Spring Sale: Get 1 Year, Save 58%

Dreamy-smooth hummus from a kitchen oops

Every week in Genius Recipes — often with your help! — Food52 Creative Director and lifelong Genius-hunter Kristen Miglore is unearthing recipes that will change the way you cook.

* * *

What if every time we fumbled in the kitchen — a teaspoon for a tablespoon, baking powder for soda, a splash of vanilla for a whole tumbling bottle — could not only work, but also make something new and genius?

In a Murphy’s Law kind of way, it can’t. But every so often our bravery and curiosity and, yes, absent-mindedness can pay off, much like it did for cookbook authorpodcast host, and journal editor Hetty McKinnon one night while she was off the clock.

“Sometimes I can be a pretty lazy cook, like when I’m cooking for my family,” Hetty told me as I interviewed her for the latest episode of our new podcast, “The Genius Recipe Tapes.” One night, hustling to make dinner for her family, she said, “I basically opened a can of chickpeas and I thought I had drained them . . . I hadn’t and I just tipped the whole thing into my Vitamix blender and then I thought: Oh no, what have I done?”

But rather than starting over, or fishing out and drying every pea, she decided to press on. She credits this bold move both to that self-professed laziness — and optimism that the extra chickpea liquid could simply replace the other liquids that she’d normally add, like water and olive oil.

“And, as I started whipping this thing, it started getting really big — much bigger than I normally get when I have hummus,” Hetty continued. “Normally you have to really work for that really smooth texture.”

She realized that the chickpea liquid had taken off its stuffy tie and jacket (“drain and rinse the chickpeas,” said every pre-2016 recipe) and put on its sequined aquafaba! costume, as the substance had been formally named that year—from the Latin bean (faba) and water (aqua) — before blooming into hordes of vegan meringues and foamy cocktails across the internet. (1)

The inner workings of aquafaba are still somewhat murky and under investigation, but the starches and proteins released by soaking and cooking chickpeas do a bang-up job of whipping frothily like egg whites, capturing air that hummus recipes ordinarily wouldn’t.

A Vitamix, Ninja, or other high-powered blender seems to be the equipment best suited for inflating aquafaba, and some brands of chickpeas have less concentrated aquafaba than others (2). But I’ve found that if you start with a modest, not-entirely-brave quarter-cup of the liquid, then add more as needed, you can harness the wonders of aquafaba, no matter what beans and tools you’ve got.

Or you can be bold like Hetty, upend the can, and play with whatever happens next.

Recipe: Whipped Hummus With Roasted Carrots & Za’atar Oil From Hetty McKinnon

(1) Especially in one very active Facebook Group, Aquafaba (Vegan Meringue – Hits and Misses!), who we have to thank for stress-testing the powers of this wonder egg replacer that nearly every recipe had until 2016 told us to pour down the sink.

(2) For example, Westbrae Natural is practically water while Whole Foods 365 brand is good and gloopy—do you have a favorite aquafaba source I should know about?

This post contains products independently chosen (and loved) by Food52 editors and writers. As an Amazon Associate, Food52 earns an affiliate commission on qualifying purchases of the products we link to.

The final, desperate days of our psychopath in chief: How bad will it get?

We must face the alarming truth. Our irrational and reckless president will spend his last 23 days in office harboring the hope that a military coup in our country will allow him to remain in power. Or that Congress will overthrow the Electoral College vote on Jan. 6. Donald Trump is totally preoccupied with his existential survival as the walls of reality are closing in on him. He has been repudiated in the election. His psyche cannot comprehend how he could have lost to such an ordinary, mortal man. He is beside himself with embarrassment and humiliation. He is driven by revenge. He wants to settle scores. His thin veneer of greatness and superiority is crumbling away. He is desperate and flailing.

Trump is a psychopath. He has all the defining characteristics in spades: narcissistic, sadistic, antisocial, paranoid. This is malignant psychopathology in the embodiment of our president. He has the kind of personality pathology that should be unacceptable in our top public servant. Trump should have been rooted out in 2016. A psychopath should never have been elected to the highest office in the land. We have been suffering for it ever since: division, tribalism, hostility, racism, xenophobia, terrorism and more.

Some mental health professionals voiced concern about Trump’s mental health after his election in 2016. In late 2017, 37 mental health professionals described Trump’s dangerousness and unfitness in a bestselling book, “The Dangerous Case of Donald Trump.” But the publication of that book did not open the floodgates for mental health experts to voice their opinions in the media. In fact, there was considerable pushback from concerned colleagues. Plus, the mainstream media showed a rather strong allegiance to the antiquated “Goldwater rule” advanced by the American Psychiatric Association. Mental health experts were largely rebuffed by the media. As a result, the public was ill-informed and Donald Trump was elected.

Four years later, Trump was defeated by Vice President Joe Biden in November 2020, but not with the help of the mainstream media. Once again, the media buckled under the smothering influence of the Goldwater rule. Journalists’ descriptions of Trump’s pathology were published in the media, but experts themselves were muzzled. The primary exception, in fact, was Salon, which published commentary from a number of mental health professionals leading up to the November election and did not shy away from exposing the disturbing features of Donald Trump.

So here we are. Twenty-three days to go, and we are all sitting on the edge of our seats waiting for the next dreadful and unimaginable act from this disordered man. Our Constitution states that we are to have a peaceful and orderly transition of power to the next president. But we should not be surprised by Trump’s desperate attempts to save himself by throwing democracy under the bus. Once and for all, we should be convinced that our psychopath in chief does not give a damn about the preciousness of our democratic way of life.

Trump is now totally consumed with his survival, his self-preservation. He cares about nothing else. He has totally abdicated his role as president. He is preoccupied with his anger, his grievances, his conspiracy theories and his conniving plans. He is a man on a mission to save his power and his pride simultaneously. It is a mission borne out of utter contempt for the will of the people.

He is willing to use corruption and seditious behavior to subvert democracy for his personal gain. He is trying to find the right conspiracy theory or voter-fraud narrative that will allow him to hang onto power. He does not understand why the guardrails of democracy are deterring him. He cannot fathom why the U.S. Supreme Court has not come to his rescue, especially after he has appointed three “Trump” associate justices. He does not treasure democracy. If anything, he sees it as an annoying obstacle to his goal of establishing a family dynasty. He wants to be a dictator or, better yet, a king.

He has turned his back on the thousands of Americans who are dying each week from the coronavirus. He has not mentioned the pandemic in weeks. He has not listened to a public health expert in months. He does not pay tribute to our fallen Americans. He has washed his hands of all responsibility for our pathetic response to this once-in-a-century national emergency. He is pretending that the coronavirus is gone, much as he pretends that he is smart and great and strong. He seems to derive a kind of sadistic pleasure from watching Americans die under his direction. He must see himself as the master of misery. Remember it was Trump who shut down a U.S. Postal Service plan to mail masks to all Americans. He also shut down mass testing and trace contacting.

Trump has abandoned the economic mess he caused. He did not lift a finger in the negotiation and passage of the new COVID relief bill, held it hostage for a couple of days for the drama of it all, and finally signed it. His erratic behavior has cost millions of Americans one week of their unemployment benefits. He acts as if the economy is humming along well when, in fact, we have had a net loss of 11 million jobs during the pandemic. More than 100,000 small businesses have closed permanently since March. He has not had a concrete plan for restoring the country’s economy. Such a plan is not possible while the coronavirus is still surging in infections and deaths. To this day, he will not acknowledge the interconnectedness of the pandemic with our collapsed economy. And our economy is getting worse, not better.

His paranoia is raging as his desperation mounts. Trump is lashing out against even his most ardent apologists. He is accusing others of disloyalty and abandonment. He asked for Joe Biden to be arrested weeks before the election. He always sees himself as the victim when he is exposed or challenged or cornered. To be sure, his victimhood is both inaccurate and disingenuous. He is never the victim. He is always the one who is aggressive, cruel and reckless. His victimhood is a cynical psychological ploy to garner sympathy from his supporters and to try to wriggle out of a jam. But this jam is too much for him: He has lost the election fair and square, he has been abysmal in his handling of the pandemic and the economy is in dire shape. This trifecta cannot be overcome.

Trump is now issuing a spree of sleazy pardons. He has pardoned two people who lied to the FBI during the Mueller investigation, two corrupt ex-congressmen, and four war criminals who were involved in a 2007 massacre of civilians in Iraq. A few days ago, he pardoned his son-in-law’s father and two of his closest associates (Roger Stone and Paul Manafort). Trump has always been aligned with criminal friends and associates. Psychopaths are attracted to other psychopaths. They have a shared lack of conscience and an obvious absence of shame. This is the president who put young children in cages at the border and now has pardoned murderers — a glimpse inside the hollow heart and soul of Donald Trump.

If Trump pardons his children and himself during the next three weeks, it will be a clear confession of wrongdoing by the psychopath in chief. Innocent presidents do not need to pardon themselves or their family members. A pardon is intended to absolve criminal actions. It would prove that Trump’s victimhood is pure mythology.

Let us not forget Trump’s unrelenting adulation of Russian President Vladimir Putin. He has recently turned a blind eye to Russia’s massive cyberattack on our country. Trump has consistently put Putin’s interests above ours. Two psychopaths in collusion will be the confirmed story.

Trump has been grifting nonstop since his election defeat in November. He has received more than $220 million in donations from his supporters, under the guise of fighting election fraud. In truth, the money will be used to pay off his campaign debt and to fund his PAC. It will be his personal piggybank. He is fleecing his supporters, and they do not seem to notice or care. Grifting others is Trump’s only natural skill. But it is hardly the makings of a president who deserves to be on Mount Rushmore.

Trump still finds time to play golf on weekends and holidays. Nothing will stop that — not even a car bombing in downtown Nashville on Christmas Day. He would never let responsibility or care for others interfere with his pleasure at taxpayer expense ($151 million and counting). He has no understanding of how pathetic he looks on the golf course while thousands of Americans are struggling to take their last breaths or standing in food bank lines because they have been unemployed since March. A chance to cheat at golf while the country is not looking is way too much fun for him to pass up.

Trump is on a collision course with self-destruction. He is the Titanic and everyone around him is beginning to jump ship. Former Attorney General Bill Barr has jumped ship. Evangelist Pat Robertson has jumped ship. Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell has jumped ship. Even Vice President Mike Pence has one foot in the water. It is just a matter of time before Trump wakes up in an empty room of silence and gold toilets.

Republicans must accept their share of blame for their complicity with this destructive president. At any point along the way they could have found their collective voices and stopped him. Their party is teetering on the brink of irrelevance if they do not separate themselves from Trump. They have a chance to begin that separation on Jan. 6 in Congress when they refuse to participate in Trump’s demand — fueled by bribes and threats — to reject the Electoral College results.

Because loyalty is a one-way street for Trump, he will end up alone. He will still have his children and his son-in-law, of course — they are stuck with him. But one or all of them may turn on him when criminal charges are finally filed. Before it is over, Trump’s closest friend may be his cellmate.

Democracy will prevail. Trump will be gone on Jan. 20. He will not attend Joe Biden’s inauguration because he cannot tolerate the embarrassment of his loss. He cannot even fake humility and kindness for an hour or two for the good of the country. He will slither away through the back door of the White House, all the while proclaiming victory and affirming his exalted status as the best president ever. After all, he has to maintain his “idealized self” of indispensable greatness.

Historians will be extremely unkind to Trump. He will be seared by presidential scholars. He will deserve all their harshness and condemnation. He will likely be remembered as the worst president in U.S. history. His legacy will be one of incompetence, cruelty and corruption. If he thinks he is humiliated now, wait until his supporters wake up and finally reject him for being such a failed, miserable and treasonous leader.

Hopefully, Donald Trump will be our one and only psychopath as president. We must not put ourselves through this national anguish and darkness again. Above all else, we must make sure the deaths of tens of thousands of Americans teach us an unforgettable lesson.

Lesson learned. Never again.

Robert Reich on Trump’s vilest legacy

Most of the 74,222,957 Americans who voted to reelect Donald Trump – 46.8 percent of the votes cast in the 2020 presidential election – don’t hold Trump accountable for what he’s done to America. 

Their acceptance of Trump’s behavior will be his vilest legacy.  

Nearly forty years ago, political scientist James Q. Wilson and criminologist George Kelling observed that a broken window left unattended in a community signals that no one cares if windows are broken there. The broken window is thereby an invitation to throw more stones and break more windows. The message: Do whatever you want here because others have done it and got away with it.

The broken window theory has led to picayune and arbitrary law enforcement in poor communities. But America’s most privileged and powerful have been breaking big windows with impunity.

In 2008, Wall Street nearly destroyed the economy. The Street got bailed out while millions of Americans lost their jobs, savings, and homes. Yet no major Wall Street executive ever went to jail.

In more recent years, top executives of Purdue Pharmaceuticals, along with the members of the Sackler family who own it, knew the dangers of OxyContin but did nothing. Executives at Wells Fargo Bank pushed bank employees to defraud customers. Executives at Boeing hid the results of tests showing its 737 Max Jetliner was unsafe. Police chiefs across America looked the other way as police under their command repeatedly killed innocent Black Americans.

Here, too, they’ve got away with it. These windows remain broken. 

Trump has brought impunity to the highest office in the land, wielding a wrecking ball to the most precious windowpane of all – American democracy.

The message? A president can obstruct special counsels’ investigations of his wrongdoing, push foreign officials to dig up dirt on political rivals, fire inspectors general who find corruption, order the entire executive branch to refuse congressional subpoenas, flood the Internet with fake information about his opponents, refuse to release his tax returns, accuse the press of being “fake media” and “enemies of the people,” and make money off his presidency.

And he can get away with it. Almost half of the electorate will even vote for his reelection.

A president can also lie about the results of an election without a shred of evidence – and yet, according to polls, be believed by the vast majority of those who voted for him.

Trump’s recent pardons have broken double-paned windows. 

Not only has he shattered the norm for presidential pardons – usually granted because of a petitioner’s good conduct after conviction and service of sentence – but he’s pardoned people who themselves shattered windows. By pardoning them, he has rendered them unaccountable for their acts.

They include aides convicted of lying to the FBI and threatening potential witnesses in order to protect him; his son-in-law’s father, who pleaded guilty to tax evasion, witness tampering, illegal campaign contributions, and lying to the Federal Election Commission; Blackwater security guards convicted of murdering Iraqi civilians, including women and children; Border Patrol agents convicted of assaulting or shooting unarmed suspects; and Republican lawmakers and their aides found guilty of fraud, obstruction of justice and campaign finance violations.

It’s not simply the size of the broken window that undermines standards, according to Wilson and Kelling. It’s the willingness of society to look the other way. If no one is held accountable, norms collapse.

Trump may face a barrage of lawsuits when he leaves office, possibly including criminal charges. But it’s unlikely he’ll go to jail. Presidential immunity or a self-pardon will protect him. Prosecutorial discretion would almost certainly argue against indictment, in any event. No former president has ever been convicted of a crime. The mere possibility of a criminal trial for Trump would ignite a partisan brawl across the nation.

Congress may try to limit the power of future presidents – strengthening congressional oversight, fortifying the independence of inspectors general, demanding more financial disclosure, increasing penalties on presidential aides who break laws, restricting the pardon process, and so on.

But Congress – a co-equal branch of government under the Constitution – cannot rein in rogue presidents. And the courts don’t want to weigh in on political questions.

The appalling reality is that Trump may get away with it. And in getting away with it he will have changed and degraded the norms governing American presidents. The giant windows he’s broken are invitations to a future president to break even more.

Nothing will correct this unless or until an overwhelming majority of Americans recognize and condemn what has occurred.

Attorney for Blackwater murder victim: Trump’s pardons “a slap in the face” to U.S. justice

With less than a month left in his presidency, President Trump on Tuesday pardoned four Blackwater security contractors whose convictions for killing 14 unarmed Iraqi civilians in 2007 had in recent years become a right-wing rallying cry.

One of the contractors, Nicholas Slatten, was serving a life sentence for first-degree murder, and the others — Dustin Heard, Evan Liberty and Paul Slough — had each been sentenced to between 12 and 15 years for voluntary manslaughter. Their convictions came after the largest and most expensive federal investigation since the Sept. 11, 2001, terrorist attacks.

The accompanying White House statement, which came among a batch of 20, claimed that the pardons were “broadly supported by the public,” citing specifically Fox News personality Pete Hegseth and a number of conservative members of the House. The statement described the 14 deaths and other injuries as “unfortunate.”

The four convicted killers, all military veterans, worked for Blackwater Worldwide, a security firm founded by former Navy SEAL Erik Prince, brother of Education Secretary Betsy DeVos. The State Department had contracted with Blackwater to provide private protection for U.S. diplomats in Iraq. The company changed its name to Xe Services in 2009, and then changed it again to Academi after Prince sold the business to private investors in 2011.

