Skip to content

Month: November 2018

Gassing kids at the border

Gassing kids at the border

by digby

The Trump administration closed the border at Tijuana today,the world’s busiest crossing, in both directions, stranding vast numbers of people on either side of the border on the busiest day of the holiday week-end.

FOR NO GOOD REASON.

Some Central American migrants, mostly men, tried to breach the border crossing between Tijuana, Mexico and California on Sunday, after pushing past a blockade of Mexican police standing guard near the international border crossing in a bid to pressure the U.S to hear their asylum claims.

In response, U.S. border guards suspended crossings at the the San Ysidro port of entry in California and shot tear gas into Mexico, according to an AP reporter on the scene.

Mexico’s Milenio TV showed images of at least a few of the hundreds of migrants at the border tried to jump over the fence separating the two countries.

The migrants carried hand-painted American and Honduran flags and chanted: “We are not criminals! We are international workers!” The group mostly consisted of men, although some women pushed small children ahead in strollers.

U.S. Border Patrol helicopters flew overhead, while U.S. agents held vigil on foot beyond the wire fence in California. The Border Patrol office in San Diego said via Twitter that pedestrian crossings have been suspended at the San Ysidro port of entry at both the East and West facilities.

Migrants were enveloped with tear gas after U.S. agents shot the gas, according to an Associated Press reporter on the scene. Children were screaming and coughing in the mayhem.

Honduran migrant Ana Zuniga, 23, said she saw migrants open a small hole in concertina wire at a gap on the Mexican side of a levee, at which point U.S. agents fired tear gas at them.

“We ran, but when you run the gas asphyxiates you more,” she told the AP while cradling her 3-year-old daughter Valery in her arms.

And now we are using tear gas on children — in a foreign country.

These people want to turn themselves in to the authorities and claim asylum. That’s all. They have been held in unsanitary pens in Tijuana, virtually designed to make them sick. They left the detention enter today out of desperation.

It’s a horror.

By the way, caravans have come to Tijuana before. The border patrol processed people without all this drama. This is all Trump.

And, by the way, MSNBC and CNN need to think twice before they cover this by showing the same footage of running Latinos on a loop. Maybe they could show the lines of stranded Americans on both sides of the border fuming at Trump’s stupidity.

.

Why is he lying? The perennial question

Why is he lying? The perennial question

by digby

Axios:

Sen. Mike Lee (R-Utah), Sen. Jack Reed (D-R.I.) and Rep. Adam Schiff (D-Calif.) all disagree with President Trump’s assertion that the CIA has not concluded that Crown Prince Mohammed bin Salman (MBS) ordered the murder of Jamal Khashoggi. 

These lawmakers are in positions to have seen the CIA’s final report on the situation surrounding Khashoggi — Schiff, the incoming House Intelligence Committee chairman; Reed, the ranking member of the Armed Services Committee; and Lee, a member of the Senate Judiciary Committee. Trump said on Thanksgiving, however, that the CIA did not come to a conclusion, discrediting the final report that said with “high confidence” MBS was involved with the murder. 

Sen. Jack Reed said Trump is lying: “The CIA concluded that the crown prince of Saudi Arabia was directly involved in the assassination of Khashoggi. … The notion that they didn’t reach a conclusion is just unsubstantiated.” 

Sen. Mike Lee said he disagrees with Trump’s assessment: “I don’t have access to everything the president sees … the intelligence I’ve seen suggests this was ordered by the crown prince. … I don’t know why he [Trump] is siding with the Saudis.” 

Rep. Adam Schiff said Trump “is not being honest with the country:” “It means our allies don’t respect us, our enemies don’t fear us; what is driving this, I don’t know.”

All about the Benjamins

All about the Benjamins

by digby

Science is nothing but one big scam.

Here’s some lunch, Rick:

This is how a free press dies in the 21st century

This is how a free press dies in the 21st century

by digby


Not with a bang but a buy-out:

Hungary’s leading news website, Origo, had a juicy scoop: A top aide to the far-right prime minister, Viktor Orban, had used state money to pay for sizable but unexplained expenses during secret foreign trips. The story embarrassed Mr. Orban and was a reminder that his country still had an independent press.

