White House aide Mira Ricardel removed after row with First Lady (and Slovenian immigrant) Melania Trump 

Composite image of Mira Ricardel and Melania TrumpMira Ricardel (left) and Melania Trump, [the “Wicked Witch of the West Wing!] (right)

White House Deputy National Security Adviser Mira Ricardel has left her post, following a high-profile row with US First Lady Melania Trump.

A White House spokeswoman said Mrs Ricardel “departs the White House to transition to a new role within the administration”. She did not elaborate.

Mrs Trump this week said that Mrs Ricardel “no longer deserves the honour of serving in this White House”.

The two reportedly feuded during a tour of Africa in October.

The removal of Mrs Ricardel comes amid reports in US media that President Donald Trump is considering a shake-up in the White House West Wing.

Mr Trump may be preparing to remove White House Chief of Staff John Kelly or Department of Homeland Security Secretary Kirstjen Nielsen, the reports say.

What about the row with Melania Trump?

The announcement of the transfer of Mrs Ricardel was made in a statement by White House spokeswoman Sarah Sanders on Wednesday.

The spokeswoman added that Mrs Ricardel “will continue to support the president”.

According to US media reports earlier this week, Mrs Trump and Mrs Ricardel quarrelled over seating arrangements on her plane.

During her trip there, Mrs Trump told ABC in a rare interview that there were people in the White House who she does not trust.

She said she gave the president “my honest advice and honest opinions and then he does what he wants to do”.

The Wall Street Journal had earlier reported that Mrs Trump’s team believed Mrs Ricardel was behind some of the “negative stories” about Mrs Trump and her staff.

The newspaper also reported that she repeatedly clashed with US Secretary of Defense James Mattis over “staffing decisions and policy differences”.

Mrs Ricardel was hired away from the Department of Commerce by National Security Advisor John Bolton, and has decades of experience working in the US government.

She had earlier worked in the defence department under former President George W Bush as well as under Republican Senator Bob Dole when he served as the Senate Majority Leader.

Advertisements

Native American Mashpee tribe turns to Congress in land dispute

Trump administration reversed Obama-era decision to recognise the Mashpee Wampanoag reservation in Massachusetts.

The Mashpee Wampanoag tribe has bipartisan support in Congress [Shafik Mandhai/Al Jazeera]
The Mashpee Wampanoag tribe has bipartisan support in Congress 

Washington, DC – A Native American tribe is calling on members of Congress to help protect the status of its reservation after the Trump administration reversed an Obama-era decision to hold its land in trust.

Former President Barack Obama’s administration took the land of the Mashpee into trust in 2015, giving the tribe jurisdiction over the reservation, which is located in Massachusetts.

Less than a year later, a judge ruled that the Obama administration had acted outside of its remit in entrusting the reservation to the federal government.

That ruling was based on a controversial reading of the 1934 Indian Reorganization Act, which does not qualify the Mashpee as “Indian”.

In September, the US Department of Interior, under the Trump administration, decided not to challenge the ruling. The tribe then filed a lawsuit against the administration, saying its decision was “arbitrary, capricious and contrary to law, and if left unaddressed, will have a devastating impact on the tribe”, according to local media.

On Wednesday, members of the tribe and supporters from across the US gathered at the Capitol to call on Congress to use its plenary powers to pass legislation that would override the Department of the Interior’s authority on the issue.

If Congress does not pass legislation protecting the tribe and the legal challenge fails, the Mashpee would be stripped of their right to exercise sovereign jurisdiction over their land.

Jessie Little Doe Baird, the tribe’s vice-chairwoman, told Al Jazeera that loss of jurisdiction would prevent the tribe from running indigenous language schools, tribal courts, and housing projects, as well as its own police.

“We have our own police force, which is important because they’re tribal citizens and since we’ve had our own police force, none of our men have been beaten or shot, which we’ve had before with non-tribal police,” she said.

Baird, an MIT-trained linguist who has played a pivotal role in reviving the Wampanoag language, said she feared the government’s decision was the first step in a gradual encroachment on the sovereignty of Native American reservations.

Jessie Baird Mashpee has played a pivotal role in reviving the Wampanoag language [Shafik Mandhai/Al Jazeera]

Disheartening

The Mashpee have the support of Native American organisations from across the country and Wednesday’s action on the Capitol drew speakers from different tribes.

Members of the Mashpee’s wider Wampanoag tribe were the first to greet the pilgrims in the 17th century, and the American holiday of Thanksgiving has its roots in meals shared between the tribe and early English settlers.

