Spring Sale: Get 1 Year, Save 58%

Talib Kweli on hip-hop, Rudy “Ghouliani” and how Kanye West can make amends for supporting Trump

Violence gave outsiders a reason to call my Baltimore neighborhood a problem. Even though our spot was rough and had its problems, we residents knew it as a magical place full of talented ballplayers, spiritual people and the most powerful grandmas. We made up a community with extremely sophisticated art palates and consumed everything from jazz and the blues to gospel and country music. We were an eclectic mix of everything, but you couldn’t see it unless you were a part of it –– just like hip-hop. 

Decades after the creation of hip-hop, the genre is still falsely placed into a box as the music of thugs and gangsters. The complexities and rich layers that exist inside of hip-hop culture mirror the experiences in my neighborhood. This is a difficult idea for many to grasp because grouping and generalizing people and what they subscribe to is as American as rich people not paying taxes. Supreme hip-hop lyricist Talib Kweli offers must-read commentary on this topic in his new memoir, “Vibrate Higher: A Rap Story,” where he documents the many facets of our glorious culture and why it’s dangerous to see hip-hop as one thing.

Kweli joined me on “Salon Talks” this week to discuss his writing process and stories of his days in the streets of Brooklyn, coming of age at the same time hip-hop was gaining national attention. Battles, shows, relationships, connections with people from different neighborhoods and a rapidly expanding B-Boy culture landed Kweli in Greenwich Village where he honed his trademark rap style and led to him touring the world, reaching legendary status as the go-to conscious emcee and collaborating with artists like Mos Def, Common, Kanye West, Pharrell Williams, and Kendrick Lamar. 

Watch my “Salon Talks” episode with Kweli here, or read a Q&A of our conversation below to hear more about the experiences that made him into the influential artist he is today, his take on cancel culture and what he thinks his longtime friend Kanye West needs to personally do to pay for his sins of Trump praise.

The following conversation has been lightly edited for length and clarity.

Most of your fans, we already know you from not just being a hip-hop artist but from owning the legendary Nkiru Books, for being an activist and an outspoken person. Now you’ve added writer. What is the comparisons of finishing a book versus finishing an album?

Well I’m definitely humbled. First of all, I appreciate your kind words brother, thank you. I’m definitely humbled to be in this new creative space because I’m confident in my skills as an emcee, but in the world of literature and the world of writing, my competition is not other emcees, my competition is Maya Angelou and James Baldwin and Richard Wright and people like that. I just hope that I did those people proud

I want to stand on the shoulders of my ancestors. I hope that my story comes across as a story of hip hop itself, that’s why I called it “Vibrate Higher: A Rap Story” because I am not who I am without my parents, without my community, with hip-hop, without J Dilla, without Madlib, without Yasiin Bey, without Hi-Tek, people like – without Kanye. I don’t just tell my story in this book. I tell these people’s story as well because they make up who I am.

What made you choose “Vibrate Higher” for the title?

I feel like my career has always been as an artist. Me as an artist is the same as me as a man — I don’t separate the two. My career as an artist, as well as my path as a man has always benefited from me trying to raise the level of my consciousness and thus raise the level of the consciousness of the people around me. That’s been very rewarding for me as an individual. If I had to choose a religion, my religion is compassion. Vibrating higher or trying to move away from our base self and trying to live, trying because we all are not perfect, we all have flaws, but trying to live at the highest possible frequency is something that makes the whole planet better. When I think about my life, that’s what I’ve attempted to do. This book is chronicling my attempt.

One of the things I wasn’t expecting when I picked the book up is that it’s not just your personal story and it’s not even a personal story of the people who influenced you. When you talk about Yasiin Bey, when you talk about Madlib, everybody who you just named, it’s your personal story but it gets very intricate with pieces of their personal stories. It’s also like a hip-hop history book. Often there’s this disconnect between the younger generation of artists versus the people that paved the way for them, and part of that disconnect is some of the history that you laid down not being put into context for them. Could you speak to that as far as the creative process?

I feel like with hip-hop academia, the hip-hop literature, there’s still a huge gulf of non-information or misinformation. Things get dated quickly because hip-hop moves so fast. By the time someone has detailed their hip-hop story, it’s already old school. Me working in a bookstore like Nkiru Books, me reading all these rappers biographies, me being around with Trisha Rose who wrote “Black Noise” and Nelson George wrote “Buppies, B-boys, Baps & Bohos,” and when Kevin Powell and the poets started putting their writing into a hip-hop context, I understood that we have to tell our own stories. I understood that my unique perspective had not been told.

We’ve read, in the academic sense, books about how hip-hop got started in the South Bronx because of the highway and the highway gentrification and the music programs being cut in New York City and Zulu Nation coming together and the gangs now becoming B-Boy crews. All that is well documented. I’m thinking about hip-hop documentaries I’ve seen like “Style Wars,” “Wild Style” and “Rhyme and Reason.”

Beyond the Netflix docuseries that chronicles every era and down with myself, Yasiin and the people from the Rawkus Era, I’ve never really seen any real documentation on that era and on my unique perspective. I’m born in 1975, so when I came of age, Das EFX, Cypress Hill, Tribe Called Quest, these were platinum groups. Underground hip-hop was a platinum sound. When people talk about that ’90s era hip-hop, that’s what they’re talking about. They’re talking about House of Pain and Ante Up. M.O.P. didn’t go platinum but everyone else in that area went platinum. I’m not old school as like a Melle Mel. I’m not old school like LL. I’m not old school like KRS-One. So I feel honored and blessed to be able to write the Rawkus story, to write for the people who were in college when Rawkus happened. To write for the people who have seen El-P go from Company Flow to Run the Jewels. To write for the people who were excited when Madlib and Dilla and MF Doom, rest in peace, were all collaborating in the mid 2000s. I don’t feel like that era has been that well documented.

I feel you. It’s important and the way you’re doing it is so cool because you show universal love. In your book, you write about what was happening in the conscious community versus what was happening in mainstream. Then you talk about the different connections, like Jay-Z hopping on your song, your interactions with people like Diddy and how people always treat you as a lyricist and that love that exists. A lot of people think that if you fit into a certain type of group of hip-hop, you’re just boxed in.

On my People’s Party podcast, a friend of mine said to me that we have the hardest, most gangsta rappers on here sometimes and they all show you love, they all so show you so much love. People would be surprised that the hardest, most gangsta rappers are really in their spare time listening to Talib Kweli. What I said to him was it’s not just me, it’s the caliber of emcees and this particular caliber of emcees that I roll with that if you are a gangsta rapper who is really about making this hip-hop music, then you are someone who spends your spare time listening to Talib Kweli, listening to Mos Def, listening to Common, listening to Pharaohe Monch, listening to Black Thought.

There’s other conscious artists that I love and respect that are dope, but I find the people I just named, who are my immediate friends and peers, we are a group of rappers that other rappers look to as a vanguard. I love that. I think that’s because the people who make gangsta rap music who are serious musicians, they’re not doing it because they’re trying to be tough guys, they’re doing it because they’re trying to reflect or represent a reality in the streets. When they hear me and Black Star and Black Thought and Common, they say okay, well those brothers over there, they’re not gang banging, they’re not selling drugs, they’re not hustling, they’re not pimping. They’re not trying to sell sex, they’re not trying to rap about their car, but they come from the same neighborhoods we come from. Our Black community is not a monolith, even though these guys aren’t playing the tough guy role like we’re doing over here, we recognize that they are speaking to a reality in these streets. They recognize that people in these neighborhoods should be listening to the messaging that we’re trying to get across. That’s why it’s always been a mutual respect. All of us artists are in this together.

One of the things that frustrates me is when I see how people outside of our communities critique our communities. The dude on the corner hustling might be the one who put “The Bluest Eye” book in your hand and be like “No shorty, go read this. Go read the ‘Autobiography of Malcolm X.’ Go think about this, go do this.” Nobody is one thing. We’re all walking contradictions full of ideas and thoughts and feelings. Just because mainstream media wants to box us in, it doesn’t mean the neighborhood don’t work like that.

Yeah you’re right.

The most gangsta dude in the neighborhood he might be into anime or something, you know?

I’m glad you realized that point because one of the things I really dislike, I’m trying to remove the word hate from my vocabulary because I really don’t hate anything, but one of the things I really dislike a lot is people, particularly people outside the community, whether it be Black or white, but disproportionately this is something a white person might say, people who say Kweli, I like you so much, you represent so much for hip-hop. You’re not like these other gangsta rappers. Kweli, I listen to you because f**k Gucci Mane. Kweli, I listen to you because I don’t like what DaBaby has to say. It’s like nah brother, don’t weaponize me against them brothers. Don’t use my name to tear them brothers down. I don’t play that at all.

In the book, it was cool to read about your family and how you have a lineage of Black artists in your family, I want to say starting with Stanley Greene, Sr.

Yes, Stanley Greene Sr., my grandfather was certainly a very humble and excellent working actor. He was in “Nothing But A Man” with Sidney Poitier, he was in “Landlord” with Beau Bridges, he played Uncle Henry in “The Wiz.” Because of that, I was in “The Wiz” as a little kid, a little baby flying around as a star when Lena Horne is singing. My father was in movies with Sidney Poitier. My father was a young actor. He did plays back in the day. get that from them. My grandmother Javotti, who I named my label after, she was an actress. She was a key cast member on the soap opera “Guiding Light” for a number of years.

For a lot of young artists, there’s a confidence piece that they look for. Do you feel like having people in your family that embraced art and worked as artists had anything to do with you finding your voice in your early career?

It helped. It made it real for me. My uncle, Stanley Greene Jr., world famous photographer, he just passed away recently. He was an artist, but the thing he was most famous for was war and conflict region photography. He was in the Kremlin when the Kremlin fell. His pictures are the pictures you see in Life Magazine when the Kremlin fell. It made me understand that a career in the arts was not just a possibility, but could be quite lucrative. My grandparents, they moved into a house in New Rochelle, my father was raised in New Rochelle. He went to NYU, he met my mother at NYU and then he became a Brooklyn resident after that. My grandparents had a big house and we were living in Brooklyn in small apartments. When I went to go see my grandparents, they would have this huge house. I remember thinking as a kid, wow, okay they got this from acting. Neither one of them were famous. They weren’t famous people, they were just working actors. The idea that you could work as an artist, whether you be famous or not, was intriguing to me.

That is the beauty even of being in a city like New York. You’re just exposed to so much. Whereas if you came from Baltimore like myself, you would never meet a working journalist or an actor or any of these professions. That’s why me and my artist friends we do so much in the neighborhoods we come from and the city in general because we know we have to be those people that we didn’t have coming up. Just to see it, it makes it real.

I really enjoyed the part of your book where you talk about running around the city as a teenager. You were hanging out in the Village, coming of age as a young person who was a part of the culture but also watching the culture become this big global conglomerate. People who you were probably in and out of battles with were getting record deals, becoming super stars, dropping albums. Take us back to some of them early days.

The Village is such a special place and I write a lot about it in the book a lot. On my podcast People’s Party I interviewed Onyx and I interviewed Sticky and Fredro. I remember hearing about Sticky and Fredro just from being in the Village because they was nice as barbers and they was nice as dancers before Onyx was a thing. These guys come from a harder circumstances. We’re all born in Flatbush, Brooklyn, all of us. But then they moved out to Queens, south side Queens. They had a harder upbringing than I did. One thing they say in their story is that “What separated us from everybody else in Queens is we were travelers. We got on that train and we went to the Village.” When they said that, a light bulb went in my head. I’m like, “That’s exactly what it was for me.”

I would be in Brooklyn and the dudes I was going to junior high school with, we would all end up just hanging out on the corners. I noticed the more we hang out on the corners, the more we having run-ins with low lives. Now we’re drinking more 40s. Now we’re thinking maybe we should be selling drugs. It started to become that type of thing. I was like, nah, I don’t want it. I saw that path happening early. I’m like, I want to see some stuff. You hit the nail on the head when you talk about New York privilege, the privilege of growing up in New York City and being around people, working actors and journalists and stuff like that. That’s absolutely correct. I can’t relate to living in a place that doesn’t have that.

Another thing that we had was the best transportation system on the planet. I lived in a two-fare zone, so I had to take the bus to the train. But I would either walk to the train because I was young and had energy, I had my Timberlands on, I’d walk a mile and a half in them Timberlands, in the snow. Or we had dollar vans because we had a Caribbean community. If I didn’t have enough to get on the bus or didn’t feel like getting on the bus, I’d just pay for a dollar van. The train was free. It wasn’t free, but we treated it like it was free. If somebody paid a token, we’re looking at you like you’re crazy, like what you doing? You don’t got to do that. Why do you pay? Just hop the turnstile.

Being able to hop the turnstile for free, to get on the best public transportation system in the world to go to the best city in the world for art, to be right there, to be able to go to 42nd Street at be at 42nd Street in under 45 minutes, or to be in the Village for free. I could walk out of my house, walk to the train station, hop that turnstile and be in Greenwich Village without spending no money. I was just introduced to a whole different paradigm, a whole different cultural community. I call it the stew. I come out of that stew. If I didn’t have that, if I didn’t have those creative people to bounce off of, whether it’s hardcore rappers like Onyx, or spoken word people like Saul Williams, Agent 99, Reggie Gage, comedians like Charlie Barnett and Dave Chappelle even was in the park back then. You had magicians, you had jugglers, you had people doing card tricks. It was everything.

You write about how Giuliani broke up the park and how his racist mentality toward Black people lead to policy changes.

I used to listen to Gary Byrd on WBAI. He had a show “The Gary Byrd Experience.” He used to call Giuliani “Ghouliani.” He used to talk about him every day. It was weird when Giuliani ran for president the first time as America’s Mayor, us from the conscious Black community in New York we were like, yo, what? What narcotic are y’all smoking? How are y’all not seeing through this man? The country largely sees through him now in the Trump Era, he’s really showed his a*s, but he showed himself to be exactly who Gary Byrd back then was saying he was.

I remember we used to smoke weed in the park and rap and freestyle. I was actually looking for a record deal and I was taking my demo because all the labels were in the Village area, taking my demo to all the labels. I stopped in this park to smoke and I got arrested. I got arrested for a little roach clip, a little half roach clip. I might get the numbers wrong and I have a lot of respect for Salon readers because they’re smart people who will deal with peer-reviewed sources so forgive me if I get these numbers wrong, but there were something like tens of thousands of arrests. Out of all those, like 90% of them were thrown out. That’s just a waste of resources. That’s just putting on a show. That’s not really solving anything. All that’s doing is creating more of a police state and that’s exactly what Giuliani did in communities of color.

He was trying to bring more tourists in. We saw the Disneyification of 42nd [Street] under Giuliani. It sucked a lot of the soul out of the city and got a lot of people of color to have records and be in the system that wouldn’t have been in the system. If aliens landed here and said, “who is the worst? We’d point at Giuliani. Like Chappelle said, they’re like Batman villains. He said Trump is the Joker and Giuliani is the Penguin. If you follow Batman, you know Penguin spent some time as mayor, so it’s accurate.

I think one of the things that a lot of people are going to pick up in your book is the power of education. I’m speaking to the education that you received from the schools that you went to as a student, but I’m also talking about the street education. As a young person you learned so much outside. You’re constantly seeking knowledge. I think a lot of people think that education starts and stops inside of schools, but I think reading this book will show people that education is everywhere, you just got to be open to receiving it and trying to obtain it.

Yeah, I speak about my privileges a lot in this book because I have a lot of them. I am also part of marginalized communities. I am also part of an underprivileged community and I also am a Black man in America, so I have the same racial trials, tribulations and struggles. One of my privileges, in addition to my New York privilege, and this is one of my greatest privileges, is being raised by educators. I make fun of my mother sometimes. Now at family or holiday time everybody be on Zoom now, so my mother was like “Okay, for Christmas, on the Zoom, everybody with kids, the kids are going to put on a talent show. We want to see everybody’s talent. You could do it ahead of time, make a little video.” It makes me think of my childhood because that’s the type of things I used to do because I was raised in a house of educators. There was a little kerfuffle with the family because some people in the family felt like my mom is just trying to give everybody homework. You understand what I’m saying. My aunt was like “Yo, this feels like homework.” I pulled my mom to the side, I called her on the side and I’m like “Yo, you’re an educator. This is fun to you. It’s fun to me too but it’s not fun to everybody to participate in that way.”

