Spring Sale: Get 1 Year, Save 58%

Why the AstraZeneca/Oxford coronavirus vaccine could be a game-changer

Update: A representative from AstraZeneca notified Salon by email that the company “expects data from the US Phase III trial to be available in the coming weeks. Once available, we will provide it to the FDA.”

The World Health Organization (WHO) announced on Monday that it is approving for emergency use a COVID-19 vaccine developed by both pharmaceutical company AstraZeneca and Oxford University, a big step forward for both the manufacturers and the millions of people who might now be able to access protection from the novel coronavirus.

According to a statement by the WHO, it has approved the vaccine manufactured by the company in South Korea’s AstraZeneca-SKBio and the Serum Institute of India.

“We now have all the pieces in place for the rapid distribution of vaccines. But we still need to scale up production,” WHO director-general Tedros Adhanom Ghebreyesus told reporters during a news briefing. “We continue to call for COVID-19 vaccine developers to submit their dossiers to WHO for review at the same time as they submit them to regulators in high-income countries.”

The AstraZeneca/Oxford vaccine has had a bumpy road. In September the company had to address a “safety signal” during the Phase Three trial of its testing, or the phase shortly before a vaccine is released to the public during which its manufacturers “confirm and expand on safety and effectiveness results from Phase One and Two trials,” according to the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services. The company put a hold on its tests to address a serious neurological event that occurred with one of the patients on whom the vaccine was tested. Ultimately it was found that there was no connection between that event and the vaccine candidate, meaning the trial could resume.

By November AstraZeneca and Oxford had made enough progress developing their vaccine candidate that the prestigious medical journal The Lancet approved an article confirming that the vaccine was both safe and had produced a strong immune response in elderly patients. The AstraZeneca/Oxford vaccine is both cheaper and easier to distribute than those of many of its rivals, as the mRNA vaccines produced by Moderna and Pfizer need to be stored in subzero temperatures; the AstraZeneca/Oxford vaccine can be stored in normal refrigerator temperatures. As a result, the company states that its goal is to distribute 300 million doses of its vaccine to 145 countries — most of them poorer — within the first half of 2021. Because the company’s vaccine requires two doses, this would allow them to inoculate 150 million people.

The WHO also notably announced that it had convened a panel which felt that the vaccine can also be used in countries with the South African variant of the virus, B.1.351. This is an important development because the South African government earlier this month suspended the use of the AstraZeneca/Oxford vaccine because it claimed that the vaccine had failed to protect clinical trial volunteers from the mutated virus, which is more contagious.

The AstraZeneca/Oxford vaccine is an adenovirus-vectored vaccine, meaning that it uses a harmless version of the common cold virus that has been modified to be both weak and also contain a gene from the spike protein of SARS-CoV-2. The spike protein is what causes the little nubs that stick out from the coronavirus’ spherical center like the spines on a sea urchin. AstraZeneca/Oxford’s adenovirus-vectored vaccine helps the immune system recognize that protein and in that way build up antibodies to protect itself from developing COVID-19. By contrast, mRNA vaccines directly introduce a modified version of a single-stranded RNA molecule that complements one of the DNA strands in a gene into the bodies’ cells. This way the cells will produce proteins like those from the SARS-CoV-2 virus that can be recognized by the immune system as a threat and, likewise, help it build up an effective response to protect itself.

As of earlier this month, the AstraZeneca/Oxford vaccine has been approved for all adults in the European Union (EU) but has not received the same clearance in the United States (US).

Pandemic-fueled alcohol abuse creates wave of hospitalizations for liver disease

As the pandemic sends thousands of recovering alcoholics into relapse, hospitals across the country have reported dramatic increases in alcohol-related admissions for critical diseases like alcoholic hepatitis and liver failure.

Alcoholism-related liver disease was a growing problem even before the pandemic, with 15 million people diagnosed with the condition around the country, and with hospitalizations doubling over the past decade.

But the pandemic has dramatically added to the toll. Although national figures are not available, admissions for alcoholic liver disease at Keck Hospital of the University of Southern California were up 30% in 2020 compared with 2019, said Dr. Brian Lee, a transplant hepatologist who treats the condition in alcoholics. Specialists at hospitals affiliated with the University of Michigan, Northwestern University, Harvard University and Mount Sinai Health System in New York City said rates of admissions for alcoholic liver disease have leapt by up to 50% since March.

High levels of alcohol ingestion lead to a constellation of liver diseases due to toxic byproducts associated with the metabolism of ethanol. In the short term, these byproducts can trigger extensive inflammation that leads to hepatitis. In the long term, they can lead to the accumulation of fatty tissue, as well as the scarring characteristic of cirrhosis — which can, in turn, cause liver cancer.

Since the metabolism of alcohol varies among individuals, these diseases can show up after only a few months of heavy drinking. Some people can drink heavily without experiencing side effects for a long time; others can suffer severe immune reactions that rapidly send them to the hospital.

Leading liver disease specialists and psychiatrists believe the isolation, unemployment and hopelessness associated with covid-19 are driving the explosion in cases.

“There’s been a tremendous influx,” said Dr. Haripriya Maddur, a hepatologist at Northwestern Medicine. Many of her patients “were doing just fine” before the pandemic, having avoided relapse for years. But subject to the stress of the pandemic, “all of a sudden, [they] were in the hospital again.”

Across these institutions, the age of patients hospitalized for alcoholic liver disease has dropped. A trend toward increased disease in people under 40 “has been alarming for years,” said Dr. Raymond Chung, a hepatologist at Harvard University and president of the American Association for the Study of Liver Disease. “But what we’re seeing now is truly dramatic.”

Maddur has also treated numerous young adults hospitalized with the jaundice and abdominal distension emblematic of the disease — a pattern she attributes to the pandemic-era intensification of economic struggles faced by the demographic. At the same time these young adults may be entering the housing market or starting a family, entry-level employment, particularly in the vast, crippled hospitality industry, is increasingly hard to come by. “They have mouths to feed and bills to pay, but no job,” she said, “so they turn to booze as the last coping mechanism remaining.”

Women may be suffering disproportionately from alcoholic liver disease during the pandemic because they metabolize alcohol at slower rates than men. Lower levels of the enzyme responsible for degrading ethanol leads to higher levels of the toxin in the blood and, in turn, more extensive organ damage in women than in men who drink the same amount. (The CDC recommends that women have one drink or less per day, compared with two or fewer for men.)

Socially, the “stress of the pandemic has, in some ways, particularly targeted women,” said Dr. Jessica Mellinger, a hepatologist at the University of Michigan. Lower wages, less job stability and the burdens of parenting tend to fall more heavily on women’s shoulders, she said.

