Eric Levitz at New York magazine writes—50 Years After His Assassination, We Are No Closer to Realizing MLK’s Most Radical Dream:
A half-century ago today, a bullet robbed Martin Luther King Jr. of his life and America of his leadership. Anniversaries like this inevitably inspire reflection on how our country’s contemporary reality measures up to King’s dream. A few years ago, the tenor of such societal self-evaluations was radically different. Serious thinkers could herald the dawn of a “post-racial America” without having their words drowned out by incredulous laughter. But while Barack Obama’s election gave fleeting validation to that fantasy, his presidency thoroughly discredited it. The apocalyptic tantrum that the right sustained through every minute of the first black president’s tenure made it clear that America’s white-supremacist past was neither dead, nor past. And the “discovery” of routine, unpunished police violence against African-Americans; the racial wealth gap’s accelerating growth; the resilience of residential segregation; and, of course, the election of Donald Trump, all testified to the myopia of mistaking the election of a black man for the liberation of black people.
Today, few argue that we, as a society, have reached King’s promised land, or have even gotten within its vicinity. Rather, debate now focuses on whether the events of the past 50 years give us cause to believe we will ever realize the reverend’s dream — or else, to think that the arc of history bends in no given direction (save ecological ruin).
Harry Litman at the Los Angeles Times writes—Trump's a 'subject' and not a 'target' of the Mueller probe? The White House shouldn't celebrate yet
The news that Mueller does not consider Trump a criminal target probably best translates as follows: I have built a very strong case against you, including strong evidence that you acted corruptly, to safeguard your personal interests. But it's conceivable that something else was in play, and you should be given a full opportunity to spell this out for me. Until you do, or until you turn down that opportunity, I am keeping an open mind and you are not a target, merely a subject of the investigation.
Trump is quite likely just a hair's breadth from target status. Moreover, it's hard to imagine given the available evidence what cogent exculpatory account of his intent the president could actually provide. Mueller's guidance that Trump is not a criminal target adds up to a glimmer of hope, but little cause for crowing in the Trump camp.
David Dayen at The Nation writes—Trump Is Plotting a Diabolical Budget Double-Cross. It would hurt the poor and working families the most:
[...] Trump and House Republicans, furious about having to work with Democrats, have concocted a scheme to renege on the deal they made, according to Roll Call. It would involve using an obscure post-Watergate law to pass legislation cutting an unspecified amount of domestic spending out of the omnibus bill. And they can do it without needing a single Democratic vote.
This cruel, direct cut to vital domestic programs that have been underfunded since the deficit craze kicked up in 2010 could be very damaging to Republicans politically, particularly in swing districts. But that’s only if they go the legal route to accomplish it, putting Congress on the spot to deliver a vote. And Donald Trump’s not someone likely to let the law get in the way of an idea.
The Beltway name for this procedure is “impoundment,” and it was first used by President Thomas Jefferson, who in 1801 refused to spend $50,000 appropriated by Congress to buy Navy gunboats. Presidents throughout history have left appropriated funds unspent, using various rationales. But Richard Nixon, who we can safely assume is Donald Trump’s role model in this gambit, took it a step further, routinely impounding funds for projects he simply didn’t like.
The Supreme Court ruled some of Nixon’s actions illegal, and Congress responded in 1974 with the Impoundment Control Act. If a president wants to rescind spending on a certain program, they have to notify Congress specifically, with an estimate of the fiscal impact and a reason for the impoundment, and then get legislative approval. Congress would have to assent to the rescission request within 45 legislative days. Importantly, rescissions cannot be filibustered, which means that Congress could approve such a request with a simple majority vote in both chambers.
Dana Milbank at The Washington Post writes—How Trump is transforming himself into the greatest president ever:
Outgoing national security adviser H.R. McMaster, in a parting shot at President Trump, said this week that “we have failed to impose sufficient costs” on Russia — joining a consensus view that Trump has been inexplicably soft on Vladimir Putin’s assaults on democracy and stability.
But we can all stand down.
“Nobody has been tougher on Russia than I have,” Trump announced Tuesday afternoon.
Phew.
I felt similar relief when, even though he used anti-Semitic themes in his campaign and hesitated to condemn vandalism against Jewish targets, Trump informed us that “I am the least anti-Semitic person that you’ve ever seen in your entire life.”
I likewise was not troubled by Trump’s talk about “shithole” countries in Africa, or his defense of white supremacists in Charlottesville, because, as Trump assured us, “I am the least racist person you have ever interviewed.”
I don’t share the stock market’s jitters over the trade war Trump started, because I recall his assurance that “nobody knows more about trade than me.” [...]
The Editorial Board of The New York Times decries—The True Damage of Trump’s ‘Fake News’:
Many people, including many Republican lawmakers, dismiss President Trump’s attacks on The Washington Post, CNN and other news organizations as just one of those crazy — but ultimately harmless — things he does to blow off steam. They’re wrong. [...]
“Trump seems to be succeeding just through the force of his daily verbal assaults in shaking trust in the press and in other institutions that are crucial to our democracy,” says Jameel Jaffer, director of the Knight First Amendment Institute at Columbia University.
