First Arab Country Acquires New Chinese Missile System As Beijing’s Influence Grows

First Arab Country Acquires New Chinese Missile System As Beijing’s Influence Grows

Tyler Durden

Sun, 07/26/2020 – 09:20

Via AlMasdarNews.com,

China has started exporting the third generation of their Red Arrow-12 anti-tank systems, also known as the HJ-12.

According to the China Defense website, Algeria has become the first Arab country to obtain the upgraded Chinese anti-tank system.

A Chinese Red Arrow 12 missile on display at IDEX 2017.

Not surprisingly, the Algerian military has long-standing relationships with the Chinese military-industrial complex. It has bought from China self-propelled howitzers, mortars, and multiple missile launch systems, as well as reconnaissance and attack drones and marine equipment.

According to military experts, HJ-12 will replace the old Soviet complexes that were developed in the first half of the 1970s.

The Red Arrow-12 is one of the systems that operates on the “launch and forget” principle. It was first shown in 2014.

The total mass reaches 22 kg. The missile itself weighs 17 kilograms, and another 5 kilograms is a target, and it has thermal imaging channels, day and night, in addition to a laser range finder. The total length of the launch container is 1200 mm.

China’s influence across the Middle East and North Africa (MENA) has steadily been increasing. Seventeen countries have signed documents related to its Belt and Road Initiative (BRI). Many countries, including LebanonTunisiaEgypt, and Iraq have seen dramatic increases in Chinese engagement, leading some to question if they are on the verge of becoming Chinese client states. More recently, China has dramatically and visibly increased its aid to a number of MENA countries in response to the recent COVID pandemic. — Arab Barometer

Dimensions and weight allow this weapon to be used from the shoulder. The maximum shooting range in daylight conditions is 4,000 meters, at night it drops to 2,000 meters.

via ZeroHedge News https://ift.tt/3eX8jad Tyler Durden

Turkey Rejects US & EU Calls To Cease East-Med Gas Drilling As Greece Threatens Military Action

Turkey Rejects US & EU Calls To Cease East-Med Gas Drilling As Greece Threatens Military Action

Tyler Durden

Sun, 07/26/2020 – 08:45

Days after the US State Department warned Turkey over its gas reserves exploration and drilling plans in waters between Cyprus and Greece, which Athens has declared ‘illegal’ given it cuts into Greece’s Exclusive Economic Zone (EEZ), the European Union has also put Turkey on notice, warning it could move forward with sanctions.

French President Emmanuel Macron said late this week that it’s “not acceptable for the maritime space of a European Union member state to be violated or threatened” and called for sanctions if it moves forward. On Tuesday a US State Department statement demanded that Turkey back down from its drilling plans which have put the Greek Navy on “high alert” – given Turkish exploration ships are already in or near Greek waters.

Greek media sources are now reporting that Turkey through its embassy in Washington DC has informed the Americans that it plans to proceed unimpeded with its drilling research with the Oruc Reis vessel in the disputed eastern Mediterranean waters

Turkey’s seismic exploration ship Oruc Reise in the Eastern Mediterranean this week, via Anadolu Agency.

“We urge Turkish authorities to halt any plans for operations and to avoid steps that raise tensions in the region,” the statement said. And Greece’s foreign ministry said it clearly violates the country’s sovereignty and that it stands ready to defend its territory.

Turkey has so far rejected all demands from the US, EU, Greece and Cyprus that it back down. Turkey’s Daily Sabah newspaper cited President Erdogan’s office as follows:

Turkey rejects Greece’s “maximalist” objectives in the Eastern Mediterranean, which lack a legal basis and disregards logic, Presidential Spokesperson Ibrahim Kalın said Thursday.

Kalın highlighted that Turkey opposes the rhetoric of threats and favors an equal distribution of resources.

The Greek side’s “maximalist” position claims that the island of Kastellorizo (Meis in Turkish)-only 2 kilometers from the Turkish shore, but about 580 km away from the Greek mainland-“should have a 40,000 square km continental shelf area, which is almost like half of Turkey’s Gulf of Antalya,” Kalın told an online policy briefing by the European Policy Centre in cooperation with the Foreign Economic Relations Board of Turkey (DEIK).

Turkey has claimed that it’s “well within its rights” amid the gas exploration and drilling.

Though Turkish media has claimed the Oruc Reis vessel has already commenced with its mission in the disputed waters, a number of analysts have cried foul, citing that it hasn’t actually left port, given Ankara may be taking Greek threats of military action seriously:

Turkey has used its claims over northern Cyprus, or the so-called “Turkish Republic of Northern Cyprus,” to say it can drill in waters encircling the entire island. 

Analysts have feared the additional deployment of naval forces by both sides amid the dispute could easily lead to a break out into war.

A new statement issued by US Ambassador to Greece Geoffrey Pyatt hinted at just such a scenario of military confrontation on the high seas.

“I want to echo the clear message from Washington and elsewhere in Europe, urging Turkish authorities to halt operations that raise tensions in the region, such as plans to survey for natural resources in areas where Greece and Cyprus assert jurisdiction in the eastern Mediterranean,” he said.

via ZeroHedge News https://ift.tt/2WU0L1J Tyler Durden

Laws Protecting Private Employees’ Speech and Political Activity Against Employer Retaliation: Covering a Wide Range of Speech

[This is a serialization, with slight updates, of my 2012 article on the subject; for the Introduction (which also discusses my ambivalence about such laws), see this post.]

We now turn to specific laws that cover a pretty broad range of speech (as opposed to just, say, endorsing or opposing candidates for office).

[A.] Exercising “Rights Guaranteed by the First Amendment”—Connecticut

Connecticut bars employment discrimination based on any “exercise … of rights guaranteed by the First Amendment.” Connecticut courts have interpreted this as largely applying the same rules to private employers as are applied to public employers under the First Amendment.

  1. Connecticut courts apply the Connick v. Myers rule that employee speech is protected only if it is on “matters of public concern” and not motivated by the employee’s personal employment grievance.
  2. They also apply the Pickering v. Board of Education test, under which speech is unprotected if its value is exceeded by its potential to disrupt the employer’s operation.
  3. And they generally apply the Garcetti v. Ceballos rule, under which even otherwise public-concern and nondisruptive speech is unprotected when it is part of the employee’s job duties (though it might still be protected, even when part of job duties, if involves “comment on official dishonesty, deliberately unconstitutional action, other serious wrongdoing, or threats to health and safety can weigh out in an employee’s favor”).

Connecticut: [No employer may] discipline or discharge [an employee] on account of the exercise by such employee of rights guaranteed by the First Amendment … , provided such activity does not substantially or materially interfere with the employee’s bona fide job performance or the working relationship between the employee and the employer ….

Courts have held that this statute does not apply to decisions denying promotion, or to decisions denying tenure (even though this would generally lead to the expiration of the employee’s contract). Even more clearly, the statute would not apply to decisions not to hire.

[B.] Engaging in “Expression … Regarding … Religious, Political, or Personal Convictions”—Utah

Utah’s statute was enacted in 2015, as part of a package deal in which employers were also barred from discriminating based on sexual orientation. It covers, like the Connecticut statute, a broad range of speech; there are no cases so far interpreting it, but it appears to set up a fairly demanding threshold that the employer has to overcome to justify restricting the speech.

Utah: (1) An employee may express the employee’s religious or moral beliefs and commitments in the workplace in a reasonable, non-disruptive, and non-harassing way on equal terms with similar types of expression of beliefs or commitments allowed by the employer in the workplace, unless the expression is in direct conflict with the essential business-related interests of the employer.

(2) An employer may not discharge, demote, terminate, or refuse to hire any person, or retaliate against, harass, or discriminate in matters of compensation or in terms, privileges, and conditions of employment against any person otherwise qualified, for lawful expression or expressive activity outside of the workplace regarding the person’s religious, political, or personal convictions, including convictions about marriage, family, or sexuality, unless the expression or expressive activity is in direct conflict with the essential business-related interests of the employer.

