Mediaboss Marketing

Former Liberal cabinet minister Geoff MacLellan has been named chair of the provinces HRM Housing Panel. Photo: Communications Nova Scotia

Yesterday, Premier Tim Houston announced that former Liberal cabinet minister Geoff MacLellan will chair the newly created HRM Housing Panel, often referred to as the housing task force. Other members of the panel are:

Kelly Denty, Executive Director of Planning and Development, HRM Peter Duncan, Director of Infrastructure Planning, HRM Stephen MacIsaac, CEO, Nova Scotia Lands Paul LaFleche, Deputy Minister, Department of Municipal Affairs and Housing

I attended the announcement yesterday, and so had some questions for Houston about the powers and (even more important) oversight of the panel. My questions with his responses, lightly edited for clarity:

Bousquet: Throughout this process and in the release, theres mention of roadblocks. Can you identify even one roadblock? Ive been covering municipal politics for a dozen years, and it appears to me that most every development proposal gets approved. So what are we talking about?

Houston: I wouldnt agree with your assessment. I mean, we have some developments that have been kind of on the books in discussion for about 10 years. And heres what I would say about the task force. Obviously, there was a reaction to the task force. We heard some members of HRM council speaking out against what the province was planning here. We had others pointing the finger at the province, saying the province is the problem on housing. But when we announced the task force, we started to see some projects approved. We actually started to see some movement. But I think everything weve seen since the announcement of the task force just confirms the importance of the task force. And, you know, right now, if you look at the discussions around the city and in the last week or so you have a situation where everyone is working to keep things affordable affordable housing, rent cap extension. And then you have HRM talking about a 6% property tax increase, and all that will flow down to tenants, will flow down to everyone. So I think it just shows the need for a task force that can really look at these things objectively and put people before everything. But are there roadblocks dealing with HRM? It may be the assessment of some that theres not, but certainly everything I read in the media and from talking to people, not-for-profits included, they would tell you there are lots of roadblocks.

Bousquet:Can you identify one?

Houston: Sure. Theres a situation right now where the province is wanting to move people from a hospital to another building more long-term care. And the inspectors are identifying little issues that I think dont raise to the standard of keeping people in hospital. So theres all kinds of little anecdotal things like that. Theres all kinds of real things like that. But heres what I would say. The focus is we need more housing stock in this province, and we want to be absolutely respectful of the consultation process and all of the concerns of communities. 100 percent will follow that process. But theres also a time for action, and we believe the crisis in housing necessitates more action. And thats what were focused on.

Bousquet: Will the task force be able to change HRMs zoning?

Houston: The task force will be able to. But these arent our intentions. But this is serious stuff. We are sending the message very clearly with this task force that we have one focus thats people; its not politics, its people. And we respect the process, but we need housing for people in this province. And thats what our focus is.

Bousquet: As I understand it now, the growth patterns for HRM, approved building areas can accommodate three times the expected population growth. It sounds to me that there may be a move by this task force to increase those geographic areas and wont that have effect on things like urban planning and transit and greenhouse gas goals and etc.? It sounds like youre setting all that aside.

Houston:No, I dont think so. I apologize if Im having trouble articulating exactly what the intent of the task force is, but I would also remind that theres a transportation task force to that we need to get to as well because transportation is a significant part of housing. So if youre going to open up areas for housing stock, people need to be able to get to the places of employment and stuff. So lets not forget about that. But right now, the immediate need in this province and certainly in HRM is for housing. And if we have general agreement on that, then we would have general agreement on the use of the task force, which is to look at those situations where housing stocks should be built and where theres no good reason why its not, other than some delays. They can be addressed or can be focused in on and say, Well, how do we really get past this? Whats the solution? Heres a problem, how do we really get past this? And this would be the task force if there are files where things are taking a long time and somebody says, Look, Ive been dealing with this for years, I want to build some housing, heres what theyre telling me, then the task force would have the ability to get everyone in the room. We already have everyone in the room with HRM and with the province and say, What is the hurdle and is there a solution here or not? And we can just kind of cut through the noise. Thats all were trying to do is cut through the noise and get housing built. Thats all.

Bousquet: In the housing announcement from a few days ago, there was some money that went to non-profits, but primarily it was subsidies for large development companies and the affordable aspect translated into a household income of above $40,000 a year. Theres a huge segment of the population that makes less than that. Their needs are not being addressed. And theres a criticism that this government is focusing on large development companies perhaps through the task force as well to approve these things when what really needs to be done is there needs to be more money spent on social housing and co-operative housing to create new units for that lower income. How do you respond to that?

Houston: Well, listen, I fundamentally believe that a solution to a housing crisis is more housing. You dont build more housing, youre not going to fix the housing crisis. The very reason for this task force is to make sure that those housing developments and that housing that should be built is built. When we build more housing, we create more opportunities for people that have a place to live. That has a shift on the market. For anyone to suggest that were not focused on affordable housing, I dont accept that. I just think its wrong. Obviously, we want more housing stock across the spectrum and every time you build a housing unit that somebody can move into and vacate, you know, move upwardly mobile. Whatever the case may be, youre talking more people with more income. That opens up a housing stock for somebody else. So were focused on more housing and more housing will have benefits across the spectrum. But particularly those that need affordable housing.

Bousquet: Theres an enormous amount of money were talking hundreds of millions, probably billions of dollars worth of potential development. What safeguards are going to be in place to prevent corruption; is there an ethical review? Is there any oversight of this process?

Houston: Youre talking about government investment in housing?

Bousquet: Im talking about the task force operations. When the city doesnt allow a development, the task force says, screw the city, were going to approve this. Theres a lot of money at stake there. Maybe the task force is doing the right thing, but the opportunity for bad actors is huge in that process. Will there be any safeguards to prevent that?

Houston: I think theres law, legal situations. Look, were focused on building housing stock. Well take every safeguard we can, but when you look at the integrity of the individuals on the task force, I believe in people and Geoff is a person of incredible integrity. The task force members are people of incredible integrity and I still believe in the good of humans.

I just wanted that last question on the record, because Ive seen too often how these things go. On the one hand, there are developers with tens or even hundreds of millions of dollars at stake, and on the other hand there are underpaid, under-appreciated, and unnoticed civil servants, and politicians looking for a leg up. Its a recipe for corruption.

