Great Barrier Reef outlook now 'very poor', Australian government review says
From The Guardian
Five-yearly report says climate change is escalating the threat and window of opportunity for action is now
The outlook for the Great Barrier Reef has deteriorated from poor to very poor according to an exhaustive government report that warns the window of opportunity to improve the natural wonder’s future “is now”.
The Great Barrier Reef Marine Park Authority’s outlook report, published every five years, finds coral reefs have declined to a very poor condition and there is widespread habitat loss and degradation affecting fish, turtles and seabirds.
It warns the plight of the reef will not improve unless there is urgent national and global action to address the climate crisis, which it described as its greatest threat.
The report says rising sea temperatures and extreme events linked to climate change, such as the marine heatwaves that caused mass coral bleaching in the northern two-thirds of the reef in 2016 and 2017, are the most immediate risks.
Other major threats include farming pollution, coastal development and human use, such as illegal fishing. The report says water quality is improving too slowly and continues to affect many inshore areas, largely due to farming practices that had not improved rapidly enough.
“Without additional local, national and global action on the greatest threats, the overall outlook for the Great Barrier Reef’s ecosystem will remain very poor, with continuing consequences for its heritage values also,” the report says.
“The window of opportunity to improve the reef’s long-term future is now.”
The authority’s chief executive, Josh Thomas, said the reef was widely recognized as one of the best managed marine protected areas in the world and its world heritage values remained intact, but it was at a critical point in its history.
“While the reef is already experiencing the impacts of climate change, its future is one we can change – and are committed to changing,” he said.
The report maps the health of the reef, which it says has declined from what was described as a crossroads in 2009 to “under pressure” in 2014 to being a “changed and less resilient reef” in 2019.
It says not all areas of the reef have been equally affected and the challenge to restore the reef is big, but not insurmountable. It would require action to effectively address the climate crisis and effective implementation of the government’s 2050 reef plan.
The environment minister, Sussan Ley, said the reef had been hit over the past five years by two mass coral bleachings, several cyclones, an ongoing crown-of-thorns starfish outbreak and the impacts of climate change. She said the “very poor” outlook was something “we can change and are committed to changing”.
Other key findings of the report include that: seagrass meadows are in poor condition; some species populations are being substantially affected by habitat loss and degradation; the size of the reef is becoming a less effective buffer to widespread and cumulative impacts; reef-dependent economies need to prepare for the impacts of a less diverse ecosystem caused by rising ocean temperatures.
The outlook report was one of two major reports published about the reef on Friday. A separate report card on the condition of inshore reefs released by the federal and state governments rated their condition in 2017-18 as a “D”, largely due to poor water quality driven by land management practices including farming.
The reports come amid a campaign by farmers in Queensland against state government plans to tighten regulations on agricultural run-off that flows into reef catchments. Information in the report will form part of the evidence considered by the Unesco world heritage committee when it examines the reef’s health and status next year.
Australia successfully campaigned in 2015 for the reef’s world heritage listing not to be considered in danger. The Guardian reported this week that the government was pushing Unesco to resolve how it would deal with climate impacts on world heritage properties, including the Great Barrier Reef.
Richard Leck, from WWF-Australia, said the outlook report was a sombre reminder of the challenges facing the reef. He said solutions were available and must be included in a revamped Reef 2050 plan due from the federal and state governments next year.
He said the plan must take climate change seriously and Queensland needed to pass regulations to reduce farm runoff.
“The science is irrefutable. The time for delay is over,” he said.
Jon Brodie, a professorial fellow at James Cook University in Townsville, said the report showed that, while there were some small areas of progress, Australia was failing the reef.
“Overall, there is very little good to report whatsoever,” he said.
August 30, 2019
Worried about hurricane
Democratic congressman: Trump worried about hurricane hitting Florida because it's 'not an island full of people of color'
By Devan Cole
A Democratic House member said Thursday that President Donald Trump's change in tone on Hurricane Dorian after it was announced that the storm will make landfall in Florida, skirting Puerto Rico, is because the state "is not an island full of people of color."
"Well, part of it is that Florida could be a swing state in 2020. And part of it is Florida is not an island full of people of color. We have seen him again and again pick on anywhere color is involved," Rep. Don Beyer of Virginia told CNN's Wolf Blitzer on "The Situation Room" when asked about Trump's change in tone.
The comments came several hours after Trump appeared to signal a significant shift in his concern over the storm, which was previously projected to heavily impact the US territory of Puerto Rico. Earlier this week, as the island's residents prepared for the hurricane -- which then largely spared the island -- Trump harshly criticized the territory's government and praised himself.
On Thursday, following news that officials expect Dorian to make landfall in Florida, the President announced that he was canceling a scheduled trip to Poland to deal with the storm, which is expected to reach the state as a Category 4 hurricane on Labor Day.
"But I don't really criticize (Trump for) sticking up and trying to modify the impacts of the hurricane on Florida. I just wish that he would be evenhanded when it comes to the Virgin Islands or Puerto Rico," Beyer said.
The congressman added that he agrees with Trump's decision to cancel his trip to Poland and that he hopes the President doesn't attack political leaders in Southern states like he has officials in Puerto Rico.
In a tweet on Wednesday, Trump wrote: "Puerto Rico is one of the most corrupt places on earth. Their political system is broken and their politicians are either Incompetent or Corrupt. Congress approved Billions of Dollars last time, more than anyplace else has ever gotten, and it is sent to Crooked Pols. No good!" he wrote, adding: "And by the way, I'm the best thing that's ever happened to Puerto Rico!"
On Thursday, the President said it was "very important" for him to be in the US while Hurricane Dorian made landfall and that the storm "looks like it could be a very, very big one indeed." Trump added that Vice President Mike Pence would go to Poland in his place.
By Devan Cole
A Democratic House member said Thursday that President Donald Trump's change in tone on Hurricane Dorian after it was announced that the storm will make landfall in Florida, skirting Puerto Rico, is because the state "is not an island full of people of color."
"Well, part of it is that Florida could be a swing state in 2020. And part of it is Florida is not an island full of people of color. We have seen him again and again pick on anywhere color is involved," Rep. Don Beyer of Virginia told CNN's Wolf Blitzer on "The Situation Room" when asked about Trump's change in tone.
The comments came several hours after Trump appeared to signal a significant shift in his concern over the storm, which was previously projected to heavily impact the US territory of Puerto Rico. Earlier this week, as the island's residents prepared for the hurricane -- which then largely spared the island -- Trump harshly criticized the territory's government and praised himself.
On Thursday, following news that officials expect Dorian to make landfall in Florida, the President announced that he was canceling a scheduled trip to Poland to deal with the storm, which is expected to reach the state as a Category 4 hurricane on Labor Day.
"But I don't really criticize (Trump for) sticking up and trying to modify the impacts of the hurricane on Florida. I just wish that he would be evenhanded when it comes to the Virgin Islands or Puerto Rico," Beyer said.
The congressman added that he agrees with Trump's decision to cancel his trip to Poland and that he hopes the President doesn't attack political leaders in Southern states like he has officials in Puerto Rico.
In a tweet on Wednesday, Trump wrote: "Puerto Rico is one of the most corrupt places on earth. Their political system is broken and their politicians are either Incompetent or Corrupt. Congress approved Billions of Dollars last time, more than anyplace else has ever gotten, and it is sent to Crooked Pols. No good!" he wrote, adding: "And by the way, I'm the best thing that's ever happened to Puerto Rico!"
On Thursday, the President said it was "very important" for him to be in the US while Hurricane Dorian made landfall and that the storm "looks like it could be a very, very big one indeed." Trump added that Vice President Mike Pence would go to Poland in his place.
Brain Waves
Scientists Just Detected Brain Waves in Mini Lab-Grown Brains
It’s unlikely these brains have consciousness, but the research raises ethical concerns.
JACKIE FLYNN MOGENSEN
For the first time, scientists have detected brain waves similar to those of a pre-term baby in miniature, lab-grown brains.
The results, published Thursday in the journal Cell Stem Cell, have big implications for the medical field. Access to human brains are a consistent barrier to studying conditions like Alzheimer’s, autism, or schizophrenia; for obvious reasons, infant brains are even more difficult to obtain. So models that are grown from stem cells like these mini-brains (known to scientists as “cortical organoids”) may offer a solution.
“It is a model,” Alysson Muotri, a professor in the School of Medicine and director of the Stem Cell Program at UC-San Diego, and an author on the study, tells Mother Jones. “Since we cannot see, we cannot measure [activity in an embryo’s brain], we have to rely on this model.” For example, it may help scientists understand the effects of nicotine, pollution, or pesticides on infants’ development, he says.
It’s not the first time scientists have grown miniature brains in the lab. Researchers have been growing brain tissue for about a decade, according to Muotri. But what’s new is that these mini-brains are the first to show human-like brain activity. “That’s the big excitement about the study,” says Nita Farahany, an ethicist and legal scholar and a professor at Duke University School of Law. “[It] is showing that these organoids have functional activity in the brain that is developing over time and changing over time and becoming more organized over time.” The results would suggest, she says, the possibility for organoids to become “even more organized over time to look like what our brain activity looks like.”
To get these unprecedented results, Muotri and his colleagues grew hundreds of brain organoids over 10 months, starting from single stem cells. The stem cells multiplied over several weeks and eventually self-assembled into tissues, about the size of a pea, which spontaneously developed infant-like brain waves. When a computer compared the organoids’ brain waves to pre-term infants’ brain waves, it couldn’t differentiate between the two, suggesting that the organoids’ development is very similar to that of an infant.
The mini-brains can be kept alive for years, Muotri says, but by about 10 months, the brains’ activity starts to plateau. In other words, these organoids will not grow into fully-functioning brains. But that may not be as far away as you’d think: Muotri’s team plans to take the project further by working to grow organoids that model a mature human brain. They also hope to grow organoids using stem cells from people with autism and epilepsy, to see if those develop differently.
But the research raises some clear ethical concerns. It’s unlikely that these organoids have consciousness or self-awareness as you or I do, but as Farahany pointed out in 2018 letter in Nature, there really isn’t a way to reliably measure consciousness in brain organoids; the mini-brains can’t say whether they are self-aware or not. “Is it even possible to assess the sentient capabilities of a brain surrogate?” she and her co-authors ask. “What should researchers measure? If appropriate metrics can be developed, how do investigators decide which capabilities are morally concerning?”
If pre-term babies have some level of moral status, she says, perhaps these mini-brains should too. For instance, imagine you want to see if it’s possible to cause pain in an organoid, she says. “In the same way that with a preterm infant, you wouldn’t just shock it with pain—you’d give anesthetics or things like that.”
Muotri agrees. If they can prove these organoids have “even a residual embryonic signal of any conscious activity,” he says, it would be important to discuss the tissues’ moral status and develop regulations around it, similar to the regulations around animal research. “Animals have consciousness,” he says. “And we can use them for research, but there are regulations. I think brain organoids might go down the same pathway.”
On the flip side, says Farahany, “There is an ethical imperative that this research go forward” because it may help treat disease and alleviate human suffering. “Ethicists have as much of a duty as the scientists to be working in partnership together to define what the next step should be.”
It’s unlikely these brains have consciousness, but the research raises ethical concerns.
JACKIE FLYNN MOGENSEN
For the first time, scientists have detected brain waves similar to those of a pre-term baby in miniature, lab-grown brains.
The results, published Thursday in the journal Cell Stem Cell, have big implications for the medical field. Access to human brains are a consistent barrier to studying conditions like Alzheimer’s, autism, or schizophrenia; for obvious reasons, infant brains are even more difficult to obtain. So models that are grown from stem cells like these mini-brains (known to scientists as “cortical organoids”) may offer a solution.
“It is a model,” Alysson Muotri, a professor in the School of Medicine and director of the Stem Cell Program at UC-San Diego, and an author on the study, tells Mother Jones. “Since we cannot see, we cannot measure [activity in an embryo’s brain], we have to rely on this model.” For example, it may help scientists understand the effects of nicotine, pollution, or pesticides on infants’ development, he says.
It’s not the first time scientists have grown miniature brains in the lab. Researchers have been growing brain tissue for about a decade, according to Muotri. But what’s new is that these mini-brains are the first to show human-like brain activity. “That’s the big excitement about the study,” says Nita Farahany, an ethicist and legal scholar and a professor at Duke University School of Law. “[It] is showing that these organoids have functional activity in the brain that is developing over time and changing over time and becoming more organized over time.” The results would suggest, she says, the possibility for organoids to become “even more organized over time to look like what our brain activity looks like.”
To get these unprecedented results, Muotri and his colleagues grew hundreds of brain organoids over 10 months, starting from single stem cells. The stem cells multiplied over several weeks and eventually self-assembled into tissues, about the size of a pea, which spontaneously developed infant-like brain waves. When a computer compared the organoids’ brain waves to pre-term infants’ brain waves, it couldn’t differentiate between the two, suggesting that the organoids’ development is very similar to that of an infant.
The mini-brains can be kept alive for years, Muotri says, but by about 10 months, the brains’ activity starts to plateau. In other words, these organoids will not grow into fully-functioning brains. But that may not be as far away as you’d think: Muotri’s team plans to take the project further by working to grow organoids that model a mature human brain. They also hope to grow organoids using stem cells from people with autism and epilepsy, to see if those develop differently.
But the research raises some clear ethical concerns. It’s unlikely that these organoids have consciousness or self-awareness as you or I do, but as Farahany pointed out in 2018 letter in Nature, there really isn’t a way to reliably measure consciousness in brain organoids; the mini-brains can’t say whether they are self-aware or not. “Is it even possible to assess the sentient capabilities of a brain surrogate?” she and her co-authors ask. “What should researchers measure? If appropriate metrics can be developed, how do investigators decide which capabilities are morally concerning?”
If pre-term babies have some level of moral status, she says, perhaps these mini-brains should too. For instance, imagine you want to see if it’s possible to cause pain in an organoid, she says. “In the same way that with a preterm infant, you wouldn’t just shock it with pain—you’d give anesthetics or things like that.”
Muotri agrees. If they can prove these organoids have “even a residual embryonic signal of any conscious activity,” he says, it would be important to discuss the tissues’ moral status and develop regulations around it, similar to the regulations around animal research. “Animals have consciousness,” he says. “And we can use them for research, but there are regulations. I think brain organoids might go down the same pathway.”
On the flip side, says Farahany, “There is an ethical imperative that this research go forward” because it may help treat disease and alleviate human suffering. “Ethicists have as much of a duty as the scientists to be working in partnership together to define what the next step should be.”
Rebukes for slamming network
Fox News' Neil Cavuto rebukes Trump for slamming network
Allyson Chiu
Fox News host Neil Cavuto delivered a scorching rebuke on Thursday to President Donald Trump's recent criticism that the cable network "isn't working for us anymore," and called out his tenuous relationship with the media.
"Mr. President, we don't work for you. I don't work for you," Cavuto said in the closing monologue of "Your World with Neil Cavuto." "My job is to cover you, not fawn over you or rip you. Just report on you."
The host later added: "It is called being fair and balanced, Mr. President. Yet it is fair to say you're not a fan when that balance includes stuff you don't like to hear or facts you don't like to have questioned."
