thenation--2020-10-12--If the NBA Stands for Racial Justice, What About Tom Gores?

The NBA has made a bold statement this summer and fall with its support for the Black Lives Matter movement .
The phrase is emblazoned on the courts and on the backs of many players ’ uniforms .
But how much of this is is sincere and how much is just woke marketing ?
The NBA franchise owners ( or “ governors , ” in NBA parlance ) have been talking the talk , but do they walk the walk ?
Players are certainly skeptical , knowing the amount of money these governors give to Donald Trump and the Republican @ @ @ @ @ @ @ bloc explicitly on the idea that Black lives actually don ’ t matter much at all .
As John Gonzalez of The Ringer wrote in a breakdown of which politicians owners choose to bankroll : “ Some of the owners who purport to be allies in the fight against systemic racism and police brutality have also contributed massive amounts of money to Trump and the GOP , a president and a party that stand in direct opposition to a specific position the players want to see advanced—law enforcement accountability and reform… ” Since @ @ @ @ @ @ @ ’ s obscene and racist system of “ criminal justice , ” it is surprising that there has not been more of an uproar over Tom Gores , the owner of the Detroit Pistons .
NBA franchise owners , if they really walk the walk , should be challenging their fellow billionaire to either divest a prime jewel of his corporate holdings or give up the storied franchise .
Gores ’ s fortune , you see , derives in part from his ownership of Securus , the largest prison phone service in the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ of those behind bars as much as $ 25 for a 15-minute phone call .
According to the Ella Baker Center , a third of all families go into debt trying to stay connected with incarcerated family and friends , and 87 percent of those paying these fees are women of color .
Securus has also been sued for illegally recording conversations between prisoners and their attorneys .
As the organizations Color of Change and Worth Rises wrote : As recently as June , Securus settled a suit for illegally recording 14,000 privileged @ @ @ @ @ @ @ only revealed because the corporation was hacked and the recordings of over 70 million private phone calls from across at least 37 states were released to the public .
Lest you think that such incidents are rare or a thing of the past , just last month , Securus was sued once again for illegally recording attorney-client conversations and sharing them with law enforcement .
These organizations just completed a successful push to get Tom Gores to resign from the board of the Los Angeles County Museum of Art .
Bianca Tylek , @ @ @ @ @ @ @ : “ We ’ re glad that the museum board stood on the right side of this issue and made a decision quickly to have Tom step down .
While today ’ s win will not bring relief to the families he preys on , it ’ s a clear sign that people are done with his excuses and rejecting the predatory state of the prison industry .
Yet , Tom continues to prey on families across the country fighting to stay in touch with their incarcerated loved ones… As he rakes in @ @ @ @ @ @ @ once told me ‘ progress needs patience.
’ Well , three years into his ownership of Securus , Tom has run out of time .
We won ’ t stop until he does what ’ s right : meets advocacy demands for reform—not his own—and gets out of this predatory business once and for all .
Tom and his wife sit on other boards , and they ’ re all at risk until he does.
” I asked Tylek what lesson the NBA should take from the relentless push by activists to pressure @ @ @ @ @ @ @ NBA should definitely heed the swift action taken by the Los Angeles County Museum of Art as a warning that the public will not tolerate prison profiteering in their favorite cultural institutions , and sports is no exception .
In fact , the way in which players have led on the issue of racial justice in the last few months should give the NBA pause about their complicity in the way Gores preys on Black and brown families through his roles in the prison industry.
” The NBA clearly has a choice to @ @ @ @ @ @ @ to be a beacon of hope for those who suffer under the weight of the criminal justice system , they need to do more than wear slogans on their jerseys .
They need to confront Commissioner Adam Silver about a team owner who is predatory toward the families to whom the NBA is supposed to be offering a modicum of hope .
If former Los Angeles Clippers owner Donald Sterling could be forced to sell his team because of racist statements , then Gores needs to be called out for making a fortune @ @ @ @ @ @ @ profiteering .
But it starts with the other franchise owners .
If they choose to continue to protect Gores , then so much of the last six months looks more like a fraudulent effort at branding than a sincere push for the change this country so desperately needs .

Subscribe to The Nation Subscribe now for as little as $2 a month! Subscribe now for as little as $2 a month!
Get The Nation’s Weekly Newsletter Fridays. The best of the week. Email By signing up, you confirm that you are over the age of 16 and agree to receive occasional promotional offers for programs that support The Nation’s journalism. You can read our Privacy Policy here. Fridays. The best of the week.
Thank you for signing up for The Nation’s weekly newsletter.
Repro Nation A monthly newsletter on the global fight for reproductive freedom. Email By signing up, you confirm that you are over the age of 16 and agree to receive occasional promotional offers for programs that support The Nation’s journalism. You can read our Privacy Policy here.
Thank you for signing up. For more from The Nation, check out our latest issue
Subscribe to The Nation Subscribe now for as little as $2 a month! Subscribe now for as little as $2 a month!
Support Progressive Journalism The Nation is reader supported: Chip in $10 or more to help us continue to write about the issues that matter. The Nation is reader supported: Chip in $10 or more to help us continue to write about the issues that matter.
Sign up for our Wine Club today. Did you know you can support The Nation by drinking wine?
The NBA has made a bold statement this summer and fall with its support for the Black Lives Matter movement. The phrase is emblazoned on the courts and on the backs of many players’ uniforms. But how much of this is is sincere and how much is just woke marketing? The NBA franchise owners (or “governors,” in NBA parlance) have been talking the talk, but do they walk the walk?
Players are certainly skeptical, knowing the amount of money these governors give to Donald Trump and the Republican Party—two entities that are building a political bloc explicitly on the idea that Black lives actually don’t matter much at all. As John Gonzalez of The Ringer wrote in a breakdown of which politicians owners choose to bankroll: “Some of the owners who purport to be allies in the fight against systemic racism and police brutality have also contributed massive amounts of money to Trump and the GOP, a president and a party that stand in direct opposition to a specific position the players want to see advanced—law enforcement accountability and reform…”
Since players explicitly want to challenge this country’s obscene and racist system of “criminal justice,” it is surprising that there has not been more of an uproar over Tom Gores, the owner of the Detroit Pistons. NBA franchise owners, if they really walk the walk, should be challenging their fellow billionaire to either divest a prime jewel of his corporate holdings or give up the storied franchise. Gores’s fortune, you see, derives in part from his ownership of Securus, the largest prison phone service in the country. Securus infamously gouges the families of those behind bars as much as $25 for a 15-minute phone call. According to the Ella Baker Center, a third of all families go into debt trying to stay connected with incarcerated family and friends, and 87 percent of those paying these fees are women of color.
Securus has also been sued for illegally recording conversations between prisoners and their attorneys. As the organizations Color of Change and Worth Rises wrote:
These organizations just completed a successful push to get Tom Gores to resign from the board of the Los Angeles County Museum of Art. Bianca Tylek, executive director of Worth Rises, said:
“We’re glad that the museum board stood on the right side of this issue and made a decision quickly to have Tom step down. While today’s win will not bring relief to the families he preys on, it’s a clear sign that people are done with his excuses and rejecting the predatory state of the prison industry. Yet, Tom continues to prey on families across the country fighting to stay in touch with their incarcerated loved ones… As he rakes in millions off of marginalized people, Tom once told me ‘progress needs patience.’ Well, three years into his ownership of Securus, Tom has run out of time. We won’t stop until he does what’s right: meets advocacy demands for reform—not his own—and gets out of this predatory business once and for all. Tom and his wife sit on other boards, and they’re all at risk until he does.”
I asked Tylek what lesson the NBA should take from the relentless push by activists to pressure Gores. She said, “The NBA should definitely heed the swift action taken by the Los Angeles County Museum of Art as a warning that the public will not tolerate prison profiteering in their favorite cultural institutions, and sports is no exception. In fact, the way in which players have led on the issue of racial justice in the last few months should give the NBA pause about their complicity in the way Gores preys on Black and brown families through his roles in the prison industry.”
The NBA clearly has a choice to make. If the players are going to be a beacon of hope for those who suffer under the weight of the criminal justice system, they need to do more than wear slogans on their jerseys. They need to confront Commissioner Adam Silver about a team owner who is predatory toward the families to whom the NBA is supposed to be offering a modicum of hope. If former Los Angeles Clippers owner Donald Sterling could be forced to sell his team because of racist statements, then Gores needs to be called out for making a fortune on what is nothing less than racist profiteering. But it starts with the other franchise owners. If they choose to continue to protect Gores, then so much of the last six months looks more like a fraudulent effort at branding than a sincere push for the change this country so desperately needs.


