There's nothing more frightening in America today than an angry White man

Supporters of President Donald Trump protest after storming the US Capitol on January 6, 2021.


Analysis by John Blake, CNN

 Sat November 20, 2021

(CNN)The Brute. The Buck. And, of course, the Thug.

Those are just some of the names for a racial stereotype that has haunted the collective imagination of White America since the nation's inception.

The specter of the angry Black man has been evoked in politics and popular culture to convince White folks that a big, bad Black man is coming to get them and their daughters.

I've seen viral videos of innocent Black men losing their lives because of this stereotype. I've watched White people lock their car doors or clutch their purses when men who look like me approach. I've been racially profiled.

It's part of the psychological tax you pay for being a Black man in America -- learning to accept that you are seen by many as Public Enemy No. 1.

But as I've watched three separate trials about White male violence unfold across the US these past few weeks -- the Kyle Rittenhouse trial, the Ahmaud Arbery death trial and the civil case against organizers of the 2017 Unite the Right rally in Charlottesville -- I've come to a sobering conclusion:

There is nothing more frightening in America today than an angry White man.

Kyle Rittenhouse carries a rifle in Kenosha, Wisconsin, on August 25, 2020, during a night of unrest following the police shooting of Jacob Blake. Rittenhouse shot three people, two fatally, that night but was acquitted this week after claiming self-defense.

It's not the "radical Islamic terrorist" that I fear the most. Nor is it the brown immigrant or the fiery Black Lives Matter protester, or whatever the latest bogeyman is that some politician tells me I should dread.

It's encountering an armed White man in public who has been inspired by the White men on trial in these three cases.

The US' legacy of White male violence

I'm not suggesting we start racially profiling White men. The vast majority of White men are no menace to society.

Countless White men swallowed tear gas and braved rubber bullets while marching with demonstrators during last year's protests over the murder of George Floyd. Plenty of White men -- like the Rev. James Reeb, a White Unitarian minister -- died for Black people during the civil rights movement.

There is nothing inherently violent about White men, or any human being.

But recent events have convinced me it's time to put another character on trial: A vision of White masculinity that allows some White men to feel as if they "can rule and brutalize without consequence."

Demonstrators during a protest outside the US Capitol in Washington on January 6, 2021.

This angry White man has been a major character throughout US history. He gave the country slavery, the slaughter of Native Americans, and Jim Crow laws. His anger also helped fuel the January 6 insurrection at the Capitol.

It's this angry White man -- not the Black or brown man you see approaching on the street at night -- who poses the most dangerous threat to democracy in America.

That's a sweeping claim. But these trials represent something bigger than questions of individual guilt or innocence. They offer a disturbing vision of the future, and a choice about what kind of country we want to live in.

The facts of the trials are well known to many Americans.

In Wisconsin, a jury found Kyle Rittenhouse not guilty of all charges in the shooting deaths of two men and the wounding of another during a racial protest last year.

 Rittenhouse, who was 17 at the time, said he was in Kenosha during the protests after the police shooting of Jacob Blake to help protect property. He said he shot the men in self-defense.

In Georgia, three White men are accused of chasing and killing Ahmaud Arbery, a 25-year-old Black man, last year while he was jogging. The men say they were trying to conduct a lawful citizen's arrest, and the man who shot Arbery says he acted in self-defense.

Defendant Greg McMichael listens during the trial over Ahmaud Arbery's shooting death on November 8, 2021, in Brunswick, Georgia.

And in Virginia, a civil trial is underway to determine if organizers of the "Unite the Right" rally intended to incite racial violence. One person was killed and dozens injured there after White supremacists clashed with counter-demonstrators.

Race is an inescapable theme that runs through all the trials. At the center of each are White men who are accused of using unjustified violence, either against an unarmed Black man or during racial protests. In Rittenhouse's case, a jury cleared him of criminal wrongdoing.

It's what's happening outside these courtrooms, though, that is most frightening. It suggests these trials are a symptom of a dangerous shift.

Our politics are becoming more menacing

If there was an Exhibit A to describe this shift, it might be an animé video. Earlier this month, Republican Rep. Paul Gosar posted a photoshopped animé video to his Twitter and Instagram accounts showing him attacking President Joe Biden and appearing to kill Democratic Rep. Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez with a sword.

The House voted this week to censure Gosar, with virtually no Republicans backing the resolution. Gosar took down the video after facing criticism but did not apologize, and later retweeted a post that contained the video.

Congressman Paul Gosar of Arizona takes an elevator on Capitol Hill in Washington on November 17, 2021.

Gosar's video wasn't an isolated incident. Violent political rhetoric has been escalating among some members of the Republican Party. And while not all of it is fueled by White men, much of it starts at the top -- with former President Donald Trump.

Trump's violent and sexist rhetoric has been well-documented. More White men now identify as Republican, and the gender gap between both major parties is as large as it's ever been in the last two decades.

One New York Times columnist, under the headline "The Angry White Male Caucus," said this anger is driven by White men who fear a changing America "in which the privilege of being a white man isn't what it used to be."

The anger also seems to be getting worse. After President Joe Biden signed an infrastructure bill into law this month, some House Republicans who voted for it reported receiving death threats. Election officials and school board members across the country are also reporting escalating threats. A recent poll revealed that 30% of Republicans believe that violence is justified to save the country.

Political violence is not limited to the GOP. A Bernie Sanders supporter who publicly declared his hatred of conservatives shot five people at a Republican baseball practice in 2017.

But talking about assaulting and killing political enemies has become so normal -- and seemingly acceptable -- in conservative circles today that a White man felt comfortable enough to ask a right-wing activist at a public forum in Idaho last month:

"When do we get to use the guns? ... How many elections are they going to steal before we kill these people?"

President Donald Trump speaks during a rally on March 4, 2016, at Macomb Community College in Warren, Michigan.

Add to this toxic political atmosphere another element: Laws that not only protect White vigilante violence but, in some cases, seem to embolden vigilantes.

Activists hoped that widely seen videos showing White police officers and White men shooting Black men like Arbery would inspire the courts and state legislatures to revisit laws that made such actions possible.

But even after nationwide protests over the murder of George Floyd by a White police officer, little has changed. A growing number of Americans now want police funding increased. And though Georgia overhauled its citizen's arrest law, a reform bill called the George Floyd Justice in Policing Act died in Congress two months ago.

We could see more guns on the streets

The conservative-leaning US Supreme Court now seems poised to make it easier for people to carry guns in public, based on recent oral arguments over a New York gun control law.

The US' civilian population is already the most heavily armed in the world. And our streets could soon become even more violent.

"A significant portion of the gun safety movement's current agenda is likely to come under attack in the coming years," Adam Winkler, a UCLA law professor and author of "Gunfight: The Battle Over the Right to Bear Arms in America," recently told Newsweek. "I think bans on assault weapons and bans on high-capacity magazines are ripe for the new Supreme Court, with its newly invigorated Second Amendment, to strike down."

Members of far-right militias rally near Stone Mountain Park in Georgia on August 15, 2020.

The Supreme Court has also recently ruled once again in favor of "qualified immunity," the legal doctrine that shields police officers accused of misconduct. There's been little national movement on reforming "stand your ground laws," some of which allow people who believe they're facing an imminent threat to use lethal force without first trying to escape. At least 25 states have such laws, according to the National Conference of State Legislators.

And despite the shocking nature of the Arbery video, there's been little progress on reforming citizen's arrest laws, which allow private citizens to detain or arrest someone they suspect in a crime.

The White men on trial in the Rittenhouse and Arbery cases both said they acted in self-defense. One of the men in the Arbery case testified that the unarmed Black jogger tried to take his gun, and his life was at risk.