“The investigation was monumental,” Paul Dickinson, a plaintiff’s attorney in North Carolina who represented six of the Iraqi victims in a lawsuit in U.S. civil court, told Salon. “To put it all aside because Erik Prince is one of Trump’s cronies is a slap in the face to the U.S. legal system, a slap in the face to the Justice Department and the assurances it put in place to ensure these men had fair trials. And despite being the ‘law and order president,’ Trump has humiliated these families for obtaining justice for the crimes committed against them.”

On Sept. 16, 2007, in response to reports of a nearby car bomb, a Blackwater security detail blocked off traffic in Baghdad’s Nisour Square to create a safe exit path for diplomatic officials leaving a nearby meeting. However, the guards soon began firing their machine guns indiscriminately into the stopped cars, even deploying grenades, reportedly out of fear that one had matched the description of a suspicious vehicle in the area. The massacre left at least 17 Iraqis dead — all of them unarmed, including a nine-year-old child, whose brain fell to the ground at his father’s feet. The official number is uncertain, however, because of the difficulties the chaotic scene presented for investigators: Some bodies could not be recovered, some evidence may have been moved or removed, and shell casings could not be definitively linked to the incident, because, as an FBI official later told The New York Times, “The city is littered with brass.”

A U.S. military investigation found the shooting was unprovoked. “It was obviously excessive,” a defense official told The Washington Post. “The civilians that were fired upon, they didn’t have any weapons to fire back at them. And none of the [Iraqi police] or any of the local security forces fired back at them.” The FBI later concurred, saying that investigators found no evidence to support the claims by Blackwater guards that Iraqi civilians had opened fire on them.

Asked about the deaths in a 2019 debate with NBC legal analyst Mehdi Hasan, Blackwater founder Prince explained, “Sadly, the insurgents don’t wear uniforms.”

The attack sparked global backlash against U.S. efforts to contain the fallout from the Iraq War through the use of private contractors — many of them veterans — who wielded military power in war zones, but operated outside the military chain of command. The Iraqi government immediately yanked Blackwater’s license the nation, and within a few years Prince had changed the company’s name and then sold it, after the Blackwater name became shorthand for the perceived reckless impunity of contract mercenaries around the world. Prince later lobbied Trump to “privatize” the war in Afghanistan by replacing U.S. troops with mercenaries, citing the notorious East India Company as a model.

“Prince made millions by sending these men back to Iraq, but Blackwater made it harder for the soldiers to do their job,” Dickinson told Salon. “The sad fact is that they didn’t follow rules of engagement. They drove around in tan-colored Army vehicles without markings, and most Iraqi citizens didn’t know the difference until it was too late. Blackwater convoys that ran through town, shooting indiscriminately, made it more difficult for soldiers trying to do the right thing the right way.”

The U.S. refused to allow the four men to be tried in Iraq, and on Dec. 31, 2009, a federal judge dismissed charges against them in the U.S., citing inappropriately handled evidence. At the time, then-Vice President Joe Biden, who had recently taken office, told the Iraqi government that the Obama administration would continue with the prosecution.

“A dismissal is not an acquittal,” Biden said.

Over the next decade, as the complicated criminal and civil cases made their way through the justice system, the Blackwater guards became known as the “Biden Four” in right-wing circles.

Prince captured the criticism of that process in his debate with Hasan, claiming falsely that the men were prosecuted four times, which would have violated of basic constitutional rights. “The federal government finally got them in a D.C. jury on the fourth time they tried it,” Prince said. Hasan asked if Prince was saying that a Washington, D.C., jury is not legitimate. Prince responded: “A jury of your peers — it does not really compare to the rest of America. No.”

Dickinson, the attorney who represented some of the victims, including the family of the nine-year-old, Ali Kinani, told Salon that the criticism gets it backwards: The trial ran long precisely because it was fair.

“It misses the point that somehow there were multiple attempts to convict. The point is that the trials went through, the system worked,” Dickinson said. “The case went through the full appellate process. It needed to be fair, and they were given fair trials and fair convictions.”

The men were not tried four times. After the 2009 dismissal, the government appealed, and in 2011 the D.C. Court of Appeals reinstated the charges, a ruling which the Supreme Court declined to review. The case went to trial, and in 2014 a jury convicted Slatten, who had fired first, of first-degree murder; the other three men were convicted of voluntary manslaughter. Slatten appealed the verdict, and three years later, the D.C. Court of Appeals overturned his conviction, ruling that his case should be tried separately. The court also ordered new sentences for his associates, ruling that their 30-year terms qualified as “cruel and unusual punishment.”

Slatten, who has maintained his innocence, declined to accept a plea deal on manslaughter charges, and in his 2018 retrial was once again convicted of first-degree murder. The next year, a federal judge sentenced him to life, and sentenced his associates to between 12 and 15 years.

President Trump has intervened in similar military crimes before, such as pardoning Army Lt. Clint Lorance, who was convicted of second-degree murder charges in the deaths of two Afghans, and Navy SEAL Eddie Gallagher — described as “freakin’ evil” by members of his own unit — who and was convicted of war crimes in July 2019 after posing in pictures with the body of a teenage prisoner he had killed with a hunting knife.

Dickinson lamented the effect that Trump’s actions would have on allies, and on the way the world views the U.S. justice system.

“Mohammed Kanani had greeted the U.S. soldiers in Baghdad. He welcomed the changes that were happening in his country, to get out from under Saddam Hussein’s oppressive and vindictive government,” Dickinson said, referencing the father of the nine-year-old killed in the Blackwater attack.

“During the trials, the families relied on us to explain this complicated process. It was difficult for them to understand all the setbacks, but they believed us and relied on that,” he said. “Many of them through great effort were brought to the U.S. to testify in the criminal trial. They sat in the stand, in the courtroom, believing in the system, believing in the justice that we told them they had a right to. Now it’s been taken away from them, and there is no further option. I know for a fact that they are extremely distraught over this news back in Iraq, where they still reside.”

Kinani expressed his anger in an interview with ABC News on Wednesday, saying, “I don’t know what I did to Blackwater.”

“The president of the United States, he is above the law,” Kinani told ABC. “These are people who should stay in jail. I feel lost today. I feel as if something is up[side] down. I just remember every detail about what happened. It’s really hard to live with this … and this really broke my heart.”

In a January 2019 Fox News opinion column, then-Rep. Duncan Hunter, R-Calif., described the “Biden Four” as “political pawns who now sit in jail. … The fact remains, these brave men were sent to prison for doing their jobs.”

A year later, Hunter resigned from Congress after pleading guilty to misuse of campaign funds, including expenses for multiple extramarital affairs. He was slated to begin an 11-month prison sentence, until he was also pardoned by Trump on Tuesday.

With primaries more than a year away, N.Y. Dem leader warns AOC: Don’t challenge Schumer

With more than a year to go until Senate Minority Leader Chuck Schumer faces a potential primary challenge for the seat he’s held for nearly two decades in New York, the state’s Democratic leadership is already expressing concern that progressive Rep. Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez may run against him.

In an interview with the New York Post, state Democratic Committee chair Jay Jacobs said Saturday that a challenge by Ocasio-Cortez would be driven more by the congresswoman’s “ambition” than a need for new representation for New York in the U.S. Senate.

“She has a constituency that admires her and supports her, and they’re in her community, and I think it would be a loss for them if she were to do that,” Jacobs told the Post, despite the fact that Ocasio-Cortez’s current constituents in the Bronx and Queens would still be represented by her in the upper chamber should she win Schumer’s seat. 

Ocasio-Cortez has not directly expressed a desire to challenge the four-term senator, but has been vocal since she first ran for office in 2018 about her belief that the Democratic Party must better represent working people by embracing policy proposals that Schumer and other centrists reject. 

Earlier this month, the congresswoman told The Intercept that while she was “not ready” to take over the role of House speaker from Rep. Nancy Pelosi, she believes “we need new leadership in the Democratic Party.”

She directly criticized establishment Democrats’ embrace of the Affordable Care Act and their insistence that the law — which has left nearly 30 million Americans uninsured and health care spending on the rise — should be “strengthened” instead of replaced with Medicare for All. 

“For me personally, it was when I was waitressing and I would hear Democrats talk about why the Affordable Care Act was so amazing all the time and how this is the greatest thing ever and the economy is doing wonderfully,” she told The Intercept in discussing how and why she decided to run for Congress in 2018. “Frankly, it is the same trick that Trump pulls, which is, you know, people touting the Dow as a measure of economic success when we’re all getting killed out here.” 

Although Jacobs described Schumer as “a progressive force,” he has not embraced Sen. Bernie Sanders’ Medicare for All proposal. Recent polling from the Kaiser Family Foundation has shown that 87% of Democratic voters and 63% of independents have a positive view of the term “Medicare for All,” and 53% of the public favors expanding Medicare to all Americans under a national health care plan. 

Jacobs’ comments and other efforts by establishment Democrats to discourage Ocasio-Cortez’s political ambitions only serve to divide the party, tweeted grassroots organization Our Revolution. 

“The Establishment should embrace progressive ideas that over 85% of Democrats already support!” the group said. 

In an interview with Vanity Fair in October, Ocasio-Cortez said that while she doesn’t believe she is “going to be staying in the House forever,” she aims to assess where “can be more effective” before running for a Senate seat or filling a cabinet position. 

“I don’t see myself really staying where I’m at for the rest of my life,” she told the magazine. “I don’t want to aspire to a quote-unquote higher position just for the sake of that title or just for the sake of having a different or higher position. I truly make an assessment to see if I can be more effective. And so, you know, I don’t know if I could necessarily be more effective in an administration, but, for me that’s always what the question comes down to.”

Oliver Willis of the American Independent noted that the Democratic Party’s underestimation of Ocasio-Cortez in 2018, when she challenged powerful nine-term congressman Joe Crowley, is now being repeated by her detractors, including Jacobs. 

Others on social media wrote that considering Ocasio-Cortez’s national profile and her strong support for numerous popular policies — including Medicare for All, a Green New Deal and tuition-free public college — the congresswoman would have a strong chance of defeating Schumer.

“The AOC stan army would move en masse across state lines to knock doors before Schumer’s consultants could formulate a tweet about his support of the public option,” tweeted Winnie Wong, a former adviser to Sanders’ presidential campaign.

The D.C. political monopoly just does not get it

The spectacle of political “leaders” disconnected from basic social realities survived Trump’s defeat. He and his GOP had shown little grasp of the two great crises of 2020: the crash of capitalism and the COVID-19 pandemic. Trump’s resulting political defeat did not reconnect them. The Biden Democrats already show they learned little from Trump’s loss; disconnection governs them too.

A basic social reality of the United States is its capitalist economic system that organizes enterprises internally into a small minority (employers) dominating the majority (employees), with markets to distribute resources and products. Like capitalisms everywhere, the U.S. version crashes recurringly. Variously called crises, recessions, or depressions, they have happened, on average, every four to seven years throughout capitalism’s history. With three in this century’s first 20 years (“dot-com” in 2000, “subprime mortgage” in 2008, and “COVID-19” in 2020), the United States illustrates that four-to-seven-year schedule. The 2020 crash is second only to the Great Depression of the 1930s in its social impact. That fact alone demands major policy interventions on the scale, at least, of what was done then (including the creation of Social Security, federal unemployment insurance, the first minimum wage, and the creation of millions of federal jobs). Moreover, the 1930s were not simultaneously a time of deadly viral pandemic. Given the uniquely immense challenge of 2020’s two crises, no remotely adequate policies were undertaken nor even contemplated by Trump, Biden, Republican or Democratic establishments. They just don’t get it.

The COVID-19 pandemic replicates past viral outbreaks: from the deadly 1918 influenza pandemic to recent SARS, MERS, and Ebola outbreaks. Coping with them requires having ready (or quickly acquiring) adequate supplies of tests, masks, ventilators, hospital facilities, and trained personnel. Where supplies of these essential resources were left mostly to the private capitalist sector, fatal failure resulted. It was not privately profitable (and far too risky) to produce, stockpile, and maintain these supplies for years until a pandemic enabled them to be sold. Private capitalists chose other more profitable and/or less risky investments. Private capitalism, as many had forewarned, was unreliable for protecting public health.

Of course, the government could have intervened to offset private capitalism’s failure to safeguard public health. It could have purchased tests, masks, and ventilators as fast as private capitalists produced them at prices profitable for those capitalists. The government could then have stockpiled them at taxpayers’ expense for use when the next dangerous virus threatened. In fact, the U.S. government already does that, but not for public health. It buys and stockpiles missiles, warships, and tanks from private capitalists because profit-driven capitalists would not stockpile them. In the United States, Republican and Democratic establishments promote the government’s full socialization of military costs as patriotism while they demonize and block an equivalent socialization of public health costs as “socialism.”

Inadequate preparation for COVID-19 was followed by failure to contain it. Trump and the GOP never considered, let alone implemented, massive government intervention. Many other countries did, mobilizing private and public resources effectively against COVID-19. Crude laissez-faire ideology plus corrupt political calculation drove Trump and the GOP. As to the pandemic’s effects, they just did not get it.

Either a capitalist crash or the COVID-19 pandemic alone would have been a critical challenge for the United States. Having both occur together, a staggering combination, requires just what Trump did not and Biden is not doing: a similarly unprecedented government response. Thus, House Speaker Nancy Pelosi and Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell are not even trying for an adequately large stimulus. Their joint product promises to be a prime example of too little, too late. Neither party leadership advanced policies enlarging upon what worked well in the 1930s: a massive federal jobs program to end unemployment, a Green New Deal, and a national system of COVID-19 testing, tracking, and treatment in additionally constructed hospitals and clinics. Nothing suggests Biden’s centrist Cabinet sees the magnitude of the need. They just don’t get it.

For both Republican and Democratic establishments, political strategies are similar. Each endorses, privileges, and supports private capitalism. Each blames the other party for negative results that flow from the social dominance of private capitalism. Neither dares blame private capitalism for social problems like unemployment and pandemic casualties. Instead, each has its preferred set of scapegoats to blame. Republicans blame immigrants, foreign trading partners (especially China), non-whites, pro-abortion rights activists, mainstream media, liberals, and socialists. Democrats blame Russia and Russians, China, gun enthusiasts, white supremacists and racists, Fox News, and Trump and his supporters.

A solution would be a genuinely level political playing field. It would include a new political party that criticizes and opposes the capitalist system because of its responsibility for critical social problems. It would break the political monopoly run by Republicans and Democrats just as many economic monopolies have ended in the nation’s past. Today’s crises, inequalities, divisions, and the sufferings of so many deserve no less. Yet the political monopolists want to keep their control.

They just don’t get it.

This article was produced by Economy for All, a project of the Independent Media Institute.

Congress passes a half-assed COVID relief bill

Once all the fuss settles over who can claim appropriate amounts of political credit—I hope none of the congressional leaders gets hurt as they stretch their arms to pat themselves on the back—there will be plenty for pundits and citizens to feast on in this huge compromise COVID-19 aid agreement.

The focus has been about the big items: getting aid directly to U.S. households and extending unemployment, which this does at half the amounts from the first bills last May, and getting loans for small businesses, which this does just as it did in the spring. Yet negotiators from all sides managed to slip in just enough of favored but irrelevant side items to leave a bitter taste.

For openers, the welcome relief monies are coming so late that thousands of small businesses, restaurants, bars have been forced to close. The hope is this lifeline will keep others afloat through the months of vaccinations. More companies are laying off employees either because of a worsening economy or for their own fortunes as companies. In any event, all seem to agree that this was a down payment on aid the incoming Biden administration will have to seek to extend.

The bipartisanship extended not only toward finding things on which to agree but on things on which to disagree so substantially that they are out of the bill altogether. Omitted are aid to states and sweeping limits on corporate liability for any bad behavior toward workers or consumers during the pandemic. Translated, it means the inevitably higher taxes will come from the states and localities rather than the federal government and suing an employer who tells workers to forgo protective gear is still frowned on among congressional Republicans.

Still, walking through the details, it was a little startling to learn we had adopted another $1.4 billion in new funding for Donald Trump’s border wall and new border security technology. We also adopted yet another corporate tax break for meal expenses as lobbied for by the White House. That latter was ostensibly to help revive restaurants. It ignores the fact dine-in restaurants are being kept closed as we encounter increasingly severe weeks of the pandemic. The same White House seems to think we don’t notice the effects.

Still, Congress actually did something, even if it was in as ugly a way as possible.

