Tag Archives : Build House

New omicron subvariant BA.5 now a majority of US COVID-19 cases

A new omicron subvariant known as BA.5 now comprises a majority of U.S. COVID-19 cases, according to data released Tuesday from the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC).

The data is a sign of the rise of the highly transmissible subvariant, which has prompted concern about a new increase in cases.  

BA.5, along with a related subvariant known as BA.4, has mutations that have shown an increased ability to evade the protection from vaccines and previous infection.  

Vaccines still offer important protection, especially against severe disease and hospitalization, and experts say the rise of the new subvariants make it even more important that people get their booster shots if they have not already.  

BA.5 now makes up 53.6 percent of U.S. cases, according to the CDC, and BA.4 makes up another 16.5 percent, putting the two together at around 70 percent of infections.  

“Omicron subvariants BA.4 & BA.5 are even more mutated than the original Omicron, which means that our immune systems are having a harder time recognizing these new subvariants, regardless of whether we’ve previously been vaccinated or infected,” tweeted Celine Gounder, an infectious disease expert at New York University. “We are also seeing early hints that Omicron subvariants BA.4 & BA.5 may be more virulent (causing more severe disease) than the original Omicron.” 

The Food and Drug Administration last week advised vaccine makers to target the BA.4 and BA.5 subvariants in their updated vaccines that they are preparing for this fall.  

Gounder, though, stressed that people should not wait for the updated vaccines to be available to get a booster shot.  

“The updated vaccines won’t be available until October at the earliest,” she wrote. “That’s 4+ months away. That’s a big window of risk.” 

Only about half of adults who received the initial two shots have received their booster, according to the CDC, leaving them more vulnerable to the new subvariants. And people 50 and older are encouraged to get a second booster shot as well.  

While COVID-19 hospitalizations are still relatively low compared to other points in the pandemic, they are starting to climb, and have reached more than 30,000, according to a New York Times tracker.  

Source: TEST FEED1

Twitter sues Indian government in pushback against orders to remove content

Twitter filed a lawsuit against the Indian government on Tuesday, pushing back against orders to censor content on its platform.

The lawsuit, filed in the Karnataka High Court against the Union Government of India, listed Twitter Inc. as the petitioner.

The news, first reported by Reuters, cited a source familiar with the matter and added that the social media giant’s legal challenge alleges abuse of power by officials.

India’s Information and Technology Ministry had asked the social media platform to take down multiple accounts and tweets that were noncompliant with its new laws that allow the government to block access to content in the interest of national security.

The government had recently demanded the U.S.-based company take down tweets from Indian journalist Rana Ayyub, who is critical of Indian Prime Minister Narendra Modi and his government.

Twitter also sent a notice to Indian journalist Mohammed Zubair, who was recently arrested over his tweets, and said that the Indian government had sent a notice saying his account violates the laws of the country.

Opponents of Modi’s government have accused his administration of using India’s laws to clamp down on dissent and criticism.

U.S.-based pro-democracy organization Freedom House recently expressed concern that the Indian government ordered Twitter to restrict its tweets and said that Internet freedom in India weakened for a fourth straight year in 2021.

IT Minister Ashwini Vaishnaw said at a press conference Tuesday that it’s important to hold social media companies “accountable” and that they should “self-regulate harmful” content.

He added that, “Be it any company, in any sector, they should abide the laws of India. This is the responsibility of everyone to abide by the laws passed by the Parliament.”

In a response to a request for comment on its lawsuit against the Indian government, a Twitter spokesperson told The Hill that the company has “nothing to add on the matter.”

Last year, Twitter suspended more than 500 accounts on the orders of the Modi administration, but ultimately restored them after public outcry.

Source: TEST FEED1

Who caused the Russo-Ukrainian war, NATO or Russia?

