Wednesday, January 22, 2020

Jamie Dimon voice of the banksters was interviewed on CNBC at DAVOS 2020 extolling the virtues of the Capitalism as opposed to Sanders Warren Socialism, as CNBC calls it.Socialism is a commissar on your board he said or government owning your business and keeping it from going broke to save the mayor and towns jobs. Then he said he supports a carbon tax and tax dividend to be tax neutral and go back to the consumer. Finally he told us he believes in big government as the solution to the climate crisis, government policy he called for.

Jamie, that's socialism by your definition.

 WHICH OF COURSE IS A UNIQUE LIBERALTARIAN AMERICAN DEFINITION OF STATE CAPITALISM NOT SOCIALISM




JPMorgan's Jamie Dimon: "The American dream is alive — but fraying"

APRIL 2019

JP Morgan Chase chairman and CEO Jamie Dimon says in his annual shareholders letter that capitalism has flaws but is better than socialism, which "would be as much a disaster for our country as it has been in the other places it’s been tried." [Updated]
https://reports.jpmorganchase.com/investor-relations/2018/ar-ceo-letters.htm

"Socialism inevitably produces stagnation, corruption and often worse," Dimon writes.
"I am not an advocate for unregulated, unvarnished, free-for-all capitalism. (Few people I know are.) But we shouldn’t forget that true freedom and free enterprise (capitalism) are, at some point, inexorably linked."

Dimon also wrote: "CEOs can and should get involved — particularly when they or their companies can uniquely help design policies that are good for America."

"[W]hile almost all companies can help further job skills, training, and diversity and inclusion efforts, each company can also add value where it has distinct capabilities, like expertise around healthcare, infrastructure or technology."

JPMorgan also announced today that Heather Higginbottom, a former top Obama administration official, will join the corporate responsibility team in May to lead a new global public policy effort.

Higginbottom, most recently COO of CARE USA, was deputy secretary of state, deputy director of the White House Office of Management and Budget, and deputy director of the White House Domestic Policy Council.


Dimon wrote: "We believe the best way to scale programs that we have seen work in cities, states and countries around the globe is to develop actionable public policies that allow more people to benefit from economic growth."

Why American CEOs are worried about capitalism
2019

When Roger Williams got his turn at the microphone earlier this month, his question for the bank CEOs lined up before the House committee on financial services seemed an unusual one to put to seven sharp-suited financiers. “Are you a socialist or are you a capitalist?” the Texas Republican asked each of them, from Citigroup’s Mike Corbat to David Solomon of Goldman Sachs. 

None struggled to assure him of their free market bona fides, but the fact the question was even asked reflected a remarkable change in the discussion about business in Washington and beyond in recent months. 

America’s decades-old system of corporate capitalism is suddenly up for debate. One reason is the rising prominence of self-described democratic socialists such as Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez, Mr Williams’ fellow committee member, which has put a spotlight on critics who were once outside the political mainstream. Yet some of the most influential voices calling for change are the very chief executives who have arguably benefited most from the current model. 

Days before his appearance at the congressional hearing, one of the seven bank leaders offered some more nuanced thoughts on capitalism than his one-word affirmative answer to Mr Williams. Jamie Dimon, who earned $30m as chairman and chief executive of JPMorgan Chase last year, devoted several pages of his 23,000-word annual letter to shareholders to a reflection on the “fraying” of the American dream and the role business could play in stitching it back together. 

Ray Dalio, billionaire and founder of Bridgewater Associates LP, speaks during the Bridge Forum in San Francisco, California, U.S., on Tuesday, April 16, 2019. The event brings together leaders in finance and technology from Asia and Silicon Valley to connect and share insights. Photographer: David Paul Morris/Bloomberg

I’m a capitalist, and even I think capitalism is broken
Ray Dalio, Bridgewater

Capitalism had lifted billions out of poverty, he wrote, but “this is not to say that capitalism does not have flaws, that it isn’t leaving people behind and that it shouldn’t be improved”.

Companies — like governments, unions and special interest groups — may have become too self-interested, he conceded, ticking off loopholes in the corporate tax code. Having long been able to “almost literally drive by” many of society’s problems, they should now do more to address them, he argued. America needed to step up its spending in areas such as infrastructure and education, “and that may very well mean taxing the wealthy more”. 

In the same week the billionaire founder of the world’s largest hedge fund delivered a similar message — with a sterner warning. Bridgewater Associates’ Ray Dalio, worth almost $17bn by Bloomberg’s calculations, issued a manifesto arguing that the capitalist system he had embraced as a precocious 12-year-old investor was now reinforcing inequality and must “evolve or die”. Part of that evolution, he said in the near-8,000-word piece, would involve raising “more from the top” in taxes. 

“I’m a capitalist and even I think capitalism is broken,” Mr Dalio said as he tweeted out his essay. Expanding on the theme to a mass audience on 60 Minutes, the CBS current affairs television show, he said capitalism was “at a juncture”. Americans could reform it together, “or we will do it in conflict”. 

NEW YORK, NY - NOVEMBER 01: Honoree Abigail Disney speaks onstage during the 2018 Women's Media Awards at Capitale on November 1, 2018 in New York City. (Photo by Mike Coppola/Getty Images for Women's Media Center)
Abigail Disney says the $65.7m CEO Bob Iger earned last year is ‘insane’
CEOs in general are paid far too much . . . Jesus Christ himself isn’t worth 500 times his median worker’s pay

Abigail Disney, philanthropist

Few other capitalists have said so publicly that they share Mr Dalio’s fear of “some form of revolution”, but more and more of his peers are echoing his concerns about inequality and the populist backlash it has fed. Globalisation and technological change have “led to increased stress and declining living standards for many and created enormous wealth for a few,” Chubb chief executive Evan Greenberg wrote in the insurer’s latest annual report. The system was “failing a large portion of the population,” warned Weston Hicks of Allegheny, the reinsurance company owner. Companies from General Electric to Honeywell have begun to list populism and negative sentiment toward multinationals in the “risk factors” section of their corporate filings. 

