Spring Sale: Get 1 Year, Save 58%

Cuomo comes out defiant after New York AG finds the governor “sexually harassed multiple women”

New York Gov. Andrew Cuomo appeared defiant and defensive only hours after New York Attorney General Letitia James on Tuesday released a bombshell report detailing how Cuomo not only targeted eleven women in current and past administrations but retaliated against one who publicly complained about his conduct. 

“Over the past several months you have heard a number of complaints brought against me,” the Democratic governor said to acknowledge the months-long investigation into his alleged sexual harassment of female staffers. The 165-page report – which interviewed over 170 witnesses and collected evidence from tens of thousands of documents – concluded that the New York governor “sexually harassed multiple women, and in doing so violated federal and state law,” James said at a presser. 

“The independent investigation found that governor Cuomo harassed multiple women, many of whom were young women, by engaging in unwanted groping, kisses, hugging, and by making inappropriate comments,” James continued, adding that the report paints “a deeply disturbing, yet clear picture.”

But Cuomo continued to deny the allegations on Tuesday.

“I want you to know directly from me that I never touched anyone inappropriately or made inappropriate sexual advances. I am 63-years-old, I have lived my entire adult life in public view. That is just not who I am and that is not who I have ever been.”

The first allegation came in February of this year, when Lindsey Boylan, a former top official in the Cuomo administration, revealed to the governor had non-consensually kissed her after a private meeting, quickly triggering a cascade of allegations from other women who had worked under the governor. 

One current female aide shortly alleged that Cuomo had reached under her blouse and groped her at his Albany mansion last year. Another former aide, Charlotte Bennett, alleged that Cuomo had made a number of verbal overtures, asking Bennett whether she was monogamous and whether she’d had sex with an older man.

In James’ report, a number of women also claimed that their complaints were improperly handled by Cuomo staffers. In his response, Cuomo appeared to downplay the complaints as sexism towards women who were top aides in his office. 

By March, James had opened a state probe into Cuomo’s alleged conduct, after which dozens of New York officials called on Cuomo to step down, including New York City Mayor Bill De Blasio, Senate Majority Leader Chuck Schumer, D-N.Y., and Sen. Kirsten Gillibrand, R-N.Y.

That same month, New York Assembly Speaker Carl Heastie opened an impeachment investigation into Cuomo. Heastie expressed concerns last month that James’ report wouldn’t be enough to kick off impeachment proceedings, instead arguing that the legislature should wait until his probe has concluded. 

Cuomo, for his part, has vehemently denied any and all accusations wrongdoing. “I never harassed anyone, I never assaulted anyone, I never abused anyone,” Cuomo said initially back in March. “I’m not going to resign.”

The New York governor added: “I acknowledge some of the things I have said have been misinterpreted as an unwanted flirtation.”

https://twitter.com/NYGovCuomo/status/335434417193508864

The report is just one component of the increasing national scrutiny Cuomo has received this year.

Back in January, it was discovered that Cuomo had obscured the coronavirus death toll of nursing home patients, undercounting the number by more than 50% – a systematic effort facilitated by a number of Cuomo aides. 

The New York governor is also facing allegations that he illegally used administration resources to support his book “American Crisis: Leadership Lessons from the COVID-19 Pandemic,” for which he is expected to rake in around $5 million.

The Republican strategy to sabotage Biden’s vaccine rollout is backfiring

The right’s strategy on COVID-19 vaccines, as planned and executed by the Republican Party and Fox News, was a simple as it was sinister: sabotage President Joe Biden’s rollout by sacrificing the bodies of their own supporters. If they could convince enough of their people to avoid the vaccine, they could keep COVID-19 transmission rates high and garner headlines from easily duped mainstream outlets declaring things like “Biden falls short” or “Biden fails to contain the virus.” For a brief moment in early July, it seemed the plan was working, with a series of headlines that seemingly blamed Biden, flatly ignoring the growing partisan divide on vaccine uptake. 

Then the delta variant, an extremely contagious and virulent strain of the virus, started tearing through red-state America, creating hot spot maps that neatly correlated to political maps showing rates of support for Donald Trump. There was no longer any denying that a Republican identity is the best predictor of anti-vaccine sentiment. Mainstream media started to pay attention to how much anti-vaccine sentiment was pouring out of Fox News and how popular Republican politicians like Rep. Marjorie Taylor Greene of Georgia or Sen. Rand Paul of Kentucky were discouraging vaccination. There was no more ignoring the link between Florida’s Republican Gov. Ron DeSantis selling gear mocking Biden health advisor Dr. Anthony Fauci and the soaring rates of COVID-19 in his state. The plan to sabotage the pandemic response and blame Biden was backfiring.

That was when Republicans and their propagandists at Fox News decided to strategically put out some mealy-mouthed pro-vaccine sentiments. A clip from Sean Hannity, where the Fox News host offered a superficially pro-vaccine sentiment, went viral, fueled by journalists and liberals who are desperate for any sign that Republicans are giving up on this anti-vaccine thing. What people who championed the clip didn’t know, however, was that it came from a larger segment on Hannity’s show that was overall negative about vaccination, and was sandwiched by two other popular shows that were also anti-vaccine.


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


And that’s been the pattern: Send out a few strategic statements meant for the mainstream press to make Republicans seem pro-vaccine while the GOP base is still getting a firehose of anti-vaccination propaganda. “Republicans didn’t really have a change of heart; this has been mission accomplished for them, minus the part where the public blames Biden for the mess they made,” Brian Beutler of Crooked Media wrote in his Big Tent newsletter. Fox News is still pumping out a relentless stream of anti-vaccination propaganda and Republicans are still trying to pin the blame on Biden for the surge of infections and the return of miseries like public masking. 

But is the sabotage-and-frame-Biden strategy on vaccination actually working to bamboozle the public?

New polling data from Axios and Ipsos provides heartening evidence that the well-financed GOP propaganda machine is missing the mark on this one. Americans are not blaming Biden for the delta surge. Instead, they are far likelier to blame unvaccinated people, conservative media, and Trump. 

About twice as many Americans blame Trump as Biden for the current rise in COVID-19 cases, in fact. But far and away the primary target of blame are the unvaccinated, who 58% of Americans blame for the surge. And it’s only that low because of unvaccinated people who are trying to foist the blame on anyone but themselves. When pollsters zeroed in on the vaccinated, they found that nearly 79% of that group blame the unvaccinated. (The rest, presumably, are too busy being sanctimonious on Twitter about how those poor, poor red hats are just economically anxious hapless victims, instead of adults who can be held responsible for their decisions, an opinion much easier to hold if one does not actually spend any time talking to Trumpers.)

Interestingly, way more Americans blame the unvaccinated than blame the conservative media directing people to not vaccinate, suggesting that most Americans are ignoring pleas to see Fox News viewers as hapless victims. And rightly so. The only reason that anti-vaccine propaganda works so well is that everyday Republican voters want to believe the lies. They deliberately tune out good information about vaccine safety and opt-in to listening to the known liars of Fox News. The network’s biggest hosts exploit the uglier impulses in its audience — their venality and their tribalist loathing of Democrats — and use that to convince them to eschew vaccination in order to “stick it to the liberals.” It’s heartening to see that not only do most Americans understand that the unvaccinated are to blame for this surge, but that they likely get the moral complicity of people who would rather get COVID-19 than admit that Biden is right about something. 


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


Well, the people who made that choice certainly are paying the price for it now.

Fox News and the GOP noise machine convinced millions of conservatives that the best way to undermine Biden’s presidency was to refuse the COVID-19 jab. And sure enough, they were successful at jacking up COVID-19 rates, filling the hospitals and generating a lot of negative headlines. But the final part of the strategy — where Biden gets blamed for the results of GOP sabotage — is falling apart.

Turns out the public isn’t so easily fooled, especially when it comes to situations where the problem is other people acting like anti-social jackasses. And all those people who did as they were asked by Fox News, refused to get the shot, and got sick — in some cases, died — of COVID-19? Their sacrifice was for nothing. They failed, it turns out, to stick it to Biden. Instead, they stuck it to themselves. Too bad people who screwed up this badly tend to double down instead of admitting they were wrong.

It’s still not too late, however. The hesitant could still be brought around with some well-placed vaccine requirements, and the sooner that happens, the sooner we can put this pandemic in the rearview mirror. 

The best cornstarch substitutes for cooking and baking

The Food52 Hotline has been around for nearly a decade, so it’s no surprise that some of the most common cooking questions have come up again and again. How to substitute cornstarch is one of them. Our community has been quick to share their favorite substitutes for cornstarch). Tapioca flour and arrowroot powder are fan favorites, but user Ophelia notes that tapioca flour and powder are more expensive products and have a tendency to clump quite easily. Other users have pointed out that all-purpose flour can work as a thickening agent like cornstarch. For a gluten-free substitute for cornstarch, our savvy community members recommend potato or rice starch. With so many suggestions, we wanted to find out once and for all what is the best substitute for cornstarch.

It should come as no surprise that the particular cornstarch substitute you choose should depend on what you’re cooking or baking. The type of ingredient needed for a coating on something that you’ll be deep-frying may be different from what is best for thickening a sauce or soup

Today, we’ll be tackling this topic from the ground up! We studied a number of different ingredients that work as a substitute for cornstarch, including all-purpose flour, rice flour, arrowroot powder, potato starch, and tapioca starch. Find out which is best for your recipe and the right ratio for a seamless substitution. Your pudding can (and will!) thank you later.

* * *

Cooking and baking with cornstarch

Before we start substituting cornstarch, let’s get to know it a bit, shall we? Here are a handful of questions we see all the time about the ingredient.

What is cornstarch?

Just what it sounds like — the starch from corn! Or, if you want to get nitty-gritty about it, a superfine powder, ground from the endosperm of the corn kernel. If you want to get nerdy-geeky about it, cornstarch was invented/discovered/created as a happy accident in the mid 19th century by a guy named Thomas Kingsford. But really, the product dates back to at least 1,000 B.C., when Egyptian pharaohs would use the starch from various grains to act as an adhesive for cosmetics and paper. Fast-forward to 1899, when the Kingsford company merged with Argo Corn Starch, which is the bright yellow container of starch that you’re most likely familiar with today.

Is corn flour the same as cornstarch?

Depends where you’re asking the question. Cornflour in the United Kingdom is the same as cornstarch in the United States (just look at this turkey gravy recipe from Jamie Oliver). But, corn flour in the United States refers to an even finer version of fine cornmeal (dried, then ground corn); according to Bob’s Red Mill, it produces “less crumbly [cornbread] than one made with cornmeal.”

How do people use cornstarch in cooking and baking?

Phew. We’d be here all day if I listed all of them, but here are some big ones:

  • Thickener in fruit pie filling. Figure 1/4 cup per 5 cups fruit, depending on the ripeness.
  • Thickener in pudding. Estimate 1 to 1 1/2 tablespoons per 1 cup dairy, depending on your preference.
  • Thickener in ice cream. Popular with gelato, this method produces an especially creamy-chewy frozen dessert, and all without egg yolks.
  • Extra-crispy crust for anything fried. Hello, hot chicken! You can simply coat a protein or vegetable in cornstarch then fry, or make it part of a dredging station.
  • Supplement to flour in shortbread. Using cornstarch as a dry ingredient in baking creates an extra-tender crumb; it’s the same reason you’ll see confectioners’ sugar in shortbread — it contains cornstarch!
  • Marinade for stir-fried meat or seafood. This Chinese technique, known in English as velveting, mixes cornstarch with egg whites to form a protective coating, keeping the protein silky and tender.
  • Slurry for soups and sauces. Mix cornstarch with a small amount of water to form a thin paste, then pour this into a hot liquid. 1 tablespoon will thicken about 2 cups of liquid, depending on the recipe.
  • Scrambled eggs? Yep, it’s Genius. Adding a cornstarch-milk mixture to eggs before scrambling means they can cook fast, without getting rubbery.

Can I add cornstarch directly to a liquid to thicken?

So glad you asked. No! But, even if I sprinkle it carefully on top? Still no. Adding a spoonful of cornstarch (or any of its substitutes, see below) directly to a large amount of liquid will form clumps of no return. Form a thin paste with a small amount of liquid first, then add this mixture to the larger amount of liquid on the stove.

* * *

Best cornstarch substitutes

So, you ran out of cornstarch. It happens. Here are five ingredients that are happy to jump in, plus everything you need to know about each.

All-purpose flour

Though all-purpose wheat flour has roughly half the thickening prowess of cornstarch, it still shows up in a lot of the same recipes — say, as a thickener in fruit pie filling, or cooked with butter to form a thickening roux for gravies or soups. Estimate 2 tablespoons of flour for every 1 tablespoon of cornstarch in a recipe. It holds up very well when cooked and gives whatever it thickens an opaque look.

Rice flour

Not to be confused with glutinous or sweet rice flour, which is used for mochi. As with wheat flour, you can estimate 2 tablespoons rice flour for every 1 tablespoon of cornstarch. Our contributor Alice Medrich loves to use it to thicken pastry cream and tenderize shortbread crusts.

Arrowroot powder

This mild-tasting starch looks a lot like cornstarch and is equally strong when it comes to thickening. Use in slurry situations (read sauces) and figure 1 tablespoon arrowroot for every 1 tablespoon cornstarch. A couple caveats, though: “Arrowroot should only be used when the sauce is to be served within 10 minutes or preparation,” according to “The Joy of Cooking.” “It will not hold, nor will it reheat.”

Potato starch

Estimate 1 to 1 1/2 tablespoons potato starch for every 1 tablespoon cornstarch. Like arrowroot, this starch’s thickening powers don’t last long beyond cooking, so eat as soon as possible. Its delicate flavor makes it great for sauces. You’ll also see it pop up in baking recipes, too, like this chocolate-nut sponge cake.

Tapioca starch

This neutral-flavored ingredient comes from the cassava root. It’s less potent than cornstarch, so you’ll need about 2 tablespoons tapioca for every 1 tablespoon cornstarch. Unlike cornstarch, which begins to break down when frozen, tapioca stays strong. Avoid boiling, which would make the thickened sauce stringy.

