truthout--2020-09-27--The Fate of Our Rights Won’t Be Determined by Barrett, But by Popular Struggle

After Mohsin Yafai became a naturalized U.S. citizen in 2001 , his wife , Zahoor Ahmed , a Yemeni citizen , applied for visas for herself and their children .
A consular officer at the Department of Homeland Security denied her visa application , claiming that they tried to “ smuggle two children ” into the U.S. Ahmed and Yafai provided documentation explaining that the names belonged to two of their children , who had tragically passed while waiting for their visas .
However , the government denied the visas again by simply citing the same statute , and Ahmed @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Seventh Circuit Court of Appeals dismissed their challenge last year in Yafai v. Pompeo .
The judge who wrote the decision had been appointed by President Donald Trump in 2017 — Amy Coney Barrett .
Barrett , who is now Trump ’ s nominee to replace the late Ruth Bader Ginsburg , is a darling of the religious right .
She joined other right-wing and religious academics to criticize the Obama administration ’ s contraception mandate under the Affordable Care Act as an “ assault on religious liberty.
” She is a member @ @ @ @ @ @ @ speaks regularly for them and other organizations like the Alliance Defending Freedom ( which opposes the freedom of transgender kids to use the bathroom corresponding to their gender identity ) .
In addition to Yafai , Barrett ’ s three years as a judge included dissenting in favor of upholding the Trump administration ’ s expanded “ public-charge ” immigration restriction , dismissing a lawsuit for violation of debt collection laws and denying an appeal of an asylum denial .
In the coming weeks , she will use her skills as an academic @ @ @ @ @ @ @ to questions from the Senate about her beliefs , using remarks such as these , which she delivered after Trump ’ s announcement on Saturday : “ A judge must apply the law as written .
Judges are not policymakers , and they must be resolute in setting aside any policy views they might hold.
” Barrett will use this idea of “ judicial impartiality ” as a shield from scrutiny .
Rather than speculating about her religious ties , asking about an article she wrote as a law student , or making @ @ @ @ @ @ @ loudly ” in her , we should focus on breaking that shield .
It won ’ t be easy — but for the same reason , it ’ s necessary , as it could convince ordinary people that the courts are immune to political pressure and protest .
This idea is not just used by scores of right-wing judges — including Barrett ’ s “ mentor , ” Antonin Scalia — to fend off criticism .
It has persuasive strength because it is upheld by both Democrats and Republicans , the legal bar @ @ @ @ @ @ @ of the Supreme Court .
Barrett will defend Yafai along these same lines .
Her opinion said the court would not even ask the government for more details on its boilerplate visa denial , under a doctrine called “ consular nonreviewability.
” The Supreme Court created this doctrine when it upheld the Chinese Exclusion Act and clarified it for the modern era when it upheld the Nixon administration ’ s denial of a visa to Ernest Mandel , a famous Belgian Marxist , who was invited to speak at various conferences in the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ whether this denial violated the First Amendment because the administration gave the “ facially legitimate and bona fide reason ” that , on a previous visa , Mandel had appeared at events not approved by the government .
The Seventh Circuit refused to review Ahmed ’ s visa denial , even though she provided evidence to refute the smuggling accusation , because Barrett and a fellow judge found that the repeated citation to the statute was “ facially legitimate and bona fide.
” Ahmed had no legal recourse even though the government apparently @ @ @ @ @ @ @ own children .
Was Barrett simply following her previous refrain that she would apply Supreme Court precedent as a circuit judge ?
Not according to the dissent , which said Mandel was not blanket approval for immigration officials to “ mak [ e ] visa decisions in a purely arbitrary way that affects the basic rights of American citizens.
” Moreover , Barrett openly went outside precedent to justify her decision .
In both of her opinions in the case ( the second denying Ahmed ’ s petition for a rehearing ) , @ @ @ @ @ @ @ by Justice Anthony Kennedy to argue that “ statutory citation alone suffices.
” That ’ s endorsement of an argument , not acceptance of precedent .
Take another example — Barrett ’ s dissent in Cook County v. Wolf , where the Seventh Circuit upheld a preliminary injunction against Trump ’ s expanded “ public-charge ” immigration restriction .
The restriction would have denied admission or a green card to many immigrants who the government believed would receive public benefits .
The majority said the restriction violated federal laws , such as those @ @ @ @ @ @ @ arguing that while “ critics of the ‘ public charge ’ definition characterize it as too harsh … the same can be said ” of the underlying immigration and welfare statutes which supposedly justified it .
She concludes : “ At bottom , the plaintiffs ’ objections reflect disagreement with this policy choice and even the statutory exclusion itself .
Litigation is not the vehicle for resolving policy disputes.
” Sound familiar ?
At first blush , it sounds reasonable — do we really want unelected judges , instead of our elected representatives @ @ @ @ @ @ @ is that those representatives are hardly “ ours ” or even fairly “ elected.
” Wealthy people like Barrett may feel well-represented in the halls of Congress , but most people do not .
An “ impartial ” judge who fails to see that distinction will deny judicial remedies for disenfranchised and oppressed people , putting them in a double bind .
That ’ s why this idea , this shield that Barrett will try to use , must be broken .
Whether as a lie ( when used cynically ) or fanaticism @ @ @ @ @ @ @ idea of judicial impartiality persists despite centuries of the courts , stacked with rich , white men , upholding slavery , Jim Crow , mass incarceration and police violence , the execution of kids , internment of Japanese-American citizens , treatment of women as property , sterilization of intellectually disabled people , and every other atrocity imaginable .
It ’ s why organizations like the ACLU will likely not take a formal position on Barrett ’ s nomination and why liberal advocates regularly bite their tongues at oral arguments and call Brett Kavanaugh @ @ @ @ @ @ @ the real danger of the lie of judicial impartiality is that many people may simply watch the Barrett confirmation hearings and hope that Democrats or “ moderate ” Republicans will do something meaningful for once , and that if Barrett is confirmed , they may then resign themselves to the rightward drift of the Supreme Court .
History shows that mass resignation is not inevitable .
Roe v. Wade is the law of the land because of the women ’ s liberation movement , which was racking up victories in states across the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ 70 ’ s .
The movement ’ s influence was so great that of the four justices appointed by Nixon to the Supreme Court , one of them wrote Roe itself , and two of them joined the majority !
That ’ s not to say we should expect the same of Barrett and her ilk .
Our situation may end up being closer to a different historical episode , when the Supreme Court , facing the greatest strike wave in U.S. history and an unprecedented threat to “ pack the court ” @ @ @ @ @ @ @ history , threw out decades of judicial doctrine and upheld federal labor rights legislation during the Great Depression .
People will have to figure out the tactics and strategies that fit the unique dynamics today .
But to begin that process , we first have to reject the lie — not just from Barrett , but across the legal establishment — that judges are impartial and the courts are apolitical .
Shaping the law of the land is within the grasp of ordinary people , and it ’ s time for us to @ @ @ @ @ @ @

