newrepublic--2020-08-06--What
I Learned From the Worst Novelist in the English Language

Fatefully—some might even say tragically—Burrows accepted the offer .
As you might expect , the review was a hatchet job , one that would make today ’ s most dexterous knife-wielders—Patricia Lockwood , say , or Andrea Long Chu—stand up for unbridled applause .
Strafing his way from one literary offense to the next , Weingarten lampooned the book ’ s premise ( “ you write very badly ” ) and lanced the verisimilitude of several of the central characters ( “ [ they ] don ’ t seem to have personalities ” ) .
In a crowning moment , @ @ @ @ @ @ @ I think The Great American Parade is a wretchedly terrible product that shames the American publishing industry.
” It bears noting that in the weeks before starting this job I ’ d been toiling away at my novel , generating fresh pages at a Joyce Carol Oates–like clip .
The book was a send-up of our post-truth climate , replete with a computer program running for president and an evangelical Christian kid who accidentally kills his parents .
Think George Saunders meets Marilynne Robinson .
Think Jamie Quatro meets William Gaddis .
Like @ @ @ @ @ @ @ under the delusion that I had something urgent to say about America , that the voltage of my dramatization might propel the reading public into a more expansive sense of justice .
If there are any sins for which we can still forgive the young , one rather hopes they include idealism and hubris .
What happened next is so banal that I almost don ’ t want to disclose it .
I froze up .
The pen stalled in my hand .
Whatever spell of optimism and self-delusion is necessary for sustained @ @ @ @ @ @ @ , leaving me bereft and more than a little ill-tempered .
I moped on sofas at home and , at work , snapped at recalcitrant students .
Pitifully , I torched whole notebooks , melodramatically sparking my Zippo and watching as entire plotlines crackled to cinder and ash .
Animating these little festivals of self-sabotage was my deepening conviction that even if my book was lucky enough to garner editorial attention , upon publication it would be swiftly consigned to the literary dustbin , panned as yet another bloviation from a twentysomething writer @ @ @ @ @ @ @ accurate ) .
After all , I was now a professor at the same university—in the same department even—as someone who ’ d been dubbed the worst novelist in history , and the proximity of that verdict haunted me , infecting the very air of campus like the whiff of bad cologne .
This was how I found myself biking over to the library in lavish sunshine and bloodhounding around the stacks in search of the Burrows novel .
Surely it couldn ’ t be as bad as Weingarten had said it had @ @ @ @ @ @ @ merit .
The Great American Parade is set in the aftermath of the 2000 election , when George W. Bush claimed victory after an opera of judicial nonsense .
The Great American Parade imagines that , in order to rally the country around the abolition of the estate tax , Bush secretly plans a parade for the wealthiest Americans , a garish jamboree of gold-plated luxury sedans inching down Pennsylvania Avenue and monolithic balloons of Bill Gates and George Soros floating over the capitol .
Once wind of the ridiculous spectacle reaches the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ , a cohort of college students “ embark on a crusade to reawaken America ” and attempt to stage a mammoth counter-protest .
Across the book ’ s final chapter , some Swiftian hijinks ensue , culminating in a showdown between Bush ’ s obscene pageantry and the tactics of the student protesters , the latter of whom ultimately win the media war by holding aloft giant balloons that say things like “ BUSH = PAWN OF BIG OIL !
” and “ KILLING THE ESTATE TAX KILLS DEMOCRACY !
” In the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ I read the book in one sitting .
And while Weingarten surely overstated the case in calling this the worst novel ever written , it ’ d be wrong to suggest that the book doesn ’ t give the reader much to wince and groan about—aborted plotlines , a confected love story .
Because so much of the book ’ s argument depends on the reader understanding the intricacies of the estate tax , the characters are often pressed into delivering wonkish ad hoc lectures , which makes them sound like the test-tube @ @ @ @ @ @ @ .
“ America suffers from an intense fever of greed , ” one character says , …a characteristic of our society that become rampant during the Civil War and has flared up repeatedly since then—as evidenced by the Age of the Robber Barons and the excesses of speculation during the 1920s … But those shameful episodes of our history pale beside the excesses of today , dramatized by the recent Enron scandal which a former vice president of that infamous corporation attributed to the ‘ greed that was at the heart of its @ @ @ @ @ @ @ especially in the notorious limited partnerships , set up in various Caribbean islands , in which those in corporate hierarchy made such killings as $ 2 million in two months by two partners on an investment of $ 2500 and $ 4.5 million by another on his investment of $ 25,000 in the same sixty-day period.
” Apparently , when Burrows reached out to Warren Buffet for a blurb , the billionaire explained to him that he didn ’ t think a novel was the best vessel for his ideas .

I found Burrows in bed, his complexion sheet-white and cadaverous, a quilt pulled up to his chin. There was something regal, something monumental, in his bearing, and though I knew otherwise, I found myself thinking, “There he is. The worst novelist in the English language.” Marion had received me at the door, and while she explained that Bob wasn’t in a place to discuss the book right now, she still wanted me to meet him. I approached the bed watchfully, and when his eyes latched on mine, he sprang to his feet with a gymnastic abruptness, hastening to shake my hand. “What can I do for you today?” he said, not out of colloquial reflex, it seemed, but with a spirit of genuine service. I must have faltered, stammering something about being a fellow writer, until Marion swooped in and said, “He’s gonna chat with me about The Great American Parade. Why don’t you lie down again, hon?” Wordlessly Bob obeyed her, turning to the side and revealing his greyhound thinness, while Marion escorted me by the elbow, saying that he had good days and bad. Lately he’d taken to rereading Mark Twain, she said, one of his favorites, and though it was unclear whether he retained the content, the habit of reading remained.
We sat in a modest office lined with books, family photos, and assorted oddments, talking for a long time. It quickly became clear that while Bob’s memory had disintegrated, Marion was capable of crisp and pixelated reminiscence, recalling not just the minutiae of their European travels but the names of Bob’s old students. I couldn’t imagine the awesome loneliness of that talent, of having to serve as the custodian to a marriage that your spouse no longer remembered.
It turned out that apart from his stint as a novelist, Bob had been heavily involved in local politics, a Robespierre of the prairie, not only serving in teacher unions but also writing op-eds for several area newspapers. Throughout the 1960s and ’70s, Bob had been a stalwart proponent of the antiwar movement, going so far as to defy the orders of the university administration, who wanted him (when he was serving as chair of the English Department) to fire professors who were holding teach-ins on campus. Bob refused, and as retribution, the administrators evicted him from his office. So beloved was Bob by his students, they promptly organized a rally for him, assembling by the thousands and demanding his restitution. Marion painted a scene in which throngs of students crowded on the quad lawns, wielding placards and chants, and yelling over and again, “BRING BURROWS BACK!”


newrepublic--2020-08-06--The Secret History of America’s Worthless Confederate Monuments

During an interview in late June , President Trump lingered for a few minutes on the Confederate monuments that protesters were tearing down across the country : “ You don ’ t want to take away our heritage and our history and the beauty , in many cases , the beauty , the artistic beauty , ” he told Fox News .
“ You can go to France , you can go anywhere in the world , and you ’ ll never see more magnificent work.
” What these statues represent of “ our heritage and our history ” has @ @ @ @ @ @ @ months , as NASCAR and even the state of Mississippi disavowed Confederate iconography .
But the aesthetic resistance to their removal was summed up in Trump ’ s June remarks : that the statues are beautiful works of art that if destroyed would set historical preservation back years .
As it happens , the true history of these monuments tells a different story : Far from “ magnificent ” artistic masterpieces , Trump ’ s vaunted statues are the Campbell ’ s Soup Cans of Confederate hagiography—cheap , mass-produced knockoffs designed to capture @ @ @ @ @ @ @ associated consumer revenue .
For all the talk of their unparalleled artistry , they were about as easy to produce as the average fire hydrant .
Most were erected long after the end of the Civil War , as the South sought to entrench Jim Crow .
In the late nineteenth and early twentieth century , the Monumental Bronze Company in Bridgeport , Connecticut , sold versions of a standard Confederate soldier ’ s statue for as little as $ 450 .
Then , as now , their purpose was not to mourn @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Civil War ; rather , they were monuments to white supremacy , erected to communicate , both as architecture and adjuncts to urban planning , boundaries beyond which black citizens were not welcome .
According to the historian Kevin M. Levin , the developers of Monument Avenue in Richmond , Virginia , placed Confederate statues up and down the city ’ s central thoroughfare between 1880 and 1930 as part of a cheap marketing ploy to boost real estate prices in the all-white neighborhood of the West End .
( As if the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ real estate company assured buyers “ no lots can ever be sold or rented in MONUMENT AVENUE PARK to any person of African descent.
” ) More statues went up across the South after the Supreme Court handed down rulings , such as 1954 ’ s Brown v. Board of Education , to desegregate public schools .
People are only now starting to reckon with that legacy .
In June , the Society of Architectural Historians issued a statement supporting the removal of Confederate monuments—the first time in the group ’ s 80-year @ @ @ @ @ @ @ down an architectural structure .
Unlike memorials such as the Stonewall Inn or Wounded Knee , Confederate monuments “ do not serve as catalysts for a cleansing public conversation , ” society officials wrote , “ but rather express white supremacy and dominance , causing discomfort and distress to African-American citizens.
” The promised removal of these statues sparks questions of what should replace them .
Several recent initiatives have sought to tell different stories about slavery and the Jim Crow South .
Perhaps the most significant example is the Equal Justice Initiative @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Justice , a somber cloistered space , which houses 800 weathered steel columns bearing the names of people who died in lynchings .
It is a profound rendering of the lives lost to racial violence .
But powerful monuments can also emerge organically .
On Richmond ’ s Monument Avenue , the stone base of Robert E. Lee ’ s bronze statue is now painted over with graffiti and signage .
It exists as a living monument—a people ’ s history of how we can reappropriate familiar and outmoded symbols of oppression .
@ @ @ @ @ @ @ , and the desire for a better world , the statue anticipates a more participatory city—the very antithesis of what it was originally meant to convey .