Those arguing for reform range from Rose Marcario, chief executive of environmentally-conscious retailer Patagonia, to Larry Fink, who as chairman and chief executive of BlackRock has pushed the companies the giant asset manager invests in to show they serve a social purpose beyond making profits for their shareholders. 

Why now, 10 years on from the global financial crisis, after seeing stock markets and profits hit new highs and a Republican president cut corporate tax rates and regulations at their urging, do America’s leading capitalists sound so uneasy? One answer, according to some in the thick of the debate, is fear. 
A graphic with no description

“Part of what scares them is the politics,” says Darren Walker, president of the $13bn Ford Foundation. “What really scares them is when they look at the data showing younger people are increasingly comfortable with socialism as a way of organising the economy. That is incredibly frightening to them.”

According to a Gallup poll last year, the percentage of 18 to 29-year-old Americans who have positive views of socialism has held steady at 51 per cent, but the percentage saying they have positive views of capitalism has fallen from 68 per cent to 45 per cent since 2010.

The 2020 US election campaign is also expected to feature a long list of candidates with strong views on the subject, from Senator Elizabeth Warren, who has proposed breaking up big companies and imposing a “wealth tax” on individuals with assets over $50m, to Howard Schultz, the former Starbucks chief eyeing an independent run, who has talked of a “growing crisis of capitalism” even as he has questioned whether other candidates have the business experience to fix it. Several are testing out messages on earnest topics such as quarterly earnings guidance, share buybacks and a financial transaction tax that rarely light up presidential debates but have this year found an audience. 
Monday Interview CHUBB CEO Evan Greenberg at the Chubb Headquarters in New York

© Pascal Perich/FT
Globalisation and technology have “led to increased stress and declining living standards for many and created enormous wealth for a few”

Evan Greenberg, Chubb
“I think there’s a real fear that it’s legitimate now to talk about socialists’ and the left’s ideas of much higher taxes, corporate regulation, corporate reform and the stifling of free market enterprise,” says Martin Whittaker, chief executive of Just Capital, a charity that aims to build a more just marketplace by measuring how companies reflect Americans’ real priorities. 

“In private emails and discussions [business] people have been diagnosing the problem and I think everyone recognises we have a real problem,” he says, but the solutions are still up for grabs. “People are trying to find traction for a sensible middle way of capitalism reform but it’s not there yet.”



I’m a capitalist. Come on! I believe in markets. What I don’t believe in is theft 
Elizabeth Warren, Democrat


For Morris Pearl, a former BlackRock managing director, the pressure capitalists are feeling is just a consequence of the “gross inequality” that has shaken many voters’ faith in the free market. Mr Pearl chairs Patriotic Millionaires, a group of self-professed “traitors to their class” who have been lobbying since 2010 for higher taxes on the rich. 

Their message has attracted much more attention this year than before, Mr Pearl says, because “a lot of smart people suddenly realised there are a lot of people in the middle parts of the country that have just sort of had enough. Capitalism, if it’s going to survive, is going to have to address that.” 

As the public’s anger about inequality mounts, he ventures, capitalists should be thinking of preserving themselves, not just their system: “Given the choice between pitchforks and taxes, I’m choosing taxes.” 


Crunched: is capitalism really ending poverty?

His group has attracted few public company chief executives, however, and he sees “hubris” in some of their prescriptions, particularly on tax. Mr Dimon may favour higher personal taxes, yet he has been a vocal supporter of Republicans’ cuts to corporate tax rates, Mr Pearl says. “It’s good if you own stock in JPMorgan but that doesn’t do a lot of good to a lot of people. It’s kind of like saying . . . they want stuff like schools and bridges but they want somebody else to pay for it.” 

Similarly, when Amazon founder Jeff Bezos challenged retail rivals earlier in April to beat its $15 minimum wage, one Walmart executive responded on social media: “Hey retail competitors out there (you know who you are) how about paying your taxes?” 
A graphic with no description

Mr Dimon’s letter acknowledged that America’s business leaders “are not generally viewed with high levels of trust”, and some of his peers recognise that many people will tune out the prescriptions of people earning hundreds of times their median employee’s salary. 

Any boss launching into a discussion of inequality risks inviting an uncomfortable discussion about their own wealth. Equilar, an executive pay consultancy, calculates that the median chief executive of a large US company received 254 times as much as his or her median employee in compensation last year, with about one in 10 earning more than 1,000 times as much. The multiple 40 years ago, according to Economic Policy Institute research, was under 30. 

“Jesus Christ himself isn’t worth 500 times his median worker’s pay,” Abigail Disney, the film-maker, Disney heiress and Patriotic Millionaires member, told CNBC earlier this month. 

Richard Edelman, whose eponymous public relations firm publishes an annual study of trust (or the lack of it) in business, government and other institutions, says there are “relatively few” business leaders who can talk broadly about reforming capitalism and expect to be heard. But he believes many more can speak effectively about how their own businesses can improve their supply chains, retrain their employees or participate in their local communities. 
JPMorgan Chase CEO Jamie Dimon speaks at the North America's Building Trades Unions (NABTU) 2019 legislative conference in Washington, U.S., April 9, 2019. REUTERS/Jeenah Moon

Jamie Dimon, JPMorgan Chase chief executive, last year had a $31m pay package that made him Wall Street’s best-paid banking boss © Reuters
If we can demonstrate that we are spending money wisely, we should spend more [on] infrastructure and education funding. And that may very well mean taxing the wealthy more

Jamie Dimon, JPMorgan
Another hurdle for the reformers is the fact that business remains far from unified on the argument that capitalism must change. For every initiative like Lady Lynn Forester de Rothschild’s Coalition for Inclusive Capitalism there is an executive still speaking up for the shareholder primacy model popularised by Chicago economist Milton Friedman in the 1970s. 

