thenation--2020-07-16--The New Lysenkoism in Washington

The New Lysenkoism in Washington

Trofim Lysenko was a Soviet scientist born in 1898 .
Lysenko didn ’ t believe in evolution or modern genetics .
In a story for The Atlantic in 2017 , Sam Kean described how Lysenko believed that the environment “ shaped ” animals and plants and thought that he could “ educate ” Soviet crops to germinate at different times of the year by subjecting them to extreme conditions ; soaking plants in freezing water was supposed to confer a resistance to cold in future generations .
These ideas , as preposterous as growing orange trees in Siberia , caught @ @ @ @ @ @ @ none other than Joseph Stalin himself , who put Lysenko in charge of Soviet agricultural policies .
To the millions killed deliberately in the Holodomor—Stalin ’ s man-made famine in Ukraine—Lysenko added millions more who perished when the imposition of his policies led to widespread crop failure .
When bad science meets politicians looking for easy answers , you can get a whole lot of trouble .
Tens of thousands are dead now in the United States .
By the time this is all over , several hundred thousand Americans will lie in @ @ @ @ @ @ @ epidemic .
Man-made not in the sense of a super-virus created in a lab by a mad scientist in a lab but manufactured : perpetuated by policy choices , decisions made by politicians to ignore the best scientific advice offered to them , or to turn to their own Lysenkos , who tell them what they want to hear , no matter the consequences .
This week , the White House decided it was time to go after Dr. Anthony Fauci , the director of the National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases @ @ @ @ @ @ @ a figure who has advised six presidents during outbreaks of infectious diseases , including Ebola , SARS , and H1N1 influenza .
His crime ?
Speaking out more bluntly about the risk of Covid-19 in the United States , the failures of our policies thus far , and what new restrictions will likely need to be put in place to address the outbreaks now raging in dozens of states across the country .
What does the president of the United States want to be told ?
This time it ’ s not about @ @ @ @ @ @ @ great leader wants to be assured that it ’ s safe to reopen schools and universities in the fall , that the new outbreaks are due to testing too much , and that a drug the president favors , hydroxychloroquine , works even if the data shows it doesn ’ t do much good at all—and may even harm some of those who take it .
Fauci , who has tried to soothe the president ’ s ego while not avoiding the facts in front of him , is too much for the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Facts are inconvenient things .
If they don ’ t support your plans and aspirations , well , in 2020 , get other facts , other “ scientists.
” The Republican war on science has been going on for a long time , whether it ’ s been focused on evolution , HIV prevention , or climate change .
Writers like Chris Mooney warned us back in 2005 about this phenomenon and it still continues today .
But Donald Trump has taken it all to a higher level and in the midst of @ @ @ @ @ @ @ own Lysenkos , quacks who tell him what he wants to hear , ambitious types who will say anything to get ahead .
Some of them may actually believe the nonsense they peddle .
On Tuesday , The New York Times reported that “ the Trump administration has ordered hospitals to bypass the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention and send all COVID19 patient information to a central database in Washington beginning on Wednesday.
” This , of course , set off alarm bells among scientists and public health experts , and even @ @ @ @ @ @ @ which hadn ’ t been informed of the new rules .
The mastermind behind the plan to sequester this vital data under the White House ’ s control ?
None other than Dr. Deborah Birx , one of Trump ’ s coronavirus task force members , who has been trying to use the pandemic to consolidate her control over different aspects of the federal health response , and was only last month part of a scheme to overturn the US Agency for International Development ’ s historic control over responses to emerging global @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Beginning to Be Over This Pandemic ’ When Police and Public Health Collide in the Age of Covid-19 The Pandemic Is a Threat .
The President Is Worse .
Other careerists in a crisis in the Trump administration have shown a willingness to throw their colleagues under the bus for their own advancement , even if it means sidelining experts like Fauci who have decades of experience in the response to infectious diseases .
Dr. Brett Giroir , the assistant HHS secretary who is also Trump ’ s coronavirus testing czar , told @ @ @ @ @ @ @ not 100 percent right ” and that he doesn ’ t necessarily “ have the whole national interest in mind.
” He then went on to rail against the need for new restrictions and social distancing , even as the epidemic raged across the country .
Meanwhile , more than six months into this pandemic , testing shortages still abound across the country .
Giroir clearly wants something more to do , but he is already underperforming in his day job of getting US testing efforts in order .
While Birx and Giroir @ @ @ @ @ @ @ advancement and want to keep close to the president , sidelining agencies and people who are in his way , they are not the worst of what Donald Trump has brought to bear on Covid-19 .
Peter Navarro , an economist by training but now more famous for his tirades against China , has emerged as an unhinged conspiracy theorist and champion of the president ’ s pet interests .
Just this past weekend , Navarro baselessly accused China of weaponizing Covid-19 , and he is working with Rudy Giuliani and Laura Ingraham @ @ @ @ @ @ @ ’ s revocation of an emergency use authorization for hydroxychloroquine .
Meanwhile , Trump ’ s education secretary , Betsy DeVos , is threatening states who resist fully reopening schools in the fall , calling the current state of the epidemic in many places “ little flare-ups , ” and dismissing CDC warnings about the risks of Covid-19 transmission in schools , calling its guidelines “ flexible.
” And then there is Jared Kushner , the most unqualified man in the White House , supposedly in charge of various aspects of the response @ @ @ @ @ @ @ them .
Last but not least among the careerists , conspiracy theorists and yes-men and -women is CDC Director Robert Redfield .
Many had significant worries about his initial appointment to the post in 2018 .
The CDC stumbled out of the gate , with a botched rollout of its first Covid-19 test , but some of its career scientists like Nancy Mesonnier spoke up early , suggesting school closings and other measures as early as February , saying , “ We are asking the American public to work with us to prepare @ @ @ @ @ @ @ bad.
” The White House wasn ’ t pleased with this kind of straight talk , and Redfield and the CDC disappeared for months .
In Redfield ’ s rare public appearances over the past six months , he ’ s tried to bob and weave through questions—to the consternation of some in Congress .
His latest comments on the resurgence of Covid-19 in the South go full-bore bananas , suggesting—without evidence—that it wasn ’ t states ’ reopening too early and broadly that caused the steep rise in new cases but Northerners @ @ @ @ @ @ @ for Memorial Day .
Yes , folks this is where we are .
This is the man supposedly in charge of disease control and prevention in these United States .
We need real scientific and public health leadership to get us through this pandemic .
Instead , we ’ ve got a rogues ’ gallery of those who see the pandemic as a career move , spew outright lies about the virus and how to manage it , and have no qualifications for the portfolios they ’ ve been given under Trump ’ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ speak forthrightly about the facts with the specter of the president hovering in judgment over them .
The attention on Fauci this week has obscured a simple but terrifying fact : There may be no one left in the inner circle of decision-making on this pandemic who has the faintest idea how to lead us out of the darkness that lies ahead .

