Mediaboss Marketing

On Sunday, the New York Times ran an analysis of the dueling and yet fairly similar immigration proposals advanced by the two leading candidates for the Republican presidential nomination, former President Donald Trump and current Florida Gov. Ron DeSantis. The headline read With Unrealistic Immigration Proposals, DeSantis and Trump Try to Outdo Each Other, but none of the proposals advanced by either candidate appears to be anything other than what the law demands. Of course, it would help if the Gray Lady didnt wildly underestimate Bidens border releases.

Republicans Pounce. Although it references Trump, the piece is actually an attempted takedown of DeSantis, and you can get a sense of where its headed right from the jump:

As a presidential candidate, Gov. Ron DeSantis of Florida has said he would authorize the use of deadly force against people crossing the border, seek to end the practice of birthright citizenship and send the military to strike against drug cartels inside Mexico, a key ally of the United States, even without the permission of its government.

Those positions put him on the hard right among the Republicans running for president, many of whom are tapping into deep anger among G.O.P. primary voters over immigration.

Now, Mr. DeSantis, who often tries to stoke outrage with his border policies, has unveiled another extreme position: deporting all undocumented immigrants who crossed the border during the Biden administration. [Emphasis added.]

My colleague Mark Krikorian often alludes to the Republicans pounce trope, best defined by whats not commonly thought of as a hotbed of right-wing thought, Urban Dictionary, as follows:

A headline in a newspaper or other article that describes Republicans (or other right-leaning individuals) attacking a Democrat (or other left-leaning individual) when that Democrat commits a misdeed. Always written by a reporter with left-wing political views, it will attempt to frame the Republicans as overzealous, and will either downplay, ignore, or excuse the Democrat's misdeed. Commonly done by the New York Times or Washington Post, it is often viewed as a sign of the bias within the media.

Thats a decidedly accurate take in this instance, beginning with the use of the descriptor hard right. How often have you heard reference to the hard left? Rarely, I am guessing; the preferred term in the media is progressive wing. The same goes for stoke outrage, the likely cognate for which is stir up the base or promote liberal values, and deep anger, the opposite of which is strongly held beliefs.

Extreme Position. Of course, those are basically procedural arguments, and every procedural argument is self-serving. The idea that a would-be president is promoting an extreme position by proposing to deport all undocumented immigrants who crossed the border during the Biden administration, on the other hand, is hardly extreme at all.

In fact, its the expressed policy of the Biden administration.

In September 2021, DHS Secretary Alejandro Mayorkas issued a memo captioned Guidelines for the Enforcement of Civil Immigration Law, which directs how ICE officers and attorneys must take certain enforcement actions, including investigating, questioning, arresting, detaining, prosecuting, and removing illegal aliens (undocumented immigrants) in the United States.

Those guidelines identify just three classes of aliens as priorities for such immigration enforcement actions: (1) terrorists and spies (threats to national security); (2) aliens who engaged in serious criminal conduct (threats to public safety); and (3) a group denominated as threats to border security, that is aliens:

(a) apprehended at the border or port of entry while attempting to unlawfully enter the United States; or (b) apprehended in the United States after unlawfully entering after November 1, 2020.

Not only are aliens apprehended in the United States after unlawfully entering after November 1, 2020 the same as undocumented immigrants who crossed the border during the Biden administration, but the former class is more expansive, stretching back to days before the 2020 election.

Its curious the Times never mentions this fact in its article, instead focusing exclusively on the logistical difficulties inherent in actually removing such a large group of aliens from the United States:

Conducting so many deportations would require Mr. DeSantis to hire more Immigration and Customs Enforcement officers, authorize widespread raids into immigrant communities, significantly expand immigration detention space to meet national standards and substantially grow the fleet of airplanes used for deportations. Billions more dollars would need to be spent on bolstering immigration courts to adjudicate cases within months instead of years. Currently, some migrants who have recently arrived in the United States have been given court dates a decade from now because the immigration court backlog is so large.

Part of that is accurate, but most isnt.

ICE Officers. Plainly, DeSantis proposal would require the hiring of more ICE officers, but the agencys Enforcement and Removal Operations (ERO) branch the component responsible for most removals has been underfunded for years and is strained to the point of breaking in dealing the millions of new cases Bidens border surge has added to its backlog.

And yet, for some reason (assuming the administrations latest budget request is correct), ICE ERO lost 547 positions between FY 2022 (8,258) and FY 2023 (7,711), while the White House is only asking for 518 new positions in its FY 2024 budget 29 fewer than it had in FY 2022.

