web analytics
a

Facebook

Twitter

Copyright 2015 Libero Themes.
All Rights Reserved.

8:30 - 6:00

Our Office Hours Mon. - Fri.

703-406-7616

Call For Free 15/M Consultation

Facebook

Twitter

Search
Menu
Westlake Legal Group > News Corporation (Page 394)

Sabres rookie Olofsson ties NHL power-play goal record

Buffalo Sabres rookie forward Victor Olofsson has tied an NHL record in becoming the fourth player to score each of his first six career goals on the power play.

Olofsson made it six in a row with a one-timer off Jack Eichel’s pass into the right circle to open the scoring 5:04 into the first period against Montreal on Wednesday night. The Swede’s streak dates to the end of last season, when he scored twice in two games.

Winnipeg’s Craig Norwich in 1979-80, Hartford’s Sylvain Turgeon in 1983-84 and Islanders’ Jeff Norton, from 1987-88 to 1989-90, share the record.

Nicknamed “Goal-ofsson” by Sabres fans, the 24-year-old Olofsson was selected in the seventh-round of the 2014 draft. He spent five seasons playing in the Swedish Elite League before signing with the Sabres in April 2018.

Westlake Legal Group NHL-Victor-Olofsson Sabres rookie Olofsson ties NHL power-play goal record fox-news/sports/nhl/buffalo-sabres fox-news/sports/nhl fnc/sports fnc fccca071-2b5f-5b7f-9edc-7a5001c03370 Associated Press article   Westlake Legal Group NHL-Victor-Olofsson Sabres rookie Olofsson ties NHL power-play goal record fox-news/sports/nhl/buffalo-sabres fox-news/sports/nhl fnc/sports fnc fccca071-2b5f-5b7f-9edc-7a5001c03370 Associated Press article

Real Estate, and Personal Injury Lawyers. Contact us at: https://westlakelegal.com 

Mike Pence Refuses Five Times to Answer Questions About Trump’s Alleged Quid Pro Quo With Ukraine

Westlake Legal Group lXBm0N0rBhIBDMPD8peMPn-RJb2htJLmGdCH2KBAPsQ Mike Pence Refuses Five Times to Answer Questions About Trump's Alleged Quid Pro Quo With Ukraine r/politics

I remain convinced that Pence is playing the long game, and that this was the original reason he accepted the position of VP: Because he knew that Trump would fuck things up eventually, and thus he would become president.

He’s done way too well at keeping his head down this entire time, never associating himself too much with Trump while defending him only if he absolutely had to.

Pence knows what’s going on, and he knows he will be the next president. Say what you will, but he’s played his cards well.

Real Estate, and Personal Injury Lawyers. Contact us at: https://westlakelegal.com 

Protests await Donald Trump in Minneapolis as he holds his first rally since impeachment inquiry’s launch

CLOSEWestlake Legal Group icon_close Protests await Donald Trump in Minneapolis as he holds his first rally since impeachment inquiry's launch

MINNEAPOLIS – President Donald Trump has repeatedly boasted that he plans to flip the blue state of Minnesota in 2020, and to prove his point he’s headed to the Democratic bastion of Minneapolis Thursday for his first campaign rally since House Democrats launched an impeachment inquiry against him. 

Minneapolis, a sanctuary city known for its left-leaning politics, is also home to Rep. Ilhan Omar, a Somali-born freshman lawmaker the president has repeatedly lashed out at on Twitter and cast as the one of the faces of the Democratic party. 

Omar, who won 78% of her district in 2018, enjoys wide support in her hometown of Minneapolis. The city is preparing to greet the president by holding a massive protest outside Target Center in downtown Minneapolis, where he will speak Thursday night. 

Thousands are expected to attend the protest, which will center on fighting Trump’s anti-immigration policies and what critics see as divisive rhetoric, according to Giselda Guiterrez, an organizer with Minnesota Immigrant Rights Action Committee (MIRAC), which is coordinating the protest with other local activist groups. She expects a large turnout among the city’s diverse community.

Minnesota, which is home to a large Somali immigrant population, also has the largest number of refugees per capita nationwide, with 13% of the country’s refugees, according to U.S. Census data.

“We just want to have a strong community presence of thousands of people that oppose the president’s message of hate against every marginalized community that he’s attacked one way or another,” Guiterrez said. 

She said she expects Trump to upbraid Omar during the rally since she is “a constant focus of his Twitter.”

“He will attack her for sure, and that’s going to bleed into attacking the community here in general.” 

But the battle for Minnesota began well before Omar was elected to the U.S. House of Representatives in 2018. Minnesota, which hasn’t elected a Republican president since Richard Nixon in 1972, narrowly voted for Hillary Clinton by 1.5% in 2016. Trump, who lost by a margin of 44,000 votes, has indicated he thinks he can close that gap in 2020. 

According to Republican National Committee (RNC) officials, the campaign has built out a training program since 2016 that counts nearly 1,000 local volunteers across the state as part of the Trump Leadership Victory Initiative. Republicans have focused much of their attention on rural parts of Minnesota, where the GOP flipped two congressional seats during the 2018 midterm election. 

Minnesota Democrats have acknowledged local GOP efforts, noting in a Twitter thread donation drive on Monday that the state has been trending more red in previous presidential elections. 

“The Trump campaign is staffing up in Minnesota in ways we’ve never seen before, and frankly we just can’t keep up,” one Tweet read

Vice President Mike Pence and his wife Karen will also attend the rally, but it’s unclear if the big names can help fill Target Center’s nearly 20,000 seats. 

Ahead of his visit, Trump has amplified his attacks on both Omar and Minneapolis Mayor Jacob Frey, a vocal critic of Trump who drew the president’s ire after city officials told the venue where the rally is taking place it would be responsible for footing the bill of $530,000 in security costs related to the visit. The venue, Target Center, tried to pass off the bill to the Trump campaign, which responded by threatening to sue for breach of contract. Trump weighed in on the fracas on Twitter on Tuesday, calling the mayor “lightweight” and calling on his supporters to “dump” both Frey and Omar. 

According to the Trump campaign, the Target Center withdrew its request to pay security fees upfront. Trump supporters stormed the mayor’s office Wednesday to protest the cost of the event.

The president also took issue with a recent Minnesota Police Department policy change barring off-duty officers from wearing uniforms to political events. The police union responded by designing “Cops for Trump” shirts that officers plan to wear and sell at the event. 

‘Sea of red’:Minnesota police barred from wearing uniforms to Trump rally

Winning Minnesota would be an uphill battle for the president. Trump’s net approval ratings have dropped from +3 in January 2017 to -11, according to Morning Consult

Local Minneapolis resident James Allison said he’s not convinced by the numbers just yet. 

“I’ve talked to a lot of people who have voted Democratic or typically vote Democratic, and they’re voting for Trump this time around,” the 38-year-old said. “There’s a whole host of reasons that people are voting for him, but hate and fascism are not among them.” 

But Jackie Craig, who works with Women’s March Minnesota and plans to attend Thursday’s protest, said she believes his strategy in Minnesota isn’t working. 

“I think he’s actually bringing people closer together, and people here more understanding of each other’s differences and supporting one another,” she said. “And that diversity and inclusiveness will be on display outside the rally.”