But that was in 2014. Today, Origo is one of the prime minister’s most dutiful media boosters, parroting his attacks on migrants and on George Soros, the Hungarian-American philanthropist demonized by the far right on both sides of the Atlantic.

And if Origo once dug into Mr. Orban’s government, it now pounces on his political opponents.

“Let’s look at the affairs of Laszlo Botka!” a headline blared this month in a salacious take on the only mayor of a major Hungarian city not aligned with Mr. Orban’s party, Fidesz. “Serious scandals, mysteries surround the socialist mayor of Szeged.”

If little known outside Hungary, Origo is now a cautionary tale for an age in which democratic norms and freedom of expression are being challenged globally — and President Trump and other leaders have intensified attacks on the free press.

In many ways, Hungary has foreshadowed the democratic backsliding now evident in different corners of the world. Since winning power in 2010, Mr. Orban has steadily eroded institutional checks and balances, especially the independent media. His government now oversees state-owned news outlets, while his allies control most of the country’s private media sources, creating a virtual echo chamber for Mr. Orban’s far right, anti-immigrant views.

The story of Origo’s transformation from independent news source to government cheerleader offers a blueprint of how Mr. Orban and his allies pulled this off. Rather than a sudden and blatant power grab, the effort was subtle but determined, using a quiet pressure campaign.

Origo’s editors were never imprisoned and its reporters were never beaten up. But in secret meetings — including a pivotal one in Vienna — the website’s original owner, a German-owned telecommunications company, relented. The company, Magyar Telekom, first tried self-censorship. Then it sought a nonpartisan buyer.

But, ultimately, Origo went to the family of Mr. Orban’s former finance minister.

“When Orban came to power in 2010, his aim was to eliminate the media’s role as a check on government,” said Attila Mong, a former public radio anchor and a critic of Mr. Orban. “Orban wanted to introduce a regime which keeps the facade of democratic institutions but is not operated in a democratic manner — and a free press doesn’t fit into that picture.”

I don’t know about you but the statement by ATT CEO Randall Stephenson, (which now owns CNN) didn’t exactly sound like a ringing endorsement of press freedom when he commented on the Jim Acosta flap:

“If the White House wants to pull someone’s press credentials, there is a process. That process must be followed, otherwise what is the criteria for pulling somebody’s press credentials?”

“You didn’t like the line of questioning? Well, that kind of seems to be violative of our protections of freedom of the press. If the president doesn’t like his conduct in the press briefing room then there’s a process to articulate that he doesn’t like it. There has been no process followed.”

I guess if Trump had followed “the process” then it would have been fine?

I dunno. Media in this country is held by a few mega-corporations. We’ve seen plenty of pressure from that quarter over the years. And political pressure too. Recall that CBS crawled on its hands and knees to the Bush White House after the National Guard flap.

It’s certainly possible that under the right circumstances the same thing could happen here.

.

Look closer to home by @BloggersRUs

Look closer to home
by Tom Sullivan

Twice in twenty years the U.S. Constitution has awarded the presidency to a candidate receiving a minority of votes. The elections of 2000 and 2016 highlight weaknesses in the constitutional architecture that bear addressing. Yet the document resists redesign. That is as baked in as the Electoral College and the structure of the Senate.

Atlantic‘s Parker Richards considers the past and future of efforts at eliminating the Electoral College.

Senator Birch Bayh of Indiana attempted in 1969 to garner enough Senate support for a constitutional amendment to determine the presidency by popular vote. While support was bipartisan, Richards writes, so was opposition. His measure passed the House well clear of the two-thirds vote required, but two cloture votes in the Senate failed. The proposal died.

Popular vote is not the only corrective for consideration. Allocating states’ electoral votes proportionally gained popularity with Republicans after 2012. Such a system would have awarded the presidency to Mitt Romney with a minority of the popular vote.

