RSN Fundraising Banner
FB Share
Email This Page
add comment
Politics
At a Certain Age, the Blues Comes Naturally Print
Written by <a href="index.php?option=com_comprofiler&task=userProfile&user=47905"><span class="small">Garrison Keillor, Garrison Keillor's Website</span></a>   
Friday, 17 July 2020 12:30

Keillor writes: "I am a writing man, I got the sedentary blues."

Garrison Keillor. (photo: MPR)
Garrison Keillor. (photo: MPR)


At a Certain Age, the Blues Comes Naturally

By Garrison Keillor, Garrison Keillor's Website

17 July 20

 

am a writing man, I got the sedentary blues. I need to take a walk soon as I find my shoes. I got a good woman and she gave me a talk. She said, “You’re going to need a walker if you don’t get out and walk.” I came to New York City to try to make my mark. Now I am an old man and I walk in Central Park. My heart was weary and my steps were getting slow. She said, “You’ve gone two blocks, you’ve got another mile to go.”

The pandemic had me shut up in our New York apartment since early March because the more I read about the virus, the less I cared to experience it personally so I stayed home and occupied myself with writing a novel and the main exercise I got was walking into the kitchen and opening the refrigerator door.

I came to enjoy the cloistered life, the morning coffee on the terrace, talking with friends on the phone, recycling, the afternoon nap, the evening meal, the game of cards, the sunset, and what’s more, I enjoyed living with my keeper. Quarantine is a good test of marriage, such a good test that it could be made a requirement for obtaining a license, seclude the couple for thirty (30) days in a small apartment and see how they feel about each other afterward. Four months with my wife made me appreciate her beautiful heart and good humor even more. And a week ago, at her urging, I set foot outside the building for the first time and we hiked into the park.

After a long period of sitting, your legs feel like badly designed prosthetic devices made from tree stumps, and you feel unbalanced, and Jenny sensed that, of course, and took my hand, which was sweet, as if we were on our second date rather than in the 25th year of marriage. It’s endearing that she is completely focused on me, which you would be too if walking with a large person who might trip on a curb and collapse on top of you. Meanwhile, the young and beautiful lope effortlessly past us; I seem to have the distinction of being the Slowest Walker In Central Park, which reminds me of the Bob & Ray “Slow Talkers of America” sketch, in which Bob. Spoke. Very. Deliberately. So. As. To. Make. Each. Word. Perfectly. Clear. AndRayblewupinfuryandwantedtostranglehim.

New York is a strange city with show business, restaurants, the hospitality industry pretty much shut down. Few yellow cabs on the street, unemployment is at Depression level, and I suppose that plenty of those bicyclists whizzing past at 11 a.m. are waiters and stagehands and ticket agents, maybe dancers and musicians, and I feel for them. You’re in your twenties, you come to the big city with a big idea, maybe one so grandiose you don’t dare say it aloud, and suddenly a viral outbreak complicated by federal stupidity brings your life to a stop. Do you wait it out, expecting life to resume? Or do you sense that a Dark Age is on the way, that the face masks are permanent, that the Amazoning of America will go on, and the little mom-and-pops never reopen, the office towers remain half-empty as people go on working from home, and there will be no more concerts, no baseball, no handshakes except with life partners, we’ll live in communities of anonymity, and dystopia become the norm.

An old man thinks long thoughts while taking a long hike at a geezerish pace, but there is no sign of despair anywhere I look, only the happiness of dogs and little kids, the geese on the reservoir, the individual styles of runners, the grim determination of old lady joggers, and the saintliness of the slender woman holding my hand. “You’re doing great,” she says. “In a year, you’ll be running.” I think that unlikely but why rain on my own parade? Keep going.

I feel a slight wrench in my left knee and that upcoming park bench looks very good to me but I resist the urge to take a rest, aware a breather can become a siesta, so on I go with determination to stimulate my circulation. I do not run for love or glory but simply to be ambulatory and to enjoy these moving views and hope to lose the sedentary blues.

e-max.it: your social media marketing partner
 
Did You Protest Recently? Your Face Might Be in a Database Print
Written by <a href="index.php?option=com_comprofiler&task=userProfile&user=55111"><span class="small">Evan Selinger and Albert Fox Cahn, Guardian UK</span></a>   
Friday, 17 July 2020 12:30

Excerpt: "In recent weeks, millions have taken to the streets to oppose police violence and proudly say: 'Black Lives Matter.' These protests will no doubt be featured in history books for many generations to come. But, as privacy researchers, we fear a darker legacy, too."