Mashpee member Cameron Frye called the tribe’s recent experience “disheartening”.

“We’re the tribe that greeted the pilgrims, everybody knows about Thanksgiving,” he said, adding, “We’re the tribe that welcomed them and greeted them but here we are still fighting to protect our sovereignty.”

We’re the tribe that greeted the pilgrims, everybody knows about Thanksgiving. We’re the tribe that welcomed them and greeted them but here we are still fighting to protect our sovereignty.

CAMERON FRYE, MEMBER OF THE MASHPEE TRIBE

Frye feared that if left unchallenged, the decision would set a precedent for future government action against other Native American tribes.

“Under this administration, it’s very frightening for all tribes, not just our own … If they can do this to us then they can do this to other tribes.”

Congressional bill

Members of Congress in both the House of Representative and the Senate have introduced bills to reaffirm the decision to take the Mashpee’s land into federal trust.

If passed, the Mashpee Reservation Reaffirmation Act would supersede the court ruling preventing the original Obama-era decision.

Massachusetts congressmen Bill Keating and Joe Kennedy were present at the Capitol on Wednesday to show their support for the tribe. The pair are Democrats but the Mashpee cause has drawn bipartisan support.

“We shouldn’t have to be doing this,” said Keating, who authored the House bill.

“The administration has taken a decision to make one decision and Congress is here to try to straighten that out.

“This is an existential issue, this is about the existence of this tribe, it’s that fundamental.”

Legislation has been introduced in Congress to reaffirm federal protections for the Mashpee reservation

 

As Jeff Bezos (Amazon founder/CEO) Earns $191K Per Minute, Why Are NY & VA Giving Amazon $3 Billion in Corporate Welfare?

STORY NOVEMBER 14, 2018

GUESTS

Amazon has selected a pair of cities to host its new, expanded headquarters: Crystal City in Arlington, Virginia, and Long Island City in Queens, New York. Amazon’s decision came after a 14-month search that saw cities around the U.S. promise tax breaks, taxpayer-funded infrastructure and business-friendly ordinances in an effort to win what Amazon says will be $5 billion in new investment and thousands of jobs. Democratic Virginia Governor Ralph Northam called the Amazon headquarter “a big win for Virginia,” and New York City Mayor Bill de Blasio has similarly applauded Amazon’s decision. But many local politicians have openly criticized authorities in New York and Virginia for backing the deals, which will create a total of 50,000 jobs. We host a roundtable discussion about Amazon and corporate welfare. In New York, we speak with Ron Kim, member of the New York State Assembly. He recently co-wrote an opinion piece for The New York Times headlined “New York Should Say No to Amazon.” In Washington, D.C., we speak with Greg LeRoy, executive director of Good Jobs First, a watchdog group on economic development incentives. And in Portland, Maine, we speak with Stacy Mitchell, co-director of the Institute for Local Self-Reliance. She is the author of “Big-Box Swindle: The True Cost of Mega-Retailers and the Fight for America’s Independent Businesses.”

Transcript
This is a rush transcript. Copy may not be in its final form.

AMY GOODMAN: This is Democracy Now!, democracynow.org, The War and Peace Report. I’m Amy Goodman, with Juan González.

JUAN GONZÁLEZ: Well, we continue to look at Amazon and corporate welfare as New York and Virginia agree to give Amazon over $3 billion in tax breaks to build new office complexes in New York and near Washington, D.C. Time Magazine reports: “According to the Bloomberg Billionaires Index, Bezos’ net worth on Jan. 1 was $99 billion. On May 1, it was $132 billion, meaning it rose $33 billion. If you divide that difference by the 120 days in that period, you find that he made $275 million a day. Divide that by 24 hours in a day to get about $11.5 million per hour, the equivalent of roughly $191,000 per minute or — the clincher — $3,182 every second.” That according to Bloomberg.

AMY GOODMAN: And you compare that to the median Amazon employee’s salary, $28,000. Jeff Bezos makes more than that, Time magazine reports, in 10 seconds.

We’re expanding our conversation. Joining us from Washington, D.C., is Greg LeRoy, executive director of Good Jobs First, which has closely tracked public subsidies given to Amazon. In Portland, Maine, we’re joined by Stacy Mitchell, co-director of the Institute for Local Self-Reliance, directs its Community-Scaled Economy Initiative. She’s the author of Big-Box Swindle: The True Cost of Mega-Retailers and the Fight for America’s Independent Businesses. Earlier this year, Mitchell wrote a cover story for The Nation titled “Amazon Doesn’t Just Want to Dominate the Market—It Wants to Become the Market.” And still with us here in New York is Assemblymember Ron Kim, who’s introducing legislation to block the Amazon deal and redirect taxpayer money away from Amazon subsidies and toward student debt relief.

