newrepublic--2020-07-06--How Anti-Pipeline Protesters Made the Fossil Fuel Industry Face Economic Reality

Well-heeled climate and energy wonks have long sought elegant market solutions to lower greenhouse gas emissions—tax incentives for green energy , or carbon pricing to gently nudge companies toward a low-carbon future .
But in the past 24 hours , multiple breaking news events have pointed to what may be a more efficient , less genteel tool for stopping fossil fuel projects in their tracks : social movements .
Sunday evening , the energy companies behind the planned Atlantic Coast Pipeline announced their plans to abandon the pipeline project , just a few weeks after New York State rejected the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ federal judge ordered a temporary shutdown of the Dakota Access Pipeline , citing its slapdash environmental review process .
All of the above represented big blows to the fossil fuel industry and huge wins for the Indigenous communities and organizers that have worked to block these projects from their inception .
Just take Energy Secretary Dan Brouillette ’ s word for it .
“ The well-funded , obstructionist environmental lobby has successfully killed the Atlantic Coast Pipeline , ” Brouillette wrote in a press statement Sunday , adding that the project is “ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ costly legal battles they would continue to face.
” Over the past few years , a full-court press of legal challenges and mounting pressure from Indigenous tribes and a wide range of organizers had delayed the project and nearly doubled its projected cost—from $ 4.5 billion to $ 8 billion .
Brouillette didn ’ t mention another factor in the ACP ’ s demise : Natural gas simply isn ’ t very good business anymore .
Years of public pressure are a big part of that , adding to the myriad structural challenges @ @ @ @ @ @ @ oversupply , natural gas producers ’ mountains of debt , and Wall Street investors losing patience after years of unprofitability .
Shale drillers in Appalachia have been hit particularly hard .
Global coronavirus shutdowns added to the industry ’ s troubles by lowering demand across the board .
For Duke and Dominion , the utilities behind the ACP , all this combined to make the pipeline a conspicuously bad deal .
As the editorial board of the Raleigh News and Observer wrote in response to the ACP announcement , “ What the ‘ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ hold off the pipeline long enough that Dominion and Duke could see it was becoming a boondoggle that would have cost them and their ratepayers dearly .
The worldwide economic slowdown caused by the pandemic has created a fossil fuel glut that has rolled back the fracking industry .
There is increasing evidence that there would not be enough energy demand or natural gas price stability to justify the volume or the cost of the pipeline.
” The ACP decision was announced alongside others pointing to utilities ’ mixed feelings about the future @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Sunday that it had sold the bulk of its natural gas assets—excluding its now-worthless interest in the ACP—to Warren Buffet ’ s Berkshire Hathaway , effectively doubling his company ’ s gas infrastructure footprint .
Dominion , which announced its goal of achieving net-zero emissions by 2050 in February , has painted the move as a way to become more “ sustainability focused ” —part of its glacially slow walk toward carbon neutrality .
A spokesperson for Berkshire Hathaway Energy “ respectfully ” declined to comment on its plans for Dominion ’ s @ @ @ @ @ @ @ of the coronavirus era .
Duke Energy told the trade site Utility Dive that natural gas “ remains central to our long-term strategy , and we will continue to count on our employees to deliver industry-leading service to our customers.
” Following the ACP announcement , Brouillette staged a low-energy Twitter livestream with an energy executive Monday to announce his greenlighting of a controversial Berkshire Hathaway–backed natural gas export facility at Jordan Cove in Coos Bay , Oregon—a project widely opposed by tribal nations .
He emphasized that the White House would continue @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Today is a great day for American energy dominance , ” the secretary urged defiantly .
“ This administration remains committed to promoting energy infrastructure projects throughout the country .
”

Fossil fuel infrastructure threatens both communities in its spill-prone and polluting path as well as the global climate through the natural gas it helps burn in the near-term. But it also presents a long-term threat: Large infrastructure investments lock in continued fossil fuel usage for decades to come. The impact of successful fights against fossil fuel infrastructure—often led by the Indigenous communities in its path—reverberates beyond the projects they’re fighting, shifting the way other pipeline and fossil infrastructure projects are seen as well, and raising the political if not direct financial cost of natural gas investments. Ironically, Duke, Dominion, and the Trump administration all chalking their defeat up to activists’ efforts will only put more wind in activists’ sails.
Recent pipeline defeats in the courts, it’s worth noting, are also a testament to good old-fashioned environmental regulations and a reminder why the Clean Air Act and National Environmental Protection Act—the basis for the DAPL shutdown order—are still such boogeymen for the right. In the DAPL decision, U.S. District Judge James Boasberg wrote that, while shutting the project down might seem extreme, the extent of the DAPL environmental review’s flaws, “and the potential harm each day the pipeline operates,” was such that “the Court is forced to conclude that the flow of oil must cease.” Only time will tell whether DAPL backers think this debacle worth the continued investment, or whether they—like Dominion and Duke Energy—decide it’s time to cut their losses on a project whose payoff, even without the protests, seems increasingly uncertain.
Subtle market tweaks can do some good to decarbonize the energy system, but for keeping fossil fuels in the ground and preventing new infrastructure, the simpler solution may just be to give ’em hell.


newrepublic--2020-07-07--The Left’s Deafening Silence on China’s Ethnic Cleansing

China now plays host to the world ’ s largest forced incarceration of an ethnoreligious minority anywhere since the Second World War .
With upwards of nearly two million Uighurs now forced into scattered gulags across the region , their captivity marks the largest imprisonment—based not on crimes , but on ethnicity and religion alone—since the Holocaust .
And as The Washington Post ’ s Fred Hiatt found late last year , the “ Holocaust [ keeps ] pushing itself into the conversation as the only adequate point of comparison , ” adding that “ every day is Kristallnacht.
” @ @ @ @ @ @ @ become reprises of Dachau or Sachsenhausen , and the region has not fully collapsed into outright genocide .
But that ’ s not for lack of trying .
While Chinese authorities continue to strip-mine the region of any of its pre-CCP past—of mosques , of Islamic graveyards , of cultural trappings and non-Han ethnic identity—the CCP has launched a simultaneous campaign of eugenics against the Uighur population .
By forcing sterilization and abortions alike on hundreds of thousands of Uighur women , China hopes to kill off the next generation of Uighurs before @ @ @ @ @ @ @ of which is to say : In Xinjiang , the CCP has constructed the largest concentration camp system the world has seen since the Nazi regime—one that only continues to expand , to fracture more families , to suffocate and smother more ethnic and religious minorities , and to accelerate the wholesale elimination of an entire people .
As The Atlantic wrote , the entire campaign amounts “ to ethnic cleansing , if they do not mark a prelude to genocide.
” The West , at long last , has finally begun taking @ @ @ @ @ @ @ ultimate designs—which are being implemented in Hong Kong , and through things like China ’ s “ Belt and Road ” initiative—actually are .
Potential policy solutions are finally floating to the fore .
Just last month , for instance , the U.S. passed the Uighur Human Rights Policy Act , the first law in any nation specifically aimed at promoting and protecting the rights of Uighurs , via specific sanctions placed on CCP officials responsible for the horrors in Xinjiang .
With the sheer enormity of the humanitarian disaster roiling the region @ @ @ @ @ @ @ a puzzlement that the Western left has largely stayed on the sidelines even as events have begun to force policymakers into a larger confrontation .
This is all the more striking given the fact that leftist electoral surges continue to spike in places like the United States and chunks of Europe .
While these occasional bursts of political muscle have failed to do much in the way of installing leftists in positions of real power—Bernie Sanders ’ s brief brush with front-runner status in the most recent Democratic party presidential primary notwithstanding—their efforts @ @ @ @ @ @ @ of progressive policy ideas .
Considering the fact that the left ’ s vitality is hardly waning , their yawning silence on Xinjiang has only become that much more deafening .
Other political coalitions have not hesitated to make their voices heard .
While GOP luminaries like Senators Tom Cotton and Marco Rubio—and even Secretary of State Mike Pompeo—take the lead on pushing and crafting policies specifically highlighting CCP monstrosities , prominent Democratic voices , especially those on the leftier end of the spectrum , remain conspicuously absent .
“ Progressive members of @ @ @ @ @ @ @ attention to the Uighur cause so that it is not only conservatives like [ Rubio ] who are volubly addressing this crime against humanity , ” Daniel Bessner and Isaac Stone Fish wrote last year in The Nation .
“ The anti-imperialist left , in short , must no longer cede the ground of humanitarianism to centrist Democrats or the GOP but must advocate its own progressive approach to the problem.
” Or as Rachel Harris wrote in The Guardian , “ We need more voices from the left to speak out on @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Xinjiang ’ s Muslims in the wider context of global Islamophobia.
” Those pleas , though , appear to have fallen on deaf ears .
The leading proponents of countering the outrageous barbarism of Chinese imperialism remain those within the broader right , ranging from Trumpist Republicans who view it as a cudgel in their nativist efforts to bash Beijing , to center-right voices who view such policies as simple moral imperative and assertion of American hegemony .
That the humanitarian catastrophe in Xinjiang doesn ’ t seem to have become a cause @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Western , left has nothing to do with malice .
The silence stems from a myriad of reasons : regional illiteracy or indifference ; internal distractions and reticence toward finding common ground with Trump-era Republicans ; basic prioritization of domestic policy platforms at the expense of foreign focus .
Yes , parts of the conspiratorial far-left remain convinced that the crimes against humanity in Xinjiang are simply Western propaganda—but by and large the left ’ s inaction relates to the fact that Xinjiang is , at its simplest , far away , and @ @ @ @ @ @ @ at hand .

