Spring Sale: Get 1 Year, Save 58%

“Brooklyn Nine-Nine” returns with an appropriate awkward hello to its farewell season

Depression afflicted the world around this time last year. If pandemic quarantines weren’t getting to us, the horror of witnessing George Floyd’s murder surely did. Hundreds of thousands took to the streets to march for Black lives. Others came out to spark chaos. Suddenly getting out of bed became a Herculean feat.

Little wonder that people sought out comedies to counteract the darkness – however, one show that didn’t pop up on many comfort TV lists was “Brooklyn Nine-Nine.” It had no place in 2020’s feel-good catalogue. It still feels out of place, and the show’s co-creators Dan Goor and Michael Schur tacitly acknowledge that with the opening gag in “The Good Ones,” the premiere of its eighth and final season.

“Question: What is the number one problem with the coronavirus?” asks Andy Samberg’s always upbeat detective Jake Peralta, the Nine-Nine’s self-styled hero cop. He’s posing the question to fellow investigator Rosa Diaz (Stephanie Beatriz), who annoyedly rattles off a list of sensible answers.

“Mass death? Economic collapse?” she responds, adding, “The way the disease has exposed the systemic injustice at the core of American life?”

“Well, yes, obviously those,” Jake says, his chipper tone never flagging. “But after that . . .”

Chalk up “Brooklyn Nine-Nine” return to us at a time of debates about police reforms and defunding – and in an era where new video recordings of police brutality against people of color emerge and circulate on a near daily basis – an unfortunate circumstance as opposed to bad timing.

Everything about the comedy that people loved before is still present: Jake’s still too much of a try-hard with bizarre daddy issues he assigns to his boss, Captain Raymond Holt (Andre Braugher). In turn, Captain Holt remains comically unreadable, equally poker-faced in moments of elation, rage and despair. Jake’s right hand Charles Boyle (Joe Lo Truglio) still gambols after him like a faithful pup, and Sergeant Terry Jeffords (Terry Crews) hasn’t stopped obsessing about his physique or portraying a “suck it up” version of demonstrative masculinity.

But Rosa drops a bomb that marks a distinct beginning to the show’s end, which flattens the tone, coloring everything that follows: She and Jake team up on a case that delivers a hard lesson about that systemic injustice to which Rosa refers, presaged in Jake confidently reassuring her with, “You know the system can work sometimes when good people are involved!”

 They spend the rest of the episode finding out whether that’s true and if so, to what extent.

“Brooklyn Nine-Nine” always led with its kindly nature, exhibited by a crew of understanding good cops dedicated to doing the best by their community.

While the writers never pretended the larger New York Police Department isn’t corrupt, the antagonists representing the worst aspects of the force are generally as feckless as the criminals Jake and the gang pursue. John C. McGinley’s Frank O’Sullivan is this season’s example of that: The head of the patrolman’s union and dedicated to covering up officer malfeasance, O’Sullivan comes off as an authoritarian boob with an Oedipus complex, easily defeated by exploiting his soft spot for Billy Joel.

Still, for all of the writers’ and cast’s earnest attempts to find a way into the show’s 10-episode farewell, there’s simply no way for the show to avoid the awkwardness surrounding what it signifies.

“Brooklyn Nine-Nine” earned critical praise for building episodes around hot-button cultural issues such as sexism and homophobia while maintaining its comedic integrity. One memorable installment features Terry being harassed by a fellow officer while he’s off-duty for simply being Black and looking suspicious. Other episodes peek into Holt’s past struggles as a gay Black man rising through the department’s ranks.

Such plots enable “Brooklyn Nine-Nine” to critique the way cop dramas unquestioningly lionize men and women in law enforcement. But in the main it functions as a droll workplace sitcom with a low-stakes mystery of the week. It just happens to be set in a jolly version of a workplace whose real-world counterparts engender fear and anger within marginalized communities.

The seventh season ended in April 2020, months before a summer of civil rights protests that spurred debates about the role TV plays in cementing the myth of equally apportioned justice into our consciousness by way of shows like “Law & Order” and “CSI.” “Brooklyn Nine-Nine” is a part of those debates as well, like it or not. Its friendly tales of dedicated good cops operating in a sea of bad ones may be consistently heartwarming. It is also textbook copaganda.

Time and again we see proof that the policing structure itself is so broken that officers with the best of intentions – the Jakes, Amys, Charles, Holts and Terrys of the world – can’t help but prop up a rotten system.

This was true before cities angrily erupted in reaction to the murders of Floyd, Breonna Taylor and Ahmaud Arbery. What’s changed is that now we’ve seen the real-world impact of the hero cop myth’s proliferation on primetime, creating an unassailable defense for the cop characters we love is difficult.

Still – these are lovable characters because of their humanity, and being squeezed through the strainer that was 2020, are changed. Part of what make “Brooklyn Nine-Nine” an ideal workplace portrait is its diverse makeup, including two Black men and a pair of Latinx women who can’t help but react to the last 14 months differently from Jake, Charles and resident numbskulls Scully (Joel McKinnon Miller) and Hitchcock (Dirk Blocker).

You may notice that the premiere’s title carries a dual meaning. Several characters use the phrase “one of the good ones” to describe the supposed good apples tumbling around in the NYPD barrel. Jake tries to spin it in a positive light only to have the coded language boomerang back on him.

So if his snappy banter falls flat throughout the premiere, that’s why. If Charles’ exaggerated displays of performative allyship are a tad too much to take, maybe that’s the point. They’re clueless white guys who aren’t quite sure what to do in a world that doesn’t reward good guys like the ones they strive to be. They’re as aware of their problematic approach to the world as the show’s writers prove to be.

Just because an episode of “Brooklyn Nine-Nine” isn’t particularly hilarious doesn’t mean it isn’t good. Everything people still adore about the show remains intact, particularly in a subplot involving Sergeant Amy Santiago (Melissa Fumero) diving into her fear that her strange, geeky chemistry with Holt is off.

Her efforts may be teeing up to something more serious, but getting there is entertaining enough.

It’s hard to envy the position in which “Brooklyn Nine-Nine” finds itself. As a cop show it can’t ignore what’s going on in the real world and in its streets. As a show saved from one network’s cancellation by dedicated fans, it’s obligated to reward that loyalty with a worthy send-off.

None of the five episodes provided for review contain any reasons for fans to turn it off, I’m happy to report. Indeed, the show incorporates our changed view of policing into a season-long arc involving McGinley while still finding time for farcical misadventures, including a delightful send-off for Craig Robinson’s recurring guest character Doug Judy.

Even the cold open with Jake and Rosa culminates in a classic slapstick sequence triggered by a stony-faced Rosa dropping a bomb that changes everything. The decision she makes comes from a place of refusing to be comfortable with the status quo. But it doesn’t change how the rest of the crew feels about her – and if anything, it solidifies the reasons we still love the show. It was never about the job; the job was never without its problems. It’s about the people, and at the end of the day they still make the case that we can find comfort in hanging out with them for little while longer.

“Brooklyn Nine-Nine” airs two back-to-back episodes on Thursdays at 8 p.m. on NBC beginning Aug. 12.

Matt Gaetz’s week just got way worse: Wingman reportedly hands over “thousands” of files to the feds

The longtime “wingman” of Rep. Matt Gaetz’s, R-Fla. is reportedly cooperating with federal prosecutors and has already turned over “thousands” of files that could implicate the Florida congressman as inappropriately engaged with a 17-year-old girl. 

Gaetz is reportedly facing a federal investigation into possible sex trafficking of a minor but has denied any wrongdoing and has not been charged with a crime. But his longtime friend and former Florida tax collector Joel Greenberg, who pleaded guilty in May to numerous federal charges including child sex trafficking, has given investigators “thousands” of photos and videos, text messages, access to his social media accounts, and years of Venmo and Cash App transactions as part of his cooperation agreement, according to ABC News. Messages reviewed by ABC News showed that Greenberg met women to pay for sex online and then introduced him to Gaetz and others. Greenberg admitted in his guilty plea that he trafficked a minor and introduced her to other “adult men” who had sex with her when she was underage.

The Daily Beast previously obtained an apparent confession letter Greenberg shared with longtime Trump adviser Roger Stone when he sought a presidential pardon last year. The former tax official said in the letter that he provided cash and gifts to several women, including an underage girl, though he claimed that he was unaware that she was a minor. The outlet also obtained Venmo records showing that Greenberg made 150 payments to dozens of young women, including one who was 17. The outlet also found Venmo payments from Gaetz to Greenberg before Greenberg paid several young women.

Text messages reviewed by ABC News show Greenberg texting a woman he met online in 2018 in which he appears to discuss payment, whether the woman is of legal age and whether she would do drugs before arranging a meeting including Gaetz and one of her friends.

“I have a friend flying in and we are trying to make plans for tonight. What are your plans for later,” Greenberg wrote. “And how much of an allowance will you be requiring :)”

The woman told Greenberg that she has a friend she could bring and usually requires “$400 per meet.”

Greenberg then sent the woman a photo of Gaetz posing with elementary school students, referring to him as “My friend.”

“Oooh my friend thinks he’s really cute!” the woman replied before asking Greenberg if Gaetz used the same website that Greenberg used to meet her.

“He knows the deal :),” Greenberg replied.

Gaetz has denied using “sugar daddy” websites where women sometimes arrange dates in exchange for cash or gifts, though The New York Times reported this spring that investigators believe Greenberg used the websites and “introduced the women to Mr. Gaetz, who also had sex with them.” Gaetz’s spokesman Harlan Hill told ABC News that Gaetz has already “addressed the debunked allegations against him.”

“After months of media coverage, not one woman has come forward to accuse Rep. Gaetz of wrongdoing,” Hill said. “Not even President Biden can say that. That others might invite people unbeknownst to a U.S. Congressman to functions he may or may not attend is the everyday life of a political figure. Your story references people the congressman doesn’t know, things he hasn’t done and messages he neither sent nor received.”

Another Facebook message exchange reviewed by ABC News showed Greenberg apparently organizing a meeting with the women, Gaetz, and Florida doctor Jason Pirozzolo. Pirozzolo, an ally of Republican Gov. Ron DeSantis who co-founded a medical marijuana advocacy group, accompanied Gaetz on a trip to the Bahamas in 2018 that has come under scrutiny by prosecutors over potential corruption-related to marijuana-related legislation that Gaetz previously sponsored, according to the Associated Press.

Greenberg, in the Facebook messages, appeared to invite an unnamed Florida media entrepreneur to Pirozzolo’s home, which he described as “our safe place.” He also listed the names of two girls that he paid via Venmo, according to ABC.

“I think it would be a wise investment of time. You might already know Jason Pirrazolo … but I’d like for you to meet Congressman Matt Gaetz,” Greenberg wrote. “Gaetz is a wild man, but great dude.”

Greenberg added that there would be “6-7 chicks” and “just 3-4 guys.”

Several days later, the unnamed entrepreneur posted a photo to Instagram including the two young women Greenberg mentioned in the messages, according to the report.

Pirozzolo’s attorney did not comment on the report. Fritz Scheller, an attorney for Greenberg, told the outlet that the “only comment I can make is Joel Greenberg has executed a plea agreement with the government and will continue to honor his obligations pursuant to that agreement.”

Scheller last month cited the ongoing cooperation to ask a judge to delay Greenberg’s sentencing, which prosecutors did not oppose and a judge approved a day later.

“Mr. Greenberg has been cooperating with the Government and has participated in a series of proffers,” Scheller wrote. “Said cooperation, which could impact his ultimate sentence, cannot be completed prior to the time of his sentencing.”

Lindell-apalooza melts down: MyPillow guy claims antifa sabotaged his “cyber symposium”

SIOUX FALLS, S.D. — MyPillow CEO Mike Lindell, on the final day of his “cyber symposium,” remained unable to produce any tangible evidence of widespread voter fraud in the 2020 election. He attempted to deflect blame for his failed event onto supposed antifa activists — or, actually, “antifa things” — who were nowhere to be seen in this Great Plains city of 177,000 residents. 

The pillow tycoon, alongside self-proclaimed “information warfare” specialist Col. Phil Waldron, took to the main stage early Thursday to decry the invisible opposition force he claims has hijacked this event, which he has promised for months would offer “absolute proof” that the election was stolen from Donald Trump. 

“We’ve got antifa things, or people that have infiltrated, they’re telling me this morning,” Lindell said. “I just want everyone to know all the evil that’s out there. I’m OK. It hurts a little bit.”

“This is where our country’s gone,” Lindell continued. “You take away the free speech. So they go after me. And they’re going, ‘Well, we try and crush his company and take everything from him.’ And then they go after [me] physically.”

It’s not clear in what sense Lindell believes he has been deprived of free speech, which he continues to exercise vigorously. He went on to say he now has a team of bodyguards protecting him, claiming that he was “attacked” late on Wednesday night outside his Sioux Falls hotel. He did not provide details, and so far the alleged incident has not been independently verified.

“Now I’ve got to go around with a bodyguard,” Lindell said. “And I don’t like bodyguards. I like to have American freedom to drive around, to do what I want, to not worry, to be able to take pictures with people.”

The purported presence of antifa has been the subject of many rumors among organizers and attendees of Lindell’s “cyber symposium,” although no such radical infiltrators have been visible at any point. A security guard at the Lindell event, asked by Salon on Tuesday afternoon about the abundance of security checkpoints, said there was concern over “guns” and “antifa” making it into the gathering.  

On Thursday morning, Waldron claimed that “really radical folks outside [are] trying to penetrate” the event. No anti-fascist activists were visible outside the auditorium unless one counts the three people singing gospel numbers. 

Instead of “antifa” being outside, merely three people were preaching deep in singing gospel songs. 

On Wednesday night, the Washington Times reported that Josh Merritt, one of Lindell’s supposed election fraud experts, described Lindell’s data as a “turd” that the cyber team was asked to polish “into a diamond.” As of Thursday afternoon, Lindell had not released the “packet captures” (PCAPs) from the 2020 election that he had long promised, or any other hard data to support his claims of systematic fraud.

Watch below, via YouTube: 

It’s OK to blame the unvaccinated — they are robbing the rest of us of our freedoms

Everyone in the vaccinated world had that thing, the thing they missed most of all that they couldn’t wait to get back once the COVID-19 shot set them free. Performers wanted to get back on stage. Engaged couples had their wedding plans back on. Game enthusiasts couldn’t wait to get off Zoom and back to the tabletop. Some folks just fantasized about sitting in a bar or coffee shop again.

I really wanted to get back to my spin class. And for a couple of months, I did just that. Exercising at home for the past year was fine, but nothing beats a 45-minute spin class for leaving one red-faced and sopping wet with sweat. But it’s that “sopping wet” part that became a problem this week when the gym sent out a memo bringing back their indoor mask mandate. This isn’t a 5-minute jaunt in a grocery store with a mask. Exercising with a sweat-soaked mask is like being waterboarded. So I canceled my class and sent a polite but angry note to my gym. Philadelphia’s new regulations allow businesses to choose between mask and vaccine mandates, and they chose poorly, penalizing those who did the right thing to coddle those who refuse. Masking the already vaccinated to protect the unvaccinated helps a little, but is a little like trying to cover someone in a rainstorm by holding an index card over their head. 

But ultimately, I’m not even that mad at the gym. No, who I am mad at is the willfully unvaccinated, people who, out of irrationality and often raw Republican tribalism, got us into this mess in the first place. I am incandescent with rage that millions of Americans are putting it on the rest of us to protect them from COVID-19, just so they can avoid a simple, free shot that is available at every pharmacy. 

