Chris Hedges's Blog, page 498

What Those Joint Editorials Denouncing Trump Conveniently Left Out

On Thursday, at the initiative of the Boston Globe, hundreds of newspapers purported to stand up for a free press against the destructive rhetoric of Donald Trump. It was also the one-month anniversary of my arrest at the July 16 Trump-Putin summit in Helsinki, in which I was dragged out of the news conference and locked up until the middle of the night.

As laid in my cell, I chuckled at the thought of the city’s billboards proclaiming Finland the “land of free press.” Let’s say I’ve grown an especially high sensitivity to both goonish behavior toward journalists simply doing their jobs and to glorified marketers masquerading as defenders of media freedoms.

As some have noted, the editorials in question will likely help Trump whip up support among his base against a monolithic press. Just as clearly, the establishment media can draw attention away from their own failures, corruptions and falsehoods,  simply by focusing on Trump’s.

Big media outlets need not report news that actually affect your life and point to serious solutions for social ills. They can simply bad-mouth Trump. And Trump need not deliver on campaign promises that tapped into populist anger that has grown in reaction to years of elite rule. He need only deride the major media.

Together, the two are frenemies, engaged in an elaborate game of logrolling. The major media built up Trump; Trump’s attacks effectively elevate a select few media celebrities.

My case is a small but telling one. From the start, major media outlets were more likely to misinform about the manhandling I received in my attempt to ask about U.S., Russian and Israeli nuclear threats to humanity than to crusade against it. (I’ll soon give a detailed rebuttal to the torrent of falsehoods, some of which I’ve already noted on social media). But examples are too numerous to count.

None of the newspaper editorials I’ve seen published, for instance, mention the likely prosecution of Wikileaks. If there were solidarity among media, the prospect of Julian Assange being imprisoned for publishing U.S. government documents should be front and center.

Neither have I seen much mention of RT or, as of this week, Al Jazeera, being compelled to register as foreign agents. State Department Spokesperson Heather Nauert has openly refused to take questions from reporters working for Russian outlets. This virtual silence is born, in part, of the media’s depiction of Russia as the great enemy, which lets U.S. government policy around the world off the hook.  Unlike the rhetoric that demands so much of today’s news coverage, all of these are concrete actions the Trump administration has taken against the media.

Then there’s the threat of social media.

In my day job, I work for the Institute for Public Accuracy. Yesterday [Aug. 15], I put out a news release titled “Following Assassination Attempt, Facebook Pulled Venezuela Content.” Tech giants can decide—possibly in coordination with the U.S. government—to pull the plug on content at a time and manner of their choosing. You would think newspapers might be keen to highlight the threat that such massive corporations pose, not least of all because they have eaten up their ad revenue.

The sad truth is that this is what much of the media have been doing for decades. Contrary to the lofty rhetoric of this week’s editorials, the promise of an independent and truth-seeking press has frequently been subservient to propaganda that pushes for war or advocates on behalf of a narrow set of economic interests.

Another major story of the week—one quite related to this—is that of Trump pulling former CIA Director John Brennan’s security clearance. NPR has called it an attempt to “silence” political dissent. But Brennan had an op-ed in Thursday’s New York Times and frequently appears on major media. If anything, the president’s actions have only elevated the former Obama official’s major media status.

The ones who have truly been silenced in the “Trump era” are those who are critical of the seemingly perpetual U.S. government war machine since the invasion of Iraq.

Trump’s attacks on establishment media—like many media attacks on him—are frequently devoid of substance. But in one of his more revealing tweets, he recently argued that the press “cause wars.” (I would say “push for war,” but that’s quibbling.)

Trump is technically right on that point, but he’s hardly one to talk, as one of the primary beneficiaries of the very compulsion he claims to deride. When he exalted U.S. bombing strikes in Yemen, Syria and elsewhere, CNN infamously called him “presidential.”

Many consider “Russiagate” to be the president’s achilles heel, and yet the two reporters called on at the the Helsinki news conference focused on precisely that, which in turn led to Brennan and others attacking Trump as “treasonous”. Meanwhile, established collusion between the U.S. and Israel has been ignored as the two governments attempt to violently reorder the Middle East.

The need for genuinely free sources of information is greater than ever. It remains unclear if traditional newspapers can be part of the solution. More likely, the institutions desperately needed to carry out that critical mission are yet to be born.

This article first appeared on Sam Husseini’s blog, Posthaven.

As Chesapeake Bay Rises, Islanders’ Future Sinks

“Chesapeake Requiem: A Year With the Watermen of Vanishing Tangier Island”

A book by Earl Swift

For at least the past 100 years, reporters from across the world have visited the island of Tangier to try to figure out why people live on this tiny dot of land in the middle of the Chesapeake Bay. It’s not that much of a mystery, really: Most descend from families that have always lived there, and they, too, want to live the waterman’s life. And yet, for at least the past 100 years, outsiders have usually gotten it wrong.