[C.] Engaging in Political Activities—California, Colorado, Louisiana, Minnesota, Missouri, Nebraska, Nevada, South Carolina, West Virginia, Guam, Ann Arbor, Seattle, and Madison

These states bar employers from retaliating against employees for engaging in political activities. “Political activities” is broader than just partisan or electoral activities, and courts interpreting the California statute have so held. “[P]olitical activities,” the California Supreme Court has stated, “cannot be narrowly confined to partisan activity,” but instead cover any activities involving the “espousal of a candidate or a cause,” including participating in broad social movements such as the gay rights movement. And a federal district court, following the California Supreme Court decision, has likewise read “political activities” to cover the holding of certain views on drug and alcohol policy.

A few federal district courts in South Carolina have taken a narrower view: The South Carolina statute’s protection of “political opinions” and “political rights and privileges guaranteed to every citizen by the Constitution,” they have held, is limited to “matters directly related to the executive, legislative, and administrative branches of Government, such as political party affiliation, political campaign contributions, and the right to vote.” One district court held that the display of the Confederate flag is therefore not covered. Another held the same about a statement that Muslims are disproportionately likely to be terrorists, and that terrorists are generally Muslims.[1]

This, though, seems inconsistent with the statutory language, which speaks of “political opinions” and “political rights and privileges guaranteed to every citizen by the Constitution and laws of the United States or by the Constitution and laws of this State.” Opining on broad current affairs topics has generally been seen as “political speech,” even when the speech does not directly connect to an election. And California courts have interpreted the similar terms “engaging … in politics” and “political activities” as covering “espousal of … a cause” as well as of a candidate, and including, for instance, the act of declaring oneself to be gay or lesbian. Likewise, a Fourth Circuit panel opinion, later reversed on procedural grounds, concluded that display of the Confederate flag could constitute the exercise of “political rights.”

Even under the broad California view, though, some courts have held that activities aimed at improving labor conditions at the particular employer and advocacy of forcible or violent conduct do not qualify as “political” within the terms of the statute. Two related South Carolina federal district court cases have also held that testimony before a government agency, made in response to a request by that agency, does not qualify as “exercising a political right.” And a third South Carolina federal district court case concluded that an employee’s “expressions of concern about his coworkers”—which consisted of statements that the coworker pharmacy technicians “lacked the necessary experience and competence to safely fill customers’ prescriptions”—”were not political in nature” and thus were not covered.

California: No employer shall make, adopt, or enforce any rule, regulation, or policy:

(a) Forbidding or preventing employees from engaging or participating in politics or from becoming candidates for public office.

(b) Controlling or directing, or tending to control or direct the political activities or affiliations of employees.

No employer shall … attempt to coerce or influence his employees through or by means of threat of discharge … to adopt or follow or refrain from adopting or following any particular course or line of political action or political activity.

Colorado: It is [a misdemeanor] for any … employer … to make, adopt, or enforce any rule, regulation, or policy forbidding or preventing any of his employees from engaging or participating in politics or from becoming a candidate for public office or being elected to and entering upon the duties of any public office.

Louisiana: Except as otherwise provided in R.S. 23:962, no employer having regularly in his employ twenty or more employees shall

[a] make, adopt, or enforce any rule, regulation, or policy forbidding or preventing any of his employees from engaging or participating in politics, or from becoming a candidate for public office …

[b] adopt or enforce any rule, regulation, or policy which will control, direct, or tend to control or direct the political activities or affiliations of his employees, [or] …

[c] coerce or influence, or attempt to coerce or influence any of his employees by means of threats of discharge or loss of employment in case such employees should support or become affiliated with any particular political faction or organization, or participate in political activities of any nature or character ….

23:962: Any planter, manager, overseer or other employer of laborers who, previous to the expiration of the term of service of any laborer in his employ or under his control, discharges such laborer on account of his political opinions, or attempts to control the suffrage or vote of such laborer by any contract or agreement whatever, shall be fined not less than one hundred dollars, nor more than five hundred dollars and imprisoned for not more than one year.

Minnesota: [It shall be a gross misdemeanor for a]n individual or association … [to] engage in economic reprisals or threaten loss of employment or physical coercion against an individual or association because of that individual’s or association’s political contributions or political activity. This subdivision does not apply to compensation for employment or loss of employment if the political affiliation or viewpoint of the employee is a bona fide occupational qualification of the employment.

Missouri: [It shall be a misdemeanor o]n the part of any employer [to] mak[e], enforce[e], or attempt[] to enforce any order, rule, or regulation or adopt[] any other device or method to prevent an employee from

[a] engaging in political activities,

[b] accepting candidacy for nomination to, election to, or the holding of, political office,

[c] holding a position as a member of a political committee,

[d] soliciting or receiving funds for political purpose,

[e] acting as chairman or participating in a political convention,

[f] assuming the conduct of any political campaign,

[g] signing, or subscribing his name to any initiative, referendum, or recall petition, or any other petition circulated pursuant to law ….

[It shall be a misdemeanor and civilly actionable for any employer to:]

(1) … discriminate or threaten to discriminate against any employee … by reason of his political beliefs or opinions; or …

(5) [d]iscriminate or threaten to discriminate against any … employee in this state for contributing or refusing to contribute to any candidate, political committee or separate political fund ….

Nebraska: Any person who … attempts to influence the political action of his or her employees by threatening to discharge them because of their political action … shall be guilty of a Class IV felony.

Nevada: It shall be unlawful for any … [employer] to make any rule or regulation prohibiting or preventing any employee from engaging in politics or becoming a candidate for any public office in this state.

South Carolina: It is unlawful for a person to … discharge a citizen from employment … because of political opinions or the exercise of political rights and privileges guaranteed to every citizen by the Constitution and laws of the United States or by the Constitution and laws of this State.

West Virginia: [It is a misdemeanor for any employer or agent of an employer to] give any notice or information to his employees, containing any threat, either express or implied, intended or calculated to influence the political views or actions of the … employees ….

Ann Arbor (Michigan): No person shall discriminate in the hire, employment, compensation, work classifications, conditions or terms, promotion or demotion, or termination of employment of any individual … [based on “political beliefs,” defined as “[o]ne’s opinion, whether or not manifested in speech or association, concerning the social, economic, and governmental structure of society and its institutions,” “cover[ing] all political beliefs, the consideration of which is not preempted by state, federal or local law,” except “political beliefs that interfere or threaten to interfere with his or her job performance”].

Seattle (Washington): Employer[s may not discriminate … by reason of … political ideology …] … with respect to any matter related to employment. “Political ideology” means any idea or belief, or coordinated body of ideas or beliefs, relating to the purpose, conduct, organization, function or basis of government and related institutions and activities, whether or not characteristic of any political party or group. This term includes membership in a political party or group and includes conduct, reasonably related to political ideology, which does not interfere with job performance.

Madison (Wisconsin): [Employers may not] discriminate against any individual [in employment] … because of [such individual’s] protected class membership … [including “political beliefs,” defined as “one’s opinion, manifested in speech or association, concerning the social, economic and governmental structure of society and its institutions,” “cover[ing] all political beliefs, the consideration of which is not preempted by state or federal law”].

Guam: Every employer … is guilty of a misdemeanor who within ninety (90) days of any election … makes or communicates … threats, express or implied, intended or calculated to influence the political opinions or actions of the employees.

The Colorado and Louisiana statutes also include clauses that effectively state, “Nothing in this section shall be construed to prevent the injured employee from recovering damages from his employer for injury suffered through a violation of this section.” This language, borrowed from the California statute, is the language that California courts have interpreted as providing for tort liability for violations of the prohibition.

A 1983 Third Circuit case, Novosel v. Nationwide Ins. Co., suggested that Pennsylvania would follow a similar rule as a common-law matter: The court held that, under Pennsylvania law, private employers could not fire an employee for “political expression and association” unless the employee’s activities substantially interfere with the employee’s job. But more recent Pennsylvania state court decisions suggest that Novosel is no longer good law.

