U.S. President Joe Biden signaled his recovery from COVID-19 Wednesday with his first public appearance, in which he touted the progress his administration has made in fighting the pandemic.  

Biden, who appeared in the White House Rose Garden in a suit and tie with his signature aviator sunglasses, appeared in good spirits.  

“As I was walking out, I thought I heard a rumbling on my staff saying, ‘Oh, he’s back,’” he said. “Thanks for sticking around.”

Biden was released from his isolation after testing negative for COVID-19 twice – on Tuesday night and again on Wednesday morning, his doctor said.  

“His symptoms have been steadily improving, and are almost completely resolved,” White House physician Kevin O’Connor wrote. “These results come after the president finished his five-day long treatment of (anti-viral drug) Paxlovid.” He added that Biden will continue to wear a well-fitting mask for 10 days around others.

“My recovery was quick and I’m feeling great,” Biden said. “The entire time I was in isolation, I was able to work, to carry out the duties of the office and without any interruption. It’s a real statement on where we are in the fight against COVID 19.”

Biden tested positive for COVID-19 last Thursday. He is fully vaccinated and double boosted – both interventions that are now more available than they were earlier in the pandemic.  

“When my predecessor got COVID, he had to get helicoptered to Walter Reed Medical Center,” he said. “He was severely ill. Thankfully, he recovered. When I got COVID, I worked from upstairs of the White House, the office upstairs, for the five-day period. The difference is vaccinations of course, but also three new tools free to all and widely available. You don’t need to be president to get these tools to use for your defense. In fact, the same booster shots, the same at home test, the same treatment that I got is available to you.”

He encouraged Americans to remain up to date on their vaccines and boosters, and to remain vigilant amid the rise of a new, highly infectious variant. 

“And now I get to go back to the Oval Office,” he said. 

He did not take questions from reporters as he made the short walk to the president’s ceremonial office. 
…

your ad here

When images beamed back to Earth by NASA’s largest, most powerful space telescope were released earlier this month, U.S. Senator Marco Rubio shared one of them on Twitter accompanied by a Bible verse: “The heavens declare the glory of God.”

The Webb telescope is orbiting the sun nearly two million kilometers from Earth. The observatory is on a mission to locate the universe’s first galaxies using extremely sensitive infrared cameras. The initial images released to the public provided the first-ever glimpse of ancient galaxies lighting up the sky.

The reaction to Rubio’s post was inundated with remarks like, “You do realize you can only see that due to science?” And, “If only you were scientifically literate enough to understand all of the ways that this image disproves your mythology.”

Reason versus superstition?

The skeptical comments are emblematic of the long-standing, ongoing debate about whether science and religion can be reconciled.

“There are a gazillion religions, each one making a different set of claims about reality, not just about the nature of God, but about history, about miracles, about what happened. And they’re all different, so they can’t all be true,” says Jerry A. Coyne, an evolutionary biologist and professor emeritus at the University of Chicago.

Coyne, who likens religion to superstition, wrote a book called, “Faith Versus Fact: Why Science and Religion are Incompatible.”

“The incompatibility is that both science and religion make statements about what is true in the universe,” Coyne says. “Science has a way of verifying them and religion doesn’t. So, science is based on this sort of science toolkit of empirical reasoning or duplicating experiments, whereas religion is based on faith.”

Coyne says he was raised a secular Jew and became an atheist as a teenager.

“Scientists are, in general, much less religious than the general public. And the more accomplished you get as a scientist, the less religious you become,” he says.

A 1998 survey found that 93% of the members of the National Academy of Sciences, one of the most prestigious scientific organizations in the U.S., don’t believe in God.

“I personally think there’s a couple of reasons for that,” says Kenneth Miller, a devout Roman Catholic and professor of molecular biology, cell biology and biochemistry at Brown University in Rhode Island. “One of them, to be perfectly honest, is the out-and-out hostility that many religious institutions or many religious groups display towards science. And I think that tends to drive people with deep religious faith away from science.”

Mixing science and faith

Some of the world’s foremost scientists have been people of faith, however.

The Big Bang theory, which explains the origins of the universe, was first proposed by a Catholic priest who was also an astronomer and physics professor.

Frances Collins, the former head of the National Institutes of Health who headed the international effort that first mapped the entire human genome, is a one-time atheist who now identifies as an evangelical Christian.

Farouk El-Baz, a professor in the departments of archaeology and electrical and computer engineering at Boston University, says most of his scientific colleagues see no conflict between science and religion. For El-Baz, the son of an Islamic scholar, the marvel of the Webb telescope’s discoveries deepens both.

