alternet--2020-10-17--Watch: Feds release disturbing footage of Whitmer kidnapping suspects' training drills with assault

Watch: Feds release disturbing footage of Whitmer kidnapping suspects' training drills with assault rifles

Federal prosecutors released disturbing footage created by the suspects involved in the plot to kidnap Michigan Gov .
Gretchen Whitmer ( D ) .
On Friday , U.S. Attorney Andrew Birge publicly unveiled a trove of evidence , including text messages and recorded footage that was used presented in a hearing for the suspects identified as—Adam Fox , Barry Croft , Ty Garbin , Kaleb Franks , Daniel Harris , and Brandon Caserta—who now face charges for their involvement in the alarming plot .
The clip below captures several men participating in military-style drills while firing assault weapons .
The @ @ @ @ @ @ @ disapproval of the U.S. government .
`` If this s**t goes down ... okay ... if this whole thing starts to happen , I 'm tellin ' you what dude , I 'm takin ' out as many of those motherf**kers as I can .
Every single one dude .
Every single one .
And if you guys are gon na give any of these motherf**kers a chance , any of these gang f**king criminal a** government thugs that rob people everyday , if you 're even gon na give them a second @ @ @ @ @ @ @ story , do n't even f**k with me dude .
`` I have zero patience for immoral coward criminals , '' Caserta said , adding , `` I 'm sick of being robbed and enslaved by the state .
Period ... And these are the guys who are actually doing it . ''
Additional disturbing details about the plot were also shared via Twitter by Fox 17 reporter Doug Reardon of Detroit , Mich .
The evidence also included text message conversations with one message , in particular , appearing to suggest that @ @ @ @ @ @ @ , `` Have one person go to her house .
Knock on the door and when she answers it just cap her… `` The latest developments come as President Donald Trump continues to attack Whitmer .
In fact , he even attempted to blame her for the plot orchestrated against her due to the strict coronavirus shutdown orders she enforced .
The president took to Twitter on last Thursday to verbally attack Whitmer as he falsely claimed she called him a `` White Supremacist , '' according to CNN .
`` Governor Whitmer @ @ @ @ @ @ @ .
She locked down her state for everyone , except her husband 's boating activities , '' he wrote , urging her in another tweet to `` open up your state , open up your schools , and open up your churches ! ''

Federal prosecutors released disturbing footage created by the suspects involved in the plot to kidnap Michigan Gov. Gretchen Whitmer (D).
On Friday, U.S. Attorney Andrew Birge publicly unveiled a trove of evidence, including text messages and recorded footage that was used presented in a hearing for the suspects identified as—Adam Fox, Barry Croft, Ty Garbin, Kaleb Franks, Daniel Harris, and Brandon Caserta—who now face charges for their involvement in the alarming plot.
The clip below captures several men participating in military-style drills while firing assault weapons. The video then shifts to Caserta who expressed disapproval of the U.S. government.
"If this s**t goes down... okay... if this whole thing starts to happen, I'm tellin' you what dude, I'm takin' out as many of those motherf**kers as I can. Every single one dude. Every single one. And if you guys are gonna give any of these motherf**kers a chance, any of these gang f**king criminal a** government thugs that rob people everyday, if you're even gonna give them a second to try to speak or tell their story, don't even f**k with me dude.
"I have zero patience for immoral coward criminals," Caserta said, adding, "I'm sick of being robbed and enslaved by the state. Period... And these are the guys who are actually doing it."
Videos show training for alleged governor kidnapping plot youtu.be
Additional disturbing details about the plot were also shared via Twitter by Fox 17 reporter Doug Reardon of Detroit, Mich. The evidence also included text message conversations with one message, in particular, appearing to suggest that Whitmer be killed.
That message read, "Have one person go to her house. Knock on the door and when she answers it just cap her… "
The latest developments come as President Donald Trump continues to attack Whitmer. In fact, he even attempted to blame her for the plot orchestrated against her due to the strict coronavirus shutdown orders she enforced. The president took to Twitter on last Thursday to verbally attack Whitmer as he falsely claimed she called him a "White Supremacist," according to CNN.
"Governor Whitmer of Michigan has done a terrible job. She locked down her state for everyone, except her husband's boating activities," he wrote, urging her in another tweet to "open up your state, open up your schools, and open up your churches!"


alternet--2020-10-17--Noam Chomsky: 'If you don't push the lever for the Democrats, you are assisting Trump'

