#the draft is in approval limbo now
Text
As Western leaders met with top Ukrainian officials at a pivotal NATO summit this week, Ukraine was worried about the ghosts of summits past that may have helped pave the way to the war it’s facing today. During a 2008 NATO meeting in Bucharest, Romania, allied leaders offered Ukraine and Georgia a path—on paper—to one day joining the powerful Western military alliance. In a joint communiqué at the time, NATO leaders added a straightforward line that both countries “will become members of NATO” but failed to reach consensus on when or how.
The Bucharest summit now lives in infamy in the minds of Ukrainians and their biggest champions in NATO. Russian President Vladimir Putin, at the time still being feted (albeit cautiously) as a partner for the West, slammed the sign of NATO enlargement as a “direct threat” to Russia. NATO kept its door cracked open, but not enough for either country to join the alliance and come into its protective fold. That waffling on NATO enlargement, many Western officials widely believe, helped push Putin to invade Georgia later that year, and Ukraine in 2014, followed by its full-scale invasion in 2022, all while both countries remained in a form of limbo for NATO.
In the run-up to the NATO summit this week in Vilnius, Lithuania, Ukraine and its strongest supporters could often be heard in diplomatic meetings, speeches, and security conferences uttering some variation of the common refrain: We can’t have a repeat of Bucharest. In other words, Ukraine needed a clear path to NATO membership as it fends off Russian forces. It didn’t get it. What it got instead was one key line in the Vilnius summit communiqué: “We will be in a position to extend an invitation to Ukraine to join the alliance when allies agree and conditions are met.”
It’s perhaps no surprise that a statement from 31 leaders would end in a garbled form of lowest-common-denominator messaging on the controversial matter of bringing Ukraine into NATO. But the line still incensed Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelensky and his strongest backers, who had hoped for more concrete signals of support and a clear timeline for Ukraine to join NATO. “It’s unprecedented and absurd when time frame is not set neither for the invitation nor for Ukraine’s membership. While at the same time vague wording about ‘conditions’ is added even for inviting Ukraine,” Zelensky tweeted when excerpts of the draft summit communiqué were leaked.
The United States pumped the brakes on a plan to offer an invitation to Ukraine to join NATO now, one that would be fulfilled after the war ended, multiple NATO officials familiar with the matter told Foreign Policy. Admitting Ukraine to NATO now “would have meant NATO’s at war with Russia,” U.S. National Security Advisor Jake Sullivan said at a conference on the sidelines of the summit.
Some NATO members quietly agreed, wary of escalating the conflict or overpromising Ukraine a clear timeline on membership it may not be able to deliver in the end. (Adding new members to NATO requires unanimous approval from all 31 member states, a politically fraught hurdle to jump, even for a country like Sweden.) Still, the disappointment for Ukraine’s supporters was palpable.
“I think the communiqué language is a bit generic,” said Catherine Sendak, a scholar at the Center for European Policy Analysis think tank and former Pentagon official. “The way it was laid out was not very inspiring, immediately reiterating Bucharest 2008, which is exactly what many did not want to happen.”
Sendak also said the broad condition laid out—admitting Ukraine when the war is over—gives Russia an incentive to keep the conflict going to halt NATO expansion. “You’re giving Russia an unlimited timeline, knowing that is the line in the sand.”
Zelensky acknowledged that getting Kyiv into the 31-nation military alliance is unlikely before any end to the war or an indefinite cease-fire, given neither side wants to escalate the conflict into a war between Russia and NATO.
Still, Ukraine came into the Vilnius summit demanding a concrete timeline for NATO entry, after disappointments in Bucharest and vague—and since unhonored—security guarantees of the 1990s during Ukraine’s campaign of nuclear disarmament following the end of the Cold War.
At the end of the NATO gathering in Vilnius, speaking in a gaggle of top U.S. officials that included U.S. President Joe Biden and U.S. Defense Secretary Lloyd Austin, Zelensky tamped down his frustration. “I think by the end of [the] summit, we have great unity from our leaders and the security guarantees,” he said. “That is a success for this summit.”
Even without the timeline on NATO membership, the United States and other allies took pains to reassure Ukraine that it would double down on supporting the country in its fight against Russia through a series of concrete security arrangements and new defense deals. In short, the Bucharest summit declaration was a pledge on paper but not in spirit that Ukraine would join NATO. The Vilnius summit shows a more ardent pledge in spirit, and, in a slightly garbled way, still on paper. The Group of Seven (G-7) leaders, led by the United States, on Wednesday released a joint declaration calling for billions of dollars in international military and economic aid to Ukraine to keep flowing.
The G-7 pledged to continue aiding Ukraine’s wounded defense industrial base, training Ukrainian forces, sending “enhanced” security assistance packages, and giving Kyiv institutional support to fulfill its NATO and European Union ambitions. NATO countries pledged to begin training Ukrainian pilots on F-16 fighter jets, signaling that NATO countries could soon deliver the advanced Western aircraft to Ukraine after months of lobbying. France, a major NATO ally, vowed to transfer long-range SCALP-EG missiles to Ukraine, adding the French version of British Storm Shadow cruise missiles to its arsenal. The EU has drafted a plan to cement a “sustained” flow of weapons to Ukraine in the long run. Sweden, soon to be NATO’s newest member, signed an agreement on cooperating on defense procurements, paving the way for Ukraine to gain access to one of Europe’s most advanced defense industrial bases.
But none of those agreements can make up for NATO membership and its security umbrella, leaving officials and lawmakers in Kyiv with the sense that Ukraine is, once again, like in Bucharest, leaving the summit without guarantees on the issue that matters most.
Ukraine’s parliament, known as the Verkhovna Rada, is already working on reforms to clear multiple hurdles outlined by the European Union for membership that range from anti-corruption and money laundering curbs to improvements to the constitutional court, but Ukrainian lawmakers say they’re less clear on what they need to do for NATO membership.
“[Thirty] percent of the bills that parliament is passing right now are about what the EU requires,” said Sasha Ustinova, a Ukrainian lawmaker. “[NATO] is not telling us what the criteria is for us that we need to meet. After Finland and Sweden, everyone understood this is a purely political decision.”
Some seasoned NATO hands don’t see the vague wording on Ukraine’s NATO membership as an insurmountable hurdle. “This is simply lip service, which is based on those who are kind of hesitant for quicker and deeper integration with Ukraine,” said Artis Pabriks, a former defense minister of Latvia, a Baltic country that joined NATO in 2004. “We all understand that NATO is not the European Union, which means the membership in many ways is a political decision. If you are politically ready, you can quite quickly take Ukraine.”
1 note
·
View note
Text
Respectfully, this cannot be it.
#my stuff#im tired of work im tired of not really getting to relax im tired of my fucking relentless boss im tired of my efforts being insufficient#im tired of new shit getting piled on my plate every other day im tired of spending my existence just Getting Through The Week#im tired of the suffering in the world and my inconsequential ability to significantly alleviate it.#im just...tired.#i want to sleep for a long time and wake up only so i can decide to go back to sleep and thats fucked up to want#i just wanna finish my grad school applications so i can say they're done i'll be honest i don't have any fucking passion for a PhD#im just doing it because its the only route to make sure i have better opportunities than the stuff i deal with now#cause from what i've heard you very much do hit a ceiling in industry without a PhD#and i spent all weekend trying to find schools and write my personal statement and i did i have 3 places and at least a first draft of a PS#but now i need my sister to look over it and give her approval bc she's way better at writing than me and i can't find the time lately#so im stuck in limbo on that and i hate it and it makes me want to throw the whole pile of lies and asskissing away#the truth is i only care about stem cells because it's what i've already learned and worked with and it seems easier than other shit#if i didn't need a letter of rec from her i'd wish a heart attack on my boss with only a little guilt bc she is just impossible to satisfy#im trying. im trying so hard. the work isn't even inherently difficult but the process isn't working and im not being afforded the time to#try and fix it#like one of our machines is old as fuck and not working consistently. and it's necessary for all my data#so when it decides to be a clown it makes me look incompetent as fuck and my boss gets pissy with me#shut up shut up shut up im doing my goddamn best i know the data is shit i fucking wish it wasn't what the fuck do you mean new shit now#ah yes bc of course this is the ideal time to give me more stuff to worry about when im already struggling under what i have#may my boss' wifi be shit everywhere she goes. may all forms of transportation rebel to prevent her arrival in the workplace.#may all her best efforts come to naught as mine have#i was so excited to get my grad shit done today and relax that sure as fuck didn't happen#i wanted to sit down and finally read past like book 6 of tokyo ghoul as a halloween thing too#a bad day
49 notes
·
View notes
Note
Hi my favorite athletic reader. If possible could you post anything important from Baughers new article on Gabe?
lol i feel so used. it's under the cut haha
Gabriel Landeskog rolled up to the Avalanche practice rink, a 19-year-old figuring he was heading into a meeting about the upcoming 2012-13 season. A potential lockout loomed, and he wondered if he and his teammates were about to get information on what would happen next.
But only one teammate was there when Landeskog got inside Family Sports Center in Centennial, Colo.: captain Milan Hejduk. Then-Colorado coach Joe Sacco was there, too. They wanted to speak to Landeskog privately.
At the time, Hejduk was entering his 14th season with Colorado. The veteran was the only player left from the Avalanche’s 2001 Stanley Cup team, and he knew his career was winding down. He was no longer a top forward on the team and didn’t feel it would be right to remain captain. Someone else needed to take the role, Landeskog remembers Hejduk telling him that day.
“And I think that person is you,” Hejduk said.
The young winger was caught off guard. He let out a stunned laugh. At the time, no permanent captain in league history had ever been named at so young an age. A tornado of emotions followed: shock, excitement and — naturally — nerves. He called his dad immediately after the conversation.
“You’ve got to this point being who you are,” Tony Landeskog told his son. “Don’t try to be somebody you’re not.”
That advice stuck with Landeskog, and from that day forward, his “C”-embroidered jersey has been a constant for the Avalanche. It was there through the promising years with Nathan MacKinnon, Ryan O’Reilly and Matt Duchene, and it was there when that core fell apart. It was there through the pain of rebuilding, and it was there as the Avalanche emerged as a league power.
Now, its era in Denver could be coming to a close.
For the first time in his NHL career, Landeskog is a pending unrestricted free agent. And after a decade in Denver, he doesn’t know what’s coming next.
“The uncertainty is something I’ve never dealt with,” Landeskog says. “I’ve always known that come September, October, I’m going to pull on that Avs jersey.”
Landeskog has repeatedly said he wants to stay with Colorado, and the Avalanche want to bring him back. But with star defenseman Cale Makar set to receive a massive raise in restricted free agency and the Avalanche up against the salary cap, general manager Joe Sakic is facing tough decisions this offseason.
Landeskog wants long-term security. Currently, he’s in limbo.
“I can’t help but be honest with you that I’m a little bit disappointed that it’s gotten this far and it’s had to come to this point,” Landeskog says.
Now 28, Landeskog could be looking at his last chance to sign a major, multiyear contract. The Avalanche, meanwhile, must decide how much they are willing to spend — and for how many years — on a physical, two-way forward approaching 30.
Teams must submit protection lists Saturday for the July 21 Kraken expansion draft, and if Colorado doesn’t protect Landeskog, Seattle will have a window to bargain with him before free agency begins July 28. Landeskog’s reputation as a leader and production (52 points in 54 games this past season and 171 in 181 over the past three) will make him a popular target should he reach the open market. Teams like the Kraken, Blues, Kings, Flyers and Oilers jump out as potential suitors.
Talks between the Avalanche and their captain have increased in frequency in recent days, but the sides are still far away from an agreement, according to a league source.
“We’ll see what happens,” Landeskog says. “I’m still hopeful that we can agree on something and come to terms, but if it was up to me, I would have liked it to be done eight months ago, 10 months ago.”
In the nine seasons since Hejduk handed over the captaincy, Landeskog has gone from a green-but-mature up-and-comer to the calming presence on an elite team. He’s now a parent, one of the older players on the Avalanche and their unquestioned leader.
“It’s been a constant learning curve,” he says.
He’s grown, and he’s growing. The question is if that will continue with the Avalanche.
One day during his first season as captain, Landeskog stood in the Family Sports dressing room for a players-only meeting, taking note of teammates in their 30s, veterans who had spent more than a decade in the NHL. In only his second season, Landeskog could hear his voice shake.
“It probably was pretty laughable how nervous I was,” he says.
The Avalanche were in the midst of a rough stretch in what amounted to a season of rough stretches. Landeskog leaned on older players — Hejduk, Jean-Sebastien Giguere, Paul Stastny, O’Reilly and Erik Johnson, to name a few — and one suggested a team meeting.
Landeskog doesn’t recall what he said that day, but he remembers the nerves — that quiver in his voice — and how the older players had his back. Others chimed in, and the team dissected what was going wrong.
Ultimately, the group was simply a transitioning team without enough talent to contend, and though Landeskog was captain that year, the team used a leadership-by-committee approach. Landeskog credits his teammates’ support for making the job easier, and Stastny remembers him being unafraid to ask questions.
Landeskog says he asked about everything from travel-day logistics to organizing team functions. The communication didn’t translate to on-ice success that year, as the team finished 16-25-7, but it laid the groundwork for how Landeskog still views his role as captain.
“That’s how leaders learn, too: They learn from other guys,” former teammate Greg Zanon says. “I think he was born for the job.”
Before giving Landeskog the “C,” Sacco and then-Avalanche general manager Greg Sherman both reached out to Hejduk, wanting to know what he’d think of the young Swede taking over the role. Landeskog, who had just won the Calder Trophy, hadn’t been a name on Hejduk’s radar for the captaincy because of his age, but the more he thought about the decision, the more it made sense.
So he voiced his approval for the player 17 years his junior.
“What can you say negative about Gabe?” Hejduk says today.
“It was only a matter of time,” Stastny adds. “If it was fast-tracked a year, I don’t think anyone really cared. Everyone knew it was coming.”
Still, Landeskog was nervous. He’d played in only 82 NHL games and was still trying to figure out the league himself. He didn’t know how his teammates would react to such a young captain. Part of him still thinks he might not have been ready.
Despite Landeskog’s concerns, the announcement went over well with the team. Duchene and winger David Jones tweeted their congratulations, and defenseman Ryan O’Byrne remembers liking the decision when he read the news on TSN’s website.
“The only conversations I had with teammates were, ‘Gabe’s the captain. That’s so great,’” O’Byrne remembers. “Why would we wait to give him the captaincy? There’s no reason to wait. He (was) ready. He’s just that type of person.”
“Even the older guys on the team looked up to him,” adds former Avalanche left winger Cody McLeod.
Landeskog’s makeup had begun earning praise from the second he arrived in North America from Sweden. He played major junior hockey for the Kitchener Rangers in the Ontario Hockey League and became the team’s first European-born captain. Sherman praised his confidence after drafting Landeskog second in 2011, saying he was mature beyond his years.
“It was like he was 30 years old already, the way he handled himself, the way he talked to us, talked to the media,” says Ryan O’Reilly, now the Blues captain and still a friend of Landeskog’s. “Everyone respected him right away. It’s rare. It’s why he was named captain so young.”
Adds Hejduk: “I had half the maturity Gabe had at 18.”
Shortly after learning he’d become captain, Landeskog came to the Pepsi Center (now Ball Arena) for a passing-of-the-torch ceremony. Hejduk presented his successor with a burgundy Avalanche sweater featuring a white “C,” and Landeskog pulled it over his white button-up shirt. The two shook hands and posed for cameras.
When Landeskog looks back at those pictures, he can’t help but notice how young he looks. His beard had yet to grow in, and he’d fashioned his hair — lighter than it is now — to be spiky in the front.
