motherjones--2020-01-05--The US-Led Forces Fighting ISIS Just Backed Off—to Protect Against a Potential Attack From Iran

The American-led coalition that has been fighting the Islamic State announced on Sunday that it will halt its mission in order to prepare to defend itself against a potential attack from Iran .
The decision comes on the heels of the US airstrike that killed Iranian Maj. General Qassim Suleimani , the nation ’ s top military commander , last week .
While Suleimani ’ s leadership has been responsible for the death of hundreds of troops , President Donald Trump ’ s decision to order the strike has been viewed as an extreme measure and reportedly shocked US military @ @ @ @ @ @ @ has promised “ harsh revenge ” against US assets in the region in response to Suleimani ’ s death .
A statement from the American command announcing the pause in fighting pointed to repeated attacks on Iraqi and American bases over the last several weeks , including one on December 27 that killed an American contractor .
“ [ W ] e have therefore paused these activities , subject to continuous review , ” the statement said .
This move is just one of the ways that Suleimani ’ s death has rearranged @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Hours before the coalition ’ s announcement , the Iraqi parliament voted to expel the thousands of troops that remain in Iraq in order to remove itself from an escalating conflict between the country ’ s two most important allies .
The vote has no force to actually remove the troops , but it casts doubt on the future of the United States ’ efforts against ISIS in the region when fighting does resume .
The American military has also beefed up security around other bases and assets across the region .
The @ @ @ @ @ @ @ affects 5,200 troops in Iraq and hundreds more in Syria , who will now focus on building up defenses .
This pause in operations could encourage the Islamic State , which has been weakened after years of fighting with the US-led coalition , to regain strength in ungoverned areas across those countries .

Fight disinformation: Sign up for the free Mother Jones Daily newsletter and follow the news that matters.
The American-led coalition that has been fighting the Islamic State announced on Sunday that it will halt its mission in order to prepare to defend itself against a potential attack from Iran.
The decision comes on the heels of the US airstrike that killed Iranian Maj. General Qassim Suleimani, the nation’s top military commander, last week. While Suleimani’s leadership has been responsible for the death of hundreds of troops, President Donald Trump’s decision to order the strike has been viewed as an extreme measure and reportedly shocked US military officials. Iranian Supreme Leader Ayatollah Khamenei has promised “harsh revenge” against US assets in the region in response to Suleimani’s death.
A statement from the American command announcing the pause in fighting pointed to repeated attacks on Iraqi and American bases over the last several weeks, including one on December 27 that killed an American contractor. “[W]e have therefore paused these activities, subject to continuous review,” the statement said.
This move is just one of the ways that Suleimani’s death has rearranged the chessboard across the Middle East. Hours before the coalition’s announcement, the Iraqi parliament voted to expel the thousands of troops that remain in Iraq in order to remove itself from an escalating conflict between the country’s two most important allies. The vote has no force to actually remove the troops, but it casts doubt on the future of the United States’ efforts against ISIS in the region when fighting does resume. The American military has also beefed up security around other bases and assets across the region.
The New York Times reported that the decision affects 5,200 troops in Iraq and hundreds more in Syria, who will now focus on building up defenses. This pause in operations could encourage the Islamic State, which has been weakened after years of fighting with the US-led coalition, to regain strength in ungoverned areas across those countries.


motherjones--2020-01-05--Donald Trump Threatened Iran With War Crimes. Mike Pompeo Doesn’t See a Problem With That.

President Donald Trump sent a string of tweets on Saturday night threatening further military action against Iran—including strikes on key cultural sites , which could be considered a war crime under international law—in response to Iran ’ s promised retaliation for the killing of its most powerful military official last week .
On Sunday , in appearances on the morning political shows , Secretary of State Mike Pompeo signaled his support for that strategy .
Trump tweeted that his administration had identified 52 Iranian sites—a number , he explained , that represents the 52 Americans taken hostage in the American @ @ @ @ @ @ @ VERY FAST AND VERY HARD ” if Iran strikes US assets as retribution against a US airstrike that killed Maj. General Qassim Suleimani , Iran ’ s top commander .
Some of the sites , Trump wrote , are “ at the very high level & important to Iran & the Iranian culture.
” Both the Department of Defense ’ s Law of War Manual and the internationally agreed-upon Geneva Conventions prohibit attacks on recognized historic monuments , works of art , or places of worship known as sites of cultural or spiritual @ @ @ @ @ @ @ on CNN ’ s State of the Union , Pompeo backed the president .
“ The American people should know that we will not waver , ” he said .
“ We will be bold in protecting American interests , and we will do so in a way that is consistent with the rule of law.
” When host Jake Tapper asked about the potential violation of international law , Pompeo did not express concern over the chosen cultural site targets .
The Trump administration has maintained that killing Suleimani had been a @ @ @ @ @ @ @ out an “ imminent ” attack that would have left hundreds dead .
On Saturday , the New York Times reported that some administration officials had been concerned that the intelligence about that planned attack had been thin .
According to the Times , military officials gave Trump a number of options of how to proceed in response to that threat—including killing Suleimani—and were reportedly shocked when he chose that option , which they deemed extreme .
Pompeo and Vice President Mike Pence reportedly had been among the most hawkish in their encouragement @ @ @ @ @ @ @ on CBS ’ s Face the Nation later Sunday morning , however , Pompeo was evasive when host Margaret Brennan asked if the threat had been removed after the strike against Suleimani .
“ There are constant threats , ” Pompeo said .
“ We are focused on delivering a strategy .
”

Fight disinformation: Sign up for the free Mother Jones Daily newsletter and follow the news that matters.
President Donald Trump sent a string of tweets on Saturday night threatening further military action against Iran—including strikes on key cultural sites, which could be considered a war crime under international law—in response to Iran’s promised retaliation for the killing of its most powerful military official last week. On Sunday, in appearances on the morning political shows, Secretary of State Mike Pompeo signaled his support for that strategy.
Trump tweeted that his administration had identified 52 Iranian sites—a number, he explained, that represents the 52 Americans taken hostage in the American embassy in Tehran in 1979—to “HIT VERY FAST AND VERY HARD” if Iran strikes US assets as retribution against a US airstrike that killed Maj. General Qassim Suleimani, Iran’s top commander. Some of the sites, Trump wrote, are “at the very high level & important to Iran & the Iranian culture.” Both the Department of Defense’s Law of War Manual and the internationally agreed-upon Geneva Conventions prohibit attacks on recognized historic monuments, works of art, or places of worship known as sites of cultural or spiritual heritage.
….targeted 52 Iranian sites (representing the 52 American hostages taken by Iran many years ago), some at a very high level & important to Iran & the Iranian culture, and those targets, and Iran itself, WILL BE HIT VERY FAST AND VERY HARD. The USA wants no more threats! — Donald J. Trump (@realDonaldTrump) January 4, 2020
When asked about the tweets on CNN’s State of the Union, Pompeo backed the president. “The American people should know that we will not waver,” he said. “We will be bold in protecting American interests, and we will do so in a way that is consistent with the rule of law.” When host Jake Tapper asked about the potential violation of international law, Pompeo did not express concern over the chosen cultural site targets.
The Trump administration has maintained that killing Suleimani had been a necessary step to prevent Iran from carrying out an “imminent” attack that would have left hundreds dead. On Saturday, the New York Times reported that some administration officials had been concerned that the intelligence about that planned attack had been thin. According to the Times, military officials gave Trump a number of options of how to proceed in response to that threat—including killing Suleimani—and were reportedly shocked when he chose that option, which they deemed extreme. Pompeo and Vice President Mike Pence reportedly had been among the most hawkish in their encouragement of the strike.
In an appearance on CBS’s Face the Nation later Sunday morning, however, Pompeo was evasive when host Margaret Brennan asked if the threat had been removed after the strike against Suleimani. “There are constant threats,” Pompeo said. “We are focused on delivering a strategy.”


motherjones--2020-01-04--Australia Is Burning Like Never Before. These 9 Photos Show the Horrific Devastation.

Australia launched its largest military operation since World War II this weekend , not against a human enemy but to @ @ @ @ @ the country .
Thus far , 23 people have died as 140 blazes have devoured @ @ @ @ @ .
To combat the fires , which are only expected to get worse as Australia @ @ @ @ @ conditions , the government is mobilizing 3,000 army reservists , aircraft , and naval ships @ @ @ @ @ fires , the New York Times reported Saturday .
“ It is the first time @ @ @ @ @ out in this way in living memory , ” Defense Minister Linda Reynolds said .
@ @ @ @ @ the future are expected to worsen due to climate change .
Here are more images @ @ @ @ @ devastation in Australia .