But consider the potential danger of other White men -- or any person wielding a gun in public -- feeling emboldened to use deadly force against even an unarmed person by evoking the logic in those defenses, said Eric Ruben, a Second Amendment expert.

Judge Bruce Schroeder, left, Kyle Rittenhouse, center, and his attorney Mark Richards watch an evidence video during Rittenhouse's trial on November 12, 2021 in Kenosha, Wisconsin.

"In other words, their own decision to carry a gun became a justification to use it, lest it be wrested away from them," Ruben recently told the New York Times.

While prosecutors didn't show that Rittenhouse was angry that night, there is a perception -- fair or not -- that he went to Kenosha for reasons more than simply maintaining public safety.

The comedian Trevor Noah reflected this sentiment in a comment that became a meme: "No one has ever thought, 'Oh, it's my solemn duty to pick up a rifle and protect that TJ Maxx."

And finally, there's a growing fear that no one will be severely punished for the January 6 insurrection because most of the rioters were White. The trials of various defendants are winding their way through the courts now. Jacob Chansley, the so-called "QAnon Shaman," was sentenced to 41 months in prison for his role in the US Capitol riot.

Jacob Anthony Angeli Chansley, known as the "QAnon Shaman," is seen at the Capital riots on January 6, 2021 in Washington. He was recently sentenced to 41 months in prison.

But many believe the punishment will never match the severity of the crime. What if, say, a mob of Black Lives Matter protesters attacked the US Capitol in an attempt to overturn the election of a Republican president? How do you think conservative lawmakers would react?

We are seeing more threats, more guns and more suspicion that the courts will go easy on White people who employ violence. This is the combustible mix that makes more violence almost inevitable.

Angry White men have damaged democracy

We have enough problems with White male violence as it is. Mass shootings in the US are committed more often by White men than by any other group. Top law enforcement officials now say the nation's biggest domestic terror threat comes from White supremacists. And many of the most indelible news images of recent years include angry, red-faced White men, often armed with guns.

Trump supporters clash with police and security forces as they try to storm the US Capitol on January 6, 2021 in Washington.

Consider scenes from the US Capitol riot, which were filled with angry White men wielding crude weapons and pummeling police. Or the snarling faces of young White men holding tiki torches during the 2017 rally in Charlottesville. Or the angry White men who clashed with anti-racist protesters across the US last year.

White male anger has become one of the most potent political forces in contemporary America. That anger helped a White man win the White House. Trump's rise to power is inconceivable without his ability to tap into White male anger and embody it.

Has there ever been an angrier modern president? He is the White male id unleashed.
This White male anger is causing many people -- including other White men -- to look over their shoulder when they go out in public. The two men who were shot and killed by Rittenhouse in Wisconsin were White, as was the man he wounded.

Ijeoma Oluo, author of "Mediocre: The Dangerous Legacy of White Male America," wrote that she lives with the constant fear that angry White men will turn violent toward her and "countless other black people, brown people, disabled people, queer people, trans people, and women of every demographic."

White male anger could prove to be one of the biggest roadblocks we face in building a successful multiracial democracy.

White supremacists chant at counter protesters after marching through the University of Virginia campus with torches in Charlottesville, Virginia, on August 11, 2017.

Lee Drutman, a scholar who has studied political violence, recently told the New York Times: "I have a hard time seeing how we have a peaceful 2024 election after everything that's happened now. I don't see the rhetoric turning down, I don't see the conflicts going away. I really do think it's hard to see how it gets better before it gets worse."
This isn't hyperbole. It's history. It happened before.

After the Civil War, the US attempted to build the first biracial democracy by incorporating formerly enslaved people into the country's political and economic life. That period, known as Reconstruction, was destroyed primarily by the violence of White men who used terrorist and vigilante groups like the KKK to assassinate elected officials, prevent Blacks from voting and overthrow state governments.

In 1898, for example, a mob of primarily White men staged a coup against the city government of Wilmington, North Carolina, which had elected a multiracial coalition of leaders. More than 60 Black people were killed, and Black residents of the city were barred from voting, and from elected office, for decades afterward.

The January 6 insurrection wasn't unprecedented. In many ways it was a sequel.


No more lectures about Black 'thugs'

Republican Sen. Lindsey Graham warned the GOP that "We're not generating enough angry White guys to stay in business for the long term."

He was wrong. The angry White guy business is booming. Yet no matter how obvious it becomes that the country has a problem with White male violence, most Americans will escape what Black and brown men experience on a weekly basis.

Trump supporters clash with police and security forces as people try to storm the US Capitol on January 6.

Not many drivers will lock their doors when White men approach at a stoplight. Few women will clutch their purse when they pass a White man on the street.

Someone recently posted a meme about this double standard by evoking the memory of Tamir Rice, the 12-year-old Black boy who was killed in Cleveland by a police officer who authorities said mistook his toy pistol for a real firearm.

"Tamir Rice was 12 and killed for having a fake toy gun. Kyle Rittenhouse, 17, killed two people. Walked by police after killing two people. Got to go home and sleep."

That meme is why it's hard for me for to tolerate hearing another lecture about "Black thug culture" or a "Black culture of violence."

My response to the White men who use these tired phrases: Look in the mirror.

And look at these three trials, because they point to one frightening future. This is what that future looks like: More angry White men emboldened by "stand your ground" and citizen's arrest laws, inspired by a conservative interpretation of the Second Amendment.

And more dead Americans.

POSTMODERN STALINISM

What happens to China’s disappeared – and why do so few in the West care?

Luke Mintz
Fri, November 19, 2021, 

'A faux pas that inadvertently ‘hurts the feelings of the Chinese people’ can kill your brand there in a minute,' says Dr Jonathan Sullivan

As a child in the enormous, crowded Chinese city of Tianjin, doctors told Peng Shuai she would never play tennis professionally because of a heart defect. Unperturbed, she underwent heart surgery aged 13, and by 15 had broken into China’s national tennis scene. She became known for her ferocious style of play, and her rare tendency to return a serve with both hands gripped to her racquet. In her late teens she bristled at attempts by Communist Party apparatchiks to collect two-thirds of her earnings; eventually, she was allowed to keep her money, as long as she “brought glory” upon China. By 27, she had won doubles at both Wimbledon and the French Open.

But on November 2 this year, a chilly night in Tianjin, her good fortune came to an end. In a lengthy blog posted to Weibo (the Chinese version of Twitter), the 35-year-old described an incident, some years ago, claiming she had been forced into sex by retired party official Zhang Gaoli, while a guard stood watch outside the door – an abuse of power that left her feeling “like a walking corpse”, she wrote. “I was so scared that afternoon. I never gave consent, crying the entire time.”

Unfortunately for Peng, the man she accused – a married 75-year-old – is also a former vice-premier of the Communist Party’s politburo, and ally of President Xi Jinping. Her post was wiped from the internet within minutes, although screenshots continue to circulate. There have been no confirmed sightings has of Peng in public since. (Zhang has so far made no comment).

Peng Shuai is a household name in China - Reuters

On Wednesday, Chinese state broadcaster CGTN released a mysterious statement it claimed had been written by Peng, in which she reversed her claim of sexual assault, adding: “I’m not missing. I’ve just been resting at home and everything is fine.” It was followed this weekend by purportedly new photos and video footage showing Peng in a Beijing restaurant with friends. China experts have expressed scepticism about the authenticity of both. For Nathan Law, the pro-democracy dissident who fled last year from Hong Kong to London, the statement bears all the hallmarks of a forced confession, a favoured tool of the Chinese authorities. “Whenever a scandal is revealed, Chinese authorities silence or attack the victim,” Law says.

