tarbabys: But just what exactly would Mr. Rogers do if “he” had the responsibility to keep American’s safe and keep them from dying? (10,000 last week alone) Maybe give them bleach like trump proposed? Aaron Rogers Should Stick to Playing Football !
HuffPost
Ron Dicker, HuffPost January 24, 2022
Green Bay Packers quarterback Aaron Rodgers blasted President Joe Biden and his “fake White House” in an anti-vaccine rant that also seemed to question the 2020 election result.
“When the president of the United States says, ‘This is a pandemic of the unvaccinated,’ it’s because him and his constituents, which — I don’t know how there are any if you watch any of his attempts at public speaking — but I guess he got 81 million votes,” the NFL star told ESPN before his season ended in a playoff loss to the San Francisco 49ers on Saturday.
“But when you say stuff like that, and then you have the CDC, which — how do you even trust them — but then they come out and talk about 75% of the COVID deaths have at least four comorbidities,” he continued. “And you still have this fake White House set saying that this is the pandemic of the unvaccinated. That’s not helping the conversation.”
A dejected Aaron Rodgers walks off the field after the Packers lost to the 49ers in a playoff game on Saturday. (Photo: Patrick McDermott via Getty Images)
But he fumbled on the vaccine. After lying to reporters about his vaccination status, he caught COVID-19. And in December, when President Joe Biden encountered a woman wearing a Packers jacket during a visit to tornado-ravaged Kentucky, he urged her to tell Rodgers to get the vaccine.
Rodgers’ remarks to ESPN suggest he’s still holding a grudge. And he missed the mark in his complaint about the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention.
The CDC statistic he mentioned focused on the rare deaths of people who are vaccinated and had nothing to do with coronavirus fatalities in general. The CDC study noted that among 1.2 million fully vaccinated people, 36 died after contracting COVID-19 ― and 28 of those had at least four risk factors.
Rodgers has spread misleading and false information before about the vaccine, and he’s proudly noted that he sought medical advice from podcast comedian Joe Rogan, who also has spread misinformation.
Pro-Trump death threats prompt bills in 3 states to protect election workers
Peter Eisler January 24, 2022
(Reuters) – In Vermont, lawmakers are considering bills to make it easier to prosecute people who threaten election officials. In Maine, proposed legislation would stiffen penalties for such intimidation. In Washington, state senators voted this month to make threatening election workers a felony.
The measures follow a Reuters series of investigative reports documenting a nationwide wave of threats and harassment against election administrators by Donald Trump supporters who embrace the former president’s false voting-fraud claims. Sponsors and supporters of the legislation in all three states cited Reuters reporting as an impetus for proposing tougher enforcement.
Washington state Senator David Frockt, a Seattle Democrat, said the reports “gave us more evidence” to build support for legislation to hold accountable those who threaten election officials.
In Maine, a bill authored by Democratic state Representative Bruce White would enhance penalties for anyone who “intentionally interferes by force, violence or intimidation” with election administration. Secretary of State Shenna Bellows cited the Reuters reporting in testimony supporting the bill.
“This is unacceptable,” she said, noting that two municipal clerks in Maine were threatened with violence.
Video:Texas man arrested over alleged threats to election officials
Texas man arrested over alleged threats to Georgia election officials
Chad Christopher Stark was arrested and charged for allegedly posting death threats toward election and government officials in Georgia.
In all, Reuters documented more than 850 threats and hostile messages https://graphics.reuters.com/USA-ELECTION/THREATS/mopanwmlkva to U.S. election officials and workers. Nearly all the communications echoed Trump’s baseless claims that he lost the 2020 election because of fraud. More than 100 of the threats could meet the federal threshold for criminal prosecution, according to law professors and attorneys who reviewed them.
Prosecutions in such cases have been rare https://www.reuters.com/investigates/special-report/usa-election-threats-law-enforcement. But on Friday, a U.S. Department of Justice task force on election threats announced its first indictment https://www.reuters.com/world/us/us-charges-texas-man-threatening-georgia-government-officials-2022-01-21, charging a Texas man for posting online threats against three officials in Georgia https://www.reuters.com/article/us-usa-election-threats-georgia-exclusiv-idCAKBN2IP0VZ. An assistant attorney general said the case is among “dozens” being investigated by the task force, which was formed shortly after Reuters in June published the first in the series https://www.reuters.com/investigates/special-report/usa-trump-georgia-threats of reports on election-related threats.
In Vermont, menacing voicemails to Secretary of State Jim Condos and his staff – and a decision by police and prosecutors not to seek charges – spurred lawmakers to reconsider state laws that enshrine some of America’s oldest and strongest free-speech protections. Two measures introduced this month would make it easier to charge suspects for criminal threats and toughen penalties when they target public officials.
An unidentified man left a first round of hostile messages for Condos’ office shortly after the 2020 election. Then, last fall, the same man left voicemails threatening Condos and his staff, along with two Reuters journalists who had interviewed the man about his earlier threats.
“Justice is coming,” the man warned in an October message. “All you dirty c‑‑‑suckers are about to get f‑‑‑ing popped. I f‑‑‑ing guarantee it.”
Condos said in an interview that he expected the threatener would face no consequences under state law. Police and prosecutors already had reviewed the caller’s earlier messages and decided they were protected speech.
Frustrated, Condos wrote to a half-dozen lawmakers, urging them to consider legislation to align state law more closely with federal statutes and to set a clearer standard for prosecution.
“These voicemails do cross the line,” Condos wrote in an October 27 email to lawmakers, which was reviewed by Reuters.
Federal officials considered the threats serious enough to investigate. After Reuters asked Vermont officials about the October threat, the Federal Bureau of Investigation began an inquiry into the matter, according to two local law enforcement officials.
Condos said the email reflected his concern that the intimidation could escalate to violence. “It also was recognizing the world we are in,” he said, “and understanding we had to do something.”
Public calls for stronger legislation in Vermont emerged after Reuters published the October threats in a Nov. 9 story https://www.reuters.com/investigates/special-report/usa-election-threats along with details of the caller’s earlier messages. State authorities declined to pursue the case, saying the anonymous calls amounted to protected speech and were “essentially untraceable.” Reuters journalists, however, were able to contact and interview the man, who admitted to making the threats but declined to identify himself. He said he believed he had done nothing wrong.