The thing about this is, the potential corruption that is at least possible through the usual development approval process is simply being institutionalized, making it completely legal. Theres a loophole being built into the system, and it will be exploited; developers will push the envelope as far as it can be pushed.

I would feel a little bit better about the process if there were regular reviews by an independent reviewer, something along the lines of an inspector general or auditor.

(Copy link for this item)

Suete Chan

This item is written by Jennifer Henderson.

Suete Chan would have turned 28 today. But shortly after 8am on Wednesday morning, Suete was killed after being struck by a motorist as she was crossing Pleasant Street in a marked crosswalk.

The 41-year-old female driver was issued a ticket for a failing to yield to a pedestrian. HRM police say they are continuing to investigate yet another fatality as a result of a pedestrian-vehicle collision: there have been 12 deaths involving pedestrians in HRM since 2018, and hundreds of collisions that resulted in injuries to pedestrians.

Those who knew and worked with Suete (prounced Soo-tee) are mourning the loss of a talented colleague who immigrated to Canada from Hong Kong in June. Suete worked as the marketing manager for Fairechild Clothing Co located on Mount Hope Avenue in Dartmouth, not far from where she was killed.

Tabitha Osler is the founder and owner of the small company that designs and manufactures childrens outerwear made from recycled plastic. Osler is deeply saddened by Suetes death.

She showed great passion for the business and was so keen to immigrate, I felt I wanted to support her with all the political changes happening in Hong Kong, said Osler. Suete was really proficient at everything she did. Its very sad she was an adventurous spirit who had travelled the world and was just starting to make some real friends here.

Osler has set up a GoFundMe page to help Suetes parents with their travel expenses to come to Canada to collect their daughter.

Meanwhile, HRM police continue to look into the circumstances around her death the speed limit is 50 km/hr in that 300 block of Pleasant Street where she was killed and Wednesday was a dark, rainy morning. Sadder still, as reported yesterday in the Examiner, Pleasant Street is no stranger to pedestrian fatalities. By our count there have been four in recent years.

In February 2019, 57-year-old Gary Harvey was killed crossing near Tim Hortons by a hit-and-run driver on his way to the community college. The 24-year-old driver, Matthew Gerald Kennedy, was charged with negligence and sentenced to 6 months in jail.

Senseless Deaths

An examination of pedestrian fatalities in HRM over the past two years show charges have not been laid against drivers even though their victims were killed while crossing the street in a designated crosswalk. In three out of the four cases, the fatalities occurred between 8am and 9am as people rush to get to work. Here is a short synopsis of three other pedestrian deaths since 2020.

75-year-old Dr. David Gass, a respected and recently-retired family doctor, was killed by the driver of a pickup truck while walking in a marked crosswalk at the corner of Young Street and Kempt Road on March 16 of this year. The driver was ticketed.

On March 31, 2020, Kathy Warren, a Dartmouth grandmother of three was killed while out on her morning walk as she crossed in a crosswalk at the intersection of Portland Street and Eisner Boulevard. The driver was ticketed.

On February 18, 2020 a 74-year-old woman was struck and killed as she was crossing in a marked crosswalk at the intersection of Dunbrack Street and Clayton Park Road by a pickup truck. The 83-year-old driver was ticketed.

Perhaps its time to pressure those tasked with improving Traffic Safety to step up patrols or reduce speed limits in areas where the most frequent accidents occur. That data is all contained in HRMs Open Data portal although it is not user friendly navigate and could and should be used to inform decisions to prevent more pedestrian deaths.

(Copy link for this item)

Gabrielle Horne. Photo: gabriellehorne.com

Journalists saved my life. When I was one person facing the awesome power of a public institution gone bad, journalists told my story over and over, refusing to go away, refusing to move on, refusing to buy into PR lies, refusing to allow the hospital to get away with it, for 18 years. And they got me through it, and the light they shone made justice possible.

Today and every day, I send all my love to journalists everywhere, whether they are in war zones, or telling hard stories in national newspapers, or covering the local news because all news begins as local.

There is a special place in my heart for my local news enterprise, the Halifax Examiner, reporting home to my heroes Stephen Kimber, Jennifer Henderson, and Tim Bousquet. Take a look. You might find your heroes there, too.

Chris Miller in the Blue Mountain-Birch Cove Lakes Wilderness area. Photo @NSwilderness

I have been a subscriber to the Halifax Examiner since Day 1. I am a subscriber because journalism is essential for our society, to shine light in dark corners and to hold people in power accountable.

I also subscribe to the Halifax Examiner because of its particular focus on key environmental issues in Nova Scotia, including clearcutting, species-at risk, open-pit gold mining, Northern Pulp, and the protection of Blue Mountain-Birch Cove Lakes. These issues matter. And without the reporting by the Halifax Examiner, many would simply go unreported and the public would be non-the-wiser. That situation would be unacceptable. I hope you will subscribe, too.

Halifax Transit Route 401.

This Saturday morning at 7:41am will mark the first time the city has offered weekend transit service to the Black community of East Preston, reports Matthew Byard. That service is offered through Halifax Transit route #401.

Despite this and many other changes that took effect this week to the Halifax Transit system, one East Preston man says the changes are definitely not an overall improvement to the bus service in his community.

Even when they get it half right, they get it wrong, East Preston resident Marshall Williams said.

Click here to read East Preston resident says his community is underserved by Halifax Transit: Even when they get it half right, they get it wrong.'

(Copy link for this item)

Photo by Fusion Medical Animation on Unsplash

A man in his 70s who lived in Nova Scotia Healths Central Zone has died from COVID-19. He is the 108th Nova Scotian to die from the disease. Additionally, the province announced 22 new cases of COVID-19 yesterday.

This morning, the province opened up vaccination appointments for children aged 5-11. Parents and guardians can gohereto make an appointment.

(Copy link for this item)

One of the first lies we tell children is that sticks and stones may break my bones, but words shall never hurt me.

In fact, words can and do hurt, and we all have scars from hurtful things said to us. More, people use their words to organize like-minded people, recruit new people to the ugly cause, and these movements can become not just ugly but despicably violent and even culture-changing.

