motherjones--2020-12-04--274,000 Dead, and Trump Obsesses Over Election Conspiracy Theories. Where’s the Outrage?

In the late 1990s , conservatives and Republicans were fond of shouting “ where ’ s the outrage ?
” in response to Bill Clinton ’ s sex scandal .
They couldn ’ t believe Clinton was getting away with it , as he preserved his high standing in public opinion polls and escaped removal from office .
William Bennett , the rightwing moralist who had been education secretary in the Reagan administration , even wrote a book titled The Death of Outrage , in which he proclaimed this sordid episode cast a dark shadow on the entire nation : @ @ @ @ @ @ @ it is damaging our country , its standards , and our self-respect.
” All the harrumphing was about an improper Oval Office tryst that did indeed tarnish the highest position in the land .
But that fin-de-siècle chest-banging seems rather quaint and silly now , for today there is a lack of outrage over a far more significant matter : the death of more than a quarter-million Americans .
On Wednesday , the United States set a new record for COVID-19 deaths : 2,804 .
This is just 173 shy of the death @ @ @ @ @ @ @ elements of American society .
The United States is looking at that level of loss on a daily basis .
Yet there is little uproar .
Has a single Republican leader declared this is not acceptable ?
Has the president of the United States said this must not continue ?
Corporate and religious leaders have not pounded the tables in public .
Even many Democrats seem to be reluctant to cry out .
Of course , Trump can not be expected to note the ghastly milestones .
For 10 months , he has @ @ @ @ @ @ @ the basic advice of public health experts : encourage people to wear masks , to stay home , and to engage in social distancing .
His inept response to the crisis has led to a death count far higher ( per capita ) than that in other industrialized democracies .
His refusal to develop a robust testing program and to promote mask-wearing is certainly responsible for the painful deaths of tens of thousands of Americans .
It is true that 81 million Americans voted to fire Trump , no doubt much because of @ @ @ @ @ @ @ others were not upset by Trump ’ s mismanagement .
They essentially declared , “ This is fine by me.
” For them , the staggering loss of life for which Trump bears partial responsibility was not a deal-breaker .
It was tolerable .
Trump has normalized much abnormal and indecent conduct in his four years as president .
He trampled on a wide array of democratic norms .
He engaged in demagoguery and disinformation .
He poisoned the national discourse with lies and bigotry .
And he is still doing so in @ @ @ @ @ @ @ , as he attempts to subvert the 2020 election results with baseless conspiracy theories and false claims of fraud .
But perhaps worst of all is how he has cheapened the lives of Americans by refusing to fully recognize and to adequately respond to this horrific loss of life—and how so many have gone along with him on this hideous ride .
Trump has engaged in so many outrages as a candidate and president—paying off a porn star , aiding and abetting a Russian attack on the United States , calling for his @ @ @ @ @ @ @ a foreign leader to investigate a political opponent , refusing to explain suspicious business and financial dealings , separating families , engaging in racist rhetoric , encouraging violence—that these episodes lose their shock value .
Human beings can only absorb so much outrage .
Our brains are generally wired to accommodate to circumstances .
It ’ s a survival mechanism .
We can not process and sustain the high levels of anger that Trump ’ s never-ending misdeeds trigger .
Trump ’ s greatest success in this realm has been escaping greater retribution @ @ @ @ @ @ @ that has struck the United States on his watch .
The death rate keeps climbing , but much of the national response is akin to the frog and the boiling water myth ( which is utterly false ) .
We grow accustomed to the grisly numbers .
And expectations are so low for Trump that no one turns to him for leadership and action , as a dark winter bears down on the country .
What did Trump do on the historic day that COVID-19 deaths topped 2,800 ?
He delivered an unhinged @ @ @ @ @ @ @ had won the 2020 election and the results were rigged against him by a wide range of unnamed conspirators .
He said nothing about the American citizens who had fallen that day .
Put simply , he is not doing his job .
In the middle of a national emergency , he is not protecting the people .
He is watching television , writhing in anger , and obsessing over fact-free allegations about an election theft that did not happen .
Joe Biden and his camp , perhaps wisely , are letting Trump @ @ @ @ @ @ @ corner , for the most part ignoring it , and proceeding with the grown-up tasks necessary for governance .
The Biden transition team , for example , arranged to meet with Dr. Anthony Fauci to discuss the pandemic .
The president-elect and his White House team-to-be are preparing so they can confront this crisis as soon as they get the keys on January 20 .
Meanwhile , Trump has been playing golf and stewing .
His GOP colleagues don ’ t call him out .
Republican voters don ’ t mind .
And @ @ @ @ @ @ @ .
That ’ s Trump being Trump .
He has abandoned the ship of state—while resorting to underhanded measures to retain control of it .
This is absolutely shocking .
It is treachery .
But in our much divided and tribalized country , there is no overwhelming consensus of anger directed at Trump ’ s negligence and betrayal .
Even though vaccines appear to be on the horizon , the coming days , weeks , and maybe months are likely to be grim , with ICUs and morgues flooded .
Yet no national @ @ @ @ @ @ @ deaths and distancing , has much of the country become inured ?
A good chunk of Americans , influenced by propaganda from Trump , Fox News , and other conservative media , probably still consider the pandemic a hoax or no big deal .
( Several Republican governors still refuse to take the necessary actions , as the current surge intensifies . )
They have been blinded .
They will not see .
But as the bodies pile up , there still is too much silence .
Perhaps it ’ s because we @ @ @ @ @ @ @ been a long , rough stretch .
Who isn ’ t tired ?
Maintaining the fury regarding Trump ’ s inundation of wrongdoing was hard before the pandemic struck .
And since then the massive amount of death has been numbing .
The total pain may be too hard to grasp , as we all cope with our own challenges .
Trump ’ s recklessness during this crisis has been almost unbelievable .
Had he done two simple things—demonstrated a degree of empathy and heeded the advice of public health experts—he may well @ @ @ @ @ @ @ final days as president , he has amped up his dereliction of duty , as he desperately attempts to create a constitutional crisis rather than do all that is possible to counter the tide of death sweeping across the nation .
Where ’ s the outrage ?
Its absence is another casualty of the Trump years .
Nevertheless , at this particular point , it might not even do much good .
Trump is immutable .
He will not in the next six weeks turn away from his narcissistic crusade to overturn or @ @ @ @ @ @ @ American lives .
No amount of popular clamor will move him toward that basic task .
But Trump has hinted that he might seek restoration in 2024 .
If he does , those Americans who wish to avoid a repeat of this deadly nightmare will surely need to highlight how outrageous that would be .

