Welcome to DU!
The truly grassroots left-of-center political community where regular people, not algorithms, drive the discussions and set the standards.
Join the community:
Create a free account
Support DU (and get rid of ads!):
Become a Star Member
Latest Breaking News
General Discussion
The DU Lounge
All Forums
Issue Forums
Culture Forums
Alliance Forums
Region Forums
Support Forums
Help & Search
Celerity
Celerity's Journal
Celerity's Journal
January 11, 2022
https://www.project-syndicate.org/commentary/whatever-happened-to-soft-power-by-joseph-s-nye-2022-01
CAMBRIDGE – As 2021 drew to a close, Russia had massed troops near its border with Ukraine; China had flown military jets near Taiwan; North Korea was still pursuing its nuclear-weapons program; and Taliban fighters were patrolling the streets of Kabul. Seeing all this, friends asked me: “Whatever happened to soft power?” One answer is that it can be found in other recent events, such as President Joe Biden’s virtual Summit for Democracy, which was attended by representatives from more than 100 countries. Having been excluded, China took to the airwaves and social media to proclaim that it had a different and more stable type of democracy than the one being extolled by the United States. What we were seeing was a great-power competition over soft power, understood as the ability to influence others by attraction rather than by coercion or payment.
When I first wrote about soft power in 1990, I was seeking to overcome a deficiency in how analysts thought about power generally. But the concept gradually acquired more of a political resonance. In some respects, the underlying thought is not new; similar concepts can be traced back to ancient philosophers such as Lao Tse. Nor does soft power pertain only to international behaviour or to the US. Many small countries and organizations also possess the power to attract; and in democracies, at least, soft power is an essential component of leadership. Still, the concept is now generally associated with international relations. As the European Union developed into its current form, European leaders increasingly made use of the term. And ever since 2007, when then-Chinese President Hu Jintao declared that China must develop its soft power, the government has invested billions of dollars in that quest. The challenge now is for China to implement an effective smart-power strategy. If it can effectively pair its growing hard power with soft power, it will be less likely to provoke counter-balancing coalitions.
Soft power is not the only or even the most important source of power, because its effects tend to be slow and indirect. But to ignore or neglect it is a serious strategic and analytic mistake. The Roman Empire’s power rested not only on its legions, but also on the attraction of Roman culture and law. Similarly, as a Norwegian analyst once described it, the American presence in Western Europe after World War II was “an empire by invitation.” No barrage of artillery brought down the Berlin Wall; it was removed by hammers and bulldozers wielded by people who had been touched by Western soft power. Smart political leaders have long understood that values can create power. If I can get you to want what I want, I will not have to force you to do what you do not want to do. If a country represents values that others find attractive, it can economize on the use of sticks and carrots.
A country’s soft power comes primarily from three sources: its culture; its political values, such as democracy and human rights (when it upholds them); and its policies (when they are seen as legitimate because they are framed with an awareness of others’ interests). A government can influence others through the example of how it behaves at home (such as by protecting a free press and the right to protest), in international institutions (consulting others and fostering multilateralism), and through its foreign policy (such as by promoting development and human rights). During the COVID-19 pandemic, China has tried to use so-called “vaccine diplomacy” to bolster its soft power, which had been damaged by its secretive handling of the initial outbreak of the coronavirus in Wuhan. The government’s efforts have been aimed at reinforcing its Belt and Road Initiative, which supports infrastructure projects in many parts of the world.
snip
JOSEPH S. NYE, JR. - Whatever Happened to Soft Power?
With the news dominated by dramatic examples of countries using coercion, intimidation, and payoffs to advance their interests, the power of attraction would seem to be irrelevant in international relations. But it still matters, and governments ignore its potential at their peril.https://www.project-syndicate.org/commentary/whatever-happened-to-soft-power-by-joseph-s-nye-2022-01
CAMBRIDGE – As 2021 drew to a close, Russia had massed troops near its border with Ukraine; China had flown military jets near Taiwan; North Korea was still pursuing its nuclear-weapons program; and Taliban fighters were patrolling the streets of Kabul. Seeing all this, friends asked me: “Whatever happened to soft power?” One answer is that it can be found in other recent events, such as President Joe Biden’s virtual Summit for Democracy, which was attended by representatives from more than 100 countries. Having been excluded, China took to the airwaves and social media to proclaim that it had a different and more stable type of democracy than the one being extolled by the United States. What we were seeing was a great-power competition over soft power, understood as the ability to influence others by attraction rather than by coercion or payment.
