اینترنت

برچسب: Michael

  • Michael Hiltzik: RFK Jr. is a Danger to Public Health

    Michael Hiltzik: RFK Jr. is a Danger to Public Health


    Michael Hiltzik, columnist for The Los Angeles Times, explains why Robert F. Kennedy Jr. is himself a danger to public health. Why did Trump pick him? RFK Jr. is neither a medical nor a scientific researcher. He has made his mark in public as a conspiracy theorist and a publicist for the idea that vaccines cause autism and other illnesses.

    Hiltzik writes:

    Americans have become woefully familiar with Health and Human Services Secretary Robert F. Kennedy Jr., the purveyor of flagrant misinformation about medical treatments. And with Robert F. Kennedy Jr., the minimizer of health crises such as the spreading measles outbreak. And with Robert F. Kennedy Jr., the antivaccine crusader.

    Now let’s meet Robert F. Kennedy Jr., the promoter of a costly, time-consuming and distinctly unethical order for testing vaccines. “All new vaccines will undergo safety testing in placebo-controlled trials prior to licensure — a radical departure from past practices,” HHS announced in a May 1 statement. What it didn’t say was that the “departure” is “radical” because it’s shunned by medical authorities as a bad thing.

    Just this week, Kennedy’s agency doubled down on this order with the appointment of Vinay Prasad, an oncologist at UC San Francisco, as head of the Center for Biologics Evaluation and Research, the division at the Food and Drug Administration that oversees vaccine testing.

    Prasad was a strident critic of the Biden administration’s approach to the COVID-19 pandemic, including the COVID vaccines. In a blog post in late April, he called for clinical testing of COVID boosters, along the lines of Kennedy’s order. Prasad succeeds Peter Marks, a widely respected expert who resigned from the FDA in March after clashing with Kennedy.

    “I was willing to work to address [Kennedy’s] concerns regarding vaccine safety and transparency,” Marks wrote in his resignation letter. “However, it has become clear that truth and transparency are not desired by the Secretary, but rather he wishes subservient confirmation of his misinformation and lies.”

    The HHS announcement about Kennedy’s demand for placebo-controlled trials was unclear about how it defined “new vaccines.” But his previous claims about vaccine safety have made clear that he’s referring not only to first-generation vaccines for diseases, but also boosters and expanded formulations. That’s an important point, as I’ll cover in a moment.

    The antivaccine camp, of which Kennedy has long been a leader, has pushed the claim that most childhood vaccines haven’t been adequately tested for safety because they haven’t been subjected to placebo-controlled trials — and therefore may be unsafe.

    “Except for the COVID vaccine, none of the vaccines on the CDC’s childhood recommended schedule was tested against an inert placebo, meaning we know very little about the actual risk profiles of these products,” Kennedy’s spokesman at HHS, Andrew Nixon, asserted in connection with the order.

    Both components of that claim are misrepresentations.

    Let’s take a closer look, starting with some rudimentary points.

    The testing that Kennedy and Prasad advocate are randomized control trials. They’re correct in asserting that so-called RCTs are the gold standard in clinical testing of drugs and vaccines.

    RCTs typically involve at least two groups of subjects: One receives the medicine in question and another — a control group — receives something else, such as a placebo, a concoction that’s designed to resemble the medicine but is essentially inert, with no evident effect on the disease. The placebo may be an injectable saline solution, or water, or a sugar pill.

    Kennedy, like other antivaxxers, is deceptive in saying that the safety of vaccines should be questioned if it hasn’t been tested against an “inert placebo.”

    That brings us to the ethics of clinical testing, and why Kennedy’s policy is so dangerous.

    Testing a vaccine against a true placebo is ethical and proper when it’s the first treatment for a disease for which no other safe and effective treatment exists. That’s not the case, however, when a known treatment does exist — say after a vaccine has been shown to be safe and effective and has become the standard of care.

    As vaccine specialist Paul Offit of Children’s Hospital of Philadelphia has explained, subjecting new versions of those vaccines to placebo-controlled testing — giving some subjects the new vaccine and the control subjects no treatment, would be unethical, because it would require depriving the placebo group access to a known treatment. That was the conclusion of an expert panel assembled by the World Health Organization in 2014.

    Offit, in a 2023 rejoinder to Kennedy’s appearance on a Joe Rogan podcast, in which he claimed that drug companies “never do placebo-controlled trials,” pointed to what may be the most famous vaccine trial to illustrate this point.
    That was the nationwide trial of Jonas Salk’s polio vaccine. In 1954, 420,000 first- and second-graders were given the Salk shot, and 200,000 got a shot of salt water. Salk objected to the trial’s design. Smaller trials had established the safety and efficacy of his vaccine, so the plan meant depriving 200,000 children of immunity to a disease that was paralyzing 50,000 children a year and killing 1,500.


