truthout--2020-11-23--Biden’s Secretary of State Pick Showed Support of Iraq and Libya Invasions

With the upper ranks of President-elect Joe Biden ’ s foreign policy team beginning to take shape after new reporting indicated he plans to nominate long-time adviser Antony Blinken as secretary of state , progressives raised alarm over Blinken ’ s support for the disastrous 2003 U.S. invasion of Iraq and the 2011 assault on Libya as well as his recent consulting work of behalf of corporate clients in the tech , finance , and arms industries .
Blinken served as deputy national security adviser and deputy secretary of state in the Obama administration and , as the Washington Post @ @ @ @ @ @ @ as having a centrist view of the world ” and “ has also supported interventionist positions.
” “ He once broke with Biden and supported military action in Libya , for example , ” the Post noted , referring to the Obama White House ’ s catastrophic decision to join with NATO to bomb that country , an armed intervention that helped unleash a violent civil war that is still ongoing .
When it came to Syria policy under Obama , Blinken is also reported to have supported more aggressive military measures against @ @ @ @ @ @ @ more recently has indicated that the Biden administration would opt for leaving U.S. troops in the war-torn country .
When Biden , then a senator and chairman of the powerful Senate Foreign Relations Committee , voted in 2002 to authorize the Bush administration ’ s disastrous invasion of Iraq — a decision he has since described as a mistake — Blinken was the Democratic staff director of the committee .
The Intercept ’ s Ryan Grim reported last July that Blinken “ helped craft Biden ’ s own support for the Iraq War @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Times earlier this year , Blinken characterized the vote to invade Iraq as “ a vote for tough diplomacy.
” “ So we will have a president who supported the invasion of Iraq , and a secretary of state ( Tony Blinken ) who supported the invasion of Iraq , ” tweeted Medea Benjamin , co-founder of anti-war group CodePink .
“ In the U.S. , there is no accountability for supporting the worst foreign policy disaster in modern history .
Only rewards.
” Biden ’ s choice of Blinken — expected to @ @ @ @ @ @ @ a slate of additional nominees — was not universally criticized by progressives .
Matt Duss , foreign policy adviser for Sen. Bernie Sanders ( I-Vt. ) , called Blinken “ a good choice.
” “ Tony has the strong confidence of the president-elect and the knowledge and experience for the important work of rebuilding U.S. diplomacy , ” said Duss .
“ It will also be a new and great thing to have a top diplomat who has regularly engaged with progressive grassroots.
” After leaving the Obama administration , Blinken in 2017 @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Michèle Flournoy , who is believed to be a leading candidate to serve as Biden ’ s defense secretary .
As The American Prospect reported in July : WestExec would only divulge that it began working with “ Fortune 100 types , ” including large U.S. tech ; financial services , including global-asset managers ; aerospace and defense ; emerging U.S. tech ; and nonprofits .
The Prospect can confirm that one of those clients is the Israeli artificial-intelligence company Windward .
With surveillance software that tracks ships in real time , two @ @ @ @ @ @ @ company in 2010… Despite multiple requests , neither the firm nor the Biden campaign would provide WestExec Advisors ’ client list .
“ Transparency is very important to us , ” said a Biden spokesperson .
Blinken had recused himself from work at WestExec , according to the campaign , yet his profile remains on the consultancy ’ s website .
Biden ’ s reported selection of Blinken , and potential selection of Flournoy , to serve in two of his administration ’ s top foreign policy roles is likely to draw rebuke @ @ @ @ @ @ @ president-elect assemble a cabinet committed to peace and diplomacy and free from the corrupting influence of weapons manufacturers , defense contractors , and other powerful corporate interests .
“ Biden has been facing calls from Democratic lawmakers and progressive advocacy groups to end the revolving door between government and the defense industry , ” The Daily Poster ’ s Julia Rock and Andrew Perez noted Monday morning .
“ One-third of the members of Biden transition ’ s Department of Defense agency review team were most recently employed by ‘ organizations , think @ @ @ @ @ @ @ receive money from the weapons industry , or are part of this industry , ’ according to reporting from In These Times.
” “ Meanwhile , ” Rock and Perez added , “ defense executives have been boasting about their close relationship with Biden and expressing confidence that there will not be much change in Pentagon policy.
” Rep. Ro Khanna ( D-Calif. ) , the first vice chair of the Congressional Progressive Caucus ( CPC ) , pointed out on Twitter that , similar to Blinken , “ Flournoy supported the war @ @ @ @ @ @ @ on Syria , and helped craft the surge in Afghanistan.
” “ I want to support the president ’ s picks , ” added Khanna .
“ But will Flournoy now commit to a full withdrawal from Afghanistan and a ban on arms sales to the Saudis to end the Yemen war ?
” Rep. Ilhan Omar ( D-Minn. ) , also a member of the CPC , said in response to Khanna that the “ bigger question is will Biden commit to that.
” “ Ultimately , ” said Omar , “ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ policy that his administration will execute .
”

With the upper ranks of President-elect Joe Biden’s foreign policy team beginning to take shape after new reporting indicated he plans to nominate long-time adviser Antony Blinken as secretary of state, progressives raised alarm over Blinken’s support for the disastrous 2003 U.S. invasion of Iraq and the 2011 assault on Libya as well as his recent consulting work of behalf of corporate clients in the tech, finance, and arms industries.
Blinken served as deputy national security adviser and deputy secretary of state in the Obama administration and, as the Washington Post reported Sunday, “has been described as having a centrist view of the world” and “has also supported interventionist positions.”
“He once broke with Biden and supported military action in Libya, for example,” the Post noted, referring to the Obama White House’s catastrophic decision to join with NATO to bomb that country, an armed intervention that helped unleash a violent civil war that is still ongoing.
When it came to Syria policy under Obama, Blinken is also reported to have supported more aggressive military measures against the government of President Bashar al-Assad and more recently has indicated that the Biden administration would opt for leaving U.S. troops in the war-torn country.
When Biden, then a senator and chairman of the powerful Senate Foreign Relations Committee, voted in 2002 to authorize the Bush administration’s disastrous invasion of Iraq — a decision he has since described as a mistake — Blinken was the Democratic staff director of the committee. The Intercept’s Ryan Grim reported last July that Blinken “helped craft Biden’s own support for the Iraq War”; speaking to the New York Times earlier this year, Blinken characterized the vote to invade Iraq as “a vote for tough diplomacy.”
“So we will have a president who supported the invasion of Iraq, and a secretary of state (Tony Blinken) who supported the invasion of Iraq,” tweeted Medea Benjamin, co-founder of anti-war group CodePink. “In the U.S., there is no accountability for supporting the worst foreign policy disaster in modern history. Only rewards.”
Biden’s choice of Blinken — expected to be announced publicly on Tuesday along with a slate of additional nominees — was not universally criticized by progressives. Matt Duss, foreign policy adviser for Sen. Bernie Sanders (I-Vt.), called Blinken “a good choice.”
This is a good choice. Tony has the strong confidence of the president-elect and the knowledge and experience for the important work of rebuilding US diplomacy. It will also be a new and great thing to have a top diplomat who has regularly engaged with progressive grassroots. https://t.co/NglVbp9YCa — Matt Duss (@mattduss) November 23, 2020
“Tony has the strong confidence of the president-elect and the knowledge and experience for the important work of rebuilding U.S. diplomacy,” said Duss. “It will also be a new and great thing to have a top diplomat who has regularly engaged with progressive grassroots.”
After leaving the Obama administration, Blinken in 2017 co-founded the consultancy firm WestExec Advisors with Michèle Flournoy, who is believed to be a leading candidate to serve as Biden’s defense secretary. As The American Prospect reported in July:
WestExec would only divulge that it began working with “Fortune 100 types,” including large U.S. tech; financial services, including global-asset managers; aerospace and defense; emerging U.S. tech; and nonprofits. The Prospect can confirm that one of those clients is the Israeli artificial-intelligence company Windward. With surveillance software that tracks ships in real time, two former Israeli naval intelligence officers established the company in 2010… Despite multiple requests, neither the firm nor the Biden campaign would provide WestExec Advisors’ client list. “Transparency is very important to us,” said a Biden spokesperson. Blinken had recused himself from work at WestExec, according to the campaign, yet his profile remains on the consultancy’s website.
Biden’s reported selection of Blinken, and potential selection of Flournoy, to serve in two of his administration’s top foreign policy roles is likely to draw rebuke from progressives who have demanded that the president-elect assemble a cabinet committed to peace and diplomacy and free from the corrupting influence of weapons manufacturers, defense contractors, and other powerful corporate interests.
“Biden has been facing calls from Democratic lawmakers and progressive advocacy groups to end the revolving door between government and the defense industry,” The Daily Poster’s Julia Rock and Andrew Perez noted Monday morning. “One-third of the members of Biden transition’s Department of Defense agency review team were most recently employed by ‘organizations, think tanks, or companies that either directly receive money from the weapons industry, or are part of this industry,’ according to reporting from In These Times.”
“Meanwhile,” Rock and Perez added, “defense executives have been boasting about their close relationship with Biden and expressing confidence that there will not be much change in Pentagon policy.”
Rep. Ro Khanna (D-Calif.), the first vice chair of the Congressional Progressive Caucus (CPC), pointed out on Twitter that, similar to Blinken, “Flournoy supported the war in Iraq and Libya, criticized Obama on Syria, and helped craft the surge in Afghanistan.”
“I want to support the president’s picks,” added Khanna. “But will Flournoy now commit to a full withdrawal from Afghanistan and a ban on arms sales to the Saudis to end the Yemen war?”
Rep. Ilhan Omar (D-Minn.), also a member of the CPC, said in response to Khanna that the “bigger question is will Biden commit to that.”
“Ultimately,” said Omar, “it will be Biden’s foreign policy that his administration will execute.”
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--2020-11-23--Trump’s Election Fraud Claims Don’t Appear in Result-Challenge Lawsuits

