Mediaboss Marketing

Batteries

Published on June 20th, 2020 | by Harry Stoltz

June 20th, 2020 by Harry Stoltz

Lindsey Boylan is taking on representative Jerry Nadlers NY-10 seat in the upcoming 2020 House election. Running on a platform of climate change legislation, curbing systemic inequality, and expanding economic rights, Boylan is pitching herself as someone who will actively fight for a progressive future.

Boylan recently debated Rep. Nadler on the cable channel NY1 to discuss their various policy positions, and why each candidate deserved to win. Ms. Boylans criticism focused heavily on Rep. Nadlers contribution history from various fossil fuel-related companies, along with his record in Congress. The deadline for voting in the New York primary is June 23rd.

Im looking forward to talking about climate change with you today, since it seems to be a central part of your campaign.

Absolutely. If you look at my district on a map, its basically all coastline. My interest in this topic comes from a passion, but we also dont have the luxury of avoiding it, as my district is front and center for the next climate-related disaster.

What are Nadlers weakest points on climate, and how will you be different in those areas?

Ugh, so hes a lot like these progressives that have been in office for decades, where the moment that traction began to pick up around the Green New Deal, certainly, hes on board with it, but hes done virtually nothing to actually lead on this issue in his career, even though he represents a district thats basically all coastline. So, its not that he has the wrong worldview, its that hes done nothing to help, and he only started talking about it once he had a very serious challenger.

About the Green New Deal, how would you support that, in ways other than just voting for it?

When I was a college student at Wellesley, in my senior year, Hurricane Katrina happened. New Orleans was completely flooded, a lot of the levees broke, and that was one of the biggest examples of climate-related disasters that weve had in the US. In fact, it did exactly what climate disasters do, in that it hit our most vulnerable communities the worst. Black residents have still, in many cases, never fully recovered.

The loss of life was not even, either in terms of racial or socioeconomic background, and our government failed at every level, including FEMA. That really inspired me to want to go in for this planet, because the whole question was: how do we do better, how do we rebuild, how could we possibly do something different than just replicate the problems that weve had? And, of course, thats not what happened in New Orleans.

After Hurricane Katrina, its still very uneven. And that question really motivated the first moments of my career as a scholar. My whole professional life has developed around that. The week after I came home from my honeymoon, Hurricane Sandy happened, and I live within the frontline of what was hit by the hurricane. We didnt have power for a week, and this district was one of the hardest hit.

It was probably one of the first disruptive moments besides 9/11 which a lot of New Yorkers had experienced while physically being here. Ultimately, I worked at New York State, and I could actually oversee the recovery, which 7 years after Hurricane Sandy is still administering funds for rebuilding. I also oversaw some of the recovery work in Puerto Rico, after Hurricane Maria. All of these examples are hurricanes that were made worse, and will be made worse in the future because of climate change. I had to oversee the state emergency response in Puerto Rico and the recovery response.

What I think I can fundamentally bring to the table, in a Green New Deal, and getting movement on climate change, is a real understanding of what works and what doesnt, in even responding to the climate-related disasters that we already have that are only going to be increasing. This is a big reason why I want to be on the appropriations committee, because one of the key ways that we failed Puerto Rico was in the response, in terms of getting resources.

We still havent, and thousands of people have died as a result of it. So, I am all in on getting a Green New Deal passed. I have a 6-year-old daughter, and we need to build a better system for her. Were working under borrowed time right now, and the specific skill that I have is operationally managing and having overseen all the massive-scale work in response to climate to these disasters. That will absolutely affect the kinds of positions that I will take in congress.

It really does seem like we have left Puerto Rico behind this last time.

Yes, and thats ultimately a result of failed government policy.

Besides the Green New Deal, which other policies would you like to see implemented?

Im very focused on legislation thats going to help states and localities transfer to alternative energy, so in terms of incentives, anything that further supports the solar power industry, insulation, and anything that supports wind power development. Im less concerned with where the parts are manufactured, and making new jobs for people here, since this is what the solar power industry already does, because the #1 job in the next 10 years are going to be solar panel installers.

The ways in which we can incentivize alternative energy, mass transit, and particularly in respect to building. This is because in a place like New York City, the most pollution is coming from our buildings, not oil. So, anything that deals with those categories, in particular, and Im also very focused on legislation which helps with the refugee crisis globally.

