-CoV-2 virus changes enough so that the part that binds to the rapid antigen tests isn’t as good of a match. “As mutation occurs, it may somehow change the structure of these different proteins, which may result in a decrease in detection by the antigen testing,” says Esther Babady, who is chief of the clinical microbiology service at Memorial Sloan Kettering Cancer Center in New York, to CNBC. “It can also be that earlier in the infection by BA.4 and BA.5, you don’t produce enough of the SARS-CoV-2 protein.” 

With the current variants, it seems that the antigen tests still work although the timing of when you take the test may matter more or the sensitivity of the test to pick up an infection may be less than with previous variants. “Early data suggests that antigen tests do detect the omicron variant but may have reduced sensitivity,” the Food and Drug Administration (FDA) state on their website. “It is important to note that these laboratory data are not a replacement for clinical study evaluations using patient samples with live virus, which are ongoing.” 

The FDA are consistently testing the various brands of rapid antigen tests and maintain an updated list of authorized tests. “The FDA would know if there are performance concerns because they continue to monitor all authorized tests and scientific evidence over a period of time in the event that they need to make changes,” Mark Fischer, who is the Regional Medical Director at International SOS, says in an email to CNET. 

If in doubt, people can turn to PCR tests. If someone is testing negative with antigen tests but is suspected to have COVID-19, following up with a PCR test is important for determining if it is a coronavirus infection, according to the FDA’s recommendations. Although PCR testing may be less accessible than previously during the pandemic, it is still the most surefire way to find out if someone is infected.  

“If someone has a high suspicion of having BA.5 and their antigen test is negative, a PCR test will really rule it out,” says Babady. 

Source: TEST FEED1

Watch live: Harris holds roundtable with Nevada legislators on reproductive rights

Vice President Harris will Wednesday afternoon meet with members of the Nevada state legislature to discuss reproductive rights.

The roundtable is scheduled to begin at 4:15 p.m. ET.

Watch the live video above.

Source: TEST FEED1

10 House Republicans impeached Trump. Here’s where they stand now.

Rep. Jaime Herrera Beutler (R-Wash.) became the latest Republican who impeached former President Trump to lose her primary bid after she conceded on Tuesday night, one week after her primary in Washington State.

Herrera Beutler was one of 10 House Republicans to join all Democrats in voting to impeach Trump for “incitement of insurrection” related to the Jan. 6, 2021, attack on the Capitol. Trump was ultimately acquitted in the Senate, becoming the first president to survive two impeachment trials.

Trump has since used his popularity to influence races across the country as he mulls a third bid for the White House in 2024, and he has taken a particular interest in removing Republicans who impeached him by endorsing and holding rallies for their challengers.

Here’s where the 10 House Republicans who impeached Trump stand.

Rep. Liz Cheney (Wyo.)

Cheney will face primary voters next week in her at-large district, but recent polling indicates she’s facing an uphill battle against the Trump-backed Harriet Hageman.

The Wyoming Republican, in particular, has drawn the ire of Trump and his allies not just for her impeachment vote but also for her role as vice chair on the House select committee investigating Jan. 6. Cheney’s caucus ousted her as conference chair last year.

She has been a vociferous critic of the former president and those in her party who support him, recently calling the GOP “very sick” and saying Republicans can either give their loyalties to Trump or the Constitution.

Trump in late May traveled to Wyoming to stump for Hageman. Hageman also has the support of Rep. Elise Stefanik (R-N.Y.), who became chair of the House Republican Conference after Cheney was ousted from the role, and House Minority Leader Kevin McCarthy (R-Calif.), both of whom delivered video addresses at the rally.

Cheney and some Democratic lawmakers have encouraged Wyoming Democrats to switch parties for the primary election to boost Cheney’s chances. Two House Democrats, Rep. Dean Phillips (Minn.) and Rep. Tom Malinowski (N.J.), recently cut ads in support of the strategy.

Rep. Anthony Gonzalez (Ohio)

Gonzalez, a former NFL player who was first elected in 2018, announced in September 2021 that he would not seek a third term to the House, months after impeaching Trump.

Less than two months after the former president’s second impeachment, Trump endorsed his former aide, Max Miller, in his challenge to Gonzalez.

Gonzalez’s impeachment vote also set off a firestorm among Ohio Republicans, and the Ohio Republican Party’s central committee censured Gonzalez and called for his resignation in May 2021.

Days later, Gonzalez did not hold back and voted alongside 34 other Republicans to establish an independent Jan. 6 commission. 