thenation--2020-10-13--One Weird Trick for Destroying the Digital Economy

When you clicked on the link to this article , it triggered an automated bidding war for its advertising space .
In a matter of milliseconds , an ad server loaded the auction ’ s winner : the ad you see right next to this text .
Lately , mine have been for the online clothing retailer Kotn—I ’ ve been weighing whether or not to buy the same pair of pants for weeks now .
Most of us barely register the presence of ads anymore , or we use ad blockers to avoid them .
But these pesky pop-ups @ @ @ @ @ @ @ a vast , opaque digital economy that could self-destruct at any moment .
Programmatic advertising—the system by which most online ads are bought and sold—forms the foundation of the Internet as we know it , allowing us to do basic things like run a Google search for free or use Twitter without paying a subscription fee .
But that foundation is a shaky one : Targeted advertising is often based on faulty consumer data ( generated by a manipulative mass online surveillance apparatus ) , and most ads are never seen by human @ @ @ @ @ @ @ have any significant impact on advertisers ’ sales .
If enough people began to doubt the value of online ads , the whole thing would go bust .
In his new book , Subprime Attention Crisis , author Tim Hwang compares this precarious state of affairs to the one preceding the 2008 financial crisis .
The good news , Hwang argues , is that we still have time to act : Instead of waiting for the bubble to burst , we might instead pop it ourselves so we can manage—and hopefully mitigate—the consequences @ @ @ @ @ @ @ at his home in Harlem to ask about the ways that we can safely implode the mechanism that underwrites the entire Web , as well as what kind of Internet we can make if we do .
Our conversation has been edited for length and clarity .
arie olis : When did you start to notice the parallels between the programmatic advertising economy and the subprime mortgage crisis ?
im wang : I spent a decade out in California before I came to New York .
For a period of time I worked @ @ @ @ @ @ @ , and then I worked in New York at Data & Society .
So I ’ ve worked on both the data and corporate side of tech and its impact .
I got really interested in trying to understand the infrastructure of the Internet and how it creates these huge companies with giant profit margins .
The more I dug in , the more amazing it seemed to me that this is how we decided to fuel this huge economic engine .
Around the same time I was also reading Too Big to @ @ @ @ @ @ @ on the financial crisis , and the two things started merging in my head .
MS : I don ’ t think most people think about programmatic advertising on a conscious level .
How has it shaped our experience of the Internet ?
What sorts of things do we take for granted about how the Internet functions that are actually a direct result of the ad economy ?
TH : Programmatic advertising is almost a way of seeing the entire Internet .
You can look at almost every piece of the web and @ @ @ @ @ @ @ shape that ?
” For example , why do we have a like button for everything ?
The like button is this powerful mechanism for measuring engagement .
These basic building blocks of the Internet are all informed in some way by these incentives to be able to measure and deliver and track a message to someone .
So on one hand , you can think about advertising shaping those tiny things—the profile , the like button .
But it also creates these more perverse incentives .
The listicle was invented , in @ @ @ @ @ @ @ keep readers on the site for a long time .
Metrics like that—time on site—become these big motivating factors for shaping content and mass behavior .
MS : Because the media industry relies so much on the ad economy , it becomes completely beholden to those metrics , even if they ’ re made up .
I was part of the “ pivot to video ” media layoffs in 2017 , the result of Facebook inflating its video metrics .
To what extent do you think the precarity of programmatic advertising has contributed @ @ @ @ @ @ @ ?
TH : Between Google and Facebook , you have a huge amount of the economy represented .
That means everyone who flows through those pipes—journalists , publishers—are subject to the whims of those companies .
If we assume that they ’ re not intentionally trying to destroy the media , those sorts of mistakes have enormous consequences that everyone has to live with .
That Facebook example is such a good one .
The distortion there wasn ’ t just a few percentage points here and there ; they had overestimated the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Programmatic advertising is also interested in delivering a message to a sort of undifferentiated consumer .
If you hop on a programmatic advertising market and say you want to target males 18 to 25 , the program goes out and purchases those impressions .
The result of that commodification of attention is that media becomes a commodity as well .
One piece of content is the same as any other piece of content as long as it gets you the eyeballs you need .
And because of consolidation , Facebook and Google benefit @ @ @ @ @ @ @ and the players always lose .
MS : In the prologue of the book , you describe a talk you attended at a programmatic advertising conference where the speaker described many of these problems we ’ ve touched on .
You were alarmed , yet almost everyone else in the audience seemed completely unfazed .
Are people willfully ignoring the looming crisis ?
TH : I would say there are three types of people in this industry .
First , there are some people whom I would call true believers : They say @ @ @ @ @ @ @ the book are just anecdotes .
Those people really buy into the religion of programmatic advertising—it ’ s an article of faith that , with all of our technology , it ’ s impossible that online advertising doesn ’ t work .
Then there ’ s a group that has pretty perverse interests .
I ’ ve spoken to some former programmatic advertising people who got out of the business because it ’ s all garbage from top to bottom .
But they didn ’ t have the incentives to show anyone else @ @ @ @ @ @ @ a waste of money .
Basically , they ’ re encouraged to look the other way and keep the wheels spinning as long as possible .
The third group of people say , “ Oh , the ads work—I just can ’ t show you the data.
” They insist they can ’ t tell me why I ’ m wrong .
Part of my hope for the book is to get that third group to actually disclose those numbers .
MS : Do you think part of it is also a lack @ @ @ @ @ @ @ would look like without programmatic advertising ?
TH : I think so .
People find it hard to believe that something so valuable and influential could , at its core , not really work .
It ’ s sort of the great moral quandary of programmatic advertising .
On one hand , it ’ s produced all of these problems that are now well-known and widely reported : It ’ s driven consolidation in the ad marketplace , it ’ s made media more brittle , and it ’ s set up a @ @ @ @ @ @ @ hand , it has also made services highly accessible to people .
This , of course , is a tried-and-true Big Tech talking point .
But if the model really broke down , that would be our most immediate experience—we would have to pay for all of this stuff on the Internet that we ’ re used to being free .
If the transition is fast , if the bubble bursts , there ’ s a big human cost .
A lot of content creators and publishers would have to shutter because they @ @ @ @ @ @ @ to keep making content anymore .
The impact wouldn ’ t just be contained to the tech industry .
MS : Which is why you advocate for a “ controlled demolition ” of the programmatic advertising bubble .
TH : If we see this problem in front of us , we have an opportunity to figure out how to deflate it in a way that doesn ’ t cause this sudden catastrophe .
I don ’ t think anyone is saying there ’ s a single business model that will replace what we @ @ @ @ @ @ @ would see a wider diversity of models .
The dominance of programmatic advertising has made it difficult to explore the alternatives .
I don ’ t think it ’ s a surprise that during the Covid-induced media crisis you see things like [ the worker-owned sports publication ] Defector cropping up .
I think it ’ s going to be mostly cooperatives like that who we see testing out these alternatives .
MS : Toward the end of the book you write , “ We have been taught to interact with people by @ @ @ @ @ @ @ .
One wonders if this will constrain the social possibilities of the future.
” Reading that sent a chill down my spine .
How do you think it has constrained our social possibilities ?
TH : If you buy the idea that there ’ s something in the design of Twitter or Facebook that produces the emergent social behavior that happens on those platforms , then I think the fact that programmatic advertising is at the core of that design ends up being a really scary thing .
Advertising gives rise to Twitter @ @ @ @ @ @ @ of a society that is really polarized and terrible .
Part of my concern is that the directionality goes the other way , too—that these platforms have trained us to behave in a certain kind of way , such that even if there were an alternative platform that encouraged a different kind of interaction , it wouldn ’ t be appealing to us .
What starts with ads doesn ’ t end with ads .
There ’ s basically a set of behaviors that we ’ ve learned that have been taught to @ @ @ @ @ @ @ .
But once we learn the behaviors , they live on their own .
The technology doesn ’ t need to encourage them anymore ; we do that ourselves .
MS : Assuming that we can unlearn some of those behaviors , is it possible that the Internet might be more fun in a post-programmatic-advertising world ?
I ’ m always complaining about how the Internet isn ’ t fun anymore .
TH : People talk about realizing the original dream of the web , which was going to be this purely academic @ @ @ @ @ @ @ and everything would be like Wikipedia .
But I think there are a lot of problems with that model—late capitalism , for one .
The conversation should really be about how we can build the Internet we want .
We might look back in 30 years and think , “ Wasn ’ t it weird we had all of these huge public platforms where we could broadcast our thoughts to the world ?
” I try to be optimistic about it .
Maybe things will be really cool in the future .
We @ @ @ @ @ @ @

