ADVERTISEMENT

By the time you read this, it will no longer be breaking news that one of the cancers which has plagued Supreme Court Justice, Ruth Bader Ginsberg, has returned.

Thankfully, she has declared her intention to remain on the court and, prayerfully, her longevity will extend well-beyond the January 2021 presidential inauguration.

I have no doubt that if, before then, she should no longer be able to fulfill her responsibilities as an Associate Justice, Mitch McConnell would attempt to push a Supreme Court nominee through Senate confirmation with mercurial speed.

Justice Ginsberg has proven herself to be a woman of character, strength, integrity, and endurance. Her judicial decisions have identified her as a champion of the people and a staunch proponent of real justice.

The Notorious R.B.G. has been a force for equal rights and justice for decades long before her confirmation to the Supreme Court. I can only assume that her commitment to womens rights, civil rights and rights for the LGBQT community is based upon her experiences as a victim of discrimination.

For all citizens of conscience, the news of the recidivism of her cancer should be met with deep regret and, especially for political progressives, provides one more reason to vote against #45!

Justice Ginsbergs decisions and declarations from the bench have commonly met the test of practicality and good judgment. For me, her most notable quote referenced SCOTUS 2013 dissolution of Section 5 of the Voting Rights Act.

In her dissent, she wrote: The sad irony of todays decision lies in its utter failure to grasp why the [Voting Rights Act] has proven effective Throwing out preclearance when it has worked and is continuing to work to stop discriminatory changes is like throwing away your umbrella in a rainstorm because you are not getting wet.

With the 2020 election and the prospect of a new administration in 2021, the health andwell-being of Justice Ginsberg looms large. Notably, she is onefourth of the Liberal Wing of the Supreme Court. Shes reliable in her support for liberal positions of juris prudence.

Her decisions have always been based upon protections and greater inclusiveness for individuals without regard to race, gender or gender identification.

Current administration and Senate dispositions guarantee that any replacement for herwould hold a judicial philosophy that was diametrically opposed to hers and would work to reverse many of the hard-won civil rights gains of the past fifty-years.

Understanding this gives us one more reason to vote. Although we specifically vote for president and vice-president in a national election, our vote for them means so much more. This is demonstrated by the election of #45, and his supporting cast in the Senate.

Many, even his niece, Mary Trump, have labeled #45 a virulent racist, but hes not the only one in the White House. Stephen Miller, the identified architect of the Muslim Ban and Family Separation/Border Detention has been identified as a racist in the ilk of his president.

Over 20,000 times, 45 has been a documented liar. I have watched innumerable cabinetmembers and members of the executive staff, who serve on the inside of the administrations revolving door, lie with the same vigor as their chief.

In reflection, we have generously paid three consecutive press secretaries to lie to uswhenever and however the boss determined it necessary. And they arent the only ones!

We should not need a reason to vote beyond our civic responsibility; but, with 45s lies and selfpromotion, his mis-management of COVID-19, the growth and his promotion of racial injustice, and, now, the potential for molding the Supreme Court in his malignant image, we must vote.

Voting must be a personal and collective imperative!

Dr. E. Faye Williams is national chair of the National Congress of Black Women, Inc. Contact her via http://www.nationalcongressbw.org.

ADVERTISEMENT

Original post:
One more reason we need Justice Ginsberg - Daytona Times

Amber Rudd, Nicky Morgan and Andrew Neil are among those in the running to take over as the BBCs next chairman as Boris Johnson seeks a candidate in tune with the Governments agenda.

The Prime Minister is said to be drawing up a long list of possible candidates, all of which do not want to blow up the broadcaster.

The BBCs chairman, Sir David Clementi, is stepping down early next year and his replacement will be appointed by the Queen on advice from the government.

Mr Johnson wants to get on with it and decide on his successor by the Autumn but wants to avoid a putting a berserker in the position, sources toldThe Sunday Times reports.

Former-culture secretary Baroness Morgan and former home secretary Ms Rudd are both being considered as potentials to take over due to their being credible both within the Tory party and in the BBC itself.

Amber Rudd, Nicky Morgan (left) and Andrew Neil (right) are among those in the running to take over as the BBCs next chairman as Boris Johnson seeks a candidate in tune with the Governments agenda

The BBCs chairman, Sir David Clementi (pictured), is stepping down early next year and his replacement will be appointed by the Queen on advice from the government.

Broadcaster Mr Neil is also being considered for these reasons and despite him being heavily critical of the Prime Minister in the past his years with the BBC also stand him in good stead.

Rudd and Johnson have remained on good terms after she quit the cabinet last year. But her appointment would see staunch opposition from senior aids includingDominic Cummings.

Tory MPs have warned the Government about the palpable anger of voters over the BBCs decision to scrap free TV licences for most over-75s, it was yesterday revealed.

Figures showed that in some of their seats more than nine out of ten constituents who currently get the perk will have it taken away.

The corporation says it was forced to limit free licences to those on pension credit from August 1 because it could no longer afford to waive the 157.50 annual fee for all over-75s without severe cuts to programmes and channels.

Downing Street has described it as the wrong decision only for the BBC to hit back by pointing out that it was the Government which decided to stop funding the perk.

In a total of 110 Tory seats, at least 85 per cent of over-75s households will have to start paying the fee (stock image)

Now figures obtained by The Mail on Sunday show the full impact of the cut on the Tory heartlands: in Dame Cheryl Gillans Chesham and Amersham seat, a total of 91 per cent of households currently in receipt of the benefit will lose it, while in five other constituencies, including Sir John Redwoods Wokingham, the figure is 90 per cent.

In a total of 110 Tory seats, at least 85 per cent of over-75s households will have to start paying the fee.