 

[1]. Powell v. Media Gen. Operations, Inc., 2011 WL 4501836 (D.S.C. Apr. 26, 2011) (Magistrate Judge’s report and recommendation), approved by 2011 WL 4501564 (D.S.C. Sept. 28, 2011), settled while on appeal, Order in Powell v. Media Gen. Operations, Inc., No. 11-2204 (Dec. 1, 2011). The speech in Powell took place right after the Fort Hood mass murder, which was committed by a Muslim U.S. soldier. Plaintiff told a coworker (who apparently wasn’t a Muslim, Amended Complaint in Powell (filed Jan. 7, 2011)), “That’s a shocker that a Muslim would be a terrorist!” The coworker responded, “Not all Muslims are terrorists.” Plaintiff replied, “Well, that might be so, but it seems to me that all terrorists are Muslim.” This, the court said, was not the expression of “political opinions” because it was not “of or relating to government, a government, or the conduct of government.”

from Latest – Reason.com https://ift.tt/2CFnR5G
via IFTTT

Laws Protecting Private Employees’ Speech and Political Activity Against Employer Retaliation: Covering a Wide Range of Speech

[This is a serialization, with slight updates, of my 2012 article on the subject; for the Introduction (which also discusses my ambivalence about such laws), see this post.]

We now turn to specific laws that cover a pretty broad range of speech (as opposed to just, say, endorsing or opposing candidates for office).

[A.] Exercising “Rights Guaranteed by the First Amendment”—Connecticut

Connecticut bars employment discrimination based on any “exercise … of rights guaranteed by the First Amendment.” Connecticut courts have interpreted this as largely applying the same rules to private employers as are applied to public employers under the First Amendment.

  1. Connecticut courts apply the Connick v. Myers rule that employee speech is protected only if it is on “matters of public concern” and not motivated by the employee’s personal employment grievance.
  2. They also apply the Pickering v. Board of Education test, under which speech is unprotected if its value is exceeded by its potential to disrupt the employer’s operation.
  3. And they generally apply the Garcetti v. Ceballos rule, under which even otherwise public-concern and nondisruptive speech is unprotected when it is part of the employee’s job duties (though it might still be protected, even when part of job duties, if involves “comment on official dishonesty, deliberately unconstitutional action, other serious wrongdoing, or threats to health and safety can weigh out in an employee’s favor”).

Connecticut: [No employer may] discipline or discharge [an employee] on account of the exercise by such employee of rights guaranteed by the First Amendment … , provided such activity does not substantially or materially interfere with the employee’s bona fide job performance or the working relationship between the employee and the employer ….

Courts have held that this statute does not apply to decisions denying promotion, or to decisions denying tenure (even though this would generally lead to the expiration of the employee’s contract). Even more clearly, the statute would not apply to decisions not to hire.

[B.] Engaging in “Expression … Regarding … Religious, Political, or Personal Convictions”—Utah

Utah’s statute was enacted in 2015, as part of a package deal in which employers were also barred from discriminating based on sexual orientation. It covers, like the Connecticut statute, a broad range of speech; there are no cases so far interpreting it, but it appears to set up a fairly demanding threshold that the employer has to overcome to justify restricting the speech.

Utah: (1) An employee may express the employee’s religious or moral beliefs and commitments in the workplace in a reasonable, non-disruptive, and non-harassing way on equal terms with similar types of expression of beliefs or commitments allowed by the employer in the workplace, unless the expression is in direct conflict with the essential business-related interests of the employer.

(2) An employer may not discharge, demote, terminate, or refuse to hire any person, or retaliate against, harass, or discriminate in matters of compensation or in terms, privileges, and conditions of employment against any person otherwise qualified, for lawful expression or expressive activity outside of the workplace regarding the person’s religious, political, or personal convictions, including convictions about marriage, family, or sexuality, unless the expression or expressive activity is in direct conflict with the essential business-related interests of the employer.

[C.] Engaging in Political Activities—California, Colorado, Louisiana, Minnesota, Missouri, Nebraska, Nevada, South Carolina, West Virginia, Guam, Ann Arbor, Seattle, and Madison

These states bar employers from retaliating against employees for engaging in political activities. “Political activities” is broader than just partisan or electoral activities, and courts interpreting the California statute have so held. “[P]olitical activities,” the California Supreme Court has stated, “cannot be narrowly confined to partisan activity,” but instead cover any activities involving the “espousal of a candidate or a cause,” including participating in broad social movements such as the gay rights movement. And a federal district court, following the California Supreme Court decision, has likewise read “political activities” to cover the holding of certain views on drug and alcohol policy.

A few federal district courts in South Carolina have taken a narrower view: The South Carolina statute’s protection of “political opinions” and “political rights and privileges guaranteed to every citizen by the Constitution,” they have held, is limited to “matters directly related to the executive, legislative, and administrative branches of Government, such as political party affiliation, political campaign contributions, and the right to vote.” One district court held that the display of the Confederate flag is therefore not covered. Another held the same about a statement that Muslims are disproportionately likely to be terrorists, and that terrorists are generally Muslims.[1]

This, though, seems inconsistent with the statutory language, which speaks of “political opinions” and “political rights and privileges guaranteed to every citizen by the Constitution and laws of the United States or by the Constitution and laws of this State.” Opining on broad current affairs topics has generally been seen as “political speech,” even when the speech does not directly connect to an election. And California courts have interpreted the similar terms “engaging … in politics” and “political activities” as covering “espousal of … a cause” as well as of a candidate, and including, for instance, the act of declaring oneself to be gay or lesbian. Likewise, a Fourth Circuit panel opinion, later reversed on procedural grounds, concluded that display of the Confederate flag could constitute the exercise of “political rights.”

Even under the broad California view, though, some courts have held that activities aimed at improving labor conditions at the particular employer and advocacy of forcible or violent conduct do not qualify as “political” within the terms of the statute. Two related South Carolina federal district court cases have also held that testimony before a government agency, made in response to a request by that agency, does not qualify as “exercising a political right.” And a third South Carolina federal district court case concluded that an employee’s “expressions of concern about his coworkers”—which consisted of statements that the coworker pharmacy technicians “lacked the necessary experience and competence to safely fill customers’ prescriptions”—”were not political in nature” and thus were not covered.

California: No employer shall make, adopt, or enforce any rule, regulation, or policy:

(a) Forbidding or preventing employees from engaging or participating in politics or from becoming candidates for public office.

(b) Controlling or directing, or tending to control or direct the political activities or affiliations of employees.

No employer shall … attempt to coerce or influence his employees through or by means of threat of discharge … to adopt or follow or refrain from adopting or following any particular course or line of political action or political activity.

Colorado: It is [a misdemeanor] for any … employer … to make, adopt, or enforce any rule, regulation, or policy forbidding or preventing any of his employees from engaging or participating in politics or from becoming a candidate for public office or being elected to and entering upon the duties of any public office.

Louisiana: Except as otherwise provided in R.S. 23:962, no employer having regularly in his employ twenty or more employees shall

[a] make, adopt, or enforce any rule, regulation, or policy forbidding or preventing any of his employees from engaging or participating in politics, or from becoming a candidate for public office …

[b] adopt or enforce any rule, regulation, or policy which will control, direct, or tend to control or direct the political activities or affiliations of his employees, [or] …

[c] coerce or influence, or attempt to coerce or influence any of his employees by means of threats of discharge or loss of employment in case such employees should support or become affiliated with any particular political faction or organization, or participate in political activities of any nature or character ….

23:962: Any planter, manager, overseer or other employer of laborers who, previous to the expiration of the term of service of any laborer in his employ or under his control, discharges such laborer on account of his political opinions, or attempts to control the suffrage or vote of such laborer by any contract or agreement whatever, shall be fined not less than one hundred dollars, nor more than five hundred dollars and imprisoned for not more than one year.

Minnesota: [It shall be a gross misdemeanor for a]n individual or association … [to] engage in economic reprisals or threaten loss of employment or physical coercion against an individual or association because of that individual’s or association’s political contributions or political activity. This subdivision does not apply to compensation for employment or loss of employment if the political affiliation or viewpoint of the employee is a bona fide occupational qualification of the employment.