Experts suggest that Peng was probably abducted into the government’s programme of “enforced disappearances”, known officially as RSDL – Residential Surveillance at a Designated Location. Usually, somebody who has criticised the Chinese regime vanishes for several months, while they are interrogated in a nondescript government building. It is not quite as punishing as prison, although some inmates are beaten by guards; others are deprived of sleep. Then, they re-emerge in society with an outwardly different personality, their plucky mode of resistance replaced by a supine deference to Beijing authorities.

The tactic began in the 1990s, but has quickened pace since the 2011 Jasmine Revolution (a crackdown on human rights campaigners), writes Dr Teng Biao, a human rights lawyer, in The People’s Republic of the Disappeared. Fear of a state-ordered van pulling up outside your home in the middle of the night is now the permanent background hum of Chinese politics – always there, but rarely mentioned.

“Everything points towards [Peng] being held in the RSDL system,” says Peter Dahlin, director of the Safeguard Defenders advocacy group. He estimates at least 10,000 people were taken into RSDL last year. “Part of the way they put pressure on you is solitary confinement, which can be incredibly damaging.”

And Dahlin would know – it happened to him. On January 3 2016, he was in his eighth year working at a pro-human rights organisation in Beijing. At 9.45pm, he heard an explosive bang at his door. Uniformed state officers swarmed in. He was blindfolded, along with his girlfriend. They were placed in separate cars and driven to a drab, four-storey former office block.

“[I was] freaking out, trying to figure out how this is going to end,” Dahlin remembers. “Am I looking at prison? Am I going to see my girlfriend? Is she going to end up in prison for the next decade just because she’s with me?”.

He was placed in a rectangular cell with beige padded walls, where he was watched at all times by two expressionless guards, neither of whom ever spoke – though they recorded his every action in a notebook. He was interrogated several times, deprived of sleep, and pressed for details on other human rights activists. He heard the prisoner on the floor above him being violently beaten. “These are padded cells so when you hear someone scream, it sounds like a very low voice, coupled with heavy thumps as someone is thrown into a wall.”

After three weeks, he was told he must confess to a series of crimes. He was ordered to remove his prison uniform and wear his normal clothes, then led into a studio and sat opposite a glamorous state-employed TV presenter. Just out of view of the cameras, officials watched him closely. “I have violated Chinese law,” he said once cameras were rolling, reading from a script. “I have hurt the feelings of the Chinese people. I apologise sincerely for this.”

Eventually, after 24 days, he was deported to his native Sweden. He thinks diplomatic pressure probably helped his case. Accounts like these are part of the reason why UK broadcasting regulator Ofcom revoked CGTN’s TV licence earlier this year.

Zhang Gaoli has so far not commented on Peng's disappearance - AFP

Peng's disappearance is reverberating through the sporting world. Serena Williams said this week she was “devastated” by the news, adding: “This must be investigated and we must not stay silent.” Andy Murray voiced his concern on Twitter using the #WhereIsPengShuai hashtag. Steve Simon, chief executive of the Women’s Tennis Association, said he was prepared to pull tournaments out of China potentially losing tens of millions of dollars.

Also attracting international controversy is the mysterious case of Jack Ma, who before October 24 last year was the richest man in China, and the charismatic owner of Alibaba, “China’s Amazon”. Then he stepped onto a stage in Shanghai and delivered a speech that was critical of the Chinese financial industry. He was quickly summoned to Beijing for “regulatory interviews” - and has not been seen since, except for one bizarre 43-second video, filmed at a stage-managed visit to a rural primary school, and posted online by a Chinese government agency. In it, Ma looks subdued, and says nothing about his business empire. “I have been studying and thinking, and have become more determined to devote myself to education and public welfare,” he says.

A-list celebrities are not immune, either. In 2018, China's most famous actress, Fan Bingbing vanished after being accused of tax evasion, to the consternation of her 63 million social media followers. Four months later, she resurfaced. “I sincerely apologise to society, to the friends who love and care for me, to the people, and to the country’s tax bureau,” she wrote. “Without the party and the country’s great policies... there would be no Fan Bingbing.” She has only spoken since to praise the Communist Party; at one point she even thanked them for detaining her.

It might seem obvious that such seemingly brazen attacks on human rights would provoke anger in the West, but within the sporting world open condemnation of Beijing is the exception rather than the norm. China’s 1.4 billion people represent the fastest-growing market, and sports officials in the US and Europe have often shown a reluctance to say anything that might anger Beijing censors.

“It’s hard doing business in China,” says Dr Jonathan Sullivan, Director of China Programmes at the University of Nottingham. “The rewards are still there, but there is always the risk of making a faux pas that inadvertently ‘hurts the feelings of the Chinese people’ and can kill your brand there in a minute.”

Illustrative was the case of Daryl Morey, manager of the Houston Rockets, an American basketball team, who in October 2019 posted what he believed to be an uncontroversial tweet supporting pro-democracy protests in Hong Kong. Backlash was swift and severe. The Chinese state broadcaster announced they would stop showing Rockets games to China’s 800 million basketball fans. Chinese finance and fashion firms suspended multi-million dollar sponsorship deals with the team.

Eventually, in a statement written in Mandarin, the US’s National Basketball Association said they were “disappointed” by Morey’s “inappropriate” comment, adding: “He undoubtedly has hurt Chinese fans’ feelings severely.”

Now, perhaps, the wall of silence around such incidents is starting to break. Growing global outrage over Peng's disappearance could prove a turning point, say campaigners, shining a much-needed spotlight on China’s dark tactics. Whether it will do anything to help the tennis player herself, is less certain.

Sources: Brazil withheld deforestation data ’til COP26’s end


Joaquim Alvaro Pereira Leite, Brazil's Minister of the Environment gets to his feet after a plenary session during an interview at the COP26 U.N. Climate Summit in Glasgow, Scotland, Friday, Nov. 12, 2021. (AP Photo/Alberto Pezzali)


BRASILIA, Brazil (AP) — Brazil’s President Jair Bolsonaro and Environment Minister Joaquim Leite both knew the Amazon region’s annual deforestation rate had surged before the U.N. climate talks in Glasgow, but kept results quiet to avoid hampering negotiations, according to three Cabinet ministers who spoke to The Associated Press on condition of anonymity.

Data from the National Institute for Space Research’s Prodes monitoring system released Thursday showed the Amazon lost 13,235 square kilometers (5,110 square miles) of rainforest in the 12-month reference period from August 2020 to July 2021. That’s up 22% from the prior 12-month period and the worst in 15 years.

The three ministers as well as a coordinator at the space institute that compiles the data, all of whom spoke with the AP on condition of anonymity due to concern about reprisals, said the annual deforestation report was available on the government’s information system before talks in Glasgow began on Oct 31.

Six days before that, at a meeting in the presidential palace, Bolsonaro and several ministers discussed the 2020-2021 deforestation results and determined they wouldn’t be released until after the climate conference, said the three ministers, two of whom were present.

Later that same day, the government launched a program to promote green development. Official speeches resembled a dress rehearsal for efforts to project responsible environmental stewardship at Glasgow after two years of historically elevated deforestation.

Logs are stacked at a lumber mill surrounded by recently charred and deforested fields near Porto Velho, Rondonia state. (AP Photo/Andre Penner, File)

One of the two ministers who participated in the earlier meeting said the decision to withhold data was part of a strategy to recover environmental credibility abroad. This wasn’t an intent to lie, the person said, but rather a means to highlight positive developments, particularly year-on-year declines seen in preliminary deforestation data for July and August from the so-called Deter monitoring system.

Bolsonaro highlighted that same data when speaking at the U.N. General assembly in September. The Deter system in the two months since, however, has shown significant year-on-year increases.