Cavuto's pointed comments come on the heels of Trump's latest broadside against Fox News. Despite the network's reputation for favorable coverage of the president and his administration, with critics going so far as to describe it as "state TV," Fox News has increasingly become a target of Trump's rage. The president slammed the network in tweets this week for "heavily promoting the Democrats," adding, "We have to start looking for a new News Outlet. Fox isn't working for us anymore!" The tirade appeared to be sparked by Fox News anchor Sandra Smith interviewing Xochitl Hinojosa, the communications director for the Democratic National Committee, and soon prompted criticism from a handful of people associated with the network.
On Thursday, Cavuto joined in, addressing Trump directly in a roughly four-minute segment that has since been viewed more than 170,000 times across Twitter and YouTube.
Cavuto, who has slammed Trump on his show before, kicked off his monologue by playing a clip of the president calling into a Fox News Radio program earlier in the day and expressing that he was "not happy" with the network. In recent months, Trump has gone after several Fox News personalities including host Shepard Smith, left-leaning pundit Juan Williams and contributor Donna Brazile, former chair of the Democratic National Committee.
On Thursday, Cavuto joined in, addressing Trump directly in a roughly four-minute segment that has since been viewed more than 170,000 times across Twitter and YouTube.
Cavuto, who has slammed Trump on his show before, kicked off his monologue by playing a clip of the president calling into a Fox News Radio program earlier in the day and expressing that he was "not happy" with the network. In recent months, Trump has gone after several Fox News personalities including host Shepard Smith, left-leaning pundit Juan Williams and contributor Donna Brazile, former chair of the Democratic National Committee.
On Thursday, Cavuto also pointed out the president's habit of contradicting himself. The host cited Trump's praise of former secretary of state Rex Tillerson, whom he later fired and then called "dumb as a rock," and his apparent 180 on potential support for gun background check legislation.
These moments that have been reported on aren't fake, Cavuto said, addressing Trump, "They're real items and you really said them."
"Fake is when it's wrong, Mr. President, not when it's unpleasant," he added.
But, Cavuto conceded that Trump was right to complain that the media, which can be "more inclined to report the bad than anything good," hasn't been fair to him.
"It is no surprise you're frustrated that more aren't in line with you and that everyone at Fox might not be in lockstep with you," said Cavuto, before clarifying that even if there are Fox News hosts who defend Trump, it doesn't mean that they work for him.
"Hard as it is to fathom, Mr. President, just because you're the leader of the free world doesn't entitle you to a free pass," Cavuto concluded. "Unfortunately, just a free press."
Allyson Chiu
Fox News host Neil Cavuto delivered a scorching rebuke on Thursday to President Donald Trump's recent criticism that the cable network "isn't working for us anymore," and called out his tenuous relationship with the media.
"Mr. President, we don't work for you. I don't work for you," Cavuto said in the closing monologue of "Your World with Neil Cavuto." "My job is to cover you, not fawn over you or rip you. Just report on you."
The host later added: "It is called being fair and balanced, Mr. President. Yet it is fair to say you're not a fan when that balance includes stuff you don't like to hear or facts you don't like to have questioned."
Cavuto's pointed comments come on the heels of Trump's latest broadside against Fox News. Despite the network's reputation for favorable coverage of the president and his administration, with critics going so far as to describe it as "state TV," Fox News has increasingly become a target of Trump's rage. The president slammed the network in tweets this week for "heavily promoting the Democrats," adding, "We have to start looking for a new News Outlet. Fox isn't working for us anymore!" The tirade appeared to be sparked by Fox News anchor Sandra Smith interviewing Xochitl Hinojosa, the communications director for the Democratic National Committee, and soon prompted criticism from a handful of people associated with the network.
On Thursday, Cavuto joined in, addressing Trump directly in a roughly four-minute segment that has since been viewed more than 170,000 times across Twitter and YouTube.
Cavuto, who has slammed Trump on his show before, kicked off his monologue by playing a clip of the president calling into a Fox News Radio program earlier in the day and expressing that he was "not happy" with the network. In recent months, Trump has gone after several Fox News personalities including host Shepard Smith, left-leaning pundit Juan Williams and contributor Donna Brazile, former chair of the Democratic National Committee.
On Thursday, Cavuto joined in, addressing Trump directly in a roughly four-minute segment that has since been viewed more than 170,000 times across Twitter and YouTube.
Cavuto, who has slammed Trump on his show before, kicked off his monologue by playing a clip of the president calling into a Fox News Radio program earlier in the day and expressing that he was "not happy" with the network. In recent months, Trump has gone after several Fox News personalities including host Shepard Smith, left-leaning pundit Juan Williams and contributor Donna Brazile, former chair of the Democratic National Committee.
On Thursday, Cavuto also pointed out the president's habit of contradicting himself. The host cited Trump's praise of former secretary of state Rex Tillerson, whom he later fired and then called "dumb as a rock," and his apparent 180 on potential support for gun background check legislation.
These moments that have been reported on aren't fake, Cavuto said, addressing Trump, "They're real items and you really said them."
"Fake is when it's wrong, Mr. President, not when it's unpleasant," he added.
But, Cavuto conceded that Trump was right to complain that the media, which can be "more inclined to report the bad than anything good," hasn't been fair to him.
"It is no surprise you're frustrated that more aren't in line with you and that everyone at Fox might not be in lockstep with you," said Cavuto, before clarifying that even if there are Fox News hosts who defend Trump, it doesn't mean that they work for him.
"Hard as it is to fathom, Mr. President, just because you're the leader of the free world doesn't entitle you to a free pass," Cavuto concluded. "Unfortunately, just a free press."
Recreational Boating Accidents
Alcohol Leading Contributor in U.S. Recreational Boating Accidents
BY THE MARITIME EXECUTIVE
The U.S. Coast Guard released its 2018 Recreational Boating Statistics Report on Tuesday, revealing that there were 633 boating fatalities nationwide in 2018, a 3.8 percent decrease from 2017.
From 2017 to 2018, overall recreational boating injuries also decreased 4.5 percent (2,629 to 2,511), and the total number of accidents decreased 3.4 percent (4,291 to 4,145).
Alcohol continued to be the leading known contributing factor in fatal boating accidents in 2018, accounting for 100 deaths (19 percent) of total fatalities.
“While these decreases are encouraging, there are still too many deaths and injuries that could be avoided through the use of life jackets and eliminating alcohol consumption while operating a boat,” said Captain Scott Johnson, chief of the Office of Auxiliary and Boating Safety at Coast Guard Headquarters. “It is heartbreaking to realize that more than 100 people could still be alive today had alcohol use been curbed.”
Half of a boating party perished in Alabama in July 2018 when an inebriated passenger bumped into the operator, who had also been drinking, which caused the operator to swerve and crash into a bridge piling at about 25 mph. Two people were killed, including one who was struck by the boat’s propeller. The operator had a blood alcohol concentration level of 0.15, nearly twice the state’s legal limit of 0.08.
“This was just one tragedy that could have been prevented by removing alcohol from the day’s activities,” Johnson said. “Anyone who’s spent long periods of time out on the water knows that alcohol consumption, when combined with fatigue from sun and wind exposure, will severely hinder a person’s ability to make good decisions and maintain awareness of their surroundings.”
The report also shows that in 2018:
• The fatality rate was 5.3 deaths per 100,000 registered recreational vessels, which tied as the third lowest rate in the program’s history. This rate represents a 3.6 percent decrease from last year’s fatality rate of 5.5 deaths per 100,000 registered recreational vessels.
• Property damage totaled about $46 million.
• Operator inattention, improper lookout, operator inexperience, machinery failure, and excessive speed ranked as the top five primary contributing factors in accidents.
Where the cause of death was known, 77 percent of fatal boating accident victims drowned. Of those drowning victims with reported life jacket usage, 84 percent were not wearing a life jacket. A number of deaths involved inflatable life jackets that had expired cartridges or life jackets that were not buckled, thus making them ineffective as lifesaving devices.
Where boating instruction was known, 74 percent of deaths occurred on vessels where the operator had not received boating safety instruction.
The most common vessel types involved in reported accidents were open motorboats, personal watercraft and cabin motorboats. Where vessel type was known, the vessel types with the highest percentage of deaths were open motorboats (50 percent), kayaks (13.5 percent) and canoes (seven percent).
TOP FIVE PRIMARY ACCIDENT TYPES:
Accident Rank Accident Type:
Number of Accidents Number of Deaths Number of Injuries
1 Collision with recreational vessel 1028 40 661
2 Collision with fixed object 470 62 296
3 Flooding/swamping 443 68 97
4 Grounding 367 16 236
5 Falls overboard 274 159 120
VESSEL TYPES WITH THE TOP CASUALTY NUMBERS:
Casualty Rank Type of Boat:
Drownings Other Deaths Total Deaths Total Injuries Total Casualties
1 Open motorboat 218 93 311 1277 1588
2 Personal watercraft 11 31 42 634 676
3 Canoe/kayak 109 19 128 120 248
4 Cabin motorboat 13 20 33 193 226
5 Pontoon 30 5 35 129 164
LIFE JACKET WEAR BY TOP FIVE KNOWN CAUSES OF DEATH
Known Cause of Death Rank Cause of Death:
Number of Deaths Life Jacket Worn Not Worn Unknown if worn
1 Drowning 449 69 356 24
2 Trauma 97 37 55 5
3 Cardiac arrest 16 6 10 0
4 Hypothermia 13 8 5 0
5 Carbon monoxide poisoning 8 3 4 1
TOP TEN KNOWN PRIMARY CONTRIBUTING FACTORS OF ACCIDENTS
Accident Rank Contributing Factor:
Number of Accidents Number of Deaths Number of Injuries
1 Operator inattention 654 50 437
2 Improper lookout 440 27 316
3 Operator inexperience 387 40 213
4 Machinery failure 321 9 86
5 Excessive speed 276 25 231
6 Alcohol use 254 101 204
7 Force of wake/wave 209 10 153
8 Weather 205 40 96
9 Navigation rules violation 184 19 144
10 Hazardous waters 169 61 70
BY THE MARITIME EXECUTIVE
The U.S. Coast Guard released its 2018 Recreational Boating Statistics Report on Tuesday, revealing that there were 633 boating fatalities nationwide in 2018, a 3.8 percent decrease from 2017.
From 2017 to 2018, overall recreational boating injuries also decreased 4.5 percent (2,629 to 2,511), and the total number of accidents decreased 3.4 percent (4,291 to 4,145).
Alcohol continued to be the leading known contributing factor in fatal boating accidents in 2018, accounting for 100 deaths (19 percent) of total fatalities.
“While these decreases are encouraging, there are still too many deaths and injuries that could be avoided through the use of life jackets and eliminating alcohol consumption while operating a boat,” said Captain Scott Johnson, chief of the Office of Auxiliary and Boating Safety at Coast Guard Headquarters. “It is heartbreaking to realize that more than 100 people could still be alive today had alcohol use been curbed.”
Half of a boating party perished in Alabama in July 2018 when an inebriated passenger bumped into the operator, who had also been drinking, which caused the operator to swerve and crash into a bridge piling at about 25 mph. Two people were killed, including one who was struck by the boat’s propeller. The operator had a blood alcohol concentration level of 0.15, nearly twice the state’s legal limit of 0.08.
“This was just one tragedy that could have been prevented by removing alcohol from the day’s activities,” Johnson said. “Anyone who’s spent long periods of time out on the water knows that alcohol consumption, when combined with fatigue from sun and wind exposure, will severely hinder a person’s ability to make good decisions and maintain awareness of their surroundings.”
The report also shows that in 2018:
• The fatality rate was 5.3 deaths per 100,000 registered recreational vessels, which tied as the third lowest rate in the program’s history. This rate represents a 3.6 percent decrease from last year’s fatality rate of 5.5 deaths per 100,000 registered recreational vessels.
• Property damage totaled about $46 million.
• Operator inattention, improper lookout, operator inexperience, machinery failure, and excessive speed ranked as the top five primary contributing factors in accidents.
Where the cause of death was known, 77 percent of fatal boating accident victims drowned. Of those drowning victims with reported life jacket usage, 84 percent were not wearing a life jacket. A number of deaths involved inflatable life jackets that had expired cartridges or life jackets that were not buckled, thus making them ineffective as lifesaving devices.
Where boating instruction was known, 74 percent of deaths occurred on vessels where the operator had not received boating safety instruction.
The most common vessel types involved in reported accidents were open motorboats, personal watercraft and cabin motorboats. Where vessel type was known, the vessel types with the highest percentage of deaths were open motorboats (50 percent), kayaks (13.5 percent) and canoes (seven percent).
TOP FIVE PRIMARY ACCIDENT TYPES:
Accident Rank Accident Type:
Number of Accidents Number of Deaths Number of Injuries
1 Collision with recreational vessel 1028 40 661
2 Collision with fixed object 470 62 296
3 Flooding/swamping 443 68 97
4 Grounding 367 16 236
5 Falls overboard 274 159 120
VESSEL TYPES WITH THE TOP CASUALTY NUMBERS:
Casualty Rank Type of Boat:
Drownings Other Deaths Total Deaths Total Injuries Total Casualties
1 Open motorboat 218 93 311 1277 1588
2 Personal watercraft 11 31 42 634 676
3 Canoe/kayak 109 19 128 120 248
4 Cabin motorboat 13 20 33 193 226
5 Pontoon 30 5 35 129 164
LIFE JACKET WEAR BY TOP FIVE KNOWN CAUSES OF DEATH
Known Cause of Death Rank Cause of Death:
Number of Deaths Life Jacket Worn Not Worn Unknown if worn
1 Drowning 449 69 356 24
2 Trauma 97 37 55 5
3 Cardiac arrest 16 6 10 0
4 Hypothermia 13 8 5 0
5 Carbon monoxide poisoning 8 3 4 1
TOP TEN KNOWN PRIMARY CONTRIBUTING FACTORS OF ACCIDENTS
Accident Rank Contributing Factor:
Number of Accidents Number of Deaths Number of Injuries
1 Operator inattention 654 50 437
2 Improper lookout 440 27 316
3 Operator inexperience 387 40 213
4 Machinery failure 321 9 86
5 Excessive speed 276 25 231
6 Alcohol use 254 101 204
7 Force of wake/wave 209 10 153
8 Weather 205 40 96
9 Navigation rules violation 184 19 144
10 Hazardous waters 169 61 70
NGC 7129 and NGC 7142
This wide-field telescopic image looks toward the constellation Cepheus and an intriguing visual pairing of dusty reflection nebula NGC 7129 (right) and open star cluster NGC 7142. The two appear separated by only half a degree on the sky, but they actually lie at quite different distances. In the foreground, dusty nebula NGC 7129 is about 3,000 light-years distant, while open cluster NGC 7142 is likely over 6,000 light-years away. In fact, pervasive and clumpy foreground dust clouds in this region redden the light from NGC 7142, complicating astronomical explorations of the cluster. Still, NGC 7142 is thought to be an older open star cluster, while the bright stars embedded in NGC 7129 are perhaps a few million years young. The telltale reddish crescent shapes around NGC 7129 are associated with energetic jets streaming away from newborn stars.
