text:
William Barr : A 'Caretaker' Attorney General Proves Agenda-Setting Conservative
In seven months as U.S. attorney general, William P. Barr has converted the Justice Department into an agenda-setting agency from a reactive institution, focusing on cutting-edge issues high on many Americans' minds. These include violent crime, gangs, health-care fraud, tighter immigration controls and competition-stifling foreign cartels. He had a running start, serving as deputy to Atty. Gen. Dick Thornburgh for a year and a half and quieting the bitterness that marked Thornburgh's management style.
Expectations were that Barr would be a caretaker during an election year, making few waves. Instead, one of his programs--weeding out criminal elements in a community and then seeding with social reform--has been elevated to a leading domestic policy. He does not avoid controversy, most noteworthy being the opinion he wrote, in 1989, saying there was nothing illegal about U.S. agents seizing fugitives overseas without the host country's permission. When the Supreme Court recently upheld this, Barr gave the State Department and White House fits in hailing the ruling, while Mexico writhed.
Barr was 41 when he took over the nation's top law job. During the modern era, only a President's brother and the son of a Supreme Court justice managed to assume the nation's top law post when that young. Barr, a bookish-looking son of educators who speaks with a muted New York accent, brought no special credentials. He earned bachelor's and master's degrees in Chinese studies and picked up his law degree at night school while working at the CIA.
He landed this powerful job through a combination of genuine smarts, his effectiveness as a idea-generating conservative and his winning way with people, especially those on the other side of policy arguments. But Barr also happened to be in the right place at the right time.
He has stumbled along the way: Taking part in a hyped press conference on gangs that resurrected a long-standing investigation, for example. His training as a lawyer gives him difficulty in responding to questions with short answers. But overall, he has won plus marks inside the Administration and has managed to re-establish civilized relations with Senate and House overseers.
Barr takes his favorite form of relaxation--playing the bagpipes--seriously. He takes pride in his reputation for veracity, but sometimes risks it--claiming, for example, that his wife and three daughters enjoy the pipe-playing.
Question: More than any attorney general since Elliot Richardson nearly 20 years ago, you came into office with a specific agenda. Have the developments in Los Angeles and the possibility of urban unrest across the country changed your priorities?
Answer: Not at all. In fact, I think the riot in Los Angeles underscored the importance of those priorities.
Q: You don't find yourself making any shifts?
A: No. Violent crime is a high priority, the role of gangs, the problem we have in the juvenile justice system. These are things that obviously were related to the riots in Los Angeles and the whole problem we have in the inner cities. The importance of prosecuting the war on drugs, similarly, I think, is responsive to one of the real problems we have in our cities in the United States. Even in the civil-rights area, where one of my chief priorities has been in fair housing and in lending practices and mortgage practices, that's very important to rehabilitate in the inner cities. The problem of immigration enforcement--making sure we have a fair set of rules and then enforce them--I think that's certainly relevant to the problems we're seeing in Los Angeles.
Q: Is the civil unrest in Los Angeles an aberration--one city with its particular pressures, perhaps police department style and a chief immune from the normal political process? Or is it symptomatic of urban unrest throughout the nation?
A: I wouldn't want to predict similar incidents of urban unrest throughout the nation. I think the problems in the inner cities are nationwide. There is, in fact, frustration and, in some segments of our population, a certain hopelessness over circumstances. I think there was anger and frustration over the verdict in the Rodney King incident that certainly wasn't limited to Los Angeles, but I do think that there were a lot of unique circumstances in Los Angeles that came together in a way that added to the combustibility of the post-verdict hours and contributed to the intensity and the scale of the violence in Los Angeles.
Q: On the Rodney King investigation, we're hearing it's taking longer than first anticipated and it will be not until at least August that anything is presented to the grand jury or there's any kind of decision. Is this timetable on the mark?
A: I can't specify how much time I think it would take. If we decide to go forward with indictments, then we want to be sure we have built a strong case that will prevail in court. Any time we're taking now would be necessary to developing such a case. I am in contact with the prosecution team, have talked to them about the investigation they're conducting and am convinced that they are proceeding as expeditiously as possible.
Q: What we ' re hearing is the investigators have encountered Garrity problems (officers being required to answer questions for an earlier internal inquiry with the guarantee that the information cannot be used against them as evidence or leads to evidence in a criminal prosecution).
A: I won't comment on that.
Q: My reason for asking is the theory that there might have been some deliberate use of an administrative inquiry to stonewall the criminal--
A: I have no comment.
Q: I wanted to ask you about fairness and justice as they're perceived in the minority communities. You testified recently that you did not see the nation's criminal-justice system as purposely discriminatory or biased. How do you account for the large number of blacks in prison?
A: . . . My view is that, overall, I think our system is fair and does not treat people differently. Obviously, our national criminal-justice system is a diverse broad one, and incorporates state systems and county systems.
I'm not suggesting that somewhere in the system there are not people who are biased. But I'm saying, taken in its totality, the system seems to operate fairly. We should be vigilant and look for potential discrimination, and you can always make improvements in the system. But the empirical studies I see suggest that people are treated equally in the system. That is, if a black and a white are charged with the same offense, generally they will get the same treatment in the system, and ultimately the same penalty. There are some laws that may have a disparate impact on minorities--laws that are not intentionally discriminatory, but as a practical matter, impact minority populations more than others.
Let me give you two examples. One would be the mandatory minimum for crack cocaine, which is a very low threshold. Five grams of crack cocaine gets you a five-year mandatory minimum sentence. Because of the use patterns and distribution patterns of crack cocaine, that penalty falls heavily on minority populations. But it's not because of discriminatory intent. It has a disparate impact.
