Large Canadian Arctic climate change study cancelled due to climate change

 

CCGS_Amundsen-1200x800

University of Manitoba News

JUNE 12, 2017 —

The Science Team of the Canadian Research Icebreaker CCGS Amundsen has cancelled the first leg of the 2017 Expedition due to complications associated with the southward motion of hazardous Arctic sea ice, caused by climate change.

This regrettably postpones the much-anticipated Hudson Bay System Study (BaySys) involving 40 scientists from five universities across Canada. Timing was key for this $17 million, four-year, University of Manitoba-led project.

The need to deal with extreme ice conditions in the south meant the ship would arrive too late on site to meet research objectives.

The Arctic deployment of the Canadian Research Icebreaker CCGS Amundsen is undertaken through a long-standing collaboration between the Canadian Coast Guard (CCG) and University-led Arctic science in Canada.

This productive partnership has been providing Canadian researchers and their international colleagues with the ability to monitor and understand the impacts of climate change and resource development on Arctic marine and coastal ecosystems and northern communities since 2003.

This year the Expedition Logistics and Science Teams accelerated the mobilization of the 2017 Arctic Expedition to permit departure of the Amundsen six days ahead of schedule.

This would allow CCG to carry out critical marine safety and security operations in the unusually severe ice conditions in the Strait of Belle Isle and along the northeast coast of Newfoundland before beginning the Science Mission.

Unfortunately, the conditions required much more extended support than anticipated. Fleet management issues and inadequate alternative ships forced the cancellation of the science program due to significant safety concerns.

This decision to cancel the BaySys 2017 program was not made lightly. Although the cancellation was due to circumstances beyond control of the Expedition Team, every effort was made to develop a viable option to allow this valuable work to proceed.

The decision to terminate the 2017 program has significant impacts on partners and the large number of graduate students involved.

“Considering the severe ice conditions and the increasing demand for Search And Rescue operations (SAR) and ice escort, we decided to cancel the BaySys mission. A second week of delay meant our research objectives just could not be safely achieved – the challenge for us all was that the marine ice hazards were exceedingly difficult for the maritime industry, the CCG, and science,” says Dr. David Barber, Expedition Chief Scientist and BaySys Scientific Lead.

Dr. Barber and his team of experts were able to use the state-of-the-art equipment onboard the Amundsen to confirm that a significant proportion of the sea ice present originated from the high Arctic.

He noted that, “Climate-related changes in Arctic sea ice not only reduce its extent and thickness but also increase its mobility meaning that ice conditions are likely to become more variable and severe conditions such as these will occur more often.”

The Sea Ice Research Team collected a comprehensive dataset on the physics of the ice, ocean and atmosphere in the area and these data will contribute to the understanding of these events and assist Canada in preparing for climate change driven increases in marine ice hazards.

“This extremely unfortunate event is not expected to affect the remainder of the 2017 Amundsen Expedition resuming on July 6. We believe that the oceanographic studies will proceed as planned and do not anticipate an impact on the Nunavik Inuit Health Survey, says Dr. Louis Fortier, Scientific Director of the Amundsen and ArcticNet Science programs. “The Amundsen Science Team is committed to working with Canadian Coast Guard and our industrial partners to plan a 2018 BaySys program.”

The research of our scientists clearly indicate that climate change is not something that is going to happen in the future – it is already here. Research results from scientists onboard the Amundsen and innovative Networks like ArcticNet show the impacts of climate change in Canada’s Arctic and Arctic Ocean affect not only northern ecosystems and communities, but also the environments and people living in the south of Canada – as so dramatically seen off the coast of Newfoundland.

The provision of the best information possible is essential for proper planning, decision–making and adaptation to the realities of climate change.

This experience, and climate change conditions currently affecting Churchill, Man., clearly illustrates that Canada is ill prepared to deal with the realities of climate change.

 

Posted in Uncategorized | Leave a comment

Trump Says Qatar Funds Terror. Here’s His Record Of Trying To Get It To Fund Him.

Hell hath no fury like Mr. Trump scorned

The president is allying himself with those blockading the tiny country, but he’s made attempts to secure Qatari investments in the past.

JONATHAN ERNST / REUTERS
Qatar’s Emir Sheikh Tamim Bin Hamad Al-Thani meets with U.S. President Donald Trump in Riyadh, Saudi Arabia, May 21, 2017.

 

 

Donald Trump, his daughter Ivanka Trump and her husband Jared Kushner all repeatedly sought financing for various investments in recent years from leading figures in Qatar, according to sources with direct knowledge of the meetings.

Those previously unreported overtures have taken on new relevance as a diplomatic crisis aggravated by President Trump has left the small Gulf nation blockaded and isolated by its rivals, with tensions in the Middle East reaching historic highs.

President Trump on Friday characterized Qatar as “historically” a “funder of terrorism at a high level,” an accusation that came just an hour after his Secretary of State Rex Tillerson appealed for “no further escalation” in the Gulf Cooperation Council squabble, urging dialogue to quickly resolve the crisis, which pits Qatar against Saudi Arabia, Egypt, UAE, and Bahrain. Tillerson noted the Qatari emir “made progress in halting financial support and expelling terrorist elements from his country,” comments echoed by the U.S. ambassador to Qatar, Dana Smith, who tweeted “Qatar is a strong partner in combating terrorist financing.”

That partnership is not merely rhetorical. Qatar is home to Al-Udeid air base, the regional Central Command headquarters from which American bombers depart on daily missions against ISIS and al Qaeda. Reacting to the GCC dispute, the Defense Department praised Qatar’s commitment to fighting ISIS as its secretary, James Mattis, expressed his confidence that the turmoil would not interrupt Qatar’s contribution to those efforts.

Given the weave of interests and close cooperation between the U.S. and Qatar, many are seeking ways to interpret Trump’s abrupt turn against Qatar in the dispute. Some think the answer lies not in the realm of policy but in the history of Trump’s business deals with the various actors in the dispute.

The Trump Organization (now under the stewardship of son Donald Jr.) is reportedly in talks with Emirati tycoons to receive several billion dollars of investment in addition to owning two golf courses in Dubai. The New York Times reports that Trump has previously had as many as eight business entities registered in Jeddah alone. In 2015, Trump spoke about his admiration for the Saudis and attributed it to his business dealings with them:

Saudi Arabia — and I get along great with all of them. They buy apartments from me. They spend $40 million, $50 million. Am I supposed to dislike them? I like them very much.

Therein lies the source of much consternation among Qataris. Several people interviewed for this piece expressed concern that Trump’s bias against their country might stem from a series of failed business overtures that he (along with his son-in-law Jared Kushner) made seven years ago, which are only now being reported. They did not go as swimmingly as the deals made with the Saudis and Emiratis.

In 2010, as markets were still reeling from the 2008 global economic crisis, Qatar was flush with cash and countless business executives and foreign governments came calling. Some came to get liquidity; others searching for silver linings amidst the global chaos. Trump was in the latter category, then as CEO of the Trump Organization but also as host and star of the hit domestic American reality TV show, “The Apprentice.”

Traveling with his daughter Ivanka, Trump visited Doha in 2010 for separate meetings with Qatar Investment Authority (QIA) executive board member Dr. Hussain Al-Abdullah and as well as Sheikh Hamad bin Jassim al-Thani (commonly abbreviated as “HBJ”), who was then serving as foreign minister and prime minister. Neither responded to requests for comment on this article.

At the time, the pair constituted the brain trust of Qatar’s financial and investment sector. QIA is the world’s second largest sovereign wealth fund (presently estimated at having $338 billion in assets under management). Then as now, Sheikh HBJ had renown for being kingmaker of not just political deals but financial ones too. Using his business and political savvy, he has sealed deals ranging from Britain’s Harrods to Germany’s Deutsch Bank to America’s Miramax Hollywood studios.

A source close to the 2010 talks with Trump say he made the Doha stopover (along with stops in Dubai and Abu Dhabi) to raise money for a distressed real estate fund he was assembling. Trump opened the discussion with QIA by bragging about the success of Trump International and the many deals he had personally put together. Trump had hardly got through his own biography when Dr. Al-Abdullah, QIA’s senior executive, interrupted to say words to the effect of: We know who you are and what you have done. Tell us what you can do for us right now.

That single, curt interruption apparently left Trump stunned. He had expected his hosts to be impressed, if not grateful, that a person of Trump’s stature would visit the Qatari capital. Apparently distracted by the lack of decorum, Trump barely continued with his pitch. The meeting abruptly ended, according to one account, with Trump exiting the room visibly angered.

According to another, the meeting ended pleasantly and the decision not to invest in Trump was simply about Trump’s lack of track record in doing real estate funds. The same source also said any coldness to Trump was more a function of Dr. Al-Abdullah’s becoming numb to the same repetitive proposals—QIA routinely received such pitches. In the Qataris view, if not Trump’s, all that distinguished his proposal from so many others was his own celebrity status.

A subsequent meeting that day between Trump and Sheikh HBJ ended with pleasantries but with the top Qatari businessman keeping hold of his wallet. Trump was unable to move any Qatari funds to the Trump Organization, and within months after leaving, observers noted that even Trump himself quit the distressed real estate fund idea, having failed to get a single backer anywhere.

The Trump family interactions with Qatar expanded as Ivanka Trump returned to Doha within several months with her husband Jared Kushner, a wealthy real estate and media investor in his own right. Jared had a new pitch to make, this time on a different real estate deal.

Ironically, some of Jared’s introductions within Qatar were facilitated by a national of the country that is a key player in the present crisis: Saudi Arabia. Through a personal friendship with Saudi Prince Bandar bin Sultan’s son Khalid, (who knew Jared and who remained in the U.S. after his father’s legendary tenure as ambassador ended in 2005) Jared gained entry to a younger cadre of successful Qatari businessmen during his trip.

Jared and wife Ivanka overnighted at the Doha Four Seasons, and observers with direct knowledge of the visit say the atmosphere between them and their host was perceptibly better, if not warm. Jared had his own mission in mind to present to his Qatari hosts. He was desperate to secure funds to recapitalize his 666 Fifth Avenue property which, then as now, was severely underwater. But in high-level meetings in Doha, neither QIA nor Sheikh HBJ showed interest in Jared’s building. This was the same issue with follow-up meetings between Ivanka and Qatari investors held in New York in 2011. According to The New York Times:

The Kushner Companies bought the building in January 2007, closing the deal on Jared Kushner’s birthday and paying the highest price ever for a New York office building. “This is a great acquisition for our company,” Jared Kushner said at the time. According to the Kushners, they put $500 million into the purchase.