Republicans, always ready to destroy lives for some perceived political gain, aren’t even hiding anymore that they think being pro-COVID is good politics. As CNN reports, there’s “a GOP-wide effort to use the fears and frustrations of Americans worried about another round of school closures and lockdowns as cudgels against their Democratic opponents.”

But, of course, the return of restrictions is the direct result of Republican efforts to dissuade Americans from getting vaccinated and keep those COVID-19 case rates high. It’s important to remember that this is still a pandemic of the unvaccinated. Case rates are rising rapidly among the unvaccinated, who tend to reject other prevention measures along with vaccines. There are also breakthrough infections, though they affect fewer than one-third of 1% of the vaccinated


Want more Amanda Marcotte on politics? Subscribe to her newsletter Standing Room Only.


One of the primary arguments being rolled out by conservative media is that refusing vaccination is about “freedom” and “personal choice.” But that is a lie. We know it’s a lie because Republicans are generally fine with all other vaccine mandates. But most importantly, by refusing to do the right thing, the unvaccinated are stripping freedom and choice from every other American who got vaccinated. We stand by helplessly watching restrictions pile back on and our freedoms dissipate, all to protect those who won’t protect themselves. Polling shows that most Americans support vaccine requirements and no wonder — we want our freedom back. 

In some corners of social media, it continues to be popular to scoff at those who want their freedoms back, snarling “it won’t kill you to wear a mask in the store.” But the freedoms the vaccinated are sacrificing so that others can selfishly refuse the shot are far greater than that. It’s not just my loss of a beloved gym class. The stories of people’s losses are stacking up: A musician who was eager to get back to work is now watching his concert dates get canceled. Folks missing weddings of friends and family because the couple wasn’t brave enough to disinvite the unvaccinated. And, perhaps worst of all, the people who are giving up their basic right to be healthy, to free up medical resources for people who turned their nose up at basic preventative care. 

In Texas, Republican leadership and right-wing ideology has led to low vaccination rates and subsequently to hospitals overflowing with COVID-19 patients. Gov. Greg Abbott, being a Republican, refuses to do anything to mitigate the spread of the disease. So instead, he’s leaning on hospitals to deprive other people of necessary medical care, such as delaying surgeries, to keep hospital resources free to tend to the waves of unvaccinated COVID-19 patients. However angry I am at losing my gym class (also important for physical health, I’ll point out), it likely pales in comparison to the rage of someone who has to put off surgery to fix a debilitating but not fatal condition, all because some Fox News junkie thought a quick jab in the arm takes away his “freedom”. Not being able to walk because your knee surgery keeps getting delayed is the far greater loss of freedom. 

Increasingly, people who are being denied necessary medical care to free up resources for unvaccinated COVID-19 patients are venting on social media:

The situation gets even direr when considering the threats to children, who can’t get the shot until they turn 12. Most children who get COVID-19 have a mild case of it, but because of the current surge of cases, the number of marginal cases where kids get really sick is rising. Children’s hospitals are being swamped, creating the same resource allocation problem that is making it harder for kids with other health care issues to get the quality of care they need. And yes, it is the unvaccinated who are creating the problem, both by driving up numbers generally and by infecting children they have close contact with. 

But even kids who remain healthy are watching their childhoods slip away because of this unnecessarily prolonged pandemic. There’s an ongoing political fight between people who want masks in schools to protect kids and Republicans who, in a true fit of irrationality, think it’s somehow “freedom” to let COVID-19 run rampant is schools. Kids are the victims of this ugly debate. Rather than just be free to enjoy their childhoods, they are being used as political pawns by right-wingers and facing real threats of losing classroom time and extracurricular activities because Republicans would rather have a virus roam free than let children have their childhoods. 

It is true that not all of the unvaccinated are right-wing ideologues. Many heard some conspiracy theories about the vaccines and it’s making them reluctant. (That said, since the right is pumping out those conspiracy theories, they still can be blamed ultimately for this.) Others are people who are busy and haven’t made the time to get the shot. Of course, there should be every effort to educate people and make the shot easier to get for them. 


Want more Amanda Marcotte on politics? Subscribe to her newsletter Standing Room Only.


But such measures must be coupled with mandates.

Mandates may feel unpleasant, but they help people reorganize their priorities so that they put getting necessary medical care over conspiracy theories and busy schedules. Sometimes education alone isn’t enough to get people over the hump. That’s why we have seatbelt laws and indoor smoking bans. The people who stand to benefit from mandates are often the ones who are most resistant. They are, after all, exponentially more likely to die than those who voluntarily got the shot. And even if one believes they have a “right” to take that risk for themselves, they certainly have no right to keep exposing others, especially children. 

Vaccine mandates are coming. New York City and Los Angeles are embracing vaccine mandates to enter some public places, and the Biden administration is mandating vaccinations for military and federal employees. But watching the case rate go up — and freedoms for the already-vaccinated continue to disappear — it’s clear that the mandates aren’t coming fast and hard enough.

President Joe Biden must immediately mandate vaccinations for anyone getting on an airplane or a train. And while Republican leaders will resist, Democrats who control state and local governments must follow in the footsteps of New York City and make vaccine requirements for public places widespread. Businesses and schools should immediately require vaccines for employees and students over the age of 12. Ordinary people can draw the line with friends and family, rejecting them from all social occasions until they get the jab. 

Yes, anti-vaxxers will whine and complain about “freedom.” But freedom is what vaccine mandates are about. Vaccine mandates can return freedom to those of us who are sick of canceling plans, sick of losing work, and sick of having to wear masks everywhere we go, even though we’re vaccinated.

It’s conservatives who are always rolling out that treacly slogan that “freedom isn’t free.” Well, time to prove that adage. We need our freedom back. Luckily, the cost this time is low: a small prick in the arm that will save a life, probably your own. Not exactly storming the beaches at Normandy, sacrifice-wise. It’s time to stop giving up our freedom to coddle people who don’t even know what that word really means and start mandating the shots in every way we can. 

Anti-mask mob swarms school board meeting

After advocating for a mask mandate in the local school district, health care professionals were surrounded by an angry mob of parents following a Tuesday school board meeting in Tennessee. 

In a video released on Twitter, a group of people in Franklin, Tenn., can be seen yelling at health care workers as they attempt to leave the building where the Williamson County School District Board meeting on school safety measures was taking place.

As the health care workers exit the building, the crowd waiting outside begins to chant, “we’ll not comply.” One woman yells, “take that mask off!” as a health care professional heads into the parking lot.

The footage appears to follow this health care professional as he heads to his car but is followed by an unmasked man in a black shirt.

“You’re not on our side!” the unmasked man yells. “We know who you are.”

“You will never be allowed in public again!” he later continues.

Another unmasked man seems to come to the aid of the man in the black. He also threatens the fleeing health care worker, pointing his finger at the driver’s side window.

“We know who you are. You can leave freely, but we will find you,” he says with his face up against the window.

The clash between parents and healthcare workers came after the Williamson County Schools Board of Education voted to require masks for students, staff, and visitors inside buildings and buses at the elementary school level. During the four-hour meeting, emotions ran high, and disruptions frequently occurred as members of the audience attempted to speak out against mask requirements, according to the Tennessean.

The meeting attracted a mass of anti-mask parents, including Clay Travis, a former sports journalist and conservative political commentator whose children attend schools in the district, and right-wing pundit Matt Walsh, whose children are not students in the district, reported the Tennessean.

A different video released on Tuesday shows the inside of the board meeting. The footage features a man being escorted out by local authorities for being too disruptive. Enraged by his removal, other parents begin to chant “no more masks,” and eventually, several stand up and follow the protester out of the meeting.

The other video published details another disruption that came moments later. “I’ll see you in court,” a woman from the crowd declares. “My child will not be wearing a mask.”

On Thursday, the new mask mandate will go into effect in the school district. The Tennessean reported that the school board will return to vote to extend the measure at the end of September.

Secret IRS files revealed: Trump’s “big, beautiful tax cut” boosted the ultrawealthy’s gains

In November 2017, with the administration of President Donald Trump rushing to get a massive tax overhaul through Congress, Sen. Ron Johnson stunned his colleagues by announcing he would vote “no.”

Making the rounds on cable TV, the Wisconsin Republican became the first GOP senator to declare his opposition, spooking Senate leaders who were pushing to quickly pass the tax bill with their thin majority. “If they can pass it without me, let them,” Johnson declared.

Johnson’s demand was simple: In exchange for his vote, the bill must sweeten the tax break for a class of companies that are known as pass-throughs, since profits pass through to their owners. Johnson praised such companies as “engines of innovation.” Behind the scenes, the senator pressed top Treasury Department officials on the issue, emails and the officials’ calendars show.

Within two weeks, Johnson’s ultimatum produced results. Trump personally called the senator to beg for his support, and the bill’s authors fattened the tax cut for these businesses. Johnson flipped to a “yes” and claimed credit for the change. The bill passed.

The Trump administration championed the pass-through provision as tax relief for “small businesses.”

Confidential tax records, however, reveal that Johnson’s last-minute maneuver benefited two families more than almost any others in the country — both worth billions and both among the senator’s biggest donors.

Dick and Liz Uihlein of packaging giant Uline, along with roofing magnate Diane Hendricks, together had contributed around $20 million to groups backing Johnson’s 2016 reelection campaign.

The expanded tax break Johnson muscled through netted them $215 million in deductions in 2018 alone, drastically reducing the income they owed taxes on. At that rate, the cut could deliver more than half a billion in tax savings for Hendricks and the Uihleins over its eight-year life.

But the tax break did more than just give a lucrative, and legal, perk to Johnson’s donors. In the first year after Trump signed the legislation, just 82 ultrawealthy households collectively walked away with more than $1 billion in total savings, an analysis of confidential tax records shows. Republican and Democratic tycoons alike saw their tax bills chopped by tens of millions, among them: media magnate and former Democratic presidential candidate Michael Bloomberg; the Bechtel family, owners of the engineering firm that bears their name; and the heirs of the late Houston pipeline billionaire Dan Duncan.

Usually the scale of the riches doled out by opaque tax legislation — and the beneficiaries — remain shielded from the public. But ProPublica has obtained a trove of IRS records covering thousands of the wealthiest Americans. The records have enabled reporters this year to explore the diverse menu of options the tax code affords the ultrawealthy to avoid paying taxes.

The drafting of the Trump law offers a unique opportunity to examine how the billionaire class is able to shape the code to its advantage, building in new ways to sidestep taxes.

The Tax Cuts and Jobs Act was the biggest rewrite of the code in decades and arguably the most consequential legislative achievement of the one-term president. Crafted largely in secret by a handful of Trump administration officials and members of Congress, the bill was rushed through the legislative process.

As draft language of the bill made its way through Congress, lawmakers friendly to billionaires and their lobbyists were able to nip and tuck and stretch the bill to accommodate a variety of special groups. The flurry of midnight deals and last-minute insertions of language resulted in a vast redistribution of wealth into the pockets of a select set of families, siphoning away billions in tax revenue from the nation’s coffers. This story is based on lobbying and campaign finance disclosures, Treasury Department emails and calendars obtained through a Freedom of Information Act lawsuit, and confidential tax records.

For those who benefited from the bill’s modifications, the collective millions spent on campaign donations and lobbying were minuscule compared with locking in years of enormous tax savings.

A spokesperson for the Uihleins declined to comment. Representatives for Hendricks didn’t respond to questions. In response to emailed questions, Johnson did not address whether he had discussed the expanded tax break with Hendricks or the Uihleins. Instead, he wrote in a statement that his advocacy was driven by his belief that the tax code “needs to be simplified and rationalized.”

“My support for ‘pass-through’ entities — that represent over 90% of all businesses — was guided by the necessity to keep them competitive with C-corporations and had nothing to do with any donor or discussions with them,” he wrote.

 

By the summer of 2017, it was clear that Trump’s first major legislative initiative, to “repeal and replace” Obamacare, had gone up in flames, taking a marquee campaign promise with it. Looking for a win, the administration turned to tax reform.

“Getting closer and closer on the Tax Cut Bill. Shaping up even better than projected,” Trump tweeted. “House and Senate working very hard and smart. End result will be not only important, but SPECIAL!”

At the top of the Republican wishlist was a deep tax cut for corporations. There was little doubt that such a cut would make it into the final legislation. But because of the complexity of the tax code, slashing the corporate tax rate doesn’t actually affect most U.S. businesses.

Corporate taxes are paid by what are known in tax lingo as C corporations, which include large publicly traded firms like AT&T or Coca-Cola. Most businesses in the United States aren’t C corporations, they’re pass-throughs. The name comes from the fact that when one of these businesses makes money, the profits are not subject to corporate taxes. Instead, they “pass through” directly to the owners, who pay taxes on the profits on their personal returns. Unlike major shareholders in companies like Amazon, who can avoid taking income by not selling their stock, owners of successful pass-throughs typically can’t avoid it.

Pass-throughs include the full gamut of American business, from small barbershops to law firms to, in the case of Uline, a packaging distributor with thousands of employees.

So alongside the corporate rate cut for the AT&Ts of the world, the Trump tax bill included a separate tax break for pass-through companies. For budgetary reasons, the tax break is not permanent, sunsetting after eight years.

Proponents touted it as boosting “small business” and “Main Street,” and it’s true that many small businesses got a modest tax break. But a recent study by Treasury economists found that the top 1% of Americans by income have reaped nearly 60% of the billions in tax savings created by the provision. And most of that amount went to the top 0.1%. That’s because even though there are many small pass-through businesses, most of the pass-through profits in the country flow to the wealthy owners of a limited group of large companies.

Tax records show that in 2018, Bloomberg, whom Forbes ranks as the 20th wealthiest person in the world, got the largest known deduction from the new provision, slashing his tax bill by nearly $68 million. (When he briefly ran for president in 2020, Bloomberg’s tax plan proposed ending the deduction, though his plan was generally friendlier to the wealthy than those of his rivals.) A spokesperson for Bloomberg declined to comment.

Johnson’s intervention in November 2017 was designed to boost the bill’s already generous tax break for pass-through companies. The bill had allowed for business owners to deduct up to 17.4% of their profits. Thanks to Johnson holding out, that figure was ultimately boosted to 20%.

That might seem like a small increase, but even a few extra percentage points can translate into tens of millions of dollars in extra deductions in one year alone for an ultrawealthy family.

The mechanics are complicated but, for the rich, it generally means that a business owner gets to keep an extra 7 cents on every dollar of profit. To understand the windfall, take the case of the Uihlein family.

Dick, the great-grandson of a beer magnate, and his wife, Liz, own and operate packaging giant Uline. The logo of the Pleasant Prairie, Wisconsin, firm is stamped on the bottom of countless paper bags. Uline produced nearly $1 billion in profits in 2018, according to ProPublica’s analysis of tax records. Dick and Liz Uihlein, who own a majority of the company, reported more than $700 million in income that year. But they were able to slash what they owed the IRS with a $118 million deduction generated by the new tax break.

Liz Uihlein, who serves as president of Uline, has criticized high taxes in her company newsletter. The year before the tax overhaul, the couple gave generously to support Trump’s 2016 presidential campaign. That same year, when Johnson faced long odds in his reelection bid against former Sen. Russ Feingold, the Uihleins gave more than $8 million to a series of political committees that blanketed the state with pro-Johnson and anti-Feingold ads. That blitz led the Milwaukee Journal Sentinel to dub the Uihleins “the Koch brothers of Wisconsin politics.”