When you clicked on the link to this article, it triggered an automated bidding war for its advertising space. In a matter of milliseconds, an ad server loaded the auction’s winner: the ad you see right next to this text. Lately, mine have been for the online clothing retailer Kotn—I’ve been weighing whether or not to buy the same pair of pants for weeks now.
Most of us barely register the presence of ads anymore, or we use ad blockers to avoid them. But these pesky pop-ups and banners are the smallest units of a vast, opaque digital economy that could self-destruct at any moment. Programmatic advertising—the system by which most online ads are bought and sold—forms the foundation of the Internet as we know it, allowing us to do basic things like run a Google search for free or use Twitter without paying a subscription fee. But that foundation is a shaky one: Targeted advertising is often based on faulty consumer data (generated by a manipulative mass online surveillance apparatus), and most ads are never seen by human eyes. Those that are may not have any significant impact on advertisers’ sales. If enough people began to doubt the value of online ads, the whole thing would go bust.
In his new book, Subprime Attention Crisis, author Tim Hwang compares this precarious state of affairs to the one preceding the 2008 financial crisis. The good news, Hwang argues, is that we still have time to act: Instead of waiting for the bubble to burst, we might instead pop it ourselves so we can manage—and hopefully mitigate—the consequences.
Last month, I called Hwang at his home in Harlem to ask about the ways that we can safely implode the mechanism that underwrites the entire Web, as well as what kind of Internet we can make if we do. Our conversation has been edited for length and clarity.
—Marie Solis
M arie S olis: When did you start to notice the parallels between the programmatic advertising economy and the subprime mortgage crisis?
T im H wang: I spent a decade out in California before I came to New York. For a period of time I worked at Google and did public policy there, and then I worked in New York at Data & Society. So I’ve worked on both the data and corporate side of tech and its impact. I got really interested in trying to understand the infrastructure of the Internet and how it creates these huge companies with giant profit margins. The more I dug in, the more amazing it seemed to me that this is how we decided to fuel this huge economic engine. Around the same time I was also reading Too Big to Fail, Andrew Sorkin’s book on the financial crisis, and the two things started merging in my head. Popular "swipe left below to view more authors"Swipe → The Evisceration of a Public University The Evisceration of a Public University Lisa M. Corrigan The Patronizing Moralism of David Brooks The Patronizing Moralism of David Brooks Chris Lehmann “The Blind Side” Was Always Trash “The Blind Side” Was Always Trash Dave Zirin How the “Brooks Brothers Riot” Set the Stage for Insurrection How the “Brooks Brothers Riot” Set the Stage for Insurrection Chris Lehmann Popular "swipe left below to view more authors"Swipe → The Evisceration of a Public University The Evisceration of a Public University Lisa M. Corrigan The Patronizing Moralism of David Brooks The Patronizing Moralism of David Brooks Chris Lehmann “The Blind Side” Was Always Trash “The Blind Side” Was Always Trash Dave Zirin How the “Brooks Brothers Riot” Set the Stage for Insurrection How the “Brooks Brothers Riot” Set the Stage for Insurrection Chris Lehmann
MS: I don’t think most people think about programmatic advertising on a conscious level. How has it shaped our experience of the Internet? What sorts of things do we take for granted about how the Internet functions that are actually a direct result of the ad economy?
TH: Programmatic advertising is almost a way of seeing the entire Internet. You can look at almost every piece of the web and say, “How did programmatic advertising shape that?” For example, why do we have a like button for everything? The like button is this powerful mechanism for measuring engagement. These basic building blocks of the Internet are all informed in some way by these incentives to be able to measure and deliver and track a message to someone. So on one hand, you can think about advertising shaping those tiny things—the profile, the like button. But it also creates these more perverse incentives. The listicle was invented, in part, because it allows you to keep readers on the site for a long time. Metrics like that—time on site—become these big motivating factors for shaping content and mass behavior.
MS: Because the media industry relies so much on the ad economy, it becomes completely beholden to those metrics, even if they’re made up. I was part of the “pivot to video” media layoffs in 2017, the result of Facebook inflating its video metrics. To what extent do you think the precarity of programmatic advertising has contributed to the precarity of the media industry?
TH: Between Google and Facebook, you have a huge amount of the economy represented. That means everyone who flows through those pipes—journalists, publishers—are subject to the whims of those companies. If we assume that they’re not intentionally trying to destroy the media, those sorts of mistakes have enormous consequences that everyone has to live with. That Facebook example is such a good one. The distortion there wasn’t just a few percentage points here and there; they had overestimated the metrics by 60 to 80 percent.
Programmatic advertising is also interested in delivering a message to a sort of undifferentiated consumer. If you hop on a programmatic advertising market and say you want to target males 18 to 25, the program goes out and purchases those impressions. The result of that commodification of attention is that media becomes a commodity as well. One piece of content is the same as any other piece of content as long as it gets you the eyeballs you need. And because of consolidation, Facebook and Google benefit in the end—the casino always wins, and the players always lose.
MS: In the prologue of the book, you describe a talk you attended at a programmatic advertising conference where the speaker described many of these problems we’ve touched on. You were alarmed, yet almost everyone else in the audience seemed completely unfazed. Are people willfully ignoring the looming crisis?
TH: I would say there are three types of people in this industry. First, there are some people whom I would call true believers: They say the sorts of arguments I make in the book are just anecdotes. Those people really buy into the religion of programmatic advertising—it’s an article of faith that, with all of our technology, it’s impossible that online advertising doesn’t work.
Then there’s a group that has pretty perverse interests. I’ve spoken to some former programmatic advertising people who got out of the business because it’s all garbage from top to bottom. But they didn’t have the incentives to show anyone else that what they’re doing is a waste of money. Basically, they’re encouraged to look the other way and keep the wheels spinning as long as possible.
The third group of people say, “Oh, the ads work—I just can’t show you the data.” They insist they can’t tell me why I’m wrong. Part of my hope for the book is to get that third group to actually disclose those numbers.
MS: Do you think part of it is also a lack of imagination—and perhaps fear—about what the Internet would look like without programmatic advertising?
TH: I think so. People find it hard to believe that something so valuable and influential could, at its core, not really work. It’s sort of the great moral quandary of programmatic advertising. On one hand, it’s produced all of these problems that are now well-known and widely reported: It’s driven consolidation in the ad marketplace, it’s made media more brittle, and it’s set up a huge surveillance apparatus. On the other hand, it has also made services highly accessible to people. This, of course, is a tried-and-true Big Tech talking point. But if the model really broke down, that would be our most immediate experience—we would have to pay for all of this stuff on the Internet that we’re used to being free. If the transition is fast, if the bubble bursts, there’s a big human cost. A lot of content creators and publishers would have to shutter because they wouldn’t be able to afford to keep making content anymore. The impact wouldn’t just be contained to the tech industry.
MS: Which is why you advocate for a “controlled demolition” of the programmatic advertising bubble.
TH: If we see this problem in front of us, we have an opportunity to figure out how to deflate it in a way that doesn’t cause this sudden catastrophe. I don’t think anyone is saying there’s a single business model that will replace what we have. My hope is that you would see a wider diversity of models. The dominance of programmatic advertising has made it difficult to explore the alternatives. I don’t think it’s a surprise that during the Covid-induced media crisis you see things like [the worker-owned sports publication] Defector cropping up. I think it’s going to be mostly cooperatives like that who we see testing out these alternatives.
MS: Toward the end of the book you write, “We have been taught to interact with people by platforms built to buy and sell attention. One wonders if this will constrain the social possibilities of the future.” Reading that sent a chill down my spine. How do you think it has constrained our social possibilities?
TH: If you buy the idea that there’s something in the design of Twitter or Facebook that produces the emergent social behavior that happens on those platforms, then I think the fact that programmatic advertising is at the core of that design ends up being a really scary thing. Advertising gives rise to Twitter; Twitter gives rise to the behavior of a society that is really polarized and terrible. Part of my concern is that the directionality goes the other way, too—that these platforms have trained us to behave in a certain kind of way, such that even if there were an alternative platform that encouraged a different kind of interaction, it wouldn’t be appealing to us.
What starts with ads doesn’t end with ads. There’s basically a set of behaviors that we’ve learned that have been taught to us by the design of these platforms. But once we learn the behaviors, they live on their own. The technology doesn’t need to encourage them anymore; we do that ourselves.
MS: Assuming that we can unlearn some of those behaviors, is it possible that the Internet might be more fun in a post-programmatic-advertising world? I’m always complaining about how the Internet isn’t fun anymore.
TH: People talk about realizing the original dream of the web, which was going to be this purely academic cyberspace that was totally nonprofit and donation-driven and everything would be like Wikipedia. But I think there are a lot of problems with that model—late capitalism, for one. The conversation should really be about how we can build the Internet we want.
We might look back in 30 years and think, “Wasn’t it weird we had all of these huge public platforms where we could broadcast our thoughts to the world?” I try to be optimistic about it. Maybe things will be really cool in the future. We’ll just have to see.


