Cheltenham Town, leaders of Britain’s National League, won their match against the Tranmere Rovers this weekend, 1-0. But not before executing what amounts to a commentary on all our best laid plans.
Cheltenham Town, leaders of Britain’s National League, won their match against the Tranmere Rovers this weekend, 1-0. But not before executing what amounts to a commentary on all our best laid plans.
The ride-sharing company has been in extended damage control mode. Its reputation has taken a steady beating in recent months for workplace harassment and corporate espionage charges, not to mention the apparent (and potentially lethal) failure of its self-driving vehicles. But the company’s diversity report, released Tuesday, does little to dispel the image of the company as a white male–dominated bro-zone. It isn’t a surprise that a company whose CEO once called it “Boob’er” (because it helped him get dates) would not be able to transform its culture overnight. Still, the numbers illuminate how pervasive its diversity problem is.
Before we can even get to the numbers, the report foreshadows how its efforts might go south. The names of the “employee resource groups” tasked with addressing diversity concerns appear to burden the very people most affected by Uber’s lack of diversity. UberHUE (for black diversity and inclusion), Los Ubers (for Latino and Hispanic employees), UberABLE (for employees with disabilities)—you get the picture. If this is the beginning of efforts to transform the company culture, then perhaps these names should also be sent to the chopping block.
Now for the numbers: Uber’s global tech leadership is nearly 90 percent male, and in the U.S. it is 75 percent white. It isn’t much better across the board, as men hold a staggering 85 percent of tech jobs all over the world; in the U.S., just 1 percent of its tech workforce identified as black and 2 percent as Hispanic. Men hold more than two-thirds of the jobs in the U.S. workforce alone.
True to its macho roots, the company’s new human resources officer spun the company’s travails to The New York Times in blindingly aggressive terms: “Every strength, in excess, is a weakness.” There was no word, of course, on the diversity numbers of Uber’s massive driver fleet, which the company does not count as its employees.
The Appalachian Regional Commission (ARC) announced today that it has invested a further $2.4 million to support economic diversification projects in its service area. According to an official press release, ARC has now invested $75.5 million to help the region transition from a coal-dominated mono-economy to a more robust economic environment.
ARC could do more if it was properly funded. From the press release:
Since March 2016, when ARC first announced funding availability through the POWER Initiative, the Commission has received more than $280 million in funding requests for ideas to revitalize Appalachia’s economy. With funds made available to date, the Commission has been able to fund only one-quarter of these proposals.
These funds help local diversification projects, often started by grassroots environmental activists determined to help their communities survive the death of coal. And that death is inevitable, despite Trump’s executive order today, which he claims will bring coal jobs back.
The order won’t save coal. The industry has been in decline since World War II due to a combination of factors that include competition from other energy industries and automation. The latter problem isn’t likely to disappear; in fact, it’s probably going to get worse. Coal is reaching the end of its poisonous life, and Trump’s so-called “Energy Independence” order effectively sentences Appalachia to more poverty.
It also sentences the region to more environmental degradation: The order rolls back environmental regulations that banned the development of coal mines on public land.
As Virginia Senator Mark Warner tweeted earlier this afternoon, there is another way for Trump to help miners:
If miners are that important to him and to the GOP, they’d get behind the Act—and fund ARC instead of threatening to kill it. But Trump doesn’t care about miners, and neither does the GOP. They care about coal companies, they care about profit, and they care about using these people as political props. The Energy Independence order will destroy the communities ARC is trying to save.
Fox News host Bill O’Reilly mocked the California congresswoman on Tuesday during a Fox & Friends segment about remarks she had made against President Donald Trump on the House floor. As footage showed Waters talking earnestly about the dangers Trump poses to democracy, O’Reilly mugged for the camera in a split-screen, patronizingly mouthing “that’s right” and “right on.” He pumped his fist and smiled smugly. Then, when the clip ended, O’Reilly declared, “I didn’t hear a word she said. I was looking at the James Brown wig.”
The “wig,” of course, is Waters’s hair. Co-host Ainsley Earhardt challenged O’Reilly for “going after a woman’s looks,” but it only got worse from there.
“I love James Brown,” O’Reilly said, “but it’s the same hair James Brown—the godfather of soul—had. Whatever it is I just couldn’t get by it.”
Perhaps feeling defensive, he then went on a condescending riff about how Waters is “a sincere individual—whatever she says she believes. She’s not a phony, and that’s old school. We’re giving Maxine a break here.”
