RSN Fundraising Banner
FB Share
Email This Page
add comment
Politics
How Did the Pandemic Affect Ocean Conservation? Print
Written by <a href="index.php?option=com_comprofiler&task=userProfile&user=50944"><span class="small">David Shiffman, The Revelator</span></a>   
Monday, 12 April 2021 12:25

Shiffman writes: "As we enter what's hopefully the home stretch of the COVID-19 pandemic, it's time to take stock of how it affected every aspect of our world, to consider what happened, what could be done different to avoid those problems in the future, and what's next."

A surgical mask floats in the ocean. (photo: Eloi_Omella/Getty Images)
A surgical mask floats in the ocean. (photo: Eloi_Omella/Getty Images)


How Did the Pandemic Affect Ocean Conservation?

By David Shiffman, The Revelator

12 April 21

 

s we enter what's hopefully the home stretch of the COVID-19 pandemic, it's time to take stock of how it affected every aspect of our world, to consider what happened, what could be done different to avoid those problems in the future, and what's next.

That might mean confronting some of our earlier conclusions. For example, at the start of the pandemic we were bombarded with often false stories about suddenly quiet cities and waterways experiencing animals reclaiming what was once their habitat. "Nature is healing" stories like this seem to have created an overly rosy picture of the pandemic's impact on the natural world.

The reality is much more complicated, and I'm not just talking about things like the well-publicized millions of inappropriately discarded plastic bags and protective masks ending up in the ocean. Many other changes to the world's waters, including some potentially harmful ones, are taking place beneath the surface.

"Protected and conserved areas and the people who depend on them are facing mounting challenges due to the pandemic," says Rachel Golden Kroner, an environmental governance fellow at Conservation International. Indeed, for the past two decades a sizable chunk of global biodiversity conservation has been funded by ecotourism, a funding source that dries up when international travel slows down, as it did this past year.

While any global complex event has many impacts including some that we almost certainly can't predict at this point, many of the medium and long-term effects are likely to be bad.

And You Thought Your Virtual Meetings Were Bad

It's not just your workplace that's been meeting online this past year. It's every meeting, including international wildlife conservation and management meetings.

Some of these important events have been postponed, stalling critical political momentum that scientists and activists have been building for years. Others have met virtually, with notably less effectiveness.

The highest profile example of this was the December 2020 failure of the Inter-American Tropical Tuna Commission. The IATTC is an international gathering that governs a multi-billion-dollar series of global tuna fisheries, and meetings include representatives from all over the world who hammer out fishing quotas and other rules. The 2020 meeting closed without reaching an agreement on 2021 quotas. If allowed to stand, this would have meant that starting on January 1 of this year, a multi-billion-dollar global industry would have had absolutely no rules governing it. Imagine if your city council failed to agree on a policing budget, and this meant that "The Purge" was suddenly real — that's what nearly happened in the world of tuna management this past winter.

The pandemic didn't create the problem of tuna management politics, but experts believe that the virtual meeting, which precluded "schmoozing" in the hallway during coffee breaks and added an element of multiple time zone chaos, contributed to this year's unprecedented breakdown in negotiations.

"These meetings are often difficult to get through, but usually they keep working until they get it done, until there's at least a decent solution," says Grantly Galland, a global tuna conservation expert with Pew Environment. That's hard enough in person, but this year "the meeting started at 6 p.m. for me in D.C., which was midnight in Europe, and early morning in Japan. People were often frustrated. As discussions dragged into the night the incentive to keep going disappeared, and the meeting ended without rules."

Fortunately, after receiving intense pushback from environmental groups and the concerned public, the commission met for an emergency meeting a few weeks later and fixed this problem by just carrying over the 2020 rules to 2021 — hardly an ideal solution given existing problems with the 2020 rules, but a lot better than open ocean anarchy.

Still, this near-disaster shows how dependent our system of environmental management is on face-to-face meetings.

Industry Relief

Whenever there's any economic crisis, industry will ask for a temporary (or even permanent) rollback of environmental protection regulations that they find economically burdensome. Marine and coastal protected areas, long a priority for science-based conservation and long opposed by elements of the fishing industry, have been no exception.

For example, a fisheries management council asked then-President Trump to allow fishing in currently protected areas, and the Trump administration did roll back fishing protections in the Atlantic around that time.