Let’s begin this segment with Greg LeRoy. Your response to the deal, and your concerns?

GREG LEROY: Well, I support everything that the assemblyman just said in his concerns. Look, we know that the price tag of the incentives alone in New York City is well over $2.8 billion. There’s some parts of it we can’t even put a price tag on yet. A lot of it’s automatic and should have been capped. It’s way too big for a single project. We know that there’s unreported subsidies in the Virginia end of the deal, as well, so that the total packages together exceed $4.6 billion. Amazon is clearly, in the way it worded its own press statement, trying to downplay and kind of play a shell game with the numbers and hide some of these bigger numbers that are coming from New York. And look, everybody knows that Long Island City is very hot real estate. It’s another example of Amazon getting paid to do what it would have done anyway. It wanted to be in the financial capital of the world—of the country and the political capital of the country, so no surprises about its location. And we’re massively subsidizing, yet again, a company to do what it wants to do anyway.

JUAN GONZÁLEZ: Stacy Mitchell, I’d like to ask you about this whole issue of job creation, because the politicians are always touting that it’s important to put out these subsidies to be able to create jobs. But one of the unwritten stories I’m thinking you’ve been tracking is the job destruction, and especially of small businesses, that Amazon represents as it continues to grow in our economy.

STACY MITCHELL: Yeah. I mean, Amazon is really concentrating a lot of economic power. And as it does that, it’s pushing other businesses out. We’ve lost about 85,000 independent small retailers in the last 10 years. We’re seeing small and midsize manufacturers getting squeezed, laying off staff and disappearing, because Amazon increasingly is the gatekeeper to consumers. It increasingly picks winners and losers, and it uses that power to push others out of the marketplace and to gain more power for itself. And as it does that, it’s actually, as you noted, eliminating far more jobs than it’s creating. I mean, Amazon is a highly efficient, highly automated company, and so it’s eliminating a lot of retail jobs. Our calculations suggest that we’re losing about two retail jobs for every one job created in an Amazon warehouse.

But the picture for working people is even worse than that, because, you know, pathways to the middle class, being able to start your own business, to have a diverse economy with lots of different opportunities, that’s really disappearing. And we think that one of the reasons that wages have not been growing, really at all, has to do with concentrated power and the fact that we no longer have that kind of dynamism in the economy.

JUAN GONZÁLEZ: And also, Amazon, much like Uber, has a business model, a long-term business model, of capturing the market but then increasingly relying on robots to do its work, so that eventually the labor force will be reduced. Can you talk about that?

STACY MITCHELL: Yeah, that’s right. I mean, Amazon’s warehouses have become increasingly automated. They haven’t figured out yet quite how to do everything that humans can do, but it’s safe to say that, really, humans are literally cogs in a machine in an Amazon warehouse. These are highly automated. Humans fulfill the roles that only they can fulfill. But over time, we’ve seen Amazon’s employment numbers, relative to its sales, actually decline. And that’s a measure of this increasing automation. And we expect that, you know, fairly soon, Amazon will begin to have robots that can do the things that only humans can do.

But again, I think the jobs inside Amazon, you know, these are jobs maybe that we shouldn’t—you know, they’re hard jobs. They’re not necessarily jobs that we want to preserve. I think the bigger problem, from a jobs standpoint, is that when you have a company that has a stranglehold on the economy—I mean, normally, if you go back in time, we’ve had technological progress that has at times wiped out entire sectors, entire areas of employment. And that’s OK if you have an economy that’s dynamic, where you have new businesses coming along, new industries, new creations. But what we’re seeing, because of Amazon’s market power, is that we’re not getting those new businesses. We’re not getting those new industries coming along and creating new jobs. And that’s the real problem.

AMY GOODMAN: On Tuesday, New York City Mayor Bill de Blasio applauded the Amazon decision.

MAYOR BILL DE BLASIO: We’re going to have an opportunity here for tens of thousands of New Yorkers, everyday New Yorkers, kids who come up through our public schools, kids who go to our community colleges and our 4-year colleges, to have opportunity at Amazon. And not just at Amazon, but we know that Amazon’s presence is going to help to build the entire tech sector. In this city now, that tech ecosystem is about 350,000 jobs. Just got a huge boost from Amazon’s decision to come here. But we know that’s only going to spark a lot more growth. We see a future where that tech community could be a half-million jobs or more.