It comes as the BBCs outgoing Director-General, Tony Hall, can be revealed to have held peace talks with Boris Johnson before he steps down at the end of the month.

Lord Hall is understood to have argued No 10 should adopt a less aggressive stance towards his successor, Tim Davie, over issues such as Government plans to decriminalise non-payment of the licence fee.

The Prime Minister is said to have adopted an emollient tone, saying he wanted to use the BBCs global reputation to project British soft power around the world, but stressing the need for efficiency savings.

The pandemic has cost the BBC more than 125 million so far: funding free TV licences for all over-75s would have cost a total of 745 million by 2022.

The BBC says it was forced to limit free licences to those on pension credit from August 1 because it could no longer afford to waive the 157.50 annual fee for all over-75s

The corporation originally set out plans to means test the free licence for over-75s from June, saving it an estimated 35 million per month, but it was delayed due to the coronavirus crisis.

The BBC says about 1.5 million households could still receive free licences, with 450,000 already having applied and has said pointedly that the Government sets and controls who receives pension credit.

Last night, Julian Knight, the Tory chairman of the Culture committee, said the figures showing the proportion of constituents losing the benefit would cause a collective gnashing of teeth on our backbenches.

Mr Knight, the MP for Solihull where 84 per cent of households receiving the benefit will lose it said: It shows the scale of harm the BBC decision has caused to our voters.

I imagine in the coming months the anger amongst our people will be palpable. The question will be does the Government get it in the neck or the BBC?

The BBC said of the discussions between Lord Hall and Mr Johnson: We wont be commenting on this. Downing Street also declined to comment.

Go here to read the rest:
Nicky Morgan and Andrew Neil are in the running to be the BBC's next chairman - Up News Info

Douglas Ross was elected unopposed as the new Leader of the Scottish Conservatives. | PA Images

3 min read10 August

Dods People draws together a list of appointments in Westminster politics, the devolved administrations and the public affairs sector in the last week.

Houses of Parliament:

House of Lords

New Conservative life peers announced:

Lorraine Fullbrook, Edward Udny-Lister, Daniel Moylan, Andrew Sharpe, Michael Spencer, Veronica Wadley, James Wharton, Helena Morrissey, Neil Mendoza, Henry Bellingham, Kenneth Clarke, Ruth Davidson, Philip Hammond, Nicholas Herbert, Joseph Johnson, John Mark Lancaster, Patrick McLoughlin, Aamer Sarfraz and Edward Vaizey.

New Labour life peers announced:

Susan Hayman, Prem Sikka, Anthony Woodley, Kathryn Clark and Brinley Davies.

New Democratic Unionist Party life peer announced:

Nigel Dodds.

New non-affiliated life peers announced:

Claire Fox, Charles Moore, Frank Field, Catharine Hoey, Ian Austin, Gisela Stuart and John Woodcock.

New crossbench life peers announced:

Ian Botham, Louise Casey, Evgeny Lebedev and Nemat (Minouche) Shafik.

Lord Livermore is on a leave of absence since 31st July.

Departments of State:

Philip Barton to become the first Permanent Under Secretary in the new Foreign Commonwealth and Development Office in September.

Cabinet Office

Lord Nash appointed as the new Lead Non-Executive Director, replacing Ian Cheshire.

Foreign and Commonwealth Office

Joanna Roper has been appointed Her Majestys Ambassador to the Kingdom of the Netherlands in succession to Peter Wilson.

Barbara Woodward named as the UK Permanent Representative to the United Nations in New York.

National Cyber Security Centre Lindy Cameron to become the Chief Executive in October, replacing Ciaran Martin.

Department for Health and Social Care

Fiona Caldicott to stand down as National Data Guardian, a replacement is being recruited.

Ministry of Justice

Charlie Taylor announced as the preferred candidate for next Her Majestys Chief Inspector of Prisons.

Northern Ireland Office

Lindy Cameron to stand down as Director-General.

Home Office

Advisory Council on the Misuse of Drugs Sarah Galvani, Judith Aldridge and David Wood appointed as members.

Non-Ministerial Departments

HM Revenue & Customs Justin Holliday appointed as Tax Assurance Commissioner, replacing Melissa Tatton.

Parties:

Scottish Conservatives

Douglas Ross was elected unopposed as the new Leader.

Devolved Authorities:

Welsh Parliament

Public Accounts Committee Angela Burns became a member.

Economy, Infrastructure and Skills Committee Suzy Davies became a member.

Health, Social Care and Sport Committee Andrew RT Davies replaced Angela Burns as a member.

Climate Change, Environment and Rural Affairs Committee Janet Finch-Saunders replaced Andrew RT Davies as a member.

Legislation, Justice and Constitution Committee David Melding replaced Suzy Davies as a member.

External Affairs and Additional Legislation Committee Laura Anne Jones replaced David Melding as a member.

Children, Young People and Education Committee Laura Anne Jones replaced Janet Finch-Saunders as a member.

Local Authorities:

Dacorum Borough Council Claire Hamilton named as the new Chief Executive, replacing Sally Marshall at the end of October.

Salford City Council Jim Taylor to stand down as Chief Executive in January.

Industry

If you and your organisation would like to be included in this section, then email us at editor@dodsgroup.com

Interest Groups

Joseph Rowntree Foundation - Denise Holle to join as Head of Social Investment.

The Royal Free Charity Jon Spiers appointed as Chief Executive.

Anthony Nolan - Antonio Pagliuca appointed as Chief Medical and Scientific Adviser.

Read more:
New appointments this week in UK politics, the civil service and public affairs - PoliticsHome.com

Open House: Will National Education Policy 2020 transform the education system of the country?

