The British have departed, but their language grows ever more dominant in European Union circles. Ursula von der Leyen’s State of the Union speech was an unabashed declaration that English now reigns supreme among the 24 languages of the European Union.
Von der Leyen used three languages in her speech: in order of appearance, French, English and German. So far, so normal: Those three are the traditional internal working languages of the European Commission. Her presidential predecessor Jean-Claude Juncker also used those three languages in his annual State of the European Union speeches. What was striking about the 2020 version was that any pretense of balance between the languages was abandoned.
Measuring von der Leyen’s speech by its wordcount, 81 percent was in English, 12 percent in German and just 7 percent in French.
Put another way: She spoke in French for 80 seconds at the beginning of her speech and for two and a half minutes at the end; she spoke in German for nine and a half minutes in the middle; and she spoke in English for 63 minutes — two chunks of half an hour on either side of the German section. By this measure, taking into account the time lost to applause, English actually took up even more of her speech — approaching 85 percent — because she reads German (her mother tongue) more fluently than English.
What amplified von der Leyen’s slavish attachment to English still further was that the first MEP to respond to her also used English. Manfred Weber spoke first because he is the leader of the biggest contingent of MEPs, the center-right European People’s Party. Weber is from Bavaria’s conservative Christian Social Union and yet he too opted to read stilted English.
To give that some context: There are 96 MEPs from Germany, plus 19 from Austria and one from Belgium’s German-speaking community. My back-of-the-envelope calculation is that the number of MEPs whose mother tongue is English is now probably below 20: there are 13 MEPs from Ireland, but for some of them English will be a second language behind Irish; English is widely spoken in Malta and Cyprus, but those countries boast only six MEPs each.
So the triumph of English in the European Parliament is very much what successive French governments have fought against: the triumph of English as a second language, as widely used by the Nordic countries, the Baltic states and the once-communist countries of Central and Eastern Europe. Only in the countries of Latin/Romance languages can French hope to compete with English as a second language.
It took Iratxe García, a Spanish MEP who leads the center-left Socialists and Democrats group, to put a stop to the speeches in English. She was right to do so. In the European Parliament, nobody needs to speak anything other than their mother tongue, since the principle underlying the language regime is that voters need not subject would-be MEPs to a language test before electing them.
So, for plenary sessions, MEPs should have interpretation available into and out of the 24 languages. (One anomaly is that Luxembourg, a founder member of the EU, never opted to make Luxembourgish an official language of the EU. It was content, back in 1957, with the initial choice between German, French, Dutch and Italian. Ireland, which joined the European Economic Community in 1973, was similarly content not to make Irish an EU language, but went back on that decision in 2004.)
What this year’s State of the Union address shows is that the flight to English has been transformed by Brexit into a value-free, pragmatic choice. The likes of Nigel Farage and Daniel Hannan are gone. Post-Brexit, speaking English can be excused as expediency.
Or so it might seem. Beneath the surface, however, the retreat from plurilingualism is potentially damaging for the European Parliament, albeit that Weber cannot see the danger. Listening to him speaking English, it is hard not to detect the undertone of thwarted ambition. This is the man who two years ago was campaigning to become the president of the European Commission. He became the EPP’s lead candidate; the EPP became the largest group in the Parliament; yet he was not chosen as Commission president. Instead the European Council opted for a different German Christian Democrat: von der Leyen. If Weber were not attempting to re-visit that contest, he might see that an English-speaking monoculture is not in the best interests of the European Parliament.
The plurality of languages is one of the things that makes the European Parliament distinctively different from the Commission and the Council of the EU — which conduct the bulk of their internal business using a much more restricted palette of languages. The generous language regime is costly, but it is part of the identity of the Parliament.
When the State of the European Union address was introduced in 2010, it was to a large extent an act of aggrandizement by the European Commission and its then-president José Manuel Barroso. But there was also an element of obeisance to the Parliament: in yet another form the Commission president was presenting the work of the Commission to MEPs for approval. The deliberate aping of the American president’s State of the Union address was hubristic, but the event took root in the EU’s annual calendar nonetheless and the Parliament benefited.
