Protesters in Brazil demand Bolsonaro's impeachment

Issued on: 02/10/2021 

Hundreds of demonstrators take part in a protest against Brazilian President 

Jair Bolsonaro, in Sao Paulo, Brazil, on October 2, 2021 

NELSON ALMEIDA AFP

Rio de Janeiro (AFP)

Tens of thousands of Brazilians took to the streets around the country Saturday, once again calling for the ouster of unpopular President Jair Bolsonaro over his handling of the coronavirus pandemic, among other issues.

Large crowds gathered in Rio de Janeiro, Sao Paulo, Brasilia and dozens of other towns and cities as part of the "Bolsonaro Out National Campaign," which is backed by a dozen left-wing political parties and labor groups.

Among other issues, the right-wing president has come under stinging criticism for his handling of the pandemic, which has claimed nearly 600,000 lives here.

Hundreds of people marched through the central Rio de Janeiro neighborhood of Candelaria, shouting "Bolsonaro out!" which was also emblazoned on several large banners.

"We're going to get him out. The hope of the people here in the streets is to put pressure on legislators so that they call for impeachment," 69-year-old retired professor Elizabeth Simoes told AFP.

More than 100 requests for the impeachment of Bolsonaro have been filed with the Chamber of Deputies, but its leader Arthur Lira, a government ally, has refused to take any of them up.

The Supreme Court has ordered several investigations into Bolsonaro and his aides, including for spreading false information.

Large crowds gathered in Rio de Janeiro, Sao Paulo (pictured), Brasilia and more than 160 other towns and cities as part of the "Bolsonaro Out National Campaign," which is backed by a dozen left-wing political parties and labor groups 

NELSON ALMEIDA AFP

In Sao Paulo, tens of thousands of people gathered Saturday afternoon on the central Paulista Avenue. Meanwhile, hundreds of demonstrators gathered along the Esplanade of Ministries in Brasilia.

Local media counted protests in 20 of Brazil's 27 states, and in 60 cities, including 14 state capitals.

Red flags of the Workers' Party of former president Luiz Inacio Lula da Silva, or Lula, could be seen Saturday, along with Brazilian flags and the signs of several other left-wing and centrist parties often seen at protests against the far-right Bolsonaro.

- 'Can't stand this government' -

In recent months, protests led by leftist movements have demanded Bolsonaro's impeachment due to his mismanagement of the pandemic. But Saturday's demonstrations were also against a hike in food and fuel prices, as well as for relief for the 14.1 million unemployed people throughout the country.

"The population is going hungry, and we can't stand this government any longer," said Isadora Lessa, 22, in Rio.

"What is the importance of being here? That he knows he doesn't have unanimity, that he's going to have a hard time getting elected again," said Marcelo Werneck, who joined the protests in Rio in memory of the "friends and family" who died of Covid-19.

A demonstrator passes by a banner reading "Genocide out" during a protest against Brazilian President Jair Bolsonaro, in Sao Paulo, Brazil, on October 2, 2021 

NELSON ALMEIDA AFP

"If he doesn't face an impeachment, he loses the election in 2022," Werneck added.

Besieged by judicial investigations and the economic crisis, Bolsonaro's popularity has plummeted in recent months to 22 percent, its lowest level since he took office in January 2019.

But backers of the president have also made themselves known in recent weeks, as around 125,000 of them gathered in Brasilia and Sao Paulo September 7 in a show of support for Bolsonaro.

A mid-September opinion poll by the Datafolha Institute found that Bolsonaro has 26 percent support compared with Lula's 44 percent, just one year ahead of the presidential vote.

© 2021 AFP

In photos: Thousands of Brazilian protesters demand Bolsonaro's impeachment

Rebecca Falconer
Sat, October 2, 2021

Tens of thousands of protesters marched in cities across Brazil Saturday, calling for President Jair Bolsonaro's impeachment over his government's handling of the COVID-19 pandemic, per Reuters.

Why it matters: Brazil's Senate is holding hearings that could lead to Bolsonaro's impeachment as the country's Supreme Court probes his government’s handling of vaccine contracts. Bolsonaro has threatened to reject the results of Brazil's October 2022 presidential election amid poor approval ratings.



Demonstrators hold flags and chant slogans as part of protests against Bolsonaro in Rio de Janeiro. Many of those protesting across the country have ties to the party of former President Luiz Inácio Lula da, a favorite to win the 2022 elections, AP notes. Silva Photo by Getty Images

Demonstrators take part in a protest against Bolsonaro's government in Brasília Oct. 2. Protesters have also been marching to highlight inflation and high fuel prices, according to Reuters. Photo: Mateus Bonomi/Anadolu Agency via Getty Images


An image of Bolsonaro is burnt during a São Paulo protest Oct. 2. Bolsonaro has repeatedly played down the pandemic and been fined for flouting a state government mask mandate. Photo: Nelson Almeida/AFP via Getty Images


Protesters with crosses at an anti-Bolsonaro demonstration in Rio de Janeiro on Oct. 2. About 597,000 have died of COVID-19 in Brazil, AP reports. Photo: Getty Images

Brazilians demonstrate against Bolsonaro

Sat, October 2, 2021

SAO PAULO/RIO DE JANEIRO (Reuters) - Brazilian demonstrators gathered in several state capitals on Saturday to protest against the federal government and call for the impeachment of President Jair Bolsonaro.

Presidential hopeful Ciro Gomes took part in the protest in Rio de Janeiro and was also expected at the demonstration in São Paulo, according to local media.

Former President Luiz Inácio Lula da Silva, whom polls show ahead of Bolsonaro in a simulated 2022 matchup, did not attend the protests.

In addition to criticizing right-wing Bolsonaro and his handling of the COVID-19 pandemic, demonstrators also protested inflation and high fuel prices.

In Rio de Janeiro, the protest brought together hundreds of people, with the support of trade unions and left-wing parties. One group brought a huge inflatable gas canister bearing the inscription: "Is it expensive? It's Bolsonaro's fault."

Saturday's demonstrations were a response to a rally of Bolsonaro supporters on Sept. 7. Protesters also gathered in the central region's capital of São Paulo and in northern state capitals such as Recife and Belém.

The protests against the president brought together center-left parties, trade unions and social movements, marking an attempt by the opposition to show unity.

According to the organizers, the demonstrations took place in more than 200 cities across the country.

(Reporting by Aluísio Alves in São Paulo, Rodrigo Viga Gaier in Rio de Janeiro and Lisandra Paraguassu in Brasília; Writing by Ana Mano; Editing by Sandra Maler)

Brazilians demonstrate against BolsonaroDemonstrators protest against far-right President Jair Bolsonaro's administration in Sao Paulo

Thousands in Brazil protest Bolsonaro, seek his impeachment

October 2, 2021, 3:34 PM·2 min read

RIO DE JANEIRO (AP) — With Brazil’s presidential election one year away, tens of thousands of demonstrators marched Saturday in Rio de Janeiro, Sao Paulo and dozens of other cities around the country to protest President Jair Bolsonaro and call for his impeachment over his government’s handling of the pandemic.

The protests, smaller than those in support of Bolsonaro last Sept. 7, were promoted by leftist parties and some union movements linked to the former President Luiz Inácio Lula da Silva’s Worker´s Party. Da Silva is widely expected to run against Bolsonaro in Brazil's Oct. 2, 2022 presidential election.