During an interview in late June, President Trump lingered for a few minutes on the Confederate monuments that protesters were tearing down across the country: “You don’t want to take away our heritage and our history and the beauty, in many cases, the beauty, the artistic beauty,” he told Fox News. “You can go to France, you can go anywhere in the world, and you’ll never see more magnificent work.”
What these statues represent of “our heritage and our history” has been hotly debated over the past few months, as NASCAR and even the state of Mississippi disavowed Confederate iconography. But the aesthetic resistance to their removal was summed up in Trump’s June remarks: that the statues are beautiful works of art that if destroyed would set historical preservation back years. As it happens, the true history of these monuments tells a different story: Far from “magnificent” artistic masterpieces, Trump’s vaunted statues are the Campbell’s Soup Cans of Confederate hagiography—cheap, mass-produced knockoffs designed to capture not just racism, but all its associated consumer revenue. For all the talk of their unparalleled artistry, they were about as easy to produce as the average fire hydrant.


newrepublic--2020-08-06--The Problem With MSNBC Isn’t That it’s Too Liberal

Public departures have been one of the biggest media stories of the summer .
The New York Times opinion editor Bari Weiss walked off the job in July , claiming the newspaper was now being edited by woke Twitter users .
Andrew Sullivan used his last New York column to assert that he was being let go because his coworkers didn ’ t like him .
( Sullivan ’ s departure occurred amid larger layoffs at Vox Media , which owns New York . )
Earlier this week , MSNBC producer Ariana Pekary said goodbye to the “ liberal ” @ @ @ @ @ @ @ of ratings ( and the advertising dollars that follow ) “ stokes national division ” and “ blocks diversity of thought.
” Pekary ended her post by writing , “ More than ever , I ’ m craving a full and civil discourse.
” This was catnip for conservative media and other opponents of “ cancel culture , ” which turned a short blog post by a hitherto unknown journalist into a multi-day smorgasbord of content .
Here was proof that what liberals have been saying about Fox News for years was also @ @ @ @ @ @ @ that the left is more concerned with coddling its own than pursuing the truth .
As one senior producer quoted by Pekary said , “ Our viewers don ’ t really consider us the news .
They come to us for comfort.
” Pekary posted a follow-up a day later underlining that she felt economic pressure , not ideological commitments , was ruining cable news .
But at that point , it was too late : Her resignation had already become chum .
What ’ s striking about Pekary ’ s letter , @ @ @ @ @ @ @ says about the news media in 2020 .
It doesn ’ t say anything about MSNBC or cable news that wasn ’ t also true two decades ago .
It ’ s like a Jon Stewart bit without the humor : Cable news is simply not incentivized to be informative .
In the social media era , when people can switch their attention at any point , this situation has gotten even worse , encouraging networks to turn their viewers into partisan junkies who don ’ t change the channel because they need @ @ @ @ @ @ @ re right about everything ( and that the other side is wrong ) .
No one could deny MSNBC ’ s turn toward the conspiratorial in the Trump era .
During the Mueller investigation , Rachel Maddow at times went full Glenn Beck , to the point that you almost expected her to start scribbling on a blackboard .
The network ’ s overheated analysis of every turn in that investigation , big and small , led its captive audience to believe that the special prosecutor was about to uncover something huge .
@ @ @ @ @ @ @ Republic last year , MSNBC has “ the strange simultaneity common to prestige TV : It is at once vast and circumscribed .
A wider world intrudes , but the same central heroes and villains show up , week after week .
”

When it did finally arrive, the Mueller report was damning: It showed that the president had obstructed justice on a number of occasions; that his campaign had played footsie with Russian intelligence; that the president himself was corrupt to the core and contemptuous of the American legal system. But compared to what was being primed on MSNBC—collusion, intrigue, Putin!—it failed to live up to the hype. Beltway pundits dismissed it as thin soup. MSNBC had helped set impossible expectations, and the public, rather than being horrified by what had happened, shrugged. The made-for-TV version was better.
But that doesn’t mean MSNBC is the Fox News of the left. It just means it’s not very good. Surveying MSNBC’s offerings in 2014, Jason Linkins wrote in The Baffler that the network had made the “incessant production of insidery ideations the premium brand of televisual discourse on politics—instead of, say, the service of the public trust in an honest and equitable way.” Go back another ten years, and you could make a similar critique. Stewart’s famous line about cable news punditry “hurting America” was dropped like a bomb on CNN’s Crossfire but could just have easily been applied to MSNBC’s Hardball. Indeed that show, hosted by the recently exiled Chris Matthews, is a fine stand-in for the network as a whole—a show that always privileged the inane over the substantive and partisan conflict over rigorous inquiry.
Pekary’s post was taken as evidence that MSNBC is following Fox News into the gutter—or at least leading guileless hashtag-resistance rubes into the partisan fever swamps. Others want it to show that America’s media is growing more hostile toward intellectual diversity. In reality, the letter is more akin to being shocked that there is gambling going on in the casino. If only Pekary had the same sense of irony as Claude Rains.


newrepublic--2020-08-06--The Real Reason BP Is Getting Greener

The Real Reason BP Is Getting Greener

BP seems nervous about being a fossil fuel company these days .
On Tuesday , the 12th most carbon-intensive company in the world announced plans to slash its oil and gas production by 40 percent over next decade , the largest such cut an oil and gas company has ever announced .
It ’ ll also slash its dividend payouts to shareholders by 50 percent and will increase its spending on low-carbon energy tenfold to $ 5 billion per year by 2030 .
It ’ s a big deal ; fossil fuel industry rhetoric on environmental stewardship doesn ’ t @ @ @ @ @ @ @ cut into the bread and butter , opting instead for vague promises about dates far in the future .
Greenpeace responded to BP ’ s news with measured optimism .
Kelly Trout , senior research analyst at Oil Change International , said in a cautious press statement , “ BP has changed the game , but in a league with zero climate credibility , ” adding that the announcement was “ an important signal to the rest of the industry that the only credible way to cut pollution is to cut fossil fuel @ @ @ @ @ @ @ BP ’ s announcement in the context of the industry as a whole , where—amid a historic downturn—cuts of all kinds are becoming ubiquitous ; just yesterday , ExxonMobil said that a fifth of its fuel reserves could be wiped out by low oil prices .
Is BP getting greener or just putting a green spin on its response to long-term market trends that would soon come for its profits anyway ?
Fossil fuel exploration and production companies , a recent analysis from Rystad Energy found , were at a four-year high for @ @ @ @ @ @ @ quarter of 2020 , the industry ’ s worst quarter ever .
Larger integrated oil and gas producers have been better insulated from the downturn but are still taking big hits .
ExxonMobil reported its second straight quarter of losses—the first time that ’ s happened this century .
It ’ ll be enforcing cuts of its own , albeit cuts less green than BP ’ s .
Now just a tenth of the size of Apple and trading at its lowest levels since 1977 , Exxon will be cutting its capital spending @ @ @ @ @ @ @ including taking most of its shale drilling rigs in the Permian Basin offline , aiming to keep just 15 by year ’ s end .
It also announced this week that it will suspend its contribution to its employee retirement plans starting in October , all while continuing to pay out its massive $ 15 billion worth of annual dividends to shareholders .
The choice to keep those payments coming is raising eyebrows among Wall Street analysts , who have cooled on the formerly hot stock in recent years .
“ The company @ @ @ @ @ @ @ long-term benefits while trying to satisfy shareholders with immediate and consistent dividend payouts , ” an analyst for Stone Fox Capital wrote yesterday .
“ The end result is the need to constantly pump oil and natural gas to keep cash flowing into their bank accounts.
” Chevron , which also reported major losses in the second quarter , is writing down $ 5.7 billion worth of oil and gas properties .
Shell recently announced a dividend cut even bigger than BP ’ s , of 66 percent—the first time it had made @ @ @ @ @ @ @ II .
After taking heavy losses , it also plans to cut back on production by 25 percent this year and slash 2,200 jobs .
These companies ’ production cuts are in the industry ’ s best interest .
With prices and demand for oil still low , continuing to enthusiastically pump out oil and gas at pre-crash levels only floods the market with supply it doesn ’ t need , suppressing fuel prices and , with it , profits .

Fossil fuel exploration and production companies, a recent analysis from Rystad Energy found, were at a four-year high for Chapter 11 bankruptcy filings in the second quarter of 2020, the industry’s worst quarter ever. Larger integrated oil and gas producers have been better insulated from the downturn but are still taking big hits. ExxonMobil reported its second straight quarter of losses—the first time that’s happened this century. It’ll be enforcing cuts of its own, albeit cuts less green than BP’s. Now just a tenth of the size of Apple and trading at its lowest levels since 1977, Exxon will be cutting its capital spending through the rest of the year, including taking most of its shale drilling rigs in the Permian Basin offline, aiming to keep just 15 by year’s end. It also announced this week that it will suspend its contribution to its employee retirement plans starting in October, all while continuing to pay out its massive $15 billion worth of annual dividends to shareholders. The choice to keep those payments coming is raising eyebrows among Wall Street analysts, who have cooled on the formerly hot stock in recent years. “The company wants to invest in energy projects with long-term benefits while trying to satisfy shareholders with immediate and consistent dividend payouts,” an analyst for Stone Fox Capital wrote yesterday. “The end result is the need to constantly pump oil and natural gas to keep cash flowing into their bank accounts.”
Chevron, which also reported major losses in the second quarter, is writing down $5.7 billion worth of oil and gas properties. Shell recently announced a dividend cut even bigger than BP’s, of 66 percent—the first time it had made any cuts at all since World War II. After taking heavy losses, it also plans to cut back on production by 25 percent this year and slash 2,200 jobs. These companies’ production cuts are in the industry’s best interest. With prices and demand for oil still low, continuing to enthusiastically pump out oil and gas at pre-crash levels only floods the market with supply it doesn’t need, suppressing fuel prices and, with it, profits.