thenation--2020-10-13--The Nuclearization of American Diplomacy

On August 21st , six nuclear-capable B-52H Stratofortress bombers , representing approximately one-seventh of the war-ready US B-52H bomber fleet , flew from their home base in North Dakota to Fairford Air Base in England for several weeks of intensive operations over Europe .
Although the actual weapons load of those giant bombers was kept secret , each of them is capable of carrying eight AGM-86B nuclear-armed , air-launched cruise missiles ( ALCMs ) in its bomb bay .
Those six planes , in other words , could have been carrying 48 city-busting thermonuclear warheads .
( The B-52H can @ @ @ @ @ @ @ , but none were visible on this occasion . )
With such a load alone , in other words , those six planes possessed the capacity to incinerate much of western Russia , including Moscow and St. Petersburg .
The B-52 Stratofortress is no ordinary warplane .
First flown in 1952 , it was designed with a single purpose in mind : to cross the Atlantic or Pacific Ocean and drop dozens of nuclear bombs on the Soviet Union .
Some models were later modified to deliver tons of conventional bombs on targets @ @ @ @ @ @ @ , but the remaining B-52s are still largely configured for intercontinental nuclear strikes .
With only 44 of them now thought to be in active service at any time , those six dispatched to the edge of Russian territory represented a significant commitment of American nuclear war-making capability .
What in god ’ s name were they doing there ?
According to American officials , they were intended to demonstrate this country ’ s ability to project overwhelming power anywhere on the planet at any time and so remind our NATO allies of @ @ @ @ @ @ @ .
“ Our ability to quickly respond and assure allies and partners rests upon the fact that we are able to deploy our B-52s at a moment ’ s notice , ” commented Gen. Jeff Harrigian , commander of US Air Forces in Europe .
“ Their presence here helps build trust with our NATO allies…and affords us new opportunities to train together through a variety of scenarios.
” While Harrigian didn ’ t spell out just what scenarios he had in mind , the bombers ’ European operations suggest that their role @ @ @ @ @ @ @ in support of an increasingly hostile stance toward Russia .
During their sojourn in Europe , for example , two of them flew over the Baltic Sea close to Kaliningrad , a Russian enclave sandwiched between Poland and Lithuania that houses several key military installations .
That September 25th foray coincided with a US troop buildup in Lithuania about 65 miles from election-embattled Belarus , a Russian neighbor .
Since August 9th , when strongman Alexander Lukashenko declared victory in a presidential election widely considered fraudulent by his people and much of the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ anti-government protests .
Russian President Vladimir Putin has warned that his country might intervene there if the situation “ gets out of control , ” while Secretary of State Mike Pompeo has implicitly warned of US intervention if Russia interferes .
“ We stand by our long-term commitment to support Belarus ’ sovereignty and territorial integrity as well as the aspiration of the Belarusian people to choose their leader and to choose their own path , free from external intervention , ” he insisted on August 20th .
The flight of those B-52s @ @ @ @ @ @ @ reasonably interpreted as adding a nuclear dimension to Pompeo ’ s threat .
In another bomber deployment with no less worrisome implications , on September 4th , three B-52s , accompanied by Ukrainian fighter planes , flew over the Black Sea near the coast of Russian-held Crimea .
Like other B-52 sorties near its airspace , that foray prompted the rapid scrambling of Russian interceptor aircraft , which often fly threateningly close to American planes .
At a moment when tensions were mounting between the US-backed Ukrainian government and Russian-backed rebel areas in @ @ @ @ @ @ @ the deployment of those bombers off Crimea was widely viewed as yet another nuclear-tinged threat to Moscow .
As Hans Kristensen , director of the Nuclear Information Project at the Federation of American Scientists ( FAS ) , tweeted , “ Extraordinary decision to send a nuclear bomber so close to contested and tense areas .
This is a real in-your-face statement.
” And provocative as they were , those were hardly the only forays by US nuclear bombers in recent months .
B-52s also ventured near Russian air space in the Arctic @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Syria .
Meanwhile other B-52s , as well as nuclear-capable B-1 and B-2 bombers , have flown similar missions near Chinese positions in the South China Sea and the waters around the disputed island of Taiwan .
Never since the Cold War ended with the collapse of the Soviet Union in 1991 have so many US nuclear bombers been engaged in “ show-of-force ” operations of this sort .
States have long engaged in military operations to intimidate other powers .
Once upon a distant time , this would have been called “ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ have been the instruments of choice for such missions .
The arrival of nuclear arms made such operations far more dangerous .
This didn ’ t , however , stop the United States from using weaponry of this sort as tools of intimidation throughout the Cold War .
In time , however , even nuclear strategists began condemning acts of “ nuclear coercion , ” arguing that such weaponry was inappropriate for any purpose other than “ deterrence ” —that is , using the threat of “ massive retaliation ” to prevent another @ @ @ @ @ @ @ , a deterrence-only posture eventually became Washington ’ s official policy , even if the temptation to employ nukes as political cudgels never entirely disappeared from its strategic thinking .
At a more hopeful time , President Barack Obama sought to downsize this country ’ s nuclear arsenal and prevent the use of such weapons for anything beyond deterrence ( although his administration also commenced an expensive “ modernization ” of that arsenal ) .
In his widely applauded Nobel Peace Prize speech of April 5 , 2009 , Obama swore to “ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ ” and “ reduce the role of nuclear weapons in our national security strategy.
” Unfortunately , Donald Trump has sought to move the dial in the opposite direction , including increasing the use of nukes as coercive instruments .
The president ’ s deep desire to bolster the role of nuclear weapons in national security was first spelled out in his administration ’ s Nuclear Posture Review of February 2018 .
In addition to calling for the accelerated modernization of the nuclear arsenal , it also endorsed the use of such weapons @ @ @ @ @ @ @ other words , a willingness to go to the nuclear brink over political differences .
A large and diverse arsenal was desirable , the document noted , to “ demonstrate resolve through the positioning of forces , messaging , and flexible response options.
” Nuclear bombers were said to be especially useful for such a purpose : “ Flights abroad , ” it stated , “ display U.S. capabilities and resolve , providing effective signaling for deterrence and assurance , including in times of tension.
” Ever since , the Trump administration has @ @ @ @ @ @ @ bomber fleet of B-52s , B-1s , and B-2s with increasing frequency to “ display U.S. capabilities and resolve , ” particularly with respect to Russia and China .
The supersonic B-1B Lancer , developed in the 1970s , was originally meant to replace the B-52 as the nation ’ s premier long-range nuclear bomber .
After the Cold War ended , however , it was converted to carry conventional munitions and is no longer officially designated as a nuclear delivery system—though it could be reconfigured for this purpose at any time .
@ @ @ @ @ @ @ flying-wing design , was the first US bomber built with “ stealth ” capabilities ( meant to avoid detection by enemy radar systems ) and is configured to carry both nuclear and conventional weaponry .
For the past year or so , those two planes plus the long-lived B-52 have been used on an almost weekly basis as the radioactive “ stick ” of US diplomacy around the world .
Nuclear Forays in the Arctic and the Russian Far East When flying to Europe in August , those six B-52s from North Dakota @ @ @ @ @ @ @ a roundabout route north of Greenland ( which President Trump had unsuccessfully offered to purchase in 2019 ) .
They finally descended over the Barents Sea within easy missile-firing range of Russia ’ s vast naval complex at Murmansk , the home for most of its ballistic missile submarines .
For Hans Kristensen of FAS , that was another obvious and “ pointed message at Russia.
” Strategically speaking , Washington had largely ignored the Arctic until a combination of factors—global warming , accelerated oil and gas drilling in the region , and @ @ @ @ @ @ @ growing interest .
As global temperatures have risen , the Arctic ice cap has been melting at an ever-faster pace , allowing energy firms to exploit the region ’ s extensive hydrocarbon resources .
This , in turn , has led to feverish efforts by the region ’ s littoral states , led by Russia , to lay claim to such resources and build up their military capabilities there .
In light of these developments , the Trump administration , led by Secretary of State Mike Pompeo , has called for an expansion @ @ @ @ @ @ @ forces .
In a speech delivered at the Arctic Council in Rovaniemi , Finland , in May 2019 , Pompeo warned of Russia ’ s growing military stance in the region and pledged a strong American response to it .
“ Under President Trump , ” he declared .
“ We are fortifying America ’ s security and diplomatic presence in the area.
” In line with this , the Pentagon has deployed US warships to the Arctic on a regular basis , while engaging in ever more elaborate military exercises there .
@ @ @ @ @ @ @ conducted this spring in Norway ’ s far north within a few hundred miles of those key Russian bases at Murmansk .
For the most part , however , the administration has relied on nuclear-bomber forays to demonstrate its opposition to an increasing Russian role there .
In November 2019 , for example , three B-52s , accompanied by Norwegian F-16 fighter jets , approached the Russian naval complex at Murmansk , a move meant to demonstrate the Pentagon ’ s capacity to launch nuclear-armed missiles at one of that country ’ s @ @ @ @ @ @ @ majority of such nuclear forays have occurred near Norway ’ s far north , the Pentagon has not neglected Russia ’ s far eastern territory , home of its Pacific Fleet , either .
In an unusually brazen maneuver , this May a B-1B bomber flew over the Sea of Okhotsk , an offshoot of the Pacific Ocean surrounded by Russian territory on three sides ( Siberia to the north , Sakhalin Island to the west , and the Kamchatka Peninsula to the east ) .
As if to add insult to injury @ @ @ @ @ @ @ bombers over the Sea of Okhotsk in June—another first for an aircraft of that type .
Needless to say , incursions in such a militarily sensitive area led to the rapid scrambling of Russian fighter aircraft .
A similar , equally provocative pattern can be observed in the East and South China Seas .
Even as President Trump has sought , largely unsuccessfully , to negotiate a trade deal with Beijing , his administration has become increasingly antagonistic towards the Chinese leadership .
On July 23rd , Secretary of State Pompeo delivered a @ @ @ @ @ @ @ of Richard Nixon , the very commander-in-chief who first reopened relations with communist China .
Pompeo called on American allies to suspend normal relations with Beijing and , like Washington , treat it as a hostile power , much the way the Soviet Union was viewed during the Cold War .
While administration rhetoric amped up , the Department of Defense has been bolstering its capacity to engage and defeat Beijing in any future conflict .
In its 2018 National Defense Strategy , as the US military ’ s “ forever wars ” @ @ @ @ @ @ @ China and Russia the two greatest threats to American security .
More recently , it singled out China alone as the overarching menace to American national security .
“ In this era of great-power competition , ” Secretary of Defense Mark Esper declared this September , “ the Department of Defense has prioritized China , then Russia , as our top strategic competitors.
” The Pentagon ’ s efforts have largely been focused on the South China Sea , where China has established a network of small military installations on artificial islands created @ @ @ @ @ @ @ some of the reefs and atolls it claims .
American leaders have never accepted the legitimacy of this island-building project and have repeatedly called upon Beijing to dismantle the bases .
Such efforts have , however , largely fallen on deaf ears and it ’ s now evident that the Pentagon is considering military means to eliminate the island threat .
In early July , the US Navy conducted its most elaborate maneuvers to date in those waters , deploying two aircraft carriers there—the USS Nimitz and the USS Ronald Reagan —plus an @ @ @ @ @ @ @ and submarines .
While there , the two carriers launched hundreds of combat planes in simulated attacks on military bases on the islands the Chinese had essentially built .
At the same time , paratroopers from the Army ’ s 25th Infantry Division were flown from their home base in Alaska to the Pacific island of Guam in what was clearly meant as a simulated air assault on a ( presumably Chinese ) military installation .
And just to make sure the leadership in Beijing understood that , in any actual encounter with @ @ @ @ @ @ @ countered by the maximum level of force deemed necessary , the Pentagon also flew a B-52 bomber over those carriers as they engaged in their provocative maneuvers .
And that was hardly the first visit of a nuclear bomber to the South China Sea .
The Pentagon has , in fact , been deploying such planes there on a regular basis since the beginning of 2020 .
In April , for example , the Air Force dispatched two B-1B Lancers on a 32-hour round-trip from their home at Ellsworth Air Force Base , @ @ @ @ @ @ @ back as a demonstration of its ability to project power even in the midst of the pandemic President Trump likes to call “ the Chinese plague.
” Meanwhile , tensions have grown over the status of the island of Taiwan , which China views as a breakaway part of the country .
Beijing has been pressuring its leaders to forswear any moves toward independence , while the Trump administration tacitly endorses just such a future by doing the previously unimaginable—notably , by sending high-level officials , Secretary of Health and Human Services Alex @ @ @ @ @ @ @ the island and by promising deliveries of increasingly sophisticated weapons .
Meanwhile , the Pentagon has upped its military presence in that part of the Pacific , too .
The Navy has repeatedly dispatched missile-armed destroyers on “ freedom of navigation ” missions through the Taiwan Strait , while other US warships have conducted elaborate military exercises in nearby waters .
Needless to say , such provocative steps have alarmed Beijing , which has responded by increasing the incursions of its military aircraft into airspace claimed by Taiwan .
To make sure that @ @ @ @ @ @ @ “ resolve ” to resist any attempt to seize Taiwan by force , the Pentagon has accompanied its other military moves around the island with—you guessed it—flights of B-52 bombers .
And where will all this end ?
As the United States sends nuclear-capable bombers on increasingly provocative flights ever closer to Russian and Chinese territory , the danger of an accident or mishap is bound to grow .
Sooner or later , a fighter plane from one of those countries is going to get too close to an American bomber and a @ @ @ @ @ @ @ will happen if a nuclear bomber , armed with advanced missiles and electronics ( even conceivably nuclear weapons ) , is in some fashion downed ?
Count on one thing : In Donald Trump ’ s America , the calls for devastating retaliation will be intense and a major conflagration can not be ruled out .
Bluntly put , dispatching nuclear-capable B-52s on simulated bombing runs against Chinese and Russian military installations is simply nuts .
Yes , it must scare the bejesus out of Chinese and Russian officials , but it will @ @ @ @ @ @ @ peaceful overtures from American diplomats while further bolstering their own military power and defenses .
Eventually , we will all find ourselves in an ever more dangerous and insecure world , with the risk of Armageddon lurking just around the corner .