Marine protected areas also face other threats stemming from the pandemic. Rachel Golden Kroner, who also authored a recent paper on the impacts of the pandemic on protected areas, says: "Key challenges for marine protected areas include budget cuts, declines in tourism revenue, disruption of seafood supply chains and challenges in implementing management activities."

Golden Kroner shared examples of the near-collapse of the tourism-associated hospitality industry in Kenya, the Galapagos, Indonesia and Australia, noting that some of these industries employed former members of the fishing industry who had been persuaded to work in tourism instead.

While some coastal communities and protected areas face these serious issues, the good news is that this problem is far from universal.

"While the shutdowns, restrictions, and closures of coastal areas disrupted access and temporarily interrupted stewardship and harvest activities across Hawai'i, the connections between humans and nature forged over generations ensured that marine management actions never lost momentum," says Ulu Ching, the program manager for community-based conservation for Conservation International's Hawaii office. "Well-established community networks in collaboration with government resource management agencies continued to advance the work of m?lama i ke kai (caring for the ocean) through the development and establishment of community-driven marine managed areas across the islands during the pandemic."

Additionally, Golden Kroner points out that while some momentum for creating protected areas has stalled and some industry groups have called for rollbacks, there is good news in the form of expanded protected areas in a handful of places around the world. But it's clear that despite some positive signs, momentum in creating new marine protected areas has stalled in many places, tourism that funded their operations has slowed to a crawl, and some industries have been successful in rolling back protections.

Threats Continue, But Monitoring Has Stalled

One of the primary tools in the conservationist's toolbox for making sure that the commercial fishing industry follows the rules is observer coverage: independent people on board fishing vessels who monitor and record the catch. Due to COVID-19 safety regulations, observer coverage in much of the world has been reduced or eliminated — but fishing continues.

"For countries with fewer management resources, I can imagine that less observer coverage could lead to more rules being bent," says Simon Gulak, a fisheries consultant with Sea Leucas LLC who used to coordinate fisheries observers for the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration.

"Fisheries observers provide fisheries management with accurate information on all discards/bycatch at sea, not just the cuddly protected species," he says. "They're a bit like a fisher's auditor and are liked about as much."

The problem with a lack of observers means that we generally have no way of knowing if bad things are happening on the water, but there are certainly cases of fishing vessels who only follow the rules because they'll get fined if they don't.

Gulak notes that in fisheries subject to electronic monitoring — including GPS trackers and cameras that document all catch and bycatch — observers may be less important because all relevant data is recorded automatically and it's harder to get away with breaking the rules.

Galland, the tuna conservation expert, also stressed the importance of ramping up electronic fisheries monitoring efforts. If the pandemic leads to an increase in e-monitoring, that may be a long-term good. In the meantime, we just don't know what's going on in many fisheries that were previously monitored by human observers.

It's not just fisheries observing that's stalled due to workplace safety concerns, but also fish market surveys, an important scientific tool for monitoring catch from boats too numerous and small to have observers or electronic monitoring equipment. In large parts of the world, fish market surveys are the only data we have on local catch composition. Without them, we wouldn't know how many endangered species are caught, or if formerly common species started to disappear.

Monitoring of things like sea turtle nests has similarly slowed down. These nest surveys are a critical way for scientists and managers to keep track of population trends of iconic endangered species, and to protect the nests themselves by marking them so beach drivers of off-road vehicles know to not crush the hidden nests.

So what does the pandemic mean for ocean conservation? Experts caution that it's probably too early to tell. However, it's not all stories of dolphins frolicking in suddenly quiet rivers. Environmental planning meetings, funding schemes for protected areas, and monitoring of fisheries and endangered species populations were all disrupted, giving us good reasons to fear that the story is far more complicated, and far less happy, than many of us have been led to believe.

e-max.it: your social media marketing partner
 
RSN: The Daunte Wright Shooting Is Going to Be a Problem Print
Written by <a href="index.php?option=com_comprofiler&task=userProfile&user=63"><span class="small">Marc Ash, Reader Supported News</span></a>   
Monday, 12 April 2021 10:56

Ash writes: "Police in the Minneapolis area have killed another young black man, and the justification given so far is, again, no justification at all."