“If you have all of these additional stressors, with all of your forms of support gone — and all you have left is the bottle — that’s what you’ll resort to,” Mellinger said. “But a woman who drinks like a man gets sicker faster.”

Nationwide, more adults are turning to the bottle during the pandemic: One study found rates of alcohol consumption in spring 2020 were up 14% compared with the same period in 2019 and drinkers consumed nearly 30% more than in pre-pandemic months. Unemployment, isolation, lack of daily structure and boredom all have increased the risk of heightened alcohol use.

“The pandemic has brought out our uneasy relationship with alcohol,” said Dr. Timothy Fong, an addiction psychiatrist at UCLA. “We’ve welcomed it into our homes as our crutch and our best friend.”

These relapses, and the hospitalizations they cause, can be life-threatening. More than 1 in 20 patients with alcohol-related liver failure die before leaving the hospital, and alcohol-related liver disease is the leading cause for transplantation.

The disease also makes people more susceptible to covid: Patients with liver disease die of covid at rates three times higher than those without it, and alcohol-associated liver disease has been found to increase the risk of death from covid by an additional 79% to 142%.

Some physicians, like Maddur, are concerned the stressors leading to increased alcohol consumption and liver disease may stretch well into the future — even after lockdowns lift. “I think we’re only on the cusp of this,” she said. “Quarantine is one thing, but the downturn of the economy, that’s not going away anytime soon.”

Others, like Lee, are more optimistic — albeit cautiously. “The vaccine is coming to a pharmacy near you, covid-19 will end, and things will begin to get back to normal,” he said. “But the real question is whether public health authorities decide to act in ways that combat [alcoholic liver disease].

“Because people are just fighting to cope day to day right now.”

This story was produced by KHN, which publishes California Healthline, an editorially independent service of the California Health Care Foundation.

Subscribe to KHN’s free Morning Briefing.

Secession and power outages: Why does Texas have its own electrical grid?

This story was originally published in 2011. If you’re looking for the latest updates on the February 2021 winter storm, head over to our homepage or follow us on Twitter.

Why does Texas have its own electric grid?

Texas’ secessionist inclinations have at least one modern outlet: the electric grid. There are three grids in the Lower 48 states: the Eastern Interconnection, the Western Interconnection — and Texas.

The Texas grid is called ERCOT, and it is run by an agency of the same name — the Electric Reliability Council of Texas. ERCOT does not actually cover all of Texas. El Paso is on another grid, as is the upper Panhandle and a chunk of East Texas. This presumably has to do with the history of various utilities’ service territories and the remoteness of the non-ERCOT locations (for example the Panhandle is closer to Kansas than to Dallas, notes Kenneth Starcher of the Alternative Energy Institute in Canyon), but Texplainer is still figuring out the particulars on this.

The separation of the Texas grid from the rest of the country has its origins in the evolution of electric utilities early last century. In the decades after Thomas Edison turned on the country’s first power plant in Manhattan in 1882, small generating plants sprouted across Texas, bringing electric light to cities. Later, particularly during the first world war, utilities began to link themselves together. These ties, and the accompanying transmission network, grew further during the second world war, when several Texas utilities joined together to form the Texas Interconnected System, which allowed them to link to the big dams along Texas rivers and also send extra electricity to support the ramped-up factories aiding the war effort.

The Texas Interconnected System — which for a long time was actually operated by two discrete entities, one for northern Texas and one for southern Texas — had another priority: staying out of the reach of federal regulators. In 1935, President Franklin D. Roosevelt signed the Federal Power Act, which charged the Federal Power Commission with overseeing interstate electricity sales. By not crossing state lines, Texas utilities avoided being subjected to federal rules. “Freedom from federal regulation was a cherished goal — more so because Texas had no regulation until the 1970s,” writes Richard D. Cudahy in a 1995 article, “The Second Battle of the Alamo: The Midnight Connection.” (Self-reliance was also made easier in Texas, especially in the early days, because the state has substantial coal, natural gas and oil resources of its own to fuel power plants.)

ERCOT was formed in 1970, in the wake of a major blackout in the Northeast in November 1965, and it was tasked with managing grid reliability in accordance with national standards. The agency assumed additional responsibilities following electric deregulation in Texas a decade ago. The ERCOT grid remains beyond the jurisdiction of the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission, which succeeded the Federal Power Commission and regulates interstate electric transmission.

Historically, the Texas grid’s independence has been violated a few times. Once was during World War II, when special provisions were made to link Texas to other grids, according to Cudahy. Another episode occurred in 1976 after a Texas utility, for reasons relating to its own regulatory needs, deliberately flipped a switch and sent power to Oklahoma for a few hours. This event, known as the “Midnight Connection,” set off a major legal battle that could have brought Texas under the jurisdiction of federal regulators, but it was ultimately resolved in favor of continued Texan independence.

Even today, ERCOT is also not completely isolated from other grids — as was evident  when the state imported some power from Mexico during the rolling blackouts of 2011. ERCOT has three ties to Mexico and — as an outcome of the “Midnight Connection” battle — it also has two ties to the eastern U.S. grid, though they do not trigger federal regulation for ERCOT. All can move power commercially as well as be used in emergencies, according to ERCOT spokeswoman Dottie Roark. A possible sixth interconnection project, in Rusk County, is being studied, and another ambitious proposal, called Tres Amigas, would link the three big U.S. grids together in New Mexico, though Texas’ top utility regulator has shown little enthusiasm for participating.

Bottom line: Texas has its own grid to avoid dealing with the feds.

A lesson from Trump’s acquittal: Bipartisanship won’t save democracy — Democrats must fight the GOP

On the last day of the impeachment trial, Democrats fumbled such that it felt a parody of their storied political ineptitude. After the Senate voted to hear from witnesses in Donald Trump’s trial for inciting an insurrection, Trump-loyalist Republicans, like Sen. Lindsey Graham of South Carolina, started issuing threats to drag the trial out for months. Even though it would have been easy to call the Republicans’ bluff — it’s highly unlikely that Republicans would want this embarrassing impeachment to dominate headlines for months — Democratic House managers quickly scrambled to call a mulligan on the 55-45 vote for witnesses, overruling the actual vote in order to cancel any live testimony. Despite Democrats doing a huge favor to Republicans by minimizing the political pain of the trial, however, 43 of 50 Republicans still voted to acquit Trump in the face of his undeniable guilt. 