Some bad arguments just don’t die, even though they richly deserve to. One such argument is the claim — most recently made by Pope Francis, University of Chicago’s John Mearsheimer, and Columbia University’s Jeffrey Sachs — that NATO brought about the Russo-Ukrainian war because it steadfastly refused to preclude Ukraine’s membership. In other words, some contend, the war isn’t about Russia and Ukraine; it’s about stupid Western policy that compelled the Russians to attack and invade their neighbor.

There are at least nine compelling reasons for discarding this argument onto what the Soviets used to call the “ash heap of history” — and the sooner, the better. Nothing less than the survival of the West is at stake. Consider these:

1.    Everybody knew that Ukraine’s chances of joining NATO in the next two or more decades were nil. That includes the Americans, Europeans, Ukrainians and Russians. And since NATO membership was a non-starter for Ukraine, the chances of America’s basing ships in Ukrainian harbors or missiles on Ukraine’s eastern border were also nil.

2.    It’s public knowledge that the militaries of almost all NATO countries are in terrible shape, having been underfunded and ignored since the collapse of NATO’s archenemy, the USSR, in 1991. The notion that such a NATO posed a threat to Russian security was absurd, especially since the Russians had spent billions of dollars to modernize their armed forces.

3.    All it takes is a visit to Europe to appreciate that it’s virtually unimaginable for Europeans to send their soldiers to defend any of the East European NATO members, were they to be attacked by Russia. A 2017 poll of Europeans, asking whether they would be willing to fight for their own country if attacked, substantiates this point: 18 percent of Germans said yes, as did 20 percent of Italians, 21 percent of Spaniards, and 29 percent of French.

4.    And then there’s the infamous Article 5, which supposedly ensures that an attack on any member state will be met with a military response by the others. Not at all. Article 5 explicitly states: “The Parties agree that an armed attack against one or more of them … shall be considered an attack against them all and consequently they agree that, if such an armed attack occurs, each of them … will assist the Party or Parties so attacked by taking forthwith … such action as it deems necessary, including the use of armed force.” In other words, how one responds to an attack is a matter for individual states and what they deem necessary. Poland might send troops, while the Germans might organize a peace march and the French might hold a conference.

5.    On closer inspection, the claim that NATO, the West, and the United States compelled Russia to seek war with Ukraine presupposes an image of the Russians that makes no sense. The claim assumes that Russian leaders, a notoriously tough bunch, are actually highly sensitive, almost hysterical folks who respond to broken promises (about NATO enlargement) and absent promises (about Ukraine’s possible NATO membership), not by calculating their costs and benefits according to their specific utility calculus, but by responding emotionally, almost in a childish huff. Does anyone really believe that the Russians, and especially Vladimir Putin, respond to real or imagined slights by starting wars and embarking on genocide, just to get even with the West?

6.    It was Putin’s war against Ukraine that impelled Finland and Sweden to seek NATO membership. By the same token, it was Ukrainian fear of a Russian assault that led it to seek NATO membership. As the ongoing war has demonstrated, Ukrainian fears were fully justified. These fears were the product, not of paranoia, but of long historical experience of Russian aggression and exploitation, starting in the mid-17th century and continuing almost unabated until today. NATO membership may or may not have provided Ukraine with the security it sought, but it was symptomatic of Ukraine’s belief that it faced an existential threat.

7.    In their arguments, Mearsheimer, Sachs and the Pope ignore the blatant reality of Russia’s historical and contemporary imperialism, of the nature of Putin Russia’s political system, and of the imperialist-authoritarian political culture of Russia. It’s as if Russia were simply a passive actor that responds but never initiates. In this manner, they deprive Russia of agency, reduce its leaders to irrational children, and thereby manage to shift all the blame for the war from an infantile Russia to the paternalistic West.

