RSN Fundraising Banner
FB Share
Email This Page
add comment
Politics
FOCUS: How Ending the Blue Slip Damaged the Federal Courts Forever Print
Written by <a href="index.php?option=com_comprofiler&task=userProfile&user=60629"><span class="small">Al Franken, Democracy Docket</span></a>   
Thursday, 26 August 2021 11:52

Franken writes: "When journalists write about the Republican takeover of the federal courts, they tend to focus on three events. 1) Harry Reid going nuclear in 2013. 2) Mitch McConnell blocking Merrick Garland. 3) Candidate Donald Trump promising just weeks before the 2016 election to choose Supreme Court nominees solely from a shortlist provided by The Federalist Society and The Heritage Society."

Former U.S. senator Al Franken. (photo: Jacquelyn Martin/AP)
Former U.S. senator Al Franken. (photo: Jacquelyn Martin/AP)


How Ending the Blue Slip Damaged the Federal Courts Forever

By Al Franken, Democracy Docket

26 August 21

 

hen journalists write about the Republican takeover of the federal courts, they tend to focus on three events. 1) Harry Reid going nuclear in 2013. 2) Mitch McConnell blocking Merrick Garland. 3) Candidate Donald Trump promising just weeks before the 2016 election to choose Supreme Court nominees solely from a shortlist provided by The Federalist Society and The Heritage Society.

What they leave out is 4) McConnell, White House Counsel Don McGahn and Senate Judiciary Chairman Chuck Grassley ending the blue-slip policy.

Quickly – The first three. 1) Reid and 51 others of us in the Democratic caucus went nuclear in November 2013 because McConnell had filibustered as many of President Obama’s executive and judicial nominees as had been filibustered previously in the entire history of the nation. On the executive side, Republicans had stopped Obama from filling even critical national and domestic security positions. On the judicial side, the most egregious example of McConnell’s obstruction was his refusal to allow votes on three Obama nominees to the D.C. Circuit of Appeals — the nation’s second most important court. A number of moderate Democrats begged Republicans to recreate the Gang of 14, named for the seven moderate Republicans and seven moderate Democrats who had agreed in 2005, to put through all but Bush’s most extreme judges, in order to prevent Republicans from going nuclear. But in 2013, when Reid met with McConnell, Mitch refused, and we pushed the button.

2) Senate Republicans won the majority in the 2014 midterm. When Justice Antonin Scalia died on February 13, 2016, President Obama nominated Merrick Garland, Chief Judge of the D.C. Circuit, for the vacant seat. McConnell instructed his caucus not to take up Garland in the Judiciary Committee or even meet with him. This unprecedented move, McConnell insisted, was based on the so-called Biden Rule, which he claimed that Senator Biden, as Chairman of the Judiciary Committee, had laid down in June of 1992. Biden, McConnell maintained, had announced that the Senate would not take up any nominee for the Court in a presidential election year. Except Biden hadn’t said that at all. What Biden had actually said was that if a Justice retired after that year’s Supreme Court session, which was about to end, he would take up a nominee, but only if President George H.W Bush nominated a moderate or if Bush consulted with committee Democrats first.

The difference? Justice Scalia didn’t resign in July to allow his party’s president to nominate a much younger successor. No. He died. In February. Also, Garland was known not just as a moderate, but as a universally respected consensus-builder on the D.C. Circuit. And President Obama had consulted with Senator Orrin Hatch, the senior Republican on Judiciary, who publicly went on record immediately after Scalia’s death to say that Garland would be a great choice to replace the late justice.

Nevertheless, Republicans blocked Garland, and the seat was held open until President Trump nominated Neil Gorsuch to fill it. All of it was, of course, bunkum. Horse bunkum. Amy Coney Barrett was seated just nine days before the 2020 election.

3) Gorsuch, Brett Kavanaugh, and Coney Barrett are all Federalist Society members —an organization of now-60,000 conservative, libertarian and some genuinely right-wing-nutcase lawyers and jurists (see below), and law school students founded in the 1980’s to counter what they considered the liberal bias of the federal courts. Funded by the likes of the Scaifes and the Kochs, The Federalist Society had by 2016, already successfully seeded the federal courts with Hundred Percenters, Federalist Society members who had been tracked through law school and beyond, rewarding those who never strayed from Federalist Society doctrine with clerkships, jobs at prestigious law firms, judgeships and, of late, seats on the Supreme Court.

Arguably, the most important moment of Donald Trump’s 2016 campaign was when he pledged that he would choose a Supreme Court Justice to replace Scalia from a shortlist supplied by The Federalist Society and The Heritage Foundation. Evangelicals had been wary of the thrice-married, locker-room banterer, but were now assured that he would appoint only judges who were hostile to abortion rights.

With Trump in the White House and Republicans holding the majority in the Senate, they were now free not just to fill the SCOTUS vacancy, but to stack the federal circuit and district courts. But there was only one thing stopping them from filling every existing and new vacancy with a Hundred Percenter. The blue slip.

