Welcome to DU!
The truly grassroots left-of-center political community where regular people, not algorithms, drive the discussions and set the standards.
Join the community:
Create a free account
Support DU (and get rid of ads!):
Become a Star Member
Latest Breaking News
General Discussion
The DU Lounge
All Forums
Issue Forums
Culture Forums
Alliance Forums
Region Forums
Support Forums
Help & Search
Celerity
Celerity's Journal
Celerity's Journal
April 30, 2024
Tracklist
[00:00] Zerb & Sofiya Nzau - Mwaki (Franky Wah Remix) [TH3RD BRAIN]
[04:15] Cristoph - Lost Witness [SUARA]
[08:15] Artaria & Saint Code - People Say So [SIONA]
[14:40] Alan Wools - Echoes Of The Night [SIONA]
[19:00] Super Flu & Dancing On Lego - Dear Friend [MONABERRY]
[24:00] Adriatique & Undercatt - Horizon [X RECORDINGS]
[28:30] Hidden Empire - Morjim At Night [SIONA]
[33:10] CamelPhat & Rhodes - Home (Vintage Culture Remix) [WHEN STARS ALIGN]
[37:00] Massano - Nodosuba [SIMULATE]
[41:40] Victor Garde & Döts - It's Killing Me [SIONA]
[46:35] Miss Monique - Bloom At Night [TOMORROWLAND MUSIC]
[51:50] Cherry - Mosaic [SIONA]
[56:15] Miss Monique - Look At You [INTERSTELLAR]
[1:00:00] Innellea - Under Earth [UNRELEASED]
[1:06:00] The Advocate - Losing Control [SIONA]
[1:11:30] EarthLife - Trasporto [SPECTRUM MUSIC]
[1:15:55] Dominik Gehringer - Strange World [PURIFIED]
[1:21:25] Disclosure ft. Eliza Doolittle - You & Me (Rivo Remix) [PMR]
Miss Monique @ Bali, Indonesia 2024 [Melodic Techno/ Progressive House DJ Mix]
Tracklist
[00:00] Zerb & Sofiya Nzau - Mwaki (Franky Wah Remix) [TH3RD BRAIN]
[04:15] Cristoph - Lost Witness [SUARA]
[08:15] Artaria & Saint Code - People Say So [SIONA]
[14:40] Alan Wools - Echoes Of The Night [SIONA]
[19:00] Super Flu & Dancing On Lego - Dear Friend [MONABERRY]
[24:00] Adriatique & Undercatt - Horizon [X RECORDINGS]
[28:30] Hidden Empire - Morjim At Night [SIONA]
[33:10] CamelPhat & Rhodes - Home (Vintage Culture Remix) [WHEN STARS ALIGN]
[37:00] Massano - Nodosuba [SIMULATE]
[41:40] Victor Garde & Döts - It's Killing Me [SIONA]
[46:35] Miss Monique - Bloom At Night [TOMORROWLAND MUSIC]
[51:50] Cherry - Mosaic [SIONA]
[56:15] Miss Monique - Look At You [INTERSTELLAR]
[1:00:00] Innellea - Under Earth [UNRELEASED]
[1:06:00] The Advocate - Losing Control [SIONA]
[1:11:30] EarthLife - Trasporto [SPECTRUM MUSIC]
[1:15:55] Dominik Gehringer - Strange World [PURIFIED]
[1:21:25] Disclosure ft. Eliza Doolittle - You & Me (Rivo Remix) [PMR]
April 30, 2024
https://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/2024/04/29/ai-professional-class-low-skill-jobs/
https://archive.ph/4DULg
I was born in 1973, just as the American economy was going to hell — though I cannot accept all the blame. It was the twilight of the 20th-century manufacturing boom that had almost managed to compress the whole country into one vast middle class and, for reasons beyond my control, that boom was unraveling. Inflation was headed into double digits as labor productivity began to decline, economic growth swooned, unemployment rose and manufacturing employment tipped into the final descent toward its current sub-10 percent share. This turnaround devastated workers and communities, and even college-bound kids like me absorbed the sadness — through songs such as Bruce Springsteen’s “Born in the U.S.A.” and Billy Joel’s “Allentown,” through shows such as “Roseanne.” As we entered the electorate, it became a major force in our politics, as the Clintons tried to steer the economy toward a global, postindustrial future.
Voting for Bill Clinton, I believed his answers were correct. Trade and automation made Americans better off overall, even as they displaced some manufacturing workers. What we needed to do was finesse the adjustment, primarily by sending more kids to college to capitalize on the growing wage premium — 40 percent when I was born, 60 percent when I graduated college, and closer to 80 percent today. Older workers who weren’t ready to become college freshman could be retrained for booming service sector jobs. I still think our prescriptions were broadly correct. But as artificial intelligence starts coming for our jobs, I wonder how well the professional class will take its own medicine. Will we gracefully transition to lower-skilled service work, as we urged manufacturing workers to do? Or will we fight like hell to retain what we have, for our children as well as ourselves?
For I suspect AI is coming for a lot of professional class jobs, despite how many people I hear say a machine can never do what they do. We’re accustomed to think of automation as primarily displacing the working class, but as economist Daron Acemoglu wrote in 2002, “the idea that technological advances favor more skilled workers is a 20th-century phenomenon”; in the 19th century, steam-driven machines replaced a lot of skilled artisans, and AI currently looks to be pointed in a similar direction. If you work with words and symbols, AI can already do a surprising amount of what you can do — and it is improving with terrifying speed. As a Bloomberg News headline put it in February, “AI Is Driving More Layoffs Than Companies Want to Admit.” And though the numbers aren’t enormous — Bloomberg cites one source that found 4,600 AI-related layoffs during the previous nine months — that’s a pretty big number considering that ChatGPT was released to the public only in November 2022. It’s going to get bigger still.
