通膨压力顶不住 叶伦考虑调降中国商品关税
世界新闻网
4/24/2022
财政部长叶伦(Janet Yellen)在一场电视访谈中表示，调降中国商品关税的做法，值得考虑，因为将可对压低通货膨胀产生「想要达到的效果」。美国现在的通膨率已经飙到40年来最高。
叶伦22日接受彭博电视「权力平衡」节目访问时说：「我们一直都在审慎查看对中国的贸易策略。」主持人卫斯汀问她，是否解除前总统川普所加征的中国商品进口关税时，叶伦回答：「这值得考虑。我们当然尽所能地来应对通膨，如此可望有一些想要达到的效果。我们正在研究这类做法。」
叶伦强调，行政团队一直都想尽办法协助降低美国物价，例如，拜登总统已下令释出部分战略储油，来帮忙缓解供应链问题。
降中国关税 可降通膨1.3百分点
彭博指出，根据彼得森国际经济研究所(PIIE)上个月发表的研究，取消川普时代对来自中国的商品广泛加征的关税，可以降低美国通货膨胀率1.3个百分点。
美国3月消费者物价指数(CPI)比去年同期急升8.5%，继续改写40多年新高；民调发现，民众对拜登政府最主要的不满就源于通膨高涨。
就在叶伦受访前一天，白宫副国家安全顾问辛赫(Daleep Singh)也提议，美国可调降不涉及战略问题的中国商品关税，包括自行车与服饰之类的产品，以协助对抗通膨。
他认为，川普政府所开征的关税，或许提供给美国一些谈判的筹码，但并未达成战略目的。降低那些非战略产品的关税，而把焦点就放在更具战略意义的领域，诸如关键科技，会是更佳的选择。
通膨压力大 影响期中选举席次
另据路透报导，通膨是拜登最关切的问题之一，随着能源、食品和其他民生必需品价格涨上天，他的民意支持度直直落。
今年11月的期中选举，他所属的民主党大有失去国会多数席次的危机。
叶伦在另一个CNBC的访问中则提到，美国的通膨可能已经到顶，但是物价仍然会在高水准持续「再久一些」。
叶伦去年在接受纽约时报专访时，就曾质疑川普政府加征中国商品关税的设计不良，未认清问题症结所在和美国利益，反而是对消费者课税
而在中国国务院副总理刘鹤二度向美国提出降低关税要求后，叶伦受访时明确表示，美国希望中国履行美中第一阶段贸易协议的采购承诺，并将考虑以对等方式降低部分对中关税。
白人家庭财富是非裔8倍 叶伦：经济运作从未公平
世界新闻网
01/18/2022
财政部长叶伦(Janet Yellen)在17日马丁路德金恩纪念日发表讲话，表示美国经济体系「从未对非裔公平运作过」；其讲话的背景是白人与非裔的财富高度不均，白人家庭拥有的财富，大约是非裔家庭的八倍之多。
叶伦在为民权组织 「全国移动网络」(NAN)发表的预录演说中表示，金恩在1963年「我有个梦想」演讲中，将宪法及独立宣言比喻为所有美国人都能够继承、可用来向美国兑现的支票。
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=35TmEMCf7Q0u0026t=2343s
但是叶伦说，很明显的事情是，美国没有履行义务，是为违约，让非裔手上的支票变成空头支票；「从重建时代，再到吉姆克劳法时代，然后到现在，我们的经济体系从未对非裔或其他少数族裔公平运作过。」
美国白人与非裔的财富差距是惊人的：联准会的数据显示，2019年白人家庭的财富净值中位数为18万8200元，但是非裔家庭仅为2万4100元；若从平均数来看，白人家庭为98万3400元，非裔家庭为14万2500元。
西语裔家庭财富净值中位数为3万6200元、平均数为20万3300元；原住民、亚裔等其他族裔的家庭财富净值中位数为7万4500元、平均数为48万6800元。
去年12月，白人的失业率为3.1%、非裔的失业率为7.2%；72%白人家庭拥有自己的房屋，但非裔家庭拥有自己的房屋的比率仅44%。
联准会的报告指出，29.9%白人家庭曾继承、或是接受来自财务、资产等方面的餽赠，但是只有10.1%非裔家庭曾有此经验；这让白人家庭的财富更容易维系及膨胀。
不过叶伦也在讲话中表示，她「绝不相信名为『正义』的银行已经破产」；叶伦枚举出几项旨在缩小族裔贫富差距的作为，包括查看财政部内的族裔结构问题，多聘雇少数族裔人士为财政部主管或顾问，以及向少数族裔社区投资90亿元等。
报告：公众对民主政府信任度崩盘 对独裁国家反而升高
世界新闻网
01/18/2022
爱德曼信任度调查（Edelman Trust Barometer）显示，民主国家对新冠肺炎疫情的处置不当，以及经济悲观气氛弥漫，导致公众对民主国家的政府信任度降至新低，但对独裁国家的信任度反而升高，尤其是中国。
最新爱德曼德信任度调查显示，最大输家是民主国家，德国的评分下滑7分至46分，澳洲减少6分至53分，荷兰降至57分（下滑6分）、南韩42分（下降5分），美国的得分则减少5分，跌至43分。这项报告调查各国民众对政府、媒体、企业及非政府组织（NGO）的信任度。
相较下，中国机构的得分达到83分，分数提高11分，阿拉伯联合酋长国为76分，增加9分，泰国为66分，得分提高5分。
爱德曼公关集团首席执行官爱德曼（Richard Edelman）表示：「公众对民主国家的信任度确实已崩盘。失业问题受到高度关切，归根究柢就是公众是否对经济有信心。」
调查结果显示，全球最富裕国家虽实施数以兆美元计的刺激方案，支撑经济度过疫情冲击，仍无法使公众持续信任政府。
最新调查显示，受访者对企业的信任度回升至强劲水准，原因是企业在研发新冠疫苗、职场转型以及零售行为扮演的角色。不过，对于企业对社会公平的承诺，受访者仍有所保留。
Autocracies outdo democracies on public trust – survey
By Mark John
01/18/2022
(Reuters) – Public trust in governments running the world’s democracies has fallen to new lows over their handling of the pandemic and amid a widespread sense of economic pessimism, a global survey has found.
The Edelman Trust Barometer, which for two decades has polled thousands of people on trust in their governments, media, business and NGOs, conversely showed rising scores in several autocratic states, notably China.
It also highlighted that business, thanks to its role developing vaccines and adapting workplace and retail practices, had retained strong levels of trust globally, albeit with reservations about its commitment to social fairness.
“We really have a collapse of trust in democracies,” said Richard Edelman, whose Edelman communications group published the survey of over 36,000 respondents in 28 countries interviewed between Nov. 1-24 of last year.
“It all goes back to: ‘Do you have a sense of economic confidence?’” he added, noting high levels of concern about job losses linked either to the pandemic or automation.
The biggest losers of public trust over the last year were institutions in Germany, down 7 points to 46, Australia at 53 (-6), the Netherlands at 57 (-6), South Korea at 42 (-5) and the United States at 43 (-5).
By contrast, public trust in institutions in China stood at 83%, up 11 points, 76% in United Arab Emirates (+9) and 66% in Thailand (+5).
The trillions of dollars of stimulus spent by the world’s richest nations to support their economies through the pandemic have failed to instil a lasting sense of confidence, the survey suggested.
In Japan, only 15% of people believed they and their families would be better off in five years’ time, with most other democracies ranging around 20-40% on the same question.
But in China nearly two-thirds were optimistic about their economic fortunes and 80% of Indians believed they would be better off in five years.
Edelman said higher public trust levels in China were linked not just to economic perceptions but also to a greater sense of predictability about Chinese policy, not least on the pandemic.
“I think there is a coherence between what is done and what is said…They have had a better COVID than the US for example.”
According to the Reuters pandemic tracker, the United States currently leads the world in the daily average number of new deaths reported, while China has regularly been reporting no new deaths for months as it pursues strict “zero-Covid” policies.
The results of the latest Edelman survey are in tune with its findings in recent years that charted rising disillusionment with capitalism, political leadership and the media.
Concerns about “fake news” were this time at all-time highs, with three-quarters of respondents globally worried about it being “used as a weapon”. Among societal fears, climate change was now just behind the loss of employment as a major concern.
The burden of expectation on business leaders remains heavy, with strong majorities saying they bought goods, accepted job offers and invested in businesses according to their beliefs and values.
Around two-fifths, however, also said that business was not doing enough to address climate change, economic inequality and workforce reskilling.
(Reporting by Mark John in France; Editing by Frank Jack Daniel)
最新民调 美76%民众认为：国内政治不稳定比外国威胁还危险
中央社／华盛顿
01/12/2022
美国大学今天公布的民调显示，在前总统川普支持者闯入美国国会大厦事件一年后，有近6成美国民众相信，美国民主有崩溃的危险。
美国昆尼别克大学（Quinnipiac University）在1月7日至10日期间，针对全美1313名成人进行民调，抽样误差为正负2.7个百分点。
民调发现，76%的受访美国民众认为，美国政治上的不稳定性，比外国威胁还要危险。58%的民众表示，他们相信美国民主有崩溃的危险。
此外，有53%的美国民众指出，他们预期在自己有生之年内，美国国内政治分野将会加深。
Poll: American’s agree that bigger danger to U.S. comes from within, not from country’s adversaries
By KCRG Staff
01/12/2022
HAMDEN. Connecticut (KCRG) -A new national poll from Quinnipiac University finds Americans share a dismal outlook on the state of the country and a future of deepening political division.
67 percent of American’s say they think political instability within the country is a larger threat to the United States, compared to just 19 percent who fear other countries are a bigger danger. That finding is shared among Democrats, Independents, and Republicans too, with 83 percent of Democrats, 78 percent of Independents, and 66 percent of Republicans feeling this way.