But how to respond? Ive been thinking a lot about how we react to bad words through the pandemic, as Ive watched people of ill-intent exploit our reasonably open and democratic processes to advance their goals. As I noted Monday, there truly are such bad actors, and more of them than we often acknowledge and Ive just ignored them for fear of amplifying their false rhetoric, which is their aim.

Those bad actors are mostly people who just want to cause harm for its own sake, but some of them are people who are exploiting peoples fears for a straight money motive.

Ann Coulter is perhaps the uber troll, having learned how to make a lot of money by saying outrageous things, and then profiting even further by getting a reaction to her hateful speech. I wrote about this in 2018:

It goes like this: Some marginal student group invites an outrageous speaker and gets student union money to pay them. Students object to the outrageous speaker and to the use of their money to pay them. There are protests, people call for the speaker to be banned from campus. Then, the marginal student group and its marginal political cohorts in the wider world point to the protests as proof! that it is the students, not the outrageous speaker, who hate free speech and everything good. Not-very-intelligent free speech advocates jump on the cause, and the outrageous speaker gets a higher profile, is invited to appear on national TV, sells more books. Rinse, repeat, over and over again for 30 years and counting. Ann Coulter has made an entire career out of this. Now that Peterson dickhead is making millions of dollars with his YouTube vids, and evidently Mehta wants on the gravy train.

A word of advice to students: Youre being played. I dont know what to do about that, but you should be aware of it.

A word of advice for free speech advocates: Hey, maybe look beyond the ivy on your campus walls, eh? Where were you when teachers were being told not to voice opinions about the Glaze Report? Your silence about the moves against BDS activists is deafening. What about free speech for prisoners and political detainees? When you advocate for the free speech rights of only a certain kind of right-wing asshole and ignore the free speech rights of people with progressive causes, youre seen for what you are: a shill.

A word of advice to everyone else: Twenty-something college students dont run the world, and what happens on college campuses is ultimately not very important. Worry not! Most of the students will soon enough graduate into jobs where they will fall in line with the banker and capitalist mafias that actually do run the world, and your desire to use the n-word or hate on transpeople or whatever will be forever protected by law in any case.

A couple of weeks ago, I changed my pinned Tweet (the first one people see when coming to my Twitter account), to this:

A reminder that you dont have to amplify an obvious troll with a small number of followers by responding to their misinformation and bullshit: thats exactly what they want you to do.

Still, while I caution against amplification, I honestly dont know what to about this. I only play an all-knowing wise guy on TV; Im not one in reality.

So when earlier this year Philip Moscovitch pitched a story about a library book that demeaned transpeople, and that some transpeople wanted removed from the library, I was a bit trepidatious: were we going to amplify a stupid book such that wed draw unneeded attention to it? But, as a not all-knowing wise guy, I respected Phils instincts, and he came back with a straight-forward piece of reporting, interviewing people with competing opinions, and exploring the meaning and purpose of libraries from those varied perspectives.

But then, as I feared, the article was picked up by TERFs and other people who hate transpeople and used as proof! that it is transpeople, and not the books author, who hate free speech and everything good. I havent checked the analytics recently, but as I recall the article is one of the top five ever published by the Examiner in terms of number of readers, at least so far as the headline went. And I feel kinda weird about that, as we have no doubt amplified the book, which people tell me is full of hateful and harmful shit (I havent read the book, but I have no reason to disbelieve them).

Evelyn White. Photo: Facebook

I was again a bit trepidatious when this week Evelyn White brought an opinion piece to the Examiner about the library acting as a conduit for bringing legal help to transpeople.

A word about Evelyn. She is hands-down the most stylistically excellent writer I know, and no offence to all the other excellent writers I work with. Just observing Evelyn has hopefully improved my own writing a tiny bit, but Im the first to admit I am still by no means even a capable writer in the stylistic sense.

And Evelyn has a life story, which shes written about in the Examiner and elsewhere. She was trained as a cub reporter by working alongside Randy Shilts, who changed the way we report on gay people and AIDS. Evelyn went on to write a biography of Alice Walker. When she and her partner moved to Halifax, she contacted me to have coffee, I think to school me, which was necessary.

All of which to say, I have immense respect for her professionalism, and I consider her a friend.

As with Philip before her, I was trepidatious with Evelyn once again getting us into this territory, for a couple of reasons: I dont want to needlessly offend people and I dont want to again amplify that damn book. But again as with Philip, I simply deferred to her as a writer and trusted her judgment.

I will say this: the role of libraries is complex, especially for those of us who came of age before the internet. As a child, the library was the one place where I, a nerdy kid with zero social skills, could find refuge from the teasing and ridicule that constituted everyday life for me. I both lost myself in books I discovered at the library, and found myself in books I discovered at the library.

I had no idea I still have no idea how library collections are, er, collected, and how theyre maintained. I know there were lots of truly dangerous books at my local library (were talking about a library in a deeply racist southern community). Probably, if my parents knew what I was potentially exposed to, they might have been a bit worried, but I think in the end part of the finding myself aspect of going to the library was learning how to navigate through the barrage of competing views represented in the collection and coming out the other end as a somewhat rational and ethical person.

But WTFDIK? Maybe its all just damned dumb luck. I once noted that:

It occurs to me now that at least in terms of teenage boys, Ursula Le Guin is the anti-Ayn Rand. Give a teenage boy a copy ofAtlas Shrugged and theres a good chance hell grow up to be one of those horrible people who thinks hes a superman void of any sense of social responsibility and that hes benefitted not at all from a world constructed precisely to enrich men like him at the expense of everyone else. But give a teenage boy a copy of The Dispossessed and theres a good chance hell, well, he wont grow up to be that other guy.

Anyway, in her opinion piece, Evelyn defends the librarys interactions with transpeople, including by highlighting the legal work. She wants to set aside the book issue:

Reflecting on the librarys indisputable support of transgender people, I was perplexed by those who, earlier this year, initiated a boycott against its scheduled Pride events. Their gripe? The refusal of library staff to remove from the collection a single title that some decried as transphobic. Reasonable people can disagree.

As for the contested transgender book, Im riding with a renown mantra that has held wide sway in the 2SLGBTQIA+ community: Take what you need and leave the rest.

These lines are generating a great deal of negative response from transpeople and others, and now my Twitter feed is full of people calling it, and me, out.

