Why the Assassination of a Scientist Will Have No Impact on Iran’s Nuclear Program - Since Friday’s killing, the question increasingly being asked in Washington and the Middle East is about motive. - link
Trump’s Battle to Undermine the Vote in Pennsylvania - Republicans in the state have alleged fraud and attempted to audit ballots. “The long-term goal,” a Democratic legislator told me, was to “falsely delegitimize Joe Biden’s victory.” - link
The Cost of Trump’s Assault on the Press and the Truth - The President is being forced to give up his attempt to overturn the election. But he will continue his efforts to build an alternative reality around himself. - link
The Biggest Challenge Facing Joe Biden’s New Economic Team - The President-elect’s advisers are keenly aware that many of the Administration’s policy proposals will likely have to go through, or around, Mitch McConnell. - link
Our Brains Explain the Season’s Sadness - A pandemic, compounded by simultaneous political, civil, and natural crises, is overwhelming human evolution’s greatest innovation. - link
Bill Barr’s moves, possible pardons for Trump’s children, news of a bribery-for-pardon investigation, and more.
President Donald Trump, over the last 24 hours, has made one thing abundantly clear: His final few weeks in office will not be lacking in the legal drama and corruption concerns that have pervaded his presidency.
After having already pardoned his former National Security Adviser Michael Flynn, Trump has been discussing potential broad preemptive pardons for his children Donald Jr., Eric, and Ivanka; his son-in-law Jared Kushner; and his lawyer Rudy Giuliani, per reporting from ABC News and the New York Times. None of these people has been charged with any crime, so these pardons would have to entail sweeping assertions of impunity.
Meanwhile, a newly released, heavily redacted court opinion revealed that federal investigators have been probing an alleged corrupt scheme to provide political contributions (apparently to the Trump campaign or Republican groups, but we don’t know the specifics) in exchange for a presidential pardon from Trump. The identities of the people involved in this matter are redacted, but the news makes clear that even before Trump lost, matters involving his pardon power have been under investigative scrutiny.
Also on Tuesday, Attorney General Bill Barr returned to the headlines after a quiet period. Barr told the Associated Press that the Justice Department has “not seen fraud on a scale that could have effected a different outcome in the election.” Perhaps to soften the blow to President Donald Trump’s hopes from this admission, Barr also revealed that he has appointed John Durham — the US attorney investigating the conduct of the FBI’s Trump campaign/Russia probe — as a special counsel, to make it more difficult for Biden to fire him. (Barr spent more than two hours at the White House Tuesday afternoon.)
All in all, Trump is continuing to try to bend law enforcement agencies to his will — but having limited success of late. So he’s being increasingly drawn to the pardon power, which he can exercise on his own authority, to save his close associates and family members from possible legal consequences.
Around midday Tuesday, I wrote about how “Trump’s pardon shenanigans are ramping up,” because his recent pardon for Flynn contained preemptive aspects, and because he was reportedly discussing a similarly preemptive pardon for his lawyer Rudy Giuliani.
But the news of the day wasn’t done. The New York Times’s Maggie Haberman and Michael Schmidt later reported that Trump has also talked with advisers about potentially granting preemptive pardons to his three eldest children — Donald Trump Jr., Ivanka Trump, and Eric Trump — as well as his son-in-law, Jared Kushner.
The business dealings of both the Trump Organization and the Kushner family have come under investigative scrutiny, and Donald Jr.’s meeting with a Russian lawyer to try and get dirt on Hillary Clinton was also scrutinized as part of special counsel Robert Mueller’s Russia probe.
But none of these have resulted in any criminal charges against Trump’s children or Kushner. So any hypothetical pardon would have to be quite broadly written and preemptive. (It also could not cover state crimes, which could be a problem, as the major Trump Organization investigation is being pursued by New York state prosecutors.)
It would also, of course, be a stunning and unprecedented use of executive power for a president to grant broad immunity from federal criminal prosecution to his children. Some Trump allies, like Fox News host Sean Hannity, are arguing that the move would be justified because they expect prosecutors under Biden to pursue a “witch hunt” of people close to Trump.