The week after the Reuters report, Vermont Governor Phil Scott, a Republican, and state Senator Richard Sears, a Democrat, told reporters https://www.benningtonbanner.com/local-news/scott-will-consider-legislation-to-protect-election-workers/article_a4f7a134-4672-11ec-b04c-67156aea69cf.html that they would consider changes to state laws governing criminal threats.
Newspaper editorials also urged new legislation. “This case makes it clear that Vermont law needs to change,” the Manchester Journal said in a Nov. 11 editorial https://www.manchesterjournal.com/opinion/editorials/our-opinion-protecting-election-workers-protects-the-democracy/article_0d50e134-7aad-5c63-a00a-979ec69a4b6a.html, referring to the threats reported by Reuters against Condos and his staff.
THREATS VS. FREE SPEECH
The bills in Vermont and other states wouldn’t alter the free-speech protections guaranteed under the U.S. Constitution to all Americans. Advocates for the Vermont legislation say the intent is to bring state laws in line with federal standards, which make it easier to prosecute threats of violence.
The Vermont bills would sharpen the definition of a criminal threat and remove several hurdles to prosecution, including a requirement that a threat must target a specific individual and an additional burden of proving the suspect has the means and ability to carry out any threatened violence. Another measure would impose stiffer sentences for threats to public officials.
“This is about not tying our hands” with statutes that are “too narrow or unduly restrictive,” says Rory Thibault, a state’s attorney who advised lawmakers in crafting the legislation.
Striking that balance is delicate in Vermont, which codified its expansive free-speech protections nearly 250 years ago, more than a decade before the U.S. Constitution.
In 1777, the independent Vermont Republic enacted a constitution that guaranteed “a right to freedom of speech, and of writing and publishing their sentiments” – language that remains in the state’s constitution today. In 1798, one of the state’s first members of Congress, Matthew Lyon, was re-elected while jailed under the Sedition Act for criticism of President John Adams, whom Lyon had described as having “an unbounded thirst for ridiculous pomp.”
When state lawmakers tried several years ago to make it easier to prosecute criminal threats, the legislation died amid concerns that it might infringe on speech rights. But Vermont, like much of America, has wrestled recently with violent anti-government sentiment, white nationalism and political extremism, straining its free-speech tradition.
In 2018, Vermont’s Supreme Court overturned the conviction of a Ku Klux Klan member on two counts of disturbing the peace. The defendant had placed pro-Klan flyers on the cars of two women, one Black and one Hispanic. The court ruled the flyers constituted protected speech under Vermont law.
Last year, the town of Bennington paid $137,500 to a Black state legislator and apologized publicly for a police failure to sufficiently respond to racial harassment against her by a self-described white nationalist. The legislator, Kiah Morris, resigned in 2018.
So far, the criminal-threats legislation has not drawn significant public opposition, although proponents expect that might change once hearings begin. The American Civil Liberties Union of Vermont said it is monitoring the bills but has not taken a position.
Sears, who is also Judiciary Committee Chairman, plans hearings on the legislation this month. Passing the legislation wouldn’t ensure that people threatening public officials will go to jail, said Sears, who sponsored one of the bills. “But we know that if we don’t make these changes, there’s no chance anything will happen.”
(Reporting by Peter Eisler; additional reporting by Jason Szep and Linda So; editing by Jason Szep and Brian Thevenot)
More People Are Choosing Not to Have Kids Because of Climate Change
Lizz Schumer January 24, 2022
“Hearst Magazines and Yahoo may earn commission or revenue on some items through the links below.”
Growing up, having kids someday felt like a foregone conclusion. My family and I never really talked about it; everyone just assumed I’d follow suit. As I got older, most of my friends started pairing off and starting families, and shortly before we got married, my husband Nick’s brother and sister-in-law did, too.
After we tied the knot, Nick bought two books on deciding when to have kids, placing them prominently on the coffee table in our newly-purchased home. But something shifted for me around that time. When the decision felt mostly theoretical, I looked at kids the same way I did any other milestone: just another box I was expected to check along the path toward adulthood. But once it became a real possibility, I began to take stock of my place in the world and my responsibility to it.
As Nick and I talked about it, what we realized tipped our personal scales in the opposite direction of we expected. I’ve always been pretty ambivalent about kids, whereas Nick dotes on his nieces and used to think he’d give them cousins someday. On the one hand, children would add another dimension to our little family. On the other, it felt pretty complete already.
Plus, I’ve always been a worrier, with my anxious brain given to fixating on the worst-case scenario. As a kid, my worries were fairly pedestrian: my house could burn down, my parents could die or I might. As an adult, the scope of my concern has expanded to include not just the well-being of my own loved ones, but everyone inhabiting our rapidly warming planet. As we discussed having kids, Nick and I looked around at our overcrowded world and didn’t see a compelling argument to add to the population. Even more so, we worried about the kind of world they’d inherit, which will almost certainly look far different than the one we grew up in.
It’s human nature to try to address large-scale problems with individual measures. For example, when we were kids, Smokey Bear taught us that “only you can prevent forest fires,” so I always make sure my own campfires are doused, even as the planet continues to burn. I recycle, carry reusable bags, take public transportation and shop as sustainably as possible — controlling what I can quells my climate anxiety somewhat, but, at the risk of sounding overly pessimistic, I’m afraid it’s all probably too little, too late.
The American Psychological Association defines climate anxiety as “a chronic fear of environmental doom” and Psychology Today calls it “an understandable reaction to one’s growing awareness of climate change and the global problems that result from damage to the ecosystem.” In contrast to generalized anxiety disorder, which can stem from many sources or none at all, climate anxiety is specific: It’s a fixation on the warming planet and all the myriad disasters that come with it. While symptoms vary from person to person, they may include insomnia, panic attacks, obsessive thinking and loss of appetite.
For me, it’s a gathering dread as hurricane season grows longer and more intense, a pit of despair in my gut that yawns wider with every second the doomsday clock ticks down and a sense of foreboding that tells me bringing a child into this world would doom them to an existence that looks more like Mad Max: Fury Road than Sesame Street.
For many people like me, composting and driving a Prius no longer feels like enough. A 2018 Gallup analysis reported that 70% of adults aged 18-34 said they worried about global warming, compared to 56% of adults aged 55 or older. A recent BBC survey of people ages 8-16 found that nearly three-quarters reported being deeply worried about the state of the planet.