The mischaracterizations generally cut in one of two ways—either islanders are dismissed as inbred half-wits, or they are overly romanticized as vestiges of man’s innate desire to survive on his own, unmoved by the temptations and conveniences of modern life. An early version of the genre came in 1914 in Harper’s Magazine, which set out to explore the “queer goin’s-on over yonder on Tangier,” expecting to find “a community morally and mentally weakened by inbreeding.”

Along with those misperceptions come the standard, seductive myths of Tangier: The people are fiercely religious (mostly true); they are so pious that alcohol is banned (technically true, but not really); and their unusual accents are America’s last remaining link to original Elizabethan English (not remotely close to true).

At long last, someone has finally gotten it right. In “Chesapeake Requiem,” author Earl Swift masterfully reveals Tangier as it is—a proud but struggling community of fewer than 500 people trying to hold on to what they can amid unending hardship and isolation.

The challenges, as Swift captures in his sweeping historical narrative, range from the merely annoying—black flies abound—to the deadly: When the bay’s notorious, fierce winds kick up, not even the expert captains of Tangier can find safe passage home.

Click here to read long excerpts from “Chesapeake Requiem” at Google Books.

Though “Chesapeake Requiem” is cast as something of a “Hillbilly Elegy” for this seaside attraction, Swift makes a compelling case that the story of Tangier is far more consequential: It is probably the first community in America that will be entirely wiped away by climate change. The island, which is nearly 16 miles from the mainland town of Onancock and no more than 4 feet above sea level at its highest point, is disappearing at an alarming rate. What America decides to do about it will set a precedent for what the country chooses to do elsewhere.

Swift’s understanding of Tangier is hard-earned. He spent the better part of two years living there, after having visited multiple times over many years on his own and as a reporter for The Virginian-Pilot. The result is an intimate, meticulously reported and captivating account of life on the island.

At the center of it is a core group of watermen that includes Mayor James “Ooker” Eskridge, who garnered international attention last year when he said on CNN that he loved President Trump “as much as any family member I got,” prompting a call from the president.

Flattery aside, what Eskridge wanted from Trump was help. The president was strongly backed by nearly every man, woman and child on Tangier, and they are counting on him to do something to save their disappearing island. As Swift details, various proposals to protect Tangier from storms and rising waters have been studied for years, but little has been done because of indecision and red tape. A main stumbling block is that there really is no bureaucratic rationale to save Tangier. By any government formula, it has too few people who produce too little to qualify for limited funding—its famous soft-shell crabs notwithstanding.

Another obstacle has been that few, if any, on Tangier believe in climate change, choosing instead to believe that their island is shrinking because of erosion. Swift deals with this like the newspaperman he once was—loyal to the facts, while giving the islanders space to speak for themselves.

But he doesn’t excuse them. He observes that while they are individually resourceful and self-sufficient, they are collectively unproductive. Regarding their predicament, they tend to bemoan the lack of action by others rather than doing much of anything on their own.

At times, you can see where they’re coming from. Islanders are resentful of a decades-long federal project in the Maryland part of the bay to restore Poplar Island. When the project is completed in 2040, at a cost of $1.4 billion, the island will be returned to the rough shape and size it was in 1847. But there will be no direct benefit to humans, as the island’s inhabitants have long since moved on. Rather, it will serve as a habitat for birds and other wildlife.

Summing up the view on Tangier, one longtime resident says: “They can build islands but they can’t save an island? I don’t go for that much.”

Rising seas are not the only imminent threat to Tangier. Many of those who remain are elderly, and there are ever fewer young people to replace them. Many parents encourage their children to leave after finishing high school rather than pursue a life on the water, where days are long, success is fleeting and rewards are few. The school itself, which counts about 60 students from first through 12th grade, could close because of a lack of funds or a lack of teachers—a number of them are beyond retirement age, and it’s hard to imagine who would replace them.

Swift is careful not to romanticize life on the island. This is not Nantucket. Charm is not Tangier’s thing; its appeal is that it does not try to be appealing.

Islanders welcome summer tourists with something between ambivalence and indifference, wary of their intentions, weary of their curiosity. If there is anything distinctive about the homes, it is that many are surrounded by chain-link fences. Others are left to rot, shaking off debris that can go untended for years. In one memorable passage, Swift walks the island, cataloging the empty homes. He counts 52, plus 12 trailers—20 percent of the island’s total housing stock.

Tangier is not just small, it is tiny.

A walk from the beach on one end to the dock on the other can be made in about a half-hour. There is a landing strip, but the only way in and out for most is a long, often choppy ride across open waters. There is no shade to escape to in the summer, and winter can be so brutal that islanders often retreat into their homes, unable to navigate the icy bay. Though alcohol is banned, some take to drinking anyway, while others are addicted to drugs.

