# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
Gasoline prices at the pump are at the highest level since 2014, while the price for heating homes is projected to increase by double digits this winter. But House Democrats are focusing on what oil executives said decades ago about global warming.

On Thursday, CEOs of ExxonMobil, BP, Chevron and Shell will be on Capitol Hill to face a grilling about whether they deceived the public on climate perils, as the House Oversight and Reform Subcommittee on the Environment holds a hearing titled, "Fueling the Climate Crisis: Exposing Big Oil's Disinformation Campaign to Prevent Climate Action."

A committee press release calls this an "industry-wide campaign to spread disinformation about the role of fossil fuels in causing global warming."

BIDEN SPENDING BILL TO INCLUDE $500B TOWARD CLIMATE ACTION, CHIEF OF STAFF SAYS

"The fossil fuel industry has had scientific evidence about the dangers of climate change since at least 1977," the oversight committee press release says. "Yet for decades, the industry spread denial and doubt about the harm of its products - undermining the science and preventing meaningful action on climate change even as the global climate crisis became increasingly dire, and its deadly impact on Americans increased."

Oversight Committee Chairwoman Rep. Carolyn Maloney, D-N.Y., and Environment subcommittee Chairman Rep. Ro Khanna, D-Calif., will lead the hearing with testimony from ExxonMobil CEO Darren Woods; BP America CEO David Lawler; Chevron CEO Michael K. Wirth; Shell Oil President Gretchen Watkins; American Petroleum Institute President Mike Sommers; and U.S. Chamber of Commerce President Suzanne Clark.

"The big issue I have with the oil companies is that they are lying about the climate science. It has nothing to do with the price at the pump. They should be honest and tell the truth." Khanna told Yahoo Finance on Tuesday. "The price at the pump is an issue. It's an issue in my district. Now, having new oil development, which would take years to actually happen, isn't going to bring down prices immediately. ... Long term, what's going to bring the price of gas down is to have less demand, meaning have more renewable energy, more electric vehicles."

But, at a time when the Biden administration is asking the Organization of Petroleum Exporting Countries for assistance, Democrats seem to want to distract from the high energy costs of their making with political theater, said Tom Pyle, the president of the Institute for Energy Research.

"When the number one oil producer in the world is seeing pulled federal leases, gutted pipelines and going to OPEC, that sends a message to the marketplace," Pyle told FOX Business. "The Democrats' answer is to haul the oil CEOs before Congress, call them 'big oil' and wag their fingers."

The hearing also comes ahead of President Biden's trip to Scotland to participate in the United Nations Climate Change Conference.

In mid-October, the average price of gasoline was $3.41 per gallon, an increase of 52% from $2.24 at this time last year - and the highest price since September 2014, when gasoline was $3.42, according to the Energy Information Agency.

The EIA, a federal agency with independent data and statistics, also projects Americans will pay far more this winter to heat their homes.

CLICK HERE TO READ MORE ON FOX BUSINESS

U.S. households that heat with natural gas will spend 30% more than they spent last winter on average, and will spend 50% more if the winter is colder than average, the EIA projects. Households that heat with electricity will spend 6% more on average and will spend 15% more if the winter is colder than average.

Homes heated by propane will on average increase by 54% and as much as 94% in a colder than average winter. Homes with heating oil will spend 43% more on average, and 59% more for a colder than average winter, according to the EIA.
GET FOX BUSINESS ON THE GO BY CLICKING HERE
This demonstrates a failure by green energy, which congressional Democrats have double-downed on in the $3.5 trillion spending bill, said Steve Milloy, senior policy fellow at the Energy & Environment Legal Institute.

"Democrats have an agenda to turn oil CEOs into the tobacco CEOs of 25 years ago ahead of the climate conference next week," Milloy told FOX Business.

CLICK HERE TO GET FOX BUSINESS ON THE GO

Milloy said the oil CEOs have "gone along with climate alarmism" in recent years, but he said there is no evidence they lied prior to that.

"Emissions and the greenhouse effect have been talked about since the late 19th century," Milloy said. "The Johnson administration issued a report on greenhouse gases in 1965, and Paul Ehrlich wrote the 'Population Bomb' in 1967. Because oil producers had documents showing they were talking about this for a long time doesn't mean they were hiding anything. It wasn't some secret only they knew about."

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
Amid soaring gas prices, Democrats target oil CEOs for alleged climate lies

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
Gasoline prices at the pump are at the highest level since 2014, while the price for heating homes is projected to increase by double digits this winter. But House Democrats are focusing on what oil executives said decades ago about global warming.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
Journalismus: Wenn Kimmich sich impfen lässt, ist die Pandemie zu EndeDeutschland, 23. Oktober 2021: Patrick Wasserziehr, Reporter beim TV-Sender Sky, konfrontiertJoshua Kimmich vor laufender Kamera mit Fragen zum Impfstatus des Bayern-Spielers.Ein Fußballspieler, Bürger und Mitmensch soll sich erkl…

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
The published a story this week about a small protest outside Netflix's headquarters that was held in response to the company's defense of comedian Dave Chappelle and his recent special. In the story, the Associated Press included a picture of a Chappelle supporter who "clashed" with protesters. The photo caption read: "Comedian and videographer Vito Gesualdi screams profanities as he engages with peaceful protesters begging him to leave outside the Netflix building in the Hollywood section of Los Angeles."

But according to Gesualdi, this never happened. He didn't yell at protesters or "scream profanities." All he did was yell, "I love Dave Chappelle," he said.

Gesualdi also said that the anti-Chapelle protesters were not "peaceful," grabbed him and his friend, and even tackled his friend to the ground.

As of Friday morning, the Associated Press had issued a correction to its photo caption, which now says, "Comedian and videographer Vito Gesualdi shouts at people protesting against Dave Chappelle's Netflix special outside the Netflix building in the Hollywood section of Los Angeles." The correction reads, "Corrects caption to remove reference to Gesualdi using profanities, which he did not do at the moment the image was made. Also removes reference to protesters being peaceful because one protester destroyed his sign."

If Gesualdi had not publicly drawn attention to the Associated Press's lie, would this correction ever have been issued? Probably not.

Note that this kind of journalistic misconduct - it isn't just bias, it's the deliberate use of lies to promote an agenda - is becoming a lot more common at the Associated Press lately .

There's a reason the outlet published the original false caption when it could have easily verified the interaction in question with the subject of the picture. It wanted to make Gesualdi out to be the bad guy because doing so fit the narrative the Associated Press had already adopted: that the Netflix protesters were trying to right a "wrong" that had been done to them and that anyone who disagreed was perpetuating said "wrong."

Gesualdi should sue the Associated Press for libel, even if just to make a point. Until the media are forced to start paying for this kind of behavior, they will continue to lie and smear and mislead. This is only the latest example at an organization that was once considered reputable.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
Associated Press lied about pro-Dave Chappelle comedian at Netflix protest

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
The Associated Press published a story this week about a small protest outside Netflix's headquarters that was held in response to the company's defense of comedian Dave Chappelle and his recent special. In the story, the Associated Press included a picture of a Chappelle supporter who "clashed"...

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
Netflix has a storm on its hands.

Hundreds of protesters stood in solidarity with the streaming giant's employees, who staged a walkout on Wednesday morning in the wake of Dave Chappelle's inflammatory comedy special The Closer, which has been widely viewed as transphobic.

The walkout came after several days of backlash against Netflix, first for standing by the special, then for temporarily suspending three Netflix workers-one of whom is trans- for attending a high-level meeting about the special, and most recently for firing a Black trans employee who allegedly shared that Netflix had shelled out $24.1 million for the special.

Staffers are now demanding better treatment for transgender workers at the streaming service, alongside a list of other expectations.

In the employees' letter provided to The Verge, they stated that, "Netflix still has to grow when it comes to content relating to the trans and non-binary community." The group wants Netflix to invest in trans and non-binary talent and content, recruit trans people-particularly trans people of color-to leadership positions, and to acknowledge potentially transphobic content before it streams.

"We are employees, but we are members, too. We believe that this Company can and must do better in our quest to entertain the world, and that the way forward must include more diverse voices in order to avoid causing more harm," Netflix trans employees ended the letter.

The blow-up comes after Chappelle's special premiered on Netflix in early October, and was immediately criticized for homophobic and transphobic comments made-outraging not just Netflix trans employees, but members of the LGBTQ community and its allies.

Comedian Seven Graham, who is intersex, transmasc, non-binary, and uses he/they pronouns, was in attendance at the protest, telling The Daily Beast they felt the special crossed a line.

"I actually found myself crying watching this special, because it says some very difficult, very painful, very untrue things about who trans people are," Graham said. "This special will be used by people to fuel that transphobia and that has a very real-world effect for trans people. As soon as I heard that trans employees were speaking out and amazing activists like Ashlee [Marie Preston] were stepping up and organizing this demonstration, I knew that I had to go."

Fellow protester Nick Bewick agreed. "I was angry for days and I am a fan of Dave Chappelle," he added. "I've been a fan since 2003. I've seen every single one of his episodes; I've seen every single special. Sticks & Stones kind of touched upon a few things, but it didn't really bother me as bad. This seemed gratuitously aimed at us and it wasn't funny."

"It was gratuitously mean," he continued. "It was gratuitously not funny. It was just self-glorification, self-masturbation- 'I'm rich and famous, let me spew out all the things that I think,' as if he was some sort of Messiah. I think he got it twisted. So many people worship him and he's so out of touch."

Polly Jean Vernon, who is trans and uses she/they pronouns, previously worked at Netflix as a props master. Vernon said that if she was still working with the company, she would have participated in the walkout. At one time, they admitted that they looked up to Chappelle and his artistry but now can't stand by as people use his jokes to justify their transphobia.

"It's not just feelings," Vernon said, "It's another punch to the gut. I know that every day when I get up and leave the house, there is a 100% chance that I will experience transphobia in the form of microaggressions or actual aggression."

As the fury continues to grow, Netflix is trying to do damage control and fast-yesterday backpedaling from an internal memo that Netflix co-CEO Ted Sarandos had sent out on Oct. 8. In the email, Sarandos stated Chappelle's comedy special would not be removed because he didn't feel as if it truly crossed the line of being overly offensive.

"Several of you have also asked where we draw the line on hate," Sarandos wrote. "We don't allow titles on Netflix that are designed to incite hate or violence, and we don't believe The Closer crosses that line. I recognize, however, that distinguishing between commentary and harm is hard, especially with stand-up comedy which exists to push boundaries. Some people find the art of stand-up to be mean-spirited, but our members enjoy it, and it's an important part of our content offering."

Then in a second internal letter sent to employees on Oct. 16, Sarandos doubled-down on his beliefs that The Closer wouldn't " translate to real-world harm."

"Adults can watch violence, assault and abuse-or enjoy shocking stand-up comedy-without it causing them to harm others," he wrote.

But that belief is simply not true when it comes to the trans community, three people told The Daily Beast.

"Lives are at stake, whether through anti-trans violence or through suicide," Vernon said. "Our communities have some of the largest numbers in the books. That's because we're surrounded every day by people who watched that special."

"People don't understand trans [people] and their first understanding might be [ The Closer]," Graham said. "So, we're breeding, we're fostering all this hatred, and this special is spreading very basic misinformation. Dave confuses sex and gender."

"There's ramifications for this," Bewick added. "I'm not saying our cause is better than any others. I'm really not. I think that our cause is the newest one and it's the one where people are dying every day. The people are at the most risk, and they're the most depressed. It's the most tender movement, in my opinion. People are dying every day by suicide, by murder, by depression. They deserve to live."

By Tuesday, on the eve of the planned walk-out, Sarandos admitted that he may not have handled the situation well, confiding that he "screwed up... internal conversation" while addressing employees' concerns.

"I should have led with a lot more humanity," he said. "Meaning, I had a group of employees who were definitely feeling pain and hurt from a decision we made. And I think that needs to be acknowledged up front before you get into the nuts and bolts of anything," he said. "I didn't do that."

Sarandos also backtracked a bit on his views of whether or not on-screen violence could transcend into the real world. But in relation to The Closer being on Netflix, he ultimately said his "stance hasn't changed."

Both Vernon and Graham agree that Chappelle's special should be left up-as a teachable moment for the comedian and to help educate people on why his speech is harmful.

"I'm all for free speech and I don't want that special to be taken down. I want flags for transphobic content," Vernon said. "I don't want books taken out of libraries, I want education around why it was wrong and why we now know better. [Trying] to pretend it didn't happen, that's not helpful either and then it gives him a platform of being censored and cancelled, even though millions of people [watched]."

Graham said they hope Netflix commits to putting $120 million-the same figure it had pumped into Chappelle's past six specials-into funding trans, intersex, and non-binary creative content and elevating the new voices.

"I personally hope that in five years' time," they concluded, "[Dave's] heart was open enough that he will have connected conversations with members of our community, especially the BIPOC members of our community, because that was the thing that was most painful, was the way he was creating this division between the BIPOC community, especially the Black community, and the queer community."

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
Netflix Employees Stage Dave Chappelle Walkout: 'Lives Are at Stake'

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
Netflix has a storm on its hands. Hundreds of protesters stood in solidarity with the streaming giant's employees, who staged a walkout on Wednesday morning in the wake of Dave Chappelle's inflammatory comedy special The Closer , which has been widely viewed as transphobic.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
AP Photo/Joshua Bessex

For very good reason, the media and Democrats feel threatened and terrified by the "Let's go, Brandon!" chant, which is why we must never stop saying it.

If the organized left understands nothing else, it understands the power that comes when normal, everyday people realize they are not alone.

This is why, among the joyless left, there was a weekend-wide, five-alarm freakout over a Southwest Airlines pilot reportedly saying over the intercom, "Let's go, Brandon."

Before I go any further, it's important to point out that this particular pilot incident might not have happened. So it's entirely possible the so-called journalist who reported it might have done what our media now do all the time, which is, make the whole thing up.

Regardless, the freakout over the alleged incident is what's important.

As we can all see, the left is desperate to stamp out the revolutionary appeal of "Let's go, Brandon!"