Daunte Wright Sr. with his son Daunte Wright jr. Dead at 20, shot by police. (photo: Katie Wright)
Daunte Wright Sr. with his son Daunte Wright jr. Dead at 20, shot by police. (photo: Katie Wright)


The Daunte Wright Shooting Is Going to Be a Problem

By Marc Ash, Reader Supported News

12 April 21

 


VIDEO: Daunte Wright Shooting - The notion that this was ok or “good policing” because the officer thought she was tasing Daunte Wright is deeply flawed. This is violent authoritarianism and its consequences continue to scar the nation every day. The officer should be charged with negligent manslaughter. — MA/RSN


olice in the Minneapolis area have killed another young black man, and the justification given so far is – again – no justification at all.

Early reports indicate 20-year-old Daunte Wright was pulled over, according to his mother, for having an air freshener hanging from the mirror in the car he was driving. That’s no reason to use deadly force.

According to police, Daunte Wright had a warrant for his arrest and when they attempted to take him into custody, he ran back to his car and began trying to drive away. It’s not clear when shots were fired, but Daunte Wright was shot by police. He apparently was able to drive for a few blocks and then crashed into another vehicle and was pronounced dead at the scene.

UPDATE: The police in Brooklyn Center, Minnesota, have released a video and a statement on the shooting of Daunte Wright Sr. Their position is that the officer involved in the incident meant to draw her taser but mistakenly drew and fired her service firearm, creating a “tragic accident.”

That’s highly problematic for a number of reasons, not the least of which is that the Brooklyn Center police and Chief Tim Gannon appear to have concluded the facts of the case prior to a thorough investigation.

The defense that an officer accidentally drew a gun when she intended to draw a taser echoes the 2009 shooting of Oscar Grant in Oakland, California. BART police officer Johannes Mehserle’s defense centered on the exact same claim, that he drew and fired a firearm believing it was his taser.

Mehserle was convicted only of manslaughter, not of any murder charge. Mehserle was sentenced to two years in prison. He served a total of 11 months.

Although early details are sketchy, if Daunte Wright was shot for attempting to run from police, that’s going to be a problem. Shooting a suspect merely for attempting to flee is illegal and excessive right out of the gate. It is also all too common in American policing.

Tear gas and rubber bullets are already flying in Minneapolis, and it’s likely going to get worse. Again police have killed, and again the justification appears, at least at this stage, tragically weak.

American police kill on average a thousand people a year. The reason the numbers are so high is that the standards for use of deadly force are too low.

What if Daunte Wright, father of a 2-year-old son, had simply been allowed to drive away? Why was it better for society for the police to use deadly force to prevent that? What if George Floyd had simply walked away? Would the results for our world have been so much worse? Who is the greater threat to society, the killer or the runner? We have waited too long to confront these questions.

The psychology of police killing in America is out of control, and society is paying a terrible price. The Floyd case isn’t even completed yet, and the cycle begins again.


Marc Ash is the founder and former Executive Director of Truthout, and is now founder and Editor of Reader Supported News.

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
 
"Yippee!!!": Emails Show Trump Appointees Celebrating Lying to the Public About COVID-19 Print
Written by <a href="index.php?option=com_comprofiler&task=userProfile&user=44994"><span class="small">Bess Levin, Vanity Fair</span></a>   
Monday, 12 April 2021 08:21

Levin writes: "In February 2020, Donald Trump took some time away from his busy schedule of watching multiple hours of TV a day and insisting the coronavirus was fake news to have a little chat with journalist Bob Woodward."

Michael Caputo. (photo: Mark Wilson/Getty Images)
Michael Caputo. (photo: Mark Wilson/Getty Images)


"Yippee!!!": Emails Show Trump Appointees Celebrating Lying to the Public About COVID-19

By Bess Levin, Vanity Fair

12 April 21


Because of course they did.

n February 2020, Donald Trump took some time away from his busy schedule of watching multiple hours of TV a day and insisting the coronavirus was fake news to have a little chat with journalist Bob Woodward. Naturally, one of the things they discussed was the very scary virus that had gained a foothold in the United States. “You just breathe the air and that’s how it’s passed,” Trump said during a February 7 call. “And so that’s a very tricky one. That’s a very delicate one. It’s also more deadly than even your strenuous flu,” he said, repeating for emphasis, “This is deadly stuff.” Of course, at the time, Trump had been actively telling the country that COVID-19 was not at all a big deal, that it wasn’t as bad as the flu, that it would “miraculously” go away on its own by April, and that anyone suggesting otherwise was a liar and a fraud. Then in March, a week after the World Health Organization officially declared COVID-19 a pandemic, Trump had another conversation with Woodward, in which he admitted something else: that he had been purposely lying to the public about the highly contagious virus the whole time. “I wanted to always play it down,” he said.