“A VOICE OF REASON.” “A DAILY DOSE OF SANITY.”
“A daily dose of sanity.” “Like chatting with a friend who actually knows what they’re talking about.” That’s how readers describe our free Mother Jones Daily newsletter. See why: Sign up today to get reporting that helps you cut through the noise, plus deep dives on underreported topics.
“Like chatting with a friend who actually knows what they’re talking about.” That’s how readers describe our free Mother Jones Daily newsletter. See why: Sign up today to get reporting that helps you cut through the noise, plus deep dives on underreported topics.
Close Thank you for subscribing!
By signing up, you agree to our privacy policy and terms of use, and to receive messages from Mother Jones and our partners.


motherjones--2020-01-04--A Democratic Senator Has Introduced a Resolution to Prevent War with Iran

Senator Tim Kaine ( D-Va. ) introduced a resolution on Friday to prevent a war with Iran in the aftermath of President Donald Trump ’ s decision to kill the nation ’ s top military leader , Gen. Qassem Soleimani—which threw a match into the combustible relationship between the United States and Iran .
“ The president does not have the authority for a war with Iran , ” Senate Minority Leader Chuck Schumer said on the Senate floor Friday .
“ If he plans a large increase in troops and potential hostility over a longer time , the administration @ @ @ @ @ @ @ of the American people.
” Sen. Rand Paul ( R-Ky. ) tweeted that a new war should be approved by Congress .
“ We took action last night to stop a war , ” Trump told reporters at Mar-a-Lago Friday .
“ We did not take action to start a war.
” But the president has escalated tensions with Iran , starting with his decision to leave the Iran nuclear deal .
And experts have warned that war is a possibility .
“ Any spark in the region could set off this fire @ @ @ @ @ @ @ weapons policy expert and former adviser to the State Department , told Mother Jones this summer .
President Donald Trump ’ s rushed decision to execute Soleimani appears to have been made with little preparation for the fallout from the decision—the threat of war and destabilization in the Middle East that kept the last two presidents from killing the dangerous military leader .
Top officials at the Department of Homeland Security gathered on Thursday and Friday to game out how Iran might follow through on its promise of “ forceful revenge , ” @ @ @ @ @ @ @ The US urged all American citizens in Iraq , where Soleimani was killed along with Abu Mahdi al-Muhandis , an Iraqi militia commander and government official , to leave the country .
The Pentagon will deploy an additional 3,000 troops to the Middle East to help secure the region .
Saturday brought reports of a second airstrike in Iraq which allegedly blew up two military vehicles and may have killed five people , though the United States says it is not responsible .
It may be up to Congress to put the breaks @ @ @ @ @ @ @ threatens to become a new war in the Middle East .
Kaine ’ s war-powers resolution would force the Senate to debate and vote on whether to stop the increase in hostilities until the administration receives approval from Congress .
But even if the Senate and House passed the resolution , Trump could still veto it .
“ Our country has , quite self-consciously , given one person , the President , an enormous sprawling military and enormous discretion to use it in ways that can easily lead to a massive war , @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Department lawyer under President George W. Bush , tweeted Friday .
“ That is our system : one person decides .
”

Fight disinformation: Sign up for the free Mother Jones Daily newsletter and follow the news that matters.
Senator Tim Kaine (D-Va.) introduced a resolution on Friday to prevent a war with Iran in the aftermath of President Donald Trump’s decision to kill the nation’s top military leader, Gen. Qassem Soleimani—which threw a match into the combustible relationship between the United States and Iran.
I just filed a resolution to prevent Trump from starting a war with Iran. The President wants to pretend that Congress doesn't exist, but it's our clear Constitutional duty to debate and vote before allowing him to rush into an unnecessary war. — Tim Kaine (@timkaine) January 3, 2020
“The president does not have the authority for a war with Iran,” Senate Minority Leader Chuck Schumer said on the Senate floor Friday. “If he plans a large increase in troops and potential hostility over a longer time, the administration will require congressional approval and the approval of the American people.”
Sen. Rand Paul (R-Ky.) tweeted that a new war should be approved by Congress.
If we are to go to war w/ Iran the Constitution dictates that we declare war. A war without a Congressional declaration is a recipe for feckless intermittent eruptions of violence w/ no clear mission for our soldiers. Our young men and women in the armed services deserve better. — Senator Rand Paul (@RandPaul) January 3, 2020
“We took action last night to stop a war,” Trump told reporters at Mar-a-Lago Friday. “We did not take action to start a war.”
But the president has escalated tensions with Iran, starting with his decision to leave the Iran nuclear deal. And experts have warned that war is a possibility. “Any spark in the region could set off this fire,” Joe Cirincione, a nuclear weapons policy expert and former adviser to the State Department, told Mother Jones this summer.
President Donald Trump’s rushed decision to execute Soleimani appears to have been made with little preparation for the fallout from the decision—the threat of war and destabilization in the Middle East that kept the last two presidents from killing the dangerous military leader. Top officials at the Department of Homeland Security gathered on Thursday and Friday to game out how Iran might follow through on its promise of “forceful revenge,” including the possibility of cyber attacks. The US urged all American citizens in Iraq, where Soleimani was killed along with Abu Mahdi al-Muhandis, an Iraqi militia commander and government official, to leave the country. The Pentagon will deploy an additional 3,000 troops to the Middle East to help secure the region.
Saturday brought reports of a second airstrike in Iraq which allegedly blew up two military vehicles and may have killed five people, though the United States says it is not responsible.
It may be up to Congress to put the breaks on an escalating exchange of blows that threatens to become a new war in the Middle East. Kaine’s war-powers resolution would force the Senate to debate and vote on whether to stop the increase in hostilities until the administration receives approval from Congress. But even if the Senate and House passed the resolution, Trump could still veto it.
“Our country has, quite self-consciously, given one person, the President, an enormous sprawling military and enormous discretion to use it in ways that can easily lead to a massive war,” Jack Goldsmith, a former Justice Department lawyer under President George W. Bush, tweeted Friday. “That is our system: one person decides.”


motherjones--2020-01-07--Michael Flynn’s Legal Strategy Was Based on Conspiracy Theories. It Just Backfired.

Just over a year ago , special counsel Robert Mueller ’ s office recommended that former national security adviser Michael Flynn receive no prison time for lying to the FBI .
Prosecutors at the time praised Flynn for providing “ substantial assistance ” to law enforcement .
But on Tuesday , those prosecutors reversed course , excoriating Flynn for failing to accept responsibility for his crimes and for “ his affirmative efforts to undermine ” a separate prosecution in which Flynn had agreed to act as a witness .
Flynn , they argued , should now receive up to six @ @ @ @ @ @ @ s case dates back to the presidential transition period in 2016 .
In December of that year , the Obama administration slapped Russia with sanctions in response to its efforts to assist Donald Trump during the election .
Flynn , who Trump had chosen to serve as national security , then spoke by phone with Russian Ambassador Sergey Kislyak .
According to the Mueller report , Flynn urged Kislyak not to escalate the dispute and then told another transition official that Russia would refrain from doing so because it “ wanted a good @ @ @ @ @ @ @ in January 2017 , Flynn told FBI agents that he had not discussed sanctions with Kislyak at all .
Flynn reportedly also lied to Vice President Mike Pence about the calls , which led to his firing as national security adviser .
In late 2017 , Flynn agreed to plead guilty to lying to the FBI and also admitted that he had lied to the Justice Department about his secret lobbying for Turkey while advising Trump .
Flynn agreed to cooperate with prosecutors in exchange for their recommendation that he receive a reduced @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Flynn began to undermine that deal in June 2019 , when he hired a new lawyer , Sidney Powell .
While Flynn ’ s former lawyer , Robert Kelner , maintained a low profile , Powell is a frequent Fox News guest and strident Mueller critic who has publicly professed Flynn ’ s innocence .
Powell also attempted to walk back Flynn ’ s past admission that he secretly lobbied in 2015 for Turkey , a reversal that led a federal judge last year to toss prosecutors ’ case against Bijan Rafiekian , @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Prosecutors told the court Tuesday that Flynn ’ s recent behavior has caused them to abandon their earlier request for leniency .
“ Based on the defendant ’ s conduct since the time of the December 18 , 2018 , sentencing hearing , the government also does not believe the defendant should receive credit for acceptance of responsibility , ” prosecutors said in a sentencing memo .
“ Indeed , the government has reason to believe , through representations by the defendant ’ s counsel , that the defendant has retreated from his @ @ @ @ @ @ @ his lies to the FBI.
” The filing displays prosecutors ’ irritation with Powell , who filed motions attacking their conduct .
She has also tried to link Flynn ’ s guilty plea to a host of allegations and conspiracy theories advanced by Trump and his allies in an effort to discredit investigations into the Trump campaign ’ s contacts with Russia .
Mother Jones reported in August that Powell was involved in a decision by Flynn to try to raise funds for his defense by appearing at a rally organized by adherents @ @ @ @ @ @ @ posits that Trump is secretly battling a ring of pedophiles that includes many prominent Democrats .
Flynn subsequently pulled out of the event , and it was canceled .
Federal District Court Judge Emmet Sullivan , who mused last year about whether Flynn could be charged with treason , last month rejected Powell ’ s motions , finding the allegations that federal agents entrapped Flynn and wrongly withheld evidence were baseless .
Sullivan is scheduled to sentence Flynn on January 28 .
Flynn surely hopes to win a pardon from Trump .
But @ @ @ @ @ @ @ hire Powell appears to have backfired badly , leaving him facing a probable jail term he might otherwise have avoided .
Prosecutors cited various arguments made by Powell—including a letter she sent last year to Attorney General William Barr urging the Justice Department drop its case against Flynn—as evidence that Flynn has contradicted earlier statements in which he accepted responsibility for lying to FBI agents and to the Justice Department .
“ Far from accepting the consequences of his unlawful actions , he has sought to blame almost every other person and entity @ @ @ @ @ @ @ former counsel , ” they argued .
“ Most blatantly , the defendant now professes his innocence.
” While it is standard for defendants to claim innocence , it is not normal for someone who has already pleaded guilty to do so .
At sentencing , judges often consider the extent to which defendants accept responsibility for their actions .
The sentencing memo also explains that prosecutors have reconsidered their previous conclusion that Flynn provided substantial assistance .
That ’ s because Flynn was expected to appear as the main witness last summer @ @ @ @ @ @ @ testify that the men misled the Justice Department by claiming they were not aware that a Dutch company they had agreed to represent was in fact a front for Turkey .
Less than three weeks before the trial , Powell walked back Flynn ’ s prior admission and instead blamed Kelner for Flynn ’ s false claims .
This reversal led a federal judge to throw out the government ’ s case against Rafiekian .
Freed of a desire to reward Flynn for cooperation , prosecutors are now highlighting the seriousness of his @ @ @ @ @ @ @ abuse of trust ” as national security adviser .
“ The only reason the Russian Ambassador contacted the defendant about the sanctions is because the defendant was the incoming National Security Advisor , and thus would soon wield influence and control over the United States ’ foreign policy , ” prosecutors said .
“ That is the same reason the defendant ’ s fledgling company was paid over $ 500,000 to work on issues for Turkey .
The defendant monetized his power and influence over our government , and lied to mask it @ @ @ @ @ @ @ information that only the defendant could provide , because of that power and influence , he denied them that information .
And so an official tasked with protecting our national security , instead compromised it .
”

