First Man: A New Vision Of The Apollo 11 Mission To Set Foot On The Moon

First Man: Ryan Gosling as Neil Armstrong, the first man on the Moon. (Universal Pictures and DreamWorks Pictures)

The Apollo 11 lunar landing was the first time humans stepped on another celestial body, and the events leading up to that historic moment – which celebrates its 50th anniversary next year – are depicted in the new movie First Man, out in cinemas now.

Director Damien Chazelle has delivered an intense film about astronaut Neil Armstrong, who made those iconic first steps.

But this is no triumphant paean to the Cold War Space Race, and you’ll find no trite comparisons of Apollo technology to the computing power of today’s smart phones here.

Drawn from the official biography by James R Hansen, Armstrong is portrayed with muscular introversion by Ryan Gosling, grappling with Armstrong’s renowned discomfort with the public demands of the space program, his role of husband and father, the intellectual and physical challenges of the quest for the moon, and a series of deeply personal tragedies.

In other words, the First Man on the Moon is shown to be a fallible and complex human being.

The man and the Moon 
In a quiet opening scene, Armstrong sings a lullaby, I See the Moon, to his infant daughter, echoing the transcendental fascination with the Moon held by generations of sleepless parents and children over the course of our evolution.

Ryan Gosling as Neil Armstrong the father. (Daniel McFadden)

Armstrong is haunted by the Moon and death throughout the film. His lunar quest is tied indelibly to his relationship with his daughter.

Shot often from Armstrong’s perspective, this film is an exploration of apparent emptiness – of space, the Moon, and a man in grief, accustomed to loss and most comfortable when cut off from those closest to him.

The Moon landing is the backdrop, the ultimate distraction from his world of pain, and Gosling plays it beautifully.

We’ve been there before, in film 
For almost as long as there have been moving pictures, we have had movies imagining space flight. In 1902 Georges Méliès directed and starred in what is considered the first science fiction film, the influential A Trip to the Moon (Le Voyage Dans La Lune).

Space films developed a few recurring themes since then. There’s the heroic manly astronaut addicted to risking life and limb. With the notable exception of Hidden Figures, women tend to be shown marooned at home, anguished and accommodating of their physically and emotionally distant husbands. Then there’s the passionate flight director, swearing to all who will listen that he’ll get the astronauts home safe.

It’s a real triumph that First Man (mostly) avoids these cliches and genuinely gives us something new, and somehow more real.

The dangers of space were not exaggerated, and started with the terrestrial training. Neil Armstrong (Ryan Gosling) ejected seconds before the Lunar Landing Research Vehicle crashed and burned at Ellington Air Force Base.(Daniel McFadden)

There are a respectful number of references to other movies such as The Right Stuff, Apollo 13, and 2001 A Space Odyssey that embed First Man within the well-established tradition of cinematic space flight.

These references highlight this film’s differences, drawn from the well-grounded depictions of Armstrong and his wife Janet, played by Claire Foy. The sequences between husband and wife are emotionally charged, rather than sentimentalised. The scenes where she listens to the radio feed from the landing are riveting. It is hard to imagine more Oscar-worthy contenders.

An emotional time on Earth for Janet Armstrong (Claire Foy). (Daniel McFadden)

Flagging outrage 
The film does not sanitise the space program. Embracing the politics of the day, Chazelle recreates the protests around the Apollo missions.

Many people are shown questioning its value. Journalists demand to know how much it is worth, in lives lost and in dollars.

But First Man refocuses the emphasis of the Apollo 11 mission from US nationalism to Armstrong’s personal journey, and this doesn’t sit well with the current far right in Trump’s America.

Republican Senator Marco Rubio is angry that the planting of the US flag – an action symbolising the colonisation of territory – is not shown (although the flag appears more than once).

Some are calling for a boycott over the flag issue. Armstrong’s colleague on the Apollo 11 mission, astronaut Buzz Aldrin, has also implied his dissatisfaction with the film in a tweet.

Chazelle, the Oscar-winning director of La La Land, said the omission was not political; instead he chose to focus on the “unfamous stuff” as well as Armstrong’s experience and character.

The flag was controversial even at the peak of the Cold War. The United Nations Outer Space Treaty, ratified by the US just two years before, forbids territorial claims in space. How could an American mission claim to represent humanity if it included a symbolic act of American colonialism?

