The climate and the human condition

The human condition includes many or most people on planet Earth (1) living on the edge of survival, and (2) allowing corrupt demagogue tyrants to lead their societies to ruin if they believe there is profit enough in it. That includes essentially all or all laissez-faire capitalists everywhere. These days, corrupt demagogue tyrants and laissez-faire capitalists are leading us all to hell on Earth.

The New York Times writes:

Congo to Auction Land to Oil Companies: ‘Our Priority Is Not to Save the Planet’

Peatlands and rainforests in the Congo Basin protect the planet by storing carbon. Now, in a giant leap backward for the climate, they’re being auctioned off for drilling.

The Democratic Republic of Congo, home to one of the largest old-growth rainforests on Earth, is auctioning off vast amounts of land in a push to become “the new destination for oil investments,” part of a global shift as the world retreats on fighting climate change in a scramble for fossil fuels.

The oil and gas blocks, which will be auctioned in late July, extend into Virunga National Park, the world’s most important gorilla sanctuary, as well as tropical peatlands that store vast amounts of carbon, keeping it out of the atmosphere and from contributing to global warming.

“If oil exploitation takes place in these areas, we must expect a global climate catastrophe, and we will all just have to watch helplessly,” said Irene Wabiwa, who oversees the Congo Basin forest campaign for Greenpeace in Kinshasa.

Congo’s about-face in allowing new oil drilling in environmentally sensitive areas comes eight months after its president, Félix Tshisekedi, stood alongside world leaders at the global climate summit in Glasgow and endorsed a 10-year agreement to protect its rainforest, part of the vast Congo Basin, which is second in size only to the Amazon.  

Congo has taken note of each of these global events, said Tosi Mpanu Mpanu, the nation’s lead representative on climate issues and an adviser to the minister of hydrocarbons.

Congo’s sole goal for the auction, he said, is to earn enough revenue to help the struggling nation finance programs to reduce poverty and generate badly needed economic growth.  

“That’s our priority,” Mr. Mpanu said, in an interview last week. “Our priority is not to save the planet.”

One thing that is pretty certain, oil companies (OCs) could not care less about anything that impairs profits. If an OC sees enough threat to profit, then they will probably take the minimum action necessary to relieve the threat. In America, taking minimum action mostly means quietly bribing politicians ("campaign contributions") and hiring public relations firms (sophisticated professional liars). That is the most profitable way forward.

In jolly old America, OCs always act to subvert any government effort to serve the public interest by defending the environment. OCs also routinely try to deceive the public into a false belief that they are on our side. The OCs are on their side, not ours.

It's always a discouragingly huge, effective con job by pro-pollution interests. In America, our government gets subverted and the public gets deceived and screwed. It's a win-win for polluter OCs. OCs profit from polluting. The environment and non-wealthy people get poisoned. It's also a win for corrupted politicians who get re-elected, e.g., corrupt Joe Manchin and the almost the entire Republican Party in congress.

For what it is worth in terms of corruption, Transparency International ranks Congo as 162 out of 180 countries on Earth. It's a kleptocracy.

Why it is so hard to trust polls

 TALK ABOUT A CONTRADICTION! 

ON 7/21/22

Joe Biden and Kamala Harris would both beat the two favorites for the GOP

nomination in 2024—Donald Trump and Ron DeSantis—in either hypothetical

matchup, according to a new poll.

An Echelon Insights survey found that if the next election were being held today,

voters would narrowly back Biden (46 percent) over Trump (44 percent), 

with the president also the preferred choice when up against the Florida governor 

(45 percent to 41 percent).

https://www.newsweek.com/2024-odds-biden-harris-trump-desantis-1726687

ON 7/23/22 

Former President Donald Trump is still favored to defeat President Joe Biden 

in a 2024 rematch if both politicians ultimately become their respective party's 

nominees, despite the evidence and testimony presented in televised hearings 

by the House select committee investigating the January 6, 2021, attack on the 

U.S. Capitol.