When I first wrote about soft power in 1990, I was seeking to overcome a deficiency in how analysts thought about power generally. But the concept gradually acquired more of a political resonance. In some respects, the underlying thought is not new; similar concepts can be traced back to ancient philosophers such as Lao Tse. Nor does soft power pertain only to international behaviour or to the US. Many small countries and organizations also possess the power to attract; and in democracies, at least, soft power is an essential component of leadership. Still, the concept is now generally associated with international relations. As the European Union developed into its current form, European leaders increasingly made use of the term. And ever since 2007, when then-Chinese President Hu Jintao declared that China must develop its soft power, the government has invested billions of dollars in that quest. The challenge now is for China to implement an effective smart-power strategy. If it can effectively pair its growing hard power with soft power, it will be less likely to provoke counter-balancing coalitions.
Soft power is not the only or even the most important source of power, because its effects tend to be slow and indirect. But to ignore or neglect it is a serious strategic and analytic mistake. The Roman Empire’s power rested not only on its legions, but also on the attraction of Roman culture and law. Similarly, as a Norwegian analyst once described it, the American presence in Western Europe after World War II was “an empire by invitation.” No barrage of artillery brought down the Berlin Wall; it was removed by hammers and bulldozers wielded by people who had been touched by Western soft power. Smart political leaders have long understood that values can create power. If I can get you to want what I want, I will not have to force you to do what you do not want to do. If a country represents values that others find attractive, it can economize on the use of sticks and carrots.
A country’s soft power comes primarily from three sources: its culture; its political values, such as democracy and human rights (when it upholds them); and its policies (when they are seen as legitimate because they are framed with an awareness of others’ interests). A government can influence others through the example of how it behaves at home (such as by protecting a free press and the right to protest), in international institutions (consulting others and fostering multilateralism), and through its foreign policy (such as by promoting development and human rights). During the COVID-19 pandemic, China has tried to use so-called “vaccine diplomacy” to bolster its soft power, which had been damaged by its secretive handling of the initial outbreak of the coronavirus in Wuhan. The government’s efforts have been aimed at reinforcing its Belt and Road Initiative, which supports infrastructure projects in many parts of the world.
snip
January 11, 2022
More than just Cunningham and the voters of Maine. I will name names.
We ran a weak, non-native (a big deal in Maine) candidate, and Collins took Manchin's endorsement of her and ran with it to falsely boost her phoney bi-partisan act. Gideon did not move to Maine until the mid noughties, when she as already in her 30's. Collin's campaign tore into her for that as well.
Stephen King would have beaten that worm Concern Collins like a drum, he IS a native Mainer, and a legend. We did such a shit job at recruiting in so many states.
Let me just list them quickly (and the ones who refused to run who were our best hope, in some cases only hope, ie TN and KS.)
ME (Stephen King)
KS (Sebelius, our only hope and it was an OPEN SEAT. Multiple local experts said she would likely have won or come DAMN close.)
TN (Tim McGraw, twice (2018 especially, plus 2020) turned down running for OPEN SEATS after promising for years he would run when he was 50. He likely would have won, perhaps somewhat easily in 2018, and had a better shot than who ended up our nominee in 2020).
IA (Vilsack or Axne would have been stronger than Greenfield, especially Vilsack)
NC (the fool Cunningham with his sexting scandal late in the game killed us, he had a wee bit of lead (and growing) lead before, BUT there were far better candidates before that shit anyway as well, especially Jeff Jackson, but also Stein and Foxx.
AK (we did not even field a Dem candidate, a previous Dem US Senate winner, Begich, refused to run)
These last two (I deal with a 3rd, SC, below) were hopeless anyway:
KY (that goose was cooked when Beshear decided to run (at least he won! ) for Governor in 2019. No other candidate would have had a chance against McTreason.)
TX (did not matter, even Beto would have lost to the vermin Cornyn.)