Other proposals have their plusses and minuses, yet the system remains intractable, Richards writes:

In 2018, the argument that parts of the Constitution lack utility as a 21st-century governing document is gaining ground in progressive circles. The unrepresentativeness of the Senate, problems surrounding gerrymandering, and voting-rights issues are challenging to redress without constitutional change, and partisan gridlock makes such shifts politically unviable. Berman, the former aide to Bayh, believes it would be all but impossible to enact a constitutional amendment revising the Electoral College today. But that doesn’t mean the effort is futile. “Everything that has happened since 1970 has proved we were right,” he says.

An October Atlantic piece by Richards examines the prospects for constitutional changes to eliminate the Senate or to ameliorate its undemocratic character either by constitutional amendment or by adding or breaking up states.

But fascination with eliminating the Electoral College or Senate, by amendment or some Rube Goldberg arrangement, only highlights the over-emphasis voters (and many activists) place on politics in Washington when the real battles for the country’s future lie outside the Beltway. Given the damage being wrought there even now, that position may raise eyebrows. Nonetheless, voters who see their rights under assault and their health at risk from harsh policies passed in the states have more proximate concerns than who will win the presidency in 2020 and how. While those issues are worth examining, looking to Washington or a constitutional solution for salvation is to hope for some deus ex machina that is not arriving anytime soon.

The problem for Democrats is they are not competitive enough in the so-called red states to win those electoral votes or to earn the Senate majority they need to influence legislation and Supreme Court appointments. There exists no constitutional barrier to them working harder there.

Jonathan Martin examines the challenges for Mike Espy in defeating Senator Cindy Hyde-Smith in Mississippi’s special election. One of those is Democrats’ weakness among rural voters. And Mississippi, Martin notes, is more rural than its neighbor Alabama where Democrat Doug Jones won a Senate seat in defeating former state Supreme Court Justice Roy Moore.

In rural counties across their states,”Stacey Abrams in Georgia, Andrew Gillum in Florida and Beto O’Rourke in Texas … performed worse than President Barack Obama did in 2012,” Martin writes:

“There’s a baseline percent of the white vote you have to get to win and you can’t get to it just through young and progressive excitement,” said Steve Schale, a Florida-based Democratic strategist who worked on Mr. Obama’s campaigns there and last week wrote a memo urging his party to grapple with why they got close but lost some key races this year. “The path from 48 to 50 is like climbing Mount Everest without oxygen.”

While Mr. Obama is remembered for galvanizing an ascendant bloc of voters of color, millennials and unmarried women, Mr. Schale said, “the piece of the Obama coalition that people forget is that he did not sustain these kinds of losses in rural and exurban areas.”

Obama put people on the ground there. Boosting turnout in the blue cities was not enough for these statewide races. Nor is it enough to gain control of 2021 redistricting in state legislatures controlled by conservatives elected in rural districts.

Ignoring those districts won’t win them. “Turning out the black vote” in congressional districts that are 90 percent or more white isn’t viable either.

Down Home North Carolina (DHNC) surveyed 1,384 residents of Alamance and Haywood Counties in North Carolina in 2017. Some key findings on rural voters’ struggles and what solutions rural working-class families look for (I get a warning about the pdf download):

• Residents of rural counties are more unified than might be expected.

• The dominant concerns of those surveyed were about economic pressures

• Rural North Carolinians have complex feelings about government

• President Trump is blamed most overall

• Solutions that focused on meeting basic economic needs were far and away the most popular

• “Overcoming prejudice and racism” stood out as one of the top-three solutions, identified by half (50 percent) of respondents

• There exists a strong relationship between poverty, participation, and hope

The title of their report speaks to why Democrats get less traction in rural America: “No one’s ever asked me before.”

While the status quo public narrative often highlights deep and seemingly insurmountable division across gender and racial lines, our survey exposes major areas of agreement among the majority of the multiracial working class.

Gender was not a significant factor in determining responses; only a few questions produced responses that were statistically different based on gender.

