When Osaka announced earlier this month that it would extend the RFP submission period for new applicants until 6 April, it did so under the pretence of ensuring fairness in the process.
The Osaka IR Promotion Council doubled down on that reasoning this week, telling IAG Japan, “Regarding the additional open call for participants, we originally started the application before the [revised] Basic Policy of the central government came out. We started the additional application based on the law and to maintain fairness to entities who see the Basic Policy of [the] central government and the revised implementation policy (draft) and may consider applying.”
But the question remains: fairness to who?
Certainly not to MGM Resorts and its local partner ORIX – currently the only consortium to have expressed an intention to bid (and to have fulfilled all requirements under Osaka’s original RFP timeline). MGM understandably declined a request for comment for this story.
MGM Resorts, along with its local partner ORIX, was last man standing after its original competitors in Osaka – including Las Vegas Sands, Galaxy Entertainment Group, Wynn Resorts, Melco Resorts & Entertainment, Genting Singapore and Caesars Entertainment – all withdrew almost immediately after Yokohama confirmed its IR candidacy in mid-2019.
Having since consistently reaffirmed its commitment to Osaka, MGM’s President and CEO Bill Hornbuckle stated as recently as February that the company had its RFP documents ready for submission as soon as the final call went out.
Given the impact of COVID-19, delays were to be expected but it’s possible MGM was at least somewhat taken aback by Osaka’s decision to court more suitors.
In outlining its “fairness” case, Osaka has pointed to changes it recently made to its own IR Implementation Policy, particularly the timeline for completion of MICE facilities. Although the operator will still be required to provide 100,000 square meters of MICE space, it can now be rolled out in stages with 20,000 square meters at IR opening, expanded to 60,000 within 15 years and eventually the full 100,000.
However, there are other working theories at play too. One is that Osaka’s decision to open the door to new applicants revolves around plausible deniability over suggestions that MGM is in fact a done deal. A more cynical theory suggests Osaka wanting to create a competitive dialogue to address concerns that both MGM and ORIX were in fact having second thoughts. Or possibly readying themselves for a tough negotiation with Osaka. There has been plenty of “goalpost moving” over the years in the Japan IR process – who’s to say a candidate operator couldn’t seek to engage in a little goalpost-moving of their own?
In any event, some will say it is not a good look for Japan’s second most populous city to close RFP submissions for a second time and still have just one applicant on board.
An innocent reading of the circumstances would say that Osaka must have extended its RFP submission period because it had good reason to expect renewed operator interest. Yet in reality, who could there possibly be?
Given the short time frame Osaka has offered, and the fact that national government will start accepting applications from candidate locations and their chosen partners from October this year, there is simply not enough time for any brand new operators to join the fray.
Osaka, given its size and multi-billion USD IR investment expectations, is also reaching for the world’s biggest integrated resort operators. That leaves only a handful of companies which might reasonably consider a return. Realistically, given that Las Vegas Sands and Wynn Resorts have essentially withdrawn from the market, for now at least, it leaves only Genting Sinagpore, Galaxy and Melco.
Sources have told IAG that Genting Singapore is now very strongly positioned in Yokohama and is therefore unlikely to want the distraction of another location. Melco, too, has made no secret of its “Yokohama First” policy and will be encouraged that neither LVS nor Wynn remain as competitors in that market.
Galaxy has remained largely quiet on the matter but IAG understands it is one a handful of companies keeping a close eye on Aichi, which has yet to rule itself either in or out of Japan’s first round of IR bidding.
All of which means there will likely be no winners to emerge from Osaka’s decision to open submissions to new applicants, including the city and prefecture itself.
Human rights discourse does not provide the only or even the principal avenue of attempted political emancipation today. It has lost salience for many on the left, as new political discourses have emerged that do not necessarily rely on rights or even seek to incorporate them. Emancipatory political struggles today are as likely to sound in the registers of inequality, climate change, or corruption as in human rights.
Human rights advocates have responded to this shift in discourse in two ways. Some insist on the necessity, even centrality, of human rights as a means of responding to a broader range of issues that they readily acknowledge pose some of our greatest social justice challenges today. Thus, they call for an expansion of the human rights movement’s purview and tools – to make economic inequality a human rights issue, for instance, by using tax law and policy to achieve a better distribution of wealth and income.
Other advocates recognize the differences between human rights and other movements. But, rather than try to make human rights cover all social justice issues, they call for a “more in-depth form of collaboration that responds to the need to bring diverse knowledge and activism together in a way that is, to some extent, extraordinary,” as Martin Abregú, vice president of the Ford Foundation, stated in his explanation of the restructuring of the foundation that led to the elimination of its human rights division in 2017.