The good news

Gig workers and freelancers are part of the extension of unemployment benefits. That is an acknowledgment that a huge number of people no longer work directly for a single employer. We need to understand that reality in considering health coverage that depends on employer benefits. The bill extended coverage for the jobless until March.

And while Congress was forced to pass on direct aid to states, Congress found some alternatives. Democrats continued to hammer to some success to expend money for vaccine distribution itself. The negotiations resulted in an agreement to extend the deadline for states and cities to use unspent money approved for them by the earlier Cares Act. States and cities have until the end of 2021 to spend billions of dollars.

The legislation includes $45 billion, for example, for transportation needs such as state transportation departments and Amtrak, which were disrupted by the pandemic. And there is $82 billion for schools, $20 billion for vaccine distribution and $13 billion for a major expansion in food stamps. All costs eventually fall to the states.

The bill also provides $25 billion in emergency assistance to renters, although it remained unclear how that money would be disbursed.

There was generally good news for small businesses, with $325 billion in relief funds for a duplicate of the earlier Paycheck Protection Program funding. The legislation also includes $82 billion for schools and $20 billion for vaccine distribution.

The bad news

From all the analysis circulating, it seems this package is too little too late, and that it won’t do the whole job it expects to do for individuals, small businesses or the national economy.

Too much depends right now on how successful the vaccine and increased disease testing is at bringing down contagion. Lowered instances of disease can translate into business rebounds for more average businesses; the Wall Street bigs seem to do just fine through it all.

A political skeptic would say that this difficult a fight to do what seems an obvious aid package suggests a much more difficult fight ahead once Joe Biden takes office—and a lot dependent on the outcome of those two Georgia U.S. Senate seats up for a vote on Jan. 5.

Even the straight-forward parts of the bill are not exactly straight-forward. Evictions were put off for a month, to Jan. 31. Biden takes office on Jan. 20, leaving just 10 days including weekends to resolve a clearly needed extension beyond that arbitrary deadline.

A lot also is riding on just what happens once coronavirus vaccinations move beyond the first designated groups. There is no guidance on which industries will qualify as earliest “emergency workers” categories and no federal policy discussions about whether employers can require vaccination to return to work. Whether the Biden Labor Department will take a much more aggressive role in inspecting workplaces for safety, for example, is in question.

At the end of the day, a whole lot of Washington is going to feel prideful about turning itself inside-out to achieve a modicum of bipartisanship. While differences exist, relief should have been a no-brainer for months already.

Biden is going to tap into every bit of that mock pride, quickly.

Hero pay for hero workers?

Beyond its other savageries, the nearly uncontrolled spread of COVID-19 throughout the U.S. has thrown sectors of the food service industry into freefall. The National Restaurant Association puts the damage at 110,000 restaurants closed in 2020 — about one of every six in the country — and employment in that sector remains 2.1 million people below pre-COVID levels.

But one area of food service is experiencing staggering growth, perhaps unrivaled by anything the industry has ever seen. If you own grocery stores, and preferably lots of them, your profits have skyrocketed — and that ascension appears poised to continue for months into 2021.

So are frontline grocery workers being cared for and protected during this unprecedented run-up in valuation and profit? By almost every available metric, the answer is a resounding no.
 

A recent report from the Brookings Institution throws these truths into bold relief. The 13 top retailers in Brookings’ analysis have earned an average of $16.7 billion in extra profit this year — a 40% increase over 2019 totals — while their stock prices shot up by an average of 33%, the surge driven in many cases by grocery sales. Yet the average frontline retail worker in those companies saw a pay increase of just $1.11 an hour, about 10%, and hadn’t received any new hazard pay in more than four months. Most of those top retailers feature groceries as a significant part of their business models.

The bottom line: As the public shies away from restaurants or is forced by local ordinance not to dine out, corporate grocery owners are making a killing. The people who make those stores run, meanwhile, have largely been left behind.

That reality has prompted two California cities to act. Last week, the Long Beach City Council voted to draft an emergency ordinance mandating $4-per-hour wage increases for grocery workers for at least the next 120 days. And Los Angeles councilmembers introduced a motion to require a $5 per hour pay hike for grocery workers in the city. It could come up for a vote as soon as Jan. 12.

“We are at a critical moment in this crisis, when things are far more serious than at any other point this year,” Long Beach Councilwoman Mary Zendejas said during a recent meeting. “We know that some of the people most impacted by this pandemic are frontline workers, and among those most vulnerable right now are the grocery store workers.”

The numbers bear that out. According to the Los Angeles Times, new outbreaks of the coronavirus have been recorded at multiple grocery locations within the county. At a Food 4 Less in Palmdale, 21 employees recently tested positive, per county records, and the newspaper said several new outbreaks have been reported at large chain stores — some Whole Foods and Trader Joe’s locations among them — as well as smaller grocers. (An outbreak is defined as three or more cases among staff within a 14-day period.)

In both Long Beach and Los Angeles, the council motions are aimed at these larger grocers, which employ 300 or more people nationally. One such company is Cincinnati-based Kroger, which operates dozens of Ralph’s and Food 4 Less locations in the greater L.A. area, including the store in Palmdale.

Counting third-quarter earnings, Kroger’s profit overall was up 100% compared with 2019. That’s extreme by any standard, but across the board, it has been a huge year for companies that are either completely or substantially grocery oriented. According to Brookings, profit at Albertson’s (which owns Vons in Southern California) was up 153% through just two quarters, while retail giants Walmart (up 45%) and Amazon (up 70%) have used their extensive grocery offerings to help substantially boost sales and profits.

The idea of hazard pay for grocery workers — companies called it “hero pay” at one point — essentially came and went. While an hourly bump was common among retail giants and local grocers early in the pandemic, those raises went away months ago, and only a few companies have done much to either protect workers or compensate them for their risk as it has grown and multiplied.

Brookings put Best Buy, Target and Home Depot in its “leaders” category for their continued support of front-line workers in the form of bonus pay and some permanent wage increases, with Target notable for its growing share of the grocery market. The same analysis dinged Amazon and Walmart as among the “least generous” of the behemoths, noting that Amazon, which owns Whole Foods, “could have quadrupled the hazard pay they gave their frontline workers and still earned more profit than the previous year.” Kroger fell into the “laggards” category, in part because it has been six months since its workers received any hazard pay.

Retailers aren’t often shamed into paying employees more, of course, which explains why Long Beach and Los Angeles leaders felt compelled to act. But with cases of COVID-19 on the rise among grocery workers, “Our members are scared,” Priscilla McDermot, a spokeswoman for the Long Beach division of the United Food and Commercial Workers union, told the Los Angeles Times. (Disclosure: The union is a financial contributor to Capital & Main.)

“I am stressed out, physically and mentally drained,” grocery worker Elizabeth Leon said during the Long Beach City Council meeting at which the ordinance was discussed. “I go to work every day with the question in my mind, ‘Is today the day that I get infected with COVID? Is today the day that I give it to my kids?'”

From nearly the start of the pandemic, grocery employees — and many other front-line workers — have shared stories of customers who refused to mask up or keep a safe distance while shopping. “We don’t really have any authority to tell them what to do,” a Northern California grocery worker told Capital & Main. “They (store owners) don’t want to scare off business. So we just try to stay as safe as we can.”

The workers are doing so for a wage that has increased in 2020 at a mere fraction of the soaring rate of profitability for their parent companies, and with “hero pay” that long ago vanished as a concept. Only at the point of a local ordinance is such pay likely to return.

Copyright 2020 Capital & Main

How to help dogs and cats manage separation anxiety when their humans return to work

When one of my co-workers found out about a tiny, orphaned kitten that needed a home a few months ago, he didn’t hesitate to adopt it. He says his new companion helped make the months of COVID-19 isolation at home much less stressful.

He is not alone. Animal shelters and breeders across the country have reported record numbers of dog and cat adoptions in recent months.

But after my co-worker returned to work, he says his adorable kitten started urinating on the kitchen counter while he was away.

Another friend is worried about how her dog will react when she returns to the office. Her big, goofy Labrador retriever follows her everywhere, even to the bathroom. When she leaves to run a quick errand, the dog sits by the back door and whines, awaiting her return.

What should these pet owners do?

The problem with sudden changes in routine

A change in routine, such as suddenly being alone for many hours every day, is a major cause of separation anxiety for both dogs and cats.

Separation anxiety is more than a little whimpering when you head out the door. It’s major, unwanted behavior that happens every time you leave or are away.

For dogs and cats, this can mean excessive pacing, barking or howling, whimpering or self-grooming as you get ready to leave. In some cases it can mean urinating or defecating around the house, often in places where scents linger, such as on bedding or rugs, or destroying household items in your absence. Extreme clinginess or neediness is another symptom.

Separation anxiety won’t go away on its own, and it can be difficult to get rid of entirely. But there are ways to manage it. As a clinical veterinarian and professor, I am often asked to help people find ways to ease their pets’ anxiety.

What not to do

First, it’s important to understand that it’s not about you – it’s about your pet. Your dog or cat is not trying to teach you a lesson or get revenge. Animals don’t act out of spite.

Instead, it’s a signal of extreme distress and frustration that should be approached like any other medical ailment. Your pet doesn’t want to experience separation anxiety any more than you want to experience its consequences.

For this reason, punishment is never the answer. For one thing, your pet won’t connect the punishment with something that happened hours – or even a few minutes – earlier. And punishment may only exacerbate your pet’s anxiety and stress.

Similarly, going to the opposite extreme by praising or giving affection when your pet is suffering anxiety also will make the problem worse.

The goal is to create a balanced relationship so your pet tolerates being alone. First, get your pet checked out by a veterinarian to rule out physical conditions, such as a urinary tract infection if your pet urinates in inappropriate places.

Next, make sure your pet gets plenty of exercise and mental stimulation. For dogs, this may mean a long run or brisk walk every day. Getting exercise shortly before you leave the house may put your dog in a more relaxed state while you’re gone. It’s harder to feel stressed when the endorphin levels are elevated. For cats, this could mean a change of environment by being outdoors in a safe, enclosed area such as a “catio.”

Treating separation anxiety with behavior change

Here, we’re talking about your behavior. The goal is to make your absence seem like no big deal. Making a fuss over your pet when you leave or arrive home only makes matters worse. If you treat it like it’s routine, your pet will learn to do the same.

Try to figure out when your pet starts to show signs of anxiety and turn that into a low-key activity. If it’s when you pick up your handbag, for example, practice picking it up and putting it back down several times over a few hours. Similarly, get dressed or put on your shoes earlier than usual but stay home instead of leaving right away. Try starting your car’s engine and then turning it off and walking back inside.

Next, practice short absences. When you’re at home, make it a point to spend some time in another room. In addition, leave the house long enough to run an errand or two, then gradually increase the time that you’re away so that being gone for a full day becomes part of the family routine.

Changing the environment

Boredom makes separation anxiety worse. Providing an activity for your pet while you’re gone, such as a puzzle toy stuffed with treats, or simply hiding treats around the house will make your absence less stressful. Other options for dogs and cats include collars and plug-in devices that release calming pheromones.

To maintain your bond while you’re gone, place a piece of clothing that you have worn recently in a prominent place, such as on your bed or couch, to comfort your pet. Similarly, you can leave the TV or radio on – there are even special programs just for pets – or set up a camera so you can observe and interact with your pet remotely. Some of these come equipped with a laser pointer or treats you can dispense.

Using supplements or medication

In some severe cases, when the animal harms itself or causes property damage, medication or supplements might be necessary. These alter the brain’s neurotransmitters to create a sense of calm.

While some are readily available without a prescription, it’s a good idea to get advice from your veterinarian to determine which are safest and most effective for your pet’s situation. Medication can help reduce the anxiety, making it easier for the pet to learn new coping skills. A behavior modification plan accompanying the use of medication can help manage this problem.

Separation anxiety is difficult for both you and your pet. But a few simple changes can make a huge difference as life returns to some semblance of normal.

Lori M Teller, Clinical Associate Professor, Veterinary Telehealth, Texas A&M University

This article is republished from The Conversation under a Creative Commons license.

River dredging near Chernobyl could send radioactive waste into water table, scientists warn

In 1986, a reactor accident at the Chernobyl Nuclear Power Plant in Ukraine led to an uncontrolled nuclear chain reaction that is still considered to be the worst nuclear disaster in history. The fallout from the Chernobyl explosion has made hundreds of square miles around the now-uninhabited town a veritable dead zone, void of humans. 

Now, a Ukrainian dredging company, Sobi, is doing construction work in the Chernobyl area that some experts warn could cause more people to get sick and spread radioactive waste.

Specifically, Sobi has been dredging the Pripyat, a river that runs past the Chernobyl reactor, in order to create an inland shipping route, according to The Guardian. Groups that attempt to protect the public from nuclear radiation, such as the International Atomic Energy Agency, have warned that the dredging could cause radioactive sludge from the 1986 disaster to leach into the drinking water consumed by 8 million Ukrainians. Other NGOs, including the World Wildlife Fund and BirdLife, have accused the Ukrainian government of breaking the law by allowing the dredging despite not performing an environmental impact statement, which is mandated by Ukrainian regulations.

Despite these concerns, Sobi has continued with its work since July.

“The fact they want to build a dam and have boats going just by the bottom of the Chernobyl reactor – for me this is unbelievable,” Dr David Boilley, a nuclear physicist and chairman of a French NGO that monitors radioactive pollution, told The Guardian. “This is the most contaminated part of the exclusion zone.” A Sobi manager told The Guardian that “analysis showed that the work can be done safely.”

The waterway in question would stretch from the Polish city of Gdańsk to the Ukrainian city of Kherson and would have roughly 25 times the length of the Panama Canal, according to ZME Science. One organization, Save Polesia, argues that the Polesia natural region would experience landscape damage and dried up rivers if the dredging continues as planned. They also expressed concern about its impact on wildlife and that local communities which depend on “Europe’s Amazon” would likewise suffer.

The area around Chernobyl has already suffered environmentally in recent years. In April 2020 a series of wildfires broke out in the Chernobyl Exclusion Zone, stirring up radiation and increasing air pollution in the capital city of Kyiv until it became among the worst in the world. Although wildfires are a common occurrence in the woods from that region, the April wildfires were unusually large, raising concerns that they could spread radiation through the wind. Later in April, however, the International Atomic Energy Agency said that radiation from the fires presented “no risk to human health.”

Paradoxically, wildlife has flourished in the Chernobyl Exclusion Zone since humans vacated the region after the disaster. Many endangered and exotic animals, including lynx and wolves, now take residence in the radioactive forest around Pripyat. Some scientists speculate that this may be because humans actually have a more detrimental effect on wildlife numbers than high radiation levels.

Best of 2020: Philadelphia’s deadly MOVE bombing and me

On May 10, 2020, former Philadelphia Mayor Wilson Goode made a formal apology, in the form of an op-ed in The Guardian, for an atrocity that happened on his watch. It had been almost 35 years to the day since Philadelphia police flew a helicopter over the headquarters of MOVE, a revolutionary civil liberties organization, and dropped a bomb on the roof of the building. The bomb sparked a fire that would kill 11 people inside, including five children who were under the age of 15. These people were my family.

I was six years old when the bomb was dropped. From more than four miles away at my Grandmother’s house, I could see the thick black cloud in the air. I remember playing outside when a neighborhood kid told me, “They dropped a bomb on MOVE.” When I said, “No they didn’t,” he pointed to the sky to show me billowing smoke. I ran back in the house to find my grandmother, my aunt and other adults watching a raging fire on the television, with a woman screaming uncontrollably. When I said that looked like our home and our family, my aunt said, “It is.” 

Fear and wonder bounced around my mind like ping pong balls. Who was in the house? Was it the children I knew? Would they survive the blaze? The trauma left me numb and, for decades, fearful of the sound or sight of helicopters.

The MOVE Organization surfaced in the early 1970s, lead by an uneducated, poor, yet wise and strategic-minded Black man named John Africa. John Africa created the organization to fight against the systemic oppression of people. The group was much like many other radical Black groups opposed to societal ills, but unlike those other groups, MOVE believed that people will never achieve true freedom for oppressed people if the slave mentality was allowed to exist. The same system that enslaved African people is the very same system that enslaves animals in zoos and circuses. The same is true for the environment. Bartering the water for money, sacrificing the health of people for environmentally pollutant industries. For our stance against the entire re-formed world system we became targets of the establishments most notorious gang, the police department — much like the Black Panthers, Earth First and The Animal Liberation Front.

To this day, no city official—not the mayor, not the police commissioner, not any one of the officers involved—has been charged or punished for dropping a bomb on their own citizens. Not even the fire commissioner or the police commissioner who, together, deliberately let the fire burn. Instead, the lone adult survivor of the bombing, Ramona Africa, was the only person to be punished for the incident. She served seven years in prison for “riot.”