“I feel old when I look back at those pictures, because I was definitely a little kid standing there next to (Hejduk),” he says.
“The first year, year and a half, with him, if we went out for dinner, it was like he wasn’t even allowed to have a glass of wine or a beer,” says former Avalanche center John Mitchell, adding that Landeskog struggled to win poker games on team flights.
Landeskog, who has gone from too young to drink to now sponsored by Bud Light, believes he might have been too uptight early on in his captaincy. He’s learned to relax a bit more — that a season is long and sometimes the best approach is to focus on himself. He can’t expect others to work hard or play well if he’s not doing it himself.
The Avalanche’s decision to toss Landeskog into the fray as a teenage captain allowed him to learn the role before the team entered the win-now mode it is in currently. But Colorado’s progression hasn’t been linear. In 2016-17, the Avalanche finished last in the league by 21 points. Landeskog frequently had to face tough questions from reporters when he didn’t have answers.
“It definitely takes a toll on you when you have to do that,” he says. “But at the same time, I always knew that was part of the responsibility and part of the job. Playing in the NHL, being able to wear the ‘C’ in the NHL, it’s a dream not many people get to experience.”
And in 2017-18, tides began to shift for the Avalanche. MacKinnon had his first superstar-level season, finishing second in Hart Trophy voting, and Landeskog and winger Mikko Rantanen both scored more than 20 goals. The trio ascended to become arguably the best line in hockey, and smart drafting and savvy trades gave Colorado a deep defensive core, led by Makar, the Norris Trophy runner-up as a 22-year-old this past season.
As expectations have risen, the team and its captain are still searching for a deep playoff run. The pieces are in place, and the Avalanche reached the second round each of the past three seasons. But they haven’t broken through.
This past season, the Landeskog-captained Avalanche reached the regular-season pinnacle, winning the Presidents’ Trophy, given annually to the team with the best record in the league, and they were a consensus favorite to win the Stanley Cup entering the playoffs.
Landeskog dominated the Blues in a first-round sweep, igniting the Avalanche with a Gordie Howe hat trick (fight, assist, goal) in Game 1.
“He’s the captain for a reason,” Makar said after that game.
But Colorado faltered in its next postseason matchup, against Vegas, letting a 2-0 series lead slip away and losing in the second round for the third consecutive year. The most complete Avalanche team of Landeskog’s career couldn’t get over the hump.
“I’m proud of this group,” a dejected Landeskog said after the game. “I’m excited to be a part of this group. I love all the guys in there.”
And they love him, too. Ahead of the season, MacKinnon called him “the perfect captain,” and Avalanche coach Jared Bednar described the captain as their emotional leader, someone who drives them into the fight on a nightly basis.
“Usually those types of guys, top-three picks, are franchise players,” Hejduk says. “It seems like that’s the case with Gabe. I hope he’s going to finish his whole career with the Avalanche.”
That’s what Hejduk did, spending all 14 of his seasons with Colorado, but it’s not a common path in today’s NHL.
After 10 years with the Avalanche and nine as its captain, and with so much shared history, Landeskog could be the exception.
Since he was 19, it’s felt like he would be. But the coming weeks will show if that reality has shifted.
14 notes
·
View notes
Text
Rand Paul stalls bill that would make lynching a federal hate crime
Republican argued anti-lynching legislation drafted too broadly after House renamed bill previously approved by Senate
Amid the visceral national outcry for racial justice in the wake of the police killing of George Floyd, a lone US senator is standing in the way of a bill that would make lynching a federal hate crime.
Rand Paul, a Republican with a reputation as a one-man awkward squad in the US Senate, has put the historic legislation into limbo, frustrating black colleagues and civil rights leaders, including the Rev Jesse Jackson.
About 4,075 African Americans were lynched in 12 southern states between 1877 and 1950, according to a 2015 report by the Equal Justice Initiative. Some were watched by crowds, as if attending a form of public entertainment.
Ida B Wells, a crusading African American journalist, once said: “Our country’s national crime is lynching.”
The killing of Floyd by a white Minneapolis police officer who kneeled on his neck for nearly nine minutes, caught on film and seen by millions, has been likened to a 21st-century lynching. It spurred more than two weeks of worldwide protests.
From 1882 to 1986, Congress failed to pass anti-lynching legislation 200 times, but this moment appeared to be different.
Kamala Harris, Cory Booker and Tim Scott, the only three African American members of the Senate, led the unanimous passage of the legislation in that chamber in 2018 and 2019. The House of Representatives then passed it by a 410-4 vote in February but renamed it for Emmett Till, a 14-year-old boy lynched in Mississippi in 1955.
That was the only change that returned the bill to the Senate, which makes Paul’s sudden objection all the more idiosyncratic.
The Democratic congressman Bobby Rush, who proposed the House legislation, tweeted: “The language of the Emmett Till Antilynching Act is IDENTICAL to the bill that was unanimously approved by the Senate. The only conclusion I can draw from Rand Paul’s sudden opposition is he has an issue with the House bill being named after Emmett Till.”
But Paul, a licensed doctor, is notorious for rousing colleagues’ ire by stalling legislation and for a life and career that are seldom conventional.
In 2017 he was physically assaulted by a neighbour while mowing his lawn; in 2018 he visited Russia and delivered a letter from Donald Trump to Vladimir Putin; earlier this year he became the first senator to test positive for coronavirus, shortly after being the only one to vote against a bipartisan $8bn deal to provide emergency coronavirus funding.
He now argues that the anti-lynching legislation is drafted too broadly and could define minor assaults as lynching.
“The bill as written would allow altercations resulting in a cut, abrasion, bruise, or any other injury no matter how temporary to be subject to a 10-year penalty,” Paul said. “My amendment would simply apply a serious bodily injury standard, which would ensure crimes resulting in substantial risk of death and extreme physical pain be prosecuted as a lynching.”
He has previously worked with Democrats in pushing for criminal justice reform and taken a more progressive stance than many Republican colleagues.
On Tuesday, the Associated Press reported, while speaking with activists in Louisville in his home state of Kentucky, Paul criticised no-knock search warrants, such as the one used at the home of Breonna Taylor, who was shot dead by police in March, and the militarisation of police departments. And he said he is likely to support some form of federal legislation aimed at overhauling police procedures.
Challenged about his opposition to the bill, Paul called lynchings a “horror” of American history and said he supports the bill, the AP added, but reiterated that its language is too broad.
Last Thursday, as Floyd was mourned at a memorial service in Minneapolis, Paul proposed an amendment to the bill, which would require a vote of the full Senate and would send the bill back to the House – currently out of session – for additional consideration.
The amendment was defeated after emotions ran high on the Senate floor. Booker, of New Jersey, said: “One man, one man is standing in the way of the law of the land changing because of a difference of interpretation. Does America need a win today on racial justice?”
Appearing on The View on the ABC network, Harris described the senator’s contrarian stance as “insulting”, adding: “What Rand Paul is doing, which is one man holding up what would be a historic bill recognising one of the great sins of America – and it was on the day of George Floyd’s funeral which just added insult to injury and frankly made it so painful that on that day that’s what was happening.”
Although Paul is often an outlier, there are fears that the holdup could be indicative of wider Republican reluctance to tackle systemic racism in the police and embrace reforms. Moe Vela, a former senior adviser to Joe Biden, said on Wednesday: “My thoughts on it are very simple: birds of a feather.
“If Rand Paul somehow doesn’t believe we need an anti-lynching bill in the United States and his Republican colleagues can’t get him to release the hold, to me it says everything Americans need to know about the Republican party. Either you’re for lynching or you’re against lynching. It’s that simple.”
But Tara Setmayer, a political commentator and former Republican communications director on Capitol Hill, was less critical, noting the consistency of Paul’s libertarian streak.
“I understand that he wants to strengthen the bill with certain language as an amendment,” she said. “He doesn’t want it to go away. He wants it to be strengthened from his perspective.
“But I think it’s a bit out of step with the political climate that we’re in … So he’s going to get the backlash, but Senator Tim Scott said he’s going to talk to him and see if they can work something out in the language. I think they will come to some type of agreement and it will eventually pass. I don’t see it being held up forever.”
2 notes
·
View notes
Text
Friday, June 4, 2021
America’s Biggest Companies
(Fortune) Fortune magazine released its annual ranking of America’s largest companies, with Walmart topping the list for the ninth straight year. Boosted by the pandemic-driven consumer shift to online and bulk purchasing, the retail behemoth brought in nearly $560B in revenue. The company was followed by Amazon ($386B in revenue), Apple ($275B), CVS Health ($269B), and UnitedHealth Group ($257B). The combined list generated almost $14T in revenue last year—about two-thirds of the US economy.
Drought ravages California’s reservoirs ahead of hot summer
(AP) Each year Lake Oroville helps water a quarter of the nation’s crops, sustain endangered salmon beneath its massive earthen dam and anchor the tourism economy of a Northern California county that must rebuild seemingly every year after unrelenting wildfires. But now the mighty lake—a linchpin in a system of aqueducts and reservoirs in the arid U.S. West that makes California possible—is shrinking with surprising speed amid a severe drought, with state officials predicting it will reach a record low later this summer. While droughts are common in California, this year’s is much hotter and drier than others, evaporating water more quickly from the reservoirs and the sparse Sierra Nevada snowpack that feeds them. The state’s more than 1,500 reservoirs are 50% lower than they should be this time of year, according to Jay Lund, co-director of the Center for Watershed Sciences at the University of California-Davis. If Lake Oroville falls below 640 feet (195 meters)—which it could do by late August—state officials would shut down a major power plant for just the second time ever because of low water levels, straining the electrical grid during the peak demand of the hottest part of the summer.
Miami Faces the Hard Choices of Climate Change
(NYT) Three years ago, not long after Hurricane Irma left parts of Miami underwater, the federal government embarked on a study to find a way to protect the vulnerable South Florida coast from deadly and destructive storm surge. Already, no one likes the answer. Build a wall, the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers proposed in its first draft of the study, now under review. Six miles of it, in fact, mostly inland, running parallel to the coast through neighborhoods—except for a one-mile stretch right on Biscayne Bay, past the gleaming sky-rises of Brickell, the city’s financial district. The dramatic $6 billion proposal remains tentative and at least five years off. But the startling suggestion of a massive sea wall up to 20 feet high cutting across beautiful Biscayne Bay was enough to jolt some Miamians to attention: The hard choices that will be necessary to deal with the city’s many environmental challenges are here, and few people want to face them. The trouble is that the magnitude of the interconnected obstacles the region faces can feel overwhelming, and none of the possible solutions are cheap, easy or pretty.
A deadly vote
(Washington Post) TAXCO, Mexico—Mario Figueroa sat in his armored SUV, surrounded by bodyguards clutching semiautomatic rifles. The bulletproof vest was stashed behind the back seat. These days, Figueroa rarely travels without his security team. As a candidate for mayor of this Spanish colonial city—once popular with American tourists, now lashed by drug violence—the 53-year-old businessman has already taken a bullet in the chest. Mexico is in the final days of one of its most violent electoral campaigns in modern times. Eighty-nine politicians have been killed since September, according to the security consulting firm Etellekt. Scores more have been wounded or threatened. The campaign has become a stark illustration of crime organizations’ quest to expand their control of Mexico’s territory. The violence has focused largely on races for mayor and other local government posts. “They want control of the police, control of public works projects, the budget, and illicit activities,” said Marcial Rodríguez Saldaña, the state leader of Morena, the party of President Andrés Manuel López Obrador. “We’ve reached an extreme,” Figueroa said.
US troops storm sunflower oil factory in Bulgaria
(Foreign Policy) The owner of a sunflower oil factory in Bulgaria has taken legal action after U.S. soldiers accidentally stormed his business during a NATO training exercise. The mix-up occurred while soldiers were simulating the clearing of an airfield in southern Bulgaria, and continued on to Marin Dimitrov’s factory, where workers watched on as gun-wielding soldiers stalked through the premises. The incident has led to a rebuke from the highest levels with Bulgarian President Rumen Radev calling it “absolutely unacceptable.” “We always learn from these exercises and are fully investigating the cause of this mistake,” the U.S. embassy in Sofia said in a statement.
Beijing Introduces Three-Child Policy
(Foreign Policy) On Monday, China announced that married couples would be allowed to have up to three children, raising the official two-child limit in a widely anticipated move. Despite government hopes, the introduction of the two-child policy in 2016 failed to produce a baby boom. It’s unlikely the latest policy change will affect China’s fertility rate, either. The public has responded with mocking contempt toward the idea that government restraints have held parents back from having more children, rather than the exorbitant costs of child rearing in China—from migrant families forced to pay fees for local public schools to upper-class parents who fear their children will fall behind without flute or calligraphy lessons. So why keep a limit on the number of children a couple can have at all? One reason is to provide cover for the ongoing forced sterilization of the Uyghur minority in Xinjiang, whose birthrate fell by nearly 50 percent between 2017 and 2020. Another is that China now has an enormous family planning bureaucracy that supports many jobs. Party leaders may also be concerned that the rich flaunting large families—such as late Macao casino tycoon Stanley Ho, known for his four wives and 17 children—would spark resentment.
Lebanese leaders exchange barbs as country sinks into crisis
(AP) Lebanon’s president and prime minister-designate traded barbs Wednesday, accusing one another of obstruction, negligence and insolence in a war or words that has for months obstructed the formation of a new government as the country sinks deeper into economic and financial crisis. The power struggle between the premier-designate, Saad Hariri, on one side and President Michel Aoun and his son-in-law Gebran Bassil on the other, has worsened despite warnings from world leaders and economic experts of the dire economic conditions tiny Lebanon is facing. The World Bank on Tuesday said Lebanon’s crisis is one of the worst the world has seen in the past 150 years. In a late night burst of anger, protesters blocked main roads in Beirut and north of the capital. A young activist told a local TV station the protest was against the constant humiliation of Lebanese who line up to fill their cars with fuel, increasing power cuts, search for medicine and deal with confused banking decisions that are robbing thousands of their savings. The Lebanese pound, pegged to the dollar for 30 years at 1,507, has been in a free fall since late 2019. It is now trading at nearly 13,000 to the dollar at the black market.
Netanyahu opponents reach coalition deal to oust Israeli PM
(AP) Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu’s opponents announced Wednesday that they have reached a deal to form a new governing coalition, paving the way for the ouster of the longtime Israeli leader. The dramatic announcement by opposition leader Yair Lapid and his main coalition partner, Naftali Bennett, came shortly before a midnight deadline and prevented what could have been Israel’s fifth consecutive election in just over two years. The agreement still needs to be approved by the Knesset, or parliament, in a vote that is expected to take place early next week. If it goes through, Lapid and a diverse array of partners that span the Israeli political spectrum will end Netanyahu’s record-setting but divisive 12-year rule. Netanyahu, desperate to remain in office while he fights corruption charges, is expected to do everything possible in the coming days to prevent the new coalition from taking power. If he fails, he will be pushed into the opposition. (Foreign Policy) While a new government is not yet set in stone, normal business carries on: Benny Gantz arrives in Washington today to request $1 billion in emergency military aid in order to replenish Israel’s Iron Dome defenses and help restock its bomb supply following the bombardment of Gaza. “I would imagine that the administration would say yes to this request and it will sail through Congress,” Senator Lindsey Graham said on Tuesday.