Whether by calling for expansion or collaboration, both of these responses tend to downplay the possibility that human rights law, discourse, or movements might reach different conclusions from – and even impede – other, more explicitly left-leaning, projects. Most obviously, many emancipatory projects invoke anti-capitalist analyses and anti-state responses. While those engaged in these projects might sometimes deploy human rights discourse, they do not generally depend on it for the more radical demands that they make.
Confronting the potential incommensurability of human rights and other struggles provides a needed opportunity to consider anew the political aims that human rights advocates hope to achieve.
Think of calls for prison and police abolition. Human rights advocates and prison and police abolitionists can agree on many matters, and often see each other as allies. They all oppose the death penalty, mass incarceration, and police abuse. Yet they view the causes and responses to these issues quite differently. While abolitionists refuse the ideologies and practices of the carceral state, human rights advocates generally depend upon it to back up their anti-impunity rallying cry. And while all can agree on the need to abolish the death penalty, human rights advocates sometimes use their repudiation of the death penalty to aid in the legitimation of criminal institutions they support that exclude it, such as the International Criminal Court.
The challenge, then, for the human rights movement (or movements) is to take seriously potential conflicts with some of these other emancipatory struggles, which often have embedded in them significant critiques of human rights that expansion or collaboration cannot mediate. Those involved in the struggles might not articulate (or even see) these critiques, precisely because the struggles are articulated in a different register. That they are in a different register is an important reminder that the world of activism does not revolve around, or even necessarily exist in relation to, human rights.
As human rights advocates and scholars, we need to let go of our preservationist instincts towards human rights in order to recognize and take these conflicts seriously. We need to relinquish our wariness that critique might, as Wendy Brown puts it, “kill off a progressive political project.” As I have written elsewhere, even critical human rights scholars and advocates betray a fear that our own critiques – particularly if said too loudly or to the wrong audience – might destroy, or at least be perceived as destroying, the human rights project. In response, many temper their critiques or draw a line between advocacy and critique, out of concern that the latter might be damaging at worst, and unhelpful at best, to the former.
If emancipatory struggles are operating on new planes, we need to be willing to recognize and perhaps even move to those planes.
Confronting the potential incommensurability of human rights and other struggles provides a needed opportunity to consider anew the political aims that human rights advocates hope to achieve. Doing so will undoubtedly illuminate tensions among us. Some might double-down on the liberal roots of human rights and reject other emancipatory struggles as too anti-capitalist or communalist, or even as simply unattainable. But those of us who see ourselves on the left should listen carefully to the language and claims of those other struggles, including of those that we might have assimilated as human rights movements, in part by creating institutional space for their grievances. While some of those other movements might vernacularize human rights, perhaps even bringing with them a more radical conception of rights, we need to accept that human rights might not be central to their political projects. Indeed, they might be antithetical to them. That recognition should push us beyond an acceptance that human rights are often “part of the problem”; it should make us attentive to what we miss when we only listen for the human rights discourse in the articulation of substantive demands with which we agree.
If emancipatory struggles are operating on new planes, we need to be willing to recognize and perhaps even move to those planes. At the same time, the critics among us should not make those struggles immune from critique. As Gayatri Chakravorty Spivak insists, even in moments of liberation, the “productive unease of a persistent critique” should not be left behind.
This article is part of a series developed in partnership with the Miller Institute for Global Challenges and the Law at the University of California, Berkeley, School of Law. The series draws on contributions from scholars and practitioners who participated in the Institute's November 2020 Conference entitled “Human Rights at a Crossroads? A Time for Critical Reflection on the Human Rights Project."
"discourse" - Google News
March 31, 2021 at 10:10PM
https://ift.tt/2PESBtv
Human rights or a different register: Taking seriously other emancipatory discourses - OpenGlobalRights
"discourse" - Google News
https://ift.tt/2KZL2bm
https://ift.tt/2z7DUH4
The so-called pandemic treaty to bring greater international cooperation for public health emergencies has been endorsed by more than 20 world leaders -- but not by the US, China, India and Russia -- in an editorial published in several media outlets and on the World Health Organization (WHO) website on Tuesday. The world leaders wrote that they are "committed to ensuring universal and equitable access to safe, efficacious and affordable vaccines, medicines and diagnostics for this and future pandemics."
"We believe that nations should work together towards a new international treaty for pandemic preparedness and response," they added.
