Rei da meditação, lindo, fofo: Afinal, existe algum defeito em Cauã Reymond?

Guilherme Machado
·3 minutos de leitura
Existe algum defeito em Cauã Reymond? Foto: Reprodução/Instagram (@cauareymond)
Existe algum defeito em Cauã Reymond? Foto: Reprodução/Instagram (@cauareymond)

Então, Cauã Reymond recentemente conseguiu, pra variar, enfeitiçar a internet, quando ele e a mulher, Mariana Goldfarb, posaram abraçados e nus para uma foto. A imagem causou alvoroço pela beleza o casal, e, como Cauã já tinha sido notícia um pouco antes por outro motivo, ressurge uma velha pergunta: afinal das contas, existe algum defeitinho sequer em Cauã?

Baixe o app do Yahoo Mail em menos de 1 minuto e receba todos os seus e-mails em um só lugar

Siga o Yahoo Vida e Estilo no Google News

Siga o Yahoo Vida e Estilo no Instagram, Facebook e Twitter

Bem, vamos listar alguns fatos que, para falar francamente, mostram que o mais provável é que essa resposta seja não:

Lindo

View this post on Instagram

A post shared by Cauã Reymond (@cauareymond) on

Ok, há praticamente um consenso universal sobre esse tópico, e isso só ficou mais evidente depois da foto que Cauã e Mariana postaram. Cauã é muito lindo, daquele que provoca suspiros e faz a gente se questionar se está olhando para uma miragem, e todo mundo concorda, etc, etc. Podemos seguir em frente. Mas só para não deixar passar: Mariana também é maravilhosa demais.

Leia também

Talentoso

View this post on Instagram

A post shared by Cauã Reymond (@cauareymond) on

Outro ponto que fica evidente é o fato de que Cauã é um ator talentoso, que claro, cativa o público com seu carisma, mas tem consegue convencer nos papéis que interpreta. É fato que quando começou Cauã não era dos melhores, algo que ele mesmo admite. Mas o importante é que ele estudou, se esforçou e hoje visto como um dos atores indispensáveis na telinha. Justamente por isso, o público mal pode esperar para vê-lo de novo, e, francamente, com razão.

Preocupado com saúde

View this post on Instagram

A post shared by Cauã Reymond (@cauareymond) on

Recentemente, Cauã firmou uma parceria com um aplicativa para ajudar as pessoas a dormirem e por conta disso deu uma série de entrevistas falando sobre como vê a importância da meditação. Sim, acredite, ele pratica meditação, além de treinar, e praticar outros esportes. Enquanto isso, a gente baba de inveja por aqui.

Gente fina

View this post on Instagram

A post shared by Cauã Reymond (@cauareymond) on

Cauã também sempre se mostrou muito simpático, especialmente durante o período de isolamento, no qual tem promovido uma série de lives descontraídas em seu Instagram, mostrando o mesmo carisma de sempre. E, seja sincero: se ele passar por você e mandar aquele sorriso dele, você provavelmente vai se abalar, nem que só um pouquinho.

Preocupado com causas

View this post on Instagram

A post shared by Cauã Reymond (@cauareymond) on

Como se não bastasse tudo isso, Cauã já se mostrou engajado com diversas causas sociais, como a defesa dos direitos LGBT, dos animais e do meio ambiente, fazendo postagens sobre os temas em suas redes. Com tudo isso, fica bem, mas bem difícil apontar um defeito, não é mesmo?

Latest Stories

  • EU wants better coordination on virus, announces summit

    European Commission President Ursula von der Leyen said Wednesday that the bloc must rise above its fragmented approach on dealing with the coronavirus by centralizing more decision-making on health issues. Von der Leyen fully acknowledged the fragile state that the pandemic has left EU in, with the death toll closing in on 150,000 and the economy facing the worst slump in the bloc's history. To counter this, von der Leyen said she wants more money poured into research and development and more powers going to EU-wide institutions like the European Medicines Agency.

  • Japan's Hitachi pulls out of UK nuclear project

    Work on a major new nuclear power station in Britain will stop after Japanese company Hitachi pulled out of the project. Hitachi halted work on the Horizon Project, located in Wylfa, on the Welsh island of Anglesey.

  • Ad•United Naturals

    Por que você não gostou deste anúncio?

    Obrigado por seu feedback. Removeremos isso e faremos as alterações necessárias.

    Dr. Pedre warns bad effects of meatless burgers

    Frequent guest on Dr. Oz and Good Morning America, Dr. Vincent Pedre is begging Americans to stop eating these veggie burgers. Here's Why...

  • How the CDC failed local public health officials fighting the coronavirus

    The CDC should have protected America from coronavirus. But it misled locals as COVID deaths rose. Even supporters call its testing plans a mistake.

  • Coronavirus: Trump insists ‘herd mentality’ will end pandemic, as US death toll creeps toward 200,000

    President denies scientists’ warnings with apparent reference to group immunity

  • Seoul: N. Korea may conduct underwater-launched missile test

    North Korea may soon conduct its first underwater-launched ballistic missile test in about a year, a South Korean military official said Wednesday, amid long-stalled nuclear talks between the North and the United States. In written remarks to lawmakers ahead of a confirmation hearing, Won In-choul, the nominee for chairman of South Korea’s Joint Chiefs of Staff, said North Korea has been repairing recent typhoon damage at its northeastern Sinpo shipyard, a place where it builds submarines. Shortly after the repairs are complete, there is a chance it will carry out a submarine-launched ballistic missile test, Won said.

  • Ad•Past Factory

    Por que você não gostou deste anúncio?