Read or Share this story: https://www.usatoday.com/story/news/politics/elections/2019/10/10/donald-trump-rally-ilhan-omars-minneapolis-district/3901543002/

Real Estate, and Personal Injury Lawyers. Contact us at: https://westlakelegal.com 

Trump Administration Weighs Economic Escalation Against China

Westlake Legal Group merlin_159733326_365ee0f3-4455-4e35-ac0d-5d771ddbe5bc-facebookJumbo Trump Administration Weighs Economic Escalation Against China United States Politics and Government United States International Relations United States Economy Trump, Donald J Securities and Exchange Commission Regulation and Deregulation of Industry Pillsbury, Michael (1945- ) Kudlow, Lawrence A International Trade and World Market Embargoes and Sanctions Economic Conditions and Trends Customs (Tariff) China

WASHINGTON — Trump administration officials are weighing a range of options that could inflict additional economic pain on China as the United States continues looking for ways to force Beijing to change longstanding practices that have put American companies at a disadvantage.

The ideas under consideration would move the White House’s negotiating tool of choice beyond tariffs toward limiting China’s access to American capital markets and imposing greater scrutiny on its companies, according to people familiar with the discussions.

Administration officials, including members of the National Security Council, have begun pressing the Securities and Exchange Commission to tighten its checks on Chinese firms. They are also looking for ways to reduce the exposure of American retirement funds to certain Chinese companies.

Many of those efforts have been proceeding independently from the trade talks — which resume again this week — and are fueled by longer-term considerations of China’s economic and security threats. Some White House advisers now view those options as an additional lever to force China to make the kinds of deep economic concessions that have so far proved elusive in the talks, which have dragged on for more than a year.

Top-level officials from both countries will convene on Thursday for their 13th round of trade negotiations. They are expected to discuss proposals for a somewhat limited trade deal that would address some of President Trump’s criticisms of China’s economic practices but still be acceptable to Beijing.

Some administration officials have been hopeful that a deal will lock in more intellectual property protections for American companies and provide those firms with greater access to Chinese markets. They also want to avoid further tariffs on Chinese goods that have begun to weigh on American consumers.

If China makes sufficient concessions, some in the administration are willing to roll back a portion of the tariffs that Mr. Trump has placed on more than $360 billion of Chinese goods, people familiar with the discussions said. They may also approve licenses that would allow some companies to sell nonsensitive goods to the Chinese telecom provider Huawei, which has been blacklisted from buying American products.

But China has resisted many of the administration’s demands to make more transformative changes to the way it runs its economy. Chinese officials have come to Washington this week eager to settle on a narrow deal that would involve tariff reductions in exchange for a resumption of Chinese purchases of American food. They appear unlikely to agree to the administration’s longstanding demands that Beijing limit its subsidies to Chinese firms, change its policies surrounding the treatment of data or make other structural changes, people familiar with the negotiations said.

The potential for such a limited agreement has fueled private deliberations within the White House on options for escalating economic pressure on China.

Officials have held meetings in recent weeks to consider escalation options if the current round of negotiations fails to address the administration’s primary concerns. Mr. Trump’s top economic advisers have publicly played down the discussions, which have centered on tightening scrutiny of Chinese companies listed on American stock exchanges and limiting the direct exposure of government-run retirement funds to China.

Larry Kudlow, the director of the National Economic Council, acknowledged on Tuesday that the administration was looking for ways to protect Americans who were investing in Chinese companies.

“We’ve opened up a study group to take a look at it,” Mr. Kudlow said on the Fox Business Network.

But the options under consideration go further than that. According to a memo circulated within the White House and reviewed by The New York Times, the administration is studying a menu of actions that, if carried out, would most likely rattle the Chinese government.

The memo was drafted by Michael Pillsbury, a China scholar at the Hudson Institute and an outside adviser to the White House. It proposes holding Chinese companies and their employees criminally liable for financial disclosure violations, broadening the criteria that could get prominent Chinese companies blacklisted in the United States and blocking public and private pension funds and university endowments from certain Chinese investments.

Other options go beyond financial scrutiny of Chinese companies. The memo describes the possibility of fostering deeper ties between the United States and Taiwan and disrupting the flow of capital between Hong Kong and mainland China if it is determined that Hong Kong’s autonomy is not being respected.

It also lays out legislation in Congress, which Mr. Trump has yet to endorse, that would impose sanctions on China for activity in contested areas of the South China Sea and crack down on Chinese-funded Confucius Institutes at American universities.

Mr. Pillsbury declined to comment on his conversations with the White House but acknowledged that he had been analyzing such possibilities for a coming study on China strategy for the Hudson Institute.

“It appears that tariffs alone are not enough, but we also need to meet some of the Chinese demands to get the kind of deal the president wants,” Mr. Pillsbury said.

A White House spokesman declined to comment.

Mr. Trump’s tariffs have already pushed some companies to move their operations out of China. But the raft of new investment restrictions and export controls that the administration is mulling would further sever supply chains and discourage financial integration between the countries, potentially to the detriment of financial markets.

On Monday, the White House clamped down on Chinese firms it accused of human rights violations by adding eight companies and 20 government organizations to an entity list that will prevent them from buying American products. On Tuesday, the State Department announced visa restrictions for Chinese officials allegedly involved in the detention and abuse of Muslim minorities.

An array of initiatives related to American capital markets and investments made by retirement funds in Chinese entities are also under consideration.

The most advanced discussions have centered on the Thrift Savings Plan, the retirement plan for federal employees and the military. As of next year, that plan, which holds nearly $50 billion in assets, is expected to begin investing in an index fund that includes more Chinese and Russian companies, as part of an effort to diversify its exposure.

The index fund includes companies that the United States government has imposed sanctions on — including Hangzhou Hikvision Digital Technology, which was among the companies blacklisted on Monday. It also includes AviChina Industry & Technology, an affiliate of China’s major military aircraft and weapons manufacturer; ZTE, which was hit with sanctions for providing technology to North Korea and Iran; and several Russian companies that the Treasury Department’s Office of Foreign Assets Control has put under sanctions.

Officials have also been discussing efforts to close loopholes that give Chinese companies access to American capital markets with less stringent disclosure requirements than American firms or those from other countries.

Chinese law requires the records of companies based in China to be kept there, and restricts the kind of documentation that auditors can transfer out of the country. The rules mean that hundreds of Chinese firms, with a collective market capitalization of more than $1 trillion, have received looser oversight than companies in other jurisdictions, according to the Securities and Exchange Commission.

A bipartisan group of senators has introduced legislation that would force Chinese companies to comply with S.E.C. disclosure regulations or be delisted from American exchanges in three years. White House officials have debated throwing their support behind the bill, but several officials, including Mr. Kudlow and Treasury Secretary Steven Mnuchin, have opposed delisting as a draconian option that could throw American stock markets into turmoil.

“Delisting is not on the table,” Mr. Kudlow told reporters on Monday. He said the administration was responding to complaints to the commission about a lack of transparency and compliance, “but we’re very early in our deliberations.”

Elizabeth Economy, the director for Asia studies at the Council on Foreign Relations, said that addressing the lack of compliance among Chinese companies was “overdue” but that a solution would ideally be negotiated between Chinese companies and the S.E.C.

“Nobody benefits from a mass delisting of Chinese companies on U.S. stock exchanges,” Ms. Economy said.

Henrietta Treyz, the director of economic policy at Veda Partners, outlined the extensive array of economic weapons at Mr. Trump’s disposal for investors this year. She said she would not be surprised if the S.E.C. stepped up scrutiny of Chinese firms or if the United States imposed penalties on China’s electronic payments systems, such as Alipay, on national security grounds.

