TO COMMENT CLICK HERE
welcome to reality trivia
reality is the state of things as they actually exist
oct 20, 2021
Real News Today
(for previous day's articles see "what's inside" below)
comment/tweet of the day
lEX: THER ARE THREE POLITICal parties in america:
1. corporate democrats who jump wherever their corporate masters tell them
2. progressive democrats who want to improve the lives of all americans
3. the republicans who don't give a damn about democracy, fairness, america's growth, or the constitution; and who rely on the stupid people, voting against their own interests, to keep them in power.
NanceGreggs @DU: There was a time ...
There was a time when I viewed Trump supporters as being naive. Having grown up in NY, I was aware of who and what he was. But I knew that there were voters across the country who were ignorant of his true nature, and were dazzled by his on-air persona as the host of a reality show that had little to do with reality.
Then there was a time when I viewed Trump supporters as unwitting victims of a natural-born huckster, the kind of unsophisticated folk who buy snake-oil cure-alls at county fairs, only to realize they've been 'had' not long after the oh-so-convincing salesman has left town.
Then there was the time that I realized that Trump supporters didn't care that they'd been 'had'. They wanted to believe that the snake oil they were being sold actually cured the country's ills - and they lined-up to buy more.
Then came the time that I saw that Trump supporters were not unwilling nor unwitting victims who believed in pursuing democracy by some alternate route. On the contrary - they were abandoning the principles they'd once laid claim to - they were embracing bigotry and hatred. And they were doing so not in pursuit of forming a more perfect union - but in blind obedience to an immoral, corrupt, power-hungry narcissist.
There was a time when I saw Trump supporters as fellow - albeit misguided -
citizens. Now I don't even see them as fellow human beings. I see them as rabid animals.
I see them as criminals who stormed the Capitol. I see them as unhinged people who attack mask-wearing children on their way to school. I see them as crazed individuals who threaten airline personnel, who scream at cashiers, who threaten the lives of those trying to protect the public's health by adhering to mask and vaccine mandates.
I now see Trump-Humpers as deranged, disease-carrying lunatics who have little regard for democracy - and even less regard for human life.
I've come a long way in the past four-plus years - and I do not take any joy in my transformation from caring human being to not caring that some people are dying as a result of their own allegiance to a sociopath who they still don't realize cares nothing about them, and never will. And at this point, neither do I.
There was a time when I gave my fellow citizens the benefit of the doubt - a time when I held out hope that they would come to their senses, when facts would prevail, when the truth would become self-evident.
I no longer hold onto that false hope. There are those among us who are too deranged to see the obvious - and defeating them is our only chance at saving our democracy.
---
Will Rogers ring truer than ever. In 1938 he said, “You’ll never go broke underestimating the intelligence of the American people.”
---
THE TRAITOR WITHIN!!!
SCOOP: Manchin Tells Associates He’s Considering Leaving the Democratic Party and Has an Exit Plan
He could pull the trigger if he doesn’t get his way on the Build Back Better bill.
DAVID CORN - MOTHER JONES
Washington, DC, Bureau Chief
10/202021
In recent days, Sen. Joe Manchin (D-W.Va.) has told associates that he is considering leaving the Democratic Party if President Joe Biden and Democrats on Capitol Hill do not agree to his demand to cut the size of the social infrastructure bill from $3.5 trillion to $1.75 trillion, according to people who have heard Manchin discuss this. Manchin has said that if this were to happen, he would declare himself an “American Independent.” And he has devised a detailed exit strategy for his departure.
Manchin has been in the center of a wild rush of negotiations with his fellow Democrats and the White House over a possible compromise regarding Biden’s ambitious Build Back Better package, and Manchin’s opposition to key provisions—including Medicare and Medicaid expansion, an expanded child tax credit, and measures to address climate change—has been an obstacle that the Democrats have yet to overcome. As these talks have proceeded, Manchin has discussed bolting from the Democratic Party—perhaps to place pressure on Biden and Democrats in these negotiations.
He told associates that he has a two-step plan for exiting the party. First, he would send a letter to Sen. Chuck Schumer, the top Senate Democrat, removing himself from the Democratic leadership of the Senate. (He is vice chair of the Senate Democrats’ policy and communications committee.) Manchin hopes that would send a signal. He would then wait and see if that move had any impact on the negotiations. After about a week, he said, he would change his voter registration from Democrat to independent.
It is unclear whether in this scenario Manchin would end up caucusing with the Democrats, which would allow them to continue to control the Senate, or side with the Republicans and place the Senate in GOP hands. In either event, he would hold great sway over this half of Congress.
Without Manchin’s vote, the Democrats cannot pass the package in the 50–50 Senate. And a vote on this measure is key to House passage of the $1 trillion bipartisan road-bridges-and-broadband infrastructure bill the Senate approved in August. (Sen. Kyrsten Sinema, an Arizona Democrat, has also been a problem for the party.) Manchin has met with Biden, Sen. Bernie Sanders (I-Vt.), the chair of the Senate Budget Committee, Rep. Pramila Jayapal (D-Wash.), the chair of the Congressional Progressive Caucus, and a variety of his fellow Senate Democrats this week in an effort to strike a deal. Through it all, he has insisted that $1.75 trillion is his top and final offer, and he has constantly said no to proposed programs that almost every other congressional Democrat supports. He has told his fellow Democrats that if they don’t accept his position, they risk getting nothing.
Manchin told associates that he was prepared to initiate his exit plan earlier this week and had mentioned the possibility to Biden. But he was encouraged by the conversations with Sanders and top Democrats that occurred at the start of the week and did not yet see a reason to take this step. Still, he has informed associates that because he is so out of sync with the Democratic Party, he believes it is likely he will leave the party by November 2022.
Manchin has repeatedly said he has a significant philosophical difference with most of his fellow Democrats. He has told reporters that he believes major programs in the Build Back Better bill would move the United States toward an “entitlement mentality” and that he cannot accept that. In a recent meeting with Biden, Manchin told the president that he sees government as a partner with the public not the ultimate provider, according to people who heard the senator’s account of the conversation. He explained to the president that in his view Biden didn’t win the presidency last year by championing progressive proposals, and he pressed the president to recall his campaign promise to bring people together. He also reminded Biden that he has vowed not to support any package unless it contains the Hyde Amendment, which bans the use of federal funds to pay for abortions, except in cases of incest or when the life of the mother is at risk.
RELATED: Joe Manchin profanely denies report that he's plotting to leave Democrats
Manchin has been in the center of a wild rush of negotiations with his fellow Democrats and the White House over a possible compromise regarding Biden’s ambitious Build Back Better package, and Manchin’s opposition to key provisions—including Medicare and Medicaid expansion, an expanded child tax credit, and measures to address climate change—has been an obstacle that the Democrats have yet to overcome. As these talks have proceeded, Manchin has discussed bolting from the Democratic Party—perhaps to place pressure on Biden and Democrats in these negotiations.
He told associates that he has a two-step plan for exiting the party. First, he would send a letter to Sen. Chuck Schumer, the top Senate Democrat, removing himself from the Democratic leadership of the Senate. (He is vice chair of the Senate Democrats’ policy and communications committee.) Manchin hopes that would send a signal. He would then wait and see if that move had any impact on the negotiations. After about a week, he said, he would change his voter registration from Democrat to independent.
It is unclear whether in this scenario Manchin would end up caucusing with the Democrats, which would allow them to continue to control the Senate, or side with the Republicans and place the Senate in GOP hands. In either event, he would hold great sway over this half of Congress.
Without Manchin’s vote, the Democrats cannot pass the package in the 50–50 Senate. And a vote on this measure is key to House passage of the $1 trillion bipartisan road-bridges-and-broadband infrastructure bill the Senate approved in August. (Sen. Kyrsten Sinema, an Arizona Democrat, has also been a problem for the party.) Manchin has met with Biden, Sen. Bernie Sanders (I-Vt.), the chair of the Senate Budget Committee, Rep. Pramila Jayapal (D-Wash.), the chair of the Congressional Progressive Caucus, and a variety of his fellow Senate Democrats this week in an effort to strike a deal. Through it all, he has insisted that $1.75 trillion is his top and final offer, and he has constantly said no to proposed programs that almost every other congressional Democrat supports. He has told his fellow Democrats that if they don’t accept his position, they risk getting nothing.