Fortunately, the response of the international community was to celebrate the collective human achievement rather than the national one.

More than a national effort: (left to right) Buzz Aldrin (Corey Stoll), Mike Collins (Lukas Haas) and Neil Armstrong (Ryan Gosling) head for the Moon. (Daniel McFadden)

There were numerous international contributions made to the Apollo missions. Australia provided tracking stations – famously, Armstrong’s first footfalls on the Moon were transmitted through the Honeysuckle Creek station, outside Canberra.

Australian space scientist Professor Brian O'Brien, then at Rice University in Texas, designed a dust-detecting experiment that was left on the surface of the Moon.

When the Moon is not enough 
There is an element of anti-climax about the film’s conclusion. As with Apollo 13, we know how it’s going to end.

But First Man does so on a carefully crafted note, a plausible hypothesis suggested by biographer Hansen that may have been designed to further humanise the inscrutable astronaut. The scene implies that the emotional distances he has to travel on Earth are greater than those which he crossed to the Moon.

Where we go from here is the question. Do we show the moral courage to take on the difficult tasks and solve the earthbound crises facing us today, or do we channel our energies and enterprise into becoming a multi-planet species?

Now that we have “conquered” the Moon, perhaps the only mission worthy of Armstrong’s legacy is to be humble, thoughtful and inspired about our place in the universe, while we still have one.

About Today's Contributors:
Alice Gorman, Senior Lecturer in Archaeology and Space Studies, Flinders University and Heather L. Robinson, Research Associate & PhD Candidate, College of Humanities, Arts & Social Sciences, Flinders University

This article is republished from The Conversation under a Creative Commons license. 

Museum of Science, Boston Celebrates the Charles Hayden Planetarium's 60th Anniversary with the Release of New Film

Destination Mars: The New Frontier

Since 1958, the Museum of Science's Charles Hayden Planetarium has dazzled and immersed visitors in the wonders of the night sky and the universe. 

Premiering on October 20th and created in-house by the award-winning Planetarium staff of producers and artists, and with funding support from NASA's Competitive Program for Science Museums, Planetariums Plus NASA Visitor Centers, the newest Planetarium show, Destination Mars: The New Frontier celebrates the persistent curiosity that drives us to explore the future of human spaceflight to Mars. 

The Planetarium, which has impressed visitors since its installation, has welcomed more than 13 million visitors to more than 400 original show titles over its sixty-year history.

Destination Mars: The New Frontier will examine the human desire to travel to Mars and give audiences an up-close look at this epic endeavor. 

The newest Charles Hayden Planetarium show will answer such questions as: What is it about Mars that captures our interest and imagination? What steps have been taken to advance our journey to the Red Planet? What might a trip to Mars look like for the first astronauts to make the trek?  

The film features narration from Hollywood actor, Keith David and includes an original orchestral score by Grammy Award winner and professor at Berklee College of Music, Claudio Ragazzi.

"This is our team's fourth full-length feature production for the Planetarium, and our second working closely with our partners and supporters at NASA.  We're thrilled to use our immersive, 57-foot dome to showcase the incredible technology that NASA and others are working on right now— at the Kennedy Space Center and all over the world— to make our dream of one day transporting humans to Mars a reality," said Dani LeBlanc, Director of the Charles Hayden Planetarium.

Over the course of the month of October, the Museum of Science will feature a variety of programming to celebrate the Planetarium’s 60th anniversary and its technology. Everything from special Planetarium presentations exploring galaxies to an ImprovBoston show, The Big Quiz Thing, Boston’s Best Drag Queens, and a concert from Walter Sickert & the Army of Broken Toys.

Over its sixty years, the Charles Hayden Planetarium has brilliantly showcased a wide variety of original programming, including both live and pre-recorded presentations. 

Today the theater serves as everything from a unique venue for music and visual arts, to a spaceship transporting viewers through the universe.

Built in 1958, the Planetarium has utilized three projectors since its opening. The current projector, the Zeiss Starmaster, projects over 9,000 stars as naturally as they appear to twinkle in the cosmos.  