The West, at long last, has finally begun taking note of what the CCP’s ultimate designs—which are being implemented in Hong Kong, and through things like China’s “Belt and Road” initiative—actually are. Potential policy solutions are finally floating to the fore. Just last month, for instance, the U.S. passed the Uighur Human Rights Policy Act, the first law in any nation specifically aimed at promoting and protecting the rights of Uighurs, via specific sanctions placed on CCP officials responsible for the horrors in Xinjiang.
With the sheer enormity of the humanitarian disaster roiling the region, it’s been something of a puzzlement that the Western left has largely stayed on the sidelines even as events have begun to force policymakers into a larger confrontation. This is all the more striking given the fact that leftist electoral surges continue to spike in places like the United States and chunks of Europe. While these occasional bursts of political muscle have failed to do much in the way of installing leftists in positions of real power—Bernie Sanders’s brief brush with front-runner status in the most recent Democratic party presidential primary notwithstanding—their efforts have brought new life to a range of progressive policy ideas. Considering the fact that the left’s vitality is hardly waning, their yawning silence on Xinjiang has only become that much more deafening.
Other political coalitions have not hesitated to make their voices heard. While GOP luminaries like Senators Tom Cotton and Marco Rubio—and even Secretary of State Mike Pompeo—take the lead on pushing and crafting policies specifically highlighting CCP monstrosities, prominent Democratic voices, especially those on the leftier end of the spectrum, remain conspicuously absent. “Progressive members of Congress should further introduce bills that bring attention to the Uighur cause so that it is not only conservatives like [Rubio] who are volubly addressing this crime against humanity,” Daniel Bessner and Isaac Stone Fish wrote last year in The Nation. “The anti-imperialist left, in short, must no longer cede the ground of humanitarianism to centrist Democrats or the GOP but must advocate its own progressive approach to the problem.” Or as Rachel Harris wrote in The Guardian, “We need more voices from the left to speak out on this issue, placing the persecution of Xinjiang’s Muslims in the wider context of global Islamophobia.”


newrepublic--2020-07-07--Monopolies Make Their Own Rules

Monopolies Make Their Own Rules

Teachout ’ s thesis is provocative and simple : that monopolistic corporations operate a despotic parallel governmental system , or as she writes in her refreshingly brusque style , “ monopoly is tyranny.
” It is a system of coercive , private power that rivals , and often surpasses , the power of the state .
( And they know it : “ In a lot of ways , Facebook is more like a government than a traditional company , ” Mark Zuckerberg once chirped to Ezra Klein . )
You might think that a monopoly is strictly defined as @ @ @ @ @ @ @ , but this isn ’ t true .
Teachout observes that when Standard Oil ( considered one of the biggest monopolies ever ) was broken up in 1911 , it controlled only 65 percent of the oil market .
And antitrust action has been brought against firms controlling just over 5 percent of their market .
A monopoly , Teachout proposes , is simply “ any company that has so much power that it sets the terms of an interaction.
” Teachout looks at the problem of monopoly through the lens of law @ @ @ @ @ @ @ economics .
She is a law professor at Fordham University , who specializes in , among other things , campaign finance reform .
Her previous book , Corruption in America , was an examination of the history of corruption and also the impacts of Citizens United , the Supreme Court case that granted large corporate monopolies distinct political influence .
Break ’ Em Up goes beyond that to suggest that while monopoly perverts the political process , it more insidiously runs its own system of government .
And all of this is kept @ @ @ @ @ @ @ legal system : forced private arbitration .
As Teachout notes , for the last 800 years , open courts , public trials , and independent judges have been the basis of our relatively functional and just legal system .
For the most part , anyone can watch the proceedings of a trial , the results become public information , and the judges are paid by the state .
Arbitration is , of course , the opposite of this process .
It is a private trial where the terms are set by a privately @ @ @ @ @ @ @ and someone privately pays the judge .
When coupled with confidentiality agreements , as they often are , the proceedings are permanently secret .
This is problematic for many reasons .
One is that , researchers find , when an arbitrator ( judge ) works repeatedly for the same employer , the employer tends to win the arbitration .
Prior to the 1970s , arbitration didn ’ t have a long legal history and wasn ’ t often used except in the enforcement of labor union contracts .
In 1974 , the Supreme @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Co. , in which Harrell Alexander , a black man , was suing his former employer Gardner-Denver , claiming he had been fired on the basis of race .
The problem was that Alexander had already gone through union arbitration , and a lower court found that he could not claim his civil rights had been violated in federal court because of this .
But the Supreme Court found that when it comes to civil rights , the fact-finding capacity of the federal courts is far superior and can ’ t be left @ @ @ @ @ @ @ 1979 , a young lawyer named Jay Waks discovered Alexander and , as Teachout describes , saw an opportunity to make his name in corporate law , by overturning it .
The restrictions on arbitration that Alexander set forth , if weakened , could transfer enormous power to businesses .
He reframed the discussion over arbitration as one of lowering the cost of litigation .
It was in line with other similar neoliberal legal arguments of the time that prioritized “ efficiency ” in business matters .
In 1991 , another case about @ @ @ @ @ @ @ .
It concerned a man , Robert Gilmer , who signed an arbitration agreement when he started working for an investment firm .
He claimed that his firing constituted age discrimination and thus , as a civil rights matter , should be resolved in court .
This time , the court saw things differently : It felt he knowingly entered into the contract , and thus rejected his argument .
Antonin Scalia , writing for the majority , said that Alexander wasn ’ t applicable when dealing with private contracts .
The problem @ @ @ @ @ @ @ , “ at the heart of the Scalia logic in the Gilmer case , and the entire series of cases involving arbitration agreements , is a fantasy of choice.
” Scalia ’ s decision rested on the assumption that if someone signs a contract , that is , categorically , an act of freedom .
( This is more or less a fiction : Anyone who has actually entered into a contract for say , cable internet or a job with Uber knows that there is no opportunity to negotiate most agreements .
@ @ @ @ @ @ @ other corporate lawyers to expand the use of arbitration agreements , effectively stripping huge numbers of workers of their rights .
When the case was decided , Teachout notes , only 2 percent of employment contracts had mandatory arbitration clauses .
Today , over half of private sector , nonunion contracts have them , as well as two-thirds of all big companies .
An entire private legal system now exists , completely controlled by large monopolistic corporations .
Arbitration agreements have only gotten more coercive and similar as corporations increasingly merge and monopolize @ @ @ @ @ @ @ “ loser-pays ” stipulations , in which the party that loses is forced to pay for the arbitrator and other attorney fees for the winner , even if the case is a serious civil rights violation or the loser is poor .
This , of course , discourages employees and consumers from ever raising a complaint in the first place .
Once one company thinks of a new , abusive clause , all the others jump on board .
“ Uber , Seamless , and other tech companies , ” Teachout writes , @ @ @ @ @ @ @ writing the most draconian arbitration clauses.
” In the last 40 years , lax antitrust enforcement encouraged market concentration in almost every thinkable market , from credit cards to banking , candy , retail , cell phones , pharmaceuticals , book publishing , defense contracting , hospital providers , voting machines , office supplies , and more .
The use of arbitration is directly related to the growing power of monopolies .
If a monopoly business conspires against its customers or discriminates against its workers—in a way that might , say , encourage @ @ @ @ @ @ @ power—the effect of arbitration is that we never hear of it .
The silence allows the monopolies to continue , largely free from criticism and scrutiny .

Arbitration is a private trial where the terms are set by a privately negotiated contract, results are secret, and someone privately pays the judge.
Prior to the 1970s, arbitration didn’t have a long legal history and wasn’t often used except in the enforcement of labor union contracts. In 1974, the Supreme Court heard the case Alexander v. Gardner-Denver Co., in which Harrell Alexander, a black man, was suing his former employer Gardner-Denver, claiming he had been fired on the basis of race. The problem was that Alexander had already gone through union arbitration, and a lower court found that he could not claim his civil rights had been violated in federal court because of this. But the Supreme Court found that when it comes to civil rights, the fact-finding capacity of the federal courts is far superior and can’t be left to private, contractual agreements.
In 1979, a young lawyer named Jay Waks discovered Alexander and, as Teachout describes, saw an opportunity to make his name in corporate law, by overturning it. The restrictions on arbitration that Alexander set forth, if weakened, could transfer enormous power to businesses. He reframed the discussion over arbitration as one of lowering the cost of litigation. It was in line with other similar neoliberal legal arguments of the time that prioritized “efficiency” in business matters. In 1991, another case about arbitration was brought to the Supreme Court. It concerned a man, Robert Gilmer, who signed an arbitration agreement when he started working for an investment firm. He claimed that his firing constituted age discrimination and thus, as a civil rights matter, should be resolved in court. This time, the court saw things differently: It felt he knowingly entered into the contract, and thus rejected his argument. Antonin Scalia, writing for the majority, said that Alexander wasn’t applicable when dealing with private contracts.
The problem Teachout sees with this decision is that, “at the heart of the Scalia logic in the Gilmer case, and the entire series of cases involving arbitration agreements, is a fantasy of choice.” Scalia’s decision rested on the assumption that if someone signs a contract, that is, categorically, an act of freedom. (This is more or less a fiction: Anyone who has actually entered into a contract for say, cable internet or a job with Uber knows that there is no opportunity to negotiate most agreements.) The Gilmer decision green-lighted Waks and other corporate lawyers to expand the use of arbitration agreements, effectively stripping huge numbers of workers of their rights. When the case was decided, Teachout notes, only 2 percent of employment contracts had mandatory arbitration clauses. Today, over half of private sector, nonunion contracts have them, as well as two-thirds of all big companies. An entire private legal system now exists, completely controlled by large monopolistic corporations.