As with previous rounds of automation, good jobs will be created as well as destroyed, and even those who don’t get them will enjoy broadly rising prosperity. But that was also true for manufacturing workers displaced by the China shock — as people like me kept telling them. A report last year from the Congressional Budget Office notes that though incomes “increased most among households in the highest quintile” between 1979 and 2020, average incomes increased in all quintiles. Yet as they kept telling us, people don’t care only about their role as consumers; they care about their role as producers and, more broadly, about their relative place in society. For the working class, that place has been eroding, in relative terms, for decades. The kinds of jobs many of them now occupy — in retail, say, or on the lower rungs of the health-care system — have less social status than the old manufacturing jobs even when they pay as well. And they often require a combination of servility and soft skills that wasn't demanded on an assembly line.
snip
AI is coming for the professional class. Expect outrage -- and fear.
https://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/2024/04/29/ai-professional-class-low-skill-jobs/
https://archive.ph/4DULg
I was born in 1973, just as the American economy was going to hell — though I cannot accept all the blame. It was the twilight of the 20th-century manufacturing boom that had almost managed to compress the whole country into one vast middle class and, for reasons beyond my control, that boom was unraveling. Inflation was headed into double digits as labor productivity began to decline, economic growth swooned, unemployment rose and manufacturing employment tipped into the final descent toward its current sub-10 percent share. This turnaround devastated workers and communities, and even college-bound kids like me absorbed the sadness — through songs such as Bruce Springsteen’s “Born in the U.S.A.” and Billy Joel’s “Allentown,” through shows such as “Roseanne.” As we entered the electorate, it became a major force in our politics, as the Clintons tried to steer the economy toward a global, postindustrial future.
Voting for Bill Clinton, I believed his answers were correct. Trade and automation made Americans better off overall, even as they displaced some manufacturing workers. What we needed to do was finesse the adjustment, primarily by sending more kids to college to capitalize on the growing wage premium — 40 percent when I was born, 60 percent when I graduated college, and closer to 80 percent today. Older workers who weren’t ready to become college freshman could be retrained for booming service sector jobs. I still think our prescriptions were broadly correct. But as artificial intelligence starts coming for our jobs, I wonder how well the professional class will take its own medicine. Will we gracefully transition to lower-skilled service work, as we urged manufacturing workers to do? Or will we fight like hell to retain what we have, for our children as well as ourselves?
For I suspect AI is coming for a lot of professional class jobs, despite how many people I hear say a machine can never do what they do. We’re accustomed to think of automation as primarily displacing the working class, but as economist Daron Acemoglu wrote in 2002, “the idea that technological advances favor more skilled workers is a 20th-century phenomenon”; in the 19th century, steam-driven machines replaced a lot of skilled artisans, and AI currently looks to be pointed in a similar direction. If you work with words and symbols, AI can already do a surprising amount of what you can do — and it is improving with terrifying speed. As a Bloomberg News headline put it in February, “AI Is Driving More Layoffs Than Companies Want to Admit.” And though the numbers aren’t enormous — Bloomberg cites one source that found 4,600 AI-related layoffs during the previous nine months — that’s a pretty big number considering that ChatGPT was released to the public only in November 2022. It’s going to get bigger still.
As with previous rounds of automation, good jobs will be created as well as destroyed, and even those who don’t get them will enjoy broadly rising prosperity. But that was also true for manufacturing workers displaced by the China shock — as people like me kept telling them. A report last year from the Congressional Budget Office notes that though incomes “increased most among households in the highest quintile” between 1979 and 2020, average incomes increased in all quintiles. Yet as they kept telling us, people don’t care only about their role as consumers; they care about their role as producers and, more broadly, about their relative place in society. For the working class, that place has been eroding, in relative terms, for decades. The kinds of jobs many of them now occupy — in retail, say, or on the lower rungs of the health-care system — have less social status than the old manufacturing jobs even when they pay as well. And they often require a combination of servility and soft skills that wasn't demanded on an assembly line.
snip
April 30, 2024
https://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/2024/04/30/drug-prices-medicare-biden-administration/
https://archive.ph/J6bUV
Thanks to the Inflation Reduction Act, one of President Biden’s signature achievements, prescription drugs are set to become substantially more affordable for seniors. Yet many Americans seem unaware of just how monumental these changes will be. Here are six things to look for:
1) Drug price negotiation. For the first time in history, Medicare can now negotiate directly with manufacturers. For the initial round of negotiations, the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services chose 10 drugs that treat common health conditions, including cardiovascular disease, cancer and rheumatoid arthritis. Each of these medications costs consumers in the United States three to eight times what people pay in other countries. In 2022, Medicare paid an eye-popping $46.4 billion for them. The impact to consumers is equally staggering. As CMS Administrator Chiquita Brooks-LaSure told me, “Some of these drugs are thousands of dollars per year for people who depend on them to live.”
It will take some time for negotiated prices to take effect. Assuming the federal government prevails in the lawsuits filed by pharmaceutical companies, CMS expects lower prices to be in place in 2026. But that’s only the beginning. Ten more drugs will be selected for 2026, going up to 15 for 2027 and then 20 per year from 2029and thereafter. The lower prices are projected to save the federal government $100 billion over the next several years. Crucially, this means that the negotiations won’t just benefit people who are on these specific medications; the savings are passed along, indirectly, to everyone on Medicare.
2) A cap on out-of-pocket spending. While the IRA’s price negotiation provision has garnered the lion’s share of media attention, this change will have the most direct consequence for most seniors. In 2025, everyone with Medicare’s prescription drug benefit, called Part D, will pay no more than $2,000 per year out of pocket for medications. CMS projects that nearly 19 million seniors will save an average of $400 per year. But this number alone does not tell the full story. Brooks-LaSure shared with me that she recently met a woman with leukemia. “She’s spending $12,000, which was 13 percent of her gross income, just for one drug,” she said.
snip
6 ways the Biden administration is lowering drug prices for seniors
https://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/2024/04/30/drug-prices-medicare-biden-administration/
https://archive.ph/J6bUV
Thanks to the Inflation Reduction Act, one of President Biden’s signature achievements, prescription drugs are set to become substantially more affordable for seniors. Yet many Americans seem unaware of just how monumental these changes will be. Here are six things to look for:
1) Drug price negotiation. For the first time in history, Medicare can now negotiate directly with manufacturers. For the initial round of negotiations, the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services chose 10 drugs that treat common health conditions, including cardiovascular disease, cancer and rheumatoid arthritis. Each of these medications costs consumers in the United States three to eight times what people pay in other countries. In 2022, Medicare paid an eye-popping $46.4 billion for them. The impact to consumers is equally staggering. As CMS Administrator Chiquita Brooks-LaSure told me, “Some of these drugs are thousands of dollars per year for people who depend on them to live.”
