Breitbart Reporter Breaks Shocking News That People Lie On The Internet


"You're wearing a striped shirt with a striped tie. You look like a fucking optical illusion. Go away."

“You’re wearing a striped shirt with a striped tie. You look like a fucking optical illusion. Go away.”

Yesterday I had the pleasure of upsetting Breitbart UK’s children’s toy reporter Milo Yiannopoulos, who beset a small army of angry men’s rights dweebs all over my twitter mentions. I barely knew who Yiannopoulos was at the time, and frankly judging from his twitter account he seems like the sort of neo-reactionary fascist that I wouldn’t allow near my dogs. Nevertheless I decided to check out what sort of hot takes come from a man who honestly believes that gaming culture isn’t a cesspool of awful sexism, and what I found was a garbage dump of really terrible opinions.

BEHOLD what people are getting paid to write in 2014:

Screen Shot 2014-10-09 at 9.54.43 AM

Strong start Milo. Great job pissing off the good folks at Disney with your boring/obvious headline. Their lawyers are very understanding about copyright violations.

Everyone dissembles on the internet,

Ahh a man with an online thesaurus. Continue….

whether little white lies on dating sites or whoppers on anonymous forums. The odd harmless bit of embroidery in real life helps to keep conversation sparkling, or avoid awkward moments. But, increasingly, untruths are used online not just as social lubricant, but to fish for sympathy and attention, and even, in some extreme cases, for money. 

This is called Capitalism young Milo. Why do you hate freedom?

In fact, you can make quite the career out of playing the victim online, particularly if you have an ideology to hawk.

You work for Breitbart.

Recently, I’ve been reporting on a controversy in the video games industry known as “GamerGate,” which was kicked off originally by questions surrounding the claims of two feminists whose statements did not, said critics, bear scrutiny.

That’s certainly one way to call the sexist maelstrom that these sad shut-ins have started. I prefer the “Benghazi of the video game world“.

Yet both women raised large amounts of money on the basis of claims they were victimised or harassed. Despite one woman having a long track record of dishonesty, bloggers repeated her claims without question, and she now enjoys a permanent income of over $3,000 a month without even having to get out of bed.

Again she’s living the American dream and is (according to your own characterization) personifying the pure essence of the Randian ethos. Don’t hate the player Milo, hate the game(ers).

And crowdfunding site GoFundMe, a “do it yourself” fundraising site that people use to raise money for anything from school fees to holidays, is becoming saturated with politically-charged entreaties from people who claim that a combination of unfortunate personal circumstances and  “government cuts” have forced them into penury.

Yeah where would people have gotten the crazy idea that governments on both sides of the Atlantic have been engaged in a years-long masochistic orgy of austerity measures?

Sob stories are one of the primary currencies of the internet, because they appeal to kind but credulous people – which, let’s face it, is most of us – because it’s easier to tell lies when you’re not looking your victim in the face, and because nobody wants to be the guy who asks for “proof” of another person’s suffering.

Milo is an entirely reasonable and intelligent man who doesn’t give to animal shelters just because of that Sarah McLachlan commercial. NO he calls up the ASPCA and demands videos of dogs being euthanized before he tosses them a spare pence or two.

Perhaps we should, though

No that sounds like a terrible idea, but go on….

The same instinct that propels us to donate to charity when we see an emotionally manipulative ad on TV is at play online, except, because anyone can now become a charity on behalf of themselves and use social media to promote their cause, space has been opened up for fraudsters, liars and people who perhaps don’t need the money so much as they want attention for their causes or for themselves.

A right-winger who wants legal regulation over the charity industry? Well this is a novel idea.

No longer do people give $500 to scientists curing cancer, or protecting children, once a year.

Probably because they are too busy spending that $500 curing their own cancer or trying to keep their own children alive thanks in part to those savage government cuts you glossed over earlier chief.

(Charities themselves are relaxed about that, because they get so much money from the government these days.)

It’s almost refreshing to see a right-winger who rejects neoliberalism and instead embraces the age old “turn poor people into mulch” ideology.

Instead, ordinary people pepper their lives with little $5 bursts, each time they see a “worthy mission” or suffering person on social media.

When Milo Yiannopoulos plays Minecraft he makes sure that the weak and suffering have their place (under a pile a bricks).