newrepublic--2020-07-07--The Impossible Math of the Pandemic

The Impossible Math of the Pandemic

Back in March , right as the World Health Organization declared the coronavirus a global pandemic , Joe Biden , now essentially the nation ’ s only choice for replacing Trump this fall , reaffirmed his opposition to a single-payer health care system like Medicare for All .
The problem with such a system , he said , was its cost .
“ I want to know , how did they find $ 35 trillion ?
” he asked of a hypothetical Medicare for All bill .
“ What is that doing ?
Is it going to significantly raise taxes @ @ @ @ @ @ @ will ?
What ’ s going to happen ?
” Universal health care , in other words , was an unfeasible imposition on the national budget .
Yet , the uneasy reality is that capitalism constantly asks people with far less than the federal government to perform their own impossible kind of budgeting—of both material resources and time—and as the pandemic rolls on through the summer , the number of families experiencing this wall of impossibility has only grown .
Even once-comfortable parents worn thin from the strain of having to balance childcare @ @ @ @ @ @ @ home and potentially in harm ’ s way if they ’ re deemed “ essential ” —have sent out increasingly panicked calls for help .
In a recent and widely shared New York Times article , the food writer Deb Perelman described the crushing strain of perpetual double duty and the absurdity of states reopening workplaces before schools and without any guarantee of childcare .
“ In the Covid-19 economy , you ’ re allowed only a kid or a job , ” she wrote .
“ Why isn ’ t anyone talking @ @ @ @ @ @ @ hearing a primal scream so deafening that no plodding policy can be implemented without addressing the people buried by it ?
” As many pointed out in response to the piece , this isn ’ t a new bind .
Just as low-wage workers of color felt the effects of the pandemic first and sharpest , they ’ ve also been asked , over and over , to do the impossible for decades while the more fortunate—and most crucially , the government—simply looked away .
In 2015 the Economic Policy Institute demonstrated that @ @ @ @ @ @ @ making minimum wage in the United States .
The cost of childcare in every state was at least 30 percent of a minimum wage worker ’ s salary , and more than 80 percent in states like New York .
In Washington , D.C. , the cost of childcare even exceeded the annual earnings of a minimum wage worker .
Being allowed only a kid or a job , then , was more or less the norm for millions of parents making minimum wage even in the pre-Covid economy .
As Perelman wrote @ @ @ @ @ @ @ shouldn ’ t have had kids if you can ’ t take care of them ” is now used to dismiss middle-class parents ’ Covid struggles .
That exact sentiment was also historically wielded at poor parents—particularly mothers , and particularly Black mothers—in order to refuse them any help whatsoever .
“ It began to really eat away at me that in the ’ 60s the federal government , desiring to help poor moms who were dealing with deadbeat dads that weren ’ t helping , decided , ‘ We ’ ll help @ @ @ @ @ @ @ for every child you can have out of wedlock , ’ ” Texas representative Louie Gohmert said in 2014 , on the 50th anniversary of the War on Poverty .
Many more workers are now also feeling the squeeze when it comes to health care , which , in a pandemic , is both more necessary than ever and suddenly out of reach .
According to a Kaiser Family Foundation study , mass unemployment in a country where most people ’ s access to health care depends on an employer means that an @ @ @ @ @ @ @ have lost their health insurance since March .
And of that group , a number now find themselves caught between making exorbitant COBRA payments just as their income has been cut off or going uninsured during a global health crisis .
This is a particularly harrowing set of circumstances as we learn more about the complexity of Covid ’ s health impacts .
“ The system is not set up to really help people , ” one Texas resident told Bloomberg after failing to qualify for either Medicaid or Affordable Care Act subsidies @ @ @ @ @ @ @ .
As it happens , 27 million is also approximately the number of people who were uninsured before Covid , which is to say that over 8 percent of the population were forced to gamble their health against their financial solvency—rationing insulin , for instance—during the longest-running bull market in the country ’ s history .
And perhaps the most fundamental non-choice capitalism forces upon us is work itself .
In the pandemic , that has meant a rush to reopen states prematurely , then punishing workers who refuse to return to their @ @ @ @ @ @ @ guidelines .
In June , states like Oklahoma and Ohio ( where Covid cases are now increasing ) set up systems for bosses to report employees who refused to report back to work ; those workers were then disqualified from receiving continued unemployment benefits .
As employment lawyer Rachel Bussett put it , “ Their choices are : ‘ Do I go back and risk my life , or say no and risk being kicked off unemployment and not be able to pay my bills ?
’ ” But if that seems like @ @ @ @ @ @ @ , it ’ s also just the latest expression of what the labor journalist Josh Eidelson has called the fleecing of the American worker .

Many more workers are now also feeling the squeeze when it comes to health care, which, in a pandemic, is both more necessary than ever and suddenly out of reach. According to a Kaiser Family Foundation study, mass unemployment in a country where most people’s access to health care depends on an employer means that an estimated 27 million people in the U.S. have lost their health insurance since March. And of that group, a number now find themselves caught between making exorbitant COBRA payments, just as their income has been cut off, or going uninsured during a global health crisis. This is a particularly harrowing set of circumstances as we learn more about the complexity of Covid’s health impacts. “The system is not set up to really help people,” one Texas resident told Bloomberg after failing to qualify for either Medicaid or Affordable Care Act subsidies after being laid off from her job. As it happens, 27 million is also approximately the number of people who were uninsured before Covid, which is to say that over 8 percent of the population were forced to gamble their health against their financial solvency—rationing insulin, for instance—during the longest-running bull market in the country’s history.
And perhaps the most fundamental nonchoice capitalism forces upon us is work itself. In the pandemic, that has meant a rush to reopen states prematurely, then punishing workers who refuse to return to their jobs in order to follow public health guidelines. In June, states like Oklahoma and Ohio (where Covid cases are now increasing) set up systems for bosses to report employees who refused to report back to work: Those workers were then disqualified from receiving continued unemployment benefits. As employment lawyer Rachel Bussett put it, “Their choices are: ‘Do I go back and risk my life, or say no and risk being kicked off unemployment and not be able to pay my bills?’” But if that seems like an especially cruel innovation in anti-worker policies, it’s also just the latest expression of what the labor journalist Josh Eidelson has called the fleecing of the American worker.


newrepublic--2020-07-07--The American Obsession With Conspiracy Theories, Explained

The residents of Olympia Springs , Kentucky , all agreed that Mrs. Crouch was an unimpeachable witness .
One afternoon in 1876 , she was making soap in her backyard when meat “ which looked like beef ” began to fall from above like snow .
The sky was clear blue .
Though historians of paranormal phenomena call this event the Kentucky Meat Shower , that name pales in comparison to the New York Herald ’ s coinage “ carnal rain , ” which captures the romance somehow pervading this tale of flesh and soap .
As coronavirus-related misinformation continues @ @ @ @ @ @ @ must go to the woman in Arizona who destroyed a mask display at a Target last week ) , Colin Dickey ’ s new book The Unidentified : Mythical Monsters , Alien Encounters , and our Obsession with the Unexplained , about the rise of conspiracy theories and paranoid thought in American culture , could not come at a better time .
The Unidentified does not seek to resolve the intransigent problem of conspiracy theories in our public discourse , which have flourished under Donald Trump and snaked their way into the heart @ @ @ @ @ @ @ is a good example of the specific phenomenon Dickey is analyzing .
To be a truly American paranoid belief , in Dickey ’ s book , there must be a distinctly credible witness involved ; an event which defies scientific logic ; some aspect of the bodily-horrible or uncanny ; and a writer on hand to edit the facts into a story ready to hit the big time .
People have all kinds of wild beliefs , but those who believe in the meat shower—or Bigfoot , or UFOs , or the FBI @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Covid-19 is a hoax—only do so because somebody has told them about it in a compelling way .
The American paranormal is as much a product of narrative , therefore , as events themselves .
The transmission of a paranormal event can come via any medium , be it Breitbart or TV show or oral tradition .
This parallel narrative history is the factor that distinguishes a true conspiracy from a mere daydream .
Dickey holds that the original cultural trauma behind conspiracy theories lies with the invention of the modern sciences .
@ @ @ @ @ @ @ in 1735 , organizing all biological life into a neat binomial classification , Dickey writes that he also “ wiped monsters off the face of the map ” in a “ single stroke.
” Linnaeus ’ s work had the unintended effect of designating anything observed to be outside the system officially mysterious and magical .
Sixty years after Linneaus ’ s binomials had become scientific fact , for example , Massachusetts went wild over rumors of a hideous and huge sea serpent undulating in the bay at Gloucester , the locals apparently @ @ @ @ @ @ @ weren ’ t supposed to exist .