“Folks will come here and have their island experience,” church board member Jean Crockett told Swift. “They’ll be attracted by this idea that it’s an idyllic place. And the truth is that it is not an idyllic place, and they won’t stay.”

But what of Crockett and the few hundred others who call it home? Will they get to stay?

If Tangier is to be saved from the very waters that have provided its identity and sustenance for the past 240 years, action will have to come fast. Scientists estimate that the island could be completely submerged in as few as 25 years.

If there were ever political will to do something, the moment is now. The Republican president has taken a personal interest (though he, too, dismisses the fact of climate change). Virginia’s two Democratic senators, Mark Warner and Tim Kaine, have visited and focused on the island’s plight. And Virginia’s new Democratic governor, Ralph Northam, happens to be from Onancock, where he grew up across the water from Tangier. In his inaugural address this year, Northam noted that he had once been the captain of a ferry to the island. It will largely be up to these politicians to determine whether Tangier is worth saving.

If they decide it is not, “Chesapeake Requiem” will have arrived just in time to provide the definitive account of what once was and of what will soon be no more.

Steven Ginsberg is the national editor of The Washington Post and a native of Onancock, Virginia. He first visited Tangier on a frigid November boat ride for a high school basketball game in the late 1980s. His most recent visit was with his family last summer.

©2018, The Washington Post

Military Parade Won’t Happen in 2018, Government Announces

Truthdig editor’s note: To see an earlier report by Truthdig about the proposed parade, click here.

WASHINGTON — The Defense Department says the Veterans Day military parade ordered up by President Donald Trump won’t happen in 2018.

Col. Rob Manning, a Pentagon spokesman, said Thursday that the military and the White House “have now agreed to explore opportunities in 2019.”

The announcement came several hours after The Associated Press reported that the parade would cost about $92 million, according to U.S. officials citing preliminary estimates more than three times the price first suggested by the White House.

According to the officials, roughly $50 million would cover Pentagon costs for aircraft, equipment, personnel and other support for the November parade in Washington. The remainder would be borne by other agencies and largely involve security costs. The officials spoke on condition of anonymity to discuss early planning estimates that have not yet been finalized or released publicly.

Officials said the parade plans had not yet been approved by Defense Secretary Jim Mattis.

Mattis himself said late Thursday that he had seen no such estimate and questioned the media reports.

The Pentagon chief told reporters traveling with him to Bogota, Colombia, that whoever leaked the number to the press was “probably smoking something that is legal in my state but not in most” — a reference to his home state of Washington, where marijuana use is legal.

He added: “I’m not dignifying that number ($92 million) with a reply. I would discount that, and anybody who said (that number), I’ll almost guarantee you one thing: They probably said, ‘I need to stay anonymous.’ No kidding, because you look like an idiot. And No. 2, whoever wrote it needs to get better sources. I’ll just leave it at that.”

The parade’s cost has become a politically charged issue, particularly after the Pentagon canceled a major military exercise planned for August with South Korea, in the wake of Trump’s summit with North Korean leader Kim Jong Un. Trump said the drills were provocative and that dumping them would save the U.S. “a tremendous amount of money.” The Pentagon later said the Korea drills would have cost $14 million.

Lt. Col. Jamie Davis, a Pentagon spokesman, said earlier Thursday that Defense Department planning for the parade “continues and final details are still being developed. Any cost estimates are pre-decisional.”

The parade was expected to include troops from all five armed services — the Army, Navy, Air Force, Marine Corps and Coast Guard — as well as units in period uniforms representing earlier times in the nation’s history. It also was expected to involve a number of military aircraft flyovers.

A Pentagon planning memo released in March said the parade would feature a “heavy air component,” likely including older, vintage aircraft. It also said there would be “wheeled vehicles only, no tanks — consideration must be given to minimize damage to local infrastructure.” Big, heavy tanks could tear up streets in the District of Columbia.

The memo from Mattis’ office provided initial planning guidance to the chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff. His staff is planning the parade along a route from the White House to the Capitol and would integrate it with the city’s annual veterans’ parade. U.S. Northern Command, which oversees U.S. troops in North America, is responsible for the actual execution of the parade.

Earlier this year, the White House budget director told Congress that the cost to taxpayers could be $10 million to $30 million. Those estimates were likely based on the cost of previous military parades, such as the one in the nation’s capital in 1991 celebrating the end of the first Gulf War, and factored in some additional increase for inflation.

One veterans group weighed in Thursday against the parade. “The American Legion appreciates that our President wants to show in a dramatic fashion our nation’s support for our troops,” National Commander Denise Rohan said. “However, until such time as we can celebrate victory in the War on Terrorism and bring our military home, we think the parade money would be better spent fully funding the Department of Veteran Affairs and giving our troops and their families the best care possible.”