It’s easy to see why. Giving makes us feel good, and in today’s attention-deficit, piecemeal culture, we prefer 100 hits of dopamine and self-righteousness spread throughout the year than we do one big burst of smugness. But it’s one thing to give to a charity or donate to a bike ride or half-marathon in aid of cancer, or sick kids. It’s quite another thing to just hand people money on the basis of implausible stories.

Yes because established charities are paragons of righteousness and ethical financial behavior. Keep racing for the Cure y’all.

Yet people do – so, predictably, unscrupulous sociopaths are taking advantage, because with such ready access to gullible people and payment systems such as PayPal, which make it easy to handle large volumes of small payments, almost anyone can set themselves up as a person in need and start soliciting cash from an online profile.

Damn unscrupulous bastards using GoFundMe to get “training” on how to protect kids in the legal system.

Some profiles don’t ring true, and are fairly obviously fake. Others have a suspicious whiff of politics or ideology about them.

Have beliefs on how a particular policy should be conducted in your society and want funding to make it happen? WELL YOU SHOULD STARVE YOU INSOLENT DEMON FROM HELL.

Still others are probably real, but lay the pathos and political posturing on so thick it can be hard to take them seriously. Take the GoFundMe profile I’m currently reading. The person, a transsexual woman, says she wants money to go back to university. She had a cancer scare (she says she was “diagnosed with cancer” but later admits she doesn’t have it, so presumably this was a slip of the tongue). So did her father and grandmother, at the same time.

Because Milo is a great journalist he doesn’t link to the profile in question, nor does he provide screenshots supporting any of what he is alleging here. So I’m just going to assume that he, like most somewhat sane people, thinks that Justine Tunney is a dolt.

She became “depressed” after reading an article in a newspaper she did not like. She is disabled, and, she says, unable to walk or urinate properly after surgery readers are led to conclude was gender reassignment. “Queer Resistance,” a movement of gay people against government cuts, is heavily plugged in her profile.

Again an even somewhat ethical journalist would ask for a comment from the person he is alleging to be engaged in some sort of low-level scam. But Milo as works for Breitbart, presumably that whole training on “how to properly demonstrate the facts as they exist” was instead replaced by “queer bashing for clicks 101″.

The strategies used by people who want free money from strangers are working. The woman above raised £1,693, £443 more than her target of £1,250. Another woman on the site, who describes herself as a “queer babe,” says her workplace “docked her pay by 50%” for “being disabled.” She raised £2,500.

Both profiles were shot through with sharply-written, politicised complaints about government policy and contained eyebrow-raising claims. But, with the help of a few tweets from well-followed journalists, punters were roped in to helping people on the basis of a few paragraphs of purple prose. The very people who fact-check for a living – reporters – are perhaps the worst offenders when it comes to sharing around pleas for cash.

Again, Milo provides not one scant link or example to support this assertion, so I’ll just assume he’s talking about this plea from fellow conservative journalist Charles C. Johnson:

Screen Shot 2014-10-09 at 10.47.40 AM

Is it going too far to suggest that many of these identical-looking profiles are somehow co-ordinated, perhaps benefiting people who look very little like the women in the profiles? That’s the subject of a forthcoming investigation by my colleague, Jeremy Wilson.

I’m waiting on pins and needles for this inevitably objective and well sourced piece [12 hour fart noise].

Whatever the truth behind individual online begging bowls, social and financial incentives on the internet run counter to truthfulness and integrity, which explains the explosion of manipulative entreaties in recent years.

Ahh yes because it was dishonest online pleas for hundreds of dollars that brought down the global economy and not a mountain of fraudulent credit default swaps that were enabled by decades of deregulation in the financial sector.

In other words, if you shout loud enough – particularly as a member of a minority, or even just posing as one – you can garner sympathy, attention and hard cash. And you do even better if you fabricate or ham up abuse, harassment and threats you supposedly received. Not quite the brave new online world we were promised, is it?

Milo Yiannopoulos wears slip-on clown shoes (made by Gucci) because he obviously can’t be trusted to tie his own.

“America’s Team”


One of the interesting unintended consequences of the aftermath from the Mike Brown shooting has been the rest of the country bearing witness to the rather strident racism within the St. Louis area. There is a degree of surprise in the tone of those outsiders covering this story, in that a city that isn’t immediately associated with a racist past can exhibit such ferocious displays of white supremacy, especially in 2014. As someone who lived their briefly not too long ago, I have a different perspective on the the city and I believe that the topic is worthy of some elaboration.