The projector, coupled with the Planetarium's state-of-the-art digital system, which can access the latest astronomical databases from researchers around the world, make the Planetarium the most technologically advanced digital dome in New England.

⏩ For more details, visit mos.org/planetarium60  

SOURCE: The Museum of Science

Related Videos:

Scriptation Launches #PledgePaperless Campaign At The Vancouver International Film Festival

"The Magicians" actress Jade Tailor takes a #PledgePaperless selfie with attendees of the Sustainable Production Forum at the Vancouver International Film Festival

Scriptation launched a global campaign, #PledgePaperless, during the Sustainable Production Forum at the Vancouver International Film Festival (VIFF) on Saturday. Industry participants commit to going paperless on set.

Scriptation, the script reading and annotation app used on thousands of film and television productions worldwide, teamed up with environmentally-conscious companies in the entertainment industry to promote the paper-free initiative, including Green Spark Group, Creative BC, Reel Green, AdGreen, Earth Angel, Wrapal, and Studio Binder.

"I've been making movies and TV shows for over 25 years, and on some shows we've used a million sheets of paper in a year," said Billions actor Rob Morrow in a video to promote the campaign. "I've gone paperless and it's more convenient and so much better for the environment."

The promotional video, which challenges those working in the film and television industry to #PledgePaperless, includes Eye Rise Movement founder and actress Jade Tailor ("The Magicians"), actor Jason Maybaum ("Raven's Home"), writer Jessica Poter ("Modern Family"), cinematographer Darren Lew("Maniac"), and director Michael Spiller ("Good Girls"), among others.

"It takes over 50 thousand gallons of water and produces over 20 tons of CO2 to create the paper used on a single show," said Scriptation founder and CEO, Steven Vitolo. "Multiply that by the thousands of movies and television shows currently in production, and the environmental impact is devastating. The good news is this problem is completely avoidable as long as we take action."

#PledgePaperless - Logo

The campaign's goal is to establish a digital standard on set and encourage policies where receiving scripts electronically is the default option. #PledgePaperless aims to eliminate the use of 10 million sheets of paper by the end of 2018.

⏩ For additional information on the #PledgePaperless campaign or to participate in the pledge, visit pledgepaperless.com.

SOURCE: Scriptation LLC

Related Video:

We Asked The British Public What Kind Of #Brexit They Want – And The Norway Model Is The Clear Winner

Brexit: A local shop, for local people? (Image via LoupDargent.info)

It is now more than two years since Britons voted to leave the EU. But what has been learned in that time about what British people want for their future relationship with the EU? Those on the hard right argue that Britons voted to sever existing treaties with the EU. Others argue that leaving the single market was never part of the plan. The referendum outcome tells us very little about what people actually wanted.

But our study of what people value about the EU does tell us. And we find that their priorities map most squarely onto a Norway-style model for future relations with the EU.

People place a high value on having access to the EU markets for trade in goods and services. They like the option for the UK to be able to make its own trade deals. They also value that the UK is able to make its own laws, but not as much as access to the single market or the ability to make trade deals. They worry about freedom of movement, but mostly because of concerns about demand for public services. They strongly dislike the idea of having to get a visa to travel for their holidays.

Netting out positives and negatives, we found that Britons place the most value on a Norway-like deal. In fact, support for this kind of deal – which is based on membership of the European Economic Area (EEA) – has increased in the past year, up from 38% in 2017 to 43% in 2018. Norway is part of the EEA but is not a member of the customs union and can therefore make its own trade deals. We found people value the Norway model more than the current relationship with the EU, in part because Norway is free to make trade deals with non-EU countries. And while a “no-deal” is less popular than remaining, it is considered preferable to a customs union arrangement.

These findings have their roots in a 2017 study we undertook to better understand what people thought about Britain’s relationship with the EU. The study incorporated a survey with nearly 1,000 respondents using a “stated preference discrete choice experiment”. The idea is that it is better to ascertain people’s preferences by examining the choices they make rather than asking them to try to estimate the value that they attach to things directly, because people are much better at making choices – something they probably do every day – than providing abstract valuations. Also, using choices forces people to make trade-offs, which helps identify what is most important to them.

Respondents were asked to make choices between options that described the UK’s relationship with the EU. These options included freedom of movement for holidays and working, access to the single market, ability to make free trade deals, contribution to the EU and sovereignty.