Noam Chomsky , one of the world 's foremost public intellectuals , has provided the international left with wisdom , guidance and inspiration for nearly 60 years .
Proving that he operates at the locus where argumentation and activism meet , he demonstrates indispensable intellectual leadership on issues of foreign policy , democratic socialism and rejection of corporate media bromides .
One of the founders of linguistics , he is also an American dissident who has wrestled with systems of power on matters no less important than genocide , war and poverty , creating a corpus of classics , ranging @ @ @ @ @ @ @ , `` American Power and the New Mandarins , '' to his amplification of reason against a jingoistic cacophony following the Sept. 11 , 2001 terrorist attacks , `` 9-11 . ''
`` Manufacturing Consent : The Political Economy of the Mass Media , '' which he co-authored with Edward S. Herman , is essential reading for anyone interested in the real biases against democracy in the commercial press .
His more recent book `` What Kind of Creatures Are We ? ''
provides a deft and provocative exploration of human purpose and @ @ @ @ @ @ @ he is still committed to seeking and sharing the truth , and showing little patience for the foolishness and selfishness of the powerful .
With dozens of books , and countless lectures and articles , Chomsky has addressed nearly every major topic of politics and economics with an orientation toward democracy , peace , and justice , but his new book is possibly his most urgent .
`` Climate Crisis and the Global Green New Deal , '' co-authored with progressive economist Robert Pollin , measures the stakes of climate change as threatening @ @ @ @ @ @ @ and offers a bold and ambitious solution that can not only stave off disaster , but create a more beautiful , hospitable and just world .
I recently interviewed Chomsky over the phone about climate change , the Green New Deal , and the 2020 presidential election .
We can , perhaps , begin by spotlighting Amy Coney Barrett 's remarks at her nomination hearings calling climate change a `` controversial and contentious issue . ''
One of the realities you and your co-author , Robert Pollin , identify in this book , @ @ @ @ @ @ @ , is that while our mainstream discourse often presents a `` debate '' surrounding climate change , there is no debate at all – not just among scientists , but among the institutions that are actively making the problem worse .
They know they are courting catastrophe .
Not just `` courting , '' but causing catastrophe .
She not only said that it is `` contentious . ''
She said , `` I 'm not a scientist .
I do n't really know about it . ''
Unless she is a hermit @ @ @ @ @ @ @ the outside world , it is inconceivable that anyone could even be considered for a Supreme Court position who does n't know about the most significant environmental issue .
In the case of the major institutions , let 's start with the Pentagon .
They are open about it .
They acknowledge that climate change is a serious threat .
They 've argued we should prepare for it .
They 've published documents about it .
Certainly , they know about it .
In the case of ExxonMobil , their scientists were among @ @ @ @ @ @ @ the problem back in the 1970s .
We have the full record , and it 's quite extensive .
Their scientists provided detailed reports on the threat of global warming – on the threat it will have on the business of fossil fuels .
They knew and know about everything .
What actually happened with ExxonMobil is – when James Hansen made a speech about global warming in 1988 , which received a lot of publicity , at that point management moved to a new position .
It was n't outright detail , @ @ @ @ @ @ @ to expose .
They said , `` Well , it 's uncertain . ''
This was a strategy to shed doubt .
In other words , `` we really do n't know yet .
So , we better not do anything precipitous . ''
That was an effective strategy , and that 's the Barret strategy : `` It 's contentious . ''
Meanwhile , the scientific evidence is accumulating beyond any question .
ExxonMobil knows all of this , and they 've said straight out that , unlike other companies , they @ @ @ @ @ @ @ sustainable energy .
They 've committed to keeping to their business model of doing what is most profitable , and that is developing as many fossil fuels as possible .
Then , there is JPMorgan Chase .
They know , and they 've conceded .
They were one of the world 's leading financiers of fossil fuels .
Recently , their CEO , Jamie Dimon , announced [ they ] have to do something about fossil fuels , because of the reputational risks .
`` Reputational risks '' translates into `` it is @ @ @ @ @ @ @ upset . ''
In fact , an interesting memo leaked from JPMorgan Chase that said [ the company is ] pursuing policies that place the survival of humanity at risk , and [ the company has ] to be careful about [ its ] reputational risks .
The `` survival of humanity . ''
There is an interesting question about people like Jamie Dimon .
They know exactly what is happening , but they are willing to proceed knowing that it is going to cause a cataclysm — a total disaster that will @ @ @ @ @ @ @ mind of somebody like that ?
Maybe we can say that Mike Pence listens to his preacher , and actually believes there is no need to worry , because God will take care of it .
But not the executives of ExxonMobil or JPMorgan Chase .
JPMorgan Chase used the phrase , `` survival of humanity , '' and you are quoting it .
All of your books deal with serious issues , to put it mildly .
It seems , though , that the new book is the most urgent .
Is @ @ @ @ @ @ @ take seriously the publication of the Department of Transportation — their document on climate change and emission standards .
It was an astonishing document , and it is shocking that it did n't get more coverage .
It is a careful environmental assessment from the Trump administration .
It concluded that on our present course we will reach four degrees centigrade above pre-industrial levels by the end of the century .
What is that ?
Total cataclysm .
No one can even estimate the effects .
Organized human life as we know it @ @ @ @ @ @ @ it will build up over the years , getting worse and worse with sea levels rising , extreme weather events , and so on .
So , after describing this , they offer a prescription , and here it is : Let 's reduce emission regulations on cars and trucks .
This is the most extraordinary document in human history .
I ca n't think of anything like this .
The thing that comes closest is the Nazi Wannsee declaration in 1942 , which was the formal decision of the Nazi party to @ @ @ @ @ @ @ .
Not even that said , `` Let 's race ahead to make some money while destroying the prospects of all human life on Earth . ''
Why is n't this the headline everywhere ?
You 've asked two questions , I assume rhetorically , but I 'm curious if you can offer an answer to either .
First , what kind of people have an awareness that they are threatening all livable ecology and proceed along the same course ?
Second , why is n't this the headline everywhere ?
I have @ @ @ @ @ @ @ people 's minds .
In the case of the Trump administration , I simply think that they do n't care .
They are sociopaths .
We see this constantly with the president , from the pandemic to hurting the World Health Organization , because it improves his election prospects .
If that means kill people in Africa and Yemen who depend upon the WHO for survival , that 's fine .
The Palestinians did n't treat him nicely ?
Good .
Cut off money for their hospitals .
I think it is the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ we walk down the street and realize that we might crush a lot of ants .
We do n't think , `` I 'll take all kinds of precautions to avoid crushing ants . ''
That is the Trump administration 's attitude toward the human species .
I 'm sure it is n't everybody , but it is the mentality that comes from the top down .
There is also the idea , `` We have force .
Therefore , we can compel anyone else to surrender to it . ''
We see @ @ @ @ @ @ @ .
A couple of weeks ago the administration approached the United Nations Security Council , requesting that they reinstitute the sanctions against Iran , which were torturing and killing Iranians .
The Security Council flatly rejected it .
Well , they did n't say no .
They abstained , because you do n't want to irritate the master too much .
So what did the U.S. do ?
Mike Pompeo returned to the Security Council , and said , sorry children , we 're reinstituting the sanctions , because we say so .
@ @ @ @ @ @ @ of the Security Council ?
I do n't know everything , but I do n't think so .
What country acts that way ?
This one does .
There 's a major biodiversity conference going on right now at the UN .
It is of crucial significance not only for the many species that are being crushed , but for human survival .
For example , one of the issues they are addressing is how to prepare for the next pandemic .
There is one major country that is not attending .
The @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Take a look for coverage .
I did , and all I could find was approximately two minutes on NPR .
The New York Times : Great newspaper , right ?
A couple of days ago , they ran an article on Chevron buying Noble , which gives them entry into the Eastern Mediterranean – huge natural gas fields .
Good article on how it will expand production .
It will be very good for Israel and Egypt .
It did n't say one word about how this is another stab in the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ .
It is n't something they really think about .
They do n't see it as their task to think about it .
They write about gas markets , very little about climate change , because it is good for Israel-Egypt relations .
There is a biodiversity conference happening , but the U.S. is n't attending .
So , who cares ?
Now , what about the banks ?
They know what is happening , and this is my best guess .
Let 's see if it is plausible .
I put myself @ @ @ @ @ @ @ I 'm sure he knows all about global warming .
He cares about it .
He probably contributes to the Sierra Club is his spare time .
He has two choices .
He can say , `` What we are doing is horrible .
I refuse to participate . ''
He does that , and the board of directors throws him out .
They bring someone else in who will do it .
So , then he says to himself , `` I 'm as humane as that next guy they would bring @ @ @ @ @ @ @ , I might as well be the one to do it . ''
ExxonMobil has shareholders .
They do what is best for them .
The only other way to explain it is sociopathy , but I do n't think they are all sociopaths .
I think they are the same as people like us .
If the profit at the center of the system incentives sociopathy , is it possible to proceed with something like the Global Green New Deal , on the level that is necessary , without addressing the profit @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Robert Pollin and I discuss .