newrepublic--2020-08-06--The Fall of the NRA

The Fall of the NRA

The litigation and press leaks that followed revealed a host of questionable practices by the NRA .
Not only was LaPierre taking a $ 2.1 million salary , enormous for the head of a nonprofit—the NRA is a tax-exempt 501 ( c ) ( 4 ) social welfare organization—but he was also spending hundreds of thousands of dollars at the luxury retailer Zegna .
Meanwhile , the group was also so low on cash that it had to borrow repeatedly from its 501 ( c ) ( 3 ) , the NRA Foundation , often with questionable accounting .
Numerous @ @ @ @ @ @ @ receiving big paydays ; one director was paid $ 270,000 for consulting , one $ 40,000 for writing speeches , and another , actor Tom Selleck , nearly half a million dollars for vintage guns from his collection .
Although the NRA presidency is traditionally unpaid , Oliver North , who was a host on NRATV , had a contract with Ackerman said to be worth millions of dollars .
After reviewing reports of these transactions , Marc Owens , the former director of the Exempt Organizations Division of the Internal Revenue Service @ @ @ @ @ @ @ indicate “ a tremendous range of what appears to be the misuse of assets for the benefit of certain vendors and people in control.
” All this drew the attention of another New York regulator , the Charities Bureau , which oversees nonprofit organizations chartered in the state .
( The NRA has been incorporated in New York since its founding in 1871 . )
Although relatively obscure , the Charities Bureau had recently made headlines when it exposed massive misuse of funds at President Donald Trump ’ s charitable foundation , forcing @ @ @ @ @ @ @ to pay more than $ 2 million in damages .
The bureau now wants to see if the NRA ’ s financial arrangements with Ackerman and various board members had violated New York ’ s relatively strict nonprofit law .
( New York–based nonprofits can engage in business transactions with insiders , but usually only if the terms meet certain conditions and if specific procedures are followed . )
The Charities Bureau also wants to know if the NRA misused its funds or resources in the 2016 campaign to elect Trump .
The @ @ @ @ @ @ @ from small donors who support the Second Amendment .
But some gun owners are beginning to realize that the organization is instead spending their donations on personal expenses for bigwigs and on attorneys who are working to cover up the leadership ’ s alleged misdeeds .
A group of NRA members has formed “ Save the Second , ” a body pushing for internal reforms to make the organization more accountable , and some major benefactors are withholding contributions until changes are made .
“ I ’ m not donating another dime to @ @ @ @ @ @ @ of his cronies are out of there , ” one NRA donor told The Christian Science Monitor late last year .
“ Nobody is watching the piggy bank .
Everyone is getting fat off the hard-earned dollars of NRA members.
” Fighting these battles has cost the NRA an eye-popping amount of money .
( Ackerman has countersued , alleging defamation . )
At a meeting with board members in January , LaPierre said the audits and investigations were “ probably about a $ 100 million hit in lost revenue and real cost @ @ @ @ @ @ @ ” The result has been devastating .
LaPierre said he has made $ 80 million in cuts .
The experiment with NRATV was terminated , as was the Carry Guard program , which had brought in at least $ 14 million in revenue .
As a result of this financial crunch , coupled with the coronavirus , the NRA has reportedly laid off or furloughed 200 of its staffers while cutting salaries of many who remain by 20 percent .
LaPierre said he had been forced to “ take it down to the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ seeking to raze whatever is left .
If the courts find that the NRA violated New York nonprofit law , the Charities Bureau could obtain damages , as well as the removal of LaPierre and other directors and officers of the organization .
( Within the NRA , some worry that LaPierre may eventually face criminal charges for converting NRA funds to his personal use , although New York has not filed any criminal charges yet . )
The Charities Bureau could also seek to do to the NRA what it did to @ @ @ @ @ @ @ shutter and distribute all of its assets .
The NRA , once invincible , would no longer exist .
Perhaps it was that veneer of invincibility that drove NRA leaders and those of its ad agency to play fast and loose with the NRA ’ s money .
But whatever the reason , the NRA ’ s problems could not have happened at a worse time .
The 2020 election season is in full swing , bringing with it the potential of a Joe Biden presidency and a blue wave of Democrats determined @ @ @ @ @ @ @ gun violence .
Of course , there are still a lot of single-issue pro-gun voters who will make their voices heard on Election Day .
But it seems likely that the NRA will have neither the money nor the focus to lead them .
Instead of fighting for its expansive vision of the Second Amendment , it will be too busy trying to save itself .

The litigation and press leaks that followed revealed a host of questionable practices by the NRA. Not only was LaPierre taking a $2.1 million salary, enormous for the head of a nonprofit—the NRA is a tax-exempt 501(c)(4) social welfare organization—but he was also spending hundreds of thousands of dollars at the luxury retailer Zegna. Meanwhile, the group was also so low on cash that it had to borrow repeatedly from its 501(c)(3), the NRA Foundation, often with questionable accounting. Numerous employees and members of the board were receiving big paydays; one director was paid $270,000 for consulting, one $40,000 for writing speeches, and another, actor Tom Selleck, nearly half a million dollars for vintage guns from his collection. Although the NRA presidency is traditionally unpaid, Oliver North, who was a host on NRATV, had a contract with Ackerman said to be worth millions of dollars. After reviewing reports of these transactions, Marc Owens, the former director of the Exempt Organizations Division of the Internal Revenue Service, which oversees nonprofits, said they indicate “a tremendous range of what appears to be the misuse of assets for the benefit of certain vendors and people in control.”
All this drew the attention of another New York regulator, the Charities Bureau, which oversees nonprofit organizations chartered in the state. (The NRA has been incorporated in New York since its founding in 1871.) Although relatively obscure, the Charities Bureau had recently made headlines when it exposed massive misuse of funds at President Donald Trump’s charitable foundation, forcing the nonprofit to shutter and the president to pay more than $2 million in damages. The bureau now wants to see if the NRA’s financial arrangements with Ackerman and various board members had violated New York’s relatively strict nonprofit law. (New York–based nonprofits can engage in business transactions with insiders, but usually only if the terms meet certain conditions and if specific procedures are followed.) The Charities Bureau also wants to know if the NRA misused its funds or resources in the 2016 campaign to elect Trump.
The NRA claims much of its money comes from small donors who support the Second Amendment. But some gun owners are beginning to realize that the organization is instead spending their donations on personal expenses for bigwigs and on attorneys who are working to cover up the leadership’s alleged misdeeds. A group of NRA members has formed “Save the Second,” a body pushing for internal reforms to make the organization more accountable, and some major benefactors are withholding contributions until changes are made. “I’m not donating another dime to the NRA until Wayne LaPierre and all of his cronies are out of there,” one NRA donor told The Christian Science Monitor late last year. “Nobody is watching the piggy bank. Everyone is getting fat off the hard-earned dollars of NRA members.”


newrepublic--2020-08-07--The Helpless Outrage of the Anti-Trump Book

Drezner ’ s The Toddler In Chief : What Donald Trump Teaches Us About the Modern Presidency exemplifies the kind of smug , ironic distance that marks many of these books .
A Washington Post contributor and professor of international politics at Tufts University , Drezner should have been well placed to write a serious book about the politics of the Trump era ( in previous works , he has written about international regulatory regimes , economic sanctions , and the place of think tanks in American politics ) .
Yet his most recent book is built around a single @ @ @ @ @ @ @ to a small child .
It grew out of a tweet thread that Drezner began on April 25 , 2017 , with the simple sentence : “ I ’ ll believe that Trump is growing into the presidency when his staff stops talking about him like a toddler , ” along with a link to a Washington Post article that included an anonymous quote about Trump ’ s television habits : “ Once he goes upstairs , there ’ s no managing him.
” Toddler in Chief pursues this comparison with a grandiose @ @ @ @ @ @ @ “ can explain portions of Trump ’ s behavior , ” Drezner argues , “ they can not explain all of it as well as the toddler thesis.
” Each chapter examines a different infantile character trait : “ Temper Tantrums , ” “ Short Attention Span , ” “ Impulse Control.
” Drezner quotes the American Academy of Pediatrics ’ s manual Caring for Your Baby and Young Child on each of these phases and follows up by amassing reports of Trump ’ s behavior that fit the description .
Crucially , @ @ @ @ @ @ @ that Trump ’ s detractors compare him to a toddler ; “ Trump ’ s own supporters and subordinates have made this comparison as well.
” Whether it ’ s Newt Gingrich ( “ There are parts of Trump that are almost impossible to manage ” ) or Trump ’ s own Svengali Steve Bannon ( “ I ’ m sick of being a wet nurse for a 71-year-old ” ) , the book is a chronicle of the president ’ s own friends and staff treating him like a fussy two-year-old , @ @ @ @ @ @ @ .
The book ’ s framing seems designed to combat Trump by merely trying to make him and his supporters feel embarrassed .
Yet in some cases , it has the effect of treating some of his most harmful actions without gravity .
Drezner describes Trump ’ s response to the Charlottesville white supremacy rally—when he said that there were “ very fine people ” on both sides—as an example of “ Oppositional Behavior ” and not as an outburst of Trump ’ s very deliberate and obvious racism .
A week after @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Karl ’ s Front Row at the Trump Show .
Karl , a White House correspondent for ABC News , has covered Trump since the 1980s and has been a central part of a White House Press Corps that has found itself repeatedly stymied by the unashamed lying and dissimulation of Trump and his administration .
“ I don ’ t believe there has ever been a more exhausting , exhilarating , dangerous , maddening , frustrating , downright bizarre , or more important time to be a White House reporter , ” @ @ @ @ @ @ @ book devoted to the importance of objective journalism , even in the face of widespread dissimulation .
Sober instead of smug , Karl still can ’ t quite get past Trump as an individual .
White House correspondents , after all , are used to dealing with spin and lies , and they ’ re used to being spoonfed garbage .
They ’ re also used to treating death and destruction as abstract concepts ( Karl , in particular , had a reputation for pitching softballs to Bush Administration officials ) .
But @ @ @ @ @ @ @ going about this , and the most frustrating thing for Karl about the Trump administration seems to be its steadfast refusal of this genteel approach .
After Karl reminds Trump of his promise that he will “ never lie ” to the media , he describes feeling “ taken aback ” when Trump confesses to him that , “ When I can , I tell the truth.
” It ’ s not the lying ; it ’ s the unwillingness to play the game that the press is used to .
By depicting @ @ @ @ @ @ @ his pathological lying , these writers keep us laser focused on Trump himself—as do those that suggest he ’ s mentally unwell , as Anonymous does in A Warning ( “ normal people who spend any time with Donald Trump are uncomfortable by what they witness .
He stumbles , slurs , gets confused , is easily irritated , and has trouble synthesizing information , not occasionally but with regularity ” ) , a sentiment echoed by the title of A Very Stable Genius .
This is Trump as a case history instead @ @ @ @ @ @ @ deep rupture in the country .
By limiting our opprobrium to Trump himself , we manage to both feel superior to him while also dismissing him .
We ’ re encouraged to “ solve ” the riddle of Trump ; Leonnig and Rucker set out to “ make meaning by finding patterns in the seeming chaos.
” And once we understand why he behaves the way he does , we are free to write him off and go back to our normal routines .
Karl , like other journalists , positions himself as @ @ @ @ @ @ @ truth , doing his duty tirelessly and hewing to the notion that facts and objectivity , by themselves , will carry the day .
But such lofty ideals are undercut by the book ’ s promise of delivering more inside gossip and unbelievable spectacle .
Among its blurbs is a quote from USA Today ’ s Washington Bureau chief Susan Page , who argues that Karl ’ s reporting “ pays off in his account of what he calls the Trump Show with some startling scoops .
What did the president scrawl across @ @ @ @ @ @ @ general ?
He tells us.
” And then there ’ s this , from New York magazine ’ s D.C. correspondent , Olivia Nuzzi : “ It was so good I was sad when it ended.
” Marketing national crisis as page-turning diversion , Front Row at the Trump Show makes the administration seem slightly less than real , a distant episode that might almost involve some other country .
Encouraging the reader to adopt the position of spectator goes hand in hand with the endorsement of passivity one finds again and again @ @ @ @ @ @ @ asked of the reader in terms of direct action .
Drezner ’ s book ends by reminding us that “ Donald Trump is never going to grow up , ” and continues , “ It will be up to the American people , and not the Toddler in Chief , to set aside childish things .
If voters re-elect Trump in 2020 , then he is no longer the most immature American .
The American electorate would be just as developmentally delayed as the 45th president .
The true Toddlers in Chief would @ @ @ @

