On March 22, midway through a series of guest-hosted shows, Jeopardy! fans revolted. Their target was Dr. Mehmet Oz, the Oprah-approved, Ivy League-educated surgeon, author and host of The Dr. Oz Show, who was the most recent celebrity to step into the late Alex Trebek’s dress shoes. As viewers fumed on social media, Variety called Oz’s engagement a “black eye” on the show and some 600 former contestants signed an open letter arguing that he “stands in opposition to everything that Jeopardy! stands for.” Indeed, everyone from other physicians to elected officials to GLAAD has blasted Oz, over the years, for pushing weight-loss scams, giving a platform to anti-vaxxers, normalizing gay “conversion” therapy and, most recently, endorsing shoddy COVID remedies. That didn’t necessarily disqualify him from a two-week gig reading pre-written questions and making small talk. From another angle, though, the outrage made perfect sense. At a time when the idea of objective facts has been so catastrophically eroded, if you can’t trust the host of Jeopardy!, whom can you trust?
Hunter Biden has said his family name opened doors for him but it was also sometimes a burden. He was discussing his role on the board of Ukrainian holdings company Burisma.
Eight people, including many women of Asian descent, were killed in shootings at Atlanta-area massage parlors on Tuesday, prompting a reckoning over rising rates of anti-Asian violence that have dramatically increased in the U.S. since the start of the COVID-19 pandemic.
A recent study from the Center for the Study of Hate and Extremism at California State University, San Bernardino, found that while overall rates of hate crimes in the country decreased by 7% in 2020, anti-Asian hate crimes surged by 149%. Nearly 3,800 anti-Asian hate incidents were reported between March 19, 2020 and Feb. 28, 2021, with women reporting hate incidents at 2.3 times the rate of men, according to a report published this week from Stop AAPI Hate. The Stop AAPI Hate reporting center was launched in March 2020 in response to xenophobic sentiments and to track attacks against Asian Americans and Pacific Islanders in the U.S.
It was heartbreaking and horrifying—but to many, it wasn’t a surprise.
The news that eight people, six of them Asian-American women, were killed at businesses in the Atlanta area on March 16 came after a year of intense anti-Asian racism in the U.S. On the platforms where news arrives first, and quickly attaches to feelings, emotions were already raw.
“This mass shooter was targeting Asian women and their businesses. This isn’t an isolated incident. There have been 500+ hate crimes targeted at Asian people this year alone,” social media specialist Mark Kim wrote on Twitter. “This Atlanta tragedy lies at an intersection of race, gender, class and the legacy of America’s history of colonization and violence in Asia,” journalist Elise Hu said on the site. “I don’t have the words. I’m just despondent. Protect Asian women, solidarity with sex workers, #StopAsianHate.”
Under the guise of “anti-riot” legislation, several states are considering measures ostensibly aimed at protecting public safety.
It’s an understandable pitch. Who wants to defend rioting, looting and destruction of cities and businesses? But attacking people and destroying property and businesses are already against the law.
These proposals would have more insidious effects. Laws don’t have to be called the Censorship Act of 2021 for those in power to use them to target people and ideas with which they disagree.
That’s the likely outcome if states enact “anti-riot” bills with overly broad language that make it easy for authorities to shut down First Amendment activity and arrest protesters whose ideas they don’t like. The proposals tap into legitimate concerns about real problems to justify policies that risk eroding civil liberties without enhancing public safety.
The Indian government must suspend sweeping new Internet regulations, 10 international NGOs said in an open letter Thursday.
The new rules, brought in by executive order in late February, give the Indian government an arsenal of muscular new powers that will force tech companies and news outlets to comply with government surveillance and censorship demands.
The rules increase the pressure on U.S. tech companies including Facebook, Twitter and WhatsApp to comply with what the letter’s authors say is an increasingly authoritarian Indian government—or risk losing access to India, their biggest market in the world, which many see as key to future growth.
The case of two female Belarussian journalists jailed in February for reporting about protests in Minsk once again highlighted the severity of the government’s crackdown on news media in the former Soviet republic.
“Wearing a journalist vest in Belarus doesn’t protect you, it makes you a target,” Belarusian opposition leader Svetlana Tsikhanouskaya told EU officials and diplomats during a virtual meeting on Monday (8 March).
The meeting, organised by Poland’s ambassador to the EU, Andrzej Sadoś, was attended by ambassadors of the EU27 countries, as well as Canada, the United States, and Great Britain, and representatives of the European Commission, and was meant to raise awareness of the situation of journalists in Belarus.
Since the start of the protest last year, Minsk had deported foreign journalists reporting in the country, revoked accreditations of many Belarusian journalists and cracked down on the last independent media in the country.
On the most consequential foreign policy issue that the Biden administration is likely to face—how to deal with the People’s Republic of China—the new Democratic president seems ready to follow the path set out by his Republican predecessor.
It is hard to overstate what a sea change there has been in Washington foreign policy circles over the last four years—a change driven, as Blinken acknowledged, by Donald J. Trump.
China and the United States today are on a collision course. No less an authority than Henry Kissinger said just over a year ago that the U.S. and China are in the “foot hills of a Cold War.” Our assessment is that both nations are rapidly ascending the slope of that metaphorical mountain, and will likely find themselves in a full-blown, Cold War-like status in the near future. By 2034, the year in which we set our new novel, could this lead the two nations to a hot war? Even a nuclear exchange? Unfortunately, the answer is yes.
At this conference we intend to explore the contribution of new economic models, including the circular economy and the sustainable bioeconomy, to tackle climate change while promoting a just and equitable economic and social recovery, within the limits of the natural system.