Cognex chairman Robert Shillman, for example, used his shareholder letter this year to express his alarm at the trend of “bashing” businesses like his Massachusetts sensor and software manufacturer which is valued at $10bn, pointing to initiatives like Ms Warren’s accountable capitalism bill, which would oblige directors of large companies to consider the interests of all stakeholders, not just shareholders. “The free market has worked great for Cognex and for all its shareholders for the past 40 years,” he said. “Why change it?”


Other chief executives have rejected calls from Ms Warren, Ms Ocasio-Cortez and others for higher taxes on the rich, with computer magnate Michael Dell telling a Davos panel he trusted his charitable foundation more than he did the US government to allocate his wealth.

Such concerns have held back previous attempts to push capitalism in a more long-termist, stakeholder-friendly direction. Dominic Barton, global managing partner emeritus of McKinsey, wrote a Harvard Business Review essay in 2011 while he was still running the consultancy, urging business leaders to address the failings the financial crisis had exposed if they hoped to avoid rupturing the social contract between the capitalist system and the citizenry “with unpredictable but severely damaging results”. 

Looking back, he says, “it hasn’t changed as fast as I would want . . . but I think there’s a recognition it has to go much faster.” Populist votes for Brexit and Donald Trump have made more people within the system realise “we’d better fix it”, he says, and serious money is now backing reform initiatives. “BlackRock saying this stuff when they have $6.5tn [in assets under management] is not an academic exercise. That wasn’t happening eight years ago.” 


Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez
Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez


For the Ford Foundation’s Mr Walker, the test will be how much more action is seen now than in the aftermath of the financial crisis. “It is good news that some CEOs are talking about inequality. Now we need CEOs to act,” he says. He is cautiously optimistic, seeing growing numbers of business leaders who are now “willing to do things that are not in their best short-term interests but are in the best interests of their company and country long-term”.

In 2011, Mr Barton had warned his fellow business leaders that they could reform capitalism themselves or have it reformed for them “through political measures and the pressures of an angry public”. The question now, he says, is whether companies will take more meaningful action — even at a short-term cost — to save what Mr Dimon still calls the most successful economic system the world has ever seen. 

“I believe it can be [reformed from within], but I think it’s going to be a lot bumpier than we thought,” Mr Barton says, predicting that the process could take another 10-15 years. There may be more populist “rise-ups” he adds: “There are going to be disruptions because people are pissed off.” 