The Unidentified Colin Dickey Buy on Bookshop
Dickey is not interested in debunking such stories, or in solving them. He seeks instead “to understand their genealogy: where they come from and how they came to take root in popular culture.” Every conspiracy theory or cryptid creature is the “result of two great shocks that shook the nineteenth century: the divorce of science and religion, and the disenchanting of the world.”
These are very broad historiographical strokes, and Dickey is much more inventive where his subject is narrower and more recent. But he is right to ask: How did these shocks play out in the American context? UFO stories are a revealing example. Under the direction of Raymond A. Palmer, an eccentric publisher of pulp sci-fi magazines, lurid accounts of all-American heroes encountering aliens became wildly popular after World War II.
Palmer made his name off the story of a respectable pilot named Kenneth Arnold who, on June 24, 1947, Dickey writes, was “flying from Chehalis, Washington, to Yakima, taking a short detour to scout for the remains of a recently downed C‑46 transport plane, when he saw nine metallic flying crafts near Mount Rainier, flying in an echelon formation at an extremely high rate of speed, faster than any known human technology.”


newrepublic--2020-07-07--The Wrong Way to Grapple With a Public Health Crisis

Confusingly , this section of the piece is titled “ With Housing and Health Insurance for All , ” yet doesn ’ t express any support for policies to provide health insurance for everyone ; it simply notes that other countries do that .
( We know ! )
The editorial never endorses single-payer , a public option , magic beans , or any policy that would expand health insurance or care .
In its final “ checklist ” of proposals , the piece circles back around to “ Restore federal funding for public health agencies.
” Even if you @ @ @ @ @ @ @ ’ universal coverage as an endorsement of universal health care—which is a goal , not a policy to achieve it—you would have to note its absence from their ultimate list of policies .
In the piece , the need to do something to improve America ’ s health care system is lumped in with a similar call to expand the benefit of housing .
The two issues do have points of intersection , but the Times refuses to make either a connection between these ideas or make a plainly stated case that housing @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Instead , the authors tack the idea of increasing public health funding onto the end of a more detailed discussion of housing vouchers .
This is a very strange treatment of an issue that was at the top of voters ’ minds in the recent primary and , of course , remains there during the coronavirus pandemic .
The truncated discussion of health care that readers are left with comes across as a poorly arranged compromise between members of the editorial board , who perhaps could never come to agreement on the issue @ @ @ @ @ @ @ for lack of health care or not .
The only solution that earns space is increasing public health spending—an approach that is deeply inadequate to the problem at hand , almost beside the point .
While it ’ s certainly the case that America ’ s public health system is in need of repair , the editorial board is making something of a category error , conflating the need to boost the ability of government agencies to coordinate responses to public health concerns with the larger matter of health care reform , which @ @ @ @ @ @ @ American not being able to afford health insurance , the price of drugs , and the cost of hospital care .
There ’ s no magic amount of money you can stuff into the coffers of public health agencies that will address , let alone solve , the larger crisis that has captured the attention of so many Americans .
The common analogy for health care reform that maintains the private insurance status quo is that it ’ s like fixing the wiring in a house that ’ s on fire ; increasing @ @ @ @ @ @ @ need to expand the health insurance franchise in any meaningful way would be like taking the hose and watering the plants instead .
A proposal to increase public health funding is , of course , welcome—we all want our tulips to thrive under normal circumstances .
Only the most Trump-besotted Republican could live through the coronavirus pandemic and think , yep , our public health response seemed to work fine .
Public health institutions , which seek to prevent and limit illness and disease before they happen , are vital .
These agencies @ @ @ @ @ @ @ smoking to novel coronaviruses , are a crucial part of the mission to improve our citizens ’ overall health and happiness ; preventing disease is as important as treating it , and that can not only happen in the doctor ’ s office .
But suggesting that increasing public health spending is a bold plan to help America uphold its promise as a nation—one that paves the way to the Times ’ stated goal of “ housing and health care for all ” —is odd at best , and pathetic at worst .
@ @ @ @ @ @ @ thing that the government does so that we can basically call ourselves a country .
It doesn ’ t move us much closer , however , to an idealized bastion of liberty and justice for all , where these nagging economic inequities are fully resolved .
And as important as well-funded public health agencies are , they ’ re not the same thing as having a just and equitable health care system .
The role of public health agencies are to support that system—and when they are built atop a broken , patchwork @ @ @ @ @ @ @ quickly .
You can not be a shining city on a hill if half the city can ’ t see a doctor because it ’ s too expensive .
The New York Times editorial links to board member Jeneen Interlandi ’ s April op-ed about the gutting of public health in the United States , which noted that many aspects of our government ’ s failed response to the pandemic , including the lack of PPE and the mixed messages on social distancing , could “ have been averted by a strong , @ @ @ @ @ @ @ America no such system exists.
” As she noted , even as spending on health care in the United States has ballooned , spending on public health has fallen .
Naturally , you certainly can not fight pandemics with just a single-payer health care system , as the experience of the United Kingdom has shown .
But you really can ’ t have good public health , from disease prevention to fighting obesity , without ensuring that everyone not only has health insurance , but regular and free access to high-quality medical care @ @ @ @ @ @ @ outbreaks without being sure that people can go to the doctor if they get sick .
And the health of the public is not the same thing as public health ; people will still get sick even in a society with very good public health , and they deserve to be treated for free .
This seems like a very basic point , but if the Times is going to suggest increasing public health funding as its singular solution to the gaping wound of America ’ s health care system , it needs @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Times ’ editorial board seem to grasp the urgency of improving health care beyond public health .
Interlandi , for example , wrote an excellent op-ed last week about the insanity of tying health insurance to employment in this country .
But suggesting public health spending as the one health reform you would pick to begin “ the difficult but essential work of ensuring all Americans have the freedom to enjoy life and liberty , and to pursue happiness ” is baffling .
We have a much bigger problem than public health funding @ @ @ @ @ @ @ whole year talking about the various solutions to that problem .
It shouldn ’ t be a big ask to mention one of them .

Confusingly, this section of the piece is titled “With Housing and Health Insurance for All,” yet doesn’t express any support for policies to provide health insurance for everyone; it simply notes that other countries do that. (We know!) The editorial never endorses single-payer, a public option, magic beans, or any policy that would expand health insurance or care. In its final “checklist” of proposals, the piece circles back around to “Restore federal funding for public health agencies.” Even if you generously read the mention of other countries’ universal coverage as an endorsement of universal health care—which is a goal, not a policy to achieve it—you would have to note its absence from their ultimate list of policies.
In the piece, the need to do something to improve America’s health care system is lumped in with a similar call to expand the benefit of housing. The two issues do have points of intersection, but the Times refuses to make either a connection between these ideas or make a plainly stated case that housing security is a health care issue. Instead, the authors tack the idea of increasing public health funding onto the end of a more detailed discussion of housing vouchers. This is a very strange treatment of an issue that was at the top of voters’ minds in the recent primary and, of course, remains there during the coronavirus pandemic. The truncated discussion of health care that readers are left with comes across as a poorly arranged compromise between members of the editorial board, who perhaps could never come to agreement on the issue of whether poor Americans deserve to die for lack of health care or not.
The only solution that earns space is increasing public health spending—an approach that is deeply inadequate to the problem at hand, almost beside the point. While it’s certainly the case that America’s public health system is in need of repair, the editorial board is making something of a category error, conflating the need to boost the ability of government agencies to coordinate responses to public health concerns with the larger matter of health care reform, which has more to do with the average American not being able to afford health insurance, the price of drugs, and the cost of hospital care. There’s no magic amount of money you can stuff into the coffers of public health agencies that will address, let alone solve, the larger crisis that has captured the attention of so many Americans. The common analogy for health care reform that maintains the private insurance status quo is that it’s like fixing the wiring in a house that’s on fire; increasing public health spending without even addressing the need to expand the health insurance franchise in any meaningful way would be like taking the hose and watering the plants instead.