That’s not a dis, obviously I wouldn’t be dissing my family, and it doesn’t mean that just because someone doesn’t want to participate in something like that that they’re less smart than me or that they’re less educated than me. But it just goes to show you that I was raised by people who put an emphasis on presenting what you’ve learned, presenting what you know. It’s also something I struggle with because I know that most people don’t have the privilege to grow up like that. So it’s a struggle for me and I use my mother as an example because I love her, but it’s hard for my mother to be around ignorant people. Me, as someone who is in the music business, well I’m around ignorant people all the time. But it’s like I got to learn how to not make that become a judgment.

I don’t say I have to learn, I think I have learned how to be able to be like okay, I have the privilege to know more, to learn more, to be around more, to see more, to experience more. That doesn’t mean that someone else’s experience is less valuable. But how can I use my privilege to elevate the person who has not seen the things I’ve seen?

You’ve done it a lot in your music. I actually feel like the world doesn’t even have the ability to accept artists like Kanye West without Talib. The world doesn’t even understand the different realities that Kendrick and Cole bring to the table without a Talib Kweli putting it down and showing that other side or just opening our eyes up to the many different complexities that exist within our neighborhoods. How do you feel about your impact and the state of hip hop from a conscious perspective?

I’m so blessed and humbled, I really am, I really truly, I am. Because of Jay-Z, it’s become a thing to use my name as a metric or standard for consciousness in hip-hop. Whenever people are trying to represent from 2 Chainz to Kendrick to Pusha T, I could go down the list of rappers who have said my name in their songs. Conway just recently did it where they’re trying to show their conscious side as like you show your conscious side by saying Talib Kweli’s name in a rhyme. It’s funny to me, but I’m honored and I’m blessed.

To the artists you spoke about, Kendrick shouted me out on one of the Overly Dedicated songs. He shouted me out and Common out at the same time, years before he got his deal. Then, in interviews he would always talk about me. Kanye talked about me on his albums, put me on his albums, took me on tour because I took him on tour. Kanye has always showed the love. J. Cole, man that brother cold man. Two of J. Cole’s hit records he name drops me in two of his hit records. I can tell that I be on his mind a lot when he’s thinking about making these records because he keeps saying my name. It just feels right. I love and respect my peers, older and younger than me who have shown me this type of love.

You write about your relationship with Kanye. I like the way you approached it because, you know, it’s easy to rip him apart for the Trump antics and the goofy Candace Owens, wherever she came from. But you didn’t throw him away like a lot of people. You tell the whole story instead of just telling a piece of it. What do you think the healing process should look like between Kanye and the people who he’s hurt with the Trump antics?

I’m glad you said that I told the whole story, particularly in cancel culture, because I’m all down for accountability. But what cancel culture has become, because it’s in the hands of the wrong people too often, is to take one flaw or one mistake or one thing you disagree with someone and throw away the whole baby with the bathwater as if they haven’t given you this mountain of great content and stuff like that. The people who are loudest about it are the people who contribute the least. If you’re somebody who doesn’t really contribute to society, it’s very easy for you to get with the concept of throwing somebody out. You know why? Because we can throw you out easily. If you’re somebody that doesn’t have the record and history of Kanye West, if all I know about you is that you’re some anonymous person on the internet who got some nonsense to say, I can cancel you. I can block you. I don’t have to listen to you. But somebody like Kanye, I’m way more hesitant to do that.

I will say though, you used the right word, the people harmed. Kanye’s opinions and public statements have caused a lot of harm to a lot of Black people, to a lot of marginalized people. That can’t be ignored. Because of the harm that it’s caused, I don’t have a problem with people saying I can’t f**k with Kanye. I don’t have a personal problem with people saying I want to cancel Kanye. If that’s a personal decision you have to make, I have no argument for that because of how harmful his words have been. I am not in the position to do that because I’m uniquely positioned. This man is not some abstract celebrity who I’ve never had a personal conversation with. This man is my friend, this man is my brother. Friendship means the world to me. I can’t name one person that I agree with everything they say. I can’t name not one person in the world. We’re also in this new era of cancel culture, particularly around politics, we see it’s very toxic for us to be like if this politician doesn’t agree with every single thing I say then he’s the devil, not I disagree with him but I will never support him or his party ever. That’s toxic.

It’s massive group think.

Yeah, you’re right, that’s exactly what it is. Obviously I don’t agree with everything Kanye says or does, but I was very clear with what I said in the book. I’m never going to stop being Kanye’s friend or brother. Just as long as he supports Trump I find it hard to publicly support his artistic output. It doesn’t mean I won’t take his calls. If I’m DJing a party, I probably won’t play no Kanye records because it’s triggering to me and it’s triggering to other people. When I hear his records I think about Trump and I’m like I don’t want to feel like this.

Why can’t people get that? Why can’t people separate the two? You hold them accountable for what they did without trying to erase them from the narrative completely. These are the same people who want to be forgiven when they do something that’s not right.

These people don’t live with the scrutiny of the spotlight. The people who are excited about the downfall, it’s sexy to them, it’s like watching a car crash. I agree. I’m happy to report that in private conservations with me, as well as a couple times publicly, Kanye has rescinded his Trump support. There are people who say, “too little too late.” I agree with that. I agree that he should have rescinded his Trump support, he should have never supported Trump to even have to rescind his support. But I’m happy that my brother has rescinded his Trump support, to speak to your question about the healing process.

I think that’s the first thing you do is you rescind your support for Trump, which he did. I think the next thing you do is you hold yourself accountable for the fact that it was harmful. I think he has to publicly say my actions were harmful for it to be a healing process. But Kanye is also very talented and very blessed. The power of jam is a real thing. We all knew who R. Kelly was when Chocolate Factory came out. Even though we didn’t have the court documents. But Chocolate Factory came out and it was like “Yeah, that’s the jam. Did you hear that remix?” You come with that jam and people are willing to forgive a lot of things. Forgive me if it seems like I’m comparing Kanye to R. Kelly, I’m not, I absolutely am not, as bad as what Kanye has done it doesn’t compare, it’s not comparable to what R. Kelly did.

Forgiveness is everything. I’m not a Christian person but if you’re a Christian, you should believe that everyone is due a chance for forgiveness. I don’t give a f**k about whether or not people forgive R. Kelly, that’s not my do. Kanye, I’m concerned about whether or not people forgive him, so I’m interested in the healing process. I hope it’s not just him making a good song to make people forget about it because he does have that super power where he can make a good song and everybody will be like that’s the jam now. I hope that it’s real, actual work on his part. I can report that, from private conversations I’ve had with him, I feel like he’s in a place to do some of that work.

The top five conversation comes up in your book. As a hip-hop artist, how do you feel about the idea of a top five only being a part of hip-hop culture. Like you would never hear people out there like “Yo, who are your top five? Luther Vandross, Smokey Robinson?”

I think that speaks to the beauty of hip-hop. It shows that hip-hop, we care more. Y’all don’t care about music the way we care about this music. If you’re a true hip-hop fan, then you’re going to read the credits or you’re going to see where the sample comes from. If you see the sample comes from Roy Ayers, then you’re going to go listen to Roy Ayers. If you’re into hip-hop, the reason why D-Nice, that Club Quarantine thing did so well, in addition to D-Nice flossed out with his hats and his Rolodex of relationships from Beyonce to Michelle Obama, which I know he texted people like,”Come on my live.” He’s very smart with that s**t. In addition to that, D-Nice is part of a crew that are some of the best hip-hop DJs in the world. I’m talking about DJ Scratch, Clark Kent, Rich Medina, all the originals. They’re the best hip-hop DJs in the world. Biz Markie, Kid Capri. To be the best hip-hop DJ in the world, you have to know every genre of music. 

If you ever notice, go on IG Live, you can watch Tony Touch, watch Maseo, they can go any genre. You never know, they might do a rock set, they might do a freestyle set, they might do a salsa set. They might do just a sample, just music from the ’70s, just ’90s hip-hop. I’m going to just do 2000s hip-hop. Hip-hop DJs can go anywhere because we care more about music, we know more about music than everybody just from the nature of how hip-hop is made. It’s made as a collage of things that have come in the past, at least real hip-hop is in my opinion. We’re so passionate about it. We’re passionate about it like how people are passionate about sports. Hip-hop is life.

What’s next for Talib?

I got this album with Diamond D coming in the end of the April, the Gotham Album. Black Star album Madlib is on it’s way, we’ve been working on that, and some other surprise that will be revealed soon.

Where can everyone grab “Vibrate Higher: A Rap Story”?

You can buy anywhere books are sold, that’s Amazon or anywhere. But if you’re the type of person who wants to go to Black bookstores you can click the link in my bio. I have a link that takes you directly to independent and Black bookstores. You can also come to my store, my independent Black store, Nkiru Books online at kweliclub.com.

Republican Sen. Rick Scott begs red states governors to “reject and return” COVID aid

Following the passage of President Biden’s $1.9 trillion Covid relief bill, one Republican congressman finds himself with little recourse but to impotently beg his fellow Republicans to return billions in relief aid to the federal government. 

Sen. Rick Scott, R-Fla., who is set to meet with Donald Trump this week at Mar-a-Lago, is beseeching states and cities across America to refuse federal aid and put politics over policy. In a missive sent to governors and mayors just after the bill was approved on Wednesday, Scott tarred the piece of legislation as “massive, wasteful and non-targeted.” He encouraged state and local leaders, by way of sending back the aid, to demand that Congress “quit recklessly spending other people’s money.”

“By rejecting and returning any unneeded funds, as well as funds unrelated to COVID-19,” his letter read, “you would be taking responsible action to avoid wasting scarce tax dollars. After all, every dollar in this package is borrowed.” 

https://twitter.com/SenRickScott/status/1369741056049348623

Scott wrote that refusing the money is “simple and common sense,” given that “10% of this monstrosity” (i.e. the relief bill) is “wholly unrelated to responding to the pandemic.” American taxpayers, he said, “should not be used as bonus cash to plug budget holes caused by decades of poor fiscal management. This is not a taxpayer-funded bailout; it is a reimbursement for specific, COVID-related expenses.”

It’s not the first time Scott has rebuffed federal aid. As the governor of Florida, Scott categorically rejected federal funds designed to expand Medicaid under Obamacare back in 2015.

By contrast, Florida’s present governor, Ron DeSantis, has repeatedly argued that Florida is not getting a big enough piece of the pie on a per capita basis. DeSantis specifically took issue with the fact that relief funds under the American Rescue Act would be doled out according to unemployed rates as opposed to overall populations, a distinction which he alleged will direct money away from Florida because it has a stronger economy than many states. 

“The reason is that we have better indicators in Florida than these other states,” DeSantis said during a Monday presser. “So, that’s not fair.”

Biden’s relief package is but the latest wedge between DeSantis and Scott, who have been engaged in a long-boiling feud on a variety of different issues. DeSantis has repeatedly blamed Scott for many of the dysfunctionalities of Florida’s unemployment system during the pandemic –– a system that Scott was originally charged with developing and executing during his time as governor. 

Last week, DeSantis last said that he would consider using some of the federal aid to replenish Florida’s dwindling unemployment fund –– a move that might allow the governor to avoid raising taxes on businesses. 

Although Scott rejected the bill on principle, he still denied its value on account of it providing disproportionately low relief to Florida in comparison to other states –– an objection which falls in line with DeSantis’. “This bill is bad for Florida,” Scott wrote, “Not only does it commit Florida taxpayers to unnecessary and wasteful bailouts of poorly-run liberal states, it also unfairly punishes our state with less federal support for keeping unemployment below the unimaginable levels we’ve seen in Democrat-run states.”

Meghan Markle isn’t alone: Suicidal ideation while pregnant is a silent public health crisis

In her now-viral interview with Oprah Winfrey on Sunday, Duchess of Sussex Meghan Markle opened up about her life after becoming part of England’s royal family. Though commoners might imagine becoming a duchess would be akin to living through a Disney fairytale, Markle’s experience was anything but; rather, her mood became downright depressive, she said. Markle told Winfrey that her isolation, false media reports about her, and a lack of support from the royal family led her to have suicidal ideation while she was pregnant with her son Archie Harrison Mountbatten-Windsor, now 22 months old.

“I realized that it was all happening just because I was breathing,” Markle said in the interview. “I was really ashamed to say it at the time and ashamed to have to admit it to [Prince] Harry, especially, because I know how much loss he’s suffered. But I knew that if I didn’t say it, that I would do it. I just didn’t want to be alive anymore. And that was a very clear and real and frightening constant thought.”

Markle isn’t alone in struggling with thoughts of suicide while pregnant. In fact, it’s a silent — and growing — public health crisis. And Markle’s interview may well help shed more light on what is by all accounts a festering social issue.

According to a study published in JAMA Psychiatry in November 2020, the prevalence of suicidal thoughts nearly tripled between 2006 and 2017; researchers surveyed 595,237 who gave birth in that span. The biggest increases were seen among Black women, those in low-income socioeconomic brackets, younger individuals, and those who had mental health conditions like anxiety and depression.

Specifically, researchers looked at data from the Maternal Behavioral Health Policy Evaluation (MAPLE) study to examine suicidality trends among people between the ages of 15 and 44 in the year before and after birth; 2,683 of 595,237 either had suicide ideation or tried to harm themselves. The overall increase went from 0.2 to 0.6 percent, which health experts said could translate to  24,000 individuals of the nearly 4 million who give birth a year.

“The increases and disparities in suicidality over time, and the likelihood that suicidality is both under detected and under treated remains concerning,” said senior author Kara Zivin, Ph.D., in a media statement. “This research indicates we have more policy and clinical work to do to support struggling women and their families.”

Suicide is one of the leading causes of maternal deaths in the United States, according to the JAMA study’s researchers. It is also the second leading cause of death among women between the ages of 25 and 34 years. Health experts fear the numbers are underreported, hence the lack of awareness of this public health crisis.

“Most estimates of maternal mortality only report deaths caused by complications of childbirth, such as stroke, preeclampsia, or hemorrhage,” Kimberly Mangla, MD, a reproductive psychiatrist at Columbia University Vagelos College of Physicians and Surgeons, said in an interview about maternal suicides. “Yet pregnancy does not protect against depression and substance abuse, and the postpartum period has been identified as a particularly vulnerable time.”

In Markle’s case, she attests that she reached out for help, but did not receive it. Therapists and mental health professionals have since emphasized that first responses really matter when it comes to people reaching out.

“Denying someone treatment who is significantly depressed and a potential harm to themselves can be extremely damaging because it plays into depressive and suicidal thoughts like, ‘the world is a dangerous or sad place’ and ‘the future looks bleak,'” Jason Moser, Ph.D., a professor of psychology at Michigan State University, told Prevention.

Recently, public health experts have been discussing how doctors can look for signs of depression in expecting and postnatal mothers.

“There’s an increased risk of mood disorder exacerbation shortly before and after delivery and of depression onset within the first year postpartum,” Kimberly Mangla, MD, a reproductive psychiatrist at Columbia University Vagelos College of Physicians and Surgeons, said. “Extended surveillance through obstetric clinics, collaboration of obstetricians and mental health providers and adherence to screening guidelines can increase recognition of these disorders in women.”

Mangala also said that this public health crisis has gone under the radar for a number of reasons, one being the societal expectation that mothers should be “perfect and happy.”

“As a society, I think we are disinclined to accept that during pregnancy and the postpartum period women can experience despair with a force that propels them towards suicide or accidental overdose,” Mangala said. “But we know that up to 15 percent of pregnant and postpartum women experience depression.” Mangala said that “major life transitions” like childbirth, coupled with a lack of sleep, are “huge risk factors” for mental illness. 