In Syria camp, forgotten children are molded by IS ideology
(AP) At the sprawling al-Hol camp in northeast Syria, children pass their days roaming the dirt roads, playing with mock swords and black banners in imitation of Islamic State group militants. Few can read or write. For some, the only education is from mothers giving them IS propaganda. It has been more than two years since the Islamic State group’s self-declared “caliphate” was brought down. And it has been more than two years that some 27,000 children have been left to languish in al-Hol camp, which houses families of IS members. Most of them not yet teenagers, they are spending their childhood in a limbo of miserable conditions with no schools, no place to play or develop, and seemingly no international interest in resolving their situation. Only one institution is left to mold them: remnants of the Islamic State group. Kurdish authorities and aid groups fear the camp will create a new generation of militants. They are pleading with home countries to take the women and children back. The problem is that home governments often see the children as posing a danger rather than as needing rescue.
‘Come On In, Boys’: A Wave of the Hand Sets Off Spain-Morocco Migrant Fight
(NYT) Daouda Faye, a 25-year-old migrant from Senegal, was elated when he heard that Moroccan border guards had suddenly started waving in undocumented migrants across the border to Ceuta, a fenced-off Spanish enclave on the North African coast. “‘Come on in, boys,’” the guards told him and others as they reached the border on May 17, Mr. Faye said. Normally, Morocco tightly controls the fenced borders around Ceuta, a six-mile-long peninsula on Morocco’s northern coast that Spain has governed since the 1600s. But now its military was allowing migrants into this toehold of Europe. Over the next two days, as many as 12,000 people flowed over the border to Ceuta in hopes of reaching mainland Spain, engulfing the city of 80,000. The crisis has laid bare the unique pressure point Morocco has over Spain on migration. Spanish government officials and other experts say Morocco increasingly sees the migrants as a kind of currency and is leveraging its control over them to extract financial and political prizes from Spain. Hours after the migrants began pouring into Ceuta, Spain approved 30 million euros, about $37 million, in aid to Morocco for border policing.
A Military Drone With A Mind Of Its Own Was Used In Combat, U.N. Says
(NPR) Military-grade autonomous drones can fly themselves to a specific location, pick their own targets and kill without the assistance of a remote human operator. Such weapons are known to be in development, but until recently there were no reported cases of autonomous drones killing fighters on the battlefield. Now, a United Nations report about a March 2020 skirmish in the military conflict in Libya says such a drone, known as a lethal autonomous weapons system—or LAWS—has made its wartime debut. But the report does not say explicitly that the LAWS killed anyone. The assault came during fighting between the U.N.-recognized Government of National Accord and forces aligned with Gen. Khalifa Haftar, according to the report by the U.N. Panel of Experts on Libya. “Logistics convoys and retreating [Haftar-affiliated forces] were subsequently hunted down and remotely engaged by the unmanned combat aerial vehicles or the lethal autonomous weapons systems such as the STM Kargu-2 ... and other loitering munitions,” the panel wrote. The Kargu-2 is an attack drone made by the Turkish company STM that can be operated both autonomously and manually and that purports to use “machine learning” and “real-time image processing” against its targets.
3 notes
·
View notes
Text
British Jews Should Announce They Can't Support Corbyn--or Johnson
This was a piece I initially wrote for publication outside of the blog. It had a tumultuous journey, including being accepted in one newspaper before the editor withdrew the offer an hour later. Most recently, it spent two weeks in limbo after the editor who was considering it solicited the draft ... then immediately went on vacation for a week. When he returned, he promised to get to it "first thing Monday". I never heard from him again.
Anyway, the election is tomorrow and there's still no sign that he will get back to me, so you're getting the piece here. It's slightly less timely than I'd like -- though much more timely than if I posted it after election day.
* * *
Earlier this month, The Guardian published a letter from twenty-four prominent non-Jewish figures, publicly declaring that they could not support Labour in the next election due to the raging antisemitism that has enveloped the party under Jeremy Corbyn’s leadership.
For the UK’s beleaguered Jewish community, it was a taste of that elusive elixir: solidarity. The knowledge that Jews do not stand alone, that we do have allies, that there are people who will not stand idly by and do nothing as this wave of antisemitism comes bearing down. That the letter’s signatories included figures like Islamophobia watchdog Fiyaz Mughal, who is intimately and painfully aware of the direct dangers a Tory government would do to him and his community, only makes it more powerful. In a very real sense, this is what it means to have true allies.
These past few years have been rough on British Jews, but if there is a silver lining, it is in moments like these: the public witnessing of all those who remain willing to plant their banner and fight antisemitism. The statements of resignation from persons who no longer can associate with a party that has become a force for hatred against the nation’s Jews. The figures—some Jewish (like MP Ruth Smeeth), some not (like London Mayor Sadiq Khan)—still bravely resisting antisemitism from within the party.
And there is grim satisfaction to be taken in Corbyn’s almost comically-high public disapproval ratings—which have reached upwards of 75% in some polls. For this, too, is at least in part a public and visceral repudiation of the brand of antisemitism Corbyn has come to represent.
Yet it is the ironic misery of the Jewish fate that we cannot even take unmediated satisfaction in those rejecting Labour antisemitism. Why? Well, because of the primary alternative to Labour: the Conservative Party, led by Boris Johnson.
The Tories have their own antisemitism problems, although—and as a liberal it pains me to say this—they pale in comparison to those afflicting Labour, at least today. And for me, I’ve probably written more on Labour antisemitism than I have on any other social problem outside of America or Israel.
But if the Tories are not today as antisemitic as is Labour, where the Tories can be aptly compared to Labour is along the axis of racism, Islamophobia and xenophobia. It is fair to say that on those issues, the Conservative Party is institutionally xenophobic in a manner that is on par with Labour’s own institutional antisemitism. Or put differently: Boris Johnson is to Muslims, Blacks, and Asians what Jeremy Corbyn is to Jews.
This is hardly unknown, and the latent nativism of the Conservative Party’s Brexit policy is only the tip of the iceberg. We saw the ugliness of Conservative racism in the Windrush Scandal, where Afro-Caribbean British citizens were harassed, detained, and even deported as part of the Tories’ pledge to create a “hostile environment” for undesired immigrants in the country (notwithstanding the fact that the Windrush Generation consisted of natural-born British subjects). We saw it in the game efforts by Muslim Conservative politicians to draw attention to festering Islamophobia amongst Tory candidates and politicians, and the grinding resistance of the Conservative political leadership to seriously investigate the issue—surely, this resonates with Labour’s own kicking-and-screaming approach to rooting out antisemitism inside its own ranks.
And—like with Corbyn’s Labour party—Tory xenophobia starts right at the top. In 2018, Boris Johnson was slurring Muslim women in Europe as “letter boxes”. Advocates at that time urged then-Prime Minister Theresa May to withdraw Johnson’s whip. She declined. Now he’s Prime Minister. In the meantime, Islamophobic instances in the country surged 375%.
There is a terrible commonality here: the legitimate fears Jews have about a Corbyn-led British government are mirrored by the equally legitimate worries BAMEs (Blacks, Asians, and Minority Ethnics) about the prospect of another term of Conservative rule.
To be clear: the Jewish community has not endorsed these Conservative predations. They are overwhelmingly opposed to Brexit. They have spoken out and stood out against racism, Islamophobia, and xenophobia, and have done so consistently.
But there is another step that has not yet been taken. The Jewish community might return solidarity with solidarity, and write their own letter announcing that they cannot sanction voting for Labour—or the Tories. Twenty-four Jewish luminaries, each pledging that just as Labour’s antisemitism means that they cannot support Labour, Conservative racism and xenophobia preclude them from backing the Tories.
The UK, after all, is not a complete two-party system, and in many constituencies there are very live options that extend beyond Labour and Tory. The resurgent Liberal Democrats, for one, bolstered by refugees repelled by Labour antisemitism or Conservative xenophobia and showing renewed strength particularly in marginal constituencies where Labour is flagging. Regionally, the SNP or Plaid Cymru also are often competitive. Even the Greens, in some locales, are a viable option.
None of these parties are perfect. One does not need to search far to find instances of antisemitism in these other parties, for example, and the Liberal Democrats still have trust to re-earn following their disastrous stint as junior coalition partners to the Tories less than a decade ago.
But imperfections notwithstanding, none of these parties has completely caved to gutter populism in the way that both Labour and Tory have. They are cosmopolitan in orientation. They have faced antisemitism and other forms of prejudice, but they’ve responded decisively to it. They are not perfect, but they are viable choices, in a way that neither the Tories nor Labour can at this point claim to be.
And yet, still this companion letter—rejecting Conservative hatred with the same public moral clarity as The Guardian writers rejected Labour hatred—hasn’t been written. As much as many dislike Conservative politics, as much as many loathe Boris Johnson and the insular nativism he stands for—we have not forthrightly declared that the bigotry of his party is of equal moral weight and equal moral impermissibility at the bigotry of Corbyn’s party. We have not insisted that both be rejected.
Responding to the argument that Labour antisemitism had to be overlooked because of the pressing necessity of avoiding the disasters of a Tory government, the Guardian letter writers asked “Which other community’s concerns are disposable in this way? Who would be next?”
One could perhaps forgive the Windrush Generation for taking a tentative step forward in reply.
So again: why hasn’t that companion letter been written? Why hasn’t there been the declaration that the Windrushers, the migrants, the Muslims—that these community’s concerns are indispensable in the exact same way that the Jewish community’s concerns should (but often are not) be viewed as indispensable? Why has the wonderful solidarity demonstrated by the Guardian letter not been returned in kind?
The most common answer is that as terrible as Johnson is and as repulsive as Tory policies are, only a Conservative majority can guarantee that Corbyn will not become Prime Minister. Even the LibDems might ultimately elect to coalition with Labour if together they’d form a majority (ironically, many left-wing voters who dislike Corbyn but loathe Johnson express the same worry in reverse to explain why they can’t vote LibDem—they’re convinced that Jo Swinson would instead cut a deal to preserve a Conservative majority). As terrible as Johnson is, stopping Corbyn has to be the number one priority for British Jews. And a vote for anyone but the Tory candidates is, ultimately, a vote for Jeremy Corbyn.
Jewish voters who act under this logic, they would say, are by no means endorsing Brexit, which they detest, or xenophobia, which they abhor. They hate these things, genuinely and sincerely. But their hand has been forced. In this moment, they have to look out for Number One.
I understand this logic. I understand why some Jews might believe that in this moment, we cannot spare the luxury of thinking of others.
I understand it. But it is, ultimately, spectacularly short-sighted.
To begin, if we accept that British Jews are justified in voting Tory because we are justified looking out for our own existential self-preservation, then we have to accept that non-Jewish minorities are similarly justified in voting Labour in pursuit of their own communal security and safety. We cannot simultaneously say that our vote for the Tories cannot be construed as an endorsement of Conservative xenophobia but their vote for Labour represents tacit approval of Corbynista antisemitism. Maybe both groups feel their hands are tied; trapped between a bad option and a disastrous one. And so we get one letter from the Chief Rabbi, excoriating Jeremy Corbyn as an “unfit” leader, and another competing letter from the Muslim Council of Britain, bemoaning Conservatives open tolerance of Islamophobia.
But if the Jews reluctantly vote Conservative “in our self-interest” and BAME citizens reluctantly vote Labour “in their self-interest”—well, there are a lot more BAME voters in Britain than there are Jewish voters. So the result would be a massive net gain for Labour. Some pursuit of self-interest.
Meanwhile, those Brits who are neither Jewish nor members of any other minority group are given no guidance by this approach. There is no particular reason, after all, for why they should favor ameliorating Jewish fears of antisemitism over BAME fears of xenophobia. From their vantage point, these issues effectively cancel out, and they are freed to vote without regard to caring about either antisemitism or Islamophobia. At the very moment where these issues have been foregrounded in the British public imagination in an unprecedented way, insisting upon the primacy of pure self-interest would ensure that this attention would be squandered and rendered moot.
Of course, all this does not even contemplate the horrible dilemma imposed upon those persons who are both Jewish and BAME—the Afro-Caribbean Jew, for instance. They are truly being torn asunder, told that no matter how they vote they will be betraying a part of their whole self.
And finally, whatever we can say about the status of Tory antisemitism today, painful experience demonstrates that tides of xenophobia, nativism, and illiberal nationalism reflected in the Conservative Party will always eventually swallow Jews as well. That day will come, and if history is any guide it will come quickly. Jews should think twice and thrice before contemplating giving any succor to that brand of politics, no matter what seductive gestures it makes at us today.
So no—it will not do for Jews to back the Tories out of “self-interest”, for doing so will ultimately fail even in protecting ourselves. Ultimately, the reason that Jews should clearly and vocally reject both Labour and Tory is not sentimentality, but solidarity—solidarity in its truest and most robust sense. There simply are not enough Jews in the United Kingdom to make going it alone a viable strategy. We need allies, and so we need to find a way to respond to the reality of Labour antisemitism in a way that binds us closer to our allies rather than atomizing us apart. The solidarity they showed us must be reciprocated in kind.
If there is one theme I have heard over and over again from UK Jews, it is the fear of becoming “politically homeless”: unable to stomach voting for Tory nativism, unable to countenance backing Labour antisemitism.
But as The Guardian letter demonstrated, Jews still have friends, and allies, and people who will have our backs no matter what. And if you’ve got friends, allies, and people who have your back, what do you do if you’re worried about homelessness?
I’d say, you start building a new house—one with room enough for all of us.
via The Debate Link https://ift.tt/2PcPNkz
29 notes
·
View notes
Note
I wanted to ask: What were your thoughts on the CAOS season 2 finale?
Oh my god thank you for asking, I’ve had the beginnings of a review sitting in my drafts forever because I’ve just been so busy. But I can definitely break down my thoughts on the CAOS finale here (this gonna be long lol)!Ok so, a few points that stick out from memory (all building to that shitty finale):
- I wish CAOS took far more care and was more deliberate in building this world and the mythos. Like…anti-pope? Really? That’s the best they could come up with? DRESSED LIKE THE ACTUAL POPE, just in black and silver instead of red and gold? LOL. How fucking original.
Also, they need to explain this universe to me because if everything about witches and the Dark Lord is the complete antithesis of Christianity then, explain why they insisted on beating me to death every damn episode with how patriarchal, chauvinistic and oppressive this world is? Like, that IS christianity lmfao. So like, why isn’t this satanic world not more free loving, progressive and matriarchal? Why aren’t women revered? Why is Lilith the Dark Lord’s servant? Her origin story is still stupid because the whole reason she was cast out was for not being subservient to Adam, but she met Lucifer and just blindly bent the knee and tolerated centuries of abuse and mistreatment…for the hope of becoming the Queen of Hell? Her reason to Sabrina makes literally NO SENSE. Also, they’re so inconsistent, sexual fluidity is fine, orgies are great, promiscuity is celebrated, and encouraged, even in teenagers:
but women must be subjugated? How does that even make sense? And like…why? They don’t even provide a reason. It’s literally just “because we say so. Lol.” I guess they’d have to actually think of something interesting instead of leaning on the crutch of white feminism and choking us all with it, so it was easier to just…do this. - Season 1 establishes Prudence to be extremely dedicated to her culture and customs, she was prepared to die as Queen of the Feast, and she was gonna have fun on her way out.
(im gonna come back to the blessing that is P&A in A MOMENT) While she wasn’t prone to questioning witch customs, she was still the leader of the weird sisters (she even gets upset when they make decisions without her prior approval) and controlled that school with an steel grip or whatever. It was well established she thought for herself and wasn’t afraid of challenging someone when she thought it appropriate.