In the late 1990s, conservatives and Republicans were fond of shouting “Where’s the outrage?” in response to Bill Clinton’s sex scandal. They couldn’t believe Clinton was getting away with it, as he preserved his high standing in public opinion polls and escaped removal from office. William Bennett, the right-wing moralist who had been education secretary in the Reagan administration, even wrote a book titled The Death of Outrage, in which he proclaimed this sordid episode cast a dark shadow on the entire nation: “This is moral bankruptcy, and it is damaging our country, its standards, and our self-respect.”
All the harrumphing was about an improper Oval Office tryst that did indeed tarnish the highest position in the land. But that fin-de-siècle chest-banging seems rather quaint and silly now, for today there is a lack of outrage over a far more significant matter: the death of more than a quarter-million Americans. On Wednesday, the United States set a new record for COVID-19 deaths: 2,804. This is just 173 shy of the death toll of 9/11—that cataclysmic event that reordered elements of American society. The United States is looking at that level of loss on a daily basis. Yet there is little uproar.
Where’s the outrage?
Has a single Republican leader declared this is not acceptable? Has the president of the United States said this must not continue? Corporate and religious leaders have not pounded the tables in public. Even many Democrats seem to be reluctant to cry out.
Of course, Trump cannot be expected to note the ghastly milestones. For 10 months, he has downplayed the pandemic and refused to adopt the basic advice of public health experts: encourage people to wear masks, to stay home, and to engage in social distancing. His inept response to the crisis has led to a death count far higher (per capita) than that in other industrialized democracies. His refusal to develop a robust testing program and to promote mask-wearing is certainly responsible for the painful deaths of tens of thousands of Americans.
Where’s the outrage?
It is true that 81 million Americans voted to fire Trump, no doubt much because of his coronavirus malfeasance. But 74 million others were not upset by Trump’s mismanagement. They essentially declared, “This is fine by me.” For them, the staggering loss of life for which Trump bears partial responsibility was not a deal-breaker. It was tolerable.
Trump has normalized much abnormal and indecent conduct in his four years as president. He trampled on a wide array of democratic norms. He engaged in demagoguery and disinformation. He poisoned the national discourse with lies and bigotry. And he is still doing so in his waning days in the White House, as he attempts to subvert the 2020 election results with baseless conspiracy theories and false claims of fraud. But perhaps worst of all is how he has cheapened the lives of Americans by refusing to fully recognize and to adequately respond to this horrific loss of life—and how so many have gone along with him on this hideous ride.
Trump has engaged in so many outrages as a candidate and president—paying off a porn star, aiding and abetting a Russian attack on the United States, calling for his foes to be locked up, pressuring a foreign leader to investigate a political opponent, refusing to explain suspicious business and financial dealings, separating families, engaging in racist rhetoric, encouraging violence—that these episodes lose their shock value. Human beings can only absorb so much outrage. Our brains are generally wired to accommodate to circumstances. It’s a survival mechanism. We cannot process and sustain the high levels of anger that Trump’s never-ending misdeeds trigger.
Trump’s greatest success in this realm has been escaping greater retribution for the flood of death and disease that has struck the United States on his watch. The death rate keeps climbing, but much of the national response is akin to the frog and the boiling water myth (which is utterly false). We grow accustomed to the grisly numbers. And expectations are so low for Trump that no one turns to him for leadership and action, as a dark winter bears down on the country.
What did Trump do on the historic day that COVID-19 deaths topped 2,800? He delivered an unhinged 46-minute-long speech in which he insisted he had won the 2020 election and the results were rigged against him by a wide range of unnamed conspirators. He said nothing about the American citizens who had fallen that day. Put simply, he is not doing his job. In the middle of a national emergency, he is not protecting the people. He is watching television, writhing in anger, and obsessing over fact-free allegations about an election theft that did not happen.
Where’s the outrage?
Joe Biden and his camp, perhaps wisely, are letting Trump have his authoritarian temper tantrum in a corner, for the most part ignoring it, and proceeding with the grown-up tasks necessary for governance. The Biden transition team, for example, arranged to meet with Dr. Anthony Fauci to discuss the pandemic. The president-elect and his White House team-to-be are preparing so they can confront this crisis as soon as they get the keys on January 20.
Meanwhile, Trump has been playing golf and stewing. His GOP colleagues don’t call him out. Republican voters don’t mind. And many of the rest of us shrug. That’s Trump being Trump. He has abandoned the ship of state—while resorting to underhanded measures to retain control of it. This is absolutely shocking. It is treachery. But in our much divided and tribalized country, there is no overwhelming consensus of anger directed at Trump’s negligence and betrayal.
Even though vaccines appear to be on the horizon, the coming days, weeks, and maybe months are likely to be grim, with ICUs and morgues flooded. Yet no national outcry has occurred. After months of deaths and distancing, has much of the country become inured? A good chunk of Americans, influenced by propaganda from Trump, Fox News, and other conservative media, probably still consider the pandemic a hoax or no big deal. (Several Republican governors still refuse to take the necessary actions, as the current surge intensifies.) They have been blinded. They will not see.
But as the bodies pile up, there still is too much silence. Perhaps it’s because we have reached outrage exhaustion. This has been a long, rough stretch. Who isn’t tired? Maintaining the fury regarding Trump’s inundation of wrongdoing was hard before the pandemic struck. And since then the massive amount of death has been numbing. The total pain may be too hard to grasp, as we all cope with our own challenges.
Trump’s recklessness during this crisis has been almost unbelievable. Had he done two simple things—demonstrated a degree of empathy and heeded the advice of public health experts—he may well have won reelection. Yet in his final days as president, he has amped up his dereliction of duty, as he desperately attempts to create a constitutional crisis rather than do all that is possible to counter the tide of death sweeping across the nation.
Where’s the outrage? Its absence is another casualty of the Trump years. Nevertheless, at this particular point, it might not even do much good. Trump is immutable. He will not in the next six weeks turn away from his narcissistic crusade to overturn or discredit the election to focus on saving American lives. No amount of popular clamor will move him toward that basic task. But Trump has hinted that he might seek restoration in 2024. If he does, those Americans who wish to avoid a repeat of this deadly nightmare will surely need to highlight how outrageous that would be.


motherjones--2020-12-04--The House Just Voted to Decriminalize Marijuana

From time to time the House passes a bill that would never in a million years be approved by a Republican Senate .
There was a House bill to raise the federal minimum wage to $ 15 .
Nope !
There was another that would have mandated universal background checks on gun sales .
Sorry .
And yet another “ to prohibit discrimination on the basis of sex , gender identity , and sexual orientation ” —real controversial stuff .
Fuggedaboutit !
Today , the House added a new bit of progressive legislation to that list : a bill that @ @ @ @ @ @ @ convictions , which disproportionately affect people of color .
The legislation comes after five states approved marijuana reforms on Election Day , as my colleague Jackie Flynn Mogensen reported last month .
Thirty-six states to date have legalized medical marijuana , and 15 have approved its recreational use .
No matter how you feel about the drug , the potential criminal justice benefits of legalization are undeniable .
Even though people of different ethnicities use and sell weed at similar rates , Black people are nearly four times more likely than white people @ @ @ @ @ @ @ to the ACLU .
The House bill would try to rectify this inequality by creating grants to provide job training , legal aid , and substance abuse treatment to people convicted of marijuana offenses .
It would also offer funding to low-income and nonwhite business owners in the commercial marijuana sector .
The bill may not become law , but it ’ s a big step in progressives ’ push to alter the public image of cannabis from a dangerous , addictive substance to a medicinal herb that ’ s safer than alcohol @ @ @ @ @ @ @ by the Mother Jones Daily newsletter , which hits inboxes every weekday and is written by Ben Dreyfuss and Abigail Weinberg .
It regularly features guest contributions by our much smarter colleagues .
Sign up for it here .

Fight disinformation: Sign up for the free Mother Jones Daily newsletter and follow the news that matters.
From time to time the House passes a bill that would never in a million years be approved by a Republican Senate.
There was a House bill to raise the federal minimum wage to $15. Nope! There was another that would have mandated universal background checks on gun sales. Sorry. And yet another “to prohibit discrimination on the basis of sex, gender identity, and sexual orientation”—real controversial stuff. Fuggedaboutit!
Today, the House added a new bit of progressive legislation to that list: a bill that would decriminalize marijuana and expunge nonviolent weed-related convictions, which disproportionately affect people of color.
The legislation comes after five states approved marijuana reforms on Election Day, as my colleague Jackie Flynn Mogensen reported last month. Thirty-six states to date have legalized medical marijuana, and 15 have approved its recreational use.
No matter how you feel about the drug, the potential criminal justice benefits of legalization are undeniable. Even though people of different ethnicities use and sell weed at similar rates, Black people are nearly four times more likely than white people to be arrested for possession, according to the ACLU. The House bill would try to rectify this inequality by creating grants to provide job training, legal aid, and substance abuse treatment to people convicted of marijuana offenses. It would also offer funding to low-income and nonwhite business owners in the commercial marijuana sector. The bill may not become law, but it’s a big step in progressives’ push to alter the public image of cannabis from a dangerous, addictive substance to a medicinal herb that’s safer than alcohol.
This post was brought to you by the Mother Jones Daily newsletter, which hits inboxes every weekday and is written by Ben Dreyfuss and Abigail Weinberg. It regularly features guest contributions by our much smarter colleagues. Sign up for it here.