But Goode, the mayor who let this happen in his city, apologized in his Guardian op-ed. That’s supposed to be a good thing, right? He apologized and urged other officials and even the city itself to apologize as well, saying, “it would be helpful for the healing of all involved.” But I know for a fact that these apologies are not for my healing, or for my family’s healing.

Apologies are not for the victims. They are to ease the minds of the offenders. Goode has apologized for the bombing of MOVE no less than four times, but even his most recent apology served mostly to deflect the very blame he was claiming to accept. He wrote: “I am ultimately responsible for those I appointed…I apologize for their reckless actions that brought about this horrific outcome, even though I knew nothing about their specific plan of action.”

This is why apologies without action are meaningless—they are not catalysts of change, but rather a means of placating the public so that those in power can continue carrying on as they always have. Far from ever facing punishment for the bombing of my family, Goode actually had a Philadelphia street named after him in 2018. Public apologies allow officials like Goode to give the appearance of taking responsibility without facing any real punishment or repercussions. It is all part of a carefully constructed machine, the same machine that allows a police chief to apologize away the shooting of a young unarmed Black man without making any changes to his department, or for the officer who shot that young man to go on “administrative leave” rather than being fired or arrested.

I know how this machine works from first-hand experience. I was born in a prison cell after my mother and father were wrongfully convicted as a result of an earlier attack on MOVE, committed by Goode’s predecessor, Philadelphia mayor Frank Rizzo.

Rizzo is most known for his brutal treatment of blacks in the city. As police commissioner, Rizzo was accused of ordering motorcycle cops to intentionally run over Black protestors and telling his officers to “get their black asses.” It was Rizzo’s cops who mercilessly beat MOVE member Rhonda Africa, who at the time was 8 months pregnant and days later bore her stillborn baby, only to discover his tiny body covered in black and blue bruises. As mayor, Rizzo faced multiple lawsuits for discriminatory practices in hiring for the police and fire departments. He openly employed and supported anyone that had the same type of hate for Black people as he did, and infamously told supporters to “vote white.” From cops to firemen, judges to politicians, district attorneys to public defenders, Rizzo had an assembly line of injustice in place to send as many Black people to prison as he could. The brutality of Rizzo and his police is best documented in a Pulitzer-Prize award winning Philadelphia Inquirer series by William K. Marimow and Jon Neuman, if you want to read that full story. 

Rizzo’s most famous attack, the event that would unjustly put my parents behind bars for more than 40 years, came against The MOVE Organization in 1978. In the wee hours of the morning on August 8, 1978, hundreds of heavily armed Philadelphia police and firemen came out to MOVE’s home and headquarters. Police cleared the streets of cars and residents in order to assume a combat formation in the residential neighborhood of Powelton Village. Then Police commissioner Joseph O’Neill ordered MOVE members to surrender over a loudspeaker: “Attention MOVE, this is America.”

When MOVE refused to come out of the house, or “barricaded themselves inside” according to some reports, a violent siege began. A bulldozer was used to knock down MOVE’s fence, a hydraulic cherry picker knocked out the home’s windows. Firefighters and police entered the residence and found all MOVE members in the basement. Firefighters cut a hole in the floor to gain optimal positioning for their water cannons that were used to blast MOVE members who were trapped in the cellar. Tear gas, smoke bombs and hundreds of rounds of ammunition from police rained down on MOVE members as they shielded their babies and each other. My parents were in that basement—my mom was eight months pregnant with me and holding my 2-year-old sister.

The suffocating effects of the tear gas and smoke forced MOVE to flee the home. Police awaiting their exit violently snatched babies from the women’s arms and dangled them above the ground like rag dolls. With an already battered body and multiple bullet wounds, my uncle Chuck Africa got out of the building, only to be beaten to the ground by waiting police officers. On the other side of the house, separated from the other MOVE members, Delbert Africa was ordered at gunpoint by police to exit the building from a secluded side window. Although he had already been shot and was exiting the basement bare chested with his hands up, officers still smashed Delbert over the head with a steal helmet and broke his jaw with a rifle butt before arresting him. 

Rizzo’s justification for attacking our home? Serving an eviction notice for the property having “housing code violations.” Since when has it been okay to answer a housing code violation with a military siege?

During the gunfire and confusion of the siege, a police officer was shot (by a single, fatal bullet) and nine members of MOVE, including my parents, my uncle Chuck, and Delbert, were charged with the murder. How nine people can shoot one officer with one bullet, I cannot tell you. The trial judge even admitted during the trial that he didn’t know who actually killed the officer, but that did not keep then District Attorney Ed Rendell from pushing for the maximum sentence. My parents and the rest of the MOVE 9 were sentenced to 100 years each in prison.

Despite all the subsequent public apologies for the obvious mishandling of this case, including apologies from Ed Rendell himself, it would still take 40 years before I was able to get my parents released from prison. It was not until February of this year that my uncle Chuck, the last of the MOVE 9 to still be incarcerated, was finally released. By that time, two of the MOVE 9 had already died in prison.

Back in the 1980s, by the time election season rolled around, the Black community was desperate for a change. So when there was a chance to finally vote out Rizzo, and a Black candidate by the name of Wilson Goode was running, Black voters flocked to give Goode their support. Goode promised that, if elected, he would look into the case of the imprisoned MOVE members and even went so far as to say that he believed they were innocent. This was almost 40 years ago.

Between the MOVE 9, Mumia Abu-Jamal (a young journalist who was also arrested on blatantly false charges) and a number of other high-profile injustices at the time, protests and demands for justice were reaching a fever pitch. The pressure from MOVE and the community was so intense that city officials dubbed it “rioting,” an arrestable offense, in order to put an end to it. This was the decision that would lead to the 1985 bombing.

When heavily militarized police came to the row house on Osage Avenue on May 13, 1985, under the guise of serving arrest warrants on charges of “terroristic threats,” “riot,” and “disorderly conduct,” a series of fatal decisions would show, with terrifying clarity, just how deeply embedded racism and hate were in the Philadelphia fire department, police department, and the court system.

When MOVE members found themselves once again confronted with fabricated charges and a militarized police siege at their door, they refused to leave the house, and police, seeing “no other way” to get in or force them out, then flew a helicopter over the house and dropped a bundle of C4 on the roof of the building. When the bomb sparked a roaring inferno, police commissioner Gregore Sambor told the firemen on the scene to stand down, reportedly telling them to “let the fire burn.” When the 13 people in the house tried to escape the inferno, they were met with police gunfire, forcing them back into the blaze. When the fire consumed 61 homes in the largely Black neighborhood before it was finally extinguished, it would take years for the city to make what were ultimately pretty shoddy repairs. The District Attorney who ensured that the bombing’s lone adult survivor, Ramona Africa, was sentenced to 7 years for “riot,” was, again, none other than Ed Rendell.

But now, 35 years after the bombing of an American residential home and 42 years after the wrongful conviction of nine innocent people resulting in 100-year prison sentences each, Goode and Rendell are making apologies. Their apologies have been published in local Philadelphia newspapers and in The Guardian. Goode apologized for his role in the bombing, saying that he would now support MOVE in their mission for the rest of his life, just like he said during his election campaign, years before the bombing. Yes, Goode eventually wrote letters of support for releasing the MOVE 9, but that was not until 2018, after my mother had already been released and we were receiving media attention. Rendell was quoted recently saying he regretted pushing for so much time to be served in prison for the MOVE 9, but he still has not pushed for commuting my parents’ parole, which they are still serving. 

What can apologies do for the two members of MOVE who died in prison after serving 20 years and 37 years each? What can apologies do for the children who died in the bombing, or for their parents who were in prison on false charges while their children burned? While an apology may seem noble to some, it’s hard to accept an apology when you’re watching your parents grow old in prison. When my parents went to prison, my oldest sister was five years old. By the time my parents came home, my sister was a grandparent. All of these apologies make it sound like this was some kind of mistake, but it was deliberate. Every step of the way, actions were taken to shore up a system designed not just to oppress Black people, but to kill us. How can I accept an apology from the people who deliberately killed my family? How can an apology, empty words, be all there is?

With the recent uprisings around the world calling for justice for George Floyd, Breonna Taylor, Rayshard Brooks, and too many others to name on one page, we have seen some cops joining the protesters, kneeling in solidarity, making statements against police brutality. And this is a positive step, but we have to move past this symbolism and into action, reform. What will this symbolism do to stop the brutality if the system itself has been built, in too many layers to count, to subjugate the people and protect the enforcers?

In Buffalo, NY, for example, the world saw 75-year-old white protester Martin Gugino shoved to the ground by police. Those same police, just 24 hours earlier, had been kneeling with protesters. The shove knocked Gugino to the ground causing him to hit his head and crack his skull. The impact of the fall was so severe that the hit caused blood to leak from his ears. Witnessing the fall, other cops tried to aid Gugino and they too were shoved away from providing aid by their fellow officers. The Buffalo Police Department later issued an apology for the offense, which no one complained about, but when the two officers involved in the shove were actually arrested for the assault, 57 other police officers resigned from the unit “in disgust because of the treatment of two of their members, who were simply executing orders.”

This system, a system in which officers feel more empowered to take action for the violent offenders within their ranks than they do for an elderly man who is bleeding out in front of them on the concrete, this is the system we must fight to change. Apologies and shows of symbolic solidarity are not enough to fix this system on their own. They are only the pleasantries at the beginning of what needs to be a very tough and action-oriented national conversation.

On June 3, 2020, the city of Philadelphia finally removed Frank Rizzo’s statue from where it stood across from City Hall, but the echoes of his brutal policy decisions are still shaping our police force and our government. There is still a street named after Wilson Goode.

Is it possible for people to actually feel sorry for their roles in an atrocity, and at the same time do nothing for the people who are affected by it? Can you feel sorry about a heinous crime while also defending the people who committed it? If Philadelphia officials can recognize that Rizzo was a racist and remove his statue, why force the victims of his racism to stay in prison? If Ed Rendell is so sorry for my parents spending so many years in prison, why is he not pushing to commute their 60 years of parole? To visit a dying brother one town over, they need approval by a parole officer, to visit a daughter who just came out of surgery is denied due to area restrictions.

Apologies, statue removals, repainting the streets … these are forced responses due to pressure from the public, for fear of the people’s uprising. But removing a statue of one brutal, white fascist does not change the racist treatment of Black people in America. Renaming a street to Black Lives Matter will not stop police from kneeling on our necks in other streets. A few police officers symbolically kneeling with protesters will not fix a nation-wide system that allows for the brutal attacking of Black people without fear of repercussions. It is a system that must be dismantled with as much intention and effort as it took to build it. It is a system built around decades of racism and hatred, with a determination to institutionalize that hatred, and if you are not willing to do the hard work of actual reform, you will not be able to fix that with any number of apologies.

Written with Salon’s Editor at Large D. Watkins, New York Times bestselling author of “The Cook Up,” “The Beast Side” and “We Speak for Ourselves.” 

How Stephen Colbert’s defiant honesty helped me navigate the madness of 2020

This year has been a bit of a nightmare. A surprisingly unimaginative nightmare, that, as we near the end, seems to have repeated itself. Over and over. 

And over. 

And over again.

COVID restrictions have been enforced, relaxed, then reinforced, Trump threatened a coup in a number of new, upsetting ways, and Joe Biden had to keep winning the election not just once, but again and again. . . Add on top of this my endless — and perhaps more trivial — battle to extricate myself from my phone and laptop and you may begin to wonder: Haven’t we been here before? Is there even a lesson to any of this madness?

Relentlessly spinning in this revolving year of depressing callbacks and recurring bits, I attempted to steady myself by finding someone — anyone — who seemed to have a clue as to what was going on. But rather than cling to a more natural choice, like, say, a criminal narcissist, strongman politician, or “real lawyer,” I turned to the uncertain guidance of a man who seemed to have dialed in on the depressing, comedic rhythms of the year in his own way: Stephen Colbert.

At the beginning of the COVID days in March or April or so, Colbert changed the name of his show from “The Late Show” to “A Late Show,” appearing from his basement noticeably just as disheveled and confused as many of us were at the time. I was a fresh viewer of the show then, but the name change was noticeable and instantly grabbed my attention. There was a simple comic honesty in the humble move that I think is hard to overestimate, especially when much of the entertainment media at that time was so curated, projecting a tone deaf, and at times nauseating sense of self-importance.

Instead of taking this route, Stephen let us into the operation of the show through the many asides to his wife and, eventually when he switched locations to an office above the Ed Sullivan Theater, small production crew about the unexpected length of a certain intro, a slip-up in his speaking, his untamed hair (which, really isn’t that long by most standards other than his own), or the funniness/unfunniness of a bit. And while he did occasionally comment on his disappointment about not having an audience, he didn’t seem anxious to get back in front of a camera like many of his peers. Rather, he seemed careful to balance the dramatic and comedic in what has been an unquestionably devastating year.

But he seems to have managed it extremely well in the end, empathizing with and mirroring the swinging emotions of an invisible audience. 

Or, at the very least, one screen-addicted, anxious, invisible audience member who was spinning around a lot for some reason. 

Colbert introduced several new, 2020-specific segments including, the collection of leftover rejected monologue jokes that make up “Quarantinewhile,” coverage of Trump’s latest sad coup attempt in “The Road from the White House,” and of course, the ever-present, inescapable COVID-focused “Catch a Third Wave: Endless Bummer.” There was for a brief, shimmering moment, a relief from our persistent troubles when the monolith had been found in Utah and spurred the monolith-focused “Mono-logue,” but that ended quite dramatically (and bizarrely) when the monolith was violently torn down, replaced with a wooden cross, and berated by a group of teenagers.

Yeah, it was weird.

And, of course, these segments were filled with enjoyable one-liners, and memorable introductions to some of our favorite politicians — “Former New Jersey Governor and depressed Fred Flintstone, Chris Christie”; “Attorney General and Jackass O’Lantern, Bill Barr”; “Personal attorney and Bilbo possessed by the One Ring, Rudy Giuliani”. And Colbert had to challenge Trump throughout the year, which he did. But the way he did so became increasingly interesting as the year went on.

He called Trump out for his recklessness in dealing with the virus, particularly his upsetting statements after he had been treated at Walter Reed. He talked about how the president’s refusal to accept the election results wouldn’t do much more to tarnish his already miserable legacy. And when Trump dismissed the powerful efforts of the Black Lives Matter movement in the wake of George Floyd’s murder this summer, asserting that a higher number of white people get killed by the police, Colbert finally figured out Trump’s stance on the issue: “No Lives Matter”

Eventually Colbert resorted to censoring Trump’s name in his episodes. He referred to him only by his title or “the current administration,” and if a headline included Trump by name, the show would refer to him as “T****”. 

Colbert still commented on the president’s latest temper tantrum, and he continued to put on his Trump impression nightly, but there was still something significant in denying Trump his own name. It could have been, at the very least, another symbolic denunciation of the president. Or, perhaps it was a nod to Stephen’s infatuation with fantasy, an attempt at getting closer to Trump’s “true name,” one that more closely reflects the president’s actual nature. That, in fact, he has nothing at his core, he’s nameless — just a title and a collection of loud noises, void of any depth himself. 

It wouldn’t be completely out of character for the host. 

Because there were times of real depth on the show, some even manifesting themselves in the same, fantastic way. Just before the election, Jon Stewart’s appearances seemed to elicit that kind of response, getting Colbert to quote the Tolkein universe to comfort us in trying times. 

It’d be hard to go the entire year without confronting the actual tragedy and emotional strain of the circumstances. Various guests and regular check-ins with bandleader Jon Batiste often revealed these types of more vulnerable and unfiltered musings. Jon Stewart’s other appearance in the show this summer featured his own powerful and moving pitch for Joe Biden. Dolly Parton came on in a particularly memorable moment, just to sing some songs her mother used to sing with her, and she drove the host himself to tears. Stephen also aired a previously unbroadcasted duet circa 2016 with the late John Prine, which he had presciently introduced at the time, saying it would go straight to the internet “unless, you know, something terrible happens, and we have to cheer up the world on the TV show.” And he was right — we needed some cheering up.

It was these moments of honest discovery and emotional vulnerability, coupled with the comedy’s consistent defiance of hopelessness, laziness, and bad leadership, that helped me navigate through the year. It helped me find the comedic in the tragic and confirmed that what I had been hearing or seeing or experiencing every day was far from normal, which was no easy task given the brutal efforts from above to gaslight the entire nation on almost every major issue of the day.