Authorize Widespread Raids. Its unclear to me how, exactly, the Times believes ICE conducts its business, but the widespread raid part is a head-scratcher.

Plainly, if the agency has reason to believe that a large number of removable aliens are at a given address or a specific worksite, theyd likely send more than a couple of officers to check it out. Yet, the papers depiction smacks of tens to hundreds of ERO officers all converging on neighborhoods across the Republic with guns drawn and sirens blaring.

Thats not how it works, because of course ICE would have no reason to believe that all the residents in a given area are aliens who entered illegally under the Biden administration. And, given the fact that the administration has given those migrants free rein to roam far and wide across the country, they likely would not be concentrated in one place.

Any such proposal would require those officers to locate specific aliens in specific places and go and pick them up, or, even better, to respond to local authorities who have encountered them. Thats not much help in so-called sanctuary cities that eschew local cooperation with immigration authorities, but in states like Texas and DeSantis own Florida, where the governments are more simpatico with ICE enforcement, it wont be that difficult.

That said, the Immigration and Nationality Act (INA) itself provides some helpful options the Times never even considers.

Section 262 of the INA requires all aliens in the United States to register their presence here within 30 days of arrival (backed up by a fine and/or prison sentence), while section 265 of the INA mandates that such aliens provide DHS with a change of address within 10 days of moving (with a lesser fine and/or a shorter prison sentence for non-compliance).

As an added authority, section 263(b) of the INA permits DHS to prescribe special forms and regulations for the registration of any class of aliens not lawfully admitted to the United States for permanent residence like aliens released under the Biden administration at the Southwest border.

Once a significant number are required to register, more than a few will decide theyve made enough money here and simply go home. That might sound crazy, but as my colleague, Jessica Vaughan explained in 2006:

Voluntary compliance works faster and is cheaper than a borders-only approach to immigration law enforcement. For example, under the controversial [National Security Entry-Exit Registration System (NSEERS)] program launched after 9/11, DHS removed roughly 1,500 illegally-resident Pakistanis; over the same time period, in response to the registration requirements, about 15,000 illegal Pakistani immigrants left the country on their own.

Why was NSEERS controversial? Because it applied only to specific nationals of certain Middle East countries with Muslim majorities. A similar program that applied only to illegal entrants released under the Biden administration at the Southwest border would suffer no similar criticism because: (1) most of those aliens are nationals of Western Hemisphere countries; (2) none of those countries have Muslim majorities; and (3) it would have a demonstrably legitimate purpose.

And I havent even mentioned the most powerful tool DeSantis or Trump could bring to bear: a mandatory E-Verify program. As DHS explains:

E-Verify, authorized by the Illegal Immigration Reform and Immigrant Responsibility Act of 1996 (IIRIRA), is a web-based system through which employers electronically confirm the employment eligibility of their employees.

In the E-Verify process, employers create cases based on information taken from an employees Form I-9, Employment Eligibility Verification. E-Verify then electronically compares that information to records available to [DHS] and the Social Security Administration (SSA). The employer usually receives a response within a few seconds either confirming the employees employment eligibility or indicating that the employee needs to take further action to complete the case.

The I-9 employment-eligibility verification process all employers must comply with is already required by section 274A of the INA and has been since 1986. The problem is there was no internet in 1986 (compliance has been paper-based ever since), but the president could potentially mandate compliance with E-Verify by regulation or even executive order.

Would mandatory E-Verify encourage Bidens border migrants to leave? They almost definitely would.

In a March 2016 study, Do State Work Eligibility Verification Laws Reduce Unauthorized Immigration, researchers Pia M. Orrenius and Madeline Zavodny determined that having an E-Verify law reduces the number of less-educated prime-age immigrants from Mexico and Central America immigrants who are likely to be unauthorized living in a state. Thats the majority of Bidens migrants.

The duo examined the effect of the adoption of E-Verify laws on the illegal alien population, and focused their study on Alabama, Arizona, Georgia, Mississippi, North Carolina, South Carolina, and Utah all states that had adopted E-Verify policies.

Of course, workers who couldnt find employment in a given state could always move to one that didnt mandate E-Verify, but if that process were required in every state, where would they go? Assuming, as is evident from most media interviews conducted with Bidens border migrants, that the majority have come here to work, if they could not work, theyd leave.

Significantly Expand Immigration Detention Space. Plainly, to the degree that any Trump or DeSantis plan relied on ICE ERO officers arresting migrants who entered illegally under Biden, more detention space would be required. The good news is theres plenty of detention beds to go around.