Johnson’s campaign also got a boost from Hendricks, Wisconsin’s richest woman and owner of roofing wholesaler ABC Supply Co. The Beloit-based billionaire has publicly pushed for tax breaks and said she wants to stop the U.S. from becoming “a socialistic ideological nation.”

Hendricks has said Johnson won her over after she grilled him at a brunch meeting six years earlier. She gave about $12 million to a pair of political committees, the Reform America Fund and the Freedom Partners Action Fund, that bought ads attacking Feingold.

In the first year of the pass-through tax break, Hendricks got a $97 million deduction on income of $502 million. By reducing the income she owed taxes on, that deduction saved her around $36 million.

 

Even after Johnson won the expansion of the pass-through break in late 2017, the final text of the tax overhaul wasn’t settled. A congressional conference committee had to iron out the differences between the Senate and House versions of the bill.

Sometime during this process, eight words that had been in neither the House nor the Senate bill were inserted: “applied without regard to the words ‘engineering, architecture.'”

With that wonky bit of legalese, Congress smiled on the Bechtel clan.

The Bechtels’ engineering and construction company is one of the largest and most politically connected private firms in the country. With surgical precision, the new language guaranteed the Bechtels a massive tax cut. In previous versions of the bill, construction would have been given a tax break, but engineering was one of the industries excluded from the pass-through deduction for reasons that remain murky.

When the bill, with its eight added words, took effect in 2018, three great-great-grandchildren of the company’s founder, CEO Brendan Bechtel and his siblings Darren and Katherine, together netted deductions of $111 million on $679 million in income, tax records show.

And that’s just one generation of Bechtels. The heirs’ father, Riley, also holds a piece of the firm, as does a group of nonfamily executives and board members. In all, Bechtel Corporation produced around $2.3 billion of profit in 2018 alone — the vast majority of which appears to be eligible for the 20% deduction.

Who wrote the phrase — and which lawmaker inserted it — has been a much-discussed mystery in the tax policy world. ProPublica found that a lobbyist who worked for both Bechtel and an industry trade group has claimed credit for the alteration.

In the months leading up to the bill’s passage in 2017, Bechtel had executed a full-court press in Washington, meeting with Trump administration officials and spending more than $1 million lobbying on tax issues.

Marc Gerson, of the Washington law firm Miller & Chevalier, was paid to lobby on the tax bill by both Bechtel and the American Council of Engineering Companies, of which Bechtel is a member. At a presentation for the trade group’s members a few weeks after Trump signed the bill into law, Gerson credited his efforts for the pass-through tax break, calling it a “major legislative victory for the engineering industry.” Gerson did not respond to a request for comment.

Bechtel’s push was part of a long history of lobbying for tax breaks by the company. Two decades ago, it even hired a former IRS commissioner as part of a successful bid to get “engineering and architectural services” included in one of President George W. Bush’s tax cuts.

The company’s lobbying on the Trump tax bill, and the tax break it received, highlight a paradox at the core of Bechtel: The family has for years showered money on anti-tax candidates even though, as The New Yorker’s Jane Mayer has written, Bechtel “owed almost its entire existence to government patronage.” Most famous for being one of the companies that built the Hoover Dam, in recent years it has bid on and won marquee federal projects. Among them: a healthy share of the billions spent by American taxpayers to rebuild Iraq after the war. The firm recently moved its longtime headquarters from San Francisco to Reston, Virginia, a hub for federal contractors just outside the Beltway.

A spokesperson for Bechtel Corporation didn’t respond to questions about the company’s lobbying. The spokesperson, as well as a representative of the family’s investment office, didn’t respond to requests to accept questions about the family’s tax records.

Brendan Bechtel has emerged this year as a vocal critic of President Joe Biden’s proposal to pay for new infrastructure with tax hikes.

“It’s unfair to ask business to shoulder or cover all the additional costs of this public infrastructure investment,” he said on a recent CNBC appearance.

 

As the landmark tax overhaul sped through the legislative process, other prosperous groups of business owners worried they would be left out. With the help of lobbyists, and sometimes after direct contact with lawmakers, they, too, were invited into what Trump dubbed his “big, beautiful tax cut.”

Among the biggest winners during the final push were real estate developers.

The Senate bill included a formula that restricted the size of the new deduction based on how much a pass-through business paid in wages. Congressional Republicans framed the provision as rewarding businesses that create jobs. In effect, it meant a highly profitable business with few employees — like a real estate developer — wouldn’t be able to benefit much from the break.

Developers weren’t happy. Several marshaled lobbyists and prodded friendly lawmakers to turn things around.

At least two of them turned to Johnson.

“Dear Ron,” Ted Kellner, a Wisconsin developer, and a colleague wrote in a letter to Johnson. “I’m concerned that the goal of a fair, efficient and growth oriented tax overhaul will not be achieved, especially for private real estate pass-through entities.”

Johnson forwarded the letter from Kellner, a political donor of his, to top Republicans in the House and Senate: “All, Yesterday, I received this letter from very smart and successful businessmen in Milwaukee,” adding that the legislation as it stood gave pass-throughs “widely disparate, grossly unfair” treatment.

House Ways and Means Committee Chairman Kevin Brady, R-Texas, responded with a promise to do more: “Senator — I strongly agree we should continue to improve the pass-through provisions at every step. You are a great champion for this.” Congress is not subject to the Freedom of Information Act, but Treasury officials were copied on the email exchange. ProPublica obtained the exchange after suing the Treasury Department.

Kellner got his wish. In the final days of the legislative process, real estate investors were given a side door to access the full deduction. Language was added to the final legislation that allowed them to qualify if they had a large portfolio of buildings, even if they had small payrolls.

With that, some of the richest real estate developers in the country were welcomed into the fold.

The tax records obtained by ProPublica show that one of the top real estate industry winners was Donald Bren, sole owner of the Southern California-based Irvine Company and one of the wealthiest developers in the United States.

In 2018 alone, Bren personally enjoyed a deduction of $22 million because of the tax break. Bren’s representatives did not respond to emails and calls from ProPublica.

His company had hired Wes Coulam, a prominent Washington lobbyist with Ernst & Young, to advocate for its interests as the bill was being hammered out. Before Coulam became a lobbyist, he worked on Capitol Hill as a tax policy adviser for Utah Sen. Orrin Hatch.

Hatch, then the Republican chair of the Senate Finance Committee, publicly took credit for the final draft of the new deduction, amid questions about the real estate carveout. Hatch’s representatives did not respond to questions from ProPublica about how the carveout was added.

ProPublica’s records show that other big real estate winners include Adam Portnoy, head of commercial real estate giant the RMR Group, who got a $14 million deduction in 2018. Donald Sterling, the real estate developer and disgraced former owner of the Los Angeles Clippers, won an $11 million deduction. Representatives for Portnoy and Sterling did not respond to questions from ProPublica.

Another gift to the real estate industry in the bill was a tax deduction of up to 20% on dividends from real estate investment trusts, more commonly known as REITs. These companies are essentially bundles of various real estate assets, which investors can buy chunks of. REITs make money by collecting rent from tenants and interest from loans used to finance real estate deals.

The tax cut for these investment vehicles was pushed by both the Real Estate Roundtable, a trade group for the entire industry, and the National Association of Real Estate Investment Trusts. The latter, a trade group specifically for REITs, spent more than $5 million lobbying in Washington the year the tax bill was drafted, more than it had in any year in its history.

Steven Roth, the founder of Vornado Realty Trust, a prominent REIT, is a regular donor to both groups’ political committees.

Roth had close ties to the Trump administration, including advising on infrastructure and doing business with Jared Kushner’s family. He became one of the biggest winners from the REIT provision in the Trump tax law.

Roth earned more than $27 million in REIT dividends in the two years after the bill passed, potentially allowing him a tax deduction of about $5 million, tax records show. Roth did not respond to requests for comment, and his representatives did not accept questions from ProPublica on his behalf.

Another carveout benefited investors of publicly traded pipeline businesses. Sen. John Cornyn, a Texas Republican, added an amendment for them to the Senate version of the bill just before it was voted on.

Without his amendment, investors who made under a certain income would have received the deduction anyway, experts told ProPublica. But for higher-income investors, a slate of restrictions kicked in. In order to qualify, they would have needed the businesses they’re invested in to pay out significant wages, and these oil and gas businesses, like real estate developers, typically do not.

Cornyn’s amendment cleared the way.

The trade group for these companies and one of its top members, Enterprise Products Partners, a Houston-based natural gas and crude oil pipeline company, had both lobbied on the bill. Enterprise was founded by Dan Duncan, who died in 2010.

The Trump tax bill delivered a win to Duncan’s heirs. ProPublica’s data shows his four children, who own stakes in the company, together claimed more than $150 million in deductions in 2018 alone. The tax provision for “small businesses” had delivered a windfall to the family Forbes ranked as the 11th richest in the country.

In a statement, an Enterprise spokesperson wrote: “The Duncan family abides by all applicable tax laws and will not comment on individual tax returns, which are a private matter.” Cornyn’s office did not respond to questions about the senator’s amendment.

The tax break is due to expire after 2025, and a gulf has opened in Congress about the future of the provision.

In July, Senate Finance Chair Ron Wyden, D-Ore., proposed legislation that would end the tax cut early for the ultrawealthy. In fact, anyone making over $500,000 per year would no longer get the deduction. But it would be extended to the business owners below that threshold who are currently excluded because of their industry. The bill would “make the policy more fair and less complex for middle-class business owners, while also raising billions for priorities like child care, education, and health care,” Wyden said in a statement.

Meanwhile, dozens of trade groups, including the Chamber of Commerce, are pushing to make the pass-through tax cut permanent. This year, a bipartisan bill called the Main Street Tax Certainty Act was introduced in both houses of Congress to do just that.

One of the bill’s sponsors, Rep. Henry Cuellar, D-Texas, pitched the legislation this way: “I am committed to delivering critical relief for our nation’s small businesses and the communities they serve.”

The Dixie Fire is moving too fast for California’s emergency alert systems

Northern California’s Dixie Fire continued to make history this weekend, jumping past Oregon’s Bootleg Fire to become the biggest active blaze in the United States. As of Monday afternoon, it is California’s second-largest wildfire in recorded history, having ripped through nearly half a million acres since it sparked last month. 

But it’s not just the Dixie Fire’s size that’s notable; it’s also incredibly fast-moving. Since its inception, the Dixie Fire has devoured California’s parched forests at a mind-boggling rate — on some days tearing through an acre of land every second. As a result, authorities have had to work swiftly to try to disseminate up-to-date information to local residents whose homes may be endangered by the flames.

“We’re seeing truly frightening fire behavior,” said Plumas National Forest supervisor Chris Carlton in a public briefing on August 5, shortly after the historic town of Greenville, California, was razed by the Dixie Fire. “We have a lot of veteran firefighters who have served for 20, 30 years and have never seen behavior like this, especially day after day.”

While that behavior is new, it’s not entirely unexpected. The Dixie Fire is just the latest in a series of wildfires that are much more extreme than the blazes of the previous century. A century-long history of bad forest management is partly to blame, but so is climate change: Severe drought and rising temperatures have sucked moisture out of California’s forests, creating tinderbox conditions that are ripe for massive and quick-moving conflagrations. Once wildfires get going, they can even create their own positive feedback cycles: On July 20, the Dixie Fire generated a “pyro cumulonimbus” cloud system that sparked lightning and drove strong winds, helping to accelerate the fire’s spread. 

Even though California has been bracing itself for a potentially devastating fire season by spending hundreds of millions of dollars on prevention measures, some experts say the state hasn’t invested enough in systems that alert residents of evolving risks given wildfires’ new, faster pace. 

“These fires are outpacing the traditional communication structures,” said Daniel Swain, a climate scientist at the University of California Los Angeles. Televised public briefings, for example, usually only occur every few hours, if not even less frequently. And opt-in alert systems — like CodeRed or a “reverse 911” system, in which authorities call households’ landlines or cell phones to warn them of an approaching wildfire — may have low coverage, leaving large swaths of an at-risk population with incomplete information.

“I’ve spoken to people who are panicked and don’t know whether they need to leave, or which direction to leave,” Swain said.

In the wake of such rapidly-moving wildfires, many people have turned to social media for the most up-to-date fire news — especially Twitter, where nearby residents, hobbyists, and other amateur wildfire trackers have posted updates using the hashtag #DixieFire. Andrew Burke, whose home in Butte Creek Canyon, California, was burned in the 2018 Camp Fire, has kept tabs on this year’s flames by aggregating information from a number of sources — everything from online wind maps to specific Twitter accounts.

“You have to be an armchair expert,” he said, otherwise, information from the authorities might not come until it’s too late. He said he and other residents of fire-prone areas have come to treat an evacuation warning as an order. “And if you actually get an order, that’s like where your hair is getting singed,” he added.

Although wildfire information crowdsourced from social media may help fill an information vacuum for now, Swain says it is no substitute for a centralized emergency notification system that is updated for the fires of the 21st century — something that utilizes all possible modes of communication and makes available information that is currently inaccessible to the general public, such as real-time firefighter communications. He also recommends that firefighting units operationalize the Twitter model, hiring their own public information officers for the sole purpose of disseminating information as quickly as they can across multiple channels.

Beyond preventing infernos in the first place, an improved communication infrastructure may be one of the most efficient ways to save people’s lives and property. “It’s something that could be addressed really fast,” Swain said, “if there were motivation and funding to do it.”

Tall buildings: Good for the housing crisis, bad for the climate crisis

In the summer of 1995, Chicago experienced one of the most deadly heatwaves in U.S. history. As temperatures spiked that July, hitting 100 degrees for five straight days, 739 Chicagoans perished, many of them old folks in cramped apartments. 

Two months later, the city began its 16-year project of tearing down the infamous towers of the Cabrini-Green housing project. For 50 years, the red-brick exterior high-rises of Cabrini-Green, buildings synonymous with the birth of urban renewal and public housing in America, towered over the North Side of Chicago. At one time the high-rises were home to 15,000 people, but decades of neglect turned once sprawling grass yards and playgrounds into dirt fields and empty patches of pavement as the once-pristine brick facade crumbled above. 

They might seem like unconnected events. But the majority of people affected shared two traits: They were Black, and they were poor. A report by the United Nations’ Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change released on Monday looked at the relationship between housing, building structures, and broiling city blocks and found that deaths from heatwaves — like the one in Chicago — are not a coincidence. 

“The [IPCC] news that came out this week shows us that you can’t chop up the challenges of meeting our everyday needs amidst climate change into neat silos, ” Rick Cole, executive director of the Congress for New Urbanism told Grist. “It’s impossible to solve our affordable housing crisis, our climate emergency, and people’s desire for improved quality of life against racism and disinvestment into separate silos.”

The IPCC report found that the single biggest contributor to amplifying heat and warming in cities is “urban geometry,” the relationship between city layouts, building construction, and density. The main problem driving the so-called “heat-island effect” is tall buildings. They create urban canyons, blocking winds from cooling things down and locking in heat. Urban centers can range as much as 22 degrees warmer than nearby rural areas. Stoked by climate change, extreme heat kills more peoplein the U.S. than any other weather event. The report points to cities all around the world — especially Tehran, Iran and Kolkata, India — that are warmer than their surroundings.

