Against the coronavirus corporate bailout | TheHill – The Hill

Americans should oppose the nearly $2 trillion corporate bailout bill masquerading as stimulus currently under negotiation in the U.S. Senate. This profligate spending will do little to help the American economy or average citizens in the long run. But the additional debt added to an already whopping $1 trillion 2020 federal deficit will plague taxpayers for years.

Long-run thinking, though, is not in vogue in Washington, D.C. Perhaps our president, senators, and U.S. representatives are beyond hope. Perhaps they have fully embraced state control of the economy. The American people have not and if our elected representatives vote yes on this rushed and unholy bill, we should vote no on them in the fall.

We are in a dramatically deflationary period, with vast parts of the U.S. economy shut down due to the COVID-19 virus. More money and more cheap credit cant stimulate anything in such an environment, because money and credit arent goods and services. It can and will, however, saddle future generations of Americans with more debt misery and entrench a standard of moral hazard for corporations from which free markets may never recover.

The correct response to the current economic crisis is simple and painful. First, get America back to work as soon as possible. Humanitarian concerns and economic concerns are not in conflict; in fact, they are closely linked. An economic depression is far deadlier than any virus, and tradeoffs are required.A poorer America is an America with far worse public health.

Second, allow existing bankruptcy and insolvency processes to run their course. Bailouts are not the answer, new owners who can turn companies around are. Corporate assets, contracts and products dont disappear in bankruptcy. Yes, there will be pain as many (not all) existing employees lose their jobs. But executives and boards of failing companies should lose their jobs first and foremost, and new shareholders should seek clawbacks of ill-deserved bonuses and stock compensation.

Again, this will not be pretty but shareholders, not taxpayers, must bear the economic burden when companies fail.

As with most emergency spending legislation, this proposed bill is lengthy and its details are fuzzy. But todays Wall Street Journal sums up the whole sordid process nicely: Lobbyists Pile On to Get Wins for Clients Into Coronavirus Stimulus Package.

Among these opportunities: $500 billion in business loans from the U.S. Treasury, which means backed by you and me. Seventy billion dollars is earmarked for airlines and their suppliers, including Boeing, Delta, United and General Electric.

Airlines especially deserve scrutiny for approaching the public trough. Several reportedly spent more than 95 percent of their free cash flow in recent years on stock buybacks. That money was wasted, vaporized by the drop in their share prices over the last week. If they need money now, they have several choices: Borrow, sell stock or sell airplanes. Theirs is a particularly cyclical and volatile industry; dont executives remember the falloff of travel after 9/11? Why dont they hold more operating cash?

The unasked question lurking underneath the Senate bill is this: How do we pay for it all? Congress doesnt have $2 trillion to spend, and 2020 tax receipts wont begin to cover the bill. This means the federal government will effectively print the money, likely in a circuitous way by issuing new Treasury debt and using the Federal Reserve Bank as a backstop to buy it all if investors wont. And what sort of investor wants to loan Uncle Sam money for 10 years at less than 1 percent interest anyway?

At least Sen. Bernie SandersBernie SandersAgainst the coronavirus corporate bailout The Hill's Campaign Report: Biden seeks to counter Trump on coronavirus Largest public sector union endorses Biden MORE (I-Vt.) is more honest: He thinks government simply should give Americans money every month, with or without a crisis. We now see plainly that congressional Republicans agree with him, at least conditionally. What a sad state of affairs.

If the bailout of 2008 had worked, U.S. companies would not need a bailout today. They would have thanked their lucky stars then, and focused on building healthier balance sheets with more cash and less debt. Let new owners, not American taxpayers, save them today.

Jeff Deist, former chief of staff for Rep. Ron Paul (R-Texas), is president of the Mises Institute, a non-profit think tank that promotes teaching and research in the Austrian school of economics.

The rest is here:

Against the coronavirus corporate bailout | TheHill - The Hill

Rand Paul Proves He Is Too Good For Us, As He Upsets the Right People – The Liberator Online

This article was featured in our weekly newsletter, the Liberator Online. To receive it in your inbox, sign up here.

Kentucky Senator Rand Paul is notorious for being a principled voice for limited constitutional government. Even better, he amuses us with how swiftly he induces tantrums among the political establishments flunkies.

Aside from President Donald Trump, its Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell who is usually the face of evil for liberals. But on Tuesday night, an NBC News story, based on two anonymous McConnell-linked sources, redirected the ire squarely on Paul.

What did the libertarian ophthalmologist-turned-politician do to deserve this? He did his job.

Paul proposed an amendment to the coronavirus bill being rushed through the Senate after passing the House 363-40. For those keeping track, libertarian-leaning Republican Thomas Massie didnt vote, and libertarian-leaning Independent Congressman Justin Amash voted present.

Pauls amendment, according to NBC News reporter Julie Tsirkin, was officially summarized as: To amend the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 to require a social security number for the purposes of the child tax credit, to provide the President the authority to transfer funds as necessary and to terminate United States military operations and reconstruction activities in Afghanistan.

Twitter is littered with righteous indignation constantly, but Tuesday night, it was mostly directed at Paul. And it was mostly thanks to the NBC News story poorly co-written by Tsirkin.

Before getting into the catty tone of the article, lets consider the actual concerns people have with Pauls amendment.

First, isnt there a national emergency going on? Now isnt the time for nitpicking whats legal under the Constitution or how Congress appropriates funds. Theres no time for delay, were led to believe.

The answer to this critique is short, because there simply is no delay in voting beyond a few minutes just because an amendment is proposed. All of this drama is just political theatre, with McConnell aides directing the show.

Second, and perhaps more reasonably, it may be asked what the war in Afghanistan has to do with this coronavirus. That almost begs the question though. Why is Congress leaping to this hot new political commodity known as a coronavirus when theyve skirted their true duties for so long?

Beyond the deadly Afghanistan misadventure being a drain on financial resources, its worth investigating how human resources are wasting away, mired down in that desert. In Syria, most of the U.S. troops are from the South Carolina National Guard. Might be nice to have them here!

Here Paul is doing the job all the other senators are supposed to be doing. Unfortunately for him, it doesnt fit into the narrative most comfortable for the political and media elites.

As a result, we end up with junior high school level journalism weaponized against patriotic dissent.

Paul is notorious for forcing votes on amendments he knows will not pass, the NBC News story goes.

It concluded in a similar fashion: He even briefly caused the government to shut down in 2018, using a procedural tactic to block the Senate from meeting the deadline to keep the government open because he objected to the price tag.

Both of these statements are lies, though the authors probably believe them. Its a sure sign of the deep divisions in the country.

Whether its the 9/11 Victims bill, the Ukrainegate impeachment failure, or foreign aid, Paul consistently upsets the right people by doing the right thing. This doesnt mean Paul is perfect, but it does mean Americans should appreciate his special role in Washington, DC.

More here:

Rand Paul Proves He Is Too Good For Us, As He Upsets the Right People - The Liberator Online

Forget the headlines, millennials are just fine with capitalism – Washington Times

ANALYSIS/OPINION:

Super Tuesday is in the rearview mirror, and former Vice President Joe Biden is on track to snatch the nomination from Sen. Bernie Sanders. But try as he might, Amtrak Joe cant seem to get millennials on board with his campaign.

In every entrance and exit poll known to man, Mr. Sanders leads handily among twenty- and thirty-somethings. Commentators have bemoaned this persistent youth support for Mr. Sanders as the death knell of moderate Democratic politics, and the start of a noisy, disruptive division within the partys ranks. But contrary to popular speculation, this is more fealty to brand loyalty than it is the ultimate triumph of socialism.

In fact, the youth are fickle on the hammer and sickle. Political prognosticators and future presidential candidates: Take note.

By now, nearly everyone has seen the headlines proclaiming that millennial socialism is on the rise. This received wisdom just feels right. Most of us can conjure images of latte-sipping, hipster-glasses-wearing Marxists who feel the need to deconstruct everything, including their Dr. Praegers California veggie burgers.

Millennials are indeed hip to the s word, and according to the widely reported results of a 2019 YouGov/Victims of Communism Memorial Foundation survey, 70 percent of the age cohort is at least somewhat likely to vote for a socialist candidate. Compare that to 44 percent for Gen Xers and 36 percent for boomers, and the generational disconnect appears quite jarring. The polls other findings, however, paint a completely different picture. An encouraging 50 percent of millennials have at least a somewhat favorable view of capitalism, not far removed from the 58 percent approval or 63 percent approval granted by Gen Xers and Boomers, respectively.

These seemingly irreconcilable findings are actually pretty normal. According to this 2014 Reason-Rupe survey, 56 percent of 18- to 24-year-olds and 53 percent of 25- to 34-year-olds approve of capitalism compared to 51 percent among 45- to 54-year-olds. At the same time, 58 percent of Americans ages 18-24 back socialism, nearly double the 30 percent approval afforded by those in the 45-54 bracket.

And when you dive into the questions in the survey, it seems many of these millennials are just superficial socialists without a thorough understanding of the ideology. When Reason-Rupe asked millennial respondents which system capitalism or socialism they liked better, the former edged out the latter 52 percent to 42 percent. And when the words capitalism and socialism were subbed out for free market economy and govt managed economy respectively, the pro-capitalism response jumped to a respectable 64 percent, while socialism shrank to just 32 percent. Drilling down further, theres just not much evidence to suggest that Americas young adults are sold on class warfare.

When asked on a scale from 0 to 100 whether government in Washington ought to reduce the income differences between the rich and the poor via redistribution, Americans ages 18-29 have held remarkably steady at around 60 (moderately in favor of the proposition) over nearly 50 years. Meanwhile, the average for all Americans hovers in the mid-50s, making young Americans just slightly more woke than the typical citizen. And in 2018, just 22 percent of Americans ages 18-34 took the strongest possible position that the government should reduce income differences, compared to 21 percent of 35- to 49-year-olds and 20 percent of 50- to 64-year-olds.

Turns out, your oat-milk-sipping hipster friends have plenty of mundane, boomer-esque views about the economy once the veneer of socialism is stripped away. In fact, they have the very understandable, capitalistic impulse toward brand affinity. As famed political prognosticator Nate Silver points out, the support bases of Bernie Sanders and Ron Paul are very similar: young, white, male, secular and poor-ish, despite the two candidates embracing polar-opposite ideologies.

The brand appeal of two rambling old dudes with simple, consistent messages cannot be overstated, regardless of message. As a former campaign worker actively involved in the good doctors 2012 presidential bid, I see a great deal many similarities between Dr. Paul and Sen. Sanders campaigns. Some of Dr. Nos most steadfast supporters paid heed to maybe one or two of Dr. Pauls cherished beliefs, but were mainly there for the ride. And I dont blame them. It was fun screaming Ron Paul Revolution! Give us back our Constitution! and doing battle with smug, sweater vest-clad Rick Santorum supporters.

This thrill up the leg not ideological rigor best explains why millennials and college kids are so pumped about Bernies candidacy. Adulting may be hard, but it doesnt take reading thick ideological tomes to recognize the many benefits of capitalism. And by all indications, Americas young adults get the basic, big picture: Free markets and limited government deliver the good stuff. Boomers neednt be deluded by scary headlines proclaiming otherwise.

Ross Marchand is a Young Voices contributor.

Read more from the original source:

Forget the headlines, millennials are just fine with capitalism - Washington Times

How Tulsi Gabbard Became the Last Woman Standing in the 2020 Presidential Race – Vogue

It's been a turbulent election season for female candidates, from Kamala Harris's relatively early exit from the 2020 presidential race to Amy Klobuchar's more recent withdrawal and ensuing endorsement of Joe Biden.

As more and more female candidates exited the field, many voters who hoped to see a woman in the White House rallied around Massachusetts senator Elizabeth Warren, only to see her suspend her campaign this Thursday. That leaves just one woman in the raceHawaii congresswoman Tulsi Gabbardand a whole lot of questions about how she's made it this far.

Gabbard's campaign has always been something of a slow burn, with many voters seemingly unaware that she's actually still in the race; after all, she hasn't been present at recent Democratic debates, and she walked away from Super Tuesday with only two delegates. So what is it that keeps Gabbard's campaign going, when far better-funded candidates like Tom Steyer and Michael Bloomberg have dropped out?

It's unlikely that Gabbard will manage to overtake frontrunners Joe Biden and Bernie Sanders, although she does share some political views with the latter; she backs Medicare for All, though not to the extent that Sanders does, and believes in free college and reducing defense spending.

However, progressive voters have been slow to rally behind Gabbard, in part because of her ties to anti-Muslim Hindu nationalists, controversial past stances on LGBTQ+ rights, and support from conservative figures like Steve Bannon and Ron Paul. Gabbard is currently polling at roughly 1%, but the support she does command seems indefatigable even in the face of near-certain defeat.

Who are the people that make up Gabbard's support base, and what are they thinking as the race narrows? When asked what sets Gabbard apart from other candidates remaining in the field, Michelle Hunter, a cosmetologist and Gabbard volunteer based in Oklahoma City, praised Gabbard's leadership skills: "The message of peace and love and respect that [Gabbard] shares is really important to me. I pay close attention to her interviews and I have never seen her interrupt anybody or let anybody interrupt her."

Hunter is one of what she describes as a "handful" of volunteers for Gabbard in Oklahoma City, and she notes that on Super Tuesday, Oklahoma polled twice as high for Gabbard as any other state. "If we can get that done with just five, six, seven volunteers, imagine what we could do with more resources," Hunter told Vogue on Thursday.

Hunter points to a "media blackout" as one of the reasons Gabbard hasn't performed better, but even in an increasingly tight race, she feels a connection to a candidate she sees as a fellow outsider: "My whole life I've been told that I don't have a voice," said Hunter, adding, "If I gave up every time someone told me I would fail, my life would suck."

Now that Elizabeth Warren has left the race, Bernie Sanders's campaign is the most high-profile example of a political nonconformist corralling widespread support with the American public; nonetheless, Gabbard has thus far resisted the temptation to follow Marianne Williamson in exiting the race and endorsing Sanders.

A clue as to why Gabbard is still in the race may be found in a 2019 speech she gave, telling a crowd, "Im not running for president to be president. Im running for president to be able to bring about this sea change in our foreign policy that is so necessary for us and for the world, and Im most qualified to do that."

While Gabbard might not yet have effected the kind of "sea change" she might have hoped for, her sheer determination to stay in the race even as more widely popular candidates pack it in certainly sends a clear message: Don't count her out, because she's in it for the long haul, and so are her supporters.

