The lead investigator on the Pfizer project says positive outcomes in adult trials helped researchers decide to start testing in kids 12 and up.
The lead investigator on the Pfizer project says positive outcomes in adult trials helped researchers decide to start testing in kids 12 and up.
Two highly effective coronavirus vaccines are now on the horizon, but the next challenge for federal, state and local leaders will be distributing a vaccine equitably so that communities that have been hit hardest by the pandemic can have access.
Latest developments as tenuous efforts by White House to reverse election loss expected to face lethal blow
Israeli aircraft on Sunday struck multiple sites in the Gaza Strip in response to a rocket fired earlier from the Palestinian territory, Israel's military said. While several militant groups operate out of the Palestinian enclave, Israel holds Gaza’s Hamas rulers responsible for all rocket fire out of the territory and usually strikes Hamas targets in response. The Israeli military said in a statement that fighter jets and attack helicopters hit two rocket ammunition manufacturing sites, underground infrastructure and a Hamas naval forces training compound.
California Gov. Gavin Newsom (D) and his family will quarantine for 14 days following an exposure to COVID-19. Newsom on Twitter said that three of his children were recently "exposed to an officer from the California Highway Patrol who had tested positive for COVID-19." The California Highway Patrol provides the governor and his family with security, according to the Los Angeles Times.Newsom said he and his wife had "no direct interaction with the officer" who tested positive for COVID-19, and his "entire family tested negative" for the coronavirus on Sunday. "However, consistent with local guidance, we will be quarantining for 14 days," Newsom said.The governor's office previously announced on Friday that one of Newsom's children would be quarantining after a classmate tested positive for COVID-19, the Los Angeles Times reports.News of Newsom's COVID-19 quarantine comes after the governor recently received criticism for attending a birthday party amid the pandemic. He apologized and called his decision to attend the party a "bad mistake," admitting, "The spirit of what I'm preaching all the time was contradicted. I need to preach and practice, not just preach." More stories from theweek.com I was wrong about Mitt Romney Biden is stealing the spotlight. Trump can't stand it. Reporter Carl Bernstein names 21 GOP senators who 'repeatedly expressed extreme contempt for Trump'
President-elect Joe Biden is moving forward on his campaign pledge to restore America as a leader on the global stage and lean on experts, tapping veteran diplomats for key posts even as President Donald Trump continues to refuse to concede. Biden will name Antony Blinken as secretary of state and Linda Thomas-Greenfield as ambassador to the U.N., bringing deep foreign-policy backgrounds to the nascent administration while providing a sharp contrast with Trump, who distrusted such experience and embraced an "America First" policy that strained longstanding U.S. relationships. Blinken could be named as early as Tuesday, according to sources close to Biden, while Axios first reported Thomas-Greenfield's impending nomination.
A panel of human rights experts working with the United Nations said Monday that former Renault-Nissan boss Carlos Ghosn was wrongly detained in Japan and has urged “compensation” for him from the Japanese government. The Japanese government denounced the report as a “totally unacceptable” viewpoint that will change nothing in the country's legal process. In its opinion published Monday, the Working Group on Arbitrary Detention found that Ghosn’s arrest in Japan in late 2018 and early 2019 was “arbitrary” and called on Japan’s government to “take the necessary steps to remedy the situation of Mr. Ghosn without delay.”
Outgoing Republican Steve King has long history of offensive remarks
This junk boat is a 'symbol of Hong Kong' It normally caters for international visitors But now it's relying on local tourism to stay afloat SOUNDBITE (Cantonese) DUKLING LIMITED DIRECTOR OF BUSINESS DEVELOPMENT, CHARLOTTE LI, SAYING: "I am really looking forward to this being over as soon as possible, and for the vaccine to come as soon as possible so that the tourism sector can kick start again. Because to be honest, Hong Kong is really reliant on tourism, the entire economy is. For every day there are no border crossings, no foreign friends coming to Hong Kong, the impact on the entire economy remains significant." ‘The Dukling’ was built in 1955 and was originally used for catching shrimp It belonged to a fisherman but has been used for harbor tours since the 1980s
Nearly 200 mailings found delivery times of up to two weeks. Those delays could have affected election, as COVID-19 led to millions of mailed ballots
Undaunted by a Pennsylvania judge's withering dismissal of a plea to discount millions of mail-in votes, the Trump campaign turned its attention to another battleground state and demanded a second recount in Georgia. The move was the latest shot in a salvo of legal cases with Donald Trump still showing no sign of accepting that he lost the election. On Monday Michigan's four-member Elections board is due to meet to ratify their results, with one of the two Republicans indicating he could vote against doing so. The demand for a Georgia recount came hours after Judge Matthew Brann described the challenge to the Pennsylvania result as without merit. Alleging irregularities in the way ballots were treated across the state, the Trump campaign had asked the court to prevent millions of mail-in ballots being counted.