Saturday’s protest targeted the president for his mishandling of the COVID-19 pandemic. Bolsonaro, who is not vaccinated and doesn’t usually wear a mask, has underestimated the severity of the virus and promoted crowds during the pandemic. Some 597,000 have died of COVID-19 in Brazil, a country of 212 million people. Demonstrators also protested surging inflation in mainstays like food and electricity.

“It is very painful to see that health and education are being destroyed, and there are many starving people in the country,” Marilena Magnano, a 75-year-old retiree, told The Associated Press. “We need Bolsonaro out of the government, his time has passed”.

The president’s approval ratings have steadily declined throughout the year, but he remains far more popular than prior presidents who were impeached - most recently Dilma Rousseff of the Workers Party in 2016.

Over 130 impeachment requests have been filed since the start of Bolsonaro’s administration, but the lower house’s speaker, Arthur Lira, and his predecessor have declined to open proceedings. Division among the opposition is the key reason analysts consider it unlikely there will be enough pressure on Lira to open impeachment process.

APTOPIX Virus Outbreak Brazil ProtestDemonstrators rally alongside a large inflatable doll depicting Brazilian President Jair Bolsonaro as the Grim Reaper, during a protest against him, calling for his impeachment over his government handling of the pandemic and accusations of corruption in the purchases of COVID-19 vaccines in Sao Paulo, Brazil, Saturday, Oct. 2, 2021. 

AP Photo/Andre Penner

Has the Walton family gained an outsized influence over a crucial environmental crisis?

Tim O'Donnell, Contributing Writer
Sat, October 2, 2021

Colorado River. PATRICK T. FALLON/AFP via Getty Images

The Walton family, billionaire heirs to the Walmart Inc. fortune, have been very involved in efforts to solve the water shortage crisis on the Colorado River, a Wall Street Journal analysis found. Over the past decade, they've given around $200 million to various advocacy groups, universities, and media outlets devoted to helping the river bounce back, putting them far ahead of any other donor to the cause, per the Journal.

While that sounds like a good thing — and there clearly are benefits — there are some skeptics who feel that the Walton's preference for water markets as a solution isn't the right approach because it could lead to a rush of outside speculators investing in water, potentially to the disadvantage of farmers and the poor. And considering the money they've invested, as well as the fact that two officials in the Biden administration were once affiliated with the Waltons' foundation, there are concerns that the family has secured an outsized influence on policy discussions surrounding the Colorado River Basin, the Journal writes.

University of Oxford water-resource researcher Dustin Garrick told the Journal that the foundation's giving has "sharpened the divide between those at the table and those left behind." For example, Gary Wockner, founder of the environmental group Save the Colorado, said his funds were cut off after he pushed back against some policy ideas from other Walton family recipients. "I was told 'you're out of alignment,'" he told the Journal. Read more at The Wall Street Journal.

NASA Still Plans to Name $10B Telescope After Possible Homophobe

Alex Cooper

THE ADVOCATE
Fri, October 1, 2021

Piece of the Webb Telescope

NASA announced that it was not planning to rename the James Webb Space Telescope — a project that cost $10 billion and was named after the former NASA administrator. Concerns have been voiced about the naming due to Webb’s involvement in government discrimination against LGBTQ+ workers around the 1950s-1960s during the Lavender Scare.

"We have found no evidence at this time that warrants changing the name of the James Webb Space Telescope," NASA administrator Bill Nelson told NPR.

NASA’s newest telescope, which should launch in December, is understood to be an updated Hubble. It’ll help scientists see light from the earliest galaxies as well as pick up atmospheric readings of planets orbiting stars in other solar systems.

While there’s excitement over what discoveries the telescope will help scientists reveal, some have still been troubled at the chosen name for the project.

A petition organized several months ago saw more than 1,200 astronomers and those interested in the subject sign their names against naming the telescope after Webb.

“Leaders are responsible not only for the actions of those they lead, but the climate they create within their spheres of influence. As we have noted previously, Webb’s legacy of leadership is complicated at best, and at worst, complicit with persecution,” the petition stated.

Part of the petition accuses Webb of involvement in the interrogation of NASA employee Clifford Norton, who lost his job in 1963 while Webb led the agency. Washington, D.C. police arrested Norton after he was seen speaking with a man. NASA's security chief at the time became involved in the interrogation and then interrogated Norton again at the agency.

“The historical record is already clear: under Webb’s leadership, queer people were persecuted,” the petition said.

“At best, Webb's record is complicated,” Chanda Prescod-Weinstein, a theoretical cosmologist at the University of New Hampshire who has called on the telescope to be renamed, told NPR. “And at worst, we're basically just sending this incredible instrument into the sky with the name of a homophobe on it, in my opinion.”

In response to the concerns voiced about naming the telescope after Webb, NASA launched an investigation. However, the agency has been tight-lipped on how it conducted it.

“We've done as much as we can do at this point and have exhausted our research efforts,” senior science communications officer Karen Fox wrote NPR in an email. “Those efforts have not uncovered evidence warranting a name change.”

The secrecy around the investigation is a problem to Prescod-Weinstein. “I have to tell you that I'm concerned that they have chosen not to be public about this,” she said.



“I'm basically a NASA fan girl,” Prescod-Weinstein, who has collaborated with NASA previously, explained. “And so this is particularly hard for me, to feel like I'm being gaslit by the agency that I have spent my career looking up to, and that I have committed parts of my career to.”

While the administrator who decided on the name and others have said that the lack of evidence means renaming the telescope would be an injustice or that Webb was a product of his time, Prescod-Weinstein said that it’s affected her as a Black, queer person.

The naming reminds her, she told the outlet, of “the fight that I have had to have to be OK with myself as a queer person. And I don't think that that should be associated with the incredible thing that is the cosmos.”

FIRST THING THE GOP ALWAYS CUTS

Food stamps just got boosted by a record 30% — here's what it means for families

Sigrid Forberg
Sat, October 2, 2021

Food stamps just got boosted by a record 30% — here's what it means for families

Some 1 in 8 American families can now load up their grocery carts with more food to keep the household nourished.

The largest-ever increase in the 46-year-old federal Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program (SNAP) — commonly known as "food stamps" — just took effect on Oct. 1.

Households juggling multiple bills, paying down debt and stretching to meet their housing costs will be better able to afford the key ingredients for a healthy diet.

Roughly 42 million people, representing 12% of U.S. families, rely on SNAP benefits to put food on the table. With the Biden administration's new boost, they'll see their monthly amounts increase by around 30%, on average. Here's more, including how that translates to dollars and cents.

SNAP increase was a long time coming

Mark Van Scyoc / Shutterstock

The increase to SNAP was prompted by a farm bill Congress passed in 2018 that called for updating the program to reflect current food prices, typical American eating habits, the latest dietary guidance and nutritional values.

“Too many of our fellow Americans struggle to afford healthy meals," says Stacy Dean, U.S. Department of Agriculture deputy undersecretary for food, nutrition, and consumer services. "The revised plan is one step toward getting them the support they need to feed their families."

SNAP households have often used up more than 75% of their benefits by the middle of each month, according to USDA data.

Food stamps were expanded last year for the COVID pandemic, but that was a temporary measure to help carry families through the worst of the crisis.

The new, typical monthly benefit

Now, the permanent change to the program is making a substantial increase in benefits from their pre-pandemic levels and is designed to help users include more fish and red and orange vegetables in their diets.