* * *

How to substitute cornstarch in recipes 

The good news is: Cornstarch can almost always be replaced. Here are a few of our favorite cornstarch-y recipes, and which substitutes make the most sense for each. See quantity conversions for each ingredient in the section above.

What can I use instead of cornstarch when frying?

Cornstarch’s relatively high amylose content makes it a champ at creating crispy crusts. Rice flour and potato flour make good substitutes, though all-purpose flour will work in a pinch.

Recipe: General Tso’s Cauliflower

What can I use instead of cornstarch for sauces?

Combining cornstarch with water to create a slurry, then pouring that mixture into a cooking liquid, is a tried-and-true sauce technique. In lieu of cornstarch, call in arrowroot powder or tapioca starch; just make sure to use the sauces right away.

Recipe: Homemade Teriyaki Sauce

What can I use instead of cornstarch for puddings?

Cornstarch often teams up with egg yolks to thicken a custard or pudding. Swapping in all-purpose or rice flour is your best bet here, since tapioca, potato starch, and arrowroot powder can be finicky with respect to cooking and holding.

Recipe: Homemade Vanilla Pudding

What can I use instead of cornstarch for fruit pie fillings?

Cornstarch is my go-to thickener for fruit pies, but for a lot of people, it’s all-purpose flour (after all, you already have the ingredient out for your pie crust). Beyond that, tapioca starch is a smart replacement.

Recipe: Cherry Pie Filling

What can I use instead of cornstarch in baked goods?

Cornstarch adds a crumbly, melt-in-your-mouth tenderness to baked goods. You can swap in all-purpose flour, but the texture won’t be as lovely. Rice flour is a great swap in cookie recipes and potato starch is lovely in cakes, as it encourages moistness and extends shelf life.

Recipe: Cornstarch Sugar Cookies

Cheering against America: Conservatives celebrate U.S. losses at the Olympics

A brigade of self-proclaimed “patriotic” group of right-wing pundits celebrated after the United States women’s national soccer team fell to lower-ranked Canada on Monday in a nail-biter face-off. The match was a semifinal game that left conservative pundits pleased that their own nation’s team lost.

“They’re still the champions at kneeling though, which is the important thing,” Daily Wire founder Ben Shapiro quipped. Breitbart editor Joel Pollak added, “I’m guessing Canada didn’t kneel for their anthem.”

“Wow. The women’s soccer team really blew it AGAIN. Losing to Canada? Probably SORE KNEES from all their KNEELING. I love it when America wins the Gold—but the “bronze” lining here is we won’t see as much of the purple hair chick MEG [Megan Rapinoe] during the ‘offseason,'” the self-parroting Newsmax host Greg Kelly wrote

“The US Women’s Soccer Team went WOKE, and now they lost to Canada,” far-right activist Brigitte Gabriel tweeted. “That’s what happens when you put political propaganda before sport and hard work.”

Candace Owens went a step further, calling out phenom Megan Rapinoe, billing her as an “anti-American piece of trash.” “Not heartbreaking at all. [Megan Rapinoe] is an anti-American piece of trash who does not represent our country, anywhere, ever. Any person who disrespects the flag that sons and daughters are sent home beneath while fighting for our freedoms overseas deserves to lose,” she stated. “Repeatedly.”

Fox News host Dan Bongino took issue with the team kneeling to protect against injustice in America. “I just don’t care,” he stated, appearing deflated. “I genuinely just don’t care.” 

In right-wing media, the women’s national team was further vilified. “One really can’t feel sorry for them,” the right-wing blog RedState, the site that called on readers to go “RINO hunting” and has been duped by a fake “Antifa” accountpenned on Monday. “Americans want a team that’s proud to represent the country, that doesn’t honor a group that despises America and terrorized it for a good part of the last year.” 

The Gateway Pundit, a far-right blog, also took swings at Rapinoe while cheering against the United States team, specifically calling the star an “America-hating anthem kneeler.” 

Conservatives have loudly cheered for the defeat of the U.S. team since opening day in Tokyo, when the U.S. was defeated by Sweden. 

Republicans are increasingly ready for violence: We look away at our peril

Today’s Republicans appear to have a bottomless appetite for violence and destruction. It’s important to understand that Donald Trump did not create that appetite — although he fed it, encouraged it and shares it.

In his capacity as political cult leader, Trump exemplifies what psychologists describe as “the dark triad” of human behavior: Machiavellianism, narcissism, and psychopathy. His followers idolize and worship him, and all too often seek to imitate his antisocial and pathological behavior.

Ultimately, the relationship between Trumpism, the Republican Party and the American body politic as a whole is akin to a parasitic infection. The infection feeds off the host. The host spreads the infection. Other organisms are infected. The cycle continues, and the parasite lives on. In that sense, today’s Republican Party, with its embrace of neofascism, constitutes a public health emergency.

A new nationwide public opinion survey shows just how deeply Republican voters now accept political violence as a legitimate option. Business Insider offers these details:

Less than a year after a pro-Trump mob stormed the US Capitol, nearly half of Republican voters (47%) say that “a time will come when patriotic Americans have to take the law into their own hands,” per a new nationwide survey by George Washington University’s School of Media and Public Affairs.

Only about 29% of Americans agreed with this statement on some level, the poll found, including just 9% of Democrats. And 49% said they disagree or strongly disagree.

The poll also found that a majority of Republicans (55%) say “the traditional American way of life is disappearing so fast we may have to use force to save it.” About 15% of Democrats agreed with this statement, but more Americans disagreed (46%) than agreed (34%).

More Republicans (27%) than Democrats (18%) said that “strong leaders sometimes have to bend the rules in order to get things done.”

This is not a new finding. Previous public opinion polls and other research from PRRI, AEI and other organizations have come to similar conclusions.

These findings about Republicans and political violence are consistent with the warnings of many leading mental health experts that Donald Trump and his movement represent a dire threat to American democracy. This is true both because of Trump’s obvious mental pathologies — in this case repeated encouragements to violence — and because of his ability to sway members of the public to share his worldview.

In recent conversations with Salon, such mental health experts as Dr. Bandy X. Lee, Dr. Justin Frank and Dr. John Gartner have warned of such a pathological relationship between Donald Trump and his followers.

Gartner, for example, described the dynamic by saying that the “most important” trait shared by Trump and his supporters, as well as “the least recognized,” is sadism:

On Jan. 6, during that attack on the Capitol, there was a sense of carnival for Trump’s mob. These people were having fun. There was a weird manic joy, a kind of euphoria, pleasure and excitement at harming other people.

Trump is a sadist, but he’s also arousing and tapping into the sadism in his right-wing authoritarian followers. He liberates a level of aggressive energy because one of the beliefs of the right-wing extremist is that aggression should be used for dominance and to enforce conformity and submission. And so aggression is sexualized and celebrated. Freud said there were two kinds of energy, sexual and aggressive. So when you liberate aggressive energy, it’s euphoric, elating, you feel alive. So these people felt more alive on Jan. 6 than any other day of their lives. … It is almost as if Trump’s followers are sleeper cells waiting to be activated by him or some other similarly inclined leader.

Dr. Frank echoed these concerns, describing Trump’s unusual “ability to tap into people’s fears and hatred,” and suggesting that his followers “are actually scarier than he is”: 

Trump unites his supporters in a shared idea of opposition to some other groups or individuals they revile. It doesn’t even matter whether they are Black or Muslim or immigrants or migrants from Latin and South America, or Democrats, for that matter. They are all to be dehumanized. Trump has found a way to unite his followers around an impulse to be openly racist and contemptuous, and granted them that freedom. He has normalized hatred among his supporters.

Lee, a psychiatrist who is one of the world’s foremost experts on violence, described fascism as “more of a mental pathology at societal scale than a political ideology” in a recent interview with Salon, and said that pathology is now spreading in exponential fashion, as in a pandemic. Medical intervention, she proposed, will be necessary to turn the tide:

Donald Trump’s being “gone” has not been much of a remedy because he was allowed to stay in power for so long, and even now we are far from containing him.

Over four years, he had “infected” and hence created many more mini-Trumps, who act individually or at local levels to transmit symptoms.

Indeed, there was rapid escalation of suicides following his election, and we are now seeing homicide levels that reflect his presidency in 2019.  We can mitigate the violence more directly through local means, but a truly preventive intervention needs to happen at the presidential or national level.

Through these processes, right-wing political violence and other antisocial and destructive behavior are gradually becoming normalized across American society. The events of Jan. 6 were a logical next step. As law enforcement and other terrorism experts have repeatedly warned, the evens of Jan. 6  were not the end of a wave of right-wing violence in America but just another stage in a centuries-long journey. The next step could well be a sustained right-wing insurgency against multiracial democracy.

The twin disasters of Trumpism and the COVID plague have accelerated the normalization of violence, death and suffering in the United States to such an extreme that today’s Republican Party can legitimately be described as a death cult.

Public opinion surveys which show that Republicans and Trumpists are committed to using violence if “necessary” to “protect” their “way of life” reflect both individual as well as collective values and beliefs. The latter element is especially important given that the Republican Party has engaged in acts of structural and institutional violence against the American people and the world for many decades.

For example, Republicans generally oppose taking steps to address the global climate crisis — and in fact have consistently made the crisis worse. During Trump’s presidency, Republicans engaged in acts of democide through their willfully incompetent response to the COVID-19 pandemic, choices that have now killed more than 600,000 people in the United States.

The Republican response to gun violence (including mass shootings), the health care crisis, education, wealth and income inequality, and social injustice more generally have caused the deaths of millions of Americans since the 1960s. It is no exaggeration to claim that today’s Republican Party — and the larger “conservative” movement more generally —is sociopathic.

Many members of the American commentariat and chattering classes have Internalized a norm where they are to appear certain of all things. This false certainty reflects an important social and political fact: The mainstream news media is an integral part of a social and political system that serves the needs of elites before anyone else.

There are also the personal financial rewards, social capital and prestige and other incentives that accrue to public voices who validate the system’s governing ideals, including the principle that everything will be OK because America’s “institutions” remain strong, and the country is “exceptional”. 

As a practical matter, these norms and beliefs mean that many of America’s “professional smart people” are incapable of discerning great historical change, or being aware that the world is moving under their feet and the old order is melting away.

The centrists, hope peddlers and stenographers of current events are still searching for ways to explain Trumpism and the rise of neofascism instead of accepting the plain and obvious ones. We certainly have the language to describe a country or a society at the breaking point, where it appears that “the center cannot hold.” That language describes America now, caught between ascendant fascism, a weak Democratic Party that cannot or will not act with the “urgency of now” to stop it, and a second wave of the COVID pandemic fueled by the delta variant (and others yet to come).

I write and think about politics for a living. I was also among the few public voices who predicted Trump’s victory in 2016 and the hell he would unleash upon the American people and the world. In this moment, when Joe Biden is president but the Age of Trump continues, I am deeply troubled and unsure about the future of American democracy and society. The American people should be very suspicious and critical of anyone who claims to know with certainty what will happen next. In this sense and many others, the American people en masse are lost in the twilight.

Shell sponsored a museum exhibit on climate solutions. There were strings attached

The day the Science Museum in London opened its latest exhibition on climate change in May, a group of scientists from the climate activist group Extinction Rebellion locked themselves inside in protest. Their gripe? The exhibit, called “Our Future Planet,” which highlights the promise of technologies to suck up carbon dioxide from the air or from industrial smokestacks, was sponsored by the oil and gas giant Shell.

The sponsorship first sparked outcry when it was announced in April. “We condemn the Science Museum’s decision to accept this sponsorship and provide Shell with an opportunity for brazen green-washing,” the U.K. Student Climate Network wrote in an open letter at the time. The Science Museum Group’s director defended the exhibit and the sponsorship, saying “we retain editorial control.”

But on Thursday, new evidence emerged showing that the money Shell offered for the exhibit was not unconditional. Culture Unstained, an activist group whose aim is “to end fossil fuel sponsorship of culture,” obtained Shell’s sponsorship contractwith the Science Museum under freedom of information act laws. The contract stipulates that the museum could not take any action that would be seen “as discrediting or damaging the goodwill or reputation of the Sponsor.”

Fossil fuel companies are regular sponsors of museum exhibits, and cultural institutions in general, but their donations have come under increased scrutiny in recent years. U.K. activists have been staging regular protests at the British Museum for the past several years demanding it end its long-standing relationship with BP. Critics argue that allowing companies like BP to put their logos on museum walls elevates their status in society, perpetuates their social license to operate, and potentially influences curatorial decisions.

It’s clear what Shell had to gain in the case of the “Our Future Planet” exhibit. The exhibit centers on technologies that oil and gas companies like Shell say will allow them to keep selling fossil fuels while reducing their emissions. The exhibit will be up through the fall, when thousands of political leaders from all over the world will pass through the U.K. to attend the United Nation’s annual climate conference. As Grist’s Kate Yoder observed in a 2019 story about the oil industry’s relationship with museums, “Philanthropy isn’t just an avenue to dignify fortunes — it can also serve as an attempt to influence where society is headed.”

Visitors start the “Our Future Planet” exhibit with a journey through the “the oldest forms of carbon capture technology: trees and plants,” according to a promotional post on the Science Museum’s website. Next, they encounter a mechanical tree developed by Klaus Lackner, a professor at Arizona State University and pioneer of technology that captures carbon directly from the air. Later, they learn about attempts to capture carbon dioxide in rock dust, an approach called enhanced weathering. Finally, museumgoers are introduced to methods to capture carbon from the flue gas of fossil fuel–burning power plants and industrial plants, along with products that can be produced with that captured CO2, like concrete, yoga mats, and vodka.

International research bodies like the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change and the International Energy Agency say these kinds of solutions will be required to stabilize the climate. But the technologies are still nascent, and it is unclear whether they will become commercially viable or at what scale. Scientists who support carbon capture and carbon removal warn that they should not be seen as a replacement for rapidly cutting emissions with the technologies we have today.