Missouri: [It shall be a misdemeanor o]n the part of any employer [to] mak[e], enforce[e], or attempt[] to enforce any order, rule, or regulation or adopt[] any other device or method to prevent an employee from

[a] engaging in political activities,

[b] accepting candidacy for nomination to, election to, or the holding of, political office,

[c] holding a position as a member of a political committee,

[d] soliciting or receiving funds for political purpose,

[e] acting as chairman or participating in a political convention,

[f] assuming the conduct of any political campaign,

[g] signing, or subscribing his name to any initiative, referendum, or recall petition, or any other petition circulated pursuant to law ….

[It shall be a misdemeanor and civilly actionable for any employer to:]

(1) … discriminate or threaten to discriminate against any employee … by reason of his political beliefs or opinions; or …

(5) [d]iscriminate or threaten to discriminate against any … employee in this state for contributing or refusing to contribute to any candidate, political committee or separate political fund ….

Nebraska: Any person who … attempts to influence the political action of his or her employees by threatening to discharge them because of their political action … shall be guilty of a Class IV felony.

Nevada: It shall be unlawful for any … [employer] to make any rule or regulation prohibiting or preventing any employee from engaging in politics or becoming a candidate for any public office in this state.

South Carolina: It is unlawful for a person to … discharge a citizen from employment … because of political opinions or the exercise of political rights and privileges guaranteed to every citizen by the Constitution and laws of the United States or by the Constitution and laws of this State.

West Virginia: [It is a misdemeanor for any employer or agent of an employer to] give any notice or information to his employees, containing any threat, either express or implied, intended or calculated to influence the political views or actions of the … employees ….

Ann Arbor (Michigan): No person shall discriminate in the hire, employment, compensation, work classifications, conditions or terms, promotion or demotion, or termination of employment of any individual … [based on “political beliefs,” defined as “[o]ne’s opinion, whether or not manifested in speech or association, concerning the social, economic, and governmental structure of society and its institutions,” “cover[ing] all political beliefs, the consideration of which is not preempted by state, federal or local law,” except “political beliefs that interfere or threaten to interfere with his or her job performance”].

Seattle (Washington): Employer[s may not discriminate … by reason of … political ideology …] … with respect to any matter related to employment. “Political ideology” means any idea or belief, or coordinated body of ideas or beliefs, relating to the purpose, conduct, organization, function or basis of government and related institutions and activities, whether or not characteristic of any political party or group. This term includes membership in a political party or group and includes conduct, reasonably related to political ideology, which does not interfere with job performance.

Madison (Wisconsin): [Employers may not] discriminate against any individual [in employment] … because of [such individual’s] protected class membership … [including “political beliefs,” defined as “one’s opinion, manifested in speech or association, concerning the social, economic and governmental structure of society and its institutions,” “cover[ing] all political beliefs, the consideration of which is not preempted by state or federal law”].

Guam: Every employer … is guilty of a misdemeanor who within ninety (90) days of any election … makes or communicates … threats, express or implied, intended or calculated to influence the political opinions or actions of the employees.

The Colorado and Louisiana statutes also include clauses that effectively state, “Nothing in this section shall be construed to prevent the injured employee from recovering damages from his employer for injury suffered through a violation of this section.” This language, borrowed from the California statute, is the language that California courts have interpreted as providing for tort liability for violations of the prohibition.

A 1983 Third Circuit case, Novosel v. Nationwide Ins. Co., suggested that Pennsylvania would follow a similar rule as a common-law matter: The court held that, under Pennsylvania law, private employers could not fire an employee for “political expression and association” unless the employee’s activities substantially interfere with the employee’s job. But more recent Pennsylvania state court decisions suggest that Novosel is no longer good law.

 

[1]. Powell v. Media Gen. Operations, Inc., 2011 WL 4501836 (D.S.C. Apr. 26, 2011) (Magistrate Judge’s report and recommendation), approved by 2011 WL 4501564 (D.S.C. Sept. 28, 2011), settled while on appeal, Order in Powell v. Media Gen. Operations, Inc., No. 11-2204 (Dec. 1, 2011). The speech in Powell took place right after the Fort Hood mass murder, which was committed by a Muslim U.S. soldier. Plaintiff told a coworker (who apparently wasn’t a Muslim, Amended Complaint in Powell (filed Jan. 7, 2011)), “That’s a shocker that a Muslim would be a terrorist!” The coworker responded, “Not all Muslims are terrorists.” Plaintiff replied, “Well, that might be so, but it seems to me that all terrorists are Muslim.” This, the court said, was not the expression of “political opinions” because it was not “of or relating to government, a government, or the conduct of government.”

from Latest – Reason.com https://ift.tt/2CFnR5G
via IFTTT

Britain’s ‘Russia Report’ – A Triumph Of Orwellian Bombast

Britain’s ‘Russia Report’ – A Triumph Of Orwellian Bombast

Tyler Durden

Sun, 07/26/2020 – 08:10

Authored by Finian Cunningham via The Strategic Culture Foundation,

The sensational headlines screaming on the front pages of British newspapers this week showed that the parliamentary Russia Report was a triumph of bombast.

The Daily Mail led with “Damning Russia Dossier” while The Times heralded “MI5 to get more powers” and “Tough new laws will combat threat of Russian spies”. The Times also splashed its front page with a large photograph of Russian President Vladimir Putin seemingly lurking behind a curtain, which just goes to show how much British journalism has descended into cartoonish trivia.

There is sound reason why the British government delayed until this week publication of the so-called Russia Report by a cross-party parliamentary committee. That’s plainly because there is nothing in it that could in any way substantiate lurid claims of alleged Russian interference in British politics.

The 55-page document was neither “damning” nor “devastating” as The Daily Mail asserted. The groundless hype suggests that the headline writers simply were looking for something to sell to readers regardless of facts.

Boris Johnson, the prime minister, received a copy of the report 10 months ago, but decided to postpone its publication until after the general election that was held in December. That delay led to claims that his Conservative government was hiding something sinister. There were procedural hiccups from the Intelligence and Security Committee (ISC) being replaced with new members. However, now that the report is published any rationale reader can see that the real cause of the delay is down to the report being a dud, despite all the breathless speculation. It is an empty vessel, with no evidence or substantive detail. It consists of entirely prejudiced assertions that Russia is “a hostile state” and the UK “is clearly a target for Russia disinformation campaigns and political influence”.

The nine lawmakers on the committee and their nine predecessors acknowledge among their sources for the report the following individuals: Anne Applebaum, William Browder and Christopher Steele. All of them are zealously anti-Russia and are prodigious purveyors of “Russian interference” narratives to anyone who will listen to them. Steele is the notorious former MI6 spy who cooked up the ludicrous “Russia Dossier” for the Democrats to smear Trump with in the 2016 elections. That dossier fueled the bogus “Russiagate” scandal.

Of course, the main sources for the parliamentary committee are British intelligence agencies, MI6, MI5 and GCHQ. Candid admission of all those sources should underscore with redlines that the so-called report is nothing but a propaganda screed. Yet the British media treat it with deference and respect as if it is a credible, objective assessment.

What is rather laughable is the unrestrained prejudice of the authors who are, in reality, propagandists more suited to being frozen in Cold War mentality than offering any kind of “expertise”. They claim Russian politics is “paranoid” and “nihilistic” driven by “zero-sum calculation”. All those attributed defects are merely self-projection by the authors of this report and their sources.

It is rather telling that in place of anything resembling substance of alleged Russian interference, the parliamentarians refer to “open sources” of media influence by Russian state-owned RT and Sputnik. They accuse these media of “direct support of a pro-Russian narrative in relation to particular events”. Oh, how shocking! And the British state-owned BBC does not also do the same?

Again referring to “open sources” – meaning public media reports – the parliamentarians claim that the Kremlin interfered in the Scottish referendum on independence back in 2014. So just because Russian news media featured that subject in its coverage is supposed to be “evidence” of Kremlin interference. The absurd accusation is also a convenient way to smear Scottish pro-independence.

Oddly enough, the report says there was no manifest Russian interference in the 2016 Brexit referendum. Well that’s handy. The Tory government wouldn’t want to smear its ambitions of reviving the British empire, that’s for sure.

The ISC publication is a self-serving dud that is “not worth a penny”, as Russian lawmaker Aleksy Chepa put it.

It is loaded with complacent British self-regard and knee-jerk Russophobia.