There seems to be a real disconnect between the claims of widespread fraud , a stolen election and illegal voting made by President Donald Trump and his allies and the actual claims formally made by his lawyers in court .
Both Trump in his Twitter feed and White House Press Secretary Kayleigh McEnany in her press conferences have made allegations of broad-based election fraud .
But under questioning from judges in Arizona and Pennsylvania , Trump ’ s lawyers have backed away from actually asserting fraud .
Despite Trump ’ s allegations to the contrary , his lawyers have acknowledged @ @ @ @ @ @ @ people voted or that occasional computer glitches were part of a deliberate conspiracy .
In one of several Pennsylvania cases , Trump attorneys actually signed a legal document in which they stated , “ Petitioners do not allege , and there is no evidence of , any fraud in connection with the challenged ballots ; Petitioners do not allege , and there is no evidence of , any misconduct in connection with the challenged ballots ; Petitioners do not allege , and there is no evidence of , any impropriety in connection with @ @ @ @ @ @ @ allege , and there is no evidence of , any undue influence committed with respect to the challenged ballots.
” The attorney backpedaling is not surprising .
It ’ s one thing to speculate via tweet , but quite another for an attorney , who is an officer of the court , to make representations to a judge .
Trump ’ s lawyers are constrained in what they can assert by three major restrictions that apply to lawyers : professional ethics , rules of civil procedure and rules of evidence .
As members @ @ @ @ @ @ @ entity that grants attorneys their license to practice law — lawyers have a professional ethics obligation “ not to abuse legal procedure ” by filing “ frivolous ” claims .
Rule 3.1 of the Model Rules of Professional Conduct , some version of which applies in all states , forbids a lawyer from bringing a claim or argument “ unless there is a basis in law and fact for doing so that is not frivolous.
” The bar requires lawyers to “ inform themselves about the facts of their clients ’ cases and @ @ @ @ @ @ @ that they can make good faith arguments ” supporting their clients ’ positions .
At least outside the context of criminal defense , lawyers must be able to honestly represent to the court that they have a basis for believing they have a path to getting relief either based on existing law or “ a good faith argument for an extension , modification or reversal of existing law.
” Violating this requirement could expose the lawyer to sanctions from the state bar , which could range from a reprimand to a fine to @ @ @ @ @ @ @ it can erode courts ’ confidence in the lawyer ’ s reliability and damage the lawyer ’ s professional reputation .
In Trump ’ s case , this means his attorneys can only say the election was stolen if they know of actual , credible reports of systematic fraud .
Formal disciplinary administrative proceedings against lawyers by the bar for this kind of misconduct are rare .
But less rare are motions by opposing parties for sanctions under a different rule .
Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 11 allows an opposing party to @ @ @ @ @ @ @ files a frivolous claim or makes a frivolous argument .
Most states have an analogous rule for their courts .
Rule 11 provides that when making a claim before the court , the attorney certifies , “ after an inquiry reasonable under the circumstances , ” that : • it ’ s not being made for an improper purpose , such as to harass or delay ; • the claims are warranted by existing law or a nonfrivolous argument for a change in the law ; and • the factual assertions have evidence @ @ @ @ @ @ @ have such support after a reasonable opportunity for investigation and discovery .
For example , if a corporation ’ s lawyer files an antitrust complaint that she knows to be a stretch , just to block a rival ’ s merger deal and give her client time to complete its own merger deal first , that would be a violation of Rule 11 .
The rule allows any opposing party to ask for sanctions , or for the court to order sanctions on its own initiative .
Frequently , such sanctions include paying @ @ @ @ @ @ @ for having to do the work to oppose the frivolous claim or argument .
Put Up or Shut Up As an election law scholar and practitioner , I believe that perhaps the most compelling rule keeping lawyers cautious is the practical consideration that making unsubstantiated claims of fraud is not only unethical but also a waste of time .
Eventually — and , under the accelerated time frame of these cases , that means pretty quickly — the lawyers are going to have to present actual evidence to judges .
Without such evidence @ @ @ @ @ @ @ And a lawyer making fraud claims without evidence runs the risk that an impatient judge might dismiss an entire case , even if other , legitimate claims are being made .
When it comes to the election fraud claims , watch what the lawyers do , not what the politicians say .

When it comes to the election fraud claims, watch what the lawyers do, not what the politicians say.
There seems to be a real disconnect between the claims of widespread fraud, a stolen election and illegal voting made by President Donald Trump and his allies and the actual claims formally made by his lawyers in court.
Both Trump in his Twitter feed and White House Press Secretary Kayleigh McEnany in her press conferences have made allegations of broad-based election fraud. But under questioning from judges in Arizona and Pennsylvania, Trump’s lawyers have backed away from actually asserting fraud. Despite Trump’s allegations to the contrary, his lawyers have acknowledged that they are not claiming that dead people voted or that occasional computer glitches were part of a deliberate conspiracy.
In one of several Pennsylvania cases, Trump attorneys actually signed a legal document in which they stated,
“Petitioners do not allege, and there is no evidence of, any fraud in connection with the challenged ballots; Petitioners do not allege, and there is no evidence of, any misconduct in connection with the challenged ballots; Petitioners do not allege, and there is no evidence of, any impropriety in connection with the challenged ballots; Petitioners do not allege, and there is no evidence of, any undue influence committed with respect to the challenged ballots.” Related Story News | Politics & Elections In Rebuke to Trump, Georgia Recount Affirms Biden Win Georgia's Secretary of State Brad Raffensperger confirmed that Biden had won, saying in a statement "numbers don't lie." Truthout
The attorney backpedaling is not surprising.
It’s one thing to speculate via tweet, but quite another for an attorney, who is an officer of the court, to make representations to a judge. Trump’s lawyers are constrained in what they can assert by three major restrictions that apply to lawyers: professional ethics, rules of civil procedure and rules of evidence.
Legal Ethics Apply
As members of the bar association — the state entity that grants attorneys their license to practice law — lawyers have a professional ethics obligation “not to abuse legal procedure” by filing “frivolous” claims. Rule 3.1 of the Model Rules of Professional Conduct, some version of which applies in all states, forbids a lawyer from bringing a claim or argument “unless there is a basis in law and fact for doing so that is not frivolous.”
The bar requires lawyers to “inform themselves about the facts of their clients’ cases and the applicable law” and “determine that they can make good faith arguments” supporting their clients’ positions.
At least outside the context of criminal defense, lawyers must be able to honestly represent to the court that they have a basis for believing they have a path to getting relief either based on existing law or “a good faith argument for an extension, modification or reversal of existing law.”
Violating this requirement could expose the lawyer to sanctions from the state bar, which could range from a reprimand to a fine to a license suspension. More practically, it can erode courts’ confidence in the lawyer’s reliability and damage the lawyer’s professional reputation.
In Trump’s case, this means his attorneys can only say the election was stolen if they know of actual, credible reports of systematic fraud.
Sanctions Can Be Imposed
Formal disciplinary administrative proceedings against lawyers by the bar for this kind of misconduct are rare. But less rare are motions by opposing parties for sanctions under a different rule.
Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 11 allows an opposing party to move for sanctions against a lawyer who files a frivolous claim or makes a frivolous argument. Most states have an analogous rule for their courts.
Rule 11 provides that when making a claim before the court, the attorney certifies, “after an inquiry reasonable under the circumstances,” that:
it’s not being made for an improper purpose, such as to harass or delay; the claims are warranted by existing law or a nonfrivolous argument for a change in the law; and the factual assertions have evidence to support them, or will likely have such support after a reasonable opportunity for investigation and discovery.
For example, if a corporation’s lawyer files an antitrust complaint that she knows to be a stretch, just to block a rival’s merger deal and give her client time to complete its own merger deal first, that would be a violation of Rule 11.
The rule allows any opposing party to ask for sanctions, or for the court to order sanctions on its own initiative. Frequently, such sanctions include paying the other side’s attorney fees for having to do the work to oppose the frivolous claim or argument.
Put Up or Shut Up
As an election law scholar and practitioner, I believe that perhaps the most compelling rule keeping lawyers cautious is the practical consideration that making unsubstantiated claims of fraud is not only unethical but also a waste of time.
Eventually — and, under the accelerated time frame of these cases, that means pretty quickly — the lawyers are going to have to present actual evidence to judges. Without such evidence, judges will dismiss the claim.
And a lawyer making fraud claims without evidence runs the risk that an impatient judge might dismiss an entire case, even if other, legitimate claims are being made.
When it comes to the election fraud claims, watch what the lawyers do, not what the politicians say.
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--2020-11-25--Pennsylvania Judge Grants GOP Request to Halt Certification of Election Results