AMY GOODMAN: So, New York State Assemblymember Ron Kim, if you could respond to the mayor and also this Business Insider report? Amazon is going to be placed in Long Island City in Queens. “Long Island City real estate brokers told The Wall Street Journal [that] they had witnessed a flurry of inquiries over the past week. Some of these people were even buying units, sight-unseen, via text message, The Journal wrote on Tuesday morning.” “This is the first time in my 20-year career that I have seen the market go from a buyer’s market to a seller’s market overnight, based on a rumor,” said Patrick Smith, a Stribling agent in New York City, a real estate agent. So, if you could respond to both this, what de Blasio is saying, a massive growth in the tech sector and jobs, good jobs, for New York’s kids and students and people in this city, and what’s going to happen to real estate?

ASSEMBLYMEMBER RON KIM: I think this is a great example of a misguided technocratic Democrat who is hiding behind big tech and pushing out the narrative to the public that the big tech will solve every single problem in our communities and to humankind. That is not the case. This is a clear example of how big tech artificially raises value. This isn’t real value. As Stacy has said, real value comes from innovation, creativity, small business, local economies, circulation of wealth at the very bottom of our economies. That’s not happening. Amazon, Uber, you name it, all of this is all based on an extraction economy that is designed to extract as much money and value out of our communities, and it’s not going to add to sustainable job growth or economic growth.

JUAN GONZÁLEZ: Greg LeRoy, I’d like to ask you, in terms of the trend nationwide in terms of these government subsidies for job creation—obviously, the Foxconn example in Wisconsin is another one. Could you talk about what these governments, local governments, are doing and what they’re getting in return for these subsidies?

GREG LEROY: I’d be glad to. And I just want to footnote something on the de Blasio quote there. You know, we know that about four out of five, typically, of the new job takers at a project like this will not be current residents of New York or Arlington. They will be people moving to the area from outside somewhere. And that means a lot of growth getting induced, a lot of schools having to be expanded and infrastructure built and public services provided. Guess who’s going to get stuck with that tax bill if Amazon is not paying to help cover the costs of that induced growth.

This whole issue of what we call persistent megadeals—that is, these nine-figure, 10-figure subsidy packages, hundreds of millions, billions of dollars for individual transactions, whether it’s HQ2 or Foxconn or data centers like Apple, Microsoft, Google, Facebook—it’s a crazy a dynamic. You know, there’s a long history in America of a very corporate-dominated site location system. It’s actually about 80 years old and was born in New York City with a company called Fantus Factory Locating Service in the late 1930s. Today, we have even a president who has endorsed this race to the bottom, this war among the states, so-called, by sponsoring and assisting Terry Gou, the chairman of Foxconn, when he parlayed that auction last year, whipsawing a bunch of states against each other, for the big subsidy package in Wisconsin.

That Foxconn package now is really melting down. I mean, it was valued at about $3 billion from the state, to begin with. It’s now north of $4.7 billion, because there’s been a ton of local and infrastructure aid put on top of it. And now we’re getting different product lines, high degrees of automation, rumors of—reports in The Wall Street Journal of Chinese engineers having to be brought in because they are having trouble recruiting a sufficient white-collar workforce. You know, it’s no secret that Governor Walker, put out by the voters last week, had stopped touting that deal on the merits, because it was melting down so badly.

AMY GOODMAN: And jobs dropping from 13,000 to something like 3,000.

GREG LEROY: Correct. Yeah, the cost per job keeps going up, because that denominator keeps shrinking. It’s the great disappearing deal of all time.

JUAN GONZÁLEZ: And, Greg LeRoy, I wanted to ask you about the Virginia aspect of this deal and the—what’s often overlooked is the amount of business that Amazon does with government agencies, defense contractors in its cloud business—and what its decision to locate in the suburbs of Washington, D.C., will mean.

GREG LEROY: Yeah, I’m so glad you brought that up. A lot of people don’t realize that Amazon has historically made very few profits, and only recently any profits at all, on its retail business. Most of the profits, including all of the profits for some years, come from its cloud computing services, from Amazon Web Services. It’s the biggest cloud computing company in the world. It has roughly a 40 percent market share. And among its most lucrative clients in that space are the Pentagon and the Central Intelligence Agency and other federal agencies. And as Stacy and others have pointed out recently, Amazon is now pushing very aggressively to gain more control over federal procurement lines and also state and local government procurement lines. So, this footprint—people don’t notice, but this Crystal City footprint that they have now said is going to be one of the HQ2s is very close—literally, practically a stone’s throw from—the Pentagon.