NGC 5307
This image from the NASA/ESA Hubble Space Telescope shows NGC 5307, a planetary nebula that lies about 10,000 light-years from Earth. It can be seen in the constellation Centaurus (the Centaur), which can be seen primarily in the southern hemisphere. A planetary nebula is the final stage of a Sun-like star. As such, planetary nebulas allow us a glimpse into the future of our own solar system. A star like our Sun will, at the end of its life, transform into a red giant. Stars are sustained by the nuclear fusion that occurs in their core, which creates energy. The nuclear fusion processes constantly try to rip the star apart. Only the gravity of the star prevents this from happening.At the end of the red giant phase of a star, these forces become unbalanced. Without enough energy created by fusion, the core of the star collapses in on itself, while the surface layers are ejected outward. After that, all that remains of the star is what we see here: glowing outer layers surrounding a white dwarf star, the remnants of the red giant star’s core.
This isn’t the end of this star’s evolution though — those outer layers are still moving and cooling. In just a few thousand years they will have dissipated, and all that will be left to see is the dimly glowing white dwarf.
O’Rourke would tackle.....
How Beto O’Rourke would tackle China, trade deals
By SABRINA RODRIGUEZ
Former Rep. Beto O’Rourke unveiled how he would end the U.S.-China trade war as well as tackle workers' rights and climate change in trade agreements.
O’Rourke, a longtime free-trade supporter, said that President Donald Trump’s tactics have failed and have been damaging for American families. O’Rourke calls on working with allies to curb China’s unfair trading practices.
What would the plan do?
The former congressman‘s plan says that on his first day in office, he would eliminate Trump’s tariffs on more than $500 billion worth of Chinese goods.
The proposal acknowledges that “targeted tariffs are a tool that may sometimes be necessary, but they must not be used as a threat to drive anti-immigrant agendas or in a way that causes further pain to American businesses and workers.”
The plan also seeks to ensure that U.S. free trade agreements have strong labor and environmental standards. He aims to include International Labor Organization core rights, provisions from the Paris climate accord and other protections in all deals.
O’Rourke, who represented El Paso, says he would create an independent commission to identify violations of labor and environmental standards to speed up how the U.S. processes such issues.
House Democrats are currently considering the new North American trade pact and have been most concerned over the ability to enforce the agreement’s provisions on labor and environment in light of Mexico’s track record on workers rights.
O'Rourke also seeks to build more enforcement mechanisms in developing countries. O'Rourke says the U.S. and foreign governments would collaborate on inspecting factories accused of poor working conditions.
His plan would allow the U.S. to remove preferential tariff treatment or block imports from facilities suspected of violating labor standards — a move that borrows from a recent proposal from Sens. Ron Wyden and Sherrod Brown to strengthen enforcement of the new NAFTA.
The World Trade Organization would play a major role in defending the U.S. from China and other competitors. In his plan, O’Rourke pledges to overhaul the WTO to better tackle currency manipulation, competition, overcapacity, industrial subsidies and other modern trade issues.
How would it work?
O’Rourke says he will launch “an aggressive WTO case with other countries against China, arguing it has failed to live up to the specific commitments it made when it joined the WTO.” If that does not work, he says he will act unilaterally to pressure China.
O’Rourke would consider taking action to make it harder for Chinese companies to operate in the U.S. by limiting access to the U.S. banking and financial system to companies that have been stealing U.S. intellectual property. He would also potentially limit Chinese investment in certain U.S. sectors.
The candidate would also take aim at currency manipulation following the Trump administration’s decision in August to label China a currency manipulator. Part of his plan would enable the “federal government to engage in defensive, countervailing currency intervention in extreme cases” and revamp the Treasury Department’s currency report to focus on countries that have large trade surpluses with the U.S.
Part of the plan would invest in free community college, paid apprenticeships and other training programs to better develop American workers and boost U.S. competitiveness. He would also increase federal funding for programs that help small- and medium-size manufacturers compete in global markets.
What are the weaknesses in his proposal?
Part of O'Rourke's plan hinges on getting the WTO's 164-member countries to reach a consensus to reform and modernize the global trading body. One particular challenge is how to address disagreements among various countries over how to change the WTO's system of settling disputes. Although O'Rourke acknowledged the difficulty, he did not offer specifics on how he'd solve it.
Since the Obama administration, the U.S. has been blocking new appointments to the WTO’s Appellate Body because of long-standing issues it has with the dispute-settlement system. The WTO‘s highest judicial panel will stop functioning by December if a solution is not reached because it won’t have enough members to take on new cases. (That would leave the WTO largely ineffective by the time O'Rourke takes office in 2021 if elected.)
O'Rourke's ability to change how the U.S. negotiates trade deals could also run up against some resistance in Congress from Republicans opposed to more language on environmental standards in deals. And finding money for more trade enforcement has been a challenge.
What have other Democrats proposed?
O’Rourke is one of the strongest free-trade candidates, often acknowledging the importance of trade given El Paso’s proximity to major U.S. trading partner Mexico.
He was one of only 28 Democrats in the House to vote for the trade promotion authority legislation in 2015. That law allows Congress to vote on a trade agreement with an up-or-down vote with no amendments if the president negotiating the pact follows certain requirements.
His proposal stands in contrast to a plan that Sen. Elizabeth Warren (D-Mass.) released in July, which embraced some of Trump’s protectionist rhetoric. Warren has said "tariffs are one part of reworking our trade policy overall," but she slammed Trump for launching tariffs via Twitter.
Warren’s plan has been regarded as a more protectionist approach to trade that would be a dramatic shift in trade policy from past Democratic administrations such as those under Barack Obama and Bill Clinton.
Her proposal includes specific criteria that a country would have to meet before negotiating a trade deal with the U.S. She is also a fierce critic of multinational corporations and their influence on trade negotiations — an issue that O’Rourke largely stays away from in his plan.
Rep. Tulsi Gabbard (D-Hawaii) has previously said that she would end Trump’s tariffs on China. The majority of candidates have not been specific about how they would handle the administration’s tariffs on Beijing once elected, but they have broadly criticized Trump’s approach.
By SABRINA RODRIGUEZ
Former Rep. Beto O’Rourke unveiled how he would end the U.S.-China trade war as well as tackle workers' rights and climate change in trade agreements.
O’Rourke, a longtime free-trade supporter, said that President Donald Trump’s tactics have failed and have been damaging for American families. O’Rourke calls on working with allies to curb China’s unfair trading practices.
What would the plan do?
The former congressman‘s plan says that on his first day in office, he would eliminate Trump’s tariffs on more than $500 billion worth of Chinese goods.
The proposal acknowledges that “targeted tariffs are a tool that may sometimes be necessary, but they must not be used as a threat to drive anti-immigrant agendas or in a way that causes further pain to American businesses and workers.”
The plan also seeks to ensure that U.S. free trade agreements have strong labor and environmental standards. He aims to include International Labor Organization core rights, provisions from the Paris climate accord and other protections in all deals.
O’Rourke, who represented El Paso, says he would create an independent commission to identify violations of labor and environmental standards to speed up how the U.S. processes such issues.
House Democrats are currently considering the new North American trade pact and have been most concerned over the ability to enforce the agreement’s provisions on labor and environment in light of Mexico’s track record on workers rights.
O'Rourke also seeks to build more enforcement mechanisms in developing countries. O'Rourke says the U.S. and foreign governments would collaborate on inspecting factories accused of poor working conditions.
His plan would allow the U.S. to remove preferential tariff treatment or block imports from facilities suspected of violating labor standards — a move that borrows from a recent proposal from Sens. Ron Wyden and Sherrod Brown to strengthen enforcement of the new NAFTA.
The World Trade Organization would play a major role in defending the U.S. from China and other competitors. In his plan, O’Rourke pledges to overhaul the WTO to better tackle currency manipulation, competition, overcapacity, industrial subsidies and other modern trade issues.
How would it work?
O’Rourke says he will launch “an aggressive WTO case with other countries against China, arguing it has failed to live up to the specific commitments it made when it joined the WTO.” If that does not work, he says he will act unilaterally to pressure China.
O’Rourke would consider taking action to make it harder for Chinese companies to operate in the U.S. by limiting access to the U.S. banking and financial system to companies that have been stealing U.S. intellectual property. He would also potentially limit Chinese investment in certain U.S. sectors.
The candidate would also take aim at currency manipulation following the Trump administration’s decision in August to label China a currency manipulator. Part of his plan would enable the “federal government to engage in defensive, countervailing currency intervention in extreme cases” and revamp the Treasury Department’s currency report to focus on countries that have large trade surpluses with the U.S.
Part of the plan would invest in free community college, paid apprenticeships and other training programs to better develop American workers and boost U.S. competitiveness. He would also increase federal funding for programs that help small- and medium-size manufacturers compete in global markets.
What are the weaknesses in his proposal?
Part of O'Rourke's plan hinges on getting the WTO's 164-member countries to reach a consensus to reform and modernize the global trading body. One particular challenge is how to address disagreements among various countries over how to change the WTO's system of settling disputes. Although O'Rourke acknowledged the difficulty, he did not offer specifics on how he'd solve it.
Since the Obama administration, the U.S. has been blocking new appointments to the WTO’s Appellate Body because of long-standing issues it has with the dispute-settlement system. The WTO‘s highest judicial panel will stop functioning by December if a solution is not reached because it won’t have enough members to take on new cases. (That would leave the WTO largely ineffective by the time O'Rourke takes office in 2021 if elected.)
O'Rourke's ability to change how the U.S. negotiates trade deals could also run up against some resistance in Congress from Republicans opposed to more language on environmental standards in deals. And finding money for more trade enforcement has been a challenge.
What have other Democrats proposed?
O’Rourke is one of the strongest free-trade candidates, often acknowledging the importance of trade given El Paso’s proximity to major U.S. trading partner Mexico.
He was one of only 28 Democrats in the House to vote for the trade promotion authority legislation in 2015. That law allows Congress to vote on a trade agreement with an up-or-down vote with no amendments if the president negotiating the pact follows certain requirements.
His proposal stands in contrast to a plan that Sen. Elizabeth Warren (D-Mass.) released in July, which embraced some of Trump’s protectionist rhetoric. Warren has said "tariffs are one part of reworking our trade policy overall," but she slammed Trump for launching tariffs via Twitter.
Warren’s plan has been regarded as a more protectionist approach to trade that would be a dramatic shift in trade policy from past Democratic administrations such as those under Barack Obama and Bill Clinton.
Her proposal includes specific criteria that a country would have to meet before negotiating a trade deal with the U.S. She is also a fierce critic of multinational corporations and their influence on trade negotiations — an issue that O’Rourke largely stays away from in his plan.
Rep. Tulsi Gabbard (D-Hawaii) has previously said that she would end Trump’s tariffs on China. The majority of candidates have not been specific about how they would handle the administration’s tariffs on Beijing once elected, but they have broadly criticized Trump’s approach.
Military Space Command Cadet...
Trump establishes new military Space Command
By JACQUELINE FELDSCHER
President Donald Trump on Thursday formally established a new military headquarters for space operations as part of his efforts to ensure the Pentagon maintains an edge over potential adversaries like Russia and China.
The U.S. Space Command will be responsible for defending military satellites and other space systems and will draw on troops from other branches of the military as well as Trump's proposed Space Force, which is awaiting approval from Congress.
"It will ensure that America’s dominance in space is never questioned and never threatened because we know the best way to prevent conflict is to prepare for victory,” Trump said during a Rose Garden ceremony with his top national security team.
He added that the move "will soon be followed very importantly by the establishment of the United States Space Force as the sixth branch of the United States armed forces. That’s really something, when you think about it."
The new Space Command will be on par with other military headquarters that are responsible for different geographic regions of the world or have distinct missions such as cyber operations.
Gen. John Raymond, the current head of the Air Force Space Command who has also been tapped to run the new outfit, told reporters at the Pentagon earlier that a top priority will be to build new alliances with other militaries that similarly view space as a potential conflict zone.
“Historically, we haven’t needed allies in space," he said. "It was a benign domain. We absolutely are open for new partnerships.”
The Pentagon decided to reestablish the U.S. Space Command, which existed in another form between 1985 and 2002, after a review concluded the military's increasing reliance on space technologies required a dedicated "combatant command" due to advances in weaponry by China and Russia that could destroy satellites in orbit or disable them through other means such as cyberattacks.
“I really believe we’re at a strategic inflection point where there’s nothing that we do as a joint coalition force that isn’t enabled by space. Zero,” Raymond said. “Our adversaries have had a front row seat in our many success in integrating space and they don’t like what they see because it provides us such great advantage. They’re developing capabilities to negate our access to space.”
At first, the new command will include 287 personnel at a location that has yet to be determined, Raymond said. The Pentagon is reportedly considering six locations at bases in Colorado, Alabama and California.
Most of those personnel are already carrying out space-related tasks under U.S. Strategic Command, which oversees the nation’s nuclear weapons, and will simply switch commands, he added.
Five military space operations centers in California, Colorado and New Mexico will also be folded into the new organization.
The National Reconnaissance Office, which builds and operates the Pentagon’s spy satellites, will remain independent but report to U.S. Space Command during “higher states of conflict,” Raymond said, although he declined to elaborate on what would qualify to meet that standard.
The Pentagon requested $83.8 million to establish U.S. Space Command in fiscal 2020. Of that, $75.6 million would be transferred from organizations already conducting space operations, Raymond said.
“This is an important step to support the space warfighting domain and ensures our strategic competitors, Russia and China, realize we are serious about implementing our National Defense Strategy," Senate Armed Services Chairman Jim Inhofe (R-Okla.) said in a statement. "The next step is establishing the United States Space Force, which we are working on as part of the final National Defense Authorization Act.”
By JACQUELINE FELDSCHER
President Donald Trump on Thursday formally established a new military headquarters for space operations as part of his efforts to ensure the Pentagon maintains an edge over potential adversaries like Russia and China.
The U.S. Space Command will be responsible for defending military satellites and other space systems and will draw on troops from other branches of the military as well as Trump's proposed Space Force, which is awaiting approval from Congress.
"It will ensure that America’s dominance in space is never questioned and never threatened because we know the best way to prevent conflict is to prepare for victory,” Trump said during a Rose Garden ceremony with his top national security team.
He added that the move "will soon be followed very importantly by the establishment of the United States Space Force as the sixth branch of the United States armed forces. That’s really something, when you think about it."
The new Space Command will be on par with other military headquarters that are responsible for different geographic regions of the world or have distinct missions such as cyber operations.
Gen. John Raymond, the current head of the Air Force Space Command who has also been tapped to run the new outfit, told reporters at the Pentagon earlier that a top priority will be to build new alliances with other militaries that similarly view space as a potential conflict zone.
“Historically, we haven’t needed allies in space," he said. "It was a benign domain. We absolutely are open for new partnerships.”
The Pentagon decided to reestablish the U.S. Space Command, which existed in another form between 1985 and 2002, after a review concluded the military's increasing reliance on space technologies required a dedicated "combatant command" due to advances in weaponry by China and Russia that could destroy satellites in orbit or disable them through other means such as cyberattacks.
“I really believe we’re at a strategic inflection point where there’s nothing that we do as a joint coalition force that isn’t enabled by space. Zero,” Raymond said. “Our adversaries have had a front row seat in our many success in integrating space and they don’t like what they see because it provides us such great advantage. They’re developing capabilities to negate our access to space.”