Americans also feel like the nation’s democracy is in danger of collapse, with 58 percent of citizens sharing the grim outlook. Just 37 percent feel like democracy is secure.
53 percent of Americans expect political divisiveness to worsen over their lifetime; 28 percent expect it to remain about the same, and just 15 percent expect it to ease.
Americans were also in agreement in their disapproval of congress. Americans give Republicans in Congress a negative 26 – 62 percent job approval rating with 13 percent not offering an opinion. Americans give Democrats in Congress a negative 30 – 59 percent job approval rating with 11 percent not offering an opinion.
美国正面临另一场内战吗？
By MICHELLE GOLDBERG
01/11/2022
芭芭拉·F·沃尔特是加州大学圣地亚哥分校的政治学家，采访过许多经历过内战的人，她告诉我，他们都说他们没有预见到内战的到来。“他们都很惊讶，”她说。“虽然对于研究内战的人来说，在内战开始前的几年就已经有明显迹象。”
如果你会毫不犹豫地否定美国可能再次陷入内战的想法，那么这一点值得留意。即使是现在，尽管无时无刻都害怕这个国家会稀里糊涂地走向分裂，我也还是很难想象美国会彻底崩溃。但对于像沃尔特这样研究内战的人来说，美国的崩溃已经开始出现，即使不十分明显，但也并非绝无可能，尤其是自去年1月6日的事件以来。
本月出版的两本书警告说，这个国家比大多数美国人理解的更接近内战。在《内战如何开始：以及如何阻止》(How Civil Wars Start: And How to Stop Them)中，沃尔特写道，“我已经看到内战会如何开始的，我知道人们会忽略哪些迹象。我可以看到这些迹象以惊人的速度出现在这里。”加拿大小说家和评论家斯蒂芬·马尔凯在他的书《下一场内战：来自未来美国的通讯》(The Next Civil War: Dispatches From the American Future)中写得更为严峻。“美国即将终结，”马尔凯写道。“问题是如何终结。”
在多伦多的《环球邮报》上，研究暴力冲突的学者托马斯·荷马-迪克森最近敦促加拿大政府为美国的内爆做准备。“到2025年，美国民主可能会崩溃，导致国内政治极端不稳定，包括广泛的国内暴力，”他写道。“到2030年，甚至可能更早，这个国家可能会被右翼独裁统治。”正如约翰·哈里斯在Politico网站中所写，“现在严肃对待此事的人都在说‘内战’了，不是作为隐喻，而是真实存在的先例。”
这当然不是指所有严肃的人。哈佛政治学家乔什·科策在Twitter上写道，他认识许多内战学者，而“他们中很少有人认为美国正处于内战的边缘。”然而，即使是一些反对内战说法的人也倾向于承认美国处于十分危险的境地。在《大西洋月刊》中，芬坦·奥图尔在谈到马尔凯的书时警告，说会发生内战可能是一种自证预言。他说，在爱尔兰的长期冲突中，双方都害怕对方正在进行动员。他写道，“承认美国有可能分裂并以暴力方式分裂的真正可能性是一回事，将这种可能性描述为必然又是另一回事。”
我认同奥图尔的观点，将内战视为必然结果的想法是荒唐的，但如今内战似乎存在发生的可能仍然足够糟糕。关于内战的猜测已经从边缘异想进入主流，这一事实本身就标志着公民社会危机的出现，表明了我们的国家有多么四分五裂。
沃尔特和马尔凯所担忧的那种内战并非红蓝两军在某处战场上的对峙。如果它真的发生，也更会像一场游击叛乱。正如沃尔特告诉我的，她和马尔凯一样，都认为“重大武装冲突”的学术定义是每年至少造成1000人死亡。“小规模武装冲突”指的则是每年至少造成25人遇害。马尔凯指出，按照这一定义，“美国已经处于内乱状态”。反诽谤联盟表示，大多由右翼分子构成的极端分子在2018年杀害54人，在2019年杀害45人。（他们在2020年杀害了17人，之所以变少，可能是因为疫情阻止了极端主义大规模枪击事件的发生。）
沃尔特认为，内战的模式可以预测，她在书中花了一半以上的篇幅来阐述这些模式在其他国家如何发挥作用。这些模式在她和其他学者所谓的“无支配体制”中最为常见，这样的国家“既不是完全的专制，也不是完全的民主，而是介于两者之间的状态”。警示信号包括基于身份而非意识形态的严重政治极化，特别是两个规模相当的派别之间两极分化，而这两派都害怕被对方击垮。
她写道，公民暴力的煽动者往往是以前处于统治地位、但阶级已经下滑的群体。“发动战争的族群正是那些声称国家‘属于或本应属于他们’的人，”她写道。这是她和马尔凯都不认为左派会发动内战的原因之一，尽管左派中也有暴力分子。正如马尔凯所写，“左翼激进主义发挥作用的主要原因，是它为右翼激进化创造了条件。”
很多右派都在幻想并计划着内战，这已不是什么秘密。一年前，他们中的一些人就穿着印有“MAGA内战”字样的黑色运动衫闯入了国会大厦。“布加洛男孩”代表了离奇、暴力、大量使用米姆的反政府运动，该运动因为关于一部内战影片续集的玩笑而得名。共和党人越来越多地抛出会出现武装冲突的观点。8月，北卡罗来纳州众议员麦迪逊·考托恩表示，“如果我们的选举制度继续被操纵，继续被盗窃，后果只会有一个，那就是流血，”他还暗示自己虽然不情愿，但还是会拿起武器。
沃尔特引用了那些密谋绑架密歇根州州长格蕾琴·惠特默的男子的言论，她在书中论述称，现代内战就“始于这样的私自执法者——即直接向人民施暴的武装激进分子”。
沃尔特的部分观点我并不太认同。比如说到美国处于无支配体制的状态。对于她依靠政治科学方法展示出的美国民主制度的惊人倒退，我并无质疑。但我认为，她没有充分说明从威权走向民主的国家和从民主走向威权的国家之间的区别。我们可以看出为何南斯拉夫这样的国家会在维系它的专制体制结束后四分五裂；新兴的自由和民主竞争为沃尔特所说的“民族创业者”的出现提供了条件。
但是，我们尚不清楚从民主转向威权是否也会以同样的方式造成动荡。正如沃尔特所承认的那样，“自由民主国家的衰落是新现象，还没有一个国家陷入全面内战——目前还没有。”在我看来，比起大规模国内暴力冲突，美国在一位共和党总统的统治下陷入匈牙利式右翼专制统治的威胁似乎更加迫在眉睫。她的理论若要实现，需要一个秉持民族统一主义的右翼派别反抗其权力的丧失。但越来越多的情况是，右派正在操纵我们僵化的体制，这样一来无论选民是否愿意，他们都能保住权力。
不过，就算全面内战还不太可能发生，在我看来仍比恢复伴随许多美国人成长的那种民主稳定状态更有可能。
马尔凯在书中提及了五种可能毁灭这个国家的情景，每一种都是根据当前的运动和趋势推断出来的。我觉得其中一些观点并不完全合理。例如，鉴于联邦政府在韦科、红宝石山脊和马卢尔国家野生动物保护区与极右翼势力对抗的历史，我认为一位下定决心解散某个公民自治营地的美国总统会派遣联邦调查局，而不是遵循平叛作战原则的军人出面处理。
然而，比起一个以1月6日为右翼暴动的最高点，而美国最后有惊无险的未来，马尔凯的叙述似乎更容易想象得到。“假装一切都会好起来是很容易的，”他写道。我没觉得这有多轻松。
Are We Really Facing a Second Civil War?
By Michelle Goldberg
01/11/2022
Barbara F. Walter, a political scientist at the University of California, San Diego, has interviewed many people who’ve lived through civil wars, and she told me they all say they didn’t see it coming. “They’re all surprised,” she said. “Even when, to somebody who studies it, it’s obvious years beforehand.”
This is worth keeping in mind if your impulse is to dismiss the idea that America could fall into civil war again. Even now, despite my constant horror at this country’s punch-drunk disintegration, I find the idea of a total meltdown hard to wrap my mind around. But to some of those, like Walter, who study civil war, an American crackup has come to seem, if not obvious, then far from unlikely, especially since Jan. 6.
Two books out this month warn that this country is closer to civil war than most Americans understand. In “How Civil Wars Start: And How to Stop Them,” Walter writes, “I’ve seen how civil wars start, and I know the signs that people miss. And I can see those signs emerging here at a surprisingly fast rate.” The Canadian novelist and critic Stephen Marche is more stark in his book, “The Next Civil War: Dispatches From the American Future.” “The United States is coming to an end,” Marche writes. “The question is how.”
In Toronto’s Globe and Mail, Thomas Homer-Dixon, a scholar who studies violent conflict, recently urged the Canadian government to prepare for an American implosion. “By 2025, American democracy could collapse, causing extreme domestic political instability, including widespread civil violence,” he wrote. “By 2030, if not sooner, the country could be governed by a right-wing dictatorship.” As John Harris writes in Politico, “Serious people now invoke ‘Civil War’ not as metaphor but as literal precedent.”
Of course, not all serious people. The Harvard political scientist Josh Kertzer wrote on Twitter that he knows many civil war scholars, and “very few of them think the United States is on the precipice of a civil war.” Yet even some who push back on civil war talk tend to acknowledge what a perilous place America is in. In The Atlantic, Fintan O’Toole, writing about Marche’s book, warns that prophecies of civil war can be self-fulfilling; during the long conflict in Ireland, he says, each side was driven by fear that the other was mobilizing. It’s one thing, he writes, “to acknowledge the real possibility that the U.S. could break apart and could do so violently. It is quite another to frame that possibility as an inevitability.”