The Billionaires v. Bernie

The democratic socialist candidate is under attack from the super rich, their corporations, lobbyists, and think tanks. Some are even backing his 2020 Democratic primary rivals.
Democratic presidential candidate Sen. Bernie Sanders (I-Vt.) speaks to the crowd during the 2019 South Carolina Democratic Party State Convention on June 22, 2019 in Columbia, South Carolina. (Photo: Sean Rayford/Getty Images)
According to Forbes, there were 607 billionaires in the United States as of the end of 2018, an increase of more than 200 since 2010. And many of them going on the attack against Bernie Sanders’ 2020 Presidential Campaign, and his commitment to democratic socialism. 
As the primary season heats up, billionaires have appeared in major media outlets criticizing the candidate and especially his ideas. JP Morgan CEO Jamie Dimon, for example, recently denounced on CBS news the idea of socialism, a sentiment also expressed by fellow billionaires Mark CubanKen Griffin (who called socialism “soaking the rich,”) and Elon Musk (who said he actually was a socialist—just the kind that “seeks greatest good for all.”) Former Goldman Sachs CEO and billionaire Lloyd Blankfein criticized Sanders in a February 2019 defense of stock buybacks and cuts to Social Security.
In a Fox Business interview on June 24, the founders of Home Depot, Bernie Marcus and Ken Langone, called Sanders “the enemy of every entrepreneur,” claiming his influence would make the United States poor like Venezuela. 
"Billionaire funded conservative think tanks, the Heritage Foundation, Cato Institute, and the American Enterprise Institute, regularly publish and promote hit pieces on Sanders and his progressive policies."
In a June 20, 2019, interview with CNBC, billionaire Leon Cooperman claimed “Sanders doesn’t have a clue,” and that Democrats moving left in 2020 will hurt stocks.
On June 7, billionaire Stanley Druckenmiller told CNBC that stocks would fall 30 to 40 percent if Bernie were elected President.
Three days later, billionaire Democratic donor Haim Saban told the Hollywood Reporter that he likes all the 2020 Democratic presidential candidates except Sanders, who he claimed is a communist and a “disaster zone.”
Billionaire Howard Schultz, the former Starbucks CEO, warned that Democrats nominating a “far-left person” in 2020 will guarantee Trump’s re-election. The centrist think tank, Third Way—funded by lobbyists, Wall Street, and Republican donors—has claimed it will support any Democrat but Sanders.
Other blowback has been less direct. Billionaire Jeff Bezos’ Amazon pushed back against Sanders’s criticisms of working conditions and low wages in Amazon warehouses. Last month, the billionaire Walton family’s retail giant Walmart rejected a shareholders proposal backed by Sanders to give workers a voice on the company’s executive board.
Sanders’s proposals for forgiving student debt, Medicare for All, and free college tuition, among others, have been ridiculed, dismissed, and heavily opposed by Wall Street investors, the health insurance industry, and the pharmaceutical industry. Billionaire funded conservative think tanks, the Heritage FoundationCato Institute, and the American Enterprise Institute, regularly publish and promote hit pieces on Sanders and his progressive policies.
Some billionaires have focused on backing Sanders’s rivals in the 2020 Democratic primaries by hosting fundraising galas or donating the maximum allowable contributions to their campaigns.
Billionaire Linked-In founder Reid Hoffman hosted a recent fundraiser for Senator Cory Booker of New Jersey, who has also received maximum $2,800 donations from billionaires Donald Sussman, Carrie Walton-PennerMarc BenioffLeonard LauderEric SchmidtBill & Melinda Gates, and Seth Klarman.
In May 2019, Senator Kamala Harris received several maximum donations from members of the billionaire oil baron Getty family who have hosted fundraisers for her campaign, as has billionaire banker Ronald Perelman. Billionaires Laurene Powell JobsMarc BenioffLaura LauderSteve CohenDiane WilseyMarsha Laufer, and several family members of the real estate billionaire Tsakopoulous family have given maximum contributions to Harris.
Billionaire investor Gerry Schwartz is hosting a fundraiser for Pete Buttigieg at his Nantucket home on July 6. Buttigieg has also held fundraisers hosted by the son of real-estate billionaire Steven Roth and received financial support from billionaires James MurdochDeborah Simon, several members of the billionaire Pohlad familyGabriela HearstIsaac Pritzker, and Rosemary Pritzker
"Sanders, who has sworn off private lavish fundraising events with wealthy donors throughout the primaries and general election, has embraced the opposition he’s received from billionaires and the ultra wealthy."
Billionaire hedge fund manager Jim Chanos has hosted at least one fundraiser for Joe Biden, and Republican billionaire donor John Catsimatidis has offered support for Biden’s bid for the 2020 Democratic nomination, though he declined to donate monetarily. Due to Biden’s late presidential announcement and filing, FEC data for his campaign is not yet available, but he’s made it clear to billionaires he has no plans to challenge their immense, concentrated wealth.
Sanders, who has sworn off private lavish fundraising events with wealthy donors throughout the primaries and general election, has embraced the opposition he’s received from billionaires and the ultra wealthy. His rhetoric of railing against income and wealth inequality and the political influence of wealthy donors and corporations has increasingly become popularized in Democratic Party messaging. 
Senator Elizabeth Warren has also embraced the strategy of taking billionaires on and embracing their criticism. She’s proposed increased taxes on billionaires, laughed off criticism from billionaires like former Starbucks CEO Howard Schultz and the vulture hedge fund billionaire who owns Sears, Eddie Lampert, and targeted the billionaire Sandler family for its role in perpetuating the opioid crisis. 
Billionaire and prolific Republican donor Ken Griffin has also criticized Warren in media interviews, and billionaire former NYC mayor Michael Bloomberg claimed her proposal for an annual wealth tax is probably unconstitutional and compared it to Venezuela.  Most recently, in an interview with Fox News, billionaire Peter Thiel said he’s most afraid of Warren’s candidacy among the 2020 Democratic Presidential candidates. 
Rather than embrace socialism, Warren has demonstrated some caution in arguing that capitalism needs better regulation and enforcement. In terms of fighting the role of corporate and ultra wealthy influences on politics, she has only sworn off high dollar fundraisers for the primary race, not the general election, and held high-dollar fundraiser events prior to her campaign launch in 2018, including one hosted by Nasdaq Vice Chairman Meyer Frucher. She’s also agreed to headline an upcoming DNC fundraiser for the eventual nominee, with VIP tickets reaching $50,000, and her campaign reportedly asked wealthy donors to cover her voter database fees. 
But Sanders continues to differentiate himself from the field by taking on the billionaires and the ultra wealthy several steps further than his rivals, many of whom are reluctant to vigorously support progressive solutions he’s helped move into the mainstream. In a recent speech on democratic socialism, Sanders quoted President Franklin Delano Roosevelt railing against the wealthy and powerful: “They are unanimous in their hate for me and I welcome their hatred.”
Michael Sainato
Michael Sainato is a Florida-based journalist focusing on environmental and civil rights issues.


Fire Evident Inside Tree as Bushfires Die Down on New South Wales Coast
Storyful•January 17, 2020

Forest land ravaged by bushfires at Conjola on the New South Wales South Coast was still smouldering as fire warnings were lifted for the area.

In this video, posted to Facebook on January 17 but filmed around two weeks earlier, a tree near Martins Ridge Farm can be seen burning on the inside while a small spot-fire smokes nearby.

“Found this at the back of our property the other day. Makes you realise how hard it is to put fires out and why trees fall over after the fire has been through,” the post said.

Conjola and many other districts on the South Coast were threatened by catastrophic bushfires, which forced holidaymakers and locals to shelter from the flames on beaches on New Year’s Day.

Several homes in nearby Conjola Park and Lake Conjola were destroyed when the giant Currowan blaze swept through the area.

The New South Wales Rural Fire Service last issued a warning for the area on January 4, however firefighters were still bringing the fire under control amid milder conditions on January 17. Credit: Martins Ridge Farm via Storyful
Why These Australia Fires Are Like Nothing We've Seen Before

J
amie Tarabay,The New York Times•January 21, 2020
Firefighters battle a blaze in Lake Conjola, Australia, on 
Tuesday, Dec. 31, 2019. (Matthew Abbott/The New York Times)

SYDNEY — In late October, lightning struck brittle earth on Gospers Mountain in New South Wales. The remains of trees bone dry from consecutive winters with little to no rain were ignited, and the fire quickly spread.

Three months later, it is still burning.

The Gospers Mountain fire, which became Australia’s largest “megablaze” as it grew to link several separate fires, offers a sense of the scale of the country’s most disastrous fire season ever. The blaze has burned 2 million acres, enveloping hinterland and wine country, and prompted a special mission to save prehistoric trees so rare their exact location is kept secret.