What’s the blue slip? It’s a form. On blue paper. Since 1917, home-state senators could either turn in their blue slip, showing that they approved a district or appeals court nominee for their state’s slot on an Article Three court, or they could withhold their blue slip to block a nominee they opposed. The blue slip served a number of purposes, which both parties had repeatedly affirmed. Both Grassley and Pat Leahy, his Democratic predecessor as chair, recognized the critical role the blue slip played in ensuring that presidents respect the Senate’s constitutional obligation to provide “advice and consent.”

When Grassley took the gavel in 2015, he wrote an op ed in The Des Moines Register. The blue slip, he wrote, is designed to encourage “consensus between the White House and home-state senators,” and he committed to following Senator Leahy’s approach to the blue slip.

“…over the years, Judiciary Committee chairs of both parties have upheld a Blue-Slip process, including Senator Leahy, my immediate predecessor, who steadfastly honored the tradition even as some in his own party called for its demise. I appreciate the value of the blue-slip process and also intend to honor it.”

Except he didn’t.

Not long after Trump took office, I got a call from Don McGahn. Minnesota’s seat on the 8th Circuit Court of Appeals had opened. I had expected the call because that’s what White House counsels do when a state’s seat on the federal judiciary opens up – consult with the state’s two senators. But, in retrospect, this wasn’t a consultation. McGahn told me that they were very strongly considering Minnesota Supreme Court Justice David Stras for the 8th Circuit seat. I said, “No.” Stras had been on the very first Federalist Society shortlist for the Supreme Court. I’d be happy, I told him, to put an advisory committee together of respected lawyers and jurists in Minnesota and pick a consensus candidate who was well-respected by everyone in the state. Oddly, McGahn seemed to ignore my offer and asked me to keep my mind open and read some of Stras’ decisions. I said, “Okay. I will do so. But I’m telling you it’s very doubtful that I’m going to hand in my blue slip on anybody on that shortlist.”

So, acting in good faith, I read a few of Stras’ Minnesota Supreme Court decisions and a number of articles he had written which confirmed my doubts. Stras had clerked for Justice Clarence Thomas, and strongly associated himself with Justice Thomas’ extreme views in his writings. In one article he characterized important civil rights issues like school integration and LGBT issues as “contentious,” and described gay people using the term “homosexual,” well after that term had become widely understood to be disparaging.

In 2010, Justice Stras associated himself with Justice Thomas’ dissent in Grutter v. Bollinger, the Supreme Court case that upheld the constitutionality of the University of Michigan Law School’s admissions process, characterizing the law school’s efforts to improve diversity within its student body as “racial discrimination.”

Neither Stras’ scholarship nor his level of experience as a state Supreme Court Justice were in question. But neither was my certainty about the fate of my blue slip. The next time I spoke to McGahn I told him as much. This time he insisted that I meet with Stras. Which I did. Again, in good faith. It was a very cordial visit. I actually liked him. But the meeting did nothing to change my mind. In the next call, McGahn told me that President Trump was going to nominate him anyway. “Well, I’m not turning in my blue slip,” confident that Chuck Grassley, like so many of his Republican colleagues, was a man of his word.

Meanwhile, Michigan’s two Senators, Debbie Stabenow and Gary Peters, were in much the same boat. McGahn had told them that Trump was going to nominate Joan Larsen for Michigan’s 6th Circuit seat. Larsen, too, had been on the first Federal Society SCOTUS shortlist. I assumed they would hold firm, but when news got out that the Michigan senators had caved, I realized that Minnesota was next.

My senior Senator, Amy Klobuchar, had announced her support for Stras. The 8th Circuit was already conservative, she reasoned, and this would leave a vacancy in the Minnesota Supreme Court that our Governor, Mark Dayton, a Democrat, would fill. Also, every member of that Court had given Stras their endorsement, including Justice Alan Page, the beloved ex-Viking tackle and NFL Hall of Famer. I chalked that up to collegiality. On the other hand, a number of the top legal minds in Minnesota had written me with the same objections that I had. As much as I respect Amy, I just could not approve of this guy. She may have been a partner at Walter Mondale’s law firm and Hennepin County District Attorney. But I had played a lawyer in a sketch.

Next, Chairman Grassley insisted on coming to see me in my office. Preceding him were two letters – one from his judiciary staff and a personal one from him. Both letters had assumed that I had opposed Stras only because he had clerked for Thomas. Grassley’s letter complained that I was “grasping at straws” to oppose him. He also wrote that “a Blue Slip is not a veto on a nomination.”

Well, actually, it was. Or had been for over a hundred years. When Alabama Senator Richard Shelby had refused to return the blue slip for the nomination of Judge Abdul Kallon for the 11th Circuit, he said, “a Republican President will do a lot better job. I don’t want somebody selected by President Obama getting a lifetime appointment here in Alabama.” That seat remained vacant until President Trump named a nominee, who was quickly processed by Grassley’s Judiciary Committee and confirmed. Sounds like a veto to me.

That had been the case with Obama nominees blocked by Shelby’s Alabama colleague Jeff Sessions, McConnell and Rand Paul of Kentucky, John Cornyn and Ted Cruz of Texas, Pat Roberts and Jerry Moran of Kansas and others, even though the Obama White House had consulted with them, some over the course of years. And still, obvious as it was that many of these Republicans were operating in bad faith, Chairman Leahy honored his commitment to the blue slip.