First of all , there is the simple question of timescale .
The timescale needed to deal with this urgent problem is a decade or two .
Major institutional changes , which I think are very much in order , have a totally different timescale .
It is a much longer process .
The fact of the matter is that in order to survive we have to deal with the problem within the framework of the existing institutions .
Then , comes the question , can it @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Without radical modification of the existing institutions , which on the side , we can continue to pursue – it is a parallel project – but without that happening , there are adjustments possible .
This is mainly Pollin 's work – looking at how we can proceed within the timescale and within the existing institutions .
Take fossil fuels .
One thing that could be done is simply to take them over – socialize them .
It is n't even that expensive .
With the oil prices , they are n't worth @ @ @ @ @ @ @ we can put the institutions in the hands of the workforce and the community , and have them do what has to be done .
What has to be done ?
Cut back annually – say 5 percent – on the use of fossil fuels .
That would be enough to bring us to net zero emissions by the midcentury .
Set the workforce to do things that they know how to do .
Let 's have them work on developing sustainable energy .
They know how to do it .
Outside of @ @ @ @ @ @ @ division on this .
We might recall that one of the leading early environmentalists was Tony Mazzocchi , the head of the Oil , Chemical , Atomic International Workers Union .
Those are the guys on the front line .
They 're the ones being poisoned .
Mazzocchi and his union pushed for safety regulations , and the reduction of fossil fuels .
That can be picked up .
That 's within the framework of institutions .
Take the carbon tax .
In itself , it is destructive .
It leads to what @ @ @ @ @ @ @ poor , working people , `` You will have to pay more to get to work , because I care about the environment . ''
The way that a carbon tax ought to work is redistribution of the income .
Tax the fossil fuels , but then redistribute the profits to the people who need it .
The rich guys are n't going to like that , but there 's a lot of things that they do n't like .
They do n't like Social Security , but we ram it down their @ @ @ @ @ @ @ this is within a range of expenses that is not very high .
We have Robert Pollin 's model .
We have a different model from Jeffery Sachs , which reaches pretty much the same conclusion .
It can probably all be done within 2-3 % of GDP .
It is important to note that this does n't only end fossil fuel production .
It creates a better world .
The small number of workers in the fossil fuel industry can get a much better job doing something else .
If they need @ @ @ @ @ @ @ can do it for peanuts .
Pollin points out that the amount that is needed annually is a fraction of what the Treasury recently poured out to save Wall Street .
These things are not out of sight .
Now , there are plenty of barriers .
Plenty of fighting back .
Amy Coney Barrett saying , `` I do n't know what 's happening .
I 'm too remote from all of this . ''
The people behind her , getting her to say it , they are going to try to @ @ @ @ @ @ @ forces who pressing for this , because they know it has to happen quickly .
Most of them are young .
Greta Thunberg , for example , saying eloquently , `` You betrayed us . ''
We should listen to her .
Yes , we 've betrayed them .
Now , we have to change course .
Too often the issue is presented as dichotomous , meaning working class economics versus environmentalism .
Why is that wrong ?
There will be better jobs and more jobs for working people with a Green New @ @ @ @ @ @ @ retrofitting houses to mass transportation to installing solar panels and wind turbines to research and development .
That whole range presents many more opportunities than there are in fossil fuels , and it makes for a better world .
I do n't know where you live .
I live in Arizona right now , but I lived outside Boston most of my life .
It is n't much fun sitting in a traffic jam for over an hour to get to work .
Same thing .
It would be much nicer to have @ @ @ @ @ @ @ You step inside , read a newspaper , enjoy a cup of coffee , and get to where you need to go in no time .
It is a better world .
In Arizona , I know people who pay $ 1,000 over the summer for air conditioning .
I pay $ 10 a month , because we 've installed solar panels on the roof .
It is a better life .
Furthermore , I do n't have to feel guilty about using so much electricity .
The sun is up there , @ @ @ @ @ @ @ me .
Insulate your home .
You are more comfortable , you are saving money , and you are saving the environment .
It is n't 100 percent .
The coal miners , for example .
It is a rotten job , but it does pay well .
They are on their way out anyway , though .
So , we better begin to think about how we can ease the transition .
They can do constructive things .
In Germany , they are phasing out coal mines , and turning them into @ @ @ @ @ @ @ are good jobs , cleaner jobs , and less dangerous .
Where there are people who are going to be harmed , we can help them ease the transition .
And again , let 's remember that the fossil fuel workers are the ones suffering directly .
They experience the worst health consequences – the workers and the people who live near the plants .
So , it is in their interest more than anyone .
It is n't a hard sell if you break through the propaganda .
You are using the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ It 's a better life . ''
It seems that the Global Green New Deal presents the left with a great opportunity to offer to people a large-scale , ambitious project for reimagining human life and society that leads to dramatic improvements .
Absolutely .
These two questions that you presented earlier — environmentalism or changing the institutions .
This is where they coincide .
Let 's take the auto industry .
It is a huge industry ; the core of American production .
In 2009 , after the financial collapse , the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ choices at the time , and if the left had been up to it , we could have made a better choice .
The first choice , which is what the Obama administration did , was to pay off the executives and the shareholders , and then return the industry to its original owners , and have them go back to what they were doing — make traffic jams in Chicago and Boston .
Another possibility was to take the industry that we owned , and hand it over to the workforce and @ @ @ @ @ @ @ alter it in ways that were more beneficial .
They might have developed an efficient mass transit system .
If we start doing that , we undercut the institutions that work for profit , and transform them into democratic institutions that work for public needs .
This is n't nationalization , putting it into the hands of unaccountable bureaucrats .
It is giving it to workers and community members who can use it for their own needs .
That is radically undermining capitalist institutions .
I 'm sure you know the Next System @ @ @ @ @ @ @ makes great sense is to expand the postal service into general services for people , like banking .
It is a perfect way to do banking — not commercial banking , JPMorgan Chase giving someone $ 2 billion — but the kind of banking we all do .
It would be easy to do it through the post office .
There are post offices everywhere , the staff is already there , the infrastructure is there .
Much of what we do can happen through socialized institutions , which people are surprisingly favorable @ @ @ @ @ @ @ lives .
It is a good part of life to have a postal carrier who you get to know .
You trust him .
You can ask him to feed your dog when you are away .
It makes life better .
This is one of the reasons why the rich and powerful want to destroy public institutions , like the Post Office .
Public institutions show people that there is an alternative to individualism and consumerism that is possible .
There is so much that it is possible if we only escape @ @ @ @ @ @ @ to quote Ronald Reagan , `` government is the problem . ''
It is a problem for the rich .
It is n't a problem for the rest of us .
Forgive me for closing with what is by now an obligatory and predictable question , but I think I am forever banished from journalism if I do n't ask .
How do you respond to the irresponsible leftist purity that discourages voting for Biden because of his limitations as a candidate , and the troubling aspects of his record ?
My position @ @ @ @ @ @ @ our two-party system , there is a technical fact that if you want to vote against Trump , you have to push the lever for the Democrats .
If you do n't push the lever for the Democrats , you are assisting Trump .
We can argue about a lot of things , but not arithmetic .
You have a choice on Nov. 3 .
Do I vote against Trump or help Trump ?
It is a simple choice .
He 's the worst malignancy ever to appear in our political system .
@ @ @ @ @ @ @ this for the left should n't even be discussed .
It takes a few minutes .
Politics means constant activism .
An election comes along every once in awhile , and you have to decide if it is worth participating .
Sometimes not — there were cases when I did n't even bother voting .
There were cases when I voted Republican , because the Republican congressional candidate in my district was slightly better .
It should take roughly a few minutes to decide , then you go back to activism , which @ @ @ @ @ @ @ new phenomenon on the left .
I had never even heard of it before 2016 , which is to focus , laser-like , on elections .
That 's where you get these crazy ideas like condemnation of `` lesser-evil voting . ''
Of course , you vote against someone dangerous if it is necessary , but that is not serious political activity .
Serious political activity comes out of commitment to educational and organizational work .
Somehow parts of the left within the past few years have unconsciously accepted establishment propaganda .
The @ @ @ @ @ @ @ public are spectators , not participants in action .
Your function is to show up every few years , push a lever , go back home , leave the rest to us .
You should n't have `` democratic dogmatisms about people judging what 's in their best interest '' — I 'm quoting Harold Lasswell , one of the founders of political science .
The establishment view is that we have to provide people with , to quote Reinhold Niebuhr , `` necessary illusions '' and `` emotionally potent simplifications . ''
@ @ @ @ @ @ @ To see the left buy into this is astonishing .
If you do n't buy into the establishment picture , you do n't talk about `` lesser-evil voting . ''
You talk about activism and strategy .
Every once in awhile , you decide whether or not it is worth the effort to push a lever .
Sometimes it is so obvious , as it is now , that it should n't take two minutes to decide .