Festering within the heat is a housing crisis that has left one-quarter of adult Americans, disproportionately Black and Latino, without housing or struggling to pay rent, and local governments scrambling for solutions. Many housing experts labeled the demise of the Cabrini-Green towers as the death of affordable high-rise housing across the country. Since then, however, cities and states across the country — in OhioNew York City, and back in Chicago, developers are building taller affordable housing, going up, not out, in an effort to create density, walkable neighborhoods where infrastructure costs are lower and jobs, stores, and homes are closer together The trick is finding a solution that offers everyone safe and quality housing without overheating the planet.

In tightly-packed places like New York City, home to more than 6,000 high-rises, many of the effects of urban canyons and urban heat are unavoidable, said John Mandyck, CEO of the Urban Green Council in New York City. “New York City and other major cities such as San Francisco, don’t have the flexibility to build out,” he said. “It’s about mitigating the climate impact of density and housing millions of people.”

Mandyck thinks there’s a way to maintain tall buildings, and even build a few more in cities that need them, while combating both the housing and climate crisis. Cities could create gardens in the sky, which have successfully offered natural cooling and improved air quality in cities like Chicago, as well as planting trees and bushes to shade sidewalks and streets. Reflective roofing systems in New York City have led to more than 5.3 million square feet of roof spaces covered in a white reflective coating, preventing an estimated 2,500 tons of CO2 emissions every year. 

Cities should also focus on cutting buildings’ carbon emissions, Mandyek said. In New York City, where supertall towers have taken over the skyline in recent years, buildings represent 70 percent of carbon emissions, but a 2019 law is set to lower those emissions by 40 percent in 2030 and 80 percent by 2050.

Although Cole does believe mitigation practices like these are important, he says hyper-dense high-rises will continue to pose problems. “Outside of Manhattan or the shoreline of Miami, from the standpoint of climate change, the real value is moving away from the artificial zoning limits that have required the development of high-rise housing,” he said. “Even if skyscrapers were the answer to our manufactured housing crisis, it’s not even one percent of the solution to our environmental problems because it adds challenges even as it mitigates some.”

More than 25 years after that first Cabrini tower came down, U.S. cities are much more equipped to tackle housing problems and the climate crisis, but action requires political willpower and individual sacrifices, experts say. 

“We are out of balance right now on issues around climate change and urban development, and have been for a while,” Mandyck said. “But we have all the tools to come back in balance, to lower carbon emissions, cool down our cities, and to house and protect the people who have a lot at stake because of climate change.”

Donald Trump hit with another legal blow as judge rules House committee can obtain tax records

A federal judge has ruled that a House committee should be able to access former President Donald Trump’s tax records through his accounting firm, Mazars USA, CNN reported Wednesday.

U.S. District Judge Ahmit P. Meta issued the ruling, which you can read here, in a court battle between Mazars USA and the House Committee on Oversight and Reform.

The ruling comes a day after CNN reported that the Biden administration is unlikely to provide Trump’s tax returns to the committee before November, despite a recent Justice Department decision saying that the IRS “must” hand them over — in response to a separate lawsuit.

CNN host John King described Meta’s Wednesday decision in the Mazars USA case as “a big deal” and “an important court ruling that opens a big door for Democrats.”

CNN reporter Kara Scannell explained the decision: “The way that it breaks down is that the House Oversight Committee, according to the judge, will be able to have access to documents relating to the Trump Washington D.C. hotel. That’s because they have oversight of the GSA, which has entered into this lease. Documents related to the Trump organization, to the president, all related to that D.C. hotel will have to be turned over.”

“In addition, the accounting firm will also have to turn over information that fit under the umbrella of emoluments,” Scannell added. “The judge is saying that pertains to certain documents involving the years 2017 and 2018, but where the House committee lost on this ruling is that the judge is saying that they cannot have access to records that pertain to the period before Donald Trump took office. So, a split ruling, but certainly the big issue here is that Donald Trump hasn’t wanted any of these records to be turned over, and now this judge is saying that they will.”

Legal analyst Elie Honig noted that the decision is likely to be appealed.

A tale of two bully governors: Chris Christie got away with it; Andrew Cuomo didn’t

A year and a half into a once-in-a-century mass death event, we are still held captive by a deadly pandemic and a scourge of endemic political corruption that enabled Andrew Cuomo to remain in power far too long. Until the New York governor finally saw the writing on the wall and announced his resignation this week, he shamelessly attack the very same attorney general who, just months earlier, he asked to investigate allegations of sexual misconduct against him.

As the world now knows, independent investigators charged with conducting the probe on behalf of Attorney General Letitia James concluded that from 2013 through 2020 Cuomo “sexually harassed multiple women” and violated state and federal law in a spree of “inappropriate groping, kissing, and hugging” while creating “a hostile work environment rife with fear and intimidation.”

In a sense, we really can’t blame Cuomo for clinging as long as he could to Trump-style like tactics meant to undermine the rule of law and representative democracy.

He came of age in an era where both New Jersey and New York have had a hard time rooting out political corruption or even making convictions stick. And toughing it out over howling public outrage, as Cuomo at first clearly intended, can have its rewards in a post-shame world.

Consider former New Jersey Gov. Jim McGreevey’s gambit in August 2004, when he admitted to actions that amounted to a massive breach of the public trust, yet opted to remain in office until mid-November. That robbed the electorate of the chance for a special election, handing the governorship to State Senate President Richard J. Codey, a fellow Democrat.

McGreevey also tried to make his sexual orientation the central issue, when he was really forced to resign by strong evidence of corruption. “I realize the fact of this affair and my own sexuality if kept secret leaves me, and most importantly the governor’s office, vulnerable to rumors, false allegations, and threats of disclosure,” he said at the time. “So, I am removing these threats by telling you directly about my sexuality.”

Nowhere in the mea culpa did McGreevey apologize for appointing his lover, who had no relevant qualifications, to a $110,000-a-year job as New Jersey’s Homeland Security adviser, or for trying to hand real estate developer Charles Kushner, his single biggest campaign donor, a seat on the Port Authority of New York and New Jersey, with an eye towards making him chairman.

Kushner, a prolific Democratic donor at the time, would plead guilty in 2004 to 16 federal counts including tax fraud, witness retaliation and making false statements to the Federal Election Commission. On Christmas Eve in 2020, President Donald Trump pardoned Kushner, the father of Trump’s son-in-law. 

For years, that kind of bipartisan stench has emanated from the Port Authority, an unaccountable sovereign duchy of self-dealing, which has on occasion been weaponized against the public that pays dearly to use the bridges and tunnels we paid to build.

During Chris Christie’s tenure as New Jersey governor, he and Cuomo had a kind of compact to align themselves politically when it came to handling the bi-state agency. According to multiple reports they coordinated what was in essence feigned outrage over the Port Authority’s 2011 proposal to raise tolls by 50 percent, setting the stage for them to ride to the rescue of motorists with just a $1.50 hike.

Over a period of days in September of 2013, including the 9/11 anniversary, when Port Authority police are typically on high alert for potential terrorist attacks, they instead were ordered to carry out a scheme dreamed up by Christie partisans to punish the Democratic mayor of Fort Lee, New Jersey, by closing lanes feeding into the George Washington Bridge.

This politically induced traffic coronary delayed emergency vehicle responses and paralyzed traffic on the first day of school in that Hudson River city directly across from upper Manhattan.

For months, the Wall Street Journal, along with the Record (a north Jersey daily), pressed to get to the bottom of the story. The Port Authority initially claimed the lane closures were part of a legitimate traffic study. It wasn’t until January 2014, when the media published an email from Bridget Kelly to then-Port Authority official and Christie operative David Wildstein saying it was “time for some traffic problems in Fort Lee,” that the cover story was fully discredited.

It was still enough of a live issue that Sen. Jay Rockefeller of West Virginia, then chair of the Commerce Committee, wrote to the Port Authority taking it to task for providing no proof of an actual traffic study. He blasted the agency for the lane shutdown, writing that it was “unconscionable that anyone would block commercial traffic and risk the safety of thousands on our interstate highway system in this way.”

In response, months after the lane closures the Port Authority was still obfuscating, claiming the lane closures were “aberrational events” and that it still did “not have many of the facts as to the motivations behind actions taken at the GWB.”

On the surface, the narrative that emerged was that Wildstein conspired with allies of Christie to punish the Fort Lee mayor for not endorsing Christie’s re-election campaign by staging four days of lane closures on the heavily-trafficked George Washington Bridge, from Sept. 9 to 13, 2013.

In our region, we have historically relied on U.S. attorneys to bring corruption cases, since the New Jersey attorney general (appointed by the governor) and Manhattan district attorney (elected by the voters) are often reluctant to do so.

Ultimately, prosecuting the Bridgegate caper would fall to New Jersey U.S. Attorney Paul Fishman, who zeroed in on former Port Authority executive director Bill Baroni and former Christie chief of staff Bridget Kelly. Fishman had the help of David Wildstein, who opted to become a cooperating witness.

Fishman got convictions against Kelly and Baroni, yet they were ultimately overturned. Christie was never charged, although the prosecution‘s position during the trial was that he was aware of the plot as it was unfolding.

As was widely reported at the time, and reaffirmed in testimony during the criminal trial, Port Authority police were actively involved in executing the scheme. Senior officers were aware of the plan to alter traffic before it happened, and when rank-and-file officers raised concerns about the problems it was causing at the time, they were told to keep it to themselves. In September 2014, the Record reported that when Port Authority police officers used their radios to report that the lane closures were creating “hazardous conditions” on local Fort Lee roads, their supervisors told them to “shut up.”

In the midst of the lane closures, which crippled his city and ruined the first day of school for Fort Lee’s school children, Mayor Mark Sokolich — the apparent target of the whole enterprise — appealed via email for Baroni’s help.

“Adding insult to injury, many members of the public have indicated to me that the Port Authority [police] officers are advising commuters in response to their complaints that this recent traffic debacle is the result of a decision that I, as the Mayor made,” Sokolich wrote to Baroni.

It’s important to put this in context: Christie was in a heated re-election campaign against state Sen. Barbara Buono, and the lane closures were a hot issue. Had the Port Authority come clean, it could have been a very different race.

At the time, Cuomo insisted he knew nothing about Bridgegate beyond what he read in the newspaper. But WNYC reported later that based on emails it received through a freedom-of-information request, “Cuomo and his top aides” were “responding instantly and far more intensely to the abrupt lane closures on the George Washington Bridge than had previously been known,” which helped “keep a lid on the scandal.”

In 2013, the Wall Street Journal reported that Christie had called Cuomo to complain that Port Authority executive director Patrick Foye “was pressing too hard to get to the bottom of why the number of toll lanes onto the bridge from Fort Lee, NJ, was cut from three to one.” The Journal attributed its story to “a person familiar with the matter.”

At the criminal trial, three people testified that Cuomo was part of the effort to cover up the real origins of the Fort Lee lane closures after a conversation with Christie where the latter asked his New York counterpart to have Foye, a Cuomo appointee, “stand down.”

As NJ.com reported, although Foye ordered the lanes reopened and “suspected foul play was involved,” he still issued a press release claiming the Port Authority was conducting “a week of study” and would “review those results and determine the best traffic patterns at the GWB.”

Under oath at the criminal trial, Foye admitted that he he knew the statements in the press release were false and that the agency used the excuse of an internal probe to stave off reporters’ questions for a month after that investigation was over.

That was invaluable cover for the Christie crew. Artfully controlling the narrative to blunt the reporting on the Bridgegate scandal certainly didn’t hurt Foye’s career. In 2017, Cuomo tapped him to be CEO and chairman of the board of the Metropolitan Transportation Authority, the agency that oversees New York City’s subway system and the Metro-North and Long Island Rail Road commuter lines.

Members of the Port Authority Police Department even surfaced in what prosecutors alleged was a criminal conspiracy to cover up the initial lane-closure plot. In November 2013, Baroni testified before the New Jersey state legislature that the concept of the traffic study was first raised by Paul Nunziato, president of the Port Authority Police Benevolent Association.

In 2014 The New York Times reported that Nunziato and Wildstein had met regularly from 2012, leading up to Nunziato’s endorsement of Christie’s re-election campaign, on behalf of his 1,500-member union. (Under Christie’s tutelage the ranks of the Port Authority police grew from 1,500 to 2,000 by March 2014.)

When Nunziato took questions from reporters after a December 2014 Port Authority commissioners’ meeting, he reaffirmed that he had originated the George Washington Bridge-Fort Lee traffic study. A month earlier, he had said in a statement that speculation that politics was behind the GWB fiasco lane closures was like speculating on the location of Jimmy Hoffa’s body.

Nunziato’s lawyer, Charles J. Sciarra, told the New York Times his client had nothing to do with the closures. “My client was trying to be supportive of people who were supportive of his union; he never intended to mislead.”

In May 2015, Wildstein pled guilty to two federal felony counts. His convictions were vacated by a federal judge last year, after the U.S. Supreme Court reversed the convictions of Kelly and Baroni. 

So Fishman’s extended effort to prosecute the Bridgegate schemers was an expensive flop. One thing he did succeed in doing was keeping sealed the list of unindicted co-conspirators, which has remained off limits to the media and the public to this very day.

This is not a Hollywood movie — all too often, the bad guys get away. Sometimes they don’t: Cuomo hired Fishman as outside counsel to defend him against the harassment allegations. This time, that wasn’t enough. But it’s no wonder Cuomo believed he could mold the collective reality by “hanging tough.” Power protects power.

Malignant normality: The psychological theory that explains naked emperors, narcissists and Nazis

There are many variations to Hans Christian Andersen’s classic literary folktale “The Emperor’s New Clothes,” but most have the same basic plot points: A vain emperor is duped by two con men into buying clothes that don’t exist. They trick him by saying that the non-existent fabric is actually visible, but only stupid and incompetent people can’t see it. The emperor pretends that he can see the clothes, and then ordinary people follow his lead — whether because they believe him, or because they are simply afraid to state otherwise. It is only when a child blurts out that he is naked that the illusion is shattered.

Andersen was unfamiliar with the psychological concept known as malignant normality, but his tale captures it perfectly. The folktale also teaches an important lesson about standing by one’s own common sense, even when social pressures are insurmountable, and remembering that confidence in your correctness is not enough on its own — particularly if those around you don’t buy in too. And the idea — of a narcissist with power and/or popularity normalizing an “alternate reality” that is patently absurd — clearly has analogues in schoolyard politics, global politics, and everything in-between. 

The concept of malignant normality, as explained by psychiatrist Dr. Robert Jay Lifton, is rooted in history — specifically, in our understanding of Nazi Germany. Lifton argued that many Nazi doctors weren’t active ideologues, but were willing to send Jews to gas chambers because this was their job — even though they had taken a hippocratic oath.

The reality of institutionalized genocide, which had not seemed plausible to Germans only a dozen years earlier, had become a malignant normal. Not everyone had to buy into the ideas of Nazism, at least not in full. They simply had to live in a society where actions that would usually be considered atrocious are instead perceived as routine. In turn, while they didn’t have to believe in Hitler’s lies, they had to at least accept that a social order based around those lies could be legitimate. The moral system and fundamental political beliefs of millions of people had been radically altered — and all of it based on a narcissist’s word.

That last detail is crucial to understanding malignant normality, clinical psychologist Dr. Ramani Durvasula told Salon. Durvasula, who has done research in the area of narcissism and high conflict personalities (which is part and parcel to malignant normality), told Salon that malignant normalities are mass delusions that originate from a specific source. In the case of the Nazis, Adolf Hitler channeled his personal grievances and ideological obsessions into a philosophy that was embraced by millions who held his word to be infallible. Hitler flat-out fabricated conspiracy theories about Jewish world domination, plots against him and other Nazis, and the supposed causes of German woes. By virtue of him saying these things, they were held to be true — and the consequences were World War II and the Holocaust.