The "Let's go, Brandon!" movement launched last month. After the completion of a NASCAR race, the crowd began chanting, "Fuck Joe Biden!" To pretend this wasn't happening, a fake NBC reporter told viewers the crowd was chanting "Let's go, Brandon!" to celebrate that day's race winner, Brandon Brown.

But because Americans are glorious, we embraced NBC's lie with both hands, and now "Let's go, Brandon!" is our not-so-secret code for "Fuck Joe Biden!"

The beauty of the "Let's go, Brandon" movement is three-fold: 1) it means "Fuck Joe Biden," and seriously, fuck that guy, 2) it's a clean way to say "Fuck Joe Biden," and 3) along with mocking Biden, we are mocking the fake media who guard his rotted and corrupt palace.

Like the persecuted Christians of old who identified themselves to one another by drawing a fish in the dirt, "Let's go, Brandon!" is shorthand for I'm with you. You are not alone. We are in this together. Oh, and fuck Joe Biden.

Best of all, shouting "Let's go, Brandon" is good, clean fun. Rebellion is fun. Sticking a finger in the eye of power and corruption is fun. Watching the uptight squares on the left clutch their pearls like Margaret Dumont is delightful.

And that's why the left is terrified.

You see, one of the primary goals of the left is to make normal, everyday Americans feel as though we are outnumbered and alone. Thus, any traditional American who spends even half a minute partaking in academia, television, movies, popular fiction, or social media is made to feel like an outcast, a freak, a regressive bigot unwelcome in the broader culture.

This is by design. Among other things, the left's goal in seizing the controls of popular culture is to use peer pressure mixed with propaganda to convince us to sell our souls and our freedom in an effort to belong.

But it's all a lie.

Most Americans, including those still stupid enough to vote for Democrats, do not believe a man can magically transform into a woman, don't want grade-schoolers taught sodomy, cherish free speech, hate the fascist cancel culture, and oppose the basics of Critical Race Theory. Also, we all want voter ID, school choice, and a fully funded police force.

Because we have so much in common, the organized left can only hold on to power by keeping us divided by making normal people feel alone. This is why every appealing grassroots movement on the right - the Tea Party, Trump rallies, Dave Chappelle, and now, "Let's go, Brandon" - must be strangled in the crib.

The left's desperation to keep people from joining these movements, to smear these movements and their participants as "racist" or "violent," is especially important when it comes to the young people Democrats are so desperate to brainwash. A leftist watching college and high school crowds break into "Fuck Joe Biden" and "Let's go, Brandon" chants must feel like the Romans did when everyone stood up and claimed to be Spartacus.

Like all sour-faced scolds and censors, the left will fail to kill this movement because the movement is real. It's not astroturf. And it's just a fact that saying "fuck an old, white guy" is not racist. It's also a fact that Joe Biden has legitimately failed as president.

Most importantly, this chant offers a liberating sense of solidarity with the like-minded, which feels like a true revelation in our increasingly fascist and suffocating culture. What a thing it is to realize you are far from alone.

Best of all, the more the left gasp and clutch their pearls over "Let's go, Brandon," the more fun it is to say.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
Nolte: The Revolutionary Power of 'Let's Go, Brandon!'

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
For very good reason, the media and Democrats feel threatened and terrified by the "Let's go, Brandon!" chant, which is why we must never stop saying it. If the organized left understands nothing else, it understands the power that comes when normal, everyday people realize they are not alone.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
'Let's go Brandon,' explained | CNN Politics

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
On Friday night, a Southwest Airlines pilot allegedly said "Let's go Brandon" over the plane intercom, causing a stir on board and prompting an investigation by the airline.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
This story was originally published by HuffPost and is reproduced here as part of Climate Desk.

A landmark congressional hearing to probe the extent to which the oil industry misled the public about global climate change featured executives of some of the world's largest fossil fuel companies and industry trade groups further downplaying climate science.

"We know the combustion of oil and gas releases greenhouse gases," Darren Woods, CEO of oil giant ExxonMobil, told members of the House Committee on Oversight and Reform before misrepresenting the findings of the world's leading climate science body.

"The Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change," he said, "has concluded that increased greenhouse gases can contribute to climate change."

What the United Nations scientific body actually concluded in an August report is that human activity-namely the burning of fossil fuels and deforestation-is the "unequivocal" cause of climate change, and has already unleashed devastating changes around the globe.

Other industry executives rolled out similarly couched talking points. "We accept the scientific consensus: Climate change is real and the use of fossil fuels contributes to it," said Chevron CEO Michael Wirth.

"Climate change is real. Industrial activity contributes to it," said Mike Sommers, president of the American Petroleum Institute (API), the oil and gas industry trade group that's played an outsized role in sowing doubt about human-caused climate change and fighting efforts to rein in greenhouse gas emissions.

"The climate is changing and humans are contributing to those changes," said Suzanne Clark, CEO of the U.S. Chamber of Commerce, which has also spent years funding climate misinformation campaigns.
Fossil fuels firms aren't just a contributor to global warming, but the primary cause.
Such statements might have flown in the 1990s. In 2021, it is outright climate denial. The science is unequivocal: Fossil fuels aren't just one of many contributors to global warming, but the primary cause of the rapidly worsening crisis.

The highly anticipated hearing marked the first time that oil industry executives have appeared before Congress to answer questions under oath about the industry's role in spreading climate misinformation. Even before it started, Democrats were comparing the moment to a 1994 hearing in which executives of the largest tobacco companies testified that cigarettes and nicotine are not addictive.

"Twenty-seven years ago, seven tobacco executives appeared in this room before Congress," Rep. Carolyn B. Maloney (D-N.Y.), the chairwoman of the committee, said in her opening remarks. "Rather than admitting the truth about their product, the executives lied. This was a watershed moment in the public's understanding of Big Tobacco. I hope that today's hearing represents a turning point for Big Oil. I hope that today the witnesses will finally own up to the industry's central role in this crisis and become part of the change we need."

Executives flatly denied that their companies ever participated in an effort to downplay or dismiss the climate threat, despite mountains of evidence to the contrary. "While our views on climate change have developed over time, any suggestion that Chevron has engaged in an effort to spread disinformation and mislead the public on these complex issues is simply wrong," CEO Michael Wirth told lawmakers.

"Exxon does not, and never has, spread disinformation regarding climate change," ExxonMobil CEO Darren Woods said.

An InsideClimate News investigation in 2015 revealed that top executives at Exxon knew about the role of fossil fuels in global warming as early as 1977, then lobbied against efforts to cut greenhouse gas emissions. Exxon has donated millions to groups that deny anthropogenic climate change. It and Chevron are both members of API, which knew about the threat in the early 1980s but worked to cover up and downplay it. Wirth sits on the board of API, which continues working to block climate action.

Maloney questioned Woods about statements that former Exxon CEO Lee Raymond made in the mid-1990s, including that the "the case for so-called global warming is far from air tight." Nearly 20 years earlier, an Exxon scientist named James Black wrote in an internal memo that "there is general scientific agreement that the most likely manner in which mankind is influencing the global climate is through carbon dioxide released from the burning of fossil fuels."
Republican after Republican used their allotted time on Thursday to defend the oil executives.
Maloney asked Woods if he agreed that there are inconsistencies between statements from Exxon executives and its own scientists. Woods said he did not agree and that Exxon's position "has continued to evolve with the scientific community."

"I was hoping that you would not be like the tobacco industry was and lie about this," Maloney told Woods. "I was hoping that you would be better than the tobacco industry and that you would have come out with the truth, and I'm disappointed with the statement that you made."

Executives from BP and Shell also testified at Thursday's hearing. None of the industry representatives would commit when Maloney called on them to pledge to no longer direct funds to efforts aimed at obstructing climate initiatives.

Meanwhile, Republican after Republican used their allotted time on Thursday to defend the oil executives, apologizing for what they described as Democrats' efforts to "intimidate," "badger" and "demonize" the industry. And they argued that the committee would be better off spending its time investigating something-anything-else: inflation, rising gas prices, immigration, the Afghanistan withdrawal, the pandemic.

"It is clear that this hearing is part of a Democrat-led disinformation campaign to distract from the Biden administration's failed policies that are hurting average Americans," Rep. Virginia Foxx (R-N.C.) said.

As Republicans worked to shift the focus of the hearing away from big oil's record of pollution and climate denial, Democrats dug in.

"I think one thing that often gets lost in these conversations is that some of us have to actually live the future that you all are setting on fire," Rep. Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez (D-N.Y.) said. "By 2028, crop yields are already projected to begin to fail, with famine beginning to hit the world's most vulnerable populations. By 2038, current U.S. drought, fire and extreme heat trends could potentially make whole regions of the United States unlivable if we continue the trends that lobbyists are trying to have us pursue."

"We do not have the privilege or luxury of lobbyist spin," she added.

Democratic committee members had requested that companies turn over internal documents related to the industry's role in misleading the public. Unsatisfied with what the companies provided, Maloney announced at the end of Thursday's that she plans to subpoena them.

"I do not take this step lightly," Maloney said. "We are at code red for climate and I am committed to doing everything I can to help rescue this planet and save it for our children. We need to get to the bottom of the oil industry's disinformation campaign, and with these subpoenas we will."

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
Big Oil climate-denial hearing features even more denial

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
This story was originally published by HuffPost and is reproduced here as part of Climate Desk. A landmark congressional hearing to probe the extent to which the oil industry misled the public about global climate change featured executives of some of the world's largest fossil fuel companies and industry trade groups further downplaying climate science.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
American truckers don't like taking orders. But the Biden administration has increased pressure on some of them to take the vaccine-willing or unwilling.

All through the pandemic, truckers endured hardships to keep America's infrastructure running. They waited in line for hours in sight of bathrooms they weren't allowed to use. On the road, some died alone of COVID-19.

Now, with supply chains disrupted, Americans need them more than ever. But faced with the prospect of mandated vaccination, many drivers are considering quitting.

"I'd fight it," said veteran trucker Mike Widdins, referring to a vaccine mandate. "I think a lot of us will be quitting. Who likes to be forced to do stuff you don't want to do?"

Widdins isn't alone in his willingness to leave trucking if he's required to vaccinate. Polls by trucking publications Commercial Carrier Journal and OverDrive indicate that up to 30 percent of truckers will seriously consider quitting if required to vaccinate. If they quit, the consequences for America may be massive. US Transport estimates that 70 percent of American freight goes by truck.

"It would hurt shipping big-time," Widdins said.

Narrowing Lanes

President Joe Biden ordered his administration to mandate vaccines for private companies with over 100 employees. The Occupational Safety and Health Administration was charged with developing the rule, and the Office of Budget and Management is currently reviewing it. The review process can take as long as 90 days.

Most of the trucking industry consists of companies with fewer than 100 employees, though a significant portion would fall under the over-100-employee umbrella.

Most truck companies have six trucks or fewer, according to the American Trucking Associations.

Some experts say the selective reach of the mandate makes it ineffective. Barbara Smithers, vice president of the Indiana Motor Truck Association, told The Epoch Times via email that it makes little sense to "cherry-pick" who to vaccinate based on company size.

"Truck drivers spend most of their work hours alone in the cab of a truck-literally one of the safest places possible during a pandemic-so why do they need to be regulated in this way?" she said. "Testing hundreds of thousands of truck drivers moving across the country every day is a virtual impossibility."

For mandate-affected companies, Biden's decision may drive away employees at a time when America needs them most. The American Trucking Associations estimates that America needs 80,000 more truckers to meet transportation needs.

Recently, supply chain crises have left many Americans in need. Transportation Secretary Pete Buttigieg said the shortage will last as long as there's a pandemic.

With backups in unloading goods at America's ports, shortages already threaten consumers. But if the long lines of trucks waiting to ship goods suddenly become shorter, the crisis will become far worse.

Whether America runs short on trucks depends on the Biden administration's orders and how truckers respond.

Joe Trucker and Joe Biden

Some truckers think of their job as their service to America. In exchange for long hours away from home, they get relatively low pay, independence, and the nation's best sunsets.

The CCP virus hasn't been kind to truckers. At a time when many Americans hunkered down at home, they were still on the road.

Trucking life during the pandemic was a series of frustrating restrictions, trucker Victor Morales said at a Georgia One9 truck stop. Morales has driven trucks for 25 years.

After a long day on the road, Morales would wait for hours to drop off a truckful of deliveries at a warehouse. But warehouse owners didn't allow truckers to leave their cabs for any reason.

"You're almost forced, like a second-class citizen," he said. "They want the goods and services you got, but they don't even want you to get out of your truck."

If they arrived hungry, they waited hungry, he said. They weren't even allowed to use a restroom only steps away.

"You can literally see a bathroom right there behind the glass. But you can't get out," Morales said.

In the eyes of drivers, Biden's mandate is the last step in a long line of restrictions that don't consider their needs or wants.

"It's unconstitutional," said one trucker who preferred to remain anonymous. "We'll just buy our own damn trucks and run our own company. All we've got to do is shut down, and the country doesn't exist no more."

For many drivers, a vaccine mandate may prove to be the final straw. Some drivers don't trust the vaccine because of how new it is. Some distrust it for personal medical reasons. Others distrust it because they don't trust the government.

"I had cancer years ago," said trucker Jack McGregory. "I don't want to put something that I don't know exactly what it will do into my body. If I die, I want to die with a little more time on my hands than that."

McGregory said he would rather quit than vaccinate.

But even those who take the vaccine say they oppose the mandate.

At the Pilot Truck Stop at I-69 and Wadhams Road in Michigan, all 10 truckers interviewed by The Epoch Times said they had taken the vaccine but were opposed to a vaccine mandate.

Kevin Hambrick, a longtime driver with Fortune 500 transportation company J.B. Hunt, opposes the mandate.

"Each guy should make his own choice," Hambrick said.

In Arizona, Florida-based truck driver Juan Martinez said that he knows life without freedom, having lived under Cuban communism. He also received a COVID-19 shot and opposes the mandate.

"You have to decide for yourself," he said. "People should do whatever they want to do."

Many drivers feel pressured by their employers. After a year of difficult pandemic restrictions, it seems to them that the COVID-19 rules grow ever more invasive.

In Flagstaff, Arizona, a long-distance truck driver in his late 20s asked not to be identified, fearing reprisal by his employer.