EDITOR’S NOTE: This article originally appeared at TomDispatch.com. To stay on top of important articles like these, sign up to receive the latest updates from TomDispatch.
Subscribe to The Nation Subscribe now for as little as $2 a month! Subscribe now for as little as $2 a month!
Get The Nation’s Weekly Newsletter Fridays. The best of the week. Email By signing up, you confirm that you are over the age of 16 and agree to receive occasional promotional offers for programs that support The Nation’s journalism. You can read our Privacy Policy here. Fridays. The best of the week.
Thank you for signing up for The Nation’s weekly newsletter.
Repro Nation A monthly newsletter on the global fight for reproductive freedom. Email By signing up, you confirm that you are over the age of 16 and agree to receive occasional promotional offers for programs that support The Nation’s journalism. You can read our Privacy Policy here.
Thank you for signing up. For more from The Nation, check out our latest issue
Subscribe to The Nation Subscribe now for as little as $2 a month! Subscribe now for as little as $2 a month!
Support Progressive Journalism The Nation is reader supported: Chip in $10 or more to help us continue to write about the issues that matter. The Nation is reader supported: Chip in $10 or more to help us continue to write about the issues that matter.
Sign up for our Wine Club today. Did you know you can support The Nation by drinking wine?
On August 21st, six nuclear-capable B-52H Stratofortress bombers, representing approximately one-seventh of the war-ready US B-52H bomber fleet, flew from their home base in North Dakota to Fairford Air Base in England for several weeks of intensive operations over Europe. Although the actual weapons load of those giant bombers was kept secret, each of them is capable of carrying eight AGM-86B nuclear-armed, air-launched cruise missiles (ALCMs) in its bomb bay. Those six planes, in other words, could have been carrying 48 city-busting thermonuclear warheads. (The B-52H can also carry 12 ALCMs on external pylons, but none were visible on this occasion.) With such a load alone, in other words, those six planes possessed the capacity to incinerate much of western Russia, including Moscow and St. Petersburg.
The B-52 Stratofortress is no ordinary warplane. First flown in 1952, it was designed with a single purpose in mind: to cross the Atlantic or Pacific Ocean and drop dozens of nuclear bombs on the Soviet Union. Some models were later modified to deliver tons of conventional bombs on targets in North Vietnam and other hostile states, but the remaining B-52s are still largely configured for intercontinental nuclear strikes. With only 44 of them now thought to be in active service at any time, those six dispatched to the edge of Russian territory represented a significant commitment of American nuclear war-making capability.
What in god’s name were they doing there? According to American officials, they were intended to demonstrate this country’s ability to project overwhelming power anywhere on the planet at any time and so remind our NATO allies of Washington’s commitment to their defense. “Our ability to quickly respond and assure allies and partners rests upon the fact that we are able to deploy our B-52s at a moment’s notice,” commented Gen. Jeff Harrigian, commander of US Air Forces in Europe. “Their presence here helps build trust with our NATO allies…and affords us new opportunities to train together through a variety of scenarios.”
While Harrigian didn’t spell out just what scenarios he had in mind, the bombers’ European operations suggest that their role involved brandishing a nuclear “stick” in support of an increasingly hostile stance toward Russia. During their sojourn in Europe, for example, two of them flew over the Baltic Sea close to Kaliningrad, a Russian enclave sandwiched between Poland and Lithuania that houses several key military installations. That September 25th foray coincided with a US troop buildup in Lithuania about 65 miles from election-embattled Belarus, a Russian neighbor. Popular "swipe left below to view more authors"Swipe → The Evisceration of a Public University The Evisceration of a Public University Lisa M. Corrigan The Patronizing Moralism of David Brooks The Patronizing Moralism of David Brooks Chris Lehmann “The Blind Side” Was Always Trash “The Blind Side” Was Always Trash Dave Zirin How the “Brooks Brothers Riot” Set the Stage for Insurrection How the “Brooks Brothers Riot” Set the Stage for Insurrection Chris Lehmann Popular "swipe left below to view more authors"Swipe → The Evisceration of a Public University The Evisceration of a Public University Lisa M. Corrigan The Patronizing Moralism of David Brooks The Patronizing Moralism of David Brooks Chris Lehmann “The Blind Side” Was Always Trash “The Blind Side” Was Always Trash Dave Zirin How the “Brooks Brothers Riot” Set the Stage for Insurrection How the “Brooks Brothers Riot” Set the Stage for Insurrection Chris Lehmann
Since August 9th, when strongman Alexander Lukashenko declared victory in a presidential election widely considered fraudulent by his people and much of the international community, Belarus has experienced recurring anti-government protests. Russian President Vladimir Putin has warned that his country might intervene there if the situation “gets out of control,” while Secretary of State Mike Pompeo has implicitly warned of US intervention if Russia interferes. “We stand by our long-term commitment to support Belarus’ sovereignty and territorial integrity as well as the aspiration of the Belarusian people to choose their leader and to choose their own path, free from external intervention,” he insisted on August 20th. The flight of those B-52s near Belarus can, then, be reasonably interpreted as adding a nuclear dimension to Pompeo’s threat.
In another bomber deployment with no less worrisome implications, on September 4th, three B-52s, accompanied by Ukrainian fighter planes, flew over the Black Sea near the coast of Russian-held Crimea. Like other B-52 sorties near its airspace, that foray prompted the rapid scrambling of Russian interceptor aircraft, which often fly threateningly close to American planes.
At a moment when tensions were mounting between the US-backed Ukrainian government and Russian-backed rebel areas in the eastern part of the country, the deployment of those bombers off Crimea was widely viewed as yet another nuclear-tinged threat to Moscow. As Hans Kristensen, director of the Nuclear Information Project at the Federation of American Scientists (FAS), tweeted, “Extraordinary decision to send a nuclear bomber so close to contested and tense areas. This is a real in-your-face statement.” Current Issue View our current issue
And provocative as they were, those were hardly the only forays by US nuclear bombers in recent months. B-52s also ventured near Russian air space in the Arctic and within range of Russian forces in Syria. Meanwhile other B-52s, as well as nuclear-capable B-1 and B-2 bombers, have flown similar missions near Chinese positions in the South China Sea and the waters around the disputed island of Taiwan. Never since the Cold War ended with the collapse of the Soviet Union in 1991 have so many US nuclear bombers been engaged in “show-of-force” operations of this sort.
“Demonstrating Resolve” and Coercing Adversaries
States have long engaged in military operations to intimidate other powers. Once upon a distant time, this would have been called “gunboat diplomacy” and naval vessels would have been the instruments of choice for such missions. The arrival of nuclear arms made such operations far more dangerous. This didn’t, however, stop the United States from using weaponry of this sort as tools of intimidation throughout the Cold War. In time, however, even nuclear strategists began condemning acts of “nuclear coercion,” arguing that such weaponry was inappropriate for any purpose other than “deterrence”—that is, using the threat of “massive retaliation” to prevent another country from attacking you. In fact, a deterrence-only posture eventually became Washington’s official policy, even if the temptation to employ nukes as political cudgels never entirely disappeared from its strategic thinking.
At a more hopeful time, President Barack Obama sought to downsize this country’s nuclear arsenal and prevent the use of such weapons for anything beyond deterrence (although his administration also commenced an expensive “modernization” of that arsenal). In his widely applauded Nobel Peace Prize speech of April 5, 2009, Obama swore to “put an end to Cold War thinking” and “reduce the role of nuclear weapons in our national security strategy.” Unfortunately, Donald Trump has sought to move the dial in the opposite direction, including increasing the use of nukes as coercive instruments.
The president’s deep desire to bolster the role of nuclear weapons in national security was first spelled out in his administration’s Nuclear Posture Review of February 2018. In addition to calling for the accelerated modernization of the nuclear arsenal, it also endorsed the use of such weapons to demonstrate American “resolve”—in other words, a willingness to go to the nuclear brink over political differences. A large and diverse arsenal was desirable, the document noted, to “demonstrate resolve through the positioning of forces, messaging, and flexible response options.” Nuclear bombers were said to be especially useful for such a purpose: “Flights abroad,” it stated, “display U.S. capabilities and resolve, providing effective signaling for deterrence and assurance, including in times of tension.”