AMY GOODMAN: Democratic Congressmember-elect Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez tweeted, “Displacement is not community development. Investing in luxury condos is not the same thing as investing in people and families. Shuffling working class people out of a community does not improve their quality of life.” I wanted to ask Assemblymember Kim about the progressive letter you referred to. This was the former City Council Speaker Melissa Mark-Viverito, Ydanis Rodriguez, Jumaane Williams, Nydia Velázquez, the congressmember—all progressive leaders who signed on to the letter asking Amazon to come to New York. So, what is progressive about this deal?

ASSEMBLYMEMBER RON KIM: Well, I think many of my colleagues are regretting that they signed the letter. They didn’t know what they were signing on to. So, I want to make sure—I want to be clear that many of them are saying now that they no longer have signed—they are no longer willing to sign on and keep their name to the letter.

There is nothing progressive about Amazon coming to New York. This is a corporate giveaway to the richest man on this planet. And we need to make sure that we can go back and claw back the agreement, to make sure that the taxpayers go where it’s desperately needed: to the working- and middle-class families who are living with so much debt in the city of New York.

AMY GOODMAN: I wanted to put a question to Stacy Mitchell in Portland, Maine. In the piece you write for The Nation, the subtitle is “The company is a radically new kind of monopoly with ambitions that dwarf those of earlier empires.” Explain.

STACY MITCHELL: That’s right. You know, I think Amazon is so dominant in so many areas. It’s now capturing one out of every two dollars that Americans spend online. As Greg noted, it controls the underlying infrastructure for a lot of the internet—you know, over 40 percent of the world’s cloud computing capacity. It’s increasingly moving into shipping and package delivery. It’s taking on UPS and the Postal Service. It has the largest market share in home voice systems, through Alexa. And on and on it goes.

But I think, rather than think about Amazon as being dominant in any of these markets, the way to understand what this company is all about is that Amazon is about controlling the essential infrastructure that other companies need to use in order to reach the market. Its online platform, more than half of all product searches online now start at Amazon’s website. And what that means is that if you’re any company producing or retailing anything, increasingly, if you want to be able to reach consumers, you have to become a seller on Amazon’s platform. And what that means is that Amazon now controls your business. They have the ability to gather data on what you’re doing, to use that data to compete against you. They can levy a kind of tax on your trade. They can demote you in the search results. They can retaliate against you if you complain.

I mean, essentially, what has happened is that Amazon is privatizing the market, if you will. In a democracy, a market should be an open place, where the rules are set by the public, that there are public rules that govern the buying and selling of goods and how we’re going to structure our markets. But what Amazon is moving us toward is a situation in which commerce occurs in a private arena, and Amazon sets the terms of trade. It basically creates the rules and regulations by which other companies and other participants are allowed to operate. And I think, in light of that, it’s no surprise that Amazon is expanding its presence in Washington, D.C., because, you know, we have anti-trust laws that are designed to put a check on this kind of concentrated economic power. I think Jeff Bezos very clearly sees that as really the only threat to his future growth, and so cozying up to federal government is part of his strategy.

JUAN GONZÁLEZ: I’d like to ask Greg LeRoy, on this, the whole issue of whether Amazon needed to be courted and provided all these subsidies to relocate to New York City or—the reality is that because of the model that they’ve created of delivering products, the same day, in some cases, to people around the country, they need to be in certain places, especially in population centers. My students at Rutgers University did a whole series of articles about the 10 Amazon warehouses that had developed in central New Jersey to serve the Philadelphia and New York City markets. Fifteen thousand jobs were created virtually with no subsidies, so that they actually need to be in certain spots, and the politicians perhaps had more leverage than they themselves understand.

GREG LEROY: You’re right, exactly, Juan. In fact, we’ve been—long before the HQ2 auction came out, we had been publishing about all the subsidies being given to the warehouses, making this very point. If you look at the history of the company, in the early years, they grew their market share by having the price advantage of not collecting sales tax. And they were legally able to avoid that by avoiding what’s called nexus—that is, a sufficient physical presence in a state so that the state could compel the collection of sales taxes. They had a small number of warehouses in states without sales tax into which they shipped into the other states that do have sales taxes.

But over time, with the Prime business model evolving to rapid delivery—two-day, one-day, same-day—it was inevitable that they would have to locate lots of warehouses close to all those ZIP codes with lots of Prime household members. And so they started caving on this issue back in 2011, 2012, sometimes under pressure from states who found that they were skirting the law and actually locating in states without collecting sales tax ahead of time. So, over time, they had to do that.