Honesty, transparency, and modesty could still prevail in 2020. Sure, it would be an uphill battle. It always seems to be for those qualities. They’re not exactly the dream combo that would declare victory before all the votes have been counted, even when they’re up by a lot at like, midnight, and then weird stuff starts to happen around 2:00 a.m. But the host of “A Late Show” modeled to me how it could be done.

So, much like Colbert this year, I found comfort when I could, accepted vulnerability when it came, and did terrible impressions while yelling at animations that popped up on my computer pretty much every day.

Trump’s Operation Warp Speed already admits it won’t hit vaccination goals

The Trump administration officials heading up Operation Warp Speed acknowledged that the coronavirus vaccine rollout has been slower than expected and that it was “unlikely” to meet its goal of 20 million vaccinations by the end of the month.

The process has been “slower than we thought it would be,” Dr. Moncef Slaoui, who is heading up the administration’s efforts to speed up vaccine production and distribution, told reporters during a press conference last week, adding that the goal of 20 million two-dose vaccinations is “unlikely to be met.”

The Trump administration has repeatedly said that it aimed to vaccinate 20 million Americans by the end of the year. About 2 million people have been vaccinated through December 28, according to the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, though administration officials say there is a lag in the data.

“By the end of December, we expect to have about 40 million doses of the [Pfizer and Moderna] vaccines available for distribution,” Health and Human Services Secretary Alex Azar said last month. “Enough to vaccinate 20 million of our most vulnerable Americans.”

Slaoui told reporters earlier this month that the Trump administration’s efforts to bolster vaccine production “allow us to feel confident that we will be able to distribute enough vaccine to immunize 20 million people in the US in December, that’s 40 million doses.”

Slaoui admitted last week that the process of getting “shots in arms” has been slower than expected and “the commitment that we can make is to make vaccine doses available.”

But Gen. Gustave Perna, the chief operating officer of Operation Warp Speed, said during a press conference last week that only half of the promised doses would actually be distributed to states by January.

“We have allocated 15.5 million doses of vaccine and we are on track to allocate another 4.5 to 5 million next week, which will bring us to 20 million doses of vaccine allocated to America before the end of the year,” he said. “We’ll finish those deliveries in the first week of January.”

Perna, who is charged with overseeing the logistics of the vaccine rollout, said that the government had done a “good job so far” of distributing the Pfizer and Moderna vaccines but admitted that there have already been problems.

“We have had a handful of packages that we tried to deliver that were not destined for the right place, but we captured them before they were dropped off and we rerouted them to the right place,” he said. “And we had a couple of … shipments that did not go out on the right day.”

Perna previously said that there were also temperature issues with thousands of doses of Pfizer’s vaccine, which has to be stored at around minus 70 degrees Celsius.

State officials around the country have also complained that their vaccine allocations had been abruptly slashed earlier this month. Pfizer said it had millions of doses sitting in warehouses just waiting for delivery instructions.

Perna told reporters that he takes “personal responsibility for the miscommunication” with state governments.

“There is a delay between what is available and what is releasable,” he said, “because we’re talking about hundreds and thousands and millions of doses that we want to make sure are right.”

“We all made the error or mistake of assuming that vaccine that’s actually produced and being released is already available for shipment, when, in fact, there is a two-days lag between the time at which we generate a lot of data that shows this vaccine vial is actually safe and right and the time we can ship it,” Slaoui later told CNN.

“The FDA has to receive certain documentation,” he added. “And that’s really where that lag period has resulted in differences in between what was in the plan and what was actually done. I think we have addressed that.”

Stephen Hanh, the head of the Food and Drug Administration, said that Pfizer and Moderna are required to “submit Certificates of Analysis for each lot at least 48 hrs prior to vaccine distribution” but they “can distribute without waiting for the FDA’s ok.”

State officials have also warned that Trump’s delay of the coronavirus relief bill, which he finally signed on Sunday, also prevented billions in funds for vaccine distribution from being allocated.

“Every minute of delay impacts how many people can get the vaccine and when,” Adriane Casalotti of the National Association of County and City Health Officials told CNBC.

Pfizer also said that the Trump administration turned down the chance to buy an additional 100 million doses for next spring, though the company later said it reached a deal that would require the administration to invoke the Defense Production Act to boost the company’s manufacturing capacity after months of resistance from the White House. Using the Defense Production Act, a wartime law that allows the president to require companies to aid with production necessary for national security, will allow Pfizer to secure enough raw materials to produce up to 100 million more doses by July, the company said. Pfizer previously slashed its estimated production by the end of the year in half due to raw material shortages.

President-elect Joe Biden will invoke the Defense Production Act to “make sure the personal protective equipment, the test capacity and the raw materials for the vaccines are produced in adequate supply,” Dr. Celine Gounder, a member of Biden’s coronavirus advisory board, told CNBC on Monday.

Sen. Chris Murphy, D-Conn., who sits on the Senate committee that oversees public health, said that he and other Democrats have tried to “press the Trump administration to fully invoke the DPA” for nine months.

“They refused, likely to protect private industry profits,” he tweeted. “There is so much low hanging fruit like this to make our COVID response better.”

Reflections on Vietnam and Iraq

In choosing a title for his final, posthumously published book, the prominent public intellectual Tony Judt turned to a poem by Oliver Goldsmith, The Deserted Villagepublished in 1770. Judt found his book’s title in the first words of this couplet:

Ill fares the land, to hastening ills a prey
Where wealth accumulates, and men decay

A poignant sentiment but let me acknowledge that I’m not a big Goldsmith fan. My own preferences in verse run more toward Merle Haggard, whose country music hits include the following lyric from his 1982 song “Are the Good Times Really Over?”:

Is the best of the free life behind us now
And are the good times really over for good?

I wonder, though: Is it possible that the insights of an eighteenth-century Anglo-Irish novelist-poet and a twentieth-century American singer-songwriter, each reflecting on a common theme of decadence and each served up with a dollop of nostalgia, just might intersect?

Allow me to try the reader’s patience with a bit more of Goldsmith:

O luxury! thou curst by Heaven’s decree,
How ill exchanged are things like these for thee!
How do thy potions, with insidious joy,
Diffuse their pleasures only to destroy!
Kingdoms, by thee, to sickly greatness grown,
Boast of a florid vigour not their own;
At every draught more large and large they grow
A bloated mass of rank unwieldy woe.
Down, down they sink, and spread a ruin round.

Powerful stuff, but here’s Haggard making a similar point without frills:

I wish a buck was still silver
It was back when the country was strong
Back before Elvis
Before the Vietnam War came along…
Are we rolling down hill
Like a snowball headed for Hell?
With no kind of chance
For the Flag or the Liberty Bell

Let me concede from the outset that these laments emerge directly from the heart of the patriarchy. In our present moment, some will discount the complaints of Messrs. Goldsmith and Haggard as not to be taken seriously. As the second decade of the twenty-first century draws to a close, bellyaching white guys tend not to command a lot of sympathy.

Still, with this abysmal year finally ending, the melancholy notes sounded by Goldsmith and Haggard strike me as apt. The Age of Biden — or given our preference for faux intimacy, the Age of Joe and Kamala — beckons. Yet I’m anything but certain that 2021 will inaugurate a happier time.

That said, for those who believe history has its own rhymes and rhythms, the election of Biden and Harris just might herald a turning point of sorts. After all, for more than a century now, presidential elections occurring in even numbered years ending in zero have resulted in big changes.

Don’t take my word for it. Check the record.

Thanks to the assassin who prematurely terminated William McKinley’s presidency, the election of 1900 inaugurated the reformist Progressive Era. Two decades later, Americans yearning for a return to “normalcy” voted for Warren G. Harding. Instead of normalcy, they got the splashy upheaval of the Twenties and the ensuing Great Depression.

Once the balloting in 1940 handed Franklin Roosevelt an unprecedented third term, hopes entertained by some Americans of staying out of World War II were doomed. Global war vaulted the United States to a position of global primacy — and soon gave rise to new challenges. John F. Kennedy’s election in 1960 empowered a generation “born in this century, tempered by war, disciplined by a hard and bitter peace” to address those challenges. Unanticipated complications ensued, as they did again in 1980 and 2000, the former initiating the Reagan Revolution, the latter election of George W. Bush setting the stage for the Global War on Terror and, by extension, Donald Trump.

The challenges awaiting Biden and Harris arguably outweigh those that confronted any of those past administrations, Roosevelt’s excepted. In a recent New York Times column, the man who lost that disputed 2000 election, Al Gore, inventoried the most pressing problems that Biden’s team will confront. In addition to the coronavirus pandemic, they include:

“40 years of economic stagnation for middle-income families; hyper-inequality of incomes and wealth, with high levels of poverty; horrific structural racism; toxic partisanship; the impending collapse of nuclear arms control agreements; an epistemological crisis undermining the authority of knowledge; recklessly unprincipled behavior by social media companies; and, most dangerous of all, the climate crisis.”

That makes for quite a daunting catalog. Yet note this one striking omission: Gore makes no mention of America’s seemingly never-ending penchant for war and military adventurism.

Before the Vietnam War came along

Surely, though, war has contributed in no small way to “the bloated mass of rank unwieldy woe” besetting our nation today. And were Merle Haggard to update “Are the Good Times Really Over?” he would doubtless include the 2003 invasion and occupation of Iraq alongside Vietnam as prominent among the factors that have sent this country caroming downward.

In the evening of my life, as I reflect on the events of our time that ended up mattering most, the wars in Vietnam and Iraq top my list. Together, they define the poles around which much of my professional life has revolved, whether as a soldier, teacher, or writer. It would be fair to say that I’m haunted by those two conflicts.

I could write pages and pages on how Vietnam and Iraq differ from each other, beginning with the fact that they are separated in time by nearly a half-century. Locale, the contours of the battlefields, the character of combat, the casualties inflicted and sustained, the sheer quantity of ordnance expended — when it comes to such measures and others, Vietnam and Iraq differ greatly. Yet while those differences are worth noting, it’s the unappreciated similarities between them that are truly instructive.

Seven such similarities stand out:

First, Vietnam and Iraq were both avoidable: For the United States, they were wars of choice. No one pushed us. We dove in headfirst.

Second, both turned out to be superfluous, undertaken in response to threats — monolithic Communism and Iraqi weapons of mass destruction — that were figments of fevered imaginations. In both cases, cynicism and moral cowardice played a role in paving the way toward war. Dissenting voices were ignored.

Third, both conflicts proved to be costly distractions. Each devoured on a prodigious scale resources that might have been used so much more productively elsewhere. Each diverted attention from matters of far more immediate importance to Americans. Each, in other words, triggered a massive hemorrhage of bloodtreasure, and influence to no purpose whatsoever.

Fourth, in each instance, political leaders in Washington and senior commanders in the field collaborated in committing grievous blunders. War is complicated. All wars see their share of mistakes and misjudgments. But those two featured a level of incompetence unmatched since Custer’s Last Stand.

Fifth, thanks to that incompetence, both devolved into self-inflicted quagmires. In Washington, in Saigon, and in Baghdad’s “Green Zone,” baffled authorities watched as the control of events slipped from their grasp. Meanwhile, in the field, U.S. troops flailed about for years in futile pursuit of a satisfactory outcome.

Sixth, on the home front, both conflicts left behind a poisonous legacy of unrest, rancor, and bitterness. Members of the Baby Boom generation (to which I belong) have chosen to enshrine Vietnam-era protest as high-minded and admirable. Many Americans then held and still hold a different opinion. As for the Iraq War, it contributed mightily to yawning political cleavages that appear unlikely to heal anytime soon.

And finally, with both political and military elites alike preferring simply to move on, neither war has received a proper accounting. Their place in the larger narrative of American history is still unsettled. This may be the most important similarity of all. Both Vietnam and Iraq remain bizarrely undigested, their true meaning yet to be discerned and acknowledged. Too recent to forget, too confounding to ignore, they remain anomalous.

The American wars in Vietnam and Iraq are contradictions that await resolution.

Jaw, jaw, not war, war

For that very reason, when politicians (including Joe Biden) talk about war, they talk about others, their all-time favorite being the one fought against Nazi Germany between December 1941 and May 1945. There — and not in Vietnam or Iraq — do members of the establishment find the lessons that they have enshrined as permanently relevant.

The first American war against Germany in 1917-1918 doesn’t carry much weight at all. Just a couple of years ago, its centennial came and went virtually unnoticed. Likewise, the war against Japan that occurred in tandem with the second war against Germany seldom gets much attention either. We “remember Pearl Harbor” and that’s about it.

The war against the Nazis, however, is a gift that never stops giving. It yields a great bounty of lessons: never appease; never hesitate to call evil by its name; never back down; and never flinch from the challenges of leadership, which necessarily implies a willingness to use force. And in moments of distress, channel your inner Winston Churchill circa 1940: “Never surrender!

The problem with clinging to such ostensibly canonical lessons today is that we are no longer the nation that defeated Nazi Germany. The United States was establishing itself as the dominant industrial power on the planet then, while Washington still had the capacity to mobilize the American people pursuant to what was described at the time as a “Great Crusade.” A taken-for-granted tradition of white supremacy underwrote a cultural unity that lent more than a modicum of substance to the claims of e pluribus unum. None of this remains faintly relevant today.

When it comes to present-day policy, the relevant fact is that we are the nation that failed in both Vietnam and Iraq. Along the way, we lost our status as the planet’s dominant industrial power. Meanwhile, Washington forfeited its authority to mobilize the American people for war. More recently, cleavages stemming from class, race, religion, gender, and ethnicity, split the country into antagonistic factions. Al Gore was merely premature when, as vice president, he famously mistranslated the nation’s motto as “out of one, many.”

Now, if you prioritize Vietnam and Iraq over the war against Nazi Germany, you’ll come face-to-face with a very different set of lessons. Here are four that the Biden administration might do well to contemplate.

First, situating the United States within a larger entity called the West — a notion dating from the time when America and Great Britain (with plentiful help from the Soviet Union) rallied to defeat Hitler — no longer works. The West doesn’t exist. These days when the United States opts for war, it must expect to fight alone or with only nominal allied assistance. This was true in Vietnam and again in Iraq. No grand coalition will form.

Second, however gussied up or camouflaged, imperialism no longer retains the slightest legitimacy. Peoples once classified as inferior, usually on the basis of skin color, no longer tolerate outsiders telling them how to govern themselves. Few Americans are willing to acknowledge the imperial motives that have long shaped this country’s global policies. The Vietnamese and Iraqis opposing the U.S. military presence in their midst entertained few doubts on that score; hence, the fierceness with which they defended their right to self-determination.

Third, if the United States remains intent on exporting its version of freedom and democracy, it will have to devise far less coercive ways of doing so. Rather than using armed force to alter the political landscape in faraway places, elites should acknowledge the limited utility of military power. Calling on the troops to defend, deter, and contain works far better than charging them to invade, occupy, and transform.

Fourth, dumb wars deplete. Vietnam and Iraq both inflicted untold damage on the American economy. With the U.S. government currently running an annual deficit of some $3 trillion, we can’t afford to squander any more money on ill-advised military campaigns. A less known quote attributed to Churchill commends itself in our present situation: “Jaw, jaw, jaw is better than war, war, war.”

As it enters the third decade of the twenty-first century, the United States is badly in need of more jaw, jaw and less war, war — more fix, fix, and less fight, fight.

Over to you, Joe

I am not enamored of presidents. I’m even less of a fan of “presidentialism” — the belief, firmly held by American elites, that the fate of the planet turns on what the president of the United States says or does (or doesn’t do). For that reason, I have learned not to expect much of whoever happens to occupy the Oval Office.

In practice, the Most Powerful Man in the World usually turns out to be not all that powerful. Rather than directing History with a capital H, he (not yet she), like the rest of us, is pretty much just along for the ride. In their own ways, Goldsmith and Haggard implicitly endorsed such a fatalistic perspective.

In political circles, a different view tends to prevail. Today, virtually all Democrats and many in the media ascribe to Donald Trump full blame for the mess in which this country finds itself. Yet Americans would do well to temper their expectations of what supplanting Trumpism with Bidenism is likely to produce.

On January 20, 2021, the “torch” to which John F. Kennedy memorably referred in his inaugural address will once again be passed. Let’s hope that, in grasping it, Biden and Harris will heed one of the principal lessons of the Kennedy era: no more Vietnams. To which I would simply add: no more Iraqs (or Afghanistans, or Yemens, or… well, you know the list). Only then might it become possible to undertake the daunting task of repairing our country.

Good luck, Joe. You, too, Kamala. In the coming days, you’re both going to need a truckful of it.

Andrew Bacevich, a TomDispatch regular, is president of the Quincy Institute for Responsible Statecraft. His most recent book is The Age of Illusions: How America Squandered Its Cold War VictoryHis new book After the Apocalypse: America’s Role in a World Transformed will be published in 2021.