Visit link:

How Tulsi Gabbard Became the Last Woman Standing in the 2020 Presidential Race - Vogue

If Sanders is Robbed of the Nomination, It’s Time for the VotePact Strategy – CounterPunch

Right now, the entire Democratic Party apparatus and allied corporate media are working to ensure that Sen. Bernie Sanders does not get the Democratic nomination even if he gets a plurality of delegates and votes in the primaries.

The Democratic Party establishment seems to be gearing up for a brokered convention which will anointan establishment candidate with the nomination.

This risks fracturing the party and effectively paving the way for a second term for Donald Trump.

Obviously progressive forces will try to stop these eventualities, but a plan is needed if they arise.

There are two obvious responses:

Burn it Down: The impulsive thing to do would be to want to burn down the Democratic Party. Its possible that the establishment of the Democratic Party would be OK with this they seem to fear a President Sanders more than the fear another term of Trump. So, people would stay home or vote for a third party or independent candidate who openly states that they have virtually no chance of winning.

Cave In: Others might insist that no matter how badly the Democratic Party establishment treats its voters, they need to get in line come November and vote for whoever the nominee is. This is euphemistically referred to as hold your nose and voting. People have done this for decades and its typically resulted in the corporate wing of the Democratic Party becoming more and more powerful.

The first of these will be disastrous because it will help Trump.

The second will be disastrous because it effectively surrenders control of the Democratic Party to the corporate wing, probably for the foreseeable future.

But there is a third choice: The VotePactstrategy.

With theVotePact strategy, in the general election, disenchanted Democratics team up with a disenchanted Republicans. They pair up: spouses and friends and coworkers and neighbors and debating partners and ex-facebook friends. Instead of the two of them voting for candidates they dont want, they pair up and vote for the third party or independent candidate of their choice.

If theres an anti establishment ticket that appeals to both left and right think something like Dennis Kucinich and Ron Paul it could bring together a transpartisan united alliance from across the political spectrum against the establishment candidates. (Yes, Trump is and always has been an establishment candidate, his rhetoric to the contrary.)

Thus a shrewd thing for Sanders supporters to do in the short term is to reach out to anti establishment Republicans: To try to get them to vote for Sanders if he does get the nomination and to get them to pair up and vote independent with them if he doesnt.

The great thing about this is that putting it on the table now lessens the chances that it will have to happen. That is, the Democratic establishment, by trying to stop Sanders, is effectively saying to Sanders supporters: You have to vote for the Democratic nominee no matter who it is. Otherwise, youre helping Trump.

The truth of course is that the Democratic establishment is effectively helping Trump by undermining Sanders in this way.

But having VotePact on the table now makes it clear to all concerned: Sanders supporters do have another path. They dont have to attack the party or capitulate to its establishment. They can make a VotePact with a Republican and vote in a manner that is both principled and super strategic.

Sam Husseini is the founder ofVotePact.org.

Continued here:

If Sanders is Robbed of the Nomination, It's Time for the VotePact Strategy - CounterPunch

Vote pact – The News International

Vote pact

Right now, the entire Democratic Party apparatus and allied corporate media are working to ensure that Sen Bernie Sanders does not get the Democratic nomination even if he gets a plurality of delegates and votes in the primaries.

The Democratic Party establishment seems to be gearing up for a brokered convention which will anoint an establishment candidate with the nomination.

This risks fracturing the party and effectively paving the way for a second term for Donald Trump. Obviously progressive forces will try to stop these eventualities, but a plan is needed if they arise.

There are two obvious responses:

Burn it Down: The impulsive thing to do would be to want to burn down the Democratic Party. Its possible that the establishment of the Democratic Party would be OK with this they seem to fear a President Sanders more than the fear another term of Trump. So, people would stay home or vote for a third party or independent candidate who openly states that they have virtually no chance of winning.

Cave In: Others might insist that no matter how badly the Democratic Party establishment treats its voters, they need to get in line come November and vote for whoever the nominee is. This is euphemistically referred to as hold your nose and voting. People have done this for decades and its typically resulted in the corporate wing of the Democratic Party becoming more and more powerful.

The first of these will be disastrous because it will help Trump. The second will be disastrous because it effectively surrenders control of the Democratic Party to the corporate wing, probably for the foreseeable future.

But there is a third choice: The VotePact strategy.

With the VotePact strategy, in the general election, disenchanted Democratics team up with a disenchanted Republicans. They pair up: spouses and friends and coworkers and neighbors and debating partners and ex-facebook friends. Instead of the two of them voting for candidates they dont want, they pair up and vote for the third party or independent candidate of their choice.

If theres an anti establishment ticket that appeals to both left and right think something like Dennis Kucinich and Ron Paul it could bring together a transpartisan united alliance from across the political spectrum against the establishment candidates.

Excerpted from: 'If Sanders is Robbed of the Nomination, Its Time for the VotePact Strategy'.

Counterpunch.org

See the original post here:

Vote pact - The News International

Here’s How You Can Help Kickstart the Next Bitcoin Bull Run – newsBTC

Whilst Bitcoin (BTC) awareness is slowly growing around the world, were still a long way from most folks understanding even basic information about the cryptocurrency. First impressions can be hard to break and early associations with the dark web and scams cast BTC in a bad light from the off.

Fortunately, evidence suggests that Bitcoin education is remarkably effective at creating interest in the digital asset. A recent survey shows that even a small amount of knowledge can be enough to change someones perception of the cryptocurrency.

A recent survey has revealed more about the average Americans feelings towards Bitcoin. Inspired by the annual Windfall Game former Texas Congressman Ron Paul plays, the survey sought less biased data from that which Paul receives.

The problem is that Paul asks Twitter users for their opinions. As author of the survey and BTC podcaster Brad Mills points out:

Its more a measure of how engaged Bitcoin evangelists are online we vote Bitcoin & share the poll to our Bitcoin loving networks.

This has led to Bitcoin emerging on top for the last three years. Bitcoins market capitalisation alone versus the size of the other asset classes suggest that Pauls results are not representative of wider US society towards BTC.

Noting this bias, Mills worked with market research specialists Hotspex to create the recent survey. It asked each participant to give information about their age, gender, and economic background, as well put the same question from the Paul Twitter survey to them, twice.

Between the two identical questions, participants received information about Bitcoins supply, its lack of correlation to other assets, its performance over the last decade, and other details relevant to its monetary policy. They also learned about dollar creation by the Federal Reserve and how much purchasing power had dropped over even recent history.

Of the surveys findings, perhaps most interesting is the impact a small amount of Bitcoin education can have on someone previously lacking interest in it. Initially, only 13.1 percent of participants answered that they would take Bitcoin as a ten-year position over any of the other listed assets.

After reading about BTCs monetary policy and scratching the surface of how the Federal Reserve works, a massive 38.4 percent said they would rather take Bitcoin. The results showed interest grew across all demographics too. For example, just 5.9 percent of boomers wanted the crypto when first asked. This rose to 27.2 percent by the end of the survey.

Evidently, Bitcoin education can be pretty effective at changing peoples opinions towards the digital asset. Any single individual with an interest in Bitcoin can be an educator, just as the podcasters, bloggers, or speakers at events can. Just be aware that theres a fine line between spreading useful knowledge and being dismissed as that guy who wont stop banging on about Bitcoin.

Related Reading: Top Trader: Recent Crypto Collapse Is Just Turbulence Before Takeoff

The rest is here:

Here's How You Can Help Kickstart the Next Bitcoin Bull Run - newsBTC

Afghanistan: ‘Thank Allah We’re Out of That Quagmire’ – Consortium News

The U.S. has been in deep denial. The war is over, it has been for a long time, and the U.S. lost, for all intents and purposes, writes Danny Sjursen.

Cadets assemble for President Barack Obamas Afghanistan policy speech at West Point, N.Y., Dec. 1, 2009. (White House, Lawrence Jackson)

ByDanny SjursenAntiwar.com

Happy Afghan War surrender day, fellas! So began my flippant group text (which was actually about a whole other topic) with the nine lieutenants who worked for me when I commanded a cavalry troop in Southern Afghanistan.

Now these guys, some still in the army, most long out, run the political gamut from centrist conservative to libertarian (verycommon among military officers) to mainstream liberal. None are as radical, or full-throated antiwar, as I am. Nonetheless, instructively, most responded with some albeit often sarcastic level of tacit support for any and all plans to (eventually, and hopefully) get the troops out of Afghanistan.

Furthermore, the fact that nearly all of them lost soldiers directly under their command in one of the wars most dangerous years, within one of the most dangerous provincesof the country, hasnt diminished this pro-withdrawal sentiment.

My artillery officer who Iprofileda couple years back in theAmerican Conservative responded first, with: Victory or loss, thank Allah were out of that quagmire. Then my first executive officer (XO), my second in command, made a joke about the artillerymans use of the word quagmire, asking, What would Rumsfeld say? (Bushs former secretary of defense famously eschewedthis descriptor for the Iraq War)

XOs thoughtful successor then wrote: Im really glad we are getting out. I hate that it will take 14 months, but Im thrilled. That former lieutenant of mine raised an important point. Much of the critical (and fair) response to my cautious social media support for Trumps peace deal centers around either the rather protracted withdraw timeline or, more generally, skepticism about the sincerity of the U.S. position.

To the first point, Adam Wunische at the Quincy Institute accurately noted:

President Trump will likely sell the U.S.-Taliban deal as a peace agreement and a U.S. military withdrawal. It is neither. The deal only reduces troop strength to 8,600 from 13,000 [for now], and Trump has said even minor complications will serve as justification to halt or reverse this reduction.

As to the second matter, the probity of the American commitment to meaningfully leave Afghanistan, there are other valid concerns. Not least of which are the secret annexes that appear to imply the U.S. will keep special forces soldiers, and, one assumes, CIA-backed militias, on the ground long after the combat troops are all out.

Added to the questionable mix is the minor fact that thepresidentof the ostensibly sovereign, Kabul-based state of Afghanistan wasnt evenpresentat the deals signing, and has alreadyreneged (an early, if predictable, first snag) on releasing some 5,000 Taliban prisoners as the U.S.-negotiated agreement called for.

Whats more, given the linguistic gymnastics that former President Barack Obama seemingly perfected about what, precisely, constitutes combat troops or, even what counts as a boot, or as the ground, it is increasingly difficult these days to believe much of what Trump or the national security state is pronouncing.

Finally, given the reportedlyvast, and coveted, mineral resources under Afghanistans undeveloped soil, its importance as a thoroughfare for keynatural gas pipelines, and its historic position of geopolitical import, many (rightfully) doubt whether Washington is really prepared to walk away from the region. All of that is fair, and crucial to parse out.

U.S. Secretary of State Mike Pompeo addresses Taliban peace deal gathering, in Doha, Qatar, Feb. 29, 2020. (State Department/ Ron Przysucha)

A Referendum on Trump

Also worrying is the likelihood that in this age of Trump-worship, Trump-hatred, and/or Trump-derangement syndrome, the situation in Afghanistan where American men and women are stillbeing killed, mind you will revert to just another public referendum on the competence and character of the president himself.

That would be a huge mistake. To wit, let me plea: please, MSNBC-Obama-squad liberals, dont make this critical moment all about bashing The Donald and thereby reflexively defaulting to a stay-forever, status quo position. Odds are they will, of course.

The really salient questions are twofold: could/would a different president (say Hillary the hawk, or Iraq War-cheerleader Joe B.) do any better with such a decidedlyweak military hand? And, what other option, besides eventual withdrawal, does Trump have with respect to this inherited war? Id submit the discomfiting answers are no and none, respectively.

Truth be told, I, like the crew over atQuincy, think the U.S. ought to have ditched the Afghan debacle long ago, and that a more rapid immediate, even comprehensive withdrawal is in order. Never trust the hyper-interventionist establishment when it whines about the inefficacy and supposed danger of a sudden troop exodus from a failed war. Thats never anything more than a sleight-of-hand canard for indefinite occupation.

Count me sympathetic to the plain, earthy logic of Ron Paul, when heasked, Why the dilemma? [regarding Iraq] and when he asserted, We just marched in, and we can just march out.

That was back in 2007! As in Iraq, so in Afghanistan, and as always: thats unlikely. Uncle Sam rarely, if ever, leaves a purportedly conquered country of his own volition. That just aint Sammys style. More often than not, the U.S. military requires an insurgent bouncer to toss it to the proverbial curbyou know, like the Vietcong, for instance.

Like it or not, this is where matters stand: Look, one way or the other, folks, the Afghan War is over, and has been for a long time. We lost, for all intents and purposes, by not achieving the governments (always fantastically) stated goals.

As a nation, but especially so for the bipartisan foreign policy establishment, weve just been in deep denial about that inconvenient truth. Bottom line: theres little left that the U.S. canaccomplish in Afghanistan, and thats been the case for at least a decade.

So, sure, theres lots to criticize about the worlds greatest dealmakers deal. Some will say it doesnt go far enough (it doesnt). The interventionist hawks on the other side will counter that it amounts to surrender (it kind of does). Still, theres scant alternative available other than for Uncle Sam to tuck his tail between the ole legs and beat feet out of the Afghan graveyard of empires.

To channel Ron Paul: why all the dramatic hoopla about this? After all, rumor has it, that in war, thelosersdont get to dictate the peace terms. Its time todealwith it

Danny Sjursen is a retired U.S. Army officer and contributing editor atantiwar.com. His work has appeared in theLA Times, The Nation, Huff Post, The Hill, Salon, Truthdig, Tom Dispatch,among other publications. He served combat tours with reconnaissance units in Iraq and Afghanistan and later taught history at his alma mater, West Point. He is the author of a memoir and critical analysis of the Iraq War,Ghostriders of Baghdad: Soldiers, Civilians, and the Myth of the Surge. His forthcoming book,Patriotic Dissent: America in the Age of Endless Waris now available forpre-order. Follow him on Twitter at@SkepticalVet. Check out his professionalwebsitefor contact info, scheduling speeches, and/or access to the full corpus of his writing and media appearances.

This article is from Antiwar.com.

The views expressed are solely those of the author and may or may not reflect those ofConsortium News.

Please donate to Consortium News.

Before commenting please read Robert ParrysComment Policy.Allegations unsupported by facts, gross or misleading factual errors and ad hominem attacks, and abusive or rude language toward other commenters or our writers will not be published. If your comment does not immediately appear, please be patient as it is manually reviewed. For security reasons, please refrain from inserting links in your comments, which should not be longer than 300 words.

