truthout--2020-10-28--Reclaiming Possibility: A Rant Against Despair

Fear can crowd out our imaginations and damper our compassion .
What does it take to hold onto hope in these times ?
Kelly Hayes reflects on the world-building poetics of organizing .
Note : This a rush transcript and has been lightly edited for clarity .
Copy may not be in its final form .
Welcome to “ Movement Memos , ” a Truthout podcast about things you should know if you want to change the world .
I ’ m your host , Kelly Hayes .
Earlier this week , the world lost a poet .
Diane di @ @ @ @ @ @ @ , a playwright , an activist and much more .
Reflecting on her work , and what I might say that would be of use today , during this incredibly stressful moment , I found myself thinking about creativity , and how fear can crowd out our imaginations and damper our compassion .
As I ’ ve said in the past , I think studying poetry and philosophy did as much to prepare me for the work of protest and organizing as anything else has .
Like a lot of people , I @ @ @ @ @ @ @ younger , and it took a long time for me to understand what relationship-building demanded of me , in the work of organizing , but those early years I spent on poetry , plays and philosophy , thinking about what moves people , and experimenting , did me a lot of good .
So I want to spend a moment today talking about the creative process of making change .
That may sound a bit fluffy or trite to some of you , but I promise you it is not .
And I @ @ @ @ @ @ @ t need to have studied philosophy or poetry in college to do the kind of imaginative work I am going to talk about today , because most of my mentors did not go that route , and their imaginations are definitely as heavily armed as mine .
A professor I was friendly with introduced me to di Prima ’ s poem “ Rant ” when I was a freshman in college .
Its value didn ’ t register at first .
But later , particular lines were echoing in my mind , and @ @ @ @ @ @ @ late at night , while I was trying to write .
Sometimes , I would close my eyes and repeat di Prima ’ s words , as I tried to find my own .
She said : “ the war that matters is the war against the imagination / all other wars are subsumed in it.
” Sometime during the last decade , the poem landed in a rotation of words I read out loud to myself before speaking at protests .
Over the years , my friends have lovingly allowed me to @ @ @ @ @ @ @ the backseat of their cars as we headed to marches and rallies together .
One friend told me she liked hearing the words , “ you are an appendage of the work , the work stems from / hangs from the heaven you create.
” Our mental maps of the world , and of history itself , are the products of our own world-building process .
In the same way that great writers construct fictionalized , or distant , worlds and realities , that we as readers and viewers can envision , our @ @ @ @ @ @ @ when we envision the past , in the present , when we imagine the world beyond our view , and in the future , when we project what we ’ ve come to expect .
We fill in the empty space with theory , prediction and perhaps even hope .
We don ’ t always decide , the way authors do , what shapes these backdrops take .
Our knowledge of history can be an affliction , no matter how necessary it may be , because history can be hard to stomach , @ @ @ @ @ @ @ to the present .
Our memories of trauma can create cycles that feel like constant reenactments of the same story , and sometimes are .
Sometimes , we relive those narratives , unable to break free , due to circumstance , or because we don ’ t know how else to function or survive .
Or both .
But reality is malleable .
As di Prima said : Sometimes the gaps in what we know are just a haze tinted by emotions we attach to the things we think we do know .
@ @ @ @ @ @ @ pessimistic , and we assume the worst of every detail .
This does not demand much of us , in terms of learning or creativity .
But to understand the past , we of course must investigate the stories we were not told , because those stories were withheld for a reason .
We must search out all the pieces we weren ’ t meant to find , the things that disrupt the narratives we ’ ve been given .
How did people survive desolate times ?
How did they find the joy @ @ @ @ @ @ @ stretches of siege and survival ?
How did they build relationships that allowed people who disagreed to collaborate , and achieve convergence ?
What did those uneasy alliances look like ?
What helped them succeed , and what caused them to fail ?
History is , as di Prima said , “ a living weapon.
” As an organizer , I like to think of history as a map of the world , cut like cardboard , into a jigsaw puzzle .
Its pieces have been scattered and cast in all directions .
@ @ @ @ @ @ @ .
They are buried in the stories of people we don ’ t know .
They are tucked into memories that we ought to write down , but often let drift away , unpreserved .
They are embedded in photographs and paintings and pencil marks .
They are buried in graves and amalgamated with the dirt , water and wind of this world — because the elements carry fractions of history too .
Stories of nuclear fallout and contaminated oceans .
Stories about what lived and died and grew in a place , @ @ @ @ @ @ @ .
It ’ s important to both ground ourselves in the here and now , and also remember that the world is much bigger than this moment , bigger than us , and our experience of it , and much bigger than we are imagining when we are afraid , as are the things we can do about it .
What stories are we telling ourselves right now ?
What are we sowing into the world when we speak ?
Our politics are the product of this world building process — a process @ @ @ @ @ @ @ it , and very long before we would understand that storytelling is a fight for the future .
Some people color in the blank spaces with optimistic assumptions .
Some paint the world in cynicism .
Some are true detectives , seeking every concrete detail they can , as forensically as possible .
Some seek to reinvent everything .
We do the same to the present .
We do the same to the future .
Organizers seek to impact all of these things — the way we reconstruct the past , the way @ @ @ @ @ @ @ , the way we envision what could be .
Creating against the grain .
I know that claustrophobia too well .
The belief that you ’ ve come to understand something awful and inescapable .
It ’ s a feeling I have confronted many times .
But I eventually learned that the answer is always the same : When you feel trapped by an oppressive inevitability , you never stop trying to escape , because every jailbreak begins with a decision to reject the inevitable .
It is the courage to pick up @ @ @ @ @ @ @ you may not finish the story , but knowing full well that you will reject the ending you ’ ve been given , every step of the way .
We can predict and puzzle , but we can not know what the future will bring .
All we can do is ready ourselves to endure the worst of it together , and to build the best of it in creative cooperation .
Our worlds , our relationships with the world , all come from stories , from the puzzle pieces we find on @ @ @ @ @ @ @ our book piles as we read , in the factoids we look up as we binge television shows and watch movies .
We can gather the pieces of our worlds , and push them together , and we can fill in the blanks with investigation , connection and creation .
I believe we write the meaning of life as we live it .
I believe it is up to us to write a story worth living .
I do not believe in the surrender of hope or imagination any more than I believe @ @ @ @ @ @ @ the survival of others , or of all life on Earth .
There are some things we never surrender , and some things we never surrender to .
When we try to change the world , when we create containers for work , initiate relationships , or chart strategic paths forward , we are always battling assumptions .
What myths underlie those assumptions ?
How can those myths be ripped out from under the lies they prop up ?
How can inevitability — a construct of the wicked — be ripped apart ?
@ @ @ @ @ @ @ an act of destruction paired with a call to imagine — which is a call to arms .
The armament of knowing you have not been defeated .
The armament of knowing that the present and the future will have histories that have not been written yet .
Possibility is the hope we wear when we charge into battle .
It is stronger than assumption or reaction because it is intentional .
It is an awareness that can not be snatched away .
The knowledge that there is always another ending in play @ @ @ @ @ @ @ know what it is .
So we charge into the breach if that is the only way forward , because possibility is worth it .
As di Prima wrote : We all have poetics .
We all have politics .
But poetics and politics can be reshaped .
Organizers are aspiring authors and artists , creating elements of stories , in constellations we are often unaware of , with pockets of unseen work happening far and wide .
Creating connection , potential and possibility is creative work .
We are in a moment @ @ @ @ @ @ @ all at once .
It is a time to act together , with vision and with hope .
As di Prima told us : I want to thank our listeners for joining us today , and remember , our best defense against cynicism is to do good , and to remember , that the good we do matters .
Until next time , I ’ ll see you in the streets .