At first, the new command will include 287 personnel at a location that has yet to be determined, Raymond said. The Pentagon is reportedly considering six locations at bases in Colorado, Alabama and California.
Most of those personnel are already carrying out space-related tasks under U.S. Strategic Command, which oversees the nation’s nuclear weapons, and will simply switch commands, he added.
Five military space operations centers in California, Colorado and New Mexico will also be folded into the new organization.
The National Reconnaissance Office, which builds and operates the Pentagon’s spy satellites, will remain independent but report to U.S. Space Command during “higher states of conflict,” Raymond said, although he declined to elaborate on what would qualify to meet that standard.
The Pentagon requested $83.8 million to establish U.S. Space Command in fiscal 2020. Of that, $75.6 million would be transferred from organizations already conducting space operations, Raymond said.
“This is an important step to support the space warfighting domain and ensures our strategic competitors, Russia and China, realize we are serious about implementing our National Defense Strategy," Senate Armed Services Chairman Jim Inhofe (R-Okla.) said in a statement. "The next step is establishing the United States Space Force, which we are working on as part of the final National Defense Authorization Act.”
Hickenlooper endorsement
'Offensive': Democrats blasted over Hickenlooper endorsement
The national party is boosting favored Senate candidates across the country, alienating progressives.
By JAMES ARKIN
When the Senate Democratic campaign arm endorsed John Hickenlooper the day after he announced he would challenge GOP Sen. Cory Gardner, the backlash was swift.
A half dozen women already running penned a scathing letter attacking the committee for perpetuating a good ol’ boy system by throwing its weight behind a moderate, white man in a diverse primary field.
“Offensive,” was how state Sen. Angela Williams, who signed the letter, put it. “For someone to think just one candidate, one man, can win this is not who we are in the state," she said. "And we’re better than this."
National Democrats view Hickenlooper, a former two-term governor who flamed out of the presidential race, as their best bet in Colorado, a must-win for the Senate majority. He isn’t the only candidate they’ve endorsed in aprimary: The Democratic Senatorial Campaign Committee has also picked favorites in a handful of races across the country rather than allowing primaries to play out unimpeded.
It’s a risky decision after similar endorsements have backfired for the party in recent cycles, and it’s already created a fierce reaction within their own ranks — before Democrats even get to taking on Republicans incumbents. But Democrats defend the decisions as a necessary boost for candidates they see as best-positioned to prevail.
The DSCC has already backed Theresa Greenfield in Iowa and state House Speaker Sara Gideon in Maine, two battleground states with multiple Democratic contenders, and endorsed Mark Kelly in Arizona, where the primary field was cleared of potential rivals. They’re also officially behind Rep. Ben Ray Luján in New Mexico and Jaime Harrison, a former state party chairman, in the reach state of South Carolina.
The endorsements can provide candidates with party resources and much-needed fundraising boosts. But they have left some progressives livid, saying the party should allow the process to play out and force their preferred candidates to prove themselves without help. Rival candidates are angry at the detrimental effect on their bids, while other Democrats say the DSCC involvement kept them from running at all.
Several Colorado Democrats defended the DSCC's involvement, even though there were already nearly a dozen candidates in the race. They point out Hickenlooper already has major local endorsements, including from former Sen. Ken Salazar and Rep. Ed Perlmutter, and that he won two gubernatorial races in 2010 and 2014 — two banner years for Republicans. Recent polling shows Hickenlooper with a massive lead in the primary.
One state lawmaker, who requested anonymity to speak frankly, said some candidates and activists frustrated by the endorsement fail to grasp the scope of the race, which will be a top contest for control of the Senate.
“The women candidates have failed to present themselves as serious contenders, and I think that's what a lot of people understand,” the lawmaker said, pointing to low, early fundraising totals.
Others were more blunt.
“Sometime between when we put away the shorts and start waxing our skis, people will realize that the goals for 2020 are to beat Gardner, [Senate Majority Leader Mitch] McConnell and [President Donald] Trump,” said Curtis Hubbard, a Democratic strategist who has worked for Hickenlooper, calling him “our best hope for all three.”
Hickenlooper’s detractors roundly disagree with that analysis. Several other Democrats in the race are well funded, they argue, and more in line with the state’s progressive base. And despite winning two terms as governor, they point to Hickenlooper's failed presidential campaign as evidence of his weakness as a candidate — including his statements about the Senate race, saying he's not "cut out to be a senator."
“For the DSCC to put their money on a guy who has some serious flaws as a leader, I just find it to be abysmal,” said Joe Salazar, a former state lawmaker who helped draft the letter the women candidates signed.
The DSCC and its allies vehemently defend endorsing in primaries, arguing every decision is in service of winning control of the Senate after next year's elections. Candidates they have backed also have significant local support: Gideon announced more than 60 Maine endorsements on the day she launched in June, and Greenfield announced endorsements Thursday from nine local elected officials, party chairs and activists, adding to a list that already included unions and former statewide elected officials.
Dan Sena, who ran the House campaign committee in 2018 when Democrats took back the majority — after getting involved in primaries behind a number of candidates — argued that endorsements come after significant local engagement and data.
“These are not decisions made on a whim or a popularity contest,” Sena said. “These are decisions that are very well thought-out, take time to develop, and often they’re critical to being able to flip a seat.”
Democrats aren’t alone in dealing with challenging primaries. Sens. Martha McSally (R-Ariz.) and Thom Tillis (R-N.C.) both have GOP challengers, and Republicans face crowded and potentially divisive primaries in Alabama and Kansas, two red states they must win to maintain their majority.
Republicans have already tried to drive a wedge in Democratic primaries, spending money on billboards lifting up lower-tier Democratic challengers with fewer resources they view as easier general election opponents.
“If we’re going to stop Mitch McConnell from gutting access to affordable health care, confirming partisan judges to lifetime appointments on the federal bench and Supreme Court, and attacking reproductive rights, then we need to win Senate seats,” said Stewart Boss, a DSCC spokesperson. “We’re working with candidates who will do exactly that and help Democrats take back the Senate."
But some liberals say that to get involved this early shuts the door on potential candidates who could prove themselves as majority-makers. There is lingering frustration from 2016, when the committee backed former Gov.Ted Strickland in Ohio and former Sen. Evan Bayh in Indiana only to see both flop on the campaign trail.
Rebecca Katz, a progressive Democratic strategist, worked with John Fetterman, then a local mayor, in the three-way Pennsylvania Senate primary in 2016. The DSCC endorsed Katie McGinty in that race, aiming to block former Rep. Joe Sestak, who lost a Senate race in 2010, from becoming the nominee — but Katz said the interference alsodiminished energy for Fetterman. McGinty won the primary but failed to unseat Republican Sen. Pat Toomey in the general election. Fetterman won the lieutenant governor’s race two years later.
“The DSCC should be out there looking for the best candidates, but they shouldn't be stifling energy. And when they make endorsements like this, that's exactly what they're doing,” Katz said. “Once again, they are ignoring what Democratic primary voters want for who may look better on paper.”
Stacey Walker, a county supervisor in Iowa, was considering running for Senate earlier this year and said the DSCC's endorsement was the primary reason he stayed out to protect his nascent political career.
“I couldn't risk damaging myself by going up against the establishment's preferred choice,” Walker told POLITICO in an interview. “Getting involved a year out without letting the field settle itself, and everything that comes along with that, just makes it real hard to have a competitive primary.”
Mike Franken, a retired three-star Navy admiral who entered the Iowa race this week — well after the national consolidation around Greenfield — said he preferred a primary contest without interference but wasn't deterred by the DSCC's endorsement.
“They do choose presidential candidates here, and I certainly think that in stride they can choose the best senatorial candidate,” Franken said. “Let's just let the voter decide."
Even in states where the DSCC hasn’t endorsed candidates, they’ve taken heat. Matt Jones, a sports radio host in Kentucky, launched an exploratory committee Thursday eyeing a run against McConnell. He’s been critical of Amy McGrath, who has not been endorsed but has significant national backing that helped her raised $2.5 million the day she launched.
“To take down the [Democratic] Party first, and the Republican party second, that's not exactly easy,” Jones said on his radio show Thursday.
In Maine, Democrats have rallied around Gideon, who entered the race against GOP Sen. Susan Collins in June with a flood of local endorsements and raised $1 million in a week.
Gideon said in an interview earlier this month that she was glad to have support from national organizations like the DSCC and End Citizens United, but also said she’s “really proud to have the support of many, many people in Maine.”
But Betsy Sweet, a progressive activist and lobbyist who placed third in last year’s gubernatorial primary, is running to Gideon’s left and has become a vocal critic of the national involvement.
“No one ever talked to me,” Sweet said. “No one ever reached out to me.”
The national party is boosting favored Senate candidates across the country, alienating progressives.
By JAMES ARKIN
When the Senate Democratic campaign arm endorsed John Hickenlooper the day after he announced he would challenge GOP Sen. Cory Gardner, the backlash was swift.
A half dozen women already running penned a scathing letter attacking the committee for perpetuating a good ol’ boy system by throwing its weight behind a moderate, white man in a diverse primary field.
“Offensive,” was how state Sen. Angela Williams, who signed the letter, put it. “For someone to think just one candidate, one man, can win this is not who we are in the state," she said. "And we’re better than this."
National Democrats view Hickenlooper, a former two-term governor who flamed out of the presidential race, as their best bet in Colorado, a must-win for the Senate majority. He isn’t the only candidate they’ve endorsed in aprimary: The Democratic Senatorial Campaign Committee has also picked favorites in a handful of races across the country rather than allowing primaries to play out unimpeded.
It’s a risky decision after similar endorsements have backfired for the party in recent cycles, and it’s already created a fierce reaction within their own ranks — before Democrats even get to taking on Republicans incumbents. But Democrats defend the decisions as a necessary boost for candidates they see as best-positioned to prevail.
The DSCC has already backed Theresa Greenfield in Iowa and state House Speaker Sara Gideon in Maine, two battleground states with multiple Democratic contenders, and endorsed Mark Kelly in Arizona, where the primary field was cleared of potential rivals. They’re also officially behind Rep. Ben Ray Luján in New Mexico and Jaime Harrison, a former state party chairman, in the reach state of South Carolina.
The endorsements can provide candidates with party resources and much-needed fundraising boosts. But they have left some progressives livid, saying the party should allow the process to play out and force their preferred candidates to prove themselves without help. Rival candidates are angry at the detrimental effect on their bids, while other Democrats say the DSCC involvement kept them from running at all.
Several Colorado Democrats defended the DSCC's involvement, even though there were already nearly a dozen candidates in the race. They point out Hickenlooper already has major local endorsements, including from former Sen. Ken Salazar and Rep. Ed Perlmutter, and that he won two gubernatorial races in 2010 and 2014 — two banner years for Republicans. Recent polling shows Hickenlooper with a massive lead in the primary.
One state lawmaker, who requested anonymity to speak frankly, said some candidates and activists frustrated by the endorsement fail to grasp the scope of the race, which will be a top contest for control of the Senate.
“The women candidates have failed to present themselves as serious contenders, and I think that's what a lot of people understand,” the lawmaker said, pointing to low, early fundraising totals.
Others were more blunt.
“Sometime between when we put away the shorts and start waxing our skis, people will realize that the goals for 2020 are to beat Gardner, [Senate Majority Leader Mitch] McConnell and [President Donald] Trump,” said Curtis Hubbard, a Democratic strategist who has worked for Hickenlooper, calling him “our best hope for all three.”
Hickenlooper’s detractors roundly disagree with that analysis. Several other Democrats in the race are well funded, they argue, and more in line with the state’s progressive base. And despite winning two terms as governor, they point to Hickenlooper's failed presidential campaign as evidence of his weakness as a candidate — including his statements about the Senate race, saying he's not "cut out to be a senator."
“For the DSCC to put their money on a guy who has some serious flaws as a leader, I just find it to be abysmal,” said Joe Salazar, a former state lawmaker who helped draft the letter the women candidates signed.
The DSCC and its allies vehemently defend endorsing in primaries, arguing every decision is in service of winning control of the Senate after next year's elections. Candidates they have backed also have significant local support: Gideon announced more than 60 Maine endorsements on the day she launched in June, and Greenfield announced endorsements Thursday from nine local elected officials, party chairs and activists, adding to a list that already included unions and former statewide elected officials.
Dan Sena, who ran the House campaign committee in 2018 when Democrats took back the majority — after getting involved in primaries behind a number of candidates — argued that endorsements come after significant local engagement and data.
“These are not decisions made on a whim or a popularity contest,” Sena said. “These are decisions that are very well thought-out, take time to develop, and often they’re critical to being able to flip a seat.”
Democrats aren’t alone in dealing with challenging primaries. Sens. Martha McSally (R-Ariz.) and Thom Tillis (R-N.C.) both have GOP challengers, and Republicans face crowded and potentially divisive primaries in Alabama and Kansas, two red states they must win to maintain their majority.
Republicans have already tried to drive a wedge in Democratic primaries, spending money on billboards lifting up lower-tier Democratic challengers with fewer resources they view as easier general election opponents.
“If we’re going to stop Mitch McConnell from gutting access to affordable health care, confirming partisan judges to lifetime appointments on the federal bench and Supreme Court, and attacking reproductive rights, then we need to win Senate seats,” said Stewart Boss, a DSCC spokesperson. “We’re working with candidates who will do exactly that and help Democrats take back the Senate."
But some liberals say that to get involved this early shuts the door on potential candidates who could prove themselves as majority-makers. There is lingering frustration from 2016, when the committee backed former Gov.Ted Strickland in Ohio and former Sen. Evan Bayh in Indiana only to see both flop on the campaign trail.
Rebecca Katz, a progressive Democratic strategist, worked with John Fetterman, then a local mayor, in the three-way Pennsylvania Senate primary in 2016. The DSCC endorsed Katie McGinty in that race, aiming to block former Rep. Joe Sestak, who lost a Senate race in 2010, from becoming the nominee — but Katz said the interference alsodiminished energy for Fetterman. McGinty won the primary but failed to unseat Republican Sen. Pat Toomey in the general election. Fetterman won the lieutenant governor’s race two years later.
“The DSCC should be out there looking for the best candidates, but they shouldn't be stifling energy. And when they make endorsements like this, that's exactly what they're doing,” Katz said. “Once again, they are ignoring what Democratic primary voters want for who may look better on paper.”
Stacey Walker, a county supervisor in Iowa, was considering running for Senate earlier this year and said the DSCC's endorsement was the primary reason he stayed out to protect his nascent political career.
“I couldn't risk damaging myself by going up against the establishment's preferred choice,” Walker told POLITICO in an interview. “Getting involved a year out without letting the field settle itself, and everything that comes along with that, just makes it real hard to have a competitive primary.”
Mike Franken, a retired three-star Navy admiral who entered the Iowa race this week — well after the national consolidation around Greenfield — said he preferred a primary contest without interference but wasn't deterred by the DSCC's endorsement.
“They do choose presidential candidates here, and I certainly think that in stride they can choose the best senatorial candidate,” Franken said. “Let's just let the voter decide."