Noam Chomsky, one of the world's foremost public intellectuals, has provided the international left with wisdom, guidance and inspiration for nearly 60 years. Proving that he operates at the locus where argumentation and activism meet, he demonstrates indispensable intellectual leadership on issues of foreign policy, democratic socialism and rejection of corporate media bromides.
One of the founders of linguistics, he is also an American dissident who has wrestled with systems of power on matters no less important than genocide, war and poverty, creating a corpus of classics, ranging from his manifesto against the Vietnam War, "American Power and the New Mandarins," to his amplification of reason against a jingoistic cacophony following the Sept. 11, 2001 terrorist attacks, "9-11." "Manufacturing Consent: The Political Economy of the Mass Media," which he co-authored with Edward S. Herman, is essential reading for anyone interested in the real biases against democracy in the commercial press. His more recent book "What Kind of Creatures Are We?" provides a deft and provocative exploration of human purpose and the common good.
At 91, he is still committed to seeking and sharing the truth, and showing little patience for the foolishness and selfishness of the powerful.
With dozens of books, and countless lectures and articles, Chomsky has addressed nearly every major topic of politics and economics with an orientation toward democracy, peace, and justice, but his new book is possibly his most urgent. "Climate Crisis and the Global Green New Deal," co-authored with progressive economist Robert Pollin, measures the stakes of climate change as threatening the survival of the human species, and offers a bold and ambitious solution that can not only stave off disaster, but create a more beautiful, hospitable and just world.
I recently interviewed Chomsky over the phone about climate change, the Green New Deal, and the 2020 presidential election.
We can, perhaps, begin by spotlighting Amy Coney Barrett's remarks at her nomination hearings calling climate change a "controversial and contentious issue." One of the realities you and your co-author, Robert Pollin, identify in this book, which seems to elude most other analysts, is that while our mainstream discourse often presents a "debate" surrounding climate change, there is no debate at all – not just among scientists, but among the institutions that are actively making the problem worse. They know they are courting catastrophe.
Not just "courting," but causing catastrophe. She not only said that it is "contentious." She said, "I'm not a scientist. I don't really know about it." Unless she is a hermit living in Montana without any contact with the outside world, it is inconceivable that anyone could even be considered for a Supreme Court position who doesn't know about the most significant environmental issue.
In the case of the major institutions, let's start with the Pentagon. They are open about it. They acknowledge that climate change is a serious threat. They've argued we should prepare for it. They've published documents about it. Certainly, they know about it.
In the case of ExxonMobil, their scientists were among the first to discover the nature of the problem back in the 1970s. We have the full record, and it's quite extensive. Their scientists provided detailed reports on the threat of global warming – on the threat it will have on the business of fossil fuels. They knew and know about everything. What actually happened with ExxonMobil is – when James Hansen made a speech about global warming in 1988, which received a lot of publicity, at that point management moved to a new position. It wasn't outright detail, because that would have been too easy to expose. They said, "Well, it's uncertain." This was a strategy to shed doubt. In other words, "we really don't know yet. So, we better not do anything precipitous." That was an effective strategy, and that's the Barret strategy: "It's contentious." Meanwhile, the scientific evidence is accumulating beyond any question. ExxonMobil knows all of this, and they've said straight out that, unlike other companies, they won't put aside funds to develop sustainable energy. They've committed to keeping to their business model of doing what is most profitable, and that is developing as many fossil fuels as possible.
Then, there is JPMorgan Chase. They know, and they've conceded. They were one of the world's leading financiers of fossil fuels. Recently, their CEO, Jamie Dimon, announced [they] have to do something about fossil fuels, because of the reputational risks. "Reputational risks" translates into "it is harming our business, because consumers are upset." In fact, an interesting memo leaked from JPMorgan Chase that said [the company is] pursuing policies that place the survival of humanity at risk, and [the company has] to be careful about [its] reputational risks. The "survival of humanity."
There is an interesting question about people like Jamie Dimon. They know exactly what is happening, but they are willing to proceed knowing that it is going to cause a cataclysm — a total disaster that will be irreversible. What is in the mind of somebody like that? Maybe we can say that Mike Pence listens to his preacher, and actually believes there is no need to worry, because God will take care of it. But not the executives of ExxonMobil or JPMorgan Chase.
JPMorgan Chase used the phrase, "survival of humanity," and you are quoting it. All of your books deal with serious issues, to put it mildly. It seems, though, that the new book is the most urgent. Is that a fair characterization?
Let's take seriously the publication of the Department of Transportation — their document on climate change and emission standards. It was an astonishing document, and it is shocking that it didn't get more coverage.
It is a careful environmental assessment from the Trump administration. It concluded that on our present course we will reach four degrees centigrade above pre-industrial levels by the end of the century. What is that? Total cataclysm. No one can even estimate the effects. Organized human life as we know it will be over. Of course, it will build up over the years, getting worse and worse with sea levels rising, extreme weather events, and so on. So, after describing this, they offer a prescription, and here it is: Let's reduce emission regulations on cars and trucks.
This is the most extraordinary document in human history. I can't think of anything like this. The thing that comes closest is the Nazi Wannsee declaration in 1942, which was the formal decision of the Nazi party to wipe out all the Jews of Europe. Not even that said, "Let's race ahead to make some money while destroying the prospects of all human life on Earth." Why isn't this the headline everywhere?
You've asked two questions, I assume rhetorically, but I'm curious if you can offer an answer to either. First, what kind of people have an awareness that they are threatening all livable ecology and proceed along the same course? Second, why isn't this the headline everywhere?
I have no independent evidence about what is inside people's minds. In the case of the Trump administration, I simply think that they don't care. They are sociopaths. We see this constantly with the president, from the pandemic to hurting the World Health Organization, because it improves his election prospects. If that means kill people in Africa and Yemen who depend upon the WHO for survival, that's fine. The Palestinians didn't treat him nicely? Good. Cut off money for their hospitals. I think it is the mentality that all of us have when we walk down the street and realize that we might crush a lot of ants. We don't think, "I'll take all kinds of precautions to avoid crushing ants." That is the Trump administration's attitude toward the human species. I'm sure it isn't everybody, but it is the mentality that comes from the top down.
There is also the idea, "We have force. Therefore, we can compel anyone else to surrender to it." We see that constantly in the most remarkable ways. A couple of weeks ago the administration approached the United Nations Security Council, requesting that they reinstitute the sanctions against Iran, which were torturing and killing Iranians. The Security Council flatly rejected it. Well, they didn't say no. They abstained, because you don't want to irritate the master too much. So what did the U.S. do? Mike Pompeo returned to the Security Council, and said, sorry children, we're reinstituting the sanctions, because we say so. Has that ever happened in the history of the Security Council? I don't know everything, but I don't think so. What country acts that way? This one does.
There's a major biodiversity conference going on right now at the UN. It is of crucial significance not only for the many species that are being crushed, but for human survival. For example, one of the issues they are addressing is how to prepare for the next pandemic. There is one major country that is not attending. The usual one. The United States. Take a look for coverage. I did, and all I could find was approximately two minutes on NPR.
The New York Times: Great newspaper, right? A couple of days ago, they ran an article on Chevron buying Noble, which gives them entry into the Eastern Mediterranean – huge natural gas fields. Good article on how it will expand production. It will be very good for Israel and Egypt. It didn't say one word about how this is another stab in the heart of the possibility of human survival. It isn't something they really think about. They don't see it as their task to think about it. They write about gas markets, very little about climate change, because it is good for Israel-Egypt relations. There is a biodiversity conference happening, but the U.S. isn't attending. So, who cares?
Now, what about the banks? They know what is happening, and this is my best guess. Let's see if it is plausible. I put myself in the position of Jamie Dimon. I'm sure he knows all about global warming. He cares about it. He probably contributes to the Sierra Club is his spare time. He has two choices. He can say, "What we are doing is horrible. I refuse to participate." He does that, and the board of directors throws him out. They bring someone else in who will do it. So, then he says to himself, "I'm as humane as that next guy they would bring in to destroy the planet. So, I might as well be the one to do it."
ExxonMobil has shareholders. They do what is best for them. The only other way to explain it is sociopathy, but I don't think they are all sociopaths. I think they are the same as people like us.
If the profit at the center of the system incentives sociopathy, is it possible to proceed with something like the Global Green New Deal, on the level that is necessary, without addressing the profit motive?
That's a question that Robert Pollin and I discuss. First of all, there is the simple question of timescale. The timescale needed to deal with this urgent problem is a decade or two. Major institutional changes, which I think are very much in order, have a totally different timescale. It is a much longer process. The fact of the matter is that in order to survive we have to deal with the problem within the framework of the existing institutions. Then, comes the question, can it be done?
We think so. Without radical modification of the existing institutions, which on the side, we can continue to pursue – it is a parallel project – but without that happening, there are adjustments possible. This is mainly Pollin's work – looking at how we can proceed within the timescale and within the existing institutions.
Take fossil fuels. One thing that could be done is simply to take them over – socialize them. It isn't even that expensive. With the oil prices, they aren't worth that much right now. Then, we can put the institutions in the hands of the workforce and the community, and have them do what has to be done. What has to be done? Cut back annually – say 5 percent – on the use of fossil fuels. That would be enough to bring us to net zero emissions by the midcentury. Set the workforce to do things that they know how to do. Let's have them work on developing sustainable energy. They know how to do it. Outside of ExxonMobil, every major company has a division on this.
We might recall that one of the leading early environmentalists was Tony Mazzocchi, the head of the Oil, Chemical, Atomic International Workers Union. Those are the guys on the front line. They're the ones being poisoned. Mazzocchi and his union pushed for safety regulations, and the reduction of fossil fuels. That can be picked up. That's within the framework of institutions.
Take the carbon tax. In itself, it is destructive. It leads to what happened in France. You're telling poor, working people, "You will have to pay more to get to work, because I care about the environment." The way that a carbon tax ought to work is redistribution of the income. Tax the fossil fuels, but then redistribute the profits to the people who need it. The rich guys aren't going to like that, but there's a lot of things that they don't like. They don't like Social Security, but we ram it down their throats through popular pressure.
All of this is within a range of expenses that is not very high. We have Robert Pollin's model. We have a different model from Jeffery Sachs, which reaches pretty much the same conclusion. It can probably all be done within 2-3% of GDP. It is important to note that this doesn't only end fossil fuel production. It creates a better world.
The small number of workers in the fossil fuel industry can get a much better job doing something else. If they need help during the transition period, we can do it for peanuts. Pollin points out that the amount that is needed annually is a fraction of what the Treasury recently poured out to save Wall Street. These things are not out of sight.
Now, there are plenty of barriers. Plenty of fighting back. Amy Coney Barrett saying, "I don't know what's happening. I'm too remote from all of this." The people behind her, getting her to say it, they are going to try to block it.
But there are popular forces who pressing for this, because they know it has to happen quickly. Most of them are young. Greta Thunberg, for example, saying eloquently, "You betrayed us." We should listen to her. Yes, we've betrayed them. Now, we have to change course.
Too often the issue is presented as dichotomous, meaning working class economics versus environmentalism. Why is that wrong?
There will be better jobs and more jobs for working people with a Green New Deal. Jobs ranging from construction to retrofitting houses to mass transportation to installing solar panels and wind turbines to research and development. That whole range presents many more opportunities than there are in fossil fuels, and it makes for a better world.
I don't know where you live. I live in Arizona right now, but I lived outside Boston most of my life. It isn't much fun sitting in a traffic jam for over an hour to get to work.
I live near Chicago. I can relate.
Same thing. It would be much nicer to have a highly efficient mass transit system. You step inside, read a newspaper, enjoy a cup of coffee, and get to where you need to go in no time. It is a better world. In Arizona, I know people who pay $1,000 over the summer for air conditioning. I pay $10 a month, because we've installed solar panels on the roof. It is a better life. Furthermore, I don't have to feel guilty about using so much electricity. The sun is up there, and it is just giving it to me. Insulate your home. You are more comfortable, you are saving money, and you are saving the environment.
It isn't 100 percent. The coal miners, for example. It is a rotten job, but it does pay well. They are on their way out anyway, though. So, we better begin to think about how we can ease the transition. They can do constructive things. In Germany, they are phasing out coal mines, and turning them into ways to produce sustainable energy. These are good jobs, cleaner jobs, and less dangerous. Where there are people who are going to be harmed, we can help them ease the transition.
And again, let's remember that the fossil fuel workers are the ones suffering directly. They experience the worst health consequences – the workers and the people who live near the plants. So, it is in their interest more than anyone. It isn't a hard sell if you break through the propaganda.
You are using the simple, but profound phrase, "It's a better life." It seems that the Global Green New Deal presents the left with a great opportunity to offer to people a large-scale, ambitious project for reimagining human life and society that leads to dramatic improvements.
Absolutely. These two questions that you presented earlier — environmentalism or changing the institutions. This is where they coincide.
Let's take the auto industry. It is a huge industry; the core of American production. In 2009, after the financial collapse, the auto industry was nationalized. There were choices at the time, and if the left had been up to it, we could have made a better choice. The first choice, which is what the Obama administration did, was to pay off the executives and the shareholders, and then return the industry to its original owners, and have them go back to what they were doing — make traffic jams in Chicago and Boston.
Another possibility was to take the industry that we owned, and hand it over to the workforce and the community, and ask them to alter it in ways that were more beneficial. They might have developed an efficient mass transit system. If we start doing that, we undercut the institutions that work for profit, and transform them into democratic institutions that work for public needs. This isn't nationalization, putting it into the hands of unaccountable bureaucrats. It is giving it to workers and community members who can use it for their own needs. That is radically undermining capitalist institutions.
I'm sure you know the Next System Project. One of their proposals that makes great sense is to expand the postal service into general services for people, like banking. It is a perfect way to do banking — not commercial banking, JPMorgan Chase giving someone $2 billion — but the kind of banking we all do. It would be easy to do it through the post office. There are post offices everywhere, the staff is already there, the infrastructure is there. Much of what we do can happen through socialized institutions, which people are surprisingly favorable to. And it would improve our lives. It is a good part of life to have a postal carrier who you get to know. You trust him. You can ask him to feed your dog when you are away. It makes life better.
This is one of the reasons why the rich and powerful want to destroy public institutions, like the Post Office. Public institutions show people that there is an alternative to individualism and consumerism that is possible.
There is so much that it is possible if we only escape the rigid doctrinal assumptions that say, to quote Ronald Reagan, "government is the problem." It is a problem for the rich. It isn't a problem for the rest of us.
Forgive me for closing with what is by now an obligatory and predictable question, but I think I am forever banished from journalism if I don't ask. How do you respond to the irresponsible leftist purity that discourages voting for Biden because of his limitations as a candidate, and the troubling aspects of his record?
My position is to vote against Trump. In our two-party system, there is a technical fact that if you want to vote against Trump, you have to push the lever for the Democrats. If you don't push the lever for the Democrats, you are assisting Trump. We can argue about a lot of things, but not arithmetic. You have a choice on Nov. 3. Do I vote against Trump or help Trump?
It is a simple choice. He's the worst malignancy ever to appear in our political system. He is extremely dangerous.
All of this for the left shouldn't even be discussed. It takes a few minutes. Politics means constant activism. An election comes along every once in awhile, and you have to decide if it is worth participating. Sometimes not — there were cases when I didn't even bother voting. There were cases when I voted Republican, because the Republican congressional candidate in my district was slightly better. It should take roughly a few minutes to decide, then you go back to activism, which is real politics.
There is a new phenomenon on the left. I had never even heard of it before 2016, which is to focus, laser-like, on elections. That's where you get these crazy ideas like condemnation of "lesser-evil voting." Of course, you vote against someone dangerous if it is necessary, but that is not serious political activity. Serious political activity comes out of commitment to educational and organizational work.
Somehow parts of the left within the past few years have unconsciously accepted establishment propaganda. The establishment view of politics is that the public are spectators, not participants in action. Your function is to show up every few years, push a lever, go back home, leave the rest to us. You shouldn't have "democratic dogmatisms about people judging what's in their best interest" — I'm quoting Harold Lasswell, one of the founders of political science. The establishment view is that we have to provide people with, to quote Reinhold Niebuhr, "necessary illusions" and "emotionally potent simplifications." We'll handle the real work.
To see the left buy into this is astonishing. If you don't buy into the establishment picture, you don't talk about "lesser-evil voting." You talk about activism and strategy. Every once in awhile, you decide whether or not it is worth the effort to push a lever. Sometimes it is so obvious, as it is now, that it shouldn't take two minutes to decide.