When I met with Chairman Grassley, I told him that I had not been consulted and that I had read Stras’ opinions and articles and found them disqualifying. All this seemed to be news to him. Nevertheless, a few days later, McConnell announced that Stras would get his hearing and, no doubt, be confirmed. The blue slip was history. Thus started a parade of judges who, in many cases, held not just extreme, but kooky views. McConnell’s choice to fill the 6th Circuit seat was John Kenneth Bush, an avid blogger who had pushed out birther propaganda citing WorldNetDaily, a known source of wildly false news stories. Watch me question him here and let me know if you think this guy belongs anywhere near a courtroom. It also didn’t hurt that Bush’s wife had helped raise $14 million for McConnell’s 2014 reelection campaign.

We also saw nominees who had the rare distinction of receiving unanimous “not qualified” ratings from the American Bar Association. One after another the federal courts were filled with judges who thought that “a good way to avoid date rape is to stay reasonably sober,” that gay judges should recuse themselves from any cases involving same-sex marriage, that claims of sexism are “irrelevant pouting” and that minors should not have access to contraception.

These were judges that filled the vacancies left open by Republican Senators who had refused to turn in their blue slips for Obama nominees and the scores of other vacancies that Republicans refused to fill after they took the majority in the 2014 midterm. All in all, that gave Trump 105 additional judgeships to fill, which Trump called “a gift,” suggesting that “maybe [Obama] got complacent.” Was Trump being stupid or dishonest or both? One never knows.

One after another, judges that would not have been seated had Chairman Grassley honored the blue slip, (and his word), have cast deciding votes that have resulted in repugnant outcomes.

John Bush, Joan Larsen and four other Trump judges on the 6th Circuit from states with Democratic Senators cast deciding votes in a 9-7 ruling that reversed a preliminary injunction, effectively upholding, a restrictive Ohio abortion law that bans and makes it criminal for doctors to perform abortions if they have knowledge that the woman “includes a Down Syndrome diagnosis in her decision-making process.”

Judge Steven Menashi, a Trump judge who filled New York’s vacancy on the 2nd Circuit, wrote a decision reversing a district court and upholding Trump’s Bureau of Alcohol Tobacco and Firearms refused to provide information to a gun safety group on suicides committed with firearms pursuant to a request by the group under the Freedom of Information Act.

Two Trump-appointed 5th Circuit Judges, Don Willett and James Ho, cast the deciding votes in June Medica v. Gee to reverse a district court injunction against a Louisiana law that would have imposed the onerous and medically unjustified requirement that doctors performing abortions have nearby hospital admitting privileges. The district court had found that as a result of the law, there would be only “one provider and one clinic” in the entire state that could perform abortions and had concluded that “a substantial number” of Louisiana women – 70 percent of those who choose to seek abortion – would be unable to obtain one in the state. The requirement was almost identical to a similar mandate passed by Texas that was struck down in a 5-3 vote by the Supreme Court in 2016 in Whole Women’s Health v. Hellerstadt. Not surprisingly, the Supreme Court also struck down the 5th Circuit’s decision in June Medical. Willett and Ho had each filled seats that had been left vacant by Cruz and Cornyn’s abuse of the blue slip privilege.

And 8th Circuit Court Judge David Stras wrote a 2-1 opinion in Telescope Media Group v. Lucerno that overruled a district court and ruled that a video company could violate Minnesota’s anti-discrimination law and refuse to provide services to same-sex couples based on the owners’ religious beliefs.

What, then, is the damage done to the future of the federal judiciary by the elimination of the blue slip?

First off, these extreme and, in not a few cases, woefully unqualified, judges will be around for another thirty, forty years. Litigants will also have good reason to know exactly how these judges will rule. All of which undermine confidence in the federal judiciary.

And there is no way the blue slip comes back. Nor should it. Yes, the Biden White House may well extend that courtesy to Democratic senators, but certainly not to Republicans. There is little question that President Biden will restore the standards formerly used to nominate judges, but going forward, litigants will know with far more certainty the biases of judges, depending on which president nominated them.

The diminished trust and respect for the judiciary is yet another weakening of the fabric of our democracy. At a time when we are more divided than we have been since the Civil War, and distrust in Congress and the White House have been seriously eroded – when the Capitol has been literally assaulted by a mob intent on overturning the presidential election, when disinformation flows freely on the internet and radio and TV, the federal judiciary should provide be a bulwark against the unraveling of our democracy. Some may argue that it held up in the court battles over the 2020 election results. But those cases were so insanely obvious as to be laughable.

Donald Trump, Mitch McConnell, Chuck Grassley, Don McGahn and the many other Republicans who failed to act in good faith have put our democracy and our nation in serious jeopardy.

e-max.it: your social media marketing partner
 
FOCUS | The All-Seeing "i": Apple Just Declared War on Your Privacy Print
Written by <a href="index.php?option=com_comprofiler&task=userProfile&user=60292"><span class="small">Edward Snowden, Edward Snowden's Substack</span></a>   
Thursday, 26 August 2021 11:23

Snowden writes: "By now you've probably heard that Apple plans to push a new and uniquely intrusive surveillance system out to many of the more than one billion iPhones it has sold, which all run the behemoth's proprietary, take-it-or-leave-it software."

