RSN Fundraising Banner
FB Share
Email This Page
add comment
Politics
This UN Biodiversity Report Has Me Super Bummed. What Can I Do? Print
Written by <a href="index.php?option=com_comprofiler&task=userProfile&user=29596"><span class="small">Eve Andrews, Grist</span></a>   
Sunday, 12 May 2019 08:31

Andrews writes: "In short, it's not looking good: One million species of flora and fauna are threatened by human activities. The primary threats are habitat loss due to agriculture expansion, direct exploitation from poaching and overfishing, and, of course, our constant nemesis climate change."

A Bengal tiger resting in Bandhavgarh National Park, Madhya Pradesh, India. (photo: Staffan Widstrand/WWF)
A Bengal tiger resting in Bandhavgarh National Park, Madhya Pradesh, India. (photo: Staffan Widstrand/WWF)


This UN Biodiversity Report Has Me Super Bummed. What Can I Do?

By Eve Andrews, Grist

12 May 19

 

. Dear Umbra,

I was sad to see a distressingly long list at the Woodland Park Zoo of extinct tiger species. (I’m not sure why I like tigers so much—maybe because, for me, they’re nature’s most awesome and menacing achievement. Or maybe because some are orange and striped!) I was even more saddened to see the news about biodiversity loss. I want to contribute resources to very endangered wildlife. What is the most impactful way to contribute?

— Really Over Animal Repression

A. Dear ROAR,

I think this question is on the minds of millions of people this week — maybe not for tigers specifically, but certainly for animals and plants and bugs and fish all over the world. If it’s not, well, maybe they should follow your lead and take a gander at the truly alarming report that the United Nations just released on the prognosis for biodiversity on Earth.

In short, it’s not looking good: One million species of flora and fauna are threatened by human activities. The primary threats are habitat loss due to agriculture expansion, direct exploitation from poaching and overfishing, and, of course, our constant nemesis climate change.

The report largely frames this impending loss of biodiversity in terms of the impact it will have on humans, such as the disappearance of medicines, fuels, and crucial crops. Andrew Deutz, director of international government relations for The Nature Conservancy, contends that we got to this point because “our economic model doesn’t value the things nature provides for free, even though they’re essential for life.”

But land use expert Linus Blomqvist, of the Breakthrough Institute, argues that keeping consequences human-centered can be a limitation in assessing the value of various species. “I think it would be hard to argue that we’d materially suffer if there were no tigers, at least in any substantial way,” he said. “But society still finds lots of reasons to conserve tigers — for cultural and ecological reasons, and spiritual and aesthetic appreciation of wildlife.”

In other words, Earth could lose a lot of species and humans would still be fine — but that’s not a reason to allow biodiversity to collapse. Rich, healthy ecosystems should be allowed to exist for reasons independent of their economic value to humans. It sounds like you tend to agree with that. I’ve never heard anyone describe tigers as “nature’s most awesome and menacing achievement,” and clearly your fondness for them has nothing to do with human markets.

But just to give so-called “unnecessary” species their fair due, some animals’ ecological value becomes clearer after they’re actively protected, because they’re considered an “umbrella species.” Tigers, for example, need huge, untouched spaces to thrive — as many as tens of thousands of square kilometers of forest and grassland and what have you — and therefore efforts to protect them can end up conserving the many other living things within those vast habitats.

“When you’re protecting them, you’re protecting the other species in that area, and vast areas of forest,” says John Goodrich, chief scientist and tiger program director for Panthera.

So now that we’ve established your love for tigers is not necessarily a waste of time or resources, let’s address your question about how best to help them. First, we need to pause and understand why tigers are so threatened in the first place: Basically, they’re worth more to the communities that live around them — in countries across southern and eastern Asia — dead than alive. Poachers can make bank hunting tigers because because their bones, blood, and organs are considered powerful ingredients in several traditional medicines.

And tigers may be seen as incidental to the valuable resources of their habitats. In parts of India, for example, the timber in forests sustains the people that live around them, supplying wood for the stoves that power homes. Other communities clear forests so that land can be used for agriculture.