Many progressives erupted in outrage, correctly believing that not only was witness testimony inherently useful for illustrating Trump’s guilt to the public but that by dangling out the possibility and then yanking it away, Democrats ensured that the coverage would be muddied by a narrative about their own cowardice, instead of about GOP complicity. (This proved to be true.) But the pushback from other liberals came hard and fast, with those supporting the decision arguing that since the GOP acquittal of Trump was inevitable, there was no point wasting time with witnesses. (Those of us arguing in favor of calling witnesses understand that GOP senators weren’t persuadable, to be clear, but believe calling witnesses was about messaging to the voters.) Plus, Democratic defenders argued, the Senate really needs to focus on legislation, if there’s any hope of fixing America’s problems and turning back the tide of Trumpism. 

But it’s wrong to believe that the pro-witness side is indifferent to legislation, much less that they’re somehow valuing their own desire for impeachment drama over the hard work of passing bills. On the contrary, they are concerned about a repeat of Barack Obama’s first term, where Republicans exploited the desire for “bipartisanship” to mire Democrats with go-nowhere “negotiations” designed to run out the clock. Moreover, they’re worried that Democrats are easily cowed by Republican threats, and will therefore never get rid of the filibuster that Republicans will use to destroy any meaningful legislation. 

In other words, it’s because they’re so worried about passing bills that pro-witness progressives were so outraged. Caving on the witness question is a scary sign that Democrats have not learned, after all this time, to stand up to Republicans. And there’s no chance of passing much meaningful legislation if Democrats don’t grow a spine. As pro-witness journalist Brian Beutler of Crooked Media said: 

The grim reality here is that the reason Republicans voted to acquit Trump is not that they are “afraid” of their pro-insurrectionist base, a bit of common Beltway wisdom that allows Republicans off the hook for their own complicity.  It’s because most Republican leadership agrees with Trump’s anti-democratic goals, even if some, like Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell, are uneasy about the violence of Trump’s methods. 


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


Using Trump’s lies about “election fraud” as cover, Republicans in 28 states have introduced more than 100 bills meant to bar Democratic voters from the polls, usually with restrictions that make it harder for working-class people or people living in racially diverse cities to vote. “You can draw a pretty straight line between the baseless and racist accusations of voter fraud and the kinds of bills we’re seeing introduced,” explained Hannah Klain, a Brennan Center fellow, who co-authored an analysis of the new bills. In other words, far from being offended by Trump’s coup, Republicans are exploiting it to justify further efforts to gut democracy. 

“Democrats must accept the full implications of the GOP’s ongoing and intensifying radicalization,” Greg Sargent of the Washington Post wrote Saturday. He points to “the House and Senate bills that would expand voting rights” and “place limits on counter-majoritarian tactics such as voter suppression and gerrymandering” as a way to fight back against the Trump-emboldened Republican party’s escalating war on democracy. 

The bills are good. However, Republicans will obstruct the bills in the same way they obstructed impeachment trial witnesses, by making threats and laying guilt trips on Democrats to prevent Democrats from nuking the filibuster. Despite their feints about “bipartisanship” and “unity”, Republicans will turn around and cram through every law they can, first on a state level and then federally when they regain power, to prevent Democrats from winning free and fair elections. This may, in fact, be the very last chance Democrats have of having enough power to save democracy, since Republicans are moving swiftly to take it away. 

What’s frustrating is that none of this has to happen. Democrats have enough power at this moment to save democracy, pass necessary legislation, and otherwise reverse course rather than let the country be remade in Trump’s image. They just have to admit that Republicans are irredeemable and do what it takes to go around them. While the coronavirus relief bill can pass with a 51-50 vote through budget reconciliation, the bills that are most needed to pull the country out of a nosedive will be forever blocked by Republicans, unless Democrats suck it up and get rid of the filibuster. Yes, even if it hurts Republican feelings and causes high-pitched whining on “Meet the Press”. 

Prior to the impeachment trial, there were some heartening signs that Democrats had finally learned the lesson of 2009, which is that negotiating with Republicans is a fool’s game. Senate Majority Leader Chuck Schumer was making reassuring noises to reporters about how their “North Star has to be the legislation itself,” and insisting that they were taking the filibuster-nuking option seriously. The Democratic holdouts were reported to be Sen. Joe Manchin of West Virginia and Sen. Kyrsten Sinema of Arizona, who were still stuck on the idea of “bipartisanship” and unwilling to accept that Republicans who are complicit with a violent insurrection aren’t the kind of people you can work with on bills. But the hope was that Democratic leadership, with this newfound understanding of political realities, would be able to push Manchin and Sinema in the right direction. 


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


It should be understandable, then, that progressives are terrified, seeing Democrats cave on something as simple as calling witnesses at a trial. It was the first big test of Democrat spine strength, and they failed in a spectacularly embarrassing way. If they can’t keep it together on something as simple as witness testimony, how on earth will Democrats be able to withstand Republicans making similar threats to protect the filibuster? 

Democrats failed their first big test. They cannot afford to fail anymore. It’s crucial for democracy, but also to save their own skins. As Ezra Klein wrote last month in the New York Times, Democrats only have “[t]wo years to prove that the American political system can work.” If they fail — which will happen if they don’t start standing up to Republicans, the Democratic voting base will get disillusioned and voting rates will drop again. Republicans will then seize power again. Next time Republicans are in charge, they will not hesitate to ram through their anti-democratic agenda and make sure Democrats never have a chance at the brass ring again. That’s because Republicans, unlike Democrats, aren’t worried about “bipartisanship” or fearful of pushback from their political opponents. 

Courage is not a finite resource that runs out if you use it too much. Courage is a muscle that needs to be exercised. Hopefully it’s not too late for Democrats to start strengthening their resolve, but they must get cracking. The time to stiffen spines and save democracy is swiftly running out. 

“We did not send him there to do the right thing”: Republicans censured for voting to convict Trump

Nearly every Republican senator who voted to convict former President Donald Trump is facing censure from their state parties, underscoring the twice-impeached former president’s ongoing hold over the GOP.

Seven Republican senators joined with all 50 members of the Democratic caucus in the unsuccessful 57-43 vote last weekend, but Sen. Mitt Romney of Utah — whose distaste for Trump is nothing new — appears to be the lone Republican not facing censure from his state’s Republican Party. The public rebukes highlight the party’s loyalty to the former president even after Senate Republican Leader Mitch McConnell, R-Ky., declared Trump “practically and morally responsible” for inciting a mob of his supporters to hunt lawmakers through the halls of Congress, killing five people and injuring dozens of others.