Edward Snowden. (photo: The New York Times)
Edward Snowden. (photo: The New York Times)


The All-Seeing "i": Apple Just Declared War on Your Privacy

By Edward Snowden, Edward Snowden's Substack

26 August 21


“Under His Eye,” she says. The right farewell. “Under His Eye,” I reply, and she gives a little nod.

y now you've probably heard that Apple plans to push a new and uniquely intrusive surveillance system out to many of the more than one billion iPhones it has sold, which all run the behemoth's proprietary, take-it-or-leave-it software. This new offensive is tentatively slated to begin with the launch of iOS 15?—almost certainly in mid-September?—with the devices of its US user-base designated as the initial targets. We’re told that other countries will be spared, but not for long.

You might have noticed that I haven’t mentioned which problem it is that Apple is purporting to solve. Why? Because it doesn’t matter.

Having read thousands upon thousands of remarks on this growing scandal, it has become clear to me that many understand it doesn't matter, but few if any have been willing to actually say it. Speaking candidly, if that’s still allowed, that’s the way it always goes when someone of institutional significance launches a campaign to defend an indefensible intrusion into our private spaces. They make a mad dash to the supposed high ground, from which they speak in low, solemn tones about their moral mission before fervently invoking the dread spectre of the Four Horsemen of the Infopocalypse, warning that only a dubious amulet—or suspicious software update—can save us from the most threatening members of our species.

Suddenly, everybody with a principled objection is forced to preface their concern with apologetic throat-clearing and the establishment of bonafides: I lost a friend when the towers came down, however... As a parent, I understand this is a real problem, but...

As a parent, I’m here to tell you that sometimes it doesn’t matter why the man in the handsome suit is doing something. What matters are the consequences.

Apple’s new system, regardless of how anyone tries to justify it, will permanently redefine what belongs to you, and what belongs to them.

How?

The task Apple intends its new surveillance system to perform—preventing their cloud systems from being used to store digital contraband, in this case unlawful images uploaded by their customers—is traditionally performed by searching their systems. While it’s still problematic for anybody to search through a billion people’s private files, the fact that they can only see the files you gave them is a crucial limitation.

Now, however, that’s all set to change. Under the new design, your phone will now perform these searches on Apple’s behalf before your photos have even reached their iCloud servers, and—yada, yada, yada—if enough "forbidden content" is discovered, law-enforcement will be notified.

I intentionally wave away the technical and procedural details of Apple’s system here, some of which are quite clever, because they, like our man in the handsome suit, merely distract from the most pressing fact—the fact that, in just a few weeks, Apple plans to erase the boundary dividing which devices work for you, and which devices work for them.

Why is this so important? Once the precedent has been set that it is fit and proper for even a "pro-privacy" company like Apple to make products that betray their users and owners, Apple itself will lose all control over how that precedent is applied. As soon as the public first came to learn of the “spyPhone” plan, experts began investigating its technical weaknesses, and the many ways it could be abused, primarily within the parameters of Apple’s design. Although these valiant vulnerability-research efforts have produced compelling evidence that the system is seriously flawed, they also seriously miss the point: Apple gets to decide whether or not their phones will monitor their owners’ infractions for the government, but it's the government that gets to decide what constitutes an infraction... and how to handle it.

For its part, Apple says their system, in its initial, v1.0 design, has a narrow focus: it only scrutinizes photos intended to be uploaded to iCloud (although for 85% of its customers, that means EVERY photo), and it does not scrutinize them beyond a simple comparison against a database of specific examples of previously-identified child sexual abuse material (CSAM).

If you’re an enterprising pedophile with a basement full of CSAM-tainted iPhones, Apple welcomes you to entirely exempt yourself from these scans by simply flipping the “Disable iCloud Photos” switch, a bypass which reveals that this system was never designed to protect children, as they would have you believe, but rather to protect their brand. As long as you keep that material off their servers, and so keep Apple out of the headlines, Apple doesn’t care.

So what happens when, in a few years at the latest, a politician points that out, and—in order to protect the children—bills are passed in the legislature to prohibit this "Disable" bypass, effectively compelling Apple to scan photos that aren’t backed up to iCloud? What happens when a party in India demands they start scanning for memes associated with a separatist movement? What happens when the UK demands they scan for a library of terrorist imagery? How long do we have left before the iPhone in your pocket begins quietly filing reports about encountering “extremist” political material, or about your presence at a "civil disturbance"? Or simply about your iPhone's possession of a video clip that contains, or maybe-or-maybe-not contains, a blurry image of a passer-by who resembles, according to an algorithm, "a person of interest"?

If Apple demonstrates the capability and willingness to continuously, remotely search every phone for evidence of one particular type of crime, these are questions for which they will have no answer. And yet an answer will come—and it will come from the worst lawmakers of the worst governments.

This is not a slippery slope. It’s a cliff.