Its limited to only study matters

The success or failure of any policy/scheme in our country depends on the efforts made on the ground level. The National Education Policy is confined to matters relating to study only whereas other related issues are equally important. For example, buying school uniforms twice a year is a costly affair for a middle-class family. Instead of designer uniform, why not go for a regular plain colour uniform? The basic concept of the uniform is to avoid contrast between poor and rich students and bring smartness and discipline in them. Even in big cities, school uniforms are available at one or two particular shops at very exorbitant rates. Schools should be free to choose plain colour of their own choice. In this way, plain colour uniforms can be got stitched from any tailor, generating more business for them. Similarly, in the NEP, it should have been made mandatory for the students of Classes VI to VIII to go on school trip once a year to a place situated at a distance of 1,000 km from his/her native place. In this way, students would get to know of the lifestyles and culture of people living in other parts of the country. This will be a genuine attempt for national integration and unity. Friendship and relation developed at a young age would last for a long time. The NEP should have looked into such aspects also.

Naresh Johar

Hope it fills all gaps in education system

The Indian education system is basically related to the marking system, homework sheets, workbooks or assignments and rote learning. A lot of time is wasted in copying and doing these things which are useless and trash. Hence, these things are a great burden and even more for those who write slowly. As a result, children do not find time for other activities like sports and arts since parents force them to give top priority to studies. Even teachers are bound to teach the only things given in the syllabus. And so, teaching something in depth and properly takes time which backlogs the portion and creates a problem for the teachers themselves. Modern education system teaches only the concept of mugging up. It is a barrier to the country's progress. Students in India are expected to cram up the books, chapters and syllabus and write their answer accordingly. Activity-based learning is an excellent solution for schools to aid their traditional education methods with a modern and advanced learning approach that brings confidence, healthy competition, innovation and creativity amongst students. The best way to address this problem is to introduce life-changing skill training in the school-based curriculum. Giving them some options at the onset of teenage gives them the chance to explore & learn more things beyond their textbooks. There should be a job-oriented skill development at the 12th level in education system so that students earn money after that for their livelihood or for their higher studies like in developed countries. Hope the new education policy fills all these gaps.

Amarjit Kalsi

The new policy is a Step in the right direction

The National Education Policy 2020 is set to alter the course of the future education system in the country. A step taken in the right direction after a long gap of 34 years signalling new normals with major shift from examination-centric to experimental learning and thinking as the key component of the curriculum of schools and colleges to follow in times to come. The options and flexibility to change subjects up to Class X will help explore the latent talent of the younger students. Use of local languages, the mother tongue as the medium of instruction in schools is another landmark initiative envisaged in the policy to promote the culture of innovation and mindset of explorations amongst students. Permitting foreign universities to set up centres for higher education will halt the brain drain from India.

Anil Vinayak

will create job-creators rather than job seekers

The NEP 2020 is a welcome step in the right direction with its major focus on critical thinking, experiential learning, interactive classrooms, integrated pedagogy, competency based education and much more. And the PM says the policy will create job creators, not job seekers. Obviously it is supposed to help in transforming the education system of the country. The present education system lays stress on theoretical not on practical knowledge because of which it needs a drastic change. So, the NEP has abolished 10+2 system envisaging no separation of arts, science and commerce streams. In fact, the 10+2 system and separate streams were not there in the 60s and the early 70s. Hence nothing new about it. The only difference is that now it has been made 5+3+3+4 without clarity about board examinations. Earlier in the 1986/92 policy, schooling was compulsory for children aged between 6 and 14 and now it has been made mandatory for children aged between 3-18. The emphasis is also on the childs mother tongue but children in government schools were already receiving education in their mother tongue up to Class V. Here it is silent whether the so-called English-medium private schools will follow the policy in letter and in spirit or not. And what about ministers and politicians who send their wards abroad to enable them to receive education in English? Now the policy lays no stress on memorisation and rote learning. The NEP observes that the introduction of systematic, well-planned and rigorously implemented programmes of vocational education is crucial in the proposed educational re- organisation and these would be introduced from Class VI and will include internship too. The countrymen are being impressed upon to become atamnirbhir (self-reliant) but the policy is opening doors to foreign universities to set up their shops here. The NEP 1986 had also sounded similar sentiments. The NEP 2020 has been presented as a Magna Carta of the education system for years to come.

Tarsem S Bumrah

New policy will change lives of school students

With emphasis on early childhood care and education, the 10+2 system of school curricula is to be replaced with the 5+3+3+4 system, corresponding to ages 3-8, 8-11, 11-14, and 14-18 years, respectively. The new system will have 12 years of schooling with three years of anganwadi/pre-schooling. Students will be given increased flexibility and choice of subjects so that they could choose their own goals according to their talents and interests. I believe with the NEP will change the life of students and they would prefer to study in India only. I appreciate the Indian government for the wonderful decision.

Rohit Kumar Sehdev

Will reduce anxiety among students

The India education system is more inclined towards rote learning with no emphasis on analytical study. We follow the basic thumb rule for examination long answers fetch high marks. What we actually lack is a basic understanding of subjects. The National Education Policy 2020 is the modified version of the earlier policy of 1986. The proposed revamp of the education system has some promising points for students. The burden to score well has affected the mental health of pupils. The new pattern of board exams would lay emphasis on testing concepts and ability to apply knowledge. Students can also choose the level of exam between medium or advance. Students will be given two chances in a year to take the board exams. This will reduce the anxiety among students, improve their conceptual and critical thinking and make them job-ready professionals. Credit-based assessment in higher education is another big relief for students who dropped out from degrees due to unavoidable circumstances. As per the new policy, credit earned during the degree will remain valid and the course can be resumed anytime in future. The NEP 2020 has a basket of benefits for students and teachers, with a focus on personality development, analytical thinking and technology-driven learning. However, the benefits will accrue only after proper implementation of the proposed plan.

