Advocates of universal basic income (UBI) are cautioning against Democratic presidential candidate Andrew Yang’s proposed “Freedom Dividend,” saying it would hurt low-income Americans.In interviews with economists and organizations that promote UBI in the United States, experts said Yang’s version could do more harm than good because some Americans would need to choose between accepting $1,000 a month and receiving certain public assistance benefits.“While the Freedom Dividend has many characteristics that we support, forcing people to choose between current social programs and a basic income plays into this harmful scarcity mentality and would keep many struggling people in the same place,” said Jim Pugh, co-director of the Universal Income Project.UBI has been the cornerstone of Yang’s campaign since he launched his long-shot White House bid in November 2017. The former tech executive has emphasized that UBI is a necessity because globalization and automation will continue to devastate manufacturing and low- income jobs from Americans.Proponents of UBI, like Yang, say that granting a guaranteed income will reduce poverty and economic inequality. If there is a guaranteed income, Yang argues, people will have the resources to afford basic necessities if they are looking for work, caring for elderly or ill family relatives, going to school or trying to start a business.Opponents, however, argue that a guaranteed income for everyone would be too costly and would deprive the poor of targeted support. The National Bureau of Economic Research estimated in a February report that paying for UBI would cost more than $3 trillion annually, which is more than three-fourths of the federal budget.If UBI is implemented under Yang’s proposal, some economists argue that poverty and inequality will be exacerbated because money for government assistance programs, like food stamps and housing vouchers, will instead be converted to payments to people across the economic spectrum, meaning less money for programs that target poor Americans.On his campaign website, Yang has proposed “consolidating some welfare programs” to pay for his Freedom Dividend, and that’s worrisome to people like Robert Reich, who served as Labor secretary during the Clinton administration.“I'm supportive of a universal basic subsistence income that keeps Americans out of poverty,” Reich, who's now a professor of public policy at the University of California at Berkeley, said in an email. “But, I worry about Yang's proposal in two respects. First, Yang would get rid of public assistance for people who accepted the $1,000 per month cash benefit -- meaning that no one would be better off than they are now.”There are some exceptions, though. Social Security benefits would still be available, regardless of whether people accept the $1,000 a month.Reich and Pugh both said UBI should supplement rather than replace social welfare programs.Yang's campaign responded by saying recipients of social benefits would not lose them under the Freedom Dividend.“Anyone would be free to keep their current benefits and the Freedom Dividend stacks on top of SSI, Medicare/Medicaid, as well as housing supplements,” campaign spokesman S.Y. Lee said in an email. “The Freedom Dividend is meant to be an alternative to means-tested welfare programs, most of which amount to less than $1000 a month. These programs often provide a disincentive to work or volunteer, and force people to spend time interacting with an unwieldy bureaucracy.”Still, Yang's website says: "Current welfare and social program beneficiaries would be given a choice between their current benefits or $1,000 cash unconditionally – most would prefer cash with no restriction."Yang has also proposed a 10 percent value added tax (VAT) to help pay for his Freedom Dividend. A VAT, which is the value added to a product in the supply chain, is added to the sales price when it reaches the retailer.Pugh and Reich argued that a VAT would hurt consumers, especially low-income Americans.“Because the Freedom Dividend is funded through a regressive Value Added Tax, costs will rise for low-income Americans, leaving some of the most vulnerable Americans worse off than before,” Pugh said.Reich added that the poor would pay a higher percentage of their income under a VAT. Instead, Reich argued, UBI should be “financed through a wealth tax.”Yang's campaign argued that a VAT at 10 percent forces massive tech companies like Amazon and Google to pay more in taxes, and consumers will not see a dramatic increase in prices for basic necessities like food.Luxury goods, however, will be subject to “higher rates” Lee said.The Committee for a Responsible Federal Budget published an article in June that challenged Yang’s claim that a VAT would cover a sizable portion of the bill for his guaranteed income proposal. In its analysis, the group determined that a 10 percent VAT would generate an estimated $600 billion in annual revenue, which would cover about one-fifth of the total cost of the Freedom Dividend.The Brookings Institution in August published a paper co-authored by Melissa Kearney, an economics professor at the University of Maryland who argued that proposals like Yang’s would do very little to “reduce inequality of advance opportunity and social mobility.”In an email, Kearney argued that the Freedom Dividend is a “poorly designed tool to reduce poverty and inequality in the United States.”“But if we really were serious about reducing poverty and income inequality in America,” Kearney said. “We would devote a lot more resources to increasing the income and living standards of those in the bottom of the income distribution."Yang has championed the idea that UBI will encourage people to find work, increase entrepreneurship, help people make smarter decisions, and improve labor market efficiency.And he has some prominent supporters in his camp.“A Freedom Dividend of $1,000 a month, for the first time in history, would put every citizen above the government established poverty level,” said Andy Stern, President of Emeritus of SEIU and Senior Fellow at The Economic Security Project. “It would provide economic stimulus for local communities and raise the Income floor for Americans.”Kearney, however, said that she has found “no compelling evidence that leads me to believe that giving people money will generally lead to any appreciable increase in work or successful business creation.”

Russia says the main cause of the deadly incident on board a submersible which killed 14 crew on Monday was a fire in the battery compartment.Defence Minister Sergei Shoigu also said the top-secret military craft was nuclear-powered but the reactor had been isolated from the fire.The 14 senior officers died of smoke inhalation as a result of the fire on the submersible in the Barents Sea. The craft is now at Severomorsk, the main base of Russia's Northern Fleet. It has not been named, but it is a deep-sea research vessel, which had been exploring the Arctic seabed, the Russian government daily Rossiiskaya Gazeta says.It had been descending to extreme depths on difficult missions, the paper reported. Those missions were not specified, but Russia is in an international race to stake territorial claims in the Arctic, which is believed to be rich in oil and gas and other minerals. "The main cause has been established - it was a fire in the battery compartment, and then it spread," Mr Shoigu told President Vladimir Putin in a meeting on 4 July, according to the Kremlin website."The nuclear power unit on the vessel has been fully isolated and nobody is in that section. The crew took all the necessary measures to protect the unit, and it is in full working condition. This gives us hope that in quite a short time the vessel can be put back into service."The fire broke out as the submersible was in Russian territorial waters, the defence ministry says. The ministry has now named all 14 victims, and all were senior officers. Seven were first-rank captains, including two with Hero of Russia awards; three were second-rank captains; two were third-rank captains; one was a captain-lieutenant and one a lieutenant-colonel.A first-rank captain comes fifth in the Russian naval hierarchy, after four ranks of admiral. After three ranks of captain comes the rank of captain-lieutenant.They were from a unit based in Peterhof, a district of St Petersburg. The ministry says several crew members survived and are in hospital, but no figure has been given. A "civilian specialist" was rescued by the crew during the fire.Read more on similar topics: Russia unveils new Arctic military base What makes Russia’s new spy ship Yantar special? Denmark lays claim to North Pole Severomorsk was also home to the Russian Kursk nuclear submarine, which sank in 2000 killing 118 sailors.Mr Putin was heavily criticised for the way he handled the Kursk disaster. Media reports at the time showed him enjoying a holiday at a Black Sea villa as families of the victims demanded information about their relatives.Russia marks Kursk anniversaryIn the latest incident, the Kremlin has also given few details about the vessel, "in the interests of the state and state security".Several newspapers, quoting military sources, identified the stricken vessel as an AS-12 - nicknamed "Losharik" - or AS-31 submersible. These mini-subs can dive up to 6,000m (19,685ft) and are designed to be carried under the belly of a larger submarine. They are operated by the Russian military's Chief Directorate for Deep Water Research - the GUGI - often referred to as the country's "underwater intelligence service". Quoting military sources, RBK newspaper listed the GUGI's main tasks as "monitoring foreign underwater communication lines, recovering from deep water interesting weaponry and military equipment and protecting Russia's own underwater communications cables". The mini-sub's nickname "Losharik" comes from a Soviet-era cartoon character - a horse made out of spheres. The craft's design consists of titanium spheres - titanium being an especially robust metal - connected by passageways inside a light-weight hull.A Russian specialist military journal, Voyennoye Obozrenie, reports that the Losharik can descend to 6,000m, is about 79m long, has a displacement of 2,000 tonnes and can reach a speed of 30 knots.In the Barents Sea the vessel would have been studying the relief of the seabed for the navy to update its charts, military expert Viktor Baranets told the defence ministry channel TV Zvezda. The seabed changes frequently, and naval vessels need the data to avoid any dangers, said Mr Baranets, a retired colonel who writes for the daily Komsomolskaya Pravda.Accidents involving underwater vessels are rare. Here are some of the most serious: The Argentine navy's ARA San Juan submarine with 44 crew disappeared during a routine patrol in the South Atlantic in 2017. The wreckage was found a year later All 70 crew aboard China's Great Wall Ming-class submarine suffocated in 2003 when a diesel engine malfunctioned, consuming the vessel's oxygen supply Russia's Kursk submarine sank in the Barents Sea in 2000 after a torpedo exploded during an exercise, killing all 118 on board, including 23 who survived the blast but died due to a lack of oxygen The USS Scorpion sank in the Atlantic in 1968, possibly because a torpedo exploded, killing the 99 crew The USS Thresher sank during diving tests in 1963, killing all 129 on board - the biggest submarine death toll in history

WASHINGTON (Reuters) - A divided U.S. Supreme Court on Monday gave the go-ahead to an antitrust lawsuit accusing Apple Inc of forcing consumers to overpay for iPhone software applications, a decision that could lead to billions of dollars in damages and put at risk the company’s lucrative way of selling apps. In a 5-4 ruling, the justices upheld a lower court’s decision to allow the proposed class action lawsuit to proceed. The consumer plaintiffs claim Apple monopolized the market in violation of federal antitrust law by requiring that apps be sold through its App Store and extracting an excessive 30 percent commission on purchases. Apple’s shares fell 5.8% to $185.72. The ruling came on a day when Apple shares already were trading lower because of concerns over a full-blown U.S.-China trade war. The Cupertino, California-based technology company, backed by U.S. President Donald Trump’s administration in the case, argued that it was only acting as an agent for app developers, who set their own prices and pay Apple’s commission. Monday’s ruling, written by Justice Brett Kavanaugh, did not resolve the merits of the claim against Apple. But if the plaintiffs win at trial, Mark Rifkin, a lawyer representing them, said that “the overcharges paid by consumers since Apple’s monopoly began will be measured in the billions of dollars.” In a statement, Apple said, “We’re confident we will prevail when the facts are presented and that the App Store is not a monopoly by any metric.” The dispute hinged in part on how the justices would apply a 1977 Supreme Court precedent. In that case, the court limited damages for anti-competitive conduct to those directly overcharged rather than indirect victims who paid an overcharge passed on by others. Kavanaugh explained from the bench that the 1977 precedent was “not a get-out-of-court-free card for monopolistic retailers,” an apparent allusion to the popular board game Monopoly. “Apple’s theory would provide a roadmap for monopolistic retailers to structure transactions with manufacturers or suppliers so as to evade antitrust claims by consumers and thereby thwart effective antitrust enforcement,” Kavanaugh wrote in the ruling. Apple has said the consumers were indirect purchasers, at best, because any overcharge would be passed on to them by developers. The iPhone users who sued countered that they pay Apple - not an app developer - whenever buying an app from the App Store, and were therefore direct victims of the overcharges. Siding with the consumers, Kavanaugh, a conservative appointed by Trump, joined the court’s four liberal justices to rule against Apple. Dissenting from the decision, conservative Justice Neil Gorsuch, said the decision is “not how antitrust law is supposed to work” because it gives a green light to the exact type of case that the court had previously prohibited. Gorsuch also was appointed by Trump. Apple had avoided much of the antitrust scrutiny faced by other technology firms including Facebook, largely by arguing that it does not have a dominant position in the many markets in which it operates, from smart phones and laptops to streaming music services. The lawsuit, along with complaints over App Store policies to European officials from rivals such as streaming music Spotify, could draw Apple into the broader public debate over the market power of large tech companies. The legal setback for Apple comes as investors are looking to the company’s services business, including its App Store, to fuel growth as iPhone sales slow. Rifkin said he was gratified by the court’s decision, which “reaffirmed the straightforward principle that consumers who purchase a monopolized product directly from the alleged monopolist may sue the monopolist to recover the full amount of the overcharge they are forced to pay by reason of the monopoly.” Apple said in its statement, “Developers set the price they want to charge for their app and Apple has no role in that. The vast majority of apps on the App Store are free and Apple gets nothing from them.” The ruling could lead to other lawsuits against tech companies that act as platforms for other products or services. Apple had warned that this could pose a threat to e-commerce, a rapidly expanding segment of the U.S. economy worth hundreds of billions of dollars in annual sales. FILE PHOTO: Customers walk past an Apple logo inside of an Apple store at Grand Central Station in New York, U.S., August 1, 2018. REUTERS/Lucas Jackson/File PhotoThe plaintiffs, including lead plaintiff Robert Pepper of Chicago, filed the suit in a California federal court in 2011, claiming Apple’s monopoly leads to inflated prices compared to if apps were available from other sources. They were supported by 30 state attorneys general, including from Texas, California and New York. Apple, also backed by the U.S. Chamber of Commerce business group, had sought to dismiss the case, arguing the plaintiffs lacked the required legal standing to sue. After a federal judge in Oakland threw out the suit, the San Francisco-based 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals revived it in 2017, finding that Apple was a distributor that sold iPhone apps directly to consumers. Reporting by Andrew Chung; Additional reporting by Stephen Nellis; Editing by Will DunhamOur Standards:The Thomson Reuters Trust Principles.

ROBERT SIEGEL, HOST: The U.S. Senate has two new members today - Doug Jones, whose race in Alabama against Judge Roy Moore caught the nation's attention, and Tina Smith of Minnesota. She replaces fellow Democrat Al Franken after his resignation amid allegations of sexual misconduct. Senator Smith inherits a seat that has changed parties four times since 1990 and faces a November special election that's likely to be competitive. Here's Brian Bakst of Minnesota Public Radio.BRIAN BAKST, BYLINE: Where Al Franken was an outsized political figure, Tina Smith was practically tugged into public life. Until yesterday, Smith had been Minnesota's lieutenant governor, the only elective office she's held. For most of her career, she focused on the images and agendas of others as a trusted adviser to a big city mayor, a governor and a former vice president.TINA SMITH: You know, sometimes I think people in politics are always looking for the next job and the next opportunity. And frankly, that's just not the way I'm wired.BAKST: Former Minneapolis Mayor R.T. Rybak says that doesn't mean people should take his former chief of staff lightly.R T RYBAK: She is not a person to go crawl over every other political body to get to the place. She's a person who wants to get stuff done, and she's in the right position to do that.BAKST: Rybak once dubbed Smith the velvet hammer. It reflected what Rybak saw as her charm and mettle in helping close deals at City Hall and providing a steady hand in times of crisis, like when the Interstate 35W bridge collapsed during rush hour. As senator, Smith says her focus will be on bread-and-butter economic issues such as health care and paid family leave.SMITH: I don't think Minnesotans are sending us here to Washington D.C. just to fight with each other. They're sending us here to actually deliver results for people.BAKST: Smith is 59, a New Mexico native, a wife of 33 years and a mother of two. She has an MBA from Dartmouth and came to Minnesota for a job at General Mills. She left to start her own business before migrating toward jobs in politics. That includes running the campaign for Walter Mondale in a 2002 Senate race the former vice president lost. It was for the seat Smith will now hold. Mondale says he's looking forward to having Smith represent Minnesota.WALTER MONDALE: She's very honest. You can - that's a touchstone of her career. She's not going to cut any corners. She's - we'll hear it straight from her.BAKST: Smith must now get acclimated to the Senate while building a statewide campaign. She passed last year on a chance to succeed retiring Democratic Governor Mark Dayton, who appointed her to the Senate. The Democratic field looks clear, but that's only part of the battle in a state that neither party has a lock on. It's a historically blue state where Republicans have made substantial inroads lately. Suburban State Senator Karin Housley is the only Republican to jump in so far, but former Governor Tim Pawlenty and former Congresswoman Michele Bachmann are considering campaigns.Jennifer DeJournett runs a political group called VOICES of Conservative Women. She says this seat is ripe for Republicans if they pick the right candidate. She expects Republicans to hammer Smith on abortion, linking it to her past stint as a Planned Parenthood executive.JENNIFER DEJOURNETT: She's kind of got the worst of both worlds, quite frankly. Totally unproven, no hard base, but she's got an ideological record that is completely - you know, completely there.BAKST: Smith's allies hold her out as a champion for women's health and say they're ready for the 2018 fight. For NPR News, I'm Brian Bakst in St. Paul.Copyright © 2018 NPR. All rights reserved. Visit our website terms of use and permissions pages at www.npr.org for further information.NPR transcripts are created on a rush deadline by Verb8tm, Inc., an NPR contractor, and produced using a proprietary transcription process developed with NPR. This text may not be in its final form and may be updated or revised in the future. Accuracy and availability may vary. The authoritative record of NPR’s programming is the audio record.

California could take public ownership of Pacific Gas & Electric, the state’s largest utility which has been blamed over a series of deadly fires, Governor Gavin Newsom said.PG&E filed for bankruptcy protection in January, in the wake of billions of dollars of claims related to wildfires. The company has recently cut off the power to thousands of households in a largely unsuccessful attempt to prevent fires that have again wracked the northern part of the state.“PG&E as we know it may or may not be able to figure this out,” Newsom said at a news conference late on Friday. “If they cannot, we are not going to sit around and be passive. If Pacific Gas and Electric is unable to secure its own fate and future ... then the state will prepare itself as back-up for a scenario where we do that job for them.”Newsom said PG&E needed to be “completely transformed, culturally transformed, operationally transformed” with a greater focus on safety. The company has been criticised for sparking wildfires through its power infrastructure. Global heating, by drying out vegetation, is also contributing to fiercer wildfires in California. Flames have been fanned by strong winds.Some progressive congressional Democrats have been pushing for public ownership of utilities such as PG&E in order to improve safety.“The for-profit motive does not work,” Ro Khanna, who represents Silicon Valley in Congress, told HuffPost last week. “The public utility is a much better option because you’re not having to worry about maximizing shareholder returns and you will make the safety investments that are necessary.”The fallout from the latest fires is playing out as firefighters attempt to stamp out the last of the recent outbreaks. On Saturday, authorities lifted evacuation orders for a farm community as firefighters made progress on a large wildfire in southern California that continues to threaten about 2,500 homes and buildings. Ventura county officials allowed an unknown number of residents in Somis to return home after firefighters contained 20% of the Maria fire, which has burned nearly 15 square miles and forced nearly 11,000 people to evacuate. While fire activity subsided overnight, winds and low humidity were expected to make another difficult day for firefighters. Moreover, an unexpected area of cloud moved in from the south, threatening to bring lightning strikes and wind gusts of 20mph to 30mph over the region, the National Weather Service said. Police in Santa Monica urged beachgoers to seek shelter indoors after lightning was reported over the city. Crews battled to keep the flames away from orchards and farms in the rural area. Three buildings were destroyed. The fire erupted on a hilltop north-west of Los Angeles on Thursday during what had been expected to be the tail end of gusty Santa Ana winds. The cause was under investigation but there was a troubling possibility that an electrical line might have been involved. Southern California Edison said it re-energized a 16,000-volt power line 13 minutes before the fire erupted in the same area. SCE will cooperate with investigators, the utility said. In northern California, more people were allowed to return to areas evacuated due to the huge Kincade fire burning for days in the Sonoma county wine country. The 121-square-mile fire was 72% contained, the California Department of Forestry and Fire Protection said. The tally of destroyed homes reached 175 and there were 35 more damaged, Cal Fire said. Many other structures also burned. While the cause of the Kincade Fire hasn’t been determined, PG&E reported a problem with a transmission tower near the spot where the fire started. Topics Wildfires Natural disasters and extreme weather California US weather news

Facebook's latest foes: nearly every U.S. state. A state-level antitrust investigation into the social networking giant now has the backing of a bipartisan group of 47 attorneys general, New York Attorney General Letitia James said Tuesday. The Democrat launched the probe last month with seven other states and the District of Columbia. It focuses on whether Facebook's dominance is stifling competition, limiting choice for consumers and costing advertisers more money. "Big Tech must account for its actions," Louisiana Attorney General Jeff Landry, a Republican, said in a statement. The group of attorneys general also worries about Facebook's handling of customer data, James said. That drew scrutiny after firms were able to harvest information in attempts to influence the 2016 presidential election. Facebook didn't immediately respond to an email seeking comment. The group backing the state-level probe by the seven states and Washington now includes 21 Democratic attorneys general, 18 Republicans and an independent from 39 states and Guam. The list also includes several states that cannot confirm their participation in pending investigations, James said. Facebook and other tech giants have also been feeling the heat from federal regulators. The Federal Trade Commission recently fined Facebook $5 billion for privacy violations, but consumer advocates and some public officials criticized that as too lenient. A separate investigation, led by Texas and supported by attorneys general from 48 states, Puerto Rico and Washington is looking at whether Google is engaging in monopolistic behavior with its dominant online search and advertising business. District of Columbia Attorney General Karl Racine, a Democrat involved in both investigations, said in a statement that he wants to ensure Facebook is "giving a fair shake" to the American people. "No company gets a pass if it throttles competitors and exploits consumers," Racine said.

A new super PAC is planning to spend over $1 million to back Andrew Yang’s campaign for the presidency, a surprising effort that could give Yang needed support but will also test his commitment to disempower these big-money groups.The group, called Math PAC, is being run by a well-regarded Democratic operative, Will Hailer, and this week began sending its first pieces of direct mail to voters, according to federal disclosures. The group expects to have a seven-figure budget and to do both paid media and voter outreach on Yang’s behalf in early primary states.The point is to “allow the movement behind Andrew Yang to catch up to elected officials — who were able to transfer years of war chests to their presidential campaigns,” Hailer told Recode. “We felt an opportunity to harness that so that a first-time candidate’s voice isn’t drowned out.”But Yang has been explicit about the harm posed by super PACs, which are unaffiliated committees that can raise money in unlimited amounts as long as they do not directly coordinate strategy with the campaign. A Yang spokesperson had no immediate comment, but Yang’s campaign platform calls to “eliminate super PACs.” Math PAC was formed last month.Super PACs have become toxic in Democratic primary politics, with everyone from Joe Biden to Cory Booker trying to cut outside efforts to back their campaigns. But because the groups are by nature unauthorized, candidates have limited ability to actually stop a super PAC from doing its work.Hailer said his group agreed that super PACs were a problem but that Math PAC’s work was essential to “make sure that we are enacting election reform measures that prohibit this type of work from happening.” While new super PACs will not be required to disclose their donors until late January, Math PAC is planning to reveal its donors before the mandated date.Yang has been notching between 2 percent and 3 percent support in most national and early-state polls.“He is running against governors, senators, and institutional actors that have these apparatuses that they can automatically tap into,” Hailer said. “So the only way to be able to give voice to an incredibly important conversation is to find ways to add value to that voice. And that’s what we’re hoping to do through the super PAC.”Yang has proven to be a surprisingly successful fundraiser for his own campaign committee, raising $10 million in the last quarter, a haul that surpassed some of those senators and governors — like Booker or Montana Gov. Steve Bullock. Candidates like Yang have been able to raise substantial hauls this cycle by relying on small-dollar donors, lessening the need for high-dollar backers who can give to outside groups in excess of the legal maximum, which is $2,800. The top fundraisers last quarter, Bernie Sanders and Elizabeth Warren, have sworn off high-dollar fundraising events — Yang has done a limited number of them — even though that decision carries some vulnerabilities in a general election.There are reasons to think that a Yang super PAC, though, could raise a lot of money. Yang, the former head of Venture for America, has been tapping his network for high-dollar contributors for decades to back his nonprofit, and he enjoyed a special touch with some billionaires during those years. The group is asking some people who have worked with Yang during his career to serve as advisers.Hailer’s involvement, too, gives Math PAC some credibility. The former executive director of the Texas Democratic Party, Hailer has advised candidates like Minnesota politician Keith Ellison and was at one point reportedly considered to be the next CEO of the Democratic National Committee, where he served as a senior adviser.An advocacy organization, End Citizens United, called on Yang to condemn the group.“The first day a candidate accepts the help of a single-candidate super PAC in the Democratic primary is the last day their campaign is truly a grassroots movement,” said Tiffany Muller, End Citizens United’s president. “Andrew Yang should disavow this super PAC and let Democratic voters choose our nominee, not Big Money donors.”

Media player Media playback is unsupported on your device Video California wildfires continue despite winds easing The Maria Fire remains uncontained after erupting overnight in Ventura County, north-west of Los Angeles. It is burning in a mountain area between Santa Paula and Somis, a ranching and farming community. Around 7,500 people have been ordered to evacuate the area.Two homes have been destroyed and structures are under threat. There have been no reported injuries so far.Parts of this video contain no sound.

Andrew Yang is aiming for the VP nomination.He's not going to get it. Not when he's advocating for nuclear power and next generation thorium reactors.https://www.youtube.com/watch?... [youtube.com]He's probably the only one in the pack of Democrats running for the nomination to be on the 2020 with a sane energy policy.Who will get the nomination? I can say who will not. Biden and Sanders are just too old. Warren is also quite old, and while she claims to have a plan for everything it seems that she is incapable of telling anyone what those plans are, which make it unlikely for her to win. Warren's insistence on claiming native American heritage, in spite of her DNA test to "prove" this being a farce, is also not helping. Buttigieg is too young, too white, and too gay, to get the nomination. Steyer is running on just one issue, climate change, and polls show that is not as much of a concern as it used to be. Steyer (when he can stop talking about the climate long enough for someone to ask about his other policy positions) also wants to take people's guns, and even among Democrats gun grabs are not popular. Anyone running that wants to take people's guns is not likely to win a primary, and if they do win then they will go down hard in the general election.Yang is probably the only one running that has a chance to beat Trump in an election. He does not appear to be too far to the left or too far to the center. He's not too young or too old. In an age of people getting tired of old rich white guys as politicians we're seeing age being brought up a lot. Being rich and male counts against him but by not being old and white means he gets some "points" in his favor. But to run against Trump in the general election he needs approval of the Democrats in the primary, and I doubt he will get it.To run as VP he would need the powers that be in the Democrat party to have a moment of sanity and clarity that they need to attract the more center of the road voter. I have my doubts that the Democrats have any sanity left. If they had any sanity then they'd put the Green New Deal through the shredder and come up with an energy policy more like Yang's, not a socialist manifesto with some solar panel subsidies like what AOC and Sanders are trying to sell.

Paradise is not what it used to be, as Greta Thunberg witnessed earlier this week. Today the town with a lovely name is best known for the apocalyptic fire that ripped through it last year, decimating nearly every home and killing 86 people.This week California is once more in flames as fires rage in the north and south – a point that was not lost on the 16-year-old Swedish climate activist who spoke at a rally in Los Angeles on Friday.“We can see the wildfires happening right around the corner,” Thunberg said outside City Hall, just miles from an ongoing blaze. “Right now we are living in the beginning of a climate and ecological breakdown, and we cannot look away from this crisis anymore.”More than a thousand people joined Thunberg for an afternoon of youth-led environmental action, a scene that has become familiar as she – and young people like her – are increasingly frustrated with the inaction of their elders.“The older generations are failing us,” she told the crowd, where organizers of the Youth Climate Strike were demanding that California’s governor Gavin Newsom impose an immediate moratorium on new oil and gas drilling. “They are failing future generations. But future generations do not have a voice. And the biosphere does not have a voice. So we will be the voice that speaks for them.”Young people – especially young women – came out in force. Lily Olson, a 17-year-old high school senior from Los Angeles, said Thunberg was an inspiration to people of her generation, her existence a rejoinder to those who think the young should wait to speak out about their future.“It’s amazing to see someone my age with such articulation and care and passion for what other people would consider ‘not a big deal’,” she said. “People seem to think because we’re young we don’t know what we’re talking about, or we don’t have the ability to make change. But seeing someone like Greta speak about what she’s truly passionate about – it really gives me faith in my generation.”Morgan Wright, an 11-year-old from Burbank, attended Friday’s rally with her mother. She too cited Greta as a role model. “I’ve watched a lot of her speeches and rallies in my history class,” she said, noting that she had since helped start an eco-club to pressure her school to do more to protect the environment. “It’s really cool to see someone that can go up there and talk, even though they’re technically not an adult yet,” Wright said. “And they go up there and inspire people just like me.”Casey Anell, 10, came from Huntington Park to attend the rally with her mother. She’s been learning about climate change at school, and she too feels there is no more time for stalling.“There’s a 50-50 chance the rainforest is going to be gone, and I’m going to be sad,” she said, and her classmates are frightened. “They’re scared because they don’t want any animals to go extinct,” she explained. “Some adults are doing something about it,” she said, “but I don’t know about the government.”Though undoubtedly a star, Thunberg kept a low profile at the march. When young people began marching through the streets of downtown, she was not on the frontlines, where all the cameras were; she was just another marcher, somewhere in the back, melting into the anonymity of the crowd, rumors of her presence whispered by many who came to hear her speak.The limelight was ceded to local activists and their campaign: not just to address the global effects of the climate crisis, but the fact that Los Angeles remains a major producer of the very thing fueling it.Up to 8,000 barrels of oil are produced each day from wells in the city of Los Angeles, according to a July 2019 report from City Hall, and an estimated 1.6bn more barrels remain in the ground below. Over half a million people live within 2,500ft of an active oil or gas well, a number activists want reduced to zero. Not only does this production fuel the climate crisis, which in turn intensifies the fires now threatening the city, but the air pollution this drilling creates has itself increased rates of asthma and the risk of cancer among those living immediately next door – a majority of whom are members of low-income, minority communities.Nalleli Cobo, 18, has been campaigning against such drilling since she was 9 and growing up across the street from an oil well operating on land in South LA leased to a private firm, AllenCo, by the Archdiocese of Los Angeles.“Allowing this oil well to spew toxic emissions is another way the archdiocese is abusing children,” she reminded Angelenos. “It is time to switch to clean, renewable energy. There is no more time to waste.” Topics Greta Thunberg Los Angeles Climate change California Activism news

Democratic presidential candidate Andrew Yang promoted his signature campaign promise of a $1,000 “Freedom Dividend” for all Americans during Tuesday's Democratic debate, arguing it would protect workers against the proliferation of automation.Following Sen. Bernie SandersBernie SandersDecember Democratic debate venue switched to Loyola Marymount University Strategists say Warren 'Medicare for All' plan could appeal to centrists Ocasio-Cortez: Exxon Mobil 'knew exactly what it was doing' MORE (I-Vt.) promise that if he’s elected president he would guarantee a job for all Americans, Yang said that would not cut it for people who are unable to work.“If you rely upon the federal government to target its resources, you wind up with failed retraining programs and jobs that no one wants,” Yang said.He added that if the federal government were to instead give money to Americans, it would create a "trickle-up economy.”"When we put the money into our hands, we can build a trickle-up economy. From our people, our families and our communities up, it will enable us to do the work that we want to do," he said.Yang contends that automation is the driving force behind American job loss and says the federal government alone is not capable of reversing the trend by simply providing jobs. He added that the American workforce is also losing jobs to cheaper labor overseas.Several other candidates on stage threw their support behind Yang's approach to universal basic income, with Rep. Tulsi Gabbard (D-Hawaii) quick to applaud him for starting a discussion on the topic."I think universal basic income is a good idea,” Gabbard said. "Universal basic income is a good idea to help provide that security so people can make choices that they want to see."Former Housing and Urban Development Secretary Julián Castro said he was open to piloting something similar to a universal basic income “to see how that works."Sen. Cory Booker (D-N.J.) countered that instead of putting $1,000 in everyone’s pockets, the minimum wage should be raised.

The plane has mapped many of the major fires that have exploded in the past few weeks, including five in the greater Los Angeles area and the Kincade Fire in Sonoma County, north of San Francisco. By Saturday morning, the Maria Fire, which started Thursday night near Santa Paula in Ventura County, had spread to more than 9,400 acres and was 20% contained, according to the California Department of Forestry and Fire Protection, or Cal Fire. All other large fires monitored by Cal Fire were 76% or more contained by Sunday morning. Forecasters extended a red-flag warning, signifying gusty winds and dry conditions that can worsen fires, for parts of Southern California until 6 p.m. Saturday.Cal Fire has logged more than 5,000 wildfires in the state so far this year, but none has caused mass casualties or massive damage like last year’s Camp Fire, in which 85 people perished and the town of Paradise was destroyed. Related Video The Easy Fire in Southern California has forced mandatory evacuations and blackouts as both ends of the state struggle to contain blazes. Firefighting leaders credit that in part to newer techniques used by fire crews. Some, like the mapping plane, involve advanced technology. Others rely simply on learning from experience and prepositioning personnel and equipment so they can contain blazes at an earlier stage.“For better or for worse, experience breeds an enhanced skill set,” said Matt Jolly, a research ecologist with the U.S. Forest Service’s fire-sciences lab in Missoula, Mont.The state also benefited from a wet winter that kept fuel damp, helping lead to a fairly mellow start to fire season.Cal Fire officials say blazes like the deadly Camp Fire that burned through the town of Paradise last year and the Tubbs Fire that ravaged Santa Rosa in 2017 have helped improve the public’s preparedness and willingness to leave when evacuations are called. Chris Harvey, a Cal Fire spokesman, recently helped patrol an area being evacuated as a result of the Kincade Fire and said he only found one person still at home.When a wildfire ignited Sunday morning near the Carquinez Bridge, a key piece of Interstate 80 at the northeastern tip of the San Francisco Bay Area, experience and preplanning helped save the day.The region was under a red-flag warning, so area firefighting agencies had beefed up their staffing levels and prepositioned extra ladder trucks and engines to roll out quickly.Vallejo firefighters had also battled fires on that stretch of freeway before and knew flames were likely to run up a nearby hill, so they dispatched two engines to the top of the hill to attack the wildfire as it headed in that direction.“Gotta learn from experience, right?” said Kevin Brown, a spokesman for the Vallejo Fire Department. SHARE YOUR THOUGHTS How do you imagine technological advancement might affect our approach to natural disasters? Join the conversation below. When a brush fire broke out near the Getty Center in Los Angeles early Monday, the Los Angeles Fire Department, or LAFD, immediately tapped a supercomputer known as WIFIRE that is housed at the University of California, San Diego. That computer used real-time weather information, known fire corridors and other data to project where the blaze might spread.Within a few hours of hearing about the fire, which began in Sepulveda Pass, LAFD had deployed the mapping plane, which is operated by a multicounty pilot program in Southern California known as the Fire Integrated Real-Time Intelligence System.“It’s flying almost nonstop at this point,” said Brian Fennessy, fire chief with the Orange County Fire Authority.With a map of the fire’s edges quickly in hand, as well as predictions about where the fire would go, officials were able to plan evacuations and make sure fire engines and other equipment were headed to where they would be of most use, said LAFD Chief Ralph Terrazas.“Minutes matter when fires are traveling at high rates of speed, especially at night when people are sleeping,” Chief Terrazas said.When the Easy Fire sparked in Ventura County’s Simi Valley just north of Los Angeles a few days later, Chief Terrazas used WIFIRE to model what might happen, then texted the Ventura County Fire chief to say he would be sending over a strike team and a helicopter.“It doesn’t get any faster than that,” he said. Friday, October 25 As the fire grew, fire fighters raced to construct, hold and improve their fire lines using direct tactics, including putting water on the flame, lighting back fires and deploying hand crews to clear flammable materials like pine needles on the ground or low limbs on trees that could help spread the fire. Fire Size 23,700 acres Containment Fire burned in steep, remote terrain where narrow roads make access difficult and slow. 5% Total Personnel 1,283 KINCADE FIRE Fire perimeter as of Friday, 4:06 a.m. Geyserville 101 Firefighters priortized keeping the fire east of Highway 101. Healdsburg 128 Calistoga Windsor 5 miles 5 km 116 Fire Size Total Personnel Containment 23,700 acres 1,283 5% Fire burned in steep, remote terrain where narrow roads make access difficult and slow. Middletown KINCADE FIRE Fire perimeter as of Friday, 4:06 a.m. Geyserville 101 Firefighters priortized keeping the fire east of Highway 101. Healdsburg 128 Calistoga Windsor 5 miles 5 km Fire Size Total Personnel Containment 23,700 acres 1,283 5% Fire burned in steep, remote terrain where narrow roads make access difficult and slow. Middletown KINCADE FIRE Fire perimeter as of Friday, 4:06 a.m. Geyserville 101 Firefighters priortized keeping the fire east of Highway 101. Healdsburg 128 Calistoga Windsor 5 miles 5 km Fire Size 23,700 acres Containment 5% Total Personnel 1,283 Fire burned in steep, remote terrain where narrow roads make access difficult and slow. Fire perimeter as of Friday, 4:06 a.m. KINCADE FIRE Geyserville 101 128 Firefighters priortized keeping the fire east of Highway 101. Healdsburg Windsor 5 miles Santa Rosa 5 km Sunday, October 27 High winds over the weekend made fighting the fire directly too risky, so firefighters put more focus on indirect techniques, like using bulldozers to create fire breaks and hand crews to clear lines and put out hot spots starting up downwind. Fire Size The northwest border was dug into considerably, as the fire initially had been seen moving north. 54,298 acres Containment 5% Total Personnel 3,441 Middletown KINCADE FIRE Uncontrolled fire edge Geyserville Completed line 101 Fire perimeter as of Sunday, 7:03 p.m. Completed dozer line Healdsburg 128 Firefighters had tried to make a stand on Route 128, but the fire jumped the road and moved southward and around the lines. Calistoga Embers blown by the strong winds push the fire faster and farther. Windsor 116 5 miles Santa Rosa 5 km Fire Size Total Personnel Containment 54,298 acres 3,441 5% Uncontrolled fire edge The northwest border was dug into considerably, as the fire initially had been seen moving north. Completed line Completed dozer line Middletown KINCADE FIRE Geyserville Firefighters had tried to make a stand on Route 128, but the fire jumped the road and moved southward and around the lines. 101 101 Fire perimeter as of Sunday, 7:03 p.m. Healdsburg 128 128 Calistoga Embers blown by the strong winds push the fire faster and farther. Windsor 5 miles 116 Santa Rosa 5 km Fire Size Total Personnel Containment 54,298 acres 3,441 5% Uncontrolled fire edge The northwest border was dug into considerably, as the fire initially had been seen moving north. Completed line Completed dozer line Middletown KINCADE FIRE Geyserville Firefighters had tried to make a stand on Route 128, but the fire jumped the road and moved southward and around the lines. 101 101 Fire perimeter as of Sunday, 7:03 p.m. Healdsburg 128 Calistoga Embers blown by the strong winds push the fire faster and farther. Windsor 116 5 miles Santa Rosa 5 km Fire Size 54,298 acres Containment 5% Total Personnel 3,441 Uncontrolled fire edge Completed line Completed dozer line The northwest border was dug into considerably, as the fire initially had been seen moving north. Fire perimeter as of Sunday, 7:03 p.m. Middletown KINCADE FIRE Geyserville 128 Healdsburg 101 Windsor Embers blown by the strong winds push the fire faster and farther. Firefighters had tried to make a stand on Route 128, but the fire jumped the road and moved southward and around the lines. Santa Rosa 5 miles 5 km

Enlarge this image Former Fox News host Kelly Wright joins other current and former Fox employees at a news conference on April 26, 2017, in New York City. Wright alleged racial bias in failing to receive desired opportunities and promotions. Spencer Platt/Getty Images hide caption toggle caption Spencer Platt/Getty Images Former Fox News host Kelly Wright joins other current and former Fox employees at a news conference on April 26, 2017, in New York City. Wright alleged racial bias in failing to receive desired opportunities and promotions. Spencer Platt/Getty Images Updated at 2:58 p.m. ETThe parent company of Fox News has paid approximately $10 million in settlements with 18 former employees, according to two sources with knowledge of the deal. The cases arose from intense scrutiny of Fox's workplace culture after it was convulsed by a sexual harassment scandal.The cases primarily involved allegations of racial discrimination against the network, along with several gender bias and retaliation claims. Parent 21st Century Fox and the plaintiffs' attorneys at the law firm Wigdor settled the cases after rounds of mediation and negotiations. Both sides released a brief joint statement announcing the deal, though terms and details were not disclosed.The larger sexual harassment scandal felled the network's first chairman, the late Roger Ailes, as well as some of its stars, including former Fox News host Bill O'Reilly. Former Fox News host Gretchen Carlson's lawsuit led others at Fox to come forward and, along with disclosures of massive payouts to silence women accusers by Fox and O'Reilly, helped to propel the current #MeToo moment. Filings in other lawsuits supported by additional reporting revealed an organization structured to facilitate sexual harassment of young women by Ailes and a culture that tolerated it in others.The perception of that distorted workplace, which corporate executives have labored to dispel, has impeded some of 21st Century Fox's larger ambitions, including the takeover of a major British satellite TV and broadband company called Sky. A raft of executives deemed as complicit or compromised were ushered out; other prominent Fox figures, including former host Eric Bolling, former chief Washington correspondent James Rosen and former executive Francisco Cortes, left after questions were raised about their own behavior toward female colleagues.The multiple new settlements help 21st Century Fox create greater distance from a tarred era. Media As Scandals Crest, Fox News Once More Under Siege These cases focused primarily not on sexual harassment but race, predominantly backroom employees rather than on-air figures. The first suit was filed more than a year ago by two staffers in the payroll department who said a boss routinely belittled and demeaned them on the basis of race and that they experienced a hostile work environment. Others from the payroll department filed similar suits.Some of the suits named former Fox News comptroller Judith Slater, whom the network fired, and the network's chief attorney, Dianne Brandi, who has been on what the network has characterized as a voluntary leave for months.In the bias cases, Brandi was accused of doing nothing to stop Slater's allegedly racist statements despite being warned of them several years before the comptroller's firing. Brandi also has been a frequent target of criticism by female Fox News employees who complained of harassment; federal prosecutors were scrutinizing past confidential payments by Fox News to women making complaints.The Fox anchor and reporter Kelly Wright, who is an African-American journalist and pastor, had filed a lawsuit alleging that he faced racial bias in failing to receive desired opportunities and promotions. Wright also charged that he had been asked to play demeaning, racially stereotypical roles.In response to a query from NPR, Fox News said Wright had decided to leave the network. "We thank Kelly for his contributions over the years and wish him well as he moves on to the next phase of his career," a Fox statement on Wright read. The Two-Way Megyn Kelly Blasts O'Reilly, Says Silencing Of Women 'Has To Stop' In another instance, a reporter based abroad for Fox News filed a formal complaint with the U.S. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission against the network after he was fired over his alleged involvement in a physical altercation. He is the brother of a woman who alleged that O'Reilly sexually harassed her, and he said he was fired almost immediately after she appeared on NBC to talk about her experiences. That show was hosted by former Fox star Megyn Kelly, who had earlier made her own allegations against Ailes that helped force him out. Fox publicly cited its findings about the altercation in making its decision to fire the reporter, which took place a few weeks later.Douglas Wigdor has been one of a handful of lawyers challenging Fox legally. He also provided testimony to regulators in Britain against the bid for Sky by the parent company and its controlling owners, the Murdoch family. The company points to reforms at the network, including sweeping changes in human resources policies; the appointment of a new top executive vice president who reports to the top attorney for 21st Century Fox instead of directly to Fox News executives; the creation of a workplace diversity and inclusion council; mandatory network-wide training in workplace climate; and the appointment of more women to top executive and on-air positions. Media Behind Fox News' Baseless Seth Rich Story: The Untold Tale On Monday, Wigdor LLP filed papers to be allowed to withdraw from cases involving two other clients with ties to Fox. In one case, a Fox News commentator named Rod Wheeler alleged he had been defamed by having words put in his mouth in Fox News coverage claiming to have found a link between a dead former Democratic party staffer and the leaks of thousands of emails from party officials in 2016. Under duress, Fox withdrew the story but has not apologized for it.According to transcripts obtained by NPR, the presiding judge in the case grilled an attorney from Wigdor last month about whether the language in the story was stark enough to ensure that Wheeler had been misrepresented or defamed. The judge expressed deep skepticism about Wheeler's case. The Fox commentator and former homicide detective had sued Fox, its reporter, Malia Zimmerman, and Ed Butowsky, a former unpaid Fox commentator who, according to the lawsuit, was instrumental to the creation of the story. The defendants have filed motions for dismissal, but neither motion has been ruled upon yet. Media Top Fox News D.C. Reporter James Rosen Left Network After Harassment Claims Widgor's firm also represented the conservative commentator Scottie Nell Hughes, who said in her lawsuit that she was raped by Fox Business Network anchor Charles Payne and that the network failed to hire her in retaliation for her allegations. Fox cleared Payne, saying it had conducted a review that found the two had had a consensual relationship. Several of Hughes' legal claims have been dismissed.In both cases, the Wigdor law firm said that there had been a fundamental breakdown in relations with its clients but did not withdraw any of the accusations or the material supporting them. Fox has signaled it would not settle either the Wheeler or the Hughes case.Taken together, the week's activities suggest the winding down of outstanding legal challenges to the network as the Murdochs seek to shed much of the rest of their entertainment holdings: They plan to sell much of 21st Century Fox (though not Fox News) to the Walt Disney Co. Comcast is making a run for Sky and may bid for Fox's entertainment holdings too.

closeVideoTulsi Gabbard blasts Hillary Clinton for suggesting Russia is grooming her to run as third-party candidatePresidential hopeful Tulsi Gabbard says Hillary Clinton represents warmongering and corruption.Rep.Tulsi Gabbard, D-H.I. accused Hillary Clinton "and her proxies" of starting a "smear campaign that has been waged against me and my candidacy and my campaign from the very first day that we began," pushing back on accusations that she is a "Russian asset.""This smear campaign is coming from people like Hillary Clinton and her proxies, the foreign policy establishment, the military industrial complex, who obviously feel threatened by my message and by my campaign because they know that they can't control me," she told an NBC reporter on Saturday.When asked if she would disavow support from foreign entities, including an official Twitter account of the Russian Embassy who has circulated support for the candidate online, in order to quell American fear of foreign interference in elections, Gabbard responded: "This is not about Russia.""Foreign interference in our election is not a good thing. But what we're seeing, this is not about Russia," she said.DAVID BOSSIE: HILLARY CLINTON, HERE'S WHAT YOU NEED TO DO NOW (HINT: TULSI GABBARD HAS A SOLUTION)"I don't control them. I don't control what anyone else says or does. All I can do is focus on the message that I am bringing to this campaign," she added.In a podcast with former Obama adviser David Plouffe, Clinton said she wasn't "making any predictions, but [she thinks Russians] have got their eye on somebody who is currently in the Democratic primary and are grooming her to be the third-party candidate.""She's the favorite of the Russians" she added, saying they "have a bunch of sites and bots and other ways of supporting her so far."Gabbard lashed out at Clinton on Twitter Friday calling her the "queen of warmongers [and the] embodiment of corruption" in response to the allegations.VideoTULSI GABBARD BLASTS HILLARY CLINTON AFTER RUSSIAN ASSET COMMENTS: 'I STAND AGAINST EVERYTHING SHE REPRESENTS'She also told Fox News' Tucker Carlson on "Tucker Carlson Tonight" that the former Secretary of State is waging a smear campaign against her because "she knows she can't control me."She accused Clinton of having "blood on her hands" after the Iraq war she "championed.""Their blood is on her hands. That's why she's smearing my character and trying to undermine my campaign," Gabbard said.Yang wrote in a tweet: "Tulsi Gabbard deserves much more respect and thanks than this. She literally just got back from serving our country abroad."Williamson chimed in: "The Democratic establishment has got to stop smearing women it finds inconvenient!" Adding, "the character assassination of women who don't toe the party line will backfire.""You deserve respect and you have mine," she told Gabbard.Meanwhile, New Jersey Senator Cory Booker posted a wide-eyed gif reacting to Gabbard's rebuttal.O'Rourke, a former Texas congressman, defended Gabbard as well telling reporters "Tulsi is not being groomed by anyone. She is her own person. Obviously has served this country, continues to serve this country in uniform, in Congress, as a candidate for presidency so I think those facts speak for themselves."Clinton has since backed out of a speaking appearance at Fortune's Most Powerful Women Summit, where Gabbard was scheduled to speak.

One of the more substantial critiques of data ownership is that if you treat data as purely a property right, it means that you can sell that right. If we treat privacy as a property right what that means is that we essentially have that right to trade it. And the problem is that it could worsen financial inequities. People with less income might be more willing to trade their important personal data for a small payment, while those who are better off can say, “I don’t need the dividend. I’ll keep my data.” How do you balance that?There’d be less of a sense of desperation in a society where there’s a freedom dividend and everyone’s getting $1,000 per month. But it is the case that certain people’s data is worth more than others’ data. And if you look right now there are many people with different preferences. There are people out there choosing to share the intimate details of their lives with millions of people; some make a living off it. So, if individuals want to share their data or information or even their private lives with other people, then that’s their prerogative. Some of the plans you outline for data are quite broad and amount to “Data needs to be owned by the people.” Some companies already subscribe to this but, in practice, we’re still at their mercy. Does the extent of your plan amount to more than just saying, “You can have your data deleted?”What’s going to happen in real life is you’re going to use these companies. Things will happen behind the scenes while you’re busy living your life. And then, if you want to, you can go and delete your data. That’s a reasonable estimation of how it would work for many people. What I’m suggesting is that we can do better. But it’s not like individual consumers can band together to make this happen. Government needs to be a counterweight to the massive power and information inequities between us and the technology companies.What I think most people would want is a place they could go to see what’s happening to their data, the option to delete their data and a record or log of all the times it trades hands. Then the companies do their thing and people would live with greater confidence that, if there are abuses, they’ll be made aware of that and can always pull the plug.We’ve become like rats in a maze where we’re constantly hit by messages from these companies know everything about us. They know more about us than our families do. We’re responding to stimuli and we think we’re making choices. But it’s because we’ve shared so much over time that they have a keen sense of what we want. There’s something fundamental at stake here, which is: What does human agency look like? What are our rights as citizens?

The police grabbed Mr. Cheung 11 days after the Telegram channel was created, accusing him of administering it. They also accused him of posting a guide on how to assassinate police officers. Mr. Cheung denies the allegations, and a New York Times search could not find posts matching what the police described.Mr. Cheung, a skinny 29-year-old, was grabbed at a mall around noon on July 18, according to his account. Four plainclothes officers waited for him to unlock his phone and then jumped on him, trying to pry it out of his hands.After the officers tried to use his face to unlock the phone, they took him to a police station, where, he said, he was roughed up and interrogated. Later, officers went to his home and used a USB drive loaded with hacking software to break into his computers, according to his account of the incident. He said that he had been held for more than 10 hours and that he was not sure how the police had identified him.Hong Kong police confirmed the investigation, but they declined to comment further on it. The police may have been motivated by the facial-recognition tool, which Mr. Cheung said he had showed off in a Facebook video he posted last month. Making use of Google technology, Mr. Cheung, a college dropout who studied computer science, built an algorithm to identify police officers based on a small collection of photos that had been posted online. He said he did not continue to pursue the project because of a lack of time. Mr. Cheung said his detention had cemented his fears. He said the plainclothes officers who arrested him did not identify themselves until they reached the police station. Later, an investigator in a suit urged him to open his phone as a way of demonstrating his innocence “to the 42nd floor” — a phrase Mr. Cheung said seemed to refer to high-ranking police officials. He did not believe that the police ultimately gained access to the phone, although they did break into his other devices.The police also did not initially allow him to make a call. Only when he said he planned to play Ping-Pong with his uncle did they relent and let him. He said he contacted a friend instead, adding “I hate sports.”Mr. Cheung also said he believed he had been followed by plainclothes officers since his arrest. When he arrived an hour late to an interview with The Times, he said it was because he was trying to lose a tail. With the help of his black Tesla, he said, he managed to outrace whoever it was on the highways of the New Territories in northern Hong Kong.

A year ago Sunday, the #MeToo movement reached a flaming crescendo with the confirmation of Brett Kavanaugh to the Supreme Court. It was an insane pile-up of events that coincided with the anniversary of the New York Times first cracking the Weinstein case, and reached back in time to the woman who lit the match 27 years earlier: Anita Hill. That almost grotesque symmetry set millions of American women ablaze as we watched the Republican senators on the Judiciary Committee apologize and genuflect to Kavanaugh—a snarling, spitting mess of snot and resentment (“this is a joke!”)—while insisting on his right to a lifetime appointment. It didn’t seem to matter that Dr. Christine Blasey Ford had just detailed how he’d sexually assaulted her. Weeks later, the Women’s Wave flooded Congress with Democrats, putting Nancy Pelosi back in the line of succession.I’m still not over it, and neither is the electorate. In a September PerryUndem poll, 49 percent of voters said that the Kavanaugh hearings made them want more women in office. Among Democrats, 79 percent of women and 71 percent of men strongly or somewhat agreed that Kavanaugh was confirmed because white men wanted to hold onto power. Fifty percent of independent voters—split almost evenly along gender lines—said the same. Yet even as men increasingly seem to understand the stranglehold of patriarchy, and some have done good work exposing and dismantling it (shout-out to Ronan Farrow), it’s remained mostly women on the front lines. In She Said: Breaking the Sexual Harassment Story That Helped Ignite a Movement, Times reporters Jodi Kantor and Megan Twohey’s riveting book about reporting on Harvey Weinstein, nearly 100 percent of the people who attempt to do something about the movie mogul’s flagrant misconduct are female. The exception that proves the rule is Ivan Reiter—an accountant for The Weinstein Company who was ultimately shamed after a public screaming match with his twentysomething daughter Sherri into helping expose his boss. Reiter is a key source for Kantor and Twohey, but unlike many of the women who helped them break the story, he’d been able to go for years until then in a lucrative career while taking limited action. So, too, the CYA men on the company board, who cared about the many complaints against their CEO exactly as far as they threatened the bottom line.That indifference seemed to extend to the male reporters who’d been waved off the story by Weinstein’s fixers. Kantor and Twohey recount how The New Yorker’s Ken Auletta started sniffing around when Ambra Battaligia Gutierrez publicly accused Weinstein of sexually assaulting her in 2015, but ultimately declined to pursue the story “after lawyers convinced him Gutierrez was not trustworthy.” Bob Woodward easily could’ve been one of them too. The investigative journalist got booed Thursday night in D.C when he interviewed the She Said authors, constantly interrupting them with misplaced questions. It’s clear that no woman would’ve ever trusted him with their story, if he’d even cared to listen. The Times itself hardly covered Guttierez' claims in 2015, and ran a big puff piece on Weinstein as his movie, Finding Neverland, was coming out.But the women reporters weren’t so easily pushed off of the story. They crouched in doorways to stake out sources and hunted down retired civil servants in California for court records because they knew these women were worth it. No one had to sell them. In the acknowledgement section of their book, they thank the women whose paid work caring for their kids makes their own work possible. I can’t recall ever seeing a male author do that.Now the consequences of male conspiracy could be significant for the country. On Friday, the court announced that it will take up the first abortion rights case since Kavanaugh took his seat. But not before Tuesday, when it will hear a glut of cases about whether Title VII protections extend to trans and gender non-conforming people covered under the famed caveat to the 1964 Civil Rights Act, “because of sex.” The ruling could send American workers back to a world in which a young Ruth Bader Ginsberg couldn’t get a job. When the #MeToo floodgates first broke there was a lot of “I didn’t know!” excuse making from men about what other men were up to, some of it honest, much of it willful. But with Kavanaugh, we can’t unknow what Dr. Ford chiseled into our collective hippocampus, as she explained with scientific precision the brain’s mechanism for memory. And we can’t pretend this is about just one man and his career.A year after Kavanaugh’s confirmation the outstanding question remains: What will men writ-large continue to tolerate?Recently I got an answer. A friend was advising another man against taking a job with an employer who he knows to be problematic. The man wanted to know where in the “Biden/Weinstein” matrix this prospective employer fit in, citing lots of “gray area here”—essentially confirming that there is some threshold of female discomfort he’s willing to passively or actively ignore for the right job. The correct answer is, of course, zero.

In recent months, however, many investors have been raising alarm bells about Tether. Hundreds of millions of dollars worth of new Tether were created; almost always when the prices of other virtual currencies were heading down. The Tether were used on the Bitfinex exchange to make big purchases of Bitcoin and other tokens, helping push their prices back up, according to multiple analyses of data from Bitfinex.“This became more and more concerning, because every time the markets went down, you have seen the same thing happen,” said Joey Krug, the co-chief investment officer at Pantera Capital, which runs several virtual currency hedge funds. “It could mean that a lot of the rally over December and January might not have been real.”Long before news of the subpoena, Bitfinex, which is believed to host more trading than any other Bitcoin exchange in the world, had gained a reputation for a lack of transparency and a confusing structure, with European executives, offices in Asia and registration in the Caribbean.It is not yet clear what information the regulators are seeking. Technically, the Tether tokens are issued by a separate company (called Tether) that is owned and operated by the same people who run Bitfinex. The C.F.T.C. subpoenaed that company at the same time that it subpoenaed Bitfinex, according to a person familiar with the matter.Bitfinex has not commented on the subpoena or recent reports about Tether, and company officials did not respond to repeated requests for comment. In the past, the exchange’s executives and spokesman have said that its customers are simply using Tether to buy virtual currencies as they might otherwise use United States dollars.

GULF STREAM, Fla. (Reuters) - In November 2017, Harry Sargeant III, a wealthy American businessman, flew to Venezuela to see about buying some oil. U.S. businessman Harry Sargeant III speaks about his dealings with Venezuela during an interview with Reuters at his home in Gulf Stream, Florida, U.S., February 7, 2019. Picture taken February 7, 2019. REUTERS/Joe SkipperSargeant, the former finance chairman of the Florida Republican Party, was looking to purchase a New Jersey asphalt plant that needed a steady supply of the heavy crude that Venezuela has in abundance. Never mind that the South American country was in the cross-hairs of the Trump administration. The trip got off to a worrying start when Sargeant’s plane was directed to a special hangar in Caracas and surrounded by soldiers. But what followed, he says, was privileged treatment, including an unexpected meeting the next day with Nicolas Maduro, Venezuela’s socialist president. Within a year, Sargeant had inked an attractive oilfield agreement to help raise plummeting crude production in Venezuela, whose economy is in a free fall. A new Delaware company called Erepla Services LLC, of which Sargeant is a shareholder, would rehabilitate three troubled oilfields in exchange for almost half the revenue. “We like high-risk places,” said Sargeant, whose dealmaking has taken him to hot spots such as Iraq. The 61-year-old former Marine Corp pilot discussed the Venezuela deal with Reuters in an exclusive interview in the wood-paneled cigar room of his mansion in Gulf Stream, an affluent community on Florida’s east coast. Sargeant’s timing for the venture turned out to be lousy: On January 28, just weeks after news broke of Sargeant’s partnership with Petroleos de Venezuela SA (PDVSA), the U.S. government unleashed tough new sanctions banning Americans from working with Venezuela’s state-run oil firm. It was part of a wider U.S. pressure campaign to topple Maduro’s government. Sargeant acknowledges sanctions have derailed his deal. Still his willingness to do business with a ruler the Trump administration seeks to undermine reflects a long tradition of oil companies making deals with disfavored governments around the world. Prior to the January sanctions, the United States had been the biggest cash-paying customer for Venezuela’s oil, importing more than 500,000 barrels daily. The intended partnership also highlights Venezuela’s desperation. With Western oil majors steering clear of new investment there, the country has turned to China and Russia as well as upstart firms like Erepla. Maduro has long sought an end to what he calls an economic war being waged against his government by the United States. His embrace of an American company belies his public denunciations of Trump. “There is no doubt they wanted to send a message that Venezuela was open to American business,” Sargeant said. The Venezuelan government and PDVSA did not respond to emails requesting comment about the state oil company’s deal with Erepla or Sargeant’s version of events. Sargeant says his business dealings in Venezuela date to the late 1980s. A Sargeant family company claimed in court that it was forced out of Venezuela’s asphalt business by PDVSA in 2005. And the firm, records show, once owed a $52 million judgment to PDVSA. He says he decided to give the country another shot on his search for heavy crude because he still had industry contacts there. The day after Sargeant’s November 2017 arrival, he said, a small convoy of SUVs took him to a house at the Fuerte Tiuna military base in Caracas. Inside, he said officials showed off a room with various live snakes, some venomous, on display in glass cages. Sargeant thought he would be meeting only with a PDVSA official he knew. Instead he said he found himself face-to-face with Maduro, whom he said was “friendly but serious.” Maduro, he said, wanted him to explain why American companies were not investing in the oil sector there. And, with the help of a translator, the Venezuelan president waxed philosophical about the ravaged economy, Sargeant recalls. “He said China reinvented itself and the Venezuelans can reinvent themselves,” Sargeant said. Sargeant did not end up purchasing the New Jersey asphalt plant. Instead, a few months later, he and his team began discussing a production venture with PDVSA, according to Ali Rahman, a Washington DC-based executive at Erepla. “We went in saying ‘Hey, we’re an American oil company, we want to help revitalize the Venezuelan oil sector, and we want to do it waving the American flag.’” Sargeant’s tolerance for risk-taking has taken him to hazardous corners of the globe where some of his business dealings have become tangled in investigations and lawsuits. During the height of the Iraq War, one of his firms, International Oil Trading Company (IOTC,) won lucrative contracts from the Defense Logistics Agency to supply the U.S. military with fuel. Disputes ensued at the Armed Forces Board of Contract Appeals. The U.S. government in the civil proceedings claimed IOTC used “bribery and fraud” to win permission from the nation of Jordan to transport oil across its territory. IOTC and Jordan denied those allegations at the time. Early last year the U.S. government settled, and agreed to pay IOTC $40 million, in what Sargeant says is a full vindication. His proposed deal with PDVSA is at odds with Republican Party efforts in his home state of Florida, a key battleground for the 2020 presidential election and where an estimated 200,000 Venezuelans have recently settled. Trump made an appeal to Venezuelan exiles at a recent rally in Florida, where he condemned Maduro’s socialist government. Florida Senator Marco Rubio pushed for the U.S. ban on Venezuelan oil imports. Slideshow (5 Images)Neither the White House or Rubio responded to a request for comment about Sargeant. Sargeant insists it is not his concern who rules Venezuela. “Our business is with PDVSA, the institution,” he said. “We are not into the politics of the situation.” Reporting by Aram Roston; Editing by Kieran Murray and Marla DickersonOur Standards:The Thomson Reuters Trust Principles.

In your zeal to deflect from the facts, you fail to remember one inconvenient fact. Obama had the worst recession in 80 years caused by Republicans to deal with. Tens of millions lost their jobs, millions more lost their homes. The financial industry had to be given over $1 trillion by Bush so they could pay out their bonuses. If that isn't a time for the government to step in and try to stabilize things, you let me know when.You also failed to remember the deficit declined under Obama and started to rise once the charlatan came into office. Which isn't a surprise considering he's called himself the King of Debt, what with his 14 failed businesses and 6 bankruptcies.Yet now, in this supposedly "booming" economy, the con artist is running deficits equal to and greater than what Obama ran during a recession.Finally, as a conservative, I have always been concerned with debt since the time Reagan tripled the national debt. It's why I have no personal debt. But I'm sick of Republicans claiming to be "fiscal conservatives" when all they do is spend, spend, and spend some more, while cutting taxes for the one percent and businesses then lying to us how everything will work out. Trickle down economics has not worked and will never work. It defies basic financial common sense. Look at how well it worked out for Kansas. From a $400 million budget surplus to a $1 billion budget deficit in four years.So when you're done trying to think you're being smart by calling people names, you explain this: why is it the budget deficit always soars during Republican administrations and we're told it's no big deal, but when a Democratic administration inherits the financial mess left behind by Republicans, suddenly the deficit is a travesty?