The parliamentarians repeatedly rebuke the British government and state intelligence for not taking the “threat” of alleged Russian meddling seriously enough.

A more plausible explanation is because there is negligible Russian meddling in British politics, as Moscow has consistently stated. If the British government and its spooks fail to get excited – in private – about allegations of Russian malfeasance it’s because there is actually nothing to the allegations. Still, the parliamentarian anti-Russia ideologues assume to know better. They are convinced that Britain is a target for Kremlin hostility and they lambast the government and intelligence services for “not making it a priority issue”.

The Orwellian plot thickens when the authors of the boilerplate Russian Report then conclude by urging MI5 to be given more secretive powers to collaborate with social media networks in order to control information in the name of combating a “hostile state threat”. This is a sinister, anti-democratic call worthy of a dictatorship for censoring and blackballing any dissenting views under the guise of “defending democracy”.

One area where the ISC document begins to deal with reality – but only superficially and misleadingly – is on the subject of super-rich Russian expatriates living in London, which is dubbed “Londongrad”. Many of these oligarchs are beneficiaries of looting Russian state assets during the privatization-robbery frenzy under former President Boris Yeltsin. They are not “friends of Putin” as the British lawmakers make out. These shady oligarchs are often big donors to the Conservative party, not because they want to inject pro-Russian influence, but rather because they are typically opposed to the current Russian government and are seeking to destabilize it. If there is any Russian “influence” in British politics it is that which promotes illegal regime-change policies in opposition to the Russian state.

In every aspect the much-vaunted Russia Report is a worthless pile of propaganda. Even a glimmer resembling something real – the Russian oligarchs in Londongrad – turns out to be an inversion of reality. And yet, pathetically, the British media amplify the nonsense with reverence and gravitas.

via ZeroHedge News https://ift.tt/2OU52xW Tyler Durden

Tens Of Thousands March In Russia During Second Week Of Anti-Putin Protests

Tens Of Thousands March In Russia During Second Week Of Anti-Putin Protests

Tyler Durden

Sun, 07/26/2020 – 07:35

Tens of thousands of Russians marched in the city of Khabarovsk over the arrest of a regional governor on charges of murder, in what is now the second week of protests against the Kremlin.

Governor Sergei Furgal was arrested July 9 and swiftly replaced after Russian President Vladimir Putin named an acting successor, according to TIME.

Sergei Frugal

Protesters claim the charges against Furgal are unsubstantiated, and he should be allowed to stand trial at home. He stands accused of involvement in the murders of several businessmen in 2004 and 2005 when he was a businessman in the timber and metals industries – charges which he has denied.

“People are offended,” said protester Dmitry Kachalin. “I think people take to the streets because their vote in the 2018 election was taken away.

Unlike Moscow, where police usually move quickly to disperse unsanctioned opposition protests, authorities haven’t interfered with unauthorized demonstrations in Khabarovsk, apparently expecting them to fizzle out over time.

But daily protests, peaking at weekends, have gone on for two weeks, reflecting anger against what local residents see as Moscow’s disrespect of their choice and simmering discontent with Putin’s rule. Local officials’ attempts to discourage people from joining the demonstrations by warning about the risk of coronavirus infection have been unsuccessful. –TIME

“We elected the governor and we want to be heard and decide ourselves what to do with him. Bring him here, and a fair and open trial will decide whether to convict him or not,” said protester Anastasia Schegorina. “We had enough.”

Furgal, a lawmaker on the nationalist Liberal Democratic Party ticket, won the gubernatorial election in 2018 despite the fact that he had refrained from campaigning, and publicly supported his rival who had the support of the Kremlin. His victory was a giant embarrassment to Putin’s administration, United Russia, which has seen its control over the regional legislature slip over the past several years.

Furgal earned a reputation as a “people’s governor,” cutting his own salary, ordering the sale of an expensive yacht that the previous administration had bought and offering new subsidies to the population.

“We want to protect Furgal,” said Evgenia Selina, who joined Saturday’s protest. “If we hadn’t elected him, he would have been living quietly with his family and working at the State Duma. He would have had a normal life.” –TIME

Furgal’s Putin-picked successor, Mikhail Degtyaryov, is also a member of the Liberal-Democratic Party, which was apparently done in an attempt to calm down locals over the change in management. He has thus far refused to address the protesters, and fled the city on Saturday for an inspection of the region.

via ZeroHedge News https://ift.tt/32XtgzM Tyler Durden

NATO 2020: A Coalition Of The Unwilling

NATO 2020: A Coalition Of The Unwilling

Tyler Durden

Sun, 07/26/2020 – 07:00

Submitted by SouthFront,

The problem with alliances is that they ultimately either become victims of their own success, or cannot figure out what to do with themselves once the original rationale disappears.

The original Cold War-era NATO was a relatively cohesive entity led by one of the two superpowers, with most of its members being the industrialized democracies of Western Europe, with West Germany being its eastern-most European member, and alliance planning revolving around USSR. But even then there were cracks in the alliance. Italy, for example, had nearly no role to play as it did not border any Warsaw Pact country and did not practice deploying its forces to West Germany to practice its defense against the anticipated Warsaw Pact invasion. And while Greece and Turkey were ostensibly part of that alliance as well, in practice they spent more time clashing with one another than planning for joint action against USSR.

The end of the Cold War made the problem of alliance cohesion far worse, for two reasons. One, it quickly added as many members as possible thus greatly expanding its geographical extent, and two, it lost that single unifying factor in the form of USSR. Today’s NATO is a patchwork of mini-alliances revolving around the United States which is determined to replace the alliance aspect of NATO which assumes that all members have interests that are to be taken into consideration, by patron-client relationships.

Not to put too fine a point on it, the goal of the United States is global domination. This goal is shared by the entire political elite and major portions of the population, though it is nearly never discussed openly or directly. Instead, it is framed in terms of “American Leadership”, “New American Century”, and of course “American Exceptionalism” which is used to justify any policy that violates international law, treaties, or agreements. Given that every country which has not recognized “American Leadership” is described as a “regime”, there is no indication the US elite is interested in anything resembling peaceful coexistence with other sovereign states.

America’s self-appointed task is made not easier or harder by the fact that today’s NATO is therefore fragmented along both geographic and national power lines. The geographical divide is plainly easy to see: Norway and Denmark mainly care about the Arctic, Poland and Romania obsess about Russia, Mediterranean countries freak out about what’s happening in North Africa. The wrangling over sending more troops to Mali or to Estonia is the reflection of the differing security concerns of individual members of the far-flung pact. The power divide is less easy to see but more problematic for Washington. V_3 (A2) Of the European powers, only four—Germany, France, Italy, and Great Britain—may be considered to be powerful and independent political actors with which the US has to contend on anything like an equal basis. The first three form the core of the European Union, whereas Great Britain opted for Brexit, likely in part because of the looming big power struggle between the US and the EU that has the potential of degenerating into a destructive trade war. It is doubtful that the skirmishes over Huawei and North Stream 2 are anything but the opening salvoes in the confrontation over whether the EU will emerge as a political actor independent of the US, or be reduced to a collection of client states. Unfortunately, America’s task is made easier by the fact of the intra-European divisions mentioned above.

United States is pursuing development of several hypersonic missile systems with the aim of ultimately fielding very large numbers of them in order to be able to launch disarming first strikes against Russian and Chinese nuclear arsenals. Since the weapons themselves are relatively short-ranged (though that may change once the US allows New START to lapse), they require basing close to their intended targets. That means having to find countries willing to base them in Europe, where it is liable to provoke a  political debate of the magnitude comparable to that of the original Euromissile controversy of the 1980s. Since Germany is not interested in being reduced to the status of a US client, it has resisted the US on a variety of fronts, including the North Stream 2, the refusal to buy F-35s, and now also the lack of desire to host the new US missiles. Even the German defense spending increases are intended at least as much to counter US influence in Eastern Europe as the supposed Russian threat to NATO. The United States has responded using the usual array of tools: economic sanctions on any and all European entities participating in the project and even using the gas, apparently launching a cyber-attack that US-friendly German intelligence promptly blamed on Russia, and also threatening to move US troops out of Germany and possibly to Poland. There is even discussion and rumors that US nuclear weapons stationed in Germany might be moved to Poland.

