The Academy Award for hypocritical chutzpah during the Supreme Court nomination hearings goes to Sen. Sheldon Whitehouse, a Rhode Island Democrat, for his full conspiracy-theory rant about the supposed evils of the “dark money” supporting Amy Coney Barrett’s confirmation.



Sheldon Whitehouse wearing a suit and tie


© Provided by Washington Examiner


So-called dark money is political spending by nonprofit organizations that don’t disclose their donors’ names. To be clear, dark money exists, and it does have influence. The truth, though, is that dark money is more prevalent on the political Left as on the Right, and Whitehouse’s allies in leftist dark-money groups are working just as hard at defeating Barrett’s nomination as conservative groups are at confirming her. More pointedly, Whitehouse is a particularly avid purveyor of the same dark arts as those he loudly denounced during Tuesday’s hearing.

First, let’s consider Whitehouse’s stunning hypocrisy in shouting against “forces outside of this room who are pulling strings and pushing sticks and causing the public — puppet theater to react.” As the Wall Street Journal noted in more than a half-dozen editorials, Whitehouse has long been a star in the dark-money puppet theater. Sometimes, he plays Geppetto, sometimes Pinocchio, but he’s a major player either way. The Journal has noted a whole series of friend-of-the-court briefs filed in Whitehouse’s name but which were funded, or for which legal work was done, by either top campaign donors or suspected top donors to Whitehouse. The same paper also raised questions, never fully answered, about a particular example of when “the senator intervened for a [specific] company after campaign cash flowed.”

Among the dark money outfits about which the Journal wanted Whitehouse to disclose his ties were ones called Arabella Advisors, the Sixteen Thirty Fund, and Demand Justice. A watchdog group called Influence Watch keeps close tabs on those left-wing

CRISPR therapeutics inc, logo 2020

Graphic Source: CRISPR Therapeutics, Inc.

Introduction: What is CRISPR Therapeutics, Inc.?

CRISPR Therapeutics (NASDAQ:CRSP) is a gene-editing company focused on the development and versatile application of CRISPR/Cas9 therapeutics, a special brand of therapeutics used for precision genome editing by applying a viral defense mechanism from bacteria to regulate, disrupt, or correct genes related to key diseases. CRSP is currently targeting disease areas, including hemoglobinopathies, oncology, and regenerative medicines.

Founded in 2013 in Switzerland, CRSP has since grown to over 304 employees producing relatively inconsistent revenues ranging from $3M in 2018 to $290M in 2019 with expectations for 2020 at $6.7M. Their lead candidate is CTX001, an investigational autologous gene-edited hematopoietic stem cell therapy developed in partnership with Vertex Pharmaceuticals (NASDAQ:VRTX) for treating transfusion-dependent beta-thalassemia (“TDT”) and severe sickle cell disease (“SCD”).

Products: CRSP’s pipeline consists of 9 therapeutics: 4 in the clinical phase and 5 in the research phase. Of the 4 clinical phase therapeutics, the first targets TDT and SCD (mentioned above: CTX001), while the 3 others fall into immuno-oncology covering: CD19+ malignancies (Product: CTX110), multiple myeloma (CTX120) and solid tumors and hematologic malignancies (CTX130). All immuno-oncology therapeutics are allogeneic CRISPR/Cas9 gene-edited CAR-T cell therapies wholly owned by CRISPR Therapeutics with data updates typically every 6 months.

Customers/market: For CRSP’s clinical phase pipeline, the total estimated 2022 global market potential is $220B with an average market size for each disease of $36.7B growing at an average 15.2% CAGR (median market: $13.3B | CAGR 10.9%). The largest market is Solid Tumors, at a 2022 estimated size of $145B (8.1% CAGR), and the highest CAGR market CAR T/CD19+ market at a 34.5% CAGR. For CTX001, the lead candidate, the target market can be broken down into the TDT market at very roughly $1.8B with a 10.8% CAGR and the SCD market



a man wearing a suit and tie: Ed Bastian


© Getty Images
Ed Bastian

The airline hasn’t had the massive layoffs of the other major airlines in part because it gave employees a choice.

Loading...

Load Error

It’s a rough time to be an airline.

