RSN Fundraising Banner
FB Share
Email This Page
add comment
Politics
FOCUS: Robert Reich | The End Is in Sight. Trump's Power Is Ebbing Away Fast Print
Written by <a href="index.php?option=com_comprofiler&task=userProfile&user=45885"><span class="small">Robert Reich, Newsweek</span></a>   
Monday, 21 August 2017 11:16

Reich writes: "With Republicans controlling both houses of Congress, it's unlikely Trump will be impeached or thrown out of office on grounds of mental impairment. At least any time soon. Yet there's another way Trump can be effectively removed. He can be made irrelevant."

Robert Reich. (photo: unknown)
Robert Reich. (photo: unknown)


The End Is in Sight. Trump's Power Is Ebbing Away Fast

By Robert Reich, Newsweek

21 August 17

 

ith Republicans controlling both houses of Congress, it’s unlikely Trump will be impeached or thrown out of office on grounds of mental impairment. At least any time soon.

Yet there’s another way Trump can be effectively removed. He can be made irrelevant.

It’s already starting to happen. The howling manchild who occupies the Oval Office is being cut off and contained.

Trump no longer has a working majority in the Senate because several Senate Republicans have decided, the hell with him.

Three Republican Senators voted against repealing the Affordable Care Act, dooming his effort. Almost all voted to restrict his authority over Russian sanctions.

They’re also pushing forward with their own inquiry into Trump’s Russian connections. Republican senators Thom Tillis and Lindsay Graham have even joined Democrats in introducing legislation to protect Special Counsel Robert Mueller from being fired.

Republicans in the House won’t fund his wall. Many refuse to increase the national debt in order to pay for his promised tax cuts.

After Charlottesville, many more are willing to criticize him publicly. Last week Tennessee’s Bob Corker, chairman of the Foreign Relations Committee, even questioned Trump’s  “stability” and “competence,” saying Trump hasn’t shown he understands “the character of this nation” and that without that understanding, “Our nation is going to go through great peril.”

The Washington Post’s Dan Balz reports that GOP leaders are “personally wrestling with the trade-offs of making a cleaner separation with the president.”

It helps that Republican patrons in big business are deserting Trump in droves. Last week, CEOs bolted his advisory councils. Many issued sharp rebukes of Trump.

These are the people who raise big bucks for the GOP. Their dumping Trump makes it easier for elected Republicans to do so, too.

Even James Murdoch, the 21st Century Fox CEO whose media outlets include Fox News, the Wall Street Journal, and The New York Post – among the loudest mouthpieces for Trump – is ditching him.

Last Thursday Murdoch wrote, “What we watched last week in Charlottesville and the reaction to it by the president of the United States concern all of us as Americans and free people,” and pledged $1 million to the Anti-Defamation League.

This doesn’t mean Fox News or the Wall Street Journal will call for Trump’s ouster. It does mean their commentators and editorial writers now have clear license to criticize him.

Hey, America as a whole is abandoning him. Trump’s approval hit an all-time low of 34 percent last week.

Even parts of his base are dropping him. A new News/Marist poll shows his approvals have fallen below 40 percent in Michigan, Pennsylvania and Wisconsin – three states that were key to his election, which he won by a whisker.

Inside the administration, there are moves to contain and isolate the manchild.

On foreign policy, the Axis of Adults – Chief of staff General John Kelly, national security advisor General H.R. McMaster, and Secretary of State Rex Tillerson – are asserting tighter control, especially after Trump’s tweetstorm over North Korea.

Reportedly, daughter Ivanka and son-in-law Jared Kushner are stepping up attempts to constrain him as well.

“You have no idea how much crazy stuff we kill,” another White House aide told Axios’s Mike Allen.

Plus, Stephen Bannon is gone.

All this means that, although Trump will still hold the title of President, he’s on the way to being effectively removed from the presidency. Neutered. Defanged.

We’re not out of danger. Trump will continue to rant and fume. He’ll insult. He’ll stoke racial tensions. He could still start a nuclear war.

But, hopefully, he won’t be able to exercise much presidential power from here on. He’s being ostracized like a obnoxious adolescent who’s been grounded.  

When the media stop reporting his tweets, his isolation and irrelevance will be complete.


e-max.it: your social media marketing partner
 
FOCUS: Why Trump Can't Quit the Alt-Right Print
Monday, 21 August 2017 10:27

Taibbi writes: "In the wake of Charlottesville, Donald Trump clings to the only constituency he has left."

Donald Trump and Steve Bannon. (photo: Saul Loeb/Getty Images)
Donald Trump and Steve Bannon. (photo: Saul Loeb/Getty Images)


Why Trump Can't Quit the Alt-Right

By Matt Taibbi, Rolling Stone

21 August 17


In the wake of Charlottesville, Donald Trump clings to the only constituency he has left

ell, it's over now – right? He may have three and a half years left in office, but Donald Trump is finished. The Charlottesville tragedy was the final stake through the Grinch-heart of his presidency. If he didn't deserve it so enormously much, it would be sad.

The presidency of Donald Trump has already seen mass dismissals, felony accusations, a key adviser raided by the FBI, a press chief accusing a fellow official of auto-fellatio, a preschool version of a nuclear stare-down with North Korea, and countless other fiascoes and indignities. But a rampage of misjudgment and anti-leadership starting on August 12th, 2017, was a clear nadir.

It began that Saturday morning. After torch-bearing neo-Nazis stormed a postcard-perfect Virginia university town, and the life of a young woman was snuffed out by a vehicular terrorist, Trump – the same man who couldn't shut up during the campaign, tweeting at all hours like a friendless coke addict, notably berating Barack Obama for failing to identify terrorism by name – suddenly lost the power of speech.

When he finally did make a statement, it was only to issue a preposterous parody of presidential evenhandedness, decrying bigotry and violence "on many sides." Those three words instantly set a new standard for Trump-iniquity. The president of the United States had announced he was so insecure, so politically alone, that he couldn't even disavow people making Hitler salutes in broad daylight. For a normal politician, the calculus is simple: Don't hug Nazis. It's on page one of Presidenting for Dummies. But Trump's narcissism is so malignant that it alters basic equations. The president seemed paralyzed by the fact that some of the Charlottesville protesters wore MAGA hats, an indemnifying variable in Trump-math: "They like me, therefore they are me. And me can't be all bad – even if me is a Nazi."