When the president calls every piece of information he does not like “fake news,” he also encourages politicians in other countries who are not constrained by constitutional free speech protections or independent judiciaries to more aggressively squelch the press. They know that there will be little international condemnation of their actions because one of the most important standard bearers for a free press — the American government — is led by a man trying to discredit the free press.
The Guardian and The New York Times have published an open letter to Sundar Pichai, the CEO of Google, signed by 3,100 Google employees: We work for Google. Our employer shouldn't be in the business of war:
Dear Sundar,
We believe that Google should not be in the business of war. Therefore we ask that Project Maven be cancelled and that Google draft, publicize and enforce a clear policy stating that neither Google nor its contractors will ever build warfare technology.
Google is implementing Project Maven, a customized AI surveillance engine that uses “wide area motion imagery” data captured by US government drones to detect vehicles and other objects, track their motions and provide results to the Department of Defense.
Recently, Googlers voiced concerns about Maven internally. Diane Greene responded, assuring them that the technology will not “operate or fly drones” and “will not be used to launch weapons”. While this eliminates a narrow set of direct applications, the technology is being built for the military, and once it’s delivered it could easily be used to assist in these tasks. This plan will irreparably damage Google’s brand and its ability to compete for talent.
Amid growing fears of biased and weaponized AI, Google is already struggling to keep the public’s trust. By entering into this contract, Google will join the ranks of companies like Palantir, Raytheon and General Dynamics. The argument that other firms, like Microsoft and Amazon, are also participating doesn’t make this any less risky for Google. Google’s unique history, its motto “don’t be evil”, and its direct reach into the lives of billions of users set it apart.
We cannot outsource the moral responsibility of our technologies to third parties. Google’s stated values make this clear: every one of our users is trusting us. Never jeopardize that. Ever. This contract puts Google’s reputation at risk and stands in direct opposition to our core values. Building this technology to assist the US government in military surveillance – and potentially lethal outcomes – is not acceptable.
Recognizing Google’s moral and ethical responsibility, and the threat to Google’s reputation, we request that you: 1. Cancel this project immediately. 2. Draft, publicize and enforce a clear policy stating that neither Google nor its contractors will ever build warfare technology.
Julianne Tevten at The New Republic writes—Living in a Pepsi Ad World How corporate America has commodified the protest movements of the Trump era:
Since, roughly, Trump’s inauguration, private enterprise has tapped into an American furor gone mainstream, leveraging marches into marketplaces. In 2017, New Yorkmagazine’s style vertical, The Cut, informed readers which scarves and leggings from Uniqlo, Amazon, and American Apparel they should tote at the Women’s March. Smaller companies, too, used it as an advertising platform: The CEO of cosmetics firm Glossier carried a sign to the same march proclaiming “We’re in it together” under the company’s signature “G,” and health-tech startup Tia offered free poster templates for download, its playful serif logo nestled in the corner. (The page appears to have been deactivated.) Cell carrier CREDO Mobile adopted the same tactic, branding intact, for last month’s March For Our Lives to protest gun violence.
If protesters are a market, it should come as no surprise that signs and posters designed for them aren’t just canvases for ads; they’re also for sale. Princeton Architectural Press, for instance, has published a series of ready-made signs: Posters for Change, a collection of 50 removable posters running the gamut of causes of the #Resistance, from the abstract “Stay woke” to the more concrete, if nonspecific, “Fund the Arts.” The book exhorts prospective marchers to “Tear, Paste, Protest”—that is, after they fork over the requisite $25.
Stephanie Russell-Kraft at The New Republic writes—The Rise of Male Supremacist Groups:
In February, the Southern Poverty Law Center added two male supremacist websites to its list of hate groups, for the first time categorizing male supremacy as an explicit ideology of hate. The ideology of male supremacy, according to the SPLC, represents all women as “genetically inferior, manipulative, and stupid” beings who exist primarily for their reproductive and sexual functions. Gender-essentializing male supremacists rely on cherry-picked science and anthropology to bolster their claims that men are inherently dominant. Not only do women owe men sex, they believe, but men are entitled to take it from them.
“You want to reach a point where you have high expectations of a woman but she has little expectations of you,” wrote Daryush “Roosh” Valizadeh, founder of Return of Kings, in a recent blog post. “She must give you submission while you do as you may.”
Return of Kings is one of the two male supremacist organizations listed by the SPLC. A Voice for Men, founded by Paul Elam, is the other. While Elam’s “men’s rights” movement has enjoyed some favorable media coverage, and he has managed to present himself as a moderate voice for men’s equality, he is no less dangerous, having advocated for both physical and sexual violence against women.
Michael T. Klare at TomDispatch writes—Could the Cold War Return With a Vengeance? The Pentagon Plans for a Perpetual Three-Front “Long War” Against China and Russia:
Think of it as the most momentous military planning on Earth right now. Who’s even paying attention, given the eternal changing of the guard at the White House, as well as the latest in tweets, sexual revelations, and investigations of every sort? And yet it increasingly looks as if, thanks to current Pentagon planning, a twenty-first-century version of the Cold War (with dangerous new twists) has begun and hardly anyone has even noticed.