Prominent Hong Kong pro-democracy activist Joshua Wong and two other activists were taken into custody Monday after they pleaded guilty to charges related to a demonstration outside police headquarters during anti-government protests last year. Wong, together with fellow activists Ivan Lam and Agnes Chow, pleaded guilty to charges related to organizing, taking part in and inciting protesters to join an unauthorized protest outside police headquarters last June. “I am persuaded that neither prison bars, nor election ban, nor any other arbitrary powers would stop us from activism,” Wong said, ahead of the court hearing.
The star presenter is making Indian TV news louder and more aggressive than ever before.
To understand the wrongness, ignorance, and just plain stupidity of the Eleventh Circuit’s decision to strike down a ban on so-called “conversion therapy,” consider this hypothetical:A 15-year-old boy, “voluntarily” but actually forced by his parents, goes to see a therapist offering a “therapy” that has been condemned by the American Psychological Association and shown in numerous studies to be ineffective and indeed counterproductive. When the boy reveals he is considering suicide, the therapist says “You should just do it. If you’re feeling suicidal, that shows you are weak and undeserving to live. You’re pathetic.”Should this be legal? Of course not. What a therapist says to a vulnerable client, especially an underage one, isn’t constitutionally protected “free speech.” It’s medical practice, like prescribing medication. And it’s malpractice to say something so dangerous and wrongheaded. Obviously.Yet that is exactly the convoluted logic that two Trump-appointed judges just applied in Otto v. City of Boca Raton, which ruled that it was the constitutional right of two therapists to practice “conversion therapy” (now known as ‘sexual orientation change efforts’ or SOCE) and thus unconstitutional for two Florida municipalities to ban it.Mike Pence—Conversion Therapy True Believer—Ups the Hate for Donald Trump’s GOPUnbelievably, the court described the bans not as protections of the mental and physical health of children but as “the government… choosing favored and disfavored messages,” as if a therapist guiding a vulnerable teenager were no different from a protester on the street. They categorically denied that therapy is not speech but “conduct,” which of course it is; therapy is a medical practice. They said that the bans “limit a category of people—therapists—from communicating a particular message,” again, as if the therapists were simply writing an op-ed in a newspaper.This is all completely wrong. A therapist is not a speaker; she is a medical practitioner. What is said is not simply speech; it has the capacity to heal or harm.But the kicker, the most ridiculous and, again, the simply stupidest mistake in the opinion is the court’s conclusion that the ban is unconstitutional because “whether therapy is prohibited depends only on the content of the words used in that therapy, and the ban on that content is because the government disagrees with it.”Can you believe that a federal judge, albeit a Trump appointee (more on that in a moment) actually wrote such an idiotic sentence? No, Judge, the ban on that content is because it can do grievous harm to a minor. This isn’t political speech being censored because the government doesn’t like the content. It is therapy, a form of medical practice, being banned because it doesn’t work and because it hurts kids.**As a matter of therapeutic practice, it would be laughable if it weren’t also tragic.Whether you call it SOCE, conversion therapy, reparative therapy, aversion therapy, or Pray the Gay Away, the practice causes “significant risk of harm by subjecting individuals to forms of treatment which have not been scientifically validated and by undermining self-esteem when sexual orientation fails to change,” the American Psychiatric Association said in a 2013 statement. SOCE is now banned in 20 states, and those bans have been upheld by two other federal appeals courts.As a matter of therapeutic practice, SOCE would be laughable if it weren’t also tragic.Alan Chambers, the leader of what was once the largest SOCE operation in the world, Exodus International, shut down the organization in 2017, admitted SOCE didn’t work for “99.9%” of people subjected to it, and penned a remorseful farewell letter entitled “I am Sorry.” The largest Jewish equivalent, a racket called JONAH, was shut down after it lost a fraud case in court. The LDS/Mormon Church has formally abandoned SOCE. And numerous SOCE therapists and polemicists have been outed as “ex-ex-gay,” or as I prefer to call them, gay.Still, the practice endures, since it offers a way out for conservative Christians unable to reconcile themselves to the fact that some people are simply gay rather than straight, just as some people have blue eyes rather than brown ones. If gayness is a trait, after all, it would seem unfair of God to also make it a sin.Of course, one could instead recognize that sexual and gender diversity are part of the beauty of God’s creation, that the overwhelming majority of religious values (like “it is not good to be alone” and “love your neighbor as yourself”) support the inclusion of LGBTQ+ people, and that the handful of biblical texts misread as forbidding queer lives are, if one chooses not to simply ignore them, easy to read in affirming ways as well. And that is what the overwhelming majority of mainline Protestants, Catholics, and Jews have now done.But Christian conservatives, having associated anything pro-LGBT with the great satanic liberal