newrepublic--2020-07-08--Kill the Tipped Minimum Wage

Kill the Tipped Minimum Wage

Now , with the pandemic vaporizing jobs in restaurants and bars , advocates behind these campaigns , like the New York-based Restaurant Opportunities Centers United and the One Fair Wage campaign , are hoping that angry workers will mobilize to push through changes and that the owners may be willing to rethink business models already in tatters .
They also are expanding their coalition beyond the traditional restaurant and bar servers to nail salon technicians , car washers , and even gig economy workers such as Uber drivers .
It ’ s an uphill battle .
Last year bills to @ @ @ @ @ @ @ introduced in more than a dozen states , but while many of legislatures raised their minimum wages , they kept leaving the tipped wage intact .
A global pandemic and looming recession have made the fight that much more urgent .
“ This has been the most frustrating and scary time for me , ” May-Seward said .
“ We have zero control.
” Theoretically , tipped workers are guaranteed at least the regular minimum wage because , by law , employers must make up the difference if wages and tips fall short @ @ @ @ @ @ @ to tracking and enforcing it , “ The onus is on the employees , ” noted Diana Ramirez , One Fair Wage Fellow in Residence at the National Women ’ s Law Center .
And restaurants frequently flout the law .
In a 2010-2012 compliance sweep of 9,000 restaurants , the U.S. Department of Labor found 1,170 tip credit violations .
The practice of tipping dates to feudal Europe , when nobles gave serfs and vassals a bit of extra compensation for a job well done .
In the 19th century , American @ @ @ @ @ @ @ the practice back with them .
It was controversial for a long time .
Six states even passed laws prohibiting tipping in the early twentieth century .
Some argued “ that it creates a different social class of…servants who need favors , ” Ofer Azar , a business professor at Ben-Gurion University of the Negev who has studied tipping , said in an interview .
It was seen as undemocratic and un-American .
But then during the period of emancipation , as tipped workers in restaurants and rail cars shifted from white men @ @ @ @ @ @ @ , employers refused to pay a wage and instead wanted them to live off of customers ’ tips .
“ This comes down to the value of women , and particularly women of color , in the United States , ” argued Saru Jayaraman , who founded the Restaurant Opportunities Center and is president of One Fair Wage .
In 1966 , the federal minimum wage law was expanded to cover tipped restaurant and hotel workers , but that expansion came with a caveat : it allowed employers to pay tipped workers a @ @ @ @ @ @ @ made up the difference .
Then in 1996 the National Restaurant Association struck a deal with President Bill Clinton : In exchange for a minimum wage increase , the tipped wage was frozen in place at $ 2.13 an hour , where it remains today .
Beyond the obvious financial struggle of making such low wages , research has linked the tipped wage to higher levels of sexual harassment and poverty for employees .
Some states decided to go in a different direction .
Beginning in 1975 , seven states—Alaska , California , @ @ @ @ @ @ @ , and Washington—would eventually abolish the tipped minimum wage and require all employees to be paid the same minimum wage .
But action had stalled for decades until very recently .

Most people who live paycheck to paycheck can still usually plan in two-week increments, but Sarah May-Seward plans “shift to shift.” She earns $40 per shift at a bar in White Lake Township in Michigan. Her days can last longer than 11 hours, but under state law she can be paid as little as $3.67 an hour. The rest of her income comes from tips, and that’s where things can get unpredictable: If it’s rainy and people stay home, if there’s a big event going on elsewhere, if a customer is feeling cranky. All of it means less money. “It’s all guess work, because there is no steady income,” she said.
But that was pre-pandemic. Following a brief period of unemployment after the initial shutdown, May-Seward returned to work after the bar reopened in early June. Beyond feeling exposed to Covid-19—the only protection, she said, is that whereas before she served people drinks and food at tables, now they have to order from her at the bar—a lot of her regular customers are staying home and the bar hasn’t even hit 50 percent capacity. Things were tight before. They’re worse now. “I’m only making half the money,” she said.


newrepublic--2020-07-08--The Electoral College Is an American Humiliation

The decision is remarkable for its skeptical approach to the Founders ’ vision .
When interpreting the Constitution , judges often look to contemporary sources from the era to understand how its provisions came about and what its creators hoped to achieve .
Foremost among those sources are the Federalist Papers , a series of pseudonymous essays by James Madison , Alexander Hamilton , and John Jay .
The essays played a crucial role in New York ’ s ratification debates and offer valuable insight on the Framers ’ aspirations .
On the Electoral College , their vision was clear @ @ @ @ @ @ @ .
64 , argues that the mechanism will ensure that only the finest citizens can elect the president .
He anticipated that the Electoral College would be “ composed of the most enlightened and respectable citizens ” who would only consider those who were “ most distinguished by their abilities and virtue ” as presidential candidates .
Age restrictions , he added , “ confines the electors to men of whom the people have had time to form a judgment , and with respect to whom they will not be liable to be @ @ @ @ @ @ @ and patriotism , which , like transient meteors , sometimes mislead as well as dazzle.
” In Federalist No .
68 , Hamilton wrote that the mechanism was consciously anti-democratic in its conception .
He explained that it was preferable that the “ sense of the people should operate in the choice ” of the president , but that it was also “ peculiarly desirable to afford as little opportunity as possible to tumult and disorder ” from the masses .
“ The choice of SEVERAL , to form an intermediate body of @ @ @ @ @ @ @ to convulse the community with any extraordinary or violent movements , than the choice of ONE who was himself to be the final object of the public wishes , ” he explained .
Requiring them to vote in their respective states , Hamilton added , would “ expose them much less to heats and ferments , which might be communicated from them to the people , than if they were all to be convened at one time , in one place.
” Their efforts to constrain the popular will proved to be shortsighted @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Electoral College has never worked as Alexander Hamilton claimed it would , ” The New York Times ’ Jesse Wegman , who wrote a book on abolishing the Electoral College , wrote earlier this week .
“ National political parties developed within a few years of the Constitution ’ s ratification , and electors quickly joined one team or the other .
By the middle of the 19th century , the existence of partisan electors was so established as to be taken for granted .
Justice Joseph Story wrote at the time that @ @ @ @ @ @ @ ‘ independent judgment would be treated as a political usurpation , dishonorable to the individual , and a fraud upon his constituents.
’ ” Accordingly , the justices are unusually willing to ignore the Founders ’ purported wisdom on this matter .
Kagan , writing for the court , noted that the founding generation only held one contested presidential election in 1800 under the original Electoral College mechanism before passing the Twelfth Amendment to rework it .
Early Americans wrested away even more control over electing presidents from state legislatures that declined to @ @ @ @ @ @ @ that persisted in some places until 1832 , and their descendants have fought to expand electoral participation ever since .
Kagan traced these problems to the Framers ’ haste in Philadelphia , which belied the confidence shown by Jay and Hamilton in defending the proposed mechanism .
Our Constitution ’ s method of picking Presidents emerged from an eleventh-hour compromise .
The issue , one delegate to the Convention remarked , was “ the most difficult of all [ that ] we have had to decide.
” Despite long debate and many votes @ @ @ @ @ @ @ agreement .
In the dying days of summer , they referred the matter to the so-called Committee of Eleven to devise a solution .
The Committee returned with a proposal for the Electoral College .
Just two days later , the delegates accepted the recommendation with but a few tweaks .
James Madison later wrote to a friend that the “ difficulty of finding an unexceptionable [ selection ] process ” was “ deeply felt by the Convention.
” Because “ the final arrangement of it took place in the latter stage of @ @ @ @ @ @ @ “ it was not exempt from a degree of the hurrying influence produced by fatigue and impatience in all such Bodies : tho ’ the degree was much less than usually prevails in them.
” Whether less or not , the delegates soon finished their work and departed for home .
Anyone who ’ s spent too long in a meeting-that-should-have-been-an-email can sympathize with the Framers ’ situation , especially in a muggy Northeastern city before air conditioning or more breathable clothes were invented .
But it ’ s still striking to see @ @ @ @ @ @ @ court , which regularly expounds upon and draws from the Framers ’ wisdom in other cases , so readily disregard it in this one .
The result is a presidential election system that bears virtually no resemblance to the one its creators intended , but a much closer one to what Americans today have rightly come to know and expect .
So what ’ s left of the mechanism itself after Chiafalo ?
Shorn of any higher aspirations towards the common good , shackled by the American people ’ s desire for self-government @ @ @ @ @ @ @ to thwart the popular will through mathematical trickery .
At best , it ’ s a perfunctory middleman in the popular election of a presidential candidate .
At worst , and all too often , it only becomes relevant when it deprives Americans of their right to elect a president at all .
Of the five people who received the most votes in a presidential election in my lifetime , only three of them actually became the president of the United States .
Those who might be willing to defend the mechanism on @ @ @ @ @ @ @ this one .

The decision is remarkable for its skeptical approach to the Founders’ vision. When interpreting the Constitution, judges often look to contemporary sources from the era to understand how its provisions came about and what its creators hoped to achieve. Foremost among those sources are the Federalist Papers, a series of pseudonymous essays by James Madison, Alexander Hamilton, and John Jay. The essays played a crucial role in New York’s ratification debates and offer valuable insight on the framers’ aspirations.
On the Electoral College, their vision was clear. Jay, writing in Federalist No. 64, argues that the mechanism will ensure that only the finest citizens can elect the president. He anticipated that the Electoral College would be “composed of the most enlightened and respectable citizens,” who would only consider those who were “most distinguished by their abilities and virtue” as presidential candidates. The age restriction, he added, “confines the electors to men of whom the people have had time to form a judgment, and with respect to whom they will not be liable to be deceived by those brilliant appearances of genius and patriotism, which, like transient meteors, sometimes mislead as well as dazzle.”
In Federalist No. 68, Hamilton wrote that the mechanism was consciously anti-democratic in its conception. He explained that it was preferable that the “sense of the people should operate in the choice” of the president, but that it was also “peculiarly desirable to afford as little opportunity as possible to tumult and disorder” from the masses. “The choice of SEVERAL, to form an intermediate body of electors, will be much less apt to convulse the community with any extraordinary or violent movements, than the choice of ONE who was himself to be the final object of the public wishes,” he explained. Requiring them to vote in their respective states, Hamilton added, would “expose them much less to heats and ferments, which might be communicated from them to the people, than if they were all to be convened at one time, in one place.”