The luxury high-rise has been plagued by massive debt ever since—insiders say the Kushner family overpaid—which offers one explanation for why they have turned to foreign sources to help bail it out. Discussions to buy a stake in 666 Fifth Avenue between Jared and Sheikh HBJ—who left government in 2013 to pursue his own vast business interests—are said by a source with knowledge of the talks to have continued right up until the election of 2016.

But the hunt for capital continued after Jared ended his pursuit of Qatari investors last year. In March 2017, Bloomberg reported that Kushner Companies was close to securing “unusually favorable terms” in talks with the Angbang Insurance Company, despite its ties to the “highest echelons of China’s Communist Party.” On the same day, Trump attacked Qatar as a financier of terrorism, lawyers from his Justice Department offered an advisory opinion arguing that as president he could accept payments from foreign governments after all, which would presumably include countries like Qatar and China.

Today, with Trump allying himself and the United States with those blockading their tiny country, Qataris can’t help but wonder: is this all about Trump’s hurt feelings over business deals that didn’t pan out?

For years America preached that the Arab countries should fight corruption and have financial transparency. Yet neither the American public much less most foreign countries dealing with Trump have any true understanding about the nature and volume of Trump family investments abroad whether in Saudi Arabia the UAE or elsewhere.

For example, journalistic exposure of Jared’s family history of investing in illegal West Bank settlements provide Palestinians and the international community insights to his obvious personal conflicts, even if in Trump’s eyes that still makes him a suitable mediator of the Arab-Israeli conflict. So too with Qatar, it is necessary for Trump and his family to declare all their Mideast interests and holdings. This will enable others to form a view as to whether Trump’s recent weighing in on the side of Saudi Arabia and the UAE is a genuine attempt to perform the statesman role, or merely payback for business deals that never happened.

Many Qataris suspect that they know the answer and are distressed by it. Could anyone have imagined that five or ten years ago, when businessmen turned down a New York mogul and reality TV host auditioning for its investment, that they were jeopardizing the security of their country? Not to mention America’s security interests in the Middle East.

 

Clayton Swisher is an investigative journalist and author of two books on the Arab-Israeli conflict. He can be reached via Twitter @claytonswisher. The views represented in this article are the author’s alone.

Posted in National Security, Russian connection, Trump | Tagged | Leave a comment

Melania Trump drops fake cyber bullying campaign she only pretended to care about

The first lady hasn’t said a word about cyber bullying since her husband took office

Melania Trump drops fake cyber bullying campaign she only pretended to care about(Credit: AP Photo/Andrew Harnik, File)

 

After video footage surfaced of her husband bragging about sexually assaulting women, Melania Trump contributed to damage control efforts by sitting down to an interview with CNN’s Anderson Cooper. Over the course of the conversation, she defended Donald Trump as being a precocious 59-year-old boy victimized by Billy Bush and the left-wing media. In an added effort to distract, Melania pledged to tackle the epidemic that is cyberbullying. You’re familiar with cyberbullying, right? It’s exactly that thing where the man you married gets up at 3am to call people “fat pigs,” “stupid” and — irony alert! — “liars” on Twitter.

Here’s what Melania actually said while keeping a completely straight face during the interview:

My passion is the same [as I’ve said in the past]: helping children and helping women. And also, I see now in 21st century, the social media, it’s very damaging for the children. We need to guide them and teach them about social media, because I see a lot of negativity on it, and we need to help them. It has some positive effects as well, because this is the life that we live in now. But has a lot of negativity as well. And I see more and more children being hurt by it . . . A lot of bullying.

 When Cooper asked Melania if she had spoken to her husband about how often he uses Twitter—because, seriously, the tweets are coming from inside the house — she said only that she gives her husband “many advices” he can take or leave, and that “he’s an adult, he knows the consequences.” Which should also be true of committing and boasting about criminal sex acts, you would think, but I digress.

Melania revisited this topic again during a rare appearance on the campaign trail in Pennsylvania. In her address, she bemoaned how “our culture has gotten too mean and too rough” and suggested Americans — without using specific names like, say, Donald — “have to find a better way to talk to each other, to disagree with each other, to respect each other.”

“We must find better ways to honor and support the basic goodness of our children, especially in social media,” Melania concluded in a speech Michelle Obama probably delivered somewhere first. “It will be one of the main focuses of my work if I’m privileged enough to become your First Lady.”

Despite anti-cyberbullying work being a “passion” of hers, Melania did nothing to tackle the issue once her husband took office. In early May, USA Today reached out to “leaders and activists in anti-cyberbullying efforts” to see how things were going, but found that “neither Trump nor her East Wing staff [had] reached out, nor have they responded to offers to help.” Melania’s press secretary, Stephanie Grisham, said her boss had been spending all those months thinking really hard about what she wanted to do.

 “Mrs. Trump is being very thoughtful when it comes to building out her initiatives,” Grisham told the outlet. Melania hadn’t hired much staff to help her with her initiative, a reflection of her commitment to “quality over quantity.”
Now comes news from Politico that Melania will not be launching her cyberbullying campaign after all, despite the fact that her gilded penthouse in Trump Tower must provide a lot of quiet and space for thinking about how to stop cyberbullying. Not to mention it costs New Yorkers $146,000 a day to keep her there, far from the White House and her beloved husband.

According to Politico, a White House official confirmed that the cyberbullying “initiative has . . . been cast aside.” The reason is definitely not because Melania would rather not be bothered with any of this in the first place, especially since Ivanka already got a “First Lady” tattoo on inauguration day. Instead, it’s an issue of Melania being so busy juggling her passions that she’s taking on numerous worthy causes.

“While cyberbullying is something she speaks out against,” Grisham told the outlet, “that is but one subset of her focus around the overall wellness of children.”

Actually, Melania hasn’t “spoken out” against cyberbullying since the election. Her silence on the issue is perhaps an indication of how incredibly passionate she is about the other issues that have instead grabbed her attention, such as developing an anti-hand holding martial arts form for people who hate their spouses.

Melania and 11-year-old Barron Trump are supposed to move to the White House on June 14. Politico reports that “it’s still not clear exactly what initiative Melania Trump will make her platform.” Maybe living with the Cyberbully-in-Chief will inspire her to get back into the cause she originally pretended to love.

 

Posted in Internet, Trump | Tagged , , , | 1 Comment

Trump’s Personal Lawyer Boasted That He Got Preet Bharara Fired

And a Kasowitz partner is a leading candidate to replace Bharara!

Marc Kasowitz, President Trump’s lawyer in the Russia investigation, has bragged he was behind the firing of U.S. Attorney Preet Bharara.

 

Marc Kasowitz, President Donald Trump’s attorney, makes a statement to the media on June 8, 2017, in Washington, D.C. (Ricky Carioti/The Washington Post via Getty Images)

Marc Kasowitz, President Donald Trump’s personal lawyer in the Russia investigation, has boasted to friends and colleagues that he played a central role in the firing of Preet Bharara, the United States Attorney for the Southern District of New York, according to four people familiar with the conversations.

Kasowitz told Trump, “This guy is going to get you,” according to a person familiar with Kasowitz’s account.

Those who know Kasowitz say he is sometimes prone to exaggerating when regaling them with his exploits. But if true, his assertion adds to the mystery surrounding the motive and timing of Bharara’s firing.

New presidents typically ask U.S. attorneys to resign and have the power to fire them. But Trump asked Bharara to stay in his job when they met in November at Trump Tower, as Bharara announced after the meeting.

In early March, Trump reversed himself. He asked all the remaining U.S. attorneys to resign, including Bharara. Bharara, a telegenic prosecutor with a history of taking on powerful politicians, refused and was fired March 11.

As ProPublica previously reported, at the time of Bharara’s firing the Southern District was conducting an investigation into Trump’s secretary of health and human services, Tom Price.

Kasowitz and the White House did not respond to requests for comment.

Kasowitz became a nationally recognized figure last week, after he acted as Trump’s designated spokesman to respond to former FBI Director James Comey’s landmark Senate testimony.

Kasowitz’s claimed role in the Bharara firing appears to be a sign that the New York lawyer has been inserting himself into matters of governance and not just advising the president on personal legal matters.

Kasowitz has also said in private conversations that Trump asked him to be attorney general, according to four people familiar with the matter. Kasowitz said he turned down the role. Ultimately, Trump decided to give the position to then-Alabama Sen. Jeff Sessions.

The Southern District of New York conducts some of the highest profile corporate investigations in the country. According to news reports, it is currently probing Fox News over payments made to settle sexual harassment charges against the network’s former chairman, the late Roger Ailes. The office is also looking into Russian money-laundering allegations at Deutsche Bank, Trump’s principal private lender.

Kasowitz has represented Trump over the years on matters including his failed libel lawsuit against a journalist, the Trump University case, and then-candidate Trump’s response to allegations of sexual assault by multiple women last year. Trump retained him to be his personal attorney in the Russia investigation last month.

The New York Times reported Sunday that Kasowitz has advised White House staffers about whether they need personal attorneys, raising conflict of interest questions.

Trump has also turned to Kasowitz’s firm to fill jobs in the administration. David Friedman, a former name partner of the firm, is now ambassador to Israel. Trump considered former senator and Kasowitz Senior Counsel Joseph Lieberman to replace Comey.

One of the names floated to replace Bharara is Edward McNally, a partner at Kasowitz’s law firm. More than three months after Bharara was fired, Trump has not nominated anyone to fill the Southern District job or most of the other U.S. attorney positions.

Bharara’s firing on March 11 came two months before the firing of Comey, head of the FBI. Critics charge that Trump obstructed justice in forcing Comey out.

Comey testified last week that Trump had tried to “create some sort of patronage relationship.” Bharara said in a television interview Sunday that Trump had attempted something similar with him: Comey’s testimony “felt a little bit like déjà vu.”

Posted in Congress, GOP, Trump | Tagged , | Leave a comment

Smirnoff mocks Trump’s Russia scandals in new ad

Dive Brief:

  • Vodka maker Smirnoff released an outdoor ad campaign that mocks the Trump administration’s alleged collusion with the Russian government, according to Adweek. The ad, which sparked a wave of social media buzz, features an image of the iconic Smirnoff bottle with the text: “Made in America. But we’d be happy to talk about our ties to Russia under oath.”
  • The ad alludes to President Trump’s recent claims that he will testify to Congress under oath about a special prosecutor’s probe into accusations that Russia influenced the 2016 election in his favor.
  • Smirnoff vodka dates back to an 1860s Moscow distillery, but is now part of British-based global beverage maker Diageo. Today’s Smirnoff vodka is distilled at a Diageo facility in Plainfield, Illinois.