Deter data is released monthly and considered a leading indicator for complete calculations from the more accurate Prodes system, which is based on clearer images and released once yearly. Prodes generally tracks with the Deter data.

Following release of the Prodes data on Thursday, Leite told reporters that the data doesn’t reflect the government’s heightened engagement in recent months. He also denied having seen the report’s data before going to the U.N. climate summit, where he led the Brazilian delegation.

Bolsonaro, who has long championed development of the Amazon including the mining of Indigenous territories, skipped Glasgow altogether after attending the Group of 20 meeting in Rome.

Brazil's President Jair Bolsonaro attends a ceremony at the presidential palace in Brasilia this month. (AP Photo/Eraldo Peres)

The press offices of the environment ministry and presidency didn’t respond to AP emails asking when Leite and Bolsonaro were made aware of the 2020-2021 deforestation data, nor why its publication was delayed.

In Glasgow, Leite announced Brazil’s commitment to zero illegal deforestation by 2028, up two years from the prior goal, and to reduce greenhouse gas emissions 50% by 2030 as compared to 2005 levels. U.S. climate envoy John Kerry welcomed the announcements.

“This adds crucial momentum to the global movement to combat the #ClimateCrisis,” Kerry posted on Twitter. “Looking forward to working together!”

John Kerry, second right, United States Special Presidential Envoy for Climate walks with Brazil's Minister of the Environment Joaquim Alvaro Pereira Leite, left. (AP Photo/Alastair Grant, File)

The latter goal has generated criticism that a recent change made to the nation’s 2005 baseline means the supposed stepped-up commitment is roughly equal to a previous pledge.

Leite also met with dozens of negotiators from other nations during the summit, seeking financing to expand Brazil’s environmental protection capabilities. He repeatedly said developed countries need to contribute significantly more funds to poorer nations to aid their effective transition to greener economies. The summit ran until Nov. 12.

Following release of the Prodes data on Thursday, the report’s Oct. 27 date instantly drew the attention of environmental watchdogs who had accused the government of greenwashing during COP26.

“There should be sanctions. Brazil assumed a posture of lying during COP, trying to sell itself as a sustainable country, but deforestation is out of control,” Cristiane Mazzetti, forest campaigner for Greenpeace Brazil, said by phone. “We had already sounded the alert before that leaders shouldn’t buy the empty promises of a government that has acted proactively to weaken environmental protection.”

The episode also underscores a lack of transparency and the dismantling of environmental governance, according to Izabella Teixeira, a former environment minister under the Workers’ Party that opposes Bolsonaro.

“The environment minister went to a climate meeting to offer Brazil’s new commitment that was immediately contradicted by the results of government policy,” Teixeira said.

Bolsonaro spoke about deforestation during a live broadcast on Facebook on Friday evening, conceding that illegal deforestation occurs, but on a far smaller scale than reported by media.

“We combat that. Some say ‘Ah, but you have to combat more.’ Do you know the size of the Amazon? How can you take care of all that?” the president said. He also said the solution is “simple”: other nations not buying illegally felled timber from Brazil.

Spike in Amazon deforestation draws shock, ups pressure on Brazil


FILE PHOTO: An aerial view shows a tree at the center of a deforested plot of the Amazon near Porto Velho, Rondonia State

Fri, November 19, 2021, 1:58 PM·3 min read
By Jake Spring and Lisandra Paraguassu

BRASILIA (Reuters) - Diplomats expressed shock and disappointment on Friday at new data revealing higher-than-expected deforestation in Brazil's Amazon this year, saying it increases pressure on President Jair Bolsonaro's government to do more to stop the destruction.

Evidence that Brazil sat on the data for three weeks before announcing it also drew outrage from non-governmental organizations.


The government released the report, which was dated Oct. 27, after this month's high-profile U.N. COP26 climate summit in Glasgow, where Brazil signed up to a global pledge to end deforestation by 2030 and made more climate commitments.

Brazil's environment minister, Joaquim Pereira Leite, told reporters that he only gained access to the data on Thursday when it was announced. He called the data "unacceptable" and vowed more forceful action to fight deforestation.

The data showed deforestation in Brazil's Amazon rose to the highest level since 2006 with an area larger than the state of Connecticut being cleared, according to Brazil's national space research agency, Inpe.

Preliminary data from Inpe released earlier in the year had indicated deforestation might decline slightly, but the more accurate final data showed a 22% increase.

The Amazon's trees absorb vast amounts of carbon dioxide that would otherwise warm the planet.

One European diplomat told Reuters, speaking on condition of anonymity, that he was "very disappointed with the latest figures."

A second European diplomat, from a different country, said the numbers were "vastly worse" than what was expected.

While the increase drew surprise, Brazil has not shown that environmental policy is moving in the right direction, the person said.

"All the political signals coming from the government through Congress or other means clearly do not show any political will toward reducing deforestation," the diplomat said.

Pressure from the private sector and foreign governments "is only increasing" for Brazil to show a concrete plan for how it will get deforestation under control, they added.

Brazil's presidency and its environment and foreign ministries did not immediately respond to a request for comment on the criticism.

A Brazilian diplomat, who participated in the COP26 Glasgow summit, told Reuters that negotiators did not know about the data during the U.N. talks and acknowledged that it would increase pressure on Brazil.

But the diplomat, speaking on condition of anonymity, said that Brazil at the negotiations had already admitted that deforestation was a problem and the new deforestation goals had been welcomed.

"We have to admit to it and resolve it to maintain our ability to negotiate and influence," the person said.

Valentina Sader, assistant director of the Latin America center at the Atlantic Council, a think tank, said the data combined with Brazil's targets at COP could increase international scrutiny.

"Commitments made publicly in Glasgow will be essential for holding Brazil accountable," Sader said.

(Reporting by Jake Spring and Lisandra Paraguassu; Additional reporting by Gabriel Stargardter and Anthony Boadle; editing by Stephen Eisenhammer and Leslie Adler)

World Fish Stocks Are in Worse State Than Expected, Study Shows

Sybilla Gross
Sat, November 20, 2021

(Bloomberg) -- The world’s fish population is in a dire state, with about half of assessed stocks being overfished, according to a study backed by Australian billionaire Andrew Forrest.

The rate of depletion is worse than previous estimates of just over a third, Forrest’s Minderoo Foundation said in a report Sunday. A tenth of fish stocks worldwide is now on the brink of collapse, reduced to 10% of their original size, the study shows.

The findings are based on 48% of the total global catch for which there’s sufficient data, according to the report. The other half lacks information to say if they are sustainable or not. More than 1,400 stocks were assessed from 142 countries.

The journey to replenishing fish numbers isn’t easy. The report noted that it could take between three and 30 years for stocks to recover, and in many places that would require a major overhaul. The foundation recommended increased intervention and investment from governments, as well as better auditing and management practices from businesses.

Forrest is Australia’s third-richest person and the chairman of iron ore miner Fortescue Metals Group. He has beefed up his interests in agrifood, completing a PhD in marine science, expanding into aquaculture and focusing much of his foundation’s work on ocean conservation. He recently challenged JBS SA’s plan to acquire a Tasmanian salmon producer on environmental grounds.

More details from the report:

Researchers gave nations a grade, ranging from ‘A’ to ‘F’, based on their progress toward restoring fish stocks and governance capacity.

Highest scoring countries are Chile, Iceland, Ireland, Lativa, Norway and the U.S. with a ‘C’ rating, indicating well-developed governance systems but more work is required across additional stocks to reach global sustainability goals.

Twenty countries received an ‘F’ grade, including Vietnam and Malaysia, where nearly all stocks are unassessed or overfished, and there’s little prospect of advancing without major improvements in management, the report said.