Yet if Trump — or his children — have political ambitions in 2024, that might present an incentive to hold back on the broadest possible uses of the pardon power.
Just as Trump has been turning more attention to how far he wants to go in using his pardon power, news broke that federal investigators are already looking into what they view as a corrupt effort to get such a pardon from Trump.
The revelation came from a newly unsealed court opinion by Beryl Howell, the chief judge of the US District Court for the District of Columbia. The opinion is heavily redacted, though, so we are missing key details, including the identities of the people involved in this purported scheme. But there’s a fair amount we can piece together from the unredacted bits.
The gist is that investigators say there are two separate schemes aimed at getting a certain person a pardon or sentence reduction.
Investigators uncovered these two purported schemes while reviewing material seized in the course of a preexisting investigation. But there was one issue: One of the people involved in lobbying the White House was a lawyer. So investigators wanted to make sure they had a judge’s sign-off that reviewing communications involving that person wouldn’t violate attorney-client privilege. Judge Howell gave them that sign-off — because the communications in question were also copied to another person, who was not an attorney.
Speculation churned on Twitter about who could have been seeking this pardon. There are a few clues — the person appears to have a short last name and appears to be in Bureau of Prisons custody. These facts don’t fit most of the “usual suspects” among the president’s criminally entangled associates, so it’s possible that the pardon-seeker is someone who has received little news coverage so far.
There’s no indication yet that anyone has been indicted as a result of this investigation. But Judge Howell unsealed the opinion — issued back in August — after giving the government three months to take further investigative steps. The identities of the people are redacted because they haven’t yet been charged.
It’s also important to note that no assertion of any knowing wrongdoing on the part of President Trump or White House officials is present in the unredacted parts of the document. (“Pardon investigation is Fake News!” Trump tweeted.) But it certainly suggests that unscrupulous people are trying to benefit from Trump’s pardon powers.
Attorney General Bill Barr has kept a relatively low profile in recent weeks, but he made news on a number of fronts on Tuesday.
First, Barr told Michael Balsamo of the Associated Press that the Justice Department has “not seen fraud on a scale that could have effected a different outcome in the election.” The statement got a great deal of attention because it flew in the face of Trump’s false claims that the election was stolen from him because of widespread fraud. But it’s notable because, despite Barr’s well-deserved reputation as a staunch political ally of Trump’s, he isn’t willing to go so far as to back Trump’s election fraud claims.
Second, and perhaps to soften this blow for Trump, Barr told the Associated Press — and also Congress — that he has named US Attorney John Durham as a special counsel.
Back in early 2019, Barr tasked Durham, the US attorney for Connecticut, with probing the US government’s handling of the investigation of Trump associates’ ties to Russia. Since then, Durham’s investigation has unfolded mostly behind the scenes. (The sole charge has been FBI lawyer Kevin Clinesmith’s guilty plea over falsifying a document used in a surveillance application — a matter already uncovered by the Justice Department’s inspector general.)
It’s unclear whether Durham has found serious misconduct beyond Clinesmith. But Trump and his supporters have long hyped the prospect that Durham will bring charges against top former government officials who investigated the president. Barr reportedly placed heavy pressure on Durham to finish at least some of his work before the 2020 election, but Durham’s top deputy Nora Dannehy resigned in protest in September, and Durham ended up making no further public moves before the election.
Barr’s appointment of Durham as special counsel — made in mid-October, but not announced until Tuesday — is evidently meant to shield Durham from potentially being fired in the Biden Administration (since a special counsel can only be fired for “good cause”). As for why we’re only learning of this now, Barr suggested he didn’t want to make the announcement before the election to avoid influencing the result.
But for Trump allies, this isn’t enough. Axios’s Jonathan Swan reports that Trump allies saw the special counsel appointment as “a smokescreen to forestall the release of the so-called Durham report,” and that the president has even mused about firing Barr.
Barr visited the White House on Tuesday and stayed there for more than two hours; Swan reports that the attorney general was meeting with White House chief of staff Mark Meadows. It is not known what they discussed.