One particular frustration for me is that I know some people at Apple, and I even like some people at Apple—bright, principled people who should know better. Actually, who do know better. Every security expert in the world is screaming themselves hoarse now, imploring Apple to stop, even those experts who in more normal circumstances reliably argue in favor of censorship. Even some survivors of child exploitation are against it. And yet, as the OG designer Galileo once said, it moves.

Faced with a blistering torrent of global condemnation, Apple has responded not by addressing any concerns or making any changes, or, more sensibly, by just scrapping the plan altogether, but by deploying their man-in-the-handsome-suit software chief, who resembles the well-moisturized villain from a movie about Wall Street, to give quotes to, yes, the Wall Street Journal about how sorry the company is for the "confusion" it has caused, but how the public shouldn't worry: Apple “feel[s] very good about what they’re doing.”

Neither the message nor the messenger was a mistake. Apple dispatched its SVP-for-Software Ken doll to speak with the Journal not to protect the company's users, but to reassure the company's investors. His role was to create the false impression that this is not something that you, or anyone, should be upset about. And, collaterally, his role was to ensure this new "policy" would be associated with the face of an Apple executive other than CEO Tim Cook, just in case the roll-out, or the fall-out, results in a corporate beheading.

Why? Why is Apple risking so much for a CSAM-detection system that has been denounced as “dangerous” and "easily repurposed for surveillance and censorship" by the very computer scientists who've already put it to the test? What could be worth the decisive shattering of the foundational Apple idea that an iPhone belongs to the person who carries it, rather than to the company that made it?

Apple: "Designed in California, Assembled in China, Purchased by You, Owned by Us."

The one answer to these questions that the optimists keep coming back to is the likelihood that Apple is doing this as a prelude to finally switching over to “end-to-end” encryption for everything its customers store on iCloud—something Apple had previously intended to do before backtracking, in a dismaying display of cowardice, after the FBI secretly complained.

For the unfamiliar, what I’m describing here as end-to-end encryption is a somewhat complex concept, but briefly, it means that only the two endpoints sharing a file—say, two phones on opposite sides of the internet—are able to decrypt it. Even if the file were being stored and served from an iCloud server in Cupertino, as far as Apple (or any other middleman-in-a-handsome-suit) is concerned, that file is just an indecipherable blob of random garbage: the file only becomes a text message, a video, a photo, or whatever it is, when it is paired with a key that’s possessed only by you and by those with whom you choose to share it.

This is the goal of end-to-end encryption: drawing a new and ineradicable line in the digital sand dividing your data and their data. It allows you to trust a service provider to store your data without granting them any ability to understand it. This would mean that even Apple itself could no longer be expected to rummage through your iCloud account with its grabby little raccoon hands—and therefore could not be expected to hand it over to any government that can stamp a sheet of paper, which is precisely why the FBI (again: secretly) complained.

For Apple to realize this original vision would have represented a huge improvement in the privacy of our devices, effectively delivering the final word in a thirty year-long debate over establishing a new industry standard—and, by extension, the new global expectation that parties seeking access to data from a device must obtain it from that device, rather than turning the internet and its ecosystem into a spy machine.

Unfortunately, I am here to report that once again, the optimists are wrong: Apple’s proposal to make their phones inform on and betray their owners marks the dawn of a dark future, one to be written in the blood of the political opposition of a hundred countries that will exploit this system to the hilt. See, the day after this system goes live, it will no longer matter whether or not Apple ever enables end-to-end encryption, because our iPhones will be reporting their contents before our keys are even used.

I can’t think of any other company that has so proudly, and so publicly, distributed spyware to its own devices—and I can’t think of a threat more dangerous to a product’s security than the mischief of its own maker. There is no fundamental technological limit to how far the precedent Apple is establishing can be pushed, meaning the only restraint is Apple’s all-too-flexible company policy, something governments understand all too well.

I would say there should be a law, but I fear it would only make things worse.

We are bearing witness to the construction of an all-seeing-i—an Eye of Improvidence—under whose aegis every iPhone will search itself for whatever Apple wants, or for whatever Apple is directed to want. They are inventing a world in which every product you purchase owes its highest loyalty to someone other than its owner.

To put it bluntly, this is not an innovation but a tragedy, a disaster-in-the-making.

Or maybe I'm confused—or maybe I just think different.

e-max.it: your social media marketing partner
 
Trump Is Finally Telling His Supporters to Get Vaccinated, but It's Probably Too Late - and It's All His Fault Print
Written by <a href="index.php?option=com_comprofiler&task=userProfile&user=44994"><span class="small">Bess Levin, Vanity Fair</span></a>   
Thursday, 26 August 2021 08:32

Levin writes: "One of the most disturbing aspects of the rise of Donald Trump is the extent to which his followers came to believe that this carnival-barking, semi-literate, faux-successful businessman with five children by three women, zero relevant experience, and a reputation for f--king people over and being completely full of shit was (and remains) their lord and savior."