Though China and the US did not participate in the editorial, WHO Director General Tedros Adhanom Ghebreyesus noted that both countries had a positive reaction to the treaty.
That nations should work together for the good of public health should go without saying. But the exact opposite attitude seems have played itself out in a pandemic that has already killed more than 2.8 million people, infected almost 128 million and caused unprecedented economic dislocation around the world. While it is difficult to say if the treaty will even be worth the paper it is signed on, there should be little dispute on the need to urgently get countries back to working in unison. It is widely acknowledged that the establishment in a majority of countries of herd immunity is required to prevent the disease from spreading, and if wealthy countries continue to practice vaccine nationalism with a 'me first' attitude, Covid-19 will likely remain a terrible scourge for some time to come.
In the EU, an every-man-for-himself mentality has taken hold that makes it doubtful that the 27-nation bloc will ever emerge from this crisis as a stronger steward of its 450 million inhabitants.
Wealthy nations, such as my own, Canada, that boast of "protecting those in need" have had to be reminded that it's a bad idea to stockpile lifesaving vaccines while poorer nations go without. (According to the People's Vaccine Alliance, Canada has ordered enough vaccines to inoculate every citizen five times over, but it has promised to donate excess vaccines.)
If the Covid-19 pandemic response were an exam, many world leaders would have to cheat on their finals to obtain a passing grade. Hence the pandemic treaty initiative appears as something of a diplomatic off-ramp for world leaders to absolve themselves of responsibility for poor handling of the Covid-19 pandemic.
It was a near miracle that several major powers, including France, the United Kingdom, and Germany, even managed to come together to sign a single piece of paper, while back in the corridors of power they are engaged in childlike tit-for-tat diplomacy -- for example, the UK and EU's ongoing battle over AstraZeneca vaccine contracts or EU members breaking with Brussels to obtain vaccines outside of the bloc's strategy.
Despite the assurances from Tedros that support for the treaty is building from major superpowers, White House Press Secretary Jen Psaki said the US had "some concerns" about the timing of negotiations for a new treaty.
Also absent from the initial group of treaty supporters is Canada. (The office of Prime Minister Justin Trudeau did not immediately respond to my request for comment.)
While using scarce resources to push for a treaty strikes me as odd in light of the lack of cooperation during the past year, the substance of the proposed treaty raises some crucial issues for improved future pandemic response. It advocates for a "One Health" approach to include humans, animals and the planet. This suggests that attention and resources would be earmarked for issues such as climate change, deforestation, poaching and displacement of people. Because virus hotspots are closely tied to environmental change, which is happening at a faster rate than ever, climate needs to be a crucial component of any review of global pandemic response.
As part of pandemic prevention, more resources also need to be allocated for such measures as virus testing laboratories in poorer regions, stockpiling of personal protection equipment, and surveillance.
As for the WHO, it has been widely criticized for its early handling of the pandemic for going easy on China during the first phase and being slow to declare a "public health emergency of international concern." The Geneva-based organization needs to work hard to regain the moral authority to cajole member states into action. That can begin with implementing major reforms demanded by wealthy member states, such as empowering it to have speedier access to areas of disease outbreaks, which will better position it to face pandemics ahead on.
"I'm heartened," Dr. Nahid Bhadelia, the medical director of the special pathogens unit at Boston Medical Center, told me. Calling the proposed treaty ambitious, she said that the current International Health Regulations (IHR), which govern what the WHO can or cannot do, are "not enough to handle the kind of challenges we need moving forward. It is a soft law meaning not much can be done if a member state refuses to build capacity or cooperate in sharing information or samples after an event has occurred."
The proposed treaty, she said, expands well beyond IHR and may create more incentives for cooperation.
Bhadelia also noted that an improved global health infrastructure for research is also needed (for example to test drug efficacy), as well as equity and access for vaccines and diagnostics.
No matter how succinct and powerful the language, the effectiveness of international treaties is only as good as the political will of the signatory countries.
If the Covid-19 pandemic has taught us anything it is that we are an extremely interconnected and interdependent global community. We have learned that viruses do not respect borders and feast mercilessly on disunity and lack of coordination.
For the preservation of humanity itself, current and future governments need to set aside their differences, swallow their pride, and come together to prevent another pandemic of this scale. We can only hope that this proposal takes us closer to that goal.
Texas prides itself as the world’s ninth largest economy with close to 50 Fortune 500 companies. It is the home to multiple internationally-renowned universities, three major airline hubs and cutting-edge endeavors, ranging from Tesla’s Gigafactory in Austin to NASA’s Johnson Space Center in Houston to the SpaceX spaceport outside of Brownsville.