The first doses may begin rolling out next week.
The United Kingdom on Wednesday granted temporary authorization for emergency use of the Covid-19 vaccine developed by Pfizer and BioNTech to adults aged 16 and older, with the first 800,000 doses of the two-dose vaccine slated to be offered in the country next week.
This makes the UK the first country to approve the Pfizer/BioNTech mRNA-based vaccine and the first government approval of a vaccine backed by a clinical trial. (Some countries like Russia and China began administering their Covid-19 vaccines before completing large-scale trials.) It’s also the fastest a vaccine has ever gained approval, albeit on a temporary basis.
“I’m confident now, with the news today, that from spring, from Easter onward, things are going to be better,” said UK Health Secretary Matt Hancock during a press conference. “And we’re going to have summer next year that everyone can enjoy.”
The UK’s health regulator, the Medicines & Healthcare Products Regulatory Agency (MHRA), granted the temporary authorization shortly after Pfizer and BioNTech reported in November that their Covid-19 vaccine was 95 percent effective. Though this is a temporary authorization, the MHRA is conducting a rolling review of vaccine trial data as it comes in and may grant full approval at a later date. In contrast, the US Food and Drug Administration is evaluating vaccines based on completed studies, which increases the length of the approval process.
The UK government reached a deal with Pfizer and BioNTech to purchase 40 million doses of the vaccine through 2021 — enough for 20 million people — mainly shipped from Pfizer’s manufacturing plant in Puurs, Belgium.
“This authorization is a goal we have been working toward since we first declared that science will win, and we applaud the MHRA for their ability to conduct a careful assessment and take timely action to help protect the people of the U.K.,” said Pfizer CEO Albert Bourla, in a statement.
The UK has been one of the most severely afflicted countries during the Covid-19 pandemic, with 1.6 million reported infections and almost 60,000 deaths in a population of 66 million. The government recently imposed a second national lockdown as cases spiked; restrictions on movement and which businesses can stay open may begin to relax this week as the number of new cases declines. But with winter approaching, the risk of more Covid-19 spread in the UK remains high.
With limited doses of the Pfizer/BioNTech vaccine to give out for the time being, the UK is establishing several priority tiers for Covid-19 immunization.
The country’s Joint Committee on Vaccination and Immunisation (JCVI) on Wednesday laid out guidelines for administering the vaccine based mainly on age. The top priority is residents and workers at care homes for older adults, a ranking based on the number of vaccinations that would be needed in each tier to prevent one death, not necessarily risk of exposure.
That’s why health workers, who will be at the front of the line in the US, are not in the top tier in the UK, even though they may be encountering the virus more frequently. “As the risk of mortality from COVID-19 increases with age, prioritisation is primarily based on age,” according to the guidelines.
The committee divided its overall priority list into nine groups. “It is estimated that taken together, these groups represent around 99% of preventable mortality from COVID-19,” according to the JCVI guidelines.
But the guidelines also note that vaccine deployment strategies may have to shift to address concerns like mitigating health inequalities and logistical challenges. The latter is particularly important for the Pfizer/BioNTech vaccine because it has some of the most stringent cold storage requirements of any Covid-19 vaccine candidate: temperatures of minus 70 degrees Celsius (minus 94 degrees Fahrenheit) or lower. While Pfizer and BioNTech are developing shipping containers that can maintain these temperatures for 30 days, it’s likely the first facilities to receive it will be major health facilities that already have freezers.
Recipients will have to receive the vaccine as two doses spaced 21 days apart, so rigorous patient tracking will be needed as well.
Advisers to the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention this week voted on US guidelines for vaccine approval. The recommendations from the Advisory Committee for Immunization Practices stated that health workers and residents of long-term care facilities should be up first for a Covid-19 vaccine. That health workers are in the top tier stands in contrast to the guidelines issued by the UK.
Establishing these priorities are all the more critical now that a vaccine is poised to begin distribution in the US in weeks. Pfizer and BioNTech have also applied for an Emergency Use Authorization (EUA) in the US from the FDA for their Covid-19 vaccine. The FDA is meeting on December 10 to discuss their vaccine. This week, Moderna, another mRNA Covid-19 vaccine developer, also applied for an EUA.