A protester holds an anti-vaccination sign as supporters of President Donald Trump rally on May 16, 2020 in Woodland Hills, California. (photo: Getty)
A protester holds an anti-vaccination sign as supporters of President Donald Trump rally on May 16, 2020 in Woodland Hills, California. (photo: Getty)


Trump Is Finally Telling His Supporters to Get Vaccinated, but It's Probably Too Late - and It's All His Fault

By Bess Levin, Vanity Fair

26 August 21


Most of these people are lost causes, and we know exactly whom to blame.

ne of the most disturbing aspects of the rise of Donald Trump is the extent to which his followers came to believe that this carnival-barking, semi-literate, faux-successful businessman with five children by three women, zero relevant experience, and a reputation for f--king people over and being completely full of shit was (and remains) their lord and savior. Despite repeated evidence that they shouldn’t believe a single thing he says, Trump’s supporters have made it clear that they’re more than happy to buy whatever this bloated Jim Jones is selling. (If that comparison seems extreme to you, know that a person who was literally at the Jonestown massacre thinks it’s apt.) So it would stand to reason that if Trump had wholeheartedly endorsed getting vaccinated against COVID-19, members of his base would have been trampling one another to get a shot the moment they were available, as if the jabs were deeply discounted 62-inch flat-screen TVs on Black Friday.

Of course Trump chose not to do that. Instead, he got his vaccine in secret, and since leaving office in January has refused to do anything more than say during random interviews that he “would recommend” getting inoculated before quickly changing the subject; earlier this month, the Daily Beast reported that “despite pleas from multiple friends and advisers,” he’s repeatedly rebuffed the idea of mounting “anything resembling a real effort to get his supporters vaccinated,” as it would be helping Joe Biden. All of which has unsurprisingly led to huge swaths of Republicans choosing not to get a lifesaving vaccine and outlets like Fox News peddling all manner of misinformation about vaccines, like that they aren’t actually necessary and are in fact liberal plots.

At some point over the weekend, though, someone must have drilled it into Trump’s head that things are really, really bad out there: The delta variant is absolutely ripping through unvaccinated communities and leaving numerous parts of Trump Country with nary an ICU bed, and “deathbed vaccine regrets” are now a thing. Because at a rally on Saturday, he did something crazy—he actually came out, in public, and told his supporters to get their shots. And then something perhaps even crazier happened, given how these people feel about him (which, as previously mentioned, is that he’s basically Jesus Christ, if Jesus Christ were one of the worst people on earth): They booed him.

Per USA Today:

Former president Donald Trump was briefly booed at a rally on Saturday in Alabama after telling his supporters they should get vaccinated against COVID-19. Trump, who held a rally in Cullman, about 50 miles north of Birmingham, touted to rallygoers that the three vaccines—Pfizer, Moderna, and Johnson & Johnson—were developed in under nine months during his presidency. He then suggested that they get the vaccine.

“You know what? I believe totally in your freedoms. You got to do what you have to do, but I recommend: Take the vaccines. I did it—it’s good,” he said.

You can hear it here for posterity:

Obviously if we weren’t literally talking about life and death here, seeing Trump get booed by the monster of his own making would be a real delight. But since we are, it’s actually pretty terrifying. If he can’t convince his followers to get their shots, what hope do we have left?

As The Washington Post’s Aaron Blake put it:

It was a sight to behold: Trump being booed at a rally by his own supporters. A look at the archives suggests that’s largely unprecedented, save for when Trump praised Tom Brady at a 2016 rally in Maryland. To be clear, this was a small portion of the contingent at the rally. It was also in Alabama, which is one of the most vaccine-resistant states in the country (current vaccination rate ranking: 50th out of 50 states). We often oversell the importance of the loud and passionate few in these settings. But this was still Trump getting heckled by his own supporters, which hasn’t really happened for a reason. Trump’s base has generally been all about the man, and less about the policies and details. But here, they didn’t like the actual details.

It was also merely the latest evidence that the monster that has been created, however much culpability there is for Trump personally, won’t go away quietly.

Trump never could have purged his party of all of its vaccine skepticism, but there is plenty of evidence he could have made a significant difference—if for no other reason than it might have sent a cue to some allies who have filled the vacuum by pushing dubious claims about vaccines.

Take, for instance, the reaction from Fox News after the FDA gave Pfizer’s COVID vaccine full approval:

Or the fact that, according to a report released by Facebook over the weekend, the most popular link on its platform from January to March of this year was “an article raising concerns that the coronavirus vaccine could lead to death.”

In other words, even if Trump has decided to start throwing his weight behind vaccinations, it may be too late. On the very same night he told his supporters to get their shots, he of course also told the ones booing: “That’s alright. You got your freedoms. But I happen to take the vaccine. If it doesn’t work, you’ll be the first to know. I’ll call up Alabama. I’ll say, ‘Hey, you know what?’ But it is working. But you do have your freedoms.”

So yeah, for numerous reasons, f--k that guy.

e-max.it: your social media marketing partner
 
Gottheimer's Suicide Squad Hurt Their Party but Gained Nothing Print
Written by <a href="index.php?option=com_comprofiler&task=userProfile&user=10204"><span class="small">Jonathan Chait, New York Magazine</span></a>   
Thursday, 26 August 2021 08:32

Chait writes: "Until 11 days ago, the Democratic Party had a unified strategy to advance President Biden's legislative agenda. The plan was to pass two bills: a bipartisan infrastructure deal favored by the moderates and a partisan social-welfare bill favored by progressives."