I agree with O’Toole that it’s absurd to treat civil war as a foregone conclusion, but that it now seems distinctly possible is still pretty bad. The fact that speculation about civil war has moved from the crankish fringes into the mainstream is itself a sign of civic crisis, an indication of how broken our country is.
The sort of civil war that Walter and Marche worry about wouldn’t involve red and blue armies facing off on some battlefield. If it happens, it will be more of a guerrilla insurgency. As Walter told me, she, like Marche, relies on an academic definition of “major armed conflict” as one that causes at least 1,000 deaths per year. A “minor armed conflict” is one that kills at least 25 people a year. By this definition, as Marche argues, “America is already in a state of civil strife.” According to the Anti-Defamation League, extremists, most of them right-wing, killed 54 people in 2018 and 45 people in 2019. (They killed 17 people in 2020, a figure that was low due to the absence of extremist mass shootings, possibly because of the pandemic.)
Walter argues that civil wars have predictable patterns, and she spends more than half her book laying out how those patterns have played out in other countries. They are most common in what she and other scholars call “anocracies,” countries that are “neither full autocracies nor democracies but something in between.” Warning signs include the rise of intense political polarization based on identity rather than ideology, especially polarization between two factions of roughly equal size, each of which fears being crushed by the other.
Instigators of civil violence, she writes, tend to be previously dominant groups who see their status slipping away. “The ethnic groups that start wars are those claiming that the country ‘is or ought to be theirs,’” she writes. This is one reason, although there are violent actors on the left, neither she nor Marche believe the left will start a civil war. As Marche writes, “Left-wing radicalism matters mostly because it creates the conditions for right-wing radicalization.”
It’s no secret that many on the right are both fantasizing about and planning civil war. Some of those who swarmed the Capitol a year ago wore black sweatshirts emblazoned with “MAGA Civil War.” The Boogaloo Bois, a surreal, violent, meme-obsessed anti-government movement, get their name from a joke about a Civil War sequel. Republicans increasingly throw around the idea of armed conflict. In August, Representative Madison Cawthorn of North Carolina said, “If our election systems continue to be rigged and continue to be stolen, then it’s going to lead to one place and that’s bloodshed,” and suggested he was willing, though reluctant, to take up arms.
Citing the men who plotted to kidnap Gov. Gretchen Whitmer of Michigan, Walter writes that modern civil wars “start with vigilantes just like these — armed militants who take violence directly to the people.”
There are parts of Walter’s argument that I’m not quite convinced by. Consider, for example, America’s status as an anocracy. I don’t dispute the political science measures she relies on to show the alarming extent of America’s democratic backsliding. But I think she underplays the difference between countries moving from authoritarianism toward democracy, and those going the other way. You can see why a country like Yugoslavia would explode when the autocratic system holding it together disappeared; new freedoms and democratic competition allow for the emergence of what Walter describes as “ethnic entrepreneurs.”
It’s not clear, however, that the move from democracy toward authoritarianism would be destabilizing in the same way. As Walter acknowledges, “The decline of liberal democracies is a new phenomenon, and none have fallen into all-out civil war — yet.” To me, the threat of America calcifying into a Hungarian-style right-wing autocracy under a Republican president seems more imminent than mass civil violence. Her theory depends on an irredentist right-wing faction rebelling against its loss of power. But increasingly, the right is rigging our sclerotic system so that it can maintain power whether the voters want it to or not.
If outright civil war still isn’t likely, though, it seems to me more likely than a return to the sort of democratic stability many Americans grew up with.
Marche’s book presents five scenarios for how this country could come undone, each extrapolated from current movements and trends. A few of them don’t strike me as wholly plausible. For example, given the history of federal confrontations with the far right at Waco, Ruby Ridge and the Malheur National Wildlife Refuge, I suspect an American president determined to break up a sovereign citizen encampment would send the F.B.I., not an Army general relying on counterinsurgency doctrine.
Yet most of Marche’s narratives seem more imaginable than a future in which Jan. 6 turns out to be the peak of right-wing insurrection, and America ends up basically OK. “It’s so easy to pretend it’s all going to work out,” he writes. I don’t find it easy.
CIA专家与退役将领警告 美国距离爆发内战「比想像中更近」
中央社 | 华盛顿
12/25/2021
专门研究政治动乱与恐怖主义的中情局顾问华特尔警告，美国社会撕裂，正日益走上内战之路；三名美军退役将领投书报纸，要美国军方需为2024年选后可能政变预作准备。
波士顿环球报（The Boston Globe）报导，加州大学圣地牙哥分校（UCSD）政治学教授华特尔（Barbara F. Walter）过去几年担任中央情报局（CIA）一个专门预测世界哪里会爆发内战、政治动乱与不稳的「政治不稳定工作组」（PITF）顾问。
华特尔明年1月将出新书「内战爆发原因与阻止之道」（How Civil Wars Start and How to Stop Them,暂译）。她上月推文直言，PITF在法律上不被允许检查国内正在发生的事，使其本身「看不见境内迅速出现的风险因素」。
然而过去30年一直在研究北爱尔兰、埃塞俄比亚和叙利亚等地内战和冲突的华特尔，将研究国际间和用于评估其他国家民主的指针用于美国身上。根据报纸刊出书中的一段话，她发现如今美国「比全部人所想的更接近内战」。
华特尔写道：「没人愿相信他们所钟爱的民主正在沉沦、朝向开战。但若你是一名从国外观察美国事态发展的分析家，就像观察乌克兰、科特迪瓦、委内瑞拉等国发生的事件一样，你会列出一份清单，评估每一可能导致内战的条件。你就会发现创建民主已两百多年的美国，已处危险境地。」
Dec 20, 2021
CNN’s Michael Holmes talks with Professor Barbara Walter of the University of California San Diego about her work on a task force that tries to predict where outside the US a civil war is likely to break out. Walter says the two best predictors of whether violence is likely to occur currently exist in the US and have emerged at a “surprisingly fast rate.”
华特尔上电视受访指出，观察会否爆发动乱的两个最佳指针，其一看是否为无体制的半民主，二是看国内有无兴起利用种族、宗教或族群分歧攫取政治权力的风潮，「令人讶异的是美国目前两者兼具，而且还以快到让人意外的速率浮现」。
华特尔说，半民主体制爆发内战的几率是完全民主政体的3倍，「处在这个门槛的国家，如同当前的美国，很容易因治理不善并结合越来越多不民主举措而陷入冲突」。
今年1月6日，时任美国总统川普的支持者攻占国会山庄酿流血冲突后，当时华特尔就为群众剑走偏锋大感诧异，直言川普忠实支持者的行径正是他2016年就任以来外界一直忧心的全部。她把国会山庄遇袭定调为国内恐怖主义。
三名美军退役将领伊顿（Paul D. Eaton）、塔古巴（Antonio M. Tagub）、安德森（Steven M. Anderson）日前联名投书「华盛顿邮报」警告，有鉴国内过去一年的撕裂，他们担心2024总统大选后掀动荡，甚至军队内部爆发流血混乱，要美国军方为2024选后可能的军中变乱预作准备。
三人写道：「简言之，一想到下次恐接续出现政变，我们就不寒而栗。」
华特尔表示，若政府把用于评估他国的预测方式用于自身，就会发现美国很可能有内战风险，她甚至相信美国已接近内战「高风险」。
总部位于斯德哥尔摩的「国际民主及选举协助研究所」（IDEA）11月发布的一份报告将美国列入「民主倒退国家」，是破天荒头一遭。
维吉尼亚大学政治中心（University of Virginia Center for Politics）稍早今年秋天发布的一项民调也发现，超过一半支持川普选民，和约40%票投拜登的人，竟某种程度都同意「是时候让国家一分为二了」。
华特尔告诉美国有线电视新闻网（CNN），过去五年美国作为一民主国家的各方面都在下滑，并说连她们在PITF用来预测政治动荡的主要指针Polity数据集，也第一次把美国归入半民主。
她说：「这绝非与看待瑞士、加拿大、丹麦或日本可比。我们已不再是世界上最长久的民主，它已于2021年的1月告终。」
US ‘closer to civil war’ than most would like to believe, new book says
Academic and member of CIA advisory panel says analysis applied to other countries shows US has ‘entered very dangerous territory’
By Martin Pengelly in New York
12/25/2021
Robert Reich: Beware the big lie, big anger and big money
The US is “closer to civil war than any of us would like to believe”, a member of a key CIA advisory panel has said.
The analysis by Barbara F Walter, a political science professor at the University of California at San Diego who sits on the Political Instability Task Force, is contained in a book due out next year and first reported by the Washington Post.
At the same time, three retired generals wrote in the Post that they were “increasingly concerned about the aftermath of the 2024 presidential election and the potential for lethal chaos inside our military”.
Such concerns are growing around jagged political divisions deepened by former president Donald Trump’s refusal to accept defeat in the 2020 election.
Trump’s lie that his defeat by Joe Biden was caused by electoral fraud stoked the deadly attack on the US Capitol on 6 January, over which Trump was impeached and acquitted a second time, leaving him free to run for office.
The “big lie” is also fueling moves among Republicans to restrict voting by groups that lean Democratic and to make it easier to overturn elections.
Such moves remain without counter from Democrats stymied by the filibuster, the Senate rule that demands supermajorities for most legislation.
In addition, though Republican presidential nominees have won the popular vote only once since 1988, the GOP has by playing political hardball stocked the supreme court with conservatives, who outnumber liberals 6-3.
All such factors and more, including a pandemic which has stoked resistance to government, have contributed to Walter’s analysis.
Last month, she tweeted: “The CIA actually has a taskforce designed to try to predict where and when political instability and conflict is likely to break out around the world. It’s just not legally allowed to look at the US. That means we are blind to the risk factors that are rapidly emerging here.”