After Mohsin Yafai became a naturalized U.S. citizen in 2001, his wife, Zahoor Ahmed, a Yemeni citizen, applied for visas for herself and their children. A consular officer at the Department of Homeland Security denied her visa application, claiming that they tried to “smuggle two children” into the U.S. Ahmed and Yafai provided documentation explaining that the names belonged to two of their children, who had tragically passed while waiting for their visas. However, the government denied the visas again by simply citing the same statute, and Ahmed and Yafai filed a lawsuit. The Seventh Circuit Court of Appeals dismissed their challenge last year in Yafai v. Pompeo. The judge who wrote the decision had been appointed by President Donald Trump in 2017 — Amy Coney Barrett.
Barrett, who is now Trump’s nominee to replace the late Ruth Bader Ginsburg, is a darling of the religious right. She joined other right-wing and religious academics to criticize the Obama administration’s contraception mandate under the Affordable Care Act as an “assault on religious liberty.” She is a member of the conservative Federalist Society, and speaks regularly for them and other organizations like the Alliance Defending Freedom (which opposes the freedom of transgender kids to use the bathroom corresponding to their gender identity). In addition to Yafai, Barrett’s three years as a judge included dissenting in favor of upholding the Trump administration’s expanded “public-charge” immigration restriction, dismissing a lawsuit for violation of debt collection laws and denying an appeal of an asylum denial. In the coming weeks, she will use her skills as an academic and lawyer to dodge and give non-answers to questions from the Senate about her beliefs, using remarks such as these, which she delivered after Trump’s announcement on Saturday: “A judge must apply the law as written. Judges are not policymakers, and they must be resolute in setting aside any policy views they might hold.”
Barrett will use this idea of “judicial impartiality” as a shield from scrutiny. Rather than speculating about her religious ties, asking about an article she wrote as a law student, or making weird accusations that “the dogma lives loudly” in her, we should focus on breaking that shield. It won’t be easy — but for the same reason, it’s necessary, as it could convince ordinary people that the courts are immune to political pressure and protest. This idea is not just used by scores of right-wing judges — including Barrett’s “mentor,” Antonin Scalia — to fend off criticism. It has persuasive strength because it is upheld by both Democrats and Republicans, the legal bar, and of course, all members of the Supreme Court.
Barrett will defend Yafai along these same lines. Her opinion said the court would not even ask the government for more details on its boilerplate visa denial, under a doctrine called “consular nonreviewability.” The Supreme Court created this doctrine when it upheld the Chinese Exclusion Act and clarified it for the modern era when it upheld the Nixon administration’s denial of a visa to Ernest Mandel, a famous Belgian Marxist, who was invited to speak at various conferences in the U.S. The Court refused to review whether this denial violated the First Amendment because the administration gave the “facially legitimate and bona fide reason” that, on a previous visa, Mandel had appeared at events not approved by the government. The Seventh Circuit refused to review Ahmed’s visa denial, even though she provided evidence to refute the smuggling accusation, because Barrett and a fellow judge found that the repeated citation to the statute was “facially legitimate and bona fide.” Ahmed had no legal recourse even though the government apparently refused to consider her documentation of her own children.
Was Barrett simply following her previous refrain that she would apply Supreme Court precedent as a circuit judge? Not according to the dissent, which said Mandel was not blanket approval for immigration officials to “mak[e] visa decisions in a purely arbitrary way that affects the basic rights of American citizens.” Moreover, Barrett openly went outside precedent to justify her decision. In both of her opinions in the case (the second denying Ahmed’s petition for a rehearing), Barrett cites a concurring, nonbinding opinion by Justice Anthony Kennedy to argue that “statutory citation alone suffices.” That’s endorsement of an argument, not acceptance of precedent.
Take another example — Barrett’s dissent in Cook County v. Wolf, where the Seventh Circuit upheld a preliminary injunction against Trump’s expanded “public-charge” immigration restriction. The restriction would have denied admission or a green card to many immigrants who the government believed would receive public benefits. The majority said the restriction violated federal laws, such as those protecting disabled people. Barrett disagreed, arguing that while “critics of the ‘public charge’ definition characterize it as too harsh … the same can be said” of the underlying immigration and welfare statutes which supposedly justified it. She concludes: “At bottom, the plaintiffs’ objections reflect disagreement with this policy choice and even the statutory exclusion itself. Litigation is not the vehicle for resolving policy disputes.”
Sound familiar? At first blush, it sounds reasonable — do we really want unelected judges, instead of our elected representatives, deciding national policy? The problem is that those representatives are hardly “ours” or even fairly “elected.” Wealthy people like Barrett may feel well-represented in the halls of Congress, but most people do not. An “impartial” judge who fails to see that distinction will deny judicial remedies for disenfranchised and oppressed people, putting them in a double bind. That’s why this idea, this shield that Barrett will try to use, must be broken.
Whether as a lie (when used cynically) or fanaticism (when truly believed), the idea of judicial impartiality persists despite centuries of the courts, stacked with rich, white men, upholding slavery, Jim Crow, mass incarceration and police violence, the execution of kids, internment of Japanese-American citizens, treatment of women as property, sterilization of intellectually disabled people, and every other atrocity imaginable. It’s why organizations like the ACLU will likely not take a formal position on Barrett’s nomination and why liberal advocates regularly bite their tongues at oral arguments and call Brett Kavanaugh “Justice.” Beyond misguided decorum, the real danger of the lie of judicial impartiality is that many people may simply watch the Barrett confirmation hearings and hope that Democrats or “moderate” Republicans will do something meaningful for once, and that if Barrett is confirmed, they may then resign themselves to the rightward drift of the Supreme Court.
History shows that mass resignation is not inevitable. Roe v. Wade is the law of the land because of the women’s liberation movement, which was racking up victories in states across the country throughout the 60’s and 70’s. The movement’s influence was so great that of the four justices appointed by Nixon to the Supreme Court, one of them wrote Roe itself, and two of them joined the majority!
That’s not to say we should expect the same of Barrett and her ilk. Our situation may end up being closer to a different historical episode, when the Supreme Court, facing the greatest strike wave in U.S. history and an unprecedented threat to “pack the court” from the most popular president in U.S. history, threw out decades of judicial doctrine and upheld federal labor rights legislation during the Great Depression.
People will have to figure out the tactics and strategies that fit the unique dynamics today. But to begin that process, we first have to reject the lie — not just from Barrett, but across the legal establishment — that judges are impartial and the courts are apolitical. Shaping the law of the land is within the grasp of ordinary people, and it’s time for us to close that hand into a fist.
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--2020-09-27--WHO Warns We Are On Our Way to Surpassing Two Million COVID-19 Deaths Worldwide

If world leaders don ’ t act to slow the spread of COVID-19 , the global death toll from the virus could top two million before a successful vaccine is circulated , the World Health Organization warned Friday .
“ It ’ s certainly unimaginable , but it ’ s not impossible , ” Dr. Mike Ryan , executive director of WHO ’ s health emergencies program , said at a press briefing .
Worldwide , Johns Hopkins University reported 32,381,243 coronavirus cases and 985,104 deaths , as of Friday .
In the United States number of Covid-19 infections has @ @ @ @ @ @ @ the U.S. body count exceeds 200,000 .
According to reporting from Axios Thursday , Covid-19 cases are on the rise in 22 states , with the U.S. averaging 43,000 new cases per day , a 16 % increase over last week ’ s numbers .
“ There isn ’ t one big event or sudden occurrence that explains this increase , ” reporters Sam Baker and Andrew Witherspoon wrote for Axios .
“ We simply have never done a very good job containing the virus , despite losing 200,000 lives in just the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ what that persistent failure looks like.
” European countries are also seeing a surge in Covid-19 cases , with the United Kingdom and France posting the most daily cases they ’ ve had since the start of the pandemic .
While world leaders continue to pin hopes on a coronavirus vaccine , the United States , China , and Russia have not signed on to a global effort , the Covid-19 Vaccines Global Access Facility ( COVAX ) , a program co-led by WHO “ in which richer countries agree to buy into @ @ @ @ @ @ @ poorer ones , ” as Common Dreams reported Thursday .
CNBC reported Friday that 159 countries have so far committed to the effort .
But , public health experts cautioned , a vaccine will not mean the end of Covid-19 .
Dr. Anthony Fauci , director of the National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases , told Today Friday , “ When the vaccine comes , we look at it as an important tool to supplement the public health measures that we do.
” “ It will allow us to more quickly and @ @ @ @ @ @ @ some degree of normal but it is not going to eliminate the need to be prudent and careful with our public health measures , ” Fauci added .
“ Whether another million people die of Covid-19 is not a function of whether or not we have a vaccine , ” Aylward said , in reporting from CNBC .
“ It ’ s a function of whether or not we put the tools , approaches , and knowledge we have today to work to save lives and prevent transmission.
” Those tools include public @ @ @ @ @ @ @ have been inconsistent .
Watchdogs and lawmakers have accused President Donald Trump of influencing Centers for Disease Control recommendations regarding Covid-19 , yet Trump gave himself an “ A+ ” on his administration ’ s pandemic response .
After deaths from coronavirus in the U.S. surpassed 200,000 this week , Trump falsely told a rally crowd , “ It affects virtually nobody.
” Since the start of the pandemic , congressional lawmakers and government watchdogs have denounced the Trump administration ’ s lack of coherent response to the pandemic , criticism that continued @ @ @ @ @ @ @ died from Covid-19 than in the Korean , Vietnam , Iraq , Afghanistan , and Persian Gulf Wars combined , Rep. Ro Khanna ( D-Calif. ) tweeted , “ This grim milestone could have been avoided .
Trump ’ s failed leadership has cost lives.
” At the WHO press breifing Friday , Ryan noted two million deaths from coronavirus is preventable , but only if global citizens take the measures public health officials recommend—like social distancing and mask-wearing—seriously .
“ The real question is : Are we prepared , collectively , to @ @ @ @ @ @ @ number ?
” Ryan said .

Coordinated global action is needed to prevent the death rate from climbing further before a vaccine is ready.
If world leaders don’t act to slow the spread of COVID-19, the global death toll from the virus could top two million before a successful vaccine is circulated, the World Health Organization warned Friday.
“It’s certainly unimaginable, but it’s not impossible,” Dr. Mike Ryan, executive director of WHO’s health emergencies program, said at a press briefing.
Worldwide, Johns Hopkins University reported 32,381,243 coronavirus cases and 985,104 deaths, as of Friday. In the United States number of Covid-19 infections has reached the seven million mark, and the U.S. body count exceeds 200,000.
According to reporting from Axios Thursday, Covid-19 cases are on the rise in 22 states, with the U.S. averaging 43,000 new cases per day, a 16% increase over last week’s numbers.
“There isn’t one big event or sudden occurrence that explains this increase,” reporters Sam Baker and Andrew Witherspoon wrote for Axios. “We simply have never done a very good job containing the virus, despite losing 200,000 lives in just the past six months, and this is what that persistent failure looks like.”
European countries are also seeing a surge in Covid-19 cases, with the United Kingdom and France posting the most daily cases they’ve had since the start of the pandemic.
While world leaders continue to pin hopes on a coronavirus vaccine, the United States, China, and Russia have not signed on to a global effort, the Covid-19 Vaccines Global Access Facility (COVAX), a program co-led by WHO “in which richer countries agree to buy into potential vaccines and help finance access for poorer ones,” as Common Dreams reported Thursday. CNBC reported Friday that 159 countries have so far committed to the effort.
But, public health experts cautioned, a vaccine will not mean the end of Covid-19.
Dr. Anthony Fauci, director of the National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases, told Today Friday, “When the vaccine comes, we look at it as an important tool to supplement the public health measures that we do.”
“It will allow us to more quickly and with less stringency to get back to some degree of normal but it is not going to eliminate the need to be prudent and careful with our public health measures,” Fauci added.
Dr. Bruce Aylward, a senior advisor to WHO’s director-general, echoed the U.S.’s top infectious disease specialist Friday.
“Whether another million people die of Covid-19 is not a function of whether or not we have a vaccine,” Aylward said, in reporting from CNBC. “It’s a function of whether or not we put the tools, approaches, and knowledge we have today to work to save lives and prevent transmission.”
Those tools include public health guidelines, which in the U.S. have been inconsistent. Watchdogs and lawmakers have accused President Donald Trump of influencing Centers for Disease Control recommendations regarding Covid-19, yet Trump gave himself an “A+” on his administration’s pandemic response.
After deaths from coronavirus in the U.S. surpassed 200,000 this week, Trump falsely told a rally crowd, “It affects virtually nobody.”
Since the start of the pandemic, congressional lawmakers and government watchdogs have denounced the Trump administration’s lack of coherent response to the pandemic, criticism that continued this week. Noting more Americans have died from Covid-19 than in the Korean, Vietnam, Iraq, Afghanistan, and Persian Gulf Wars combined, Rep. Ro Khanna (D-Calif.) tweeted, “This grim milestone could have been avoided. Trump’s failed leadership has cost lives.”
At the WHO press breifing Friday, Ryan noted two million deaths from coronavirus is preventable, but only if global citizens take the measures public health officials recommend—like social distancing and mask-wearing—seriously.
“The real question is: Are we prepared, collectively, to do what it takes to avoid that number?” Ryan said.
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.


