September 30, 2021

Kyrsten Sinema Is at the Center of It All. Some Arizonans Wish She Weren't.

The centrist senator is key to President Biden’s agenda in Washington. Her positions have angered some Democrats back home.

https://www.nytimes.com/2021/09/29/us/kyrsten-sinema-voters.html



PHOENIX — Jade Duran once spent her weekends knocking on doors to campaign for Senator Kyrsten Sinema, the stubbornly centrist Democrat whose vote could seal the fate of a vast Democratic effort to remake America’s social safety net. But no more. When Ms. Sinema famously gave a thumbs down to a $15 minimum wage and refused to eliminate the filibuster to pass new voting rights laws this year, Ms. Duran, a Democrat and biomedical engineer from Phoenix, decided she was fed up. She joined dozens of liberal voters and civil rights activists in a rolling series of protests outside Ms. Sinema’s Phoenix offices, which have been taking place since the summer. Nearly 50 people have been arrested. “It really feels like she does not care about her voters,” said Ms. Duran, 33, who was arrested in July at a protest. “I will never vote for her again.”

Ms. Sinema, a onetime school social worker and Green Party-aligned activist, vaulted through the ranks of Arizona politics by running as a zealous bipartisan willing to break with her fellow Democrats. She counts John McCain, the Republican senator who died in 2018, as a hero, and has found support from independent voters and moderate suburban women in a state where Maverick is practically its own party. But now, Ms. Sinema is facing a growing political revolt at home from the voters who once counted themselves among her most devoted supporters. Many of the state’s most fervent Democrats now see her as an obstructionist whose refusal to sign on to a major social policy and climate change bill has helped imperil the party’s agenda. Little can proceed without the approval of Ms. Sinema, one of two marquee Democratic moderates in an evenly divided Senate. While she has balked at the $3.5 trillion price tag and some of the tax-raising provisions of the bill, which is opposed by all Republicans in Congress, Democrats in Washington and back home in Arizona have grown exasperated.

While the Senate Democrats’ other high-profile holdout, Joe Manchin III of West Virginia, has publicly outlined his concerns with key elements of the Democratic agenda in statements to swarms of reporters, Ms. Sinema has been far more enigmatic and has largely declined to issue public comments. Mr. Biden, White House officials and Democrats have beseeched the two senators to publicly issue a price tag and key provisions of the legislation that they could accept. But there is little indication that Ms. Sinema has been willing to offer that, even privately to the administration. On Wednesday afternoon, she and a team from the White House huddled in her office for more than two hours on another day of what a spokesman for Ms. Sinema called good-faith negotiations.

“Kyrsten has always promised Arizonans she would be an independent voice for the state — not for either political party,” John LaBombard, a spokesman for the senator, wrote in an email responding to questions for the senator about her standing at home. “She’s delivered on that promise and has always been honest about where she stands.” That posture helped her win election to the Senate in 2018 from a state whose voters are roughly 35 percent Republican, 32 percent Democratic and 33 percent “other.” And for all the passions of the moment, Ms. Sinema is not up for election again until 2024.A breakthrough on the legislation could quell much
of the criticism and burnish Ms. Sinema’s image as a deal-maker who shepherded a related bipartisan infrastructure bill through the Senate. But liberals on Capitol Hill do not trust that she is actually willing to support the broader spending package.


A sit-in outside Senator Sinema’s Phoenix office in June to demand an end to the filibuster. Credit...Ash Ponders for The New York Times

snip

September 30, 2021

Russia could ban YouTube after it deleted two RT channels it said spread COVID-19 misinformation

https://www.euronews.com/next/2021/09/29/russia-could-ban-youtube-after-it-deleted-two-rt-channels-it-said-spread-covid-19-misinfor

YouTube could face restrictions in Russia after it deleted two German-language channels operated by Russian state-controlled RT. YouTube said it deleted the channels on Tuesday after they breached its policy on COVID-19 misinformation. Russia's foreign ministry responded by accusing the Google-owned company of taking part in an "information war" against Russia and threatened "retaliatory measures" against the company and German media outlets. According to YouTube's COVID-19 medical misinformation policy, the company does not allow content that "spreads medical misinformation that contradicts local health authorities’ or the World Health Organization’s medical information about COVID-19". It also bans videos about COVID-19 that pose "a serious risk of egregious harm".