alternet--2020-10-17--Billionaire wealth rises to more than $10 trillion for first time ever amid pandemic: analysis

Billionaire wealth increased to $ 10.2 trillion through the end of July , setting a new record amid the coronavirus pandemic even as millions of unemployed people fall into poverty .
Wealth held by billionaires around the world rose to $ 10.2 trillion in July , up from the previous record of $ 8.9 trillion in 2017 , according to an analysis by Swiss bank UBS and consulting firm PwC .
The number of billionaires also rose from 2,158 in 2017 to 2,189 this summer , according to the report .
Not all billionaires saw their wealth increase , though @ @ @ @ @ @ @ to 50 % .
Health care billionaires , for example , saw their wealth increase by 50 % .
Technology billionaires saw their wealth rise by 42.5 % .
Billionaires in the entertainment , financial services , materials , and real estate sectors saw increases of 10 % or less .
While the UBS analysis looked at billionaires around the world , a separate analysis by the Institute for Policy Studies and Americans for Tax Fairness found that billionaire wealth in the United States has grown by $ 792 billion , or 27 @ @ @ @ @ @ @ lockdowns in March .
The combined wealth of American billionaires now tops $ 3.7 trillion .
Some prominent billionaires have done particularly well .
Amazon CEO Jeff Bezos has seen his wealth rise more than 60 % during the pandemic to $ 195 billion through late August , according to the analysis .
Tesla CEO Elon Musk saw his wealth more than triple to $ 85 billion over that time frame .
The study pointed to President Donald Trump 's 2017 tax cuts , which helped billionaires keep more of their earnings .
@ @ @ @ @ @ @ desired capital gains tax cut , billed as a pandemic-related stimulus , would overwhelmingly favor the richest Americans .
`` For billionaires , this is a heads-we win , tails-you-lose economy , boosted by Trump policies to funnel wealth to the top , '' Chuck Collins , the head of the Institute for Policy Studies ' Program on Inequality , said in a news release .
`` The pandemic profiteering of America 's billionaires shows taxes on the wealthy must go up substantially to narrow the wealth gap and raise revenue vital for @ @ @ @ @ @ @ '' added Frank Clemente , executive director of Americans for Tax Fairness .
`` By demanding even more tax cuts for the rich at this crucial moment President Trump shows he is as out of touch with our nation 's needs as America 's billionaires are disconnected from our nation 's misery . ''
Some executives , like Zoom CEO Eric Yuan and Bezos , have profited from a boom in business caused by the lockdowns .
Others have profited directly from government aid distributed to their companies .
But most billionaires saw @ @ @ @ @ @ @ , buoyed by a stock market surge propped up by government assistance .
The rising wealth amid an economically devastating pandemic threatens to deepen longstanding inequalities .
`` Extreme wealth concentration is an ugly phenomenon from a moral perspective , but it 's also economically and socially destructive , '' Luke Hilyard , the executive director of the High Pay Center , a think tank that focuses on excessive executive pay , told The Guardian .
`` Anyone accumulating riches on this scale could easily afford to raise the pay of the employees @ @ @ @ @ @ @ a great deal more in taxes to support vital public services , while remaining very well rewarded for whatever successes they 've achieved .
The findings from the UBS report showing that the super-rich are getting even richer are a sign that capitalism is n't working as it should . ''
UBS executive Josef Stadler also acknowledged that billionaires could face societal backlash over their growing wealth as many people face months if not years of struggles .
`` We 're at an inflection point , '' he told the outlet .
`` @ @ @ @ @ @ @ 1905 , this is something billionaires are concerned about .
The problem is the power of interest on interest – that makes big money bigger and , the question is to what extent is that sustainable and at what point will society intervene and strike back ? ''
But it 's far from the first time that billionaires profited while millions suffered .
The Institute for Policy Studies found that the wealthiest 400 billionaires in the US not only recovered from the 2008 recession within three years but increased their wealth by 80 @ @ @ @ @ @ @ comparison , the bottom 80 % of earners have still not recovered .
While government intervention has helped billionaires accumulate even more wealth , the lack of government action since the spring has resulted in an estimated 8 million Americans falling into poverty since May , according to a study from researchers at Columbia University .
The lack of additional stimulus payments and the expiration of enhanced federal unemployment benefits has resulted in 6 million Americans falling into poverty over just the last three months , according to a study from researchers at @ @ @ @ @ @ @ .
The problem has been even worse globally .
Between 88 million and 114 million people around the world have fallen into extreme poverty , defined as living on less than $ 1.90 per day , since the pandemic hit , according to the World Bank .
There are now more than 700 million people living in extreme poverty and researchers expected that number to keep rising .
`` This is the worst setback that we 've witnessed in a generation , '' Carolina Sánchez-Páramo , the global director of the World Bank @ @ @ @ @ @ @ told The Wall Street Journal .
World Bank Group President David Malpass argued in a speech this month that the problem is worse in developing economies because `` rich countries '' have the resources to expand sweeping `` government spending programs '' while poorer economies have few tools to mitigate the economic damage .
The US , by contrast , should be doing better if not for Republican reluctance to increased government relief .
Federal Reserve Chairman Jerome Powell warned Congress last month that inaction in the face of growing inequality would be @ @ @ @ @ @ @ `` Those are things that hold back our economy , '' he said at a news conference .
`` If we want to have the highest potential output and the best output for our economy , we need that prosperity to be very broadly spread . ''
Many analysts have also faulted Powell and the Fed for contributing to the growing inequality with policies `` disproportionately benefiting stockholders , '' according to the Associated Press .
Just as the coronavirus has exposed longstanding health disparities between the richest and poorest Americans , the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ a `` catastrophic failure to tackle inequality '' well before the pandemic struck , according to a report from Oxfam International .
`` Governments ' catastrophic failure to tackle inequality meant the majority of the world 's countries were critically ill-equipped to weather the pandemic , '' said Oxfam interim executive director Chema Vera .
`` No country on earth was trying hard enough to reduce inequality and ordinary people are bearing the brunt of this crisis as a result .
Millions of people have been pushed into poverty and hunger and there @ @ @ @ @ @ @

Billionaire wealth increased to $10.2 trillion through the end of July, setting a new record amid the coronavirus pandemic even as millions of unemployed people fall into poverty.
Wealth held by billionaires around the world rose to $10.2 trillion in July, up from the previous record of $8.9 trillion in 2017, according to an analysis by Swiss bank UBS and consulting firm PwC.
The number of billionaires also rose from 2,158 in 2017 to 2,189 this summer, according to the report.
Not all billionaires saw their wealth increase, though some saw their wealth rise by close to 50%. Health care billionaires, for example, saw their wealth increase by 50%. Technology billionaires saw their wealth rise by 42.5%. Billionaires in the entertainment, financial services, materials, and real estate sectors saw increases of 10% or less.
While the UBS analysis looked at billionaires around the world, a separate analysis by the Institute for Policy Studies and Americans for Tax Fairness found that billionaire wealth in the United States has grown by $792 billion, or 27%, since the beginning of coronavirus lockdowns in March. The combined wealth of American billionaires now tops $3.7 trillion.
Some prominent billionaires have done particularly well. Amazon CEO Jeff Bezos has seen his wealth rise more than 60% during the pandemic to $195 billion through late August, according to the analysis. Tesla CEO Elon Musk saw his wealth more than triple to $85 billion over that time frame.
The study pointed to President Donald Trump's 2017 tax cuts, which helped billionaires keep more of their earnings. The UBS study noted that Trump's desired capital gains tax cut, billed as a pandemic-related stimulus, would overwhelmingly favor the richest Americans.
"For billionaires, this is a heads-we win, tails-you-lose economy, boosted by Trump policies to funnel wealth to the top," Chuck Collins, the head of the Institute for Policy Studies' Program on Inequality, said in a news release.
"The pandemic profiteering of America's billionaires shows taxes on the wealthy must go up substantially to narrow the wealth gap and raise revenue vital for our big climb back from disaster," added Frank Clemente, executive director of Americans for Tax Fairness. "By demanding even more tax cuts for the rich at this crucial moment President Trump shows he is as out of touch with our nation's needs as America's billionaires are disconnected from our nation's misery."
Some executives, like Zoom CEO Eric Yuan and Bezos, have profited from a boom in business caused by the lockdowns. Others have profited directly from government aid distributed to their companies. But most billionaires saw their wealth increase due to rising investments, buoyed by a stock market surge propped up by government assistance.
The rising wealth amid an economically devastating pandemic threatens to deepen longstanding inequalities.
"Extreme wealth concentration is an ugly phenomenon from a moral perspective, but it's also economically and socially destructive," Luke Hilyard, the executive director of the High Pay Center, a think tank that focuses on excessive executive pay, told The Guardian. "Anyone accumulating riches on this scale could easily afford to raise the pay of the employees who generate their wealth, or contribute a great deal more in taxes to support vital public services, while remaining very well rewarded for whatever successes they've achieved. The findings from the UBS report showing that the super-rich are getting even richer are a sign that capitalism isn't working as it should."
UBS executive Josef Stadler also acknowledged that billionaires could face societal backlash over their growing wealth as many people face months if not years of struggles.
"We're at an inflection point," he told the outlet. "Wealth concentration is as high as in 1905, this is something billionaires are concerned about. The problem is the power of interest on interest – that makes big money bigger and, the question is to what extent is that sustainable and at what point will society intervene and strike back?"
But it's far from the first time that billionaires profited while millions suffered. The Institute for Policy Studies found that the wealthiest 400 billionaires in the US not only recovered from the 2008 recession within three years but increased their wealth by 80% over the following decade. By comparison, the bottom 80% of earners have still not recovered.
While government intervention has helped billionaires accumulate even more wealth, the lack of government action since the spring has resulted in an estimated 8 million Americans falling into poverty since May, according to a study from researchers at Columbia University. The lack of additional stimulus payments and the expiration of enhanced federal unemployment benefits has resulted in 6 million Americans falling into poverty over just the last three months, according to a study from researchers at the University of Chicago and Notre Dame.
The problem has been even worse globally. Between 88 million and 114 million people around the world have fallen into extreme poverty, defined as living on less than $1.90 per day, since the pandemic hit, according to the World Bank. There are now more than 700 million people living in extreme poverty and researchers expected that number to keep rising.
"This is the worst setback that we've witnessed in a generation," Carolina Sánchez-Páramo, the global director of the World Bank's Poverty and Equity Global Practice, told The Wall Street Journal.
World Bank Group President David Malpass argued in a speech this month that the problem is worse in developing economies because "rich countries" have the resources to expand sweeping "government spending programs" while poorer economies have few tools to mitigate the economic damage.
The US, by contrast, should be doing better if not for Republican reluctance to increased government relief. Federal Reserve Chairman Jerome Powell warned Congress last month that inaction in the face of growing inequality would be highly damaging to the economic recovery.
"Those are things that hold back our economy," he said at a news conference. "If we want to have the highest potential output and the best output for our economy, we need that prosperity to be very broadly spread."
Many analysts have also faulted Powell and the Fed for contributing to the growing inequality with policies "disproportionately benefiting stockholders," according to the Associated Press.
Just as the coronavirus has exposed longstanding health disparities between the richest and poorest Americans, the growing inequality is largely the result of a "catastrophic failure to tackle inequality" well before the pandemic struck, according to a report from Oxfam International.
"Governments' catastrophic failure to tackle inequality meant the majority of the world's countries were critically ill-equipped to weather the pandemic," said Oxfam interim executive director Chema Vera. "No country on earth was trying hard enough to reduce inequality and ordinary people are bearing the brunt of this crisis as a result. Millions of people have been pushed into poverty and hunger and there have been countless unnecessary deaths."