truthout--2020-09-27--The First 2020 Presidential Debate Needs to Address Wealth and Income Inequality

White House that muses openly about not counting votes .
A Senate rushing to cement in place a fiercely conservative Supreme Court .
We have plenty of reasons these days to despair for our democracy .
The Commission on Presidential Debates has just added another .
This independent blue-ribbon panel has produced every presidential debate since 1988 .
The 2020 debate series will launch this coming Tuesday , and the Commission has now announced the six topics that will each get 15 minutes at the initial square-off between Donald Trump and Joe Biden .
Those six topics , as selected @ @ @ @ @ @ @ ’ s moderator : the Trump and Biden records , the Supreme Court , Covid-19 , the economy , race and violence in our cities , and the integrity of the election .
This imprecise jumble of broad categories and specific issues makes little logical sense .
Are we talking here about “ race ” or “ racism ” ?
Can a question about the “ economy ” come up in the 15 minutes devoted to “ the Trump and Biden records ” ?
And how can a topic list for a presidential @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Coast skies turned red — not make any reference to climate change ?
The Commission claims to be looking “ forward to bringing high-quality , educational debates to the electorate ” in 2020 .
Tuesday ’ s debate will bring us nothing of the sort .
We will get instead an exercise that reveals the emptiness of our contemporary democratic dialogue .
We simply do not have the capacity to seriously confront , let alone solve , the real challenges we as a society face .
We seem structured to fail .
And @ @ @ @ @ @ @ absent from Tuesday ’ s topic list : our staggering maldistribution of income and wealth .
Tuesday ’ s debate will almost certainly come and go without any serious discussion of how economically unequal we have become as a nation .
In these days of despair over the state of our democracy , we desperately need that discussion .
A deeply unequal society can never be a vibrant , healthy democracy .
At its most basic , after all , the ideal of democracy rests on the notion that we all come out @ @ @ @ @ @ @ freely discuss and debate the common problems they face .
But in deeply unequal societies people don ’ t share common problems .
They live in separate worlds .
In one world , the world of the vast majority , people struggle day in and day out for economic security .
In the other world , the universe of the awesomely affluent , deep pockets face an entirely different set of challenges — and their wealth ensures that their challenges get priority attention .
We end up with a broken democracy that afflicts @ @ @ @ @ @ @ that lets working people die in Louisiana ’ s Cancer Alley and cuts taxes for the chemical industry movers and shakers whose plants keep spewing chemical killers .
We end up with a society that lets the fortunes of billionaires soar while truly essential workers can never be sure whether this will be the day they catch Covid .
We end up with legions of desperate people that demagogues can demonize .
The despair over all this can get overwhelming .
So let ’ s escape for a moment into a daydream .
@ @ @ @ @ @ @ Commission on Presidential Debates that did want to foster a “ high-quality , educational ” dialogue on questions that really matter , questions , for instance , about the distribution of the wealth our society creates .
Would the American people welcome those questions ?
You bet they would .
The latest indication comes from polling that Data for Progress has been conducting this past summer in 11 states , among them key Election 2020 battlegrounds like Arizona , North Carolina , and Iowa .
Overall , the poll found that 61 percent @ @ @ @ @ @ @ “ more likely ” to vote for Senate candidates who support placing a 2 percent wealth tax “ on the assets of individuals with a net worth over $ 50 million.
” Even 51 percent of Republican voters in these states say they would be more likely to support candidates so inclined .
Only 33 percent of Republicans say that such support would sour them on a candidate .
Meanwhile , adds the new Data for Progress poll , less than 27 percent of voters want the existing tax system to remain in @ @ @ @ @ @ @ , would be eager to see candidates debate whether we ought to be shearing our grand private fortunes down to democratic size .
The grand pooh-bahs who run the Commission on Presidential Debates have no particular interest in fostering a debate of this sort .
We should .
The future of our democracy may well hang on the questions we get our body politic to start asking .

In these days of despair over democracy, we desperately need to discuss how economically unequal we have become.
White House that muses openly about not counting votes. A Senate rushing to cement in place a fiercely conservative Supreme Court. We have plenty of reasons these days to despair for our democracy. The Commission on Presidential Debates has just added another.
This independent blue-ribbon panel has produced every presidential debate since 1988. The 2020 debate series will launch this coming Tuesday, and the Commission has now announced the six topics that will each get 15 minutes at the initial square-off between Donald Trump and Joe Biden.
Those six topics, as selected by Chris Wallace, the first debate’s moderator: the Trump and Biden records, the Supreme Court, Covid-19, the economy, race and violence in our cities, and the integrity of the election.
This imprecise jumble of broad categories and specific issues makes little logical sense. Are we talking here about “race” or “racism”? Can a question about the “economy” come up in the 15 minutes devoted to “the Trump and Biden records”? And how can a topic list for a presidential debate in 2020 — the year West Coast skies turned red — not make any reference to climate change?
The Commission claims to be looking “forward to bringing high-quality, educational debates to the electorate” in 2020. Tuesday’s debate will bring us nothing of the sort. We will get instead an exercise that reveals the emptiness of our contemporary democratic dialogue. We simply do not have the capacity to seriously confront, let alone solve, the real challenges we as a society face. We seem structured to fail.
And that brings us to another massive concern absent from Tuesday’s topic list: our staggering maldistribution of income and wealth. Tuesday’s debate will almost certainly come and go without any serious discussion of how economically unequal we have become as a nation. In these days of despair over the state of our democracy, we desperately need that discussion. A deeply unequal society can never be a vibrant, healthy democracy.
At its most basic, after all, the ideal of democracy rests on the notion that we all come out ahead when people can get together and freely discuss and debate the common problems they face. But in deeply unequal societies people don’t share common problems. They live in separate worlds.
In one world, the world of the vast majority, people struggle day in and day out for economic security. In the other world, the universe of the awesomely affluent, deep pockets face an entirely different set of challenges — and their wealth ensures that their challenges get priority attention.
We end up with a broken democracy that afflicts the afflicted and comforts the comfortable, that lets working people die in Louisiana’s Cancer Alley and cuts taxes for the chemical industry movers and shakers whose plants keep spewing chemical killers. We end up with a society that lets the fortunes of billionaires soar while truly essential workers can never be sure whether this will be the day they catch Covid. We end up with legions of desperate people that demagogues can demonize.
The despair over all this can get overwhelming. So let’s escape for a moment into a daydream. Let’s imagine we had a Commission on Presidential Debates that did want to foster a “high-quality, educational” dialogue on questions that really matter, questions, for instance, about the distribution of the wealth our society creates. Would the American people welcome those questions?
You bet they would. The latest indication comes from polling that Data for Progress has been conducting this past summer in 11 states, among them key Election 2020 battlegrounds like Arizona, North Carolina, and Iowa. Overall, the poll found that 61 percent of voters in these states would be “more likely” to vote for Senate candidates who support placing a 2 percent wealth tax “on the assets of individuals with a net worth over $50 million.”
Even 51 percent of Republican voters in these states say they would be more likely to support candidates so inclined. Only 33 percent of Republicans say that such support would sour them on a candidate.
Meanwhile, adds the new Data for Progress poll, less than 27 percent of voters want the existing tax system to remain in place. Americans, in other words, would be eager to see candidates debate whether we ought to be shearing our grand private fortunes down to democratic size.
The grand pooh-bahs who run the Commission on Presidential Debates have no particular interest in fostering a debate of this sort. We should. The future of our democracy may well hang on the questions we get our body politic to start asking.
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.


truthout--2020-09-27--What Does Equitable Climate Policy Actually Look Like?