I have a friend who’s also a huge tiger fan, and he suggests the punishment for poaching should be putting the poacher in a cage fight with a tiger, but (a) I don’t see this getting a lot of political support, and (b) it ignores the fact that solving environmental problems often requires us to care about other justice issues, like poverty. How can you tell a person that they have to stop trying to live off the land around them because the tigers have to live? How would you convince a poacher that it’s fair they’ll be jailed or shot for pursuing a means to feed their family?

And in any event, punitive measures to protect tigers only go so far. Amping up punishment of deforestation or poaching or wood-collecting without doing anything to provide alternatives to the human needs driving those things is ineffective and ethically questionable. Fighting biodiversity die-off likely means also working on social welfare, better fuels, and increased agricultural productivity, Blomqvist says, adding that the benefits “are so much wider than the effects on conservation.”

So what might that look like? Governments and NGOs can invest in productivity-increasing measures for farmers so that they can increase how much they grow without having to expand their land into forested territory. Organizations can invest in getting more and more households onto electrical grids so that they’re not taking wood from the forest.

Additionally, policies that support indigenous land rights in regions where endangered species live can help preserve biodiversity. Indigenous tribes’ knowledge of the natural resources around them spans generations and tends to be stronger than that of government organizations. (Indigenous land management is also ranked as a crucial practice to bring down carbon emissions by Project Drawdown, a research collective that studies the most effective ways to mitigate climate change.)

“There are lots and lots of studies that show that land managed by indigenous communities ends up with better biodiversity outcomes than land managed by national parks,” says Deutz, noting that indigenous groups are crucial allies in conservation. “If we help them with their land rights aspirations, we’ll get conservation as a benefit because they’re better land-restorers than governments.”

All of these are excellent measures to prevent deforestation (a primary driver of habitat loss and climate change), which threatens billions of species (including humans!) that are not tigers. In fact, preserving tropical forests — home to tigers! — is one of the most cost-effective ways to try and limit global warming to less than 2 degrees C above pre-industrial levels.

Back to how all this relates to you: You can use these standards to vet the conservation organizations you want to give your money to. Ask questions about how organizations help invest in communities around important tiger habitats to ensure that their protections actually work.

But I also have to warn you that conservation organizations can only do so much. If you care about preserving biodiversity, you have to prioritize that value in your spending and your voting. Support candidates that prioritize climate change and understand the value of ecosystems. Don’t buy from companies that stake their operations on palm oil and other drivers of deforestation.

And also, keep loving tigers for more than what they can contribute to you! I think that’s just the best! More selfless love for animals! But also, try to extend that compassion to the humans who live around those animals, because they deserve it too.

Fuzzily,

Umbra

Email This Page

e-max.it: your social media marketing partner
 
RSN: As Reactors Shut in Massachusetts and Pennsylvania, Nuke War Rages in Ohio and New York Print
Written by <a href="index.php?option=com_comprofiler&task=userProfile&user=6004"><span class="small">Harvey Wasserman, Reader Supported News</span></a>   
Saturday, 11 May 2019 12:40

Wasserman writes: "As the nuke power industry slumps toward oblivion, two huge reactors are shutting in Pennsylvania and Massachusetts. The shutdowns are a body blow to atomic energy. The soaring costs of the decayed US reactor fleet have forced them to beg gerrymandered state legislatures for huge bailouts."

'All reactors spew deadly isotopes along with climate-killing heat and some Carbon 14.' (photo: Getty Images)
'All reactors spew deadly isotopes along with climate-killing heat and some Carbon 14.' (photo: Getty Images)


As Reactors Shut in Massachusetts and Pennsylvania, Nuke War Rages in Ohio and New York

By Harvey Wasserman, Reader Supported News

11 May 19

 

s the nuke power industry slumps toward oblivion, two huge reactors are shutting in Pennsylvania and Massachusetts. 

The shutdowns are a body blow to atomic energy. The soaring costs of the decayed US reactor fleet have forced them to beg gerrymandered state legislatures for huge bailouts. 