That fire is now largely contained. But dozens of others are still burning in the southeastern states of New South Wales and Victoria, some out of control, despite heavy rain in some areas in recent days. And fire season is far from over — hot and windy conditions are expected to return this week, and a month of summer remains. Here is a look at the devastation

The amount of land burned is immense.

The modern world has never seen anything quite like these Australia fires.

About 16 million acres have burned in New South Wales and Victoria, where the crisis is centered. That’s an area about the size of West Virginia. Millions more acres have burned in other parts of the country.


What sets these blazes apart, in terms of their size, is that they are happening in populated areas. Until now, fires this large happened mostly in places like northern Canada or Siberia, where few people live and blazes burn largely uncontrolled.

“What we’re seeing in Australia, in a completely different environment, are fires that are approaching or even exceeding the magnitude of things that we only saw in the most remote forested regions in the world,” said Ross Bradstock, director of the Center for Environmental Risk Management of Bushfires at the University of Wollongong in New South Wales.

“We’re looking at a globally significant fire season in Australia,” he added.

The numbers from Australia dwarf those from some of the most high-profile fires in recent years.

The bush fires in southeastern Australia this season have burned about eight times as much land as the 2018 fires in California, which covered nearly 2 million acres and were the worst in that state’s recorded history. They are also far larger than the estimates of 2.2 million acres burned by September last year in the Amazon basin, where farmers, some emboldened by the policies of President Jair Bolsonaro of Brazil, ignited tens of thousands of fires to clear land.

“It’s quite phenomenal and far exceeds anything you would see in the western USA, which is a very fire-prone area, the southwest of Canada, the Mediterranean and parts of South America,” Bradstock said. “It’s so much bigger than anything else.”

It goes well beyond a ravaged landscape.

Australia has had deadlier fire seasons: The Black Saturday bush fires, which began in February 2009 when downed power lines ignited blazes that were spread by 60 mph winds, killed 173 people in Victoria. The 2018 California fires killed 103 people.

But the losses Australia is experiencing in lives and property are still staggering, and not yet over. At least 29 people have been killed. Hundreds of millions of animals, by some estimates, have perished or are facing starvation or dehydration in devastated habitats. And more than 2,500 homes have been destroyed.

Smoke generated by the fires has blanketed Sydney, Melbourne and Canberra, at times giving them some of the worst air in the world. The prolonged exposure of bush fire smoke to millions of people has raised fears of health effects that could last for years.

Early this month, NASA began tracking a plume of smoke from the fires that was the size of the continental United States. By Jan. 14, smoke had circumnavigated the globe, returning to eastern Australia. Along the way, it caused hazardous breathing conditions in New Zealand and discolored skies in South America.

The fires have also produced huge amounts of heat-trapping carbon emissions. A top expert on greenhouse gas emissions at Australia’s national research agency told NPR that the fires in southeastern Australia had produced as much carbon as the entire country emits from man-made sources in more than eight months of the year.

Climate change helped set the table.

Why have these fires been so vast? While Australia is normally hot and dry in the summer, climate change is bringing longer and more frequent periods of extreme heat. That makes vegetation drier and more likely to burn.

Last year was the hottest and driest year on record in Australia, and some regions have been gripped by drought for years. This season, the fires started earlier than usual — some as soon as July — and they are expected to last well into February and even March.

High temperatures, strong winds and dry forests have combined to create the conditions for powerful fires. There have even been blazes in wetlands and rainforests that have not contended with this threat before. To combat the flames, tens of thousands of firefighters, most of them volunteers, have been called on to work long days over extended periods.

Most of the fires have been caused by lightning strikes, though some people have misleadingly pointed to arson in an effort to minimize the links to climate change and the Australian government’s inaction on the issue. Others have argued that the drought is unrelated to climate change, though there is evidence that warming temperatures have been a major contributor to it, in part by pushing rain out of areas where it once fell.

“The wildfires decimating Australia, killing people, ravaging wild habitats and pushing communities and firefighters to their absolute limits are growing and coalescing into the country’s worst peacetime catastrophe precisely because of climate change,” said Paul Read, co-director of the National Center for Research in Bushfire and Arson at Monash University in Melbourne.

Here is what the future looks like.

In Australia’s history, most bad fire seasons have coincided with the warming of an El Niño pattern. But that is not the case this time, showing how much this season stands out and the danger the country faces with more unpredictable weather patterns in the future.

While scientists have long predicted that climate change would bring longer and more intense fire seasons, the blazes were not expected to be this bad this soon, Bradstock said. Under his projections, Australia would not have seen this kind of devastation for another 40 to 50 years, he said.

“I guess I’m as shocked as anyone about what’s unfolding and, probably, like everyone else who’s involved and affected, we’ll very quickly recalibrate thinking about what we’re doing,” he said.

Recalibrating means expecting these phenomenal fires to continue to occur, particularly as Australia’s drought shows few signs of ending, and temperatures are expected to continue to climb after the warmest decade on record.

“We would be extremely foolish given all the evidence and the magnitude of this event to just laugh it off as a one-off phenomenon,” Bradstock said. “I think we have to get ready to deal with a season like this again in the not-too-distant future.”

This article originally appeared in The New York Times.

© 2020 The New York Times Company

Hillary Clinton kicks off the 'stop Sanders' movement. Will Obama follow her lead?