Look no further than the decisions by United and American to impose massive layoffs and furloughs that began on October 1. That was the date airlines had agreed to when they received assistance from the U.S. government. Between them, those two companies say as many as 35,000 employees may lose their jobs, at least in the short term.

While the airline industry has pushed for a second round of aid to preserve jobs through next March, it’s unclear whether that will happen. The President tweeted that he believes Congress should provide $25 billion for airlines despite previously indicating that there would be no further pandemic-related assistance package until after the election.

Of all the businesses affected by the pandemic, I think it’s fair to say that airlines have faced some of the greatest challenges. Not only are people simply not traveling as much (or at all), but when they do, airlines face the enormous responsibility of keeping them safe.

That combination of decreased demand and increased safety expenses makes it very hard for airlines to make money. As the entire industry has canceled flights and reduced overall capacity, it may seem logical that the quickest way to reduce expenses is to furlough employees.

Delta, however, is taking a different approach. It said in September that it will avoid furloughing flight attendants, and has delayed any pilot reductions until at least November 1. That is largely the result of the company’s

Mayor Martin J. Walsh, who hasn’t yet said if he’s running for re-election next year, increased his campaign spending last month, including doling out more than $50,000 on consultants, new campaign finance data show.

He continues to have significantly more cash in the bank than City Councilors Andrea Campbell and Michelle Wu, who have already announced they are running for mayor in 2021.

In September, Walsh’s campaign spent more than $90,000, according to state records. That amount represents an increase in expenditures compared to recent months; the campaign spent more than $29,000 in August, and more than $33,000 in both June and July. May saw the campaign spend more than $530,000, but that figure included a half-million-dollar donation to the Boston Resiliency Fund, which was set up to help those most in need during the COVID-19 pandemic.

Some political observers say Walsh’s September campaign finance spending could represent a ramp-up to a re-election bid in next year’s mayoral contest.

“An uptick in his spending indicates he’s not leaving, it looks more like a preparation,” said Louis DiNatale, a Massachusetts pollster.

Ray La Raja, a political science professor at UMass Amherst, said politicians who are Walsh’s age “are always running for something.” (Walsh is 53.) La Raja said he wouldn’t be surprised if the Walsh campaign is spending money on focus groups.

“He’s trying to see how tough the race is going to be,” said La Raja.

Candice Nelson, a government professor at American University, said “you can at least assume he’s considering” a re-election bid.

“Why else would he be doing this?” Nelson asked of his campaign activity.

She added, “We’re a year out, if he’s going to run, it’s probably time to start gearing up.”

Last month, the Walsh campaign paid SKDKnickerbocker, a Washington, D.C.-based political consultant and strategic



a group of people in a store: Joe Raedle/Getty Images


© Provided by Business Insider
Joe Raedle/Getty Images

  • Business Insider looked at the job losses and gains from February to September among industries.
  • Industries with the biggest drops in employment from February to September tended to pay lower wages, while high-wage industries were close to their pre-pandemic employment levels. 
  • This change in employment is similar to changes between February and July and February and August, showing that recovery has been slow for many industries.
  • Visit Business Insider’s homepage for more stories.

The US Bureau of Labor Statistics released its September employment figures on Friday. Although 661,000 jobs were added last month, many industries are still below their pre-pandemic employment levels.

Loading...

Load Error

The recovery since major drops in the spring has not been equal across sectors. The economic recovery in the US instead seems to look more like a K, where more affluent Americans are recovering faster than others. The Washington Post wrote that white-collar jobs have mainly rebounded from their job losses.

To get a sense of the unequal recovery in the summer, Business Insider looked at the percent change in employment in detailed industries from February 2020 to September 2020, along with pre-pandemic wages from the Bureau of Labor Statistics’ May 2019 estimates. 

The following chart highlights the differences in industries returning to pre-pandemic employment levels. Based on the chart, a few subsectors that typically pay more are already back or close to their pre-pandemic levels, such as securities and other financial investments. Low-paying jobs tend to still be below their pre-pandemic levels. 

Jay Denton, senior vice president of business intelligence and chief innovation officer at ThinkWhy, told Business Insider that although retail overall seems to be one of the industries recovering well, the subsectors show that recovery is unequal. For instance, employment in clothing and clothing accessory