“Science actually underlines the importance of religion because God told us that He created the Earth and the heavens,” says El-Baz, who is also director of the Center for Remote Sensing at Boston University. “And the heavens, there are supposed to be all kinds of things out there. And scientific investigations have actually proved that, yes, there are all kinds of things out there.”

Evolution, creationism or both

For many, the conflict between science and religion is often rooted in the perceived incongruity between creationism — which suggests that a divine being created Earth and the heavens — and evolution, which holds that living organisms developed over 4.5 billion years.

Miller accepts the theory of evolution and says much of scripture is metaphorical, an explanation of the relationship between Creator and His creation in language that could be understood by people living in a prescientific age.

“[The book of] Genesis, taken literally, is a recent product of certain religious interpretations of scripture,” Miller says. “In particular, it’s an interpretation that became quite influential in the latter part of the 19th century among Christian fundamentalists in the United States. And the reality is that much of scripture is figurative rather than literal.”

Jewish tradition also accepts evolution, according to intellectual historian Hava Tirosh-Samuelson, who suggests that the rise of the religious Christian right in the United States also influenced more observant Jews to harden their position against evolution.

“Medieval Jewish philosophy basically followed the Muslim paradigm,” says Tirosh-Samuelson, a professor of history and director of the Center for Jewish Studies at Arizona State University. “The Muslim theologians and the Muslim scholars showed Jews how you can integrate a monotheistic tradition together with Greek and Hellenistic science … and showed how scientific knowledge is always a tool that enables you to understand the divinely created world better.”

Vision of God

In Miller’s view, the concept of God as a designer who worked out every intricate detail of every single living thing is too narrow a vision of the Creator.

“The God that is revealed by evolution is not a God who has to literally tinker with every little piece of trivia in every living organism, but rather a God who created a universe in a world where the very physical conditions of matter and energy were sufficient to accomplish his ends,” Miller says. “And to me, that conception of God creating this extraordinary process that nature itself allows to come about is a much grander vision than a God who has to concern himself with every little detail.”

El-Baz says some people fear that science will reduce their religiosity, but the reverse is true for him.

“We understood through God’s guidance that humans evolved from other creatures, and evolution is still going on, and there’s absolutely no conflict between what science and religion are informing us,” he says. “It’s very easy to consider that a creator, or a force of creation — God or whatever faith you have — that it’s a force that put all of these things together, that created all of this.”

Tirosh-Samuelson says Judaism is not a literalist tradition but rather favors open ended interpretation, which is in keeping with her reaction to the Webb discoveries.

“The grandeur of the universe. The grandeur of God. The grandeur of the human. And in my view, there’s no contradiction between those three. On the contrary, there’s a lot of complementarity between the three,” she says.

“Jewish culture is really pretty much open to discussion and debate about practically every topic. So, there’s something very much in accord with the scientific spirit of inquiry, questioning, uncertainty, skepticism. That’s exactly the opposite of a position that is about certainty and rigidity and closed-mindedness.”
…

your ad here

…

your ad here

On the 32nd anniversary of the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA), the U.S. remains one of a handful of countries that have not ratified the 2006 United Nations Convention on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities (CRPD) — an international treaty the U.S. legislation inspired.  

The ADA, signed into law by President George H.W. Bush on July 26, 1990, prohibits discrimination based on disability in public accommodations, employment, transportation and community living, and provides recourse for people with disabilities who faced discrimination.    

“It’s hard for the newer generation to imagine the injustices suffered before the ADA,” President Joe Biden said Tuesday in a House Bipartisan Disabilities Caucus event to celebrate the ADA’s anniversary. Biden, who is still in isolation from his COVID-19 diagnosis, delivered his remarks virtually.  

“If you’re disabled, stores can turn you away, and employers can refuse to hire you. If you use a wheelchair, there was no accommodation to take the bus or train to school or to work. America simply wasn’t built for all Americans,” Biden said. 

The administration on Tuesday announced $1.75 billion to make it easier for people with disabilities to get on board the nation’s public transportation systems, including $343 million to help agencies retrofit train and subway stations built prior to the disabilities act. 

During the caucus event, House Speaker Nancy Pelosi said Democrats will not give up trying to ratify the CRPD. A National Security Council spokesperson told VOA the administration “would certainly support its ratification.” 

However, with only 48 Democrats and two independents in the 100-seat U.S. Senate, and an urgent legislative agenda in the pipeline, it is unlikely that the Biden White House will take up the matter anytime soon.  