Andrew Romano
West Coast Correspondent

 
 
 
 
Clinton slams Sanders: 'Nobody likes him'
 “Nobody likes him,” Clinton says.
 “Nobody wants to work with him; he got
 nothing done. He was a career
 politician. It’s all just baloney and I feel
 so bad that people got sucked into it.” 
Welcome to 2020 Vision, the Yahoo News column covering the presidential race with one key takeaway every weekday and a wrap-up each weekend. Reminder: There are 13 days until the Iowa caucuses and 287 days until the 2020 election.
Nothing the Clintons do is accidental. And so when the news broke less than two weeks before the Iowa caucuses that in a forthcoming Hulu documentary, Hillary Clinton badmouths her 2016 rival Bernie Sanders as a “career politician” whom “nobody likes,” it didn’t just call attention to the ill feeling still lingering from that year’s bitter primary campaign.
It also signaled that Clinton has thrown her weight behind the nascent “Stop Sanders” movement gaining steam among Democratic power brokers. 
The question now is whether Democratic voters will follow her lead — and whether Barack Obama himself might come out of semiretirement to join the cause. 
Asked by the Hollywood Reporter whether she would endorse and campaign for Sanders if he were to win the nomination, Clinton refused to commit. “I’m not going to go there yet,” she said.
Clinton immediately added, however, that her beef is “not only” with Sanders but with “the culture around him” — a culture she considers sexist.
“It’s his leadership team,” Clinton said. “It’s his prominent supporters. It’s his online Bernie Bros and their relentless attacks on lots of his competitors, particularly the women. And I really hope people are paying attention to that because it should be worrisome that he has permitted this culture — not only permitted, [he] seems to really be very much supporting it. And I don’t think we want to go down that road again where you campaign by insult and attack and maybe you try to get some distance from it, but you either don’t know what your campaign and supporters are doing or you’re just giving them a wink and you want them to go after Kamala [Harris] or after Elizabeth [Warren].”
Hillary Clinton listens as Sen. Bernie Sanders speaks during a September 2016 event at the University of New Hampshire. (Photo: Brendan Smialowski/AFP via Getty Images)
Hillary Clinton listens as Sen. Bernie Sanders speaks during a September 2016 event at the University of New Hampshire. (Photo: Brendan Smialowski/AFP via Getty Images)
Then Clinton twisted the knife: “I think that that’s a pattern that people should take into account when they make their decisions.”
Clinton’s timing is conspicuous. Since the start of the 2016 primary, pundits and mainstream Democrats have refused to consider Sanders a serious threat for the nomination. That’s changed in recent weeks as Sanders has surged to the top of the polls in Iowa and New Hampshire, cementing his status as the nearest competitor to frontrunner Joe Biden while also out-fundraising the entire field. Meanwhile, the headlines about Clinton’s remarks come on the heels of Sanders’s clash with Warren over the same subject: his (and his campaign’s) alleged sexism.
In other words, this isn’t coming out of nowhere: Clinton is piggybacking on a fresh controversy at a pivotal moment.
“This argument about whether or not or when [Sanders] did or didn’t say that a woman couldn’t be elected, it’s part of a pattern,” Clinton opined. “If it were a one-off, you might say, ‘OK, fine.’ But he said I was unqualified. … I just think people need to pay attention because we want, hopefully, to elect a president who’s going to try to bring us together, and not either turn a blind eye, or actually reward the kind of insulting, attacking, demeaning, degrading behavior that we’ve seen from this current administration.”
Clinton and Sanders listen to singer Pharrell Williams during a campaign rally in Raleigh, N.C., in November 2016. (Photo: Jewel Samad/AFP via Getty Images)
Clinton and Sanders listen to singer Pharrell Williams during a campaign rally in Raleigh, N.C., in November 2016. (Photo: Jewel Samad/AFP via Getty Images)
Clinton’s decision to go nuclear on Sanders by comparing him to Donald Trump is undoubtedly personal. Clinton and her allies have never gotten over the fact that in 2016 Sanders continued campaigning well past the point when he was mathematically eliminated from contention and did not formally endorse her until 10 days before that year’s Democratic National Convention. They also remain disturbed by allegations of sexism on Sanders’s 2016 campaign and blame the “Bernie Bro” phenomenon, in part, for Clinton’s loss that November — the theory being that some significant number of misogynist “Never Hillary” Sanders supporters stayed home, voted for minor-party candidates or even cast ballots for Trump.
The response from Sanders supporters feels personal as well. They are already arguing that their candidate campaigned vigorously for Clinton after the convention; that his base is far more diverse than suggested by the Bernie Bro caricature; and that the “Never Hillary” numbers just don’t add up. Precisely zero hardcore Sanders fans — and Sanders has more hardcore fans than any other 2020 Democrat — will be swayed by Clinton’s naysaying. In fact, they’ll almost certainly double-down on antiestablishment, pro-Sanders sentiment instead.
Sanders himself has been dismissive of Clinton’s comments. “My focus today is on a monumental moment in American history: the impeachment trial of Donald Trump,” he said in a statement. “Together, we are going to go forward and defeat the most dangerous president in American history.” When NBC News asked Sanders why he thought his former primary opponent was still harping on 2016, he scoffed. “That’s a good question,” he said. “You should ask her.”
A former Bernie Sanders delegate wears a Hillary Clinton presidential campaign sticker over his mouth as he protests during the third session at the Democratic National Convention in Philadelphia in July 2016. (Photo: Carlos Barria/Reuters)
Clinton’s purpose seems to dovetail with that of Warren, who chose to “attack” the issue “head on” at last week’s debate in Des Moines: Galvanize Democrats along gender lines right before the caucuses and perhaps stir up enough anti-Sanders solidarity to block him from winning. We’ll know in 13 days whether the strategy worked.
But if not — if Sanders wins Iowa and barrels toward the friendly states of New Hampshire and Nevada with a realer-than-ever shot at the nomination — then the true anti-Bernie backlash will likely begin. And it will dwarf whatever Clinton is doing now.
In Tuesday’s New York Times, liberal columnist Paul Krugman accused the Sanders campaign of having “flat-out lied about things Biden said in 2018 about Social Security,” calling the “smear” of Biden “almost Trumpian.”
“The last thing we need is another president who demonizes and lies about anyone who disagrees with him, and can’t admit ever being wrong,” Krugman scolded — an unusual move by a writer who generally aligns with progressives like Sanders, a self-described “democratic socialist.”
Earlier in January, Third Way, the centrist Democratic think tank, sent Washington insiders a two-page memo titled “Bernie Sanders and ‘Electability’” that highlighted national polling on the unpopularity of socialism and noted that surveys showing Sanders running ahead of Trump may not hold up in a general election.
“A January 1984 Gallup poll had Walter Mondale tied with Ronald Reagan,” the memo began. “Eleven months later, Reagan crushed Mondale 59-41%, winning by the biggest Electoral College margin ever.”
Shortly after, Obama’s 2012 campaign manager Jim Messina told Politico that “if I were a campaign manager for Donald Trump and I look at the field, I would very much want to run against Bernie Sanders.”
“I think the contrast is the best,” Messina added. “He can say, ‘I’m a business guy, the economy’s good and this guy’s a socialist.’” 
President Barack Obama walks with Sanders at the White House in 2016. (Photo: Pablo Martinez/AP)
President Barack Obama walks with Sanders at the White House in 2016. (Photo: Pablo Martinez/AP)
And then there’s Obama himself to consider. In November, the former president cautioned against putting too much stock into “certain left-leaning Twitter feeds or the activist wing of our party.”
“Even as we push the envelope and we are bold in our vision we also have to be rooted in reality,” he said. “The average American doesn’t think we have to completely tear down the system and remake it.”
Around the same time, Politico’s Ryan Lizza reported that while Obama “sees his role as providing guardrails to keep the process from getting too ugly and to unite the party when the nominee is clear,” there is “one potential exception”: Bernie Sanders.
“Back when Sanders seemed like more of a threat than he does now, Obama said privately that if Bernie were running away with the nomination, Obama would speak up to stop him,” Lizza wrote.
“Yeah, if Bernie were running away with it, I think maybe we would all have to say something,” one Obama adviser added. “But I don’t think that's likely. It’s not happening.”
Maybe it wasn’t happening in November. Now, however, it might be — and Sanders’s chances will only improve if he wins Iowa. At that point, we may look back on this week’s skirmish with Hillary as the first shots in a much larger war.
---30---
SEE 
Prince Harry and Meghan's arrival could mean 'new grounds' for Canada's privacy laws