Ten years on, however, the Parliament is in danger of being reduced to a theatrical backdrop and MEPs are being cut out of the action. In 2020, the State of the European Union speech is a social media production: The Commission president’s speech is to be parceled up and redistributed digitally in byte-sized portions. The switching between languages that was once a traditional feature of such speeches in the Parliament doesn’t work on social media.
What’s flattering and inclusive in the confines of a parliamentary chamber — where the audience is linguistically diverse but everyone has simultaneous interpretation — is just irritating on Facebook or Twitter. Hence the dominance of English: It’s the language of robots. If MEPs were only alive to the signs, they would kick against the straight-to-YouTube choreography.
And there is another reason why the hegemony of English is to be regretted: Globish isn’t conducive to intellectual rigor. Von der Leyen’s speech came with lots of graphics and film clips, which did their best to distract from the words. But the glossy presentation could not obscure the woolly thinking — the tendency to resort to the passive mood, the reluctance to say who was responsible for action or inaction. “I will ensure that [NextGenerationEU] takes green financing to the next level” and “We flexibilized our European funds and state aid rules” are easy to mock as business-school jargon. But the language of diplomacy has its own empty phrases: “If we are all ready to make compromises — without compromising on our principles — we can find that solution.”
Traditionally, the French language was celebrated as the language of diplomacy and for the first 40 years of the European Union’s existence, French was indeed the dominant language. Diplomats and bureaucrats developed a jargon-filled langue de bois with a distinctly European identity. But the tide turned against French with the 1995 enlargement of the EU and accelerated in 2004.
As the State of the Union debate showed, the victory of the English language over French is almost complete. Jargon’s second victory — over English — is only a matter of time.
As other previously “confidential” documents released this week added to “serious and concerning” evidence that Brett Kavanaugh previously committed perjury during earlier confirmation hearings in his career, new reporting out Friday provides details about the contents of a constituent letter Sen. Dianne Feinstein (D-Calif.) referred to the FBI about the controversial Supreme Court nominee.
In that letter, according to reporting by investigative journalists Ronan Farrow and Jane Mayer at the New Yorker, a woman accuses Kavanaugh of attempting to sexually assault her in the early 1980s when they were both high school students. From the New Yorker:
The New York Times also reported on the letter Friday, citing “three people familiar with [its] contents.”
Kavanaugh, for his part, said in a statement to the New Yorker that he “categorically and unequivocally” denies the allegation.
In response to the new reporting, Shaunna Thomas, executive director and co-founder of women’s group UltraViolet, said Kavanaugh should withdraw his nomination.
SCROLL TO CONTINUE WITH CONTENT
“The accusations against Brett Kavanaugh are serious, troubling, and totally disqualifying. He should withdraw his nomination immediately. Violence against women should have no place in our society, and it certainly should have no place on the highest court in the nation,” she said.
Though she refused to disclose what it contained, Feinstein confirmed existence of the letter on Thursday and said in a statement that she had referred the matter to the FBI. Initially the woman brought her concerns to both Feinsten and Rep. Anna Eshoo (D-Calif) in July after Kavanaugh’s nomination triggered the painful memory of the event.
Both the New Yorker and The Intercept reported that Feinstein had rebuffed calls for fellow Democrats on the Senate Judiciary Committee to share the letter.
In addition to concerns about possible perjury in his 2006 confirmation hearing for his seat on a federal appeals court, democratic lawmakers and advocacy groups have pushed back against Kavanaugh’s nomination given his record of siding with corporate power over public interest and his potential threat to Roe v. Wade.
The Senate Judiciary Committee’s vote on Kavanaugh has been pushed back to Sept. 20; the full Senate could vote by the end of the month.
Our work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-Share Alike 3.0 License. Feel free to republish and share widely.
Sparking immediate outrage among LGBTQ Americans and allies on Sunday, the New York Times reported on a memo revealing that “the Trump administration is considering narrowly defining gender as a biological, immutable condition determined by genitalia at birth, the most drastic move yet in a governmentwide effort to roll back recognition and protections of transgender people under federal civil rights law.”