Trump is not just the first president in history to flunk the Don't Hug Nazis rule, he may be the first one to have a chief strategist stroll him through the Rose Garden on the way. Former Breitbart chief and bestubbled alt-right Pope Steve Bannon, one of the few people to whom Trump listens before he tweets, reportedly consulted with Trump repeatedly over that weekend. Bannon, finally ousted six days after the Charlottesville tragedy, is said to have generally urged Trump to not criticize the alt-right too strongly, for fear of alienating Trump's core supporters.

White-supremacist nitwits of the type that came to Charlottesville – so dumb that some came flying a Detroit Red Wings logo, because they couldn't be bothered to design their own swastika – may be the only thing Trump has left resembling a base of support. Similar to his financial empire, every other part of his political coalition was either borrowed, temporary, inherited or acquired by fraud. And the notes are all coming due.

The mainstream GOP, whose institutional machinery Trump appropriated just long enough to win a national election, is long gone as an ally, its officials now fleeing the administration at top speed. The executive agencies, particularly the security services, are in open rebellion, leaking to newspapers every move the Trumps and their surrogates make. There's no analog to this situation in American history – a presidential administration under prolonged siege by its own Cabinet agencies.

Trump's presidency looked like it would be reduced to a Gilligan's Island of family members, in-laws, the white-power Rasputin Bannon, hired help like John Kelly, and whatever soon-to-be-disbarred lawyers they've been able to find to rack up billable hours stalling the boss's multitudinous criminal and civil messes. He has virtually no political help anywhere outside the gates of 1600 Pennsylvania Avenue.

In the wake of his "many sides" comments and as his approval numbers cratered to 34 percent, you could almost hear the shrieking of the rats as they abandoned ship – desperately trying to untether themselves from the Charlottesville white-power freaks, who were yanking them all at light speed down the anus of history. The onetime master of media manipulation was in free-fall, and even with the vast powers of the presidency at his disposal, he seemingly had no way to turn the situation around.

We forget now, because the 2016 presidential race seems like a thousand years ago, but candidate Donald Trump once specialized in moments like these. They were what made him. Thorny racial controversies, along with tasteless responses to the same, were Trump's secret weapon.

Trump won the hardcore race nuts over on Day One of his campaign with his 4chan-worthy "they're rapists" speech and his accompanying Mexican-wall idea, an alt-right centerfold fantasy if there ever was one. He then spent the rest of the campaign cleverly leveraging that single tumor of intractable support all the way to the presidency. Whether it was the symbolic booting of anchorman Jorge Ramos off the lawn of his press conference ("Go back to Univision!") or his attacks on Mexican-American Judge Gonzalo Curiel, Trump specialized in using racial dynamite as a marketing tool.

For two years, whenever the press corps charged at him like rhinos, hurling accusations of insensitivity and demanding apologies, candidate Trump would say …?something, the wrong thing, inevitably, but he was usually gaming the news cycle to come out ahead in the end. Selective silence was a key weapon. At times, Blabberguts would hold his tongue or plead ignorance. The most infamous instance was after Klan leader David Duke pledged his support to Trump early in 2016, and a deadpan Trump pretended not to know what white supremacists or the KKK were.

"I don't know what you're even talking about with 'white supremacy' or 'white supremacists,'?" he croaked to CNN's incredulous Jake Tapper. He promised to "do research" and get back to us.

This was despite the fact that he had gone on TV to denounce "David Duke?...?a bigot, a racist" way back in 2000. Trump knew exactly who Duke and the Klan were – and knew exactly what he was doing by saying he didn't.

Crucially, and this part of the record often gets overlooked, Trump would usually come around and push the conventional kumbaya take in subsequent media appearances, disavowing whatever horrible thing he just said 10 minutes before. It was a triple game. The initial hesitations and defiance reinforced his hero status with the outright race nuts, who caught his not-so-subtle signals of solidarity. Then, the belated denunciations and/or apologies reassured the merely closeted racist Republicans, a far more numerous group that didn't like to think of itself as openly prejudiced.

And in the final stage, when he'd throw up his hands like a victim and say things like, "How many times do I have to reject or disavow?" he'd turn the issue all the way around. Each episode became a story not about Trump's attitudes, but about liberal-media unfairness and bias. This endeared him to an even wider range of conservatives who may not have even heard the beginning of the story, but certainly hated the press enough.

All of these behaviors created an air of mystery around Trump. Was this strategy or pathology? Was he smart enough to play heel and statesman in the same breath as a strategic ploy, or was that just a disorganized brain doing its natural tumble? Trump hyped this question like the reality star he was: Tune in next week to find out just how insane or dangerous I really am!

Even reporters who followed him daily weren't sure: Who was he? A not-so-secret white supremacist who kept a book of Hitler speeches by his bedside, or a secret liberal who once donated to the Clintons, favored universal health care, and even said he was "totally pro-choice"? Or was he just a self-obsessed attention hog with a 24-hour boner who didn't know what he was doing from minute to minute? Trump encouraged all of these legends.

In two-plus years now of facile Hitler comparisons, this is the one area where the Reich analogy consistently holds true. Trump, like the Austrian monster, rose to power using what Explaining Hitler author Ron Rosenbaum called the "secret technique." He continually keeps enemies off-balance by alternately playing the menace and the raving buffoon.

On the way up, he convinced enough smart people to not take him seriously that by the time reality set in, he was already sitting on their throats. And when Trump took power, he brought with him a cadre of self-professed race warriors like Bannon and Muslim-basher Sebastian Gorka, seemingly answering the question about who Trump "really" was underneath.

The "secret technique" never failed Trump as a candidate. But the buffoon act hasn't worked in office, leaving him cut off and in a psychological tailspin. Being alone and despised in the pressure cooker of the presidency seems to be driving Trump quite mad, if his response to Charlottesville is any indication.

The fallout from Virginia played out much like every other major Trump controversy. He started with a trademark stretch of ignominious silence, then moved on to a monstrous and indefensible public statement. Then his surrogates said the obvious things Trump himself was not yet ready to say. National Security adviser H.R. McMaster called the vehicular attack by 20-year-old neo-Nazi James Alex Fields Jr. that killed counterprotester Heather Heyer "terrorism," and daughter Ivanka, supposedly the administration's secret human being, needed a whole day before she was able to say there was "no place?...?for racism, white supremacy and neo-Nazis." Finally, on Monday, August 14th, two days after the incident, Trump himself said "racism is evil" and added that "the KKK, neo-Nazis and white supremacists" were "criminals and thugs." But by the next day, he was back on the offensive in a wild-eyed impromptu presser at his Saddamoid Trump Tower that may go down as his Beautiful Mind break-from-reality moment.