Just two US reactors are still being built. Stuffed with $12 billion in interest-free federal loans, Georgia’s Vogtle is nearing a staggering $30 billion in cost. Years behind schedule, the lowest possible costs of whatever electricity the two reactors there might produce already far exceed wind and solar.

Virtually none of the 98 US reactors now operating can compete with wind, solar, or methane. All but one are more than twenty years old, with serious issues of obsolescence and decay; some are more than forty, operating far behind their original design life.

Four decrepit, money-losing, upstate New York State reactors still run because Governor Andrew Cuomo is handing them $7.6 billion in bailouts. This year’s price tag jumped more than $50 million, despite Cuomo’s promise it would drop. Safe energy/consumer groups are fighting him in court.

Cuomo has otherwise agreed to shut two old reactors at Indian Point, which sit on an earthquake fault north of New York City.

But Illinois has voted billions to sustain three old reactors that can’t compete with wind/solar and gas. New Jersey has also jumped in with hundreds of millions for money-losing nukes.

In Massachusetts, the Pilgrim reactor will shut this month. The New York Times says Pennsylvania’s Three Mile Island Unit One will die in September, dropping the US fleet to 96. The industry wants to scam billions in bailouts for the Keystone State’s other nukes, which are being vastly outstripped by renewables.

But the Ohio war over two geezer nukes rages full bore. Their owner, Akron’s FirstEnergy, is bankrupt, trying to shed its cleanup responsibilities. Despite slipping millions in “lobbying” to key state officials, FirstEnergy has still been unable to shaft the state with its $300m/year nuke-bailout scam.

Designed in the 1960s, FirstEnergy’s Davis-Besse opened near Toledo in 1977. A serious accident presaged the 1979 meltdown at its doomed clone, Three Mile Island Unit Two.

In 2002, boric acid ate Davis-Besse’s infamous “hole in the head” to within an inch of irradiating the entire Great Lakes and north coast.

The leaks are still an issue. But Davis-Besse’s owners sawed off the top of an abandoned Michigan nuke, cut through the containment building, and pasted it into the damaged reactor. The radioactive shield building is crumbling along with the rest of the nuke, from top to bottom.

East of Cleveland, Perry opened in 1986, just after the first earthquake that damaged a US nuke. To this day, no operators have been forced to run a reactor caught amidst a seismic shaking.

The utility and its backers are betting on Ohio’s gerrymandered legislature to gouge some $300 million from the tax/rate-paying public. A bevy of “free market” Republicans wants at least $150 million per year for the nukes, and another $150 million or more for various unclear activities, including about $8.5 million yearly for company president Chuck Jones.

FirstEnergy burns huge quantities of gas, oil, and coal but hypes its “emissions free” nukes that spew Carbon 14, heat, and radiation. The industry does not want to mention or pay for its thousands of tons of radioactive waste. 

Such details are loudly overlooked by a mutant choir trumpeting nukes as “zero emission.” All reactors spew deadly isotopes along with climate-killing heat and some Carbon 14. They stand in the way of the wind, solar, batteries, and LED efficiency that comprise our only route to saving the climate.

Ohio’s north coast region is great for wind. More than $4 billion in private capital is waiting to create more than 10,000 jobs while slashing electric rates. The surrounding states of Indiana, Michigan, New York, and Pennsylvania have far more wind turbines than Ohio, operating at big profits with substantial workforces.

But an absurd anti-green setback requirement from a bought legislature has frozen Ohio’s turbine industry. Without that single Ohio Code sentence, cheap wind energy would be flooding the state. The “need” for nukes would evaporate. The reactor jobs “lost” would be dwarfed by those in renewables.

Against all odds, a very broad coalition of environmentalists, wind promoters, consumers, and industrialists has kept FirstEnergy at bay. Bailout opponents vastly outnumber nuke pushers at ongoing hearings.

But worldwide, the clock ticks on the next old money-sucking reactor to collapse from incompetence and greed, or to crumble in an earthquake, tsunami, or terror attack.