On average, each recipient will now get an additional $36.24 per month, or $1.19 per day, the USDA says in a news release. The typical monthly benefit is rising from roughly $121 to $157.

Officials expect that the beefed-up benefits, along with the "family stimulus checks" from this year's expanded child tax credit, will mean fewer families running out of their benefits quickly or being unable to afford necessities.

The child credit payments are already having an effect. The first checks in July coincided with a 3% drop in households with children experiencing food scarcity, according to the Census Bureau.

FORMER JEFF BEZOS SPACE EMPLOYEE: “I REALLY WISHED HE WAS THE PERSON WE ALL THOUGHT HE WAS”

"YOU CANNOT CREATE A CULTURE OF SAFETY AND A CULTURE OF FEAR AT THE SAME TIME."

FUTURISM

Just Disappointed

Alexandra Abrams, the former Head of Employee Communications at Jeff Bezos’ spaceflight company, Blue Origin, says she’s disappointed in Bezos for allowing a toxic culture to take hold at the company.

We previously covered a Lioness open letter written by Abrams and a cohort of other current and former Blue Origin employees in which they say the company’s senior leadership fostered a workplace culture rife with sexism and discrimination, and in which speed and progress were prioritized over safety. But in an interview with CBS News, Abrams added a personal message directed at Blue Origin founder Jeff Bezos.

“I think would say to Jeff that I really wished he was the person we all thought he was,” Abrams told CBS, “and that Blue Origin was the company we all thought it was going to be.

Silencing Dissent

Alongside Abrams’ allegations is an equally controversial back-and-forth over the nature of Abrams’ departure from Blue Origin. Blue Origin told CBS and Lionness that Abrams was fired after repeated warnings for “issues regarding federal export control regulations.” Abrams told CBS that those warnings never happened and that she was fired for clashing with management.

Specifically, Abrams said that senior leadership instructed her to roll out new agreements that would make it all-but-impossible for Blue Origin employees to speak out about workplace harassment or discrimination — of which Abrams said there was an endless supply — in court.

“You cannot create a culture of safety and a culture of fear at the same time,” Abrams told CBS. “They are incompatible.”

READ MORE: Former Blue Origin employee “would not trust” company’s vehicles to go to space [CBS News]

More on Blue Origin: Blue Origin Employees Say They Don’t Think Its Rocket Is Safe, Wouldn’t Ride in it

Blue Origin's exodus of top staffers followed its CEO's demand for all staff to return to the office, reports say

Zahra Tayeb
Sat, October 2, 2021

Bob Smith and Jeff Bezos. Reuters

Blue Origin's talent exodus followed pressure for all staff to return to the office, CNBC reported.

Sources told the outlet on Friday that the company's attrition rate has soared past 20%.

A Blue Origin spokesperson said the rate was similar to other firms', amid the "Great Resignation."

Blue Origin's recent loss of many top employees followed a call for all staff to return to the office.

Multiple sources told CNBC that the departures were a direct reflection of CEO Bob Smith's pressure to end remote working across the company.

Sources also said that the company's attrition rate passed 20% for this year.

A Blue Origin spokesperson told CNBC that attrition "has never exceeded 12.7%" on an annualized rate, which measures employee departures over the last 12 months. Typically, Blue Origin's annual turnover rate is 8% to 9%, sources familiar with the situation said.

"We are seeing attrition rates comparable to those reported by other companies as part of what many are calling 'The Great Resignation,'" the spokesperson said.

Blue Origin did not immediately respond to Insider's request for comment.

Earlier this year, 17 top staffers at Blue Origin left the company, with many departing in the weeks after founder Jeff Bezos flew into space, Insider's Kevin Shalvey reported.

Per a previous CNBC report, those leaving the space firm included New Shepard SVP Steve Bennett, chief of mission assurance Jeff Ashby and senior director of recruiting Crystal Freund.

Some of the departures were noteworthy because of their timing. They followed an announcement that SpaceX would be awarded a $2.9 billion contract for a moon lander for the Artemis missions.

Friday's CNBC report noted that the plan for all employees to return to the office in September, known as the "Blue Back Together," initiative, ruffled feathers.

Hundreds of workers signed a petition asking the company to at least implement a more flexible work model, but it was never acknowledged by Smith, the report said.

CNBC said that the views of its anonymous sources in many ways mirrored those of the 21 current and former Blue Origin employees who published an open letter alleging a toxic, sexist, and unsafe work culture.

Insider's Sinéad Baker and Grace Kay reported that the letter also accused Bezos of sacrificing safety in an effort to win the billionaire space race.

Jeff Bezos' Blue Origin reportedly fired a longtime senior executive over allegations of inappropriate behavior in the workplace

Kate Duffy,Grace Kay
Fri, October 1, 2021

Blue Origin founder Jeff Bezos. HO/Mike Brown/Space Florida

Blue Origin fired a senior executive in 2019 over allegations of inappropriate behavior, per The Washington Post.


One former employee told The Post that the exec embarrassed her in front of others in a meeting.


It follows former and current Blue Origin staff writing about the company's alleged sexist work culture.


Jeff Bezos' spaceflight firm, Blue Origin, fired a longtime senior executive over allegations of inappropriate behavior in the workplace, The Washington Post reported on Thursday.

Blue Origin hired a law firm to investigate Walt McCleery, the company's vice president of recruiting, three people familiar with the situations told The Post. The law firm, called Perkins Coie, found that McCleery's behavior was inappropriate in the workplace, according to The Post. Officials in Bezos' company, who requested to remain anonymous, told the publication that Blue Origin hired the law firm and then fired McCleery.

McCleery worked at Blue Origin from 2004 to 2019, according to his LinkedIn profile. He now works at SpinLaunch as vice president of talent acquisition. SpinLaunch did not immediately respond to a request for comment.

The news comes the same day as a group of 21 former and current Blue Origin employees wrote an open letter accusing the company of sacrificing safety in an effort to win the billionaire space race, and fostering a toxic and sexist work culture. Blue Origin and McCleery didn't immediately respond to Insider's request for comments on McCleery. When the letter was initially released, the space company told Insider that Blue Origin does not tolerate harassment in its workplace and was actively investigating the claims.

One former Blue Origin employee, who didn't sign the open letter, told The Post that she was in a meeting with McCleery when he said to executives from an outside company: "I apologize for [her] being emotional. It must be her time of the month."

The former staff member described the incident to The Post as "tough," adding that she quit her job "because I couldn't take it anymore."

McCleery told The Post that he was unaware of the open letter and denied the allegations. "Not true as far as I'm concerned," he told The Post, which is owned by Bezos.

"It doesn't matter how it came to an end. That's private. That's my information," he told The Post in regards to his exit from Blue Origin.

The open letter, written by employees who remained anonymous apart from Alexandra Abrams, the former head of Blue Origin employee communications, didn't disclose any names, but said numerous executives had been accused of demeaning female Blue Origin staff.

The letter described an example of one senior executive in CEO Bob Smith's inner circle being promoted despite having multiple sexual harassment reports.

Another unnamed executive often called women derogatory words like "baby girl" and "baby doll," the letter said. Abrams told CBS that employees' concerns over safety and harassment in the workplace were consistently overlooked. Though, she said the company eventually fired one of the executives cited in the letter after he groped a colleague.

The letter also said female workers at Blue Origin often warned each other to stay away from these executives and pointed to a workplace that lacked gender parity.