The book in which Walter looks at those risk factors in the US, How Civil Wars Start, will be published in January. According to the Post, she writes: “No one wants to believe that their beloved democracy is in decline, or headed toward war.”
But “if you were an analyst in a foreign country looking at events in America – the same way you’d look at events in Ukraine or Ivory Coast or Venezuela – you would go down a checklist, assessing each of the conditions that make civil war likely.
“And what you would find is that the United States, a democracy founded more than two centuries ago, has entered very dangerous territory.”
Walter, the Post said, concludes that the US has passed through stages of “pre-insurgency” and “incipient conflict” and may now be in “open conflict”, beginning with the Capitol riot.
Citing analytics used by the Center for Systemic Peace, Walter also says the US has become an “anocracy” – “somewhere between a democracy and an autocratic state”.
The US has fought a civil war, from 1861 to 1865 and against states which seceded in an attempt to maintain slavery.
Estimates of the death toll vary. The American Battlefield Trust puts it at 620,000 and says: “Taken as a percentage of today’s population, the toll would have risen as high as 6 million souls.”
Sidney Blumenthal, a former Clinton adviser turned biographer of Abraham Lincoln and Guardian contributor, said: “The secessionists in 1861 accepted Lincoln’s election as fair and legitimate.”
The current situation, he said, “is the opposite. Trump’s questioning of the election … has led to a genuine crisis of legitimacy.”
With Republicans’ hold on the levers of power while in the electoral minority a contributing factor, Blumenthal said, “This crisis metastasises, throughout the system over time, so that it’s possible any close election will be claimed to be false and fraudulent.”
Blumenthal said he did not expect the US to pitch into outright civil war, “section against section” and involving the fielding of armies.
If rightwing militia groups were to seek to mimic the secessionists of the 1860s and attempt to “seize federal forts and offices by force”, he said, “I think you’d have quite a confidence it would be over very, very quickly [given] a very strong and firm sense at the top of the US military of its constitutional, non-political role.
“… But given the proliferation of guns, there could be any number of seemingly random acts of violence that come from these organised militias, which are really vigilantes and with partisan agendas, and we haven’t entered that phase.
“The real nightmare would be that kind of low-intensity conflict.”
The retired generals who warned of conflict around the next election – Paul Eaton, Antonio Taguba and Steven Anderson – were less sanguine about the army.
“As we approach the first anniversary of the deadly insurrection at the US Capitol,” they wrote, “we … are increasingly concerned about the aftermath of the 2024 presidential election and the potential for lethal chaos inside our military, which would put all Americans at severe risk.
“In short: We are chilled to our bones at the thought of a coup succeeding next time.”
Citing the presence at the Capitol riot of “a disturbing number of veterans and active-duty members of the military”, they pointed out that “more than one in 10 of those charged in the attacks had a service record”.
Polling has revealed similar worries – and warnings. In November, the Public Religion Research Institute asked voters if they agreed with a statement: “Because things have gotten so far off track, true American patriots may have to resort to violence in order to save our country.”
The poll found that 18% of respondents agreed. Among Republicans, however, the figure was 30%.
On Twitter, Walter thanked the Post for covering her book. She also said: “I wish I had better news for the world but I couldn’t stay silent knowing what I know.”
3退休将领投书华邮 吁军方预防2024选后暴动
世界新闻网
12/18/2021
去年年底总统大选落幕后，许多川普支持者不服选举结果而酿成1月6日国会山庄暴动事件，由于闹事者不乏退伍军人，令三位军方退役将领担忧2024年总统大选后，美国可能爆发「堪比内战、令1月6日国会暴动事件黯然失色」的动乱，因而投书华盛顿邮报，呼吁军方须对此及早准备。
退役陆军少将伊顿(Paul Eaton)、塔谷巴(Antonio Taguba)，及退役陆军准将安德森(Steven Anderson)17日联名投书华盛顿邮报，指出军队内部目前面临「忠诚度分裂」的问题，下一届总统大选后，本应中立的美军，政治立场冲突可能台面化；投书中写道：「我们必须尽一切可能防止暴动事件再度发生，因此包含司法部、众院特别委员会，乃至于整个国会，须立刻采取行动，追究1月6日国会暴动事件主谋者或领导者的责任。」
另一方面，引起三位将领特别关注的是，目前因参与暴动事件被司法部起诉的民众中，约有十分之一曾有过服役纪录，之前甚至还有124名退役军人以「四位星条旗掌旗官」为名发布公开信，呼应川普所谓「2020总统大选的结果是对民主制度的攻击」的论述。
因此，投书华邮的三位将领表示，虽然国会针对1月6日国会暴动事件仍在调查中，但军方不能只是「坐等」结果，应主动针对包含文职人员在内的「所有国防部所属人员」进行对宪法及国家体制忠诚度，及是否有能力识别和处理非法命令的审查。
此外，内部情报作业也是防范再度暴动的手段，三位退役将领在投书中表示：「所有军事机关必须加强内部情报作业，识别并清除这些潜在的叛变者，防范他们以错误消息颠覆指挥体系；面对下一次大选可能面临的危机，军方应以『面对战争』的规模来看待。」
不打疫苗请离开 海军逼退5731水兵、陆军拟裁3800人
世界新闻网
12/17/2021
国防部要求军人接种新冠疫苗截止日期陆续到期，继空军13日辞退27名拒绝接种的军人后，海军、陆军也宣布将陆续辞退不愿接种疫苗的军人，包括5731名海军，以及3800名陆军士兵。
每日邮报报导，海军及陆军辞退的军人约占全体官兵总数的2%，其中海军已开始辞退5731名水兵，因为他们在接种期限后两周仍未接种至少一剂疫苗。
陆军方面，若3800名士兵在本周前未接种至少一剂疫苗，就会开始辞退作业，这些士兵最快明年1月就得离开部队；陆军此举代表仍预留相当时间，让可能被辞退的军人有回心转意的机会。
陆军军方曾表示，已有超过2700名士兵因拒绝接种，遭到书面申斥，并指未接种者不得任领导职务。
主管人事的海军少将华特斯(James Waters)表示，因拒绝接种疫苗而遭辞退的军人仍被视为「荣誉退伍」，但除服役超过六年、或是明年6月1日前有资格申请退伍者外，将被注记「因拒绝接受合法的疫苗接种令的违纪行为」。
华特斯表示，海军尊重所有接种疫苗的水兵，也尽全力留住他们，但对于不接种疫苗者，海军只能请他们离开。
相较于全美18岁以上民众至少接种一剂疫苗的比率为72%，军方的接种率极高，尤以海军为最，达98%，陆军、空军、陆战队接种率亦分别达97.9%、97.5%、95%；但仍约有1万名军人，连一剂疫苗都未接种。
军方接受士官兵以生理或宗教因素请求免除接种，但是通过率低；以陆军来说，有6200名士兵申请，目前近3900人得到暂时免除的批准，而得到永久免除批准者只有四人。
Oct 20, 2021
Senator Kaine said getting troops vaccinated will help the military remain ready to work.
各军种及各部队订下的接种期限各有不同，但是都须服从疫苗接种令；陆战队司令伯格(David Berger)就曾表示，「不接种就辞退」不会只是「嘴上说说」而已。
要求军人接种疫苗并非首例，在新冠疫情前，军方就依派驻地点，接种包括流感、肝炎、小儿麻痹、天花等至多17种疫苗。
4万名美军仍拒打疫苗 空军先开除27人
世界新闻网
12/14/2021
空军13日开除27名拒绝接种新冠疫苗的人员，成为第一批因为拒绝服从强制疫苗令而遭行政开除的空军人士；目前约有4万名现役美军拒绝在规定截止日前接种新冠疫苗，陆军截止日为15日，前几天的数据指出，3%陆军拒绝服从拜登总统的疫苗命令，或企图寻求长期豁免。
Dec 13, 2021
The Air Force has discharged 27 people for refusing to get the COVID-19 vaccine, making them what officials believe are the first service members to be removed for disobeying the mandate to get the shots.
根据美军各部门数据，目前陆军逾1万4000人尚未接种疫苗；现役空军、海军和陆战队则约有2万5000人挑战拜登的疫苗规定；空军预备役和空军国民兵另有1万700人，已超过11月2日截止日仍未打疫苗。
整体而言，美军迟未打疫苗的人数逼近5万人。
华盛顿邮报报导，虽然美军多数人员已完整接种疫苗，但军事分析师注意到，拒打和延后接种的人数令人忧心，因为美军有由上而下管理的严格文化，军人理应照规定办事；国防部历来不受政治立场影响，但新数据反映出，美国分裂政治已影响到部分美军。
美军领袖对反打疫苗者的处理办法不多，只能希望这些军人在豁免申请遭驳回后，能够接种疫苗；国防部表示，另一个办法就是大规模扫荡那些不符合疫苗规定者，虽然这4万多名拒打疫苗的军人中，有些人已打算离开美军。
美军最大单位陆军共有约47万5000人，其设下15日的截止日最晚；空军则设在11月2日，时间最早，但仍持续受理数千份因医疗和宗教因素而拒打疫苗的申诉；海军和陆战队设在11月28日，其表示应会批准少数豁免申请。
美军官员表示，这类豁免应极为罕见；美军至今仅批准几份永久医疗豁免申请，目前尚无人因宗教因素得到豁免。
海军已放话会从严剔除不遵守规定者，但空军和海军都同意，军人豁免申请遭拒绝后，有五天时间可以开始接种疫苗；陆军则比较宽松，拒打疫苗者可先接受咨询，之后再面对可能威胁其职涯的惩罚。
空军发言人安‧史堤芬尼克(Ann Stefanek)13日表示，这是第一批因为疫苗而遭行政开除的空军人员，27人都是年轻的低级士兵，没有人获得宗教、医疗等任何形式的豁免。
空军并未公开以何种方式开除拒打疫苗人员，但国会法令表示，拒打疫苗者可荣誉退役。
虽然国防部盼能提高接种率至100%，但陆军恐难在15日截止日前有太大变动。
雪上加霜的是，Omicron变种病毒来势汹汹，拜登政府敦促符合资格者接种补强针；国防部发言人柯比(John Kirby)表示，国防部领袖持续讨论此议题，目前国防部也鼓励军人打补强针。
第一个！美军驱逐舰副舰长拒绝接种疫苗遭解雇
来源: 观察者网
12/13/2021
据美联社12月11日报道，美军丘吉尔号驱逐舰副舰长金斯中校因拒绝接种新冠疫苗遭解雇。此前金斯亦拒绝接受病毒检测，解雇的命令由第14水面中队指挥官安德森上校于10日发出。美联社报道称，金斯是第一位因拒绝接种疫苗而被解雇的美国海军军官。
12月10日，美国海军大西洋水面舰队发言人费舍尔中校接受了媒体采访。被问及金斯被解雇的相关问题时，费舍尔以涉及隐私和机密为由，拒绝透露更多细节和确切原因。费舍尔仅回应称，解雇的原因是安德森司令认为金斯没有服从命令，对其履行职责的能力失去了信心。美媒援引其他知情官员的消息报道称，金斯被解雇是因为拒绝服从接种疫苗和进行检测的命令。
A Standard Missile (SM) 2 launches from the guided-missile destroyer USS Winston S. Churchill (DDG 81) during a Live Fire With a Purpose (LFWAP) enhanced missile exercise, July 16, 2020. The LFWAP program is a reinvigorated missile exercise program designed to increase Navy Surface Fleet lethality and tactical proficiency. U.S. Navy video (Released).