A judge in Pennsylvania halted on Wednesday the presidential election certification process for that state , even though results had already been certified by officials earlier in the week .
The certified vote count issued on Tuesday showed that President-elect Joe Biden had defeated President Donald Trump by a margin of 80,555 votes .
If left intact , Biden would be awarded all of Pennsylvania ’ s 20 Electoral College votes .
Commonwealth Court Judge Patricia McCullough sided with GOP litigants in a lawsuit against the state , however , agreeing with them that the certification process should be stopped @ @ @ @ @ @ @ R-Pennsylvania ) , Republicans alleged that changes to the state ’ s mail-in voting law were unconstitutional , and therefore the certification of the election should be halted in order to determine which ballots should or should not be counted in the state ’ s totals .
Certification can be stopped , Republicans further argued , even though officials had signed off on it the day before , because a number of steps remained before the state ’ s certification would be formally completed .
McCullough , herself a Republican , said the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ being “ to the extent that there remains any further action to perfect the certification of the results of the 2020 General Election.
” The judge set an evidentiary hearing for 11:30 a.m. on Friday .
The changes to Pennsylvania ’ s mail-in ballot law , signed as Act 77 last year by Democratic Gov .
Tom Wolf , allowed for voters to request absentee ballots without having to provide an excuse to do so .
In short , the law granted anyone the right to vote absentee , not just those who @ @ @ @ @ @ @ or otherwise unable to vote in person .
Due to the coronavirus pandemic , millions of Pennsylvanians voted by mail in this year ’ s elections .
Secretary of the Commonwealth Kathy Boockvar , a Democrat , immediately appealed McCullough ’ s decision to the State Supreme Court , stating that the litigants “ had not offered any explanation , let alone a satisfactory one , for why they delayed bringing their challenge until more than a year ( and two elections ) after ” the law affecting absentee voting was changed .
@ @ @ @ @ @ @ number of lawsuits alleging , without proof , that absentee ballots and mail-in votes in this year ’ s election were rife with fraud .
So far , nearly all of those lawsuits have failed .
On Wednesday , Republicans in Pennsylvania held what they were billing as a “ hearing ” in Gettysburg to discuss supposed election fraud .
Trump did not appear in person at the event , but did speak via speakerphone before those in attendance .
Trump claimed , without evidence , that the state ’ s results were @ @ @ @ @ @ @ kind and in the face of Biden ’ s 80,000-vote lead , that Pennsylvania was “ lost by Democrats.
” Trump also suggested that things could be changed in his favor if they found a judge in the state to overturn the will of the electorate .
“ All we need is for some judge to listen to it properly , ” Trump said .

GOP litigants in the case argued that changes to the state’s absentee ballot law made last year were unconstitutional.
A judge in Pennsylvania halted on Wednesday the presidential election certification process for that state, even though results had already been certified by officials earlier in the week.
The certified vote count issued on Tuesday showed that President-elect Joe Biden had defeated President Donald Trump by a margin of 80,555 votes. If left intact, Biden would be awarded all of Pennsylvania’s 20 Electoral College votes.
Commonwealth Court Judge Patricia McCullough sided with GOP litigants in a lawsuit against the state, however, agreeing with them that the certification process should be stopped. Led by Congressman Mike Kelly (R-Pennsylvania), Republicans alleged that changes to the state’s mail-in voting law were unconstitutional, and therefore the certification of the election should be halted in order to determine which ballots should or should not be counted in the state’s totals.
Certification can be stopped, Republicans further argued, even though officials had signed off on it the day before, because a number of steps remained before the state’s certification would be formally completed.
McCullough, herself a Republican, said the process should be stopped for the time being “to the extent that there remains any further action to perfect the certification of the results of the 2020 General Election.” The judge set an evidentiary hearing for 11:30 a.m. on Friday.
The changes to Pennsylvania’s mail-in ballot law, signed as Act 77 last year by Democratic Gov. Tom Wolf, allowed for voters to request absentee ballots without having to provide an excuse to do so. In short, the law granted anyone the right to vote absentee, not just those who are elderly, out of town, or otherwise unable to vote in person. Due to the coronavirus pandemic, millions of Pennsylvanians voted by mail in this year’s elections.
Secretary of the Commonwealth Kathy Boockvar, a Democrat, immediately appealed McCullough’s decision to the State Supreme Court, stating that the litigants “had not offered any explanation, let alone a satisfactory one, for why they delayed bringing their challenge until more than a year (and two elections) after” the law affecting absentee voting was changed.
Trump and his allies have filed a number of lawsuits alleging, without proof, that absentee ballots and mail-in votes in this year’s election were rife with fraud. So far, nearly all of those lawsuits have failed.
On Wednesday, Republicans in Pennsylvania held what they were billing as a “hearing” in Gettysburg to discuss supposed election fraud. Trump did not appear in person at the event, but did speak via speakerphone before those in attendance.
Trump claimed, without evidence, that the state’s results were inaccurate, saying without proof of any kind and in the face of Biden’s 80,000-vote lead, that Pennsylvania was “lost by Democrats.” Trump also suggested that things could be changed in his favor if they found a judge in the state to overturn the will of the electorate.
“All we need is for some judge to listen to it properly,” Trump 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.
Copyright © Truthout. May not be reprinted without permission.


truthout--2020-11-25--Fauci Says He’d “Absolutely” Join a Biden COVID Task Force

Anthony Fauci , the director of the National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases ( NIAID ) since 1984 and a member of President Donald Trump ’ s White House coronavirus task force , said in an interview on Wednesday that he ’ d be happy to continue on as an adviser to President-elect Joe Biden if he was asked to do so .
Fauci , who was being interviewed on C-SPAN about the matter , was asked if he ’ d serve on a similar coronavirus task force set up by Biden , once he assumes office in January @ @ @ @ @ @ @ The answer is absolutely , ” the infectious diseases expert said .
Fauci added that he has been in contact with Biden ’ s chief of staff Ron Klain .
The two , however , have not discussed the “ nuts and bolts ” of what the next president ’ s plans would be regarding a response to the pandemic when he occupies the White House .
Fauci applauded the decision by the Trump administration this week to finally allow the transition process to begin to allow for Biden ’ s entrance into @ @ @ @ @ @ @ we will be getting the transition team and the task force to give them the information that would make their assuming the responsibilities easier and more efficient , ” Fauci said .
Trump ’ s long refusal to acknowledge the outcome of the presidential race , and to allow the transition process to begin , had kept Biden ’ s team from being involved in discussions regarding a number of important issues , including how the eventual rollout of a vaccine for coronavirus was being planned .
In an interview last week , @ @ @ @ @ @ @ the Trump administration to share that info with Biden .
“ I ’ ve been through five transitions ; I can say that transitions are extremely important to the smooth continuity of whatever you ’ re doing , ” Fauci said at the time .
Fauci ’ s inclusion in the Biden White House would likely be welcomed by most Americans , as the NIAID director is widely regarded as trustworthy .
In a recent Politico/Morning Consult poll , 62 percent of Americans rated Fauci ’ s handling of the COVID-19 pandemic response @ @ @ @ @ @ @ ” Another 17 percent said it was “ fair , ” while only 13 percent described Fauci ’ s work on the virus as “ poor.
” The president , however , didn ’ t fare as well as Fauci in people ’ s views on his handling of the response to the pandemic .
Only 38 percent of Americans described Trump ’ s leadership on COVID-19 as “ excellent ” or “ good , ” with 49 percent saying his performance was “ poor.
” Ten percent described his job on coronavirus @ @ @ @ @ @ @ found that a majority in the U.S. believe Biden will do a better job overall in dealing with the crisis .
Fifty-five percent of Americans said that Biden will handle the pandemic better than Trump will , while only 33 percent said Trump would do a better job .

The infectious diseases expert is widely regarded as trustworthy on coronavirus by the American people.
Anthony Fauci, the director of the National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases (NIAID) since 1984 and a member of President Donald Trump’s White House coronavirus task force, said in an interview on Wednesday that he’d be happy to continue on as an adviser to President-elect Joe Biden if he was asked to do so.
Fauci, who was being interviewed on C-SPAN about the matter, was asked if he’d serve on a similar coronavirus task force set up by Biden, once he assumes office in January.
“Of course, yes. The answer is absolutely,” the infectious diseases expert said.
Fauci added that he has been in contact with Biden’s chief of staff Ron Klain. The two, however, have not discussed the “nuts and bolts” of what the next president’s plans would be regarding a response to the pandemic when he occupies the White House.
Fauci applauded the decision by the Trump administration this week to finally allow the transition process to begin to allow for Biden’s entrance into office.
“Obviously, soon, we will be getting the transition team and the task force to give them the information that would make their assuming the responsibilities easier and more efficient,” Fauci said.
Trump’s long refusal to acknowledge the outcome of the presidential race, and to allow the transition process to begin, had kept Biden’s team from being involved in discussions regarding a number of important issues, including how the eventual rollout of a vaccine for coronavirus was being planned. In an interview last week, Fauci explained that it was imperative for the Trump administration to share that info with Biden.
“I’ve been through five transitions; I can say that transitions are extremely important to the smooth continuity of whatever you’re doing,” Fauci said at the time.
Fauci’s inclusion in the Biden White House would likely be welcomed by most Americans, as the NIAID director is widely regarded as trustworthy.
In a recent Politico/Morning Consult poll, 62 percent of Americans rated Fauci’s handling of the COVID-19 pandemic response as “excellent” or “good.” Another 17 percent said it was “fair,” while only 13 percent described Fauci’s work on the virus as “poor.”
The president, however, didn’t fare as well as Fauci in people’s views on his handling of the response to the pandemic. Only 38 percent of Americans described Trump’s leadership on COVID-19 as “excellent” or “good,” with 49 percent saying his performance was “poor.” Ten percent described his job on coronavirus as “fair.”
The poll also found that a majority in the U.S. believe Biden will do a better job overall in dealing with the crisis. Fifty-five percent of Americans said that Biden will handle the pandemic better than Trump will, while only 33 percent said Trump would do a better job.
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--2020-11-25--Trump Tweets Bogus Poll Backing His Refusal to Concede