alternet--2020-10-17--Is the pandemic making us drink more or less? It's complicated

Are people drinking more or less during the pandemic ?
It 's a question that 's been on the mind of researchers , and the public alike .
Humans often turn to alcohol in difficult times , which comes with its own problems : research shows that when you turn to drinking to cope with stress it 's more likely to turn into a problem .
Yet as recently as last year , studies found that American millennials just were n't that into drinking , perhaps because of related trends in wellness and healthy lifestyles .
Now that we 're @ @ @ @ @ @ @ are beginning to look at data and polls to study how drinking behaviors have changed .
According to a recent report in the journal JAMA Network Open , Americans are drinking 14 percent more often during the coronavirus pandemic .
The study compared responses from a survey of 1,540 participants of their self-reported drinking habits in spring to the year prior .
For women , the increase was up to 17 percent compared to last year .
Specifically , heavy drinking for women—which was defined as four or more drinks within a couple @ @ @ @ @ @ @ study 's participants were between the ages of 30 and 80 ; the data collected was from the RAND Corporation American Life Panel .
`` Women were particularly affected in our data , '' Michael Pollard , a sociologist and co-author of the paper told Salon .
`` The higher baseline distress , and likely greater increases in distress during the pandemic , suggest that women will similarly increase the use of alcohol to cope at higher levels than men ; it is certainly a concern . ''
Pollard said since women typically @ @ @ @ @ @ @ men , coupled with larger increases in domestic labor at home , it 's no surprise that women reported drinking more than men once the pandemic started .
The pandemic has had a greater economic and social impact on women than men .
Women , and particularly women of color , are more likely to be `` essential '' workers , too , who are under particular stress .
`` Heavy alcohol use by women specifically has been somewhat overlooked by the scientific literature , but clearly it is a real and growing @ @ @ @ @ @ @ `` For example , some of my colleagues at RAND conducted a review of the last 20 years of assessments of the efficacy of Alcohol Use Disorder treatments , and concluded that we simply do n't have scientific evidence to inform whether or not those treatments are as effective for women as men—because nobody has set out to study it , and because women are systematically under-enrolled in these studies . ''
Indeed this study 's findings are congruent with what was reported on at the beginning of the pandemic .
In the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ 55 percent the week ending March 21 , 2020 , compared to the previous year , according to Nielsen data .
But this was also during a time when people were stockpiling because it was unclear whether or not the groceries stores would be safe , and how long the lockdown restrictions would last .
According to a separate study by researchers at Washington State University , one in four adults reported a change in alcohol use immediately after stay-at-home orders were issued .
Interestingly , the study surveyed more than 900 twin @ @ @ @ @ @ @ , 2020 .
An estimated 14 percent of respondents said they drank more alcohol than the week prior .
`` We expected that down the road people might turn to alcohol after the stay-at-home orders were issued , but apparently it happened right off the bat , '' Ally Avery , lead author of the study and a scientific operations manager at WSU Elson S. Floyd College of Medicine , said in a statement .
`` It shows the need to make sure there is more mental health support since it had an @ @ @ @ @ @ @ The situation varies between countries , curiously .
A study by researchers at the University College London found that young Australians are actually drinking less during lockdown , partly because of the lack of social opportunities .
Those who reported drinking less reports that they 've had an improved financial situation and physical health .
Similarly , a July poll from Alcohol Change UK found that 37 percent of 1,647 UK residents surveyed had attempted to manage their alcohol consumption during lockdown by having alcohol-free days , reducing the amount of alcohol they @ @ @ @ @ @ @ group .
However , the same study did find that one in five of drinkers surveyed were drinking more frequently during the pandemic .
Notably , before the pandemic , Americans were drinking more than they were just prior to Prohibition .
`` Consumption has been going up .
Harms ( from alcohol ) have been going up , '' Dr. Tim Naimi , an alcohol researcher at Boston University , told AP News in January .
`` And there 's not been a policy response to match it . ''
Yet , @ @ @ @ @ @ @ a nascent movement of younger people abstaining .
In the last few years , so-called `` Dry January '' — a monthlong abstinence from alcohol drinks — has become trendy .
`` I have seen preliminary studies that suggest depression and anxiety peaked early in the pandemic , but returned back to normal after a month or two , '' Pollard said .
`` A big question now is , will alcohol use behaviors persist , or will they go back to the way they were before COVID-19 ? ''
It will be @ @ @ @ @ @ @ pandemic continues apace , Dry January is popular in 2021 .
All things considered , it appears that drinking patterns have bifurcated .
Some drinkers now drink more , and others abstain more .
The polar reaction suggests that many have reconsidered the role of alcohol in their life .

Are people drinking more or less during the pandemic? It's a question that's been on the mind of researchers, and the public alike. Humans often turn to alcohol in difficult times, which comes with its own problems: research shows that when you turn to drinking to cope with stress it's more likely to turn into a problem. Yet as recently as last year, studies found that American millennials just weren't that into drinking, perhaps because of related trends in wellness and healthy lifestyles.
Now that we're seven months into the pandemic, researchers are beginning to look at data and polls to study how drinking behaviors have changed.
According to a recent report in the journal JAMA Network Open, Americans are drinking 14 percent more often during the coronavirus pandemic. The study compared responses from a survey of 1,540 participants of their self-reported drinking habits in spring to the year prior. For women, the increase was up to 17 percent compared to last year. Specifically, heavy drinking for women—which was defined as four or more drinks within a couple of hours—increased by 41 percent. The study's participants were between the ages of 30 and 80; the data collected was from the RAND Corporation American Life Panel.
"Women were particularly affected in our data," Michael Pollard, a sociologist and co-author of the paper told Salon. "The higher baseline distress, and likely greater increases in distress during the pandemic, suggest that women will similarly increase the use of alcohol to cope at higher levels than men; it is certainly a concern."
Pollard said since women typically have higher levels of mental distress than men, coupled with larger increases in domestic labor at home, it's no surprise that women reported drinking more than men once the pandemic started. The pandemic has had a greater economic and social impact on women than men. Women, and particularly women of color, are more likely to be "essential" workers, too, who are under particular stress.
"Heavy alcohol use by women specifically has been somewhat overlooked by the scientific literature, but clearly it is a real and growing concern," Pollard told Salon. "For example, some of my colleagues at RAND conducted a review of the last 20 years of assessments of the efficacy of Alcohol Use Disorder treatments, and concluded that we simply don't have scientific evidence to inform whether or not those treatments are as effective for women as men—because nobody has set out to study it, and because women are systematically under-enrolled in these studies."
Indeed this study's findings are congruent with what was reported on at the beginning of the pandemic. In the United States, alcohol sales increased by 55 percent the week ending March 21, 2020, compared to the previous year, according to Nielsen data. But this was also during a time when people were stockpiling because it was unclear whether or not the groceries stores would be safe, and how long the lockdown restrictions would last.
According to a separate study by researchers at Washington State University, one in four adults reported a change in alcohol use immediately after stay-at-home orders were issued. Interestingly, the study surveyed more than 900 twin pairs from March 26 to April 5, 2020. An estimated 14 percent of respondents said they drank more alcohol than the week prior.
"We expected that down the road people might turn to alcohol after the stay-at-home orders were issued, but apparently it happened right off the bat," Ally Avery, lead author of the study and a scientific operations manager at WSU Elson S. Floyd College of Medicine, said in a statement. "It shows the need to make sure there is more mental health support since it had an impact on people right away."
The situation varies between countries, curiously. A study by researchers at the University College London found that young Australians are actually drinking less during lockdown, partly because of the lack of social opportunities. Those who reported drinking less reports that they've had an improved financial situation and physical health. Similarly, a July poll from Alcohol Change UK found that 37 percent of 1,647 UK residents surveyed had attempted to manage their alcohol consumption during lockdown by having alcohol-free days, reducing the amount of alcohol they purchased, or attending a virtual support group. However, the same study did find that one in five of drinkers surveyed were drinking more frequently during the pandemic.
Notably, before the pandemic, Americans were drinking more than they were just prior to Prohibition.
"Consumption has been going up. Harms (from alcohol) have been going up," Dr. Tim Naimi, an alcohol researcher at Boston University, told AP News in January. "And there's not been a policy response to match it."
Yet, as mentioned briefly above, there is a nascent movement of younger people abstaining. In the last few years, so-called "Dry January" — a monthlong abstinence from alcohol drinks — has become trendy.
"I have seen preliminary studies that suggest depression and anxiety peaked early in the pandemic, but returned back to normal after a month or two," Pollard said. "A big question now is, will alcohol use behaviors persist, or will they go back to the way they were before COVID-19?"
It will be interesting to see if, as the pandemic continues apace, Dry January is popular in 2021.
All things considered, it appears that drinking patterns have bifurcated. Some drinkers now drink more, and others abstain more. The polar reaction suggests that many have reconsidered the role of alcohol in their life.


alternet--2020-10-17--John Bolton heeded this warning about Russian-manipulated Rudy Giuliani when the White House ignored

John Bolton heeded this warning about Russian-manipulated Rudy Giuliani when the White House ignored it