Karl, like other journalists, positions himself as a sober-minded and fair arbiter of the truth, doing his duty tirelessly and hewing to the notion that facts and objectivity, by themselves, will carry the day. But such lofty ideals are undercut by the book’s promise of delivering more inside gossip and unbelievable spectacle. Among its blurbs is a quote from USA Today’s Washington Bureau chief Susan Page, who argues that Karl’s reporting “pays off in his account of what he calls the Trump Show with some startling scoops. What did the president scrawl across the rejected resignation letter from his attorney general? He tells us.” And then there’s this, from New York magazine’s D.C. correspondent, Olivia Nuzzi: “It was so good I was sad when it ended.” Marketing national crisis as page-turning diversion, Front Row at the Trump Show makes the administration seem slightly less than real, a distant episode that might almost involve some other country.
Encouraging the reader to adopt the position of spectator goes hand in hand with the endorsement of passivity one finds again and again in these books. Very little is asked of the reader in terms of direct action. Drezner’s book ends by reminding us that “Donald Trump is never going to grow up,” and continues, “It will be up to the American people, and not the Toddler in Chief, to set aside childish things. If voters re-elect Trump in 2020, then he is no longer the most immature American. The American electorate would be just as developmentally delayed as the 45th president. The true Toddlers in Chief would be us.”
Front Row at the Trump Show makes the administration seem slightly less than real, a distant episode that might almost involve some other country.
Voting, for these writers, remains the sole remedy for this nightmare. David Plouffe’s A Citizen’s Guide to Beating Donald Trump focuses entirely on tactics for winning the vote and is explicitly limited in its ability to imagine action beyond the ballot box. “I understand that the battle to extend voting rights freely to all citizens, of all colors, religions, genders, and so forth, has been one of our challenges for centuries,” Plouffe notes before going on to explain: “But I’m also a rigorously pragmatic guy when it comes to winning elections. No whining about the electoral college and no whining about the voter registration laws. Let’s change them when we can, but we have to win in 2020 under the weight of them right now.” Thankfully, groups like the American Civil Liberties Union, waging a full-bore legal assault to preserve our right to vote, have wisely ignored this suggestion—but even beyond that, there are no calls here (in Plouffe’s book, or in any of the others) for civil disobedience, sustained grassroots activism, or any real plan of action beyond “talk to your neighbors about why Trump must be stopped.” When you’ve singled out and elevated Trump as a unique aberration, nothing else matters.


newrepublic--2020-08-07--The Brutal World of Waiting for the Barbarians

It ’ s not clear quite what era you ’ re in .
The place seems dislocated in time , an imperial outpost somewhere in the desert , its manners and materials evidently imported from some far-off capital .
It looks hot and hazy and a little quaint , as if everyone knows they ’ re playing their parts in a reassuring period piece—dusty pack animals moving slowly in the sun , staff murmuring to one another as they prepare food .
Waiting for the Barbarians is an adaptation of J.M .
Coetzee ’ s 1980 novel , in which @ @ @ @ @ @ @ allegorical , with many important characters unnamed : the warrant officer , the magistrate , the girl .
Yet despite its nostalgic trappings , the film , Colombian director Ciro Guerra ’ s English-language debut , soon reveals itself as timely in the extreme : This is a parable of the good cop .
You know it because into the very first scene sweeps an unmistakable bad cop : pale , smirking Johnny Depp in all-black military garb , complete with an ankle-length cape fit for the angel of death .
His eyes @ @ @ @ @ @ @ , which are remarked on as a bizarre new contraption .
You can ’ t tell what he ’ s thinking but you can bet it ’ s monstrous .
Depp plays Colonel Joll , sent from imperial headquarters to inspect the settlement and investigate the activities of the nomadic people who live off the surrounding land .
He is greeted by the magistrate ( Mark Rylance ) , a courteous , sensitive man with a weather-beaten face , dressed head-to-toe in beige clothing that matches the landscape , as if he has @ @ @ @ @ @ @ it .
Beside him Depp , raising his glasses to show off his unlined skin , looks comically sinister .
Soon he ’ s explaining his methodical approach to interrogations , pausing as he goes , with the air of a connoisseur : “ First lies .
Then pressure .
Then more lies , then more pressure .
Then more lies , more pressure , and then comes the break .
After the break , more pressure .
And then at last , the truth.
” He is confident he can identify that @ @ @ @ @ @ @ it , perhaps because truth here is instrumental—there comes a point when a subject will give up whatever Joll has decided to extract .
“ Pain is truth ; all else is subject to doubt.
” The desired truth in this case is that terrifying barbarian hordes have been preparing an assault on the settlement , and the Empire must send out its own expeditionary troops to subdue them , pushing the insurgent natives back into the mountains .
It ’ s clear at once that the magistrate is in for degradations that @ @ @ @ @ @ @ , yet he holds fast to his British politeness .
( Though no particular nation is mentioned , all the administrators , soldiers , and policemen lean with relish into mustache-twirling English enunciation . )
Before long , he ’ s encountering the truth ’ s first casualties—Joll ’ s leavings , traumatized and half-dead people .
The tortures seem like metaphors .
The town observes a string of prisoners , attached by a length of wire threaded through their jaws , so that they move delicately , watch one another , stay @ @ @ @ @ @ @ the first victims to live with him in his rooms , a young woman with broken feet , her eyes burned with hot tongs so that she can only see around the edges , tilting her head .
This is in part a film about not seeing what you can ’ t bear to see , no matter the contortions required to keep on not seeing it , and many shots reinforce that idea : The magistrate , trying to ascertain just what Joll ’ s team has done to some captured nomads @ @ @ @ @ @ @ , turning his back to them ; a small group crosses the desert in a sandstorm , the whole screen a blur of illegible forms .
The magistrate is , he announces early on , a man of no great ambition .
Conquest isn ’ t his thing .
He ’ ll be content with a legacy of “ three lines in the imperial gazette ” as someone who , with a nudge here and there , “ kept the world on its course.
” For most of his career , we understand @ @ @ @ @ @ @ this without too much exertion , moral or physical , and so the arrival of the bad cops , lusting to police the perimeter and expand it , causes him shock and distress .
As things get worse , he asks one of this new breed of torturers how he finds it possible to eat with friends and family after carrying out his tasks .
But his own appetites are robust , and he acknowledges that the native people don ’ t enjoy his presence and haven ’ t consented to it .
@ @ @ @ @ @ @ hoping to outlast the Empire .