As for the Duchess of Sussex, she says that she is in a much better place now.

“I’m still standing,” she told Winfrey. Markle said that she hoped viewers would take from her story the knowledge that “there’s another side . . . life is worth living.”

If you are contemplating suicide, call the National Suicide Prevention Lifeline at 1-800-273-8255 (TALK) or go to SpeakingOfSuicide.com/resources for a list of additional resources.


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


Cuomo’s nursing home scandal raises questions for one of his senior aides

Last July, when the New York State Department of Health issued a absolving the Cuomo administration of responsibility for the soaring number of COVID-19 deaths in the state’s nursing homes, Jim Malatras was tasked with handling what quickly became a storm of criticism.

Health care experts and lawmakers had derided the report as deeply flawed and designed to provide political cover for Gov. Andrew Cuomo. But Malatras, a former administration official who had been brought back from a job in higher education to assist Cuomo in responding to the pandemic, did not shrink from his assignment.

In an interview with ProPublica days after the report’s release, Malatras defended the integrity of the report, which he said had been developed by health department experts with data analysis help from the consulting firm McKinsey & Company.

Malatras said the report’s authors had used a sophisticated statistical model to reach a persuasive conclusion: Infected nursing home staff had been the chief driver of the spread of disease and death, not the thousands of potentially still-contagious patients transferred from hospitals to the homes under a Cuomo administration policy adopted early in the pandemic.

Malatras told ProPublica the report should silence the administration’s many critics, who he said had engaged in a cynical effort to blame Cuomo for contributing to the deaths of more than 6,000 nursing home residents by early last summer. He said he looked forward to the report’s critics doing their own studies.

“Write a public letter countering the report, run their own tests, and we’ll see what it looks like,” Maltatras said. “Let’s see their tests.”

One month after the release of the report, Malatras was appointed chancellor of the State University of New York system, one of the largest public university systems in the country, with scores of campuses and about 400,000 enrolled students. At the time, the SUNY Board of Trustees described Malatras as a “visionary” whose work with Cuomo made him uniquely qualified to run the sprawling higher education system at a critical moment in its history.

In the wake of new reporting by and , it is clear Malatras had not told the full story of the health department’s report. The Cuomo administration, it turned out, had removed from its analysis the state’s count of nursing home residents believed to have died of COVID-19 after being transferred from the homes to local hospitals. The administration’s changing of the report meant that the sophisticated analysis offered to the public last July had failed to account for thousands of additional COVID-19 deaths among nursing home residents, and the administration knew it.

In a statement, Malatras said he had played a role in shaping and editing the health department report, but had not been the one to remove the hospital deaths data. Beth Garvey, counsel to Cuomo, said in a statement the hospital deaths had been omitted at the time because the state was then still trying to make sure the count was accurate. The administration did not release the true total of nursing home deaths due to COVID-19 until last month, and when it did, the number grew by some 50%, from more than 8,000 to more than 12,000.

Gary Holmes, a spokesperson for the health department, said in a statement that the department in fact performed an analysis last July that included all deaths of nursing home residents — those who died in facilities and in hospitals — and the result was the same: The greatest surge in deaths at the homes resulted from infected workers and not the state’s policy requiring homes to accept potentially contagious patients who had tested positive for COVID.

Holmes offered no explanation for why the health department had not said so at the time. The department, he said, had now made public both the truncated July report and the more complete report including all nursing home deaths. He said the department stood by both reports.

Ron Kim, the Democratic chair of the State Assembly Committee on Aging, said anybody involved in the July report ought to resign from their positions.

“In my personal opinion, they conspired in a coordinated fraud,” Kim said.

In February, Kim accused Cuomo of personally threatening to ruin him over Kim’s criticism of the state’s handling of nursing home deaths. Cuomo has denied he ever threatened Kim.

ProPublica contacted Malatras again this week, and asked why he hadn’t previously disclosed the removal of the hospital deaths from last July’s report, whether he’d agreed at the time with the decision to remove the additional deaths, and whether he stood by the integrity of the health department’s work and his defense of it.

Citing ongoing federal and state investIgations into the Cuomo administration’s handling of the COVID-19 crisis in the state’s nursing homes, Malatras issued a short statement: “Thank you for your follow up. As I’m sure you can appreciate, given the nature of the various inquiries, I’m not going to respond to any questions beyond what I said the other day. My focus and my energies are on my job as Chancellor of SUNY, which I will continue to do every day.”

Malatras, who from 2017 to 2019 ran the Rockefeller Institute of Government, a SUNY-affiliated think tank, directed ProPublica to remarks he had made last week about his involvement with the health department report.

“Given my expertise in public policy including public health issues such as opioid misuse and health care, I was asked to help review feedback on the scientific language in that public report to make it more accessible for a general audience,” Malatras said on Mar. 5 at an event in the Bronx. “That’s the exact role I played while at the Rockefeller Institute of Government on dozens of reports as they neared publication. As with many reports, there were back and forth with structure, citations and other language during the process, but to be clear, I included the fatalities data provided by the New York State Department of Health which I did not alter and change.”

ProPublica reached out to Merryl Tisch, chair of the SUNY Board of Trustees, to ask if she had any concerns about the role Malatras had played in the July report on nursing home deaths, but received no response. Cesar Perales, the board’s vice chair, would not comment when asked about Malatras.

The Cuomo administration’s official count of nursing home deaths due to COVID-19 has been a source of controversy almost from the outset of the pandemic. At first, New York state only counted confirmed cases of deaths from COVID-19, while other states reported both confirmed and presumed cases. New York eventually began to formally record both confirmed and presumed cases, but refused to include deaths of residents that occurred at hospitals in nursing home figures, record keeping that was routine in many other states.

Republican and Democratic lawmakers in both Albany and Washington hammered the administration for refusing to disclose the deaths in hospitals, and accused Cuomo of trying to hide the full scale of the state’s failures to protect the population most at risk of being killed by the virus.

For months, the Cuomo administration claimed it couldn’t release the number of additional deaths because it was struggling to make sure they were accurate, an assertion ridiculed by public health experts and nursing home industry leaders. Counting COVID-19 deaths of nursing home residents no matter where they died was not complicated, they said, especially for a health department regarded as among the best in the nation.

Questions about the true scope of nursing home deaths in the state intensified after the Cuomo administration issued a policy on Mar. 25, 2020, stating that nursing homes had to accept patients who were released by hospitals after testing positive for COVID-19 and deemed “medically stable” enough to be transferred. The homes were barred from testing the patients to see if they were still infected.

Nursing home operators and families of residents objected to the policy, saying it needlessly put already vulnerable residents at greater risk. Republican critics of Cuomo claimed the policy led to thousands of needless deaths.

The July report issued by the Department of Health asserted that such claims were not true. It said data showed that the greatest peaks of deaths in the homes mostly followed peaks in infections of staff members, and preceded peaks in nursing home admissions from hospitals. It dismissed the idea that the Mar. 25 policy had any strong impact on the number of deaths.

The revelations of the last week, however, make clear that the July report had omitted many deaths from its analysis. The health department indeed tracked the numbers of residents who died of COVID-19 in nursing homes and at local hospitals, and was confident enough of the accuracy of the numbers to include them in a draft of the July report, according to interviews and a review of documents by The New York Times. Those numbers showed that the true death toll was closer to 9,000 by July than the publicly acknowledged 6,000.

“The health department knew what the numbers were, and wanted them in the July report,” said Bill Hammond, a policy analyst at the Empire Center, an Albany think tank. “They were the ones with the Ph.D.s. They were the scientists. They had done the work. Taking the numbers out was simply indefensible.”

Denis Nash, an epidemiologist who is executive director of the City University of New York’s Institute for Implementation Science in Population Health, agreed.

“The original approach was flawed from an epidemiological and causal inference standpoint,” Nash said. “The missing deaths was one of several red flags. Would any study be valid if it excluded deaths known to occur in hospitals versus in a nursing home? No, that would be a fatal flaw.”

The Empire Center, which successfully sued the Cuomo administration this fall to force the release of the hospital deaths, recently issued on the possible impact of the administration’s Mar. 25 directive, which led to more than 6,000 transfers of COVID-19 patients from hospitals to nursing homes. Hammond said that while the study showed the directive had not been the primary cause of the greatest surges in nursing home deaths, there was still reason to believe it had led to as many as 1,000 additional deaths in the homes.

“The entire thrust of our report was that the health department’s claims that the Mar. 25 directive did not have any meaningful correlation to deaths in the homes was wrong.”

The administration did not respond when told of Hammond’s assertions.

Malatras is a longtime confidante of Cuomo, having served as his chief of operations from 2014 to 2017. He rejoined Cuomo as the pandemic worsened last spring, and became one of the governor’s three or four closest advisers on the state’s response.

The New York Times reported late last week that Malatras and several other senior advisers to Cuomo reworked the health department’s July report, and that a decision was made to remove the hospital deaths for fear the complete numbers would be an embarrassment for the governor.

Garvey, Cuomo’s counsel, issued a statement after the Times’ report, saying that the ultimate decision to remove the hospital deaths was made by “the Chamber.” Hammond said he regarded “the chamber” to be a coy way of conceding without saying so directly that the governor himself made the decision. An administration spokesperson did not respond when asked what Garvey meant by “the chamber,” and about Hammond’s interpretation.

Garvey said the Cuomo administration had long acknowledged it wasn’t making public the count of deaths in hospitals, but noted that the deaths had always been included in the total figures for COVID-19 deaths in New York state.

Back in July, days after the health department report was made public, ProPublica asked Malatras about what methodology the report had used, who had written it and why the administration had claimed it was peer-reviewed. Malatras would not say who authored the report and conceded the analysis had not been peer-reviewed in the way a report in a medical journal would have been.

At the time, Malatras said nothing about the removal of hospital deaths or whether he or any other senior aide to Cuomo had played a role in reworking aspects of the report.

“Some people alleged that the spread of infection came from early cases; some people said it was due to the amount of personal protective equipment; some said it was the relative age of residents; some said it was the quality of the facilities,” he said of the questions the report tried to answer. “So we measured that. We took the independent variables and measured it against the fatalities.”

Malatras added at the time: “This is a sort of academic study. You can’t with 100% certainty say none of the cases were due to admissions or age or other things. Of course not. That’s not what an academic study does; it takes data and says what are the strongest variables. We found it was the workforce.”

ProPublica asked a McKinsey spokesperson if the firm had been aware of the removal of the hospital deaths and whether it was comfortable with that decision and with the limited report that was released last July. The firm said it could not comment.

When the SUNY Board of Trustees named Malatras as chancellor last August, the board said it had forgone a national search, instead looking only at candidates within its ranks, because of the urgency of the moment, as colleges across the country wrestled with how to deliver for their students during the pandemic. Malatras had served as chancellor at a SUNY campus, Empire State College, prior to rejoining the administration during the pandemic.

“A critical lesson learned from Covid-19 is that a pandemic demands urgent action,” board member Stanley Litow wrote after Malatras had been appointed. Of Malatras, Litow wrote, “Importantly, New York Governor Andrew Cuomo turned to him to help manage the overall effective response to the pandemic where he worked closely with all agencies, especially those in health and economic development areas.”

Lawmakers from both major parties raised alarms about the appointment of Malatras, objecting to the decision not to conduct a national search and questioning whether someone so close to Cuomo could truly be an independent protector of the state university system. The Board of Trustees was unmoved.

“Covid-19 is a pandemic with no precedent,” Litow wrote. “Finding the right new leadership for SUNY required prompt and effective action. Breaking with tradition will prove to be the right decision.”

Litow did not respond to a request for comment on Malatras and his role in crafting and defending the July report.

Joaquin Sapien contributed reporting.

Cotton masks may offer better protection than synthetic ones: study

While there is scientific consensus that wearing masks helps limit the spread of COVID-19, there are unanswered questions about which masks are most effective.

Now, a group of scientists released a paper earlier this week which answers that question by considering an oft-overseen element in the mask equation: humidity. Exhaled human breath contains about 5% water vapor, meaning a large volume of water filters through one’s mask over time.

As scientists at the National Institute of Standards and Technology (NIST) and the Smithsonian’s Museum Conservation Institute explained in a paper published for the journal ACS Applied Nano Materials, masks made out of cotton fabrics appear to work better in humid air. In their research, cotton fabric masks increased their filtration efficiency by 33% when exposed to humid conditions.

On the other hand, masks composed of synthetic fabrics generally did not perform as well as their cotton counterparts — their effectiveness remained the same under humidity. Medical masks also did not become more effective filters under humidity, although they did perform in approximately the same range as cotton masks.

Salon reached out to NIST’s Christopher D. Zangmeister, who worked on the paper, to learn more about why cotton becomes more effective at filtering out potential COVID-19 particles under humidity.

“We had a prior paper that came out and found the most effective masks that we saw just in general were made out of cotton materials,” Zangmeister explained, referring to a NIST study published in June. “They performed better than things that are synthetic like polyester, nylon, or combinations of synthetics. Cotton materials worked the best.”

That said, the original paper measured different mask materials under dry conditions, which they realized meant the findings did not take into account how human breath contains a lot of water vapor. As such, they decided to test the same materials under humid conditions.

“It turns out that the cotton masks that worked really well in our first study, even worked better when they’re exposed to high humidity, and the reason for that is that they absorb water and the other materials, the synthetic materials, do not,” Zangmeister explained. “They’re not designed to absorb water. That’s why swimsuits and things like that are made out of synthetics. They’re made to repel water. These cotton materials, they absorb water, and as a small particle goes through them, some of that water gets bound to the particle and gets stuck to the particle itself.”

To visualize how this works, imagine a small particle moving through any type of filter. If the filter forces a particle to bend, weave and go up and down, it is less likely that it will be able to penetrate that barrier. Cotton masks contain tiny fibers that create precisely that sort of “maze,” as Zangmeister put it, which already makes them effective as filters. Their absorbency makes them even more effective.

While Zangmeister said that cotton is the most effective fabric, he emphasized that this does not mean you should not wear other types of masks if that is what you have available. All of the major fabrics used to create masks ultimately protect yourself and other people from infection.

“Things like N95 masks, they may not have synthetics. You may have a polypropylene mask and they do not absorb water, but they still work very, very well. I would encourage everyone to wear a mask,” Zangmeister told Salon. “It’s important to get out that everyone should wear a mask.” As he pointed out, the whole reason why masks work is that they stop droplets and particles from entering the environment from the wearer because they get stuck in the mask.

“From that perspective, all masks worked very, very well for that,” Zangmeister told Salon.


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


Tucker Carlson is spending Women’s History Month going off on one misogynistic rant after another

Tucker Carlson is celebrating this Women’s History Month by going off on one misogynistic rant after another. It should come as little surprise that as Congress was on the cusp of passing the largest economic stimulus in modern history, Carlson was busy attacking women from the House of Representatives to Hollywood to the military to the New York Times — but it’s surely been a bizarre spiral to watch. Within the last two weeks, Carlson has called pregnant soldiers “a mockery,” mocked Democratic Rep. Deb Haaland’s Native American ancestry, dragged Meghan Markle through the mud, and antagonized New York Times reporter Taylor Lorenz as being a “deeply unhappy narcissist.”

The Fox News host dedicated a portion of his show Tuesday evening to obsessing over Markle — all while claiming to not care at all about the drama surrounding the royal family. Carlson started a segment speaking about  Sunday’s Oprah interview during which the former Duchess discussed the lack of mental health resources within the institution, her suicidal thoughts, and racist questions about the color of her son’s skin from within the royal family. 

“Meghan Markle is a narcissist,” Carlson said of the interview. After the resignation of U.K. TV host Piers Morgan, also known for baselessly slandering Markle repeatedly, Carlson complained: “You’re not allowed to make fun of this, and you’re definitely not allowed to mock the oppressed duchess. Our friend Piers Morgan just did that on television in the U.K., and had to resign from his job.” 