Race was a more significant variable in general, but, on many questions, the differences across race were less pronounced than often thought. Most significantly, meeting basic needs was a challenge for large majorities of respondents of all races. Solution categories that focused directly on meeting basic needs received support from even greater majorities of respondents across race and gender.

You must be present to win applies to more than raffles.

Re-up in time for Christmas shopping: Best re-issues of 2018 (so far) By Dennis Hartley @denofcinema5

Saturday Night at the Movies



Re-up in time for Christmas shopping:  Best re-issues of 2018 (so far)

By Dennis Hartley 





Since we’re halfway through 2018 (already?) I thought I’d alert you to some of the latest and greatest Blu-ray reissues I’ve picked up so far this year. Any reviews based on Region “B” editions (which require a multi-region Blu-ray player) are noted as such; the good news is that multi-region players are now more affordable! In alphabetical order…



Dead Man (The Criterion Collection) – Rhymes with: “deadpan”. Then again, that could describe any film directed by the idiosyncratic Jim Jarmusch. As far as Kafkaesque westerns go, you could do worse than this 1995 offering. Johnny Depp plays mild-mannered accountant and city slicker William Blake (yes, I know) who travels West by train to the rustic town of Machine, where he has accepted a job. Or so he assumes. Getting shooed out of his would-be employer’s office at gunpoint (a great cameo by Robert Mitchum) turns out to be the least of his problems, which rapidly escalate. Soon, he’s a reluctant fugitive on the lam. Once he crosses paths with a semi-mystic Native American named Nobody (the wonderful Gary Farmer), his journey takes on a mythical ethos. Surreal, darkly funny, and poetic. Robby Mueller’s B&W photography is stunning.

Criterion’s 4K digital restoration shows a marked improvement over a previously released Blu-ray from Lion’s Gate. Extras abound; including footage of Neil Young working on the soundtrack, a new interview with Farmer, and an entertaining Q & A produced exclusively for Criterion, with Jarmusch responding to inquires sent in by fans.




Farewell, My Lovely/The Big Sleep  (Shout! Factory Select) – The chief reason I geeked out over this “two-fer” was Farewell My Lovely, one of a handful of films directed by renowned 1960s photographer/TV ad creator Dick Richards. The 1975 crime drama is an atmospheric remake of the 1944 film noir Murder My Sweet (both adapted from the same Raymond Chandler novel). Robert Mitchum is at his world-weary best as detective Philip Marlowe, who is hired by a paroled convict (Jack O’Halloran) to track down his girlfriend, who has made herself scarce since he went to the joint. Per usual, Marlowe finds himself in a tangled web of corruption and deceit. Also featuring Charlotte Rampling, John Ireland, Sylvia Miles, and the late great Harry Dean Stanton.

The companion feature, writer-director Michael Winner’s 1978 remake of The Big Sleep (also adapted from a Raymond Chandler novel) is more of a hit-and-miss affair. Mitchum reprises his role as Marlowe; but he kind of phones it in this time out. This may be due to Winner’s decision to contemporize the story and move it to London; I suspect this threw Mitchum off (Winner may have been inspired by Robert Altman’s 1973 reimagining of Chandler’s The Long Goodbye, which featured Elliot Gould as a present-day Marlowe). I think Farewell My Lovely works better because Richards sets the story in late 1940s L.A., which is more faithful to Chandler’s original milieu (and Mitchum’s own iconography is deeply tethered to the classic noir cycle). Still, The Big Sleep is worth a peek, with a cast that includes Sarah Miles, Richard Boone, James Stewart, Oliver Reed, and Candy Clark.

While neither of these films look to have necessarily been restored, Shout! Factory’s digital HD transfers are the highest quality versions I’ve seen on home video (and both titles have been previously difficult to find). Extras include a new interview with Sarah Miles, a brief interview with Michael Winner, and a vintage featurette on The Big Sleep.