He also voted with a small number of House Republicans to hold Steve Bannon in contempt of Congress for his refusal to cooperate with the House Jan. 6 panel.

Rep. Jaime Herrera Beutler (Wash.)

Herrera Beutler is the latest pro-impeachment Republican to lose her primary. 

She conceded on Tuesday evening after facing eight primary opponents, the first major primary challenge to her seat since she took office in 2011. Herrera Beutler’s state party previously rebuked her.

Trump endorsed her top opponent, Joe Kent, a former Green Beret, although The Associated Press has not yet called the race.

“Joe Kent just won an incredible race against all odds in Washington State,” Trump said in a statement on Tuesday. “Importantly, he knocked out yet another impeacher, Jaime Herrera Beutler, who so stupidly played right into the hands of the Democrats.” 

Washington operates under a jungle primary system, meaning the two candidates with the most votes advance to the general election regardless of their party affiliation.

Kent is on track to face Democrat Marie Gluesenkamp Perez in November in the district rated “Solid Republican” by the nonpartisan Cook Political Report.

Rep. John Katko (N.Y.)

Katko, who represents Syracuse, N.Y., and other upper parts of the state, announced almost exactly one year after impeaching Trump that he would retire at the end of his term.

He has denied that Trump’s focus on ousting pro-impeachment Republicans factored into his decision to leave the House.

“I was quite certain, even with the redistricting that was done in New York state, that I had a path to victory,” Katko told The Washington Post in March. “And I had a very good path to victory.” 

The New York Republican will also step down as chairman of the Republican Governance Group, a caucus of moderate House Republicans he has led since 2017.

Rep. Adam Kinzinger (Ill.)

Like Cheney, Kinzinger did not just impeach the former president but also now serves on the House panel investigating Jan. 6, further infuriating Trump and his allies.

He announced in Oct. 2021 he would retire at the end of the term, which also came after redistricting maps approved by Illinois lawmakers drew him into the same district as Rep. Darin LaHood (R-Ill.), who was endorsed by Trump just before the primary.

LaHood won his primary in June in what is seen as a reliably Republican district.

Rep. Peter Meijer (Mich.)

Meijer became the second pro-impeachment Republican defeated in their primary, losing last week by less than four percentage points to Trump-backed candidate John Gibbs.

Meijer and Kinzinger have condemned the Democratic Congressional Campaign Committee (DCCC) for running an ad they say boosted Gibbs, who has supported Trump’s unfounded claims of election fraud in the 2020 presidential election.

“I would rather lose office with my character intact than stay reelected having made sacrifices of the soul,” Meijer told SiriusXM following his loss.

Rep. Dan Newhouse (Wash.)

Newhouse is so far one of only two pro-impeachment Republicans to survive a primary challenge.

He faced six challengers last week, including Loren Culp, a former police chief backed by Trump, and former NASCAR driver Jerrod Sessler, who was in Washington, D.C. on Jan. 6.

Newhouse’s victory comes after the Washington State Republican Party chastised him for his impeachment vote, calling on him to resign.

In November, he will face Democrat Doug White, although the district is rated as “Solid Republican” by the Cook Political Report.

Rep. Tom Rice (S.C.)

Rice in June became the first Republican who backed Trump’s second impeachment to lose reelection.

Former state Rep. Russell Fry defeated Rice by more than 25 percentage points, or roughly 22,500 raw votes.

His defeat came the same night as South Carolina Republicans narrowly voted to keep Rep. Nancy Mace as their nominee. Mace voted against Trump’s impeachment but criticized his actions surrounding Jan. 6, leading Trump to endorse Mace’s challenger.

Rep. Fred Upton (Mich.)

Upton, the only lawmaker to vote to impeach two presidents, announced in April he was retiring at the end of his term.

A moderate Republican, Upton has bucked his party on impeachment and other issues, like a national red flag law opposed by most members of his caucus.

“He’s had a number of decisive wins where he’s endorsed candidates that they have won,” Upton said of Trump on CNN’s “State of the Union” in June.

“He’s had a few losses as well, but he certainly entertains a majority of the Republican base and will be hard to stop,” he added.

Rep. David Valadao (Calif.)

Valadao served in the House from 2013 to 2019 before being ousted by former Rep. TJ Cox (D-Calif.). In a 2021 rematch, Valadao won back his seat and voted to impeach Trump one day after being sworn in.

Unlike other pro-impeachment Republicans, Trump did not endorse a challenger to Valadao in his primary. McCarthy, the top House Republican and a Trump ally, endorsed Valadao.