It will take some time for negotiated prices to take effect. Assuming the federal government prevails in the lawsuits filed by pharmaceutical companies, CMS expects lower prices to be in place in 2026. But that’s only the beginning. Ten more drugs will be selected for 2026, going up to 15 for 2027 and then 20 per year from 2029and thereafter. The lower prices are projected to save the federal government $100 billion over the next several years. Crucially, this means that the negotiations won’t just benefit people who are on these specific medications; the savings are passed along, indirectly, to everyone on Medicare.
2) A cap on out-of-pocket spending. While the IRA’s price negotiation provision has garnered the lion’s share of media attention, this change will have the most direct consequence for most seniors. In 2025, everyone with Medicare’s prescription drug benefit, called Part D, will pay no more than $2,000 per year out of pocket for medications. CMS projects that nearly 19 million seniors will save an average of $400 per year. But this number alone does not tell the full story. Brooks-LaSure shared with me that she recently met a woman with leukemia. “She’s spending $12,000, which was 13 percent of her gross income, just for one drug,” she said.
snip
April 30, 2024
https://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/2024/04/29/columbia-protest-antisemitism-encampment-free-speech/
https://archive.ph/TYxhu
Many students and others on and around college campuses — including before the recent wave of demonstrations — have peacefully exercised their right to oppose what they consider Israel’s wrongful conduct in Gaza, as well as U.S. support for the Jewish state. Like many Americans, they find the terrible human costs of the Israel Defense Forces’ response to the Oct. 7 Hamas massacre — more than 34,000 mostly civilian Palestinians dead, destroyed infrastructure, mass displacement and a humanitarian crisis — militarily and morally unjustified. On too many occasions, however, protests have veered from legitimate concerns into antisemitism. Calling for a cease-fire and recognition of a Palestinian state is one thing. Celebrating or rationalizing the horrific violence of Oct. 7, or cheering on Hamas or other extremist groups, is quite another.
At some campuses, Jewish students, staff and faculty understandably feel intimidated and unwelcome. To cite a few examples from one protest hotbed, Columbia University in New York and its environs: Jews have been told “go back to Poland” and subjected to a handheld sign labeling them the Hamas military wing’s “next targets.” Jewish students were surrounded and pushed back by a student human chain, on instructions of a leading activist who warned that “Zionists” had “entered the encampment” — which protesters had set up in a public area. That activist, Khymani James, had previously told Columbia administrators that “Zionists don’t deserve to live” and suggested they should “be grateful that I’m not just going out and murdering Zionists.” (Three-month-old video of the meeting recently became public; Mr. James disavowed his comments only after they went viral.)
The worst expressions are not necessarily representative of all protesters, who themselves make up just a small fraction of students and young people generally. But any human rights movement worthy of the name should practice zero tolerance of antisemitism, period. This is cause for profound reflection by the protesters. Antisemitism is repugnant and contrary to democratic values; authorities who condemn it are making good use of their right to “counterspeech.” Beyond that, however, what should they do? Free expression, too, is essential to democracy. With very limited exceptions, people in the United States have the right to sing, write and say what they want, even if others find their language offensive or hateful. Illiberal official action is the wrong response to illiberal words.
Fortunately, the Constitution, as interpreted by the Supreme Court, provides guidance that is both balanced and eminently workable. The First Amendment protects even highly objectionable or bigoted speech — short of actual harassment, threats or incitement to violence. And it allows provocative demonstrations, subject to rational, narrowly tailored limitations on how, when and where they occur. Rules must be enforced evenhandedly, in what the court has called a “viewpoint-neutral” manner. (If only university leaders had not previously tilted, selectively, against speakers who contravene progressive norms, or equivocated about antisemitic rhetoric at congressional hearings.)
snip
How to confront antisemitism, deal with protests -- and respect free speech
https://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/2024/04/29/columbia-protest-antisemitism-encampment-free-speech/
https://archive.ph/TYxhu
Many students and others on and around college campuses — including before the recent wave of demonstrations — have peacefully exercised their right to oppose what they consider Israel’s wrongful conduct in Gaza, as well as U.S. support for the Jewish state. Like many Americans, they find the terrible human costs of the Israel Defense Forces’ response to the Oct. 7 Hamas massacre — more than 34,000 mostly civilian Palestinians dead, destroyed infrastructure, mass displacement and a humanitarian crisis — militarily and morally unjustified. On too many occasions, however, protests have veered from legitimate concerns into antisemitism. Calling for a cease-fire and recognition of a Palestinian state is one thing. Celebrating or rationalizing the horrific violence of Oct. 7, or cheering on Hamas or other extremist groups, is quite another.
At some campuses, Jewish students, staff and faculty understandably feel intimidated and unwelcome. To cite a few examples from one protest hotbed, Columbia University in New York and its environs: Jews have been told “go back to Poland” and subjected to a handheld sign labeling them the Hamas military wing’s “next targets.” Jewish students were surrounded and pushed back by a student human chain, on instructions of a leading activist who warned that “Zionists” had “entered the encampment” — which protesters had set up in a public area. That activist, Khymani James, had previously told Columbia administrators that “Zionists don’t deserve to live” and suggested they should “be grateful that I’m not just going out and murdering Zionists.” (Three-month-old video of the meeting recently became public; Mr. James disavowed his comments only after they went viral.)
The worst expressions are not necessarily representative of all protesters, who themselves make up just a small fraction of students and young people generally. But any human rights movement worthy of the name should practice zero tolerance of antisemitism, period. This is cause for profound reflection by the protesters. Antisemitism is repugnant and contrary to democratic values; authorities who condemn it are making good use of their right to “counterspeech.” Beyond that, however, what should they do? Free expression, too, is essential to democracy. With very limited exceptions, people in the United States have the right to sing, write and say what they want, even if others find their language offensive or hateful. Illiberal official action is the wrong response to illiberal words.
Fortunately, the Constitution, as interpreted by the Supreme Court, provides guidance that is both balanced and eminently workable. The First Amendment protects even highly objectionable or bigoted speech — short of actual harassment, threats or incitement to violence. And it allows provocative demonstrations, subject to rational, narrowly tailored limitations on how, when and where they occur. Rules must be enforced evenhandedly, in what the court has called a “viewpoint-neutral” manner. (If only university leaders had not previously tilted, selectively, against speakers who contravene progressive norms, or equivocated about antisemitic rhetoric at congressional hearings.)
snip
April 30, 2024
In a bold sermon that has gone viral, Pastor Loran Livingston of Central Church in Charlotte, North Carolina, delivers a powerful rebuke against the “God Bless the USA Bible,” endorsed by former President Donald Trump. Calling it “disgusting” and “blasphemous,” Pastor Livingston warns against the dangers of intertwining scripture with political symbols like the Constitution and Bill of Rights.