    As Offit noted, in the full trial 16 children died from polio; all were in the placebo group. So were 34 of the 36 children paralyzed in the course of the trial. “These are the gentle heroes we leave behind,” Offit wrote.


    Now let’s examine Kennedy’s order as it applies to modern vaccines. As the veteran pseudoscience debunker David Gorski has pointed out, contrary to the assertion by Kennedy’s spokesman, almost none of the vaccines on the current childhood vaccination list is a first-generation vaccine warranting placebo testing. (An exception is Gardasil, which safeguards against human papilloma virus.)

    They’re upgraded preparations of vaccines that themselves underwent placebo-controlled trials, or formulations aimed at new variants of the targeted disease, or shots that inoculate against several diseases all at once.

    To demand that every new formulation be tested against an inert placebo would mean turning back the clock to reproduce trials that may have taken place decades ago, but resulted in the licensing of the original vaccine after safety and efficacy were established.

    That means it would have been unethical to test the new version against a saline control, because the control group would be deprived of any effective treatment. “The bottom line,” Gorski writes, “is that, if you trace back the history of the vaccines developed for a disease like, say, measles, you will eventually find the RCT testing the first effective vaccine against it and that vaccine will have had a placebo control.”
    He’s right. In a tweet thread, vaccinologist Peter Hotez traced back the history of several vaccines to their initial RCTs.

    What makes Kennedy’s order especially cynical is that designing and implementing a clinical trial is an extraordinarily complex, costly and time-consuming process. As a team of Canadian researchers observed in a 2018 Nature article, a full-scale Phase 3 clinical trial — the level at which drugs and vaccines are studied for safety, efficacy and dosing — requires as many as 3,000 participants and can take as long as four years.

    In an online posting last month, Prasad ridiculed “the mainstream media” for being upset about the idea that COVID boosters should in effect receive full randomized clinical trials before approval. He took particular issue with an article by Helen Braswell of STAT asserting that such a requirement might well delay approval of a vaccine targeting a new COVID variant until it was too late to protect users from that variant. Prasad called the argument false because “the virus spreads year round.”

    Is that so? At the height of the pandemic, new COVID variants sometimes appeared within months of one another. The virulent Delta variant, for example, appeared in the spring of 2021 and was overtaken by the Omicron variant, which also caused severe disease, that November.

    Delays in rolling out vaccines to combat newly emergent disease strains and variants could cost millions of lives. Under existing vaccine approval protocols, the COVID vaccines prevented as many as 20 million deaths globally within a year after they were introduced early in 2021.

    Prasad’s new job will put him in charge of developing vaccine testing policies and overseeing the design and approval of clinical trials. I asked him via email what policies he would pursue, whether he was in alignment with Kennedy’s approach, and how he expected vaccine developers to reconcile the costs and time constraints of undertaking clinical trials on the scale he advocates with the imperatives of public health. I didn’t receive a reply.

    So far, the Kennedy regime at HHS has lived down to the worst expectations of his critics. His devotion to unnecessary testing of vaccines that have already shown their safety and efficacy is only one aspect of a comprehensive assault on public confidence in science-based medicine.

    In a recent appearance on Sean Hannity’s Fox News program, Kennedy dismissed the severity of the current measles outbreak and denigrated the effectiveness of the measles vaccine. The current outbreak of 935 cases is by far the worst in the U.S. since 2019, when 1,274 cases were recorded; at the current rate, we are on the path to nearly 3,000 this year.

    Kennedy has promoted almost useless nostrums against measles, such as vitamin A, while describing vaccination as a personal choice. That’s devastatingly wrongheaded. Kennedy confuses “medicine” and “public health.” The former concerns itself with the individual; the latter with the community. Vaccine policy belongs in the latter category because vaccines are most effective when the effort is communitywide.

    Measles is among the most contagious diseases known to humankind, which means that communal vaccination is crucial. Professionals have concluded that a 95% vaccination rate is the minimum required to protect the most vulnerable, such as infants, from infection; as of 2024, the U.S. vaccination rate among kindergartners had fallen from 95.2% in 2019-20 to 92.7%.

    The Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, which falls within Kennedy’s jurisdiction, says the decline in measles vaccinations leaves 280,000 kindergartners at risk. Two children in the U.S. already have died from a disease that was thought to have been eradicated in the U.S. in 2020; Kennedy doesn’t seem concerned that the toll on his watch is poised to get much worse.