Manchin told associates that he was prepared to initiate his exit plan earlier this week and had mentioned the possibility to Biden. But he was encouraged by the conversations with Sanders and top Democrats that occurred at the start of the week and did not yet see a reason to take this step. Still, he has informed associates that because he is so out of sync with the Democratic Party, he believes it is likely he will leave the party by November 2022.
Manchin has repeatedly said he has a significant philosophical difference with most of his fellow Democrats. He has told reporters that he believes major programs in the Build Back Better bill would move the United States toward an “entitlement mentality” and that he cannot accept that. In a recent meeting with Biden, Manchin told the president that he sees government as a partner with the public not the ultimate provider, according to people who heard the senator’s account of the conversation. He explained to the president that in his view Biden didn’t win the presidency last year by championing progressive proposals, and he pressed the president to recall his campaign promise to bring people together. He also reminded Biden that he has vowed not to support any package unless it contains the Hyde Amendment, which bans the use of federal funds to pay for abortions, except in cases of incest or when the life of the mother is at risk.
RELATED: Joe Manchin profanely denies report that he's plotting to leave Democrats
There’s Nothing “Normal” About Having a Middle Class: It has to be Chosen
If we want to stop the destruction of the remnants of the last generation's middle class, it all starts with taxing the rich: The time is long past due for us to roll back the Reagan tax cuts
Thom Hartmann
10/19/2021
The American middle class has collapsed. We’re heading in the direction of looking like the 19th century England that Dickens wrote about in his novels, unless we can stop this grab by the rich. Here’s how and why:
Five years ago the American middle class ceased to be more than half of us: the middle class went from two-thirds of Americans when Reagan took office to 49 percent in 2015. NPR commemorated it with the headline: “The Tipping Point: Most Americans No Longer Are Middle Class.”
This year, according to new statistics just released from the US Census and the Fed, “middle class” households sank below the top 1% in total wealth: a handful of super-rich households have more wealth than the entire American middle class. This month the headline went to Bloomberg: “Top 1% of U.S. Earners Now Hold More Wealth Than All of the Middle Class.”
There’s nothing “normal” about having a middle class.
Having a middle class is a choice that a society has to make, and it’s a choice we need to make again in this generation, if we want to stop the destruction of the remnants of the last generation’s middle class.
Despite what you might read in the Wall Street Journal or see on Fox News, capitalism is not an economic system that naturally produces a middle class. In fact, if left to its own devices, capitalism tends towards vast levels of inequality and monopoly.
The natural and most stable state of capitalism actually looks a lot like the Victorian England depicted in Charles Dickens’ novels. Here’s how it works:
In a classic unregulated capitalist economy like the one in Dickens’ A Christmas Carol there is, at the top, a very small class of super-rich. In Dickens’ time, that was the royal family and the people associated with them.
Below them, there is a slightly larger, but still very small, “middle” class of professionals and mercantilists — doctors, lawyers, shop-owners — who help keep things running for the super-rich and supply the working poor with their needs. In Dickens’ novel, Scrooge was in this class.
And at the very bottom there is the great mass of people — typically over 90 percent of the population — who make up the working poor. They have no wealth — in fact they’re typically in debt most of their lives — and can barely survive on what little money they make. Bob Cratchett and Tiny Tim.
So, for average working people, there is no middle class in “normal” unregulated capitalism. Wealth accumulates at the very top among the elites, not among everyday working people, who remain the working poor.
This kind of inequality is the default option of capitalism unless it’s regulated to establish and maintain a larger middle class.
You can see this trend today in America. When we had heavily regulated and taxed capitalism in the post-war era, the largest employer in America was General Motors, and they paid working people what would be, in today's dollars, about $50 an hour with benefits.
Reagan began deregulating and cutting taxes in 1981, and today, with more classical “raw capitalism” — what we call “Reaganomics” or “neoliberalism” — in place, our nation’s largest employer is WalMart and they pay around $13 an hour.
This is how quickly capitalism reorients itself when the brakes of regulation and taxes are removed: this huge change was accomplished in less than 40 years.
The only ways a worker’s “middle class” can come about in a capitalist society are by massive social upheaval causing a widespread worker shortage — a middle class emerged after the Black Plague in Europe in the 14th century — or by heavily taxing the rich.
French economist Thomas Piketty talked about this at great length in his groundbreaking book, Capital in the Twenty-First Century. He argues that the middle class that came about in Western Europe and the United States during the mid-twentieth century was the direct result of a peculiar set of historical events combined with high levels of taxation on the very rich.
According to Piketty, the post-World War II European middle class was created by two major things: the destruction of European inherited wealth during the war and higher taxes on the rich, most of which were necessitated by the war.
This brought wealth and income at the top down, and raised working people up into a middle class.
Piketty is right, especially about the importance for America of high marginal tax rates and inheritance taxes being necessary for the creation of a middle class that includes working-class people.
Progressive taxation, when done correctly, pushes wages in the direction of working people and reduces the incentives for the very rich to pillage their companies or rip off their workers. After all, why take another billion when 91 percent of it is just going to be paid in taxes?
This is the main reason why, when GM was our largest employer and our working class were also in the middle class, CEOs only took home 30 times what working people did. The top tax rate for all the time America’s middle class was created was between 74 and 91 percent. Until, of course, Reagan dropped it to 28 percent and began the process of shifting working people from the middle class to becoming the working poor.
Other policies, like protective tariffs and strong labor laws also help build a middle class, but progressive taxation is the most important because it is the most direct way to transfer money from the rich to the government programs that provide a social safety-net “floor” for the working poor, and, most importantly, it creates a disincentive to theft or monopoly by those at the top.
History shows how important high taxes on the rich are for creating a strong middle class. The period with the highest taxes on the rich — the period between the Roosevelt and Reagan administrations — was also the period with the lowest levels of economic inequality.
And, since marginal tax rates started to plummet during the Reagan years, income inequality has skyrocketed.
Even more striking, during those same 40 years since Reagan took office and started cutting taxes on the rich, income levels for the top 1 percent have ballooned while income levels for everyone else have stayed pretty much flat.
Coincidence? Not a chance: this is how deregulated capitalism normally works, eating the middle class and burping what’s left of their wealth up to the very rich.
Creating a middle class is always a choice, and by embracing neoliberal Reaganomics and cutting taxes on the rich we decided, back in 1981, not to have a middle class within a generation or two.
This, of course, is exactly what conservatives always push for. Conservatives — all the way back to their opposition to the American Revolution in 1776 — have always advocated the class interests of the rich over working people. Always. From David Hume (1700s) to John C. Calhoun (1800s) to today’s Republican Party. It’s a functional description of “conservative.”
Conservatives know that when wealth is spread more equally among all parts of society, people start to expect more from society and start demanding more rights. Social and worker movements emerge with actual power behind them because people are no longer impoverished.
That leads to “social instability,” which is feared and hated by conservatives, even though America’s history shows that such “instability” got us nearly all of our significant progressive movements, from the abolition of slavery to voting rights for women and African Americans to the right to unionize.
This is exactly what happened in the 1960s and ’70s when taxes on the rich were at their highest. The Civil Rights movement, the women’s movement, the consumer movement, the anti-war movement, and the environmental movement — social movements that grew out of the wealth and rising expectations of the post-World War II era’s middle class — these all terrified conservatives.
Which is why ever since they took power in 1980, conservatives have made ripping working people out of the middle class and turning them into a more compliant class of the working poor their number one goal.
We now have to make a choice in this country.
We can either continue going down the road to neoliberal oligarchy — absolute rule by the rich, the road we’ve been on since the Reagan years — or we can choose to return to FDR’s Keynesian economics, raise taxes on the rich, and create a more pluralistic society where working class people are able to make it into the middle class. We can’t have both.