Such moves could be far more severe than the tariffs on $550 billion of Chinese imports that the United States will have imposed by the end of the year, leading to a decoupling not just of the American and Chinese economies but of the financial sector as well.

“Tariffs are just a tax, a cost of doing business, but those costs can be digested by passing costs on to consumers or squeezing margins or diversifying your end consumer,” Ms. Treyz said. “If you’re no longer allowed to ship or buy products from Huawei or other entity list companies, you’ve shut out an entire pipeline of access, not to mention lost 1.3 billion potential customers in China.”

Real Estate, and Personal Injury Lawyers. Contact us at: https://westlakelegal.com 

As China Trade Talks Start, White House Weighs Escalation Options

Westlake Legal Group merlin_159733326_365ee0f3-4455-4e35-ac0d-5d771ddbe5bc-facebookJumbo As China Trade Talks Start, White House Weighs Escalation Options United States Politics and Government United States International Relations United States Economy Trump, Donald J Securities and Exchange Commission Regulation and Deregulation of Industry Pillsbury, Michael (1945- ) Kudlow, Lawrence A International Trade and World Market Embargoes and Sanctions Economic Conditions and Trends Customs (Tariff) China

WASHINGTON — Trump administration officials are weighing a range of options that could inflict additional economic pain on China as the United States continues looking for ways to force Beijing to change longstanding practices that have put American companies at a disadvantage.

The ideas under consideration would move the White House’s negotiating tool of choice beyond tariffs toward limiting China’s access to American capital markets and imposing greater scrutiny on its companies, according to people familiar with the discussions.

Administration officials, including members of the National Security Council, have begun pressing the Securities and Exchange Commission to tighten its checks on Chinese firms. They are also looking for ways to reduce the exposure of American retirement funds to certain Chinese companies.

Many of those efforts have been proceeding independently from the trade talks — which resume again this week — and are fueled by longer-term considerations of China’s economic and security threats. Some White House advisers now view those options as an additional lever to force China to make the kinds of deep economic concessions that have so far proved elusive in the talks, which have dragged on for more than a year.

Top-level officials from both countries will convene on Thursday for their 13th round of trade negotiations. They are expected to discuss proposals for a somewhat limited trade deal that would address some of President Trump’s criticisms of China’s economic practices but still be acceptable to Beijing.

Some administration officials have been hopeful that a deal will lock in more intellectual property protections for American companies and provide those firms with greater access to Chinese markets. They also want to avoid further tariffs on Chinese goods that have begun to weigh on American consumers.

If China makes sufficient concessions, some in the administration are willing to roll back a portion of the tariffs that Mr. Trump has placed on more than $360 billion of Chinese goods, people familiar with the discussions said. They may also approve licenses that would allow some companies to sell nonsensitive goods to the Chinese telecom provider Huawei, which has been blacklisted from buying American products.

But China has resisted many of the administration’s demands to make more transformative changes to the way it runs its economy. Chinese officials have come to Washington this week eager to settle on a narrow deal that would involve tariff reductions in exchange for a resumption of Chinese purchases of American food. They appear unlikely to agree to the administration’s longstanding demands that Beijing limit its subsidies to Chinese firms, change its policies surrounding the treatment of data or make other structural changes, people familiar with the negotiations said.

The potential for such a limited agreement has fueled private deliberations within the White House on options for escalating economic pressure on China.

Officials have held meetings in recent weeks to consider escalation options if the current round of negotiations fails to address the administration’s primary concerns. Mr. Trump’s top economic advisers have publicly played down the discussions, which have centered on tightening scrutiny of Chinese companies listed on American stock exchanges and limiting the direct exposure of government-run retirement funds to China.

Larry Kudlow, the director of the National Economic Council, acknowledged on Tuesday that the administration was looking for ways to protect Americans who were investing in Chinese companies.

“We’ve opened up a study group to take a look at it,” Mr. Kudlow said on the Fox Business Network.

But the options under consideration go further than that. According to a memo circulated within the White House and reviewed by The New York Times, the administration is studying a menu of actions that, if carried out, would most likely rattle the Chinese government.

The memo was drafted by Michael Pillsbury, a China scholar at the Hudson Institute and an outside adviser to the White House. It proposes holding Chinese companies and their employees criminally liable for financial disclosure violations, broadening the criteria that could get prominent Chinese companies blacklisted in the United States and blocking public and private pension funds and university endowments from certain Chinese investments.

Other options go beyond financial scrutiny of Chinese companies. The memo describes the possibility of fostering deeper ties between the United States and Taiwan and disrupting the flow of capital between Hong Kong and mainland China if it is determined that Hong Kong’s autonomy is not being respected.

It also lays out legislation in Congress, which Mr. Trump has yet to endorse, that would impose sanctions on China for activity in contested areas of the South China Sea and crack down on Chinese-funded Confucius Institutes at American universities.

Mr. Pillsbury declined to comment on his conversations with the White House but acknowledged that he had been analyzing such possibilities for a coming study on China strategy for the Hudson Institute.

“It appears that tariffs alone are not enough, but we also need to meet some of the Chinese demands to get the kind of deal the president wants,” Mr. Pillsbury said.

A White House spokesman declined to comment.

Mr. Trump’s tariffs have already pushed some companies to move their operations out of China. But the raft of new investment restrictions and export controls that the administration is mulling would further sever supply chains and discourage financial integration between the countries, potentially to the detriment of financial markets.

On Monday, the White House clamped down on Chinese firms it accused of human rights violations by adding eight companies and 20 government organizations to an entity list that will prevent them from buying American products. On Tuesday, the State Department announced visa restrictions for Chinese officials allegedly involved in the detention and abuse of Muslim minorities.

An array of initiatives related to American capital markets and investments made by retirement funds in Chinese entities are also under consideration.

The most advanced discussions have centered on the Thrift Savings Plan, the retirement plan for federal employees and the military. As of next year, that plan, which holds nearly $50 billion in assets, is expected to begin investing in an index fund that includes more Chinese and Russian companies, as part of an effort to diversify its exposure.

The index fund includes companies that the United States government has imposed sanctions on — including Hangzhou Hikvision Digital Technology, which was among the companies blacklisted on Monday. It also includes AviChina Industry & Technology, an affiliate of China’s major military aircraft and weapons manufacturer; ZTE, which was hit with sanctions for providing technology to North Korea and Iran; and several Russian companies that the Treasury Department’s Office of Foreign Assets Control has put under sanctions.

Officials have also been discussing efforts to close loopholes that give Chinese companies access to American capital markets with less stringent disclosure requirements than American firms or those from other countries.

Chinese law requires the records of companies based in China to be kept there, and restricts the kind of documentation that auditors can transfer out of the country. The rules mean that hundreds of Chinese firms, with a collective market capitalization of more than $1 trillion, have received looser oversight than companies in other jurisdictions, according to the Securities and Exchange Commission.

A bipartisan group of senators has introduced legislation that would force Chinese companies to comply with S.E.C. disclosure regulations or be delisted from American exchanges in three years. White House officials have debated throwing their support behind the bill, but several officials, including Mr. Kudlow and Treasury Secretary Steven Mnuchin, have opposed delisting as a draconian option that could throw American stock markets into turmoil.