    Source link

  • Michael Tomasky: Elon Musk is a Stupid, Incompetent Man

    Michael Tomasky: Elon Musk is a Stupid, Incompetent Man


    Michael Tomasky, editor of The New Republic, doesn’t mince words when he writes about Elon Musk. The headline of his article says Musk is “an evil piece of human garbage” and a fraud as well. He hates what Musk is doing to our government, and he hates Musk’s indifference to the human damage he is causing.

    Does he care that he short-circuited American science and technology with his ignorant layoffs? Does he care that millions of people will die because of his success in shuttering USAID, thereby closing down the distribution of food and medicine to people in need?

    He writes:

    When I was growing up in Morgantown, West Virginia, I remember very well when that new building went up at the end of Willowdale Road, near the West Virginia University Medical Center and not too far from my friend Doug’s house.

    These days, Morgantown—driven by the university in general and by what they now call the Robert C. Byrd Health Sciences Center, in particular—is a sprawling small city, with townhouses and shopping centers and office buildings having swallowed the acres of woods where my friends and I used to play. But in 1970, it was kind of a big deal when a spanking new building like that was conjured into being; this one was of particular interest because it was something different: a federal government building, bringing a little slice of Washington to town.

    If you’ve been following the news, you may know that I’m referring to the NIOSH building—the National Institute of Occupational Safety and Health, which for 55 years employed dedicated researchers in Morgantown studying the effects of black lung on coal miners. Black lung, or pneumoconiosis, occurs when coal dust is inhaled and has killed many men before their time; it killed one of my grandfathers in his fifties. Pap, whom I never knew, died way before the federal government managed to overcome the coal operators’ fierce resistance to even acknowledging that coal mining could expose one to harm and established NIOSH through an act of Congress. But once that happened, laboratories were established in Morgantown and six other cities to research occupational safety, in the mines and other dangerous workplaces. Some 200 people worked at the lab in my hometown and from the mobile van they used to travel across coal country to perform checks on miners, sometimes literally right outside the mine gate.

    Until Elon Musk.

    Those 200 people were fired in early April by Musk’s Department of Government Efficiency. Controversy ensued, and many of them have been temporarily rehired, but they’re slated to be fired again in June. Labs in Pittsburgh and in Spokane, Washington, were also eliminated. 

    As Musk steps back from DOGE, we’re getting a number of assessments of his “accomplishments.” They’re generally harsh. He vowed to slash $2 trillion in “wasteful” federal spending (the federal government spends just under $7 trillion a year). He recently acknowledged it’ll be more like $150 billion. However, his “cuts” will also cost American taxpayers $135 billion, according to one estimate, because it turns out that some of these bloodsucking deep staters save taxpayers money. But even $150 billion is a grotesque lie. Jessica Reidl of the Manhattan Institute—yes, the staunchly conservative and generally pro-Trump think tank—recently told The New York Times’ David French: “So right now I would say DOGE has saved $2 billion, which, to put it in context, is one-thirty-fifth of 1 percent of the federal budget, otherwise known as budget dust.”

    That’s harsh, all right. But it’s not only or even mainly on fiscal grounds that he deserves our contempt. The cuts are leaving thousands of good people unemployed. And they will literally kill people. Coal miners will die prematurely. Children all over the world will die from malaria and other diseases because of the demise of USAID, which Musk called a “criminal organization.” In fact, this is already happening: Children with AIDS in Africa have died because of the elimination of a President’s Emergency Plan for AIDS Relief, or PEPFAR, outreach program. That’s just the beginning of the enormous pain these cuts will inflict across the world. And the richest man on the planet, who grew up amid vast wealth from his father’s emerald-mining operations and has never known hardship or had to rely on a government service in his life (unless you count $38 billion in government contracts, loans, subsidies, and tax credits for his companies), is responsible for every drop of it.

    Musk has paid for his political activism. The Tesla brand is stigmatized is many parts of Europe. Sales have dropped precipitously. His fortune, which was estimated at about $400 billion, is now down to “only” $250 billion. Protestors regularly gather at Tesla showrooms to demonstrate against him and his DOGE. Teslas have been vandalized.

    But no matter how much his fortune and his reputation declines, it can never compensate for the damage he has wreaked on our government and its services. We will all suffer in some manner because of this arrogant man.

    In the Trump budget for next year, the only government agenda that did not get slashed was the military. Science, health research, education, public television and radio, even the CIA and the FBI, were chopped or closed. Most agencies were stripped of their leaders and experienced personnel. We are in for dangerous times in the years ahead.