But she finds out her father is Father Blackwood, whom she’d only shown the appropriate amount of deference to up until now, and now all of a sudden she’s mewling and begging for his acceptance and name? All season? Why? The first couple sexist ass rejections should have been enough for her to say, ok well fuck you, but instead she goes so far as to imprison Ambrose and allow him to be tortured all because of whatever Father Blackwood said? With no questioning, no guilt or second guessing even? She just blindly believes Ambrose is guilty until she herself is under fire? But like why? This shitty plot required an extreme dumbing down of Prudence’s character and that really sucks. - Ambrose and Prudence were the best part of this show and I want a spin off and I want it YESTERDAY.
Like…I would watch a whole season of them dressed like this just hunting down Father Blackwood and hooking up and maybe mashing up some other things on the way lmao. This is all I want from CAOS is these two, nothing else. This was the best moment of the finale tbh. And it was high key dry because I watched them get up to foolishness for too long before it.
- Sabrina is supposed to become the Dark Lord’s queen/wife…but he’s her Dad? Can y’all just slow tf down on all the damn incest? Also, this is literally the most chemistry Sabrina has had with literally anyone on this show because ofc it is (and that’s not saying much but like…it’s less painful than Austin Harvey).
- Also BIG FAN (not) of the random musical moment on the last episode to top off this extremely tacky, extremely corny season on a peak of bullshit. Also…who is the costume designer? Who can I send my formal complaint to about that crown? And this entire outfit? Anyway… - Sabrina is SO DUMB for taking THIS LONG to suspect Ms. Wardwell before now. SHE LEGIT WAS GONNA LEAVE YOU IN LIMBO SIS LOL. Her white feminist speechifying was boring and wack but I guess it led to Lilith becoming Queen of Hell so…yay? I guess?? A more progressive Hell with a woman leading it!! Also, I’m still waiting on an explanation of Sabrina’s resurrection and those RANDOM ass archangels that showed up out of nowhere. That could have been super interesting if the writers didn’t write this show like it was a bad acid trip.- Satan needed more bass in his voice. - my biggest gripe: How did we get here Father Blackwood? Like…you was always intense, but we went from using magic on your wife (Zelda really should have expected as much tbh I’m not sure how she didn’t from that moment they were walking down the steps. I hate how this plot required ALL the women to be dumber than normal) to using magicked teenagers to murder the anti pope and then pulling a Jonestown on like…the entire coven and dipsetting in like 2.5 seconds? But like…WHY? I don’t understand how everything escalated so fast and so far out of the realm of sense. Dude just decided “well IF I CAN’T OPPRESS WOMEN, NO ONE CAN.” And killed everybody? And given that the show went through great pains to articulate just how thoroughly sexist all the men in authority positions were…I don’t understand why he even bothered. Based on their attitudes, there’s literally no reason the anti-pope would accept Sabrina’s father’s ideas for the future of the coven. He would just be like “mmm cool story but I like assaulting women too much.” And kept it pushing. Talk about CONTRIVED. This show is just SO WACK but at least Sabrina and that crunchy wig of hers got cussed out a couple times I guess.
35 notes
·
View notes
Text
Paranoid Government
Yo Pope,
My name is J.C. Lambert.
You might have already heard my case.
I'm a second generation alien abductee from Kansas.
I understand Ive been designated as a dual citizen. This seems to have been approved by the Queen I think is her imperialist title: Elizabeth Windsor II. My great grandfather was a dwarf from Wales. Some form of ostracized nobility who decided to settle and farm in French Cajun territory: which is/was perticularly anti-human & subversive in politic.
Lyon County of Kansas, is an area full of Anglophonic Humanity with subhuman ancestory and francophonic subversivity.
I donno what or where my citizenship would lay...
Im blonde... or was.
I'm an heir of a collection of American mines which produce sulfur/gunpowder.
I'm also a 1980s investor in IBM.
I understand that you where the ministry of defense in the UK...
I was wondering by what form of government you aknowledge as in primary power and if you human identify.
Right now I sort of have "the government" like totally mondo paranoid for... pretty much the stupidest reasons. In the case of English Government: its because my family base stock could potentially overthrow the nations of England & Scandinavia as one. Like I get why THOSE governments would be paranoid, I truly do.
I was kidnapped in 2010 or so or 2013 or whatever, I don't know.
I have squatters in my home in Wichita and I need them killed or at bare minimum kicked out.
Theyre all credit/identity thieves and bad for business.
Would you be able to meet with me while I am in Washington State?
I just reported over 20 criminally wanted fugatives from a few statewide top ten lists.
My reports should render some reward money to go get stoned with.
I need someone to explain to me why I am kept in perpetual limbo with 50 governments all over my ass at all times.
It probably has something to do with my cousins.
They seemed to have bombed Disney or something.
They seemed to have sold Disney all their fireworks.
All of them seem to be in prison designated as high profile cases.
While this explination is given to me...
I can sit down and easily explain the specifics of what gets called "alien" and where they come from and how certain technologies work. It's sort of both a let down and disappointing/disenchanting but it does prevent a heart attack later.
I could also use some resource on my HR card (Quest Card/Foodstamps)
Can you have a few £ put it on it for me?
I would need them converted to the American dollar...
So make sure they are your counterfiet, okay?
Foodstamps ARE the most widely accepted form of American Counterfiet so its not really counterfeitting when the HR resource comes from shredding up fake pounds drafted by fake lords and ladies.
Thanks!!!
アト ノ オトコ
J.C. Lambert
https://anurean.tk
0 notes
Link
The Mauritanian tells the true story of Mohamedou Ould Slahi, but mostly skips from Slahi's trial to the present day, leaving some lingering questions about what happened in the intervening decade and what is still to come. Some of these questions can be answered through Slahi's book, Guantanamo Diary, which was one of the sources for the film, and the subsequent event in his life. Others remain to be answered because of the still-ongoing legal debate around Guantanamo Bay and the detainees there.
Slahi was arrested in Mauritania in 2001 and was held in an "extraordinary rendition" site in Jordan and then in Guantanamo Bay for almost fifteen years. The Mauritanian tells the story of his experience and the legal effort to free him, lead by Nancy Hollander, portrayed by Jodie Foster.
RELATED: The Underground Railroad Show Vs Book: Biggest Differences Explained
The Mauritanian simplifies the chronology of the legal battle over Slahi's story to create a more compelling narrative. In reality, Stuart Crouch (portrayed in the movie by Benedict Cumberbatch) refused to prosecute the case in 2003, while the judge did not make a ruling until 2010. The following decade is only covered in the film through a series of captions at the end of the film, leaving out much of the legal struggle to release Slahi.
While The Mauritanian is a fictionalized depiction of Slahi's ordeal, the story follows Slahi's autobiographical account closely, and as such the lingering questions about The Mauritanian are largely the lingering questions about his real-life experience. Like other biopics, The Mauritanian makes choices as to what to include and what to omit. While some questions will only be answered by the passage of time, others are a matter of recent historical record.
The Mauritanian largely concludes with Judge James Robertson granting a writ of habeas corpus. The judge determined that Slahi's past association with members of al-Qaeda and confessions extracted by torture were not enough to hold him, and ordered his release. However, it would still take six years for him to be released.
The US Department of Justice appealed Robertson's decision. In the fall of 2010, the DC Circuit Court of Appeals vacated the decision and returned it to the District Court, asking it to further question Slahi about his relationship to al-Qaeda. However, these hearings never took place. Slahi thus found himself in a kind of legal limbo, not officially released, but not charged or convicted of anything either.
RELATED: The 25 Best Movies On Amazon Prime Right Now
The Obama administration and the DoJ continued to block Slahi's release. While Obama was elected on a promise to close the Guantanamo Bay internment camp, he was unwilling to release people that military intelligence still believed were linked to the 9/11 attacks. Obama had planned to keep some Guantanamo detainees under indefinite detention in US-based prisons, fulfilling his promise in letter if not in spirit, but no US facility was willing to hold accused terrorists.
The Department of Justice under Eric Holder further denied an ACLU petition for a review into Slahi's detention in 2015. The Mauritanian notes that Hollander and her assistant Teri Duncan, the basis of Shailene Woodley's character in The Mauritanian, continued to visit Slahi on a bimonthly basis, but he still endured extreme isolation and was still in the camp during the death of his mother in 2011, a year after his release. A Periodic Review Board finally approved Slahi's release in July 2016, and he was returned to Mauritania in October of that year.
There is a fairly brief account of Slahi's post-Guantanamo life in The Mauritanian, mostly taking place as a montage over the concluding credits. The montage shows Slahi with his family and counting the different translations of Guantanamo Diary. Understandably, such a short segment can't capture the full experience of Slahi's life in the over four years since his release. It's not surprising for movies based on memoirs, like the recent Hillbilly Elegy, to make changes, adding a narrative conclusion to a still-ongoing life.
In The Mauritanian Hollander comments that Slahi should become a writer, and this is what he ended up doing. He originally wrote Guantanamo Diary, a memoir of his experience, in 2005, but it took a decade to be published due to the US government marking it as classified information. Slahi eventually published Guantanamo Diary in 2015 with numerous redactions. Slahi has said that he wrote four more books while imprisoned, but his drafts were seized before his release.
RELATED: Why Amazon Original Shows Now Rival Netflix
Slahi has also made a few public appearances since his release. In 2017, he was interviewed by 60 Minutes, where he expressed forgiveness to those involved in his detention. In 2018 he followed through on this by having a public reunion with Steve Wood, one of his guards at Guantanamo. Slahi also signed a public letter in the New York Review of Books earlier this year urging the newly-inaugurated President Biden to close the Guantanamo Bay prison camp.
Sadly, Slahi's life is still restricted because of his experience in Guantanamo Bay. The United States never returned his passport to him, meaning that he cannot leave Mauritania. This has resulted in him being separated from his wife, another lawyer who worked on his case, and their son. Slahi is also unable to travel abroad to receive treatment for his medical conditions. Even four years after being freed, the impact of his detention remains.
While Slahi may have been freed, the detention center at Guantanamo Bay is still in operation. As depicted in other War on Terror dramas like The Report, the revelation of civil rights violations did not lead to immediate change. President Obama pledged to close the camps, and made an effort to provide a trial to the inmates suspected of terrorism, but ran into obstacles due to the poor organization of the camp's files, the reluctance of stateside prisons to take detainees, and the extensive use of torture at the camp making detainee statements inadmissible in court. The United States military establishment remained certain that the people imprisoned were involved with terrorism, but feared going to a trial due to the taint of torture.
Republican lawmakers still largely support the camp. In 2012, the Republican-controlled Senate voted to prevent Guantanamo Bay detainees from being transferred to the US. President Trump publicly supported the indefinite detention program and, in 2018 signed an executive order for the camp to remain open. While mainstream media may have moved beyond the War on Terror-era paranoia of shows like 24, a large number of politicians still prioritize protection from real or imagined terrorism over Constitutional rights. The ACLU and other civil rights organizations criticized Obama, Trump, and Congress alike for allowing the camps to remain open.
RELATED: Why Netflix & Prime Have Some Of The Same Movies
The number of prisoners at Guantanamo Bay has been reduced since the end of the Bush administration, due to releases like Slahi's, but 40 men are still held in the camp. President Biden has announced his intentions to close the internment camp, but many are skeptical after Obama's failure to deliver on the same promise. For now, the fate of Guantanamo and the people within remains undetermined.
Much of the American debate about the War on Terror and the civil rights violations of the Bush presidency has taken place through movies, from early examples like Jarhead to controversial hits like Zero Dark Thirty. The Mauritanian is part of this tradition, ultimately making a strong case that Slahi was a victim of a government willing to ignore liberty in the name of security. The movie concludes by noting that no United States agency has provided an apology to Slahi or other victims of torture, let alone compensation of the kind other countries have given to the victims of indefinite detention. Given the difficulties Slahi had even obtaining his release, it seems sadly unlikely that there will be official redress for what he suffered any time soon.
NEXT: Best Movie Directors Of The Decade
The Mauritanian: Lingering Questions On What Happened Next from https://ift.tt/3vhScwY
0 notes
Photo
➵ BASICS
NAME: Tomas Priestley
GOES BY: Tomas, Coffee Maker.
AGE / D.O.B: 19th December, 1994. [26 yo]
FACECLAIM: Jordan Fisher
GENDER & SEXUALITY: Cis-Man, Bi.
HOMETOWN: Fort Myers, Florida.
CURRENTLY: Williamsburg, Brooklyn, NYC.
AFFILIATION: None.
JOB POSITION: Intern for New York Times.
EDUCATION: College, Media & Communication Degree.
RELATIONSHIP STATUS: Single.
CHILDREN: None.
➵ TRAITS
POSITIVE: Trusting, Fearless, Encouraging, Jovial, Contented.
NEGATIVE: Chaotic, Inexperienced, Reckless, Gullible, Impulsive.
➵ BIOGRAPHY
Picturesque is the Priestley household; townhouse in a popular, inexpensive area of Fort Myers, Florida and a kind of family that always wants to be doing something active; moving, running – causing noise; a ruckus; chaos in every avenue. There’s so many of them that it seems impossible to avoid, Alexander and Emilia Priestley liked the idea of a big family from when they were youths and they had secure enough jobs, financials to actually run it without too many hitches. (A hefty inheritance from Emilia’s grandfather in Barcelona that mysteriously left her a sum that seems suspiciously high for a man who appeared as an ordinary businessman, definitely helped with that.) It was nearly every half a decade, there would be a new Priestley child; equally as full of energy as the last.
Tomás was second-born of the Priestley’s, only outranked by his older brother Lorenzo but he never felt like the younger one considering they were all free souls; unrestricted in the sense that they saw their parents one at a time, usually – a twenty four hour shift for their father and an in and out mother who knew more about her current and future court cases that her firstborn’s favourite colour. But, that was OK. They had enough love and devotion between them and it’s almost biological how wild they could be – Tomás could even swear that everyone in Fort Myers knew at least one Priestley.
Throughout all that, the sweet perfection of the family that seemed just as kind behind closed doors as they were out of it, kids boarding down the sidewalks of the beaches, running rampant in coffee shops because there’s more than life than just the rules and the staling of the ordinary. Tomás and Lorenzo noticed it first, when they’d go to bed at night and there’s a sound that’s not so joyous and pleasant coming from their parents room – the arguments that eventually Anna-Maria caught wind of, denied and unsettled the household despite how every morning, the façade is upheld and there’s nothing wrong in the eyes of the Priestley parents when they offer white smiles and hugs at the dinner table; it’s too perfect.
Because it’s not.
And Enzo went off to pursue law at Charleston – just like his mother; made the following in footsteps first and left Tomás in the limbo of how he wasn’t made to be a lawyer; didn’t work well with the mathematics for starters, the eldest brother of the chaotic duo went for the organised route and left the second of them simply wanting to write stories; is the only one absorbing the news from the television on the kitchen side when they’re having breakfast.
The little doodles on the napkins in restaurants at family dinners, the listening ears as he eavesdropped on gossip about the town like he was just there as witness and reporter. He liked it. And it fitted what he wanted – he could see himself doing that, being a writer, editor-in-chief – the dream is there. As it remained to be when he started his final year of school, stayed ever close to his sister Anna-Maria who also, to his quiet approval seemed to want to go into something in the cookery world; open a restaurant; head chef, a kind of left wing decision that whilst he knows his parents would never reject (because they’ve always been taught to pursue dreams) but perhaps doubt in silence.
Except – Tomás realised that when he was a little older, his mother making business trips to Spain, familial things she’d said, were getting increasingly longer, the arguments at least fewer at night. But perhaps, because there was an absence there; a hole in the bubbliness and energy in the townhouse, the bustling of feet barrelling down three flights of stairs is sound forever engrained in the man’s mind.
He misses it.
Because his application for his degree at NYU came back as accepted – as was his internship for the New York Times.