Given that the literal leader of the free world is on the record copping to lying about COVID-19—which killed 400,000 on his watch—it’s not entirely surprising to learn that his foot soldiers in the federal government did everything they could to mislead the public as well. But it’s still colossally messed up and something that should follow them around for the rest of their careers, hence this important report from The Washington Post:

Trump appointees in the Department of Health and Human Services last year privately touted their efforts to block or alter scientists’ reports on the coronavirus to more closely align with then president Donald Trump’s more optimistic messages about the outbreak, according to newly released documents from congressional investigators. The documents provide further insight into how senior Trump officials approached last year’s explosion of coronavirus cases in the United States. Even as career government scientists worked to combat the virus, a cadre of Trump appointees was attempting to blunt the scientists’ messages, edit their findings, and equip the president with an alternate set of talking points.

Then science adviser Paul Alexander wrote to then HHS public affairs chief Michael Caputo on Sept. 9, 2020, touting two examples of where he said officials at the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention had bowed to his pressure and changed language in their reports, according to an email obtained by the House’s select subcommittee on the coronavirus outbreak. Pointing to one change—in which CDC leaders allegedly changed the opening sentence of a report about the spread of the virus among younger people after Alexander pressured them—Alexander wrote to Caputo, calling it a “small victory but a victory nonetheless and yippee!!!”

In the same email, Alexander excitedly referenced another example of a change to a weekly report from the CDC that he bragged the agency had made thanks to his demands. Two days later, he asked then White House adviser Scott Atlas—the guy who wanted the U.S. to adopt a “herd immunity” strategy by letting millions get the virus on purpose—to help him discredit a forthcoming CDC report on COVID-19-related deaths among young people. “Can you help me craft an op-ed,” Alexander wrote to Atlas on September 11, claiming the report was “timed for the election” to hurt Trump, as though that was the priority of the scientists at the agency. “Let us advise the President and get permission to preempt this please for it will run for the weekend so we need to blunt the edge as it is misleading.”

Alexander and other officials also strategized on how to help Trump argue to reopen the economy in the midst of the coronavirus outbreak, despite scientists’ warnings about the potential risks.

“I know the President wants us to enumerate the economic cost of not reopening. We need solid estimates to be able to say something like: 50,000 more cancer deaths! 40,000 more heart attacks! 25,000 more suicides!” Caputo wrote to Alexander on May 16, 2020, in an email obtained by the subcommittee.

“You need to take ownership of these numbers. This is singularly important to what you and I want to achieve,” Caputo added in a follow-up email, urging Alexander to compile additional data on the consequences of virus-related shutdowns. Atlas, Alexander, and Caputo did not immediately respond to requests for comment.

Incidentally, neither Alexander nor Caputo were doctors; for his part, Caputo seemingly got his job in the administration by writing wildly racist tweets that likely impressed the president. Of course, that didn’t stop them from demanding that the actual health experts change their guidance to the public.

For instance, Alexander said he had won changes to the “key opening sentence” of an August report about a coronavirus outbreak at a Georgia summer camp. The draft report’s opening line argued that understanding youth transmission of the coronavirus was “critical for developing guidance for schools and institutes of higher education,” according to Alexander’s email. But that language was removed from the final report and a caveat was inserted to specify that there was “limited data” about spread of the virus among people under the age of 21. The CDC said that the change had been made because of “thoughtful comments” from Alexander and the agency’s leaders.

The Trump appointee continued to demand more revisions, calling for changes to a September MMWR report that concluded that children who contracted the coronavirus in child-care facilities later transmitted the virus to their family members. “In my view, the parents got it more likely when they picked up the kids and came into contact with the school personnel or teachers as happens with my wife and I when we pick our kids form [sic] school,” Alexander wrote to Caputo on Sept. 13.

Elsewhere, Alexander emailed Atlas on September 3 proposing an “op-ed on possible damage to children immune systems with lock downs and masks,” writing, “I do think locking down our kids (and healthy adults) and masking them can dampen their functional immune systems.” Scientists, of course, have said there is no evidence whatsoever that wearing masks is harmful to children’s immune systems.