Back in March , when the pandemic had just planted its roots in the U.S. , President Donald Trump directed the Environmental Protection Agency ( EPA ) to do something devastating : The agency was to indefinitely and cruelly suspend environmental rule enforcement .
The EPA complied , and for just under half a year , it provided over 3,000 waivers that granted facilities clemency from state-level environmental rule compliance .
These rule suspensions ended last month , but they almost undoubtedly caused an increase in pollution rates , as one preliminary study already found .
What ’ s worse @ @ @ @ @ @ @ know the full extent of the damage , as the agency also suspended rules for self-monitoring ( and even before the pandemic monitoring was already limited ) .
Analysts at the Environmental Data and Governance Initiative found that , in March and April , industrial polluters conducted 40 percent fewer tests compared to the same time in 2019 , according to self-reported data .
In a country where pollution impacts are disproportionately impactful , the suspension of pollution rules in the middle of a respiratory illness outbreak is unconscionable — several studies have @ @ @ @ @ @ @ to higher rates of death due to COVID-19 .
But , given the stark differences between racial groups when it comes to pollution exposure and effects , the temporary policy is downright racist .
A 2018 study from the EPA itself found that , respectively , Black and Latinx communities were exposed to 1.5 and 1.2 times more particulate matter , a pollutant that can cause damage to the respiratory system , than white communities .
Another study published in the New England Journal of Medicine in 2017 found that Black people were @ @ @ @ @ @ @ exposure to particulate matter than the overall population .
Under Trump , federal climate policy has only become less and less stringent — The New York Times has documented 100 environmental rollbacks thus far .
Such rollbacks are bad news for everyone , but they ’ re especially harmful for Black and minority communities , which have borne the brunt of pollution for decades .
The fact that Black and brown people suffer most under environmental degradation is not news .
But the dilemmas remain in the environmental justice community as they have @ @ @ @ @ @ @ lessen the climate burden on Black and oppressed communities ?
How can we achieve equitable and drastic emissions reductions and transform our entire economy before the window of opportunity to prevent irreversible climate change closes ?
For decades , one of the only legal tools available to an environmental justice advocate was the National Environmental Policy Act , or NEPA , was written in the late 1960s in response to historical disasters like oil spills and injustices like the destruction of poor neighborhoods to build highways .
Over the years , NEPA has @ @ @ @ @ @ @ to lessen or prevent environmental impacts of federal projects — in 2018 , a judge cited NEPA when they blocked the Trump administration ’ s attempt to fast-track the Keystone XL pipeline .
While NEPA has helped countless communities in protecting against potentially harmful impacts , however , it also has major limitations .
Though NEPA forces agencies to consider the potential impacts of a project , it doesn ’ t require stopping or even mitigating those impacts .
This is partially what has allowed polluters to choke out disproportionately Black communities like @ @ @ @ @ @ @ and New York City ’ s “ Asthma Alley ” in the past decades .
Early this year , the Trump administration radically rewrote NEPA so that it would give more power to polluters , limiting public input on projects and eliminating the consideration of cumulative impacts .
“ A big challenge is the way that NEPA intersects with other racist policies like redlining and things that existed prior to NEPA , ” says Sally Hardin , who formerly worked on the council that oversees NEPA and is the interim director on energy @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Progress ( CAP ) .
While NEPA is a tool that communities can use to challenge projects such as the construction of a new oil refinery , the process requires time and resources that many can ’ t afford ; poor neighborhoods that can ’ t afford to hire lawyers to review legalese or where citizens don ’ t have time to show up to public hearings are more likely to find themselves with a new refinery than a wealthy neighborhood .
When communities do have the time and resources to oppose a @ @ @ @ @ @ @ a different way to get around them .
Legislators in Louisiana , for instance , who often receive financial incentives from oil and gas companies and chemical manufacturers , have attempted to outlaw protests against these projects .
So , while environmental advocates can use NEPA as a tool to further justice , entrenched racial and class disparities in the U.S. will be extremely difficult to undo , no matter the policy or politician .
To Peggy Shepard , the executive director of WE ACT for Environmental Justice , the problem presents itself @ @ @ @ @ @ @ equation .
Part of the issue , Shepard says , lies in permitting .
“ You could have numbers of facilities emitting air toxins , numbers of facilities impacting water quality , facilities impacting soil contamination , a number of waste transfer facilities all in one community , ” says Shepard .
“ And because you ’ re only permitting [ pollution type by pollution type ] , you would say , ‘ Well , we ’ ve got one waste transfer station and it ’ s okay , it ’ s in @ @ @ @ @ @ @ when you ’ ve got water contamination , soil contamination , air quality , toxins ?
What ’ s that soup ?
” Yet another issue lies in unequal enforcement of certain laws , especially along financial lines — a 2009 study found that agencies did not enforce crucial pollution laws in poor counties as much as richer counties .
And , in some ways , unequal enforcement can be built into the laws themselves .
For instance , as Climate and Energy Policy director at the Union of Concerned Scientists Rachel Cleetus @ @ @ @ @ @ @ allocates resources for defensive measures for such events as flooding using a cost-benefit analysis .
That analysis benefits richer communities because the market value of the property being lost is higher .
“ There are lots of ways in which you can have neutral-sounding laws , but if you don ’ t get out some of these underlying things and specifically target resources to set them right in some way , you ’ re gon na end up with skewed outcomes , ” says Cleetus .
In Congress , some legislators are working @ @ @ @ @ @ @ a federal level .
Last month , Rep. Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez ( D-New York ) and Sen. Kamala Harris ( D-California ) introduced the Climate Equity Act , which would introduce the Office of Climate and Environmental Justice Accountability within the Office of Management and Budget and require relevant agencies to appoint a director of environmental justice .
It would also require environmental legislation to come with an “ equity score ” that rates the impact of the legislation on frontline and poor communities .
“ The difficulty [ with the equity score ] @ @ @ @ @ @ @ be and how ( and that definition should ABSOLUTELY be created by , and with , the impacted communities themselves ) , ” says Hardin in an email to Truthout .
The Climate Equity Act was crafted from advice from environmental justice coalitions , and though the bill likely won ’ t pass soon , coalitions and communities most impacted must have a say in the process .
Though there are many hurdles to yet to clear , environmental justice movements have been making big moves across the country in the past few @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Just National Climate Platform and the Environmental Justice for All Act have gained momentum among Democrats ; and local groups are getting the attention of politicians to address some of the largest hurdles — permitting , unfair lawmaking and gaining grassroots political power .
Last week , Gov .
Phil Murphy ( D-New Jersey ) signed an environmental justice law unlike any other in the country : Despite powerful industry opposition that stalled the bill for years , the new state law will require permits for projects like power plants and landfills to @ @ @ @ @ @ @ cited in an already overburdened neighborhood .
Other states require agencies to merely consider cumulative impacts in the permitting process with no mandate to act on that consideration — formerly , NEPA required all government-funded projects to consider cumulative impacts , but the Trump administration , in its gutting of NEPA this year , rolled that rule back .
The bill was passed due to the tireless work of grassroots activists and environmental justice groups — Ironbound Community Corporation , New Jersey Environmental Justice Alliance and Clean Water Action — who fought chemical @ @ @ @ @ @ @ s administration to push the bill through .
Grassroots and activist groups have helped Joe Biden better his climate platform , too , as he unveiled a new plan in July — his environmental justice plan is surprisingly good for candidate whose climate plan as a whole got an “ F ” from the Sunrise Movement last year .
The plan includes creating and elevating climate justice divisions in the federal government and the White House , mandate pollution monitoring in frontline communities — which is currently notoriously terrible — and spend 40 @ @ @ @ @ @ @ climate plan on disadvantaged communities .
Several of the initiatives outlined in Biden ’ s plan are extensions of what the Obama administration already got started — expanding the EPA ’ s EJSCREEN tool that identifies environmental justice hotspots , for instance .
This is progress that should have been made years ago — and progress that could have been made under a different administration .
But Trump has reversed much of the progress on climate that the country has made not only since the Obama administration , but also from decades ago @ @ @ @ @ @ @ justice at the EPA .
From here , as the climate crisis rages on , progress will be ever more vital to make .
And , despite Biden ’ s progress in climate over the course of the election , climate activists have their work cut out for them – no matter who ’ s in office come January .