    Source link

  • Michael Hiltzik: Trump’s Tariff War is Nonsensical

    Michael Hiltzik: Trump’s Tariff War is Nonsensical


    Michael Hiltzik is a Pulitzer-Prize winning columnist for the Los Angeles Times, who write about business and whatever else he wants. In this column, he tries to make sense of Trump’s tariff war. It’s hard to do because it doesn’t make sense. Trump claims to have made great deals with China and the United Kingdom, but on closer inspection, he didn’t. People assume that Trump was a successful businessman, but he wasn’t. He played one on TV. He declared bankruptcy six times, and he had no background in international economic policy.

    Hiltzik writes:

    Are you confused about Donald Trump’s tariff policy, including why he instigated a global trade war, what its impact will be on the U.S. economy and how hard it will hit your pocketbook?

    Join the club. So too are economists, trade experts, political prognosticators and Trump himself. Their bewilderment has only intensified with the White House’s recent announcement of trade “deals” with Britain and China. 

    Those quote marks are proper, because it’s unclear how much of a bargain Trump has struck with those countries despite his triumphalist rhetoric. 

    Running a trade deficit is nothing new for the United States. Indeed, it has run a persistent trade deficit since the 1970s—but it also did throughout most of the 19th century.

    — Brian Reinbold and Yi Wen, Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis

    On Monday, for instance, Trump declared that he had achieved a “total reset” in trade relations with China. That doesn’t appear to be true, given that the thrust of the announcement was a 90-day pause in the recent round of U.S.-imposed tariffs on Chinese goods and retaliatory Chinese levies on goods imported from the U.S.

    Indeed, the announcement appears at least superficially to represent another climb-down by Trump of the stern tariff regime he claimed to be imposing. No one is even sure that the purported cease-fire will survive for the full 90 days. Even if it does, it means 90 days of continued uncertainty about the relations between the two largest economies on the planet.

    Praise for Trump’s tariff policy has been largely concentrated among his Cabinet members and other courtiers. Commerce Secretary Howard Lutnick, for one, was effusive about the British negotiations, even though they plainly achieved nothing concrete. “We started at 10% [tariffs] and we ended at 10%,” Lutnick told an Oval Office press gathering last week. “We got it done in 45 days, certainly because we work for Donald Trump.”

    Stock market investors have shown every sign of hanging on for dear life as the on-again-off-again tariffs have unfolded. 

    As of Monday’s market close, the Standard & Poor’s 500 index is down 3.39% since Trump’s inauguration. The tech-oriented Nasdaq index is down by more than 5.3% since the inauguration. Both indices are in the red year-to-date.

    Let’s try to clear away some of the confusion.

    On Feb. 4, Trump imposed a 10% tariff on all Chinese goods, then raised it to 20% on March 4. That meant that the effective rate on some imports from China rose to 45%, including a 25% levy on imported steel and aluminum. That rose by another 10% on April 5, reflecting global 10% “reciprocal” tariffs that Trump described as countering tariffs placed on U.S. goods by countries around the world. A few days later, Trump raised total China tariffs to at least 145%.

    Meanwhile, China was retaliating with its own tariffs on U.S.-made imports, ultimately set at 125%. Trade between the two countries virtually halted. Shipping traffic at West Coast ports, notably the ports of Long Beach and Los Angeles, plummeted amid proliferating predictions of empty shelves in the U.S. by September.

    Where are we today? According to the initial announcement, the “reciprocal” tariff on China will remain at 10%; according to Treasury Secretary Scott Bessent, who represented the U.S. at bilateral talks this weekend. Chinese goods will still be subject to an additional 20% levy Trump has described as punishment for China’s role in fentanyl exports to the U.S. 

    China, in return, cut its retaliatory tariffs to 10% from 125%, but left in place tariffs on U.S. farm goods — an additional 15% on chicken, wheat, corn and cotton and 10% on sorghum, soybeans, pork, beef, seafood, fruits, vegetables and dairy products. That’s bad news for U.S. farmers, for whom China had been a growing market, reaching a record $36.4 billion in 2022 before shrinking to $24.7 billion last year. 

    The deal Trump claimed to have reached last week with Britain was also murky. To begin with, the rationale for imposing “reciprocal” tariffs made no sense. Trump had justified those tariffs as countermoves to trade deficits the U.S. recorded with the target countries — but Britain is among the major trade partners that have consistently run a trade surplus with the U.S., meaning that it bought more from this country than it sold. 

    (Britain ranks only eighth among America’s trading partners; Canada, Mexico and China are the top three, respectively.) 