Shell has made a commitment to reduce its emissions to net-zero by 2050, but its plan is to keep selling oil and gas while relying heavily on carbon capture and storage, as well as so-called nature-based solutions, like planting trees, to offset its emissions. In May, a Dutch court ruled that Shell’s plans were not in line with the Paris Agreement and ordered the company to cut emissions more quickly. Shell is appealing the verdict.

A museum exhibit that teaches people about carbon capture and carbon removal could be seen as a good thing, since research has shown the public is still largely confused about what these terms mean. But I would hope that it also invites visitors to think about the risks and challenges of these solutions in addition to their promise. I haven’t been to the exhibit myself, but a critic writing in the magazine New Scientist concluded, “The exhibition mostly gets the balance right between pessimism and optimism, although it could have gone further in showing how expensive and small scale this stuff is.”

A Shell spokesperson told Channel 4 News, “We fully respect the museum’s independence. That’s why its exhibition on carbon capture matters and why we supported it. Debate and discussion — among anyone who sees it — are essential.”

For what it’s worth, in a blog post on the museum’s website, exhibition advisor Bob Ward said the world faces an “urgent task” to reduce emissions and that “this will mean a fundamental shift away from fossil fuels as our primary source of energy.” Ward acknowledges that there are large uncertainties around the solutions presented in the exhibit, and the concern that counting on them could reduce ambition to cut emissions more rapidly. But he adds that “we are more likely to make a rapid and orderly transition to a zero-carbon economy if oil companies play a genuinely committed and active role.”

House Republicans try to get a handle on climate change

Every week now, we’re seeing the results of extreme weather in America and across the globe.

Maybe it’s even enough to stop some of the oft-repeated Republican denials that climate disruption is real.

There are recent reports that uniform denial is cracking just a bit, if for no other reason than a perceived political liability of insisting that the planet is just fine as it is. They think, let’s drill some more oil, burn some more methane and forget about alternative energy sources.

Ending climate change denial is simply inviting the next question: What do you want to do about it?

Therein lies the Republican dilemma. They don’t want:

  • to  back substantial public investments in growing solar and wind energies
  • to have mandates about emissions
  • to join international consortiums that issue global advice to Americans. 

But they want to be seen as Doing Something.

For years, Republicans have been arguing that human-made conditions are not substantially worsening our air, water and weather. At worst, there are ripples in climate over time, they say.

In any case, they don’t want to say the American Dream is at risk from climate any more than they want to acknowledge institutional racism, growing classist income inequality or the shortcomings of underinvestment in education.

Whatever label you want to put on it, we’re seeing more serious wildfires, more destructive storms and higher floodwaters.

So, my question is the same, “GOP: What do you want to do about what’s actually happening now?”

Where Are the Alternatives?

I can understand the criticisms leveled against the big infrastructure packages still gridlocked In Congress over partisan concern. I reject the Republican unwillingness to spend public dollars on public threats, but I can understand that the dollar amounts here are politically frightening.

But I don’t hear anything about the alternative. Isn’t it wildly expensive to keep shelling out taxpayer monies to dry out Houston and rebuild thousands of homes after a flood or to rebuild those entire California communities consumed by wildfires, only to see them newly at risk a year later? Isn’t it bad enough to see one entire apartment building disappear, killing 98, into unsound earth near Miami Beach without considering banning further development in what is clearly becoming much more fragile land?

What do Republicans who insist on twisting human-made rules on voting and gerrymandering want to stay in office to do, exactly?

Climate change remains a low  priority for Americans who identify as Republican or lean toward the Republican Party, a Pew Research study now finds. At the same time, Republicans express openness to certain policy proposals to deal with climate change. There are differences in views within the GOP, with moderates and younger adults generally offering higher levels of support for action to address climate change than conservatives and older adults.

Still, only 10% call it a top concern, compared with a much larger share of Democrats and Democratic leaners (49%), according to a recent Pew Research Center survey of U.S. adults. Amid warnings from scientists and activists about climate impacts, there has been little increase in the share of Republicans who see climate change as a threat to the country, in contrast to rising levels of concern among Democrats.

Last February, 24 Republicans gathered in Salt Lake City where they brainstormed ways to get their party to engage on a planetary problem it has ignored for decades. They insisted on anonymity to protect themselves from Donald Trump followers. There is an inkling that to be competitive in national elections, the party will need some type of credible position on climate change.

A Republican Climate Caucus

Now, the anonymous have gone public as House Republicans actually have formed a group on climate change, 50 or so strong, led by Utah Rep. John Curtis. As a group, though, they care as deeply about not harming American economic interests with rules as they say they do about Doing Something about climate.

That means that Curtis and company want private-sector innovation and technology development without the government to do things like capture and store carbon emissions, noting that the U.S. already is a global leader in such things.

My cynicism says this is more about labeling and marketing than it is about widespread practical solutions that are needed to address these climate issues intelligently and forcefully.

It has been interesting to see Europe moving much more quickly than us to adopt big-think commitments to ending fossil-fuel cars and trucks, for example, or to tell energy companies that they must meet a much more aggressive conversion schedule for alternative fuels and emissions.

Indeed, as I have argued previously, our American marketplace is moving toward climate change faster than government policy. Automakers are committing to all-electric fleets. The solar panel industry is struggling mightily to grow despite shortages of needed supplies and barriers in international supply chain requirements. Coal is dying a marketplace death. Oil and gas companies are moving on their own.

The question is about the scale of these changes and the role that we expect our government to play in guiding some kind of intelligence balancing of jobs, training, investment and the like.

Amidst all the foot-dragging toward infrastructure proposals from the Joe Biden White House, I’m having trouble seeing the practical effect of even some Republicans recognizing that climate disruption already has arrived.

5 of the best pie crust recipes for a flakier, better-tasting slice

Are you the type who breaks into hives the minute you think about making the perfect pie crust recipe? Or are you the one who stays calm and cool as your pin glides across the pie dough like a Ferrari down the Italian coast? (Or are you the type who’s really in it for the eating, not the making? You’re welcome here, too. Come one, come all! We’ve got a slice for you.)

For me, there’s no “common” dessert (as in, let’s take croquembouche and Baked Alaska out of the running here) that makes me so frantic: The fear is deep-seated; I suspect I was born that way. I will freeze every utensil, every ingredient, that might possibly come in contact with the cantankerous butter; I will stick my hands in an ice bath if I need to! All for the sake of an easy-to-roll, hard-to-flub, guaranteed-flaky-and-buttery pie dough recipe.

But some pie doughs — and my anxiety is primarily dough-related (will it sog? will it shrink? will it altogether implode?) — promise to be more forgiving than others: quick to come together, with minimal guesswork; easy to roll and transfer; and, of course, guaranteed to yield flaky, shattering, crisp results. They call themselves “foolproof,” “go-to,” “be-all, end-all.” Are they?

I’ve come to favor Rose Levy Beranbaum’s cream cheese pie crust (and I crooned its praises last summer), but I was curious about how pie doughs bolstered with other ingredients — like vodka, shortening, vinegar, or sour cream — would compare to a 100-percent-butter classic pie crust recipe.

So I tested five different pie dough recipes to see which one was the best — all-butter, all-butter with the addition of vinegar, butter plus shortening, vodka-spiked, and sour-cream-boosted.

When testing the best pie crust recipe, I wanted to determine:

The ease of assembly and of rolling: How quickly and seamlessly did the dough come together? The flakiness and the flavor: Was this a crust I’d like to munch on sans peach or rhubarb filling?

I cut four small rounds of each type of pie dough, brushed two of every batch with egg wash (those are bottom two rows of the baking sheet — which are across-the-board more appetizing), and baked at 425° F for about 15 minutes, until the dough circles were golden-brown and completely cooked-through. Then, we tasted.

Disclaimer: For my test, I baked the pie crusts as freestanding rounds, but obviously this doesn’t take into account how they would have interacted with various fillings — juicy fruits, creamy custards — or, as our resident baking expert Erin McDowell has pointed out, that you might be looking for a mealier, more crumbly crust for a custard pie (pumpkin, lemon cream but flakier, laminated-esque quality for a juicy one. For me, I wanted flaky. It is fruit pie season, after all!


Which is the tastiest—and what happened to that weirdo on the right??? 

* * *

Putting the best pie crust recipes to the test

First, what is the best type of butter to use for pie dough? Unsalted or salted? European or Amish or Irish? That’s . . . a complicated question, but luckily one we’ve happily tackled. The takeaway here is that it doesn’t really matter for this test — I just stayed consistent with my brands of butter throughout. (The only criteria? It had to taste good, and be pretty cheap. I was baking a lot.)

1. All-butter (and nearly nothing else):


These all-butter discs rose so much higher than the shortening pucks. (Egg washed, left; naked, right.) 
  • The recipeMelissa Clark’s All-Butter Pie Crust
  • What makes it different: There are no “magic” add-ins in this recipe — you need only flour, salt, butter, and ice water. The distinction comes in the technique, as this dough is made entirely in a food processor. Since you use the food processor first to break the butter into lima bean-size pieces and then to incorporate the flour, the butter is ultimately chopped into very small pieces. Would this counteract flakiness? Many pie bakers say you want to see flour-coated butter pockets when you roll out the dough.
  • How easy was it to make and work with?: The dough came together quickly and without issue; since the process happens within a matter of minutes in the food processor, it’s easy to keep the temperature of the ingredients cool and to shuttle the finished dough to the refrigerator before the butter has a chance to misbehave. The chilled dough was a bit firmer than some of the other batches pre-roll out but ultimately gave me no trouble at all.
  • Texture and taste: If you use good-tasting butter, you’re going to have a good-tasting all-butter pie crust — there are no additional ingredients to mute or overshadow its flavor. Still, I ended up preferring the butter-vinegar dough and the sour cream dough, each of which had a nuance of tang that cut a bit of the richness and was even flakier than the all-butter crust.
  • The verdict: The flavor was good, though the dough fell a bit flat in comparison to the others — perhaps this was because the butter was pulverized by the machine rather than left in larger chunks. I’d be curious to try an all-butter dough that doesn’t rely on the food processor, though in the past, I’ve found these the most difficult to get right.

Look closely and you’ll spot butter streaks in the dough on the left—but it’s hard to see any in the dough on the right. PHOTO BY MARK WEINBERG

2. Shortening + butter:


The flattest and toughest of the bunch. (Egg washed on the left, and plain on the right.)
  • The recipeKing Arthur Flour’s Classic Double Pie Crust
  • What makes it different: A quarter-cup of vegetable shortening is mixed into the flour before you work in the butter using your fingers, a pastry cutter, or a stand mixer. Why shortening? As Erin explains in her pie fats briefing, shortening has a high melting point, which means it’s not going to turn to liquid as you work it into the flour — and this should translate into reliably flaky layers. But as Kenji López-Alt writes on Serious Eats, it’s actually easy to inadvertently overwork shortening, and end up with a crumbly crust, precisely because shortening remains soft at so many temperatures. (An all-butter crust, on the other hand, will be more blatantly too-far-gone — the butter starts to melt and you have a gooey mess.)
  • How easy was it to make and work with?: I had difficulty forming the dough into cohesive discs when I used my hands to mix it, but when Allison Buford used a stand mixer (and a bit more water), she had more success. (This guessing game with the amount of necessary liquid? I’d rather skip it.) Once the dough was chilled, it was noticeably firmer than the others — I had to bang it more aggressively before rolling it out, but once I got going, I didn’t have a hard time rolling it into a large, thin circle.
  • Texture and taste: This was the flattest, toughest dough of the bunch (neither flaky nor particularly tender), and it scored lowest in the flavor category, as well. I was surprised by just how big of an impact only 1/4 cup of shortening could have on the overall taste. I thought the crust had a vaguely artificial flavor — a fake butteriness that might be distracting when paired with a pie’s fillings.
  • The verdict: I have no plans to use shortening in future doughs. Since these discs did hold its shape very well, with minimal puffing and spreading, I do wonder if a shortening-butter crust might actually be better for making intricate lattices and decorations, however.

From this angle, you really can see that the sour cream dough was remarkably tall and flaky—the layers are visible! The shortening dough was the clear loser. 

3. All butter + some vinegar:


A winner, in my book. (Egg washed, left; bare, right.) PHOTO BY MARK WEINBERG
  • The recipeFour & Twenty Blackbirds’ All-Butter Pie Crust
  • What makes it different: Yes this is called “all-butter pie crust” — but it’s the addition of vinegar (2 tablespoons of cider vinegar, to be precise) that I was focused on. Some sources say that acidic vinegar prohibits gluten formation, which makes for an easier-to-roll, more tender crust — and others have cried “myth!”
  • How easy was it to make and work with?: I loved making this dough, even though the recipe does call for dirtying a bench scraper and a pastry blender. While there is value in using your hands to feel the texture of the dough, I find it easier to keep the temperature under control when I’m not warming up the ingredients with my body heat. The dough rolled out easily, cracking in only a few areas.
  • Texture and taste: Again, I was surprised by the impact of a small amount of an ingredient (here, it’s vinegar, not shortening) — but this time, pleasantly so! The pie crust had a tang I was not expecting, and was one of the highest-rising doughs in the group: The discs look like biscuits in miniature!
  • The verdict: It might very well be myth that vinegar makes pie dough more tender, but based on these results, if I have vinegar in my pantry, I’ll surely be adding it to my pie dough, if only for the very subtle zing it added. The success of this recipe is likely a combination of the ratio of ingredients and the technique. I’d definitely rather fish out my bench scraper and pastry cutter than lug out the food processor — it’s nearly as fast, and there’s less of a chance of obliterating the butter chunks.