Female Trouble (Criterion Collection) – The late great Divine chews up major scenery as Dawn Davenport, a “good girl gone bad” …in the worst ways imaginable. Parents be cautioned: if your teenage daughter demands cha-cha heels for Christmas…for God’s sake, humor her–or there will be hell to pay. Even by his own mondo bizzaro standards, “czar of bad taste” John Waters has seldom topped the utter depravity of this mordantly hilarious 1974 entry. That said, our “reality” continues to catch up with his once-satirical, hyperreal vision of an American society completely driven by narcissism, an unhealthy obsession with the cult of celebrity, and self-aggrandizement at any cost. A trash classic.

Criterion’s Blu-ray edition features a restored 4K transfer; the film (shot on 16mm) has never looked more vivid (which might not necessarily be a good thing for squeamish viewers, who may spend some time afterwards wishing they could “un-see” certain scenes). Nonetheless, aficionados will be delighted by the generous piles of extras, including a commentary track (recorded in 2004) by the ever-chatty and vastly entertaining Waters, new and archival interviews with cast members, outtakes, and more.



Liquid Sky  (Vinegar Syndrome) –A diminutive, parasitic alien (who seems to have a particular delectation for NYC club kids, models and performance artists) lands on an East Village rooftop and starts mainlining off the limbic systems of junkies and sex addicts…right at the moment that they, you know…reach the maximum peak of pleasure center stimulation (I suppose that makes the alien a dopamine junkie?). Just don’t think about the science too hard. The main attraction here is the inventive photography and the fascinatingly bizarre performance (or non-performance) by (co-screen writer) Anne Carlisle, who tackles two roles-a female fashion model who becomes the alien’s primary host, and a male model. Director Slava Zsukerman co-wrote the electronic music score. 

This 1982 space oddity has been long overdue for a decent home video transfer, and Vinegar Syndrome gets an A+ for its 4K Blu-ray restoration (devotees like yours truly were previously stuck with a dismal DVD release that, while sold “legitimately”, screams “bootleg”). Extras include commentary track by director Zsukerman, plus a 50-minute “making of” documentary, a new interview with star Carlisle, outtakes, and much more.



Threads (Severin Films Limited Edition) – This stark and affecting cautionary tale debuted on the BBC in 1984, later airing in the U.S. on TBS. Director Mick Jackson delivers an uncompromising realism that makes The Day After (the U.S. TV film from the previous year) look like a Teletubbies episode. It’s a speculative narrative that takes a medium sized city (Sheffield) and depicts what would likely happen to its populace during and after a nuclear strike, in graphic detail. While this is a dramatization, the intent is not to “entertain” you in any sense of the word. The message is simple and direct-nothing good comes out of a nuclear conflict. It’s a living, breathing Hell for all concerned-and anyone “lucky” enough to survive will soon wish they were fucking dead.

Severin Films’ Blu-ray sports an excellent restored HD transfer, and marks the first edition playable on North American devices. Extras include a commentary track with Jackson and new interviews with actors, film crew, and screenwriter Stephen Thrower.



Woodfall: A Revolution in British Cinema  (BFI box set; Region “B”) – If you’ve been looking for a convenient excuse to invest in a multi-region Blu-ray player, look no further than this magnificent box set from the British Film Institute. In 1958, taking their cues from the Italian neorealists and Cahiers du Cinema crowd, director Tony Richardson, writer John Osborne, and producer Harry Saltzman founded Woodfall Films, an indie production studio that aimed to shake up the staid UK movie industry by creating what would come to be known as the British New Wave. The studio’s oeuvre was initially pigeonholed as “angry young man” or “kitchen sink” films, but there was more diversity in style and content than that labeling would infer, as this 8-film collection demonstrates.

The set features 5 films directed by Richardson: Look Back in Anger (1959), The Entertainer (1960), A Taste of Honey (1961), The Loneliness of the Long-Distance Runner (1962), and Tom Jones (1963). That would make for a fabulous collection in and of itself; but also included are Karel Reisz’s Saturday Night and Sunday Morning (1960), Desmond Davis’ Girl with Green Eyes (1964), and Richard Lester’s The Knack…and how to get it (1965). This is also a showcase of breakthrough performances from the likes of Richard Burton, Albert Finney, Rita Tushingham, and Tom Courtenay.