Sen. Richard Burr, R-N.C., became the latest Republican to be censured on Monday as the North Carolina GOP voted unanimously to rebuke the retiring senator over his “guilty” vote.

“We felt it was important for the party to make a statement that we disagree with the vote,” North Carolina Republican chairman Michael Whatley told the Charlotte News & Observer. “The overwhelming sentiment was disapproval of the senator’s vote.”

Burr countered that it was a “truly sad day” for the state’s Republicans.

“My party’s leadership has chosen loyalty to one man over the core principles of the Republican Party and the founders of our great nation,” he said in a statement.

Burr, who had previously voted twice that the trial was unconstitutional, ultimately concluded that Trump was “guilty of inciting an insurrection against a coequal branch of government.”

Sen. Lindsey Graham, R-S.C., a close Trump ally, cited Burr’s vote in an interview with Fox News over the weekend to claim that Trump daughter-in-law Lara Trump is the “biggest winner” from the impeachment trial because it may help her possible 2022 Senate campaign in North Carolina. Burr announced he would not seek re-election after stepping down as the head of the Senate Intelligence Committee amid scrutiny into stock trades he made after receiving private briefings on the coronavirus pandemic early in the outbreak.

The Pennsylvania Republican Party plans to meet this week to discuss censuring Sen. Pat Toomey, R-Pa., for his “guilty” vote. Several county GOP committees have already voted to censure the retiring senator.

“We did not send him there to vote his conscience. We did not send him there to do ‘the right thing’ or whatever he said he was doing,” Dave Ball, the chairman of the Washington County GOP, told Pittsburgh news outlet KDKA. “We sent him there to represent us.”

Toomey ripped into Trump ahead of his vote for the ex-president’s “dishonest, systemic” effort to push false claims about the election.

“He urged the mob to march on the Capitol for the explicit purpose of preventing Congress and the vice president from formally certifying the results of the presidential election,” he said.

Sen. Lisa Murkowski, R-Alaska, also faces a potential rebuke from the state’s GOP after Republicans in more than a half-dozen state districts voted to censure her over the vote. The Alaska Republican central committee does not meet until mid-March. Murkowski is the only Republican who voted to convict Trump who will face re-election next year. Alaska politics have an ornery streak — Murkowski herself was once elected as a write-in candidate — but Trump carried the state by double digits.

“If I can’t say what I believe that our president should stand for, then why should I ask Alaskans to stand with me?” she told Politico. “This was consequential on many levels, but I cannot allow the significance of my vote to be devalued by whether or not I feel that this is helpful for my political ambitions.”

The Maine Republican Party is also discussing a censure for longtime Sen. Susan Collins, who was easily re-elected last November in what was expected to be a close race. Maine GOP chair Demi Kouzounas told party members over the weekend “to be prepared for an emergency state committee meeting in the near future” to discuss Collins’ vote, according to the Bangor Daily News.

Collins defended her vote, arguing that the Capitol riot “was the culmination of a steady stream of provocations by President Trump.”

“My vote in this trial stems from my own duty to defend the Constitution of the United States,” she said. “The abuse of power and betrayal of his oath by President Trump meet the constitutional standard of high crimes and misdemeanors.”

The Nebraska GOP is also planning to vote on a censure motion in response to Sen. Ben Sasse’s guilty vote. Censure has already been approved by some county Republican parties. Sasse ripped the party in response to reports about the vote.

“Let’s be clear: The anger in this state party has never been about me violating principle or abandoning conservative policy — I’m one of the most conservative voters in the Senate — the anger’s always been simply about me not bending the knee to one guy,” he said in a video. He added, “Let’s be clear about why this is happening: It’s because I still believe — as you used to — that politics isn’t about the weird worship of one dude.”

The Louisiana GOP voted to censure Sen. Bill Cassidy on the same day as his guilty vote, condemning his decision “in the strongest possible terms.” Cassidy, who was re-elected last year, defended his vote on Saturday.

“Our Constitution and our country is more important than any one person,” he said in a video posted to Twitter. “I voted to convict President Trump because he is guilty.”

The Wyoming GOP has also voted to censure Rep. Liz Cheney, R-Wyo., in response to her vote to impeach Trump. Cheney later survived a push by Trump loyalists to remove her from her House leadership position.

A petition has also circulated in Utah to call for the state party to censure Romney, who last year became the first senator to vote to remove a sitting president of his own party during Trump’s first impeachment trial. But Utah GOP chairman Derek Brown said the party has no plans to rebuke the senator.

The party said in a statement that the state’s senators experienced the Capitol riot firsthand and Romney ultimately voted differently than fellow Utah Sen. Mike Lee.

“Disagreement is natural and healthy in a party that is based on principles — not on persona,” the statement said. “We look neither to the past, nor to be punitive.”

Though most of the Republican senators who voted to convict Trump are insulated from near-term primary challenges, they do not appear concerned about Trump’s plans to wage a campaign against any and all Republicans who he feels betrayed him.

“It was a bipartisan vote. It was the biggest bipartisan vote there ever was,” Toomey told CNN. “And a majority of senators believed that he was guilty. Not the two-thirds necessary to actually convict by our constitutional standards, but that is an extremely powerful rebuke. And that doesn’t go away. And the American people are aware of what he did.”

Pelosi announces bipartisan support to launch investigative commission into Capitol riot

House Speaker Nancy Pelosi, D-CA, announced on Monday that Congress will be assembling a ‘9/11-style’ independent commission to investigate “the facts and causes” of the Capitol riot after Senate Republicans blocked the conviction of Donald Trump for his role in exhorting the riotous mob that descended upon Congress on Jan 6. 

The move comes on the heels of Trump’s acquittal at his second Senate impeachment trial, during which he was tried for incitement of an insurrection. Pelosi said in her letter to Congress, “It is clear from his findings and from the impeachment trial that we must get to the truth of how this happened.”

The commission, Pelosi said, will be modeled after the 9/11 Commission established in 2002, and is expected to require legislation for its approval.

“To protect our security,” Pelosi stated, “our next step will be to establish an outside, independent 9/11-type Commission to ‘investigate and report on the facts and causes relating to the January 6, 2021 domestic terrorist attack upon the United States Capitol Complex…and relating to the interference with the peaceful transfer of power, including facts and causes relating to the preparedness and response of the United States Capitol Police and other Federal, State, and local law enforcement in the National Capitol Region.'”