The shutdowns of Pilgrim and Three Mile Island mark huge victories for jobs, the economy, and the climate. If green advocates can now win in Ohio and Pennsylvania and roll back the insanity in New York, New Jersey, and Illinois, the march of the shutdowns just might outrun the next meltdown. Stay tuned!

Email This Page


Harvey Wasserman’s Green Power & Wellness Show is podcast at prn.fm; California Solartopia is broadcast at KPFK-Pacifica, 90.7 fm, Los Angeles. His Life & Death Spiral of US History: From Deganawidah to Solartopia will soon be at www.solartopia.org.

Reader Supported News is the Publication of Origin for this work. Permission to republish is freely granted with credit and a link back to Reader Supported News.

e-max.it: your social media marketing partner
 
FOCUS: Here's a Preview of America's 2020 Nightmare if Trump Loses Print
Written by <a href="index.php?option=com_comprofiler&task=userProfile&user=5903"><span class="small">Michael Tomasky, The Daily Beast</span></a>   
Saturday, 11 May 2019 11:48

Tomasky writes: "Donald Trump joked at his Florida rally about staying in the White House for '10 or 14' years. Interesting that he didn't say eight or 12. This after 'joking' earlier that he deserved two extra years because all those nasty investigations had effectively cost him his first two. He's clearly thought this through."

Voters at a polling precinct. (photo: Getty Images)
Voters at a polling precinct. (photo: Getty Images)


Here's a Preview of America's 2020 Nightmare if Trump Loses

By Michael Tomasky, The Daily Beast

11 May 19


Foreign leaders have demanded do-overs of elections they’ve lost, and got them. Who seriously thinks it can’t happen here?

onald Trump joked at his Florida rally about staying in the White House for “10 or 14” years. Interesting that he didn’t say eight or 12. This after “joking” earlier that he deserved two extra years because all those nasty investigations had effectively cost him his first two. He’s clearly thought this through.

We’ve heard a lot of presidential humor along these lines, and we’re surely going to be hearing more. If you’re anything like me, you break out in a cold sweat waiting for the punchline to each new Trump gag about plotting against the Constitution.

And sometimes, I hear or read something that happened in one of those countries we used to assume we could never be like, and a chill shoots through my body. This, I think; this is something Trump could and, if he thought he could pull it off, would do.

I had one of those moments in a big way this week reading about the coming re-run of the Istanbul mayoral election in Turkey. Because yes—this, or some version of this, could happen here.

The election was held on March 31 and featured two contenders, one from autocrat-President Recep Tayyip Erdo?an’s ruling party, and the other from the opposition party. It was nip and tuck all night and into the next day, but ultimately, the opposition candidate, Ekrem Imamo?lu, was declared the victor. He appeared to have defeated Binali Yildirim, the candidate of Erdo?an’s AKP, by around 13,000 votes out of more than 8 million cast.

It’s just a mayoral election, but you have to understand that Istanbul is, though not the capital city, the dominant city in Turkey by far. It’s also where Erdo?an got his political start, as mayor in the 1990s. So it’s a very important office symbolically and one that comes with outsize influence. For the opposition to hold that office would sting Erdo?an.

In addition, his hold on power has been near complete since the “coup attempt” of 2016 (its origins still mysterious). He has fired and imprisoned academics, school teachers, civil servants, judges and others he’d collectively dubbed “the deep state” well before Newt Gingrich and others borrowed the term; he has shut down newspapers and taken effective control of TV stations. In such an atmosphere, there’s no way the opposition party was supposed to win a big one on the president’s home turf.

Before the vote, Erdo?an appeared to accept that the result would be a verdict on rule. “If there are any shortcomings,” he said, “it is our duty to correct them.” Well, he has a strange definition of the word “correct,” because soon enough, the PR wheels started spinning. The AKP contested the results, alleging various irregularities. The president weighed in a few days later. “We, as the political party, have detected an organized crime and some organized activities,” Erdo?an said. “No one has the right to declare themselves victorious with a difference of around 13,000-14,000 votes.”