motherjones--2020-12-04--The Change We Need: Stop Whining About Activists

Barack Obama rankled “ defund the police ” activists this week when he said that “ snappy slogans ” like theirs turned voters off .
Maybe it would be better , many of them joked , if they simply prepended another snappy slogan— “ yes , we can ” —to “ defund the police.
” Obama was arguing in his capacity as a former president , perhaps one who felt unduly pressured by the Black liberation movement that had exploded anew on his watch .
He had forgotten the lessons from the activism of his younger years about how progress @ @ @ @ @ @ @ role activists play in making it .
After white police officer Derek Chauvin pressed his knee into the neck of George Floyd , a 46-year-old Black Minneapolis man , a demand long popular among left-wing and radical Black activists went mainstream : defund the police .
Any activist well-versed in the movement will tell you that it ’ s an effort to reallocate municipal funds from police departments—many of any size are equipped with weapons of war—toward people-centered programs like mental health services or public schools .
But one need not be an @ @ @ @ @ @ @ plea : take resources away from the cops who hurt us .
As racial justice protests spread across the country , the Black Lives Matter movement gained large , multiracial support .
But even after watching what felt like an endless loop of police unleashing violence on protesters in major cities and suburban towns across the country this summer , liberal pundits and elected Democratic officials thought the demand to shrink police budgets was too radical and too confusing .
They fretted that the idea that perhaps a suburban Ohio town of 78,000 @ @ @ @ @ @ @ , or that cops don ’ t need more money to tear gas protesters or to shoot Black women while they slept in their beds , would hurt Joe Biden ’ s candidacy or turn off anonymous white voters who were considering voting for some down-ballot Democrat but who might now run screaming from the specter of Black people asking not to be killed .
After all , what else should left-wing activists be doing besides making sure that Democrats win their elections ?
Perhaps it is shocking to Democratic politicians , strategists @ @ @ @ @ @ @ a central part of their identity , but activists do not exist solely to get Democrats elected .
They are not instruments of electoral leverage .
Let ’ s consider the way progress and actual change have always worked in the United States .
The idea that enslaved Black people could be freed was once a radical idea .
During the 1860 election , the New York Times published a story about Abraham Lincoln ’ s conservatism on the slavery question , grateful that anti-slavery activists like Wendell Phillips , a prominent abolitionist @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Thank God , Mr. Lincoln has not yet fallen so low as to command Mr. Phillips ’ respect , on the infamous terms which alone can earn it , ” the author wrote .
“ The Abolitionists have nominated a candidate of their own for the Presidency , and are likely to relieve the Republicans from the damaging odium of their support.
” The following year , the paper published an op-ed looking for a compromise to the slavery “ problem ” and settled on slow , gradual change for the institution .
@ @ @ @ @ @ @ the folly of the immediate abolition of Slavery , ” it read .
Apparently , the “ sudden release ” of millions of Black people in civil society would be ruinous for a group of people who were dependent on their slave masters .
It ’ s the same story .
Slavery and police brutality are bad , but shouldn ’ t the machinery of change be slow and grinding ?
This summer , as pundits tittered over the polling popularity of defunding the police , I drew comparisons to the civil rights @ @ @ @ @ @ @ , Jr. also polled horrendously in the 1960s .
Now , it feels as if white people invoke him at every turn .
But one doesn ’ t even need to look that far back to find more examples .
As a millennial who grew up in religious settings , I vividly remember when gay marriage was unpopular among the public , an issue full of that “ damaging odium.
” In 1996 , it was Democratic President Bill Clinton who signed the Defense of Marriage Act , a federal law that defined @ @ @ @ @ @ @ woman .
In 2004 , during his re-election campaign , George W. Bush signaled support for a constitutional ban on same-sex marriages , drawing ire from Democrats , including his Democratic opponent John Kerry .
But Kerry wasn ’ t pro-gay marriage .
He only supported civil unions .
“ I believe the best way to protect gays and lesbians is through civil unions , ” he said in 2004 .
“ I believe the issue of marriage should be left to the states.
” Sound familiar ?
In 2005 , only 37 @ @ @ @ @ @ @ should be allowed to get married .
Less than 20 years later , no Democratic candidate would dare come out against gay marriage , lest they be rendered an irrelevant bigot .
In short , we ’ ve progressed as a country .
But not because activists finally shut up or softened their slogans or accommodated themselves to “ moderate ” sensibilities—no , they did quite the opposite .
After suffering a series of losses at the ballot box ( 11 states had passed anti-gay constitutional amendments in 2004 ) and California passed @ @ @ @ @ @ @ gay marriage in 2008 , activists regrouped .
As The Atlantic reported in 2015 , a coalition of gay rights formed a consortium to centralize the message and the strategy .
The original message— ” an appeal to reason that enumerated the benefits of marriage that were being denied to gay people ” —was abandoned in favor of a more radical appeal : Gay marriage was about love .
Snappy , you might say .
Today , would any respected official or pundit dare suggest in public that Black people having the right @ @ @ @ @ @ @ a person worth listening to who would argue that we should ’ ve abolished slavery a little more slowly or perhaps not at all ?
The argument from many liberals is that getting Democrats elected is the only way to bring about change .
But Barack Obama was president for eight years , during which time countless Black people became hashtags after their very public and violent deaths went viral .
The criticism of defunding the police isn ’ t about the slogan itself or whether it ’ s too confusing .
It @ @ @ @ @ @ @ who gets to make it .
In truth , pundits and moderate liberals are uncomfortable with change , particularly when the demands for it are coming from people in the street , moving on their own power .
The critics either simply don ’ t want to defund the police or don ’ t want to offend the moderate white voter , who has the immense power to hold Black progress hostage .
But when that progress is finally achieved , those same moderates will put themselves at the center of the story @ @ @ @ @ @ @ that they once said was far too radical .

Fight disinformation: Sign up for the free Mother Jones Daily newsletter and follow the news that matters.
Barack Obama rankled “defund the police” activists this week when he said that “snappy slogans” like theirs turned voters off. Maybe it would be better, many of them joked, if they simply prepended another snappy slogan—“yes, we can”—to “defund the police.” Obama was arguing in his capacity as a former president, perhaps one who felt unduly pressured by the Black liberation movement that had exploded anew on his watch. He had forgotten the lessons from the activism of his younger years about how progress is made in this country and what role activists play in making it.
After white police officer Derek Chauvin pressed his knee into the neck of George Floyd, a 46-year-old Black Minneapolis man, a demand long popular among left-wing and radical Black activists went mainstream: defund the police. Any activist well-versed in the movement will tell you that it’s an effort to reallocate municipal funds from police departments—many of any size are equipped with weapons of war—toward people-centered programs like mental health services or public schools. But one need not be an activist to understand the slogan’s plea: take resources away from the cops who hurt us.
As racial justice protests spread across the country, the Black Lives Matter movement gained large, multiracial support. But even after watching what felt like an endless loop of police unleashing violence on protesters in major cities and suburban towns across the country this summer, liberal pundits and elected Democratic officials thought the demand to shrink police budgets was too radical and too confusing. They fretted that the idea that perhaps a suburban Ohio town of 78,000 doesn’t need a mine-resistant tank, or that cops don’t need more money to tear gas protesters or to shoot Black women while they slept in their beds, would hurt Joe Biden’s candidacy or turn off anonymous white voters who were considering voting for some down-ballot Democrat but who might now run screaming from the specter of Black people asking not to be killed. After all, what else should left-wing activists be doing besides making sure that Democrats win their elections?
Perhaps it is shocking to Democratic politicians, strategists, and those who consider party registration a central part of their identity, but activists do not exist solely to get Democrats elected. They are not instruments of electoral leverage. Let’s consider the way progress and actual change have always worked in the United States.
The idea that enslaved Black people could be freed was once a radical idea. During the 1860 election, the New York Times published a story about Abraham Lincoln’s conservatism on the slavery question, grateful that anti-slavery activists like Wendell Phillips, a prominent abolitionist, had not backed Lincoln. “Thank God, Mr. Lincoln has not yet fallen so low as to command Mr. Phillips’ respect, on the infamous terms which alone can earn it,” the author wrote. “The Abolitionists have nominated a candidate of their own for the Presidency, and are likely to relieve the Republicans from the damaging odium of their support.”
The following year, the paper published an op-ed looking for a compromise to the slavery “problem” and settled on slow, gradual change for the institution. “We have admitted the impossibility and the folly of the immediate abolition of Slavery,” it read. Apparently, the “sudden release” of millions of Black people in civil society would be ruinous for a group of people who were dependent on their slave masters. It’s the same story. Slavery and police brutality are bad, but shouldn’t the machinery of change be slow and grinding?
This summer, as pundits tittered over the polling popularity of defunding the police, I drew comparisons to the civil rights movement:
Much like police reform, the Civil Rights Act, the sweeping bill signed by Lyndon B. Johnson in 1964 enjoyed broad popular support at 58 percent and a 1965 Gallup poll found that 76 percent of Americans approved of the proposed Voting Rights Act of 1966. But after the 1964 act became law, 68 percent wanted only “moderate” enforcement of its mandates. In fact, 42 percent thought the government was moving too fast to bestow voting rights and the right to be served in public places to Black people.
Rev. Martin Luther King, Jr. also polled horrendously in the 1960s. Now, it feels as if white people invoke him at every turn.
But one doesn’t even need to look that far back to find more examples. As a millennial who grew up in religious settings, I vividly remember when gay marriage was unpopular among the public, an issue full of that “damaging odium.” In 1996, it was Democratic President Bill Clinton who signed the Defense of Marriage Act, a federal law that defined marriage as between a man and a woman. In 2004, during his re-election campaign, George W. Bush signaled support for a constitutional ban on same-sex marriages, drawing ire from Democrats, including his Democratic opponent John Kerry. But Kerry wasn’t pro-gay marriage. He only supported civil unions. “I believe the best way to protect gays and lesbians is through civil unions,” he said in 2004. “I believe the issue of marriage should be left to the states.” Sound familiar? In 2005, only 37 percent of people believed same sex couples should be allowed to get married.
Less than 20 years later, no Democratic candidate would dare come out against gay marriage, lest they be rendered an irrelevant bigot. In short, we’ve progressed as a country. But not because activists finally shut up or softened their slogans or accommodated themselves to “moderate” sensibilities—no, they did quite the opposite. After suffering a series of losses at the ballot box (11 states had passed anti-gay constitutional amendments in 2004) and California passed Prop 8, a state ban on gay marriage in 2008, activists regrouped. As The Atlantic reported in 2015, a coalition of gay rights formed a consortium to centralize the message and the strategy. The original message—”an appeal to reason that enumerated the benefits of marriage that were being denied to gay people”—was abandoned in favor of a more radical appeal: Gay marriage was about love. Snappy, you might say.
I remember all the polling suggesting that "same-sex marriage" was an election loser and that queer people should opt for lesser protections if they wanted to win at the ballot box. Grateful for every activist who says "we don't care what's popular, we care what's right." — Carlos Maza (@gaywonk) December 2, 2020
Today, would any respected official or pundit dare suggest in public that Black people having the right to vote is radical? Is there a person worth listening to who would argue that we should’ve abolished slavery a little more slowly or perhaps not at all? The argument from many liberals is that getting Democrats elected is the only way to bring about change. But Barack Obama was president for eight years, during which time countless Black people became hashtags after their very public and violent deaths went viral.
The criticism of defunding the police isn’t about the slogan itself or whether it’s too confusing. It’s about change, and about who gets to make it. In truth, pundits and moderate liberals are uncomfortable with change, particularly when the demands for it are coming from people in the street, moving on their own power. The critics either simply don’t want to defund the police or don’t want to offend the moderate white voter, who has the immense power to hold Black progress hostage. But when that progress is finally achieved, those same moderates will put themselves at the center of the story of the movement, co-opting the fight that they once said was far too radical.