Fight disinformation: Sign up for the free Mother Jones Daily newsletter and follow the news that matters.
Just over a year ago, special counsel Robert Mueller’s office recommended that former national security adviser Michael Flynn receive no prison time for lying to the FBI. Prosecutors at the time praised Flynn for providing “substantial assistance” to law enforcement. But on Tuesday, those prosecutors reversed course, excoriating Flynn for failing to accept responsibility for his crimes and for “his affirmative efforts to undermine” a separate prosecution in which Flynn had agreed to act as a witness. Flynn, they argued, should now receive up to six months of jail time.
Flynn’s case dates back to the presidential transition period in 2016. In December of that year, the Obama administration slapped Russia with sanctions in response to its efforts to assist Donald Trump during the election. Flynn, who Trump had chosen to serve as national security, then spoke by phone with Russian Ambassador Sergey Kislyak. According to the Mueller report, Flynn urged Kislyak not to escalate the dispute and then told another transition official that Russia would refrain from doing so because it “wanted a good relationship with the incoming Administration.” But in January 2017, Flynn told FBI agents that he had not discussed sanctions with Kislyak at all. Flynn reportedly also lied to Vice President Mike Pence about the calls, which led to his firing as national security adviser. In late 2017, Flynn agreed to plead guilty to lying to the FBI and also admitted that he had lied to the Justice Department about his secret lobbying for Turkey while advising Trump. Flynn agreed to cooperate with prosecutors in exchange for their recommendation that he receive a reduced sentence.
But prosecutors now say that Flynn began to undermine that deal in June 2019, when he hired a new lawyer, Sidney Powell. While Flynn’s former lawyer, Robert Kelner, maintained a low profile, Powell is a frequent Fox News guest and strident Mueller critic who has publicly professed Flynn’s innocence. Powell also attempted to walk back Flynn’s past admission that he secretly lobbied in 2015 for Turkey, a reversal that led a federal judge last year to toss prosecutors’ case against Bijan Rafiekian, Flynn’s former lobbying partner.
Prosecutors told the court Tuesday that Flynn’s recent behavior has caused them to abandon their earlier request for leniency. “Based on the defendant’s conduct since the time of the December 18, 2018, sentencing hearing, the government also does not believe the defendant should receive credit for acceptance of responsibility,” prosecutors said in a sentencing memo. “Indeed, the government has reason to believe, through representations by the defendant’s counsel, that the defendant has retreated from his acceptance of responsibility in this case regarding his lies to the FBI.”
The filing displays prosecutors’ irritation with Powell, who filed motions attacking their conduct. She has also tried to link Flynn’s guilty plea to a host of allegations and conspiracy theories advanced by Trump and his allies in an effort to discredit investigations into the Trump campaign’s contacts with Russia. Mother Jones reported in August that Powell was involved in a decision by Flynn to try to raise funds for his defense by appearing at a rally organized by adherents of the QAnon conspiracy theory, which posits that Trump is secretly battling a ring of pedophiles that includes many prominent Democrats. Flynn subsequently pulled out of the event, and it was canceled.
Federal District Court Judge Emmet Sullivan, who mused last year about whether Flynn could be charged with treason, last month rejected Powell’s motions, finding the allegations that federal agents entrapped Flynn and wrongly withheld evidence were baseless. Sullivan is scheduled to sentence Flynn on January 28.
Flynn surely hopes to win a pardon from Trump. But for the moment, his decision to hire Powell appears to have backfired badly, leaving him facing a probable jail term he might otherwise have avoided.
Prosecutors cited various arguments made by Powell—including a letter she sent last year to Attorney General William Barr urging the Justice Department drop its case against Flynn—as evidence that Flynn has contradicted earlier statements in which he accepted responsibility for lying to FBI agents and to the Justice Department. “Far from accepting the consequences of his unlawful actions, he has sought to blame almost every other person and entity involved in his case, including his former counsel,” they argued. “Most blatantly, the defendant now professes his innocence.”
While it is standard for defendants to claim innocence, it is not normal for someone who has already pleaded guilty to do so. At sentencing, judges often consider the extent to which defendants accept responsibility for their actions.
The sentencing memo also explains that prosecutors have reconsidered their previous conclusion that Flynn provided substantial assistance. That’s because Flynn was expected to appear as the main witness last summer in Rafiekian’s trial and to testify that the men misled the Justice Department by claiming they were not aware that a Dutch company they had agreed to represent was in fact a front for Turkey. Less than three weeks before the trial, Powell walked back Flynn’s prior admission and instead blamed Kelner for Flynn’s false claims. This reversal led a federal judge to throw out the government’s case against Rafiekian.
Freed of a desire to reward Flynn for cooperation, prosecutors are now highlighting the seriousness of his conduct, blasting him for an “abuse of trust” as national security adviser. “The only reason the Russian Ambassador contacted the defendant about the sanctions is because the defendant was the incoming National Security Advisor, and thus would soon wield influence and control over the United States’ foreign policy,” prosecutors said. “That is the same reason the defendant’s fledgling company was paid over $500,000 to work on issues for Turkey. The defendant monetized his power and influence over our government, and lied to mask it. When the FBI and DOJ needed information that only the defendant could provide, because of that power and influence, he denied them that information. And so an official tasked with protecting our national security, instead compromised it.”
Read the sentencing memo:


motherjones--2020-01-07--Elizabeth Warren’s New Bankruptcy Plan Is a Big Dig at Joe Biden

On Tuesday , Elizabeth Warren released a plan for , in her campaign ’ s words , “ fixing our bankruptcy system to give people a second chance.
” Warren , who taught bankruptcy law at Harvard and spent years as a consumer advocate on the matter , is returning to the issue that drew her into politics .
But less than one month away from the Iowa caucus , the subtext of the plan couldn ’ t be clearer—it ’ s also a reminder of who she started her political career fighting against .
He just happens to be @ @ @ @ @ @ @ .
Warren ’ s proposal calls for rolling back key elements of the 2005 bankruptcy reform law , which she testified against in the Senate and argued against in the press and in countless interviews at the time .
“ I was lucky to pick up some terrific allies in the Senate , ” she writes in the plan ’ s introduction , identifying four by name—Ted Kennedy ( D-Mass . )
, Paul Wellstone ( D-Minn. ) , Russ Feingold ( D-Wis. ) , and current Senate Minority Whip Dick Durbin ( @ @ @ @ @ @ @ the other side isn ’ t mentioned , but as she ’ s explained in the past , and as I wrote in a cover for the magazine last year , the bankruptcy reform law Warren pilloried was one of his signature achievements as a Delaware senator .
The bill , which Biden worked on for nearly a decade , brought his state ’ s parochial economic interests into direct confrontation with his brand as a warrior for the middle class .
The credit card companies that called Wilmington home were some of @ @ @ @ @ @ @ and Biden was a loyal home-state senator .
The result was a piece of legislation that , while it included some consumer protections , generally made it more difficult and more expensive for individuals to escape their debts and easier for creditors to collect .
Biden fought hard for the bill .
When it came time to vote , he joined Republicans in knocking down Democratic amendments that aimed to improve it .
Warren hasn ’ t forgotten .
Her plan states : She doesn ’ t say that Biden voted against that @ @ @ @ @ @ @ link to the roll call .
Ditto for an amendment “ that would have allowed union members to continue paying their union dues during the bankruptcy process.
” Another portion is less subtle , taking aim at Delaware itself , which built an economic model around , in part , being a place where rich people can hide their assets : Loopholes benefiting wealthy individuals .
In certain states like Delaware , wealthy individuals can file for bankruptcy and get debt relief while shielding their assets by placing them in trusts for their @ @ @ @ @ @ @ the “ Millionaire ’ s Loophole.
” As part of the 2005 bankruptcy legislation , Congress pretended to close the Millionaire ’ s Loophole , while rejecting legislation that actually would have shut it down .
My plan stitches up the Millionaire ’ s Loophole once and for all by ensuring that assets in self-settled trusts and revocable trusts are not exempt from creditors ’ claims in bankruptcy .
We haven ’ t heard a ton about the bankruptcy fight during this campaign , because the Bankruptcy Abuse Prevention and Consumer Protection Act @ @ @ @ @ @ @ of legislation most voters know by heart .
But beyond the specifics , Warren ’ s campaign is telling a story about power .
Senators with power ( cough cough cough ) carried water for big banks and made it harder for working families to get by .
Maybe that story won ’ t push her over the top—but it has gotten her this far .