And yet, this wealthy, modern state was brought to its knees on Valentine’s Day. Between Feb. 14 and Feb. 20, Texans experienced an unprecedented failure of their electrical grid and ancillary infrastructure amid statewide freezing temperatures. Unfortunately, however, between the refusal of the Electrical Reliability Council of Texas (ERCOT) to release documents related to the debacle and the limited incentives for utility companies to be forthcoming, lawmakers, the media and the general public have been left in the dark in terms of understanding the full scope of the adverse effects of the Winter Storm of 2021.
A recent survey by the Hobby School of Public Affairs at the University of Houston brings to light the direct negative impact the winter storm and ensuing power outage had on the lives of more than 26 million Texans and gauges support for potential policy changes.
From the Editorial Board
According to the survey, between Feb. 14 and Feb. 20, the most visible manifestation of the storm’s negative impact was the loss of electrical power. More than two out of three Texans (69 percent) lost power at some point, with the average person going without power during this time frame for a total of 42 hours. The situation was even more dire for Harris County residents, with 91 percent losing power for an average of 49 hours.
Although much attention has been paid to the storm’s impact on electricity, water challenges were also prevalent. One-half of Texans report they were without running water at some point during this same period, with the average water outage lasting 52 hours. And in Harris County, almost two-thirds were without running water for an average of 56 hours.
Texans also suffered a wide range of other disruptions, ranging from the merely annoying to life threatening. Three out of four Texans experienced difficulty obtaining food or groceries, more than two-thirds lost internet service, slightly less than half had food spoil, a third suffered water damage to their home, and almost a fifth had a member of their immediate family member suffer an injury or illness as a direct result of the storm. And, among those who suffered damage to their home, less than a fifth believe it is very likely that insurance will cover the full amount of the damages.
And, while there were some media reports of Texans leaving to ride out the storm in more comfortable surroundings, our survey indicates fewer than one in 200 Texans left the state. Most remained at home without power, where one-quarter used a gas cooktop or oven to heat their home while more than 1 in 10 used an outdoor grill, smoker or propane heater indoors to keep warm, actions that in several Texas homes resulted in carbon monoxide poisoning fatalities.
What do Texans want to see their elected officials in Austin do to make sure a similar preventable disaster does not occur in the future? The most popular policy proposals are those that would require electrical generation companies (78 percent support) and natural gas pipeline companies (78 percent) to fully weatherize their infrastructure and for electrical generation companies to also maintain a minimum reserve capacity (78 percent) in order to be able to adequately respond to plants unexpectedly going offline. More than three out of four Texans support all three proposals, including four-fifths of Democrats and three-fourths of Republicans. However, fewer than one out of four support allowing companies to charge consumers an additional fee to cover the cost of increasing reserve capacity, such as was recently proposed to the Texas Legislature by Warren Buffett’s Berkshire Hathaway.
Other proposals enjoy the support of more than three in five Texans. These include requiring the Public Utility Commission to engage in more rigorous oversight of power generation companies (77 percent), increasing the daily utility penalty cap from $25,000 to $100,000 (71 percent), upgrading building codes to make new construction more climate resistant (68 percent), adopting a solar bill of rights (64 percent), and providing state subsidies for the weatherization of low income households (61 percent).
More than two-thirds of Texans believe that due to climate change Texas is today more likely to be adversely affected by severe weather than was the case 30 years ago. With the lurking threat of another harsh winter storm, it is imperative that our elected officials in Austin do everything within their power during the current legislative session to ensure the great state of Texas is not again left freezing in the dark.
Watson is founding dean of the Hobby School of Public Affairs at the University of Houston; Cross is senior director of the Hobby School; and Jones is a fellow at Rice University’s Baker Institute and a Hobby School senior research associate
A year in, you’d think that I would have heard every “what thepandemicruined for me” story, because as you know we’ve reported on a lot of them, as told by people from all walks of life. But I have to say that “The pandemic ruined the international tour myEthiopian folk ensemblehad booked in the hopes of coming to the U.S. to jam with aChicago jazz band, with the support of aMacArthur grant” is absolutely a new one, at least from a Santa Cruz native likeKaetheHostetter.
But indeed, that’s exactly what happened to Hostetter, a violinist who had spent the last decade living in Ethiopia after falling in love with the nation’s traditional music. Her groupQWANQWAhad earned quite a bit of renown and was ready to perform for the first time in the U.S.