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?
Trofim Lysenko was a Soviet scientist born in 1898. Lysenko didn’t believe in evolution or modern genetics. In a story for The Atlantic in 2017, Sam Kean described how Lysenko believed that the environment “shaped” animals and plants and thought that he could “educate” Soviet crops to germinate at different times of the year by subjecting them to extreme conditions; soaking plants in freezing water was supposed to confer a resistance to cold in future generations. These ideas, as preposterous as growing orange trees in Siberia, caught the attention of a powerful politician, none other than Joseph Stalin himself, who put Lysenko in charge of Soviet agricultural policies. To the millions killed deliberately in the Holodomor—Stalin’s man-made famine in Ukraine—Lysenko added millions more who perished when the imposition of his policies led to widespread crop failure. When bad science meets politicians looking for easy answers, you can get a whole lot of trouble.
Tens of thousands are dead now in the United States. By the time this is all over, several hundred thousand Americans will lie in their graves, felled by a man-made epidemic. Man-made not in the sense of a super-virus created by a mad scientist in a lab but manufactured: perpetuated by policy choices, decisions made by politicians to ignore the best scientific advice offered to them, or to turn to their own Lysenkos, who tell them what they want to hear, no matter the consequences. This week, the White House decided it was time to go after Dr. Anthony Fauci, the director of the National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases, a leading HIV/AIDS researcher, and a figure who has advised six presidents during outbreaks of infectious diseases, including Ebola, SARS, and H1N1 influenza. His crime? Speaking out more bluntly about the risk of Covid-19 in the United States, the failures of our policies thus far, and what new restrictions will likely need to be put in place to address the outbreaks now raging in dozens of states across the country.
What does the president of the United States want to be told? This time it’s not about growing orange trees in Siberia. Our great leader wants to be assured that it’s safe to reopen schools and universities in the fall, that the new outbreaks are due to testing too much, and that a drug the president favors, hydroxychloroquine, works even if the data shows it doesn’t do much good at all—and may even harm some of those who take it. Fauci, who has tried to soothe the president’s ego while not avoiding the facts in front of him, is too much for the president and his handlers to bear. Facts are inconvenient things. If they don’t support your plans and aspirations, well, in 2020, get other facts, other “scientists.” The Republican war on science has been going on for a long time, whether it’s been focused on evolution, HIV prevention, or climate change. Writers like Chris Mooney warned us back in 2005 about this phenomenon and it still continues today. But Donald Trump has taken it all to a higher level and in the midst of a pandemic has surrounded himself with his own Lysenkos, quacks who tell him what he wants to hear, ambitious types who will say anything to get ahead. Some of them may actually believe the nonsense they peddle. 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 A Grim Chronicle of Trump’s Corrupt Public Life A Grim Chronicle of Trump’s Corrupt Public Life 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 A Grim Chronicle of Trump’s Corrupt Public Life A Grim Chronicle of Trump’s Corrupt Public Life Chris Lehmann
On Tuesday, The New York Times reported that “the Trump administration has ordered hospitals to bypass the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention and send all COVID19 patient information to a central database in Washington beginning on Wednesday.” This, of course, set off alarm bells among scientists and public health experts, and even came as news to the CDC, which hadn’t been informed of the new rules. The mastermind behind the plan to sequester this vital data under the White House’s control? None other than Dr. Deborah Birx, one of Trump’s coronavirus task force members, who has been trying to use the pandemic to consolidate her control over different aspects of the federal health response, and was only last month part of a scheme to overturn the US Agency for International Development’s historic control over responses to emerging global pandemics. More From Gregg Gonsalves These New Alzheimer’s Drugs Are a Travesty July 27, 2023 It's Not “Unreasonable” to Want to Change Our Rotten Health Care System June 1, 2023 Now More Than Ever, We Need to Fight, Not Despair May 11, 2023
Other careerists in a crisis in the Trump administration have shown a willingness to throw their colleagues under the bus for their own advancement, even if it means sidelining experts like Fauci who have decades of experience in the response to infectious diseases. Dr. Brett Giroir, the assistant HHS secretary who is also Trump’s coronavirus testing czar, told Meet the Press that Fauci “is not 100 percent right” and that he doesn’t necessarily “have the whole national interest in mind.” He then went on to rail against the need for new restrictions and social distancing, even as the epidemic raged across the country. Meanwhile, more than six months into this pandemic, testing shortages still abound across the country. Giroir clearly wants something more to do, but he is already underperforming in his day job of getting US testing efforts in order.
While Birx and Giroir use Covid-19 as a chance for career advancement and want to keep close to the president, sidelining agencies and people who are in his way, they are not the worst of what Donald Trump has brought to bear on Covid-19. Peter Navarro, an economist by training but now more famous for his tirades against China, has emerged as an unhinged conspiracy theorist and champion of the president’s pet interests. Just this past weekend, Navarro baselessly accused China of weaponizing Covid-19, and he is working with Rudy Giuliani and Laura Ingraham to overturn the Food and Drug Administration’s revocation of an emergency use authorization for hydroxychloroquine. Meanwhile, Trump’s education secretary, Betsy DeVos, is threatening states who resist fully reopening schools in the fall, calling the current state of the epidemic in many places “little flare-ups,” and dismissing CDC warnings about the risks of Covid-19 transmission in schools, calling its guidelines “flexible.” And then there is Jared Kushner, the most unqualified man in the White House, supposedly in charge of various aspects of the response to the virus—and succeeding at none of them.
Last but not least among the careerists, conspiracy theorists and yes-men and -women is CDC Director Robert Redfield. Many had significant worries about his initial appointment to the post in 2018. The CDC stumbled out of the gate, with a botched rollout of its first Covid-19 test, but some of its career scientists like Nancy Mesonnier spoke up early, suggesting school closings and other measures as early as February, saying, “We are asking the American public to work with us to prepare for the expectation that this could be bad.” The White House wasn’t pleased with this kind of straight talk, and Redfield and the CDC disappeared for months. In Redfield’s rare public appearances over the past six months, he’s tried to bob and weave through questions—to the consternation of some in Congress. His latest comments on the resurgence of Covid-19 in the South go full-bore bananas, suggesting—without evidence—that it wasn’t states’ reopening too early and broadly that caused the steep rise in new cases but Northerners’ taking trips to all these states for Memorial Day. Yes, folks this is where we are. This is the man supposedly in charge of disease control and prevention in these United States.
We need real scientific and public health leadership to get us through this pandemic. Instead, we’ve got a rogues’ gallery of those who see the pandemic as a career move, spew outright lies about the virus and how to manage it, and have no qualifications for the portfolios they’ve been given under Trump’s instruction—and those who can’t speak forthrightly about the facts with the specter of the president hovering in judgment over them. The attention on Fauci this week has obscured a simple but terrifying fact: There may be no one left in the inner circle of decision-making on this pandemic who has the faintest idea how to lead us out of the darkness that lies ahead.