See the rest here:

Afghanistan: 'Thank Allah We're Out of That Quagmire' - Consortium News

Health Care Is On Coloradans’ Minds. This Is Where The 2020 Presidential Candidates Stand – Colorado Public Radio

George McHenry, 78, lives in Federal Heights and is also worried about prescription drug costs.A few years back, he was diagnosed with prostate cancer. He takes hormone treatments, which would cost more than $10,000 a month if he werent on Medicare.But McHenry, a reliably Democratic voter, considers himself lucky.

I'm aware that a lot of seniors cannot afford the cost of either drugs or care, McHenry said. And I think that's really terrible.

Maureen OMara-Sanzo, a 73-year-old from Highlands Ranch, describes herself as a conservative-liberal, or a liberal-conservative.Shes retired from the roofing industry and says her health and health care coverage Medicare, plus supplemental coverage are pretty good.But she worries about all the people who dont have health coverage they can afford and thinks people need more affordable insurance options.

It's a very crucial issue for people in terms of living and dying, she said.

President Donald Trump has promised to essentially defend the private insurance system.Hes staked out a position in opposition to Democrats, promoting an expansion of private Medicare advantage plans.

Last fall in Florida, Trump signed an executive order before a sign reading Great Health Care for You, to expand what medical savings accounts or MSAs, which some Medicare recipients make use of. In announcing the plan, he described Democrats Medicare for All as a disaster for seniors on the program.

"They want to raid Medicare to fund a thing called socialism, he said.

The Trump administration and its Republican allies in Congress have taken a number of steps to circumvent the Affordable Care Act.As NPR described last year, Republicans ditched the individual mandate, the requirement people get health coverage pay a penalty. The provision aimed to keep more healthy people insured in order to keep premiums low.

"We eliminated Obamacare's horrible, horrible, very expensive and very unfair, unpopular individual mandate. A total disaster. That was a big penalty, Trump said last fall.

The administration has taken other steps:allowing states to implement work requirements to Medicaid, ending cost-sharing subsidies to insurers, and slashing federal funding to programs aimed at helping people sign up for insurance on state exchanges.

One of the biggest moves came last spring when the Justice Department threw its weight behind a lawsuit aimed at invalidating the law.

Still, the ACA has proved resilient, with signups remaining fairly steady.

Bernie Sanders backs Medicare for All.The Vermont senators plan would expand the popular federal health program and essentially get rid of private insurance.Itd provide comprehensive care for everyone, with no out-of-pocket expenses. He says the average worker pays 20 percent of their income for health costs and his proposal would cut that sharply because we're eliminating the profiteering of the drug companies. And the insurance companies and ending this Byzantine and complex administration of thousands of separate health care plans.

Sanders has been criticized for not providing more specifics of how hed pay for his plans.He estimated on 60 Minutes last weekend that the cost of his plan would be $30 trillion over a decade.But questions remain about whether projected revenues would meet projected costs.

Sanders visited Colorado earlier this month, welcomed by a boisterous crowd of 11,000. In response to the rally, Colorado Republicans jumped on Sanders signature issue. Spokesman Kyle Kohli said the party is confident Sanders would find tough footing in the general election, due his support for the universal health care measure that Colorado voters rejected soundly in 2016.

Coloradans already made it loud and clear they have zero interest in Bernie Sanders government takeover of their health care, Kohli said.

In 2016, Sanders easily won the Colorado Democratic caucuses, capturing 59 percent of the vote, prior to a major overhaul of Colorados nomination process.

Elizabeth Warren also supports Medicare for All, although she proposes a more gradual transition.

Costs are gonna go up for billionaires, the Massachusetts senator said. They're going to go out for giant corporations, and out of pocket costs for middle class families are going to go down. It's costs that matter.

When she unveiled her plan in November, Warren said it would raise $20.5 trillion, but that middle class tax increases wouldnt pay for it.Instead, the funds would come from a variety of sources, including tax increases on the rich, cuts in spending on the military and payments to doctors. She said there would be considerable savings from a more efficient national system, in which administrative costs are expected to fall significantly.

Warren said by her third year in office, she aimed to pass legislation through Congress to complete the transition to full Medicare for All.

A number of big players in the health care world, including insurers, hospitals, drug companies and doctors groups oppose the sweeping changes in the plans of both Warren and Sanders as too far-reaching and too expensive.

Both Warren and Sanders say though their plans are expensive, theyll result in significant savings for consumers overall.

Joe Biden is among the many candidates in the Democratic field who balk at the ten-of-trillions price tag of a Medicare-for-All system. One recent poll showed a majority of Americans like both ideas, but more favor the public option.

It covers everybody. It's realistic and most importantly, it lets you choose what you want, the former vice president has said about his plan. On his website he describes it as protecting and building on Obamacare.Then-President Barack Obama signed the law into effect nearly a decade ago, on March 23, 2010.

His plan includes a public option proposal, which Biden argues would help bring costs down, without the disruption to the health system and patient care of Medicare for All. And it would give consumers a choice.

Bidens proposals echo those of some of the other candidates in the middle with goals like giving every American access to affordable health insurance, by expanding Medicare, promising a less complex system, and standing up to what his website describes as abuse of power by prescription drug corporations.Hed do that by letting Medicare directly negotiate drug prices and allowing for generally cheaper prescription drugs to be imported from Canada.

His approach has critics as well, as Politico reported when his plan was unveiled. Some progressives view the improvements hes aiming for as too cautious and incremental.Republicans blasted his plan as Obamacare 2.0, and a group of major health associations fretted that Medicare expansion would hurt hospital bottom lines.

Michael Bloomberg, the billionaire former New York mayor, has also come out as sharply critical of the more ambitious progressive push to expand health coverage. Medicare for All doesn't work because about 155 million people in America get their insurance from their employer. They want to keep it, Bloomberg told CPRs Colorado Matters earlier in February.

The hospitals and the doctors want to make sure that's still there as well because that's what subsidizes the people who are getting paid for by Medicaid and Medicare. He noted unions have often fought very hard and negotiated for medical benefits so they want to make sure that they continue to do that as well.

Hes also described Medicare for All as unfeasible and likely to win over key voters Democrats would need to prevail in the fall.

His plan, like Biden and others, would create a public alternative to private insurance. His website describes it as being administered by the federal government but paid for by customer premiums It aims to expand and improve on the ACA, by reversing what his campaign calls the Trump administrations attempts at sabotage.It would do that by boosting enrollment efforts, restricting the sale of skimpy health plans that dont meet ACA requirements and defending the ACA against politically motivated lawsuits.

Like Bidens proposal, Bloomberg too has drawn criticism for being too gradual.And Democrats in Congress have already been unable to get through some of his ideas, like ending surprise medical bills and lowering drug costs.

But Bloomberg touts his skills as a businessman to explain why he could succeed.

Look, in New York, I had a Republican Senate and a Democratic House and I got gay marriage through the Republican Senate. If I can do that, I can get a health care plan through a Republican Senate at a national level, he told Colorado Matters.

Pete Buttigieg also favors a more centrist approach.He backs a public option that he says would result in coverage for everyone, but that cuts cost.

The idea of my proposal, Medicare for all who want it, is that we take a version of Medicare and make it available to anybody who wants in on it without commanding people to adopt it if they'd prefer their private plan, the former South Bend, Indiana, mayor said.

Buttigieg maintains his plan would incentivize private insurers to compete on price and bring down costs.If private insurers cant offer something dramatically better, the plan would create a natural glide-path to Medicare for All, according to his website.

To make health care more accessible, the Buttigieg plan would expand subsidies for low-income people to make insurance coverage dramatically more affordable for individuals and families.

Buttigiegs proposal has drawn fire for what critics have likened to a supercharged version of the mandate to buy insurance contained in the Affordable Care Act, aka Obamacare.Under his plan, those who dont have coverage would be automatically signed up in the government program, which could cost them thousands. His campaign told the Washington Post the payments are justified because it allows a consumer to be insured throughout the year.

Amy Klobuchar favors building on the ACA.According to her website, she thinks the quickest way to achieve universal health care is via a public option that expands the government programs Medicare and Medicaid.

What I favor is something that Barack Obama wanted to do from the very beginning, Sen. Amy Klobuchar (D-MN) said about her proposal.

And that is a public option, a nonprofit choice that will bring down the cost of insurance.

The senator backs changes to the ACA to reduce consumer costs like making it easier for states to implement reinsurance, something Colorado launched last year with approval from the federal government.

Klobuchar stresses the importance of making prescription drugs affordable. According to her campaign site, Klobuchar has authored proposals to lift the ban on Medicare negotiations for prescription drugs.Shed also allow personal importation of safe drugs from countries like Canada, and stop pharmaceutical companies from blocking less-expensive generic products.

Some of the toughest criticism for some of the candidates comes from their rivals.For example, Warren blasted Klobuchars plan in a recent debate as being too thin, calling it a Post-it note, insert plan here.Of Buttigiegs health proposal, Warren said, Its not a plan, its a PowerPoint.

Read more from the original source:

Health Care Is On Coloradans' Minds. This Is Where The 2020 Presidential Candidates Stand - Colorado Public Radio

The immorality of US hegemony with Ron Paul – RT

We have a big interview for you this week. Ron Paul came on the show to discuss the multitude of corrupt practices that hold up the USA. Lee and Paul discuss the military industrial complex, the impending economic collapse, and the persecution of Julian Assange. But before the interview, Lee opens the show with fearmongering stories from the New York Times. He goes paper-shredding on their coverage of the coronavirus and a patently false story about how Bernie Sanders isn't bringing new voters into the Democratic Party.

Anders Lee finishes off the show by fact-checking the fact-checkers on one of the many stupid stories our corporate media chooses to focus on instead of discussing important issues. Michael Bloomberg's campaign released a video that had been altered with cricket sounds after he made the comment that he was the only candidate on the stage who had started a business. So, were there crickets on stage? There are two answers: No and "Why are you wasting your time with this story?"

YOUTUBEChannelRedacted Tonight

LIKERedacted Tonight atwww.Facebook.com/RedactedTonight

FOLLOWRedacted Tonight at@RedactedTonightand@LeeCamp

PODCASThttps://soundcloud.com/rttv/sets/redacted-tonight

Go here to read the rest:

The immorality of US hegemony with Ron Paul - RT

Ron Paul: Trump Does The Bidding Of Deep State – The National Memo

Reprinted with permission from Alternet

For many years, former Rep. Ron Paul was the most prominent libertarian in Congress often frustrating fellow Republicans by voting against their spending bills. Paul, now 84, left Congress in early January 2013 but still speaks out about politics. And in hisFebruary 24 columnfor the Ron Paul Institutes website, the Texas libertarian isvehemently critical of President Donald Trumpfor, as he sees it, throwing WikiLeaks founder Julian Assange under the bus.

Paul hasnt always been critical of Trump. The former Texas congressman asserts that in 2016, Trump upset the Washington apple cart and set elements of the Deep State in motion against him. But Paul quickly adds that Trump has since become part of the Deep State he once challenged.

Trump loved it when WikiLeaks exposed the criminality of Hillary Clinton and the Democratic Party as it cheated to deprive Bernie Sanders of the Democratic Party nomination, Paul writes. WikiLeaks release of the (Democratic National Committee) e-mails exposed the deep corruption at the heart of U.S. politics, and as a candidate, Trump loved the transparency. Then Trump got elected.

Paul goes on to say that the real tragedy of the Trump presidency is nowhere better demonstrated than in Trumps 180-degree turn away from WikiLeaks and its founder Julian Assange.

According to Paul, Trumps administration is pushing for a show trial of Assange worthy of the worst of the Soviet era and the U.S. is seeking a 175-year prison sentence.

It is ironic that a President Trump, who has been (a) victim of so much Deep State meddling, has done the Deep States bidding when it comes to Assange and WikiLeaks, Paul laments. President Trump should preempt the inevitable U.S. show trial of Assange by granting the journalist blanket pardon under the First Amendment of the United States Constitution.

More:

Ron Paul: Trump Does The Bidding Of Deep State - The National Memo

Pardon the Interrupters: meet the ska-punks with an InfoWars problem – Telegraph.co.uk

At age 18, Aimee Allen climbed behind the wheel of her Pontiac Grand Am and left her home in Montana for the last time. Leaving behind a broken home, an abusive stepfather, and a spell in foster care, she trained her sights on the bright lights of Los Angeles. Parking her car in sight of the Hollywood sign, like thousands of others before her she plotted her course to the summit of the music industry.

The Interrupters are the fruits not of her success, but of her failure. Formed in 2011, the Angelino quartet came together at the point at which Allens career as a solo artist had rendered her lonely and broke. Her dream was to become the new Joan Jett, to whom she presented a bouquet of flowers at a concert in New York City my whole body was shaking, and I was sobbing, she said of the experience but after a decade spent wilting on the vine, it turned out that there was more power, and greater happiness, in a union.

I kind of feel that I was alone my whole life until I found The Interrupters, she says. But when I did, I finally felt like I was home. I was an orphan before, and now Ive got a family. And weve got each other. If a show goes badly, its on all of us; but if its great, then we all get to share that.

The Interrupters play a fluent and seamless mixture of modern ska and American punk rock. Prior to taking to the stages of increasingly large venues this month the quartet performed for 4000-people over two nights in London the band watch Dance Craze, a concert film from 1980 featuring performances from The Specials, The Beat, and The Selecter. On record and in concert, this 2-Tone template has been recalibrated by the Americans and dispatched across the Atlantic as if brand-new.

The curious thing about this is that a proportion of the groups audience is old enough to have bought singles such as Too Much Too Young and Mirror In The Bathroom on their days of release. As well as this, alongside the Fred Perry shirts and Harrington jackets are a sizeable contingent of young teenagers for whom The Specials are unknown history in the way that Van Halen are for Billie Eilish. With only three albums to their name, the range of ages on display at concerts by The Interrupters is the widest I have ever seen for an emerging act.

I take it as the highest compliment that in England we have people coming up to us after our shows saying I saw the Specials, I saw The Clash, and I love your band, says Kevin Bivona, the groups guitarist. The fact that they could even put us in the same sentence as those people is hard to wrap my head around.

On a cold and sunny February lunchtime, Kevin Bivona sits with Aimee Allen these days known as Aimee Interrupter in the downstairs lounge of The Interrupters double-decker tour bus. Parked outside the BBCs Maida Vale Studios, the band find themselves in Northwest London to record a five-song session for 6music. When the sound engineer in a soundproof booth isolates Bivonas Fender Telecaster guitar on the superior breakup song Gave You Everything I dont know why youre gone, I walk these floors like a country song its throttled precision sounds like something that could saw a car in half.