Fight disinformation: Sign up for the free Mother Jones Daily newsletter and follow the news that matters.
On Tuesday, Elizabeth Warren released a plan for, in her campaign’s words, “fixing our bankruptcy system to give people a second chance.” Warren, who taught bankruptcy law at Harvard and spent years as a consumer advocate on the matter, is returning to the issue that drew her into politics. But less than one month away from the Iowa caucus, the subtext of the plan couldn’t be clearer—it’s also a reminder of who she started her political career fighting against. He just happens to be the frontrunner for the Democratic presidential nomination.
Warren’s proposal calls for rolling back key elements of the 2005 bankruptcy reform law, which she testified against in the Senate and argued against in the press and in countless interviews at the time. “I was lucky to pick up some terrific allies in the Senate,” she writes in the plan’s introduction, identifying four by name—Ted Kennedy (D-Mass.), Paul Wellstone (D-Minn.), Russ Feingold (D-Wis.), and current Senate Minority Whip Dick Durbin (D-Ill.) Biden’s work on the other side isn’t mentioned, but as she’s explained in the past, and as I wrote in a cover for the magazine last year, the bankruptcy reform law Warren pilloried was one of his signature achievements as a Delaware senator.
The bill, which Biden worked on for nearly a decade, brought his state’s parochial economic interests into direct confrontation with his brand as a warrior for the middle class. The credit card companies that called Wilmington home were some of the biggest drivers behind the legislation, and Biden was a loyal home-state senator. The result was a piece of legislation that, while it included some consumer protections, generally made it more difficult and more expensive for individuals to escape their debts and easier for creditors to collect. Biden fought hard for the bill. When it came time to vote, he joined Republicans in knocking down Democratic amendments that aimed to improve it. Warren hasn’t forgotten. Her plan states:
In 2005, Congress rejected an amendment to the bankruptcy bill that would have allowed parents to spend a reasonable amount of money on toys and books and basic recreation activities for their kids during the bankruptcy process. That’s just wrong—and my plan will provide those protections.
She doesn’t say that Biden voted against that amendment. But she helpfully provides a link to the roll call. Ditto for an amendment “that would have allowed union members to continue paying their union dues during the bankruptcy process.” Another portion is less subtle, taking aim at Delaware itself, which built an economic model around, in part, being a place where rich people can hide their assets:
Loopholes benefiting wealthy individuals. In certain states like Delaware, wealthy individuals can file for bankruptcy and get debt relief while shielding their assets by placing them in trusts for their own benefit. This is known as the “Millionaire’s Loophole.” As part of the 2005 bankruptcy legislation, Congress pretended to close the Millionaire’s Loophole, while rejecting legislation that actually would have shut it down. My plan stitches up the Millionaire’s Loophole once and for all by ensuring that assets in self-settled trusts and revocable trusts are not exempt from creditors’ claims in bankruptcy.
We haven’t heard a ton about the bankruptcy fight during this campaign, because the Bankruptcy Abuse Prevention and Consumer Protection Act of 2005 isn’t the kind of legislation most voters know by heart. But beyond the specifics, Warren’s campaign is telling a story about power. Senators with power (cough cough cough) carried water for big banks and made it harder for working families to get by. Maybe that story won’t push her over the top—but it has gotten her this far.


motherjones--2020-01-08--Iran Launches Missiles at US Bases in Iraq

Update , 7:22 pm ET : Pentagon officials confirmed that Iranian forces launched more than a dozen ballistic missiles at @ @ @ @ @ US personnel .
Iranian forces fired missiles at two US airbases in western Iraq , @ @ @ @ @ States in the aftermath of a US strike that killed a top Iranian Revolutionary Guard @ @ @ @ @ , Iranian state media confirmed on Wednesday .
Iran took credit for the attack with @ @ @ @ @ channel : “ The fierce revenge by the Revolutionary Guards has begun.
” White House @ @ @ @ @ Iranian airstrikes , which come just days after President Donald Trump warned of swift retaliation @ @ @ @ @ attacked American personnel .
On Tuesday , Defense Secretary Mark Esper justified the killing of @ @ @ @ @ ’ s top commander planned attacks against American forces .
This is a breaking story @ @ @ @ @ monitor and post updates here .

Fight disinformation: Sign up for the free Mother Jones Daily newsletter and follow the news that matters.
Update, 7:22 pm ET: Pentagon officials confirmed that Iranian forces launched more than a dozen ballistic missiles at two Iraqi military bases hosting US personnel.
Iranian forces fired missiles at two US airbases in western Iraq, escalating tensions with the United States in the aftermath of a US strike that killed a top Iranian Revolutionary Guard commander, Gen. Qassem Soleimani, Iranian state media confirmed on Wednesday.
Iran took credit for the attack with a statement on the Telegram channel: “The fierce revenge by the Revolutionary Guards has begun.”
A US official confirms to @ABC that ballistic missiles have been fired from inside Iran at multiple US military facilities inside Iraq. The facilities include Erbil in northern Iraq and Al Asad Air Base in western Iraq, the official said. We do not have information on casualties. — Stephanie Wash (@WashNews) January 7, 2020
White House officials are aware of the Iranian airstrikes, which come just days after President Donald Trump warned of swift retaliation against Iranian forces if they attacked American personnel. On Tuesday, Defense Secretary Mark Esper justified the killing of Soleimani, noting that Iran’s top commander planned attacks against American forces.
The United States just spent Two Trillion Dollars on Military Equipment. We are the biggest and by far the BEST in the World! If Iran attacks an American Base, or any American, we will be sending some of that brand new beautiful equipment their way…and without hesitation! — Donald J. Trump (@realDonaldTrump) January 5, 2020
WH Press Sec: “We are aware of the reports of attacks on US facilities in Iraq. The President has been briefed and is monitoring the situation closely and consulting with his national security team.” — Craig Caplan (@CraigCaplan) January 7, 2020
This is a breaking story. We will continue to monitor and post updates here.


motherjones--2020-01-08--“For Him to Endorse Her Is Huge for Me”: These Voters Liked Warren Last Night. They Loved Castro.

“ I ’ m undocumented and unafraid , ” exclaimed Jonathan Jayes-Green from the stage of Kings Theater in Brooklyn Tuesday night .
Jayes-Green , the National Latinx Outreach Director for Massachusetts Sen. Elizabeth Warren ’ s presidential campaign , was onstage to help introduce someone that many had come to see that night : Obama ’ s former HUD Secretary Julián Castro .
It was Castro ’ s first campaign event with Warren after he endorsed her Monday , following his withdrawal from the presidential race .
And the approximately 3,000 people in the theater wanted to see what @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Williams and her friend James Martin attended the event to support Warren , but she wasn ’ t necessarily the one they were excited to see .
“ As a Black woman , ” says Williams , who works in reproductive health care , “ I feel like Julián Castro is one of the leading candidates on issues that affect people of color .
For him to endorse her is huge for me.
” Even though she supports Warren , Williams had some misgivings .
She pointed to Warren ’ s recent interview @ @ @ @ @ @ @ to criticize the ordering of the primary states , or challenge the system so that two of the whitest states in the country aren ’ t the center of candidate ’ s campaigns so early on in the election process .
“ Look , I ’ m just a player in the game on this one , ” Warren told host Amy Goodman .
“ She got a little snotty about that , ” Williams notes .
Castro , who ’ s been outspoken in his criticism of the primary order , eases @ @ @ @ @ @ @ feel more comfortable ” with the Senator .
Martin , a 34-year-old actor and tech worker , echoed Williams ’ points about Castro ’ s ability to bridge the gap between minority voters and Warren .
“ As ethnic minorities [ our identities are ] so intrinsically tied to our economics , ” he says .
“ He gets that , he talks that , he walks that , he is that—and so I think he ’ s going to bring that to the table.
” When Castro took over the mic , @ @ @ @ @ @ @ statement : “ Elizabeth Warren is the candidate who can unite the entire Democratic party.
” He noted that while campaigning he noticed a recurring trend : Voters liked him , but he was always second tier to the Massachusetts senator .
“ You find that she has the best damn organization in these early states , ” he said .
Valerie Miller , a 29-year-old paralegal in training , is also excited about Castro .
“ He is someone who has been consistently speaking up on behalf of underprivileged groups , minorities @ @ @ @ @ @ @ says .
“ I think the fact that she has attracted his support means that he thinks that she is someone who can listen to him and work with him , and try to get the interests of those people to come to the forefront.
” After Castro ’ s introduction , Warren started by introducing herself and then hitting hard on the corruption of politics by big banks and big money .
She outlined her vision of a Warren administration by describing three distinct plans : One to stop corruption , another @ @ @ @ @ @ @ structures , and the third to preserve a democracy through rolling back decades of voter suppression laws .
She took a swing at certain Democrats for “ backing off from big ideas , ” to which an audience member shouted , “ Mayor Pete !
” The audience laughed .
“ I didn ’ t hear that , ” Warren said smiling .
“ I ’ m here to give her a chance to change my mind , ” says Lee Silverman , a 47-year-old small business owner who attended the event with @ @ @ @ @ @ @ not sure Warren can win Florida , Pennsylvania , Michigan , Ohio , and that is basically the entire race.
” West , 56 , has another concern : “ I think she ’ s a little too far left right now for American mainstream , and we really need somebody who can appeal to more of the moderates.
” Castro ’ s endorsement of Warren is her most high profile political , endorsement yet .
While the former San Antonio Mayor ’ s campaign never really got off the ground , Castro @ @ @ @ @ @ @ politicians in the country and ran a progressive campaign that caught the attention of many Democrats .
“ He just has been such a strong proponent for what he represents , diversity-wise , ” says Martin .
“ Him teaming up with Warren just absolutely excites me .
”