Charlotte evangelical pastor in national spotlight, called Trump Bible ‘disgusting’
https://www.charlotteobserver.com/news/politics-government/article288076880.html
A Charlotte evangelical pastor is in the national spotlight for a fire-and-brimstone sermon denouncing as “blasphemous” and “disgusting” what’s become known as the Trump Bible. Evangelicals are among the former president’s strongest backers, but Rev. Loran Livingston, the senior pastor of Central Church on Sardis Road condemned the Trump-endorsed “God Bless the USA Bible,” priced at $59.99. His April 14 sermon has drawn millions of views on social media. The bible homepage features a photo of a smiling Trump seated at what appears to be the Oval Office desk, although the website says Trump does not profit from sales of the book. Well, maybe with his base he does, but not with Livingston.
“ARE YOU KIDDING ME?”
The Trump Bible includes copies of the Constitution, Declaration of Independence, Bill of Rights, Pledge of Allegiance and the handwritten chorus to the song featured at Trump rallies: country singer Lee Greenwood’s “God Bless the USA.” Don’t fall for it, Livingston warned his flock at the packed 10:30 a.m. service. “When you don’t read and pray, you say, ‘Wow, there’s a Bible out now that includes the Constitution and the Bill of Rights, isn’t that wonderful?’ ” he said. “No!” he shouted. “It’s disgusting. It’s blasphemous. It’s a ploy. Are you kidding me? Some of you are so encouraged by that?” “The gospel is not an American gospel,” he said. “It is the Gospel of the Lord Jesus Christ.”
MIXING POLITICS AND CHURCH
“People that don’t read (the Bible) and pray will get politics mixed up with church,” Livingston said in his sermon that’s on his congregation’s YouTube site. “Some of you bring politics into the Church. You think that politics is spiritual stuff.” “No!” he said. “Your duty is to serve the Lord your God with all your heart, mind, soul, body and strength, and love your neighbor as yourself.” Livingston couldn’t be reached by The Charlotte Observer on Saturday. If you read the bible, he said, you’d also know that voting is not a “spiritual responsibility.” “My real citizenship is in heaven, from which we look for the Lord Jesus Christ,” Livingston said.
“BEND POLITICS TO THEOLOGY”
Livingston joins at least one nationally prominent Christian conservative to rebuke the Trump Bible: Andrew Walker of the Southern Baptist Theological Seminary, The Christian Post reported. “To put matters bluntly, a Bible like this should never have been made,” Walker wrote March 28 in the Christian publication World, quickly adding that he’s both pro-Bible and pro-Constitution. “The Bible is not a symbol of American identity even while we proudly herald the Bible-influenced shape of American life and values,” Walker wrote. “There is an ever-present temptation to allow one’s theology to bend to one’s politics when it is our politics that should bend to our theology.”
snip
'It's Disgusting, Blasphemous'! Megachurch Pastor Rebukes Trump Endorsed Bible
In a bold sermon that has gone viral, Pastor Loran Livingston of Central Church in Charlotte, North Carolina, delivers a powerful rebuke against the “God Bless the USA Bible,” endorsed by former President Donald Trump. Calling it “disgusting” and “blasphemous,” Pastor Livingston warns against the dangers of intertwining scripture with political symbols like the Constitution and Bill of Rights.
Charlotte evangelical pastor in national spotlight, called Trump Bible ‘disgusting’
https://www.charlotteobserver.com/news/politics-government/article288076880.html
A Charlotte evangelical pastor is in the national spotlight for a fire-and-brimstone sermon denouncing as “blasphemous” and “disgusting” what’s become known as the Trump Bible. Evangelicals are among the former president’s strongest backers, but Rev. Loran Livingston, the senior pastor of Central Church on Sardis Road condemned the Trump-endorsed “God Bless the USA Bible,” priced at $59.99. His April 14 sermon has drawn millions of views on social media. The bible homepage features a photo of a smiling Trump seated at what appears to be the Oval Office desk, although the website says Trump does not profit from sales of the book. Well, maybe with his base he does, but not with Livingston.
“ARE YOU KIDDING ME?”
The Trump Bible includes copies of the Constitution, Declaration of Independence, Bill of Rights, Pledge of Allegiance and the handwritten chorus to the song featured at Trump rallies: country singer Lee Greenwood’s “God Bless the USA.” Don’t fall for it, Livingston warned his flock at the packed 10:30 a.m. service. “When you don’t read and pray, you say, ‘Wow, there’s a Bible out now that includes the Constitution and the Bill of Rights, isn’t that wonderful?’ ” he said. “No!” he shouted. “It’s disgusting. It’s blasphemous. It’s a ploy. Are you kidding me? Some of you are so encouraged by that?” “The gospel is not an American gospel,” he said. “It is the Gospel of the Lord Jesus Christ.”
MIXING POLITICS AND CHURCH
“People that don’t read (the Bible) and pray will get politics mixed up with church,” Livingston said in his sermon that’s on his congregation’s YouTube site. “Some of you bring politics into the Church. You think that politics is spiritual stuff.” “No!” he said. “Your duty is to serve the Lord your God with all your heart, mind, soul, body and strength, and love your neighbor as yourself.” Livingston couldn’t be reached by The Charlotte Observer on Saturday. If you read the bible, he said, you’d also know that voting is not a “spiritual responsibility.” “My real citizenship is in heaven, from which we look for the Lord Jesus Christ,” Livingston said.