There are over 20 hours of extras (in which I have made but a small dent so far) spread out over the 8 films plus a 9th disc dedicated solely to bonus material. In addition to new and archival interviews with filmmakers and actors, there is a treasure trove of rare shorts by Richardson, Reisz and others, plus an 80-page booklet with essays on all 8 films. Picture and sound quality are excellent (many of the films are newly restored; Tom Jones looks particularly gorgeous) with one caveat: for whatever reasons, The Knack…and how to get it is glaringly unrestored. The transfer of the film is decent enough, but the print is a little rough in patches and the audio somewhat muffled (thankfully there is a subtitle option). It’s a minor hiccup in an otherwise stellar package. A film buff’s delight!

More reviews at Den of Cinema
On Facebook
On Twitter

–Dennis Hartley


.

Trump was serenaded by some guy with shiny hair. And it’s weird.

Trump was serenaded by some guy with shiny hair. And it’s weird.

by digby

I don’t know what to say about this …

He likes that. Recall this one, which was even weirder:

That smug little tug on his tie when Elvis opened the song with the words “The Lord my God” says it all …

Promotional ability …

.

What in the hell do we do about bigots?

What in the hell do we do about bigots?

by digby

This study challenges some common wisdom about the relative ignorance of conspiracy theory believers:

A growing body of work has examined the psychological underpinnings of conspiracy theory endorsement, arguing that the propensity to believe in conspiracy theories and political rumors is a function of underlying predispositions and motivated reasoning. We show, like others, that rumor endorsement can also be a function of individuals’ group attitudes. In particular, among white Americans, birther beliefs are uniquely associated with racial animus. We merge this finding with other work which shows that rumors are more strongly endorsed by the individuals most motivated and capable of integrating them among their pre-existing attitudes and beliefs.

We find, therefore, that it is white Republicans who are both racially conservative and highly knowledgeable who possess the most skepticism about Obama’s birthplace.

I’m not sure how this study defines “knowledgeable.” Maybe it just means they watch a lot of Fox News, which means they are knowledgeable but their “knowledge” is bogus. But the idea that racists who have more information are more likely to believe bullshit certainly sounds like the average Fox viewer.

It may indicate that one way to get around racism in the white working class is to seek out the real low information voters among them — the ones who aren’t brainwashed by the right-wing media. There have to be a lot of them out there. Most people don’t obsess over cable news and talk radio. They just hear about this stuff on the periphery and maybe get a sense of what their tribe’s position is from a loud-mouthed relative or co-worker. Maybe they are the more open-minded among that cadre?

.

The dotard rejects the US Government’s climate change report

The dotard rejects the US Government’s climate change report

by digby

This piece in the Atlantic says it all about the new climate report:

On Friday, the busiest shopping day of the year, the federal government published a massive and dire new report on climate change. The report warns, repeatedly and directly, that climate change could soon imperil the American way of life, transforming every region of the country, imposing frustrating costs on the economy, and harming the health of virtually every citizen.

Most significantly, the National Climate Assessment—which is endorsed by nasa, noaa, the Department of Defense, and 10 other federal scientific agencies—contradicts nearly every position taken on the issue by President Donald Trump. Where the president has insisted that fighting global warming will harm the economy, the report responds: Climate change, if left unchecked, could eventually cost the economy hundreds of billions of dollars per year, and kill thousands of Americans to boot. Where the president has said that the climate will “probably” “change back,” the report replies: Many consequences of climate change will last for millennia, and some (such as the extinction of plant and animal species) will be permanent.

The report is a huge achievement for American science. It represents cumulative decades of work from more than 300 authors. Since 2015, scientists from across the U.S. government, state universities, and businesses have read thousands of studies, summarizing and collating them into this document. By law, a National Climate Assessment like this must be published every four years.

It may seem like a funny report to dump on the public on Black Friday, when most Americans care more about recovering from Thanksgiving dinner than they do about adapting to the grave conclusions of climate science. Indeed, who ordered the report to come out today?