I was an immigration judge at the York Immigration Court in York, Pa., which itself is not a hot destination for most migrants released at the Southwest border. The York County Prison, however, had lots of extra beds, which it rented out to ICE for aliens it had detained. That was a win-win for both ICE (it didnt have to build new facilities) and the county (it received recompense and a pretty good premium for room and board).

Some of those aliens would remain for extended periods of time, but only the ones who werent clearly removable or who had legitimate claims for relief (like asylum). The rest cleared out pretty quickly, and at present the median completion time for a detained case in immigration court is just 41 days.

Even thats on the high-side by historical standards, because as recently as FY 2012 (during the Obama-Biden administration), the median completion time for detained cases was just over two weeks. Why the difference? Because in FY 2012, ICE actually detained illegal entrants, few of whom had or have any right to be here, which is not the norm today.

So yes, more detention space would be required if a President DeSantis decided to actually enforce the policies the Biden administration currently has in place. But not as much as the Times suggests.

Substantially Grow the Fleet of Airplanes Used for Deportations. As for the Times contention that DeSantis proposed scheme would require DHS to substantially grow the fleet of airplanes used for deportations, my first response is, Why bother?

The department may prefer to use its own planes to conduct removals, but theres no need for it to do so. In fact, when I was an associate general counsel at the then-INS enforcement law division, nearly every alien (some of whom were seriously bad people) was just placed on a commercial airliner and sent home.

Even today, the ICE website states that the agency conducts removals through chartered flights, commercial airlines and ground transportation, for both escorted and unescorted removals. For countries not bordering the U.S., removals require ICE air charter or commercial flights (emphasis added). I dont even see the words DHS Air in that excerpt.

Even if ICE were to skip bookings on any one of the hundreds of commercial flights that depart for foreign destinations every day, the charter option is pretty economical, according to the agency:

A daily scheduled charter flight average cost is $8,577 per flight hour. A special high-risk charter flight average cost is between $6,929 to $26,795 per flight hour, depending on aircraft requirements. These rates cover the cost of not only the aircraft and fuel, but also the flight crew, security personnel, an onboard medical professional and all associated aviation handling and overflight fees.

Thats per flight, not per alien. The aircraft featured therein, registration number N279AD, is a Boeing 737-4, which can carry between 146 and 189 passengers. That works out to $183 per flight hour on the high side to just $45 per flight hour on the low a bargain compared to the $12 billion New York City expects to pay for its 100,000 migrants ($120,000 per alien).

How Many Alien Releases? At least 2,390,584. Given that the Times deliberately attempts to make the challenges of removing the migrants who have entered the United States under Biden seem daunting, its strange that it also understates the number of aliens who have come illegally on the current administrations watch: at least 1.6 million released since January 2021 plus about 1.5 million others have entered the country illegally without being detained, that is, got-aways.

In reality, as I recently explained, the Biden administration has released at least 2,390,584 illegal aliens at the Southwest border into the United States, though the actual number is much higher, given that Bidens DHS not only refuses to release the official total, but is actually hiding its port release figures and the number of aliens transferred by CBP at the border to ICE who were released by the latter agency.

Since February 2021 Bidens first full month in office CBP has encountered more than 3.57 million aliens at the Southwest border who were processed under the INA in lieu of being expelled under Title 42. I have been told anecdotally but by people who would know that all of them have been released into the country. If thats not true, the administration is free to correct me by releasing the actual total.

You can add to that figure nearly 1.6 million known got-aways since Biden took office, though then-Border Patrol Chief Raul Ortiz told Congress back in March that the actual number of got aways could be 10 to 20 percent higher, which adds anywhere between 160,000 to 320,000 to the total.

That gets you, at the high end, to 5.47 million new arrivals since Biden became president, and when you lump in the 263,000 inadmissible aliens waived in through the Southwest border ports who used the CBP One app to preschedule their illegal entries and the 211,000 Cubans, Haitians, Nicaraguans, and Venezuelans who flew into U.S. airports using Bidens illegal CHNV parole processes, youre pretty close to the six or seven million figure DeSantis referenced during a recent speech that the Times contended was greatly overestimated.

Again, the burden should be on the administration to disclose how many aliens have entered illegally on its watch, not on the governor of Florida, who is essentially a private citizen for purposes of this analysis. Nothing in the Times article suggests the writers asked DHS for the official figure, however.