Finally, we shit away over 300 million usd on fantasyland races in SC, KY, TX, and ME (to a point) and thus we ended with two cash-starved campaigns (MT especially, and also IA) who had leads, especially Bullock, but were BURIED by 200 million usd in RW dark money nuclear flame-thrower attack adverts, and neither MT or IA have the cash to counter.
The most egregious was SC, where Harrison took one (that was a huge outlier) poll over a month out that showed him tied with Graham, and then ran weeks of non stop adverts using just that poll. It convinced so many (falsely) that he had a shot (many Dem actually thought he was the clear favourite, smdh) when the reality was he was never in the hunt actually. Charlie Cook, a true hack, was all over hyping it up as a toss-up and said he was likely to put to lean Dem. I never put it on my possible list, and when pressed at my uni here in Stockholm by some fellow instructors, (these were from the Poli Sci department), I said Graham would win by 11 to 12 points. I was off, but not by much, he won by 10.5.
The poor, poor recruiting by Schumer and Cortez Masto really bit us in the arse, and also the poor money distribution. I am just furious at dick-texter Cunningham, and then pretty angry with Tim McGraw (especially for 2018! Blue Wave and him as candidate equals NO ultra MAGAtette Blackburn) and also Sebelius (all the KS newspapers said she was the only Dem in last 50 years with a chance, and it was an open seat, grr). Irritated, not furious (I like his novels, lol) with Stephen King. Disappointed that Jeff Jackson did not run (thus no Cunningham scandal), and now has dropped out for 2022 as well.
January 11, 2022
Sen. Joe Manchin (D-W.Va.) doubled down Tuesday on his support for the filibuster as President Biden heads to Georgia to publicly push for changes to the Senate rule in order to pass voting rights legislation. “We need some good rules changes to make the place work better. But getting rid of the filibuster doesn’t make it work better,” Manchin told reporters.
Given support from Manchin and Sen. Kyrsten Sinema (D-Ariz.) for the legislative filibuster, which requires 60 votes for most bills to advance in the Senate, Democrats acknowledge that getting rid of it altogether isn’t on the table. Instead, they are discussing smaller changes including moving to a talking filibuster, where opponents could delay the bill for as long as they could hold the floor but legislation would ultimately be able to pass with a simple majority. They are also mulling a carveout that would exempt voting rights legislation from needing 60 votes.
Democrats are also discussing smaller changes, including shifting from needing 60 votes to break a filibuster to needing 41 votes to sustain it or getting rid of the 60-vote hurdle currently required for starting debate while keeping it in place for ending debate. But Republicans aren’t expected to support any of those rules changes, meaning Democrats would need to use the “nuclear option” that lets them change the rules via a simple majority.
Manchin hasn’t endorsed a rules change option and, in a potentially bigger hurdle for Democrats, he has long opposed changing the rules through the nuclear option. He added on Tuesday that the rules should be changed by two-thirds of the Senate, referring to the 67 votes needed to change rules outside of the nuclear option. “We need some good rules changes. We can do that together. But you change the rules with two-thirds of the people that are present so... Democrats, Republicans changing the rules to make the place work better. Getting rid of the filibuster doesn’t make it work better,” he said.
snip
I am really close to calling all the voter bills dead, ffs.
BBB is on life support. 2022 and thus 2024 loom ominously.
Manchin doubles down on filibuster ahead of Biden's speech (attacking rule changes w/o 2/3rds vote)
https://thehill.com/homenews/senate/589169-manchin-doubles-down-on-filibuster-ahead-of-bidens-speechSen. Joe Manchin (D-W.Va.) doubled down Tuesday on his support for the filibuster as President Biden heads to Georgia to publicly push for changes to the Senate rule in order to pass voting rights legislation. “We need some good rules changes to make the place work better. But getting rid of the filibuster doesn’t make it work better,” Manchin told reporters.
Given support from Manchin and Sen. Kyrsten Sinema (D-Ariz.) for the legislative filibuster, which requires 60 votes for most bills to advance in the Senate, Democrats acknowledge that getting rid of it altogether isn’t on the table. Instead, they are discussing smaller changes including moving to a talking filibuster, where opponents could delay the bill for as long as they could hold the floor but legislation would ultimately be able to pass with a simple majority. They are also mulling a carveout that would exempt voting rights legislation from needing 60 votes.