The outcome of this so far is a power struggle between two NATO allies, US and Germany, over the political alignment of a third—Poland. While Germany has the power of EU institutions on its side and massive economic gravitational pull, US has cultivated a cadre of friends, possibly intelligence assets, as a result of post-9/11 collaboration in Afghanistan, Iraq, and in the realm of intelligence-sharing. This has produced a government more than willing to deploy US troops, missiles, and even nukes on Poland’s territory. The power of US influence is visible in Poland’s weapons procurement: Patriot, Javelin, HIMARS, F-35, and not a single comparable European system in recent years. The US weakness in this confrontation consists of the unwillingness to subsidize Poland economically which, combined with the ruling party’s fiscal irresponsibility, will make it difficult for the country to maintain its anti-German course in the longer term.

While in Eastern Europe US national security state is using Poland as a proxy against Germany, in the Mediterranean it has adopted Turkey as a proxy against France and Italy. After some hemming and hawing, the US hawks dropped the Kurds yet again, with Trump happily taking the blame, in order to piggy-back on Erdogan’s Libya ambitions to curtail French and Italian interests there. To be sure, Turkey retains far more autonomy in the relationship than Poland, which was unable or unwilling to play US and Russia and EU against one another in order to secure a measure of freedom of action. But the US Congress measures to allow the purchase of S-400 weapons from Turkey is an indicator that Turkey’s behavior is once again useful to the US. And even though Turkey was excluded from the F-35 program, its firms continue to make components for various assembly plants. The result has been a number of stand-offs between Turkish warships on one hand and French and Italian on the other off the coasts of Libya. And whereas France and Italy are backing the Marshal Haftar’s LNA, Turkey’s preferred proxy is the GNA, leading to a veritable “anti-Turkey” alliance being formed that includes Turkey’s old time NATO adversary Greece. While the US is officially aloof of the entire situation, in practice controlling Libya’s oil is part of the Washington strategy of “energy dominance” every bit as the North Stream 2 sanctions are.

The remarkable part of these two sets of conflicts among NATO powers is that in both cases Russia has sided with Germany and France against the US in both cases. It is Russia’s policies that are more beneficial to French and German interests than America’s, since Russia is not actually seeking to monopolize energy supplies to Europe in the way that the US clearly and openly is.

So far the US strategy consisted of steadily ratcheting up pressure through sanctions and proxies and occasional intelligence-generated anti-Russia provocations (sometimes helpfully delivered by British agencies), trying to find that happy middle of policies that actually force Germany, France, and Italy to change their policies and which do not force a permanent breach in the trans-Atlantic relationship. But the cracks in the relationship are clearly visible and they are not attributable to Trump’s erratic and brusque manner. It is the US Congress which passed the successive rounds of anti-North Stream 2 sanctions, with strong partisan majorities. It means the assertion of US control over European major powers is part of the US agenda. Since that agenda is motivated by a US political and economic crisis of a magnitude not seen since the 1930s, there is little likelihood Biden’s presidency would represent a radical departure from the current trend.

Of course, for Germany, France, and Italy to successfully resist US encroachment they would first need to transform the EU into something closer than a federation. The COVID-19 pandemic and the associated economic crisis already providing considerable impetus for such a transformation, America’s insatiable appetites might provide the rest.

via ZeroHedge News https://ift.tt/2OWz18n Tyler Durden

Coronavirus Cuisine

featuregrier

This was not going to plan. On Monday, March 16, I was supposed to be in Austin, Texas, wrapping up a weeklong event at South by Southwest, where I would have been making Scandinavian craft cocktails alongside some of the top chefs in Denmark. Instead I was home in Portland, Oregon, essentially unemployed, alone on the patio of a brewery enjoying one last beer before my entire industry ground to a halt.

A few other lasts had occurred at the end of February, before I had any inkling of how drastically the “novel coronavirus” would disrupt the hospitality business. My last flight to New York City, which I happened to share with a friend who, upon landing, discovered his phone blowing up with congratulations for his bar’s James Beard Award nomination. Our last extravagant celebration that night, with champagne and exquisite French food and gigantic bottles of rare Chartreuse someone had smuggled over in suitcases from Europe. My last venture into food tourism, taking the Staten Island Ferry out to find lunch in America’s largest Sri Lankan neighborhood.

So many aspects of this ordinary trip seem impossible now: flying on planes, taking public transportation, casually running into friends, and, more than anything else, packing into restaurants and sharing dishes and drinks without the specter of a deadly disease hanging over us. By March 16, it was clear those things would be going away for a long time. The executive order shutting down businesses in the state was still a day away, but Oregonians were already staying home. I’d worked a couple of bartending shifts the week before—two of the slowest and lowest paid of my career.

Those last nights before the executive order I hesitantly visited a few of my favorite bars, torn between a desire to honor the virtues of social distancing and a desire to offer a last gesture of support to friends in my industry. I came up with ways to rationalize the visits: The places were mostly empty. The only people out were other service-sector folks. We all knew our time was up. I imagine it’s what being at Lehman Brothers in 2008 must have felt like, if people at Lehman Brothers were covered in tattoos and worked for tips. “See you on the other side,” we said as we parted ways, tapping elbows instead of hugging and having no idea what that would mean.

A few months into life under COVID-19, we’re beginning to figure it out. The combination of state lockdowns and public fear of the virus has gutted the hospitality industry at all levels, taking down businesses of every size and stature. Serving a quality product and cultivating a loyal following is no guarantee of success in the present crisis. Through no fault of their own, many beloved places will shutter forever. But amid the grim news, some of the top bars and restaurants in the country are finding innovative ways to survive. They provide hopeful glimpses into the possible future of a drastically altered dining culture.

First, the Bad News

There’s no sugarcoating it: The COVID-19 pandemic has devastated bars, restaurants, and other hospitality businesses, driving unprecedented levels of unemployment. The economic shock is difficult to fathom. Prior to the current crisis, the highest number of unemployment claims filed in one week in the United States was 695,000. In the last week of March, claims exceeded 6 million. By mid-May, more than 36 million Americans had filed, a grim statistic that still undercounts the damage. No industry was hit harder than leisure and hospitality, which shed at least 8 million jobs—nearly half the sector—in just two months.

In various states and cities, restaurants were forced by emergency shutdown orders to cease all on-premise service. Many business owners made the decision to shut down independently for the safety of their guests and employees. And politics aside, consumer demand fell drastically as awareness of the pandemic took hold.

Predictions for the year ahead in the restaurant business are dismal. A James Beard Foundation poll of 1,400 predominantly small and independent restaurants found that nearly 40 percent had closed at least temporarily and that only 20 percent of owners in jurisdictions that had shut down felt confident they could remain solvent. Industry observers predict that a quarter to half of bars and restaurants won’t survive.

Government responses have focused on providing aid to workers. In March, the federal government passed a temporary boost to unemployment benefits. It also implemented the Paycheck Protection Program, a federal fund aimed at keeping workers on payroll.

Less has been done to ensure the viability of small businesses; slow response times and inadequate funding excluded many from the initial round of Paycheck Protection Program loans, which favored larger chains. And the relief that was available wouldn’t be enough for the long term: Businesses were going to need to find ways to make it on their own.

From Haute Cuisine to Hamburgers

Aaron Barnett is the chef-owner of St. Jack, a French bistro in Portland, which in current conditions means he’s also the chief dishwasher and prep cook. Prior to the official statewide shutdown, he made the difficult decision to lay off most of his staff and transition into takeout. Unfortunately, meals that work well in a dining room often don’t translate to delivery.

“A lot of French food doesn’t travel well,” Barnett says. “You can’t serve an emulsified sauce and expect it to be good after 25 minutes in a car.” Instead, more casual menu items, such as the hamburger and frites or the fried chicken sandwich, are leading sales. “I don’t know when St. Jack became a burger joint, but we’re selling a lot of burgers now.”