Gulshakh Kaur

Give competitive edge to Indian job-seekers

The NEP is ambitious and futuristic but much of its success will depend on how it is executed. The new NEP will introduce an array of changes scrap the 10+2 system for a 5+3+3+4 system in school education. The important issue is the language that should be used to impart education upto Class V. Lets take an instance, a person lives in Kerala and his child has studied upto Class IV in Kerala. After, he shifts to Punjab where most schools would teach in Punjabi, the child might not be able to adjust. In my opinion, priority to English must be given because the language has a global language for communication worldwide. This will also give a competitive edge to job-seekers from India in relation to those from China and Southeast Asian countries in western countries such as Canada and the US.

Saahil Hans

Policy gives flexibility, future-readiness

The New National Education Policy (NEP) approved by the Union Cabinet is ambitious and futuristic but whether it transforms the education system will depend on how it is executed. The policy offers students a flexible academic journey where students have the option to pick and choose subjects according to their interests and are not restricted to set patterns. The replacement of 10+2 pattern with 5+3+3+4 pattern aims to include the uncovered age group of three to six years. The idea of imparting early education in the mother tongue is an enlightened one but it is the leading language that provides access to the larger world, whether it is professional jobs, higher education or research. The proposal may harm students who shift their schools from one state to another. The policy says the choice of streams can be made from Class VI, but the mechanism to make choices is missing. The policy will align the education system with the global education system, and the process will continue even in the higher education sector. A four-year instead of three-year undergraduate programme is on the charts with MPhil standing scrapped while PhD remaining accessible after a masters degree. The NEP 2020 offers flexibility and future-readiness to students. The toughest criticism of the NEP is that it is quite idealistic. The gap between vision and application will need more than action plans and implementation strategy.

Saanya Aggarwal

QUESTION

The police and the Excise Department recently seized 2.5 lakh litres of lahan during raids conducted in Ludhiana villages. The Excise Department destroyed the lahan by throwing it into the Sutlej thereby endangering aquatic life. Shouldnt the lahan, seized in large quantities, be disposed of in a scientific manner? What guidelines the government needs to come up with in order to ensure its proper disposal?

Suggestions in not more than 200 words can be sent to amritsardesk@tribunemail.comby Thursday (August 13).

Here is the original post:
NEP holds hope, needs effective implementation - The Tribune India

The structure of the New Cabinet consisting of 28 Ministries, 40 State Ministries & there functions has been published through an Extraordinary Gazette.

President Gotabaya Rajapaksa through an Extraordinary Gazette notification announced the Ministerial structure consisting 28 Ministries and 40 State Ministries. This includes Ministries that come under the purview of the President and the Prime Minister.

The Gazette notification giving details of Ministerial structure, relevant institutions and rules and regulations was issued this evening (10).

National priorities, policy responsibilities and functions have been taken into consideration in formulating Ministries. State Ministries have been structured to facilitate the achievement of special priorities and the implementation of relevant programmes according to the broad scope of each Ministry.

Special attention was paid to the areas of national security, economic development, infrastructure facilities, education, health and sports in the process of formulation of the ministerial structure.

The formulated structure covers a number of aspects of rural and agricultural development as well as the field of education.

The scopes, priorities, affiliated institutions and legal frameworks of each Ministry have been explained under severalsubheadings.

The Subject Ministers and State Ministers are scheduled to be sworn in at the Magul Maduwa(Audience Hall) of the Temple of Sacred Tooth Relic premises in Kandy on the morning of Wednesday(August 12) before President Gotabaya Rajapaksa.

It also includes the assigned subjects, functions, Departments, Public Corporations and Statutory Institutions determined to State Ministers.

Ministries and State Ministries of the Cabinet of Ministers in line with the Vistas of Prosperity Policy Statement assigned to each Minister, including people-centered programs and specific priorities to be met by Subjects and functions, relevant institutions, laws and regulations, in addition to the policy of the Ministers of the Cabinet have been included in the notice.

Separate allocations will be made for the Ministries of the Cabinet of Ministers and the State Ministries. Ministry secretaries appointed in accordance with Article 52 (1) of the Constitution of the Democratic Socialist Republic of Sri Lanka under the direction and control of the Cabinet of Ministers will direct the Ministries and the Ministry Secretary appointed by the Cabinet of Ministers will direct the Ministries of the Cabinet Minister under the direction and control of the relevant Minister.

Further, the Cabinet structure strengthens the rural life and agro-economy in the overall social and economic development and is recognized as an inseparable priority, therefore all the Secretaries to the Ministries are advised and guided by the Ministers will ensure replacement of urban and project staff to strengthen rural and regional office services.

In addition, The Minister of Finance will delegate the powers to the Secretaries to State Ministries and Secretaries to Ministries in the Cabinet are the Chief Accounting Officers.

Accordingly, the Secretaries to the Ministries will be the Chief officers are responsible for the Departments, Public Corporations and Statutory Institutions under the Ministry of the Ministry and Cabinet of Ministers.

The Secretary to the Ministry of State is responsible for the Departments, Public Corporations and Departments under their Ministry and will be the Chief Accountable Officer for statutory bodies. Further, both the Secretary to the Ministry of the Cabinet of Ministers and the Secretary to the State Ministry of State, respectively will be the chief officers accountable for the Office of the Cabinet of Ministers and the Office of the State Ministry.

Roles assigned to a Minister in the Cabinet of Ministers on behalf of his Ministry and details of various institutions and the combinations have been indicated in the 67 page Gazette proclamation.

Follow this link:
The structure of the New Cabinet consisting of 28 Ministries, 40 State Ministries published - Hiru News

OPINION: In March 2020, New Zealand officially became a nation of 5 million people (with another 1 million offshore).

The country had been growing at a brisk pace, around 2 per cent per annum. The addition of another million was reached in a record time of 17 years.