Global disability movement 

Since its passing, the ADA has inspired disability laws in various countries and sparked a movement for disability rights around the world that culminated in the CPRD. The U.S. also provided technical assistance during the convention’s negotiation and drafting process. 

The CPRD came into force in 2008 and was signed by President Barack Obama in 2009. But in 2012, it fell five votes short of the two-thirds majority required for the U.S. Senate to adopt it, largely due to a reluctance to submit to international law on a domestic policy matter. 

Out of 193 U.N. member countries, 185 have ratified the CRPD that aims to promote, protect and ensure full and equal enjoyment of all human rights for persons with disabilities.  

“We’re always very much open and honest in recognizing we haven’t ratified the CRPD,” Sara Minkara, special adviser on international disability rights, told VOA.  

Minkara, who is legally blind, leads the Office of International Disability Rights at the U.S. Department of State, which promotes the rights of persons with disabilities around the world through American diplomacy and development aid. The position was created under the Obama administration, and her office was made permanent by the Biden administration last November. 

In various countries, views on people with disabilities often fall between pity or inspiration from their suffering, Minkara said, and those extreme narratives contribute to societies leaving people with disabilities behind. 

“We need to normalize disability. We need to change how we look at the word disability. We need to change how we look at disabilities and identities, not from a pity lens but from a strength and value-based lens.”  

The administration says it supports “disability-inclusive development and humanitarian action” around the world.  

However, there is no mechanism to ensure full disability inclusion in U.S. foreign assistance, said Eric Rosenthal, executive director of the advocacy group Disability Rights International. 

“You can offer your assistance and say our assistance is available to all people, but the truth is, people with disabilities have a hard time finding the aid,” Rosenthal told VOA. “There has to be more active outreach efforts.” 

People with intellectual disabilities, psychiatric and psychosocial disabilities are particularly vulnerable, Rosenthal said. In many places, they are often stripped of legal rights and put away in institutions. 

“There are very serious human rights violations against them in most countries, and the advocacy movements are usually way behind the advocacy movements for other disability groups,” Rosenthal said. “So, that’s an example of a very at-risk group that needs to be targeted for more attention.” 

Disability Rights International and other groups have endorsed a concept for a U.S. bill to support the efforts of disability advocates worldwide to stop children with disabilities from being institutionalized, where they often face serious neglect and abuse. 

Katherine Gypson and Cindy Saine contributed to this report.

 
…

your ad here

The call from a deputy district attorney unnerved Hanna Merzbach.

The freelance journalist from the city of Bend, in the western U.S. state of Oregon, had been reporting on a dispute between climbers at a state park.

Now the county attorney wanted her to testify about one of her sources.

When Merzbach refused, she was issued a subpoena.

“I was pretty overwhelmed,” Merzbach told VOA. “I don’t have the same kinds of support that staff writers do.”

Unsure of her rights, Merzbach turned to Twitter, posting about her subpoena.

Soon other journalists in Oregon reached out, suggesting that she seek legal help from the Reporter’s Committee for Freedom of the Press (RCFP).

The Washington-based group runs a program called the Local Legal Initiative that offers free legal support in media rights cases. Staff attorneys are based in five states: Colorado, Oklahoma, Oregon, Pennsylvania and Tennessee, with plans to add more.

Since its inception in 2020, Local Legal Initiative attorneys have represented more than 120 journalists and news outlets, helping them access public records and contest demands to turn over reporting materials. Funds from the Knight Foundation helped to set up the program.

Lisa Zycherman, deputy legal director and policy counsel at the RCFP, said that state and local governments have “grown emboldened” in efforts to shield information from the public and the media.

“They can do so if they’re confident that newsrooms may not be able to challenge a lack of transparency,” Zycherman said.

In a time of economic downturn for local media, journalists often also lack the resources to push back, she said.

“When journalists are routinely stymied by a culture of secrecy that shields data, documents and other public records, our Local Legal Initiative attorneys can help journalists push back against that kind of secrecy,” Zycherman said.

Legal relief

In Merzbach’s case, journalists on Twitter helped connect her with Ellen Osoinach, an RCFP attorney based in Oregon.

“We spoke the next morning and basically she got everything resolved that day,” Merzbach said.

Osoinach spoke to the deputy district attorney about Oregon’s shield law, which protects journalists from being compelled to testify or to share materials.

“And then,” said Merzbach, “everything just went away.”

The journalist, who covers climate change and housing issues on the West Coast, said if she had been forced to comply with the subpoena, it would have damaged her credibility and made it seem like she was “taking a side.”