As you probably know, we have more refugees on a global scale than weve ever had in recorded history, which is around 65 million people or so. A lot of that has to do with climate-related factors. If people are not safe, and able to live in their homes, nothing is going to stop them from going where they can, to help their kids survive, and we need figure that out.

I wanted to ask you about EVs, and how we should incentivize them in the future.

I am originally from San Diego, California, and its really unfortunate to me that a lot of the leaders in California at the state level are being undermined by federal regulatory rollback, and I think we need to basically undo everything that Trump has done. Im interested in legislation which helps incentivize that, which kind of goes back to your question about electric vehicles.

I know that one of the biggest issues is battery production, at least that is the case with Tesla, and I would want to caution and say that we need to think very carefully about that aspect of technology development, because we dont want to create massive amounts of waste that we will have to deal with later.

We need to do a lot more for research, and really incentivize advancement on that front. I know that one of the things that I really appreciated about the Obama administration were a lot of the university-level research grants from the Department of Energy that went out to support things like battery production, energy storing capabilities, and related technology which will help advance electric vehicles.

So, I really think that we need to spend a lot more money on research, and need to roll back a lot of the problems created by the Trump administration, particularly in the EPA, and find ways to incentivize electric vehicle production, and not just for states like New York and California.

What I would say is also, for instance in the case of Tesla, them doing charging infrastructure development only really serves a limited group of electric vehicles, and not how it should be developing. Thats the kind of infrastructure which should be led at the federal level, and should be led with a lot of thought, like the way that we developed our US transportation system.

You mentioned the EPA, and the Trump administration actually rolled back roughly 100 environmental rules recently.

Exactly.

Income inequality seems to be another centerpiece of your campaign. I was interested if there is an overlap between that and climate-related issues?

Absolutely. What I saw in Puerto Rico, for instance, is that the people who are the hardest hit, are the people that have the fewest options. People who cant go somewhere else. People who dont have relatives with means to help them. Environmental deprivation and climate change compound issues of inequality.

The people who are hardest hit by this are statistically women, children, and seniors in vulnerable communities. In pretty much all of the examples that I mentioned: Hurricane Katrina, Hurricane Sandy, and Hurricane Maria, which I have researched and been engaged with in my professional life, in every case the people who are hardest hit are the people who suffer from the most inequality, are the most insecure in terms of our economy and housing. Even in terms of FEMA response, it has traditionally been much easier to get assistance if you own your home than if you rent, just as one example.

Where does climate policy fall on your list of priorities if you win this race against Nadler?

Its right at the top. The two greatest issues of my community and our time are income inequality and climate change.

Recently, Sunrise NYC actually endorsed Rep. Nadler. What happened?

They didnt actually endorse him, they said it was a guide. To your point, I think it was total BS that they said that. Unfortunately, power protects power, and based on my experience, typically for a lot of women running for office, endorsements simply enforce the power structures that we have. Its really unfortunate that the Sunrise NYC people didnt educate themselves in advance.

The congressman has taken money repeatedly for decades from the biggest logistic supply chains for corporations in this country. Hundreds of thousands of dollars in coal infrastructure support from various companies. CSX, to be specific, BSNF Railway, Norfolk Southern, etc.

Data and information from the Boylan campaign, verified by Harry Stoltz.

I was actually going to ask you about this, because money in politics is really the issue which affects all other issues.

Yeah, it absolutely is. As youve probably seen, Sunrise NYC is being absolutely silly for their choice, because they did not choose the progressive candidate who will actually act on climate change, and who hasnt had two decades to do it with nothing to show. They even said that I had three investments in fossil fuel companies, which isnt true, because my husband had three minor holdings in fossil fuelrelated companies. It was never mine, and as soon as it was pointed out that he had those, he divested, which is exactly what youre supposed to do. I put very little credence in endorsements where people dont even take the time to understand what theyre talking about.

There are several people who look down on the idea of primarying establishment Democrats in the Trump era. Whats your pitch against that?

Sure. The argument is usually hey, so you seem really great, and really smart, but Im focused on getting Republicans out. Well, think about this like a sports game. There are different players for every position, and the fact that in my community we dont have someone who even knows how to lead, and is just a follower is incredibly harmful to the entire movement. We dont just need people to replace red/blue districts, we need quarterbacks for progressive change.