motherjones--2020-12-05--Finally, Some More Science Might Explain Those Mysterious “Microwave Attacks” on US Diplomats

A team of experts advising the government have partially explained the so-called Havana syndrome , the mysterious neurological condition that has afflicted US spies and State Department staff stationed in Cuba , China , and elsewhere since 2016 .
A new 77-page report by a committee of 19 experts was issued by the National Academies of Sciences , Engineering and Medicine , and commissioned by the State Department .
It concludes that “ directed , pulsed radiofrequency energy ” is “ the most plausible mechanism ” for the illness reported by government personnel .
The victims of these attacks—it is @ @ @ @ @ @ @ affected—have suffered from dizziness , fatigue , headaches , and loss of hearing , memory , and balance .
Some have recovered , while others were forced to retire early .
The report indicates , without stating directly , that US personal stationed in Havana in 2016 , and Guangzhou , China , in 2017 , were deliberately attacked with a secret weapon that deploys technology US agencies don ’ t fully understand .
“ For some of these patients , their case began with the sudden onset of a loud noise , @ @ @ @ @ @ @ accompanied by pain in one or both ears or across a broad region of the head , and in some cases , a sensation of head pressure or vibration , dizziness , followed in some cases by tinnitus , visual problems , vertigo , and cognitive difficulties , ” the report says .
This condition too , is new : “ This constellation of clinical features is unlike any disorder in the neurological or general medical literature , ” wrote David Relman , a Standford microbiologist who chaired the committee .
Noting that @ @ @ @ @ @ @ differences in symptoms , the report leaves open the possibility that “ psychological and social factors ” were also involved .
Intelligence officials quoted in GQ Magazine , the New York Times , and NBC News have said they suspect that Russian intelligence agents are behind the attacks .
CIA officers traveling to discuss countering Russia covert operations with foreign agencies are among the Americans attacked , according to those reports .
A Russian Foreign Ministry spokesperson has called these allegations “ absolutely absurd and bizarre.
” The new report does not speculate @ @ @ @ @ @ @ attacks .
But it does note that there has been “ significant research in Russia/USSR into the effects of pulsed , rather than continuous wave [ radiofrequency ] exposures.
” The report is the most comprehensive assessment of the syndrome from the US government , which has said little publicly about the issue .
Some victims have faulted the Trump administration for inaction , including an initial failure by federal agencies to grant leave and provide other assistance .
People affected have suggested that Secretary of State Mike Pompeo has failed to speak @ @ @ @ @ @ @ personnel due to Trump ’ s deference to Russian President Vladimir Putin .

Fight disinformation: Sign up for the free Mother Jones Daily newsletter and follow the news that matters.
A team of experts advising the government have partially explained the so-called Havana syndrome, the mysterious neurological condition that has afflicted US spies and State Department staff stationed in Cuba, China, and elsewhere since 2016.
A new 77-page report by a committee of 19 experts was issued by the National Academies of Sciences, Engineering and Medicine, and commissioned by the State Department. It concludes that “directed, pulsed radiofrequency energy” is “the most plausible mechanism” for the illness reported by government personnel.
The victims of these attacks—it is not clear exactly how many people were affected—have suffered from dizziness, fatigue, headaches, and loss of hearing, memory, and balance. Some have recovered, while others were forced to retire early.
The report indicates, without stating directly, that US personal stationed in Havana in 2016, and Guangzhou, China, in 2017, were deliberately attacked with a secret weapon that deploys technology US agencies don’t fully understand.
“For some of these patients, their case began with the sudden onset of a loud noise, perceived to have directional features, and accompanied by pain in one or both ears or across a broad region of the head, and in some cases, a sensation of head pressure or vibration, dizziness, followed in some cases by tinnitus, visual problems, vertigo, and cognitive difficulties,” the report says.
This condition too, is new: “This constellation of clinical features is unlike any disorder in the neurological or general medical literature,” wrote David Relman, a Standford microbiologist who chaired the committee.
Noting that US officials have described varied incidents and differences in symptoms, the report leaves open the possibility that “psychological and social factors” were also involved.
Intelligence officials quoted in GQ Magazine, the New York Times, and NBC News have said they suspect that Russian intelligence agents are behind the attacks. CIA officers traveling to discuss countering Russia covert operations with foreign agencies are among the Americans attacked, according to those reports. A Russian Foreign Ministry spokesperson has called these allegations “absolutely absurd and bizarre.”
The new report does not speculate on who may have carried out the attacks. But it does note that there has been “significant research in Russia/USSR into the effects of pulsed, rather than continuous wave [radiofrequency] exposures.”
The report is the most comprehensive assessment of the syndrome from the US government, which has said little publicly about the issue. Some victims have faulted the Trump administration for inaction, including an initial failure by federal agencies to grant leave and provide other assistance. People affected have suggested that Secretary of State Mike Pompeo has failed to speak out about the apparent attacks on US personnel due to Trump’s deference to Russian President Vladimir Putin.


motherjones--2020-12-05--Congress Is About to Bar Unidentified Federal Agents From Policing Protests