And if we want to go down the road to letting working people back into the middle class, it all starts with taxing the rich. The time is long past due for us to roll back the Reagan (and Bush and Trump) tax cuts.
To save and restore the American middle class #TaxTheRich.
Five years ago the American middle class ceased to be more than half of us: the middle class went from two-thirds of Americans when Reagan took office to 49 percent in 2015. NPR commemorated it with the headline: “The Tipping Point: Most Americans No Longer Are Middle Class.”
This year, according to new statistics just released from the US Census and the Fed, “middle class” households sank below the top 1% in total wealth: a handful of super-rich households have more wealth than the entire American middle class. This month the headline went to Bloomberg: “Top 1% of U.S. Earners Now Hold More Wealth Than All of the Middle Class.”
There’s nothing “normal” about having a middle class.
Having a middle class is a choice that a society has to make, and it’s a choice we need to make again in this generation, if we want to stop the destruction of the remnants of the last generation’s middle class.
Despite what you might read in the Wall Street Journal or see on Fox News, capitalism is not an economic system that naturally produces a middle class. In fact, if left to its own devices, capitalism tends towards vast levels of inequality and monopoly.
The natural and most stable state of capitalism actually looks a lot like the Victorian England depicted in Charles Dickens’ novels. Here’s how it works:
In a classic unregulated capitalist economy like the one in Dickens’ A Christmas Carol there is, at the top, a very small class of super-rich. In Dickens’ time, that was the royal family and the people associated with them.
Below them, there is a slightly larger, but still very small, “middle” class of professionals and mercantilists — doctors, lawyers, shop-owners — who help keep things running for the super-rich and supply the working poor with their needs. In Dickens’ novel, Scrooge was in this class.
And at the very bottom there is the great mass of people — typically over 90 percent of the population — who make up the working poor. They have no wealth — in fact they’re typically in debt most of their lives — and can barely survive on what little money they make. Bob Cratchett and Tiny Tim.
So, for average working people, there is no middle class in “normal” unregulated capitalism. Wealth accumulates at the very top among the elites, not among everyday working people, who remain the working poor.
This kind of inequality is the default option of capitalism unless it’s regulated to establish and maintain a larger middle class.
You can see this trend today in America. When we had heavily regulated and taxed capitalism in the post-war era, the largest employer in America was General Motors, and they paid working people what would be, in today's dollars, about $50 an hour with benefits.
Reagan began deregulating and cutting taxes in 1981, and today, with more classical “raw capitalism” — what we call “Reaganomics” or “neoliberalism” — in place, our nation’s largest employer is WalMart and they pay around $13 an hour.
This is how quickly capitalism reorients itself when the brakes of regulation and taxes are removed: this huge change was accomplished in less than 40 years.
The only ways a worker’s “middle class” can come about in a capitalist society are by massive social upheaval causing a widespread worker shortage — a middle class emerged after the Black Plague in Europe in the 14th century — or by heavily taxing the rich.
French economist Thomas Piketty talked about this at great length in his groundbreaking book, Capital in the Twenty-First Century. He argues that the middle class that came about in Western Europe and the United States during the mid-twentieth century was the direct result of a peculiar set of historical events combined with high levels of taxation on the very rich.
According to Piketty, the post-World War II European middle class was created by two major things: the destruction of European inherited wealth during the war and higher taxes on the rich, most of which were necessitated by the war.
This brought wealth and income at the top down, and raised working people up into a middle class.
Piketty is right, especially about the importance for America of high marginal tax rates and inheritance taxes being necessary for the creation of a middle class that includes working-class people.
Progressive taxation, when done correctly, pushes wages in the direction of working people and reduces the incentives for the very rich to pillage their companies or rip off their workers. After all, why take another billion when 91 percent of it is just going to be paid in taxes?
This is the main reason why, when GM was our largest employer and our working class were also in the middle class, CEOs only took home 30 times what working people did. The top tax rate for all the time America’s middle class was created was between 74 and 91 percent. Until, of course, Reagan dropped it to 28 percent and began the process of shifting working people from the middle class to becoming the working poor.
Other policies, like protective tariffs and strong labor laws also help build a middle class, but progressive taxation is the most important because it is the most direct way to transfer money from the rich to the government programs that provide a social safety-net “floor” for the working poor, and, most importantly, it creates a disincentive to theft or monopoly by those at the top.
History shows how important high taxes on the rich are for creating a strong middle class. The period with the highest taxes on the rich — the period between the Roosevelt and Reagan administrations — was also the period with the lowest levels of economic inequality.
And, since marginal tax rates started to plummet during the Reagan years, income inequality has skyrocketed.
Even more striking, during those same 40 years since Reagan took office and started cutting taxes on the rich, income levels for the top 1 percent have ballooned while income levels for everyone else have stayed pretty much flat.
Coincidence? Not a chance: this is how deregulated capitalism normally works, eating the middle class and burping what’s left of their wealth up to the very rich.
Creating a middle class is always a choice, and by embracing neoliberal Reaganomics and cutting taxes on the rich we decided, back in 1981, not to have a middle class within a generation or two.
This, of course, is exactly what conservatives always push for. Conservatives — all the way back to their opposition to the American Revolution in 1776 — have always advocated the class interests of the rich over working people. Always. From David Hume (1700s) to John C. Calhoun (1800s) to today’s Republican Party. It’s a functional description of “conservative.”
Conservatives know that when wealth is spread more equally among all parts of society, people start to expect more from society and start demanding more rights. Social and worker movements emerge with actual power behind them because people are no longer impoverished.
That leads to “social instability,” which is feared and hated by conservatives, even though America’s history shows that such “instability” got us nearly all of our significant progressive movements, from the abolition of slavery to voting rights for women and African Americans to the right to unionize.
This is exactly what happened in the 1960s and ’70s when taxes on the rich were at their highest. The Civil Rights movement, the women’s movement, the consumer movement, the anti-war movement, and the environmental movement — social movements that grew out of the wealth and rising expectations of the post-World War II era’s middle class — these all terrified conservatives.
Which is why ever since they took power in 1980, conservatives have made ripping working people out of the middle class and turning them into a more compliant class of the working poor their number one goal.
We now have to make a choice in this country.
We can either continue going down the road to neoliberal oligarchy — absolute rule by the rich, the road we’ve been on since the Reagan years — or we can choose to return to FDR’s Keynesian economics, raise taxes on the rich, and create a more pluralistic society where working class people are able to make it into the middle class. We can’t have both.
And if we want to go down the road to letting working people back into the middle class, it all starts with taxing the rich. The time is long past due for us to roll back the Reagan (and Bush and Trump) tax cuts.
To save and restore the American middle class #TaxTheRich.
The Trump Administration Used Its Food Aid Program for Political Gain, Congressional Investigators Find
The Food to Families program, touted by Ivanka Trump, gave tens of millions of dollars to unqualified firms and was also used to promote then-President Trump.
by Bianca Fortis -PRO PUBLICA
Oct. 19, 5 a.m
A $6 billion federal program created to provide fresh produce to families affected by the pandemic was mismanaged and used by the Trump administration for political gain, a new congressional report has found.
As a ProPublica investigation revealed last spring and as the new report further details, the Farmers to Families Food Box program gave contracts to companies that had no relevant experience and often lacked necessary licenses. The House Select Subcommittee on the Coronavirus Crisis, which released its report last week, found that former President Donald Trump’s administration did not adequately screen contractor applications or identify red flags in bid proposals.
One company that received a $39 million contract was CRE8AD8 LLC (pronounced “Create a Date”), a wedding and event planning firm. The owner compared the contract to his usual work of “putting tchotchkes in a bag.”
In response to the report, the firm’s CEO said in a statement, “We delivered far more boxes/pounds than many other contractors and as a for-profit company, we’re allowed to make a profit.”