“Delisting is not on the table,” Mr. Kudlow told reporters on Monday. He said the administration was responding to complaints to the commission about a lack of transparency and compliance, “but we’re very early in our deliberations.”

Elizabeth Economy, the director for Asia studies at the Council on Foreign Relations, said that addressing the lack of compliance among Chinese companies was “overdue” but that a solution would ideally be negotiated between Chinese companies and the S.E.C.

“Nobody benefits from a mass delisting of Chinese companies on U.S. stock exchanges,” Ms. Economy said.

Henrietta Treyz, the director of economic policy at Veda Partners, outlined the extensive array of economic weapons at Mr. Trump’s disposal for investors this year. She said she would not be surprised if the S.E.C. stepped up scrutiny of Chinese firms or if the United States imposed penalties on China’s electronic payments systems, such as Alipay, on national security grounds.

Such moves could be far more severe than the tariffs on $550 billion of Chinese imports that the United States will have imposed by the end of the year, leading to a decoupling not just of the American and Chinese economies but of the financial sector as well.

“Tariffs are just a tax, a cost of doing business, but those costs can be digested by passing costs on to consumers or squeezing margins or diversifying your end consumer,” Ms. Treyz said. “If you’re no longer allowed to ship or buy products from Huawei or other entity list companies, you’ve shut out an entire pipeline of access, not to mention lost 1.3 billion potential customers in China.”

Real Estate, and Personal Injury Lawyers. Contact us at: https://westlakelegal.com 

CLUELESS: Karen Pence Praises Trump’s Treatment Of Young Women

Westlake Legal Group 5d9ee7b920000058074ff2d9 CLUELESS: Karen Pence Praises Trump’s Treatment Of Young Women

Tonight, in Minnesota, state the campaign really wants to win, @SecondLady is on stage praising POTUS. She says she likes how he treats young women and sees the respect he has for his daughters. “As a mom, I was all in” after seeing how he interacted with her daughter, Charlotte.

— Katie Rogers (@katierogers) October 9, 2019

Real Estate, and Personal Injury Lawyers. Contact us at: https://westlakelegal.com 

When a Steady Paycheck Is Good Medicine

LOS ANGELES — Growing up in the Baldwin Village section of Los Angeles, Charles Slay roamed the streets as a member of the Bloods. The neighborhood was forlorn and devoid of commercial life, making it easy ground for ambush — especially a ragged patch of dirt alongside a major thoroughfare.

“I used to rob people there,” he says.

But three years ago, when construction workers began transforming the vacant lot into a gleaming campus of medical offices, there was Mr. Slay, donning work boots and coveralls. He had spent 27 years behind bars for a gang-related murder. On this day, he was employed as an apprentice electrician.

“I never in my life used a power tool,” he says. “The only tool I used was a gun. Now, I’m driving forklifts.”

His evolution from convict to tradesman had been spurred by an initiative within the American medical industry to broaden the idea of how to keep a community healthy. A coalition of nonprofit health care providers is investing in the notion that ample paychecks, stable housing and nutritious food are no less critical to well-being than doctors, medical equipment and pharmacies.

Forty-one nonprofit medical systems across the United States, plus four government providers, have formed the coalition, the Healthcare Anchor Network, with the mission of doing more business with local companies in the communities they serve. Most are concentrated in major American cities, from Chicago to Los Angeles.

The American health network is part of a global movement through which activists are pressuring companies to target spending toward improving local fortunes, rather than contracting with distant corporations. Such initiatives are being driven by anger over the workings of global capitalism — how it has produced unprecedented riches for some while leaving hundreds of millions of people coping with economic insecurity.

Collectively, these systems spend more than $50 billion a year on a range of services — from construction to catering to laundry. Traditionally, they have directed much of that money to huge, national corporations that distribute their profits to shareholders around the world. The basic goal among the participants in the Healthcare Anchor Network is to shift their spending to local companies, keeping the wealth close by. Kaiser Permanente, which erected the new medical center near Baldwin Village, is one of the largest medical systems in the network.

The health systems are also directing their reserve funds toward so-called impact investments — loans to nonprofits that buy homes to spare low-income people from eviction; capital for minority-owned businesses; child care for the working poor.

This initiative was behind Kaiser’s decision to reserve a third of the construction jobs at its new campus for people who lived nearby. Among them were 70 former prison inmates employed as plumbers, carpenters and electricians.

“You have individuals building homes rather than doing home invasions,” says John Harriel, a former gang member turned tradesman who has helped Kaiser recruit previously incarcerated people at the construction site.

ImageWestlake Legal Group merlin_160688871_e09035bc-36ad-4edf-ad4d-f477dd56498c-articleLarge When a Steady Paycheck Is Good Medicine United States Preston (England) Kaiser Permanente Income Inequality Health Insurance and Managed Care Cleveland (Ohio) California Bloods (Gang)

Charles Slay, who now works in construction, spent 27 years behind bars for a gang-related murder.CreditElizabeth Weinberg for The New York Times

The idea that turned into the Healthcare Anchor Network began with a man named Ted Howard, who co-founded the Democracy Collaborative, an advocacy and research institution that experiments with fresh ways to attack economic inequality.

A decade ago, in the midst of the Great Recession, Mr. Howard used his hometown, Cleveland, as a laboratory for a new approach toward recovering from factory closings and joblessness. He started three cooperative companies in low-income neighborhoods, including a laundry service that gained a contract to wash linens at the Cleveland Clinic, a world-renowned health care provider.

The laundry hired people from surrounding communities. It won the contract on competitive terms, with an important guarantee: It paid workers better than rival national chains. It could deliver on that promise because it was a cooperative. It merely had to break even rather than enrich shareholders with dividends.

“These are businesses,” says Mr. Howard. Unless they produce returns, “you lose all the social benefits. We think it’s really important to open up the imagination to successful models.”

The approach is especially tailored to the United States, where efforts to increase support for government programs confront a strong American aversion to taxes. Rather than wring hands over the difficulty of prying money from Congress for social programs, he pressured deep-pocketed companies to spend, and invest, locally.

“Our epiphany is that one answer to the supposed scarcity of funds is that the money is right there in the community now,” says Mr. Howard. “It’s in institutions that are locked in place.”

His success in Cleveland has captured attention far beyond the American Rust Belt, sending Mr. Howard around the world to evangelize. He found adherents in northwest England, where political leaders in the city of Preston were wrestling with years of national austerity that had decimated local government services.

Drawing on Mr. Howard’s counsel, the city government, Lancashire County, the police department and a pair of local universities joined forces and directed their spending toward local companies.

“We had the double whammy of austerity, and also an economy that wasn’t working for people,” says Matthew Brown, the leader of the Preston Council. “We took inspiration from Ted.”

In the United States, health care has become especially fertile ground for Mr. Howard’s approach, in part because of the passage of the Affordable Care Act, better known as Obamacare, which aimed to expand medical coverage to the tens of millions of people lacking access.

The program requires that nonprofit hospitals annually assess the health needs of their communities in a broad context — including job markets and the availability of affordable housing — while coming up with ways to improve local life. Given that 56 percent of community hospitals in the United States are nonprofit, this amounted to a significant potential alteration of American health care.

Kaiser, which operates nonprofit hospitals and provides health care for more than 12 million people, was already conducting such assessments under California regulations. Obamacare, passed nearly a decade ago, extended the obligation nationwide.