    Obrigado por seu feedback. Removeremos isso e faremos as alterações necessárias.

    96-Year-Old Puts Her House On Market, Look Inside

    An elderly woman was ready to put her home up for sale until real estate agents walked inside.

  • The conservatives who want to undo the Enlightenment

    Conservative thought in America is becoming more radical. Which means that it's reverting to the form it often took in other times — in Europe in the wake of the French Revolution, in reaction to the liberalism of the Enlightenment.Unlike the tamer conservatism of the postwar decades, today's conservative critics don't locate the source of their discontent within the liberal tradition — with the Progressive movement or the New Deal, for example, or the sexual revolution of the 1960s and '70s. Instead, the most influential and cogent conservatives of the present — among them Patrick Deneen of the University of Notre Dame, Adrian Vermeule of Harvard Law School, and Sohrab Ahmari of The New York Post — take aim at the liberal tradition itself and suggest that our problems stem from errors that have marked it from the beginning.The indictment runs like this: The original liberal theorists — including Thomas Hobbes, John Locke, and the American constitutional framers — aimed to inspire the creation of individualistic societies in which people actively cut themselves loose from tradition and other moral constraints in pursuit of a life of ever-purer liberation. Many if not all of our challenges and difficulties — from moral decay to capitalist decadence to widespread anxiety and depression — flow from this original liberal goal, which has largely been achieved. The only effective way to respond to these challenges and difficulties is therefore to reject liberalism from top to bottom and look for another basis on which to found political and social life.It's a powerful critique. But what would it mean to see it through — to truly break free from liberalism, to create a fully post-liberal society? How would our lives change? What would our fellow citizens believe? How would they think and live?The answer, I fear, is that they would think and live an awful lot like that portion of the American population today that sees the ongoing pandemic largely as an act of God that we should just accept without doing much by way of control or mitigation. A reporter at a recent Trump rally spoke to attendees who expressed this outlook. One is quoted as saying "I'm not afraid to die. The Good Lord takes care of me. If I die, I die.”That is the pre-liberal outlook that would be more fully revived and encouraged if today's radical right-wing critics of liberalism get their way.The early modern proto-liberals who helped to inspire the Enlightenment had several aims, but a key one was the promulgation of an account of human origins that could serve as an alternative to the biblical narrative. The Bible describes the original human beings as created by God and placed in paradise. With their first sin — disobeying the command to refrain from eating fruit from the tree of knowledge of good and evil — Adam and Eve are cast out of Eden to make their way in the world. But they are not abandoned by God, who continues to take a keen interest in his creation.The remainder of the Hebrew Bible tells the story of one specially favored group of human beings as they oscillate between pious obedience and a mixture of disobedience and indifference toward the divine. At no point is God's providence and overarching concern withdrawn. The Christian New Testament expands on this story, adding the promise of redemption from sin at the hands of humanity's savior and the gratuitous gift of eternal life after death.The first liberal thinkers were convinced that the biblical outlook had landed Europe in a mess. With most people certain their fate was in the hands of an all-powerful, all-knowing, and transcendentally good God, the norm was passivity before nature, priests, and princes. As a result, European life was marked by poverty, ignorance, violence, and tyranny. To change this, people needed to be persuaded that it was unwise to put their faith in divine providence. They needed to recognize an imperative to take matters into their own hands — to devote themselves to a kind of humanistic self-help program."God will provide,” said the pious. To which the proto-liberals responded, "No, he will not.”These writers helped to effect this change of view by proposing an alternative to the biblical account of human origins in a Garden of Eden. In this "state of nature,” men and women are alone, struggling to survive and prosper without a divine overseer, needing to protect ourselves in a harsh and indifferent universe. It was up to us to devise a foundation for government that would secure minimal social goods — life, liberty, property, and (in the most fortunate of circumstances) the "commodious living” made possible by the division of labor and commercial activity.The early liberal promise was this: If you stop passively expecting God to provide for you, it will become possible to create a world far more hospitable to human flourishing — with good (or at least less predatory) government, tolerance for freedom of worship, an economy that over time produces increasing prosperity for all, education that allows for scientific, technical, and medical advances to make life longer, easier, less painful, and more pleasurable. All of this and more is within our reach. But no one will provide it for us. We need to take responsibility for ourselves and act to achieve it.This vision of a self-reliant human future helped to inspire the Enlightenment and ultimately transformed the world, creating societies shaped by leaps in scientific knowledge, wealth, travel, communications, and health care. It made a world in which a new virus could arise and spread across the globe in a matter of weeks — but also a world in which most of us knew it was coming, could try to prepare for it by changing our behavior, and begin working to devise therapeutic treatments and a vaccine to hold down the death toll.But of course all of that depends on people maintaining the early liberal's disenchanted outlook on the human situation. If large numbers of people begin to reassert a biblical view in which the proper existential stance is one of obedience to higher powers that are presumed to reward and punish us — if we start once again to treat such misfortunes as viruses, hurricanes, and wild fires as providential acts of God we must passively accept — we will lose our edge in the battle to defend and expand the boundaries of a world made more habitable by human effort and ingenuity.A post-liberal world would be an awful lot like the pre-liberal world. Remember that the next time you read an author making the case for a more radical, even revolutionary, form of conservatism — or hear an unmasked person at a public rally say, "The Good Lord takes care of me. If I die, I die.”That's the sound of the post-liberal world being born.More stories from theweek.com Facebook and Twitter suspend teen accounts tied to Turning Point's domestic right-wing 'troll farm' Trump says he'll be on Fox & Friends every week — but host Steve Doocy doesn't agree to have him Jimmy Fallon, Seth Meyers, and Trevor Noah ponder why Trump superfans still trust him with their lives