newrepublic--2020-07-08--The Republicans Take America on a Death March

But on Monday , Florida ’ s Republican leadership pivoted into coronavirus-era big government by , well , controlling kids .
Education Commissioner Richard Corcoran—handpicked for the job by DeSantis after serving as the Republican speaker of the statehouse—ordered “ All school boards and charter school governing boards ” to “ open brick and mortar schools in August at least five days per week for all students.
” The order was written to give local districts the power to shut schools if public health demanded it , but the Politburo is making clear they don ’ t want any rogue @ @ @ @ @ @ @ ’ t think they could say schools aren ’ t safe if they are allowing people to be out in public , ” a Florida education department spokeswoman said .
As Politico ’ s Florida Playbook noted Tuesday , DeSantis had promised residents a “ data-driven ” approach to reopening state functions , but the schools order was “ issued as all the data showed increases in coronavirus 1 ) cases , 2 ) hospitalizations and 3 ) deaths.
” It ’ s also worth knowing that only a few hours before Florida @ @ @ @ @ @ @ this tweet happened : DeSantis and Florida ’ s Republicans were merely acting as provincial boyars , carrying out their tsar-batushka ’ s demands .
This is the GOP now , as Education Secretary Betsy DeVos—who is surprisingly obsequious for a billionaire heiress—made clear hours after Trump ’ s tweet : By Tuesday , the White House had mobilized an entire roomful of mostly unmasked , mostly white people to discuss carrying out Trump ’ s edict : The reasoning is pretty easy to grasp here ; it has to be , since @ @ @ @ @ @ @ parents the chance to return their kids to school five days a week , and their parents can work full shifts those days .
Though it would not improve most families ’ personal economies—many jobs lost in the past quarter aren ’ t coming back—opening schools will improve aggregate productivity , making state and national economies appear stronger in October than they appear now .
In the brain of a very cynical , very depraved person , this could appear to be a pre–Election Day win .
When the virus ’ s spread @ @ @ @ @ @ @ the initial quarantines , the idea of “ reopening ” schools seemed an optimistic goal .
Today , if you care about public health and can read a bar graph , you know that the school order is insane .
I say this as a freelancing single parent with a child in Florida public schools , who has lost some income and energy along with the rest of America in attempting to balance daily work and parenting through the spring semester .
My first thought on reading the Florida school-opening order was that @ @ @ @ @ @ @ hug his immunocompromised grandparents for the foreseeable future .
My second that was that I am immunocompromised .
But the next morning , on reading about the life and death of Carsyn Davis , I could only think of this : Republicans know they ’ re killing people , lots of people : by spreading disinformation , by encouraging noncompliance , by refusing to act , and now , by actively assuring contagion .
DeSantis has suggested over and again that the skyrocketing coronavirus cases among young Floridians is fine .
“ What @ @ @ @ @ @ @ class of patient than what they saw in March and April , ” he said .
“ You ’ re seeing people that are skewing a little younger , and I think the clinical outcomes are going to be better.
” They sure as hell weren ’ t better for Davis .
DeSantis and many Republicans continue to give lip service to “ protecting the most vulnerable , ” but they know some young people do die ; some get sick and stay sick , possibly for life ; and some spread the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ die or be maimed .
They don ’ t give a shit .
“ I think we overreacted , ” Senator Ron Johnson of Wisconsin said last week .
“ We closed too much of our economy down.
” One White House official told reporters last week that Trump would have a new , election-optimized PR strategy for dealing with the Covid-19 threat : “ The virus is with us , but we need to live with it.
” This is the message of the Dear Leader who told us in March that @ @ @ @ @ @ @ .
”

But the next morning, on reading about the life and death of Carsyn Davis, I could only think of this: Republicans know they’re killing people, lots of people—by spreading disinformation, by encouraging noncompliance, by refusing to act, and now, by actively assuring contagion. DeSantis has suggested over and again that the skyrocketing coronavirus cases among young Floridians are fine. “What the hospitals are seeing is a different class of patient than what they saw in March and April,” he said. “You’re seeing people that are skewing a little younger, and I think the clinical outcomes are going to be better.” They sure as hell weren’t better for Davis.
DeSantis and many Republicans continue to give lip service to “protecting the most vulnerable,” but they know some young people do die; some get sick and stay sick, possibly for life; and some spread the disease to older people, who will die or be maimed. They don’t give a shit. “I think we overreacted,” Senator Ron Johnson of Wisconsin said last week. “We closed too much of our economy down.” One White House official told reporters last week that Trump would have a new, election-optimized P.R. strategy for dealing with the Covid-19 threat: “The virus is with us, but we need to live with it.” This is the message of the Dear Leader who told us in March that “the problem goes away in April.”
As I write this, the virus has killed 44 times more Americans than died on 9/11. Eventually, many of our political leaders will be seen for what they are in this: witting accomplices to homicide on a scale that Republicans might call genocide, if they watched it unfold in another country. Who says exceptionalism is dead?


newrepublic--2020-07-08--The Obscure Treaty That Could Kill a Global Green Recovery

The EU this week is debating “ modernizing ” the ECT to bring it in line with the Paris Agreement .
The European Commission has proposed changes to exclude intra-EU claims—roughly two-thirds of the complaints that have been brought under the ECT—through its “ outdated ” ISDS process .
Such disputes , they argue , are already covered by the EU ’ s own trade and commerce provisions .
Notably , eliminating claims within the bloc would still preserve European companies ’ ability to bring complaints against governments outside the EU , though the Commission does state that it hopes @ @ @ @ @ @ @ s ISDS process overall , and “ ensure the ECT better reflects climate change and clean energy transition goals.
” Joining calls by Friends of the Earth Europe and some 260 other civil society organizations , other lawmakers are now pushing for bigger changes—and even for leaving the ECT entirely .
On Tuesday , 13 members of the European Parliament wrote that the ISDS process needs to be “ scrapped or fundamentally reformed and limited.
” Should those talks fail , they recommend their colleagues “ develop pathways to jointly withdraw from the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ ” EU member states withdrawing en masse , advocates reason , would give them enough leverage to negotiate out of the survivor clause that allows investors to continue suing state signatories for 20 years after they depart .
It could also deal a crushing blow to the budget of the ECT Secretariat , the lions ’ share of which is provided by European countries , and eliminate a major barrier to getting the world off of fossil fuels .
In addition to the 53 full members of the ECT , several countries are @ @ @ @ @ @ @ ” to the treaty through its formal processes , and make themselves subject to its investor rights provisions .
For the last several years , the ECT Secretariat has pushed to get more African countries signed up , in particular , with a push for Latin American and Asian nations to join as well .
The pitch to governments for joining the ECT—made in seminars and conferences organized by the Secretariat—rests on membership being attractive to foreign investors , particularly in nations whose energy sectors are underdeveloped .
There ’ s no empirical @ @ @ @ @ @ @ , Cecilia Olivet , project coordinator for Trade and Investment at the Transnational Institute ( TNI ) and the co-author of an exhaustive 2018 report on the ECT , told me .
Yet with more wealth having fled the Global South during the current pandemic than in any year on record , and many places still lacking reliable electricity , it could be an attractive offer .
Representatives from the Secretariat , she adds , have “ mainly been talking to energy ministries , ” who have expertise in the energy sector specifically @ @ @ @ @ @ @ dangers of investor treaties because it ’ s normally the ministers of trade or finance ministers who deal with those.
” As a result , governments have jumped to sign the 2015 Energy Charter , a non-binding document that , Olivet said , is “ very much the first step to the accession line.
” As of now , new accessions are on hold pending the results of the modernization process begun in 2018 , which involves reaching a consensus among all the ECT ’ s signatories .
Thanks to the sweeping language @ @ @ @ @ @ @ in energy companies are eligible to bring complaints under the ECT ’ s ISDS process for damages .
In addition to the final payouts , the states being sued have to pay out an average of $ 4.9 million in legal fees incurred by the process , according to a Global Arbitration Review study , but fees can be much higher .
The investor bringing the complaint gets to decide where the arbitration is held .
The World Bank ’ s International Centre for Settlement of of Investment Disputes is a popular choice @ @ @ @ @ @ @ bodies can host , as well .
Just a handful of law firms worldwide have the expertise to navigate arbitration proceedings , with teams of lawyers often making $ 3,000 per head per hour in cases that can stretch on for years .
Losing an ISDS case could devastate countries already facing budget stress amidst the pandemic—particularly low and middle-income nations in the Global South already under financial duress .
“ Companies tend to use these treaties to threaten governments .
They self-censor for fear of having to then spend millions or billions @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Olivet .
“ Even if the lawsuit doesn ’ t materialize in the end , it is a clear example that fossil fuel investors will use it to defend the status quo .
The clock is ticking on the climate crisis .
Clearly this is a treaty that protects fossil fuel companies and in this current context it shouldn ’ t exist.
” Currently , as Germany moves toward closing its coal plants , the country is paying coal operations billions of dollars so that they don ’ t bring cases under the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ pay those sums , a phase-out could be financially impossible .
The U.S. is not a member of the ECT .
But U.S. companies with business abroad often engage in what ’ s called “ treaty shopping , ” incorporating in places with favorable trade laws .
A wholly-owned , Netherlands-incorporated subsidiary of the U.S. energy company NextEra won a case against Spain under the ECT over the former right-wing government ’ s nixing of a feed-in tariff for solar energy .
Among the first policies enacted by the Socialist Workers Party ( @ @ @ @ @ @ @ was to reverse their predecessor ’ s anti-solar policies .
Still , the resolution of the case means Spain will now have to pay $ 329 million .
Spain has been subject to the most complaints of any ECT signatory , having been forced to pay around $ 1.1 billion for the 16 of 48 total complaints brought against it that were resolved in favor of investors .
28 still unresolved claims could run up a total bill of $ 8.1 billion .
NextEra ’ s case further highlights changing dynamics in ECT @ @ @ @ @ @ @ years complaints were almost universally brought by fossil fuel companies , the last decade has seen a rise in the number of complaints about countries ’ changes in renewable energy legislation , joining those related to fossil fuels .
Often , Olivet says , those bringing the complaints on behalf of renewable energy companies “ are mainly financial investors that also have investments in fossil fuels , ” and ample resources to navigate arbitration .
The assets management giants State Street , Vanguard and Blackrock , respectively , are NextEra ’ s largest @ @ @ @ @ @ @ of all ECT claims have been filed by private equity investors or other financial interests .