Even in states where the DSCC hasn’t endorsed candidates, they’ve taken heat. Matt Jones, a sports radio host in Kentucky, launched an exploratory committee Thursday eyeing a run against McConnell. He’s been critical of Amy McGrath, who has not been endorsed but has significant national backing that helped her raised $2.5 million the day she launched.
“To take down the [Democratic] Party first, and the Republican party second, that's not exactly easy,” Jones said on his radio show Thursday.
In Maine, Democrats have rallied around Gideon, who entered the race against GOP Sen. Susan Collins in June with a flood of local endorsements and raised $1 million in a week.
Gideon said in an interview earlier this month that she was glad to have support from national organizations like the DSCC and End Citizens United, but also said she’s “really proud to have the support of many, many people in Maine.”
But Betsy Sweet, a progressive activist and lobbyist who placed third in last year’s gubernatorial primary, is running to Gideon’s left and has become a vocal critic of the national involvement.
“No one ever talked to me,” Sweet said. “No one ever reached out to me.”
Speed lawsuit rejected..
Judge rejects Democrats' bid to speed lawsuit for Trump's tax returns
By BRIAN FALER
A federal judge on Thursday rejected House Democrats’ bid for quick consideration of their lawsuit seeking President Donald Trump’s tax returns.
D.C. District Court Judge Trevor McFadden denied their request to both expedite consideration of the case and to decide on its merits without holding a trial.
“This is no ordinary case, but the weighty constitutional issues and political ramifications it presents militate in favor of caution and deliberation, not haste,” McFadden said. “This case presents novel and complex questions about the privileges and authority of all three branches of the federal government.”
House Ways and Means Chairman Richard Neal (D-Mass.) is suing for Trump’s federal returns under a 1924 law allowing the heads of Congress’ tax committees to examine anyone’s personal tax records. The Democrats are seeking six years of Trump’s personal returns and some of his business filings.
Trump has steadfastly refused to release the information, defying a decades-old tradition of presidents voluntarily disclosing their returns.
In seeking speedy consideration of the case, Democrats noted that the current session of Congress will end in 16 months. They had proposed a court briefing schedule that would end by Oct. 25 with oral arguments to follow. Trump lawyer William Consovoy opposed that proposal.
In the order released this evening, McFadden, who was appointed to the district court by Trump, suggested Democrats were slow to ask for expedited consideration, saying the request came seven weeks after they first filed suit.
"The Court does not fault the committee for its time and efforts negotiating with the administration before suing, but it is not clear why only now the committee asked for expedited consideration,” he wrote.
McFadden also noted that there are other suits in which Democrats are demanding information about Trump’s finances, including ones involving Deutsche Bank, which has lent the president hundreds of millions of dollars over his career, and the accounting firm Mazars.
“That related issues are percolating in other courts, particularly before the D.C. Circuit, suggests that a rush to judgment here would be unwise,” he said.
“It may be appropriate to expedite this matter at some point, but not now.”
The case is separate from another suit in which Trump is suing to prevent Neal from tapping a recently passed New York law that would give him access to the president’s state tax returns.
By BRIAN FALER
A federal judge on Thursday rejected House Democrats’ bid for quick consideration of their lawsuit seeking President Donald Trump’s tax returns.
D.C. District Court Judge Trevor McFadden denied their request to both expedite consideration of the case and to decide on its merits without holding a trial.
“This is no ordinary case, but the weighty constitutional issues and political ramifications it presents militate in favor of caution and deliberation, not haste,” McFadden said. “This case presents novel and complex questions about the privileges and authority of all three branches of the federal government.”
House Ways and Means Chairman Richard Neal (D-Mass.) is suing for Trump’s federal returns under a 1924 law allowing the heads of Congress’ tax committees to examine anyone’s personal tax records. The Democrats are seeking six years of Trump’s personal returns and some of his business filings.
Trump has steadfastly refused to release the information, defying a decades-old tradition of presidents voluntarily disclosing their returns.
In seeking speedy consideration of the case, Democrats noted that the current session of Congress will end in 16 months. They had proposed a court briefing schedule that would end by Oct. 25 with oral arguments to follow. Trump lawyer William Consovoy opposed that proposal.
In the order released this evening, McFadden, who was appointed to the district court by Trump, suggested Democrats were slow to ask for expedited consideration, saying the request came seven weeks after they first filed suit.
"The Court does not fault the committee for its time and efforts negotiating with the administration before suing, but it is not clear why only now the committee asked for expedited consideration,” he wrote.
McFadden also noted that there are other suits in which Democrats are demanding information about Trump’s finances, including ones involving Deutsche Bank, which has lent the president hundreds of millions of dollars over his career, and the accounting firm Mazars.
“That related issues are percolating in other courts, particularly before the D.C. Circuit, suggests that a rush to judgment here would be unwise,” he said.
“It may be appropriate to expedite this matter at some point, but not now.”
The case is separate from another suit in which Trump is suing to prevent Neal from tapping a recently passed New York law that would give him access to the president’s state tax returns.
Twice a week
UK and EU step up Brexit talks to twice a week
Boris Johnson said the boost in activity was part of his approach to scrapping the Northern Irish backstop.
By EMILIO CASALICCHIO, JACOPO BARIGAZZI AND MAÏA DE LA BAUME
Brexit talks will take place twice a week during September, with just two months to go before the October 31 deadline, according to Downing Street.
Prime Minister Boris Johnson said in a statement the boost in activity was part of his “energetic and determined” approach to scrapping the controversial Northern Irish backstop.
“While I have been encouraged with my discussions with EU leaders over recent weeks that there is a willingness to talk about alternatives to the anti-democratic backstop, it is now time for both sides to step up the tempo,” he said. “The increase in meetings and discussions is necessary if we are to have a chance of agreeing a deal for when we leave on October 31, no ifs no buts.”
His announcement came after Britain's chief Brexit negotiator David Frost met his EU counterparts on Wednesday. One EU diplomat said the meetings next week will take place on Tuesday, to update negotiators on the latest events during August, and on Thursday, to talk about preparations for no-deal exit.
The two sides have agreed to discuss a number of issues at future meetings including the backstop mechanism to keep the Northern Irish border open in the event of a no-deal Brexit.
A European Commission spokesman said: “David Frost has asked to meet the Commission twice a week to discuss the U.K.’s withdrawal. We have always said that our doors remain open and we have demonstrated our willingness to work 24/7 throughout this long process.
“We expect the U.K. to come forward with concrete proposals as President Juncker made clear to Prime Minister Johnson earlier this week.”
Johnson has vowed to leave the EU without a deal if necessary, and has been accused of trying to bypass his opponents in the House of Commons by suspending parliament for almost a month.
Last week the British prime minister travelled to Berlin for talks with Angela Merkel and to Paris to see Emmanuel Macron. Both suggested he produce proposals within 30 days that could serve as an alternative to the backstop, although Macron insisted a different deal would not be struck in that time.
Boris Johnson said the boost in activity was part of his approach to scrapping the Northern Irish backstop.
By EMILIO CASALICCHIO, JACOPO BARIGAZZI AND MAÏA DE LA BAUME
Brexit talks will take place twice a week during September, with just two months to go before the October 31 deadline, according to Downing Street.
Prime Minister Boris Johnson said in a statement the boost in activity was part of his “energetic and determined” approach to scrapping the controversial Northern Irish backstop.
“While I have been encouraged with my discussions with EU leaders over recent weeks that there is a willingness to talk about alternatives to the anti-democratic backstop, it is now time for both sides to step up the tempo,” he said. “The increase in meetings and discussions is necessary if we are to have a chance of agreeing a deal for when we leave on October 31, no ifs no buts.”
His announcement came after Britain's chief Brexit negotiator David Frost met his EU counterparts on Wednesday. One EU diplomat said the meetings next week will take place on Tuesday, to update negotiators on the latest events during August, and on Thursday, to talk about preparations for no-deal exit.
The two sides have agreed to discuss a number of issues at future meetings including the backstop mechanism to keep the Northern Irish border open in the event of a no-deal Brexit.
A European Commission spokesman said: “David Frost has asked to meet the Commission twice a week to discuss the U.K.’s withdrawal. We have always said that our doors remain open and we have demonstrated our willingness to work 24/7 throughout this long process.
“We expect the U.K. to come forward with concrete proposals as President Juncker made clear to Prime Minister Johnson earlier this week.”
Johnson has vowed to leave the EU without a deal if necessary, and has been accused of trying to bypass his opponents in the House of Commons by suspending parliament for almost a month.
Last week the British prime minister travelled to Berlin for talks with Angela Merkel and to Paris to see Emmanuel Macron. Both suggested he produce proposals within 30 days that could serve as an alternative to the backstop, although Macron insisted a different deal would not be struck in that time.
Arrest protest leaders
Hong Kong police arrest protest leaders
Pro-democracy figureheads held on suspicion of unlawful assembly.
By MICHELLE WONG, CLIFFORD LO AND PHILA SIU
This story is being published as part of a content partnership with the South China Morning Post. It originally appeared on scmp.com on August 30, 2019.
Hong Kong pro-democracy activists Joshua Wong and Agnes Chow were arrested on Friday for their involvement in an unlawful assembly, police have announced.
Wong was arrested on three charges of organising, inciting and taking part in an illegal assembly during the besieging of the Wan Chai police headquarters on June 21, while Chow was detained on charges of inciting and taking part in the same illegal assembly.
Sha Tin district council member Rick Hui Yui-yu was also arrested in Kwun Tong on Friday morning, according to his assistant, surnamed Tsang. Police said Hui, 31, was arrested on suspicion of obstructing officers in the execution of their duty in relation to the July 14 clashes at New Town Plaza shopping mall in Sha Tin.
Police also arrested independence campaigner Andy Chan on Thursday night on suspicion of rioting and assaulting a police officer during the Sheung Shui anti-parallel traders protest. He was stopped from boarding a plane leaving for Tokyo at Hong Kong airport.
Wong and Chow were key figures during the Occupy protests of 2014 while Chan, also an Occupy activist, led the banned Hong Kong National Party. Their arrests come on the eve of a proposed mass protest that has been banned by police.
On the June 21 siege of police headquarters in Wan Chai, thousands of demonstrators barricaded entrances and pelted eggs at the building, as they made their demands for a complete withdrawal of the now-shelved extradition bill and an exoneration of those arrested in previous clashes.
Wong and Chow are leaders of the pro-democracy outfit Demosisto which has been campaigning for democratic self-determination of Hong Kong. Chow was disqualified last year from taking part in Legislative Council elections.
A third member of the party, Ivan Lam Long-yin, was also charged with inciting others to take part in an unauthorised assembly. He was said to be out of town and did not show up in court.
In a statement on Friday, Demosisto insisted that the extradition protests were leaderless and the party was not spearheading them.
“We are very angry about the police creating a chilling effect and white terror through a large-scale arrest of protesters on the eve of August 31,” the party said.
August 31 marks the fifth anniversary of Beijing’s stringent “831 Decision” on Hong Kong’s democratic reforms and protesters had planned to launch another mass demonstration before they were banned by police.
The party alleged the arrests were politically driven as it involved “movement leaders” which the Chinese Communist Party had named. “[The arrests] are to paint a picture that the anti-extradition movement was pushed by some masterminds behind the scene, as to neglect the residents’ five demands,” it said.
Wong, who served time in jail for his role in the 2014 Occupy movement, was detained early on Friday on his way to the MTR station, according to the Demosisto party.
A police source said Chow was arrested at her home in Tai Po, while Wong was detained on the street in Ap Lei Chau at about 7am on Friday.
Both are being held for questioning at police headquarters in Wan Chai.
The party’s Facebook page said Wong, 22, was heading to South Horizons MTR station when he was pushed into a private car and taken to police headquarters.
Seen as one of the leaders of the 2014 Occupy movement, Wong was jailed in August 2017 for six months for storming the government headquarters compound at Tamar, Admiralty, which sparked the 79-day protest.
A police spokesman confirmed the arrest of a 29-year-old man surnamed Chan on Thursday night at the airport. He was arrested for rioting and assaulting a police officer, the spokesman said.
On Thursday night, pro-independence activist Andy Chan Ho-tin wrote on his Facebook page that was he was stopped by officers from boarding a plane.
The force told the co-founder of the Hong Kong National Party that he was involved in another case handled by the organised crime and triad bureau and that he would be arrested soon, according to Chan’s post.
The 29-year-old had not updated his page since posting the Facebook message shortly before midnight on Thursday.
On August 1, police arrested eight people, including Chan, at an industrial building unit, where they seized 10 baseball bats, 20 sharpened walking sticks, two bows and six arrows, metal balls and several cartons of protective gear such as helmets and gas masks.
The police move on Chan came around the time riot officers were clearing protesters on the third night of chaos this week outside Sham Shui Po Police Station.
Police made several arrests near to the station late on Thursday during another dispersal of protesters, who were demanding justice for the female demonstrator who suffered a serious eye injury.
Earlier this week, police rejected the Civil Human Rights Front’s plan to march from Central to Beijing’s liaison office in Sai Ying Pun on Saturday. The front has been appealing against the ban.
Speaking on a radio programme on Friday, the front’s convenor Jimmy Sham Tsz-kit said if they lost their appeal, the march would be postponed.
“The front can only apply for another date for a march. We will not organise an unlawful march,” he said.
The group is behind the biggest marches held in Hong Kong since the eruption of the political crisis in early June, sparked by the now-abandoned extradition bill, which would have allowed criminal suspects to be sent back to mainland China.
The anti-government movement has five main demands, including the bill’s complete withdrawal, the establishment of an independent inquiry into police’s handling of protests and genuine universal suffrage.
Pro-democracy figureheads held on suspicion of unlawful assembly.
By MICHELLE WONG, CLIFFORD LO AND PHILA SIU
This story is being published as part of a content partnership with the South China Morning Post. It originally appeared on scmp.com on August 30, 2019.
Hong Kong pro-democracy activists Joshua Wong and Agnes Chow were arrested on Friday for their involvement in an unlawful assembly, police have announced.
Wong was arrested on three charges of organising, inciting and taking part in an illegal assembly during the besieging of the Wan Chai police headquarters on June 21, while Chow was detained on charges of inciting and taking part in the same illegal assembly.
Sha Tin district council member Rick Hui Yui-yu was also arrested in Kwun Tong on Friday morning, according to his assistant, surnamed Tsang. Police said Hui, 31, was arrested on suspicion of obstructing officers in the execution of their duty in relation to the July 14 clashes at New Town Plaza shopping mall in Sha Tin.
Police also arrested independence campaigner Andy Chan on Thursday night on suspicion of rioting and assaulting a police officer during the Sheung Shui anti-parallel traders protest. He was stopped from boarding a plane leaving for Tokyo at Hong Kong airport.
Wong and Chow were key figures during the Occupy protests of 2014 while Chan, also an Occupy activist, led the banned Hong Kong National Party. Their arrests come on the eve of a proposed mass protest that has been banned by police.
On the June 21 siege of police headquarters in Wan Chai, thousands of demonstrators barricaded entrances and pelted eggs at the building, as they made their demands for a complete withdrawal of the now-shelved extradition bill and an exoneration of those arrested in previous clashes.
Wong and Chow are leaders of the pro-democracy outfit Demosisto which has been campaigning for democratic self-determination of Hong Kong. Chow was disqualified last year from taking part in Legislative Council elections.