Fear can crowd out our imaginations and dampen our compassion. Klaus Vedfelt / Getty Images
Part of the Series Movement Memos
Fear can crowd out our imaginations and damper our compassion. What does it take to hold onto hope in these times? Kelly Hayes reflects on the world-building poetics of organizing.
TRANSCRIPT
Note: This a rush transcript and has been lightly edited for clarity. Copy may not be in its final form.
Welcome to “Movement Memos,” a Truthout podcast about things you should know if you want to change the world. I’m your host, Kelly Hayes. Earlier this week, the world lost a poet. Diane di Prima was an artist, an author, a playwright, an activist and much more. Reflecting on her work, and what I might say that would be of use today, during this incredibly stressful moment, I found myself thinking about creativity, and how fear can crowd out our imaginations and damper our compassion. As I’ve said in the past, I think studying poetry and philosophy did as much to prepare me for the work of protest and organizing as anything else has. Like a lot of people, I thought I knew everything when I was younger, and it took a long time for me to understand what relationship-building demanded of me, in the work of organizing, but those early years I spent on poetry, plays and philosophy, thinking about what moves people, and experimenting, did me a lot of good. So I want to spend a moment today talking about the creative process of making change. That may sound a bit fluffy or trite to some of you, but I promise you it is not. And I can also guarantee that you don’t need to have studied philosophy or poetry in college to do the kind of imaginative work I am going to talk about today, because most of my mentors did not go that route, and their imaginations are definitely as heavily armed as mine.
A professor I was friendly with introduced me to di Prima’s poem “Rant” when I was a freshman in college. Its value didn’t register at first. But later, particular lines were echoing in my mind, and I found myself revisiting those parts, late at night, while I was trying to write. Sometimes, I would close my eyes and repeat di Prima’s words, as I tried to find my own. She said: “the war that matters is the war against the imagination / all other wars are subsumed in it.”
Sometime during the last decade, the poem landed in a rotation of words I read out loud to myself before speaking at protests. Over the years, my friends have lovingly allowed me to read “Rant” out loud in the backseat of their cars as we headed to marches and rallies together.
One friend told me she liked hearing the words, “you are an appendage of the work, the work stems from / hangs from the heaven you create.”
Our mental maps of the world, and of history itself, are the products of our own world-building process. In the same way that great writers construct fictionalized, or distant, worlds and realities, that we as readers and viewers can envision, our minds create vast backdrops — historically, when we envision the past, in the present, when we imagine the world beyond our view, and in the future, when we project what we’ve come to expect. We fill in the empty space with theory, prediction and perhaps even hope. We don’t always decide, the way authors do, what shapes these backdrops take. Our knowledge of history can be an affliction, no matter how necessary it may be, because history can be hard to stomach, and even harder to stomach in relation to the present. Our memories of trauma can create cycles that feel like constant reenactments of the same story, and sometimes are. Sometimes, we relive those narratives, unable to break free, due to circumstance, or because we don’t know how else to function or survive. Or both.
But reality is malleable. As di Prima said:
history is a living weapon in yr hand & you have imagined it, it is thus that you “find out for yourself” history is the dream of what can be, it is the relation between things in a continuum
Sometimes the gaps in what we know are just a haze tinted by emotions we attach to the things we think we do know. Sometimes, the filler is gray and pessimistic, and we assume the worst of every detail. This does not demand much of us, in terms of learning or creativity. But to understand the past, we of course must investigate the stories we were not told, because those stories were withheld for a reason. We must search out all the pieces we weren’t meant to find, the things that disrupt the narratives we’ve been given. How did people survive desolate times? How did they find the joy and humor that sustained them in long stretches of siege and survival? How did they build relationships that allowed people who disagreed to collaborate, and achieve convergence? What did those uneasy alliances look like? What helped them succeed, and what caused them to fail?
History is, as di Prima said, “a living weapon.”
As an organizer, I like to think of history as a map of the world, cut like cardboard, into a jigsaw puzzle. Its pieces have been scattered and cast in all directions. They are tucked inside books in libraries. They are buried in the stories of people we don’t know. They are tucked into memories that we ought to write down, but often let drift away, unpreserved. They are embedded in photographs and paintings and pencil marks. They are buried in graves and amalgamated with the dirt, water and wind of this world — because the elements carry fractions of history too. Stories of nuclear fallout and contaminated oceans. Stories about what lived and died and grew in a place, long before our feet touched the soil.
It’s important to both ground ourselves in the here and now, and also remember that the world is much bigger than this moment, bigger than us, and our experience of it, and much bigger than we are imagining when we are afraid, as are the things we can do about it. What stories are we telling ourselves right now? What are we sowing into the world when we speak?
Our politics are the product of this world building process — a process that began long before we could conceptualize it, and very long before we would understand that storytelling is a fight for the future. Some people color in the blank spaces with optimistic assumptions. Some paint the world in cynicism. Some are true detectives, seeking every concrete detail they can, as forensically as possible. Some seek to reinvent everything. We do the same to the present. We do the same to the future. Organizers seek to impact all of these things — the way we reconstruct the past, the way we understand the present, and ultimately, the way we envision what could be. Creating against the grain.
As di Prima said,
the ultimate claustrophobia is the syllogism the ultimate claustrophobia is “it all adds up”
I know that claustrophobia too well. The belief that you’ve come to understand something awful and inescapable. It’s a feeling I have confronted many times. But I eventually learned that the answer is always the same: When you feel trapped by an oppressive inevitability, you never stop trying to escape, because every jailbreak begins with a decision to reject the inevitable. It is the courage to pick up a pen, every time, knowing you may not finish the story, but knowing full well that you will reject the ending you’ve been given, every step of the way.
We can predict and puzzle, but we cannot know what the future will bring. All we can do is ready ourselves to endure the worst of it together, and to build the best of it in creative cooperation. Our worlds, our relationships with the world, all come from stories, from the puzzle pieces we find on the internet as we scroll, in our book piles as we read, in the factoids we look up as we binge television shows and watch movies. We can gather the pieces of our worlds, and push them together, and we can fill in the blanks with investigation, connection and creation.
I believe we write the meaning of life as we live it. I believe it is up to us to write a story worth living. I do not believe in the surrender of hope or imagination any more than I believe it is acceptable to give up on the survival of others, or of all life on Earth. There are some things we never surrender, and some things we never surrender to. When we try to change the world, when we create containers for work, initiate relationships, or chart strategic paths forward, we are always battling assumptions. What myths underlie those assumptions? How can those myths be ripped out from under the lies they prop up? How can inevitability — a construct of the wicked — be ripped apart? The restoration of possibility amid despair is an act of destruction paired with a call to imagine — which is a call to arms. The armament of knowing you have not been defeated. The armament of knowing that the present and the future will have histories that have not been written yet. Possibility is the hope we wear when we charge into battle. It is stronger than assumption or reaction because it is intentional. It is an awareness that cannot be snatched away. The knowledge that there is always another ending in play, even if we don’t know what it is. So we charge into the breach if that is the only way forward, because possibility is worth it. As di Prima wrote:
There is no way you can not have a poetics no matter what you do: plumber, baker, teacher you do it in the consciousness of making or not making yr world you have a poetics: you step into the world
We all have poetics. We all have politics. But poetics and politics can be reshaped. Organizers are aspiring authors and artists, creating elements of stories, in constellations we are often unaware of, with pockets of unseen work happening far and wide. Creating connection, potential and possibility is creative work. We are in a moment when we must hold prediction and possibility all at once. It is a time to act together, with vision and with hope. As di Prima told us:
There is no way out of the spiritual battle the war is the war against the imagination you can’t sign up as a conscientious objector the war of the worlds hangs here, right now, in the balance it is a war for this world, to keep it
I want to thank our listeners for joining us today, and remember, our best defense against cynicism is to do good, and to remember, that the good we do matters. Until next time, I’ll see you in the streets.
Show Notes:
Activity:
Planning for Disaster: A Writing Exercise
Tired of reading the same old news from the same old sources? So are we! That’s why we’re on a mission to shake things up and bring you the stories and perspectives that often go untold in mainstream media. But being a radically, unapologetically independent news site isn’t easy (or cheap), and we rely on reader support to keep the lights on.
If you like what you’re reading, please consider making a tax-deductible donation today. We’re not asking for a handout, we’re asking for an investment: Invest in a nonprofit news site that’s not afraid to ruffle a few feathers, not afraid to stand up for what’s right, and not afraid to tell it like it is.
Copyright © Truthout. May not be reprinted without permission.


truthout--2020-10-29--War Wasn’t a Campaign Issue. What Does That Mean for the Next Presidency?