That is exactly what people like AOC are doing, what people like Pramila Jayapal are doing, like Ro Khanna, like Ayanna Pressley. We actually need people to lead on these things, and that happens to take place in blue districts, because we dont have to worry about winning reelection, because they know that if they happen to do a good job, and if they lead on these important issues, theyll get reelected. You cant do that in a red/blue district, and youve got to do that in my district. And usually when I say that, people listen.

Tags: California, climate policies, climate policy, co2 emissions, Congress, disaster relief, Donald Trump, EPA, FEMA, green new deal, Hurricane Katrina, Hurricane Maria, Hurricane Sandy, hurricanes, Jerry Nadler, New York, NYC, NYC Green New Deal, NYC Sunrise, Obama, Obama Administration, policy, Puerto Rico, Sunrise Movement, Tesla

Harry Stoltz Harry Stoltz is an aspiring organic chemist, and a volunteer student researcher at the California Institute of Technology. He is fascinated by cutting edge technology and a clean future. Harry is the Lead Space Correspondent for CleanTechnica, and also writes about clean energy, self-driving cars, and battery tech. You can find Harry on Twitter @harrystoltz1.

See more here:
An Interview With Progressive Candidate Lindsey Boylan About Climate Policy & Taking On Jerry Nadler - CleanTechnica

Katie Eyer is a professor of law at Rutgers Law School. She co-authored an amicus brief on behalf of scholars of statutory interpretation and equality law arguing that textualism required a finding in favor of LGBTQ employees.

Title VII has prohibited discrimination because of sex since 1964and yet many lower courts have long held that employers are free to discriminate against LGBTQ employees. Yesterday, the Supreme Court held that anti-LGBTQ discrimination is indeed because of sex under Title VII in the consolidated cases of Bostock v. Clayton County, Altitude Express v. Zarda and R.G. & G.R. Harris Funeral Homes v. EEOC. This rulingwhich has enormous implications for equality for LGBTQ workersalso makes clear why progressive textualism, i.e., progressive arguments for the centrality of legal text, is important for the future of equality change.

Before addressing the wider implications of the Bostock decision, it is important to observe how enormously significant the decision is for LGBTQ employees, who remain without explicit protections against discrimination in many states. For many employees, especially in the transgender community, this has meant that employment discrimination continues to be a lived reality, deeply disrupting personal and professional lives. As the many who have lost their jobs in the recent COVID crisis can attest, it is no small thing to be deprived of your source of income, and thus the ability to support yourself and your family. For many LGBTQ workers, this has continued to be a real risk of their working lives, and too often a lived reality.

In a 6-3 opinion by Justice Neil Gorsuch, Bostock makes clear that LGBTQ workers are indeed already entitled to federal employment discrimination protections, despite the long history of discrimination against them (and some lower court judges conclusion that such discrimination is lawful). Title VII prohibits employers from fail[ing] or refus[ing] to hire or discharg[ing] any individual because of such individuals sex. As the majority opinion recognizes, this language required an outcome in favor of LGBTQ rights. Because it is impossible to discriminate against an LGBTQ employee without such discrimination also being because of sex, anti-LGBTQ discrimination is prohibited.

As the majority opinion further elaborates, the reasoning behind this conclusion is straightforward. The Supreme Court has already held, as a matter of textualism, that because of connotes but-for causationmeaning that an employer has acted because of sex whenever that action would not have occurred but for the employees sex. And in each and every case of anti-LGBTQ discrimination, the employees sex is a but-for cause of the adverse action taken against them. Thus, Susan, a lesbian, would not have been fired for her attraction to women if she were Mark, a cisgender man. Similarly, John, a transgender man who is fired for claiming a male identity and having a male appearance, would not have been fired if he, like Mark, had been assigned the male sex at birth.

Gorsuchs opinion for the majority embraces this straightforward textualist logic, and rejects the numerous contra-textual arguments that were offered by the employers and the government in Bostock. As Gorsuch writes:

Those who adopted the Civil Rights Act might not have anticipated their work would lead to this particular result. But the limits of the drafters imagination supply no reason to ignore the laws demands. When the express terms of a statute give us one answer and extratextual considerations suggest another, its no contest. Only the written word is the law, and all persons are entitled to its benefit.