Carlson then went on to berate New York Times reporter Taylor Lorenz, who has recently spoken out about her experience facing online harassment. He launched into a 9-minute rant about “self-identified victimhood,” calling Lorenz a narcissist for standing up for herself. He belittled Lorenz, who he called “far younger than prominent New York Times reporters used to be,” before adding, “she’s also much less talented” but “at the top of journalism’s repulsive food chain.”

Although criticizing female reporters is nothing out of the ordinary for Carlson, Lorenz said his rhetoric has given rise to multitudes of new online abuse coming her way.

“I hope people see this and recognize if for what it is,” Lorenz tweeted, “an attempt to mobilize an army of followers to memorize my name and instigate harassment.” On International Women’s Day, she tweeted a plea to consider “supporting women enduring online harassment.” Mentioning that it’s “not an exaggeration to say that the harassment and smear campaign I’ve had to endure over the past year has destroyed my life.

Carlson is also now facing backlash for another attack he directed at women — this time those in the military. 

“So we’ve got new hairstyles and maternity flight suits,” Carlson complained on his show earlier this week.”Pregnant women are going to fight our wars. It’s a mockery of the U.S. Military. While China’s military becomes more masculine as it’s assembled the world’s largest navy, our military needs to become as Joe Biden says more feminine, whatever feminine means anymore since men and women no longer exist. The bottom line is it’s out of control, and the Pentagon is going along with this.”

“The Secretary certainly shares the revulsion of so many others to what Mr. Carlson said,” Pentagon spokesperson John Kirby said U.S. Secretary of Defense Lloyd Austin on Thursday.

“Thousands of women serve honorably every day around the globe,” said General Paul E. Funk III. “They are beacons of freedom and they prove Carlson wrong through determination and dedication. We are fortunate they serve with us.” 

And earlier this week, Carlson attacked Democratic Rep. Deb Haaland of New Mexico, who will be the very first Cabinet Secretary of indigenous descent. 

“It seems a little weird to be ‘excited’ about an accident of birth,” Carlson said, adding that celebrating her ethnicity and historical context played into “immoral” identity politics.

 

To hell with “spring forward”! Republicans and Democrats agree on one thing: Daylight saving time

Taking the mantle from fictional congressman Jonah Ryan of HBO’s “Veep,” a bipartisan group of lawmakers have reintroduced legislation to make daylight saving time permanent.

Despite the partisanship that grips Washington — with this moment being no exception amid intractable political division — members of Congress seem to come together yearly as part of an endeavor to once and for all stop the sun from setting before 5 p.m. in the winter. Congress voted completely along party lines to approve President Joe Biden’s coronavirus stimulus package, but appears uncharacteristically united on the issue of bagging the whole “spring forward, fall back” clock-changing ritual.

Bicameral and bipartisan bills, appropriately called the Sunshine Protection Act, would void the necessity for Americans to ever change their clocks. It’s an issue on which much of the public seems to agree, yet one that Congress — like a stopped clock! — returns to with regularity without ever reaching the goal. 

“The call to end the antiquated practice of clock changing is gaining momentum throughout the nation,” Sen. Marco Rubio, R-Fla., said in a press release.

Those who are pushing the idea label it as “common-sense” and say it would have numerous beneficial, if incidental, consequences, such as reductions in crime, depression, childhood obesity, energy consumption and car accidents, along with increased economic activity.

Ryan, the fictional repulsive-staffer-turned-congressman played by Timothy Simons in “Veep,” who rose to fame for his passionate campaign to end turning back the clocks, took a page from real-world arguments when he delivered a floor speech in the satirical TV series.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fyWr7XRiyVM

Daylight saving time (DST) currently lasts from March to November in most states. (Arizona and Hawaii never change their clocks). Its origins dates back to World War I as a wartime effort to conserve fuel; in fact, it was first implemented in Germany and the Austro-Hungarian Empire, foes of the U.S. and its allies in that conflict. DST was originally opposed by the agricultural industry, contrary to the popular belief that it was created for the benefit of farm families. Although virtually all nations in Europe and North America practice the biannual clock switch, the vast majority of countries in Asia, Africa, South America and Oceania have either abandoned DST in recent years or never used it at all.

Nine other senators back Rubio’s bill in the Senate, and it’s a veritable cornucopia of bipartisan harmony, encompassing old-school conservatives like James Inhofe of Oklahoma and Roy Blunt of Missouri, Trump loyalists like Rick Scott of Florida and Bill Hagerty, of Tennessee, and progressive Democrats like Ron Wyden of Oregon and Ed Markey of Massachusetts.

The House companion bill, led by Rep. Vern Buchanan, R-Fla., is co-sponsored by eight fellow Republicans and two Democrats. To a large extent, this display of comity is driven by what appears to be near-unanimous public opinion that we all want to stop thinking about when and whether to set the clock on the microwave forward or back. Elected officials and voters in many states have taken steps toward making daylight saving permanent, including Arkansas, Alabama, California, Delaware, Georgia, Idaho, Louisiana, Maine, Ohio, Oregon, South Carolina, Tennessee, Utah, Washington and Wyoming.

In 2018, for example, the Florida legislature passed a bill to make daylight saving time year-round. But as Rubio noted in his statement, without federal action that legislation has no effect.

Extra sunshine in the evenings not only puts a spring in our step and offers the perfect reason to get outside, but it also positively impacts consumer spending and shifts energy consumption,” Markey said in a release. 

For the moment, however, daylight saving returns on March 14. Unless you live in Arizona or Hawaii, set your household clocks forward an hour on Saturday night.

Jack Kesy is a chatty hacker in comic thriller “Dark Web,” in which the truth is loosely defined

Jack Kesy gets a rare leading role as Connor Black, a hacker with perfect recall, in the shameless and diverting comic thriller, “Dark Web: Cicada 3301.” In this zippy, B-movie mystery, co-written by actor Alan Ritchson in his feature directorial debut, Connor is shackled in a courtroom recounting how he got involved with a secret society’s global recruitment game.

Black’s trickster is a plum part for the actor. Kesy’s character can play up a wounded sensitivity to fool his prey, and he is fun to watch when he gets ferocious. But Connor is also a smartass. In the courtroom, he audaciously peppers his narrative with some amusing and untrue digressions — like when the NSA turn up at a crime scene wearing diapers. His storytelling is captivating, because one never knows what Connor will say or do next — but whatever it is, it will be entertaining because of Kesy’s delivery.

Connor’s brashness, which one suspects is also Kesy’s default position, is what makes him so appealing. His bad boy charm may be why Connor’s best friend Avi (Ron Funches, terrific) and Gwen (Conor Leslie), a librarian, reluctantly help him puzzle out the truth in “Dark Web: Cicada 3301.”

Kesy is obviously comfortable in his skin, and his cockiness and confidence made an indelible impression on viewers as the sexy drug dealer/love interest Roller in the Southern-fried crime comedy, “Claws.” He has also distinguished himself in ensemble military films such as “12 Strong” and “The Outpost.” 

“Dark Web: Cicada 3301” gives the actor the opportunity to riff on a film noir antihero. Casting agents should put him in a Mike Hammer remake pronto! Kesy has the muscle, the penchant for sarcasm, and the sex appeal to carry that iconic role. But he also has the smarts and the chops to play a sensitive love interest. (It’s true; Kesy did this back in 2012 in the independent gay romance, “Morgan.”) Equally important is the actor’s keen sense of humor, which comes across in this new film and his previous roles — he is in on the joke.

Poised to break out, Kesy spoke with Salon about making “Dark Web: Cicada 3301.”  

Connor has perfect recall, is computer savvy, can play chess in his head, land a punch, and tells some amusing stories, despite being, at times, an unreliable narrator. What are your superpowers, and what are your weaknesses? 

Man, I have 3 out of 5. I can tell some good stories. I can land a punch. I just started using a computer about a year ago. I’m a little behind on that. I do not know what my superpowers are. I want to say — this might sound arrogant — but I think I can empathize pretty well with people. [Pauses] I’m probably way out of range with that. I have selective empathy.

You put a comic spin on your roles. Can you talk about playing goofball bad boys, and cocky but smart characters who are always in trouble with the law? 

I don’t know how much of that I bring to the table and how much of that is in the script. I guess it varies. It comes from my life experience and my upbringing. If the script allows it, I let loose. If it provides the scaffolding for that personality. My backstory highlights that. 

What is your backstory that it informs your work?

I had a hard time with authority, and I don’t think that ever ends. It’s a lot better today. I have my own family, and I have grown to respect and kind of admire some aspects of authority and infrastructure. But I’ve always been in trouble as a kid. I don’t know why that is. It’s a loaded conversation. Parts of it are psychological, and spiritual, and emotional. Maybe it’s not that complicated. People suck, and I let them know. [Laughs]. I’ve had a troubled past. I ran around with a bunch of goons on the street and been in and out of jail as a kid. It took me a while to clean up my act. Acting helped that. Acting helped me really educate myself not only intellectually, but emotionally. It brought me closer to myself and other people. It helped channel that confusion and anger and lack of joy and purpose. Those are a lot of aspects right there. If you can find a place that is less angry and feel a genuine joy, you’re lucky. I was lucky to find that. It obviously changed my life. 

“Dark Web: Cicada 3301,” is a hybrid genre film, a contemporary B-movie, with some clever special effects, some gallows frat-boy humor, and even some sexual fluidity. Although you didn’t write it, can you talk about how you upend the tropes of the genre? 

It’s tricky because so much of that is directorial. That’s not to deflect. So much of that is out of my hands tonally. I challenge things scene by scene. I prefer to take on a challenge person to person, where it asks for some vulnerability and where I can add some kind of layer and texture to some dialogue or a moment where nothing is being said. I’m always looking for those moments. We did a lot of that stuff where I just go off the cuff with Alan [Ritchson], but I am good at making stuff up on the spot. I bring my own flavor to it. [Laughs]

The film is pure escapism, but it does raise points about anti-science and being anti-establishment. Do you buy into Dark Web or conspiracy theories, or let them alone?

Until it crosses your path — then you have a different outlook, and perspective, and experience with it. Until then, if it’s not affecting you, how much do you really care? Me personally, it depends on where I am in my life. If I’m hibernating at home, I can go down a rabbit hole, because I’m imaginative, and I’m a wacky actor; I can get into it. But I’m pretty well grounded. I try to stay present. I’ve got a lot on my plate. Logging into Zoom is a challenge for me. So yes and no. I’m up for it. I’m pretty open-minded. 

“Curiosity kills” says a character in the film. I love the treasure hunt quality to “Dark Web: Cicada 3301,” and wondered what drives your curiosity? And are you a gamer, a puzzler, or a codebreaker? 

No. I like to deem myself as something of an intellectual. But it’s more literature, books, art. I just picked up reading again. I gotta delete YouTube. I see a lot of books behind you [on this Zoom call.] Did you read all those books, or do they open up to secret closets? I just finished the Hal Holbrook autobiography before he passed away. I’m not much of a gamer. I like hands-on stuff, being in the woods, fixing stuff, sports. But I love being immersed in a book when it gets you. There’s nothing like it. I like it more so than even film, because you have to use your own sensibility.  

This is a rare leading role for you. You tend to work in ensembles. Do you prefer to go solo, or be part of a team, and why?

I don’t have a preference. It’s great to be a leading man and spearhead the operation. It all falls and sets on you. That’s great; I love that. But I’m really interested in moment to moment sometimes. I don’t mind being part of an ensemble telling a great story. It really depends on the project. There are a lot of great accolades that come as a leading man, and I like it. I lead a pack well, but I do like ensemble pieces, especially working with great actors. It’s like any job — you get with a good team and you love ’em, it’s the time of your life. 

Do you have a project you want to do? What are your ambitions?

I have so many, [laughs] but I don’t know where they are going. I’m an old-fashioned, back-in-the-day kind of guy, and I love the cinema from the ’70s. Sidney Lumet and Paddy Chayefsky and plays by Clifford Odets and Tennessee Williams. I’ve done one or two of them. That’s what I love about Tennessee Williams — those complicated women and men intertwined. There’s just nothing like it. I don’t have a specific target. I just go with the flow, but I like rich stories and complicated films. Denis Villeneuve does some great stuff. I liked “Prisoners,” and I actually enjoyed “Enemy” as well. I just wish he told you it was that kind of film instead of it being a crossword puzzle. 

Do you have aspirations to produce?

I have been working on a screenplay for two years. It’s very close to my heart and my experiences. It’s part of my life, and some of it is imagination. I’ve been climbing that ladder to create my own content and where I belong in that world. But I also want to tell stories that mean something to me. I do want to do that. 

Where do you get your confidence from? Brashness seems to be your default position.

From the devil himself! I’m telling you! [Laughs] The right bloodline. Some of us run fast, some of us freaking fix things. I’m just brash. 

Connor gets maced in the face twice. You have a few fight scenes, are kidnapped, and shackled. Can you talk about doing physical work? You act with your whole body and seem very unselfconscious. 

That’s the interesting mystery behind some actors, the minute the camera turns on, we disappear, or the person we are disappear and we feel invisible and naked at the same time. It’s more comfortable than reality. That sounds bizarre, but that’s how it’s become. It’s kind of mind-bending. It feels more comfortable acting than being in reality and acting is more real than reality sometimes because people are all full of shit. You gotta go for it.

Do you prefer pleasure or pain — meaning, do you take the easy way out, or do you prefer an uphill climb? 

What are the rewards? What are they dangling? That will inform the answer.

What do you want them to dangle?

Respect. I think there are ways to make money. I love money. Money is great. It solves a lot of problems. I never had any, now that I have some, and I never want to not have any money. The harder way depends on what harder entails. I like the stuff that challenges you and forces you to be vulnerable and show things in a different light that in reality we don’t see between people. Because that’s how we learn. Sometimes we can learn from movies. I know I did.

“Dark Web: Cicada 3301” is out on digital and on demand March 12, and on Blu-ray and DVD March 16.

Arizona Republican waging war on voting rights drops the mask: “Everybody shouldn’t be voting”

Since its devastating loss in 2020, the Republican Party has been committed to overhauling voting rights in the United States to ensure restrictive practices limit voting capabilities. Now, Arizona Republicans’ latest actions show they are leading the way. 

According to CNN, Republican lawmakers in Arizona’s state legislature have unveiled more than two dozen proposed voting laws to make it more difficult for residents to vote. The various proposed laws are geared toward targeting certain aspects of the state’s voting systems, namely its vote-by-mail system that contributed to Arizona residents’ turning the state blue during the last presidential election.

The publication reports that: “A handful of the bills — including two that would impose new restrictions on Arizona’s popular vote-by-mail system and one that would limit its narrow voting window — have gained momentum and could pass.”

The flurry of proposed pieces of legislation has led to opposition from Democratic lawmakers. Arizona state Rep. Athena Salman (D-Tempe) offered her observation of the bills, what they signify, and who they are targeting, specifically. 

“They are trying to make it harder for everyone to vote based on the hope and desire that the people who it harms more and who it disenfranchises more are the people less likely to vote Republican,” said Salman.

On social media, Rep. John Kavanaugh (R-Ariz.), who also chairs Arizona’s Government and Elections Committee is also facing backlash for his remarks about voting as he insisted that “everybody” should not be voting. 

“There’s a fundamental difference between Democrats and Republicans,” Kavanagh said. “Democrats value as many people as possible voting and they’re willing to risk fraud. Republicans are more concerned about fraud, so we don’t mind putting security measures in that won’t let everybody vote — but everybody shouldn’t be voting.”

Kavanaugh added, “Not everybody wants to vote, and if somebody is uninterested in voting, that probably means that they’re totally uninformed on the issues. Quantity is important, but we have to look at the quality of votes, as well.”

One Twitter user referred to Kavanaugh’s remarks as “saying the quiet part loud.” 

Some Twitter users even noted that Kavanaugh’s remarks about the “quality of votes” are dangerously close to the context of the long-controversial three-fifths compromise which was “an agreement between delegates from the Northern and the Southern states at the United States Constitutional Convention (1787) that three-fifths of the slave population would be counted for determining direct taxation and representation in the House of Representatives.”