The congressional report also highlighted the application of an avocado grower who was initially awarded a $40 million contract before it was canceled after a review. Under the section of the application that required applicants to list references, the farmer wrote, “I don’t have any.”
The Food to Families program was created by the Department of Agriculture in the early days of the pandemic to give away produce that might have otherwise gone to waste as a result of disruptions in distribution chains. The boxes included produce, milk, dairy and cooked meats — and many also included a signed letter from then-President Trump.
The program was unveiled in May 2020 by Ivanka Trump. “I’m not shy about asking people to step up to the plate,” the president’s older daughter said in an interview to promote the initiative.
According to congressional investigators, Ivanka Trump was involved in getting the letter from her father added to the boxes. The USDA told contractors that including the letter was mandatory. Food bank operators told the investigators the letter concerned them because it didn’t appear to be politically neutral.
On the first day of the Republican National Convention in August 2020, President Trump and his daughter headlined a nearby event to announce an additional $1 billion for the food box program. Then-Secretary of Agriculture Sonny Perdue also spoke at the event and encouraged attendees to reelect the president.
A federal ethics office later found that Perdue’s speech violated a federal law that prohibits officials from using their office for campaign purposes. The USDA at the time disputed the notion that Perdue was electioneering, saying that Perdue’s comments merely “predicted future behavior based on the president’s focus on helping ‘forgotten people.’”
The yearlong congressional investigation also identified problems with the deliveries themselves, including food safety issues, failed deliveries and uneven food distribution. Some contractors also forced recipient organizations to accept more food than they could distribute or store.
Committee chair Rep. James Clyburn, D-S.C., said in a statement that the mismanagement of the program is another example of the previous administration’s failures.
“The Program was marred by a structure that prioritized industry over families, by contracting practices that prioritized cutting corners over competence, and by decisions that prioritized politics over the public good,” he said.
ProPublica also found that the Trump administration hired a lobbyist to counter the criticism that contracts were going to unqualified contractors.
President Joe Biden ended the program in May.
Representatives of the former president did not respond to a request for comment.
As a ProPublica investigation revealed last spring and as the new report further details, the Farmers to Families Food Box program gave contracts to companies that had no relevant experience and often lacked necessary licenses. The House Select Subcommittee on the Coronavirus Crisis, which released its report last week, found that former President Donald Trump’s administration did not adequately screen contractor applications or identify red flags in bid proposals.
One company that received a $39 million contract was CRE8AD8 LLC (pronounced “Create a Date”), a wedding and event planning firm. The owner compared the contract to his usual work of “putting tchotchkes in a bag.”
In response to the report, the firm’s CEO said in a statement, “We delivered far more boxes/pounds than many other contractors and as a for-profit company, we’re allowed to make a profit.”
The congressional report also highlighted the application of an avocado grower who was initially awarded a $40 million contract before it was canceled after a review. Under the section of the application that required applicants to list references, the farmer wrote, “I don’t have any.”
The Food to Families program was created by the Department of Agriculture in the early days of the pandemic to give away produce that might have otherwise gone to waste as a result of disruptions in distribution chains. The boxes included produce, milk, dairy and cooked meats — and many also included a signed letter from then-President Trump.
The program was unveiled in May 2020 by Ivanka Trump. “I’m not shy about asking people to step up to the plate,” the president’s older daughter said in an interview to promote the initiative.
According to congressional investigators, Ivanka Trump was involved in getting the letter from her father added to the boxes. The USDA told contractors that including the letter was mandatory. Food bank operators told the investigators the letter concerned them because it didn’t appear to be politically neutral.
On the first day of the Republican National Convention in August 2020, President Trump and his daughter headlined a nearby event to announce an additional $1 billion for the food box program. Then-Secretary of Agriculture Sonny Perdue also spoke at the event and encouraged attendees to reelect the president.
A federal ethics office later found that Perdue’s speech violated a federal law that prohibits officials from using their office for campaign purposes. The USDA at the time disputed the notion that Perdue was electioneering, saying that Perdue’s comments merely “predicted future behavior based on the president’s focus on helping ‘forgotten people.’”
The yearlong congressional investigation also identified problems with the deliveries themselves, including food safety issues, failed deliveries and uneven food distribution. Some contractors also forced recipient organizations to accept more food than they could distribute or store.
Committee chair Rep. James Clyburn, D-S.C., said in a statement that the mismanagement of the program is another example of the previous administration’s failures.
“The Program was marred by a structure that prioritized industry over families, by contracting practices that prioritized cutting corners over competence, and by decisions that prioritized politics over the public good,” he said.
ProPublica also found that the Trump administration hired a lobbyist to counter the criticism that contracts were going to unqualified contractors.
President Joe Biden ended the program in May.
Representatives of the former president did not respond to a request for comment.
from under a rock
THE DAILY TRASH REPORT featuring today's despicables
WILL ROGERS RING TRUER THAN EVER. IN 1938 HE SAID, “YOU’LL NEVER GO BROKE UNDERESTIMATING THE INTELLIGENCE OF THE AMERICAN PEOPLE.”
Trump-backed candidate tells reporter to 'put down Hunter's crack pipe' over question about voter fraud conspiracy theories
Senate Quietly Adds $10 Billion to Pentagon Budget While Blocking Climate Action
BY Sharon Zhang, Truthout
PUBLISHED October 19, 2021
The 2022 budget for the Defense Department adds an extra $10 billion on top of the already colossal $715 billion that the Pentagon requested, according to a version of the bill that Senate Appropriations Committee Chair Patrick Leahy (D-Vermont) unveiled on Monday.
With amendments and other funding, this brings the total of 2022 appropriations for the Pentagon and defense-related spending to a whopping $778 billion — 5 percent more than the amount that was appropriated for the 2021 fiscal year. Last month, the House passed a $768 billion budget for defense.
The $10 billion tacked onto the bill with little fanfare from lawmakers or the media. But even just a relatively small amount added to the defense budget is a significant amount in other contexts.
Over ten years, the addition would total to $100 billion — the same amount of funding for vital climate programs that Sen. Kyrsten Sinema (D-Arizona) wants to cut from the Build Back Better Act, or about two-thirds of the cost of the climate program that deficit hawk Sen. Joe Manchin (D-West Virginia) also wants to cut.
Though the defense budget is already unfathomably large, Republicans aren’t satisfied with the Pentagon budget’s growth, Roll Call reports. Republicans like Minority Leader Mitch McConnell (R-Kentucky) have asked for equal increases to defense and nondefense spending; and with increases to programs like child care and preventing violence against women, the Republicans say that the increase to the defense budget should be closer to the 14 percent that they say has increased in the nondefense spending.
This is a somewhat absurd request considering the huge amount of money already being added to the defense budget annually — especially in a year when the country purportedly pulled out of its longest war. Last year, Congress authorized about $740 billion for the Pentagon, meaning that this years’ additions alone would total about $38 billion if passed into law. If the $38 billion were locked in for the next decade, it would total about 10 percent of the proposed spending for the reconciliation bill, just in increases to the defense budget.
While the reconciliation bill — which would provide funding to mitigate the climate crisis and support middle- and lower-class families in the U.S. — has been a subject of bitter debate over the past months, the defense budget — which helps fund defense contractor profits — typically enjoys bipartisan support.
Sinema and Manchin, for instance, have complained repeatedly about the reconciliation bill’s price tag, totalling $3.5 trillion over ten years and completely offset by taxes on corporations and the wealthy, amongst other proposals.
But they’ve been quiet about the defense budget, which would cost more than double what the reconciliation bill would cost if it were extrapolated over ten years. Further, over the past decade, Manchin has approved $9.1 trillion for the defense budget, most of which goes towards the Pentagon, an agency that has never passed an audit.
The conservative Democrats’ double standard on spending also works toward their apparent quest to block any legislation to mitigate the climate crisis. Manchin and Sinema are fighting hard on behalf of fossil fuel lobbyists to cut climate portions of the reconciliation bill, which advocates say is the Democrats’ last chance of passing meaningful climate legislation before the 2022 midterms.