And yet they still got paid. They discovered that they could “create jobs,” even though, as Stacy pointed out, they’re actually creating one job at the expense of two others, as bricks-and-mortar retailers continue to melt down and companies like Sears—is the latest example—go bankrupt, getting paid to do what they want. We said, publicly, to public officials, Amazon should pay to arrive, not vice versa. And I would say the same thing about HQ2. If Amazon is going to come and price a bunch of people out of a city and create a bunch of new expenses by inducing so much growth, they should pay to arrive rather than get paid to.

AMY GOODMAN: We didn’t even get to labor conditions. But in September, we spoke to James Bloodworth, the U.K.-based journalist, author of Hired: Six Months Undercover in Low-Wage Britain. While undercover at an Amazon fulfillment warehouse, he found workers toiling amidst abusive conditions, no bathroom breaks. This is Bloodworth describing working in an Amazon warehouse.

JAMES BLOODWORTH: If you took a day off sick, you were given a disciplinary for that. And if you received six of these disciplinaries, you would effectively lose your job. And this was taking a day off sick even if you had a letter from the doctor, even if you phoned in beforehand to say that you were going to be sick. So, if you took six days off sick, you would effectively lose your job. And this was the biggest employer in this town.

Other things, I mean, the people were afraid—people were receiving disciplinaries for taking toilet breaks. The productivity targets were so high that workers were afraid to go to the bathroom. I mean, a survey came out at the Amazon warehouse I worked in, recently, which found that 74 percent of workers there, order pickers, were afraid to use the bathrooms because of the productivity targets.

AMY GOODMAN: So, again, that was a British journalist, James Bloodworth, who went undercover in an Amazon warehouse. And I want to end with Assemblymember Kim. Again, Time magazine’s headline, “The Median Amazon Employee’s Salary Is $28,000. Jeff Bezos Makes [More Than] That in 10 Seconds.”

ASSEMBLYMEMBER RON KIM: Yeah, I mean, I think that’s absolutely ridiculous. But I want to end by also saying the EU has already—is already considering an open anti-trust case against Amazon. Imagine, for the last two years, instead of competing and embracing, every city and every state united, calling Amazon accountable, having open investigations by the attorney general’s office in every single state investigating into their anti-trust practices. That’s leverage. That’s real leverage. Instead of doing that, we give them billions of dollars to come to our cities and states. Now, it’s still not too late. And I think we should move forward and hold Amazon accountable.

AMY GOODMAN: We want to thank you all for being with us, just the beginning of the discussion, New York State Assemblymember Ron Kim; Stacy Mitchell, joining us from Portland, Maine, at the Institute for Local Self-Reliance; and Greg LeRoy of Good Jobs First in Washington, D.C.

Four Things to know on this Thursday in Maine: Honor Flight Maine telethon today, FBI looking for fugitive, and more.

NEWS CENTER Maine can help you get your day started right with a quick look at the stories making headlines across the state.

1. HONOR FLIGHT MAINE TELETHON TODAY

Today is NEWS CENTER Maine’s annual Honor Flight Maine telethon, where Mainers can help raise money to help send our veterans to Washington, D.C. to visit the memorials built in their honor. The phone lines, manned by NEWS CENTER Maine staff and volunteers, will be open from 5 a.m. to 7:30 p.m. $700 is enough to send one veteran on the trip. If you are in the Portland area, you can call 855-875-4328 to donate, and if you are in the Bangor area, you can call 855-874-9529.

Take our PULSE poll today to express how you honor our veterans!2. RANKED CHOICE DECISIONS EXPECTED TODAY

Candidates and voters should learn today who won the Second Congressional District race: incumbent Republican Bruce Poliquin, or Democrat challenger Jared Golden. Secretary of State Matt Dunlap has spent the past five days processing ballots from the 375 towns and cities in CD2. That work continued yesterday, despite uncertainty created by a lawsuit filed earlier this week against ranked choice. That suit was filed by Republican Rep. Bruce Poliquin and three others, claiming the RCV process violates the U.S. Constitution.

Ranked choice decisions expected Thursday

The FBI is looking for a man from Springvale, and is willing to pay for information leading to his arrest. The bureau is offering a $5,000 reward for anyone who can lead them to Joshua Weldon, who disappeared after posting bail on a drug charge. He was arrested in August and charged with conspiracy to distribute fentanyl. The FBI believes Weldon is with his girlfriend, and should be considered armed and dangerous.