"There's no place in the middle right now," he said. "If you want to put something in your body, it's your personal choice."

Other truckers who didn't want to be named said they felt angry at those who would mandate the vaccine.

"We run our country," one said. "They don't give a [expletive] about this country."

Roads to Health

According to the Biden administration, America needs the new vaccines to increase protection against the CCP virus.

"The vast majority of Americans are doing the right thing," President Joe Biden said in a press conference on Sept. 9. But he said more people should get vaccinated.

According to the CDC, COVID-19 vaccines are "safe, effective, and free."

Studies show that the efficacy of all three vaccines approved for use in the United States dwindles over time, requiring booster shots.

U.S. states with the highest vaccination rates have recently experienced outbreaks. The number of cases in Vermont, the state with the highest vaccination rate in the United States, reached a record level earlier this month, and hospitalizations were close to the records made last winter. The state recorded the deadliest day and the second deadliest month of the pandemic in September.

As of Oct. 24, more than 57 percent of Americans were fully vaccinated against the CCP virus, according to the CDC.

"We've been patient, but our patience is wearing thin," Biden said to those who had not gotten a vaccine. "Your refusal has cost all of us."

A recent executive order suggested that the White House is aware of a potential truck shortage. Biden signed an executive order on Oct. 20 that temporarily lifts weight restrictions on trucks and encourages more people to become truckers.

Neither the White House nor the Department of Transportation responded to repeated requests for comment on this story.

Collision Course

Truck industry experts say truckers with the option to quit will do so if forced to take the vaccine.

Joe Sculley, president of the Motor Transport Association of Connecticut, said he sees a scenario playing out for those who would oppose or refuse to comply with the mandate.

"Drivers will leave bigger companies and look for smaller ones that don't have to comply with the mandate, or they will quit altogether and look for another profession," he said.

Right now, the supply chain crisis, the number of drivers who oppose vaccination, and the driver shortage leave the best cards in the hands of drivers, Sculley said.

"Drivers have leverage," he said. "It won't be an empty threat. Nobody is going to be quickly replaced."

Jim Ward, president of D.M. Bowman and chairman of the Truckload Carriers Association, agreed that truckers are serious about quitting because of vaccine mandates.

"With driver availability already limited, any exodus due to compliance with a vaccine mandate would put our nation and its economy in an even more precarious situation," he said.

He pointed out that drivers who quit can't easily be replaced. They require training.

"Our nation's professional truck drivers are the safest, most well-trained operators on the road today. Replacing any driver who leaves the industry is not an overnight process," he said.

Biden's best chance to bring in new drivers comes from a pilot program in his recent infrastructure bill that would allow 18- to 21-year-old truckers to drive cargo across state lines. The program would create a "test group" of 18- to 21-year-olds who would be followed to "see how they would perform," Sculley said.

However, the American trucking industry has long faced a driver shortage. Long hours away from home and mediocre pay don't attract new drivers to the business, even when they have the right skills.

Impact

New workers also might not compare with longtime professionals. Experienced truckers thread their trucks through a complex ballet of traffic conditions and federal regulations to arrive on time.

Football games, the Kentucky Derby, hurricanes two states over, and other issues can all mean higher traffic along a route, Morales said.

If Biden's mandate goes through, the most experienced truckers are the most likely to quit, Morales said.

In 10 years, nearly 30 percent of truckers will be 65 or older, according to Department of Transportation statistics. These drivers often make more money and have cash saved up, Morales said.

"The mandate is going to affect the older drivers that have been here a while," he said. "They're going to have a choice."

If these drivers retire early, it will be a challenge to replace them. To become a trucker, a driver must pass his commercial driver's license (CDL) test, a process that usually takes four to seven weeks. During the pandemic, many truck driving schools closed, and training schools have issued at least 100,000 fewer CDLS.

Short-term truckers are often unreliable, said small truck company owner Pete Falkenstern. He calls them "cowboys."

"If somebody's done it for a long time and hasn't had a lot of accidents, they've been pretty safe," he said. "They probably take some pride in what they do."

If 20 percent of truckers quit because of the mandate, America will lose about 15 percent of its transportation capacity.

America's infrastructure relies most on trucks. As a transportation system, trucks are incredibly flexible. They can go anywhere at any time, can carry many kinds of goods, and are the most cost-effective form of transportation over short to medium distances.

"I love this industry, but without us, this country would shut down in three days," said trucker Jack McGregory.

Even so, the trucking industry has a high turnover rate.

Backing Up

The vaccine mandate would only directly affect companies with more than 100 people, but small truck companies wouldn't have the resources to absorb many additional drivers, Falkenstern said.

"I would love to be able to accommodate 30 people, but the work is not here to support that many," he said. "I don't want to operate any more than what I have because of insurance regulations."

Large truck companies also tend to be more cost-effective, said Falkenstern. They can buy things in bulk and self-insure.

"A lot of the bigger companies can keep prices down," he said. "They can get a lower cost because it's in bulk."

Cathy Roberson, president of Logistics Trends and Insights LLC, said it's unclear right now what the long-term impact of the vaccine mandate would be.

If truckers quit, the mandate could damage America's logistics system, Robertson said. But if they switch to smaller companies, Biden's executive order might only reshuffle employees.

"It really hurts the larger trucking companies more than anything else," Robertson said, adding that whatever the case, the mandate would exacerbate current supply chain issues.

Logistics workers are already wrestling with the worst supply chain issues ever seen, said Lisa Anderson, president of logistics group LMA Consulting.

"It's unprecedented. It's never happened before," she said.

Right now, logistics issues have made it difficult to find replacement parts for trucks, she said. Businesses find themselves in a catch-22; to fix their trucks, they need trucks to transport parts.

Anderson said the vaccine mandate would almost certainly worsen the driver shortage.

"They are more of a lone wolf, always navigating complex situations on their own," she said. "They don't like to be told what to do."

Delays Ahead

If truckers follow through with what they say they will do, America's supply chain crisis may soon become far worse.

From a perspective based purely on material benefits, it would seem only logical to obey the mandate. Truckers could take the vaccine, keep their jobs, and keep the national supply chain running.

But human beings often want to assert that they amount to more than mere links in a chain, being pulled on command from the federal government. The logic of individual freedom doesn't calculate for material benefits.

"It's just that shoving-it-down-your-throat part," Morales said. "Our first instinct will be to push back."

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
Vaccine Mandate Threatens Major Trucking Disruption, Industry Insiders Say

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
American truckers don't like taking orders. But the Biden administration has increased pressure on some of them to take the vaccine-willing or unwilling. All through the pandemic, truckers endured hardships to keep America's infrastructure running. They waited in line for hours in sight of bathrooms they weren't allowed to use.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
The claim: Resistance to COVID-19 vaccine mandates is responsible for supply chain backups

Ice cream, books and Christmas trees could all be in short supply soon due to a complex combination of rising consumer demand, labor shortages and decreased production capacity worldwide.

But online, some blame COVID-19 vaccine mandates.

"Trucker's (sic) that refuse the Jab have refused to drive into mandate states and cities... this is why the ports, rail, and warehouses are all backed up," reads text in an Oct. 13 Facebook post. "The 'shipping crisis' is a crisis because those ports and rail terminals are in Blue States."

The post is a screenshot of an Oct. 10 post from Joyce Bowen on Gab, a social media platform popular with conservatives. Bowen told USA TODAY in a message she copied the text from a comment by user Paul Todd.

"1.4 million of the 3 million truck drivers, including the trucking company I owns (sic), simply drive elsewhere," the text reads. "News won't talk about it, but I'm giving you first hand knowledge of what's happening and why shortages are happening."

In early September, President Joe Biden announced all employers with more than 100 workers would have to require COVID-19 vaccination or weekly testing. Some cities with large ports, such as Los Angeles, also require vaccination to enter public spaces.
Fact check: California trucking regulations aren't to blame for cargo backlog
Big trucking companies have spoken out, saying vaccine requirements could potentially push truckers away and worsen supply chain woes. But experts say local, state and federal mandates are not responsible for current nationwide shipping delays.

"The online claim is too strong," John Macdonald, associate professor of supply chain management and logistics at Colorado State University, said in an email. "Drivers from companies I contacted have had no challenges fulfilling their job duties due to vaccination status."

USA TODAY reached out to Todd and the Facebook user who shared the post for comment.

Delays due to rising demand, production constraints

The reasons for the current supply chain problems in the U.S. predate the Biden administration's recent COVID-19 vaccine requirements. There's no evidence local or state mandates have contributed to delays, either.

"I have seen nothing to suggest that vaccine mandates are to blame for supply chain backups," David Correll, co-director of the Massachusetts Institute of Technology's FreightLab, said in an email. "The available supply of both truck drivers and warehouse and dock workers was already considered 'short' long before COVID wreaked havoc on our supply chains."

As of 2019, more than 3.5 million Americans worked as truck drivers, according to the U.S. Census Bureau, with self-employed truckers making up about 29% of the truck transportation industry. But now, the industry is short tens of thousands of drivers.
Fact check: Photos of bare, fully stocked grocery store shelves shared online to support false claim
Opposition to coronavirus vaccine mandates is not thought to be a contributing factor.

Norita Taylor, director of public relations for the Owner-Operator Independent Drivers Association, told USA TODAY in an email that the group has "not heard of any such mandates or connections to (the) bottleneck." Experts who study logistics and freight transportation also say the Facebook post is baseless.

"I have not heard anywhere that there is a widespread movement among truckers to avoid locations that have vaccine mandates as a matter of local or state policy," Steve Tracey, executive director of the Center for Supply Chain Research at Pennsylvania State University, said in an email. "If this were true, I'd have to assume it would be widely distributed information among reputable industry-focused trucking media outlets - it isn't."

The reason for supply chain snags across the country has to do with the economic effects of COVID-19.

During the height of the pandemic, consumer spending dropped by record numbers. As more Americans got vaccinated and ventured outside their homes, spending ticked back up. Now, retail sales continue to rise.

The result: an overwhelmed supply chain.
Fact check: Image is from Australian refugee incident in 2001
"Over the last 20-30 years, the global logistics and manufacturing industries - much of the manufacturing off-shore in low wage countries - have been well-tuned to keep costs down, resulting in a very lean, efficient, and low-cost system," Chip White, a professor and transportation and logistics expert at the Georgia Institute of Technology, said in an email. "However, lean systems don't react well to disruptions, and COVID has provided major disruptions in supply, labor, and demand worldwide."

A backlog of cargo at West Coast ports, staffing gaps in the logistics industry, container shortages and rising shipping costs have all contributed to supply chain problems. Further upstream, there are production cutbacks in countries like China, which has been grappling with a far-reaching power shortage.

"To better cope with these disruptions, our global supply chains now need to be more resilient and agile, which requires additional buffer manufacturing capacity, freight transportation - rail, trucking and drivers - and warehousing, and inventory levels throughout the supply chain," White said, "all which costs money and will require time to implement."

USA TODAY, Oct. 15, Grocery store shelves bare? These products may be hard to find amid supply chain disruptions

USA TODAY, Oct. 21, Christmas trees, sweaters, gifts in shipping mess: How supply chain issues will affect holiday shopping

USA TODAY, Oct. 19, Yes, there could be a book shortage this holiday season. But it is not as bad as you think

USA TODAY, Jan. 11, Parler ban: What is Gab, the social network gaining popularity among conservatives?

Associated Press, Sept. 9, Biden announces sweeping new COVID-19 vaccine mandates for 100 million Americans

The Wall Street Journal, Sept. 14, Big Truckers Say Vaccine Mandate Could Push Drivers Away

Thomas Corsi, Oct. 21, Email exchange with USA TODAY

Steve Tracey, Oct. 21, Email exchange with USA TODAY

David Correll, Oct. 21, Email exchange with USA TODAY

Sampath Rajagopalan, Oct. 19, Email exchange with USA TODAY

The New York Times, Oct. 18, The Busiest Port in the U.S.

Norita Taylor, Oct. 21, Email exchange with USA TODAY

Chip White, Oct. 21, Email exchange with USA TODAY

Anne Goodchild, Oct. 21, Email exchange with USA TODAY

USA TODAY, Oct. 6, LA to require proof of vaccination for most indoor public venues; US to invest $1 billion on home tests: COVID updates

USA TODAY, Oct. 15, Supply chain issues: What are they and how will shortages impact the holiday shopping season?

CalMatters, Oct. 14, Port backlogs sum up California's COVID crisis

Nallan Suresh, Oct. 19, Email exchange with USA TODAY

The Wall Street Journal, Oct. 20, China Takes the Brakes Off Coal Production to Tackle Power Shortage

John Macdonald, Oct. 21, Email exchange with USA TODAY

Los Angeles Times, Oct. 14, When will supply chains be back to normal? And how did things get so bad?

CNN, Oct. 19, Wanted: 80,000 truck drivers to help fix the supply chain

USA TODAY, Oct. 18, Fact check: California trucking regulations aren't to blame for cargo backlog

U.S. Census Bureau, June 6, 2019, Number of Truckers at All-Time High

Joyce Bowen, Oct. 21, Gab exchange with USA TODAY

USA TODAY, July 30, 2020, US economy contracted record 32.9% in Q2 amid state shutdowns, COVID-19 contagion fears

USA TODAY, April 29, The economy grew 6.4% in Q1 as stimulus checks, COVID-19 shots, looser business constraints spurred more spending

Associated Press, Oct. 16, Retail sales are climbing despite sticker shock in grocery stores, car lots and restaurants

Thank you for supporting our journalism. You can subscribe to our print edition, ad-free app or electronic newspaper replica here. Our fact-check work is supported in part by a grant from Facebook.
Our rating: False

Based on our research, we rate FALSE the claim that resistance to COVID-19 vaccine mandates is responsible for supply chain backups. Experts say local, state and federal mandates are not responsible for current nationwide shipping delays. The supply chain problems are due to a combination of rising consumer demand, production constraints, cargo backlogs and labor shortages around the world.

Our fact-check sources:

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
Fact check: Supply chain delays not related to COVID-19 vaccine mandates

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
Ice cream, books and Christmas trees could all be in short supply soon due to a complex combination of rising consumer demand, labor shortages and decreased production capacity worldwide. But online, some blame COVID-19 vaccine mandates. "Trucker's (sic) that refuse the Jab have refused to drive into mandate states and cities...