A third member of the party, Ivan Lam Long-yin, was also charged with inciting others to take part in an unauthorised assembly. He was said to be out of town and did not show up in court.
In a statement on Friday, Demosisto insisted that the extradition protests were leaderless and the party was not spearheading them.
“We are very angry about the police creating a chilling effect and white terror through a large-scale arrest of protesters on the eve of August 31,” the party said.
August 31 marks the fifth anniversary of Beijing’s stringent “831 Decision” on Hong Kong’s democratic reforms and protesters had planned to launch another mass demonstration before they were banned by police.
The party alleged the arrests were politically driven as it involved “movement leaders” which the Chinese Communist Party had named. “[The arrests] are to paint a picture that the anti-extradition movement was pushed by some masterminds behind the scene, as to neglect the residents’ five demands,” it said.
Wong, who served time in jail for his role in the 2014 Occupy movement, was detained early on Friday on his way to the MTR station, according to the Demosisto party.
A police source said Chow was arrested at her home in Tai Po, while Wong was detained on the street in Ap Lei Chau at about 7am on Friday.
Both are being held for questioning at police headquarters in Wan Chai.
The party’s Facebook page said Wong, 22, was heading to South Horizons MTR station when he was pushed into a private car and taken to police headquarters.
Seen as one of the leaders of the 2014 Occupy movement, Wong was jailed in August 2017 for six months for storming the government headquarters compound at Tamar, Admiralty, which sparked the 79-day protest.
A police spokesman confirmed the arrest of a 29-year-old man surnamed Chan on Thursday night at the airport. He was arrested for rioting and assaulting a police officer, the spokesman said.
On Thursday night, pro-independence activist Andy Chan Ho-tin wrote on his Facebook page that was he was stopped by officers from boarding a plane.
The force told the co-founder of the Hong Kong National Party that he was involved in another case handled by the organised crime and triad bureau and that he would be arrested soon, according to Chan’s post.
The 29-year-old had not updated his page since posting the Facebook message shortly before midnight on Thursday.
On August 1, police arrested eight people, including Chan, at an industrial building unit, where they seized 10 baseball bats, 20 sharpened walking sticks, two bows and six arrows, metal balls and several cartons of protective gear such as helmets and gas masks.
The police move on Chan came around the time riot officers were clearing protesters on the third night of chaos this week outside Sham Shui Po Police Station.
Police made several arrests near to the station late on Thursday during another dispersal of protesters, who were demanding justice for the female demonstrator who suffered a serious eye injury.
Earlier this week, police rejected the Civil Human Rights Front’s plan to march from Central to Beijing’s liaison office in Sai Ying Pun on Saturday. The front has been appealing against the ban.
Speaking on a radio programme on Friday, the front’s convenor Jimmy Sham Tsz-kit said if they lost their appeal, the march would be postponed.
“The front can only apply for another date for a march. We will not organise an unlawful march,” he said.
The group is behind the biggest marches held in Hong Kong since the eruption of the political crisis in early June, sparked by the now-abandoned extradition bill, which would have allowed criminal suspects to be sent back to mainland China.
The anti-government movement has five main demands, including the bill’s complete withdrawal, the establishment of an independent inquiry into police’s handling of protests and genuine universal suffrage.
Scolds Comey
Trump praises Bill Barr after IG report scolds Comey
But the president says the former FBI director "got Lucky!" for avoiding prosecution.
By POLITICO STAFF
President Donald Trump said the Department of Justice’s decision to not prosecute former FBI Director James Comey reflected well upon Attorney General Bill Barr, while also saying that Comey “got Lucky!”
“The fact that James Comey was not prosecuted for the absolutely horrible things he did just shows how fair and reasonable Attorney General Bill Barr is,” Trump tweeted. “So many people and experts that I have watched and read would have taken an entirely different course. Comey got Lucky!”
The DOJ’s Office of Inspector General said in a report released Thursday that the department had decided not to prosecute Comey for retaining memos about interactions with the Trump White House and for disclosing one such memo to the media.
But it also delivered a scathing rebuke of Comey. The report sharply criticized him for violating FBI and DOJ policies on handling information about sensitive law enforcement investigations. However, it cleared Comey of allegations that he leaked classified information.
Trump has long railed against Comey, accusing him of being a leaker and a weak FBI chief. Trump’s firing of Comey — which came with muddled reasoning from the president and the White House — led to the appointment of special counsel Robert Mueller and cast a cloud over Trump’s presidency for months.
Earlier on Friday, Trump vented his frustration over the troubles that he associates with Comey.
“The disastrous IG Report on James Comey shows, in the strongest of terms, how unfairly I, and tens of millions of great people who support me, were treated. Our rights and liberties were illegally stripped away by this dishonest fool. We should be given our stolen time back?” Trump wrote.
Comey vigorously defended himself on Twitter moments after the report’s release on Thursday. He emphasized the fact that the report cleared him of allegations that he illegally disclosed classified information.
“I don’t need a public apology from those who defamed me, but a quick message with a ‘sorry we lied about you’ would be nice,” he wrote, adding, “And to all those who’ve spent two years talking about me ‘going to jail’ or being a ‘liar and a leaker’—ask yourselves why you still trust people who gave you bad info for so long, including the president.”
But the president says the former FBI director "got Lucky!" for avoiding prosecution.
By POLITICO STAFF
President Donald Trump said the Department of Justice’s decision to not prosecute former FBI Director James Comey reflected well upon Attorney General Bill Barr, while also saying that Comey “got Lucky!”
“The fact that James Comey was not prosecuted for the absolutely horrible things he did just shows how fair and reasonable Attorney General Bill Barr is,” Trump tweeted. “So many people and experts that I have watched and read would have taken an entirely different course. Comey got Lucky!”
The DOJ’s Office of Inspector General said in a report released Thursday that the department had decided not to prosecute Comey for retaining memos about interactions with the Trump White House and for disclosing one such memo to the media.
But it also delivered a scathing rebuke of Comey. The report sharply criticized him for violating FBI and DOJ policies on handling information about sensitive law enforcement investigations. However, it cleared Comey of allegations that he leaked classified information.
Trump has long railed against Comey, accusing him of being a leaker and a weak FBI chief. Trump’s firing of Comey — which came with muddled reasoning from the president and the White House — led to the appointment of special counsel Robert Mueller and cast a cloud over Trump’s presidency for months.
Earlier on Friday, Trump vented his frustration over the troubles that he associates with Comey.
“The disastrous IG Report on James Comey shows, in the strongest of terms, how unfairly I, and tens of millions of great people who support me, were treated. Our rights and liberties were illegally stripped away by this dishonest fool. We should be given our stolen time back?” Trump wrote.
Comey vigorously defended himself on Twitter moments after the report’s release on Thursday. He emphasized the fact that the report cleared him of allegations that he illegally disclosed classified information.
“I don’t need a public apology from those who defamed me, but a quick message with a ‘sorry we lied about you’ would be nice,” he wrote, adding, “And to all those who’ve spent two years talking about me ‘going to jail’ or being a ‘liar and a leaker’—ask yourselves why you still trust people who gave you bad info for so long, including the president.”
Fired after leaks
Madeleine Westerhout: White House aide fired after leaks on Trump family
From BBC
Madeleine Westerhout, 29, was abruptly removed on Thursday after Mr Trump learned she had shared the details at a dinner with reporters early this month.
She was drinking and bragging about her access to Mr Trump during his vacation in New Jersey, CBS News reports.
Ms Westerhout had worked with Mr Trump since the first day of his presidency.
The White House has declined to comment on her departure.
The New York Times, which first reported her firing, cited a White House source who said she is now considered a "separated employee" and would be barred from returning to the White House on Friday.
Described in US media as Mr Trump's gatekeeper, she had an office directly in front of Mr Trump's Oval Office in the West Wing.
What did she do?
The comments were made in an off-the-record dinner conversation with reporters at an Embassy Suites hotel in Berkeley Heights, New Jersey, during Mr Trump's vacation to his club in Bedminster, New Jersey, earlier in August.
Sources told CBS News she was drinking and disclosed private details about the president's family. She also reportedly gossiped about broadcasters seeking access to the president.
It is unclear how Mr Trump learned of the conversation.
Several White House officials had long suspected her of disloyalty to Mr Trump, with one former official telling CBS: "She was a spy from day one who sought to use her proximity to the president to curry favour with his detractors."
According to two books about the Trump White House, Ms Westerhout was upset and seen crying on election night once it became clear that Mr Trump had won.
Ms Westerhout had previously worked for the Republican National Committee, and during Mr Trump's transition, she was often seen escorting guests through the lobby of Trump Tower in New York.
The 29-year-old executive assistant was reportedly earning $145,000 (£120,000) when she was terminated.
According to the New York Times, she has a private Instagram page where she posts about her life in the White House and travels with the president.
In one post she joked about printing out a piece of paper that Mr Trump had held up at a public event.
From BBC
Madeleine Westerhout, 29, was abruptly removed on Thursday after Mr Trump learned she had shared the details at a dinner with reporters early this month.
She was drinking and bragging about her access to Mr Trump during his vacation in New Jersey, CBS News reports.
Ms Westerhout had worked with Mr Trump since the first day of his presidency.
The White House has declined to comment on her departure.
The New York Times, which first reported her firing, cited a White House source who said she is now considered a "separated employee" and would be barred from returning to the White House on Friday.
Described in US media as Mr Trump's gatekeeper, she had an office directly in front of Mr Trump's Oval Office in the West Wing.
What did she do?
The comments were made in an off-the-record dinner conversation with reporters at an Embassy Suites hotel in Berkeley Heights, New Jersey, during Mr Trump's vacation to his club in Bedminster, New Jersey, earlier in August.
Sources told CBS News she was drinking and disclosed private details about the president's family. She also reportedly gossiped about broadcasters seeking access to the president.
It is unclear how Mr Trump learned of the conversation.
Several White House officials had long suspected her of disloyalty to Mr Trump, with one former official telling CBS: "She was a spy from day one who sought to use her proximity to the president to curry favour with his detractors."
According to two books about the Trump White House, Ms Westerhout was upset and seen crying on election night once it became clear that Mr Trump had won.
Ms Westerhout had previously worked for the Republican National Committee, and during Mr Trump's transition, she was often seen escorting guests through the lobby of Trump Tower in New York.
The 29-year-old executive assistant was reportedly earning $145,000 (£120,000) when she was terminated.
According to the New York Times, she has a private Instagram page where she posts about her life in the White House and travels with the president.
In one post she joked about printing out a piece of paper that Mr Trump had held up at a public event.
August 29, 2019
Fucking turtle neck prick....
McConnell to Supreme Court: We won’t let Dems 'pack the court'
Republicans hit back after Democratic senators sent a brief warning voters may eventually demand the high court be restructured.
By BURGESS EVERETT
Mitch McConnell is at war with Senate Democrats over the Supreme Court all over again.
The Senate majority leader and his 52 GOP colleagues sent a letter to the Supreme Court on Thursday pushing back against a Democratic amicus brief urging the court not to take up “political ‘projects” like a new challenge to New York City’s gun laws.
Led by Sheldon Whitehouse of Rhode Island, five Democratic senators argued earlier this month that the case was part of a drive to install a conservative majority on the court and strike down gun laws. The Democrats closed their letter by suggesting that voters may eventually demand the Supreme Court be “restructured in order to reduce the influence of politics” if it continues on its current course.
McConnell (R-Ky.) and the Senate GOP said the effort “openly threatened this court with political retribution if it failed to dismiss the [New York] petition as moot.”
“The implication is as plain as day: Dismiss this case, or we’ll pack the court,” the Republicans wrote in the letter, first reported by the Washington Post, adding that they would fight against any restructuring plans.
“We share Justice Ginsburg’s view that ‘nine seems to be a good number,’ they said. “And it will remain that way as long as we are here.”
The letter to the court is the latest turn in the battle between McConnell and the Democratic minority over the fate of the Supreme Court.
McConnell blocked President Barack Obama from filling a vacancy left by Justice Antonin Scalia’s death, then confirmed President Donald Trump’s replacement Neil Gorsuch a year later after eliminating the filibuster for the Supreme Court nominees.
Last year, McConnell pushed through the controversial confirmation of Brett Kavanaugh, who faced allegations of sexual assault. Kavanaugh is widely viewed as more conservative than his predecessor, Anthony Kennedy. McConnell has also said he would consider filling any vacancies ahead of the 2020 election as well, despite having blocked Obama’s pick in an election year.
Citing polling data showing concern about the Supreme Court being infused with politics, the rising influence of the conservative Federalist Society and the spate of 5-4 decisions on charged issues, the Democrats argued that “the Supreme Court is not well. And the people know it.”
Whitehouse’s brief was joined by Democratic Sens Dick Durbin of Illinois, Mazie Hirono of Hawaii, Richard Blumenthal of Connecticut and Kirsten Gillibrand of New York.
The 53-member Senate Republican majority — from moderates like Susan Collins and Lisa Murkowski to conservatives like Ted Cruz and Rand Paul — agreed that “judicial independence is under assault,” but not from the right.
“Democrats in Congress, and on the presidential campaign trail, have peddled plans to pack this court with more justices in order to further their radical legislative agenda,” the senators wrote. “The Democrats’ amicus brief demonstrates that their court-packing plans are more than mere pandering. They are a direct, immediate threat to the independence of the judiciary and the rights of all Americans.”
Republicans hit back after Democratic senators sent a brief warning voters may eventually demand the high court be restructured.
By BURGESS EVERETT
Mitch McConnell is at war with Senate Democrats over the Supreme Court all over again.
The Senate majority leader and his 52 GOP colleagues sent a letter to the Supreme Court on Thursday pushing back against a Democratic amicus brief urging the court not to take up “political ‘projects” like a new challenge to New York City’s gun laws.
Led by Sheldon Whitehouse of Rhode Island, five Democratic senators argued earlier this month that the case was part of a drive to install a conservative majority on the court and strike down gun laws. The Democrats closed their letter by suggesting that voters may eventually demand the Supreme Court be “restructured in order to reduce the influence of politics” if it continues on its current course.
McConnell (R-Ky.) and the Senate GOP said the effort “openly threatened this court with political retribution if it failed to dismiss the [New York] petition as moot.”
“The implication is as plain as day: Dismiss this case, or we’ll pack the court,” the Republicans wrote in the letter, first reported by the Washington Post, adding that they would fight against any restructuring plans.
“We share Justice Ginsburg’s view that ‘nine seems to be a good number,’ they said. “And it will remain that way as long as we are here.”
The letter to the court is the latest turn in the battle between McConnell and the Democratic minority over the fate of the Supreme Court.
McConnell blocked President Barack Obama from filling a vacancy left by Justice Antonin Scalia’s death, then confirmed President Donald Trump’s replacement Neil Gorsuch a year later after eliminating the filibuster for the Supreme Court nominees.
Last year, McConnell pushed through the controversial confirmation of Brett Kavanaugh, who faced allegations of sexual assault. Kavanaugh is widely viewed as more conservative than his predecessor, Anthony Kennedy. McConnell has also said he would consider filling any vacancies ahead of the 2020 election as well, despite having blocked Obama’s pick in an election year.