Trump decided he wanted a military parade in Washington after he attended France’s Bastille Day celebration in the center of Paris last year. As the invited guest of French President Emmanuel Macron, Trump watched enthusiastically from a reviewing stand as the French military showcased its tanks and fighter jets, including many U.S.-made planes, along the famed Champs-Elysees.

Several months later Trump praised the French parade, saying, “We’re going to have to try and top it.”

Vatican Voices ‘Shame and Sorrow’ Over Abuse by U.S. Priests

VATICAN CITY — The Vatican expressed “shame and sorrow” Thursday over a scathing Pennsylvania grand jury report about clergy who raped and molested children in six dioceses in that state, calling the abuse “criminally and morally reprehensible” and saying Pope Francis wants to eradicate “this tragic horror.”

In a written statement using uncharacteristically strong language for the Holy See even in matters like the long-running abuse scandals staining the U.S. church, Vatican spokesman Greg Burke sought to assure victims that “the pope is on their side.”

Pope Francis himself wasn’t quoted in the statement, and there was no mention of demands in the United States among some Roman Catholics for the resignation of Cardinal Donald Wuerl, the archbishop of Washington.

The grand jury report made public this week accused the cardinal of helping to protect some molester priests while he was bishop of the Pennsylvania city of Pittsburgh. Wuerl has defended his actions in Pittsburgh while apologizing for the damage inflicted on victims.

Burke said the incidents of abuse graphically documented in the report were “betrayals of trust that robbed survivors of their dignity and their faith.”

“The church must learn hard lessons from its past, and there should be accountability for both abusers and those who permitted abuse to occur,” he said.

Victims and their advocates for decades have lamented that top Catholic churchmen repeatedly put the reputation of the church ahead of obligations to protect children from harm from pedophile priests.

In a sign that Pope Francis wants to end that pervasive mind set among church hierachy, including bishops and cardinals, he recently accepted the resignation from cardinal’s rank of former Washington archbishop Theodore McCarrick amid allegations that the American prelate had engaged in sexual misconduct.

Resignations by cardinals are extremely rare, and McCarrick’s was the first time a prelate lost his cardinal’s rank in a sexual abuse scandal.

Burke said Francis “understands well how much these crimes can shake the faith and the spirit of believers and reiterates the call to make every effort to create a safe environment for minors and vulnerable adults in the church and in all of society.”

The grand jury report documented how pedophile priests were often protected by church hierarchy or moved to other postings without the faithful being told of the priests’ sexual predatory history.

The long-awaited grand jury report was full of vivid examples of horrendous abuse. In one such example, a young girl was raped by a priest visiting her while she was in a hospital following surgery to remove her tonsils. In another, a priest tied up a victim with a rope in a confessional booth, and when the victim refused to perform sex, the priest assaulted him with a crucifix.

Speaking about Francis, Burke said: “Those who have suffered are his priority, and the church wants to listen to them to root out this tragic horror that destroys the lives of the innocent.”

Even before the report was released, a series of scandals over the last few decades involving pedophile priests and systematic attempts by pastors and bishops to cover up the abuse by shuttling offenders to new parishes had rocked the faith of many Catholics in the United States.

Similar abuse and determination by protect abusers had also stained the reputation of the Catholic Church in many other countries.

Francis recently did a turnaround on how accusations by victims in Chile were viewed by the Vatican. After casting doubt on the victims’ accounts during his visit to Chile earlier this year, Francis apologized to them, hosted the victims at the Vatican and later accepted the resignations of some of the country’s bishops, who offered en masse to step down.

On Thursday, the U.S. Conference of Catholic Bishops invited the Vatican to play a key role in investigating the scandal involving McCarrick, who allegedly engaged in sexual misconduct with minors and adult seminarians.

The conference’s president, Cardinal Daniel DiNardo of Galveston-Houston, said he would go to Rome to ask the Vatican to conduct a high-level investigation known as an “apostolic visitation” to deal with McCarrick’s case, working together with a group of predominantly lay experts.

Massive Fiery Tornado Killed Fireman, California Agency Reports

SAN FRANCISCO — In the history of California wildfires there has never been anything like it: A churning tornado filled with fire, the size of three football fields.

An official report describes in chilling detail the intensity of the rare fire phenomenon and how quickly it took the life of Redding firefighter Jeremy Stoke, who was enveloped in seconds as he tried to evacuate residents on July 26.

Three videos released with the report late Wednesday show the massive funnel of smoke and flames in a populated area on the edge of Redding, about 250 miles (400 kilometers) north of San Francisco.