I won’t spoil any more ofAaron Carnes’ cover story, but I will say that while—like pretty much all stories of what the pandemic has ruined for people—Hostetter’s is terrible, I’m glad we could write about her music while she’s here. I hope it will encourage readers to check out what she and QWANQWA are doing when they finally do get their big moment.
This is indeed sad news. I met John as a young child, circa 1970. My mother, Ida Murray, worked with John for the county. As a widow, re-entering the work force, my mom often told me that John was one of the few that treated her with equal respect. I recall many rowdy and “fiercely political” dinner parties as a child with the Tuck clan either at our house or John’s. I also recall the Fourth of July parties that Bruce mentions. As a young boy, the concept of a pig cooking in the ground was really hard to understand. Being the same age as Bruce’s daughter Jennifer and John’s son Kyle we had some great times as kids at those parties. When my mother passed away 10 years ago, my brother and I quickly came to the conclusion that John should be the emcee at her memorial, a task he did with great finesse, style and humor. People sometime use the term “the biggest personality in the room”—that would certainly describe John, and I will certainly miss him.
It’s Inauguration Day 2021 — two weeks after the Jan. 6 siege on the United States Capitol Building — and Rider University professor Mark Pearcy sits down and writes the following: “Dissent is foundational to a democratic society, and civic institutions like government, community, and schools are where citizens try to resolve the questions that provoke such dissent.”
Mark Pearcy
The editor for the online publication Teaching Social Studies, Pearcy continues his introduction to the publication’s Winter-Spring 2021 issue by saying that even after “a mob of insurrectionists — and there is no really no better word to describe them — tore through the U.S. Capitol building in an effort to stop democracy from functioning” that “dissent is essential for democracy to flourish” and “can’t be allowed to fester into repression; and we can’t allow demagoguery to blind us to the values we share.
“Similarly, as Americans, we should believe, unashamedly, in these democratic values, and keep faith in our democratic processes — and oppose any attempt to subvert them.”
Pearcy’s world is education: He is a former Florida high school teacher and now a professor in Rider’s Department of Teacher Education. So it is not surprising when he writes that “students need to know that such resolutions are difficult, and often unsatisfying, but are essential to the proper (and continuing) success of a republic. The premise of fascism — a submission to authoritarianism, the suppression of minority views, the silencing of dissent — is antithetical to both democracy and to the social studies classroom.”
During a recent telephone conversation Pearcy says public education can help citizens understand the workings of a democratic society and protect it from eruptions — such as the events on Jan. 6.
“The question we have all been asking over the past few months is ‘How can we teach about what is happening in, and to, our country?’ It is the prevailing issue of our profession. The social studies community needs to continue to support each other in finding the best ways to defend our democracy and to help students see its value.”
After all, he adds, a social studies education is a type of civic literacy that gives individuals the ability “to take part of trying to improve the communities you live though the civic process.”
However, problems develop when citizens lack the understanding of how the government functions, the United States Constitution, and the interpretation of rights and misconceptions and extreme ideas are exacerbated by what he calls a “troubling polarization.”
“The problem is that the Democratic Party has moved to the left, and the Republican Party has moved further toward the right and lost its mooring as a conservative body” he says, adding that tensions escalate with people in both parties labeling each other enemies.
Pearcy says the current political situation is also connected to party members existing more and more in “a closed echo chamber that is really dangerous.”
He points out that in the past both political parties could agree that a particular social situation was a problem — for example, poverty — and then offered differing policies on how to address it.
Today, he says, one political party may refute the existence of a problem completely, ignoring a social problem and creating divisions and tensions.
Pearcy says over the last five or six years, the social studies community has been asking itself, “How should we have done more (to foster dialogue and debate)? That questioning has grown since the election of 2020 and the rising up at the Capitol in January.”
However, he adds, it is difficult stuff for teachers “because parents call and complain,” and “what the political right wants from civic education is different from what people on the left want.”
He says another factor affecting New Jersey instruction is that the state has more than 580 school districts of vastly different populations and resources, so there is no mandated approach to the teaching social studies and civics.
Money — or lack thereof — is also a factor. As Pearcy notes, a study by Danielle Allen, a former Institute for Advanced Study professor and now director of the Safra Center for Ethics at Harvard University, reports taxpayers pay $54 per student for science, technology, engineering, and math (STEM) studies, yet pay only 5 cents for civics education.
“As teachers we need to be committed to American core values,” he says. “These are values worth defending and to celebrate.”