Pie dough carpets. PHOTO BY MARK WEINBERG

4. Vodka:


Drunken pie dough. (Egg washed, left; naked, right.) PHOTO BY MARK WEINBERG
  • The recipeCook’s Illustrated’s Foolproof Pie Crust (as featured in Genius Recipes)
  • What makes it different: Instead of adding 4 tablespoons of water, you’ll use 2 tablespoons of water and 2 tablespoons of vodka. The vodka inhibits gluten formation — making for a tender, more malleable dough — and it evaporates in the oven, which means it leaves no boozy taste behind. And the technique, not just the ingredient list, is convention-bucking: In a food procesor, you’ll blend the butter completely into a portion of the flour; then, you’ll break those curds up with some additional flour and use a spatula to press in the liquid. As our Creative Director Kristen Miglore wrote in 2013, “this means that the dough is more predictably tender and flaky (since it’s based on a more homogenous flour-butter paste rather than jagged bits of cold butter) and easier to roll out too.”
  • How easy was it to make and work with?: This rolled out like a dream (“supremely easy!” according to my notes — the best of the bunch). The dough is a bit tacky — I’d recommend rolling it between sheets of lightly floured parchment paper, and allowing it to chill for the full 45 minutes before attempting that endeavor.
  • Texture and taste: While the addition of vodka made for a dough that was flakier than its all-butter, food processor-made counterpart, I didn’t notice a big difference between this crust and the butter-vinegar one. I couldn’t detect any vodka (obviously), but I did think these discs had a sort of raw, floury taste — I preferred the flavor of the butter-vinegar and the sour cream pie dough circles.
  • The verdict: I wouldn’t rush out to buy a bottle of vodka to make this crust, since I preferred the flavor of the butter-vinegar recipe and found the texture to be nearly the same. But if you are having trouble achieving flakiness, give this a try: Many of our commenters have had great success, even if they had been heartbroken by other pie crust recipes in the past. I think it’s likely that this dough will provide flaky results to nervous beginners — it seems less volatile than an all-butter dough, be it made by hand or in a machine. And yet, all-butter doughs still have their advantages.

5. Sour cream:


You can practically count the number of layers. (Egg wash, left; naked, right.) PHOTO BY MARK WEINBERG
  • The recipeSimply Recipes’ Sour Cream Pie Crust
  • What makes it different: You don’t have to sprinkle in any water or liquid — at all! Instead, you’ll cut the butter into the flour using your hands, then stir in 1/4 cup of sour cream with a fork. There’s no machine and no uncertainty, and straight-from-the-fridge sour cream can help keep your other ingredients cold.
  • How easy was it to make and work with?: I had to add a couple tablespoons of sour cream (two more than the recipe called for) in order to get the dough to come together, and I used the plastic wrap to help maneuver the mixture into a cohesive ball. After the dough chilled, however, it was much easier to work with and presented no issues during the rolling process. I saw that there were streaks of sour cream in the rolled-out round, which I took to be a sign of flakiness to come. (Spoiler alert: I was correct.)
  • Texture and taste: The sour cream rounds were incredibly flaky — perhaps the highest-rising of the bunch. We also liked their flavor — a distinct, but enjoyable, sourness. The dough rounds, however, were inconsistent. Check out that strangely brown specimen in the third row of the rightmost column: What happened there?
  • The verdict: I love this pie crust — distinct layers and big flavor for such little effort — but it’s definitely suited for particular circumstances. Elise of Simply Recipes doesn’t recommend par-baking it (the sides will slump and shrink) and the flavor is noticeably tangy — which is something to keep in mind depending on your filling. I’ll save this crust recipe for particular circumstances where a bit of tang would contribute to the final result, like cider caramel pie in the fall or a brown sugar peach pie in August.

PHOTO BY MARK WEINBERG

And in the end?

The butter-vinegar crust, for its ingredients and its technique, is my winner. It produced consistently tall, flaky results, and I liked the subtle zip that the vinegar lent to the final crust. It’s also easy to turn to this as my go-to: I almost always have apple cider vinegar around. Vodka, sour cream, or my beloved cream cheese? That would probably require a special trip to the store. I’m also inclined to skip the food processor — it’s so much harder to control the chunks of butter (and so much easier to take the dough just one pulse too far) when you’re involving a powerful machine. My preference is for a combination of tools (they stay cool! they provide more coverage!) and hands.

If I do happen to have sour cream — or I’m baking for a special occasion — I’ll make Simply Recipes’ version. Shortening, see you never (though commenters, if you’d like to make the case otherwise, my ears are open!). And vodka? I’d suggest that recipe and technique to those who have struggled with all-butter pies in the past. The Genius recipe will enable you to use a food processor without overworking the dough — perfect for those looking for a hands-off, very reliable method.

* * *

Best pie recipes

Now that we’ve tested the best pie crust recipes, it’s time to bake a pie! For Thanksgiving, make a classic like pecan pie, pumpkin custard, spiced apple, or sweet potato using our favorite pie crust made with a combination of butter and vinegar. Come the Fourth of July, make a fruit pie recipe filled with berries (strawberries, blueberries, or blackberries), stone fruit like peaches and nectarines, or even a light and creamy lemon meringue pie.

Of course, you can feel free to use the pie crust recipe included with each of these fruity pies. Or conduct your own test and determine which is the best pie crust recipe based on your taste preferences.

1. Heda’s Mostly Blackberry Pie with Hazelnut Crumb Crust

This pie’s base is a take on the butter and vinegar crust we talked about above, but with a secret ingredients to give it crunch and a ton of flavor: ground hazelnuts! The filling is a simple, age-old combo of blackberry and blueberry, and on top goes some more hazelnutty pie dough crumbled up with rolled oats.

2. Third-Generation Peach Pie

Flaky, buttery pie crust is laden with mounds of spiced fresh peaches, then scattered with a nutty, oaty crumble topping. The recipe’s been in community member Rhonda35‘s for three generations, so you know it’s gotta be good.

3. Rose Levy Beranbaum’s Fresh Blueberry Pie

Cookbook author and baking expert Rose Levy Beranbaum‘s done it again — this time, with a dead-simple and highly impactful blueberry pie. The crust is a vinegar–butter number we all know and love, and the filling is pretty much just fresh summer blueberries.

4. Cider Caramel Apple Pie

When autumn rolls around, you obviously need a go-to pie recipe — so why not this cider caramel rendition? It’s got tart-sweet Honeycrisp apples, just a hint of sugar, and plenty of butter to add creaminess to the filling as it bakes. All this gets swaddled in a double-crust of all-buttah pie dough — yes, even more butter.

5. Cranberry Sage Pie

Puckery cranberries and woody, earthy sage are paired in this wintertime wonder, and a sweet apple (like a Northern Spy) joins the party, too. An all-butter crust lays the perfect groundwork.

6. Meta Given’s Pumpkin Pie

Start with fresh cooked pumpkin purée or the good stuff from a can, then dress it up by caramelizing it in a pan on the stovetop. Add ground cinnamon, ground ginger, and sugar for sugar, spice, and everything nice, plus an ultra-silky mixture of eggs, cream, and milk. Pour the filling into your chosen favorite pie crust and bake.

7. Chocolate Cream Pie

Chocolate lovers will adore this over-the-top pie. Recipe developer Kenneth Temple prefers using egg yolks exclusively, rather than eggs, for a silky-smooth pudding to fill the chocolate graham cracker crust. Don’t forget the light and airy whipped cream topping!

8. Craig and Kathleen Claiborne’s Mississippi Pecan Pie

Our editors call this pecan pie “sweet but not too sweet” and note that it has a “less jiggly filling than most.” The combination of dark corn syrup and dark brown sugar ensures that the filling will have rich caramelly notes.

“An orange jumpsuit waiting”: Trump warned he should be concerned about Manhattan criminal probe

Appearing on CNN to discuss a ruling that will allow Congress to have access to former President Donald Trump’s taxes, Bloomberg editor Tim O’Brien said that the issue may be tied up in the courts yet again, and that Trump should be more concerned about the criminal investigation being conducted against him by Manhattan’s district attorney.

Last week the Justice Department paved the way for Congressional investigators to access the former president’s tax returns before a federal judge interceded and gave Trump time to contest the ruling.

Speaking with CNN host Jim Sciutto, O’Brien — a Trump biographer who has seen previous tax documents belonging to the ex-president before he ran for office — said to expect another long period of legal wrangling.

“I’m assuming they are looking at this and still challenge it on the grounds that the DOJ, Bill Barr’s DOJ blocked the release which was, that congress was just engaging in a fishing expedition and it wasn’t pursuant to Congress’s oversight authority or legislation and therefore it should be stopped,” O’Brien predicted. “I imagine they’ll try to challenge that in court but they’re going to have an uphill battle with that.”

“So if it comes to Congress, if the tax returns come to Congress, are they now effectively public? Will you and I and people here watching here be able to see them?” host Sciutto asked.

“I suspect we will at some point,” the journalist replied. “I think Congress is going to have to be judicious and I think circumspect about how they post these. There is a lot of, I think, issues around the separation of powers and checks and balances that rides as much on trust as it does on the rule of law.”

“So the president has multiple legal tracks, perilous ones underway right now,” Sciutto prompted. “I mean you have an investigation, one in the state of Georgia into his efforts to overturn the election. You have the Manhattan DA’s continued case and indictment, in fact of the Trump Organization. Now you have this, at least exposing — we don’t know if there is criminal behavior — but exposing what the president has tried to conceal for some time. What is the political effect of that for a person who remains the choice of most, at least, Republicans for the [presidential] nominee in 2024?”

“I think the Manhattan DA’s investigation is still the most perilous for him; that is a criminal investigation that is still a possibility that there is an orange jumpsuit waiting for Donald Trump at the end of that process,” O’Brien explained. “I don’t anticipate getting there, there is a lot of evidence that needs to come into the public record before that occurs.”

“I don’t know that any of his core supporters would care about any of this,” the journalist conceded. “I think the real issue is what do traditional conservative Republicans and moderate voters think about it in a general election and that is really the meat of the issue.”

You can watch the video below via YouTube:

 

Biden team calls for “out-organizing” voter suppression — activists say that’s insulting

Civil rights groups have accused President Joe Biden of “empty platitudes” on voting rights after he defended the filibuster as his administration reportedly shifts focus away from passing major legislation and toward a push to “out-organize” new Republican voting laws inspired by former President Donald Trump’s false claims of election fraud.

In unusually forceful rhetoric, Biden has compared new restrictions in Republican-led states to Jim Crow-era racial voter suppression and called the onslaught of legislation to limit ballot access the “most significant test of our democracy since the Civil War.” But in the eyes of many activists, he has refused to follow up those words with actions. Last week, Biden forcefully defended the filibuster, which has prevented any voting legislation from advancing in the Senate.

Vice President Kamala Harris, who Biden tapped to lead the administration’s voting rights efforts, has increasingly focused on boosting Democratic National Committee funding for voter registration and legal efforts, even as a recent Supreme Court decision has made it less likely that Democrats can sue to overturn new restrictions. White House officials have sent mixed messages, reportedly telling voting rights groups that it is possible to “out-organize voter suppression,” although some Biden advisers have pushed back against that framing while acknowledging that “organizing was integral to the administration’s efforts.”

Civil rights groups have called Biden’s shift a “slap in the face of Black and brown voters that helped him get elected.”

“Empty platitudes and statements about the problem [are] no longer sufficient for Black and brown voters who have been organizing on the ground,” Stephany Spaulding, a spokesperson for Just Democracy, a coalition of dozens of civil rights groups, and the founder of Truth & Reconciliation, said in an interview with Salon, calling on Biden to “operate with the full force of his office.”

Litigation and organizing will be key components in the Democratic strategy to counter the onslaught of new election laws, “but can only go so far,” Aaron Scherb, the director of legislative affairs at the nonpartisan voting group Common Cause, told Salon, calling the White House line about “out-organizing” voter suppression “insulting to the hundreds of thousands of organizers who worked tirelessly to turn out voters.”

Republicans have passed at least 30 laws in 18 states that nonpartisan voting experts say will make it harder for Americans to vote, especially in areas with high Black and Latino populations. Other states like Texas and Michigan are pushing even more onerous restrictions. Some states, like Georgia, have enacted legislation that would make it easier for Republican officials to take control of local election administration and overturn unfavorable election results.

Georgia Republicans have wasted no time in using the law to try to overthrow local election officials in Fulton County, a Democratic stronghold that has the highest Black population in the state.

“We cannot out-organize partisan takeovers of our election systems when they are sanctioned by law, however unjust those laws may be,” Nsé Ufot, chief executive officer of the New Georgia Project, said in a statement to Salon. “We are desperately losing the war on voting rights, and we need the federal government to step in before our democracy is irreparably damaged.”

Most Democrats have rallied behind the For the People Act, a sweeping voting rights package that includes provisions touching on virtually every part of election administration, and the John Lewis Voting Rights Advancement Act, which would restore a requirement for states with a history of racial discrimination to “pre-clear” election changes with the Justice Department. But all 50 Republicans in the Senate joined in a filibuster of the For the People Act, which the GOP has criticized as a partisan overreach, even after a compromise offer floated by centrist Sen. Joe Manchin, D-W.Va.

Manchin has expressed opposition to the For the People Act and key Senate Democrats are now working with him to craft revised legislation that is expected to retain measures dealing with gerrymandering, mail voting and automatic voter registration as well as a nationwide voter ID requirement. Manchin has said he would support a version of the John Lewis bill but Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell has already dismissed the need for the bill. Sen. Lisa Murkowski, R-Alaska, is the lone Republican to say she would support such a compromise plan, leaving Democrats at least nine votes of breaking a filibuster.

Voting rights advocates remain optimistic that a revised bill could move the needle in the Senate.

“The first point is getting a package that all 50 Senate Democrats can unify behind” before moving to the next step, which is “how to get it done,” Scherb said. “I think increasingly all Senate Democrats recognize what they have to do. It’s just a matter of trying to figure out how to get from point A to point B.”

Biden’s team has pushed back against criticism that the White House is backing off its push to advance voting rights legislation. The administration has been reportedly been involved in talks about the compromise bill in the Senate and top Biden adviser Cedric Richmond, formerly a member of Congress, has promised that organizing is only part of the strategy, vowing to “meet this challenge in courts, in the halls of Congress and in the streets.”