    As was the case with China, the agreement announced with Britain amounted to an agreement to keep talking, rather than a concrete deal. For all that Trump and British Prime Minister Keir Starmer congratulated themselves for their commitment to “deliver shared prosperity for American and British citizens alike,” the document they issued explicitly states that it “does not constitute a legally binding agreement” but only anticipates a “reasonable period of negotiation.”

    Even so, the terms the White House mentioned stoked concerns among U.S. automakers. That’s because they included cutting tariffs on imported British cars to 10% from the 25% imposed on cars and auto parts imported from other countries, chiefly Canada and Mexico under the United States-Mexico-Canada Agreement, which Trump negotiated in his first term.

    “It will now be cheaper to import a U.K. vehicle with very little U.S. content than a USMCA-compliant vehicle from Mexico or Canada that is half American parts,” complained the American Automotive Policy Council, a lobbying group for Ford, General Motors and Stellantis. Which British automakers would be its chief beneficiaries? Land Rover, Jaguar, Bentley, Rolls-Royce, Mini, McLaren and Aston Martin. About 103,000 vehicles from those brands came into the U.S. in 2024, auto market analyst Sam Fiorani told the Detroit Free Press.

    That brings us back to Trump’s reliance on tariffs as a weapon in trade negotiations. His core belief appears to be that every bilateral trade deficit suffered by the U.S. is harmful to its economy, or an attack on its national security or even its sovereignty. 

    Many economists find this notion bizarre. “Running a trade deficit is nothing new for the United States,” Brian Reinbold and Yi Wen of the Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis have observed. “Indeed, it has run a persistent trade deficit since the 1970s — but it also did throughout most of the 19th century.”

    For the most part, they argue trade deficits have been good for the U.S. economy. They reflected the importation of capital goods that fed into America’s rapid industrialization a century ago. More recently, they’ve reflected America’s wealth, which enabled U.S. consumers to buy more from abroad.

    The truth is that the international trade regime in place for the last half-century or so has been a boon for American consumers and businesses. The U.S. outsourced the lowest-skilled work for the manufacture of products including electronics and baby clothes to countries with the lowest prevailing wage rates, while turning a blind eye to the abuses visited on those laborers — adults and children alike. Tariffs were low and, perhaps more importantly, stable.

    In return, sellers — such as Apple — of those manufactured goods purchased by American consumers became some of the most valuable public companies in the world. U.S. stock prices and the value of high-tech companies in Silicon Valley soared. A new class of billionaire plutocrats, their wealth based less on manufacturing than on services, emerged.

    Inexplicably, it was Trump, who blew this long-lasting arrangement to smithereens. Not because he thought the globalization of manufacturing was morally suspect, but because he saw it as damaging to the U.S. economy.

    It’s true that manufacturing employment has seen a precipitous drop from 2000 through the 2008-2009 recession. According to international trade expert Kyle Handley of UC San Diego, some 6 million manufacturing jobs were lost in that period. But international trade was only one of several factors in the decline; automation and “a broad shift toward service sector employment” also played a role, especially in sectors such as healthcare, business and professional services, and communications and transportation.

    “Many of the changes are irreversible,” Handley wrote last year. Nevertheless, “nostalgia for the past remains salient in national conversation.” 

    Trump’s inability, or disinclination, to look deeper into the roots of U.S. trade deficits, which he sees as invariably the result of illicit trade barriers blocking U.S. exports, may explain the bewildering course of White House tariff policy. 

    For the White House to “suggest that the trade deficit is somehow reflective of trade barriers, and the administration’s cherry-picking of the data (which excludes services where the United States has a surplus) further points to the arbitrary nature of its claims,” Inu Malak of the Council on Foreign Relations observes. 

    How Trump’s deal-making will proceed from here is anyone’s guess. One question concerns whether they’re even constitutional, since the Constitution vests trade policy in Congress. A lawsuit making that point filed by five small importers harmed by the tariffs will be heard Wednesday by the federal Court of International Trade. 

    Trump has misused the International Emergency Economic Powers Act, or IEEPA, to claim that authority for himself, the lawsuit asserts. “The government’s position,” Ilya Somin, a constitutional law expert at George Mason University who represents the plaintiffs, told me, “is that IEEPA gives the president the power to impose whatever tariffs he wants, against any country, for as long as he wants, so long as he first declares a ‘national emergency’ (which they argue he can do anytime he wants for any reason).” 

    But IEEPA doesn’t mention tariffs, the plaintiffs note, and has never been used to impose or increase them. Nor can trade deficits rise to the level of a “national emergency,” as Trump claims, given that the trade imbalances present when he took office had been in place for years, even decades, the plaintiffs say. 