"If this company's culture and work environment are a template for the future Jeff Bezos envisions, we are headed in a direction that reflects the worst of the world we live in now, and sorely needs to change," the letter said.

On Friday, CNBC reported Blue Origin's CEO sent employees a mass email responding to the allegations. Smith sought to "reassure" staff that the company does not tolerate harassment.

"It is particularly difficult and painful, for me, to hear claims being levied that attempt to characterize our entire team in a way that doesn't align with the character and capability that I see at Blue Origin every day," Smith wrote.

Chief Blue Origin complaint author disputes cause of termination, while the space company's CEO does damage control

Aria Alamalhodaei
Fri, October 1, 2021



Blue Origin CEO Bob Smith wasted no time responding to allegations of a hostile work environment, sending an internal letter to employees Thursday encouraging staff to speak to him directly or via an in-house anonymous hotline with their concerns. Of course, it's standard practice for companies like Blue Origin to prefer handling complaints internally rather than in the public arena.

The letter from Smith, which was first obtained by CNBC, comes on the heels of an essay jointly composed by 21 current and former Blue Origin employees detailing serious concerns regarding safety and sexual harassment at the company.

Alexandra Abrams, former head of employee communications, is the sole named author of the essay. She told TechCrunch in a new interview that she decided to go public with her identity because she felt a sense of responsibility for other employees.


“I really felt like I had compromised my integrity at Blue Origin,” she said. “I did my best, but I was Bob's executive communicator and helped make him look good.”

The essay details two instances of alleged sexual harassment by senior executives, including one instances of a senior leader being let go after groping a female employee — notably, Abrams said, only five of the 21 people who contributed to the essay are men. The essay also alleges that safety at Blue Origin took a backseat to speed of execution, with leadership insisting on a breakneck pace that wasn’t supported by adequate staffing or resources.

“SpaceX has always been much better staffed than Blue Origin,” Abrams said.

Current and former employees raise major safety concerns, allegations of sexual harassment at Blue Origin

Blue Origin said in a statement that Abrams was dismissed “for cause two years ago after repeated warnings for issues involving federal export control regulations.” However, Abrams said she never received any warnings, verbal or written, from management regarding issues related to federal export control regulations.

Instead, she says her termination came after initiating a project to develop an internal employee app. Two weeks after that app, called Voyager, went live, it was discovered that part of its architecture was not secure — this is a major concern in the aerospace industry, as all communications tools must be compliant with International Traffic in Arms Regulations (ITAR), a set of regulations governing tech related to defense and space.

Abrams says she immediately escalated the issue. While senior management conducted an investigation and found no export violations occurred, senior executives reportedly told her that “she could no longer be trusted” and fired her.

“As a communications professional, and part of the non-technical staff, I was not responsible for certifying or approving any compliance of any third-party software architecture. And to-date, as far as I’m aware, the software in question is still used by Blue Origin and Amazon,” she added.

Yesterday, the Federal Aviation Administration said it was “reviewing the information” detailed in the essay. Abrams said that the agency has not reached out to her, but that she would “very much welcome” that.

“I feel like I'm fulfilling my job description as employee communications for the first time.”

Bob Smith's full internal team email on Abram's letter follows below:

Team Blue,

Today, you may have seen that some claims were made against our team.

As with any criticism, whether personal or professional, and whether the criticism is fair or baseless, it is never easy to hear. It requires reflection and humility to sort through what is useful and what is not.

It is particularly difficult and painful, for me, to hear claims being levied that attempt to characterize our entire team in a way that doesn’t align with the character and capability that I see at Blue Origin every day.

Yet, one of our Blue Leadership Principles states that “Leaders are sincerely open-minded, and examine their own strongest convictions with humility. They value diversity, in all of its forms, since different viewpoints result in novel ideas. Their openness enables them to trust those around them — and to earn the trust of others in turn.”

We wrote and published that principle, and others, and will today, and always, be self-critical and hold ourselves to the highest standard.

While we reflect on what we can learn and improve, I do want to reassure the team on a few points.

First, the New Shepard team went through a methodical and pain-staking process to certify our vehicle for First Human Flight. Anyone that claims otherwise is uninformed and simply incorrect. That team is appropriately proud of the work they’ve done and we should be as well.

It should also be emphatically stated that we have no tolerance for discrimination or harassment of any kind. We provide numerous avenues including a 24/7 anonymous hotline for employees, we investigate and act on any findings, and we will promptly investigate any new claims of misconduct. As always, I welcome and encourage any member of Team Blue to speak directly with me if they have any concerns on any topic at any time.

Finally, it should never be doubted that we have an amazing team that is doing amazing work.

Our team is comprised of the best and brightest professionals in the aerospace industry. People who are dedicated, work hard and are passionate about our mission.

We’ll continue to rapidly grow that talented team, stay focused on our efforts and support each other. And, step by step, we will make even greater strides.

Gradatim Ferociter,
Bob

Read the original article on Business Insider

THE RIGHT WING WAR AGAINST 'THE LEFT' IN AMERIKA

Steve Bannon Calls For 'Shock Troops' To 'Deconstruct' State As GOP Takes Oval Office

Mary Papenfuss
Sat, October 2, 2021,

Donald Trump’s former White House strategist Steve Bannon on Saturday evoked a dystopian future when he called for “shock troops” to quickly “deconstruct” the state as soon as a Republican takes the Oval Office again.

Bannon made the chilling comments in a phone interview on NBC News after it reported that he had met Wednesday with the party faithful to urge them to be prepared to “reconfigure the government” with a Republican leader.

“If you’re going to take over the administrative state and deconstruct it, then you have to have shock troops prepared to take it over immediately,” Bannon told NBC. “I gave ’em fire and brimstone.”

Bannon, who ran Trump’s 2016 campaign, said the former president’s agenda packing the government with loyalists was delayed because he couldn’t move quickly enough to fill some 4,000 posts.

Bannon spoke at the Capitol Hill Club Wednesday at the invitation of a new organization called the Association of Republican Presidential Appointees, according to NBC. The group was formed as a resource for future GOP officials to tap into to quickly fill federal jobs.

Bannon told NBC that he wants to see “pre-trained teams ready to jump into federal agencies” when the next Republican president takes office.

“We’re going to have a sweeping victory in 2022, and that’s just the preamble to a sweeping victory in 2024, and this time we’re going to be ready — and have a MAGA perspective, MAGA policies, not the standard Republican policies,” he said, referring to Trump’s “Make America Great Again” slogan.

Bannon was one of four close Trump associates subpoenaed earlier this week to appear before the House Select Committee investigating the Jan. 6 insurrection. Investigators said Bannon urged Trump to focus efforts to return to the White House on the Jan. 6 action. He rallied his listeners on his “War Room” broadcast that “all hell is going to break out” that day.

Bannon admitted last week on his podcast that he told Trump before the insurrection: “You need to kill this [Biden] administration in its crib.” That led Harvard constitutional law expert Laurence Tribe to wonder why the Department of Justice hadn’t convened a grand jury to consider sedition charges against Bannon.



Former White House chief of staff Mark Meadows, former Trump social media chief Dan Scavino and former Defense Department official and House Intelligence Committee aide Kash Patel were also subpoenaed by the committee.

Trump early this year pardoned Bannon, who faced multiple fraud counts in the Southern District of New York following an indictment a year ago for allegedly stealing funds from Trump supporters who donated to a charity he controlled, which purported to raise money to help build Trump’s southern border wall.