He went to the lobby to face a phalanx of buzzing reporters, angrily barking back all those begrudging by-rote remarks he'd just made about the wrongness of bigots and racism. As he spoke, he was flanked by National Economic Council chair Gary Cohn, Treasury Secretary Steven Mnuchin and Transportation Secretary Elaine Chao – two Jews and an Asian-American woman, who all looked like they were ready to swallow their own faces the moment Trump began to speak. Former Goldman honcho Cohn must have been dreaming of the salad days when he was merely the globally despised co-head of the world's most infamous investment bank. What impelled these people to stand by Trump at this moment will be a thrilling mystery for future historians to unravel.

Trump opened by blasting the "alt-left" for coming to the rally "with clubs in their hands, swinging clubs." He then drifted into a freewheeling rant about the removal of statues of figures like Robert E. Lee. "George Washington was a slave-owner," he complained. "Are we going to take down statues to George Washington? How about Thomas Jefferson?" He shook his head, adding, "You really do have to ask yourself: Where does it stop?" He then pulled out a line that might have been straight from a Stormfront editorial. "You're changing history, you're changing culture," he said, hurling log after log on the bonfire of his credibility. Nothing like this had ever been seen before. It was the presidential equivalent of a run on the bank, an instant mass liquidation of political capital.

When it was done, stunned reporters watched as Trump retreated from view, presumably to plot his next mistake. The whole cycle was classic Trump: offend, deflect, reverse course, deny, counter-accuse, re-offend, re-ignite. Arguments about one set of remarks turn into interminable arguments about even worse sets of counter-remarks. Life in the Trump era is like the president's favorite medium, Twitter: an endless scroll of half-connected little anger Chiclets rapidly spinning us all into madness and conflict, with no end in sight.

This is Trump's legacy. Because of his total inability to concentrate or lead, he will likely never do anything meaningful with the real governmental power he possesses – if he had a tenth of the managerial skills of Hitler, we'd be in impossibly deep shit right now. But as an enabler of behavior, as a stoker of arguments and hardener of resentments, he has no equal. Under Trump, racists become more racist, the woke necessarily become more woke, and areas of compromise among all quickly dwindle and disappear. He has us arguing about things that weren't even questions a few minutes ago, like, are Nazis bad?


e-max.it: your social media marketing partner
 
This Is How Sexism Works in Silicon Valley Print
Written by <a href="index.php?option=com_comprofiler&task=userProfile&user=45882"><span class="small">Ellen Pao, The Cut</span></a>   
Monday, 21 August 2017 08:50

Pao writes: "I sued Kleiner Perkins for sexual harassment and discrimination in a widely publicized case in which I was often cast as the villain - incompetent, greedy, aggressive, and cold. My husband and I were both dragged through the mud, our privacy destroyed. For a long time I didn't challenge those stories, because I wasn't ready to talk about my experience in detail. Now I am."

Ellen Pao enters the San Francisco Superior County 
courthouse on March 2, 2015. (photo: Robert Galbraith/Reuters)
Ellen Pao enters the San Francisco Superior County courthouse on March 2, 2015. (photo: Robert Galbraith/Reuters)


This Is How Sexism Works in Silicon Valley

By Ellen Pao, The Cut

21 August 17


My lawsuit failed. Others won’t.

n December 2010, Sheryl Sandberg gave a talk about women’s leadership in which she mentioned “sitting at the table.” Women, she said, have to pull up a chair and sit at the conference-room table rather than clinging to the edges of the room, “because no one gets to the corner office by sitting on the side.”

Less than a year later, I would take those words to heart. I had been working for six years at the Silicon Valley firm Kleiner Perkins Caufield & Byers as a junior partner and chief of staff for managing partner John Doerr. Kleiner was then one of the three most powerful venture-­capital firms in the world. One day, I was part of a small group flying from San Francisco to New York on the private jet of another managing partner, Ted Schlein. I was the first to arrive at Hayward Airport. The main cabin of the plane was set up with four chairs in pairs facing each other. Usually the most powerful seat faces forward, looking at the TV screen, with the second most powerful next to it. Then came the seats facing backward. I was sure the white men booked on the flight (Ted, senior partner Matt Murphy, a tech CEO, and a tech investor) would be taking those four seats and I would end up on the couch in back. But Sheryl’s words echoed in my mind, and I moved to one of the power seats — the fourth, backward-facing seat, but at the table nonetheless. The rest of the folks filed in one by one. Ted sat across from me, the CEO next to him, and the tech investor next to me on my right. Matt ended up with what would have been my original seat on the couch.

Once we were airborne, the CEO, who’d brought along a few bottles of wine, started bragging about meeting Jenna Jameson, talking about her career as the world’s greatest porn star and how he had taken a photo with her at the Playboy Mansion. He asked if I knew who she was and then proceeded to describe her pay-per-view series (Jenna’s American Sex Star), on which women competed for porn-movie contracts by performing sex acts before a live audience.

“Nope,” I said. “Not a show I’m familiar with.”

Then the CEO switched topics. To sex workers. He asked Ted what kind of “girls” he liked. Ted said that he preferred white girls — Eastern European, to be specific.

Eventually we all moved to the couch for a working session to help the tech CEO; he was trying to recruit a woman to his all-male board. I suggested Marissa Mayer, but the CEO looked at me and dismissively said, “Nah, too controversial.” Then he grinned at Ted and added, “Though I would let her join the board because she’s hot.”

Somehow, I got the distinct vibe that the group couldn’t wait to ditch me. And once we landed at Teterboro, the guys made plans to go to a club, while I headed into Manhattan alone. Taking your seat at the table doesn’t work so well, I thought, when no one wants you there. (When Sandberg’s book Lean In came out, that same Jenna Jameson–obsessed CEO became a vocal spokesperson for it.)

Seven months later, I would sue Kleiner Perkins for sexual harassment and discrimination in a widely publicized case in which I was often cast as the villain — incompetent, greedy, aggressive, and cold. My husband and I were both dragged through the mud, our privacy destroyed. For a long time I didn’t challenge those stories, because I wasn’t ready to talk about my experience in detail. Now I am.

***

When I first got the three pages of specs for a chief-of-staff position at Kleiner Perkins in 2005, it was almost as if someone had copied my résumé. The list of requirements was comically long: an engineering degree (only in computer science or electrical engineering), a law degree and a business degree (only from top schools), management-consulting experience (only at Booz Allen or Bain), start-up experience (only at a top start-up), enterprise-software-­company experience (only at a big established player known for training employees) … oh, and fluency in Mandarin.