美联社在报道中提到，由于讨论的是人事问题，受访的大多数美军人员都要求匿名。一名美军军官表示，金斯曾因接种疫苗一事而要求“宗教豁免”，但遭到了美军方面的拒绝。金斯就此已经提出了上诉。费希尔回应记者提问时表示，金斯已经被重新分配到第14中队其他岗位工作，金斯原来的执行副舰长一职将由韩毅（音）少校暂时接替，直到该职位的接任者被正式任命。
根据五角大楼的新规定，所有美军现役人员必须接种疫苗，其中美国海军军人必须在11月底之前接种疫苗，或是申请所谓的豁免，包括金斯已经提出过的“宗教豁免”。美联社报道称，有数量庞大的美军各军种现役军人要求“宗教豁免”，但目前为止“宗教豁免”没有得到过任何批准。
SUEZ CANAL (March 5, 2021) The guided-missile destroyer USS Winston S. Churchill (DDG 81) transits the Suez Canal, March 5. Winston S. Churchill is deployed to the U.S. 6th Fleet area of operations in support of regional allies and partners and U.S. national security interests in Europe and Africa. (U.S. Navy photo by Mass Communication Specialist 3rd Class Louis Thompson Staats IV)
据美国福克斯新闻网11月初的消息，超过30名美国海军“海豹突击队”现役人员提出了诉讼，指责美军要求接种疫苗的命令侵犯了军人的宪法权利，包括第一修正案的自由以及《恢复宗教自由法》。这些提出诉讼的军人自称是各基督教教派的信徒，基于“真诚的宗教信仰”反对五角大楼强制接种新冠疫苗的命令。由于这些军人寻求“宗教豁免”，美军将他们认定为“不可部署”。
Court orders halt to federal contractor vaccine mandate in 3 states
By Jared Serbu
12/01/2021
A federal judge in Kentucky temporarily blocked the government from enforcing its vaccine mandate for federal contractors in three states on Thursday, saying President Biden exceeded his authority when he ordered agencies to insert the requirement into their contracts for vendors and subcontractors.
Although the preliminary injunction only applies to contracts in Kentucky, Ohio and Tennessee, it is the first substantive decision out of numerous lawsuits making their way through district courts across the country, and other plaintiffs are likely to cite it in their own challenges to contractor mandates in other jurisdictions.
In this case — as in others — the states challenged the mandate on numerous legal grounds, but in a 45-page opinion, Judge Gregory F. Van Tatenhove found only one of them persuasive enough to warrant an injunction at this early stage in the lawsuit — that the president never had the authority to order the mandate in the first place.
The administration had relied on a 1949 law, the Federal Property and Administrative Services Act, to justify the president’s executive order for contractors. That statute gives the president wide latitude to impose procurement polices that promote “economy and efficiency” in federal contracting. But the authority is not unlimited, Judge Tatenhove noted.
“It strains credulity that Congress intended the FPASA, a procurement statute, to be the basis for promulgating a public health measure such as mandatory vaccination,” he wrote. “If a vaccination mandate has a close enough nexus to economy and efficiency in federal procurement, then the statute could be used to enact virtually any measure at the president’s whim under the guise of economy and efficiency.”
In order to justify an injunction, the court had to find that the state plantiffs are ultimately likely to win their case on the merits. Nonetheless, the judge emphasized that Tuesday’s decision is not the final word on what are still complex legal questions.
“The court is asked to wrestle with important constitutional values implicated in the midst of a pandemic that lingers. These questions will not be finally resolved in the shadows. Instead, the consideration will continue with the benefit of full briefing and appellate review. But right now, the enforcement of the contract provisions in this case must be paused,” he wrote.
The contractor mandate faces legal challenges filed by Republican attorneys general and other plantiffs in several other district courts, including in Arizona, Texas, Florida, Georgia and Missouri.
Those states, like Kentucky and its co-plaintiffs, argue that the mandate will negatively impact companies within their borders — and impose new burdens on the states themselves, since state governments have numerous contracts of their own with the federal government. Florida has also argued that the mandate forces its agencies to choose between violating their contracts or violating state law, since that state now has its own statute prohibiting vaccine mandates.
And the states have commonly used the same argument that proved initially successful in the Kentucky suit: that FPASA doesn’t grant the White House the legal power to mandate contractor vaccinations.
Attorneys for the government have consistently argued that it does. In the Kentucky case, they argued there are longstanding precedents, dating to the 1960s, that give the executive an extremely wide berth in using the statute.
“Courts have concluded, for example, that FPASA authorizes the president to require government contractors to comply with wage and price controls, to post notices at all of their facilities informing employees that they cannot be forced to join a union or to pay mandatory dues for costs unrelated to representational activities, and to require contractors to confirm employee’s immigration status through e-Verify,” Justice Department attorneys wrote.
The government argued that all the president needs to do is provide an explanation for how the procurement changes he’s directing are “rational and reasonable” — in this case, that the vaccine mandate will reduce worker absenteeism due to COVID illnesses and reduce labor costs for federal contracts.
But the judge found the mandate looks a lot more like a public health regulation than a procurement policy, especially since the mandate also applies to contractor employees who work entirely from home.
“Under the same logic employed by the defendants regarding the vaccine mandate, what would stop FPASA from being used to permit federal agencies to refuse to contract with contractors and subcontractors who employ individuals over a certain body mass index for the sake of economy and efficiency during the pandemic? After all, the CDC has declared that obesity worsens the outcomes from COVID-19,” he wrote. “Why couldn’t the federal government refuse to contract with contractors and subcontractors who work in crowded indoor office spaces or choose to engage in indoor activities where COVID-19 is more likely to spread?”
Judge Tatenhove explicitly wrestled with the question of whether he should issue a broader injunction that would have blocked the mandate in all 50 states and U.S. territories. Ultimately, he decided to block it only in the states who had sued in his court, and let the other cases “percolate” through other U.S. district and appellate courts.
“Not only are [nationwide] injunctions impracticable, they ‘force judges into making rushed, high-stakes, low-information decisions,’” he wrote, quoting a 2020 opinion by Supreme Court Justice Neil Gorsuch. “Careful review by multiple district and circuit courts, on the other hand, allows the Supreme Court the benefit of thoughtful and, at times, competing outcomes.”
‘Winning’: Southwest Employees Get Wind of a Huge Victory in Their Fight Against Vaccine Mandates
By Kyle Becker
11/26/2021
Southwest Airlines employees are receiving good news on their pushback against personally invasive vaccine mandates: Their exemptions are “all” being approved.
The word comes via Robby Starbuck, a director and producer who is running for Congress in Tennessee’s fifth district in 2022.
“A pilot at Southwest tells me the company just approved their vaccine exemption and all the exemptions from other pilots they know on the same day,” Starbuck said. “Automakers also just agreed with unions to not require the jab. We’re winning. Biden’s medical segregation policy is falling apart.”
This isn’t the first victory for the brave Southwest Airlines employees who decided to fight back rather than putting their arms out for company policy. In mid-October, one day after employees carried out a peaceful protest outside Southwest Airlines headquarters in Dallas, the company announced it will not be putting employees who are seeking exemptions to vaccine mandates on unpaid leave.
“The employee will continue to work, while following all COVID mask and distancing guidelines applicable to their position, until the accommodation has been processed,” according to an internal note sent to employees that was obtained by Fox Business.
“Earlier this month, Southwest became the latest airline to require its employees to get inoculated by Dec. 8, although it still gave employees the option to apply for medical or religious exemptions,” the report said.
“The Dallas-based carrier said it began mandating vaccines for its 54,000 employees in order to comply with new rules from the Biden administration requiring companies with federal contracts to have a fully vaccinated staff,” the report added.
Southwest’s CEO Gary Kelly earlier said in an interview on ABC News’ “Good Morning America” that employees would not be terminated over the company’s vaccine mandate, despite earlier company correspondence to the contrary.
“We are not going to fire any employees over this,” Kelly said.
The Texas-based company famously experienced a reported “sick out”: There was major flight service disruption that occurred within 48 hours of a lawsuit filed by the Southwest Pilots Association, which specifically mentioned the vaccine mandate.