8.    Muscovy has practiced imperialism since at least the 14th century; Peter the Great’s invention, the Russian Empire, continued in Muscovy’s footsteps. Two contributing reasons for this longstanding imperialism are Russia’s historical practice of dictatorship and its possession of a political culture that values aggressive behavior at home and abroad. Tyrants use expansion and aggression against foreigners as a means of legitimating their rule. Putin is no different in this regard from Peter the Great and Ivan the Terrible. An imperialist political culture facilitates expansion and aggression by making it seem normal and desirable, part of Russia’s historical destiny.

9.    Ukraine does pose a threat to Russia — not because it theoretically could become a NATO member in 2050, but because its very existence as a democratic state that wants to be independent of Russia and its myths threatens Russian imperialism, Russian authoritarianism, and Russian political culture. Putin and his propagandists have said as much, and there is no reason not to believe them. Their genocidal actions during the ongoing war only underscore this point.

What does all of this mean for policy?

First, the simplistic view of the world propagated by some is dangerously wrong and should be set aside. Second, the Russians are not children but coolly calculating adults with a deep commitment to territorial expansion, political dictatorship and societal control. And third, if Russia succeeds in occupying Ukraine, it will continue to expand, because its imperialist program, fascist political system and imperialist political culture necessitate and facilitate expansion. As the director of the Hermitage Museum succinctly put it, “We are all militarists and empire builders.”

Or, if Ukraine falls, Europe is next.

Alexander J. Motyl is a professor of political science at Rutgers University-Newark. A specialist on Ukraine, Russia and the USSR, and on nationalism, revolutions, empires and theory, he is the author of 10 books of nonfiction, as well as “Imperial Ends: The Decay, Collapse, and Revival of Empires” and “Why Empires Reemerge: Imperial Collapse and Imperial Revival in Comparative Perspective.”

Source: TEST FEED1

More dogs in a neighborhood could lead to less crime: study

Neighborhoods with more dogs could have less crime because it puts more eyes on the street, according to a new study.  

“People walking their dogs are essentially patrolling their neighborhoods,” Pinchak said. “They see when things are not right, and when there are suspect outsiders in the area. It can be a crime deterrent,” said Nicolo Pinchak, lead author of the study and a doctoral student in sociology at The Ohio State University. 

Researchers found, especially in areas where people trust each other, neighborhoods with more dogs had lower rates of homicide, robbery and assault. They also found fewer property crimes. 

For the study, researchers evaluated 2014 to 2016 crime data for 595 census block groups in Columbus, Ohio. They then measured 2013 data from a marketing firm that asked residents if they were dog owners.  

The final step used data from the Adolescent Health and Development in Context study, where one question asked if residents agreed with the statement “people on the streets can be trusted” in their respective neighborhoods. 

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

The study suggests neighborhoods with high levels of trust had less crime, while high trust neighborhoods with higher numbers of dogs had lower levels of robbery, homicide and aggravated assaults. These neighborhoods had roughly two-thirds robbery rates and half the homicide rates, according to the study.  

“Trust doesn’t help neighborhoods as much if you don’t have people out there on the streets noticing what is going on. That’s what dog walking does,” Pinchak said.  And that’s why dogs have a crime-fighting advantage over cats and other pets that don’t need walking. 

“When people are out walking their dogs, they have conversations, they pet each other’s dogs.  Sometimes they know the dog’s name and not even the owners, Pinchak added. “They learn what’s going on and can spot potential problems.” 

READ MORE STORIES FROM CHANGING AMERICA 

HERE’S WHEN ADULTS GAIN THE MOST WEIGHT: STUDY 

HERE ARE THE BEST-RUN CITIES IN AMERICA: REPORT 

FIVE FACTS ABOUT ABORTION YOU SHOULD KNOW 

LAWSUIT CHALLENGES FLORIDA ‘STOP WOKE ACT’ 

MOST SAY COST OF LIVING IS HOLDING THEM BACK FROM AMERICAN DREAM 

Source: TEST FEED1

Mayor says weapon used in Fourth of July shooting was legally obtained

Highland Park Mayor Nancy Rotering said Tuesday that the gun used in the July 4th parade shooting, where killed six people and dozens were injured, was obtained legally.