In spite of the fact that the transition for President-elect Joe Biden has begun , President Donald Trump still refuses to acknowledge his election loss , going so far as posting seriously flawed polling data on his Twitter account that wrongly suggests the American people don ’ t want him to concede .
Trump formally announced he was “ recommending ” that General Services Administration ( GSA ) head Emily Murphy “ do what needs to be done with regard to initial protocols ” to begin the transition process for President-elect Biden on Monday evening .
But it was clear @ @ @ @ @ @ @ he has not given up his quest to contest the results of the presidential election .
On Tuesday , Trump tweeted that he and his legal team had a “ big lawsuit ” planned which would “ [ spell ] out in great detail all of the ballot fraud and more.
” So far , however , nearly all of Trump ’ s legal filings alleging fraud have been dismissed , with judges pointing to the lack of proof of fraud or election rigging of any kind .
There ’ s no sign @ @ @ @ @ @ @ lawsuit would be any different .
Trump continued to share questionable justifications for why he shouldn ’ t acknowledge his election loss .
On Tuesday evening , for example , the president tweeted the results from a highly biased Newsmax viewer poll .
Such polls are not scientific — their samples are biased because they rely on those already viewing the content to give their opinions , rather than seeking out a random sample of individuals to get a true understanding of how the public at large feels .
It should come as @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Newsmax viewer poll found that 98.9 percent of those surveyed did not want Trump to concede the race .
Trump shared the results of the poll on his Twitter account without context to create the impression that it was a legitimate scientifically conducted poll .
“ Should President Trump concede to Biden ?
Poll Results : No : 190,593 ( 98.9 % ) Yes : 2,181 ( 1.1 % ) , ” Trump tweeted out .
“ For the good of our Country we must prevail !
” Trump added .
In fact @ @ @ @ @ @ @ to concede .
A Harvard CAPS/Harris poll released this week found that 58 percent of Americans think Trump should acknowledge his election loss , and Biden ’ s win .
Within that same poll , 61 percent of respondents said that the mail-in ballot system was fair , and 57 percent said there was no systemic fraud in the election overall .
However , it ’ s far more likely that Trump will never concede , according to those who work close to him .
White House officials speaking anonymously to USA Today @ @ @ @ @ @ @ a transition was in itself an endeavor that required convincing .
It may be the closest Trump gets to ever conceding , those aides suggested .
Indeed , late on Tuesday night , Trump told his followers on Twitter that his agreeing to a transition didn ’ t mean he was admitting he lost .
“ What does GSA being allowed to preliminarily work with the Dems have to do with continuing to pursue our various cases on what will go down as the most corrupt election in American political history ?
” @ @ @ @ @ @ @ that the election was fraudulent , Trump went on to say that he will “ never concede ” the race .
According to the most recent numbers , Biden ’ s win over Trump is quite decisive .
The president-elect received more than 80 million votes overall , over 6 million more than what Trump received .
According to state election returns , Biden also won the Electoral College by a margin of 306 to Trump ’ s 232 .

The latest numbers show a decisive win for Biden, with more than 80 million voters picking him to be the next president.
In spite of the fact that the transition for President-elect Joe Biden has begun, President Donald Trump still refuses to acknowledge his election loss, going so far as posting seriously flawed polling data on his Twitter account that wrongly suggests the American people don’t want him to concede.
Trump formally announced he was “recommending” that General Services Administration (GSA) head Emily Murphy “do what needs to be done with regard to initial protocols” to begin the transition process for President-elect Biden on Monday evening. But it was clear from comments he made later on that he has not given up his quest to contest the results of the presidential election.
On Tuesday, Trump tweeted that he and his legal team had a “big lawsuit” planned which would “[spell] out in great detail all of the ballot fraud and more.” So far, however, nearly all of Trump’s legal filings alleging fraud have been dismissed, with judges pointing to the lack of proof of fraud or election rigging of any kind. There’s no sign or proof from Trump that this new lawsuit would be any different.
Trump continued to share questionable justifications for why he shouldn’t acknowledge his election loss. On Tuesday evening, for example, the president tweeted the results from a highly biased Newsmax viewer poll.
Such polls are not scientific — their samples are biased because they rely on those already viewing the content to give their opinions, rather than seeking out a random sample of individuals to get a true understanding of how the public at large feels.
It should come as no surprise, then, that the Newsmax viewer poll found that 98.9 percent of those surveyed did not want Trump to concede the race. Trump shared the results of the poll on his Twitter account without context to create the impression that it was a legitimate scientifically conducted poll.
“Should President Trump concede to Biden? Poll Results: No: 190,593 (98.9%) Yes: 2,181 (1.1%),” Trump tweeted out.
Should President Trump concede to Biden? Poll Results: No: 190,593 (98.9%) Yes: 2,181 (1.1%) Total Votes: 192,774. @gregkellyusa @newsmax For the good of our Country we must prevail! — Donald J. Trump (@realDonaldTrump) November 25, 2020
“For the good of our Country we must prevail!” Trump added.
In fact, most of the electorate wants Trump to concede. A Harvard CAPS/Harris poll released this week found that 58 percent of Americans think Trump should acknowledge his election loss, and Biden’s win. Within that same poll, 61 percent of respondents said that the mail-in ballot system was fair, and 57 percent said there was no systemic fraud in the election overall.
However, it’s far more likely that Trump will never concede, according to those who work close to him. White House officials speaking anonymously to USA Today revealed that getting Trump to agree to a transition was in itself an endeavor that required convincing. It may be the closest Trump gets to ever conceding, those aides suggested.
Indeed, late on Tuesday night, Trump told his followers on Twitter that his agreeing to a transition didn’t mean he was admitting he lost.
“What does GSA being allowed to preliminarily work with the Dems have to do with continuing to pursue our various cases on what will go down as the most corrupt election in American political history?” Trump said. Without citing any proof that the election was fraudulent, Trump went on to say that he will “never concede” the race.
According to the most recent numbers, Biden’s win over Trump is quite decisive. The president-elect received more than 80 million votes overall, over 6 million more than what Trump received. According to state election returns, Biden also won the Electoral College by a margin of 306 to Trump’s 232.
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--2020-11-25--Biden’s Defense Pick Flournoy Is Part of the Military-Industrial Revolving Door