FBI offers reward for information on ‘armed and dangerous’ man in Maine

4. MAINE CYCLIST RAISING MONEY FOR CHILDHOOD CANCER RESEARCH DIES

James Dobson, a man from Kittery who was cycling across the country to raise money for childhood cancer research, was killed yesterday. He was riding his recumbent cycle from New England to San Diego, California, and documenting his trip on social media. Dobson was on his bike in Lamar County, Mississippi when he was struck by a car. Police there say a storm affected visibility, and that the driver who hit Dobson probably didn’t see him until it was too late. Dobson was hoping to raise $10,000. After news of his death yesterday, thousands of dollars poured in to his GoFundMe page to surpass that goal.

Maine cyclist killed while on cross-country charity ride

The Thinning Blue Line: A police shortage in Maine could soon get a lot worse (or is that better?)

Many departments have multiple positions open, but supervisors are struggling to find qualified candidates to fill them. So what happens when a large number of veteran officers retire?

Maine is no exception.

Many police departments, statewide, have multiple positions open, but supervisors are struggling to find qualified candidates to fill them.

Even more troubling, what those numbers look like moving forward, when a large number of veteran officers can retire.

Helping people. As cliche as it might sound it’s the No. 1 reason many police officers put on the badge.

A former high school English teacher, Tyler Plourde is now a trooper with the Maine State Police. “I wanted to have an impact on my community being able to help people”.

Officer Colin Gordan is a Falmouth police officer. “People ultimately get into to police work to help people, preserve order. As corny and cheesy as that sounds it’s true.”

What’s also true is there are fewer and fewer people willing to do the job. Many departments in Maine are down two, five, even 13 police officers.

Lt. John Kilbride, a 20-year veteran of the Falmouth Police Department, says that’s an incredible strain for a department. He says, “it’s nerve-wracking, you can’t just pluck a police officer off a tree.”

There are a lot of reasons for the police shortage.

  • Low pay, when compared to the high risks of the job
  • The negative attitude some people have toward police
  • A difficult and lengthy hiring process
  • Young people entering the workforce who are making a balance between work and life a top priority (something that any cop will tell you is not easy)

Maine State Police Lt. David Tripp says while his agency has been successful shoring up their vacancy rate, he admits being down troopers can cause a strain. “We are pushing some would say beyond our capacity with the services we’re providing.”

It’s a problem that could get a lot worse.

The Maine State Police currently has 341 officers. In two years, 15 percent will be eligible to retire. That’s 51 state troopers.

There are 161 Portland police officers. Over the course of the next five years, more than 25 percent are or will be eligible for retirement. That’s more than 44 officers.

The Maine Warden Service is facing similar issues. There are 125 game wardens. Today, 23 percent can retire. That’s more than 40.

Even smaller agencies are not immune.

The South Portland Police Department has 55 officers. Right now, 26 percent can retire. That’s 14 police officers.

Lt. Tripp says, “so when we look at that number that could be fairly high, 51 potentially retiring, that does cause us some concern”.

Those numbers are forcing departments to be more flexible and take a closer look at how they’re recruiting. Some are using social media and incentives or signing bonuses to attract candidates.

But finding interested candidates isn’t the only challenge, so is finding qualified ones.

Lt. John Kilbride says, “I will go without before I put forth someone I’m not comfortable with.”

When a department is down officers, it’s forced to play defense—prioritizing calls as well as cases.

That can not only impact communities, it can place a bigger burden on the rank and file.

“You start putting stressors on really good people and they start evaluating whether they want to stick around, it’s a sinking ship. You’ve hit the iceberg,” says Lt. Kilbride.

NEWS CENTER Maine spoke with officers from agencies across the state, who did not want to go on camera. They told us “a lot of times it’s like swimming upstream” … “investigations don’t get the attention they deserve, because they’re not enough officers” … “everyone loves to take video of you hoping you screw up” and “a lot of people don’t understand our training or why we do the things we do.”

Joe Loughlin, former deputy chief of the Portland Police Department and a national law enforcement consultant, says the stress on law enforcement officers today is enormous.

Loughlin says, “for years we’ve been saying we can do less with more, well that doesn’t work anymore, you need people”.

“These are tough days for this profession and tough days for the citizens because in the end, it’s the good citizens who suffer,” says Loughlin.

Loughlin, as well as those still in law enforcement, says they’re confident that, while it won’t happen right away, this shortage will pass and ultimately enough people will answer the call to protect and serve.