The House Speaker added that a security review for the Capitol, led by retired U.S. army general Russel Honoré –– who coordinated the military’s response to Hurricane Katrina in 2005 –– will be initiated to take stock of how the Capitol Police can better shore up security in case of future attacks. Pelosi specifically signaled support for directing more federal money toward Capitol security. “We must put forth a supplemental appropriation to provide for the safety of Members and the security of the Capitol,” she said. 

Chief among the Commission’s questions will be why the Capitol was not guarded adequately by its police force when members of right-wing radical groups were explicitly publicizing their intent to raid the building online. The Capitol Police were, in fact, warned by several Democratic lawmakers that such an insurgency might take place. Even the FBI had issued a bulletin warning that Trump supporters were traveling Capitol Hill to commit “violence and war.” 

The Commission, something of an extension of Trump’s impeachment trial, is backed with bipartisan supportEarlier this month, Pelosi emphasized that the Commission will comprise a more diverse body of experts than the commission following 9/11. The House Speaker also noted that no current members of Congress will take part. 

“There’s still more evidence that the American people need and deserve to hear and a 9/11 commission is a way to make sure that we secure the Capitol going forward,” said Sen. Chris Coons, D-DE, “And that we lay bare the record of just how responsible and how abjectly violating of his constitutional oath President Trump really was.”

Sen. Lindsey Graham, R-SC, who voted for Trump’s acquittal, despite acknowledging the fact that Trump directly contributed to the insurgency, said, “His behavior after the election was over the top,” adding, “We need a 9/11 commission to find out what happened and make sure it never happens again.”

“There should be a complete investigation about what happened,” said Sen. Bill Cassidy, R-LA, one of seven GOP senators who voted to convict Trump, “What was known, who knew it and when they knew, all that, because that builds the basis so this never happens again.”

Giuliani may need contact criminal defense lawyers, state attorney says amid election meddling probe

Appearing on MSNBC’s ” Morning Joe,” the state attorney for Palm Beach said Sen. Lindsey Graham (R-SC) is likely off the hook for charges of tampering with Georgia’s election results, but former New York City Mayor Rudy Giuliani better get a lawyer quick.

Speaking with “Morning Joe” contributor Katty Kay, attorney Dave Aronberg claimed there was not enough evidence in the case against Graham, who called Georgia Secretary of State Brad Raffensperger to inquire about vote totals, and it would probably be impossible to get an indictment — much less a conviction.

Giuliani, on the other hand, could be facing more legal peril in Georgia.

“Right now, I think the most that the prosecutor can do is open a criminal investigation, but I don’t think it’s going to go anywhere,” Aronberg stated. “Interestingly, I think there is a great chance of filing charges against Rudy Giuliani, because he made false statements to local and state governmental bodies. And the DA in Atlanta said that she is expanding her investigation to include the making of false statements.”

“She didn’t say Rudy by name, but we know who she was referring to,” he continued. “When he went before the state Senate committee in Atlanta, which is in DA Willis’ district, and said there are 10,000 dead people who voted or there are suitcases full of fake ballots that have been counted — that’s the kind of stuff that can get you a pair of handcuffs. So, if you are Rudy Giulani, you might want to start to butt-dialing criminal defense lawyers, because he might need them.”

You can watch the video below via YouTube:

Can companies be held accountable for problematic supply chains in chocolate, coffee and more?

Commodity crops of the world — cocoa, palm oil, sugar cane, tea among them — share a similar suite of human and environmental injustices. Largely grown in the global south by impoverished smallholder farmers with no power in the supply chain, the purchase of these crops by multinational food and beverage corporations — to make your chocolate bars, cookies and more — supports lack of living wages, child/forced/forced child labor, sexual assault, and rampant deforestation.

Abuses have been reported for years and in some cases, decades, with little to no progress to show for them, despite corporate promises to improve and third-party certification schemes that were meant — and yet fail — to monitor these industries. Child slavery in the West African cocoa sector has been found to have worsened in the two decades since the Harkin-Engel Protocol was signed to improve it;  The New York Times reported in 2019 on U.S. sugar industry retaliation against farmers, and last year Florida residents were still decrying polluting burn-offs on local cane fields, according to the Miami Herald; a 2020 AP investigation found evidence of rape and other abuses in the palm oil trade; and studies continue to emerge that track massive tropical deforestation to clear land for commodity crops.

Things aren’t much better in the coffee sector. Just over a year ago, Reuters concluded a six-month investigation of slave labor on Brazilian plantations, for example.

This past December, the Supreme Court heard arguments about whether a much weakened 1789 law called the Alien Tort Statute [ATS] “that lets non-U.S. citizens seek damages in American courts in certain instances,” according to Reuters, could be used as the basis of a case against American company Cargill and an American subsidiary of Swiss company Nestlé, holding them accountable for child slave labor in cocoa. It’s just the beginning of the process; by June, SCOTUS will decide whether or not a trial can move forward. We wondered if this case, in its attempt to hold cocoa companies accountable for egregious behaviors taking place in their name, would have implications for other commodity crops, including coffee. And if not, what actions, if any, might finally begin to curtail the tide of abuses in this sector.

To find out, we spoke to Irit Tamir, Director of Oxfam America’s Private Sector Department, which filed an amicus brief in the SCOTUS cases involving Cargill and Nestlé; Charity Ryerson, director of the Corporate Responsibility Lab, which works to find legal avenues to hold corporations to account for human rights abuses, and which filed two amicus briefs in the SCOTUS cases; and Kaitlin Cordes, lead of Human Rights and Investment at the Columbia Center on Sustainable Investment, which in 2019 released a report titled Ensuring Economic Viability and Sustainability of Coffee Production. Their answers, from three separate conversations, have been edited for clarity and length.

What’s your role in the cases now before SCOTUS?

Irit Tamir: Oxfam filed an amicus brief addressing the economic arguments Nestlé and Cargill made — namely, that if we hold them to account [for human rights violations] the doors will flood open and we will destroy the competitive nature that U.S. companies have abroad. ATS is supposed to ensure that U.S. companies are held to account in the U.S., but when it comes to their supply chains in other countries, we feel that when it’s something as aggressive as forced labor — effectively, slavery — countries need to be able to hold companies accountable and victims need the opportunity to get a remedy.

Charity Ryserson: We submitted two briefs, on behalf of Tony’s Chocolonely and 19 small chocolate companies which say that insofar as practices like labor trafficking are tolerated and there are no consequences, that’s a disadvantage to the “good” guys.

Could a ruling against Nestlé and Cargill here apply to coffee?