Part of the Series Covering Climate Now
This story is part of Covering Climate Now , a global journalism collaboration strengthening coverage of the climate story.
Back in March, when the pandemic had just planted its roots in the U.S., President Donald Trump directed the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) to do something devastating: The agency was to indefinitely and cruelly suspend environmental rule enforcement. The EPA complied, and for just under half a year, it provided over 3,000 waivers that granted facilities clemency from state-level environmental rule compliance.
These rule suspensions ended last month, but they almost undoubtedly caused an increase in pollution rates, as one preliminary study already found. What’s worse is that we’ll likely never know the full extent of the damage, as the agency also suspended rules for self-monitoring (and even before the pandemic monitoring was already limited). Analysts at the Environmental Data and Governance Initiative found that, in March and April, industrial polluters conducted 40 percent fewer tests compared to the same time in 2019, according to self-reported data.
In a country where pollution impacts are disproportionately impactful, the suspension of pollution rules in the middle of a respiratory illness outbreak is unconscionable — several studies have found that higher pollution exposure can lead to higher rates of death due to COVID-19.
But, given the stark differences between racial groups when it comes to pollution exposure and effects, the temporary policy is downright racist. A 2018 study from the EPA itself found that, respectively, Black and Latinx communities were exposed to 1.5 and 1.2 times more particulate matter, a pollutant that can cause damage to the respiratory system, than white communities. Another study published in the New England Journal of Medicine in 2017 found that Black people were three times more likely to die from exposure to particulate matter than the overall population.
Under Trump, federal climate policy has only become less and less stringent — The New York Times has documented 100 environmental rollbacks thus far. Such rollbacks are bad news for everyone, but they’re especially harmful for Black and minority communities, which have borne the brunt of pollution for decades.
The fact that Black and brown people suffer most under environmental degradation is not news. But the dilemmas remain in the environmental justice community as they have for many years: How do we lessen the climate burden on Black and oppressed communities? How can we achieve equitable and drastic emissions reductions and transform our entire economy before the window of opportunity to prevent irreversible climate change closes?
For decades, one of the only legal tools available to an environmental justice advocate was the National Environmental Policy Act, or NEPA, was written in the late 1960s in response to historical disasters like oil spills and injustices like the destruction of poor neighborhoods to build highways. Over the years, NEPA has been an extraordinary useful framework for communities to lessen or prevent environmental impacts of federal projects — in 2018, a judge cited NEPA when they blocked the Trump administration’s attempt to fast-track the Keystone XL pipeline.
While NEPA has helped countless communities in protecting against potentially harmful impacts, however, it also has major limitations. Though NEPA forces agencies to consider the potential impacts of a project, it doesn’t require stopping or even mitigating those impacts. This is partially what has allowed polluters to choke out disproportionately Black communities like Louisiana’s “Cancer Alley” and New York City’s “Asthma Alley” in the past decades. Early this year, the Trump administration radically rewrote NEPA so that it would give more power to polluters, limiting public input on projects and eliminating the consideration of cumulative impacts.
“A big challenge is the way that NEPA intersects with other racist policies like redlining and things that existed prior to NEPA,” says Sally Hardin, who formerly worked on the council that oversees NEPA and is the interim director on energy and environment at the Center for American Progress (CAP). While NEPA is a tool that communities can use to challenge projects such as the construction of a new oil refinery, the process requires time and resources that many can’t afford; poor neighborhoods that can’t afford to hire lawyers to review legalese or where citizens don’t have time to show up to public hearings are more likely to find themselves with a new refinery than a wealthy neighborhood.
When communities do have the time and resources to oppose a project, though, states will find a different way to get around them. Legislators in Louisiana, for instance, who often receive financial incentives from oil and gas companies and chemical manufacturers, have attempted to outlaw protests against these projects.
So, while environmental advocates can use NEPA as a tool to further justice, entrenched racial and class disparities in the U.S. will be extremely difficult to undo, no matter the policy or politician. To Peggy Shepard, the executive director of WE ACT for Environmental Justice, the problem presents itself before NEPA can even come into the equation. Part of the issue, Shepard says, lies in permitting.
“You could have numbers of facilities emitting air toxins, numbers of facilities impacting water quality, facilities impacting soil contamination, a number of waste transfer facilities all in one community,” says Shepard. “And because you’re only permitting [pollution type by pollution type], you would say, ‘Well, we’ve got one waste transfer station and it’s okay, it’s in compliance.’ But what does it do when you’ve got water contamination, soil contamination, air quality, toxins? What’s that soup?”
Yet another issue lies in unequal enforcement of certain laws, especially along financial lines — a 2009 study found that agencies did not enforce crucial pollution laws in poor counties as much as richer counties.
And, in some ways, unequal enforcement can be built into the laws themselves. For instance, as Climate and Energy Policy director at the Union of Concerned Scientists Rachel Cleetus raises, the Army Corps determines and allocates resources for defensive measures for such events as flooding using a cost-benefit analysis. That analysis benefits richer communities because the market value of the property being lost is higher.
“There are lots of ways in which you can have neutral-sounding laws, but if you don’t get out some of these underlying things and specifically target resources to set them right in some way, you’re gonna end up with skewed outcomes,” says Cleetus.
In Congress, some legislators are working to solve some of these problems at a federal level. Last month, Rep. Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez (D-New York) and Sen. Kamala Harris (D-California) introduced the Climate Equity Act, which would introduce the Office of Climate and Environmental Justice Accountability within the Office of Management and Budget and require relevant agencies to appoint a director of environmental justice. It would also require environmental legislation to come with an “equity score” that rates the impact of the legislation on frontline and poor communities.
“The difficulty [with the equity score] comes in defining who those communities should be and how (and that definition should ABSOLUTELY be created by, and with, the impacted communities themselves),” says Hardin in an email to Truthout. The Climate Equity Act was crafted from advice from environmental justice coalitions, and though the bill likely won’t pass soon, coalitions and communities most impacted must have a say in the process.
Though there are many hurdles to yet to clear, environmental justice movements have been making big moves across the country in the past few years. Initiatives like the Equitable and Just National Climate Platform and the Environmental Justice for All Act have gained momentum among Democrats; and local groups are getting the attention of politicians to address some of the largest hurdles — permitting, unfair lawmaking and gaining grassroots political power.
Last week, Gov. Phil Murphy (D-New Jersey) signed an environmental justice law unlike any other in the country: Despite powerful industry opposition that stalled the bill for years, the new state law will require permits for projects like power plants and landfills to be rejected if they are to be cited in an already overburdened neighborhood. Other states require agencies to merely consider cumulative impacts in the permitting process with no mandate to act on that consideration — formerly, NEPA required all government-funded projects to consider cumulative impacts, but the Trump administration, in its gutting of NEPA this year, rolled that rule back.
The bill was passed due to the tireless work of grassroots activists and environmental justice groups — Ironbound Community Corporation, New Jersey Environmental Justice Alliance and Clean Water Action — who fought chemical and waste industry lobbyists and Murphy’s administration to push the bill through.
Grassroots and activist groups have helped Joe Biden better his climate platform, too, as he unveiled a new plan in July — his environmental justice plan is surprisingly good for candidate whose climate plan as a whole got an “F” from the Sunrise Movement last year. The plan includes creating and elevating climate justice divisions in the federal government and the White House, mandate pollution monitoring in frontline communities — which is currently notoriously terrible — and spend 40 percent of the overall investments in the climate plan on disadvantaged communities.
Several of the initiatives outlined in Biden’s plan are extensions of what the Obama administration already got started — expanding the EPA’s EJSCREEN tool that identifies environmental justice hotspots, for instance. This is progress that should have been made years ago — and progress that could have been made under a different administration.
But Trump has reversed much of the progress on climate that the country has made not only since the Obama administration, but also from decades ago — including outright eliminating funding for environmental justice at the EPA. From here, as the climate crisis rages on, progress will be ever more vital to make. And, despite Biden’s progress in climate over the course of the election, climate activists have their work cut out for them – no matter who’s in office come January.
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--2020-09-27--Amid COVID and Wildfires, Farmworkers Have Been Pushed to the Brink