The pitch to governments for joining the ECT—made in seminars and conferences organized by the Secretariat—rests on membership being attractive to foreign investors, particularly in nations whose energy sectors are underdeveloped. There’s no empirical evidence proving that’s the case, Cecilia Olivet, project coordinator for Trade and Investment at the Transnational Institute (TNI) and the co-author of an exhaustive 2018 report on the ECT, told me. Yet with more wealth having fled the Global South during the current pandemic than in any year on record, and many places still lacking reliable electricity, it could be an attractive offer. Representatives from the Secretariat, she adds, have “mainly been talking to energy ministries,” who have expertise in the energy sector specifically but “have no awareness of the dangers of investor treaties because it’s normally the ministers of trade or finance ministers who deal with those.” As a result, governments have jumped to sign the 2015 Energy Charter, a non-binding document that, Olivet said, is “very much the first step to the accession line.” As of now, new accessions are on hold pending the results of the modernization process begun in 2018, which involves reaching a consensus among all the ECT’s signatories.
Thanks to the sweeping language of the treaty, even individual shareholders in energy companies are eligible to bring complaints under the ECT’s ISDS process for damages. In addition to the final payouts, the states being sued have to pay out an average of $4.9 million in legal fees incurred by the process, according to a Global Arbitration Review study, but fees can be much higher. The investor bringing the complaint gets to decide where the arbitration is held. The World Bank’s International Centre for Settlement of of Investment Disputes is a popular choice, but Chambers of Commerce and other bodies can host, as well. Just a handful of law firms worldwide have the expertise to navigate arbitration proceedings, with teams of lawyers often making $3,000 per head per hour in cases that can stretch on for years. Losing an ISDS case could devastate countries already facing budget stress amidst the pandemic—particularly low and middle-income nations in the Global South already under financial duress.
“Companies tend to use these treaties to threaten governments. They self-censor for fear of having to then spend millions or billions” in a complaint process, said Olivet. “Even if the lawsuit doesn’t materialize in the end, it is a clear example that fossil fuel investors will use it to defend the status quo. The clock is ticking on the climate crisis. Clearly this is a treaty that protects fossil fuel companies and in this current context it shouldn’t exist.” Currently, as Germany moves toward closing its coal plants, the country is paying coal operations billions of dollars so that they don’t bring cases under the ECT; if smaller countries have to pay those sums, a phase-out could be financially impossible.


newrepublic--2020-07-08--The Problem With Yascha Mounk’s Persuasion

I won ’ t bore you with a detailed recap of its most worrying manifestations , from the firing of James Bennet to the uncritical celebration of Robin DiAngelo .
Nor do I want to suggest that these changes have completely delegitimized the mainstream : These institutions have not yet become wholly illiberal , and the advocates of a free society would be foolish to stop fighting for them .
But the erosion of values like free speech and due process within mainstream institutions does put philosophical liberals at a unique disadvantage .
It is difficult to convey just how @ @ @ @ @ @ @ think-tankers—some young and some old , some relatively obscure and others very famous—have privately told me that they can no longer write in their own voices ; that they are counting the days until they get fired ; and that they don ’ t know where to turn if they do .
( Astonishingly , a number of them are far enough to the left to have supported Bernie Sanders in the primaries . )
Speaking to the anti-Trump website The Dispatch , Mounk riffed on this theme further .
“ Mainstream institutions @ @ @ @ @ @ @ he said .
Many employees “ feel like they always have to argue with people who disagree with them ” or are “ edited [ in a hostile manner ] by 24-year-olds … who completely disagree with their worldview.
” Persuasion , he said , was for people who were “ horrified by Donald Trump ” and his enablers but were also “ horrified by a lot of the op-eds that now dominate The New York Times.
” It ’ s a telling and shameless collapse .
On the one hand , a @ @ @ @ @ @ @ person on the planet ; on the other , an editorial page that employs Bret Stephens , Bari Weiss , and other centrists and conservatives .
The whole reason Bennet was forced to step down as the Times editorial page editor was that he introduced a Trump-style toxicity to respectable discourse , publishing an op-ed by Senator Tom Cotton to “ send in the troops ” to quell violence that had accompanied Black Lives Matter protests .
“ Due process ” is a concept that comes up a lot in Mounk ’ s @ @ @ @ @ @ @ , the implication is that it was mob justice , that he was removed simply because people on Twitter were offended .
Mounk believes that offensive statues should be brought down legally , also via “ due process.
” This is because if we tear down statues of bigots now , others may tear down statues of civil rights icons later .
In both cases , Mounk argues , there is a right way to go about things : You have a debate and convince people of your point of view .
But @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Bennet ’ s case .
The outcry at the Times was an example of vigorous free speech .
Employees believed that its publication put black coworkers at risk , and said so .
This was done , yes , on Twitter , but it was also an organized internal effort that exposed serious flaws in the editorial process under Bennet ’ s leadership .
As for the statues , there have been legal challenges to take down Confederate statues for years , to little avail .
The recent surge in statue removals came @ @ @ @ @ @ @ George Floyd ’ s murder and the larger reckoning over racial justice .
Mounk ’ s fear is that this will be a slippery slope , leading to all manner of statue obliteration .
He has cited the destruction of a Frederick Douglass statue in Rochester as proof that this was happening , but efforts to remove even slave-owning founding fathers remain unpopular and rare .
Talking about due process for James Bennet and statues is in colossally poor taste in this context .
The lack of actual , legal due process for @ @ @ @ @ @ @ root of the protests that have swept the country over the past six weeks .
( Due process also didn ’ t help the many women who came forward with claims of abuse in the pre-Weinstein years—it was the “ mob ” that came to their aid . )
The killers of Breonna Taylor , an unarmed Black woman who was shot multiple times in Louisville , Kentucky , have still not been arrested .
In their obsession with the left and cancel culture , Mounk and his fellow travelers are dangerously close @ @ @ @ @ @ @ enjoy is as much under attack from the left as from the right .
An open letter published in Harper ’ s this week raised a number of the same concerns that animate Persuasion .
( Mounk , and a number of Persuasion contributors , are signatories of this letter , naturally . )
They warned that , “ Editors are fired for running controversial pieces ; books are withdrawn for alleged inauthenticity ; journalists are barred from writing on certain topics ; professors are investigated for quoting works of literature in class @ @ @ @ @ @ @ a peer-reviewed academic study ; and the heads of organizations are ousted for what are sometimes just clumsy mistakes.
” In his first manifesto for Persuasion , Mounk made a similar point using the same vague examples : “ At the very moment when it would be most important for those who oppose an emboldened far-right to speak with confidence and conviction , these same values are losing their luster among significant parts of the left .
Companies and cultural institutions fire innocent people for imaginary offenses ; prominent voices alternate between defending @ @ @ @ @ @ @ and an astonishing number of academics and journalists proudly proclaim that it is time to abandon values like due process and free speech.
” This section contains a single link to an Atlantic story Mounk wrote about three people who lost their jobs after being accused of offenses they did not commit .

