Independent News

This post was originally published on this site

After Republican Glenn Youngkin won the Virginia governor’s race, everywhere you looked you’d see media coverage suggesting that a key reason was parental frustration over school closures and mask mandates during the COVID-19 pandemic. That analysis of Youngkin’s win has translated to a dire warning to Democrats that angry suburban parents will turn against them en masse over public health restrictions in schools. But is it accurate? A new poll points to no.

The new installment of the Axios/Ipsos Coronavirus Index finds that most parents are actually happy with how their local schools have handled the pandemic. Overall, 71% of adults and 75% of parents gave their local schools a positive rating on balancing health and safety with other priorities. Among parents, 22% said schools had done “a very good job,” and 53% said schools had done “a somewhat good job.”

Democrats were the most positive about schools, with 78% positive views, while 71% of independents and 68% of Republicans (which is a lot!) said schools had done a very or somewhat good job. Interestingly, that means that schools got overall higher marks than governors or local governments—but they were less likely to be rated as having done a very good rather than somewhat good job than were governors. 

The fact that non-parents were slightly more likely to have a negative view of how schools have handled the pandemic, and somewhat less likely to have a strongly favorable view, is suggestive: Has Republican propaganda about how terribly schools and especially teachers unions have treated children landed more strongly with the people who aren’t experiencing it close up?

This is a national poll. As such, it doesn’t speak directly to whether the widespread claims about the role of school closures in Youngkin’s win are correct. A significant number of parents in Virginia may have been angry about this issue and changed their votes because of it. But what it does mean is that Virginia can’t be extrapolated to the nation as a whole.

Decisions about school closures and mask mandates have happened mainly at the state and local level, which means that people—or at least parents who have directly experienced it—are responding to dramatically different things in this poll. In some cases, parents say their schools handled the pandemic well by having mask mandates and closures. In others, they’re saying that what schools did right was stay open and not require masks. So we can’t look at this poll and say that one policy is the most popular. We can look at it and say that there is no widespread rage about school closures across the nation. Just 9% of parents and 7% of non-parents say their schools did a very poor job. Could that provide the tipping point in a very close election? Sure. But it’s not something that should be launching a thousand alarmist trend pieces.

This post was originally published on this site

As Republicans use their positions of power and influence to stomp down on vulnerable trans youth, families and allies are sticking up for some of the most marginalized children and teenagers in our nation. As Republican governors sign anti-trans bills into law, allowing for discrimination against trans young people, some of those very young people are fighting back in the court of law. Daily Kos recently covered, for example, the openly trans teenager in Indiana who is suing for the chance to compete on the boys’ golf team at school.

Another example comes to us out of western Indiana, where two openly trans high schoolers are suing their school district. According to the federal lawsuit filed by the American Civil Liberties Union, the district denied the students the use of the correct bathroom and locker rooms because of their gender identity, and teachers were not directed to use the correct names and pronouns for the boys, who are freshmen at the school, as reported by the Associated Press.

The lawsuit against Vigo County School School Corp. wants to require staff members at the school to use the correct pronouns for the students (in this case, male) and their names. It also seeks to mandate that the proper names and pronouns are reflected in school publications, like the student yearbook.

Ken Falk, who serves as the legal director of the  ACLU Indiana, told local outlet WTHI that the two freshmen live with gender dysphoria, a common condition people live with when their gender identity does not match their gender assigned at birth. 

“They are about ready to begin male hormones,” Falk added. “Which will make them appear even more male than they do now, and they must be treated as young men.” Falk argued that one way to help support a person and ease their gender dysphoria is to allow them to live, as much as possible, in alignment with their gender identity—which makes perfect sense. The two students involved in the suit have been prescribed hormonal therapy under their physician’s care and have been using male pronouns and names since elementary school.

The ACLU is arguing that the district is violating the students’ equal rights protections under the Fourteenth Amendment and Title XI by denying them appropriate bathroom access. In the short team, the ACLU seeks a preliminary injunction, which would allow the students basic dignity until a final decision is made. As of now, the district has several weeks to reply.

It should go without saying why it is so important for trans youth to have their names and pronouns respected, especially in a school or community setting. Being called by the incorrect name (sometimes referred to as a “deadname”) can be traumatic and disorienting. It can also “out” the person as trans to classmates or peers, which can lead to potentially dangerous situations.

