- Greta Thunberg, a 16-year-old climate activist from Stockholm, Sweden, was unveiled as Time’s 2019 Person of the Year on Wednesday.
- She is the youngest individual to ever receive the honor, which has been one recognized annually by the magazine for over 90 years.
- Thunberg has turned into an emblem of youth activism, calling out world leaders for change and inspiring others worldwide to protest for political action.
Time Person of the Year 2019
Greta Thunberg, a teenage climate activist from Sweden, was announced as Time magazine’s Person of the Year on Wednesday morning.
Editor-in-Chief Edward Felsenthal unveiled her as the honored figure on NBC’s Today show, calling her “the biggest voice on the biggest issue facing the planet this year.”
“She embodies youth activism,” Felsenthal said.
At age 16, Thunberg is the youngest individual ever to be Time’s Person of the Year, a 92-year-old title that recognizes “the man, woman, group or concept that has had the most influence on the world during the previous 12 months.”
Past honorees have ranged from prominent world leaders to groups of people, such as the 2017 Silence Breakers which includes those who spoke out on sexual harassment and misconduct in the wake of the #MeToo movement.
Thunberg has had an eventful year, rising from what Felsenthal called a “solo protester” planted outside of Swedish parliament to a figure of hope and change.
She launched the #FridaysForFuture movement, inspiring masses of people worldwide to protest outside of their local government buildings weekly, demanding climate action. In September, she stood before the United Nations Climate Action Summit and delivered a passionate speech to some of the planet’s most powerful leaders.
“People are suffering, people are dying, and our ecosystems are collapsing,” she said. “We are in the beginning of a mass extinction, and all you can talk about is money and fairytales of eternal economic growth. How dare you?”
Thunberg is diagnosed with Asperger’s and has spoken out about her condition, likening it to a “superpower.”
“I have been very limited by my diagnosis in the past but now I don’t suffer from it anymore,” she told Time. “I use it in a way that [I] can take advantage of.”
Time’s 2019 pick has been praised by many.
Not everyone is in support of Thunberg or her climate-focused agenda. After her remarks at the UN Climate Action Summit in the fall, President Donald Trump tweeted out a message about the teen.
“She seems like a very happy young girl looking forward to a bright and wonderful future,” he wrote. “So nice to see!”
The POTUS’s message was widely believed to be sarcastic, as Thunberg appears anything but happy in the video of the summit.
Anthony Scaramucci, Trump’s former communications director, called him out for his response.
“Parents in America and around the world: he went after a 16 year old girl yesterday,” Scaramucci tweeted. “@realDonaldTrump unfit to serve.”
Thunberg retaliated subtly, briefly changing her Twitter bio to describe herself as: “A very happy young girl looking forward to a bright and wonderful future.”
Just one day before Time’s honor of Thunberg was revealed, Brazil’s president Jair Bolsanaro called her a “brat” to reporters. His comment came after Thunberg tweeted a video on Sunday drawing attention to indigenous people that are allegedly being murdered for their efforts to protect the Amazon from illegal deforestation.
In the past year, Thunberg has been publicly insulted by others as well, including Fox News host Laura Ingraham and Conservative commentator Michael Knowles.
The teenage activist doesn’t seem fazed by her critics—they seem to only push her to work harder for a more sustainable planet.
“All we young activists are doing is telling people to listen to and unite behind the science,” she told Time in November. “We get all this hate that shows we are actually making a difference and they see us as a threat.”
Thunberg doesn’t even seem to be very stirred by the honors she has received. In October, she posted a lengthy Instagram caption explaining why she turned down the 2019 Nordic Council’s environmental award.
“The climate movement does not need any more awards,” she wrote. “What we need is for our politicians and the people in power [to] start to listen to the current, best available science.”
Thunberg posted on Wednesday morning, thanking Time for the recognition and declaring that she shares the honor with “climate activists everywhere.” Her focus seems to remain primarily on the planet that she is fighting for.
“I’d like to tell my grandchildren that we did everything we could,” she told Time. “And we did it for them and for the generations to come.”
See what others are saying: (New York Times) (BBC) (Washington Post)
U.K. Court Rules Julian Assange Can Be Extradited to U.S.
The judgment overrules a lower court decision that blocked the WikiLeaks founder’s extradition on the grounds that his mental health was not stable enough to weather harsh conditions in the American prison system if convicted.
New Developments in Assange Extradition Battle
A British court ruled Friday that WikiLeaks founder Julian Assange can be extradited to the United States to face charges of violating the Espionage Act that could land him in prison for decades.
Prosecutors in the U.S. have accused Assange of conspiring with former army intelligence analyst Chelsea Manning in 2010 to hack into a Department of Defense computer network and access thousands of military and diplomatic records on the wars in Afghanistan and Iraq.
The information obtained in the hack was later published by WikiLeaks in 2010 and 2011, a move U.S. authorities allege put lives in danger.
In addition to a charge of computer misuse, Assange has also been indicted on 17 espionage charges. Collectively, the charges carry a maximum prison sentence of 175 years.
The Friday decision from the High Court overturns a lower court ruling in January, which found that Assange’s mental health was too fragile for the harsh environment he could face in the U.S. prison system if convicted.
Notably, the January ruling did not determine whether or not Assange was guilty. In fact, District Judge Vanessa Baraitser explicitly rejected the defense’s arguments that the charges against him were politically motivated and that he should be protected under freedom of press.