Barnett also looked into how restaurants serving other cuisines package their takeout so he could adapt the practices to his own cooking. Vietnamese pho, often delivered with the broth in a separate container for the customer to reheat at home, inspired Barnett’s own takeout pot-au-feu, a French stew. “I made a porcini consommé that you can boil and pour over the top,” he says. “It’s tough coming up with fun dishes like that, but they work out really well.”

Barnett isn’t the only high-end chef unexpectedly flipping burgers these days. In mid-May, René Redzepi of Copenhagen’s Noma—frequently named the best restaurant in the world and a pathbreaking leader in New Nordic cuisine—announced that Noma would temporarily reopen as an outdoor wine garden and burger bar. You see it, too, at Portland’s Gado Gado, a Beard-nominated Indonesian-Chinese restaurant that has won national acclaim for its rijstaffel, an elaborate family-style feast of curries and sambals. Gado Gado has morphed into Oma’s Takeaway, where diners pick up bags of “Asian stoner food” such as the “Omazing Burger,” a burger accented with Asian touches like coconut-herb butter and a side salad of pickled papaya.

Some of these changes simply reflect the need to serve food that travels well for takeout or delivery, but even as restaurants gradually reopen to diners, they will face pressures that limit the potential for high cuisine. Restaurateur and Top Chef judge Tom Colicchio predicts a “dumbing down” of restaurants and a move toward comfort food. That can still be delicious, of course, but it will favor certain kinds of dishes—burgers, pizza, barbecue—over labor-intensive preparations that require a full dining room to be economically viable.

Beef Ribs of Instagram

Top-tier restaurant food isn’t just about tasting good. It’s also about looking good, both in person and on social media. Yet no matter how good they taste, meals in to-go boxes and plastic deli containers will never be as Instagrammable as the dishes at contemporary restaurants. Nonetheless, social media is proving essential to making takeout a viable option for restaurants that would have barely considered that market before.

“I can’t imagine not having it,” Jen Quist says of social media. Quist is co-owner of the Portland restaurant Bullard, which she opened in late 2018 with chef Doug Adams. With a downtown location in the lobby of a temporarily closed hotel, her neighborhood has become dead to foot traffic. Fortunately, Bullard’s large-format Texas-inspired dishes sell out almost immediately when Quist posts them to the restaurant’s Instagram account. That account directs customers to Tock, a reservation website for high-end restaurants that has pivoted from securing tables to securing food for pickup or delivery.

“We’re doing 60 meals a day, five days a week,” Quist says. Everything they serve is true to the style of the restaurant, with an emphasis on smoked meats, though they’ve had to be flexible due to the unpredictable availability of ingredients. “We’ve taken a pause on our beef rib because that’s been hard to get,” she explains. But when they can offer it? Even at $82 for dinner for two, their beef rib is snapped up within minutes. “What’s really been amazing to us is the repeat business and the bond we’ve created with people who’ve supported us the whole way through. We see the same people a few times a week every single week.”

Though the ubiquity of smartphones in restaurants was often lamented, the fact that so many potential customers now have internet-connected devices on them at all times is offering businesses ways to adapt that would not have existed in previous decades. Advertising dishes, queuing orders, taking payments, and arranging deliveries are all enabled by phones. And social media platforms allow restaurateurs to stay in touch with their clientele, if only virtually. “It’s the only way to connect with people,” says Quist. “We see how people interact with us because we interact back.”

Rolling Back Prohibition

For some bars and restaurants, the lockdowns mean adopting an entirely new playbook. That’s especially true for drinking establishments, many of which are now operating in a legal environment that would have been unimaginable as recently as the beginning of this year.

Three weeks before the lockdown in Washington state, bar manager Keith Waldbauer had just opened the doors at The Doctor’s Office, a brand new cocktail lounge in Seattle. “We barely had a chance to establish our systems,” he says. “We were just getting into our groove.”

The Doctor’s Office is an intimate 12-seat bar with obsessively curated classic cocktails, each one fine-tuned through a process that involved blind tasting hundreds of different combinations of ingredients. It’s the last place one would expect to find a to-go option, in part because, until recently, such an option would have been illegal. But when Washington liquor regulators unexpectedly allowed bars to sell cocktails for takeout or delivery, Waldbauer adapted the “global tasting room” concept for the new model.

Those perfect cocktails—Vespers, Manhattans, Negronis—now come in 4-ounce glass bottles for the customer to drink at home, with the garnishes packaged in mini compostable to-go containers. The bar is also drawing on its extensive liquor selection to offer flights, featuring 1-ounce pours of rare spirits like Macurichos Tepeztate mezcal or Nikka Yoichi Japanese whisky. Eventually Keith wants to offer virtual spirits classes taught by his bartenders, getting them some hours of work and bringing part of the intimate bar experience home.

Yet state laws still prohibit some bars from making drinks for off-site consumption. On the West Coast, the freedom to sell cocktails to go is a striking divide. It’s now allowed in Washington and California but still prohibited in Oregon. The option is high on the wish list of seemingly every Portland restaurateur with a spirits license. “I’m so jealous of my friends in Seattle who get to do that,” says Bullard’s Quist. Or as St. Jack’s Barnett puts it, “I would fucking kill to be able to do it.”

The cocktail revival that began in the aughts has turned bar programs, once an incidental part of a meal, into a vital part of the contemporary restaurant experience. That’s especially true at Kachka, an acclaimed Russian restaurant in Portland owned by Bonnie and Israel Morales that’s famous for its house-made vodka infusions. Their piquant horseradish vodka is a signature of the establishment—but one they’re forbidden from sharing in a takeout format.

Before the closure, “we would make 18 gallons a week,” Israel says. “If we were allowed to sell cocktails and infusions [during the lockdown], I probably would have to hire two more people just to keep up with it. The number of requests and people offering to bribe us to sell our horseradish vodka is amazing.” But unless Oregon law changes, he’ll have to keep turning potential customers away.

Changing Your Business Model, and Your Identity

Toward the end of 2019, Bonnie and Israel expanded Kachka by opening Lavka, an adjoining deli and eastern European grocery. In the COVID economy, that’s turned out to be a better idea than they could have possibly imagined, positioning the restaurant to continue operating with much more than basic takeout. “I’m a restaurateur, not a grocer,” Israel says. “So it’s not even just changing your business model. It’s changing your identity.”

Lavka provides customers with hard-to-find deli products as well as mundane goods that became scarce due to disruptions to supply chains. “What’s been really big for us? Toilet paper,” Israel says with a laugh. He also buys 200-pound bags of flour and breaks them down into two-pound portions, feeding the nation’s sourdough baking frenzy.

Through their website, the couple has started selling frozen bags of their popular Siberian pelmeni, flavorful dumplings filled with pork, beef, and onions, shipped anywhere in the United States. None of this replaces normal business, but it has allowed Kachka to keep 10 employees working. “It’s the restaurant version of finding change under your couch cushions,” Israel says.

At Lazy Bear in San Francisco’s Mission District, chef-owner David Barzelay has also found grocery sales essential to success in the new environment. The Michelin-starred restaurant normally offers two sold-out seatings per night featuring a multi-course tasting menu at around $200 per person. Now it’s doing “Camp Commissary,” a menu of takeaway breakfast foods, sandwiches, and pantry items such as cultured butter, pickles, and take-and-bake cinnamon buns. Barzelay says the hot food acts almost as a loss leader: Guests come for a sandwich, but they leave with a bag full of provisions.

No Anchor, a beer-focused restaurant in Seattle, has similarly had to switch gears. When the state shut down, owner Chris Elford found himself with gallons of IPA and no way to sell it. Rather than let it go to waste, he saw an opportunity. “We already had a beer vinegar mother going,” he says. “All of our vinegar has been made from run-off from our taps from day one.” Those 35 gallons of IPA became the starting ingredient for No Anchor Provisions, the restaurant’s new line of vinegars and vinegar-based hot sauces.

Like many other business owners, Elford expects provisions to be part of his strategy for the long term. Bars and restaurants may reopen soon, but in many cases it will be at half their pre-COVID capacity. Complementing food and drink for consumption on-site with packaged goods for consumption off-site is likely to become a more essential part of the bar and restaurant business than ever before.