Another example are the differences in the laws among different geographic regions or states. Many of the large cities, with a high proportion of minorities, are in states that have heavier penalties or tougher criminal-justice systems and are less apt to grant probation, more apt to impose stiffer prison sentences. The application of those laws in those states may have a disparate impact on minorities because there are more minorities. . . .
Q: Along with every other attorney general since the Ethics in Government Act was passed in '78, you're no fan of appointing outside prosecutors. Yet you have named two special counsels of your own in particularly sensitive matters. Does this appointment by you of people who report to you, but nevertheless are outside the mechanism of the department, does that undercut your argument?
A: No, in fact I think it highlights the weaknesses of the independent counsel statute as it presently is structured. I think the problem with the statute now is that there's no accountability. An individual is set up as a power unto themselves . . . I think there have to be some constraints.
Part of the constraints that exist in the Department of Justice are a set of policies, an institutional ethos about the proper role of a prosecutor, and the fact that we have here experienced prosecutors who see many cases and well understand the proper functioning of a prosecutor. What the statute does is set someone outside that milieu, not necessarily controlled by policies, not controlled or influenced by the ethos of the department, and with no accountability. No supervisor or anyone to make sure there's no abuse of power going on. And unlimited resources. I think that any person concerned about civil liberties should be concerned about that kind of a structure.
I think what we've done here in the department, by appointing outsiders to come in and conduct independent investigations, is that on the one hand we've gotten a degree of independence to provide some additional assurance that an investigation is not going to be a whitewash or a cover-up, but at the same time, we've at least provided some degree of accountability by assuring that the attorney general still retains ultimate power to remove an individual who's engaged in abuse, and also the individual has the ability of drawing resources from existing prosecutors who are familiar with the policies and the standards of the department. So you're more likely to get professionally run investigations that are the same as what other citizens are subject to.
Q: When the act comes up for reauthorization later this year, will you oppose it?
A: No, I've already said I'm concerned about its current structure and we would be seeking changes to it, both to the trigger mechanism and also to the issue of accountability, also the selection methods, to be sure that people selected are familiar with the role of a prosecutor.
Q: You have certain qualifications, certain requisites which--
A: I haven't drafted up a counterproposal, but I think we should look at something like that.
Q: The minute you try and solve the problem of accountability, aren't you then on the edge of political control? Control by the attorney general, control by an appointee of the President committed to establish that accountability, and doesn't that then defeat the purpose of the independent counsel in the first place?
A: I think it's a question of striking the right balance. Also allowing, to some extent, political checks and balances.
Q: Could you be a little more --
A: For example, the Watergate independent counsel was also appointed by the attorney general and was not statutorily independent. Ultimately, the political process ensures that such an independent counsel will have independence.
Q: One thing you hadn't mentioned, do you think the independent counsel should cover the legislative branch as well as the executive?
A: I think the same rules should apply to both branches.
Q: In the wake of the Machain decision, does the Supreme Court's decision regarding the authorization of U.S. agents to seize fugitives overseas make these operations now more likely?
A: No, there's been no change in policy. The Supreme Court opinion does not reflect any change in policy. As we've said all along, our policy generally is to cooperate with foreign governments.
Q: Were there any operations in this period since you wrote the rendition opinion as an assistant attorney general and the Supreme Court decision that you might have conducted but decided not to because it was up in the air?
A: No. None at all.
Q: Has the Administration ever considered implementing the rendition opinion?
A: There have been circumstances where we considered the feasibility of arresting someone overseas under circumstances that were governed by that opinion, but those situations were never really circulated outside of the department because they were not feasible.
More to Read
Get our Essential Politics newsletter
The latest news, analysis and insights from our politics team.
You may occasionally receive promotional content from the Los Angeles Times.


text:
We at iLounge have a special deal on the Adam Elements 3-in-1 Charger & Cable Bundle, which allows you to charge anywhere, regardless of socket configuration.
Do you find yourself stuck without a compatible charger or adapter while traveling on vacation or business? The Adam Elements Cable & Charger Bundle should solve that problem once and for all. With the package, you get the CASA C200 cable, the CASA M100+ cable and the OMNIA P5 charger, which should cover all your device charging needs.
The Omnia P5 supports Qualcomm Quick Charge and the newest Power Delivery technology and has USB-A and USB-C port compatibility. Safety solutions include the built-in auto-resetting fuse and power output that range from 100 to 240V. You also get a plethora of replaceable plugs that are supported in over 150 countries.
Both M100+ and C200 are high-quality cables that offer 3A max charging and fast charging features. Each one has a strap for organizing purposes.
The Adam Elements 3-in-1 Charger & Cable Bundle
It normally costs $69, while we at iLounge are giving it away for just $59. You get 14% off with our deal.
[epcl_button label="Get it now" url="https://deals.ilounge.com/sales/omnia-p5-casa-c200-casa-m100?utm_source=ilounge.com&utm_medium=referral&utm_campaign=omnia-p5-casa-c200-casa-m100_062719&utm_term=scsf-330967&utm_content=a0x1P000004HSrE&scsonar=1″ type="outline" color="red" size="regular" icon="fa-shopping-cart" target="_blank" rel="nofollow"][/epcl_button]

subset: commoncrawl


text:
Many people try to save as much money as they possibly can. They look at where they are spending money and look for ways to cut back. One thing that they may be thinking about is getting rid of their automobile insurance. However, that could be a big mistake. Consult with us at Atlantis Insurance Inc. in West Palm Beach, FL to learn more about your options.
Here are some reasons that you need to have auto insurance:
It is the law
Most states require you to have some sort of auto insurance before you get behind the wheel. If you get pulled over without insurance, you could be in trouble.