But Sherrilyn Ifill, the president of the NAACP Legal Defense and Educational Fund, told The New York Times that she has heard an increasing “emphasis on organizing” from the White House. Ifill warned that “we cannot litigate our way out of this and we cannot organize our way out of this.”

Progressive lawmakers have criticized the administration for putting the onus of combating Republican restrictions on predominantly Black and brown voting rights groups.

“This takes for granted the black and brown communities that bear the brunt of voter suppression, and who worked to elect leaders who would protect them,” tweeted Rep. Mondaire Jones, D-N.Y. “The White House should change its strategy and push for filibuster reform before it’s too late.”

Rep. Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez, D-N.Y., warned that “communities cannot ‘out-organize’ voter suppression when those they organize to elect won’t protect the vote.”

“And even if they DO out-organize, the ground is being set to overturn results,” she tweeted.

“It will not matter how many people are registered to vote if they do not have access to a ballot,” Spaulding told Salon, calling for the full abolition of the filibuster. “Everything else is just Band-aids on the bullet wound.”

Biden last week argued that eliminating the filibuster would “throw the entire Congress into chaos and nothing will get done,” a comment that, as some observers noted, seems to assume that anything gets done in the Senate now. The president said he wants to “make sure we bring along not just all the Democrats, we bring along Republicans who I know know better.”

But it’s unclear which Republicans Biden believes he can win over between now and the 2022 midterm elections, since the party has been united in opposition to the Democrats’ voting rights proposals.

“I don’t think anybody’s operating on the assumption they can get 10 Republican votes,, even for a compromise bill,” Michael Li, senior counsel for the Brennan Center’s Democracy Program, said in an interview with Salon. “Maybe Joe Manchin thinks they can try it but I don’t think you can get 10 votes.”

Last week, 150 civil rights groups led by the Leadership Conference on Civil and Human Rights signed a letter to Biden calling for him to “support the passage of these bills by whatever means necessary.”

“While we fully support the ideal of bipartisan cooperation on voting rights, the partisan political agenda of some in the Senate cannot be allowed to block passage of legislation that has broad bipartisan backing,” the letter said, adding that “we cannot and should not have to organize our way out of the attacks and restrictions on voting.”

White House officials privately told the Times that even if Biden supported ending the filibuster, Manchin and Sen. Kyrsten Sinema, D-Ariz., would still oppose the move. Manchin on Sunday reiterated that he would not support any carveouts in the filibuster rule to advance the voting rights bills.

Voting rights advocates respond that Biden has publicly pressured senators on his stimulus and infrastructure proposals, but has yet to do so on the issue most central to preserving democracy — not to mention Democrats’ electoral fortunes.

“Certainly the White House has made the calculation that infrastructure’s extremely important, which it is, but I think all rights are derivative from voting rights, and I think that needs to be a continued priority from the White House,” Scherb said.

He recalled Lyndon B. Johnson traveling the country during the debate over the Voting Rights Act, seeking to put “pressure on the Senate that this is the issue that must get done.”

“We really need the president and the administration to use its full power of the bully pulpit,” he said.

The Biden administration has in fact taken unilateral action to push back on some of the new laws. The Justice Department earlier this year sued Georgia over new voting laws it said had been “passed with a discriminatory purpose” and “adopted with the intent” to restrict Black voters’ rights. Last week, the department warned states that new election laws and dubious so-called election audits, like the seemingly endless one in Arizona’s Maricopa County, must comply with federal law.

But “litigation can take a number of years,” Scherb said, and “the clock is certainly a challenge” as the 2022 election approaches. Last month’s Supreme Court decision upholding discriminatory voting laws in Arizona also made it “much more challenging to file legislation under the Voting Rights Act,” he said.

While the DOJ and voting rights groups may still have valid challenges in court, Attorney General Merrick Garland said at a news conference in June that the DOJ’s best efforts were “not enough” to combat the voting restriction blitz and called on Congress to restore the Voting Rights Act’s pre-clearance requirement, which he said would have prevented laws like Georgia’s from being enacted in the first place.

The Supreme Court in 2019 ruled that federal courts have no jurisdiction over partisan gerrymanders, a growing concern among Democrats as Republicans, who have control over a majority of states’ congressional maps, reportedly plan to try to use the redistricting process to make it more likely they can win a House majority in 2022. The Supreme Court’s decision kicked oversight of the maps to state courts, but Southern states like Texas and Georgia, where people of color have accounted for most of the population growth over the last decade, have “very few protections” against partisan or racial gerrymanders, said Li. And increasingly conservative state courts in North Carolina and Florida may not be the bulwark Democrats hope for.

The For the People Act includes a measure that would ban partisan gerrymanders under federal law.

“It’s a really ominous-looking redistricting cycle unless Congress acts,” Li said, adding that “you can’t out-organize gerrymandering.”

While most of the focus in the voting rights fight has been on the attacks on voting, the districts drawn in the coming election cycle won’t merely disadvantage Democrats in 2022, but will almost certainly create a built-in Republican edge for the next decade.

“I don’t think enough people are focusing on what’s coming out in just two weeks,” Li said, referring to the deadline for Census data that will be used to redraw congressional and legislative maps. “The voter suppression laws are making it harder to vote in the midterm,” he said, but gerrymandering effectively renders many people’s votes meaningless by diluting the vote share of Democrats and voters of color.

Democrats have touted the work of voting rights leaders like Stacey Abrams and groups that helped register and turn out voters in 2020, helping Biden win the White House and giving Democrats control of the Senate. But Biden won the electoral vote by just about 44,000 ballots in three states and the Democrats’ control of Congress is tenuous at best. By anyone’s calculation, it won’t take much to tilt future elections the other way.

“Voter suppression can have that level of effect — that’s not a huge effect, but it’s enough,” Li said. “Every day that passes,it becomes harder to do something that is robust and meaningful.”

So, hey, it’s August — is Trump being “reinstated” as president or what?

The highly anticipated month of August is finally here, but so far Donald Trump has yet to be reinstated as president.

Many in TrumpWorld have been led to believe — and pushed others to believe — in a grand and “inevitable” to nullify the 2020 election due to baseless claims of fraud, Trump remains far from the reins of power in Washington. Admittedly it’s very early in the month, but the prospects for any sort of Trump reinstatement, powered by a thus-far-imaginary Supreme Court decision, are fading more and more with each passing hour.

MyPillow CEO Mike Lindell, the likely originator of the idea that Trump would return to power this month, has been boosting the August date for at least the last two months. Until recently, that is, when he began walking back the idea, admitting that his timeline might be off by a few months but saying the momentous occasion would occur on “God’s time.”

But the belief that this month will see Trump back in power won’t die easily. Rank and file Republican voters, such as attendees at the recent Conservative Political Action Conference (CPAC) event last month in Dallas, claimed to believe in the August deliverance. 

Among the 50-plus attendees Salon spoke with at CPAC Dallas, more than 40% said they believed an August Trump reinstatement was on the horizon. 

Joyce and Andrew Green, a couple in their 70s from Galveston, Texas, told Salon they were familiar with Lindell’s theories about an August reinstatement and are steadfast believers in the pillow king’s mission. “Mike Lindell!” Joyce exclaimed. “I think the election was fraudulent,” she added before declaring that Lindell will be proven “right” about August. 

Andrew also said he agreed, holding up the perceived “enthusiasm gap” as evidence that Trump was the real winner of last November’s election. “Look, when Trump went into a rally, there would be 30,000 people there,” he said. “Cars 20 miles away.” When Biden held a rally, he said — which Biden essentially did not do amid the pandemic — “there would be 10 cars, 10 cars at the most. You can see the popularity of Trump; it’s not a secret out there.” 

Many others at CPAC concurred, including two gentlemen in their mid 40s, one named Cesar, who declined to give his last name, and Binh Vo. Both said they were on board with the idea that Trump will be president soon again.

James, who identified himself as a Log Cabin Republican (an organization for LGBTQ conservatives), said of Lindell’s theory that he “really, really wants to believe it.” He added, “Man, it would be nice” if Trump were to wind up back in the White House someday soon.

Attendee Judi Neal described Lindell as “a great American who has weathered a great storm of the cancel culture, and I support him.” She said she had watched Lindell’s self-produced election fraud films and was convinced an August reinstatement was “around the corner,” explaining that she knows of people who voted in the 2020 election with residential addresses that were public parks. 

One CPAC attendee, who identified himself as Bill, cast cold water on the entire enterprise, saying that many CPAC attendees and TrumpWorld figures, including Lindell, were misguided at best. “It doesn’t fit with the Constitution,” he told Salon. 

At the end of June, White House press secretary Jen Psaki was asked to comment on the theoretical Trump reinstatement, which she gracefully downplayed. “The president is prepared to continue to govern and lead the United States of America,” Psaki stated — referring, to be clear, to Joe Biden. “Of course, should there be an elevation, an escalation, you know, that is something we would certainly monitor and track as well.”

But calls for a potential coup against a duly elected president aren’t going unnoticed, especially after Jan 6. On July 13, Bloomberg News reported that Lindell’s theories “are enough to put FBI Director Christopher Wray and other top national security officials on alert for the risk that the former president’s most ardent supporters might again resort to violence.”

Salon inquired with the White House press office on Monday as to whether the Biden administration is on alert regarding Trump’s possible return. We received no response.

“Worst station in history”: Mike Lindell reveals his war with Fox News is costing him $1M a week

MyPillow CEO Mike Lindell revealed on Monday that his war with Fox News is costing him $1 million per week.

Lindell spoke to Real America’s Voice host Steve Bannon about his decision to remove MyPillow ads from Fox News after the network refused to air a commercial that suggested the 2020 presidential election was stolen from Donald Trump.

“Fox and Fox Business are the only ones that didn’t approve it,” Lindell explained. “Are they in on it when they called Arizona [for Joe Biden] the night of the election early? Are they part of this whole thing? I don’t get it. I know they’re part of the cancel culture because shame on Fox.”

“Everybody needs to realize this: I can’t make this up,” he said of his business. “This is about a million dollars a week that MyPillow is going to lose again because you can’t just take a direct response ad and go somewhere else. But I want nothing to do with them if they’re going to ruin our country.”

Lindell went on to call Fox News “the worst station in history” because they refused to report falsehoods about the election and unproven COVID-19 remedies.

“You turn on us when we needed you most,” he complained. “I got attacked on CNN for 18 minutes. Where were you Fox to report? You could have at least reported Mike Lindell got attacked on CNN for 18 minutes because he’s a nut case.”

You can watch the video below via YouTube:

 

To save democracy, Biden and the Democrats must stand up to “wealth supremacists”

You’d think President Biden and the Democratic Party leadership would do everything in their power to stop Republicans from undermining democracy.

So far this year, the GOP has passed roughly 30 laws in states across the country that will make voting harder, especially in Black and Latino communities. With Trump’s baseless claim that the 2020 election was stolen, Republicans are stoking white people’s fears that a growing nonwhite population will usurp their dominance.

Yet while Biden and Democratic leaders are openly negotiating with holdout senators for Biden’s stimulus and infrastructure proposals, they aren’t exerting similar pressure when it comes to voting rights and elections. In fact, Biden now says he won’t take on the filibuster, which stands firmly in the way.

What gives? Part of the explanation, I think, lies with an outside group that has almost as much influence on the Democratic Party as on the Republican, and which isn’t particularly enthusiastic about election reform: the moneyed interests bankrolling both parties. 

They fear that a more robust democracy would make it easier for the majority of Americans who aren’t wealthy to raise taxes on the wealthy to finance all sorts of things the majority may want, from better schools to stronger safety nets. 

So at the same time white supremacists have whipped up fears about nonwhites usurping their dominance, America’s wealthy have spent vast sums on campaign donations and lobbyists to prevent majorities from usurping their money. 

They’ve already whipped up resistance among congressional Democrats to Biden’s plan to tax capital gains at 39.6% — up from 20% — for those earning more than $1 million. And they’re on the way to convincing Democrats to restore the federal tax deduction for state and local taxes, of which they’re the biggest beneficiaries.  

In recent years these wealth supremacists, as they might be called, have quietly joined white supremacists to become a powerful anti-democracy coalition. 

Some wealth supremacists have backed white supremacists’ efforts to divide poor and working-class whites from poor and working-class Black and brown people, so they don’t look upward and see where most of the economic gains have been going and don’t join together to demand a fair share of those gains.

By the same token, white supremacists have quietly depended on wealth supremacists to bribe lawmakers to limit voting rights, so people of color continue to be second-class citizens. It’s no accident that six months after the insurrection, dozens of giant corporations that promised not to fund members of Congress who refused to certify Biden as president are now back funding them and their anti-voting rights agenda. 

Donald Trump was put into office by this anti-democracy coalition. According to Forbes, 9 percent of America’s billionaires, together worth a combined $210 billion, pitched in to cover the costs of Trump’s 2020 campaign. During his presidency Trump gave both parts of the coalition what they wanted most: tax cuts and regulatory rollbacks for the wealth supremacists; legitimacy for the white supremacists. 

The coalition is now the core of the Republican Party, which stands for little more than voter suppression based on Trump’s big lie that the 2020 election was stolen, and tax cuts for the wealthy and their corporations. 

Meanwhile, as wealth supremacists have accumulated a larger share of the nation’s income and wealth than at any time in more than a century, they’ve used a portion of that wealth to bribe lawmakers not to raise their taxes. It was recently reported that several American billionaires have paid only minimal or no federal income tax at all.

Tragically, the Supreme Court is supporting both the white supremacists and wealth supremacists. Since Chief Justice John Roberts and Justice Samuel Alito joined in 2005 and 2006, respectively, the court has been whittling away voting rights while enlarging the rights of the wealthy to shower money on lawmakers. The conservative majority has been literally making it easier to buy elections and harder to vote in them. 

The Democrats’ proposed For the People Act admirably takes on both parts of the coalition. It sets minimum national standards for voting, and it seeks to get big money out of politics through public financing of election campaigns. 

Yet this comprehensiveness may explain why the act is now stalled in the Senate. Biden and Democratic leaders are firmly against white supremacists but are not impervious to the wishes of wealth supremacists. After all, to win elections they need likely Democrats to vote but also need big money to finance their campaigns. 