Congress is set to approve a defense policy bill that bars unidentified federal law enforcement officers from policing protests .
The bill responds to a phenomenon that Mother Jones flagged in June : Unidentified federal law enforcement officers with no identifying insignia joined in the Trump administration ’ s coordinated crackdown on protests against police violence in several cities earlier this summer .
The 4,500-page annual defense policy bill that emerged from a House-Senate policy committee Thursday requires any armed forces personnel , including National Guard members , and federal law enforcement agents who respond to a “ civil disturbance @ @ @ @ @ @ @ or some other “ individual identifier ” , as well as the organization or branch of the Armed Forces for whom they work .
This provision is a direct response to the presence in multiple cities of unidentified federal officers last summer .
I first reported on this issue on June 3 during a protest in Washington .
Agents I approached would only say that they worked for the “ Department of Justice ” or the “ federal government.
” Other reporters elicited similar responses .
The Justice Department later acknowledged that the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Bureau of Prisons—federal prison guards , in other words .
The agents were from special “ riot control ” teams dispatched to DC along with many other federal agents as part of a show of force ordered up by Trump and Attorney General Bill Barr in response to one night of looting and vandalism in downtown DC amid largely peaceful mass protests that followed the May 25 killing of George Floyd in Minneapolis .
In July , the Trump administration deployed more unidentified agents as part of a large federal response to protests @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Oregon .
In Portland agents in unmarked , rented minivans emerged and detained protesters without identifying themselves .
Customs and Border Patrol later told Mother Jones that its agents had carried out the arrests in Portland .
The provision in the defense bill , which is drawn from a bill offered by Sens .
Chris Murphy ( D-Conn. ) and Chuck Schumer ( D-N.Y. ) , would bar such conduct .
“ President Trump and Attorney General Bill Barr deployed an army of unidentifiable federal officers in riot gear to crackdown on peaceful @ @ @ @ @ @ @ country and treated American citizens like they were an enemy , ” Schumer said in a statement Thursday .
“ The legislation Sen. Murphy and I worked to include in the NDAA puts an end to this abuse of power and ensures that federal law enforcement is transparent , identifiable , and accountable.
” The measure in defense bill is not as strong as the language Murphy and Schumer introduced .
It no longer mandates that the names of officers be displayed , instead allowing other identifiers like badge numbers .
And it @ @ @ @ @ @ @ don ’ t normally wear uniforms or who are working undercover .
Murphy said in tweets Thursday night that these changes reflected normal compromises required to get a proposal into law .
A Senate aide said the alternations responded to “ feedback from the federal law enforcement community.
” Defense policy bills , unlike most legislation , pass every year .
As a result they are routinely stuffed with policy reforms , both large and small , including many with limited links to defense .
This year ’ s bill also includes legislation @ @ @ @ @ @ @ report their ultimate owner to the Treasury Department , a step aimed at cracking down on money laundering .
Trump has threatened to veto the defense bill unless lawmakers add a provision repealing a law that protects social media companies from liability over content posted by users .
That threat appears to be a fit of pique based on Twitter and Facebook labeling Trump ’ s false claims about his election loss as contested .
It may also reflect Trump ’ s misunderstanding of the law : the change he wants would not @ @ @ @ @ @ @ posts .
Trump previously threatened to veto the bill over a provision in it requiring the removal of Confederate leaders ’ names from military bases .
But the House and Senate are set in coming days to pass the bill with veto-proof majorities .
That means they can override Trump ’ s veto if he exercises it .

Fight disinformation: Sign up for the free Mother Jones Daily newsletter and follow the news that matters.
Congress is set to approve a defense policy bill that bars unidentified federal law enforcement officers from policing protests. The bill responds to a phenomenon that Mother Jones flagged in June: Unidentified federal law enforcement officers with no identifying insignia joined in the Trump administration’s coordinated crackdown on protests against police violence in several cities earlier this summer.
The 4,500-page annual defense policy bill that emerged from a House-Senate policy committee Thursday requires any armed forces personnel, including National Guard members, and federal law enforcement agents who respond to a “civil disturbance,” to display either their name or some other “individual identifier,” as well as the organization or branch of the Armed Forces for whom they work.
This provision is a direct response to the presence in multiple cities of unidentified federal officers last summer. I first reported on this issue on June 3 during a protest in Washington. Agents I approached would only say that they worked for the “Department of Justice” or the “federal government.” Other reporters elicited similar responses.
Asked who they’re with, these guys say only that they’re with “The Department of Justice.” pic.twitter.com/ciVDtP8ndk — Dan Friedman (@dfriedman33) June 2, 2020
The Justice Department later acknowledged that the agents I talked to were from the Bureau of Prisons—federal prison guards, in other words. The agents were from special “riot control” teams dispatched to DC along with many other federal agents as part of a show of force ordered up by Trump and Attorney General Bill Barr in response to one night of looting and vandalism in downtown DC amid largely peaceful mass protests that followed the May 25 killing of George Floyd in Minneapolis.
In July, the Trump administration deployed more unidentified agents as part of a large federal response to protests around a federal courthouse in Portland, Oregon. In Portland agents in unmarked, rented minivans emerged and detained protesters without identifying themselves. Customs and Border Protection later told Mother Jones that its agents had carried out the arrests in Portland.
Militarized Federal Agents from a patchwork of outside agencies have begun policing Portland (in rented minivans vans) without the explicit approval of the mayor, the state, or local municipalities. This is what that looks like in practice: pic.twitter.com/losap4SsgI — The Sparrow Project (@sparrowmedia) July 15, 2020
The provision in the defense bill, which is drawn from a bill offered by senators Chris Murphy (D-Conn.) and Chuck Schumer (D-N.Y.), would bar such conduct.
“President Trump and Attorney General Bill Barr deployed an army of unidentifiable federal officers in riot gear to crackdown on peaceful demonstrators exercising their constitutional rights across the country and treated American citizens like they were an enemy,” Schumer said in a statement Thursday. “The legislation Sen. Murphy and I worked to include in the NDAA puts an end to this abuse of power and ensures that federal law enforcement is transparent, identifiable, and accountable.”
The measure in defense bill is not as strong as the language Murphy and Schumer introduced. It no longer mandates that the names of officers be displayed, instead allowing other identifiers like badge numbers. And it includes an exception for federal officers who don’t normally wear uniforms or who are working undercover.
Murphy said in tweets Thursday night that these changes reflected normal compromises required to get a proposal into law. A Senate aide said the alternations responded to “feedback from the federal law enforcement community.”
2/ I did have to compromise. The final provision isn’t a strong as my original text. But it’s still damn strong and the practical effect of my proposal isn’t changed – federal law enforcement will no longer be able to hide their identity when doing crowd control. — Chris Murphy (@ChrisMurphyCT) December 4, 2020
Defense policy bills, unlike most legislation, pass every year. As a result they are routinely stuffed with policy reforms, both large and small, including many with limited links to defense. This year’s bill also includes legislation requiring shell companies in the US to report their ultimate owner to the Treasury Department, a step aimed at cracking down on money laundering.
Trump has threatened to veto the defense bill unless lawmakers add a provision repealing a law that protects social media companies from liability over content posted by users. That threat appears to be a fit of pique based on Twitter and Facebook labeling Trump’s false claims about his election loss as contested. It may also reflect Trump’s misunderstanding of the law: the change he wants would not prevent social media firms from labeling his posts. Trump previously threatened to veto the bill over a provision in it requiring the removal of Confederate leaders’ names from military bases.
But the House and Senate are set in coming days to pass the bill with veto-proof majorities. That means they can override Trump’s veto if he exercises it.


motherjones--2020-12-07--Runoff Elections in Georgia Are Disasters for Democrats. Here’s Why This Time Is Different.