Ever since, the Trump administration has been deploying the country’s nuclear bomber fleet of B-52s, B-1s, and B-2s with increasing frequency to “display U.S. capabilities and resolve,” particularly with respect to Russia and China.
The supersonic B-1B Lancer, developed in the 1970s, was originally meant to replace the B-52 as the nation’s premier long-range nuclear bomber. After the Cold War ended, however, it was converted to carry conventional munitions and is no longer officially designated as a nuclear delivery system—though it could be reconfigured for this purpose at any time. The B-2 Spirit, with its distinctive flying-wing design, was the first US bomber built with “stealth” capabilities (meant to avoid detection by enemy radar systems) and is configured to carry both nuclear and conventional weaponry. For the past year or so, those two planes plus the long-lived B-52 have been used on an almost weekly basis as the radioactive “stick” of US diplomacy around the world.
Nuclear Forays in the Arctic and the Russian Far East
When flying to Europe in August, those six B-52s from North Dakota’s Minot Air Force Base took a roundabout route north of Greenland (which President Trump had unsuccessfully offered to purchase in 2019). They finally descended over the Barents Sea within easy missile-firing range of Russia’s vast naval complex at Murmansk, the home for most of its ballistic missile submarines. For Hans Kristensen of FAS, that was another obvious and “pointed message at Russia.”
Strategically speaking, Washington had largely ignored the Arctic until a combination of factors—global warming, accelerated oil and gas drilling in the region, and increased Russian and Chinese military activities there—sparked growing interest. As global temperatures have risen, the Arctic ice cap has been melting at an ever-faster pace, allowing energy firms to exploit the region’s extensive hydrocarbon resources. This, in turn, has led to feverish efforts by the region’s littoral states, led by Russia, to lay claim to such resources and build up their military capabilities there.
In light of these developments, the Trump administration, led by Secretary of State Mike Pompeo, has called for an expansion of this country’s Arctic military forces. In a speech delivered at the Arctic Council in Rovaniemi, Finland, in May 2019, Pompeo warned of Russia’s growing military stance in the region and pledged a strong American response to it. “Under President Trump,” he declared. “We are fortifying America’s security and diplomatic presence in the area.”
In line with this, the Pentagon has deployed US warships to the Arctic on a regular basis, while engaging in ever more elaborate military exercises there. These have included Cold Response 2020, conducted this spring in Norway’s far north within a few hundred miles of those key Russian bases at Murmansk. For the most part, however, the administration has relied on nuclear-bomber forays to demonstrate its opposition to an increasing Russian role there. In November 2019, for example, three B-52s, accompanied by Norwegian F-16 fighter jets, approached the Russian naval complex at Murmansk, a move meant to demonstrate the Pentagon’s capacity to launch nuclear-armed missiles at one of that country’s most critical military installations.
If the majority of such nuclear forays have occurred near Norway’s far north, the Pentagon has not neglected Russia’s far eastern territory, home of its Pacific Fleet, either. In an unusually brazen maneuver, this May a B-1B bomber flew over the Sea of Okhotsk, an offshoot of the Pacific Ocean surrounded by Russian territory on three sides (Siberia to the north, Sakhalin Island to the west, and the Kamchatka Peninsula to the east).
As if to add insult to injury, the Air Force dispatched two B-52H bombers over the Sea of Okhotsk in June—another first for an aircraft of that type. Needless to say, incursions in such a militarily sensitive area led to the rapid scrambling of Russian fighter aircraft.
The South China Sea and Taiwan
A similar, equally provocative pattern can be observed in the East and South China Seas. Even as President Trump has sought, largely unsuccessfully, to negotiate a trade deal with Beijing, his administration has become increasingly antagonistic towards the Chinese leadership. On July 23rd, Secretary of State Pompeo delivered a particularly hostile speech in the presidential library of Richard Nixon, the very commander-in-chief who first reopened relations with communist China. Pompeo called on American allies to suspend normal relations with Beijing and, like Washington, treat it as a hostile power, much the way the Soviet Union was viewed during the Cold War.
While administration rhetoric amped up, the Department of Defense has been bolstering its capacity to engage and defeat Beijing in any future conflict. In its 2018 National Defense Strategy, as the US military’s “forever wars” dragged on, the Pentagon suddenly labeled China and Russia the two greatest threats to American security. More recently, it singled out China alone as the overarching menace to American national security. “In this era of great-power competition,” Secretary of Defense Mark Esper declared this September, “the Department of Defense has prioritized China, then Russia, as our top strategic competitors.”
The Pentagon’s efforts have largely been focused on the South China Sea, where China has established a network of small military installations on artificial islands created by dredging sand from the sea-bottom near some of the reefs and atolls it claims. American leaders have never accepted the legitimacy of this island-building project and have repeatedly called upon Beijing to dismantle the bases. Such efforts have, however, largely fallen on deaf ears and it’s now evident that the Pentagon is considering military means to eliminate the island threat.
In early July, the US Navy conducted its most elaborate maneuvers to date in those waters, deploying two aircraft carriers there—the USS Nimitz and the USS Ronald Reagan —plus an escort fleet of cruisers, destroyers, and submarines. While there, the two carriers launched hundreds of combat planes in simulated attacks on military bases on the islands the Chinese had essentially built.
At the same time, paratroopers from the Army’s 25th Infantry Division were flown from their home base in Alaska to the Pacific island of Guam in what was clearly meant as a simulated air assault on a (presumably Chinese) military installation. And just to make sure the leadership in Beijing understood that, in any actual encounter with US forces, Chinese resistance would be countered by the maximum level of force deemed necessary, the Pentagon also flew a B-52 bomber over those carriers as they engaged in their provocative maneuvers.
And that was hardly the first visit of a nuclear bomber to the South China Sea. The Pentagon has, in fact, been deploying such planes there on a regular basis since the beginning of 2020. In April, for example, the Air Force dispatched two B-1B Lancers on a 32-hour round-trip from their home at Ellsworth Air Force Base, North Dakota, to that sea and back as a demonstration of its ability to project power even in the midst of the pandemic President Trump likes to call “the Chinese plague.”
Meanwhile, tensions have grown over the status of the island of Taiwan, which China views as a breakaway part of the country. Beijing has been pressuring its leaders to forswear any moves toward independence, while the Trump administration tacitly endorses just such a future by doing the previously unimaginable—notably, by sending high-level officials, Secretary of Health and Human Services Alex Azar among them, on visits to the island and by promising deliveries of increasingly sophisticated weapons. Meanwhile, the Pentagon has upped its military presence in that part of the Pacific, too. The Navy has repeatedly dispatched missile-armed destroyers on “freedom of navigation” missions through the Taiwan Strait, while other US warships have conducted elaborate military exercises in nearby waters.
Needless to say, such provocative steps have alarmed Beijing, which has responded by increasing the incursions of its military aircraft into airspace claimed by Taiwan. To make sure that Beijing fully appreciates the depth of American “resolve” to resist any attempt to seize Taiwan by force, the Pentagon has accompanied its other military moves around the island with—you guessed it—flights of B-52 bombers.
Playing with Fire
And where will all this end? As the United States sends nuclear-capable bombers on increasingly provocative flights ever closer to Russian and Chinese territory, the danger of an accident or mishap is bound to grow. Sooner or later, a fighter plane from one of those countries is going to get too close to an American bomber and a deadly incident will occur. And what will happen if a nuclear bomber, armed with advanced missiles and electronics (even conceivably nuclear weapons), is in some fashion downed? Count on one thing: In Donald Trump’s America, the calls for devastating retaliation will be intense and a major conflagration cannot be ruled out.
Bluntly put, dispatching nuclear-capable B-52s on simulated bombing runs against Chinese and Russian military installations is simply nuts. Yes, it must scare the bejesus out of Chinese and Russian officials, but it will also prompt them to distrust any future peaceful overtures from American diplomats while further bolstering their own military power and defenses. Eventually, we will all find ourselves in an ever more dangerous and insecure world, with the risk of Armageddon lurking just around the corner.