Some progressives have suggested a carve-out to the filibuster solely for voting rights. This might constrain the white supremacists but would do nothing to protect American democracy from the wealth supremacists. 

If democracy is to be preserved, both parts of the anti-democracy coalition must be stopped.

Sen. Lindsey Graham tests positive for COVID-19: “I am very glad I was vaccinated”

Sen. Lindsey Graham, R-S.C., announced on Monday that he has tested positive for the novel coronavirus despite being fully vaccinated.

In a tweet posted Monday afternoon, Graham revealed that he “started having flu-like symptoms Saturday night” and went to the doctor this morning, where he learned that he had contracted the disease.

“I feel like I have a sinus infection and at present time I have mild symptoms,” Graham added. “I will be quarantining for ten days.”

“I am very glad I was vaccinated because without vaccination I am certain I would not feel as well as I do now,” he continued. “My symptoms would be far worse.”

When will kids under 12 be able to get the vaccine? Here’s what experts say

For parents, recent revelations regarding the ultra-contagiousness of the coronavirus’ delta variant could not have come at a worse time.

As parents gear up to send their children back to school for what many hoped would finally be a “normal” school year, news of the rapidly spreading delta variant have made “normal” seem much further off. From rising cases across the country to new masking guidance from the U.S. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC), there is a lot for parents to navigate as schools reopen this August and September.

Unlike last year at this time, kids over the age of 12 can get vaccinated before returning to school, which will increase the chances of stopping transmission in classroom settings in high schools. That should give some comfort to parents of teenagers. 

But for children under twelve, it’s a different story. There are no approved vaccines for them, and while infected children are not generally known to get severe cases of COVID-19 (though it does happen sometimes), they can still spread the virus to adults in their vicinity.

Yet after a year and half of navigating the pandemic, schools know that coronavirus mitigation methods — such as wearing face masks, social distancing, contact tracing and monitoring symptoms in students — can reduce the likelihood of transmission in a school setting. However, the most effective way to contain this virus, even if breakthrough infections with the delta variant can happen, is through mass vaccination.

So how much longer will parents with children under the age of 12 have to wait?

In an emailed statement to Salon, a spokesperson for Pfizer said a phase 2-3 study began in June 2021 “to further evaluate the safety, tolerability and immunogenicity of [vaccine] BNT162b2 in preventing COVID-19 in healthy children between the ages of 6 months to 11 years old.” That means it may only be a matter of time until a vaccine for the younger set is ready. 

[Dig deeper: Here’s what the different “phases” of vaccine production really mean]

“The companies [Pfizer and BioNTech] expect to have the safety and immunogenicity data that could potentially support an Emergency Use Authorization (EUA) for use in children ages 5 to 11 years old, if such an EUA is deemed necessary, by the end of September,” the statement said. “The full dataset from this study, which will be required to support licensure in this age group, is expected by the end of 2021; similar data packages will be submitted shortly thereafter to support EUA and licensure in children 6 months to 5 years of age.”

In other words, late September is the earliest parents of 5 to 11 year olds could expect their children to be eligible for vaccination. Currently, Pfizer is on a faster track than Moderna.

However, last week federal regulators requested that the vaccine companies expand their trials to test coronavirus vaccines in several thousand school-aged children before requesting EUA. The request was made to assess whether or not a rare side effect, myocarditis — which is inflammation of the heart — is more common in children. According to the Washington Post, this might cause vaccine authorization for 5 through 11-year-olds to be delayed to late October or early November. In turn, that could mean that children under the age of 5 won’t be eligible until 2022.

As Salon has previously explained, it is standard practice to test older children first, because children of different ages can have a different response to the vaccine. The goal of clinical trials with children is to find a balance between the correct age and dosage of the vaccine in which a strong immune response is triggered without too many side effects. The variables in a clinical trial with children are different.

“Children’s immune systems are different — they’ve had prior exposures, their immune systems may not be as experienced, and children also weigh less than older individuals,” said Dean Blumberg, chief of pediatric infectious diseases and associate professor in the Department of Pediatrics at the University of California, Davis. “Getting the dose, right, is important, and we know that with some vaccines, what you need to do is give a higher dose of the vaccine in younger children because they haven’t been exposed to the antigen, the active component of the vaccine previously, and in other cases you give a lower dose, because it’s more weight-based.”


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


Blumberg said in children over the age of 12, Pfizer and Moderna use the same dose as in adults. However, in younger children, the dose is lower.

As Blumberg mentioned, one potential side effect on the FDA’s radar is myocarditis. According to the CDC as of July 26, 2021, Vaccine Adverse Event Reporting System (VAERS) has received 1,194 reports of myocarditis or pericarditis among people under the age of 30; most reports have been in male adolescents.

While this might be alarming, Blumberg emphasized the importance of weighing the risks and benefits.

“We know that Myocarditis occurs following infection, too — and if you look at the numbers, the risk of myocarditis is much higher following natural infection than following vaccination,” Blumberg said. “So the benefits outweigh the risks. But you have to sort those things out and get the data, and that’s why they have to study it.”

From a public health standpoint, the race is on to increase vaccine accessibility to children. That’s because the more children that get vaccinated, the less likely the coronavirus can mutate into something even more dangerous than delta.

“Delta variant is likely not the last variant that we’re going to see,” Blumberg said. “The virus can further evolve, and there’s greater chances of further evolution when it multiplies out of control and into unvaccinated populations.”

This is partly why it’s important for schools to keep transmission low, which can be done by following proper mitigation strategies among unvaccinated people. Teachers’ unions have been especially vocal about the need for school staff and students to be vaccinated in order to promote the safety of all. 

“We continue to urge educators, school staff and eligible students to get vaccinated, and for our schools to serve as community vaccination sites,” said California Teachers Association President E. Toby Boyd in a statement last week. “Vaccines, along with multiple layers of safety protections – including masks, testing and physical distancing – are our primary and most important defense against COVID and are key to ensuring safe in-person instruction can continue this fall.”

Women’s groups call out Disney’s “gendered” attack on Scarlett Johansson after “Black Widow” lawsuit

Since Scarlett Johansson filed a lawsuit against Disney for allegedly violating an agreement to exclusively release “Black Widow” in theaters, a vicious legal feud has erupted between the actor and the Marvel Studios’ parent company.

The actress claims that the simultaneous release of the film on the Disney+ streaming service – an unforeseen decision made to allow viewers to watch safely at home during the pandemic –  was not part of the original negotiations and therefore allowed the studio to cut her out of her fair share. Disney responded last week by releasing a statement that called Johansson’s complaint “sad and distressing in its callous disregard for the horrific and prolonged global effects of the COVID-19 pandemic.” 

The statement also made public that Johansson received $20 million for her work on the movie, and claimed to have fully complied with its contracts and agreements with Johansson. 

Women’s groups including Women in Film, ReFrame and Time’s Up are now speaking out in support of Johansson, criticizing Disney’s statement for presenting the “gendered” image of Johansson as selfish and demanding for wanting to be paid what she says she’s owed. In a joint statement, the aforementioned groups called Disney’s statement a “gendered character attack.”

“While we take no position on the business issues in the litigation between Scarlett Johansson and the Walt Disney Company, we stand firmly against Disney’s recent statement which attempts to characterize Johansson as insensitive or selfish for defending her contractual business rights,” the statement reads. “This gendered character attack has no place in a business dispute and contributes to an environment in which women and girls are perceived as less able than men to protect their own interests without facing ad hominem criticism.” 

The statement highlights a long history of women in the entertainment industry — and in the workplace, in general — being painted as difficult or not “team players” for making basic demands, or for simply asking to be paid. When it comes to fair pay, research has shown women workers negotiate for raises at the same rate as their male peers, but are less likely to receive raises as a result — possibly because of these gendered perceptions of them as selfish for having demands.

Johansson may not be reflective of the everyday female worker, as a high-powered star who was the highest-paid actress in 2019 — but that doesn’t mean she’s immune to gendered attacks and, if the allegations put forth in her lawsuit prove true, exploitation from a multi-billion dollar corporation like Disney. 

Johansson has previously faced the ire of the feminists who are now defending her, for her portrayal of an Asian character onscreen despite being white, and at one point accepting a role as a trans man, despite being a cis woman. But for all her past blunders and anyone’s entirely fair criticisms of the iconic Marvel actor, who’s arguably been the face of the “Avengers” franchise throughout the MCU’s first three phases, Disney’s blatant hypocrisy is on full display here.

Sure, it’s fair to criticize how Johansson’s lawsuit arguably ignores that we remain in a pandemic, and a theater-exclusive release may not have been advisable for public health concerns. But of all people and institutions, it feels hypocritical for Disney to point this out — potentially as an excuse to not pay Johansson what she’s due — while opening and operating its parks as the pandemic remained even more at large than it currently stands. Essential workers at Disney’s theme parks were forced to put their lives at risk, while CEOs and corporate workers worked remotely for most of the pandemic. 

Since Johansson took legal action against Disney last week, Emma Stone, star of the recent Disney film “Cruella,” is also reportedly “weighing her options,” as her movie also released on the corporation’s streaming service alongside theatrical release, according to Screen Rant. The outlet also speculates that Emily Blunt, who stars in recent Disney flick “Jungle Cruise” alongside Dwayne Johnson, may also speak out or take action about her movie, which also followed the simultaneous release model on July 30.

Regardless of the outcome of Johansson’s lawsuit, as the pandemic persists and concerns mount over the rapid-fire spread of the delta variant of COVID-19, simultaneous theater and streaming releases will likely continue — and with them, conflicts over how stars should be paid. 

So far, despite an impressive opening weekend and praise from critics, “Black Widow” ranks among one of the lowest grossing Marvel films of all time, and theater owners have blamed the movie’s streaming on Disney+ for this outcome. Buzzfeed News reported last week that sources close to Johansson told the outlet that the movie’s availability on Disney+ cost Johansson $50 million

It may not be easy for everyday women workers to empathize with the million-dollar professional conflicts of one of the biggest actresses in Hollywood. But anyone who’s watched “Black Widow” and enjoyed its sharp feminist commentary and celebration of women reclaiming their power will certainly cringe at this legal debacle involving a corporation chastising its female employee’s selfishness for asking to be paid.

Judge Andrew Napolitano fired from Fox News after bombshell sexual harassment lawsuit: report

On Monday, AdWeek reported that Andrew Napolitano, Fox News’ chief legal analyst, has been fired in the wake of sexual harassment allegations.

“This comes after a lawsuit filed Monday by Fox Business production assistant John Fawcett, who alleges that he was sexually harassed in an elevator by the Judge in 2019,” reported A. J. Katz. “In his lawsuit, Fawcett alleges senior execs were aware of the misconduct, but declined to take further action. Fawcett also alleges that Napolitano also harassed other male employees, but HR also declined to investigate those incidents.”

The lawsuit also alleged that Fox Business host Larry Kudlow repeatedly made racist and sexist comments.

Hours after the news of the lawsuit emerged, Fox News announced that it had parted ways with legal analyst Napolitano, although it defended Kudlow against what it said were false allegations.

“Upon first learning of John Fawcett’s allegations against Judge Andrew Napolitano, FOX News Media immediately investigated the claims and addressed the matter with both parties,” Fox said in a statement. “The network and Judge Napolitano have since parted ways. We take all allegations of misconduct seriously, are committed to providing a safe, transparent, and collaborative workplace environment for all our employees and took immediate, appropriate action. Furthermore, the additional allegations laid out in this claim are completely baseless and nothing more than a desperate attempt at a payday by trying the case in the court of public opinion as the complaint does not meet the standards of the law. We will defend the matter vigorously in court.”

Napolitano, an outspoken civil libertarian who frequently criticized both President Barack Obama and President Donald Trump, has a history of accusations. In 2020, the New York Daily News unearthed an allegation that Napolitano sexually abused an arson defendant in his court while working as a judge in the 1980s.

Belarusian Olympian seeks asylum after posting criticism on social media

Belarusian Olympic sprinter Krystsina Tsimanouskaya has been granted a visa from Poland after the athlete announced she would seek asylum from the Belarusian government, the Associated Press reports. Tsimanouskaya says that after she criticized the officials managing the Belarusian track and field team on social media, she was immediately taken to the airport to board a flight to Istanbul.

Tsimanouskaya refused to board, and approached the police and even the International Olympic Committee for help. Now that the 24-year-old runner’s humanitarian visa application has been accepted by Poland, and Szymon Szynkowski vel Sek, a Polish deputy foreign minister, has said Tsimanouskaya can seek refugee status in Poland. Her husband, Arseni Zdanevich, has fled Belarus for Ukraine.

Tsimanouskaya’s criticism may have seemed trivial from the outside; she posted her objection of Belarusian officials putting her in the 4×400 relay even though she’d never raced in the event before. However, Belarus’ National Olympic Committee has been led for almost 30 years by its authoritarian President Alexander Lukashenko and his son Viktor, both of whom were banned from attending the Tokyo Games for their repression of Belarusian athletes and political dissidents, broadly.

“Lukashenko perceives all criticism as part of a plot by Western countries,” Valery Karbalevich, an independent Belarusian political analyst told the AP. “Tsimanouskaya’s protest is viewed as part of a broader movement of hundreds of Belarusian athletes who stood against the beatings of peaceful demonstrators and for a year have been taking part in street rallies.”

As much of the spectatorship of the Olympics this year has devolved into racist, sexist cultural debate about whether gymnastics legend Simone Biles is a “quitter,” news of Tsimanouskaya’s plight to seek safety from her government amid the Olympic games offers a stark reminder of the political realities that belie all the ceremony and fanfare. The Tokyo Olympics may have banned any and all political protest and symbols, but it can’t very well ban the real-life oppressions and threats the athletes seek to protest or protect themselves from.