“Delusion as a psychotic symptom is a break from reality,” Durvasula told Salon, citing as examples people who think they can talk to Martians or believe the FBI is reading their thoughts.

While most individuals would tell someone who harbors those beliefs that they are delusional, however, a malignant normality will be reinforced by numerous outside sources. News outlets, religious institutions, political commentators and even entertainers will constantly telling a believer that a certain falsehood is true. The delusion, because it is shared by the masses, seems credible. Yet a mass delusion is not in itself the same thing as a malignant normality.


Want more psychology and science stories in your inbox? Subscribe to Salon’s weekly newsletter The Vulgar Scientist.


“You start getting into dicey spaces about religion,” Durvasula explained. “What else falls under that? Santa Claus? What else falls under the shared delusion? If enough people believe something, at what point do we hit critical mass that it goes away from being a delusion to a shared belief?”

Psychologist Dr. John Gartner, who has studied narcissistic behavior and circulated a petition to remove President Donald Trump from power because of his alleged mental illnesses, told Salon that the unique form of “mass psychosis” known as malignant normality is “basically organized from the top.” It depends on an individual or institution deliberately lying and having that lie reinforced through apparatuses that people view as potentially credible.

“What we’ve learned is that people’s construction of reality is fungible,” Gartner explained. “It’s flexible. It can be manipulated, especially when it comes from the top. That’s very important. And especially when there is propaganda, and especially when there’s social reinforcement among people.”

Dr. David M. Reiss, a psychiatrist who has worked on cases involving borderline and narcissistic personality disorders, explained to Salon that he sees four types of people who are susceptible to believing in a malignant normality. He noted that these categories do overlap. The first group are people who are already narcissistic and connect with another narcissist. (There is a condition related to this called narcissism by proxy.) The second are people who have sadistic or nihilistic aspects to their personalities and feel empowered to act them out by embracing a narcissist’s lies. There are also people who, through neediness, are attracted to those who appear very powerful without malice or really thinking through their attraction.

Finally, there are those who “are sincerely confused and gaslighted, where they’re basically put in the position where a person with power — and it doesn’t have to be political power, it could be power within a family — is telling [them] something that has absolutely goes against reality.”

That group of people are left feeling that either they or those they trust are crazy — and each option is terrifying in its own way.

And what kind of person who would be “at the top” in a malignant normality? The answer, not surprisingly, is a malignant narcissist. Like Hitler being rejected as an artist or Trump losing an election, the malignant narcissist channels personal failures into a larger cause, then uses their charisma to sweep others along with them.

“They’re not just narcissists,” Gartner explained. “They experience themselves as being under attack by bad people. So all the negativity is projected outward. They can never be responsible for anything because they think they’ve never done anything wrong, but they’re victims of unfair attacks.” Such malignant narcissists propagandize the notion that “bad people — Jews, immigrants, liberals, whatever — are trying to destroy us and to destroy our society. And therefore, anything we do to them is justified.”

It must be emphasized that malignant normalities are not limited to politics. According to Olivia James, a London-based therapist who specializes in trauma and has interacted with many malignant narcissists, we can succumb to malignant narcissists in many ways. Examples include those who get suckered in by multi-level marketing campaigns or other cultish business ventures.

“Any criticism of the Guru or Founder or their promises is treated as your problem, your negativity, your shadow,” James told Salon by email. “Any doubts can also be treated as a test of your faith. So you quash them and keep mainlining the Kool-Aid. You and your fellow believers are also like a tribe — there is a sense of belonging and connection.”

She added, “When people eventually realize they’ve been scammed, they crash very hard. I’ve treated these cases. Betrayal is one of the most serious types of trauma. We exist in connection with others.”

Durvasula also cited cults as an example, noting that cult leaders follow the same pattern: “they get their followers and then give them an alternative framework for reality. And everybody in the cults believes that to the tune of walking away from their families, giving up all their money, giving their identity, giving up their identities, everything.” This creates a system of pressures that make it difficult for people in the cult to leave, both because their sense of reality is warped and because they fear what awaits them if they admit to having erred. 

NXIVM, for instance, is a good example of high-functioning people who completely brought into the malignant normality offered by Keith Raniere,” the cult leader, Durvasula noted.

And yes, the concept of malignant normality very much applies to Trump. This is not because Trump is a Republican or a conservative. There are conservative politicians like Mitt Romney who base their arguments on a foundation of fact, and there are liberals who accept malignant normalities promoted by their own. The key here is that a politician creates a malignant normality when they convince people that flat-out falsehoods are true, or that drastic breaches in moral order are somehow acceptable. It is the difference between believing that Trump should have won the 2020 election, which is subjective, and saying that he did win that election, a belief that exists solely because of Trump’s fabulism.

“Trump’s insistence that he’s a ‘very stable genius’ while denigrating the work of actual geniuses and experts, and relentlessly gaslighting anyone who challenges him, is the ultimate in narcissism and in malignant normality,” Dr. Deborah J. Cohan, a professor of sociology at University of South Carolina–Beaufort, told Salon by email. She described how Trump has been able to normalize a bullying behavior that did not exist before him and has been effective at using media to make his version of reality a part of our political mainstream, even when it is entirely based on lies.

“During every week of Trump’s presidency, the nation watched as he sunk to a new low in terms of his attitudes and behaviors, and we got used to living in an abyss,” Cohan explained. “That is malignant normality. We have grown numb to things that are cruel and perverse.”

 

In a liberal democracy whose primary tenet is rationalism, it is clear that malignant normality is an aberration that threatens the organization of society. So is there any way to stop it?

“To some extent, a lot of people aren’t going to until they’re confronted, until there’s an intervention, until circumstances change,” Reiss told Salon. “But if you do have some self-awareness and you want to check it, it’s basically fact-checking what you’re doing.”

Durvasula explained that “it’s really, really not easy because what you’ve got to do is the only way to offset that kind of malignant normality sort of induced delusion is typically to provide alternate sources of information.” It is possible for someone to question their beliefs if a person they trust subtly sows doubts or if being wrong hurts them in a way so serious that they can’t ignore it. Even then, though, it may not work.

“It’s almost like trying to take away a person’s religion or their God,” Durvasula told Salon. “They don’t want you to do that. And so it’s a really, really hard sell. And I think we’re now seeing the downstream effect of again, what I consider to be population-level gaslighting.”

CNN hosts mock Giuliani for charging less than Harry Potter character on Cameo: “That’s a statement”

CNN hosts on Wednesday morning brutally mocked former president Donald Trump’s personal attorney, Rudy Giuliani, for raising money to pay his mounting legal expenses on the celebrity messaging site Cameo.

“He’s charging $275 for each of these spots that he could give someone,” CNN reporter Kara Scannell explained. “Jerry Springer is also on Cameo, and he’s $134.

“This does reflect the financial straights that he’s in, this dire situation,” Scannell added of Giuliani. “He’s not getting help from the former president, his longtime client. He’s facing election litigation (and) of course this big criminal investigation by the federal prosecutors in New York. All of that can get very expensive. His friend, Bernie Kerik, had launched a fund to raise money for him . . . He hasn’t raised that much money really at all, so none of the Trump allies are coming to his rescue.”

“I was trying to figure out if $275 was a good rate for Giuliani,” host John Berman responded. “I was trying to find like-to-like comparisons, compare apples to apples.”

“The Night King from ‘Game of Thrones’: $100. You can get like 2.75 Night Kings, extinction-level characters, for one Rudy Giiuliani. So one extinction is worth two impeachments,” Berman said.

“Draco Malfoy is nearly $600, so poor Rudy Giuliani, longtime mayor of New York City, you can get for less than half of Draco Malfoy, who by the way didn’t kill Dumbledore, he only disarmed him,” Berman added, referring to the Harry Potter character played by Tom Felton.

“Rudy Giuliani getting half of Draco Malfoy. I think that’s a statement on society,” Berman said.

You can watch the video below via YouTube:

Bombing Afghan cities with B-52s is pointless and brutal — Biden must end this

Nine provincial capitals in Afghanistan have fallen to the Taliban in six days — Zaranj, Sheberghan, Sar-e-Pul, Kunduz, Taloqan, Aybak, Farah, Pul-e-Khumri and Faizabad — while fighting continues in four more: Lashkargah, Kandahar, Herat and Mazar-i-Sharif. U.S. military officials now believe Kabul, Afghanistan’s capital, could fall within one to three months

It is horrific to watch the death, destruction and mass displacement of thousands of terrified Afghans and the triumph of the misogynist Taliban, which ruled the nation 20 years ago. But the fall of the centralized, corrupt government propped up by the Western powers was inevitable, whether it happened this year, next year or 10 years from now.     

President Biden has reacted to America’s snowballing humiliation in the graveyard of empires by once again dispatching U.S. envoy Zalmay Khalilzad to Doha, Qatar, to urge the government and the Taliban to seek a political solution, while at the same time dispatching B-52 bombers to attack at least two provincial capitals.

In Lashkargah, the capital of Helmand province, the U.S. bombing has already reportedly destroyed a high school and a health clinic. Another B-52 bombed Sheberghan, the capital of Jowzjan province and the home of the infamous warlord and accused war criminal Abdul Rashid Dostum, who is now the military commander of the U.S.-backed government’s armed forces. 

Meanwhile, the New York Times reports that U.S. Reaper drones and AC-130 gunships are also still operating in Afghanistan. 

The rapid disintegration of the Afghan forces that the U.S. and its Western allies have recruited, armed and trained for 20 years — at a cost of about $90 billion — should come as no surprise. On paper, the Afghan National Army has 180,000 troops, but in reality most are unemployed men desperate to earn money to support their families but not eager to fight their fellow Afghans. The Afghan Army is also notorious for its corruption and mismanagement. 

The army and the even more beleaguered and vulnerable police forces that man isolated outposts and checkpoints around the country are plagued by high casualties, rapid turnover and desertion. Most troops feel no loyalty to the corrupt U.S.-backed government and routinely abandon their posts, either to join the Taliban or just to go home. 

When the BBC asked Gen. Khoshal Sadat, the national police chief, about the impact of high casualties on police recruitment in February 2020, he cynically replied, “When you look at recruitment, I always think about the Afghan families and how many children they have. The good thing is there is never a shortage of fighting-age males who will be able to join the force.” 

But a police recruit at a checkpoint questioned the very purpose of the war, telling the BBC’s Nanna Muus Steffensen, “We Muslims are all brothers. We don’t have a problem with each other.” In that case, she asked him, why were they fighting? He hesitated, laughed nervously and shook his head in resignation. “You know why. I know why,” he said. “It’s not really our fight.”

Since 2007, the jewel of U.S. and Western military training missions in Afghanistan has been the Afghan Commando Corps or special operations forces, who comprise only 7% of Afghan National Army troops but reportedly do 70 to 80% of the fighting. But the Commandos have struggled to reach their target of recruiting, arming and training 30,000 troops, and poor recruitment from Pashtuns, the largest and traditionally dominant ethnic group, has been a critical weakness, especially from the Pashtun heartland in the south. 

The Commandos and the professional officer corps of the Afghan National Army are dominated by ethnic Tajiks, effectively the successors to the Northern Alliance, which the U.S. supported against the Taliban 20 years ago. As of 2017, the Commandos numbered only 16,000 to 21,000, and it is not clear how many of these Western-trained troops now serve as the last line of defense between the U.S.-backed puppet government and total defeat. 

The Taliban’s speedy and simultaneous occupation of large amounts of territory all over the country appears to be a deliberate strategy to overwhelm and outflank the government’s small number of well-trained, well-armed troops. The Taliban have had more success winning the loyalty of minorities in the north and west than government forces have had recruiting Pashtuns from the south, and the government’s small number of well-trained troops cannot be everywhere at once.

But what of the United States? Its deployment of B-52 bombers, Reaper drones and AC-130 gunships is a brutal response by a failing, flailing imperial power to a historic, humiliating defeat. 

The United States does not flinch from committing mass murder against its enemies. Just look at the U.S.-led destruction of Fallujah and Mosul in Iraq, or Raqqa in Syria. How many Americans even know about the officially-sanctioned massacre of civilians that Iraqi forces committed when the U.S.-led coalition finally took control of Mosul in 2017, after President Trump said it should “take out the families” of Islamic State fighters?

Twenty years after George W. Bush, Dick Cheney and Donald Rumsfeld committed a full range of war crimes, from torture and the deliberate killing of civilians to the “supreme international crime” of aggression, Biden is clearly no more concerned than they were with criminal accountability or the judgment of history. But even from the most pragmatic and callous point of view, what can continued aerial bombardment of Afghan cities accomplish, besides a final but futile climax to the 20-year-long U.S. slaughter of Afghans by more than 80,000 American bombs and missiles?

The intellectually and strategically bankrupt U.S. military and CIA bureaucracy has a history of congratulating itself for fleeting, superficial victories. It quickly declared victory in Afghanistan in 2001 and set out to duplicate its imagined conquest in Iraq. Then the short-lived success of their 2011 regime change operation in Libya encouraged the United States and its allies to turn al-Qaida loose in Syria, spawning a decade of intractable violence and chaos and the rise of the Islamic State. 

In the same manner, Biden’s unaccountable and corrupt national security advisers seem to be urging him to use the same weapons that obliterated the Islamic State’s urban bases in Iraq and Syria to attack Taliban-held cities in Afghanistan. 

But Afghanistan is not Iraq or Syria. Only 26% of Afghans live in cities, compared with 71% in Iraq and 54% in Syria, and the Taliban’s base is not in the cities, but in the rural areas where the other three-quarters of Afghans live. Despite support from Pakistan over the years, the Taliban are not an invading force like Islamic State in Iraq but an Afghan nationalist movement that has fought for 20 years to expel foreign invasion and occupation forces from their country. 

In many areas, Afghan government forces have not fled from the Taliban, as the Iraqi Army did from the Islamic State, but joined them. On Aug. 9, the Taliban occupied Aybak, the sixth provincial capital to fall, after a local warlord and his 250 fighters agreed to join forces with the Taliban and the governor of Samangan province handed the city over to them.

That very same day, the Afghan government’s chief negotiator, Abdullah Abdullah, returned to Doha for further peace talks with the Taliban. His American allies must make it clear to him and his government, and to the Taliban, that the United States will fully support every effort to achieve a more peaceful political transition. 

But the U.S. must not keep bombing and killing Afghans to provide cover for the U.S.-backed puppet government to avoid difficult but necessary compromises at the negotiating table to bring peace to the incredibly long-suffering, war-weary people of Afghanistan. Bombing Taliban-occupied cities and the people who live in them is a savage and criminal policy that President Biden must renounce.           

The defeat of the United States and its allies in Afghanistan now seems to be unfolding even faster than the collapse of South Vietnam between 1973 and 1975. The public takeaway from the U.S. defeat in Southeast Asia was the “Vietnam syndrome,” an aversion to overseas military interventions that lasted for decades. 

As we approach the 20-year anniversary of the 9/11 attacks, we should reflect on how the Bush administration exploited the U.S. public’s thirst for revenge to unleash this bloody, tragic and utterly futile 20-year war. 

The lesson of America’s experience in Afghanistan should be a new “Afghanistan syndrome,” a public aversion to war that prevents future U.S. military attacks and invasions, rejects attempts to socially engineer the governments of other nations and leads to a new and active American commitment to peace, diplomacy and disarmament.