On November 16 , 2018 , when she ended her bid to become Georgia ’ s governor , Stacey Abrams listed the many problems that had made it more difficult to vote in that month ’ s election : 1.5 million voters purged from the rolls , more than 50,000 put on a “ pending ” registration list , more than 200 polling places closed , thousands of mail ballots rejected , and waits of up to five hours to cast a ballot—tactics that disproportionately harmed voters of color .
“ Democracy failed Georgians , ” Abrams declared .
Nineteen @ @ @ @ @ @ @ even worse election meltdown during its June presidential primary .
Voting machines malfunctioned , 80 more polling places were closed in metro Atlanta , thousands of mail ballots never arrived or were rejected , and wait times at predominantly Black and Latino precincts were more than six times longer than in majority-white areas .
“ 2018 was the cake , the primary of 2020 was the icing in terms of the problems , ” says LaTosha Brown , co-founder of Black Voters Matter , who lives in Atlanta and works to mobilize Black @ @ @ @ @ @ @ the November 2020 election , democracy , improbably , worked in Georgia .
The state saw its highest turnout in 40 years .
Democrats have believed for some time that a rapidly diversifying electorate would allow them to be competitive in Georgia , but repeated voter suppression efforts had kept that electorate from fully forming .
Now , two years of determined organizing against voter suppression created the conditions for Joe Biden to carry the state by just under 12,000 votes , making him the first Democratic presidential candidate in 28 years to @ @ @ @ @ @ @ long lines , there were still problems with absentee balloting , ” says Lauren Groh-Wargo , CEO of the voting rights group Fair Fight Action and Abrams ’ campaign manager in 2018 .
“ But the collective work on litigation , advocacy , voter education , voter suppression mitigation that we and so many allies did really ensured that there was a multi-ethnic , multi-racial coalition that could come out to support Joe Biden.
” That electorate—along with the organizing that spurred it—is now giving Democrats hope that Raphael Warnock and Jon Ossoff @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Senate on January 5 , races that would have seemed almost unwinnable in past years .
A host of Black-led organizing groups , from Fair Fight to Black Voters Matter to the New Georgia Project , channeled their anger over what happened in 2018 into concerted efforts to remove barriers to the ballot box .
Brown compared it to a scene in the ESPN documentary The Last Dance where Michael Jordan loses a key playoff game and shows up to practice the next day furiously motivated .
“ We took the energy of @ @ @ @ @ @ @ and literally redirected that energy to be a motivating factor to organize and energize people , ” she says .
The electorate in 2020 was the one Abrams envisioned in 2018 .
People of color made up nearly 40 percent of all voters , and Biden won roughly 70 percent of their votes .
He improved on Abrams ’ margin in eight counties in metro Atlanta , building a remarkably diverse coalition of new voters , young voters , people of color , and moderate white suburbanites .
According to an analysis by @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Asian American turnout increased by 91 percent from 2016 to 2020 , Latino turnout by 72 percent , and Black turnout by 20 percent , while white turnout grew by just 16 percent .
Between 2016 and 2020 , 1 million new voters were registered through Georgia ’ s system of automatic voter registration at motor vehicle offices and registration drives by grassroots groups .
Two-thirds of them were people of color .
Amazingly , the number of eligible but unregistered Georgians fell from 22 percent in 2016 to just 2 percent in @ @ @ @ @ @ @ work by Abrams and her allies , many restrictive voting rules that led to disenfranchisement in 2018 were also reformed through litigation and advocacy .
In 2020 , it was harder for election officials to throw out mail ballots for mismatched signatures , and voters had a chance to fix problems with their ballots after Election Day .
In 2018 , Black and Latino voters were more likely than white voters to have their mail ballots rejected , and young voters were more likely than older voters .
The overall rejection rate for @ @ @ @ @ @ @ 2018 to just .2 percent in November .
Counties in metro Atlanta processed absentee ballots more quickly and made their designs less confusing .
When the secretary of state removed 300,000 voters who he claimed had died or moved from the rolls in December 2019 , Fair Fight sued and reinstated 22,000 voters who were still eligible to vote .
A law mandating that early voting locations be in government buildings was repealed , allowing the Atlanta Hawks ’ arena to become a massive polling place in downtown Atlanta .
In addition to @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Fight contacted 1 million voters a week urging them to make a plan to vote early , either in person or by mail .
“ When I would go to the polls , I would hear , ‘ We ’ re not going to let them steal this one , ’ ” says Brown .
“ That ’ s why I think you had so many people vote early.
” Eighty percent of Georgians voted early , leading to many fewer problems on Election Day .
It was by no means perfect—there were @ @ @ @ @ @ @ early voting in Atlanta—but people stood in line to make sure their votes were counted .
The record turnout in 2020 , the organizing efforts against suppression , and the diverse coalition that elected Biden is giving Democrats hope in runoff elections where the party usually faces steep odds .
Runoff elections were instituted in the early 1960s , before the passage of the Voting Rights Act , specifically to disenfranchise Black voters .
In 1963 , after the Supreme Court struck down an electoral system in Georgia that gave conservative rural counties @ @ @ @ @ @ @ , a segregationist state representative named Denmark Groover fretted that “ all we have to have is a plurality and the Negroes and the pressure groups and special interests are going to manipulate this State and take charge.
” So he introduced a new system where no candidate could win without an outright majority of the vote .
If no candidate reached 50 percent , a runoff would ensue— “ as a means , ” Groover said , “ of circumventing what is called the Negro bloc vote.
” Ever since , the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ older , whiter , and more Republican than in general elections .
Since the 1990s , Democrats have won only one of seven statewide runoffs in Georgia .
In 1992 and 2008 , Democratic US Senate candidates lost when turnout dropped more than 40 percent from the general election .
In 2018 , Democratic secretary of state candidate John Barrow trailed Republican Brad Raffensberger by just 16,000 votes in the general election .
He lost the runoff by 55,000 votes , with turnout only a third of the November number .
Getting voters @ @ @ @ @ @ @ is no easy task : The runoff comes right after the holiday season , COVID-19 cases are spiking , and many voters are fatigued after a never-ending presidential election .
“ We ’ re trying to talk to Southerners over Thanksgiving , Chanukah , Christmas , New Year ’ s , Festivus for the rest of us , ” says Nsé Ufot , executive director of the New Georgia Project , which Abrams founded in 2014 .
“ Competing with the noise is a huge hurdle.
” But whereas Democrats—and young and Black @ @ @ @ @ @ @ loss in 2018 , Ufot says they ’ re energized this year .
“ The results of the general have helped better than any cute meme , ” she says .
“ Having the entire country wait with bated breath while Georgia ’ s returns come in , having the margin be so small , and then confirmed in recount after recount , has done more than anything to combat the narrative that my vote doesn ’ t matter.
” Far more money , manpower , and organizing resources have poured into Georgia—to @ @ @ @ @ @ @ typical runoff .
Fair Fight alone has raised more than $ 34 million in roughly the span of a month .
Marisa Pyle , an organizer with Fair Fight , compared the Senate races to Doug Jones ’ Senate victory over Roy Moore in Alabama in December 2017 , which was powered by high Black turnout and crossover voting among moderate whites in a deep-red state .
“ It was a race that got a lot of national attention , around the same time of year , in a state in the South @ @ @ @ @ @ @ she said .
Fair Fight has recruited more volunteers for the runoffs than it did in the run-up to November .
“ If anything , there ’ s been an increase in enthusiasm , ” Pyle said .
The group usually had between 800 to 2,000 volunteers during weekends of action during the general election , but in the first weekend after Georgia ’ s presidential race was called , it trained 5,700 new volunteers , who contacted 1.6 million voters by phone or text , urging them to make a plan to @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Project plans to knock on 1 million doors by the end of the year , and text and call 5 million voters .
It registered 10,000 new voters in the month after the election .
This organizing work seems to be paying off .
A million mail-in ballots have been requested for the runoff , an impressive number considering that 1.3 million people voted by mail in November .
“ I don ’ t think we ’ ll approach the numbers for the general , but I do think we ’ ll exceed @ @ @ @ @ @ @ ve seen in recent Georgia history , ” Ufot says .
The Georgia Republican Party , meanwhile , is in the midst of a full-scale civil war , with GOP Senators David Perdue and Kelly Loeffler calling on Raffensberger to resign and Trump slamming Gov .
Brian Kemp for refusing to pursue bogus claims of voter fraud .
Republican senators refused to urge Trump to concede to Biden because they reportedly didn ’ t want to alienate his red-meat base in Georgia , but that strategy seems to be backfiring , with Trump-allied @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Republicans not to vote for Perdue and Loeffler in the runoffs because the general election was rigged .
“ They have not earned your vote , ” Wood said at a raucous rally in suburban Atlanta last week , where Trump voters chanted “ lock him up ” about Kemp .
“ Don ’ t you give it to them .
Why would you go back and vote in another rigged election , for god ’ s sake ?
” While Republicans are melting down , Democrats and Black organizers are focused on @ @ @ @ @ @ @ that can pass Biden ’ s legislative agenda .
“ Georgia is ground zero for voter suppression , ” says Brown .
“ And now it will be the state to determine the policy and leadership direction of this country .
”