“It brought a discipline to the industry so that we all had to think about this,” says Bernard J. Tyson, Kaiser’s chief executive officer, during an interview at the company’s headquarters in Oakland. “It forced the industry to think outside its own box.”

The Democracy Collaborative convened the first participants in what would become the Healthcare Anchor Network in Washington in December 2016. In the years since, it has sought to coax medical companies to formalize and expand financial commitments that are now voluntary and vaguely defined — more like an accepted social compact than a firm obligation.

The logic is driven by large numbers: Hospitals and health care providers across the United States collectively spend more than $780 billion a year, control investment portfolios worth some $400 billion and employ more than 5.6 million people. Even a minor shift in how they manage their money, contract for services or hire workers will have an impact on the American economy.

“We encourage a pledge of 1 percent of assets as a starting point,” says David Zuckerman, the coordinator for the health care network. “This conversation is moving very fast and moving in a very powerful way. These institutions are just being exposed to this idea.”

Over the last two years, members have pledged more than $300 million toward local investments, with Kaiser alone promising two-thirds of those funds.

The company has taken its cue from volumes of literature attesting to the fact that poverty is lethal. People who experience homelessness have shorter life expectancies than the rest of the population. People without jobs do not eat as well as those who are fully employed. Financial stress can breed other ills, including substance abuse. Health care costs have risen so rapidly that many Americans fret about how to pay their bills.

“One in four Americans are having to make a choice between ‘Do I buy milk today?’ or ‘Do I pay my co-pay to get my prescription?’” says Bechara Choucair, Kaiser’s chief community health officer, citing a recent company survey.

For health care companies, improved community fortunes help the bottom line. More jobs mean more people in stable homes, lowering the cost of care when they need hospitalization. It means more people can afford medical plans, which spreads health care costs across larger populations.

That reasoning prompted Dignity Health, another health care provider that joined the anchor network, to deliver a $1 million loan to La Cocina, a San Francisco nonprofit that helps women of color start catering and restaurant businesses. Since its inception in 2005, the organization has produced 55 now self-sufficient businesses. Two of its graduates have been finalists for the prestigious James Beard Award.

La Cocina is using Dignity’s money to turn a shuttered post office in San Francisco’s Tenderloin district — an area rife with open-air drug sales — into a food court offering the dishes of program graduates. Geared to working poor people, the food court will provide a daily $5 special.

Among the chefs featured is Dilsa Lugo, a Mexican immigrant. Sixteen years ago, a pregnant Ms. Lugo carried a lunch of home-cooked tamales to the construction site where her husband was working. The property owner tried them, loved them and demanded to buy them. Ms. Lugo honed her skills in La Cocina’s commercial kitchen in the Mission District, where volunteers helped her secure funding.

“If I was by myself, I would have been afraid,” Ms. Lugo says. “I didn’t know how to start.”

Today, her Los Cilantros restaurant in Berkeley employs nine people. She earns more than her husband.

Dignity has also funded another local nonprofit, the Mission Economic Development Agency, which aims to blunt the displacement of low-income, predominantly Latino families. It has purchased 23 buildings in recent years, keeping existing tenants in place at subsidized rents, while maintaining fruit and vegetable merchants and bakeries in ground-floor commercial spaces.

“We’re looking for ways that we can address health care issues beyond the hospital walls,” says Pablo Bravo, Dignity’s vice president of community health.

This was the thinking as Kaiser Permanente began preparations for its new medical campus serving the neighborhoods of Crenshaw and Baldwin Hills in America’s second-largest city.

The need for the facility was obvious. The company’s closest hospital was a 25-minute drive away, before factoring in Los Angeles’s traffic. Many people in the neighborhood lacked cars. They relied on a patchy bus service that could take an hour to reach the facility.

But beyond the demand for doctors’ offices, a pharmacy and a laboratory, the community had other needs. Among the 278,000 area residents, 93 percent were black or Hispanic and nearly 30 percent were officially poor. A similar percentage had not completed high school. Former gang members languished in housing projects with no means of supporting themselves.

In 2015, Kaiser held meetings to ask residents what they wanted. Their testimony shaped the blueprint: The hospital would offer Wi-Fi and comfortable work spaces, enabling low-income residents to send out online job applications. The complex would include green space, exercise equipment and a farmers’ market.

But the primary demand was the most basic — paychecks. “The number-one thing people wanted was jobs,” recalls Jodie Lesh, who then oversaw Kaiser’s construction projects in Southern California.

Kaiser required its contractor to reserve 30 percent of all jobs for people living within five miles of the site. It set aside $24 million of the $90 million construction costs for women- and minority-owned businesses.

At first, Kaiser stumbled. It held a job fair, and hardly anyone came.

Then Ms. Lesh met John Harriel, an electrician and a conspicuous character known as Big John.

Raised in the neighborhood, Mr. Harriel, 49, was a former member of the Bloods and the son of a single mother bedeviled by addiction. He had spent more than five years in prison for dealing drugs. He used that time to gain his high school equivalency degree.

Once out, Mr. Harriel trained as an electrician apprentice and eventually rose to supervisor. He works with a community nonprofit, 2nd CALL (for Second Chance at Loving Life), which prepares former inmates for careers.

About 600,000 people are released from prison every year in the United States. The unemployment rate among formerly incarcerated people is about 27 percent, according to the Prison Policy Initiative, a research and advocacy group.

Mr. Harriel sees those numbers as indicators of hidden promise. People released from prison are so eager for a career, and so fearful they may never get the opportunity, that they will work harder than the next person to master a trade. Starting over means feeling special pressure to show up on time, do the job the right way and stay out of trouble, he said.

“The world is looking at us,” Mr. Harriel says. “You’d rather be two hours early than two minutes late.”

Still, employers are reluctant to hire convicted murderers, robbers and drug dealers, Mr. Harriel acknowledges. That is where he and his organization come in. They offer job training and courses in anger management, trauma counseling and financial literacy. They teach black and Latino former gang members to look their white supervisors in the eye — something that could provoke violence in prison. Those who sign up for training must complete it, and then demonstrate their skills and dedication, before he will provide a recommendation to an employer.

“If someone is screwing around,” he says, “I will be the first to say they should be fired.”

Physically imposing and blunt, Mr. Harriel is reflexively skeptical of outsiders’ promises to rescue his community. He is impatient with corporate-sponsored happy talk. As a child, he drew discipline at his elementary school for scoffing at the notion of Santa Claus.

“I said, ‘Let me get this straight,’” he recalls. “‘There’s this fat white guy riding around in the sky delivering presents down the chimney? I don’t see any chimneys in the projects.’ I said: ‘That’s a lie. You’re telling us a lie.’”

His neighborhood had suffered through more aborted promises of redevelopment schemes than he could recall. What was different this time?

Kaiser’s cluelessness about its job fair was not a hopeful sign. “They didn’t know where to go. They didn’t go inside the belly of the beast right there,” Mr. Harriel says, pointing to a cluster of apartments. “They went to the library. They went to some church. I said, ‘That’s not where the suspects hang out.’”

He went into gang communities and knocked on doors. At the next job fair, several hundred people descended. Dozens were hired, including Mr. Slay, the ex-Blood.

Mr. Slay grew up in South Central Los Angeles. His mother had died when he was 10, leaving him with his father, who cadged work as a mechanic. He wanted to join the Boy Scouts, he recalls, but he lacked the $16 fee. Jobs in the neighborhood were scarce, and good jobs nonexistent. People flipped burgers and bagged groceries, pursuits with no route out of poverty.