Although the law was axed back in 1865, Kavanaugh’s remarks tread dangerously close to the line.

The avalanche of proposed voting rights bills in Arizona comes as Republicans across the nation have introduced more than 250 new pieces of legislation in 43 states. Georgia and Arizona are among the top two states to roll out highly restrictive voting rights bills.

Jim Jordan and Matt Gaetz want to bring Britney Spears and the #FreeBritney movement to Congress

Britney Spears apparently has some pretty big fans in Congress.

In a letter sent to the House Judiciary Committee, Rep. Matt Gaetz, R-Fla. –– apparently, a longtime Britney stan –– and fellow Freedom Caucus member Rep. Jim Jordan, R-Ohio, cited Spears’ high-profile case, recently covered in The New York Times Present’s Framing Britney Spears, as a prime example of how vulnerable people can be coerced into handing over their finances to an exploitive third party. The pair argued that conservatorships, like the one Spears was placed under, have the dangerous potential to strip people of their civil liberties.

“The House Committee on the Judiciary is charged with safeguarding the rights affording to Americans by the U.S. Constitution,” their letter states, “These rights include having the free will to guide one’s own affairs and the legal autonomy over one’s own finances. When situations suggest the unjust deprivation of those rights by the government, we have an obligation to conduct oversight and explore potential remedies.”

“Ms. Spears is not alone,” Gaetz and Jordan continued, “There are countless other Americans unjustly stripped of their freedoms by others with little recourse. Given the constitutional freedoms at stake and opaqueness of these agreements, it is incumbent upon our Committee to convene a hearing to examine whether Americans are trapped unjustly in conservatorships.”

Appearing on Fox News this week, Gaetz called on the pop star to testify before Congress. 

“I think Britney would be a great witness,” the Florida Republican argued, “and would likely have a lot to say on this subject.”

Jordan and Gaetz specifically questioned the motives of her father, Jamie Spears, who has been Britney Spears’ legal conservator since a court-ordered arrangement in 2008, effectively deeming Brittney unequipped to handle her finances, as well as many other aspects of her personal life. 

“The facts and circumstances giving rise to this arrangement remain in dispute,” the letter states, “but involve questionable motives and legal tactics by her father and now-conservator, Jamie Spears.” At the time, Spears’ father had argued to the court that many people in his daughter’s personal life were taking advantage of her, hence the seeming need for a conservatorship and pushed back on Gaetz and Jordan via a statement from his lawyer. 

In 2019, a social movement called #FreeBritney coalesced, dedicating itself to bringing Spears’ legal entanglement to light and freeing her from it.  

The letter also alluded to the case of Daniel Gross, a Long Island elderly resident who was involuntarily put into a court-ordered conservatorship and assigned to a nursing home for ten months, despite several pleas for release. The two Congressmen also cite a GAO report from 2010, which identifies a number of  examples of legal guardians improperly gaining access to millions of dollars by way of conservatorships, with “hundreds of allegations of physical abuse, neglect and financial exploitation by guardians in 45 states and the District of Columbia between 1990 and 2010.”

Gaetz told Business Insider that watching Framing Britney Spears is what motivated him to tackle the issue. “After seeing the Britney Spears documentary,” he said, “I reached out to a number of policy experts […] to refresh my understanding of the federal due process implications. I’m very familiar with the issue as a Floridian. I served on the judiciary committee in the Florida House of Representatives, and we have a lot of elderly people that get taken advantage of in the guardianship process.”

It remains unclear, however, the extent to which Gaetz and Jordan will make conservatorship a part of their political platform, given that they appear thoroughly occupied conserving the chaos and conspiracy of the Republican Party — like ensuring OANN remains on televisions across Capitol Hill

How Democrats successfully silenced Republican opposition to Biden’s COVID relief bill

The House of Representatives just passed their final version of the American Rescue Plan, a $1.9 trillion package aimed at ending the pandemic and restoring the economy to a hopefully better condition than it was when the coronavirus first hit American shores one year ago. President Joe Biden, whose White House proposed the draft that was largely adopted by Congress, is expected to sign the bill on Thursday ahead of a primetime address marking the somber anniversary of pandemic lockdowns. 

Republicans in Congress, for their part, hate this bill.

Not a single GOP lawmaker voted for this COVID relief bill in either the House or the Senate. One would think that their propaganda apparatus, from Fox News to OANN to right-wing talk radio, would be hair-on-fire furious about it. But instead of trying to form a new “Tea Party”, the nickname given the widespread conservative temper tantrum that rose up in the wake of Barack Obama’s 2009 economic bailout bill, the response has been relatively muted. This is despite Biden’s bill being more targeted towards aiding ordinary Americans and less of a corporate bailout than Obama’s economic stimulus more than a decade ago. Instead of throwing fits about the bill, however, the right-wing noise machine would rather talk about anything else.

On Wednesday, Media Matters published an analysis noting that “Fox News devoted just one segment to the” coronavirus relief bill on the same day that this historic legislation passed. As Matt Gertz wrote the day before at Media Matters, this is in contrast with how Fox News reacted to Obama’s American Recovery and Reinvestment Act, which was vilified “with an ideological misinformation campaign aimed at convincing the public that Obama was a dangerous radical pushing a Soviet-style vision that would enslave Americans while killing jobs, not saving them.”


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


If you consumed exclusively right-wing media this week — which is normal in red state America — you’d get the impression that the Amerian Rescue Plan is a minor bill, and that the biggest problem facing this country is the onslaught of “woke” people that are stepping on the god-given right of every red-blooded white American to be shielded from criticism for saying racist and sexist things. 

This week, Tucker Carlson used his popular primetime show on Fox News to spread racist lies about the death of George Floydrepeatedly attack a female journalist as supposedly ungrateful for being upset by misogynist harassment, suggest that only emasculated men care about not spreading the coronavirus, and demagogue about the evils of letting pregnant women serve in the military. Fellow Fox News star Laura Ingraham, meanwhile, devoted her Wednesday night show to attacking Prince Harry and Meghan Markle for speaking out against racism, and insisting that the real victims are conservatives because they have to endure criticism for saying racist things. Sean Hannity, meanwhile, kicked off his Wednesday night show floating a conspiracy theory accusing Biden of faking his stutter. 

It was the same story at the conservative National Review, whose front page has more stories about the supposed evils of anti-racism and the utterly imaginary threats against Dr. Seuss than about the coronavirus relief package. And the Fox News challenger Newsmax? Well: 

And while there are some half-baked efforts among congressional Republicans to get limp talking points about prisoners getting checks or whining that it’s a giveaway to the poor, folks like Rep. Jim Jordan of Ohio and Rep. Matt Gaetz of Florida clearly believe the move is distractions.  They’ve focused largely on whining about “cancel culture” and trying to start a hearing about Britney Spears being under a conservatorship. While there is much to be said about the latter issue, there is no reason to believe Jordan or Gaetz — both stalwart supporters of forced childbirth — have suddenly developed a concern about women’s freedoms. Instead, it’s just a naked bid to use celebrity to change the subject from the American Rescue Plan. 

As clear of a pattern as is displayed, it remains unclear why Republicans and the conservative media are so scared of talking about the American Rescue Plan. One theory is they don’t want to cross their own voters, nearly half of whom support the plan. 

But this explanation is unsatisfying, as right-wing media has a long track record of convincing their audiences to be angry about stuff they didn’t care about before. After all, it’s not like right-wing audiences were particularly worried about obscure Dr. Seuss books or the branding choices at Hasbro, until Fox News told them to care. Conservative media has a well-worn strategy on how to take popular economic programs and rebrand them so that their audiences grow to hate them: Race-baiting and lying.  


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


The Tea Party was formed because right-wing outlets lied to their audiences, falsely telling them that Obama’s economic rescue package was paying mortgages for Black and Latino homeowners, and forcing white people to foot the bill. This was a lie — the banks were bailed out, but the homeowners they cheated were not — but the idea that people of color were getting a benefit they were denied appealed to conservative voters. Similarly, the right-wing talking points about the Affordable Care Act — attacks on the birth control benefit, lies about “death panels” — were about convincing aging white people that the Black president was taking away “their” health care and giving it younger and supposedly less deserving people. 

So far, however, conservative media seems to believe they can’t just lie and race-bait about this bill until their people hate it. And maybe the explanation for why is a simple one: It’s harder to bamboozle their audiences about the American Rescue Plan because Democrats have finally learned to make the aid more immediate and visible.

Biden’s plan is a contrast to the economic bailout money of 2009, which flowed in ways that didn’t seem to immediately impact the pocketbook of everyday Americans. And while Obamacare eventually became popular, it struggled for years because of the slow rollout of subsidies and Medicaid, the latter aided by Republican governors refusing the Medicaid expansion. Biden’s bill, however, wisely starts sending out checks within days of the ink on his signature drying. The vaccination rates are escalating and will likely do so even more so after the money starts to flow from this bill. Biden is hitting the road to highlight the immediate benefits to communities. In fact, the bill is so robust and timely that at least one Republican who voted against it, Sen. Roger Wicker of Mississippi, is already out there trying to take credit for it:

Now, things may change. Given some time and commitment, right-wing media may finally find some race-baiting narrative to turn their audiences against this bill. But the fact that they seem to be struggling — and talking about anything else, if possible — is a lesson for Democrats: Keep it simple, stupid.

The more visible the aid is to Americans, the harder it is for right-wing media to spin elaborate racist stories implying someone is getting free stuff their audience isn’t getting. And the faster people experience the positive effects of a bill, the harder it is to confuse the public about what’s in it. Which is all the more reason Democrats needs to eliminate the filibuster and keep passing meaty legislation that makes it harder for the right to change the subject. 

Biden signs two executive orders to advance gender equality on International Women’s Day

On Monday—International Women’s Day—President Joe Biden signed an executive order to establish the White House Gender Policy Council to address gender equality and human rights of women and girls and “ensure that every domestic and foreign policy we pursue rests on a foundation of dignity and equity for women.”

“We know that governments, economies, and communities are stronger when they include the full participation of women—no country can recover from this pandemic if it leaves half of its population behind,” read a statement released by the White House on the new Gender Policy Council.

“Elevating the status of women and girls globally is the right thing to do—it is a matter of justice, fairness, and decency, and it will lead to a better, more secure, and more prosperous world for us all,” the statement continued. “On International Women’s Day, let us recommit to the principle that our nation, and the world, is at its best when the possibilities for all of our women and girls are limitless.”

The council will address a range of issues, including systemic bias and discrimination, sexual harassment and misconduct, gender-based violence, gender equity in leadership, women’s economic security—especially in the wake of Covid-19, which has disproportionately affected women—and improving access to comprehensive healthcare. 

Jennifer Klein, who served as a senior adviser to Hillary Clinton when she was first lady and secretary of state, and Julissa Reynoso, chief of staff to First Lady Jill Biden, will lead the council, which will report directly to the president. 

That makes it “the most powerful body of its kind to date,” according to the New York Times, which reported that “almost every Cabinet secretary will be required to participate with the council, signaling that the council’s work is of top priority for every federal agency.”

“This is not just a council,” Klein told the New York Times last month. “It’s a plan to take a governmentwide approach to gender equity and equality.”

According to HuffPost, “The council, which will have a staff of six people, will create and submit a strategy to Biden to address gender in policies, programs, and budgets, as well as create an annual report that measures progress.”

Biden also signed a second executive order on Monday directing the Department of Education to review controversial Title IX provisions issued under former President Donald Trump, which completely transformed how colleges handle sexual assault by bolstering the rights of those accused and allowing schools to abdicate responsibility for assaults that occurred off-campus, which many critics warned would deter survivors from coming forward. 

The executive order is meant to “ensure consistency with the Biden-Harris administration’s policy that students be guaranteed education free from sexual violence,” an administration official said.

The establishment of the Gender Policy Council and DOE review of former education secretary Betsy DeVos’ harmful Title IX provisions was welcomed by critics of the Trump administration’s four years of attacks on women’s rights and gender equality. 

“We applaud the Biden-Harris administration this International Women’s Day for establishing this much-needed gender policy committee in a time when disproportionate gender-based discrimination and violence affecting women, girls, and LGBTQ+ communities is at an all-time high,” said Serra Sippel, president of CHANGE (the Center for Health and Gender Equity).

“Without basic human rights for all, there is no gender equality, and sexual and reproductive health and rights are human rights. Period,” she continued. “The establishment of the White House Gender Policy Council is a step in the right direction of advancing global health and gender equality once and for all.”

Newly released call: Trump pressured top Georgia investigator to find nonexistent election fraud

Former President Donald Trump pressured the top investigator at the Georgia secretary of state’s office to find nonexistent election fraud in the Atlanta area in a December call released by The Wall Street Journal on Wednesday.

“I won Georgia, I know that, by a lot. And the people know it and something happened. Something bad happened,” Trump insisted to chief investigator Frances Watson, citing his electoral victories in nearby Alabama and Florida. Three audits and recounts have confirmed there was no widespread fraud or irregularities in the Georgia election.

“When the right answer comes out, you’ll be praised,” Trump told Watson in the call, which came about a week before his now-famous phone call with Georgia Secretary of State Brad Raffensperger, which is currently the subject of a criminal investigation.

Trump also pressed Watson to complete the state’s audit of election results in Cobb County before Jan. 6, the day he held a rally that sparked the deadly Capitol riot during the certification of electoral votes.

“Do you think they’ll be working after Christmas, to keep it going fast?” he asked. “Because, you know, we have that date of the 6th, which is a very important date.”

Trump told Watson, who said she had met with then-White House chief of staff Mark Meadows the previous day, that she had the most important job in the country and pressured her to review signatures on mail-in ballots going back multiple years.

“I hope you’re going back two years, as opposed to just checking, you know, one against the other because that would just sort of be a signature check that didn’t mean anything,” he said.

“If you can get to Fulton, you are going to find things that are going to be unbelievable,” Trump added, referring to the state’s most populous county, which contains Atlanta and is more than 44% Black, according to current estimates. Trump’s campaign to overturn election results was primarily focused on areas with large numbers of voters of color.

Trump did not mention any evidence but insisted that his loss in Georgia “never made sense” and blamed voting rights advocate Stacey Abrams, who he called “really, really terrible.” He said his information was based on “really good sources,” like attorney Rudy Giuliani, who faces multiple lawsuits for stoking false claims about the election.

Watson told Trump that she and the Georgia Bureau of Investigation were “only interested in the truth and finding the information that is based on the facts.”

Watson, who is a career employee, said she was shocked that Trump called her directly.

“I do know that you are a very busy, very important man and I am very honored that you called,” she said on the call. “And quite frankly I’m shocked that you would take time to do that, but I am very appreciative.”

The call came during Trump’s weeks-long pressure campaign on Georgia election officials, which has prompted a criminal probe by Fulton County District Attorney Fani Willis. A grand jury has been convened in the case and Willis told Fox 5 Atlanta that she plans to issue grand jury subpoenas. She also told top state officials last month to preserve any evidence related to attempts to influence the election. Willis recently hired racketeering expert John Floyd to assist with the investigation, according to Reuters. Floyd previously helped Willis prosecute dozens of Atlanta public school educators in a standardized test rigging scheme. Willis mentioned racketeering as a possible charge in the investigation in her letter to officials.

Willis said in the letters that she has no reason to believe any Georgia official violated the law but said she is investigating several potential violations, including “solicitation of election fraud, the making of false statements to state and local government bodies, conspiracy, racketeering, violation of oath of office and any involvement in violence or threats related to the election’s administration.”

The investigation was launched in response to Trump’s Jan. 2 call to Raffensperger and other officials, in which Trump pressured the election official to “find 11,780 votes” to flip the election. Trump reportedly made 18 previous attempts to reach Raffensperger. The White House also forced out the U.S. attorney in Atlanta around the same time.

The call came after Raffensperger’s office had conducted a recount and a forensic audit of about 15,000 mail-in ballots in Cobb County, which found no widespread irregularities and confirmed Joe Biden’s narrow victory in the state.