The pair are friendly, thoughtful, and, it seems to me, tight. When the singer requires new eyelash-extensions, so as to save time it is her band mate that buys them for her. Theyre also uncommonly wholesome; answers are peppered with words such as like and awesome you can take the band out of California, and all that - but are entirely free of swearing. This U-certificate approach even extends to the concert stage.

We make unity music, says the singer. We want everyone to feel like theyre part of a big family.

Its been 20-years since Aimee Allen arrived in Hollywood equipped with little more than a capacity to carry a tune. A waitress by day, each night she would stand outside clubs such as the Whisky A Go Go, The Viper Room, and the Roxy Theatre, on the Sunset Strip, and ask perfect strangers if theyd like to form a band. She survived these encounters unmolested, but admits today that I got really lucky.

She joined forces with an act called No Motiv with whom she played a concert that was seen by Randy Jackson, one of the judges on American Idol. Jackson promised to secure the group a recording contract. After a fashion, he did; Allen signed as a solo artist with Elektra Records in 2002.

It was at this point that her problems began. Despite working with producer Mark Ronson, Aimee Allen did not appear to be a high-priority for her new label. When Elektra was subsumed in a merger with Atlantic Records, her debut album, the fabulously titled Id Start A Revolution (If I Could Get Up In The Morning), was viewed by her new paymasters as surplus stock. 17-years on, it remains unreleased.

I wouldnt wish being a solo artist on anybody, she says. You have people on your payroll, and you dont know if theyre saying that youre amazing because they feel like they have to, or because its genuine Its really lonely because its just you. Theres nowhere to hide. I was just part of the major label machine [and] I felt like I was floating.

In 2008, Aimee Allen recorded the Ron Paul Revolution Theme Song we dont want big government, or the Bilderberg Group that pays for it - in support of Texan libertarian Congressman Ron Pauls independent bid for president. In the same year, she made the first of several appearances on Alex Jones deeply controversial InfoWars radio programme.

Ten years later, the show was removed from all online mainstream media platforms for, among other things, claiming that the Sandy Hook Elementary School shootings were fake, and that the parents of the 20-children murdered by gunman Alan Lanza were actors hired by the US government.

At the mention of Alex Jones and InfoWars, the temperature on The Interrupters tour bus seems to drop by about 15-degrees. A 10-second silence ensues, punctuated only by a gravid sigh of deep displeasure.

I just want to be very careful about how I answer [this], she says. Okay, yes, I regret it [appearing on the show]. But at the time, he [Alex Jones] wasnt what he became. Would I go on his show now? Hell no, obviously [But] I couldnt see the future. And, honestly, [at the time] he was just an underground conspiracy theorist. It was entertainment; it wasnt that big of a deal. I had no idea he was going to become a controversial hate-speaker. Do you know what I mean? I one hundred-percent disavow what he stands for.

One of the worst things as a musician is when you are just trying to get your music heard and somebody co-opts you to their agenda, says Kevin Bivona. It happens quite often and its something youve got to be careful of.

At this point, my interview with The Interrupters appears to be holed below the waterline. The singer says that she wants to set the record straight [but] in a way that isnt going to create more trouble for me, a response, surely, to an online article from 2014 that accused Aimee Allen of being a stooge of the alt-right, and of supporting racist positions such as Ron Pauls opposition to the 1964 Civil Rights Act.

In a thoughtful and respectful response to the piece, Bivona wrote in reply that he failed to see how you can use a young persons [sic] 2008 political songs and a few interviews she did six years ago and apply them to a creative project they are involved with [today], when you dont even know them personally.

Its perhaps worth mentioning that other performers have also appeared on InfoWars, including Billy Corgan of the Smashing Pumpkins (more than once, as it goes). Its also worth noting that The Interrupters and I do recover the ground lost during our awkward moment. But if the band display a certain skittishness about being interviewed it is almost unheard of for the singer to be questioned alone this is probably the reason why.

In the days that follow, I receive two calls from the bands organisation, one of which asks if it might be possible for Aimee to expand on her position via email.

It was a traumatic time and I deeply regret going on that show, she writes. It became a vehicle for the type of hateful rhetoric that I stand vehemently against. I would never knowingly be associated with anyone expressing racist, homophobic or any other bigoted ideals. I spend all my energy spreading love and making unity music.

The singers 11-year career as a solo artist wasnt entirely shrouded in failure. Her debut album, A Little Happiness, released in 2009, clawed its way to the lower reaches of the US Billboard Heatseekers Chart. She also collaborated with Linda Perry on the song Save Me (Wake Up Call), recorded by the punk group Unwritten Law, and scored a top-10 hit on the alternative chart. But after a decade of struggle, these relatively modest returns were not what she envisaged when she left her Northwestern broken-home.

[When I left Montana] I was just so nave and so hopeful, she says. Where I had come from was bad; anything was better than where I was from. I had a tough upbringing [and] I never felt like I fitted in. I never felt like there was a home for me. Everything just felt so alien and I felt so unconnected to things. But when I listened to [punk rock] I realised that there were people out there who were like me. I just had to find them.

This happened when Aimee Allen met Kevin Bivona while on tour supporting Sugar Ray in 2009. A studio engineer, occasional roadie, and sideman for such acts as The Transplants and Travis Barker, the pair began writing songs together for the singers solo career. But the Montanan was tired of being out in the cold, and from this the idea of a band was born. The groups rhythm section arrived in the form of the guitarists younger twin-brothers, Jesse and Justin Bivona, on drums and bass respectively.

From the start, The Interrupters were an independent concern in the classic mode of Southern Californian punk rock. The band signed to Hellcat Records, founded by Tim Armstrong, the vocalist and guitarist with Rancid, who also serves as their producer. In turn, this imprint operates under the umbrella of Epitaph Records, the most successful and influential punk label of the past 35-years, owned by Brett Gurewitz, the guitarist with Bad Religion.

For anyone who believes that punk rock has endured beyond its initial 1970s heyday and clearly it has then, here, The Interrupters are rubbing shoulders with royalty. Both men are among the finest songwriters in the movements history I had a paperback crime running straight down my spine, wrote Gurewitz in The Devil In Stitches but, just as importantly, both are happy to let their artists run riot.

In 1994, with the genre finally part of the mainstream, Mr. Brett sided with the Epitaph band NOFX in their decision not to permit MTV access to any of their videos, at the likely cost of hundreds of thousands of album sales.

The access we have to punk legends is just crazy, says Kevin Bivona.

Along with Tim Armstrong and Brett Gurewitz, The Interrupters have also met with the approval of Green Day, who they will support on the Oakland trios forthcoming North American stadium tour.

But as with most punk rock groups of their kind, the success of The Interrupters has blossomed without anyone really noticing. Despite the groups last album being the finest ska-themed outing of its kind for more than 20-years, outside of the pages of the rock press this is the first time the band have been interviewed by a mainstream publication.

Being completely honest, where we are at right now is far beyond what I could ever have imagined when I picked up a guitar when I was a kid, Kevin Bivona has told me. I am so happy and grateful for all the success that weve had. I definitely dont want to put a ceiling on how big I want the band to get. I just want to be able to keep making the music and writing the songs, and doing exactly what we do. I want us to be as big as the universe will allow us to get.

Fight the Good Fight by The Interrupters is available now on Hellcat Records

Continue reading here:

Pardon the Interrupters: meet the ska-punks with an InfoWars problem - Telegraph.co.uk

Judy Shelton and the – New York Sun

The way we think about the confirmation hearing tomorrow for economist Judy Shelton to be a governor of the Federal Reserve is as a test less of her than of the Republican Party. Is it going to make good on the platform on which President Trump stood for the presidency in 2016? That platform called for a more transparent and accountable Federal Reserve and a monetary commission to start looking at ways to improve our system.

Those campaign promises didnt just erupt out of the blue. They were born of the realization that the Federal Reserve bears a share of the responsibility for the Great Recession that started in 2007 and hobbled our recovery for much of the Obama era. Those were years in which the House of Representatives, in a bipartisan vote of 333 to 92, passed Congressman Ron Pauls Audit the Fed bill.

Dr. Pauls bill was only one of a number of measures designed to give Congress better tools to oversee monetary policy. After all, 100% of the monetary powers that the Constitution grants to the government are granted to Congress. Audit the Fed and other measures were finally sent, in late 2015, to the Senate, where, with the election coming up, the solons froze. They did so even though Mr. Trump campaigned for monetary reform.

Once elected, Mr. Trump seemed to change his tune. No longer did he talk about a false economy. Instead he plumped for easy money. Advocates of monetary reform wondered whether Mr. Trump had completely forgotten about his promises. His nomination of Ms. Shelton who has written, on the Wall Street Journals op ed pages, a body of brilliant commentary on monetary matters signals that he hasnt forgotten.

This, of course, has agitated the Democrats and other opponents of reform. In one of their most amazing dodges, they have been criticizing Ms. Shelton for seeming to endorse Mr. Trumps call for the ultra-low interest rates that the Democrats themselves favor as if to say, dont confirm her, she agrees with us. Tomorrows Wall Street Journal carries an important editorial sorting all that out.

Our own focus throughout this long debate has been less on what interest rates the Fed ought to set or other details of Fed policy. We dont feel qualified on that head. We are more focused on the strategic failures of the Fed; even its erstwhile chairman, Paul Volcker, argued before his death that the absence of an official, rules-based, cooperatively managed monetary system has not been a great success.

Meantime, we are reminded in the latest issue of Grants Interest Rate Observer, that the CBO is now calculating that the federal budget deficit between 2021 and 2030 will average $1.3 trillion and climb to 5.4% of GDP. Grants calls these unheard-of figures except in times of national mobilization for war. Our own view is that monetary reform is one of the ways Congress can start to put the brakes on the borrowing this will require.

We comprehend that it is not the job of a Federal Reserve governor to reform the monetary system. That is the part of Congress. Whenever during the Obama years congressmen asked about reform, though, they were met with truculence from Chairmen Beranke and Yellen. How refreshing it would be to have some members of the Fed board who arent so defensive about new ideas. Ms. Shelton seems made for the part, and her confirmation hearing will be as important as that of, say, a Supreme Court justice.

Link:

Judy Shelton and the - New York Sun

Big Swinging Brains and fashy trolls: how the world fell into a clickbait death spiral – The Guardian

In 2012, a small group of young men, former supporters of the libertarian Republican congressman Ron Paul, started a blog called The Right Stuff. They soon began calling themselves post-libertarians, although they werent yet sure what would come next. By 2014, theyd started to self-identify as alt-right. They developed a countercultural tone arch, antic, floridly offensive that appealed to a growing cohort of disaffected young men, searching for meaning and addicted to the internet. These young men often referred to The Right Stuff, approvingly, as a key part of a libertarian-to-far-right pipeline, a path by which normies could advance, through a series of epiphanies, toward full radicalisation. As with everything the alt-right said, it was hard to tell whether they were joking, half-joking or not joking at all.

The Right Stuff s founders came up with talking points narratives, they called them that their followers then disseminated through various social networks. On Facebook, they posted Photoshopped images, or parody songs, or countersignal memes sardonic line drawings designed to spark just enough cognitive dissonance to shock normies out of their complacency. On Twitter, the alt-right trolled and harassed mainstream journalists, hoping to work the referees of the national discourse while capturing the attention of the wider public. On Reddit and 4chan and 8chan, where the content moderation was so lax as to be almost non-existent, the memes were more overtly vile. Many alt-right trolls started calling themselves fashy, or fash-ist. They referred to all liberals and traditional conservatives as communists, or degenerates; they posted pro-Pinochet propaganda; they baited normies into arguments by insisting that Hitler did nothing wrong.

When I first saw luridly ugly memes like this, in 2014 and 2015, I wasnt sure how seriously to take them. Everyone knows the most basic rule of the internet: dont feed the trolls, and dont take tricksters at their word. The trolls of the alt-right called themselves provocateurs, or shitposters, or edgelords. And what could be edgier than joking about Hitler? For a little while, I was able to avoid reaching the conclusion that would soon become obvious: maybe they meant what they said.

I spent about three years immersing myself in two worlds: the world of these edgelords meta-media insurgents who arrayed themselves in opposition to almost all forms of traditional gatekeeping and the world of the new gatekeepers of Silicon Valley, who, whether intentionally or not, afforded the gatecrashers their unprecedented power.

The left won by seizing control of media and academia, a blogger on The Right Stuff, using the pseudonym Meow Blitz, wrote in 2015. With the internet, they lost control of the narrative. By the left, he meant the whole standard range of American culture and politics everyone who preferred democracy to autocracy, everyone who resisted the alt-rights vision of a white American ethnostate.

For decades, Meow Blitz argued, this pluralistic worldview the mainstream worldview had gone effectively unchallenged, but now, by promoting their agenda on social media, he and his fellow propagandists could push the US in a more fascist-friendly direction. Isis became the most powerful terrorist group in the world because of flashy internet videos, he wrote. If youre alive in the year 2015 and you dont understand the power of the interwebz youre an idiot.

To the posts intended audience, this was supposed to be invigorating. To me, it was more like a faint whiff of sulphur that may or may not turn out to be a gas leak. The post was called Right Wing Trolls Can Win. Would the neofascists win? I had a hard time imagining it. Could they win? That was a different question. The culture war is being fought daily from your smartphone, the post continued. On this one point, at least, I had to agree with Meow Blitz. To change how we talk is to change who we are.

During the long 2016 presidential campaign, Donald Trump seemed to draw on pools of dark energy not previously observed within the universe of the American electorate. The mainstream media used the catchall term alt-right, which appealed to newspaper editors and TV-news producers who hoped to connote frisson and novelty without passing explicit judgment. Instead of denouncing the alt-right, reporters often described it as divisive or racially charged. They tried to present both sides neutrally, as journalistic convention seemed to require.

The definition of alt-right continued to expand. By the summer of 2016, it was such a big tent that it included any conservative or reactionary who was active online and too belligerently anti-establishment to feel at home in the Republican party a category that included the Republican nominee for president. This was an oddly broad definition for what was supposed to be a fringe movement, and yet no one seemed eager to clear up the semantic confusion. The Clinton campaign played up the alt-rights size and influence, while the alt-right was all too glad to be perceived as vast and menacing. There was no way to measure precisely how many Americans were alt-right, and there never would be. Estimates ranged from a few hundred to a few million. Still, what mattered was not the movements headcount, but its collective impact on the national vocabulary.

Were the platform for the alt-right, Steve Bannon said in July 2016, when he was running the pro-Trump web tabloid Breitbart. Later that year, after leading the Trump campaign to victory and being tapped to serve as chief White House strategist, Bannon claimed that hed only meant to align himself with an insurgent brand of civic nationalism, not with ethno-nationalism. Yet a core within the movement still insisted on a narrower definition of alt-right, one based on explicit antisemitism and white supremacy. This core had always existed; no one who was versed in the far-right blogosphere could have missed it.