Meanwhile, Sinema and Manchin remain supportive of spending for the Pentagon, which emits a huge amount of greenhouse gases. A study in 2019 showed that, annually, carbon emissions from the military-industrial complex in the U.S. averages to about the amount of emissions put out by the Netherlands every year.
With amendments and other funding, this brings the total of 2022 appropriations for the Pentagon and defense-related spending to a whopping $778 billion — 5 percent more than the amount that was appropriated for the 2021 fiscal year. Last month, the House passed a $768 billion budget for defense.
The $10 billion tacked onto the bill with little fanfare from lawmakers or the media. But even just a relatively small amount added to the defense budget is a significant amount in other contexts.
Over ten years, the addition would total to $100 billion — the same amount of funding for vital climate programs that Sen. Kyrsten Sinema (D-Arizona) wants to cut from the Build Back Better Act, or about two-thirds of the cost of the climate program that deficit hawk Sen. Joe Manchin (D-West Virginia) also wants to cut.
Though the defense budget is already unfathomably large, Republicans aren’t satisfied with the Pentagon budget’s growth, Roll Call reports. Republicans like Minority Leader Mitch McConnell (R-Kentucky) have asked for equal increases to defense and nondefense spending; and with increases to programs like child care and preventing violence against women, the Republicans say that the increase to the defense budget should be closer to the 14 percent that they say has increased in the nondefense spending.
This is a somewhat absurd request considering the huge amount of money already being added to the defense budget annually — especially in a year when the country purportedly pulled out of its longest war. Last year, Congress authorized about $740 billion for the Pentagon, meaning that this years’ additions alone would total about $38 billion if passed into law. If the $38 billion were locked in for the next decade, it would total about 10 percent of the proposed spending for the reconciliation bill, just in increases to the defense budget.
While the reconciliation bill — which would provide funding to mitigate the climate crisis and support middle- and lower-class families in the U.S. — has been a subject of bitter debate over the past months, the defense budget — which helps fund defense contractor profits — typically enjoys bipartisan support.
Sinema and Manchin, for instance, have complained repeatedly about the reconciliation bill’s price tag, totalling $3.5 trillion over ten years and completely offset by taxes on corporations and the wealthy, amongst other proposals.
But they’ve been quiet about the defense budget, which would cost more than double what the reconciliation bill would cost if it were extrapolated over ten years. Further, over the past decade, Manchin has approved $9.1 trillion for the defense budget, most of which goes towards the Pentagon, an agency that has never passed an audit.
The conservative Democrats’ double standard on spending also works toward their apparent quest to block any legislation to mitigate the climate crisis. Manchin and Sinema are fighting hard on behalf of fossil fuel lobbyists to cut climate portions of the reconciliation bill, which advocates say is the Democrats’ last chance of passing meaningful climate legislation before the 2022 midterms.
Meanwhile, Sinema and Manchin remain supportive of spending for the Pentagon, which emits a huge amount of greenhouse gases. A study in 2019 showed that, annually, carbon emissions from the military-industrial complex in the U.S. averages to about the amount of emissions put out by the Netherlands every year.
Bites from Real News
*10/20/2021*
*No, Black People Can’t Be “Racists”
To attack critical race theory is to attack Black knowledge production and attempt to silence its epistemological disruptive reverberations, which challenge the U.S.’s atrocious anti-Black racism.
*Puerto Ricans Fight Privatization of Energy and Demand Democratic Ownership
The global fight against the privatization of utilities has a new front — Puerto Rico, where protests are raging.
*PEOPLE EXPOSED TO PFAS CRITICIZE EPA ACTION PLAN AS TOO LITTLE, TOO LATE
Community advocates and environmental groups pointed out that the EPA has promised action on toxic PFAS pollution for many years.
*5 Charts Show How Tax Reform Can Tackle Bad Corporate Behavior
The Build Back Better agenda under negotiation in Congress includes sweeping public investments to make our economy more equitable, sustainable, and resilient in the face of future crises. Another major potential benefit: several tax reforms on the table to help pay for the plan would also reduce economic inequality and curb harmful corporate behavior.
*Taxpayers saddled with $790,000 bill for poorly-attended 'Justice for J6' rally: report
the "Justice for J6" rally in mid-September, that attracted more reporters and casual observers than rallygoers, ended up costing taxpayers over $790,000 so far for government support for the U.S. Capitol police who were out in force to prevent another Jan 6th riot.
*Three Children Attacked a Black Woman. A Sheriff’s Deputy Arrived — and Beat Her More.
Black residents of Louisiana’s Jefferson Parish have long accused the Sheriff’s Office of targeting them. A new video, which shows a deputy slamming a Black woman’s head into the ground, raises more questions.
*CONSERVATIVE DARK-MONEY GROUPS PUSH DECEPTIVE ADS AGAINST BIDEN’S AGENDA
CORPORATE INTEREST GROUPS LINKED TO THE KOCH BROTHERS AND THE TRUMP ADMINISTRATION SEEK TO TURN THE PUBLIC AGAINST THE BUILD BACK BETTER PLAN.
*Policing pregnancy while corporate drug pushers go free shows warped values Arwa Mahdawi
A system that can put a young woman away for four years for suffering a miscarriage should make your blood boil
*Trump & His Dead-Ender's Hateful Plan Revealed What they’ve created has taken on a life of its own & is now tearing America apart - Steve Bannon, echoing Hitler, predicted, “We’re putting together a coalition that’s gonna govern for 100 years” Thom Hartmann
*White America's "hidden wound"
White America's "hidden wound" threatens to destroy the country — and not for the first time
Half a century ago, writer Wendell Berry saw this coming: What white people can't talk about is destroying them
KIRK SWEARINGEN
the enemy within!!!
JOE CROWLEY IS LOBBYING AGAINST BIDEN’S TAX HIKES ON THE RICH
The former House Democratic leader’s new Wall Street client, SIFMA, opposes Biden’s plans to increase taxes on the ultra-wealthy.
Sara Sirota - the intercept
October 15 2021
JOE CROWLEY, the former chair of the House Democratic Caucus who famously lost his 2018 primary to progressive challenger Rep. Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez, D-N.Y., is now lobbying for one of Wall Street’s most powerful advocacy groups against his party’s tax hikes on multinational corporations.
Securities Industry and Financial Markets Association, or SIFMA, has deployed Crowley to court his old colleagues as Democrats finalize legislation to implement President Joe Biden’s Build Back Better initiative, which seeks a fairer tax system and greater revenue to pay for expanded Medicare coverage, universal pre-K, and other domestic priorities. Starting in July, SIFMA, whose members range from BlackRock and J.P. Morgan to Amazon Web Services and IBM, hired Crowley and other lobbyists at law firm Squire Patton Boggs — including a former intern for Sen. Joe Manchin, D-W.Va. — for $30,000, per a document posted on the Senate’s disclosure site Thursday.
Senior lawmakers-turned-lobbyists like Crowley typically serve their special interest clients by convincing former allies to promote industry talking points to committee chairs or party leaders. On September 24, Texas Democratic Reps. Vicente González, Henry Cuellar, and Filemón Vela sent House Speaker Nancy Pelosi and Senate Majority Leader Chuck Schumer a letter criticizing the proposed tax increases on corporations’ foreign profits that Crowley is now targeting for SIFMA. Crowley’s former leadership PAC donated to all three congressmen’s campaigns over his time in Congress, and Vela was a vocal supporter of Crowley’s leadership ambitions.
“We believe increases to the [global intangible low-taxed income, or GILTI] tax would inhibit U.S. competitiveness abroad and risk American jobs and capital investments,” the lawmakers wrote, referring to the government’s percent charge on U.S. corporations’ patents, trademarks, and other intellectual property-related assets held overseas. The Build Back Better Act, which passed the House Ways and Means Committee just days before the letter was sent, raises the GILTI rate from 10.5 to 16.5 percent.