Ari Schaffer, a spokesman for Raffensperger, told the Journal that Trump’s call to Watson “is just one more example of how Secretary Raffensperger’s office’s public comments also reflect what was said in one-on-one conversations: We would follow the law, count every legal vote and investigate any allegations of fraud. That’s exactly what we did, and how we arrived at the accurate final vote tally.”

Watson told WSB-TV that no investigators had requested the recording of the call but said she “wouldn’t be surprised if it was requested and I wouldn’t mind sharing it.”

Willis would have to prove a pattern of corruption in order to charge Trump with racketeering. The Watson phone call could provide the DA with the evidence she needs, Georgia attorneys say.

“It’s not a stretch to see where she’s taking this,” Former Georgia Secretary of State Cathy Cox, the dean of Mercer University’s law school, told Reuters. “If Donald Trump engaged in two or more acts that involve false statements — that were made knowingly and willfully in an attempt to falsify material fact, like the election results — then you can piece together a violation of the racketeering act.”

Willis’ office has indicated that it’s also investigating a call from Sen. Lindsey Graham, R-S.C., pressuring Raffensperger to throw out legal ballots, and Giuliani’s efforts to convince state lawmakers to block the certification of the election results.

But racketeering is a difficult crime to prove. “There are not a lot of people who avoid serving prison time on a racketeering offense,” Cox said.

Trump faces a separate criminal investigation by Manhattan District Attorney Cy Vance, who also recently added a top racketeering prosecutor to his team. That investigation is focused on the former president’s finances and business practices. The Wall Street Journal reported on Monday that the DA’s office has issued new subpoenas focusing on Trump’s Seven Springs estate in Westchester County, north of New York City, which he unsuccessfully tried to develop before valuing the property he bought for $7.5 million at $291 million, giving him a large tax break. He later valued the property at $25 million to $50 million on his presidential financial disclosure. Vance recently won a Supreme Court decision that allowed him to obtain years of Trump’s tax returns. Vance’s office has also interviewed longtime former Trump personal attorney Michael Cohen seven times, according to Reuters.

Former White House counsel John Dean, who helped bring down Richard Nixon during the Watergate trial, predicted that Vance’s office is closing in on Trump.

“From personal experience as a key witness I assure you that you do not visit a prosecutor’s office 7 times if they are not planning to indict those about whom you have knowledge,” he tweeted. “It is only a matter of how many days until DA Vance indicts Donald & Co.”

Donald and Melania Trump only living former president and first lady to not join COVID-19 campaign

Despite both secretly receiving their COVID-19 vaccinations last month, former President Donald Trump and former first lady Melania Trump were curiously absent from a new public service campaign released on Thursday featuring every living former president and first lady. 

In a commercial called “It’s Up to You,” every living president and first lady encourages the American public to get the COVID-19 vaccine as soon as they can.

Featured in the video are Presidents Jimmy Carter, Bill Clinton, George W. Bush, Barack Obama, and former first ladies Rosalynn Carter, Hillary Clinton, Laura Bush and Michelle Obama, all underscoring the immense importance of getting vaccinated as the current administration steers the country out of the pandemic. 

“We urge you to get vaccinated when it’s available to you,” Obama says in one of the two ad spots, while Bush tells Americans to “roll up your sleeve and do your part.”

“This is our shot,” says Bill Clinton, an admittedly lackluster pun. “They could save your life.”

I’m getting vaccinated because we want this pandemic to end as soon as possible,” Mr. Carter added, though he does not appear in the video. 

The ad campaign was put together by the Ad Council and COVID Collaborative as part of their Covid-19 Vaccine Education Initiative and began production back in December. Absent from the ad, however, was former President Donald Trump and former first lady Melania Trump. Although the Trumps reportedly received a COVID-19 vaccine in January, they did not make their vaccinations public until weeks after leaving the White House. 

The PSA is not the first time the Trumps have forgone traditional gestures of bipartisanship post-presidency. 

Back in January, as a part of President Joe Biden’s inaugural proceedings, Obama, Bush, and Clinton released a video welcoming Biden to the Oval Office and encouraging bi-partisanship. The three men also attended Biden’s inauguration ceremony. Donald and Melania Trump, however, did not partake in either event.

Biden has called Trump’s vaccine rollout –– which failed to deliver on its goal of administering 20 million vaccinations by 2021 –– a “dismal failure.” Under President Biden, the pace of vaccinations has increased significantly, and the administration appears to be on track to meet his 100-day goal. Although distribution has been rolling out for months now, reticence and uncertainty about the efficacy and safety of the vaccine still linger within the American public. Surveys show that 60 percent of the American public is willing to get the vaccine, a number that President Biden expects to rise as he ramps up his goal to get 100 million American vaccinated in the first 100 days of his term. 

Days before Biden took office, White House press secretary Jen Psaki tweeted that the new administration would be “phasing in a new structure” for Operation Warp Speed, “which will have a different name than OWS. Many of the public servants will be essential to our response, but urgent need to address failures of the Trump team approach to vaccine distribution.”

On this very day last year, the World Health Organization officially declared the COVID-19 crisis a global pandemic, marking today its formal one-year anniversary. According to Johns Hopkins University, over 525,000 Americans have died due to COVID-19. 

I found inner peace playing a video game about growing rice

As someone who is both a food editor and lifelong video game enthusiast, I’ve predictably played a ton of food-themed games. Over the last year, games have kept me excellent company, serving as a satisfying and consistent way to pass what I’ll refer to as “time.” I revisited the food-centric games I previously loved, like Stardew Valley, Overcooked, the eerily realistic Cooking Simulator, and every last Cooking Mama. I’ve cooked my way through Zelda: Breath of the Wild, Final Fantasy XV (whose food imagery is stunning), and World of Warcraft. But when I popped recent release “Sakuna: Of Rice & Ruin” into my Switch a few months ago, I felt genuinely connected to the food I was interacting with on the screen for the first time.

In this farming, friend-feeding, and enemy-pummeling role-playing game, rice is king, and you happen to live on a paddy. Oh, and you’ve never grown rice before. Additionally, you’re a harvest goddess coming down from quite the hot mess of a sake bender (see: “& Ruin”), so the stakes are pretty high.

Rice plays an essential role in the progression of the game, to the extent that I can no longer cook my favorite grain in any form without first studying it for the primary attributes in the game — hardness, polish, and aesthetic — and when it’s cooked, for its stickiness and aroma. Every minute decision you make in the paddy influences the quality of the final yield, from the time of day you plant meticulous rows of seedlings to the precise percentage of water in the field during growth cycles (taking the rain into account, of course), to the weather when you thresh and hull the kernels.

Responsible stewardship of a bucolic rice paddy on a serene albeit demon-infested island means balancing farming with advancing the main story. And to do it without the rice you’ve grown and eaten is a fool’s errand, because eating rice (and food items made with rice, like congee, dumplings, mochi, vinegar for pickles, and your beloved sake) is the only way to strengthen yourself enough to battle the never-ending supply of meat in the form of crazed rabbits, sparrows, and boars impeding your path to glory. Staying on top of weed-pulling, bug-plucking, fertilizer cultivation, and the delicate balance of flooding and draining the paddy will all contribute to a favorable harvest, boost your farming skills, and propel you along the storyline.

It’s not just the meticulous tending of the field that connected me in a distinctive way to the rice I was growing. Once harvested and dried, it’s on you, as manually as can be expressed with a Switch controller in each hand, to take up a traditional threshing tool known as a kokibashi and pull each stalk through to remove the kernels. Prepare for some repetitive motion that is not altogether unpleasant and definitely gives a sense of satisfaction once complete, and more of the same if you choose to polish off the hull by pounding it in a mortar to produce white rice (although, as in real life, brown rice has its own set of advantages).

I usually play one season at a time, from planting seedlings in the spring to processing them at the beginning of winter, which is just enough tilling, weeding, cooking, enemy-bashing, grappling up a mountain with an enchanted scarf, and foraging for garlic and herbs to reset my brain. Midway through a session, I’m likely to make a real-life pot of rice, around which I’ve constructed a simple dinner like Korean marinated beef or an easy shrimp stir-fry. I actively enjoy how the rice sounds, smells, and tastes the whole way through (seriously, playing this game while the aroma of steaming rice wafts from the kitchen, anticipating dinner, is the only way to play), and the whole experience has thoroughly reinvigorated my love for rice in all its varieties and forms.

And no, that rice doesn’t have a magical backstory, but that rice doesn’t need to because I’m not really fighting possessed rabbits, just garden-variety boredom that — a year into staying home 98 percent of the time — can occasionally interfere with my sleep cycles. After a couple of evening hours with Sakuna and company, I sink into an extra-deep slumber and enjoy low-stakes adventure dreams.

And for those who wish to forgo the enemy-bashing part of the story entirely and simply farm, gather, shore up your storeroom, and cook to your heart’s content, you couldn’t pick a more beautiful place to do it. According to the game’s creators, a great deal of research and development went into simulating a realistic, serene visual experience that draws from interviews with members of the farmer-led Japan Agricultural Cooperatives group.

The effect is wonderfully peaceful. You can feel the feathery rice shoots brushing your ankles as you walk through the cool, damp paddy that’s your ticket to ultimate redemption, bringing home mushrooms to preserve, foxtail millet to simmer into a fortifying porridge, acorns for a simple soup, and the first tea leaves of spring to enjoy around a table with friends. Well, I’m off to bed.

Preserved lemon is next on the list of savory seasonings about to take over mainstream sweets

Preserved lemon is one of those ingredients that, once it becomes a regular part of your cooking routine, it’s nearly impossible to do without. Savory dishes like crunchy saladoil-slicked pasta, and tender roast chicken all beg for a hit of tangy, salty preserved lemon. But what happens when, instead of stirring chopped preserved lemon into salad dressing or couscous, you fold it into cake batter? Magic, that’s what.

To back up: Preserved lemon, or salted whole lemons fermented until soft, is typically used as a seasoning or condiment in Tunisian, Moroccan, Israeli, Iranian, Turkish, and other North African and Middle Eastern cuisines, as well in dishes around the Indian subcontinent, where it’s known as lemon pickle, and is also seasoned with additional flavors like turmeric, chili powder, and cumin, among others, depending on the region. Chopped whole (yes, pith and peel, too) and seeded, preserved lemon can be stirred into nearly any dish that calls for fresh lemon, adding all the brightness of tart citrus with a bit more complexity. The brine, a deeply seasoned, lightly lemony syrup, should also be used in cooking, even after the lemons are gone.

A hint of lemon in baked goods like vanilla cakes and sugar cookies is so common, I’ve sometimes found myself zesting the fruit before even reading through a full ingredient list (not recommended!). Lemon adds a fresh tang to sweet treats, even when it’s not the main flavor; preserved lemon is simply a punchier version of its fresh counterpart. Just imagine your favorite pound cakecheesecakeice cream or custard pie with the zing of fresh lemon, as well as the subtly salty funk that comes with fermented condiments.

Savory ingredients cropping up in dessert is nothing new, but they continue to delight, from where I’m baking. For a while, it was all about tahini: The relatively mild sesame paste isn’t that different from unsalted peanut butter, and has been a recurring guest star in baked goods for years. I’ve seen cookies and pound cake imbued with earthy miso paste, salty fish sauce caramel rippled through ice cream, and tangy sumac popping up in brownie cookies and olive oil cake. Odds are you’ve seen Chinese five spice or chili powder make an appearance in a treat or two recently, and of course, it would appear as though Big Cardamom is running a campaign to replace cinnamon in every buncake, and cookie it can get its hands on these past few years in the U.S. I’m here to predict that preserved lemon is next on the list of savory seasonings about to take over mainstream sweets.

When it comes to actually putting preserved lemon in a bake, give yourself room to experiment, but a great place to start is with recipes that already call for fresh lemon (or another citrus) juice. Of course, there is a texture difference between finely chopped preserved lemon and juice, but it typically won’t make a major difference in cakes or custards. You may want to add a bit of extra fresh lemon juice in addition to the preserved in instances where lemon is the star of whatever you’re baking, as well as reduce the salt called for in the recipe by three quarters, or even entirely (as I did in this filling for these preserved lemon bars,) but for the most part, consider a one-to-one swap.

While you can make your own preserved lemon, I am lazy, and store-bought really is fine. Available most typically in its whole-lemon form (my favorite brands are Mina and Tara Kitchen), you can also find preserved lemon paste (for that, I love New York Shuk, as well as the less regularly available preserved Meyer lemon paste from small-batch vinegar company Tart), which is already seedless and mostly smooth — ideal for baking.

***

Recipe: Salty-Tangy Preserved Lemon Bars

Prep time: 15 minutes
Cook time: 30 minutes
Makes: 16 squares (or 32 smaller triangles)

Ingredients:

Crust

  • 1 3/4 cups (225 grams) all-purpose flour
  • 1/4 cup (50 grams) granulated sugar
  • 1/4 teaspoon kosher salt
  • 10 tablespoons (1 stick plus 2 tablespoons) unsalted butter, cut into cubes (remove from fridge 10-20 minutes before baking)

Filling

  • 1/4 cup (70 grams) preserved lemon paste (or 1/4 cup of seeded, puréed whole preserved lemons)
  • 2 tablespoons lemon zest (from about 2 lemons)
  • 6 tablespoons fresh lemon juice (from about 2 lemons)
  • 2 large eggs
  • 2 large egg yolks
  • 3/4 cup (150 grams) granulated sugar
  • 3 tablespoons (25 grams) all-purpose flour
  • Powdered sugar, for serving (optional)
  • Flaky salt, for serving (optional)

Directions:

  1. Heat the oven to 325ºF and line an 8×8-inch square baking pan with parchment paper, leaving an overhang on all sides. (Save parchment paper by cutting one sheet several inches larger than the pan, cutting a slit in each corner, then pressing the paper into the pan.)
  2. In a medium bowl, use your fingers to combine the flour, sugar, and salt, then work in the butter pieces with your fingers, until it forms into a crumbly mass. It may not all stick together, but if you can press together a handful and it holds its shape, you’re good to go. Dump the dough into the prepared pan and hang onto the bowl.
  3. Firmly press the dough into the pan in an even layer. Use a fork to prick holes over the entire surface. Bake until the shortbread is lightly golden brown, 20 to 25 minutes.
  4. Meanwhile, make the filling: Place the preserved lemon paste, lemon zest and juice, whole eggs and egg yolk, sugar, and flour in the reserved bowl and whisk furiously until totally smooth.
  5. Reduce the oven temperature to 300ºF. Pull out the oven rack the crust is baking on, and carefully pour the filling over the crust. Gently push the oven rack back and bake until the filling is set and just barely jiggles in the center, about 20 minutes.
  6. Let the pan cool to room temperature, then transfer to the refrigerator to cool completely, at least 3 hours, but overnight is best for a clean cut. 
  7. Pull out the bars from the pan by the parchment overhang, place on a cutting board, and slice into 16 squares (or 32 triangles). Dust with powdered sugar and sprinkle over flaky salt (if using).

Fox News host Sean Hannity falsely claims that Joe Biden only recently developed a stutter

Fox News host Sean Hannity has doubled down on the conspiracy theories about President Joe Biden’s health. It’s a similar conspiracy that Fox hosts pushed in 2016 that Hillary Clinton was going to die any day, and desperately ill. She wasn’t and she’s still alive, obviously. 

The new conspiracy is that Biden’s well-known and well-documented stutter only appeared recently. That too, is false, as Biden even addressed it accepting the vice-presidential nomination in 2008 on live TV. Fox News was there. Biden also talked to the ladies of “The View” about it in 2010.

Biden then spoke about it in a video to the American Institute for Stuttering in 2014.

He has also talked about it in his books.