Mainstream journalists, or at least the ones who were paying attention, were daunted by the fiscal precarity of their industry, the plummeting cultural authority of their institutions, and the unpredictable dynamics of social media outrage. The more these threats loomed, the more journalists clung to one of the few professional axioms that still seemed beyond dispute: in all matters of political opinion, a reporter should strive to remain neutral. This is true enough, for certain kinds of journalists, when applied to certain prosaic debates about tariffs and treaties. When it comes to core matters of principle, though, its not always possible to be both even-handed and honest. The plain fact was that the alt-right was a racist movement full of creeps and liars. If a newspapers house style didnt allow its reporters to say so, at least by implication, then the house style was preventing its reporters from telling the truth.

Neutrality has never been a universal good, even in the simplest of times. In unusual times say, when the press has been drafted, without its consent or comprehension, into a dirty culture war neutrality might not always be possible. Some questions arent really questions at all. Should Muslim Americans be treated as real Americans? Should women be welcome in the workplace? To treat these as legitimate topics of debate is to be not neutral, but complicit. Sometimes, even for a journalist, there is no such thing as not picking a side.

In April 2014, looking for new story ideas, I attended a tech conference in a stylish hotel in Lower Manhattan. The conference was called F.ounders, a word that no one, including the founders of F.ounders, could decide how to pronounce. Half of us stammered over the stray full stop. The other half ignored it. It stood for nothing, apparently, except for the general concept of innovation.

At this point, Google owned almost 40% of the online advertising market, and Facebook owned another 10%. Some analysts were already warning that they might comprise a duopoly. Both companies business models, especially Facebooks, were built around microtargeting. Filter bubbles, in other words, were not a temporary bug but a central feature of social media. It was hard to see how the latter could flourish without the former. If filter bubbles were bad for democracy, then, were Google and Facebook also bad for democracy?

It was a fair question, almost an obvious one, and yet the cultural vocabulary of the time did not allow most people to hold it in their heads for long. The Arab spring of 2011 had been organised, in part, via social media, and was often called the Twitter revolution. Mark Zuckerberg had been named Times person of the year in 2010; in the hagiographic cover photo, his eyes were oceanic and farseeing, dreaming up ingenious new ways to forge human bonds. If some movies and books portrayed him as shifty, even a bit ruthless, it was still possible to imagine that ruthlessness, in the tradition of Thomas Edison or Steve Jobs, was merely the cost of doing business. Zuckerbergs motto, Move fast and break things, was generally treated as a sign of youthful insouciance, not of galling rapacity. Facebooks users more than a billion of them seemed happy. Its investors were delighted. If social media wasnt a good product, then why was it so successful?

At the time, it was still considered divisive (at swanky New York tech conferences, anyway) to wonder whether the be-hoodied young innovators of Silicon Valley might turn out to be robber barons. It was far more socially acceptable to extol the gleaming vehicle of technology to gaze in amoral awe at its speed and vigour than to ask precisely where it was headed, or whether it might one day hurtle off a cliff. Such questions had come to seem fusty and antidemocratic; people who spent too much time worrying about them were often dismissed as cranks or luddites. To a techno-optimist, there was only one way the vehicle could possibly be going: forward.

When it was founded in 2004, Facebook billed itself as an online directory that connects people through social networks at colleges. Within a few years, this self-description had morphed into a far more grandiose mission statement: Facebook gives people the power to share and make the world more open and connected. Mark Zuckerberg was careful not to call himself a gatekeeper. On the contrary, he portrayed himself as a Robin Hood figure, snatching power from the gatekeepers and redistributing it to the people, who could presumably be trusted to do the right thing.

The traditional gatekeeper media that held sway in the US in the middle of the 20th century was, inarguably, a deeply flawed system. The nations most prominent journalists, from celebrity newscasters to unheralded assignment editors, were, by and large, upper-middle-class white men in grey suits. Many were blinkered coastal elites, either too circumspect or too myopic to risk departing meaningfully from the socially acceptable narrative, even when elements of that narrative were misleading or flat-out false. But what if the fourth estate turned out to be, like democracy, the worst system except for all the others? If history was an arc bending inexorably toward justice, then there was no need to worry about any of this technological disruption could only lead the world more efficiently in the right direction. If history was contingent, however, then removing the gatekeepers, without any clear notion of what might replace them, could throw the whole information ecosystem into chaos.

At a F.ounders dinner, the seating algorithm placed me next to Emerson Spartz, a 27-year-old with the saucer eyes and cuspidate chin of a cartoon fawn. His bio described him as a middle-school dropout, a New York Times bestselling author and the founder and CEO of Spartz Inc, based in Chicago. I asked what his company made, or did, or was. Im passionate about virality, he responded. I must have looked confused, because he said: Let me bring that down from the 30,000-foot level. The appetiser course had not yet arrived. He checked the time on his cell phone, then cleared his throat.

Every day, when I was a kid, my parents made me read four short biographies of very successful people, he said. I decided that I wanted to change the world, and I wanted to do it on a massive scale. This was the beginning of what I would come to recognize as his standard pitch for Spartz, both the person and the company. Although he had an audience of one, he spoke in a distant and deliberate tone, using studied pauses and facial expressions, as if I were a conference hall or a camera lens.

I looked at patterns, he said. I realised that if you could make ideas go viral, you could tip elections, start movements, revolutionise industries. He told me that Spartz Inc specialised in fun stuff entertainment, not hard news. He called it a media company, but it sounded more like an aggregator and distributor of pre-existing content. The ability to spread a meme to millions of people, he continued, was the closest you can come to a human superpower.

As far as I could tell, Emerson Spartz wasnt using his memetic superpower either for good or for evil, exactly. He was using it mainly to monetise cat gifs. He told me that his company oversaw about 30 active sites, each serving up procrastination fodder for adolescents of all ages: Memestache (All the Funny Memes), OMGFacts (The Worlds #1 Fact Source), GivesMeHope (Chicken Soup for the Soul the 21st-century, Twitter-style version). The content was mostly user-generated and unvetted, and it just kept rolling in.

Even though Im one of the most avid readers I know, I dont usually read straight news, he told me. Its conveyed in a very boring way, and you tend to see the same patterns repeated again and again.

Still, he was happy to offer advice. Glancing down at my laminated badge for the first time, Spartz noticed that I worked at the New Yorker. For instance, heres how I would improve your product, he said. Way more images. Thats number one. Who has ever looked at a big long block of text and gone, Ooh, exciting? I tell my employees all the time: Every paragraph they write should be super-short, no more than three sentences. And I mean short sentences. Periods are better than commas. Boredom is the enemy.

I couldnt deny that this sounded like an effective recipe for a certain kind of success. And yet, I sputtered, if maximising clicks was the only goal, why would any magazine or newspaper need to employ fact-checkers or reporters, for that matter? Why not simply recycle press releases, rewriting the boring quotes to make them snappier? Why not replace all Syria coverage with Kardashian coverage? Why not forget about words altogether and go into something more remunerative, like video, or mobile gaming, or strip mining?

Spartz cocked his head and waited for me to finish my rant. Clearly, in his eyes, I was revealing myself to be a luddite. Its always possible to make a slippery-slope argument, he said. Those arguments dont interest me. Im interested in impact. Art without an audience was mere solipsism, he said. The ultimate barometer of quality is: if it gets shared, its quality. If someone wants to toil in obscurity, if that makes them happy, thats fine. Not everybody has to change the world.

Spartz, in his speeches, sometimes referred to himself as a growth hacker. In practice, though, he was more like a day trader, investing in memes that appeared to have momentum. Exactly where we find our source material took a lot of experimentation to get right, he said. But the core of it is simple: taking stuff thats already going viral and repackaging it. His proprietary algorithm scoured the internet for images and stories that seemed to be generating a lot of activating emotion (at least, according to the relevant metrics). The content producers then acted as arbitrageurs, adapting those images and stories into lists on Dose, his flagship site. Sometimes this required a bit of reassembly; other times, it was as simple as copying the source material in full, without bothering to rearrange any images or correct any typos, and then reposting it on Dose under a catchier headline.

In 2014, there were governmental regulations, imperfect though they may have been, preventing pharmaceutical companies from filling their gelcaps with sawdust, or public-school teachers from filling their lesson plans with Holocaust denialism. Media was different. For many good reasons, starting with the first amendment, the information market was relatively unregulated. And yet everyone knew the bromides, no less true for being trite, about how a democracy cant function without a well-informed electorate. In the near future, what was to prevent large swaths of the internet including the parts of the internet that used to be called newspapers and magazines from looking more and more like Dose? What was insulating the American press from a full-speed race to the bottom? Nothing, as far as I could tell, other than tradition and inertia and the capricious whims of the market.

Spartz was proud to make a living on the internet, he said, because it was the closest humanity had yet come to creating a pure meritocracy. At the 30,000-foot level, the internet is a giant machine that gives people what they want, Spartz said. How can you do better than that? It exposes people to the best stuff in the world.

I made the obvious rejoinder: it also exposes people to the worst stuff in the world.

Well, that would be your subjective judgment, he said, pique rising in his voice. Thats you paternalistically deciding whats bad for people. Besides, businesses exist to serve the market. You can have whatever personal values you want, but businesses that dont provide what the customers want dont remain businesses. Literally, never.

Once, Spartz told me, The future of media is an ever-increasing degree of personalisation. My CNN wont look like your CNN. So we want Dose eventually to be tailored to each user. On a whiteboard behind him were the phrases old media, Tribune and $100 M. He continued: You shouldnt have to choose what you want, because we will be able to get enough data to know what you want better than you do.

In Liars Poker, his 1989 Wall Street memoir, Michael Lewis described a newly ascendant, egregiously conceited type of alpha-male bond broker. This type had a name: they called each other Big Swinging Dicks. Everyone wanted to be a Big Swinging Dick, Lewis wrote, even the women.

A quarter of a century later, the A-list entrepreneurs of Silicon Valley occupied an analogous place in the American power structure, but their self-presentation was less aggressive. Instead of Greed is good, their aspirational bromides were Think different and Dont be evil. Instead of Dionysian feats of consumption Porsches and cocaine binges and morning cheeseburgers they drove electric cars and subsisted on seaweed and Soylent. They didnt deny themselves the pleasures of good old-fashioned capital, but they were equally covetous of social and intellectual capital. Their fondest wish was to be considered luminaries, Renaissance men, the smartest guys in the room. They were Big Swinging Brains.

There is much to discover on the Facebook, the online community for college students, a Washington Post reporter wrote in the papers Style section in late 2004. She did warn, however, that its all a little fake the friends; the profiles that can be tailored to what others find appealing; the groups that exist only in cyberspace. A few weeks later, Mark Zuckerberg, looking for investors, visited the office of the Washington Post and met with Donald Graham, the papers publisher and CEO. They agreed on a verbal deal: the Post would pay $6m for 10% of the company. Zuckerberg later called Graham in tears a Silicon Valley venture-capital firm had offered a more generous investment, and he was tempted to take it. Graham, impressed by the young mans display of rectitude, gave him his blessing to renege on the deal. Three years later, Graham joined Facebooks board of directors. Facebook has completely transformed how people interact, he said in a press release. Marks sense of what Facebook can do is quite remarkable.

In 2007, a Washington Post columnist lamented the rapid ascent of Amazon.com, which was so smart in the way they cater to human weakness, bad judgment, poor taste. In 2008, another Washington Post columnist wrote: I loathe Amazon even though I know it is the future and will prevail. In 2013, with revenue in decline, Donald Graham sold the Washington Post, which his family had owned and overseen for 80 years, to Jeff Bezos, the founder and CEO of Amazon, soon to be the richest person in the world.

By that time, it no longer made sense to think of business and tech and media as separate entities. Business was tech, and tech was taking over everything: movies, TV, travel, journalism. Whether the nerd princelings of Silicon Valley understood themselves to be gatekeepers or not, it was becoming increasingly clear that their smallest impromptu decisions were having enormous downstream effects on how billions of people spoke and thought and, ultimately, acted in the world. To change how we talk is to change who we are.

I wondered whether they found this power burdensome, and if so, whether they found the burden humbling, or overwhelming the way I would feel over-whelmed if I woke up to discover that I had somehow been put in charge of the energy grid, or some other key piece of infrastructure that I didnt fully understand. Maybe Big Swinging Brains were constitutionally incapable of feeling overwhelmed. In any case, there was no law that said you had to understand a piece of social infrastructure in order to own it, or to break it.

Business was tech and tech was media. Content was content was content, and coders controlled the sluices through which all content flowed. The luminaries of Silicon Valley didnt hesitate to offer their bold opinions on almost every subject; and yet, when it came to basic questions about the future of media, their rhetoric turned fuzzy. Businesses should give customers what they want. Media companies should meet audiences where they are. Journalism should be objective and thorough. These truisms seemed unobjectionable enough until they came into conflict with one another, which happened all the time. What if your customers claimed to want rigorous, dispassionate journalism, but their browsing habits revealed that they actually wanted hot takes and salacious hate-reads? What if, in order to meet customers where they were, you had to bowdlerise your writing, or give up on writing altogether and pivot to video? What if quality and popularity were sometimes correlated negatively, or not at all?

In early 2016, I was invited to a lunch discussion in an executive boardroom. At the head of the table, a Big Swinging Brain one of the Biggest talked for more than an hour without touching his sandwich. He dilated on a wide array of topics (state healthcare exchanges, the future of the trucking industry, the financial panic of 1873), displaying uncanny recall and mental acuity. He acknowledged dilemmas and contradictions in his thinking; he even pointed out awkward conflicts between what he found preferable economically and what might be preferable civically, even morally. I began to wonder whether Id underestimated the BSBs. Maybe I should learn to stop worrying and love my overlords.

Then I asked him a question about the importance of good journalism and good art, the corrosive effects of bad journalism and bad art, and the best way to forestall the Spartzification of the internet. It seemed clear not just to me, but to anyone who was paying attention that things were drifting in an unnerving direction. How would humanity avoid a clickbait death spiral?

I dont think theres an answer to that, he said, his tone suddenly turning flinty. Apparently I had revealed myself to be a luddite. If I were in the media business, I would focus on making a product that people actually want. Because thats how business works.