“This administration is willing to disregard the established medical and legal view of our rights and ourselves to solidify an archaic, dogmatic, and frightening view of the world.” —Mara Keisling, NCTE
In a move that “would essentially eradicate federal recognition of the estimated 1.4 million Americans who have opted to recognize themselves—surgically or otherwise—as a gender other than the one they were born into,” the Department of Health and Human Services (HHS), is currently considering a legal definition that “would define sex as either male or female, unchangeable, and determined by the genitals that a person is born with,” according to the Times.
The memo, which was drafted and has been circulating since the spring, claims that “sex means a person’s status as male or female based on immutable biological traits identifiable by or before birth,” and notes that under the proposed definition, “the sex listed on a person’s birth certificate, as originally issued, shall constitute definitive proof of a person’s sex unless rebutted by reliable genetic evidence.”
Advocates for LGBTQ rights, while infuriated by the proposal, were quick to point to the administration’s lengthy record of attacks on trans individuals the and ongoing legal battles to challenge such attacks.
“Not only is this insulting, inhumane, and unacceptable, but it also flies in the face of THE LAW,” Lambda Legal, a civil rights group that focuses on the LGBTQ community, responded in a series of tweets. “This decision by HHS to attempt to erase transgender people disregards and flouts the overwhelming case law that protects transgender people under federal law, as well as the vast consensus of medical authority.”
“This is clearly another ideologically-driven attempt by the Trump/Pence administration to marginalize transgender people and force them into the shadows,” the group added. “This will not stand because we will not let it stand.”
“Singling out and stigmatizing your transgender constituents isn’t just the antithesis of constituent service; it’s dangerous and gets us killed.” —Danica Roem, Virginia state delegate
Mara Keisling, executive director of the National Center for Transgender Equality (NCTE), also denounced steps by the administration to deny trans Americans full recognition of their identities.
“This proposal is an attempt to put heartless restraints on the lives of two million people, effectively abandoning our right to equal access to healthcare, to housing, to education, or to fair treatment under the law,” she warned. “This administration is willing to disregard the established medical and legal view of our rights and ourselves to solidify an archaic, dogmatic, and frightening view of the world.”
Planned Parenthood Action declared, “These inhumane, cruel, and discriminatory policies are dangerous and do not represent the needs of our diverse communities.”
“The cruelty and bigotry of this administration truly has no limit,” observed Sen. Bernie Sanders (I-Vt.).
Danica Roem—who, last November, became Virginia’s first openly transgender state House member by defeating the anti-trans Republican incumbent—noted: “Singling out and stigmatizing your transgender constituents isn’t just the antithesis of constituent service; it’s dangerous and gets us killed.”
Since Trump took office, hate-inspired murders of LGBTQ Americans have skyrocketed as his administration has taken steps to strip away their rights—often in the name of defending “religious freedom.” Such steps have included the Education Department’s refusal to protect trans students; the Justice Department’s efforts to enable discrimination; the State Department’s denial of visas to diplomats’ same-sex partners; and Trump’s moves to ban trans individuals from serving in the military and dismiss his entire advisory council for HIV/AIDS.
From hate-fueled murders to the Trump administration’s discriminatory policies, trans Americans often have been specifically targeted. As Sarah Warbelow, the legal director of the Human Rights Campaign, told the Times, “At every step where the administration has had the choice, they’ve opted to turn their back on transgender people.”
While some critics characterized the Times report as “a terrifying wake-up call,” Evan Greer of Fight for the Future said, “Exactly zero trans people are surprised by the Trump administration’s latest attack.”
“No one should have to suffer just to be true to themselves,” Keisling charged Sunday. “And yet transgender people are still often forced from their homes, fired from their jobs, harassed at their schools, and denied the most basic level of dignity by a broken system.”
Addressing the transgender community directly, she said: “I know you are frightened. I know you are horrified to see your existence treated in such an inhumane and flippant manner. What this administration is trying to do is an abomination, a reckless attack on your life and mine.”