Follow TomDispatch on Twitter and join us on Facebook. Check out the newest Dispatch Books, John Feffer’s new dystopian novel (the second in the Splinterlands series) Frostlands, Beverly Gologorsky’s novel Every Body Has a Story, and Tom Engelhardt’s A Nation Unmade by War, as well as Alfred McCoy’s In the Shadows of the American Century: The Rise and Decline of U.S. Global Power and John Dower’s The Violent American Century: War and Terror Since World War II.

Copyright 2020 Andrew Bacevich

To stay on top of important articles like these, sign up to receive the latest updates from TomDispatch.com here.

“Dumbest member of Congress”: Louis Gohmert mocked for filing a lawsuit against Mike Pence

Trump-loving Rep. Louie Gohmert (R-TX) on Monday filed a lawsuit against Vice President Mike Pence in the latest desperate bid to overturn the results of the 2020 presidential election.

Gohmert’s lawsuit against Pence asks a Trump-appointed judge to rule that the vice president is authorized to throw out the already-cast electoral college votes and instead appoint his own slate of pro-Trump electors to give the president a second term.

Legal experts are broadly dismissing the lawsuit, with Georgia State University School of Law professor Anthony Michael Kreis dubbing it “insane.”

Other Twitter users quickly piled on Gohmert to ridicule him — check out some reactions below.

 

Walter Reed doctor ousted after criticizing Trump’s coronavirus parade: “I regret nothing”

An emergency room physician at Walter Reed Medical Center said he has no regrets after being ousted from his position following his public criticism of President Donald Trump’s bizarre joyride while hospitalized with the coronavirus.

Dr. James Phillips, who worked at Walter Reed during Trump’s hospitalization at the medical center in October, slammed the president for driving in a car with Secret Service agents to greet supporters while he was sick.

“Every single person…in the vehicle during that completely unnecessary Presidential ‘drive-by’ just now has to be quarantined for 14 days. They might get sick. They may die. For political theater,” Phillips tweeted in October before removing the post. “Commanded by Trump to put their lives at risk for theater. This is insanity.”

“That Presidential SUV is not only bulletproof, but hermetically sealed against chemical attack,” he added in another tweet. “The risk of COVID19 transmission inside is as high as it gets outside of medical procedures. The irresponsibility is astounding. My thoughts are with the Secret Service forced to play.”

He later upped his criticism in an interview with NBC News, arguing that the president sent a message to “people who are sick that it’s okay to go out.”

“The reality is that this was a dangerous move,” he said. “There is no medical benefit for this to have taken place. It violates CDC guidelines that come from the president’s own administration.”

Phillips, the chief of disaster medicine at George Washington University Hospital, was removed from Walter Reed’s schedule beginning in January earlier this month, according to CBS News.

On Sunday, Phillips seemed to suggest his ouster was politically motivated.

“Today, I worked my final shift at Walter Reed ER,” he tweeted. “I will miss the patients and my military and civilian coworkers – they have been overwhelmingly supportive. I’m honored to have worked there and I look forward to new opportunities. I stand by my words, and I regret nothing.”

Officials at Walter Reed told CBS News that the hospital did not make the decision to remove Phillips from the schedule and said it “provides requirements for contract positions” and “schedules are determined by the contractor.”

Phillips’ contractor, GW Medical Faculty Associates, did not say whether it removed him from the Walter Reed schedule.

“While we cannot comment on the scheduling assignments of our providers, we can confirm that he continues to be employed at the GW Medical Faculty Associates,” Lisa Anderson, a spokesperson for GW School of Medicine, told the outlet, adding that Phillips remains on staff at the university’s DC hospital.

Phillips’ colleagues told CBS they were “surprised” that Walter Reed would remove a disaster medicine expert amid rising coronavirus infections.

Phillips’ removal came about a month after Trump lost the election to President-elect Joe Biden.

Trump defended his joyride, arguing that he wore a mask during the drive and the Secret Service agents were “very heavily protected.”

But the stunt drew heavy criticism from Secret Service agents.

“He’s not even pretending to care now,” one agent told The Washington Post at the time.

“Where are the adults?” another wondered.

Phillips was far from the only doctor to criticize the episode, though he appears to be the only Walter Reed doctor to do so publicly.

“By taking a joy ride outside Walter Reed the president is placing his Secret Service detail at grave risk,” Jonathan Reiner, Phillips’ colleague at GW Hospital, said at the time. “This is the height of irresponsibility.”

Trump bragged after his hospitalization that his infection had made him an expert on the disease.

“It’s been a very interesting journey, I learned a lot about COVID,” he said in a video in October. “I get it, and I understand it.”

Despite his own experience being hospitalized with the virus, Trump continued to disregard medical guidelines on masks and public gatherings and left the pandemic response up to individual states. More than 330,000 people have died from the coronavirus in the United States. Dr. Anthony Fauci, the director of the National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases, said that the “politicization” of masks and social distancing have hampered the pandemic response but Trump’s decision to leave key decisions to individual states resulted in the US becoming the “hardest-hit country in the world.”

“The states are very often given a considerable amount of leeway in doing things the way they want to do it, as opposed to in response to federal mandates, which are, relatively, rarely given,” Fauci said in a radio interview over the weekend. “What we’ve had was a considerable disparity with states doing things differently in a nonconsistent way. There have been a lot of factors that have led to the fact that, unfortunately for us, the United States has been the hardest-hit country in the world, but I believe that disparity among how states do things has been a major weakness in our response.”

Trump’s bungled stimulus stunt: A reminder that the self-described master negotiator is a dud

Donald Trump is clearly unhappy with having to sign the stimulus bill meant to relieve the massive economic pain from his bungled response to the coronavirus pandemic. Why else would he sign it abruptly, as he did late Sunday, to no fanfare? After all, this is a man who demands adulation at his every waking moment. Yet when it came to signing a bill that will send checks to millions of Americans, Trump was curiously camera-shy. Trump eschewing a camera is like a dog rejecting his favorite treat — clearly, the manbaby president isn’t feeling so hot about how the stimulus standoff ended.

The reason is not particularly mysterious. Signing the bill, for Trump, was yet another massive failure in his long list of massive failures.

For six days, Trump has been threatening to tank this bill, possibly with a pocket veto. He was holding the economy hostage — and more specifically, holding hostage the chances of Republicans winning a Georgia Senate runoff or two — clearly hoping that doing so would be sufficient leverage to force Republican leadership on Capitol Hill into voiding his presidential election loss and illegally granting him a second term. But as often happens when Trump tries to live up to his own declarations of being a master negotiator, he face-planted— this time in a spectacularly humiliating style. So humiliating, that he approached signing the stimulus bill with the same attitude of a kid presenting himself for after school detention. 

So what happened here? It’s a little complicated, but ultimately, it’s likely yet another one of Trump’s failed schemes to steal the 2020 election from the real winner, former Vice President Joe Biden. 


Want more Amanda Marcotte on politics? Subscribe to her newsletter Standing Room Only.


To recap: The $900 billion coronavirus legislation Trump signed was a compromise bill, passed through the Republican-controlled Senate only after many major concessions from the Democratic-controlled House, which passed its own much healthier $3 trillion package in May. Democrats wanted to cut checks to Americans for $1,200 a piece, along with more robust unemployment benefits and other major projects to reduce economic devastation from the pandemic. But Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell, R-Ky., who clearly didn’t want to pass a second stimulus bill at all, only begrudgingly allowed a much smaller compromise — which includes $600 checks to Americans who made under $75,000 in 2019 — because he is worried that Georgia’s GOP Sens. Kelly Loeffler and David Perdue will lose their runoff elections to Democratic challengers on January 5. 

But after the Senate bill passed, Trump suddenly declared he wasn’t satisfied and declared he wanted a bill with $2,000 checks instead of the $600 his administration initially agreed to. He later upped the supposed ante by declaring he wanted to toss another two thousand dollars on for people with kids. 

The whole thing was, despite the high hopes of some of the dimmer lights of social media punditry, never a sincere offer from Trump. As Helaine Olen of the Washington Post noted on Thursday, Trump “maintained a low profile in the months-long stimulus negotiations between Democrats and Republicans in Congress.” If Trump wanted more money for Americans, he had months to push for it, but aside from a random tweet in the fall, as Olen points out, “he didn’t bother” to push for more money in any “meaningful way.”

No, as I argued last week, what Trump was up to was likely an extortion scheme, which is the only trick up his sleeve — and one he’s not even particularly good at pulling. Trump believes, incorrectly, that McConnell and other Senate Republicans know how to steal the election, but are holding out on him. He hoped that by threatening McConnell’s meager bill and therefore threatening the re-election of the two Georgia senators McConnell needs to hold onto his Senate majority Trump could shake the secrets to election theft out of McConnell. But, being bad at this, Trump didn’t consider certain flaws in the plan, starting with the fact that McConnell simply has no way to steal the election for him and extortion will not change that fact. Nor did Trump consider that he would have to endure the humiliation of Democrats dunking on him non-stop. 

Politico reports that Trump only signed the compromise bill “after days of being lobbied by allies,” including Sen. Lindsey Graham, R.-S.C., and House Minority Leader Kevin McCarthy, R-Calif. What they said to him is not clear, especially since Trump, whose only interest is in himself, is unlikely to be interested in arguments about signing this bill for the good of the Republican party.

No, Trump likely only moved because it became evident that his extortion scheme had blown up spectacularly in his face, alienating the very people he (falsely) believes will be able to stop Biden’s election certification on January 6.


Want more Amanda Marcotte on politics? Subscribe to her newsletter Standing Room Only.


But this should be no surprise. Trump’s reputation as a skillful negotiator was always nonsense, the product of his only real talent, which is media manipulation. As Michael Kruse in Politico detailed in 2018, an examination of the evidence shows that Trump spent decades failing at even the easiest negotiations, blowing up a series of business deals and repeatedly incurring major bankruptcies. It’s true that Trump did have some early successes in the late 70s and early 80s, but odds are that’s because his lawyer/fixer Roy Cohn did the hard work for him. After Cohn’s death, Trump’s almost comical inability to negotiate became evident to anyone looking at the actual books and not listening to Trump’s endless bragging. 

So that’s where Trump stands now: He didn’t get anything he wanted, and, by making a pointless stink about all this, he’s aggravated allies and invited his opponents to exploit him in embarrassing ways. He gave Democrats leverage to negotiate for a bigger bill, though it’s still unlikely to pass Republicans, who didn’t even really want the compromise bill. Ultimately, he exposed to Georgia voters what Mitch McConnell was trying to hide: Republicans are blocking their opportunity to get bigger checks. 

The situation would be comical, except for the very real human cost to all of this.

By delaying the compromise bill with his little stunt, Trump allowed unemployment benefits to lapse and likely slowed the rollout of a vaccine. Losing even a couple of days like this can have a ripple effect through an already badly battered economy. But, of course, Trump never cared about that, just as he never really intended for anyone to get the $2,000 checks. He’s not just playing games with people’s lives. He’s bad at playing them. 

Democrats immediately reject Trump’s coronavirus relief demands, push for higher stimulus checks

House Democrats quickly shot down President Trump’s demanded changes to the coronavirus relief bill he held up for days before belatedly signing the legislation on Sunday — after a critical unemployment insurance extension expired. 

Trump finally signed the $900 billion coronavirus relief deal and a $1.4 trillion omnibus bill while vacationing at his Mar-a-Lago resort in Florida after suddenly balking at the $600 stimulus checks and foreign aid included in the package. Though his own administration called for cutting the checks to $600 apiece, Trump called to increase the direct payments to $2,000 after the bill passed both the Democrat-controlled House and Republican-led Senate despite being absent from negotiations for months. The foreign aid included in the omnibus government spending bill that Trump called “wasteful” was also requested by his administration. Trump’s delayed signing of the legislation resulted in lapsed unemployment benefits for about 14 million Americans while millions of others likely lost a full week of enhanced federal unemployment benefits included in the bill.

Trump said in a statement on Sunday that he signed the bill because the House of Representatives, which is controlled by Democrats, plans to vote on Monday on a bill to increase the direct payments to $2,000, even though the measure is opposed by his own party, and claimed that Congress has “promised” to review Section 230, a law that shields social media companies from liability for content posted on their platforms, and to “focus very strongly on the very substantial voter fraud” that he claims took place in the election despite no evidence and repeated rebukes from members of his own administration. The president also said that he is “demanding many rescissions” in the bill because “wasteful items need to be removed.”

“I will send back to Congress a redlined version, item by item, accompanied by the formal rescission request to Congress insisting that those funds be removed from the bill,” he said.

Though presidents can request changes by Congress they do not have the power to veto individual measures in bills they sign. The New York Times noted that the 25-day time frame for Congress to consider the requests will also extend past President-elect Joe Biden’s inauguration and House Democrats have no plans to revisit the bill the president already approved.

House Appropriations Chairwoman Nita Lowey, D-N.Y., slammed Trump over his “shameful” delay of critical relief funding and for trying to “reverse funding his own administration requested and undo the careful bipartisan agreement he has just signed.”

“The House Appropriations Committee has jurisdiction over rescissions, and our Democratic Majority will reject any rescissions submitted by President Trump,” she said in a statement, adding that Congress plans to work on additional relief measures once President-elect Joe Biden takes office.

Politico’s Jake Sherman noted that Congress has also been “reviewing” Section 230 for years and that it was highly doubtful that many Republicans in Congress would be interested in pursuing his baseless voter fraud claims. Meanwhile his demand for increased payments “will split the Republican Party on the way out the door” while his “redlined” changes stand zero chance of being approved, he added.

“What a bizarre, embarrassing episode for the president,” Sherman wrote. “He opposed a bill his administration negotiated. He had no discernible strategy and no hand to play… If he was going to give up this easy, he should’ve just kept quiet and signed the bill. It would’ve been less embarrassing.”

But the delay had significant real-world consequences. Because the president waited until Sunday night to sign the bill, about 14 million people laid off amid the pandemic lost a full week of benefits when they lapsed on Saturday. Michele Evermore, a senior policy analyst at the National Employment Law Project, pointed out that the delay also cut the number of weeks of enhanced federal unemployment benefits in the bill from 11 to 10, costing millions of others $300. It’s unclear if the benefits could be paid retroactively.

“They might get it at the back end, but there are bills tomorrow,” Evermore told the Times. “It’s just so frustrating that he couldn’t have figured this out yesterday. One day of delay is catastrophe for millions.”

The delay may also push back the arrival of the stimulus checks, which Treasury Secretary Steven Mnuchin predicted would be sent out this week after the bill’s passage.

“His stalling only intensified anxiety and hardship for workers and families who are collateral damage in his political games,” House Ways and Means Chairman Richard Neal, D-Mass., said in a statement. “Now, people will need to wait even longer for direct payments and other vital assistance to arrive.”

Trump said the Senate would “start the process” on voting for increased stimulus checks but Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell, R-Ky., did not even mention the payments in a statement on Sunday. The larger payments have long been opposed by many Republicans.

“I applaud President Trump’s decision to get hundreds of billions of dollars of crucial Covid-19 relief out the door and into the hands of American families as quickly as possible,” McConnell said in a statement.

House Speaker Nancy Pelosi, D-Calif., who along with many Democrats quickly endorsed the president’s demand for larger checks that his own party opposed, said the president “must immediately call on Congressional Republicans to end their obstruction” and support the increased payments during a floor vote on Monday.

“Every Republican vote against this bill,” she said in a statement, “is a vote to deny the financial hardship that families face and to deny the American people the relief they need.”

JPMorgan Chase wrongly charged 170,000 customers overdraft fees. Trump’s OCC refused to penalize it

Federal bank examiners considered levying fines and sanctions when JPMorgan Chase informed them last year that faulty overdraft charges caused by a software glitch had impacted roughly 170,000 customers.

But the bank urged the Office of the Comptroller of the Currency, or OCC, its chief regulator, to take less severe action, according to two people directly involved in the probe and internal documents reviewed by ProPublica and The Capitol Forum.

Rather than openly penalizing Chase, the nation’s largest bank, OCC officials decided to issue a quiet reprimand — a supervisory letter — that would go into the bank’s file and stay out of public view, according to the people and regulatory paperwork.

The agency’s deputy chief counsel, Bao Nguyen, approved the supervisory letter in June and accepted Chase’s explanation of the incident and its promise to repay its customers, according to the people and regulatory paperwork.

Since 2017, when President Donald Trump took office, the OCC has found at least six banks wrongly charged overdrafts and related fees, but in each case, the agency quietly rebuked the bank rather than pushing for fines and public penalties, the investigation by ProPublica and The Capitol Forum shows.