Jen Psaki reminds Fox News reporter of Trump’s plan to inject “poison” into Americans as COVID cure

White House Press Secretary Jen Psaki reminded Fox News correspondent Peter Doocy that former President Donald Trump had suggested that people inject “poison” as a cure for COVID.

At Wednesday’s White House press conference, Doocy asked Psaki if President Joe Biden “created some vaccine hesitancy” by saying that he did not trust Trump’s advice on fighting the pandemic.

“I think it’s safe to say he still doesn’t trust Donald Trump,” Psaki replied. “So that hasn’t changed. But he does trust scientists. He does trust data experts and he does trust the people leading the CDC, the FDA, which is the gold standard for the approval of vaccines.”

Doocy pressed, “Yes, but at the time when Donald Trump was out there saying we’re going to have a vaccine in the next couple of weeks, next couple of months and Joe Biden is out there on the campaign trail saying don’t trust Donald Trump. Did that create any kind of vaccine hesitancy?”

“Not that we’ve seen in the data,” Psaki pointed out. “I would note that at the time, just for context, the former president was also suggesting people inject versions of poison into their veins to cure COVID. So I think that’s a relevant point.”

You can watch the video below via YouTube:

When are the dog days of summer?

The official “dog days” of summer begin on July 3 and end on August 11. So how did this time frame earn its canine nickname? It turns out the phrase has nothing to do with the poor pooches who are forever seeking shade in the July heat, and everything to do with the nighttime sky.

Sirius, the Dog Star, is the brightest star in the sky. The ancient Greeks noticed that in the summer months, Sirius rose and set with the sun, so then theorized that it was the bright, glowing Dog Star that was adding extra heat to the Earth in July and August.

 


ROBERTO MURA, PUBLIC DOMAIN, WIKIMEDIA COMMONS

“Death grip”: Ted Cruz blocks masse of Biden nominees right before Senate leaves for summer recess

Sen. Ted Cruz, R-Tex., is still holding up President Biden’s nomination process with a “death grip,” blocking dozens of State Department nominees just ahead of the Senate’s summer recess, according to Politico sources. 

The now weeks-long conflict reached a fever pitch during a Wednesday all-night session led by Senate Foreign Relations Committee Chairman Sen. Bob Menendez, D-N.J., and Sen. Chris Murphy, D-Conn., both of whom attempted to quickly usher each nominee in before the Senate break. But their effort saw strong resistance from Cruz, who effectively shot down the confirmation of every nominee. 

“I know the hour is late, but we have nearly 30 highly qualified foreign affairs and development nominees who are languishing on the Senate floor,” Menendez said during the 50-minute slog. “We have to confirm these nominees to fully equip the United States to pursue our foreign policy objectives.”

Cruz has repeatedly said that his position is an act of protest against President Biden’s May decision to suspend congressionally mandated sanctions on the construction of Russia’s Nord Stream 2 natural gas pipeline. He and other Republicans fear that the pipeline will grant Russia unprecedented economic power over U.S. allies in Europe. 

Biden, for his part, has said that he waived sanctions because the pipeline was nearly complete anyway. “It made more sense to work with the chancellor on finding out how she’d proceed based on whether or not Russia tried to, essentially, blackmail Ukraine in some way,” the president explained. 

During the Wednesday session, Cruz reiterated his logic: “I have made clear to every State Department official, to every State Department nominee, that I will place holds on these nominees unless and until the Biden administration follows the law and stops this pipeline and imposes the sanctions.”

A Cruz spokesperson told Fox News that the Texas senator “will use all leverage and prerogatives he has as a U.S. senator to get the Biden administration to follow the law and implement congressional mandates to sanction and stop completion of the Nord Stream 2 pipeline.”

Cruz attempted to introduce a bill that would apply sanctions during the session, but Menendez shot it down because it hadn’t yet passed through the Foreign Relations Committee. 

According to Politico, the Biden administration has been internally pushing for Cruz to back down, arguing that his intransigence is weakening U.S. interests throughout the globe – but Cruz has remained stalwart despite the criticism.  

“The Senate is built on this idea of mutuality and shame,” one State Department official told Politico. “If someone doesn’t have that sense of shame about essentially kneecapping an important national security agency, there’s no magic button that you can push.”

So far, President Biden has nominated 405 people for Senate-approved positions across the government, Politico noted. Over half of them remain in confirmation limbo.

“I’m becoming more anxious again”: Parents feel hopeless as school year begins

In May 2021, at the conclusion of an exhausting school year characterized by recurrent lockdowns and piecemeal plans for virtual learning, many parents felt as though hope were around the corner. Vaccines were becoming increasingly available, which neatly coincided with COVID-19 cases across the country on the decline. There were whispers that teens and young children would be able to get vaccines by the beginning of the next school year. And scientific analysis of rare COVID-19 outbreaks in school settings showed that mitigation strategies like masking and social distancing worked and provided children with safe places for in-school learning, without vaccines in the picture.

Accordingly, most of the nation’s school districts — and parents of school-age children — planned for a slightly more “normal” 2021-2022 school year. Amanda Herman, who has three children between the ages of two and eleven, was among the optimistic parents who, earlier this summer, was eager to re-enroll her kids in school for the 2021-2022 school year.

“I was ready at the end of spring; I was like, ‘okay this is great and we’re good,'” Herman said. “Homeschooling was not great for everyone’s mental health, but I think it would have been better if we were not in a pandemic.”

How things have changed in the past three months. Children under 12 almost certainly won’t be eligible for a vaccine by next month, and COVID-19 cases have risen dramatically nationwide due to the highly transmissible delta variant. Now, that feeling of hope that Herman had back in May has been supplanted by an all-too-familiar sense of dread. 

“I’m becoming more anxious, again, now that everybody’s enrolled and we’re getting ready to go back,” said Herman. “There’s people coming to our school board meeting, saying that they don’t want the kids wearing masks, protests at the local high school, a whole group of people online saying that they’re just going to send their kids without masks and say that they don’t have to wear them.”

One of Herman’s children has asthma, which is one reason why the possibility of children not wearing masks to school is highly disconcerting to her as a parent. Despite re-enrolling her children to in-school learning, Herman and her husband are seriously considering a last minute pivot — possibly back to homeschooling.

“It’s scary,” Herman said. “Especially when you hear what’s going on in the South.”

Herman is one of several parents of children under 12 whom Salon spoke with. Some have children who are immunocompromised; others live in more conservative states where mask-wearing has been politicized. No matter their individual situation, all are exhausted.


Want more health and science stories in your inbox? Subscribe to Salon’s weekly newsletter The Vulgar Scientist.


As Herman alluded to, children’s hospitals in many red states with low vaccination rates — like Florida, Texas, and Louisiana — have pediatric units filling up with kids who have COVID-19.

Until the spread of delta, parents of school-age children might have found solace in data that showed transmission of COVID-19 among children was rare. If children did get infected, the likelihood of a severe outcome was low. While that appears to mostly still be the case, cases among children are now on the rise. As reported by the American Pediatric Association (APA), in the week before Aug. 5, 94,000 children tested positive for COVID-19 — a 31 percent increase in the number of cases from the previous week. In total that week, children accounted for 15 percent of all COVID-19 cases. 

Fortunately, the APA reported that hospitalization and death remain “uncommon.” In states where data was available, according to their analysis, less than 2 percent of all child COVID-19 cases required hospitalization; 0.00% to 0.03% were fatal.

Whether the delta variant is making kids sicker than previous strains remains unclear. Yet many experts believe that the numbers are simply rising among kids because the delta variant is more contagious.

“This virus is really tracking the unvaccinated,” Dr. Yvonne Maldonado, a professor of pediatrics and infectious diseases at Stanford University, told NPR. “Because children under 12 are not able to be vaccinated, we’re just seeing the same increase in infections in that group because [the delta variant] is so infectious.”

This is in part why both the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) and the American Academy of Pediatrics’ (AAP) latest updated guidance for schools, and now recommend that all students over 2 years old, along with staff, wear masks regardless of their vaccination status.

“In addition to universal indoor masking, CDC recommends schools maintain at least 3 feet of physical distance between students within classrooms to reduce transmission risk,” the CDC states. “When it is not possible to maintain a physical distance of at least 3 feet, such as when schools cannot fully reopen while maintaining these distances, it is especially important to layer multiple other prevention strategies, such as screening testing.”

But these are just recommendations. As Salon has previously reported, not all states and school districts have committed to following and implementing them.

Bobby Mathews of Hoover, Alabama, was struggling with the decision to send his two children, ages ten and six, back to a school that does not require masks nor do contact tracing in the event of an outbreak. Virtual learning, Matthews said, was off the table all summer, too. Finally, after a group of parents fought against the lack of masking, the school agreed to implement a 30-day mask mandate.

Mathews, who said he and his wife were “angry” and “anxious” about the situation, considered homeschooling as an alternative, or even moving school districts. Now, with the month-long mask mandate, Mathews decided to send his children back to school and “push for metrics” to be presented after the month is up.

“We are kind of celebrating this as a victory,” Mathews said. “Right now we just have this huge sense of relief and almost joy at this very small victory. It’s hard because my kids want to go back to school, my kids want to see other children.”

But after 30 days, he knows they will have to “reevaluate.”

“We all want to get back to that normalcy, but you can’t just pretend that everything’s gonna be okay,” Mathews said, adding that he and his family moved to Hoover in part because it had one of the best reputations for schools in the state. He has been shocked by the lack of consideration for his children’s safety and wellness during this time by people who he previously believed had their best interest at heart.

“This has already developed a lot of fissures and I don’t know if they can be healed,” he said. “This has shown me that I can’t trust people that I ought to be able to trust — people who are supposed to be in charge of my kids.”

Parents of younger children face a similar dilemma with preschools. Alison Manor, parent to a three-year-old and an eight-month-old infant, has been hemming over whether to send her daughter to preschool or wait a while longer.

“At this point she really hasn’t interacted with other kids — she was only a year-and-a-half when lockdown started,” Manor said. “We’re so excited about preschool, but now it’s like, with delta, it’s really become really hard to make that decision — even with her wearing a mask.”

Manor is on the fence because COVID-19 cases are rising in her county, and Manor and her daughter already had COVID-19 once. Manor lost all feeling in her hands due to it, and hasn’t regained it. Even with masking, Manor is worried about the vaccination status of the teachers, assistants, and other children’s parents.

Until her children can get vaccinated, she likely won’t feel totally comfortable sending them to school.

“[My daughter] had it before — and I don’t know if she has any long-term COVID effects from the one she had previously. Do I really want to take that chance if I can wait another six months?” Manor asked. “I’m not sure.”

Now, Manor must confront this renewed feeling of uncertainty.

“We were so hopeful,” Manor said.

Texas’ GOP governor is now asking for out-of-state help for COVID surge after banning mask mandates

Texas Gov. Greg Abbott on Monday called on hospitals to delay elective procedures and said he is working to find out-of-state medical workers to assist with an alarming surge of COVID patients that has quickly filled up the state’s ICUs.

The Republican governor sent a letter to the Texas Hospital Association asking hospitals to “voluntarily postpone elective medical procedures” in order to free up beds for Covid patients. Abbott said in a statement that he has also directed the state’s health department to use staffing agencies to find out-of-state medical staff to address staffing shortages. The state will also open antibody infusion centers and expand vaccine availability in an effort to reduce the hospitalization numbers.

Some hospitals in states that have seen large infection surges have already started delaying procedures, which may pose serious health risks. Nevada law professor Michael Kagan told CNN on Tuesday that his cancer surgery was pushed back because there were not enough recovery beds.

“So basically I have untreated deadly cancer,” he told the network, adding that “it could spread to another part of my body or it can grow and cause a much greater problem so I’m just living with a time bomb and just letting it tick down basically because I’m not getting any treatment.”

Abbott touted the moves as him “taking action” to combat the recent rise of hospitalizations, which have increased by 100% over the last two weeks to nearly 9,000. The state is averaging 12,000 new confirmed cases per day, a 125% increase over the past 14 days. Only 44% of the state’s residents are vaccinated, below the national average of 50%.

But Abbott did not reverse his earlier orders barring local governments and school districts from enacting masking and social distancing requirements. Local officials have decried the bans after two emergency rooms in the state were forced to temporarily shut down due to the Covid spike and a major Houston hospital set up tents to handle overflow Covid patients after its ICU hit 100% capacity. A Houston health official warned last week that the state’s health care system was nearing a “breaking point” and a nursing shortage that has forced patients to be transferred to hospitals in other cities, sometimes more than 100 miles away. One patient was transferred to a hospital in North Dakota.

Alarmed by the rise in infections, school districts in major cities are defying Abbott’s ban on mask mandates. The Dallas and Austin school districts said Monday they would require all staff and students to mask up and the Houston school district has already announced a mask requirement that is pending board approval. Abbott has threatened to hit districts that defy the ban with $1,000 fines, though it’s unclear if they would face multiple fines if they violate his order. The Texas education commissioner also has the power to oust local school board officials and appoint his own members.

“It is very difficult to make these decisions, and yet not difficult when we think about what some of the consequences can be,” Austin Superintendent Stephanie Elizalde said at a board meeting on Monday, according to the Austin American-Statesman.

Dallas County Judge Clay Jenkins, a Democrat, on Monday filed a temporary restraining order to stop enforcement of Abbott’s mask mandate ban and filed a lawsuit asking a judge to strike down the order, noting that there were only 14 ICU beds available in the entire county, which has more than 2.6 million residents.

“This is about ensuring there’s adequate medical resources and hospital bed capacity to take care of people with COVID and any other condition that requires medical care or hospitalization,” Jenkins said on Twitter. “Ultimately, it is about saving lives and protecting children.”

The lawsuit accused Abbott of failing to protect residents and illegally superseding local authority, arguing that mask requirements are within local leaders’ power to fight an “imminent threat to public safety,” according to the Texas Tribune.

“Governor Abbott’s attempts to prevent Judge Jenkins from protecting citizens threatens lives,” the suit says. “Dallas County is in a precarious situation as the delta variant has increasingly ravaged the city.”

The Southern Center for Child Advocacy, an Austin nonprofit, has also filed a lawsuit seeking to block Abbott’s order, arguing that it would put children “at risk of imminent irreparable harm” and cost taxpayers untold sums as a result of “school closures, suits against local school districts for knowingly, recklessly and unnecessarily exposing students and staff to the risks of contagion, and the order’s inordinate impact on students of color and students with special needs.”

Officials in other major cities have also blasted Abbott’s response to the Delta surge and for failing to deliver necessary aid.

“The governor has shown a callous disregard for life and safety in defiance of clear medical guidance and is risking the safety of our children and the recovery of our economy,” San Antonio Mayor Ron Nirenberg said in a statement. “A week ago, we requested assistance to help the seriously overwhelmed hospitals and medical system, and we haven’t heard a response.”

Dr. Catherine Weaver, an associate dean at the University of Texas LBJ School of Public Affairs, accused Abbott of “blatant hypocrisy” for banning school mitigation measures while visitors at government facilities are required to undergo Covid testing.

“Schools aren’t allowed to require testing, vaccinations or masks by mandate of our Governor, but you can’t go see your elected officials unless your test negative first,” she tweeted.

Marvel ‘s “What If…?” is a thrilling ride into the multiverse, albeit with minor irritations

At some point recently, Disney changed the avatar, banner and name on the official Captain America Twitter account over to showcase Captain Carter, star of the “What If . . .?” animated series debut.