“Remember that there is an entire human rights community that not only stands with us but will always fight back—and fight hard,” she concluded. “Thousands of us have devoted our lives to protecting you and your families, and our ability to do so is nothing short of a privilege. And we will not lay down now.”
Our work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-Share Alike 3.0 License. Feel free to republish and share widely.
Surging towards it goal of 200,000 signatures since it was launched over the weekend, a petition calling for the impeachment of newly-confirmed Supreme Court Justice Brett Kavanaugh —just one among others circulating—has already garnered nearly 80 percent of its goal in just over two days.
“No one is above the law, not even a Supreme Court Justice.” —John Bonifaz, Free Speech for People”Kavanaugh has been credibly accused of sexual assault and lying under oath in 2004, 2006 and at least 30 times during his Supreme Court confirmation hearings,” reads the CREDO Action petition. “Perjury is an impeachable offense. The House Judiciary Committee should immediately investigate these accusations and work to remove Kavanaugh from the Supreme Court.”
As of this writing, the CREDO petition had gathered 158,887 signatures, but that number was quickly climbing.
“A majority of Americans opposed Kavanaugh’s confirmation to the Supreme Court and we believe a majority will ultimately support his impeachment as well,” Heidi Hess, the group’s co-director told NBC News in an interview.
SCROLL TO CONTINUE WITH CONTENT
And CREDO isn’t alone. Another citizen action group, Free Speech for People, is also pushing a petition—part of its ImpeachBrett.org campaign—in the wake of Kavanaugh’s confirmation on Saturday and calling on the House of Representatives to immediately begin hearings to further explore the allegations of sexual assault, perjury, and Kavanaugh’s bringing of “disrepute” onto the judiciary.
“This shouldn’t be controversial, but U.S. Supreme Court justices should not be sexual assailants or perjurers,” said Ron Fein, Legal Director of Free Speech For People, in a statement on Monday. “The evidence suggests that Brett Kavanaugh committed sexual assault in his youth, and continues to lie about it today—just as the White House emails reveal that he lied in his first confirmation process about receiving stolen documents. The Senate rushed through this process without taking the opportunity to conduct a real investigation of the serious charges against Kavanaugh. It’s not too late for the House of Representatives to demand answers, and if warranted after a full investigation, to impeach Kavanaugh.”
John Bonifaz, FSFP’s co-founder and president, added, “No one is above the law, not even a Supreme Court Justice.”
Our work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-Share Alike 3.0 License. Feel free to republish and share widely.
The nation’s top court on Friday turned down the Trump administration’s latest attempt to put the brakes on a landmark lawsuit brought by a group of young people who charge that the federal government has violated their constitutional rights by actively causing climate instability.
“The youth of our nation won an important decision,” said Julia Olson, executive director and chief legal counsel of Our Children’s Trust and co-counsel for the youth plaintiffs. She said the finding by the U.S. Supreme Court “shows even the most powerful government in the world must follow the rules and process of litigation in our democracy.”
The plaintiffs, aged 11-22, assert (pdf) that the government “continued their policies and practices of allowing the exploitation of fossil fuels,” despite knowing, for 50 years, that doing so “would destabilize the climate system on which present and future generations of our nation depend for their well-being and survival.”
The trial did not begin on October 29 at the United States District Court in Oregon as they’d hoped because the Supreme Court issued a temporary stay while it weighed the federal government’s request for dismissal. In denying an extension of the temporary stay, the new order says the “government’s petition for a writ of mandamus does not have a ‘fair prospect’ of success in this Court because adequate relief may be available in the United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit.” The three-page order also states that Justices Clarence Thomas and Neil Gorsuch would have extended the stay.
While that appeals court previously rejected the government’s requests for a stay, its basis for doing so rested “in large part, on the early stage of the litigation, the likelihood that plaintiffs’ claims would narrow as the case progressed, and the possibility of attaining relief through ordinary dispositive motions. Those reasons are, to a large extent, no longer pertinent,” the order adds.