The Limits of Coronavirus Cuisine

Even as states reopen, the pandemic will bring new challenges to the dining experience: Both employees and guests will need to stay farther apart. That means fewer tables in the dining room, fewer cooks in the kitchen, and fewer dollars per square foot. Hours of operation may be restricted during the initial phases of reopening, and in some places face-to-face bar service may be forbidden. A deep nationwide recession will cut into demand, and a massive decline in tourism will eliminate a source of consumers willing to make expensive nights out a memorable part of their travel experiences. All of that adds up to limit culinary ambitions.

Other limits are less obvious. Contemplating the future at St. Jack, Barnett envisions switching from paper menus to hand-written chalkboard easels. But that will entail shrinking the number of items available. And the restaurant’s lengthy wine list? There’s no way they could print a new one for each customer, especially not in waste-conscious Portland.

Another concern is that suppliers may not have as much to offer. Behind the scenes of the modern restaurant or bar is an intricate web of purveyors whose businesses are also facing extreme disruption. Some restaurateurs are trying to head this off by designing their takeaway menus to help ensure that the suppliers they most rely upon will still be in business when it’s time to reopen. “By focusing on a few purveyors, we can make a big impact,” Barzelay says. He cites Sonoma County Poultry’s “Liberty Ducks” as an example. The fowl make their way into Lazy Bear’s bahn mi sandwich as breast, confit, and liver pâté, as well as into take-home provisions including stock, duck fat, and whole cuts.

But as with so many workarounds, this approach can only help so much. The contemporary cocktail renaissance, for example, grew in a symbiotic relationship with specialty importers such as Eric Seed of Haus Alpenz. Seed’s company helped revive the market for esoteric spirits like crème de violette, a French liqueur flavored with violet flowers, and Batavia arrack, a funky Indonesian rum. These and other once-forgotten bottles are now mainstays of the American cocktail scene.

Though Seed is still seeing growth for many products, he notes that the ongoing trade war has rendered the wine and spirits business particularly fragile. Tariffs are driving prices up at the same time that incomes are going down. After the Trump administration threatened in February to impose additional taxes, many importers and wholesalers began to stock up in anticipation, leaving them with less cash on hand when the virus hit. Seed worries that “the dual punch of tariffs and recession” will “harm all but the most durable of producers.”

The New Normal

When you think of Texas barbecue, you probably don’t think of Portland, Oregon. Odds are you don’t expect to hear East Coast–sounding names like Matt Vicedomini, and you definitely don’t expect to run into an Akkapong “Earl” Ninsom. Yet Vicedomini and Ninsom are partners in Eem, one of the hardest-to-snag tables in pre-COVID Portland, a current James Beard finalist for best new restaurant, and the place that even Texas Monthly declared in 2019 to be “simply the most exciting barbecue restaurant to open this year.”

Eem isn’t Texas barbecue in the traditional sense—it isn’t traditional anything, really. The hit restaurant arose through the collision of two very different culinary lineages. Ninsom moved from Thailand to Los Angeles in 2000 to learn English and work in his cousin’s Thai restaurant. He eventually settled in Portland, achieving success with expertly prepared Thai cuisine, ranging from upscale regional tasting menus at Langbaan to casual fried chicken at Hat Yai. Vicedomini, meanwhile, grew up in Long Island, began cooking barbecue with a Texas-trained pitmaster while living in Melbourne, Australia, and also ended up in Portland. There, he refined the art of smoked meats, building up a cult following at his rough-hewn Matt’s BBQ cart.

The two married their talents at Eem, where barbecue brisket gets sliced for spicy jungle curry and chopped for wonderfully smoky fried rice. The combinations are unexpected and mind-blowingly delicious.

The creativity that makes Eem (and places like it) so much fun arrives via circuitous, unpredictable paths, combining traditions, techniques, ingredients, and approaches to hospitality in new ways. Often they fail; sometimes they make magic. That magic will be harder to come by in the post-COVID restaurant economy.

When we think of things going back to “normal,” we really mean back to what we may eventually regard as a golden age of restaurant culture. The flourishing of the last decade or so was enabled by travel, immigration, international trade, intricately connected local suppliers, traditional food media, internet communities, and smartphones capable of taking professional quality photographs. Most of all, it was enabled by increasing prosperity and an openness to new experiences.

Prosperity and openness are both threatened now, the former by the economic crash and the latter by the fear that social gatherings will transmit an invisible and potentially deadly virus. The dream is that an effective vaccine will be developed in record time and we can hit a reset button on this year; the restaurant and bar economy, emerging from its deep sleep, will come back to life and pick up right where it left off.

The reality is likely to be far more difficult. Census data reveals that new business applications are already plummeting, and that likely portends a greater stagnation to come. Adam Ozimek, chief economist at Upwork, a global platform for freelance and remote workers, and an adviser for the Economic Innovation Group, a public policy organization advocating for economic dynamism, notes that a wave of business failures now would have effects for years. “When we’re talking about a loss as high as 25 percent to 50 percent of restaurants and bars going under, that’s going to do massive damage to the credit and capital of people in this industry,” he says. Those are the same people who possess the local knowledge required to find new opportunities in their communities.

For Ozimek, it’s personal. Although he’s an economist by day, he’s also a partner in Decades, a bowling alley, arcade, restaurant, and bar in his hometown of Lancaster, Pennsylvania. “Our one-year anniversary was the day before we closed,” he says. They’re currently offering takeout, including items such as an enormous 40-ounce soft pretzel, but it’s not enough to sustain a business with that much real estate.

“When your restaurant fails and your debts go bad, entrepreneurial capital gets lost,” Ozimek says. This means that not only would many existing restaurants go out of business but also that new firms would be slow to replace them. “We don’t know what the fall, spring, and next summer are going to look like for the virus risk, so it would be a risky time to start a new venture,” he says.

A wave of closures followed by the slow entrance of new firms is a worst-case scenario for hospitality, dashing the hopes of existing business owners while closing off opportunities for up-and-comers. The near future is likely to favor chain restaurants at the low end and culinary stars at the high end. Success will depend not just on quality and location but also on the technological and social savvy to stand out in a market where more people are staying home and discovering food via their phones. That creates additional barriers for potential new entrants hoping to make a modest beginning.

Still, for all the well-founded pessimism, the restaurant business appeals to people who find ways to adapt. Barzelay is undeterred from plans to open another restaurant later in 2020 and notes that his own career was born in the previous recession. He graduated from Georgetown Law School in 2008, began working as an attorney in San Francisco that September, and was laid off eight months later. He had taken up cooking as a serious hobby while in law school, and he debuted Lazy Bear as an underground restaurant at his apartment in September 2009. “I didn’t start it as a test concept or even to make money,” he says. “I started it because I had time.” A decade later, he has a brick-and-mortar and two Michelin stars, plus an upscale cocktail lounge nearby.

The near-term outlook for restaurants is gloomy, with widespread unemployment and business closures all but certain. But this will gradually create opportunities. Commercial rents will drop. It will be easier to hire workers. Regulations swept aside in the emergency, such as bans on selling takeaway alcohol and restrictions on outdoor dining, could be permanently eased. Technologies from smartphones to delivery robots will continue to change the way we find, pay for, and receive our meals. The uncertainty of the pandemic, which may rise and fall in waves, will perhaps lead to a boom time for pop-ups: short-term ventures where out-of-work cooks and bartenders can try out new ideas, polishing them in preparation for when conditions become more secure.

Barnett is less pessimistic for the industry than some others, though he notes that things will have to change, such as moving tables outside, requiring servers to wear masks, and of course relying more on takeout hamburgers. “If you’re stuck as a chef or an owner where you think you can just plug ahead doing what you’ve been doing, you’re going to be sadly mistaken,” he says.

As for what comes next, “I don’t know if it will be a disappearance or a renaissance of fine dining,” Barnett says. But whatever it is, “we’ll find a way to make it as pretty and nice and charming as possible.”

That’s also the view of Kachka’s Israel Morales, who notes that some reinvention will be healthy. “I think a really big mistake would be to assume that everything will go back to normal,” he says. “This is the new normal. So embrace it.”

from Latest – Reason.com https://ift.tt/3039OQd
via IFTTT