Dive Insight:

In the aftermath of a divisive election and in the midst of a controversial, scandal-ridden presidency, brands may be tempted to distance themselves from the political sphere for fear of alienating valuable consumers. Ignoring consumers’ feelings toward today’s politics could be a risky move, however, as this could cause people to view some brands as out of touch.

Russell Zack, senior vice president of products and solutions at HelloWorld, told Food Dive that in today’s marketplace, brands can’t afford to be completely apolitical.

“Brands who have a global audience really do need to make a statement about where they stand politically, and you’re seeing those big global brands like Anheuser-Busch and Coca-Cola make those statements  — most of which are about inclusion,” Zack said. “There’s also so much consumer choice out there, so brands need to be very clear about their position in the world.”

Smirnoff’s ad campaign deftly makes light of an issue that is plaguing both sides of the political spectrum, though it will likely be interpreted as anti-Trump by some consumers. It’s important for brands to have a deep understanding of the behavior of their consumer base before launching a political marketing blitz. Companies want to avoid having to backpedal after launching an ad that toes the line as Smirnoff’s does. Businesses that decide to try such a campaign should have a response and game plan ready in case of backlash.

“Anything can be misrepresented, anything can be possibly misconstrued, and if brands are making these statements, they need to be prepared for any type of response  — good or bad  — that consumers will have in response to those comments,” Zack said.

It will be interesting to see how consumers react to the ad in the coming days, and if Smirnoff will experience any sales hits as a result. So far, social media users have been commending the poster as a “good burn”, driving the ad to Reddit’s front page during the weekend.

When Anheuser-Busch aired its “Born The Hard Way” Super Bowl commercial, which depicts the immigration of co-founder Adolphus Busch from Germany to the U.S. in the 1800s, the ad garnered both praise and criticism. Some consumers called for a boycott of Budweiser products, claiming the commercial was made in response to President Trump’s immigration ban. Smirnoff’s ad doesn’t seem to have inspired the same vitriol, but only time will tell if the politically charged campaign will help or hurt the company’s sales and brand image.

Copyright © Industry Dive (or its licensors)
Posted in Trump | Tagged , , | 1 Comment

Do or Die on Trumpcare

Senate Republicans want to rush a vote on Trumpcare in JUNE, whether they have the votes or not. The deciding moment may be near.   Since much of this is behind closed doors and interest groups such as doctor associations, hospital associations, patients advocates, apparently represent a “half hearted opposition“….well it is up to us, the public, to raise all hell.

here are some breaking stories:

Nationwide blitz launched,  in Forbes

The Senate Trumpcare bill

Senate Trumpcare behind closed doors

Sen. Tom Cotton, Sen. Mike Lee and Sen. Rand Paul, all Republicans, have said in the past that they oppose the American Health Care Act and will vote against it.

AARP is targeting Sens. Lisa Murkowski and Dan Sullivan of Alaska, Jeff Flake of Arizona, Cory Gardner of Colorado, Joni Ernest and Chuck Grassley of Iowa, Dean Heller of Nevada, Rob Portman of Ohio, Lamar Alexander and Bob Corker of Tennessee, and Shelley Moore Capito of West Virginia, with aggressive TV advertizing.

Kaiser Family Foundation lists 6 senators that could kill the Senate bill:

SENATOR STATE STATE TRUMP MARGIN STATE EXPANDED MEDICAID
Shelley Moore Capito West Virginia +42
Bill Cassidy Louisiana +20
Susan Collins Maine -3
Dean Heller Nevada -2
Lisa Murkowski Alaska +15
Rob Portman Ohio +8
Senate Republicans who could stop the Obamacare repeal

Sources: Kaiser Family Foundation, The New York Times

 

Here is a useful list with phone numbers:

Screen Shot 2017-06-13 at 5.29.23 PM.png

 

 

Posted in AHCA, GOP, Health Care, Medicaid, Pre-existing Conditions, Trump, trumpcare, Uncategorized, Zeldin | Tagged , , , | Leave a comment

NBC’s Megyn Kelly’s interview with Alex Jones is shaping up to be a disaster

The sit-down format was a poor choice for a segment on the Infowars conspiracy theorist.

Posted in Fake News, Uncategorized | Tagged , , , | Leave a comment

U.S. Refuses to Sign G7 Climate Pledge

Trump’s Chief Climate Denier Delivers the Coup de Grace on US Leadership on Climate Issues

The U.S. refused to sign on to the full Group of Seven environment ministers statement Monday, abstaining from large sections of the final communique on climate change and development banks funding climate initiatives.

“The United States will continue to engage with key international partners in a manner that is consistent with our domestic priorities, preserving both a strong economy and a healthy environment,” a footnote to the final text reads. “Accordingly, we the United States do not join those sections of the communiqué on climate and MDBs, reflecting our recent announcement to withdraw and immediately cease implementation of the Paris agreementand associated financial commitments.”

The section on climate change in the final communique affirmed Paris as “irreversible,” voiced support for international efforts to limit hydrofluorocarbons and airline emissions and reaffirmed the necessity of “an interactive evidence-based dialogue drawing on the best available science, including reports of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change.”

German environment minister Barbara Hendricks said in an interview that U.S. Environmental Protection Agency administrator Scott Pruitt, who attended the meeting for only a few hours Sunday, blamed President Obama for moving ahead with the Paris agreement, which Pruitt told other ministers is a bad deal for the U.S.

“Trump sending Scott Pruitt to the environmental ministers meeting for only one day was a pathetic and failed attempt to save face following his historic mistake of withdrawing the U.S. from the Paris agreement,” John Coequyt, Sierra Club global climate policy director, said.

“Sending a notorious climate denier like Scott Pruitt to discuss anything related to the environment is nothing short of an insult to the other countries of the world who are acting on climate.”

Posted in Air Pollution, climate change, Environment, EPA, Trump | Leave a comment

You’re Probably Going to Need Medicaid

Photo Credit Niko J. Kallianiotis for The New York Times

Imagine your mother needs to move into a nursing home. It’s going to cost her almost $100,000 a year. Very few people have private insurance to cover this. Your mother will most likely run out her savings until she qualifies for Medicaid.This is not a rare event. Roughly one in three people now turning 65 will require nursing home care at some point during his or her life. Over three-quarters of long-stay nursing home residents will eventually be covered by Medicaid. Many American voters think Medicaid is only for low-income adults and their children — for people who aren’t “like them.” But Medicaid is not “somebody else’s” insurance. It is insurance for all of our mothers and fathers and, eventually, for ourselves.The American Health Care Act that passed the House and is now being debated by the Senate would reduce spending on Medicaid by over $800 billion, the largest single reduction in a social insurance program in our nation’s history. The budget released by President Trump last month would up the ante by slashing another $600 billion over 10 years from the program. Whether the Senate adopts cuts of quite this magnitude or not, any legislation that passes the Republican Congress is likely to include the largest cuts to the Medicaid program since its inception.Much focus has rightly been placed on the enormous damage this would do to lower-income families and youth. But what has been largely missing from public discussion is the radical implications that such cuts would have for older and disabled Americans.

Medicaid is our nation’s largest safety net for low-income people, accounting for one-sixth of all health care spending in the United States. But few people seem to know that nearly two-thirds of that spending is focused on older and disabled adults — primarily through spending on long-term care services such as nursing homes.

Indeed, Medicaid pays nearly half of nursing home costs for those who need assistance because of medical conditions like Alzheimer’s or stroke. In some states, overall spending on older and disabled adults amounts to as much as three-quarters of Medicaid spending. As a result, there is no way that the program can shrink by 25 percent (as under the A.H.C.A.) or almost 50 percent (as under the Trump budget), without hurting these people.

A large body of research, some of it by us, has shown that cuts to nursing home reimbursement can have devastating effects on vulnerable patients. Many nursing homes would stop admitting Medicaid recipients and those who don’t have enough assets to ensure that they won’t eventually end up on Medicaid. Older and disabled Medicaid beneficiaries can’t pay out of pocket for services and they do not typically have family members able to care for them. The nursing home is a last resort. Where will they go instead?

Those who are admitted to a nursing home may not fare much better. Lowering Medicaid reimbursement rates lead to reductions in staffing, particularly of nurses. Research by one of us shows that a cut in the reimbursement rate of around 10 percent leads to a functional decline of nursing home residents (that is, a decline in their ability to walk or use the bathroom by themselves) of almost 10 percent. It also raises the odds that they will be in persistent pain by 5 % and the odds of getting a bedsore by 2 %.

Finally, these cuts would just shift costs to the rest of the government. Lower-quality nursing home care leads to more hospitalizations, and for Americans over 65, these are paid for by another government program, Medicare. One-quarter of nursing home residents are hospitalized each year, and the daily cost of caring for them more than quadruples when they move to the hospital. Research shows that a reduction in nursing home reimbursements of around 10 percent leads to a 5 percent rise in the odds that residents will be hospitalized. So care for seniors suffers, and the taxpayer pays.

Mr. Trump and the Republicans would lower spending on the frailest and most vulnerable people in our health care system. They would like most Americans to believe that these cuts will not affect them, only their “undeserving” neighbors. But that hides the truth that draconian cuts to Medicaid affect all of our families. They are a direct attack on our elderly, our disabled and our dignity.

Posted in AHCA, American Health Care Act, Health Care, Medicaid, Seniors, Uncategorized, Zeldin | Tagged , , , | Leave a comment

Trump backs permanent snooping powers he once criticized as abusive

We Have Good Reasons to Be Concerned About the Impact of Section 702 on the Criminal Justice System

Posted on Just Security

 

In a recent analysis for Just Security, I explored some concerns about how warrantless surveillance under Section 702 of the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act (“FISA”) may be undermining the U.S. criminal justice system. While many of those concerns would apply to the government’s potential reliance on warrantless Section 702 data as part of any criminal probe, I expressed a worry that such data might conceivably be making its way into investigations of relatively low-level suspected offenses (for example, suspected drug-related violations).

Partly in reply to Dean Asha Rangappa’s letter to the editor, I would like to expand on a few of the problematic practices I had mentioned—all of which should be at the forefront of legislators’ minds during the upcoming debate about whether Section 702 should be renewed before its scheduled sunset at the end of this year. These include “incidental”collection, warrantless querying of Section 702 data by the FBI, and parallel construction.