Hardly. O’Reilly may have had playful intent—he professed to love Waters before the segment ended—but it’s totally disrespectful. (Update: O’Reilly has reportedly apologized.)
This isn’t the first time Fox News has used racism to mock Waters. In 2012, The Five co-host Eric Bolling said this about her: “Congresswoman, you saw what happened to Whitney Houston. Step away from the crack pipe. Step away from the Xanax.”
At the White House press briefing today, Sean Spicer delivered what was clearly a rehearsed quip to respond to questions about possible collusion between the Trump campaign and the Russian government. “If the president puts Russian salad dressing on his salad tonight, somehow that’s a Russian connection,” Spicer asserted.
His joke fell flat for a variety of reasons. First, it’s hard to imagine Donald Trump eating salad, given his generally unhealthy diet. Second, in trying to underscore the point, he became belligerent and rude to reporter April Ryan of American Urban Radio Networks. “Report the facts!” Spicer commanded. “I’m sorry that disgusts you. You’re shaking your head.” While Spicer tried to joke it off, it’s almost as if this whole Russia story is hitting close to home.
The whole reason President Donald Trump is releasing a wide-ranging executive order today to dismantle a bunch of America’s climate change policies is because he says it will be good for the economy. On a call with reporters Monday night to discuss the executive order, one unnamed senior White House official said Trump is “not going to pursue climate or environmental policies that put the U.S. economy at risk.”
But when this official was pressed with the fact that climate change poses grave economic risks of its own, he froze. “I’m not familiar with what you’re talking about,” he said, challenging the reporter to show him the research. Here’s the full exchange:
REPORTER: What about all the scientists who are saying climate change is going to have adverse economic consequences—things like rising sea levels, more hazardous hurricanes—how do you address those economic arguments?
SENIOR ADMINISTRATION OFFICIAL: Again, you’ll have to talk to those scientists. Maybe I can talk to you afterward. I’m not familiar with what you’re talking about. But again, the President’s policy is very clear about addressing—making sure we’re addressing the economy, providing people with jobs, and we’re making sure that EPA is sticking to its core mission.
REPORTER: Are you saying you’re not aware that scientists are concerned about rising sea levels or more violent storms might impact the economy—
SENIOR ADMINISTRATION OFFICIAL: I would want to see the research. Sure, that would be good. Show it to me.
Think about this for a second. The Trump administration is unraveling the best chance we have at slowing human-caused climate change, solely because he says it will improve the economy. But Trump’s advisers have apparently not considered how climate change’s impacts on agricultural productivity, human health, and property value will hurt the economy. Hell, they’re not even “familiar” with the idea that it might.
This isn’t just some environmental talking point: Huge public companies regularly file risk disclosures saying climate change threatens their bottoms lines. Big insurance companies like Allianz, Liberty Mutual, and SwissRe warn the government must prepare for climate-fueled extreme weather events to avoid passing costs on to them. In the 2014 report “Risky Business,” bigwigs like billionaire Michael Bloomberg and former Goldman Sachs CEO Henry Paulson warn of dire economic consequences if warming isn’t tackled. By 2050, it says $106 billion worth of coastal property could sink below sea level, while crop yields could be reduced by up to 70 percent in some states because of extreme heat.
For a presidential administration that is basing its climate policy on the idea that it’s good for the American economy, these seem like ridiculous things to not be “familiar with.”
On Friday, Paul Ryan said that Obamacare was “the law of the land.” Donald Trump indicated that he was going to move on to tax reform and that health care would be shelved. But on Tuesday—four days after the American Health Care Act was spared a humiliating, resounding “no” vote in the House at the last minute—there are signs that Obamacare repeal is still on the table.
Members of the Freedom Caucus spent the weekend saying that they weren’t ready to move on. On Tuesday, Congressman Mo Brooks, a member of the Freedom Caucus—the group that Trump blamed for blowing the Obamacare repeal bill—said he was planning on filing a discharge petition to force a vote on full repeal of Obamacare, an extraordinary move from a member of a majority party in Congress.
But Brooks may not need to. Later Tuesday morning, The New York Times reported that the White House is still pushing Obamacare repeal: “House Republican leaders and the White House, under extreme pressure from conservative activists, have restarted negotiations on legislation to repeal the Affordable Care Act, with House leaders declaring that Democrats were celebrating the law’s survival prematurely.” Vice President Pence is leading talks.