How did this all start?

RT's German-language channel RT DE was issued a warning for uploading content that violated YouTube's COVID misinformation policy, which left the channel unable to upload videos for a week. During that time, RT tried to get around the uploading ban by using another German-language channel, "Der Fehlende Part", which translates to “the missing part”. "As a result both channels were terminated for breaking YouTube terms of service," a YouTube spokesperson said. Following the channel deletions, RT's editor-in-chief Margarita Simonyan went on the offensive, calling YouTube's decision "a real media war declared by the state of Germany to the state of Russia". Simonyan also called for Russia to sanction YouTube, ban German media outlets and close the Moscow bureaux of German broadcasters ARD and ZDF.

Russia's foreign ministry threatens retaliation

In a statement released on Tuesday, Russia's foreign ministry described the actions by YouTube as "unprecedented information aggression". "This obvious manifestation of censorship and suppression of freedom of expression cannot and will not be considered," it added. The ministry accused YouTube of colluding with German authorities to "silence information sources that do not fit into what the German officials view as a comfortable media landscape". It said it had asked Russian authorities to draft and enforce "retaliatory measures regarding YouTube video hosting service and the German media". Russia’s state communications watchdog, Roskomnadzor, demanded that Google restore access to RT’s YouTube channels and threatened the platform with fines and a ban if it fails to do so.

'Conspiracy theory'

In Berlin, German government spokesman Steffen Seibert said the government has “taken note” of the YouTube decision, but denied any role. “Since there are different accounts, particularly on Russian channels, I want to say in crystal-clear terms that this is a decision by YouTube, and the German government, or representatives of the German government, have nothing to do with this decision," Seibert told reporters. “So anyone who alleges that is putting together a conspiracy theory". Siebert added that calls for retaliation against German media outlets were unjustified. “Anyone who calls for such retaliation...doesn't show a good relationship with press freedom, from our point of view," he said. German security services have said they consider RT’s German service to be a propaganda arm of the Russian state. RT, previously known as Russia Today, provides its German offering online but so far lacks a license to broadcast in Germany via a terrestrial or satellite signal.

snip

September 29, 2021

Manchin on Biden's Reconciliation Bill: 'Definition Of Fiscal Insanity' that vengefully taxes

https://www.manchin.senate.gov/newsroom/press-releases



"Every Member of Congress has a solemn duty to vote for what they believe is best for the country and the American people, not their party. Respectfully, as I have said for months, I can't support $3.5 trillion more in spending when we have already spent $5.4 trillion since last March. At some point, all of us, regardless of party must ask the simple question — how much is enough?

What I have made clear to the President and Democratic leaders is that spending trillions more on new and expanded government programs, when we can't even pay for the essential social programs, like Social Security and Medicare, is the definition of fiscal insanity. Suggesting that spending trillions more will not have an impact on inflation ignores the everyday reality that America's families continue pay an unavoidable inflation tax. Proposing a historic expansion of social programs while ignoring the fact we are not in a recession and that millions of jobs remain open will only feed a dysfunction that could weaken our economic recovery. This is the shared reality we all now face, and it is this reality that must shape the future decisions that we, as elected leaders, must make.

Since the beginning of this reconciliation debate, I have been consistent in my belief that any expansion of social programs must be targeted to those in need, not expanded beyond what is fiscally possible. Our tax code should be reformed to fix the flaws of the 2017 tax bill and ensure everyone pays their fair share but it should not weaken our global competitiveness or the ability of millions of small businesses to compete with the Amazons of the world. Overall, the amount we spend now must be balanced with what we need and can afford — not designed to reengineer the social and economic fabric of this nation or vengefully tax for the sake of wishful spending.