'In New York City alone, the NYPD used facial recognition more than 8,000 times last year.' (photo: David McNew/Getty)
'In New York City alone, the NYPD used facial recognition more than 8,000 times last year.' (photo: David McNew/Getty)


Did You Protest Recently? Your Face Might Be in a Database

By Evan Selinger and Albert Fox Cahn, Guardian UK

17 July 20


In the United States, at least one in four law enforcement agencies are able to use facial recognition technology. The implications are troubling

n recent weeks, millions have taken to the streets to oppose police violence and proudly say: “Black Lives Matter.” These protests will no doubt be featured in history books for many generations to come. But, as privacy researchers, we fear a darker legacy, too. We know that hundreds of thousands of photos and videos of protesters have been recorded and uploaded online. They could remain there indefinitely, only to be dredged up decades later. It is for this reason that we must ask whether those photos could end up in a facial recognition database.

We know that, in the United States, at least one in four law enforcement agencies are able to use facial recognition technology– considered one of the most dangerous surveillance tools by privacy researchers – with little oversight. While it may take months, even years, to know the full scope of how facial recognition has been used in the most recent protests, police departments have used everything from military grade drones to body-cams with live facial recognition capability.

In New York City alone, the NYPD used facial recognition more than 8,000 times last year, including in conjunction with its so-called “gang database” of 42,000 New Yorkers, overwhelmingly New Yorkers of color. Police could potentially retaliate against protesters by adding their names to databases and singling them out for unjustified, follow-up monitoring and “selective enforcement of unrelated matters”, like minor traffic offenses.

Aside from the ethics of diminishing people’s obscurity when they are in public and stripping away their right to do lawful things like protest anonymously, there is a real risk of misidentification through this technology.

In recent weeks, we’ve begun to hear from victims of facial recognition – people like Robert Williams, who was wrongfully put behind bars because police were swayed by a biased and broken facial recognition algorithm that wrongfully matched him as the perpetrator of a crime he didn’t commit. Mr Williams’ case highlights how facial recognition can produce results that are prejudiced against Black and Latinx Americans and create disproportionately false “matches” and a higher risk of wrongful arrest for them. And just as importantly, Mr Williams explains that bias is only part of the problem: “Even if this technology does become accurate … I don’t want my daughters’ faces to be part of some government database. I don’t want cops showing at their door because they were recorded at a protest the government didn’t like.”

Back in 2016, the police reportedly used facial recognition to find and arrest some people who protested about Freddie Gray’s death who they believed had outstanding arrest warrants. Today, police departments around the country and the FBI are asking for “videos or images” that can link protesters to violence and destruction. These requests are happening even though it’s well documented that law enforcement agencies, including the Minneapolis police department, have used Clearview AI’s facial recognition technology.

This noxious company scraped the internet to compile a name-face database of 3bn faces, which is why Senator Ed Markey recently wrote the company’s chief executive to “ensure its product is not being used to monitor protests against police brutality.” While IBM announced it’s out of the facial recognition technology business, Amazon won’t sell facial recognition technology to the police for a year, and Microsoft won’t sell facial recognition to the police “until there is a strong national law grounded in human rights”, Clearview AI remains all in.

Are the police definitely using facial recognition right now to track protesters? Nobody knows. Since law enforcement has been criticized for not being transparent about its use of facial recognition technology and the FBI and protesters are shining a spotlight on a lack of transparency as a systemic policing problem, every protester at a Black Lives Matter protest and every journalist covering one should assume they could be.

What can be done? Facial recognition technology should be banned. This agenda needs as much support as can be mustered. Calls to defund the police and stop providing them with facial recognition technology are gaining momentum, which is a good first step. But as Tim Maughan rightly argues: “We must not allow private contractors and technology companies to seep in, fill the void, and repeat – or even exacerbate – the same disastrous mistakes.”

This leaves risk-mitigation strategies in the hands of two groups. Protesters can help protect one another by using tools to obscure faces and erase metadata. And journalists shouldn’t publish any images that the police can use to track a protester’s identity unless they have explicit consent to do so.

Journalists might be wary of stepping up. After all, outdated legal doctrines hold that people lack a reasonable expectation of privacy when they’re in public. As a result, journalists have a legal right to photograph whomever they choose at these newsworthy events. Furthermore, journalists might believe they are ethically barred from manipulating “the content of a photograph in any way”.