This wasn’t the only time Gonzalez, Cuellar, and Vela tried to undermine House Democrats’ Build Back Better Act. They also joined New Jersey Democratic Rep. Josh Gottheimer’s unsuccessful attempt to weaken the party’s unity and commitment to finish the reconciliation process, which allows the bill to pass with a simple majority.
The 16.5 percent GILTI tax that they oppose isn’t even as high as the rate desired by Biden and the majority of House Democrats — who consider the current 10.5 percent rate, which Republicans established in their 2017 Tax Cuts and Jobs Act, or TCJA, as a giveaway to multinational corporations — as the domestic corporate tax rate is 21 percent. Both Biden’s Made in America Tax Plan and the No Tax Breaks for Outsourcing Act — introduced earlier this year by Rep. Lloyd Doggett, D-Texas, and co-sponsored by more than 115 House Democrats — sought to equalize the rates to curb the TCJA’s offshoring incentives.
Crowley himself ardently opposed the TCJA, calling it a “tax scam” benefiting the “largest, wealthiest multinational corporations in the history of the world.” Now he’s representing SIFMA and its members like IBM, whose global tax policy director earlier this year said Democrats’ plan to fix that scam is “penalizing companies that have been operating overseas for years.” Crowley did not reply to a request for comment on his new client.
The former House Democratic leader joins SIFMA’s advocacy team at a particularly critical time as Democrats shape their final Build Back Better plan. Progressives, including Crowley’s successor Ocasio-Cortez, managed to fend off conservatives’ efforts to force a House floor vote on the Senate’s bipartisan infrastructure bill without finishing the reconciliation process. However, obstruction by Manchin and Kyrsten Sinema, D-Ariz., whose support is essential in a Senate split 50-50, has driven Democrats to come down from their previous plan to spend $3.5 trillion over 10 years.
The shift leaves room for changes to the larger bill’s tax proposals, including in the Senate, where Finance Committee Chair Ron Wyden, D-Ore., is also seeking to overhaul the GILTI tax but hasn’t shared specific details. SIFMA members are keeping an eye on that opening; a public report from Morgan Stanley on September 23 said the corporation expects “the moderate contingent to prevail again, with the actual rate moving to 15 percent,” on par with the minimum global corporate tax backed by the Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development last week.
SIFMA itself hasn’t released public statements specifically on Democrats’ GILTI reforms, but it has made its opposition to the Build Back Better Act’s tax increases on the wealthiest individuals clear. Days after the Ways and Means Committee finished marking it up, SIFMA Managing Director Tim Cameron released a statement on September 17 criticizing capital gains tax hikes, restrictions on individual retirement account contributions, and other changes intended to reduce inequality.
“As Congress debates the reconciliation package, raising taxes on Main Street investors is the wrong direction to look and runs contrary to the Biden Administration’s promise not to raise taxes on middle-income Americans,” Cameron said, even though the increases are targeted to the wealthiest taxpayers; for example, the retirement account limit would only apply to individuals making at least $400,000 whose balances are greater than $10 million. “We urge Congress to carefully consider the real-world impact on everyday savers and move away from these tax hikes.”
Crowley joined Squire Patton Boggs soon after he left Congress and started lobbying earlier this year for a musicians’ property rights nonprofit, a New York City hospital, a home healthcare advocacy group, and a medical school association. SIFMA is his first client in the financial industry, according to a search through the Senate’s lobbying disclosures, and the first that’s particularly outspoken against his party’s agenda. Crowley also recently started lobbying for an IBM-backed company working with decentralized finance companies and will monitor distributed ledger technology policy.
Securities Industry and Financial Markets Association, or SIFMA, has deployed Crowley to court his old colleagues as Democrats finalize legislation to implement President Joe Biden’s Build Back Better initiative, which seeks a fairer tax system and greater revenue to pay for expanded Medicare coverage, universal pre-K, and other domestic priorities. Starting in July, SIFMA, whose members range from BlackRock and J.P. Morgan to Amazon Web Services and IBM, hired Crowley and other lobbyists at law firm Squire Patton Boggs — including a former intern for Sen. Joe Manchin, D-W.Va. — for $30,000, per a document posted on the Senate’s disclosure site Thursday.
Senior lawmakers-turned-lobbyists like Crowley typically serve their special interest clients by convincing former allies to promote industry talking points to committee chairs or party leaders. On September 24, Texas Democratic Reps. Vicente González, Henry Cuellar, and Filemón Vela sent House Speaker Nancy Pelosi and Senate Majority Leader Chuck Schumer a letter criticizing the proposed tax increases on corporations’ foreign profits that Crowley is now targeting for SIFMA. Crowley’s former leadership PAC donated to all three congressmen’s campaigns over his time in Congress, and Vela was a vocal supporter of Crowley’s leadership ambitions.
“We believe increases to the [global intangible low-taxed income, or GILTI] tax would inhibit U.S. competitiveness abroad and risk American jobs and capital investments,” the lawmakers wrote, referring to the government’s percent charge on U.S. corporations’ patents, trademarks, and other intellectual property-related assets held overseas. The Build Back Better Act, which passed the House Ways and Means Committee just days before the letter was sent, raises the GILTI rate from 10.5 to 16.5 percent.
This wasn’t the only time Gonzalez, Cuellar, and Vela tried to undermine House Democrats’ Build Back Better Act. They also joined New Jersey Democratic Rep. Josh Gottheimer’s unsuccessful attempt to weaken the party’s unity and commitment to finish the reconciliation process, which allows the bill to pass with a simple majority.
The 16.5 percent GILTI tax that they oppose isn’t even as high as the rate desired by Biden and the majority of House Democrats — who consider the current 10.5 percent rate, which Republicans established in their 2017 Tax Cuts and Jobs Act, or TCJA, as a giveaway to multinational corporations — as the domestic corporate tax rate is 21 percent. Both Biden’s Made in America Tax Plan and the No Tax Breaks for Outsourcing Act — introduced earlier this year by Rep. Lloyd Doggett, D-Texas, and co-sponsored by more than 115 House Democrats — sought to equalize the rates to curb the TCJA’s offshoring incentives.
Crowley himself ardently opposed the TCJA, calling it a “tax scam” benefiting the “largest, wealthiest multinational corporations in the history of the world.” Now he’s representing SIFMA and its members like IBM, whose global tax policy director earlier this year said Democrats’ plan to fix that scam is “penalizing companies that have been operating overseas for years.” Crowley did not reply to a request for comment on his new client.
The former House Democratic leader joins SIFMA’s advocacy team at a particularly critical time as Democrats shape their final Build Back Better plan. Progressives, including Crowley’s successor Ocasio-Cortez, managed to fend off conservatives’ efforts to force a House floor vote on the Senate’s bipartisan infrastructure bill without finishing the reconciliation process. However, obstruction by Manchin and Kyrsten Sinema, D-Ariz., whose support is essential in a Senate split 50-50, has driven Democrats to come down from their previous plan to spend $3.5 trillion over 10 years.
The shift leaves room for changes to the larger bill’s tax proposals, including in the Senate, where Finance Committee Chair Ron Wyden, D-Ore., is also seeking to overhaul the GILTI tax but hasn’t shared specific details. SIFMA members are keeping an eye on that opening; a public report from Morgan Stanley on September 23 said the corporation expects “the moderate contingent to prevail again, with the actual rate moving to 15 percent,” on par with the minimum global corporate tax backed by the Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development last week.
SIFMA itself hasn’t released public statements specifically on Democrats’ GILTI reforms, but it has made its opposition to the Build Back Better Act’s tax increases on the wealthiest individuals clear. Days after the Ways and Means Committee finished marking it up, SIFMA Managing Director Tim Cameron released a statement on September 17 criticizing capital gains tax hikes, restrictions on individual retirement account contributions, and other changes intended to reduce inequality.
“As Congress debates the reconciliation package, raising taxes on Main Street investors is the wrong direction to look and runs contrary to the Biden Administration’s promise not to raise taxes on middle-income Americans,” Cameron said, even though the increases are targeted to the wealthiest taxpayers; for example, the retirement account limit would only apply to individuals making at least $400,000 whose balances are greater than $10 million. “We urge Congress to carefully consider the real-world impact on everyday savers and move away from these tax hikes.”