In August, I recommended we take a strategic pause to provide time to develop the right policies and to continue to monitor how the pandemic and economic factors are affecting our nation's fiscal situation before we spend more. Throughout September, I have made it clear to all those who would listen the need to means test any new social programs so that we are helping those who need it the most, not spend for the sake spending.

While I am hopeful that common ground can be found that would result in another historic investment in our nation, I cannot — and will not - support trillions in spending or an all or nothing approach that ignores the brutal fiscal reality our nation faces. There is a better way and I believe we can find it if we are willing to continue to negotiate in good faith.

If there is one final lesson that will continue to guide me in this difficult debate ahead it is this: America is a great nation but great nations throughout history have been weakened by careless spending and bad policies. Now, more than ever, we must work together to avoid these fatal mistakes so that we may fulfill our greatest been weakened by careless spending and bad policies. Now, more than ever, we must work together to avoid these fatal mistakes so that we may fulfill our greatest responsibility as elected leaders and pass on a better America to the next generation."

September 29, 2021

If You Think Progressives Won't Compromise w/ Centrists, You Have It Backwards. Liberals are begging

to negotiate with centrists.

https://nymag.com/intelligencer/2021/09/sinema-progressive-democrats-biden-build-back-better-infrastructure.html



The impression has taken hold with many people who have moderate inclinations that the Democratic Party is split between moderate pragmatists and left-wing ideologues who refuse to compromise. “There are growing signs the Biden agenda could collapse because too many Democrats have unrealistic expectations and refuse to compromise,” opined one of those research firms that recirculates conventional wisdom for investors. Charlie Sykes, editor of the center-right Bulwark, claims progressive Democrats are “threatening to torpedo the bipartisan bill (and with it the Biden presidency) if they don’t get what they want.” The truth of the situation at hand is almost precisely the opposite. The people who are willing to compromise and accept half a loaf are the progressives. The ones who refuse to negotiate are the centrists. Just listen to what the progressives are saying:

“What we have said is that if there is an agreement that the president strikes on this Build Back Better agenda, we will vote for the bipartisan bill, we’re willing to negotiate,” Representative Ro Khanna said on CNN. “The president keeps begging [Senator Kyrsten Sinema], ‘Tell us what you want. Put a proposal forward’ … How do you compromise when Sinema isn’t saying anything?” Congressional Progressive Caucus Chair Pramila Jayapal: “They need to tell us what they don’t agree with. And we need to be able to actually negotiate it.” Jayapal, again: “If they don’t tell us what they want to do, which was the president’s message, and if they don’t actually negotiate on the entire bill, then we’re not going to get too close.” Representative Jim McGovern: “I think a lot of us want to make sure we have an assurance that, in fact, there’s going to be a reconciliation bill.”

They are not making implacable demands. They are begging the centrists to simply negotiate. The fear hanging over their position is that, once they have their bipartisan infrastructure deal in hand, some decisive number of centrist Democrats — it would take just one in the Senate or four in the House — will take their ball and go home. Nobody knows whether that would actually happen. But the progressives are hardly imagining this possibility. Over the weekend, the New York Times reported that Sinema “has privately told colleagues she will not accept any corporate or income tax rate increases.” No other publication has matched this explosive finding, which might turn out to exaggerate her stance. On the other hand, she has not publicly denied it. Sinema also reportedly opposes both Biden’s plan to allow Medicare to negotiate prices with drug companies, and even opposes a scaled-back version designed to be less unacceptable to Big Pharma. The entire Biden program is financed through a combination of taxing the wealthy through higher income or corporate taxes and cutting spending by negotiating lower drug prices.