However, she agreed that the defense had provided compelling evidence that Assange suffers from severe depression and that the conditions he could face in the U.S. prison system were “such that it would be oppressive to extradite him to the United States of America.”
The U.S. appealed the ruling, arguing that Assange’s mental health should not be a barrier to extradition and that the psychiatrist who examined him had been biased.
In October, the Biden administration vowed that if Assange were to be convicted, he would not be placed in the highest-security U.S. prison or immediately sent to solitary confinement. Officials also said that the native Australian would be eligible to serve his sentence in his home country.
High Court Ruling
The High Court agreed with the administration’s arguments in its ruling, arguing that the American’s assurances regarding the conditions of Assange’s potential incarceration were “sufficient.”
“There is no reason why this court should not accept the assurances as meaning what they say,” the ruling stated. “There is no basis for assuming that the USA has not given the assurances in good faith.”
Assange’s fiancé, Stella Moris, said in a statement that his legal team would appeal the decision to the British Supreme Court at the “earliest possible moment,” referring to the judgment as a “grave miscarriage of justice.”
The Supreme Court will now decide whether or not to hear the case based on if it believes the matter involves a point of law “of general public importance.” That decision may take weeks or even months.
If the U.K. Supreme Court court objects to hearing Assange’s appeal, he could ask the European Court of Human Rights to stay the extradition — a move that could set in motion another lengthy legal battle in the already drawn-out process.
Assange and his supporters claim he was acting as an investigative journalist when he published the classified military cables. They argue that the possibility of his extradition and prosecution represent serious threats to press freedoms in the U.S.
U.S. prosecutors dispute that Assange acted as a journalist, claiming that he encouraged illegal hacking for personal reasons.
See what others are saying: (The New York Times) (NPR) (The Washington Post)
Early Data Indicates Omicron is More Transmissible But Less Severe
The studies come as Pfizer and BioNTech claim that preliminary research shows a third shot of their COVID vaccine appears to provide sufficient protection against the new variant, but two doses alone may not.
More Information About Omicron
Several preliminary studies published in recent days appear to show that the new omicron COVID-19 variant may be more transmissible but less severe than previous strains.
One recent, un-peer-reviewed study by a Japanese scientist who advises the country’s health ministry found that omicron is four times more transmissible in its initial stage than delta was.
Preliminary information in countries hit hard by omicron also indicates high transmissibility. In South Africa — where the variant was first detected and is already the dominant strain — new COVID cases have more than doubled over the last week.
Health officials in the U.K. said omicron cases are doubling every two or three days, and they expect the strain to become dominant in the country in a matter of weeks.
In a statement Wednesday, World Health Organization Director Tedros Adhanom Ghebreyesus said that while early data does seem to show high transmissibility, it also indicates that omicron causes more mild cases than delta.
Centers for Disease Control and Prevent Director Rochelle Walensky echoed that sentiment, telling reporters that of the 40 known omicron cases in the U.S. as of Wednesday, nearly all of them were mild. One person has been hospitalized so far and none have died.
Studies on Vaccine Efficacy
Other recent studies have shown that current COVID vaccines are effective at preventing severe illness and death in omicron patients, and boosters provide at least some added protection.
On Wednesday, Pfizer and BioNTech announced that laboratory tests have shown a third dose of their COVID-19 vaccine appears to provide sufficient protection against the omicron variant, though two doses may not.
According to the companies, researchers saw a 25-fold reduction in neutralizing antibodies for omicron compared to other strains of the virus for people who had just two Pfizer doses.
By contrast, samples from people one month after they had received a Pfizer booster presented neutralizing antibodies against omicron that were comparable to those seen against previous variants after two doses.
Still, Pfizer’s chief executive also told reporters later in the day that omicron could increase the likelihood that people might need a fourth dose earlier than previously expected, which he had initially said was 12 months after the third shot.
Notably, the Pfizer research has not yet been peer-reviewed, and it remains unclear how omicron will operate outside a lab, but other studies have had similar findings.
See what others are saying: (The New York Times) (Bloomberg) (NBC News)
40 Camels Disqualified From Beauty Contest After Breeders Inject Their Faces With Botox
The animals were barred from competing for $66 million in prizes at this year’s King Abdulaziz Camel Festival in Saudi Arabia.
Camels Booted From Beauty Contest
More than 40 camels were disqualified from a beauty contest in Saudi Arabia this week after judges found artificial enhancements in their faces, marking the biggest crackdown on contestants in the competition to date.
The animals were competing for $66 million in prizes at the King Abdulaziz Camel Festival, a month-long event that is estimated to include around 33,000 camels.
However, according to The Guardian, they were forced out of the contest when authorities found that breeders had “stretched out the lips and noses of the camels, used hormones to boost the animals’ muscles, injected heads and lips with Botox to make them bigger, inflated body parts with rubber bands, and used fillers to relax their faces.”
Those types of alterations are banned since judges look at the contestant’s heads, necks, humps, posture, and other features when evaluating them.
An announcement from the state-linked Saudi Press Agency said officials used “specialized and advanced” technology to detect tampering.
“The club is keen to halt all acts of tampering and deception in the beautification of camels,” the SPA report added before warning that organizers would “impose strict penalties on manipulators.”
While it’s unclear what that actually entails, this isn’t the first time people have tried to cheat in this way.
In 2018, 12 camels were similarly disqualified from the competition for injections in their noses, lips, and jaw.