Facebook’s own words are the ‘ultimate definition of fraud,’ says Ohio attorney general

Alexis Keenan
·Reporter
Tue, November 16, 2021

A lawsuit alleging securities law violations, filed against Facebook's parent company Meta (FB) by Ohio’s largest pension fund, should be an easy one to prove, according to the state’s attorney general.

On Monday, Attorney General Dave Yost along with Ohio’s Public Employee Retirement System filed suit in federal district court in California, alleging that earlier in the year Facebook and its senior executives made false and misleading statements that artificially inflated its share prices.

“I don't think causation's going to be a terribly difficult thing to prove here,” Yost told Yahoo Finance Live, referencing a 2019 internal Facebook review the Wall Street Journal reported on earlier this year.

That internal review took issue with a Facebook policy that gave special treatment to the accounts of popular users like politicians and celebrities, allowing them to violate the platform's rules without repercussions. The review, marked attorney-client privileged, called the actions "a breach of trust."

“We are not actually doing what we say we do publicly,” said the confidential review, according to The Wall Street Journal. “Unlike the rest of our community, these people can violate our standards without any consequences.”

The Ohio attorney general suggested those words could be used against Facebook. “Facebook in its own internal review said we're not doing the things that we're saying we're doing publicly," he said. "And that's the ultimate definition I think of fraud: saying one thing and doing the other."

Facebook CEO Mark Zuckerberg testifies during a remote video hearing held by subcommittees of the U.S. House of Representatives Energy and Commerce Committee on "Social Media's Role in Promoting Extremism and Misinformation" in Washington, U.S., March 25, 2021. U.S. House of Representatives Energy and Commerce Committee/Handout via ReutersMore

According to the complaint, Facebook's stock dropped as a result of disclosures by former Facebook employee turned whistleblower, Frances Haugen, and a series of reports published by The Wall Street Journal. The disclosures and reports, together, the complaint says, paint a picture that Facebook was aware of but failed to disclose the extent of problems on its platforms concerning illegal activity, violent extremism, and harm to children.

“All told, these disclosures erased more than $100 billion in shareholder value and subjected Facebook to immense reputational harm,” according to the complaint, which seeks class action status.

The pension fund alone lost $4.3 million due to the disclosures, the lawsuit said. Those figures are based on the lawsuit's claim that losses should be measured from April 28 — when CEO Mark Zuckerberg allegedly made false or misleading statements during an earnings call — to Oct. 21 when the Wall Street Journal reported that 11% of Facebook's monthly active users worldwide come from duplicate accounts.

According to the allegations, when an analyst asked on the April earnings call about a practice that could increase the amount of controversial content pushed to users’ News Feeds, Zuckerberg downplayed the concern.

Meta’s spokesperson responded to the lawsuit in an email to Yahoo Finance, saying "This suit is without merit and we will defend ourselves vigorously.”

Under federal securities law, the lawsuit must show that Facebook or its executives intentionally lied at least once, or knowingly made one omission. The suit also has to show that the plaintiffs relied on these false statements or omissions when buying Facebook shares, and that false statements caused those shares to lose value.

The lawsuit is one of multiple suits against Facebook arising out of the Haugen disclosures and alleging federal securities law violations for failing to disclose internal research about its platforms.

Alexis Keenan is a legal reporter for Yahoo Finance. Follow Alexis on Twitter @alexiskweed.

Employees and investors are calling for Activision's CEO to resign amid reports that he knew for years about sexual harassment and rape allegations at the company

Ben Gilbert
Fri, November 19, 2021

Activision CEO Bobby Kotick.

Activision CEO Bobby Kotick knew for years about claims of sexual misconduct at his company, the WSJ reported.

More than 1,000 Activision employees have since signed a petition calling for Kotick to resign.

Xbox head Phil Spencer said Microsoft is "evaluating" its relationship with the "Call of Duty" publisher.

Activision's longtime CEO Bobby Kotick reportedly knew for years about a variety of claims of sexual harassment and rape at his company.

A huge new investigation by the Wall Street Journal details several specific examples of harassment and rape at Activision. Kotick was not only aware of those claims but, in a least one instance, reportedly intervened to keep a male staffer who was accused of sexual harassment despite the company's human resources department recommending he be fired.

In the wake of the report, more than 1,000 current Activision Blizzard employees have signed a letter calling on Kotick to resign.

"We, the undersigned, no longer have confidence in the leadership of Bobby Kotick as the CEO of Activision Blizzard," the letter says. "The information that has come to light about his behaviors and practices in the running of our companies runs counter to the culture and integrity we require of our leadership — and directly conflicts with the initiatives started by our peers. We ask that Bobby Kotick remove himself as CEO of Activision Blizzard, and that shareholders be allowed to select the new CEO without the input of Bobby, who we are aware owns a substantial portion of the voting rights of the shareholders."

And Activision employees aren't alone in calling on Kotick to resign — a group of Activision investors, albeit a small percentage of overall investors, are echoing the sentiment.

"It's clear that the current leadership repeatedly failed to uphold a safe workplace — a basic function of their job," Strategic Organizing Center (SOC) Investment Group director Dieter Waizenegger told The Washington Post this week. "Activision Blizzard needs a new CEO, board chair and lead independent director with the expertise, skill set and conviction to truly change the company's culture," he said.

Additionally, the heads of both Sony's PlayStation and Microsoft's Xbox issued statements internally.

PlayStation head Jim Ryan criticized Activision's response to the article. "We do not believe their statements of response properly address the situation," he said in an email obtained by Bloomberg.

Xbox leader Phil Spencer took his response one step further: Xbox is "evaluating all aspects of our relationship with Activision Blizzard and making ongoing proactive adjustments," the email from Spencer to staff, also obtained by Bloomberg, said.

Microsoft confirmed the email's veracity to Insider, and shared the following statement from Spencer: "I personally have strong values for a welcoming and inclusive environment for all of our employees at Xbox. This is not a destination but a journey that we will always be on. The leadership at Xbox and Microsoft stand by our teams and support them in building a safer environment for all."

When asked for comment regarding calls for Kotick to resign, Activision representatives pointed to the statement published by Activision's board earlier this week and said the sentiment stands: "The Board remains confident that Bobby Kotick appropriately addressed workplace issues brought to his attention," the statement said.

The Journal's report on Activision is the latest in an ongoing reckoning at the blockbuster video game publisher.

The State of California sued the company this summer over allegations that female Activision employees face "constant sexual harassment," from "having to continually fend off unwanted sexual comments" to "being groped." When employees report issues to human resources and management, the lawsuit claimed, no action is taken.

The suit — filed on July 20 to the Los Angeles Supreme Court — followed a two-year investigation conducted by California's Department of Fair Employment and Housing. It claims "Call of Duty" maker Activision fosters a "pervasive frat boy" culture where women are paid less for the same jobs that men perform, regularly face sexual harassment, and are targeted for reporting issues.

Activision Blizzard CEO's duty to disclose sexual misconduct claims falls into legal 'gray area,' expert says

Alexis Keenan
·Reporter
Sat, November 20, 2021

Bobby Kotick, chief executive officer of Activision Blizzard, attends the annual Allen & Company Sun Valley Conference, July 10, 2019 in Sun Valley, Idaho. (Photo by Drew Angerer/Getty Images)

On Wednesday, a group of Activision Blizzard (ATVI) shareholders joined a chorus seeking to oust longtime CEO Bobby Kotick after The Wall Street Journal reported that he knew of sexual harassment and rape claims at the gaming giant but failed to report some of them to the board.