* * *
Supporting Pearcy’s vision is Nicholas Zolkiwsky, a Rider student whose 2021 Teaching Social Studies article “How Do We Teach Politics in a Society Where Political Affiliations Have Become Toxic?” illustrates the problems related to civics education and politics.
Nicholas Zolkiwsky
Zolkiwsky says when he was a fourth-grade student in 2008 his “teachers did not tell us where Senators McCain or Obama sided on certain issues or even a basic background of the parties they were affiliated with. Instead, we were all taught to like Obama because he was younger and was the more ‘favorable’ candidate among teachers at my elementary school.”
He says the same approach was taken in 2012 but changed in the 2016 presidential election when his teachers talked about where Donald Trump and Hillary Clinton stood on issues.
“While for the first time we were having open discussions about beliefs and the two major parties, it was undoubtedly one of the most toxic environments one could have ever imagined. Instead of listening to each other oftentimes I would find classmates getting into heated arguments, which were then followed by one person attacking the personal character of the other.
“Even as a 17-year-old I knew this was no way to hold political discussions. Where was the respect? Where were the listening skills? And most importantly, where was the maturity? The answer, nowhere to be found.”
Now in 2021 he asks, “How do we, as teachers, teach and create a healthy environment where students can learn and discuss politics when we live in a society that becomes toxic when these discussions arise?”
His answer is informed by other references and also by work beyond the classroom.
One is to provide lessons that help students and citizens explore the reliability of sources of information, media bias, and “fake news.”
As Zolkiwsky notes, “This is a perfect starting point as understanding biases will better help all students fully understand the concepts of politics and how differently media outlets portray a candidate/policy than a rivaling network. This also opens up the door to teach students the importance of fact-checking and doing their own research, which in the past few years has become so much more important than ever.”
The process also helps address the easy access to media and the increasing influence of social media on individuals who “will typically see a picture or a meme on Twitter or Instagram and assume it to be true. Not only will they outright believe it, but they won’t even go through the effort of reading up on the issue or using that additional information to form their own opinion.”
While his other points are directed specifically to classroom teachers — to inform parents that about the discussions and to remain neutral to issues and candidates — he brings up something applicable to all discussions: “Make sure that the students know that their opinions are their own opinions and they have the right to have them. This can be very empowering for students, especially those in high school who now find themselves in the ‘young adult’ category. By having their own free-formed opinions this helps them establish a sense of identity as to who they are and where their morals lie.”
Zolkiwsky sums up his argument by saying, “Our political climate in our nation today has never been as divisive as it has been over the past few years. But we as educators and even future parents must realize that if we want to change the toxic climate that is our political spheres, then we must lead the charge. Show our students it’s okay to disagree with others and that you can still be friends just because one person voted for one candidate and the other voted for the opposite candidate. The sooner we implement respect in our classrooms and when discussing politics with younger generations the more likely they will pass those traits down to their children.”
During an email exchange, the Flemington, New Jersey, raised Zolkiwsky, whose grandfather and parents are Rider alumni, says, “I wrote this article as part of an assignment for one of my education courses this past fall semester called ‘Teaching Social Studies in Secondary School.’
“I had always been interested in the fact that politics is often labeled as a ‘taboo’ topic to discuss with others. Oftentimes when people start to mention politics during a conversation you can instantly feel the atmosphere of the conversation start to change, and you worry that things will become tense or even hostile. I believe that it is possible to have discussions that involve politics, especially with people whom you don’t see eye-to-eye with, as long as a mutual understanding and respect is put forward. We often forget that people’s political opinions are nothing more than just that, their opinion, and that they are fully entitled to an opinion. I always tell people that ‘you don’t have to agree with my opinions; I just ask that you respect them.’ If we want our future generations to be able to have these respectful conversations with one another then we as parents and teachers have to show and teach them how to respect each other’s opinions.”
The increase in potentially more-contagious, vaccine-resistant variants is all the more reason for Bay Area public health leaders to pursue a more-decisive approach.
On March 16, 2020, six Bay Area counties acted with decisiveness and unity, ordering residents to shelter in place in an effort to curb the spread of the novel coronavirus, which by that point had caused nearly 300 cases of COVID-19 and five deaths.
It was a bold move at a time when few leaders had the courage and foresight to take such aggressive action. Unfortunately, in the months that followed, political pressure pushed local and state leaders into a rushed reopening process that led us to where we are today.
Now, more than a year, 420,000 cases and nearly 6,000 deaths later, Bay Area leaders once again have a choice: Continue the course of half-measures and a reopening strategy based on arbitrary metrics that will lead to more COVID-19 cases and deaths, or reopen safely in just a matter of weeks by pursuing a “zero COVID” approach.