On it went. At one point, Yildirim, Erdo?an’s candidate, seemed to accept in late April that the election was “behind us.” But then, last Saturday, Erdo?an called on the country’s Supreme Electoral Council to annul the election: “My compatriots tell me this election must be redone.”

And, on Monday, the Supreme Electoral Council, most of whose members are appointed by the president and the ruling party... annulled the election. Incredibly, though it found technical issues with how the election that was held that supposedly compelled a do-over, the only race being run again is the one that Erdo?an’s team lost.

Wanna take bets on who’ll win in round two?

Now. The United States isn’t Turkey. Trump isn’t Erdo?an, although naturally he has expressed unbounded admiration for him. “He’s running a very difficult part of the world. He’s involved very, very strongly and, frankly, he’s getting very high marks,” Trump said in 2017.

That was a few months after Erdo?an watched as his bodyguards beat protesters—on the streets of Washington, D.C. in the middle of the day.

Trump can’t fire school teachers who aren’t loyal Republicans. And he can’t close down newspapers, even though there seems to be little question that he wishes he could.

But there are some other things he can do. And this led to the 2020 scenario I conjured after reading about Turkey.

Trump can, and surely will, spend the three or four weeks before the election out on the campaign trail telling his audiences that the vote is going to be rigged against him. He can and will say that the Deep State and fake news media and the “Democrat” Party are all in on the scam, and who knows, he’ll probably throw in Russia too, since he’s always projecting his sins onto his opponents. He’ll say, repeatedly, that he doesn’t know if he’ll honor the election results, it will depend on what they are and how much fraud there was, because “everyone” knows the fraud is going to be massive, like, folks, you’ve never seen this kind of fraud.

He’s said much of this before, in 2016, but he didn’t control the government then.

Now, it’s Election Night. For the sake of argument, just to put a face on it, let’s say it’s Trump vs. Joe Biden, because he’s ahead in the primary polls. As in Istanbul, it’s nip and tuck, back and forth. It’s after midnight. Trump wins Ohio; Biden puts Pennsylvania on the board. But two key states, say one fairly large and the other less so, are still too close to call. Both candidates have won about 250, 255 electoral votes, meaning that the candidate who wins the large state (or, obviously, who wins both) has won.

Say the smaller of the two states (in electoral vote terms) is out West, so it all runs into the wee hours. Imagine all the tweeting, all the lies and baseless claims. But by 4 am, Biden has been declared the winner in both states—by 8,000 in one state, and by 14,000 in the other, so that he has something like 276 electoral votes, leaving Trump nine votes shy.

What do you suppose happens next? You think Trump accepts that?

Of course he doesn’t. But he alone has no power to change it. That will require the complicity of his party.

What will unfold in those two states will depend almost entirely on which party controls the election machinery there. We have no national Supreme Electoral Council controlled by the president and his party, as Turkey does. But we have, in the states, either state elections boards or elected officials (secretaries of state, mostly) who oversee elections. And of course governors have enormous power over matters like this.

So suppose our two close states are in Republican control. You know what will happen as well as I do. Trump will say he rejects the results. That line of Erdo?an’s—“no one has the right to declare themselves victorious with a difference of around 13,000-14,000 votes”—can’t you just hear Trump saying that?

He’ll scream it was rigged, and out will trot the army of Republican election lawyers pointing to what they will say were thousands of instances of fraud. And those Republican secretaries of state and/or elections boards will know their jobs and will get to work. They’ll have recounts and they’ll shave Biden’s margin down as much as possible.

Fox will broadcast segment after segment about the supposedly massive fraud in these two states. Mitch McConnell and Lindsey Graham and everyone else who once called Trump a phony (looking at you, Mitt) will be on TV averring that sadly, they’ve come to conclude that a re-vote may be the only acceptable remedy.

Now we’ll be headed into Thanksgiving, or past it. President-elect Biden will be assembling a Cabinet. But Trump, working through the state and local officials in the two states in question, will sue. It will get to the Supreme Court.