    The question remaining is how lasting Trump’s disruption of international trade relations will be. His policies have already had one effect: Trust in the U.S. as a reliable trading partner has been profoundly shaken. 

    America profited from that trustworthiness for many decades. It may not be restored for years to come.



    Source link

  • Michael Tomasky: Why No One Cares that Trump Is Raking in $1 Billion a Month

    Michael Tomasky: Why No One Cares that Trump Is Raking in $1 Billion a Month


    Why did Trump run for President in 2024?

    1. To stay out of jail.
    2. To destroy our government.
    3. To make money.

    All three answers are correct. Michael Tomasky, editor of The New Republic, recounts the latest financial scandal associated with Trump–the sale of Trump crytocurrency that is pulling billions into family pockets. And he tries to figure out why the story appears to have faded, instead of blowing up as a mind-boggling violation of the emoluments clause. That’s the part of the Constitution that says Presidents are not supposed to be getting rich by being President, especially by any sort of gift from foreign powers. Trump evaded that restriction in his first term, when he owned the hotel closest to the White Hiuse, and visiting potentates rented the most lavish suites. That was small potatoes. An investment firm in Abu Dhabi just put $2 billion into Trump cryptocurrency. Tomasky asks: does anyone care?

    He writes:

    Nicolle Wallace had Scott Galloway on her MSNBC show Thursday. She began by asking him what he makes of this moment in which we find ourselves. Galloway, a business professor and popular podcaster, could have zigged in any number of directions with that open-ended question, so I was interested to see the direction he settled on: “I think we essentially have become a kleptocracy that would make Putin blush. I mean, keep in mind that in the first three months, the Trump family has become $3 billion wealthier, so that’s a billion dollars a month.”

    Stop and think about that. A presidency lasts, of course, 48 months (at most, we hope). Trump has been enriching himself at an unprecedented scale since day one of his second term—actually, since just before, given that he announced the $Trump meme coin a few days before swearing to protect and defend the Constitution.

    And now, we know that he’s having a dinner at Mar-a-Lago in two weeks for his top $Trump investors, whose identities we may never know. How might these people influence his decisions? This whole arrangement is blatantly corrupt. And The New York Times had a terrific report this week about Don Jr. and Eric going around the world (Qatar, United Arab Emirates, Saudi Arabia) making deals from which their father will profit.

    I read these stories, as I’m sure you do, and I think to myself: How on earth is he getting away with this? It’s the right question, but we usually concentrate on the wrong answer.

    For most people, they think first of the Democrats, because they’re the opposition, and by the traditions of our system they’re the ones who are supposed to stop this, or at least raise hell about it. Second, we might think about congressional Republicans, who, if they were actually upholding their own oaths to the Constitution, would be expressing alarm about this.

    They both shoulder some blame, but neither of those is really the answer. Every time I ask myself how he gets away with this, I remember: Oh, right. It’s the right-wing media. Duh.

    After the election, I wrote a column that went viral about how the right-wing media made Trump’s election possible. Fox News, most conspicuously, but also Newsmax, One America News Network, Sinclair, and the rest, along with the swarm of right-wing podcasters and TikTokers, created a media environment in which Trump could do no wrong and Kamala Harris no right.

    Think back—I know you’ve repressed it—to that horror-clown-show Madison Square Garden rally Trump held the week before the election. It was, as the Times put it, a “carnival of grievances, misogyny, and racism.” A generation or two ago, that would have finished off his campaign. Last year? It made no difference. No—it helped. And it helped because a vast propaganda network—armed with press passes and First Amendment protections—spent a week gabbing about how cool and manly it was.

    Newsflash: They’re still at it.

    First of all, Fox News is basically the megaphone of the Trump administration. In Trump’s first 100 days in office, key administration officials, reports Media Matters for America, appeared on Fox 536 times. That, obviously, is 5.36 times per day; in other words, assuming that a cable news “day” runs from 6 a.m. to midnight, that’s one administration official about every three hours. I’ve seen occasional clips where the odd host challenges them on this point or that, but in essence, this is a propaganda parade.

    I tried to do some googling to see how Fox is covering the meme coin scandal. Admitting that Google doesn’t catch everything, the answer seems to be that it’s not. On the network’s website, there was a bland January 18 article reporting that he’d launched it; an actually interesting January 22 piece summarizing a critical column by The Washington Post’s Catherine Rampell, who charged that it was an invitation to bribery; and finally, an April 24 report that the coin surged in value after Trump announced the upcoming dinner—“critics” were given two paragraphs, deep in the article. (Interesting side note: Predictably, other figures on the far right have aped Trump by launching their own coins, among them former Proud Boys leader Enrique Tarrio and “QAnon Shaman” Jacob Chansley.)