I dont have strong opinions one way or the other about removing the book from the library. I dont think its any great affront to free speech to limit whats in the library by having an ethical filter that excludes this one particular book hell, anyone can find ways to obtain the book on the internet, and probably read the whole thing for free. And while Im not trans, so I cant truly know, I cant see how one piece of ugly shit on a shelf somewhere is going to irreparably harm someone, especially when there are other resources in the same building that can help them.

I worry more about amplifying the shit book, which will cause ugly people to organize and feed off each other to make the world that much more ugly. And once again, I feel like the Examiner has inadvertently served as the vehicle to amplify the book, as people opposed to it are not considering the ramifications of making it a cause clbre for the reprehensibles.

So, at the risk of further amplification of the shit book, Ill accept pitches from transpeople who want to write about this, select the best, and well pay our usual rate.

I have no doubt, none at all, that this is not a satisfactory response to those now attacking me. So it goes.

This all deeply saddens me.

(Copy link for this item)

The sun was risen upon the earth when Lot entered into Zoar.

Then the Lord rained upon Sodom and upon Gomorrah brimstone and fire from the Lord out of heaven;

And he overthrew those cities, and all the plain, and all the inhabitants of the cities, and that which grew upon the ground.

But his wife looked back from behind him, and she became a pillar of salt.

And Abraham got up early in the morning to the place where he stood before the Lord.

And he looked toward Sodom and Gomorrah, and toward all the land of the plain, and beheld, and, lo, the smoke of the country went up as the smoke of a furnace.

Read the original here:
The latest pedestrian to be killed in a marked crosswalk was a 27-year-old immigrant starting a new life in Dartmouth - Halifax Examiner

Normal text sizeLarger text sizeVery large text size

Tangier Island, Virginia: As she surveys her waterlogged front lawn, Bonnie Landon doesnt dare think about the future. The present is upsetting enough. Its been less than a year since her husband of almost six decades, Harold, died. Now she fears she will be forced to abandon the home they shared for their entire marriage.

Landon, 77, lives on Tangier Island, a tiny and remote community in Virginias Chesapeake Bay located 150 kilometres from Washington DC. The only way to reach it is by a ferry ride that takes between 45 minutes and an hour from the US mainland. Once you arrive, mobile phone service is virtually non-existent. The marshy island which spans just three square kilometres is so small most people get around on golf carts rather than cars. No alcohol is allowed to be sold, reflecting the deeply conservative and devoutly Christian nature of the community.

Bonnie Landon stands in front of her home amid her flooded lawn on Tangier Island in Virginia.Credit:Amanda Andrade-Rhoades

Landons lawn is submerged in ankle-deep water following a storm the previous night. It wasnt an especially dramatic downpour, but because of Tangiers low-lying topography, even minor storms can trigger heavy flooding. This happens when the tide comes up, Landon says. She adds that the problem has been getting increasingly bad over recent years.

While the western side of Tangier is partially protected by a break wall of rocks, the eastern side, where Landon lives, is entirely exposed to the elements. We need a seawall bad on this side of the island, she says, the desperation rising in her voice. Without it, well just be underwater.

Shes not alone in her pessimism. Tangier Island is groaning under the weight of severe economic, demographic and environmental strain so much so that its very existence is in doubt. While tourists commonly say that visiting Tangier feels like stepping into the past, scientists say it instead offers a glimpse of the future in a world of catastrophic climate change.

According to US census data, around 1000 people lived on the island in the 1940s - a figure that has plunged to just 400 or so today. The decline is so severe experts have labelled it a demographic collapse.

Most everybody who graduates high school leaves the island now, says ferry captain Mark Haynie, who was born and raised on the island. Theres a lot less people around than when I was a boy.

The islands crab and oyster harvesters known as watermen are struggling to make a living because of environmental regulations and falling prices. Worst of all, an estimated two-thirds of the islands land mass has disappeared since 1850. Much of what remains are swampy wetlands unfit for human habitation.

In a couple more years you might not see none of this, waterman Clayton Parks says as he gazes at Tangier harbours distinctive wooden crab shanties. Were getting washed away.

Until recently, Tangier was famous for two reasons: being the soft shell crab capital of America and the unique dialect of English that is spoken on the island. In 2015, it shot to international attention when a paper in the journal Scientific Reports predicted its residents could become some of Americas first climate refugees. According to the papers authors, the island may have to be abandoned within 25 years because of sea level rise associated with climate change.

Tangier Island is a deeply conservative and devoutly Christian society.Credit:Amanda Andrade-Rhoades

As world leaders prepare to meet in Glasgow for a crucial climate summit next week, Tangier Island is precisely the type of place environmentalists point to when arguing for dramatic cuts to carbon emissions.

The catch is that most of the islands residents dont believe that they are living on the climate change frontline. Instead, they largely blame naturally occurring factors that have ravaged the island for centuries.

I dont believe its got anything to do with the changing climate, Landon says of the tides she fears will one day engulf her street.

Even typical storms can cause major flooding on the streets of Tangier Island.Credit:Amanda Andrade-Rhoades

James Eskridge, Tangier Islands mayor for the past 14 years, never tires of telling the story. After all, getting a phone call from Donald Trump was one of the highlights of his life. In June 2017, a CNN crew visited the island and asked Eskridge if he had a message for Trump.

I said, Yes, tell him I love him like family, Eskridge recalls over lunch at Lorraines, a seafood restaurant near the towns marina. Like nine in 10 of the islands residents, Eskridge voted Trump in the 2016 election. There are very few Democrats on the island, Eskridge says. We allow them to live here.

Mayor James Ooker Eskridge has lunch at Lorraines Seafood Restaurant on Tangier Island.Credit:Amanda Andrade-Rhoades

A few days after the CNN interview aired, Eskridge, a lifelong waterman, was out crabbing when his son drove out in a boat to find him. He said, Dad youve got to get home, the President wants to talk to you. I said, The President of what? I didnt know if someone was joking with me.

Trump and Eskridge spoke for around 10 minutes, bonding over their opposition to environmental red tape and scepticism about climate change. Eskridge says Trump assured him: Tangier is not going anywhere. The abundance of Trump 2024 flags already flying on the island suggest the former president remains as popular as ever here. We were very disappointed, Eskridge says of Trumps 2020 election defeat. I know its controversial, but Im not so sure he lost, he adds, backing Trumps unfounded claims of widespread election fraud.

