Posted on Leave a comment

Spike in N.Y.C. Shootings Leaves 64 Shot and 10 Dead

Rory Lancman, the chairman of the City Council’s committee on the justice system, and the sponsor of the chokehold bill, said the police were grasping at everything they could to fight systemic changes from the outside. Chokeholds are already banned by the department, he noted, and the Council law has not yet taken effect.

The police commissioner “has been desperately looking anywhere but the mirror” to explain the rise in major crimes and shootings, he said. “It’s not serious, and if he cannot competently and safely keep New Yorkers safe, while adhering to the very same chokehold and knee restraints that are in the patrol guide, then it is definitely time for a new commissioner.”

Donovan Richards, the chairman of the City Council’s public safety committee, said that it is the job of the police to fight crime, and he said that the department appeared to be doing the opposite of what was needed to counter calls to cut its budget and head count.

“There’s a slowdown without a doubt, and N.Y.P.D. is allowing it,” he said in an interview. “We’ve seen what the N.Y.P.D. will do when they want to keep record low shootings over the course of the last few years. Every year, we’re breaking this record, we’re breaking this record. There’s not even an effort being made at this point.”

Chief of Department Terence A. Monahan, the police department’s top uniformed official, denied there was a slowdown.

John Eterno, a Molloy College professor and former city police captain, said there appeared to be a real and significant increase in shootings that is connected to officers’ sinking morale, given the barrage of criticism from politicians and the public.

“Many people have the idea that police feel very powerful with their badge and gun, and it’s the opposite,” he said. “So when you see a lack of support from a lot of places, not just from the community but also from politicians, I do think police do change their job and how they do it.”

Posted on Leave a comment

TikTok to Withdraw From Hong Kong as Tech Giants Halt Data Requests

“We believe freedom of expression is a fundamental human right and support the right of people to express themselves without fear for their safety or other repercussions,” the statement added. The suspension of data reviews also applies to the messaging app WhatsApp, the company said.

On Monday, a Google spokesman said the company had paused processing data requests from the Hong Kong authorities on Wednesday, and Twitter said it had also stopped processing the requests. Telegram, a messaging app popular with Hong Kong’s protesters, said on Sunday that it would suspend the provision of user data until a consensus was reached on the new law. Telegram has offices in the Middle East and Europe.

Some people in Hong Kong reported being unable to download the TikTok app on Tuesday.

The national security law, adopted in part to quash the antigovernment demonstrations that have smoldered in Hong Kong for more than a year, was introduced last week on the anniversary of the city’s return to Chinese control. Though officials insist that the sweeping and punitive new rules will affect only a small number of offenders, many worry that it will be used to widely curb dissent in Hong Kong, which, unlike mainland China, continues to have an array of civil liberties.

Riva Sciuto, a Google spokeswoman, said, “Last Wednesday, when the law took effect, we paused production on any new data requests from Hong Kong authorities, and we’ll continue to review the details of the new law.”

The law has already cast a pall over the city’s internet. Seeking safer ways to communicate, legions have downloaded the encrypted messaging app Signal, pushing it to the top of the list of app store downloads. Others, fearing prosecution for speech crimes, have deleted online posts, likes and even whole accounts.

The new rules announced by Hong Kong on Monday made clearer how the law would apply to online discussion.

The government said that if an internet company failed to comply with a court order to turn over data in cases related to national security, it could be fined almost $13,000 and an employee could face six months in prison. If a person is ordered to remove a post and he or she refuses, that person can face a jail sentence of one year. A separate provision also gave the police wide powers to order the deletion of internet posts that threaten national security. How widely the rules will be enforced remains unclear.

Posted on Leave a comment

Opinion | How Germany Fell Back in Love With Angela Merkel

The chancellor acted quickly and decisively at the European level, too. There, the pandemic opened up old resentments between north and south, as Italy in particular sought financial and medical assistance some northern countries appeared unwilling to give. It looked like the European Union could unravel. “I believe she understood that this could be Europe’s end,” Mr. Gabriel said. “She knew that if she didn’t act, member states in need would look for help outside Europe — and China was fired up and ready to step in.”