It’s a good question with no obvious answer.

The report is blunt: Climate change is happening now, and humans are causing it. “Earth’s climate is now changing faster than at any point in the history of modern civilization, primarily as a result of human activities,” declares its first sentence. “The assumption that current and future climate conditions will resemble the recent past is no longer valid.”

At this point, such an idea might be common wisdom—but this does not make it any less shocking, or less correct. For centuries, humans have lived near the ocean, assuming that the sea will not often move from its fixed location. They have planted wheat at its time, and corn at its time, assuming that the harvest will not often falter. They have delighted in December snow, and looked forward to springtime blossoms, assuming that the seasons will not shift from their course.

Now, the sea is lifting above its shore, the harvest is faltering, and the seasons arrive and depart in disorder.

The report tells this story, laying simple fact on simple fact so as to build a terrible edifice. Since 1901, the United States has warmed 1.8 degrees Fahrenheit. Heat waves now arrive earlier in the year and abate later than they did in the 1960s. Mountain snowpack in the West has shrunk dramatically in the past half century. Sixteen of the warmest 17 years on record have occurred since 2000.Houses lay submerged in floodwaters caused by Tropical Storm Harvey in Houston in August 2017. The National Climate Assessment warns that climate change will make catastrophic floods more likely. (Adrees Latif / Reuters)

This trend “can only be explained by the effects that human activities, especially emissions of greenhouse gases, have had on the climate,” the report says. It warns that if humans wish to avoid 3.6 degrees of warming, they must dramatically cut this kind of pollution by 2040. On the other hand, if greenhouse-gas emissions continue to rise, then the Earth could warm by as much as 9 degrees by 2100.

“It shows us that climate change is not a distant issue. It’s not about plants, or animals, or a future generation. It’s about us, living now,” says Katharine Hayhoe, an author of the report and an atmospheric scientist at Texas Tech University.

The report visits each region of the country, describing the local upheavals wrought by a global transformation. Across the Southeast, massive wildfires—like those seen now in California—could soon become a regular occurrence, smothering Atlanta and other cities in toxic smog, it warns. In New England and the mid-Atlantic, it says, oceanfront barrier islands could erode and narrow. And in the Midwest, it forecasts plunging yields of corn, soybeans, wheat, and rice.

Its projections of sea-level rise are just as ominous. If carbon pollution continues to rise, a huge swath of the Atlantic coast—from North Carolina to Maine—will see sea-level rise of five feet by 2100. New Orleans, Houston, and the Gulf Coast could also face five feet of rising seas. Even Los Angeles and San Francisco could see the Pacific Ocean rise by three feet.

Even if humanity were to reduce the burning of fossil fuels, the report forecasts that New Orleans could still see five feet of sea-level rise by 2100.

Andrew Light, another author of the report and a senior fellow at the World Resources Institute, said that although the report cannot make policy recommendations, it might be read as an endorsement of the Paris Agreement on climate change.

“If the United States were to try and achieve the targets in the Paris Agreement, then things will be bad, but we can manage,” he said. “But if we don’t meet them, then we’re talking about hundreds of thousands of lives every year that are at risk because of climate change. And hundreds of billions of dollars.”

If you think the Friday after Thanksgiving seems like an odd day to publish such a major report, you’re right. The assessment was originally scheduled to be released in December at a large scientific conference in Washington, D.C.But earlier this week, officials announced that the report would come out two weeks early, on the afternoon of Black Friday. When politically inconvenient news is published in the final hours of a workweek, politicos call it a “Friday news dump.” Publishing a dire climate report in the final hours of Black Friday might be the biggest Friday news dump of them all.

So who ordered such a dump? During a press conference on Friday, the report’s directors in the government repeatedly declined to say. “It’s out earlier than expected,” said Monica Allen, a spokeswoman for noaa. “This report has not been altered or revised in any way to reflect political considerations.”