Now this is where this is no longer funny (actually, it isn’t funny already). You’ll recall that in 2000, with the situation reversed—that is, with the Republican barely ahead—the conservative majority on that Supreme Court ruled to stop the recount, that we needed a new president on January 20.

So you’d think another conservative court would rule similarly. But this time, that ruling would help the Democrat. And remember, the 2000 court took pains to note that Bush v. Gore was not precedent. Did you wonder then why they said that? Well, maybe this was why! So that a future court conservative majority could feel free to rule in support of the principle that actually matters to them, namely, installing the Republican. So the five conservatives order a re-vote in the two states in question.

Impossible? We used to be able to say with confidence “no, that can’t happen here.” But who knows what can happen here anymore? The treasury secretary is openly breaking the law, and the attorney general lied to Congress. I don’t think John Roberts would provide the fifth vote to annul an election, but we know after 2000 what can happen when the Supreme Court uses some tiny technical issue in a state to effectively decide our next president.

I talked about all this with Abdülhamit Bilici, who was the editor of the opposition newspaper Zaman, which Erdo?an closed down. Bilici now lives in exile in northern Virginia. “Americans should be cautious,” he said. His experience had taught him, he said, that two institutions are vital to democracy: a free media, and an independent judiciary. “If there is an attack on the media,” he said, “everyone should be concerned. An attack on the media is an attack on democracy.”

And, he continued, “at the end of the day, all decisions go to the judges, so their independence is crucial to keeping democracy alive.”

He saw it die firsthand. So keep an eye on Istanbul. Listen to what Erdo?an and his henchpeople say and commit some of it to memory, in the event we might be hearings those things said again.

Email This Page

e-max.it: your social media marketing partner
 
FOCUS: This Constitutional Crisis Probably Won't Be Trump's Last Print
Written by <a href="index.php?option=com_comprofiler&task=userProfile&user=6853"><span class="small">Frank Rich, New York Magazine</span></a>   
Saturday, 11 May 2019 10:51

Excerpt: "Let's pause for a moment and reflect on the fact that we've hit a moral bottom where John Yoo is aghast at Trump. John Yoo!"

Judiciary Committee Chairman Jerry Nadler and House Speaker Nancy Pelosi. (photo: J. Scott Applewhite/AP)
Judiciary Committee Chairman Jerry Nadler and House Speaker Nancy Pelosi. (photo: J. Scott Applewhite/AP)


This Constitutional Crisis Probably Won't Be Trump's Last

By Frank Rich, New York Magazine

11 May 19


Most weeks, New York Magazine writer-at-large Frank Rich speaks with contributor Alex Carp about the biggest stories in politics and culture. Today, the constitutional crisis brought on by Trump’s opposition to Congress, the Trump tax exposé, and Michael Cohen’s dirty work for Jerry Falwell Jr.

ith the decision to assert executive privilege to keep the unredacted Mueller report away from the House Judiciary Committee, Donald Trump continues to treat Congress, in the words of John Yoo, “like they’re the Chinese or a local labor union working on a Trump building.” Will his stonewalling work?

Let’s pause for a moment and reflect on the fact that we’ve hit a moral bottom where John Yoo is aghast at Trump. John Yoo! For those with short memories, Yoo was the Bush-Cheney deputy assistant attorney general who endorsed uninhibited presidential power grabs and drafted the so-called Bybee memo green-lighting “enhanced interrogation techniques” (a.k.a. torture). Even Yoo, it turns out, must draw a line when a Republican president waterboards the Constitution.

In any case, Trump’s stonewalling will “work” in the sense that the ensuing court battles over the wholesale White House effort to bury the unredacted Mueller report, resist subpoenas, and shut down all testimony by administration officials could drag on for months, if not years. But in a way this may be the least of the country’s problems, as Trump stops at nothing to hold on to power. As Jerry Nadler and Nancy Pelosi have said, we are in “a constitutional crisis.” But even constitutional crises are relative. The ultimate crisis may arrive, as Pelosi has been warning, when Trump, if defeated, attacks the legitimacy of the 2020 election. If his loss is narrow (and perhaps even if it isn’t), the imagination reels at picturing what havoc he and his riled-up base, a third of the country, might sow to extend his rule.