It’s not clear quite what era you’re in. The place seems dislocated in time, an imperial outpost somewhere in the desert, its manners and materials evidently imported from some far-off capital. It looks hot and hazy and a little quaint, as if everyone knows they’re playing their parts in a reassuring period piece—dusty pack animals moving slowly in the sun, staff murmuring to one another as they prepare food. Waiting for the Barbarians is an adaptation of J.M. Coetzee’s 1980 novel, in which time and place likewise remain unfixed and allegorical, with many important characters unnamed: the warrant officer, the magistrate, the girl. Yet despite its nostalgic trappings, the film, Colombian director Ciro Guerra’s English-language debut, soon reveals itself as timely in the extreme: This is a parable of the good cop.
You know it because into the very first scene sweeps an unmistakable bad cop: pale, smirking Johnny Depp in all-black military garb, complete with an ankle-length cape fit for the angel of death. His eyes are invisible behind small, round sunglasses, which are remarked on as a bizarre new contraption. You can’t tell what he’s thinking but you can bet it’s monstrous. Depp plays Colonel Joll, sent from imperial headquarters to inspect the settlement and investigate the activities of the nomadic people who live off the surrounding land. He is greeted by the magistrate (Mark Rylance), a courteous, sensitive man with a weather-beaten face, dressed head-to-toe in beige clothing that matches the landscape, as if he has devised an inoffensive way to coexist with it. Beside him Depp, raising his glasses to show off his unlined skin, looks comically sinister. Soon he’s explaining his methodical approach to interrogations, pausing as he goes, with the air of a connoisseur: “First lies. Then pressure. Then more lies, then more pressure. Then more lies, more pressure, and then comes the break. After the break, more pressure. And then at last, the truth.” He is confident he can identify that special tone of truth when he hears it, perhaps because truth here is instrumental—there comes a point when a subject will give up whatever Joll has decided to extract. “Pain is truth; all else is subject to doubt.”


newrepublic--2020-08-07--Corporate America’s Hollow Denunciations of Systemic Racism

In a video that circulated on social media two weeks after George Floyd ’ s death , 14 white celebrities gathered to take responsibility for “ every not so funny joke ” they ’ d laughed at and each time they ’ d “ explained away police brutality.
” As a mawkish piano theme twinkled in the background , they directed viewers to an organization , I Take Responsibility , whose website states : “ We can not sit idle while systemic racism and police brutality continue throughout our country .
Racism is personal , it is local.
” When @ @ @ @ @ @ @ ” we are supposed to be making a distinction between the bigoted attitudes of individuals and the routine workings of a society constructed on racist foundations .
The video hopelessly conflated these things .
It decried “ systemic ” problems , while cataloging personal deeds of racial malice and sins of obliviousness for which , it seems , one can atone through ritual acts of public confession .
Since May , such empty denunciations of “ systemic racism ” have become all too common .
The CEO of Taco Bell announced that “ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ do to combat systemic racism in America ” ; the company that makes Tasers , of all things , wants to fight “ systemic inequity , racism , and injustice ” ; and George W. Bush recently wondered , “ How do we end systemic racism in our society ?
” ( He pledged to “ listen ” more . )
By invoking a system without naming one , they had managed to say as little as possible , and do even less .
Systemic racism has various synonyms , notably “ institutional @ @ @ @ @ @ @ by Charles V. Hamilton and Stokely Carmichael in their 1967 book , Black Power .
“ Racism , ” they wrote , “ takes two , closely related forms : individual whites acting against individual blacks , and acts by the total white community against the black community .
We call these individual racism and institutional racism… .
When a black family moves into a home in a white neighborhood and is stoned , burned or routed out , they are victims of an overt act of individual racism which many people will @ @ @ @ @ @ @ is institutional racism that keeps black people locked in dilapidated slum tenements , subject to the daily prey of exploitative slumlords , merchants , loan sharks , and discriminatory real estate agents.
” Hamilton and Carmichael had hoped the idea of “ institutional racism ” would compel people to name the guilty institutions .
“ Systemic racism , ” on the other hand , offers little more than a gesture of recognition that racism is deeply rooted in American life .
It alludes to a system as ubiquitous as oxygen , conjuring something @ @ @ @ @ @ @ .
This is perhaps why corporations feel comfortable using it .
But if a problem has deep roots , then it needs to be attacked there , and not just with words .
No listening tour , lip-quivering confession , or strongly worded statement about “ systemic racism ” can topple the institutions that sustain a racist society—schools , where police enforce discipline with violence ; prisons , the backbone of a vast carceral economy ; shuttered public hospitals ; dilapidated city parks ; or segregated , unaffordable housing .

In a video that circulated on social media two weeks after George Floyd’s death, 14 white celebrities gathered to take responsibility for “every not so funny joke” they’d laughed at and each time they’d “explained away police brutality.” As a mawkish piano theme twinkled in the background, they directed viewers to an organization, I Take Responsibility, whose website states: “We cannot sit idle while systemic racism and police brutality continue throughout our country. Racism is personal, it is local.” When we describe racism as “systemic,” we are supposed to be making a distinction between the bigoted attitudes of individuals and the routine workings of a society constructed on racist foundations. The video hopelessly conflated these things. It decried “systemic” problems, while cataloging personal deeds of racial malice and sins of obliviousness for which, it seems, one can atone through ritual acts of public confession.
Since May, such empty denunciations of “systemic racism” have become all too common. The CEO of Taco Bell announced that “we have a lot of work to do to combat systemic racism in America”; the company that makes Tasers, of all things, wants to fight “systemic inequity, racism, and injustice”; and George W. Bush recently wondered, “How do we end systemic racism in our society?” (He pledged to “listen” more.) By invoking a system without naming one, they had managed to say as little as possible, and do even less.


newrepublic--2020-08-07--The Wildly Unequal “Shecession”

The Wildly Unequal “Shecession”

When the pandemic lockdowns in the United States first began , there were troubling signs that women would bear the brunt of the coming economic collapse .
As layoffs started , more women than men lost jobs ; by April , unemployment was almost 3 percentage points higher for women .
A few months later , those gender disparities appear to have only further solidified : “ Nearly 11 million jobs held by women disappeared from February to May , erasing a decade of job gains by women in the labor force , ” journalist Chabeli Carrazana recently wrote .
@ @ @ @ @ @ @ and summer camps have also squeezed working parents—and mothers in particular—who must now juggle remote work with watching their homebound kids , and some are grappling with major setbacks to their careers , if not financial disaster .
“ I have been given two options : either resign or get fired , ” one single mother with two young children , who had exhausted her paid-leave options at work , told The New York Times this week .
By these measures , the country is now in the throes of what Carrazana has @ @ @ @ @ @ @ recession.
” ( In May , C. Nicole Mason , the president of the Institute for Women ’ s Policy Research , described the downturn as a “ shecession.
” ) Among the reasons that the economic devastation has hit women especially hard is the fact that women account for the majority of workers in industries that have suffered serious financial blows , such as retail , domestic work , and beauty and personal care .
According to the Economic Policy Institute , approximately 8 percent of laid-off women workers ’ jobs are @ @ @ @ @ @ @ little over 6 percent of men ’ s jobs .
And on top of that , longer running disparities like the persistent gender pay gap will almost certainly make it harder for women to bounce back from the downturn .
As Carmen Niethammer wrote in Forbes last month , those inequalities could linger for decades , even well into retirement for millions of women .
Any kind of egalitarian economic recovery , then , will have to resolve those disparities .
At the same time , understanding the current economic crisis first and @ @ @ @ @ @ @ runs the risk of obscuring a number of other inequalities that preceded and were subsequently entrenched by the crash .
While women all across the economic spectrum are now contending with various setbacks , those hurting the most , as always , are the low-wage workers—disproportionately Black and Latinx women—who struggled to make ends meet well before the onset of the pandemic , including finding and affording childcare .
There ’ s still a wide expanse between laid-off service workers now facing eviction , in other words , and professional-class women falling behind @ @ @ @ @ @ @ predicaments are disproportionately experienced by women .
Not all “ shecessions ” are created equal .
Certain generic solutions for women , even those that nominally acknowledge the vast social and economic differences across that category , often fail to do much for the most vulnerable .
For instance , on a recent CNBC segment , Sallie Krawcheck , the chief executive officer of the women ’ s investing platform Ellevest , discussed the company ’ s response to the “ shecession ” : We expanded our offerings : More products and more @ @ @ @ @ @ @ who are not yet ready to invest , to help them with banking and help them with learning and coaching , so they can figure out how to get out of debt and how to manage their expenses .
That ’ s a nice idea in theory for middle-class women trying to increase their financial literacy during the pandemic but less useful—or entirely irrelevant—for a low-income mother with no savings who was laid off and had their unemployment benefits cut .

Even national-level policy prescriptions to ameliorate labor market disparities by gender or race can sometimes overlook efforts to increase worker power from the bottom up. On Thursday, The New York Times’s Jim Tankersley proposed grounding a new economic recovery in the revamping of anti-discrimination initiatives that would expand workplace opportunities for women, nonwhite workers, and immigrants. Persistent discrimination, he argued, had hobbled the country’s economic growth. In 2018, 86 percent of venture capital funding in Silicon Valley had gone to companies founded by men, and rectifying imbalances like those would kickstart the economy. Tankersley wrote, “If you want to know where the new good jobs will come from—those that will help millions of Americans climb back into the middle class—this is where you should look, to the great untapped talent of America’s women, of its Black men, of the highly skilled immigrants that study after study show to be catalysts of innovation and job creation.”
But missing from his recommendations were any mention of raising the minimum wage, making it easier for workers to unionize, or strengthening other labor protections, all of which have historically been crucial motors of equality for large numbers of women, Black, and immigrant workers in the labor force. While anti-discrimination measures are necessary, alone they’re also insufficient, particularly when they’re aimed at increasing marginalized groups’ access to good jobs rather than making bad jobs better. Directing more venture capital to tech startups led by women, to put it another way, won’t do much to help the millions of other women who make poverty wages, particularly in the wake of the pandemic’s mass layoffs. As Carrazana wrote, “Employers will have their pick of employees, and that will bring salaries down. Low-wage workers feel that drop most intensely. Women make up nearly two-thirds of the 40 lowest paid jobs.”
If in some ways the country has entered a women’s recession, the question remains: Which women will recuperate without much difficulty and which will be left behind? The protracted recovery from the Great Recession, in which the top one percent famously captured the vast majority of income growth, offers an instructive (and not terribly distant) clue. Technocratic efforts to increase “opportunity” over the coming months won’t be enough to lift the majority of women from economic disaster; only a more fundamental reworking of the economy itself can do that.