Theresa May claims to be enacting the will of the people. (PA)

Now, more than a year on and as negotiations continue between the UK government and the EU, we decided to revisit this study to see whether people’s priorities have changed. We approached the same people that we surveyed in February 2017 to repeat the experiments, managing to repeat the survey with more than 80% of them. We also added new respondents so we again had a sample of nearly 1,000 respondents. Our study revealed that people’s priorities had changed little over the past year, which is somewhat surprising given the rhetoric about Brexit during that time.

Other options 

The status quo, or remaining in the EU, was the second preferred option – further evidence that people valued access to the single market and were willing to trade restraints on freedom of movement and sovereignty for this access.

The third preferred outcome was a “no-deal” Brexit, relying on World Trade Organisation rules. This was valued less positively than remaining in the EU because of the need for visas for holiday travel and lack of access to the single market, although there are some positive aspects in terms of being able to make free trade deals with countries outside of the EU, increased sovereignty and savings made by ending EU contributions.

Of all the relationships we examined, participating in the customs union was valued the least. It was considered worse than not getting a deal because of restrictions on making free trade deals, even though the costs that businesses would face to participate in the single market for trading of goods are not as high as for the “no deal” situation. It was considered worse than remaining in the EU because of the need for visas (and health insurance) for travel and loss of access to the EU market for services and increased costs for goods. These aspects were not outweighed by the positive benefits of constraining freedom of movement for working and living (requiring work permits for people working in the UK), increased sovereignty and savings.

Will of the people? 

It’s very difficult to quantify the value of what the UK government is proposing as its Brexit model in the Chequers plan because it is relatively ambiguous. We have therefore calculated values for the most optimistic and pessimistic interpretations.

In the most optimistic view, a certain number of “ifs” would value the Chequers plan as highly as the EEA (Norway) option. This would be the case if it allows a reciprocal deal for truly visa-free travel for tourists, including continued reciprocal health insurance arrangements; if the UK is able to make trade deals with countries outside the EU on its own terms and is not constrained by the “common rule book”; and if the UK is able to sell goods with no additional costs. However, at the other extreme, if these conditions are not met then Chequers is valued much more negatively than a customs union arrangement.

Politicians who were keen to follow the “will of the people” have been curiously silent on what is the most popular option among the British population – the Norway-type deal. More attention could be given to accessing the single market, rather than focusing on stemming the freedom of movement of people and increasing sovereignty.

About Today's Contributors:
Charlene Rohr, Senior Research Fellow, King's College London; David Howarth, Professor of Law and Public Policy, University of Cambridge, and Jonathan Grant, Vice President/Vice Principal (Service), King's College London

This article is republished from The Conversation under a Creative Commons license. 

More Brexit Related Stories:

⏩ For more Brexit related stories, click here...

Hippie-Child, Cult Survivor Rachel Israel Releases 'Counterculture Crossover' - a Tell-All Untold Story of the Love Israel Family

"Counterculture Crossover" - Front Cover

Life Story Press has published "Counterculture Crossover," a tell-all memoir of what it was like to survive growing up in one of the most unconventional, controversial, communal groups in recent time. 

The author Rachel Israel says, "This will be like a bomb going off among ex-Love Family members. The hidden truth is now out there."

"Counterculture Crossover" is a remarkable memoir that tells the story of Israel's childhood growing up in the Love Israel Family. Israel's mother Karen was a free-spirited idealist who wanted nothing to do with conventional, mainstream society. 

She "dropped-out" and lived off-the-grid, which led Israel to a variety of places, including Alaska and Hawaii. Mother and daughter ended up at the doorstep of the Love Family, where Israel spent eight years of her childhood.

The Love Family was an isolated, patriarchal, religious community that did not go by the rules or laws of modern society. Members sought to live the utopian dream but ended up living without their rights and without autonomy. 

In "Counterculture Crossover," Israel exposes the darkest secrets that have never been revealed about the community, including group marriage, polygamy, sacrament rituals, and animal sacrifice. Israel covers everything from what it was like to live in Army tents and yurts on the communal farm to answering other questions on controversial topics such as the trouble the group had with cult deprogrammers kidnapping their members.