This article originally appeared on HuffPost and has been updated.

Bannon fires up 'shock troops' for next GOP White House



Jonathan Allen
Sat, October 2, 2021, 

WASHINGTON — Scores of former Trump political appointees gathered at a GOP social club Wednesday night to hear Steve Bannon detail how they could help the next Republican president reconfigure government.

"If you’re going to take over the administrative state and deconstruct it, then you have to have shock troops prepared to take it over immediately," Bannon said in a telephone interview with NBC News. "I gave 'em fire and brimstone."

Bannon, who ran former President Donald Trump's first campaign and later worked as a top adviser in the White House, said that Trump's agenda was delayed by the challenges of quickly filling roughly 4,000 slots for presidential appointees at federal agencies and the steep learning curve for political officials who were new to Washington.

He is not alone in that view. His appearance at the Capitol Hill Club came at the invitation of a new organization called the Association of Republican Presidential Appointees, which was formed to create a resource for future GOP officials tapped to fill federal jobs.

"There are so many statutes and regulations as well as agency and departmental policies, it can be very overwhelming when you first come in," said Jeffrey Scott Shapiro, a former Broadcasting Board of Governors official who is one of the organizers of the group. "This is an organization that has a very narrow, clear and much-needed purpose, and, once it is operational, I think it could do a lot of good not just for the Republican Party but for the country."



Trump often railed publicly about career civil servants and Obama administration political appointee holdovers whom he saw as obstacles to his agenda, referring to them collectively as the "deep state."

Bannon said he wants to see pre-trained teams ready to jump into federal agencies when the next Republican president takes office. For the most part, that means the tiers of presidential appointees whose postings don't require Senate confirmation.

"We’re going to have a sweeping victory in 2022, and that’s just the preamble to a sweeping victory in 2024, and this time we’re going to be ready — and have a MAGA perspective, MAGA policies, not the standard Republican policies," he said, referring to Trump's "Make America Great Again" slogan and describing a 2024 electoral victory as a "second term."

The launch party Wednesday drew a crowd of roughly 200 former officials from multiple Republican administrations — though mostly Trump appointees — according to a person who attended and is not one of the organizers of the group.

Shapiro said organizers are still trying to determine who will lead the association, but he said the need for institutional memory is apparent.

"What we’re hoping to do is build a base of people that can be available as a support system for political appointees who are coming in for the first time," he said. "It’s easy, if you know the rules, to accomplish your objective."

Fears of 'election subversion' as Trump flirts with 2024 White House bid

Issued on: 03/10/2021 -
TOMMOROWS NEWS TODAY

Police attempting to hold back supporters of US President Donald Trump at the US Capitol on January 6, 2021 

Olivier DOULIERY AFP/File

Washington (AFP)

The US presidential election of 2000 hinged on a few votes in Florida and was ultimately decided in the Supreme Court.

The 2020 White House contest gave birth to the "Big Lie" and saw supporters of the losing candidate storm the US Capitol.

Just wait and see what 2024 has in store.

Donald Trump, the first president in US history to refuse to accept the outcome of an election, is flirting with another White House run in what could be a make-or-break moment for American democracy.

Robert Kagan, a senior fellow at the Brookings Institution, set alarm bells ringing in political circles last week with a chilling doomsday scenario opinion piece in The Washington Post.

"The United States is heading into its greatest political and constitutional crisis since the Civil War," Kagan wrote.

The neoconservative scholar warned of a "reasonable chance over the next three to four years of incidents of mass violence, a breakdown of federal authority, and the division of the country into warring red and blue enclaves."

A man carries a flag that reads 'TRUMP WON' before a rally featuring former President Donald Trump Perry, Georgia

 Sean Rayford GETTY IMAGES/Getty Images/File

Polls suggest a majority of Americans share at least some of Kagan's concerns: 56 percent of the respondents in a recent CNN-SSRS survey said US democracy is under attack.

Thirty-seven percent said it is being "tested." Only six percent said it is in no danger.

Trump's unceasing and unfounded claims that the November 2020 presidential vote was "stolen" by Democrat Joe Biden have seeped into the political bloodstream.

Seventy-eight percent of the Republicans surveyed by CNN-SSRS said they do not believe Biden legitimately won the presidency, a figure in line with the findings of other opinion polls.

"It's a new phenomenon in American elections," said Edward Foley, a constitutional law professor at The Ohio State University.

Donald Trump's unceasing and unfounded claims that the November 2020 presidential vote was 'stolen' by Democrat Joe Biden have seeped into the US political bloodstream Sarah Silbiger GETTY IMAGES NORTH AMERICA/AFP/File

"There have been fights over hanging chads -- like Bush vs Gore in 2000 -- and there have been recounts for as long as there have been elections in America," Foley said.

"But the 'Big Lie' is a new thing. It's disconnected from reality and it's kind of a social pathology."

- 'By whatever means necessary' -

Richard Hasen, a law and political science professor at the University of California, Irvine, said in a recent research paper that the United States finds itself in a moment of "democratic peril," facing an unprecedented danger of "election subversion."

Supporters of Donald Trump inside the US Capitol on January 6, 2021 

Saul LOEB AFP/File

"The United States faces a serious risk that the 2024 presidential election, and other future US elections, will not be conducted fairly, and that the candidates taking office will not reflect the free choices made by eligible voters under previously announced election rules," Hasen wrote.

In his opinion piece, Kagan said the 75-year-old Trump and his Republican allies are laying the groundwork to ensure a 2024 victory "by whatever means necessary."

Trump, who retains an iron grip on the Republican faithful and is all but certain to be the party's presidential nominee if he does decide to run, appears to be setting the stage for the "Big Lie 2.0," said Foley.

The strategy involves restrictions such as voter identification laws passed by the legislatures of some Republican-led states which Democrats claim are intended to suppress the minority vote and Republicans say are designed to protect the integrity of the ballot.

It also includes replacing Republican state election officials such as Brad Raffensperger, the Georgia secretary of state who refused to do Trump's bidding in 2020 and "find" 11,780 votes, with candidates who are diehard supporters.

"Once you have that person in charge you have somebody who has great influence on how the election is conducted, how the votes are counted, who's declared the winner, how the Electoral College votes align," said Larry Sabato, director of the Center for Politics at the University of Virginia.

- 'Ultimate perversion of democracy' -

While it would spark Democratic outrage, Republican-controlled state legislatures could potentially ignore the popular vote in their states if it goes against Trump and appoint their own electors to the Electoral College, the final arbiter of who wins the presidential race, Sabato said.

Joe Biden, seen here being sworn in as the 46th president of the United States, received seven million more votes than Donald Trump and won the Electoral College by 306 to 232

 Rob Carr GETTY IMAGES/AFP/File

Republicans are also well-positioned to win a majority in 2022 in the currently Democratic-controlled House of Representatives, giving them another potential lever of power in 2024.

"As ugly as last January 6 was with bloodshed and insurrection the outcome was never in doubt," Foley said, as then vice president Mike Pence ultimately refused to go along with Trump's demands that he reject the Electoral College slates from several states they lost to Biden.

"But if members of Congress on January 6, 2025 are predisposed to the 'Big Lie' approach, and are willing to repudiate election results just for the sake of pure political power, that would be the ultimate perversion of democracy," Foley said.