If Removing Aliens Is So Hard, Why Does Biden Keep Letting Migrants In? The elephant in the room or more specifically the donkey in that article is why, if removing aliens is so hard, the Biden administration keeps allowing tens of thousands of them per month in.

That question applies not only to the 100,000-plus aliens Border Patrol released after apprehension in August at the Southwest border, but also to the 45,400 illegal entrants who were processed using Bidens CBP One port app interview scheme in August and about 30,000 others who came in on CHNV parole.

Note that Texas is challenging those CHNV parole processes in Texas v. DHS, in part, because Biden has no plan whatsoever to remove them. That actually makes the Times point, but the paper never even mentions either that fact or the states litigation.

None of this is to second-guess the Times. It wanted a piece attacking DeSantis and Trumps plans to remove the millions of illegal aliens Joe Biden has allowed into the United States at the border and got it. Respectfully, however, theres a lot more news thats fit to print about Bidens border policies, and it would have informed the public discourse had the Times simply included it.

Visit link:
NYT: Trump, DeSantis Have 'Unrealistic Immigration Proposals' - Immigration Blog

An Atlas 5 lifts off from Cape Canaveral Space Force Station on Oct. 6, 2023 carrying the first two prototype satellites for Amazons Project Kuiper internet service. Image: Adam Bernstein/Spaceflight Now.

A United Launch Alliance Atlas 5 rocket blasted off Friday and boosted a pair of prototype internet satellites into orbit for Amazons Kuiper program, the latest entry in the increasingly competitive space-based broadband market currently dominated by SpaceX.

Weve done extensive testing here in our lab and have a high degree of confidence in our satellite design, but theres no substitute for on-orbit testing, Rajeev Badyal, Project Kuipers vice president of technology, said in a statement. This is Amazons first time putting satellites into space, and were going to learn an incredible amount.

The Atlas 5s Russian-built RD-180 first-stage engine roared to life at 2:06 p.m. EDT, throttled up and smoothly powered the 196-foot-tall rocket away from pad 41 at the Cape Canaveral Space Force Station, arcing away to the east over the Atlantic Ocean.

The rockets first stage fell away as planned after propelling the vehicle out of the dense lower atmosphere, and the flight continued with the Centaur upper stage. In a departure from normal practice for commercial, unclassified flights, ULA ended its realtime coverage shortly after stage separation, at the request of Amazon.

The rocket company did, however, confirm the successful deployment of the Kuipersat 1 and 2 prototypes.

In any case, Amazon Kuiper engineers planned to monitor deployment of the satellites solar panels and confirm on-board systems were performing normally. They also planned to test the programs networking technology, relaying data to and from the satellites and ground gateway stations connected to the internet.

The launching came two days after arch-rival SpaceX, the clear leader in the space-based internet market, launched its 113th Starlink mission, boosting the total number of satellites launched to date to 5,222. Of that total, more than 4,800 are believed to be operating.

SpaceX now offers commercial service in countries around the world and plans to launch thousands more Starlinks in the years ahead to increase its global coverage.

Amazon plans to launch 3,236 Kuiper satellite, with internet service beginning after the first 578 data relay stations are in orbit. The company has signed contracts totaling $10 billion for 38 launches using ULAs new Vulcan rocket, 18 flights of the European Ariane 6 booster and at least 12 using New Glenn rockets built by Amazon founder Jeff Bezos Blue Origin.

All of those rockets are in development and none have yet flown.

Our FCC (Federal Communications Commission) license requires that we deploy and operate at least half of our satellite constellation by July 2026, the company says on its web page. We expect to provide service to the earliest Project Kuiper customers by the end of 2024.

The Kuiper satellites, SpaceXs Starlinks and OneWebs higher-altitude relay stations, along with other systems now in the planning stages, are designed to provide broadband access anywhere in the world using large numbers of small satellites in low-Earth orbit.

As the satellites race by overhead, they receive input from customers, relay the data satellite-to-satellite and then down to gateway ground stations tied into high-speed internet circuits. Responses are then relayed back to the customer, providing uninterrupted, relatively high-speed service.

The Kuiper program has released few details about its satellites other than to say they will be launched into three orbital shells at altitudes between 370 and 390 miles and that the first 578, making up phase 1, will populate orbital planes tilted 51.9 degrees to the equator.

Were designing the system to balance performance and affordability, and we plan to provide choice and flexibility by offering a range of options for customers, the company says.