During the last presidential debate , Donald Trump and Joe Biden sparred over the pressing domestic problems of racism , health care , climate change , the economy and the pandemic , along with the alleged Chinese , Russian and Iranian interference in the elections .
But substantive discussions of foreign policy and the threat of nuclear war were off the table .
The same was true in earlier debates , including the primaries .
Moderators didn ’ t ask , and the candidates didn ’ t tell .
This is critical since relations with Russia , China and Iran @ @ @ @ @ @ @ in decades under the Trump administration .
And nuclear war looms more menacing than since the Cuban Missile Crisis of 1962 .
On his website , Biden describes his agenda for various domestic issues , but only mentions foreign policy when he promises support for Central American countries so they can improve their residents ’ lives ( presumably reducing their need to immigrate or seek asylum ) .
Trump ’ s site says nothing about these issues ; rather , it asks supporters to contribute in order “ to send a message that @ @ @ @ @ @ @ ” Why do the candidates largely ignore foreign and nuclear affairs ?
According to Pulitzer Prize winner Martin Sherwin , a professor of history at George Mason University and author of the just released Gambling with Armageddon : Nuclear Roulette from Hiroshima to the Cuban Missile Crisis , the strategy seems to be “ if you don ’ t need to say something , don ’ t. ” He told Truthout that , “ since Trump isn ’ t saying anything , Biden is also keeping quiet.
” Peter Kuznick , a professor @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Studies Institute at American University , says the U.S. has not taken a constructive leadership role to resolve the dangerous global conflicts and the threat of nuclear war and annihilation .
Kuznick , who is co-author with Oliver Stone of the 12-part television series and New York Times bestseller book The Untold History of the United States , details the most worrisome current global conflicts and threats : * The conflict between Armenia and Azerbaijan over the Nagorno-Karabakh region has persisted since the 1980s .
But in late September , it erupted into @ @ @ @ @ @ @ .
Russia and Iran support Armenia , while NATO member Turkey supports Azerbaijan , and Israel has supplied it with arms .
But the war could blow up further , dragging in NATO and the U.S. “ This smells like the prelude to WWI , where entangling alliances launched the full-blown international conflict ” Kuznick told Truthout .
* Iran .
Trump pulled the U.S. out of the Iran nuclear deal , which infuriated the European Union , Russia , China and Iran .
Kuznick says the deal was working brilliantly : Iran @ @ @ @ @ @ @ out of the country and deactivated its centrifuges .
But since the treaty was hatched on Obama ’ s watch , with Israel in fierce opposition , Trump had to obliterate it .
Moreover , Trump ’ s ex-adviser , John Bolton ( along with Steve Bannon ) , had been itching for years to move on Iran .
“ In fact , many of us feared Trump would provoke a war there .
Fortunately , this hasn ’ t happened , but negotiations are nowhere to be seen .
Trump says he @ @ @ @ @ @ @ but as with a health care plan , we see nothing , ” Kuznick said .
* North Korea .
All countries , especially in Asia , worry about its missile programs , but again , negotiations are not visible and no substantive progress has been made toward achieving a long-overdue peace treaty , reducing U.S. military presence on the peninsula or denuclearization .
* A new cold war , this time with China .
China is making expansive claims in the South China Sea and the Taiwan Strait , which the U.S. @ @ @ @ @ @ @ navigation operations ” in the waters that China claims as its own .
“ The U.S. seems to be intent upon provoking a confrontation , which is a very dangerous game , ” Kuznick says .
* All nine nuclear powers are modernizing their arsenals .
The U.S. launched a 30-year , $ 1 trillion ( now $ 1.7 trillion ) program under Obama to modernize its nuclear arsenal and delivery systems , and make them more effective and lethal .
For his part , Russian President Vladimir Putin announced in March 2018 @ @ @ @ @ @ @ weapons that can circumvent U.S. missile defense .
This all flies in the face of the just-ratified UN Treaty on the Prohibition of Nuclear Weapons , which makes possession , development and the threat to use nuclear weapons illegal under international law .
Kuznick says that U.S. leaders have tried to intimidate the nations that signed it into withdrawing their support .
Thus , “ it is fitting that Honduras , the original banana republic , which the U.S. has bullied and exploited for decades , became the 50th country to ratify the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Critically , the nine nuclear powers boycotted the talks.
” *A new arms race threatens nuclear war .
Trump sabotaged negotiations to renew the 2010 New Strategic Arms Reduction Treaty ( New START ) , in which the U.S. and Russia reduced their nuclear warheads down to 14,000 ( from a previous 70,000 in the 1980s ) .
Putin wants to renew the New START agreement which ends in February 2021 , but Trump and his chief nuclear negotiator , Marshall Billingslea , were initially opposed and then dragged their feet .
In @ @ @ @ @ @ @ said the U.S. can spend Russia and China into oblivion in order to win a new nuclear arms race .
This echoes Trump ’ s 2018 statement when he said , “ Let it be an arms race .
We will outmatch them at every pass and outlast them all.
” Kuznick says if Trump kills the New START , this could also destroy the international Treaty on the Non-Proliferation of Nuclear Weapons , which prevents the spread of nuclear weapons and under which the existing nuclear powers are supposed to more aggressively @ @ @ @ @ @ @ and the U.S. aren ’ t abiding by the terms , why should the other nuclear powers ?
” he says .
Trump also pulled the U.S. out of the Intermediate Range Nuclear Forces Treaty and the Open Skies Treaty , which allowed Russia and the U.S. to verify each other ’ s weapons .
Sherwin and Kuznick say it ’ s terrifying that Trump , who has made erratic decisions and alienated allies , has the sole power to press the nuclear button .
“ We ’ ve survived without a nuclear @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Americans created treaties that set rules of behavior which gave the other some confidence .
Though each side suspected the other was cheating , the treaties still established an international system that prevented the worst from happening , ” Sherwin says .
“ These treaties were created after the Cuban Missile Crisis , which sent a message to the Soviet and U.S. administrations and their security experts that an uncontrolled nuclear arms race would lead to accidents and nuclear war .
But Trump has made a mockery of treaties and doesn ’ t @ @ @ @ @ @ @ ” Kuznick notes that the threat of nuclear war — which could happen by accident — is so high that in early 2020 , the Bulletin of Atomic Scientists moved the hands on the Doomsday Clock to 100 seconds before midnight .
“ When the U.S. and Soviet Union tested hydrogen bombs in 1952 and 1953 , they set it at two minutes .
But given the current U.S.-Russian-Chinese conflicts , the danger is the worst ever .
Yet none of this is discussed , ” he says .
Both scholars point to @ @ @ @ @ @ @ side thought the other had launched a nuclear attack , due to an anomaly either in the atmosphere ( in 1983 ) or the ocean ( 1962 ) , which set off the nuclear alerts .
And it was only the remarkable last-second decisions by two different men that stopped each side from firing their missiles .
But Sherwin and Kuznick argue that the dangers can be reduced .
They say that in Russia and other countries with nuclear arms , three or four officials must decide about launching them .
In the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ has the sole power to start a nuclear war .
However , this system could be changed to require assent from others , such as the chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff , Secretary of Defense , Secretary of State , head of the Senate Foreign Relations Committee , or Congress .
*Nuclear winter .
Studies show that even a limited nuclear war , such as between India and Pakistan ( which is a real possibility ) could trigger a partial nuclear winter .
If even 100 Hiroshima-size nuclear weapons were used @ @ @ @ @ @ @ spew 5 million tons of smoke , soot and debris into the stratosphere that would circle the globe , blot out the sun ’ s rays , drop temperatures below freezing , destroy much agriculture and cause global famine that could kill up to 2 billion people .
What would the use of thousands of weapons tens of times as powerful as the Hiroshima bomb do ?
There might not be any survivors to let us know .
Why do the candidates , mainstream media and pundits largely ignore these life and death @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Cold War ended , many people assumed nuclear weapons were no longer a threat .
And both Russia and the U.S. did reduce their stockpiles .
However , Sherwin says , “ They still have thousands and it ’ s possibly more dangerous now than during the Cold War because no one is paying attention to the threat.
” Moreover , Kuznick says the topics may be verboten because the mainstream media are controlled by companies that have ties to , own or get ads from those that profit from the nuclear arms @ @ @ @ @ @ @ the educational system fail to address them .
“ My colleagues and I study these issues but we ’ re rarely invited to speak about them on the networks because the subject is just too radioactive .
It ’ s not even in their frame of reference , ” he says .
Kuznick has one glimmer of hope , saying we came close to banning nuclear weapons at the 1986 Reykjavík Summit between President Ronald Reagan and General Secretary of the Communist Party of the Soviet Union Mikhail Gorbachev .
“ Gorbachev offered @ @ @ @ @ @ @ if Reagan limited Star Wars tests to laboratories .
Reagan was interested , but his adviser , Richard Perle , told him not to sign , as it would undermine the tests .
So , Reagan refused , ” he says .
Sherwin and Kuznick are both puzzled as to why Biden doesn ’ t continually raise these issues .
“ It ’ s a total win .
He could show the public that Trump is undermining the last pieces of nuclear arms control , ” Kuznick says .
Sherwin says Biden understands @ @ @ @ @ @ @ need to take part in international affairs ; and Kuznick notes that Biden has vowed to extend the New START agreement and reduce nuclear spending , should he win .
“ This would go a long way to extending the life expectancy of our species , ” Kuznick says .