© 2021 AFP

Joe Manchin Preaching Fiscal Responsibility From His Yacht Feels a Bit on the Nose

Jack Holmes
Fri, October 1, 2021, 11:58 AM·3 min read

Photo credit: screenshot - Twitter

We've got a new offering from the Department of On-the-Nose Metaphors courtesy of Joe Manchin, his yacht, and some activists on kayaks. There's been a sense throughout the extended infrastructure saga that key players therein are beyond the reach of their constituents and the public, striding the marble halls of the Capitol fielding the occasional question about the reconciliation bill's price tag or intra-Democratic Party squabbling. Rarely is the West Virginia senator—or Arizona's Kyrsten Sinema, for that matter—asked why he is blocking the most significant investment in everyday American families in generations, or why he opposes a critical framework to begin decarbonizing our transportation and energy systems in earnest. There is seldom much discussion of what's actually in the $3.5 trillion bill, a list that includes changes to the tax code that would ensure the bill does not actually cost $3.5 trillion. There is almost never any mention of the fact that we spend vastly more on bombs and bullets and planes that don't work every year without even a moment's hesitation over inflation or The National Debt. Made-up nonsense like the filibuster or the reconciliation process itself are taken for granted.

Sometimes, it just takes some activists in kayaks, I guess. They floated up to Manchin's sprawling yacht in Washington, D.C. on Thursday and asked some questions that need to be asked, creating a visual in the process that speaks just as loudly. Here's one of 100 senators, imbued with superpowers thanks to the quirks of our constitutional system, leaning over the ramparts to speak to the common folk below as they ask, with no little desperation, why we can't fund dental coverage as part of Medicare.

Manchin still seems to be sticking to this idea that the bill is just too big and it makes him uncomfortable. This at least points towards the notion that there is some size of bill that he would support. His compatriot in this mission to torpedo the domestic agenda of a president in his own nominal party, Kyrsten Sinema, can scarcely assure us of even that much. Sinema has donors to feed, but her strategy to avoid passing a set of vital and popular proposals is increasingly chaotic and inscrutable.

The Arizona senator has reportedly left Washington on Friday as the machinations over the two bills—reconciliation and the parallel Bipartisan Infrastructure Framework—continue apace. There appeared a completely disorienting missive in Axios in which anonymous "allies" of "the wine-drinking triathlete" talked up her imperviousness to political pressure. (The article obsesses over the wine thing throughout.) Sinema is apparently opposed to raising taxes on corporations and the rich too much, but she's also concerned about The National Debt, but she also took a central role crafting the separate bipartisan bill which is "paid for" through accounting witchcraft. Also, nobody cares about The National Debt. They just don't want to pay taxes to fund social programs.

Sinema's poll numbers are taking a turn, but that doesn't seem to be affecting her calculus. And meanwhile, through these weeks and weeks of drag-on legislating, the West was on fire and seemingly everywhere else in this country was under threat of drowning. The boosted pandemic unemployment benefits are gone, and more and more people will be going to work sick. None of this seems to matter? Just a completely bewildering time to be alive.

HIS BASE 
Manchin winning cautious applause from GOP voters in West Virginia
David M. Drucker

WASHINGTON EXAMINER
Sat, October 2, 2021


Republicans in West Virginia are pleasantly surprised as they watch Sen. Joe Manchin almost single-handedly derail Democratic plans to pass $3.5 trillion in fresh domestic spending.

The Democratic former governor has made a Washington career out of threatening to block massive spending bills and other liberal legislation, only to fall in the line with party leadership and left-wing colleagues. West Virginia Republicans even have a nickname for Manchin based on this pattern of political maneuvering since his election to the Senate in 2010: “Yes-no Joe.” But something is different about Manchin’s opposition to the size and scope of the $3.5 trillion bill.

This time around, Manchin appears dug-in and unflappable in the face of pressure from President Joe Biden and liberal Democrats in the House and Senate. Republicans back home in West Virginia cannot help but notice, even if begrudgingly.

“Are we glad that he is opposed to the ultra-liberal, crazy Green New Deal? Yes," said John Findlay, the executive director of the West Virginia Republican Party. “We’re hopeful that it lasts.”

Manchin, 74, during his tenure on Capitol Hill, has cultivated the image of a centrist. Yet, his votes on the Senate floor tell a different story. Manchin’s lifetime score on legislation with the conservative Club for Growth is a paltry 21%. And under former President Barack Obama, the conservative group Heritage Action for America awarded the senator an average score on legislation of just 13% — meaning he was a reliable vote for the administration.

But under Biden and in the face of ambitious liberal proposals from Democrats in the House and Senate, Manchin has been a fly in the ointment of key elements of his party’s fiscal and social agenda. In a Senate that is evenly split between the parties and controlled by the Democrats only because of Vice President Kamala Harris’s tiebreaking vote, Manchin is singularly empowered to obstruct legislation such as the $3.5 trillion reconciliation package.

And Manchin is doing so, just as he signaled he would to Senate Majority Leader Chuck Schumer of New York months ago.

The senator said then, and reiterated this week, that he favors a reconciliation package that spends no more than $1.5 trillion. Manchin opposes a provision of the bill that would raise corporate taxes above his preferred threshold — and he is demanding that the legislation include the Hyde Amendment, which prohibits federal funds from being used to finance abortions. Reconciliation packages are filibuster-proof and require a simple majority to pass. Without Manchin, Democrats are stuck.

“While I am hopeful that common ground can be found that would result in another historic investment in our nation, I cannot — and will not — support trillions in spending or an all or nothing approach that ignores the brutal fiscal reality our nation faces,” Manchin said in a statement. He also has ruffled Democratic feathers by refusing to vote to junk the 60-vote “filibuster” threshold for legislation.

Manchin has company. Sen. Kyrsten Sinema of Arizona is opposing the reconciliation package in its current form, citing problems with the legislation similar to those voiced by her fellow Democrat from West Virginia (a few additional Senate Democrats are silently cheering Manchin and Sinema on). Both have sparked the ire of Democratic activists — in Washington and back home. However, their opposition makes for great general election politics, including in swing-state Arizona and deep-red West Virginia.

But between them, it is Manchin who is doing all of the talking. In West Virginia, some Republicans are cynical about the senator’s intentions. In a state former President Donald Trump in 2020 won with 68.6% of the vote, Manchin has no choice but to make a big deal about his apprehension to go along with his party’s liberal agenda, they say, especially if he wants to run for reelection in 2024.

In fact, some Republican insiders are convinced Manchin is simply preserving his political viability. Democrats, once dominant in the state, are now firmly ensconced in the minority. But Republican operatives also concede that Manchin is impressing his conservative constituents, even if they are girding for the possibility that he will cave in the end.

“Conservative voters in West Virginia, whether they are Democrats, independents, or Republicans, will view any effort to control government spending favorably,” said Mark Blankenship, a GOP strategist who is based in the state.

Joe Manchin said in January he'd be okay with $4 trillion in infrastructure, but now he wants a lot less. Here's a full timeline of his price tags.

Juliana Kaplan,Ben Winck
Sat, October 2, 2021

Senator Joe Manchin, a West Virginia Democrat, talks on the phone during a Senate Appropriations Subcommittee hearing on June 9, 2021 at the U.S. Capitol in Washington, D.C. The committee is hearing testimony about the Fiscal Year 2022 budget request for the Department of Health and Human Services. 

Photo by Al Drago-Pool/Getty 

Sen. Joe Manchin is once again pivotal to Democrats' legislative plans. And he's been far from consistent.