Chances are you’ve never of Captain Carter before. That’s because in the version of Earth we visit in the Marvel universe’s primary continuity, Earth-616, Peggy Carter’s adventures have played out in ABC’s “Agent Carter” and via glimpses in various “Avengers” films.

“What If . . .?” shows her in a reality only slightly removed from our own where, in a split-second decision, she’s the one who gets the super-soldier serum instead of Steve Rogers. All the action that follows is somewhat predictable, especially if you recall the obstacles Steve had to overcome despite achieving instantaneous swoleness.

Steve had to fight to be taken seriously – and he’s a man. Now envision how the establishment would handle a superhuman Peggy in a pre-women’s liberation movement society, despite her proving that she’s faster, stronger and more capable than any man in the field.

Or don’t, since “What If . . .?” does an impressive job of playing that out for us with an endorphin-boosting feminist romp.

Thrilling at Peggy Carter leaping through the high points of the good Captain’s first missions, albeit slightly tweaked, is a fine way of introducing a show hinged upon transforming our presumptions about this universe.

“What If . . .?”, along with being the first animated series from Marvel Studios, is an anthology bound together by an interdimensional being who refers to himself as The Watcher. By allowing us to gaze upon infinite realities, he shows how the tiniest decisions can alter everything we know. The impact of these small changes range in each episode from the slightest deviations from Earth’s familiar history to complete rearrangements of the cosmos.

Each of the three half-hour episodes made available for review locked me in with breezy scripts, an agile narrative energy and a mesmerizing, near-photorealistic animations style. The second “What If . . .?” doubles as a hypothetical case of how the universe might have realigned if Yondu and the Ravagers had swiped T’Challa before he became the Black Panther instead of “Guardians of the Galaxy” hero Peter Quill and as a highly enjoyable short heist flick. The third is a classic whodunnit.

Many of the stars originating the live-action versions of these heroes voice their animated versions, including Hayley Atwell, Chris Hemsworth, Samuel L. Jackson, Michael Rooker, Tom Hiddleston and Mark Ruffalo.

Every show that Marvel has released so far is entertaining enough to drive fervent dialogue during their respective runs, with a couple achieving more depth and clarity than others. But “What If . . .?” holds the highest potential for longevity among all the shows we’ve seen so far, due to its relative freedom from either contributing to or connecting with the existing universe moving forward.

Of course, the magic of “Loki” is its means of letting us know that the next phase of these stories can and will break into any number directions, hence the concrete introduction of the multiverse. Some of the details that play out in “What If . . .?” might show up later, or not. Such is the way of storylines involving alternate universes as they play out in limited comic book series.

For that very reason, I’ve enjoyed these alternate universe excursions as much as I’ve been annoyed by them, because they’ve struck me as a way for Marvel to have it both ways in terms of representation. Much in the way that Marvel gave Scarlett Johansson’s Black Widow an incredible solo outing that is of of little to no consequence to the main timeline, we can applaud a jacked-up Peggy Carter flipping over Nazi tanks while sexist fanboys reassure themselves that her Captain isn’t part of the “real” stories.  

Those same purists can reassure themselves that Peter Quill is still Star-Lord in the movies, in the same way they parse the legitimacy of Miles Morales in the Spider-Man universe. (You’ll also notice that Miles, an Afro-Latino teen who lives in an alternate universe’s New York, is animated. The Peter Parker we’ve see in all of the live action “Spider-Man” movies is white, which was stipulated in the character’s legal licensing agreement between Sony Pictures Entertainment and Marvel Entertainment revealed as part of the Sony hack.)  

The reaction a swath of the public had to the Captain Carter takeover of the Captain America hints that I might not be alone in this camp, since Marvel only recently changed its social media avatar for the character over to Sam Wilson’s face. Replacing that with Peggy Carter plainly took a lot of people by surprise, and I am guessing many of them had no idea of what “What If . . .?” is about or that Captain Carter’s origin would serve as the tale launching it.

All they could see is that Marvel disappeared its first Black Captain America from its social media account and replaced him with an animated British white lady.

If one were to measure the level of public outcry surrounding this situation, it’s more of a yip than a roar, bound to die down once the show debuts. This will be more the case when the T’Challa episode premieres.

Marvel Studios asked reviewers to refrain from going into details about these episodes, but this episode’s philosophy is worth noting since series director Bryan Andrews and head writer AC Bradley carefully designed it to be as much of a tribute to the late Chadwick Boseman (who lent his voice to his animated counterpart) as an uplifting, action-driven story.

Here, the “what if” isn’t merely a swap of physical characters but moral ones as well: “Guardians of the Galaxy” presents Peter Quill as a goofball whose identity is heavily shaped by the universe. This episode games out what would happen if a transformative being were able to do the opposite.

The answers to that aren’t merely entertaining, they are gigantic. This and the next episode highlight the vital importance every character has in these stories, down to the smallest supposed background figures. However, the third episode’s set up has much more of an “if/then” structural progression than the other two, which are more emotionally enlivening.

Animated series like this tend to be passed over by a mainstream audience that still hesitates to take such presentations as seriously as live action shows. “What If…?” won’t be the title that changes that attitude, although it makes a fierce case for relaxing such a limiting paradigm.

Regardless of any irritation people like me might hold toward the principle of one-off alternate universe stories, there’s a strong throughline of personal power and consequence in the best of these stories. Perhaps it reminds us why these narratives continue to exert a pull over our collective imagination for good or ill, revitalizing a franchise that has stretched past two dozen interconnected films. Maybe it’s just an exciting late-summer diversion. Even if it is, it’s one worth considering.

“What If . . . ?” debuts Aug. 11 on Disney +.

Golden milk, Hindu pilgrimages and a state mental hospital: A personal history told through turmeric

In 2014, I was working in a state mental hospital that had been recently transformed from a fearfully dark and dismal place, to — $100 million and a few years later — a showplace full of light, peaceful corners looking out at green spaces. The units were built to include porches with hammocks and rocking chairs that could be used even in the winter months, along with the large courtyards where psychiatric patients could play musical instruments and sing songs in summer and spring, including songs of protest, violence or sexuality and simply be free. 

There were meditation classes and groups of every kind, art on wide walls, patient-drawn murals, even pizza ovens in the patient-run kitchens, where patients could cook and share food, making at least part of the inpatient hospital feel like a bed and breakfast, some patients said. 

The point was to make the hospital a place to live for patients who, in several cases, had survived serious suicide attempts, tried to (or actually did) murder key people in their lives or simply weren’t able to live in the community on their own. And after periods of trying to manage — often punctuated by brief community hospital admissions, followed by terrible, almost irrevocable events —they themselves wanted to be sent to state, though not to just any state hospital. They wanted one where there was a nice gift shop operated by patients who were paid for their efforts, a greenhouse and gardens where they could grow organic food and have 24-hour access to health care providers, all of them eager, like I was, to work there daily. 

While in this setting, I found myself increasingly interested in the tools, recipes and resources that went into supporting the Recovery Model —  a holistic, person-centered approach to mental health care — of this reformed institution. However, there was an undeniable trace of the New Age to all the yoga, chanting and Birkenstocks I saw around me to which I couldn’t quite relate or understand. 


Want more great food writing and recipes? Subscribe to Salon Food’s newsletter.


But then again, unlike most of the white people saying “Namaste” around me, I had actually been on Hindu pilgrimage, more than once, to places where not only was there yoga, chanting, chappals, the Indian precursor to Birkenstocks — but where turmeric wasn’t just an ingredient in the “golden milk” that has become increasingly popular in wellness circles. In my life, I’d seen hard little rocks of turmeric, the yellow color smeared across faces, atop the images of divine statues and garlanded. 

I had woken up to temple bells in what felt like the middle of the night, as a child only a few years away from having my head shorn, my hair offered (the thala neelala) to the Lord of the Seven Hills, Tirupathi, whose black stone statue is decorated with turmeric, along with white rice powder and vermilion powder, a form of turmeric that is dried and then treated with lime, which renders the bright powder not only a deep, staining red, but harmless, and even soothing, to bare human skin.

I felt, and still feel, torn between my slightly annoyed critique of inauthenticity — of white appropriation of Hindu and Buddhist traditions — versus my equally-strident critique of what mental health treatment was like before the New Age concoctions, including “calming turmeric milk for energy,” and all the other compassionate infusions.

I wanted renovated recovery centers (which no longer bore the name nor stigma of being called state facilities) that had pizza ovens and yoga and meditation sessions for the patients on big front lawns. I loved the fact that patients could make and drink Golden Milk or buy the highly overpriced boxed version of the manjel milk my mother made for me when I was a child, the ultimate cure for a sore throat or a stressed-out mood. I appreciated that residents could have personal boxes of such treats held for them in the fridges in the community kitchen or nurse’s station — somewhere safe where they could store wholesome goods, including organic turmeric, sent by their families as a reminder that there was still a vibrant life outside, waiting for them to eventually rejoin. 

I didn’t grudge anyone the benefits of turmeric either; it’s shown to have anti-inflammatory properties, and acts as an antioxidant via its key component, curcumin. For centuries, it’s been recognized as beneficial by practitioners of Ayurvedic medicine. The taste of turmeric, unlike cumin, curry powder, chili or ginger, is extremely neutral. It can be added to sweet foods, like warm milk with honey, or used to enhance the taste of vegetable curries, like aloo gobi, a cauliflower-potato curry that’s distinctive for how the turmeric turns the small blooms and diced potatoes from white to deep yellow. 

The turmeric itself is most often used as a powder, ground up from a root; a rhizome plant that, according to historians of medicine, was used in as far-flung regions and time periods as 18th century BCE Babylonia, to the Middle Ages by Arab traders along the Silk Road.

For as long as I can remember, manjel milk was the home remedy when I had a bad cold as a child, a mild sore throat, or severe insomnia. My mother, a pediatrician in a public health clinic, believed in using manjel —the word for “yellow,” the color of the turmeric spice, but also for the color, in general — added to warm milk, along with honey. In some of the versions I would later make myself, I would include cinnamon and ginger, but my mother liked the simplest, two-ingredient version. 

Halthi was the other name for the spice, a Hindi word in my multilingual household, reflective of how my parents had lived in different states of India. This included states like Uttar Pradesh and the dazzlingly-colored state of Rajasthan, with its blue-walled city, where Holi, a religious festival honoring more than one birth of the god Vishnu, preserver of worlds, is celebrated more exuberantly than the rest, and where halthi was also used to make plant-based, edible colors to safely throw on laughing faces and to use for drenching children and their clothing in deep orange, bright yellow and red.

Hidden uses of turmeric include mixing it with yogurt for a homemade facial that, through a benign lens, is meant to only soften and heal sunburned skin. On the more toxic end of beauty, it was a plant-based skin lightener, meant to be used in combination with Fair and Lovely and all the other skin-lightening creams I was encouraged to use even as a child. Surely Golden Milk, marketed as a kind of nutraceutical, a spa food — like avocado, acai, quinoa or kelp —  is less harmful than the idea of using turmeric to lighten brown skin. And yet the thought of using turmeric only as food or drink, completely stripped of its power to bless, to invoke sacred meanings, is not harmless either.

In the end, by the summer of 2014, just before I left that job at the state hospital because my children, the younger of whom was only two years old by then, couldn’t tolerate the time it took for me to commute, 

I did find a medium. Sitting at my desk, in between writing up my medical notes, I sipped a warm, homemade turmeric milk drink while listening to American Buddhists, New Agers and mindfulness proselytizers talk about their diverse experiences of meditation and prayer and how these practices healed them. I noticed them often talking in front of shrines anointed, whether they knew it or not, with turmeric powder. 

Cultivating an ease that came from both private knowledge as well as a sense of solidarity – particularly with the goals of peace and gentleness — I savored the taste of turmeric, focusing on how my religious faith, as well as my commitment to medicine, meant sharing this unique form of healing gold with outsiders, whether or not they always understood just what it was.

More essays about our relationship to food: 

“They are laughing at you”: Scathing new video attempts to burst the right-wing media bubble

When right-wing media figures promote lies and disinformation about COVID-19, it isn’t necessarily out of total ignorance — sometimes, it is purely a cynical effort to drive ratings or traffic. And author Don Winslow, in a scathing new video, lets red state Republican voters know how badly anti-vaxxers and anti-maskers in the right-wing media have lied to them about COVID-19 and how deadly that cynicism has become.

In Winslow’s video, a female narrator tells viewers, “I want you to listen to your own leaders in their own voices. You can’t call this ‘fake news.’ These are your pals unedited.”

The video goes on to show former President Donald Trump, Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell, Sen. Ron Johnson of Wisconsin and House Minority Whip Steve Scalise urging Americans to get vaccinated for COVID-19.

The narrator explains, “Each one of these Republican leaders took the vaccine, and they made damn sure their children took the vaccine. But then, they worked behind the scenes to create a marketing plan, and that’s what it was — targeted at low-information Republican voters that tied your personal freedom to not wearing a mask or taking the vaccine. And tens of millions of you in red states fell for this ridiculous lie.”

Many of those “low-information Republican voters” that Winslow’s video mentions are avid consumers of right-wing media outlets such as Fox News, where Tucker Carlson, Laura Ingraham and other far-right opinion hosts have been more than happy to endanger the lives of their audiences by promoting anti-vaxxer, anti-masker nonsense and trying to convince viewers that Dr. Anthony Fauci and other health experts are their enemy.

“You can’t enter the Fox News building without providing your vaccination information,” the narrator explains. “But on show after show, they tell you not to wear a mask because it’s an assault on your freedom. They are laughing at how gullible you are. And here’s the kicker: While they are laughing at you, you are sending them donations. You are literally paying your Republican leaders to deceive you.”

As images of red state residents in hospital beds appear on the screen, the narrator laments, “Many of you still refuse to do what is best for you, your family, your community, your country.”

100,000 new cops and Tom Cotton’s “ban” on critical race theory: Dems vote with GOP in vote-a-rama

The Senate early Wednesday morning voted to advance a $3.5 trillion budget resolution that is expected to shrink in the coming weeks, but not before a marathon overnight “vote-a-rama” session in which Democrats distanced themselves from activist calls to “defund the police.”

Senate Democrats moved forward with their bid to pass a multi-trillion spending bill with a simple majority using the budget reconciliation process, which requires the chamber to hold a lengthy procedural session where senators can offer an unlimited number of amendments known as “vote-a-rama.” The session stretched more than 14 hours from Tuesday night into the wee hours of Wednesday morning as the Senate voted on more than two dozen amendments, which are non-binding but are typically used by senators to force their opponents to take positions on controversial issues.

Republicans sought to use the session to force Democrats to vote on issues related to the police, critical race theory and the Green New Deal, among others. Sen. Tommy Tuberville, R-Ala., introduced an amendment to punish “woke” cities that “cancel the police department” in an attempt to goad Democrats over “the dangerous rhetoric and policies of the ”defund the police movement.” Republicans since last year have tried to tie calls to move local funding from police departments to social services by a few members of Congress like Reps. Cori Bush, D-Mo., and Rashida Tlaib, D-Mich., to allege that the entire party is anti-police even though the party does not support defunding the police and President Joe Biden has pushed for more funding for police amid GOP attacks.

Every Senate Democrat voted in favor of Tuberville’s nonbinding amendment to ban federal funds from cities that “defund” their police departments. Sen. Cory Booker, D-N.J., called the vote a “gift” to Democrats.