newrepublic--2020-08-07--New York’s Punishment May Not Fit the NRA’s Crime

There is also a notable recent precedent for James ’ s actions .
In June 2018 , her predecessor , Barbara Underwood , filed a lawsuit to seek the dissolution of the Donald J. Trump Foundation as part of an agreement struck with the president and three of his adult children .
New York investigators found that the purported charity had effectively served as a piggy bank for the president ’ s personal and political interests .
Trump initially responded by vowing not to dissolve the foundation ; the following December , he agreed to its dissolution as part of @ @ @ @ @ @ @ .
The NRA struck a similarly defiant note on Thursday after New York ’ s announcement .
“ This was a baseless , premeditated attack on our organization and the Second Amendment freedoms it fights to defend , ” NRA President Carolyn Meadows said in a statement .
“ You could have set your watch by it : the investigation was going to reach its crescendo as we move into the 2020 election cycle .
It ’ s a transparent attempt to score political points and attack the leading voice in opposition to @ @ @ @ @ @ @ a power grab by a political opportunist—a desperate move that is part of a rank political vendetta.
” NRA lawyers also quickly filed a lawsuit in federal court on Thursday claiming that James had violated the organization ’ s First Amendment rights .
The NRA accused her and the “ New York Democratic Party machine ” of mounting a politically motivated attack to undermine and destroy it .
“ James ’ s threatened , and actual , regulatory reprisals are a blatant and malicious retaliation campaign against the NRA and its constituents based @ @ @ @ @ @ @ their speech , ” the NRA claimed in its complaint .
“ This wrongful conduct threatens to destabilize the NRA and chill the speech of the NRA , its members , and other constituents.
” There ’ s a stronger case to be made , however , that the NRA ’ s leadership has destabilized the organization more effectively than any state official ever could .
In the complaint , which draws heavily from her office ’ s investigation and from efforts by journalists , James describes a constant stream of unjustified cash @ @ @ @ @ @ @ ’ s coffers into the hands of favored members of its upper ranks .
LaPierre , who has served as the taciturn and incendiary face of the organization for more than a decade , was the recipient , and often the arbiter , of this largesse .
“ LaPierre routinely abused his authority as Executive Vice President of the NRA to cause the NRA to improperly incur and reimburse LaPierre for expenses that were entirely for LaPierre ’ s personal benefit and violated NRA policy , including private jet travel for purely personal @ @ @ @ @ @ @ vacation on a yacht owned by the principal of numerous NRA vendors ; use of a travel consultant for costly black car services ; gifts for favored friends and vendors ; lucrative consulting contracts for ex-employees and board members ; and excessive security costs , ” James ’ s complaint claims .
Over the years , LaPierre approved hundreds of thousands of dollars in NRA-funded private flights for himself , his wife , and other family members .
He sought reimbursements from the NRA for tens of thousands of dollars in Christmas gifts @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Coast department stores like Bergdorf Goodman and Neiman Marcus .
He spent more than $ 100,000 on golf club memberships in the D.C. area for “ personal and business reasons.
” LaPierre often cited nebulous “ security concerns ” to justify some of the expenses , which apparently included an armored vehicle after the school shooting in Parkland , Florida , in 2018 .
Others in LaPierre ’ s orbit also reaped the benefits of their organization ’ s funds .
Wilson Phillips , a former NRA treasurer , drew up a contract @ @ @ @ @ @ @ for consulting services for the NRA after his retirement .
The NRA ’ s current treasurer told James ’ s office that Phillips ultimately “ never consulted for me.
” An unnamed senior assistant of LaPierre routinely used the company card for inappropriate purchases , including roughly $ 18,000 as part of her son ’ s Minnesota wedding and high-end car services for herself and her family .
“ In August 2018 , over the course of a two-week fundraising excursion in France , [ she ] authorized approximately $ 100,000 in black @ @ @ @ @ @ @ ” the complaint claims .
Some NRA officials who caught wind of the spending sprees and other scandals soon found themselves on the outside of the organization .
Foremost among them is Oliver North , who briefly served as the NRA ’ s president in 2018 and 2019 .
When North started scrutinizing some of the group ’ s financial practices , LaPierre allegedly demanded that he stay away , sent cease-and-desist letters , and tried to use a consulting contract that LaPierre originally helped him craft against him .
North eventually warned @ @ @ @ @ @ @ a “ crisis that could affect its ability to operate as a nonprofit organization , ” claiming he had a “ fiduciary duty ” to respond .
He resigned as president shortly thereafter .

There’s a stronger case to be made, however, that the NRA’s leadership has destabilized the organization more effectively than any state official ever could. In the complaint, which draws heavily from her office’s investigation and from efforts by journalists, James describes a constant stream of unjustified cash and perks that flowed from the NRA’s coffers into the hands of favored members of its upper ranks. LaPierre, who has served as the taciturn and incendiary face of the organization for more than a decade, was the recipient and often the arbiter of this largesse. James’s complaint claims, “LaPierre routinely abused his authority as Executive Vice President of the NRA to cause the NRA to improperly incur and reimburse LaPierre for expenses that were entirely for LaPierre’s personal benefit and violated NRA policy, including private jet travel for purely personal reasons; trips to the Bahamas to vacation on a yacht owned by the principal of numerous NRA vendors; use of a travel consultant for costly black car services; gifts for favored friends and vendors; lucrative consulting contracts for ex-employees and board members; and excessive security costs.”
Over the years, LaPierre approved hundreds of thousands of dollars in NRA-funded private flights for himself, his wife, and other family members. He sought reimbursements from the NRA for tens of thousands of dollars in Christmas gifts for friends and family from swanky East Coast department stores like Bergdorf Goodman and Neiman Marcus. He spent more than $100,000 on golf club memberships in the D.C. area for “personal and business reasons.” LaPierre often cited nebulous “security concerns” to justify some of the expenses, which apparently included an armored vehicle after the school shooting in Parkland, Florida, in 2018.
Others in LaPierre’s orbit also reaped the benefits of their organization’s funds. Wilson Phillips, a former NRA treasurer, drew up a contract to pay himself $30,000 a month for consulting services for the NRA after his retirement. The NRA’s current treasurer told James’s office that Phillips ultimately “never consulted for me.” An unnamed senior assistant of LaPierre routinely used the company card for inappropriate purchases, including roughly $18,000 as part of her son’s Minnesota wedding and high-end car services for herself and her family. “In August 2018, over the course of a two-week fundraising excursion in France, [she] authorized approximately $100,000 in black car expenses for two chauffeured vehicles,” the complaint claims.


newrepublic--2020-08-06--The Problem With MSNBC Isn’t That It’s Too Liberal


newrepublic--2020-08-07--How Mike Pompeo Built a Blood-for-Oil Pipeline

Neither the State Department nor the White House responded to requests for comment but this concession was brokered at the State Department ’ s highest levels , a government source with knowledge of the deal told The New Republic .
Pompeo appeared to acknowledge this while speaking to Republican Senator Lindsey Graham during a Senate hearing on July 30 .
“ The deal took a little longer , Senator , than we had hoped , and now we ’ re in implementation , ” Pompeo said .
Whether or not the President ’ s cronies end up being tried in @ @ @ @ @ @ @ the Delta Crescent contract is more of the dipshit diplomacy that has become normal under Trump ’ s leadership .
The U.S. government risks inflaming regional tensions and enabling potential corruption , all to goose a politically connected domestic company ’ s profits .
“ We ’ re really driving home the idea that we just want to steal resources from this part of the world , ” said Ben Friedman , policy director of Defense Priorities , a libertarian think tank .
The deal ’ s specifics make this much clear : @ @ @ @ @ @ @ have any real choice in partners .
Companies involved in the Syrian oil business risk punishing sanctions that would cut them off from the U.S. financial system .
To avoid sanctions , companies need a sanctions waiver from the U.S. Treasury Department ’ s Office of Foreign Assets Control .
Four companies applied for one but only Delta Crescent received a waiver .
( The Government Accountability Project , where I work , has filed a Freedom of Information Act lawsuit for a copy of this waiver as well as Delta Crescent ’ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ . )
Little is known about Delta Crescent , whose acknowledged ownership so far includes the following : James Cain , a Republican donor , Bush-era ambassador to Denmark , and former president of the Carolina Hurricanes hockey team ; John Dorrier , an oil executive with ties to Syrian regime financiers , who has made recent campaign contributions to Trump as well as to Republican Senators Ted Cruz and Lindsey Graham ; and James Reese , a former Army Special Forces officer and Fox News contributor who founded TigerSwan , a security @ @ @ @ @ @ @ rights violations .
None of the three responded to requests for comment .
But beyond Pompeo , the company has friends in high places—both in Washington and in Iraqi Kurdistan , which borders Syria .
Photos show Delta Crescent officials meeting a variety of powerful members of the Kurdistan Democratic Party , which controls the Iraqi Kurdish capital of Erbil , including the region ’ s president , Nechirvan Barzani , and his chief of staff , Fawzi Hariri .
Jim Jeffrey , the United States Special Representative for Syria Engagement and his @ @ @ @ @ @ @ with Barzani about Delta Crescent ’ s plans .
The U.S. company needs the notoriously corrupt Barzani family ’ s buy-in for the plan to work .
Delta Crescent wanted to use a pipeline connecting Kirkuk , Iraq , to Turkey in order to export the Syrian oil , according to the government source .
They “ wanted to batch it with Iraqi Kurdish oil , ” concealing its point of origin , said the source , “ because they are slimy underhanded people.
” Multiple Iraqi analysts dismissed that plan as unlikely @ @ @ @ @ @ @ New Republic that it was “ dumbass.
” Syrian crude oil was of poor quality , and smuggling it could damage the Iraqi Kurdish government ’ s relationship with oil traders .
“ If you are the [ Kurdistan Regional Government ] , why fuck it up ?
” said one analyst , who requested to speak on background for safety reasons .
Instead , sources suggested it ’ s more likely that Barzani companies will buy the fuel from Delta Crescent , potentially to process it at Iraqi Kurdistan ’ s Lanaz @ @ @ @ @ @ @ shipped .
The refinery is controlled by Mansour Barzani , the region ’ s special forces chief , who is the brother of the Kurdish prime minister and the cousin of regional president Nechirvan Barzani .
* Photos show Delta Crescent meeting with other Barzani-connected politicians as well as with potential middleman companies connected to their families .