John Doerr wanted his new chief of staff to “leverage his time,” which he valued at $200,000 per hour. I liked John. People sometimes compare him to Woody Allen, because he has that strange mixture of nervous energy, nerdy charm, and awkwardness, though John was also an unapologetic salesman. His pitch to me: I would be senior to others in this role; Kleiner Perkins was one of the few VC firms with women, and he wanted to bring even more onboard; diversity was important to him.

In retrospect, there were some early warning signs, like when John declared that he’d specifically requested an Asian woman for my position. He liked the idea of a “Tiger Mom–raised” woman. He usually had two chiefs of staff at a time, one of each gender, but the male one seemed to focus mostly on investing and the female one did more of the grunt work and traveled with him. “There are certain things I am just more comfortable asking a woman to do,” John once told me matter-of-factly.

Still, my new job felt thrilling. At Kleiner, we focused on the really big ideas: the companies that were trying to transform an industry or revolutionize daily life. And John was king of king­makers. He had some early hits: Genentech, Intuit, Amazon. He was one of the first to invest in the internet, with Netscape, and cemented his online reputation later with Google.

In venture capital, a ton of power is concentrated in just a few people who all know one another. Tips and information are exchanged at all-male dinners, outings to Vegas, and sports events. Networks are important inside a VC firm, too. One secret of the venture-capital world is that many firms run on vote trading. A person might offer to vote in favor of investing in another partner’s investment so that partner will support his upcoming investment. Many firms, including Kleiner, also had a veto rule: Any one person could veto another member’s investment. No one ever exercised a veto while I was there, but fear of it motivated us to practice the California art of superficial collegiality, where everything seems tan and shiny on the outside but behind closed doors, people would trash your investment, block it, or send you on unending “rock fetches” — time-consuming, unproductive tasks to stall you until you gave up.

Venture capital’s underbelly of competitiveness exists in part because the more I invest, the less money for you, my partner, to make your investments. And we’re all trying to make as many investments as possible because chances are low that any one investment is going to be successful. Partners can increase their own odds by excluding all of your investments. And as a junior partner you faced another dilemma: Your investments could be poached by senior partners. You wanted to pitch your venture so it would be supported but not so much that it would be stolen. Once a senior partner laid claim to a venture you were driving, you were better off just keeping quiet. Otherwise, you could be branded as having sharp elbows and not being a good team player. But this was true, I noticed, only for women. Junior men could sometimes even take ventures from senior partners.

Predicting who will succeed is an imperfect art, but also, sometimes, a self-fulfilling prophecy. When venture capitalists say — and they do say — “We think it’s young white men, ideally Ivy League dropouts, who are the safest bets,” then invest only in young white men with Ivy League backgrounds, of course young white men with Ivy League backgrounds are the only ones who make money for them. They’re also the only ones who lose money for them.

Sometimes the whole world felt like a nerdy frat house. People in the venture world spoke fondly about the early shenanigans at big companies. A friend told me how he sublet office space to Facebook, only to find people having sex there on the floor of the main public area. They wanted to see if the Reactrix — an interactive floor display hooked up to light sensors — would enhance their experience. At VC meetings, male partners frequently spoke over female colleagues or repeated what the women said and took the credit. Women were admonished when they “raised their voices” yet chastised when they couldn’t “own the room.” When I was still relatively new, a male partner made a big show of passing a plate of cookies around the table — but curiously ignored me and the woman next to him. Part of me thought, They’re just cookies. But after everyone left, my co-worker turned to me and shrugged. “It’s like we don’t exist,” she said.

***

Then, in 2006, I took a fateful business trip. Ajit Nazre, a fellow partner, had asked me to go with him on a tour of German green-tech start-ups. Every time we were alone in the evening, he would tell me that he and his wife had a terrible relationship, that he was desperately lonely, and that he and I would be good together.

Honestly, I might have considered dating him had he been less arrogant and less married. I was awfully lonely too. After our last set of meetings, Ajit asked for my room number. Since he and I were leaving the next morning, I figured he might want to coordinate our departure for the airport. So I told him the number. But I must have subconsciously given him the wrong one. The next morning at checkout, he was livid. It seemed he’d gone to what he thought was my room and I wasn’t there. He stormed off to the airport by himself.

After the trip, I tried to placate Ajit by sending a couple of friendly emails. He slowly became friendlier; then we worked on a project together, and he was actually helpful. I tried to keep the relationship professional, but he soon started saying that he and his wife were having problems again. I kept up my mantra: “You should do counseling.” Until, one day, he said, “I wanted you to know that my wife and I have separated. We’re getting divorced. I want to be with you.” He’d never said anything like that before. I felt a dash of hope that this could be a real thing.

We started seeing each other and had what eventually amounted to a short-lived, sporadic fling. It was fun bonding over work. Ajit told me the history of the firm and gave me the scoop on departed partners, and I felt like I was at last being let in on company secrets. Finally I had someone who was willing to talk about the dysfunction we saw in our workplace, and to be honest about how decisions were really made.

Then one day in a meeting, one of the managing partners, oblivious to my relationship with Ajit, said, “Can you believe my weekend? I was in a suite at the Ritz-­Carlton at Half Moon Bay, standing on the balcony in my bathrobe, and who did I see? Ajit and his wife walking across the lawn!” I broke it off with Ajit, but I was hopeful we could move past it personally and professionally.

As it turned out, I would soon meet and fall in love with the man I would marry, Buddy Fletcher. He was a financial arbitrageur who’d helped fund the first professorship for LGBTQ studies at Harvard. During our first date in New York, he told me during hours of conversation that he had previously been with men, something I never had a problem with but which would later be used in the press as evidence that our marriage was a sham. We got engaged just six weeks after we met.

My newly joyous home life was a liability in one sense, though: It made me recognize how very uncomfortable my work situation had become. Ajit had grown increasingly hostile toward me, excluding me from information and meetings. Even with other managers, I often got ignored or interrupted. At one point, John had a suggestion for how I could get more airtime.

He wanted me to go to school — to learn to be a stand-up comic.

Partners had become so aggressive about pursuing ventures I was working on that CEOs started to point it out. One CEO I had been working with, Mike McCue, called me to relate how John and another managing partner, Bing Gordon, had met with him and asked to invest more money in his start-up Flipboard. Just a few months earlier, I had lobbied hard for the firm to go all in and invest a large amount in Flipboard, but had been pushed to take a smaller investment. “They offered to pay $15 million for another 5 percent,” Mike told me. That price worked out to 20 percent higher than in the latest round. When Mike told them he was done raising, they upped their offer to $25 million for 5 percent. I gasped inwardly. We’d had a chance to buy the same number of shares for only $10 million just a month ago.