  • America's broken promise to Black people

    There's a familiar promise embedded in my head: You can become anything.Parents, teachers, pastors, graduation speakers, and even melodically-gifted Sesame Street muppet characters repeated that promise to me when I was a child. But as a Black kid growing up in Oklahoma, I'd also hear another refrain, one that rebuffed "proper English": We can't have nothing. I knew I'd spend my life balancing the promise of endless possibility for personal achievement with the reality that Black folk in America can't seem to have anything — or at least, we can't have anything permanently.My parents and grandparents came to America in the 1960s and '70s from Jamaica. By almost every measure, my parents have achieved the American Dream. My dad and mom, though they did not receive their college degrees until well into their 40s, have established themselves in their careers. My dad climbed rung after slippery rung to high levels of management in a company he has spent his life helping. And my mom is a nurse with nearly 30 years of experience. They forged their own paths in this country, moving far from the excitement of New York for the enduringly flat and predictable state of Oklahoma. They bought a home in which to raise their three kids. They did everything in their power to ensure their own children had access to opportunity.And in many ways, it worked. All of us went to college. I went to grad school — twice — and picked up three degrees from institutions that made me look around wondering how I got there and if I was good enough to stay because so few of my fellow students looked like me.One sibling, who finished college two years ago, is working actively in criminal justice reform and is considering law school. He actually has the time to take a break from college, which he attended on a full-ride scholarship, to work on changing the world, or at least a piece of it, before going to what will likely be a highly-ranked law school. My other sibling is still in school but studying for the GRE to prepare for a Ph.D., or perhaps a Master's degree, or perhaps time doing work elsewhere. But she has that thing that my grandparents immigrated here to achieve: optionality. My siblings each have a choice in their own destinies — or at least I hope they do.Jacob Blake likely thought that all the struggle and mire his ancestors and their counterparts endured gave him that same privilege. His grandparents, like my own, had survived far too much racism for their children to become anything but exactly what they desired. According to Blake's dad, "My father was there for the first march in Washington. He went through Selma to Montgomery. He went across the Edmund Pettus. He marched for open housing in Evanston, Illinois."Yet Blake was nearly killed by police for making the relatively benign decision to leave his car and break up a fight.You can become anything. But we can't have nothing. I used to think that in my home, I'd be safe, so long as I didn't leave the house looking like the "threat" some white people fear I could be fine. But then Breonna Taylor did that. She chose to be in her house, yet she was the target of a deadly ambush by police officers.The list goes on. And the longer that list grows, the more I'm convinced that, underpinning the resistance to our objection to being murdered is the not-so-subtle notion that we, Black folks, clamoring to leave the margins, are asking for too much. Some feel we have been given enough; how could we want more? They'll use stories of my family — Black folks "succeeding" — as a sign that we have enough and, more dangerously, that my family's trajectory is the pathway by which all Black people should be expected to "succeed."It's worth saying that standing with Black folks — saying that we matter, acknowledging that we've endured more pain than we can bear — might rob you of your ability to become anything you want to be, too. This is what happened to three white protesters — Joseph Rosenbaum, Anthony Huber, and Gaige Grosskreutz — who were shot while standing against police brutality in Kenosha, Wisconsin, in August. Two of them died. A 17-year-old white kid named Kyle Rittenhouse has been charged with their murder.I still believe that if I live long enough, the adage my mother and father, my teachers and pastors, Big Bird and Elmo, and every other inspirational character seeded in my young mind, could, in fact, come true. But no matter how much I may accomplish, killing after killing after killing reminds me that I cannot become enough of a person to retain the ability to choose freely to live. Because, for Black people in America, the favorable promise of becoming anything is outweighed by the reality of having nothing.Want more essential commentary and analysis like this delivered straight to your inbox? Sign up for The Week's "Today's best articles" newsletter here.More stories from theweek.com Facebook and Twitter suspend teen accounts tied to Turning Point's domestic right-wing 'troll farm' Trump says he'll be on Fox & Friends every week — but host Steve Doocy doesn't agree to have him Jimmy Fallon, Seth Meyers, and Trevor Noah ponder why Trump superfans still trust him with their lives