So if Sinema actually holds the positions indicated by these reports, she would kill Biden’s program outright. Biden’s domestic legacy is only going to be as large as its financing sources, and if Sinema opposes all those sources, the size of the bill she ultimately supports isn’t going to be $3.5 trillion or $2 trillion or $1.5 trillion, but zero. Business lobbyists are very clearly hoping to pass to pass the bipartisan infrastructure bill — which, at the insistence of Republicans, does not make any wealthy sources pay even a cent — and then kill Build Back Better. “Business groups and some Senate Republicans,” reports the Times, have “mounted an all-out drive to secure G.O.P. votes for a bipartisan infrastructure bill.” Since Sinema is holding fundraisers with the same lobbyists who are pushing to pass infrastructure and kill Build Back Better, it seems at least possible that she is onboard with their strategy. Perhaps she just wants to scale back Biden’s plan and has some specific objections she can share in private. The problem is that she’s acting like somebody who wants to kill Biden’s program outright. Progressives can’t be blamed for suspecting a betrayal, especially when she refuses to give even the barest reassurance.

snip

September 29, 2021

Memo to centrists: Progressives aren't your problem. Manchin and Sinema are.

https://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/2021/09/28/manchin-sinema-progressives-reconciliation/

In case you doubted that House progressives would stick to their strategy in the intraparty battle over President Biden’s agenda, they just reiterated their intention to vote against the $1 trillion bipartisan infrastructure bill on Thursday, to pressure the Senate to complete the much bigger social policy bill. “We will only vote for the infrastructure bill after passing the reconciliation bill,” declared a statement from Rep. Pramila Jayapal, the chair of the Congressional Progressive Caucus. The reconciliation bill is the multitrillion-dollar social infrastructure bill that is meant to pass the Senate by simple majority. This posture is provoking frustration from moderates and centrists. Many of them appear to understand this standoff as a conflict between themselves and progressives, each side pushing and pulling to get their preferred outcome.

But while there’s some truth to this, in another sense the most serious problem facing the centrists is not the progressives. It’s their ideological counterparts in the Senate, Sens. Joe Manchin III (D-W.Va.) and Kyrsten Sinema (D-Ariz.). That’s because the Terrible Two are the main impediment to arriving at a reconciliation bill everyone can live with. It’s likely that virtually all House moderates and centrists would support a very robust reconciliation bill with ambitious provisions on climate change, child care, health care, education and many other things, provided last-minute disagreements are ironed out. But Manchin and Sinema seem to be another matter entirely. No one knows what they’ll accept from a reconciliation bill. If they were to be very clear on what they could accept, and persuasively demonstrate that they will vote for it even if the infrastructure bill passes first, it might be easier for progressives to agree to do that.

Which points to another big irony here: If this process implodes, the Democrats who represent swing districts may well suffer most. Passing a broad, popular agenda may not stop Republicans from picking up seats in the 2022 midterms, but if Democrats don’t pass that agenda, they may well get swamped in a wave election. Who loses in a wave election? Not the progressives who represent safe Democratic districts. It’s the ones representing swing districts, often called “frontliners.” Rep. Katie Porter (D-Calif.) understands this well. She is both a member of the Congressional Progressive Caucus and a frontliner in a swing Orange County district. Porter told us that vulnerable frontliners, too, have a great deal to gain substantively and politically from passing a robust reconciliation bill.

Porter noted that many provisions in the infrastructure package are long-range projects that won’t even be underway by the midterms. By contrast, many provisions in the reconciliation bill will have an immediate impact, such as expanded Medicare eligibility and home care services and assistance for child care. “Those are things that will immediately begin to improve the lives of Americans and will begin to immediately improve our economy,” Porter told us. “Democratic members, regardless of your district’s composition, this is what voters want.” Porter said many frontliners are adamant that “we cannot fail” and that “we need to deliver the president’s entire agenda.” Porter also told us she will vote against the infrastructure bill Thursday “if there’s not a framework and an agreement on how we move forward.”

snip

September 28, 2021

As Sinema resists the budget bill, she is set to raise money from business groups that oppose it.

https://www.nytimes.com/2021/09/27/us/politics/sinema-fund-raiser-social-climate-bill.html

WASHINGTON — Senator Kyrsten Sinema of Arizona, the inscrutable Democrat who may hold the key to passing her party’s ambitious social policy and climate bill, is scheduled to have a fund-raiser on Tuesday afternoon with five business lobbying groups, many of which fiercely oppose the bill.