“Then,” he continued, “Bing asked for a board seat for himself or John. I said no. You know I don’t want anyone but you on my board right now. What is going on?” Now I understood why they hadn’t invited me to the meeting or even told me about it. I had made the initial investment and was a board member, so standard practice would have been for me to be part of any discussions about Flipboard. After the call, I confronted the two partners with Mike’s account. John seemed sheepish and blamed the gambit on Bing. Bing just looked alarmed. I don’t think he ever expected to fail in his bid or be held accountable for his bad manners. I didn’t get an apology, but the look of shock on his face was almost enough to make me feel better. And I could console myself with the knowledge that at least I had relationships worth trying to steal.

***

Of the few women I encountered at or above my professional level, almost none had young families. One partner told me that when she happily announced her third pregnancy, a male senior partner responded, “I don’t know any professional working woman who has three kids.”

When I gave birth to my first child, some partners at work treated my taking maternity leave as the equivalent of abandoning a ship in the middle of a typhoon to get a manicure. Juliet de Baubigny, one of the partners who had helped recruit me, had warned me that taking time off would put my companies at risk of being commandeered by another partner. I knew two other women who had board seats taken away during their maternity leaves. Juliet coached me on how to keep at least one company by leading their search for a CEO even though technically I was on leave. I’d arranged to take four months off, but after three I felt pressure to return.

Back at Kleiner, I continued to have a huge problem with Ajit. Not only was he blocking my work, he had been promoted to a position of even greater responsibility and was giving me negative reviews. I started to lodge formal complaints about him. In response, the firm suggested I transfer to the China office.

It wasn’t until the spring of 2011 that I finally told a few colleagues about my harassment by Ajit. One instructed me never to mention it again. But when I told fellow junior partner Trae Vassallo, she grew uncharacteristically quiet. Then she said something I never expected: She had been harassed by Ajit, too. He’d asked her out for drinks to talk shop, and in the course of the evening he started touching her with his leg under the table. Then I said something I still feel bad about. I recommended that she not report it. I had, and had been paying the price ever since.

Fortunately, Trae didn’t take my advice. She reported Ajit’s behavior soon after, when she found out he was about to do her review. She was promised that the firm would keep an eye on it, but no other action was taken.

In that round of summer reviews, Kleiner had six junior partners who had worked there for four or more years. The women had twice as many years at Kleiner, but only the men got promoted.

Around the end of November, Ajit persuaded Trae to go to New York with him for an important work trip. He said they’d be having dinner with a CEO who might be able to help one of Trae’s companies. But when they arrived, Trae saw that the table was set for two. The trip was just her and Ajit, in a hotel together for the weekend. Later that night he came to her room in his bathrobe, asking to be let in. She eventually had to push him out the door. Later, when she told one of the managing partners about the fake trip, he said, “You should feel flattered.”

It was now clear to me that the firm was unwilling to take the difficult actions needed to fix its problems. On January 4, 2012, I sent an email to the managing partners presenting all the facts as clearly as I could and asking for substantive changes and either protection from further ostracism or help with an exit.

After more than a month, the company put Ajit on leave. Two tense months after that, he finally left. When I spoke to the COO, he asked how much I wanted in order to quietly leave. “I want no less than what Ajit gets,” I said — which I suspected was around $10 million. The COO gasped.

Life at Kleiner got progressively worse. At one point I found out the partners had taken some CEOs and founders on an all-male ski trip. They spent $50,000 on the private jet to and from Vail. I was later told that they didn’t invite any women because women probably wouldn’t want to share a condo with men.

Finally, an outside independent investigator looked into Trae’s complaint and the issues I’d raised in my memo. Almost all of the women came to me after their interviews with him and said the same thing: “He really didn’t ask questions. He asked if we had ever seen porn in the office.” He didn’t seem interested in finding out about actual discrimination, bias, or harassment.

In my own interview, when I mentioned that my colleagues had talked about a porn star when we were on a plane together, the investigator asked if it was Sasha Grey. I said no. He pressed the point, saying that Sasha Grey was crossing over into legitimate acting. At another point, the investigator asked, in a ­“gotcha” tone, “Well, if they look down on women so much, if they block you from opportunities, they don’t include you at their events, why do they even keep you around in the first place?”

I hadn’t thought about it before. I replied slowly as the answer crystallized in my mind: If you had the opportunity to have workers who were overeducated, underpaid, and highly experienced, whom you could dump all the menial tasks you didn’t want to do on, whom you could get to clean up all the problems, and whom you could create a second class out of, wouldn’t you want them to stay?

I noticed he didn’t write that down in his notebook. Among the other things the investigator did not write down: that there was no sexual-harassment training, not even a line in the hiring paperwork saying: Hey, be appropriate. Don’t do things that make people feel uncomfortable. Don’t touch people. Kleiner’s managing partners flouted hiring rules, too, asking inappropriate questions in interviews like: Are you married? Do you have kids? How old are you? Are you thinking about having kids? What does your husband do? What did your ex-husband do? It was noted at some point that such questions created a giant legal risk, and the response was, effectively, Well, who’s going to sue us?

***

Apparently, me. My claim — 12 pages covering everything that had happened to me over seven years at Kleiner — specified gender discrimination in promotion and pay, and retaliation against me after I reported the harassment. I asked for damages to cover the lost pay and to prevent them from doing it again. Meanwhile, Kleiner had notified me that its investigation was done: The finding was that there had been no retaliation or discrimination.

In response to my suit, Kleiner hired a powerful crisis-­management PR firm, Brunswick. On their website, they bragged about having troll farms — “integrated networks of influence,” used in part for “reputation management” — and I believe they enlisted one to defame me online. Dozens, then thousands, of messages a day derided me as bad at my job, crazy, an embarrassment. Repeatedly, Kleiner called me a “poor performer.” A Vanity Fair story implied that Buddy was gay, a fraud, and a fake husband.

My lawyer said my case would be stronger if I continued to work at Kleiner. The general partners sometimes had long meetings to discuss the lawsuit; the ten of them would file into one of the large, windowed conference rooms. I could see them hunched around the table looking annoyed as a team of lawyers blared over the speaker­phone. If I walked down the hall, the room would fall silent and their eyes would follow me until I was out of sight.