“BEND POLITICS TO THEOLOGY”
Livingston joins at least one nationally prominent Christian conservative to rebuke the Trump Bible: Andrew Walker of the Southern Baptist Theological Seminary, The Christian Post reported. “To put matters bluntly, a Bible like this should never have been made,” Walker wrote March 28 in the Christian publication World, quickly adding that he’s both pro-Bible and pro-Constitution. “The Bible is not a symbol of American identity even while we proudly herald the Bible-influenced shape of American life and values,” Walker wrote. “There is an ever-present temptation to allow one’s theology to bend to one’s politics when it is our politics that should bend to our theology.”
snip
April 30, 2024
Pro-Palestinian student activists say their movement is anti-Zionist but not antisemitic. It is not a distinction that everyone accepts.
https://www.nytimes.com/2024/04/29/nyregion/college-protests-columbia-campus.html
https://archive.ph/YGHvh
Columbia’s “Gaza Solidarity Encampment” has inspired a national student movement against Israel’s treatment of Palestinians. Credit...Juan Arredondo for The New York Times
In a video shared widely online, a leader of the pro-Palestinian student movement at Columbia University stands near the center of a lawn on the campus and calls out, “We have Zionists who have entered the camp.” Dozens of protesters, who have created a tent village called the “Gaza Solidarity Encampment,” repeat his words back to him: “We have Zionists who have entered the camp.” “Walk and take a step forward,” the leader says, as the students continue to repeat his every utterance, “so that we can start to push them out of the camp.” The protesters link arms and march in formation toward three Jewish students who have come inside the encampment.
https://twitter.com/jessicaschwalb7/status/1782252789625663770
“It was really scary because we had like 75 people quickly gathered around, encircling us, doing exactly what he said to do,” Avi Weinberg, one of the Jewish students, said in an interview. He and his friends had gone to see the encampment, not intending to provoke, he said. When it began to feel tense, one of the students started to record the encounter. They are not sure precisely how the protest leader determined they were supportive of Israel. “Suddenly we are being called ‘the Zionists’ in their encampment,” Mr. Weinberg said. “He put a target on our back.”
On Thursday, the incident took on new significance when a video from January resurfaced on social media showing the same protest leader, Khymani James, saying “Zionists don’t deserve to live” and “Be grateful that I’m not just going out and murdering Zionists.” The next day, Columbia officials announced they had barred Mr. James from campus. Columbia has been ground zero in a national student movement against Israel’s treatment of Palestinians, with protesters setting up encampments on campuses across the country. Hundreds of demonstrators — at Columbia, Yale, Emerson College, the University of Southern California and beyond — have been arrested.
Pro-Palestinian demonstrators across the country say Israel is committing what they see as genocide against the Palestinian people, and they aim to keep a spotlight on the suffering. But some Jewish students who support Israel and what they see as its right to defend itself against Hamas say the protests have made them afraid to walk freely on campus. They hear denunciations of Zionism and calls for a Palestinian uprising as an attack on Jews themselves. The tension goes to the heart of a question that has touched off debate among observers and critics of the protests: At what point does pro-Palestinian political speech in a time of war cross the line into the type of antisemitism colleges have vowed to combat?
snip
Universities Face an Urgent Question: What Makes a Protest Antisemitic?
Pro-Palestinian student activists say their movement is anti-Zionist but not antisemitic. It is not a distinction that everyone accepts.
https://www.nytimes.com/2024/04/29/nyregion/college-protests-columbia-campus.html
https://archive.ph/YGHvh
Columbia’s “Gaza Solidarity Encampment” has inspired a national student movement against Israel’s treatment of Palestinians. Credit...Juan Arredondo for The New York Times
In a video shared widely online, a leader of the pro-Palestinian student movement at Columbia University stands near the center of a lawn on the campus and calls out, “We have Zionists who have entered the camp.” Dozens of protesters, who have created a tent village called the “Gaza Solidarity Encampment,” repeat his words back to him: “We have Zionists who have entered the camp.” “Walk and take a step forward,” the leader says, as the students continue to repeat his every utterance, “so that we can start to push them out of the camp.” The protesters link arms and march in formation toward three Jewish students who have come inside the encampment.
https://twitter.com/jessicaschwalb7/status/1782252789625663770
“It was really scary because we had like 75 people quickly gathered around, encircling us, doing exactly what he said to do,” Avi Weinberg, one of the Jewish students, said in an interview. He and his friends had gone to see the encampment, not intending to provoke, he said. When it began to feel tense, one of the students started to record the encounter. They are not sure precisely how the protest leader determined they were supportive of Israel. “Suddenly we are being called ‘the Zionists’ in their encampment,” Mr. Weinberg said. “He put a target on our back.”
On Thursday, the incident took on new significance when a video from January resurfaced on social media showing the same protest leader, Khymani James, saying “Zionists don’t deserve to live” and “Be grateful that I’m not just going out and murdering Zionists.” The next day, Columbia officials announced they had barred Mr. James from campus. Columbia has been ground zero in a national student movement against Israel’s treatment of Palestinians, with protesters setting up encampments on campuses across the country. Hundreds of demonstrators — at Columbia, Yale, Emerson College, the University of Southern California and beyond — have been arrested.
Pro-Palestinian demonstrators across the country say Israel is committing what they see as genocide against the Palestinian people, and they aim to keep a spotlight on the suffering. But some Jewish students who support Israel and what they see as its right to defend itself against Hamas say the protests have made them afraid to walk freely on campus. They hear denunciations of Zionism and calls for a Palestinian uprising as an attack on Jews themselves. The tension goes to the heart of a question that has touched off debate among observers and critics of the protests: At what point does pro-Palestinian political speech in a time of war cross the line into the type of antisemitism colleges have vowed to combat?
snip
April 30, 2024
https://www.nytimes.com/2024/04/29/science/california-barred-spotted-owls.html
https://archive.ph/nBDwO
Northern spotted owl populations have declined by up to 80 percent over the last two decades. As few as 3,000 remain on federal lands, compared with 12,000 in the 1990s. Credit...Gerry Ellis/Minden Pictures
In the ancient forests of the Pacific Northwest, the northern spotted owl, a rare and fragile subspecies of spotted owl, is being muscled out of its limited habitat by the barred owl, its larger and more ornery northeastern cousin. The opportunistic barred owl has been moving in on spotted owl turf for more than half a century, competing with the locals for food and space, outnumbering, out-reproducing and inevitably chasing them out of their nesting spots. Barred owls have also emerged as a threat to the California spotted owl, a closely related subspecies in the Sierra Nevada and the mountains of coastal and Southern California.
A barred owl in New York in 2021. Credit...Dave Sanders for The New York Times
Crammed into marginal territories and bedeviled by wildfires, northern spotted owl populations have declined by up to 80 percent over the last two decades. As few as 3,000 remain on federal lands, compared with 11,000 in 1993. In the wilds of British Columbia, the northern spotted owl has vanished; only one, a female, remains. If the trend continues, the northern spotted owl could become the first owl subspecies in the United States to go extinct.