Neither the State Department nor the White House responded to requests for comment but this concession was brokered at the State Department’s highest levels, a government source with knowledge of the deal told The New Republic. Pompeo appeared to acknowledge this while speaking to Republican Senator Lindsey Graham during a Senate hearing on July 30. “The deal took a little longer, Senator, than we had hoped, and now we’re in implementation,” Pompeo said.
Whether or not the President’s cronies end up being tried in The Hague for pilfering overseas petroleum, the Delta Crescent contract is more of the dipshit diplomacy that has become normal under Trump’s leadership. The U.S. government risks inflaming regional tensions and enabling potential corruption, all to goose a politically connected domestic company’s profits. “We’re really driving home the idea that we just want to steal resources from this part of the world,” said Ben Friedman, policy director of Defense Priorities, a libertarian think tank.
The deal’s specifics make this much clear: Syria’s Kurds didn’t have any real choice in partners. Companies involved in the Syrian oil business risk punishing sanctions that would cut them off from the U.S. financial system. To avoid sanctions, companies need a sanctions waiver from the U.S. Treasury Department’s Office of Foreign Assets Control. Four companies applied for one but only Delta Crescent received a waiver. (The Government Accountability Project, where I work, has filed a Freedom of Information Act lawsuit for a copy of this waiver as well as Delta Crescent’s application to the government for it.)


newrepublic--2020-08-07--How to Write About Climate Change

How to Write About Climate Change

Slaght regularly peppers his book with such anecdotes , little doses of bro-humor in the Primorye style mixed with bird facts .
When he and his crew bunk up with the odd forest-dwelling local , furthermore , Slaght gets invariably pulled into a masculinity contest with their host .
“ There are two reliable ways to get a Russian man to respect you , ” he writes .
The first is “ to consume voluminous amounts of vodka ” while “ the other is to go toe-to-toe in a banya , ” the Russian equivalent of a sauna .
“ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ keep pace with Russian men and their drinking , ” Slaght writes , “ but in those days , I could steam with the best.
” Owls of the Eastern Ice is an undeniably compelling story , especially for a book about owls , but there ’ s something almost retrograde about this story of a hero chasing animals through the wilderness and glaring at Russian strangers across the banya steam clouds .
One of the key ideas of the school of “ ecocriticism ” —an umbrella term for the study of the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ “ man ” and “ nature ” form a false dichotomy .
If we want to exist responsibly within the earth ’ s delicate ecology , Timothy Morton argues in Ecology Without Nature , we have to resist the binary that categorizes the human being as somehow separate and distinct from the rest of the world , which we tend to lump into the messy and ill-defined category of “ nature.
” By telling his epic tale of man and owl , Slaght ends up inadvertently reinforcing some of the assumptions that ecocriticism @ @ @ @ @ @ @ the 1995 book Uncommon Ground : Rethinking the Human Place , William Cronon wrote that “ wilderness ” is itself a toxic concept .
“ Far from being the one place on earth that stands apart from humanity , ” Cronon writes , wilderness “ is quite profoundly a human creation.
” As we gaze into wilderness ’ s mirror , “ we too easily imagine that what we behold is Nature when in fact we see the reflection of our own unexamined longings and desires.
” Tales of Two Planets is full @ @ @ @ @ @ @ s no opportunity for cliché to take hold .
Some surprising connections flow through its different parts , however : In Bangkok and in Buenos Aires , for example , the beauty of polluted sunsets is remarked upon .
“ Champagneworthy sunsets are yours every evening , ” writes Pitchaya Sudbanthad .
In his essay “ Song of the Fireflies , ” Gaël Faye writes about the forested hill his father once purchased in northwestern Burundi .
As a child , Faye would catch fireflies in those woods and tell his father he @ @ @ @ @ @ @ the glowing insects are gone , exterminated by development .
What could become a too-simple discussion of extinction changes , in Faye ’ s hands , into something that links him to Italy .
He quotes a 1975 article by Pier Paolo Pasolini on the same phenomenon occurring in his own region : “ In the early sixties , due to air pollution and , above all , in the countryside , due to water pollution ... the fireflies began to disappear .
...
Within a few years , there were no fireflies @ @ @ @ @ @ @ s subject—a universal absence shared by all the places species once were but now are not—rather than the firefly itself .
Elsewhere in the collection , several writers refer to underground systems in major cities as physically obscene .
Freeman describes Paris “ lifting her skirts ” to allow him into the catacombs while Lina Mounzer ’ s essay about Beirut ’ s failing plumbing calls sewage the “ underground twin ” flowing beneath every city : The sewer is the city ’ s “ dark heart ; its churning guts.
” It @ @ @ @ @ @ @ that drift between the sexual and the scatological , insisting we focus on that which town planning conceals from our view—just as Cronon wanted us to look at the parts of ourselves that words like “ wilderness ” gloss over .
In his introduction , Freeman agonizes a little over the point of all these words .
“ Should we be elegizing ?
” he asks , of whittled-down ocean reefs and our earth ’ s other many losses .
“ How do we honestly remember what was so clearly never valued ?
@ @ @ @ @ @ @ the book reflect something of that frenzied feeling ; the collection takes you on a joltingly rapid journey across the world ( India , Bangladesh , Hawaii , Iceland ) .
But that eclecticism is also what prevents A Tale of Two Planets from sinking in the kind of ideological mud that bogs down Owls of the Eastern Ice , a reminder that excellent environmental writing can come from literally anywhere—not just the frozen tundras of macho adventure stories .

Slaght regularly peppers his book with such anecdotes, little doses of bro-humor in the Primorye style mixed with bird facts. When he and his crew bunk up with the odd forest-dwelling local, furthermore, Slaght gets invariably pulled into a masculinity contest with their host. “There are two reliable ways to get a Russian man to respect you,” he writes. The first is “to consume voluminous amounts of vodka” while “the other is to go toe-to-toe in a banya,” the Russian equivalent of a sauna. “I had long ago stopped trying to keep pace with Russian men and their drinking,” Slaght writes, “but in those days, I could steam with the best.”
Owls of the Eastern Ice is an undeniably compelling story, especially for a book about owls, but there’s something almost retrograde about this story of a hero chasing animals through the wilderness and glaring at Russian strangers across the banya steam clouds. One of the key ideas of the school of “ecocriticism”—an umbrella term for the study of the relation between literature and the environment—is that “man” and “nature” form a false dichotomy. If we want to exist responsibly within the earth’s delicate ecology, Timothy Morton argues in Ecology Without Nature, we have to resist the binary that categorizes the human being as somehow separate and distinct from the rest of the world, which we tend to lump into the messy and ill-defined category of “nature.”
By telling his epic tale of man and owl, Slaght ends up inadvertently reinforcing some of the assumptions that ecocriticism most abhors. In his introduction to the 1995 book Uncommon Ground: Rethinking the Human Place, William Cronon wrote that “wilderness” is itself a toxic concept. “Far from being the one place on earth that stands apart from humanity,” Cronon writes, wilderness “is quite profoundly a human creation.” As we gaze into wilderness’s mirror, “we too easily imagine that what we behold is Nature when in fact we see the reflection of our own unexamined longings and desires.”


newrepublic--2020-08-07--Farms Can’t Save the Planet

Farms Can’t Save the Planet

The task of accurately tracking the changes in soil carbon in sections of land and then confidently crediting a farmer for doing it is currently beyond our scientific capabilities .
“ Everybody I spoke with agrees that regenerative agriculture is good for soil health and has important environmental benefits that may be worth paying for , ” Popkin wrote .
“ But nearly all scientists also want more certainty before wholeheartedly endorsing fighting climate change using farming practices.
” Sequestration guru Jonathan Foley of Project Drawdown , writing to Mother Jones , called some of the claims around soil sequestration @ @ @ @ @ @ @ capture ’ s primary problem may be that it overpromises results , the other tragedy of this policy fixation is the way it distracts from American agriculture ’ s dire need for broader reforms .
Food production and farming practices are currently driving multiple forms of climate and environmental degradation , greenhouse gas emissions being just one .
Row crops are breeding superweeds while chemical use has obliterated prairie biodiversity ; manure from animal confinements is contaminating entire water sheds and suffocating the Gulf of Mexico ; and rampant antibiotic use will compromise @ @ @ @ @ @ @ , and its inevitable collapse , if current practices continue , will only partly be due to planetary warming .
Higher temperatures could spread pests and plant diseases , reduce yields through heat waves , droughts , and storms , and disrupt the seasonal schedule some trees need to bear fruit .
But pollinator loss , widely attributed to pesticide use , is already harming production ; runoff is sending ocean ecosystems into chaos ; and severe water shortages in our most productive areas are imminent .
All this depletion results in the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ cornfield nearly the size of Wisconsin—to blend as ethanol into our gasoline : an older version of a corporate-backed , politically favorable , once-hopeful climate solution justified by flimsy science .
That this host of problems has been overshadowed by the soil carbon redemption myth has a lot to do with lobbying against serious climate legislation .
But it ’ s also the product of an unholy marriage of Big Tech and Big Ag .
Over the last ten years , investors and entrepreneurs have tried to leverage all manner of available data—machine @ @ @ @ @ @ @ microbial science , and more—to “ disrupt ” the business of farming .
These tend to feature buzzwords like “ precision agriculture , ” “ smart , ” or “ carbon farming , ” and typically involve the collection of huge amounts of data from farm fields to provide more information and “ insights ” to customers .
Imagine a farmer using “ agtech ” to save money on herbicides by spraying with computerized discretion , weather and field sensor technology to predict when to plant and anticipate yields , monitors that track @ @ @ @ @ @ @ and social patterns .
With investment in farmland expanding rapidly , a major trend in agtech is to help absentee investor-owners farm remotely , using data to pinpoint farmland value and profit potential .
The burgeoning ag-tech sector attracted almost $ 3 billion in investment in 2019 .
As a sturdy , capitalized , and highly concentrated market , the sector hasn ’ t produced many successful new corporations , instead paying out with lucrative mergers .
Bayer , the German pharmaceuticals giant that purchased Monsanto in 2016 , shot the starting pistol @ @ @ @ @ @ @ when it bought a weather data company for about $ 1 billion .
No one wants to be left behind , even though industry revolutions have yet to materialize .
“ While the top-line dollar investments [ in agtech ] have increased fourfold since 2015 , ” agricultural magazine The Progressive Farmer reported in March , “ more of the money is going toward successful startups aiming to scale up , as opposed to early stage startups looking for seed money and angel investors.
” It ’ s early yet , but carbon @ @ @ @ @ @ @ thin veil for agribusiness to let their new agtech projects mature out in the open while scoring public relations points rather than drawing scrutiny .
This week , The Progressive Farmer ’ s Chris Clayton reported a wave of “ new digital tools and tech alliances ” initiated by some of the world ’ s largest agribusiness companies , and the pairings are striking : pork processing giant Smithfield and the 2014-founded agricultural software development company Granular ( owned by a spinoff of DowDuPont ) ; Land O ’ Lakes dairy ; and @ @ @ @ @ @ @ to imagine how such partnerships , combined with carbon sequestration schemes , could soon play out in marketing strategies : “ This butter came from farms that are sequestering carbon !
” Marginally reduced chemical use is one of the main benefits of new precision technologies , but reminding shoppers that poisons are a necessary component in their food production doesn ’ t make great ads .
Mergers and partnerships between Big Tech and Big Ag are the opposite of what American farming needs .
As Ted Genoways wrote in The New Republic @ @ @ @ @ @ @ system plagued by monopoly won ’ t benefit from further integration .
As we ’ ve seen so clearly during the pandemic , agribusiness controls the White House like its puppet , gaining wartime privileges to keep slaughterhouses open while the virus infected thousands of mostly immigrant exploited workers , killing nearly 200 as of August 6 .
The poultry industry is being investigated for using software to fix prices ; it ’ s hard to imagine that more data in their hands will be put to noble use .
As more and @ @ @ @ @ @ @ political doors are opening .
But for real change , politicians will need to look beyond the seductive , lucrative myth of soil carbon sequestration as some kind of an emissions panacea .
American farmland—one of our most precious and vulnerable resources—needs help .
It shouldn ’ t be used as a questionably effective sewer to drain away Big Oil ’ s misdeeds .