Under Ms. Sinema’s political logo, the influential National Association of Wholesaler-Distributors and the grocers’ PAC, along with lobbyists for roofers and electrical contractors and a small business group called the S-Corp political action committee, have invited association members to an undisclosed location on Tuesday afternoon for 45 minutes to write checks for between $1,000 and $5,800, payable to Sinema for Arizona. Full vaccinations for the coronavirus will be required, according to the invitation.

The planned event comes during a make-or-break week for President Biden’s agenda, when House Democrats are trying to pass a trillion-dollar infrastructure bill that Ms. Sinema helped negotiate, and trying to nail down the details of a social policy and climate bill that could spend as much as $3.5 trillion over the next decade.

Ms. Sinema has said she cannot support a bill that large, and has privately told Senate Democratic colleagues that she is averse to the corporate and individual tax rate increases that both the House and Senate tax-writing committees had planned to use to help pay for the measure.



snip

September 27, 2021

The Secret Island Getaway Most Canadians Have Never Heard Of

Windswept hills, secret beaches, Acadian culture, and the freshest seafood like, ever.

https://www.thrillist.com/travel/nation/things-to-do-in-the-magdalen-islands-canada



Alright America, huddle up. I'm about to let you in on a secret. On the east coast of Canada, smack in the middle of the Gulf of St. Lawrence, there’s an archipelago of eight islands with 186 miles of pristine red and squeaky white sand beaches, rich Acadian culture (yes, the same Acadians that migrated to Louisiana and became known as Cajuns), and truly amazing gourmet eats. I’m talking some of the best seafood, anywhere. They’re called Îles-de-la-Madeleine, or the Magdalen Islands, and they’re wildly popular among Québecois—yet few people in the rest of Canada have even heard about them. If you've read up on climate news lately—moon wobble, code red, ahh!—this stunning archipelago might not be around for too many more generations. And every year, more and more people are finding out about this pearl of the east coast (yep, thanks to stories like this one). So you’ll definitely want to plan a trip sooner rather than later.



What to know before you go

With a landmass just 20 square miles bigger than Manhattan in a gulf of water roughly the size of Minnesota, Îles-de-la-Madeleine isn’t exactly a place you’ll bump into unless, well, you’re Jacques Cartier sailing to North America in 1534. So if you want to go, you’ll need to plan ahead. Seriously, some people plan their trips two years in advance. To get there, you can fly into Îles-de-la-Madeleine Airport on the island of Île-du-Havre-Aux-Maisons, or sail about five hours on the sparkly new Madeleine II ferry from Souris, Prince Edward Island. The extra cost to bring a car aboard the ship is worth it, as there’s so much to explore, despite the archipelago being just an hour drive tip-to-tip. June to August is your best chance at great weather and when you can see the awesome sandcastle festival. But peak season is also when the islands’ adorable pastel-colored cottages, cabins, and campsites book up, so May and September might be a better bet. And yes, this is Quebec, so expect to hear mostly French with smatterings of English when necessary.