If you are at fault, it will help pay for the damage to their vehicle, as well as their medical bills
Since most people are unable to pay for vehicle damages and medical bills, your insurance company will pay for you.
It will also pay for property damage
If you damage a fence or shed, your insurance will help to cover these costs.
If you aren't at fault, you want to hope that the other person has insurance
You are going to rely on their insurance company to cover the damage to your vehicle, as well as your medical bills.
Your lender may require it
Many lenders want to make sure that they are protected, so they require a certain amount of insurance for a vehicle. They just want to make sure that it will be fixed if something happens.
You should have insurance because your state requires it. Your lender may also require it. However, it can also save you from expensive bills if you are at fault for an accident.
Give Us A Call
If you want to make sure that you are fully protected, don't hesitate to contact us today at Atlantis Insurance Inc. in West Palm Beach, FL.


text:
Playing the long game with private equity assets
Andrew Sheiner worked for 17 years at Onex Corporation, a public company in Canada that has several private investment arms. One of those is Onex Partners, a large-cap-focused group he helped establish in 2001.
It was during his time at Onex that Sheiner learned the importance of flexibility in investment hold periods. The traditional private equity hold period – generally from three to five years – was established in the early days of the industry, in the 1970s and 80s. The structure that evolved was a 10-year fund life, with up to five years for deploying capital and five years for selling investments.
But the rigidity of that structure could also be frustrating, and Sheiner said he often heard concerns from limited partners about the quick investment/exit cycle of traditional private equity.
"An astute investor said to me, 'This business is crazy; we invest in your funds, we buy businesses through those funds, you then sell them to another fund – we're then invested in that fund.' There's a lot of friction in that transaction. And that would seem suboptimal and not ideal for management teams either," Sheiner says in an interview.
Sheiner had the benefit of flexibility at Onex and decided, on formulating a strategy for his own shop, that he would apply those lessons to the new venture.
His firm, called Altas Partners, was founded in 2012 on three principles: the firm would be extremely discerning about its acquisitions; it would focus on high-quality businesses; and it would apply time flexibility to its investments, rather than abiding by a strict deadline.
Altas is happy to buy only one or two businesses a year, and hold those investments, if appropriate, for a decade or longer. It can also sell investments earlier if that makes better financial sense, Sheiner says. "We understand that those businesses are precious and hard to come by and if we have the good fortune to own one, we and our partners would feel it's unfortunate if we had to sell prematurely," Sheiner says.
The firm closed its debut fund in 2016 on $1 billion, and its second fund on $3 billion last year. Altas acquired eight businesses so far, investing about $4 billion of equity, and sold two of them. "That's consistent with what we established with our investors and the strategy we set out to pursue, which is not to be rigid. Rigidity in time horizon is not helpful as an owner and investor," he says.
Altas is an example of a growing desire on the part of GPs to break out of the confines of the traditional private equity fund structure.
For certain companies, GPs would like more time to see their plans through; to make sure they are not getting out of the company while there is still more growth to capture; and to avoid the pressure of selling at the wrong time just for the sake of delivering liquidity back to investors.
"We're hearing with some consistency GPs saying, 'We're sick of selling our best assets to other private equity firms for them to hold it for the next five years and double or triple their money, when we could have held it," says an LP who has seen this trend. "The challenge is balancing the need for liquidity."
There's another factor at play as well: GPs are taking much longer to deploy capital into new investments in the high-priced environment. The total number of deals done over the past five years is down 25 percent from 2014, according to Bain & Co. The calculation becomes: rather than make a bet on something new and uncertain, why not stick with an asset you know intimately, that you've grown and improved, with a future path to prosperity that you helped design?
These are the sorts of considerations GPs must contemplate, and LPs appear to be on board. Investors play a vital role in the evolution of this longer-hold strategy, whether it involves raising funds with long-hold attributes, or investing in existing portfolio companies across funds that require investor approval. Without the approval of the investor community this longer-hold trend would not likely be growing as quickly as it is today.
"Over time LPs have seen that, 'Wow, you're selling this good company out of your portfolio, and we're buying it elsewhere in our portfolio, how does that help me? I would have been better off if you had held it another three years,'" says Adam Howarth, managing director and head of portfolio management Americas at Partners Group.
"People would have been delighted 15 or 20 years ago to hold great companies longer if they had the opportunity. But the industry perhaps hadn't evolved to the point where managers and investors were like-minded around the value of doing that," Sheiner says.
Buyouts spoke to dozens of sources in the market, including limited partners, investment bankers and GPs, about the growing trend of PE managers holding certain assets longer. The consensus was that the trend is real, but not everyone agreed on the risks and benefits of the strategy.
LPs especially gave mixed reviews: would longer hold periods ultimately lead to stronger returns? Or were they just a way for some larger firms to build revenue and assets under management? What's clear, though, is that there is a paradigm shift in the industry, where all parties agree that, for some investments, the traditional PE hold period is not appropriate. This will likely help shape private equity as it continues to evolve. "If I still believe in the future of an asset and new deals are scarce, why not stay invested in the asset," says Hugh MacArthur, partner at Bain & Co.
Longer investment holds in private equity are not the norm. In fact, hold periods in general are falling. Median hold periods fell to 4.5 years for deals exiting in 2018, compared with 5.9 years for investments sold in 2014, according to Bain & Co's 2019 Global Private Equity Report.
"The peak in 2014 was driven by many assets invested just ahead of the global financial crisis that ended up being held in portfolios longer than expected/planned," MacArthur says.
But with certain assets, GPs are getting much more creative than simply shopping them through an auction. This quicker turnaround likely has something to do with the amount of capital flowing into private equity funds, and the prospect of a firm being able to sell a business at a robust price.