The smoke-and-fire tornado was about 1,000 feet (300 meters) wide at its base and shot approximately 7.5 miles (12 kilometers) into the sky; it reached speeds of up to 165 mph (265 kph), with temperatures that likely exceeded 2,700 degrees Fahrenheit (1,480 degrees Celsius), said the report by the California Department of Forestry and Fire Protection.

The tornado exploded in the middle of what was already a gigantic, devastating wildfire that started on July 23 with a spark from a vehicle driving on a flat tire. Stoke is one of eight people killed since the blaze started and destroyed nearly 1,100 homes. It was 76 percent contained as of Thursday.

A 17-year veteran of the fire department, Stoke was familiar with the dangers of wildfires. But this was unprecedented.

“There have been several documented instances of a fire whirl in California,” said Jonathan Cox, a Cal Fire battalion chief. “But this is the largest documented fire whirl — a fire-generated tornado — in California history.”

The 37-year-old fire inspector was driving his pickup truck down a Redding road, working on evacuating people from the larger blaze, when he radioed out a “mayday” call, according to the report.

Stoke said he “needed a water drop and was getting burned over,” the report said.

Then Stoke’s transmissions abruptly stopped.

An engine captain who heard the call asked for Stoke’s location. There was no response.

Fire dispatchers tried to locate him by ‘pinging’ his cellphone.

Stoke’s remains were not found until the next day, and it took more time to analyze the ferocity of the tornado that ripped roofs off houses and flung power line towers, cars and a shipping container into the air near the spot where Stoke was overtaken by the flames, according to the report.

A confluence of weather conditions likely contributed to the tornado, including a combination of record heat in the Sacramento Valley — it reached 113 degrees Fahrenheit (45 degrees Celsius) in Redding that day — and cool high-speed winds coming from the coast, the report said.

“It was something out of this world, a perfect storm,” Gary Parmely, who was Stoke’s stepfather and raised him from the time he was a child, told the AP in a telephone interview Thursday. “It was incompatible with life, and he happened to drive into it.”

Parmely said he has driven out several times to the site where Stoke died. American flags, flowers and a framed picture of Stoke have been left in memoriam.

“The loss of Jeremy broke the heart of this community, not just his family,” Parmely said. Stoke leaves behind a wife and two children. Stoke was on vacation with his best friend in Idaho but cut the trip short, Parmely said.

“He came back early to help fight this fire.”

The report also detailed the death of private bulldozer operator Don Smith, 81, of Pollock Pines, who was killed when his bulldozer was caught in the flames while trying to improve a fire line, defending a home, during what the officials say were “extraordinary fire weather conditions.”

Both deaths occurred within an hour and 50 minutes in one 3-mile (5-kilometer) stretch of the Carr Fire, which is one of several massive wildfires in California this year.

The Carr Fire jumped the fire line and a Cal Fire crew chief said he made several radio attempts to tell Smith to “get out of there.” Two firefighters in the area also “recognized the urgency of the situation” and tried to reach Smith on foot, but had to turn back because of the encroaching flames.

Smith reported that he was cut off by the fire and was pushing on in his 2002 John Deere open cab bulldozer in an attempt to reach a safe area. He also requested water drops and four helicopters began dropping water through the smoke and flames around Smith’s last known location.

Once the smoke cleared, a pilot saw that Smith’s dozer had been engulfed in flames and there was no sign of the protective metallic tent that firefighters deploy as a desperate measure when they are about to be overrun by fire. After two attempts, a fire captain was able to reach the bulldozer two hours later and confirmed that Smith was dead.

___

Associated Press writer Don Thompson in Sacramento, California, contributed to this report.

___

Information from: San Francisco Chronicle, http://www.sfgate.com

Trump Military Parade to Cost $80 Million More Than Previously Expected

Editor’s note: To see a later article by The Associated Press on the proposed parade, click here.

In July, months after Donald Trump asked the Pentagon to assemble a grand military parade in Washington, D.C., for Veterans Day, defense officials predicted it would cost approximately $12 million. On Thursday, the Department of Defense issued a new estimate—this one exceeding the previous figure by a cool $80 million.

“The $92 million cost estimate includes security, transportation of parade assets, aircraft, as well as temporary duty for troops,” reveals CNBC’s Amanda Macias. “The [DOD] also noted that while the size and scope of the military parade can still shift, the plans currently include [such armored vehicles as] Bradleys, Strykers and M113s.”

In case all that is somehow insufficient, the parade also will feature “helicopter, fighter jet and transport aircraft,” along with “historical military plane flyovers.”

Reports that the president would not have tanks rolling through the streets of the nation’s capital as requested appear to have been premature. As many as eight M1 Abrams are expected for the day’s festivities, despite initial concerns that they could tear up the city’s streets. (Experts now believe that will not happen because of the vehicles’ distributed weight and track pads.)

Trump began pining for a military parade after celebrating Bastille Day in Paris with French President Emmanuel Macron. There, the two memorably took in a Daft Punk medley by the army’s marching band.