“The only people getting respect were the people coming out of the penitentiary,” Mr. Slay says.

By 14, he was living in itinerant hotels, smoking angel dust and robbing stores with the Bloods. By 21, he was behind bars for killing a man of the same age from a rival gang.

In prison, he attended a class about the impact of gang violence on victims and their families and listened to a woman who had seen her daughter raped.

“She was talking to us about forgiveness,” Mr. Slay says. “I had never seen compassion and forgiveness. My approach had been: ‘I’m in a gang. I got you before you got me.’”

He completed his high school equivalency degree and then studied sociology.

“I started thinking about the people that I robbed,” he says. “I started thinking about the magnitude of my actions. How did I go from a little boy that my mother loved to a man willing to take another man’s life? I started thinking about some of the things that I was lacking. I said, ‘If I ever get a chance to get home, I will relish it.’”

The chance came when he was 48 years old.

Back on the outside, he was euphoric at first. He moved in with his aunt and attended Alcoholics Anonymous. Then, grim realities took over. He applied to be a truck driver, but the conditions of his parole barred him from driving more than 50 miles from home. He got a job unloading ships at a port. It paid $9 an hour with no health care.

Then Mr. Slay met Big John, who saw him as a potential electrician. He finished life skills classes and was sent to a contractor as an apprentice, alternating seven weeks of work with a week of training.

Five years later, he is part of a crew handling the electrical work at a new stadium for the Los Angeles Rams football team.

He earns $39 an hour — enough to buy a car, help his 86-year-old aunt with rent, buy groceries and presents for his eight grandchildren. He pays for a health care policy from Kaiser.

”I’ve been through several lives within my time,” he says. “I feel like I’ve been around the world twice and it’s amazing that I’m a productive member of society, the backbone of my family.”

Real Estate, and Personal Injury Lawyers. Contact us at: https://westlakelegal.com 

Ukraine President Insists There Was ‘No Blackmail’ In Phone Call With Trump

Westlake Legal Group 5d9ef6ea210000290734372c Ukraine President Insists There Was ‘No Blackmail’ In Phone Call With Trump

KYIV, Ukraine (AP) — Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelenskiy says there was “no blackmail” in the phone call with U.S. President Donald Trump that helped spark an impeachment inquiry.

Responding Thursday to questions from The Associated Press, Zelenskiy said he only learned after their July 25 phone call that the U.S. had blocked hundreds of millions of dollars in military aid to Ukraine.

“We didn’t speak about this” during the July call, Zelenskiy said, saying the military aid wasn’t the “theme” of the conversation. He spoke Thursday during an unusual, all-day “media marathon” in a Kyiv food court amid growing questions about his actions as president.

Trump asked Zelenskiy during the call to investigate Democratic rival Joe Biden, according to a rough White House transcript. Congressional Democrats believe Trump was holding up the aid to use as leverage to pressure Ukraine and advance his domestic political interests ahead of next year’s U.S. presidential election.

Trump said the military aid was frozen because of concerns about corruption in Ukraine, but the move prompted congressional outcry and the money was released in September.

The July call is central to the impeachment inquiry, and embarrassed Zelenskiy because it showed him as eager to please Trump and critical of European partners.

Zelenskiy wouldn’t say whether the Ukrainians have a different version of the transcript or whether the White House version accurately reflects the content of the leaders’ conversation.

Zelenskiy said he thought the call would lead to an in-person meeting with Trump, and wanted the American leader to come to Ukraine. Zelenskiy said the “key question” for him was to try to persuade the White House to “change its rhetoric” about Ukraine as a corrupt and untrustworthy country.

He said he had “several calls” with Trump, but bristled at repeated questions about their relationship. “We are an independent country, we have relations with many countries,” not just the U.S.

Zelenskiy is notably trying to end a five-year conflict with Russia-backed separatist in eastern Ukraine, and is treading carefully to ensure continued support from the U.S. while trying to make peace with powerful neighbor Russia.

In the July call, Trump sought help on two fronts. The first involves Trump’s claims that Ukraine allied with the Democrats in a plot to derail his 2016 presidential campaign. No evidence of such a plot has emerged.

At the same time, Trump is also pushing Ukraine to investigate any potential wrongdoing by Biden and his son Hunter, who served on the board of a Ukrainian gas company. Trump has said the United States has an “absolute right” to ask foreign leaders to investigate corruption cases, though no one has produced evidence of criminal wrongdoing by the Bidens.

Real Estate, and Personal Injury Lawyers. Contact us at: https://westlakelegal.com 

Military Leaders Fear They’ve Seen This Before. It Ended in the Iraq War.

Westlake Legal Group 10dc-military-1-facebookJumbo Military Leaders Fear They’ve Seen This Before. It Ended in the Iraq War. United States Politics and Government United States Defense and Military Forces Turkey Trump, Donald J Syria Persian Gulf War Kurds Iraq War (2003-11) Iraq Hussein, Saddam Defense Department Bush, George

WASHINGTON — The last time the United States abandoned allies in the Middle East, military officials say, it helped lead to the Iraq war.

Now, almost 30 years later, President Trump has pulled American special forces and support troops away from Kurdish allies in northern Syria, easing the way for Turkey’s promised offensive, which began on Wednesday.

It is too soon to say with any certainty where Mr. Trump’s abandonment of the Kurdish fighters who did the heavy lifting in the fight against the Islamic State will lead. But already, anguished American military and national security officials are sounding alarms that clearing the way for Turkey to bomb the Kurds could have long-term repercussions, just as the desertion of allies did then.

“In the course of American history, when we have stuck with our allies in troubling circumstances, from the U.K. and Australia under attack in WWII to South Korea in the Korean War, things tend to work out to our benefit,” said James G. Stavridis, a retired admiral and former supreme allied commander for Europe. “When we walk away from loyal allies, as we did in Vietnam and are now threatening to do in Afghanistan and Syria, the wheels come off.”

At the end of the Persian Gulf war, the United States’ refusal to aid a rebellion it encouraged in Iraq allowed Saddam Hussein to brutally crush the insurgents, leaving him in power and American allies on the ground alienated and slaughtered by the thousands.

Now, with the Kurds potentially facing a similar fate, a Pentagon official said anger within the military was deeper than at any other point in Mr. Trump’s tenure as commander in chief.

That is in part because American military officials personally know the Kurds they have been fighting alongside. They consider them friends and even, in some cases, brothers in arms. While the Kurds may not have been with the Americans in Normandy, as Mr. Trump curiously noted on Wednesday, neither were the American service members who are now in Iraq and Syria. What those service members know, military officials say, is that the Kurds have been with them in Manbij, and Raqqa, and the Middle Euphrates River Valley.

“What happens if we leave?” the normally reticent Gen. Joseph L. Votel, who until March was the commander of United States Central Command overseeing the fight against the Islamic State in Iraq and Syria, wrote in an op-ed article in The Atlantic on Tuesday, two days after the White House announced it was leaving the Kurds. In the piece, General Votel spoke fondly of the top Kurdish general, Mazloum Abdi, whom he called “impressive and thoughtful.”

General Votel, now retired, wrote that Turkish attacks on the Kurdish fighters, “coupled with a hasty U.S. departure, now threaten to rapidly destabilize an already fragile security situation in Syria’s northeast, where ISIS’ physical caliphate was only recently defeated.”