For the first part of those 17 years, fertility and natural increase was still the most important contributor to population growth.

But in the last seven years, it was net migration gains 330,000 additional New Zealanders between 2013 and 2018 that was responsible for two-thirds of that growth.

READ MORE:* Covid-19: If migration stops, should we stop building?* We have room to grow, but planning is needed * Fewer migrants a Covid quandary for capital council

New Zealand is becoming a very different country. By 2030, we will be much older, more ethnically diverse, and more of us will live in Auckland and Hamilton and Tauranga.

The baby boomers (currently aged between 56 and 74) will see the numbers aged 65 and over doubling to 1.2 million. In the 1980s, less than 10 per cent of the population were over 65. Soon it will be close to a quarter.

This was underscored by their vulnerability under Covid-19, especially given their concentration in care facilities.

As we have moved from a young-dominant society to one that is now old-dominant, declining fertility has also played its role.

To replace an existing population, a fertility rate of 2.1 children per women is required. New Zealands rate is now 1.8. We are experiencing sub-replacement fertility.

This decline is compounded by the one (child) and done or none fertility decisions of millennials, and babies increasingly have mothers that are thirty-something. We have more children born to women over the age of forty than to teenagers.

All the indications are that Covid will see a further drop in fertility rates. Recent research in Europe suggests that about two-thirds of those at an age to decide whether to have children or not are choosing to delay pregnancy or not to have children at all.

Does it matter that there is an inversion of the classical pyramid population shape of a country? It depends.

There will certainly be an impact on dependency ratios, between those in the paid workforce and those who do not work (the young, the old, those reliant on a benefit).

The challenge becomes one of generating a tax or wealth base to support dependents.

The other issue is the willingness and ability of New Zealand to adjust to a very different demography.

The reluctance to talk about the sustainability of a universal superannuation scheme is one indication that we are not taking the changes to our demography seriously enough.

Abigail Dougherty/Stuff

After years of exodus to Australia, net migration has increased by up to 70,000 permanent migrants since 2012.

One of the default positions has been immigration. Often, our immigration policy has been one of the most important elements of our population policy; sometimes, our main one.

After the outflow of New Zealanders in 2012, mainly to Australia, the country then embarked on a period of significant net migration gains.

The annual net gain ranged from 50,000 to 70,000 permanent migrants, the majority under the Skilled Migrant Category. But there were also 200,000 temporary arrivals on work or study visa provisions.

When New Zealand went into lockdown, there were 310,000 migrants in the country on such visas. New Zealand has gained skills, people and diversity as a result of this recent period of migration.

Covid has bought this period to a grinding halt, although one of the ironies of how well New Zealand has handled the pandemic, and how poor other countries have not, is that the country will now be even more desirable as a migrant destination.

Even with the halt to migration, New Zealands ethnic diversity will continue to change, with the most obvious result being that, soon, one out of every five of us will be a member of one of the many Asian communities that now call New Zealand home.

In Auckland, these communities will comprise 38 per cent of the city.

Which introduces another important component of our changed demography: the growing dominance of Auckland.

Supplied

Auckland will receive around 60 percent of population growth over the next 20 years, writes Professor Paul Spoonley.

We anticipate that Auckland will be the recipient of 60 per cent of New Zealands population growth over the next two decades, and home to 40 per cent of New Zealands population.

This growing concentration can be seen in many countries and could be dampened but it will need some serious policy interventions by New Zealand governments.

The downside is that many other parts of the country will experience population stagnation and, in some cases, decline.

All these elements declining fertility, rapid ageing, the growth of Auckland (and regional population stagnation/decline), growing ethnic diversity all need policy attention and innovation.

These changes are so unprecedented that much of our existing policy framework is simply not fit for purpose.

It would help if we had an agreed population policy, and a greater public awareness of how significant and disruptive these changes are going to be.

Distinguished Professor Paul Spoonleys new book, The New New Zealand: Facing Demographic Disruption (Massey University Press) will be published next week.

Here is the original post:
Covid-19: New population policy required to combat effects of declining birth rate, ageing population - Stuff.co.nz

GREAT FALLS One of the busiest intersections in Great Falls will be temporarily closed for a while next week.

The City of Great Falls says that it will close northbound and southbound traffic at the intersection of 10th Avenue South and 9th Street for several hours on Tuesday, June 16th.

The closure is needed for the replacement of a damaged signal cabinet.

Detours will be provided for northbound and southbound traffic along 9th Street, and eastbound and westbound traffic on 10th Avenue South will remain open with signal lights dark.

Northbound turns from 10th Avenue to 9th Street will be prohibited.

The closure will be in place by 6 a.m. on Tuesday, and scheduled to reopen by 4 p.m. - but the time and duration of the closure may be altered due to weather or technical difficulties.

Read more here:
Busy intersection in Great Falls will be partially closed on Tuesday - KRTV Great Falls News

Gov. Andy Beshear today announced the Kentucky Transportation Cabinet (KYTC) regional driver licensing office in Morehead will reopen for limited services starting Wednesday, June 10.

It is part of Gov. Beshears Healthy at Work initiative to safely reopen essential Executive Branch offices and services that were closed to limit the spread of the novel coronavirus 2019 (COVID-19).

We are gradually and carefully reopening our commonwealth and resuming some high-demand, in-person public services, said Gov. Beshear. Those services include issuing, renewing and replacing operators licenses and official identification cards. Our fellow Kentuckians depend on those credentials for employment, travel and emergencies.