Tamir: Many agricultural commodities suffer from similar conditions. That is, people mostly living in poverty who work as smallholder farmers or agricultural workers; women in particular are often at the bottom rung of these supply chains. These are extractive business models that are notorious for egregious human rights violations and there are opportunities for other commodity sectors to be on alert. For so long, victims of human rights abuses have failed to get a remedy in many awful situations, so it would be a glimmer of hope if the [SCOTUS] case could move forward. But a trial would still have to take place and the victims would still have to prove their case in terms of forced labor.

Ryerson: The Nestlé case was brought under the Alien Tort Statute, which only permits claims for certain egregious human rights abuses, including torture, extrajudicial killing, genocide, and in this case, trafficking. While there are many human rights violations taking place in coffee supply chains, a finding in favor of the plaintiffs in this case would only impact coffee workers who were exposed to that level of abuse. Most of the abuses in the coffee sector arise from extreme poverty and exploitation, which do not rise to the level of abuse this statute covers. So even a good decision here won’t do much for the type of exploitation we see in the coffee sector.

Do you think SCOTUS will rile in favor of ATS?

Kaitlin Cordes: Even if U.S. courts don’t [uphold corporate accountability], it’s possible other court systems might evolve in a way that’s a useful tool for corporate accountability. There’s a patchwork of legal requirements and voluntary standards for due diligence that are coming out of the EU [and individual countries] and if they become standard, they might trickle out beyond the EU for any U.S. company that [does business there].

What would that look like?

Tamir: The U.N.’s Guiding Principles for Business and Human Rights talks about human rights due diligence; a number of EU countries are looking at putting mandatory human rights due diligence into law. Essentially, that means companies need to engage with the people that work in their supply chains — workers and farmers and particularly women — to understand how their business might be driving human rights impacts through sourcing, marketing, pricing, business relationships, the way they do contracting. Coffee would certainly benefit from such an effort.

Cordes: There’s so much exploitation built into the system, of producers, workers, the environment; we have this entire food system predicated on exploitation. The coffee price crisis over the last few years was so devastating for coffee producers. A huge amount of them were pushed into extreme poverty because of the incredibly low prices paid. There was increased child labor, worse working conditions, migration out of producer countries; people couldn’t survive on coffee production anymore. The coffee sector was doing a lot of public hand wringing but not offering a lot of specific solutions. Coffee, cocoa, tea, rubber, all these commodities pit smallholder farmers against a global system that doesn’t value what they provide. There are huge power asymmetries with powerful actors that manage to be incredibly profitable while saying they are unable to make any changes to how they do business.

For our coffee [research] project, we put forward the idea of a Global Coffee Fund, recognizing that to make the coffee sector truly sustainable, there was a lot more investment needed. We calculated how much that would cost and came up with $10 billion a year, $2.5 billion of which would come from the industry itself. That proved a sticking point for everybody in coffee, even though you can see how profitable some companies are and that amount only equates to half of one U.S. penny per cup of coffee consumed. So, we said if they were not willing to pay into a fund, we would like to see evidence of concrete action they’re taking to otherwise support producers and ensure proper working conditions: eradicating child and forced labor in supply chains, paying higher prices [for beans], building longer-term relationships with fixed-price contracts to help producers survive when prices are low.

Ryerson: Companies could enter into five-year contracts that are farmer-friendly that say, We will pay you this much [for beans]. If the price rises above X, we will pay you this much more; if it dips below, we will still pay this amount. That way the farmer knows he will always have a customer and can make rational decisions about what to invest in. It’s so basic and nobody does it.

Has anything improved at all in commodity crops, or coffee in particular? 

Ryerson: If you look at West Africa and cocoa, [governments] created cartels and boards to establish a price. It’s the right direction; the prices are still too low but at least they’re trying to find way to buffer the farmer from a volatile commodity price. But low wage laborers get hourly wages that have nothing to do with how good their farming is; there’s no relationship between what they do and what they earn. Lots of companies decry child labor and farmer poverty and say on their websites “We’re doing all these things.” But those things are usually educational programs: teaching farmers to use better techniques or diversify their crops, but the price is too damn low, they can’t live off the land, they planted a tree and waited three to five years for it to mature — they made that investment and can’t shift.

Tamir: Too often we see companies on the one hand trying to eliminate forced labor, and on other hand opposed to policies to raise wages, allow collective bargaining and unionization, price increases — things that mitigate and prevent forced labor. Companies have to be willing to hand over some power to stakeholders in the supply chain.

Cordes: I was recently reading a Guardian article about the coffee price crisis in the early 2000s and the companies’ response at time was, This is not our issue, we can’t do anything about it. Then I look at the price crisis in the last couple of years and see that consumers are more aware of a lot of the issues; climate change is creating an existential crisis for humanity and the agricultural community as well. Maybe we’re getting to the right combination of factors that could lead to change. For example, Mars and Unilever have committed to living incomes for farmers in their supply chains, which shows that at some companies are willing to grapple with that responsibility.

Where does that leave consumers grappling with often-empty promises of certification/labeling schemes?

Tamir: Companies hoped that third party certification could help get them out of a fix. But a very, very small percentage of purchasing happens under these certification programs, so even if they were able to solve the problem, which they can’t, certification cannot [replace] a company’s responsibility.

Ryerson: The model is flawed because certification is paid for by the companies, so they have a natural incentive to push down standards. Fair Trade started in coffee and did a good job initially. I used to monitor Central American coffee farms and I’d find some farmers were doing well: still in poverty but getting a fair price, their kids went to school and all had shoes; it was a low but decent standard of living. Then Fair Trade expanded into other industries and with the pressure to produce more certifications, it got watered down beyond recognition. The best alternative model is what the Worker-Driven Social Responsibility Network is talking about, getting organized workers to be monitors, with hotlines they can report [abuses to]. Organizing is essential, but how can they effectively do that without people being retaliated against?

Cordes: One of the things that’s most depressing with coffee is that 50% of it is produced under certifications/labeling schemes, but a smaller percentage is actually purchased under that standard. That means farmers expend effort, time, and money to produce under that standard but there’s no market for it. Companies should be explaining to consumers why it’s important — it would make a big difference.

Is there a future that includes “ethical” coffee?

Tamir: The marketplace wants more sustainable and ethically sourced products; millennials in particular are quite keen to make sure they aren’t contributing to environmental degradation or human rights impacts. That’s an argument against companies saying, This hurts us economically. It’s actually going to help them.

Cordes: I would like to see if producer-driven initiatives and enterprises could reach more consumers. With the internet, there is more of an opening for direct-to-consumer approaches and some specialty companies are doing good, interesting things. For example, I buy Pachamama coffee, which is the only producer-owned vertically integrated company I know of that is selling to U.S. consumers. It would be so helpful if there were some type of consumer-facing marketplace where you could find producer-owned companies to help you cut though the greenwashing.