“Southwest Airlines Co. pilots asked a court to temporarily block the company from carrying out federally mandated coronavirus vaccinations until an existing lawsuit over alleged U.S. labor law violations is resolved,” Bloomberg reported on October 8.
“The Southwest Airlines Pilots Association’s filing also asked for an immediate hearing on the request before a federal court in Dallas, claiming the carrier has continued to take unilateral actions that violate terms of the Railway Labor Act, which governs airline-union relations,” the report continued. “Those steps include the Covid-19 vaccination requirement.”
In related news, a federal appeals court in November delivered a serious blow to President Biden’s unlawful federal vaccine mandate. The Fifth District Court of Appeals’ decision to maintain an emergency stay over the objections of the Biden administration underscored the earlier ruling the vaccine mandate incurs “grave statutory and constitutional issues.” The legal decision’s ramifications were interpreted by legal analysts as ‘national in scope.’
The attorneys general of 11 states have filed a lawsuit to stop the federal government from enforcing its blatantly unconstitutional vaccine mandate. Separately, another lawsuit by 7 states has been filed, in addition to single lawsuits by Texas and Florida.
Pentagon to respond “appropriately” after Oklahoma Guard moves not to follow vaccine mandate
By Erin Doherty
11/14/2021
The Department of Defense will respond “appropriately” to a decision this week by the Oklahoma National Guard to rescind the Pentagon’s requirement for service members to receive the COVID-19 vaccine.
Driving the news: “We are aware of the memo issued by the Oklahoma Adjutant General regarding COVID vaccination for Guardsmen and the governor’s letter requesting exemption. We will respond to the governor appropriately,” Pentagon spokesman John Kirby told Axios in a statement.
- “That said, Secretary Austin believes that a vaccinated force is a more ready force. That is why he has ordered mandatory vaccines for the total force, and that includes our National Guard, who contribute significantly to national missions at home and abroad,” Kirby added.
State of play: The Pentagon’s statement comes after Brig. Gen. Thomas Mancino, who now oversees the Oklahoma National Guard, “rescinded” the requirement.
- Mancino cited a written request from the governor to Defense Secretary Lloyd Austin asking DOD to “immediately consider suspending the COVID-19 vaccine requirement for national guardsmen in Oklahoma.”
- Oklahoma Gov. Kevin Stitt (R) is “awaiting an decision” from the Defense secretary, Mancino wrote in the memo dated Thursday
- “No negative administrative or legal action will be taken against Guardsmen who refuse the COVID-19 vaccine,” according to the memo.
Nov 14, 2021
The big picture: Mancino earlier this week was selected by Stitt to replace Gen. Michael Thompson, who had supported COVID-19 vaccinations and said that members who do not receive the vaccine would be advised on alternative options.
- Thompson told reporters on Thursday that he learned he’d been relieved of duty via social media.
- A spokesperson for Stitt, who has vocally opposed the vaccine requirement for Oklahoma National Guard members, told AP that Mancino’s hire was not due to the vaccination policy.
- “The governor had been exploring making a change for a number of months, and Thompson had submitted his resignation” in October to take effect in January, spokesperson Carly Atchison said, per AP.
- Thompson told the Tulsa World that the governor had asked him to resign in October but that they agreed he would remain in place until January.
New vaccine mandate bans foreign visitors who got the wrong shot
We spoke with a couple separated by the new rule
By Rob Manch
11/12/2021
PORT CHARLOTTE — Imagine being fully-vaccinated against COVID-19 and still being told you can’t get on an airplane.
That’s the reality this week for millions of people across the world, thanks to a new proclamation signed by President Joe Biden. Foreign nationals now have to be vaccinated with an approved vaccine in order to travel to the United States.
“It’s very frustrating because there’s not a timeline to it,” said Daniela Zamuvio, who is now stuck in Mexico because of the new proclamation.
We met up with her boyfriend, Jason Hayner, who lives in Port Charlotte and we spoke with Zamuvio in a Zoom call on his laptop. That’s how they have to stay in touch for now.
“I couldn’t even make a guess as to when I could have Daniela in the states with me,” said Hayner.
Zamuvio can’t be here because the proclamation says foreign nationals can’t fly to the United States if they don’t have an approved vaccine.
“Her vaccine that she received from the Mexican Government back in May is the CanSino vaccine, which is not approved by the CDC,” said Hayner.
The CanSino vaccine was developed in China and has been approved for use in nine countries around the world.
But the U.S. isn’t one of them, and that meant Zamuvio had to cancel her flight last weekend.
“It hit me and I was like oh, I don’t think I’ll be able to travel, and then we had to call everything off,” said Zamuvio.
And Zamuvio isn’t alone. People who got Russia’s Sputnik V vaccine are in the same boat.
“It’s millions of people that are being affected by this and not being allowed to visit their friends and family that reside in the U.S.” said Hayner.
With millions of people now facing these new restrictions, a professor at Florida Gulf Coast University tells us the new restrictions could begin to have an impact on businesses you visit every day. Professor Thomas Felke said areas like Southwest Florida, that rely heavily on the service industry, could start to quickly feel the effect of these restrictions.
“Things like retail, landscaping, all of these types of service-related industries that, we know that that’s where a lot of our workforce migration comes from,” said Felke.
And even if Zamuvio wanted to get one of the approved vaccines, there isn’t any data yet on the health impacts of mixing-and-matching with CanSino.
So for now, Hayner and Zamuvio have to settle for a screen.
“If somebody can give me a solution of what to do with my case, because not being able to travel is not one of them,” said Zamuvio.
There’s another part of the proclamation Zamuvio and Hayner find unfair. It includes a list of 50 countries that are exempted from the rule, because it’s hard to get access to vaccines in those places.
So people in countries like Libya or Afghanistan can travel to the U.S. unvaccinated as long as they test negative for COVID-19, but people like Zamuvio are stuck.
The list of approved vaccines for travel to the U.S. are:
- Pfizer-BioNTech
- Moderna
- AstraZeneca
- Covaxin
- Covishield
- BIBP/Sinopharm
- Sinovac
- Janssen/J&J
Covid-19 Vaccine Injuries/Deaths
11/06/2021
Rumble — Roundtable discussion with vaccine injured and medical experts on federal vaccine mandates and the importance of health care freedom.
美国陆军飞行医官特蕾莎中校关于新冠疫苗的证词
By 萧笙客
11/06/2021
11月2日，飞行医官特蕾莎·朗中校在约翰逊参议员主持的关于新冠疫苗的圆桌会议上的作证。
美国德州胡德堡陆军基地负责四千名陆军飞行旅官兵身体健康和飞行安全的军医特蕾莎反对对官兵、特别是飞行员强制性注射疫苗，向法院提出的临时禁令书写的补充材料。
Sen. Johnson hosts panel highlighting people claiming to be harmed by COVID-19 vaccines
By WEAU 13 News
11/06/2021
WASHINGTON, D.C. (WEAU) – Wisconsin Senator Ron Johnson is giving a stage to people who claim they were harmed by COVID-19 vaccinations.
Tuesday, Johnson held a roundtable with several people who say they or a loved one experienced life-altering side-effects from various COVID vaccinations.
One panelist, who says she experienced adverse side effects from the vaccine, called for a federal safety net for others who are also injured.
Another woman at the meeting claimed that those who catch COVID receive medical help, while those who have adverse side effects to vaccines are ignored.
The panel included researches and doctors who generally agreed vaccines have a role in fighting the pandemic, but also cautioned against mandating them.
Johnson said the panel is not about creating fear or increasing vaccine hesitancy, but says federal health officials aren’t being honest when they say the vaccines are safe and effective, and shouldn’t be mandated.
“I had COVID,” Johnson said. “I’ve had my antibodies tested as my doctor told me. I’ve got a whopping level of antibodies.”
Johnson also spoke about his personal vaccination decision.
“Again, natural immunity should be strong, pretty long-lasting, which is the case of very, you know, many, many illnesses, many viruses,” Johnson said. “And so there’s no reason for me to get a vaccine.”
A Centers for Disease Control and Prevention fact page maintains the vaccines are safe and effective. It also acknowledges the existence of some of the adverse effects discussed at Johnson’s roundtable, and says COVID vaccines are under the most intense safety monitoring in U.S. history.
Survey: Majority of Federal Employees Disagree With Biden’s Vaccine Mandate
Comments submitted as part of the survey show a diversity of thought on the requirement.
By COURTNEY BUBLÉ
he majority of federal employees recently surveyed (53%) strongly or somewhat disagreed with the Biden administration’s COVID-19 vaccine mandate for federal employees, while 44% strongly or somewhat agreed with it.
The Government Business Council, the research arm of Government Executive, sent a survey between October 27 and November 2 to Government Executive and Defense One readers, which drew 3,186 respondents. The survey had a 95% confidence level and margin of error of +/- 3%; the vast majority of respondents currently work for a federal agency but the results did include some retirees and congressional and private sector workers. President Biden announced the mandate on September 9 and the deadline is November 22.
“I am not pro or anti-vaccine, I am pro-choice,” wrote one federal employee in the comments section. “It should be a choice not a mandate, last I knew this was a free country.” Anonymous comments submitted as part of the survey show the diversity of thought on the mandate as well as the nuance of arguments on both sides.
Thirty-percent of respondents said they thought the vaccine mandate will be slightly or moderately effective in protecting the federal workforce from the coronavirus; 42% thought it will be very or extremely effective and 29% thought it will not be effective.
“The vaccine mandate is most likely legal. It’s also probably effective,” said a respondent. “It, however, does not mean the federal [government] should have the power to force adults and the civilian workforce to get a shot that they don’t want.”
The mandate requires all federal employees to get vaccinated against COVID-19 by November 22, or claim a religious or medical exemption. Those who decline vaccination and whose agencies deny their exemption requests will face progressive discipline, up to removal from the federal service.