Valadao advanced from California’s jungle primary system in June, and he will face California state Assemblymember Rudy Salas (D) in November.

Despite Trump not weighing in on the race, Valadao faces a tough reelection under the newly redrawn maps. The Cook Political Report rates the contest as a “toss up.”

Source: TEST FEED1

We need a new social contract for our polarized nation

We should congratulate our Congress on its landmark climate legislation over the weekend. As the climate crisis continues to accelerate, this kind of policymaking is critical for the future of our country and the globe. 

Such achievements notwithstanding, we can still expect vigorous protests for and against fossil fuels, COVID vaccines, the police, immigration, abortion access and gun rights, demonstrating the difficulty in finding common ground in this hyper-partisan age. 

Is there anything we agree on? How can we tackle the major threats facing our planet when we have trouble agreeing on basic facts?  

A February 2022 study in “The Lancet” finds that levels of interpersonal trust and trust in government had statistically significant associations with lower rates of COVID-19 infection. The study also found that higher levels of trust were associated with higher vaccine coverage in middle- and high-income countries. Intuitively, this makes sense as the United States wrestles with misinformation and disinformation in both mainstream and social media. However, it also raises the question, how do we engage in critical policymaking in an environment of distrust? How do we repair our social contract? 

Social contract basics

While the origins of social contract theory can be traced back to Greece in 400 BC, such principles found greater traction in the 17th and 18th centuries. Philosophers like Thomas Hobbes, John Locke, and Jean-Jacques Rousseau theorized that groups of individuals form a society through agreement around a basic set of moral and political obligations. These foundational concepts helped explain how organized government is essential, but they also defined the rights and duties of citizens.

The fundamental idea was that there was a mutually beneficial arrangement between a government and its citizens. This was a revolutionary concept at the time and provided strong motivation to the authors of the Declaration of Independence.

While there were differences between the Founding Fathers when it came to central government powers, there was no question that a cooperative relationship between government and its citizens was critical to a healthy society and that some form of a social contract was necessary for a functioning democracy. Even so, there has always been tension between its component parts: the conceptions of individual rights and reciprocal responsibilities. Amidst the cacophony of discordant views on the challenges faced by society today, it’s worthwhile to revisit the building blocks of the social contract.   

The heart of a social contract 

At the heart of a social contract is the notion that some public policies may place constraints on individual freedoms in exchange for greater social security and assurances of collective wellbeing. An important prerequisite for this agreement is that citizens must have trust in public institutions — whether they are government or media, as well as in private organizations. 

Many studies have shown declining satisfaction with democracy, increasing partisan polarization and decreasing measures of trust in media. This is matched by a growing divide between those who accept the consensus of medical and scientific institutions and those suspicious of the advice of scientists. In research recently published in “Global Policy,” I draw from existing cross-country indices and data sets to examine the relationship between measurements of public trust and robust climate action to determine whether there is a quantifiable relationship between the strength of the social contract and support for climate policy.  

My analysis focused on eight countries: Australia, France, Germany, Italy, Japan, Korea, the United Kingdom and the United States. Similar to “The Lancet” study, the results show a clear correlation between stronger confidence in institutions of media and government and indicators of effective domestic climate policy commitment. 

Challenges around the data made causality difficult to determine. It may be that improved climate policy outcomes reduce media polarization and partisan divisions by enabling citizens to be more confident in the institutions of media and politics. In such a causal configuration, assurances of environmental governance and improved collective well-being would exceed individual desires for unrestrained consumption and associated increases in CO₂ emissions. 

Alternatively, it may be the case that in those countries with increased media polarization and intractable political divisions, distrust in government and lack of confidence in media present additional threats to personal wellbeing that take priority over the greater global good and preclude climate policy commitments. Regardless of causal directionality, measurable declines of trust in those institutions that form the foundation of our social contract make any ambitious policy objective difficult.  

Why does trust matter? 

This research illuminates a certain paradox of the contemporary democratic condition. Our increased attention to individual rights over reciprocal responsibilities, combined with more media and information availability, do not result in better policy decision-making. Nor does the situation result in increased support for a scientific consensus on climate or, for that matter, any public policy issue. Instead, when declining confidence in government merges with distrust in media, the social contract itself is jeopardized, and the likelihood of policy stalemate is magnified.  

Rebuilding the building blocks 

As the battle lines on climate and other critical policies continue to harden, policymakers must first concentrate their attention on the building blocks of our social contract. “The Lancet” study’s authors suggest: “greater investment in risk communication and community engagement strategies,” but in my opinion, that strategy lacks the appropriate urgency.  