Explore secret beaches and historic lighthouses

If coming by ferry, you’ll land at Cap-aux-Meules, which has all your necessities but admittedly lacks on the charming side. For something cuter, drive south to La Grave, where Acadian refugees first landed after escaping deportation in 1755’s Grand Dérangement, when the British and French colonists butted heads over Canadian land. Today, La Grave is a cute fishing village with solid restaurants like Café de la Grave, pretty shops like Atelier Côtier where you can buy art made of sand, and the beachfront venue Au Vieux Treuil that plays music into the night. Other hubs worth checking out are L’Étang du Nord, with its boardwalk, carnival-like energy, and delicious ice cream from Cremerie du Port; Entry Island, which requires a short boat trip, has only 60 inhabitants, and grants desktop screensaver-like views from atop its biggest hill; and Île-du-Havre-aux-Maisons where you can see glass-blown jellyfish at La Méduse and the historic Cape Alright Lighthouse—built in 1928, it’s much cooler than its name suggests. As for beaches, you won’t have to look too hard. For every one of the 13,000 year-round Madelinot locals, there’s probably a different “secret” beach, but some faves are at Pointe-aux-Loups, L’Anse aux Whalers in Fatima, at the tip of La Grave’s long and skinny sand dune, and Dune-du-Sud on Havre-aux-Maisons.



Procure the ultimate picnic

Seeking out and eating gourmet food is basically a sport on Îles-de-la-Madeleine. The Circuit des Saveurs food trail features 26 producers that offer traditional, extremely tasty local cuisine that you can usually taste on-site. At Fumoir d’Antan, you can see (and smell) herring smoked the traditional way—over slow-burning fires for three months—and then grab some for your picnic along with smoked mackerel, scallops, and salmon. At Miel en Mer, open a door to witness thousands of bees working on their honey, which turns white when it crystalizes. And at Cultures du Large, you’ll absolutely want to hop on a boat out to sea and eat the freshest oysters you’ve ever tried before taking a box for yourself. As for booze, brewery À l’Abri de la Tempête serves intriguing flavors in its multi-level bar and Le Barbocheux does artisanal yet inexpensive berry wine tastings. For a more guided food experience, restaurants across the islands cleverly combine these gourmet products. At Gourmande de Nature, Chef Johanne Vigneau utilizes the abundance of amazing seafood around the archipelago—think crunchy lobster tail and a deconstructed cheesecake served inside a scallop shell. And at Bistro Accents, where 80% of all ingredients are local, Chef Hugo LeFrançois sears halibut to perfection and knows how to cook a mean seal filet mignon. When I asked LeFrançois why Madelinot are so passionate about eating local, he told me it’s a form of mutual respect. “If everyone would be independent, everyone would die,” he said.



snip

September 27, 2021

Another win for workers: Uber drivers are employees (not yet in America though)

As the platforms lose case after case over the designation of ‘contractors’ as workers, they are lobbying at European level to win back control.

https://socialeurope.eu/another-win-for-workers-uber-drivers-are-employees



‘Gig’ drivers in the Netherlands celebrated another win last week, as the Amsterdam District Court ruled that Uber drivers are employees, not freelances (zz’per). In the most recent of a spate of employment reclassification rulings across Europe, the court also held that the sectoral collective labour agreement (CAO Taxivervoer) would apply to Uber drivers, including pay requirements and some benefits. Additionally, Uber may have to comply with the CAO and pay back wages to drivers in some cases. The case was filed last year by FNV (Federatie Nederlands Vakbeweging), a federation and one of the most active trade unions in the Netherlands representing platform workers. It follows an earlier win in the lower courts in its case against Deliveroo, where the court similarly ruled that the delivery riders were employees. In line with the trend for the major gig companies in Europe, however, Uber and Deliveroo are appealing the judgments.