President-elect Joe Biden has introduced key members of his national security team this week , including his picks for secretary of state , national intelligence director , national security adviser , homeland security chief and ambassador to the United Nations .
Biden has yet to announce his defense secretary , but progressives are already raising alarm over reports that he intends to nominate Michèle Flournoy , a hawkish Pentagon veteran with close ties to the defense industry .
If nominated , Flournoy would become the first woman to lead the Department of Defense .
“ She represents the epitome of @ @ @ @ @ @ @ , the military-industrial complex ’ s revolving door , ” says CodePink co-founder Medea Benjamin .
“ Her whole history has been one of going in and out of the Pentagon … where she supported every war that the U.S. engaged in , and supported increases in the military budget.
” This is a rush transcript .
Copy may not be in its final form .
AMY GOODMAN : President-elect Joe Biden has introduced key members of his national security team , with a vow to reembrace the world , in a clear @ @ @ @ @ @ @ First ” foreign policy .
AMY GOODMAN : The president-elect spoke [ Tuesday ] in Wilmington , Delaware , alongside several members of his future Cabinet , including secretary of state nominee Tony Blinken , national intelligence director nominee Avril Haines , national security adviser nominee Jake Sullivan , secretary of homeland security nominee Alejandro Mayorkas and U.N. ambassador nominee Linda Thomas-Greenfield .
We ’ ll hear more about them in our next segment , but first we turn to look at a member of Biden ’ s national security team who has @ @ @ @ @ @ @ ’ t know who his pick for the secretary of defense will be .
Several media outlets have reported Biden planned to nominate Michèle Flournoy , but progressives , including some lawmakers , are speaking out in opposition .
If nominated and confirmed , Flournoy would become the first woman in the post .
She served as undersecretary of defense for policy in the Obama administration from 2009 to 2012 .
After she left , she founded the consultancy firm WestExec Advisors with Tony Blinken , now the secretary of state nominee .
@ @ @ @ @ @ @ motto “ Bringing the Situation Room to the Board Room , ” has many former Obama administration officials on staff , including former CIA Deputy Director Avril Haines , who helped design Obama ’ s drone program , is now Biden ’ s pick for director of national intelligence .
California Congressmember Ro Khanna tweeted , quote , “ Flournoy supported the war in Iraq & Libya , criticized Obama on Syria , and helped craft the surge in Afghanistan .
I want to support the President ’ s picks .
But will @ @ @ @ @ @ @ from Afghanistan & a ban on arms sales to the Saudis to end the Yemen war ?
” Ro Khanna asked .
Meanwhile , CodePink ’ s Medea Benjamin tweeted , quote , “ If Biden puts her name forward , anti-war activists should quickly launch an all-out effort to block Senate confirmation .
# FeminismNotMilitarism.
” Well , Medea Benjamin joins us right now .
She is co-founder of CodePink , author of a number of books , including Kingdom of the Unjust : Behind the U.S.-Saudi Connection ; her latest book @ @ @ @ @ @ @ and Politics of the Islamic Republic of Iran .
Medea , welcome back to Democracy Now !
In a moment , we ’ re going to talk about President-elect Biden ’ s picks .
This is a person who has not yet been named , an extremely important position , the secretary of defense .
Can you talk about your concerns and what ’ s going on behind the scenes , both in the grassroots community and among progressive lawmakers ?
MEDEA BENJAMIN : [ inaudible ] Flournoy , yet it shows that @ @ @ @ @ @ @ s people on this right now .
She represents the epitome of what is worst about the Washington blob , the military-industrial complex ’ s revolving door .
Her whole history has been one of going in and out of the Pentagon , first under President Clinton , then under President Obama , where she supported every war that the U.S. engaged in , and supported increases in the military budget , and then used her contacts in government in these kind of hawkish think tanks that she either joined or helped create @ @ @ @ @ @ @ a corporation that works with defense contractors .
She herself has made a lot of money by parlaying these insider contacts into positioning companies to be able to get these very plush Pentagon contracts .
She also sees China as an enemy that has to be confronted with higher-tech weapons , which justifies increased Pentagon spending and puts us on a dangerous path of an increased cold war with China .
So , these are just some of the reasons we think she would be a disastrous pick as secretary of defense .
@ @ @ @ @ @ @ she not only worked in the Defense Department under Obama , she also worked in the Defense Department under Bill Clinton and was rumored to be Hillary Clinton ’ s first choice as secretary of defense , had Hillary won the election in 2016 .
So she definitely is , as you say , part of this establishment of the military-industrial complex going way back .
But could you talk about this WestExec Advisors that she helped to create ?
And we already have two people from that consultancy , that strategic advisory @ @ @ @ @ @ @ would be the third if she was chosen .
What has been the role of this barely known group , outside of Washington ?
MEDEA BENJAMIN : Well , that ’ s right .
And that ’ s why it ’ s so important to look at this WestExec Advisors , first of all , to understand that it ’ s a secret organization [ inaudible ] reveal who its clients are .
But we do know that it has been working with Israeli companies .
It seems that they work with the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ is to get contracts for the Pentagon from companies , including companies from Silicon Valley .
This is the worst of Washington .
Yes , he ’ s already picked Antony Blinken , who is the co-founder with Michèle Flournoy — bad enough .
Bad enough that they brought in Avril Haines , who is part of WestExec Advisors .
But this consulting firm , that seems to be Biden ’ s government-in-waiting , represents the kind of Washington insider revolving door , makes sure that companies have an easy in into the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ both the Bill Clinton years and the Obama years — and especially the Obama years — to grease the wheels for those companies .
So , you know , unfortunately , we would like to know more about WestExec Advisors , but it is , as I say , a company that won ’ t reveal who its clients are .
AMY GOODMAN : Reading from an article , “ The website for WestExec Advisors includes a map depicting West Executive Avenue , the secure road on the White House grounds between the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Building , as a way to show what the consulting firm can do for its clients … ‘ quite literally , the road to the Situation Room , and … the road everyone associated with WestExec Advisors has crossed many times en route to meetings of the highest national security consequences.
’ ” Medea , your piece in Common Dreams is headlined “ Will Michele Flournoy Be the Angel of Death for the American Empire ?
” What do you mean ?
MEDEA BENJAMIN : Well , I feel that we can go @ @ @ @ @ @ @ on this route of trying to pretend that the U.S. has the right and the ability to dictate what the world should look like , which is Michèle Flournoy ’ s worldview , or Biden could go the other way , which is to understand that the U.S. is an empire in crisis , needs to take care of its problems here at home , like this pandemic , and has to decrease the enormous military budget that is eating up over half of our discretionary funds .
And if he picks Michèle @ @ @ @ @ @ @ on that road of the declining empire , which will be terrible for us in the United States , because it will mean that we ’ ll continue these wars in Afghanistan , in Iraq , U.S. involvement in Syria , but also , at the same time , try to pivot to China , which we can ’ t possibly keep this empire going and try to deal with all the crises we have here at home .
JUAN GONZÁLEZ : And , Medea , you also write about Michèle Flournoy ’ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ New American Security , this think tank that she helped to create .
Could you talk about what that ’ s produced and what she did there ?
MEDEA BENJAMIN : Well , that is seen as one of the most hawkish think tanks .
And it is one of the most well funded by precisely government and military contractors , as well as oil companies .
So , it is an example , that she started herself , of leaving the administration from the Pentagon , creating — using her Rolodex to @ @ @ @ @ @ @ funded by the very companies that she dealt with when she was inside the Pentagon .
AMY GOODMAN : We ’ re going to break now .
We want to thank you , Medea Benjamin , for joining us , co-founder of the peace organization CodePink , author of a number of books , including Kingdom of the Unjust : Behind the U.S.-Saudi Connection .
We ’ ll be joined by Bernie Sanders ’ former speechwriter , David Sirota , as well as professor Barbara Ransby , to look at who was on @ @ @ @ @ @ @ the choices that President-elect Biden has made so far .
Stay with us .

President-elect Joe Biden has introduced key members of his national security team this week, including his picks for secretary of state, national intelligence director, national security adviser, homeland security chief and ambassador to the United Nations. Biden has yet to announce his defense secretary, but progressives are already raising alarm over reports that he intends to nominate Michèle Flournoy, a hawkish Pentagon veteran with close ties to the defense industry. If nominated, Flournoy would become the first woman to lead the Department of Defense. “She represents the epitome of what is worst about the Washington blob, the military-industrial complex’s revolving door,” says CodePink co-founder Medea Benjamin. “Her whole history has been one of going in and out of the Pentagon … where she supported every war that the U.S. engaged in, and supported increases in the military budget.”
This is a rush transcript. Copy may not be in its final form.
AMY GOODMAN: President-elect Joe Biden has introduced key members of his national security team, with a vow to reembrace the world, in a clear rejection of Trump’s “America First” foreign policy.
PRESIDENT–ELECT JOE BIDEN: The team meets this moment. This team, behind me. They embody my core beliefs that America is strongest when it works with its allies.
AMY GOODMAN: The president-elect spoke [Tuesday] in Wilmington, Delaware, alongside several members of his future Cabinet, including secretary of state nominee Tony Blinken, national intelligence director nominee Avril Haines, national security adviser nominee Jake Sullivan, secretary of homeland security nominee Alejandro Mayorkas and U.N. ambassador nominee Linda Thomas-Greenfield.
We’ll hear more about them in our next segment, but first we turn to look at a member of Biden’s national security team who has not yet been announced. We don’t know who his pick for the secretary of defense will be. Several media outlets have reported Biden planned to nominate Michèle Flournoy, but progressives, including some lawmakers, are speaking out in opposition.
If nominated and confirmed, Flournoy would become the first woman in the post. She served as undersecretary of defense for policy in the Obama administration from 2009 to 2012. After she left, she founded the consultancy firm WestExec Advisors with Tony Blinken, now the secretary of state nominee. The secretive consulting firm, with the motto “Bringing the Situation Room to the Board Room,” has many former Obama administration officials on staff, including former CIA Deputy Director Avril Haines, who helped design Obama’s drone program, is now Biden’s pick for director of national intelligence.
California Congressmember Ro Khanna tweeted, quote, “Flournoy supported the war in Iraq & Libya, criticized Obama on Syria, and helped craft the surge in Afghanistan. I want to support the President’s picks. But will Flournoy now commit to a full withdrawal from Afghanistan & a ban on arms sales to the Saudis to end the Yemen war?” Ro Khanna asked.
Meanwhile, CodePink’s Medea Benjamin tweeted, quote, “If Biden puts her name forward, anti-war activists should quickly launch an all-out effort to block Senate confirmation. #FeminismNotMilitarism.”
Well, Medea Benjamin joins us right now. She is co-founder of CodePink, author of a number of books, including Kingdom of the Unjust: Behind the U.S.-Saudi Connection; her latest book, Inside Iran: The Real History and Politics of the Islamic Republic of Iran.
Medea, welcome back to Democracy Now! In a moment, we’re going to talk about President-elect Biden’s picks. This is a person who has not yet been named, an extremely important position, the secretary of defense. Can you talk about your concerns and what’s going on behind the scenes, both in the grassroots community and among progressive lawmakers?
MEDEA BENJAMIN: [inaudible] Flournoy, yet it shows that there is some division within Biden’s people on this right now. She represents the epitome of what is worst about the Washington blob, the military-industrial complex’s revolving door. Her whole history has been one of going in and out of the Pentagon, first under President Clinton, then under President Obama, where she supported every war that the U.S. engaged in, and supported increases in the military budget, and then used her contacts in government in these kind of hawkish think tanks that she either joined or helped create. She sits on the board of a corporation that works with defense contractors. She herself has made a lot of money by parlaying these insider contacts into positioning companies to be able to get these very plush Pentagon contracts. She also sees China as an enemy that has to be confronted with higher-tech weapons, which justifies increased Pentagon spending and puts us on a dangerous path of an increased cold war with China. So, these are just some of the reasons we think she would be a disastrous pick as secretary of defense.
JUAN GONZÁLEZ: Well, Medea, she not only worked in the Defense Department under Obama, she also worked in the Defense Department under Bill Clinton and was rumored to be Hillary Clinton’s first choice as secretary of defense, had Hillary won the election in 2016. So she definitely is, as you say, part of this establishment of the military-industrial complex going way back. But could you talk about this WestExec Advisors that she helped to create? And we already have two people from that consultancy, that strategic advisory consultancy, named by Biden. She would be the third if she was chosen. What has been the role of this barely known group, outside of Washington?
MEDEA BENJAMIN: Well, that’s right. And that’s why it’s so important to look at this WestExec Advisors, first of all, to understand that it’s a secret organization [inaudible] reveal who its clients are. But we do know that it has been working with Israeli companies. It seems that they work with the United Arab Emirates. And their job is to get contracts for the Pentagon from companies, including companies from Silicon Valley. This is the worst of Washington.
Yes, he’s already picked Antony Blinken, who is the co-founder with Michèle Flournoy — bad enough. Bad enough that they brought in Avril Haines, who is part of WestExec Advisors. But this consulting firm, that seems to be Biden’s government-in-waiting, represents the kind of Washington insider revolving door, makes sure that companies have an easy in into the Pentagon, and using these insiders from both the Bill Clinton years and the Obama years — and especially the Obama years — to grease the wheels for those companies. So, you know, unfortunately, we would like to know more about WestExec Advisors, but it is, as I say, a company that won’t reveal who its clients are.
AMY GOODMAN: Reading from an article, “The website for WestExec Advisors includes a map depicting West Executive Avenue, the secure road on the White House grounds between the West Wing and the Eisenhower Executive Office Building, as a way to show what the consulting firm can do for its clients … ‘quite literally, the road to the Situation Room, and … the road everyone associated with WestExec Advisors has crossed many times en route to meetings of the highest national security consequences.’” Medea, your piece in Common Dreams is headlined “Will Michele Flournoy Be the Angel of Death for the American Empire?” What do you mean?
MEDEA BENJAMIN: Well, I feel that we can go one of two ways: We continue on this route of trying to pretend that the U.S. has the right and the ability to dictate what the world should look like, which is Michèle Flournoy’s worldview, or Biden could go the other way, which is to understand that the U.S. is an empire in crisis, needs to take care of its problems here at home, like this pandemic, and has to decrease the enormous military budget that is eating up over half of our discretionary funds. And if he picks Michèle Flournoy, I think we will continue on that road of the declining empire, which will be terrible for us in the United States, because it will mean that we’ll continue these wars in Afghanistan, in Iraq, U.S. involvement in Syria, but also, at the same time, try to pivot to China, which we can’t possibly keep this empire going and try to deal with all the crises we have here at home.
JUAN GONZÁLEZ: And, Medea, you also write about Michèle Flournoy’s involvement with the Center on a New American Security, this think tank that she helped to create. Could you talk about what that’s produced and what she did there?
MEDEA BENJAMIN: Well, that is seen as one of the most hawkish think tanks. And it is one of the most well funded by precisely government and military contractors, as well as oil companies. So, it is an example, that she started herself, of leaving the administration from the Pentagon, creating — using her Rolodex to create this think tank and get it funded by the very companies that she dealt with when she was inside the Pentagon.
AMY GOODMAN: We’re going to break now. We want to thank you, Medea Benjamin, for joining us, co-founder of the peace organization CodePink, author of a number of books, including Kingdom of the Unjust: Behind the U.S.-Saudi Connection.
We’ll be joined by Bernie Sanders’ former speechwriter, David Sirota, as well as professor Barbara Ransby, to look at who was on the stage in Wilmington, Delaware, the choices that President-elect Biden has made so far. Stay with us.