To be clear, things are looking up in the Bay Area and across California: Vaccination rates are rising and case rates are dropping. But, as we saw last summer, this progress can vanish quickly. The increase in potentially more-contagious, vaccine-resistant variants is all the more reason for Bay Area public health leaders to pursue a more-decisive approach that both minimizes the opportunity for further virus mutations and accelerates a return to something much more like pre-pandemic life.
It’s happening in other parts of the world. In Taiwan and Australia, crowds are safely returning to live, in-person sports matches and concerts, restaurants are at full capacity, and students are back in classrooms every day.
While Bay Area parents have kids in classrooms just a few hours a week, other countries are living again. How can this be? It’s because these countries didn’t just flatten the curve through half measures, they crushed it through strict containment. The Bay Area can too, even if the state does not.
Here’s what going “zero COVID” would look like in the Bay Area:
First, the entire region would implement a strict lockdown that would stop all non-essential travel and only allow residents to leave their homes for essentials. It would also require isolation facilities for mild and moderate cases, mask wearing and enforcement, and frequent testing.
After a 14-day strict lockdown, areas with zero community transmission would begin to reopen, creating what are known as “green zones.” People from one “green zone” could travel to another, but they couldn’t travel to “red zones,” where community transmission persists.
For example, if San Francisco and Alameda counties became “green zones,” but San Mateo remained a “red zone,” residents of San Francisco and Oakland could travel between those two cities for non-essential reasons, but non-essential travel to and from San Mateo would remain prohibited.
Such restrictions are among the most challenging aspects of a “zero COVID” approach – but they are critical to stopping community spread, which has the additional benefit of reducing opportunities for further mutations of the virus. Community-by-community “green zones” would reopen over a few more weeks, building upon one another until the entire Bay Area is green.
Yes, it seems counterintuitive for another lockdown when hope is on the horizon. But as long as there’s a curve, this virus will have the upper hand. On the other hand, containment works when done right and can be achieved in just a matter of weeks. The Bay Area can pioneer “zero COVID” in California and be the leader that shows the state – even the nation – how quickly we can finally beat COVID-19.
Yaneer Bar-Yam is a physicist and pandemic expert. He co-founded the COVID Action Group, a nonpartisan network of scientists, researchers and communicators backed by the Federation of American Scientists.
As usual, Mr. Ruben Navarrette was his typical liberal self, throwing rocks at the police on the tragedy of the recent spa killings.
I think most intelligent people today take this very simple approach to social media — “always believe what the police or law enforcement says, until someone proves them wrong” and “never believe what liberal journalist or announcers say or write until someone proves them correct.” Works nearly all the time.
While the scope and scale of the Biden plan may be unprecedented, the two-pronged infrastructure proposal is only the latest chapter in a long history of federal efforts to bind together the nation that began with the Federal-Aid Highway Act of 1956, popularly known as the National Interstate and Defense Highway Act, or simply the Eisenhower Interstate System.
For Biden to accomplish his own infrastructure goals, he should draw on the lessons from the passage and implementation of this system. Like Eisenhower, Biden will need to find a legislative path that satisfies Democrats -- and potentially Republicans in Congress -- and garners the widespread support of the American people. To improve the nation's infrastructure for good, he must similarly build a system that will last beyond his time in office.
Infrastructural challenges have long occupied the thoughts of political leaders. As early as the 1930s, President Franklin D. Roosevelt recognized the need to build an interstate system. The Federal-Aid Highway Act of 1944 authorized the construction of a 40,000-mile "National System of Interstate Highways." Yet the demands of World War II delayed the implementation of the plan, even as routes were laid out for the future highways.
The 1952 election of Dwight D. Eisenhower as president set the stage for a major change. As a young army officer, Eisenhower had experienced first-hand the difficulty in transporting convoys of vehicles across the country. During World War II, as Supreme Allied Commander in Europe, he noted how Nazi forces could move quickly across Germany using the system of autobahns. "The old convoy had started me thinking about good, two-lane highways," he recalled in his 1967 memoir, "but Germany had made me see the wisdom of broader ribbons across the land."
The political climate of the Cold War of the mid-1950s also brought a new will to act. In 1954, Eisenhower appointed General Lucius D. Clay -- Eisenhower's deputy during World War Two -- to form a committee to consider how best to fund an interstate highway system. The committee's report and the resulting bill contained a key phrase, notably that a highway system was "essential to the national interest."