And that’s what she did. For years, the chancellor was criticized for doing too little to speed up Europe’s integration. But on May 18, Ms. Merkel and President Emmanuel Macron of France proposed an ambitious recovery fund. They suggested that the European Commission should borrow 500 billion euros, $545 billion, from the financial markets and distribute them to member states in need. “This,” said Mr. Gabriel, who served as foreign minister under Ms. Merkel, “was a paradigm shift.”

The backlash from northern nations like Austria, the Netherlands, Denmark and Sweden was enormous. The negotiations drag on. But Ms. Merkel’s position is clear. “It is very much in all the member states’ own interests to maintain a strong European internal market,” she noted dryly in a recent interview, “and to stand united on the world stage.” In other words: She saw that the crisis was a great opportunity to overcome reservations about deeper European integration, both in Germany and the continent, and jumped at it.

Most surprising, however, is how Ms. Merkel has successfully managed to connect with Germany’s citizens. In previous crises, she’s had to convince her party or other world leaders. This time, it was the German people.

That could have been tricky. It’s established wisdom that Ms. Merkel struggles to relate to people: The very character traits people cherish most in her — her reliability, her diligence, her levelheadedness — also create a sense of distance. Her demeanor is soothing, but at times impermeable and impersonal. She’s the chancellor through and through. “There is only one Angela Merkel,” Mr. Braun, her chief of staff, told me. “Behind the scenes, she’s exactly what she’s like in public.”

So it came as a surprise when, on March 18, Ms. Merkel spoke directly and frankly to the German people in a televised speech. The chancellor, by general agreement not a gifted orator, only holds one televised speech a year, on New Year’s Eve. But whether it was what she said that evening — she invoked World War II — or simply the unusual format, it did the trick. For once, Angela Merkel reached the hearts and minds of Germany’s citizens.

Before the pandemic, with a healthy economy and the government boasting a surplus of €19 billion, over $21 billion, Ms. Merkel was criticized for not doing enough. She wasn’t leading her country and Europe; she was merely managing them. The criticism now seems excessive. As Germany held its breath during those terrifying weeks of lockdown, it saw Angela Merkel afresh. No longer overcautious and hesitant, she was instead the duteous and utterly capable leader who was there when her country needed her most.

Not that she seems to care much about her new popularity. “When you’re in politics,” she said last month, “you just have to adjust to new realities and situations. That’s our job.”

The Times is committed to publishing a diversity of letters to the editor. We’d like to hear what you think about this or any of our articles. Here are some tips. And here’s our email: letters@nytimes.com.

Follow The New York Times Opinion section on Facebook, Twitter (@NYTopinion) and Instagram.

Posted on Leave a comment

Opinion | I’m a Direct Descendant of Thomas Jefferson. Take Down His Memorial.

When my brother Frank and I were boys visiting our grandparents at their home in Virginia, just outside of Washington, we used to heckle our grandmother until she would drive us into town so we could visit the Smithsonian museum on the Mall.

As we crossed the Potomac River on the 14th Street Bridge, the Jefferson Memorial stood off to the left, overlooking the Tidal Basin. I don’t remember ever visiting the memorial, even though it was just a short walk from the museums. It was located on the Mall, along Jefferson Drive, naturally.

We were surrounded by the history of Thomas Jefferson when we made those visits to our grandparents. We would drive down to Charlottesville with our grandmother to visit our great-aunts and our great-grandmother — and they would take us up the mountain to Monticello and drop us off to play in the house and on the grounds. They treated Monticello like it was the family home, because in a way it was: They were great-granddaughters of Jefferson. They had been born and grew up only a few miles away at a family plantation, called Edgehill.

I guess that’s why my brother and I, the great-grandsons, took the Jefferson Memorial for granted. We had his ancestral home as a playground. It was where all of our great-grandparents and great-aunts and great-uncles were buried, and where one day, we were told, we would be buried, too. We didn’t need the Jefferson Memorial. Monticello was enough.

It’s still enough. In fact, as a memorial to Jefferson himself, it’s almost perfect. And that is why his memorial in Washington should be taken down and replaced. Described by the National Park Service as “a shrine to freedom,” it is anything but.