A recently published memo showed Manchin only backs a $1.5 trillion reconciliation package. He supported a $4 trillion plan in January.


Here's a timeline of Manchin's spending limits - and how they've both aided and obstructed Biden's agenda.

If you can't keep track of Democrats' massive spending push, you aren't alone. Even the party's most impactful senator has changed course multiple times in the past year.

West Virginia Sen. Joe Manchin is a pivotal figure in the passage of any Democratic legislation right now. The party holds on to a razor-thin margin, and losing the moderate Democrat's support would doom much of President Joe Biden's legislative agenda.

The party entered the last week of September with several policy battles to win. Among the most important is Biden's $3.5 trillion spending plan, which would be the country's biggest expansion of social programs since the New Deal of the 1930s. It comes in addition to a $1 trillion bill for roads and bridges that passed the Senate in a bipartisan vote.

As negotiations have dragged on, Manchin has emerged as a clear opponent of the larger plan, and thanks to him and fellow moderate Sen. Kyrsten Sinema, of Arizona, the $3.5 trillion proposal is all but dead. Manchin is now pushing a package that's less than half the proposed size. In January, he sang a different tune.
In 9 months, Manchin shrunk his price tag by over $1 trillion

In July, Manchin presented his infrastructure proposals to Senate Majority Leader Chuck Schumer, Politico revealed and Insider confirmed. His $1.5 trillion topline is far lower than the reconciliation package around which Democrats have coalesced.

Manchin reaffirmed his commitment to $1.5 trillion on Thursday, telling reporters that "I believe in my heart" that's the most that the country can afford right now.

In January, Manchin said he'd back up to $4 trillion in infrastructure spending, as then-president-elect Joe Biden laid out his plans for office.

"The most important thing? Do infrastructure. Spend $2, $3, $4 trillion over a 10-year period on infrastructure," Manchin told Inside West Virginia Politics in January.

He reaffirmed his support for a larger package in April, as Senate Republicans readied their own much smaller infrastructure package.

"We're going to do whatever it takes. If it takes $4 trillion, I'd do $4 trillion, but we have to pay for it," Manchin told reporters at the time, saying that he would go big if the situation warranted it.

The document obtained by Politico is dated July 28, meaning that it came about two weeks after Senate Democrats announced their $3.5 trillion reconciliation deal. Ahead of that deal, Manchin said any Democratic-only plan would need to be fully paid for, and not require borrowing money.

After Manchin presented his proposals to Schumer, all 50 Senate Democrats voted to advance the $3.5 trillion blueprint and send it to the House. That unanimous support is now on the ropes.

Now, it's progressives versus moderates

For months, progressives have warned they'll torpedo any attempt to bring the $1.2 trillion bipartisan infrastructure package without the $3.5 trillion party-line reconciliation moving in tandem. House Speaker Nancy Pelosi has attempted to do just that, a risky gamble as there is no guarantee the reconciliation bill would pass afterward.

After the progressive wing of the party pushed back, a Thursday vote on the bipartisan package was pulled as Democrats regrouped and confusion reigns about what comes next.

"We started off with the $10 trillion number. They wanted to bring that down to six, so we obliged, negotiating in good faith. Then several months ago, we had an agreement with Senator Manchin … saying we will move forward on this $3.5 trillion," Rep. Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez told NBC's Garrett Haake. "Since then, some folks in our party have reneged on that agreement, and that's where I think we have an issue of trust."

What is clear, though, is Manchin's opinion will continue to dictate where the package goes next. And a statement on Wednesday at least signaled where his head is at: "Spending trillions more on new and expanded government programs, when we can't even pay for the essential social programs, like Social Security and Medicare, is the definition of fiscal insanity."

WV EXPORTS NAT GAS NOT COAL

Joe Manchin Just Cooked the Planet

Jeff Goodell
Fri, October 1, 2021,

Joe Manchin - Credit: AP Photo/J. Scott Applewhite

West Virginia Sen. Joe Manchin just cooked the planet. I don’t mean that in a metaphorical sense. I mean that literally. Unless Manchin changes his negotiating position dramatically in the near future, he will be remembered as the man who, when the moment of decision came, chose to condemn virtually every living creature on Earth to a hellish future of suffering, hardship, and death.

Quite a legacy. But he has earned it.

Last night, during the insane and at times comical negotiations over President Biden’s infrastructure bill and his $3.5 trillion Build Back Better agenda (aka the reconciliation bill), Manchin let it be known that he was not going to vote for any measure above $1.5 trillion. And because Democrats can’t afford to lose a single vote in the Senate, if Manchin won’t vote for it, the reconciliation bill won’t pass.

The $3.5 trillion reconciliation bill includes a long list of programs and tax reforms that will help reduce poverty and improve the social safety net, such as universal child tax credit, universal pre-K, free community college, and an expansion of Medicare. But it is also the primary vehicle for President Biden’s ambitious climate action agenda, including cuts in subsidies for the fossil fuel industry, and, most importantly, the Clean Energy Performance Package (CEPP), which is a clean energy standard that incentivizes power companies to shift away from fossil fuels.

From a climate point of view, the importance of these climate policy measures is impossible to overstate. In order to have a decent chance at maintaining a habitable planet, scientists agree that the world needs to zero out carbon pollution by 2050. And to have any shot at that, we have to start moving now. Every year, every month, every hour of delay makes that goal more difficult to achieve, and increases the risks of accelerated climate chaos that will make this past summer of hellish wildfires, storms, and droughts look like the good old days.

The zero carbon by 2050 goal is not a political slogan or environmentalist’s dream. It is what the best scientists in the world are telling us we need to do to avert climate catastrophe. It is also the basis for Biden’s goal of a 100 percent clean energy grid by 2035, and a 50 percent reduction in CO2 pollution by 2030. For Biden, taking strong action on climate is not just important in itself. It is also key to giving the U.S. climate negotiators something to bring to the table at the upcoming Glasgow climate talks, which begin on October 31st. After President Trump pulled the U.S. out of the Paris climate deal, the rest of the world has looked at the U.S. with distrust. Passage of strong climate measures in Congress before the Glasgow meeting would not only rehabilitate America’s standing as a nation that takes its contribution to solving the climate crisis seriously, but give U.S. negotiators leverage to push other nations to take action.

For Biden, and for the world, it all rests on the ability to get the reconciliation bill through Congress. With Republicans not willing to do anything, this was the only chance they had to get climate policy through. It was a gamble, but it was a gamble they had to take.

But Manchin is fucking it all up. To him, climate is a tomorrow problem. As he said recently on CNN’s State of the Union: “What’s the urgency?”

Manchin is one of a small group of centrist Democrats who pretend to be motivated by fiscal restraint. They have pitched themselves as the sober adults in the room full of crazy Socialist progressives who are spending like drunken sailors on government programs. Manchin says he can only support $1.5 trillion, that is the number that he believes is responsible, and he won’t go beyond that. “I’m at $1.5 trillion — I think $1.5 trillion does exactly the necessary things we need to do,” he said.

Yes, $1.5 trillion is a big number. And yeah, this is politics, you take the best deal you can get and move on. Half a loaf is better than no loaf.