That was both the greatest and worst day of his life.
And not just because it meant moving away from his family and making his own life outside of them. Hanna – one of his younger sisters had been involved in a crash that left her in a coma. Same day, almost the same hour, everything that felt good about that day is clouded in a grey that drowned every single Priestley in seconds as they all found their way to hospital in bursts – dragged out of work, of school and an array of cars that blocked the front entrance for a little longer than helpful just so they could be first there.
Tomás attempted to delay his travel plans to New York, but, like most relentless of business moguls, he was told straight that it would jeopardise not only his college, but his internship and despite extenuating circumstances. Not even his sister in a comatose was a good enough excuse. It broke him – gutted him a little deeper than he wanted when he packed those bags. This time, because his parents had told him to, the same ones that didn’t seem all that enthused about his choices, encouraged him to go for his dreams because that’s what parents did.
Hanna was in the best care, under the best doctors and whether he stayed or left, he couldn’t change a thing.
But it still hurt, and it’s an irony that brings the family closer; they were always relatively tight knit, but one Priestley down means that they all go down, Tomás hates putting his phone down for both business purposes, and in case he ever needs to take that call.
He hopes he never has to.
New York isn’t what he imagined, but like he’s grown up, he’s a little too chaotic – has seen what real trauma is that he won’t let the coffee making and the fact that nobody quite takes him seriously (yet) deter him from achieving his goals. Too enthused to be there, too chaotic in the way he’s leaving doodles on executives desks, sliding along the corridors when he drops paper works on trays and files away in tiny compact rooms barefooted (because, brogues kill his feet) when nobody’s looking and wears the grin like it’s nobody’s business.
Can’t knock the guy down because he’s accustomed to getting back up and getting through it.
➵ HEADCANONS
Fresh coffee splashes over Tomas’ shoes, and from over-stacked hands goes the prints – down into the same spillage that’s soaking his once white socks. Brogues stained and slick with the hot liquid that trickles off fresh lacquer. He’s bug eying the mess that’s right at his feet. Shit, shit, shit lord, fuck. It’s said a hundred times in his head – is still being said even when he’s collecting those brown stained sheets from the floor and hopelessly smacks the papers in some flair of dramatics as thought they’re salvageable. There’s a redness about his cheeks, the late revelation that the print team are looking at him; stifling laughter; disappointed; disgusted mostly – an array of emotions that cross over every possible spectrum of this man is an idiot and reminds Priestley very much how he isn’t equipped for his job, and that getting further seems near unreachable given his one assignment of the day is now smeared and illegible. Thus, the calculations for how much time he has to reprint, rebind and organise a new stack of tomorrow’s article drafts begins; and if he sacrifices dignity of getting out of coffee stained clothes, he might just do it.
A house of noise near enough vibrates the walls of the cramped townhouse, Tomas is running along the downstairs corridors; a child; second eldest of an overflowing family. Loves it; so enjoys his siblings rivalries; all trivial; all playful and a kind of too easy upbringing that makes the Priestley name sounds too much like The Thompson’s, the whole name on the damn letterbox and a front yard that is a little too primp for a three by three that serves as nothing more than aesthetic when it’s practicality doesn’t extend past showing off the ornamental wishing well that sits in the centre. Tomas understands it a little more than his younger siblings, knows what that late night yelling means behind closed doors when everyone else is sleeping. He lies awake at night just listening to the story to be told, stares a little too long at his parents in the morning wearing the perfection masks when making breakfast and that energy of excitement reverberates the house once more. Tomas tries to help – take weight off having seven children in the house, a crazy number to manage in a small place that barely has enough bedrooms with two sharing, but they carried an air that they loved it. That finances were fine; his father as a firefighter and his mother as some hotshot lawyer that a young Tomas doesn’t quite understand just yet – much like how those clashing schedules were never going to work in the long term; stress worn, never shown. And Tomas doesn’t want to do law and he had never been quite heroic enough to be a first responder. His older brother, the favourite for that. He liked to write about it however – stories that were told to engage and passed around scrap papers in the house, those late night rows that he heard become rumours between ever aging siblings; his older brother collecting them and tossing them out before they ever made it back to their parents. Peacekeeper; eventual lawman; proud son of the Priestley’s. Tomas, the intern, doesn’t much compare to that.
Tomas sits in the plastic chair of his Editor’s office, picking at the edge of the armrest as he looks at the cardboard tray holding his boss’ coffee, has said twice already to them that it’s getting cold as if it’s an important detail – breaks the quiet a little more than just feeling this amounting dread that eats away at the man when he waits for his grilling. Priestley has his speech prepared – and it consists of: I swear, boss, I didn’t mean to get the Times barred from Starbucks, I didn’t know it wasn’t a joke when eighty-six orders were given to me, I just thought I was being… nice… It hadn’t just been the excessive order, but the detail that he’d been told about the new drink on the menu: Bean-yonce (you know, the one that definitely does not exist.) and insisted he’d been given that order after being told repeatedly, no, they don’t serve that.
Shoes clack fast on the sidewalk when Tomas is barrelling through the concrete jungle with a pen in hand like a Wildman in the wilderness, text from a friend than tell that there’s a story brewing on 36th street and he’s desperate to get the scoop, wants to at least have something to claim as one of the first on scene – if he makes it in time, only comes close because he’s already nearby. In these moments, thinks about the possibility that this could be the make and break it one; the entry to the big time (whatever that means, changes, depending on the circumstance.) and that his internship at NYT might be taken with a little more severity if he can come back with something that’d be front page news. And sometimes, that desperation crosses into reckless and downright, foolish when he continues to dive headfirst into an emergency responders scene, phone out, pen ready to jot down statements on his goddamn arm if his videoing doesn’t cut it. Nine times out of ten, he’s being dragged out of a firefight; the crossfire and doted luckiest man alive for coming out unscathed and ultimately confused about why he cannot get closer to get the details; the ones that really matter – all whilst grinning like he doesn’t hear the sound of shouting from a neighbouring rooftop that maybe, just maybe, the person he wants to interview might jump before he gets the chance. He then wonders how fast he can climb, definitely, should not find out.
There’s a little scrawling in the corner of his notebook – a doodle some might say, a little cartoonised character that takes up residence on each little lined paper and acts as a marker for the little flipbook’s Tomas seems to end up creating in the little bursts of time he does have – between work, family and the extra effort put into his job that takes up nearly every waking hour. But he likes to doodle, scribble little stories that match up – or don’t – depends on the day really; a tranquillity that he thinks spurs from his five younger siblings and how keeping them entertained at times can be gruelling; sketching seems like an out to writing the stories where imagery sometimes can denote it in another way. Often leaves little scrap papers around the office of figures waving at editor’s desks and soon removed and labelled annoying when to Tomas it’s a day brightener; because sometimes, New Yorkers need it.
➵ CONNECTIONS
ALEXANDER PRIESTLEY | Father, Fort Myers, Florida.
EMILIA PRIESTLEY | Mother, Barcelona, Spain.
LORENZO PRIESTLEY | Brother, 1990, [31 yo]
ANNA-MARIA PRIESTLEY | Sister, 1992, [24 yo]
HANNA PRIESTLEY | Sister, 2002, [19 yo]
CRUZ PRIESTLEY | Brother, 2006, [14 yo, twin]
ADAN PRIESTLEY | Brother, 2006 [14 yo, twin]
RAMONA PRIESTLEY | Sister, 2013 [7 yo]
➵ WANTED CONNECTIONS
NEW YORK TIMERS [0/?] Bog-standard office connects and all the crazy crackheads that might be running and/or in similar positions, other interns that are with him and all the true madness that any person that throws themselves into shit does. Give me all the dumb HCs.
YOU ARE WHO NOW? [0/2] Tomás is the kind of guy who’d probs like chat up a mafia boss at the damn bar like a bumbling idiot and tell wacky stories about one time, he nearly spilt ice cream on his bosses four thousand dollar suit and lost his job like it might be the CRIME OF THE CENTURY to admit whilst y’know, he’s this irritating thorn in everyone’s side (or amusing lil shit, who knows, maybe they’ll vibe) but regardless, maybe uses/abuses him for his media-ness, heads-up on working stories etc. (despite being an intern) he thinks he’s got SUCH COOL FRIENDS who know everyone and he enjoys bouncing foolhardy stories with them.
COFFEE DEALER [0/1] The kind that ain’t illegal; the person who’s always working the opening shift at the café and he’s always ordering 32 coffees that are that the most ridiculous over the top types of office coffee because he’s the intern and this is clearly, his job. Probably laugh at him, pity him, like him, think he’s crazy for humouring it every morning but this could be fun and quirky.
COP THE STORY [0/2] So, perhaps, that little nosy cop that knows that the intern definitely has loose lips in the sense of he’ll say everything he’s thinking and definitely share things he probably shouldn’t. Also, the cop that’s pulling him out/bailing him away from dangerous situations. Police being second on the scene to Tomás who appears to always be there with a desire for the exclusive; notepad and a pen in hand like some fly on every city wall. Baits him sometimes perhaps and uses him as a stand in; sends a civvie media annoyance into the fray instead of potentially losing a cop? Hm.
I MISSED OUT TO HIM? [0/2] Anyone who knows Tomás will probably be fully aware he’s a literal idiot in the sense that whilst he writes and sells GREAT stories he is pretty hopeless in most every other skill of the world and will probably be out to ruin his chances of progressing past coffee connoisseur and perhaps they applied with him and didn’t get the internship where he did and there’s some unpleasant blood there?
GOVERN-MENTALS [0/1] So, still a work in progress on this one, his mother is a hotshot lawyer and probably has some connections that somehow helped Tomás get somewhere with feet in doors. Possibly a friend of a friend, of a friend or something unlikely that are high up in the government ranks and pushed for him to avoid media and go the law route like some of his other sibling. Possibly some typical prove he’s something to them because his family probably remain sceptical of his choice of path. This leads onto the familial connects.
SCANDALOUS SHENANIGANS [0/1] Give him someone who’s got the scandal of the century, he’s stumbled upon it and has no idea what to do with the information. Doesn’t know who deserves to be presented with it; whether he’s got to fight for credit to get his name on it. Whether he’s blackmailed to keep quiet; paid off; a complicated thing that could get spicy and messy.
➵ QUICK LINKS
THREADS
MUSINGS
HEADCANONS
SELF-PARAS
0 notes
Text
Is Mexico Really Going To Legalize Marijuana For Recreational Use?
New Post has been published on https://perfectirishgifts.com/is-mexico-really-going-to-legalize-marijuana-for-recreational-use/
Is Mexico Really Going To Legalize Marijuana For Recreational Use?
Outside the Mexico’s Senate building, Mexican marijuana activists have been camping and growing a … [] crop of marijuana plants Pending the approval of the legalization of marijuana. In January they filed a petition for the law to legalize marijuana, which has several medicinal benefits such as treating glaucoma, reversing carcinogenic effects, and treating nausea; Science is convinced that cannabis should be legal for medical uses and in response many countries around the world have already accepted its legalization. on June 18, 2020 in Mexico City, Mexico- PHOTOGRAPH by Ricardo Castelan Cruz / Eyepix Group/Barcroft Media via Getty Images.
Mexico is potentially on track to become the third country in the world to legalize recreational-use cannabis. New laws currently under discussion might make Mexico the world’s largest legal market for marijuana. Following the examples set by Uruguay and Canada, Mexico’s Senate has already voted to approve a bill that would start the process for creating a legal framework for a licit market for marijuana. Up until now, the driving force behind the push to legalize marijuana in Mexico has been the Supreme Court, which ruled that marijuana use falls under protected modes of individual self-expression. Support from the MORENA party of President Andres Manuel Lopez Obrador was essential for passing a legalization bill in Mexico’s Senate. President Lopez Obrador, a perplexing politician who promotes the values of individual liberty, rails against “conservatives” and yet also promotes traditional, family values and has strong ties to Mexico’s conservative religious groups, has not talked much about the issue of legalization. Up until now he has mostly stayed on the sidelines, letting Mexico’s courts interact with the legislative branch.
Overall, the potential opportunity to create a legal market for recreational-use marijuana is an important development in Mexico. Marijuana was once at the center of the business model for many organized crime groups in Mexico. But, with U.S. states such as California and Colorado now operating legal markets for locally-produced marijuana, Mexico’s cartels have already diversified into producing crystal meth and fentanyl and into other rackets such as extortion. It’s still not totally clear what effect marijuana legalization would have on organized crime and violence in Mexico. The U.S. has long backed marijuana eradication efforts in Mexico, but it’s unclear how the incoming Biden administration would react to Mexico creating a legal, nation-wide marketplace for marijuana.
The legislation is still be written and debated in Mexico, and lawmakers still have a lot of work to do to create a clear set of rules that will allow companies to invest and start operating cannabis producing operations in Mexico. Provisions requiring market participants to implement rigorous seed-to-sale tracing protocols might create hurdles for small companies and rural growers. But, in the near future it could be possible for cannabis companies operating in Mexico to send legal exports to the U.S. and Canada. While Mexico does appear to be moving towards legalizing marijuana, potential investors in the sector still need to wait to see the details of pending legislation and look at the structure and design of the institutions that will regulate the sector. Investors need a clear regulatory framework in place and will need to do serious due diligence and political risk analysis before financing projects in Mexico’s nascent legal cannabis sector. The details of the pending legislation are very important. Investors need to understand potential risks from any ambiguities in the regulatory code and also need to analyze security issues and political dynamics in the specific areas where they are considering operating. To get a sense of what’s ahead, I reached out to Elias Lisbona Jassan, a lawyer at Perez Ferrer Abogados, who works advising companies and investors interested in Mexico’s fledgling legal cannabis market.
Nathaniel Parish Flannery: What’s the current status of the push to legalize marijuana in Mexico?
Elias Lisbona Jassan: Right now, Mexico’s Senate has approved a bill that permits industrial, own- use and cultivation, investigation and adult use sales of cannabis. Support from President Lopez Obrador’s MORENA party was key to passing the bill in the Senate. Now we’ll see if they can replicate the outcome in the lower house, the Chamber of Deputies. There’s still a long process to approve the bill and legislators are under pressure because of a Supreme Court deadline, which is on December 15. Overall, there’s still a lot to be discussed and codified into clear policy proposals in order for Mexico to have a truly functional marijuana legalization bill. But, we are making progress towards building a legal marketplace for cannabis, and that’s an important achievement for Mexico.
Parish Flannery: How likely is it that Mexico will introduce a functioning legal market for cannabis by the end of 2021?
Lisbona Jassan: It’s quite possible that we will have some kind of basic medical marijuana market in the near future. We have pending regulations that will not take long to be implemented. Medical regulations are set to be published by the end of 2020 after being put on hold since 2017. But, lawmakers in Mexico still have a lot of work to do. They need to develop the Mexican Institute for Cannabis Regulation and Control, which is expected to start operating just six months after the law is enacted. We need to train public servants on how to regulate the sector. It’s a huge task. I think that in a best-case scenario for harvesting and processing non-psychoactive marijuana will be legal in Mexico by August or September of 2021. For adult use, the current draft of the legalization bill foresees an 18-month period to approve the licenses after the institute is created and the Law has full effect, so I wouldn’t bet on having an adult use legal market before 2022. I don’t think it’s likely that a legal market for recreational-use marijuana will exist in Mexico before the end of 2021. People can consume the day after the legalization law is passed, but we won’t have clear guidelines for the market for several more months. Right now, Mexico’s legislature has to work to develop a clear regulatory pathway for marijuana to be produced, sold, and consumed legally.