The outcry has raised questions about Kotick's duty to disclose what he knew about sexual misconduct allegations within the video gaming company. Frustrations over the matter have been escalating since August when California's Department of Fair Employment and Housing sued Activision, alleging that female employees were subjected to sexual harassment and unequal pay.

“Generally, the CEO, CFO, anyone at that level, does have a fiduciary responsibility, if something comes to their attention — whether it's embezzlement or sexual harassment, or whatever it might be — to inform the board,” Jeffrey Cramer, senior managing director at Guidepost Solutions, and former federal prosecutor, told Yahoo Finance.

The Journal reported Monday that Kotick, who's also a board member, knew but failed to tell the rest of the board about the alleged rape of a female employee of Activision’s subsidiary, Sledgehammer Games, by her male supervisor. Internal documents, the Journal's report states, show Kotick held back the extent of what he knew about complaints “of employee misconduct in many parts of the company.”

The rape complaint, which was reportedly settled out of court without alerting the board, adds to federal regulatory investigations into the company's handling of misconduct.

On Tuesday, Activision's board released a statement in support of Kotick. "The Board remains confident that Bobby Kotick appropriately addressed workplace issues brought to his attention," the statement read.

At this stage, Cramer says, it’s not surprising that the board is maintaining public support for Kotick. Typically, the directors call for an independent investigation to find out who knew what, when, he says.

“The board will do a thorough review, and then once the board has more information," Cramer said, "that position might change."

'The standards are shifting'

Corporate law and governance experts say it's not just Kotick who can face scrutiny about who knew what, and when. It's unclear, he said, whether Kotick and the other board members could be legally liable for failing to alert shareholders and the board about alleged sexual misconduct. That's because of shifting expectations in the post #MeToo world, Douglas Chia a senior fellow at Rutgers Law School’s Center for Corporate Law and Governance, tells Yahoo Finance. Few courts, he says, have evaluated how fiduciary laws govern obligations of public company executives to disclose claims of sexual misconduct.

Employees of the video game company, Activision Blizzard, hold a walkout and protest rally on July 28, 2021. (Photo by DAVID MCNEW / AFP) 

“In today's environment, the standards are shifting, and there's more of an expectation that the investors want to know more earlier,” Chia says. “... There's nothing that really says what's legally required.”

The current legal landscape is “a very gray area” that likely invokes state corporate laws and federal securities laws that can pressure both the board and Kotick, according to Case Western Reserve University School of Law associate professor Anat Alon-Beck.

“I put it on the board, not just on the CEO,” Alon-Beck adds. “It’s a very delicate situation because the CEOs have obligations under securities laws to report on material events. I think today, after the #MeToo movement, this is a big deal.”

In Delaware, where Activision Blizzard is incorporated, state corporate laws make CEOs such as Kotick, as well as board members, fiduciaries to the corporation, Alon-Beck explains. The role requires them to exercise duties of care and loyalty to shareholders and makes them liable for breaching those duties.

Under federal securities laws, liability can arise if a “material” disclosure is omitted — though “materiality” has no clear and consistent definition, Chia said.

“You could have a claim that the CEO and or the board breached their fiduciary duty because they failed to monitor what was going on at the company, from a compliance point of view on sexual misconduct,” Chia says.

In August, shareholders filed one such suit, claiming Activision failed to inform investors that California’s Department of Fair Housing and Employment had been looking into claims of discrimination and sexual harassment, prior to the agency's lawsuit filed that month.

Several hundred Activision Blizzard employees stage a walkout which they say is in a response from company leadership to a lawsuit highlighting alleged harassment, inequality, and more within the company outside the gate at Activision Blizzard headquarters on Wednesday, July 28, 2021 in Irvine, CA.

 (Allen J. Schaben / Los Angeles Times via Getty Images)

Still, requiring a CEO of a large public company to report each and every instance of misconduct to the board is not likely a standard a court would impose, Chia said. However, he added, major allegations such as rape, and patterns of sexual misconduct claims, should indeed go that far up the chain of command.

For Alton-Beck, reporting significant events just to the board isn’t far enough as a strategy to protect against modern legal claims. Shareholders, she suspects, are going to have to be part of the equation.

Delaware state law requires board members to exercise oversight to avoid potential illegal conduct, she explains. In turn, the board should ensure that systems are in place within the company to help prevent illegal sexual misconduct and to learn about and investigate them, if they occur.

“If the court finds that [Activision] breached the duty of loyalty because they didn't exercise oversight, then they need to answer for the harm that they caused the corporation,” she says. “To me, it's a clear-cut case that there's a violation of duty of loyalty here, if they failed to put a system in place.”

Yahoo Finance contacted Activision Blizzard to obtain information about its oversight policies but did not receive a comment before publication.

Shares of Activision Blizzard (ATVI) were trading at $62.50 at market close on Friday, approximately 60% down from their 52-week high of $104.53.

Alexis Keenan is a legal reporter for Yahoo Finance. Follow Alexis on Twitter @alexiskweed.

For the Trump Family, LGBTQ+ People Are Nothing but a Joke

John Casey
Fri, November 19, 2021

Donald Trump Jr.

During one of my conversations with Mary Trump, she relayed a story about how her grandmother made crude jokes about Elton John singing at the funeral of Princess Diana. She used a vulgar term to describe the gay music legend.

Mary’s cousin Eric Trump isn’t known for his smarts. (My grandfather would say about him, “The lights are on, but there’s nobody home.”) He famously once said that he was part of the LGBTQ community, “I’m telling you, I see it every day, the LGBT community, they are incredible and you should see how they’ve come out in full force for my father every single day. I’m part of that community, and we love the man and thank you for protecting our neighborhoods and thank you for protecting our cities.” Is he really that obtuse, or was he joking?

He later said he had been trying to explain what LGBTQ+ Trump supporters have told him.

Donald Trump once joked that Mike Pence "wants to hang" gay people, according to a story in The New Yorker in October of 2017.

The story cited two anonymous sources who said Trump liked to joke about Pence’s hatred toward our community, “when a conversation with an unnamed legal scholar turned to gay rights, the president motioned to Pence and allegedly joked, ‘Don't ask that guy — he wants to hang them all!’"

Ironically, it turned out that the MAGA base wanted to hang Mike Pence on January 6 insurrection, but not because he wanted to hang gays; however, with that bigoted crowd of insurrectionists, the fact that Pence did want to hang gays might have spared him the gallows. But I digress.

These stories about Trump's mother and son joking about gays only shows that the apple doesn’t fall far from the tree. Like grandmother, like father, like grandson, Donald Trump Jr. finds humor in LGBTQ+ people.

Trump Jr. took to Twitter, like his father used to do but can’t now, to brag about his marvelous sense of humor and burgeoning creativity — of course, I’m being facetious. Apparently, Trump Jr. sells clothes — in this case, perhaps taking after his fashionista sister Ivanka?

Anyway, he’s selling hoodies and sweatshirts adorned with LGBTQ in rainbow lettering that stands for “Let’s Get Biden to Quit.” He’s clearly taking a page, or a frock, from the Trump campaign selling “Let’s Go Brandon” T-shirts. (Click here if you don’t know what that means. I don’t want to give it any more airtime). These Trumps must think they are so clever, or maybe Donnie Jr. was trying to smartly cover for his brother Eric, who I’m sure would boast about being part of this LGBTQ community.

But alas, Trump Jr. is anything but clever, selfless, or smart. According to his cousin Mary, “Donnie is a deeply unintelligent person. I’ve been asked who's the stupidest one, and it’s him.” She also said that he has an ability to “out-racism and out-misogyny anybody, and he’ll shoot as many innocent animals as possible to get whatever passes for affection in her family.”