A comparable constitutional crisis could also be triggered if the Supreme Court does rule against Trump’s wanton invocation of executive privilege before Election Day arrives. Do we really believe that Trump and Bill Barr would obey that ruling? Would they actually release the evidence such a ruling would make public? Richard Nixon seriously considered burning the White House tapes before the Court mandated their release during Watergate. The comparable records of this White House include the copious notes taken by Donald McGahn’s chief of staff Annie Donaldson, described by the Washington Post as a daily “running account of the president’s actions” documenting “conversations and meetings.” Trump is already on record asserting that McGahn’s “notes never existed until needed.” It’s not beyond him or his attorney general to find a way to ensure that they keep never existing.

The easiest break in this stonewall could be accomplished by Robert Mueller. If Trump can’t prevent Congress from calling him to testify, testify he must. Alternatively, if Mueller can’t testify before Congress, then he must exercise his First Amendment rights and tell what he knows to the public in the forum of his choice. For a public servant who sees himself as a patriot and a tribune of the rule of law, shirking that duty is not an option.

Examining ten years of Trump’s tax transcripts, the New York Times reports that from 1985 to 1994 Trump was not only a massive business failure, but “appears to have lost more money than nearly any other individual American taxpayer” during the period. Will their findings put to rest the strangely persistent mythology of Trump’s self-made success?

No, it won’t. Which is not to say that this latest investigative report by the Times is anything less than conclusive and devastating in its exposure of the lies that have abetted Trump’s self-portrait as a business genius.

But how one wishes this and other exposés like it had appeared in 2016 or before. As I wrote in my piece about Roy Cohn last year, the Times executive editor from 1977 to 1986, Abe Rosenthal, was a social crony of Cohn, Trump’s fixer and promoter, and the paper’s failure to seriously scrutinize Trump during his rise to fame and power was a consequence of that relationship. It’s during that period, just before the publication of The Art of the Deal and long preceding both Trump’s Apprentice franchise and presidential run, when the myth of Trump’s self-made business success was firmly cemented in the public mind. The laxness of the Trump coverage then — not just by the Times but by most major news organizations — helps account for the strange persistence of that mythology despite all the evidence to the contrary uncovered by the Times, the Post, and other outstanding organs of investigative journalism over the past few years.

That said, it is impossible to imagine any information that could be reported about Trump at this point that would cause his hard-core supporters, including the Vichy Republicans in Congress, to abandon him. This includes any facts that may emerge if we see Trump tax returns for the quarter-century following those revealed by this week’s Times article. Trump could stand in the middle of Fifth Avenue and shoot the commissioner of the IRS and he’d still be Making America Great Again.

In a recorded conversation reported by Reuters, Michael Cohen spoke of helping Jerry Falwell Jr. destroy “a bunch of … personal photographs” in 2015, possibly shedding new light on the reasons for Falwell’s influential endorsement of Trump. Should the new developments in the Falwell story line force a reconsideration of what we know about Trump’s Evangelical support?

No further reconsideration is required. To borrow Pete Buttigieg’s coinage, Trump’s Evangelical supporters long ago swallowed whatever moral, religious, and ethical scruples they had and enlisted as cheerleaders for “the porn star presidency.” Falwell, who endorsed Trump because he would bring his “business acumen” to a country “so deep in debt,” has been a particularly embarrassing example. He praised him for his “life of loving and helping others as Jesus taught in the great commandment.” (The Times found not a single itemized charitable deduction in Trump’s 1985–1994 tax documents.) Falwell defended the Access Hollywood tape as a possible “conspiracy among Establishment Republicans” to benefit Paul Ryan. He has compared Trump to Churchill and declared that he “cannot be bought.”