Services at the Morehead Regional Drivers License Office are limited at this time to residents who meet one of the following qualifying criteria:

Replacement of a lost license, permit or identification card;

License or ID card needed for employment;

New resident replacing a valid out-of-state credential;

New applicant who has successfully completed Kentucky State Police driver testing; and

Renewal of a credential that expired before March 18, 2020, when license and permit expiration dates were automatically extended for 90 days by emergency order

The same services are offered at the KYTC REAL-ID Regional Driver Licensing Office in Frankfort, 200 Mero Street.

We look forward to resuming in-person customer service in our Morehead office, KYTC Secretary Jim Gray said. But it is essential that we resume that service in a way that protects the health and safety of our customers and our employees. Were implementing new practices that encourage social distancing and our experience will guide the phased opening of other regional drivers license offices around the commonwealth.

The Regional Drivers License Office, 126 Bradley Ave., in Morehead will be open Monday through Friday from 8 a.m. to 4 p.m. EDT.

Qualifying applicants may make appointments online at realidky.com to request either a standard or REAL ID credential. A limited number of workstations will be available to serve walk-ins. To avoid gatherings in common waiting areas after checking in, applicants may be individually notified when to return to the issuance office to be served.

To maintain the safest possible environment, employees of the office will adhere to Gov. Beshears Healthy at Work standards, which include wearing a mask, and customers will be asked to do the same. Social distancing will be observed. Surfaces will be cleaned and touch pad equipment sanitized after each use.

(provided by Commonwealth of Kentucky Transportation Cabinet)

View original post here:
Morehead Regional Driver Licensing Office re-opens with limited service June 10 - WMKY

COLUMBUS, Ohio--Dr. Amy Acton, Ohios state health director who has become a household name around the state during the coronavirus crisis, has resigned effective immediately, Gov. Mike DeWine announced Thursday.

Acton will remain as the governors chief adviser on health issues, DeWine said. Lance Himes, the Ohio Department of Healths general counsel who briefly served as state health director twice under ex-Gov. John Kasich, will become interim director, the governor said.

Asked why shes leaving now, Acton said the decision to resign is something Ive been struggling over the last couple of months.

She said her routine during the past couple months, which involved getting up at 4 a.m. to read and catch up while going to bed late, wasnt a sustainable thing.

Acton said with the state reopening, Ohio is entering a new phase of learning to resume life with the coronavirus.

I think there is a sort of natural shift that is occurring here that makes it sort of a good time so I can refocus," she said.

The governor said he tried in vain to convince Acton to stay as director, and he praised her wise advice and counsel and extraordinary bedside manner since he appointed her last year.

Acton has drawn wide admiration in Ohio, as well as around the nation, for her appearances during DeWines daily coronavirus briefings, providing easy-to-understand analysis and information about the virus in a calm, soothing voice, and passionately pleading with Ohioans to stay at home and take other precautions. Bobbleheads and cartoons have been made featuring her.

An April poll found almost 64 percent of Ohios registered voters had a favorable opinion of Acton, and almost 84 percent said they trusted the coronavirus information she was providing.

But as the DeWine administration has moved in the past six weeks to lift the states stay-at-home and business-closure orders, Acton and the Ohio Department of Health have become increasingly sidelined. Starting last month, the governor turned to a number of working groups," composed of business people and experts, to determine how various sectors of Ohios economy will reopen.

Acton has also become a lightning rod of criticism from opponents of the DeWine administrations coronavirus orders, who claimed she overestimated the deadliness of the coronavirus and overreached her authority in ordering closures.

Republican lawmakers tried to strip her of her power, and protesters demonstrated outside her home in suburban Columbus.

Asked how she felt about the criticism, Acton said any human being would be affected by the backlash, especially as she has never run for public office.

But, she said, for anyone doing this job, youd be surprised how much a lot of that isnt your focus.

She added: For me, my focus -- the need to protect Ohioans and save lives was so intense, especially during those first days (of the crisis), she said. I can honestly say, like -- it had to be a single point of meditation on the task at hand, and that remains that.

Acton was named health director in April 2019, becoming the final member of DeWines cabinet to be appointed. Before joining the DeWine administration, she most recently served as a community research and grants administrator at the nonprofit Columbus Foundation.

A Youngstown native, Acton has described how she grew up abused, neglected, and occasionally homeless. She attended Youngstown State University, and she paid her own way to earn a medical degree from what is now Northeast Ohio Medical University, followed by a masters degree in public health from Ohio State University.

Read more Ohio coronavirus coverage:

Meet Lance Himes, Dr. Amy Actons replacement as Ohios health director

Ohio AG Dave Yost argues diner owners who reopened early shouldnt face criminal charges

Bill to change how state health officials collect, report coronavirus information passes Ohio House

At least 2,457 Ohioans have died with coronavirus: Wednesday update

How much did coronavirus closings sink sales tax collections for Ohio, the counties and transit agencies?

Originally posted here:
Dr. Amy Acton resigns as Ohio Department of Health director - cleveland.com

The Cabinet: George Washington and the Creation of an American Institution

Harvard University Press

The thesis of Lindsay Chervinskys excellent new book is that the U.S. Constitution of 1787 established the national government of the United States in general terms, but it did not descend to particulars. Article II, which lays out the powers and responsibilities of the executive, left so many things vague that the first presidents had in many ways to invent the American presidency. None played a more important role than the hero of the American Revolution, George Washington. To which we must say, thank goodness.

Washington did not particularly want to be the president of the United States. After the war of independence ended, he resigned his commission on Dec. 23, 1783, with a characteristic show of republican modesty. He had saved the country. All he wanted now was to retire to his beloved estate at Mount Vernon, like the Roman hero Cincinnatus in the pages of Plutarchs Lives, and spend the rest of his life in the quiet enjoyment of agricultural pursuits. As early as 1776, Washington wrote to his brother John, Nothing in this world would contribute so much to mine as to be once more fixed among you in the peaceable enjoyment of my own vine and fig-tree.