Rep. Brian Fitzpatrick, R-Pa.; Rep. Josh Gottheimer, D-N.J., center; Sen. Joe Manchin, D-W.Va.; and Rep. Fred Upton, R-Mich., talk in front of the U.S. Capitol on July 30, 2021, in Washington, D.C. (photo: Kent Nishimura/Getty)
Rep. Brian Fitzpatrick, R-Pa.; Rep. Josh Gottheimer, D-N.J., center; Sen. Joe Manchin, D-W.Va.; and Rep. Fred Upton, R-Mich., talk in front of the U.S. Capitol on July 30, 2021, in Washington, D.C. (photo: Kent Nishimura/Getty)


Gottheimer's Suicide Squad Hurt Their Party but Gained Nothing

By Jonathan Chait, New York Magazine

26 August 21

 

ntil 11 days ago, the Democratic Party had a unified strategy to advance President Biden’s legislative agenda. The plan was to pass two bills: a bipartisan infrastructure deal favored by the moderates and a partisan social-welfare bill favored by progressives. The moderates couldn’t get their bipartisan bill without the progressives, and the progressives couldn’t get their partisan bill without the moderates.

Nine House Democrats blew up the deal. After refusing to support the House budget vote, they extracted a promise to vote for the infrastructure bill by the end of September. But the upshot is the same as ever: Both factions need to cooperate with each other to get their bills. Either both will pass, or neither will.

The nine rebels, led by Josh Gottheimer, claimed their intention was merely to make sure the bipartisan bill didn’t perish, on the pretext that a ten-year infrastructure plan had to be passed right away in order to get shovels into the ground.

A number of reporters and commentators have taken Gottheimer’s reasoning at face value. But Gottheimer’s motive had very little to do with the infrastructure bill. What he wanted was to gain leverage over the other bill. If infrastructure passed the House first, he and other moderates would be able to negotiate from a position of one-sided strength, or walk away from the table entirely, on the reconciliation bill that will form the basis of Biden’s domestic legacy.

The Gottheimer 9 didn’t get the promise to vote on the infrastructure bill before voting on the rule. They only got a promise to vote on it by September 27. Importantly, while they have a promise to bring the bill to the floor, they have no assurance the infrastructure bill will pass. Unless large numbers of Republicans vote for it — a prospect that currently appears unlikely — the infrastructure bill will still need overwhelming support from the Democratic caucus. And getting that means making a deal with the liberals on the reconciliation bill. The negotiating dynamics haven’t changed.

September 27 can serve as a deadline for Democrats to make some kind of internal agreement on the reconciliation bill. Moderate Democrats in the Senate have already said they won’t support the full $3.5-trillion-over-ten-year spending plan passed by the Senate Budget Committee. What they need to do over the next five weeks is settle on a number acceptable across the party. If they don’t, liberals in the House can probably vote down the bipartisan bill, knowing they can always turn around and approve it later once a deal is in hand.

What does seem to have changed is the disposition of the rest of the party toward the Gottheimer 9. The spectacle of a tiny faction throwing the party into disarray and breaking an informal understanding that their margins were too narrow to permit individual members to make extravagant personal demands seems to have generated enormous resentment. Politico reports that House Democrats vented their anger at the Gottheimer 9 at a caucus meeting. Democrats from Trump-leaning districts have either abstained from joining Gottheimer, or — like Representative Susan Wild — openly pleaded with them to back down.

The primary success of Gottheimer’s rebellion has been to seize for himself and his band the coveted “moderate” label. News reporters who had once used the “moderate” description for a different, larger faction of Democrats from purple districts now apply it to Gottheimer and his allies — the majority of whom come from safe Democratic seats. Whatever concerns they harbor about the reconciliation bill — specifically its higher taxes on corporations and wealthy individuals — it’s not reelection.

Indeed, not only do most of the House Democrats who used to be identified as moderate still support the Biden-Pelosi strategy of negotiating the two bills in tandem, so do Third Way and the New Democrat Coalition, the main institutions associated with the party’s center.

Gottheimer’s plan was always unlikely: He wanted to extort the vast majority of his party into surrendering its negotiating leverage to him, but his plan required them to cooperate by voting for the bill he wanted to pass, on his schedule. What he succeeded in doing was gumming up the works in Congress, increasing the perception that Biden’s party couldn’t govern, and cementing a media narrative that benefited him personally at the expense of Democrats most in danger of losing their seats.

e-max.it: your social media marketing partner
 
Amazon Is Beefing Up Its Already Dystopian Worker Surveillance Machine Print
Written by <a href="index.php?option=com_comprofiler&task=userProfile&user=51252"><span class="small">Alex N. Press, Jacobin</span></a>   
Wednesday, 25 August 2021 13:01

Press writes: "Amazon is installing high-tech cameras inside supplier-owned delivery vehicles. Workers say the cameras are a shocking invasion of privacy as well as a safety hazard."