Relationship of authority

The district court used three attributes to assess whether there was an employment contract between Uber and its drivers: the performance of work, wages and authority. Key was the use of algorithmic management, a consideration echoing the judgment by the UK Supreme Court in February and Spain’s new ‘riders’ law’. The court affirmed that, in our technology-driven age, the use of algorithms to mediate between drivers and Uber constituted a ‘modern relationship of authority’ as an employer. Uber’s algorithm determines how rides are allocated, including the price, with drivers having no influence. The company ranks its drivers, with achievement of ‘gold’, ‘platinum’ or ‘diamond’ status depending on a combination of a driver’s points (obtained through rides), an average passenger rating of at least 4.85 (five being the maximum) and a cancellation rate of below 4 per cent. Such a status provides the driver benefits in terms of ride allocation. In the Netherlands fewer than 300 drivers, out of approximately 4,000, have however been ascribed one.

Such an assessment and ratings system, according to the court, has a disciplining effect which can affect not only how rides are distributed but also access to the application. As such, Uber fundamentally determines the (un)availability of work for a driver and when s/he is deactivated or reactivated. The court held therefore that the algorithm contained ‘a financial incentive and a disciplining and instructive effect’. Uber unilaterally determined many aspects of a driver’s working conditions, from how rides were allocated and their prices to customer complaints, ratings, assessment and access to the app. Its ability to ‘turn the knobs of the app’ to change these settings frequently and arbitrarily, according to its own priorities with zero room for negotiation by drivers, contradicted the entrepreneurial narrative about drivers often articulated by Uber. It was, thus, indeed an employer.

Lack of compliance

While this is certainly a win for FNV and Uber drivers, it remains unlikely the company will comply. Uber confirmed that it would appeal the decision and had ‘no plans to employ drivers in the Netherlands’. Dragging out the process and engaging in damage limitation is hardly a novel tactic by Uber or other gig companies. In the UK, drivers are back in the Employment Tribunal after the Supreme Court ruling, due to Uber’s lack of compliance on the minimum wage. While Spain’s ‘riders’ law’ came into force in August, gig companies have been blatantly shifting tactics to avoid complying with it. Deliveroo will exit its operations in Spain; Glovo will hire only 20 per cent of its workforce, leaving the rest in a potential bidding war for jobs; Uber Eats will follow the exploitative outsourcing and subcontracting model. Without rigorous and strong public enforcement, these companies will continue to disregard court judgments across Europe, leaving precarious workers time and again lacking resources to fend for themselves. Moreover, in the face of the important wins across various member states, gig companies are shifting focus to the European level.

snip

September 27, 2021

American Gentry

The jet-setting cosmopolitans of popular imagination exist, but they are far outnumbered by a less exalted and less discussed elite group, one that sits at the pinnacle of America’s local hierarchies.

https://www.theatlantic.com/ideas/archive/2021/09/trump-american-gentry-wyman-elites/620151/



American wealth and power usually have a certain look: glass-walled penthouse apartments in glittering urban skyscrapers, sprawling country mansions, ivy-covered prep schools, vacation homes in the Hamptons. These are the outward symbols of an entrenched oligarchy, the political-economic ruling class portrayed by the media that entertains us and the conspiracy theories that animate the darker corners of the American imagination. The reality of American wealth and power is more banal. The conspicuously consuming celebrities and jet-setting cosmopolitans of popular imagination exist, but they are far outnumbered by a less exalted and less discussed elite group, one that sits at the pinnacle of the local hierarchies that govern daily life for tens of millions of people. Donald Trump grasped this group’s existence and its importance, acting, as he often does, on unthinking but effective instinct. When he crowed about his “beautiful boaters,” lauding the flotillas of supporters trailing MAGA flags from their watercraft in his honour, or addressed his devoted followers among a rioting January 6 crowd that included people who had flown to the event on private jets, he knew what he was doing. Trump was courting the support of the American gentry, the salt-of-the-earth millionaires who see themselves as local leaders in business and politics, the unappreciated backbone of a once-great nation.