In a letter to Atlas sent on Friday, Representative James Clyburn, chairman of the select subcommittee on the coronavirus crisis, wrote, “Our investigation has shown that Trump Administration officials engaged in a persistent pattern of political interference in the nation’s public health response to the coronavirus pandemic, overruling and bullying scientists and making harmful decisions that allowed the virus to spread more rapidly.” The subcommittee has requested additional documents from Alexander, Atlas, and others, and asked Alexander and Atlas to sit for interviews with the subcommittee by May 3.

A Texas Republican has been going around claiming Texas could secede from the United States

Never mind the fact that that’s...not actually true at all. Per CNN:

Texas Republican Party chairman Allen West falsely suggested that Texas could secede from the United States and become an independent country, a CNN KFile review of his comments in recent months shows. In radio interviews after the 2020 presidential election, West suggested Texas could vote to again become a republic, as it was before joining the United States in 1845. “This is something that was written into the Texas Constitution,” the former congressman said in one late-December radio broadcast. “Or it was promised to Texas when we became part of the United States of America—that if we voted and decided, we could go back to being our own republic.”

West’s comments on secession come as he repeatedly and baselessly questioned the legitimacy of the 2020 presidential election and pushed debunked claims of massive voting fraud, including the lie that Dominion Voting Software changed votes. Following President Joe Biden’s election, West has claimed the U.S. is in an “ideological civil war” and agreed with a radio host who suggested that an actual civil war would be “worth it.”

Which obviously is completely terrifying given the willingness of people like the ones who stormed the Capitol on January 6 to engage in actual violence when things—like the 2020 presidential election—don’t go their way. (As for the claim that Texas can actually secede, CNN’s KFile notes that no, it can’t; there is a resolution asserting that Texas can choose to divide itself into five separate states, but it can’t leave the U.S. and declare independence.)

Leon Black forgot to mention one thing when he abruptly quit the firm he cofounded last month

Strange how this didn’t make the press release:

Leon Black’s surprise exit from the helm of Apollo Global Management last month came just days after several directors on the private-equity giant’s board learned of accusations of sexual harassment against him by a woman he claimed was trying to shake him down over a “consensual affair,” the Post has learned.... Black—who Apollo earlier this year revealed had paid millions to dead pedophile financier Jeffrey Epstein following the latter’s 2008 convictions for procuring an underage girl for prostitution—cited his wife’s ailing health and his own health problems for the sudden change in plans.

Neither Black nor Apollo mentioned at the time that days leading up to the resignation, at least four of Apollo’s 12 board members had become aware of a series of little-noticed but explosive tweets by Güzel Ganieva, a former model who claimed to have been “forced to sign an NDA in 2015” relating to allegations that Black “sexually harassed and abused” her, according to sources close to the situation.

In a statement to the Post, Black denied the accusations while acknowledging that he was well acquainted with Ganieva. “I foolishly had a consensual affair with Ms. Ganieva that ended more than seven years ago,” he said. “Any allegation of harassment or any other inappropriate behavior towards her is completely fabricated.” Black added that he had “made substantial monetary payments” to Ganieva “based on her threats to go public concerning our relationship, in an attempt to spare my family from public embarrassment.” That, he now believes, amounted to him being “extorted,” and he said he has referred the matter to “the criminal authorities.” (Ganieva did not immediately respond to the Post regarding Black’s extortion allegations.) Black separately paid Epstein $158 million, allegedly for tax advice and estate planning, despite being worth roughly $8 billion and having access to the best lawyers and accountants in the world, while Epstein was a college dropout with no formal training in taxes and estate planning.

e-max.it: your social media marketing partner
 
FOCUS: Matt Gaetz Is a Cautionary Tale for the New Breed of Conservative Politician Print
Written by <a href="index.php?option=com_comprofiler&task=userProfile&user=11104"><span class="small">Charles Pierce, Esquire</span></a>   
Sunday, 11 April 2021 11:10

Pierce writes: "All right, you slavering hordes, here's your Matt Gaetz post. You all should be ashamed of yourselves. You know that, right?"