“Incidental” collection: A “subset” can still be a large pool of private information—including on U.S. persons

Under the law, the executive branch must “target” non-U.S. persons outside the United States when it carries out warrantless monitoring of Internet or telephone communications under Section 702. These targets need not be suspected of any wrongdoing: as long as “a significant purpose” of the surveillance is to obtain “foreign intelligence information,” a term FISA defines broadly, any non-U.S. person outside the country’s borders is fair game. In 2016, the government had an estimated 106,469 such targets—a number that had steadily increased for several years. Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Court (“FISC”) amicus, Amy Jeffress, who served as an impartial adviser, has confirmed that “not all Section 702 targets are international terrorists,” and the executive branch has yet to explain who else might be singled out. Then-chair of the Privacy and Civil Liberties Oversight Board (“PCLOB”) David Medine told Congress in 2016 that a Section 702 target could be “anyone with foreign intelligence value,” including, for example, “a completely innocent businessman.” 

While this monitoring has considerable human rights implications for the foreigners who are targeted, it is likely that the dragnet is also capturing large numbers of U.S. persons’ communications. The government likes to describe this seizure of Americans’ private correspondence under Section 702 as “incidental.” However, as PCLOB has pointed out, “[s]uch ‘incidental’ collection … is not accidental, nor is it inadvertent.” FISA requires that Section 702 surveillance be “reasonably designed” to minimize such collection, but it happens anyway. The President’s Review Group on Intelligence and Communications Technologies even suggested in 2013 that the executive branch may have an incentive “to use section 702 in an effort to gather evidence against United States persons in a way that would circumvent the underlying values of both FISA and the Fourth Amendment.”

This pool of warrantless Section 702 information on U.S. persons is probably sizeable. Medine testified explicitly that “the government is collecting large quantities of Americans’ communications” under the law. In her FISC amicus brief, Jeffress referred to “a potentially very large … scope of incidental collection of communications between lawful targets and U.S. persons that are not the type of communications Section 702 was designed to collect”—including communications with “no foreign intelligence value.” These statements indicate that while it is probably literally true that U.S.-person information is a “subset” of the data gathered under Section 702, this subset may be substantial and may include such troublingly private content as—in Medine’s words—“family photographs, love letters, personal financial matters, discussions of physical and mental health, and political and religious exchanges.”

Therefore, I do not share Dean Rangappa’s confidence that warrantless Section 702 data is unlikely to include information on “[w]holly domestic” U.S. crimes—let alone crimes (such as drug-related offenses) that the government may regard as having some kind of foreign nexus, however remote. The fact is that when a government grabs untold reams of private communications belonging to thousands or millions of people, there is simply no knowing what kind of information might be in there, available to be searched.

Once the National Security Agency (“NSA”) has obtained data through Section 702, including on U.S. persons, it may distribute or report on that data in several ways that may ultimately have implications for criminal cases—including by sharing data it “reasonably believe[s] to contain evidence of a crime” with the FBI or other law enforcement bodies. While it has not been publicly confirmed that such knowing NSA sharing of Section 702 data believed to contain evidence of a crime is feeding into non-terrorism prosecutions, in my view the risk is real.

FBI querying: “Fishing” in the pool is probably not so unusual

The current Section 702 regime allows the FBI to obtain unknown amounts of raw Section 702 data without a warrant. PCLOB has said it does not obtain all such data, but the actual amount remains unclear; the Office of the Director of National Intelligence’s statementthree years ago that the data constitutes “a small percentage of NSA’s total Section 702 collection” did little to illuminate this.

The Bureau then has the power to carry out warrantless searches—or “queries”—of these communications, a practice that has prompted strong expressions of concern from independent evaluators. Medine testified that the FBI “routinely looks into 702 databases, and not just in investigations, but even in assessments where the FBI has absolutely no suspicion of wrongdoing … they’re just sort of entitled to poke around and see if something is going on.” Jeffress, too, flagged that the FISC has described these FBI queries as “routine and encouraged,” that the Bureau may conduct them even at the pre-investigation “assessment” stage, and that “there is no requirement that the matter be a serious one, nor that it have any relation to national security.”

It is difficult to reconcile the claim that it is “extremely unlikely” that FBI agents would “fish” in Section 702 data for evidence of crimes with Medine’s and Jeffress’ statements, which suggest the Bureau has the power to do just that. As Dean Rangappa emphasizes, FBI procedures require that “[t]o the extent reasonably feasible,” queries of raw Section 702 data must be designed to “find and extract foreign intelligence information or evidence of a crime.” That latter phrase, however, essentially captures the problem: Agents may carry out warrantless searches of warrantlessly seized communications in order to find something the government could use to put someone in jail.

A recent FISC opinion indicates that the executive branch has reported only one instance to the Court in which the FBI, using a query that was not designed to find “foreign intelligence information,” found Section 702 information on an American. As highly unsympathetic as that case is (it involved an e-mail containing a description of child abuse), the fact that the government did use Section 702 to find such information without a warrant should give us all pause. Footnote 53 in the opinion also gives rise to concern that the FBI’s self-reporting processes for such cases may not be fully reliable—and one wonders how expansive queries that are seeking “foreign intelligence information,” which would not even result in such reporting, may be.

The FBI’s adoption of internal procedures that, in some ways, regulate access to this pool of warrantlessly collected data (for example, by requiring agents to have authorization before they can view Section 702 data they have found) does not take these concerns off the table. First, as Chief Justice Roberts observed in Riley v. California, law enforcement’s development of internal rules to assuage concerns about warrantless searches is “[p]robably a good idea, but the Founders did not fight a revolution to gain the right to government agency protocols.” In other words, even the best and strictest FBI procedures cannot undo any constitutional or other violations inherent in these programs.

Second, the FISC expressed a stark concern in its recent opinion about the FBI’s “apparent disregard” of rules the FISC had approved, and recorded at least three serious episodes in which the Bureau improperly provided access to raw Section 702 data to its own employees or to groups of private contractors. The Court also raised fears that “the FBI may be engaging in similar disclosures of raw Section 702 information that have not been reported.”

Parallel construction means the use of this data in criminal investigations may never come to light

If the NSA, FBI, or other entities are employing warrantless Section 702 data in non-terrorism criminal investigations, this practice might never come to light. Historical documents suggest that the government may have devoted a significant amount of time over the years to pondering the question of how to use intelligence information in investigations without disclosing this fact at trial. Among other things, a declassified document from 1983 shows the executive branch seeming to embrace the idea of deliberately “build[ing] a firebreak” in evidentiary trails by encouraging law enforcement to develop independent evidence in a way that would prevent defendants from discovering that information originally came from intelligence activities. Thirty years later, Reuters reported that the DEA was engaging in just such an activity, known as “parallel construction,” to avoid disclosing its use of tips from intelligence.

The government’s decidedly belated notice of Section 702 surveillance in at least a few known criminal cases provide reason to be concerned about the use of parallel construction to conceal such monitoring; it is also worrying that even defense attorneys who fight determinedly to find out if Section 702 or other intelligence monitoring was employed in their clients’ cases may face stiff resistance. (For civil rights defenders, it is worth reading the hearing transcript and related motion in an unusual 2013 Texas drug case to see some of the challenges confronting such attorneys.) It also seems possible, as at least one declassified record as well as the Reuters article suggest, that the prosecution could simply drop cases if defendants appeared likely to succeed in forcing the disclosure of Section 702 surveillance.

* * *

Particularly since the discussion above draws on some materials that had not yet been released at the time of our original exchange, I hope Dean Rangappa will take this as an invitation to a continuing dialogue.

This analysis of how Section 702 data may be quietly making its way into criminal investigations is one aspect of a larger story: I am just as concerned about information the U.S. has warrantlessly obtained under Executive Order 12333 or intelligence-sharing agreements with foreign governments and hope to write further on those topics in the future. However, Section 702 presents an immediate opportunity to restore civil liberties in this area—something Congress should not pass up.

Image: Getty/Chip Somodevilla 

Tags: , , , , ,


ABOUT THE AUTHOR

is a researcher and advocate on national security, surveillance, and domestic law enforcement for the US Program at Human Rights Watch. You can follow her on Twitter (@SarahStV_HRW)

Posted in FBI, FISA, National Security, Trump | Leave a comment

Net Neutrality — Don’t Be Fooled by the Comcast PR Machine: It Has Always Opposed Internet Freedom

Electronic Frontier Foundation
JUNE 5, 2017

Years of lobbying and litigation has made it clear Comcast wants to turn the Internet into a toll road and run the booth

If you have signed onto Twitter and have been following the network neutrality debate, you’ve probably seen Comcast’s campaign to rewrite its history of opposition to the Open Internet. But the company’s own statements to Congress, the FCC, and to the courts make Comcast’s true goal abundantly clear: free rein to use its market power to become an Internet gatekeeper.

Converting the Internet into a Pay to Win System

In the early legal battles over network neutrality, Comcast challenged a Republican FCC’s ability to enforce open Internet principles. In repeated legal filings, the company made clear that it did not believe the FCC could prevent providers from data discrimination unless it reclassified them as common carriers. After all, Comcast itself said in court that “nondiscrimination obligations are the hallmark of common carrier regulation (page 12).” In other words, Comcast was saying that the FCC couldn’t impose nondiscrimination rules unless it reclassified Comcast as a common carrier – which is exactly what the FCC did in 2015 and exactly what Comcast is fighting now. “Common carrier regulation” is code for Title II of the Communications Act. “nondiscrimination obligations are the hallmark of common carrier regulation” -Comcast’s 2009 court filing in Comcast vs FCC

The Comcast Plan If Network Neutrality Is Repealed

At the FCC, Comcast doubled down. In 2010, Comcast told the agency that one of the “benefits” that would be lost under an Open Internet Order would be the ability for cable and telephone to strike exclusive deals with Internet companies – in other words, paid prioritization, or “fast lanes” for those who can afford them.

“The proposed rule could prohibit Internet content, application, and service providers from improving their existing offerings with the assistance of a broadband ISP, regardless of whether doing so would be pro-competitive and beneficial to consumers.” –Comcast FCC filing, Jan 14, 2010 (page 40).

While Comcast attempted to make paid prioritization sound like something that would be good for online service competition, it is pretty obvious how these types of exclusives and priority access deals will play out in reality. In practice, what we will see is the biggest Internet companies getting premium access to bandwidth while every mom-and-pop business and tech startup will get relegated to inferior infrastructure because they do not have the excess capital to pay for access. For example, even as the FCC was actively pushing a new Open Internet Order in 2014, Comcast started rerouting and degrading Netflix traffic despite the demand coming from Comcast’s customers. Today, Netflix says it can pay for fast lanes – but the next Netflix won’t be able to survive in that world.