If granted, these emergency approvals would mark the fastest vaccine development timeline ever, an amazing feat against an unprecedented pandemic. But Covid-19 cases are continuing to rise across the US, and it will still be a few more months before there is widespread access to a vaccine.
The homicide rate is significantly up in American cities. Here are some explanations for why.
As if the Covid-19 pandemic wasn’t bad enough, America is also seeing a surge in homicides this year.
A new report, by the Council on Criminal Justice, found homicides have increased sharply this year across 21 US cities with relevant data: “Homicide rates increased by 42% during the summer and 34% in the fall over the summer and fall of 2019.” Other data, from crime analyst Jeff Asher, found murder is up 36 percent throughout the year so far, compared to the same period in 2019, in a sample of 51 US cities. A preliminary FBI report also found murders up 15 percent nationwide in the first half of 2020.
The increase in homicides is large and widespread enough to raise serious alarms for criminologists and other experts. So what’s going on?
Some experts have cited the protests this summer over the police killings of George Floyd and others — which could’ve had a range of effects, from officers pulling back from their duties to greater community distrust in police, leading to more unchecked violence. Others point to the bad economy. Another potential factor is a huge increase in gun purchases this year. Still others posit boredom and social displacement as a result of physical distancing leading people to cause more trouble.
Above all, though, experts caution it’s simply been a very unusual year with the Covid-19 pandemic. That makes it difficult to say what, exactly, is happening with crime rates. “The current year, 2020, is an extreme deviation from baseline — extreme,” Tracey Meares, founding director at the Justice Collaboratory at Yale Law School, previously told me.
That offers a bit of good news: It’s possible that the end of the pandemic will come and homicide rates will fall again, as they generally have for the past few decades in the US. But no one knows for sure if that will happen, or if we’re now seeing a shift in long-term trends.
Uncertainty about what’s going on isn’t exactly new in the field of criminal justice. Rates of crime and violence have plummeted over the past few decades in the US, yet there is no agreed-upon explanation for why. There are theories applying the best evidence, research, and data available, ranging from changes in policing to a drop in lead exposure to the rise of video games. But there’s no consensus.
That a decades-long phenomenon is still so hard to explain shows the need for humility before jumping to conclusions about the current trends.
“We don’t know nearly enough to know what’s going on at the given moment,” Jennifer Doleac, director of the Justice Tech Lab, previously told me. “The current moment is so unusual for so many different reasons that … it’s really hard to speculate about broad phenomena that are driving these trends when we’re not even sure if there’s a trend yet.”
All of that said, here’s what we do know.
There are several good sources, from criminologists, economists, and other data analysts, for what’s happened with crime and violence so far this year: an analysis by Jeff Asher; a Council on Criminal Justice report written by Richard Rosenfeld and Ernesto Lopez; City Crime Stats, a website from the University of Pennsylvania set up by David Abrams, Priyanka Goonetilleke, Elizabeth Holmdahl, and Kathy Qian; and a preliminary report from the FBI.
Crime analyst Jeff Asher offers the most recent data, looking at crime trends in 51 US cities in 2020 so far compared to 2019. He found murders are up 36 percent. Despite previous comments by President Donald Trump blaming the increase on Democrat-run cities, Asher found murders are up about 36 percent in both cities with Democratic mayors and those with Republican mayors. In a smaller sample of US cities, he found violent crime overall is flat and property crimes are down.
Analysis of 51 cities with murder data through at least September shows murder up 35.7% YTD relative to 2019.
— Jeff Asher (@Crimealytics) November 23, 2020
Big cities tend to overstate national trends in crime, but the national change in murder in 2020 will be historically awful.
D cities +36.2%
R cities +35.6% pic.twitter.com/fnRsCYxkMT
The Council on Criminal Justice report, updated in November, analyzed crime in 28 US cities, ranging in size from Los Angeles to St. Petersburg, Florida, through October. The authors looked for “structural breaks,” in which reported crime increased or decreased more than would be expected, based on data from previous years.