Our ultra-compact (terminal) provides speeds of up to 100 megabits per second, our standard model delivers up to 400 Mbps and our largest model, which is intended for enterprise, government and telecommunications applications, delivers up to 1 gigabit per second.

Amazon has not yet announced how much it will charge for Kuiper service, but affordability is a key principle, the company says.

Amazon has a longstanding commitment to low prices, and lots of experience building popular, low-cost devices. Were applying a similar approach with Project Kuiper.

Read this article:
Atlas 5 launches Amazon Kuiper satellites for tests of space-based ... - Spaceflight Now

Pune, India, Oct. 06, 2023 (GLOBE NEWSWIRE) -- According to Fortune Business Insights, The global internet of medical things (IoMT) market size is projected to reach USD 187.60 billion by 2028 and exhibit a CAGR of 29.5% during the forecast period. Increasing Product Launches to Boost Growth in North America, Key Players Emphasize New Product Launches to Garner Growth in the Market.

The growing expenditure on IoT in healthcare and the increasing technological advancement in healthcare information technologies are anticipated to boost the growth of the market. Fortune Business Insights has presented this information in its report titled, Internet of Medical things (IoMT) Market, 2021-2028. The market size stood at USD 41.17 billion in 2020.

The adoption of the 4G network has created lucrative growth opportunities for the market. The introduction of high-speed networks is likely to enhance the telehealth industry and empower market growth. The growing adoption of 5G networks is also expected to amplify the growth of the market in the upcoming years.

Request a Sample PDF:

https://www.fortunebusinessinsights.com/enquiry/sample/internet-of-medical-things-iomt-market-101844

Industry Developments-

Key Takeaways:

Key Players in the Internet of Medical Things market are:

COVID-19 Impact

The humanitarian crisis has significantly struck the healthcare industry. However, the demand for the internet of medical things has witnessed astronomical growth during the pandemic due to rapid digitization. The investments in healthcare have increased manifold during the pandemic. Virtual consultation has witnessed striking growth during the outbreak due to the fear of contracting the virus. As per an article by Onometra, there are approximately 48% of medical devices connected through the internet of things (IoT) in India. These numbers are expected to increase to 68% shortly. The market is projected to witness immense growth in the forthcoming years.

To know how our report can help streamline your business, Speak To Analyst:https://www.fortunebusinessinsights.com/enquiry/speak-to-analyst/internet-of-medical-things-iomt-market-101844

Drivers & Restraints-

Growing Investments in IoT in Healthcare to Fuel Market Growth

The internet of health things (IoMT) can reduce healthcare costs for governments and patients. The medtech companies with the internet of medical things focus on transforming the delivery of advanced healthcare to patients. The investments in the healthcare industry have significantly increased during the pandemic. The increasing investments in IoT to transform the healthcare sector are anticipated to bolster the global internet of medical things (IoMT) market growth.

The developments in mobile phone technology and the telecommunication industry are expected to create lucrative growth opportunities for the market. The adoption of the 4G network has created lucrative growth opportunities for the market. The introduction of high-speed networks and the growing adoption of 5G technology are likely to enhance the telehealth industry and empower market growth.

However, the risks of cyberattacks and data breaches loom large and may hinder the growth of the market.

Segmentation-

On the basis of product, the market is trifurcated into wearable external medical devices, implanted medical devices, and stationary medical devices. On the basis of application, the market is segmented into patient monitoring, medication management, telemedicine, and others. On the basis of end-user, the market is fragmented into government authorities, patients, healthcare providers, and others. Geographically, the market is classified into five major regions- North America, Europe, Asia Pacific, Latin America, and the Middle East & Africa.

Report Coverage-

Quick Buy - Internet of Medical Things (IoMT) Market Research Report:

https://www.fortunebusinessinsights.com/checkout-page/101844

Regional Insights-

Increasing Product Launches to Boost Growth in North America

North America is anticipated to gain the largest portion of the global internet of medical things (IoMT) market share. The increasing launch of ingenious products and the growing adoption of remote patient observation devices are expected to boost the growth of the market. Additionally, the robust sales of IoMT products and solutions in the U.S. are likely to stimulate the markets growth.

Europe is expected to witness the second-highest growth in the global market due to the rising government initiatives to boost the adoption of IoMT solutions in the healthcare industry.

Asia Pacific is projected to witness growth with the highest CAGR. The rising healthcare expenditure and the strong government support for the approval and launch of IoMT devices are anticipated to bolster the growth of the market.

The Middle East & Africa, and Latin America are likely to gain considerable growth due to improving investments in the healthcare industry and the growing awareness for IoMT devices and solutions.