Citing polling data showing concern about the Supreme Court being infused with politics, the rising influence of the conservative Federalist Society and the spate of 5-4 decisions on charged issues, the Democrats argued that “the Supreme Court is not well. And the people know it.”
Whitehouse’s brief was joined by Democratic Sens Dick Durbin of Illinois, Mazie Hirono of Hawaii, Richard Blumenthal of Connecticut and Kirsten Gillibrand of New York.
The 53-member Senate Republican majority — from moderates like Susan Collins and Lisa Murkowski to conservatives like Ted Cruz and Rand Paul — agreed that “judicial independence is under assault,” but not from the right.
“Democrats in Congress, and on the presidential campaign trail, have peddled plans to pack this court with more justices in order to further their radical legislative agenda,” the senators wrote. “The Democrats’ amicus brief demonstrates that their court-packing plans are more than mere pandering. They are a direct, immediate threat to the independence of the judiciary and the rights of all Americans.”
Won’t save us
Wall Street won’t save us from Trump’s trade war
Investors used to ignore Trump’s weird antics. They can’t anymore.
By Emily Stewart
Wall Street is at a point where it can’t — or won’t — ignore President Donald Trump’s trade antics and Twitter tirades like it used to.
The latest big data points are Trump’s whiplash on the trade war with China and concerns about a potential recession, some of which is fueled by what’s coming out of the White House, has had investors on edge in recent weeks.
The Dow Jones Industrial Average fell by 600 points last Friday after Trump tweeted he was ordering American companies to start looking for alternatives to business in China. (It’s not clear whether such an order carries much weight). On Monday, the Dow recovered by almost 300 points, thanks in part to Trump’s comments that China had called and asked to “get back to the table” on negotiations. But if you lost money on Friday, you didn’t make it all back on Monday.
In the early days of the Trump presidency, Wall Street mostly stubbornly ignored some of the president’s over-the-top antics. Were the tweets a little weird sometimes? Sure. But between tax cuts and deregulation, they were also pretty easy to ignore.
But that’s starting to change.
The global implications of the escalating trade tensions between the United States and China are weighing on investors. The longer this goes on, with no firm deal in sight, the likelier it becomes to affect business investments and corporate decision-making, or even to tip the US into a recession. There’s also not a lot going on elsewhere for traders to focus on, making market movements more prone to follow day-to-day headlines and therefore more volatile, especially in an environment of tariff-by-tweet. And it’s not just China — Trump’s NAFTA replacement, the United States-Mexico-Canada Agreement (USMCA), isn’t flying through Congress, either.
“The overwhelming consensus among trade experts is that tariffs are going in place and are going to stay in place, probably, through 2020,” said James Lucier, managing director at policy research group Capital Alpha. “Somehow, I think many in the financial markets have had a willful suspension of disbelief.”
During the early days of Trump’s presidency, markets by and large managed to ignore some of the drastic activity coming out of the White House. Investors embraced the upside of Trump’s presidency — a big corporate tax cut and a generally more corporate-friendly attitude — and overlooked a lot of the downsides and risks.
But as time has gone on and Trump’s trade tactics, specifically, have started to sink in, some of that optimism has started to dissipate. It’s not that the stock market has crashed under Trump; despite a pretty significant downward turn in December, it’s about right where it was this time a year ago. But the market has been bouncier, in part because of the messaging coming out of the White House.
“I wouldn’t necessarily say it’s the tweets themselves, but it’s the content of the tweets,” said Kristina Hooper, global markets strategist at investment management firm Invesco. “For so long, the tweets were more opinion as opposed to actions or decrees. What we’ve seen this year is a movement more into actions.”
She pointed to the reaction to a tweet about Mexico as a signal that Wall Street was becoming wary of Trump. On May 30, the president announced on Twitter that the US would impose a 5 percent tariff on imports from Mexico until it addressed the issue of illegal immigration. The Dow subsequently fell by 350 points.
Days later, the US and Mexico announced a deal to avoid tariffs that reportedly mostly included measures Mexico had already agreed to. Hooper said what was alarming about the potential tariffs, even if they were eventually averted, is that they were appended to a non-trade matter. “Tying tariffs to non-trade policy was a real concern for business leaders,” she said. “It really takes away clarity about policy going forward, and of course, that’s like taking oxygen out of the room for people who run a business.”
The trade war, at this point, is pretty hard to ignore
Of course, the big story has been China. Escalating tariffs and other retaliatory measures between the US and China have been a major source of market whiplash. On August 5, the Dow had its worst day of 2019 after China allowed its currency to fall and Trump accused it of currency manipulation — that is, until August 14, when the Dow had an even worse day amid recession concerns. A major factor there: the trade war.
Part of the issue, explained Ed Clissold, chief US strategist for investment firm Ned Davis Research Group, is there’s not much else for investors to pay attention to. “There’s not a whole lot going on fundamentally to drive the market, so in the absence of good fundamental drivers or negative fundamental drivers, the market seems to be beholden to the news of the day,” he said. “After the tax cut, the economy has returned to what it’s been for most of this expansion, which has been sub-3 percent real GDP growth with low inflation.”
At the same time, the realities of Trump’s trade tactics are starting to set in. There’s no end to the US-China trade war in sight, and Trump’s new NAFTA isn’t going anywhere fast, either. An uncertain environment is going to affect business decisions such as investments and supply chain management, which investors are well aware of. Consumers will eventually start to feel the tariffs, too.
“It’s getting worse just because of the cumulative effects of a) higher tariffs and b) more tariffs on more items over time. Add those together, and it starts to get much worse over time,” said Barry Ritholtz, a commentator and chief investment officer at Ritholtz Wealth Management, in an email. “And the election really starts to ramp up later this year. The markets will be roiled even more by the tweeting.”
To be sure, Trump’s trade war isn’t the only thing making Wall Street antsy. Investors are keeping a close eye on the Federal Reserve and what Chair Jerome Powell will and won’t do to help keep the economy humming going forward. And there are other domestic and global factors in play; for example, a manufacturing slowdown in the US, a sluggish German economy, and continuing uncertainty about Brexit.
For a long time, there’s been speculation that the stock market will serve as a sort of moderating force for Trump. The idea is that the president has tethered his success so much to the markets and the economy — he often brags about the Dow and economic growth — that he won’t do too much to screw them up.
As William Watts at Marketwatch pointed out, the idea that the stock market will provide a check on Trump is starting to fade among some investors. He noted that analysts at Macquarie said that since August, it hasn’t been a “valid investment thesis.”
At times, it does seem that the president no longer cares whether an errant remark sends the stock market downward or spurs a few complaints from his rich friends. But there are still moments when he appears to have an eye on the market: On Friday, Trump waited to announce more China tariffs until after US markets were closed. But when he did, it was on Twitter.
Investors used to ignore Trump’s weird antics. They can’t anymore.
By Emily Stewart
Wall Street is at a point where it can’t — or won’t — ignore President Donald Trump’s trade antics and Twitter tirades like it used to.
The latest big data points are Trump’s whiplash on the trade war with China and concerns about a potential recession, some of which is fueled by what’s coming out of the White House, has had investors on edge in recent weeks.
The Dow Jones Industrial Average fell by 600 points last Friday after Trump tweeted he was ordering American companies to start looking for alternatives to business in China. (It’s not clear whether such an order carries much weight). On Monday, the Dow recovered by almost 300 points, thanks in part to Trump’s comments that China had called and asked to “get back to the table” on negotiations. But if you lost money on Friday, you didn’t make it all back on Monday.
In the early days of the Trump presidency, Wall Street mostly stubbornly ignored some of the president’s over-the-top antics. Were the tweets a little weird sometimes? Sure. But between tax cuts and deregulation, they were also pretty easy to ignore.
But that’s starting to change.
The global implications of the escalating trade tensions between the United States and China are weighing on investors. The longer this goes on, with no firm deal in sight, the likelier it becomes to affect business investments and corporate decision-making, or even to tip the US into a recession. There’s also not a lot going on elsewhere for traders to focus on, making market movements more prone to follow day-to-day headlines and therefore more volatile, especially in an environment of tariff-by-tweet. And it’s not just China — Trump’s NAFTA replacement, the United States-Mexico-Canada Agreement (USMCA), isn’t flying through Congress, either.
“The overwhelming consensus among trade experts is that tariffs are going in place and are going to stay in place, probably, through 2020,” said James Lucier, managing director at policy research group Capital Alpha. “Somehow, I think many in the financial markets have had a willful suspension of disbelief.”
During the early days of Trump’s presidency, markets by and large managed to ignore some of the drastic activity coming out of the White House. Investors embraced the upside of Trump’s presidency — a big corporate tax cut and a generally more corporate-friendly attitude — and overlooked a lot of the downsides and risks.
But as time has gone on and Trump’s trade tactics, specifically, have started to sink in, some of that optimism has started to dissipate. It’s not that the stock market has crashed under Trump; despite a pretty significant downward turn in December, it’s about right where it was this time a year ago. But the market has been bouncier, in part because of the messaging coming out of the White House.
“I wouldn’t necessarily say it’s the tweets themselves, but it’s the content of the tweets,” said Kristina Hooper, global markets strategist at investment management firm Invesco. “For so long, the tweets were more opinion as opposed to actions or decrees. What we’ve seen this year is a movement more into actions.”
She pointed to the reaction to a tweet about Mexico as a signal that Wall Street was becoming wary of Trump. On May 30, the president announced on Twitter that the US would impose a 5 percent tariff on imports from Mexico until it addressed the issue of illegal immigration. The Dow subsequently fell by 350 points.
Days later, the US and Mexico announced a deal to avoid tariffs that reportedly mostly included measures Mexico had already agreed to. Hooper said what was alarming about the potential tariffs, even if they were eventually averted, is that they were appended to a non-trade matter. “Tying tariffs to non-trade policy was a real concern for business leaders,” she said. “It really takes away clarity about policy going forward, and of course, that’s like taking oxygen out of the room for people who run a business.”
The trade war, at this point, is pretty hard to ignore
Of course, the big story has been China. Escalating tariffs and other retaliatory measures between the US and China have been a major source of market whiplash. On August 5, the Dow had its worst day of 2019 after China allowed its currency to fall and Trump accused it of currency manipulation — that is, until August 14, when the Dow had an even worse day amid recession concerns. A major factor there: the trade war.
Part of the issue, explained Ed Clissold, chief US strategist for investment firm Ned Davis Research Group, is there’s not much else for investors to pay attention to. “There’s not a whole lot going on fundamentally to drive the market, so in the absence of good fundamental drivers or negative fundamental drivers, the market seems to be beholden to the news of the day,” he said. “After the tax cut, the economy has returned to what it’s been for most of this expansion, which has been sub-3 percent real GDP growth with low inflation.”
At the same time, the realities of Trump’s trade tactics are starting to set in. There’s no end to the US-China trade war in sight, and Trump’s new NAFTA isn’t going anywhere fast, either. An uncertain environment is going to affect business decisions such as investments and supply chain management, which investors are well aware of. Consumers will eventually start to feel the tariffs, too.
“It’s getting worse just because of the cumulative effects of a) higher tariffs and b) more tariffs on more items over time. Add those together, and it starts to get much worse over time,” said Barry Ritholtz, a commentator and chief investment officer at Ritholtz Wealth Management, in an email. “And the election really starts to ramp up later this year. The markets will be roiled even more by the tweeting.”
To be sure, Trump’s trade war isn’t the only thing making Wall Street antsy. Investors are keeping a close eye on the Federal Reserve and what Chair Jerome Powell will and won’t do to help keep the economy humming going forward. And there are other domestic and global factors in play; for example, a manufacturing slowdown in the US, a sluggish German economy, and continuing uncertainty about Brexit.
For a long time, there’s been speculation that the stock market will serve as a sort of moderating force for Trump. The idea is that the president has tethered his success so much to the markets and the economy — he often brags about the Dow and economic growth — that he won’t do too much to screw them up.
As William Watts at Marketwatch pointed out, the idea that the stock market will provide a check on Trump is starting to fade among some investors. He noted that analysts at Macquarie said that since August, it hasn’t been a “valid investment thesis.”
At times, it does seem that the president no longer cares whether an errant remark sends the stock market downward or spurs a few complaints from his rich friends. But there are still moments when he appears to have an eye on the market: On Friday, Trump waited to announce more China tariffs until after US markets were closed. But when he did, it was on Twitter.
War on the Media
Trump’s War on the Media Keeps Getting More Extreme
But there’s some bad news for the president: His escalating smear tactics may be failing.
MARK FOLLMAN
President Donald Trump has stoked much controversy and chaos this summer. News coverage has swirled around everything from his racist rants against Democratic congresswomen, to him calling the Federal Reserve chairman he appointed an “enemy” of the United States, to him once again downplaying white supremacist terror—this time after a mass murder by a gunman who explicitly cited the type of migrant “invasion” Trump has long alleged.
Other disturbing conduct by Trump has drawn less notice, however, particularly his intensifying attacks on journalists and news organizations, which he has pursued throughout the other mayhem. By now, the country is used to Trump’s “fake news” and “enemy of the people” rhetoric. The constant repetition of those messages is no accident: His overarching goal is to try to discredit the press and reduce the impact of reporting that exposes his administration’s lies, negligence, and failures and his own possible criminality.
Trump’s incessant war on the American press has grown more extreme as his presidency has gone on, and recently that pattern has further escalated. Not only has Trump continued to smear journalists with ugly hyperbole—despite clear evidence his words have provoked violent threats against Americans working in newsrooms—he is now also seeking to whip up a conspiracy theory about the Democratic Party and the news media and position the press as a scapegoat for a potential economic recession.
In early July, the president inveighed against NBC and MSNBC journalists as “degenerate Trump haters,” using a label that historically has connotations of eugenics and Nazi propaganda. (Previously, Trump used “degenerate” to refer to ISIS terrorists, but also Washington Post reporter Carl Bernstein.) As outrage blew up later in the month over Trump’s attacks on Rep. Ilhan Omar of Minnesota and other Democratic women of color in Congress, the president blasted the “crazed” news media and claimed it had “either officially or unofficially become a part of the Radical Left Democrat Party.” He called it “a sick partnership.”
“The Mainstream Media is out of control,” Trump fumed on Twitter a few days later, specifically targeting “The Amazon Washington Post” for its coverage of his battle with Omar and others. “They constantly lie and cheat in order to get their Radical Left Democrat views out their [sic] for all to see. It has never been this bad. They have gone bonkers, & no longer care what is right or wrong. This large scale false reporting is sick!”
After a major report exposed appalling conditions at a migrant detention center near the US-Mexico border, Trump unleashed on the press corps on the White House lawn. “The New York Times is a very dishonest newspaper,” he said, adding “what they do is a tremendous disservice to this country. They are truly the enemy of the people, I’ll tell you that. They are the enemy of the people.” A couple of days later, he berated reporters personally during a press gaggle broadcast on national television.
During several days in July when Trump went after the African American chairman of the House Oversight Committee—including calling Rep. Elijah Cummings’ Baltimore district a “rat and rodent infested mess”—Trump reiterated that the Democrats “have the Fake News Media in their pocket!” And when a new Quinnipiac poll showed that 80 percent of African Americans considered Trump a racist, he blamed the poll results on the media: “You know why?” he sneered at a female White House reporter who asked him about the survey. “Because the fake news doesn’t report it properly. People like you.”