North American private equity and mezzanine funds raised $274.9 billion as of November, up from last year's tally of $178.7 billion around the same time. And purchase price multiples generally remain high, at an average of 11x to 12x across all industries, Buyouts reported in the third quarter.
What's more, equity checks in deals have increased to 50-60 percent from 20-35 percent, meaning firms are taking even more risk in individual deals, Sumit Rajpal, global co-head of Goldman Sachs' merchant banking division, told Buyouts in the third quarter.
"If you take this angle or perspective that there's more uncertainty about where we are in the economy – and if you're trying to reduce your risk – finding something you know well makes sense," Ian Fowler, co-head of Barings Global Private Finance Group previously tells Buyouts. "Especially if you think there's more meat on the bone."
DuBois Chemicals is a nearly 100-year-old company that supplies specialty chemicals to help facility operations in sectors like manufacturing, food and beverage, paper and pulp and water treatment.
Around 11 years ago, DuBois' owner at the time, JohnsonDiversey, decided to carve it out to raise money. DuBois' current CEO, Jeff Welsh, was helping JohnsonDiversey package up assets for sale, and worked to bring in potential buyers for DuBois.
Eventually Riverside Co. emerged as the buyer for DuBois, with Welsh moving in as CEO. Riverside held the company until 2012, when it sold to Aurora Capital. Aurora owned it until 2017, when Jordan Co. and repeat investor Riverside acquired DuBois, Welsh says in an interview.
Finally, earlier this year, Altas acquired DuBois, a private equity owner that, for the first time, brought flexibility around the length of its hold period. "It's important to have that optionality, to be able to hold a business if you go into a situation where it might be better to hold it for a longer period of time," Welsh says. That means being able to hold through a down cycle, when the business may underperform, and sustain it until it emerges into a better environment.
Welsh adds that the long-holding mindset should not be totally tied to anticipated investment holds. "Potentially there's the option of investing in things that are going to have a little longer time horizon than they would in sort of a traditional three-to-five year plan," Welsh says. "You have to be a little cautious as a portfolio company in lulling yourself into thinking this will undoubtedly be a long-term hold."
While DuBois has grown over its private equity ownership years, it only has around 8 percent market share, Sheiner says.
Outside of a long-hold option built into a fund structure, like Altas or Boston-based Cove Hill Partners, GPs are achieving longevity through traditional M&A processes. Many GPs retain minority stakes in businesses they are selling to be able to continue capturing a company's growth. Others are taking an even more aggressive approach by re-investing in existing portfolio companies held in older funds.
Late last year, Nordic Capital sold its stake in eResearchTechnology out of an older fund, and at the same time re-invested through its new fund for a smaller interest. Nordic sold down its 70 percent stake in ERT to hold an equivalent stake alongside Paris firm Astorg as part of the investment, announced in October.
GTCR last year re-acquired AssuredPartners less than four years after selling the company to Apax. GTCR owned the company from 2011 to 2015 before exiting for a 4x return, Wall Street Journal reported in February 2019.
Growth investor TA Associates recently launched a unique fund that would give it a way to retain interests in companies it was selling where it saw more room for growth.
The fund targets companies in TA's portfolio that have achieved certain performance goals. The beauty of the strategy is that while giving the firm more time with growing assets, it also allows TA to deliver proceeds back to investors in older funds.
TA Select Opportunities Fund is targeting $1 billion, a fundraising goal several investors expect the firm to hit.
"[TA's fund represents] the ability to… continue to play in those assets where they think having longer hold periods is beneficial but at the same time, taking some capital off the table and derisk it," according to an investor who committed to the fund, who requested anonymity.
Sources say the trend toward longer-term holds is being driven by limited partners. For LPs, longer hold periods could mean less cost, especially as related to those costs involved in transactions, sources said. Each time a company turns over, there are fees related to the deal, which sources described as "frictional" costs.
"The friction in these things is tremendous," DuBois's Welsh says. "Every time we've sold this business over the years, there's a 5, 6, 8 percent friction rate where you're spending that in transaction costs. I've talked to LPs who say, 'What have I gained? I've bought and sold this asset and had 5, 6 or 8 percent come out of it as friction.'"
But LPs also have concerns about how these longer holds are executed, especially when it comes to a GP's new fund buying companies out of older funds.
Cross-fund investments cause a bit of consternation on the part of LPs because of an inherent conflict: A GP's new fund wants to pay a low price for the company, while the old fund wants to sell for as much as possible. It's essential, then, in cross-fund investing, for a GP to get a market value from an external investor, sources said.
"[The GP] has to go through various gymnastics to get that socialized [with investors] and approved through the advisory board and figure out a way to get pricing that's deemed fair to all parties involved," according to Scott Reed, co-head of private equity USA at Aberdeen Standard Investments.
One way this could happen is the GP brings in an external minority investor to share control and contribute equity into the deal, Reed says. "This helps provide a third-party external valuation of the pricing in which the transfer occurs," he said.
Not every LP is enamored with the idea of private equity managers holding investments longer. "There's something to be said for the discipline you get with traditional fund structure; you know you've got five-to-seven years with assets, and then it's time to move on," the LP said. "There's very few businesses that compound at 15 to 20 percent returns forever."
Risks include a company that is being held longer suddenly encountering a slowdown that cuts into profitability. The GP will have to spend material time and resources on the company rather than working to deploy capital into new investments.
"A large portion of fund LPs would say they don't want that distraction," Reed says.