It’s too early to tell how seriously to take this report. Congressional Republicans and the White House are indeed under an enormous amount of pressure from conservative groups who believe that they reneged on a promise to repeal Obamacare. (Which they did!) But they were under that pressure when the bill fell apart as well. The activist groups that are pushing for full repeal, as the events of the last month have shown, also appear to be at odds with the rest of the country—there’s no indication whatsoever that a different repeal bill would fare any better in opinion polling.
Republicans face an existential problem when dealing with health care: To please extremists they alienate many so-called moderates; while Trump remains popular with Republicans, his overall unpopularity weakens his ability to hold the congressional coalition together. That calculus means that for a bill to pass either chamber of Congress, let alone both, it would probably require Democratic support, which is simply not going to happen while Donald Trump occupies the White House.
Trump is also signaling that he wants to move on to infrastructure and tax reform—and to do both simultaneously. If true, he clearly doesn’t have the bandwith to do health care as well. And that leads to what is probably the inevitable conclusion here: The GOP is keeping the door open on health care to have something to run on in 2018, or at least to minimize the damage it took from the disastrous attempt to repeal Obamacare.
Citing executive communication privilege, officials from the Trump administration tried to prevent former acting Attorney General Sally Yates from testifying before the House Intelligence Committee about connections between the Trump campaign and Russia, according to the Washington Post. Yates, who informed the White House that former National Security Adviser Michael Flynn had lied to the press and Mike Pence about the nature of his conversations with the Russian ambassador during the transition, was fired in February after declining to defend the Trump administration’s travel ban.
The Post received letters sent by Yates’s attorney to the Department of Justice, which describe the Department of Justice’s position:
The Department of Justice has advised that it believes there are further constraints on the testimony Ms. Yates may provide at the [House intelligence committee] hearing. Generally, we understand that the department takes the position that all information Ms. Yates received or actions she took in her capacity as Deputy Attorney General and acting Attorney General are client confidences that she may not disclose absent written consent of the department.
We believe that the department’s position in this regard is overbroad, incorrect, and inconsistent with the department’s historical approach to the congressional testimony of current and former officials. In particular, we believe that Ms. Yates should not be obligated to refuse to provide non-classified facts about the department’s notification to the White House of concerns about the conduct of a senior official. Requiring Ms. Yates to refuse to provide such information is particularly untenable given that multiple senior administration officials have publicly described the same events.’
It’s clear that the White House is trying to use executive privilege to block Yates from saying anything at all about her time as acting attorney general—a time in which she informed Trump that his very own national security adviser had lied to the administration about his contacts with an official representing a foreign government. Yates apparently informed the House Intelligence Committee on Friday that she intended to present it with information regarding Michael Flynn. Devin Nunes, the committee’s chair who is in hot water himself for being shady as hell, canceled the hearing the next day.
At the very least, this is the latest in a long line of examples of the Trump administration appearing to cover up ties between the Trump campaign and Russia. It’s still unclear if it is merely trying to cover up the appearance of complicity and wrongdoing, or if there’s something more serious going on.
The administration’s willingness to use executive privilege here is notable insofar as it suggests that it is taking the Russia-Trump story extremely seriously and wants to do everything it can to block it. This is, of course, what administrations do. But given the scope of this story—which now involves Donald Trump, Michael Flynn, Devin Nunes, Jeff Sessions, and Jared Kushner (and that’s only people who served in the administration!)—it’s increasingly clear that an independent commission is necessary. What’s ironic is that the Trump administration’s behavior only makes that commission more likely.
Trump treated the tweeting public to a rare late-night barrage on Monday evening. Unsurprisingly, his recent troubles—the Russia scandal, which has been spinning out of control for weeks now, and the disastrous attempt at repealing and replacing Obamacare—were at the forefront of his mind. Trump’s tweets about Obamacare were predictable: He blamed the Freedom Caucus yet again for killing the bill, and he claimed, as he did a few minutes after pulling the bill, that Obamacare is collapsing (it isn’t). His tweets about Russia were stranger—and they continued the next morning.