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
In the Virginia gubernatorial race, it's a new - and the last - week, but the same old story.

Twenty four hours ahead of Election Day, a new survey from Fox 5 DC and Insider Advantage shows Republican Glenn Youngkin up two points (47-45 percent) on Democrat and former governor Terry McAuliffe. Similarly, a Trafalgar Group poll shows Youngkin winning 49.4-47.1 percent. The Fox/Insider and Trafalgar polls both track with last week's horse race, which saw Fox News (53-45 percent), and Echelon Insights (49-46 percent) both return results indicating that Youngkin has not just trimmed the substantial lead that McAuliffe held at the start of the general election cycle, but established one for himself.

Six percent of voters called themselves undecided, in the Fox 5 poll and the margin of error is 4.4 percent. According to Trafalgar, only 1.6 percent of Virginians remain undecided. The margin of error on its poll is 2.98 percent.

McAuliffe has, in the meantime, doubled down on his strategy of trying to tie his opponent to former president Donald Trump and insisting that Youngkin is relying upon dogwhistles to appeal to a racist electorate.

On Sunday, for example, McAuliffe appeared on Chuck Todd's Meet the Press, where he falsely claimed that Youngkin "wants to ban Toni Morrison's book, Beloved," asserting that he's "going after one of the most preeminent African-American female writers in American history."

"Now of all the hundreds of books you could look at, why did you take the one black female author?" asked McAuliffe, before insisting that Youngkin's "ending his campaign on a racist dogwhistle."

Notably, Youngkin has not stated his support for any kind of book ban, instead saying he would have supported a bill McAuliffe vetoed that would have notified parents of sexually explicit content in curricula and allowed them to have alternative materials provided. McAuliffe has repeatedly mischaracterized the bill as allowing parents to remove materials entirely from districts' curricula, and did so again on Sunday.

An ad sponsored by the Youngkin campaign did feature Laura Murphy, a mother whose issue with her son reading Beloved led to the drafting and passage of the bill, which had the support of 18 Democrats and 14 members of the Virginia Black Legislative Caucus. However, neither Beloved nor Toni Morrison are mentioned in it, rendering the "dogwhistle" label tenuous at best.

McAuliffe, who deemed his opponent "Glenn Trumpkin" on Monday, is now losing to Youngkin in both the RealClearPolitics (1.6 points) FiveThirtyEight (.9 points) polling averages.
Send a tip to the news team at NR.

Isaac Schorr is a media and enterprise reporter for National Review. @isaac_schorr

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
Falling in the Polls, McAuliffe Smears Youngkin as Racist Trump Devotee in Closing Argument | National Review

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
In the Virginia gubernatorial race, it's a new - and the last - week, but the same old story. Twenty four hours ahead of Election Day, a new survey from Fox 5 DC and Insider Advantage shows Republican Glenn Youngkin up two points (47-45 percent) on Democrat and former governor Terry McAuliffe.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
A Republican ad featured a mother who had tried to have "Beloved" banned from her son's curriculum. Democrats saw a coded racist message.

Glenn Youngkin, the Virginia Republican, has appealed to conservative parents frustrated with what they see as a liberal takeover of schools. Credit... Jason Andrew for The New York Times

ARLINGTON, Va. - In the final days of the tight race for Virginia governor, the candidates are turning to the unlikeliest of campaign props: a novel from 1987.

A new online advertisement released this week by Glenn Youngkin, the Republican candidate, features a mother who pushed to have Toni Morrison's "Beloved" banned from her son's English curriculum eight years ago, citing the book's graphic scenes. When that failed, she started an effort that eventually became a bill passed by the Republican-controlled General Assembly, but that was rejected by former Gov. Terry McAuliffe, the Democrat now running to win back his old job.

"It gave parents a say - the option to choose an alternative for my children," the Northern Virginia mother, Laura Murphy, says in the ad. "But then Gov. Terry McAuliffe vetoed it twice. He doesn't think parents should have a say. He said that. He shut us out."

Left unsaid in the ad was that the mother and her husband are Republican activists, that their son was a high school senior taking advanced placement English when he read the passages that supposedly gave him nightmares, or that he later went on to work briefly in the White House under former President Donald J. Trump and now works for the G.O.P.'s congressional campaign committee. Also unmentioned was the novel in question: a Pulitzer Prize-winning fixture of the American literary canon - by a Nobel Prize-winner, no less - whose harrowing scenes conveyed the horrors of slavery, a subject with obvious historical resonance in Virginia.

To Democrats, the Youngkin ad was both a throwback to the days of book banning and a coded insult to one of America's most celebrated Black authors, after months of frantic Republican alarms, in Virginia and nationwide, about how schoolchildren are being educated about racism.

Mr. Youngkin and his allies, noting that the ad had not mentioned "Beloved" or Ms. Morrison, insisted it had merely been intended to showcase what they contended was Mr. McAuliffe's disregard for the prerogatives of parents in overseeing their children's education. The specifics had not been mentioned, they said, because they were beside the point.

What was indisputable was that the ad - which had not even been run on television - had suddenly given both Mr. Youngkin and Mr. McAuliffe a much-needed new rallying cry in an election that is widely expected to hinge on which of them is more successful at mobilizing their core supporters to get to the polls.

There was almost an inevitability to the way the Virginia governor's race was winding down with an argument about racism.

Four years ago, with Mr. Trump in the White House and memories of the deadly extremist rally in Charlottesville, Va., still fresh, the Republican nominee, Ed Gillespie, finished his campaign with a series of pledges to protect the state's Confederate monuments, a development Democrats charged as racist.

This year, Mr. Youngkin is centering his closing messaging on what he calls "parents' rights" - an all-encompassing rubric for conservative causes like opposing mask mandates, vaccine requirements and transgender rights, and stoking fears about the way race is taught in the schools.

For months, the conservative media have lavished national attention on local events in suburban Loudoun County, Va., including a sexual assault case that revived Republican criticism of gender-inclusive bathroom policies in schools, and the suspension of a physical education teacher who refused to address transgender students by the pronouns that they identified with. Conservatives have also falsely claimed that Virginia schools are teaching "critical race theory," an advanced academic concept that is not part of classroom instruction in the state.

Polling indicates that those themes have resonated with conservative voters in Virginia.

"I don't have any school-aged kids, but I'm a big believer that parents certainly do have say in what their kids should learn," Tom Allen, 64, a retired airline pilot from Herndon, Va., said as he headed into a community center to cast an early vote for Mr. Youngkin on Monday. "I don't think somebody should be jamming a political opinion down these little kids' throats."

Yet Democrats, too, have discerned an opportunity to energize their supporters - by painting Mr. Youngkin, who opposes abortion rights, as a threat not just to women's control over their bodies but to the schools' ability to shape young minds.

"He's gone from banning a woman's right to choose to banning books by a Pulitzer Prize-winning author," President Biden said of the Republican candidate at a rally with Mr. McAuliffe in Arlington on Tuesday night.

There, McAuliffe staff members handed out copies of "Beloved" and other books by Ms. Morrison, along with bookmarks proclaiming that Mr. Youngkin would "ban books in Virginia schools." Liberal television hosts quickly scheduled interviews with scholars who extolled the importance of her work.

At a rally on Tuesday, President Biden, left, appeared alongside Terry McAuliffe, whose campaign staff members handed out copies of "Beloved" at the event. Credit... Stefani Reynolds for The New York Times

Mr. McAuliffe has struggled to motivate liberals, and Democratic activists have expressed concern that he has yet to fully energize Black and Latino voters. Some party strategists believe the "Beloved" ad and its blowback could provide his campaign with a well-timed burst of energy.

"It's a reminder to Virginia voters how extreme Glenn Youngkin is, despite going to great lengths to look at like a harmless suburban dad," said Josh Schwerin, a strategist who worked on Mr. McAuliffe's 2013 campaign.

Republicans counter it is the McAuliffe campaign that is employing divisive culture-war tactics to close out the race. Mr. Youngkin, they argue, is simply trying to ensure that parents are informed and have input over their children's curriculum. And Mr. McAuliffe, they note, accepted the support of Gov. Ralph Northam and Attorney General Mark Herring, both of whom were forced to acknowledg e that they dressed in blackface decades ago as students.

"​​The Morrison part is another distortion, trying to make it a racial issue," said George Allen, who served as both governor and a senator from Virginia. "I don't think parents have any idea the race of whoever wrote any book. They think the descriptions are things parents should know about."

Former Gov. Bob McDonnell, a Republican who in 2013 signed a law declaring Virginia parents "have a fundamental right to direct the upbringing, education and care of their children," said Mr. Youngkin had tapped into a rich vein of voter discontent.

"What you have here is a Democratic candidate for governor and a public school system that says, 'We don't agree and we're not going to provide those rights,'" Mr. McDonnell said. "That's the takeaway from a number of parents and I think it's a very potent issue that transcends parties."

"Beloved" tells the story of a former slave who killed her 2-year-old daughter to spare her the horrors of bondage.

In 2013, Ms. Murphy, who said her son, Blake, told her that the novel gave him nightmares, began lobbying for policies giving parents more control over what their children read in class. At the time, her son told The Washington Post he found the book "disgusting and gross" and "hard for me to handle."

He went on to the University of Florida, spent a summer as a clerk in the White House and now works as a lawyer for the National Republican Congressional Committee.

After several years of lobbying by Ms. Murphy and others, the Republican-led General Assembly passed a bill with bipartisan support giving parents the right to review and opt their children out of "instructional material that includes sexually explicit content." The legislation would have made Virginia the only state to give parents that power.

Mr. McAuliffe vetoed it in 2016 and vetoed a similar bill a year later. The effort to override his veto fell short by one vote.

Although the legislation did not explicitly prohibit certain books, as Democrats now contend, opponents warned that the approach could lead to book banning.

While the effectiveness of Mr. Youngkin's ads may not become clear until polls close on Tuesday, there has been one clear beneficiary of the controversy: As of Wednesday afternoon, Ms. Morrison's 34-year-old novel was one of the top 50 best-selling books on Amazon.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
G.O.P. Attack Involving Toni Morrison Novel Inflames Virginia Contest

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
A Republican ad featured a mother who had tried to have "Beloved" banned from her son's curriculum. Democrats saw a coded racist message. ARLINGTON, Va. - In the final days of the tight race for Virginia governor, the candidates are turning to the unlikeliest of campaign props: a novel from 1987.

# data[].attributes.body
https://news.yahoo.com/only-minneapolis-officer-formally-disciplined-001600048.html?fr=yhssrp_catchall

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
Colleen Ryan is an openly gay, liberal feminist who wears T-shirts emblazoned with Ruth Bader Ginsburg quotes.

She's also the only Minneapolis police officer formally disciplined for misconduct tied to the department's riot response last year that prompted repeated allegations of unchecked police brutality.

Ryan's infraction: speaking without permission to a magazine columnist about what she called a toxic, para-militant police culture that breeds dangerous officers like Derek Chauvin.

The 29-year-old quit her job Oct. 21 and left Minnesota a week later for a new career outside the country. Ryan also filed a complaint with the Minnesota Department of Human Rights, alleging her former employer discriminated against her because she's a lesbian who advocated for "women and queer officers" in the workplace. The state is investigating the charge.

The complaint says police leadership cited the unsanctioned interview - her only discipline - in denying her a job as a field training officer this year. As of June, the department had promoted two straight men on her shift, the complaint says. One of the men violated the department's search and seizure policy, Ryan said, and the other has an open DWI case.

When Ryan raised the disparity, the field training sergeant said the force could not risk Ryan putting her "personal agenda above the department while training new recruits out on the streets," according to the complaint.

The Minneapolis Police Department (MPD) declined an interview for this story, but city spokesman Casper Hill said in a statement: "The City takes all allegations of discrimination and harassment very seriously and will participate in any investigation by the Minnesota Department of Human Rights. The Minnesota Government Data Practices Act limits what we can say regarding this matter."

Ryan, who agreed to speak with the Star Tribune/Frontline last week, a day before she left the country, said she endured years of harassment in what she described as a misogynistic and homophobic culture running deep within the department. She described a cultlike adherence to former President Donald Trump's "Back the Blue" politics, which she said has given rise to an "us vs. them" complex among officers toward the communities they serve. In 2019, police Lt. Bob Kroll, who was then head of the Minneapolis police union, appeared onstage with Trump during a rally downtown.

Once her fellow officers learned she supported Hillary Clinton for president in 2016 and marched against Trump, they refused to partner with her and purposely stalled in backing her up during dangerous calls, she said.

"It was a long 6½ years with the department," Ryan said, sitting in her sparse northeast Minneapolis living room among stacks of luggage. "I dealt with constant harassment, sexual harassment, discrimination. And, ultimately, I didn't feel like I had much of a long-term future within MPD."

Ryan does not support efforts to dismantle the Police Department and replace it with a public safety agency. But the experience she described offers a rare glimpse behind the curtain of a police department that filters all public-facing messaging through a media relations office and top brass such as Chief Medaria Arradondo. Only the union leadership is permitted to speak for the rank-and-file without permission. Ryan said this communications restraint gives a distorted view of the systemic problems facing the department - especially for outsiders such as her.

"If we could speak freely, I don't think it would reflect very well on how they treat us and how they run the department," she said.

MACHISMO CULTURE

Born in Houston and raised in eastern Iowa, Ryan moved to the Twin Cities to study political science at the University of St. Thomas in 2010. She wanted to become a cop to help victims of domestic abuse and sexual assault.

Ryan said she enjoyed the daily work of policing and thought she was making a difference. She noticed the machismo culture and knew she didn't fit the standard mold for an officer, but she believed the department needed more women. And she hoped she could help transform the culture from inside.

"Within the first week, everyone knew I was liberal," she said. "Everyone knew I was a feminist. Everyone knew I was gay."

Ryan said her colleagues started to turn on her after a shift working a Clinton campaign event when she could not contain her excitement to get a picture with the first woman nominated by a major party to run for president.