A 2018 survey conducted by Morning Consult for The New York Times found 33% of the 20- to 45-year-old people surveyed cited climate change as a reason they had or expected to have fewer children than they might have wanted in different circumstances, and a newly published study in The Lancet revealed that, in a global poll of 10,000 people aged 16-25, 39% are hesitant to have children because of their climate anxiety.
It’s far from the only rationale, of course. Financial insecurity, lack of paid family leave or affordable childcare and both domestic and global political instability all feature prominently on the list of concerns. Then there’s the COVID-19 pandemic. As white people, the fact that my partner and I are just now realizing that the world might not be safe for our future children is a privilege in and of itself. For people of color, the decision to bring kids into the world has been a fraught one for centuries. “It can feel overwhelming, to be honest,” says Jade Sasser, Ph.D., associate professor of gender and sexuality studies at UC Riverside and author of On Infertile Ground: Population Control and Women’s Rights in the Era of Climate Change, “Layering crisis on top of crisis can just feel like too much.”
The question also isn’t new for concerned citizens who have been working on the front lines of the issue for years. Climate activist and sociologist Meghan Kallman and climate justice activist Josephine Ferorelli started Conceivable Future to build awareness of the threat climate change poses to reproductive justice and demanding an end to U.S. fossil fuel subsidies, as well as to provide a space for people to talk about how climate change is impacting their lives.
Canadian student Emma Lim also started a No Future, No Children pledge two years ago when she was 18, resolving not to have children until her government takes the climate crisis seriously. “Until our government begins to act like the grown-ups they’re supposed to be, we will make uncomfortably grown-up decisions of our own and refuse to carry on as though all is fine,” she wrote. More than 2,300 young people signed on.
“[Young people] want to be hopeful about the future and about their prospects of having families because families serve as buffers against all of these devastating social problems in the world,” says Sasser, who is also conducting research into how young people, primarily BIPOC, feel about the climate crisis and their reproductive options. “But they’re also experiencing a sense of terror and a really deep sense of sadness. And pre-grieving, just knowing that if they did have children, they wouldn’t be bringing them into the same kind of world that they’ve grown up in.”
When deciding whether to start our own brood, Nick and I thought about that, too. We grew up with snowy winters and mild summers, camping trips in our National Parks, playing outside until the streetlights came on. But even over the past few years, rampant wildfires and increasingly intense hurricanes and other natural disasters have threatened not only our natural playgrounds but lives and air quality across the country. Will one or two more people make a measurable difference? Maybe, maybe not. But to us, it felt cruel to subject a child to what feels like a worsening world.
But as Ferorelli also points out, none of these decisions are made in a vacuum. No one can tell another person the right choice to make, because none of us are living in each other’s circumstances. That’s part of what makes the decision of whether or not to reproduce in a changing world so hard.
“People’s worries tend to fall along the spectrum of what climate harm a child will do to the world and what kind of harm the world will do to a kid,” says Kallman. “But it’s more fruitful to have a systemic critique than be consumed by guilt.”
A 2017 study published in Environmental Research by Canadian climate scientists found that having one fewer child is the greatest impact an individual can have on reducing greenhouse gas emissions. That’s closely followed by eating a vegetarian diet, avoiding air travel and relying on public transportation instead of your own car. But many activists argue that individual decisions are only a small piece of the puzzle, and that a meaningful climate strategy must focus on holding elected officials accountable for making systemic change.
The problem is, it’s impossible to measure the joy that having kids can bring to a family, or to predict exactly what that child’s life will be like a few decades down the road. But feeling like we’re doing something to address the climate catastrophe has real value, too. “When we take responsibility for the environmental consequences of our daily actions, we feel like we are in control,” writes Jason Mark in an expansive Sierra Club op-ed. “And when you’re in control of your own life, perhaps then you’ll feel more empowered to take control of — or at least play a role in — larger political systems.”
Climate change is also impossible to untangle from other social issues related to raising a family. “We want to make the world safer for everyone,” says Kallman. “The right to control the pacing of your children, the health of your communities and a comprehensive view of what makes up a community that’s free of domestic violence, has access to safe food, safe schools, where police violence is not a threat.” By banding together to hold elected officials accountable, we can all make meaningful change that goes beyond our own doorsteps.
Having kids is an intensely personal decision, and no one should feel ashamed or guilty for choosing to do so, or not. I don’t know if Nick and I have made (or will make) the right decisions about the composition of our family. I don’t think there is a “right” one, period. But no matter how mired we are in the issues and our responses to them, it’s important not to become blind to the beauty of being alive in this world and the communities that we’re working with to save it.
“There’s a cultural association with having kids and optimism, and not having them with nihilism, but that’s not accurate,” says Ferorelli. “There’s an immense amount of joy and freedom and privilege in both.”
Get-rich-quick schemes spread covid – 19 lies with help from the GOP and Sinema
SemDem for Community Contributors Team – January 24, 2022
Sens. Rob Portman (R-OH), Kyrsten Sinema (D-AZ), and Susan Collins (R-ME)
Tonya Ferguson gave a presentation to the Reno County, Kansas, commissioners on how essential oils—which she just happened to sell—can help fight COVID-19. “I like to use an immune support, which is like putting my body in a bubble. It’s a powerful tool to combat viral and bacterial threats,” she says on the video. She claimed to have “protocols” to either protect from or treat people suffering from the virus. One of the commissioners tried to shut her down for advertising her snake oil, and that’s when the video got interesting.
Newly elected Republican Commissioner Mark Steffen spoke up. “This is not an advertisement! I asked her to come to talk about other options to help people be prepared to take care of themselves, so no, this is not an advertisement!” He really got fired up at the end of the lady’s speech, where he insisted that her voice was needed because “traditional, modern medicine has failed us” and that Democrats were taking away hydroxychloroquine.” Steffen was roundly mocked in the local press, but this being a right-wing state, he was also rewarded by being elected to the Kansas state senate a few weeks afterward.
I shouldn’t need to say this, but there is zero link between essential oils and COVID-19. In fact, the lady was a distributor for a shady multi-level marketing (MLM) company called doTERRA that was formally warned by the FTC last April to stop making ridiculous claims about COVID-19 treatment.
But this article isn’t about Republican medical quackery, as we’ve seen enough. I was more interested in how these companies are still operating. Sadly, I’ve learned a lot more about MLMs than I care to, and I discovered that far from being curtailed, they have strong Republican allies who are trying to make it easier than ever to exploit people. They also have one strong ally in my least favorite Democratic senator, Kyrsten Sinema.