truthout--2020-11-25--AOC, Omar and Tlaib Back Effort to Keep Deficit Hawks Out of Biden Admin

Reps. Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez , Ilhan Omar , and Rashida Tlaib on Tuesday became the first sitting members of Congress to join a new pressure campaign demanding that President-elect Joe Biden keep Bruce Reed — an unapologetic architect of Bill Clinton ’ s disastrous “ welfare reform ” and notorious austerity proponent — out of the White House .
The “ No Deficit Hawks ” petition , launched by advocacy group Justice Democrats and backed by other progressive organizations , comes as Reed is reportedly under consideration to lead Biden ’ s Office of Management and Budget ( OMB ) , @ @ @ @ @ @ @ with crafting the incoming administration ’ s budgetary agenda amid a devastating economic crisis .
“ Putting someone who will prioritize paying down the deficit ahead of all other concerns in charge is a recipe for cutting our earned benefits and turning the Covid recession into a depression , ” the petition states .
“ Rejecting Reed will be a major test for the soul of the Biden presidency.
” A long-time Democratic operative who has advised and worked for Biden for years , Reed helped craft the 1996 welfare reform law that @ @ @ @ @ @ @ , inflicting severe damage on vulnerable children .
Reed , who in 2016 characterized the law as an overall “ success , ” has also been credited with authoring Clinton ’ s infamous vow to “ end welfare as we know it.
” In the wake of The American Prospect ’ s report last week that Reed is under consideration to head OMB , progressives spotlighted Reed ’ s role as executive director of the Bowles-Simpson Commission , an Obama administration initiative that recommended slashing Social Security benefits .
Social Security Works , @ @ @ @ @ @ @ petition , said it is imperative to “ keep Reed and his toxic austerity politics out of the Biden administration.
” Omar echoed that message in a tweet on Tuesday , declaring : “ If the Biden administration is serious about protecting Medicare and Social Security , they must not appoint one of the biggest champions of cuts to lead their budget agency.
” Other signatories of the new petition include the Working Families Party and Data for Progress as well as Reps.-elect Cori Bush ( D-Mo . )
and Jamaal Bowman ( @ @ @ @ @ @ @ have also spoken out against the Biden team ’ s reported consideration of former Chicago Mayor Rahm Emanuel for a White House role .
“ Bruce Reed helped develop the ’ 94 Crime Bill , pushed broken windows policing and cuts to Social Security and Medicaid , ” Bush tweeted Tuesday .
“ We want an administration that prioritizes programs that protect all of us .
Mr. Reed is not someone our communities trust .
”

The pressure campaign demands that austerity proponent Bruce Reed be kept out of the White House.
Reps. Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez, Ilhan Omar, and Rashida Tlaib on Tuesday became the first sitting members of Congress to join a new pressure campaign demanding that President-elect Joe Biden keep Bruce Reed — an unapologetic architect of Bill Clinton’s disastrous “welfare reform” and notorious austerity proponent — out of the White House.
The “No Deficit Hawks” petition, launched by advocacy group Justice Democrats and backed by other progressive organizations, comes as Reed is reportedly under consideration to lead Biden’s Office of Management and Budget (OMB), a key agency that will be tasked with crafting the incoming administration’s budgetary agenda amid a devastating economic crisis.
“Putting someone who will prioritize paying down the deficit ahead of all other concerns in charge is a recipe for cutting our earned benefits and turning the Covid recession into a depression,” the petition states. “Rejecting Reed will be a major test for the soul of the Biden presidency.”
A long-time Democratic operative who has advised and worked for Biden for years, Reed helped craft the 1996 welfare reform law that produced a massive surge in extreme poverty, inflicting severe damage on vulnerable children. Reed, who in 2016 characterized the law as an overall “success,” has also been credited with authoring Clinton’s infamous vow to “end welfare as we know it.”
In the wake of The American Prospect’s report last week that Reed is under consideration to head OMB, progressives spotlighted Reed’s role as executive director of the Bowles-Simpson Commission, an Obama administration initiative that recommended slashing Social Security benefits.
Social Security Works, one of the backers of the new petition, said it is imperative to “keep Reed and his toxic austerity politics out of the Biden administration.”
Omar echoed that message in a tweet on Tuesday, declaring: “If the Biden administration is serious about protecting Medicare and Social Security, they must not appoint one of the biggest champions of cuts to lead their budget agency.”
If the Biden administration is serious about protecting Medicare and Social Security, they must not appoint one of the biggest champions of cuts to lead their budget agency. Join me, @justicedems, & our progressive coalition in saying no to deficit hawks: https://t.co/0BjuQj5dwm — Ilhan Omar (@IlhanMN) November 24, 2020
Other signatories of the new petition include the Working Families Party and Data for Progress as well as Reps.-elect Cori Bush (D-Mo.) and Jamaal Bowman (D-N.Y.), incoming progressive members who have also spoken out against the Biden team’s reported consideration of former Chicago Mayor Rahm Emanuel for a White House role.
“Bruce Reed helped develop the ’94 Crime Bill, pushed broken windows policing and cuts to Social Security and Medicaid,” Bush tweeted Tuesday. “We want an administration that prioritizes programs that protect all of us. Mr. Reed is not someone our communities trust.”
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--2020-11-25--Mnuchin Violates CARES Act With Plan to Move $455 Billion in Unspent COVID Funds