Britain's Prince Harry and his wife Meghan, Duchess of Sussex visit Canada House in London, Britain January 7, 2020.

British paparazzi may soon come face-to-face with Canada's privacy laws as the arrival of Prince Harry and Meghan has already prompted a warning to the U.K press to back off or face legal action.

But it's unclear what legal recourse the royal couple will have to keep news photographers away from their family.

David Fraser, a Halifax-based privacy lawyer, says, when it comes to privacy claims in Canada, he hasn't found any related to celebrities and paparazzi.

The lawsuits here that relate to invasions of privacy, most recently, deal with large-scale business data breaches, or hidden cameras, he said.

"So this is relatively new grounds that we're looking at, maybe because we don't have the same sort of paparazzi culture or the same sort of celebrity culture in Canada. But so far, a claim like this has not been made or at least hasn't gone to a published decision," he said.

"It's not something that's really been tested a whole lot in Canada. We don't have a paparazzi culture."

Buckingham Palace announced Saturday that the prince and his wife will give up public funding and try to become financially independent. The couple is expected to spend most of their time in Canada while maintaining a home in England near Windsor Castle in an attempt to build a more peaceful life. 
Video from Sky News showed Harry landing at Victoria's airport late Monday. The prince, Meghan and their eight-month-old son Archie were reportedly staying at at mansion on the island.

Lawyers for the couple sent a letter to British new outlets, accusing photographers of "harassment," and claiming that paparazzi have permanently camped outside their Vancouver Island residence, attempting to photograph them at home using long-range lenses.

They also allege that pictures of Meghan — on a hike with Archie and her two dogs, trailed by her security detail, on Vancouver Island on Monday — were taken by photographers hiding in the bushes.
"There are serious safety concerns about how the paparazzi are driving and the risk to life they pose," the letter read.

When it comes to privacy issues in Canada, there are a few ways Canadians can take action, says Iain MacKinnon, a Toronto-based lawyer.

One can argue "intentional infliction of mental stress" in which the conduct of the defendant has to be proven to be flagrant and outrageous; calculated to produce harm, and results in visible and provable illness, he said.

There's also what's known as "intrusion upon seclusion" in which the defendant's conduct must be intentional or reckless and have invaded the plaintiff's private affairs "without lawful reason." Also, a "reasonable person would regard the invasion as highly offensive causing distress, humiliation or anguish," MacKinnon said.

And there's public disclosure of private facts, when one publicizes an aspect of another's private life — without consent — that would be highly offensive to a reasonable person. The publication also would not be of legitimate concern to the public.
"And Meghan Markle walking her dog in a public space … would not fall under any of those," MacKinnon said.

They may seek recourse under the B.C. Privacy Act which specifically says it's a violation for somebody to willfully and without a legal basis violate the privacy of someone else, and allows for someone to sue the alleged perpetrator.

In making that determination, a judge is required to take into account the circumstances of the situation, the relationships between the parties and other people's rights and interests. There is an exemption, however, for journalistic publications and if the matter is of public interest.

"Up until now, certainly when they've been part of the Royal Family and are highly public figures and are paid, their whole and entire lifestyle is paid for by public funds, then that's certainly one justification for arguing that what they do is a matter of public interest," MacKinnon said.