thenation--2020-10-13--Trump Deploys the Strongman’s Playbook

Trump Deploys the Strongman’s Playbook

Three weeks from the election , the Signal is that the Trump campaign , and its acolytes across the country , are escalating their attacks on voting rights in key states .
In early October , Texas Governor Greg Abbott issued an executive order restricting to one the number of drop-off sites for ballots that each county in the state could operate .
In Harris County , home to Houston , the country ’ s third-largest city , the order meant that 10 of the 11 early-voting sites would have to close .
Abbott ’ s order was quashed by @ @ @ @ @ @ @ the good legal news was short-lived : On Saturday , in response to Texas Attorney General Ken Paxton ’ s emergency appeal , the US Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit issued a stay on the ruling , allowing Abbott ’ s order to go into effect while the court considered the case on its merits , which it will likely do over the coming week .
But with early voting scheduled to begin today in the Lone Star State , that means that at least for now , voters ’ options @ @ @ @ @ @ @ limited .
Meanwhile , in Pennsylvania—one of six swing states where , according to Salon and The Atlantic , Trump ’ s people have been hoping to convince GOP legislators to simply appoint Trump-loyal electors should the popular vote in those states go against No .
45—the Trump campaign suffered a setback late last week when a judge ruled against it in a lawsuit aiming to have ballot drop-boxes declared unconstitutional .
But , as with Texas , that ’ s not the last of it ; Team Trump has already announced that @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Have a Covidiot in the White House Republican efforts to make voting more difficult also extend into the realm of intimidation .
Shortly after Trump tweeted his request for an “ Army for Trump ” to turn up at the polls to watch for fraud , private companies leapt into the act .
On Friday , The Washington Post reported an extraordinary story about a private security company based in Tennessee that posted on a jobs website for the defense industry that it is seeking to recruit retired Special Operations personnel to “ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ purported antifa threats .
The article indicated that the men would likely be armed and would be paid a per diem of $ 910 , with their assignments to last between 15 and 30 days .
Trump and his support crew aren ’ t just trying to make the voting process harder and scarier ; they ’ re also using a number of tricks from the strongman ’ s playbook , including using public moneys on a vast scale to demonstrate his personal largesse to wavering voters .
Last month , millions of @ @ @ @ @ @ @ including those going out to school districts to feed the families of low-income students , began carrying letters , in both English and Spanish , signed by Donald Trump .
In those letters Trump explained to recipients how he had prioritized nutrition and other food assistance so poor families could survive the hardships wrought by the pandemic—the clear implication being that he had personally intervened to send food to hungry families .
According to food distribution networks , these letters have been included in boxes episodically for months now ; but last month @ @ @ @ @ @ @ with government contracts include these letters if they wanted to keep their contracts .
Trump ’ s effort to claim credit for these boxes is , of course , a far cry from reality ; the multibillion-dollar program was congressionally authorized , and the food is being distributed as part of the first Covid-19 relief package .
Many Democrats say the letter appears to be a clear violation of the Hatch Act , which prevents executive branch employees from engaging in political activity .
Trump has repeatedly pushed extreme cuts to the food @ @ @ @ @ @ @ immigrants ’ eligibility for public relief ; for him to claim any concern for hungry Americans is an act of hypocrisy bordering on the surreal .
On a related theme , billions of dollars in Medicare funds could soon be raided for another preelection political stunt , this one involving the vow to send drug prescription vouchers , worth $ 200 , to tens of millions of seniors around the country .
Enactment is not likely , but if it occurs , Trump ’ s name will be directly associated with the largesse @ @ @ @ @ @ @ are raised by the country ’ s taxpayers ( and Trump , as The New York Times recently documented , pays notoriously little into the country ’ s coffers ) , and despite the fact that Trump has done everything in his power to undermine the Affordable Care Act and access to medical coverage for tens of millions of Americans .
On the non-fiscal side of things , Trump has recently upped the pressure on Secretary of State Mike Pompeo to release troves of Hillary Clinton ’ s e-mails before the election—and Pompeo @ @ @ @ @ @ @ that Attorney General Bill Barr announce preelection indictments of Clinton , ex-President Obama , and Joe Biden for allegedly spying on his campaign in 2016 ; so far , however , Barr , who seems to have gone into hiding this past week , hasn ’ t followed the Pompeo route of publicly genuflecting to the boss ’ s latest authoritarian whim .
All of this is caudillo politics of the worst sort .
Sure , some of it is just the residual Noise that Trump seems pathologically unable to avoid spewing .
@ @ @ @ @ @ @ , where there ’ s noise , there ’ s signal too .
Trump is desperate to dodge an electoral loss that would likely catapult him from the White House into the courthouse , and there seems to be no limit to the damage he ’ s willing to inflict on the country ’ s democratic structures in his efforts to succeed .
Three weeks out , it ’ s absolutely vital that he not be given an inch in this fight .
That ’ s the Signal this week .
It is @ @ @ @ @ @ @ , every legal maneuver intended to suppress the vote be called out and fought , every effort to use government resources illegitimately to bolster Trump ’ s campaign be challenged .

Three weeks from the election, the Signal is that the Trump campaign, and its acolytes across the country, are escalating their attacks on voting rights in key states.
In early October, Texas Governor Greg Abbott issued an executive order restricting to one the number of drop-off sites for ballots that each county in the state could operate. In Harris County, home to Houston, the country’s third-largest city, the order meant that 10 of the 11 early-voting sites would have to close.
Abbott’s order was quashed by a federal judge last Friday. But the good legal news was short-lived: On Saturday, in response to Texas Attorney General Ken Paxton’s emergency appeal, the US Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit issued a stay on the ruling, allowing Abbott’s order to go into effect while the court considered the case on its merits, which it will likely do over the coming week. But with early voting scheduled to begin today in the Lone Star State, that means that at least for now, voters’ options for dropping off their ballots remain severely limited. [Update: A Fifth Circuit ruling late Monday night upheld Governor Abbott’s order, so Texas voters will indeed be restricted to one ballot drop box per county.]
Meanwhile, in Pennsylvania—one of six swing states where, according to Salon and The Atlantic, Trump’s people have been hoping to convince GOP legislators to simply appoint Trump-loyal electors should the popular vote in those states go against No. 45—the Trump campaign suffered a setback late last week when a judge ruled against it in a lawsuit aiming to have ballot drop-boxes declared unconstitutional. But, as with Texas, that’s not the last of it; Team Trump has already announced that it will appeal the ruling. More From Sasha Abramsky Kamala Harris Put Mike Pence in His Place Sasha Abramsky We Have a Covidiot in the White House Sasha Abramsky
Republican efforts to make voting more difficult also extend into the realm of intimidation. Shortly after Trump tweeted his request for an “Army for Trump” to turn up at the polls to watch for fraud, private companies leapt into the act. On Friday, The Washington Post reported an extraordinary story about a private security company based in Tennessee that posted on a jobs website for the defense industry that it is seeking to recruit retired Special Operations personnel to “protect” polling places in Minnesota against purported antifa threats. The article indicated that the men would likely be armed and would be paid a per diem of $910, with their assignments to last between 15 and 30 days. Popular "swipe left below to view more authors"Swipe → The Evisceration of a Public University The Evisceration of a Public University Lisa M. Corrigan The Patronizing Moralism of David Brooks The Patronizing Moralism of David Brooks Chris Lehmann “The Blind Side” Was Always Trash “The Blind Side” Was Always Trash Dave Zirin How the “Brooks Brothers Riot” Set the Stage for Insurrection How the “Brooks Brothers Riot” Set the Stage for Insurrection Chris Lehmann Popular "swipe left below to view more authors"Swipe → The Evisceration of a Public University The Evisceration of a Public University Lisa M. Corrigan The Patronizing Moralism of David Brooks The Patronizing Moralism of David Brooks Chris Lehmann “The Blind Side” Was Always Trash “The Blind Side” Was Always Trash Dave Zirin How the “Brooks Brothers Riot” Set the Stage for Insurrection How the “Brooks Brothers Riot” Set the Stage for Insurrection Chris Lehmann
Trump and his support crew aren’t just trying to make the voting process harder and scarier; they’re also using a number of tricks from the strongman’s playbook, including using public moneys on a vast scale to demonstrate his personal largesse to wavering voters.
Last month, millions of Farmers to Families USDA food boxes, including those going out to school districts to feed the families of low-income students, began carrying letters, in both English and Spanish, signed by Donald Trump. In those letters Trump explained to recipients how he had prioritized nutrition and other food assistance so poor families could survive the hardships wrought by the pandemic—the clear implication being that he had personally intervened to send food to hungry families. Current Issue View our current issue
According to food distribution networks, these letters have been included in boxes episodically for months now; but last month the USDA actually mandated that all agencies with government contracts include these letters if they wanted to keep their contracts.
Trump’s effort to claim credit for these boxes is, of course, a far cry from reality; the multibillion-dollar program was congressionally authorized, and the food is being distributed as part of the first Covid-19 relief package. Many Democrats say the letter appears to be a clear violation of the Hatch Act, which prevents executive branch employees from engaging in political activity. Trump has repeatedly pushed extreme cuts to the food stamp program and has worked to limit immigrants’ eligibility for public relief; for him to claim any concern for hungry Americans is an act of hypocrisy bordering on the surreal.
On a related theme, billions of dollars in Medicare funds could soon be raided for another preelection political stunt, this one involving the vow to send drug prescription vouchers, worth $200, to tens of millions of seniors around the country. Enactment is not likely, but if it occurs, Trump’s name will be directly associated with the largesse, despite the fact that Medicare funds are raised by the country’s taxpayers (and Trump, as The New York Times recently documented, pays notoriously little into the country’s coffers), and despite the fact that Trump has done everything in his power to undermine the Affordable Care Act and access to medical coverage for tens of millions of Americans.
On the non-fiscal side of things, Trump has recently upped the pressure on Secretary of State Mike Pompeo to release troves of Hillary Clinton’s e-mails before the election—and Pompeo cravenly promised to oblige. Trump demanded that Attorney General Bill Barr announce preelection indictments of Clinton, ex-President Obama, and Joe Biden for allegedly spying on his campaign in 2016; so far, however, Barr, who seems to have gone into hiding this past week, hasn’t followed the Pompeo route of publicly genuflecting to the boss’s latest authoritarian whim.
All of this is caudillo politics of the worst sort. Sure, some of it is just the residual Noise that Trump seems pathologically unable to avoid spewing. But at this stage of the game, where there’s noise, there’s signal too. Trump is desperate to dodge an electoral loss that would likely catapult him from the White House into the courthouse, and there seems to be no limit to the damage he’s willing to inflict on the country’s democratic structures in his efforts to succeed.
Three weeks out, it’s absolutely vital that he not be given an inch in this fight. That’s the Signal this week. It is vital that every propaganda step be countered, every legal maneuver intended to suppress the vote be called out and fought, every effort to use government resources illegitimately to bolster Trump’s campaign be challenged.