“It was a tremendous day, and to a large extent because of what I witnessed, we may do something like that on July 4 in Washington down Pennsylvania Avenue,” Trump said in September. “We’re going to have to try to top it, but we have a lot of planes going over and a lot of military might, and it was really a beautiful thing to see, and representatives from different wars and different uniforms [sic].”

According to CNBC, the U.S. has not held a major military parade since 1991, following the Persian Gulf War. The cost of that ceremony was $8 million, a substantial portion of which was paid with private donations.

Google Sets Record Straight on ‘Location History’ Setting

SAN FRANCISCO—Google has revised a help page that erroneously described how its “Location History” setting works, clarifying for users that it still tracks their location even if they turn the setting off.

On Monday, an Associated Press investigation revealed that several Google apps and websites store user location even if users have turned off Location History. Google has not changed its location-tracking practice in that regard.

But its help page now states: “This setting does not affect other location services on your device.” It also acknowledges that “some location data may be saved as part of your activity on other services, like Search and Maps.”

Previously, the page stated: “With Location History off, the places you go are no longer stored.”

The AP observed that the change occurred midday Thursday, three days after the AP’s initial report.

The AP investigation found that even with Location History turned off, Google stores user location when, for instance, the Google Maps app is opened, or when users conduct Google searches that aren’t related to location.

In a Thursday statement to the AP, Google said: “We have been updating the explanatory language about Location History to make it more consistent and clear across our platforms and help centers.”

Jonathan Mayer, a Princeton computer scientist and former chief technologist for the Federal Communications Commission’s enforcement bureau, said the wording change was a step in the right direction, but doesn’t fix the underlying confusion Google created by storing location information in multiple ways.

“The notion of having two distinct ways in which you control how your location data is stored is inherently confusing,” he said Thursday. “I can’t think off the top of my head of any major online service that architected their location privacy settings in a similar way.”

Huge tech companies are under increasing scrutiny over their data practices, following a series of privacy scandals at Facebook and new data-privacy rules recently adopted by the European Union. Last year, the business news site Quartz found that Google was tracking Android users by collecting the addresses of nearby cellphone towers even if all location services were off. Google changed the practice and insisted it never recorded the data anyway.

Critics say Google’s insistence on tracking its users’ locations stems from its drive to boost advertising revenue.

The Truth About Social Security Its Critics Refuse to Acknowledge

President Franklin Roosevelt signed our Social Security system into law eighty-three years ago today, on August 14, 1935. It has stood the test of time.

Social Security protects us against the economic consequences of risks to which all of us are vulnerable. Rich or poor, any of us can suffer a devastating, disabling accident or illness. Rich or poor, any of us can die prematurely, leaving young children behind. Rich or poor, all of us hope to grow old. When we do, if we are to have a dignified and independent retirement, we need a guaranteed steady income which we cannot and will not outlive.

Social Security addresses universal economic risks that have always been with us and always will be. That explains why more than 170 countries today have some form of social security. It also explains Social Security’s deep and longstanding popularity in our country. In a survey conducted in 1936—one year after the enactment of Social Security, before a penny of benefits was expended—68 percent of those surveyed expressed approval for the new and untested program. By 1944, that percentage was a nearly unanimous 96 percent. That high level of support has been consistent throughout the last eighty years.

Despite Social Security’s more than eighty-year history, some elites either do not understand Social Security or willfully refuse to understand it. They talk about providing benefits to those who need them, as if the program were government largesse, which it is not. Rather, Social Security is insurance that is earned through work and paid for with premiums regularly deducted from workers’ pay.

In addition, elites often speak as if the trust funds were some kind of gimmick, somehow less real than private pension trust funds. Perhaps most absurd are those who claim that what the creators of Social Security intended is not the program we now have.

Indeed, today’s discussions of Social Security are replete with revisionist history—statements made today about what was or was not intended by its original creators and champions. Some of today’s revisionist statements are zombie lies: Claims made and refuted again and again over the last eighty years; claims that refuse to die.

Former Senator Alan Simpson (R-WY), for example, has stated that Social Security “was never intended as a retirement program. It was set up in ’37 and ’38 to take care of people who were in distress—ditch diggers, wage earners….” Nationally syndicated columnist George Will claims, “People forget Social Security was advocated … in the 1930s, as a way of getting people to quit working, because they thought we were confined to a permanent scarcity of jobs in this country.”

Syndicated columnist Robert Samuelson in a column entitled, “Would Roosevelt recognize today’s Social Security?” even claims, “Social Security has evolved into something he never intended and actively opposed.” Samuelson, Will, Simpson, and the other revisionist historians are wrong. Indeed, to state it bluntly, those modern-day statements are all nonsense.