When Former National Security Adviser John Bolton received a warning about President Donald Trump 's personal attorney Rudy Giuliani due to his suspected ties to Russian operatives , he wasted no time heeding the warning and urged his staff to steer clear of having any involvement or interactions with The Daily Beast compiled a report based on what the publication described as `` interviews with 11 knowledgeable sources '' detailing Bolton 's repeated attempts to maintain distance between his department and Giuliani .
It has been reported that in January of 2019 , the intelligence committee warned Capitol Hill and @ @ @ @ @ @ @ a target of Russian intelligence operation to feed disinformation to Trump . ''
As months passed , the warnings about Giuliani are said to have `` intensified . ''
`` Officials said the warnings about Giuliani intensified in the spring and summer of 2019 as the president 's personal attorney appeared on television propagating disinformation about the Bidens and former U.S .
Ambassador to Ukraine Masha Yovanovitch .
One ex-NSC official said that Giuliani , as a U.S. citizen , was neither named nor referenced in contemporaneous intelligence reports about Russian disinformation efforts @ @ @ @ @ @ @ the subject of informal discussions between White House and intelligence officials . ''
- The Daily Beast A former official also raised concerns about Russia 's server hack of the Ukranian energy company Burisma—where Hunter Biden once served on the executive board .
It reportedly led to `` informed speculation among professionals that this would be the entrée to fabricate material connecting Hunter Biden to corruption inside Burisma , and it would n't take more than 10 percent truth . ''
Bolton even warned his subordinates to refrain from being in meetings with @ @ @ @ @ @ @ 's directives were so specific he even advised against his staff attending Trump 's Oval Office meeting May 23 , 2019 following the Ukrainian inauguration of President Volodymyr Zelensky .
An unnamed Democratic member of the House Intelligence Committee also weighed in as he admitted that Giuliani had been a big topic of discussion .
`` Rudy 's been the topic of conversation a lot , '' said the other source , a Democratic member of the House intelligence committee .
`` Wittingly or unwittingly , Rudy seems to care more about what @ @ @ @ @ @ @ and discussions with Russian assets than he does about how he might be being used . ''
When contacted about the latest debacle , Giuliani claimed he was unaware of Bolton 's opposition toward him .
`` I did n't find out that John was unhappy with me or opposed to me until he left [ the administration ] …I 've known him for ten years , '' and claimed that `` when I was being considered for Secretary of State , I told him I 'd consider him for deputy . ''

When Former National Security Adviser John Bolton received a warning about President Donald Trump's personal attorney Rudy Giuliani due to his suspected ties to Russian operatives, he wasted no time heeding the warning and urged his staff to steer clear of having any involvement or interactions with
The Daily Beast compiled a report based on what the publication described as "interviews with 11 knowledgeable sources" detailing Bolton's repeated attempts to maintain distance between his department and Giuliani.
It has been reported that in January of 2019, the intelligence committee warned Capitol Hill and the White House that Giuliani was "a target of Russian intelligence operation to feed disinformation to Trump." As months passed, the warnings about Giuliani are said to have "intensified."
"Officials said the warnings about Giuliani intensified in the spring and summer of 2019 as the president's personal attorney appeared on television propagating disinformation about the Bidens and former U.S. Ambassador to Ukraine Masha Yovanovitch. One ex-NSC official said that Giuliani, as a U.S. citizen, was neither named nor referenced in contemporaneous intelligence reports about Russian disinformation efforts. But Giuliani's alarming role was the subject of informal discussions between White House and intelligence officials." - The Daily Beast
A former official also raised concerns about Russia's server hack of the Ukranian energy company Burisma—where Hunter Biden once served on the executive board. It reportedly led to "informed speculation among professionals that this would be the entrée to fabricate material connecting Hunter Biden to corruption inside Burisma, and it wouldn't take more than 10 percent truth."
Bolton even warned his subordinates to refrain from being in meetings with Giuliani present. In fact, Bolton's directives were so specific he even advised against his staff attending Trump's Oval Office meeting May 23, 2019 following the Ukrainian inauguration of President Volodymyr Zelensky.
An unnamed Democratic member of the House Intelligence Committee also weighed in as he admitted that Giuliani had been a big topic of discussion.
"Rudy's been the topic of conversation a lot," said the other source, a Democratic member of the House intelligence committee. "Wittingly or unwittingly, Rudy seems to care more about what he can gain politically from his relationship and discussions with Russian assets than he does about how he might be being used."
When contacted about the latest debacle, Giuliani claimed he was unaware of Bolton's opposition toward him.
"I didn't find out that John was unhappy with me or opposed to me until he left [the administration]…I've known him for ten years," and claimed that "when I was being considered for Secretary of State, I told him I'd consider him for deputy."


alternet--2020-10-17--Trump's future may depend on this election: See the legal domino effect he could face if he loses

If President Donald Trump loses the upcoming presidential election , he could be faced with an avalanche of legal problems since he will no longer have the Presidential Privilege Against Prosecution .
By losing the election , Trump would be considered a private citizen which would make him more vulnerable to a string of investigations—both individually and through his businesses— due to ongoing speculation of fraud and possible tax evasion .
The New York Times ' latest bombshell report on Trump 's long-concealed tax returns has also raised more questions about the his finances and the amount of debt he @ @ @ @ @ @ @ financial woes , Trump is also facing multiple defamation lawsuits from women who have accused him of sexual assault .
However , the possible legal woes extend even further .
Trump could also face severe consequences if it is determined that he misused the presidency for personal gain and business profits .
Harry Sandick , a former federal prosecutor for the U.S. attorney 's office in Manhattan , weighed in on the possibility of Trump facing criminal charges without the prosecutorial protections of the presidency after leaving office .
`` In every regard @ @ @ @ @ @ @ for prosecutors and plaintiffs in civil cases to pursue their cases against him , '' Sandick said .
`` For example , he is claiming a higher protection from subpoenas in the criminal cases and also in the congressional subpoena cases , [ and that ] is based largely on the fact that he is President . ''
Based on the national polls projecting the outcome of the election , Democratic presidential nominee Joe Biden appears to be the favorable candidate with the highest chance of winning .
Although Trump has long insisted @ @ @ @ @ @ @ his behavior during his rallies proves his level of desperation has soared to new heights in recent days .
In fact , Trump has even alluded to the possibility of leaving the country if he loses the election .
During his rally in Macon , Ga. , on Friday night , he mulled over the possibility of losing to Biden .
`` Could you imagine if I lose ? ''
Trump said .
`` I 'm not going to feel so good .
Maybe I 'll have to leave the country , I @ @ @ @ @ @ @ the latest NPR/PBS NewsHour/Marist poll , Biden has a double digit lead of 54 % to 43 % among likely voters .
It has also been reported that more than 20 million Americans have already cast their vote for the November election .

If President Donald Trump loses the upcoming presidential election, he could be faced with an avalanche of legal problems since he will no longer have the Presidential Privilege Against Prosecution.
By losing the election, Trump would be considered a private citizen which would make him more vulnerable to a string of investigations—both individually and through his businesses— due to ongoing speculation of fraud and possible tax evasion. The New York Times' latest bombshell report on Trump's long-concealed tax returns has also raised more questions about the his finances and the amount of debt he possibly owes.
In addition to the financial woes, Trump is also facing multiple defamation lawsuits from women who have accused him of sexual assault. However, the possible legal woes extend even further. Trump could also face severe consequences if it is determined that he misused the presidency for personal gain and business profits.
Harry Sandick, a former federal prosecutor for the U.S. attorney's office in Manhattan, weighed in on the possibility of Trump facing criminal charges without the prosecutorial protections of the presidency after leaving office.
"In every regard, his leaving office makes it easier for prosecutors and plaintiffs in civil cases to pursue their cases against him," Sandick said. "For example, he is claiming a higher protection from subpoenas in the criminal cases and also in the congressional subpoena cases, [and that] is based largely on the fact that he is President."
Based on the national polls projecting the outcome of the election, Democratic presidential nominee Joe Biden appears to be the favorable candidate with the highest chance of winning. Although Trump has long insisted the polls are "fake," his behavior during his rallies proves his level of desperation has soared to new heights in recent days.
In fact, Trump has even alluded to the possibility of leaving the country if he loses the election. During his rally in Macon, Ga., on Friday night, he mulled over the possibility of losing to Biden.
"Could you imagine if I lose?" Trump said. "I'm not going to feel so good. Maybe I'll have to leave the country, I don't know."
According to the latest NPR/PBS NewsHour/Marist poll, Biden has a double digit lead of 54% to 43% among likely voters. It has also been reported that more than 20 million Americans have already cast their vote for the November election.


alternet--2020-10-17--Michael Cohen scorches Rudy Giuliani: He was 'used by Russians' because he's 'drunk all the time'

President Donald Trump 's former fixer and personal attorney Michael Cohen is sounding off about the latest scandal surrounding the president 's current lawyer Rudy Giuliani .
During an appearance on MSNBC 's `` The Beat '' with host Ari Melber , Cohen weighed in on recent reports about the White House being warned last year that the Russian government could be attempting to manipulate Giuliani with disinformation about Democratic presidential nominee Joe Biden .
That intelligence came amid questionable reports about alleged emails found on Hunter Biden 's laptop .
The laptop , obtained by Giuliani from a dubious @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Biden and foreign officials .
Melber quickly dived in to discuss the subject , at hand .
He asked if Cohen though Giuliani was being used by Russian officials .
`` I want to start as promised with Giuliani and we can then widen out , '' Melber said at the beginning of his discussion with Cohen .
`` Do you think Rudy Giuliani is being used as a tool and hack of the Russians , whether or not it passes a legal line and do you think that 's wrong ? ''
@ @ @ @ @ @ @ does believe Giuliani is being used and that he was likely an easy target for the Russians .
`` Of course it 's wrong and the answer is yes , '' Cohen replied .
`` Rudy is being played by the Russians .
He 's 100 percent susceptible to being used by Russians because… the disinformation , he runs right back to President Trump like a child running to a parent : 'Look what I have .
Look what I have . '
Let 's not forget , I was in Trump 's @ @ @ @ @ @ @ at the time to tell him about the emails that were going to be dropped ultimately learning several days later they were the [ John ] Podesta emails . ''
Cohen went on to explain why Giuliani is likely one of the worst foot soldiers Trump could use for the discovery opposition research on Biden and his family .
`` Trump speaks and behaves like the mob boss and this is what he 's doing , '' Cohen added .
`` He 's using his soldier , but the problem here is that @ @ @ @ @ @ @ is — Rudy is drunk all the time , which is a big problem and that 's what makes him susceptible because his faculties are gone .
He behaves crazy . ''
The remarks quickly garnered a reaction from Melber who , in turn , asked for clarity on whether or not he had personally seen Giuliani drink .
`` As a journalist , I 'm asking : Are you sharing an opinion or observation like you 've seen him drink X amount ? ''
Melber asked .
Cohen wasted no time clarifying @ @ @ @ @ @ @ amounts of alcohol .
`` No , no , I 've seen him drink to the point like he 's a high school drunk , '' Cohen claimed .
`` And it makes him susceptible .
He takes the information that he gets and provides it to the president and simply because Rudy — who used to be considered , you know , I mean , a real litigator and he was considered to be America 's Mayor — he 's now really just a joke .
And he takes it right back @ @ @ @ @ @ @ . ''