Evangelical voters’ unwavering support of Trump is historically consistent with their support of preachers who turn out to be either financial scam artists, closet cases, or sexual offenders when they are taking a break from preaching against LGBT civil rights and women’s abortion rights. Falwell wraps up all the hypocrisy in one execrable package. His denial of Michael Cohen’s claim that he helped him and his wife destroy “personal” photographs is every bit as convincing as Trump’s past claims that he knew nothing about Cohen’s hush payments to Stormy Daniels. And what are we to make of the seemingly synergistic news, broken by the same reporter, Aram Roston, when he was at BuzzFeed News last year, that Falwell and his wife put up $1.8 million to support a business managed by a 21-year-old pool attendant with no business experience whom they had met at the Fontainebleau Hotel in Miami Beach? No doubt another example of “loving and helping others as Jesus taught in the great commandment.” Amen.

Email This Page

e-max.it: your social media marketing partner
 
The Aspiring Autocrat President* Is Making Big Moves This Week Print
Written by <a href="index.php?option=com_comprofiler&task=userProfile&user=11104"><span class="small">Charles Pierce, Esquire</span></a>   
Saturday, 11 May 2019 08:40

Pierce writes: "On today's episode of Who Wants To Be An Autocrat?, the aspiring autocrat president* goes down to the Florida Panhandle and tells one of his funny jokes."

Donald Trump speaks to supporters at a rally. (photo: Chip Somodevilla/Getty Images)
Donald Trump speaks to supporters at a rally. (photo: Chip Somodevilla/Getty Images)


The Aspiring Autocrat President* Is Making Big Moves This Week

By Charles Pierce, Esquire

11 May 19


He made trouble down in the Florida Panhandle and started shoving the free press out the door of the White House.

n today's episode of Who Wants To Be An Autocrat?, the aspiring autocrat president* goes down to the Florida Panhandle and tells one of his funny jokes. From ABC News:

“You have hundreds and hundreds of people and you have two or three border security people that are brave and great — And don't forget, we don't let them and we can't let them use weapons. We can't. Other countries do. We can't. I would never do that. But how do you stop these people?" the president said.s the president posed that question — a rally attendee in the crowd shouted: “shoot them.” The president paused and instead of condemning the remark he said: “That’s only in the panhandle, can you get away with that statement." The crowd erupted in cheers and laughter — after another brief pause, Trump repeated: “Only in the panhandle.”

As Judd Legum pointed out on the electric Twitter machine, he used to joke about running for president, too, until he did it.

Meanwhile, back in Washington, a lot of people lost their being-lied-to-by-SarahHuck privileges. These included Dana Milbank and everybody assigned by the Washington Post. Now, here in the shebeen, we've had our differences with Milbank, God knows, but this is a truly aggressive move toward Putinland.

White House implemented a new standard that designated as unqualified almost the entire White House press corps, including all seven of The Post’s White House correspondents. White House officials then chose which journalists would be granted “exceptions.” It did this over objections from news organizations and the White House Correspondents’ Association. The Post requested exceptions for its seven White House reporters and for me, saying that this access is essential to our work (in my case, I often write “sketches” describing the White House scene). The White House press office granted exceptions to the other seven, but not to me. I strongly suspect it’s because I’m a Trump critic. The move is perfectly in line with Trump’s banning of certain news organizations, including The Post, from his campaign events and his threats to revoke White House credentials of journalists he doesn’t like.

In the Other Gig, I often argue that professional sports teams are within their rights to close off access to their employees, just as I am within my rights to criticize and/or mock them for having done so. (However, if they shut down the access, they have to shut it down to everybody. I respect the women in the field too much to go back to those bad old days.) They are private enterprises, after all.

This is not an excuse that applies to the president*, his house, or the presidency in general, no matter how hard El Caudillo del Mar-a-Lago tries to monetize all of it. Perhaps he can get some tips from Hungary's authoritarian Prime Minister Viktor Orban when the "Alternative to Democracy" guy stops by to call. You can't read about what happened in Hungary without hearing deafening echoes in what's happening here in ways large and small. You don't have to be a big Dana Milbank fan to hear it, either.

Email This Page

e-max.it: your social media marketing partner
 
<< Start < Prev 891 892 893 894 895 896 897 898 899 900 Next > End >>

Page 893 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