Ryerson: There are some places where things are better, like Ecuador. Columbia is hit or miss — it’s complicated because of the war. But there needs to be government intervention, there needs to be more regulation, because the power imbalance between international buyers and domestic producers is too great, which means it will continue. Companies are making massive profits and every one of them is saying, This is not something we can do. That strains credulity. They’re looking at their stock price, not if their employees are eating this month.

Communities of color are saving the planet — why won’t funders support what works?

What images come to mind when you think of memorable climate wins in the last few years? We’re willing to bet it is not a picture of legislators poring over a greenhouse gas bill, or of green-tech CEOs in a boardroom. What you probably think of is everyday people, marching and demonstrating and demanding action. Perhaps you envision the indigenous protesters at Standing Rock, whose success at keeping fossil fuels in the ground captured the world’s attention. Or maybe you see the Black and brown activists in New York who stopped the encroachment of commercial developments and demanded green manufacturing jobs instead. With few resources and little material support, communities of color have done more to mitigate climate change in a few years than many well-funded and well-known organizations have managed to do in decades. 

Now that President Biden has pledged a “Climate Administration” and philanthropies are poised to give greater focus to addressing climate change, it is urgent that we aim the country’s attention on a part of the climate movement that often gets siloed or dismissed as ancillary to the cause of solving the climate crisis: the grassroots Black, indigenous and people of color (BIPOC)-led powerbuilding groups that center justice in all the work they do. These groups understand what many white activists — however well-intentioned — fail to see: without the power, boldness and genius of BIPOC communities, we will not defeat climate change. We are not ancillary. We are necessary.

Right now, major philanthropies are directing billions of dollars in grants to organizations doing climate work; only 1.3% of that goes to justice-focused groups led by and serving BIPOC communities. That’s not a typo. Place 1.3% against the backdrop of everything that has happened this year: In the wake of George Floyd’s murder, the biggest foundations in the country tripped over themselves to release statements of solidarity and support for the Black Lives Matter movement. We take them at their word; we believe that these funders do want to do the right thing. But they have to think very hard about what a real commitment to racial justice looks like in the context of climate giving. It certainly doesn’t look like 1.3%.

We are both executive directors of climate justice groups, one on the Gulf Coast and one in the Bay Area. Regardless of what funders do, we and our siblings in the movement will do what we have always done: form the vanguard of protecting the planet for future generations. But we also know firsthand how much more we could achieve, how many more victories we could replicate, if given an equitable share of climate funding. We know how to win where it counts — defeating Big Oil at the ballot box, preventing the construction of new pollution-spewing plants, Standing Rock, and too many other examples to name — for everyone’s survival, health, well-being and freedom.

The good news is, funders have begun to pledge further support. Just this past week, the Donors of Color Network launched the Climate Funders Justice Pledge, which challenges philanthropies to scale up the amount of their U.S. climate funding going to BIPOC-led powerbuilding groups to 30% over the next two years. The pledge also commits funders to greater transparency in reporting that percentage every year. In the short term, this effort can move millions of dollars to the groups that are winning the climate fight; in the long term, that figure could be in the billions. The network — to which we both serve as advisors — will assist funders with software and movement connections to track their progress and decide how to invest. In short, the groups that need help will make it easy for funders to give it. Funders can easily sign onto the pledge and spread the word to their peers. The more philanthropies sign on, the more they create a permission structure for others in the donor universe to do the right thing.

Here is the bottom line: If you care about renewable energy and green jobs, then you have to care about racial and economic justice. If you care about racial and economic justice, then you have to care that the far right, their allies and fossil fuel companies are poisoning us and the earth. Racial justice, economic justice and climate justice are mutually dependent; you cannot have one without the others. We all need to embrace this truth, and foundations must pivot now to this reality. 

Most of the major victories on climate in recent memory have been the result of BIPOC-led organizers. Ignoring that reality is a moral failing that, if funders refuse to see it, will ensure we run out of time to save our communities and our planet. Foundations have enormous power — and a golden opportunity — to shift the center of gravity in climate giving toward justice. They must seize it now.

Republican Party is now a terrorist organization — and none of this is a surprise

On Saturday, Senate Republicans acquitted Donald Trump for the crime of insurrection and a lethal attack on the Capitol, which was part of a his larger coup attempt. All 50 Democrats voted to convict Donald Trump. They were joined by seven Republicans. 

The evidence presented by the House impeachment managers against Trump was overwhelming. It is true that his defense attorneys were incompetent — although in fairness the best legal minds in the world would have had a difficult time finding a way to exonerate Trump for his obvious crimes. But the outcome was preordained: Republicans in both the House and Senate repeatedly and publicly signaled weeks ago that they were going to acquit Donald Trump no matter what the evidence against him.

In refusing to convict Donald Trump for his crimes against democracy, the Republican Party has announced that Republican presidents are above the law and can act with impunity, as kings or dictators do — and that this is now true for Republican officials on the federal, local and state level as well.

In total, the Republican Party has created a precedent that right-wing political violence and terrorism, including coups and other attempts to overthrow legal elections, are now acceptable in the United States — as long as they are perpetrated by Republicans and their allies against Democrats and others deemed to be “un-American.”

This is the essence of fascism and authoritarianism. Such beliefs and values have broad support among Republican voters and other members of the right wing more generally.

Recent public opinion polling and other research shows that Trump Republicans believe that political violence is a reasonable tool for them to advance their goals. This all but guarantees that Trump’s coup plot and attack on the Capitol are a blueprint to be followed by members of the white right across the country.

CNN senior political analyst Ronald Brownstein issues a specific warning in a new essay:

The exact share of the GOP coalition responsive to extremist White nationalist beliefs or the use of violence to advance political goals is impossible to measure precisely. But polling and other research suggests that the best way to think about it may be through concentric circles radiating out from hard-core believers willing to commit violence themselves to a much broader range of GOP voters who might not become violent personally but express sympathy or understanding for those who do.

The inner circle are the extremists actively participating in potentially violent White nationalist extremism. Neumann recently told me that number might total about 75,000 to 100,000 people.

But polling has found a larger group of Republicans expressing sympathy for the attack on the Capitol — and a much larger group than that expressing sympathy more generally for the belief that the threats to American society as they define it have grown so great that force or violence is justified to respond to them.

Contrary to what many of the hope-peddlers and professional centrists in the news media and elsewhere would like to believe, Trumpism and other forms of American fascism were not exiled by Joe Biden’s election victory.