Fight disinformation: Sign up for the free Mother Jones Daily newsletter and follow the news that matters.
“I’m undocumented and unafraid,” exclaimed Jonathan Jayes-Green from the stage of Kings Theater in Brooklyn Tuesday night.
Jayes-Green, the National Latinx Outreach Director for Massachusetts Sen. Elizabeth Warren’s presidential campaign, was onstage to help introduce someone that many had come to see that night: Obama’s former HUD Secretary Julián Castro. It was Castro’s first campaign event with Warren after he endorsed her Monday, following his withdrawal from the presidential race. And the approximately 3,000 people in the theater wanted to see what that looked like for themselves.
Rae Williams and her friend James Martin attended the event to support Warren, but she wasn’t necessarily the one they were excited to see. “As a Black woman,” says Williams, who works in reproductive health care, “I feel like Julián Castro is one of the leading candidates on issues that affect people of color. For him to endorse her is huge for me.”
Even though she supports Warren, Williams had some misgivings. She pointed to Warren’s recent interview with Democracy Now, where she refused to criticize the ordering of the primary states, or challenge the system so that two of the whitest states in the country aren’t the center of candidate’s campaigns so early on in the election process. “Look, I’m just a player in the game on this one,” Warren told host Amy Goodman.
“She got a little snotty about that,” Williams notes. Castro, who’s been outspoken in his criticism of the primary order, eases Williams’ worries and helps her “feel more comfortable” with the Senator.
Martin, a 34-year-old actor and tech worker, echoed Williams’ points about Castro’s ability to bridge the gap between minority voters and Warren. “As ethnic minorities [our identities are] so intrinsically tied to our economics,” he says. “He gets that, he talks that, he walks that, he is that—and so I think he’s going to bring that to the table.”
When Castro took over the mic, he explained his endorsement with one simple statement: “Elizabeth Warren is the candidate who can unite the entire Democratic party.” He noted that while campaigning he noticed a recurring trend: Voters liked him, but he was always second tier to the Massachusetts senator. “You find that she has the best damn organization in these early states,” he said.
Valerie Miller, a 29-year-old paralegal in training, is also excited about Castro. “He is someone who has been consistently speaking up on behalf of underprivileged groups, minorities, and underrepresented peoples,” she says. “I think the fact that she has attracted his support means that he thinks that she is someone who can listen to him and work with him, and try to get the interests of those people to come to the forefront.”
After Castro’s introduction, Warren started by introducing herself and then hitting hard on the corruption of politics by big banks and big money. She outlined her vision of a Warren administration by describing three distinct plans: One to stop corruption, another to reform and rebuild governmental systems and structures, and the third to preserve a democracy through rolling back decades of voter suppression laws. She took a swing at certain Democrats for “backing off from big ideas,” to which an audience member shouted, “Mayor Pete!” The audience laughed. “I didn’t hear that,” Warren said smiling.
“I’m here to give her a chance to change my mind,” says Lee Silverman, a 47-year-old small business owner who attended the event with Teri West. “I’m not sure Warren can win Florida, Pennsylvania, Michigan, Ohio, and that is basically the entire race.” West, 56, has another concern: “I think she’s a little too far left right now for American mainstream, and we really need somebody who can appeal to more of the moderates.”
Castro’s endorsement of Warren is her most high profile political, endorsement yet. While the former San Antonio Mayor’s campaign never really got off the ground, Castro is one of the most high-profile Latinx politicians in the country and ran a progressive campaign that caught the attention of many Democrats. “He just has been such a strong proponent for what he represents, diversity-wise,” says Martin. “Him teaming up with Warren just absolutely excites me.”


motherjones--2020-01-08--A New Voting System Promises Reliable Paper Records. Security Experts Warn It Can’t Be Trusted.

As states and local voting jurisdictions around the country work to upgrade voting systems in the wake of the 2016 Russian election interference operations , most election security experts have urged the adoption of paper ballots .
While voting on paper might call to mind wielding a pencil or pen to fill a bubble , check a box , or complete an arrow , election officials in several states have purchased systems that use paper but where voters continue make selections on a touch-screen .
These machines , known as ballot marking devices , or BMDs , then print out @ @ @ @ @ @ @ ballot to be tallied by optical scanners .
The machine-produced ballots can be preserved , providing a physical record to verify a result or conduct a recount .
In theory , voters can review the ballot printed by the machine and catch any discrepancy between their intentions and the paper record .
But a new study from researchers at the University of Michigan based on a carefully designed mock-election found that the majority of voters don ’ t review their ballots before handing them over to be scanned , and that a shockingly @ @ @ @ @ @ @ poll workers , even though the researchers had programed the machines to deliberately introduce one on every ballot .
Based on the experience , the researchers warn that “ error detection and reporting rates are dangerously low , ” indicating that not only would it usually go unnoticed if such machines , either through error or manipulation , printed mismarked ballots , but that the paper record they produced would fail to document any evidence of a discrepancy .
The study will likely add fuel to a contentious debate in the election security @ @ @ @ @ @ @ of BMDs argue they can speed up voting , help people with disabilities vote confidentially and without assistance , and prevent the incomplete and stray marks that people commonly make using pens and pencils , opponents warn they perpetuate some of the same risks inherent to paperless systems while giving a false sense of confidence .
BMDs are already in use in hundreds of voting jurisdictions across the country .
South Carolina bought 13,500 last summer , and officials in Texas and Georgia have also made recent purchases .
Marci Andino , the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Election Commission , boasted last year that the systems would allow for auditing of paper ballots , which “ will go a long way in providing voters and election officials the assurance that every vote is counted just as the voter intended.
” Two influential board members of the prominent election security watchdog group Verified Voting resigned their positions late last year over the BMD dispute , accusing the organization of glossing over concerns about the systems ’ security issues .
After the resignations , Verified Voting issued a statement recommending their use @ @ @ @ @ @ @ polling places might only make them available to certain voters .
“ The trustworthiness of an election conducted using BMDs depends critically on how many voters actually verify their ballots , and how carefully they do it , ” the statement read , adding that voters who use the machines should be specifically reminded to review their ballots .
To conduct their 2019 experiment , the Michigan researchers set up mock polling places at two public libraries in Ann Arbor , inviting patrons to participate in a “ study about a new kind @ @ @ @ @ @ @ ballots featuring real candidates from the city ’ s 2018 elections , but programmed the machines to randomly manipulate the voter ’ s intent in one contest either by de-selecting a vote in a given race , marking a vote in a race where there was no vote , or changing a vote .
The researchers found that just 40 percent of the voters reviewed their machine-printed ballots on their own , with just 6.6 percent spotting and reporting the error .
A slightly higher percentage of participants , 7.8 percent , correctly @ @ @ @ @ @ @ .
“ These results accord with prior studies that found that poor voter performance in other election security contexts , ” the authors wrote .
“ The low rate of error detection indicates that misprinting attacks on BMDs pose a serious risk.
” The study ’ s authors concede BMDs can offer “ practical advantages ” over hand-marked paper ballots , including a more user-friendly interface , increased accessibility , and the ability to customize ballots down to the precinct level .
Given those factors , and the fact that BMDs are already @ @ @ @ @ @ @ also tested ways to encourage voters to carefully examine their ballot .
Verbally instructing voters to review the printed ballots after they ’ d made their selections resulted in 14 percent of voters finding and reporting the BMD ’ s error , but passive signs and reminders to voters before they went to the machines did not make a significant difference .
While noting that the findings about interventions “ may be encouraging , ” the researchers wrote that additional research is needed to design procedures that ensure “ high verification ” can @ @ @ @ @ @ @ and unless that happens , the researchers report “ the safest course for security is to prefer hand-marked paper ballots .
”

Fight disinformation: Sign up for the free Mother Jones Daily newsletter and follow the news that matters.
As states and local voting jurisdictions around the country work to upgrade voting systems in the wake of the 2016 Russian election interference operations, most election security experts have urged the adoption of paper ballots.
While voting on paper might call to mind wielding a pencil or pen to fill a bubble, check a box, or complete an arrow, election officials in several states have purchased systems that use paper but where voters continue make selections on a touch-screen. These machines, known as ballot marking devices, or BMDs, then print out the voter’s completed, marked ballot to be tallied by optical scanners. The machine-produced ballots can be preserved, providing a physical record to verify a result or conduct a recount.
Opponents warn the machines perpetuate some of the same risks inherent to paperless systems.
In theory, voters can review the ballot printed by the machine and catch any discrepancy between their intentions and the paper record. But a new study from researchers at the University of Michigan based on a carefully designed mock-election found that the majority of voters don’t review their ballots before handing them over to be scanned, and that a shockingly low number of voters reported errors to poll workers, even though the researchers had programed the machines to deliberately introduce one on every ballot. Based on the experience, the researchers warn that “error detection and reporting rates are dangerously low,” indicating that not only would it usually go unnoticed if such machines, either through error or manipulation, printed mismarked ballots, but that the paper record they produced would fail to document any evidence of a discrepancy.
The study will likely add fuel to a contentious debate in the election security community over the technology. While backers of BMDs argue they can speed up voting, help people with disabilities vote confidentially and without assistance, and prevent the incomplete and stray marks that people commonly make using pens and pencils, opponents warn they perpetuate some of the same risks inherent to paperless systems while giving a false sense of confidence.
BMDs are already in use in hundreds of voting jurisdictions across the country. South Carolina bought 13,500 last summer, and officials in Texas and Georgia have also made recent purchases. Marci Andino, the executive director of the South Carolina State Election Commission, boasted last year that the systems would allow for auditing of paper ballots, which “will go a long way in providing voters and election officials the assurance that every vote is counted just as the voter intended.”
Two influential board members of the prominent election security watchdog group Verified Voting resigned their positions late last year over the BMD dispute, accusing the organization of glossing over concerns about the systems’ security issues. After the resignations, Verified Voting issued a statement recommending their use “be minimized,” suggesting that polling places might only make them available to certain voters. “The trustworthiness of an election conducted using BMDs depends critically on how many voters actually verify their ballots, and how carefully they do it,” the statement read, adding that voters who use the machines should be specifically reminded to review their ballots.
To conduct their 2019 experiment, the Michigan researchers set up mock polling places at two public libraries in Ann Arbor, inviting patrons to participate in a “study about a new kind of election technology.” The researchers developed ballots featuring real candidates from the city’s 2018 elections, but programmed the machines to randomly manipulate the voter’s intent in one contest either by de-selecting a vote in a given race, marking a vote in a race where there was no vote, or changing a vote.
The researchers found that just 40 percent of the voters reviewed their machine-printed ballots on their own, with just 6.6 percent spotting and reporting the error. A slightly higher percentage of participants, 7.8 percent, correctly identified the manipulation during an exit interview. “These results accord with prior studies that found that poor voter performance in other election security contexts,” the authors wrote. “The low rate of error detection indicates that misprinting attacks on BMDs pose a serious risk.”
The study’s authors concede BMDs can offer “practical advantages” over hand-marked paper ballots, including a more user-friendly interface, increased accessibility, and the ability to customize ballots down to the precinct level. Given those factors, and the fact that BMDs are already deployed in several states, the researchers also tested ways to encourage voters to carefully examine their ballot. Verbally instructing voters to review the printed ballots after they’d made their selections resulted in 14 percent of voters finding and reporting the BMD’s error, but passive signs and reminders to voters before they went to the machines did not make a significant difference.
While noting that the findings about interventions “may be encouraging,” the researchers wrote that additional research is needed to design procedures that ensure “high verification” can be achieved in real elections. Until and unless that happens, the researchers report “the safest course for security is to prefer hand-marked paper ballots.”


motherjones--2020-01-08--For Black Americans, It’s Not a Housing Crisis. It’s a Chronic Condition.