Yet the change in scheduling took the report’s authors by surprise. John Bruno, an author of the report and a coral biologist at the University of North Carolina, told me that he only learned last Friday that the report would be released today. “There was no explanation or justification,” he said. “The [assessment] leadership implied the timing was being dictated by another entity, but did not say who that was.”

Hayhoe told me she only learned on Tuesday that the report would be released on Friday. At the time, she was preparing three pies for a family Thanksgiving. She put the pies aside and picked up her laptop to submit any final revisions to the document.

The White House did not respond directly when asked who had ordered such a change. It also did not respond directly when asked if the report would lead President Trump to reconsider his beliefs.

But a White House spokeswoman did send me a lengthy statement saying that “the United States leads the world in providing affordable, abundant, and secure energy to our citizens, while also leading the world in reducing carbon-dioxide emissions.” (This is only true if you start counting in 2005, when U.S. emissions peaked.) The spokeswoman said this new assessment was based on the “most-extreme scenario,” and promised any future report would have a “more transparent and data-driven process.”

Not that Hayhoe ever had high expectations about President Trump’s reaction to the report. “It wasn’t the hope that the federal government would look at it and go, ‘Oh my goodness! I see the light,’” she told me.

Rather, she said, she hoped the report would inform the public: “This isn’t information that’s only for the federal government. This is information that every city needs, every state needs, increasingly every business needs, and every homeowner needs. This is information that every human needs.”

“It’s not that we care about a 1-degree increase in global temperature in the abstract,” she said. “We care about water, we care about food, we care about the economy—and every single one of those things is being affected by climate change today.”

Trump is not the first president to deny climate change. The oily Bush administration was notorious for doing it as well. But that was 15 years ago. The avalanche of evidence since then is overwhelming. As this report shows, it is clear that this is affecting us right now, not some abstract time in the future.

Unfortunately, we are going backwards on this issue, with a full-blown climate change denier in the White House spouting the most ignorant of all takes on the issue. He was at it again this week:

He’s even dumber than his most ardent follower.

.

Remember that “safe” at the National Enquirer? It’s being opened.

Remember that “safe” at the National Enquirer? It’s being opened.

by digby

One imagines this will be a blockbuster:

The National Enquirer’s long-held secrets about Donald Trump may be about to get substantially less secret.

Page Six is told that the longtime executive editor of the tabloid, Barry Levine, is penning a book for Hachette about the president.

A source says that the book will look into “Trump and his women,” although other insiders tell us that it could be more wide-ranging, even looking at the formerly cozy relationship between the Enquirer’s owner, David Pecker, and Trump. That said, it’s unclear exactly what Levine’s contract with the Enquirer would allow him to reveal about Pecker.

Of course, Pecker has been at the center of an investigation into alleged hush money payouts made to Karen McDougal and Stormy Daniels — who both claim to have had affairs with Trump while he was married to First Lady Melania Trump. In August, Pecker was granted immunity in the probe.

Either way, Levine — who left the Enquirer in 2016 after 17 years — will have plenty of previously unreported material for the tome.

In its reporting on the relationship between Pecker and Trump, the Wall Street Journal wrote in June, that, “Tips about Mr. Trump poured into the tabloid after his television show ‘Celebrity Apprentice’ took off in 2002, but the Enquirer turned away stories that could paint him in a bad light, two former American Media employees said,” adding, “Barry Levine … reminded them that Mr. Pecker wouldn’t allow it, these former employees said.” No impediment now exists.

Levine has a pedigree in political exposés. He was part of a team that uncovered veep candidate John Edwards’ love child, and in 2010 he told New York magazine, “I dream of an office in Washington where aides to senators and congressmen come in on their lunch hour and tell us stories.” In the same interview, he somewhat presciently said, “If I were in Russia, I’d be taken out by a hail of bullets, because that’s what happens to investigative journalists there.”

I can’t imagine any of this could change things. But you never know…

You can bet that everyone will be consuming the salacious details with unalloyed delight. Especially all those evangelical voters and conservative movement leaders who used to clutch their pearls over immoral behavior by political officials.

Turns out that the more immoral they are the more they love them. Who knew?

.