I couldnt imagine him being so flippantly fatalistic about any other civilisational hazard that the free market had failed to address. The Renaissance men of Silicon Valley were known for spending an unusual amount of time and money addressing thorny problems, such as the achievement gap in American public schools and the excess of carbon in the atmosphere. They even invested millions of dollars in problems that hadnt come into existence yet, such as hostile AI. In 2016, the Chan Zuckerberg Initiative, the nonprofit founded by Mark Zuckerberg and his wife, Priscilla Chan, announced its intention to help cure, prevent, and manage all disease in our childrens lifetime; several well-capitalised bioengineering start-ups, including a $1.5bn initiative at Google, went even further, resolving to cure death. But somehow the BSBs balked at the problem of addictive, low-quality clickbait. They had taken control of the media industry, then moved fast and broken it; now they claimed no responsibility for fixing it.

The techno-utopians of Silicon Valley assumed that all would be for the best in a post-gatekeeper world. This was possible, of course, but there was no way to be certain. Already, social media-optimised content mills were outcompeting sober policy journals and threadbare alt-weeklies. Pulitzer prize-winning reporters, unable to earn a living wage, kept fleeing journalism for jobs in PR or social media marketing. Even an alarmist like myself didnt presume that the Spartzification of the entire media ecosystem would happen overnight. Could it happen within five years? Fifteen? I tried telling myself that I was indulging in slippery-slope thinking, but this did nothing to allay my fear that we were already slipping.

This is an edited extract from Antisocial: How Online Extremists Broke America, by Andrew Marantz, published by Picador on 20 Feb and available at guardianbookshop.co.uk

Follow the Long Read on Twitter at @gdnlongread, and sign up to the long read weekly email here.

Read more:

Big Swinging Brains and fashy trolls: how the world fell into a clickbait death spiral - The Guardian

Andrew Yang makes his stand in New Hampshire – POLITICO

"We're not going anywhere. The Yang Gang is not going anywhere, and we're just going to keep pushing until we accomplish our goals," Yang told reporters Sunday.

Yang has bet big on New Hampshire, visiting 26 times and doing 132 events, based on his campaigns tally. He has spent more than $3.5 million on TV ads here, according to Advertising Analytics.

And he has a history in the state, reminding voters at every stop that he attended high school at Phillips Exeter Academy. I didnt really enjoy my time at the exclusive boarding school, Yang jokes, a one-liner that crowds eat up.

New Hampshire has a reputation of rejecting Iowas choice in favor of an underdog, as if voters just want to keep things interesting: Bernie Sanders in 2016, Hillary Clinton and John McCain in 2008, and McCain in 2000.

When there's a really interesting new voice, we like to give every opportunity to give that voice a chance for the rest of the country to hear, said Steve Marchand, a senior adviser to Yang, who was the former mayor of Portsmouth, N.H.

But Yang, despite his work here, has failed to gain the kind of traction that other long-shot candidates like Amy Klobuchar, who is surging in the final days of the race, have.

The final count in Iowa was terrible for Yang, and New Hampshire is not looking much better. Days before the primary, some advisers speak as if the campaign is just ramping up. Marchand, a New Hampshire native, said the campaign just needs to get Yang in front of as many people as possible, and holds out hope in the fact that many voters are just now making up their minds.

"The job is when they get a chance to meet Andrew, can we move Andrew from on [their] list to the top of the list? he said.

Speeding through the back streets of New Hampshire in a Ford Expedition, Yang, whom few people had even heard of nine months ago, seems unbothered by his predicament. He and his staff recognize how daunting their odds are, but after beating out a host of senators, governors and congressmen there's a hopefulness that doesnt feel phony.

The campaign is leaning into New Hampshires semi-open primary and working to pull support from independents and libertarians who are open to his out-of-the box ideas.

He's not ideological. He's really running to solve the problems that got Donald Trump elected in the first place, Yangs campaign manager Zach Graumann said. So talking about it that way instead of Donald Trump [is] bad, appeals to a lot of people that don't identify with a particular party.

At the center of that push for independents and libertarians is his universal basic income plan. Yang's stump references Milton Friedman, the legendary libertarian economist who endorsed a form of UBI in the 1960s.

The plan is part bigger government and part get government out of the way and let people choose how to spend their money.

But Jesse Benton, campaign chair of libertarian Ron Paul's 2012 campaign, said Yang's idea won't fly with most true libertarians. Paul surprised with a second-place finish in the 2012 New Hampshire primary.

I definitely understand where [Yang's] coming from: Wouldn't it be cool if there were a way we could ensure that an entrepreneur could feel a little safer starting a business or an artist [could] take a sabbatical to focus on their art or their music?" Benton said in an interview. But "I have trouble seeing how any kind of broad swath of libertarians are going to find [UBI] very appealing.

But the Yang campaign is undeterred. Graumann says the lack of bureaucracy in the proposal (everyone would get the money when they turn 18) is their biggest selling point.

Claire Mei, who saw Yang in Littleton, N.H. on Sunday night, was buying it. Shes a liberterian who voted for Donald Trump in 2016 and said Yang won her over.

UBI "doesn't tell people how to control their lives. It gives them the money and ... the freedom of choice to do what they want with it, Mei said while waiting in the Yang selfie line.

Independents like Phil Harrell said he was Yang-curious when he arrived at the Claremont Opera House to see him on Sunday.

"He says what's on his mind and speaks plainly and I really like that and he has new and fresh ideas," Harrell said, adding that he hasnt committed to voting for Yang or anyone else but that the entrepreneur has moved up to No. 2 on his list.

Yang is his own best salesman, and people often come away after seeing him surprised by how much they like him. But is it enough to give him any momentum after New Hampshire?

I guess the answer is well find out on Tuesday, Graumann said with a laugh.

Read the rest here:

Andrew Yang makes his stand in New Hampshire - POLITICO

Iowa and New Hampshire have no business leading the nomination process – The Dallas Morning News

If nothing else, the recent election-night fiasco in Iowa should drive a stake in the heart of whats become known as the All-Important Iowa Caucus. And not just because of Democrats inability to produce timely results. This issue goes way beyond an app failure.

The parties have allowed this small, non-representative state to have far too much electoral weight for far too long. By the same token, New Hampshires oversized role in the nominations process also needs to be scrapped.

In the last 40 years, only Bill Clinton has bucked tradition by getting the nomination without winning either Iowa or New Hampshire. Why do these two states deserve to always winnow the field?

New Hampshire has voted first for 100 years because the first primary was staged there in 1920. Then Jimmy Carter discovered, in 1976, that Iowa had a caucus before New Hampshire and upstaged other candidates by organizing there and gaining media attention.

Because these states have always been first and have taken their job seriously is not good enough reason for the parties to continue to defend this tradition.

Neither state reflects the diversity of the nation. Iowa is a small, rural state, at least 90% white. On the Republican side, Iowans have tended in the past to reward religious or social conservatives. New Hampshire is 93% white, older, better educated, more progressive than other states. New Hampshires population is 1.3 million (think Dallas), and its largest city is 100,000.

Democratic candidates who reflected a more racially or ethnically diverse field and more populous states Kamala Harris (California), Cory Booker (New Jersey) and Julin Castro (Texas) all dropped out of the race before Iowa and New Hampshire.

Then theres the messiness of the Iowa process. Its complicated, as the first in a four-step convention process that ultimately chooses national convention delegates.

This year Iowa became even more complicated when party officials wanted additional data reported.

Each precinct was asked to tabulate not just the traditional share of delegates won but also the first choice of those attending (which would reflect votes for candidates who didnt reach viability and therefore didnt get delegates). That actually muddies the question of who won, because if a candidate doesnt get 15% in the precinct, his or her voters must go with a second choice or uncommitted.

Tabulation, done by the party, not the state, has often been tricky. In the 2012 Republican caucus, Mitt Romney was initially declared the winner. Two weeks later, it was changed to Rick Santorum. And the candidate who finished third on caucus night, Ron Paul, eventually controlled the national convention delegation.

Why not just have a primary? Let people vote. Then apportion delegates according to that vote.

Every state can determine by law when to have its primary or caucus. But the parties set the rules that produce the nominating conventions. They can establish calendar rules and deny seats at the national convention to states that dont comply. And candidates can refuse to campaign in those states.

With recent years has come incremental change. South Carolina and Nevada were allowed to go after Iowa and New Hampshire to insert more diverse states earlier in the process, before the floodgates of Super Tuesday. This year, that will be 14 states voting on March 3, including Texas and California.

More wholesale changes have been considered in recent years. Some ideas include rotating early primaries among states that are more representative according to race, age, education and income. Or the country could be divided into a few sections, with the sections rotating in presidential years.

A one-day national primary has failed to gain support because advocates of the current system tout the retail politics of the two smaller states, and say a one-day national primary would reward big spenders. But a rotating system could still allow for some face-to-face between candidates and voters, as well as a fairer winnowing process.

What rearranging the calendar would do is eliminate the media hype of Iowa and New Hampshire. George H.W. Bush recognized it when he won Iowa in 1980. As he said, its all about creating Big Mo, i.e. big momentum.

Iowa and New Hampshire, of course, will fight any change. Millions are spent by candidate organizations and the media, chasing candidates from town halls to diners. TV has made a production night out of events like caucus night in Iowa, which backfired when there were no results to announce just wasted air time and debatable Big Mo.

The people in other states deserve the right to have more say in the process, but they will have to demand it of their elected officials and party leaders. Simply said, its time to rethink the attention given to these two small states and their impact on the rest of the nation.

Carolyn Barta is a retired journalism professor at Southern Methodist University and former political writer for The Dallas Morning News.

Go here to read the rest:

Iowa and New Hampshire have no business leading the nomination process - The Dallas Morning News

Unbuilt Portland: 4 big projects that never happened… yet – Pamplin Media Group

A handful of high-profile projects deserve attention for never making it off the drawing board, at least for now.

Portland and the metro area have a lot to crow about when it comes to development accomplishments during the past decade. But a handful of high-profile projects also deserve attention for never making it off the drawing board.

Centennial Mills: Despite repeated attempts to redevelop Centennial Mills, the 4-acre former flour mill ended the decade as a ghost of its old structural self.

Since purchasing the property for $7.7 million in 2002, the city and Prosper Portland have been unable to unload the property, despite interest from three developers.

A California company planning to develop the site into a food hall ended up walking away at the beginning of the decade.

A few years later, Portland developer Jordan Schnitzer pitched a $116 million plan with a request for $35 million in public funding. Prosper Portland turned him down.

The majority of the buildings then were lost to the wrecking ball after it was determined they were a structural loss.

More recently, in April 2019, a San Antonio-based developer stepped away from its plans for the site after determining that costs to redevelop the site didn't pencil out.

Framework: A 12-story mass timber tower, Framework made international headlines when it became one of two projects selected as winners in the Tall Woods Building competition. With a design by Lever Architecture, the 12-story building's extensive use of cross-laminated timber had it on track to become the tallest timber building in North America.

The project never even broke ground in its planned Pearl District location, however. In 2018, the project team announced it was indefinitely shelving the project due to challenges raising enough money to construct the building.

Even without being built, Framework left a legacy. The $1.5 million prize the project received from winning the Tall Woods competition was used for research, development and testing. The result of that testing has since provided data that has allowed mass timber and CLT design and construction to be highlighted in projects in Portland and beyond.

Columbia River Crossing: A plan to widen and modernize the Interstate Bridge didn't just span states, it spanned decades.

Since 1917, the northbound span of the two-span, through-truss bridge has served as the connection between Oregon and Washington state (the southbound span was added in 1958). By 2005, however, leaders on both sides of the Columbia River agreed that capacity and seismic issues related to the structure needed to be addressed.

Talks about the project as a joint effort between federal and state agencies, the cities of Vancouver and Portland, and local and regional transit agencies began in 2005. Federal money kicked off environmental studies. However, initial discussions about feasible solutions and designs soon led to debates about incorporating light-rail into the project and how the cost for the project should be divided up.

In 2013, opposition by Republicans in the Washington State Senate killed that state's participation. Oregon considered trying to move forward with the project alone, but that plan failed to gain an in-state promise of financial support.

The project hasn't completely disappeared from public view with leaders in Oregon and Washington recently reviving talks about re-examining the project during the next decade.

James Beard Market: Plans for a public market to rival Pike's Place in Seattle may not be dead, but they do appear to be in limbo.

The idea of a public market for Portland was first floated in the 2000s by Ron Paul. The project appeared to gain ground in 2011 when it was identified as the sweetheart tenant of a 17-story tower that developer Melvin Mark planned to build at the west end of the Morrison Bridge. In the end, though, that idea ended up not panning out.

Market supporters spent the rest of the decade looking for a location, including eyeing Central Eastside Industrial property owned by the Museum of Science and Industry and Zidell family-owned waterfront property in Portland's South Waterfront District. The decade closed out, however, without an announcement about what the next decade may hold in store for the James Beard Public Market.

From 2013 to 2019, the Portland metro area's population grew by 35,000 people, reaching 2.35 million, with about 50% of those new residents coming from outside Oregon, and then continued to rise, according to U.S. Census data.

Construction companies in the Portland metro area say they've seen work slow down slightly during the past year and expect another small dip in 2020. Overall, companies are mostly upbeat as they head into a new decade at least for another year or two.

While hotel activity has slowed, there are projects still underway, including BPM Real Estate Group's 35-story, five-star Ritz-Carlton hotel project that broke ground in 2019 on the site of the former Alder Street Food Cart pod. Meanwhile, the flurry of multifamily projects that flooded Portland with units has slowed to a trickle since the city put in place inclusionary housing requirements that call for projects with 20 or more units to set aside a portion for affordable housing. Developers, however, aren't giving up on multifamily housing and have instead shifted their efforts to suburban areas such as Beaverton and Hillsboro.

The state's role as a leader in the world of mass timber, which took a giant step forward in 2019 with the opening of the A.A. "Red" Emmerson Advanced Wood Products Laboratory on the OSU campus in Corvallis as the decade ended, is expected to continue into the next decade. Tennessee-based Sauter Timber has announced plans to open a CLT prefabrication plant in Estacada in 2020, while OSU will prepare for the completion of Peavy Hall, which will be a showcase of mass-timber and technology.

School construction is expected to continue to keep some contractors and their crews busy for the next couple of years. Portland Public Schools, for example, plans to start construction on a remodel for Lincoln High School in early 2020, while also looking at approaching voters for yet another construction bond in the next year or two.

And a statewide $5.3 billion, 10-year transportation bill has started to spin out projects that are expected to continue through most the next decade. Among the efforts is a pilot program to examine the feasibility of applying congestion pricing to major roads in the Portland metro area. In addition, the debate over at least one of the projects included in the bill, a plan to add capacity to Interstate 5 through the Rose Quarter, promises a lively start to the next decade.