Recent Posts
33rd Floor,
New York, NY,


text:
Billie Is Launching A Blue Wine That's 13% Cheaper Than Rosé Because Of The Pink Tax
If you're mourning the end of summer and the demise of rosé season (yep: there are apparently seasons for wine), then the shave and body brand Billie has got you covered. The company, which usually focuses on shaving equipment and body lotion, is calling attention to gender bias in body product pricing with a limited-edition new product. This fall, Billie is launching blue wine called Château de Blué to highlight the "ridiculousness of this gender-biased pricing strategy," Billie said in a press release emailed to Bustle.
That gender-biased pricing strategy is often called the Pink Tax, which refers to the higher prices of most goods marketed to women. The Pink Tax impacts products marketed for girls and women from birth through old age. From toys for babies and "women's" body products to canes and compression socks marketed to older women, pricing inequalities combine with wage gaps that especially impact trans women of color, as well as other women, to create even more gender-based economic inequality.
And that's where Billie enters the scene. Their Château de Blué is a "full-bodied wine with notes of oak, blueberries, and just a hint of gender bias," according to a press release. The hint of gender bias is a play on the fact that it attempts to reverse at least a little of the Pink Tax. And on the fact that pink wine is now blue (a genderqueer wine, mayhap? Or Andorian ale, if Star Trek references are more your thing).
"Because 'pink' razors are traditionally 13% marked up for women," the press release says, "Blué is 13% cheaper than the average cost of Rosé" at $14.87. Take that, Pink Tax! And that's not the only thing Billie has in store for women and transfeminine folks who shave: The company also offers a Pink Tax Rebate (aka, discounts) when you and your friends buy Billie razors. The Rebate is, like the blue wine, meant to serve as a sardonic but practical objection to the Pink Tax. "On behalf of the razor companies out there — we're sorry you've been overpaying for pink razors," Billie's website says of their Rebate. "It's time you got some money back."
And that money back is not just owed to ciswomen, who are normally the focus of Pink Tax criticisms. Transwomen are impacted not only by Pink Taxes but also by routine exclusion from marketing campaigns aimed at women. (This emotional Secret deodorant commercial featuring a trans woman is unfortunately the exception to the transphobic rule.) Transmen and many nonbinary people need tampons and pads (which are subjected to rather large Pink Taxes) and many simply prefer certain "women's" products. And trans people of all genders, especially trans women in the workplace, experience deep wage gaps and employment discrimination.
Pink Taxes extend even beyond shopping aisles: Pink Taxes on public transit also affect people with marginalized genders, both in terms of wallet size and physical safety. A 2018 report published by the Rudin Center for Transportation found that women spend as much as $50 per month to safely get home at night, compared to men who spend no extra money on transportation because they tend to feel safer on public transit late at night.
So if all the gender bias in marketing, money, and safety is getting you down, you might want to take the edge off with a bit of blue wine. On Sept. 10, get your hands on Billie's blue wine, because the limited-run of the product will only last as long as supplies do.
And if you don't drink but you're out there wanting to protest gender-biased pricing with your wallet, you can still get your hands on some sweet Billie shaving gear. Don't shave or drink? That's OK! They've also got body wash. So really, everybody wins.


text:
Today at CinemaCon kicked off with STX Entertainment, a company you may not have heard of, but you will. They released several small movies recently (including The Gift, The Boy and Hardcore Henry). And they gave us our first look at a very enticing 2016 slate, including a film called The Space Between Us.
Directed by Peter Chelsom (Serendipity) the film stars Asa Butterfield (Hugo, Ender's Game) as the first human being not born on Earth. He's the son of an astronaut who is part of the first efforts to colonise Mars, literally making him a Martian. For 15 years, NASA keeps him a secret from the world — but then he grows up, and realises that Earth is something that's foreign to him.
In this time, he meets a girl online, played by Britt Robertson (Tomorrowland) and they quickly become friends. Some of the adults in charge of Asa's character (played by actors like Gary Oldman, B.D. Wong and Carla Gugino) realise that being born in space has made him fragile. Think Superman in reverse. Coming to Earth may kill him, but he wants to come back anyway.
The Space Between Us will be released sometime later this year. There isn't a trailer online yet, but STX debuted one at CinemaCon. Most of it starts with the set up I just mentioned. A near future where humans are ready to live on Mars, a boy is born on the trip there and grows up on the Red Planet.
From there, the trailer becomes more than a story about this human boy born on Mars. It's about him coming to Earth and discovering, at the age of 16, what it means to be an Earthling. Driving down the road, seeing hot air balloons, flying in a plane. He asks someone what his favourite part of being on Earth is. The gentleman responds, "Rain." Cut to a scene of it raining.
Also, the character escapes from captivity on Earth and goes on the run. NASA and the government are going after him but he goes looking for his one friend, Robertson's character, and they strike up a romance. He tells her he's from Mars, but she doesn't believe him. Later in the trailer when he's sick because of simply being on Earth, she believes him. The trailer ends with the girl telling the boy that her favourite thing about being on Earth is him.
The trailer for The Space Between Us makes it look like a space movie, a romance, a teen drama and a chase film all rolled into one. It also includes what, I think, are some major spoilers so it will be interesting to see if this is the same trailer that gets released in the coming months. Either way, this could be a film to watch out for.
Top: A much younger Asa Butterfield in another space movie, Ender's Game. (Photos of The Space Between Us aren't available yet.)


text:
Part of the Series
Movement Memos
The second wave is killing 130 people per day in Illinois. So why are Chicago Public Schools reopening on January 11? Kelly Hayes talks with Chicago public school teacher Silvia Gonzalez about the perils of Chicago's hybrid reopening plan and why "simultaneous instruction" simply doesn't make sense.
Note: This a rush transcript and has been lightly edited for clarity. Copy may not be in its final form.
Kelly Hayes: Welcome to "Movement Memos," a Truthout podcast about things you should know if you want to change the world. I'm your host, Kelly Hayes.