SCROLL TO CONTINUE WITH CONTENT
Still, for the plaintiffs, Friday marked “an important date,” said Philip Gregory, co-counsel for the youth in Juliana v. United States, which first starting winding its way through the courts three years ago. “We just filed a request with [U.S. District Court ] Judge Aiken, hoping the Court sets an immediate pre-trial conference and a prompt trial date. We are extremely pleased that the courthouse doors are re-opened. Plaintiffs are ready to start trial right away.”
Twenty-two-year-old plaintiff Kelsey Juliana says she wants “to trust that we are truly on track for trial without having further delays, but these defendants are treating this case, our democracy, and the security of mine and future generations like it’s a game. I’m tired of playing this game. These petitions for stay and dismissal are exhausting.”
“To everyone who has invested in this case, to those who’ve followed along our journey for the past three years and counting,” she added, “stay with us, in hope and in the pursuit of justice.”
According to Thanu Yakupitiyage, communications manager for climate group 350.org, “All of us have a responsibility to double down in supporting the young people holding the U.S. government responsible for perpetuating climate change and threatening our collective future.”
Our work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-Share Alike 3.0 License. Feel free to republish and share widely.
A coalition of watchdog and advocacy organizations on Thursday released a new report detailing the Trump administration’s nearly two-year war on science and how Congress can fight back.
Produced by 16 groups including the Union of Concerned Scientists (UCS), Defenders of Wildlife, and Greenpeace, Protecting Science at Federal Agencies: How Congress Can Help (pdf) argues that while “scientific integrity at federal agencies has eroded” under President Donald Trump, “Congress has the power to halt and repair damage from federal agencies’ current disregard for scientific evidence.”
“It’s so impressive,” UCS’s Michael Halpern wrote in a blog post on Thursday, “that all of these organizations with desperate interests have come together because they recognize the harm Trump administration actions have had on topics as diverse as workplace injuries, reproductive health, the Census, chemical contamination, tipped workers, endangered species, climate change, and air pollution.”
As the report notes, “Federally sponsored scientific research and technology development have brought us the ability to explore outer space, convert sunlight into electricity, build super-computers, predict weather patterns, manufacture self-driving vehicles, and use assisted reproductive technologies to give birth.”
“When political interference occurs—such as politically motivated censorship, misrepresentation of scientific findings, or the suppression of the free flow of information from the government to the public—public health and well-being suffer.” Click Here: NRL Telstra Premiership—report
However, it continues, “when political interference occurs—such as politically motivated censorship, misrepresentation of scientific findings, or the suppression of the free flow of information from the government to the public—public health and well-being suffer.”
To battle the administration’s attacks on science, the report calls on federal legislators to pass protective laws as well as reveal abuses of scientific integrity and increase accountability for political appointees by holding hearings, requesting investigations, and utilizing congressional subpoena authority.
From the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) and Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) to the National Park Service (NPS) and the Occupational Safety and Health Administration (OSHA), the report points to examples of bad behavior across the federal government to identify six broad issues, and offers suggestions for tackling them.
“In several recent proposed rules, agencies have failed to uphold their responsibilities to consider relevant evidence and provide the public with necessary information,” the report points out. To combat this, it suggests not only hearings, probes, and subpoenas, but also using the appropriations process to ensure that funds are spent as intended, and considering whether political appointees have a history of undermining science.
SCROLL TO CONTINUE WITH CONTENT
Acknowledging the administration’s efforts to hamstring the president’s science adviser, the White House Office of Science and Technology Policy, the President’s Council on Science and Technology, and advisory committees across federal agencies, the report calls for hearings and probes as well as legislation to close loopholes in the Federal Advisory Committee Act.
Considering that “the current administration has filled several key cabinet positions with individuals who lack the bare minimum of relevant and appropriate qualifications,” the report demands that senators use their constitutional advise and consent power to block unqualified candidates. It also recommends various pieces of legislation that aim to improve the hiring processes for civil servants.
“Political appointees are increasingly censoring and suppressing scientific information, as well as deterring federal scientists from communicating openly with the public and the press,” the report warns, imploring members of Congress to strengthen and pass the Science Integrity Act and improve protections for whistleblowers.