Another respondent said, “the mandate will not be effective if the many false religious exemptions are approved,” because “most are not sincerely held beliefs, but just people that don’t want to get their vaccine.”
A different person said, “A coworker’s choice not to be vaccinated increases my potential exposure to COVID, potentially increases my workload if I have to cover for them if they are out ill and increases the cost of [Federal Employees Health Benefits]/Medicare.”
The survey looked at the difference of views among those on full telework compared to those going into the office at least one day a week. The chart below shows approval and disapproval levels based on that status, with those going into the office at least once a week more likely to strongly disapprove of the mandate.
“If you can do your job, i.e. telework, without contacting others there is no reason to be vaccinated,” said one federal employee in the comments section. “It is the individual’s body and they should have the right to decide what is done to it without fearing economic ruin.”
Another said, “I worked and put the protocols in to keep everyone safe. I worked on the front lines for the last two years and now you want to fire me?”
One respondent who said they work for the Agriculture Department’s Farm Service Agency said they love their job and customers they serve, “but lately I do not feel the agency has my back or appreciates the work our agency does. After being on the front lines, figuring out telework, changing the way our agency goals are achieved I feel the employees deserve a little more than a ‘do it or get out policy.’ ”
As for the ability to enforce a vaccine mandate, 50% of respondents strongly or somewhat disagreed that the federal government has the authority to enforce the requirement, while 46% somewhat or strongly agreed. There were no major differences in responses from managers and non-managers to this question; however, there were some differences among those in different work environments, as shown below.
The Justice Department’s Office of Legal Counsel issued a legal opinion in July that says federal law doesn’t prohibit public and private entities from mandating coronavirus vaccines, even if those vaccines do not yet have full authorization from the Food and Drug Administration. Also, the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission issued a similar decision in May, which it updated in October.
As for regions, the area with the highest approval rating (54%) of the mandate was the D.C. metro area, which is where federal agency headquarters are concentrated. Respondents living in the Southwest had the highest disapproval rating.
“The D.C. power brokers are using us as pawns,” said a respondent.
While not a question in the survey, many raised concerns in the comments section about loss of employees due to the mandate.
“Is the federal government prepared to lose 20-30% of its workforce to retirements, resignations or terminations?” said one respondent.
“I will retire from federal service if I am threatened with discipline/firing,” said another. “ I am proud of my military service (Vietnam veteran) and federal service (FBI and [Internal Revenue Service]) and continually received ‘outstanding’ performance evals as GS-14. The federal mandate is morally wrong.”
Someone else said, “this is a train wreck, but may provide promotion opportunities for the younger workforce.”
However, there were also several comments encouraging vaccinations. “I sincerely appreciate efforts to get our team vaccinated,” said one person. “I am grateful for the mandate and wish it had come sooner.”
For comparison, a recent survey from Qualtrics, an experience management company, found that the majority of respondents (58%) supported vaccine mandates from either employers or the federal government.
“Employees in the [technology and information technology] industry are the most supportive of federal vaccine mandates compared to those who work in health care, retail and government,” said Qualtrics. “Roughly a quarter of government, health care, and private employees oppose mandates that would apply to them.”
Overall, 42% of respondents want their company leaders to enforce the mandate, while 39% do not, the Qualtrics survey found. That survey was done between October 12 and 15. There were 1,309 respondents who were chosen from a randomized panel and deemed eligible if they live in the United States, are an adult and are at least part-time employees.
Government Executive previously reported about reactions to the mandate from NASA, Federal Bureau of Prisons and other federal employees. While some agencies have shared their vaccination levels with reporters, lawmakers or the public, the levels are not known for all. Top House Republicans are seeking those numbers by November 10.
In one example, as of late October, several intelligence agencies had at least 20% of their workforce unvaccinated, with some as high as 40%, said Rep. Chris Stewart, R-Utah, who is a member of the House Permanent Select Committee on Intelligence, the Associated Press reported on Friday. He cited information that the Biden administration gave to the committee, but hasn’t released publicly, and didn’t name the specific agencies since the full results were classified.
Biden admin considering vaccine mandate for businesses with fewer than 100 employees
OSHA rule for big businesses forces employees to be vaccinated or wear masks and get weekly COVID-19 tests
By Tyler Olson | FOX Business
11/05/2021
The Occupational Safety and Health Administration (OSHA) says it is “seeking comment” about whether businesses with fewer than 100 employees should be subject to the COVID-19 vaccine and testing mandate it is implementing on big businesses.
OSHA’s requirement will force businesses with more than 100 employees to mandate vaccines or else their employees will need to wear masks and be tested for COVID-19 weekly. It will go into effect Jan. 4.
But according to a summary released by OSHA, it appears to be considering implementing the rule for small businesses as well.
“OSHA is confident that employers with 100 or more employees have the administrative capacity to implement the standard’s requirements promptly, but is less confident that smaller employers can do so without undue disruption,” the summary says. “OSHA needs additional time to assess the capacity of smaller employers, and is seeking comment to help the agency make that determination.”
The same language is included in the Federal Register page for the vaccine rule.
A Department of Labor spokesperson told FOX Business Friday that it is indeed considering whether to extend the vaccine or mask and testing mandate to businesses with fewer than 100 workers.
“OSHA chose a 100-employees threshold at this time because the agency is confident that employers with 100 or more employees have the administrative capacity to implement the standard’s requirements promptly,” the spokesperson said. “Because the emergency situation required OSHA to act quickly, the information immediately available to the agency did not allow it to confidently assess the impact on smaller firms.”
The spokesperson added: “OSHA will consider whether to extend the rule to smaller firms in the public rulemaking that begins with the publication of this emergency rule.”
Raytheon CEO warns company could lose ‘several thousand’ employees over vaccine mandate
By Mike Brest
10/27/2021
Raytheon Technologies’s top boss warned that the U.S. aerospace and defense company will lose thousands of employees who have thus far refused to comply with the COVID-19 vaccine mandate.
“So, we’re going to be faced on Dec. 8 with a choice. We’re going to potentially lose several thousand people who refuse to be vaccinated,” Raytheon CEO Greg Hayes said in a CNBC interview on Tuesday. “Now, this is a tough thing, but we are preparing for it.”
Hayes also said that 83% of the company, which has a total workforce of roughly 125,000 U.S. employees, according to Reuters, is already vaccinated while another 6% are “in the process of being vaccinated.”
Additionally, there is another 3% of employees who are seeking either a religious or medical exemption, while another 3% have said they don’t intend to receive the vaccine, the CEO added, though he did not address the status of the employees who do not fall into those categories.
The company has already begun hiring people to fill the upcoming vacancies, Hayes said.
Raytheon had issued a companywide mandate requiring vaccination by Jan. 1, but that order was usurped when President Joe Biden declared that all federal contractors must receive the vaccine by Dec. 8.
Hayes’s comments came the same day Alabama Republican Sen. Tommy Tuberville sent a letter to the White House claiming that Biden’s “federal contractor vaccine mandate will have negative effects on our national security” and called on the president “to remove — or, at a minimum, delay and clarify — vaccination requirements on private companies and academic research institutions that are actively supporting the Department of Defense.”
Similarly, nearly a dozen Republican lawmakers on the House Armed Services Committee petitioned the White House and Defense Secretary Lloyd Austin to reverse the Pentagon’s vaccine mandate for contractors over fears that it could lead to supply chain issues.
Roughly 100 employees at United Launch Alliance, a Lockheed Martin and Boeing joint venture that contracts to both the Pentagon and NASA, walked off the job Monday over the federal government’s vaccine mandates and pledged to continue protesting in the days leading up to the deadline to be vaccinated.
Former WSU football coach Nick Rolovich to sue university over firing after refusing vaccine
According to a press release sent by his attorney, Rolovich is accusing WSU Athletic Director Pat Chun of “discriminatory and vindictive behavior.”
By KREM Staff
10/20/2021
PULLMAN, Wash. — Former Washington State University football coach Nick Rolovich was fired Tuesday, Oct. 19 after refusing to be vaccinated against COVID-19 and now he plans to sue the university.
According to his lawyer, Rolovich will be taking legal action against WSU and all parties responsible for his termination. The decision to terminate Rolovich came after his request for a religious exemption from the vaccine was denied by the WSU. According to his lawyer, WSU “indicated that even if the exemption had been granted, no accommodation would have been made.”
Rolovich is accusing WSU Athletic Director Pat Chun of “discriminatory and vindictive behavior,” according to the statement from his lawyer, Brian Fahling.
“Since at least early April, it became clear that Chun had already determined that Coach Rolovich would be fired,” Fahling says. “Chun’s animus towards Coach Rolovich’s sincerely held religious beliefs, and Chun’s dishonesty at the expense of Coach Rolovich during the past year is damning and will be thoroughly detailed in litigation.”
In the statement, Fahling says, “Chun’s discriminatory and vindictive behavior has caused immeasurable harm to Rolovich and his family. It is a tragic and damning commentary on our culture, and more specifically, on Chun, that Rolovich has been derided, demonized, and ultimately fired from his job, merely for being devout in his Catholic faith.”
Pope Francis, the leader of the Catholic Church, has encouraged people to get the COVID-19 vaccine.
Here is the statement from Rolovich’s lawyer in full:
“The termination of Washington State football coach Nick Rolovich on Monday was unjust and unlawful.
It came after Coach Rolovich’s request for a religious exemption from the vaccine was denied by the University. The institution also indicated that even if the exemption had been granted, no accommodation would have been made. As a result, Coach Rolovich will be taking legal action against Washington State University, and all parties responsible for his illegal termination.