A lot of people are on edge this week after hearing about a new strain of COVID-19 that could be up to 70 percent more transmissible than others. The new strain now accounts for more than 60 percent of all new cases in the U.K., and amid a troubled vaccine rollout, the idea of an even more transmissible strain of a highly transmissible and deadly disease has many of us shaken. This is especially true in Chicago, where teachers and students are expected to return to in-person classes next month.
In-person classes are set to resume for some students on January 11. On February 1, Chicago's elementary and junior high classes will be hybridized, with teachers attempting to teach in-person and online, simultaneously. On Thursday, the Illinois Educational Labor Relations Board refused to grant an injunction against the reopening plan that had been requested by the Chicago Teachers Union (CTU), but Chicago teachers have refused to back down.
Teachers have presented a host of safety concerns, including the city's positivity rate. The union has argued that public schools should not reopen until the city's 7.4 percent positivity rate is under 3 percent. Teachers have also expressed great concern about the quality of so-called "simultaneous instruction," wherein masked teachers will be instructing students in-person and remotely at the same time. Chicago Mayor Lori Lightfoot's administration says that remote learning has been unfair to Black and Latinx students, who are being set back by the shortcomings of long distance instruction. But only about 37 percent of Chicago students plan to return to school next month, and the majority of them are white.
Lightfoot quietly extended the city's existing stay at home order by 21 days on Sunday, meaning classes will resume for some students only one day after the order expires.
Having reviewed the city's reopening plan, I already found it incredibly troubling, prior to hearing about this new strain of COVID-19. And after hearing about what's happening in the U.K., where people are about to spend Christmas on lockdown, I am alarmed. But I am not the person best equipped to explain why the plan was already terrible, or what's at stake, so I want to welcome my friend Silvia Gonzalez to the show. Silvia is a Chicago public school teacher and organizer who actually created a guide to help parents and teachers understand the risks of the mayor's reopening plan. Silvia Gonzalez, welcome to the show.
Silvia Gonzalez: Hi, Kelly. Thank you so much.
KH: How are you doing today, friend?
SG: I'm making it through. And I'm also, like you mentioned in the beginning, looking at [Chicago Public Schools (CPS)] has plans to reopen, and have a lot of concerns about the myths and the facts that are being published by CPS and the videos that are being put out by CPS that, quite frankly, continue to just really make me question what safety is going to look like when and if we should return. So that's what I'm grappling with these days.
KH: So first thing's first, can you tell us a bit about the mayor's reopening plan for Chicago Public Schools, or CPS, as we tend to call it here in town, and why Chicago teachers are so concerned?
SG: For me, one of the things that I've been really trying to get across is the day-to-day logistics and what that's gonna look like for educators, and also what that's gonna look like for our students who are going to show up and are probably going to be nervous and afraid. And that's not an equitable learning condition to be found in. This new format of hybrid and remote model is not sustainable. It will burn out teachers. It is a very challenging thing to just sort of say, "Okay, well then just teach the students remote and teach the students hybrid at the same time. And by the way, you have a week to prepare for this." I find it to be really destabilizing for our students that are now being asked to essentially risk and adapt according to what CPS believes is best.
But the reality is that, according to the way the schedule is set up for an A and B hybrid model, students would only be in classes two days out of the week; their classes, as they know it, would not resume as they know it. They would be sitting six feet apart from their peers, masked for the entire day. And we're talking about K through eight students. We're talking about young people who miss their friends, young people who will no doubt need help from their teachers. Young people who will no doubt, probably need to go to the restroom plenty of times
And so to ask a student to adapt to this and to take a risk during their lunch period, during which they would be taking off their masks to eat in a classroom, just doesn't make any sense when we're talking about restaurants and small businesses closing. None of this, for me, makes sense.
And so, on top of that, I'm really concerned about the social and emotional needs that will arise with the trauma of knowing that their normal teachers will not be coming back. A lot of the teachers have been taking leaves due to pre-existing conditions and they have every right to do so. So they will not be in front of the students. There have been other teachers who are afraid to come back and are considering resigning. So what we're asking teachers and students to do is to adapt to a completely irrational plan in the middle of the school year.
KH: I keep hearing people say Dr. Fauci supports reopening schools, but unless he has reviewed Chicago's actual plan, and can say that, under the conditions we have, that it's safe to reopen the schools, I am thoroughly unconvinced. Because we are not talking about some generalized example of a school system. We are talking about a school system that was already in crisis, due to austerity and neglect and privatization efforts, where teachers were already being forced to clean their own classrooms prior to the pandemic. We are talking about broken down buildings, and a school board that has a history of covering up unsafe conditions. All of these generalizations from federal officials about districts, and buildings with vastly different challenges and capacities — in matters of public health, I want specificity. Because austerity mayors like Lori Lightfoot obviously cannot be trusted to oversee our children's safety. She fought to keep the city open as long as possible last winter. The governor had to step in and shut things down. Then she reopened the bars in November and we saw an immediate, corresponding boom in cases. Lori Lightfoot's decision-making around when it is safe to do things during the pandemic has been uniformly terrible. She allowed a demolition in Little Village that created a dust cloud that consumed the whole neighborhood — during a respiratory pandemic. She wants open businesses, open schools, and a resumption of normality, as though we aren't still living in a horror movie.
The Biden administration is actually promising funding for schools, to help make them safer, and I don't necessarily believe him, but if people do believe him, they should be screaming to high heaven that Lori Lightfoot needs to wait. And with this new strain, it's just unthinkable.
SG: Right. So I want to take a moment to shout out the efforts of the Chicago Teachers Union, because part of what they've been petitioning and asking the mayor and our elected officials to consider is if they really want to reopen.