President Donald Trump's former fixer and personal attorney Michael Cohen is sounding off about the latest scandal surrounding the president's current lawyer Rudy Giuliani.
During an appearance on MSNBC's "The Beat" with host Ari Melber, Cohen weighed in on recent reports about the White House being warned last year that the Russian government could be attempting to manipulate Giuliani with disinformation about Democratic presidential nominee Joe Biden.
That intelligence came amid questionable reports about alleged emails found on Hunter Biden's laptop. The laptop, obtained by Giuliani from a dubious source, reported contained emails between Hunter Biden and foreign officials. Melber quickly dived in to discuss the subject, at hand. He asked if Cohen though Giuliani was being used by Russian officials.
"I want to start as promised with Giuliani and we can then widen out," Melber said at the beginning of his discussion with Cohen. "Do you think Rudy Giuliani is being used as a tool and hack of the Russians, whether or not it passes a legal line and do you think that's wrong?"
Without hesitation, Cohen admitted that he does believe Giuliani is being used and that he was likely an easy target for the Russians.
"Of course it's wrong and the answer is yes," Cohen replied. "Rudy is being played by the Russians. He's 100 percent susceptible to being used by Russians because… the disinformation, he runs right back to President Trump like a child running to a parent: 'Look what I have. Look what I have.' Let's not forget, I was in Trump's office when Roger Stone contacted Mr. Trump at the time to tell him about the emails that were going to be dropped ultimately learning several days later they were the [John] Podesta emails."
Cohen went on to explain why Giuliani is likely one of the worst foot soldiers Trump could use for the discovery opposition research on Biden and his family.
"Trump speaks and behaves like the mob boss and this is what he's doing," Cohen added. "He's using his soldier, but the problem here is that Rudy isn't a soldier. Rudy is — Rudy is drunk all the time, which is a big problem and that's what makes him susceptible because his faculties are gone. He behaves crazy."
The remarks quickly garnered a reaction from Melber who, in turn, asked for clarity on whether or not he had personally seen Giuliani drink.
"As a journalist, I'm asking: Are you sharing an opinion or observation like you've seen him drink X amount?" Melber asked.
Cohen wasted no time clarifying that he has witnessed Giuliani drink excessive amounts of alcohol.
"No, no, I've seen him drink to the point like he's a high school drunk," Cohen claimed. "And it makes him susceptible. He takes the information that he gets and provides it to the president and simply because Rudy — who used to be considered, you know, I mean, a real litigator and he was considered to be America's Mayor — he's now really just a joke. And he takes it right back to Trump and Trump listens to it."


alternet--2020-10-17--Trump staffers worry choosing to work for an authoritarian might not look so great on a resume

Lackeys from the Trump administration are n't one teensy bit concerned about the mess they 'll leave behind should their impeached president lose reelection in just under 20 days .
Oh no , the fact that they 're all on a superspreader tour of the country is proof of that .
Like their boss , what they 're concerned about instead are their own sorry asses .
Trump staffers , The Washington Post reports , `` are hoping the Trump presidency is n't a disqualifying blemish on their resumes or Google footprint as the door revolves the other way and @ @ @ @ @ @ @ , in the private sector . ''
Considering the kinds of horrific crimes this administration has carried out , they should be grateful that not being able to find a six-figure job at a fancy D.C. firm is the worst thing they have to worry about .
Defeating Republicans will require all of us to get plugged in to GOTV efforts .
On Mobilize , hundreds of Democratic campaigns are recruiting volunteers for all sorts of get-out-the-vote activities .
Just click here , and search via zip code to find an event nearest @ @ @ @ @ @ @ .
Some of former officials have already gotten a taste of a post-Trump life .
For former White House press secretary Sean Spicer , `` [ t ] here 's been no cushy landing on K Street or high-profile consultancy at a major lobbying or public relations firm , '' The Post said .
While he published a book about being a taxpayer-funded liar , it flopped .
Another one of his post-Trump jobs was n't too pretty either—no really , he wore some hideous dollar store piñata for the 28th season of @ @ @ @ @ @ @ was the sixth contestant eliminated .
But just because Sean `` This was the largest audience to ever witness an inauguration , period ! ''
Spicer had trouble does n't mean other former Trump officials have had the same experience .
`` Ex-White House chief of staff Reince Priebus is president of the Michael Best & Friedrich law firm , '' The Post continued .
Former Department of Homeland Security ( DHS ) Sec .
John Kelly continued cashing in on cruelty and joined the board of a company that operated the now-closed @ @ @ @ @ @ @ , Florida .
His successor , Kirstjen Nielsen , did n't really stray far and joined a government council .
Kelly and Nielsen in particular tried rehabilitation tours that really just continued exposing them as liars .
They probably wished for the luck of Nielsen 's former chief of staff Miles Taylor , who got a CNN contributor 's gig after managing to convince enough people that he was shocked , shocked !
about shenanigans he saw at DHS even though he was there for two years , from 2017 and 2019 .
@ @ @ @ @ @ @ a moral whistleblower to expose hateful policies , but instead until this past summer when it was convenient for him .
Nor has Taylor fully apologized for many of the policies he helped carry out .
`` The longtime GOP strategist who runs a public affairs firm recalled coming close to hiring a former Trump White House staffer until a Google search revealed the prospective hire 's track record defending Trump on race and immigration , '' The Post continued .
`` It ground the interview process to a halt , the strategist @ @ @ @ @ @ @ same time , `` Americans have short memories , '' a former Bush and Clinton staffer continued to The Post .
The fact is that from White House aide Stephen Miller to unlawfully appointed acting DHS Sec .
Chad Wolf , these officials deserve to become pariahs when the administration is at last finished .
They brought it on themselves because they knew what they were signing up for from the start : a vulgarian who bragged about committing sexual assault and a racist who vowed to deport millions of undocumented immigrants even @ @ @ @ @ @ @ businesses .
Do n't feel sorry for these officials .
Feel sorry for the many people they hurt .

Lackeys from the Trump administration aren't one teensy bit concerned about the mess they'll leave behind should their impeached president lose reelection in just under 20 days. Oh no, the fact that they're all on a superspreader tour of the country is proof of that. Like their boss, what they're concerned about instead are their own sorry asses.
Trump staffers, The Washington Postreports, "are hoping the Trump presidency isn't a disqualifying blemish on their resumes or Google footprint as the door revolves the other way and they seek to land, once again, in the private sector." Considering the kinds of horrific crimes this administration has carried out, they should be grateful that not being able to find a six-figure job at a fancy D.C. firm is the worst thing they have to worry about.
Defeating Republicans will require all of us to get plugged in to GOTV efforts. On Mobilize, hundreds of Democratic campaigns are recruiting volunteers for all sorts of get-out-the-vote activities. Just click here, and search via zip code to find an event nearest you, and sign up to volunteer.
Some of former officials have already gotten a taste of a post-Trump life. For former White House press secretary Sean Spicer, "[t]here's been no cushy landing on K Street or high-profile consultancy at a major lobbying or public relations firm," The Post said. While he published a book about being a taxpayer-funded liar, it flopped. Another one of his post-Trump jobs wasn't too pretty either—no really, he wore some hideous dollar store piñata for the 28th season of Dancing with the Stars, where he was the sixth contestant eliminated.
But just because Sean "This was the largest audience to ever witness an inauguration, period!" Spicer had trouble doesn't mean other former Trump officials have had the same experience. "Ex-White House chief of staff Reince Priebus is president of the Michael Best & Friedrich law firm," The Post continued. Former Department of Homeland Security (DHS) Sec. John Kelly continued cashing in on cruelty and joined the board of a company that operated the now-closed prison camp for migrant children in Homestead, Florida. His successor, Kirstjen Nielsen, didn't really stray far and joined a government council.
Kelly and Nielsen in particular tried rehabilitation tours that really just continued exposing them as liars. They probably wished for the luck of Nielsen's former chief of staff Miles Taylor, who got a CNN contributor's gig after managing to convince enough people that he was shocked, shocked! about shenanigans he saw at DHS even though he was there for two years, from 2017 and 2019. Taylor didn't speak out then as a moral whistleblower to expose hateful policies, but instead until this past summer when it was convenient for him. Nor has Taylor fully apologized for many of the policies he helped carry out.
"The longtime GOP strategist who runs a public affairs firm recalled coming close to hiring a former Trump White House staffer until a Google search revealed the prospective hire's track record defending Trump on race and immigration," The Post continued. "It ground the interview process to a halt, the strategist said." But, at the same time, "Americans have short memories," a former Bush and Clinton staffer continued to The Post.
The fact is that from White House aide Stephen Miller to unlawfully appointed acting DHS Sec. Chad Wolf, these officials deserve to become pariahs when the administration is at last finished. They brought it on themselves because they knew what they were signing up for from the start: a vulgarian who bragged about committing sexual assault and a racist who vowed to deport millions of undocumented immigrants even as he exploited many at his own businesses. Don't feel sorry for these officials. Feel sorry for the many people they hurt.