This reasoning, written by a conservative justice in service of an opinion recognizing historic equality rights, is important to note. Although textualism has often been viewed as a tool of conservative legal advocacy, it need not and ought not be viewed that way. As organizations like the Constitutional Accountability Center and other scholars and activists have recognized, textualism is not an inherently ideological methodology, only serving conservative aims. Rather, there are many reasons for progressives, like conservatives, to celebrate a methodology that places limits on the ability of biases and individual beliefs to infect judicial decision-making. Indeed, as the Bostock opinion notes, textualism properly understood can serve as a bulwark against the exclusion of politically unpopular groups from the laws protections.

Thus, for example, as Gorsuchs opinion observes, the public (and Congress) in 1964 surely would not have believed that LGBTQ peoplewho were at that time a highly stigmatized minoritywere covered by Title VII. But as the opinion further notes, this is irrelevant if LGBTQ people are included within Title VIIs broad textual protections (although it would not be irrelevant under an approach that prioritized congressional intent). So too, past textualist opinions by the late Justice Antonin Scalia and others have rejected the exclusion of stigmatized groups like prisoners from the protections of expansive rights lawseven though a more purposivist approach might lead to a contrary result. Thus, although text may constrain legal outcomes in ways that progressives disagree with, so too it can at times ensure that, as the Bostock majority puts it, all persons are entitled to the benefit of the laws terms.

There are important stakes to progressives willingness (or unwillingness) to fully embrace textualism as an interpretative approach. As the dissents in Bostock make clear, control over the very meaning of textualism is a part of those stakes. Both textualism and originalism can be infinitely malleable when only one side of the argument claims the authority to define their contours. This is most strikingly evident in Justice Brett Kavanaughs dissent, which ignores the Supreme Courts own pronouncements (made by the conservative wing of the court) that the ordinary meaning of because of in Title VII is and was but-for causationpronouncements that all but compelled the outcome for the employees here. Instead, Kavanaugh suggests that the court should look to the public and Congress beliefs about expected applications as the barometer of ordinary meaningan approach that bears an uncanny resemblance to long-discredited uses of congressional expectations to contravene text. But his dissent nevertheless unfailingly claims the mantle of real textualism. Without the counterweight of progressive textualist arguments, it seems possible, indeed likely, that a nominally textualist argument like Kavanaughs would have carried the daydespite the fact that that his arguments contradicted prior conservative textualist precedents.

But as Bostock demonstrates, progressives have the ability and the opportunity to reclaim the other side of the debate. As Justice Elena Kagan famously put it in describing Scalias influence, [w]ere all textualists now. That pronouncement ought not signal a defeat for progressive approaches to statutory interpretation. Rather, the rise of textualism offers powerful opportunities for progressive lawyers, scholars and judges to think about the relationship of text to law and the ways that text safeguards the most vulnerable among us.

And those opportunities will be needed in the years ahead. As the racial-justice context vividly illustrates, winning formal legal protectionsin Bostock or indeed in any contextis no guarantee of equality on the ground. The victory of LGBTQ rights in Bostocka very important step forwardwill not translate seamlessly into lived equality for LGBTQ individuals, or for anyone else. Although there will be many fronts in the continuing equality strugglesfor LGBTQ workers, for black and brown victims of police violence, for disabled students denied educational equality, for women subjected to harassment and violencethe law will surely continue to be one. And in those legal struggles, textualism will afford an important tool.

For a vivid reminder of the importance of textualism as a tool, one need look no further than Justice Clarence Thomas dissent from denial of certiorari in Baxter v. Bracey, the same day that Bostock was decided. Even as Black Lives Matters protests continue to grow around the country, Thomas, no wild-eyed liberal, calls in Baxter for the limitation of qualified immunity [b]ecause [it] appears to stray from the statutory text of 42 U.S.C. 1983. The abolition or limitation of qualified immunity, a doctrine that continues to allow many cases of police brutality against black and brown citizens, some of them also LGBTQ, to be dismissed on technical grounds, is surely an important, though radically incomplete, step toward lived equality.