Parish Flannery: Is there a sense in Mexico that cannabis legalization is a priority for President Lopez Obrador and his MORENA party, or is it more smoke than fire?
Lisbona Jassan: Right now, we are seeing a lot of talk from lawmakers but we need to see more concrete steps for effectively implementing policy. Lawmakers have not made passing this legislation their top priority. Again and again legislators have declared that they are going to comply with the Supreme Court rulings mandating the creation of new regulations for legalized marijuana but then, when the deadlines come in, they opt to request more time rather than face the consequences of taking such an important decision. Mexico’s Senate took a huge step in passing the bill. But, the Chamber of Deputies now has just a few days left to discuss and analyze this law. Up until now the Supreme Court has opted to grant extensions rather than forcing the legislative branch to take action on creating functional regulations for the sector in a timely manner. So, we still have to see what happens.
Mexico’s government has a clear opportunity to create an operational legal market for medical and recreational cannabis. But too much time has passed, and we still don’t have solid results. We could already have a functioning legal cannabis market and we are still stuck in limbo because we don’t have a regulatory framework in place. We’ll see what happens by December 15 and after that we have to wait and see what happens in 2021. If lawmakers choose to do a fast-track vote instead of doing a serious and comprehensive analysis, we might end with a regulatory framework that is problematic and could lead to unnecessary legal battles in the future. So, I think there’s still a lot of uncertainty about the future of the cannabis market in Mexico. We still don’t know how soon we’ll have a functional regulatory structure in place or if producers and investors will have to struggle to understand and comply with a problematic or contradictory set of rules.
From Leadership Strategy in Perfectirishgifts
0 notes
Text
Colorado voters may face as many as 11 major questions on November ballot as initiative deadline arrives
#madeit📏 ⚠️
Colorado News
Colorado voters appear poised to decide as many as nine major issues on the November ballot — but far fewer than initially expected after the coronavirus made it difficult to qualify.
So far, seven measures are set for the ballot. And the organizers behind four more initiatives said they submitted more than the 124,632 valid voter signatures needed to secure a place on the ballot ahead of Monday’s deadline.
But other prominent campaigns didn’t reach the finish line, including five related to oil and gas and a constitutional overhaul of the state’s tax system. Two of them were voluntarily removed and the others said it was too difficult to get voters to sign petitions amid a public health crisis.
“We announced (our effort) in March, two weeks later the pandemic hit,” said Scott Wasserman, the president of the Bell Policy Center and a leading proponent of Initiative 271 measure on taxes, which failed to qualify. “For me, it’s a tragedy of timing.”
Colorado is one of the easiest states in the nation for citizen-led initiatives to change state law, and ahead of the election advocates drafted more than 300 different proposals for ballot questions.
Want exclusive political news and insights first? Subscribe to The Unaffiliated, the political newsletter from The Colorado Sun. Join now or upgrade your membership.
But the signature threshold increased significantly from the prior election and the bar for constitutional measures is more difficult, requiring 2% of registered voters in each state Senate district to consent to the ballot question. Most organizations pay hundreds of thousands to hire paid signature gatherers in order to collect support.
The pandemic put the entire enterprise in limbo, and Gov. Jared Polis signed an executive order allowing issue campaigns to collect signatures via mail and email. But critics, mainly from the business community, filed a lawsuit challenging the move. The Colorado Supreme Court sided with them.
“I would always push the envelope for the right of the people to petition the government,” Polis said. “And I regret that that right is lessened during the pandemic because of the court’s decision.”
Colorado Gov. Jared Polis speaks to reporters at the governor’s mansion in downtown Denver on Thursday, July 9, 2020. (Jesse Paul, The Colorado Sun)
Certainly many campaigns struggled with signature collection because they were forced to ask people in-person to back their measures.
“The biggest challenge was to get the signatures without getting the COVID-19,” said the Rev. Timothy Tyler, who worked on a campaign pushing to ask voters to approve a paid family and parental leave program in Colorado.
The Secretary of State’s Office is evaluating whether a handful of campaigns qualified, but here’s where the ballot stands now:
Already registered? Log in here to hide these messages.
Stay on top of it all.
Let us bring Colorado’s best journalism to you. Get our free newsletters.
UNDERWRITTEN BY TOBACCO-FREE KIDS ACTION FUND
OUR UNDERWRITERS SUPPORT JOURNALISM. BECOME ONE.
Qualified
The General Assembly referred three questions to the November ballot.
One asks voters to repeal Colorado’s Gallagher Amendment, which aims to keep residential property taxes low but has left fire departments and schools with limited funding. Another seeks to create a uniform nicotine tax — which for the first time would enforce a tax on vaping products — and raise the taxes on cigarettes to $2.64 in July 2027 from 84 cents now. And the third regarding the use of a charitable gaming license.
Four other citizen-led initiatives that began before the pandemic also obtained the needed signatures to qualify.
The measures would:
Repeal the state’s national popular vote law
Reaffirm existing citizenship requirements to vote
Reintroduce gray wolves in Colorado
Ban abortions after 22 weeks of pregnancy
Under review
Four campaigns submitted petitions ahead of the deadline and now await review by the state about whether they met the legal threshold to qualify.
The measures would:
Remove bet limits at casinos and allow new games
Require voter approval for certain state-approved fees that exceed $100 million in revenue over five years
Permanently lower the state’s income tax rate to 4.55% from 4.63%
Create a 12-week paid family and medical leave insurance program for employees run by the state
Our articles are free to read, but not free to report
Support local journalism around the state.
Become a member of The Colorado Sun today!
$5/month
$20/month
$100/month
One-time Contribution
The latest from The Sun
Wealthy Colorado parents are hiring teachers for private learning pods, leaving low-income students behind
Opinion: I oversee Denver’s elections. Mail ballots are safe and secure.
Colorado voters may face as many as 11 major questions on November ballot as initiative deadline arrives
Opinion: Is your neighborhood raising your risk? Redlining set Denver communities up for more coronavirus danger
Littwin: Imagine being a GOP senator watching Obama speak at John Lewis’ funeral and then going home to defend Trump
from https://ift.tt/2Pj9GWn https://ift.tt/2XolqeH
0 notes
Text
Author Honesty Hour
Tagged by @evilwriter37, thanks love!
THE STORIES
1. Which is the fic you’re most proud of?
I don’t exactly have a favorite, but if I was to choose, it was a drabble where tiny child asked Gobber for advice on love.
2. Which is your least favorite?
That would probably have to be the one explaining Ivar’s stressor. In which lead up to him being stuck with tiny child. Ever since I got together with Athingofvikings and bounced ideas off each other uncle big bad has since had his stressor changed. I can’t disclose anymore information as it would be a huge spoiler for the main plot of Modern Vikings.
3. If you were to recommend one to read to your mom?
Tried recommending my mom to read my HTTYD books but with her cataracts she can’t see small print. Let alone have the patience to read. So a big nope for that one.
4. Which one would you consider re-writing?
I’m currently in the process of re-writing Modern Vikings rn. I’m 5 chapters into the first draft and expect to reach ten chapters before editing can begin.
5. Biggest regret in a fic?
Don’t have any.
6. Biggest success with a fic?
Again none. I’m a relatively unknown fic author.
7. Your fic with the most notes?
Would probably have to be the character drabbles. Bless @ashleybenlove for that <3
8. Your fic with the least notes?
That’s probably Over the Edge. Another section of drabble one shots. I’ve just not been busy with them lately. Everthing gets too spoilery for the main storyline. I want to one day write a follow up involving them in a similar Thor Bonecrusher situation with tiny child, as tiny child IS a berserker, or at least carries berserker blood.
9. What do you think makes a good fic? Tips?
I’m relatively new to the fic writing scene so I can’t really give any tips per se. However it does help to keep Google out on hand for research and books of your favorite authors at the hand for examples when you’re having difficulties.
10. When’s the next update on your works?
I usually try to upload on Fridays if I have bulk content, if it’s short drabbles they get posted when I’m done editing them. For now everything is in limbo as I work on the first draft of Modern Vikings. And when approved edits have been done and the chapter is deemed ready they will be uploaded Fridays.
11. Number of followers before you started writing and after?
Don’t know how to answer that one.
THE WRITER
1. Which character do you love writing for?
It’s a toss up between my antagonist OC and my protagonist OC. Tiny child is so much fun and refreshing and challenging to write a timid character when I’m use to RPing sassy hot head characters. And uncle big bad is a refreshing pace to challenge my character development skills for villains.
2. Which character do you dislike writing for?
I can’t really say as there isn’t exactly one in the bunch OC or canon that I dislike.
3. What’s your favorite AU to write for?
Don’t write AUs, but I found out I love reading modern AUs.
4. What’s your least favorite AU to write for?
Can’t answer that one as I don’t write AUs. Just read them. If ROTBTD count as an AU I hate that one. Noping away from that one.
5. What do you hope never gets requested?
Death whump. Unless it’s a villain that deserves to die, I don’t think I could write tiny child being killed. Don’t think I could do that kind of whump to any character really. To writers who can, you have my fullest respect for what you do.
6. What do you wish was requested more?
Never done requests. But if I do I hope fluff gets requested. I love writing happy fluff. Bonus when it’s Jaxter fluff.
7. Thoughts on writing Smut/POC/Curvy/MxM/FxF?
Write to your hearts content. I personally ship two OCs who are FxF. So yeah, and hey, can’t go wrong with a good smut fic.
8. Which accounts is your biggest inspiration in writing?
When I started writing again two years ago I didn’t have any inspiration. It was an outlet for me as I didn’t have anyone to RP with. However as I got knee deep in the HTTYD fandom I found artists like @evilwriter37 who inspire me to write better and @athingofvikings has been a great friend and beta reader as well as inspiration.
9. How long have you been a fic writer for?
Can’t remember when exactly I was heavily into Inuyasha. But it was around early 2000s that I posted my first fan character fic(Which is deleted btw as it was cringy) and just dropped out of the fandom after losing interest in writing. It was a year ago that I started developing an idea I had for a novel after talking with a buddy of mine that I started writing a little here and there offline. But it wasn’t until my rekindled love for HTTYD got me back into writing fic after they kept repeating the movies on Freeform channel every weekend. So roughly about two years give or take.
10. Any upcoming secret works?
Well the only thing I have working on now is Modern Vikings, and I can’t give any spoilers because shhh secrets. I expect a lot of startled responses from this new version c:
P much everyone’s been tagged that I know so, if you’re a follower and wanna do this have at!
2 notes
·
View notes
Text
Off-Premise Alcohol Sales Are a Lifeline for Bars and Restaurants That Should Continue Permanently
When the Covid-19 pandemic first took hold in the U.S., most bars and restaurants across the country were forced to close or transition their operations to delivery or takeout. As on-premise sales dropped off a cliff, state governments responded with temporary executive orders allowing bars and restaurants to sell sealed, unopened bottles of wine, beer, and spirits — and, in some cases, pre-made cocktails — to go.
In the ensuing two months, it has become clear that the provision is not a cure-all: Off-premise alcohol purchases replace just a sliver of sales at many restaurants and bars. Looking at the national picture, combined food and drinks sales across the U.S. are 68 percent lower than would normally be expected for this time of year, according to the most recent Nielsen CGA on-premise report, published April 29. VinePair spoke with cocktail and wine bar operators in four states who have been offering alcohol (and in some instances food) for curbside pickup or delivery. These operators reported revenue losses of between 75 and 96 percent since Covid-19-related closures began.
While the contribution of off-premise sales is small, operators say the continued ability to do so will be crucial for the industry’s recovery. At the same time, they acknowledge that the current to-go models present their own challenges, and are wary of the obstacles that stand in the way of making alcohol to go a permanent reality.
Nationwide, 32 states plus the District of Columbia have relaxed licensing laws to allow bars and restaurants to sell sealed, unopened bottles of wine, beer, and spirits. Of those states, almost 20 are also allowing sales of pre-made cocktails to go. This is an important distinction, operators say, as mixed drinks offer exponentially greater profits than selling sealed liquor bottles.
In other states, where cocktails to go are allowed, contrasting messages from city and state officials left some bars in limbo for a period, missing out on crucial revenue. Others found themselves in a “do we or don’t we?” situation, as the initial executive orders were signed for 30- or 60-day periods, but have since been extended. Those operators that are now selling alcohol to go operate in a reality where their current business model could be taken away with little notice.
Setting the Trend
New York became the first state to allow bars and restaurants to sell alcohol, including cocktails, for off-premise consumption, when Gov. Andrew Cuomo signed an executive order on March 16. The only proviso set out by Cuomo was that the drinks should be accompanied by food, but that could be something as insignificant as a pack of chips.
Chris R. Swonger, president of the Distilled Spirits Council of the U.S. (DISCUS), describes the move as “an important trendsetter,” providing a template that was soon replicated to varying degrees in multiple states around the country. Crucially, he says, the provision offered valuable income for on-premise businesses during a particularly trying time.
And it’s not just businesses that are benefiting from the new landscape, Swonger adds. “Cocktails to go is a provision that consumers are embracing today and I think they’ll continue to embrace,” he says. Swonger wants bars and restaurants to be allowed this revenue stream post-Covid-19 and says it will help relieve “the crush of the economic impact” of the pandemic.
Competing as an Alcohol Retailer
Not all the states that have temporarily relaxed their alcohol laws followed New York’s lead. In Illinois, bars and restaurants are allowed to sell wine, beer, and spirits in their original, unopened containers, but selling cocktails to go is not allowed.
At Kumiko, a cocktail bar in Chicago’s West Loop neighborhood, beverage director Julia Momose contends that the math of selling full bottles at retail prices doesn’t add up for an on-premise venue. Established retailers, which buy in much larger quantities, have access to larger discounts, she explains. In order to compete with these stores, her bar would have to accept profits of around $5 for every $30 bottle of liquor it sells. Even then, “no one’s going to come to the bar to buy a full bottle of gin every day,” Momose says. But, if she were instead able to use that bottle to make cocktails, Momose says she could mix 16 drinks with it and sell them for a total profit of more than $100.
In the meantime, Kumiko is generating revenue by selling rare spirits and liqueurs, along with beer, sake, mixers, and non-alcoholic cocktails. The bar is also offering cocktail kits and meal kits but is only open for business one day a week because its entire staff is currently furloughed. Sales during the one day that Kumiko is open stand at around 20 percent of a normal, non-Covid day, Momose says.
While some bars in Chicago have flouted state laws and are offering cocktails for sale illegally, Momose is tackling the issue by lobbying for change. Along with other industry advocates, she founded Cocktails For Hope, an organization that aims to raise awareness for the cause, putting pressure on politicians to allow license-holding establishments to sell sealed, pre-mixed cocktails.
Chicago-based alcohol lawyer Sean O’Leary is helping the organization draft a bill to send to the governor. The proposal sets out a clear guideline for how to-go cocktails can be sold safely and responsibly.
Among the measures, the group believes all deliveries should be carried out by bartenders and servers rather than third-party services. This will reduce any risk of alcohol being sold to minors or those who are overly intoxicated, because bartenders and servers are educated on these factors during BASSET training. (Illinois state law requires all on-premise servers and those checking IDs for alcohol service to be BASSET-certified.) This provision also means license holders will be fully accountable for any violations. “We know the concerns and now we are bringing our solutions,” O’Leary says.
Continuing Alcohol to Go as Bars and Restaurants Reopen
As of last week, on-premise establishments in some California counties are now permitted to offer limited dine-in services. But throughout the state, bars and restaurants can still act as off-premise retailers of wine, beer, and spirits.
According to John Carr, public information officer for California’s Department of Alcoholic Beverage Control (ABC), the temporary licensing laws will remain until the state determines that normal business operations can resume. “At that time, ABC would provide 10 days notice to ABC licensees that the temporary Notices of Regulatory Relief will conclude,” Carr explains.