Redlining is widely seen as the source of the vast disparities in housing and homeownership between white and Black Americans .
Denied access to government-backed mortgages , Black people were consigned to areas of low investment in city centers during boom times in suburbia .
It would stand to reason , then , that the end of government-sanctioned redlining , with the 1968 passage of the Fair Housing Act and the Housing and Urban Development Act , would have begun to reverse housing segregation and inequality .
But in fact , writes Keeanga-Yamahtta Taylor in her new book Race for @ @ @ @ @ @ @ to get worse .
There were two problems with the new government effort to insure mortgage loans to low-income African Americans in inner cities .
First , the existing conditions—the resistance of exclusive white suburbs to any influx of African Americans , the wealth gap—made it just about impossible for the urban poor to move to areas of greater opportunity .
And second , the government , less than fully committed to actually fair housing , all but abdicated responsibility for the program to the private sector .
That meant that national housing @ @ @ @ @ @ @ unscrupulous lenders who saw profit in making risk-free loans to Black buyers for overpriced , dilapidated homes with serious undisclosed damage .
Low-income African American neighborhoods were thus annexed into government homeownership programs that weren ’ t set up to help them .
Taylor calls this process “ predatory inclusion.
” The result was the further crumbling of the urban core , crippling debt for buyers tricked into homes that should never have been approved for loans , and extractive profits for the private sector .
These issues haven ’ t gone away @ @ @ @ @ @ @ which has featured more debate over housing policy than any other in modern US history , Democratic candidates have proposed various forms of reparations to address the lingering effects of redlining .
Mother Jones caught up with Taylor to discuss the problems of the past and the solutions of the present regarding the country ’ s deepening housing crisis .
The underlying implication of your book is that we ’ re missing the point in our debates over government housing programs .
Where have we been getting it most wrong ?
I think @ @ @ @ @ @ @ years is connected to the US hinging the production of affordable housing to the private sector .
This presents a couple of problems .
One is the historic role of the real estate industry and the banking industry in racial discrimination against African Americans .
The whole notion of housing value in the US is deeply connected to notions of race .
In fact , the further housing is located away from African Americans , the more it accrues in value .
And so federal policies yoking housing production to this type of @ @ @ @ @ @ @ among the housing insecure , is a recipe for problems .
The second issue is more fundamental , which is : Public policy , in the best-case scenario , is intended to protect the public ’ s welfare .
Private enterprise—their objective is to make a profit .
So those are two opposing objectives .
That ’ s interesting , because there ’ s a growing consensus , on the right and among many on the left , that deregulation is needed to build more housing—that with looser zoning restrictions , the private @ @ @ @ @ @ @ housing more affordable in the long term .
It ’ s a ridiculous idea .
Government is the only entity that can deal with the profound lack of housing for millions of people .
It ’ s the only entity that can actually match the scale of the problem .
I also think there ’ s a way in which the default to the private sector has helped undermine the capacity of the state to resolve these problems .
By taking out money and resources , it becomes a self-fulfilling prophecy that government @ @ @ @ @ @ @ really need is the innovative expertise of the private sector .
That mythology comes from a constant gnawing away at the resources that the state has to solve this problem .
You must have been pleasantly surprised to see solutions for formerly redlined neighborhoods taking on prominence in this presidential campaign .
Yeah , although I think—on the one hand , yes , it ’ s good that housing issues are not taking a back seat .
But I do think that some of the specifics raise more questions .
So let ’ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Warren and Kamala Harris both proposed something similar to what you describe in the book : giving mortgage assistance to residents of formerly redlined areas .
Would this cause the same problems as in the late 60s ?
Well , it reinforces a central problem , which is segregation .
There are two issues .
One is that some of these historically redlined neighborhoods are actually gentrifying .
So because there ’ s no race-specific language in these sorts of legislation , it ’ s not clear who would actually be benefiting from @ @ @ @ @ @ @ is , in areas where they ’ re not gentrified , where they remain low-income segregated neighborhoods , what does it mean to guarantee someone the right to buy a house in an area where it won ’ t appreciate in value ?
That ’ s the whole issue in homeownership : It ’ s supposed to be an asset that accrues in value over time , that through its equity allows you to finance your children ’ s college education , that allows you to weather an unforeseen economic crisis , that @ @ @ @ @ @ @ if a house is not in an area where it can develop equity over time and instead becomes a debt burden , then I ’ m not sure what the benefit is .
Is there a simple fix that would improve these policies ?
No .
These are complicated issues , and everyone wants a quick fix .
Everyone thinks that if we tweak this or that , these are easily resolved issues , but they ’ re not .
That doesn ’ t mean there aren ’ t things that could be @ @ @ @ @ @ @ its own civil rights laws regarding racism and housing discrimination , which this government has never done .
Just a couple weeks ago , Newsday concluded a three-year investigation that showed the pervasive racism and discrimination of real estate agents in the Long Island housing market .
The question is : Why is a newspaper doing housing testing and not the federal government ?
For the things that can be easily done , we don ’ t do those .
That ’ s the easy thing to do .
The more difficult thing @ @ @ @ @ @ @ as this colorblind space where all things are possible .
But in reality , the market is us , and so the market then reflects all of the discriminatory ideas about how value is constructed that exist in society at large .
I want to come back to this question of geographic targeting .
It seems like you ’ re damned if you do , damned if you don ’ t .
If neighborhoods have gentrified and are now mostly white or Hispanic , you ’ re not helping African Americans who have @ @ @ @ @ @ @ ’ re helping areas that remain mostly Black and poor , you reinforce segregation .
So is trying to target certain areas just a mistake ?
I think in a racialized market , it ’ s an invitation to problems .
In some ways , it reflects the dynamic that could have been unleashed in 1968 .
The Fair Housing Act was supposed to open up the suburbs to allow low-income housing to be built there , which would have opened the entire market to African Americans .
Something like that would mean @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Black people to segregated , depreciating areas .
If you did something like that , you would witness the absolute hysteria of white homeowners in those exclusive outlying areas rise up to prevent it .
The other question is whether homeownership actually ought to be the goal .
Right .
That raises the question about what it means to live in a society where the quality of one ’ s life is often determined by the ownership of this asset that ’ s not equally available to anyone .
If you have access @ @ @ @ @ @ @ then it ’ s like you have your own private welfare state .
And if you don ’ t , you ’ re left to the underfunded , anemic public services that are left for everyone else .
Black homeownership is now at a 50-year low .
It ’ s down to 40 percent , with no apparent recovery in sight .
It ’ s as if we ’ ve just accepted this inequality that ’ s embedded in our society .
Okay , I know you said there ’ s no quick @ @ @ @ @ @ @ you look at the Democratic presidential field and decide it isn ’ t crowded enough and jump into the race , and on January 20 , 2021 , you ’ re president and you ’ ve got Congress ’ backing .
What ’ s the first thing you do to address housing inequality ?
The first thing I would do is draft Bernie Sanders ’ housing plan .
I think the plan for 10 million units that are developed , built , and managed by the state , that are out of the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ an immediate thing that can be implemented .
We call this a housing crisis , but there ’ s been a lack of affordable , safe-and-sound housing in cities for more than 100 years .
And so this is a chronic problem .
The first thing I think we could do is create a field of housing that is removed from the private sector that could immediately solve millions of people ’ s housing crisis .
The second thing is enforcing the civil rights laws that exist on the books that would open @ @ @ @ @ @ @ There have been studies that show that Black people pay more for rent in neighborhoods where white people are than white people are paying because of all the perceptions that Black people present a risk .
Those two things are starting points .
But there ’ s no reason why we would have to stop at 10 million units .
There ’ s a way in which the federal government could produce an enormous amount of housing in the country that would take the burden of affordability off the backs of poor and @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Let me know when you launch that campaign .
This interview has been lightly edited for clarity and length .