These results took approximately 60 seconds to find on a Google search. Hannity has been mocked by late-night comedians for the conspiracies, after years of concerning speeches and flubs from former President Donald Trump

One thing Biden does is showcase many children who are fighting with their own stuttering issues to help show them that they can overcome it and go on to great things. Writing for InStyle, Julia Marzovilla explained that Biden’s life-long stutter isn’t a “gaffe” and it’s damaging to so many people for Hannity to call it that. 

“Over the course of the debate, Biden fell victim to what the media would consider one of his ‘gaffes,'” she wrote in October last year. “He appeared to stumble over his words, sometimes changing them at the last minute. Other times, he would begin to say something, pause as if in thought, and then proceed. What the public saw was not a series of mistakes, but a series of blocks caused by Biden’s stutter.”

“What a lot of people would think is him tripping over a word is the way he stutters,” said Dr. Heather Grossman, the executive director at the American Institute for Stuttering.

Ironically, Hannity had his own “senior moment” when after the report on Biden he called Sen. Ted Cruz, R-Tx., a “former senator.”

See Hannity’s false conspiracy theories below:

Uber-corporate Democrat Rahm Emanuel as a top U.S. diplomat? Oh, hell no

Rahm Emanuel has never been associated with the word “diplomatic,” but news reports suggest that President Biden is seriously considering him for a top position as U.S. ambassador to Japan or China. Naming Emanuel to such a post would be a serious affront to many of the constituencies that got Biden elected. The story of Emanuel’s three-decade career in politics is an epic tale of methodical contempt for progressive values.  

One thing Emanuel can’t be accused of is inconsistency. During his political career, he has steadily served elite corporate interests, and rarely the interests of the broad public or the causes of racial justice or peace.

Emanuel rose to prominence as the finance director for Bill Clinton’s 1992 presidential campaign. He excelled at pulling in large checks from super-wealthy individuals. As a high-level Clinton administration aide, he played a major role — and bragged about it — in the passage of the disastrous NAFTA trade bill, which was strongly opposed by unions, environmentalists and most Democrats in Congress. He was also a spark plug for passage of the now-infamous 1994 Crime Bill, which greatly increased mass incarceration and lengthened prison terms with provisions like “three strikes.”

In 1996, Emanuel boasted to a Washington Post reporter of the administration’s “tough” policies on “wedge issues — crime, welfare, and recently immigration.” In a memo that year, he urged Clinton to move rightward on immigration policy by working to “claim and achieve record deportations of criminal aliens.” The next year, Emanuel’s approach was explained by a senior staffer at the Immigration and Naturalization Service who worked closely with him: “As long as we dealt with illegal immigration, we could be to the right of Attila the Hun. Rahm felt that Americans believed too many people were coming into this country, too many foreigners, so he wanted to show the administration returning people, deporting them, putting up bigger fences, sending them back.”

In July 1996, the Republican-controlled Congress pushed through its punitive “welfare reform” bill that ended the Aid to Families with Dependent Children program, added work requirements and gave states the power to slash support. In the intense White House debate over whether to sign the bill, Emanuel was one of the strongest voices urging Bill Clinton not to veto it, as the president had done with earlier GOP welfare bills. Clinton signed the Personal Responsibility and Work Opportunity Act of 1996, prompting an outcry from anti-poverty activists and several high-level administration resignations. 

After leaving the Clinton administration in 1998, Emanuel made a quick $18 million in two and a half years as managing director of the Wall Street investment bank Wasserstein Perella, working out of its Chicago office.

Elected to Congress in November 2002, Emanuel supported George W. Bush’s disastrous invasion of Iraq, and defended the war after most Democrats in Congress and most of the public had turned against it. As head of the Democratic Congressional Campaign Committee in 2006, Emanuel seemed oblivious to the change in public opinion. While he took credit for Democrats regaining the House majority, his selection of right-leaning candidates, including Iraq war supporters like himself and former Republicans, ultimately led to major GOP gains in subsequent cycles.

While serving as President Obama’s chief of staff in 2009 and 2010, Emanuel argued for mollifying health care reform opponents by significantly weakening the Affordable Care Act. (Years later, he acknowledged it was a good thing Obama didn’t listen to him.) In a 2010 meeting with liberal leaders who planned to publicly pressure the Democratic Party’s more conservative wing to support health care reform, Emanuel famously called them “fucking retarded.”

Emanuel was known inside the Beltway for hyper-combative behavior (earning him the semi-affectionate nickname “Rahmbo”) and his ability to gain positive spin from corporate media: “He is on a first-name basis with every political reporter in Washington,” a Washington Post columnist asserted.

After leaving the Obama White House, Emanuel was elected mayor of Chicago in 2011. His administration faced a worsening series of scandals that included concerted warfare against the teachers’ union and the closing of 49 public schools, many of them in Black neighborhoods.

In his 2015 bid for re-election, he was forced into a runoff by progressive challenger Jesus “Chuy” Garcia, a contest that would be decided largely by African American voters. Emanuel would very likely have lost that election, except that for 13 months, through the duration of the campaign, his administration suppressed a horrific dashboard-camera video showing the death of 17-year-old Laquan McDonald, an African American who was shot 16 times by a police officer as he walked away. (The city had paid $5 million to McDonald’s family without a lawsuit having been filed.)

Soon after a judge ordered the city of Chicago to release the video, polls found that only 17 percent of Chicagoans believed Emanuel when he said he’d never seen the video and that most city residents wanted him to resign as mayor. 

When it was reported last November that Biden was considering Emanuel for a Cabinet post, progressives and racial justice advocates were outraged. Rep. Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez tweeted: “Rahm Emanuel helped cover up the murder of Laquan McDonald. Covering up a murder is disqualifying for public leadership.” Newly-elected Rep. Mondaire Jones added: “That he’s being considered for a Cabinet position is completely outrageous and, honestly, very hurtful.”

Emanuel’s 30-year campaign against pro-working-class policy reforms is unending. Asked last August what advice he would give the Biden administration, he told CNBC: “Two things I would say if I was advising an administration. One is there’s no new Green Deal, there’s no Medicare for All.”

If Rahm Emanuel becomes the ambassador to China or Japan — countries with the world’s second- and third-largest economies — he will gain new leverage in a region bristling with ethnic and military tensions. Everything about his record indicates that such power would be vested in the wrong hands.

Days after Biden’s election, Ocasio-Cortez told the New York Times that Emanuel’s inclusion in the Biden administration “would signal, I think, a hostile approach to the grassroots and the progressive wing of the party.”

We’ll soon find out whether Biden is willing to send such a signal.

Can we save American democracy, if it was never a democracy to begin with?

America has a democracy problem.

The Republican Party is an anti-majoritarian, anti-democratic and white supremacist organization. To that end Republicans and their allies have launched a nationwide campaign to stop Black and brown people — and any other groups likely to support the Democrats — from voting.

As Salon’s Igor Derysh reported earlier this month:

The Georgia House voted 97-72 along party lines to approve a bill that would limit Sunday voting to a single day, restrict mail ballot drop boxes to early voting locations, require voter ID for mail ballots, set the deadline for voters to request mail ballots to 11 days before the election, and cut the amount of time between general elections and runoffs from nine weeks to four. The bill would also ban nonprofits from helping fund elections, ban the state from sending out mail ballot applications that were not requested, restricts the use of mobile voting buses to emergency situations, and even bars anyone from giving free food and drinks to voters waiting in line. …

Former Democratic gubernatorial candidate Stacey Abrams said the Republican effort resembles “post-Reconstruction Jim Crow era laws.” Former Democratic National Committee chair Howard Dean agreed that the state’s Republicans responded to the election of its first Black senator and its first Jewish senator by “passing new Jim Crow voting laws.” …

Georgia’s extreme voting restriction push is the centerpiece of a national Republican push to shrink voter access after losing key elections amid record turnout. Lawmakers in 43 states have already rolled out more than 250 restrictive bills, according to an analysis by the Brennan Center for Justice.

On Tuesday, former President Jimmie Carter said the Republican Party’s war on democracy as seen in Georgia made him feel “disheartened, saddened and angry.”

The language used by Republicans and their allies to legitimate their collective war on democracy is an example of the way propaganda often involves accusing an enemy of precisely that which you yourself are doing. To that end, Donald Trump and his allies have spread the “Big Lie” that there was voting fraud in the 2020 presidential election when in fact any fraud was committed by them.

Moreover, Republican propaganda also involves a strategy of inversion, where “election integrity” and “protecting the vote” mean exactly the opposite: The only votes that should be counted are those cast by white Republicans.

Of course, voting matters. If it did not, the Republican Party and its allies would not be so desperate to stop black and brown people and other groups who overwhelming support the Democrats from voting.

But in these very important conversations and concerns, a fundamental question is not being asked: Is the United States really a democracy? Do we have a form of government, or a society, in which elected officials show respect to the (reasonable and reasoned) will of the people as broadly construed, are bound by the rule of law and the Constitution, and act in service to the common good?

Of particular note, there are institutional and structural subversions that prevent America from being a healthy representative democracy. Among these are the Electoral College, the design of the U.S. Senate, the abuse of the filibuster in that same institution, the geographical “sort” in which Democrats are concentrated in large metropolitan areas while Republicans are more dispersed ,and practices like gerrymandering and voter suppression that deliberately distort elections and defeat the popular will. These things have created a system in which the influence of a comparatively small number of Americans in “red states” have a wildly disproportionate influence on national politics.  

Civil rights and other watchdog organizations such as Freedom House have warned that since the beginning of the Trump regime the United States has increasingly succumbed to anti-democratic norms and values. Our nation is not yet a failed state, but is experiencing significant “democratic backsliding.” In one worst-case scenario, the United States is at substantial risk of succumbing to “competitive authoritarianism,” a system which appears to be “democratic” but where the dominant party has effectively rigged the outcome in its favor.

Political scientists Jacob Hacker and Paul Pierson have shown how Republicans have used “plutocratic populism” to undermine democracy, deploying white identity and “culture war” appeals to win over white voters in the service of advancing public policies that increase social inequality.

Political scientists Larry Bartels, Martin Gilens and Benjamin Page have demonstrated that federal representatives are largely unresponsive to the demands of most Americans and instead defer to the rich and powerful.

The Republican Party and the Trump movement have now embraced terrorism and other forms of political violence to obtain and hold power. As shown by public opinion polls and other research, white right-wing voters and those who share their values and beliefs are willing to overthrow American democracy in order to maintain their status as the dominant racial group in the country.

To further complicate matters, American democracy rests upon a foundation of white (male) supremacy where the boundaries of democracy itself were drawn along the color line. American democracy was conceived of by white elites (and others) as fundamentally defined by whiteness. People defined as “not white,” especially Black people, were explicitly — and then implicitly — excluded from membership in the polity.

Moreover, in America one’s distance from “blackness” has historically and remains a kind of stepladder or measuring stick to define a person’s capacity and eligibility for full and equal citizenship. 

In so many ways, the Republican Party and the white right’s efforts to create a new version of Jim Crow are very much in keeping with the worst aspects of the country’s past and present.

On issues such as COVID relief, gun control, health care, the environment, tax policy, military spending and the strength and breadth of the country’s social safety net, the genuine preferences of the American people are almost entirely ignored by the Republican Party. Although the Democrats are not behaving to the same extreme, they also are not fully responsive to the will of the American people because of the influence of corporate capital and the pernicious ideology of gangster capitalism (what others more benignly describe as “neoliberalism”). 

What can be done to make America a real democracy, in the best spirit of the concept?

For starters, Democrats in Congress must enact the For the People Act and the John Lewis Voting Rights Advancement Act. These laws are essential next steps for stopping the Republican assault on American democracy.

The Citizens United decision and other laws which enshrined money as a type of free speech must be reversed or overturned, almost certainly through legislative action. The influence of “dark money,” super PACs and other corrosive influences on the country’s electoral process and the responsiveness of elected officials must be greatly limited by campaign finance reform.

More important still, the United States needs a program of democratic renewal across the public sphere. This would include teaching the virtues of democracy by expanding civic education in the country’s schools, protecting unions and other spaces where positive collective action is cultivated, and subsidizing small and regional newspapers and other independent news media.

America’s social safety net must be expanded and strengthened. Minimum wage and other economic supports — especially a national living wage and affordable health care — should be substantially increased as a means of guaranteeing that the average American has more opportunities to enjoy their freedom and be a more engaged and active citizen.

The Republican Party and the neofascist Trump movement must be stopped — not just at the polls or through legislation but also through a full commitment to defending, renewing and expanding American democracy throughout society.

Ultimately, there must be a paradigm shift among the country’s political class that begins by accepting reality: The Republican Party’s long-term assault on American democracy is not “just” a political problem, but also a cultural problem. Failing to understand the crisis in those terms all but ensures that American neofascism will continue to grow, and likely will smother the country’s multiracial democracy in its infancy. If that happens, the consequences for the American people — and the entire population of the planet — will be dire. 

GOP’s new reality-warping message: Economic boom will have “nothing” to do with Biden stimulus

Just as President Joe Biden’s $1.9 trillion stimulus was clearing its last hurdle on Tuesday and passing the House, Republicans on Capitol Hill launched a PR campaign aimed at suppressing Democrats’ future ability to claim credit for a post-pandemic economic recovery.

GOP leaders, arguing that the massive relief measure was unnecessary, claimed that America’s recovery was already underway and that the Democrats’ sweeping package would only hinder — rather than hasten — the economy’s revival.

“The economy is coming back, people are getting vaccinated: We’re on the way out of this,” Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell, R-Ky., told reporters. “We’re about to have a boom. And if we do have a boom, it will have absolutely nothing to do with this $1.9 trillion.”

House Minority Leader Kevin McCarthy made a nearly identical argument — a clear indication these talking points had been carefully crafted.

“I believe the American people are going to see an American comeback this year, but it won’t be because of this liberal bill,” the California Republican said. “This bill won’t speed up our return to normal; it will only … burden future generations with unnecessary debt.”

Biden and Democrats will certainly take credit for speeding the recovery along — and already have, to some degree —even though the economy began to rally even before enactment of the latest stimulus. Economists and experts have indicated that while the legislation is likely to shorten the economy’s recovery time, its vast size certainly comes with risks.  

These messaging strategies are reminiscent of a decades-old approach that both political parties have used, seeking to turn economic crises to their advantage. To cite the most obvious example, although more Republican presidents have overseen recessions and more Democrats have overseen recoveries, blame can always be spun in either direction, depending on who’s doing the talking and how they want to slice up the data. 

Democrats of course chose to blame George W. Bush for the Great Recession of 2008, which began toward the end of his term, while Republicans — somewhat less plausibly — tried to pin the blame on Barack Obama. When the economy finally emerged from its deep slump toward the end of Obama’s tenure, Democrats cheered a victory while Republicans remained silent — until it was time to hail Donald Trump for record gains in the stock market.

This pattern is closely akin to the way Republicans rediscover their aversion to deficit spending whenever a Democrat moves back into 1600 Pennsylvania Avenue. Aside from hardcore budget hawks like Sens. Rand Paul of Kentucky and Mike Lee of Utah, conservatives appeared to forget about the deficit entirely under Trump. On his watch, the national debt continued to skyrocket, even before the pandemic arrived. Democrats have pointed to Trump’s tax cuts for corporations and the ultra-rich, which may cost roughly $2 trillion over the span of a decade — and despite conservative promises have not come close to paying for themselves — as the most dramatic evidence of GOP budget hypocrisy.

To absolutely no one’s surprise, weeks into Biden’s first term, Republicans are already calling on him to address the debt crisis that went unmentioned under his predecessor.

“I think one thing the Biden administration really has to focus on is the risk of what all this debt is going to do to us,” Sen. Rick Scott, R-Fla., who chairs the Senate Republicans’ campaign arm, told reporters.

John Dean: “It is only a matter of how many days” until district attorney indicts Trump

Former White House counsel for Richard Nixon, John Dean, explained to Anderson Cooper that the latest developments in Donald Trump’s legal drama are damaging.

Former Trump lawyer, Michael Cohen, told Reuters Wednesday that he’s been working with investigators. As Dean said on Twitter about the report, “you do not visit a prosecutor’s office seven times if they are not planning to indict those about whom you have knowledge.”