I’m sure I’m not alone in being cornered into hearing a sales pitch from a family member, friend, or long-lost acquaintance who has fallen into one of these schemes. Some of the pitches are bonkers. Not long ago, I unfriended a right-leaning colleague on social media over this. Besides realizing that I was constantly rebutting ridiculous anti-vaxxer nonsense, the final straw was when she started pitching ionized water machines—for thousands of dollars.
She explained in her posts that the machines use electrodes to give you more alkaline than what’s in normal tap water, which, according to her, “hydrates cells.” This, by the way, is apparently the perfect defense for COVID-19 and several types of cancer. Also, the liquid’s hydrogen atoms are somehow split off and rearranged, and more oxygen is added—or something. (I replied if that was even possible, it wouldn’t be H2O.) As with other “alternate” COVID-19 preventative treatments, this one was discovered, and somehow, completely ignored by all the top scientists in every nation researching the novel coronavirus.
Except it wasn’t. Ionized treated water is simply utter nonsense.
My former friend was involved in an MLM, sometimes called pyramid selling, which is a controversial marketing strategy that has the following hallmarks:
There is an upfront charge. (This is almost always a red flag. If you are going to make millions, why do they need your $200 bucks?)
The revenue comes from a non-salaried workforce, and profit from a pyramid-shaped commission system.
They sell products you can’t get in regular stores, and normally require participants to buy in bulk.
They typically require participants to sign up for expensive training and support programs.
They always seem to be on the hunt for new members to recruit.
The last one is a big one because money is much easier to get from recruiting members than by selling products. MLMs have a lot of explanations of how they aren’t pyramid schemes, but the biggest difference is this: MLMs are legal, and pyramid schemes aren’t. Unfortunately, during the economic collapse that followed the advent of the pandemic, MLM growth exploded.
The “Hey Girl” cold message. The majority of people in MLMs are women. Suburban woman are a key target demographic.
The Direct Selling Association (DSA), a trade/lobbying group that pushes MLMs, reported that 51 of their member companies surveyed reported that COVID-19 had a “positive” impact on their revenue.
Previous recessions have always been boons for MLMs. During the last Great Recession of 2008, MLMs added over three million people to their ranks. It makes sense. When there are thousands of people out of work, who wouldn’t be lured with the promise of easy, big money that can be made from the safety of your own home?
Official spokesperson for the ACN MLM. Trump’s own MLM, called the Trump Network, sold urine tests and vitamins of questionable quality before going bankrupt.
In reality, MLM stories are horrifying: stories like Apollo Rodriquez, who was scammed out of tens of thousands by an MLM, in this case one called American Communications Network (ACN), are all too common. (Although he really should have known better based on who this company paid $1.3 million to be their spokesperson.) ACN was sued by multiple MLM sellers who lost thousands.
Unfortunately, MLM participants are far more likely to lose money than make money. In fact, according to research at the Federal Trade Commission, a whopping 99% of recruited sellers wind up losing money in an MLM venture.
If you want a good, funny analysis on how MLMs work, how utterly ridiculous they can be, and how they take your money, John Oliver did a much better job than I ever could:https://www.youtube.com/embed/s6MwGeOm8iI?enablejsapi=1
People like Tonya Ferguson, or my former colleague, are likely making ridiculous claims about how essential oils or alkaline water can fight COVID-19 because they are desperate to move product. My ire, however, is directed at people who have no excuse. There are right-wing politicians who are not only MLM supporters, but directly work for them.
Georgia state Rep. David Clark, who infamously got expelled from a legislative session for refusing to get COVID tested, claims that the health supplement company he’s a distributor for, NeoLife, can “boost your immune system.” Then there is “Trump in Heels,” Amanda Chase. She has the distinction of being the first Virginia state senator censured in 35 years for supporting the Capitol insurrection. She is also a representative for Shakeology. A spokesperson for Chase told a Daily Beast reporter that her MLM-based supplements can prevent contraction of the coronavirus.
As disgusting as these claims are, I’m much more angry with those in office who use legislative power to protect these companies from any scrutiny and help make it easy for them to lie. The MLM’s lobby, the DSA, has been extraordinarily successful in keeping federal regulators away from investigating these companies. It has also been successful in pushing to avoid defining the explicit difference between a legal MLM and an illegal pyramid scheme.
The ad hoc chairman of a watchdog group called International Coalition of Consumer Advocates, Robert Fitzpatrick, has called the purveyors of MLMs the “Pyramid Lobby.” They not only target and almost exclusively donate to Republicans, MLMs are a large part of the conservative infrastructure. In fact, the man who built the powerful MLM company called Amway, Rich DeVos, has been credited with building the modern Republican Party as we know it. Rich DeVos, father-in-law of the infamous Trump Education Secretary Betsy DeVos, was one of the biggest financiers of GOP candidates and right-wing causes for decades.
Amway, started by Rich DeVos, built an arena in Orlando. Trump kicked off his 2020 campaign here, and used it again at a sparsely attended event with Bill O’Reilly.
This makes sense. After all, Rich DeVos was the epitome of the wealthy Republican. He had real contempt for social and federal institutions that helped the poor while holding the Ayn Randian view that wealthy people deserve to be selfish. After all, poor people are poor because of their own fate, right? Never mind the fact that he helped bleed desperate people dry.
DeVos pitched snake oil to the sick, such as Magna Bloc Theraputic Magnets to relieve pain or phony nutrition and weight loss products, and sold get-rich-quick schemes to desperate people. He asked Amway distributors to imagine that they could be worth billions like him, knowing full well that most Amway operators lose money.
In 2015, the DSA organized an entire caucus in Congress with the help of Reps. Marsha Blackburn of Tennessee and Marc Veasey of Texas. The Direct Selling Congressional Caucus (DSCC) was created.
Fitzpatrick wrote to each inaugural member about the legal, securities, and regulatory controversies that MLMs were involved in at the time in order to dissuade the inaugural members from joining. He believed that it was deceptive to use the term “direct selling,” which is different from how an MLM is structured. Regretfully, he failed in his effort. In fact, the caucus was not only formed, but it has grown and is now bipartisan.