I tried to stay focused on my personal life. After a lot of trying, I was pregnant with our second child. Still, the negativity wore me down. Then in June 2012, during a regular checkup, my doctor looked at the sonogram and I could tell something was wrong. I’d had a miscarriage.

“When I saw all the horrible things being said about you,” he said, “I was worried about you and the baby. Stress can be a factor.” He was referring to an article in the New York Times in which an expert was quoted saying he was skeptical about my claims because he hadn’t ever heard of mistreatment of women in Silicon Valley. I felt, in that moment, that Kleiner had taken everything from me.

Then I had my summer review. Ted and Matt told me that CEOs had complained about my board performance. When I asked which ones, Matt just said, “All of them.”

A few months later, Matt asked me to leave, claiming I hadn’t improved since my last review. I was told to be out of the office by the end of the day. On the drive home, I wept. Some of it was sorrow. Most of it was relief.

***

The trial would last five weeks. Lynne Hermle of Orrick, Kleiner’s defense attorney, had once been so intense during another case that she’d made an opponent vomit in the courtroom, and she wasted no time in painting a picture of me as talentless, stupid, and greedy. “She did not have the necessary skills for the job,” she said. “She did not even come close.”

At other times, the trial was almost gratifying. The CFO, who was also still at Kleiner, admitted that until 2012 the company didn’t even have an HR department and didn’t provide employees with an anti-discrimination policy; they hadn’t had one until Trae and I formally raised our concerns. When Hermle tried to show that women did rise at Kleiner, we pointed out that nearly all those promotions had happened since I brought up these issues. At the start of 2012, when Trae and I had lodged our complaint, only one woman in the firm’s 40-year history had ever been promoted to senior partner.

And anomalies in reviews were finally cleared up: It turned out that Ted had set up a process designed to make me look bad. He started with the standard procedure: I was asked to list people I had worked with; our outside consultant asked everyone on my list to review me; she organized their feedback and sent it to Ted. Ted then solicited negative feedback from phantom reviewers — people I had not worked closely with, who were not on my list, and whom he didn’t list as reviewers in the final document. The everyone-hates-you feedback Ted had delivered was in fact from a board-member crony of his and another venture capitalist I had not worked with much at all.

I’d be lying if I said it wasn’t a thrill to hear Ted questioned by one of my lawyers, Alan Exelrod, about the positive feedback he’d hidden from me and excluded from my review. Had we not gone to trial, it would never have surfaced.

Alan: He said that “She was very engaged and proactive,” correct?

Ted: Yes.

Alan: And that “She tries very hard to be helpful”?

Ted: Correct.

Alan: “100 percent behind the company”?

Ted: Yes.

Alan: “She is one of the three people I call from the board for her advice”?

Ted: Correct.

Such satisfaction was short-lived. The verdict came down on March 27, 2015: I had lost on all four counts.

***

Before suing, I’d consulted other women who had sued big, powerful companies over harassment and discrimination, and they all gave me pretty much the same advice: “Don’t do it.” One woman told me, “It’s a complete mismatch of resources. They don’t fight fair. Even if you win, it will destroy your reputation.”

Renée Fassbender Amochaev, an investment adviser, told me she’d been miserable from the moment she filed her lawsuit. She became an outcast and a target. Her co-workers started a petition to have her leave. Every morning, she would get to the parking lot and throw up.

“You have to prepare for it to be harder than you can even imagine,” she said. “Do you regret it?” I asked. There was a pause. “No,” she said.

Losing my suit hurt, but I didn’t have regrets either. I could have received millions from Kleiner if I would just have signed a non-disparagement contract; I turned it down so I could finally share my story, which I have been doing by speaking at events across the country and through Project Include — a nonprofit I co-founded to give everyone a fair shot to succeed in tech. I started it with an impressive group of women from the tech industry, many of whom shared similarly painful experiences.

We channeled our frustration with the tepid “diversity solutions” prevalent in the industry, ones focused on PR-oriented initiatives that spend more time outlining the problems than implementing solutions. To become truly inclusive, companies needed solutions that included all people, covered everything a company does, and used detailed metrics to hold leaders accountable. So we decided to give CEOs and start-ups just that. We launched on May 3, 2016, with 87 recommendations. Since then, more than 1,500 people have signed up in support of our efforts, including 100 tech CEOs. Soon after, we partnered with ten start-up CEOs who were far along in their understanding of diversity and inclusion to help them address these issues in their own companies. We’ve had to reassure some of them that we aren’t out to shame them; we just offer a starting point and a supportive community. We’ve also partnered with 16 tech-focused investment firms; through them, we’ll be collecting industry­wide diversity data to help set benchmarks across the tech sector.

It was a huge relief to be past the explain-define-and-prove-the-problem-exists conversations my co-founders and I had each gotten dragged into too many times. Over the past year, despite the ongoing public exposure of the ways both the president and tech companies like Uber discourage diversity and inclusion, we’ve seen results that give us hope. More personally, I’ve come out of the experience with great friends and supporters. We’ve changed jobs, started companies, taken time off, moved across the country, and switched careers. I’ve watched as each of us — myself included — has become more vocal, more open, and more courageous in advocating for change in tech.

In the wake of my suit, I often heard people say that my case was a matter of “right issues, wrong plaintiff,” or that the reason I lost was because I wasn’t a “perfect victim.” I’ll grant that only someone a little bit masochistic would sign up for the onslaught of personal attacks that comes with a high-profile case, but I reject the argument that I wasn’t the right person to bring suit. I was one of the only people who had the resources and the position to do so. I believed I had an obligation to speak out about what I’d seen.

Since the trial, I have had time to think of all the things I wished I’d done differently. I might have had better luck with public opinion, for instance, if I’d spent more time with the press and prepared a few pages of talking points every day, like Kleiner had. But Kleiner also had tremendous resources that I couldn’t match, and it made a difference. For example, I didn’t have time to go through all my emails to figure out which ones to give Kleiner, so during the discovery process we gave them practically everything, some 700,000 emails — most of which we could have legally withheld. Kleiner meanwhile handed over just 5,000 emails, claiming they didn’t have the resources to search for anything other than emails that we specifically requested. They did have the resources to pick over my emails, though — I heard they hired a team in India to read and sort through every single one. Their work would show: During depositions, they brought up everything from my nanny’s contract to an exercise I’d done in therapy where I listed resentments. Emails to friends, emails to my husband, emails to other family members, even emails to my lawyers.