If they really have the best interest of our students and teachers and staff in mind, they need to consider three very important things: first and foremost, safety. Establishing a clear public health criteria. If you want to open this up, we have to be very clear on how safety is established. We can't just be told that classrooms are safe and they've been inspected. CTU has asked CPS and the city to get involved in how the schools are screened, how they're looked at. And so, to really have an opportunity to be at the table with folks that are making the decisions for teachers and students. And from what I've heard, we've been denied that opportunity. CPS and the city believed that that's an, um — sort of like we're over overstepping our bounds. CTU has asked for equity, CTU has asked for trust.
And that's sort of where I was talking about that CTU, CPS joint committee on COVID-19, which would include independent experts, and can make inspections, investigations, and issue directives. CTU has also proposed for a safety committee in each school, that involves the members, the engineers of the buildings, the delegates. The people that are most familiar with these school buildings on a day-to-day basis are not being allowed to sit at the table and help inform these decisions. And so how can we have trust in what the mayor is saying or what CPS is asking for us to do in the middle of winter months? Keep our windows open, right? Like some schools don't even have properly installed windows.
So, these are just some of the things that I know CTU is really working to bargain, but for my understanding, there hasn't been a whole lot of collaboration and meeting in the middle, which is very concerning for me.
KH: One thing I cannot get past is that the shortcomings of remote learning are being held up as reason to resume in-person classes, even though most students will still be learning remotely. Most Black and Latinx students, who the mayor keeps mentioning, will keep learning remotely, because their parents do not want to send them back yet. And we know remote learning has already been a struggle for teachers and students. So won't piling on simultaneous instruction, where teachers are interacting with students in the room, and livestreaming to students at home, make remote learning harder for students at home?
SG: Yeah, and I think even on a day-to-day basis, while we're sitting and debating, teachers are trying to continue to adapt to remote learning. And so that's sort of where I've been asking the question, "Have we even taken the time to resolve the issues of remote learning in order to best prepare for a hybrid model?"
And the answer is no. We get thrown these tests that we have to take online in order to meet certain expectations. We got one, we got an email this past Friday telling us that we needed to go through another training online. And so for me, it's like, that's not really preparing us for what we're going to be coming into qualms with.
Do we have a solid understanding of the equipment or the technical support needed to be effective teachers, when we're doing the hybrid model? Do we even have that now? Do we have the proper equipment for students to be doing their work at home, now? Are students ensured stable living conditions? Is our city meeting our basic human needs first, before they ask us to go back, risk and adapt to a model that's completely disastrous in my opinion? The way that I've experienced, even the day to day, you know, having to be flexible and having to figure things out on the fly. If we can't figure out how to make remote learning equitable, and we can't figure out how to make it sustainable for students now, what right do we have to demand that students go back and figure things out in the middle of the school year? You know, part of the petition of the CTU has also been to consider our schools and students diverse needs and to adjust remote learning schedules so that students have less screen time, to allow more experiential, asynchronous learning, to provide more materials and resources for use at home, and to build in more time for educators to collaborate with colleagues and parents and caregivers. And that's just been flat out denied, where it's like we're being told that we're asking too much, that we're being unreasonable. Unreasonable for who, when we're talking about equity, and using that as a phrase as a city and saying, "Well, we really care about our black and Brown students, and they're the ones that are being put at a disadvantage."
Well, when we're putting these demands out, are we still putting them at a disadvantage by asking that they have the appropriate tools to continue their education in a time of a pandemic? Like, that's the thing that just continuously blows my mind that we're teaching and learning at the height of a pandemic, when I have to go to meetings and do moments of silence for colleagues that have passed on, when I have to get a surge of emails telling me that there've been new cases of COVID in our larger CPS schools, right? Like, I don't know if people are aware, but without students even being in the building, CTU has documented over 500 reports in schools.
That's a huge number and that's without even being in school. When we look at the data of the increase of COVID cases, we're literally asking teachers to choose between job and life. We're asking students to choose between safety or what the mayor and other folks believe is in their best interest. And quite frankly, when I have moments of conversations of this with students, they've all stated, "Yeah, we want to go back, but we want the pandemic to be over."
Nobody — kids are very fully aware that their family members are getting sick, that their family members are dying, that people that they know are being harmed by this pandemic. And, I'm not even just talking physically only. I'm also thinking about the distress that this has brought on to people, the trauma, the emotional strain. And if we can't figure out how to deal with that now, while students have been remote learning, I have some serious questions about how we're going to do that with a hybrid model.
KH: The Chicago Teachers Union has gone toe-to-toe with mayor Lightfoot in the past. Lori Lightfoot, who ran on a progressive platform, and swore there would not be a teacher's strike on her watch. And in 2019, we found out that was a lie. The Chicago Teachers Union also had to threaten to strike to prevent in-person classes in the fall of 2020. So can you say a bit about what it's been like for you as teachers to interact with this mayor?
SG: Am I allowed to just say, "Thumbs down! Just overall, not very good." No, I'm sorry. I just, I guess if I have to give a more eloquent response is, I'm very disappointed, but I'm not surprised, you know? I think that she ran on a progressive platform and made a lot of promises, but then when the teacher's strike came and went, she showed her true colors. She really showed where her position stood, and that was not with the working-class families that we have to work with on a day-to-day basis. That's not with the teachers that are part of forming our city and making our city as great as it is. And so for me, knowing that somebody that was elected is harnessing that much power and using it in such a destructive manner, not really looking out for the folks of Chicago, I'm extremely disappointed. I don't really know how else to, how else to express that. And I think what's been more disappointing is that CTU is asking to sit at the table, is asking to not be quoted for having had 42 meetings. No meeting in the middle, right? Like, nobody can come to a consensus.