thenation--2020-07-15--Climate Change Is a Political—Not Partisan—Story

This article is adapted from “ The Climate Beat , ” the weekly newsletter of Covering Climate Now , a global journalism initiative strengthening coverage of the climate story .
The author is Covering Climate Now ’ s deputy director .
Every presidential election is critical in its way .
Even so , 2020 manages to feel unique .
With a deadly virus stalking the land and crashing the economy and political polarization so high that the truth itself is often in question , this November will certainly mark a turning point in American history .
The election is also @ @ @ @ @ @ @ .
Science shows that humanity is careening towards a point of no return .
To meet the Paris Agreement ’ s preferred goal of limiting global temperature rise to 1.5 degrees Celsius—essential to saving millions of lives outright , not to mention avoiding “ tipping points ” that would bring ever more hurricanes , floods , droughts , wildfires , and heat waves in the years ahead—humanity must cut global emissions in half by 2030 .
Doing this , scientists say , will require economic transformation at a speed and scale unprecedented in @ @ @ @ @ @ @ , aggressive action across industries and at all levels of government , foremost from the world ’ s top emitters , including the United States .
Simply put , we need action and we need it fast .
( Latest projections routinely suggest we are farther down the road to disaster than we think . )
The Climate Emergency Won ’ t Wait for the Press to Play Catch-up Again Climate-Justice Stories Are in Every Community , Waiting to Be Told More in this series As Justin Worland wrote in the cover story @ @ @ @ @ @ @ last week , “ In the future , we may look back at 2020 as the year we decided to keep driving off the climate cliff—or to take the last exit.
” A serious response to the threat , he said , means spending on green energy , restricting emissions for companies that receive government bailouts , and bolstering green transportation in cities .
Entrenchment in fossil fuels will instead spell climate catastrophe .
“ What we do now , ” Worland wrote , “ will define the fate of the planet—and human @ @ @ @ @ @ @ election year , it is journalists ’ job to inform the public and convey the full measure of what ’ s at stake .
That ’ s why , even as the coronavirus outbreak rages—a tragic case study in ignoring science—and activists fight to topple long-standing systems of inequality , the climate crisis must be a priority for newsrooms this campaign season .
This responsibility puts journalists in a potentially tricky spot , however .
If the public deserves a fair-minded accounting of candidates ’ positions , what ’ s to be done @ @ @ @ @ @ @ denies the reality of climate change or favors only weak policies to address it ?
Here , journalists must make a vital but nuanced point : What a society does about climate change is inherently political , but clarifying that something must be done—and that it must square with the science—is not partisan .
Climate change is political insofar as strong policies are necessary to answer its challenges .
That ’ s a plain fact of governance , not partisan opinion .
Yet for too long journalism has tended to view climate policy @ @ @ @ @ @ @ One candidate favors action .
The other doesn ’ t .
Who will prevail ?
This tendency has to go .
If one party or candidate offers credible policies on climate and the other does not , it ’ s up to the other party or candidate to catch up .
It ’ s not journalists ’ job to wait for them in the name of false equivalence .
Donald Trump , who has called climate change “ a hoax , ” claims he has made America an environmental leader even as his @ @ @ @ @ @ @ up flagging fossil fuel companies .
Trump ’ s campaign website makes no mention of climate change , other than to call America ’ s withdrawal from the Paris Agreement a “ promise kept.
” Meanwhile , former vice president Joe Biden , Trump ’ s presumptive opponent in the fall , has committed to rejoining the Paris Agreement and proposed an ambitious $ 2 trillion plan to combat climate change , drawn up cooperatively with his top challenger during the Democratic primaries , Senator Bernie Sanders .
Biden ’ s plan does @ @ @ @ @ @ @ , but it favors many of its components , including a transition to zero-carbon electricity nationwide by 2035 , economic protections for workers in the fossil fuel industry , and well-funded commitments to environmental justice .
The two candidates ’ plans are , self-evidently , not equal .
In the virtual absence of a plan from Trump , Biden ’ s plan gives the country and the planet a much better shot at pulling back from the brink .
And it ’ s no endorsement of Biden to say so .
It ’ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ not a partisan one .
For the sake of humanity now and in the future , Trump and his team are welcome to catch up .
But it would be a shame if climate-related election coverage were all about Trump and Biden .
State and local leaders can also do a lot to curb emissions and make communities resilient .
And the issues candidates are pushed on during campaigns drive the commitments and promises they are judged against in office .
So where do candidates for city council , mayor , state legislatures @ @ @ @ @ @ @ might contributions to their campaigns say about their environmental allegiances ?
Questions like these should be the norm in the coming months .
“ It ’ s not enough to do one story on one candidate ’ s position on climate change and be done with it , ” Covering Climate Now ’ s cofounders Mark Hertsgaard and Kyle Pope argued recently in The Nation and Columbia Journalism Review .
“ The word ‘ climate ’ should be included in headlines and broadcast scripts often enough that the public can ’ t miss @ @ @ @ @ @ @ siloed on the science beat .
Political reporters and newsroom leaders must make it central to the campaign narrative , giving it equal prominence as electoral mainstays like the economy and national security .
( Indeed , climate change cuts across and binds these issues ; if we do not adapt , it will cripple economies and make us all less secure . )
The good news is that audiences care .
Climate action is a leading issue for young voters , and an April poll by Yale and George Mason universities found @ @ @ @ @ @ @ worried about global warming ; four in 10 said candidates ’ positions on climate change will be “ very important ” in how they vote this fall .
Still , doing justice to the climate story will take leadership and discipline from newsrooms .
Reporters and editors must step back from ephemeral shifts in the polls and all the nitnoid controversies of campaign overload .
Decades from now , most of us will have forgotten the names and deeds of Donald Trump ’ s various associates .
But we will surely take note @ @ @ @ @ @ @ our feet if we ignore the climate crisis this campaign season .
Will journalists count the 2020 election a missed opportunity , or will it be the breakthrough moment when they got the climate story right—and helped America do the same ?

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?
This article is adapted from “The Climate Beat,” the weekly newsletter of Covering Climate Now, a global journalism initiative strengthening coverage of the climate story. The author is Covering Climate Now’s deputy director.
Every presidential election is critical in its way. Even so, 2020 manages to feel unique. With a deadly virus stalking the land and crashing the economy and political polarization so high that the truth itself is often in question, this November will certainly mark a turning point in American history.
The election is also pivotal for the climate emergency—and its solutions.
Science shows that humanity is careening towards a point of no return. To meet the Paris Agreement’s preferred goal of limiting global temperature rise to 1.5 degrees Celsius—essential to saving millions of lives outright, not to mention avoiding “tipping points” that would bring ever more hurricanes, floods, droughts, wildfires, and heat waves in the years ahead—humanity must cut global emissions in half by 2030. Doing this, scientists say, will require economic transformation at a speed and scale unprecedented in human history. It will take deliberate, aggressive action across industries and at all levels of government, foremost from the world’s top emitters, including the United States. Simply put, we need action and we need it fast. (Latest projections routinely suggest we are farther down the road to disaster than we think.) Covering Climate Now How to Stop the Spread of Climate Disinformation Erika Seiber and Michael Khoo A Soundtrack for the Climate Emergency Mark Hertsgaard Can Gen Z Save the Midterms for Democrats? Mark Hertsgaard
As Justin Worland wrote in the cover story for a tour-de-force Time magazine special issue last week, “In the future, we may look back at 2020 as the year we decided to keep driving off the climate cliff—or to take the last exit.” A serious response to the threat, he said, means spending on green energy, restricting emissions for companies that receive government bailouts, and bolstering green transportation in cities. Entrenchment in fossil fuels will instead spell climate catastrophe. “What we do now,” Worland wrote, “will define the fate of the planet—and human life on it—for decades.”
In any election year, it is journalists’ job to inform the public and convey the full measure of what’s at stake. That’s why, even as the coronavirus outbreak rages—a tragic case study in ignoring science—and activists fight to topple long-standing systems of inequality, the climate crisis must be a priority for newsrooms this campaign season. 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 A Grim Chronicle of Trump’s Corrupt Public Life A Grim Chronicle of Trump’s Corrupt Public Life 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 A Grim Chronicle of Trump’s Corrupt Public Life A Grim Chronicle of Trump’s Corrupt Public Life Chris Lehmann
This responsibility puts journalists in a potentially tricky spot, however. If the public deserves a fair-minded accounting of candidates’ positions, what’s to be done when one party, broadly speaking, denies the reality of climate change or favors only weak policies to address it? Here, journalists must make a vital but nuanced point: What a society does about climate change is inherently political, but clarifying that something must be done—and that it must square with the science—is not partisan. Current Issue View our current issue
Climate change is political insofar as strong policies are necessary to answer its challenges. That’s a plain fact of governance, not partisan opinion. Yet for too long journalism has tended to view climate policy through the lens of horse-race politics: One candidate favors action. The other doesn’t. Who will prevail? This tendency has to go. If one party or candidate offers credible policies on climate and the other does not, it’s up to the other party or candidate to catch up. It’s not journalists’ job to wait for them in the name of false equivalence.
Donald Trump, who has called climate change “a hoax,” claims he has made America an environmental leader even as his administration has slashed environmental regulations and propped up flagging fossil fuel companies. Trump’s campaign website makes no mention of climate change, other than to call America’s withdrawal from the Paris Agreement a “promise kept.” Meanwhile, former vice president Joe Biden, Trump’s presumptive opponent in the fall, has committed to rejoining the Paris Agreement and proposed an ambitious $2 trillion plan to combat climate change, drawn up cooperatively with his top challenger during the Democratic primaries, Senator Bernie Sanders. Biden’s plan does not explicitly back a Green New Deal, but it favors many of its components, including a transition to zero-carbon electricity nationwide by 2035, economic protections for workers in the fossil fuel industry, and well-funded commitments to environmental justice.
The two candidates’ plans are, self-evidently, not equal. In the virtual absence of a plan from Trump, Biden’s plan gives the country and the planet a much better shot at pulling back from the brink. And it’s no endorsement of Biden to say so. It’s a scientific and political judgment, not a partisan one. For the sake of humanity now and in the future, Trump and his team are welcome to catch up.
But it would be a shame if climate-related election coverage were all about Trump and Biden. State and local leaders can also do a lot to curb emissions and make communities resilient. And the issues candidates are pushed on during campaigns drive the commitments and promises they are judged against in office. So where do candidates for city council, mayor, state legislatures, and Congress stand? And what might contributions to their campaigns say about their environmental allegiances?
Questions like these should be the norm in the coming months. “It’s not enough to do one story on one candidate’s position on climate change and be done with it,” Covering Climate Now’s cofounders Mark Hertsgaard and Kyle Pope argued recently in The Nation and Columbia Journalism Review. “The word ‘climate’ should be included in headlines and broadcast scripts often enough that the public can’t miss it.” Nor should climate change be siloed on the science beat. Political reporters and newsroom leaders must make it central to the campaign narrative, giving it equal prominence as electoral mainstays like the economy and national security. (Indeed, climate change cuts across and binds these issues; if we do not adapt, it will cripple economies and make us all less secure.)
The good news is that audiences care. Climate action is a leading issue for young voters, and an April poll by Yale and George Mason universities found that two-thirds of all registered voters are worried about global warming; four in 10 said candidates’ positions on climate change will be “very important” in how they vote this fall.
Still, doing justice to the climate story will take leadership and discipline from newsrooms. Reporters and editors must step back from ephemeral shifts in the polls and all the nitnoid controversies of campaign overload. Decades from now, most of us will have forgotten the names and deeds of Donald Trump’s various associates. But we will surely take note of unlivable heat and floodwaters lapping at our feet if we ignore the climate crisis this campaign season. Will journalists count the 2020 election a missed opportunity, or will it be the breakthrough moment when they got the climate story right—and helped America do the same?