Speaking to “Today” show host Hoda Kotb, Rotering said: “I don’t know where the gun came from, but I do know that it was legally obtained.”

She added that “at some point” the U.S. needs to have a conversation about mass shootings which she called “weekly events” that involve the murder of dozens of people with legally obtained guns.

“If that’s what our laws stand for then I think we need to reexamine the laws,” she added.

The shooting in the Chicago suburb on the national holiday has shaken the community, Rotering said. It follows other high-profile mass shootings across the country including at a supermarket in Buffalo, New York that killed 10 people and an elementary school in Uvalde, Texas that killed 19 students and two teachers.

“This tragedy never should have arrived on our doorsteps and as a small town, everybody knows somebody who was affected by this directly and of course we’re all still reeling,” she added.

The mayor slammed prevalent gun culture in the United States and added that “we as a country have to have a very strong conversation with ourselves.”

“I don’t know how many more of these events need to occur. We’ve been talking about this literally for decades at this point. And it’s one of those things where you ask yourself if this reflects the values of who we are, then what does that say about us as a nation?”

Her comments come as a doctor who was a first responder at the scene of the shooting said that the victims were “blown up” from the gunfire, causing “unspeakable” injuries. 

The shooting comes on the heels of a a bipartisan gun reform bill that was signed into law by President Biden and was crafted in the wake of the mass shootings in the country.

The law includes measures cracking down on illegal gun sales, enhancing background checks for buyers under 21 years old and closing the so-called boyfriend loophole but did not address any laws to curb access to assault weapons such as the ones often used in mass shootings.

Source: TEST FEED1

Green New Deal, RIP

Dearly beloved, we are gathered here today to pay our final respects to the Green New Deal. We had such high hopes for it: hope that it would save our economy; hope that it would save our planet; and, most of all, hope that it would save our party from the coming November red tsunami.

What killed the Green New Deal?

High gas prices. One of the necessary ingredients for the Green New Deal was high gasoline prices. We need those high prices to push millions of reluctant Americans to embrace electric vehicles.

Actually, we need high prices on all fossil fuels to make taxpayer-subsidized renewable energy look competitive.

When we surveyed the pubic over the years, many people (44 percent in a 2018 survey) said they would be willing to pay somewhat higher gasoline prices to fight climate change. So, we thought the recent jump in gasoline prices would be, if not welcomed, at least tolerated.

But we were dead wrong. It turns out that high gasoline prices hit low-income families the hardest — the very people we progressives claim we want to help. More importantly, those high prices have enraged most voters.

Now it appears that an angry public is likely to take its revenge out on us at the polls this November.

The Supreme Court. The Supreme Court of the United States (SCOTUS) has now done as much as high gasoline prices to undermine our Green New Deal agenda, maybe more.

One of the great ironies (some would say hypocrisies) of our time is that even as we complained about the looming threat to our democracy, we relied on unelected bureaucrats and federal judges, and especially Supreme Court justices, to implement and sustain our environmental agenda.

We knew it would be difficult getting the Green New Deal through Congress, even with Democratic majorities in the House and Senate. Especially since we included so many items that aren’t actually related to the environment, like higher wages and social justice and equity demands.

But we thought that we could still depend on federal agencies and the Supreme Court to impose what couldn’t pass Congress.

For years it seemed the Supreme Court was willing to interpret the law favorably for us. That era appears to be over. The six-justice majority in the West Virginia v. EPA decision made that clear.

In the court’s opinion, Chief Justice John Roberts wrote, “Capping carbon dioxide emissions at a level that will force a nationwide transition away from the use of coal to generate electricity may be a sensible ‘solution to the crisis of the day.’ But it is not plausible that Congress gave EPA [Environmental Protection Agency] the authority to adopt on its own such a regulatory scheme ….”