But this restriction conflicts with their duty to “give special consideration to vulnerable subjects” and “minimize harm”. Journalists have the privilege and responsibility of doing what they can to protect protesters who are living in a society that has yet to come to terms with the fact that analog assumptions about what’s private and public no longer hold in the face of modern police surveillance.

This isn’t the first time protesters are risking their safety and wellbeing standing up for justice. Sadly, it won’t be the last. Since facial recognition technology poses an unprecedented threat, every possible precaution needs to be taken.

e-max.it: your social media marketing partner
 
FOCUS: The Case for Defunding the Pentagon Print
Written by <a href="index.php?option=com_comprofiler&task=userProfile&user=54159"><span class="small">Bernie Sanders, POLITICO</span></a>   
Friday, 17 July 2020 11:31

Sanders writes: "Fifty-three years ago Dr. Martin Luther King Jr. challenged all of us to fight against three major evils: 'the evil of racism, the evil of poverty and the evil of war.' If there was ever a moment in American history when we needed to respond to Dr. King's clarion call for justice and demand a 'radical revolution of values,' now is that time."

Ships with the Ronald Reagan Carrier Strike Group and John C. Stennis Carrier Strike Group transit the Philippine Sea on November 16, 2018. (photo: Petty Officer 3rd Class Connor Loessin/U.S. Navy)
Ships with the Ronald Reagan Carrier Strike Group and John C. Stennis Carrier Strike Group transit the Philippine Sea on November 16, 2018. (photo: Petty Officer 3rd Class Connor Loessin/U.S. Navy)


The Case for Defunding the Pentagon

By Bernie Sanders, POLITICO

17 July 20


Cutting the defense budget by a modest 10 percent could provide billions to combat the pandemic, provide health care and take care of neglected communities.

ifty-three years ago Dr. Martin Luther King Jr. challenged all of us to fight against three major evils: “the evil of racism, the evil of poverty and the evil of war.” If there was ever a moment in American history when we needed to respond to Dr. King’s clarion call for justice and demand a “radical revolution of values,” now is that time.

Whether it is fighting against systemic racism and police brutality, defeating the deadliest pandemic in more than a hundred years, or putting an end to the worst economic downturn since the Great Depression, now is the time to fundamentally change our national priorities.

Sadly, instead of responding to any of these unprecedented crises, the Republican Senate is on a two-week vacation. When it comes back, its first order of business will be to pass a military spending authorization that would give the bloated Pentagon $740 billion—an increase of more than $100 billion since Donald Trump became president.

Let’s be clear: As coronavirus infections, hospitalizations and deaths are surging to record levels in states across America, and the lifeline of unemployment benefits keeping 30 million people afloat expires at the end of the month, the Republican Senate has decided to provide more funding for the Pentagon than the next 11 nations’ military budgets combined.

Under this legislation, over half of our discretionary budget would go to the Department of Defense at a time when tens of millions of Americans are food insecure and over a half-million Americans are sleeping out on the street. After adjusting for inflation, this bill would spend more money on the Pentagon than we did during the height of the Vietnam War even as up to 22 million Americans are in danger of being evicted from their homes and health workers are still forced to reuse masks, gloves and gowns.

Moreover, this extraordinary level of military spending comes at a time when the Department of Defense is the only agency of our federal government that has not been able to pass an independent audit, when defense contractors are making enormous profits while paying their CEOs outrageous compensation packages, and when the so-called War on Terror will cost some $6 trillion.

Let us never forget what Republican President Dwight D. Eisenhower, a former four-star general, said in 1953: “Every gun that is made, every warship launched, every rocket fired signifies, in the final sense, a theft from those who hunger and are not fed, those who are cold and are not clothed.”

What Eisenhower said was true 67 years ago, and it is true today.

If the horrific pandemic we are now experiencing has taught us anything it is that national security means a lot more than building bombs, missiles, nuclear warheads and other weapons of mass destruction. National security also means doing everything we can to improve the lives of tens of millions of people living in desperation who have been abandoned by our government decade after decade.

That is why I have introduced an amendment to the Defense Authorization Act that the Senate will be voting on during the week of July 20th, and the House will follow suit with a companion effort led by Representatives Mark Pocan (D-Wis.) and Barbara Lee (D-Calif.). Our amendment would reduce the military budget by 10 percent and use that $74 billion in savings to invest in communities that have been ravaged by extreme poverty, mass incarceration, decades of neglect and the Covid-19 pandemic. 