Tsimanouskaya is by no means the only Belarusian who’s faced harsh consequences or threats from the Belarusian government for even mild criticism of it. The authoritarian government has pushed many dissidents to flee the country for its safety, and the AP reports many have often wound up seeking and finding refuge in Poland, where Tsimanouskaya is currently staying. And as she stays at the Polish embassy Monday, the Olympic games continue to unfold in Tokyo. 

Sporting events are often packaged and presented as apolitical, supposedly meant to offer mindless escapism from the political realities of a world on fire from climate change, racist and relentless police brutality, endemic sexual abuse and cover-ups, and autocratic, repressive governments. Throughout the Cold War, the Olympics often featured a frenzy of athletes from around the world seeking asylum, including as many as 117 athletes defecting from their countries at the Munich Olympics in 1972. 

Decades later in 2021, the Olympics remains an inherently political, high-stakes institution, however much officials would like to conceal this. This year’s Olympics was halted for nearly a year by a pandemic, and its return while the pandemic remains widespread and deadly has been protested by many residents of Tokyo, who are put at risk by the event despite its stringent safety measures. Olympic games have often come with harm to locals, displacing communities and, in Greece which hosted the games in 2004, even sparking national economic disaster

In addition to concerns about the pandemic and the safety of locals in Tokyo, this year’s Olympics have also raised serious concerns about the unequal treatment and severe policing of Black women athletes by rulemaking bodies. Tsimanouskaya’s case, all while the games are continuing to unfold, shows that reckoning with the real-world at the Olympics isn’t just inevitable, it’s a feature of the event, as it somehow claims to be apolitical.

State media in Belarus have since called Tsimanouskaya’s fleeing the Olympics to Poland a “cheap stunt” and “disgusting act,” and also called her participation in the Olympics a “failure.”

Meghan McCain attacks Kathy Griffin after lung cancer announcement: “I don’t like her”

Kathy Griffin announced in a note posted to social media early Monday morning that she has lung cancer, and is going into surgery to have “half of [her] left lung removed” immediately. While the news inspired an outpouring of support from celebrities including fellow comic Sarah Silverman and actor Mia Farrow, not everyone had kind words for the controversial comedian.

In Meghan McCain’s final Monday as a co-host of “The View,” she responded to news about Griffin’s diagnosis by stating at one point, “I don’t like her, I’m never going to like her for all the jokes she made about Clay [Aiken].” McCain is referencing jokes made by Griffin over a decade ago about “American Idol” singer Clay Aiken being gay before he came out in 2008. 

In Griffin’s Instagram note originally announcing her diagnosis, the comedian wrote, “I’ve got to tell you guys something. I have cancer.” Griffin’s sister notably also had cancer, and Griffin shaved her head in 2017 to be in solidarity with her as she underwent chemotherapy. Her brother Gary died of cancer in 2014.

Griffin continues, “Yes, I have lung cancer even though I’ve never smoked! The doctors are very optimistic as it is stage one and contained to my left lung.” After her surgery, she writes that she’s hopeful she won’t need “chemo or radiation,” and she should be “up and running around as usual in a month or less.”

https://www.instagram.com/p/CSElhRTHBoi

McCain also deemed the revelation of Griffin’s cancer diagnosis as the right time for her to apologize for past hurtful jokes. In particular, in reference to Griffin posting a photo on social media in 2017 of her holding what looks like the bloodied, decapitated head of Donald Trump, McCain seemed to liken Griffin to a terrorist organization. 

“And I don’t like her because I don’t like seeing severed heads of anyone, any place, because it reminds me of what ISIS does to our soldiers,” said McCain.

At the time, Griffin’s anti-Trump joke resulted in CNN ending its deal with the comic and heated bipartisan furor against her, despite her apology. Griffin had described experiencing routine harassment and death threats from the former president’s supporters, and struggled to find work. The fallout of Griffin’s joke has been compared by some to the Dixie Chicks’ near blacklisting from the music industry in the early 2000s for their criticism of George W. Bush and the Iraq War. Griffin’s first comedy special since the incident came in 2019 with “Kathy Griffin: A Hell Of A Story.”

Fellow “The View” co-host Whoopi Goldberg brought the conversation back on track on Monday’s episode, turning away from Griffin’s past actions and focusing on her diagnosis.

“For me, I think it was a really bad misstep. I disagree with you, Meghan, because I think had anyone seen that image of a severed head of someone — wouldn’t matter who it was, left or right — I think the response we had initially was, ‘This was a bad joke,'” Goldberg said. “I love Kathy Griffin. As a person, I don’t want anyone to go through this. I’m sorry she went through this.”

Based on McCain’s Monday morning takes on Kathy Griffin, the co-host seems determined to close out her final week with a bang. In June, McCain announced her planned departure as a co-host of “The View,” to a chorus of excitement on social media. After all, she’s had quite the history of making controversial statements as early as her first appearance in October 2017.

McCain wasn’t the only one on the attack on Monday though. The episode also featured Mary Trump, author and niece to former President Trump, promoting her new book, “The Reckoning.” McCain was notably absent from the segment.

Mary, a vocal critic of her uncle, commented, “It’s a shame that your colleague [McCain] didn’t have the courage to come on and have this conversation with me, but I appreciate that you are all willing to take up these very difficult subjects because racism in my view is at the heart of everything that’s wrong in 21st century America.”

Trump’s criticism of McCain seemed to shock even Goldberg, who was silent for seconds after Trump spoke.

The longstanding grudge had started just over a year ago. In July 2020, Trump had appeared on “The View” to promote her tell-all book about her uncle, aka “the world’s most dangerous man.” At the time, McCain made her disdain clear about such books, claiming they were one-sided and often written out of “revenge.”

In her absence Monday, McCain didn’t make any sort of response to Trump’s latest appearance, but on social media, she did indicate her overall feelings about leaving “The View” behind. On Twitter, she posted the caption “4 more days” alongside a GIF of Elisabeth Moss’ “Mad Men” character Peggy quitting her job like a boss.

Griffin, who is scheduled to open up about her diagnosis in an interview with Juju Chang on ABC News’ Nightline on Monday evening, has yet to respond to McCain’s explosive comments. As for McCain, it’s unclear what she has lined up next after her time on “The View,” but it doesn’t sound like she has plans to forgive Griffin any time soon.

Trump’s final days: Just how much pressure did DOJ face to investigate fake voter fraud claims?

According to a report from the Washington Post, former President Donald Trump engaged in a “personal pressure campaign” during the dying days of his term to try and compel acting Attorney General Jeffrey Rosen to investigate claims of voter fraud in the 2020 election.

Trump allegedly called Rosen nearly every day between the resignation of Attorney General William Barr and the deadly January 6th riot at the Capitol, badgering him about what the Justice Department was doing to investigate erroneous claims of improper vote counts. The Justice Department recently notified Rosen and Richard Donoghue, one of Rosen’s top aides, that notes taken during these calls could be turned over to Congress if Trump does not take legal action to block their release. Rosen and Donoghue could also be questioned about these conversations by congressional committees investigating Trump’s actions after the election.

Trump’s pleas for Rosen to investigate these voter fraud claims were but one of many attempts by Republicans to cast doubt on and ultimately overturn the results of the 2020 presidential election, which also included attempts to send alternative slates of electors to Congress, formal objections to the electoral vote count, and, ultimately, the attempted insurrection on January 6th.    

An anonymous source told the Washington Post that Trump was “absolutely obsessed” with getting Rosen to investigate the election, but that Rosen, for his part, remained “generally noncommittal” and did not promise to “take any specific action.” Rosen’s apparent lack of enthusiasm may have led to an eleventh-hour plan to replace Rosen with Jeffrey Clark, a Justice Department official who was more sympathetic to Trump’s goals. Clark has denied that such a plan was ever under consideration.

The Justice Department’s willingness to allow Rosen and Donoghue to testify about the content of their calls with Trump represents something of a reversal for the Department, which has continued to defend the former president against a defamation lawsuit filed by E. Jean Carroll and another lawsuit concerning the teargassing of protestors at Lafayette Square. In its letter to Rosen and Donoghue, the Justice Department said that the investigation into “whether former President Trump sought to cause the Department to use its law enforcement and litigation authorities to advance his personal political interests” represented “extraordinary events” and “exceptional circumstances” that necessitated the disclosure of information that they would otherwise be obliged to keep private.

As Delta wreaks havoc, Biden faces growing pressure to force big Pharma to share vaccine recipes

With a proposed patent waiver for coronavirus vaccines still mired in fruitless talks at the World Trade Organization, U.S. President Biden is facing growing calls to use his legal authority to force pharmaceutical giants to share their vaccine recipes as governments around the world race to combat the fast-spreading Delta variant.

The U.S. government currently owns the patent for critical spike-protein technology developed by the National Institutes of Health. That technology, which helps trigger an immune response against the coronavirus, has been utilized by at least five companies in the development of vaccines, including Moderna, Pfizer, and Johnson & Johnson.

Thus far, the Biden administration has declined to leverage the government’s ownership of the so-called ‘070 patent to force Big Pharma to share its vaccine formulas with manufacturers around the world, despite being urged to do so by the NIH scientist who helped develop the spike-protein technology.

But with the ultra-contagious Delta variant ripping through undervaccinated regions of the world, public health campaigners are ramping up pressure on Biden to act as pharmaceutical giants refuse to voluntarily take part in technology-sharing efforts.

“The U.S. government has power to share vaccine manufacturing knowledge and help other countries scale up production and finally end this pandemic. Millions of people have lost their lives waiting for such desperately needed action,” Peter Maybarduk, director of Public Citizen’s Access to Medicines program, said in a statement Tuesday.

Maybarduk said he is encouraged by recent comments from Gayle Smith, head of the global Covid-19 response at the U.S. State Department. In an interview with the Financial Times earlier this week, Smith urged U.S. vaccine makers to help develop low-cost manufacturing hubs overseas and share their technological expertise.

But Maybarduk made clear that—given the Biden administration’s legal authority to compel their participation—the U.S. government can do much more than plead with profit-driven pharmaceutical companies to willingly act in the best interest of the world.

“If the U.S. government acts swiftly, it can help save hundreds of thousands of lives and stem the spread of variants,” said Maybarduk. “Moderna and Pfizer’s resistance to sharing the knowledge needed for countries to make vaccines is unforgivable. President Joe Biden has authority under existing law to order the sharing of vaccine recipes.”

In exchange for allowing Moderna and other pharmaceutical giants to use the NIH technology, progressive advocacy groups argue, the U.S. government should require the companies to help other nations produce vaccines by sharing formulas and manufacturing know-how.

“U.S. taxpayers have invested over $2.5 billion in the development of mRNA-1273,” a coalition of public health organizations wrote (pdf) in March, referring to the Moderna vaccine. “Now it is time for our government to ensure that this critical lifesaving technology be made available to all.”

Biden has faced criticism for remaining largely on the sidelines following his May endorsement of the proposed vaccine patent waiver, which would lift legal barriers that are stopping manufacturers around the world from producing generic shots for the developing world. Rich members of the WTO, including Germany and the United Kingdom, continue to block the waiver.

“It is unconscionable that high-income nations of the WTO would continue to turn their backs on people of the Global South, desperate for immunity from the highly transmissible Delta variant,” Asia Russell, executive director of Health GAP, said Tuesday. “Leaders of the E.U., Germany, the U.K.—and by extension, the Biden administration for abetting their TRIPS waiver obstruction—must stop their cruel and self-defeating indifference to vaccinating the world through suspending the monopolies of profiteering pharmaceutical companies.”

But proponents of the patent waiver have emphasized that temporarily suspending intellectual property protections—while a necessary step—would not be sufficient to address global supply shortages and vast inequities in distribution, which have left the people of low-income nations largely without access to live-saving vaccines.

Public Citizen is calling on the U.S. Congress to support a $25 billion global vaccine manufacturing program aimed at helping developing nations produce billions of doses at home, instead of being forced to rely on restrictive bilateral deals with Big Pharma and inadequate donations from rich countries. Progressive U.S. lawmakers are also pushing for a $34 billion investment in global vaccine production and distribution in an emerging reconciliation package.

“No investment in the fight against Covid-19 is more urgent and cost-effective now than an investment in getting the world vaccinated as quickly as possible,” Rep. Pramila Jayapal (D-Wash.), Sen. Elizabeth Warren (D-Mass.), and other lawmakers wrote in a letter to congressional leaders last week.

As Politico reported Tuesday, two manufacturers in Africa—which has vaccinated just 1% of its population—are working to establish “an mRNA vaccine technology-transfer hub at the tip of the continent that could let it produce its own vaccines, on its own terms.”

But the effort is predictably running into resistance from pharmaceutical giants, which have also refused to join the World Health Organization’s technology-transfer campaign.

“To get the [Africa] hub up and running in a year—when it could still help end the pandemic—its partners need Big Pharma’s help,” Politico noted. “And Big Pharma isn’t keen: Neither Moderna nor Pfizer has signaled interest in working with the facility.”

Nick Dearden, director of the U.K.-based advocacy group Global Justice Now, said it is “no surprise that Pfizer and Moderna aren’t participating” in development of the hub, which he described as “hugely important.”

“They will need to be compelled to do so,” argued Dearden, “because they ain’t giving up this revolutionary technology without a fight.”

“Irresponsible”: Florida districts worried DeSantis will “defund schools” over anti-mask order

Florida education officials blasted Gov. Ron DeSantis’ “irresponsible” order banning schools from requiring masks, which flies in the face of the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention’s guidance for all school children to wear masks in classrooms.

DeSantis, a Republican who has repeatedly defied federal public health guidelines as he positions himself for a likely 2024 presidential run, announced the order on Friday just before Florida set a record high in new COVID infections, accounting for one of every five new cases in the U.S.

The CDC last month recommended that all children over 2 years old should wear masks in schools. On Friday, DeSantis on Friday dismissed the guidance as “unscientific” and “inconsistent,” saying he didn’t believe masks were necessary to prevent children, most of whom are not yet eligible to be vaccinated, from spreading the virus. Florida reported more than 21,000 infections among people under 19 just last week. Though children have a very low risk of severe illness compared to adults, more than 19,000 children have been hospitalized in just 24 states.