Crowley joined Squire Patton Boggs soon after he left Congress and started lobbying earlier this year for a musicians’ property rights nonprofit, a New York City hospital, a home healthcare advocacy group, and a medical school association. SIFMA is his first client in the financial industry, according to a search through the Senate’s lobbying disclosures, and the first that’s particularly outspoken against his party’s agenda. Crowley also recently started lobbying for an IBM-backed company working with decentralized finance companies and will monitor distributed ledger technology policy.
Trump’s Pile of Legal Fights Grows Bigger With New Golf Course Probe, Says Report
IN THE ROUGH
Jamie Ross
News Correspondent
Published Oct. 20, 2021 6:55AM ET
DAILY BEAST CHEAT SHEET
The legal pressure on Donald Trump keeps ratcheting up. His family business was already under indictment in Manhattan, he faces at least 10 civil cases against him, and now, according to a new report, his New York golf resort is facing a fresh criminal inquiry. The New York Times reports that the Westchester County District Attorney’s Office has subpoenaed financial records from Trump National Golf Club Westchester. According to the Times, local District Attorney Mimi E. Rocah is looking into whether the Trump Organization misled local officials about the golf resort’s value in order to ease its property tax burden. However, Rocah, who is a Democrat, is yet to accuse any Trump Org officials of wrongdoing and the Times states that it’s unclear if Trump’s personal conduct is under question. Neither the Trump Org nor Rocah commented on the Times report.
Army Kicks Out Hitler Mustache-Wearing Solider Who Allegedly Breached Capitol, Says Report
MARCHING ORDERS
Jamie Ross
News Correspondent
Published Oct. 20, 2021 8:51AM ET
DAILY BEAST CHEAT SHEET
A far-right fanatic who liked to wear a Hitler mustache has reportedly been kicked out of the U.S. Army after officials learned about his alleged breach of the U.S. Capitol during the pro-Trump riot on Jan. 6. Timothy Hale-Cusanelli, 31, was an Army sergeant who worked part-time as a human-resources as a civilian contractor at a naval base in New Jersey up until May of this year. However, according to The Washington Post, he’s since been demoted and given an other-than-honorable discharge, bringing an end to his military career. Hale-Cusanelli has pleaded not guilty to federal charges of illegally entering the Capitol and harassing police officers during the Capitol riot. Following his arrest, Hale-Cusanelli’s colleagues told Navy investigators that he held extreme racist views and likes to wear Hitler mustache at work. One sailor alleged that Hale-Cusanelli once said that, if he were a Nazi, “he would kill all the Jews and eat them for breakfast, lunch, and dinner, and he wouldn’t need to season them because the salt from their tears would make it flavorful enough.” His lawyer didn’t comment on the claims.
D.C. Attorney General Will Drag Zuckerberg to Court for Privacy Lawsuit
GO ZUCK YOURSELF
AJ McDougall
Breaking News Intern
Published Oct. 20, 2021 10:58AM ET
DAILY BEAST CHEAT SHEET
Facebook CEO Mark Zuckerberg has been listed as a defendant in a privacy lawsuit stemming from a complaint over the Cambridge Analytica scandal. The new filing signifies the first time any U.S. regulator has named Zuckerberg in a complaint, according to District of Columbia Attorney General Karl Racine’s office. In a Wednesday Twitter thread, Racine said that his team’s “continuing investigation revealed that [Zuckerberg] was personally involved in decisions related to Cambridge Analytica and Facebook’s failure to protect user data.”
In a statement, Racine said Zuckerberg had “knowingly and actively” allowed Cambridge Analytica, the political consulting firm, to scrape private data from more than 87 million users. A major Facebook product change in 2010 that allowed third-party developers access to sensitive user data, for instance, was Zuckerberg’s own “brainchild.” Racine said that, given the evidence collected by his office, “adding Mr. Zuckerberg to our lawsuit is unquestionably warranted.” A Facebook spokesperson called the allegations “as meritless today as they were more than three years ago, when the District filed its complaint.”
In a statement, Racine said Zuckerberg had “knowingly and actively” allowed Cambridge Analytica, the political consulting firm, to scrape private data from more than 87 million users. A major Facebook product change in 2010 that allowed third-party developers access to sensitive user data, for instance, was Zuckerberg’s own “brainchild.” Racine said that, given the evidence collected by his office, “adding Mr. Zuckerberg to our lawsuit is unquestionably warranted.” A Facebook spokesperson called the allegations “as meritless today as they were more than three years ago, when the District filed its complaint.”
*What's Inside*
*TOY CIVIL WAR SOLDIER SET
(FUNNIES)
*THE BRUTAL TRADE IN ENSLAVED PEOPLE WITHIN THE US HAS BEEN LARGELY WHITEWASHED OUT OF HISTORY(HISTORY)
*HOW ECONOMISTS HELPED BIG OIL OBSTRUCT CLIMATE ACTION FOR DECADES
(OIL)
*PUERTO RICO HAS A ONCE-IN-A-LIFETIME CHANCE TO BUILD A CLEAN ENERGY GRID – BUT FEMA PLANS TO SPEND $9.4 BILLION ON FOSSIL FUEL INFRASTRUCTURE INSTEAD(COLONIES)
*MERCK SELLS FEDERALLY FINANCED COVID PILL TO U.S. FOR 40 TIMES WHAT IT COSTS TO MAKE
(CAPITALISM)
*TRASHING THE PLANET AND HIDING THE MONEY ISN’T A PERVERSION OF CAPITALISM. IT IS CAPITALISM(CAPITALISM)
*MCKINSEY NEVER TOLD THE FDA IT WAS WORKING FOR OPIOID MAKERS WHILE ALSO WORKING FOR THE AGENCY(CORPORATE CRIMINALS)
*LOUIS DEJOY ROLLS OUT PLAN TO SLOW USPS, DESPITE CALLS FOR HIS OUSTER
(CORRUPTION)
*IN ANTI-RECONCILIATION BLITZ, EXXON SPENT $275,000 ON FACEBOOK ADS IN ONE WEEK
(OIL)
*TOP REPUBLICANS RUB SHOULDERS WITH EXTREMISTS IN SECRETIVE RIGHTWING GROUP, LEAK REVEALS(AMERIKKKANS)
*MORE THAN HALF OF AMERICA’S 100 RICHEST PEOPLE EXPLOIT SPECIAL TRUSTS TO AVOID ESTATE TAXES(CAPITALISM)
*FDR PURGED "MODERATES" — SHOULD BIDEN?
(SELLOUTS)
*late news of interest*
Let's Cut the Crap
nancegreggs - du
8/8/2021
Republican voters - especially the Trump-humpers among them -- are not where they are because they're poorly-educated, misled, easily-manipulated dupes.
Those excuses for their behaviour - despite all of it being true - is no longer a viable explanation for their actions.
The truth is they're are just downright stupid.
No one with enough common sense to come in out of the rain would ignore the expertise of Dr. Fauci (world renowned physician, scientist, immunologist), and instead take their medical advice from the same lunatic who told them the pandemic was a hoax.
No one with enough functioning brain cells to enable them to tie their own shoelaces would look at the real-time footage of January 6th and ever believe that it was a 'regular tourist event' - or, even more amazingly, buy the line that the events of January 6th actually never happened.
No one with sufficient brain-power to successfully microwave a hotdog would see deaths among the unvaccinated surge - and not understand that the vaccines are working, and being unvaccinated is the problem.
No one with an IQ above that of the average house plant would believe that the 2020 election was 'stolen' when there hasn't been a modicum of proof produced to support that idea, would believe that a man obsessed with keeping his income tax returns hidden has 'nothing to hide', would believe that TFG (the self-proclaimed billionaire) needs their donations to cover his personal expenses.
These people are actually supporting Republican whack-jobs who believe that Jewish Space Lasers cause forest fires, and the so-called 'Christians' among them have no problem taking selfies with a golden Trump statue.