I’ve frequently said it before (and it’s important to mention that the following statements are based on anecdotal evidence) but St. Louis was BY FAR the most racist city I have ever lived in. I have resided in places with obvious and well-documented periods of racial discord, including Birmingham, Boston, Memphis, and now the LA-area. However I can say definitely that St. Louis-style racism was an entirely different beast all together.

I’ll never forget incidents like a city councilmember from a St. Louis suburb addressing my Boy Scout troop and attempting to convince the children that the beloved Cardinals would be better off moving to the city he represented, Clayton, because “children like you wouldn’t have to come in contact with those dangerous drug-crazed criminals in the inner-city”. When 12 year old me confronted the councilmember with the fact that he represented city built by white flight (and that what he was saying was blatantly racist) he replied “I knew people like you in law school and I hated you”.

There was also the private school system which, because it effectively served almost the entire white-middle class of St. Louis, featured a  application process that rivaled the horribly competitiveness of a professional sports league. Children like me were explicitly warned by members of our community that we better keep our grades up if we wanted to avoid PUBLIC SCHOOL- which were (according to our “racial realist” adult mentors) pretty much indistinguishable from HBO’s “OZ”. My parents still talk about a principal at one St. Louis school who upon meeting them (and seeing that they are both white), praised me and my sister for being from “good genetic stock”.

The reasons for why racism might have pervaded St. Louis without notice have been discussed at length since the Mike Brown incident. Red-linging, white flight, de-facto economic segregation are all very good explanations. However my own theory is that St. Louis, until this year, did not have to come to terms with its racism because unlike Memphis/Boston/Birmingham/etc the city had avoided a nationally broadcast and violent crisis like the one we have seen unfold in Ferguson. As a result the white community that has birthed such racial luminaries like Jim Hoft, the Loesch’s, and Rush fucking Limbaugh could continually convince itself of the post-1954 big lie that racism had been vanquished with Brown v. Board.

Anyways that is just some of the context necessary to see why horrible shit like this keeps happening when fans of America’s team decide to get real.

Today In Post-Racial America

Love how people are still surprised that dumbass cartoons like this can be published in widely circulated newspapers.By3OhtLIMAAD_76


This sense of surprise is especially hilarious when one considers that awful racist opinions like the ones expressed in this latest edition of TakiMag (aka “Wonkette for upperclass Neo-Nazi’s”) are allowed to be considered a legitimate form of sociological analysis instead of being rightfully dismissed as the insane ramblings of people who should be on Haldol:

Once at Harvard, Obama was instantly recognized as one of the few black students who were on the same cognitive level as the students who got in without affirmative action. (Nationally, the average black who takes the LSAT scores at only the 12th percentile compared to whites.) Obama’s ego blossomed as he became talked about as the First Black President. A classmate who had been in the 1970s rock band the Runaways compared Obama’s new self-image to Joan Jett’s.

“Paleoconservative” is just two dollar term for “white asshole with an entitlement complex”.

Some Context Behind LBFD Chief Mike Duree’s 9/11 Shitstorm


I might be broke and unemployed but even I wouldn’t want to change places with Long Beach Fire Chief Mike Duree right now, as he’s allegedly committed the ultimate sin for his profession and lied about participating in the 9/11 clean-up:

 Long Beach Fire Chief Mike Duree is at the center of a controversy stemming from lies he reportedly told about his role following the 9/11 attacks and the authenticity of a piece of steel he claims came from Ground Zero.

“This was all a miscommunication and I am personally embarrassed and deeply regretful that this is a topic of conversation especially to those who gave their lives in New York, the last thing I would want to do is disrespect that,” Duree said Friday. “As a former active duty Marine, I understand the importance of respect.”

He denies making false statements and instead insists that he was misquoted in a blog post on covering the Heroes Regatta, an event created to honor first responders, including police and firefighters, especially those who gave their lives in New York on Sept. 11, 2001. The regatta was at the Long Beach Yacht Club in May.

According to the blog post, Duree said, “(a)fter 9/11 … we (LBFD) were asked to send a team to help with the search at the World Trade Center. I was part of that team. We spent two weeks there going through the rubble. I was allowed to keep this piece of twisted metal as a remembrance.”