Under this amendment, distressed cities and towns in every state in the country would be able to use these funds to create jobs by building affordable housing, schools, childcare facilities, community health centers, public hospitals, libraries and clean drinking water facilities. These communities would also receive federal funding to hire more public school teachers, provide nutritious meals to children and parents and offer free tuition at public colleges, universities or trade schools.

This amendment gives my Senate colleagues a fundamental choice to make. They can vote to spend more money on endless wars in the Middle East while failing to provide economic security to millions of people in the United States. Or they can vote to spend less money on nuclear weapons and cost overruns, and more to rebuild struggling communities in their home states.

In Dr. King’s 1967 speech, he warned that “a nation that continues year after year to spend more money on military defense than on programs of social uplift is approaching spiritual death.”

He was right. At a time when half of our people are struggling paycheck to paycheck, when over 40 million Americans are living in poverty, and when 87 million lack health insurance or are underinsured, we are approaching spiritual death.

At a time when we have the highest rate of childhood poverty of almost any major country on Earth, and when millions of Americans are in danger of going hungry, we are approaching spiritual death.

At a time when we have no national testing program, no adequate production of protective gear and no commitment to a free vaccine, while remaining the only major country where infections spiral out of control, we are approaching spiritual death. 

At a time when over 60,000 Americans die each year because they can’t afford to get to a doctor on time, and one out of five Americans can’t afford the prescription drugs their doctors prescribe, we are approaching spiritual death.

Now, at this unprecedented moment in American history, it is time to rethink what we value as a society and to fundamentally transform our national priorities. Cutting the military budget by 10 percent and investing that money in human needs is a modest way to begin that process. Let's get it done.

e-max.it: your social media marketing partner
 
FOCUS: The Next Disaster Is Just a Few Days Away Print
Written by <a href="index.php?option=com_comprofiler&task=userProfile&user=51503"><span class="small">Paul Krugman, The New York Times</span></a>   
Friday, 17 July 2020 11:05

Krugman writes: "Some of us knew from the beginning that Donald Trump wasn't up to the job of being president, that he wouldn't be able to deal with a crisis that wasn't of his own making. Still, the magnitude of America's coronavirus failure has shocked even the cynics."

A worker at a food bank in Texas in May. Since then, things have only gotten worse. (photo: Ilana Panich-Linsman/The New York Times)
A worker at a food bank in Texas in May. Since then, things have only gotten worse. (photo: Ilana Panich-Linsman/The New York Times)


The Next Disaster Is Just a Few Days Away

By Paul Krugman, The New York Times

17 July 20


Millions of unemployed Americans face imminent catastrophe.

ome of us knew from the beginning that Donald Trump wasn’t up to the job of being president, that he wouldn’t be able to deal with a crisis that wasn’t of his own making. Still, the magnitude of America’s coronavirus failure has shocked even the cynics.

At this point Florida alone has an average daily death toll roughly equal to that of the whole European Union, which has 20 times its population.

How did this happen? One key element in our deadly debacle has been extreme shortsightedness: At every stage of the crisis Trump and his allies refused to acknowledge or get ahead of disasters everyone paying attention clearly saw coming.

READ MORE

e-max.it: your social media marketing partner
 
The Plot Against America: The GOP's Plan to Suppress the Vote and Sabotage the Election Print
Written by <a href="index.php?option=com_comprofiler&task=userProfile&user=48830"><span class="small">Andy Kroll, Rolling Stone</span></a>   
Friday, 17 July 2020 08:19

Kroll writes: "By beating the drum about 'massive fraud and abuse' and spreading misinformation about the integrity of the election, Trump could be laying the groundwork to challenge or outright deny the results."

Donald Trump accepts the Republican presidential nomination at GOP convention in 2016. (photo: Meg Vogel/The Enquirer)
Donald Trump accepts the Republican presidential nomination at GOP convention in 2016. (photo: Meg Vogel/The Enquirer)


The Plot Against America: The GOP's Plan to Suppress the Vote and Sabotage the Election

By Andy Kroll, Rolling Stone

17 July 20


Blocking ballots, intimidating voters, spreading misinformation — undermining democracy is at the heart of Trump’s 2020 campaign

n June, President Trump sat in the Oval Office for one of his periodic interviews-turned-airing-of-grievances. When the conversation turned to the 2020 election, Trump singled out what he called the “biggest risk” to his bid for a second term. It was not the mounting death toll from COVID-19, or further economic damage inflicted by the pandemic, or anything else a reality-dwelling president might fret about.