She’s right! This isn’t Trump Jr.’s first foray into “out-homophobia anybody.” You can click here to the GLAAD page with all his transgressions against each letter of LGBTQ+. His ridiculing, mocking, attacking, and now “joking” know no bounds.

This ridicule of the LGBTQ+ community is not a joke. It is offensive. It is ignorant. And it is hurtful. While Trump Jr. jokes about changing the acronym, what he’s doing is again firing up the base. The MAGA crowd will infer that LGBTQ+ people are indeed a joke. They’ll lap up those T-shirts, parade around on the streets wearing them, and trash us on every corner to their neighbors and friends.

That’s the danger of manipulating that acronym. It’s less about getting Biden to quit and more about conveying another way to minimize our community. As Republican legislators quash LGBTQ+ rights, ignore equality bills, and gear up to come after us in the midterms, adding LGBTQ+ as a joke fits right into their quest to use our community as a divisive issue. They’ve already gone after Assistant Health Secretary Rachel Levine and Transportation Secretary Pete Buttigieg. LGBTQ is firmly in their crosshairs.

Trump Jr. thinks it’s all a big joke until it isn’t. This is Trans Awareness Week. And Donnie’s big punch line is a punch in the gut to the families of at least 46 trans and gender-nonconforming people killed in 2021. People are dying because they are a “T,” killing themselves because they are “G” or “Q,” hiding in the closet and suffering if they’re an “L” or a “B.” Does anyone see the joke in this?

How about this: Let’s turn MAGA into "Making All Gays Amazing" and put that on T-shirts and ballcaps. What do you think the reaction to that would be? There would be chaos, violence, and threats. Just think about all the turmoil surrounding the Republicans who voted for the infrastructure bill or voted to certify Biden for president or dare disagree that the election was rigged. These people don't make jokes or agree to be the butt of them, so why should we?

Jokes are not something that the Trump family and his base do very well. Spreading hate is what they do well, and that’s not funny at all.

John Casey is editor at large for The Advocate.

Right-Wingers Turn on Glenn Youngkin Over His LGBTQ Staffer and Vaccine Rules

Zachary Petrizzo
Fri, November 19, 2021

Chip Somodevilla

A severe case of buyer’s remorse appears to have set in among some conservatives over electing Glenn Youngkin as the next Republican governor of Virginia.

Over the past week, outrage has bubbled over among right-wingers and TrumpWorld allies alike, who are under the impression Youngkin has insufficient MAGA loyalty, citing his hiring of an LGBTQ staffer and his refusal to block COVID-related local mandates.

The hits started pouring in against the fleece-clad governor-elect earlier this week after he declared he would not attempt to block local vaccine and mask mandates across the Old Dominion—a break from more hardcore Republican governors like Florida’s Ron DeSantis.

Right-wing media figures almost immediately began publicly bashing the governor-elect. Judicial Watch founder Tom Fitton railed against Youngkin for refusing to stand up against “abusive” mask mandates, while right-wing outlet The Federalist tossed him under the bus for not being a “strong conservative governor.”

Right-wing talk radio hosts fumed as well. John Fredericks, who hosts a radio show on fringe channel Real America’s Voice, suggested Youngkin had turned on the Trump base that helped elect him. “Two weeks, post his election, here we go: Once again with another RINO alert,” he declared, accusing the millionaire Virginia gubernatorial victor of being a “Republican In Name Only.” Fredericks proceeded to slam Youngkin over only appearing on his radio program when he “needed” votes from the Steve Bannon sidekick’s hardcore MAGA fan base.

Elsewhere, right-wingers turned on Youngkin for the offense of having a staffer who identifies as part of the LGBTQ community.

Joshua Marin-Mora, a recent Georgetown University graduate turned Youngkin press assistant, faced a flurry of right-wing hate this week over “he/him” pronouns displayed in his Twitter bio.

“So, Youngkin chose a guy with pronouns in his bio to do his comms who also served on the Georgetown Latinx Leadership Forum and supports virtually everything Youngkin's voters voted against,” blared Pedro L. Gonzalez, a writer for the influential conservative think tank Claremont Institute, in a series of tweets. When other Twitter users unearthed pictures of Marin-Mora wearing LGBTQ Pride clothing, Gonzalez snarled, “The new GOP is actually worse than the old GOP.”

The lengthy thread attacking Marin-Mora was elevated by the likes of Pizzagate conspiracy theorist Jack Posobiec and far-right activist Lauren Witzke, while notably Fox News contributor Guy Benson came to the young staffer’s defense, writing that the staffer is “Latino & LGBTQ [and] holds some heterodox political views (as do most of us) but is proudly center-right. And he worked his ass off to help Youngkin beat McAuliffe, especially among Hispanics. Good hire by Glenn.”

Nevertheless, the existence of Marin-Mora on Youngkin’s team was enough for Gonzalez to declare that the incoming governor “is sinking the knife into people's backs.” And former Newsmax host John Cardillo lamented that the LGTBQ staffer was proof that “Youngkin will turn out to be another establishment disappointment.”

Marin-Mora did not immediately respond to The Daily Beast’s request for comment. Neither did Youngkin's communications director Matt Wolking, who took to Twitter to note that Marin-Mora is considered a “valued member” of the Republican politician’s team and that the right-wing attacks on him are “ignorant and foolish.”

There have long been questions raised about whether Youngkin's loyalties will lie with Trump's base or with the more moderate conservatives who voted for him throughout Northern Virginia, a heavily purple area of the state.

In the final weeks of his campaign, Youngkin played his cards close to his chest, as former President Donald Trump often extended endorsements of the candidate who was attempting to keep an arm's length away from the ex-president. Ahead of the election in early November, countless MAGA allies perceived Youngkin’s delicate dance around fully embracing Trump as nothing short of “brilliant.”

THE SQUISHY MIDDLE GIVES GRIEF

The Squad Gets Love From the Left—and Anger From Voters

Sam Brodey, Ursula Perano, Jackie Kucinich
Fri, November 19, 2021, 

Photo Illustration by Thomas Levinson/Photos Getty Images

The passage of President Joe Biden’s $1.75-trillion social welfare spending bill in the House was a much-needed win for Democrats. But for six progressive lawmakers who were willing to block the other half of Biden’s agenda in order to secure the rest of it, the victory was especially sweet.

After the Build Back Better Act passed Friday, Rep. Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez (D-NY) said the vote to approve the historic package of investments fighting climate change and expanding the social safety net was “why we even run and serve in Congress, to pass legislation like this that impacts people’s everyday lives, to transform our material reality.”

It was the fear of missing that opportunity that drove Ocasio-Cortez and the members of the so-called Squad to vote against a $1.2-trillion Biden-backed infrastructure bill two weeks earlier, even at the risk of denying Democrats and the president a key policy win—and inspiring the ire of voters in liberal districts that could badly use money for infrastructure.

Still, Ocasio-Cortez went so far as to say Thursday night that their stand had “contributed to the pressure and urgency of this vote tonight.”

That may have been more spin than reality, but regardless, the progressive star and the rest of the Squad can now claim real progress toward fulfilling the kinds of lofty promises they campaigned on.

And even though the Build Back Better legislation is far from finished—Sens. Joe Manchin (D-WV) and Kyrsten Sinema (D-AZ) may prevent it from ever becoming law—progressives can reasonably claim they did everything in their power to make that bill a reality.

In that effort, however, some progressives denied themselves the opportunity to claim credit for another key plank of Biden’s agenda.

The six members of the Squad—Reps. Ocasio-Cortez, Ilhan Omar (D-MN), Rashida Tlaib (D-MI), Jamaal Bowman (D-NY), Cori Bush (D-MO), and Ayanna Pressley (D-MA)—all voted against the massive infrastructure bill earlier this month.