Lt. Tripp says, “I’ve had citizens say to me why would you do this job? Why would you want to do a job with everything going on today? Police officers being shot at or shot. Why would you do it? For me personally, if it’s not us, then who is it?”

Climate Scientist Who Fled CA Wildfire: We’re Going to Keep Paying Price If We Ignore Climate Change

NOVEMBER 13, 2018

 

At least 44 people are dead and more than 200 remain missing as two massive wildfires, fueled by easterly winds and a historic drought, continue to rage in California. In Northern California’s Butte County, the Camp Fire has become the state’s deadliest fire in history, after the blaze swept through the town of Paradise, killing 42 people and destroying nearly 6,500 homes. In Southern California, a quarter-million residents of Los Angeles and Ventura counties were ordered to evacuate the Woolsey Fire—including the entire city of Malibu and parts of the San Fernando Valley. Governor Jerry Brown said Sunday that the fires were driven by climate change and that California needs to learn to adapt. We speak with climate expert Glen MacDonald, John Muir memorial chair of geography, director of the White Mountain Research Center and a UCLA distinguished professor. He was forced to evacuate his Thousand Oaks home due to the Woolsey Fire.

CNN sues Trump for suspending Jim Acosta’s press pass

The Trump administration vows to fight CNN lawsuit which claims the journalist’s constitutional rights were violated.

The dispute and Acosta's banishment triggered a wave of accusations that Trump is stifling the free press [Jonathan Ernst/Reuters]
The dispute and Acosta’s banishment triggered a wave of accusations that Trump is stifling the free press

A federal judge will hold a hearing on Wednesday on a CNN lawsuit against President Donald Trump‘s administration after the White House revokedthe press credentials of the network’s journalist last week.

The American network said its correspondent Jim Acosta’s removal was a violation of his First Amendment rights to freely report on the government.

The White House dismissed CNN’s complaint as “grandstanding” and vowed to “vigorously defend” against the lawsuit.

If left unchallenged, the actions of the White House would create a dangerous chilling effect for any journalist who covers our elected officials

A CNN STATEMENT

The dispute on live national television and Acosta’s resulting banishment triggered a wave of accusations that Trump is stifling the free press, and marked a sharp escalation in tensions between the president and CNN.

“The wrongful revocation of these credentials violates CNN and Acosta’s First Amendment rights of freedom of the press, and their Fifth Amendment rights to due process,” the news network said in a statement, announcing the lawsuit filed on Tuesday in Washington.

“If left unchallenged, the actions of the White House would create a dangerous chilling effect for any journalist who covers our elected officials,” CNN said.

US District Judge Timothy Kelly ordered the Trump administration to respond by 11:00am (16:00 GMT) on Wednesday and set a hearing for 3:30pm.

Kelly, a former chief counsel for the US Senate Judiciary Committee, was appointed by Trump last year.

The First Amendment

The White House had suspended Acosta’s hard pass after he sparred at a news conference with the president, who demanded that the reporter give up the microphone and called him a “rude, terrible person” when he did not immediately comply.

They began sparring after Acosta asked Trump about the caravan of migrants heading from Latin America to the southern US border. When Acosta tried to follow up with another question, Trump said, “That’s enough!” and a female White House aide unsuccessfully tried to grab the microphone from Acosta.

White House Press Secretary Sarah Sanders released a statement accusing Acosta of “placing his hands on a young woman just trying to do her job as a White House intern”, calling it “absolutely unacceptable”.

Hours later, Sanders announced Acosta’s hard pass had been suspended, in a move that she justified by claiming the reporter was inappropriately “placing his hands” on the intern.

The interaction between Acosta and the intern was brief, and Acosta appeared to brush her arm as she reached for the microphone and he tried to hold onto it. “Pardon me, ma’am,” he told her.

She alleged that Acosta “physically refused to surrender a White House microphone to an intern,” softening the earlier misconduct accusation and then casting blame on the journalist for his persistent questioning.

“The First Amendment is not served when a single reporter, of more than 150 present, attempts to monopolise the floor,” the press secretary said in a statement.

“If there is no check on this type of behaviour, it impedes the ability of the President, the White House staff and members of the media to conduct business.”

CNN lawyer Ted Boutrous said the White Houses’ suspension of the press pass made “clear it was based on the content of the reporting.”

“CNN’s argument is very straightforward,” the lawyer told the American network. “We can’t have the White House tossing people out because they don’t like what they are saying or what they are reporting.”

“That is what happened. That is the First Amendment.”