Setting up the FCC to Fail

In its PR campaign, Comcast claims that its decision not to challenge the 2010 Open Internet Order is evidence of its support for network neutrality. In reality, it’s likely the company stayed quiet because shortly after the Open Internet Order was approved Comcast was required to operate neutrally as a condition of its merger with NBC Universal. It had little to gain from publicly opposing the 2010 Order because they could not lift network neutrality obligations over their network even if they won in court due to merger conditions. Those Comcast NBCU merger conditions will expire in 2018. Here is what they said following the merger during consideration of the FCC’s second defeat under Verizon vs. Comcast as they were asking for approval of yet another merger (this time with Time Warner Cable).

“Comcast agreed to be bound by the FCC’s Open Internet rules until 2018. These protections will now extend to the acquired TWC systems, giving the FCC ample time to adopt (and, if necessary, to defend) legally enforcement Open Internet rules applicable to the entire industry.” -Joint statement by David L. Cohen (Comcast) and Arthur T. Minson (Time Warner Cable) to the Senate Judiciary Committee regarding the Comcast-Time Warner Cable merger

Translation: Don’t worry about our merger because we are bound to respect the Open Internet Rules for now, and by the time the agreement expires, the FCC will have found a legally enforceable basis for net neutrality protections. As Comcast indicated way back in 2009, that path required the FCC to do exactly what it did in 2015: reclassify broadband as a common carrier service. So Comcast’s record is pretty clear: the cable behemoth has known for years what the FCC had to go to get legally sound neutrality rules. Now the FCC has done it, Comcast is fighting tooth and nail to reverse it.

If we want to stop the Comcast plan to repeal network neutrality and convert the Internet into a pay-to-win system where only the largest players can compete for access to subscribers, squeezing out innovative and competing services (not to mention libraries, hospitals, schools, and political organizations), then we must act now.

Tell the FCC your story and contact your two Senators and House Representative today.

Posted in Congress, FCC, Internet, Net Neutrality | Leave a comment

Trump Rebrands “Abstinence Only” as “sexual risk avoidance”

Under a clinical-sounding label, the shame-and-ignorance approach of the Bush era makes a comeback under Trump

Published in Salon, June 13, 2017

Abstinence only, rebranded: Failed right-wing sex-ed policy returns as "sexual risk avoidance"(Credit: Getty/wundervisuals)

 

Thrice-married libertine Donald Trump got himself elected president by rallying the religious right vote behind him. The devil’s bargain that Christian conservatives made with Trump is easy enough to understand: They ignore his history of sexual incontinence, including rumors of a literal “pee tape,” and he gives them more power over the sex lives of private individuals, especially young people and women. In office, President Trump has done just that, launching a multitude of attacks on legal abortion and contraception access.

Now it seems as if a third front is opening in the Trumpian war on other people’s sex lives: The return of abstinence-only education, which many Americans believe had died off after President George W. Bush left office. Well, abstinence-only ed is coming back, but this time around, its proponents hope that voters, especially parents, don’t notice the return to the classroom of religious anti-sex propaganda.

 The first sign that the Trump administration hoped to ease into the classroom more just-say-no-to-sex messages came in late May, when the White House proposed a budget that would slash nearly every government expenditure but would increase by $277 million spending on abstinence-until-marriage programs. Last week news surfaced that Valerie Huber, the head of a pro-abstinence organization called Ascend, will join the Department of Health and Human Services as chief of staff to the assistant secretary for adolescent health; the position will allow her to push for more support for abstinence-until-marriage programs in schools.

To be clear, abstinence-only ed was never completely dead. The Obama administration mounted many efforts to get rid of federal funding for abstinence-focused programs, and some were successful. But congressional Republicans managed to preserve at least some abstinence-centered funding, and since sex education curricula are mostly controlled by local school boards, abstinence programs have continued to flourish in many school districts. Religious conservatives have continued to push them onto schools under the noses of parents who might otherwise revolt at hearing that their kids are being subject to programs that shame the 95 percent of Americans who have premarital sex and that have repeatedly been linked to higher rates of teen pregnancy.

Part of what kept abstinence-only approaches alive is that the religious right has rebranded it as “sexual risk avoidance,” as if it were a public health initiative instead of religion-tinged sexual shaming.

“Over the years they got very smart,” explained Debra Hauser, the president of Advocates for Youth, in a phone conversation. “When we were like, ‘science over ideology,’ they turned around and produced their own journals and their own science.”

She added, “When we said, ‘This is a just-say-no program that didn’t work for drugs under Nancy Reagan and isn’t gonna work here,’ they said, ‘No, this isn’t abstinence until marriage; it just stresses abstinence.’ They turned around and went to this language about ‘sexual risk avoidance,’ which completely obfuscates what they’re actually doing.”

With Huber’s appointment, this rebranding and Republican control of all three branches of government, there’s good reason to fear a renewed push for schools to terrorize kids about sex, rather than providing true sex education.

Mary Anne Mosack, who replaced Valerie Huber as the head of Ascend (formerly called the National Abstinence Education Association), took issue during a phone interview with the implication that “sexual risk avoidance” is the just-say-no style of education that critics like Hauser say it is.

“We teach that [marriage] is the best context for sexual activity,” Mosack said, repeatedly insisting that this doesn’t mean that her organization’s approach is an abstinence-until-marriage program.

My conversation with Mosack, which lasted nearly a half hour, was maddeningly elliptical about what exactly the goals of the program are. I repeatedly pointed out that the average U.S. age of first marriage is 28 years old — a full 11 years after the average age for first having sexual intercourse — and asked if it’s unrealistic, and quite possibly unhealthy, to expect young people to wait that long to have sex. Mosack sidestepped the question, trying to redirect the conversation away from younger adults to teenagers. She said Ascend’s main goal was to “normalize . . .  sexual delay” for teenagers, adding, “We’re talking about middle school and high school.”

But when I then asked her if the point of the programs was to have younger people wait until, say, college before engaging in sexual activity, she said that, no, Ascend believes that virginity until marriage is the “best outcome.” And then around we went again.

Mosack’s position, if I’m being generous, seemed to be that if you tell young people to wait 15 years, maybe you can hope they wait five years — or three. To me that sounds less like education and more like setting up kids for failure. It certainly didn’t seem like a good way to frame human sexuality, which should ultimately be about pleasure and human connection, not described in terms that strongly resemble the Christian idea of sin. And it also doesn’t seem like a good way to impart health information that young people will need when they do inevitably start having sex.

“Make no mistake, there is still an underlying theme of shame, fear and the use of traditional gender stereotypes and roles” in these rebranded programs, Hauser said.

Mosack disagreed with Hauser’s position, insisting that the programs take a “holistic approach” to sex education.

I asked Mosack for some examples of curricula that her organization endorses, so I could see it for myself. At this point she got cagey. While her organization has certified hundreds of programs, she said, she wouldn’t give me any names or contact information, instead she said would pass my number along so that representatives of those programs could contact me. (No one has.)

It didn’t take much digging, however, to find a 2016 Ascend document that featured an extensive list of programs the organization had deemed successful “sexual risk avoidance” examples; many of the programs continue to use the “abstinence” language in their titles.

It just so happens that many of the Ascend-recommended programs were reviewed in 2016 by the Texas Freedom Network, which advocates for the separation of church and state and resists religion-tinged and anti-sex propaganda being pushed as “education” in schools.

Texas Freedom Network found that reframing abstinence-only programs as “sexual risk avoidance” led to a few minor improvements over the Bush-era programs. The amount of outright misinformation about contraception has declined and the programs have thankfully started to incorporate important information about consent. But the review still found that the programs demonize contraception. Much of the shaming and sexist messaging that gave abstinence-only education a bad name in the first place is still a major feature of the programs.

For instance, two Ascend-recommended programs — REAL Essentials and Choosing the Best — continue to teach that having sex makes a person dirty and incapable of falling in love.

REAL Essentials explains that glue (i.e., sex) is a bonding agent that works best on a surface that is ‘clean and dry’ (i.e., virgins),” the Texas Freedom Network report read. “Choosing the Best includes a similar exercise using adhesive tape. The exercise involves placing tape on a student’s skin, then removing it to show what has transferred from the skin to the tape. What remains on the tape is supposed to represent the emotional baggage resulting from sex.”

The idea of the exercise, of course, is to suggest that people who have sex become dirty and incapable of “sticking” to new partners.

The reviewers also found sexist stereotypes in Ascend-recommended programs like Scott and White Wellness and Sexual Health (formerly called Worth the Wait) and REAL Essentials. Their curricula framed men as sexual and women as romantic, treating marriage as a tense exchange whereby a woman provides access to her body in exchange for a man’s pledge of love.

In reality, of course, people of all genders experience both sexual desire and romantic yearnings — and the two are not experienced in opposition, for most people.

With the deceitful rebranding of abstinence-only programs and the Republican domination of government, there’s more than enough reason for parents to worry that these misleading, shaming programs will return to public school curricula. In many cases they’ve been there all along, despite the Obama administration’s efforts to kill off abstinence-only programs.

That doesn’t mean parents are powerless in this regard. In fact, Hauser argued, fighting for real sex education is a good avenue for people looking for opportunities to resist the Trump agenda.

“At the school-district level is where sex education is determined, both in policy and in practice,” Hauser explained. That means that as few as five or six parents, can often be enough to convince a superintendent to reject federal pressure or funding to replace real sex education with abstinence-only, she said.

The kids themselves can be the resistance’s best ally. They can be warned that schools may bring in activists from crisis pregnancy centers and other religious right organizations. Or students can cautioned to be on the lookout for anti-sex lectures that feature things like the tape stunt or similar ones involving chewing gum or cups of spit. The list of Ascend-approved curricula can serve as a cheat sheet for parents: If your kid comes home with abstinence-only books, it’s time to call the school and raise hell.

Posted in Birth Control, Family Issues, Family Planning, Planned Parenthood, Religion & tolerance, Trump | 1 Comment

As The World Burns

Published in the June 8 edition of The Long Island Advance

To the Editor of the Long Island Advance:

As residents of a coastal island, living all but surrounded by water, we might expect that our Congressman, Lee Zeldin, would do everything in his power to protect us against rising sea levels, more severe storms and the many other harmful consequences of climate change.