And in his concurring opinion, Justice Neil Gorsuch wrote, “Again, in observing this much, the Court does not purport to pass on the wisdom of the agency’s course. It acknowledges only that agency officials have sought to resolve a major policy question without clear legislative authorization to do so.”

The point, Dearly Beloved, is that if we want sweeping environmental reforms, we will have to turn to our democratically elected representatives in Congress or the state legislatures to pass them.

The November election. The SCOTUS requirement that major policy changes must pass Congress leads us to the third reason why we are paying our final respects to the Green New Deal.

There is very little chance of resurrecting the Green New Deal before the November election, and, if current polls are anywhere near accurate, even less of a chance afterwards.

That means if we’re to make progress on our environmental agenda, we will have to sit down with the other side and see where we can find common ground.

That’s a tall order. But if we really think the environment is important, maybe we should try to do it the way the framers of the Constitution envisioned and rely on the legislative branch rather than the judicial branch to make our laws.

Merrill Matthews is a resident scholar with the Institute for Policy Innovation in Dallas, Texas. Follow him on Twitter @MerrillMatthews.

Source: TEST FEED1

Kinzinger shares compilation of vulgar and threatening calls

Rep. Adam Kinzinger (R-Ill.) shared a compilation of around a dozen vulgar and threatening calls to his congressional office to highlight an increase in threats of violence in politics.

“Threats of violence over politics has increased heavily in the last few years. But the darkness has reached new lows,” Kinzinger said in a tweet accompanying the video on Tuesday. “My new interns made this compilation of recent calls they’ve received while serving in my DC office.”

“I hope you naturally die as quickly as f—— possible,” one caller said.

“Going to come protest in front of your house this weekend. We know who your family is and we’re going to get you,” another caller said. “Gonna get your wife, gonna get your kids.”

Some of the calls in the compilation did not include a direct threat, but demonstrated the kind of vulgar and angry calls that his office gets.

“You’re the biggest piece of shit politician in the world. Why don’t you just leave and go away and shut your f—— mouth, you piece of shit,” one caller said.

The video noted that calls and voicemails to Kinzinger’s congressional office are received by high school and college-level interns “attempting to learn about the legislative process.”

“The threats are unhinged and all too common,” Kinzinger said in another tweet from his personal account.

The Capitol Police said that its Threat Assessment Team has opened roughly 1,820 cases, including direct threats and directions of interest, from Jan. 1, 2022 to Mar. 23, 2022.  

The number of threat assessment cases that the Capitol Police have opened has increased in recent years: In 2021, there were 9,625 cases, compared to 8,613 in 2020, 6,955 in 2019, 5,206 in 2018 and 3,939 in 2017.

Kinzinger, along with Rep. Liz Cheney (R-Wyo.), is one of two House Republicans who sit on the Jan. 6 Select Committee. His participation in the panel, which House Republican leadership has boycotted, is the subject of intense criticism from other Republicans. Earlier this year, the Republican National Committee formally censured Kinzinger and Cheney for sitting on the Jan. 6 panel.

Tuesday is not the first time that Kinzinger, who is not seeking reelection, has publicly shared threats against his family. 

Last month, Kinzinger posted a photo of a letter sent to his home addressed to his wife that warned Kinzinger would be “executed.”

“Until we get a grip on telling people the truth, we can’t expect any differently,” Kinzinger said on ABC’s “This Week” at the time.

This story was updated at 12:09 p.m.

Source: TEST FEED1

Why ‘blameflation’ is not the answer to runaway pricing

The year-to-year inflation rate in the U.S. reached 8.6 percent in May, the highest since 1981. Politicians have been slow to act to combat inflation, but they are quick to assign blame on companies, calling it “greedflation.”

The message here is clear: Companies — mostly monopolies — are price-gouging consumers, and that is why we have the 41-year high inflation rate. As evocative as the term is, “greedflation” is nothing but “blameflation,” which happens periodically when the U.S. economy, politicians, or both are in trouble.