Eskridge, known universally on the island by his childhood nickname of Ooker, has a Jesus fish tattoo on one arm and a star of David on the other. Over the years he has named his pet cats after an array of famous conservative figures including right-wing pundit Ann Coulter and Supreme Court justice Samuel Alito.

Mark Haynie drives a boat between Crisfield, Maryland and Tangier Island in Virginia.Credit:Amanda Andrade-Rhoades

As a waitress brings out servings of soft shell crab sandwiches and fries smothered in crab dip, Eskridge reflects on what makes Tangier such an unusual place. The isolation from the rest of society, he says, fosters a sense of community that has largely disappeared from modern America.

My kids live on the mainland and dont even know who their neighbours are. Thats so odd to me to live by somebody for years and never talk to them. Its a different world.

Then there is another byproduct of Tangiers remoteness: the language islanders use among themselves.

This time of year, people say Hawkins is coming, Eskridge says. To prove his point he yells out to a diner at a nearby table: You know who Hawkins is, dont you?

Oh yeah, replies Mark Crockett, a local waterman and ferry operator. We dont want to see Hawkins just yet, were not ready for him.

Jamie Parks brings a plate of crabby fries to a table at Lorraines Seafood Restaurant.Credit:Amanda Andrade-Rhoades

Eskridge explains that Hawkins, in the Tangier lexicon, means cold weather and little or no money being made. I dont know where it came from: my father said it and my grandfather used to say it.

Other local phrases include to have the mibs (to smell), to be dry as Peckards cow (to be thirsty) and to be selling cakes (to have your fly down). Islanders also use what is known as backwards talk in which they say the opposite of what they actually mean. To describe a stranger as ugly, for example, is to say you think they are attractive.We tone it down when were talking to folks from the mainland, Eskridge says of the dialect.

After lunch he takes The Sydney Morning Herald and The Age on a golf-cart tour of the island and a boat ride to his yellow-and-lime green crab shanty. He says journalists from 40 countries have visited the island in recent years, but proudly notes this is his first time hosting a reporter from Australia.

Along the way Eskridge inspects his crab pots to see what has arrived overnight. Hes a man in his element, doing what he believes God put him on earth to do. Explaining why he never wants to live anywhere else, he says: Its the freedom we have here. Crabbing, working the water, you are your own boss, you make your own hours.

Like the scientific experts, Eskridge believes his beloved island is in a fight for survival. Its disappearing, he says of the place where he grew up, and his father, grandfather and great-grandfather before that. Weve lost five or six other smaller communities around Tangier that have gone underwater.

James Ooker Eskridge takes in a crab trap.Credit:Amanda Andrade-Rhoades

But he disagrees with them on the cause of the problem. Rather than rising tides caused by climate change, he says coastal erosion is to blame. Im not concerned about sea level rise, he says. If I see the sea level rising I will say so, but to me the sea looks the same as when I was a kid.

He regards the debate about shifting from fossil fuels to renewables as a distraction from his mission to get as much of the island as possible protected by stone breakwalls. Solar panels would be good for the island if we could pile them up on the shoreline and make a seawall out of them, he quips.

David Schulte, a marine biologist with the Army Corps of Engineers who co-wrote the attention-grabbing 2015 paper on climate changes impact on Tangier, insists a sea wall will not be enough to save the island.

You can build a ring of stone around the edge of the island, but the problem is that sea levels are going to continue to rise and convert the high ground the town is sitting on into swamp and marsh, he says. And you really cant live in marsh.

For a forthcoming paper in the peer-reviewed journal Frontiers in Climate, Schulte found alarming declines in the height of Tangiers three upland ridges. He says its an important contribution to the debate over sea level rise and erosion. These ridges are not on the coast, so are not subject to coastal erosion. Any decline in their extent can be directly attributed to sea level rise.

Even more worryingly, he found that sea level rise in the Chesapeake Bay is trending towards the higher end of estimates, meaning the island could be uninhabitable within 20 to 25 years.

In the next couple of decades a combination of sea level rise and erosion is going to drive them off the island unless significant action is taken. I dont think theres any way to save Tangier without a massive engineering undertaking.

This would involve raising the height of the island ridges, temporarily relocating all residents and retrofitting the islands plumbing and electricity systems an expensive and laborious exercise. Given the islands small and declining population, its a price American taxpayers may not be willing to pay.

Waves break on the shoreline on Tangier Island.Credit:Amanda Andrade-Rhoades

Heartened by the attention the island has received in recent years, Eskridge is more optimistic. I think well get the help that we need in time, but its taking a while, he says. The fight for Tangiers survival is not one he can conceive of losing. When we talk about saving the island, Im not just talking about a piece of land. Im talking about a culture and a way of life. Weve been here for hundreds of years and we plan to be here for hundreds more.

Get daily updates on the climate summit that will shape our future. Sign up to our COP26 newsletter here.

Read this article:
The Trump-loving, climate-sceptic island sinking into the sea - Sydney Morning Herald

Federalist Culture Editor Emily Jashinsky and D.C. Columnist Eddie Scarry discuss American Crime Story: Impeachment, Ryan Murphys stab at the scandalous affair between Bill Clinton and Monica Lewinsky.

Emily Jashinsky: Ryan Murphy usually loses me around the first episode of his series and seasons. His insane output means a lot of his work is formulaic, and his critical acclaim means a lot of it is exhaustingly self-indulgent.

But American Crime Story: Impeachment is Murphy at his best, giving strong women their due with balance and passion. He also does something rare, capturing D.C. as the fluorescent-lit hellscape that it is while also conveying the citys drama and gravity without being overly romantic.

The casting is both perfect and terrible. Edie Falco is a letdown. Colbie Smulders is a vision. I think Sarah Paulson and Murphy are doing Linda Tripp justice, something shes never really been afforded. What do you think, Eddie? The casting is a little controversial, but who are your standouts and letdowns?

Eddie Scarry: The only real disappointment Ive had with the casting is with Monica! The real one is and was a lot more attractive and had a certain confidence. Or that was my impression at the time as a young not-yet-gay boy catching glimpses of her on TV.