  • One good thing to come out of the pandemic: reservations everywhere

    A few weeks ago, I visited the Seattle Kraken team store, where I was stopped outside for a routine COVID-19 screening. After having my temperature taken and answering a couple of questions, I was then asked for my ticket that showed I had a reservation for the 4:20 p.m. entry time.Making a reservation to go shopping for hockey swag seemed at first like the sort of startling but minor inconvenience typical of the COVID-19 era, a way to reduce the store's anticipated crowds so masked shoppers could maintain proper distance indoors. But as everything from team stores to museums, galleries, gyms, parks, and ski areas adopt similar reservation requirements this fall, it seems as if we are no longer witnessing a temporary phenomenon. A widespread switch to reservation systems — if done right — could in fact be one of the better changes to come out of the pandemic upheaval.Reservation systems were the subject of heated debate even prior to the pandemic, with many such measures only being implemented now out of sheer necessity. In particular, politicians and visitors bristled at certain National Parks considering reservation systems in order to prevent overcrowding; Sen. Mitt Romney (R) and the rest of Utah's congressional delegation cautioned the Department of the Interior against "pursuing burdensome visitor limitations and reservation systems" at Zion National Park in February of this year, while heated debates took place in 2018 over the suggestion of doing the same at Arches. "Can you imagine driving up to the Grand Canyon and a sign says, 'Sorry we're full'? It's just not right," one opponent told Moab Sun News. Meanwhile the Glenstone, a reservation-only Maryland museum "designed around visitor experience rather than maximizing the number of visitors who cross its threshold," was criticized as being potentially elitist for such a policy, The Washington Post wrote at the time. Needless to say, people really, really seem to dislike reservations. And for anyone who's ever walked up to a restaurant only to be snootily asked, "well, do you have a reservation?" before being turned away, it's understandable to balk.At the heart of the debates leading up to this point was the question of if the payoff of a higher-quality experience — actually seeing Old Faithful without having to stand on your tip-toes behind throngs of tourists, or being able to contemplate Yayoi Kusama's "Infinity Mirrors" for more than 30 seconds before being shooed out by a stopwatch-wielding attendant — outweighs the value of unimpeded access. With the pandemic, though, the decision was pretty much made for us: more people bad. It's turning out there's a bit of truth to that and an even more compelling argument has emerged: that people deserve quality access, not just one or the other.As the phrase suggests, that requires balance, which is a tricky thing to ask of businesses and nonprofits that are under orders to, say, not open at more than 25 percent capacity right now, but are surely hurting due to the low attendance (one study, for example, found that 1 in 8 museums worldwide might not be able to reopen after the pandemic). As much as I'd selfishly like for the MoMA or my local gym to require reservations and continue capping at only a quarter capacity after the pandemic, it's obviously not realistic. Instead, there might be sense to following a common restaurant model of accepting majority reservations, but keeping a limited number of day-of, walk-up spots available for spontaneous visitors (or the poor planners). Or maybe a few days a month could be set aside for reservations-only visitors. The plus sides are obvious: in addition to reducing the number of visitors at any given point in the day, it saves you time waiting in line (and ends the possibility of showing up to the gym for a run, only to realize there are no open treadmills).There are nevertheless risks, including the absolute worst version of this model, which would see institutions charging a premium rate for reservations to make up for the smaller number of paying entrants, and which tips the balance too heavily toward quality over access. Other downsides might look like what can be encountered in Japan, where some reservations have become so exclusive that there are entire services that exist to help you try to get one. Another concern is the threat of rebellious overflow; many ski areas, for example, are preparing reservation systems for this winter, which is making some people nervous that the plan will backfire. Jon Miller, the founder of Backcountry United, told Colorado's Summit Daily News that he is worried about what skiers and snowboarders might do if they can't get in through Vail Resort's new reservation system. "If they can't go skiing on a powder day with a chairlift, then naturally they are going to go somewhere else, and that's where the national forests are going to be that somewhere else," he said — which is scary, because of the threat of avalanches or off-the-grid injuries. Still, there's no easy fix for having something become so popular that the demand swamps the supply of space or product, reservation system or no (see: cronuts). At least with reservations, you might ensure that when you do finally get admitted, you can enjoy an experience that was worth the wait.Even skeptics have started to come around after experiencing the rollout of reservation systems during the pandemic. "I love to go to the park on the spur of the moment," one visitor wrote in an email to Rocky Mountain National Park officials, as reported by 5280; the park introduced its timed-entry permits in June. "But I've done timed entry [three times] now and have changed my mind," the visitor went on. "I love it. The park was so overused the past several years and it has been a pleasure to be back up there with a lot less people." Another visitor wrote that "we hope the newly implemented reservation system becomes permanent … It made the park experience SO much better!!"There is plenty to happily leave behind when the pandemic is over: masks, skin-cracking hand sanitizers, Zoom happy hours. But reservations? Sign me right up — 5 p.m. sounds great.More stories from theweek.com Facebook and Twitter suspend teen accounts tied to Turning Point's domestic right-wing 'troll farm' Trump says he'll be on Fox & Friends every week — but host Steve Doocy doesn't agree to have him Jimmy Fallon, Seth Meyers, and Trevor Noah ponder why Trump superfans still trust him with their lives

  • Ad•Thedelite

    Por que você não gostou deste anúncio?

    Obrigado por seu feedback. Removeremos isso e faremos as alterações necessárias.

    Mechanics Strongly Warn Against Buying These Cars

    25 of the worst rated cars on the market, hope you don't own one!

  • Barbados to remove Queen Elizabeth II as head of state and declare republic

    ‘The time has come to fully leave our colonial past behind,’ says PM

  • Coronavirus updates: Donald Trump denies downplaying virus; Texas nears 700K cases; India surpasses 5M cases; 195K US deaths

    India surpassed 5 million cases while Texas neared 700,000 infections. Pfizer reported 'potential' with vaccine candidate. Latest COVID-19 news.

  • Late night hosts really enjoy watching Trump being 'Fox & Friend-zoned' by Steve Doocy