Amazon worker. (photo: Patrick T. Fallon/Getty)
Amazon worker. (photo: Patrick T. Fallon/Getty)


Amazon Is Beefing Up Its Already Dystopian Worker Surveillance Machine

By Alex N. Press, Jacobin

25 August 21


Amazon is installing high-tech cameras inside supplier-owned delivery vehicles. Workers say the cameras are a shocking invasion of privacy as well as a safety hazard.

arlier this year, Amazon revealed plans to install high-tech surveillance cameras in its fleet of delivery vans that are now ubiquitous in neighborhoods across the United States. The cameras watch drivers as well as the road and provide real-time audio feedback. While many of these drivers work in Amazon Prime–branded vehicles, they are not Amazon employees, but rather are employed by third-party contractors called delivery-service partners (DSPs) — an arrangement that, among other benefits, limits Amazon’s liability when accidents occur.

The surveillance technology comes from Netradyne, a California-based company that uses cameras to analyze driver activity so as to provide instant direction (“please slow down,” for instance) while also storing that data to evaluate performance in line with company metrics. In a video about Driveri, Netradyne’s platform, Karolina Haraldsdottir, a senior manager of the last-mile delivery operation at Amazon, emphasizes that the cameras are meant as a safety measure, intended to reduce collisions.

The company has cited a pilot roll-out of the cameras from last year, which they say saw accidents drop by 48 percent. The installation of Driveri is in keeping with Amazon’s roll-out of similar camera monitoring among its long-haul trucking operation.

While drivers already use Mentor, an app that tracks their activity, Driveri adds cameras, which can offer additional data for metrics. Some DSPs have told drivers to turn off Mentor because they could not meet Amazon’s productivity quotas without violating safe-driving practices. There have now been several cases of DSPs shutting down entirely after finding Amazon’s demands and conditions to be “intolerable, unconscionable, unsafe, and most importantly, unlawful,” as a letter from an attorney for one such DSP put it.

Indeed, Amazon’s policies are startlingly exacting, dictating that DSPs impose the company’s standards on details as minute as the state of drivers’ fingernails. Such is Amazon’s business model: exacting surveillance and exploitation of workers, limited liability for the company.

“Our intention in introducing this technology is to set up drivers for success,” says Haraldsdottir in the video. As she explains, certain behaviors trigger Driveri to upload recorded footage and emit an audio alert to a driver: failure to stop at a stop sign, following someone too closely, speeding, and distracted driving (there are another twelve behaviors that will trigger uploading, but no audio warning — U-turns and driver drowsiness among them). The cameras record 100 percent of the time, and can only be manually disabled when the ignition is off.

So, how is the roll-out of Driveri going?

“My direct supervisor mentioned that ‘a bunch of people’ said they were going to quit when the cameras were installed,” says one delivery driver based in Washington state. His DSP has just begun introducing the cameras into their fleet.

Should that happen, it would be far from the first case of drivers quitting over the installation of the technology.

“I think the cameras are needlessly invasive and completely unnecessary, especially given the other layers of surveillance and scrutiny placed upon us by Amazon,” he says. “Most, if not all, of my coworkers feel the same way.”

The drivers at the company were asked to sign a video-technology agreement earlier this year to pave the way for the cameras. The form appeared on Flex — the app Amazon drivers use to scan packages and follow GPS routes — without warning or discussion about it from the company.

Drivers’ concerns about the technology are multiple. First, there is the lack of privacy. Drivers cannot turn off the cameras while the ignition is on, meaning Driveri can see everything they do in the vehicle.

One driver told Business Insider that she wears adult diapers — an inability to find time to use the restroom is a frequent issue among Amazon’s delivery workforce — and worries about the camera capturing her changing into another one during her shift.

Then there are the practical concerns. Some of the workers drive step vans, which are particularly loud vehicles — a noisy engine, rattling doors. They say it’s hard to hear the device over the noise, and note that hard-of-hearing drivers won’t receive Driveri’s feedback either.

Additionally, there is the matter of new metrics for evaluating drivers’ performance. The data collected by Netradyne will help rank drivers, but that data will be released weekly, by which time it is hard for workers to correct suspected errors.

As one driver told Business Insider, “I get a ‘distracted driver’ notification even if I’m changing the radio station or drinking water.”

Drivers mention the difficulty of factoring unique situations — an animal sprinting into the road and causing them to slam on their brakes, for example — into the scores. They say such incidents are penalized on Mentor, and that there is little reason to suspect Driveri will be any different.

“I am now driving around with an inscrutable black box that surveils me and determines whether I keep my job,” says the delivery driver in Washington. While he says he sees how, in theory, some of the metrics are justifiable — “you don’t want your drivers Tokyo Drifting through neighborhoods” — in reality, aggregated on top of the layers of surveillance to which drivers already feel subject, it is “stifling, unnecessary, and ridiculous.”

“We’re all just out here trying to do our best, but we also have to contend with knowing that each week, computers spit out metrics for us which require multiple pages to properly display, and a drop in those abstract numbers could lose us jobs,” he says. “All I want to do is deliver my damn packages and go home, man.”

e-max.it: your social media marketing partner
 
<< Start < Prev 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 Next > End >>

Page 7 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