Roosevelt’s and the other founders’ words and actions make clear that they envisioned Social Security to be a permanent part of the economy, once the Great Depression was history. They knew that the nation would return to full employment. When we did, the goal was to have in place Social Security and other programs that improved the economic security of all Americans and prevented, as much as possible, the human cost imposed by the ups and downs of all modern economies. In particular, Social Security was not designed to alleviate the suffering of people caught in the immediate distress of the Great Depression, nor to get people to quit their jobs. Rather, it was set up as wage insurance that people earned.

This should be obvious to anyone with even a superficial knowledge of Social Security’s history. Because the architects knew that it would take time and work to earn Social Security’s benefits, the Social Security Act of 1935 was written so that not a single penny of those earned monthly retirement benefits was payable for seven years!

But the absurdity of those revisionist historians goes much further than simply being wrong on the facts. They seek to expunge the far-sighted and noble vision of Social Security’s founders. President Roosevelt and those around him had a sweeping vision that still has yet to be fully realized.

When Roosevelt signed the Social Security Act of 1935 into law, he described it as “a cornerstone in a structure which is being built but is by no means complete.” He and his colleagues were anything but short-sighted. They were not simply and solely focused on the immediate distress caused by the Great Depression, as the revisionists would have us believe. Rather, they saw Social Security as a “cornerstone,” a beginning on which to build.

Despite today’s revisionists, the structure and size of today’s Social Security program is completely consistent and harmonious with what Roosevelt began. Medicare is consistent with a first step toward the vision of universal health insurance. The revisionists are wrong when they claim that Roosevelt would not recognize today’s Social Security and Medicare.

He would be surprised that more progress hadn’t been made, but he would absolutely recognize how those who came later built on what he envisioned and began. Now it is our turn. It is time to expand Social Security and enact an improved Medicare for All.

This article was produced by the Independent Media Institute.

This excerpt was adapted from Nancy J. Altman, The Truth About Social Security: The Founders’ Words Refute Revisionist History, Zombie Lies, and Common Misunderstandings (Strong Arm Press, Publication Date: August 14, 2018).

It’s True: Your Boss Is Making More Than You Do. Maybe 3,101 Times More.

There’s new data to back up the nagging feeling that millions of U.S. workers experience every payday: Their bosses really are making hundreds of times the amount the average worker does.

On average, that would be 312 times, according to a new report from the Economic Policy Institute, which analyzed the 2017 compensation of chief executives from America’s 350 top companies.

The disparity, The Guardian explained Thursday, “came after the bosses of America’s largest companies got an average pay rise of 17.6% in 2017, taking home an average of $18.9m in compensation while their employees’ wages stalled, rising just 0.3% over the year.”

It’s a gap that’s been widening since the 1990s, the article continues: “In 1965, the ratio of CEO to worker pay was 20 to one; that figure had risen to 58 to one by 1989 and peaked in 2000, when CEOs earned 344 times the wage of their average worker.”

There was a brief dip in CEO pay in the early 2000s, the report found, but it’s been steadily rising once again since 2009.

New financial disclosures rules allowed the EPI to bring this information to light. It compels companies to publish the ratio of CEO-to-worker pay. The rule, a Washington Post article explained this year, was part of the 2010 Dodd-Frank legislation passed in the wake of the 2008 financial crisis.

It took until 2015 for the disclosure rule to be finalized, the Post explained, because of resistance from business advocacy groups “that said it would be onerous and expensive to calculate.” In addition, the Post continues, “the rule was thought to be a goner after the 2016 election, when a Republican-controlled Congress and a White House whose transition team had promised to ‘dismantle’ Dodd-Frank came to power.”

It survived unscathed and, The Guardian explains, allowed American workers to confirm their worst suspicions about CEO pay:

Last year McDonald’s CEO Steve Easterbrook earned $21.7m while the McDonald’s workers earned a median wage of just $7,017–a CEO to worker pay ratio of 3,101-to-one. The average Walmart worker earned $19,177 in 2017 while CEO Doug McMillon took home $22.8m–a ratio of 1,188-to-one.

 

Women of Color Are Making History Ahead of Midterms

It has been a banner year for women running in elections across the country in statehouse, gubernatorial and congressional races. But women of color, who have been so dramatically underrepresented in the halls of power for so long, are making particularly significant gains. What’s even more exciting is that many of them are going beyond standard identity politics and espousing strongly progressive positions. While the more important battles will come in November’s general elections, the primary races have already indicated that we are witnessing a game-changing moment in the nation’s political landscape.

Much has been written about the breakout star of the New York primary, Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez, who stunned the nation in an overwhelming victory against top Democrat Joe Crowley in the Bronx and Queens for a House seat. The 28-year-old self-identified democratic socialist of Puerto Rican heritage, who is expected to handily beat her little-known Republican opponent in November, is slated to become the youngest woman ever to serve in Congress.