So what’s going on here? Trump starts by rehashing the very, very old story of John Podesta, the Clinton Foundation, and the Russian uranium deal—a story that helped kick off the right’s anti-Clinton war back in 2015 and that served as a kind of grace note to Clinton’s eventual defeat in the 2016 election. That story emerged out of the book Clinton Cash, which was written by Peter Schweizer, the head of the Steve Bannon–funded the Government Accountability Institute. In many ways, the uranium story and Clinton Cash set the pattern for the attacks that Bannon and Trump would use against the Clintons: that they were part of a corrupt global elite that was undermining America. When Wikileaks released John Podesta’s emails in the summer of 2016, the organization would once again spotlight the Russian uranium story.
But that is a very old story at this point. Trump is also spotlighting a newer dubious story about the Clinton campaign and Russia. A number of rightwing sources have boosted a Daily Caller story that alleges that Podesta “may have violated federal law by failing to disclose the receipt of 75,000 shares of stock from a Kremlin-financed company when he joined the Obama White House in 2014.” This story relies on—you guessed it—Wikileaks emails and the Government Accountability Institute.
Trump is doing what he’s done for the last several years: He is signal-boosting dubious stories from right-wing outlets to muddy a damaging narrative. But this is not a particularly good time for Trump to be jumping up and down telling people to look at reporting based on Wikileaks investigations. He’s also reminding us that he is the president—not Hillary Clinton, not John Podesta, neither of whom have been accused of receiving help from the Russians in an election that they lost.
All Trump is doing is spotlighting his own, well-documented connections with the Russians. And he’s doing so at a time when there’s a news vacuum, following his health care fiasco. The Russia story already seems poised to rush into that vacuum—and Donald Trump is helping.
His bizarre press conference last week raised a host of questions: Why did the chair of the House Intelligence Committee rush to the White House to claim that the government had “incidentally” collected some of the Trump team’s communications in 2016? Why did he insist that these communications had nothing to do with the Trump team’s suspected ties to Russia, or Trump’s claim that he had been “wiretapped” by the Obama administration? Why did Nunes keep other members of the House Intelligence Committee in the dark? Why wouldn’t Nunes identify his source, especially after spending much of Monday haranguing FBI Director James Comey and NSA Director Mike Rogers about anonymous sources leaking to the press? And what motivated him to hold the press conference, which damaged his already broken credibility as an impartial investigator and further emboldened those calling for an independent probe?
Over the weekend, more information emerged about the series of events that culminated in Nunes’s press conference. Nunes reportedly made a secret trip to the White House the evening before the press conference—the suspicion was that he went there to meet his source. On Monday, he confirmed that he went there but claimed he only did so “in order to have proximity to a secure location where he could view the information provided by the source.” He told Bloomberg he went to the White House because it was convenient: “We don’t have networked access to these kinds of reports in Congress,” Nunes said. But this is not true: As Jake Sherman reported on MSNBC today, there are secure facilities in the Capitol.
Nunes is saying that the optics are bad, and that is all there is to the story. Certainly, secretly visiting the White House while investigating the White House doesn’t look very good! Whatever the intention of his meeting or of the subsequent press conference, he’s bungled this situation. On Monday, Chuck Schumer upped the pressure and called on Paul Ryan to replace Nunes as chairman of the House Intelligence Committee—a new tactic and an escalation of previous calls for an independent commission.
Speaking at the White House on Monday, the attorney general asserted that “when cities and states refuse to help enforce immigration laws our nation is less safe,” while announcing that the federal government will sever grant money to sanctuary cities.
In fact, Tom K. Wong, a political science professor at the University of California at San Diego, came to the exact opposite conclusion in a study published by the Center for American Progress in January:
Crime is statistically significantly lower in sanctuary counties compared to nonsanctuary counties. Moreover, economies are stronger in sanctuary counties—from higher median household income, less poverty, and less reliance on public assistance to higher labor force participation, higher employment-to-population ratios, and lower unemployment.
Moreover, Wong points out, “local law enforcement officials have argued against assisting federal immigration enforcement agencies such as ICE. Assisting in federal immigration enforcement efforts can drive a wedge between local law enforcement officials and the communities they serve, which undermines public safety.”
It’s not just Wong who’s made these findings either. “No Evidence Sanctuary Cities ‘Breed Crime’,” Factcheck.org at the University of Pennsylvania concluded in a comprehensive post last month. The website cited a separate study from the University of California, Riverside, and Highline College, which also noted that the well-established body of research showing immigrants don’t commit crimes at higher rates than non-immigrants.
Of course, none of these studies suggest that becoming a sanctuary city makes a city safer. But they make it abundantly clear that Sessions’s claim that sanctuary cities make America less safe is bogus.