So too, as scholars like Sandra Sperino have shown, many of the doctrines that allow judges to regularly dismiss the statutory discrimination claims of all groupsblack and brown workers, religious minorities, women, people with disabilities, LGBTQ employeesare completely untethered from the statutory text. For that reason, some conservative judges (including then-Judge Gorsuch), have argued for at least some such doctrines abandonment. There are thus reasons to believe that if we want employees of any kind to have access to meaningful discrimination claims, progressive textualism will be important.

The law in the courts is of course only one tool of equality change. Protest, social change, legislative and administrative reform are all no doubt at least as useful for securing the lived reality of equality. But for that part of the work of equality change that will continue to take place within the courts, Bostock serves as a crucial reminder: Progressive textualism is important.

Posted in Bostock v. Clayton County, Georgia, Altitude Express Inc. v. Zarda, R.G. & G.R. Harris Funeral Homes Inc. v. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission, Featured, Symposium on the court's ruling in Bostock v. Clayton County and Harris Funeral Homes v. EEOC

Recommended Citation: Katie Eyer, Symposium: Progressive textualism and LGBTQ rights, SCOTUSblog (Jun. 16, 2020, 10:23 AM), https://www.scotusblog.com/2020/06/symposium-progressive-textualism-and-lgbtq-rights/

See the original post here:
Symposium: Progressive textualism and LGBTQ rights - SCOTUSblog

While celebrating the Africa Day, the Ministry of Foreign Affairs reaffirmed Russias commitment to offer support and participate in the sustainable development processes in Africa. In a videoconference held May 28 with local and foreign media, Russian Foreign Ministry Spokeswoman Maria Zakharova, highlighted the history behind the establishment of the Africa Day, which is observed as an annual holiday symbolizing the desire of the peoples of the African continent to peace, independence and unity.

According to her, the close nature of friendly ties with African countries, the significant experience of mutually beneficial cooperation dates back to the early 1960s, when the Soviet Union unconditionally supported the desire of Africans to free themselves from colonial oppression. It provided them with substantial practical assistance in shaping the foundations of statehood, establishing national economies, and preparing civilian and military personnel.

In recent years, however, African countries have been actively gaining weight and influence in international affairs, are increasingly participating in solving pressing issues of modern world politics and economics, she said.

The creation of the Russia-Africa Partnership Forum was one of the appreciable results of the first Russia-Africa Summit held last year, Zakharova noted, and expressed hope that the mechanism of partnership between Russia and the African continent created during the summit will allow to establish and broaden cooperation.

Looking Back

Under the current circumstances, African leaders and business elites try, most importantly, to reflect on how far Africa has gone in building a unified identity and strides made in socio-economic development. These socio-economic developments in some individual countries were achieved by harnessing internal resources and through bilateral and multilateral relations with external countries and cooperation with development partners.

For example, Soviet Union and Africa had very close and, in many respects, allied relations with most of the African countries during the decolonization of Africa. For obvious reasons, the Soviet Union ceased to exist in 1991.

As a result, Russia has to struggle through many internal and external difficulties. For the past few years, it has been struggling to survive both the United States and European sanctions. Moscow still has a long way to catch-up with many other foreign players there in Africa.

Currently, Russia seems to have attained relative political and economic stability. As we regained our statehood and control over the country, and the economy and the social sphere began to develop, Russian businesses began to look at promising projects abroad, and we began to return to Africa, noted Foreign Minister Sergey Lavrov early September during his interaction with students and staff of Moscow State Institute for International Relations.

Emphasizing that the process of returning to Africa has been ongoing for the past 15 years, he further explained: the return is now taking the form of resuming a very close political dialogue, which has always been at a strategic and friendly level, and now moving to a vigorous economic cooperation. But economic cooperation is not as far advanced as our political ties.

With this understanding, Dmitry Medvedev, while addressing the Russia-Africa Economic forum in July, also added his voice about strengthening cooperation in all fronts. We must take advantage of all things without fail. It is also important that we implement as many projects as possible, that encompass new venues and, of course, new countries, he said.

In addition, Medvedev stressed: It is important to have a sincere desire. Russia and African countries now have this sincere desire. We simply need to know each other better and be more open to one another. I am sure all of us will succeed if we work this way. Even if some things seem impossible, this situation persists only until it is accomplished. It was Nelson Mandela who made this absolutely true statement.