This class of people exists all over the United States, usually in midsize metropolitan areas such as Yakima, Washington, the agricultural city where I grew up, 140 miles southeast of Seattle, the Pacific Northwest’s largest metro. According to the prominent sign on the freeway outside town, Yakima is the “Palm Springs of Washington.” The sign is one of the few things outsiders tend to remember about Yakima, along with the excellent cheeseburgers from Miner’s and one of the nation’s worst COVID-19 outbreaks. I loved Parks and Recreation because it accurately portrayed life in a place like Yakima: a city that isn’t small and serves as the hub for a dispersed chunk of rural territory, but that isn’t tightly connected to a major metropolitan area. But Parks and Rec is an exception. Places like Yakima and Parks and Rec’s fictional Pawnee don’t figure prominently in the country’s popular imagination or its political narratives: San Luis Obispo, California; Odessa, Texas; Bloomington, Illinois; Medford, Oregon; Hilo, Hawaii; Dothan, Alabama; Green Bay, Wisconsin. Yakima isn’t a tiny hamlet; it has a population of about 90,000 and sits at the heart of an extended metropolitan area that’s home to nearly a quarter of a million people. Millions of Americans live in small metropolitan areas much like it: exurban, surrounded by rural territory and wilderness, but not exactly isolated in the middle of nowhere. Seattle is only a two-hour drive away through the towering Cascade mountains, but it’s an entirely different world culturally, politically, and economically.

Yakima is a place I love dearly and have returned to often since I left, but I’ve never lived there again on a permanent basis. The same is true for many of my close high-school classmates: If they left for college, most have never returned for longer than a few months at a time. Practically all of them now live in major metro areas scattered across the country, not our hometown. The kinds of jobs they are now qualified for—in corporate or management consulting, non-profits, media, and finance—don’t really exist in Yakima. Yakima’s economy revolved then, and revolves to an ever greater extent now, around commercial agriculture. As a result, the whole region is dominated by its wealthy, largely agricultural property-owning class. They mostly owned, and still own, fruit companies: apples, cherries, peaches, and now hops and wine grapes. The other large-scale industries in the region, particularly commercial construction, are essentially economically downstream from agriculture: These companies pave the roads on which fruits and vegetables are transported to transhipment points, build the warehouses where the produce is stored, and so on. Commercial agriculture is a lucrative industry, at least for those who own the orchards, the cold-storage units, the processing facilities, and the large businesses that cater to them.

The owners have a trusted and reasonably well-paid cadre of managers and specialists in law, finance, and the like—members of the educated professional-managerial class that my close classmates and I have joined—but the large majority of their employees are lower-wage laborers. The owners are mostly white; the laborers are mostly Latino, a significant portion of them undocumented immigrants who often work under brutally difficult circumstances. Ownership of the real, core assets is where the region’s wealth comes from, and it doesn’t extend down the social hierarchy. Yet this bounty is enough to produce hilltop mansions, a few high-end restaurants, and a staggering array of expensive vacation homes in Hawaii, Palm Springs, and the San Juan Islands. These elites’ wealth derives not from their salary—this is what separates them from even extremely prosperous members of the professional-managerial class, such as doctors and lawyers—but from their ownership of assets. Those assets vary depending on where in the country we’re talking about; they could be a bunch of McDonald’s franchises in Jackson, Mississippi; a beef-processing plant in Lubbock, Texas; a construction company in Billings, Montana; commercial properties in Portland, Maine; or a car dealership in western North Carolina. Even the less prosperous parts of the United States generate enough surplus to produce a class of wealthy people. Depending on the political culture and institutions of a locality or region, this elite class might wield more or less political power. In some places, it has an effective stranglehold over what gets done; in others, it’s important but not all-powerful.

snip

September 27, 2021

The Atlantic Daily: Our Critic's Fall TV Guide

Get ready for fall TV. Here are seven premieres to put on your calendar.

https://www.theatlantic.com/newsletters/archive/2021/09/our-critics-fall-tv-guide/620210/



As with most years in our age of “peak TV,” this fall comes with a cascade of shows to check out. To help you choose what to watch, I’ve compiled seven new and returning titles worth adding to your list:







snip