I won’t bore you with a detailed recap of its most worrying manifestations, from the firing of James Bennet to the uncritical celebration of Robin DiAngelo. Nor do I want to suggest that these changes have completely delegitimized the mainstream: These institutions have not yet become wholly illiberal, and the advocates of a free society would be foolish to stop fighting for them. But the erosion of values like free speech and due process within mainstream institutions does put philosophical liberals at a unique disadvantage. It is difficult to convey just how many amazing writers, journalists, and think-tankers—some young and some old, some relatively obscure and others very famous—have privately told me that they can no longer write in their own voices; that they are counting the days until they get fired; and that they don’t know where to turn if they do. (Astonishingly, a number of them are far enough to the left to have supported Bernie Sanders in the primaries.)
Speaking to the anti-Trump website The Dispatch, Mounk riffed on this theme further. “Mainstream institutions are now only questionably liberal,” he said. Many employees “feel like they always have to argue with people who disagree with them” or are “edited [in a hostile manner] by 24-year-olds … who completely disagree with their worldview.” Persuasion, he said, was for people who were “horrified by Donald Trump” and his enablers but were also “horrified by a lot of the op-eds that now dominate The New York Times.”
It’s a telling and shameless collapse. On the one hand, a two-bit authoritarian who is the most powerful person on the planet; on the other, an editorial page that employs Bret Stephens, Bari Weiss, and other centrists and conservatives. The whole reason Bennet was forced to step down as the Times editorial page editor was that he introduced a Trump-style toxicity to respectable discourse, publishing an op-ed by Senator Tom Cotton to “send in the troops” to quell violence that had accompanied Black Lives Matter protests.
“Due process” is a concept that comes up a lot in Mounk’s writing. Regarding Bennet’s ouster, the implication is that it was mob justice, that he was removed simply because people on Twitter were offended. Mounk believes that offensive statues should be brought down legally, also via “due process.” This is because if we tear down statues of bigots now, others may tear down statues of civil rights icons later. In both cases, Mounk argues, there is a right way to go about things: You have a debate and convince people of your point of view.


newrepublic--2020-07-08--Reproductive Coercion Wins at the Supreme Court

The Supreme Court has affirmed the rights of certain employers to deny contraceptive coverage in their health plans in a case involving a private Catholic health service challenging a long-fought-over provision of the Affordable Care Act .
This front in that battle concerned the Trump administration ’ s rules granting employers , schools , and other entities who must offer a health plan “ moral ” or “ religious ” exemptions from covering contraception , as mandated by the health care law .
In a 7–2 ruling in Little Sisters of the Poor Saints Peter and Paul Home v. Pennsylvania @ @ @ @ @ @ @ ’ s rules to move forward .
“ For over 150 years , the Little Sisters have engaged in faithful service and sacrifice , motivated by a religious calling to surrender all for the sake of their brother , ” wrote Justice Clarence Thomas , for the majority .
“ But for the past seven years , they—like many other religious objectors who have participated in the litigation and rulemakings leading up to today ’ s decision—have had to fight for the ability to continue in their noble work without violating their sincerely @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Act ’ s rules mandating private health plans cover a range of contraceptive care—including 18 methods explicitly identified by the Food and Drug Administration—have not changed .
But today ’ s ruling expands the range of employers ( and others who offer insurance plans , like schools ) who are allowed to exclude some or all of these methods if they have religious or moral objections .
Justices Ruth Bader Ginsburg and Sonia Sotomayor recognized this denial of access in their dissent .
“ For six years , the Government took care to @ @ @ @ @ @ @ preventive health services while accommodating the diversity of religious opinion on contraception , ” Justice Ginsburg wrote .
A win for Little Sisters and the Trump administration exemptions may be a win for “ religious freedom , ” but it can not be one without also being a loss for reproductive freedom .
As Ginsburg continued later in her dissent , “ The expansive religious exemption at issue here imposes significant burdens on women employees .
Between 70,500 and 126,400 women of childbearing age , the Government estimates , will experience the disappearance @ @ @ @ @ @ @ them ; indeed , the numbers may be even higher.
” As in prior efforts to allow employers and businesses exemptions based on “ religious freedom ” —whether that is license to fire LGBTQ people from their jobs or refuse them service , or to refuse to provide abortion or transition-related care—such exemptions can grant license to legally discriminate .
To base that license on faith is to obscure the material harm it causes to people of any ( or no ) faith seeking health care , employment , or public accommodation .

Since the ACA became law, the mandate for such broad contraceptive coverage in health plans has been a target, for the Republican Party, for the U.S. Council of Catholic Bishops, and the “Christian legal army” Alliance Defending Freedom, the organization that represented the private business Hobby Lobby in its Supreme Court case seeking exemption from the mandate. The right’s collective anti-abortion efforts, ostensibly also an issue of morality, have long spiraled out, seeking to control essential acts of self-determination: how a person expresses their gender, or has sex, or has children.
“If we step back, we can see the pattern and the underlying, coercive motivations behind the Trump administration’s actions,” said Guttmacher Institute associate director of policy analysis Adam Sonfield in a statement today. (The Guttmacher Institute, a leading reproductive health and rights group, filed an amicus brief in the case, seeking to prevent the Trump regulations from going into effect.) “This attack on private insurance coverage of contraception is tied to the administration’s destructive overhaul of the Title X national family planning program, its relentless attempts to gut the Affordable Care Act, its harmful ‘refusal of care’ rules, and its ongoing efforts to ‘defund’ Planned Parenthood and undermine Medicaid coverage of family planning care.”
The religious freedom issue is still live with the court—the majority opinion is clear on that. While this may still appear to be another chapter in the culture war, it is, more accurately, a strategy to deny people in the United States full bodily autonomy. That’s always been the fight.


newrepublic--2020-07-08--Trump’s Reopening Agenda Is Upending International Students’ Futures

The move—announced with no forewarning and reversing a prior decision that schools had already come to rely on as ICE ’ s standard approach while the pandemic continues—seemed designed to throw a wrench into students ’ and schools ’ planning for next semester in a way that will force them to adhere to the administration ’ s broader reopening agenda .
Several students said they would feel uncomfortable returning to in-person classes as the threat of Covid-19 continues but also did not want to risk their academic futures .
Stanislaw Zdziech , a rising senior from Poland who is working @ @ @ @ @ @ @ at Tufts University in Massachusetts , said students “ have yet to receive any straightforward plans or information to international students if we are even able to return to campus.
” There was also little clarity on what an in-person versus online course load meant in practice , particularly for students involved in academic work that isn ’ t strictly going to class .
Aayush Khadka , a doctoral student in population health sciences at Harvard University—which had earlier the same day announced that it was planning on moving its programs entirely online @ @ @ @ @ @ @ to campus—said that he was working on his dissertation and wasn ’ t expecting to enroll in coursework at all , only research credits .
As things stood , he had no idea whether this counted as an online-only course load for the purposes of the regulation .
If it did , he wasn ’ t sure how he was supposed to deal with the logistical implications .
“ If the regulation were to apply to me , that would mean that I would need to go to Nepal , but Nepal has @ @ @ @ @ @ @ the pandemic , ” he said .
Asked whether any particular accommodations would be made for students who would be unable to return to their countries of origin for logistical reasons , ICE spokesperson Carissa Cutrell wrote that “ students can transfer to another school or check with their school ’ s designated official about options to maintain their nonimmigrant status.
” Charles Kuck , managing partner of the Kuck Baxter immigration law firm in Atlanta , said that , in theory , students could change their status to nonimmigrant visitor and then @ @ @ @ @ @ @ in-person classes resumed .
“ From an implementation perspective , it ’ s one of the most poorly thought out policies I ’ ve seen in the last few years , ” he said .
He pointed to regulations that limit the ability of international students to take online classes , calling them outdated .
“ They hyphenate the word ‘ online , ’ it ’ s so old .
That ’ s how old it is .
It ’ s not written for the age we ’ re living in.
” Lewis @ @ @ @ @ @ @ a physics Ph.D. at Harvard , and who preferred to be identified only by his first name for privacy reasons , said that the first couple years of his program are typically “ more lecture-based classes ; after that , most of the rest of the time is dedicated to research , in a laboratory.
” This means he expected to be spending his time next semester in a lab instead of a classroom .
“ It ’ s kind of unclear ; the research definitely requires me to be in the lab @ @ @ @ @ @ @ s ambiguity is how the academic credits I ’ m enrolled with will be classified.
” In an effort to navigate the uncertainty , students and staff at various universities have proposed creative solutions on social media , such as holding a single , mandatory course out in an open space that international students could attend to fulfill the in-person requirement .
Several professors volunteered to teach such classes .
Sally Rubenstone , a college admissions expert and a co-author of The International Student ’ s Guide to Going to College in America @ @ @ @ @ @ @ email that she would encourage universities that have switched to an online model to “ collaborate with other nearby colleges or with peer institutions that WILL be holding on-campus classes to allow international students to take at least one class in person.
” For example , she said , Harvard students might take a single class at nearby Boston University .

Lewis, an Australian who is studying for a physics Ph.D. at Harvard, and who preferred to be identified only by his first name for privacy reasons, said that the first couple years of his program are typically “more lecture-based classes; after that, most of the rest of the time is dedicated to research, in a laboratory.” This means he expected to be spending his time next semester in a lab instead of a classroom. “It’s kind of unclear; the research definitely requires me to be in the lab, in person. Where there’s ambiguity is how the academic credits I’m enrolled with will be classified.”
In an effort to navigate the uncertainty, students and staff at various universities have proposed creative solutions on social media, such as holding a single, mandatory course out in an open space that international students could attend to fulfill the in-person requirement. Several professors volunteered to teach such classes. Sally Rubenstone, a college admissions expert and a co-author of The International Student’s Guide to Going to College in America, told The New Republic in an email that she would encourage universities that have switched to an online model to “collaborate with other nearby colleges or with peer institutions that WILL be holding on-campus classes to allow international students to take at least one class in person.” For example, she said, Harvard students might take a single class at nearby Boston University.
The degree to which students and schools will have to individually work to blunt the impact remains unclear.
The degree to which students and schools will have to individually work to blunt the impact remains unclear, as the lack of concrete substance accompanying major immigration policy announcements like Monday’s is a hallmark of the Trump administration. It has consistently created chaos with sloppy rollouts: for example, the ill-fated pandemic-related travel bans that led thousands of Americans to flock to airports even though they were ultimately unaffected, spreading the coronavirus.