Beanie Feldstein just fit my memory, and I wonder if Lewinsky (credited as a producer on the show) was in favor of that casting. Otherwise, Sarah Paulson as Tripp is my absolute favorite thing on TV of 2021.

I didnt know much about the real Linda Tripp because much of what I learned about the Clinton impeachment was done years later, as an adult and through reading. So if she was anything like this character in the show then, well, she was certainly a character.

Why do you hate Falco? She might yet have her moment as Hillary.

EJ: The confidence point is an excellent one. We see glimpses of it from Feldstein, but not with the swagger of someone who would walk around in a beret. We know Lewinsky said she was involved in pretty much every minute of the show. I think that raises a lot of serious questions. The show is obviously dramatized, so are we to assume Lewinsky rubber-stamped exaggerations and fictionalizations of the events? If so, whats accurate (and new) and whats dramatized?

Falco should have used the prosthetics to look more like Hillary. Thats kind of how ACS works. Its a distraction that she didnt. Id like to see more of her too, although Im glad they let Tripp repeat the gossip about the Clintons coming into the White House with bad attitudes and a sense of entitlement. The Paula Jones casting is incredible too, although I didnt love Taran Killam as her husband it was cartoonish.

All that aside, do you think the show is succeeding because of 90 nostalgia and the benefit of built-in familiarity, or because its also good on its own merits? I think the latter is true, but I can understand the argument for the former.

ES: I would guess its probably true that the audience likes seeing this culture-defining saga play out in a storified and dramatized way that we all have such sharp memories about. But I also think that for a lot of people whove tuned in, they had no idea that all of this started with Vince Foster and Whitewater and a special counsel, and then there were these colorful people like Ann Coulter and Matt Drudge pulling so many strings.

All of that to me is SO MUCH more fascinating than the low-rent Monica-Clinton affair. And I would think a lot of people finding out about that stuff for the first time are also really fascinated by it.

EJ:Okay, I agree completely with that. Great point. Fearful of being in bed with the vast right-wing conspiracy, legacy media has smoothed out the rough edges of the Clinton administration for decades. But its a fascinating story! And Murphy is actually diving in, from Drudge to Coulter to Paula Jones.

That story has been waiting to be told in this format. And Murphy is subtly very brave by letting Smulders really nail Ann Coulter and her lesser-known contributions to the saga. She comes across exactly as she should, unusually witty and surprisingly brilliant for someone so young and beautiful.

Ill also add that I think the Clinton-Lewinsky scandal is often depicted as a fling and Murphy is plumbing the depths of the relationship to great effect. It was both sexual and emotional, and Lewinsky, having received hatpins and copies of Leaves of Grass from the leader of the free world, was obsessively in love. Its easier to understand why when you have the full context.

Do you think the show is having any meaningful effect on the publics perception of the entire ordeal?

ES: Right, the perception created by the media at the time was that the affair was this sexual spicy secret that two naughty adults were caught with but it was way more serious. Im not some feminist champion or a storied Monica sympathizer, but something I do hope people take from the show is that to be the subject of a national pile-on, the butt of endless jokes, whether on late-night TV or now the internet, can be a very debilitating and lonely thing, especially for someone who doesnt work in the business like you and me.

Thats what happened to Lewinsky and she was arguably the first one to suffer it. At 24!

The rest is here:
Is 'Impeachment' Changing The Way America Sees The Clinton Affair? - The Federalist

The new FX limited series Impeachment: American Crime Story the third in a true-crime anthology that started with The People v. O.J. Simpson and continued with The Assassination of Gianni Versace covers the events leading up to Bill Clintons impeachment in December 1998, with a heavy emphasis on the fallout from his sexual relationship with Monica Lewinsky. Fans of the brilliant Slate podcast Slow Burn will surely remember many details from its Leon Neyfakhhosted second season three years ago, which included among its eight episodes bonus interviews with major players like Ken Starr, the special prosecutor and author of the infamous Starr report, and Linda Tripp, who had befriended Lewinsky at the Pentagon and helped reveal her secret affair to the independent counsels office.

For all ten episodes of Impeachment, weve asked Madeline Kaplan, the researcher for the Clinton-Lewinsky season of Slow Burn, to fact-check the shows major events and minute details against her own understanding of the events. (Kaplan and Neyfakhs eight-book reading list can be found here and doesnt include the Starr report and its eyebrow-raising appendices.) Kaplan followed Neyfakh (and co-creator Andrew Parsons) to Prologue Projects, where she serves as a producer on Neyfakhs Fiasco and other podcasts.

As it happens, the sixth episode, Man Handled, covers the dramatic day that unfolded in the first episode of Slow Burn: January 16, 1998. On the eve of President Clintons deposition in the Paula Jones civil case, Ken Starrs team arranges to have Linda Tripp set a meeting with Monica Lewinsky at the food court in Pentagon City Mall. Once the trap was sprung, FBI agents working with the OIC (Office of Independent Counsel) escort Lewinsky to Room 1012 of the nearby Ritz-Carlton hotel, where shes interrogated by all male prosecutors, chiefly Mike Emmick (Colin Hanks) and Jackie Bennett (Darren Goldstein). A sliver of the episode is also given over to Ann Coulter (Cobie Smulders) and George Conway (George Salazar), who have copies of the Tripp-Lewinsky tapes and treat themselves to a listening party.

After watching Man Handled, Kaplan talked about Lewinskys long, traumatic, and, at times, surreal day with her interrogators, Tripps uncomfortable role in the sting operation, and the questionable strategy used to persuade Lewinsky to cooperate.

The major plot and character beats that shape Impeachments narrative.

Tripps feelings going into the dayShe definitely said that she felt bad about [the sting operation], but she also said she believed it was absolutely the right thing to do at the time. In this episode they seem to show a lot of her maybe wavering on whether doing this was the right thing or whether she should show up and go through with it at all. But in her recollections, it seems that she felt guilty about it and was stressed and scared during this period, but she was also convinced that this was the right thing for Monica.

Tripp actually being present at the hotelThis is often described as the result of poor planning or confusion. And I think the intensity of Monicas immediate reaction kind of threw [Starrs team]. They were set up in these adjoining hotel rooms and when they got up there, Monica remembers saying, Make her stay and watch. I want that treacherous bitch to see what shes done to me, which they used at the very beginning of the first episode. And then theyre like, Okay get Tripp out of here. And they put her in the other room, where they apparently interviewed her for a few hours before letting her go. Obviously it was very distracting that she was there at all. And Im sure it didnt help their chances at getting Monica to cooperate that she associated them so strongly with her friends betrayal.