The current Real Clear Politics average of recent national surveys, which includes 

four separate polls from June 28 through July 20, shows Trump ahead by about 

2 points.

The most recent poll, carried out by Emerson College from July 19 to 20, showed 

Trump ahead of Biden by 3 points.

https://www.newsweek.com/trump-still-beats-biden-2024-rematch-despite-jan-6-hearings-polls-1727393

Either way, too close for comfort I would say. Maybe time for Biden to heed what 

Democrat voters want?

Most Democrats Would Prefer Biden Not Run Again in 2024, 

Poll Finds

https://www.voanews.com/a/most-democrats-would-prefer-biden-not-run-again-in-2024-poll-finds/6654889.html

House Hearing on Long Covid Reveals Widespread and Serious Crisis in US

 

How widespread is long COVID? It’s put millions of US adults out of work, expert says By Julia Marnin July 19, 2022 5:31 PM (Fr. Miami Herald)

How widespread in long COVID? It’s put millions of U.S. adults who were previously infected with COVID-19 out of work, an expert testified at a House hearing. If you have heard about long COVID — a condition in which symptoms of a coronavirus infection can linger for weeks, months or years — you may wonder how widespread it is.

By February, more than half of the U.S. population was estimated to have already been infected with COVID-19, according to the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. Long COVID may occur at least four weeks after a COVID-19 infection, the agency notes.

About 28 million working-age adults in the U.S., and likely more to date, have developed the condition after testing positive for the virus, workforce expert Katie Bach, a nonresident senior fellow at the Brookings Institution, testified at a House subcommittee hearing on Tuesday, July 19.

“Long Covid is leading millions of Americans to reduce their work schedules or stop working,” Bach wrote in testimony ahead of the House Select Subcommittee on the Coronavirus Crisis hearing.

Currently, about 16 million people in the U.S. are estimated to have long COVID, according to federal data, and 3.3 million adults are estimated to be out of work full-time because of how the condition has affected their health, Bach said. This is 2.4% of full-time workers in the U.S.

Additionally, an estimated 2.6 million more workers dealing with long COVID symptoms have had their work hours reduced by 25%, Bach testified.

Among affected workers are those in health care, according to written testimony by Dr. Monica Verduzco-Gutierrez, a physiatrist and professor at the University of Texas Health Science Center at San Antonio, who spoke at the hearing.

Verduzco-Gutierrez said she has treated a number of nurses and physicians experiencing long COVID, including some who “have not been able to return to the operating room or to the frontline or the patient bedside.”

Meanwhile, Bach said “the number of people not working due to long COVID will likely continue to grow as more people become infected.”

The hearing was held as the infectious omicron subvariant BA.5 made up roughly 78% of COVID-19 cases nationwide for the week ending July 16, CDC data estimates show. UC Davis Health has described it as the “most easily transmissible” subvariant.

In May, the CDC estimated 1 in 5 adults may develop at least one post-COVID symptom following a COVID-19 infection, McClatchy News previously reported. For those 65 and older, the risk is slightly higher.

 Of the Americans currently out of work because of long COVID, “many of these impacted families lose necessary income and employer-based health insurance at a time when they need it the most,” House Majority Whip James E. Clyburn, D-S.C., the subcommittee chairman, said in his opening remarks at the hearing.

Symptoms of Long COVID

 “Each of these persons with Long COVID are suffering and has a story that needs to be heard. Each of them has a different course – some even starting as asymptomatic or mild COVID-19 – with lingering and debilitating symptoms,” Verduzco-Gutierrez wrote.

Most people diagnosed with long COVID were never hospitalized due to their initial infection, a study published as a white paper in May found, McClatchy News previously reported.

Long COVID patients can have “a wide range of symptoms,” according to the CDC, and some include:

Fatigue

Fever

Breathing troubles

Cough

Chest pain

Heart palpitations

Brain fog

Headache

Dizziness

Digestive issues

Depression or anxiety

Muscle pain

“I have had cancer survivors get Long COVID. They tell me that their post-COVID fatigue is 100-times worse than their cancer fatigue ever was,” Verduzco-Gutierrez said.