conspiracy to purge God from America and let women control their own bodies, are still disowning their kids and sending them to these quack therapists who make them hate themselves, or blame their fathers for not being affectionate, or wonder why Jesus still isn’t cleaning them of their horrible same-sex attraction despite all the prayer and fasting and aversion therapy and whatever else.Which is really the only way we can understand this decision.The two judges in the majority, Judges Britt Grant and Barbara Lagoa, are both Trump appointees who had anti-LGBTQ records before they were nominated, both members of the Federalist Society, and both personally vetted by the Federalist Society’s former leader, Leonard Leo, a religious ultra-conservative. (The Washington Post described Judge Lagoa’s husband, Paul Huck Jr., as “godfather of the Federalist Society in Miami.”) Like Justice Amy Coney Barrett, these judges were chosen for their conservative views, especially on religion. And both were said to be on Trump’s shortlist for the Supreme Court.Now, it might be unfair to assume that Judges Grant and Lagoa based this decision on their personal religious or ideological views. But when an opinion is this transparently bad, its argument so obviously specious, one is pressed to find an alternative explanation.Indeed, the whole construct of “the ban on that content is because the government disagrees with it” is pure Christian Right catnip. The government is banning views it disagrees with! (Darn those notorious anarchists in Boca Raton and Palm Beach.) The government is censoring Christianity! By banning a disproven therapy that harms kids, the government is stifling our religious liberty! The paranoid style in American politics, which we’ve seen most recently in the ravings of Rudy Giuliani, is here alive and well in a federal appellate court opinion.Indeed, Judge Grant writes at one point, “If speaking to clients is not speech, the world is truly upside down. These ordinances sanction speech directly, not incidentally.” As noted already, that is obviously false—speaking to therapeutic clients is not simply “speech.” But it is also paranoiac in the extreme. Really, “the world is upside down” if therapeutic speech, like hate speech, “fighting words”, and shouting fire in a crowded theater, is understood to be part speech, part conduct? That remark is a tell.The worst part of the entire opinion, however, is precisely that it is an outlier.Since two other circuits have affirmed bans on conversion therapy, this new case, if not reversed by the entire appeals court sitting en banc, represents a “circuit split,” a primary reason for review by the Supreme Court—which is as packed and stacked as the Eleventh Circuit is. There, the Federalist Society is responsible for placing at least three sitting justices, and conservatives hold a 6-3 majority.And there, Justice Alito recently gave a fiery speech alleging that religious people were being persecuted by COVID-19 regulations; Justice Gorsuch has argued that same-sex marriage needn’t be treated as equal to opposite-sex marriage; Justice Thomas has argued that it needs to be “fixed” by the court; and Justice Barrett is, well, I suppose we don’t actually know yet, but we have a pretty good guess.In other words, this outrageous twisting of facts and hysteria by judges vetted by religious extremists may not be an outlier for long. On the contrary, it may well prefigure the Supreme Court’s ultimate decision. Because this is the world in which we live.Read more at The Daily Beast.Get our top stories in your inbox every day. Sign up now!Daily Beast Membership: Beast Inside goes deeper on the stories that matter to you. Learn more.
A federal court has thrown out the Trump campaign’s lawsuit in Pennsylvania, which challenged presumptive President-elect Joe Biden’s victory in the commonwealth. In so doing, district judge Matthew Brann refused the campaign’s eleventh-hour attempt to file a new complaint that would have reinstated election fraud claims the Trump campaign had abandoned a few days earlier. (I outlined the lawsuit here, and explained the Trump campaign’s last-ditch effort to amend it here.)Judge Brann’s 37-page opinion sets forth a variety of reasons for dismissing the case. Most of them are directed toward the complaints of two individual plaintiffs — voters who claimed that their ballots had been improperly discounted. By contrast, the court found that the Trump campaign had no standing to sue, having posited no evidence that President Trump was harmed in any cognizable way by the manner in which the election was conducted in Pennsylvania.At bottom, though, the court found that the fatal flaw in the case is the one that we have repeatedly stressed: The mismatch between the harm alleged and the remedy sought.As the judge explained, even if one accepted the dubious premise that the two voters in question were improperly denied the right to vote while others similarly situated were not, the commensurate relief would be for their votes to be counted.That, however, was not the remedy they sought. Instead, supported by the Trump campaign, the two voters petitioned the court to stop Pennsylvania from certifying — on Monday as state law requires — the commonwealth’s election result, which had Biden winning by 83,000 votes. Brann countered:> Prohibiting certification of the election results would not reinstate the Individual Plaintiffs’ right to vote. It would simply deny more than 6.8 million [Pennsylvanians] their right to vote. “Standing is measured based on the theory of harm and the specific relief requested.” It is not “dispensed in