thenation--2020-07-15--Cannibalism Is No Cure for Covid-19

Cannibalism Is No Cure for Covid-19

The Covid-19 pandemic continues to gather force in the United States , even as most other wealthy nations have successfully slowed the spread .
In only 11 American states is the pandemic under control .
For the rest of the country , the situation is dire—and likely to get worse .
Writing in The New York Times , historian John M. Barry , who teaches at Tulane University School of Public Health and Tropical Medicine , spelled out the grim statistics : “ At this writing , Italy , once the poster child of coronavirus devastation and with a population @ @ @ @ @ @ @ averaged about 200 new cases a day when Texas has had over 9,000 .
Germany , with a population four times that of Florida , has had fewer than 400 new cases a day .
On Sunday , Florida reported over 15,300 , the highest single-day total of any state.
” Barry added that “ the United States has the highest growth rate of new cases in the world , ahead even of Brazil.
” The Trump administration has made its message clear : The American people will just have to learn to @ @ @ @ @ @ @ states , including California , start implementing a second lockdown .
It ’ s against this background that some of Trump ’ s most ardent supporters are making strange claims of the merits of eating human flesh .
Alex Jones was a pioneer in the field .
“ I ’ ll admit it , ” Jones said on May 1 .
“ I will eat my neighbors .
I won ’ t have to for a few years ’ cause I got food and stuff.… But I ’ m literally looking at my @ @ @ @ @ @ @ ’ m ready to hang ’ em up and gut ’ em and skin ’ em .
My daughters aren ’ t starving to death.
’ I will eat my neighbors.
” It ’ s easy to dismiss Jones as unhinged , but on Tuesday , Rush Limbaugh , recent recipient of the Presidential Medal of Freedom , the highest civilian honor available to an American , spoke favorably about the Donner Party , an infamous group of pioneers whose ill-fated trek to California in 1846–47 ended in the consumption of human corpses @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Donner Party with the alleged softness of the “ Millennial generation , ” who stood accused of lacking the fortitude to do what is necessary in an emergency .
The Donner family and a bunch of travelers trying to get to California over the Sierra Nevada mountain range .
They made the mistake of trying to make the trip in the middle of winter .
We ’ re talking the Lake Tahoe region .
They get to the peak .
It was so bad that they had to turn to cannibalism to survive @ @ @ @ @ @ @ noteworthy about the Donner Party .
If you read the diaries written by the leaders of the Donner Party , the only reference to how cold it was , was one sentence : “ It was a particularly tough winter.
” This account makes clear that for Limbaugh the cannibalism wasn ’ t an unfortunate tragedy in an otherwise awe-inspiring story about surviving adversity .
Rather , the cannibalism is the whole point of the story : It is the evidence of fortitude and toughness .
According to Limbaugh , “ It ’ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ ’ t complain about it , because there was nothing they could do .
They had to adapt .
This is what ’ s missing .
There seems to be no concept of adaptation.
” Limbaugh ’ s evocation of the Donner Party has an interesting intellectual genealogy .
In 1993 , William Bennett , former secretary of education under Ronald Reagan , included an account of the Donner Party in The Book of Virtues , an instructive anthology of literary extracts intended to inculcate old-fashion morality .
In a 1994 interview on @ @ @ @ @ @ @ almost weepy thinking about the grit and strength of the American anthropophagites : In his first book , Dead Right ( 1994 ) , David Frum cited a speech Bennett gave about the Donner Party .
According to Frum , comparing the current lack of moral character to the fortitude of the Donner Party should make us aware of the dangers of “ the emancipation of the individual appetite from restrictions imposed on it by limited resources , or religious dread , or community disapproval , or the risk of disease or personal @ @ @ @ @ @ @ changed , of course , so it is worth recalling that when he wrote those words he was very much a rising star on the right .
In 2004 , John Holbo , a professor of philosophy at the National University of Singapore , noted that when Bennett and Frum cite the Donner Party , “ they are thinking : hard-bitten and hard-nosed .
Not starving , but made tough by a life lived right on the edge of failure .
Inclined to stick it out in an unhappy marriage .
Not a @ @ @ @ @ @ @ those above .
Not having a lot of sympathy to spare for those beneath .
Interests ultimately narrowly aligned with those of the upper-classes.
” So we have three major figures of the American right all speaking about the Donner Party as if the episode were not a horrific tragedy but rather an admirable character-building exercise .
This praise of the Donner Party reveals the hidden logic of the right ’ s opposition to the wide-scale government action needed to bring the pandemic under control .
Of course , the ultimate motive is @ @ @ @ @ @ @ huge government debts—or steeply redistributive taxation—needed to pay for a proper Covid program , including generous unemployment benefits to keep people from working unnecessary jobs .
But that economic position is intertwined with a moral system , one that sees suffering as socially necessary .
“ Suffering builds character ” is perhaps the quickest way to sum up this worldview .
This is a very selective stoicism .
After all , Limbaugh is hardly the type to join the Donner Party himself .
The risks for Covid mostly fall on people who are @ @ @ @ @ @ @ people of color .
So it ’ s not so much that suffering builds character as suffering helps keep the lower order in line .
Even if actual flesh-eating is unlikely , cannibalism works well as a metaphor for Limbaugh ’ s agenda : He ’ s calling on other people to die so he and his wealthy friends can continue to live at ease .
This is social cannibalism , if nothing else .
In only one way is Limbaugh advocating something that is personally risky .
He is 69 years old @ @ @ @ @ @ @ a disease that disproportionately effects the old , Covid-19 is a threat not only to Limbaugh but also to his audience .
Perhaps for that reason , Limbaugh tried to create a distraction by blaming the cowardice of the “ Millennial generation.
” It ’ s an open question , however , whether even Limbaugh ’ s audience will be fooled by this argument .
It ’ s one thing to enjoy culture war caricatures in good times .
It ’ s quite another thing to be told you have to sacrifice your @ @ @ @