Mike Emmicks roleOne of the people we interviewed for Slow Burn was Bruce Udolf, who worked in the independent counsels office and is not in these episodes. He was one of the more suspicious people about this [operation], he said he was concerned about how it might go. He asked something like, Could we have a woman come? Or Why arent there any women? And he was told that none were available that day to do this.

The absence of any women is a very striking detail. Also that they felt the best good cop that they had to try to convince her was Mike Emmick. Every single thing written about him, like the very first clause after his name, is that hes a charmer, that hes a charming guy, a ladies man. He was someone who was thought to be better to make this first approach than someone like Jackie Bennett.

Obviously theyre throwing this together pretty last-minute, but it was surprising the extent to which they were unprepared for her reaction. They thought that this would potentially go down very quickly and she would agree to cooperate.

Lewinskys deflected requests for a lawyerThis whole episode draws very heavily on Lewinskys recollections. Obviously, shes the person this is happening to. And so a lot of this is described in her authorized biography, these repeated attempts to ask for a lawyer. Being rebuffed in different ways. Not being told no explicitly, but being told its very time-sensitive or we dont want too many people involved here.

This became a real point of contention afterwards about whether there was any misconduct and whether they kept her there against her will or whether they actually told her she could leave. She said later she felt like she couldnt leave, even if they didnt say that explicitly. The independent counsels office was very clear afterward: We never told her she couldnt speak to a lawyer. Theres a lot of legalistic distinctions here. I dont think this is too far outside the norm of how a brace like this would go, in terms of how they approach the witness and try to get their cooperation. Its not that far outside the norm for them not to go out of their way to encourage her to leave and contact an attorney.

From their perspective, too, Vernon Jordan got her that lawyer. So whos to say that the lawyers not also implicated here? Im not a lawyer, but I dont think its the craziest thing in the world to say, Part of what were investigating here is whether [Jordan] got her a job to keep her quiet. And then this guy also got her a lawyer to file this false affidavit? Thats part of what their thinking was about.

These misconduct accusations ended up coming before a federal judge, and the judge ruled that the Starr team didnt do anything wrong here. Basically, because she hadnt been charged with a crime and was free to go if she wanted, she didnt have a right to an attorney in that moment that could be violated. But the judge also criticized the prosecutors for talking to Lewinsky about a possible immunity deal without a lawyer present. So that was a contentious issue here too.

Lewinsky seeing the news clip about Clinton getting deposed the next dayThat felt like it was for the audiences benefit. In the biography, she remembers that when she asked for a lawyer and was told, This is very time-sensitive, she immediately understood that it was time-sensitive because Clinton was being deposed the next day. I mean, anyone who followed the news even a little would have known about his deposition, let alone someone who was thinking and worrying about him constantly.

Lewinskys growing awareness of what was happeningHer immediate reactions were panic and despair, and the prosecutors werent really prepared for how intense her reaction would be. She definitely worried very quickly about feeling like her life was over. That exchange where she wonders what would happen if she were to jump out the window is something she remembers from that day.

Another really key element here is they literally tell her, You could be facing 27 years in prison for what youve done. So not only will her entire reputation be ruined when this becomes public and everyone knows about it, she could also spend more than her lifetime to that point in prison. She doesnt know that theyre probably not going to prosecute her. Its super rare to prosecute perjury in a civil case, especially when youre not the one being sued. But shes not a lawyer. She doesnt know how ridiculous it was to suggest this kind of time for what she did. Which, of course, does not help in the panic department at all. I think they expected that a young woman panicking about spending decades in prison would be relatively easy to convince, but she was much more forceful in her own instincts about what to do than they thought she would be.

Lewinskys encounters with Tripp on the dayIm not sure about the specific line, Linda, what did you do? Im just purely speculating here, but I think because [the show] used that line where she calls Linda a treacherous bitch in the first episode, they wanted that moment of anger again here, of her realizing what Linda did and being very angry. Monica did confront her very angrily when they were both taken up to those rooms. And she realized what was happening, and that Linda is responsible for this happening to her.

That scene later on when Monica is walking through the mall and sees Linda carrying shopping bags, thats an actual moment she remembers from that day. And apparently Linda again said to her during that run-in, They did the same thing to me. So they actually had an exchange then, too.

Jackie Bennetts interrogation styleHes definitely described as the bad cop coming in. Monica said later, It completely changed the tenor of the room as soon as he entered. He took a much more upfront and aggressive approach, totally different personality and style. I think they were probably just thinking like, This is taking so long. Lets try a different approach. Which also ends up not working.

Lewinsky and Emmicks shopping tripThey did go to Crate & Barrel first. They apparently just made a lot of small talk, maybe about a decanter, I dont know. Then she saw an opening to go to a payphone in the Macys and try to call Betty Currie, which is also shown here. Monica felt like, for obvious reasons, Betty Currie would be a person you could call in this scenario. She thought that if [Currie] picked up, she could say something kind of cryptic to her and she would know something was going on.

Then they did get dinner at Mozzarellas American Grill, where they have the conversation pretty much as depicted. She asked, Okay, can you walk me through? Where are you getting the number of years in prison from? And What are the charges youre talking about here? She apparently paid for her own dinner because she did not want to owe them anything.

Lewinskys mother, Marcia Lewis, pushing for cooperationOne of the other prosecutors who was there that day, Steve Binhak, who was also interviewed for Slow Burn, said that he overheard them talking in the hall when Marcia Lewis arrived. And she basically said, Tell them everything. Put this behind you. We have to be thinking about you here and your future. Then Lewinsky responded by saying, Im not going to be the one to bring down the president of the United States.

The quick end to the interrogationYes, it ended pretty quickly once Bill Ginsburg got on the phone with Mike Emmick. And the tenor of the conversation was basically the same as on the show. Ginsburg swore a lot and called Emmick names and was very skeptical of everything he was telling him. The big sticking point was whether they could give Lewinsky an offer of transactional immunity on the spot, so that she would be completely protected in exchange for talking to them. They have this whole back and forth about, like, Can you get this in writing? and Why cant you? Ginsberg calling their bluff about not having access to a fax machine. He apparently asked whether they could handwrite the immunity deal instead, which was not a suggestion they accepted. There was also some disagreement about whether they could actually give her transactional immunity in that moment at all. So Ginsburg eventually tells Lewinsky something like, All right, Im pulling the plug. Dont tell them anything. Go home. This isnt happening. And then its finally over.