Another witness at the long COVID hearing, Cynthia Adinig, who described herself as a formerly “mulitasking supermom,” said before her COVID-19 infection in March 2020, she ran two businesses while homeschooling her child, was involved in her local church and volunteered for a charity, according to her written testimony.

“Unfortunately, I can no longer be part of those spaces in the capacity that I used to because from time to time now my body becomes overwhelmed with nausea, dizziness, intermittent paralysis, fluctuating oxygen levels, crippling joint pain and unexpected high heart rate.”

‘Immediate changes’needed

Another witness who testified at the hearing, Hannah Davis, a co-founder of the Patient-Led Research Collaborative, called for “immediate changes” when it comes to long COVID, according to her written testimony.

“We need an urgent public information campaign on Long Covid, to explain that it happens after mild cases and to all ages, is debilitating, and requires immediate pacing and rest.” In terms of lessening long COVID’s “economic burden,” Bach named at least “five critical interventions that the government can support.” They include:

Better long COVID treatment

Improved sick leave

Greater access to Social Security Disability Insurance benefits

Improved employer accommodation

Better data collection

“To fully assess the labor market impact of long Covid, and to track the efficacy of any interventions, better data collection is required,” Bach wrote.

In Clyburn’s opening statement, he acknowledged that there is still more to learn about long COVID.

“The millions of Americans experiencing Long COVID, and their families, are desperate for answers and support,” he said

 

https://www.miamiherald.com/news/coronavirus/article263619353.html 

To defend the indefensible and itself, the Pentagon lied to the congress and the American people

This is based on a comment PD made earlier this morning. It makes an important point about what the Pentagon did not do during T****’s 1/6 coup attempt. PD wrote: 

Other missing evidence from that day includes Trump's phone logs, the now-controversial "missing texts" of the Secret Service (again, there are competing stories about what happened that day in Trump's car), WH records during the crucial hours of 1/6 including photographs and diary entries that go blank for over 3 hours, et al. For context on the Pentagon lying about Flynn even being on the phone until Jan 20, 2021 when they admitted it, consider that his brother Michael was then, and still is, openly advocating for a coup, declaration of martial law and use of the army to keep Trump in power. Before that, he had advised Trump to order the military to seize voting machines. Whether or not Charles Flynn shares any of his brother's views or not is a speculative matter-- but if the Army had to lie about it, something seems wrong. Especially in light of the 2 testifying National Guard leaders on the phone saying he and Piatt refused to green-light the deployment of the Guard and then lied about it.

He cites this 7 minute video interview with a Politico reporter, Betsy Swan. She pieced the Pentagon’s lie together and reported about it. In her December 2021 Politico article, ‘Absolute liars’: Ex-D.C. Guard official says generals lied to Congress about Jan. 6, describes a terrifying story about how mendacious, morally rotted and anti-democratic the Pentagon had become under T****.

Swan’s Politico article comments:

In a 36-page memo, Col. Earl Matthews, who held high-level National Security Council and Pentagon roles during the Trump administration, slams the Pentagon’s inspector general for what he calls an error-riddled report that protects a top Army official who argued against sending the National Guard to the Capitol on Jan. 6, delaying the insurrection response for hours.

Matthews’ memo, sent to the Jan. 6 select committee this month and obtained by POLITICO, includes detailed recollections of the insurrection response as it calls two Army generals — Gen. Charles Flynn, who served as deputy chief of staff for operations on Jan. 6, and Lt. Gen. Walter Piatt, the director of Army staff — “absolute and unmitigated liars” for their characterization of the events of that day. Matthews has never publicly discussed the chaos of the Capitol siege.

“Every leader in the D.C. Guard wanted to respond and knew they could respond to the riot at the seat of government” before they were given clearance to do so on Jan. 6, Matthews’ memo reads. Instead, he said, D.C. guard officials “set [sic] stunned watching in the Armory” during the first hours of the attack on Congress during its certification of the 2020 election results.