We ’ ve seen this before — in 2018 , when farmworkers in California labored as fires raged in the background , contaminating the air and creating inhospitable work conditions .
Fast forward two years , and again workers are in the fields against the backdrop of fires devastating the state .
Making conditions worse is the COVID-19 pandemic , which is cutting through farmworker communities not only in California , but also in Michigan , Florida and Texas .
If the multiple news reports on the dire situation of farmworkers were meant to raise awareness , and perhaps even @ @ @ @ @ @ @ some of the most exploited workers in this country , then it appears that they have failed .
Meanwhile , heroic farmworker organizations , from California to Florida , work tirelessly to pick up the slack that has been left by a government that declares farmworkers essential , but consistently fails to assure adequate work conditions and pay .
Therefore , in the name of justice for farmworkers , it ’ s imperative to support the efforts of frontline organizations that are leading efforts to mobilize some of the most necessary laborers who @ @ @ @ @ @ @ the country shows many efforts led by farmworker groups that are doing the work that a functioning government ought to .
In California , Líderes Campesinas not only provides meals to immigrant families that have encountered economic hardship during the pandemic , but also offers masks for workers and information on the nature of COVID-19 .
The Farmworker Association of Florida , similarly , has stepped up where the government has failed .
As economic assistance hasn ’ t reached undocumented farmworker and migrant communities — the stimulus checks from earlier this year @ @ @ @ @ @ @ this Florida-based group delivers food to working families and distributes information about the pandemic to concerned community members .
Moving to Texas , it ’ s the Border Agricultural Workers Project that is assuming a critical role in the farmworker community and for the country ’ s food system that depends so heavily on migrant labor .
Based in El Paso , this organization has created an emergency assistance fund for workers to draw upon in the event that a worker gets sick .
And the group has had to tap into these @ @ @ @ @ @ @ hotels for the duration of their illness , and even providing sick pay for the people who missed work .
As Carlos Marentes , founder of the Border Agricultural Workers Project , said about the government ’ s response , “ Recommendations are made , but not mandates .
And the most affected are those in poverty , agricultural workers and rural areas.
” Most of the demands from farmworker organizations are quite simple : provide personal protective equipment and adequate testing for workers , make employers notify laborers on the nature of @ @ @ @ @ @ @ who miss work .
Allies to the cause for farmworker justice not only can support these organizations through providing financial assistance , perhaps in the form of donations , but also with pushing for legislative changes in their respective states .
In Vermont , following pressure from farmworker and immigrant rights activist organizations , the government stands poised to pass legislation that would provide a stimulus payment to everyone regardless of legal status .
California took a similar approach a few months ago , when it issued a one-time payment to undocumented workers @ @ @ @ @ @ @ As it is unlikely that such a proposal would pass currently at the federal level , efforts akin to what has taken place in Vermont and California could take place across the country , in each state where some essential workers are undocumented .
Still , while a stimulus check is better than nothing , more substantive changes are necessary to truly improve the lives of farmworkers .
To start , everyone can press legislators to amend the 1935 Wagner Act to extend the right to unionize to farmworkers .
Currently , farmworkers @ @ @ @ @ @ @ 11 states .
Yet in most — with the exception of California , and as of 2019 , New York — limitations on the right to strike leave workers without this valuable tool to improve their condition .
Moreover , as many workers lack legal authorization and travel across state lines to work , the right to collective bargaining needs to apply to people regardless of immigration status and exist nationwide .
Without legal protections and strong unions , farmworkers are especially vulnerable when denouncing the strenuous work conditions that COVID-19 has forced @ @ @ @ @ @ @ members have spoken up , have been testimonies to this , they ’ ve lost their jobs for speaking up , ” said Irene de Barraicua , a spokeswoman of Líderes Campesinas .
There also should be more means for farmworkers , if they so choose , to access land .
Certain groups are making strides in this area — for instance , the Agriculture and Land-Based Training Association , which trains migrant laborers how to become organic farmers .
The federal government could better fund such efforts by expanding the allotment for @ @ @ @ @ @ @ , workers without citizenship could be offered a pathway to it , or at least temporary work permits and a reprieve from deportation after acquiring loans to finance land purchases and become farmers .
Not only would this benefit workers , but also the United States overall , especially as the average age of farmers ticks up steadily and young people are not replacing them .
Overall , estimates place the farmworker population somewhere between 2 to 3 million people , which is greater than the total number of farmers in the country @ @ @ @ @ @ @ of us , it would be wise to support public policies that see to it that a significant number of the landless farmworker population finds land and has a chance to grow food .
Farmworkers who do not desire to become landowners should also have the chance to receive a citizenship , which is part of the Farm Workforce Modernization Act of 2019 that passed the House but has made no headway in the Senate .
According to this piece of legislation , farmworkers who are currently undocumented , as well as their @ @ @ @ @ @ @ legal status with the option to gain permanent residency after four years .
To treat migrant laborers as disposable , while they maintain a wealth of agricultural knowledge , jeopardizes our food system now and into the future .
Tying citizenship to farm work or becoming farmers may seem a pipe dream , particularly given the current political climate .
Yet , Trump nearly granted permanent status to Deferred Action for Childhood Arrivals recipients — youth below the age of 16 who arrived without legal status and to whom President Obama granted temporary @ @ @ @ @ @ @ in a similar proposal ?
As comprehensive immigration reform may be difficult to achieve , perhaps it is more feasible to proceed group by group .
It ’ s also true that the political calculus surrounding immigration policy may change in the event of a Biden victory come November .
Still , continuing to support farmworker groups and pushing legislators for change makes sense in the event of a Biden victory , as in the past , Democrats have not always been the most courageous when it comes to standing with undocumented workers @ @ @ @ @ @ @ of us is to recognize that these proposals — from stimulus checks to citizenship — require more than raising awareness .
Real change requires partnering with frontline farmworker organizations , whether that means supporting their ongoing efforts at providing meals to workers , or acting in solidarity with their calls for collective bargaining rights and immigration reform .
More to the point , let ’ s put a stop to people hunching over vegetables , suffering in work conditions that no human being should endure .
If we work on these proposals together @ @ @ @ @ @ @ existence of such conditions in the future .
Farmworker organizations are leading the way in showing us the need for reform ; the question is if the rest of us will stand with some of the most essential people who sacrifice so much to feed us daily .

We’ve seen this before — in 2018, when farmworkers in California labored as fires raged in the background, contaminating the air and creating inhospitable work conditions.
Fast forward two years, and again workers are in the fields against the backdrop of fires devastating the state. Making conditions worse is the COVID-19 pandemic, which is cutting through farmworker communities not only in California, but also in Michigan, Florida and Texas.
If the multiple news reports on the dire situation of farmworkers were meant to raise awareness, and perhaps even stun government officials to do something for some of the most exploited workers in this country, then it appears that they have failed.
Meanwhile, heroic farmworker organizations, from California to Florida, work tirelessly to pick up the slack that has been left by a government that declares farmworkers essential, but consistently fails to assure adequate work conditions and pay.
Therefore, in the name of justice for farmworkers, it’s imperative to support the efforts of frontline organizations that are leading efforts to mobilize some of the most necessary laborers who feed all of us.
Looking around the country shows many efforts led by farmworker groups that are doing the work that a functioning government ought to.
In California, Líderes Campesinas not only provides meals to immigrant families that have encountered economic hardship during the pandemic, but also offers masks for workers and information on the nature of COVID-19.
The Farmworker Association of Florida, similarly, has stepped up where the government has failed. As economic assistance hasn’t reached undocumented farmworker and migrant communities — the stimulus checks from earlier this year were given only to U.S. citizens — this Florida-based group delivers food to working families and distributes information about the pandemic to concerned community members.
Moving to Texas, it’s the Border Agricultural Workers Project that is assuming a critical role in the farmworker community and for the country’s food system that depends so heavily on migrant labor. Based in El Paso, this organization has created an emergency assistance fund for workers to draw upon in the event that a worker gets sick. And the group has had to tap into these resources, quarantining sick workers in local hotels for the duration of their illness, and even providing sick pay for the people who missed work.
To treat migrant laborers as disposable, while they maintain a wealth of agricultural knowledge, jeopardizes our food system now and into the future.
As Carlos Marentes, founder of the Border Agricultural Workers Project, said about the government’s response, “Recommendations are made, but not mandates. And the most affected are those in poverty, agricultural workers and rural areas.”
Most of the demands from farmworker organizations are quite simple: provide personal protective equipment and adequate testing for workers, make employers notify laborers on the nature of COVID-19 and offer sick pay to those who miss work.
Allies to the cause for farmworker justice not only can support these organizations through providing financial assistance, perhaps in the form of donations, but also with pushing for legislative changes in their respective states.
In Vermont, following pressure from farmworker and immigrant rights activist organizations, the government stands poised to pass legislation that would provide a stimulus payment to everyone regardless of legal status.
California took a similar approach a few months ago, when it issued a one-time payment to undocumented workers in the state for $500.
As it is unlikely that such a proposal would pass currently at the federal level, efforts akin to what has taken place in Vermont and California could take place across the country, in each state where some essential workers are undocumented.
Still, while a stimulus check is better than nothing, more substantive changes are necessary to truly improve the lives of farmworkers.
To start, everyone can press legislators to amend the 1935 Wagner Act to extend the right to unionize to farmworkers. Currently, farmworkers have the right to collectively bargain in 11 states. Yet in most — with the exception of California, and as of 2019, New York — limitations on the right to strike leave workers without this valuable tool to improve their condition. Moreover, as many workers lack legal authorization and travel across state lines to work, the right to collective bargaining needs to apply to people regardless of immigration status and exist nationwide.
Without legal protections and strong unions, farmworkers are especially vulnerable when denouncing the strenuous work conditions that COVID-19 has forced upon them. “Many of our members have spoken up, have been testimonies to this, they’ve lost their jobs for speaking up,” said Irene de Barraicua, a spokeswoman of Líderes Campesinas.
There also should be more means for farmworkers, if they so choose, to access land. Certain groups are making strides in this area — for instance, the Agriculture and Land-Based Training Association, which trains migrant laborers how to become organic farmers. The federal government could better fund such efforts by expanding the allotment for beginning and historically marginalized farmers.
Additionally, workers without citizenship could be offered a pathway to it, or at least temporary work permits and a reprieve from deportation after acquiring loans to finance land purchases and become farmers. Not only would this benefit workers, but also the United States overall, especially as the average age of farmers ticks up steadily and young people are not replacing them.
Overall, estimates place the farmworker population somewhere between 2 to 3 million people, which is greater than the total number of farmers in the country. For farmworkers and for the rest of us, it would be wise to support public policies that see to it that a significant number of the landless farmworker population finds land and has a chance to grow food.
Farmworkers who do not desire to become landowners should also have the chance to receive a citizenship, which is part of the Farm Workforce Modernization Act of 2019 that passed the House but has made no headway in the Senate.
According to this piece of legislation, farmworkers who are currently undocumented, as well as their immediate family members, could acquire immediate legal status with the option to gain permanent residency after four years.
To treat migrant laborers as disposable, while they maintain a wealth of agricultural knowledge, jeopardizes our food system now and into the future.
Tying citizenship to farm work or becoming farmers may seem a pipe dream, particularly given the current political climate. Yet, Trump nearly granted permanent status to Deferred Action for Childhood Arrivals recipients — youth below the age of 16 who arrived without legal status and to whom President Obama granted temporary work permits. Why not include farmworkers in a similar proposal? As comprehensive immigration reform may be difficult to achieve, perhaps it is more feasible to proceed group by group.
It’s also true that the political calculus surrounding immigration policy may change in the event of a Biden victory come November. Still, continuing to support farmworker groups and pushing legislators for change makes sense in the event of a Biden victory, as in the past, Democrats have not always been the most courageous when it comes to standing with undocumented workers.
What’s critical for all of us is to recognize that these proposals — from stimulus checks to citizenship — require more than raising awareness.
Real change requires partnering with frontline farmworker organizations, whether that means supporting their ongoing efforts at providing meals to workers, or acting in solidarity with their calls for collective bargaining rights and immigration reform.
More to the point, let’s put a stop to people hunching over vegetables, suffering in work conditions that no human being should endure. If we work on these proposals together, then perhaps we can abolish the existence of such conditions in the future. Farmworker organizations are leading the way in showing us the need for reform; the question is if the rest of us will stand with some of the most essential people who sacrifice so much to feed us daily.
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--2020-09-27--From a Justice for Gender Equality to a “Justice” for Gender Oppression