A northern spotted owl protecting its nest during the release of two captive-born chicks near Roseburg, Ore., in 2003. Credit...Rob Kerr
In a last-ditch effort to rescue the northern spotted owl from oblivion and protect the California spotted owl population, the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service has proposed culling a staggering number of barred owls across a swath of 11 to 14 million acres in Washington, Oregon and Northern California, where barred owls — which the agency regards as invasive — are encroaching. The lethal management plan calls for eradicating up to half a million barred owls over the next 30 years, or 30 percent of the population over that time frame. The owls would be dispatched using the cheapest and most efficient methods, from large-bore shotguns with night scopes to capture and euthanasia.
David Wiens, a biologist with the U.S. Geological Survey, in a forest near Corvallis, Ore., in 2018. He carries a digital bird-calling device intended to attract barred owls to be culled. Credit...Ted S. Warren/Associated Press
Karla Bloem, the executive director of the International Owl Center in Minnesota, is conflicted over the prospect of killing one species to protect another. “The concept of shooting birds is awful — nobody wants that,” she said. “But none of the alternatives have worked, and at this late date no other option is viable. Extinction is a forever thing.” Bob Sallinger, the executive director of Bird Conservation Oregon, agreed but emphasized that the culling must complement the restoration and preservation of the few remaining old-growth forests. “The science clearly shows that you must both protect and increase habitat and remove some level of barred owls if the northern spotted owl is to have a chance of survival,” he said.
snip
They Shoot Owls in California, Don't They?
https://www.nytimes.com/2024/04/29/science/california-barred-spotted-owls.html
https://archive.ph/nBDwO
Northern spotted owl populations have declined by up to 80 percent over the last two decades. As few as 3,000 remain on federal lands, compared with 12,000 in the 1990s. Credit...Gerry Ellis/Minden Pictures
In the ancient forests of the Pacific Northwest, the northern spotted owl, a rare and fragile subspecies of spotted owl, is being muscled out of its limited habitat by the barred owl, its larger and more ornery northeastern cousin. The opportunistic barred owl has been moving in on spotted owl turf for more than half a century, competing with the locals for food and space, outnumbering, out-reproducing and inevitably chasing them out of their nesting spots. Barred owls have also emerged as a threat to the California spotted owl, a closely related subspecies in the Sierra Nevada and the mountains of coastal and Southern California.
A barred owl in New York in 2021. Credit...Dave Sanders for The New York Times
Crammed into marginal territories and bedeviled by wildfires, northern spotted owl populations have declined by up to 80 percent over the last two decades. As few as 3,000 remain on federal lands, compared with 11,000 in 1993. In the wilds of British Columbia, the northern spotted owl has vanished; only one, a female, remains. If the trend continues, the northern spotted owl could become the first owl subspecies in the United States to go extinct.
A northern spotted owl protecting its nest during the release of two captive-born chicks near Roseburg, Ore., in 2003. Credit...Rob Kerr
In a last-ditch effort to rescue the northern spotted owl from oblivion and protect the California spotted owl population, the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service has proposed culling a staggering number of barred owls across a swath of 11 to 14 million acres in Washington, Oregon and Northern California, where barred owls — which the agency regards as invasive — are encroaching. The lethal management plan calls for eradicating up to half a million barred owls over the next 30 years, or 30 percent of the population over that time frame. The owls would be dispatched using the cheapest and most efficient methods, from large-bore shotguns with night scopes to capture and euthanasia.
David Wiens, a biologist with the U.S. Geological Survey, in a forest near Corvallis, Ore., in 2018. He carries a digital bird-calling device intended to attract barred owls to be culled. Credit...Ted S. Warren/Associated Press
Karla Bloem, the executive director of the International Owl Center in Minnesota, is conflicted over the prospect of killing one species to protect another. “The concept of shooting birds is awful — nobody wants that,” she said. “But none of the alternatives have worked, and at this late date no other option is viable. Extinction is a forever thing.” Bob Sallinger, the executive director of Bird Conservation Oregon, agreed but emphasized that the culling must complement the restoration and preservation of the few remaining old-growth forests. “The science clearly shows that you must both protect and increase habitat and remove some level of barred owls if the northern spotted owl is to have a chance of survival,” he said.
snip
April 30, 2024
https://www.thetimes.co.uk/article/israel-icc-war-crimes-gaza-us-z6p08j7ch
The US has said it opposes the International Criminal Court’s investigation into alleged Israeli war crimes in Gaza after reports the court was poised to issue arrest warrants against Binyamin Netanyahu and other officials. Netanyahu, the Israeli prime minister, is understood to have asked President Biden to block the inquiry. The court, which is based in The Hague, is believed to be considering warrants for the arrest of Netanyahu; Yoav Gallant, his defence minister; and Herzi Halevi, the Israel Defence Forces chief of staff.
Yoav Gallant and, below centre, Herzi Halevi - GETTY IMAGES
Despite public dissent at Netanyahu’s handling of the conflict over recent weeks, the Biden administration offered a public show of support for him on Monday. “We’ve been really clear about the ICC investigation,” Karine Jean-Pierre, the White House press secretary, said. “We do not support it. We don’t believe that they have the jurisdiction.” Neither Israel nor the United States are among the court’s 124 member states. “Under my leadership, Israel will never accept any attempt by the ICC to undermine its inherent right of self defence,” Netanyahu wrote on Twitter/X last week. “While the ICC will not affect Israel’s actions, it would set a dangerous precedent that threatens the soldiers and officials of all democracies fighting savage terrorism and wanton aggression.”
Behind the scenes, however, the prime minister is reported to be increasingly concerned that the court could hold him personally accountable for the spiralling death toll in Gaza and for mounting allegations of war crimes by Israeli troops. Almost 35,000 Palestinians have been killed since the war began in October, according to the latest figures from the Hamas-run health ministry in Gaza. Netanyahu voiced his concern about the investigation during a phone call with Biden on Sunday, in which the two leaders discussed the latest hostage negotiations with Hamas and efforts to broker a ceasefire. Israeli officials told Axios that the prime minister asked Biden personally to help prevent the court from issuing warrants against him and other senior officials.