Rob Balch, retired professor emeritus in the department of sociology at the University of Montana, says in part of his review of the memoir, "Among the thousands of communal experiments of the late 1960s and early '70s, the Love Family was one of the biggest and most successful, as well one of the most controversial. Opponents accused it of brainwashing and child abuse, whereas supporters saw it as an admirable social experiment and a welcome addition to Seattle's diverse cultural scene. Yet, surprisingly little has been written about the Love Family, and, until now, nothing at all from the perspective of a second-generation member."

"Hippie-Child" Rachel Israel

Israel has pursued a career working in the field of psychology to help those in need fight for personal transformation and justice. Her memoir is a similar pursuit, an attempt to give voice to the voiceless - children raised in alternative communal groups or cults. Israel has a bachelor's degree in sociology and a master's degree in psychology. She continues to live with her family in the Northwest in the country outside of Seattle.

Given the current state of society and answers people are seeking, Israel, through her memoir, seeks to explore what happens when people are desperate for change. Israel explores those ideas based on her observations and memories of being raised communally by those at the creative tip of society. 

⏩ "Counterculture Crossover" is now available on Amazon.

SOURCE: Life Story Press

"Enemy of the Human Race" Highly Explosive, Revealing and Thought-provoking Book by Henry I. Balogun

"Enemy of the human race" - Book Cover

The root of hate runs deep says Henry I. Balogun author of "Enemy of the human race." This new book provides the strongest, most damning and unambiguous response to the demeaning and insulting derogatory "shithole" remark allegedly made by Donald J. Trump about Africa. 

It also highlights resentment for the revival of hate orchestrated by Trump supporters in response to his presidency. The President's inability to condemn hate gave new credence to the idea of "us versus them" along with the false and delusional hope of creating isolated enclave exclusively for "us" because this is "our world," "our cities" and "our streets." 

The President's inability to condemn hate is now providing unhealthy platform for "left" against "right" and "conservative" against "liberal" all around the world.

Henry Balogun, in this eye-opening piece of excellent literary work entitled "Enemy of the human race," went deeper to expose and unearth hidden root of division and unprecedented discord that has turned the human family against one another. 

Those who believe that they are completely unaffected by the unfortunate stories of the past need to realize that "the bell tolls" for them as well.

Balogun's desire to agitate the sleep of evil led him to look into histories that are historically false, and poke into legislation written, passed, adopted, signed into law and acted upon but intentionally ignored, tramped over and pushed into oblivion by historians and legal scholars in the interest of making human tragedy and the shameful story of the past look like something unique to the only vulnerable segment of the human family.

There is also a candid look at the new United States in the age of Donald J. Trump known as "United States 2.0." The need to understand the person at the Oval Office led Henry Balogun to carefully examine the life and personality of Donald J. Trump.

"Enemy of the human race" started by uncovering the only engine running and keeping division alive – hate. The footprint of hate is everywhere. Open the book and read about concealed and gratuitous hate historically inscribed in religion, politics, news media, educational institutions, history, government, business, law and every aspect of human existence. Balogun, in this incredible work did not shy away from providing full analysis with regard to series of induced behaviors as well as many unhealthy expectations responsible for the exponential growth of hate..

Finally, "Enemy of the human race" opened the curtain to show us the ever glowing work of those agents of light whose courageous life and work helped those affected by hate to find credible, civilized and peaceful way to resist, thereby regain lost glory and pride in a non-passive but serene way of invoking civility.

Dr. Henry I. Balogun

Published by New York City-based Page Publishing, "Enemy of the human race" is expected to be available on Oct. 12, 2018 on Amazon, Barnes & Noble, Apple and Google Play. 

⏩ Login to NetGalley.com to preview the book in its entirety at no cost to you!

SOURCE: Dr. Henry I. Balogun

Doctor Who: Jodie Whittaker Excels And Inspires As The BBC's Time Lord

Jodie Whittaker is the 13th Doctor (BBC Images)

SPOILER ALERT: this review assumes you’ve seen the first episode of the Doctor Who series starring Jodie Whittaker, and includes detailed plot and character information from the outset.

The 13th Doctor Who, played by Jodie Whittaker, falls into this story in the middle of the action, crash landing on a train where her new companions are trapped.