While those six lawmakers have been hailed as heroes by progressives for helping to push the Build Back Better bill over the finish line in the House, the blowback for voting against a popular and much-need infrastructure bill has been a lesson in how all politics is local.

Back home, many constituents weren’t clapping their hands for Squad members; they were scratching their heads.

Dwayne Murray, a high school basketball coach in Bowman’s district, likes and supports his congressman after initially opposing him when he successfully unseated the area’s longtime congressman, Eliot Engel, in 2020.

But Murray told The Daily Beast that his initial reaction to the infrastructure vote was “disbelief.” His hometown of Mount Vernon—just outside New York City’s borders—has made national news for its dangerously decrepit wastewater infrastructure. The infrastructure bill, among other things, proposed $55 billion to fund water and sewer improvements.

“I was just completely flabbergasted that knowing what circumstances are with us, that he’d actually vote that way,” said Murray. “It said to me, and apparently a lot of other people, that idealism is more important than deliverables.”

Members of the Squad worked quickly to try to explain that they did not oppose the infrastructure bill, just the strategy behind it.

Bowman, for one, swiftly held a town hall meeting with constituents in his district—proof, Murray said, that he recognized “the four-alarm fire his vote caused.”

Democrats Finally Unite—to Mock Kevin McCarthy All Night as He Breaks Stupid Record

The New York congressman told The Daily Beast there was initially some confusion about the vote. “People felt that I voted against lowering prescription drugs. They felt that I voted against childcare. So, you know, the way it was reported and communicated, it was like we voted against the whole thing, like both bills together,” he said.

That led Bowman’s team to launch an “information and engagement campaign” across local media in an attempt to explain his rationale on voting down the bipartisan deal. The congressman says he found the “majority of people were OK with it” after hearing his side of the story.

Rhiannon Navin, a constituent of Bowman’s, told The Daily Beast as much. She supported his ‘no’ vote on the infrastructure bill to preserve the climate change provisions in the broader bill, and said that after town halls, some who were skeptical of the vote said, “I get it.”

Pressley also held a virtual town hall on Nov. 9. And it took one question before she was asked how she could vote against a bill that created jobs in her district.

After a lengthy explanation of all the dynamics that played into her vote, Pressley said it was ultimately about keeping her promises. “I just reject the false choice, I honored my promise that I made to my constituents to hold the line to delay the bipartisan infrastructure bill to keep our leverage in order to pass the Build Back Better Act and I'll continue fighting for every worker and family in my district,” she said.

To the Squad’s supporters, it was painful to watch the lawmakers taking heat for a stand predicated on passing the entirety of Biden’s agenda, and it continues to rankle them that Democratic leadership chose to put pressure on the left, not moderates, who had angled for months to pass the infrastructure bill and leave the Build Back Better Act for later.

“No one likes to be put in the position of voting down something they’d otherwise support,” said one progressive aide. “At the end of the day, who’s willing to vote their conscience? These six members.”

But that vote of conscience has, clearly, come with some real cost for these progressives.

In Ocasio-Cortez’s district, the New York Times found that even supporters didn’t approve of her vote, even if they understood her reasons for taking it. “Right mindset, but wrong execution,” one 27-year old constituent told the paper of his representative’s vote.

Three days after the vote, Tlaib saw a state senator, Shri Thanedar, announce he was considering a primary challenge. Thanedar told The Daily Beast that he would have voted for the infrastructure bill and claimed “people are really shocked and surprised by the ‘no’ vote.”

During his visit to a General Motors plant on Wednesday to promote the infrastructure law, Biden gave a shout out to Tlaib, who represents the part of Detroit where the factory is located. But unlike several members of the Michigan delegation, she didn’t get a ride there on Air Force One. Only ‘yes’ votes were invited to fly with Biden, according to a White House official.

Progressive aides and operatives close to the Squad admit their votes against the infrastructure bill will not help them.

“It has been really hard for them,” a top progressive aide on Capitol Hill said of the Squad. “They’re going to be in a tough spot when the Department of Transportation announces a project in their district anytime in the next 10 years… They did a very brave thing knowing that they will have to live with the political consequences of taking this vote.”

Max Berger, a strategist who formerly worked to elect Squad members at the outside group Justice Democrats, told The Daily Beast, “It’s a tough vote, it does not look great.”

Democrats Hand Joe Biden His Long-Awaited Infrastructure Win

But progressives like Berger see that tough vote as a vindication of why the Squad was sent to Congress in the first place: to do difficult things in service of achieving real progressive wins that they campaigned on.

They failed, at least in the short term, but if there were more progressives willing to vote ‘no’ that night, things might have gone differently. “I don’t think this is a cause for recalibration of the overall strategy,” said Berger. “It shows we need more people like this in Congress.”

Fulfilling that goal continues to be an active project for groups like Justice Democrats, which is targeting four incumbent Democrats in 2022 with challenges from the left. But there’s a tension in casting the infrastructure vote as exhibit A for electing more Squad members.

And progressives acknowledge that.

Their stand might have been praised as a fierce fight for the left’s values. But politically, those who took it will be lucky if many of their constituents forget about it. And there’s a real risk many could remember it as a reason to think twice about supporting them.

Either way, progressive advocates seem satisfied that the worst case will be avoided. “If we’re ever going to get to a politics that’s more than taking a poll of what’s popular and reflecting it back to people, we have to have politicians willing to take hard votes and communicate why,” said Leah Greenberg, co-founder of the progressive group Indivisible.

It’s also the case that along with the blowback Squad members received, there was also understanding and even appreciation for their votes.

The Democratic Mayor of St. Louis, Tishaura Jones, attended the infrastructure bill signing at the White House, with the legislation slated to deliver $9 billion to Missouri in repairs for roads and bridges, public transit fixes, water quality improvements and expanded broadband access.

But even then, Jones’ office said the mayor understood the decision of local congresswoman Cori Bush to vote down the bill.

“St. Louis still needs federal action on issues that matter to families,” Jones’ personal information officer, Nick Dunne, told The Daily Beast.

In Massachusetts, state Rep. Steve Owens (D) said he completely respects and understands congresswoman Pressley’s decision to vote against the infrastructure deal for the sake of Build Back Better. “The constituents that I talk to feel similarly, and she has our support in the district,” he said.

The vote clearly showcased the Squad’s commitment to one another. Bowman said, leading up to the infrastructure vote, the group decided to travel together to the House floor to cast their votes in order to “come in together in both political and physical solidarity.”

That plan was, in part, a reaction to a high-profile vote in May to approve more funding for the U.S. Capitol Police. Members of the group “felt like we were being pushed around… So this time, we just wanted to be together,” Bowman said. On that vote, Bush, Omar and Pressley voted against the bill, while Bowman, Ocasio-Cortez and Tlaib voted present.

“There are times where even the six of us don’t vote the same way, right. But when we are, especially with something that’s high-profile, you know, we want to get each other’s backs,” Bowman added.

This year has been a big turning point in the cohesion of the Squad as a group, said an aide familiar with their dynamic. Part of the reason why is the closeness of staffers, who regularly communicate with each other both online and outside the House floor during votes.

“There’s a lot of community in this,” said the aide, who observed that the Squad is increasingly “taking similar positions less popular” within the broader Democratic caucus.

These members surely recognize that Democrats are facing a stark reality in the 2022 midterms—and they are banking on the confidence that their constituents elected them for votes like this.

“Every single vote that we take comes with a positive and a negative reaction from our constituents, and this vote is similar,” Omar told The Daily Beast.

“I feel pretty confident that my district understands the reasoning behind it and believes that I am here to make sure that my promises to them are kept,” she added.