Like New York, many operators within the state are generating revenue by selling cocktails to go. But not all license holders are enjoying this provision.
In California, two types of liquor licenses allow on-premise businesses to sell wine, beer, and spirits: Type 47 and Type 48. The former designates restaurants and bars that have fully functioning kitchens — establishments that “make actual and substantial sales of meals for consumption on the premises,” according to the ABC. The latter is typically held by nightclubs and bars that do not have kitchens.
During Covid-19, only establishments with Type 47 licenses have been able to offer cocktails to go, while those holding the Type 48 license have been limited to selling unopened bottles of alcohol. H. Joseph Ehrmann, owner of San Francisco’s Elixir, says the provision unfairly discriminates against bonafide cocktail bars such as his, which operate with the latter license. “[Elixir] is one of the original bars that brought cocktail culture back, and now the government’s telling me I can’t make cocktails,” he says.
In the early stages of the pandemic, Ehrmann generated cash by selling off a large portion of the bar’s notable whisk(e)y collection. Now he’s looking at the to-go model as something that will be much longer-lasting and has started selling cocktail kits that pair packaged mixers with unopened bottles of liquor.
Elixir’s gross revenue during the pandemic is 75 percent lower than normal. And the profit margin on sales is lower than normal because the bar is operating as a full-bottle retailer rather than a cocktail bar. As Ehrmann explains, cocktails allow for markups of between 80 and 85 percent, while selling full bottles returns a profit margin of around 30 percent.
The Challenges of Alcohol Delivery
In Missouri, bars and restaurants can sell full bottles of liquor as well as cocktails to go. But operators are still unsure whether they’re allowed to offer delivery, which could increase their earning potential. “We are still waiting to make sure delivery is legal,” says Brock Schulte, beverage director of The Monarch, an acclaimed cocktail bar in Kansas City.
Schulte says there was similar confusion at the start of the Covid-19 pandemic over whether he could sell any form of alcohol to go. On the one hand, the Kansas City mayor’s office told businesses they would not be punished for selling bottles of unopened wines, beer, and spirits, and cocktails to go. But the state government took a further two weeks to give the green light. Not wanting to jeopardize his bar’s liquor license, Schulte waited for state approval. Based on The Monarch’s current sales of full bottles of alcohol and cocktails, along with a small selection of bar snacks, Schulte estimates the bar lost out on between $20,000 and $30,000 of sales in the two weeks before the state granted formal approval.
For others, the quandary of alcohol delivery is a question of financial, rather than legal, viability. Washington D.C. wine bar The Eastern is offering wine, cocktails, and food — ranging from charcuterie to full family meals — for curbside pickup. General manager Robert Morin expects to be allowed to do so until at least November. While his bar can technically also offer delivery, Morin says the numbers don’t add up.
The Eastern’s sales are currently less than 10 percent of what they were prior to Covid-19. Morin says he can’t afford to pay the fees associated with working with third-party delivery apps, which typically amount to between 20 and 30 percent of each order total, according to Eater. Rehiring a staff member to carry out delivery also isn’t viable, Morin says, because of the cost of the courier insurance required to cover them. “The insurance alone is about a week of sales,” he explains. “Spread that out from here until November and then past that, it does not make sense.” Either way, the additional costs negate the value of offering delivery.
Looking to the Future
All the professionals interviewed for this piece — from the bar operators in four different states to beverage lawyers to the president of a national trade organization — agree that on-premise businesses should be allowed to offer alcohol and cocktails to go permanently. On that front, there appears to be some hope on the horizon, with the governors of Florida and Texas recently publicly stating their support for continuing alcohol to go once Covid restrictions are lifted.
As part of its response to Covid-19, Florida has allowed the sale of unopened bottles of alcohol, as well as cocktails to go. Florida Gov. Ron DeSantis recently stated to a local news organization: “I allowed (restaurants) to deliver alcohol, I think that’s been pretty popular. We’re probably going to keep that going, maybe we’ll have the legislature change the law on that, but I think that that’s been good.”
Meanwhile, Texas Gov. Greg Abbott announced alcohol-to-go sales will continue indefinitely, even as restaurants in the state are now allowed to operate at 25 percent capacity. “Alcohol-to-go sales can continue after May 1,” Abbott tweeted on April 28. “From what I hear from Texans, we may just let this keep on going forever.”
(In Texas, alcohol-to-go orders must be accompanied with food, and all bottles must be sold in their original, sealed packaging. Operators are not allowed to sell cocktails to go, and distilled spirits can be sold in formats no larger than 375 milliliters.)
Other positive signals for the movement? Some states are gearing up to allow cocktails to go, even as the national conversation for bars and restaurants shifts toward reopening with capacity caps.
On Friday, New Jersey Gov. Phil Murphy signed legislation allowing restaurants, bars, and taverns to sell cocktails to go. (Bars and restaurants were previously limited to selling unopened bottles of wine, beer, and spirits.) The temporary legislation will not expire until six months after the end of the state of emergency, or six months after Covid-related occupancy restrictions have been lifted — whichever falls later. In Pennsylvania, the Senate passed a similar bill last week. All that’s now required before cocktails to go become a reality in the Keystone State is the signature of Gov. Tom Wolf.
While the words and actions of governors show a positive signal of intent, the executive orders do not mean selling alcohol to go will continue permanently.
“Typically, an executive order will remain in place during the emergency and remain in place through its expiration, unless extended,” explains Miami-based beverage lawyer Ryan Malkin. “In the case of cocktails to go, some governors have suggested that this will continue after the pandemic, meaning after the executive order expires. To do so, the likely path will be through legislative action.”
That process will require a member of a state legislature to propose a bill, which will then need to be voted on and approved by the legislature, and finally signed into law by the governor. Many of the operators VinePair spoke with predicted strong opposition for these potential bills from alcohol retailers, signaling a potential roadblock to permanent change.
Some operators, including Schulte and Ehrmann, are in contact with lobbyists who plan to write and propose bills. They’re also communicating with fellow bar owners in their cities to gain traction for the movement. Through its organization Spirits United, DISCUS has provided a platform for consumers to petition for such causes like allowing cocktails to go in New Jersey. Spirits United is now running a similar campaign for Oregon.
Selling alcohol to go has given bars and restaurants a lifeline during Covid-19. The temporary orders have also shown that selling wine, beer, spirits, and cocktails to go can be done responsibly. That opportunity might never have been available in many states otherwise — and certainly not at this scale. If potential legislation is met with opposition down the line, evidence of the measures bars implemented to sell responsibly during the Covid-19 crisis will be crucial in making their case.
The article Off-Premise Alcohol Sales Are a Lifeline for Bars and Restaurants That Should Continue Permanently appeared first on VinePair.
source https://vinepair.com/articles/off-premise-alcohol-sales-bars-restaurants/
0 notes
Text
Off-Premise Alcohol Sales Are a Lifeline for Bars and Restaurants That Should Continue Permanently
When the Covid-19 pandemic first took hold in the U.S., most bars and restaurants across the country were forced to close or transition their operations to delivery or takeout. As on-premise sales dropped off a cliff, state governments responded with temporary executive orders allowing bars and restaurants to sell sealed, unopened bottles of wine, beer, and spirits — and, in some cases, pre-made cocktails — to go.
In the ensuing two months, it has become clear that the provision is not a cure-all: Off-premise alcohol purchases replace just a sliver of sales at many restaurants and bars. Looking at the national picture, combined food and drinks sales across the U.S. are 68 percent lower than would normally be expected for this time of year, according to the most recent Nielsen CGA on-premise report, published April 29. VinePair spoke with cocktail and wine bar operators in four states who have been offering alcohol (and in some instances food) for curbside pickup or delivery. These operators reported revenue losses of between 75 and 96 percent since Covid-19-related closures began.
While the contribution of off-premise sales is small, operators say the continued ability to do so will be crucial for the industry’s recovery. At the same time, they acknowledge that the current to-go models present their own challenges, and are wary of the obstacles that stand in the way of making alcohol to go a permanent reality.
Nationwide, 32 states plus the District of Columbia have relaxed licensing laws to allow bars and restaurants to sell sealed, unopened bottles of wine, beer, and spirits. Of those states, almost 20 are also allowing sales of pre-made cocktails to go. This is an important distinction, operators say, as mixed drinks offer exponentially greater profits than selling sealed liquor bottles.
In other states, where cocktails to go are allowed, contrasting messages from city and state officials left some bars in limbo for a period, missing out on crucial revenue. Others found themselves in a “do we or don’t we?” situation, as the initial executive orders were signed for 30- or 60-day periods, but have since been extended. Those operators that are now selling alcohol to go operate in a reality where their current business model could be taken away with little notice.
Setting the Trend
New York became the first state to allow bars and restaurants to sell alcohol, including cocktails, for off-premise consumption, when Gov. Andrew Cuomo signed an executive order on March 16. The only proviso set out by Cuomo was that the drinks should be accompanied by food, but that could be something as insignificant as a pack of chips.
Chris R. Swonger, president of the Distilled Spirits Council of the U.S. (DISCUS), describes the move as “an important trendsetter,” providing a template that was soon replicated to varying degrees in multiple states around the country. Crucially, he says, the provision offered valuable income for on-premise businesses during a particularly trying time.
And it’s not just businesses that are benefiting from the new landscape, Swonger adds. “Cocktails to go is a provision that consumers are embracing today and I think they’ll continue to embrace,” he says. Swonger wants bars and restaurants to be allowed this revenue stream post-Covid-19 and says it will help relieve “the crush of the economic impact” of the pandemic.
Competing as an Alcohol Retailer
Not all the states that have temporarily relaxed their alcohol laws followed New York’s lead. In Illinois, bars and restaurants are allowed to sell wine, beer, and spirits in their original, unopened containers, but selling cocktails to go is not allowed.
At Kumiko, a cocktail bar in Chicago’s West Loop neighborhood, beverage director Julia Momose contends that the math of selling full bottles at retail prices doesn’t add up for an on-premise venue. Established retailers, which buy in much larger quantities, have access to larger discounts, she explains. In order to compete with these stores, her bar would have to accept profits of around $5 for every $30 bottle of liquor it sells. Even then, “no one’s going to come to the bar to buy a full bottle of gin every day,” Momose says. But, if she were instead able to use that bottle to make cocktails, Momose says she could mix 16 drinks with it and sell them for a total profit of more than $100.
In the meantime, Kumiko is generating revenue by selling rare spirits and liqueurs, along with beer, sake, mixers, and non-alcoholic cocktails. The bar is also offering cocktail kits and meal kits but is only open for business one day a week because its entire staff is currently furloughed. Sales during the one day that Kumiko is open stand at around 20 percent of a normal, non-Covid day, Momose says.
While some bars in Chicago have flouted state laws and are offering cocktails for sale illegally, Momose is tackling the issue by lobbying for change. Along with other industry advocates, she founded Cocktails For Hope, an organization that aims to raise awareness for the cause, putting pressure on politicians to allow license-holding establishments to sell sealed, pre-mixed cocktails.
Chicago-based alcohol lawyer Sean O’Leary is helping the organization draft a bill to send to the governor. The proposal sets out a clear guideline for how to-go cocktails can be sold safely and responsibly.
Among the measures, the group believes all deliveries should be carried out by bartenders and servers rather than third-party services. This will reduce any risk of alcohol being sold to minors or those who are overly intoxicated, because bartenders and servers are educated on these factors during BASSET training. (Illinois state law requires all on-premise servers and those checking IDs for alcohol service to be BASSET-certified.) This provision also means license holders will be fully accountable for any violations. “We know the concerns and now we are bringing our solutions,” O’Leary says.
Continuing Alcohol to Go as Bars and Restaurants Reopen
As of last week, on-premise establishments in some California counties are now permitted to offer limited dine-in services. But throughout the state, bars and restaurants can still act as off-premise retailers of wine, beer, and spirits.
According to John Carr, public information officer for California’s Department of Alcoholic Beverage Control (ABC), the temporary licensing laws will remain until the state determines that normal business operations can resume. “At that time, ABC would provide 10 days notice to ABC licensees that the temporary Notices of Regulatory Relief will conclude,” Carr explains.
Like New York, many operators within the state are generating revenue by selling cocktails to go. But not all license holders are enjoying this provision.
In California, two types of liquor licenses allow on-premise businesses to sell wine, beer, and spirits: Type 47 and Type 48. The former designates restaurants and bars that have fully functioning kitchens — establishments that “make actual and substantial sales of meals for consumption on the premises,” according to the ABC. The latter is typically held by nightclubs and bars that do not have kitchens.
During Covid-19, only establishments with Type 47 licenses have been able to offer cocktails to go, while those holding the Type 48 license have been limited to selling unopened bottles of alcohol. H. Joseph Ehrmann, owner of San Francisco’s Elixir, says the provision unfairly discriminates against bonafide cocktail bars such as his, which operate with the latter license. “[Elixir] is one of the original bars that brought cocktail culture back, and now the government’s telling me I can’t make cocktails,” he says.
In the early stages of the pandemic, Ehrmann generated cash by selling off a large portion of the bar’s notable whisk(e)y collection. Now he’s looking at the to-go model as something that will be much longer-lasting and has started selling cocktail kits that pair packaged mixers with unopened bottles of liquor.
Elixir’s gross revenue during the pandemic is 75 percent lower than normal. And the profit margin on sales is lower than normal because the bar is operating as a full-bottle retailer rather than a cocktail bar. As Ehrmann explains, cocktails allow for markups of between 80 and 85 percent, while selling full bottles returns a profit margin of around 30 percent.
The Challenges of Alcohol Delivery
In Missouri, bars and restaurants can sell full bottles of liquor as well as cocktails to go. But operators are still unsure whether they’re allowed to offer delivery, which could increase their earning potential. “We are still waiting to make sure delivery is legal,” says Brock Schulte, beverage director of The Monarch, an acclaimed cocktail bar in Kansas City.
Schulte says there was similar confusion at the start of the Covid-19 pandemic over whether he could sell any form of alcohol to go. On the one hand, the Kansas City mayor’s office told businesses they would not be punished for selling bottles of unopened wines, beer, and spirits, and cocktails to go. But the state government took a further two weeks to give the green light. Not wanting to jeopardize his bar’s liquor license, Schulte waited for state approval. Based on The Monarch’s current sales of full bottles of alcohol and cocktails, along with a small selection of bar snacks, Schulte estimates the bar lost out on between $20,000 and $30,000 of sales in the two weeks before the state granted formal approval.
For others, the quandary of alcohol delivery is a question of financial, rather than legal, viability. Washington D.C. wine bar The Eastern is offering wine, cocktails, and food — ranging from charcuterie to full family meals — for curbside pickup. General manager Robert Morin expects to be allowed to do so until at least November. While his bar can technically also offer delivery, Morin says the numbers don’t add up.
The Eastern’s sales are currently less than 10 percent of what they were prior to Covid-19. Morin says he can’t afford to pay the fees associated with working with third-party delivery apps, which typically amount to between 20 and 30 percent of each order total, according to Eater. Rehiring a staff member to carry out delivery also isn’t viable, Morin says, because of the cost of the courier insurance required to cover them. “The insurance alone is about a week of sales,” he explains. “Spread that out from here until November and then past that, it does not make sense.” Either way, the additional costs negate the value of offering delivery.
Looking to the Future
All the professionals interviewed for this piece — from the bar operators in four different states to beverage lawyers to the president of a national trade organization — agree that on-premise businesses should be allowed to offer alcohol and cocktails to go permanently. On that front, there appears to be some hope on the horizon, with the governors of Florida and Texas recently publicly stating their support for continuing alcohol to go once Covid restrictions are lifted.