    President Trump's campaign raised $1.1 billion, blew through $800 million, and now he's being outspent by Joe Biden on TV, Stephen Colbert said on Tuesday's Late Show. "But Trump gets plenty of free airtime. This morning he phoned it in to his friendly friends at the Fox & Friends," and "after 47 long minutes, the friendly Fox interview finally wrapped up with Trump making it clear he wants to do it again soon, and repeatedly." He got a hard maybe from his Fox friends, Colbert noted. "I just think Steve Doocy's not that into you.""President Trump called in to Fox & Friends this morning and announced he will now appear on the show once a week," Seth Meyers said at Late Night, "though he didn't say exactly why he's cutting back,""It will only be one call a week, and 168 hours per call," Jimmy Fallon suggested at The Tonight Show. "I'm not surprised Fox had to schedule a weekly call with Trump; he's like your relative who always calls at the worst times." Trump told his Fox friends he read Bob Woodward's entire "boring" 480-page book Monday night, and Fallon was skeptical: "Please, I have more faith in there being a real vaccine before the election. ... The only way Trump finished a book in one night is if he ate it."Doocy seemed pretty done by the time Trump signed off, Fallon added. "You know it's been a great chat when the person you're talking to says exactly how many minutes it's been.""Wow, Steve Doocy just told the president of the United States, 'Don't call us, we'll call you," Trevor Noah marveled at The Daily Show. "He's the most powerful man in the world, and they're treating him like he's a Jehovah's Witness who's also selling time-shares. And the fact that Doocy even knew that it was 47 minutes just shows you how annoyed he was. Not 45 minutes, not an hour, 47 minutes exactly. That's someone who spent most of a conversation staring their watch.""I think Trump just got Fox & Friend-zoned," James Corden zinged on The Late Late Show, and "it was awkward." For perspective, he said, "this show isn't even 47 minutes long -- and think about how long this feels some nights. After 47 minutes of talking on Fox News, Trump finally had to get off the phone and go back to his other major responsibility, watching Fox News." Watch below. More stories from theweek.com Facebook and Twitter suspend teen accounts tied to Turning Point's domestic right-wing 'troll farm' Trump says he'll be on Fox & Friends every week — but host Steve Doocy doesn't agree to have him Jimmy Fallon, Seth Meyers, and Trevor Noah ponder why Trump superfans still trust him with their lives

  • Ad•Elite Herald

    Por que você não gostou deste anúncio?

    Obrigado por seu feedback. Removeremos isso e faremos as alterações necessárias.

    Missing Satellite Reappears With Weird Message

    The U.S. satellite was missing for 50 years.

  • This is the most crowded trade of all-time: Morning Brief

    Top news and what to watch in the markets on Wednesday, September 16, 2020.