Blameflation does nothing but distract the country from the real issues — and real solutions.

Blaming companies is appealing precisely because it is believable, as both food and oil companies are making enormous profits today, while average American consumers are struggling to pay their food bills and fill up their gas tanks. Not to mention the blame is politically charged and often enraging, as it puts the spotlight on the monopolies of Big Oil and Big Food.

If there is blame to assign, it should be toward the environment in which American companies are forced to operate. You can point your finger at many contributing factors: the pandemic; labor shortage and supply chain issues; the Russian invasion of Ukraine and other geopolitical issues; high oil prices; $1.9 trillion stimulus spending; tighter regulations on fossil fuels, etc. There is only so much pounding even a good economy like the one in the U.S. can take — and right now it is certainly taking a lot. When you combine the combustible mixture of high demand, low supply, and run-away energy costs, you have a perfect formula for high potency inflation.

In this environment, companies are doing exactly what they are supposed to do: raise prices when they can to make more money and invest in more production when profitable. During inflation, companies are motivated to raise their prices as consumers are more receptive to price increases due to cost increases. Competing firms are all eager to pass on their cost increases, and supplies are tight. What executive in their right mind would find a reason not to seize the opportunity and increase their prices?

If the government forces companies to maintain pre-inflation prices, or even shames them into doing so, the likely outcome is that we will not see more production any time soon. In fact, the situation might actually get worse, leading to more empty shelves and long lines at gas pumps. Then, consumer hoarding will follow, and even higher inflation may ensue. No good economic policy can come out of this politically expedient of blameflation.

The issue of monopolies articulated in this atmosphere of blameflation is a red herring, given that there is no evidence of companies colluding to raise prices. The fact of the matter is that companies do not need to conspire to raise their prices together in an inflationary environment. More importantly, those monopolies were there before the pandemic, and some of those same monopolies lost a lot of money in 2020. ExxonMobil, for instance, the company that makes “more money than God,” as President Biden put it, lost $22.4 billion in 2020.

If the government wants to take money away from companies when they make good money, is it willing to subsidize them when they lose money? If so, we will not have a free economy. If not, we still do not have a functioning free economy.

The truth is that the U.S. economy is in a bind now as far as fighting inflation goes.

The U.S. cannot do much about the Russian invasion of Ukraine or COVID lockdowns in China. For the things it can influence, a belated increase of the interest rate by the Fed could successfully fight inflation, but if done too aggressively, it could lead to a bad recession, which is politically unpalatable during a mid-term election year.

Reducing government spending is an old wisdom for fighting inflation, but campaign promises will have to trump any conventional wisdom.

Bringing down fossil fuel costs can help to ease inflation right away, but high prices for fossil fuels will surely help the transition to clean energy, albeit in a painful way. Given that the country is rushed by deliberate policies to phase out fossil fuels, can you blame Big Oil for cashing out in a hurry in a policy-driven sunset industry, instead of investing for more production?

Even though the last period of high inflation was four decades ago, the prescription for an effective solution remains the same: decrease aggregate demand and increase supply to kill inflation expectations. To achieve both, there has to be a strong and united political will on government spending, and on lowering energy costs.

Indeed, it is important to realize that high energy costs are not just an issue of inflation. It is an issue of the competitiveness of U.S. companies on the global stage. Many Asian investors come to the U.S. because of low energy costs, and many U.S. manufacturers can still compete against those from Asia because of low energy costs. When U.S. companies lose even more of their competitive edge due to high energy costs, there will be some real blame to go around.

Z. John Zhang is a Professor of Marketing at the Wharton School of the University of Pennsylvania.

Source: TEST FEED1

Largest nursing union urges Congress to codify abortion rights, end filibuster

In the wake of the Supreme Court’s decision to overturn the constitutional right to an abortion,  the nation’s largest union is calling on Congress to pass the Women’s Health Protection Act (WHPA). 