Fitzpatrick’s fears were realized. The caucus has continuously pushed bills to make things as easy as possible for MLMs. The MLMs have already proven successful in getting a much looser set of regulations to help people with their own “business opportunities.” For one thing, for most sales businesses in the United States, you are required to disclose whether you have been sued for lying about your business, whether the money you promise your sales people will make are based on accurate statistics, and whether there are penalties for quitting (which shouldn’t ever be a thing). Yet if you are in an MLM, these legal standards don’t apply. Yet that apparently isn’t enough congressional support for the MLMs.
Members of this caucus have pushed bills to make it even easier for MLMs to exploit people. Republican Rep. Tom Graves of Georgia sponsored a bill to ease restrictions for multi-level marketing companies that have bad histories with exploitation.Rep. John Moolenaar, a Michigan Republican, pushed an amendment to that bill to loosen the definition of the term “pyramid promotion scheme,” as well as limit funding for enforcement actions outside this new definition. It was co-sponsored by several members of the MLM caucus.
Arizona Sen. Kyrsten Sinema
On the Senate side, the MLM’s biggest advocate is without question Kyrsten Sinema. This is dangerous, because Sinema has shown over and over again that she can be plied with money to help with her decisions on blocking big Democratic priorities.
Yet another big Democratic priority is the labor bill, called the Protecting the Right to Organize (PRO) Act, which passed the House in March. Joe Manchin has already signed off on it. The bill offers protections for workers and gives at least some standards so companies can’t so easily identify everyone as an independent contractor. MLMs want this bill killed and targeted Sinema, who seemed happy to sell out rather cheaply:
The political action committee associated with Alticor, the parent entity of the health, home and beauty company Amway, gave $2,500 to the Arizona Democrat in late June, as did the PAC for Isagenix, an Arizona-based business that sells nutrition, wellness and personal care products.
Nu Skin Enterprises, another personal care and beauty company, gave $2,500 that month, as did USANA Health Sciences, which sells similar products. In April, Richard Raymond Rogers, the executive chair of Mary Kay, a Texas-based cosmetics company, gave $2,500 to Sinema.
Herbalife, which also sells nutritional supplements, gave $2,500 in July. All are affiliated with the Direct Selling Association, a trade group that promotes multilevel marketing.
Sinema is the only senator that Isagenix and Nu Skin have donated to, and the only Democrat that USANA Health Sciences has provided payment for services rendered. Isagenix even hosted Sinema for a virtual town hall. Granted, these are small donations compared to the Pharma PACS, but that’s likely because the bill has so far been successfully stalled. The DSA has met dozens of times with legislators demanding changes to the PRO act. At the very least, they can count on Sinema to demand significant changes protecting them.
MLMs are not going away anytime soon. Norway, which always tops the lists for best economy because of their people-centric policies, simply bans any company where 50% or more of its revenues are derived from recruiting participants into the company. Although that would be ideal for adoption in this country and mostly solve the problem, that would be too easy. The fact is that there is too much money to be made by the wrong kind of people, and they have powerful friends in Congress.
At the very least, legislators might take a cue from the six states that do regulate MLMs and do at least something for those that are getting bled by their MLM employers:
Require that MLM companies explicitly permit their agents to cancel their agreements and to agree to repurchase inventories at not less than 90% of the original transfer price
Prohibit inducements under which the agent is told that he or she will earn a specific amount of money
Prohibit the purchase of a minimum inventory
Prohibit operations under which agents are only paid for recruiting others
I would add that it makes sense to have real financial penalties for those companies that break these rules. In the meantime, if you see someone falling for one of these scams, there are plenty of resources on the internet about particular companies. For a long time, most people who left MLMs because of failure (which is the reason most people left) didn’t want to talk about it. The mindset that is ingrained in the participants is that it is their fault if they fail, and others were just humiliated because they dragged their friends and family into the MLM.
Stuart Varney promoting Dan Lok
However, there are now tons of videos online and support groups that people can see before they join. I will admit I can’t stop watching the videos of people who record what goes on in some of these seminars. Many seem more like cults than businesses. Legitimate businesses don’t try to deceive people about their products or potential sales, nor do the legitimate businesses need to use emotional manipulation, guilt, shame, and fear to keep people from leaving despite the fact that they are losing money.
At the very least, all of us should try to do what we can to help someone if they are considering joining one of these kinds of businesses. If not for the obvious moral reasons, then do it for our social media feeds. I don’t think I can take another pitch in my DMs.
Drought-resistant farming catching on in New Mexico
Scott Wyland January 23, 2022
A couple of years ago, Paul Skrak decided to explore different growing methods that might help his crops better withstand the seemingly endless drought.
On the advice of a consultant, the Peña Blanca farmer began using cover crops, both to shade the soil from the sun and loosen it to allow water to penetrate better.
He plows as little as possible on his 55-acre Hidalgo Farms, and sometimes not at all, to preserve the vital topsoil.
He began shifting to more drought-resistant crops, such as soybeans and Sudan grass, and away from thirstier alfalfa. And whenever possible, he uses drip irrigation instead of the more water-intensive flood irrigation typically used in the Middle Rio Grande Valley.
More recently, Skrak started applying a soil enhancer called Hydretain, which is said to cut irrigation in half by enabling plants to more effectively absorb water.
Skrak has become a strong advocate of Hydretain. The state and the irrigation district should subsidize farmers in buying this soil enhancer rather than paying them to fallow their fields, Skrak said, arguing it will conserve water and allow growers to keep operating.
“There’s a huge economic impact,” Skrak said of growers forgoing irrigation. “Farmers will lose their income.”
If farmers apply Hydretain and other water-saving techniques during a dry season, they’ll still get a smaller harvest, but that’s better than nothing, Skrak said.
None of what Skrak has adopted is new. Hydretain has been on the market for about seven years, and the growing techniques have been around for decades.
But they are not common in the middle valley, either because growers are unaware of them or they resist using unfamiliar methods, some of which involve more work or a sizable upfront cost, said Kevin Branum, who owns Grants-based EAS Agro and has advised Skrak.
Skrak was one of the first in the valley to give the techniques a try, Branum said.
And now they’re catching on, as more farmers who were hesitant and wanted to see how well they worked are jumping on board, Branum said.
It will be imperative for growers to adopt more water-efficient farming as a changing climate causes warmer, drier weather that depletes the rivers needed for irrigation, Branum said.
Water managers on the fence
Still, the official who helps oversee the valley’s irrigation said there’s no one-size-fits-all approach to farming in a prolonged drought.
“It really depends on what we find when we’re digging into the soils,” said Jason Casuga, acting CEO and chief engineer for the Middle Rio Grande Conservancy District.
Hydretain might work well in one area but not in another, Casuga said.
And even if this product proves effective, the district couldn’t simply divert other funds to subsidize its use, Casuga said. That includes money earmarked for paying farmers about $420 per acre to not water their fields, he said.
The point of the fallowing program is to boost the amount of available water, both for irrigation and for sending downstream to pay Texas what it’s owed under a water-sharing agreement known as the Rio Grande Compact, Casuga said.
New Mexico ended 2021 owing Texas more than 100,000 acre-feet of water. An acre-foot is enough to submerge a football field in water a foot deep.
The district will discuss fallowing first with part-time growers who don’t make a living with their farms, Casuga said.
At the same time, the district’s technical experts will study how effective the methods such as cover cropping would be in the valley before recommending anything, Casuga said.
“Cover cropping could be a good thing,” Casuga said. “It just depends on the soil.”
Cover crops beneficial but require more work
Branum insists the proof is in the results.
In the past two years, when the district cut irrigation seasons short because of low water supply, Skrak was able to grow more than he would have otherwise, Branum said.
The use of cover crops was a big part of that, he said.
Cover crops such as radishes, turnips and wild peas help break up the hard dirt, creating little pathways with the roots that allow water to better penetrate the soil later, he said. The more absorptive soil reduces wasteful runoff and enables rainwater to seep in rather than flood the fields during heavy storms, he added.
“We have increased [Skrak’s] infiltration rates tremendously by planting these cover crops,” Branum said.
Other types of cover crops, such as buckwheat and rye, retain the topsoil’s moisture and prevent it from becoming too hot and killing the essential microbes, he said.
All of the various cover crops are planted simultaneously to prepare the soil for growing the farmer’s cash crops such as corn, Branum said. The cover crops are cut and the main crops are then planted on the leavings, which help suppress weeds and add nutrients to the soil.
Cover crops eliminate the need for deep plowing to dig up weeds and break up the dirt, he said. Plowing isn’t taken out altogether, but it is minimized to protect the topsoil.
Cover cropping has been used farther north, such as the Española area, for more than a century but wasn’t embraced by middle valley farmers, Branum said.
Drip irrigation is slowly being adopted in the state, he said. Not long ago, it was widely believed that alfalfa couldn’t be watered this way, and now alfalfa growers in Deming are doing it.
One drawback is that drip irrigation requires a hefty upfront investment, Branum said, adding a farmer generally must have a lucrative specialty crop to recover the costs.
Meanwhile, Skrak is replacing alfalfa with a sorghum grass, which is also a livestock feed but consumes a third less water.
Skrak said he has been talking to neighboring growers about how Hydretain and the newer growing methods could benefit them as the drought drags on.
Some are receptive, but others resist the idea of changing to something like cover crops that demand more work, even if it increases the long-term health of their farms, he said.
He added: “I think a lot of farmers would rather plow like they’ve been doing for 300 years.”
The man of Mar-a-Lago goes tilting against the windmills of his demented mind
Charles Jay Community January 22, 2022
(This content is not subject to review by Daily Kos staff prior to publication.)
So Donald J. Quixote goes on his BFF Sean Hannity’s Fox News show on the anniversary of President Joe Biden’s first year in office — and goes tilting against windmills in a rant against wind power..
The news of the day was the letter from the House Jan. 6 committee to Princess Ivanka asking her to testify about her father’s actions or inaction surrounding the Jan. 6 insurrection.
In the texts, Hannity recaps a few points of a communications plan for responding to the attacks: “No more stolen election talk” and “Yes, impeachment and the 25th amendment are real and many people will quit.”
And in another exchange, Hannity advised McEnany that it was ‘key” to keep Trump away from certain people, writing “No more crazy people.”
Did Trump go after Hannity for suggesting that he stop talking about the Big Lie. Of course not.
Instead, Trump had windmills on his deranged mind as he assessed President Biden’s first year in office..
Trump: …and stop with all of the windmills all over the place that are ruining the atmosphere. They’re killing the birds… You have clean coal. And they use coal now for much more than energy… pic.twitter.com/qCS3JrcwtX
“Stop with all of the windmills all over the place that are ruining the atmosphere. They’re killing the birds. You look at what’s happening to these beautiful prairies and plains and these gorgeous areas of our country where they have these rusting hulks put up all over the place where — that are noisy, they’re killing the birds.”
“i don’t get the environmentalists. And it’s a very expensive form, probably the most expensive form of energy. You look at what we had. You know natural gas is very clean. They destroyed the coal miners, and yo have clean coal and they use coal now for much more than just energy.”
Now throughout his maladministration, Trump went off on rants about windmills, making all sorts of false claims about wind power. He has claimed that windmills cause cancer, kill birds and prevent people from watching television when the wind is not blowing.
Interestingly, the top three states as of 2020 in terms of producing wind power were all Republican-controlled: Texas, Iowa and Oklahoma.
Much of Trump’s animus toward windmills probably stems from his multi-year legal battle with the Scottish government. He tried and failed to block an offshore wind farm from being built in view of the Trump International Golf Links, Scotland, outside the city of Aberdeen.
In 2013, Trump sued the Scottish government to block the wind farm, He called it a “monstrous” project whose turbines would destroy the view of “perhaps the greatest golf course anywhere in the world,” according to The Washington Post,
And in a 2013 op-ed in the Scottish Mail on Sunday, Trump referred to Scottish first minister Alex Salmond as “Mad Alex,” and declared he was “going to fight him for as long as it takes — to hell if I have to — and spend as much as it takes to block this useless and grotesque blot on our heritage.” Trump’s mother was from Scotland.
In the end the U.K. Supreme Court unanimously rejected Trump’s legal challenge in 2015, The Trump Organization had to pay $290,000 to the Scottish government to cover its legal costs. The wind farm opened in 2018.
Trump’s Aberdeen golf course has been a steady money loser, and New York Attorney General Letitia James is now looking at “fraudulent” valuations of the property.
Trump’s windmill rant wasn’t the only odd moment on his rambling Thursday night interview with Hannity. Fox News looks for any excuse to pursue its meme that President Biden is suffering from memory lapses and even the onset of dementia. But Biden was on the mark during a marathon two-hour news conference on Wednesday.
Now take a look at how confused Trump got when Hannity made a metaphorical reference to walls, and after a brief pause, Trump responded by literally talking about his border wall.
Referring to President Joe Biden, Hannity said, “So, you keep banging your head against the wall — why would you expect a different result?”
Trump responded: “So, we would have had the wall completed in three weeks. It was largely completed. We did almost 500 miles of wall.”
And then Hannity, pushing the right-wing meme, asks Trump whether he believes President Biden is “struggling cognitively.
Trump boasted that his White House doctor, Ronny Jackson, who’s now a congressman from Texas said he “aced” the cognitive test, “And I don’t think he ever saw anyone ace it.”
If Jackson never saw anyone “ace” that test it could only be because he’s not a psychiatrist or psychologist and never administered the test to anyone before.
My wife is a psychologist and regularly administers the one-page MoCA (Montreal Cognitive Assessment) test when screening patients, She’s seen lots of people ace the test if they are not cognitively impaired, Just click on the link above to see one version of the test.
I saw the musical “Man of La Mancha” starring Richard Kiley as Don Quixote on Broadway back in the late ‘60s, and the 1972 film musical starring Peter O’Toole. Don Quixote might have been diagnosed with a paranoid personality disorder, But Trump’s tilting at windmills is more harmful and reflects his narcissism and possibly other psychological impairments, such as an anti-social personality disorder, according to his niece, Mary Trump, a clinical psychologist.
Here’s the windmill tilting scene from “Man of La Mancha.”
And here’s Noel Harrison singing “The Windmills of Your Mind” on the soundtrack of “The Thomas Crown Affair” starring Steve McQueen and Faye Dunaway.
It Just Keeps Getting Worse for Trump: Barr Voluntarily Testified More than Once and Was ‘Very Helpful’
By Jason Miciak January 23, 2022
There are dozens of witnesses that can do immense damage to Trump, there are perhaps under a half dozen that can damned near convict him themselves. One of that select group not only voluntarily cooperated with the committee, but testified more than once, was tremendously helpful, and just happens to be an absolutely brilliant lawyer, one who would be looking for ways to keep as much culpability on Trump and others, and away from himself, as possible.
Bill Barr. And lest anyone think we only called him a brilliant attorney now that he’s working against Trump, we suggest you re-read our “goodbye” series, in which we shredded Barr while also saying he was one of the best attorneys on Earth and knew better.
Bill Barr knew exactly when to cut bait and get the fck out of that grease fire before he truly was so deep that he couldn’t escape. He was asked to investigate whether there was fraud in the election. He took the amount of time one would expect in such a situation, where time was of the essence. He announced the findings of his investigation before his meeting with the man who would have a five-year-old meltdown, and then got out, probably knowing exactly where this was headed.
That conversation with Trump, where Trump was furious that Barr did not find fraud, may prove to be one of the most important elements of the investigation against Trump. Bill Barr might easily be able to testify that Trump didn’t care whatsoever, whether there actually was fraud. He needed a report that gave him something – and that would prove Trump’s state of mind fairly early after the investigation, which will be critical when it comes to his state of mind when telling Pence to just get it back to the states for more investigation, Trump didn’t care what it found. Same with Georgia, Trump wouldn’t care what it found.
No one at this site knew Barr had already been deposed by the Committee, if it had been known at all, it was known to very few, and again – this witness is very very dangerous to Trump. He had to keep himself clean and keep all blame for anything on Trump.
It just keeps getting worse, and Trump best get used to this feeling.
Rep. Zoe Lofgren: “We are uncovering a plot, it looks like, to overturn the peaceful transfer of power, to overturn our system of government. We’re going to do our job despite bizarre threats such as new gingrich’s weird comments.”
— Porter Anderson
On Barr’s cooperation with Jan. 6 committee, Zoe Lofgren told us: “It was more than once and it was a voluntary discussion with our staff attorneys and we appreciate his willingness to help us find the truth.”
— Jim Acosta (@Acosta)
Jason Miciak is a political writer, features writer, author, and attorney. He is originally from Canada but grew up in the Pacific Northwest. He now enjoys life as a single dad, writing from the beaches of the Gulf Coast, getting advice from his beloved daughter and teammate. He is very much the dreamy mystic that cannot add and loves dogs more than most people. He also likes studying cooking, theoretical physics, cosmology, and quantum mechanics. He likes pizza.
Political Tribune – Analysis, Corruption, Donald Trump
Will Donald Trump Truly Throw His Children To The Wolves To Save Himself? Staggering New Report Says We May Soon Find Out
It’s only a matter of time now.
By Andrea Thompson January 23, 2022
After watching the way Donald Trump moved and worked during his four very long, very public, very tumultuous years in office, it didn’t take us long to realize that there’s literally next to no one that he wouldn’t gladly throw under the bus if it meant saving himself. Hell, we’ve watched him do it over and over again, as everyone around him seemingly drops like flies but somehow he remains apparently untouchable.
The only people in this world that we’ve speculated Trump may have enough love and loyalty for to not throw them to the wolves given the chance is his children — namely, his eldest two spawns, Don Jr. and Ivanka. Frankly, we’ve never felt certain that even they were safe from their own father if it truly came down to it. And even one of Trump’s own insiders has personally weighed in on the matter in the past, claiming that he feels certain the now-former president would undoubtedly send his own children to the “gallows.”
However, even with Trump’s perceived loyalty to his offspring, there’s just no denying that the severity of Trump’s troubles is rapidly mounting all around him, as he faces down very serious investigations and allegations from just about every angle these days.
Just this week, the disgraced former guy was served up one hell of a setback, after the US Supreme Court ordered the ex-president to turn over his records leading up to the infamous January 6th riot that was requested by the House Select Committee. On top of that, New York Attorney General Letitia James had a bombshell week with regard to her Trump Organization probe, ultimately issuing subpoenas for both of Trump’s eldest children, as well as announcing that she’s acquired “significant evidence” that now allows her to move forward with forcing Trump himself to testify in the case.
Now, The Daily Beast has published their own analysis on the likelihood of ex-President Donald Trump finally becoming desperate enough to truly throw his own children under the bus if it means saving his own skin — and frankly, it’s not looking good for his kids.
The report deeply details the various levels of legal trouble Donald Trump is currently facing and notes that these recent developments rope his children into the mix in a way that we haven’t previously seen.
“It’s easy to view the Trumps as farce, but there’s an element of tragedy, with the children emulating the sins of the father,” the Beasts’ Margaret Carlson pens in her blistering, spot-on analysis.
“Trump doesn’t technically live on Fifth Avenue anymore. But even in his spacious Mar-a-Lago exile, he must feel like the walls are closing in. The wheels of justice grind slowly, but they do grind. And now his children are in the legal crosshairs,” she concludes after thoroughly picking apart the Trump family’s mounting woes.
“Even Trump must know, he can’t hide from consequences forever. It’s only a matter of time.”
Progressive groups ditch Sinema, leaving her political future in tatters.
Kerry Eleveld, Daily Kos Staff, January 21, 2022
Sen. Kyrsten Sinema of Arizona tried her damndest to sell the idea that a random Senate rule was far more important than the fundamental right to vote, but Democratic voters and groups don’t seem to be buying that bridge to fascism.
Not only does Sinema have an abysmal 8% favorability rating among Arizona Democrats, many of her biggest progressive backers are giving her the heave-ho after she helped kill critical voting rights legislation in the upper chamber.
Among the most impactful reversals came from EMILY’s List, a group dedicated to electing pro-choice Democratic women, and NARAL, which fights for reproductive freedom across the nation. Both high-profile funders backed her in 2018 when she first ran for Senate, but this week they severed ties with the Arizona senator over her refusal to alter the filibuster in order to pass the John R. Lewis Voting Rights Advancement Act and the Freedom to Vote Act.
“We believe the decision by Sen. Sinema is not only a blow to voting rights and our electoral system but also to the work of all of the partners who supported her victory and her constituents who tried to communicate the importance of this bill,” wrote EMILY’s List President Laphonza Butler. As a result, Butler added, “We will no longer be able to endorse Sen. Sinema moving forward.”
Statements from both groups noted that Sinema’s elevation of the Senate GOP minority over the will of a democratic majority automatically dooms any legislation that would advance voting rights, abortion access, immigrant rights, LGBTQ equality, and other Democratic priorities.
“Without ensuring that voters have the freedom to participate in safe and accessible elections, a minority with a regressive agenda and a hostility to reproductive freedom will continue to block the will of the majority of Americans,” wrote NARAL President Mini Timmaraju.
NARAL also said it would no longer endorse any U.S. senator “who doesn’t support changing the Senate rules to pass voting rights legislation.”
“Our democracy is on the line,” the group added in a tweet.
EMILY’s List’s Butler offered a similar sentiment. “Protecting the right to choose is not possible without access to the ballot box,” she said. EMILY’s List has been one of Sinema’s most dedicated backers, funding her rise through Congress to the tune of $485,000, according to Bloomberg News.
LPAC, a group that focuses on electing LGBTQ women to office, also issued a statement putting Sinema on notice that she would likely lose their endorsement.
“LPAC and its supporters have backed Senator Kyrsten Sinema in the past because of her stated commitment to our shared values. Any candidate wishing to have our support in the future must fully commit to protecting voting rights; anything less will fail to earn our endorsement,” read the statement, which urged immediate action on votings rights legislation.
Planned Parenthood Action Fund seemed similarly poised to cut Sinema loose, though the group didn’t explicitly mention her by name.
“Any Senator who chooses to protect arcane Senate rules over the freedom to vote is betraying their constituents & harming the fight for reproductive rights. They will have to live with the political consequences,” tweeted Planned Parenthood President and CEO Alexis McGill Johnson.
Following her speech on the Senate floor Wednesday, Sinema was warmly greeted by several GOP senators who clearly applauded her dedication to giving them veto power over our democracy.
Hopefully that GOP receiving line was deeply satisfying to Sinema, because whatever future she might have had in the Democratic Party is over.
High Amounts of a Toxic Forever Chemical Found in Bloodstreams of West Virginia County Residents
Paige Bennett January 21, 2022
A West Virginia Air National Guard firefighter conducts a training exercise at Shepherd Field in 2004. Firefighting foam containing the chemical PFHxS has commonly been used at this location and other military bases. U.S. Air Force photo by Senior Master Sgt. Jeff Rohloff
A new report from the CDC and the Agency for Toxic Substances and Disease Registry (ATSDR) noted high levels of a forever chemical called PFHxS in the blood of people in Berkeley County, West Virginia.
The report found the chemical, which is used in firefighting foam, in the blood of residents in a community located near an Air National Guard base. PFHxS, or perfluorohexane sulfonic acid, is one common PFAS, or per- and polyfluoroalkyl substances. These substances are often referred to as “forever chemicals” because they are synthetic and either resist degrading completely, or they break down slightly into other PFAS that don’t further degrade.
Experts suspect the Shepherd Field Air National Guard Base in Berkeley County is the most likely source of PFAS in the community. This chemical is used in firefighting foam commonly used at military bases. The report found that the PFHxS in the blood of residents here was higher than the average found in blood of people in other communities around the U.S.
“West Virginia is just a snapshot of the widespread problem of PFAS contamination plaguing communities across the United States,” said Scott Faber, EWG senior vice president for government affairs. “Every time studies are released on PFAS, the scope of the problem becomes even clearer, and so does the harm to people who are exposed.”
The report is one of many that are also underway as part of studies conducted by the CDC and ATSDR on PFAS that started in September 2019. They are studying communities located near current and former military bases known to use firefighting foam containing PFAS. The multisite study includes communities in California, Colorado, Massachusetts, New Jersey, New York, Michigan and Pennsylvania.
The CDC and ATSDR study is not meant to find further links between PFAS and cancer, but it does seek to find a better understanding of PFAS and health outcomes.
“The Multi-site Study will collect information about the immune response, lipid metabolism, kidney function, thyroid disease, liver disease, glycemic parameters, and diabetes,” the CDC stated. “CDC/ATSDR will also collect information about cancers, but the size of the study is not large enough for CDC/ATSDR to effectively evaluate the relationship between PFAS exposure and cancer. The Multi-site Study seeks to enroll at least 2,100 children and 7,000 adults from communities exposed to PFAS-contaminated drinking water.”
The report also provides recommendations for the communities to minimize PFAS exposure, including monitoring PFAS in drinking water, having residents with wells test their water for PFAS, and decreasing exposure to PFAS found in consumer products.