  • How the Trump-Russia story was buried

    The biggest political story of 2016-19 was largely wrapped up this August, and it only made a blip in the news. The Senate Select Committee on Intelligence (SSCI) published the final volume of its enormous investigation into how the Russian government influenced the 2016 election, this time focusing on how the Trump campaign was involved (what has become known as "Russiagate"). Remarkably, the committee is led by Republicans due to their Senate majority — a reasonable sign it was a credible investigation. Since then, there has been a steady drip of reporting about Russia's apparent effort to influence this year's election, like President Trump's own Treasury Department sanctioning a Ukrainian friend of Rudy Giuliani for allegedly doing just that.This volume of the report is nearly 1,000 pages long, but at bottom the story is pretty simple. Essentially, the suspicion your average ordinary liberal had from the start was correct. The Trump campaign did conspire in secret (as well as openly) with Russian intelligence. The Trump campaign knew Russia was behind the email hacking of Hillary Clinton's campaign manager John Podesta and the Democratic National Committee, and very likely coordinated with WikiLeaks about the emails being dribbled out in a fashion calculated to inflict maximum damage to Clinton.It's peculiar that the resolution of this story — which dominated front pages for months on end — has not gotten more attention. Part of the explanation, no doubt, is the coronavirus pandemic, ongoing economic crisis, and looming election. But another is how the Russiagate story hits the blind spots of practically every American political faction. Many liberals and conservatives succumbed to paranoia about the story, while many leftists took that paranoia as proof the story was nothing. So it was buried.But first, the details of this latest report. SSCI found that Trump's former campaign chairman Paul Manafort (who was convicted of multiple counts of bank and tax fraud as part of the Mueller investigation), was in regular contact with Konstantin Kilimnik, a Russian intelligence agent. Manafort gave him regular updates of confidential Trump campaign information, including polling and strategy details. Kilimnik was likely part of the Russian hacking effort, and he was also in close connection with the Russian oligarch Oleg Deripaska, a Putin ally who was a part of the hack as well.Meanwhile, WikiLeaks (which distributed the hacked emails) "actively sought, and played, a key role in the Russian influence campaign and very likely knew it was assisting a Russian intelligence influence effort," the report states. The Trump campaign was aware multiple sources had attributed the hack to Russia, and "sought to obtain advance information about WikiLeaks's planned releases through Roger Stone," who did indeed reach out to WikiLeaks privately. Though SSCI could not confirm Stone actually delivered any non-public information, "Trump and the campaign believed that Stone had inside information and expressed satisfaction that Stone's information suggested more releases would be forthcoming."In sum, the Trump campaign worked with the right-wing authoritarian government of Russia, which illegally stole private communications and leveraged them to corrupt the democratic process by tricking the American people about which candidate was more corrupt. The "emails" story got more front-page New York Times coverage in six days than all policy topics combined got in 69 days — drowning out coverage of the dozen-plus far worse Trump corruption stories.These conclusions add details and certainty to the report published by Special Counsel Robert Mueller back in 2019, which found multiple instances of Trump at least attempting (and arguably succeeding) to obstruct the investigation, and related other meetings Trump campaign operatives had with Russian intelligence, but did not complete the Kilimnik story, nor confirm the Stone back channel.Recall that before the Mueller report was made public, Attorney General (and shameless Trump stooge) William Barr lied through his teeth about what it said. And wouldn't you know it, new reporting also calls into question another aspect of the Mueller report that supposedly exonerated Trump — that his investigators found no direct connection between the president and Russia. Michael Schmidt of The New York Times reports that in 2017, then-Deputy Attorney General Rod Rosenstein instructed Mueller not to directly investigate Trump's ties with Russia. Rosenstein also did not tell the FBI brass, which had opened its own investigation, that he did this. In other words, Mueller found no direct connection between Trump and Russia because he was instructed not to look into it.There are still some missing pieces to the story (and the SSCI report has many redactions), but the basic outline of the story is there for those with eyes to see. In retrospect, we can see how the Russiagate story unfortunately played into the biases of various political factions. The neocon NeverTrump center-right naturally found it most compelling, with its Cold War bad guy. They folded the Russia story into their broader politics, arguing that this proved Trump was weak on national security and what America needs is to stand up to Vladimir Putin. "The Trump presidency’s connections to Russia are a national-security issue first, a criminal-justice issue only second," as David Frum wrote at The Atlantic in 2018. But this stance plainly does not play well in a country that is ever-more exhausted with war and wary of international conflicts. Given the lack of appetite for a confrontation with Russia, the neocons have resigned themselves to political defeat, at least for the moment.The center-left also found the story appealing at first, and gave rapt coverage to every twist and turn of the Mueller investigation. Some of them, like anonymous business consultant turned Resistance Twitter celebrity Eric Garland, went completely off the deep end over it, while others like MSNBC's Rachel Maddow allowed it to displace coverage of practically every other story for a time. Others have written hyperbolic stories about Russian spying, like a recent Daily Beast article that trumps up a Russian "infiltration" operation of left-wing magazines that amounted to a garbled unsolicited pitch. But even among relatively sensible commentators and politicians there was a hopeful expectation that Mueller would be the one to nail Trump, thereby excusing the Democratic leadership from having to do politics. If all the loyal Republican patriots in the national security bureaucracy could bring Trump down for treason, then the republic could be saved without Democrats having to beat the GOP in the political arena.Alas, it was not to be. Multiple people in the Trump orbit did indeed get charged and convicted of crimes, but Trump has already commuted the sentence of WikiLeaks back channel Roger Stone, is signaling that other pardons will probably come, and he himself has skated on any accountability. Once it became clear that Mueller was not allowed to indict Trump despite his findings of very likely obstruction of justice, and that absolutely nothing could convince Senate Republicans to vote to remove him from office after he was impeached, the center-left largely gave up on the story too.All that said, elements of the left bungled the story worse than either of the previous two factions. The fact that neocons and the center-left were agreeing about something set off instinctive warning bells — and rightly so, because that often signals something terrible, like on October 10, 2002. It also seemed, again probably rightly, that the Democrats and the Clinton campaign were attempting to excuse their abysmal 2016 performance by blaming the loss on Russia. It wasn't our grossly unpopular candidate or her data whiz advisers deciding not to campaign in swing states that did it — it was dastardly foreigners!All those were important caveats to keep in mind. But they were no excuse to simply not examine the details of such a big story, much less baldly misrepresent them. Yet that is precisely what many ostensibly lefty voices have done. People like The Intercept's Glenn Greenwald and independent writers Michael Tracey and Matt Taibbi seized on every failed liberal prediction to cast doubt on the overall story. Then, when Barr released his lying summary of the Mueller report, they swallowed it hook, line, and sinker, gleefully declared victory, and concluded the whole thing was garbage. The summary proved the whole thing was "unhinged conspiratorial trash," wrote Greenwald. "It's official: Russiagate is this generation's WMD," wrote Taibbi. Tracey — perhaps the most tendentious Slatepitch contrarian writing today — had clockwork outbreaks of shrieking hysterics online for weeks over how "disgusting media scumbags" had perpetuated "a deranged 3-year hoax."Naturally, since the SSCI report came out weeks ago, none of them have updated their views, or indeed written a single word about it that I can find.Incidentally, this is an important lesson in how propaganda works. Taking a hard look at the evidence in a complicated story and coming to a measured conclusion with all the proper caveats is tedious and boring. Seizing on a convenient half- or quarter- or twentieth-truth, or straight-up falsehood, and loudly repeating it 10 million times sticks in people's minds. It works even better if you take that wrong belief, declare it to be proved beyond any question 10 million more times, and start furiously demanding recriminations from people who disagree with you.Thus, through a sustained campaign of ideological battering, Russiagate basically became a non-story on the left. People either came to believe that it was all nonsense, or they got so fed up with arguing with aggressive bad-faith B.S. that they figured it wasn't worth the bother. It was particularly jarring coming from Greenwald, who wrote an entire book back in 2011 about elite impunity with an extensive discussion about the Iran-Contra coverup — in which Barr was a central player. But when it was convenient to believe so, suddenly Barr was a reliable source.Moreover, this stance was pretty much exactly what Trump himself and his corrupt cronies said about the story.So, with moderate factions either way out over their skis or losing interest in the story, and the far right and some on the left agreeing it was not even real, the mainstream press largely lost interest as well. The SSCI report did get coverage, but it was largely perfunctory — wondering if voters would care about the story at all.The fact that a literally murderous right-wing autocrat meddled in the American political system and is very probably doing so again is a genuinely difficult analytical challenge. On the one hand, the neocons are wrong in their conclusions. Aggressive confrontation with Putin is half the reason the U.S. got into this mess in the first place, and what the U.S. needs above all right now is de-escalation and diplomacy, especially given how tensions have ratcheted up between American and Russian forces on the ground in various places (apparently over disputes regarding control of Syria).But on the other hand, the left contrarians are also wrong. This is not a fake, overhyped story — on the contrary, it's one of the biggest stories of political corruption and white-collar criminality in decades, and should by rights be towards the top of the Trump administration's very long list of crimes.Finally, contrary to the hopes of the center-left, Trump will not be held to account by a Senate committee or law enforcement agencies on their own. The only way for it to happen at this point is for Joe Biden to win the presidency and then commit to exercising his power to make it happen. Greenwald was right about elite impunity in 2011 (as was Taibbi when he wrote a similar book in 2014). It was a terrible mistake for President Obama to sweep all the Bush administration's torture crimes under the rug, and doing so again with Trump's record might well doom America's democratic institutions. When people in power get away with crimes, sooner or later outright criminals will get into high office and start stealing elections.Biden is probably going to resist seriously investigating Trump. It would help encourage him if all Americans in favor of the rule of law could agree that his crimes are, in fact, crimes, even if it means momentarily agreeing with some MSNBC liberals.More stories from theweek.com Facebook and Twitter suspend teen accounts tied to Turning Point's domestic right-wing 'troll farm' Trump says he'll be on Fox & Friends every week — but host Steve Doocy doesn't agree to have him Jimmy Fallon, Seth Meyers, and Trevor Noah ponder why Trump superfans still trust him with their lives