The memorial is a shrine to a man who during his lifetime owned more than 600 slaves and had at least six children with one of them, Sally Hemings. It’s a shrine to a man who famously wrote that “all men are created equal” in the Declaration of Independence that founded this nation — and yet never did much to make those words come true. Upon his death, he did not free the people he enslaved, other than those in the Hemings family, some of whom were his own children. He sold everyone else to pay off his debts.

In fact, some of his white descendants, including his grandson Thomas Jefferson Randolph, my great-great-great-great grandfather, fought in the Civil War in defense of slavery. My great-grandmother lived with him at Edgehill after she was born there in 1866. That is how close we are not only to Jefferson but also to slavery. When we visited her as children, there was only one dead man between my brother and me and Thomas Jefferson.

I am the sixth-generation great-grandson of a slave owner. My cousins from the Sally Hemings family are also the great-grandchildren of a slave owner. But the difference is that our great-grandfather owned their great-grandmother. My family owned their family. That is the American history you will not learn when you visit the Jefferson Memorial. But you will learn it when you visit Monticello: There’s now an exhibit of Sally Hemings’s bedroom in her cavelike living quarters in the south wing, a room my brother and I used to play in when we were boys.

A tour of Monticello these days will tell you that it was designed by Jefferson and built by the people he enslaved; it will point out joinery and furniture built by Sally’s brother, John Hemings. Today, there are displays of rebuilt cabins and barns where those enslaved lived and worked. At Monticello, you will learn the history of Jefferson, the man who was president and wrote the Declaration of Independence, and you will learn the history of Jefferson, the slave owner. Monticello is an almost perfect memorial, because it reveals him with his moral failings in full, an imperfect man, a flawed founder.

That’s why we don’t need the Jefferson Memorial to celebrate him. He should not be honored with a bronze statue 19 feet tall, surrounded by a colonnade of white marble. The time to honor the slave-owning founders of our imperfect union is past. The ground, which should have moved long ago, has at last shifted beneath us.

And it’s time to honor one of our founding mothers, a woman who fought as an escaped slave to free those still enslaved, who fought as an armed scout for the Union Army against the Confederacy — a woman who helped to bring into being a more perfect union after slavery, a process that continues to this day. In Jefferson’s place, there should be another statue. It should be of Harriet Tubman.

To see a 19-foot-tall bronze statue of a Black woman, who was a slave and also a patriot, in place of a white man who enslaved hundreds of men and women is not erasing history. It’s telling the real history of America.

Lucian K. Truscott IV (@LucianKTruscott) is a novelist and a columnist for Salon.

Posted on Leave a comment

Months Into Virus Crisis, U.S. Cities Still Lack Testing Capacity

Arizona once had a stockpile of supplies, state officials say, but the surge in cases since Memorial Day has drained even basic items for testing, like swabs.

“That really speaks to the national and global supply chain issues,” said Daniel Ruiz, Arizona’s chief operating officer. “It’s not that these things are in a warehouse ready to be delivered.”

All along, the United States has struggled with issues tied to testing. In February, the federal government shipped a tainted testing kit to states, delaying a broader testing strategy and leaving states blind to a virus that was already beginning to circulate. Later, testing supplies became a choke point, and states called on the federal government to use the Defense Production Act to force additional production.

Many places have been able to overcome some of the supply constraints that defined the earlier days of the outbreak, in part with their own resources. New York City, once faced with severe shortages as an epicenter of the virus, is now testing 30,000 people a day, officials say, an expansion that included the city building its own testing kits and partnering with private labs.

But even as Gov. Andrew M. Cuomo announced last week that anyone in New York State who wanted a test could get one, officials in other states have been left seeking a more robust testing system, and setting new limits on who can take one.

“We are too fragmented,” said Dr. Michael Mina, an assistant professor of epidemiology at Harvard’s T.H. Chan School of Public Health. “We don’t have a good way to load-balance the system.”

Testing delays and shortages have increasingly become a problem in Texas, where cases are surging.

Cities like San Antonio and Austin have reverted to testing only those who are showing symptoms as a way to manage the demand and a backlog of tests.