I'm looking for — Look, if you had 42 meetings, couldn't you have already come up with 42 different solutions and like put the ego down. We're talking about people's lives here. We're talking about people's livelihoods. We're talking about Chicago being a majority of working class folks. Right?
The minute I saw the way that the CARES Act funding was being used and the way in which policing was heightened in the city of Chicago, I knew that there is no best interest in our public education. This mayor prioritizes policing and has other priorities that are not — you know, one of the things that CTU brought up was Lincoln Yards and the TIF money. If that's not enough of a witness to the ways in which she believes our money needs to be allocated instead of supporting our working class families and supporting public education, I don't know what else to point to.
KH: What are you most afraid of personally, right now, as you all are faced with the prospect of reopening?
SG: You know, Kelly, I feel like you've known me for some time. I'm, I try to keep my joy, I try to guard my joy. But these days I'm afraid. I have some real fears and sometimes even expressing those makes me more fearful because I don't feel understood. I feel like the data has not been enough. And as someone who has to sit during a virtual vigil and look at the faces of people that have passed as a result of COVID, is terrifying. The thought of seeing myself or my colleagues as a part of a slideshow, the thought of having a moment of silence with my students is terrifying. How are we expected to perform the day-to-day duties when everything is happening all at the same time, in the middle of a pandemic? How can I best support the young people that I love and do the work that I adore, knowing everything is on fire right now? And that for me is a fear I try not to sit too long with because I will very quickly spiral.
And I just think, at the end of the day we don't want to strike. At the end of the day, the Chicago Teachers Union, we don't have a constant, like, strike and battle mentality. We want the best for our students. We want the best for our colleagues. We deserve that much and more. But we want our students to be safe. We want these fears to be diminished. We want to have some sort of normalcy. We want to have some sort of comfort, even with everything that's going on. So, you know, this kind of is a breach in our contract. This doesn't follow the safety that we require in our contract. So, we don't want to strike first. We want to have the best interest in mind and really say, "Hey, we're looking for safety. We're looking for equity. We're looking for trust. This is what that would look like. This is, these are our lists of demands. Is there a way we can meet halfway? Is there a way we can put the interest of our students first? And what would that look like? Can we meet at the table and have some of these things discussed in a way that's respectful, and honestly just has our livelihoods at the top as priority?"
I don't think that's too much to ask for, but I do think that what I've mentioned in terms of my fears, those are the things that I'm afraid of, that we just won't be able to do that. Most of us are just tired. So that's sort of where my fear is at, that we're just very quickly burning out. But I don't want to lose hope. I don't want to lose my joy. I want to guard it and I want to support my students, come what may.
KH: So what can people do to show solidarity and support right now?
SG: You know, I think just holding our elected officials accountable. Right now, the Chicago Teachers Union has their list of petitions on the CTU Local One website, where you can also enter your return address and start writing a letter that will directly be sent to your alderman and elected officials. And so I would really ask that folks take a few minutes out of their day to sign this petition which is asking our elected officials to stop the reckless reopening plan. The Illinois Educational Labor Relations Board issued a preliminary ruling not to impose an injunction. Yet the plan that CPS has put out is forcing pre-K and special ed cluster students. And so we're asking folks to please take some time and ask our elected officials to raise their voices and demand safety and equity, so that when we do whatever the case may be, we want to know that our city has our back.
And so for me, I don't know, I always, I'm always like, I don't know, just put the word out. I feel like not enough people know what this really looks like. And I think that that's really irresponsible to blindside our parents and families and CPS constituents, and just give them this very pretty plan that sounds decent, but like, without really having the precaution of, "…but also keep this in mind," right? And so I just want people to have as much of the full scope of information as they can and continue to have these discussions with each other, continue to sign these petitions, continue to ask that our mayor do better by our city.
KH: Well, thank you for that. And we'll definitely be linking that petition and other resources in the show notes, in the transcript of this episode on our website at truthout.org. I'd also just like to remind folks, just really everywhere in the country, that it's not enough to say that the federal government or Biden or Fauci says that our schools should reopen. All of us should know what reopening plans in our area consist of. All of us should know about the conditions on the ground that children and students are being expected to negotiate with because it's an abdication of responsibility to speak to something as vast and varied as the U.S. education system without any specificity. You can be very educated and also completely ignorant of a situation, and no one is exempt from that reality.
So I hope that we will look at what's happening and also process that we really don't know what's happening with this new strain yet. And with some students slated to return on January 11th, I think we need to be responsible. I think we need to do the opposite of what Trump did last winter and say, "This new strain is serious. We don't know how serious. But we are going to prioritize life."
So I hope we all support our teachers as they advocate for their safety and the safety of their students. This is not a time to keep grinding people under to keep capitalism afloat. This is a time to insist that our survival comes first. Silvia, I want to thank you so much for joining us today and for everything that you're doing.
SG: Thank you, Kelly.
KH: I also want to thank our listeners for joining us today and remember, our best defense against cynicism is to do good, and to remember that the good we do matters. Until next time, I'll see you in the streets.
Show Notes:
You can find the Chicago Teachers Union petition to halt Lori Lightfoot's reopening plan here.
You can find Sylvia's fact sheet on hybrid and remote learning in Chicago here.
It takes longer to read this sentence than it does to support our work.
We have 1 day left to raise the $27,000 needed to meet Truthout's basic publishing costs this month. Will you take a few seconds to donate and give us a much-needed boost?
We know you are deeply committed to the issues that matter, and you count on us to bring you trustworthy reporting and comprehensive analysis on the real issues facing our country and the world. And as a nonprofit newsroom supported by reader donations, we're counting on you too. If you believe in the importance of an independent, free media, please make a tax-deductible donation today!