Amy Coney Barrett and Ruth Bader Ginsburg could not be more different when it comes to their respective notions of justice .
Ginsburg , a pioneer in the protection of gender equality , spent her entire career , including 27 years on the Supreme Court , fighting for the rights of women , immigrants , people of color , criminal defendants , LGBTQ people , workers , people with mental disabilities and the poor .
Barrett seeks to strip health insurance from tens of millions of people and crush reproductive rights .
Donald Trump rushed to nominate Barrett and enlisted @ @ @ @ @ @ @ McConnell ( R-Kentucky ) , to ram her nomination through the Senate so she can support Trump ’ s legal challenges to any election results that favor Joe Biden .
Trump , who refuses to commit to a peaceful transfer of power , has been conducting a misinformation campaign about ( non-existent ) voter fraud and signaling that he will lose only if the election is “ rigged ” against him with expanded mail-in voting .
During her three years on the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 7th Circuit , Barrett demonstrated @ @ @ @ @ @ @ what her fellow judge called a “ separate-but-equal arrangement ” in which a Black American was transferred in order to segregate a workplace .
In EEOC v. Autozone , the EEOC claimed Autozone segregated employees based on race by assigning Black employees to work in Latinx neighborhoods .
After a three-judge panel of the 7th Circuit denied the EEOC ’ s claim , Barrett voted against the entire 7th Circuit rehearing the case .
Barrett criticized Chief Justice John Roberts ’ 2012 vote to uphold the Affordable Care Act .
She wrote in @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Supreme Court ’ s decision to uphold the law “ pushed the Affordable Care Act beyond its plausible meaning to save the statute.
” An avowed opponent of reproductive rights , Barrett called Roe v. Wade a “ judicial fiat , ” stating , “ The framework of Roe essentially permitted abortion on demand , and Roe recognizes no state interest in the life of a fetus.
” As a judge on the Court of Appeals , she wanted to rehear a case that could limit the right to a pre-viability abortion , @ @ @ @ @ @ @ states to regulate protestors who block abortion access , and voted to require that parents of girls under 18 be notified before abortions are performed .
She has also opposed access to contraception under the Affordable Care Act as “ an assault on religious liberty.
” Barrett has consistently sided with corporations over workers .
She voted to restrict enforcement of laws against age discrimination , sought to limit the power of federal agencies to hold accountable companies that lie to consumers , and cut back on the rights of consumers against predatory @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Scalia , for whom she served as a law clerk , Barrett considers herself to be a “ textualist ” and an “ originialist.
” That means she claims to rely on the specific meaning of words in statutes and divines the intent of the founders when they drafted the Constitution .
“ But these words are abstractions , ” Jeffrey Toobin wrote in the New Yorker .
“ In the real world , they operate as an agenda to crush labor unions , curtail environmental regulation , constrain the voting rights of @ @ @ @ @ @ @ care , and free the wealthy to buy political influence.
” Barrett once stated that a legal career is a means to an end “ and that end is building the Kingdom of God.
” Barrett is a member of the Catholic cult , People of Praise , which demands strict obedience from its adherents .
Each male member of the cult is assigned a “ head ” and each woman is assigned a “ handmaid ” to make decisions about their lives .
Coral Anika Theill , a former member of the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Democracy Now !
about the abuse she suffered after she had a miscarriage , when she was “ interrogated until wee hours of the morning and psychologically abused.
” Theill likened the “ cruelty and bullying ” she experienced to The Handmaid ’ s Tale .
During Barrett ’ s contentious 2017 confirmation hearing for the Court of Appeals , Senate Judiciary Committee member Dianne Feinstein confronted the nominee , saying , “ The dogma lives loudly within you.
” Barrett ’ s religious priorities combined with her disdain for stare decisis ( @ @ @ @ @ @ @ for a lethal combination if she joins the high court .
If her nomination is confirmed by November 10 , when the Supreme Court hears oral arguments about the fate of the Affordable Care Act , Barrett could provide a vote to strike down the law .
In California v. Texas , the individual mandate , and indeed , the entire act , is on the chopping block .
If the majority of the Court invalidates the mandate , it will then decide whether that part of the act is severable , which @ @ @ @ @ @ @ remains in place .
The 48-year-old Barrett will likely provide a solid vote to strike down the Affordable Care Act and overrule Roe v. Wade .
She will be a reliable “ justice ” for the radical right for decades .

Part of the Series Human Rights and Global Wrongs
Amy Coney Barrett and Ruth Bader Ginsburg could not be more different when it comes to their respective notions of justice. Ginsburg, a pioneer in the protection of gender equality, spent her entire career, including 27 years on the Supreme Court, fighting for the rights of women, immigrants, people of color, criminal defendants, LGBTQ people, workers, people with mental disabilities and the poor. Barrett seeks to strip health insurance from tens of millions of people and crush reproductive rights.
Donald Trump rushed to nominate Barrett and enlisted his consigliere, Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell (R-Kentucky), to ram her nomination through the Senate so she can support Trump’s legal challenges to any election results that favor Joe Biden. Trump, who refuses to commit to a peaceful transfer of power, has been conducting a misinformation campaign about (non-existent) voter fraud and signaling that he will lose only if the election is “rigged” against him with expanded mail-in voting.
During her three years on the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 7th Circuit, Barrett demonstrated her racist bona fides when she countenanced what her fellow judge called a “separate-but-equal arrangement” in which a Black American was transferred in order to segregate a workplace. In EEOC v. Autozone, the EEOC claimed Autozone segregated employees based on race by assigning Black employees to work in Latinx neighborhoods. After a three-judge panel of the 7th Circuit denied the EEOC’s claim, Barrett voted against the entire 7th Circuit rehearing the case.
Barrett criticized Chief Justice John Roberts’ 2012 vote to uphold the Affordable Care Act. She wrote in a 2017 law review article that the Supreme Court’s decision to uphold the law “pushed the Affordable Care Act beyond its plausible meaning to save the statute.”
An avowed opponent of reproductive rights, Barrett called Roe v. Wade a “judicial fiat,” stating, “The framework of Roe essentially permitted abortion on demand, and Roe recognizes no state interest in the life of a fetus.” As a judge on the Court of Appeals, she wanted to rehear a case that could limit the right to a pre-viability abortion, sought to overturn Supreme Court precedent allowing states to regulate protestors who block abortion access, and voted to require that parents of girls under 18 be notified before abortions are performed. She has also opposed access to contraception under the Affordable Care Act as “an assault on religious liberty.”
Barrett has consistently sided with corporations over workers. She voted to restrict enforcement of laws against age discrimination, sought to limit the power of federal agencies to hold accountable companies that lie to consumers, and cut back on the rights of consumers against predatory debt collectors.
Like her mentor Antonin Scalia, for whom she served as a law clerk, Barrett considers herself to be a “textualist” and an “originialist.” That means she claims to rely on the specific meaning of words in statutes and divines the intent of the founders when they drafted the Constitution. “But these words are abstractions,” Jeffrey Toobin wrote in the New Yorker. “In the real world, they operate as an agenda to crush labor unions, curtail environmental regulation, constrain the voting rights of minorities, limit government support for health care, and free the wealthy to buy political influence.”
Barrett once stated that a legal career is a means to an end “and that end is building the Kingdom of God.” Barrett is a member of the Catholic cult, People of Praise, which demands strict obedience from its adherents. Each male member of the cult is assigned a “head” and each woman is assigned a “handmaid” to make decisions about their lives. Coral Anika Theill, a former member of the same cult, told Amy Goodman on Democracy Now! about the abuse she suffered after she had a miscarriage, when she was “interrogated until wee hours of the morning and psychologically abused.” Theill likened the “cruelty and bullying” she experienced to The Handmaid’s Tale.
During Barrett’s contentious 2017 confirmation hearing for the Court of Appeals, Senate Judiciary Committee member Dianne Feinstein confronted the nominee, saying, “The dogma lives loudly within you.” Barrett’s religious priorities combined with her disdain for stare decisis (respect for Supreme Court precedent) make for a lethal combination if she joins the high court.
If her nomination is confirmed by November 10, when the Supreme Court hears oral arguments about the fate of the Affordable Care Act, Barrett could provide a vote to strike down the law. In California v. Texas, the individual mandate, and indeed, the entire act, is on the chopping block. If the majority of the Court invalidates the mandate, it will then decide whether that part of the act is severable, which would mean the rest of the act remains in place.
The 48-year-old Barrett will likely provide a solid vote to strike down the Affordable Care Act and overrule Roe v. Wade. She will be a reliable “justice” for the radical right for decades.
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--2020-09-28--Trump Campaign Sought to Deter Millions of Black Americans From Voting in 2016