“My biggest risk is that we don’t win lawsuits,” Trump told the Politico reporter he’d invited. He was referring to the series of lawsuits filed by his campaign and the Republican National Committee that fight the expansion of mail-in voting and seek to limit access to the ballot box in November. “We have many lawsuits going all over,” he said. “And if we don’t win those lawsuits, I think — I think it puts the election at risk.”

Going into 2020, Trump had the political winds at his back with a strong economy, roaring stock market, and historically low unemployment. Then came COVID-19. As of this writing, more than 135,000 Americans are dead from the virus, more than 3 million have gotten infected, and the economy has tipped into Great Depression territory. With Trump at the helm, the U.S. government’s response to the coronavirus pandemic has ranked as one of the worst anywhere in the world.

By midsummer, the president’s approval ratings had sunk to the high 30s. According to Gallup, in the past 72 years only one incumbent president with a comparably dismal standing, Harry Truman, went on to win re-election. The possibility of Trump going down in flames, Hindenburg-style, and bringing the rest of the Republican ticket with him had even Fox News speculating on whether he might drop out of the race before the election.

But Trump defied the prewritten obituaries in 2016, and he could do it again this year. In recent months, a central theme of his re-election strategy has come into clear, unmistakable focus: Trump and his Republican enablers are putting voter suppression front and center — fear-mongering about voting by mail, escalating their Election Day poll watching and so-called ballot-security operations, and blocking funding to prepare the country for a pandemic-era election. “The president views vote-by-mail as a threat to his election,” a lawyer for the Trump campaign recently told 60 Minutes. Attorney General William Barr told Fox News that vote-by-mail “absolutely opens the floodgates to fraud.” And Trump blasted out in a May tweet that “MAIL-IN VOTING WILL LEAD TO MASSIVE FRAUD AND ABUSE. IT WILL ALSO LEAD TO THE END OF OUR GREAT REPUBLICAN PARTY. WE CAN NEVER LET THIS TRAGEDY BEFALL OUR NATION.”

“They’re shouting the quiet part out loud,” Marc Elias, one of the Democratic Party’s top election lawyers, tells Rolling Stone. “They’re not whispering it. They’re shouting it.”

Justin Clark, a senior lawyer on the Trump 2020 campaign, had a message for the group of Republican lawyers gathered at a members-only club in Madison, Wisconsin, last November. Every time he met with President Trump, Clark told the group, Trump asked, “‘What are we doing about voter fraud? What are we doing about voter fraud?’”

“Traditionally, it’s always been Republicans suppressing votes in places,” Clark said. He would later explain that he was referring to what Democrats say about Republicans, but it was all part of a larger point — namely, to ensure the president’s election, the Trump campaign and RNC were stepping up their efforts to root out the supposed scourge of “voter fraud.”

“It’s going to be a much bigger program, much more aggressive program, a better funded program,” said Clark. The president, he assured the group, “believes in it, and he will do whatever it takes to make sure it’s successful.”

To be clear, rampant voter fraud is a myth, a fantasy dreamed up by those who need a pretext to make it harder for certain people to exercise their right to vote. Instances of in-person and mail-in voter fraud are extremely rare, according to decades of data and academic research. The conservative Heritage Foundation — whose co-founder Paul Weyrich once told a group of evangelical leaders that “I don’t want everybody to vote” because “our leverage in the elections quite candidly goes up as the voting populace goes down” — is one of the loudest proponents of the voter-fraud myth. Yet according to Heritage’s own research, in the past 20 years, 0.00006 percent of all mail-in ballots cast were fraudulent. “There is no support for the argument that mail-in voting is a problem,” says Lorraine Minnite, a political-science professor at Rutgers University and author of The Myth of Voter Fraud.

But that isn’t stopping Trump and the Republican Party from going on the offensive. Trump officials argue that Democrats are using COVID-19 as an “excuse and pretext” to rush through drastic changes like universal vote-by-mail that are intended to benefit their candidates and that would inject more uncertainty into our elections. “President Trump will not stand by as Democrats attempt to tear apart our entire election system just months before votes are cast,” Clark, the Trump campaign lawyer, said in a statement to Rolling Stone.