Fight disinformation: Sign up for the free Mother Jones Daily newsletter and follow the news that matters.
On November 16, 2018, when she ended her bid to become Georgia’s governor, Stacey Abrams listed the many problems that had made it more difficult to vote in that month’s election: 1.5 million voters purged from the rolls, more than 50,000 put on a “pending” registration list, more than 200 polling places closed, thousands of mail ballots rejected, and waits of up to five hours to cast a ballot—tactics that disproportionately harmed voters of color. “Democracy failed Georgians,” Abrams declared.
Nineteen months later, the state had an even worse election meltdown during its June presidential primary. Voting machines malfunctioned, 80 more polling places were closed in metro Atlanta, thousands of mail ballots never arrived or were rejected, and wait times at predominantly Black and Latino precincts were more than six times longer than in majority-white areas.
“2018 was the cake, the primary of 2020 was the icing in terms of the problems,” says LaTosha Brown, co-founder of Black Voters Matter, who lives in Atlanta and works to mobilize Black voters in the South.
But in the November 2020 election, democracy, improbably, worked in Georgia. The state saw its highest turnout in 40 years. Democrats have believed for some time that a rapidly diversifying electorate would allow them to be competitive in Georgia, but repeated voter suppression efforts had kept that electorate from fully forming. Now, two years of determined organizing against voter suppression created the conditions for Joe Biden to carry the state by just under 12,000 votes, making him the first Democratic presidential candidate in 28 years to win Georgia.
“There were still long lines, there were still problems with absentee balloting,” says Lauren Groh-Wargo, CEO of the voting rights group Fair Fight Action and Abrams’ campaign manager in 2018. “But the collective work on litigation, advocacy, voter education, voter suppression mitigation that we and so many allies did really ensured that there was a multi-ethnic, multi-racial coalition that could come out to support Joe Biden.”
That electorate—along with the organizing that spurred it—is now giving Democrats hope that Raphael Warnock and Jon Ossoff can win runoff elections for the US Senate on January 5, races that would have seemed almost unwinnable in past years.
A host of Black-led organizing groups, from Fair Fight to Black Voters Matter to the New Georgia Project, channeled their anger over what happened in 2018 into concerted efforts to remove barriers to the ballot box. Brown compared it to a scene in the ESPN documentary The Last Dance where Michael Jordan loses a key playoff game and shows up to practice the next day furiously motivated. “We took the energy of what happened to us with voter suppression and literally redirected that energy to be a motivating factor to organize and energize people,” she says.
The electorate in 2020 was the one Abrams envisioned in 2018. People of color made up nearly 40 percent of all voters, and Biden won roughly 70 percent of their votes. He improved on Abrams’ margin in eight counties in metro Atlanta, building a remarkably diverse coalition of new voters, young voters, people of color, and moderate white suburbanites. According to an analysis by the Democratic data firm Target Smart, Asian American turnout increased by 91 percent from 2016 to 2020, Latino turnout by 72 percent, and Black turnout by 20 percent, while white turnout grew by just 16 percent.
Between 2016 and 2020, 1 million new voters were registered through Georgia’s system of automatic voter registration at motor vehicle offices and registration drives by grassroots groups. Two-thirds of them were people of color. Amazingly, the number of eligible but unregistered Georgians fell from 22 percent in 2016 to just 2 percent in 2020.
In addition to high-profile organizing work by Abrams and her allies, many restrictive voting rules that led to disenfranchisement in 2018 were also reformed through litigation and advocacy.
In 2020, it was harder for election officials to throw out mail ballots for mismatched signatures, and voters had a chance to fix problems with their ballots after Election Day. In 2018, Black and Latino voters were more likely than white voters to have their mail ballots rejected, and young voters were more likely than older voters. The overall rejection rate for mail ballots fell from 3.4 percent in 2018 to just .2 percent in November.
Counties in metro Atlanta processed absentee ballots more quickly and made their designs less confusing. When the secretary of state removed 300,000 voters who he claimed had died or moved from the rolls in December 2019, Fair Fight sued and reinstated 22,000 voters who were still eligible to vote. A law mandating that early voting locations be in government buildings was repealed, allowing the Atlanta Hawks’ arena to become a massive polling place in downtown Atlanta.
In addition to expanding voter access, groups like Fair Fight contacted 1 million voters a week urging them to make a plan to vote early, either in person or by mail. “When I would go to the polls, I would hear, ‘We’re not going to let them steal this one,’” says Brown. “That’s why I think you had so many people vote early.” Eighty percent of Georgians voted early, leading to many fewer problems on Election Day. It was by no means perfect—there were 11-hour lines on the first day of early voting in Atlanta—but people stood in line to make sure their votes were counted.
The record turnout in 2020, the organizing efforts against suppression, and the diverse coalition that elected Biden is giving Democrats hope in runoff elections where the party usually faces steep odds. Runoff elections were instituted in the early 1960s, before the passage of the Voting Rights Act, specifically to disenfranchise Black voters. In 1963, after the Supreme Court struck down an electoral system in Georgia that gave conservative rural counties far more power than moderate urban ones, a segregationist state representative named Denmark Groover fretted that “all we have to have is a plurality and the Negroes and the pressure groups and special interests are going to manipulate this State and take charge.” So he introduced a new system where no candidate could win without an outright majority of the vote. If no candidate reached 50 percent, a runoff would ensue—“as a means,” Groover said, “of circumventing what is called the Negro bloc vote.”
Ever since, the electorate in runoffs has been smaller, older, whiter, and more Republican than in general elections. Since the 1990s, Democrats have won only one of seven statewide runoffs in Georgia. In 1992 and 2008, Democratic US Senate candidates lost when turnout dropped more than 40 percent from the general election. In 2018, Democratic secretary of state candidate John Barrow trailed Republican Brad Raffensberger by just 16,000 votes in the general election. He lost the runoff by 55,000 votes, with turnout only a third of the November number.
Getting voters back to the polls in early January is no easy task: The runoff comes right after the holiday season, COVID-19 cases are spiking, and many voters are fatigued after a never-ending presidential election. “We’re trying to talk to Southerners over Thanksgiving, Chanukah, Christmas, New Year’s, Festivus for the rest of us,” says Nsé Ufot, executive director of the New Georgia Project, which Abrams founded in 2014. “Competing with the noise is a huge hurdle.”
But whereas Democrats—and young and Black voters in particular—were deflated after Abrams’ loss in 2018, Ufot says they’re energized this year. “The results of the general have helped better than any cute meme,” she says. “Having the entire country wait with bated breath while Georgia’s returns come in, having the margin be so small, and then confirmed in recount after recount, has done more than anything to combat the narrative that my vote doesn’t matter.”
Far more money, manpower, and organizing resources have poured into Georgia—to both candidates and outside groups—than in a typical runoff. Fair Fight alone has raised more than $34 million in roughly the span of a month. Marisa Pyle, an organizer with Fair Fight, compared the Senate races to Doug Jones’ Senate victory over Roy Moore in Alabama in December 2017, which was powered by high Black turnout and crossover voting among moderate whites in a deep-red state. “It was a race that got a lot of national attention, around the same time of year, in a state in the South that is comparable to Georgia,” she said.
Fair Fight has recruited more volunteers for the runoffs than it did in the run-up to November. “If anything, there’s been an increase in enthusiasm,” Pyle said. The group usually had between 800 to 2,000 volunteers during weekends of action during the general election, but in the first weekend after Georgia’s presidential race was called, it trained 5,700 new volunteers, who contacted 1.6 million voters by phone or text, urging them to make a plan to vote.
Similarly, the New Georgia Project plans to knock on 1 million doors by the end of the year, and text and call 5 million voters. It registered 10,000 new voters in the month after the election.
This organizing work seems to be paying off. A million mail-in ballots have been requested for the runoff, an impressive number considering that 1.3 million people voted by mail in November. “I don’t think we’ll approach the numbers for the general, but I do think we’ll exceed turnout rates for any runoff we’ve seen in recent Georgia history,” Ufot says.
The Georgia Republican Party, meanwhile, is in the midst of a full-scale civil war, with GOP Senators David Perdue and Kelly Loeffler calling on Raffensberger to resign and Trump slamming Gov. Brian Kemp for refusing to pursue bogus claims of voter fraud. Republican senators refused to urge Trump to concede to Biden because they reportedly didn’t want to alienate his red-meat base in Georgia, but that strategy seems to be backfiring, with Trump-allied lawyers Lin Wood and Sidney Powell telling Republicans not to vote for Perdue and Loeffler in the runoffs because the general election was rigged.
“They have not earned your vote,” Wood said at a raucous rally in suburban Atlanta last week, where Trump voters chanted “lock him up” about Kemp. “Don’t you give it to them. Why would you go back and vote in another rigged election, for god’s sake?”
While Republicans are melting down, Democrats and Black organizers are focused on electing a majority in the US Senate that can pass Biden’s legislative agenda. “Georgia is ground zero for voter suppression,” says Brown. “And now it will be the state to determine the policy and leadership direction of this country.”


motherjones--2020-12-07--After Trump Loosened the Rules of Engagement, Civilian Casualties in Afghanistan Rose by 95 Percent