    But it’s not just Fox, and it’s not just on corruption. It’s all of them, and it’s on everything. You think any of them are mentioning Trump’s campaign promise to bring prices down on day one, or pointing out that all “persons” in the United States have a right to due process? Or criticizing his shambolic tariffs policies? I’m not saying there’s never criticism. There is. But the thrust of the coverage is protective and defensive: “Expert Failure & the Trump Boom” was the theme of one recent Laura Ingraham segment.

    So sure, blame Democrats to some extent. A number of them are increasingly trying to bring attention to the corruption story, but there’s always more they could be doing. (By the way, new DNC Chair Ken Martin announced the creation one month ago of a new “People’s Cabinet” to push back hard against Trump. Anybody heard of it since?)

    And of course, blame congressional Republicans. Their constitutional, ethical, and moral failures are beyond the pale, and they’re all cowards.

    But neither of those groups is the reason Trump can throw a meme coin party and nothing happens; can send legal U.S. residents to brutal El Salvador prisons; can detain students for weeks because they wrote one pro-Palestinian op-ed; can shake down universities and law firms; can roil the markets with his idiotic about-faces on tariffs; can whine that bringing down prices is harder than he thought; can empower his largest donor, the richest man in the world, to take a meat-ax to the bureaucracy in a way that makes no sense to anyone, and so much more.

    It’s all because Trump and his team operate within the protective cocoon of a media-disinformation environment that allows just enough criticism to retain “credibility” but essentially functions as a Ministry of Truth for the administration that would have shocked Orwell himself.

    And just remember—a billion dollars a month.

    Don’t be surprised to see Trump-branded stuff on the White House website any day now. Trump Bibles, Trump sneakers, MAGA hats, Trump watches, Trump trading cards, etc. why not?



    Source link

  • Michael Tomasky: Trump Just Did the Most Corrupt Thing Any President Has Ever Done

    Michael Tomasky: Trump Just Did the Most Corrupt Thing Any President Has Ever Done


    Michael Tomasky is a veteran journalist who is the editor of The New Republic and editor in chief of Democracy. He has written for Newsweek, The Daily Beast, The American Prospect, and The New York Review of Books.

    When reading the article, it’s important to remember that the President is not supposed to enrich himself while in office. It’s illlegal.

    Tomasky writes:

    He’s using the White House to get rich from anonymous investors—and it’s hardly even a news story.

    Imagine that Joe Biden, just as he was assuming office, had started a new company with Hunter Biden and used his main social media account to recruit financial backers, then promised that the most generous among them would earn an invitation to a private dinner with him. Oh, and imagine that these investors were all kept secret from the public, so that we had no idea what kinds of possible conflicts of interest might arise.

    Samuel Corum/Sipa/Bloomberg/Getty Images

    Take a minute, close your eyes. Let yourself see Jim Jordan’s face go purple in apoplexy, hear the moral thunder spewing out of Jesse Watters’s mouth, feel the shock (which would be wholly justified) of the New York Times editorial board as it expressed disbelief that the man representing the purported values and standards of the United States of America before the world would begin to think it was remotely OK to do such a thing. The media would be able to speak of nothing else for days. Maybe weeks.

    Yet this and more is what Donald Trump just did, and unless you follow the news quite closely, it’s possible you’ve not even heard about it. Or if you have, it was probably in passing, one of those second-tier, “this is kind of interesting” headlines. But it’s a lot more than that. As Democratic Senator Chris Murphy noted Wednesday: “This isn’t Trump just being Trump. The Trump coin scam is the most brazenly corrupt thing a President has ever done. Not close.”

    Trump announced this week that the top 220 buyers of his $Trump (strump, as in strumpet) meme coin between now and mid-May will be invited to an exclusive dinner on May 22 (“a night to remember”) at his golf club outside Washington, D.C. The Washington Post and other outlets have reported that in the days since the announcement, “buyers have poured tens of millions of dollars” into the coin; further, that the holders of 27 crypto wallets have acquired at least 100,000 coins apiece, “stakes worth about a million dollars each.” Holders of crypto wallets are anonymous, if they want to be, so the identities of these people (or businesses or countries or sovereign wealth funds or whatever they might be) are unknown and will presumably remain so until the big dinner or, who knows, maybe for all time.