EDITOR’S NOTE: The Nation believes that helping readers stay informed about the impact of the coronavirus crisis is a form of public service. For that reason, this article, and all of our coronavirus coverage, is now free. Please subscribe to support our writers and staff, and stay healthy.
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 Covid-19 pandemic continues to gather force in the United States, even as most other wealthy nations have successfully slowed the spread. In only 11 American states is the pandemic under control. For the rest of the country, the situation is dire—and likely to get worse.
Writing in The New York Times, historian John M. Barry, who teaches at Tulane University School of Public Health and Tropical Medicine, spelled out the grim statistics: “At this writing, Italy, once the poster child of coronavirus devastation and with a population twice that of Texas, has recently averaged about 200 new cases a day when Texas has had over 9,000. Germany, with a population four times that of Florida, has had fewer than 400 new cases a day. On Sunday, Florida reported over 15,300, the highest single-day total of any state.” Barry added that “the United States has the highest growth rate of new cases in the world, ahead even of Brazil.”
The Trump administration has made its message clear: The American people will just have to learn to live with Covid-19, even as some states, including California, start implementing a second lockdown.
It’s against this background that some of Trump’s most ardent supporters are making strange claims of the merits of eating human flesh. Alex Jones was a pioneer in the field. “I’ll admit it,” Jones said on May 1. “I will eat my neighbors. I won’t have to for a few years ’cause I got food and stuff.… But I’m literally looking at my neighbors now and going, ‘I’m ready to hang ’em up and gut ’em and skin ’em. My daughters aren’t starving to death.’ I will eat my neighbors.”
It’s easy to dismiss Jones as unhinged, but on Tuesday, Rush Limbaugh, recent recipient of the Presidential Medal of Freedom, the highest civilian honor available to an American, spoke favorably about the Donner Party, an infamous group of pioneers whose ill-fated trek to California in 1846–47 ended in the consumption of human corpses. Limbaugh contrasted the hardiness of the Donner Party with the alleged softness of the “Millennial generation,” who stood accused of lacking the fortitude to do what is necessary in an emergency.
As Limbaugh explained:
This account makes clear that for Limbaugh the cannibalism wasn’t an unfortunate tragedy in an otherwise awe-inspiring story about surviving adversity. Rather, the cannibalism is the whole point of the story: It is the evidence of fortitude and toughness. According to Limbaugh, “It’s just what was. They didn’t complain about it, because there was nothing they could do. They had to adapt. This is what’s missing. There seems to be no concept of adaptation.”
Limbaugh’s evocation of the Donner Party has an interesting intellectual genealogy. In 1993, William Bennett, former secretary of education under Ronald Reagan, included an account of the Donner Party in The Book of Virtues, an instructive anthology of literary extracts intended to inculcate old-fashion morality. In a 1994 interview on C-SPAN’s Booknotes, Bennett got almost weepy thinking about the grit and strength of the American anthropophagites:
In his first book, Dead Right (1994), David Frum cited a speech Bennett gave about the Donner Party. According to Frum, comparing the current lack of moral character to the fortitude of the Donner Party should make us aware of the dangers of “the emancipation of the individual appetite from restrictions imposed on it by limited resources, or religious dread, or community disapproval, or the risk of disease or personal catastrophe.” Frum’s politics have changed, of course, so it is worth recalling that when he wrote those words he was very much a rising star on the right.
In 2004, John Holbo, a professor of philosophy at the National University of Singapore, noted that when Bennett and Frum cite the Donner Party, “they are thinking: hard-bitten and hard-nosed. Not starving, but made tough by a life lived right on the edge of failure. Inclined to stick it out in an unhappy marriage. Not a counter-culture type. Not asking anything from those above. Not having a lot of sympathy to spare for those beneath. Interests ultimately narrowly aligned with those of the upper-classes.”
So we have three major figures of the American right all speaking about the Donner Party as if the episode were not a horrific tragedy but rather an admirable character-building exercise.
This praise of the Donner Party reveals the hidden logic of the right’s opposition to the wide-scale government action needed to bring the pandemic under control. Of course, the ultimate motive is economic: a desire to avoid the huge government debts—or steeply redistributive taxation—needed to pay for a proper Covid program, including generous unemployment benefits to keep people from working unnecessary jobs.
But that economic position is intertwined with a moral system, one that sees suffering as socially necessary. “Suffering builds character” is perhaps the quickest way to sum up this worldview.
This is a very selective stoicism. After all, Limbaugh is hardly the type to join the Donner Party himself. The risks for Covid mostly fall on people who are very unlike Limbaugh: the poor and people of color. So it’s not so much that suffering builds character as suffering helps keep the lower order in line.
Even if actual flesh-eating is unlikely, cannibalism works well as a metaphor for Limbaugh’s agenda: He’s calling on other people to die so he and his wealthy friends can continue to live at ease. This is social cannibalism, if nothing else.
In only one way is Limbaugh advocating something that is personally risky. He is 69 years old and has struggled with cancer. As a disease that disproportionately effects the old, Covid-19 is a threat not only to Limbaugh but also to his audience. Perhaps for that reason, Limbaugh tried to create a distraction by blaming the cowardice of the “Millennial generation.”
It’s an open question, however, whether even Limbaugh’s audience will be fooled by this argument. It’s one thing to enjoy culture war caricatures in good times. It’s quite another thing to be told you have to sacrifice your life for plutocracy.