Surely as a member of the House Climate Solutions Caucus, which as the Advance previously reported Mr. Zeldin joined just weeks before he stood for re-election last November, one would expect Mr. Zeldin to join 21 other members of that caucus, Republicans and Democrats, in a letter to President Trump urging him not to withdraw the United States from the Paris climate agreement. That letter, sent to Mr. Trump on April 26th as debate in the White House reached a critical juncture, urged the president to take a “responsible approach” and listed multiple reasons why withdrawing from the Paris agreement would be damaging to our safety, to our economy, to our country and to the world.

But no, Mr. Zeldin refused to join his 21 Climate Caucus colleagues in signing the bi-partisan letter, even though Mr. Zeldin’s signature would have carried particular weight because Mr. Zeldin was an early supporter, and remains a steadfast supporter, of Mr. Trump.

History will not look kindly on those, like Mr. Zeldin, who were in a position to act but chose not to, while Mr. Trump proceeded to turn the momentous decision regarding the Paris climate agreement into a soap opera starring himself. Perhaps we could call it: “As the World Burns.”

Sincerely,

Marc Rauch
Bellport

Posted in climate change, East Hampton, Environment, EPA, Trump | Leave a comment

As a soldier, I worked for Lee Zeldin

His values don’t reflect what we were taught.

Posted Oct 31st, 2016 on medium.com

By Richard Allen Smith, Veteran, writer, advocate

As a US Army veteran, I’m troubled by the rhetoric of Donald Trump and the Republican candidates that support him, especially Rep. Lee Zeldin who I served under in the 82nd Airborne Division.

During the 14 months I served in Afghanistan from 2007 to 2008, I spent part of my time helping immigrants serving in our Army apply for their US citizenship, including immigrants from South and Central America, as well as predominantly Muslim countries. The things Donald Trump has said about these brave men and their families are simply unconscionable.

During his campaign, Trump has frequently criticized veterans and servicemembers that were not immigrants as well. He cast aspersions at prisoners of war, saying “I like people who weren’t captured” in reference to Sen. John McCain. He attacked the parents of Gold Star Army Captain Humayun Khan (see image), who heroically fell in the line of duty. And he has implied that Sergeant Bowe Begdahl should be “shot,” without a trial, an idea I find unacceptable and one that Zeldin, should condemn as well.

While he says he stands up for veterans, Trump’s actions show a deep apathy, and arguably disdain, for our service to our country. His intolerance towards other groups — Latinos, immigrants, Muslims, women, the disabled, and more — shows that he simply does not possess the values that so many of us fought to defend.

I served under Zeldin in the 82nd Airborne Division as an enlisted JAG Corps soldier. Zeldin was my officer in charge prior to deploying to Afghanistan. The Army and the 82nd Airborne Division instilled in both of us the values of inclusiveness, integrity, and respect that I keep at the forefront of my life to this day. Both Trump’s record and rhetoric, as well as Zeldin’s anti-immigrant and anti-Muslim statements, are in direct contradiction with those values.

In my time working with Zeldin, I found him to be perhaps the most unremarkable and mediocre military officer I ever served with. I was not alone in that assessment. I share this not because I revel in criticizing my fellow soldiers. In fact, it makes me deeply uncomfortable.

But what makes me more uncomfortable is when Zeldin uses his service to promote a version of patriotism that is inconsistent with every value I learned from the military, and then uses the political platform he’s been given to support fundamentally un-American things and people who threaten the very America that we swore to defend.

Mr. Trump has demonstrated that he is willing to attack veterans and their families, fan the flames of anti-immigrant and racial hatred, and mock women. Zeldin stands with him, and even calls President Obama a “racist.” I hope Zeldin will tell voters what it is about those values we learned in the Army that he has since found to be so distasteful that he must support a candidate that stands against them in every way.

Posted in Uncategorized, veterans, Zeldin | 2 Comments

The New Fascism

By Steven A. Ludsin, East Hampton, N.Y.

Letter Published in The Boston Globe

LETTERS – June 10, 2017

Politics has always been a contact sport, but the Trump administration has purposely broken rules and norms. I like to believe that a fascist party could not be elected to power, but now I reluctantly realize it could happen in America.

Respect for the Constitution could save us, but the turbulence is wrenching. Winston Churchill lamented the unteachability of mankind and the endless repetition of history. He also suggested we should act when it would be simple and effective. That time is now.

Posted in Trump, Uncategorized | Tagged , , , | 1 Comment

Interior Dept. Changes Website, Prioritizes Fossil Fuels Over Renewables

The Interior Department’s new “American Energy” webpage reflects the Trump administration’s calls for unfettered fossil fuel development.

 

The webpage has gone through several revamps since Ryan Zinke took over the department in March. As reported by Motherboard, the current page, last updated on May 19, stresses “removing burdensome regulations at the Department” and omits language that emphasized developing renewable energy technologies.

Additionally, the first sentence of the new page states: “The U.S. Department of the Interior is the steward and manager of America’s natural resources including oil, gas, clean coal, hydropower, and renewable energy sources.”

That’s a complete flip from the page’s February 11 iteration, then called “New Energy Frontier,” which listed clean technologies first: “solar, wind and waves, hydropower, geothermal, biofuels, oil and gas, and coal.”

The Interior Secretary seems to have a dismissive attitude towards renewables. Citing the overblown “wind kills birds” threat, Zinke said two months ago that “there’s no such thing as clean energy” as he officially lifted the Obama-era moratorium on federal coal leasing.

Earlier this month, Zinke kick-started plans to review oil and gas exploration in the Arctic and Atlantic Ocean.

“This order in effect makes Alaska open for business,” Zinke said.

Meanwhile, Zinke’s colleagues over at the Energy Department have a webpage dedicated to how renewable energy technologies can mitigate the harmful effects of climate change and that it “supports research and innovation that makes fossil energy technologies cleaner and less harmful to the people and the environment.”

The page also states that the department is “working to dramatically increase the efficiency of appliances, homes, businesses and vehicles.”

Ironically, the Energy Department’s work is being undermined by a slew of Trump policies. The president’s 2018 budget slashes funding for the Office of Energy Efficiency and Renewable Energy by a whopping 71.9 percent. Not only that, the administration has also proposed cuts on energy efficiency initiatives, from eliminating the popular Energy Star program to rolling back key vehicle emission standards.

Trump’s efforts to weaken pollution standards for vehicles is already being challenged by a coalition of 13 attorneys general and the Pennsylvania Department of Environmental Protection.

“Reducing pollution from cars and trucks is vital to New Yorkers’ and all Americans’ health and environment, as we protect the clean air we’ve worked so hard to achieve and fight climate change,” New York Attorney General Eric Schneiderman said.

“Any effort to roll back these affordable, achievable and common-sense vehicle emission standards would be both irrational and irresponsible. We stand ready to vigorously and aggressively challenge President Trump’s dangerous anti-environmental agenda in court—as we already have successfully done.”

Posted in Air Pollution, climate change, Environment, Offshore Drilling, Trump | Tagged , , , | 1 Comment

Senate GOP vows to keep plugging away at health care — behind closed doors

Salon  June 9, 2017

Mitch McConnell doesn’t want to repeal Obamacare — but he has to at least pretend that he does

Senate GOP vows to keep plugging away at health care -- behind closed doors(Credit: AP Photo/J. Scott Applewhite)

 

Now that President Donald Trump appears to have embraced the idea of governing as America’s first president with less than half of the public supporting him, his congressional counterparts are trying their best to appease the GOP’s conservative base by continuing their long slog to repeal and replace Obamacare.

Mitch McConnell, who leads the Republicans in the Senate, appears to have foreseen the difficulties that the party would face in passing a health care bill. In 2014, before the GOP had taken a majority in the Senate, he seemed to prefer an approach that would eliminate some of the more unpopular portions of the Affordable Care Actsuch as its tax requirement to have some form of health insurance.

McConnell’s former House Republican counterpart, retired Rep. John Boehner of Ohio, flat out stated in February that a complete repeal of Obamacare was “not going to happen” because “Republicans never, ever agree on health care.”

In March, current Speaker of the House Paul Ryan seemed to agree with that analysis, saying at a March 24 press conference after he had to withdraw the GOP’s first attempt at a health care bill, “We’re going to be living with Obamacare for the foreseeable future.”

While the GOP is having trouble agreeing on what to replace Obamacare with and the plan that ultimately did pass the House is becoming increasingly unpopular (just 17 percent of respondents supported it in a poll released Thursday by Quinnipiac University), leadership appears to have come to the conclusion that in the midterm elections that historically have been dominated by more conservative voters, taking a more discreet approach to overturning former president Barack Obama’s signature achievement will likely lead many hardcore Republicans to stay home, thus leading to GOP electoral losses.

 That’s why McConnell is still trying to push forward, albeit under a time limit, to ensure that congressional Republicans don’t allow a doomed health care effort to prevent them from passing other major pieces of legislation, such as a large tax cut. The Senate GOP is also conducting its internal negotiations in secret, planning to bring forth whatever bill that emerges direct to the Senate floor rather than to a committee.

The overall objective appears to be to produce a bill that can pass or to simply give up and move on to something else, perhaps even the more discrete measures that McConnell had talked up earlier. That’s something Sen. Claire McCaskill pointed out during a hearing on a different measure Thursday.

The Republican effort is also hampered by the fact that under reconciliation rules, the Senate GOP’s bill must save at least $119 billion from the federal budget, the savings that were achieved under the House-passed American Health Care Act.

That objective presents a significant challenge for the Senate GOP since the bill’s eventual end to Obamacare’s Medicaid expansion has become one of its most unpopular provisions. According to the Congressional Budget Office, the provision would cause up to 14 million people to lose health coverage once it goes into full effect.

The only way the Senate Republicans could keep the expansion while saving the same amount of money would be to refrain from repealing some of the tax increases that were also in the original Affordable Care Act. Signing off on those tax hikes would be strongly disapproved of by the anti-tax activists and donors who dominate the right side of the aisle in Washington. The House bill also has a provision that effectively defunds family and abortion services provider Planned Parenthood which may also run afoul of budget reconciliation rules.

Whatever ends up happening, McConnell has vowed that he will bring things to a conclusion before the Senate goes into its July 4 recess. That means the GOP is going to have to get something to the Congressional Budget Office for an official scoring as soon as possible. The Senate is also up against a hard June 21 deadline for insurance companies to decide if they are going to participate next year in the health care exchange markets that were created under Obamacare. Those decisions will almost certainly key off of what the GOP intends to do on health care. And as of now, there is no indication what that is.