Competitive Landscape-

Key Players Emphasize New Product Launches to Garner Growth in the Market

The market is fairly fragmented and comprises several key players, including Johnson & Johnson, Medtronic, Siemens Healthline, and Koninklijke Philips N.V., with the largest shares in the market. The key players focus on the development of new products, patents, technological advancements, collaborations, acquisitions, mergers, and others to generate greater revenues and improve their market presence. Most recently, Philips and Cognizant signed a collaborative agreement in July 2021 to develop end-to-end digital solutions. The collaboration is aimed to accelerate clinical trials and enhance patient care.

Table Of Contents :

Toc Continue

Ask for Customization of this Report:

https://www.fortunebusinessinsights.com/enquiry/ask-for-customization/internet-of-medical-things-iomt-market-101844

FAQs :

What is the Internet of Things in healthcare market?

What is the key factor driving the market?

Related Reports:

Real World Evidence Solutions Market Size, Share, Revenue Forecast and Opportunities

Orthokeratology Lens Market Overview, Industry Share and Forecast

Flow Cytometry Market Size, Share, Opportunities & Analysis

Artificial Intelligence (AI) in Healthcare Market Analysis, Global Size and Industry Share Forecast

About Us:

Fortune Business Insights offers expert corporate analysis and accurate data, helping organizations of all sizes make timely decisions. We tailor innovative solutions for our clients, assisting them to address challenges distinct to their businesses. Our goal is to empower our clients with holistic market intelligence, giving a granular overview of the market they are operating in.

Contact Us:

Fortune Business Insights Pvt. Ltd.

US: +1 424 253 0390

UK: +44 2071 939123

APAC: +91 744 740 1245

Email:sales@fortunebusinessinsights.com

Go here to read the rest:
Internet of Medical Things (IoMT) Market Size to Surpass USD ... - GlobeNewswire

An anonymous reader quotes a report from TechCrunch: A California judge has thrown out a $32.5 million verdict win for Sonos against Google after two of Sonos' patents were deemed unenforceable and invalid. As a result, Google has started to re-introduce software features it had removed due to Sonos' lawsuit. In a decision dated October 6, U.S. District Judge William Alsup said that Sonos had wrongfully linked its patent applications for multi-room audio technology to a 2006 application in order to make them appear older and claim that its inventions came before Google's products, as first reported by Reuters.

"Sonos filed the provisional application from which the patents in suit claim priority in 2006, but it did not file the applications for these patents and present the asserted claims for examination until 2019," the decision (PDF) reads. "By the time these patents issued in 2019 and 2020, the industry had already marched on and put the claimed invention into practice. In fact, in 2014, five years before Sonos filed the applications and presented the claims, accused infringer Google LLC shared with Sonos a plan for a product that would practice what would become the claimed invention."

The decision states that the two companies were exploring a potential collaboration, but that it never materialized. Alsup goes on to note that Google began introducing its own products that featured multi-room audio technology in 2015, and also that Sonos waited until 2019 to pursue claims on the invention. "This was not a case of an inventor leading the industry to something new," Alsup wrote. "This was a case of the industry leading with something new and, only then, an inventor coming out of the woodwork to say that he had come up with the idea first wringing fresh claims to read on a competitor's products from an ancient application." "We recently made a change to speaker groups for Nest speakers, displays, and Chromecast where certain devices can only belong to one speaker group at a time in the Google Home app," the company wrote in a blog post. "A federal judge has found that two patents that Sonos accused our devices of infringing are invalid. In light of this legal decision we're happy to share that we will be rolling back this change."

Read the rest here:
Federal Judge Throws Out $32.5 Million Win For Sonos Against ... - Slashdot

The tea party that Skocpol was referring to no longer formally exists as a faction in Congress, its erstwhile allies having been subsumed into the far-right Freedom Caucus or into the generic America First wing of the GOP. But according to Skocpol, the history of the tea party remains essential to understanding the forces that ultimately led to McCarthys political demise.

It represents the culmination of [the tea party movement], said Skocpol. All the research that I and other political scientists have done on the movement shows that by the 2010s just before Donald Trump emerges the tea party had taken the shape of a just-say-no, blow-it-all-up, dont-cooperate, do-politics-on-Twitter faction and this is the perfect expression of it. This is where it leads.