thenation--2020-07-15--The US Military Is Using Online Gaming to Recruit Teens

“ Have a nice time getting banned , my dude , ” Army recruiter and gamer Joshua “ Strotnium ” David told me right before he booted me from the US Army ’ s Twitch channel .
I had just reminded viewers of the United States ’ history of atrocities around the globe , and helpfully provided a link to the Wikipedia page for US war crimes .
Was I undiplomatic ?
Sure .
But if the military is going to use one of the world ’ s most popular platforms to recruit kids , then it shouldn ’ t @ @ @ @ @ @ @ pushback .
Right now , with the support of Twitch , gamers with the US military are spending hours with children as young as 13 , trying to convince them to enlist .
The Army , Navy , and Air Force all stream on Twitch using dedicated e-sports teams .
These teams are comprised of skilled gamers who compete in tournaments for cash prizes .
While members of military e-sports teams offer the regular gaming skill set , they ’ re also on-screen talent and recruiters .
Instead of approaching a recruiter behind @ @ @ @ @ @ @ kids can hang out with one who is playing their favorite video games and replying to their chat messages for hours on end .
Twitch , a livestreaming platform owned by Amazon , boasted more than 5 billion hours watched from April through June .
( For comparison , Netflix claims that during quarantine people have been viewing around 6 billion hours of its shows and movies a month . )
A typical military stream looks something like this : A recruiter , usually a man in his 30s , sits comfortably in @ @ @ @ @ @ @ room illuminated by a monitor and the colorful LED lights of his computer tower .
An American flag hangs on the wall behind his right shoulder , an oversized stuffed animal sits to his left .
He ’ s playing Call of Duty or Valorant .
He ’ s friendly , and talks about how much he loves being in the Army .
Despite being older than most of his young viewers , he speaks like them .
“ It do be like that sometimes .
We do have some great comms , @ @ @ @ @ @ @ session .
The practices employed on Twitch by military e-sports teams are part of a system by which recruiters target children in unstable and/or disadvantaged situations .
Recruiters take advantage of the poor seeking steady income , the vulnerable longing for stability , and the undocumented living in fear because of their citizenship status .
Now , at a time when all those factors are magnified by a pandemic that has left half the country out of work and over 30 percent unable to afford their housing payments , conditions are ripe for @ @ @ @ @ @ @ “ I see you guys are upgrading from recruiting out of low-income schools , nice , ” Twitch user xCanyon916 said in a Navy stream on Tuesday while the recruiter was fielding questions about life in the military from chatters expressing desire to join the Navy e-sports team .
The recruiter warned xCanyon916 that if they said something again about the Navy ’ s recruiting practices , they ’ d be banned .
Hasan Piker , a popular Twitch streamer with a dedicated following of over 430,000 users , recoiled at the thought @ @ @ @ @ @ @ , impressionable viewers .
“ Twitch is unlike anything I ’ ve ever experienced in my career , and it ’ s because you ’ re live for hours on end , talking to these people in the chat .
You develop a community and know your individual chatters .
There is an ecosystem in every Twitch channel , ” Piker said .
“ Recruiting in this predatory way is a violation of [ the users ’ ] safety.
” While an 18-year-old might watch a piece of propaganda like American Sniper once @ @ @ @ @ @ @ their lives , here military members themselves are streaming hawkish agitprop day after day .
In some cases , such as Call of Duty , these are games that the military or ex-military figures have consulted on and helped shape .
In these Twitch channels , recruiters are using these games to solicit young viewers to share personal information .
Branches that use e-sports and Twitch streams to reach and recruit younger viewers rely on sleight-of-hand tactics , false promises , and deceptive messaging to trick them into filling out recruiting forms .
@ @ @ @ @ @ @ e-sports team links to a sparsely populated page with register to win !
at the top , no details on what one could even win , and a sign-up form that , according to a tiny disclosure at the bottom of the page , welcomes an eventual harangue by an Army recruiter .
It allows people as young as 12 to submit the form , but adds a notice on the post-submission page that recruiters are not permitted to contact a child under the age of 16 .
Twitch ’ s advertising pitch @ @ @ @ @ @ @ of teen males in the United States .
The minimum age requirement for Twitch is 13 .
This Ex–Army Ranger Goes on Missions to High Schools—but Not to Recruit “ All parents are concerned about screen time and what it ’ s doing to their children , ” Justin Hendrix , the executive director of the NYC Media Lab , told me .
“ As a parent , I reckon a lot of us are unaware that our children are encountering marketing messages , influencers , and sales people in a variety of @ @ @ @ @ @ @ re just playing games.
” Twitch viewers in the Army ’ s channel are repeatedly presented with an automated chat prompt that says they could win a Xbox Elite Series 2 controller—an enhanced controller with customizable options and extra paddles for advanced play that costs upward of $ 200—and a link where they can enter the “ giveaway.
” It , too , directs them to a recruiting form with no additional mention of a contest , odds , total number of winners , or when a drawing will occur .
There are @ @ @ @ @ @ @ women .
The inaugural Navy e-sports team commissioned earlier this year consists of 10 people .
To qualify for the e-sports team , you must be at least an E-4 , petty officer third class , a rank that takes on average two to three years to reach .
One can not join the Navy and immediately be on the e-sports team , but the Navy ’ s Twitch channel features a bio that reads , “ Other people will tell you not to stay up all night staring at a screen .
@ @ @ @ @ @ @ it .
Get a look at what life is like inside the uniform on the America ’ s [ sic ] Navy.
” Lara Bollinger , a public affairs officer with the Navy Recruiting Command , said in an e-mail that the bio is “ a nod to the fact that when standing watch in various capacities on a ship ( on the bridge , in the combat information center , etc . )
a Sailor will be looking at various screens , ( radar , sonar , navigation , etc… ) .
@ @ @ @ @ @ @ streams mature programming , so it does not require people to enter their age before viewing .
One need only click a button acknowledging that the stream is intended for older viewers .
With screen time spiking because of the pandemic , this presents a troubling dynamic .
“ You can say what you want about people who serve in the military and what that says about them .
I ’ m not saying they shouldn ’ t be able to play video games or e-sports , but I do think it ’ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ using it as a recruiting tool for young , impressionable people , ” Rod Breslau , an e-sports industry consultant and insider , said .
Hart Viges , a veteran , peace activist , and counter-recruiter in Austin , sets up information tables in schools and throughout his community to help kids understand that joining the military is not the only way to attain a more stable living situation or money for college .
Recruitment rhetoric also ignores many of the risks of military life , especially the psychological complications of returning to @ @ @ @ @ @ @ ’ t talk about military sexual trauma .
They don ’ t talk about the suicide rate .
It ’ s mostly ‘ We can pay for your school .
You can serve your country , ’ ” Viges said .
“ When I ask kids why they want to join , it ’ s either ‘ I want to serve my nation ’ or ‘ I want to pay for college.
’ I imagine recruiters feed off those two motivations the most.
” The use of gamified war propaganda to play into @ @ @ @ @ @ @ the US military .
The Army developed its own game franchise , America ’ s Army , which it launched in 2002 at the height of the War on Terror and includes story lines and missions based on real-life skirmishes .
Games like Call of Duty whitewash the horrors of war , sterilize the violence , and mask the trauma inflicted on everyone involved .
The e-sports industry has become overrun with military sponsorships and partnerships with different games , e-sports organizations , teams , and even some individual players .
The Call @ @ @ @ @ @ @ the Army and the Air Force .
The National Guard recently partnered with e-sports organization NRG .
Instead of running a Super Bowl ad , the Navy opted to redirect those funds toward boosting its e-sports presence .
The Navy sponsors ESLGaming and Fandom , two of the largest e-sports organizations in the world , as well as the e-sports team Evil Geniuses , which on Monday announced a larger collaborative effort with its military funder .
The Air Force , NRG , and Evil Geniuses declined to comment .
The Navy also @ @ @ @ @ @ @ it prominent placement in the homepage carousel .
“ Through our partnership with Twitch , the most popular e-sports streaming site , the Navy has immediate access to millions of 17-to-24-year-old e-sports enthusiasts on the platform to showcase a side of Navy life that viewers may not expect , ” Bollinger said .
“ Viewers are asking our gamers insightful questions , and our gamers are effectively communicating that there is a place for everyone in the Navy.
” None of the military branches or Twitch would comment on paid promotion or how @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Twitch ’ s homepage , an incredibly valuable position thanks to Twitch ’ s 15 million daily active users .
Users recently expressed dismay last month when the Army ’ s channel was featured in the “ Stream With Pride ” category despite the military ’ s history of discriminating against the LGBT community .
But beyond the recruiting mechanism , these nationalistic e-sports efforts disregard the violence that the US military inflicts around the world .
“ When tech and gaming platforms think of safety , they likely aren ’ t thinking @ @ @ @ @ @ @ communities will face around the world as their platforms aid in military recruitment , ” said Iram Ali , the interim director of campaigns at Kairos , a fellowship program that supports more diverse and equitable leadership in tech .
“ It was interesting to see Call of Duty want to express support for Black Lives Matter .
But what active steps will the creators take to make sure the way the military preys on poor Black and brown kids in recruitment isn ’ t also happening with the help of their video @ @ @ @ @ @ @ by the evolving nature of war , which makes gamers especially valuable .
The military has long employed video-game-based training and was expanding its use even before the pandemic .
Military personnel operate unmanned drones thousands of miles away using controllers that would be familiar to a serious gamer .
A recent study showed that gamers may make better drone operators than even experienced pilots .
With the military ’ s Twitch recruitment strategies , it ’ s easy to see the beginnings of an e-sports to drone operator pipeline .
“ As @ @ @ @ @ @ @ are changing the way we fight wars , it ’ s concerning to think that children are being given the impression that the military is like a video game , ” Hendrix said .
“ Whether it ’ s drones or killer robots , the last thing we need is less humanity in war .
”