Democrats are also discussing smaller changes, including shifting from needing 60 votes to break a filibuster to needing 41 votes to sustain it or getting rid of the 60-vote hurdle currently required for starting debate while keeping it in place for ending debate. But Republicans aren’t expected to support any of those rules changes, meaning Democrats would need to use the “nuclear option” that lets them change the rules via a simple majority.
Manchin hasn’t endorsed a rules change option and, in a potentially bigger hurdle for Democrats, he has long opposed changing the rules through the nuclear option. He added on Tuesday that the rules should be changed by two-thirds of the Senate, referring to the 67 votes needed to change rules outside of the nuclear option. “We need some good rules changes. We can do that together. But you change the rules with two-thirds of the people that are present so... Democrats, Republicans changing the rules to make the place work better. Getting rid of the filibuster doesn’t make it work better,” he said.
snip
I am really close to calling all the voter bills dead, ffs.
BBB is on life support. 2022 and thus 2024 loom ominously.
January 11, 2022
https://www.thedailybeast.com/ivermectin-fans-are-back-with-even-weirder-drugs-for-your-covid-19-including-hormone-therapy
Is your anti-worm medication failing to treat COVID-19? Not to worry, says one of the loudest organizations promoting anti-worm medication for COVID patients: Try adding a cocktail of anti-depressants and androgen inhibitors to your medical mix. No major health organizations recommend the use of ivermectin (an anti-parasitic drug) in the treatment of COVID-19 (a virus). “Ivermectin has not been shown to be safe or effective for these indications,” the Food and Drug Administration advises. Nevertheless, the medication has found an avid fanbase, especially in alternative medicine and anti-vaccine circles, where ivermectin enthusiasts have taken veterinary versions of the drug and led to a massive spike in calls to poison control centers.
But despite championing ivermectin as a “miracle drug against COVID-19,” one of the medication’s biggest hype-groups is now promoting additional treatments, in case the miracle fails. The “Front Line COVID-19 Critical Care Alliance,” one of the leading groups promoting ivermectin, now lists a variety of backup drugs, including the anti-depressant Prozac and the anti-androgens spironolactone and dutasteride. FLCCC has been recommending the alternative-alternative medications for some months, but the dubious advice went viral this week when Twitter users spotted it on FLCCC’s newly updated treatment plan, and when the FLCCC’s leader appeared on Fox News on Sunday to flog the new treatment. The FLCCC did not return a request for comment.
https://twitter.com/twinkbride/status/1480205837721391112
Online, the FLCCC’s new recommendations raised eyebrows among people who already take those medications. Like ivermectin, which is used to fight parasitic infections, drugs like prozac are regularly prescribed for non-COVID purposes, like treating depression. But FLCCC’s recommended initial prozac dose of up to 40mg exceeds Mayo Clinic recommendations of just 20mg for most new patients. (The Mayo Clinic does recommend a higher dose for treating bulimia nervosa.) Oversight groups also warn new prozac patients to be on the lookout for potentially severe side effects like suicidal thoughts.
Androgen suppressants, meanwhile, have a variety of uses, including treating hair loss and acne. They are also well known for their use in transgender health care, Media Matters noted after the FLCCC promoted the drugs on Fox News this weekend. The FLCCC recommended COVID patients take 100mg of the anti-androgen spironolactone daily, which is the Mayo Clinic’s recommended starting dose for feminizing hormone therapy. “This blocks male sex hormone (androgen) receptors and can suppress testosterone production,” the Mayo Clinic describes, although higher doses have been described as safe in treating hair loss in cisgender women. A different FLCCC document from October reveals that the group previously recommended 200mg of spironolactone per day, which is the highest starting dose recommended for feminizing hormone therapy.
snip
Ivermectin Fans Are Back With Even Weirder Drugs for Your COVID
Like a potent cocktail of Prozac and hormone therapy.https://www.thedailybeast.com/ivermectin-fans-are-back-with-even-weirder-drugs-for-your-covid-19-including-hormone-therapy
Is your anti-worm medication failing to treat COVID-19? Not to worry, says one of the loudest organizations promoting anti-worm medication for COVID patients: Try adding a cocktail of anti-depressants and androgen inhibitors to your medical mix. No major health organizations recommend the use of ivermectin (an anti-parasitic drug) in the treatment of COVID-19 (a virus). “Ivermectin has not been shown to be safe or effective for these indications,” the Food and Drug Administration advises. Nevertheless, the medication has found an avid fanbase, especially in alternative medicine and anti-vaccine circles, where ivermectin enthusiasts have taken veterinary versions of the drug and led to a massive spike in calls to poison control centers.