More than three years ago , President Donald Trump announced that he would “ lift restrictions and expand authorities ” for United States troops in Afghanistan—giving the military a freer hand to order airstrikes .
Now the cost of that lax approach is becoming clear .
Since 2017 , the United States , its international allies , and the Afghan government have killed an average of 1,134 civilians per year , a nearly 95 percent increase from the average between 2007 and 2016 , according to report released Monday from Brown University and Boston University ’ s Costs of War @ @ @ @ @ @ @ has come from an aggressive escalation of the Defense Department ’ s air war and a greater handoff of responsibilities to the Afghan Air Force .
Even as US airstrikes briefly declined earlier this year following the February announcement of a peace agreement between the Taliban and United States , the US-backed Afghan Air Force has bombed at a more frequent clip—with more devastating consequences .
Through September , Afghan Air Force strikes have killed 156 civilians , a 38 percent increase from all of last year , though that number could dip @ @ @ @ @ @ @ have reached their own , preliminary peace deal .
( The February agreement didn ’ t include the Afghan government . )
After Trump took office , the Pentagon escalated its air war against the Taliban and the Islamic State in Afghanistan , leading to a historic increase in civilian casualties .
In 2017 , the United States bombed Afghanistan at its highest rate since 2011 , the height of the Obama-era troop surge .
That April , Trump approved the use of a weapon nicknamed the “ mother of all bombs ” @ @ @ @ @ @ @ .
In comments to the press after the attack , Trump congratulated himself for loosening the military ’ s rules of engagement .
“ What I do is I authorize my military , ” Trump said .
“ We have given them total authorization and that ’ s what they ’ re doing and , frankly , that ’ s why they ’ ve been so successful lately.
” A few months later , in testimony before the Senate Armed Services Committee , then-Defense Secretary James Mattis made clear what that “ total @ @ @ @ @ @ @ originally needed to satisfy a “ proximity requirement ” under which US troops or an allied group must be close to enemy forces in order to reduce the likelihood of civilians being harmed .
“ That is no longer the case , ” Mattis told lawmakers , meaning the restrictions “ that did not allow us to employ the air power fully have been removed.
” Fewer restrictions on airstrikes generally portends more civilian casualties .
That certainly proved to be the case in Afghanistan .
After killing 154 civilians from airstrikes in @ @ @ @ @ @ @ allies killed 393 in 2018 and 546 in 2019 .
( In 2019 , Trump told reporters , “ We could win Afghanistan in two days or three days or four days if we wanted , but I ’ m not looking to kill 10 million people.
” ) In fact , under Trump , the US military was pursuing a strategy that tolerated a higher risk of bloodshed as the cost of putting more pressure on Taliban negotiators .
Neta Crawford , a Boston University political science professor who wrote the Costs @ @ @ @ @ @ @ military ’ s approach to Mother Jones as “ when you put the thumbscrews on people , they ’ ll capitulate.
” That ’ s why the number of Afghan civilians killed by international airstrikes increased by 330 percent from 2016 to 2019 , the most recent year for which complete data is available .
“ Civilians have paid the price for this doctrine , this theory of victory , ” Crawford said , comparing it to the similar , failed strategies employed by the United States military in Vietnam and Korea .
@ @ @ @ @ @ @ more than increasing the will to resist.
” The depth of the US military ’ s continuing involvement in Afghanistan is not entirely clear .
After signing the peace deal with the Taliban in February , which included conditions for withdrawing US troops , the Pentagon stopped releasing certain figures crucial to understanding the war effort , including monthly summaries of airstrikes and information about Taliban attacks against the Afghan government .
The exact number of US troops in the country is also murky .
In February 2020 , Crawford reports , there @ @ @ @ @ @ @ in Afghanistan.
” Trump has said he intends to reduce that number to about 1,500 people by the end of his term .
Even as the US military presence has decreased in Afghanistan—from 100,000 at the Obama-era peak to possibly fewer than 2,000 when Joe Biden is inaugurated—US airpower poses a continued threat to Afghan civilians .
Between August and October , months after the peace deal with the Taliban was completed , US airstrikes increased again to help the Afghan government ward off rising levels of Taliban violence , the special inspector @ @ @ @ @ @ @ quarterly report .
The result has been a grisly stain on Trump ’ s record—and a retread of the same policies US generals were warning against in the early days of the Obama administration .
Shortly after General Stanley McChrystal took control of US forces in Afghanistan in June 2009 , he ordered that the rules of engagement for airstrikes be tightened .
“ Air power contains the seeds of our own destruction if we do not use it responsibly , ” he told a group of his senior officers , according to @ @ @ @ @ @ @ .
“ We can lose this fight.
” In his memoir , which Crawford quotes in her report , McChrystal was even more blunt about the cost of civilian casualties in imprecise airstrikes .
“ We ’ re going to lose this fucking war if we don ’ t stop killing civilians , ” he recalls telling his staff .
Ten years later , the United States is still fighting the same war .

Fight disinformation: Sign up for the free Mother Jones Daily newsletter and follow the news that matters.
More than three years ago, President Donald Trump announced that he would “lift restrictions and expand authorities” for United States troops in Afghanistan—giving the military a freer hand to order airstrikes. Now the cost of that lax approach is becoming clear.
Since 2017, the United States, its international allies, and the Afghan government have killed an average of 1,134 civilians per year, a nearly 95 percent increase from the average between 2007 and 2016, according to report released Monday from Brown University and Boston University’s Costs of War Project. The bulk of that increase has come from an aggressive escalation of the Defense Department’s air war and a greater handoff of responsibilities to the Afghan Air Force.
Even as US airstrikes briefly declined earlier this year following the February announcement of a peace agreement between the Taliban and United States, the US-backed Afghan Air Force has bombed at a more frequent clip—with more devastating consequences. Through September, Afghan Air Force strikes have killed 156 civilians, a 38 percent increase from all of last year, though that number could dip now that the Taliban and Afghan government have reached their own, preliminary peace deal. (The February agreement didn’t include the Afghan government.)
After Trump took office, the Pentagon escalated its air war against the Taliban and the Islamic State in Afghanistan, leading to a historic increase in civilian casualties. In 2017, the United States bombed Afghanistan at its highest rate since 2011, the height of the Obama-era troop surge. That April, Trump approved the use of a weapon nicknamed the “mother of all bombs” on an Islamic State hideout in Afghanistan. In comments to the press after the attack, Trump congratulated himself for loosening the military’s rules of engagement. “What I do is I authorize my military,” Trump said. “We have given them total authorization and that’s what they’re doing and, frankly, that’s why they’ve been so successful lately.”
A few months later, in testimony before the Senate Armed Services Committee, then-Defense Secretary James Mattis made clear what that “total authorization” entailed. A US airstrike originally needed to satisfy a “proximity requirement” under which US troops or an allied group must be close to enemy forces in order to reduce the likelihood of civilians being harmed. “That is no longer the case,” Mattis told lawmakers, meaning the restrictions “that did not allow us to employ the air power fully have been removed.” Fewer restrictions on airstrikes generally portends more civilian casualties. That certainly proved to be the case in Afghanistan. After killing 154 civilians from airstrikes in 2017, the United States and its allies killed 393 in 2018 and 546 in 2019. (In 2019, Trump told reporters, “We could win Afghanistan in two days or three days or four days if we wanted, but I’m not looking to kill 10 million people.”)
In fact, under Trump, the US military was pursuing a strategy that tolerated a higher risk of bloodshed as the cost of putting more pressure on Taliban negotiators. Neta Crawford, a Boston University political science professor who wrote the Costs of War Project study, described the military’s approach to Mother Jones as “when you put the thumbscrews on people, they’ll capitulate.” That’s why the number of Afghan civilians killed by international airstrikes increased by 330 percent from 2016 to 2019, the most recent year for which complete data is available. “Civilians have paid the price for this doctrine, this theory of victory,” Crawford said, comparing it to the similar, failed strategies employed by the United States military in Vietnam and Korea. “It doesn’t accomplish much more than increasing the will to resist.”
The depth of the US military’s continuing involvement in Afghanistan is not entirely clear. After signing the peace deal with the Taliban in February, which included conditions for withdrawing US troops, the Pentagon stopped releasing certain figures crucial to understanding the war effort, including monthly summaries of airstrikes and information about Taliban attacks against the Afghan government.
The exact number of US troops in the country is also murky. In February 2020, Crawford reports, there were “about 12,000 US military personnel in Afghanistan.” Trump has said he intends to reduce that number to about 1,500 people by the end of his term. Even as the US military presence has decreased in Afghanistan—from 100,000 at the Obama-era peak to possibly fewer than 2,000 when Joe Biden is inaugurated—US airpower poses a continued threat to Afghan civilians. Between August and October, months after the peace deal with the Taliban was completed, US airstrikes increased again to help the Afghan government ward off rising levels of Taliban violence, the special inspector general for Afghanistan reconstruction concluded in a quarterly report.
The result has been a grisly stain on Trump’s record—and a retread of the same policies US generals were warning against in the early days of the Obama administration. Shortly after General Stanley McChrystal took control of US forces in Afghanistan in June 2009, he ordered that the rules of engagement for airstrikes be tightened. “Air power contains the seeds of our own destruction if we do not use it responsibly,” he told a group of his senior officers, according to a New York Times story that month. “We can lose this fight.” In his memoir, which Crawford quotes in her report, McChrystal was even more blunt about the cost of civilian casualties in imprecise airstrikes. “We’re going to lose this fucking war if we don’t stop killing civilians,” he recalls telling his staff. Ten years later, the United States is still fighting the same war.