Only by rebuilding trust can we improve the conditions from which robust policy commitments can emerge. If the COVID-19 pandemic has taught us anything, it is that we cannot rely on that which might seem like rational, science-based policy recommendations without first increasing our citizens’ trust in media and government. The public must trust and understand the relationships between policy and improved quality of life. They must understand the value of the social contract. 

Viewed from this perspective, the frustrations we’ve experienced around policymaking during the pandemic will seem trivial compared to the complicated and daunting challenges ahead. Absent increased trust in our institutions, absent a revised social contract, the cacophony of discordant views and the continued proliferation of distrust will make necessary, effective and resilient climate policy a remote possibility with one-step-forward-two-steps-back partisan policy rollbacks increasingly likely. Significant investment in repairing and rebuilding our social contract — in creating trust — is really the only solution.  

Stephen P. Groff is the governor of Saudi Arabia’s National Development Fund (NDF). He has written extensively on climate and development-related issues. The views expressed in this commentary are his and do not reflect NDF policy. Twitter: @spgroff 

Source: TEST FEED1

Hotter nights could lead to a 60 percent rise in global mortality: study

As the United States continues to trudge through a sweltering summer and with a warm fall on the way, new research underscores the potentially deadly ramifications of rising heat at night.

Published in The Lancet Planetary Health, data from Japan, South Korea and China show hotter night-time temperatures could lead to a 60 percent spike in mortality rates around the world by the end of the century. 

Previous research on the deadly effects of rising heat has typically focused on excessive day-time temperatures, while “the risks of increasing temperature at night were frequently neglected,” explained study co-author Yuqiang Zhang of the University of North Carolina in a statement.

Night-time ambient heat can interrupt the normal physiology of sleep and subsequently lead to a host of complications including immune system damage, chronic illness, and systemic inflammation, authors said. In urban areas, these outcomes might be exacerbated due to the urban heat island effect.  

Furthermore, data show that by the 2100s, “total populations exposed to night-time heat are projected to increase four to eight times compared with the 2010s across the northern hemisphere.” 

America is changing faster than ever! Add Changing America to your Facebook or Twitter feed to stay on top of the news.

Researchers measured hot night excess (HNE) in the three regions between 1980 and 2015 and modeled projections for the years 2016 through 2100. Different climate change scenarios were employed and measurements were controlled for the effects of daily mean temperatures. 

A total of 28 cities with varying climates were included in the models along with daily death records from local health agencies. 

By 2090, the average intensity of hot nights in these cities will nearly double from around 69 degrees fahrenheit to 103.5 degrees fahrenheit. Severity of night-time heat worsened even under a scenario where the goals of the Paris Agreement were met. Under the models, regions with the lowest average temperatures had the largest potential for warming.

“The occurrences of HNE are projected to occur more rapidly than the daily mean temperature changes,” Zhang continued. “The frequency and mean intensity of hot nights would increase more than 30% and 60% by the 2100s, respectively, compared with less than 20% increase for the daily mean temperature.”

Co-author Haidong Kan of Fudan University in China added that governments and local policy makers should take the findings into account to better prepare for the impending consequences of climate change.

However, because the data were collected from three countries, researchers urged caution when generalizing findings to wider populations. They are currently working to develop a more broad, global dataset. 

In the meantime, “Locally, heat during the night should be taken into account when designing the future heatwave warning system, especially for vulnerable populations and low-income communities who may not be able to afford the additional expense of air conditioning,”  Zhang said. “Stronger mitigation strategies, including global collaborations, should be considered to reduce future impacts of warming.”

Source: TEST FEED1

US military members killed in Georgia ‘weather-related incident’

Two U.S. service members were killed on Tuesday in a “weather-related incident” in Georgia.

The U.S. Army’s Maneuver Center of Excellence said in a release that the incident occurred at Yonah Mountain near the city of Dahlonega in northern Georgia. Army medics treated injured personnel before transporting them to a nearby hospital, and three people remain in hospital care. 

The names of those killed are being withheld pending notification of their next of kin. 

A National Weather Service meteorologist told The New York Times that a severe thunderstorm warning was issued near Yonah Mountain around 3 p.m. on Tuesday. He said the storm produced strong winds that damaged trees. 

The Times reported that the Army occasionally conducts training at Yonah Mountain. 

Another deadly weather-related incident occurred in Georgia last month when a lightning strike killed a soldier and injured nine others in a training area at Fort Gordon, according to the Times.

Source: TEST FEED1