They found structural breaks in homicide, aggravated assault, and gun assault increases, particularly starting in the summer. There weren’t significant increases in domestic assault (although the data for domestic violence is fairly limited), and robbery was actually down. Other kinds of crime, including larceny and drug offenses, largely decreased.
Here’s the graph for homicide increases:
“There were 610 more homicides in the 21 cities in the summer and fall of 2020 than during the same period in 2019,” the report found.
City Crime Stats’ data complicates matters a bit, comparing the 2020 crime trends in 28 major cities to a five-year baseline. With this approach, the homicide increases don’t seem quite as dramatic in many cities, and other types of crime appear to be mostly down as well. Still, homicides do seem to be significantly up in many of the cities included in the City Crime Stats data set.
Here, for example, is Chicago’s homicide trend, which shows this year’s rate (the red line) rising above the five-year baseline (the gray line and shading) at several points throughout the year:
There’s a lot of variation from city to city. Minneapolis, Milwaukee, New York City, and Philadelphia are on the high end of homicides or seeing a flat-out increase. Baltimore, Boston, and Columbus are close to historical trends or actually down.
Overall, though, Abrams said that his data suggests there was a significant increase in homicides from May to June: “We did find a statistically significant increase in homicides — about 21 percent — in aggregate in the cities we looked at in the month after versus before those protests,” he previously told me, cautioning we can’t say with any confidence if the protests were the cause. “Same for shootings, but that’s from a smaller number of cities.”
A preliminary FBI report confirmed these other reports’ findings for the first half of 2020. It found a 15 percent increase in murders, a 5 percent increase in aggravated assaults, and an 8 percent decrease in property crime nationwide from January through June, compared to the same time period in 2019. The FBI will likely release a report for all of 2020 later in 2021.
In Chicago, as well as some other cities, the apparent increase in homicides began before the protests over the police killing of George Floyd. And in some cases, as in Chicago, the spike abruptly ended almost as quickly as it started, only to surge again weeks later, after the protests had calmed. So it’s hard to blame only the protests for a spike — especially because we know that other factors likely played a role, such as the start of summer, when crime tends to go up, and the end of stay-at-home orders.
City-by-city variation isn’t unique to 2020. It’s expected, even when talking about national crime waves or declines, to see some places go up and others go down for different kinds of crime. The US is a big country, and a range of local factors can affect different kinds of crime.
Still, there’s enough in the four data sets to draw some conclusions: Homicides are up significantly this year. But other kinds of crime, including violent crime overall, aren’t up and may actually have decreased so far this year. There was also a brief spike in burglaries in major cities starting in late May — an increase that was so brief and contained to specific cities that experts told me it was almost certainly due to the riots and looting surrounding some Black Lives Matter protests.
As Asher noted on Twitter, a disconnect between murders and other crimes would be odd: “Violent crime and murder almost always move in the same direction and they are never this far apart nationally.”
One way to reconcile this may be the nature of crime reporting. All of this data is based on reports to governments, typically local police departments. But with people stuck at home, and no government agency operating normally this year, perhaps these reports are just less likely to happen or get picked up, especially lower-level crimes involving drugs or stolen property.
At the same time, it’s far harder for a homicide to go completely unreported — it’s difficult to ignore a dead person. This is why, for much of US history, the homicide rate has been used as a proxy for violent crime overall: The nature of homicide made it a more reliable metric than others for crime.
In other words, it’s possible that other kinds of crime are up this year, but they’re simply going unreported. At any rate, homicides are up significantly.
One note on domestic violence: Some activists and experts worried it would increase this year as people were forced to stay home more often. The Council on Criminal Justice report and City Crime Stats’ analysis suggest that’s not the case, showing no significant change or a drop in some places. But there’s reason for skepticism: Both sources are pulling data from a limited number of cities. And reporting limitations may especially apply to domestic violence, since this year victims are potentially more likely to be trapped with their abusers and unable to make a phone call for help.