Once upon a time, the Trump-humpers could be excused as ill-informed idiots who bought the snake oil that would, as promised, cure all ills.
We're well past that now. Anyone still supporting TFG - and the party he still holds sway over - is, quite simply, a fucking moron, devoid of the common sense required to distinguish between shit and Shinola.
So let's stop pretending that those still clinging to TFG's blatant bullshit are citizens who simply don't know any better - because if they don't know better by now, they are too stupid to ever know anything.
Those excuses for their behaviour - despite all of it being true - is no longer a viable explanation for their actions.
The truth is they're are just downright stupid.
No one with enough common sense to come in out of the rain would ignore the expertise of Dr. Fauci (world renowned physician, scientist, immunologist), and instead take their medical advice from the same lunatic who told them the pandemic was a hoax.
No one with enough functioning brain cells to enable them to tie their own shoelaces would look at the real-time footage of January 6th and ever believe that it was a 'regular tourist event' - or, even more amazingly, buy the line that the events of January 6th actually never happened.
No one with sufficient brain-power to successfully microwave a hotdog would see deaths among the unvaccinated surge - and not understand that the vaccines are working, and being unvaccinated is the problem.
No one with an IQ above that of the average house plant would believe that the 2020 election was 'stolen' when there hasn't been a modicum of proof produced to support that idea, would believe that a man obsessed with keeping his income tax returns hidden has 'nothing to hide', would believe that TFG (the self-proclaimed billionaire) needs their donations to cover his personal expenses.
These people are actually supporting Republican whack-jobs who believe that Jewish Space Lasers cause forest fires, and the so-called 'Christians' among them have no problem taking selfies with a golden Trump statue.
Once upon a time, the Trump-humpers could be excused as ill-informed idiots who bought the snake oil that would, as promised, cure all ills.
We're well past that now. Anyone still supporting TFG - and the party he still holds sway over - is, quite simply, a fucking moron, devoid of the common sense required to distinguish between shit and Shinola.
So let's stop pretending that those still clinging to TFG's blatant bullshit are citizens who simply don't know any better - because if they don't know better by now, they are too stupid to ever know anything.
A Meditation On Practical Applications Of Stupidity
The Mystery of Anti-Vax & Anti-Mask
Kat Ignatz - DAILY KOS
Sunday August 01, 2021 · 5:00 AM PDT
...“The Basic Laws of Human Stupidity” seems as good a way as any to explain the insane situation we’re in. It’s speculative, but in my opinion, guessing is all we’ve really got right now.
In his essay, Cipolla divides human beings into four categories and builds his theory on these characteristics.
His categories are:
And he presents his theory as five laws:
Taking Cipolla’s laws and looking for correlations with anti-vax/mask behavior, you can map out anti-vax/mask actions like this:
And you could do the same matching of Cipolla’s laws with anti-vax/mask actions, and together, we could come up with a big, five-part list of parallels between Cipolla’s theory and the anti-vax/mask movement.
And it would prove nothing.
But looking at it might make you wonder, like me, if there’s anything but dangerous, illogical, and incomprehensible behavior there.
Cipolla doesn’t explain stupid people. He simply says that they exist, and they’re irrational, unpredictable, and hazardous. He states that irrational people can’t be understood by rational minds and cautions against getting involved with irrational people because it always comes with a cost that’s often a big cost.
He says the only hope is for rational people to create more gains than the losses that irrational people cause. He was an economist so his theory is all gains and losses, and another way to think about his four human traits is total gain, loss/gain, gain/loss, and total loss.
And maybe that’s the real answer here. Maybe, we shouldn’t concern ourselves with why anti-vax/maskers act like they do. Perhaps, we should simply accept them as an incredible danger to our country, states, cities, friends, families, and selves, and we should just do everything we can to do more good than they do harm.
I like Cipolla’s theory, and I find it to be a compelling model for many of the problems we’re experiencing—like, for instance, Republicans.
In this writings, Cipolla makes a point of dividing bandits into Intelligent Bandits and Stupid Bandits. Intelligent bandits cause an equal amount of loss and gain, and they get everything they take from others. Stupid bandits cause more loss than gain, and they only get part of what they cause others to lose.
When I read that, I think about how Republicans are actively working to crash the US so they can keep their wealth and power. And then I think that they’re going so far with it that they may have moved from being stupid bandits to fully stupid because it’s irrational to think they’ll keep much of anything if the country collapses.
I also start thinking about how prevalent stupid banditry is in the world—as if it’s the only way to do business. The “bigs” are especially dangerous: big agriculture, apparel, chemical, electronics, oil, pharmaceuticals, retail, etc.
We’re all losing our lives in one way or another to these dubious ventures.
But that’s my mind drifting on to a topic for another diary, and I’ll stop this one here.
In his essay, Cipolla divides human beings into four categories and builds his theory on these characteristics.
His categories are:
- Intelligent People whose actions benefit others and themselves
- Helpless People whose actions harm them but benefit others
- Bandits whose actions harm others but benefit them
- Stupid People whose actions harm others but don’t benefit them and may, in fact, harm them, too
And he presents his theory as five laws:
- Everyone always underestimates how many stupid people there are.
- Stupidity is unrelated to any other human trait.
- Stupid people cause losses to others without gain and, possibly, with losses to themselves.
- Non-stupid people always underestimate how harmful stupid people are.
- Stupid people are the most dangerous type of person.
Taking Cipolla’s laws and looking for correlations with anti-vax/mask behavior, you can map out anti-vax/mask actions like this:
- How many: 30% of the US population is hesitating, resisting, or outright refusing to get a coronavirus vaccine.
- Unrelated to other traits: Health care workers are protesting against getting vaccinated.
- No gain and possible losses: Not even the threat of death is changing anti-vax/mask behavior.
- How harmful: Who would have predicted that Missouri would end up in such terrible condition?
- Most dangerous: Anti-vax/maskers are bringing the systems we rely on for our safety and health to the brink of crashing.
And you could do the same matching of Cipolla’s laws with anti-vax/mask actions, and together, we could come up with a big, five-part list of parallels between Cipolla’s theory and the anti-vax/mask movement.
And it would prove nothing.
But looking at it might make you wonder, like me, if there’s anything but dangerous, illogical, and incomprehensible behavior there.
Cipolla doesn’t explain stupid people. He simply says that they exist, and they’re irrational, unpredictable, and hazardous. He states that irrational people can’t be understood by rational minds and cautions against getting involved with irrational people because it always comes with a cost that’s often a big cost.
He says the only hope is for rational people to create more gains than the losses that irrational people cause. He was an economist so his theory is all gains and losses, and another way to think about his four human traits is total gain, loss/gain, gain/loss, and total loss.
And maybe that’s the real answer here. Maybe, we shouldn’t concern ourselves with why anti-vax/maskers act like they do. Perhaps, we should simply accept them as an incredible danger to our country, states, cities, friends, families, and selves, and we should just do everything we can to do more good than they do harm.
I like Cipolla’s theory, and I find it to be a compelling model for many of the problems we’re experiencing—like, for instance, Republicans.
In this writings, Cipolla makes a point of dividing bandits into Intelligent Bandits and Stupid Bandits. Intelligent bandits cause an equal amount of loss and gain, and they get everything they take from others. Stupid bandits cause more loss than gain, and they only get part of what they cause others to lose.
When I read that, I think about how Republicans are actively working to crash the US so they can keep their wealth and power. And then I think that they’re going so far with it that they may have moved from being stupid bandits to fully stupid because it’s irrational to think they’ll keep much of anything if the country collapses.
I also start thinking about how prevalent stupid banditry is in the world—as if it’s the only way to do business. The “bigs” are especially dangerous: big agriculture, apparel, chemical, electronics, oil, pharmaceuticals, retail, etc.
We’re all losing our lives in one way or another to these dubious ventures.
But that’s my mind drifting on to a topic for another diary, and I’ll stop this one here.