The chapter dedicated to whistleblowers explains that “reprisal for whistleblowing unfortunately is real, despite the fact that whistleblowers are often the best, and sometimes the only, pathway toward holding government institutions accountable, ensuring regulatory compliance, and protecting the public’s interest.” Warning against “whistleblower witch hunts,” it outlines ways in which lawmakers can enhance protections.
Although federal agencies are charged with enforcing laws enacted by Congress, the report notes that some “appear to be taking a low-information approach to enforcement: They are both weakening measures that would allow them to collect appropriate information about compliance and ignoring information they have, adopting seemingly willful blindness to violations.”
The report urges lawmakers to “hold oversight hearings and initiate inquiries when a regulatory agency rolls back reporting requirements that advance transparency or displays a substantial drop in penalties or enforcement units.”
Our work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-Share Alike 3.0 License. Feel free to republish and share widely.
Journalists and advocates of press freedoms are once more directing outrage and criticism at Facebook for selectively censoring pages on its platform and refusing to explain the reason behind a decision that appears to many as a clear double standard applied to outlets critical of U.S. foreign policy and corporate interests.
Facebook is under fire for shuttering four pages managed by the Berlin-based news and media company Maffick, after CNN reporters asked the social media giant about Maffick not disclosing that it is partly funded by the Russian government.
CNN held its report—titled “Russia is backing a viral video company aimed at American millennials”—until Friday, when Facebook blocked Soapbox, Waste-Ed, Backthen, and In The Now.
American-Lebanese journalist Rania Khalek, a contributor to Soapbox and In The Now who was interviewed by CNN, outlined the controversy in a lengthy, widely shared series of tweets. Monday morning, Khalek added an update to the Twitter thread:
As CNN outlined in its report, which was updated and corrected on Monday:
“In the Now was originally a television show on RT, hosted by Naouai. It has more than 3 million followers on Facebook,” CNN noted. The other three pages “have more than 30 million video views, though they’ve only been operating for a few months.”
What kind of content did they produce? Khalek offered a number of examples, including:
In an interview with CNN, Maffick chief operating officer J. Ray Sparks emphasized that Maffick is editorially independent from RT—which the U.S. government has forced to register as a foreign agent—and pointed out that it is “standard industry practice” not to disclose ownership of a media producer on a Facebook page.
However, as Kevin Gosztola—who cohosts a podcast with Khalek—noted in an article published Saturday on Shadowproof, “Although Khalek and Sparks detailed their editorial independence at Maffick extensively, [CNN correspondent Drew] Griffin remained incredulous at the reality that officials working at the Kremlin are not dictating what specific stories should be covered.”
“Similarly to NPR, PBS, BBC, DW, CBC, AJ+, and many other media companies, Maffick is supported in part by government funding. Likewise while we haven’t posted funding details on our Facebook pages etc, neither have any of our international peers,” Maffick said in a statement that charges the company was singled out for “one reason and one reason only: The government that helps fund our company is Russia.”
“We did not violate any of Facebook’s policies whatsoever. None of our content promotes disinformation or fake news. Yet CNN pressured Facebook into unprecedented censorship in a desperate attempt to milk ratings by stoking hysteria over Russia,” the statement continues, calling on Facebook to reinstate its pages and “articulate clear, consistent policies and protocols regarding obligatory funding disclosures which will be applied evenly across all pages.”
Since Friday, Khalek and others who often linked to her initial thread have turned to another major social media platform—Twitter—to raise alarm about the role of the ASD and the communication CNN subsequently had with Facebook:
Although Facebook’s rules don’t require pages to disclose parent companies, a spokesperson told CNN in a statement that the social media company planned to reach out to Maffick page administrators “to ask that they disclose this additional information and their affiliation with their parent company to get back on the platform.”
The move by Facebook comes after the company temporarily took down one of Khalek’s videos for Soapbox—about “how Israel uses Palestine as a weapons testing laboratory”—in late December, and only restored it after public outcry. Facebook also was intensely criticized last year for censoring the left-leaning Latin American news network teleSUR English, funded by the Venezuelan government and others, as well as a video about Christopher Columbus’ brutal legacy produced by Double Down News.