It is an indication that the U.S. war industry has flourished regardless of who occupies the White House.
During the last presidential debate, Donald Trump and Joe Biden sparred over the pressing domestic problems of racism, health care, climate change, the economy and the pandemic, along with the alleged Chinese, Russian and Iranian interference in the elections. But substantive discussions of foreign policy and the threat of nuclear war were off the table. The same was true in earlier debates, including the primaries. Moderators didn’t ask, and the candidates didn’t tell.
This is critical since relations with Russia, China and Iran are the worst they’ve been in decades under the Trump administration. And nuclear war looms more menacing than since the Cuban Missile Crisis of 1962.
On his website, Biden describes his agenda for various domestic issues, but only mentions foreign policy when he promises support for Central American countries so they can improve their residents’ lives (presumably reducing their need to immigrate or seek asylum). Trump’s site says nothing about these issues; rather, it asks supporters to contribute in order “to send a message that America will never be a socialist country.”
Why do the candidates largely ignore foreign and nuclear affairs? According to Pulitzer Prize winner Martin Sherwin, a professor of history at George Mason University and author of the just released Gambling with Armageddon: Nuclear Roulette from Hiroshima to the Cuban Missile Crisis, the strategy seems to be “if you don’t need to say something, don’t.” He told Truthout that, “since Trump isn’t saying anything, Biden is also keeping quiet.”
Peter Kuznick, a professor of history and director of the Nuclear Studies Institute at American University, says the U.S. has not taken a constructive leadership role to resolve the dangerous global conflicts and the threat of nuclear war and annihilation.
Kuznick, who is co-author with Oliver Stone of the 12-part television series and New York Times bestseller book The Untold History of the United States, details the most worrisome current global conflicts and threats:
* The conflict between Armenia and Azerbaijan over the Nagorno-Karabakh region has persisted since the 1980s. But in late September, it erupted into war and cease-fires haven’t held. Russia and Iran support Armenia, while NATO member Turkey supports Azerbaijan, and Israel has supplied it with arms. But the war could blow up further, dragging in NATO and the U.S. “This smells like the prelude to WWI, where entangling alliances launched the full-blown international conflict” Kuznick told Truthout.
Trump has made a mockery of treaties and doesn’t understand the danger of an uncontrolled system.
* Iran. Trump pulled the U.S. out of the Iran nuclear deal, which infuriated the European Union, Russia, China and Iran. Kuznick says the deal was working brilliantly: Iran shipped 97 percent of its enriched uranium out of the country and deactivated its centrifuges. But since the treaty was hatched on Obama’s watch, with Israel in fierce opposition, Trump had to obliterate it. Moreover, Trump’s ex-adviser, John Bolton (along with Steve Bannon), had been itching for years to move on Iran. “In fact, many of us feared Trump would provoke a war there. Fortunately, this hasn’t happened, but negotiations are nowhere to be seen. Trump says he’ll produce a better deal, but as with a health care plan, we see nothing,” Kuznick said.
* North Korea. All countries, especially in Asia, worry about its missile programs, but again, negotiations are not visible and no substantive progress has been made toward achieving a long-overdue peace treaty, reducing U.S. military presence on the peninsula or denuclearization.
* A new cold war, this time with China. China is making expansive claims in the South China Sea and the Taiwan Strait, which the U.S. is challenging by running “freedom of navigation operations” in the waters that China claims as its own. “The U.S. seems to be intent upon provoking a confrontation, which is a very dangerous game,” Kuznick says.
* All nine nuclear powers are modernizing their arsenals. The U.S. launched a 30-year, $1 trillion (now $1.7 trillion) program under Obama to modernize its nuclear arsenal and delivery systems, and make them more effective and lethal. For his part, Russian President Vladimir Putin announced in March 2018 that Russia had developed five new nuclear weapons that can circumvent U.S. missile defense. This all flies in the face of the just-ratified UN Treaty on the Prohibition of Nuclear Weapons, which makes possession, development and the threat to use nuclear weapons illegal under international law. Kuznick says that U.S. leaders have tried to intimidate the nations that signed it into withdrawing their support. Thus, “it is fitting that Honduras, the original banana republic, which the U.S. has bullied and exploited for decades, became the 50th country to ratify the treaty and put it into effect. Critically, the nine nuclear powers boycotted the talks.”
*A new arms race threatens nuclear war. Trump sabotaged negotiations to renew the 2010 New Strategic Arms Reduction Treaty (New START), in which the U.S. and Russia reduced their nuclear warheads down to 14,000 (from a previous 70,000 in the 1980s). Putin wants to renew the New START agreement which ends in February 2021, but Trump and his chief nuclear negotiator, Marshall Billingslea, were initially opposed and then dragged their feet. In May, according to Reuters, Billingslea said the U.S. can spend Russia and China into oblivion in order to win a new nuclear arms race. This echoes Trump’s 2018 statement when he said, “Let it be an arms race. We will outmatch them at every pass and outlast them all.”
The topics may be verboten because the mainstream media are controlled by companies that have ties to, own or get ads from those that profit from the nuclear arms race.
Kuznick says if Trump kills the New START, this could also destroy the international Treaty on the Non-Proliferation of Nuclear Weapons, which prevents the spread of nuclear weapons and under which the existing nuclear powers are supposed to more aggressively eliminate their arsenals. “If Russia and the U.S. aren’t abiding by the terms, why should the other nuclear powers?” he says.
Trump also pulled the U.S. out of the Intermediate Range Nuclear Forces Treaty and the Open Skies Treaty, which allowed Russia and the U.S. to verify each other’s weapons.
Sherwin and Kuznick say it’s terrifying that Trump, who has made erratic decisions and alienated allies, has the sole power to press the nuclear button.
“We’ve survived without a nuclear war until now because the Soviets and Americans created treaties that set rules of behavior which gave the other some confidence. Though each side suspected the other was cheating, the treaties still established an international system that prevented the worst from happening,” Sherwin says. “These treaties were created after the Cuban Missile Crisis, which sent a message to the Soviet and U.S. administrations and their security experts that an uncontrolled nuclear arms race would lead to accidents and nuclear war. But Trump has made a mockery of treaties and doesn’t understand the danger of an uncontrolled system.”
Kuznick notes that the threat of nuclear war — which could happen by accident — is so high that in early 2020, the Bulletin of Atomic Scientists moved the hands on the Doomsday Clock to 100 seconds before midnight. “When the U.S. and Soviet Union tested hydrogen bombs in 1952 and 1953, they set it at two minutes. But given the current U.S.-Russian-Chinese conflicts, the danger is the worst ever. Yet none of this is discussed,” he says.
Both scholars point to moments in Cold War history when each side thought the other had launched a nuclear attack, due to an anomaly either in the atmosphere (in 1983) or the ocean (1962), which set off the nuclear alerts. And it was only the remarkable last-second decisions by two different men that stopped each side from firing their missiles.
But Sherwin and Kuznick argue that the dangers can be reduced. They say that in Russia and other countries with nuclear arms, three or four officials must decide about launching them. In the U.S., at present, the president has the sole power to start a nuclear war. However, this system could be changed to require assent from others, such as the chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, Secretary of Defense, Secretary of State, head of the Senate Foreign Relations Committee, or Congress.
*Nuclear winter. Studies show that even a limited nuclear war, such as between India and Pakistan (which is a real possibility) could trigger a partial nuclear winter. If even 100 Hiroshima-size nuclear weapons were used, Kuznick warns, the explosions would spew 5 million tons of smoke, soot and debris into the stratosphere that would circle the globe, blot out the sun’s rays, drop temperatures below freezing, destroy much agriculture and cause global famine that could kill up to 2 billion people. What would the use of thousands of weapons tens of times as powerful as the Hiroshima bomb do? There might not be any survivors to let us know.
Why do the candidates, mainstream media and pundits largely ignore these life and death issues? Sherwin says that once the Cold War ended, many people assumed nuclear weapons were no longer a threat. And both Russia and the U.S. did reduce their stockpiles. However, Sherwin says, “They still have thousands and it’s possibly more dangerous now than during the Cold War because no one is paying attention to the threat.”
Moreover, Kuznick says the topics may be verboten because the mainstream media are controlled by companies that have ties to, own or get ads from those that profit from the nuclear arms race. Further, political leaders and the educational system fail to address them. “My colleagues and I study these issues but we’re rarely invited to speak about them on the networks because the subject is just too radioactive. It’s not even in their frame of reference,” he says.
Kuznick has one glimmer of hope, saying we came close to banning nuclear weapons at the 1986 Reykjavík Summit between President Ronald Reagan and General Secretary of the Communist Party of the Soviet Union Mikhail Gorbachev. “Gorbachev offered to destroy Russia’s nuclear weapons if Reagan limited Star Wars tests to laboratories. Reagan was interested, but his adviser, Richard Perle, told him not to sign, as it would undermine the tests. So, Reagan refused,” he says.
Sherwin and Kuznick are both puzzled as to why Biden doesn’t continually raise these issues. “It’s a total win. He could show the public that Trump is undermining the last pieces of nuclear arms control,” Kuznick says.
Sherwin says Biden understands that treaties are about stability and the need to take part in international affairs; and Kuznick notes that Biden has vowed to extend the New START agreement and reduce nuclear spending, should he win. “This would go a long way to extending the life expectancy of our species,” Kuznick says.
Tired of reading the same old news from the same old sources? So are we! That’s why we’re on a mission to shake things up and bring you the stories and perspectives that often go untold in mainstream media. But being a radically, unapologetically independent news site isn’t easy (or cheap), and we rely on reader support to keep the lights on.
If you like what you’re reading, please consider making a tax-deductible donation today. We’re not asking for a handout, we’re asking for an investment: Invest in a nonprofit news site that’s not afraid to ruffle a few feathers, not afraid to stand up for what’s right, and not afraid to tell it like it is.
Copyright © Truthout. May not be reprinted without permission.


truthout--2020-10-29--Wisconsin Republicans Say Hackers Stole $2.3 Million From Fund to Help Trump

The Republican Party of Wisconsin ( RPW ) has fallen prey to a phishing scheme and as a result has had $ 2.3 million stolen from an account that was dedicated to helping President Donald Trump win the state in this year ’ s election , according to the party leader .
RPW Chairman Andrew Hitt said the party first saw suspicious activity on the account on October 22 , after someone in the organization noticed invoices that were being sent to vendors were getting altered .
After buying pro-Trump material such as hats or signs , the invoices were @ @ @ @ @ @ @ instead of the vendors , Hitt explained .
“ The sophisticated criminal began with a phishing attack , ” Hitt told the Milwaukee Journal Sentinel .
“ Once in the system , they were able to manipulate information in our emails and on invoices and documents that then resulted in them obtaining $ 2.3 million.
” No other information or data appears to have been stolen from the party , Hitt added .
A phishing scam is when someone uses “ email or text messages to trick you into giving them your personal @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Trade Commission website .
Hackers “ may try to steal your passwords , account numbers , or Social Security numbers .
If they get that information , they could gain access to your email , bank , or other accounts.
” The Madison field office of the FBI is currently investigating the matter .
Courtney Beyer , a spokeswoman with the Democratic Party of Wisconsin ( DPW ) , said that her party is often attacked by similar phishing schemes — as many as 800 such attempts were made against the DPW in @ @ @ @ @ @ @ .
None of those attacks were successful .
In spite of the huge sum of money stolen with less than a week to go before the 2020 elections , the RPW still has resources at its disposal to carry on its plans for helping Trump win the state .
The national Republican Party is also providing some help .
“ We have been in contact with the state party and are assisting them through this process , ” Republican National Committee spokesman Michael Ahrens said .
“ The RNC never left Wisconsin after @ @ @ @ @ @ @ our ground game and the millions we are spending on TV and digital will deliver us another win there in 2020.
” Wisconsin is considered a battleground state , but recent polling data has consistently shown Democratic candidate for president Joe Biden with a small lead ahead of Trump .
Along with Michigan and Pennsylvania , Wisconsin was viewed as being crucial in helping Trump win the Electoral College in 2016 , but the vote in the Badger State that year was very close , with the difference between Trump and that year @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Clinton being less than a single percentage point .
The race for governor in 2018 was also close , with Democratic candidate Tony Evers defeating Republican Gov .
Scott Walker by similarly tight margins .