Two progressive Muslim women—Palestinian-American Rashida Tlaib in Michigan and Somali-American Ilhan Omar in Minnesota—recently won their respective Democratic Party primaries for seats in the House. Both women are running in strongly Democratic districts, with Tlaib poised to win the seat vacated by John Conyers and Omar appearing likely to replace Rep. Keith Ellison (who has stepped down to run for another office). Together, they would lead the way as the first Muslim women to ever serve in the U.S. Congress. Even more significantly, both women espouse core progressive demands such as “Medicare for all,” abolishing ICE, and a $15-an-hour minimum wage.

New Mexico’s Deb Haaland could also make history in November, if she beats her Republican opponent, Janice Arnold-Jones, by becoming the nation’s first Native American woman to serve in Congress. A new poll showed her with a small but significant lead against Arnold-Jones, who is a Trumpian Republican. Haaland is also progressive, especially on issues of women’s reproductive rights. She could be joined in Congress by Sharice Davids, another Native American woman, who won a Democratic primary in Kansas. If Davids wins her House race in November, she would break an additional record—becoming the first openly gay congresswoman from Kansas, as well as the first member of the indigenous LGBT community to hold federal office. If Davids and Haaland both win, they would be the first two Native American women to become members of Congress.

Black women are also making their voices heard in this year’s elections. Jahana Hayes just won Connecticut’s Democratic primary race for a House seat, backing Medicare for all, abortion rights and other progressive policies. If she wins in November, Hayes would become Connecticut’s first-ever black female congressional representative. Journalist and activist Shaun King celebrated that primary win, writing that Hayes would “likely become the only black leader serving in the U.S. House or Senate from all of New England. She would also become one of only a few black members of Congress serving a district where white people make up a majority of the voting population.” Another black woman, Ayanna Pressley, is challenging an incumbent white male House representative, Michael Capuano, in Massachusetts’ Sept. 4 primary.

Women are also running for governor in states across the nation. A record number, 11, have already won their primary races to become major-party nominees. Among them is Stacey Abrams, who’s running for governor of Georgia. If Abrams beats President Trump’s favored candidate, Republican nominee Brian Kemp, she would become the nation’s first black female governor—an all the more impressive feat in a Deep South state like Georgia. Her opponent, Kemp, is so virulently right-wing that a New York Times opinion writer labeled him an “Enemy of Democracy.” Meanwhile, Abrams is running on a leftist platform, having won support from Vermont Sen. Bernie Sanders.

Even if some of these women don’t win their races against Republicans in November, they have already achieved much. Aimee Allison, president of the advocacy group Democracy in Color, told me in an interview that “women of color largely are Democrats, and they’re the most likely to face challenges by other Democrats in their own party. So as the most ‘primaried’ group of people, getting through the primary process is quite something.”

“These women did not get party support,” Allison said. “They didn’t get the typical validators, donors, people that are typically considered gate keepers. And yet, they’re being very, very successful.”

These progressive women of color embody in a tangible manner the worst fears of white supremacists like Trump, his supporters and advisers. They are the demographic opposite of the Republican base, which is dominated by white males.

A decade ago, when Barack Obama won the Democratic Party’s nomination for president, the backlash against people of color assuming higher political office ramped up, with Obama’s skin tone and ethnic background provoking an irrational hatred among extremist conservatives. Trump was part of that group with his unrelenting “birther” allegations claiming that Obama was born outside the U.S. Today, the Republican Party is seeing the natural outcome of its constant flirtation with racist policies, all the way from the Nazi-sympathizing Republican House nominee Steve West in Missouri to the white supremacist in the White House.

Sadly, as Allison implied, the Democratic Party isn’t living up to expectations either. It resists fully embracing the progressive women of color running this November, even as it has long relied on nonwhite voters to faithfully and uncritically back the party. Subsequently, candidates like Ocasio-Cortez and others have found new ways to win elections, relying on clearly defined progressive policy positions and working hard to increase voter turnout through grassroots efforts. Allison put it this way: “They’re creating a new path to being at the table, winning their primaries, and ultimately having a good shot of getting into office in November.”

“Something’s happening that’s coming up from underground,” concluded Allison about the groundswell of support for female candidates of color. “For generations, women of color have been part of expanding democracy, fighting for civil and human rights.” Indeed, since the nation’s founding, women of color have had the least political representation—with 90 percent of elected positions at all levels of government being white and mostly male. The importance of incumbency—holding office makes you more likely to win re-election and stay in office—keeps that political power concentrated in the same hands year after year.

But in a few decades, women of color will outnumber white women in America, and Allison is hopeful that the recent wave of primary successes is just the beginning. “Running for office is the latest iteration of insisting that we have the representation, people power, and a social, economic and racial justice agenda that can transform our country,” she said.