Fight disinformation: Sign up for the free Mother Jones Daily newsletter and follow the news that matters.
Redlining is widely seen as the source of the vast disparities in housing and homeownership between white and Black Americans. Denied access to government-backed mortgages, Black people were consigned to areas of low investment in city centers during boom times in suburbia. It would stand to reason, then, that the end of government-sanctioned redlining, with the 1968 passage of the Fair Housing Act and the Housing and Urban Development Act, would have begun to reverse housing segregation and inequality. But in fact, writes Keeanga-Yamahtta Taylor in her new book Race for Profit, that was when things started to get worse.
There were two problems with the new government effort to insure mortgage loans to low-income African Americans in inner cities. First, the existing conditions—the resistance of exclusive white suburbs to any influx of African Americans, the wealth gap—made it just about impossible for the urban poor to move to areas of greater opportunity. And second, the government, less than fully committed to actually fair housing, all but abdicated responsibility for the program to the private sector. That meant that national housing policy was shaped in large part by unscrupulous lenders who saw profit in making risk-free loans to Black buyers for overpriced, dilapidated homes with serious undisclosed damage.
Low-income African American neighborhoods were thus annexed into government homeownership programs that weren’t set up to help them. Taylor calls this process “predatory inclusion.” The result was the further crumbling of the urban core, crippling debt for buyers tricked into homes that should never have been approved for loans, and extractive profits for the private sector.
These issues haven’t gone away. In the 2020 presidential race, which has featured more debate over housing policy than any other in modern US history, Democratic candidates have proposed various forms of reparations to address the lingering effects of redlining. Mother Jones caught up with Taylor to discuss the problems of the past and the solutions of the present regarding the country’s deepening housing crisis.
The underlying implication of your book is that we’re missing the point in our debates over government housing programs. Where have we been getting it most wrong?
I think the biggest problem in the last 50 years is connected to the US hinging the production of affordable housing to the private sector. This presents a couple of problems. One is the historic role of the real estate industry and the banking industry in racial discrimination against African Americans. The whole notion of housing value in the US is deeply connected to notions of race. In fact, the further housing is located away from African Americans, the more it accrues in value. And so federal policies yoking housing production to this type of industry, when Black people are disproportionately among the housing insecure, is a recipe for problems.
The second issue is more fundamental, which is: Public policy, in the best-case scenario, is intended to protect the public’s welfare. Private enterprise—their objective is to make a profit. So those are two opposing objectives.
That’s interesting, because there’s a growing consensus, on the right and among many on the left, that deregulation is needed to build more housing—that with looser zoning restrictions, the private market will build more housing and make housing more affordable in the long term.
It’s a ridiculous idea. Government is the only entity that can deal with the profound lack of housing for millions of people. It’s the only entity that can actually match the scale of the problem.
I also think there’s a way in which the default to the private sector has helped undermine the capacity of the state to resolve these problems. By taking out money and resources, it becomes a self-fulfilling prophecy that government is inefficient and ineffective and what we really need is the innovative expertise of the private sector. That mythology comes from a constant gnawing away at the resources that the state has to solve this problem.
You must have been pleasantly surprised to see solutions for formerly redlined neighborhoods taking on prominence in this presidential campaign.
Yeah, although I think—on the one hand, yes, it’s good that housing issues are not taking a back seat. But I do think that some of the specifics raise more questions.
So let’s drill down into that. Elizabeth Warren and Kamala Harris both proposed something similar to what you describe in the book: giving mortgage assistance to residents of formerly redlined areas. Would this cause the same problems as in the late 60s?
Well, it reinforces a central problem, which is segregation. There are two issues. One is that some of these historically redlined neighborhoods are actually gentrifying. So because there’s no race-specific language in these sorts of legislation, it’s not clear who would actually be benefiting from these low-interest mortgages.
The second problem is, in areas where they’re not gentrified, where they remain low-income segregated neighborhoods, what does it mean to guarantee someone the right to buy a house in an area where it won’t appreciate in value? That’s the whole issue in homeownership: It’s supposed to be an asset that accrues in value over time, that through its equity allows you to finance your children’s college education, that allows you to weather an unforeseen economic crisis, that allows for a comfortable retirement. So if a house is not in an area where it can develop equity over time and instead becomes a debt burden, then I’m not sure what the benefit is.
Is there a simple fix that would improve these policies?
No. These are complicated issues, and everyone wants a quick fix. Everyone thinks that if we tweak this or that, these are easily resolved issues, but they’re not. That doesn’t mean there aren’t things that could be done. The US could actually enforce its own civil rights laws regarding racism and housing discrimination, which this government has never done.
Just a couple weeks ago, Newsday concluded a three-year investigation that showed the pervasive racism and discrimination of real estate agents in the Long Island housing market. The question is: Why is a newspaper doing housing testing and not the federal government?
For the things that can be easily done, we don’t do those. That’s the easy thing to do. The more difficult thing is, people talk about the market as this colorblind space where all things are possible. But in reality, the market is us, and so the market then reflects all of the discriminatory ideas about how value is constructed that exist in society at large.
I want to come back to this question of geographic targeting. It seems like you’re damned if you do, damned if you don’t. If neighborhoods have gentrified and are now mostly white or Hispanic, you’re not helping African Americans who have suffered from housing racism. If you’re helping areas that remain mostly Black and poor, you reinforce segregation. So is trying to target certain areas just a mistake?
I think in a racialized market, it’s an invitation to problems. In some ways, it reflects the dynamic that could have been unleashed in 1968. The Fair Housing Act was supposed to open up the suburbs to allow low-income housing to be built there, which would have opened the entire market to African Americans. Something like that would mean that you’re not just consigning Black people to segregated, depreciating areas. If you did something like that, you would witness the absolute hysteria of white homeowners in those exclusive outlying areas rise up to prevent it.
The other question is whether homeownership actually ought to be the goal.
Right. That raises the question about what it means to live in a society where the quality of one’s life is often determined by the ownership of this asset that’s not equally available to anyone. If you have access to homeownership as an appreciating asset, then it’s like you have your own private welfare state. And if you don’t, you’re left to the underfunded, anemic public services that are left for everyone else. Black homeownership is now at a 50-year low. It’s down to 40 percent, with no apparent recovery in sight. It’s as if we’ve just accepted this inequality that’s embedded in our society.
Okay, I know you said there’s no quick fix, but let’s say you look at the Democratic presidential field and decide it isn’t crowded enough and jump into the race, and on January 20, 2021, you’re president and you’ve got Congress’ backing. What’s the first thing you do to address housing inequality?
The first thing I would do is draft Bernie Sanders’ housing plan. I think the plan for 10 million units that are developed, built, and managed by the state, that are out of the realm of the private sector, is an immediate thing that can be implemented.
We call this a housing crisis, but there’s been a lack of affordable, safe-and-sound housing in cities for more than 100 years. And so this is a chronic problem. The first thing I think we could do is create a field of housing that is removed from the private sector that could immediately solve millions of people’s housing crisis.
The second thing is enforcing the civil rights laws that exist on the books that would open up housing opportunities for African Americans. There have been studies that show that Black people pay more for rent in neighborhoods where white people are than white people are paying because of all the perceptions that Black people present a risk.
Those two things are starting points. But there’s no reason why we would have to stop at 10 million units. There’s a way in which the federal government could produce an enormous amount of housing in the country that would take the burden of affordability off the backs of poor and working-class people.
Thanks so much. Let me know when you launch that campaign.
Okay!
This interview has been lightly edited for clarity and length.


motherjones--2020-01-08--The Hypocrisy of Trump’s Threat to Destroy Iran’s Cultural Sites

Three days before an American drone assassinated one of Iran ’ s top generals , the White House bragged in a press release about spending $ 25 million overseas “ to protect religious freedom , religious sites and relics.
” Over the weekend , President Donald Trump thoroughly undermined that boast by threatening , via his favorite platform , to eradicate 52 Iranian sites , including some “ important to Iran & Iranian culture.
” Striking a cultural site that has no military value is , of course , a war crime , a fact that Secretary of Defense Mark @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Department officials who are familiar with its preservation work , the threat was baffling .
“ I can not even generate a response , ” one department official told me .
“ The level of hypocrisy in this [ tweet ] is quite high.
” On Monday , Trump doubled down on his original threat , saying of Iran , “ They ’ re allowed to use roadside bombs and blow up our people .
And we ’ re not allowed to touch their cultural sites ?
It doesn ’ t work that @ @ @ @ @ @ @ reversed himself slightly , saying , “ If that ’ s what the law is , I like to obey the law , ” and in a televised statement from the White House on Wednesday , he appeared to back away from any further attacks .
As a moment of macho brinksmanship on Twitter , Trump ’ s tweet was of a piece with other strange threats he ’ s hurled at foreign leaders , from telling North Korea ’ s Kim Jong Un that he had a “ much bigger ” nuclear @ @ @ @ @ @ @ “ BE CAUTIOUS !
” ) to President Hassan Rouhani of Iran .
Destroying cultural property invites far different concerns , in addition to the obvious ones .
Targeting cultural sites would contravene a treaty signed by the United States and more than 100 other countries at the Hague in 1954 and constitute a war crime .
It would also unravel—or at least strongly rebut—one of his State Department ’ s signature efforts under Secretary of State Mike Pompeo .
With Trump ’ s blessing , Pompeo has increasingly prioritized religious freedom and @ @ @ @ @ @ @ of American foreign policy .
At the United Nations in October , Trump unveiled a $ 25 million plan to protect “ religious sites and relics ” around the world , which the White House later listed among Trump ’ s accomplishments .
It ’ s not clear yet how this money will be applied , but if even some of it goes toward preserving historically vital religious sites , it would represent a dramatic increase in the State Department ’ s cultural preservation efforts .
Currently , the department receives $ 6.25 @ @ @ @ @ @ @ as part of a program it administers to sponsor research projects to protect at-risk religious and cultural sites , usually in countries recovering from war or natural disasters .
Last year , for one such project , a University of Pennsylvania research team received $ 2 million for a 40-month project in Mosul to preserve churches , mosques , and other heritage sites in the aftermath of the bloody battle to retake the Iraqi city from Islamic State control .
State Department employees have increasingly soured on Pompeo even as morale has risen @ @ @ @ @ @ @ a brutal hiring freeze and high levels of turnover under Trump ’ s first secretary of state , Rex Tillerson .
Pompeo ’ s fixation on Iran and his “ drumbeat for war ” have only hurt his standing , the official told me .
Now the department risks undermining more staffers with a threat aimed at demolishing the same kinds of cultural relics the department has spent millions to protect across the Middle East .
A spokesperson for Pompeo declined to comment on whether Trump ’ s threat undermines the preservation work @ @ @ @ @ @ @ .
Even if Trump were to carry out his threat , it ’ s not clear which 52 locations he had in mind .
Iran has 24 sites on the UNESCO World Heritage list , including the Golestan Palace , the ruins of Persepolis , and the Bazaar of Tabriz .
The 52 locations , picked seemingly to represent the number of American hostages taken by Iranian revolutionaries in 1979 , might actually just be conventional targets that Trump mistakenly portrayed as culturally significant .
An administration official told the New York Times @ @ @ @ @ @ @ targets qualified as cultural sites.
” Pompeo and Trump adviser Kellyanne Conway couldn ’ t seem to make sense of Trump ’ s comments either as they took turns defending him .
Pompeo falsely said on Fox News that Trump never actually threatened to destroy cultural sites , while Conway told reporters outside the White House that many military and strategic sites within Iran “ are also cultural sites ” but refused to elaborate .
None of this provides any clarity on a policy that , theoretically , Trump as commander in chief @ @ @ @ @ @ @ at the Pentagon that “ the laws of armed conflict ” prohibit targeting cultural sites , but Trump has shown plenty of times how willing he is to bypass the Defense Department in support of war criminals .
In November , Navy Secretary Richard Spencer was fired over his response to Trump ’ s controversial plan to restore the rank of a disgraced Navy SEAL who had been accused of murder during a deployment to Iraq .
Going back to the 2016 campaign , Trump praised waterboarding as an effective interrogation tactic and @ @ @ @ @ @ @ terrorists—making his threat to order a different form of war crime against Iran all the more plausible .