Trump won Wisconsin in 2016 by less than 1 point, but the state has trended toward Democrats in other races since then.
The Republican Party of Wisconsin (RPW) has fallen prey to a phishing scheme and as a result has had $2.3 million stolen from an account that was dedicated to helping President Donald Trump win the state in this year’s election, according to the party leader.
RPW Chairman Andrew Hitt said the party first saw suspicious activity on the account on October 22, after someone in the organization noticed invoices that were being sent to vendors were getting altered. After buying pro-Trump material such as hats or signs, the invoices were changed to deliver the funds to hackers instead of the vendors, Hitt explained.
“The sophisticated criminal began with a phishing attack,” Hitt told the Milwaukee Journal Sentinel. “Once in the system, they were able to manipulate information in our emails and on invoices and documents that then resulted in them obtaining $2.3 million.”
No other information or data appears to have been stolen from the party, Hitt added.
A phishing scam is when someone uses “email or text messages to trick you into giving them your personal information,” according to the Federal Trade Commission website. Hackers “may try to steal your passwords, account numbers, or Social Security numbers. If they get that information, they could gain access to your email, bank, or other accounts.”
The Madison field office of the FBI is currently investigating the matter.
Courtney Beyer, a spokeswoman with the Democratic Party of Wisconsin (DPW), said that her party is often attacked by similar phishing schemes — as many as 800 such attempts were made against the DPW in this election cycle alone, she noted. None of those attacks were successful.
In spite of the huge sum of money stolen with less than a week to go before the 2020 elections, the RPW still has resources at its disposal to carry on its plans for helping Trump win the state. The national Republican Party is also providing some help.
“We have been in contact with the state party and are assisting them through this process,” Republican National Committee (RNC) spokesman Michael Ahrens said. “The RNC never left Wisconsin after 2016, and we are confident that our ground game and the millions we are spending on TV and digital will deliver us another win there in 2020.”
Wisconsin is considered a battleground state, but recent polling data has consistently shown Democratic presidential nominee Joe Biden with a small lead ahead of Trump.
Along with Michigan and Pennsylvania, Wisconsin was viewed as being crucial in helping Trump win the Electoral College in 2016, but the vote in the Badger State that year was very close, with the difference between Trump and that year’s Democratic presidential nominee, Hillary Clinton, being less than a single percentage point.
The race for governor in 2018 was also close, with Democratic candidate Tony Evers defeating Republican Gov. Scott Walker by similarly tight margins.
Tired of reading the same old news from the same old sources? So are we! That’s why we’re on a mission to shake things up and bring you the stories and perspectives that often go untold in mainstream media. But being a radically, unapologetically independent news site isn’t easy (or cheap), and we rely on reader support to keep the lights on.
If you like what you’re reading, please consider making a tax-deductible donation today. We’re not asking for a handout, we’re asking for an investment: Invest in a nonprofit news site that’s not afraid to ruffle a few feathers, not afraid to stand up for what’s right, and not afraid to tell it like it is.
Copyright © Truthout. May not be reprinted without permission.


truthout--2020-10-29--If Trump Doesn’t Win Pennsylvania, His Chances Crumble to 2 Percent

For the second election cycle in a row , Pennsylvania ’ s 9 million voters will play a definitive role in choosing our next president .
In 2016 , Donald Trump eked out a victory in Pennsylvania by around 44,000 votes , or about 0.7 percent more than Hillary Clinton .
The state ’ s 20 Electoral College votes were the vital piece to Trump ’ s eventual inside straight — Pennsylvania to Michigan to Wisconsin — which allowed him to win the White House while losing the popular vote .
Four years later , and matters for Mr. Trump @ @ @ @ @ @ @ taken the lives of nearly 230,000 people in the U.S. — and Trump ’ s incomprehensibly ham-fisted handling of same — hangs over the electorate like a pall of poison smoke .
That pandemic has laid waste to much of the economy , stripping Trump of what was to be the hood ornament on his reelection campaign bus .
Finally , he is not running against Clinton this time , and has been therefore unable to deploy the well-worn weapons of rhetorical misogyny that served him so effectively the last time .
Polling @ @ @ @ @ @ @ been steady and relatively tight .
Democratic nominee Joe Biden has enjoyed a six-point lead , give or take , for months now .
None of the dramatic events during the campaign season moved those numbers much at all , a fact that held true nationally as well as locally .
After the polling debacle of 2016 , when pollsters misjudged the numbers coming out of Pennsylvania right along with Michigan and Wisconsin , people are properly loath to put any faith in polling margins that could very well be fiction once again @ @ @ @ @ @ @ are sure of , however , is the importance of Pennsylvania to Trump ’ s hopes for victory .
Joe Biden would love to win Pennsylvania , but he does not have to win it ; if he does , and the numbers in the other swing states hold true within a margin of around 5 points , there are very few ways for him to lose the national election .
If Trump fails to win the state , on the other hand , his chances of winning the Electoral College overall crumble @ @ @ @ @ @ @ his people know this , and have moved swiftly into the dark places of electioneering like an oil spill on a rocky beach .
“ President Trump ’ s campaign in the crucial battleground of Pennsylvania is pursuing a three-pronged strategy that would effectively suppress mail-in votes in the state , moving to stop the counting of absentee votes before Election Day , pushing to limit how late mail-in ballots can be accepted and intimidating Pennsylvanians trying to vote early , ” reported The New York Times this morning .
The COVID-19 pandemic @ @ @ @ @ @ @ in Pennsylvania , due in large part to the fact that this is the first year the state has offered widespread early voting to all of its voters .
The infrastructure to handle such an influx is wobbly in its newness , Trump ’ s campaign and legal teams located a number of pressure points to potentially exploit , and the resulting legal arguments made it all the way to the Supreme Court .
That ’ s when the weird and creepy found a new gear .
Pennsylvania Republicans sought to keep state @ @ @ @ @ @ @ in after the polls close on November 3 ; many states are allowing this , given the mayhem being wrought by COVID .
Republicans in North Carolina sought a similar injunction .
In a bang-bang pair of rulings yesterday that thrilled Democrats , the high court allowed for votes in both states to be counted up to three days after Election Day .
Newly minted Justice Barrett did not join in the deliberations or render a verdict in either case .
According to the Supreme Court ’ s Public Information Office , she @ @ @ @ @ @ @ get appropriately up to speed on the specific issues of the cases .
As these decisions came down 5-3 , with Justices Alito , Gorsuch and Thomas dissenting , Barrett ’ s presence would not have changed the outcome .
The weird and creepy came in the guise of Justice Alito , whose fury at people being able to have their votes count during a pandemic in an election the Republican could lose was , well , palpable .
Two passages from his Pennsylvania dissent stand out .
… are deeply chilling indicators @ @ @ @ @ @ @ every intention of interfering with this election if they can , no matter how dangerous and destabilizing that interference could be .
Justice Alito specifically states that ballots coming in after November 3 will be segregated from those arriving on time , and goes on to suggest that “ a targeted remedy will be available ” from the high court to throw those ballots out .
Note well : Alito is offering the Supreme Court to serve as a ballot-shredder for votes that were legally cast under the rules as they stand .
@ @ @ @ @ @ @ put his name to it in a public dissent , one that earned the signatures of Gorsuch and Thomas .
Justice Kavanaugh remained silent in both cases , but if a case that will decide the fate of the presidency comes to this court , one can assume Gorsuch , Thomas , Kavanaugh and Barrett will fall in line with a pro-Trump ruling , which leaves Chief Justice Roberts as the wild card , and God help us all .
On Monday , the same court ruled 5-3 against allowing Wisconsin to continue @ @ @ @ @ @ @ , essentially deciding in the polar opposite direction of the Pennsylvania and North Carolina rulings .
As if this were not unnerving enough , Justice Kavanaugh vomited up a farcical Trump-clone argument about the perils of nonexistent voter fraud , further stating that the court ’ s decisions should make sure we know who wins on Election Night .
News network executives everywhere must have been thrilled , but there was no basis in law for Kavanaugh ’ s nonsense .
For Supreme Court nonsense , however , there is no remedy .
@ @ @ @ @ @ @ so goes the nation… but the court cases that may be brought by the Trump campaign could come from Wisconsin , North Carolina , any number of other states , or all of them combined .
The only remedy for this is a landslide victory for Joe Biden .
If the Electoral College is out of Trump ’ s reach by the time poll closures cross the Mississippi River , with Pennsylvania in Biden ’ s hip pocket , it will all be over but the shouting .
If not…