The same goes for bathrooms and locker rooms—being forced to use the incorrect bathroom could very quickly “out” a person, potentially leading to harassment, abuse, or bullying. To avoid these sorts of situations, trans youth (and even adults) will sometimes avoid activities that require locker rooms or avoid using the bathroom at all, which, again, is fundamentally unfair, but can also be bad for one’s physical health. 

Sign the petition: Demand the Senate pass the Equality Act and protect the LGBTQ community from discrimination.

This post was originally published on this site

The only successful coup d’etat to unfold on American soil marks its 123rd anniversary Wednesday, and with this somber memory of the Wilmington Massacre—where an estimated 300 Black Americans were murdered by white supremacists—a poignant reminder is offered: White nationalism remains a deadly scourge that directly undermines democracy, decency, and liberty in the U.S.

In North Carolina in 1898, the political strategy for Democrats of the era was to “redeem North Carolina from Negro domination,” a racist belief widely upheld by party officials and spread by the men they chose to deliver their propaganda.

One of those men was Alfred Moore Waddell, a Confederate colonel and avowed white supremacist who once served as the U.S. representative for North Carolina.

Waddell was a renowned orator and thus possessed a tool much coveted by Southern Democrats of the day who wished to disseminate their vitriol in hopes of regaining control of North Carolina’s body politic from the reigning Fusionist government.

The Fusion coalition in the state was comprised of Populists and North Carolina Republicans who, unlike their political adversaries, were willing to abide in biracialism.

To disrupt that reign, Waddell and others mobilized whites, held rallies, and led militias of “Red Shirts,” who, as the Zinn Education Project points out, were “basically ruffians on horseback” echoing the Ku Klux Klan.

As the election neared in Wilmington that November, Waddell made open threats in his speeches.

“We will never surrender to a ragged raffle of Negroes, even if we have to choke the nearby Cape Fear river with carcasses,” he said in his intimidation campaign aimed at keeping Black Americans from the polls.

During his speech, Red Shirts had taken off on horseback through the region, disrupting Black church services and instilling terror.

“The White Supremacists used an editorial by Alex Manly, the editor of Wilmington’s Black newspaper the Daily Record to stir a firestorm at the time of the elections,” the Zinn Education Project critically points out in its recounting of the day.

Indeed, the editorial by Manly was a scathing response to remarks delivered by a white woman in Georgia at a local Agricultural Society. The woman, identified as Mrs. Felton, advocated for lynching—something the U.S. Senate has still refused to make a federal hate crime—as a means to protect women from Black men.

Manly, outraged, wrote: “Every Negro lynched is called a ‘big burly, black brute,’ when in fact many of those who have thus been dealt with had white men for their fathers, and were not only ‘black’ and ‘burly’ but were sufficiently attractive for white girls of culture and refinement to fall in love with them as is very well known to all.”

“Mrs. Felton must begin at the fountain head if she wishes to purify the stream,” he added. “Teach your men purity. Let virtue be something more than an excuse for them to intimidate and torture helpless people. Tell your men that it is no worse for a black man to be intimate with a white woman than for the white man to be intimate with a colored woman.”

After armed Red Shirts stalked Black neighborhoods, the Nov. 8 election ultimately resulted in Democrats returning to power at the state legislative level. But the success of the fusionists at the municipal level persisted and Wilmington’s white mayor, Silas Wright, remained seated.

Waddell had other plans. Joined by 800 whites, he went to the local courthouse just one day after the election to declare Wilmington would “no longer be ruled, and will never be ruled again by men of African origin.”

Then, on this day, 123 years ago, Waddell and his armed mob executed a white supremacist coup in earnest. By morning, Waddell and some 2,000 men assembled at the Black-run Daily Record. For Manly’s editorial, they busted up the establishment, vandalized Manly’s presses, and burned the whole building to the ground.  

It was, as Adrienne LaFrance and Vann Newkirk II wrote for The Atlantic in 2017, “just the beginning of an assault” which by evening, led to the murder of dozens upon dozens of Black people. The attack destroyed lives and livelihoods, upended a thriving community, forced Black Americans to flee or be banished, and only ended with a gun held to Mayor Wright’s head by Waddell.

The aging Confederate colonel installed himself as mayor and by brute force, had ejected White from his post.

This past weekend, The New York Times reported that finally, two Black men killed by the white mob in 1898, Joshua Halsey and Samuel McFarland, finally received proper funerals.

As noted by the Times, the insurrection of 1898 “laid the foundation for the Jim Crow laws and voter disenfranchisement that followed in North Carolina.” For years, Black residents of Wilmington were wrongly portrayed as “gun toting instigators” and much work has been done to see the record corrected.  

The great grandson of one of the Wilmington Massacre’s victims, Joshua Halsey, perhaps summed it up best as he reflected on the need for reconciliation of an ugly past that, incidentally, still has ties to the present.

“The town needs closure,” Hesketh Brown Jr. told The New York Times. “And the truth helps bring closure if we accept the truth.”

In an email to Daily Kos Wednesday night, Rep. Alma Adams, a North Carolina Democrat, reflected on the import of the anniversary and its through-line to today. 

“History that only tells the good stories isn’t history, it’s fantasy. Studying and acknowledging events like the Wilmington Massacre, which was a white supremacist overthrow of a democratically elected government, helps us recognize the insidiousness of the Jim Crow South and how it disenfranchised Black Americans for most of the decades between emancipation and the Civil Rights movement,” Adams said. “In light of the insurrection at the Capitol on Jan. 6, it’s even more important that we recognize the white supremacist agenda includes the overthrow of democracy itself.”

This post was originally published on this site

The only successful coup d’etat to unfold on American soil marks its 123rd anniversary Wednesday, and with this somber memory of the Wilmington Massacre—where an estimated 300 Black Americans were murdered by white supremacists—a poignant reminder is offered: White nationalism remains a deadly scourge that directly undermines democracy, decency, and liberty in the U.S.

In North Carolina in 1898, the political strategy for Democrats of the era was to “redeem North Carolina from Negro domination,” a racist belief widely upheld by party officials and spread by the men they chose to deliver their propaganda.

One of those men was Alfred Moore Waddell, a Confederate colonel and avowed white supremacist who once served as the U.S. representative for North Carolina.

Waddell was a renowned orator and thus possessed a tool much coveted by Southern Democrats of the day who wished to disseminate their vitriol in hopes of regaining control of North Carolina’s body politic from the reigning Fusionist government.

The Fusion coalition in the state was comprised of Populists and North Carolina Republicans who, unlike their political adversaries, were willing to abide in biracialism.

To disrupt that reign, Waddell and others mobilized whites, held rallies, and led militias of “Red Shirts,” who, as the Zinn Education Project points out, were “basically ruffians on horseback” echoing the Ku Klux Klan.

As the election neared in Wilmington that November, Waddell made open threats in his speeches.

“We will never surrender to a ragged raffle of Negroes, even if we have to choke the nearby Cape Fear river with carcasses,” he said in his intimidation campaign aimed at keeping Black Americans from the polls.

During his speech, Red Shirts had taken off on horseback through the region, disrupting Black church services and instilling terror.

“The White Supremacists used an editorial by Alex Manly, the editor of Wilmington’s Black newspaper the Daily Record to stir a firestorm at the time of the elections,” the Zinn Education Project critically points out in its recounting of the day.

Indeed, the editorial by Manly was a scathing response to remarks delivered by a white woman in Georgia at a local Agricultural Society. The woman, identified as Mrs. Felton, advocated for lynching—something the U.S. Senate has still refused to make a federal hate crime—as a means to protect women from Black men.

Manly, outraged, wrote: “Every Negro lynched is called a ‘big burly, black brute,’ when in fact many of those who have thus been dealt with had white men for their fathers, and were not only ‘black’ and ‘burly’ but were sufficiently attractive for white girls of culture and refinement to fall in love with them as is very well known to all.”

“Mrs. Felton must begin at the fountain head if she wishes to purify the stream,” he added. “Teach your men purity. Let virtue be something more than an excuse for them to intimidate and torture helpless people. Tell your men that it is no worse for a black man to be intimate with a white woman than for the white man to be intimate with a colored woman.”

After armed Red Shirts stalked Black neighborhoods, the Nov. 8 election ultimately resulted in Democrats returning to power at the state legislative level. But the success of the fusionists at the municipal level persisted and Wilmington’s white mayor, Silas Wright, remained seated.

Waddell had other plans. Joined by 800 whites, he went to the local courthouse just one day after the election to declare Wilmington would “no longer be ruled, and will never be ruled again by men of African origin.”

Then, on this day, 123 years ago, Waddell and his armed mob executed a white supremacist coup in earnest. By morning, Waddell and some 2,000 men assembled at the Black-run Daily Record. For Manly’s editorial, they busted up the establishment, vandalized Manly’s presses, and burned the whole building to the ground.  

It was, as Adrienne LaFrance and Vann Newkirk II wrote for The Atlantic in 2017, “just the beginning of an assault” which by evening, led to the murder of dozens upon dozens of Black people. The attack destroyed lives and livelihoods, upended a thriving community, forced Black Americans to flee or be banished, and only ended with a gun held to Mayor Wright’s head by Waddell.

The aging Confederate colonel installed himself as mayor and by brute force, had ejected White from his post.

This past weekend, The New York Times reported that finally, two Black men killed by the white mob in 1898, Joshua Halsey and Samuel McFarland, finally received proper funerals.

As noted by the Times, the insurrection of 1898 “laid the foundation for the Jim Crow laws and voter disenfranchisement that followed in North Carolina.” For years, Black residents of Wilmington were wrongly portrayed as “gun toting instigators” and much work has been done to see the record corrected.  

The great grandson of one of the Wilmington Massacre’s victims, Joshua Halsey, perhaps summed it up best as he reflected on the need for reconciliation of an ugly past that, incidentally, still has ties to the present.

“The town needs closure,” Hesketh Brown Jr. told The New York Times. “And the truth helps bring closure if we accept the truth.”

In an email to Daily Kos Wednesday night, Rep. Alma Adams, a North Carolina Democrat, reflected on the import of the anniversary and its through-line to today. 

“History that only tells the good stories isn’t history, it’s fantasy. Studying and acknowledging events like the Wilmington Massacre, which was a white supremacist overthrow of a democratically elected government, helps us recognize the insidiousness of the Jim Crow South and how it disenfranchised Black Americans for most of the decades between emancipation and the Civil Rights movement,” Adams said. “In light of the insurrection at the Capitol on Jan. 6, it’s even more important that we recognize the white supremacist agenda includes the overthrow of democracy itself.”

This post was originally published on this site

Maine Senator Susan Collins in June 2018 called the previous administration’s family separation policy “traumatizing,” saying children are “innocent victims” and stating that separating them from their families “is contrary to our values in this country.” 

Today, she’s among the dozens of Senate Republicans despicably seeking to block reported settlements from traumatized families who have filed legal action against the federal government. 

Roll Call’s Caroline Simon reports that more than half of the GOP Senate caucus is supporting an amendment to the “must-pass” 2022 defense spending bill that would block the Justice Department from reported settlements. Nearly 30 members support the amendment, including Marco Rubio, Ron Johnson, Tom Cotton, John Kennedy, Chuck Grassley, and Mitch McConnell. Naturally, the caucus’ press release is filled lies.

“Giving out potentially billions of dollars of taxpayers’ money to people who broke federal law to enter the country is outrageous and an insult to the American people,” McConnell said, adding he was “proud” to back the amendment. Cotton claimed the administration wants to “reward” people “who illegally entered our country,” a lie echoed by Kennedy, Mike Lee, and Rick Scott. “Democrats want to give nearly half-a-million dollars to individuals who broke our nation’s laws,” the latter said.

Like I’ve said this week, last week, and for several years now, seeking asylum at a border is legal immigration. They followed the law. Our government at the time did not. “What was illegal was denying these families due process under our asylum laws,” Al Otro Lado Managing Attorney Carol Anne Donohoe tweeted at McConnell on Tuesday. “Asylum seeking is not illegal entry. But you already know that. Gotta drum up that racist base, amirite?” 

Yup. But it’s only the latest GOP-led effort grossly seeking to block any semblance of justice from these families. Early last week, the Senate Judiciary Committee’s Republican members wrote to President Biden asking him to oppose reported settlements (that letter was similarly filled with lies about “aliens who broke our laws”). To be clear, the president—who during the 2020 campaign called the separations “criminal”—has said on the record that he’s “perfectly comfortable” with settlements (though the amount remains unclear).

“If it saves taxpayer dollars and puts the disastrous history of the previous administration’s use of zero tolerance and family separation behind us, the president is perfectly comfortable with the Department of Justice settling with the individuals and families who are currently in litigation with the U.S. government,” White House Deputy Press Secretary Karine Jean-Pierre said in additional remarks.

Let’s also be clear about why Republicans like Collins said anything critical about the family separation in the first place. It wasn’t because she was very concerned about the abuses happening at the border; it was because of the outraged public response to abuses happening at the border. While Collins might’ve called stealing children from their families “traumatizing,” she refused to support Democrats’ legislation blocking further separations. “In fact, constituents that contact Collins about the policy receive a reply from her office in which she explains her tacit support for the Trump policy,” Daily Kos’ Hunter noted in 2018.

Meanwhile, Marco Rubio, who is up for reelection in 2022, once tried to pin the previous president’s policy on former President Obama. “Bible-quoting Marco Rubio defends Trump’s inhumane child-separation policy,” Miami New Times declared at the time. When it comes to Collins, Hunter wrote that “her sternly worded objections mean nothing; she is one of the few hundred people in America able to put an immediate end to it, and she continues to refuse to do so. That is who she really is.” Now Collins is objecting to compensation for the abuses she tolerated. Shame.

This post was originally published on this site

Maine Senator Susan Collins in June 2018 called the previous administration’s family separation policy “traumatizing,” saying children are “innocent victims” and stating that separating them from their families “is contrary to our values in this country.” 

Today, she’s among the dozens of Senate Republicans despicably seeking to block reported settlements from traumatized families who have filed legal action against the federal government. 

Roll Call’s Caroline Simon reports that more than half of the GOP Senate caucus is supporting an amendment to the “must-pass” 2022 defense spending bill that would block the Justice Department from reported settlements. Nearly 30 members support the amendment, including Marco Rubio, Ron Johnson, Tom Cotton, John Kennedy, Chuck Grassley, and Mitch McConnell. Naturally, the caucus’ press release is filled lies.

“Giving out potentially billions of dollars of taxpayers’ money to people who broke federal law to enter the country is outrageous and an insult to the American people,” McConnell said, adding he was “proud” to back the amendment. Cotton claimed the administration wants to “reward” people “who illegally entered our country,” a lie echoed by Kennedy, Mike Lee, and Rick Scott. “Democrats want to give nearly half-a-million dollars to individuals who broke our nation’s laws,” the latter said.

Like I’ve said this week, last week, and for several years now, seeking asylum at a border is legal immigration. They followed the law. Our government at the time did not. “What was illegal was denying these families due process under our asylum laws,” Al Otro Lado Managing Attorney Carol Anne Donohoe tweeted at McConnell on Tuesday. “Asylum seeking is not illegal entry. But you already know that. Gotta drum up that racist base, amirite?” 

Yup. But it’s only the latest GOP-led effort grossly seeking to block any semblance of justice from these families. Early last week, the Senate Judiciary Committee’s Republican members wrote to President Biden asking him to oppose reported settlements (that letter was similarly filled with lies about “aliens who broke our laws”). To be clear, the president—who during the 2020 campaign called the separations “criminal”—has said on the record that he’s “perfectly comfortable” with settlements (though the amount remains unclear).

“If it saves taxpayer dollars and puts the disastrous history of the previous administration’s use of zero tolerance and family separation behind us, the president is perfectly comfortable with the Department of Justice settling with the individuals and families who are currently in litigation with the U.S. government,” White House Deputy Press Secretary Karine Jean-Pierre said in additional remarks.

Let’s also be clear about why Republicans like Collins said anything critical about the family separation in the first place. It wasn’t because she was very concerned about the abuses happening at the border; it was because of the outraged public response to abuses happening at the border. While Collins might’ve called stealing children from their families “traumatizing,” she refused to support Democrats’ legislation blocking further separations. “In fact, constituents that contact Collins about the policy receive a reply from her office in which she explains her tacit support for the Trump policy,” Daily Kos’ Hunter noted in 2018.