But despite championing ivermectin as a “miracle drug against COVID-19,” one of the medication’s biggest hype-groups is now promoting additional treatments, in case the miracle fails. The “Front Line COVID-19 Critical Care Alliance,” one of the leading groups promoting ivermectin, now lists a variety of backup drugs, including the anti-depressant Prozac and the anti-androgens spironolactone and dutasteride. FLCCC has been recommending the alternative-alternative medications for some months, but the dubious advice went viral this week when Twitter users spotted it on FLCCC’s newly updated treatment plan, and when the FLCCC’s leader appeared on Fox News on Sunday to flog the new treatment. The FLCCC did not return a request for comment.
https://twitter.com/twinkbride/status/1480205837721391112
Online, the FLCCC’s new recommendations raised eyebrows among people who already take those medications. Like ivermectin, which is used to fight parasitic infections, drugs like prozac are regularly prescribed for non-COVID purposes, like treating depression. But FLCCC’s recommended initial prozac dose of up to 40mg exceeds Mayo Clinic recommendations of just 20mg for most new patients. (The Mayo Clinic does recommend a higher dose for treating bulimia nervosa.) Oversight groups also warn new prozac patients to be on the lookout for potentially severe side effects like suicidal thoughts.
Androgen suppressants, meanwhile, have a variety of uses, including treating hair loss and acne. They are also well known for their use in transgender health care, Media Matters noted after the FLCCC promoted the drugs on Fox News this weekend. The FLCCC recommended COVID patients take 100mg of the anti-androgen spironolactone daily, which is the Mayo Clinic’s recommended starting dose for feminizing hormone therapy. “This blocks male sex hormone (androgen) receptors and can suppress testosterone production,” the Mayo Clinic describes, although higher doses have been described as safe in treating hair loss in cisgender women. A different FLCCC document from October reveals that the group previously recommended 200mg of spironolactone per day, which is the highest starting dose recommended for feminizing hormone therapy.
snip
January 11, 2022
By Ruy Teixeira (Center for American Progress, Brookings Institution, etc)
The Democrats are steadily losing ground with Hispanic voters. The seriousness of this problem tends to be underestimated in Democratic circles for a couple of reasons: (1) they don’t realize how big the shift is; and (2) they don’t realize how thoroughly it undermines the most influential Democratic theory of the case for building their coalition. On the latter, consider that most Democrats like to believe that, since a relatively conservative white population is in sharp decline while a presumably liberal nonwhite population keeps growing, the course of social and demographic change should deliver an ever-growing Democratic coalition. It is simply a matter of getting this burgeoning nonwhite population to the polls.
But consider further that, as the Census documents, the biggest single driver of the increased nonwhite population is the growth of the Hispanic population. They are by far the largest group within the Census-designated nonwhite population (19 percent vs. 12 percent for blacks). While their representation among voters considerably lags their representation in the overall population, it is fair to say that voting trends among this group will decisively shape voting trends among nonwhites in the future since their share of voters will continue to increase while black voter share is expected to remain roughly constant.
It therefore follows that, if Hispanic voting trends continue to move steadily against the Democrats, the pro-Democratic effect of nonwhite population growth will be blunted, if not cancelled out entirely, and that very influential Democratic theory of the case falls apart. That could—or should—provoke quite a sea change in Democratic thinking. Turning to the nature and size of recent Hispanic shifts against the Democrats—it’s not as bad as you think, it’s worse. Here are ten points drawn from available data about the views and voting behavior of this population. Read ‘em and weep.