In February, the Trump campaign and the Republican National Committee announced that they would spend $10 million on voting-related lawsuits in 2020 — a figure that has since doubled to $20 million. The RNC has so far filed lawsuits in more than a dozen states, including the battlegrounds of Colorado, Minnesota, Michigan, Wisconsin, Pennsylvania, and Florida. These suits are a mix of offense and defense: Some attempt to block litigation brought by Democratic groups to expand mail-in voting in response to the coronavirus pandemic. Others seek to invalidate state-level policies by saying that expanding access to mail-in ballots invites fraud. But the uniting theme of the RNC’s suits, says Rick Hasen, a University of California, Irvine law professor and author of Election Meltdown, is simple: “Casting doubt on the legitimacy of the election. Raising spurious fraud claims.”

In Pennsylvania, for instance, the RNC is suing the state government and election boards in all 67 counties to ban the use of secure drop boxes for submitting take-home ballots and to eliminate the requirement that poll watchers can only serve in the county where they live. In Florida, Republicans have sued to block efforts that would make the state pay for postage on mail-in ballots, would change state law so that any mail-in ballot postmarked by the date of the election (as opposed to received by Election Day) will be counted, and would allow paid organizers to gather and submit completed absentee ballots.

It’s a sign of how aggressive and deep-pocketed the GOP legal strategy is that the party is waging legal battles in states that Trump has no chance of winning. In May, the RNC and two other groups sued California Gov. Gavin Newsom, a Democrat, over a newly announced plan to mail absentee ballots to all eligible voters in the nation’s most populous state.

“That would be like me waking up one day and saying, ‘I’m going to file a voting-rights lawsuit in’ — I don’t even know what the equivalent is — ‘Wyoming or South Dakota,’?” says Elias, the Democratic Party election lawyer. The RNC’s suit against California “suggests to me that their $20 million is only a small tip of the iceberg,” he adds.

The funders of the RNC’s 2020 legal war chest are a who’s who of plutocrats and industry titans for whom a $100,000 check to the president is pocket change. According to an analysis of election records by Rolling Stone, these funders include L.L. Bean heiress Linda Bean, private-equity magnate Stephen Schwarzman, Johnson & Johnson heir Ambassador Woody Johnson, Sen. Kelly Loeffler (R-Ga.), the Ricketts family that founded TD Ameritrade, coal barons Joe Craft and Robert Murray, billionaire financiers John Paulson and John W. Childs, financial executive Charles Schwab, Madison Square Garden owner James Dolan, and Marvel Entertainment chairman Ike Perlmutter. “It’s no surprise to see that the list of wealthy people bankrolling the RNC’s attack on voting rights includes some of the biggest benefactors of the Trump administration’s economic policy,” says Morris Pearl, chair of Patriotic Millionaires. “They don’t want to protect our elections — they want to protect their positions of privilege.”

The Trump campaign has a deep-pocketed ally in its attack on mail-in voting: the Honest Elections Project. Funded by undisclosed dark money and linked to Leonard Leo, the conservative activist who helped put Justices Neil Gorsuch and Brett Kavanaugh on the Supreme Court and steered more than $250 million for conservative judicial causes between 2014 and 2017, the organization says on its website that voter suppression is a “myth.” The group has run ads that warn against “risky new methods” like mail-in ballots, and accused Wisconsin Democrats of sowing election “chaos” after the state’s Republicans refused to send every voter an absentee ballot or delay its April primary election because of COVID-19. The group has hired the same law firm spearheading the RNC’s massive litigation campaign, Consovoy McCarthy, to pressure election officials in battleground states to purge their voting rolls, threatening to sue them if they don’t comply.

The group’s executive director, Jason Snead, is a former Heritage Foundation scholar who has argued that felons “should be required to prove that they have turned over a new leaf” before they can vote again and that “fraudulent” voting behavior is “deeply ingrained in certain regions of the country.” Earlier this year, Snead told Breitbart News that the “greatest danger” facing American elections amid the COVID-19 crisis wasn’t the risk of illness or death, but Democratic proposals for reforming the voting process to meet our pandemic moment. (Snead did not respond to a request for comment.)

Voting-rights activists say Snead’s comments are typical of a conservative movement that wants to make it harder for people of color, ex-felons, and college students to vote. Lauren Groh-Wargo, CEO of Fair Fight Action, founded by former Georgia gubernatorial candidate Stacey Abrams and funded by major liberal donors, says Snead is “directly dog-whistling around this racist idea that there are these droves of illegal voters, which is not true.”

On November 3rd, 1981, Lynette Monroe, who lived in northwest Trenton, headed out to her polling place. It was Election Day in New Jersey. When Monroe, a Democrat, arrived at the polling site, she was stopped outside by a member of a group called the National Ballot Security Task Force. Monroe was asked if she had her voter-registration card with her. She said she did not but that it didn’t matter — she was a registered voter. But the National Ballot Security Task Force members “turned her away, preventing her from casting her ballot,” according to a lawsuit later filed by the Democratic Party, Monroe, and several others.