Immediately after terminating Coach Rolovich, WSU Athletic Director, Pat Chun, directed campus police to escort the coach to his car, he wasn’t allowed into his office, and he was not even allowed to speak to his team. Since at least early April, it became clear that Chun had already determined that Coach Rolovich would be fired. Chun’s animus towards Coach Rolovich’s sincerely held religious beliefs, and Chun’s dishonesty at the expense of Coach Rolovich during the past year is damning and will be thoroughly detailed in litigation.
Chun’s discriminatory and vindictive behavior has caused immeasurable harm to Coach Rolovich and his family. Furthermore, the University’s deceitfulness about being unable to accommodate Coach Rolovich even if his religious exemption request had been granted, is exemplified by Chun’s actions arranging a “secret” donor trip that he had Coach Rolovich attend at the height of the pandemic in July 2020.
During that excursion, Chun and other attendees contracted the disease, but Coach Rolovich did not. It is a tragic and damning commentary on our culture, and more specifically, on Chun, that Coach Rolovich has been derided, demonized, and ultimately fired from his job, merely for being devout in his Catholic faith.”
KREM has reached out to WSU for a statement but has not yet received a response.
320万年薪傲视全州公务员 华盛顿州立大学教练拒打疫苗遭开除
10/20/2021
华盛顿州立大学(Washington State University，WSU)足球队总教练罗洛维奇(Nick Rolovich)年薪320万元，在领取州政府薪水的公务员收入排行榜称霸。但因罗洛维奇拒绝遵守华州要求公务员必须接种新冠疫苗的规定，本周稍早已被开除。华盛顿邮报报导，罗洛维奇堪称到目前为止，最为引人注目的公职人员拒打疫苗而丢饭碗案例。
华盛顿州立大学18日宣布已经解聘罗洛维奇。华盛顿州立大学美洲狮队(Washington State Cougars)体育主任秦派特(Pat Chun，音译)指出，罗洛维奇拒绝配合疫苗接种规定，已经失去获得校方聘用的资格。
秦派特在声明中说，这起事件让学校足球队感到沮丧。
42岁的罗洛维奇出身于夏威夷大学(University of Hawaii)足球队，2019年曾获西部山区联盟(Mountain West Conference)最佳教练。罗洛维奇年薪320万元，是领取华州州政府薪水的公务员当中排行最高者。
罗洛维奇今年暑假已经表明坚决不打疫苗，太平洋十二校联盟(Pacific-12 Conference)在洛杉矶举办媒体宣传，由于规定全体出席者必须打疫苗，罗洛维奇便因此缺席。
秦派特指出，校方与罗洛维奇协商长达数月，但罗洛维奇态度坚定，「他有权做出选择，他的决定就是不配合规定」。
华盛顿州立大学校长薛尔兹(Kirk Schulz)则在声明中说，虽然少数人士拒打疫苗而引发轩然大波，但学校接近90%雇员及97%学生则都打了疫苗。
薛尔兹说：「人们可以做选择，而且有好几个月的时间可以决定。这并不是突然发生的。」
除了罗洛维奇之外，华盛顿州立大学美洲狮队另外四名助理教练罗戈(Ricky Logo)、理查森(John Richardson)、史特兹曼(Craig Stutzmann)、韦伯(Mark Weber)，同样因为拒打疫苗，一并遭到开除。
美国ESPN知名体育记者拒打疫苗被开除
本文源自: 金融界网
10/20/2021
迪士尼旗下娱乐与体育节目电视网（ESPN）的知名记者艾莉森-威廉姆斯（Allison Williams）周一表示，她因为拒绝接种新冠病毒疫苗而被解雇，下周将是她在这里工作的的最后日子。
这位明星记者最出名的是她对美国大学橄榄球和篮球比赛的报道，她在社交媒体上的一段视频中说，她要求豁免不接种疫苗的请求被拒绝了。
威廉姆斯从2011年3月开始为ESPN工作。上个月，她在推特上发表声明称，在咨询了医生后，她拒绝接种疫苗，因为她和她的丈夫正试图生第二个孩子，接种疫苗“不符合我的最佳利益”。
ESPN的母公司迪士尼是众多要求员工接种疫苗的企业之一。该公司在一份声明中说，不会对威廉姆斯的个案置评。迪士尼表示，公司正在按照其法律义务，处理员工提出的豁免要求。
ESPN’s Allison Williams explains why she’s giving up her job over a vaccine mandate
By ANDREA HSU
10/20/2021
Lance King/Getty Images
ESPN college basketball and football reporter Allison Williams has joined a small minority of workers who have quit or been fired from their jobs over a vaccine mandate.
“I have been denied my request for accommodation by ESPN and the Walt Disney Company, and effective next week, I will be separated from the company,” she said in a video posted to Instagram on Friday.
ESPN’s parent company, Disney, had announced a vaccine mandate over the summer with a deadline of this Friday, Oct. 22.
In early September, Williams shared on Twitter that she’d decided not to get a COVID-19 vaccine while she and her husband were trying to have a second child.
“Taking the vaccine at this time is not in my interest,” she wrote.
The CDC has urged people who are pregnant or might become pregnant to get vaccinated, saying there is currently no evidence showing COVID-19 vaccines cause fertility problems and no data pointing to an increased risk of miscarriage among people who received an mRNA vaccine during pregnancy.
In the Instagram video, Williams spoke of her medical apprehensions about receiving the vaccine and added, “I am also so morally and ethically not aligned with this.”
“Ultimately, I cannot put a paycheck over principle, and I will not sacrifice something that I believe and hold so strongly to maintain a career,” she said in the video. “I’m going to pray things get better and that I can see you on the television set in some capacity in some stadium, covering some game soon.”
Williams, who had reported for ESPN since 2011, acknowledged she’s not the only one walking away from a career or a profession they love.
Hundreds of hospital workers have quit rather than get vaccinated, but they represent only a tiny fraction of employees overall. For example, Duke Health in North Carolina reported it had fired just 20 people out of a workforce of 23,000.
Meanwhile, United Airlines said it is terminating a couple of hundred of its 67,000 employees who did not comply with the airline’s vaccine mandate. Other employers that have imposed vaccine mandates are also reporting compliance rates topping 90%.
Veteran police officer resigns over vaccine mandate in chronically understaffed department
The department has chronically been understaffed and more officers could resign over the mandate
By Emma Colton | Fox News
9/21/2021
A nearly 30-year police veteran in California resigned over San Jose’s vaccine mandate as the police force continues struggling with chronic understaffing.
“First of all, it’s my religious belief. I also believe I’ve been given a choice about what to do with my body,” Sgt. David Gutierrez said after he resigned from the San Jose Police Department this weekend, KPIX reported.
Gutierrez spent 23 years with the San Jose Police Department working as a homicide detective, internal affairs investigator and patrol supervisor, before retiring in 2019. He then returned to the force as a reserve officer.
Gutierrez worked his last shift at the department on Saturday, and said he sent a letter to the city manager on Monday denouncing the city’s vaccine mandate, which requires city employees to show proof of vaccination or get a medical exemption. Those who don’t comply face disciplinary action, such as termination.
“Disciplinary action is when you have done something wrong,” Gutierrez said, according to NBC Bay Area. “I have done nothing wrong – by making a choice not to be vaccinated why would you be disciplined?”
Gutierrez added that he is not anti-vaccine and would be open to the city testing him on a weekly basis instead of enforcing the vaccine or getting a medical exemption.
“I’m not anti-vaccine. I don’t tell people, ‘You shouldn’t get it.’ But when it comes to my body, it’s my choice about what I want to put in my body,” Gutierrez said.
He sent his resignation letter ahead of the city’s Sept. 30 deadline for employees to get the vaccine, and said more officers could also walk off the job amid the department already facing understaffing issues.
“We are already understaffed and can’t afford to lose more,” Gutierrez said.
“If they let go police officers who’ve been here five years, 10 years, 15 years, you can hire somebody else, but you’re not going to hire that experience though,” he added.
A recent audit examining the last 10 years of the police department found the force has heavily relied on overtime as it struggles with understaffing.
About 200 officers in the department have so far asked for exemptions, many of which are for religious purposes. But the Democratic mayor, Sam Liccardo, says the vaccine mandate is overall working and doesn’t anticipate an exodus from the force.
“This is certainly for the protection of the individual members of our city team. But it’s also, critically, for the safety of our entire community because we know, obviously, first responders are out there interacting [with the public] every day,” Liccardo said, according to KPIX.
Northern NY hospital to stop delivering babies after resignations over Covid-19 vaccine
BY Christine Vendel
9/12/2021
A hospital in New York plans to stop delivering babies later this month because too many maternity workers resigned rather than get the Covid-19 vaccine.
Lewis County Health System Chief Executive Officer Gerald R. Cayer announced at a news conference Friday afternoon that the maternity department would be closed on Sept. 25 until they can find enough vaccinated nurses to safely reopen it.
Cayer told reporters in Lowville, is the North Country of New York state, that seven of the 30 people who have resigned from the hospital worked in the maternity department, according to the news site NNY360.
Seven additional maternity workers have not said whether or not they will get their first vaccine shot by Sept. 27, which is the deadline set by the state for healthcare workers to get at least one shot, according to the news site.
The health system has a higher than average percentage of its staff vaccinated, Cayer told reporters, with 464 employees vaccinated out of 650, or 73 percent.
But there are still 165 employees who have not yet shared their decision with hospital management, WWNY television news reported.
Medical services in five other departments may have to be cut back as well if more staff members resign because they refuse to be vaccinated
“It just is a crazy time,” Mr. Cayer said, according to NNY360, “It’s not just LCHS-centric. Rural hospitals everywhere are really trying to figure out how we’re going to make it work.”
“If you don’t have staff, how do you deliver the service? That’s what I’m going to be talking about,” Cayer said.
The Health System is one of only two county-owned hospitals left in the state and is the largest employer in the county.