In several instances, front-line examiners who wanted the bank to be fined were overruled by OCC officials. The previously unreported cases show how the OCC under Trump quietly held back from punishing banks for abuses, while the administration sought more broadly to loosen banking rules and other consumer financial protections.

Brian Brooks, a former bank executive, has led the OCC on a temporary basis since May; last month, the president nominated Brooks to a full, five-year term.

Brooks and his predecessor at the OCC, Joseph Otting, both helped run OneWest Bank, a lender that Treasury Secretary Steve Mnuchin founded in the aftermath of the 2009 financial crisis.

Banks found to have charged excessive overdraft fees and other faulty charges include Wall Street giants such as JPMorgan Chase, American Express and U.S. Bank and large regional lenders such as Zions Bank, Union Bank and First Horizon.

An OCC spokesman said the agency would not comment on the specific instances cited in this story because such matters are confidential. The OCC has a range of tools to police bank misconduct, the spokesman said.

“It is frequently the case that deficiencies can be corrected much more quickly — including correcting harm to customers — by using supervisory tools,” said spokesman Bryan Hubbard, referring to confidential sanctions. “Most importantly, the absence of a public penalty does not indicate a lack of action.”

A bank might be cited first with a confidential sanction and later punished openly, Hubbard said. “Our actions may or may not be complete.”

Big banks collect over $11 billion in overdraft-related fees each year, according to a report from the Center for Responsible Lending, which found in a study that punitive bank fees often hit vulnerable customers the hardest.

Overdraft policies vary by bank but the typical fee is $35, and a customer can accrue additional penalties multiple times a day, CRL reported. Banks could simply decline a charge if a customer lacked the funds, but instead lenders promote “overdraft protection” as a convenience that comes at a cost. For customers whose accounts often hover near zero, that convenience is just another snare in a financial trap, said Rebecca Borné, a CRL lawyer who worked on the study.

“Imagine you struggled to buy groceries over the weekend and you wake up Monday to $100 in overdraft fees,” Borné said. “That happens to people who can least afford to pay.”

Chase had promised some online customers that they would get an alert before their accounts went negative, but the bank told the OCC that did not happen as roughly 170,000 accounts dwindled to zero, according to industry and regulatory officials. Chase charges $34 for an overdraft and allows three such charges a day on an account with insufficient funds. A customer could be charged as much as $102 per day.

Chase, which operates nearly 5,000 locations nationwide, reported the faulty auto alerts to the OCC as required, but the problem had stayed out of public view until now.

“We found that some customers were not receiving some account alerts due to a systems issue in 2018,” Chase spokesman Michael Fusco said. “We have fixed the issue, proactively notified and reimbursed affected customers.”

Chase had roughly 52 million active digital customers at the end of last year, according to securities filings, and that figure has grown by millions each year over the last several years.

In interviews, several bank branch employees working in different parts of the country said Chase could have easily underestimated the number of customers who were impacted, based on the number of complaints they heard.

Chase insists its remediation work was reliable. “We completed a thorough review of all accounts and identified the impacted customers,” said Fusco.

Under the agreement between Chase and the OCC, the bank agreed to refund customers that it believes were wrongly charged, but with no outside, independent check on the work, officials said.

The Chase matter shows how faulty overdraft policies can take hold at a bank and weigh on customers.

Jamie Dimon, the CEO of JPMorgan Chase & Co., has in recent years pushed the bank’s online presence and a corporate mantra “Mobile first, digital everything.” Chase encourages consumers to find a screen and open their own Total Checking accounts.

With a few clicks, a new Chase customer can choose to receive an account alert for everything from low balances to suspicious transactions. Customers who rely on online banking might rarely have cause to visit a Chase branch.

But customers did come knocking when their auto alerts failed and they were hit with surprise overdrafts and other penalties, said current and former employees interviewed by ProPublica and The Capitol Forum.

Chase customers had complained about faulty auto alerts for more than 12 months when the bank brought the issue to the OCC late last year, according to regulatory officials and agency paperwork.

Chase insisted that the error was just a coding hiccup and that the fix was manageable, but some OCC officials believed the bank still deserved punishment since so many customers were hurt.

To some front-line examiners, the faulty alert program amounted to an “unfair and deceptive” practice that could draw a public penalty under the law.

The question of what to do next fell to Nguyen.

Nguyen joined the OCC in June 2018 as a deputy to Otting, then Trump’s OCC chief, and Nguyen had a large role in managing one of Otting’s top priorities: rewriting the Community Reinvestment Act, which requires banks to lend in poor neighborhoods.

Otting presented the new CRA in May and stepped down a day later. The CRA rewrite will make it easier for banks to pull back from serving poor neighborhoods, according to several consumer-advocacy groups that are challenging the move in court.

When the Chase matter reached Nguyen’s desk, he agreed that the bank had been deceptive, but he ruled that no penalty was warranted, according to regulatory paperwork.

For one thing, Chase had stepped forward to admit the problem. Regulators can give banks credit for policing themselves, and Nguyen decided that would hold true in the Chase matter, regulatory officials said.

Nguyen did agree to record the incident in the supervisory letter added to the bank’s confidential file. Nguyen declined to comment and referred questions to the OCC.

Supervisory letters are one of the mildest rebukes that the OCC can issue, and critics say the letters have negligible impact.

After Wells Fargo admitted in 2016 that its employees created fake accounts to hit skyhigh sales goals, the OCC found that it had been issuing supervisory letters for seven years warning the bank about its sales practices.

Lawyers from the OCC and Chase worked together to write the final language of the supervisory letter in which the bank insisted that it did nothing wrong, according to regulatory officials.

Notably, said the officials, the OCC handled the matter itself and without help from the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau — an agency created to ensure that financial firms do not mistreat ordinary customers.

“It would not have gone down well if the OCC did not involve us in a consumer matter,” said Richard Cordray, the first CFPB director who served President Barack Obama.

Cordray said that he would not second-guess any regulator’s decision about sanctions without knowing the facts, but that the Trump administration had clearly shown it was not eager to sanction bank wrongdoing.

“These are different times and different leaders,” he said, “but the OCC and CFPB used to take aggressive action together when we saw consumers being hurt.”

The CFPB did not respond to a request for comment.

Dubious disclosures and lax enforcement are part of many overdraft abuses, said Borné of the CRL, and they were a problem in the incidents handled by the OCC. American Express, the credit card giant, also offers short-term loans that are supposed to be repaid in regular monthly installments. Customers pay interest on the loan, of course, but American Express never explained that customers who missed a payment could also be charged interest on late fees and bounced checks, the OCC concluded. That was unfair and deceptive, OCC examiners determined in recent months, but the agency’s chiefs decided to hand the bank a quiet reprimand rather than a public sanction.

“Due to a technical error, some personal loan customers were incorrectly charged,” American Express said in a statement. The firm said it will now notify customers and issue credits for undue fees. American Express declined to say how many customers were affected but said the charges were generally less than $1 each.

Seven years ago, U.S. Bank unveiled a novel credit card program that the bank said could reduce costs for many customers. FlexControl Essentials promised to let customers first pay off everyday purchases — like gasoline and groceries — which the bank said could lower the monthly bill.

But customers of U.S. Bank, the nation’s fifth-largest lender, were baffled by the Byzantine system used to determine what was an “everyday” purchase and how much money they actually owed, according to several current and former bank employees.

U.S. Bank knew FlexControl Essentials was balky, and the bank spent five years trying to improve it before retiring the offer in 2018, the year the OCC took notice, according to bank and regulatory officials.

Within the OCC, some officials thought FlexControl Essentials was more than just a credit card program gone awry — it was a consumer abuse. For several weeks in early 2018, OCC lawyers debated next steps and whether they should dig deeper into how many customers might have been hurt, according to enforcement paperwork and two officials involved.

By the summer of 2018, though, the OCC decided to let the bank quietly scrap the program without paying a fine or facing a public sanction, according to regulatory sources.

In a statement, U.S. Bank declined to comment on the FlexControl Essentials program except to say it was retired in 2018. “Customers continue to have great flexibility with our products and we appreciate their continued support,” the bank said.

Three years before Chase grappled with errors in the auto alert program, the bank had to face a separate problem that was costing customers.

Banks are expected to clear checks within a “reasonable period of time,” which in many instances means two days. But under the rules, the wait can stretch for a week or more. Ultimately, banks not only decide when to clear a check but whether to clear it at all and how much a check is even worth.

That was the issue in 2017 when bank examiners found flaws in Chase’s handling of checks that had stray markings, sloppy handwriting or were otherwise deemed illegible. Banks can take extra time to examine those checks and ultimately even decide what the checks are worth.

OCC examiners found that Chase customers were sometimes shortchanged and some agency officials wanted to openly sanction the bank, according to regulatory officials. In the end, Chase was allowed to push the issue aside with no penalty by the end of 2017.

In a statement, Chase said that the bank identified the problem itself in 2017 and then “worked quickly to resolve it and have since credited all impacted customers.”

Taken together with the faulty auto alerts program from this year, Chase was twice found to have wrongly charged customers but faced no public penalty.

Banks ultimately control the sequence of deposits and withdrawals in a way that can boost corporate profits. A bank customer who exceeds their balance in the morning and replenishes the account by sundown might still incur an overdrawn account fee.

Another customer who overdraws an account with one costly purchase — a sofa — might be charged a fee for that item plus all the other miscellaneous purchases they made that day from a gas fill-up to a cup of coffee.

Bank regulators allow some maneuvers as long as they are disclosed to the customer, but at least three banks in recent years were deemed to have wrongly snared customers in how they added and subtracted money from an account, according to regulatory and industry officials.

One offender was Zions Bank, the largest lender in Utah, which tucked three separate, fee-generating schemes into murky disclosures, according to OCC officials who tracked the matter for more than a year.

Zions Bank customers who pushed their accounts into negative territory with a single purchase were charged a $32 penalty for that one buy and then the same fee for every other purchase made that day, examiners found.

Zions Bank customers also could get charged many overdraft fees for being just a few bucks short, examiners agreed. The third abuse was that Zions Bank charged a daily overdraft penalty on top of individual purchase penalties, regulatory officials said.

At the heart of every Zions Bank infraction was faulty disclosures and that customers did not know they had a right to opt out of any overdraft program — a step that might mean more rejected charges for the customer but also fewer surprise fees, according to the enforcement officials.

The OCC determined that Zions Bank ran afoul of a 2010 banking rule that explicitly required banks to get customer consent before enrolling them in overdraft protection, according to two regulatory officials with firsthand knowledge of the matter.

In a statement, Zions Bank said it always abides by the law requiring a customer “opt in” for overdraft protection.

“Zions Bank is committed to maintaining the highest standards of fair and transparent customer services,” the bank said in a statement.

The Zions Bank abuses matched tactics at Union Bank, a leading lender in the west, according to industry and regulatory officials familiar with the matter. Union Bank was charging customers overdraft fees despite the customer having a positive balance at the end of the day, according to the officials. The problem had been going on for years when it came to the attention of bank examiners in 2017, but rather than sanction the bank publicly, the OCC filed a supervisory letter, according to regulatory sources.

A spokesman for Union Bank declined to comment for this story.

First Horizon, a leading lender in the south, came to the OCC last year to report problems with its own overdraft program, according to industry and regulatory officials.

The bank had wrongly charged customers overdraft fees when they went into the red for a few hours but ended the day with a positive balance, according to enforcement officials, and that practice ran contrary to the bank’s marketing and disclosure documents.

By the time the problem was detected, it had gone on for at least two years, although the bank promised to make customers whole, according to regulatory and industry officials.

The OCC opted not to punish the bank publicly and instead issued a private reprimand, regulatory officials said.

In a statement, First Horizon acknowledged the issue and said it tapped an outside consultant to manage customer refunds.

“The issue was corrected and our impacted customers were notified and refunded,” the bank said in a statement.

Should senators be allowed to trade stocks at all? Amid the obvious conflicts, probably not

When asked during a recent debate whether members of Congress should trade stocks, Sen. Kelly Loeffler, R-Ga., attempted to dodge a real policy issue by claiming that the American dream was at stake in the election. She’s not entirely wrong. Many Americans dream of an open and honest government setting fair rules for free markets. Today, active trading by senators undermines confidence in government and markets.

Although Loeffler’s stilted stammering did not inspire confidence, her fellow Georgia Republican, Sen. David Perdue —who also faces a tough runoff election on Jan. 5 that will decide control of the Senate — provides the most troubling example of speculative stock trading by a sitting senator, with 2,596 securities transactions during his single six-year term in office. For perspective, Perdue’s thousands of transactions account for almost a third of all trades by U.S. senators disclosed during that period. Collectively, Perdue’s active trading and concentrated positions raise both conflict of interest and insider trading concerns. 

Senators owning stock in the companies they oversee creates an obvious conflict of interest between their personal portfolios and their duties to the public. Perdue showcases the problem. Since 2016, he has bought or sold stock in FireEye, a cybersecurity company, 61 times. He made many of these trades while sitting on a cybersecurity panel — and as FireEye landed millions in federal contracts. Similar conflicts exist with his trading in the stock of financial services companies including JPMorgan Chase, Bank of America and Regions Financial. As a member of the Senate Committee on Banking, Housing, and Urban Affairs, Perdue should be focused on protecting the public from financial exploitation — not on protecting his personal portfolio. 

These conflicts should not be tolerated. A senator whose personal wealth sits concentrated in financial services stocks may judge the need for consumer financial protections quite differently than a senator who does not personally profit from propping up bank stocks. 

In contrast, federal judges have long understood the need to avoid these types of conflicts. The judicial ethics canons explain that their official duties “take precedence over all other activities” and that judges must disqualify themselves from hearing a particular case whenever they or their family have a “financial interest in the subject.” Advisory opinions explain that a judge should recuse themselves from a matter even if their spouse owns “even one share of stock” in a relevant company. Senators should not be voting while holding big bets on companies and industries under their supervision.

Congressional securities trading poses a unique danger because legislative activity constantly moves the financial markets. Congress recognized this problem in 2012 when it passed the STOCK Act, making clear that federal insider trading prohibitions apply to elected members. Yet proving that someone improperly traded on inside information remains challenging. 

Consider Perdue again. His oddly prescient trades in Cardlytics led to abnormal profits and an investigation from the Department of Justice. Despite his false claims to have been “exonerated,” we simply can have no confidence that he did not trade on congressional or other inside information. A closed investigation does not mean that no wrongdoing occurred. The Securities and Exchange Commission famously closed its investigation into Bernard Madoff before the truth of his record-shattering Ponzi scheme emerged. How much confidence should we place in an investigation conducted by a partisan Justice Department known for doing favors for the President Trump’s allies? Without any real understanding about the investigation conducted, the stinking cloud of suspicion will linger on.

Shifting our focus from Perdue’s tawdry trades to the broader system reveals a real need for reform. Although no other senator churned a financial portfolio quite like Perdue’s, other senators deserve criticism as well. Perhaps most notably, Loeffler serves on a committee that oversees the New York Stock Exchange — whose chairman, Jeff Sprecher, is her husband.

Many reforms would offer improvements over the status quo. One leading professor has proposed simply changing House and Senate rules for members’ financial transactions to track the sorts of restrictions already imposed on public company executives. Each chamber could require its members to publicize trading plans in advance and disgorge any short-swing profits obtained. These sensible reforms have already been field tested with corporate CEOs and would do much to limit the risks of insider trading.  

Yet trading rules would not address the conflicts posed by elected officials continuing to hold concentrated stock positions in the companies they oversee. Mandating broad diversification, as Sen. Elizabeth Warren, D-Mass., has proposed would ameliorate this conflict.

To be sure, some might balk at these restrictions for fear they would deter people from running for or holding public office.  Stringent restrictions might prevent the spouse of a hedge fund manager from serving in Congress. 

While these possible costs are real, the wealthy and powerful do not lack for representation in Congress. Ultimately, the inevitable challenges and tradeoffs with reforms seem preferable to the current status quo. Members of Congress simply have too much material, nonpublic information — and too much power over public companies — to be allowed to trade on the same terms as any ordinary member of the public.

Will Trump attempt a coup on January 6?

Donald Trump isn’t about to concede the presidential election to Joe Biden. Not now, and seemingly, not ever.

Anyone who has followed Trump closely knows two things about the man that make it relatively easy to anticipate his next move. The first is that, ideologically, Trump is a fascist who has no regard for democracy. The second is that, psychologically, he is a malignant narcissistwho suffers from a toxic stew of narcissism, paranoia, antisocial personality disorder and sadism. As a result, it is virtually impossible for him to acknowledge, much less accept, failure.