When she was turned away, Monroe had no way of knowing that the National Ballot Security Task Force was a massive voter-suppression project funded and carried out by the Republican National Committee and the New Jersey Republican Party. Republicans hired county deputy sheriffs and local policemen with revolvers, two-way radios, and “National Ballot Security Task Force” armbands to patrol predominantly black and Hispanic precincts in New Jersey. They posted large warning signs outside polling places saying that it was “a crime to falsify a ballot or to violate election laws.” The signs omitted any mention of the GOP’s role in this egregious intimidation scheme, but the intent was obvious: “to harass and intimidate duly qualified black and Hispanic voters for the purpose and with the effect of discouraging these voters from casting their ballots,” the lawsuit stated.

The result of the suit was a 1982 consent decree between the Democratic and Republican parties. Even though the RNC refused to admit wrong-doing in New Jersey, the group agreed to stop harassing and intimidating voters of color, including by deputizing off-duty law-enforcement officers and equipping those officers with guns or badges. Over the next three decades, Democrats marshaled enough evidence of ongoing Republican voter suppression to maintain the consent decree until 2018, when a federal judge lifted the order.

The 2020 presidential election will be the first in nearly 40 years when the RNC isn’t bound by the terms of the 1982 decree. Clark, the Trump campaign lawyer, told the group of Republicans at the private meeting last November that the end of the consent decree was “a huge, huge, huge, huge deal,” freeing the RNC to directly coordinate with campaigns and political committees on so-called Election Day operations. The RNC is sending millions of dollars to state Republican parties to vastly expand these measures, which include recruiting 50,000 poll observers to deploy in key precincts. Josh Helton, a lawyer who has advised the National Republican Senatorial Committee, has described Philadelphia, where black people make up 41 percent of the population, as “probably the epicenter for voter fraud in this country” and a likely target for the GOP’s 2020 poll-watching efforts.

Depending on the state, poll watchers enlisted by political parties can challenge a voter’s eligibility based on their address, citizenship, and even the date they registered to vote. Michigan law, for instance, says poll watchers need only “good reason” to pull a prospective voter out of line and challenge their eligibility. North Carolina allows anyone registered to vote with “good moral character” (whatever that means) to work as a poll watcher. Even in Oregon and Washington state, where elections are conducted by mail, poll watchers can observe county clerks count mail-in ballots and make challenges when they see fit.

Here again, outside groups seem to be drafting off of the Trump campaign’s aggressive plans. Catherine Engelbrecht, founder of True the Vote, a group that spreads misinformation about “voter fraud” and has accused “globalists” of exploiting the COVID-19 pandemic to “finance a massive push to ‘vote at home,’” laid out at a closed-door conference in February a plan to enlist Navy SEALs to monitor polling places in 2020. “You get some SEALs in those polls and they’re going to say, ‘No, no, this is what it says. This is how we’re going to play this show,’” Engelbrecht said, according to a recording obtained by The Intercept. “That’s what we need. We need people who are unafraid to call it like they see it.”

To voting-rights advocates, the RNC and True the Vote’s poll-watching plans, if realized, are nothing more than a blatant voter-intimidation strategy. “Their program is based on a false premise that Americans, and especially Americans of color, are breaking the law when it comes to voting, so their poll monitors become de facto policemen and serve no purpose but to intimidate voters, because fraud is so rare,” says Groh-Wargo of Fair Fight Action. “They’re aiming to pack monitors into polling places to disrupt voting from within, but they’re also hoping that the existence of their massive program creates an aura of intimidation that deters eligible voters from participating in the first place.”

Just as racism and xenophobia have always been essential to Trump’s political DNA, so, too, have nonstop, evidence-free claims of “voter fraud” and “rigged” elections. Even after he defeated Hillary Clinton in 2016, he claimed — with zero evidence — that 3 to 5 million noncitizens had voted, and that was why he lost the popular vote, thus surely becoming the first presidential victor to allege historic levels of “illegal” voting … in the election he just won. Now, with COVID-19 ravaging the country and disproportionately afflicting people of color, Trump has found a way to attack the democratic process that combines his Stephen Miller-inspired racist agenda and his deranged voter-fraud obsession.