This helps add context to what happened during those three hours on 1/6. While T**** was refusing to act to stop the ongoing coup attempt, the Pentagon was doing the exact same thing. That non-action can reasonably be called committing treason.

Qs: Who has more credibility here, the Pentagon's Gen. Flynn and Gen. Piatt and their claims of innocence, or former D.C. National Guard official Col. Matthews and his assertion they lied and committed perjury? What are the odds that Merrick Garland will prosecute any Pentagon general for perjury, 0%, ~1%, ~10%, higher? What are the odds that the Secretary of Defense will fire Flynn or Piatt? 

Matters related to the 1/6 coup attempt are not reassuring: We were too close to a coup

This is based on a comment PD made earlier this morning. It makes an important point. He wrote (edited for added context):

Pat Cipollone, invoked privilege every time the subject was conversation with Trump (or even Meadows) during those fateful hours. There’s no privilege. He was WH Counsel, not Trump’s personal attorney. As Wikipedia states: 

Although the White House counsel offers legal advice to the president and vice president, the counsel does so in the president’s and vice president’s official capacity, and does not serve as the president’s personal attorney. Therefore, controversy has emerged over the scope of the attorney–client privilege between the counsel and the president and vice president, namely with John Dean of Watergate notoriety. It is clear, however, that the privilege does not apply in strictly personal matters. It also does not apply to legislative proceedings by the U.S. Congress against the president due to allegations of misconduct while in office, such as formal censures or impeachment proceedings. In those situations the president relies on a personal attorney if he desires confidential legal advice.   

 

He’s a crucial witness and knows it and hides behind privilege. He also is the guy who first came to public attention when he vigorously defended Trump in his first impeachment. His sympathies are pretty clear; he’s no “John Dean,” as some in the press had hoped. The 1/6 Committee could have contested his claims to privilege, which would get hung up in court probably beyond the ’24 election, or take as much corroborating info as possible and let him look responsible. But we now have just enough to get the DoJ to do the rest in terms of Trump’s culpability. Will he? To be a democracy or not to be a democracy-- that is the question. (emphasis added)

In other words, Cipollone had no legal basis to invoke privilege. There was no privilege to invoke. He openly spit on the 1/6 Committee and what it was trying to do. By doing so, he intentionally and knowingly deceived and betrayed democracy, truth and the American people. He did that in the name of loyalty to T**** above loyalty to all else. 

PD also cited this Tweet by a well-known legal scholar, Lawrence Tribe.

Cipollone should be compelled to testify in the DC grand jury about what Trump told him. No executive privilege or attorney/client privilege would apply and if he tries to take the 5th he should be immunized. That would test Garland’s commitment to democracy and the rule of law.

— Laurence Tribe (@tribelaw) July 22, 2022

To get at the truth of what T**** was saying to people, Cipollone would probably need to be immunized against prosecution for his own crimes. He is a defender and enabler of T**** and his coup attempt, so expecting him to talk voluntarily is unreasonable. He would need to be forced to talk or put in jail for contempt if he refused.

The T**** White House had other treasonous criminals working in defense of T****’s attempted coup. They all knew exactly what they were working for, destruction of democracy and installation of a tyrant-kleptocrat for life. 

Just as bad, the morally rotted, fascist Republican Party supported it then and still supports it now. 