Trump also faces the prospect of being prosecuted for a variety of state and federal felonies upon leaving office. And while he can avoid federal jeopardy with a pardon, to do so he would either have to resign and permit Mike Pence, as his successor for the duration of the lame-duck period, to do the honors or undertake the legally dubious step of issuing a pardon to himself. Even then, he would remain exposed to the ongoing probe conducted by Manhattan District Attorney Cyrus Vance into allegations of tax, business and insurance fraud under New York law.

How, then, does a fascist and a malignant narcissist who faces jail stave off defeat? Having lost both the popular vote and, more importantly, the tally in the Electoral College, and after being rebuked by numerous state and federal courts, including the Supreme Court, Trump is moving to his next option—staging what would amount to a coup d’état, invoking the complex provisions of the 12th Amendment, when Congress meets in a joint session on January 6 to confirm the winner of the presidential race.

That there will be an attempted coup is no longer a matter of speculation. In an appearance on “Fox & Friends” on December 14, Stephen Miller, perhaps the most deranged and malevolent of Trump’s senior advisers, openly declared the administration’s plan to overturn the election results in the upcoming joint session.

A gambit under the 12th Amendment is a long shot, to be sure, but so was Trump’s initial presidential bid back when he descended the escalator at Trump Tower in June 2015 to announce his first campaign and stigmatize undocumented Mexican migrants as “rapists” and drug traffickers. It behooves us, then, to take Trump and Miller seriously.

Ratified in 1804 in the aftermath of the hotly disputed election of 1800 (which ultimately seated Thomas Jefferson as the nation’s third president), the 12th Amendment modified the procedures that govern the Electoral College. And while the 12th Amendment itself was modified by the 20th Amendment (which moved up the presidential inauguration from March to January), its basic provisions remain intact.

Of particular relevance to Trump’s machinations, the 12th Amendment stipulates that after the electors of the various states (there are 538of them today) cast and certify their votes for president and vice president, their ballots are transmitted to the president of the Senate. Under the Constitution, the president of the Senate is the vice president, currently Pence.

The president of the Senate’s role thereafter is ministerial and mandatory. Under the terms of the amendment, the president of the Senate “shall,” in the joint session, “open all the certificates and the votes shall then be counted; The person having the greatest number of votes for President, shall be the President,” provided—and this is the key to appreciating the impending coup—that such person receives a majority of the electoral votes.

But what happens if the Electoral College vote count is disputed? To understand what occurs then, we have to toggle back and forth between the 12th Amendment and a statute passed by Congress more than 130 years ago—the Electoral Count Act (ECA) of 1887. Under the ECA, if a single member of both the House and Senate signs and submits a challenge to any state’s electoral votes, the joint session must immediately go into recess to allow each chamber to meet separately and debate the merits of the objections. To be sustained, objections require the support of a majority of the members of each chamber. Absent a majority, the objections fail.

It’s all but certain that when the joint session convenes on January 6, objections to the electoral votes cast in the swing states of Arizona, Nevada, Georgia, Wisconsin, Michigan, and Pennsylvania indeed will be lodged. Republican Rep. Mo Brooks of Alabama, one of the zaniest of the GOP’s bloated stable of right-wing fanatics, has announced that he will file an objection. Alabama Republican Senator-elect Tommy Tuberville, the thick-headed former college football coach, has suggested he will join Brooks.

A drama not seen in this country since the election of 1876, when alternate slates of electors were sent to the Senate on behalf of Democrat Samuel Tilden and Republican Rutherford B. Hayes (the eventual winner), will then ensue.

Reminiscent of 1876, alternate pro-Trump slates of Republican electors have met in several swing states, and plan to send their votes to the Senate in time for the joint session to back up the objections that will be raised by Brooks and Tuberville.

Both the 12th Amendment and the ECA address a doomsday scenario in which no candidate wins a majority in the Electoral College, whether because of the presence of alternate electors or for other reasons. In that event, the task of naming the next president is transferred to the House. The House then conducts a “contingent election,” but with each state delegation getting one vote rather than each representative casting individual votes. Since Republicans will hold 27 House delegations in the next Congress, Trump would emerge victorious.

Fortunately, a contingent election in the House is highly unlikely. Because the Democrats control the House, and several Republican senators, including Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell, have recognized Biden as president-elect, the Brooks and Tuberville objections, even if backed by alternate electors, are destined to fail, as their objections will be subject to an ordinary majority vote in each chamber. In addition, to date, no votes cast by rogue pro-Trump electors have been certified by state governors or officially by any state legislatures, as required by the ECA.

But even that won’t necessarily end Trump’s attempted coup. According to press reports, Trump is considering advice offered by Michael Flynn to declare martial law to force a new election in the swing states that voted for Trump. Flynn, the disgraced retired Army lieutenant general and former national security adviser whom Trump pardoned in November for lying to the FBI, has been promoting the idea of martial law on Twitter and on right-wing media.

In any other era, Flynn would be dismissed as a caricature straight out of “Dr. Strangelove.” The trouble is, we’re living in the increasingly treacherous waning days of the Trump era, dominated by a fascist and a malignant narcissist desperate to remain in power.

Trump’s coup will fail, but not before leaving a lasting stain on American democracy.

America’s military reckoning: It’s time to stop the ritualistic fawning over veterans

It’s time for Americans to end their ritualistic fawning over veterans. When former members of the U.S. armed forces visit the White House to promote military coups, they prove that veterans do not automatically, uncritically warrant our praise.

In an era of perpetual war, this may appear blasphemous. America’s all-volunteer force has borne the burden of a militarized foreign policy in the wake of 9/11 that has sent more than two million servicemen and women overseas to keep our nation safe. These veterans have sacrificed immensely, some in heroic fashion. Incredibly brave men and women still populate our military ranks. 

Yet in society’s haste to thank them for their service, veterans have become, in far too many ways, an inviolable sect beyond reproach. Any criticism risks bringing forth a slew of anti-patriotic opprobrium. Such blanket adulation must end. And this most chaotic of years demonstrates why.

In one of the more contentious political seasons in American history, few malefactors have exceeded the duplicity of retired Lt. Gen. Michael Flynn, who has called on President Trump to suspend the Constitution and declare martial law so military leaders can oversee a redo of the 2020 election. Never mind that Flynn, who pled guilty to misleading the FBI, once swore an oath to uphold that very Constitution.

Retired U.S. Air Force Lt. Gen. Thomas McInerney has echoed Flynn’s sedition entreaties. The Vietnam War veteran also petitioned for martial law in the aftermath of a free and fair election, but then went further still, imploring Trump to cancel the Electoral College, suspend habeas corpus and arrest Democrats for treason.

Below these conspiracy theorists might be found veterans like Rep. Dan Crenshaw, R-Texas, embracing his party’s hyper-partisan talking points to ridicule the working-class background of his colleague Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez, D-N.Y. To Crenshaw, his political opponents were “nuts” and didn’t “know hardship” like he did. (Democratic senatorial candidate MJ Hegar relied on similar tactics in Texas.) Apparently, in these narratives, only veterans understand adversity and suffering. 

Nor have senior military leaders and veterans accorded themselves well in foreign policy. Secretary of State Mike Pompeo, a 1986 West Point graduate, slow-rolled acknowledging Joe Biden as president-elect and publicly quipped he would help usher a “smooth transition to a second Trump administration.” The policies Pompeo have supported — one source recently described him as a “global arsonist” — hardly have advanced our national interests overseas.

Even well-respected officers have been largely derivative in their approach to U.S. foreign policy. Retired Lt. Gen. and former national security adviser H.R. McMaster, in his latest book, has recommended a national security strategy based on little beyond what one reviewer has deemed “a more muscular and constant use of force.” When President Trump authorized the assassination of Gen. Qassem Soleimani, chief of Iran’s Quds Force, other retired generals described the act only in terms of “American deterrence,” without questioning its moral or legal justifications

And none of us should discount that some American veterans have acted immorally in our recent wars, a point of vital concern for our society, if not for our president. Texas Republican chair Allen West — who recently called for secession — received a military reprimand for threatening to shoot an Iraqi detainee, while Eddie Gallagher, Clint Lorance and Robert Bales, among others, either have been accused or convicted of killing civilians in Iraq and Afghanistan. Do these men deserve our admiration simply because they wore a uniform?

Without question, these examples are not, thankfully, representative of the larger whole. The vast majority of Americans serving in the armed forces do so in a way that make their families and local communities proud. In large measure, we should take pride in those citizens who voluntarily serve their nation in uniform and appreciate their sacrifices on our behalf.

But instances of impropriety should not be dismissed because we are required, by some unwritten rule, to mechanically thank veterans for their service. Wearing a uniform should not shield the wearer from scrutiny, criticism or disciplinary action. Like all of us, veterans and current serving members of the armed forces are human beings, with the same gifts and foibles we all carry on a daily basis.

Armies often are a reflection of the societies they serve. Such is true of the U.S. armed forces today which is “more racially and ethnically diverse than in previous generations.” Yet despite our claims of American exceptionalism, our society remains imperfect. We should not be surprised that military service members might be imperfect as well.

We need to come to a reckoning with our military affair, for it has become dangerous to our republic at a time when our fundamental political values and norms have been threatened by an imperial presidency and its timorous supporters. Our adulation makes it more difficult to hold institutions accountable, to forge, under civilian control, more appropriate military policies, and to determine the costs of our national security. 

In the end, when veterans call to suspend the Constitution in times of peace or discount their immoral acts in times of war, then we, as a society, have the right and responsibility to hold them accountable.

Sanders, progressives slam Trump’s “unbelievably cruel” intransigence as unemployment expires

On Sunday, Sen. Bernie Sanders, I-Vt., led progressive lawmakers in condemning President Trump’s refusal to approve a $900 billion COVID-19 relief and spending bill as unemployment coverage expired for millions of Americans on Saturday night as a result of his intransigence.

“What the president is doing right now is unbelievably cruel,” Sanders said during an appearance on ABC‘s “This Week” Sunday morning. “Many millions of people are losing their extended unemployment benefits. They’re going to be evicted from their apartments because the eviction moratorium is ending.”

Although Congress last Monday approved a compromise relief bill that would have temporarily averted catastrophic expiration of critical unemployment and other benefits — including an extension of the federal eviction moratorium — during the deadliest period of the pandemic, Trump declined to sign the measure into law, blasting its $600 direct payments to Americans as “a disgrace” and calling for $2,000 stimulus checks instead.

Rep. Rashida Tlaib, D-Mich. — one of only two House Democrats to vote against the bill — also called its $600 payment “woefully inadequate.”

“I have watched as many of my colleagues rush to provide billions to corporations and wealthy individuals, while admonishing the needs of the majority of families,” Tlaib explained on Monday. “Republicans continue to do all they can do to poison our society further with corporate greed, while abandoning the very people they are supposed to be working for.”

“This is evident by the inclusion of the ‘three martini lunch’ tax giveaway,” she added, referring to a tax deduction for business meals included in the bill. 

However, Sanders on Sunday argued that the “terrible economic crisis facing this country” makes action imperative.

“We are looking at a way to get the vaccine distributed to tens of millions of people,” Sanders said, referring to the massive nationwide effort to distribute COVID-19 vaccines. “There’s money in that bill.”

Progressive lawmakers from across the country joined Sanders in urging the relief bill’s passage.

“Here we are with people living on the edge as a result of this pandemic, and [Trump] is playing with their lives and their livelihoods,” said Rep. Barbara Lee, D-Calif., during a Saturday interview on MSNBC. “People can’t afford to live life on the edge. … Eight million more people have fallen below the poverty line.”

President-elect Joe Biden joined the chorus of bipartisan voices calling on Trump to sign the bill.

“It is the day after Christmas, and millions of families don’t know if they’ll be able to make ends meet because of President Donald Trump’s refusal to sign an economic relief bill approved by Congress with an overwhelming and bipartisan majority,” Biden said in a statement on Saturday. 

Trump remained defiant following the expiration of jobless benefits.

“I simply want to get our great people $2,000, rather than the measly $600 that is now in the bill,” he tweeted. “Also, stop the billions of dollars in ‘pork.'”

While the president played golf in Florida, Americans suffered. Lanetris Haines, a self-employed single mother of three in South Bend, Indiana, braced for the loss of her $129 weekly lifeline.

“It’s a chess game, and we’re all pawns,” Haines told the Associated Press.

 

The first words from the “barrier-busting” nominees for Biden’s climate team

President-elect Joe Biden took the stage Saturday afternoon at The Queen Theater in Wilmington, Delaware, to unveil a slate of diverse nominees for key energy and climate positions, including the prospective heads of the Department of the Interior, Department of Energy, and the Environmental Protection Agency, or EPA.

“We’re in a crisis,” Biden said before announcing his climate team. “Just like we need to be a unified nation in response to COVID-19, we need a unified national response to climate change.”

Biden said his team is “brilliant”, “qualified,” and “barrier-busting.” The former vice president described them as the right people to take on his ambitious climate plan, which includes returning the U.S. to the Paris climate agreement and investing trillions of dollars in green infrastructure in the hopes of pushing the country to go carbon neutral by 2050. Biden promised that the policies espoused by his incoming Cabinet will be a sharp change from a Trump administration that rolled back pollution standards, denied science, and dismantled the regulatory state. Among other efforts, the president-elect pledged to restore Obama-era fuel efficiency standards and prioritize workers over large corporations.

“We’ll do another big thing: Put us on the path of achieving a carbon, pollution-free electric sector by the year 2035 that no future president can turn back,” Biden proclaimed.

Biden’s choice to lead Interior is New Mexico Representative Deb Haaland, who is an enrolled member of the Pueblo of Laguna and has Jemez Pueblo heritage, Haaland will be the first Native American to occupy a position in a presidential Cabinet, if she is confirmed by the Senate.

After being introduced by Biden, a tearful Haaland accepted his nomination, and reminded viewers of the Interior’s past actions of trying to stamp out tribal nations, Native languages, and Native cultures throughout the country. “This moment is profound when we consider the fact that a former secretary of the Interior once proclaimed his goal to ‘civilize or exterminate’ us — I’m living testament to the failure of that horrific ideology,” Haaland said. “I also stand on the shoulders of my ancestors and all the people who have sacrificed so I can be here.”

If confirmed, Haaland will oversee the management and conservation of more than 500 million acres of federal lands and natural resources. She promised that under her tenure, decisions made by her department to tackle the climate crisis will be “once again driven by science” and guided by environmental justice for marginalized communities.

Biden has nominated Michael Regan, the secretary of North Carolina’s Department of Environmental Quality, to lead the EPA. If confirmed, Regan will be the first Black man to head the agency responsible for protecting the country’s environment and its citizens’ health.

On Saturday, Regan spoke about his childhood spending time outdoors with family and friends, and recalled that his curiosity about how health was connected to the environment stemmed from his own experiences suffering from asthma. Regan, a former EPA intern, said he wanted to restore the trust between state environmental departments and the federal agency, so the EPA could once again become a “strong partner of the states, not a roadblock.”

“We will be driven by our convictions that every person in our great country has the right to clean air, clean water, and a healthier life no matter how much money they have in their pockets, the color of their skin, or the community that they live in,” Regan pledged. “We will move with a sense of urgency on climate change.”

Gina McCarthy, an environmental health and air-quality expert who previously served as EPA administrator under President Obama, is the pick to become the first-ever national climate advisor. Like many of the other nominees, McCarthy connected her work to a formative childhood experience, in her case growing up in a community burdened by air pollution in Massachusetts. Her background led her to a career in public service, where McCarthy worked to help communities like hers so that they could overcome the “legacies of environmental harm” that have endangered their health and livelihoods.

“Back when I was in grammar school, and the nuns used to jump up and say, ‘Run, close the windows in your classrooms,’ because when the rubber factory across the street started to spew chemical stenches into the air, it would come wafting into our classroom,” she recalled. “That smell kept us from recess more days than I or my teacher ever cared to remember.”

As the domestic “climate czar,” McCarthy will be responsible for coordinating climate action across Congress and multiple federal agencies, pushing for policies that address myriad issues caused by the climate crisis.

Biden has not only promised to put environmental justice at the forefront of his climate policies, he has also pledged to mobilize infrastructure investments to create millions of jobs for American workers. Enter Jennifer Granholm, his nominee to lead the Department of Energy.

Granholm was the first woman to serve as Michigan’s governor. She said that her commitment to clean energy was “forged by fire” when the Great Recession of 2008 pushed the automotive industry in her state to nearly collapse. She has promised to help create jobs that would sustainably employ American workers, invoking Biden’s presidential campaign tagline “Build Back Better.”

“The path to building back better starts with building and manufacturing and deploying those products here — stamping them, made in America,” Granholm said. “I know what those jobs will mean for both the planet and for those workers and families.”