Cooper asked if it’s possible that investigators were “just fishing” for information in those meetings, but Dean said he doubted it.

“Well, not likely at this stage,” he said. “What they’re doing can be a couple of things. One is the prosecutors are trying to get familiar with the witness. More likely in this instance, because of the treasure trove of information they obtained evidence from a subpoena, is to get guidance and insight into what some of those documents mean, give them more people who might know about various affairs that are revealed by the documents. An insider, as I once was, can give insights that prosecutors can’t otherwise get. And that’s why you don’t — you’re not going to do this to find exculpatory evidence at this point. They are narrowing the case to see what they will bring against the president and possibly his family.”

Dean also noted that the investigators likely have copies of checks already and know who signed what. 

When it came to the new recordings of Trump calling Georgia officials and trying to twist them into delivering him a win in the state, Dean said that Trump could be in trouble.

“It’s a little reminiscent of Nixon leaning on people, in my memory bank, where he knows how far to go but not too far particularly when he’s on the phone and he knows he’s being recorded on some of those conversations,” Dean explained. “So, Trump doesn’t know he’s being recorded in this instance. And one of the telling things, Anderson, to me is the fact that these people were recording these calls. As I recall, it was in November, late November that Lindsey Graham denied that he’d had the conversations he’d had with the secretary of state in Georgia who had, in essence, said he called and told them to throw out ballots. And Graham denied that. After that, they started recording the calls. We don’t know how many calls.”

He noted that it was known that this call released Wednesday happened, but never heard what was said or the details, much less a recording. 

“There may be other calls that were recorded and what they’re looking for is part of the RICO case they’re developing now that the Fulton County prosecutor has hired the best expert in the state who helped her with a prior RICO case. RICO cases are very serious, Anderson. These are stack-on lots of penalties,” Dean said. “So, I think that’s the case they’re building. These phone calls that they have multiple records of now are going to be dynamite.”

You can watch the video below via Twitter

“Fox & Friends” host visits diner filled to capacity with maskless patrons: “This is freedom”

The Fox News morning show “Fox & Friends” visited a Texas diner that was filled to 100% capacity on Wednesday to celebrate Gov. Greg Abbott’s, R-Tx., decision to lift COVID-19 safety measures.

“Right now in Texas, these businesses can save themselves,” Fox News host Will Cain reported from the packed diner in McKinney, Texas. “Let me show you what 100% capacity looks like. This is freedom, right here.”

The camera then panned to show that no one was wearing a mask in the packed diner.

Cain asserted that the state had been “braindead to have locked down.”

“Here in Texas we probably closed down a little too tight,” one customer told the network.

“Think for yourself,” another customer agreed, “like Rush Limbaugh wanted us to. Think for yourself. Don’t do what Rush would do. Don’t do what you think Walt Disney would do. Do what you would do after you assess the situation. Think for yourself.”

Another man said that he was a former New York police officer who moved to Texas because “I like my guns and I lean a certain way and I came here to assimilate.”

You can watch the video below via YouTube

Evangelicals lost a major female leader over Trump supporter hypocrisy – will other women follow?

Beth Moore has been viewed for decades, as the “Evangelical Julia Roberts meets Oprah,” according to Anne Helen Peterson’s recent “Culture Study” newsletter. Moore has published over 20 Bible studies, and her Living Proof conferences drew thousands of women who would pack into stadiums to hear her speak about topics like insecurity, forgiveness and godliness. A 2008 simulcast of her speaking called “Living Proof Live” is estimated to have been watched by over 70,000 people at 715 locations. 

As a Southern Baptist, Moore established herself as a singular voice in a denomination that is dominated by male thought leaders, and offered a generation of evangelical women an opportunity to see themselves in her and through her work. Now, however, Moore has announced she’s breaking from the Southern Baptist Convention largely because as a sexual assault survivor, she couldn’t reconcile with evangelicals’ overwhelming, hypocritical support of Donald Trump. This raises the question of whether her followers, and other women, will follow suit. 

“I am still a Baptist, but I can no longer identify with Southern Baptists,” Moore told Religion News Service Tuesday. “I love so many Southern Baptist people, so many Southern Baptist churches, but I don’t identify with some of the things in our heritage that haven’t remained in the past.”

LifeWay Christian Resources, the publishing division of the Southern Baptist Convention which has published her books in the past, also confirmed the break with Moore.

The rift between Moore and the Southern Baptist Convention began in 2016, days after the Access Hollywood tape, in which former president Donald Trump bragged about grabbing women’s genitals without their consent. 

Moore tweeted at the time, “I’m one among many women sexually abused, misused, stared down, heckled, talked naughty to. Like we liked it. We didn’t. We’re tired of it.” 

She followed up by encouraging Christians to “wake up” to the environments of entitlement that women have had to navigate. “Are we sickened?” she tweeted. “Yes. Surprised? NO.” 

As she told Religion News Service, she was disheartened that Trump ascended to become “the banner, the poster child for the great white hope of evangelicalism, the salvation of the church in America.” She also expressed shock that he was so embraced by the denomination — one that has long contributed to and been guided by “purirty culture” — despite Trump’s cavalier attitudes towards sexual assault. 

However, if you’ve paid attention to news surrounding evangelical leaders over the last several years, it’s not surprising. In 2020, former Liberty University president Jerry Falwell Jr. tumbled into one scandal after another, before finally, officially plummeting from grace.  

It began in 2019 when, as Politico reported, former Trump attorney Michael Cohen helped “clean up racy ‘personal’ photographs” of Falwell’s wife, Becki, including one of her in a French maid costume, which Falwell had allegedly sent to a number of employees at his evangelical university. 

Then there were the photos of Falwell that surfaced last August, showing him with his pants partially unzipped and his arm around a woman whom he later claimed was his wife’s assistant. Two weeks later, he claimed that his wife had engaged in a “fatal attraction type” affair with Giancarlo Granda, a former pool attendant-turned-Miami businessman. Granda then released a statement of his own claiming that Falwell both knew of and observed his sexual relationship with Becki “from the corner of the room.” Later, he posted a statement on Twitter describing Falwell as a “predator,” who had sent Granda an image of a female Liberty University student exposing herself at their farm. 

The hypocrisy felt overwhelming, as students at Falwell’s university are all required to adhere to a strict code of conduct called “The Liberty Way,” which forbids premarital sex, same-sex relationships, alcohol and “obscene language,” while also requiring that students “dress modestly at all times.” 

It’s worth noting that Falwell was an adamant supporter of Trump, and that he wasn’t the only alleged predator. Since 1998, about 380 Southern Baptist leaders and volunteers have faced allegations of sexual misconduct, as the Houston Chronicle and the San Antonio Express-News reported in 2019. They also found that in the past 20 years, more than 700 victims have been abused, with some urged to have abortions and “forgive their abusers.” 

Their investigation came after, as I reported in 2018, there was a call to put together a register of “Southern Baptist clergy and staff who have been credibly accused of, personally confessed to, or legally been convicted of sexual harassment or abuse.”

Instances of sexual assault and hararssment are both enmeshed in the denomination’s fabric and rarely brought to light. Those who perpetuate the abuse rarely see consequences when it comes to their standing in the Convention. 

Take, for example, a 2018 case when the Southwestern Baptist Theological Seminary president Paige Patterson — a key figure in the denomination’s resurgence over the past decade — was fired when the board of trustees found that he had “lied about his treatment of an alleged rape victim in 2003, and that in 2015 he tried to meet, with no other officials present, with another woman who had reported a sexual assault so he could ‘break her down,'” according to the Washington Post.

Additionally, Tennessee megachurch pastor Andy Savage stepped down that year from his position after confessing to having had sexual contact 20 years ago with Jules Woodson, who was at the time a high school student in the group he led as youth pastor. While Savage describes his actions as a “sexual incident,” Woodson wrote that Savage drove her to a deserted back road, sexually assaulted her, then asked for forgiveness and pleaded with her “not to tell anyone what had just happened.”

Some congregants hoped these headline-grabbing incidents would cause change, and leaders spoke about said change broadly. 

“The #MeToo moment has come to American evangelicals,” wrote Albert Mohler, president of the flagship Southern Baptist Theological Seminary, on Facebook in 2018. “And I am called to deal with it as a Christian, as a minister of the Gospel, as a seminary and college president, and as a public leader.”

However, Southern Baptist support for Trump didn’t waver through his presidency, nor his attempt at re-election, and there’s a possibility that as key female figures like Beth Moore exit the denomination, other women may go with them — especially those who have been victimized by men in church leadership. 

There’s a growing precedent for women looking to leave the denomination. As Sarah Stankorb wrote in her piece “These Evangelical Women Are Abandoning Trump and Their Churches,” women all over the country were having crises of faith because male leadership supported “the thrice-married, profane, biblically illiterate, sexually predacious candidate [who] mirrored no beatitudes,” all while demanding their sexual purity. 

Purity culture wasn’t really about the sanctity of the family, but the subjugation of women, Rev. Carol Howard Merritt, minister and author of the 2018 book Healing Spiritual Wounds, told Stankorb. Women who had been taught not to even “front hug” male friends for fear of stirring their sinful sexual impulses watched as Donald Trump became entangled with evangelical culture. “He could go around talking about grabbing women by their pussies, but women were shamed for any sort of sexual act before marriage,” Howard Merritt says. “The hypocrisy of it just became massive.”

And that hypocrisy and sexism, combined with female leaders like Moore leaving the denomination, could cause an exodus of emboldened, like-minded women. 

Kate Bowler, a historian at Duke Divinity School who has studied evangelical women celebrities, said Moore’s departure is a significant loss for the Southern Baptist Convention. Bowler told the Religion News Service that Moore is one of the denomination’s few stand-alone women leaders, whose platform was based on her own “charisma, leadership and incredible work ethic” and not her marriage to a famed male pastor.

“Ms. Moore is a deeply trusted voice across the liberal-conservative divide, and has always been able to communicate a deep faithfulness to her tradition without having to follow the Southern Baptist’s scramble to make Trump spiritually respectable,” Bowler said. “The Southern Baptists have lost a powerful champion in a time in which their public witness has already been significantly weakened.”

I’m afraid of gaiter-wearers

Dear Pandemic Problems,

I was in the check-out line at the grocery store the other day, and the woman behind me was wearing a tie-dye neck gaiter as a mask. While she was supposed to be on the yellow tape line that demarcated six feet of distance between customers, as my groceries were being bagged she got closer and closer to me. But it wasn’t so much this lack of space that annoyed me. (I have also been that person in the grocery line who breached the mandated six feet of distance, too. It’s hard to do in grocery stores.) Rather, it was the fact that she was wearing a gaiter over her mouth, rather than a normal face mask. To me, that screamed that she wasn’t taking the pandemic seriously! Gaiter masks aren’t even masks, and have been shown to not work to block germs — and whenever I see people wearing them I feel like they’re putting all of our lives at risk. I debated if I should say something to her, but I didn’t want to be rude and to have some sort of dramatic stand-off with her in the grocery store. In truth, I wish I had. What if I’m not alone? What if other people feel uncomfortable when this person wears a gaiter mask, too?

My question to you, is next time I’m stuck in an indoor space with a person wearing a gaiter mask, should I ask them to leave? Or tell them that a gaiter mask isn’t very effective? Or should I just let them carry on with their business. What’s the right thing to do?

Signed,

Aggravated by Gaiters

Dear Aggravated by Gaiters,

I can feel your anger for the gaiter mask through my laptop screen. I hear you when you say that you don’t like when people wear gaiter masks. For the unaware, a neck gaiter mask is a thin single layer of fabric that is generally used as a casual face covering, often for keeping warm. The CDC recommends that a mask should have two or more layers of washable, breathable fabric that covers both your mouth and nose. Does it count if that fabric is hanging loosely, dangling like a dreamcatcher, over your face? Personally, I don’t think so.

But let’s look at the scientific facts about gaiters as masks. In August 2020, multiple outlets ran stories that suggested that wearing a gaiter mask could be worse than wearing no mask at all. No wonder why you think these are horrible and totally ineffective face coverings! The news outlets all covered a study published by researchers at Duke University which examined the effectiveness of different kinds of masks — ranging from cloth masks to surgical masks to gaiter masks. Researchers used a laser to create an ad hoc device to track individual particles released from a person’s mouth while speaking and wearing different kinds of masks, and found that the material of a neck gaiter mask produced more slightly more particles than their baseline of wearing no mask. Hence, the viral headlines, etched in our minds, that gaiter masks are bad — point blank.

But if you go back to some of those stories, like the one about neck gaiters that ran in The Washington Post, you’ll find a peculiar update:

“Since this story ran, more research has been done on gaiter efficacy. You can read about those new studies by aerosol scientists, who have pushed back against the characterization that thin gaiters may be “worse than nothing,” here.”

The truth is that gaiter masks are less effective than cloth masks and surgical masks. But are they worse than wearing no mask, as some headlines suggested back in 2020? No. Multiple studies have shown that something, anything, covering a person’s face is better than nothing at all. Duke University researchers have even pushed back at the claims, suggesting that their study was taken out of context.

In the situation at the grocery store, it’s understandable that being near someone wearing a gaiter mask is unnerving. but I encourage you to remember that if you’re wearing a good mask, that also reduces the chances of you being exposed to enough viral COVID-19 particles to get infected. Remember, we wear masks to protect ourselves and each other.

But then there’s the whole part of what wearing a gaiter says about a person’s character. It’s easy to assume that if a person is wearing a gaiter mask in a grocery store — which, though better than nothing, is certainly not the most effective face covering on the market — that person is engaging in high-risk activities outside the grocery store. Or as you say, assume that person doesn’t take the pandemic “seriously.” It’s easy for our brains to cycle through every worst-case scenario, and to tell yourself how this innocent trip to the grocery store is going to end in a severe case of COVID-19 for you — all because this person next to you wore a tie-dye gaiter mask! Admittedly, I’ve been through that anxiety spiral. Throughout the pandemic, we’ve become good at judging each other by our masks — what else is there to go by these days?

But it’s also possible that the story your mind creates about this person isn’t true. Have you considered that perhaps, the gaiter mask wearer forgot her N95 mask at home — and that’s the only face covering she had in the car?

Now, let’s get to your bigger question: the next time this happens, should you ask a gaiter-masker to leave? Or tell them that a gaiter mask isn’t very effective?

Aggravated by Gaiters, I know you want to do the “right thing.” I hear that you want to be a “good” person — perhaps even save fellow bystanders from the misery of being near the gaiter mask too. Since the start of the pandemic doing the “right thing” has become more challenging as we navigate new social norms.

Personally I don’t think you have the right to ask this person to leave a public space. If the grocery store requires face coverings, technically that’s a face covering. If that’s not up to par with the grocery store’s rules, it’s up to them to ask that person to leave and put a better mask on. However, if a person is in your home with a gaiter mask on — and you feel uncomfortable — I think you have the right to ask them to put on a more effective mask.

But ultimately, who wears gaiters and where they wear them is out of your control. Certainly this pandemic has shown us how lack of control can drive us all to the edge. But there is one person’s actions you can control: your own. I hate to sound like an Instagram therapist here, but I think your time is better spent focusing on what you can control. Maybe next time this happens, you can move to another line — or ask that person to maintain six feet distance from you. But I don’t think you can ask that person to leave or wear a different mask. I hear you’re afraid and these people make you so angry, but I’m not sure there’s anything you can do that doesn’t require you making the change first.

Finally, I would like to encourage you to show a little compassion for people — and for yourself. It’s been a hard year. Weird things make us tick. But I do want to believe most people are doing the best they can—even those who wear a gaiter as a makeshift mask. It’s better than no mask, after all.

“Pandemic Problems” is an advice column answering readers’ pandemic problems, sometimes with the help of moral philosophy professors and therapists, who can weigh in on how to “do the right thing.”  Do you have a “pandemic problem”? Email Nicole Karlis at nkarlis@salon.com. Peace of mind and collective commiseration awaits.