Our work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-Share Alike 3.0 License. Feel free to republish and share widely.
Two-time F1 world champion Mika Hakkinen is convinced Mick Schumacher will find a seat in Formula 1 “very soon”.
Schumacher’s win in the FIA Formula 2 Championship’s feature race at Monza and another bag of points filled at Mugello has put the 21-year-old in command of junior series’ drivers’ standings with just two four races remaining on the calendar.
The German is considered a prime candidate for a seat at Alfa Romeo Racing for 2021, a promotion that would practically become undoubtable if Schumacher wins the F2 title.
Read also: Schumacher tipped by uncle Ralf to join Hulkenberg at Alfa Romeo
Last Sunday at Mugello, the young charger demonstrated his father’s race winning Ferrari F2004, and the run encouraged Hakkinen to assess the son of his former arch rival, Michael Schumacher.
“It was very nice to see Mick driving his father’s 2004 Ferrari on a demonstration run,” Hakkinen wrote in his Unibet column.
“It reminded us how great those V10 engines sounded and the incredible success that Michael achieved with that car and the others with which he won five world titles.
“It is great to see Mick’s career progressing well, including now leading the Formula 2 Championship, and I am certain he will find a seat in Formula 1 very soon.
“It will be a special moment for him, the Schumacher family and Formula 1 when it happens.”
Another former F1 driver who has been impressed by Schumacher’s progress and believes Schumacher is ready to step up to the next level is Gerhard Berger.
“I think he’s ripe to take the step into Formula 1,” the Austrian told Speedweek. “I like him a lot and slowly he is working his way to the top in every category.
“For me, it is important to see whether a racing driver has fluctuations or a championship profile, that he fights for a title with his head and with stamina, even if he ‘only’ comes second in the end.
“I see that with Mick – his father also had it very strongly.”
North Dakota GOP Senate nominee Rep. Kevin CramerKevin John CramerRepublicans prepare to punt on next COVID-19 relief bill GOP senators introduce resolution opposing calls to defund the police Trump tweets spark fresh headache for Republicans MORE on Friday pushed back against sexual misconduct allegations against President TrumpDonald John TrumpSenate advances public lands bill in late-night vote Warren, Democrats urge Trump to back down from veto threat over changing Confederate-named bases Esper orders ‘After Action Review’ of National Guard’s role in protests MORE’s Supreme Court pick Brett Kavanaugh, calling them “absurd” given the circumstances.
Cramer in an interview with a North Dakota radio station compared the allegations from Christine Blasey Ford against Kavanaugh to Anita Hill’s allegations against then-Supreme Court nominee Clarence Thomas in 1991.
“If to the degree there was any legitimacy to Anita Hill’s claims, and she tried and didn’t prevail — Clarence Thomas did and America did — this case is even more absurd because these people were teenagers when this supposed alleged incident took place,” Cramer said on “The Jarrod Thomas Show” in an interview first highlighted by CNN.
ADVERTISEMENT
“These are teenagers who evidently were drunk, according to her own statement. They were drunk. Nothing evidently happened in it all, even by her own accusation. Again, it was supposedly an attempt or something that never went anywhere,” he added.
Ford went public with the allegations Sunday in an interview with The Washington Post, saying Kavanaugh pinned her to a bed and tried to remove her clothes during a party in the early 1980s, when both were in high school.
Kavanaugh has denied the allegations, which have upended his nomination to the Supreme Court and delayed the confirmation process as the Senate Judiciary Committee seeks to speak with both individuals next week.
“You just can’t expect to defame a guy who’s got a stellar record and a stellar, nearly perfect reputation, near as I can tell, character-wise, and be able to be the last word,” Cramer said during the radio interview Friday.
He also bashed the Democrats’ handling of the allegations.