Posted on Leave a comment

Appeals Court Strikes Down Trump Administration’s Asylum Ban

LOS ANGELES — A federal appeals court on Monday struck down President Trump’s policy that barred most migrants from seeking asylum in the United States if they had passed through another country, concluding that the government did “virtually nothing” to make sure that another country is “a safe option” for those fleeing persecution.

A three-judge panel of the United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit in San Francisco affirmed the decision of a federal judge who ruled last year that the so-called third-country transit rule was unlawful, with one judge calling it “perhaps the most significant change to American asylum in a generation.”

The ruling was an interim but important step. In September, the Supreme Court had allowed the Trump administration’s rule forbidding most Central American migrants from seeking asylum in the United States to take effect while the appeals courts deliberated its legality.

That stay remains in place until the Supreme Court takes up the case or the Trump administration abandons the policy. In the meantime, nearly all asylum seekers have been temporarily blocked from entering the country under a separate administration directive, issued as a result of the coronavirus pandemic, that closed the border to all but United States citizens and lawful permanent residents.

Still, Monday’s opinion was an important legal milestone, a 66-page opinion that found serious legal deficiencies in one of the administration’s signature immigration policies.

“The Trump administration is sure to appeal to the U.S. Supreme Court,” said Stephen Yale-Loehr, a professor of immigration at Cornell Law School.

The transit rule was issued jointly by the Departments of Justice and Homeland Security in July 2019, when thousands of migrant families were pushing toward the southwestern border, many of them seeking asylum from violence in Central America. Countering decades of law and policy, under which the United States had long provided refuge in such cases, it declared that any migrant who passed through another country en route to the border would be ineligible for asylum, with few exceptions.

The policy required migrants traveling over land from El Salvador, Honduras or other countries to apply for and be denied asylum by Mexico, Guatemala or another country through which they traveled before they could be eligible to make a claim for protection in the United States.

If they did not, those who managed to reach the United States would be automatically considered to lack a credible fear of persecution in their home countries.

The appeals court said there was evidence that contradicted the administration’s assertion that migrants could obtain safe protection in Mexico and other countries.

It also said the administration had not justified its assumption that a person who failed to apply for asylum in a third country was unlikely to have a meritorious claim.

Judge William A. Fletcher, appointed by former President Bill Clinton, wrote the opinion for the panel, which also included Judge Eric D. Miller, who was appointed by President Trump, and Judge Richard R. Clifton, appointed by former President George W. Bush.

Judge Miller concurred in part and dissented in part, writing that the federal agencies’ “deficient” justification for the transit rule was “particularly troubling because the rule represents such a major change to policy — perhaps the most significant change to American asylum in a generation.”

The main opinion said there was “no evidence in the record” to support the rule’s assumption that migrants who do not apply for asylum in Guatemala or Mexico en route from, say, El Salvador or Honduras, can be assumed to lack a credible fear of persecution in their home country.

“This ruling says very simply that Congress is in control of asylum, and the administration cannot act unilaterally to destroy our asylum system,” said Lee Gelernt, the lawyer with the American Civil Liberties Union who argued the appeal on behalf of several groups challenging the rule.

Neither the Justice Department nor the Department of Homeland Security had any immediate comment on the decision.

In a related case this month, a federal judge in the U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia ruled that the administration had illegally put into place the transit rule by not allowing public comment first.

That decision resulted in a suspension of the transit ban on more narrow grounds.

The order that effectively closed the border to asylum seekers, using the coronavirus pandemic as justification, is being challenged in a federal court in Washington.

Posted on Leave a comment

Lobbyists, Law Firms and Trade Groups Took Small-Business Loans

A New York shipping business owned by the family of Transportation Secretary Elaine Chao, the wife of the Senate majority leader, Mitch McConnell, received at least $350,000, according to the data. A person familiar with the company, Foremost Group, said that the loan was for less than $500,000 and that no employees had been laid off during the pandemic. Ms. Chao has no formal affiliation or stake in the business, but she and Mr. McConnell have received millions of dollars in gifts from her father, James, who ran the company until 2018.