There are plenty of caveats to all this data. Much of it only represents trends in large US cities, which means it might not be representative of the country as a whole. And it only covers 2020 through November at the latest.
But the trends, particularly with homicides, are very alarming.
So why are homicides up?
When I posed this question to experts, they again cautioned that no one can say with certainty what’s going on. That said, they offered some possible explanations, based on the limited information we have so far:
1) The pandemic has really messed things up: Looming over absolutely every discussion about 2020 is the Covid-19 pandemic. That’s no different for discussions about crime and violence. This year is very unusual, with many forced to stay at home and living in fear of a new, deadly virus. That could lead to all sorts of unpredictable behaviors that experts don’t understand yet and might take years to explain.
2) Depolicing led to more violence: In response to the 2014 and 2015 waves of Black Lives Matter protests against police brutality, officers in some cities pulled back, either out of fear that any act of aggressive policing could get them in trouble or in a counterprotest against Black Lives Matter. While protesters have challenged the crime-fighting effectiveness of police, there is a sizable body of evidence that more, and certain kinds of, policing do lead to less crime. Given that, some experts said that depolicing in response to protests could have led to more violence — what some in years past called the “Ferguson effect,” after the 2014 protests in Ferguson, Missouri, over the police shooting of Michael Brown, and also seen in Baltimore after the 2015 killing of Freddie Gray.
3) Lack of trust in police led to more violence: In response to the “Ferguson effect” in 2015, some experts offered a different view of what was happening: Maybe people had lost trust in the police and, as a result, they relied more on street justice and other illegal activities to resolve interpersonal disputes — an interpretation of “legal cynicism,” explained well in Jill Leovy’s Ghettoside and supported by some empirical research. Perhaps Floyd’s killing and the ensuing protests led to a similar phenomenon this year.
4) More guns led to more gun violence: There’s been a big surge in gun buying this year, seemingly in response to concerns about personal safety during a pandemic. And as the research has shown time and time again, more guns mean more gun violence. A recent, preliminary study from researchers at UC Davis already concluded that gun purchases led to more gun violence than there would be otherwise through May this year. That could have further exacerbated homicide increases.
5) Overwhelmed hospitals led to more deaths: One way to explain a flat or dropping violent crime rate as homicides rise is that the violent crime was deadlier than usual. With health care systems across the US at times close to capacity or at capacity due to Covid-19, maybe hospitals and their staff couldn’t treat violent crime victims as well — increasing the chances they died this year. That could translate to more deaths, and homicides, even if violent crime remained flat or declined.
6) Idle hands led to more violence: Throughout the pandemic, a lot of people have been bored — with forms of entertainment, from restaurants to movie theaters, closed down. Schools are limited or closed too, and millions have been newly unemployed. Other support programs that can prevent violence were shuttered due to the closures. All of that could have led to conflict, and possibly more crime and violence. But, experts cautioned, this is speculative, with little evidence so far to support it.
7) A bad economy led to more violence: With the economy tanking this year, some people may have been pushed to desperate acts to make ends meet. Disruptions in the drug market, as product and customers dried up in a bad economy, may have led to more violent competition over what’s left. The bad economy also left local and state governments with less funding for social supports that can keep people out of trouble. All of that, and more, could have contributed to more crime and violence — but this, too, is still very speculative.
Another possibility: None of these explanations is right. With limited data in strange times, it wouldn’t be surprising if it turns out we have no idea what’s going on right now. “We can bet on it being unpredictable,” Doleac said.
Again, there’s still no consensus about what’s caused crime to decline since the 1990s. In that context, it’s no surprise there’s nowhere near a consensus as to why a homicide spike has occurred so far this year.
It’s possible that before we understand why it’s happening, the year’s alarming homicide trends could recede. It’s happened before: In 2005 and 2006, the homicide rate briefly increased, only to start declining again before hitting record lows in 2014. In 2015 and 2016, the rates also spiked again only to start to dip after. In both instances, these years were effectively blips and the overall crime decline America has seen for the past three decades continued.
Maybe after this very weird year ends, crime and violence trends will, similarly, go back to the previous normal.