Paul D. Eaton, a retired major general and veteran of the Iraq war, was more blunt. “It takes time to build trust,” he said. “And any time you erode trust, like this, it’s that much harder to bring it back.”

Pentagon officials fear that Turkey’s incursion could lead to the release of tens of thousands of Islamic State fighters and their families who are being held in detention facilities under Kurdish control, and a return, quickly, of the self-proclaimed caliphate that the United States and its partners have spent the last five years destroying.

But even more, they fear that the next time the United States is looking for help from fighters on the ground in the region, the Americans will not be able to find it.

This has happened before. In February 1991, as the Desert Storm campaign was unfolding in Iraq, President George Bush, during a rally in Andover, Mass., suggested that the Iraqi people “take matters into their own hands and force Saddam Hussein, the dictator, to step aside.”

Two weeks later, Mr. Bush made another call to arms, saying that putting Hussein “aside” would “facilitate the resolution of all these problems that exist and certainly would facilitate the acceptance of Iraq back into the family of peace-loving nations.”

Iraq’s feared Republican Guard did not heed Mr. Bush. But the Shiites and the Kurds did. On March 1, the day after Mr. Bush halted the Desert Storm war effort, Iraqi Shiites in the south and Kurds in the north began a rebellion against Hussein.

At first, things went swiftly and well for the Shiites and the Kurds, as a succession of Iraqi cities and towns — although not Baghdad — came under their control.

But the United States never stepped in to assist, and Hussein’s military soon regrouped and began a counteroffensive. In fact, the cease-fire negotiated by Gen. H. Norman Schwarzkopf to end Desert Storm helped Hussein quell the uprising. The deal prohibited the Iraqi military from using fixed-wing aircraft over the country but allowed helicopters, which Hussein then deployed to bombard the Shiites, who had few surface-to-air missiles or heavy weapons. They were largely defenseless against the helicopters strafing the ground.

In the north, Iraqi divisions crushed the Kurdish rebellion.

Shiite and Kurdish leaders turned to the Americans, begging for help. It did not come. American warplanes in the south did not engage as the Republican Guard wiped out the rebellious Shiites by the thousands.

Human Rights Watch reported that “in their attempts to retake cities, and after consolidating control, loyalist forces killed thousands of unarmed civilians by firing indiscriminately into residential areas” and “executing young people on the streets, in homes and in hospitals.” The Iraqi military, Human Rights Watch said, was shooting people “en masse.”

Paul D. Wolfowitz, then the under secretary of defense for policy, was “dismayed,” he would say later, by the president’s unwillingness to support the Shiite uprising, and particularly by the order that American pilots not shoot down Iraqi military helicopters that were strafing the rebels.

More than a decade later, President George W. Bush was surrounded by many of the same national security advisers his father had. One in particular, Mr. Wolfowitz, was forcefully making the case that it was time for the United States to do what it did not in 1991: Go after Hussein.

When the United States finally did enter Iraq in 2003, the Shiites, while welcoming the toppling of Hussein, did not greet the Americans as liberators.

Real Estate, and Personal Injury Lawyers. Contact us at: https://westlakelegal.com 

Trying To Change Men Ousted By #MeToo Shows Promise — But No Guarantees

Westlake Legal Group metoo_custom-57ed080ebf5deca4fed2067eddc22777a3c87839-s1100-c15 Trying To Change Men Ousted By #MeToo Shows Promise — But No Guarantees

Two years into the #MeToo movement, as focus grows on when — and if — it’s appropriate for men ousted for sexual harassment to return to work, attention is also shifting to underlying questions of rehabilitation. Can sexual harassers change? And if so, how? Zoē van Dijk for NPR hide caption

toggle caption

Zoē van Dijk for NPR

Westlake Legal Group  Trying To Change Men Ousted By #MeToo Shows Promise — But No Guarantees

Two years into the #MeToo movement, as focus grows on when — and if — it’s appropriate for men ousted for sexual harassment to return to work, attention is also shifting to underlying questions of rehabilitation. Can sexual harassers change? And if so, how?

Zoē van Dijk for NPR

You hear it said about sexual harassers all the time: “Guys like that will never change.”

That may be true for those who are out-and-out psychopaths and those with serious disorders, but experts say most sexual harassers are not in that bucket.

“They’re apples and oranges,” says forensic psychiatrist and Temple University School of Medicine professor of psychiatry Barbara Ziv, who has spent decades studying both victims and perpetrators of sexual misconduct. Most are “opportunistic offenders” or self-delusional, she says, but they’re not beyond help.

“Those aren’t individuals who are sort of hardwired to sexually assault,” she says. “And those are the people that have the most potential for learning and not doing it again.”

Ziv, who will testify for the prosecution in the upcoming rape trial of former film producer Harvey Weinstein, says the bulk of offenders are too often conflated with the most egregious ones who dominate the headlines.

“Even my saying that there’s a distinction can be perceived as letting men off the hook,” she says. But “the #MeToo movement has to become more sophisticated, and we should, two years out, be able to distinguish between these buckets.”

Indeed, two years into the #MeToo movement, with growing focus on when –and if — it’s appropriate for men ousted for sexual harassment to return to work, attention is also shifting to underlying questions of rehabilitation: Can proven sexual harassers change? And if so, how? A burgeoning industry of therapists, coaches and counselors are now working with offenders to try to reform them. It’s not just for their sake, they say, it’s the only way to ensure long-term, meaningful cultural change.

“Justice needs to be had,” says University of Toronto psychologist James Cantor. “But so long as we keep talking about ‘we need to just gather up the evil [offenders], dismiss them and ignore them,’ we’re not going to either rehabilitate these people or prevent more of these cases from the future.”

That’s not to say the work is easy.

“It was the hardest thing I’ve ever done,” says one man who says he had buried his misconduct for decades. The #MeToo movement finally compelled him to confront what he had done, from stealing a kiss at the office to date raping a woman he barely knew, several decades ago.

He asked that his name not be used for fear that backlash would hurt his family. But, determined to grow from being part of the problem to part of the solution, he’s now facing his demons head-on.

“I was shook by the realization that I had been able to go through my life powered by privilege, without owning up to this,” he says. “And there are probably a lot of other guys who had done those things, and if we want to prevent [this] and change culture, our actions need to come out in the light of day and be the basis for conversation.”

He has been doing his own soul-searching in counseling and through a process called “vicarious restorative justice,” where he meets with survivors as a kind of “stand-in” perpetrator for survivors who cannot, for various reasons, meet with the actual perpetrators in their own cases. He listens to them describe their experience as victims, and they listen as he takes responsibility for what he did to his victim.

“That would be to say, ‘I took your body for my pleasure and my needs,’ ” he says, choosing his words carefully and deliberately. “I knew you couldn’t stop me from doing it. I knew that you were hurt, but I got up and left you there, having been violated by me, because of my selfishness and my belief that what you had was mine for the taking.”

Then, he acknowledges the damage he did. “You may have had depression, you may have — ” he begins, before catching himself and switching to the first person. “I may have caused you anxiety and a lifetime of difficulty having relationships.”

And lastly, he offers an apology.

“It’s not your fault,” he says, “and it’s not something that was anything other than my boorishness, my belief that I could have whatever I wanted. And I’m very sorry that you were hurt.”

It’s cathartic for him and healing for the survivors who were with him in the circle, including Alissa Ackerman.