Washington had to be cajoled even guilted into attending the Constitutional Convention in the summer of 1787, and then to accept the unanimous summons of the people to serve as the first president of the United States. He wound up fulfilling two terms, mostly because his closest associates, including Thomas Jefferson, Alexander Hamilton and John Adams, assured him that he must stay at his post long enough to secure the post-revolution settlement. By the time he left public life once and for all for Mount Vernon in March 1797, the great man was spent. He had only two years and nine months to sit under his fig tree and bask in his fame before his death on Dec. 14, 1799. Even Great Britains King George III had conditionally called Washington the greatest man in the world.

Washington assumed the presidency on April 30, 1789, at Federal Hall in New York City. He was 57 years old. Because the Constitution was silent on so many questions and he had no prior American tradition on which to model himself, President Washington had to invent a large number of presidential protocols, including the cabinet. As always, he was acutely aware that he was playing a role in the theater of the world. To his friend Catharine Macaulay Graham, he wrote, I walk on untrodden ground. There is scarcely any action, whose motives may not be subject to a double interpretation. There is scarcely any part of my conduct which may not hereafter be drawn into precedent.

The whole world was watching. Washington knew that history was watching, too, and the future of the American republic depended on his getting it right. He understood that if his presidency for any reason failed, the fragile American republic might not survive. As he traveled to New York City to take the oath of office, Washington wrote an astonishing letter to his friend Henry Knox: My movements to the chair of Government will be accompanied with feelings not unlike those of a culprit who is going to the place of his execution.

Washington was determined to bring dignity, formality, a somewhat severe deportment and perhaps even a touch of what we would call majesty (a term he would have disclaimed) to the office. He did not want to behave like a king. Americans had had enough of that and Washington was genuinely committed to the creation of a sustainable American republic. But he did not want to be so informal that the American people would fail to show sufficient respect to the office, to the one individual who represented the entire country, not merely a state or a congressional district. Washington wanted the American people to look up to their president as a person of unimpeachable decorum a man of substance who measured his words before releasing them from his pen or mouth, a person of exquisite civility, perhaps a slightly aloof civility, a man who embodied the best qualities of the American experiment, a person who carefully avoided anything that was low, vulgar, indecorous, or demagogic. He sought to be the president of all of the American people, not merely those whose political views he preferred. Washington put up with Thomas Jefferson as secretary of state for two and a half years, even though Jefferson was somewhat disloyal and already, with his closest friend James Madison, laying the groundwork for an opposition party.

Washington had to make a dizzying number of decisions about presidential deportment and protocol with the whole world watching (and judging) his every move. How should a president travel? Should the president ever stay in a private citizens home? Should he shake hands with mere citizens? Should he wear a ceremonial sword? Should he have a formidable title? Who makes the first visit, the president or the other gentleman or woman? (If youve ever read a Jane Austen novel, you know that this was a big issue in the 18th century.) Should the president address Congress in person or through intermediaries? Should he hold public receptions, which any decently attired American could attend? What exactly did the Constitution mean by indicating that the president should seek the advice and consent of the U.S. Senate on some issues? Should the president tour the country? How does the president balance his ceremonial functions and his political ambitions? What is the role of the presidents wife (not yet known as the First Lady)? How much should the president cooperate with congressional requests and investigations; when should the president invoke executive privilege? Under what circumstances should a president veto congressional legislation? Can he do so over policy disagreements, or must he believe the legislation to be unconstitutional? Should the president write a veto message? Should the Supreme Court be consulted informally on constitutional questions? How strictly should the separation of powers doctrine be interpreted? If the country goes to war, should the president serve as commander in chief in the field?

Lindsay Chervinksy, author of The Cabinet.

One of the great strengths of Chervinskys book is her interest in the social behavior of the first couple. George and Martha Washington had to establish the protocols of how the presidential couple made themselves available to the government insiders and average citizens of the republic. The Washingtons erred on the side of a somewhat frigid formality. At his weekly levees (on Tuesday afternoons), Washington bowed slightly, but did not shake hands with his guests. Martha Washington hosted slightly less intimidating gatherings for women (and some men) on Friday evenings. When the democrat Jefferson assumed the presidency in 1801, he swept aside the pomposities, walked to his first inaugural, met guests in his house slippers, corresponded freely with a wide range of citizens, rich and poor, powerful and plain, and let his pet mockingbird Dick wander freely through the White House. His presidential protocol, he famously said, was pell-mell.

The Constitution Washington had helped to create and now embodied did not establish a formal cabinet. It authorizes but does not compel the president to require the Opinion, in writing, of the principal Officer in each of the executive Departments, upon any Subject relating to the Duties of their respective Offices." The Constitution does not specify what the executive departments will be, or how many, or what their responsibilities should be. The First Congress of the United States (1789-91), which settled some of these questions, is regarded by some historians as an extension or at least application of the Constitutional Convention.

One reason the Constitution is silent about a presidential cabinet, Chervinsky argues, is because the Founding Fathers still had a bad taste in their mouths about the British cabinets that had preyed upon the liberties of the American people during the colonial era. Perhaps partly for that reason, Chervinskys painstaking research reveals that Washington was slow to establish a cabinet and that once he had put it together, he soon ceased to find it a useful or congenial way to sort out administration policy. The first cabinet meeting was held on Nov. 26, 1791, fully two-and-a-half years into his first term. The four-man cabinet met only three times in 1791, and six times in 1792, but then 51 times in 1793, a crisis year in America. Thereafter, the president convened the cabinet significantly less often. By reducing the role of his cabinet in his last years as president, Washington ensured, says Chervinsky, that the cabinet developed very little institutional power.