Fight disinformation: Sign up for the free Mother Jones Daily newsletter and follow the news that matters.
Three days before an American drone assassinated one of Iran’s top generals, the White House bragged in a press release about spending $25 million overseas “to protect religious freedom, religious sites and relics.” Over the weekend, President Donald Trump thoroughly undermined that boast by threatening, via his favorite platform, to eradicate 52 Iranian sites, including some “important to Iran & Iranian culture.”
Striking a cultural site that has no military value is, of course, a war crime, a fact that Secretary of Defense Mark Esper sheepishly acknowledged Monday. For State Department officials who are familiar with its preservation work, the threat was baffling. “I cannot even generate a response,” one department official told me. “The level of hypocrisy in this [tweet] is quite high.”
….targeted 52 Iranian sites (representing the 52 American hostages taken by Iran many years ago), some at a very high level & important to Iran & the Iranian culture, and those targets, and Iran itself, WILL BE HIT VERY FAST AND VERY HARD. The USA wants no more threats! — Donald J. Trump (@realDonaldTrump) January 4, 2020
On Monday, Trump doubled down on his original threat, saying of Iran, “They’re allowed to use roadside bombs and blow up our people. And we’re not allowed to touch their cultural sites? It doesn’t work that way.” By Tuesday, he had reversed himself slightly, saying, “If that’s what the law is, I like to obey the law,” and in a televised statement from the White House on Wednesday, he appeared to back away from any further attacks.
As a moment of macho brinksmanship on Twitter, Trump’s tweet was of a piece with other strange threats he’s hurled at foreign leaders, from telling North Korea’s Kim Jong Un that he had a “much bigger” nuclear button to sending an all-caps warning (“BE CAUTIOUS!”) to President Hassan Rouhani of Iran. Destroying cultural property invites far different concerns, in addition to the obvious ones.
Targeting cultural sites would contravene a treaty signed by the United States and more than 100 other countries at the Hague in 1954 and constitute a war crime. It would also unravel—or at least strongly rebut—one of his State Department’s signature efforts under Secretary of State Mike Pompeo. With Trump’s blessing, Pompeo has increasingly prioritized religious freedom and protections for religious minorities as key planks of American foreign policy. At the United Nations in October, Trump unveiled a $25 million plan to protect “religious sites and relics” around the world, which the White House later listed among Trump’s accomplishments.
It’s not clear yet how this money will be applied, but if even some of it goes toward preserving historically vital religious sites, it would represent a dramatic increase in the State Department’s cultural preservation efforts. Currently, the department receives $6.25 million in funding each year from Congress as part of a program it administers to sponsor research projects to protect at-risk religious and cultural sites, usually in countries recovering from war or natural disasters. Last year, for one such project, a University of Pennsylvania research team received $2 million for a 40-month project in Mosul to preserve churches, mosques, and other heritage sites in the aftermath of the bloody battle to retake the Iraqi city from Islamic State control.
State Department employees have increasingly soured on Pompeo even as morale has risen broadly across the agency, which endured a brutal hiring freeze and high levels of turnover under Trump’s first secretary of state, Rex Tillerson. Pompeo’s fixation on Iran and his “drumbeat for war” have only hurt his standing, the official told me. Now the department risks undermining more staffers with a threat aimed at demolishing the same kinds of cultural relics the department has spent millions to protect across the Middle East. A spokesperson for Pompeo declined to comment on whether Trump’s threat undermines the preservation work being sponsored and funded by the agency.
Even if Trump were to carry out his threat, it’s not clear which 52 locations he had in mind. Iran has 24 sites on the UNESCO World Heritage list, including the Golestan Palace, the ruins of Persepolis, and the Bazaar of Tabriz. The 52 locations, picked seemingly to represent the number of American hostages taken by Iranian revolutionaries in 1979, might actually just be conventional targets that Trump mistakenly portrayed as culturally significant. An administration official told the New York Times on Monday that “none of those targets qualified as cultural sites.”
Pompeo and Trump adviser Kellyanne Conway couldn’t seem to make sense of Trump’s comments either as they took turns defending him. Pompeo falsely said on Fox News that Trump never actually threatened to destroy cultural sites, while Conway told reporters outside the White House that many military and strategic sites within Iran “are also cultural sites” but refused to elaborate.
None of this provides any clarity on a policy that, theoretically, Trump as commander in chief could unilaterally order. Esper admitted Monday at the Pentagon that “the laws of armed conflict” prohibit targeting cultural sites, but Trump has shown plenty of times how willing he is to bypass the Defense Department in support of war criminals. In November, Navy Secretary Richard Spencer was fired over his response to Trump’s controversial plan to restore the rank of a disgraced Navy SEAL who had been accused of murder during a deployment to Iraq. Going back to the 2016 campaign, Trump praised waterboarding as an effective interrogation tactic and mused about killing the families of suspected terrorists—making his threat to order a different form of war crime against Iran all the more plausible.


motherjones--2020-01-08--My Brother Fled Australia’s Climate-Fueled Inferno: “It Was a War Zone.”

The start of 2020 was , let ’ s say , stranger than normal for the West family .
My parents and I couldn ’ t get through to my older brother Marc , who was on summer holiday on the South Coast of Australia , a vast region boasting temperate forests and clear-blue bays south of Sydney—the perfect spot for a carefree escape from the city .
But as the decade closed , the area exploded into a hellscape of runaway wildfires , the worst in Australia ’ s history .
There ’ s currently no end in sight @ @ @ @ @ @ @ killed .
Marc , along with his partner and young family , were in the disaster ’ s midst , and we wanted to know if they were okay .
We knew from rolling coverage that communications and power had failed and fuel was short .
Getting text messages out was hard .
Marc was lucky : he wasn ’ t fighting the fires , or abandoning a home to the flames .
But their initial plans had become instead an urgent need to escape .
He needed to get gas and get @ @ @ @ @ @ @ days waiting , we heard from Marc .
He had found reception in a gas line where he was waiting for hours to fuel up .
“ We were completely incommunicado , ” he told me when I reached him to chat about the evacuation for this week ’ s episode of the Mother Jones Podcast .
“ Things that are happening just are just appalling .
It ’ s nothing—it ’ s nothing like I ’ ve ever seen.
” Blood-red skies blotted the coast as Australia ’ s biggest peacetime maritime @ @ @ @ @ @ @ people who had no option but to shelter on the beach .
With the kids , Luka and Hazel , sitting in the back seat , Marc ’ s northward journey home narrowed to a few available roads , took much longer than the usual couple of hours .
The scene outside the window was horrific .
They drove through Cobargo , a town that gained international notoriety after two of their own perished in the flames and locals confronted the Prime Minister during a photo op , driving him from town with @ @ @ @ @ @ @ .
“ There are trees still burning , ” Marc told me .
“ It must be so hot : The stories you hear about mountains in the distance exploding , and then fires racing down the hills and just scorching the earth.
” Finally , after a marathon trip that lasted all day , they made it home .
“ It was a war zone through there , ” he said .
“ It was appalling.
” Listen to Marc West recount his journey to me , his brother James , on @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Jones Podcast , along with American climate scientist Michael Mann , who studies the intersection between extreme weather and climate change and who happened to be in Australia for the fires :

Fight disinformation: Sign up for the free Mother Jones Daily newsletter and follow the news that matters.
The start of 2020 was, let’s say, stranger than normal for the West family. My parents and I couldn’t get through to my older brother Marc, who was on summer holiday on the South Coast of Australia, a vast region boasting temperate forests and clear-blue bays south of Sydney—the perfect spot for a carefree escape from the city. But as the decade closed, the area exploded into a hellscape of runaway wildfires, the worst in Australia’s history. There’s currently no end in sight. At least 25 people have been killed. Marc, along with his partner and young family, were in the disaster’s midst, and we wanted to know if they were okay.
We knew from rolling coverage that communications and power had failed and fuel was short. Getting text messages out was hard. Marc was lucky: he wasn’t fighting the fires, or abandoning a home to the flames. But their initial plans had become instead an urgent need to escape. He needed to get gas and get out. Finally, after nearly two days waiting, we heard from Marc. He had found reception in a gas line where he was waiting for hours to fuel up.
“We were completely incommunicado,” he told me when I reached him to chat about the evacuation for this week’s episode of the Mother Jones Podcast. “Things that are happening just are just appalling. It’s nothing—it’s nothing like I’ve ever seen.” Blood-red skies blotted the coast as Australia’s biggest peacetime maritime operation got underway to rescue thousands of people who had no option but to shelter on the beach.
Dalmeny over the last few days #NSWfires pic.twitter.com/ULdvJP70il — marc west (@westius) January 1, 2020
With the kids, Luka and Hazel, sitting in the back seat, Marc’s northward journey home narrowed to a few available roads, took much longer than the usual couple of hours. The scene outside the window was horrific. They drove through Cobargo, a town that gained international notoriety after two of their own perished in the flames and locals confronted the Prime Minister during a photo op, driving him from town with their rage and disgust at his inaction. “There are trees still burning,” Marc told me. “It must be so hot: The stories you hear about mountains in the distance exploding, and then fires racing down the hills and just scorching the earth.” Finally, after a marathon trip that lasted all day, they made it home.
Drove through Cobargo – road reopened but there are still trees burning. Devastating #NSWfires pic.twitter.com/W0KX69qx0i — marc west (@westius) January 2, 2020
Thick smoke near Cooma – this is a little earlier, now in a traffic jam due to new grass fires #NSWfires pic.twitter.com/qu8rPUk769 — marc west (@westius) January 2, 2020
“It was a war zone through there,” he said. “It was appalling.”
Listen to Marc West recount his journey to me, his brother James, on today’s episode of the Mother Jones Podcast, along with American climate scientist Michael Mann, who studies the intersection between extreme weather and climate change and who happened to be in Australia for the fires: