The latest News Around Us_5_30_2021
Greta Thunberg calls out Chinese state-run media for 'fat-shaming' her in a scathing article that questioned her veganism Joshua Zitser - [email protected]
ODD ANDERSEN/AFP via Getty ImagesSwedish founder of the "School Strike for Climate" movement Greta Thunberg speaks on the sidelines of talks between representatives of the movement and German Chancellor in Berlin on August 20, 2020. ODD ANDERSEN/AFP via Getty Images.
Greta Thunberg has called out Chinese state media for "fat-shaming" her in a scathing article that questioned her vegetarianism, the Independent reported.
The article published last week by the China Daily, a newspaper owned by the propaganda department of the ruling Chinese Communist Party, implied that the 18-year-old climate activist was lying about her meat-free diet.
"Although she claims to be vegetarian, judging from the results of her growth, her carbon emissions are actually not low," wrote the China Daily journalist Tang Ge. Thunberg, who is a vegan, responded to the article on Twitter on Friday. She described how being "fat-shamed" by a wing of the Chinese government was a "pretty weird" experience.
"Being fat-shamed by Chinese state-owned media is a pretty weird experience even by my standards," Thunberg wrote. "But it's definitely going on my resume." The climate activist has been heavily critiqued by the China Daily since posting a tweet on May 7 calling on China to do more to help address the climate crisis, Vice News reported.
She was previously attacked in China for supporting the poster boy of Hong Kong pro-democracy protest movement, Joshua Wong, Vice said.
Kamala Harris reportedly 'tracks' reporters who don't 'appreciate her life experience': The Atlantic John L. Dorman - [email protected]
Vice President Kamala Harris reportedly "tracks" journalists whom she believes do not understand her as an individual, according to a profile published in The Atlantic.
Getty/ Vice President Kamala Harris
Harris, who in January became the first female, first Black, and first Indian American vice president in American history, has long spoken of her biracial heritage and the way in which it has shaped her life experiences.
In her 2018 autobiography, "The Truths We Hold," she opens up about the meaning of her name.
"My name is pronounced 'comma-la,' like the punctuation mark," she wrote. "It means 'lotus flower', which is a symbol of significance in Indian culture. A lotus grows underwater, its flowers rising above the surface while the roots are planted firmly in the river bottom."
In the book, Harris also described how her mother, the late Shyamala Gopalan, knew that society would perceive her and sibling Maya as Black and instilled confidence in her daughters.
"My mother understood very well that she was raising two black daughters," she wrote. "She knew that her adopted homeland would see Maya and me as black girls, and she was determined to make sure we would grow into confident, proud black women."
During the 2020 presidential election, when Harris was competing in a crowded multi-candidate field which included her now-boss, President Joe Biden, the issue of her background often came up in interviews.
The profile says Harris and her team "tend to dismiss reporters."
According to the report, the vice president "tracks political players and reporters whom she thinks don't fully understand her or appreciate her life experience."
Harris reportedly continues to bring up the January 2019 incident of Washington Post reporter Chelsea Janes, who attended a Washington, DC, book event and drew the ire of the members of the Alpha Kappa Alpha Sorority, Inc. by labeling their signature "skee-wee" as "screeching."
Harris pledged the sorority while an undergraduate student at Howard University, a historically Black institution of higher learning, and it is a powerful part of her personal identity.
"Members of her Howard sorority are in the room and screeched when she mentioned her time there," Janes tweeted, before deleting the text. "Did not expect to hear screeches here."
She quickly apologized: "Guys, I'm so sorry. Had never heard about the Skee Wee call before, but I certainly have now. Meant only to convey enthusiasm in the room!"
According to The Atlantic, requests for Harris to answer questions after events are often "treated as an act of impish aggression."
"She particularly doesn't like the word cautious, and aides look out for synonyms too," the report read. "Careful, guarded, and hesitant don't go over well. But she continues to retreat behind talking points and platitudes in public, and declines many interview requests and opportunities to speak for herself."
Harris also sometimes "comes off as so uninteresting that television producers have started to wonder whether spending thousands of dollars to send people on trips with her is worthwhile," according to The Atlantic.
Cook County, Ill., State's Attorney Kim Foxx, a friend of Harris, told The Atlantic that the vice president's demeanor was a "learned reticence."
"There's a reality of doing this work as a woman and a Black woman - and it often isn't talked about a lot publicly -that there's a presumed resilience around people who are first," she said. "There is a celebration of what it means to break the ceiling, and not nearly the conversation of what the cuts to your head look like."
Biden Swipes at Trump, Says He Won't Give Kim Jong Un 'International Recognition' Darragh Roche
Anna Moneymaker/ Getty Images
President Joe Biden appeared to criticize his immediate predecessor, former President Donald Trump, on Friday while discussing the approach his administration planned to take on North Korea.
Biden gave a joint press conference with South Korean President Moon Jae-in and said he wanted to achieve "total denuclearization" of the Korean Peninsula. North Korea, a dictatorship led by Kim Jong Un, is a nuclear power.
The president said he wouldn't meet with Kim unless the North Korean leader made a commitment to discuss the nuclear weapons issue. Former President Trump met with Kim three times.
"If there was a commitment on which we met, then I would meet with [him]," Biden said.
"And the commitment has to be that there is discussion about his nuclear arsenal."
Biden then seemed to contrast his approach with Trump's and critique the former president's decision to meet with Kim.
"What I would not do is what has been done in the recent past," Biden said.
"I would not give him all he's looking for, international recognition as legitimate, and give him what allowed him to move in a direction of appearing to be more serious about what he wasn't at all serious about."
Trump first met Kim in Singapore in June 2018, becoming the first serving U.S. president to do so. He held summit meetings with Kim on two further occasions, in Hanoi in February 2019 and on the Korean Peninsula itself in June 2019.
During his final meeting with Kim at the Demilitarized Zone (DMZ) on the border between North and South Korea, Trump walked a few steps into North Korea. It was the first time a U.S. president had entered the country. However, the meetings achieved little and Trump's comments about his first encounter with Kim proved controversial. The former president described the first meeting to rally-goers in West Virginia on September 29, 2018, according to USA Today.
"I was really tough and so was he, and we went back and forth," Trump said. "And then we fell in love, OK? No, really, he wrote me beautiful letters, and they're great letters. We fell in love."
Trump went on to make several comments praising Kim and describing their relationship in positive terms.
"It's a very interesting thing to say, but I've developed a very, very good relationship," Trump told the country's governors in February 2019. "We'll see what that means. But he's never had a relationship with anybody from this country and hasn't had lots of relationships anywhere."
President Moon responded to Biden's remarks on Friday, saying: "The world is welcoming America's return and keeping their hopes high for America's leadership more than ever before."
Newsweek has asked former President Trump for comment.
Biden, Moon Vow Unity on North Korea as U.S. Names New Envoy Justin Sink & Jordan Fabian
(Bloomberg) -- President Joe Biden said he would appoint a special envoy to address issues regarding North Korea and vowed to coordinate policy toward Pyongyang closely with South Korea’s government.
Following meetings with South Korean President Moon Jae-in in Washington on Friday, Biden said he’s appointing Ambassador Sung Kim to be the special envoy and that the U.S. and South Korea are willing to take “pragmatic steps” to reduce tensions on the Korean Peninsula.
“We are both deeply concerned about the situation” on the peninsula, Biden said at the start of a press conference on Friday, adding that “total denuclearization is our objective.”
Photographer: SeongJoon Cho/Bloomberg
Moon praised the appointment of Sung Kim, a career diplomat, and said he hoped for a positive response from North Korea’s government over the shared commitment to diplomatic outreach.
Sung Kim has been serving as American ambassador to Indonesia after previously serving as chief American envoy to the Philippines and South Korea.
Moon added that he doesn’t see any differences in how his government and the U.S. view the North Korea situation, a point Biden quickly seconded in saying that their shared goal remains the complete denuclearization of the Korean peninsula.
Moon has been eager during the final year of his presidency to revive peace negotiations with North Korea, his signature diplomatic effort. Yet that effort largely stalled after a series of failed summits between former President Donald Trump and North Korean leader Kim Jong Un.
Early in Trump’s term, he had said he’d be willing to meet the North Korean leader, and did so several times. Biden has shown no inclination for a meeting.
During Friday’s talks at the White House, Biden said that the U.S. would provide full coronavirus vaccinations for 550,000 South Korean service members who work in close contact with American forces. South Korea has been eager to secure supplies of vaccines that the U.S. has recently allowed to be exported.
Biden said he and Moon had discussed the possibility of a U.S. vaccine producer partnering with South Korea, which “with the help of that particular company will be able to make significant numbers of vaccines for themselves.”
Biden and Moon also agreed to work together on easing a shortage of semiconductors that has hampered production of automobiles and electronics.
Earlier Friday, U.S. Commerce Secretary Gina Raimondo and Moon announced an agreement to deepen cooperation in a range of industries including electric-vehicle batteries.
The U.S. and South Korea also agreed to terminate the bilateral missile guidelines that have long restricted Seoul’s development of missiles to under the range of 800 kilometers (497 miles.) The end of the guideline puts major Chinese cities under South Korea’s missile range.
On the nuclear issue, prospects for a breakthrough deal have faded, with North Korea largely cutting off contact with the U.S. and Moon. At the same time, Kim has continued with his nuclear and ballistic missile programs and fired short-range weapons in violation of United Nations resolutions.
Biden drew a distinction with Trump over the issue of meeting with Kim, saying that there has to be a commitment to discuss the North Korean leader’s nuclear arsenal. And he criticized what he said was Trump’s decision to confer legitimacy on Kim without getting much in return.
The Biden administration sees North Korea’s nuclear program as a serious threat to the U.S. and the world. But Biden -- in contrast to Trump -- has focused his efforts on smaller steps designed to bolster regional security. He has indicated he will not make a priority of direct talks with his North Korean counterpart.
In late March, Biden warned North Korea against continued missile tests, saying “there will be responses if they choose to escalate. We will respond accordingly.”
Pentagon chief unable to talk to Chinese military leaders despite repeated attempts. Reuters
Reuters/POOL
WASHINGTON (Reuters) - U.S. Defense Secretary Lloyd Austin has so far been unable to speak with China's top general despite multiple attempts to set up talks, U.S. defense officials said on Friday.
Relations between China and the United States have grown increasingly tense, with the world's two largest economies clashing over everything from Taiwan and China's human rights record to its military activity in the South China Sea.
Reuters/FELINE LIMFILE PHOTO: Chinese Defense Minister Wei Fenghe attends the IISS Shangri-la Dialogue in Singapore
Despite the tensions and heated rhetoric, U.S. military officials have long sought to have open lines of communication with their Chinese counterparts to be able to mitigate potential flare-ups or deal with any accidents.
"The military relationship is strained, no question about that. It’s hard to know how much this is reflective of that strain as much as it is just Chinese intransigence," a U.S. defense official said.
"But we certainly want to have a dialogue. We just want to make sure we have a dialogue at the proper level," the official, speaking on the condition of anonymity, added.
China's embassy in Washington could not immediately be reached for comment.
A second U.S. official said there was a debate in President Joe Biden's administration about whether Austin should speak with vice chairman of China’s Central Military Commission, Xu Qiliang, or Chinese Defense Minister Wei Fenghe.
Xu is seen as having more power and influence with Chinese President Xi Jinping. Austin would have had an opportunity to meet with Wei in Singapore later this month during a conference attended by defense ministers from the region, but the event was canceled because of the COVID-19 pandemic.
The unsuccessful attempts by the Pentagon to reach out to the Chinese were first reported by Financial Times.
Late last year senior Chinese and U.S. defense officials held talks on crisis communication.
While there have not been high level military talks since Biden took office in January, senior diplomats from the two countries met in Alaska in March. Those talks bristled with rancor and yielded no diplomatic breakthroughs.
(Reporting by Idrees Ali and Phil Stewart; editing by Grant McCool)
Bad Moon falling: South Korean leader falters in summit with Biden Gordon G. Chang - opinion contributor
The most anti-American president in South Korea's history visited Washington on Friday. It does not appear that President Moon Jae-in got what he really wanted. He smiled through a long day of diplomacy but undoubtedly left disappointed and upset.
In fact, it appears Moon lost ground on the one issue that matters most to him, the political union of the two Koreas. Moreover, Moon ended up with a strengthened U.S.-South Korea alliance, something he clearly abhors.
Moon had hoped President Biden would endorse his "peace agenda," essentially unconditional engagement of the North's Democratic People's Republic of Korea. The South Korean leader has staked his legacy on achieving either a formal union of the two Koreas or, failing that, an "irreversible peace." He arrived hoping the Biden administration would commit itself to his brand of North Korea diplomacy, which contemplates unilateral concessions to Pyongyang and immediate relief for the North from U.N. and U.S. sanctions.
Instead, Moon got Biden's commitment to a "calibrated and practical approach" - language from the U.S.-Republic of Korea Leaders' Joint Statement. In effect, that means little progress in the immediate future. The crucial news from Friday's summit is not about Biden's correctly tepid approach to Pyongyang but about the U.S.-South Korea military treaty, signed in 1953 after the fighting of the Korean War. The "alliance forged in blood," as both parties call it, had appeared to be in jeopardy in recent years. Now it looks far stronger.
Since taking office, Moon has worked tirelessly to end the military pact, something evident from his foreign ministry joining with China in October 2017 in issuing, without consulting Washington, the "Three Nos." This declaration severely limited America's ability to discharge treaty obligations to defend the South against missile attacks.
Moon back home has had few inhibitions in showing his dislike for the U.S. When President Trump visited Seoul in June 2019, for instance, he was photographed next to
Moon and Kim Jung-sook, the South Korean first lady. Kim was prominently wearing a large blue butterfly broach, the symbol of anti-Americanism in the South.
Moon, thanks to Trump's subtle but firm diplomacy, kept the alliance in place, and Biden on Friday shut the door to the South Korean's behind-the-scenes subversion.
"This was quite a historic day for the alliance," David Maxwell of the Foundation for Defense of Democracies, said at the conclusion of the Biden-Moon press conference on Friday. "They put the alliance on the right track," he said, referring to the two leaders' joint statement and accompanying fact sheet, the United States-Republic of Korea Partnership. "They provide," he noted, "an excellent blueprint for the future of the alliance."
Maxwell, who served five tours of duty in Korea with the U.S. Army, is correct. In addition to boilerplate, the documents outline new areas of technical cooperation. Of special importance was Biden's pledge, announced at the press conference, to vaccinate 550,000 South Korean soldiers, sailors and airmen. The fact sheet contains specifics of other vaccine cooperation.
"I am cautiously optimistic that there is so much substance in these agreements that it will propel the alliance in a positive direction for years to come," Maxwell, a retired colonel, said.
The alliance, although put on a firmer footing on Friday, might not outlast another "progressive" president of Moon's stripe. There is a pattern in South Korea of electing in succession two presidents of the same orientation and, if the pattern holds, Moon will be followed by one more virulently anti-American leader.
Moon has less than a year left to his single five-year term and, fortunately for the U.S., he's in political hot water. His approval rating, even in polls that tend to inflate his standing, this month dropped to 29 percent, under the psychological 30 percent barrier. Worse for him, last month voters in Seoul and Busan, the South's two largest cities, handed crushing defeats to Moon's Democratic Party of Korea in mayoralty contests. Rejection of ruling party candidates was mostly due to Moon's misguided economic policies, such as those resulting in unaffordable housing, but his unpopularity effectively limits his ability to do things for which there is no consensus, including continuing his pronounced shift to Beijing and Pyongyang.
And this brings us back to Moon's outreach to Pyongyang. Most signs now point to a return to a "conservative" South Korean president; Moon's only chance for another leader from his party, therefore, is a breakthrough in relations with Pyongyang.
South Korean politics are notoriously volatile, and an historic agreement with Pyongyang could result in another win for Minjoo, as Moon's party is known. Biden, by closing the door to a deal with North Korean supremo Kim Jong Un, is also closing the door to another progressive president in the South.
Given the unbalanced nature of the U.S.-South Korea relationship, Washington cannot be seen as interfering in next March's presidential contest. Nonetheless, Biden can influence the outcome by just doing nothing.
Doing nothing, therefore, works for America - and, ultimately, for the people of South Korea.
Biden ATF nominee says some law-abiding gun owners may commit 'violent crimes' Kerry Picket
David Chipman, President Joe Biden’s nominee for director of the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms, and Explosives nominee, testified Wednesday that a “law-abiding” gun owner can potentially become violent so further restrictions on all gun owners are necessary.
Provided by Washington Examiner
Chipman, a 25-year veteran of the ATF who later left the agency in 2012 to become a senior adviser to all major gun control organizations, was asked by Texas Republican Sen. John Cornyn if he recognized an individual's right to keep and bear arms. “The Supreme Court has recognized that right. I'm a gun owner myself, and the answer is yes,” Chipman replied.
“And is a law-abiding gun owner a threat to public safety in your view?” Cornyn pressed.
“If the term ‘law-abiding' means someone has lawfully possessed a gun, there are often occasions that that person then goes on to commit a violent crime,” Chipman responded.
“If you're just saying, ‘Characterize the majority of gun owners,’ the majority of gun owners are law-abiding."
Cornyn then asked what the role of the ATF or the federal government is in terms of “restricting the rights of law-abiding gun owners to keep and bear arms.”
“You said that some of them may go on to commit crimes, but so far we are not living, I guess, in the movie The Minority Report where we have the capacity or ability to investigate pre-crimes," Cornyn said.
"So what restrictions would you place on the right of a law-abiding citizen to keep and bear arms under the second amendment?”
“If I'm confirmed as ATF Director, it's ATF’s responsibility to primarily enforce the National Firearms Act, the Gun Control Act,” Chipman said.
“And our priority will be focusing on people who break federal laws and attempt to intervene before they kill someone, so that is a balance that we need to strike. But again, the Constitution is the guardrail to that activity.”
Chipman was later questioned by Sen. Mike Lee, a Utah Republican, about remarks he made about those who previously failed background checks and whether they should be investigated by law enforcement as potentially violent criminals.
“When you said, ‘While at ATF, I conducted studies involving people who failed background checks to determine how many later committed crimes with a gun, many did, this is a perfect opportunity to arrest people before committing crimes, rather than responding after the fact,’ I find this statement very troubling," Lee said.
"Especially troubling for someone who has been nominated to serve as the ATF director, because even setting aside for a minute the Second Amendment…this violates our most fundamental rules of due process.”
Chipman defended his 2019 comments, saying people took them out of context and that he referred to people who lie on the federal firearms form by not mentioning they are have previously committed a felony on the form.
Biden to Propose $6 Trillion Budget to Boost Middle Class and Infrastructure Jim Tankersley
WASHINGTON — President Biden will propose a $6 trillion budget on Friday that would take the United States to its highest sustained levels of federal spending since World War II, while running deficits above $1.3 trillion throughout the next decade.
Doug Mills - The New York Times
Documents obtained by The New York Times show that Mr. Biden’s first budget request as president calls for the federal government to spend $6 trillion in the 2022 fiscal year, and for total spending to rise to $8.2 trillion by 2031. The growth is driven by Mr. Biden’s two-part agenda to upgrade the nation’s infrastructure and substantially expand the social safety net, contained in his American Jobs Plan and American Families Plan, along with other planned increases in discretionary spending.
The proposal shows the sweep of Mr. Biden’s ambitions to wield government power to help more Americans attain the comforts of a middle-class life and to lift U.S. industry to better compete globally in an economy the administration believes will be dominated by a race to reduce energy emissions and combat climate change.
Mr. Biden’s plan to fund his agenda by raising taxes on corporations and high earners would begin to shrink budget deficits in the 2030s. Administration officials have said the jobs and families plans would be fully offset by tax increases over the course of 15 years, which the budget request backs up.
In the meantime, the United States would run significant deficits as it borrows money to finance his plans. Under Mr. Biden’s proposal, the federal budget deficit would hit $1.8 trillion in 2022, even as the economy rebounds from the pandemic recession to grow at what the administration predicts would be its fastest annual pace since the early 1980s. It would recede slightly in the following years before growing again to nearly $1.6 trillion by 2031.
Total debt held by the public would more than exceed the annual value of economic output, rising to 117 percent of the size of the economy in 2031. By 2024, debt as a share of the economy would rise to its highest level in American history, eclipsing its World War II-era record.
The levels of taxation and spending in Mr. Biden’s plans would expand the federal fiscal footprint to levels rarely seen in the postwar era, to fund investments that his administration says are crucial to keeping America competitive. That includes money for roads, water pipes, broadband internet, electric vehicle charging stations and advanced manufacturing research. It also envisions funding for affordable child care, universal prekindergarten, a national paid leave program and a host of other initiatives. Spending on national defense would also grow, though it would decline as a share of the economy.
The documents suggest Mr. Biden will not propose major additional policies in the budget, or that his budget will flesh out plans that the administration has thus far declined to detail. For example, Mr. Biden pledged to overhaul and upgrade the nation’s unemployment insurance program as part of the American Families Plan, but such efforts are not included in his budget.
The budget is simply a request to Congress, which must approve federal spending. But with Democrats in control both chambers of Congress, Mr. Biden faces some of the best odds of any president in recent history in having much of his agenda approved, particularly if he can reach agreement with lawmakers on parts of his infrastructure agenda.
If Mr. Biden’s plans were enacted, the government would spend what amounts to nearly a quarter of the nation’s total economic output every year over the course of the next decade. It would collect tax revenues equal to just under one fifth of the total economy.
In each year of Mr. Biden’s budget, the government would spend more as a share of the economy than all but two years since World War II: 2020 and 2021, which were marked by trillions of dollars in federal spending to help people and businesses endure the pandemic-induced recession. By 2028, when Mr. Biden could be finishing a second term in office, the government would be collecting more tax revenue as a share of the economy than almost any point in modern statistical history; the only other comparable period was the end of President Bill Clinton’s second term, when the economy was roaring and the budget was in surplus.
The documents also show the conservative approach Mr. Biden’s economic team is taking with regard to projecting the economy’s growth, as compared to his predecessor’s. Mr. Biden’s aides predict that even if his full agenda were enacted, the economy would grow at just under 2 percent per year for most of the decade, after accounting for inflation. That rate is similar to the historically sluggish pace of growth that the nation has averaged over the past 20 years. Unemployment would fall to 4.1 percent by next year — from 6.1 percent today — and remain below 4 percent in the years thereafter.
Former President Donald J. Trump consistently submitted budget proposals that predicted his policies would push the economy to a sustained annual rate of nearly 3 percent for a full decade. In his four years in office, annual growth only reached that rate once. The final budget submitted by President Barack Obama, when Mr. Biden was vice president, predicted annual growth of about 2.3 percent on average over the span of a decade.
The Biden forecasts continue to show his administration has little fear of rapid inflation breaking out across the economy, despite recent data showing a quick jump in prices as the economy reopens after a year of suppressed activity amid the pandemic. Under the Biden team’s projections, consumer prices never rise faster than 2.3 percent per year, and the Federal Reserve only gradually raises interest rates from their current rock-bottom levels in the coming years.
Mr. Biden has pitched the idea that now is the time, with interest rates low and the nation still rebuilding from recession, to make large up-front investments that will be paid for over a longer time horizon. His budget shows net real interest costs for the federal government remaining below historical averages for the course of the decade. Interest rates are controlled by the Federal Reserve, which is independent of the White House.
Even if interest rates stay low, payments on the national debt would consume an increased share of the federal budget. Net interest payments would double, as a share of the economy, from 2022 to 2031.
A spokesman for the White House budget office declined to comment on Thursday.
Administration officials are set to detail the full budget, which will span hundreds of pages, on Friday in Washington. On Thursday, Mr. Biden is scheduled to deliver an address on the economy in Cleveland.
Senate Republicans aren't interested in compromise — it may be time for Democrats to use Plan B Rep. John Yarmuth (D-Ky.) - Opinion Contributor
Greg Nash No one would think of blaming Sen. Joe Manchin for shrinking West Virginia's population by 3.5 percent since 2010, one of only three states that lost people over the last decade. There are lots of economic and demographic dynamics that accounted for the drop.
But given that the Mountaineer State will lose a House seat and an electoral vote, one should question whether Manchin should be determining the fate of multiple bills in the U.S. Senate. For the record, I really don't mind that Sen. Manchin says he only wants to make sure that West Virginia has a seat at the table. What I do mind, and what every American concerned about our democracy should mind, is that he now apparently thinks he gets to decide what everyone at the table will eat.
Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell (R-Ky.) regularly makes a similar point when he justifies his ability to hold up legislation he doesn't like. He says his position allows him to make sure Kentucky "punches above its weight." Given the rules of the Senate and a sheepish Republican conference, he certainly does, but that doesn't mean Democrats should turn the other cheek.
It has to be acknowledged that things could have been much worse. Democrats easily could have lost two special elections in Georgia, and we wouldn't be having a discussion about Sens. Joe Manchin, or Kyrsten Sinema (D-Ariz.) for that matter. It is only because we have an evenly split Senate and a Democratic vice president that Joe Manchin matters at all. In almost any other scenario, the significance of one member would be minimal.
Of course, we are where we are, and each and every Senate Democrat essentially has the power to veto virtually any bill that comes to the Senate, since it is unlikely that any Republican senator will support Democratic initiatives. That is precisely why Joe Manchin and every other Democrat in the United States Senate must recognize that they have national responsibilities that must take precedence. That's also why they must put aside their personal attitudes about the filibuster so that the nation's interests can prevail.
In The Federalist Papers, James Madison and Alexander Hamilton wrote that while the Senate was designed in a way to ensure that the majority didn't ride roughshod over the minority (even though they were talking about demographic "factions" and not political parties), those two Founding Fathers insisted that the majority must eventually always win; that minority rule was antithetical to a democracy. Common sense tells us that this is still the case in 2021, Trump Nation notwithstanding.
It must be increasingly clear to Democratic senators that there is no realistic chance of Republican compromise on the major Democratic priorities. McConnell made that clear earlier this month when he told us who he is: someone 100 percent focused on stopping the Biden agenda.
We already know there are no Republican votes for critical voting rights and electoral reform, gun safety legislation, and many other bills, despite overwhelming public support for them.
The American Rescue Plan had roughly 70 percent popular support, and not one Republican in either the House or Senate voted for it. I'm not opposed to giving bipartisanship and compromise a chance, but only a naïve politician - and neither Manchin nor Sinema is naïve - would believe that is likely.
I am confident most every congressional Democrat would prefer bipartisan legislative action, but we all must be fully prepared, and signal as much, to deploy Plan B at some point. That means using the budget reconciliation process when applicable and being willing to ditch the filibuster when the national interest is at stake - despite Joe Manchin's appetite.
Russian TV Circus: Biden Desperately ‘Begged’ For Putin Talks Julia Davis - The daily Beast
Provided by The daily Beast
Russian state media has gone berserk in the run-up to the summit between U.S. President Joe Biden and his Russian counterpart Vladimir Putin next month.
Evgeny Popov, host of Russia’s state TV show 60 Minutes, baselessly claimed that President Biden was finally able to secure a meeting with Putin only after “begging” for it. “They’re certainly celebrating this at the White House,” Popov claimed. His wife and co-host, Olga Skabeeva, said: “The whole world wants to meet with Putin, but absolutely everyone is afraid to do so, because they know that Putin will dominate. Trump was afraid of that—and all of us remember how it ended for Trump.”
The Kremlin was more subdued in its public statements. During a conference call with reporters, Russian presidential spokesman Dmitry Peskov said: “I would caution against having excessive expectations regarding results of the meeting, but rather proceeding from the assumption that the event is very important in practical terms.”
The summit in Geneva will follow Biden’s visit to Britain for a Group of Seven meeting and a NATO summit in Brussels. The timing rubbed Russian state TV experts the wrong way. “I’m deeply disappointed,” complained Andrey Sidorov, deputy dean of world politics at Moscow’s State University, appearing on Wednesday’s segment of Russia’s state TV show The Evening with Vladimir Soloviev. Sidorov bemoaned Biden’s schedule, where the summit with Putin is slated as only one of multiple stops on his European agenda. “Biden should have come to Europe solely for this summit [with Putin], not merely as a part of his European tour,” Sidorov ranted.
Russian state media is portraying the controversial decision by the Biden administration to lift some of the sanctions on the Russia-to-Germany pipeline, Nord Stream 2, as another example of America bowing to Russia. “Americans are crawling away,” Skabeeva surmised. “We forced Biden to respect us,” claimed Alexei Naumov, from the Russian International Affairs Council. “Biden is afraid that Russia will knock his teeth out,” opined host Evgeny Popov, referring to threatening statements Putin made last week.
TV host Vladimir Soloviev downplayed the significance of the summit altogether, citing previous letdowns after Putin’s get-togethers with former President Donald Trump. “Talks with American presidents don’t bring any results,” Soloviev said, “Any agreements get blocked by the Senate and Congress, just like what happened with Trump... Our president can make decisions, but the American president is limited in what he can do.”
The agenda of the summit is expected to include strategic stability, arms control, the situation in Ukraine, and the forced diversion of a Ryanair flight by Russia’s close ally Belarus in order to arrest a dissident journalist. Russian pundits and experts were furious that Belarusian President Alexander Lukashenko managed to hijack the agenda with the shocking mid-flight takedown. Still, they expressed relief at Biden’s hesitation to blame the Kremlin for its possible involvement and envied Lukashenko for his resolve.
Russian state TV pundits described opposition activists as “cockroaches in our kitchen” and openly wished that the Russian government did more to ensnare them, in Europe and elsewhere. During his nightly show, Soloviev said that while he is not suggesting that the Russian government emulate Lukashenko’s tactics, steps could be taken to apprehend and criminally prosecute opposition activists, regardless of where they reside.
“Don’t underestimate these cockroaches,” said political scientist Sergey Mikheev, urging the authorities to be more proactive in apprehending members of the opposition. Aleksey Chesnakov, director of the Institute for Current Politics, added: “Their geotags are easily available.”
“You can’t give in to the West, even in small things,” argued Sidorov. “If there are roaches in your kitchen, you poison them.” He concluded that Russia should not fear any repercussions and brace itself for the inevitable sanctions from the West: “Like Belarus, Russia has nothing to lose.”
Putin’s rhetoric is in line with the aggressive saber-rattling by state-run Russian media. During a televised meeting streamed live last Thursday, Putin complained: “Everyone wants to bite us or to bite something off from us. But they should know that we will knock their teeth out so that they won’t be able to bite at all. And the way to guarantee that is the development of our armed forces.”
Pro-Kremlin propagandists on state television quickly clarified that Putin’s message was directed at Washington, and discussed a baseless conspiracy theory that the United States and its allies have been plotting for decades to steal Siberia away from Russia. Earlier last week, Russian Foreign Minister Sergey Lavrov also made waves by claiming that the Arctic region belongs to Russia, when he described it as “our territory, our land.” Lavrov added: “When NATO tries to justify its advancement into the Arctic, that is a different story.”
Russia is coming into the summit positioning itself as a power to be reckoned with, while Kremlin-controlled media is scoffing at the topics of the meeting proposed by the American side, speculating that Putin would come up with his own agenda. Soloviev, who often boasts of a close relationship with the Russian president, said that Putin is going to the summit solely to disabuse Biden of his “big illusions.” Soloviev asserted: “We have to be tough. The time for softness is over. There is no such thing as strategic stability.”
Appearing on the state TV show 60 Minutes last Thursday to discuss Russia’s relationship with America, lawmaker Aleksei Zhuravlyov said there was not a single issue on which Russia should be cooperating with America. Discussing the upcoming summit, Zhuravlyov said: “There is nothing for us to hope for. No reason for us to be at that summit... Biden is coming to tell us how he’s going to allow us to finish the Nord Stream 2. Get the hell out of here! We’ll allow ourselves to do it. There is nothing they can do to us. We have the best weapons in the world.”
Fueling the pervasive anti-American attitude that is being sold to Russian audiences by the Kremlin-controlled media, the lawmaker angrily exclaimed: “Those goats will always be our enemies!”
Biden's assault on American sovereignty emulates worst flaws of European Union William Moloney - Opinion contributor
Getty Images As described by Christopher Caldwell in "Reflections on the Revolution in Europe," the European Union (EU) from its inception had as a central purpose of "getting rid of inefficient economic nationalism," but over time it evolved into a project for "getting rid of nationalism altogether." Nationalism, however, proved too vague a concept for the Brussels bureaucrats to root out - but what they could root out was national sovereignty, and this they have done incrementally over the past 30 years.
This is relevant to the United States because the Biden administration, in its brief tenure, has launched an unparalleled assault on American sovereignty that is breathtaking in its scope and potential consequences. A partial list of the initiatives aggressively promoted by the Democratic Party's left wing would include the proposed global minimum corporate tax; the waiving of intellectual property rights of U.S. COVID-19 vaccine producers; the cancellation of the Keystone XL pipeline; the banning of offshore drilling, which torpedoes American's hard-won energy independence; and, most egregiously, the abandonment of serious border control and tacit encouragement of the waves of migrants now engulfing our southern border.
To understand the genesis of these policies and how they relate to the EU, we need look not to President Obama, nor as far back as President Carter, but most specifically to the widely misrepresented but retrospectively transformational trade policies that became law during the Clinton administration: the North American Free Trade Agreement (NAFTA), the World Trade Organization (WTO), and normalization of trade with China.
The impact of these laws is skillfully illuminated and given context in a recent book that explores 20th century economic history and is a biography of one of the most influential economists of modern times: "The Price of Peace: Money, Democracy, and the Life of John Maynard Keynes," by Zachary D. Carter.
Carter asserts that the Clinton administration pursued a unified economic vision on every policy front that relentlessly "transferred power from the government to financial markets," believing the latter to be much more efficient agents of change than the cumbersome processes of democracy, particularly the awkward requirement of often risky elections. Furthermore, it was well understood that the Clinton trade project amounted to "a specific form of international political organization - a rearrangement of the rights and powers between global elites and national democracies."
Ironically, this project involved a total rejection of Keynes, who consistently held that governments with all their imperfections were better instruments of the common good than financial markets, which always entailed the potential for dangerous instability unchecked by any trustworthy system of accountability.
At the same time the Clinton administration was building its new world economic order and supercharging the growing forces of globalization, people of a similar mindset across the Atlantic were creating the European Union, which they portrayed as a natural evolution of the successful European Economic Community but now aspiring to be a supra-national political entity built around the guiding principle of "ever closer union" proclaimed in the founding Maastricht Treaty of 1993. In order to transform the EU into a true union and legitimize the European Parliament sitting in Strasbourg, a vote of the peoples of the member states would be required. But this ended disastrously in 2005, when the French people decisively rejected the new constitution, as shortly after did the Dutch by a 2-to-1 margin, leading to cancellation of the other scheduled elections.
Then, and subsequently, the peoples of Europe made clear that they were open to economic cooperation but not to forfeiting their national identities. The final death knell for EU grandiosity came with Brexit, when the sovereign British people chose the maintenance of their centuries-old democratic traditions over what world elites said was good for them.
Soon after the EU's 2005 electoral disaster, President Clinton's project of swapping the wisdom of democracy for that of financial markets came to grief on an even grander scale with the economic crisis and Great Recession of 2007-2008. Fortunately for Clinton, he was out of office when these worldwide economic miseries occurred. Thus it would be Republicans, not Democrats, who would pay the political price for his deeply flawed economic vision.
Sadly, however, that "vision" has found new life in the Biden administration, where the ascendent progressives still see great virtue and political benefit in the dismantling of national sovereignty. Left unchecked, it is hard to see how this direction bodes well for the American people, or for the future of American democracy itself.