gross: A plaintiff's remedy must be tailored to redress the plaintiff's particular injury.” Here, the answer to invalidated ballots is not to invalidate millions more. [Footnotes omitted.]As we detailed on Friday, the case was in a strange posture.In filing its original complaint on November 9, the Trump campaign claimed extensive vote fraud, relying mainly on the allegation that Republican poll-watchers had been denied a meaningful opportunity to observe the canvassing of ballots. But, as Brann notes (and we discussed here), on November 13, the federal appeals court for the Third Circuit (which has binding effect on Brann’s district court) issued its opinion in Bognet v. Secretary of the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania. Though not directly connected to the campaign’s case, Bognet’s reasoning substantially undercut its claims.The campaign reacted by amending its complaint, reducing the case to the narrow claim that Trump voters’ equal-protection rights (and, derivatively, the campaign’s rights) had been violated by an allegedly skewed procedure: Mail-in voters in Biden-friendly counties had been permitted to cure defects in the ballots they’d submitted, while voters in Trump-friendly counties were not. Brann rejected this claim, accepting Pennsylvania’s argument that Secretary of State Kathy Boockvar had encouraged ballot curing all over the state. Thus the state government was not at fault if not all counties availed themselves of this opportunity.That is largely beside the point, though. Even if there had been a violation of the voters’ rights, the remedy would be to count their votes. Instead, as the court observed,> Plaintiffs seek to remedy the denial of their votes by invalidating the votes of millions of others. Rather than requesting that their votes be counted, they seek to discredit scores of other votes, but only for one race [i.e., the presidential race, not the other contests down-ballot]. This is simply not how the Constitution works. [Emphasis added.]Moreover:> Granting Paintiffs’ requested relief would necessarily require invalidating the ballots of every person who voted in Pennsylvania. Because this Court has no authority to take away the right to vote of even a single person, let along millions of citizens, it cannot grant Plaintiffs’ requested relief.Brann concluded that the Trump campaign had no standing to sue based, derivatively, on the harm alleged by the two voters, particularly after the Bognet ruling. He specifically rejected both of the campaign’s main equal-protection complaints: (1) that its poll-watchers were discriminatorily excluded from observing the canvass, and (2) that the opportunity for voters to cure defective ballots was deliberately done in counties the state knew to favor Biden.On the former, Brann held that this was not, as the Trump campaign maintained, an equal-protection issue. The campaign was not claiming that Trump observers were treated differently from Biden observers. On the latter, Brann concluded that the campaign was misinterpreting Bush v. Gore, and, in any event, was not claiming that Boockvar’s guidance on curing ballots differed from county to county.Most significantly, Brann denied the Trump campaign’s dilatory attempt to amend its complaint yet again late this past week, in order to reinstate claims from their original complaint, which they’d withdrawn last weekend. The court reasoned that this would “unduly delay resolution of the issues” in light of the fact that Monday, November 23, is the deadline for Pennsylvania counties to certify their election results to the state government — a necessary prelude to appointing the slate of electors who will cast the commonwealth’s Electoral College votes.In reaction to the ruling, the Trump campaign lawyers issued a statement asserting that, though they disagreed with the decision by “the Obama-appointed judge,” it was actually a boon to “our strategy to get expeditiously to the U.S. Supreme Court.”It is true that Brann was appointed by former President Barack Obama, but he is a Republican and Federalist Society member who was sponsored by the state’s Republican senator Pat Toomey — a common situation when a state’s two senators are from different parties, and an administration has to horse-trade on appointments.Trump lawyers added that the ruling denied them “the opportunity to present our evidence at a hearing.” They described that as “censorship” of “50 witnesses” who would have testified that state election officials denied the “independent review” required by Pennsylvania law. This is an apparent reference to the campaign’s claim that its poll-watchers were not given a meaningful opportunity to observe the canvass, which the lawyers say, “resulted in 682,777 ballots being cast illegally.” The campaign did not mention that it had dropped this charge from its original complaint. Nor did it allude to Brann’s conclusion that the allegation was not a cognizable equal-protection claim under federal law.The campaign says it will seek an expedited appeal to the Third Circuit — the tribunal that just decided the Bognet case, the precedent that appears to have induced the campaign to withdraw the claims it is now seeking to revive. In any event, it is anything but clear that the Supreme Court, which has thus far declined to act on Pennsylvania election-law claims relevant to the 2020 election, would agree to hear the campaign’s case — even assuming that the Third Circuit grants expedited appeal and, as even the campaign plainly expects, rules against the campaign.
Judge Jeanine addresses discrepancies in the 2020 presidential election results.