But that’s not a guarantee — and it’s not something we should rely on, experts said. “We don’t really understand why crime and violence went down,” John Roman, a criminal justice expert at NORC at the University of Chicago, previously told me. “Being able to say we should expect this unexplained phenomenon to continue strikes me as sort of irrational.”
Even if we can’t explain what may be causing a homicide spike, there are certain strategies that might help fight crime in the short term — such as deploying police in crime hot spots (though that would have to be done carefully and with reforms, given the current political climate around policing), a “focused deterrence” program that targets the few people in a community engaging in violence with a mix of support and sanctions, and using civilian “interrupters” to personally intervene in cases in which violence seems likely to break out.
Notably, a lot of this work is done at the local and state level, where the vast majority of police departments are based. The federal government can incentivize certain practices, like President-elect Joe Biden has proposed doing, but it ultimately falls on cities, counties, and states to carry out new or revised approaches.
Many of the evidence-based approaches rely on in-person contact, which requires ending the pandemic. “The police, public health, and community approaches to violence reduction require that people meet face-to-face; they cannot be replaced by Zoom,” Rosenfeld and Lopez wrote in one of their reports. “An underappreciated consequence of the pandemic is how social-distancing requirements have affected outreach to high-risk individuals.”
So the first priority should be to end the pandemic — ending its potential ripple effects on crime and enabling evidence-based approaches that can help reduce crime. But to do that, the US public and governments will need to truly embrace strategies that have worked for countries like South Korea and Germany against Covid-19: physical distancing, masking, and testing, tracing, and isolating the sick. In this sense, Trump’s failures to address Covid-19 may be leading to more violence.
“Seeing what’s happening with these [crime] numbers can point us to or at least get us thinking about what potential policy levers we could employ that would be helpful,” Doleac said. “Otherwise, our attention is probably better focused on making sure we’re all wearing masks.”
Beyond the pandemic, police are going to have more trouble fighting crime — including any current or future spikes — if large segments of the community don’t trust them. That’s where police reform comes into play. It’s a complicated topic, separate from a possible spike in violence this year. But, in short, experts say police should, at a minimum, show the communities they serve that they understand the concerns, acknowledge mistakes, and will change how officers are trained and deployed.
Otherwise, there’s a good chance that protests against police will flare up, just as they did from 2014 to 2016 and have again this year. If protests lead to more violence — whether by leading to depolicing, or sowing and exposing distrust in law enforcement — that’s going to create public safety problems.
To put it another way: There’s a lot we don’t know about crime, why it happens, and how to stop it. But it’s going to be much easier to wrap our heads around these issues once things get closer to how they should be — and that means seriously addressing the pandemic and protests against police brutality.
Unfortunately, the US is going in the opposite direction, with a surge of Covid-19 this fall and winter and Trump exacerbating police-community tensions with his rhetoric and push to deploy unsolicited federal agents in some US cities.
“How optimistic should we be for the rest of the summer?” Roman said. “I think the answer is not terribly optimistic, because none of these factors seem to be abating with the return of Covid.”
Natarajan’s rise — a triumph of the spirit - From Chinnappampatti to Canberra, it has been a fascinating journey for the yorker specialist
Dismissing Smith early was huge, says Shardul - Mumbai seamer all praise for Natarajan
Windies ready for Kiwi challenge - We need to continue to build as a side, says skipper Jason Holder
Eze thunderbolt denies Hyderabad FC - The Jamshedpur defender’s strike cancels out Santana’s goal
Injury-ravaged Liverpool makes the pre-quarterfinals - Inter hands Real a lifeline after Shakhtar does the double over the Madrid team
JD(S) to finalise Assembly candidates for 150 seats early next year - Former Chief Minister H.D. Kumaraswamy on Wednesday said the party will finalise candidates for 150 Assembly constituencies in the State early next ye
LAC standoff | India will not accept less than bottom line in talks with China, says Jaishankar - External Affairs Minister S. Jaishankar says negotiations could take longer
Industry tells SC govt.’s payback scheme on interest is ‘arbitrary’ - Business sectors classified as ‘big’ borrowers urge loan relief in plea to apex court
State intensifies bid to raise resources - Move to meet immediate commitments like Rythu Bandhu
Srinath relieved to get online Olympiad medals - India had won the Olympiad gold in August
Coronavirus: France to impose border checks to stop skiing abroad - Swiss ski resorts are open and Prime Minister Jean Castex says he wants to stop people going.