Acknowledging undoubtedly that Africa has become a new world center for global development, Russian legislators at the State Duma (the lower chamber) have advocated for supporting business and economic cooperation with Africa. Thus as a step forward, State Duma has established relations with African parliaments.

During an instant meeting held with the Ambassadors of African countries in the Russian Federation, Viacheslav Volodin, the Chairman of the State Duma, remarked: We propose to move from intentions to concrete steps. Our people will better understand each other through parliamentary relations. The full transcript is available on the official website.

Moving Forward

On April 29, Russian International Affairs Council (RIAC), a powerful Russian NGO that focuses on foreign policy, held an online conference with participation of experts on Africa. Chairing the online discussion, Igor Ivanov, former Foreign Affairs Minister and now RIAC President, made an opening speech. He pointed out that Russias task in Africa is to present a strategy and define priorities with the countries of the continent, build on the decisions of the first Russia-Africa Summit.

On the development of cooperation between Russia and African countries, Igor Ivanov pointed out a few steps here: Russias task is to prevent a rollback in relations with African countries. It is necessary to use the momentum set by the first Russia-Africa Summit. First of all, it is necessary for Russia to define explicitly its priorities: why are we returning to Africa? Just to make money, strengthen our international presence, help African countries or to participate in the formation of the new world order together with the African countries? Some general statements of a fundamental nature were made at the first Summit, now it is necessary to move from general statements to specificity.

Sergey Lavrov, long ago, asked for more substantive dialogue on Russia-Africa issues, and chart ways for effective cooperation. In an interview with the Hommes dAfrique, he stressed time is needed to solve all those issues, but it could start with experts meetings, say, within the framework of the St Petersburg Economic Forum or the Valdai forum, and other events where business leaders of both countries participate.

Experts from the think-tank Valdai Discussion Club, academic researchers from the Institute for African Studies and independent policy observers have noted Russias policy, its current achievements and emerging economic opportunities and possibilities for partnerships in Africa. Quite interestingly, majority of them acknowledged the need for Russia to be more prominent as it should be and work more consistently to achieve its strategic goals, comparing and citing largely unfulfilled pledges over the years.

Established in 2004, its (the club) primary goal is to promote dialogue between Russia and the rest of the world. It hosted an expert discussion titled Russias Return to Africa: Interests, Challenges, Prospects with participation of experts on Africa. Officials from the Ministry of Foreign Affairs, Africa Department were present.

I would like to begin my speech with the words of Foreign Minister (Sergey Lavrov), who said, referring to the current situation: No more fairy tales, joked Oleg Ozerov from the Africa Department at the Ministry of Foreign Affairs of the Russian Federation. For us, Africa is not a terra incognita: the USSR actively worked there, having diplomatic relations with 35 countries. In general, there are no turns, reversals or zigzags in our policy. There is consistent development of relations with Africa.

Over the past few years, contacts between Russia and Africa have expanded, and at the same time, this was also due to the African countries interest in Russia, he added. Nevertheless, Oleg Ozerov is now Ambassador-at-Large with the key responsibility for expediting work on the Russia-Africa Partnership Forum created at the initiative of African participants during Sochi summit.

As Head of the Secretariat, the Russia-Africa Partnership Forum, his task is to prepare for the second Russia-Africa summit in 2022 in pursuance of the agreements, achieved during the first Russia-Africa summit held on October 23-24 in Sochi. The Secretariat of the Forum will also organize annual political consultations of the Ministers of Foreign Affairs of the Russian Federation and the troika of the African Union.

In 2010-2017, Ozerov served as Ambassador Extraordinary and Plenipotentiary of the Russian Federation to Saudi Arabia, concurrently from 2011-2017, Permanent Representative of the Russian Federation to the Organization of Islamic Cooperation.

In conclusion, worth to say Russia sees Africa as a key potential partner in the vision for a multipolar world order, and for now, it is well-known that strengthening ties with African countries is among Russias foreign policy priorities. But, much has to be done to change image, perceptions and the old narratives.

The symbolic Russia-Africa Summit was the result of President Vladimir Putin and the Kremlin authorities progressive steps taken to move toward a new phase in consolidating political and economic ties broadly at the state levels with Africa. The final declaration, joint declaration, seeks to consolidate the results of the summit. It has undoubtedly reaffirmed the goals of Agenda 2063 and the 2030 Agenda for Sustainable Development.