Today there are 15 cabinet members, each one requiring Senate confirmation. In the first few administrations, there were only four: The Secretary of State, the Secretary of the Treasury, the Secretary of War, and the Attorney General. For Washington, these positions were filled by Jefferson of Virginia (state), Alexander Hamilton of New York (treasury), Henry Knox of Massachusetts (war), and Edmund Randolph of Virginia (AG).

Chervinsky opens the book with one of the most important pivot points in the history of the presidency. On Aug. 22, 1789, just four months into his first term, Washington appeared before the U.S. Senate to seek advice about Indian relations. He believed that such consultation was the intention of the Constitution makers, that on certain questions the president would seek advice from the Senate before acting or making a decision. Washington had sent the relevant paperwork ahead, including a specific list of questions he wished to discuss with the 22 senators. Sen. William Maclay of Pennsylvania, who was something of a contrarian, stood up to suggest that the matter be referred to the appropriate Senate committee for careful deliberation, after which the president would be invited to come back for a final discussion. At this, President Washington, who had a volcanic temper which he usually managed to keep under tight control, blew up and shouted, This defeats every purpose of my coming here! Says Chervinsky, As he returned to his carriage, Washington muttered under his breath that he would never return for advice. He kept his wordAugust 22, 1789, was the first and last time he visited the Senate to request guidance on foreign affairs.

If Maclay and the Senate had spent the afternoon sorting these things out with the president, American administrative history might have played out in a very different way. In this case, a negative precedent was set. Later presidents have occasionally visited Capitol Hill to meet with congressmen and senators, but Washingtons frustrating experience largely foreclosed that option and helped to cement the separation of powers doctrine at the heart of the American Constitutional system.

One of the best moments in the book is Chervinskys account of a cabinet meeting on April 19, 1793, as the administration attempted to find a peaceful path for the infant U.S. as the wars of the French Revolution began to disrupt the Atlantic world. The five men, Washington plus his four secretaries, met in the presidents private study on the second floor of his residence in Philadelphia, where the national government was headquartered during the 1790s. The room was modest, just 15 by 21 feet, and was dominated by the presidents 5-foot-long desk, a wood burning stove, a dressing table, a large globe, and bookshelves, plus a table and chairs brought into the room for the meeting.

Five of Americas most important men were in that small room. This quintet included Washington, the Father of His Country, a 6-foot-2-inch man who was already a living legend; the physically imposing Henry Knox (who weighed at least 250 pounds); Edmund Randolph, the proud but indecisive scion of one of Virginias most distinguished families; and two giants of the early national period, Americas Renaissance Man Thomas Jefferson, also 6 feet, 2 inches, but less bulky and formidable than the president, and the idefatigable policy wonk Alexander Hamilton, who like him or not was perhaps Americas greatest secretary of the treasury. Thats a lot of ego for one small room. Jefferson later admitted that he and Hamilton were daily pitted in the cabinet like two cocks. Washington did not say much at these meetings, but Hamilton, according to Jefferson, tended to hold forth with all of his overweening confidence for interminably long periods of time. Chervinsky concludes, When Washington and the four secretaries gathered in the room, it would have been rather cozy at best, claustrophobic at worst.

Chervinsky also carefully examines the first cabinet scandal in American history. In August 1795, Secretary of State Edmund Randolph, Jeffersons replacement, was accused of taking bribes from the French government in exchange for trying to influence the administrations foreign policy. We now know that while Randolph was the weakest of Washingtons cabinet ministers, and undoubtedly guilty of bad judgment, he almost certainly did not take bribes or betray his country. Randolph resigned immediately, under a cloud, then promptly wrote a long defense of his honor and his conduct. Chervinsky provides an excellent analysis of Washingtons invocation of executive privilege, the first instance in American history, when Congress requested that he turn over documents relating to the highly controversial Jay Treaty of 1795. And the first presidential veto, April 5, 1792, of an apportionment bill.

Washingtons immediate successors accepted the idea of the cabinet though each of them handled them differently. John Adams made the terrible, perhaps fatal, mistake of retaining Washingtons cabinet when the venerable old man retired. This meant that he was never able to surround himself with men of his own stamp. It meant, too, that these holdover cabinet members never felt genuine loyalty to him. In fact, several of them took their marching orders from Alexander Hamilton, who had retired from Washingtons cabinet in early 1795, but who took joy in playing shadow president from New York, where he had undertaken a lucrative law practice.

Hamilton despised Adams for not being decisive and warlike enough, but particularly for not governing in a Hamiltonian fashion. Adams returned the contempt. It was he who called the illegitimately born Hamilton the bastard brat of a Scotch Pedler. Adams greatest act as president sending a second peace delegation to France in 1800 after the first one was mistreated, thus ratcheting down the likelihood of war was undertaken without any consultation with his disloyal cabinet. They were livid, of course, but Adams later decided it was his greatest achievement as the second president of the United States.

Jefferson was too shrewd to hamstring his administration with holdovers, particularly since he regarded his election in 1800 as the second American revolution. The suave and conflict-averse Jefferson assembled what still ranks as perhaps the most harmonious cabinet in American history. His principal coadjutor was one of the most talented men in American history, Secretary of State James Madison, soon enough to be the fourth president of the United States. The harmony was so cordial among us all, Jefferson wrote, that we never failed, by a contribution of mutual views, of the subject, to form an opinion acceptable to the whole.

This well-researched, thoughtful, and fascinating book points to the strength and the weakness of the U.S. Constitution. Because it lays out the powers and responsibilities of the three branches of the national government in only general terms, it gives each president considerable freedom to define the office to suit his purposes and his management style. So long as the office is occupied by an individual who understands the gravity, dignity, and fragility of a republic, America is in good hands. Between 1789 and 1797, George Washington formulated the standards against which all subsequent presidents must be measured.

See the original post:
George Washington and the Creation of an American Institution - Governing