You count on us to stay informed and we depend on you to fund our efforts.Quality local journalism takes time and money. Please support us to protect the future of community journalism.

Continued here:

Unbuilt Portland: 4 big projects that never happened... yet - Pamplin Media Group

12 Wild Hours With Andrew Yang – POLITICO

Speaking of winging shit, Yangs pep talk in Grinnell isnt quite the stuff of General Patton.

Its freakin caucus day! he cries, giving a slight shimmy of the hips (like a young Elvis) as the room of volunteers erupts with applause. Explaining the value of each and every caucusgoer, Yang says all the good vibes and well-wishes mean nothing without turnout on the ground.

My phones blowing up, everyones like, Good luck, Andrew, good luck! And you know what Im sending back to them? Shut up and call somebody. The crowd laughs. Dont text me. Text an Iowan, dumbass. Louder, rolling laughter. Thats what Im saying to them all.

My phones blowing up, everyones like, good luck, Andrew, good luck! And you know what Im sending back to them? Shut up and call somebody. Dont text me. Text an Iowan, dumbass.

- Andrew Yang

Yang tries to turn serious. You all know where the rubber hits the road. You know this is where the action is. Every call, every door-knock, every face-to-face convo, every little old lady you help to the caucus site He starts to crack up. Every shuttle brought in He cant stop giggling. I was going to make another joke. Spurred on, he says, Every unwilling person you knock unconscious and drag to the caucus site. He struggles against the heaving of his chest. If you prop them up, and make them seem like theyre conscioushe can barely finisheach one of those people

His staff is laughing, too, but theyre also a tad mystified, trading looks. Theyve never seen such a goofy side in public. Do we need to go? Graumann shouts from the back of the room.

After regaining his composure and giving a few parting words of inspiration, Yang says hell stick around for selfies and autographs. After all the work these people have done on his behalf, the candidate wants to reward them. As the room envelops him, Yang is bouncing on the soles of his black shoes, Eye of the Tiger banging from a stereo.

Yang is a positive person. He has a stillness about him, a composure that makes him both easy to admire and hard to analyze. Its clear that he tries to see the good in people and situations, guarding against the tilting of his equilibrium. Whats unclear is whether theres anything hes holding onto, regrets or grievances that he refuses to let show. Its impossible to run for president and not walk away with scars; I want to know where his wounds are and how he came by them.

As we talk, cruising eastbound on Interstate 80, it becomes evident there is one injury nagging at Yang: the medias treatment of his campaign.

The slights have been large and small, significant and symbolic. Most recently there was CNBCs egregious error, straight out of a sketch comedy skit, of showing a random Asian mans photo on a graphic explaining the candidates fundraising numbers. I laughed, he says with a shrug, thinking itd be good for us, because it was so dumb we might get a news cycle out of it.

He snorts, shoveling a fingerload of Cheez-Its into his mouth. As the days have gotten longer, and the sleep has gotten scarcer, and the germs have gotten nastier, the weary candidate finds himself constantly in need of two things: snacks and hand sanitizer.

Turning back to the CNBC screw-up, he rolls his eyes. That one I chalk up to incompetence. Others have been more deliberate in their bias.

There was the time he gave a major policy speech that went completely uncovered. The time MSNBC referred to him as John Yang. The time he was congratulated by other campaigns for outshining his opponents at a cattle call, only to get zero mention in the national write-ups. The countless times he was omitted from fundraising charts on cable news despite having outperformed some of the candidates displayed.

And dont get him started on the debates. Stats dont lie: Yang has notched the least amount of speaking time in nearly every one of the televised events in which hes participated.

Thats the thing that really got to me, Yang explains. I think POLITICO was fair in giving me an even number of questions. But in a lot of themthose two MSNBC hostedit felt like they were trying to marginalize me. Im standing up there and I just cant shake the feeling that theyre trying to ignore me. I would see the cameras panning toward me, because theyre supposed to ask me a question, and the moderator audibles and redirects it to someone else. Its like, What did I do to these people?

Evelyn has a theory. She has spent much of the morning buried in a book, Maid: Hard Work, Low Pay, and a Mother's Will to Survive. Its about the working poor, she says, and how they have no power or political influence. Its the same thing, she says. Andrews plans are all designed to help the poor and the working poor, but we dont talk about those plans, because those people arent a constituency for CNN or MSNBC.

Her husband agrees. Its easy to dismiss himthe futuristic Asian man, he jokesbecause its easy to dismiss his trademark proposal: Universal Basic Income, a.k.a. Yang Bucks.

By giving every adult citizen $1,000 per month, Yang believes, the U.S. government could eradicate poverty and close the income-inequality gap that has come to define the Democratic Partys modern mission. The problem is, such a gimmick-sounding plan is unprecedented in the sweep of American presidential campaigning, and thus goes ignored or poorly covered by a media apparatus that has little patience for policies that are alien and unconventional.

As frustrating as this has been for Yang, he can already see the upside. Just as Medicare for All was considered kooky less than a decade ago, only to become mainstream in 2020, he believes Universal Basic Income will soon be standard fare in platforms across the political spectrum. The proof is in the numbers, he says. The last poll I saw showed 53 percent of Iowans support the idea. At my last count, five other candidates have expressed openness to it. Its most popular among young people, who obviously arent going anywhere. And even on a lot of people on the right are conceptually open to it, because conservatives arent afraid of putting money in peoples hands; theyre afraid of big bureaucracies spending that money for them.

As with any big idea, Yang understands its first great advance might be sacrificial in nature. I know that even if I dont win, he says, this idea is going to win.

Some of them didnt know what MATH stands for, Evelyn Yang tells her husband, a grin tugging at her lips.

Theres a lot of people who still dont know, Andrew responds. Kinda funny.

It is funny. The acronym plastered all over Yangs shirts and hats and campaign signs MATH stands for Make America Think Harder. Its a clever take on the presidents signature catchphrase, but in a twist of predictable irony, many people, including Yangs own supporters, think the candidate is simply promoting academics, or perhaps even humble-bragging that his success in life owed to a talent for arithmetic.

Back on the campaign bus after a boisterous get-out-the-vote event in Iowa City, the Yangs dive into disposable boxes of Mediterranean food: chicken kabobs, falafel patties, grilled vegetables and fluffy pita bread. Humored as they are by the MATH stories, its easy to understand the confusion for some observers of his candidacy. Between Yang and his virtual gang, there are so many slogans and memes and catchphrases its hard to keep up. Hes got signs that say, Not Left. Not Right. Forward. His campaign offices are adorned in wall-sized $1,000 bills bearing his likeness. Theres that title of his book, which has become a rallying cry all its own. His favorite linethe opposite of Donald Trump is an Asian man who likes mathis the stuff of marketing genius.

And then theres his most provocative motto: Humanity First. Its another play off Trumpthis one jabbing the presidents refrain of America Firstand has caught on because of its layered implications. Yang preaches a brothers-keeper mantra that defies ideological definition, encouraging community and availability and interpersonal learning. He also clearly believes that all politics, and all government by extension, is negligent if it is failing to address the crisis of poverty, both at home and abroad.

What makes the message resonate is Yangs own humanity. He tells the story of his father growing up on a peanut farm with dirt floors in a way designed not to send electoral chills up your spine, but rather to remind everyone of Americas promise. His wife, Evelyn, came forward with a devastating story of being sexually assaulted not to engender support for her husbands candidacy but to use the platform shed been given to raise awareness and practice solidarity.

As we sit in the back of the bus, finishing lunch and talking about Yangs recent endorsement from God (@TheTweetOfGod) on social media, the candidate closes his eyes and falls into a deep slumber. Its not what anyone would expect from a candidate for president, riding along with a reporter on the biggest day of their political career, but it suits Yang just fine. Hes barely slept in the last month, crawling across Iowa mile by mile, shaking hands and snapping selfies and wishing he were with his kids. A little nap is long overdue. Hes human, after all.

Head against the interior wall of the bus, right leg crossed over his left, the candidates sleep is interrupted only by a string of raspy coughs, the remnant of a cold hes been fighting for weeks.

Aw, man, Yang mutters, eyes fixed on his iPhone.

What? Graumann asks.

Some guy says he voted for us at a satellite caucus, but we werent viable.

After two years spent on the road, sleeping in hotel beds and Facetiming with his young kids, Yang is beginning to feel the weight of caucus day bearing down on him. Weve just departed another pep rally with volunteers, this one in Davenport, and Yang is glued to his device, scrolling through Twitter for mentions of his campaign from analysts and caucus-goers. He says hes still not feeling any nerves, but the length of the day is agonizing. Too much time to wait. Too much time to wonder. Too much time to reflect.

It hit me the other day, Yang says, describing when he got teary-eyed on stage in Dubuque. All the conversations in Iowa, all the time Ive put in here, all the time my family has spent here, I realized that Monday is the last day Ill spend here.

In retrospect, its a small miracle he even made it to Monday.

Some of the early days when nobody was responding to me, when we wouldnt get a single donation from someone that I didnt personally know, that was hard, he recalls. But Im not someone to set out on this road, taking even a little bit of money from friends, and then stop what I started. There was never a thought of quitting.

Yang says this in the past tense. But now, hours from the first votes being tallied and delegates being assigned, quittingor, more delicately, bowing out gracefullyis a thought that cannot be ignored. Nobody has been discussing it out loud. There is no desire to speak a grim fate into existence. But the truth is, everyone knows Yang is not going to win the presidency in 2020. Not with five candidates polling in front of him. Not with Iowas strange set of rules, which mandate a 15 percent threshold for viability, making it harder to pull off an upset at the ballot box. And not even with the contest coming up in independent-minded New Hampshire, which Yang often touts as a better fit for his unorthodox candidacy.

But none of this means hes ready to quit. After escaping to write his caucus-night speech, Yang returns to the couch with a satisfied mien. Did he just construct a rhetorical masterpiece?

Nah, he grins. Its actually pretty lame. I wrote it to cover all scenarios.

Yang turns to his staff. Should I write one to give if I

If you shock the world? Graumann asks.

Yeah.

You wont need a speech if you shock the world, his campaign manager says. I want you to go up there and give us Yang Unchained.

Graumann pauses. Just no swearing. This is Iowa.

Yang is running on empty.

Its his fourth stop of the day, in Oskaloosa, and the candidates cough has gotten worse. Crowding into a small campaign office with some 50 volunteers, Yang launches into a version of the motivational speech hes been giving all day. Its slower, somewhat less edgy, if every bit as earnest.

People learn from, and are inspired by, other people, he says. People are not inspired by television commercials. If they were, Mike Bloomberg would be doing a lot better than he is.

After some chuckling, Yang continues, People are inspired when you knock on the door, when you pick up the phone, when you have a face-to-face conversation. Because thats the way were built as human beings. We see another human being that wants to share something important with us, and we cant help but listen.

Yang cant help but listen a few minutes later when Thomas Wu, a 27-year-old volunteer, explains how he wound up in his wheelchair. The 27-year-old Wu lives in Louisiana but relocated to Iowa a month ago to help Yangs efforts. While completing a marathon canvassing session just the day before, Wu slipped and fell on ice, shattering his kneecap.

Upon hearing this, the candidate looks equal parts dismayed and impressed. That is a battlefield injury, Yang says, slapping the youngsters back.

Yang gives a thumbs-up while posing for a photo with Thomas Wu. | Tim Alberta/POLITICO

When Wu declares that hell still be fulfilling his duties as a precinct captain tonight, Yang looks as though hes just heard a symphony.

Whether its the emotion or the sickness or the fatiguemost likely a combinationYang needs another break. Once aboard the bus, he collapses onto the couch. Baby needs a nap, he says to nobody in particular, pulling a blanket up to his chin and coughing himself to sleep.

Yang is awake but barely functional, his eyes open but trained on nothing in particular. After spending much of the day on his iPhone, monitoring social media for signs of whats to come tonight, he now appears immobilized. Its only when Graumann announces a FiveThirtyEight story that Yang snaps to attention: The nixed Des Moines Register poll from Saturday night, Graumann announces, showed Biden at just 14 percent.

Wait, what? Yang asks, sounding part-shocked and part-groggy.

Graumann and a few other staffers explain the reporting and its implications for Biden. Their candidate listens silently, then stands up, stretches, and heads to the bathroom. Several minutes later, having emerged and grabbed a fresh bag of fruit snacks, Yang sits back down and sighs.

It would make me really sad if Joe has a rough night, he says.

Why?

Yang shrugs. I like Joe.

The bus is rumbling into West Des Moines, where Yang will partake in the charming tradition of speaking to Iowans at an actual caucus site, making the case for his candidacy just as hundreds of surrogates are doing the same at locations around the state. But the preliminary reports Yang is getting from inside the high school gymnasium is discouraging: There are few uncommitted Iowans by his teams count, and his presence looks significantly smaller than those of rival campaigns.

Yang digests the information. Then he admits that his mind has begun to wander, contemplating all that might or might not unfold in the coming hours. Ive thought about the worst-case scenario and what it would mean; I think Im prepared for that, he says. And Ive thought about the best-case scenario and what it would mean. I think Im prepared for that, too.

Yang asks his team if there are additional updates. Told that no, not yet, he tells Graumann: Lets hear the song.

Moments later, the bus is ringing with Winds of Change by the Scorpions. Yang closes his eyes and leans back, head nodding along to the rhythm.

The world is closing in Did you ever think That we could be so close, like brothers The future's in the air I can feel it everywhere Blowing with the wind of change

Graumann walks past Yang and squeezes his candidate on the shoulder.

Proud of you, man.

The gym is packed with caucusgoers, but Yang is stuck on the bus. Hes not allowed inside until the doors are locked, at 7 p.m. These will be the longest seven minutes of his day.

Tossing a meatball in his direction, I ask Yang what hell tell his kids about running for president in America circa 2020. He turns deadly serious. You seem to be suggesting that things will be better by the time theyre older.

Wont they?

Im not optimistic at all, he shakes his head.

The question is, Yang continues, How will this society fare in an environment of unprecedented change, with a polarized government that is hopelessly behind the curve and unable to adapt in ways necessary to help them?

Yang has never been viewed as an ideologue, certainly not in the vein of Bernie Sanders or Elizabeth Warren. But hes gotten this far by hammering home a message that is just as unwavering as either of theirs: that software and automation are eliminating American jobs at a devastating rate, and that Washington lacks the competence and the leadership to respond.