"Everyone questioned why I would want to meet her," Ryan recalled. "It was the narrative of, 'Well, she hates cops.' "

Trump had positioned himself against the "anti-police" Democrats, but Ryan said she could not share her colleagues' enthusiasm for a candidate who had been accused of sexual assault and who boasted about grabbing women by the genitals. Yet in the eyes of her colleagues, voting for Clinton meant supporting the enemy, she said.

"They thought I was voting against them," said Ryan.

The day after the election, a fellow officer texted her a picture of a message written on the roll-call white board of her precinct: "4th Precinct Mids ... Making America Great Again." Ryan provided a copy of the image to the Star Tribune.

That January, Ryan joined protesters in St. Paul for the 2017 Women's March. She posted a picture to Facebook of herself carrying a sign that labeled Trump a sexual predator over the message: "I stand with survivors." She didn't tell anyone at work she was attending the rally, and she didn't think any fellow officers could see her Facebook page. But the next day, a colleague texted her a screenshot of the photo. "Everyone in the department has seen this," he said, according to a screenshot of the text.

"Cops in the precincts I didn't even work in had seen the picture," Ryan recalled. "To this day, I don't know how it spread so quickly."

Afterward, all of the roughly 25 officers on the Fourth Precinct's middle watch shift refused to ride with her while her partner was on leave, she said .

She remembered responding to a car accident, where a fight was breaking out. She called for backup. "I could see on the GPS on our squad computers, those squads that were assigned to back me didn't move for a couple minutes," she said.

After that, printouts of memes began appearing in the women's locker room.

Ryan shared pictures of the images with the Star Tribune for this story. One showed a photo of three women in police uniforms over a message boasting the empowerment of learning to shoot and wearing a bullet-resistant vest - "not wearing a [expletive] ridiculous pink hat and 'protest.' " Another featured Trump and the quote: "We will be one people under one God, saluting the American Flag."

At the time, the Police Department was run by two women - Mayor Betsy Hodges and Chief Janeé Harteau. Harteau was the first-ever openly gay chief. But all that only seemed to embolden the misogynist jokes, Ryan said.

She considered filing a complaint, but breaking the chain of command amounted to a severe violation of the blue line code, so she kept her head down and made meticulous records of the harassment.

According to those records: A senior sergeant patted her leg and joked about how she didn't use condoms. After Chelsea Clinton had a baby, an officer suggested Ryan may go "the donor route" for her own pregnancy. Following the mass shooting at Pulse, a gay nightclub in Orlando, an officer saw her wearing a rainbow memorial bracelet and "remarked that I didn't have to advertise it."

"There were days I thought about calling in sick to work," she said. "But I didn't want them to think they were winning. So I just kept powering through it."

The abuse continued after Arradondo took over as chief and Jacob Frey unseated Hodges, despite promises from the new administration to reform the department.

After Floyd's murder, Ryan worked for weeks responding to the riots, sometimes 18 hour shifts. The unrest took a toll. Some of her friends couldn't understand how she could be part of the same department as officers like Chauvin. Social media users found a recent video on MPD's Facebook page showing her saving ducklings from a sewer. Several sent her death threats.

The senior sergeant continued to make lewd jokes at her expense as she responded to the riots, at one point suggesting Ryan wanted to grab his "tush to prove [she] still liked it," according to Ryan's records. On her third consecutive day on the streets with almost no sleep, the same officer faux punched her cheek and said, "oh go put some makeup on," her records show. Fed up, sleep deprived and feeling abandoned by her department, Ryan reached out to a columnist for GQ Magazine who wrote on women's issues. She knew it was against the rules to talk to a journalist without permission, but "sometimes rules are meant to be broken."

"I was tired of protecting a department that didn't protect me," she said.

The writer agreed to use an alias to protect Ryan, but the article included details about Ryan's politics that gave her away. Once confronted by a supervisor, Ryan admitted she was the anonymous source in the article.

Chief Arradondo issued her a written reprimand last December for violating the department's media policy.

The complaint against her, she learned, came from Assistant Chief Mike Kjos, who ranked just below Arradondo in the department hierarchy.

She knew Kjos. He'd been the Inspector at the Fourth Precinct when she says her fellow shift officers were icing her out.

Kjos did not respond to calls for comment.

With all the lawsuits alleging Minneapolis police brutalized people during the riots, Ryan believes her being the sole one disciplined sends a clear message about the kind of behavior the Minneapolis Police Department's leadership will and won't tolerate.

After the riots, she filed complaints with the city's human resources department, alleging sexual harassment. She provided the detailed descriptions of incidents dating back to 2016, including dates the alleged abuse occurred and who witnessed it, along with photos and cellphone screenshots supporting her claims. Upon learning of the complaint, the senior officer who harassed her during the riots retired with no discipline, she said.

Only one officer other than Ryan was ever interviewed during the investigation. The department refused to make other officers available to human resources, she said. "Apparently the administration can make sergeants unavailable for HR interviews involving complaints of discrimination on sexual orientation, which is news to me."

Despite all her criticisms, she believes the city needs police - good police - especially as gun violence continues to rise, which is why she doesn't support the charter amendment. But she says the department needs systemic reforms, including hiring outside leadership to change the culture from the top down, cracking down on bullying and recruiting more female officers.

"But I can't honestly look a woman in the eyes right now and say, 'you should go apply to MPD,' " she said. "I don't think she'll be safe."

Andy Mannix * 612-673-4036

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
Only Minneapolis officer formally disciplined for misconduct tied to riot response has left job, Minnesota

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
Colleen Ryan is an openly gay, liberal feminist who wears T-shirts emblazoned with Ruth Bader Ginsburg quotes. She's also the only Minneapolis police officer formally disciplined for misconduct tied to the department's riot response last year that prompted repeated allegations of unchecked police brutality.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
The footage shows officers celebrating the "hunting" of protesters.

Newly released body camera footage shows Minneapolis police officers allegedly celebrating the "hunting" of anti-police brutality protesters just five days after the murder of George Floyd.

In one video, a protester yells: "We're unarmed! This is America. We can say what we want!"

In response, an officer appears to shoot at the protester with rubber bullets.

Floyd's death set off months of protests against police violence and racism. The city of Minneapolis, where Floyd was killed by then-MPD officer Derek Chauvin, set a curfew in response to the unrest.

The body cam footage released to the public by the court captures the police department's enforcement of the 8 p.m. curfew: Officers firing rubber bullets at numerous people out on the streets in an attempt to forcefully clear them of demonstrators. Some officers can be seen and heard celebrating and even fist-bumping over their successful hits.

In the recording, one officer can be heard saying: "You guys are out hunting people now. It's just a nice change of tempo."

Shortly after, another officer comments: "F--- these people."

In another video, an officer says: "I would love to scatter [the protesters] but it's time to f------ put 100 people in jail and just prove the mayor wrong about his white supremacist from out of state," referring to Minneapolis Mayor Jacob Frey's comments about white supremacists and out-of-state instigators.

The officer later adds, "This group is probably predominantly white because there's not looting and fires."

Due to an ongoing internal investigation into the actions of officers seen in the videos, the Minneapolis Police Department declined ABC News' request for comment.

The footage was introduced as part of the criminal case against Jaleel Stallings, who was accused of trying to kill police officers but has since been acquitted of all charges, according to his attorney Eric Rice.

The 27-year-old faced two counts of attempted second-degree murder, two counts of first-degree assault, one count of second-degree assault and three other charges for firing a gun at an unmarked police van. No officers were injured.

Stallings argued that he fired at the unmarked police van in self-defense. In an affidavit, Stallings said that other people were running from the unmarked van and warned him of people shooting from the vehicle. He said that after being hit by a rubber bullet himself, he used his gun to shoot the vehicle in an attempt to scare the attackers off.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
Body cam footage shows Minneapolis police allegedly 'hunting' anti-police brutality protesters

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
The footage shows officers celebrating the "hunting" of protesters. Newly released body camera footage shows Minneapolis police officers allegedly celebrating the "hunting" of anti-police brutality protesters just five days after the murder of George Floyd. In one video, a protester yells: "We're unarmed! This is America. We can say what we want!"

# data[].attributes.body
Butterwege, C. (2021, 29. Oktober). Koalition der Halbherzigkeit: Soziale Ungleichheit wird von der „Ampel“ nicht verringert. www.focus.de. Abgerufen am 29. Oktober 2021, von https://www.focus.de/politik/deutschland/bundestagswahl/analyse-ausgerechnet-unter-sozial-kanzler-scholz-werden-die-aermsten-jetzt-weiter-abgehaengt_id_24359496.html

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
Die wachsende Ungleichheit ist das Kardinalproblem unserer Gesellschaft, weil sie für sozialen Konfliktstoff zwischen deren Mitgliedern sorgt, ökonomische Krisentendenzen verschärft und ökologische Nachhaltigkeit verhindert. Denn mehr Klimagerechtigkeit wird es nur bei weniger Ungleichheit geben. Auch den gesellschaftlichen Zusammenhalt kann man bloß stärken, wenn die Kluft zwischen Arm und Reich ein Stück geschlossen wird.

Dazu bieten sich den politisch Verantwortlichen zwei Möglichkeiten: Sie können die Armut bekämpfen und/oder den Reichtum begrenzen. Zu befürchten ist allerdings, dass SPD, Bündnis 90/ Die Grünen und FDP der Armut nur zögerlich entgegentreten und den sich immer stärker bei wenigen Familien konzentrierenden Reichtum überhaupt nicht antasten.

Anhebung des Mindestlohns und Bekämpfung der Armut

Den gesetzlichen Mindestlohn wollen die potenziellen Koalitionspartner „im ersten Jahr" auf 12 Euro brutto pro Stunde erhöhen, wie das 10-Punkte-Papier mit den Ergebnissen der Sondierungen feststellt. Sonst wäre der Mindestlohn am 1. Januar des kommenden Jahres von 9,60 Euro auf 9,82 Euro und am 1. Juli auf 10,45 Euro gestiegen. Ob die 12 Euro dann oder erst im Jahr 2023 gelten sollen, müssen die Koalitionsverhandlungen zeigen. Der sozialdemokratische Kanzlerkandidat Olaf Scholz hatte die Höhe von 12 Euro bereits unmittelbar nach der für seine Partei desaströsen Bundestagswahl 2017 vorgeschlagen, schon jetzt ist dieser Stundenlohn wegen des enormen Preisauftriebs aber weniger wert.

Durch die geplante Mindestlohnerhöhung wird der Niedriglohnsektor, Haupteinfallstor für Familien-, Kinder- und spätere Altersarmut, zwar nicht völlig eingedämmt, aber ein Stück zurückgedrängt. Vor allem die Armut im Alter lässt sich damit jedoch nicht beseitigen, weil ein zu diesem Mindestlohn arbeitender Beschäftigter selbst nach 45 Jahren Vollzeittätigkeit am Ende seines Berufslebens wegen einer zu geringen Rente ergänzend auf die staatliche Grundsicherung angewiesen wäre.

Auch die größte Schwachstelle des Mindestlohns wollen SPD, Bündnisgrüne und FDP nicht beseitigen: Er wird nicht politisch, sondern auf der Grundlage des Votums einer paritätisch von Arbeitgebern und Gewerkschaften, einem „neutralen" Vorsitzenden sowie zwei nicht stimmberechtigten Wissenschaftlern besetzten Kommission festgelegt, die sich nachlaufend an der Tariflohnentwicklung orientiert. Dabei ist eine gesetzliche Lohnuntergrenze in Deutschland gerade deshalb nötig, weil die Gewerkschaften selbst in Branchen mit einem relativ hohen Organisationsgrad der Beschäftigten inzwischen zu schwach sind, um nennenswerte Tariflohnsteigerungen zu erkämpfen.

Abschaffung von Hartz IV?

SPD, Bündnis 90/Die Grünen und FDP vermitteln den Eindruck, dass mit der von ihnen geplanten Einführung des Bürgergeldes die Abschaffung von Hartz IV verbunden sei. Die bisher bekannten Pläne der potenziellen Koalitionspartner lassen allerdings eher befürchten, dass nicht einmal die Regelbedarfe des Arbeitslosengeldes II stärker erhöht werden sollen, als es die Großen Koalition kurz vor der Bundestagstagswahl am 26. September beschlossen hat.

In den vergangenen Jahren sind die Hartz-IV-Bezieher und ihre Kinder immer mehr von der allgemeinen Einkommensentwicklung abgekoppelt worden, weil die Regelbedarfe zwar am 1. Januar eines neuen Jahres regelmäßig stiegen, aber weniger stark, als es beispielsweise die Armutsrisikoschwelle der Europäischen Union tat. Da die Regelbedarfe am 1. Januar 2022 um weniger als 1 Prozent steigen - selbst bei den Erwachsenen macht das nicht einmal 10 Cent pro Tag aus -, werden die Transferleistungsbezieher im kommenden Jahr aufgrund der höheren Preissteigerungsrate noch ärmer sein als im laufenden.

Laut ihrem 10-Punkte-Papier halten die „Ampel"-Parteien am Konzept des „aktivierenden Sozialstaates" fest und gehen von der falschen Ursachenanalyse aus, dass Arbeitslosigkeit von den Betroffenen selbst verschuldet wird, also ein durch mehr Druck auf oder mehr finanzielle Anreize für diese zu lösendes Problem ist. Deshalb wollen sie die Zuverdienstmöglichkeiten „verbessern", was sich großzügig und für die bisherigen Hartz-IV-Bezieher günstig anhört.

Dies hat jedoch einen Pferdefuß: Wenn die Erwerbsaufstocker mehr von ihrem Lohn behalten dürfen, wird der ohnehin schon größte Niedriglohnsektor Europas, in dem zwischen einem Fünftel und einem Viertel aller Beschäftigten tätig sind, noch wachsen. Denn das Bürgergeld wäre ein Kombilohn, der es Unternehmen erleichtern würde, frühere Hartz-IV-Bezieher für weniger Geld anzuheuern. Sozial ist jedoch längst nicht alles, was Arbeit schafft. Sozial ist vielmehr nur, was Armut abschafft.