“I am so excited,” a pumped-up Booker exclaimed after Tuberville introduced the amendment. “This is perhaps the highlight of this long and painful and torturous night… If it wasn’t complete abdication of Senate procedures and esteem, I would walk over there and hug my colleague from Alabama. Because there’s some people who have said that there are members of this deliberative body that want to ‘defund’ the police, to my horror. And now this senator is giving us a gift to finally, once and for all, we can put to bed this scurrilous accusation.”

Booker urged every member of his party to “sashay” to vote in favor of the amendment to “put to rest the lies.”

“I’m sure I will see no political ads attacking anybody here over defund the police,” Booker quipped, jokingly proposing an addition to the amendment that says every senator also “believes in God, country, and apple pie.”

During the vote, Booker came over and literally hugged Tuberville.

Some Democrats praised Booker for blowing up the Republican talking points. “There goes the GOP’s narrative,” tweeted longtime Democratic operative Jesse Ferguson, as if the narrative had actually been based on senators’ policy positions.

While Democrats have been eager to distance themselves from the “defund the police” rhetoric that Republicans have blamed for murder increases in cities like New York, which just saw one of the biggest declines in violent crime in history last month,  homicides also rose amid the pandemic in cities that actually increased their police budgets. Some prominent Democrats have blamed the “defund the police” rhetoric for their losses in the House and in local races in November and are keen to pour water on the narrative, the performative vote may have alienated some progressive activists that have been critical in helping Democrats win certain areas of the country.

“Make no mistake, this is a universal attempt to silence the demands from the streets,” Black Lives Matter said in a statement on Twitter. “This is an attempt to put our movement ‘in check.’ No one, we repeat NO ONE, had the back of our revolutionary movement in the Senate.”

Democrats similarly rallied around a nonbinding amendment proposed by Sen. Josh Hawley, R-Mo., of January 6 infamy, that called to hire 100,000 new police officers around the country.

Hawley accused Biden and Democrats of using the budget bill to lay the “groundwork for their far-left agenda,” like the “Green New Deal,” even though Biden has opposed the Green New Deal and urged cities to use pandemic relief funds to hire police officers “even above pre-pandemic levels.”

The Senate voted 95-3 to back Hawley’s performative amendment, which only Sens. Bernie Sanders, I-Vt., Pat Toomey, R-Pa., and Mike Lee, R-Utah, opposing.

Sen. Dick Durbin, D-Ill., praised Hawley’s amendment by noting that it mirrored a police-hiring program created by Biden when he was in the Senate. Durbin added that 37 Senate Democrats sent a letter to the Appropriations Committee seeking more money to hire police but not a single Republican signed on.

“We’re glad you’ve come around,” Durbin said. “The Republicans are joining Democrats in supporting Joe Biden’s COPS program — you are right, we need 100,000 more police.”

Activists again slammed the Democrats over the vote.

“There is profound consensus in both mainstream political parties to expand the greatest system of mass human caging in modern world history,” tweeted Alec Karakatsanis, the executive director of the DC-based nonprofit Civil Rights Corps. “[T]he 90% of the millions caged and separated families are poor, and U.S. cages Black people 6 times the rate of South Africa during Apartheid.”

Democrats overwhelmingly backed numerous other Republican amendments, unanimously supporting an amendment from Senate Minority Whip John Thune, R-S.D., opposing ending a tax exemption that allows wealthy people to pass certain assets to heirs tax-free, and another amendment to prohibit tax increases in violation of Biden’s pledge not to raise taxes on people making less than $400,000 per year. More than three dozen Democrats also joined Republicans to pass a Sen. Roger Marshall’s, R-Kansas, nonbinding amendment to bar immigrants from being transported from the border unless they test negative for Covid and unanimously backed Sen. John Barrasso’s, R-Wyo., amendment to bar any Green New Deal provision that would “ship” jobs overseas, raise energy prices, or make the country “increasingly dependent on foreign supply chains.”

Sen. Bernie Sanders, I-Vt., said he had “no problem” backing the amendment because it “has nothing to do with the Green New Deal.”

Centrist Sen. Joe Manchin, D-W.Va., was the lone Democrat to cross party lines on several other controversial votes. Manchin was the lone Democrat to back a Republican amendment aimed at preserving the Hyde amendment, which bars federal funding for abortion, and Sen. Tom Cotton’s amendment to ban federal funds from promoting critical race theory in school.

“These are generally nonsense votes about political positioning and not policy but the frequency with which Manchin has sided with [Republicans] tonight isn’t the best omen headed into reconciliation,” warned David Dayen, the executive editor of The American Prospect.

Indeed, after the Senate finally voted down party lines to advance the actual budget resolution, Manchin issued a statement raising “serious concerns about the grave consequences” of passing a $3.5 trillion bill.

The bill will be written by Senate committees in the coming weeks but the chamber voted to move forward with a blueprint that calls to expand Medicaid to states left out under the Obamacare expansion, extend insurance subsidies and lower the Medicare eligibility age to 60 while adding coverage for hearing, dental and vision. The bill would also provide billions for tuition-free pre-K and community college, paid family leave, a Child Tax Credit extension, and green energy, among other measures. Democrats also plan to include immigration reform that could provide green cards and a path to citizenship for millions of undocumented people but it’s unclear if the provision will be allowed under Senate rules governing the budget reconciliation process.

Manchin, who previously took issue with the climate provisions in the bill, argued that the amount of spending was unnecessary and “irresponsible.”

Sen. Kyrsten Sinema, D-Ariz., has also vowed to oppose a bill that includes $3.5 trillion in spending, which was a compromise number to begin with after Sanders and progressives called for over $6 trillion. Some House moderates have also expressed skepticism about the bill.

Republicans are now aiming to convince Manchin and Sinema to block at least parts of the legislation since they can’t torpedo it themselves.

“Their vote is the whole enchilada,” Thune told Politico. “If they want to stop this thing, they can. And I hope they will use that power.”

Sen. Susan Collins, R-Maine, told the outlet that “each of them is fiscally responsible and are people of courage. And so I hope they will break on this enormous expansion of government.”

But Manchin and Sinema were also the biggest Democratic proponents of the bipartisan physical infrastructure bill passed by the Senate this week and House progressives have vowed to blow up the deal unless the Senate also passes a large budget bill.

The Congressional Progressive Caucus sent a letter to House Speaker Nancy Pelosi, D-Calif., and Senate Majority Leader Chuck Schumer, D-N.Y., vowing that most of their 96 members will oppose the bipartisan bill unless the Senate passes a reconciliation bill “acceptable” to its members.

“Our Caucus has been clear: Congress must invest in infrastructure that takes on the climate crisis and meets the needs of working families,” the caucus said in a statement. “CPC members won’t support a bipartisan bill without a bold reconciliation bill to advance our priorities.”

The ominous reason why Republican opposition to Biden’s infrastructure spending crumbled

With surprising haste for the U.S. Senate, the Democratic majority passed a $3.5 trillion blueprint for a budget reconciliation bill in the early hours of Wednesday morning, just after passing a $1 trillion bipartisan infrastructure bill. And Democrats could not be more excited, as the blueprint covers a whole host of long-standing priorities, from fighting climate change to creating universal prekindergarten. The blueprint was largely written by Sen. Bernie Sanders of Vermont, who released a statement calling it “the most consequential piece of legislation for working people, the elderly, the children, the sick and the poor since FDR and the New Deal of the 1930s.”

Sanders isn’t putting that much spin on the ball.

While the bill fallls short of what is really needed to deal with climate change, it is still tremendously consequential legislation that will do a great deal not just to ameliorate economic inequalities, but, in doing so, likely reduce significant gender and racial inequality. It’s also a big political win for President Joe Biden. In other words, it is everything that Republicans hate. Worse for them, it’s packed full of benefits that boost the middle class, not just the working poor. Traditionally, such programs are much harder to claw back once Republicans gain power — as they’ve discovered in previous failed attempts to dismantle Social Security and Obamacare

So why are Republicans so chill about this? In the past, the GOP would be whipping their base into a Tea Party-style frenzy with lurid misrepresentations about what is actually in the bill in hopes of either tanking it altogether or, at least, creating a massive backlash that would boost the GOP in the midterms. But right now, they’re relatively calm — indeed, eerily so. 


Want more Amanda Marcotte on politics? Subscribe to her newsletter Standing Room Only.


Not that Republicans aren’t saying anything negative. Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell is making the usual disingenuous noises about a “reckless taxing and spending spree” and making threats about refusing to raise the debt ceiling. Right-wing media outlets are publishing pro forma op-eds about how it “spends an exorbitant sum of money.” But this is standard-issue right-wing stuff and that’s exactly the problem with it. It’s boring — even to the GOP base — and unlikely to get anyone off their couch. 

In the past, Republicans would have coalesced around some talking point that, however dishonestly, would have leaned into culture war grievances that actually stir the base’s loins. Think of how lies about “death panels” and hysterics about insurance coverage of contraception were used to rile up the aging GOP base into believing they were going to die because Barack Obama spent all their health care money on someone else’s birth control pills. Or consider the talking points about “midnight basketball” or “welfare queens” that were used to stoke racist anger over relatively modest social spending programs in decades past. Republicans and their propaganda apparatus are very good at generating evocative images that tickle the most racist and sexist impulses in their base and using that to turn people against needed social spending.

But that’s not really happening here. 

The best that Breitbart can come up with to attack Biden’s bills is incoherent screeching about how infrastructure is a “hoax” based on a hard-to-follow procedural complaint. It’s not exactly “Obama phones,” in terms of tickling their readers’ lizard brains. Sen. Ted Cruz of Texas and right-wing pundit Ben Shapiro, usually both masters at attention-grabbing stunts, are instead focused on some cryptocurrency thing only the douchebags who love Elon Musk care about. But mostly, right wing media is putting this bill on the backburner. The Fox News site, as I write this, is headlining a story demonizing the CDC. The prime time Fox News shows Tuesday night were far more interested in the Gov. Andrew Cuomo story than the infrastructure bills. So is the Drudge Report and most other conservative outlets.

There’s, of course, an optimistic take as to why the Republican response to this $3.5 trillion bill lacks zeal. Maybe they recognize that the programs in this bill are popular and don’t want to be on the wrong side of history? Which….no. Republicans have never lacked the confidence that they could turn a spending debate toxic by demagoguing racist and sexist lies. There’s nothing stopping them from doing it now, especially since Donald Trump has their base already dialed up to maximum resentment levels. 

No, the darker and more likely explanation is Republicans aren’t trying to whip up voters because they don’t feel they need to in order to win elections and regain control of the federal government. Instead, they’re in what you might call a “post-election” state of mind. They’ve focused all their energies on going around the democratic system by passing state level laws that set them up nicely to “win” elections, even when majorities of Americans reject them. 


Want more Amanda Marcotte on politics? Subscribe to her newsletter Standing Room Only.


As the Brennan Center reported late in July, “at least 18 states enacted 30 laws that restrict access to the vote.” In Texas, voter suppression has become such a major GOP priority that Gov. Greg Abbott, a Republican, has called a second special session and a warrant has been issued to arrest Democratic state legislators who have fled the state to deny Republicans the quorum necessary to pass the bill. After passing a law in Georgia allowing the state legislature to remake elections boards more to Trump’s liking, Republicans immediately got to work with a scheme to boot honest election officials so they can be replaced with coup-friendly hacks. 

This is all quite likely the reason Republicans aren’t too worried about this $3.5 trillion bill. They believe they will soon be able to claw it all back, without facing blowback from the voters as they have in the past when they try to take away popular government benefits. In sum, they don’t think, after 2022 and 2024, they will have to answer to voters anymore. Instead, the plan is to enshrine one-party permanent minority rule through voter suppression, gerrymandering, and other methods.

Unfortunately, Democrats seem to be no closer to actually doing anything to stop this, as Sens. Joe Manchin of West Virginia and Kyrsten Sinema of Arizona continue refusing to vote for filibuster reform, which is necessary to pass voting rights and democracy protection bills. Unless that changes, Republicans could very well succeed in gutting democracy and turning the U.S. into an autocracy like Hungary or Turkey

That’s why the GOP punditry and the folks at Fox News are more focused on idolizing Hungarian autocrat Viktor Orbán than they are demagoguing against this spending bill. They’re done with the era of “death panels” and “Obama phones” and moving on to an exciting new strategy of simply winding democracy down. They’re already starting a propaganda apparatus painting authoritarian regimes based on white nationalist ideologies are somehow more “pro-freedom” than multiracial democracies.

The era of the Tea Party was based on an understanding that Republicans need to win over voters in order to have power. Now they’re confident that is no longer true. The absence of a Tea Party-style freakout over the bill may feel like a relief to Democrats now, but really, it’s a sinister portend of what’s to come. 

Mike Lindell’s South Dakota “cyber symposium” has a bumpy launch: No real evidence

SIOUX FALLS, S.D. — Day One of Mike Lindell’s conspiracy theory laced three-day cyber-symposium on alleged election fraud, held for unclear reasons in one of the most sparsely populated regions of the country, has gotten off to a rough start. First came a vague allegation that the MyPillow CEO’s “television station,” Lindell TV, has been hacked. Then there’s the fact that Lindell has no actual evidence of voter fraud, just color-coded maps marked with seemingly random numbers. 

On Tuesday morning, Lindell opened the proceedings by announcing from the stage, “We need to get the word out because they blocked the thing.” Who is “they”? What exactly is “the thing”? That was not clear. “But this is part of what I’m going to talk about today,” he continued. “This is the cover-up. This is the absolute cover-up of the worst in history.”

The pillow king then told the eager crowd that his streaming platform had been “attacked.”

“The whole technology was attacked, we expected that, but we do have a backup plan,” Lindell stated, adding with no evidence that 40 million people tuned in to the activities throughout the day. (Only 960 million short of the Elvis-like global audience Lindell has hoped for.) “We’re going to educate everybody,” he added.

“Tonight, you’re going to see something, at 7 o’clock, that’s going to change the world,” Lindell added, to the crowd’s delight. “We have stuff that only a handful of people know about. And there’s a reason for that!”

But Tuesday remained uneventful, with Lindell occasionally appearing on stage, announcing he’d cut the lunch break short and launching diatribes against members of the press while eagerly watching for published news stories about the event. 

Brannon Howse, the co-host and producer at Lindell TV, who appears to have produced or directed most of Lindell’s videos, was asked by Salon if he thought Day One was a “win” for Lindell. Howse paused and said, “It’s a three-day event,” before being whisked away. 

Some conference-goers expressed disappointment and apprehension that Lindell has yet to produce hard evidence supporting his “theories,” and one expert told Salon he believes Lindell could face legal consequences. 

Sandy Salmon, a Republican state legislator from Iowa, told Salon he was still optimistic and said Lindell’s presentation was “really clear about the results they had gotten,” but cautioned that so far, the pillow king had not shown evidence “broken down by county and precinct.” 

Former Trump White House strategist Steve Bannon, a key weathervane on the pro-Trump right, appears skeptical about Lindell’s claims, claiming he needed to see additional evidence that was not forthcoming on the first day.

While Lindell did not come close to proving a massive 2020 election conspiracy on Tuesday, he has two more days to pull out all the stops. A routine request from Salon for a sit-down interview during the symposium became the trigger for an extended monologue from the main stage, with Lindell describing this reporter’s work as “hit jobs.” 

In a late-night Tuesday text to Salon, Lindell said, “Zach go write your garbage, and then we will interview on stage.” This reporter responded on Wednesday morning, “Sounds great. Let me know when.” 

However, when Wednesday arrived, Lindell backtracked on his offer to invite this reporter to the main stage. “Lose my number. You are a cancer to our country,” he told Salon via text message.