It occurs to me, as he paints this grim picture of the future, that Yang is a true believer if ever there was one. He isnt peddling a far-flung theory for the sake of fame or Twitter followers; he feels convinced of every word hes saying, certain that hes a lone voice of sanity in a world gone mad. The thing about people like thisthe true believersis that they dont go away. Its easy to envision someone more prominent building on Yangs success in elections yet to come. But what about Yang himself? Is this campaign the end, or only just the beginning?

I certainly wouldnt rule it out, Yang says of another run. Weve got a list of millions of people. Weve got hundreds of thousands of donors. If I ran again, the probability of my success would be that much higher. So, why wouldnt I?

I certainly wouldnt rule it out, he says of another run. Weve got a list of millions of people. Weve got hundreds of thousands of donors. Plus, the national press would have to have us seriously next time. And the truth is, I like Iowa, I like New Hampshire. I like Americans. The prospect of doing this again is something Im very comfortable with. Id prefer to win now and start solving problems. The reason I ran was because I want to eradicate poverty. If I ran again, the probability of my success would be that much higher. So, why wouldnt I?

As Graumann cuts him off, advising on a strategic approach to conversations with caucusgoers inside the gymnasium, Yang looks back at me.

Im only 45, you know.

For the first time all day, Yang appears downcast.

He had wrung every last ounce of energy from himself inside the gymslapping hands, leading chants, running up the bleacher steps like Rocky Balboa. He had swaggered his way to the microphone, saluting the crowd with one arm raised, and given a solid speech, emphasizing the need to unite the party and the country around a forward-thinking agenda. He received a nice ovation, including from lots of Iowans wearing shirts and stickers with his opponents names.

Outside, hiking briskly with his small entourage through a barely lit parking lot, Yang sounds like a man whacked over the head with reality.

I wish we would have picked a location with more supporters. It was a liiiiiittle lonely in there, he says. I hope well be a lot of peoples second choices. But even then, how many people showed up here undecided about that? Probably a fraction of that crowd. I dont know.

Inside the bus, Yangs aides glue their eyes to CNN. Entrance poll numbers are rolling in, but still no results. The staffers banter about various statistics and what they might foretell, but the candidate barely seems to be paying attention. Hes looking toward the television, but not directly at it.

After a minute, Graumann shows Yang a tweet that should cheer him up: Hed finished ahead of Biden in one Des Moines precinct. Thats good, the candidate replied, gazing back off.

Getting back onto his iPhone after a few minutes of peace, Yang looks up. Thats not good, he tells the crew. I only got 7 percent in Grinnell. That means were not viable.

With voting underway, Yang and Chapman are glued to their phones. | Tim Alberta/POLITICO

Graumann and Chapman warn their boss not to read too much into any one result, any one report from any one precinct. But its too late. Yang is submerged into the dark world of Election Night Twitter, and soon so are they. The bus rolls along silently toward the Iowa Events Center in downtown Des Moines, the site of Yangs caucus celebration party. Many minutes go by before someone finally chirps up from the front of the bus: Can you turn the volume on?

The smartphone addicts in the back oblige, and we all listen to Wolf Blitzer trying to make sense of the situation on the ground in Iowa. Precincts across the state are well into their voting rituals, but thus far no official results are being reported. Its confusing to everyone, especially the novice politician and first-time presidential contender, who furrows his brow and turns back to his iPhone.

At last, something compelling on the television: Andrew Yang is on the cusp of viability, CNNs Jeff Zeleny reports from a Des Moines caucus site.

The candidate is intrigued, but its time to go. The bus is parked in the staging area behind the convention center and his staff have loaded up their computers and personal affects, preparing for a long night inside. The candidate takes his time ambling down the center aisle toward the front of the bus, giving fist-bumps to each member of his team. He walks down the stairs and inhales the icy February air, breathing heavily as he heads into the bowels of the building.

Directed to a steel-doored freight elevator, Yang steps inside and climbs two stories. His staff leads him to a medium-sized staging room, brightly lit and empty but for a table full of platters: fruits, vegetables, crackers, cheese. Mmm, he says.

Next door is the war room, where Yangs team is setting up a hub of laptops and television monitors. Hell get there eventually. For now, he needs time alone, time to rest and think. Before longan hour, maybe 90 minuteshell need to come into the main ballroom and greet his supporters with a caucus night speech. Whether its declaring victory or conceding defeat, Yang doesnt know. And he doesnt seem terribly concerned. Just tired.

I feel comfortable with a whole range of outcomes, he says, sidling up to the food trays, seeming concerned more with the selection of cheeses than with the returns being processed next door.

I can only laugh. Nothing more human, after 10 hours on the campaign trail, than being hungry. He laughs, too.

I remain hopeful that my relative normalcy is our key competitive advantage, Yang says.

Andrew and Evelyn Yang dance their way onto the stage, Return of the Mack blaring through the ballroom, a few hundred supporters cheering and clapping and dancing along with them.

It has been a most baffling nightfor Yang, for his team, for everyone else here and across Iowa. The states Democratic Party has experienced a staggering failure of its results-reporting system, which means none of the campaigns have any concrete idea of how they performed statewide.

Ive gotta say, Im a numbers guy. Were still waiting on numbers from tonight. Were all looking around, like, Whats the math? Whats the math? Yang joked with his audience.

No math means no winners, no losers, no narratives. Just spinninglots and lots of spinning, each candidate given carte blanche to define the night before the media could do it for them.

Yang is ideally suited to the task. Although its not clear yet, there are indications that his campaign underperformed expectations; and sure enough, within a few days, he'll learn that he won 5 percent of raw votes in the first allocation and just 1 percent of raw votes in the final allocation statewide, the very definition of the bad sixth place he feared on Monday morning.

Not that it matters right now. The #YangGang came to celebrate, and their leader isnt about to let them down. Describing how a field of 20 candidates has withered to seven who will be on the debate stage in New Hampshire on Friday (not counting his pal, Mike Bloomberg, of course), Yang declares that his campaign will move onward to New Hampshire and beyond.

View post:

12 Wild Hours With Andrew Yang - POLITICO

Dwayne Haskins is ‘All For Competition’ To Be The Redskins Starting Quarterback – Redskins.com

Haskins was named the full-time starter in Week 9 of his rookie season and went 2-5 before spraining his ankle against the New York Giants in Week 16, forcing him to miss the season finale against the Dallas Cowboys. His play was sporadic for much of the 2019 season, including two games in which he played in relief for Case Keenum, but it looked like Haskins was starting come into his own before his injury. In his final six quarters, Haskins completed 72% of his passes for 394 yards with four touchdowns and no interceptions.

Still, Rivera wants to see more out the second-year quarterback he inherited from the previous coaching staff. He wants Haskins to "step up and be a leader," which is expected of all great quarterbacks regardless of their experience. The work starts in the offseason, and Rivera wants to see Haskins put in the work now to earn a starting role in September.

"You've got to step up, you've got to be where you need to be, you've got to do things you're supposed to do," Rivera said. "That's all going to start with your offseason, how you prepare yourself, how do you get yourself ready?"

Haskins has already shown his teammates that he wants to be their leader. Many of them were impressed with how he handled himself in his first-career start against the Buffalo Bills and the way he maintained constant communication with every position group to see how he could help them.

"They guy's only 22 years old," Paul Richardson said after the game. "I liked that. You can tell he has really good leadership qualities. He's just finding his voice."

Adrian Peterson said he saw confidence in Haskins' eyes even though his performance in Buffalo wasn't all perfect. He completed 15 of 22 passes for 144 yards, no touchdowns and no interceptions.

However, it isn't the players Haskins needs to impress; it's Rivera, offensive coordinator Scott Turner and the rest of the new coaching staff -- many of whom were coaching with the Panthers when he was coming out of Ohio State. They liked Haskins in their pre-draft interviews with him, but they still want to see him prove he is ready to be the quarterback of the future.

Doug Williams, who was recently promoted to senior vice president of player development, said Haskins was "ascending" before he suffered the injury. He still has a long way to go, Williams added, while also trying to prove something to the new coaches that are "not married to him."

"He has to look at it from that standpoint," Williams said. "It's about what he does, and he has all the ability to do what any coach wants him to do."

Read more here:

Dwayne Haskins is 'All For Competition' To Be The Redskins Starting Quarterback - Redskins.com

How The Iowa Caucuses Work And Why They’re Important | NPR – KCRW

Written by Domenico Montanaro Jan. 30, 2020

Iowa Democrats gather Monday to kick off the nominating contests that will pick the party's presidential nominee the person who will take on President Trump in November.

But how they do it is complicated.

The Iowa caucuses are kind of like neighborhood meetings where people get together and out in the open, with no secret ballot try to win over their friends, family and neighbors to support their preferred candidate.

The caucuses start a months-long process that eventually leads to the selection of 41 delegates, who will vote for a candidate at the party's national convention. It's a complex, unique and exhausting process that might go a little differently if done in a place that was temperamentally unlike Iowa.

The caucuses quadrennially come under fire for being overwhelmingly white and not representative of the country, let alone the Democratic Party. But the candidates have spent millions there and over the past 40 years, and it has been very predictive of who becomes the Democratic nominee.

Let's break down how all this works.

What time do the caucuses take place?

They begin at 7 p.m. CT (8 p.m. ET) and are expected to last roughly an hour. The Iowa Democratic Party is trying to expedite the process this year with just two rounds of caucusing, so they may very well be wrapped up in less than an hour.

Who can vote?

The caucuses are "open." In other words, any registered voter in the state can participate.

But for as much attention as the caucuses get, not many Iowans actually participate. In 2016, for example, fewer than 16% of people eligible to vote actually caucused.

And that was the second-highest turnout in the history of the Iowa Democratic caucuses, at more than 171,000 people. The record was 239,000 in 2008.

For what it's worth, given the number of candidates this year, the Iowa Democratic Party is anticipating a record-breaking turnout.

Where do the caucuses happen?

They happen all around the state's 99 counties at 1,678 precinct locations, including in people's homes, public libraries and school gymnasiums.

How will we know who wins?

This year will be extraconfusing, because the state party will release three different results:

SDEs are the estimated number of delegates each candidate would get to the congressional district and state conventions.

Various campaigns will use the potentially differing results to their advantage, but delegates are the name of the game in Iowa. That's why the campaigns have built up operations with hundreds of staffers and volunteers in the state, to show their grassroots support and campaign strength of organization.

So while the first two results will be useful to inform analyses, the "winner" will be who gets the most SDEs.

How are the delegates selected?

The caucusgoers from the 1,678 precincts determine 11,402 delegates, who will go to county conventions on March 21.

They are then filtered to a smaller universe of delegates who go to the congressional district conventions on April 25, the state convention on June 13 and then, finally, just 41 delegates who get to go to the national convention July 13-16 in Milwaukee.

To hold onto delegates, campaigns have to try to keep activists and staffers at each of these steps because they are not bound to their candidates, and often the results can be very different from the caucus night results.

For example, on the Republican side in 2012, Ron Paul's band of activists gamed the system, stuck around for each step, wound up with the most delegates out of Iowa in the end (despite losing on caucus night), and took over the Iowa GOP.

How do the caucuses themselves work?

There are two rounds of caucusing, and candidates need to get at least 15% of the assembled crowd in order to receive any delegates.

If a candidate does not get 15%, they get no delegates, and their voters can re-sort and go to their second choice in the next and final round.

Once the re-sorting is finished, the number of people in each candidate's corner is tallied and submitted using a complicated worksheet to figure out the number of delegates that would be assigned.

So if a candidate doesn't get 15% in the first round, he or she is eliminated?

Pretty much. That's why candidates who have been polling far below that threshold have little chance of picking up any delegates.

It's also worth noting that there is a 15% threshold to pick up delegates in every Democratic nominating contest in every state. This is a longstanding Democratic National Committee rule to avoid lots of candidates splitting the vote and creating brokered conventions.

Are there any exceptions?

There is one caveat in Iowa. Someone who doesn't get enough support in the first round has a chance to move into the final round if they can persuade enough supporters of other nonviable candidates to lend them their votes for the second round.

Here's an example: Say 100 people caucus, and in the first alignment, 25 go for Bernie Sanders, 22 for Joe Biden, 17 for Pete Buttigieg, 14 for Elizabeth Warren, 10 for Amy Klobuchar, nine for Andrew Yang and three for Tom Steyer.

Sanders', Biden's and Buttigieg's support is locked in. Their numbers can't decline in the next round. If Warren's team convinces one Klobuchar, Yang or Steyer first-round supporter to go with her, she would be viable and would get some delegates. In theory, if Warren's supporters persuaded, say, all of Klobuchar's, Yang's and Steyer's backers to go with her, Warren would actually win the most delegates from the caucus site. The odds of that are not very good, but the "zombie candidate" is, in theory, possible.

Is there any check on the number of caucusgoers tallied?

Yes. For the first time this year, caucusgoers will write down who they are supporting so there will be paper backups, in case recounts are necessary.

There was no way to do a recount in previous years, and that became a problem in some caucus locations in 2016 when at least a dozen precincts were decided by coin flip between Sanders and Hillary Clinton.

What about "superdelegates"?

There are eight unpledged delegates in Iowa who bypass this whole process and go straight to the national convention. They are officially called "automatic delegates" now.

They used to be colloquially called "superdelegates." That was never their official name, but the media would call them that and members of the DNC would use it, too, because these current and former party leaders' and elected officials' "super" power used to be that they were able to vote however they wanted at the convention.

They could tip the scales of a campaign for their preferred candidate, although most went with the direction the political wind was blowing and backed the candidate ahead in the delegate race.

Still, as a result of the 2016 election, when so many came out early for Clinton, the party listened to the protests of the Sanders campaign and supporters and stripped superdelegates of their ability to vote on the first ballot at the national convention (unless there is already an overwhelming majority of delegates for one candidate).

Does Iowa have a big number of delegates at stake?

Not really. Iowa only has 41 pledged delegates to the national convention, and as noted, it takes months to pick them. Those 41 delegates account for just 1% of all pledged delegates. (A candidate needs at least 1,991 delegates to become the nominee.)

Iowa and New Hampshire combined have just 2% of the delegates, and the first four states, including Nevada and South Carolina, have just 5%.

Then why are they so important?

The real impact of these early contests is momentum who does well, who doesn't and who beats expectations will determine who continues to see a viable path for themselves to the nomination.

And Iowa in particular is important for the Democratic nomination. The last seven of nine people who have won Iowa have gone on to be the nominee, including the last four.

It's all why despite the caucuses being more than 90% white as of two weeks ago, the candidates had spent $50 million on ads in Iowa alone.

See the original post:

How The Iowa Caucuses Work And Why They're Important | NPR - KCRW