Many of the biggest and most influential lobbying and political consulting firms received money — despite prohibitions intended to restrict access — most likely qualifying by highlighting lines of business that fell outside the restrictions.

Wiley Rein, which has a large lobbying practice focusing on trade issues, received between $5 million and $10 million, according to the data. Van Ness Feldman and Beveridge & Diamond, two law firms that focus on helping energy industry clients push their agendas in Washington, received loans between $2 million and $5 million, according to the administration.

A firm that raises money for Mr. Trump’s re-election campaign and the Republican National Committee received a loan of more than $1 million, according to the data set, while a company that produces Mr. Trump’s political advertisements received between $350,000 and $1 million. So did a consulting firm started by President Barack Obama’s former campaign manager Jim Messina and one that Hillary Clinton’s 2008 campaign paid for communications consulting.

Several firms that advise companies on how to deal with the government, but are not officially registered to lobby, were also said to have received loans. They include companies run by former Secretary of State Madeleine Albright, who served in the Clinton administration.

The administration listed loans worth between $350,000 and $1 million to a consulting firm started by former Senator William S. Cohen, a Maine Republican who also served in the Clinton administration as the secretary of defense, and one run by a homeland security secretary in the Bush administration, Michael Chertoff. And DCI Group AZ, a prominent political and corporate consulting firm, collected as much as $5 million.

An affiliate of Americans for Tax Reform, the influential conservative group that has been a vocal critic of government spending, received between $150,000 and $350,000, according to the government’s data. In a statement, the group said the foundation “was badly hurt by the government shutdown” and “does not engage in lobbying.”

Posted on Leave a comment

Spencer Cox Wins Utah’s G.O.P. Primary for Governor, Beating Jon Huntsman

Lt. Gov. Spencer Cox of Utah won last week’s Republican primary for governor, according to results released on Monday.

He defeated Jon Huntsman Jr., who served as governor from 2005 to 2009 before stepping down to become President Barack Obama’s ambassador to China. The Associated Press called the race on Monday evening, and Mr. Cox said on Twitter that Mr. Huntsman had called him to concede.

Mr. Cox is expected to win the governorship in November over the Democratic nominee, Chris Peterson. Utah has not elected a Democrat as governor in more than 35 years.

The primary was a convoluted political story: Mr. Cox is the current lieutenant governor under Gov. Gary Herbert, who got the job because he had himself been lieutenant governor under Mr. Huntsman. Mr. Herbert chose this year to endorse Mr. Cox rather than Mr. Huntsman.

Mr. Huntsman’s campaign was interrupted last month when he tested positive for the coronavirus. He has since recovered.

To some extent, Mr. Huntsman’s loss was surprising given his political history: He was one of the most popular governors in the country when he left office. But he is also a moderate Republican who served as ambassador to China under Mr. Obama in addition to his posts in Republican administrations, and moderation and bipartisanship have not tended to play well in Republican primaries in the age of President Trump.

He also served as ambassador to Russia under Mr. Trump before resigning in August.

Mr. Huntsman ran for the Republican presidential nomination in 2012 and placed third in the New Hampshire primary, but ended his campaign before the South Carolina primary and endorsed Mitt Romney. Mr. Romney lost in the general election but made his own political comeback in Utah, which elected him to the Senate in 2018.

Posted on Leave a comment

Patrick Mahomes Gets 10-Year Deal With Kansas City Chiefs

Quarterback Patrick Mahomes, one of the N.F.L.’s biggest stars, has signed a 10-year contract extension with the Kansas City Chiefs, according to a person familiar with the terms of the deal who was not authorized to speak for the team.

The big payday, worth up to half a billion dollars, for Mahomes, who at 24 has already been voted as the league’s most valuable player and won a Super Bowl, is likely to set a new benchmark for the league’s young quarterbacks who are also playing on rookie contracts.

The extension of his current deal, which had two years left on it, will keep him in Kansas City through 2031, when he will be 35 on opening day that season.

After the deal had been reported, Mahomes posted a one-minute video on his Twitter feed with the title, “Here to stay…!” The video includes clips of acrobatic throws and touchdown scores, and ends with the words, “We’re chasing a dynasty.”