US officials have indicated that they remain uncertain if warrants are imminent, but have revealed that the prosecutor’s office is under pressure to take action against Israel from several member states and activist groups, Axios reported. Members of Congress have warned that any ICC arrest warrants for Israeli officials will be met with US retaliation. Mike Johnson, the Republican House speaker, said that a move targeting Israel would be “disgraceful” and demanded that the Biden administration should “use every available tool to prevent such an abomination”. “If unchallenged by the Biden administration, the ICC could create and assume unprecedented power to issue arrest warrants against American political leaders, American diplomats, and American military personnel,” Johnson said in a statement.
snip
The US says it opposes the International Criminal Court's investigation into alleged Israeli war crimes
https://www.thetimes.co.uk/article/israel-icc-war-crimes-gaza-us-z6p08j7ch
The US has said it opposes the International Criminal Court’s investigation into alleged Israeli war crimes in Gaza after reports the court was poised to issue arrest warrants against Binyamin Netanyahu and other officials. Netanyahu, the Israeli prime minister, is understood to have asked President Biden to block the inquiry. The court, which is based in The Hague, is believed to be considering warrants for the arrest of Netanyahu; Yoav Gallant, his defence minister; and Herzi Halevi, the Israel Defence Forces chief of staff.
Yoav Gallant and, below centre, Herzi Halevi - GETTY IMAGES
Despite public dissent at Netanyahu’s handling of the conflict over recent weeks, the Biden administration offered a public show of support for him on Monday. “We’ve been really clear about the ICC investigation,” Karine Jean-Pierre, the White House press secretary, said. “We do not support it. We don’t believe that they have the jurisdiction.” Neither Israel nor the United States are among the court’s 124 member states. “Under my leadership, Israel will never accept any attempt by the ICC to undermine its inherent right of self defence,” Netanyahu wrote on Twitter/X last week. “While the ICC will not affect Israel’s actions, it would set a dangerous precedent that threatens the soldiers and officials of all democracies fighting savage terrorism and wanton aggression.”
Behind the scenes, however, the prime minister is reported to be increasingly concerned that the court could hold him personally accountable for the spiralling death toll in Gaza and for mounting allegations of war crimes by Israeli troops. Almost 35,000 Palestinians have been killed since the war began in October, according to the latest figures from the Hamas-run health ministry in Gaza. Netanyahu voiced his concern about the investigation during a phone call with Biden on Sunday, in which the two leaders discussed the latest hostage negotiations with Hamas and efforts to broker a ceasefire. Israeli officials told Axios that the prime minister asked Biden personally to help prevent the court from issuing warrants against him and other senior officials.
US officials have indicated that they remain uncertain if warrants are imminent, but have revealed that the prosecutor’s office is under pressure to take action against Israel from several member states and activist groups, Axios reported. Members of Congress have warned that any ICC arrest warrants for Israeli officials will be met with US retaliation. Mike Johnson, the Republican House speaker, said that a move targeting Israel would be “disgraceful” and demanded that the Biden administration should “use every available tool to prevent such an abomination”. “If unchallenged by the Biden administration, the ICC could create and assume unprecedented power to issue arrest warrants against American political leaders, American diplomats, and American military personnel,” Johnson said in a statement.
snip
April 30, 2024
https://prospect.org/economy/2024-04-29-net-neutrality-in-name-only/
With 5G, service providers can use “network slicing” to create a separate area of spectrum for selected apps that would allow them to work perfectly even if the rest of the network is busy.
The flurry of executive branch rulemaking pushed through under the deadline to avoid reversal in a future Congress feels like such a robust exertion of presidential power that the details often get fuzzy. All rules are not created equal, and some of them are missed opportunities rather than real protections for the public. A case in point is the Federal Communications Commission’s alleged restoration of net neutrality, which could actually create the thing that it’s supposed to prevent: tiered broadband speeds. According to some experts, big telecom firms are now poised to create special circumstances for Big Tech applications that deliver their content at faster speeds. The telecoms lobbied the FCC heavily for this privilege and are already making plans to exploit it.
We once had net neutrality in the U.S., after it passed during the Obama administration in 2015. Donald Trump’s FCC chair Ajit Pai rolled back those regulations in 2018. The telecom industry successfully delayed Democrats the opportunity to do anything about this by denying a fifth FCC commissioner from getting confirmed for 32 months. Gigi Sohn, the Biden administration’s first nominee for the commissioner seat that would give Democrats the majority, didn’t get a vote for two years and finally withdrew from consideration, after a $23 million lobbying campaign. The eventual appointee, Anna Gomez, was not considered as strong on consumer protection as Sohn, and didn’t make it onto the FCC until last September. That gave the agency a short window to pass net neutrality rules.
The rule, which was finalized last week, reclassifies broadband service under Title II of the Telecommunications Act, making it an essential service that will “ensure the internet is fast, open, and fair.” Under the new rule, providers are not allowed to block or throttle certain websites or applications, such as degrading the quality of streaming video. Those prohibitions deal with slowing down content online. However, as explained in an article by Barbara van Schewick, director of Stanford Law School’s Center for Internet and Society, the new rules could open up the opportunity for telecom companies to speed up certain content, by creating “fast lanes.” Mobile internet service providers (ISPs) in particular could give better speeds and quality in 5G networks to certain applications or websites in exchange for an increased consumer price.
This opportunity would not be available for “home basic broadband,” FCC chair Jessica Rosenworcel said last week. But in 5G, ISPs can use “network slicing,” literally creating a separate area of spectrum for selected apps that would allow them to work perfectly even if the rest of the network is busy. Today, that is primarily available for mobile phones, but as The Washington Post has reported, other devices using the internet could have this network slicing ability, like video game terminals, or various smart devices for the home. In addition, cable companies could soon gain the ability to use network slicing for their internet products. More and more of what we think of as the internet, in other words, could have the ability to use fast lanes, at odds with the principles of net neutrality.
snip
Net Neutrality in Name Only?
https://prospect.org/economy/2024-04-29-net-neutrality-in-name-only/
With 5G, service providers can use “network slicing” to create a separate area of spectrum for selected apps that would allow them to work perfectly even if the rest of the network is busy.
The flurry of executive branch rulemaking pushed through under the deadline to avoid reversal in a future Congress feels like such a robust exertion of presidential power that the details often get fuzzy. All rules are not created equal, and some of them are missed opportunities rather than real protections for the public. A case in point is the Federal Communications Commission’s alleged restoration of net neutrality, which could actually create the thing that it’s supposed to prevent: tiered broadband speeds. According to some experts, big telecom firms are now poised to create special circumstances for Big Tech applications that deliver their content at faster speeds. The telecoms lobbied the FCC heavily for this privilege and are already making plans to exploit it.