From the vexing matters files: The subjective nature of the rule of law

“This is an attempt to describe generally the process of legal reasoning in the field of case law, and in the interpretation of statutes and of the Constitution. It is important that the mechanism of legal reasoning should not be concealed by its pretense. The pretense is that the law is a system of known rules applied by a judge; the pretense has long been under attack. In an important sense legal rules are never clear, and, if a rule had to be clear before it could be imposed, society would be impossible. The mechanism accepts the differences of view and ambiguities of words. It provides for the participation of the community in resolving the ambiguity by providing a forum for the discussion of policy in the gap of ambiguity. On serious controversial questions it makes it possible to take the first step in the direction of what otherwise would be forbidden ends. The mechanism is indispensable to peace in a community.” -- Former US Attorney General, Edward Levy,  An Introduction to Legal Reasoning, 1949

“The lives of the richest people in the world are so different from those of the rest of us, it's almost literally unimaginable. National borders are nothing to them. They might as well not exist. The laws are nothing to them. They might as well not exist.” -- Sociologist Brooke Harrington commenting on how many extremely wealthy people treat the rule of law, NPR interview, 2019

“Well, when the president does it that means that it is not illegal.” -- Richard Nixon 

NPR aired an interview yesterday (that I cannot find today) with a district attorney (DA) in Texas. The DA publicly stated he will not enforce Texas anti-abortion laws in his district. He claims that as a DA, he has discretion to decide what cases and laws to prosecute. NPR then spoke with a legal expert in Texas who concurred that a DA does have the discretion to decide what cases to prosecute and what to drop. So at least in Texas, the only obligation a DA has once police or other law enforcement presents evidence of a crime is to review the evidence and then decide whether to prosecute or not. 

The expert pointed out that it is not uncommon for DAs nationwide to not prosecute selected crimes. Sometimes a crime is not prosecuted because much or most of the community opposes the law. Sometimes it takes too much time and resource to prosecute a hard to prosecute or complex crime. That’s especially true for complex financial crimes and some (most?) white collar crimes where plausible deniability makes getting a criminal conviction impossible or almost impossible. 

The Texas DA said his concern was justice. In his opinion anti-abortion laws are an injustice. He risks his job to take that stand. Although I agree that anti-abortion laws are an injustice, what about the rule of law? 

The United States Attorney General (AG) also has discretion to enforce a law and to prosecute a crime. T**** publicly said that he admired an AG who protected the president from the law. He argued that AG Eric Holder protected Obama from prosecutions, which he saw as a good thing. At this point, AG Merrick Garland has chosen to not prosecute T**** for multiple instances of obstruction of justice, each instance being a separate felony (discussed here in 2019). The choice is up to Garland. Maybe Biden could order Garland to prosecute T****, but at this point that seems highly unlikely.

Both democracy and tyranny can share traits. Governments of both can be bigoted, corrupt and/or incompetent. Two major things distinguish them. One is reasonable compromise. Democrats have to compromise, but tyrants don’t. The other is the rule of law. In democracy, the law is above everyone. So at least in theory, even the elites and leaders are subject to the law. In an authoritarian state, the dictator or plutocrats are the law. They say what the laws is and they apply it equally or unequally when it suits them.

Arguably inherent in the law in a democracy compared to the law in an authoritarian state is a meaningfully higher level of objectivity. For dictators, the law tends to be what the dictator has the power to say it is. Nearly absolute power can inject nearly absolute subjectivity into laws if the dictator or plutocrat is so inclined.

Much as one might agree with the sentiment of the Texas DA, he arguably undermines the rule of law, which is arguably too weak already. Is it too subjective to give DAs that much discretion? In essence, broad discretion gives them power to ignore and abuse law in addition to tailoring justice to reasonably deal with unique situations or complexities. Some discretion is always bad. Sometimes it is good. It depends on how it is used. Regardless of good or bad intent, there can be a lot of subjectivity in how discretion is exercised.

It feels as if the law in America has become dangerously subjective. Radical right American authoritarians have come to understand and embrace how much the law can be bent or abused to undermine and subvert democracy. The more one considers this, the more one some will come to understand that subjectivity and discretion can be a powerful tool in the war against democracy and the rule of law.

Qs: Should the DA in Texas not prosecute anti-abortion law violations in his district? Should he prosecute, but try to minimize the penalties? Is at least some discretion necessary for law enforcement and/or judges because, as AG Levy wrote in 1949, “in an important sense legal rules are never clear, and, if a rule had to be clear before it could be imposed, society would be impossible”?