The Trump campaign categorized millions of Black Americans as individuals to be actively discouraged from voting in the 2016 presidential race , according to a report from the British television network Channel 4 .
According to details published on Monday , Channel 4 obtained the huge cache of data used by the Trump campaign working with the now-defunct data firm Cambridge Analytica to categorize Americans , oftentimes based on race , in order to target them in with political ads on social media .
Nearly 200 million Americans were profiled into one of eight categories called “ audiences ” in @ @ @ @ @ @ @ and Cambridge Analytica using specialized algorithms .
One of those audiences was titled “ Deterrence ” and referred to a group of voters that the campaign sought to discourage from taking part in the 2016 presidential election between Donald Trump and Hillary Clinton .
Individuals who were listed as being Black , Asian , Hispanic or “ Other ” made up 54 percent of the “ Deterrence ” label , according to the Channel 4 report .
More than 3.5 million Black voters were part of that category .
The information was used @ @ @ @ @ @ @ battleground states in 2016 .
Notably , a number of those states saw their voter participation rates drop significantly among Black residents , including in Wisconsin , where one in five Black voters who took part in the 2012 election did not vote in 2016 .
Trump ended up winning Wisconsin by just over 22,000 votes , or 0.76 percent of the total vote share .
Based on population statistics , Black voters were disproportionately placed in the “ Deterrence ” category set up by the Trump campaign .
In Georgia , for @ @ @ @ @ @ @ about 32 percent of that state ’ s population , they accounted for 61 percent of the voter profiles in the “ Deterrence ” category .
In many instances , the Trump campaign used targeted advertisements that sought to dissuade Black voters from turning out .
One ad featured a Black woman who pretended to abandon a script midway through the video , saying she ’ s “ not that good ” of an actor as to be able to speak in support of the Democratic Party ’ s presidential nominee .
It @ @ @ @ @ @ @ the country as a whole , around 2 million Black voters who took part in voting for former President Barack Obama in 2012 did not participate in 2016 .
It remains to be determined to what extent this widespread deterrence campaign was responsible for that decrease in voter participation .
In speaking to Channel 4 , many civil rights groups described the efforts by the Trump campaign to deter voting as another form of voter “ suppression.
” They have also called upon Facebook to make greater disclosures over how campaigns use targeted @ @ @ @ @ @ @ details .
Jamal Watkins , vice president of civic engagement for the NAACP , decried the actions that were taken by the Trump campaign in 2016 .
“ We use data — similar to voter file data — but it ’ s to motivate , persuade and encourage folks to participate , ” Watkins said .
“ We don ’ t use the data to say who can we deter and keep at home .
That just seems , fundamentally , it ’ s a shift from the notion of democracy .
”

The Trump campaign categorized millions of Black Americans as individuals to be actively discouraged from voting in the 2016 presidential race, according to a report from the British television network Channel 4.
According to details published on Monday, Channel 4 obtained the huge cache of data used by the Trump campaign working with the now-defunct data firm Cambridge Analytica to categorize Americans, oftentimes based on race, in order to target them in with political ads on social media.
Nearly 200 million Americans were profiled into one of eight categories called “audiences” in the data collected by the Trump campaign and Cambridge Analytica using specialized algorithms. One of those audiences was titled “Deterrence” and referred to a group of voters that the campaign sought to discourage from taking part in the 2016 presidential election between Donald Trump and Hillary Clinton.
Individuals who were listed as being Black, Asian, Hispanic or “Other” made up 54 percent of the “Deterrence” label, according to the Channel 4 report. More than 3.5 million Black voters were part of that category.
The information was used to target advertising on Facebook in 16 battleground states in 2016. Notably, a number of those states saw their voter participation rates drop significantly among Black residents, including in Wisconsin, where one in five Black voters who took part in the 2012 election did not vote in 2016.
Trump ended up winning Wisconsin by just over 22,000 votes, or 0.76 percent of the total vote share.
Based on population statistics, Black voters were disproportionately placed in the “Deterrence” category set up by the Trump campaign. In Georgia, for instance, although Black residents make up about 32 percent of that state’s population, they accounted for 61 percent of the voter profiles in the “Deterrence” category.
In many instances, the Trump campaign used targeted advertisements that sought to dissuade Black voters from turning out. One ad featured a Black woman who pretended to abandon a script midway through the video, saying she’s “not that good” of an actor as to be able to speak in support of the Democratic Party’s presidential nominee.
It’s been estimated that, across the country as a whole, around 2 million Black voters who took part in voting for former President Barack Obama in 2012 did not participate in 2016. It remains to be determined to what extent this widespread deterrence campaign was responsible for that decrease in voter participation.
In speaking to Channel 4, many civil rights groups described the efforts by the Trump campaign to deter voting as another form of voter “suppression.” They have also called upon Facebook to make greater disclosures over how campaigns use targeted information, in light of these new details.
Jamal Watkins, vice president of civic engagement for the NAACP, decried the actions that were taken by the Trump campaign in 2016.
“We use data — similar to voter file data — but it’s to motivate, persuade and encourage folks to participate,” Watkins said. “We don’t use the data to say who can we deter and keep at home. That just seems, fundamentally, it’s a shift from the notion of democracy.”
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--2020-09-28--AOC Skewers Trump for Seeking Tax Write-Offs for $70,000 in Hair Styling Costs

Amid the numerous revelations from The New York Times ’ s reporting on President Trump ’ s tax returns is the fact that he spent around $ 70,000 on hair styling appointments , writing those costs off as business expenses for his work on “ The Apprentice.
” Rep. Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez ( D-New York ) took special note of those expenditures , reminding Republicans that in 2019 she was widely criticized for treating herself to one hair styling appointment that cost $ 250 .
“ Last year Republicans blasted a firehose of hatred + vitriol my way because I treated @ @ @ @ @ @ @ lowlights on my birthday , ” she wrote in a tweet on Sunday night .
Ocasio-Cortez then directed this rhetorical question toward those who begrudged her a single $ 250 hair appointment but were not critical of the president ’ s hairstyling expenses .
“ Where ’ s the criticism of their idol spending $ 70k on hairstyling ?
” the congresswoman wrote .
“ Oh , it ’ s nowhere because they ’ re spineless , misogynistic hypocrites ?
Got it.
” Criticism of Ocasio-Cortez ’ s birthday hairstyling appointment poured down @ @ @ @ @ @ @ right-leaning Washington Times .
Republicans and other conservative media pounced on the reporting , using it as a means to suggest she was out of touch with regular Americans .
As it turns out , however , the amount that Ocasio-Cortez spent on her birthday cut was within the range that many women — not just the very rich — typically pay for the same services .
As Rhonda Garelick , dean of art and design history and theory at Parsons School of Design , noted at the time , such comments made @ @ @ @ @ @ @ that many women in the U.S. have to deal with when it comes to their appearance and how much money they spend on it .
“ While it is a societal convention that women maintain this complex level of grooming and self-adornment , they are sort of expected to make it seem ‘ effortless , ’ to draw no attention to the fact of this effort and expense , ” Garelick said .
“ And there is real sexism in that — it ’ s additional labor .
If women seem to ‘ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ presentation , they are often punished.
” In addition to skewering Trump over his hairstyling costs , Ocasio-Cortez also pointed out that despite being a billionaire , Trump paid much less in taxes during the year he campaigned for president and his first year in office than she did while working as a bartender during those same years .
“ In 2016 and ‘ 17 , I paid thousands of dollars a year in taxes as a bartender .
Trump paid $ 750 ” in both years , Ocasio-Cortez said .
Trump ’ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ all or paying far less than other Americans was disgraceful , she added .
“ He contributed less to funding our communities than waitresses and undocumented immigrants , ” Ocasio-Cortez wrote , describing the president as “ a walking scam .
”

Amid the numerous revelations from The New York Times’s reporting on President Trump’s tax returns is the fact that he spent around $70,000 on hair styling appointments, writing those costs off as business expenses for his work on “The Apprentice.”
Rep. Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez (D-New York) took special note of those expenditures, reminding Republicans that in 2019 she was widely criticized for treating herself to one hair styling appointment that cost $250.
“Last year Republicans blasted a firehose of hatred + vitriol my way because I treated myself to a $250 cut & lowlights on my birthday,” she wrote in a tweet on Sunday night.
Ocasio-Cortez then directed this rhetorical question toward those who begrudged her a single $250 hair appointment but were not critical of the president’s hairstyling expenses. “Where’s the criticism of their idol spending $70k on hairstyling?” the congresswoman wrote. “Oh, it’s nowhere because they’re spineless, misogynistic hypocrites? Got it.”
Criticism of Ocasio-Cortez’s birthday hairstyling appointment poured down in response to an article in the right-leaning Washington Times. Republicans and other conservative media pounced on the reporting, using it as a means to suggest she was out of touch with regular Americans.
As it turns out, however, the amount that Ocasio-Cortez spent on her birthday cut was within the range that many women — not just the very rich — typically pay for the same services. As Rhonda Garelick, dean of art and design history and theory at Parsons School of Design, noted at the time, such comments made toward Ocasio-Cortez put on display misogynistic attitudes that many women in the U.S. have to deal with when it comes to their appearance and how much money they spend on it.
“While it is a societal convention that women maintain this complex level of grooming and self-adornment, they are sort of expected to make it seem ‘effortless,’ to draw no attention to the fact of this effort and expense,” Garelick said. “And there is real sexism in that — it’s additional labor. If women seem to ‘own’ this aspect of their social presentation, they are often punished.”
In addition to skewering Trump over his hairstyling costs, Ocasio-Cortez also pointed out that despite being a billionaire, Trump paid much less in taxes during the year he campaigned for president and his first year in office than she did while working as a bartender during those same years.
“In 2016 and ‘17, I paid thousands of dollars a year in taxes as a bartender. Trump paid $750” in both years, Ocasio-Cortez said.
Trump’s tactics for not paying taxes at all or paying far less than other Americans was disgraceful, she added.
“He contributed less to funding our communities than waitresses and undocumented immigrants,” Ocasio-Cortez wrote, describing the president as “a walking scam.”
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.