Meanwhile, Marco Rubio, who is up for reelection in 2022, once tried to pin the previous president’s policy on former President Obama. “Bible-quoting Marco Rubio defends Trump’s inhumane child-separation policy,” Miami New Times declared at the time. When it comes to Collins, Hunter wrote that “her sternly worded objections mean nothing; she is one of the few hundred people in America able to put an immediate end to it, and she continues to refuse to do so. That is who she really is.” Now Collins is objecting to compensation for the abuses she tolerated. Shame.

This post was originally published on this site

New polling from Monmouth University shows that President Joe Biden’s agenda continues to be popular with Americans despite the wild cries of “socialism” springing up from the Republican Party.

Monmouth writes:

“Support for the Bipartisan Infrastructure deal (BIF), which passed Congress last week and awaits the president’s signature, stands at 65%, down just a few points from prior polls. Support for the still-pending Build Back Better (BBB) plan to expand access to health care, college, paid leave and other services remains steady at 62%. Furthermore, 60% of Americans support the climate change funding part of the BBB bill.”

Since last spring, Biden’s legislative proposals ranging from pandemic relief to the infrastructure and family and climate bills have polled extremely well, typically at 60% or higher.

But given Democrats’ electoral losses last week, the Monmouth polling shows that Biden’s sagging approval ratings haven’t cut into support for his overall agenda. That’s good news, particularly now that Democrats have the infrastructure win in their pocket as they push forward to finalize the Build Back Better bill.

Last week’s elections suggested that, among other things, Democrats must have accomplishments to run on—along with something to show for their unified control of the federal government.

Given some of the takeaways, Democrats already had little choice but to press forward on the bills they have been debating for months. After all, failure to enact an agenda is about the worst possible outcome for a political party in power—even if that agenda fails to garner strong public support. Republicans’ disapprovals during Trump’s tenure peaked at their highest levels in 2017 after they twice failed to repeal the Affordable Care Act.

Although Biden’s approval rating in the poll was eight points underwater at just 42%, the popularity of his agenda remains strong. That suggests Republican attacks (which are all over the place) on both pieces of legislation have failed to get traction. It also suggests Democratic inaction on a popular agenda was likely a bigger drag on Democratic candidates last week than the Democratic agenda itself.

In short, enacting both bills only stands to help Democrats in next year’s midterms.  

This post was originally published on this site

New polling from Monmouth University shows that President Joe Biden’s agenda continues to be popular with Americans despite the wild cries of “socialism” springing up from the Republican Party.

Monmouth writes:

“Support for the Bipartisan Infrastructure deal (BIF), which passed Congress last week and awaits the president’s signature, stands at 65%, down just a few points from prior polls. Support for the still-pending Build Back Better (BBB) plan to expand access to health care, college, paid leave and other services remains steady at 62%. Furthermore, 60% of Americans support the climate change funding part of the BBB bill.”

Since last spring, Biden’s legislative proposals ranging from pandemic relief to the infrastructure and family and climate bills have polled extremely well, typically at 60% or higher.

But given Democrats’ electoral losses last week, the Monmouth polling shows that Biden’s sagging approval ratings haven’t cut into support for his overall agenda. That’s good news, particularly now that Democrats have the infrastructure win in their pocket as they push forward to finalize the Build Back Better bill.

Last week’s elections suggested that, among other things, Democrats must have accomplishments to run on—along with something to show for their unified control of the federal government.

Given some of the takeaways, Democrats already had little choice but to press forward on the bills they have been debating for months. After all, failure to enact an agenda is about the worst possible outcome for a political party in power—even if that agenda fails to garner strong public support. Republicans’ disapprovals during Trump’s tenure peaked at their highest levels in 2017 after they twice failed to repeal the Affordable Care Act.

Although Biden’s approval rating in the poll was eight points underwater at just 42%, the popularity of his agenda remains strong. That suggests Republican attacks (which are all over the place) on both pieces of legislation have failed to get traction. It also suggests Democratic inaction on a popular agenda was likely a bigger drag on Democratic candidates last week than the Democratic agenda itself.

In short, enacting both bills only stands to help Democrats in next year’s midterms.