As McConnell’s self-imposed deadline looms, the early declarations from Republican senators that their chamber’s bill would be a completely different thing are starting to ring false. On Monday, White House Legislative Affairs Director Marc Short told reporters that “at the end of the day, you will probably see a lot of similarities” to the House version of the bill.

Posted in ACA, AHCA, American Health Care Act, Health Care, Medicaid, trumpcare | Leave a comment

The Brownback Tax Cut Experiment Ends in Kansas

Logo Site

June 7, 2017

Just as President Trump is ramping up his push for a major tax cut that he believes will pay for itself through faster economic growth, the Kansas template for that approach has crashed and burned. After four years of below-average growth, deepening budget deficits, and steep spending reductions, the GOP-dominated Kansas legislature has repealed many of the tax cuts at the heart of Governor Sam Brownback fiscal agenda.

It is a lesson unlikely to be missed by congressional Republicans—or Democrats.

Brownback vetoed the legislature’s first attempt  to reverse his tax cuts, but two-thirds majorities in both the House and Senate overrode his veto. The measure would boost state taxes by $1.2 billion over two years, in part by raising the top income tax rate from 4.6 percent to 5.7 percent and by once again taxing sole proprietorships, partnerships, and other pass-through businesses. Pressured by Brownback, the legislature had made pass-throughs tax free.

In a worrisome echo of that plan, the Trump Administration says it will propose cutting the federal individual income tax rate on pass-throughs to 15 percent , far below the top current rate on wages of 39.6 percent or Trump’s preferred rate of 35 percent.

Since Kansas enacted tax and spending cuts in 2012 and 2013, Brownback and his allies have argued that this fiscal potion would generate an explosion of economic growth. It didn’t. Overall growth and job creation in Kansas underperformed both the national economy and neighboring states. From January, 2014 (after both tax cuts passed) to April, 2017, Kansas gained only 28,000 net new non-farm jobs. By contrast, Nebraska, an economically similar state with a much smaller labor force, saw a net increase of 35,000 jobs.

While overall employment barely increased and economic activity was lower than other states, Kansas saw a significant increase in the number of individuals with business income.  The likely reason: That zero tax rate on pass-throughs.

The tax cuts did produce one explosion, however. The state’s budget deficit was expected to hit $280 million this year, despite major spending reductions. Kansas falls well below national averages in a wide range of public services from K-12 education to housing to police and fire protection, according to an analysis by the Urban Institute’s State and Local Finance Initiative. Under order from the state Supreme Court, the legislature has voted to increase funding for public schools by $293 million over the next two years.

The more troubling lesson for Republicans in Congress: While Brownback was reelected in 2014, his popularity has since plummeted and his approval rating now hovers at around 25 percent, second lowest among all sitting governors. And while the GOP enjoyed tremendous national electoral success in 2016, the party lost seats in the Kansas legislature. At least in one deep red state, the Trump formula of big tax and spending cuts is no longer the path to political success.

In 2012, Brownback called his tax plan a “real live experiment.” It appears to have failed.

Posts and Comments are solely the opinion of the author and not that of the Tax Policy Center, Urban Institute, or Brookings Institution.

Posted in budget, economy, Employment, Tax Reform, Trump | 1 Comment

When the Nazis Come Marching In

Posted in Slate — JURISPRUDENCE, June 7, 2017

I never feared the First Amendment until white supremacists came to my hometown.

As a resident of Charlottesville, Virginia, I have been forced of late to spend too much time thinking about Nazis. In mid-May, a handful of white supremacists, Holocaust deniers, xenophobes, and recreational racists—among them Richard Spencer—marched through one of our parks with flaming torches in support of a Robert E. Lee statue that has been slated to be sold by the City Council. The demonstration grabbed headlines worldwide, the statue’s removal has been placed on a six-month hold by a judge, and the Ku Klux Klan is now seeking permission to march here in July. A few weeks after the first march, a Facebook post from a local black farmer went viral due to its suggestion that the arrival of the white supremacists was more a culmination than an inciting incident, and that the fight over the Lee monument was empty symbolism that distracted from a meaningful discussion about the systemic racism that already exists here. The post included the claim that “it isn’t Richard Spencer calling the cops on me for farming while Black. It’s nervous White women in yoga pants with ‘I’m with Her’ and ‘Coexist’ stickers on their German SUVs.” White women in yoga pants were upset. Alt-right websites rejoiced.

Maybe it was time for me and the First Amendment to see other people.

My little city in central Virginia has become the stuff of reality TV. The local police, who didn’t see the Lee Park thing coming, are dialed up to 11. And with threats, incitement, and actual assaults perpetrated both by alt-right sympathizers and the protesters who oppose them, their job is no longer to stand back but to surge in almost as soon as the shouting begins. Now, when we come to meet in our town square, we are uncertain of whether we are suiting up for events that fete the Constitution or violent altercations for which we should park with an eye to high-speed retreats. Lee Park itself, where my babies learned to walk, has become ground zero for people expecting the worst.

This is how I felt as I headed to a local counter-protest the morning of May 31: afraid for the first time in my 16-year residence in a town I love. I was afraid that the cycle of arrests and assaults that have followed the Richard Spencer march would lead to more arrests and assaults, afraid about where we parked the car because white supremacists in this town have followed protesters home from rallies, afraid for the first time in the small town where my kids walk everywhere alone. For the first time in a lifetime of journalism, I was also afraid to wear my press credentials because today, in this town, they might invite punching.

Last week, I had come to a place where I was thinking—if not saying aloud—that maybe it was time for me and the First Amendment to see other people. It’s not me, to be sure, it’s the First Amendment—or at least what’s become of it. I am weary of hate speech, wary of threats, and tired of the choice between punching back and acquiescing. I am sick to death of Nazis. And yet they had arrived, basically on my doorstep.

For the Framers, the thinking went, free speech was just speech, nothing more and nothing less. The best way to deal with the most appalling speakers would be to ignore them, in the hope that they would go away or drown trying to be heard. That they wouldn’t survive the marketplace of ideas. It’s the same reason we tried to ignore Donald Trump for so long or at least failed to take him seriously. Or so I wrote in 2015. We tried to ignore Steve Bannon and Milo Yiannopoulos. We tried to ignore Ann Coulter and Richard Spencer. We ignored them for so long and for so hard that they now get to ignore us. And these days, people who used to feel free to shout and threaten are emboldened to punch, body-slam, and stab.

It is a short hop, we are learning, from “words can never hurt us” to actual sticks and stones and the attendant breaking of bones.

These days, people who used to feel free to shout and threaten are emboldened to punch, body-slam, and stab.
That is what has become of free speech in this country. That is why I was contemplating breaking up with it. I don’t think I’m alone, either. There are a lot of people out there who feel that they ignored racist, xenophobic, sexist white supremacists at their own peril, for months and years, when they should have been punching back. And now, a lot of people in my town are not quite sure what to do. Some liberals cheered when Richard Spencer was confronted at his gym and cheered again when Ann Coulter didn’t speak in the free speech haven of Berkeley, California. Some have decided to meet what they perceive as violence with violence of their own: A growing list of “anti-fascist” groups have announced they are willing to use “direct action” against their foes if necessary. Many progressives are sick and tired because they have found that their attempts to protect free speech have resulted in a world that is not flush with the reciprocal exchange of ideas, but one that is shimmering with the threat of imminent violence and the daily fear that comes when you live with the possibility of that violence.

Cities that never worried about much beyond trampled flora at their Memorial Day parades now need to prepare for protests as if they are riots in the making, at tremendous cost to our collective psyche. Consider the choices available to the mayor of Portland, Oregon, after two men, Taliesin Myrddin Namkai-Meche and Ricky John Best, were stabbed to death as they tried to stop a white supremacist from harassing two young women on the light rail. Portland is in a state with robust constitutional speech protections. It has also suffered a long and frightening string of racial incidents in recent months. The white supremacist who killed two men in May had attended “free speech” rallies. And now at similar rallies everywhere, including my hometown, protesters on both sides are prepared for violence. Violence, these days, is almost expected. The only question seems to be whether cities will try to prevent bloodshed before it can happen. It’s why, immediately following the stabbings, that Portland Mayor Ted Wheeler tried to revoke permits for future alt-right protests altogether.

Of course, per the U.S. Constitution, Wheeler could not revoke these permits and stop these events regardless of how good his intentions were. And they were good: “My main concern is that they are coming to peddle a message of hatred and of bigotry,” he had told reporters. “They have a First Amendment right to speak, but my pushback on that is that hate speech is not protected by the First Amendment to the United States Constitution.” Unfortunately, he is wrong as a matter of fact and of First Amendment doctrine because if Nazis get to march in Skokie, Illinois, racists can march in Portland. (The ACLU of Oregon quickly reminded him of this on Twitter, pointing out that “The government cannot revoke or deny a permit based on the viewpoint of the demonstrators. Period.”) Soon, Mayor Wheeler’s office was walking back the claim that he was calling to suppress speech, saying he was simply trying to avoid physical violence. As an attorney friend in Portland reminded me, this is exactly why elected officials have attorneys, so they can say, “I wanted to cancel the rallies, but my lawyers wouldn’t let me.”

Is the First Amendment allowing us to batter and attack one another in ways that are more pernicious than the act of silencing speech?

The conundrum facing Wheeler, though, is the conundrum facing us all. It’s the same one that has been plaguing me: Is the First Amendment allowing us to batter and attack one another in ways that are more pernicious than the act of silencing speech? Why is my city, roiled and bruised by the events of May, still allowing the KKK to march here next month?

So far in Charlottesville, we have kept violence at bay. But that fact has not felt like a promise. Last Wednesday morning, some of the white nationalists announced plans to gather again. The police showed up in full force, as did counter-protesters organized by local faith groups. Actually, the counter-protesters outnumbered the alleged white supremacists by about 30 to 1. Everyone I spoke to was anxious. That, not politics, was hanging in the air. The faith groups were trying to guess at who would pull a knife; the young man who had been hassled by the Richard Spencer crowd back in May for wearing a yarmulke was back, again in his yarmulke. Nobody knew which guy might be the guy—the one with the knife, or even the gun.

The scene wasn’t as clear-cut as you might think a confrontation between white supremacists and anti-white supremacists would be. A local candidate for city council, Kenneth Jackson, was off to the side trying to talk. He was there with the support of Jason Kessler, one of about four white supremacists in attendance. Both wanted the Robert E. Lee statue to remain standing. Jackson is black and gay. Kessler made headlines last week after he “covered” the torch-march for the Daily Caller; his piece declined to mention that in addition to attending, he’d been a speaker celebrating Holocaust denialism and white superiority. His article still stands, a valoric love song to white supremacy, now with an editor’s note appended that reads “The author notified The Daily Caller after publication that he spoke at a luncheon May 14 on behalf of an effort to preserve the monument.” After spending the subsequent weeks being harassed everywhere he went, he was back in the park. He carried a megaphone he did not use.