We once had net neutrality in the U.S., after it passed during the Obama administration in 2015. Donald Trump’s FCC chair Ajit Pai rolled back those regulations in 2018. The telecom industry successfully delayed Democrats the opportunity to do anything about this by denying a fifth FCC commissioner from getting confirmed for 32 months. Gigi Sohn, the Biden administration’s first nominee for the commissioner seat that would give Democrats the majority, didn’t get a vote for two years and finally withdrew from consideration, after a $23 million lobbying campaign. The eventual appointee, Anna Gomez, was not considered as strong on consumer protection as Sohn, and didn’t make it onto the FCC until last September. That gave the agency a short window to pass net neutrality rules.
The rule, which was finalized last week, reclassifies broadband service under Title II of the Telecommunications Act, making it an essential service that will “ensure the internet is fast, open, and fair.” Under the new rule, providers are not allowed to block or throttle certain websites or applications, such as degrading the quality of streaming video. Those prohibitions deal with slowing down content online. However, as explained in an article by Barbara van Schewick, director of Stanford Law School’s Center for Internet and Society, the new rules could open up the opportunity for telecom companies to speed up certain content, by creating “fast lanes.” Mobile internet service providers (ISPs) in particular could give better speeds and quality in 5G networks to certain applications or websites in exchange for an increased consumer price.
This opportunity would not be available for “home basic broadband,” FCC chair Jessica Rosenworcel said last week. But in 5G, ISPs can use “network slicing,” literally creating a separate area of spectrum for selected apps that would allow them to work perfectly even if the rest of the network is busy. Today, that is primarily available for mobile phones, but as The Washington Post has reported, other devices using the internet could have this network slicing ability, like video game terminals, or various smart devices for the home. In addition, cable companies could soon gain the ability to use network slicing for their internet products. More and more of what we think of as the internet, in other words, could have the ability to use fast lanes, at odds with the principles of net neutrality.
snip
April 30, 2024
https://prospect.org/health/2024-04-29-va-bows-to-dialysis-duopoly/
The headquarters of DaVita, Inc., in Denver, Colorado
The federal contracting system has long been riddled with monopolists, union-busters, and rampant profiteers. From the Pentagon to the Department of Agriculture, bad behavior from private companies is routinely and paradoxically rewarded with public funds, and little oversight from the government institutions. Sometimes, these corrupt dynamics literally cost lives. The Department of Veterans Affairs (VA) has long been assailed for the costly and ineffective contracting network it has built to (often, grossly inadequately) service veterans’ health care needs.
This dysfunction has been both caused and worsened by privatization schemes that transfer untold billions to private corporations, at the cost of basic access to care for veterans. These ineffectual privatization schemes extend to everything from the VA’s IT network to its provision of mental health treatment. Each additional iteration of privatization undermines veterans’ basic access to quality care, allows the obscene profiteering of taxpayer money by private companies, fosters the formation of abusive monopolies, and endangers workers and patients alike. Perhaps nowhere is this dynamic more viciously on display than in the VA’s relationship with its dialysis contractors.
There are over 40,000 veterans enrolled in the Veterans Health Administration (VHA) who are suffering with kidney failure, as per the National Institute of Diabetes and Digestive and Kidney Diseases (NIDDK). Kidney failure is largely treated by dialysis, and approximately 81 percent of veterans who received dialysis treatment through the VHA do so through so-called “community providers,” which is now largely accomplished via two distinct programs; the Nationwide Dialysis Services Contract (NDSC) program and the Community Care Network (CCN). NDSC is significantly more expensive for dialysis services, in part because its fees are not capped by Medicare rates, as CCN is.
This is on its face obscene, given that providers have been found to charge NDSC patients significantly increased rates compared to Medicare patients, while providing no rationale for such a significant price differentiation. Of course, while (appropriately) attempting to remediate pricing discrepancies between government programs, CCN has itself proven to be a wildly inadequate system, reliant on private care providers that routinely underdeliver in their care commitments. Even so, it is the preferable (and significantly less expensive) system for dialysis care within the VHA and, except for limited circumstances, veterans are supposed to be referred to providers secured under the CCN umbrella first.
snip
The VA Bows to the Dialysis Duopoly
https://prospect.org/health/2024-04-29-va-bows-to-dialysis-duopoly/
The headquarters of DaVita, Inc., in Denver, Colorado
The federal contracting system has long been riddled with monopolists, union-busters, and rampant profiteers. From the Pentagon to the Department of Agriculture, bad behavior from private companies is routinely and paradoxically rewarded with public funds, and little oversight from the government institutions. Sometimes, these corrupt dynamics literally cost lives. The Department of Veterans Affairs (VA) has long been assailed for the costly and ineffective contracting network it has built to (often, grossly inadequately) service veterans’ health care needs.
This dysfunction has been both caused and worsened by privatization schemes that transfer untold billions to private corporations, at the cost of basic access to care for veterans. These ineffectual privatization schemes extend to everything from the VA’s IT network to its provision of mental health treatment. Each additional iteration of privatization undermines veterans’ basic access to quality care, allows the obscene profiteering of taxpayer money by private companies, fosters the formation of abusive monopolies, and endangers workers and patients alike. Perhaps nowhere is this dynamic more viciously on display than in the VA’s relationship with its dialysis contractors.
There are over 40,000 veterans enrolled in the Veterans Health Administration (VHA) who are suffering with kidney failure, as per the National Institute of Diabetes and Digestive and Kidney Diseases (NIDDK). Kidney failure is largely treated by dialysis, and approximately 81 percent of veterans who received dialysis treatment through the VHA do so through so-called “community providers,” which is now largely accomplished via two distinct programs; the Nationwide Dialysis Services Contract (NDSC) program and the Community Care Network (CCN). NDSC is significantly more expensive for dialysis services, in part because its fees are not capped by Medicare rates, as CCN is.
This is on its face obscene, given that providers have been found to charge NDSC patients significantly increased rates compared to Medicare patients, while providing no rationale for such a significant price differentiation. Of course, while (appropriately) attempting to remediate pricing discrepancies between government programs, CCN has itself proven to be a wildly inadequate system, reliant on private care providers that routinely underdeliver in their care commitments. Even so, it is the preferable (and significantly less expensive) system for dialysis care within the VHA and, except for limited circumstances, veterans are supposed to be referred to providers secured under the CCN umbrella first.
snip
Profile Information
Gender: FemaleHometown: London
Home country: US/UK/Sweden
Current location: Stockholm, Sweden
Member since: Sun Jul 1, 2018, 07:25 PM
Number of posts: 43,497