Treasury Secretary Steve Mnuchin is under fire for attempting to undermine the incoming Biden administration ’ s response to the Covid-19 pandemic on his way out the door after his department confirmed Tuesday that it intends to place $ 455 billion in unspent coronavirus relief funds into an account that requires congressional authorization to access .
Bloomberg reported that the funds , which Congress allocated to the Federal Reserve in March for emergency lending programs to assist local governments and struggling businesses , will be put in the Treasury Department ’ s General Fund following Mnuchin ’ s widely condemned @ @ @ @ @ @ @ relief programs at the end of the year .
Mnuchin requested that the funds be reallocated by the currently divided Congress , and the Fed has agreed to cooperate with the outgoing treasury secretary ’ s move .
According to Bloomberg , “ Mnuchin ’ clawback would make it impossible ” for Janet Yellen , President-elect Joe Biden ’ s pick to lead the Treasury Department , to utilize the funds “ without lawmakers ’ blessing.
” “ The move leaves just under $ 80 billion available in the Treasury ’ s Exchange @ @ @ @ @ @ @ that can be used with some discretion by the Treasury chief , ” Bloomberg noted .
“ By contrast , the CARES Act funds had specific uses , and weren ’ t available for general government spending purposes.
” While Mnuchin , a former Goldman Sachs banker , insisted he is attempting to ensure the funds are put to better use , Democratic members of Congress and other observers immediately accused the treasury secretary of a potentially unlawful ploy to hamstring the Biden administration ’ s coronavirus response before the president-elect takes office @ @ @ @ @ @ @ ’ s actions are an “ explicit ” violation of the CARES Act .
“ This is Treasury ’ s latest ham-handed effort to undermine the Biden administration .
The good news is that it ’ s illegal and can be reversed next year , ” tweeted Bharat Ramamurti , a member of the congressional commission established to oversee the use of coronavirus relief money .
“ For its part , the Fed should not go along with this attempted sabotage and should retain the CARES Act funds it already has.
” Sen. @ @ @ @ @ @ @ top Democrat on the Senate Finance Committee , denounced as “ shameful ” Mnuchin ’ s effort to pull back the congressional relief funds and place them out of the Biden administration ’ s reach .
“ As the economy backslides amid skyrocketing Covid-19 cases , Secretary Mnuchin is engaged in economic sabotage , and trying to tie the Biden administration ’ s hands , ” Wyden said in a statement to Reuters on Tuesday .
Echoing Wyden , Sen. Elizabeth Warren ( D-Mass . )
tweeted late Tuesday that “ Secretary Mnuchin @ @ @ @ @ @ @ corrupt and incompetent failure.
” “ He needs to stop sabotaging the Biden administration from cleaning up his mess and helping states , cities , and small businesses , ” said Warren .

The plan follows Mnuchin’s widely condemned decision to cut off the relief programs at the end of the year.
Treasury Secretary Steve Mnuchin is under fire for attempting to undermine the incoming Biden administration’s response to the Covid-19 pandemic on his way out the door after his department confirmed Tuesday that it intends to place $455 billion in unspent coronavirus relief funds into an account that requires congressional authorization to access.
Bloomberg reported that the funds, which Congress allocated to the Federal Reserve in March for emergency lending programs to assist local governments and struggling businesses, will be put in the Treasury Department’s General Fund following Mnuchin’s widely condemned decision last week to cut off the relief programs at the end of the year.
Mnuchin requested that the funds be reallocated by the currently divided Congress, and the Fed has agreed to cooperate with the outgoing treasury secretary’s move.
According to Bloomberg, “Mnuchin’ clawback would make it impossible” for Janet Yellen, President-elect Joe Biden’s pick to lead the Treasury Department, to utilize the funds “without lawmakers’ blessing.”
“The move leaves just under $80 billion available in the Treasury’s Exchange Stabilization Fund, a pot of money that can be used with some discretion by the Treasury chief,” Bloomberg noted. “By contrast, the CARES Act funds had specific uses, and weren’t available for general government spending purposes.”
While Mnuchin, a former Goldman Sachs banker, insisted he is attempting to ensure the funds are put to better use, Democratic members of Congress and other observers immediately accused the treasury secretary of a potentially unlawful ploy to hamstring the Biden administration’s coronavirus response before the president-elect takes office. According to one analyst, Mnuchin’s actions are an “explicit” violation of the CARES Act.
“This is Treasury’s latest ham-handed effort to undermine the Biden administration. The good news is that it’s illegal and can be reversed next year,” tweeted Bharat Ramamurti, a member of the congressional commission established to oversee the use of coronavirus relief money. “For its part, the Fed should not go along with this attempted sabotage and should retain the CARES Act funds it already has.”
Burning it down on the way out the door. There is no reasonable justification for this. https://t.co/Nn4w1lZy7D — Michael Linden (@MichaelSLinden) November 24, 2020
This is flat out sabotage https://t.co/Dbj2MDhkyW — Chris Hayes (@chrislhayes) November 24, 2020
Sen. Ron Wyden (D-Ore.), the top Democrat on the Senate Finance Committee, denounced as “shameful” Mnuchin’s effort to pull back the congressional relief funds and place them out of the Biden administration’s reach.
“As the economy backslides amid skyrocketing Covid-19 cases, Secretary Mnuchin is engaged in economic sabotage, and trying to tie the Biden administration’s hands,” Wyden said in a statement to Reuters on Tuesday.
Echoing Wyden, Sen. Elizabeth Warren (D-Mass.) tweeted late Tuesday that “Secretary Mnuchin’s Covid-19 response has been a corrupt and incompetent failure.”
“He needs to stop sabotaging the Biden administration from cleaning up his mess and helping states, cities, and small businesses,” said Warren.
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--2020-11-25--Nurse: “We Are Screaming at the Top of Our Lungs and So Few Are Listening”

Uri Friedman of The Atlantic popped off a chewy little thought bomb a couple of weeks back .
Surveying the national landscape under COVID , he argued that in the age of the pandemic , a new metric for “ national strength ” must be cultivated : the resilience of a population under duress .
It is this metric , Friedman argued — not a nation ’ s military prowess or economic muscle — that matters the most right now .
And by this metric , the United States has failed the COVID test thoroughly .
Friedman ’ s insight @ @ @ @ @ @ @ pass into the COVID crucible of mass Thanksgiving travel .
While holiday travel this year has dropped several percentage points due to pandemic concerns , many millions will still risk breathing the air on planes and trains in order to spend time with family and friends .
They do so at a grimly consequential moment : COVID took almost 2,500 lives just yesterday , and has been infecting nearly 200,000 people a day for the last week .
It is , at present , worse than at any moment since the crisis began @ @ @ @ @ @ @ , the pandemic will almost certainly spread its wings even wider due to the close association of the season .
A long , dark winter promises to be even more bleak and unforgiving once the leftovers are gone .
Quoting historian Sulmaan Khan , Friedman noted , “ [ The coronavirus ] didn ’ t care how many aircraft carriers you had or how many Confucius Institutes you could stick up around the world or what size your economy was .
The virus asked simply how your least wealthy people would be treated @ @ @ @ @ @ @ you could trace the contacts of those it afflicted .
How swiftly your medical system could cope with unexpected demands.
” The United States is proving time and time again its inability to succeed in relation to this metric .
It is facile to scapegoat Thanksgiving travelers , a vivid example though they may be , because this failure began with the first infection and has spread with it from one side of the nation to the other .
When a large segment of a population is gulled by its leaders into thinking @ @ @ @ @ @ @ to be shunned , even as the bodies pile up inside refrigeration trucks at the morgues , that is a gross and dispiriting failure of popular resilience from top to bottom .
Trump offered a comfortable , self-affirming narrative to counteract the terrifying truths of COVID , and millions embraced it because it was easier , and because it required no empathy or sense of civic duty .
“ MY freedoms !
” was the rallying cry , the banner to which people flocked ; doing something for everyone was made to smell @ @ @ @ @ @ @ officials who absolutely knew better , but cozened their followers in trade for an illusory measure of political insulation from the pandemic ’ s rolling consequences .
Nowhere has the weight of our national failure of resilience landed heavier than in the medical facilities that are taking this new COVID spike straight in the teeth .
The pandemic may have revealed our weaknesses as a country , but it has also shined a bright spotlight on our strengths .
Within the confines of a broken , profit-motivated health care system is an army @ @ @ @ @ @ @ their bodies on the gears of this viral machine since it began .
Almost a year into the battle , however , even their knees are beginning to buckle .
I spoke to two working nurses this week , one on the East Coast and one on the West .
Kathleen Logan , a nurse practitioner in acute inpatient and primary care , works in Massachusetts .
T. , who asked that their name be withheld out of concern for job security , is an RN at a hospital in the Pacific Northwest @ @ @ @ @ @ @ why they won ’ t listen to us , ” lamented T. regarding the mobs of holiday travelers .
“ We are screaming at the top of our lungs and so few are listening .
We don ’ t have a well-functioning health care system in the best of times .
I wonder what it will look like in three to four weeks ?
” “ I ’ m getting scared again just like the worst part of the first surge , ” said Logan .
“ We are reusing ‘ sanitized ’ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ .
It ’ s been documented that the integrity of the mask is depleted with each sanitization , so I don ’ t participate in it .
I leave it in the UV light and spray it down with disinfectant.
” I asked T. and Logan what their worst experience of the pandemic has been .
For Logan , the worst part has been getting left to sink or swim by the president .
“ We know this current [ Trump ] administration hates us , ” she said , speaking on behalf @ @ @ @ @ @ @ He will mass-produce ventilators for his voters but not PPE for his health care providers .
Because we are not his .
He has abandoned us .
There is no culture of compliance and teamwork.
” T. and Logan , along with their colleagues , are holding themselves and the country ’ s COVID response together with bungee cords and used PPE masks .
For them , “ Thoughts and prayers ” is as effectively helpful as injecting bleach ; they have been through so much already , established their genuine heroism many @ @ @ @ @ @ @ resilience truly looks like .
Now , as they and the rest of us face the long midnight of a pandemic winter , I have a humble idea .
When I was a kid , wearing arm bands to support certain causes was an ever-present thing .
Hot on the heels of the 1965 Supreme Court decision in Tinker v. Des Moines Independent Community School District , which allowed students to wear black arm bands in protest of the war in Vietnam , these items became commonplace .
I recall wearing arm bands @ @ @ @ @ @ @ South Africa , against the first invasion of Iraq , and in support of justice for Rodney King after the videotape of police beating him made national news .
In the intervening years , the arm band has often been pushed aside by the now-ubiquitous rubber “ cause ” bracelets that are simultaneously far more fashionable and far less visible .
Visibility is the key .
After September 11 , there were American flags absolutely everywhere , reminding us of how many had died — and also giving momentum to the hyper-nationalistic and @ @ @ @ @ @ @ the attack .
National tragedies like the Oklahoma City bombing provoke the lowering of those flags , another visible reminder that we have been visited by trouble and sorrow .
For COVID ?
Nothing , deliberately .
Masks are the flag we fly now , right over our faces when we choose to wear them , perhaps with a pithy little message on them .
No flags lowered , no recognition of our collective national horror as we grind toward 300,000 dead .
In such a milieu , people can and do become @ @ @ @ @ @ @ numbness can lead to lethargy and an abandonment of the caution we all owe to each other if we are to endure this .
More to the point , we owe it to those medical professionals , to the last faces some of us will see if we ourselves become infected .
They are the definitive avatar of our national strength , what remains of that strength , and I think it is time every one of us did one small thing in recognition of that truth .
An arm band is a @ @ @ @ @ @ @ this .
I propose a plain black band , old school .
When asked what it is meant for , we can reply “ For the medical professionals.
” Or simply , “ For the dead.
” The black band can also signal our disgust for the straightforward fact that none of this had to happen .
The query inspired by the band itself is the candle we wish to light .
Those who still cleave to the fictions of The Incredibly Fading President may try to co-opt the concept , as they @ @ @ @ @ @ @ in response to BLM , but that shouldn ’ t stop us .
The more arm bands there are out on the streets , the more people will be compelled to contemplate the present circumstances , and not shun them for the comfort of that numbed denial .
If you wish to show thanks , it ’ s one clear way to do so all year round .
Our national resilience has been proved wanting .
Perhaps , in this small show of solidarity , we might alter that melancholy trajectory .
At @ @ @ @ @ @ @ and sacrifice of those who have been in the throat of this thing for us all from the beginning , and with hope , will be there until the end .