For the second election cycle in a row, Pennsylvania’s 9 million voters will play a definitive role in choosing our next president. In 2016, Donald Trump eked out a victory in Pennsylvania by around 44,000 votes, or about 0.7 percent more than Hillary Clinton. The state’s 20 Electoral College votes were the vital piece to Trump’s eventual inside straight — Pennsylvania to Michigan to Wisconsin — which allowed him to win the White House while losing the popular vote.
Four years later, and matters for Mr. Trump have changed.
A pandemic that has taken the lives of nearly 230,000 people in the U.S. — and Trump’s incomprehensibly ham-fisted handling of same — hangs over the electorate like a pall of poison smoke. That pandemic has laid waste to much of the economy, stripping Trump of what was to be the hood ornament on his reelection campaign bus. Finally, he is not running against Clinton this time, and has been therefore unable to deploy the well-worn weapons of rhetorical misogyny that served him so effectively the last time.
Polling in Pennsylvania throughout the campaign season has been steady and relatively tight. Democratic nominee Joe Biden has enjoyed a six-point lead, give or take, for months now. None of the dramatic events during the campaign season moved those numbers much at all, a fact that held true nationally as well as locally.
After the polling debacle of 2016, when pollsters misjudged the numbers coming out of Pennsylvania right along with Michigan and Wisconsin, people are properly loath to put any faith in polling margins that could very well be fiction once again. One thing all the election pros are sure of, however, is the importance of Pennsylvania to Trump’s hopes for victory.
Joe Biden would love to win Pennsylvania, but he does not have to win it; if he does, and the numbers in the other swing states hold true within a margin of around 5 points, there are very few ways for him to lose the national election. If Trump fails to win the state, on the other hand, his chances of winning the Electoral College overall crumble to about two percent. He and his people know this, and have moved swiftly into the dark places of electioneering like an oil spill on a rocky beach.
“President Trump’s campaign in the crucial battleground of Pennsylvania is pursuing a three-pronged strategy that would effectively suppress mail-in votes in the state, moving to stop the counting of absentee votes before Election Day, pushing to limit how late mail-in ballots can be accepted and intimidating Pennsylvanians trying to vote early,” reported The New York Times this morning.
The COVID-19 pandemic has been wreaking election havoc for weeks in Pennsylvania, due in large part to the fact that this is the first year the state has offered widespread early voting to all of its voters. The infrastructure to handle such an influx is wobbly in its newness, Trump’s campaign and legal teams located a number of pressure points to potentially exploit, and the resulting legal arguments made it all the way to the Supreme Court.
That’s when the weird and creepy found a new gear.
Pennsylvania Republicans sought to keep state officials from counting absentee ballots that come in after the polls close on November 3; many states are allowing this, given the mayhem being wrought by COVID. Republicans in North Carolina sought a similar injunction. In a bang-bang pair of rulings yesterday that thrilled Democrats, the high court allowed for votes in both states to be counted up to three days after Election Day.
Newly minted Justice Barrett did not join in the deliberations or render a verdict in either case. According to the Supreme Court’s Public Information Office, she simply did not have enough time to get appropriately up to speed on the specific issues of the cases. As these decisions came down 5-3, with Justices Alito, Gorsuch and Thomas dissenting, Barrett’s presence would not have changed the outcome.
The weird and creepy came in the guise of Justice Alito, whose fury at people being able to have their votes count during a pandemic in an election the Republican could lose was, well, palpable. Two passages from his Pennsylvania dissent stand out.
This:
Although the Pennsylvania Supreme Court rejected Petitioner’s request for that relief, we have been informed by the Pennsylvania Attorney General that the Secretary of the Commonwealth issued guidance today directing county boards of elections to segregate ballots received between 8:00 p.m. on November 3, 2020, and 5:00 p.m. on November 6, 2020. Nothing in the Court’s order today precludes Petitioner from applying to this Court for relief if, for some reason, it is not satisfied with the Secretary’s guidance.
… and this:
Although the Court denies the motion to expedite, the petition for certiorari remains before us, and if it is granted, the case can then be decided under a shortened schedule. In addition, the Court’s denial of the motion to expedite is not a denial of a request for this Court to order that ballots received after election day be segregated so that if the State Supreme Court’s decision is ultimately overturned, a targeted remedy will be available.
… are deeply chilling indicators that the conservatives on this court have every intention of interfering with this election if they can, no matter how dangerous and destabilizing that interference could be. Justice Alito specifically states that ballots coming in after November 3 will be segregated from those arriving on time, and goes on to suggest that “a targeted remedy will be available” from the high court to throw those ballots out.
Note well: Alito is offering the Supreme Court to serve as a ballot-shredder for votes that were legally cast under the rules as they stand.
Note well: Alito is offering the Supreme Court to serve as a ballot-shredder for votes that were legally cast under the rules as they stand. He did not whisper this, but put his name to it in a public dissent, one that earned the signatures of Gorsuch and Thomas.
Justice Kavanaugh remained silent in both cases, but if a case that will decide the fate of the presidency comes to this court, one can assume Gorsuch, Thomas, Kavanaugh and Barrett will fall in line with a pro-Trump ruling, which leaves Chief Justice Roberts as the wild card, and God help us all.
On Monday, the same court ruled 5-3 against allowing Wisconsin to continue counting ballots that arrive after Election Day, essentially deciding in the polar opposite direction of the Pennsylvania and North Carolina rulings. As if this were not unnerving enough, Justice Kavanaugh vomited up a farcical Trump-clone argument about the perils of nonexistent voter fraud, further stating that the court’s decisions should make sure we know who wins on Election Night. News network executives everywhere must have been thrilled, but there was no basis in law for Kavanaugh’s nonsense. For Supreme Court nonsense, however, there is no remedy.
As Pennsylvania goes on Election Day, so goes the nation… but the court cases that may be brought by the Trump campaign could come from Wisconsin, North Carolina, any number of other states, or all of them combined. The only remedy for this is a landslide victory for Joe Biden. If the Electoral College is out of Trump’s reach by the time poll closures cross the Mississippi River, with Pennsylvania in Biden’s hip pocket, it will all be over but the shouting. If not…
Tired of reading the same old news from the same old sources? So are we! That’s why we’re on a mission to shake things up and bring you the stories and perspectives that often go untold in mainstream media. But being a radically, unapologetically independent news site isn’t easy (or cheap), and we rely on reader support to keep the lights on.
If you like what you’re reading, please consider making a tax-deductible donation today. We’re not asking for a handout, we’re asking for an investment: Invest in a nonprofit news site that’s not afraid to ruffle a few feathers, not afraid to stand up for what’s right, and not afraid to tell it like it is.
Copyright © Truthout. May not be reprinted without permission.


truthout--2020-10-29--Kushner Tapes Reveal He Bragged Over Trump Taking Back Charge From “the Doctors”

Jared Kushner , the son-in-law and senior adviser of President Donald Trump , privately bragged to journalist Bob Woodward in April about the president ’ s decision to shun the advice and opinions of health experts , just as the death rate from the coronavirus pandemic in the U.S. was reaching peak levels .
“ It was almost like Trump getting the country back from the doctors .
Right ?
” Kushner said in recorded conversations with Woodward .
“ In the sense that what he now did was , you know , he ’ s going to own the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ back in charge , ” Kushner also said .
“ It ’ s not the doctors.
” Kushner claimed that the U.S. was moving through the “ panic ” and “ pain ” phases of the pandemic , and experiencing the “ beginning of the comeback phase ” by reopening — a direction that was widely criticized at the time .
As Kushner made these comments , the seven-day average of daily deaths related to COVID-19 was above 2,200 per day .
There were 754,037 coronavirus cases documented at the time , a @ @ @ @ @ @ @ and triple by mid-June .
As of Thursday morning , the U.S. has counted more than 9.1 million cases of coronavirus , and 233,137 Americans have perished from the virus so far .
Most of those deaths ( more than 193,000 of them ) occurred in the months after Kushner spoke to Woodward , contradicting his assertion that the nation was moving out of the “ pain ” phase more than six months ago .
Woodward ’ s tapes also show that Kushner reviled some aspects of the Republican Party , which he @ @ @ @ @ @ @ bunch of tribes.
” Kushner also dismissed the party platform as “ a document meant to , like , piss people off , basically.
” Kushner also justified Trump ’ s decision to distance himself from those who dared to disagree with him .
“ The most dangerous people around the President are over-confident idiots , ” Kushner said .
Trump replaced those individuals with “ people who kind of know their place , ” he added .
The recordings also show Trump ’ s presidential adviser to be more concerned with the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ to the pandemic than he was with protecting the health of the American people , reinforcing what previous reports have indicated about the administration ’ s self-interested approach to the COVID crisis .
That approach has largely backfired for the president , as Trump ’ s approval ratings on his handling of the coronavirus ( and in general ) have soured significantly in the months since Kushner spoke to Woodward .
Kushner ’ s comments are unlikely to help Trump ’ s reelection chances in the final week of the 2020 presidential campaign @ @ @ @ @ @ @ the president trailing against Democratic presidential nominee Joe Biden .