In case you’ve been hiding on Mars (or Gallifrey), her first appearance is given a pulse of the famous theme music for identification purposes – not that anyone in the massive earthbound audience will need much persuading that Whittaker is the Doctor.

She plays an absolute blinder throughout, ranging from quietly amusing moments such as asking to have a police car’s “lights and siren on”, through to smelting her own sonic screwdriver. There’s also some convincing stunt action on show – and a moving account of long-lost family thrown in for good measure.

But the classic BBC series’ new showrunner, Chris Chibnall (the writer of smash-hit drama series Broadchurch), is preoccupied with overturning expectations in “The Woman Who Fell To Earth”. The episode begins with 19-year-old warehouse worker Ryan (Tosin Cole) vlogging about the “greatest woman” he’s ever met – but just who is she? Before long, Ryan’s grandmother Grace (Sharon D Clarke), her second husband Graham (Bradley Walsh) and a former schoolmate of Ryan’s, police officer Yasmin Khan (Mandip Gill), are united on a train that’s under attack near the city of Sheffield, England.

Ryan assumes that an unknown entity moving through the train carriages has killed someone. A classic Doctor Who set-up, you might think, only for the Doctor to counsel that, no, this death was more likely from shock – while linked to the alien incursion, it wasn’t intended or executed by a traditional monster. The expected storyline is quickly overturned.

Later, the Doctor comes up with an “Alien vs Predator”-style explanation of events, only to accept that unusually she too has got things wrong – this isn’t one alien against another, instead it’s a hunt for human trophies. And Chibnall wrong-foots viewers by depicting the character of Karl Wright, another passenger caught up in the train attack, as classic monster fodder – only to make him rather more “randomly” central to the narrative than standard conventions might dictate.

Shock of the new 

“New can be scary”, the Doctor cautions her latest friends – while reflecting on the fact that – post-regeneration – she’s temporarily become “a stranger to myself”. And there’s a mission statement of sorts put front-and-centre, as she hails “Tim Shaw” – her name for the alien warrior chasing around Sheffield – with an inspirational account of transformative self-identity: “We’re all capable of the most incredible change. We can evolve, while still staying true to who we are. We can honour who we’ve been and choose who we want to be next.”

“The Woman Who Fell To Earth” is preoccupied with gender – but probably not the one you were expecting. It is sometimes less about the Doctor’s newfound femininity (which gets some great one-liners) and more about wayward masculinity, represented by both Karl and “Tim Shaw”. The former is obsessed with inspirational quotes (“I am brave”, “I am confident”, “I am special”) while lacking many of these positive qualities, and the latter is an intergalactic cheat, insecure about his ability to become a leader.

There is, also, a stronger sense of male vulnerability in this tale than ever before: we have the story of Ryan’s dyspraxia to follow in coming episodes and it seems unlikely that Graham O'Brien’s cancer remission will be mentioned just this once (Graham is Ryan’s step-grandad as well as Grace’s partner, and is superbly played by Walsh).

Who are you? Grace, Yasmin, the Doctor, Ryan and Graham. (BBC Pictures)

Indeed, the decision to include these real-world problems – the energetic Grace having been Graham’s chemo nurse when they first met – strikes me as a genuinely brave move for a family entertainment show, and one to be applauded. This is a grounded, challenging view of Doctor Who – one which displays its humanity not via reassuring neoliberal tales of self-celebration, but instead through a (public service) sense of needing to “work through” difficulties.

However, given recent debates around “fridging” – the trope where a female figure (often a girlfriend) has to be killed in order to motivate a male character’s angst-filled storyline – the demise of courageous Grace feels like a misstep. Her loss leaves a symbolic gap for the Doctor to fill, perhaps – as well as a reason for Ryan and Graham to become time travellers rather than wanting to return to Sheffield, 2018. But she’s the one character who instantly feels as if she should have been a “companion” to this Doctor.

Brave new Who-niverse 

“The Woman Who Fell to Earth” is sharply directed by Jamie Childs (His Dark Materials) and benefits from some impressive incidental music from Segun Akinola (Dear Mr Shakespeare: Shakespeare Lives). Whittaker doesn’t put a foot wrong and – with a convincing group of new friends, a brilliant cliffhanger and a showrunner unafraid to incorporate mentions of cancer, chemo and dyspraxia – this looks to be a show in safe hands.