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?
“Have a nice time getting banned, my dude,” Army recruiter and gamer Joshua “Strotnium” David told me right before he booted me from the US Army’s Twitch channel. I had just reminded viewers of the United States’ history of atrocities and helpfully provided a link to the Wikipedia page for US war crimes.
Was I undiplomatic? Sure. But if the military is going to use one of the world’s most popular platforms to recruit kids, then it shouldn’t be able to do so without some pushback. Right now, with the support of Twitch, gamers with the US military are spending hours with children as young as 13, trying to convince them to enlist.
The Army, Navy, and Air Force all stream on Twitch using dedicated e-sports teams. These teams are comprised of skilled gamers who compete in tournaments for cash prizes. While members of military e-sports teams offer the regular gaming skill set, they’re also on-screen talent and recruiters. Instead of approaching a recruiter behind a table in a school cafeteria, kids can hang out with one who is playing their favorite video games and replying to their chat messages for hours on end.
Twitch, a livestreaming platform owned by Amazon, boasted more than 5 billion hours watched from April through June. (For comparison, Netflix claims that during quarantine people have been viewing around 6 billion hours of its shows and movies a month.) A typical military stream looks something like this: A recruiter, usually a man in his 30s, sits comfortably in his gamer chair inside a dimly lit room illuminated by a monitor and the colorful LED lights of his computer tower. An American flag hangs on the wall behind his right shoulder, an oversized stuffed animal sits to his left. He’s playing Call of Duty or Valorant. He’s friendly, and talks about how much he loves being in the Army. Despite being older than most of his young viewers, he speaks like them. “It do be like that sometimes. We do have some great comms,” said a recruiter in one recent session.
The practices employed on Twitch by military e-sports teams are part of a system by which recruiters target children in unstable and/or disadvantaged situations. Recruiters take advantage of the poor seeking steady income, the vulnerable longing for stability, and the undocumented living in fear because of their citizenship status. Now, at a time when all those factors are magnified by a pandemic that has left half the country out of work and over 30 percent unable to afford their housing payments, conditions are ripe for recruiters to prey on anxious youth. 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 A Grim Chronicle of Trump’s Corrupt Public Life A Grim Chronicle of Trump’s Corrupt Public Life 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 A Grim Chronicle of Trump’s Corrupt Public Life A Grim Chronicle of Trump’s Corrupt Public Life Chris Lehmann
“I see you guys are upgrading from recruiting out of low-income schools, nice,” Twitch user xCanyon916 said in a Navy stream on Tuesday while the recruiter was fielding questions about life in the military from chatters expressing desire to join the Navy e-sports team. The recruiter warned xCanyon916 that if they said something again about the Navy’s recruiting practices, they’d be banned.
Hasan Piker, a popular Twitch streamer with a dedicated following of over 430,000 users, recoiled at the thought of recruiters’ building relationships with young, impressionable viewers. Current Issue View our current issue
“Twitch is unlike anything I’ve ever experienced in my career, and it’s because you’re live for hours on end, talking to these people in the chat. You develop a community and know your individual chatters. There is an ecosystem in every Twitch channel,” Piker said. “Recruiting in this predatory way is a violation of [the users’] safety.”
While an 18-year-old might watch a piece of propaganda like American Sniper once in movie theaters and go on with their lives, here military members themselves are streaming hawkish agitprop day after day. In some cases, such as Call of Duty, these are games that the military or ex-military figures have consulted on and helped shape. In these Twitch channels, recruiters are using these games to solicit young viewers to share personal information. Branches that use e-sports and Twitch streams to reach and recruit younger viewers rely on sleight-of-hand tactics, false promises, and deceptive messaging to trick them into filling out recruiting forms.
The Twitter account for the US Army e-sports team links to a sparsely populated page with register to win! at the top, no details on what one could even win, and a sign-up form that, according to a tiny disclosure at the bottom of the page, welcomes an eventual harangue by an Army recruiter. It allows people as young as 12 to submit the form, but adds a notice on the post-submission page that recruiters are not permitted to contact a child under the age of 16.
Twitch’s advertising pitch boasts that it can reach 80 percent of teen males in the United States. The minimum age requirement for Twitch is 13. Related Article This Ex–Army Ranger Goes on Missions to High Schools—but Not to Recruit Rory Fanning
“All parents are concerned about screen time and what it’s doing to their children,” Justin Hendrix, the executive director of the NYC Media Lab, told me. “As a parent, I reckon a lot of us are unaware that our children are encountering marketing messages, influencers, and sales people in a variety of contexts online when we think they’re just playing games.”
Twitch viewers in the Army’s channel are repeatedly presented with an automated chat prompt that says they could win a Xbox Elite Series 2 controller—an enhanced controller with customizable options and extra paddles for advanced play that costs upward of $200—and a link where they can enter the “giveaway.” It, too, directs them to a recruiting form with no additional mention of a contest, odds, total number of winners, or when a drawing will occur.
The Army declined to comment.
There are over 325,000 current active-duty Navy servicemen and women. The inaugural Navy e-sports team commissioned earlier this year consists of 10 people. To qualify for the e-sports team, you must be at least an E-4, petty officer third class, a rank that takes on average two to three years to reach. One cannot join the Navy and immediately be on the e-sports team, but the Navy’s Twitch channel features a bio that reads, “Other people will tell you not to stay up all night staring at a screen. We’ll pay you to do it. Get a look at what life is like inside the uniform on the America’s [sic] Navy.”
Lara Bollinger, a public affairs officer with the Navy Recruiting Command, said in an e-mail that the bio is “a nod to the fact that when standing watch in various capacities on a ship (on the bridge, in the combat information center, etc.) a Sailor will be looking at various screens, (radar, sonar, navigation, etc…).”
Twitch does not consider military e-sports streams mature programming, so it does not require people to enter their age before viewing. One need only click a button acknowledging that the stream is intended for older viewers. With screen time spiking because of the pandemic, this presents a troubling dynamic.
“You can say what you want about people who serve in the military and what that says about them. I’m not saying they shouldn’t be able to play video games or e-sports, but I do think it’s more insidious to have the military using it as a recruiting tool for young, impressionable people,” Rod Breslau, an e-sports industry consultant and insider, said.
Hart Viges, a veteran, peace activist, and counter-recruiter in Austin, sets up information tables in schools and throughout his community to help kids understand that joining the military is not the only way to attain a more stable living situation or money for college. Recruitment rhetoric also ignores many of the risks of military life, especially the psychological complications of returning to the civilian world.
“They don’t talk about military sexual trauma. They don’t talk about the suicide rate. It’s mostly ‘We can pay for your school. You can serve your country,’” Viges said. “When I ask kids why they want to join, it’s either ‘I want to serve my nation’ or ‘I want to pay for college.’ I imagine recruiters feed off those two motivations the most.”
The use of gamified war propaganda to play into that myth isn’t new for the US military. The Army developed its own game franchise, America’s Army, which it launched in 2002 at the height of the War on Terror and includes story lines and missions based on real-life skirmishes. Games like Call of Duty whitewash the horrors of war, sterilize the violence, and mask the trauma inflicted on everyone involved.
The e-sports industry has become overrun with military sponsorships and partnerships with different games, e-sports organizations, teams, and even some individual players. The Call of Duty League is sponsored by both the Army and the Air Force. The National Guard recently partnered with e-sports organization NRG.
Instead of running a Super Bowl ad, the Navy opted to redirect those funds toward boosting its e-sports presence. The Navy sponsors ESLGaming and Fandom, two of the largest e-sports organizations in the world, as well as the e-sports team Evil Geniuses, which on Monday announced a larger collaborative effort with its military funder.
The Air Force, NRG, and Evil Geniuses declined to comment.
The Navy also has a partnership with Twitch that grants it prominent placement in the homepage carousel.
“Through our partnership with Twitch, the most popular e-sports streaming site, the Navy has immediate access to millions of 17-to-24-year-old e-sports enthusiasts on the platform to showcase a side of Navy life that viewers may not expect,” Bollinger said. “Viewers are asking our gamers insightful questions, and our gamers are effectively communicating that there is a place for everyone in the Navy.”
None of the military branches or Twitch would comment on paid promotion or how branches might qualify for prominent placement on Twitch’s homepage, an incredibly valuable position thanks to Twitch’s 15 million daily active users. Users recently expressed dismay last month when the Army’s channel was featured in the “Stream With Pride” category despite the military’s history of discriminating against the LGBT community.
But beyond the recruiting mechanism, these nationalistic e-sports efforts disregard the violence that the US military inflicts around the world.
“When tech and gaming platforms think of safety, they likely aren’t thinking about the very real violence predominately Muslim communities will face around the world as their platforms aid in military recruitment,” said Iram Ali, the interim director of campaigns at Kairos, a fellowship program that supports more diverse and equitable leadership in tech. “It was interesting to see Call of Duty want to express support for Black Lives Matter. But what active steps will the creators take to make sure the way the military preys on poor Black and brown kids in recruitment isn’t also happening with the help of their video game?”
This sentiment is complicated by the evolving nature of war, which makes gamers especially valuable. The military has long employed video-game-based training and was expanding its use even before the pandemic. Military personnel operate unmanned drones thousands of miles away using controllers that would be familiar to a serious gamer. A recent study showed that gamers may make better drone operators than even experienced pilots. With the military’s Twitch recruitment strategies, it’s easy to see the beginnings of an e-sports to drone operator pipeline.
“As we think about how automation and media are changing the way we fight wars, it’s concerning to think that children are being given the impression that the military is like a video game,” Hendrix said. “Whether it’s drones or killer robots, the last thing we need is less humanity in war.”