Nearly 200,000 more Americans have died since Kushner told Woodward the “pain” phase of the pandemic was over.
Jared Kushner, the son-in-law and senior adviser of President Donald Trump, privately bragged to journalist Bob Woodward in April about the president’s decision to shun the advice and opinions of health experts, just as the death rate from the coronavirus pandemic in the U.S. was reaching peak levels.
“It was almost like Trump getting the country back from the doctors. Right?” Kushner said in recorded conversations with Woodward. “In the sense that what he now did was, you know, he’s going to own the open-up.”
“Trump’s now back in charge,” Kushner also said. “It’s not the doctors.”
Kushner claimed that the U.S. was moving through the “panic” and “pain” phases of the pandemic, and experiencing the “beginning of the comeback phase” by reopening — a direction that was widely criticized at the time.
As Kushner made these comments, the seven-day average of daily deaths related to COVID-19 was above 2,200 per day. There were 754,037 coronavirus cases documented at the time, a figure that would double a month later and triple by mid-June.
As of Thursday morning, the U.S. has counted more than 9.1 million cases of coronavirus, and 233,137 Americans have perished from the virus so far. Most of those deaths (more than 193,000 of them) occurred in the months after Kushner spoke to Woodward, contradicting his assertion that the nation was moving out of the “pain” phase more than six months ago.
Woodward’s tapes also show that Kushner reviled some aspects of the Republican Party, which he described as a “collection of a bunch of tribes.” Kushner also dismissed the party platform as “a document meant to, like, piss people off, basically.”
Kushner also justified Trump’s decision to distance himself from those who dared to disagree with him. “The most dangerous people around the President are over-confident idiots,” Kushner said. Trump replaced those individuals with “people who kind of know their place,” he added.
The recordings also show Trump’s presidential adviser to be more concerned with the potential political fallout from a recession related to the pandemic than he was with protecting the health of the American people, reinforcing what previous reports have indicated about the administration’s self-interested approach to the COVID crisis.
That approach has largely backfired for the president, as Trump’s approval ratings on his handling of the coronavirus (and in general) have soured significantly in the months since Kushner spoke to Woodward. Kushner’s comments are unlikely to help Trump’s reelection chances in the final week of the 2020 presidential campaign, as several states’ polls show the president trailing against Democratic presidential nominee Joe Biden.
Tired of reading the same old news from the same old sources? So are we! That’s why we’re on a mission to shake things up and bring you the stories and perspectives that often go untold in mainstream media. But being a radically, unapologetically independent news site isn’t easy (or cheap), and we rely on reader support to keep the lights on.
If you like what you’re reading, please consider making a tax-deductible donation today. We’re not asking for a handout, we’re asking for an investment: Invest in a nonprofit news site that’s not afraid to ruffle a few feathers, not afraid to stand up for what’s right, and not afraid to tell it like it is.
Copyright © Truthout. May not be reprinted without permission.


truthout--2020-10-29--More Than 8 Million Have Been Forced Into Poverty Since COVID Relief Ended in US

The massive $ 2 trillion CARES Act — which sent households one-time payments and boosted unemployment checks with an additional $ 600 a week through July — helped keep millions afloat , but more than 8 million people have been forced into poverty since the aid ended .
“ The relief was temporary , and much of it has now expired , so now we ’ re seeing poverty rise again , ” says Megan Curran , a researcher at the Center on Poverty and Social Policy at Columbia University .
“ We know that families can be protected again @ @ @ @ @ @ @ the federal level.
” This is a rush transcript .
Copy may not be in its final form .
AMY GOODMAN : This is Democracy Now !
The Quarantine Report .
I ’ m Amy Goodman , with Nermeen Shaikh , as we continue to look at growing poverty in the United States .
This week , Majority Leader Mitch McConnell adjourned the Senate without a new stimulus bill and won ’ t reconvene until November 9th .
President Trump said Tuesday any deal on a new relief package would have to wait @ @ @ @ @ @ @ as more than 54 million U.S. residents are struggling to afford food , according to the hunger relief organization Feeding America , and a new report finds more than 8 million people have been forced into poverty just since May .
That ’ s when the additional federal aid that kept millions afloat during the early months of the pandemic ended .
Black and Latinx people , as well as children , have been particularly impacted .
A new report finds the massive $ 2 trillion CARES Act , which sent households one-time @ @ @ @ @ @ @ 600 additional a week through July , helped keep millions out of poverty .
But since the additional aid has ended , the number of poor people has surged .
For more , we ’ re joined by Megan Curran with the Center on Poverty and Social Policy at Columbia University .
She has co-authored the report on increasing poverty rates in the U.S. during the pandemic .
Welcome to Democracy Now !
, Megan .
It ’ s great to have you with us .
Just lay out the report ’ s @ @ @ @ @ @ @ .
Thanks very much for having me .
What myself and my colleagues at the Columbia Center on Poverty have been trying to do is track the real-time effect on families of the continuing crisis .
One of the biggest challenges is that the way we traditionally measure poverty in this country is on an annual basis , and there ’ s usually a time delay .
So , that ’ s imperfect in normal times , but we know that 2020 is far from normal , and so it ’ s something @ @ @ @ @ @ @ we ’ ve tried to do most recently is estimate the monthly poverty rates in the U.S. , so trying to look at what happened when families went out of work very sharply , but also what happened when the federal relief came in .
And we found three main things .
The first is that Congress did the right thing early on , with the CARES Act , in particular — the stimulus checks and the expanded unemployment benefits .
The combination prevented what could have basically been the worst spike in @ @ @ @ @ @ @ thing , however , is the bad news , which is that these successes are quickly being lost .
The relief was temporary , and much of it has now expired .
And so now we ’ re seeing poverty rise again .
But the third piece is kind of a silver lining in that we know what works now , you know , getting cash out to households directly , and so we know that families can be protected again , but it does require action at the federal level .
NERMEEN @ @ @ @ @ @ @ you talk specifically about the impact of this poverty on children ?
Two-and-a-half million children have been pushed into poverty since May .
Is that right ?
MEGAN CURRAN : Yeah .
So , you know , the important thing to note is that child poverty in the U.S. even before the crisis hit was high and , you know , arguably much too high for as wealthy a nation as we are .
You know , in the years coming up to it , even when the economy appeared strong , we @ @ @ @ @ @ @ below the poverty line .
And just to put that in context , we ’ re talking about trying to get by on about $ 28,000 a year for a family of four if you ’ re in sort of an average-cost city .
And so , it ’ s not a generous level that we ’ re talking about , but so many children were already living below that number .
And we have now seen yet another two-and-a-half million children fall below that income level just since May .
And we @ @ @ @ @ @ @ hitting all kids equally .
The gap in poverty is stark between — for Black and Latino children , it ’ s two-and-a-half times higher than it is for whites , for white children .
And so , we need to recognize that this was a problem beforehand , but it has been seriously exasperated — excuse me , it has been seriously magnified by this crisis .
NERMEEN SHAIKH : And , Megan , as you mentioned , Congress made the right decision early on in passing the CARES Act , which @ @ @ @ @ @ @ U.S. history , but there were a number of people who were excluded from the CARES Act .
Could you talk about who was excluded and what the impact of that exclusion has been on them ?
MEGAN CURRAN : Yeah , the CARES Act , in our analysis and other researchers who have been looking at this , is found to be , you know , so important and really temporarily successful for families that were able to receive it .
But we know that , unfortunately , some , even though @ @ @ @ @ @ @ risk of not receiving it .
There were about 12 million individuals identified who were at risk of maybe not receiving the stimulus check even though they were eligible for it .
And that ’ s because they may not have filed taxes recently , because they have such low incomes that they were not required to do so , that it required a lot of extra steps and the onus on the families themselves to figure out that they actually needed to apply for it .
That put them at risk for @ @ @ @ @ @ @ also a number of folks who were just explicitly left out of the legislation when it was passed .
So , that ranged across a couple different population groups .
We saw high school and college students left out of the stimulus checks .
If they were over the age of 17 and still claimed as a dependents for tax purposes , which most of them were because they ’ re still in school , by their families , they were left out of the checks , right at the same time that @ @ @ @ @ @ @ having to switch to virtual learning overnight and all of these things .
We know some — and that was about 10 million 17-to-24-year-olds across the country who were left out .
We know another 5 million older adults with serious health issues also were left out of the stimulus checks , again because they ’ re claimed as dependents .
They can ’ t live alone , in many instances .
They and their carers did not receive emergency assistance for them .
And one of the biggest populations that was excluded @ @ @ @ @ @ @ .
And about 15 million , it ’ s estimated , individuals in immigrant families were left out .
And , you know , most of these kids would have been U.S. citizen children .
But the exclusions were particularly harsh here , because if just one adult in the family did not have a Social Security number , no one in the family , regardless of citizenship status or green card status , were able to receive the payment .
And so , that has huge applications for families in every state @ @ @ @ @ @ @ new stimulus package look like ?
And we only have a minute , Megan Curran .
I mean , you have , since the beginning of the pandemic , enormous wealth inequality .
The wealth of U.S. billionaires has surged $ 931 billion .
And yet , when you look at the number of people who have not only plunged into poverty , but hunger , how do you correct this ?
And we ’ ve seen also an enormous corporate bailout .
MEGAN CURRAN : Yeah , I think what we need @ @ @ @ @ @ @ get more cash to families , and it needs to be accessible to as many families as possible , without exclusions , and it needs to be consistent .
We know that another one-time check , while very welcome for many families , isn ’ t going to be enough .
Continuing unemployment benefits , the $ 600 top-up weekly payments , along with the expansions that included those who are usually not covered , need to be continued .
We need to get regular cash assistance on a monthly basis , if @ @ @ @ @ @ @ to families who are not covered by unemployment .
And we need to make sure that there are other protections in place , increased access to food for kids .
You know , you can increase the SNAP benefit levels .
You can put in more housing protections so that there ’ s rent relief and protections against evictions .
And basically , you just need to make sure that families know that they can count on this for the duration of the crisis , because we ’ re seeing , with continued @ @ @ @ @ @ @ , this crisis is not going away right now , and so the relief needs to be in place for as long as families need it .
AMY GOODMAN : Megan Curran , we want to thank you for being with us , at the Center on Poverty and Social Policy at Columbia University .
We ’ ll link to your report on increasing poverty in the U.S. during the pandemic .
And a reminder : This Tuesday , November 3rd , election night , Democracy Now !
will air a three-hour election @ @ @ @ @ @ @ midnight .
We ’ ll be covering results from the presidential election to congressional and state races , as well as ballot initiatives .
You can watch it at democracynow.org , or you can ask your station to run it , as many are across the country .
That does it for our broadcast .
Special thanks to Julie Crosby , Renée Feltz , Mike Burke , Deena Guzder , Libby Rainey , Nermeen Shaikh .
I ’ m Amy Goodman , with Nermeen Shaikh .
Thanks so much for joining us .