In some respects, Skocpols argument is counterintuitive. In the late 2000s and early 2010s, McCarthy and the other Young Guns rose to power by harnessing the grassroots power of the tea party movement, promising to slash government spending, constrain federal power and foil the Obama administrations policy goals. But though McCarthy and the other Young Guns rose to prominence by allying themselves with the tea party movement, Skocpol said, their banishment from the GOP doesnt mark a break with the movements legacy. Instead, it shows that the Young Guns never really understood the forces that they helped unleash.

The fact that McCarthy and the other Young Guns were once called tea party people because they dallied with the movement, Skocpol said, does not mean that the tiger wasnt going to consume them in the end.

The following has been edited for clarity and concision.

Ian Ward: Youve written extensively about the history of the tea party movement and its aftereffects for the Republican Party. How does the vote to oust Speaker McCarthy fit into that history?

Theda Skocpol: Shortly into Barack Obamas presidency, we saw this explosion of tea party demonstrations and a remarkable degree of grassroots organizing a couple thousand local tea parties, according to our research. There was a lot of writing at the time claiming that this organization was motivated by the same thing that people now claim drives the Republican Party when they shut down the government cutting the deficit. But it was never about cutting the deficit. The popular side of the tea party was about anger and fear of a changing country in which a guy with Hussein as his middle name and black skin could be elected president. The tea party especially at the grassroots was trying to pressure the Republican Party and its elected leaders not to compromise with a changing country or with Democratic Party politicians in Washington.

Ward: How did the Young Guns fit into that mobilization?

Skocpol: The tea party mobilization made a big difference electorally in 2010 in installing a Republican Congress, and probably even more importantly in installing Republican-dominated state legislatures. But it was especially potent after that in undoing any effort at compromise over immigration. Our research shows that polarization over immigration between the two major parties has played out recently and piled on top of the polarization over the civil rights revolution of the 1960s. By the time you get to the period at the end of Barack Obamas presidency, hes trying to find a way to incorporate long-present immigrants from Mexico and Central America and give them a path to citizenship and that effort falls apart in 2013 and 2014. Remember that election in which David Brat in central Virginia shockingly felled Eric Cantor, who at that time was seen as the kind of rising golden boy on the Republican right? It was anger over the potential of immigration reform that played a big role in that.

And then you have Paul Ryan, who inherited a Congress where the Republican caucus was increasingly riven by the rise of this angry, just-say-no style that the tea party always favored. They wanted to make sure that people were angry about changes in the country and wanted to make sure Republicans were not compromising about those. Paul Ryan was [from] Mr. Kochs network. I think that House Republicans thought that by making him their leader, they would cement their right-wing Republican credentials and it did with the elites around the Republican Party at the time. But among the populist right who make up more than half of Republican base voters and the most loyal primary voters they never liked what he had to offer. So he was gone before long.

And now finally, we get to Kevin McCarthy, who is just an example of the final transmogrification of the tea party anger, which was given a national focus and much more potency by Donald Trump. Donald Trump didnt create all this. Hes just been very good, ever since 2015, at giving it permission and focus.

Ward: McCarthy and the other Young Guns who rose to power during that tea party moment in the late 2000s and early 2010s gave voice to one interpretation of the tea party movement that you mentioned, which is that it was all about fiscal conservatism and small government. Why do you think they so dramatically misunderstood the energies behind the movement?

Skocpol: We have to understand the radicalization of the Republican Party as a process that has been underway since 2000. Act 1 of that radicalization was the rise of the Koch network, which was itself motivated by displeasure with what the Republicans under Bush junior and senior had been doing for example, passing Medicare expenditures. The Koch network outflanked the Republican Party, and they put a lot of pressure on candidates and officeholders to hew the line on cutting taxes, cutting regulations and disabling public sector unions. These Young Guns were initially in tune with that and why wouldnt they be? They thought thats where the money came from and where the business community had gone.

But that wasnt satisfactory to a lot of base voters around the Republican Party, who were much angrier about social changes in the country and much more upset about immigration.

So I think the Republican Party was first hollowed out at the top, and then the tea party crystallized when Barack Obama was elected president and then it ended up being given further expression during the immigration reform battles and the rise of Donald Trump. I call it the bottom-up radicalization of the Republican Party, and I think it caught a lot of these Koch network darlings, including all three of these Young Guns, by surprise although in McCarthys case, I think he has done his best to ride the tiger. Hes tried to have it both ways.

Ward: Why do you think McCarthy was able to ride that tiger for longer than the other two?

Skocpol: Hes a shapeshifter, and thats given him staying power up until the moment he had Democratic votes to keep the government open and then went on TV over the weekend and trashed the Democrats.