In retrospect, the most painful part of the trial was being cross-examined by Kleiner’s lawyer. At one point, she claimed I’d never invested in a woman’s company. “You’ve never done anything for women, have you?” she said snidely. I’d been instructed by my lawyers not to respond to comments like that, because it might open me up to more criticism — jurors could find me difficult or aggressive, the very things Kleiner was trying so hard to portray me as in court. I ended up coming across as distant, even a bit robotic, as I tried to keep my answers noncombative. But it hurt to leave that one unchallenged. It was patently false. At Kleiner, I helped drive investments in six women founders. A few months after I was fired by Kleiner, I invested in ten companies with my own money; five had women CEOs. But I didn’t say any of that. I just sat there.

Before my suit was over, though, other women had begun to sue tech companies with public filings. One of my lawyers represented a Taiwanese woman who sued Facebook for discrimination; her suit alleged that she was given menial tasks like serving drinks to the men on the team. Another lawyer at the firm represented Whitney Wolfe, one of the co-founders at Tinder, who sued for sexual harassment. Both of those suits settled, but others, against Microsoft and Twitter, are ongoing. Some reporters even came up with a name for the phenomenon of women or minorities in tech suing or speaking up. They called it the “Pao effect.”


e-max.it: your social media marketing partner
 
Please, God, Save Gary Cohn From Himself Print
Monday, 21 August 2017 08:48

Cohan writes: "Trump's economic adviser should resign before he loses any more credibility."

Gary Cohn. (photo: Andrew Harrer/Bloomberg/Getty Images)
Gary Cohn. (photo: Andrew Harrer/Bloomberg/Getty Images)


Please, God, Save Gary Cohn From Himself

By William D. Cohan, Vanity Fair

21 August 17

 

ary Cohn, the former second in command at Goldman Sachs, should follow Stephen Bannon out the door and resign as Donald Trump’s chief economic adviser in the White House. Unlike Bannon, he should resign on principle. He should resign—not because of anything he has done wrong, in fact, quite the contrary—but because it is the right thing for him to do in the wake of Trump’s disgraceful reaction to the horrific events that played out last weekend in Charlottesville, Virginia. He should resign despite the fact the stock markets will probably react negatively to the departure of one of the only halfway-sane economic voices in this administration. He should resign for his own dignity and so that the reputation he worked so hard to build on Wall Street during the last 30 years doesn’t get further destroyed by the monster that is Donald Trump.

Will he? That’s a question that plenty of people on Wall Street and in Washington have been debating this week. There has been some reporting since Trump’s pathetic question-and-answer session on Tuesday from the lobby of Trump Tower that Cohn is “deeply upset,” according to Maggie Haberman, at The New York Times, and “disgusted,” according to her colleague Glenn Thrush, about Trump’s defense of white nationalists, neo-Nazis, and their Tiki torch-carrying brethren. I am told Cohn “is dying” inside the Trump lunatic asylum, and that “this is a real inflection point for him.” It should be. During previous interviews with me, he has made it clear that it is increasingly difficult for him to stay in an administration that, among other things, has advocated keeping Muslims out of the country, rejected the Paris climate accord, and doesn’t seem to be able to accomplish the things he cares about. He has told me that he’s in it mainly for the chance to reform the tax code, which hasn’t been overhauled in 30 years.

But is he really sticking around Washington so that he can help people who are already rich pay less in taxes? Is he really sticking around for the increasingly slim chance that comprehensive tax reform might happen? Larry Summers, the Harvard economist and former Treasury secretary (who also once had Cohn’s job) said on Bloomberg TV yesterday that the chances of meaningful tax reform are likely dead. So what gives, Gary? Why put up with this shit anymore? Following Trump’s Tuesday afternoon diatribe, I texted Cohn, wondering how he and Steve Mnuchin, the Treasury secretary—both very wealthy, Jewish, former Goldman partners—could stand by Trump’s side during the impromptu press conference where he doubled-down on his failure to condemn the white nationalists that marched Charlottesville, Virginia, resulting in the killing of Heather Heyer. He did not reply. I still have not heard from him.

There is no reason for him to stick around anymore. There is no economic agenda that has much of a near-term chance of getting done. He has already successfully converted his $250 million fortune in Goldman stock into Treasury securities on a tax-deferred basis. No one can take away from his résumé the fact that he was the nation’s top political economic adviser, just as were his former Goldman colleagues Robert Rubin and Stephen Friedman. Summers has also strongly implied that he should resign, on principle. (He said if he were in Cohn’s shoes he would resign but added that he learned “long ago” not to “stand in other people’s shoes.”) So what’s holding Cohn back from doing what is so obviously the right thing for him to do? Why is he continuing to serve such an incompetent leader?

I think the answer is ego. Cohn wants Trump to name him chairman of the Federal Reserve Board of Governors, replacing Janet Yellen, whose term expires next February. It would be the perfect way for him to fulfill his boundless ambitions and also give him a graceful exit out of the White House. If he got the job—which he isn’t particularly well qualified for; he’s not an economist, not that that is a prerequisite (Summers is far better qualified but not under consideration)—he would become the first Goldman Sachs alumnus to become Fed chairman. (Goldman Sachs alumni head up the Bank of England and the European Central Bank.) That would put him in truly rarefied air—above Rubin, Mnuchin and Hank Paulson, all of whom have served as Treasury secretary. It would also remove him from the political fray and put him in a job from which it would be very difficult for Trump to fire him.

Cohn wants the job so badly he can taste it. Trump named Cohn to be head of the Yellen replacement search committee. But Cohn is trying to pull a Dick Cheney and get Trump to name him to the job, instead. In July, Trump said that Cohn was a good choice to be Fed chief. (He also said he might just re-appoint Yellen.) My sources tell me the job is Cohn’s for the taking, assuming he sticks around the White House and remains a good Trump soldier. When I asked Cohn about wanting the Fed job, he of course demurred, which is the only politically correct thing to do. His surrogates are working hard for him, though. William Dudley, a former Goldman partner who has been president of the Federal Reserve Bank of New York since 2009, said in a recent interview with the Associated Press that Cohn would be “a reasonable candidate” for the job as Fed chief but declined to recommend any other people along with Cohn. “He knows a lot about financial markets,” Dudley said. “He knows lots about the financial system.” He added that Cohn’s lack of a doctorate in economics was not a drawback for a Fed chief.