August brought mass shootings, warning signs that the US economy was faltering, and more invective from Trump. “Never has the press been more inaccurate, unfair or corrupt!” he tweeted in the wake of the gun rampages in Gilroy, Dayton, and El Paso, after sharp criticism of how he handled visits with hospitalized victims and local officials. “We are not fighting the Democrats, they are easy, we are fighting the seriously dishonest and unhinged Lamestream Media. They have gone totally CRAZY.”
As Trump appeared to grow concerned about the future of the US economy, he opened up a new front. “The Fake News Media is doing everything they can to crash the economy because they think that will be bad for me and my re-election,” he claimed, without presenting any evidence of such a conspiracy. He began repeating the attack, falsely declaring that journalists were “doing everything possible” to cause a downturn. “They would be willing to hurt many people, but that doesn’t matter to them,” he added.
Trump got plenty of backing for this bogus claim from Sean Hannity, Lou Dobbs, and other Fox News pundits. Democrats and “the media mob” were now “trying to talk the US into an economic recession,” Hannity said on his primetime show. “They want people to suffer. Why? So they can get back power and President Trump will lose the election. You know what? It doesn’t get any sicker than what these people are doing.”
Meanwhile, the New York Times reported this week that opposition researchers closely connected to the Trump family are aggressively targeting journalists whose reporting they deem hostile to the president, with the goal of embarrassing them and causing a chilling effect, if not destroying their careers.
Since this Monday alone, the president has lashed out at the press more than a dozen times, again declaring the media “totally out of control” and repeatedly calling it “fake and corrupt.” He has even stepped up some selective criticism of Fox News, complaining about their coverage of the Democratic primaries and stating, remarkably, that the network “isn’t working for us anymore.”
But the bad news in all this may be for Trump himself. While collectively these tactics represent an inherently dangerous attack on a pillar of our constitutional democracy, Trump’s multiyear campaign against the press appears to have been no more successful a project than, say, Trump Tower Moscow. One recent poll showed that although half of Trump’s base said they thought the press was “the enemy of the people,” two thirds of all respondents agreed “news media is an important part of a democracy.” Last October, an annual media survey conducted by Gallup since the 1970s found that public trust in the media rose steadily in the two years since Trump became president. And another poll last fall, from Quinnipiac, found that by a big margin American voters trusted the news media more than Trump “to tell the truth about important issues.” While those results fell starkly along partisan lines, independent and women voters sided heavily with the media.
Trump’s scorched-earth approach, in other words, may ultimately be failing. If that’s the case, he might simply resort to nonsensically blaming journalists.
“The Media is destroying the Free Press!” he tweeted late this month, echoing one of his favorite right-wing radio hosts. “So True!”
But there’s some bad news for the president: His escalating smear tactics may be failing.
MARK FOLLMAN
President Donald Trump has stoked much controversy and chaos this summer. News coverage has swirled around everything from his racist rants against Democratic congresswomen, to him calling the Federal Reserve chairman he appointed an “enemy” of the United States, to him once again downplaying white supremacist terror—this time after a mass murder by a gunman who explicitly cited the type of migrant “invasion” Trump has long alleged.
Other disturbing conduct by Trump has drawn less notice, however, particularly his intensifying attacks on journalists and news organizations, which he has pursued throughout the other mayhem. By now, the country is used to Trump’s “fake news” and “enemy of the people” rhetoric. The constant repetition of those messages is no accident: His overarching goal is to try to discredit the press and reduce the impact of reporting that exposes his administration’s lies, negligence, and failures and his own possible criminality.
Trump’s incessant war on the American press has grown more extreme as his presidency has gone on, and recently that pattern has further escalated. Not only has Trump continued to smear journalists with ugly hyperbole—despite clear evidence his words have provoked violent threats against Americans working in newsrooms—he is now also seeking to whip up a conspiracy theory about the Democratic Party and the news media and position the press as a scapegoat for a potential economic recession.
In early July, the president inveighed against NBC and MSNBC journalists as “degenerate Trump haters,” using a label that historically has connotations of eugenics and Nazi propaganda. (Previously, Trump used “degenerate” to refer to ISIS terrorists, but also Washington Post reporter Carl Bernstein.) As outrage blew up later in the month over Trump’s attacks on Rep. Ilhan Omar of Minnesota and other Democratic women of color in Congress, the president blasted the “crazed” news media and claimed it had “either officially or unofficially become a part of the Radical Left Democrat Party.” He called it “a sick partnership.”
“The Mainstream Media is out of control,” Trump fumed on Twitter a few days later, specifically targeting “The Amazon Washington Post” for its coverage of his battle with Omar and others. “They constantly lie and cheat in order to get their Radical Left Democrat views out their [sic] for all to see. It has never been this bad. They have gone bonkers, & no longer care what is right or wrong. This large scale false reporting is sick!”
After a major report exposed appalling conditions at a migrant detention center near the US-Mexico border, Trump unleashed on the press corps on the White House lawn. “The New York Times is a very dishonest newspaper,” he said, adding “what they do is a tremendous disservice to this country. They are truly the enemy of the people, I’ll tell you that. They are the enemy of the people.” A couple of days later, he berated reporters personally during a press gaggle broadcast on national television.
During several days in July when Trump went after the African American chairman of the House Oversight Committee—including calling Rep. Elijah Cummings’ Baltimore district a “rat and rodent infested mess”—Trump reiterated that the Democrats “have the Fake News Media in their pocket!” And when a new Quinnipiac poll showed that 80 percent of African Americans considered Trump a racist, he blamed the poll results on the media: “You know why?” he sneered at a female White House reporter who asked him about the survey. “Because the fake news doesn’t report it properly. People like you.”
August brought mass shootings, warning signs that the US economy was faltering, and more invective from Trump. “Never has the press been more inaccurate, unfair or corrupt!” he tweeted in the wake of the gun rampages in Gilroy, Dayton, and El Paso, after sharp criticism of how he handled visits with hospitalized victims and local officials. “We are not fighting the Democrats, they are easy, we are fighting the seriously dishonest and unhinged Lamestream Media. They have gone totally CRAZY.”
As Trump appeared to grow concerned about the future of the US economy, he opened up a new front. “The Fake News Media is doing everything they can to crash the economy because they think that will be bad for me and my re-election,” he claimed, without presenting any evidence of such a conspiracy. He began repeating the attack, falsely declaring that journalists were “doing everything possible” to cause a downturn. “They would be willing to hurt many people, but that doesn’t matter to them,” he added.
Trump got plenty of backing for this bogus claim from Sean Hannity, Lou Dobbs, and other Fox News pundits. Democrats and “the media mob” were now “trying to talk the US into an economic recession,” Hannity said on his primetime show. “They want people to suffer. Why? So they can get back power and President Trump will lose the election. You know what? It doesn’t get any sicker than what these people are doing.”
Meanwhile, the New York Times reported this week that opposition researchers closely connected to the Trump family are aggressively targeting journalists whose reporting they deem hostile to the president, with the goal of embarrassing them and causing a chilling effect, if not destroying their careers.
Since this Monday alone, the president has lashed out at the press more than a dozen times, again declaring the media “totally out of control” and repeatedly calling it “fake and corrupt.” He has even stepped up some selective criticism of Fox News, complaining about their coverage of the Democratic primaries and stating, remarkably, that the network “isn’t working for us anymore.”
But the bad news in all this may be for Trump himself. While collectively these tactics represent an inherently dangerous attack on a pillar of our constitutional democracy, Trump’s multiyear campaign against the press appears to have been no more successful a project than, say, Trump Tower Moscow. One recent poll showed that although half of Trump’s base said they thought the press was “the enemy of the people,” two thirds of all respondents agreed “news media is an important part of a democracy.” Last October, an annual media survey conducted by Gallup since the 1970s found that public trust in the media rose steadily in the two years since Trump became president. And another poll last fall, from Quinnipiac, found that by a big margin American voters trusted the news media more than Trump “to tell the truth about important issues.” While those results fell starkly along partisan lines, independent and women voters sided heavily with the media.
Trump’s scorched-earth approach, in other words, may ultimately be failing. If that’s the case, he might simply resort to nonsensically blaming journalists.
“The Media is destroying the Free Press!” he tweeted late this month, echoing one of his favorite right-wing radio hosts. “So True!”
Sucking up....
Barr's sucking up to Trump is a new low
Opinion by Paul Begala
So, William Barr, who works for Donald Trump, could be shelling out $30,000 for a party at -- wait for it -- the Trump International Hotel in Washington, according to the Washington Post. Thirty thousand dollars, wow. That's a heck of a party. Thirty thousand dollars will buy you a lot of pigs in a blanket. But perhaps the intent here is not to procure weenies wrapped in dough, but rather to curry favor.
Thus does Mr. Barr provide another example of the old maxim: "A person never stands so tall as when he stoops to kiss an a$$."
CNN reports that "Barr consulted career ethics officials at the Department of Justice, who determined that ethics rules did not prohibit him from hosting the event at the Trump hotel, the Justice Department official said." That's because ethics rules, God love 'em, aren't drawn up to police character flaws like the willingness to humiliate yourself in order to line the boss's pockets. For that we rely on conscience, dignity, class, self-respect, and other endangered species in Trump's Washington.
Barr's spin doctors claim he first tried to book his party at two other DC luxury hotels: the Willard (where Lincoln stayed before he was inaugurated) and the Mayflower, where FDR stayed before his own swearing-in, scribbling furiously that we have nothing to fear but fear itself. Even if that's true, it's not like the Trump hotel is the only other hotel nearby.
A quick search turned up two dozen other hotels within walking distance of the Justice Department, including the historic Hay-Adams, which is even closer to the White House than Trump's hotel, and the Watergate, which has its own place in history.
But apple-polishing is a time-honored tradition. Twenty-five centuries ago Aristophanes wrote a play featuring a character named Paphlagon, who has been described as "repulsively obsequious yet violently quarrelsome," and intent on winning the favor of his elderly master.
Two-and-a-half millennia later, Aristophanes would know how to cover Mr. Barr: an oleaginous courtier who sucks up and spits down.
To be fair, the White House has always been an epicenter of sucking up: "Why, no, President Washington, your whalebone teeth look very realistic." "With your lively sense of humor I think you'll love this play, Mr. Lincoln. You should definitely go." "Invade Iraq? Brilliant idea, sir!"
But Barr seems to be spelunking to new lows of posterior osculation. He ostentatiously auditioned for the job of attorney general by sending the Trump Justice Department -- unsolicited -- a memo prejudging the Mueller investigation as "fatally flawed." He penned an op-ed praising Trump for firing FBI Director James Comey, and later called the investigation into alleged obstruction of justice by Mr. Trump "asinine."
It worked. Flattery always works on Mad King Donald. It's not exactly a mystery that this narcissist loves being praised. He also likes money, and has refused to divest himself of his many properties, including -- you guessed it -- the eponymous hotel where Mr. Barr will be partying.
With all due respect to the immortal Greeks, who created the word "sycophant" for self-seeking flatterers like the attorney general, perhaps we need an update.
I suggest a new verb: to Barr, "to debase oneself in an obvious, unethical, and naked attempt to curry favor with one in power." I think it might catch on. Ballplayers who are being flattered by fans after a bad game could respond, "Don't Barr me, bro." When I ask my wife why my belt is getting so tight lately, I could add a warning, "And don't Barr me, honey." Hip-hop artists could take it up; "Barr" is easier to rhyme than "obsequious."
But then again, maybe not. Maybe living on -- even in lexicographic infamy -- is too kind a fate for William Barr. The more likely, and more just, outcome will be, when at last he departs the Justice Department, to scrub away all remnants of him, like a stain on the carpet left after a party in an overpriced hotel.
Opinion by Paul Begala
So, William Barr, who works for Donald Trump, could be shelling out $30,000 for a party at -- wait for it -- the Trump International Hotel in Washington, according to the Washington Post. Thirty thousand dollars, wow. That's a heck of a party. Thirty thousand dollars will buy you a lot of pigs in a blanket. But perhaps the intent here is not to procure weenies wrapped in dough, but rather to curry favor.
Thus does Mr. Barr provide another example of the old maxim: "A person never stands so tall as when he stoops to kiss an a$$."
CNN reports that "Barr consulted career ethics officials at the Department of Justice, who determined that ethics rules did not prohibit him from hosting the event at the Trump hotel, the Justice Department official said." That's because ethics rules, God love 'em, aren't drawn up to police character flaws like the willingness to humiliate yourself in order to line the boss's pockets. For that we rely on conscience, dignity, class, self-respect, and other endangered species in Trump's Washington.
Barr's spin doctors claim he first tried to book his party at two other DC luxury hotels: the Willard (where Lincoln stayed before he was inaugurated) and the Mayflower, where FDR stayed before his own swearing-in, scribbling furiously that we have nothing to fear but fear itself. Even if that's true, it's not like the Trump hotel is the only other hotel nearby.
A quick search turned up two dozen other hotels within walking distance of the Justice Department, including the historic Hay-Adams, which is even closer to the White House than Trump's hotel, and the Watergate, which has its own place in history.
But apple-polishing is a time-honored tradition. Twenty-five centuries ago Aristophanes wrote a play featuring a character named Paphlagon, who has been described as "repulsively obsequious yet violently quarrelsome," and intent on winning the favor of his elderly master.
Two-and-a-half millennia later, Aristophanes would know how to cover Mr. Barr: an oleaginous courtier who sucks up and spits down.
To be fair, the White House has always been an epicenter of sucking up: "Why, no, President Washington, your whalebone teeth look very realistic." "With your lively sense of humor I think you'll love this play, Mr. Lincoln. You should definitely go." "Invade Iraq? Brilliant idea, sir!"
But Barr seems to be spelunking to new lows of posterior osculation. He ostentatiously auditioned for the job of attorney general by sending the Trump Justice Department -- unsolicited -- a memo prejudging the Mueller investigation as "fatally flawed." He penned an op-ed praising Trump for firing FBI Director James Comey, and later called the investigation into alleged obstruction of justice by Mr. Trump "asinine."
It worked. Flattery always works on Mad King Donald. It's not exactly a mystery that this narcissist loves being praised. He also likes money, and has refused to divest himself of his many properties, including -- you guessed it -- the eponymous hotel where Mr. Barr will be partying.
With all due respect to the immortal Greeks, who created the word "sycophant" for self-seeking flatterers like the attorney general, perhaps we need an update.
I suggest a new verb: to Barr, "to debase oneself in an obvious, unethical, and naked attempt to curry favor with one in power." I think it might catch on. Ballplayers who are being flattered by fans after a bad game could respond, "Don't Barr me, bro." When I ask my wife why my belt is getting so tight lately, I could add a warning, "And don't Barr me, honey." Hip-hop artists could take it up; "Barr" is easier to rhyme than "obsequious."
But then again, maybe not. Maybe living on -- even in lexicographic infamy -- is too kind a fate for William Barr. The more likely, and more just, outcome will be, when at last he departs the Justice Department, to scrub away all remnants of him, like a stain on the carpet left after a party in an overpriced hotel.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)