Wegen der Covid-19-Pandemie wurde der Hartz-IV-Zugang erleichtert. Dies betraf das Schonvermögen und die Überprüfung der Wohnungsgröße, wenn auch nur für einen begrenzten Zeitraum. SPD, Bündnisgrüne und FDP wollen prüfen, „welche dieser Regeln" sie fortsetzen. Dies erscheint zweckmäßig, obwohl davon eher besser situierte Leistungsberechtigte profitieren, während vor allem in den ostdeutschen Bundesländern viele Antragsteller gar kein Vermögen besitzen, das geschont werden könnte.

Wird das Arbeitslosengeld II von SPD, Bündnisgrünen und FDP in „Bürgergeld" umbenannt, ohne dass wenigstens die schwerwiegendsten Verschlechterungen für Erwerbslose durch Hartz IV rückabgewickelt werden, handelt es sich um semantische Kosmetik statt einer substanziellen Korrektur, um einen bloßen Etikettenschwindel sowie eine arbeitsmarkt- und sozialpolitische Mogelpackung. Auch eine Kindergrundsicherung, die Minderjährige aus dem Hartz-IV-Bezug herauslöst, ihre Eltern aber darin belässt, stellt lediglich eine Notlösung hinsichtlich der Armutsreduktion dar.

Fehlanzeige: Reichtumsbegrenzung durch höhere Kapital- und Gewinnsteuern

Zu ihrer Steuerpolitik äußern sich die „Ampel"-Parteien widersprüchlich. Einerseits beteuern sie, den Kampf gegen Steuerhinterziehung, Geldwäsche und Steuervermeidung „intensivieren" zu wollen. Andererseits soll Steuerbürokratie (z.B. durch höhere Schwellenwerte und volldigitalisierte Verfahren) abgebaut werden - als ob dazu nicht umgekehrt ein Ausbau der Kontrollbürokratie, mehr Steuerfahnder und Betriebsprüfer nötig wären!

Wohlhabende, Reiche und Hyperreiche müssten zur Finanzierung der Armutsbekämpfung herangezogen werden, um die sozioökonomische Ungleichheit zu verrringern. Die wirksame Bekämpfung der Armut kostet schließlich viel Geld, und wer sich dafür entscheidet, muss den Reichtum antasten. Geht es nach den potenziellen Koalitionspartnern, werden in dieser Legislaturperiode aber weder neue Substanzsteuern eingeführt noch Steuern wie die Einkommen-, Unternehmens- oder Mehrwertsteuer erhöht.

Da die Vermögensteuer zwar eine Substanzsteuer ist, aber nicht „eingeführt" werden muss - sie wird nur seit 1997 nicht mehr erhoben und steht auch noch im Grundgesetz (Art. 106) -, könnten SPD und Bündnisgrüne auf der Basis des 10-Punkte-Papiers auf ihre Wiedererhebung dringen, tun es jedoch nicht. Dabei würde mehr Verhandlungsdruck auf die FDP nicht bloß der Steuergerechtigkeit dienen, sondern auch entscheidend dazu beitragen, die Länder und die Kommunen in Haushaltsnotlagen finanziell handlungsfähiger zu machen.

Gleiches gilt in Bezug auf die Erbschaftsteuer für Firmenerben. Warum soll man weiterhin einen ganzen Konzern erben können, ohne einen Cent betriebliche Erbschaftsteuer zahlen zu müssen? Auch FDP-Politiker, die dafür plädieren, dass sich Leistung lohnen muss, sollten einsehen, dass es keine Leistung ist, der Sohn oder die Tochter eines Großunternehmers zu sein.

Armutsbekämpfung wird von den Koalitionspartnern zwar proklamiert, dürfte in der Regierungspraxis aufgrund der getroffenen Vereinbarungen aber sehr halbherzig praktiziert werden; Reichtumsbegrenzung wird in den Koalitionsverhandlungen gar nicht mehr diskutiert, sondern von der FDP schon im Ansatz blockiert. Die von Bündnisgrünen und FDP in das 10-Punkte-Papier hineinverhandelten „Superabschreibungen" für Investitionen in Klimaschutz und Digitalisierung sind gar das Gegenteil - ein teures Steuergeschenk für Reiche.

Deshalb wird es am Ende dieser Legislaturperiode eher mehr als weniger sozioökonomische Ungleichheit geben, die SPD und Bündnisgrüne ihren Wählern versprochen haben. Der nächste Armuts- und Reichtumsbericht der Bundesregierung kann das wieder mit einem Wust an Daten, Statistiken und Tabellen vernebeln.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
Koalition der Halbherzigkeit: Soziale Ungleichheit wird von der „Ampel" nicht verringert

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
Die wachsende Ungleichheit ist das Kardinalproblem unserer Gesellschaft, weil sie für sozialen Konfliktstoff zwischen deren Mitgliedern sorgt, ökonomische Krisentendenzen verschärft und ökologische Nachhaltigkeit verhindert. Denn mehr Klimagerechtigkeit wird es nur bei weniger Ungleichheit geben. Auch den gesellschaftlichen Zusammenhalt kann man bloß stärken, wenn die Kluft zwischen Arm und Reich ein Stück geschlossen wird.

# data[].attributes.body
Klöckner, M. (2021, 26. Oktober). Journalismus: Wenn Kimmich sich impfen lässt, ist die Pandemie zu Ende. www.nachdenkseiten.de. Abgerufen am 29. Oktober 2021, von https://www.nachdenkseiten.de/?p=77313

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
Deutschland, 23. Oktober 2021: Patrick Wasserziehr, Reporter beim TV-Sender Sky, konfrontiert Joshua Kimmich vor laufender Kamera mit Fragen zum Impfstatus des Bayern-Spielers. Ein Fußballspieler, Bürger und Mitmensch soll sich erklären, warum er nicht gegen Corona geimpft ist. Nun stürzt sich eine ganze Medienlandschaft auf den Bayern-Spieler - ganz so, als ob der weitere Verlauf der Pandemie von der Impfentscheidung eines 26-Jährigen abhängt. Wasserziehr hat für diese „Berichterstattung" das Fundament gelegt. Über das, was sich der erfahrene Sportreporter in dem Interview mit Kimmich geleistet hat, darf man nicht hinwegsehen, sagt Marcus Klöckner in einem NachDenkSeiten-Kommentar.

Dieser Beitrag ist auch als Audio-Podcast verfügbar.

Podcast: Play in new window | Download
Lesen Sie dazu auch auf den NachDenkSeiten: Tobias Riegel - „Impf-Debatte um Joshua Kimmich: Heuchelei auf beiden Seiten"

Patrick Wasserziehr hat am Wochenende Geschichte geschrieben - leider eine sehr unrühmliche. Wohl zum ersten Mal hat ein Sportreporter in Deutschland einen Fußballspieler vor laufender Kamera dazu gebracht, sich dafür zu rechtfertigen, dass er nicht gegen Corona geimpft ist. „Die BILD hat berichtet, dass Sie noch umgeimpft seien. Warum?" fragt Wasserziehr. Dann geht es Schlag auf Schlag: Wasserziehr wirft dem Bayern-Spieler vor, dass er in Sachen Corona Solidarität nicht lebe, und fragt, wie die Welt aussehen würde, wenn alle so handelten wie er, Kimmich.

So weit ist es mittlerweile gekommen. Ein Fußballspieler, Bürger und Mitmensch wird vor laufender Kamera unter Druck gesetzt, weil er Bedenken gegen die „Corona-Impfung" hat. Das gut fünfminütige Interview ist ein eindrucksvolles Zeitdokument, anhand dessen sich ablesen lässt, wie Stimmung gegen ungeimpfte Menschen in der Gesellschaft geschürt wird, aber auch, welche unrühmliche Rolle Medien dabei spielen. In der Maske des Biedermanns, der vorgibt, nur zu fragen und nicht „anklagen" zu wollen, greift Wasserziehr unterm Strich letztlich das Prinzip auf Selbstbestimmung eines jeden Menschen über seinen Körper an - auch wenn er betont, er respektiere ja Kimmichs Entscheidung.

Was wäre los, wie groß wäre die Empörung in den Medien, wenn ein Reporter vor laufender Kamera eine Sportlerin wegen ihrer Entscheidung, ein Kind abgetrieben zu haben, mit bohrenden Fragen konfrontieren würde? Die Leitartikler würden toben - nicht wegen der persönlichen Entscheidung der Sportlerin, sondern wegen der despektierlichen Fragen. Auch im Fall Kimmich toben die Leitartikler. Hier jedoch wegen der persönlichen Entscheidung Kimmichs.

Ein Bürger, der zwar keiner gesetzlichen Impfpflicht unterliegt, der sich aber vor Kameras erklären und rechtfertigen muss, weil er noch Bedenken gegen die Impfung hat, wird unter einen enormen Druck gesetzt - das steht außer Frage!

Derzeit prügeln Journalisten den Spieler der Nationalmannschaft regelrecht durch die Berichterstattung. Zeit-Redakteur Oliver Fritsch ist gar der Auffassung, man müsse Kimmich nicht mit einem „Fußballverbot" belegen, aber solange der Bayern-Spieler ungeimpft sei, sollte er die Kapitänsbinde der Nationalmannschaft nicht mehr unbedingt tragen."

Aussagen wie diese bauen letztlich auf dem fragwürdigen Fundament, das Wasserziehr durch sein Interview gelegt hat. Es versteht sich von selbst, dass Fritsch der Auffassung ist, der Sky-Reporter habe seine Sache „gut" gemacht.

Der Sprachwissenschaftler Dennis Kaltwasser verwies vor kurzem im NachDenkSeiten-Interview auf den Nürnberger Kodex.

„Die freiwillige Zustimmung [...] ist unbedingt erforderlich. Das heißt, dass die betreffende Person im juristischen Sinne fähig sein muss, ihre Einwilligung zu geben; dass sie in der Lage sein muss, unbeeinflusst durch Gewalt, Betrug, List, Druck, Vortäuschung oder irgendeine andere Form der Überredung oder des Zwanges, von ihrem Urteilsvermögen Gebrauch zu machen."

Dass vielleicht nicht jeder Reporter oder Redakteur den Nürnberger Kodex kennt, ist das eine. Das andere ist es, wenn offensichtlich selbst die Verantwortlichen in den Chefredaktionen großer Medien einer Berichterstattung grünes Licht geben, die so tut, als wäre der Nürnberger Kodex nicht existent. Wir erinnern uns: Der Nürnberger Kodex ging aus dem Nürnberger Ärzteprozess hervor. Zahlreichen KZ-Ärzten wurde damals der Prozess gemacht. Nun ist, gewiss, 2021 nicht 1947, und ja: Natürlich sind die Umstände andere. Aber wer direkt oder indirekt Druck auf Menschen ausübt, die sich einer medizinischen Behandlung aus ihren jeweiligen persönlichen Gründen verweigern, missachtet letztlich den Geist, von dem diese so wichtige Handschrift getragen ist.

Was muss in den Köpfen von Journalisten vorgehen, die den Impfstatus eines Fußballspielers zu einer öffentlichen Angelegenheit machen? Wie kann es sein, dass Journalisten den Stab über einen Profifußballer brechen, weil dieser nicht bereit ist, sich einen neuartigen Impfstoff spritzen zu lassen? Wie kann es sein, dass Journalisten aus nichts einen „Fall Kimmich" machen und letztlich dafür sorgen, dass aus nichts sogar ein Politikum wird?

In unseren Medien, man kann es nicht anders sagen, dominieren offensichtlich Vorstellungen, die in ihrem Rigorismus gegenüber Andersdenkenden ein geradezu totalitäres Denken erkennen lassen.

Die „Berichterstattung" in der Pandemie hat gezeigt: Vielen Journalisten genügt es nicht, wenn 99 von 100 Menschen im Laden eine Maske tragen - es müssen 100 von 100 sein. Genauso wenig reicht es ihnen nicht, dass der überwiegende Teil der Fußballspieler des FC Bayern gegen Corona geimpft ist. Nein, es müssen alle sein. Ganz so, als würde der weitere Verlauf der Pandemie in Deutschland und auf der Welt von der Entscheidung eines 26-jährigen Fußballspielers abhängen. Alle müssen in Reih und Glied stehen. Niemand darf ausscheren.

Schlimm ist: Ja, das ist tatsächlich das Niveau, auf dem sich der Journalismus unserer Zeit bewegt. Wenn „Journalismus" als verlängerter Arm der eigenen Glaubensüberzeugungen eingesetzt wird, dann wird sich gerne mal ignorant gegenüber der Realität gezeigt.

Wasserziehr sagt zum Abschluss des Interviews, er sei anderer Meinung als Kimmich, „das sage ich ganz ehrlich." Das ist es, worum es geht. Das ist es, warum dieses Interview so geführt wurde, wie es geführt wurde: Die Meinung des „Reporters" war in dem gesamten Interview präsent und handlungsleitend. Auch wenn Kimmich zum Schluss des Interviews sich irgendwie erfreut zeigt, dass der Reporter Interesse an seiner Position habe: Was soll er sonst - im Sinne der Höflichkeit - auch sagen?

Jens Berger hat gerade unter der Überschrift „Die 10 großen Impf-Missverständnisse" aufgezeigt, wie hartnäckig sich in die Irre führende Vorstellungen im Hinblick auf die Pandemie auch in den Medien halten.

Wasserziehr hätte gut daran getan, den Beitrag zu lesen. Auf die Aussage des Reporters, man schütze mit der Impfung nicht nur sich selbst, sondern auch andere, belehrt ihn Kimmich darüber, dass auch Geimpfte das Virus verbreiten können. Immerhin: Der Reporter weiß, wie man sich von jemand anderem den Kaffee umrühren lässt.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
Journalismus: Wenn Kimmich sich impfen lässt, ist die Pandemie zu Ende

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
Deutschland, 23. Oktober 2021: Patrick Wasserziehr, Reporter beim TV-Sender Sky, konfrontiert Joshua Kimmich vor laufender Kamera mit Fragen zum Impfstatus des Bayern-Spielers. Ein Fußballspieler, Bürger und Mitmensch soll sich erklären, warum er nicht gegen Corona geimpft ist. Nun stürzt sich eine ganze Medienlandschaft auf den Bayern-Spieler - ganz so, als ob der weitere Verlauf der Pandemie ...