“I don’t even know how to describe it in words,” she says, “but it was just this moment of being heard, by someone who’d caused sexual harm. It is a weight that you no longer have to carry.”

Ackerman, an assistant professor of criminal justice at California State University, Fullerton, now leads restorative justice circles for others, convinced that it can teach empathy and motivate change like nothing else.

Indeed, it was no coincidence that only while listening to survivors describe their pain did the man in her circle remember — for the first time in decades — his victim’s first name.

“In the middle of the sessions, he just blurted it out when it came back to him,” recalls Ackerman. “He was able to humanize her because he had to humanize the four of us sitting right in front of him.”

“I was pretty shaken by it,” he sighs. “She became a real person.”

“It’s not exactly therapy, but it’s definitely therapeutic,” says Cordelia Anderson, who has been doing sexual assault prevention work since the 1970s. “It’s a way for people to get insight into their own behavior and recognize the impact of their behavior on others and how these things have ripple effects.”

Restorative justice is not for everyone; it’s a non-starter if the survivor does not want to engage or if the perpetrator is denying any part of his misconduct. From the get-go, he has to admit and take responsibility for all of it.

In many cases, offenders will have gotten to that point through conventional counseling, where perpetrators may be pressed, for example, to unpack their own past traumas, boundary issues, or self-delusion and denial.

“A person engaged in what we call ‘motivated reasoning’ will only see what they want to see and discount or ignore counterevidence,” Cantor says. For example, he might tell himself a co-worker is “not meeting my gaze because she’s busy or embarrassed, rather than because she’s not interested.” In the same way, he will dismiss any signs he has crossed a line, convincing himself that “the other person is overreacting.”

Research on treatment specifically for sexual harassment is scant. But Vaile Wright, director of research and special projects at the American Psychological Association, says extrapolating from studies on sexual assault, there is cause for optimism. Wright says strategies like cognitive behavioral therapy, which break down the thoughts and feelings driving bad behavior, are particularly promising. For example, in the case of a guy who repeatedly makes unwelcome advances to a co-worker, a therapist can help dig deeper to discover what makes him feel entitled to keep “hitting on her.” Or, Wright explains, the process might help reveal that when she rebuffs him, he takes that to mean “she is a tease” and therefore “a bad person [who] gets what she deserves.”

“You just go down a rabbit hole until you can figure out what it is that’s at the core of the problem,” Wright says. That could be anything from feelings of inadequacy to outmoded views of gender roles and power.

It’s why another approach gaining interest focuses on toxic masculinity.

“A big part is peeling off the armor and bringing these guys into state of being utterly raw, utterly vulnerable,” says Joshua Hathaway, who does personal coaching and leads men’s retreats through a group called The Brotherhood Community, in Santa Cruz, Calif. One by one, he says, he’s trying to change hearts and minds by helping men show up “as the attuned, empathetic understanding, listening version of themselves, instead of the guy who’s going to try to talk somebody out of their opinion or the guy who’s going to deny certain facts, to defend ourselves and our ego.”

Hathaway will often start men with simple exercises, like going a full day only listening. Or, another exercise, he says, requires that “the first thing that comes out of his mouth in any conversation is reflecting back what he just heard.”

“It’s learning how to wield power in more responsible way,” Hathaway says. “It’s dismantling our misogyny. It’s dismantling a lot of these prejudices that dehumanize other people. And that’s messy work.”

While counselors say a growing number of men are buying in, others are dubious. They worry about such softer, gentler rehabilitative approaches gaining favor over punitive ones.

“Quite frankly, I think there should be a fear of social stigma, a fear of social sanction, a fear of social consequence attached to boorish and sexually improper behavior,” says Max Eden, a senior fellow with the Manhattan Institute for Policy Research. “My concern is that were not only letting men off the hook with this, but we’re actually creating a reward structure for behaving badly and by going through what might not be a very sincere redemption process.”

But proponents insist that it’s hard to fake your way through intense personal encounters such as restorative justice circles. One of the things that process does best, Ackerman says, is to suss out who is genuinely remorseful and rehabilitated and who may be going through the motions just hoping to get their career rehabilitated.

“At the end of the day, you don’t know who’s being authentic except when you have those really in-depth, one-on-one encounters when perpetrators can talk about their understanding of the harm they’ve caused,” she says.

But even then, it’s not like you get a diploma from your therapist. So how’s an employer to know whether a person is changed enough to be worthy of returning to work?

That’s something very much on the minds of Elizabeth Grossman, a defense attorney who represents men accused of sexual misconduct, and Caprice Haverty, a clinical and forensic psychologist who treats them. They’ve been trying to conceive of some kind of audit to identify who has gone the distance and who may have run off course. It might also offer some confidence, or cover, to an employer considering hiring someone with a checkered past.

“My concern is that we not lose the power of this moment,” Grossman says. Society, she says, “needs to figure out the way forward for people who’ve transgressed, so we can keep them motivated to do the deep hard work and change.”

Just like the criminal justice system has compulsory progress reports for sex offenders, Haverty says people who are working on rehabilitating themselves after getting fired for sexual harassment could have “a frank and confidential dialogue and get honest feedback.”

“We have ways of measuring authenticity,” she says. Though Grossman is quick to add, it may be more gut than science.

“This is not measured by a ruler,” she says. “They’re instinctual understandings.”

In a few cases, employers are getting involved themselves in efforts to rehabilitate offenders. Not every offense should result in termination, says Mary Koss, a professor of Public Health at the University of Arizona, Tucson, and an expert in gender-based violence and restorative justice. And in those cases, she says, employers could be doing a lot more to coach and guide employees at the earliest signs of trouble.

“Instead of just putting a letter of warning in their personnel file, [and letting the offender] move on having learned nothing, I wish there were more opportunities to give close mentoring to people,” Koss says.

She has been called in to be a kind of “babysitter” for guys who misstepped. In one instance, she gave a man some coaching and implored him to “come tell me what you’re thinking about doing before you do it, and then we can decide if it’s a red light or a green light,” she recalls. Not long after, he came to tell Koss he was planning to ask a co-worker out on a date. “I said to him: ‘Red light! This is not a bar.’ “

For some employers, a better solution is to make outside counseling a condition of continued employment after a first-time, relatively minor offense. But more often, companies will steer clear altogether, says Stephen Gianotti, who is president of New Hampshire-based business consulting firm The Woodland Group. He says companies are more likely to “have the attitude that ‘Look, we’re not a social welfare institution here. We make widgets, we don’t change people. If people don’t want to behave, then we need to get rid of them.’ “

“The obvious problem with that,” Gianotti says, “is that the person who gets fired goes someplace else and is likely to do it again in some other organization, so they’re just kicking the can down the road.”

On the other hand, the obvious problem with attempting to rehabilitate offenders is that it comes with no guarantee.

Psychiatrist Ziv recalls working with one executive, who dutifully listened and seemed to understand, as she explained for hours and hours, why it was wrong to touch a female colleague, flirt with her or make comments about her looks.

A few months later, she saw him again “and the first thing he said to me when I walked into office was ‘Don’t you look pretty!’ All the time I spent with him, and he was oblivious.”

Unfortunately, Ziv sighs, we’ll only know for sure if someone has really changed and ready for a second chance is after they’ve had their second chance and didn’t blow it.

Real Estate, and Personal Injury Lawyers. Contact us at: https://westlakelegal.com