The massive $2 trillion CARES Act — which sent households one-time payments and boosted unemployment checks with an additional $600 a week through July — helped keep millions afloat, but more than 8 million people have been forced into poverty since the aid ended. “The relief was temporary, and much of it has now expired, so now we’re seeing poverty rise again,” says Megan Curran, a researcher at the Center on Poverty and Social Policy at Columbia University. “We know that families can be protected again, but it does require action at the federal level.”
TRANSCRIPT
This is a rush transcript. Copy may not be in its final form.
AMY GOODMAN: This is Democracy Now! The Quarantine Report. I’m Amy Goodman, with Nermeen Shaikh, as we continue to look at growing poverty in the United States. This week, Majority Leader Mitch McConnell adjourned the Senate without a new stimulus bill and won’t reconvene until November 9th. President Trump said Tuesday any deal on a new relief package would have to wait until after the election.
This comes as more than 54 million U.S. residents are struggling to afford food, according to the hunger relief organization Feeding America, and a new report finds more than 8 million people have been forced into poverty just since May. That’s when the additional federal aid that kept millions afloat during the early months of the pandemic ended. Black and Latinx people, as well as children, have been particularly impacted. A new report finds the massive $2 trillion CARES Act, which sent households one-time payments and boosted unemployment checks with $600 additional a week through July, helped keep millions out of poverty. But since the additional aid has ended, the number of poor people has surged.
For more, we’re joined by Megan Curran with the Center on Poverty and Social Policy at Columbia University. She has co-authored the report on increasing poverty rates in the U.S. during the pandemic.
Welcome to Democracy Now!, Megan. It’s great to have you with us. Just lay out the report’s horrific findings.
MEGAN CURRAN: Sure. Thanks very much for having me.
What myself and my colleagues at the Columbia Center on Poverty have been trying to do is track the real-time effect on families of the continuing crisis. One of the biggest challenges is that the way we traditionally measure poverty in this country is on an annual basis, and there’s usually a time delay. So, that’s imperfect in normal times, but we know that 2020 is far from normal, and so it’s something that calls for new tools.
What we’ve tried to do most recently is estimate the monthly poverty rates in the U.S., so trying to look at what happened when families went out of work very sharply, but also what happened when the federal relief came in. And we found three main things.
The first is that Congress did the right thing early on, with the CARES Act, in particular — the stimulus checks and the expanded unemployment benefits. The combination prevented what could have basically been the worst spike in poverty in 50 years.
The second thing, however, is the bad news, which is that these successes are quickly being lost. The relief was temporary, and much of it has now expired. And so now we’re seeing poverty rise again.
But the third piece is kind of a silver lining in that we know what works now, you know, getting cash out to households directly, and so we know that families can be protected again, but it does require action at the federal level.
NERMEEN SHAIKH: And, Megan, can you talk specifically about the impact of this poverty on children? Two-and-a-half million children have been pushed into poverty since May. Is that right?
MEGAN CURRAN: Yeah. So, you know, the important thing to note is that child poverty in the U.S. even before the crisis hit was high and, you know, arguably much too high for as wealthy a nation as we are. You know, in the years coming up to it, even when the economy appeared strong, we had more than 13 million children living below the poverty line. And just to put that in context, we’re talking about trying to get by on about $28,000 a year for a family of four if you’re in sort of an average-cost city. And so, it’s not a generous level that we’re talking about, but so many children were already living below that number. And we have now seen yet another two-and-a-half million children fall below that income level just since May. And we know that also it’s not hitting all kids equally. The gap in poverty is stark between — for Black and Latino children, it’s two-and-a-half times higher than it is for whites, for white children. And so, we need to recognize that this was a problem beforehand, but it has been seriously exasperated — excuse me, it has been seriously magnified by this crisis.
NERMEEN SHAIKH: And, Megan, as you mentioned, Congress made the right decision early on in passing the CARES Act, which was the largest economic stimulus package in U.S. history, but there were a number of people who were excluded from the CARES Act. Could you talk about who was excluded and what the impact of that exclusion has been on them?
MEGAN CURRAN: Yeah, the CARES Act, in our analysis and other researchers who have been looking at this, is found to be, you know, so important and really temporarily successful for families that were able to receive it. But we know that, unfortunately, some, even though they were technically eligible, were at risk of not receiving it. There were about 12 million individuals identified who were at risk of maybe not receiving the stimulus check even though they were eligible for it. And that’s because they may not have filed taxes recently, because they have such low incomes that they were not required to do so, that it required a lot of extra steps and the onus on the families themselves to figure out that they actually needed to apply for it. That put them at risk for not receiving it.
But there were also a number of folks who were just explicitly left out of the legislation when it was passed. So, that ranged across a couple different population groups. We saw high school and college students left out of the stimulus checks. If they were over the age of 17 and still claimed as a dependents for tax purposes, which most of them were because they’re still in school, by their families, they were left out of the checks, right at the same time that they were facing rapidly increasing costs with having to switch to virtual learning overnight and all of these things. We know some — and that was about 10 million 17-to-24-year-olds across the country who were left out.
We know another 5 million older adults with serious health issues also were left out of the stimulus checks, again because they’re claimed as dependents. They can’t live alone, in many instances. They and their carers did not receive emergency assistance for them.
And one of the biggest populations that was excluded was children and adults in immigrant families. And about 15 million, it’s estimated, individuals in immigrant families were left out. And, you know, most of these kids would have been U.S. citizen children. But the exclusions were particularly harsh here, because if just one adult in the family did not have a Social Security number, no one in the family, regardless of citizenship status or green card status, were able to receive the payment. And so, that has huge applications for families in every state.
AMY GOODMAN: What should a new stimulus package look like? And we only have a minute, Megan Curran. I mean, you have, since the beginning of the pandemic, enormous wealth inequality. The wealth of U.S. billionaires has surged $931 billion. And yet, when you look at the number of people who have not only plunged into poverty, but hunger, how do you correct this? And we’ve seen also an enormous corporate bailout.
MEGAN CURRAN: Yeah, I think what we need to recognize is that we need to get more cash to families, and it needs to be accessible to as many families as possible, without exclusions, and it needs to be consistent. We know that another one-time check, while very welcome for many families, isn’t going to be enough. Continuing unemployment benefits, the $600 top-up weekly payments, along with the expansions that included those who are usually not covered, need to be continued. We need to get regular cash assistance on a monthly basis, if not more frequent, if possible, to families who are not covered by unemployment. And we need to make sure that there are other protections in place, increased access to food for kids. You know, you can increase the SNAP benefit levels. You can put in more housing protections so that there’s rent relief and protections against evictions. And basically, you just need to make sure that families know that they can count on this for the duration of the crisis, because we’re seeing, with continued unemployment claims and continued surges in cases, this crisis is not going away right now, and so the relief needs to be in place for as long as families need it.
AMY GOODMAN: Megan Curran, we want to thank you for being with us, at the Center on Poverty and Social Policy at Columbia University. We’ll link to your report on increasing poverty in the U.S. during the pandemic.
And a reminder: This Tuesday, November 3rd, election night, Democracy Now! will air a three-hour election night special from 9 p.m. Eastern to midnight. We’ll be covering results from the presidential election to congressional and state races, as well as ballot initiatives. You can watch it at democracynow.org, or you can ask your station to run it, as many are across the country.
That does it for our broadcast. Special thanks to Julie Crosby, Renée Feltz, Mike Burke, Deena Guzder, Libby Rainey, Nermeen Shaikh. I’m Amy Goodman, with Nermeen Shaikh. Thanks so much for joining us.
Tired of reading the same old news from the same old sources? So are we! That’s why we’re on a mission to shake things up and bring you the stories and perspectives that often go untold in mainstream media. But being a radically, unapologetically independent news site isn’t easy (or cheap), and we rely on reader support to keep the lights on.
If you like what you’re reading, please consider making a tax-deductible donation today. We’re not asking for a handout, we’re asking for an investment: Invest in a nonprofit news site that’s not afraid to ruffle a few feathers, not afraid to stand up for what’s right, and not afraid to tell it like it is.
This piece was reprinted by Truthout with permission or license. It may not be reproduced in any form without permission or license from the source.