# data[].attributes.body
Kohnert, N. (2021, 29. Oktober). Olaf Scholz. Eigentlich schon Kanzler. www.tagesschau.de. Abgerufen am 29. Oktober 2021, von https://www.tagesschau.de/inland/innenpolitik/scholz-577.html

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
Üben muss Olaf Scholz seine neue Rolle nicht mehr: Schon im Wahlkampf präsentierte er sich ganz staatsmännisch. Finanzminister, Vize-Kanzler - und eigentlich ja auch schon Kanzler. Oder?
Es könnte einfach ein Zufall gewesen sein, dass sich Olaf Scholz vor der konstituierenden Sitzung des Parlaments lässig an die Regierungsbank lehnt, vor den Platz, den die vergangenen 16 Jahre immer Angela Merkel einnahm. Doch der Medienprofi dürfte sehr wohl gewusst haben, wie viele Kameras auf ihn gerichtet sind. Und auch, wie das Bild wirkt, wenn er entspannt mit FDP-Generalsekretär Volker Wissing und Grünen-Geschäftsführer Michael Kellner genau an diesem Platz plaudert. Ein Blick in die Zukunft, was als mögliche Regierung nun kommen wird? Mit einem Kanzler Scholz an der Spitze? Vielleicht.

Keine Zeit für Konjunktive

Ganz sicher kein Zufall dürfte die Wortwahl von Scholz bei der Gewerkschaft IG Bergbau, Chemie und Energie gewesen sein. Er erwähnt zwar noch, dass man ja eigentlich noch in Koalitionsverhandlungen sei, aber dann sind seine Worte klar. Ohne jeglichen Konjunktiv, was kommen könnte, macht er deutlich, dass eine neue Regierung im ersten Jahr alle gesetzlichen Veränderungen auf den Weg bringen werde, damit es in Deutschland keine Stromlücke gebe, für eine Industrie der Zukunft, für die Arbeitsplätze der Zukunft. "Genau das werden wir anpacken im nächsten Jahr", sagt er vor den Gewerkschaftlern kämpferisch und unter Applaus.

Er will es anpacken, als Kanzler Scholz - das ist die Botschaft, die er schon im Wahlkampf gesendet hatte. Er, der in der Vergangenheit als Arbeitsrechtsanwalt viel mit Gewerkschaftlern an einem Tisch saß. Die Pläne könnten "ungemütlich" werden, so Scholz, aber er nimmt verbal die Gewerkschafter an die Hand. Er will es mit ihnen gemeinsam machen. Er wird sie auch brauchen.

Plaudern vor der Regierungsbank: Scholz und Grünen-Geschäftsführer Kellner im Bundestag.

Staatsmännischer Auftritt

Als Vize-Kanzler und Finanzminister weiß er, wie man staatsmännisch auftritt und in welchen Momenten man den Fokus auf das Gemeinsame legt. Wann man sich zurücknimmt, nicht draufhaut.

Deutlich wurde das auch im Wahlkampf, etwa bei der letzten Bundestagssitzung von Angela Merkel am 7. September. Als sie ihn in ihrer Abschiedsrede im Bundestag angreift wegen seiner Äußerungen in der Pandemie, lässt er ihre Angriffe ins Leere laufen.

Er verweist auf die wirtschaftlichen Erfolge in der Pandemie. Man sei so weit gekommen, weil man zusammengehalten habe - und bedankt sich für den Zusammenhalt in der Bundesregierung, "auch bei Ihnen, Frau Bundeskanzlerin." Dabei dürfte allen klar sein, dass die Zusammenarbeit in der Bundesregierung alles andere als einfach war zwischen Union und SPD. Doch Scholz - ganz besonnener Taktiker - demonstriert, wann man angreift - und wann eben nicht. Das hat er im Schatten von Merkel auf der internationalen Bühne immer wieder gezeigt. Er ist also in Übung. Das Terrain nicht unbekannt. Und so schaltet Scholz langsam einen Gang höher, von Vize- auf Kanzler.

Daumen hoch für Habeck

Scholz' Naturell spielt ihm da in die Karten. Darum lässt er sich auch in Talk-Shows wie "Anne Will" nicht aus der Ruhe bringen. Etwa, wenn gestichelt wird, wie sehr ihn das Gerede vom Sieg der FDP in den Koalitionsverhandlungen eigentlich nerve. "Gar nicht", erwidert er hanseatisch kurz und führt stoisch aus, wie gut die Verhandlungen laufen. Und auch bei der Frage an Grünen Co-Chef Robert Habeck, ob Scholz nun ein "Klima-Kanzler" wird, grinst Scholz nur verschmitzt und wartet Habecks Antwort entspannt ab. "Wir werden gemeinsam eine gute Klimaregierung sein", sagt Habeck diplomatisch. Dafür bekommt er ein "Daumen hoch" von Scholz und ein "super". Man sieht Scholz an, wie sehr er sich freut. Fast schon wie ein Klassensprecher, der dem ersten Schultag voller Erwartung entgegenfiebert. Scholz ist kurz vor Kanzler. Die Widerstände in den Koalitionsverhandlungen wirken derzeit gering, zumindest zelebriert man es nach außen so.

Und so lässt Scholz den Kanzler durchblitzen, den Staatsmann, der sich dafür einsetzen will, dass Deutschland klimaneutrale Technologien entwickle, die dann auch von anderen Ländern genutzt werden. Eine Vorreiter-Rolle quasi, eine Zeitenwende. Er will da den Ton angeben. Das alles sozial, mit einem Mindestlohn von zwölf Euro. Ein Versprechen, das er im Wahlkampf den Wählern gegeben hat und so wie es aussieht, nun auch als zukünftiger Kanzler halten kann.

Viel Zeit für inhaltlichen Streit haben die Koalitionsverhandler ohnehin nicht, denn ihr Plan ist ambitioniert: In der Woche nach Nikolaus könnte Scholz schon als Kanzler gewählt werden. Fünf Wochen noch. Üben für die neue Rolle muss er definitiv nicht mehr.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
Üben muss Olaf Scholz seine neue Rolle nicht mehr: Schon im Wahlkampf präsentierte er sich ganz staatsmännisch. Finanzminister, Vize-Kanzler - und eigentlich ja auch schon Kanzler. Oder? Es könnte einfach ein Zufall gewesen sein, dass sich Olaf Scholz vor der konstituierenden Sitzung des Parlaments lässig an die Regierungsbank lehnt, vor den Platz, den die vergangenen 16 Jahre immer Angela Merkel einnahm.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
Fußball-Nationalspieler Kimmich möchte Langzeitstudien abwarten. Skeptiker verweisen auf die Impfung gegen die Schweinegrippe, bei der es Langzeitfolgen gab. Doch die traten nicht erst spät auf.
Der Vorsitzende der Ständigen Impfkommission (STIKO), Thomas Mertens, hat die Bedenken von Fußball-Nationalspieler Joshua Kimmich wegen fehlender Langzeitstudien bei Impfstoffen zurückgewiesen. Kimmich sei sicher "ein ausgewiesener Fachmann in Fragen des Fußballs, aber kein Fachmann in Fragen der Impfung und der Impfstoffe", sagte Mertens. Dennoch habe er "mit seinen Bedenken einem Problem Ausdruck verliehen, das sicher bei manchen Menschen in unserer Gesellschaft so gesehen wird", sagte Mertens der dpa.

Bayern-Profi Kimmich hatte am Samstag gesagt, er habe "persönlich noch ein paar Bedenken, gerade, was fehlende Langzeitstudien angeht".

Wenn ein Impfstoff zur Verwendung an Menschen freigegeben wird, gebe es begleitende Studien, die genau untersuchten, ob es bei der Anwendung zu schwerwiegenden Nebenwirkungen kommen könne, erwiderte Mertens. "Man muss bedenken, dass mittlerweile sieben Milliarden Dosen an Menschen mit Covid-19-Impfstoff verimpft worden sind", sagte er. "Dass es bei der Anwendung eines Impfstoffes über knapp ein Jahr keine Zehnjahres-Beobachtungsstudien geben kann, ist klar." Das gelte aber nicht nur für jeden anderen Impfstoff auch, der neu angewendet werde, sondern auch für jedes neue Medikament.

"Neben den Zulassungsstudien wissen wir aus den begleitenden Studien, dass es nur zu einigen Nebenwirkungen gekommen ist, die alle recht kurze Zeit nach der Impfung aufgetreten sind", sagte Mertens. In der Wissenschaft sei man sich einig, dass spät auftretende Nebenwirkungen nach einer Impfung "nicht vorkommen, beziehungsweise eine extrem seltene Rarität bei einzelnen Impfstoffen" gewesen seien.

Nebenwirkungen zeitnah aufgetreten

Kritiker verweisen in Debatten über mögliche Langzeitfolgen immer wieder auf die Impfung gegen Schweinegrippe, bei der es Spätfolgen gegeben habe. Allerdings sind Langzeitfolgen nicht Nebenwirkungen, die erst spät auftreten, sondern die länger anhalten können.

So hatte es tatsächlich Nebenwirkungen gegeben, die nach dem Ausbruch der Influenza und den Impfungen bald gemeldet und in der Folge erforscht wurden. Ursache soll ein Impfverstärker gewesen sein, der mittlerweile nicht mehr benutzt wird - bei den mRNA-Impfstoffen ohnehin nicht.

Diese sehr seltene Nebenwirkung war in den klinischen Tests nicht gefunden worden. Der Vorteil bei den Corona-Impfungen sei, dass es nie so viele Ressourcen bei der Forschung und so viele Teilnehmerinnen sowie Teilnehmer bei Studien gab. Dadurch könnten mögliche Nebenwirkungen besser erkannt werden, erklärte die Chemikerin und Journalistin Mai Thi Nguyen-Kim im faktenfinder-Podcast.

Nebenwirkung bei AstraZeneca

Generell sei es bei Impfstoffen so, "dass die meisten Nebenwirkungen innerhalb weniger Stunden oder Tage auftreten, in seltenen Fällen auch mal nach Wochen". Nebenwirkungen, die erst nach Jahren auftreten, seien "bei Impfstoffen nicht bekannt", sagt Klaus Cichutek, Präsident des Paul-Ehrlich-Instituts, auf Anfrage von tagesschau.de.

So wurden beispielsweise eine sehr seltene aber schwerwiegende mutmaßliche Nebenwirkungung von AstraZeneca nach Beginn der Impfkampagne entdeckt und Empfehlungen für den Impfstoff angepasst. Eine schwere Nebenwirkung wie zum Beispiel die Narkolepsie bei der Schweinegrippe-Impfung wäre bei Milliarden Impfungen weltweit demnach längst aufgefallen.

Verdachtsfälle werden dokumentiert

Zudem ist die öffentliche Aufmerksamkeit für die Corona-Pandemie und die Impfstoffe immens, Hinweise auf Verdachtsfälle bei Nebenwirkungen werden über verschiedene Wege gesammelt und ausgewertet, um die Sicherheit der Stoffe zu gewährleisten. Dabei ist die bloße Anzahl der Verdachtsmeldungen allerdings noch kein Hinweis auf ein tatsächliches Risiko, so wie es in einigen Medienberichten dargestellt wurde.

"Der große Vorteil bei den Covid-19-Impfungen ist ja, dass wir diesen Impfstoff in kurzer Zeit bei vielen Menschen angewendet haben", betont Carsten Watzl, Generalsekretär der Deutschen Gesellschaft für Immunologie. Allein in Deutschland seien es mehr als 100 Millionen Dosen, weltweit viele Milliarden. "Daher kennen wir die seltenen Nebenwirkungen wie Sinusvenenthrombosen, Myokarditis und andere bereits."

"Nebenwirkungen treten immer innerhalb von wenigen Wochen auf"

Die Covid-19-Impfstoffe seien in Bezug auf seltene Nebenwirkungen somit bereits besser erforscht als andere Vakzine, meint Watzl. Dazu kommt: "Nebenwirkungen einer Impfung treten immer innerhalb von wenigen Wochen nach der Impfung auf", betont er. "Dass ich heute geimpft werde und nächstes Jahr eine Nebenwirkung auftritt, das gibt es nicht, hat es noch nie gegeben und wird auch bei der Covid-19-Impfung nicht auftreten."

Was allerdings passieren kann: Sehr seltene Nebenwirkungen werden erst später mit einem Impfstoff in Verbindung gebracht. Doch je mehr Menschen geimpft werden, umso geringer wird das Risiko, das sehr seltene Nebenwirkungen nicht erkannt werden.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
Impfungen: Nebenwirkungen treten nicht erst spät auf

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
Fußball-Nationalspieler Kimmich möchte Langzeitstudien abwarten. Skeptiker verweisen auf die Impfung gegen die Schweinegrippe, bei der es Langzeitfolgen gab. Doch die traten nicht erst spät auf. Der Vorsitzende der Ständigen Impfkommission (STIKO), Thomas Mertens, hat die Bedenken von Fußball-Nationalspieler Joshua Kimmich wegen fehlender Langzeitstudien bei Impfstoffen zurückgewiesen.

# data[].attributes.body
Schlichting, M. (2021, 28. Oktober). Talk über Flüchtlinge bei Lanz. „Wettbewerb der Brutalität“ an EU-Grenzen. www.n-tv.de. Abgerufen am 28. Oktober 2021, von https://www.n-tv.de/politik/Wettbewerb-der-Brutalitaet-an-EU-Grenzen-article22892403.html

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
"Wettbewerb der Brutalität" an EU-Grenzen

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
Von Marko Schlichting Seit Wochen stranden immer mehr geflüchtete Menschen an der belarussisch-polnischen Grenze. Die Situation jener, die dort festsitzen, ist verheerend. Die Talk-Runde bei Markus Lanz ist sich einig: Das ist eine "Schande für Europa". Wer diese Bilder einmal gesehen hat, wird sie nicht so schnell vergessen.