French restaurateur killed in Mexico City ‘to steal his wine’ - Baptiste Lormand and his associate are believed to have been targeted over their expensive wine.
Brexit trade: ‘Serious disruption’ risk at Channel post-transition period - Ministers are “taking limited responsibility” for readiness ahead of the transition period ending, MPs say.
‘Volga maniac’ murders: Russia suspect arrested over deaths of 26 elderly women - Police in Russia question a 38-year-old man over the killings along the Volga River.
Europe migrant crisis: Ten days of Atlantic peril in search of Spain - More than 19,000 African migrants have crossed to the Canary Islands this year alone but hundreds died.
Fortnite’s Nexus War event could expose Twitch streamers to DMCA problems - Epic Games and Twitch warn over 100,000 streamers of potential music rights issues. - link
China releases a super-clear image of the Moon taken by Chang’e 5 probe - There’s also video showing the descent of the spacecraft. - link
Teardown of “Dishy McFlatface,” the SpaceX Starlink user terminal - “It’s rare to see something of this complexity in a consumer product.” - link
Qualcomm’s new flagship SoC is the Snapdragon 888 - It’s built on 5nm with a Cortex X1 core, Wi-Fi 6E, and onboard 5G. - link
Space balloon company raises funds, will conduct first test flight next year - No ticket price has been revealed, but it likely will be on the order of $125,000. - link
A lumberjack once told me he’s cut down 27,572 trees. -
“How do ya know exactly how many?” I inquired.
“Easy. I keep a log.”
submitted by /u/af6563
[link] [comments]
Bath night -
A couple take in an 18-year-old girl as a lodger. She asked if she could have a bath but the woman of the house told her they didn’t have a bath but if she wanted to she could use a tin bath in front of the fire…….
“Monday’s the best night, when my husband goes out to darts,” she said.
The girl agreed to have a bath the following Monday….
After her husband had gone to the pub for his darts match, the woman filled the bath and watched the girl get undressed. She was surprised to see that the lass didn’t have any pubic hair. She mentioned this to her husband when he came home. He didn’t believe her, so she said: “Next Monday, don?t go to darts. I’ll leave a gap in the curtains so you can see for yourself..”
So the following Monday, while the girl again got undressed, the wife asked:
“Do you shave?”
“No,” replied the girl. “I’ve just never grown any hairs down there. Do you have hair?”
“Oh, yes,” said the woman, and she showed the girl that indeed, she was far from hairless.
When the girl went to bed the husband came in, and the wife asked:
“Did you see it?”
“Yes,” he said, “but why the hell did you have to show her yours.”
“Why not?” she said. “You’ve seen it before.”
“I know,” he said, "but the darts team hadn’t!!
submitted by /u/snickerscowboy
[link] [comments]
Joke from my 12 year old “why do you never see elephants hiding in trees?” -
Because they’re so good at it!
Please don’t ban me
submitted by /u/kelsly03
[link] [comments]
Dirty joke from my late grandfather 92 at the time. -
Two students were asked to make a quick line about Timbuktu for their poetry class. Tim and Dill. Tim delivers his to the class. “Across the endless desert sands, people travel hand in hand, tired and worn, they walk through, destination Timbuktu.” The professor says “its’s a fine poem! Your turn Dill!” Dill says “me and Tim a hunting went, found three maidens in a tent, since they were three and we were two, I buck one and Tim buck two!”
Edit: name change
submitted by /u/mosh_pit_tragedy
[link] [comments]
My wife screamed “you haven’t listened to a single word I’ve said, have you?!” -
What a weird way to start a conversation..
submitted by /u/thassman
[link] [comments]