  • We need better emergency powers laws

    The defining uncertainty of the COVID-19 pandemic isn't limited to the science of the thing, though certainly confusion there abounds six months in. The other locus of confusion is in the legal realm: What can the government actually make us do? Are mask mandates constitutional? What about stay-at-home orders? Curfews? Business shutdowns? Church closures? Can they do that?Judging by the proliferation of court cases probing these questions nationwide, this isn't only a confusion among the general public, and it is a confusion we need to clear up. As this crisis winds down and we return to a "peacetime" footing, state legislatures and city councils should prioritize crafting — and perhaps even submitting for public referendum — specific emergency powers legislation that avoids the same uncertainty in turmoil to come. We shouldn't have to wonder if a public health order is legal or merely an official whim, and grants of emergency powers should be circumscribed by the Constitution and reflective of the will of the people.In our present straits, the repercussions of legal confusion have been grave. Consider Pennsylvania, where U.S. District Judge William Stickman IV ruled Monday that several strict COVID-19 containment measures imposed by Gov. Tom Wolf (D) were unconstitutional.As Stickman's decision details, Pennsylvania's pandemic response began with an emergency declaration by the governor. This proclamation vested Wolf "with extraordinary authority to take expansive action by executive order," Stickman writes. The governor's office coalesced a working group of unknown members which met privately and did not publish reports of its activity for the people who had to live by its choices. Mission creep set in. Initially temporary measures to "flatten the curve" evolved into indefinite measures to curtail transmission more generally. "[F]ormality," said testimony from the defense which Stickman quotes in his ruling, "was not the first thing on [group members'] minds."That lack of formality produced perhaps the most ridiculous of the orders Monday's decision struck down: the differentiation between "life-sustaining" and "non-life-sustaining" businesses. These are not terms defined in Pennsylvania law. Nor did the governor's working group bother to define them. "I'm not sure we wrote down anywhere what 'life-sustaining' meant," testified Sam Robinson, Wolf's deputy chief of staff. They just made a list, he said, from a "sort of common understanding."The list changed 10 times between March and May. It also shut down businesses that sold the same products as other businesses allowed to stay open. Several plaintiffs in the case had small, independent stores that were forced to close ("non-life-sustaining") while big box stores with inventory including the same products could stay open ("life-sustaining"). Customers who would have shopped locally went to Target or Home Depot instead. One plaintiff, owner of a small appliance and furniture shop, lost an estimated $300,000, a devastating sum.Arbitrary rules like this don't merely do economic harm. They also embarrass and undermine the entire pandemic response. They feed suspicion that the whole thing is overblown, that officials don't know what they're talking about — as, in the case of these categories, they literally did not. Imagine seeing years of your hard work mercilessly undone by some unidentified, unelected committee issuing policies now ruled illegal. I've been supportive of many pandemic response measures, but that is intolerable.It is also exactly the sort of mess which careful legislation, developed without the pressure, panic, and time constraints of an active crisis, could prevent.That the government has authority (called "police powers" and overwhelmingly vested in state and local governments) to issue public health regulations is not in real dispute. There's a long history of business closures, public assembly bans, travel restrictions, and quarantines being upheld in American courts. The Supreme Court affirmed "the authority of a state to enact quarantine laws and 'health laws of every description'" in Jacobson v. Massachusetts (1905), where the court upheld a statute allowing cities to mandate smallpox vaccines for nearly all residents. The same ruling says states' police powers permit "such reasonable regulations established directly by legislative enactments as will protect the public health and the public safety" (emphasis added).But many of worst pandemic measures of this year weren't established by legislators. They came from governors, like Wolf in Pennsylvania, claiming for themselves extensive executive authority. The notorious nursing home decision in New York was an executive order. So was Michigan's order forcing open stores to refuse to sell some "non-essential" products. Likewise local curfews, seen in Kansas, Michigan, and elsewhere, as if the virus behaves differently at night.Granted, legislative specificity is not a cure-all, as recent history demonstrates. The Jacobson ruling ends with a caveat that even properly legislated regulations could be "so arbitrary and oppressive ... as to justify the interference of the courts." But however great that risk may be with laws precisely defining emergency powers, it is far greater without them, winging it with the often chaotic and sometimes nonsensical ad hoc approach of this go-round. We've had too much power and not enough law.Wolf's plan was a "well-intended effort to protect Pennsylvanians from the virus," Stickman wrote in his ruling, but good intentions are insufficient when lives, liberties, and livelihoods are at stake. "Indeed," he continued, "the greatest threats to our system of constitutional liberties may arise when the ends are laudable and the intent is good — especially in time of emergency."There will always be controversy and confusion in a crisis, but surely we can do better than this. Unconstrained executive power is as troublemaking at the state level as it is at the federal. Legislation is the constraint we need.More stories from theweek.com Facebook and Twitter suspend teen accounts tied to Turning Point's domestic right-wing 'troll farm' Trump says he'll be on Fox & Friends every week — but host Steve Doocy doesn't agree to have him Jimmy Fallon, Seth Meyers, and Trevor Noah ponder why Trump superfans still trust him with their lives

  • Ad•System1 | Psoriasis | Search Ads

    Por que você não gostou deste anúncio?