Nevertheless, Congress debated how to fund the proposed improvements, which were estimated to cost $27 billion. Fiscally conservative Democrats in Congress opposed using public bonds to finance the system. The eventual solution was to indirectly tax the users of the highways through a federal surcharge on gasoline set at 3 cents per gallon and soon increased to 4.5 cents per gallon. From there, excise taxes on highway-related industries such as tire rubber and auto sales further supported the interstate system. A Highway Trust Fund -- based off the Social Security Trust Fund established in the 1930s -- safeguarded the taxes collected.
Lawmakers also underscored that such national interest also included a commitment to "national defense." The interstates could be used to transport military convoys across the nation, though contrary to popular opinion, they were not intended as runways to land military-grade aircraft.
Along the way, Eisenhower withstood lobbying efforts to eliminate the gas tax, thus preserving the key means to ensuring the system's solvency. Although still recovering from surgery at Walter Reed Hospital, he signed the bill into law on June 29, 1956.
Future presidents continued the work begun under Eisenhower and confronted challenges of funding the system. Facing the expiration of a temporary increase on the gas tax, John F. Kennedy recommended making the raise permanent and added other excise taxes. In turn, Congress passed the Federal-Aid Highway Act of 1961 that provided for the interstate system for years to come. In 1966, Lyndon Johnson signed the U.S. Department of Transportation Act to create an agency to oversee government spending on infrastructure.
When declared complete in 1992, the National Interstate and Defense Highway Act had led to the construction of more than 46,000 miles of roads. Costing $129 billion, the system provided for road maintenance until 1981, when states began to receive funds to do the same. Along the way, Eisenhower's signature contribution was not forgotten. In 1990, President George H.W. Bush renamed the system in honor of Eisenhower.
The economic and social benefits of the highway system have reverberated across the generations. A report from 1996 pointed to a return in economic productivity of more than six times the original amount spent, enhanced international security, and greater personal mobility for Americans. With interstate highways suddenly available, the great American road trip was born.
At the same time, unintended consequences have followed from the decades' long project. Motor vehicle accidents are a leading cause of death among Americans under age 55. Highway funding became a wedge in which the federal government -- encouraged by the group Mothers Against Drunk Driving -- essentially forced all states to raise the legal drinking age from 18 to 21. The ambitious system constructed arteries through urban zones that have proven particularly harmful to communities of color, leading to highways being torn down or relocated. Critics further point out that privileging auto transportation set back investments in public transit for a generation and contributed to increased air pollution.
The Biden infrastructure plan features many items we have come to expect. The bill will support upgrading roads, bridges, and airports. In addition, money will be poured into schools and will upgrade the nation's broadband and energy infrastructure. However, Biden's plan calls for a second, more controversial package to support "social infrastructure," or the "care economy." This second bill includes funding for universal pre-K, childcare programs, elder care, and free community college among other provisions.
As in the 1950s, the funding of Biden's infrastructure plan remains an open question. Despite earlier suggesting its promise, Transportation Secretary Pete Buttigieg has indicated that neither a mileage tax, which would charge people based on miles driven, nor an increased federal gas tax, unchanged since 1993 at 18.4 cents per gallon, will be included. Instead, the administration plan raises the corporate tax rate to 28% (up from its current level of 21%), ends federal subsidies for fossil fuel companies, and imposes taxes on multinational corporations operating in the US.
Whereas the National Interstate and Defense Highway Act enjoyed near-unanimous bipartisan support, the political fate of Biden's infrastructure bill is less clear. In the face of Republican opposition, Senate Majority Leader Chuck Schumer has lobbied the Senate parliamentarian to permit the use of budget reconciliation -- used to pass the Covid relief bill without the need for any Republican votes -- for an unprecedented second time in one fiscal year. Such a move may well be necessary if existing Senate rules on the filibuster are preserved.
Whatever this infrastructure bill's final form, the battles over highways in the 1950s reveal the critical importance of presidential leadership. Without Eisenhower's support, the interstate highway system would not exist in its present form. But the support of future administrations -- both Democratic and Republican -- ensured the long-term viability of the interstate system long after Eisenhower had left office.
During the 2020 election campaign, Joe Biden campaigned to "Build Back Better," with his infrastructure plan lying at the heart of this promise. As it has been in the past, the road ahead will almost certainly be rocky. But if Biden can achieve his goals of funding the nation's physical infrastructure and social infrastructure, he will have laid the groundwork for a lasting system worthy of his name.
21_04_30.jpg)