Ann Coulter and friends getting the tapesSo theres something the show skips over here, probably because its so complicated. When Tripp has that meeting in a previous episode with her lawyer and she says like, I have all these tapes that Ive made and he says, Why do you have those? This is a two-party consent state. So thats a crime, she really didnt like that lawyer. She thought that he was not looking out for her interests. Because his reaction was, We should take this to the Clinton attorneys and they will want to settle the case. And thats the best thing for you because then these tapes dont become relevant. You wont be charged. Which is good legal advice.

But she didnt like that advice. She was thinking, Okay. So my lawyer is telling me that we should go to the Clintons and resolve this that way, which is not what I want. So she gets a new lawyer. And as part of this chain between her and Lucianne Goldberg and then the elves working on the Paula Jones case, Ann Coulter suggests this guy, Jim Moody, whos a friend of hers, to be Tripps new lawyer. And its through him that [Coulter] gets the tapes.

The way that Coulter remembers this is different than the way they show it here. She said in the middle of the night, at 3:00 a.m., she gets a call from Jim Moody and George Conway, and theyre like, We just got Linda Tripps tapes. We got to listen to these. Can we come over? Because Ann Coulter is a huge Deadhead and had an amazing speaker system. Apparently the way it went down was that they showed up at her place in the middle of the night and listened to some of the tapes.

The tapes being boringThere are certain incriminating things that are on the tapes. But its a really mammoth task to listen through all these hours of tape to find those little bits. Plus theyre mostly interested in whether she incriminated Clinton, not whether she incriminated herself. It makes sense to me that you would listen to a bunch and be like, I just heard a lot about a lot of stuff and Ive no idea whats going on. And a lot of its really mundane.

The details and embellishments that may or may not be rooted in the historical record but reflect Impeachments stylistic approach.

The TV shows they watched during downtime at the Ritz-CarltonApparently they were looking for something to watch on TV. NYPD Blue was on, and it felt like as they were flipping through, it was just cop shows. [Prosecutors] really didnt want that because obviously thats just going to make her think more about what shes doing there. And what if there are like, plotlines about witnesses or cops acting in bad faith or something? So they changed the channel until they found an Ethel Merman movie. And thats what they watched together. Because that felt, I guess, like that wasnt going to interfere with their investigation.

A Pentagon City Mall detail not in the episodeTheres something that they could have included, but I think that if they included it, as an audience member, youd be like, Theres no way that actually happened. Apparently on the same day at the Pentagon City Mall that Monica Lewinsky is being braced by prosecutors and the FBI, Susan Carpenter-McMillan was at that same mall shopping for an outfit for Paula Jones to wear the next day to Clintons deposition. So she couldve had a cameo in this episode.

Read more here:
Fact-checking Impeachments Dramatic Sting Operation - Vulture

The Issue: Suppression of The Posts story on evidence of corrupt deals on Hunter Bidens laptop.

The true collusion that exists in our country is comprised of Democratic left-wingers, Big Tech, mainstream media, social media and well-to-do Hollywood and academic snobs, coupled with spineless politicians who remain silent for fear of cancellation (They got away with it, Oct. 13).

The Biden machine and all associated with it will always get away with it.

Its pathetically shameful that the so-called leader of the free world continues to insult the integrity of the American citizenry and always with an arrogant smile on his face.

Jerry Chiappetta

Monticello

And so the double standard continues.

The mainstream and social media are all complicit in the Biden scandals. Unfortunately theyre still at it.

That said, I hope theyre all happy now with where our country is because of it. I, for one, certainly am not.

One year after The Post exposed Hunters laptop, they still refuse to call it corruption.

B. Tonuzi

Wanaque, NJ

The Posts front page reminds us that the Democrats who currently run this country also control the media and Big Tech.

Objective news reporting went out with Walter Cronkite. New York Times editorials could well be written by Rep. Nancy Pelosi.

No, the Bidens will never be held accountable, just as Hillary Clinton shall never have to answer for Benghazi or the Russian collusion story, and former FBI Director James Comey will prosper as a talk-show guest and author.

The privileged few that are in charge of our government are not accountable to the people so long as the media covers for them.

Robert Mangi

Westbury

I think we can stop pretending the excuse that the laptop wasnt verified is the reason The Posts story was censored.

Believing and advancing that excuse is us playing the game they created. We cant win at their game.

We need to stick with facts. Theyre only pushing a certain narrative. We cannot call them out on hypocrisy and expect things to change. They will not suddenly play fair because we point out what they are doing.

Steve Preziosa

Deptford Township, NJ

The Issue: Katie Courics decision to suppress Ruth Bader Ginsburgs criticism of national-anthem protests.

Katie Couric was about 60 years old when she interviewed Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg in 2016 (Couric buried truth on Ruth, Oct. 14).

Couric withheld Justice Ginsburgs response because she felt that Ginsburg, who was 83 at the time, may not have gotten what Couric was asking.

No doubt Ginsburg understood the question. Couric didnt like the answer. I guess it didntgo with the lefty philosophy.

Justice Ginsburg had a brilliant legal mind. It is an insult on Courics part to assume the justice didnt understand her because she was 83.

Barbara Brussell

Oceanside

Katie Courics selective editing of her interview with RBG is old news.

This sleazy Today Show presenter famously went out of her way to make conservatives like Sarah Palin and Ann Coulter look bad in her interviews with them.

While she helped RBG, she hurt Palin politically by trying to make this brilliant politician look stupid with gotcha questions and biased editing.

Americas Sweetheart is just that: not a journalist but a Hollywood personality selling her supposed good looks and fake persona.

Andrew Delaney

Jamaica Estates

Want to weigh in on todays stories? Send your thoughts (along with your full name and city of residence) to letters@nypost.com. Letters are subject to editing for clarity, length, accuracy and style.

Originally posted here:
Letters to the Editor Oct. 16, 2021 - New York Post