That post has been deleted from Sail World’s website, but I screenshotted the cached version below

Screen Shot 2014-09-28 at 2.18.26 PM Screen Shot 2014-09-28 at 2.18.35 PM


In case it isn’t clear, Duree is in trouble for two reasons:

1) Claiming that he and a LBFD team participated in the World Trade Center clean up (which is apparently not the case), and

2) Using an artifact from that disaster as a trophy for this regatta event (i.e. the reason that Sail World was talking to him in the first place).

Duree adamantly denies that he ever represented the piece of metal used for the trophy as an actual piece of steel from Ground Zero and said he was never interviewed by the author, Rick Roberts.

“We did talk throughout the day, but he never said he was talking to me for any sort of story,” Duree said. “And when I did see the article, I asked for a removal or a correction.”

Personally I find it hard to believe that a media-savvy, intelligent professional like Duree (whom for the record I’ve met on several occasions when I worked for the city) really didn’t know about what constitutes an “on the record” interview. Additionally the fact that Duree is just NOW asking for a correction (over four months AFTER the article was originally posted) undercuts his credibility on this issue. Frankly it seems that the Chief was engaging in the time-honored tradition of embellishing ones service record, something that in the military or public safety profession can get you into a world of shit if you’re ever caught.

Duree explained that shortly after the attacks, several firefighters, most with ties to New York including Deputy Chief Rich Brandt, went to help. A month later, a larger group of firefighters, including Duree, went to the site of the attacks and toured Ground Zero and attended funerals. They also presented donations raised locally for the New York first responders, but Duree denies he ever said they were working through The Pile.

The second issue regarding the “trophy” thing is also hard for Duree to deny, particularly as the Sail World folks got a picture of the debris in question:


Adding to this already problematic story for Duree is the presence on the LBFD of Brogan Healy, who’s first job out of the Fire Academy was with the NYFD. Healy’s first day on the job was 9/11, and if we’re judging his media skills by this 2002 NY Times article profiling him, he knows how to give a good interview and makes for an excellent spokesman for the “wtf Duree” side of the controversy. And this story is going to continue to grow, especially as national Firefighter blogs continue to spread the rather unseemly details of Duree’s alleged statements and actions.

However as we proceed into this story it’s worth mentioning why Duree would be subject to this attack now, instead of when the article was first published. It is entirely possible that (like most normal people) members of the LBFD at large, including folks like Healy who would be presumably most offended by it, simply don’t take to Sail World dot com on a regular basis. But the fact that Duree has been at the center of controversies over the re-arrangement of Long Beach’s Lifeguards on the new fireboats, the implementation of Rapid Medical Deployment, and host of other cost-cutting measures since 2012, makes one think that the Long Beach Firefighter’s Association is the main driver behind this story. (AS THEY SHOULD BE as a Union representing members in those aforementioned controversies).

Again nothing that has been presented so far effectively contradicts the allegation that Duree lied about his role or is lying about using the artifact as a trophy, but it is also fair to say that the current controversy would not have come to light if Duree (and to an extent Pat West) hadn’t been in such a contentious relationship with the Firefighter’s Union over the past few years.

As a resident of as someone who once worked in a policy position within the City of Long Beach I have to say that this story, while gross, doesn’t amount to grounds for firing Duree. That said these statements from Duree do present serious questions as to his character and veracity of his public testimony going further. In other words, perhaps we should all be a little more hesitant to believe the Chief the next time he says that RMD is working just fine, or similar contentions that require the public to more or less trust in his expert opinion.

On Holder And Blackness


After watching this segment on Maddow last night I immediately felt like a moron for tweeting this in response to Eric Holder’s resignation.

Screen Shot 2014-09-26 at 10.41.48 AM

My twitter bud @Chet_Kincaid justifiably called me out on it, and as the litany of far smarter analysis than my dumb cartoon shows, both Holder’s heart and his actions display someone who genuinely sought to reverse discrimination and end the systemic evil within our justice system.

But despite his efforts to directly address these problems to the best of his ability, he largely failed. Most of this blame can be directly set on the drooping shoulders of our unhinged and deranged Supreme Court, but (and this is not to imply that I was conscious of this argument BEFORE I made that ill-advised tweet) some of the failure can indeed be linked to Holder’s well-documented recalcitrance to holding our economic and political elites accountable for their transgressions. And that failure of consistency is a reflection of modern race relations in this country.