“If all of that is in fact true, the tragedy for her is that her testimony is being used as a political weapon and that even her own wishes, if they’re true, to [Sen.] Dianne FeinsteinDianne Emiel FeinsteinHillicon Valley: Biden calls on Facebook to change political speech rules | Dems demand hearings after Georgia election chaos | Microsoft stops selling facial recognition tech to police Democrats demand Republican leaders examine election challenges after Georgia voting chaos GOP votes to give Graham broad subpoena power in Obama-era probe MORE [D-Calif.] that she didn’t want it out to the public, were denied not by her but by Dianne Feinstein,” he said, referring to the ranking member of the committee.
Feinstein has said that she held onto a letter outlining the allegations because Ford asked to remain anonymous, but that media leaks of the letter’s existence forced her to go public with the letter, though not Ford’s identity.
Feinstein’s office has denied it was the source of the leaks.
Cramer also questioned if the allegations would prevent others from seeking judicial or political appointments.
“Why would any good person ever put themselves forward to be a judge, an appellate court judge, a Supreme Court justice, frankly a member of Congress or the United States Senate or governor or anything else, if this is the new standard? You know, roll out an accusation that no one else can corroborate, and we believe the accuser without appropriate due process,” he said.
Cramer is currently battling Sen. Heidi HeitkampMary (Heidi) Kathryn Heitkamp70 former senators propose bipartisan caucus for incumbents Susan Collins set to play pivotal role in impeachment drama Pro-trade group launches media buy as Trump and Democrats near deal on new NAFTA MORE (N.D.), one of 10 Senate Democrats up for reelection this year in states won by Trump in 2016.
Heitkamp voted for Trump’s first nominee to the Supreme Court, Neil Gorsuch, last year but has not said yet how she will vote on Kavanaugh.
Ford’s lawyer is currently in discussions with the Judiciary Committee to arrange her testimony for next week.
She was initially open to testifying on Monday in a public session, but walked that back, saying she wanted the FBI to investigate her claims before she made an appearance.
Her lawyer told the committee on Thursday that she’d be willing to testify next Thursday if Kavanaugh testified first, was not in the same room as her and she would only be questioned by committee members.
Republicans on the committee put together a counteroffer for her to testify Wednesday and before Kavanaugh.
Jason Kander, a rising star in the Democratic Party who was considered a front-runner in the Kansas City, Mo., mayoral race dropped out on Tuesday, explaining in a statement that he will seek treatment for post-traumatic stress disorder (PTSD).
“To allow me to concentrate on my mental health, I’ve decided that I will not be running for mayor of Kansas City,” Kander wrote in a Medium post.
Kander, an Afghanistan war veteran who previously mounted an unsuccessful campaign against incumbent Sen. Roy BluntRoy Dean BluntSenate advances public lands bill in late-night vote Hillicon Valley: Biden calls on Facebook to change political speech rules | Dems demand hearings after Georgia election chaos | Microsoft stops selling facial recognition tech to police OVERNIGHT ENERGY: Senate headed for late night vote amid standoff over lands bill | Trump administration seeks to use global aid for nuclear projects | EPA faces lawsuit alleging failure to update flaring requirements MORE (R-Mo.) in 2016, wrote that he felt like he has been running from symptoms of PTSD for years.
ADVERTISEMENT
“I wrote in my book that I was lucky to not have PTSD, I was just trying to convince myself. And I wasn’t sharing the full picture. I still have nightmares. I am depressed,” Kander wrote in the post.
“So after 11 years of trying to outrun depression and PTSD symptoms, I have finally concluded that it’s faster than me. That I have to stop running, turn around, and confront it,” Kander continued. “I finally went to the VA in Kansas City yesterday and have started the process to get help there regularly.”
Kander, who also served as Missouri’s secretary of state until last year, added that he will take a step back from Let America Vote, the organization he founded to battle GOP voter ID laws around the country, but that he plans to resume his political service upon the completion of his treatment.
“I’ll close by saying this isn’t goodbye. Once I work through my mental health challenges, I fully intend to be working shoulder to shoulder with all of you again,” Kander wrote in the post.
Kander’s exit from the Kansas City mayoral race leaves eight candidates battling in a nonpartisan primary campaign, with the primary election set for April 2019. The city’s general election will be held two months later in June.