1. In the most recent Wall Street Journal poll, Hispanic voters were split evenly between Democrats and Republicans in the 2022 generic Congressional ballot. And in a 2024 hypothetical rematch between Trump and Biden, these voters favored Biden by only a single point. This is among a voter group that favored Biden over Trump in 2020 by 26 points according to Catalist (two party vote).
snip
much, much more at the link, a tonne of data, this is not just one poll
The Democrats' Hispanic Voter Problem: It's Not As Bad As You Think--It's Worse
https://theliberalpatriot.substack.com/p/the-democrats-hispanic-voter-problem-dfcBy Ruy Teixeira (Center for American Progress, Brookings Institution, etc)
The Democrats are steadily losing ground with Hispanic voters. The seriousness of this problem tends to be underestimated in Democratic circles for a couple of reasons: (1) they don’t realize how big the shift is; and (2) they don’t realize how thoroughly it undermines the most influential Democratic theory of the case for building their coalition. On the latter, consider that most Democrats like to believe that, since a relatively conservative white population is in sharp decline while a presumably liberal nonwhite population keeps growing, the course of social and demographic change should deliver an ever-growing Democratic coalition. It is simply a matter of getting this burgeoning nonwhite population to the polls.
But consider further that, as the Census documents, the biggest single driver of the increased nonwhite population is the growth of the Hispanic population. They are by far the largest group within the Census-designated nonwhite population (19 percent vs. 12 percent for blacks). While their representation among voters considerably lags their representation in the overall population, it is fair to say that voting trends among this group will decisively shape voting trends among nonwhites in the future since their share of voters will continue to increase while black voter share is expected to remain roughly constant.
It therefore follows that, if Hispanic voting trends continue to move steadily against the Democrats, the pro-Democratic effect of nonwhite population growth will be blunted, if not cancelled out entirely, and that very influential Democratic theory of the case falls apart. That could—or should—provoke quite a sea change in Democratic thinking. Turning to the nature and size of recent Hispanic shifts against the Democrats—it’s not as bad as you think, it’s worse. Here are ten points drawn from available data about the views and voting behavior of this population. Read ‘em and weep.
1. In the most recent Wall Street Journal poll, Hispanic voters were split evenly between Democrats and Republicans in the 2022 generic Congressional ballot. And in a 2024 hypothetical rematch between Trump and Biden, these voters favored Biden by only a single point. This is among a voter group that favored Biden over Trump in 2020 by 26 points according to Catalist (two party vote).
snip
much, much more at the link, a tonne of data, this is not just one poll
January 10, 2022
We need to talk about Honesty - with Greta Thunberg
January 10, 2022
Natural defences against a common cold could offer some protection against Covid-19, too, research suggests. The small-scale study, published in Nature Communications, involved 52 individuals who lived with someone who had just caught Covid-19.
Those who had developed a "memory bank" of specific immune cells after a cold - to help prevent future attacks - appeared less likely to get Covid. Experts say no-one should rely on this defence alone, and vaccines remain key.
But they believe their findings could provide useful insight into how a body's defence system fights the virus. Covid-19 is caused by a type of coronavirus, and some colds are caused by other coronaviruses - so scientists have wondered whether immunity against one might help with the other.
But the experts caution that it would be a "grave mistake" to think that anyone who had recently had a cold was automatically protected against Covid-19 - as not all are caused by coronaviruses. The Imperial College London team wanted to understand better why some people catch Covid after being exposed to the virus and others do not.
snip
Covid-19: Common cold may give some protection, study suggests
https://www.bbc.com/news/health-59911257Natural defences against a common cold could offer some protection against Covid-19, too, research suggests. The small-scale study, published in Nature Communications, involved 52 individuals who lived with someone who had just caught Covid-19.
Those who had developed a "memory bank" of specific immune cells after a cold - to help prevent future attacks - appeared less likely to get Covid. Experts say no-one should rely on this defence alone, and vaccines remain key.
But they believe their findings could provide useful insight into how a body's defence system fights the virus. Covid-19 is caused by a type of coronavirus, and some colds are caused by other coronaviruses - so scientists have wondered whether immunity against one might help with the other.