But the problem is, it’s not close to what we need on climate. The policy specifics of the reconciliation bill are not yet clear, but what is clear is that Manchin won’t go along with anything that hurts the coal industry, including a reduction of the massive fossil fuel subsidies lavished on Big Oil and Big Coal. And if the clean energy standard is included (which is not at all clear at this point), Manchin will be sure it is weakened to the point of being ineffectual.

All in all, at a time when the world is looking to the U.S. to take bold action on climate and show some leadership, Manchin will be sure that what emerged from all this is, at best, some weak tea of climate policy that might not look like outright denial or dismissal but will do little to solve the problem. And, more importantly, that will do nothing to hasten the end of fossil fuels. As he put it in this memo outlining his negotiating position on the reconciliation bill, he made clear he wants assurances that nothing in the bill would get in the way of the production and burning of fossil fuels.

For anyone who cares about the future of life on this planet, Manchin’s moves are willfully destructive for a number of reasons.

First, his pretense toward fiscal sanity is absurd posturing. In a statement, he decried “the brutal fiscal reality” the nation faces as reason for his opposition. The $3.5 trillion, which is spread out over 10 years, is about 1.2 percent of GDP. How brutal is that? Especially when you consider that Manchin voted for every military budget in the last decade, which cost $9.1 trillion, without ever once whining about any brutal fiscal reality. 

As MSNBC’s Chis Hayes tweeted: “THERE IS NO BRUTAL FISCAL REALITY THE NATION FACES; IT IS ENTIRELY MADE UP.”

And the price of inaction on climate is a lot more than the price of action. It’s not just the tens of billions of dollars or so spent every year recovering from natural disasters. It’s also the price of the priceless: How do you put a dollar value on the extinction of monarch butterflies? How do you put a price tag on the 600 Americans who died during the heat wave that hit the Pacific Northwest last summer? How do you run the numbers for a vanishing Arctic? As climate journalist Amy Westervelt put it with characteristic aplomb: “The change these motherfuckers are signing us up for is so many times more radical than any climate policy ever proposed.”

You can argue that the real action on climate happens at the local level. Or that the astounding decline in clean energy prices will drive the revolution. But without a big push from government, it won’t happen fast enough, nor will the deep injustices of climate chaos be addressed in any meaningful way.

Second, Manchin is obviously a tool of the fossil fuel industry, which has poured millions of dollars into lobbying and ads to kill the reconciliation bill. The American Petroleum Institute, the industry’s biggest trade group, is running ads that celebrate Manchin for his opposition to the plan. Manchin has received more campaign donations from the oil, coal and gas industries than any other senator. “Help us thank Senator Joe Manchin,” reads one recent ad, “for being a champion of American made energy.” In fact, Manchin is, as journalist Mark Hertsgaard points out, “a modern day coal baron” himself, earning roughly half a million dollars a year in dividends from millions of dollars of coal stock he owns.

Third, the coal industry that Manchin is working so hard to protect is already a dead man walking. Coal is in freefall. In 2020, 543 million tons of coal were mined in the U.S., about half as much as a decade earlier. In 2012, 90,000 people were employed in coal mines; today, it’s only 40,000. There are more florists in America than coal miners today.

Coal mining put food on the table for generations of workers. But it mostly funneled money to the coal barons who owned and controlled the mines. In the past 150 years or so, billions of tons of coal have been mined and blasted out of West Virginia. If fossil fuels brought wealth and justice and prosperity, West Virginia would have streets paved with gold. Instead, it is a landscape of heartbreak and toil. According to data from the West Virginia Center on Budget & Policy, the state’s poverty rate of 16 percent is the sixth highest among the 50 states. It has the second lowest median household income in the nation. And nearly a third of all children in West Virginia live in a family that is either not getting enough to eat or is behind on housing payments. The state leads the nation in population decline, with young West Virginians fleeing to build lives elsewhere. You hear jokes about how people have overtaken coal as West Virginia’s top export.

The environmental legacy of Big Coal in West Virginia is equally toxic. Abandoned mines and thousands of uncapped oil and gas wells pollute local air and water. Mountaintop removal, a mining practice that involves deforesting mountain peaks and then blasting them apart to get at coal underneath, has turned large parts of the state into a moonscape.

Many West Virginians are done with coal and want a different future. A June poll by Data for Progress and the Chesapeake Climate Action Fund found that a clear majority of West Virginians, 56 percent, support a clean electricity transition by 2035, while only 36 percent oppose such a transition.

But Manchin himself is a man from the past. One of the tragedies here, not just for the people of West Virginia, but for the future of life on this planet, is that Manchin could have played this moment differently. With the leverage he has in the negotiations, he could have demanded massive investments in clean energy and social programs for West Virginia. He could have used it as a moment to ensure prosperity for his state and stability for our climate. He could have been a hero. Instead, he is a man out of time, selfish and sentimental and determined to take everyone down with him.

Philippine leader asks officials to ignore corruption probe


In this photo taken from video shown at United Nations headquarters, 

Rodrigo Roa Duterte, president of the Philippines, remotely addresses

 the 76th session of the U.N. General Assembly in a pre-recorded message, 

Tuesday Sept. 21, 2021. (UN Web TV via AP)


JIM GOMEZ
Fri, October 1, 2021, 7:49 AM·2 min read


MANILA, Philippines (AP) — The Philippine president says he will prohibit Cabinet officials from attending an ongoing Senate inquiry on suspected irregularities in massive government purchases of medical supplies in a brewing constitutional crisis.

President Rodrigo Duterte told Cabinet members in a televised meeting Thursday night that he'll issue a written order barring them and other officials, including three secretaries dealing with the coronavirus pandemic, from attending the inquiry.

The tough-talking president accused critical senators of using the televised hearings to gain political mileage ahead of next year’s national, local and congressional elections.


He said Sen. Richard Gordon, who leads the inquiry, has failed to produce any evidence of corruption in government purchases of protective masks and face shields after several hearings and had berated invited guests like a “despot.”

“That power to compel people to be there does not include abuse, does not include despotic ways, does not include making a very reckless but deliberate statement which is an affront to the constitution when you say, `I will conduct the investigation until kingdom come,’” Duterte said.

If Cabinet officials ignore Senate summons and are ordered arrested for contempt, Duterte said he would order the police and the military to refrain from helping the Senate sergeant-at-arms enforce the arrests.

“I’m the commander-in-chief anyway of all uniformed personnel of government. I am ordering the police and the military and everybody to stay out of this trouble. Do not get involved, don’t follow, because we have a crisis already,” Duterte said.

Gordon’s committee has been investigating what he and other senators said were the overpricing and other possible irregularities in purchases of masks and other medical supplies from a Philippine company, the Pharmally Pharmaceutical Corp.

Registered in 2019 with a capital of 625,000 pesos ($12,500), the company managed to secure multi-billion-peso (multi-million-dollar) government contracts to supply the gear as the Duterte administration scrambled to deal with coronavirus surges last year.

A Chinese businessman, who Duterte once appointed as an economic adviser, has been linked to Pharmally as a financier of the medical supplies the company purchased from China and eventually supplied to the Philippine government, Gordon and other senators said, citing testimony from a company official.

Duterte and Pharmally officials have denied allegations the supplies were overpriced. Duterte has also said he authorized health officials to skip the required bidding to deal with the pandemic.

Duterte has shot back by publicly accusing Gordon of misusing funds as chairman of the local Red Cross, an allegation the senator dismissed. Gordon criticized Duterte for defending government and company officials who have been linked to the irregularities and said the Senate investigation wound not be deterred by the president's threats.