It is ever more clear to me that the free press—which exists, to make an obvious point, because of the First Amendment—is the enemy of the white supremacists who keep talking about free speech. Kessler blames the press for everything, including his now-terminated contract with the Daily Caller. But even Jackson posted a Facebook rant about a news account of last Wednesday’s protest that he felt mischaracterized the event. When the revolution comes, it will be because someone who felt he had important things to say felt wronged by the media.

While the religious groups sang songs and prayed at the foot of the monument, Kessler held forth about Jewish nepotism and the “white guilt” that infected the faith leaders leading the counter-protest. Jackson, who has taken the public position that he wants to preserve the Lee statue, lectured Kessler about racism and homophobia, then turned on the people of faith for caring less about the lived experiences of the black citizens of Charlottesville than they do about symbols like the Lee statue. “When Dr. King came here,” said Jackson, according to an account in a local paper, “he talked about peace and unity. He didn’t try to make white people feel guilty about the past.” He advised local civil rights activists to spend their time working on issues like affordable housing rather than showing up to protests. When a spontaneous prayer circle erupted, the Lee supporters held hands. Kessler opted out of hand-holding.

When the revolution comes, it will be because someone who felt he had important things to say felt wronged by the media.

At this point, activist Veronica Fitzhugh approached Kessler and Jackson with a Bible in her hand. She had been one of the people shouting at Kessler to “fucking go home” as he ate at a restaurant on the downtown mall—indeed, she was later arrested for it and charged with assault and disorderly conduct. Now she hugged Jackson, and hugged some of the Lee supporters, and said she was asking for forgiveness. Kessler was not hugging, either.

The protests ended, in the shadow of the still-standing Robert E. Lee, with Fitzhugh and Jackson engaged in an ontological debate about the constitutional scope of protected free speech. Jackson felt that screaming at Nazis in public was illegal, but Fitzhugh thought it was protected. Local police officials declined to weigh in, at least then. When Jackson and Fitzhugh called it a draw and everyone stood down, the police were dispatched to the holy work of illegal left turns. As we departed Lee Park, Kessler sat on a park bench alone, checking his phone.

The news cameras, the cellphones, and the voice recorders reported that nothing violent transpired during the sequel to the flaming torch march that tore Charlottesville apart. That was true. But last Wednesday was about more than the absence of bloodshed. A black man, running for City Council on a pro–Robert E. Lee statue platform, tried to explain to a black woman who will never, ever give an inch for a Nazi, that symbols are just symbols in the middle of a city that is tearing itself to bits over, well, symbols. What the fear and the calls for banning marches misses—what I doubted before I went to see it for myself—is that an actual conversation about speech, race, fury, and pain, happened in a city park.

I can’t help but feel, in some way, that we got away with something last Wednesday. If we did, we may not be as lucky next time.

But to guarantee an escape from conflict, from violence, requires censorship. To have free speech in this moment, when the stakes are so high, is to live with fear. This is not an easy thing to confront—or to accept. If everyone had just stayed home last Wednesday in Charlottesville, there would have been no need to be afraid. There would also have been no dialogue.

What I saw on Wednesday reaffirmed my conviction that conversation might still be our best chance of getting out of this mess. Free speech is just free speech. It takes actual humans making the effort to talk to each other to transform speech into something more vital and more valuable. Conversations don’t always work. They may sometimes go wrong—horribly, terribly wrong. But I know someone who left that park with the phone number of someone from the “opposing” side. I saw people who showed up nervous, but showed up anyhow. The First Amendment will never be able to protect us from horrible words and horrific acts. It does guarantee that we’ll keep talking.

Posted in first amendment, Uncategorized | Tagged , , , , | Leave a comment

The Potemkin Policies of Donald Trump

Published in The Atlantic

The simplest summary of White House economic policy to date is four words long: There is no policy.

John Sommers II / Reuters
TEXT SIZE

It’s “Infrastructure Week” at the White House. Theoretically.

On Monday, the administration announced a plan to spend $200 billion on infrastructure and overhaul U.S. air traffic control. There was a high-profile signing in the East Wing before dozens of cheering lawmakers and industry titans. It was supposed to be the beginning of a weeklong push to fix America’s roads, bridges, and airports.

But in the next two days, Trump spent more energy burning metaphorical bridges than trying to build literal ones. He could have stayed on message for several hours, gathered Democrats and Republicans to discuss a bipartisan agreement, and announced a timeframe. Instead he quickly turned his attention to Twitter to accuse media companies of “Fake News” while undermining an alliance with Qatar based on what may be, fittingly, a fake news story.

It’s a microcosm of this administration’s approach to public policy. A high-profile announcement, coupled with an ambitious promise, subsumed by an unrelated, self-inflicted public-relations crisis, followed by … nothing.

The secret of the Trump infrastructure plan is: There is no infrastructure plan. Just like there is no White House tax plan. Just like there was no White House health care plan. More than 120 days into Trump’s term in a unified Republican government, Trump’s policy accomplishments have been more in the subtraction category (e.g., stripping away environmental regulations) than addition. The president has signed no major legislation and left significant portions of federal agencies unstaffed, as U.S. courts have blocked what would be his most significant policy achievement, the legally dubious immigration ban.

The simplest summary of White House economic policy to date is four words long: There is no policy.

Consider the purported focus of this week. An infrastructure plan ought to include actual proposals, like revenue-and-spending details and timetables. The Trump infrastructure plan has little of that. Even the president’s speech on Monday was devoid of specifics. (An actual line was: “We have studied numerous countries, one in particular, they have a very, very good system; ours is going to top it by a lot.”) The ceremonial signing on Monday was pure theater. The president, flanked by politicians and businesspeople smiling before the twinkling of camera flashes, signed a paper that merely asks Congress to work on a bill. An assistant could have done that via email. Meanwhile, Congress isn’t working on infrastructure at all, according to Politico, and Republicans have shown no interest in a $200 billion spending bill.

In short, this “plan” is not a plan, so much as a Potemkin policy, a presentation devised to show the press and the public that the president has an economic agenda. The show continued on Wednesday, as the president delivered an infrastructure speech in Cincinnati that criticized Obamacare, hailed his Middle East trip, and offered no new details on how his plan would work. Infrastructure Week is a series of scheduled performances to make it look as if the president is hard at work on a domestic agenda that cannot move forward because it does not exist.

Journalists are beginning to catch on. The administration’s policy drought has so far been obscured by a formulaic bait-and-switch strategy one could call the Two-Week Two-Step. Bloomberg has compiled several examples of the president promising major proposals or decisions on everything from climate-change policy to infrastructure “in two weeks.” He has missed the fortnight deadline almost every time.

The starkest false promise has been taxes. “We’re going to be announcing something I would say over the next two or three weeks,” Trump said of tax reform in early February. Eleven weeks later, in late April, the White House finally released a tax proposal. It was hardly one page long.

Arriving nine weeks late, the document was so vague that tax analysts marveledthat they couldn’t even say how it would work. Even its authors are confused: Treasury Secretary Steven Mnuchin has repeatedly declined to say whether the plan will cut taxes on the rich, even though cutting taxes on the rich is ostensibly the centerpiece. Perhaps it’s because he needs more help: None of the key positions for making domestic tax policy have been filled. There is no assistant secretary for tax policy, nor deputy assistant secretary for tax analysis, according to the Treasury Department.

Once again, the simplest summary of White House tax policy is: There is no plan. There isn’t even a complete staff to compose one.

The story is slightly different for the White House budget, but no more favorable. The budget suffers, not from a lack of details, but from a failure of numeracy that speaks to the administration’s indifference toward serious public policy. The authors double-counted a projected benefit from higher GDP growth, leading to $2 trillion math error, perhaps the largest ever in a White House proposal. The plan included hundreds of billions of dollars in revenue from the estate tax, which appears to be another mistake, since the White House has separately proposed eliminating it.

Does the president’s budget represent what the president’s policies will be? It should, after all. But asked this very question, Mick Mulvaney, the director of the Office of Management and Budget, made perhaps the strangest claim of all: “I wouldn’t take what’s in the budget as indicative of what our proposals are,” he said.

This haphazard approach extends to the repeal of Obamacare, which may yet pass the Senate, but with little help or guidance from the president. Trump has allowed House Speaker Paul Ryan to steer the Obamacare-replacement bill, even though it violates the president’s campaign promises to expand coverage and protect Medicaid. After its surprising passage in the House, he directly undercut it on Twitter by suggesting he wants to raise federal health spending. Even on the most basic question of health-care policy—should spending go up, or down?—the president’s Twitter account and his favored law are irreconcilable. A law cannot raise and slash health care funding at the same time. The Trump health care plan does not exist.

It would be a mistake to call this a policy-free presidency. Trump has signed several executive orders undoing Obama-era regulations, removing environmental protections, and banning travel from several Muslim-majority countries. He has challenged NATO and pulled out of the Paris Accords. But these accomplishments all have one thing in common: Trump was able to do them alone. Signing executive orders and making a speech don’t require the participation of anybody in government except for the president.

It’s no surprise that a former chief executive of a private company would be more familiar with the presumption of omnipotence than the reality of divided powers. As the head of his own organization, Trump could make unilateral orders that subordinates would have to follow. But passing a law requires tireless persuasion and the cooperation of hundreds of representatives in the House and Senate who cannot be fired for insubordination. Being the president of the United States is nothing like being a CEO, especially not one of an eponymous family company.

Republicans in the House and Senate don’t need the president’s permission to write laws, either. Still, they too have struggled to get anything done. Several GOP senators say they may not repeal Obamacare this year—or ever. It is as if, after seven years of protesting Obamacare, the party lost the muscle memory to publicly defend and enact legislation.

In this respect, Trump and his party are alike—united in their antagonism toward Obama-era policies and united in their inability to articulate what should come next. Republicans are trapped by campaign promises that they cannot fulfill. The White House is trapped inside of the president’s perpetual campaign, a cavalcade of economic promises divorced from any effort to detail, advocate, or enact major economic legislation. With an administration that uses public policy as little more than a photo op, get ready for many sequels to this summer’s Infrastructure Week.

Posted in economy, Employment, Environment, Tax Reform, Trump | Tagged , , | 1 Comment