The National Nurses United (NNU) urged the Senate in a letter Tuesday to pass the bill and “take a stand for reproductive health justice.” The WHPA would codify the federal right to access abortion and other protections established by Roe v. Wade, the 1973 landmark decision that the Supreme Court reversed in June. 

NNU also called for a suspension of the “archaic and anti-democratic” Senate filibuster rule to ensure the legislation could be voted on without delay. 

The bill is sponsored by Democratic Sen. Richard Blumenthal of Connecticut. 

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

Ninety percent of nurses in the United States are female and in their letter, the organization stressed the importance of recognizing abortion as an essential part of health care. 

“A patient’s right to control their own body is at the very basis of a free and just society,” the letter reads. “Lives hang in the balance.”

The Supreme Court established in Roe v. Wade that Americans have a constitutional right to access abortion. In its ruling on June 24 in Dobbs v. Jackson Women’s Health Organization, the Supreme Court rescinded abortion protection under federal law, meaning individual states are now free to curtail access to the service – reversing almost 50 years of precedent. 

“As nurses, we have a duty to advocate for our patients and their right to make their own health care decisions,” the letter reads. “The basic tenets of ethical health care dictate that patients should enjoy autonomy, self-determination, and dignity over their bodies, their lives, and the health care they receive.”

WHPA was first introduced in 2021, and its text protects the right to choose whether to end or continue a pregnancy. It also calls for protection for any health care professionals who may provide abortion services. 

Abortion is a safe procedure when carried out in a regulated environment. However, when access to abortion services is restricted, risks associated with the procedure increase, as women may self-inflict bodily or abdominal trauma to end the pregnancy or ingest dangerous chemicals. Currently, a woman in the United States is 14 times more likely to die from childbirth complications than to die from an abortion. 

The overturn of Roe v. Wade will have the greatest implications for poor women and women of color. 

“Access to quality reproductive health care allows people to make decisions for themselves whether and when to have children, a choice that is essential for full participation in our society,” the NNU letter states, noting reproductive health services are fundamental to ensuring economic justice for women. 

Source: TEST FEED1

Sharpton presses for visit with Brittney Griner in Russia

The Rev. Al Sharpton is calling on the Biden administration to arrange a meeting for him and other religious leaders with imprisoned WNBA player Brittney Griner. 

Sharpton said in a press release on Tuesday that he is deeply worried about Griner’s physical, mental and spiritual wellbeing after speaking with her wife last week. 

Griner, a center for the Phoenix Mercury and U.S. Olympic gold medalist who plays for a Russian professional team during the WNBA offseason, has been imprisoned in Russia for more than four months since she was arrested on drug charges. Her trial began on Friday. 

She could face up to 10 years in prison if convicted, and fewer than 1 percent of defendants in Russian criminal cases are acquitted. Acquittals can also be overturned in the country, unlike in the United States. 

“She deserves to see the United States is doing something for her, so she can find the strength as this show trial goes on,” Sharpton said. “Brittney’s family also deserves to hear from someone who has met with and spoken to her.” 

Griner was arrested shortly before the start of Russia’s invasion of Ukraine in February. Kremlin spokesperson Dmitry Peskov denied the charges are politically motivated on Friday. 

Sharpton spoke with Griner’s wife, Cherelle, last week on his radio show, where she asked for the public to help her push for the WNBA star to be returned home. She said federal officials have told her that securing Griner’s release is at the “highest chain of command,” but she has not received details of where negotiations stand. 

Griner sent a handwritten letter to President Biden that was delivered on Monday, urging him not to forget about her and other Americans being held abroad. She said she is “terrified I might be here forever.” 

Sharpton said he wants Biden and Secretary of State Antony Blinken to set up the meeting to allow him and other religious leaders to pray over Brittney. 

“Four months is too long for this to have gone on, and I hope the President acts on her pleas to come home,” he said.

Source: TEST FEED1