thenation--2020-07-15--Even Nixon Didn’t Go As Far as Trump

Even Nixon Didn’t Go As Far as Trump

Donald Trump ’ s commutation of Roger Stone ’ s jail sentence is an act of blatant corruption .
The federal judge who presided over his trial stated that Stone was prosecuted for “ covering up for Trump.
” Trump ’ s commutation is a reward to Stone , his close political adviser , for that cover-up .
By using the pardon power to shield himself from accountability , Trump perverted and abused that power .
The commutation may also be a crime .
During his 2019 confirmation hearings , Attorney General Bill Barr said as much .
“ Do @ @ @ @ @ @ @ a pardon in exchange for the recipient ’ s promise to not incriminate him ?
” Senator Pat Leahy asked him .
“ No , ” Barr replied .
“ That would be a crime.
” We now know Barr and others advised Trump against commuting Stone ’ s sentence .
This week , Stone denied any such quid pro quo , but that ’ s simply not credible .
Pardoning a confederate to protect oneself was foreseen by the framers of our Constitution—and they spelled out the consequences : impeachment .
Apparently @ @ @ @ @ @ @ remedy would protect the country by deterring any president contemplating such a course of action—or , if it didn ’ t act as a deterrent , to prompt the removal of the president .
But the Republican-controlled Senate has clearly shown its unwillingness to remove Trump from office , regardless of the gravity of his misconduct .
Stone has lots of damaging information about Donald Trump and his campaign ’ s outreach to Russia for help in the 2016 presidential election .
Stone essentially admitted that recently , when he told a journalist @ @ @ @ @ @ @ enormous pressure to turn on him .
It would have eased my situation considerably .
But I didn ’ t. ” He must have figured that his life would be even easier if he covered up for Donald Trump .
Pots of gold would lie at the end of that rainbow .
As we now know from the recently released portions of the Mueller report , Stone could have driven a knife through the heart of the Trump presidency .
Witnesses said that Trump spoke with Stone on several occasions about Wikileaks ’ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ presidential candidate Hillary Clinton .
( The e-mails had come from Russian hacking . )
The witnesses described a Trump who welcomed the information he received from Stone and did not object to receiving and benefiting from Russian hacks and Wikileaks ’ releases .
Stone could fill in the details of those conversations .
Stone also communicated directly with the GRU , Russia ’ s military intelligence agency responsible for interfering in the 2016 election , and could describe those communications and Trump ’ s response if and when he shared them with @ @ @ @ @ @ @ provided truthful information , it could have led to Trump ’ s impeachment , defeat at the polls this November , and/or prosecution , when he leaves office .
In Watergate , along with hush-money payments , President Richard Nixon secretly authorized offers of pardons to the burglars to keep them quiet .
Although the pardons were never granted , authorizing them was one of the grounds for the House Judiciary Committee ’ s bipartisan impeachment vote against Nixon—and it was part of Nixon ’ s obstruction of justice .
Nixon short-circuited the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Ford stopped any possibility of prosecuting Nixon by pardoning him .
Pardoning Nixon—an unpardonable act , in my view—caused Ford ’ s defeat in the next presidential election .
In the end , the American people demanded accountability for Nixon ’ s presidential crimes and abuses of power .
Nixon paid a price for Watergate by resigning in disgrace , and Ford lost his election for protecting Nixon .
The same thing may and should happen to Donald Trump .
Americans need to understand the outrage Trump has committed against our democracy .
@ @ @ @ @ @ @ our 2016 elections by soliciting and receiving Russian interference on his behalf , dangling the possibility of a pardon to encourage Stone to lie and cover up before a congressional committee investigating collusion with Russia , and then commuting Stone ’ s sentence so that he would never have to go to prison for covering up .
Trump seems to have been concerned that Stone might decide to turn , even at the last minute , to avoid jail—something Trump could not risk .
Unfortunately , the Department of Justice ’ s Office @ @ @ @ @ @ @ protecting presidents , has opined that a president can not be prosecuted while in office .
But the Constitution makes it clear that a president can be prosecuted after leaving office .
A new attorney general , committed to protecting the integrity of our elections , can and should investigate the pardon , either directly or through a special counsel .
A new Congress should review the Constitution ’ s pardon power and propose amendments that would prevent its use by a president to protect any campaign adviser or aide , presidential appointee @ @ @ @ @ @ @ should also be clearly banned , as should a pardon by any succeeding president of the prior president .
And finally , the American people need to reject Donald Trump ’ s cynical and criminal presidency by voting him out of office in November .
We need to start undoing the horrific damage he has done to our country and our democracy—and we can ’ t start soon enough .

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?
Donald Trump’s commutation of Roger Stone’s jail sentence is an act of blatant corruption. The federal judge who presided over his trial stated that Stone was prosecuted for “covering up for Trump.” Trump’s commutation is a reward to Stone, his close political adviser, for that cover-up. By using the pardon power to shield himself from accountability, Trump perverted and abused that power. The commutation may also be a crime.
During his 2019 confirmation hearings, Attorney General Bill Barr said as much. “Do you believe a president could lawfully issue a pardon in exchange for the recipient’s promise to not incriminate him?” Senator Pat Leahy asked him. “No,” Barr replied. “That would be a crime.” We now know Barr and others advised Trump against commuting Stone’s sentence. This week, Stone denied any such quid pro quo, but that’s simply not credible.
Pardoning a confederate to protect oneself was foreseen by the framers of our Constitution—and they spelled out the consequences: impeachment. Apparently, they thought that such a drastic remedy would protect the country by deterring any president contemplating such a course of action—or, if it didn’t act as a deterrent, to prompt the removal of the president. But the Republican-controlled Senate has clearly shown its unwillingness to remove Trump from office, regardless of the gravity of his misconduct.
Stone has lots of damaging information about Donald Trump and his campaign’s outreach to Russia for help in the 2016 presidential election. Stone essentially admitted that recently, when he told a journalist, “He knows I was under enormous pressure to turn on him. It would have eased my situation considerably. But I didn’t.” He must have figured that his life would be even easier if he covered up for Donald Trump. Pots of gold would lie at the end of that rainbow.
As we now know from the recently released portions of the Mueller report, Stone could have driven a knife through the heart of the Trump presidency. Witnesses said that Trump spoke with Stone on several occasions about Wikileaks’ release of e-mails that were harmful to presidential candidate Hillary Clinton. (The e-mails had come from Russian hacking.) The witnesses described a Trump who welcomed the information he received from Stone and did not object to receiving and benefiting from Russian hacks and Wikileaks’ releases. Stone could fill in the details of those conversations.
Stone also communicated directly with the GRU, Russia’s military intelligence agency responsible for interfering in the 2016 election, and could describe those communications and Trump’s response if and when he shared them with him. If Stone had turned and provided truthful information, it could have led to Trump’s impeachment, defeat at the polls this November, and/or prosecution, when he leaves office. 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 A Grim Chronicle of Trump’s Corrupt Public Life A Grim Chronicle of Trump’s Corrupt Public Life 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 A Grim Chronicle of Trump’s Corrupt Public Life A Grim Chronicle of Trump’s Corrupt Public Life Chris Lehmann
In Watergate, along with hush-money payments, President Richard Nixon secretly authorized offers of pardons to the burglars to keep them quiet. Although the pardons were never granted, authorizing them was one of the grounds for the House Judiciary Committee’s bipartisan impeachment vote against Nixon—and it was part of Nixon’s obstruction of justice. Current Issue View our current issue
Nixon short-circuited the impeachment effort by resigning, and President Ford stopped any possibility of prosecuting Nixon by pardoning him. Pardoning Nixon—an unpardonable act, in my view—caused Ford’s defeat in the next presidential election. In the end, the American people demanded accountability for Nixon’s presidential crimes and abuses of power. Nixon paid a price for Watergate by resigning in disgrace, and Ford lost his election for protecting Nixon.
The same thing may and should happen to Donald Trump. Americans need to understand the outrage Trump has committed against our democracy. To every appearance, Trump has undermined our 2016 elections by soliciting and receiving Russian interference on his behalf, dangling the possibility of a pardon to encourage Stone to lie and cover up before a congressional committee investigating collusion with Russia, and then commuting Stone’s sentence so that he would never have to go to prison for covering up. Trump seems to have been concerned that Stone might decide to turn, even at the last minute, to avoid jail—something Trump could not risk.
Unfortunately, the Department of Justice’s Office of Legal Counsel, which bends to protecting presidents, has opined that a president cannot be prosecuted while in office. But the Constitution makes it clear that a president can be prosecuted after leaving office.
A new attorney general, committed to protecting the integrity of our elections, can and should investigate the pardon, either directly or through a special counsel.
A new Congress should review the Constitution’s pardon power and propose amendments that would prevent its use by a president to protect any campaign adviser or aide, presidential appointee, or family member. A self-pardon should also be clearly banned, as should a pardon by any succeeding president of the prior president.
And finally, the American people need to reject Donald Trump’s cynical and criminal presidency by voting him out of office in November. We need to start undoing the horrific damage he has done to our country and our democracy—and we can’t start soon enough.