    It’s also worth noting that Trump launched this meme coin just a few days before inauguration. Its value quickly shot up to around $75. It steadily declined through the first month of his presidency, and by early April, as Americans grew weary of a president who was tanking the economy, it had fallen to $7.14.

    Mind you, a meme coin is a thing with no intrinsic value. It’s just some … thing that somebody decides to launch based on hype because they can get a bunch of suckers to invest in it. As Investopedia gingerly puts it: “Most meme coins are usually created without a use case other than being tradable and convertible.” It should come as no surprise that some meme coins are tied to right-wing politics. Elon Musk named his Department of Government Efficiency after his favorite meme coin, dogecoin (which, in turn, was indeed named after an actual internet memein which doge is slang for a Shiba Inu dog).

    So, to go back to my opening analogy—this isn’t even like Joe and Hunter Biden starting a company from the White House. A company is a real thing. It makes a product or provides a service. It files papers with the Securities and Exchange Commission. It pays taxes. It employs people. Assuming that it’s a good corporate citizen and that it exists at least in part to solve some problem or offer the public some innovation, it contributes to the general welfare.

    Not so a meme coin. It’s just a hustle. It may make certain investors rich, but it does the world no good whatsoever.

    So stop and think about this. First, Trump, preparing for the presidency, purportedly busy thinking about how many millions of people he’s going to deport and how he’s going to bring “Jina” to its knees and how he’s going to hand eastern Ukraine to Putin and how he’s going to cut Meals on Wheels, for Chrissakes, takes time out from all that to stop and think: Now, how can I profit from returning to the White House? So he launches, naturally, the griftiest Christmas present ever.

    It starts out great. Then its value drops by 90 percent. So in April, while he’s illegally deporting legal U.S. residents to El Salvador and roiling the world’s financial markets, he stops and takes the time to think: Hey, what happened with my meme coin? I had better figure out a way to goose this grift. So he comes up with this dinner. As well as showing just how tawdry his mind is, how he just automatically and intrinsically thinks it’s his right to make a buck from the presidency, it’s unspeakably corrupt. (One small silver lining here is that after peaking Wednesday at almost $15, it’s now under $12.)

    Who knows who these “investors” are? Will we ever know? Inevitably, on May 22, people will be invited to that dinner. Will we know the guest list? Will the list be sanitized? Will a few Russian oligarchs be among the top 220 but send surrogates to keep their identity hidden?

    This doesn’t create the “appearance” of corruption or set up the “potential” for conflict of interest. It is corruption, and it’s a standing conflict of interest. Patently, and historically. Chris Murphy is right: This is the most corrupt thing any president has ever done, by a mile.

    What are the others? Watergate? It was awful in different ways, but of course Trump is worse than Richard Nixon in all those ways too. Teapot Dome? Please—a tiny little rigged contract, and it didn’t even involve Warren Harding directly, just his interior secretary. Credit Mobilier? Run-of-the-mill bribes by a railroad company, again not involving President Grant directly, just his vice president.

    And yes, I’ve been thinking this week of the Lincoln Bedroom scandal. In 1995–96, the Clintons invited a lot of people to spend a night in the famous chamber. Many of them made large donations to the Democratic Party. It was unseemly. But it wasn’t illegal. And it certainly didn’t line the Clintons’ personal pockets. But if you were around at the time, you remember as I do the swollen outrage of Republicans about how relentlessly corrupt the Clintons were.

    Today? Crickets.

    Finally: Before we leave this topic, I want you to go to GetTrumpMemes.com and just look at those illustrations of Trump. There’s a big one in the middle of him with his fist raised, echoing the image from his attempted assassination. Then off to the right, there’s Trump seated at the head of a dining table.

    In both, he looks about 50. The artist has airbrushed a good quarter-century off his face, in terms of jowl fat and wrinkles and accumulated orange pancake. And in the dominant, middle image … what do we think Trump’s waist size is, about 46, 48? This Trump is about a 34. Maybe even a svelte 32. It’s hysterically funny. These are probably the most creepily totalitarian images of Trump I’ve ever seen, and yes, I understand, that’s a big statement. But even Stalin’s visual hagiographers didn’t try to make him look skinny.

    I digress. Let’s keep our eyes on the real prize here. This May 22 dinner is a high crime and misdemeanor. A president of the United States can’t use the office to enrich himself in this way, from potentially anonymous donors for whom he might do favors. This is as textbook as corruption gets.

    New York Times and Washington Post, put your best investigative reporters on this and place their stories on your front pages. MSNBC, hammer on this—you haven’t been. Democrats, talk about this every day, several times a day. Do not let Trump’s sewer standards jade us. Make sure the people know.



    Source link