Like Scott Lemieux said in this piece, Holder’s policy decisions over at the DOJ largely reflected the values of his boss. Thus (along with Holder’s past as a corporate attorney) I think that it’s fair to say that the obvious blind spot that the Obama administration has had concerning economic justice and class-based discrimination permeated into how Holder designed his attacks against the racist power structures within this country. Non-controversial issues like voting rights, and evolving political positions on police brutality and the drug war presented Holder with avenues in which the DOJ could at least attempt to create good solid precedent for lasting positive change. However by failing to perhaps take on the more difficult actors behind our 2-tired justice system, Holder’s (and I honestly do not think this was intentional on his part) greatest legacy remains vulnerable to attacks from future administrations. In other words, time remains a flat circle.

If anything Holder, like Obama, personifies the problem that the 21st Century “Talented Tenth” have had once they reach the halls of what were (very recently) lily-white halls of political power. The death of class consciousness within certain segments of the black elite after the 1970’s has had a demonstrable and sad effect on the ideologies for these individuals (regardless of their political party). The expectation that every major liberal must have a “Sister Souljah” moment (where the candidate takes a steaming shit on poor/black people under the guise of addressing negative “cultural” traits , presumably in order to appease nervous white people), as well as the genuine surprise that white progressives like myself have that Barack Obama can’t say things in public like Alan Greyson for his own personal safety is itself the legacy of systemic racism and violence in this country. The fact that Eric Holder has to frame an embarrassing and illegal stop by police on his body in terms of “and I was a Federal Prosecutor at the time” shows how far we still need to go as a society.

So to sum up Eric Holder’s legacy, it is perhaps obvious at this point that in order for a person to be in a position of power AND simultaneously be an ideologically consistent progressive, he or she must be white.

Or be Barbra Lee.

Three Reasons Why Eliminating Long Beach’s Business License Fees Is A Really Dumb Idea


On Tuesday the Long Beach City Council approved one of it’s patented “HEY WE MIGHT BE DOING SOMETHING PLEASE WRITE ABOUT IT PRESS” pieces of legislation by unanimously passing a request for Pat West to “research” whether eliminating the license fees for new businesses would be a good idea for the city. Let me save Pat the trouble and answer that question in one word:


However given that I have more respect for the intelligence of Long Beach residents than the people who voted to even consider this horrendous proposals, allow me to elaborate exactly why this is a terrible, horrible, no good, very bad idea that should provoke nothing but eye rolls from the general public.

1. License Fees Are An Irrelevant Concern To People Looking To Build A Business In Long Beach

Yes a business is going to look to anyway possible to avoid incurring unmanageable levels of overhead, especially when it is considering whether to establish roots in the City or begin from scratch. However in truth the major, macro-economic concern for a business entity (especially one that is planning to hire locally and gain most of its revenue in the same area in which the business is located) is whether or not their is adequate demand for the goods or services that they are producing.

A lack of demand by local consumers, or local barriers to attracting a large enough number of consumers to make up for the deficit in demand, is the actual problem that a business has when deciding to establish operations in an economically depressed area like Long Beach. Efforts to put more capital in the hands of individual consumers, whether it be wage ordinances, increased social safety spending, or increases in public sector employment, are all MUCH more helpful to increasing the level of demand necessary to sustain new businesses in this city.

2. Eliminating License Fees Will Cause A Direct An Unnecessary Harm To Long Beach Residents

Take a look at this application form for a City of Long Beach Business License. Notice what sorts of things will trigger a higher cost to operate in the city? Things like the presence of alcohol and tobacco (which cause direct harm to the health of our residents), commercial activities that serve as an attractive nuisance to crime like second hand jewelry and collectables, and the handling of hazardous materials like biomedical waste probably do seem to the business owner as “hit(s) from every direction”. However to the people who LIVE near these business, these extra serve as the main way to either 1) prevent these entities from existing in the first place via an indirect Pigovian tax, or 2) allow the City to do it’s job by adequately regulating the negative externalities of these business via services like health inspections, Police & Fire monitoring, or even trash pickup. Giving a business a pass on these sorts of basic forms of regulation just because it is “new” is hugely irresponsible….