Male heroics will no doubt earn an ongoing place in the new “Who-niverse” – if Ryan and Graham can be shaped, inspired and remade by the transformational zest of Whittaker’s Doctor. In time, they will have an opportunity to properly learn the lessons of human rather than Time Lord regeneration, and how “we’re all capable of the most incredible change”.

This is a strong opening to a new phase in Doctor Who’s history: it is accessible, bravely grounded and inspiring in its own right. The Doctor is in.

About Today's Contributor:
Matt Hills, Professor of Media and Film, University of Huddersfield

This article is republished from The Conversation under a Creative Commons license.

Herrera Wins Ruling That San Francisco's Sanctuary Policies Comply With Federal Law

San Francisco City Attorney's Office's official seal. Dennis Herrera, City Attorney. (PRNewsFoto/City Attorney of San Francisco)

City Attorney Dennis Herrera released the following statement in response to today's ruling by the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California that declared San Francisco's sanctuary ordinances are lawful, and invalidated grant conditions that the Trump administration tried to use to deny law enforcement funding to sanctuary jurisdictions like San Francisco:

"Once again, the rule of law has carried the day. The Trump administration should spend less time villainizing immigrants and more time reading the Constitution. Congress has the power of the purse, not the president. These unconstitutional grant conditions were yet another example of presidential overreach.  They were also just a bad idea. The Trump administration attacks immigrants and claims to be fighting crime but then seeks to take away money for police, prosecutors and courts. That makes zero sense.

By trying to coerce San Francisco into abandoning sanctuary laws that make our city safer, the Trump administration has been undercutting local law enforcement and endangering our communities by withholding funds for programs that reduce crime.

We're pleased the court has recognized that San Francisco's sanctuary laws and policies comply with federal law. Not only that, the court found that the federal law that the Trump administration has been trying to use as a hammer against communities is itself unconstitutional. Here's the bottom line: there is no law requiring state or local governments to participate in immigration enforcement. Immigration enforcement is the responsibility of the federal government alone. Federal officials can do their job in San Francisco and anywhere else in the country. San Francisco is not stopping them. San Francisco is not impeding them. But our police, firefighters and nurses are not going to be commandeered and turned into the Trump administration's deportation force. Communities are safer when residents aren't afraid to take their children to the doctor, call the fire department in an emergency, or go to the police if they've been the victim of a crime. We prioritize our limited law enforcement resources to fight actual crime, not break up hardworking families. "

City Attorney Dennis Herrera (image via U.S.News)

About the Ruling

Today's ruling from Judge William H. Orrick found that the conditions the Trump administration was trying to place on certain law enforcement grants are unconstitutional, that San Francisco is in compliance with 8 U.S.C. section 1373, and that 8 U.S.C. section 1373 is itself unconstitutional. The court granted an injunction prohibiting the grant conditions from being applied in San Francisco and California. He also noted that a nationwide injunction was justified in this case, but stayed its application in places outside of the California pending review by the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals.

Case Background

Herrera filed the lawsuit on Aug. 11, 2017 in a coordinated approach with California Attorney General Xavier Becerra. The state of California filed suit shortly after.  

Today's ruling covers grant conditions for fiscal year 2017 Edward Byrne Memorial Justice Assistance Grants. Herrera filed a separate case on Aug. 22, 2018 over similar conditions the Trump administration is trying to place on fiscal year 2018 grants.

Impact on San Francisco

San Francisco faced the prospect of losing more than $1.4 million in Byrne JAG funds for fiscal 2017.  A similar amount is at stake for fiscal 2018. The federal government has not disbursed San Francisco's 2017 funds yet. San Francisco uses these funds for a variety of important law enforcement purposes, including programs designed to reduce recidivism, provide alternative forms of prosecution and enable treatment for underserved populations.

The cases are: City and County of San Francisco v. Jefferson B. Sessions III, U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California Case No. 3:17-cv-04642, filed Aug. 11, 2017, and City and County of San Francisco v. Jefferson B. Sessions III, U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California Case No. 3:18-cv-05146-JCS, filed Aug. 22, 2018, and additional documentation is available on the City Attorney's website.

SOURCE: San Francisco City Attorney's Office