# data[].attributes.body
Böhm, J., Piatov, F. & Rosenfelder, L. (2021, 25. Oktober). Die große Kimmich-Debatte. Impf-Ruck statt Impf-Druck. www.bild.de. Abgerufen am 27. Oktober 2021, von https://www.bild.de/politik/inland/politik-inland/die-grosse-kimmich-debatte-impf-ruck-statt-impf-druck-78059238.bild.html

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
Um Bayern-Spieler Joshua Kimmich ist eine Debatte ums Impfen entbranntFoto: Getty Images

Bayern-Star Joshua Kimmich (26) hat mit seinem Nicht-Geimpft-Geständnis eine Riesen-Debatte ausgelöst!
Bayern-Boss Karl-Heinz Rummenigge (66), SPD-Gesundheitsexperte Karl Lauterbach (58) und sogar Merkel-Sprecher Steffen Seibert (61) empfahlen dem Nationalspieler öffentlich, sich impfen zu lassen, verwiesen auf seine Vorbildfunktion.
Denn: Kimmich erklärte, noch Bedenken zu haben, besonders was eventuelle Langzeitfolgen einer Impfung angeht. Dafür interessiere sich kaum jemand, so Kimmich, stattdessen werde man „direkt abgestempelt". Und: „Oftmals ist es so, dass man sich eher unter Druck gesetzt fühlt."
► Damit sagte Kimmich, was Millionen Deutsche denken und fühlen. Denn noch immer sind über 30 Prozent der Bevölkerung nicht geimpft.

Die Gründe: In einer Studie der Uni Hamburg gaben 74 Prozent der Ungeimpften an, von der Sicherheit des Impfstoffs nicht restlos überzeugt zu sein. 67 Prozent erklärten, sie fühlten sich unter Druck gesetzt.

Und Fakt ist: Anstatt die Menschen mit kreativen Angeboten (z. B. Impf-Fuffi, Bratwurst-Aktionen) und verständnisvoller Aufklärung zu überzeugen, setzte die Politik in den vergangenen Monaten voll auf Impf-Druck.
► Kostenlose Corona-Tests wurden abgeschafft.
Ungeimpfte müssen draufzahlen, wenn sie unter 3G-Bedingungen ins Restaurant oder ins Kino wollen. Vielerorts werden ungeimpfte Bürger mit der 2G-Regel komplett aus Büchereien, Kulturbetrieben und Gaststätten ausgesperrt.
Das Resultat? Verheerend.
Die Zahl der Erst-Impfungen sinkt seit Monaten. Vergangene Woche gab es nur noch rund 218 000 Impf-Neulinge - Negativ-Rekord.

Jetzt fordern Politiker und Experten: Schluss mit dem Impf-Druck! Es braucht einen wirksamen Impf-Ruck.

Die Kritikwelle an Kimmich bezeichnet der Chef der Ständigen Impfkommission (Stiko), Prof. Thomas Mertens (71) als „grenzenlosen Unfug". Mertens zu BILD: „Wir sollten Skeptiker und Unwillige besser mit guten Argumenten und einfach zugänglichen Impf-Angeboten überzeugen."
Auch Bundestags-Vize Wolfgang Kubicki (69, FDP) fordert in BILD einen Strategie-Wechsel: „Weg von der Drohung, hin zu niedrigschwelligen und gegebenenfalls Anreiz-orientierten Impfangeboten."
SPD-Fraktionschef Rolf Mützenich (62) setzt auf Motivation und Vorbilder. „Prominente, die sich zum Impfen", bekennen, das sei „eine gute Maßnahme". Vorbilder dienten dazu, „die Impfbereitschaft noch zu vergrößern".

Das sagen die Bayern-Granden

Vorstandsvorsitzender Oliver Kahn (52): „Zunächst einmal ist es wichtig, dass wir eine klare Haltung haben, dass wir es allen nur empfehlen können, sich zu impfen. Das haben wir unterstrichen durch mehrere Aktionen. Letztendlich muss man das respektieren, wenn der eine oder andere eben eine andere Meinung hat. Es ist ganz wichtig - und es ist unsere Pflicht als Verein -, ständig Aufklärungsleistung zu zeigen."

Vereinspräsident Herbert Hainer (67): „Der FC Bayern unterstützt die Impfaktion nachhaltig. Am Ende des Tages gibt es keinen Impfzwang bei uns. Es ist die Entscheidung eines jeden einzelnen, und das muss man akzeptieren. Joshua Kimmich hat ja gesagt, vielleicht lässt er sich ja auch noch impfen. Mich würde das freuen."

Ex-Präsident Uli Hoeneß (69): „Ich habe eine Meinung dazu, aber die sage ich ihm nur selber."

Darum lassen wir uns nicht impfen

Auch andere Deutsche wollen ich nicht impfen lassen und nennen dafür Gründe:
Radio-Moderatorin Freddy Holzapfel (43, „Radio saw") aus Leipzig: „Ich lasse mich noch nicht impfen, obwohl ich keine Impfgegnerin bin. Ich bin skeptisch und habe eine Blutgerinnungsstörung. Es ist meine ganz persönliche Entscheidung. Die Konsequenzen im Alltag tun weh. Der Opernball am Wochenende fällt wegen 2G flach." Auch Rentner Werner Billmann (70) aus München ist noch nicht geimpft: „Ich schätze für mich einfach die Gefahr von Corona nicht so hoch ein, obwohl ich 70 Jahre alt bin und Bluthochdruck habe. Die Impfstoffe wurden bisher nur bedingt zugelassen und deshalb will ich noch abwarten. Die verpflichtenden Tests mache ich nur unter Protest. Problematisch finde ich, dass die Geimpften gar nicht mehr getestet werden."

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
Die große Kimmich-Debatte - Impf-Ruck statt Impf-Druck

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
Bayern-Star Joshua Kimmich (26) hat mit seinem Nicht-Geimpft-Geständnis eine Riesen-Debatte ausgelöst! Bayern-Boss Karl-Heinz Rummenigge (66), SPD-Gesundheitsexperte Karl Lauterbach (58) und sogar Merkel-Sprecher Steffen Seibert (61) empfahlen dem Nationalspieler öffentlich, sich impfen zu lassen, verwiesen auf seine Vorbildfunktion. Denn: Kimmich erklärte, noch Bedenken zu haben, besonders was eventuelle Langzeitfolgen einer Impfung angeht.

# data[].attributes.body
Tagesschau. (2021, 26. Oktober). STIKO-Chef: „Kimmich-Debatte ist grenzenloser Unfug“. www.tagesschau.de. Abgerufen am 27. Oktober 2021, von https://www.tagesschau.de/inland/gesellschaft/kimmich-impfweigerung-101.html

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
Die Diskussion um den ungeimpften Nationalspieler Kimmich ist "grenzenloser Unfug" - so sieht es der Vorsitzende der Ständigen Impfkommission, Mertens. Der Sportwissenschaftler Froböse warnt vor Long-Covid bei Leistungssportlern. Der Vorsitzende der Ständigen Impfkommission (STIKO), Thomas Mertens, hält die öffentliche Diskussion um den Impfstatus von Fußball-Nationalspieler Joshua Kimmich für überzogen.

# data[].attributes.body
Uhlenbroich, B. & Starnick, N. (2021, 24. Oktober). Innenminister-Interview: Müssen sich Europäer einmauern, Herr Seehofer? www.bild.de. Abgerufen am 27. Oktober 2021, von https://www.bild.de/politik/inland/politik-inland/innenminister-interview-muessen-sich-europaeer-einmauern-herr-seehofer-78041726.bild.html

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
Horst Seehofer (72, CSU) vor der Ahnengalerie im Innenministerium. In wenigen Wochen wird auch sein Bild hier hängenFoto: Niels Starnick / BILD

Am Dienstag endet offiziell die Amtszeit von Innenminister Horst Seehofer (72, CSU). Sobald der neu gewählte Bundestag zu seiner konstituierenden Sitzung zusammenkommt, sind alle Minister nur noch geschäftsführend im Amt. Im BamS-Interview erklärt Seehofer, wie er bis zur Bildung der neuen Regierung die illegale Migration verhindern will. BILD am SONNTAG: Herr Seehofer, Sie warnen vor stark ansteigenden Flüchtlingszahlen. Wie schlimm ist die Lage?
HORST SEEHOFER: „Wir erleben gerade aus verschiedenen Richtungen eine irreguläre Zuwanderung nach Deutschland. In der Türkei nehmen die Flüchtlingszahlen zu, über Polen aus Belarus steigen die Zahlen massiv an und aus Griechenland haben wir viele unerlaubte Einreisen per Flugzeug. Wir müssen sehr wachsam sein. Der Migrationsdruck auf Deutschland und Europa ist weiterhin hoch."
Von wo reisen die Flüchtlinge ein, die in Deutschland ankommen?
Seehofer: „Es sind die bekannten Migrationsrouten: aus Griechenland über die Staaten des westlichen Balkans, von der Mittelmeerroute über Italien und seit einigen Monaten zunehmend über die Ostroute aus Belarus und Polen. Beim BAMF liegen derzeit rund 34.800 Asylverfahren von anerkannten Schutzberechtigten aus Griechenland. Aus Belarus und Polen sind in diesem Jahr schon 6162 unerlaubte Einreisen erfolgt. Hinzu kommen Afghanen, die nach dem Fall Kabuls in andere EU-Staaten ausgeflogen wurden und jetzt nach Deutschland kommen. Die Migration nach Deutschland ist unübersehbar."
Was wollen und können Sie dagegen noch unternehmen?
Seehofer: „Wir haben in den letzten Jahren meinen Masterplan Migration weitgehend umgesetzt und damit viel Ordnung in das Geschehen gebracht, ohne die Humanität zu vernachlässigen. Wenn Griechenland die Sekundärmigration nach Deutschland an den Flughäfen nicht wirksamer unterbindet, müssen wir national darauf reagieren. Das kann bedeuten, dass wir an den Flughäfen kontrollieren und diejenigen zurückweisen, die nicht einreisen dürfen. An der deutsch-polnischen Grenze haben wir schon jetzt den Grenzschutz mit acht Hundertschaften Bundespolizei verstärkt. Dort also sind im Moment Hunderte Beamtinnen und Beamte Tag und Nacht im Einsatz. Falls notwendig, bin ich bereit, dort noch weiter zu verstärken. Wir werden den Grenzraum und die grüne Grenze zu Polen engmaschig kontrollieren."
Muss es grundsätzlich wieder mehr reguläre Kontrollen an der deutschen Grenze geben?
Seehofer: „Nach Möglichkeit sollte es innerhalb Europas gar keine Grenzkontrollen mehr geben. Das geht aber nur, wenn der Außengrenzschutz funktioniert. Wir haben in der vergangenen Woche die Verlängerung der Kontrollen an der deutsch-österreichischen Grenze für weitere sechs Monate in Brüssel angemeldet. Sollte sich die Situation an der deutsch-polnischen Grenze nicht entspannen, muss auch hier überlegt werden, ob man diesen Schritt in Abstimmung mit Polen und dem Land Brandenburg gehen muss. Diese Entscheidung wird auf die nächste Regierung zukommen."

An der deutsch-polnischen Grenze (hier bei Frankfurtan der Oder) werden immer häufiger Flüchtlinge aus Afghanistan oder dem Irak aufgegriffenFoto: Feist

Polen baut an der Grenze zu Belarus einen Grenzzaun zum Schutz vor Migranten. Müssen sich die Europäer einmauern?
Seehofer: „Ich bin im Sinne der europäischen Idee davon überzeugt, dass wir wissen müssen, wer zu uns kommt. Es ist legitim, dass wir die Außengrenze so schützen, dass unerkannte Grenzübertritte an der grünen Grenze verhindert werden. Wer einreisen will, muss die Voraussetzungen erfüllen, und das muss kontrolliert werden."
Wie arbeiten die deutsch-polnischen Grenzbeamten zusammen?
Seehofer: Traditionell ist die Zusammenarbeit an der Grenze mit Polen sehr gut. Es gibt sogar an mehreren Stellen der Grenze deutsch-polnische Polizeidienststellen und regelmäßige gemeinsame Polizeistreifen. Der polnische Innenminister hat am Donnerstag auf mein Unterstützungsangebot reagiert und mir versichert, dass wir die Zusammenarbeit weiter stärken. Wir stehen Seite an Seite, gerade jetzt. Die Details klären im Moment die Experten.
Der nächste Kanzler wird Olaf Scholz von der SPD. Trauen Sie ihm diese Aufgabe zu?
Seehofer: „Ja. Ich kenne Olaf Scholz sehr gut, habe mit ihm als Finanzminister im Kabinett zusammengearbeitet. Trotz aller politischen Unterschiede gehört Herr Scholz zu den Politikern, die ich wegen ihrer Seriosität sehr schätze. Seriosität in der Politik ist unabdingbar, auch für die Sicherheit im Land."
Ihr Lob für Olaf Scholz wird Armin Laschet nicht gern hören ...
Seehofer: „Auch Armin Laschet hätte Kanzler gekonnt. Durch die Uneinigkeit in der Union standen wir uns allerdings selbst im Weg."
Wird die Opposition für die Union länger dauern?
Seehofer: „Auf eine brüchige Tektonik der drei Koalitionspartner in der Ampel würde ich als Union jedenfalls nicht setzen. Wir müssen mit guten Ideen Opposition machen und nicht mit Allgemeinplätzen. Es hilft nicht, immer nur vor einem Links-Rutsch zu warnen. Wir müssen klarer definieren, für was wir stehen."
Sobald die neue Regierung vereidigt ist, gehen Sie in Rente. Werden Sie sich weiter politisch einmischen?
Seehofer: „Ich werde meine politischen Kontakte unter menschlichen Gesichtspunkten weiter pflegen. Aber nicht öffentlich. Ich möchte nicht als alter weißer Mann auftreten, der alles besser weiß."

Foto: BILD

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
Innenminister-Interview: Müssen sich Europäer einmauern, Herr Seehofer?

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
Am Dienstag endet offiziell die Amtszeit von Innenminister Horst Seehofer (72, CSU). Sobald der neu gewählte Bundestag zu seiner konstituierenden Sitzung zusammenkommt, sind alle Minister nur noch geschäfts­führend im Amt. Im BamS-Interview erklärt Seehofer, wie er bis zur ­Bildung der neuen Regierung die illegale Migration verhindern will.