"As they may recede from public life and become more private citizens, that argument may be more difficult to make. But certainly today, this is headline news, them leaving England, leaving the Royal Family, moving to Canada. It's tough to say that this is not a matter of public interest."

Most people won't consider it to be highly offensive that someone took a picture of Meghan in public park because there isn't a reasonable expectation of privacy, MacKinnon said.

"Now, if they're shooting with telephoto lenses into a house where Harry and Megan are staying and they're photographing them in their private lives inside a house, that might be a different story."
Fraser says, under the act, an invasion of privacy can also include surveillance.

"It's really going to depend upon the exact circumstances of what's alleged. But it certainly sounds like a group of photographers, paparazzi following them around might fit into the category of surveillance," he said.

Fraser said even if one is in a public place, there's still an expectation of privacy.

Being in a public park, there's a significantly reduced expectation of privacy. But when it comes to a photographer hiding in a bush, a court might say it's arguable that one has an expectation of privacy if they are in a place, looking around, not seeing other observers and somebody has hidden themselves, Fraser said.

"There would also probably be an element of kind of additional intrusion based on the fact that the person has hidden themselves and is covertly trying to surveil somebody," Fraser said.

The Charter of Rights and Freedoms doesn't give anybody a particular privacy interest among individuals — only against the state. It does, however, provide a right for freedom of expression, which would be the right that the photographers have, Fraser said.

"So any court considering these issues would have to balance those interests which includes the rights of journalists to collect information, to disseminate that information, against a particular privacy interest."

Still, Fraser believes Harry and Meghan could find a "level of sympathy" in the courts

"Given that, it seems that they're moving from the United Kingdom to Canada, least part time, in order to get away from this glare and get away from these invasions of privacy," he said.

It's unlikely that the royals would see a big cash windfall in the event their legal claims were successful. Privacy damages are relatively low or modest in Canada, Fraser said.

"But I would expect that an injunction so a court order requiring the paparazzi to stay away might be something that they would seek as well."
And as MacKinnon noted, Harry and Meghan, through their lawyers, are probably attempting to set new ground rules.

"My guess is that they're trying to draw a new line in the sand here with both the Canadian media [and], more likely, the Fleet Street tabloids."
Panamanian village sleepless with fear after ritual killings

AFP




a house with a grass field: This improvised church of the 'God's New Light' sect is where the massacre is believed to have taken place
Panamanian authorities have sent police reinforcements to patrol the area where a shady religious sect murdered seven people in an apparent human sacrifice ritual
5 SLIDES © Luis ACOSTA

Panamanian authorities have sent police reinforcements to patrol the area where a shady religious sect murdered seven people in an apparent human sacrifice ritual

A week after six children and a pregnant woman were sacrificed in a brutal religious ritual, the inhabitants of a remote village in northwestern Panama fear they might be next.

No-one can sleep. As soon as they hear a cricket or a cockroach everyone's on high alert," said Pacifico Blanco.

Blanco lives in Altos del Terron, an isolated indigenous community where the victims of the ritualistic killings were found last week in a mass grave.

Bibles, messages alluding to the devil and a heap of rope can still be seen at the site of the massacre -- a makeshift church in dense jungle that was used by an obscure sect that called itself "God's New Light."

Police raided the church on January 15, arresting 10 people and rescuing 15 captives, including children, they believe were being prepared for sacrifice.

The mass grave was found a day later, about an hour away from the church.

Vegetation and walls kept the church almost invisible to the outside world and the local community had no idea what was taking place inside.

The massacre has left locals "terrorized," said Enrique Martinez, police chief for neighboring Veraguas province.

Police reinforcements were flown in by helicopter to the village, around 250 kilometers (150 miles) from Panama City and hard to reach.

Besides protecting the local community, the police are looking for other such sects.

This latest incident came just a month after 17 foreigners belonging to another sect were arrested in the coastal town of San Carlos.

The police presence in Altos del Terron has brought little relief to residents who fear there may be more murderous sect members lurking in their midst.

"We don't sleep, either by day or by night, nor do we rest," the local indigenous chief, Evangelisto Santos, told AFP.

- Sad, sleepless nights -

Since the murders of the six children aged between one and 17, and the pregnant woman -- the mother of five of the victims -- many villagers have taken to living together in the deeply religious community.
Safety in numbers, they believe, will help protect them from any other potential sects in the area.

"Honestly, I spend my nights sad and worrying about the fate of the nephews and nieces that have been left with me," said Edison Rios, the dead woman's brother.

"Its upsetting to think about them. Who knows if they will come back today or tomorrow and finish off the remaining children?"

According to the public prosecutor, the 10 suspects, now in preventive detention, tied up their victims and beat them to death with Bibles, sticks and machetes.

The pregnant woman was killed in front of her children, who were then murdered too.

Survivors said the sect leader claimed he was carrying out God's orders to "remove the demon" from the victims in a violent exorcism.


"They used God's name here to catch and kidnap people, to carry on killing," Pacifico Blanco told AFP at the church.

Neighbors said they suspected nothing because the church had carried out noisy, animated religious rituals in the past without major incidents.

For that reason, they thought nothing of the sounds coming from the compound, even screams, at the time of the massacre.


"We heard the racket," said Diomedes Blanco, but paid no heed because they thought people "were praising God."

- Devil's work -

Everything changed when several injured hostages managed to escape and alert the authorities.

That's when the locals found out that "they were capturing people to take them to the church and massacre them, and the people became alarmed," said Santos.

"From now on we're not going to believe any religion that enters our region because it's a danger to us. We're afraid of what we've seen," said Pacifico Blanco.

For Narciso, a retired police officer who now ferries passengers on his boat, "This was the work of the very devil himself."


jjr/lda/bc/jm