Rep. Matt Gaetz. (photo: Getty Images)
Rep. Matt Gaetz. (photo: Getty Images)


Matt Gaetz Is a Cautionary Tale for the New Breed of Conservative Politician

By Charles Pierce, Esquire

11 April 21


The job has to mean something beyond scoring that sweet pundit gig on One America or Newsmax—or worse.

ll right, you slavering hordes, here’s your Matt Gaetz post. You all should be ashamed of yourselves. You know that, right? But now that his wingman may have flipped on him, we have a legitimate chance of seeing a congressman in the dock. So yes, this has become A Story. From CBS News:

Joel Greenberg is expected to strike a deal by May 15, though the deal has not yet been finalized, his attorney, Fritz Scheller, said Thursday. Greenberg, the former Seminole County tax collector, has been charged with dozens of offenses, including sex trafficking, stalking, bribery and defrauding the Paycheck Protection Program. CBS News has confirmed that the ongoing investigation into Greenberg is what spurred the investigation into Gaetz.

Greenberg is facing an staggering array of corruption charges, impressive given the fact that he was a mere county tax official. He needs to trade up, and Congressman Gaetz is the golden ticket.

Scheller also told reporters after the court appearance "I'm sure Matt Gaetz is not feeling very comfortable today." He later clarified that given the focus on the connection between Gaetz and Greenberg, it "wouldn't be obvious to assume that he would be concerned, you know, some.”

Gaetz is a cautionary tale for this strange new breed of conservative politician, the ones who take getting elected seriously but who don’t give a flying Venmo for the job itself. These include Gaetz, as well as Marjorie Taylor Greene, Lauren Boebert, and several other members of the wild kingdom. If you don’t take the job seriously, you don’t take the possible consequences of doing it badly seriously, either. You at least have to try to make people believe that you think representing them actually means something beyond setting yourself up to run for something else, or scoring that sweet pundit gig on One America or Newsmax. There’s a certain kabuki solemnity that comes with the job, which you’re expected to maintain. Once you can fake that, the rest is a breeze.

e-max.it: your social media marketing partner
 
Are We Finally Ending the Reagan-Thatcher Era of 'Government Is Evil'? Print
Written by <a href="index.php?option=com_comprofiler&task=userProfile&user=35918"><span class="small">Michael Moore, Michael Moore's Facebook Page</span></a>   
Sunday, 11 April 2021 08:30

Moore writes: "Are we finally ending the Reagan-Thatcher era of 'government is evil' that we've lived under for the past 40 years? Can we finally end this reign of terror that has dominated our politics and our lives under both Republican and Democratic administrations?"

Reagan and Thatcher. (photo: Facebook)
Reagan and Thatcher. (photo: Facebook)


Are We Finally Ending the Reagan-Thatcher Era of 'Government Is Evil'?

By Michael Moore, Michael Moore's Facebook Page

11 April 21

 

re we finally ending the Reagan-Thatcher era of 'government is evil' that we've lived under for the past 40 years? Can we finally end this reign of terror that has dominated our politics and our lives under both Republican and Democratic administrations?

They've ruled under the ideology that private, profit-making corporations are always superior to the government, even when it comes to providing critical public services to the people. That anything getting in the way of their profits - be it labor unions or regulations, must be eliminated.

And they've put forward this big lie that biggest scourge we face is THE DEFICIT, caused by government spending on Medicare, Medicaid, Social Security, and welfare programs (things that actually help people!) but not, of course, by our massive military budget or tax breaks for the rich or giant corporations.

It is this worldview that has been killing us.

But something is now changing. While we haven’t won every primary or every election, WE ARE WINNING THE WAR OF IDEAS.

We appear to be entering a political realignment where the old lies about deficits; about labor; about regulations; and most importantly, about the massive need for government intervention and government spending money to help its citizens, is changing. The political winds have shifted, and they are blowing to the left. And Joe Biden is changing along with it.

But make no mistake - the Democrats have not yet returned to being the party of FDR. There is still a long way to go and many battles to fight. And the next one will be on INFRASTRUCTURE.

In my latest RUMBLE podcast, I'm joined by the Executive Editor of the American Prospect, David Dayen, and we discuss what is in the American Jobs Plan, what we must to do make it better and make sure the vultures at McKinsey and Goldman Sachs don't pilfer it, and how stimulus checks, and free, socialist injections into our arms are boosting our confidence that our government actually CAN serve the people.

I hope you will listen/subscribe/share this podcast for free on Apple, Spotify, RadioPublic, Stitcher or wherever you get your podcasts.

Apple: https://apple.co/3s4wMRO

Spotify: https://spoti.fi/3dMjfcu

Google: https://bit.ly/3cVADMB

e-max.it: your social media marketing partner
 
<< Start < Prev 141 142 143 144 145 146 147 148 149 150 Next > End >>

Page 143 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