The contract extension, which was first reported by ESPN, is the largest in N.F.L. history and one of the biggest in U.S. sports. Leigh Steinberg, Mahomes’s agent, said the extension was worth $503 million. Steinberg said $477 million of that money was in “guarantee mechanisms” and that Mahomes could opt out if those mechanisms were not triggered. Mahomes also will have a no-trade clause.

A spokesman for the Chiefs declined to comment. Mahomes and the Chiefs began negotiations in May.

Ten-year contract extensions are unusual in the N.F.L., where the injury rates are high and teams operate under a strict salary cap that limits how much they can spend on their rosters. Most star quarterbacks have received three- and four-year contracts in recent years. Russell Wilson, for instance, signed a four-year, $140 million extension with the Seattle Seahawks last year, which at the time made him the league’s highest paid player, with the biggest signing bonus — reportedly $65 million — in history.

The last time an N.F.L. player signed a 10-year contract was in 2004, when quarterback Michael Vick, then 24 and with the Atlanta Falcons, agreed to a deal worth as much as $130 million. That made him the highest-paid player at the time.

But the Chiefs no doubt recognize that Mahomes is a once-in-a-generation player with a combination of athletic ability and star power that is nearly impossible to replicate. Agents for other young, talented quarterbacks, most notably Dak Prescott of the Dallas Cowboys, are likely to use Mahomes’s contract to justify seeking similar deals for their clients.

Lamar Jackson of the Baltimore Ravens and Deshaun Watson of the Houston Texans, two other cornerstone quarterbacks, are also still playing on rookie deals.

Mahomes’s rise has been swifter and borne greater results. In 2017, the Chiefs traded up to the No. 10 pick in that year’s draft to select Mahomes, who played college football at Texas Tech. After serving as a backup to Alex Smith in his rookie season, Mahomes took over the starting quarterback spot in 2018 and instantly became a star. He threw for 5,097 yards and 50 touchdowns, helping lead the Chiefs to a division title with a 12-4 record. The Chiefs lost in the A.F.C. championship game that season.

But this past season, Mahomes helped lead the team to a division title and, after two dramatic comeback playoff victories, took the Chiefs to their second Super Bowl title, beating the San Francisco 49ers, 31-20, in February.

Including signing bonuses, Mahomes has earned $13.7 million in his first three seasons, according to Spotrac, a website that tracks pro sports contracts. He had two years remaining on that deal worth $2.8 million this season and $24.8 million next year.

Posted on Leave a comment

Charlie Daniels, Fiddling Force in Country and Rock, Dies at 83

His plucky attitude reached new heights in “The Devil Went Down to Georgia,” a No. 1 country single and Top 10 pop hit from 1979 in which Mr. Daniels’s protagonist goes head-to-head with Satan in a fiddle contest, and prevails. The recording appeared on the multiplatinum-selling album “Million Mile Reflections” and won a Grammy Award for best country vocal.

His championing the underdog, coupled with his band’s constant touring, won Mr. Daniels a following, which included President Jimmy Carter, who invited the Charlie Daniels Band to perform at his 1977 inaugural ball.

But as the 1970s gave way to the ’80s, Mr. Daniels’s politics became increasingly right-wing and his songs more strident, beginning with “In America,” a Top 20 pop hit written in response to the Iran hostage crisis of 1980. “Simple Man,” a No. 2 country single in 1990, called for the lynching of drug dealers and sex offenders, while “(What the World Needs Is) A Few More Rednecks,” also from 1990, ran counter to the hippie nonconformity of his early hits.

“If I come across an issue, or something I feel strongly about, and I happen to think of a song that would go in that direction, then I do it,” Mr. Daniels said, discussing how he came to write “Simple Man,” in an online interview. “But that’s not what I start out, necessarily, to do.”

Such disavowals notwithstanding, Mr. Daniels proved to be anything but reluctant to share his increasingly right-wing views, especially on the Soap Box section of the Charles Daniels Band website, where he would pontificate on the Second Amendment, patriotism and other issues, and in his 1993 book, “Ain’t No Rag: Freedom, Family and the Flag.”