“Why would we have the government force masks on our kids when many of these kids are already immune through prior infection, they’re at virtually zero risk of significant illness and when virtually every school personnel had access to vaccines for months and months?” DeSantis told reporters on Friday.

Public health experts have universally rejected DeSantis’ argument. Dr. Caitlin Rivers, an epidemiologist at Johns Hopkins, said the order was “appalling” as the state leads the nation in infections, arguing that masks are necessary to protect unvaccinated children.

The order came after Broward and Gadsden counties announced that they would comply with the CDC recommendation, in defiance of the governor’s order.

“Many Florida schoolchildren have suffered under forced masking policies, and it is prudent to protect the ability of parents to make decisions regarding the wearing of masks by their children,” DeSantis argued. His office said in a statement that the order was intended to “protect parents’ freedom to choose whether their children wear masks.”

The order threatens to cut funding from school districts that do not comply with the ban, giving Education Commissioner Richard Corcoran the ability to “pursue all legal means available to ensure school districts adhere to Florida law, including … withholding state funds from noncompliant school boards.”

Miami-Dade Schools superintendent Alberto Carvalho, who oversees the largest school district in Florida, told CNN he was “worried” that the governor’s order will force schools to strike a difficult balance between protecting their funding and public health.

“I believe that generalized pronouncements via executive order or state statute that basically don’t differentiate between conditions which may vary significantly from South Florida to Central Florida to the Panhandle, that don’t take into account how differently those conditions may be and the impacts that they may have, may not necessarily be in the best interest of our communities,” he told the Miami Herald.

The Miami-Dade teachers union accused DeSantis of fighting “culture wars that endanger the lives of Floridians.”

But school districts say their hands are tied after the executive order.

“If he makes an emergency rule and we are not legally allowed to mandate masks, then we will have to change our policy,” Broward County School Board member Debbi Hixon told the South Florida Sun Sentinel. “I am not looking to defy the governor. I believe it is an irresponsible decision but if it is the law, I will agree to follow it.”

The Broward Teachers Union said it is “extremely disappointed” that DeSantis rejected the CDC guidance.

“He advocated for people to get the vaccine,” said union president Anna Fusco. “Why is he against masks?” She said the union “will continue to advocate for mask wearing by staff and students while COVID numbers and hospitalizations are surging.”

DeSantis stressed that he is not banning masks in school, and framed the issue as a matter of freedom for parents.

“If a parent really feels that this is something that’s important for their kid, we’re not stopping that,” he said Friday.

But Andrew Spar, president of the Florida Education Association, said the governor’s order makes clear that “he does not respect the freedom of locally elected officials to do what they feel is best for their communities, based on input from parents, school employees, the available Covid data, and guidance from the medical community.”

“Gov. DeSantis continues to think that Tallahassee knows best what all Floridians need,” Spar said in a statement. “We reject that kind of thinking. Instead, we ask Gov. DeSantis to allow all Florida’s citizens to have a voice by empowering the elected leaders of cities, counties and school districts to make health and safety decisions locally based on their unique needs and circumstances.”

DeSantis said in a statement after the CDC guidance was issued that “COVID is not a serious risk to healthy children,” even though more children have died from COVID than have died during worst flu seasons in memory, and even mild infections can potentially lead to long-term symptoms. The governor argued, without citing evidence, that “masking children can negatively impact their learning, speech, emotional and social development, and physical health.”

“One of the things that’s so frustrating about this whole experience is some of the people that are advocating for mitigation measures, mandates and stuff, they never acknowledge the harms that come with that,” he said at Friday’s news conference.

State Republican leaders on Friday issued statements backing DeSantis’ order after he previously lifted all COVID restrictions in May, shortly before infections in the state exploded. In June, DeSantis signed a bill passed by the Republican-led state legislature that bans local governments from imposing any new COVID restrictions.

DeSantis enjoyed a wave of favorable national publicity earlier this year, with Politico announcing in March that he had “won the pandemic.” It’s not entirely clear he is winning now, and some legal experts suggest he may have overstepped his authority with the latest order.

Ron Meyer, a Florida education attorney, told the Miami Herald that since DeSantis lifted Florida’s state of emergency, local boards have the constitutional authority to control schools in their districts.

“I don’t know how Article IX of the Constitution could be more clear,” he said, arguing that DeSantis pulled his most recent anti-mask order “out of thin air” to score political points.

Democrats accused DeSantis of playing politics with the health of children.

“Our Governor continues to prioritize his own political agenda over the health and well being of Floridians by going after masks,” tweeted state Rep. Anna Eskamani, an Orlando Democrat. “Meanwhile homelessness and poverty are legitimate issues he could be focused on. But NOPE, let’s keep on w/the culture wars & endanger lives.”

State Agriculture Commissioner Nikki Fried, the only statewide elected Democrat — who is planning to run against DeSantis next year, repeatedly called out the governor for an “absence of any leadership” on the issue as cases of the delta variant continue to surge.

“Ron DeSantis is willing to defund our schools to get his way. This is the stuff of dictators,” Fried said on Twitter after the governor issued the anti-mask order. “Don’t say I didn’t warn you.”

AOC is right: Biden’s infrastructure bill isn’t a win without an expansion of the eviction ban

President Joe Biden and Democratic leadership are glowing with pride about a major infrastructure bill. It’s bipartisan and therefore gets gushy praise from the Beltway press. Even voters, who don’t really care about bipartisanship, care about shoring up crumbling American infrastructure, so the bill is a win in that department for Biden and the Democrats. But while Democrats hyped their still-fragile victory on moving that bill forward, another crisis threatens to steal the top headlines. 

Over the weekend, Democrats in the White House and in Congress failed to extend the emergency eviction moratorium that was enacted as part of a larger pandemic relief effort. Now millions of Americans are in danger of becoming homeless, because they not only have to make rent this month, but, in many cases, find the money to pay months of back rent.

To make things worse, there’s a whiff of incompetence around the failure to fix this situation before disaster strikes. As Brett Bachman reports for Salon, House Democrats are blaming the White House for waiting “until Thursday to announce that it would not attempt to extend the program due to potential legal challenges.” Unsurprisingly, Speaker of the House Nancy Pelosi was unable to whip Congress into doing something at the last minute. Instead, Congress proceeded to begin a seven-week recessShe is clearly salty about the situation, putting out a statement Friday saying House Democrats “only learned about this yesterday,” and declaring, “Action is needed, and it must come from the Administration.” 

That this is a moral disaster is beyond argument. Pelosi believes so, calling it “an act of pure cruelty” and while noting that “Republicans blocked this measure” by denying the House any possibility of unanimous consent to extend the moratorium. Rep. Cori Bush, D-Mo., led protests on the Capitol steps over the weekend, including a sleep-in to visually represent the huge numbers of people who may be turned out onto the streets because of federal inaction. Bush, who has herself been homeless, told reporters, “I know what it’s like to wonder if I’m going to get that eviction notice.”


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


But, to be frank, this isn’t just the fault of Republicans. As Rep. Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez, D-N.Y., told the press, there was also the issue of “a handful of conservative Democrats in the House that threatened to get on planes rather than hold this vote.” 

What makes this even more baffling is that it’s not just a moral failure — but a political one.

Democrats have been hyper-focused on passing big infrastructure bills, operating under the theory that showing Americans what competent governance can do for them will help restore faith in the system and institutions, which Biden deems a necessary component to beating back Donald Trump’s ongoing authoritarian assault on democracy. But even if Democrats pass both the bipartisan $1 trillion bill and a larger $3.5 trillion infrastructure bill leadership plans for a party-line vote, this pitch for the value of competent government will be drastically undermined if millions of Americans lose their homes and are turned out on the streets. 

America is already deep in a housing-and-homelessness crisis, and you can definitely bet that the well-financed propaganda arm of the GOP — mainly Fox Newsloves to use images of tent cities and people sleeping outside to push a general message of fear, chaos, and decay. An explosion of people into the streets is basically a huge gift to the Republican propaganda machine, which uses scare stories about the homeless to beef up support for authoritarian politics and discourage Democratic voter turnout. No number of self-congratulatory statements about expanding broadband and shoring up roads and bridges with infrastructure spending will overcome the alarmist right-wing messaging painting unhoused people as a public menace. 

Plus, there are the unhoused people themselves, their families, and friends. It is hard to really pitch this “Democrats show government can work” message to people who are finding that they or their loved ones are now homeless despite promises that the government would help them through financial hardships caused by the pandemic. And, to be perfectly blunt about it, keeping people as voters is a lot easier if those people have home addresses to register to vote under.

Ocasio-Cortez is getting a lot of blowback from moderate Democrats who don’t like her being candid about internal party politics with the press, but she is only trying to save Democrats — who are already facing uphill election battles in 2022 and 2024, due to gerrymandering and voter suppression — from themselves. It’s not just cold-hearted to let people lose their homes, it’s political suicide

What makes the situation even more frustrating is that the money to keep people in their homes exists. Congress appropriated $45 billion in funds to help pay back rent, which would not only keep people in their homes but keep landlords — many of whom are small business owners — from financial crises of their own with the loss of that critical source of income. But only a small fraction — $3 billion — of that money has been spent. The rest of it is tied up in red tape, and in many cases, red-state politics that create needless obstacles keeping people who are eligible from getting their money. Biden and Pelosi have been urging states to do more, but if the desperation of landlords for the past year hasn’t moved things along, it’s hard to imagine what a few words from Democratic leadership will do. 


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


To be certain, Biden’s hands have been tied by the Republican majority on the Supreme Court, which ruled last month against the executive branch extending the moratorium without congressional approval. And Pelosi is right that Republicans continue to be a major obstacle in Congress. But most Americans aren’t following politics closely enough to know the ins and outs of how this happened, much less who is blaming who for this failure. All they will know is Biden won by promising a return to competent government and instead the nation saw an already out-of-control homelessness problem get worse. And the blame for it, as usually happens, will go straight to the top. 

In many ways, this situation reflects the similar slow-rolling disaster around voting rights. Democrats focus their energies on splashy infrastructure bills that are broadly popular investments, betting that doing things people like will get votes. But while “do things people like” is generally good advice, it’s somewhat useless if people can’t reward you at the polls because Republicans have gutted the ability of people to vote and have those votes counted. Similarly, building roads and bridges only gets you so far, politically speaking, in a country where homelessness is a national crisis. People are unlikely to vote if they’re homeless, for one thing. Moreover, homelessness has a visceral impact that more abstract talk about bipartisan infrastructure bills simply cannot overcome. 

The eviction crisis is, above all other things, a moral failure. It’s also a reminder that our nation’s political and economic priorities are so distorted that we can’t even solve a problem that literally everyone, no matter their political ideology, wants to go away. But if Democrats don’t do something soon to fix this, it’s also going to be a huge political problem for them, one that makes the already iffy plan to beat Republican election fixing through organizing voters even harder to pull off. If centrist Democrats can’t be moved by compassion, they need to think about their political futures. It is, after all, really hard to sell that bright-and-shiny image of America bouncing back if those fresh new roads and bridges you’re building are surrounded by tent cities. 

“Broke” and abandoned: Rudy Giuliani is reportedly now getting the cold shoulder from Trump

Donald Trump is continuing to rake in the cash from supporters while shrugging his shoulders at the people who failed to secure him a second term. 

Despite boasting a war chest of more than $100 million, Trump is reportedly refusing to extend any help to his former personal attorney Rudy Giuliani, who is now struggling under a mountain of legal fees that could leave the former New York mayor entirely broke. According to The New York Times, Trump raised a whopping $102 million in the first half of 2021. Salon reported last month that he has been relatively frugal in his spending habits, opting to not direct any of the money toward his election conspiracy efforts, including the GOP-backed recounts in Georgia, Pennsylvania, or Arizona. 

On Sunday, Maggie Haberman reported that Trump’s fiscal conservatism appears to apply even to his closest allies – and namely, one of his most loyal election objectors: Rudy Giuliani.   

“Giuliani allies are looking at the Trump $ – even if it isn’t $82 million,” Haberman tweeted, adding that the ex-lawyer’s friends say “he is close to broke.”

“Trump aides have been clear they see no mechanism for paying Giuliani’s legal bills that isn’t problematic for Trump, and they think Giuliani took actions a lawyer should have known were problematic, even if the client wanted it,” Haberman continued. “But this is of note in the context of Trump having had a previous lawyer who pleaded guilty and then cooperated with an investigation into Trump.”

The report comes amid two major legal setbacks for the former mayor.

Currently, Giuliani is steeped in a federal investigation alleging that he worked as an unregistered lobbyist for Ukraine, pressuring Ukrainian officials to launch a probe in President Biden and his son Hunter by threatening to withhold U.S. military aid. The ex-attorney is also the subject of a $1.3 billion defamation lawsuit from Dominion Voting Systems over his baseless claims that the company’s equipment was compromised in President Biden’s favor. 

Earlier this month, the Daily Beast found that Giuliani had managed to raise a “paltry” $9,798 for his legal defense fund – about $4,990,202 short of his goal. To boot, the Trump loyalist was also recently suspended from practicing law in the state of New York, significantly crippling his ability to make any personal income. 

But even on the brink of apparent bankruptcy, Giuliani doesn’t appear to be particularly fazed. 

Last week, the ex-attorney told NBC New York that everything he’s done over the past several years came as part of an effort to defend his client, Donald Trump. “I’m more than willing to go to jail if they want to put me in jail,” Giuliani said in a Friday interview. “And if they do, they’re going to suffer the consequences in heaven, I’m not. Because I didn’t do anything wrong.”

Trump’s refusal to extend Giuliani aid appears to be part of a broader effort by the former president to distance himself from the ex-attorney. 

Back in January, The Washington Post reported that Trump “instructed aides not to pay Giuliani’s legal fees and “has demanded that he personally approve any reimbursements for the expenses Giuliani incurred while traveling on the president’s behalf to challenge election results in key states.” Trump also privately “expressed concern” about some of Giuliani’s moves in attempting to overturn the election and was put off by the ex-attorney’s $20,000 daily fees.