But the experts caution that it would be a "grave mistake" to think that anyone who had recently had a cold was automatically protected against Covid-19 - as not all are caused by coronaviruses. The Imperial College London team wanted to understand better why some people catch Covid after being exposed to the virus and others do not.
snip
January 10, 2022
Summary
Novak Djokovic: Tennis star has returned to the tennis court already - family
https://www.bbc.com/news/live/world-australia-59909477Summary
Novak Djokovic has returned to the tennis court after winning a legal battle in Australia that overturned his visa cancellation
"I'm pleased and grateful," the unvaccinated tennis star tweets after midnight local time, alongside a picture of himself back in training
"Justice has won and the rule of law has won," his father tells the media at a family press conference in Serbia
The family refuse to answer questions about Djokovic attending indoor events after he tested positive for Covid in December
Djokovic's lawyers argued in court that the visa cancellation at Melbourne airport last week was unreasonable and the judge agreed
But Australia's immigration minister still has powers to re-cancel the reinstated visa and deport the tennis player
The Australian Open begins on 17 January and if Djokovic wins, he will become the most successful men's player in history
"I'm pleased and grateful," the unvaccinated tennis star tweets after midnight local time, alongside a picture of himself back in training
"Justice has won and the rule of law has won," his father tells the media at a family press conference in Serbia
The family refuse to answer questions about Djokovic attending indoor events after he tested positive for Covid in December
Djokovic's lawyers argued in court that the visa cancellation at Melbourne airport last week was unreasonable and the judge agreed
But Australia's immigration minister still has powers to re-cancel the reinstated visa and deport the tennis player
The Australian Open begins on 17 January and if Djokovic wins, he will become the most successful men's player in history
January 10, 2022
https://www.nytimes.com/2022/01/10/us/politics/manchin-coal-miners.html
https://archive.fo/mUSXM
WASHINGTON — For years, burly men in camouflage hunting jackets have been a constant presence in the Capitol Hill office of Senator Joe Manchin III, their United Mine Workers logos giving away their mission: to lobby not only for the interests of coal, but also on more personal matters such as pensions, health care and funding to address black lung disease.
So when the miners’ union and the West Virginia A.F.L.-C.I.O. came out last month with statements pleading for passage of President Biden’s Build Back Better Act — just hours after Mr. Manchin, Democrat of West Virginia, said he was a “no” — the Capitol took notice.
With the miners now officially on the opposite side of the mine owners, it signalled the escalation of a behind-the-scenes struggle centered in Mr. Manchin’s home state to sway the balking senator, whose scepticism about his party’s marquee domestic policy measure has emerged as a potentially fatal impediment to its enactment.
While most of the attention to the fate of the social safety net and climate change bill has fixed on ideological divisions among Democrats over its largest provisions and overall cost, the battle underway over parochial issues in Mr. Manchin’s state could ultimately matter more than the public pleas of liberal groups and relentless bargaining by Democratic leaders.
snip
Manchin's Choice on Build Back Better: Mine Workers or Mine Owners
Senator Joe Manchin III is caught between the mine workers’ union, which supports President Biden’s social policy and climate bill, and mine owners in his state who oppose it.https://www.nytimes.com/2022/01/10/us/politics/manchin-coal-miners.html
https://archive.fo/mUSXM
WASHINGTON — For years, burly men in camouflage hunting jackets have been a constant presence in the Capitol Hill office of Senator Joe Manchin III, their United Mine Workers logos giving away their mission: to lobby not only for the interests of coal, but also on more personal matters such as pensions, health care and funding to address black lung disease.
So when the miners’ union and the West Virginia A.F.L.-C.I.O. came out last month with statements pleading for passage of President Biden’s Build Back Better Act — just hours after Mr. Manchin, Democrat of West Virginia, said he was a “no” — the Capitol took notice.
With the miners now officially on the opposite side of the mine owners, it signalled the escalation of a behind-the-scenes struggle centered in Mr. Manchin’s home state to sway the balking senator, whose scepticism about his party’s marquee domestic policy measure has emerged as a potentially fatal impediment to its enactment.
While most of the attention to the fate of the social safety net and climate change bill has fixed on ideological divisions among Democrats over its largest provisions and overall cost, the battle underway over parochial issues in Mr. Manchin’s state could ultimately matter more than the public pleas of liberal groups and relentless bargaining by Democratic leaders.
snip
Profile Information
Gender: FemaleHometown: London
Home country: US/UK/Sweden
Current location: Stockholm, Sweden
Member since: Sun Jul 1, 2018, 07:25 PM
Number of posts: 43,302