Merzbach was also concerned about hurting her relationship with the source, whose trust she had worked to gain.

As an independent journalist, Merzbach said it was a relief to have a lawyer she could consult.

No resources to fight

With thousands of local newspapers now out of business, the U.S. has seen a rise in “news deserts” across the country — communities lacking a credible local news source. Many surviving publications continue to grapple with the financial challenges of staying in print.

Zycherman said that financial constraints can be a barrier to local newsrooms pushing for access.

“We saw that newsrooms often lack the financial resources to fight for access to information that helps all journalists tell stories in the public interest,” Zycherman said.

In denying access to public records, companies and government bodies cite various reasons ranging from privacy to related criminal investigations.

Osoinach is currently working on another case involving Merzbach, in which a central Oregon water company refused a records request for information about its top water users.

At the time, Merzbach was writing about water usage in a drought-hit region for the Source Weekly, a central Oregon newspaper with an online monthly readership of 150,000.

When Merzbach appealed to the district attorney, he ruled that the company must provide the records. The company then filed a lawsuit against Merzbach and the Source Weekly.

Osoinach was able to have Merzbach dismissed from the case and is now representing the news outlet.

Merzbach said the case was “just another instance of Ellen swooping in and taking all of my worries away.”

Refusing a records request

The RCFP handled a similar case in Pennsylvania in 2020 for Dylan Segelbaum, who at the time was a courts reporter for the York Daily Record.

Segelbaum had submitted a request under Pennsylvania’s Right to Know Law for a forensic audit of a local fire department. The department refused, citing an exemption because the audit contained information used as part of a criminal investigation.

As in Merzbach’s case, the Office of Open Records in Pennsylvania ruled in Segelbaum’s favor and ordered the department to provide the document. The department then filed an appeal.

“During my time at the York Daily Record, it seemed like local governments in York County were increasingly taking us to court if we had prevailed on appeal in open records cases,” Segelbaum said.

Paula Knudsen Burke, the Local Legal Initiative attorney in Pennsylvania, took on the case, representing Segelbaum and his paper.

In August 2021, a York County judge ruled in their favor.

Segelbaum was able to get a copy of the audit and post it so that “the people in the community could see what the investigation turned up at the fire company, to shed light on what their tax dollars had paid for.”

The public’s right to know is what drives Merzbach too.

She acknowledged that local news reporting may often provide fewer resources than working for national publications. But, Merzbach said, she “can’t get away from it.”

“It just feels like where you can make the biggest impact and tell the stories that the community actually wants to be told,” she said.

Segelbaum attested to the importance of the free legal counsel to not only defend against appeals, but to seek records that “might have been tougher calls in the past.”

For Zycherman, the focus is on protecting public interest journalism.

The initiative aims to help journalists “hold state and local government agencies and officials accountable to the public,” she said.
…

your ad here

The U.S. Senate voted 64-32 on Tuesday to advance legislation to dramatically boost U.S. semiconductor manufacturing in a bid to make the domestic industry more competitive with China.

The legislation provides about $52 billion in government subsidies for U.S. semiconductor production as well as an investment tax credit for chip plants estimated to be worth $24 billion.

The Senate is expected to vote on final passage in coming days and the U.S. House could follow suit as soon as later this week.

President Joe Biden and others have cast the issue in national security terms, saying it is essential to ensure U.S. production of chips that are crucial to a wide range of consumer goods and military equipment.

Commerce Secretary Gina Raimondo called the vote “a symbol of the strong bipartisan coalition working to build more chips in America. These chips keep our economy strong and our country safe.”

The bill aims to ease a persistent shortage that has dented production in industries including automobiles, consumer electronics, medical equipment and high-tech weapons, forcing some manufacturers to scale back production. Auto production has been especially hit hard.

“The pandemic made clear with unforgiving clarity how America’s chip shortage was creating a crisis,” the Senate’s Democratic majority leader, Chuck Schumer said before the vote.

The Semiconductor Industry Association said the vote is a “vital step toward enactment of legislation that will strengthen American chip production and innovation, economic growth and job creation, and national security.”

Biden pushed hard for the bill, which has been in the works for well over a year, with a version passing the Senate in June 2021 but stalling in the House. This frustrated lawmakers from both parties who view competition with China and global supply chain issues as top priorities.

Critics like Senator Bernie Sanders have called the measure a “blank check” to highly profitable chips companies.

Biden met virtually on Monday with the chief executives of Lockheed Martin Corp, Medtronic and Cummins Inc along with labor leaders as part of the administration’s push for the legislation.
…

your ad here