Vote-by-mail didn’t used to be a partisan idea. Before COVID-19, five states, led by Democrats and Republicans alike, conducted their elections entirely by mail — Colorado, Hawaii, Oregon, Washington, and Utah — and 29 more states plus D.C. permitted “no excuse” absentee voting, meaning voters can request absentee ballots without having to provide any reason why. U.S. service members have long mailed in their ballots from overseas, and until recently both political parties have touted its benefits.

But suddenly Republican elected officials, from Trump on down to local lawmakers, are blocking efforts to make it easier to vote by mail. Consider Iowa. In response to the pandemic, Secretary of State Paul Pate, a Republican, extended early voting and sent an absentee ballot application to every voter. Turnout in the state’s June primary elections surged and the vast majority of people voted absentee. Iowa Republican legislators responded by hastily passing a law to limit the secretary of state’s emergency authority.

“Mail-in voting wasn’t created in this pandemic,” says Janai Nelson, associate director-counsel at the NAACP Legal Defense and Educational Fund. “It’s only when we see the expansion of access to this very practical tool that we see the casting of votes being subjected to such scrutiny and malignment.”

The naked hypocrisy of the Republican Party’s newfound antipathy toward mail-in voting is all the more glaring considering that Trump, Vice President Mike Pence, AG Barr, and many other senior Trump administration officials have voted absentee repeatedly in the past. And as an actual strategy, Trump’s attacks on mail-in voting could even turn out to be self-destructive if you account for the fact that Republican voters have long been avid users of mail-in voting. In Florida, absentee voting is widely popular among the state’s Republican voters. In Arizona, where the Republican presidential candidate has won every four years since 1972 with only one exception, the GOP initiated and perfected the use of mail-in voting. Chuck Coughlin, a consultant who advised Sen. John McCain, calls it “a very effective way of letting people participate” with few incidents of fraud.

The real threat to the 2020 elections is not what Trump, Barr, and their allies want you to believe. It’s the funding and readiness crisis facing thousands of election jurisdictions trying to shift to a hybrid in-person/vote-by-mail model in a few months’ time. In California, where 72 percent of voters mailed in their ballots in the most recent primary, the transition won’t be as hard. But Pennsylvania, where the percentage of mail-in ballots is in the single digits, faces a daunting task. Coughlin, the Arizona consultant, says it took years and many elections for Arizona to master the use of widely adopted mail-in voting. Underfunded election operations are a perennial issue, but with state budgets facing dramatic cutbacks due to COVID-19, the funding shortfall could be worse than ever. “My usual election-cycle comment is that we’re trying to find enough duct tape to cover the holes in the bucket,” says Justin Levitt, a professor at Loyola Law School and voting-rights expert. “This time, we’re trying to make the bucket out of duct tape.”

Civil-rights groups have asked Congress to approve $4 billion as soon as possible for election funding. (So far, Trump has signed off on just $400 million, one-tenth of the recommended amount, and local officials have already spent most of that initial money.) House Democrats included that funding in a coronavirus relief bill, the HEROES Act, but Senate Republicans, led by Mitch McConnell, blocked the bill and Trump called it “dead on arrival.”

How to explain this? It’s possible that voter suppression isn’t the only goal — it’s also about creating chaos and confusion before, on, and after Election Day. Perhaps Trump’s assault on voting in our pandemic election year isn’t a “strategy” at all but rather a kamikaze mission aimed at the heart of American democracy. The way Coughlin sees it, the ultimate goal of Trump’s criticism of mail-in voting is “to sow doubt in people’s minds about the process, which validates any view of his unless he wins.”

By beating the drum about “massive fraud and abuse” and spreading misinformation about the integrity of the election, Trump could be laying the groundwork to challenge or outright deny the results. And if the RNC were to follow his lead and file lawsuits challenging the vote count, we could wind up in dangerously uncharted territory for American democracy. Picture Bush v. Gore on steroids. “We’ve never had a president delegitimize our democratic process intentionally,” says Rachel Bitecofer, a senior fellow and election forecaster at the Niskanen Center. “It is the kind of behavior you would not see — and should not see — in a healthy democracy.”

e-max.it: your social media marketing partner
 
<< Start < Prev 411 412 413 414 415 416 417 418 419 420 Next > End >>

Page 420 of 3432

THE NEW STREAMLINED RSN LOGIN PROCESS: Register once, then login and you are ready to comment. All you need is a Username and a Password of your choosing and you are free to comment whenever you like! Welcome to the Reader Supported News community.

RSNRSN