Related

Link:
Libertarian Perspective to the Pandemic and the Biopolitics of Survival - Modern Diplomacy

During recent months of unrest over coronavirus shutdowns and deaths of unarmed Black Americans in police custody, a right-wing extremist group aimed at overthrowing the government has been growing, experts say.

The "boogaloo" movement named for a 1980s breakdancing movieand characterized by members whocarry weapons andwear Hawaiian shirtsand tactical gear looks to exploit unrest in order to start a second civil war.

But there are various facets to the loosely organized group: One generally stems from its original ties to neo-Nazis andwhite supremacists, while a newer facet is libertarian.

"There's a lot of overlap and the boundary is blurry because they both evolved together," said Alex Newhouse, digital research lead at Middlebury Institute's Center on Terrorism, Extremism, and Counterterrorism. "It is very difficult to know if the 'boogaloo boi' you see standing in the middle of the street at a protest is there in solidarity or to incite violence."

Antifa, explained: What is antifa and what does the movement want?

While the full groupis not expected to perform large-scale attacks, individual actors are more likely to initiate violence, Newhouse said.

Here's what to know about the boogaloo movement.

A member of a far-right movement, known as Boogaloo Bois, walks next to protesters demonstrating outside a police department in Charlotte, North Carolina. May 28, 2020(Photo: LOGAN CYRUS, AFP via Getty Images)

The boogaloo meme began emerging in both white power and antigovernment spaces online in the early 2010s, according to the Southern Poverty Law Center.

"In both of these communities, 'boogaloo' was frequently associated with racist violence and, in many cases, was an explicit call for race war," the SPLC said.

Recent events play into the group's hands, said Devin Burghart, executive director of the NationalInstitute for Research and Education on Human Rights.

They believe that in this current moment, the chaos that surrounds us is signaling the potential for an impending second civil war which, believe it or not, they are hoping for because they believe that will rid the United States of all its problems, Burghart told USA TODAY.

There are mainly two wings of the boogaloo movement, but their objective of overthrowing the government and sparking societal collapse remains the same, Newhouse said.One side is made up of some neo-Nazis andwhite supremacists, whose plan fordestroying the government is by starting a race war.

"They want to spark some sort of confrontation that will kill both sides," Newhouse said."They believe, 'If we start the bullets flying, then they'll kill each other' sort of thing," with no regard for who lives or dies.

Another side is characterized as radical libertarian, notablymen carrying weapons and wearingHawaiian shirts. Some have recently beenspotted at Black Lives Matter protests, waving anti-police signs alongside protesters, Newhouse said.

They believe in defending the rights of individuals against the government and have been known to incite violence against police.

Nazis used red triangles to mark political prisoners. That symbol is why Facebook banned a Trump reelection campaign ad.

The libertarian side of the movementbecomes enraged when referred to as a "white supremacist group," said JJ MacNab, research fellow at George Washington Universitys Program on Extremism. She said there are some Black and Hispanic members.

"The earlier boogaloos were white supremacist," MacNab said."The ones that came later did not inherit that side of the belief system. Most of them arent even aware of white supremacy in subsets of the movement until they read it in the newspapers. A vast majority on Facebook are adamantly against it."

The boogaloo bois' relationship to antifa left-leaning, anti-racist groups that monitor and track the activities of neo-Nazis is murkier. The libertarian side of the movement is split between members who see antifa as communists, whom they want to dissociate from, and members who see them as "brothers-in-arms," MacNab said.

The "boogaloo" name isa code word for the second civil war and came from the 1984 movie "Breakin' 2: Electric Boogaloo," according to Associated Press.The film is about breakdancing teens battling to save their local community center from corrupt politicians and corporate development.

Sam Firstenberg, director of the cult classic, told The Hollywood Reporter that the "Electric Boogaloo" began as a meme on the internet. "In the last 10 years or so, it became equal with the word 'sequel,'" Firstenberg said, in conjunction with the second civil war the boogaloo movement aspires to create. "Civil War 2: Electric Boogaloo" began popping up on message boards, The Hollywood Reporter said.

Boogaloo bois often wear Hawaiian shirts, body armor and carry weaponry or tactical gear.

The shirts come from the popular term in boogaloo internet spaces, "Big Luau," from the tradition of luau pig roasts, which boogaloo bois are drawn to because their common reference to police as "pigs," experts with the Middlebury Institute of International Studies say.The "Big Luau" is another code used to describe the fall of society.

Ties to boogaloo: Grand jury indicts 3 men on terror charges over Las Vegas protest plot

In Wisconsin: Young white men with long guns at George Floyd protests likely affiliated with far-right group Boogaloo

The movement,which stemmed from memes in social media pro-gun groups, has been organized through Facebook, Reddit and YouTube.The Tech Transparency Project, a public research and data initiative, identifiedroughly125 Facebook groups relatedto the movement, more than half of which were created between February and April and had recently attracted tens of thousands of members.

"Online extremists are using Facebook to plan and organize for a militant uprising in the United States as they cast coronavirus lockdowns as a sign of rising government suppression," according to a Tech Transparency Projectinvestigation.

Facebook has taken steps to limit the groups. In May, the social media company banned the use of the term boogaloo and related words when they accompany pictures of weapons and calls to action. Later, Facebook said it would no longer recommend such groups to members of similar associations.

Members of the Boogaloo Movement attend a demonstration Saturday at the State House in Concord, N.H., against the lockdown over concerns about the spread of COVID-19.(Photo: Michael Dwyer/AP)

During the coronavirus lockdowns, "something changed," MacNab said.

"It put a pressure on (the boogaloo movement)that I've never seen before. I saw (online) rhetoricthrough the roof on killing cops," she said.

This month, an Air Force sergeant, whoprosecutors claim has ties to boogaloo, faces murder charges in the deaths of a California sheriff's deputy and a federal security officer. He also is accused of wounding five other law enforcement officers.

In March, a Missouri man with ties to neo-Nazis was shot and killed when FBI agents tried to arrest him. Timothy Wilson, 36, was planning to bomb a hospital in the Kansas City area on the day that a stay-at-home order was scheduled to take effect, authorities said. Wilson told an undercover FBI agent that his goal was to kick-start a revolution and referred to his plans as operation boogaloo, according to an agents affidavit.

In May,three alleged boogaloo members were arrested on terrorism-related charges in what federal prosecutorssay was a conspiracy to spark violence during protests in Las Vegas over reopening businessesand George Floyd's death. Authorities allege the three white men filled gas cans and made Molotov cocktails in glass bottles and were headed to a Black Lives Matter protest, according to a copy of the criminal complaint.

"Violent instigators have hijacked peaceful protests and demonstrations across the country, including Nevada, exploiting the real and legitimate outrage over Mr. Floyds death for their own radical agendas," saidNicholas A. Trutanich, U.S. attorney for the district of Nevada.

More: Men tied to 'boogaloo' movement conspired to spark protest violence in Las Vegas, feds say

Contributing:Ed Komenda,Reno Gazette Journal

Read or Share this story: https://www.usatoday.com/story/news/nation/2020/06/19/what-is-boogaloo-movement/3204899001/

Read this article:
The boogaloo movement is gaining momentum. Who are the boogaloo 'bois' and what do they want? - USA TODAY

We think that no matter what happens with the District 1 county commissioner race we should be prepared for a recount.

As of Tuesday night, challenger and recent Douglas County arrival Danny Tarkanian was up 12 votes on Commissioner Dave Nelson.

Over the past week, the daily counts showed Nelson ahead by margins not much larger.

To put the margin in perspective, it is a tenth of a percent of the 11,900 voters who cast a ballot in this election. It definitely confirms that while not every vote makes a difference every time, the potential is always there.

Whether Nelson is re-elected doesnt change the fact that a very different board of commissioners will be in charge in January.

Walt Nowosads lead hasnt changed much since Election Day, which means he will likely be taking a seat on the board. And while Mark Gardner has recognized he still has to win in November, the odds are heavily against his Libertarian opponent in that race.

Steve Thaler used to refer to the majority on the Board of Commissioners as the power of three, and thats a blunt, but accurate reflection, of how the board has worked over the past while.

We suspect that means anyone who has plans in Douglas County requiring action by commissioners will be rushing those over the next six months, and then will hunker down until the pendulum swings the other way.

Here is the original post:
Close vote goes to the wire | RecordCourier.com - The Record-Courier