As part of its response to Covid-19, Florida has allowed the sale of unopened bottles of alcohol, as well as cocktails to go. Florida Gov. Ron DeSantis recently stated to a local news organization: “I allowed (restaurants) to deliver alcohol, I think that’s been pretty popular. We’re probably going to keep that going, maybe we’ll have the legislature change the law on that, but I think that that’s been good.”
Meanwhile, Texas Gov. Greg Abbott announced alcohol-to-go sales will continue indefinitely, even as restaurants in the state are now allowed to operate at 25 percent capacity. “Alcohol-to-go sales can continue after May 1,” Abbott tweeted on April 28. “From what I hear from Texans, we may just let this keep on going forever.”
(In Texas, alcohol-to-go orders must be accompanied with food, and all bottles must be sold in their original, sealed packaging. Operators are not allowed to sell cocktails to go, and distilled spirits can be sold in formats no larger than 375 milliliters.)
Other positive signals for the movement? Some states are gearing up to allow cocktails to go, even as the national conversation for bars and restaurants shifts toward reopening with capacity caps.
On Friday, New Jersey Gov. Phil Murphy signed legislation allowing restaurants, bars, and taverns to sell cocktails to go. (Bars and restaurants were previously limited to selling unopened bottles of wine, beer, and spirits.) The temporary legislation will not expire until six months after the end of the state of emergency, or six months after Covid-related occupancy restrictions have been lifted — whichever falls later. In Pennsylvania, the Senate passed a similar bill last week. All that’s now required before cocktails to go become a reality in the Keystone State is the signature of Gov. Tom Wolf.
While the words and actions of governors show a positive signal of intent, the executive orders do not mean selling alcohol to go will continue permanently.
“Typically, an executive order will remain in place during the emergency and remain in place through its expiration, unless extended,” explains Miami-based beverage lawyer Ryan Malkin. “In the case of cocktails to go, some governors have suggested that this will continue after the pandemic, meaning after the executive order expires. To do so, the likely path will be through legislative action.”
That process will require a member of a state legislature to propose a bill, which will then need to be voted on and approved by the legislature, and finally signed into law by the governor. Many of the operators VinePair spoke with predicted strong opposition for these potential bills from alcohol retailers, signaling a potential roadblock to permanent change.
Some operators, including Schulte and Ehrmann, are in contact with lobbyists who plan to write and propose bills. They’re also communicating with fellow bar owners in their cities to gain traction for the movement. Through its organization Spirits United, DISCUS has provided a platform for consumers to petition for such causes like allowing cocktails to go in New Jersey. Spirits United is now running a similar campaign for Oregon.
Selling alcohol to go has given bars and restaurants a lifeline during Covid-19. The temporary orders have also shown that selling wine, beer, spirits, and cocktails to go can be done responsibly. That opportunity might never have been available in many states otherwise — and certainly not at this scale. If potential legislation is met with opposition down the line, evidence of the measures bars implemented to sell responsibly during the Covid-19 crisis will be crucial in making their case.
The article Off-Premise Alcohol Sales Are a Lifeline for Bars and Restaurants That Should Continue Permanently appeared first on VinePair.
Via https://vinepair.com/articles/off-premise-alcohol-sales-bars-restaurants/
source https://vinology1.weebly.com/blog/off-premise-alcohol-sales-are-a-lifeline-for-bars-and-restaurants-that-should-continue-permanently
0 notes
Text
Off-Premise Alcohol Sales Are a Lifeline for Bars and Restaurants That Should Continue Permanently
When the Covid-19 pandemic first took hold in the U.S., most bars and restaurants across the country were forced to close or transition their operations to delivery or takeout. As on-premise sales dropped off a cliff, state governments responded with temporary executive orders allowing bars and restaurants to sell sealed, unopened bottles of wine, beer, and spirits — and, in some cases, pre-made cocktails — to go.
In the ensuing two months, it has become clear that the provision is not a cure-all: Off-premise alcohol purchases replace just a sliver of sales at many restaurants and bars. Looking at the national picture, combined food and drinks sales across the U.S. are 68 percent lower than would normally be expected for this time of year, according to the most recent Nielsen CGA on-premise report, published April 29. VinePair spoke with cocktail and wine bar operators in four states who have been offering alcohol (and in some instances food) for curbside pickup or delivery. These operators reported revenue losses of between 75 and 96 percent since Covid-19-related closures began.
While the contribution of off-premise sales is small, operators say the continued ability to do so will be crucial for the industry’s recovery. At the same time, they acknowledge that the current to-go models present their own challenges, and are wary of the obstacles that stand in the way of making alcohol to go a permanent reality.
Nationwide, 32 states plus the District of Columbia have relaxed licensing laws to allow bars and restaurants to sell sealed, unopened bottles of wine, beer, and spirits. Of those states, almost 20 are also allowing sales of pre-made cocktails to go. This is an important distinction, operators say, as mixed drinks offer exponentially greater profits than selling sealed liquor bottles.
In other states, where cocktails to go are allowed, contrasting messages from city and state officials left some bars in limbo for a period, missing out on crucial revenue. Others found themselves in a “do we or don’t we?” situation, as the initial executive orders were signed for 30- or 60-day periods, but have since been extended. Those operators that are now selling alcohol to go operate in a reality where their current business model could be taken away with little notice.
Setting the Trend
New York became the first state to allow bars and restaurants to sell alcohol, including cocktails, for off-premise consumption, when Gov. Andrew Cuomo signed an executive order on March 16. The only proviso set out by Cuomo was that the drinks should be accompanied by food, but that could be something as insignificant as a pack of chips.
Chris R. Swonger, president of the Distilled Spirits Council of the U.S. (DISCUS), describes the move as “an important trendsetter,” providing a template that was soon replicated to varying degrees in multiple states around the country. Crucially, he says, the provision offered valuable income for on-premise businesses during a particularly trying time.
And it’s not just businesses that are benefiting from the new landscape, Swonger adds. “Cocktails to go is a provision that consumers are embracing today and I think they’ll continue to embrace,” he says. Swonger wants bars and restaurants to be allowed this revenue stream post-Covid-19 and says it will help relieve “the crush of the economic impact” of the pandemic.
Competing as an Alcohol Retailer
Not all the states that have temporarily relaxed their alcohol laws followed New York’s lead. In Illinois, bars and restaurants are allowed to sell wine, beer, and spirits in their original, unopened containers, but selling cocktails to go is not allowed.
At Kumiko, a cocktail bar in Chicago’s West Loop neighborhood, beverage director Julia Momose contends that the math of selling full bottles at retail prices doesn’t add up for an on-premise venue. Established retailers, which buy in much larger quantities, have access to larger discounts, she explains. In order to compete with these stores, her bar would have to accept profits of around $5 for every $30 bottle of liquor it sells. Even then, “no one’s going to come to the bar to buy a full bottle of gin every day,” Momose says. But, if she were instead able to use that bottle to make cocktails, Momose says she could mix 16 drinks with it and sell them for a total profit of more than $100.
In the meantime, Kumiko is generating revenue by selling rare spirits and liqueurs, along with beer, sake, mixers, and non-alcoholic cocktails. The bar is also offering cocktail kits and meal kits but is only open for business one day a week because its entire staff is currently furloughed. Sales during the one day that Kumiko is open stand at around 20 percent of a normal, non-Covid day, Momose says.
While some bars in Chicago have flouted state laws and are offering cocktails for sale illegally, Momose is tackling the issue by lobbying for change. Along with other industry advocates, she founded Cocktails For Hope, an organization that aims to raise awareness for the cause, putting pressure on politicians to allow license-holding establishments to sell sealed, pre-mixed cocktails.
Chicago-based alcohol lawyer Sean O’Leary is helping the organization draft a bill to send to the governor. The proposal sets out a clear guideline for how to-go cocktails can be sold safely and responsibly.
Among the measures, the group believes all deliveries should be carried out by bartenders and servers rather than third-party services. This will reduce any risk of alcohol being sold to minors or those who are overly intoxicated, because bartenders and servers are educated on these factors during BASSET training. (Illinois state law requires all on-premise servers and those checking IDs for alcohol service to be BASSET-certified.) This provision also means license holders will be fully accountable for any violations. “We know the concerns and now we are bringing our solutions,” O’Leary says.
Continuing Alcohol to Go as Bars and Restaurants Reopen
As of last week, on-premise establishments in some California counties are now permitted to offer limited dine-in services. But throughout the state, bars and restaurants can still act as off-premise retailers of wine, beer, and spirits.
According to John Carr, public information officer for California’s Department of Alcoholic Beverage Control (ABC), the temporary licensing laws will remain until the state determines that normal business operations can resume. “At that time, ABC would provide 10 days notice to ABC licensees that the temporary Notices of Regulatory Relief will conclude,” Carr explains.
Like New York, many operators within the state are generating revenue by selling cocktails to go. But not all license holders are enjoying this provision.
In California, two types of liquor licenses allow on-premise businesses to sell wine, beer, and spirits: Type 47 and Type 48. The former designates restaurants and bars that have fully functioning kitchens — establishments that “make actual and substantial sales of meals for consumption on the premises,” according to the ABC. The latter is typically held by nightclubs and bars that do not have kitchens.
During Covid-19, only establishments with Type 47 licenses have been able to offer cocktails to go, while those holding the Type 48 license have been limited to selling unopened bottles of alcohol. H. Joseph Ehrmann, owner of San Francisco’s Elixir, says the provision unfairly discriminates against bonafide cocktail bars such as his, which operate with the latter license. “[Elixir] is one of the original bars that brought cocktail culture back, and now the government’s telling me I can’t make cocktails,” he says.
In the early stages of the pandemic, Ehrmann generated cash by selling off a large portion of the bar’s notable whisk(e)y collection. Now he’s looking at the to-go model as something that will be much longer-lasting and has started selling cocktail kits that pair packaged mixers with unopened bottles of liquor.
Elixir’s gross revenue during the pandemic is 75 percent lower than normal. And the profit margin on sales is lower than normal because the bar is operating as a full-bottle retailer rather than a cocktail bar. As Ehrmann explains, cocktails allow for markups of between 80 and 85 percent, while selling full bottles returns a profit margin of around 30 percent.
The Challenges of Alcohol Delivery
In Missouri, bars and restaurants can sell full bottles of liquor as well as cocktails to go. But operators are still unsure whether they’re allowed to offer delivery, which could increase their earning potential. “We are still waiting to make sure delivery is legal,” says Brock Schulte, beverage director of The Monarch, an acclaimed cocktail bar in Kansas City.
Schulte says there was similar confusion at the start of the Covid-19 pandemic over whether he could sell any form of alcohol to go. On the one hand, the Kansas City mayor’s office told businesses they would not be punished for selling bottles of unopened wines, beer, and spirits, and cocktails to go. But the state government took a further two weeks to give the green light. Not wanting to jeopardize his bar’s liquor license, Schulte waited for state approval. Based on The Monarch’s current sales of full bottles of alcohol and cocktails, along with a small selection of bar snacks, Schulte estimates the bar lost out on between $20,000 and $30,000 of sales in the two weeks before the state granted formal approval.
For others, the quandary of alcohol delivery is a question of financial, rather than legal, viability. Washington D.C. wine bar The Eastern is offering wine, cocktails, and food — ranging from charcuterie to full family meals — for curbside pickup. General manager Robert Morin expects to be allowed to do so until at least November. While his bar can technically also offer delivery, Morin says the numbers don’t add up.
The Eastern’s sales are currently less than 10 percent of what they were prior to Covid-19. Morin says he can’t afford to pay the fees associated with working with third-party delivery apps, which typically amount to between 20 and 30 percent of each order total, according to Eater. Rehiring a staff member to carry out delivery also isn’t viable, Morin says, because of the cost of the courier insurance required to cover them. “The insurance alone is about a week of sales,” he explains. “Spread that out from here until November and then past that, it does not make sense.” Either way, the additional costs negate the value of offering delivery.
Looking to the Future
All the professionals interviewed for this piece — from the bar operators in four different states to beverage lawyers to the president of a national trade organization — agree that on-premise businesses should be allowed to offer alcohol and cocktails to go permanently. On that front, there appears to be some hope on the horizon, with the governors of Florida and Texas recently publicly stating their support for continuing alcohol to go once Covid restrictions are lifted.
As part of its response to Covid-19, Florida has allowed the sale of unopened bottles of alcohol, as well as cocktails to go. Florida Gov. Ron DeSantis recently stated to a local news organization: “I allowed (restaurants) to deliver alcohol, I think that’s been pretty popular. We’re probably going to keep that going, maybe we’ll have the legislature change the law on that, but I think that that’s been good.”
Meanwhile, Texas Gov. Greg Abbott announced alcohol-to-go sales will continue indefinitely, even as restaurants in the state are now allowed to operate at 25 percent capacity. “Alcohol-to-go sales can continue after May 1,” Abbott tweeted on April 28. “From what I hear from Texans, we may just let this keep on going forever.”
(In Texas, alcohol-to-go orders must be accompanied with food, and all bottles must be sold in their original, sealed packaging. Operators are not allowed to sell cocktails to go, and distilled spirits can be sold in formats no larger than 375 milliliters.)
Other positive signals for the movement? Some states are gearing up to allow cocktails to go, even as the national conversation for bars and restaurants shifts toward reopening with capacity caps.
On Friday, New Jersey Gov. Phil Murphy signed legislation allowing restaurants, bars, and taverns to sell cocktails to go. (Bars and restaurants were previously limited to selling unopened bottles of wine, beer, and spirits.) The temporary legislation will not expire until six months after the end of the state of emergency, or six months after Covid-related occupancy restrictions have been lifted — whichever falls later. In Pennsylvania, the Senate passed a similar bill last week. All that’s now required before cocktails to go become a reality in the Keystone State is the signature of Gov. Tom Wolf.
While the words and actions of governors show a positive signal of intent, the executive orders do not mean selling alcohol to go will continue permanently.
“Typically, an executive order will remain in place during the emergency and remain in place through its expiration, unless extended,” explains Miami-based beverage lawyer Ryan Malkin. “In the case of cocktails to go, some governors have suggested that this will continue after the pandemic, meaning after the executive order expires. To do so, the likely path will be through legislative action.”
That process will require a member of a state legislature to propose a bill, which will then need to be voted on and approved by the legislature, and finally signed into law by the governor. Many of the operators VinePair spoke with predicted strong opposition for these potential bills from alcohol retailers, signaling a potential roadblock to permanent change.
Some operators, including Schulte and Ehrmann, are in contact with lobbyists who plan to write and propose bills. They’re also communicating with fellow bar owners in their cities to gain traction for the movement. Through its organization Spirits United, DISCUS has provided a platform for consumers to petition for such causes like allowing cocktails to go in New Jersey. Spirits United is now running a similar campaign for Oregon.
Selling alcohol to go has given bars and restaurants a lifeline during Covid-19. The temporary orders have also shown that selling wine, beer, spirits, and cocktails to go can be done responsibly. That opportunity might never have been available in many states otherwise — and certainly not at this scale. If potential legislation is met with opposition down the line, evidence of the measures bars implemented to sell responsibly during the Covid-19 crisis will be crucial in making their case.
The article Off-Premise Alcohol Sales Are a Lifeline for Bars and Restaurants That Should Continue Permanently appeared first on VinePair.
source https://vinepair.com/articles/off-premise-alcohol-sales-bars-restaurants/
source https://vinology1.tumblr.com/post/618553334209691648
0 notes
Last Seen Blogs