Over the last ten years, investors and entrepreneurs have tried to leverage all manner of available data—machine learning, satellite imaging, drones, microbial science, and more—to “disrupt” the business of farming. These tend to feature buzzwords like “precision agriculture,” “smart,” or “carbon farming,” and typically involve the collection of huge amounts of data from farm fields to provide more information and “insights” to customers. Imagine a farmer using “agtech” to save money on herbicides by spraying with computerized discretion, weather and field sensor technology to predict when to plant and anticipate yields, monitors that track a cow herd’s health metrics and social patterns. With investment in farmland expanding rapidly, a major trend in agtech is to help absentee investor-owners farm remotely, using data to pinpoint farmland value and profit potential.
The poultry industry is being investigated for using software to fix prices; it’s hard to imagine that more data in their hands will be put to noble use.
The burgeoning ag-tech sector attracted almost $3 billion in investment in 2019. As a sturdy, capitalized, and highly concentrated market, the sector hasn’t produced many successful new corporations, instead paying out with lucrative mergers. Bayer, the German pharmaceuticals giant that purchased Monsanto in 2016, shot the starting pistol for the ag-tech spending spree in 2013 when it bought a weather data company for about $1 billion. No one wants to be left behind, even though industry revolutions have yet to materialize. “While the top-line dollar investments [in agtech] have increased fourfold since 2015,” agricultural magazine The Progressive Farmer reported in March, “more of the money is going toward successful startups aiming to scale up, as opposed to early stage startups looking for seed money and angel investors.”
It’s early yet, but carbon sequestration is starting to look like a thin veil for agribusiness to let their new agtech projects mature out in the open while scoring public relations points rather than drawing scrutiny. This week, The Progressive Farmer’s Chris Clayton reported a wave of “new digital tools and tech alliances” initiated by some of the world’s largest agribusiness companies, and the pairings are striking: pork processing giant Smithfield and the 2014-founded agricultural software development company Granular (owned by a spinoff of DowDuPont); Land O’Lakes dairy; and Microsoft. It’s not hard to imagine how such partnerships, combined with carbon sequestration schemes, could soon play out in marketing strategies: “This butter came from farms that are sequestering carbon!” Marginally reduced chemical use is one of the main benefits of new precision technologies, but reminding shoppers that poisons are a necessary component in their food production doesn’t make great ads.


newrepublic--2020-08-07--The Deadly Coronavirus Vaccine Gold Rush

Combine these realities with an administration hell-bent on getting a coronavirus vaccine approved before the election and the legal authority to bypass usual clinical trial requirements , and you have a recipe for disaster .
It would be a nightmare scenario for a vaccine that was actively dangerous to be rushed to market ; tens of millions of doses could be administered before the health risks became clear .
But a vaccine doesn ’ t need to cause damage to the human body to be dangerous overall .
As Dr. Natalie Dean , an assistant professor of biostatistics at the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ recent New York Times op-ed , “ a weak vaccine might be worse than no vaccine at all.
” If a vaccine that turns out to protect only a minority of the population is approved—the World Health Organization says a vaccine needs to be effective in at least 50 percent of the population to be effective—it may cause “ people who are only slightly protected to behave as if they are invulnerable , ” Dean wrote .
Imagine if those who received a vaccine stopped wearing masks or started going back to crowded @ @ @ @ @ @ @ a 30 or 40 percent chance of being protected from catching and spreading the virus .
But the financial incentives push the other direction , away from safety and caution .
Drug company executives have already reaped huge rewards from coronavirus vaccine candidates that are not even close to market .
The New York Times reported recently that executives at some of the companies developing potential vaccines have seen huge payouts from stock price increases .
Moderna , which has received nearly a billion dollars in government funding to develop a vaccine , @ @ @ @ @ @ @ according to the Times ; company insiders have sold almost $ 248 million in stock since it announced it was working on the vaccine in January , “ most of it after the company was selected in April to receive federal funding to support its vaccine efforts.
” The chief executive of Vaxart , another company working on a vaccine that employs just 15 people , received stock options valued at $ 4.3 million when he took the job in mid-June .
Those options are now worth more than $ 28 million .
@ @ @ @ @ @ @ claimed that “ it ’ s OK to make a profit from Covid vaccines , as long as you ’ re not profiteering.
” ( Meanwhile , tens of millions of Americans are at risk of eviction and homelessness . )
At Novavax , executives are set to collect huge rewards even if their vaccine never makes it to market because of stock options that are set to be awarded if the vaccine makes it to a Phase 2 clinical trial .
Novavax stock is worth 31 times what it was worth in @ @ @ @ @ @ @ .
A recent New York Times story on the vaccine push noted that there are financial risks for drug companies in pushing an unproven vaccine , too , since a failed vaccine could “ jeopardize their broader business.
” That the free market might serve as the referee in this instance seems dramatically too optimistic—Merck still exists , after all .
Moderna recently announced that it has been charging the highest price yet per dose of the vaccine , between $ 32 and $ 37 per dose .
If patients require two doses @ @ @ @ @ @ @ at $ 37 per dose would net $ 24 billion in sales .
The company claimed it would be “ responsible on price , well below value , during the pandemic.
” ( “ Value ” means almost nothing here—can you put a value on ending a global pandemic ? )
As the advocacy group Public Citizen noted , this means we may end up paying twice for the vaccine : Once in almost $ 1 billion worth of government funding for its development and again to actually receive the vaccine .
It @ @ @ @ @ @ @ candidates the government has now funded to the tune of billions of dollars will end up being effective .
We can ’ t even be sure that any of them will work .
This doesn ’ t mean that we should never fund drugs that we aren ’ t sure will work ; for a start , that ’ s impossible .
The government should actually be funding more drugs , including drugs that pharmaceutical companies don ’ t want to pursue because they believe they wouldn ’ t profit sufficiently from them @ @ @ @ @ @ @ development and manufacture of all drugs .
The invention of new drugs isn ’ t that different from other forms of scientific discovery .
At its heart , drug development is still just a process of unlocking the secrets of the inexplicable universe we find ourselves in ; these molecules do this thing to the human body , preventing or treating this illness , and so on .
The results of this process don ’ t need to be trapped behind a wall of profit , funded by inscrutable Wall Street firms , @ @ @ @ @ @

Combine these realities with an administration hell-bent on getting a coronavirus vaccine approved before the election and the legal authority to bypass usual clinical trial requirements, and you have a recipe for disaster. It would be a nightmare scenario for a vaccine that was actively dangerous to be rushed to market; tens of millions of doses could be administered before the health risks became clear.
But a vaccine doesn’t need to cause damage to the human body to be dangerous overall. As Dr. Natalie Dean, an assistant professor of biostatistics at the University of Florida, noted in a recent New York Times op-ed, “a weak vaccine might be worse than no vaccine at all.” If a vaccine that turns out to protect only a minority of the population is approved—the World Health Organization says a vaccine needs to be effective in at least 50 percent of the population to be effective—it may cause “people who are only slightly protected to behave as if they are invulnerable,” Dean wrote. Imagine if those who received a vaccine stopped wearing masks or started going back to crowded bars or swimming pools yet only had a 30 or 40 percent chance of being protected from catching and spreading the virus.
But the financial incentives push the other direction, away from safety and caution. Drug company executives have already reaped huge rewards from coronavirus vaccine candidates that are not even close to market. The New York Times reported recently that executives at some of the companies developing potential vaccines have seen huge payouts from stock price increases. Moderna, which has received nearly a billion dollars in government funding to develop a vaccine, has seen its stock price triple, according to the Times; company insiders have sold almost $248 million in stock since it announced it was working on the vaccine in January, “most of it after the company was selected in April to receive federal funding to support its vaccine efforts.”