    Obrigado por seu feedback. Removeremos isso e faremos as alterações necessárias.

    Don't Ignore Symptoms of Scalp Psoriasis

    Many people could have scalp psoriasis and not even know. Look for scalp psoriasis symptoms.

  • Madrid, Europe's pandemic hotspot, mulls targeted lockdowns

    The Spanish capital will introduce selective lockdowns in urban areas where the coronavirus is spreading faster, regional health authorities announced Wednesday. The measures in Madrid, including restrictions on mobility, will most likely affect southern, working-class neighbourhoods where virus contagion rates have been steadily soaring since August, deputy regional health chief Antonio Zapatero said at a press briefing. “Madrid wants to flatten the curve before the arrival of autumn and the complications that cold weather could bring,” Zapatero said, adding that the “drastic measures” to be taken will be decided by the weekend.

  • Trump news - live: President says ‘herd mentality’ will help Covid go away and ‘hopes’ US has no race problem

    Follow the latest updates

  • Campus quarantines, no spring break, Vermont’s progress: News from around our 50 states

    How the COVID-19 pandemic is affecting every state

  • Ad•System1 | Search Ads

    Por que você não gostou deste anúncio?

    Obrigado por seu feedback. Removeremos isso e faremos as alterações necessárias.

    Medicare Plan F Costs May Have Retirees Jumping

    The cost of medicare plans may come as a pleasant surprise. Look for medicare plan f prices.

  • EU chief says UK cannot change EU-UK withdrawal agreement

    European Commission President Ursula von der Leyen said Wednesday that the United Kingdom cannot unilaterally change the EU-UK bilateral withdrawal agreement without destroying global trust in the country. Insisting that chances for a future trade deal are slipping away by the day, von der Leyen told the European Union's legislature that plans by British Prime Minister Boris Johnson to renege on parts of the withdrawal agreement signed by both of them dimmed those hopes even further.

  • Cops Are Using Over $1 Billion in Post-9/11 Military Gear

    Texas highways are not and have never been strewn with homemade bombs. Yet Texas police have over 100 MRAPs, the armored vehicle with a blast-resistant hull that U.S. service members drove in Iraq and Afghanistan. Tennessee cops have 86 more. Ohio police have 43. It’s just one measure of how militarized American policing has become since 9/11. And it’s a component of a larger one. Police across the country still operate Pentagon-provided equipment, including lethal hardware, worth $1.6 billion, according to a new study from Brown University’s Cost of War Project. That number is an undercount—likely a substantial one—but it contains greater precision than the standard accounting for police acquisitions of surplus military equipment. The Rand Corporation recently tallied $775 million in such acquisitions between fiscal year 2015 and 2017 alone. But the Brown University researchers are tallying the most sensitive, “controlled” items provided by the Pentagon’s so-called 1033 Program, things like MRAPs and semi-automatic weapons, which remain in use since 9/11. Smaller-tier equipment, the “uncontrolled” stuff, falls off the Pentagon’s books after a year, so Brown can’t count it —except for the uncontrolled items that haven’t been in police storage lockers and motor pools that long. And even the controlled material, like in the Rand tally, eventually cycles out of use. (Also, the real acceleration in police spending comes not from Pentagon surplus but from Department of Homeland Security grants.) So while $1.6 billion accounts for only a fraction of the nation’s post-9/11 police militarization, it also represents the enduring aspect of that militarization—what remains in police inventories today. Consider it the runoff of endless war, or an index of how permanently the war on terror blurred the line between the police and the military. Jessica Katzenstein, the lead researcher on the study, said the full measure of the post-9/11 police militarization is also totaled “in the currencies of racialized violence, lost opportunities, and critical global analysis.”Beyond MRAPs, Katzenstein’s research finds other significant equipment transfers. Since 2005, Katzenstein tallies $77 million in parts for robotic systems, including unarmed drones or bomb-squad robots, that went from military hangars to police departments. That includes over 1000 “individual robot items.” A far more sensitive finding of the Cost of War Project concerns military personnel themselves. About 19 to 28 percent of police are veterans or reservists, compared to 7 percent of the general population. Their legacy is “complex,” Katzenstein writes, as “veteran-officers are more likely than non-veterans to have fired their service weapons at least once in their careers, and that they receive more complaints from civilians.” She cites a recent study that found, after controlling for relevant variables, “veteran-officers were more likely than non-veterans to have shot a civilian while in police uniform.”After widespread outrage over the heavily militarized 2014 police response to the Ferguson protests, the Obama administration curtailed the 1033 program, which began long before 9/11. In 2017, the Trump administration restored police access to the Pentagon hardware. “In reckoning with these costs, we must understand that militarization is not a dial that can be turned down by more tightly regulating equipment transfer programs, nor an issue that can be addressed in isolation – it is rooted in colonial and anti-Black violence and is in a sense as old as U.S. policing itself,” Katzenstein said. Read more at The Daily Beast.Get our top stories in your inbox every day. Sign up now!Daily Beast Membership: Beast Inside goes deeper on the stories that matter to you. Learn more.

  • Breonna Taylor won't get 'true justice' until officers are fired or convicted, protesters say

    Protesters say a civil settlement is a step toward justice for Breonna Taylor. But they still want the officers who shot her to be held accountable.