thenation--2020-10-13--In California’s Agricultural Heartland, a Mayor Is Running on Compassion

The ongoing struggle for racial justice .
The future for immigrant families .
The health and well-being of all Americans .
The very fate of our fragile planet .
The US faces a crossroads in this year ’ s elections .
Seeking out the stories flying under the national radar , The Nation and Magnum Foundation are partnering on What ’ s At Stake , a series of photo essays from across the country through the lenses of independent imagemakers .
Follow the whole series here .
The town of Gonzales is located in the idyllic California ’ s Salinas @ @ @ @ @ @ @ salad bowl of America.
” The region produces two-thirds of the nation ’ s lettuce and much of its strawberries , tomatoes , and broccoli .
All of which means that when the coronavirus crisis hit the state , the region ’ s farmworkers were considered “ essential ” and therefore exempt from Governor Gavin Newsom ’ s “ shelter in place ” mandate .
Even though the workers have continued to go into the fields throughout the pandemic , and even though their labor has kept the rest of the country fed @ @ @ @ @ @ @ , they also did not qualify for the federal government ’ s CARES relief package .
Understandably , many of them feel their basic rights have been stripped away ; they are forced to work under unhealthy conditions—ranging from the bad air quality caused by the raging wildfires and , in many cases , proximity to coworkers diagnosed with Covid-19 .
The mayor of Gonzales is an anomaly in the region : Maria Orozco is the first Latina woman to have won the position in the town , and she ’ s turned @ @ @ @ @ @ @ .
First elected mayor in 2008 , Orozco is now in her sixth consecutive term .
Faced with the pandemic , the burning wildfires , and the challenges of overseeing a resource-strapped town , Orozco is fighting for justice for all the people who live in Gonzales , regardless of immigration status .
Monica Rico is one of the 8,000 or so people who live in Gonzales , and after four years of President Trump , she says people are frightened about the future of the region and of the country .
“ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ and he reaches out to all the immigrants and the undocumented immigrants and helps us .
I don ’ t want my children to grow up being scared .
I have a 10-year-old son that is darker-skinned , and he asked me , ‘ What if they say something because I ’ m [ darker ] ?
’ ” When her son was 8 years old , Rico told me , he began questioning his place in society after listening to President Trump rail against Mexican immigrants .
Another resident , Mariam Santos @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Covid-19 while working in the broccoli fields , forcing her and her husband to quarantine for 14 days .
Neither of them qualified for the government stimulus check—as the pandemic worsened , Santos was wracked by anxiety and depression , afraid of being evicted .
Santos said that ’ s when Mayor Orozco stepped in : “ She ’ s one of the best .
I was worried about my rent and finding food for my kids .
Orozco was there to help me to help pay rent and buy food for my @ @ @ @ @ @ @ farmworkers who did not qualify for the stimulus check .
When she found out I was one of those [ people ] , she reached out to me and asked if I want to apply and I said ‘ yes.
’ ” Santos isn ’ t the only one the mayor has dedicated her personal time to .
Orozco runs a food pantry out of her gift shop , frequently making personal deliveries to families in need .
Orozco also regularly drives to labor camps and low-income housing to touch base with undocumented @ @ @ @ @ @ @ than 10 years she ’ s been in office , Orozco has brought public transportation to Gonzales , and advocated for a new health clinic that opened in the area .
During her mayoralty , 44 affordable housing units have been built in partnership with the housing authority , and the city has begun providing free Internet services to all residents .
Families often come out of their apartments to greet her , kids walk up and show her their toys , and grandmothers voice their concerns over the recent wildfires .
Orozco @ @ @ @ @ @ @ how important it is for her to make people feel safe , regardless of their status , because they live and pay taxes and should be treated as equal to everyone in town .
Maria de Aluz , 72 , told me , “ I have seen all the good things Orozco has done under her leadership .
She treats us all the same .
She does not discriminate against us .
As a human being , she ’ s an exceptional human being .
She has done a lot to treat us @ @ @ @ @ @ @ that as essential workers , its and voice their concerns so they can set the tone for what services are important to them .
“ It ’ s important for essential workers to vote because as some of the least paid workers they can benefit from services related to housing , good paying jobs , health insurance and benefits .
Many policies are made by policymakers , but if essential workers vote they can change which services are accessible to them , ” Orozco said .
Orozco is up for reelection this November @ @ @ @ @ @ @ new challengers this time around , bu the message she wants her constituents to take away from her campaign is the same as it has been for all her previous ones : Don ’ t be scared to speak up and speak out .

The ongoing struggle for racial justice. The future for immigrant families. The health and well-being of all Americans. The very fate of our fragile planet. The US faces a crossroads in this year’s elections. Seeking out the stories flying under the national radar, The Nation and Magnum Foundation are partnering on What’s At Stake, a series of photo essays from across the country through the lenses of independent imagemakers. Follow the whole series here. This installment was produced with support from the Economic Hardship Reporting Project.
The town of Gonzales is located in the idyllic California’s Salinas Valley, also known as the “salad bowl of America.” The region produces two-thirds of the nation’s lettuce and much of its strawberries, tomatoes, and broccoli. All of which means that when the coronavirus crisis hit the state, the region’s farmworkers were considered “essential” and therefore exempt from Governor Gavin Newsom’s “shelter in place” mandate.
Workers harvest broccoli outside Gonzales. ICE raids terrorize workers while they’re in the fields. (Wesaam Al-Badry / Contact Press Images)
The buses that transport the “essential workers” to the fields don’t allow for social distancing. (Wesaam Al-Badry / Contact Press Images)
Even though the workers have continued to go into the fields throughout the pandemic, and even though their labor has kept the rest of the country fed, because many of them are undocumented, they also did not qualify for the federal government’s CARES relief package. Understandably, many of them feel their basic rights have been stripped away; they are forced to work under unhealthy conditions—ranging from the bad air quality caused by the raging wildfires and, in many cases, proximity to coworkers diagnosed with Covid-19.
The mayor of Gonzales is an anomaly in the region: Maria Orozco is the first Latina woman to have won the position in the town, and she’s turned into an outspoken advocate for her constituents. First elected mayor in 2008, Orozco is now in her sixth consecutive term. Faced with the pandemic, the burning wildfires, and the challenges of overseeing a resource-strapped town, Orozco is fighting for justice for all the people who live in Gonzales, regardless of immigration status.
Monica Rico is one of the 8,000 or so people who live in Gonzales, and after four years of President Trump, she says people are frightened about the future of the region and of the country. “I really hope that Biden comes in and he reaches out to all the immigrants and the undocumented immigrants and helps us. I don’t want my children to grow up being scared. I have a 10-year-old son that is darker-skinned, and he asked me, ‘What if they say something because I’m [darker]?’” When her son was 8 years old, Rico told me, he began questioning his place in society after listening to President Trump rail against Mexican immigrants.
Another resident, Mariam Santos, is one of many who contracted Covid-19 while working in the broccoli fields, forcing her and her husband to quarantine for 14 days. Neither of them qualified for the government stimulus check—as the pandemic worsened, Santos was wracked by anxiety and depression, afraid of being evicted. Santos said that’s when Mayor Orozco stepped in: “She’s one of the best. I was worried about my rent and finding food for my kids. Orozco was there to help me to help pay rent and buy food for my kids. She was already helping other farmworkers who did not qualify for the stimulus check. When she found out I was one of those [people], she reached out to me and asked if I want to apply and I said ‘yes.’”
Santos isn’t the only one the mayor has dedicated her personal time to. Orozco runs a food pantry out of her gift shop, frequently making personal deliveries to families in need. Orozco also regularly drives to labor camps and low-income housing to touch base with undocumented and mixed-household-status families. In the more than 10 years she’s been in office, Orozco has brought public transportation to Gonzales, and advocated for a new health clinic that opened in the area. During her mayoralty, 44 affordable housing units have been built in partnership with the housing authority, and the city has begun providing free Internet services to all residents.
Families often come out of their apartments to greet her, kids walk up and show her their toys, and grandmothers voice their concerns over the recent wildfires. Orozco’s actions are a testament to how important it is for her to make people feel safe, regardless of their status, because they live and pay taxes and should be treated as equal to everyone in town. Maria de Aluz, 72, told me, “I have seen all the good things Orozco has done under her leadership. She treats us all the same. She does not discriminate against us. As a human being, she’s an exceptional human being. She has done a lot to treat us equally.”
Maria de Aluz lives in a farmworkers housing complex. (Wesaam Al-Badry / Contact Press Images)
Orozco encourages the farmworkers, that as essential workers, it’s important that they voice their concerns so they can set the tone for what services are important to them. “It’s important for essential workers to vote because as some of the least paid workers they can benefit from services related to housing, good paying jobs, health insurance and benefits. Many policies are made by policymakers, but if essential workers vote they can change which services are accessible to them,” Orozco said. Orozco is up for reelection this November, and she’s facing two new challengers this time around, but the message she wants her constituents to take away from her campaign is the same as it has been for all her previous ones: Don’t be scared to speak up and speak out.