The right thing for Cohn to do is resign. He has no business any longer in a Trump administration. By staying, he is allowing Trump “to borrow his credibility,” in the words of Thomas Ricks, the Pulitzer Prize–winning journalist, and ruin it. Can he put aside his personal ambition to be Fed chair in order to save his dignity and do what is clearly the right thing? No doubt this is what Cohn and his family are discussing during his respite in the Hamptons. “Do you want to have a boss like Donald Trump?” Summers said on Bloomberg, after being asked whether Cohn should resign. “How do you face your children?” It’s the right question, Gary.


e-max.it: your social media marketing partner
 
Trump's Rejection of National Climate Report Would Do More Harm Than Paris Exit Print
Monday, 21 August 2017 08:46

Yohe writes: "A scientific report done every four years has been thrust into the spotlight because its findings directly contradict statements from the president and various cabinet officials."

A flooded building in Fenton, Missouri. (photo: Jocelyn Augustino/FEMA)
A flooded building in Fenton, Missouri. (photo: Jocelyn Augustino/FEMA)


Trump's Rejection of National Climate Report Would Do More Harm Than Paris Exit

By Gary Yohe, The Conversation

21 August 17

 

scientific report done every four years has been thrust into the spotlight because its findings directly contradict statements from the president and various cabinet officials.

If the Trump administration chooses to reject the pending national Climate Science Special Report, it would be more damaging than pulling the U.S. out of the Paris agreement. Full stop. This is a bold claim, but as an economist and scientist who was a vice chair of the committee that shepherded the last national climate assessment report to its completion, I can explain why this is the case.

Informing policy with facts

To see why the Climate Science Special Report is so important, first consider some historical context.

In 1990, Congress mandated that government scientists prepare and transmit a report to the president and the Congress every four years that "integrates, evaluates, and interprets" findings of the U.S. Global Change Research Program. It must characterize the "effects of global change on the natural environment, agriculture, energy production and use, land and water resources, transportation, human health and welfare, human social systems and biological diversity." It also calls for scientists to project climate trends decades into the future.

The upcoming Climate Science Special Report, upon which the administration must bestow either its approval or its rejection sometime in the near future, is the first major component of the Fourth National Climate Assessment. Combined with a second section that will analyze climate change's impacts on different regions and sectors of the economy, it must, by law, be submitted in some form to Congress and the public by the end of 2017. The previous assessment was released to the public by President Obama in a Rose Garden ceremony on May 6, 2014.

So, what does the latest Climate Science Special Report say? On the basis of new and stronger science, it extends, confirms and elaborates conclusions on climate risks reported in the third National Climate Assessment nearly four years ago. The forthcoming National Climate Assessment is now more secure in its core findings and includes two new important developments: advances in what is called attribution science and the importance of using this new information to implement effective adaptation.

The draft report shows that scientists can more accurately describe the degree to which we can attribute growing climate change risks to human activity. The net effect is that scientists can more confidently attribute the role global warming has played in events such as floods or heat waves.

The report also reconfirms that it is not too late for Americans to respond to growing climate change risks. This was a major conclusion of the NCA3, but it is worthy of repeating. Put quite simply, it assures Americans that we can work individually and together to reduce our carbon footprint and to adapt to the dangers of climate change, both observed and projected.

State and city action on Paris

So why would rejecting the forthcoming CSSR be more damaging to public health and welfare across the country than withdrawing from the Paris agreement? The reason lies in the crucial difference between the two: the Paris agreement focuses on reducing emissions, while the Climate Science Special Report is designed to help the U.S. better adapt to the effects of climate change even as it underscores the importance of cutting emissions.

We, like many other nations, were "leading from behind" when we helped 196 nations achieve and accept the Paris agreement in 2015. China was already reducing its carbon emissions significantly as a co-benefit to reducing conventional air pollution. States like California and the entire New England region had already implemented cap and trade programs to do the same.

Meanwhile, cities like New York and Los Angeles were similarly committing their own scarce resources to reduce emissions and adopt adaptation plans. Corporations across the country are changing their business plans to reduce their emissions and to protect their bottom-line resilience.

The message of all this decentralized action is clear: The emissions reduction train had, by Nov. 4, 2016 when the Paris agreement came into force, already left the station. Leaving the Paris agreement was a bad idea, but it was not going to call the train back.

By contrast, the NCA4 includes vital information that will help policymakers and society at large to adapt more securely to the effects of a dynamic climate. The previous national climate assessment report did exactly that, providing not only data on how climate change is affecting the U.S. now, broken down by region and industry, but also stronger foundations for designing effective adaptive strategies.

Powerful signal

A New York Times article recently noted that some scientists involved in the climate report are concerned about what the administration will do.

A decision to reject the report would, of course, diminish the credibility of hundreds of government scientists who have worked the climate problem for decades. The CSSR is the product of exactly the "peer-reviewed and objectively reviewed methodology and evaluation" that the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency Administrator Scott Pruitt has called for.

Trump has already refused to accept high-confidence conclusions from 17 intelligence agencies across the federal government, which makes it makes it more difficult to make progress in protecting our next national election from cyberattacks. Similarly, rejecting the high-confidence findings from the 13 federal agencies whose scientists contributed to the Climate Science Special Report would make it much more difficult for Americans to protect themselves from existing and projected climate risks in a number of ways.

  • It would make it easier for Congress to dismiss any proposed legislation that takes climate change risk into account.
  • It would make it easier for shareholders of major corporations to demand that their CEOs save money in the short run by ignoring material climate risk to the longer-view bottom line.

Putting people in harm's way

As such, President Trump's rejection of the 2018 Climate Science Special Report would unnecessarily place American citizens in harm's way in every corner of the country. Studies have shown that hundreds of people and billions of dollars would be lost over the coming years if emissions continue unabated.

I know that his supporters and climate skeptics would call that statement hyperbole, but I believe that it is not. People will die if the president rejects the upcoming Climate Science Special Report because they will not be protected. Nobody can identify exactly who and when, but it is possible to describe many of them with incredible precision.

The dead will be drawn randomly across all 50 states from populations of poor, elderly and/or very young Americans who live close to rivers, streams, oceans or lakes in regions that are already prone to extreme weather events, intense summer heat and newly observed vector-borne diseases. By dismissing the best available climate science, the administration will slow or reverse the country's efforts to adapt to the dangerous effects of climate change, such as these.

Rejection of this report would thereby be an abdication of the president's constitutional responsibility to "provide for the public's defense" and "promote the general welfare" of every American.


e-max.it: your social media marketing partner
 
<< Start < Prev 1531 1532 1533 1534 1535 1536 1537 1538 1539 1540 Next > End >>

Page 1539 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