In 2006, when the Department of Defense spelled out its future security role, it saw only one overriding mission: its “Long War” against international terrorism. “With its allies and partners, the United States must be prepared to wage this war in many locations simultaneously and for some years to come,” the Pentagon’s Quadrennial Defense Review explained that year. Twelve years later, the Pentagon has officially announced that that long war is drawing to a close -- even though at least seven counterinsurgency conflicts still rage across the Greater Middle East and Africa -- and a new long war has begun, a permanent campaign to contain China and Russia in Eurasia.
“Great power competition, not terrorism, has emerged as the central challenge to U.S. security and prosperity,” claimed Pentagon Comptroller David Norquist while releasing the Pentagon’s $686 billion budget request in January. [...]
Simon Davis-Cohen at The Progressive writes—Poll: Voters Want Local Control, Not State Takeovers
The Republican Party and corporate-backed groups like the Koch-funded American Legislative Exchange Council have made “state preemption” of local political and economic powers a top priority for decades. Left-leaning electoral movements have been sluggish in their response.
Despite Occupy and other mobilizations against globalized capitalism, for example, the institutional left has stopped short of promoting anything close to the structural change that would be necessary to accommodate pro-local projects. Yet municipalist movements are broadly supported in the United States, in movements for local control over renewable energy, education, the minimum wage, and other issues.
A new poll commissioned by Local Solutions Support Center shows that a majority of voters nationally disapprove of state legislatures’ preemption of local laws expanding worker benefits, increasing wage increases, and tightening gun controls.
The poll also found that 70 percent of people think state preemption “happens frequently or sometimes due to corporate special interests and lobbyists convincing state lawmakers to preempt local laws to protect their profits.” And 58 percent believe local governments are more knowledgeable of community needs.
Steven M. Walt at Foreign Policy writes—How to Start a War in 5 Easy Steps:
The first thing to remember is that leaders don’t start wars that they believe will be long, costly, and might end in their own defeat. Plenty of wars turn out that way, of course, but the leaders who begin them do so because they fool themselves into thinking the war will be quick, cheap, and successful. [...]
So, if a president and his advisors are looking to start a war, how will they sell it? Here are the five main arguments that hawks typically advance when seeking to justify a war. You might think of them as the Top Five Warning Signs We’re Going to War.
- The danger is grave and growing. [...]
- War will be easy and cheap (but only if we act now). [...]
- War will solve all (or at least most) of our problems. [...]
- The enemy is evil. Or crazy. Maybe both. [...]
- Peace is unpatriotic.
The final warning sign is when an administration starts wrapping itself in the flag and suggesting that skepticism about the use of force is a sign of insufficient patriotism. During the Vietnam War, Lyndon Johnson and Richard Nixon accused anti-war activists of giving aid and comfort to the enemy, and an administration eager to sell a war is bound to portray those opposing it as weak-willed, naive, or insufficiently committed to U.S. security. If Trump is contemplating war and prominent people start to challenge him, you’ll know by keeping a close eye on his Twitter feed.
Barry Ritholtz at Bloomberg writes—Congress, Not Amazon, Messed Up the Post Office
Let's get one thing out of the way up front: President Donald Trump's endless grousing about Amazon is nothing more than a thinly disguised complaint about the Washington Post, which has done a fine job reporting on his administration, revealing its many warts and ethical lapses. He has made no secret of his hostility, as a brief review of his Twitter posts would show.
But let's set that aside and try to answer whether the USPS provides an unfair subsidy to Amazon. To better understand these claims requires a fuller understanding about the Post Office.
Let's start with the USPS
mandate: It was formed with a very different directive than its private-sector competitors, such as FedEx Corp. and United Parcel Service Inc. Those two giant private shippers, along with a bevy of smaller ones, are for-profit companies that can charge whatever they believe the market will bear. The USPS, by contrast, is charged with delivering to every home and business in America, no matter how remote. And, they can only charge what Congress allows; increases require approval. It also has congressional pressure and oversight on where it must maintain postal offices. The USPS has been slowly closing sites where there is insufficient customer demand. But closing an obsolete or little-used facility invariably entails a battle with each representative, who in turn faces voter anger when the local post office is targeted for closing. FedEx or UPS can open or close locations with little problem as demand and package traffic dictate.
Then there is the
Postal Accountability and Enhancement Act of 2006 (PAEA), which some have taken to calling "
the most insane law" ever passed by Congress. The law requires the Postal Service, which receives no taxpayer subsidies, to
prefund its retirees' health benefits for 75 years into the future -- this covers the health cost of employees not yet hired, and in many cases not even born yet. If that doesn't meet the definition of insanity, I don't know what does. This is a
$5 billion per year cost; it is a requirement that no other entity, private or public, has to make. Without this obligation, the Post Office actually turns a profit. Some have called this a "
manufactured crisis." It's also significant that lots of companies
benefit from the burden that make the USPS less competitive; these same companies might also would benefit from full USPS
privatization, a goal that has been pushed by several conservative think tanks for years.