The shape shifting is both a strength and a weakness. Its a strength in that, a little bit more effectively than Paul Ryan before him, hes been able to have it both ways to condemn Donald Trump and then embrace him, to say hes about cutting the deficit and hes about cracking down on the border. If the Republican Party really had wings and I dont think it does at this point he might have been able to bridge them. But by the end, he got to the point where nobody trusted him. I dont think anybody in the Republican Party trusted his word, and Democrats definitely couldnt.

Ward: Given the fact that McCarthy rose to power during the tea party moment, is there any sense in which his ouster represents a repudiation of the tea party legacy?

Skocpol: No it represents the culmination of it. I think most people in the in the media thought the tea party was about cutting the federal budget deficit because thats what a few elite spokesmen on TV said it was about. But our research always showed that at the grassroots, it was about popular anger over a changing country and fury at a Republican Party that was not responding to that desire. All the research that I and other political scientists have done on the movement shows that by the 2010s, just before Donald Trump emerges, the tea party had taken the shape of a just-say-no, blow-it-all-up, dont-cooperate, do-politics-on-Twitter faction and this is the perfect expression of it. This is where it leads. The fact that McCarthy and the other Young Guns were once called tea party people because they dallied with the movement does not mean that the tiger wasnt going to consume them in the end.

Ward: The conflict between the tea party and the Obama-era Republican Party reflected some real ideological differences between those two factions, especially on issues like immigration. Do you think the conflict between the far-right, anti-McCarthy wing of the party and McCarthys backers reflects a similarly robust ideological fissure? Or does it just boil down to rank obstructionism?

Skocpol: I think its post-ideological. One of the things that Trumps presidency accomplished was to give national expression to populist ethno-nationalism and anger at business as usual in Washington, D.C, and you get to a certain point where there arent many moderates at all in the Republican House caucus. There certainly are some people who are cross pressured because they come from Biden districts, but most of them have been enthusiastic supporters of the same kinds of issues that Matt Gaetz is speaking to. This is a disagreement over whether you should ever settle for less than 100 percent of what you want, even when youre in a position where you dont control more than one chamber.

Ward: So if the conflict is essentially about tactics and the real energies behind the far right are cultural, why do people like Gaetz still lean so heavily on the language of fiscal conservatism? After all, this most recent incident was partly set off by McCarthys unwillingness or inability to slash spending levels.

Skocpol: Youre not going to like the answer Im going to give you.

Ward: Try me.

Skocpol: It sells with the Washington press corps. Why anybody believes this is beyond me. Did you see what Donald Trump did when he was office? Did you see what Republicans did when they controlled the entire Congress? They dont cut anything, except taxes. And that keeps a certain number of billionaires and even Charles Koch himself happy.

There are two strands that have played out in the Republican Party during recent years. One of them I call McConnellism. McConnellism is clever. Its about using every lever of power to make sure Republicans get the federal judiciary full of judges who are going to disempower Democratic initiatives, and its about doing everything you can to shape the electorate, both by encouraging your own voters and discouraging the other guys voters. Its at the edge of whats legally and constitutionally legitimate. Then theres Trumpism, which at this point has gone from bullying and threatening to actual calls for violence. One of them is very powerful in the House, and the other is very powerful in the Senate.

But its a tactical difference. Its not as if theres a huge difference of policy. I think there might be some differences in policy over immigration, but those dont really come up because nobodys talking about legislating on immigration.

Ward: So what does all this mean for the future of the Republican Party? What are the ramifications of the argument that youre making that theres a fundamental continuity between the tea party movement and the MAGA movement?

Skocpol: Well, everything depends on whether Donald Trump is reelected president, and I dont think thats impossible. I really dont. As for the House of Representatives, I really do not know how theyre going to find a new Kevin McCarthy who can promise enough because the promises that are being demanded are impossible to fulfill.

Ward: Based on the traditional tea party playbook, though, what do you think the endgame here is for the far-right faction in the House?

Skocpol: Well, I think Matt Gaetz himself wants to get on TV, raise a lot of money and run for another office. Thats true of a number of the people who make up this very small group of people who were in a position to pull the hook on the grenade. But I dont think we know how this is going to come out. If youve got people in power who are backed by a large number of voters who are angry, fearful, limited in the information they get about whats going on and thinking that it would be better to blow America up than to save it I think youre in uncharted territory. We are in uncharted territory.

Read more here:
Kevin McCarthy's Downfall Is the Culmination of the Tea Party - POLITICO