Uri Friedman of The Atlantic popped off a chewy little thought bomb a couple of weeks back. Surveying the national landscape under COVID, he argued that in the age of the pandemic, a new metric for “national strength” must be cultivated: the resilience of a population under duress. It is this metric, Friedman argued — not a nation’s military prowess or economic muscle — that matters the most right now. And by this metric, the United States has failed the COVID test thoroughly.
Friedman’s insight feels all the more relevant as we pass into the COVID crucible of mass Thanksgiving travel. While holiday travel this year has dropped several percentage points due to pandemic concerns, many millions will still risk breathing the air on planes and trains in order to spend time with family and friends.
They do so at a grimly consequential moment: COVID took almost 2,500 lives just yesterday, and has been infecting nearly 200,000 people a day for the last week. It is, at present, worse than at any moment since the crisis began. Once Thanksgiving has come and gone, the pandemic will almost certainly spread its wings even wider due to the close association of the season. A long, dark winter promises to be even more bleak and unforgiving once the leftovers are gone.
Quoting historian Sulmaan Khan, Friedman noted, “[The coronavirus] didn’t care how many aircraft carriers you had or how many Confucius Institutes you could stick up around the world or what size your economy was. The virus asked simply how your least wealthy people would be treated in times of illness. How effectively you could trace the contacts of those it afflicted. How swiftly your medical system could cope with unexpected demands.”
The United States is proving time and time again its inability to succeed in relation to this metric. It is facile to scapegoat Thanksgiving travelers, a vivid example though they may be, because this failure began with the first infection and has spread with it from one side of the nation to the other. When a large segment of a population is gulled by its leaders into thinking protective masks are an anti-freedom political statement to be shunned, even as the bodies pile up inside refrigeration trucks at the morgues, that is a gross and dispiriting failure of popular resilience from top to bottom.
Trump offered a comfortable, self-affirming narrative to counteract the terrifying truths of COVID, and millions embraced it because it was easier, and because it required no empathy or sense of civic duty. “MY freedoms!” was the rallying cry, the banner to which people flocked; doing something for everyone was made to smell like socialism by a whole host of officials who absolutely knew better, but cozened their followers in trade for an illusory measure of political insulation from the pandemic’s rolling consequences.
By the metric of national resilience, the United States has failed the COVID test thoroughly.
Nowhere has the weight of our national failure of resilience landed heavier than in the medical facilities that are taking this new COVID spike straight in the teeth. The pandemic may have revealed our weaknesses as a country, but it has also shined a bright spotlight on our strengths. Within the confines of a broken, profit-motivated health care system is an army of deeply devoted professionals who have thrown their bodies on the gears of this viral machine since it began. Almost a year into the battle, however, even their knees are beginning to buckle.
I spoke to two working nurses this week, one on the East Coast and one on the West. Kathleen Logan, a nurse practitioner in acute inpatient and primary care, works in Massachusetts. T., who asked that their name be withheld out of concern for job security, is an RN at a hospital in the Pacific Northwest.
“I don’t understand why they won’t listen to us,” lamented T. regarding the mobs of holiday travelers. “We are screaming at the top of our lungs and so few are listening. We don’t have a well-functioning health care system in the best of times. I wonder what it will look like in three to four weeks?”
“I’m getting scared again just like the worst part of the first surge,” said Logan. “We are reusing ‘sanitized’ N95 masks, which is just disgusting. It’s been documented that the integrity of the mask is depleted with each sanitization, so I don’t participate in it. I leave it in the UV light and spray it down with disinfectant.”
I asked T. and Logan what their worst experience of the pandemic has been. For Logan, the worst part has been getting left to sink or swim by the president. “We know this current [Trump] administration hates us,” she said, speaking on behalf of her fellow medical professionals. “He will mass-produce ventilators for his voters but not PPE for his health care providers. Because we are not his. He has abandoned us. There is no culture of compliance and teamwork.”
T. was blunt: “Nope. Can’t revisit that.”
T. and Logan, along with their colleagues, are holding themselves and the country’s COVID response together with bungee cords and used PPE masks. For them, “Thoughts and prayers” is as effectively helpful as injecting bleach; they have been through so much already, established their genuine heroism many times over, and shown what national resilience truly looks like.
Now, as they and the rest of us face the long midnight of a pandemic winter, I have a humble idea.
When I was a kid, wearing arm bands to support certain causes was an ever-present thing. Hot on the heels of the 1965 Supreme Court decision in Tinker v. Des Moines Independent Community School District, which allowed students to wear black arm bands in protest of the war in Vietnam, these items became commonplace. I recall wearing arm bands to support the end of apartheid in South Africa, against the first invasion of Iraq, and in support of justice for Rodney King after the videotape of police beating him made national news.
In the intervening years, the arm band has often been pushed aside by the now-ubiquitous rubber “cause” bracelets that are simultaneously far more fashionable and far less visible.
Visibility is the key. After September 11, there were American flags absolutely everywhere, reminding us of how many had died — and also giving momentum to the hyper-nationalistic and xenophobic response marshaled in the wake of the attack. National tragedies like the Oklahoma City bombing provoke the lowering of those flags, another visible reminder that we have been visited by trouble and sorrow.
“We don’t have a well-functioning health care system in the best of times. I wonder what it will look like in three to four weeks?”
For COVID? Nothing, deliberately. Masks are the flag we fly now, right over our faces when we choose to wear them, perhaps with a pithy little message on them. No flags lowered, no recognition of our collective national horror as we grind toward 300,000 dead. In such a milieu, people can and do become numb to the situation, and that numbness can lead to lethargy and an abandonment of the caution we all owe to each other if we are to endure this.
More to the point, we owe it to those medical professionals, to the last faces some of us will see if we ourselves become infected. They are the definitive avatar of our national strength, what remains of that strength, and I think it is time every one of us did one small thing in recognition of that truth.
An arm band is a simple, entirely visible way to do this.
I propose a plain black band, old school. When asked what it is meant for, we can reply “For the medical professionals.” Or simply, “For the dead.” The black band can also signal our disgust for the straightforward fact that none of this had to happen. The query inspired by the band itself is the candle we wish to light.
Those who still cleave to the fictions of The Incredibly Fading President may try to co-opt the concept, as they did with “Blue Lives Matter” in response to BLM, but that shouldn’t stop us. The more arm bands there are out on the streets, the more people will be compelled to contemplate the present circumstances, and not shun them for the comfort of that numbed denial.
If you wish to show thanks, it’s one clear way to do so all year round. Our national resilience has been proved wanting. Perhaps, in this small show of solidarity, we might alter that melancholy trajectory. At minimum, we will recognize the strength and sacrifice of those who have been in the throat of this thing for us all from the beginning, and with hope, will be there until the end.
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.