Which leads me into my final point

3. The City Of Long Beach Is Already UNDER Taxed For Businesses

Despite what Stacey Mungo or Suzie Price have said on this subject, the idea that the people suffering most in the City are our business owners is patently absurd. We still have an unemployment rate of close to 10% and an official poverty rate (which undervalues the “actual” levels of poverty by the way) of over 20%. This is a huge problem for the people of this City, and indirectly, any business looking to establish itself here and attract an adequate demand to sustain itself.

One basic way that a government can directly address this problem is by spending more and hiring residents directly in order to stimulate the local economy until private capital is properly redistributed to healthy levels. The City of Long Beach paradoxically, is NOT doing that. Instead we are more or less maintaining the bare-bones level of government that we adopted during the height of the post September 2008 recession. Even for policy no-brainers like spending a desperately needed $2 million on affordable housing, local legislators chose to avoid the issue entirely because of fears that THE DEFICIT would come and eat our children.

Now given this ridiculous and counter-productive obsession with fiscal neutrality, why would we eliminate this source of money for the General Fund during a time when even our conservative Financial Management Bureau is screaming for more revenue? Why aren’t we proposing reforms to these massive give aways that are keeping our city operating  such an inadequate way compared to the reasonable demands of our residents?

The reason is probably quite simple; the deficit only matters when it involves cutting services that help poor people. It’s the old neoliberal policy dodge, whereby the legislator gets to look like they are making bold decisions when all they are really doing is facilitating the flow of capital to the people who already have enough to support themselves. It’s the reason this graph is as demonstrably horrifying as it is, and it’s the reason that a real economic recovery in the City of Long Beach will not happen anytime soon.

Race And The Building Trades Unions


"Hard Hat Riot", New York City, 1970

“Hard Hat Riot”, New York City, 1970

Erik Loomis over at LGM highlighted an important anniversary today in his “This Day in Labor History” series (WHICH YOU SHOULD ALREADY BE READING DAILY GODDAMMIT). Back in 1969 Nixon tried some Realpolitik-ing between organized labor and the Civil Rights forces by successfully forcing the lilly-whitest of all unions (except for maybe the POA), the Building Trades, to start allowing black members into their locals:

The Philadelphia Plan required that 6 Philadelphia area building trades create numerical “goals” for integrating their locals if they wanted to receive federal contracts. White construction workers around the country opposed this idea. They did so for a variety of reasons. Overt racism drove many, but it’s also important to remember that the building trades had developed traditions of passing jobs down to family members. Setting affirmative action targets meant that for every African-American granted a job, someone’s son or cousin or nephew was not getting a job. They also thought they had worked hard to rise in the world and believed that this was the government letting a special class of people equal them without working. Of course, racism also infused these last two reasons, not to mention the mental gymnastics it took to talk about how you worked so hard to get your job compared to these blacks when it was your dad who secured it for you.

For the building trades therefore, being forced to integrate was seen as a direct attack on the white male enclave they had created. This hard hat anger at the overall tenor of social and cultural change became manifested in the Hard Hat Riot of 1970, an event that unfortunately created a stereotype of unions hating hippies even though this was just a couple of building trades locals in New York. In Pittsburgh and Chicago, construction workers held sizable anti-integration rallies. In the former city, 4000 construction workers rallied when the city government halted all contracts to negotiate with African-Americans demanding integrated work. AFL-CIO head George Meany strongly criticized the plan, siding with his building trades over the civil rights movement that always had a complex relationship with organized labor.

As Long Beach is considering introducing more Project Labor Agreements into the City (which are VERY good for protecting workers rights) it is important that we member the not too-awesome recent history of this facet of organized labor and people of color. Ron Miller is a good and decent person who understands this complex relationship between race, class, and entry-level work. Additionally past projects by the LA/OC Building trades have proactively addressed the new way that contracts like modern PLA’s guarantee diversity  (via a “Disadvantaged Worker” provision).

However Long Beach residents, particularly those in the racially diverse (and economically depressed) 1st, 6th, 7th, and 9th districts should urge their council members to pay close attention to any proposed PLA for future large-scale construction projects inside of the city. A good apprentice program and job with a Building Trades Union  is a virtual ticket out of poverty and into the middle class, so an alert legislator should be wary of any contract that does not have strict standards for guaranteeing the permanent placement of disadvantaged workers inside of these publicly-funded projects.