The Age of Trump is not over. Donald Trump will attempt to be a type of shadow president and kingmaker who controls the Republican Party and its public. The Age of Trump will also linger on through what counterterrorism experts warn may be years if not decades of violent right-wing insurgency and terror directed against liberals and progressives, nonwhite people, Muslims, Jews and other groups targeted as the enemy Other. The question is not whether there will be blood, but rather how much more blood will be spilt by Trump’s followers and other right-wing extremists and paramilitaries.

In the same essay at CNN, Republican consultant Michael Madrid describes this woeful reality: “They have fed the monster for so long that even when it turns on them, when the barbarians are literally at the gate … when they were the targets and they were prey, they still will not turn on it. That’s how dangerous is the societal threat that we are facing.”

The Republican Party’s embrace of Trumpism and now full-on endorsement of right-wing violence and terrorism should not be a surprise. Trump’s 2016 presidential victory and fake right-wing “populist” movement was fueled by white supremacy, nativism, and other forms of bigotry and hate. That is violence.

White Christian nationalists and right-wing evangelicals are among the most loyal and fanatical members of the American right and the Trump movement. As a group, these Christian fascists are committed to overturning secular democracy and making real their “end times” eschatological and apocalyptic fantasies. That is violence.

The Republican Party and the broader right have embraced gangster capitalism and its ethos that profits are more important than people. Their ideology is Dickensian and social Darwinist: the poor and other marginalized groups are surplus people who should be left to die if they cannot be “self-sufficient” and “productive.” That is violence.

Public health experts have repeatedly shown that Republican policies across a range of issues are a danger to the American people, and have literally killed them in higher numbers, as compared to the policies endorsed by the Democrats. This too is violence.

Donald Trump, other Republican and right-wing leaders, and their propaganda disinformation media routinely use stochastic terrorism to encourage violence by their public and followers against Democrats, liberals, progressives and other targeted groups.

Unlike in 2016, no one in America can pretend they were blindsided or surprised or somehow could not anticipate how the Republican Party would finally and fully embrace right-wing terrorism and fascism. The American people have had four years of real-world experience and education from the cruel tutelage provided by Donald Trump and his movement.

As I wrote on Twitter Saturday night, “When this gets very bad — and it will in ways most Americans and the hope peddlers in the news media are still in denial about — ‘I didn’t know’ or ‘I had no idea’ will not save them. They have been warned for at least five years if not longer. They think you can hide from monsters.”

If the American people do not embrace a new maturity about the enduring power of fascism and authoritarianism in America, Biden’s presidency will prove to be no more than an interlude or brief respite in the Age of Trump, after which the trauma of Donald Trump’s time in office will be viewed as the good old days, when compared to what comes later. 

In 1787, Benjamin Franklin, upon leaving the Constitutional Convention, reportedly told a woman on the street who asked about the kind of government chosen for the new country, “A republic, madam, if you can keep it.” More than 200 years later, the American people are being tested again. Will they be up to the task?

Too many Americans have convinced themselves that the Age of Trump is now over and his fascist movement vanquished — even though Biden has not been president for a month — and want to throw the last five years down the memory hole without doing the hard work of national reckoning, confrontation, justice and then, perhaps, eventual healing. To this point, my answer is no.

Donald Trump’s a traitor — don’t cut him the same slack we gave Jefferson Davis

Presidents Day originated in 1885 to honor the birthday of George Washington, who as our nation’s first president established the pattern and practice of a peaceful transition of power. That endured up until Donald Trump and his Jan, 6 insurrection that left five people dead, including Capitol Police officer Brian Sicknick.

Forty-three Republican U.S. senators voted on Saturday to acquit former President Donald J. Trump of inciting the insurrection that was witnessed in real time by the entire world on live TV. Last month, 197 House Republicans voted against impeaching Trump for the second time.

It’s important to contextualize their abdication with the reality that our nation is in the throes of a mass death event likely to kill a half-million Americans and infect 30 million with a life-threatening killer virus by the end of the month, all while food and shelter insecurity spreads across the land.

Unlike their Senate colleagues Richard Burr of North Carolina, Bill Cassidy of Louisiana, Susan Collins of Maine, Lisa Murkowski of Alaska, Mitt Romney of Utah, Ben Sasse of Nebraska and Pat Toomey of Pennsylvania, the Republican senators who voted to acquit Trump, keeping his political aspirations alive, did not want to jump into the breach that had already proved fatal to Officer Sicknick.

That dozens of people of such privilege and rank, like the congressional Republicans who opposed holding Trump accountable, opted to instead protect their own partisan political position, has ample precedence in our history.

Luckily, for us, the original framers were more visionary in spirit and put the potential of our democracy, not yet fully conceived, above their own personal fortunes, with the awareness that if they did not “hang together” they would surely “all hang separately.”

Incredibly, the Republican leader in the Senate concluded that holding Trump accountable should be left to the country’s civil and criminal justice system. This provided a procedural fig leaf for the GOP caucus’ ‘Don’t be a snitch’ culture, which actually works to undermine the Constitution that serves as the foundation of our criminal and civil law.

By choosing to avoid holding accountable the bully and his mob they fear, Republicans memorialized their subjugation.

“When the holding and keeping of power is the organizing principle then everything else becomes a means to that end,” observed biographer and historian Jon Meacham on MSNBC this past weekend. “It may be politically rational, but it is constitutionally derelict.”

After the acquittal vote, Minority Leader Mitch McConnell admitted that Trump’s actions that resulted in the storming of the Capitol for several hours were “disgraceful” and “a dereliction of duty.”

“Fellow Americans beat and bloodied our own police. They stormed the Senate floor,” McConnell said. “They tried to hunt down the Speaker of the House. They built a gallows and chanted about murdering the vice president.”

The Kentucky Republican observed that Trump’s “unconscionable behavior did not end when the violence began,” adding that “whatever our ex-president claims he thought might happen that day … whatever reaction he says he meant to produce … by that afternoon, he was watching the same live television as the rest of the world.”

McConnell continued. “A mob was assaulting the Capitol in his name. These criminals were carrying his banners, hanging his flags and screaming their loyalty to him. Instead, according to public reports, he watched television happily as the chaos unfolded. He kept pressing his scheme to overturn the election!”

In the minority leader’s own words, Trump then had crossed that “Rubicon” line from being the inciter of the riot to an actual participant-by-proxy, with his own vice president now on the run.

“Even after it was clear to any reasonable observer that Vice President Pence was in danger … even as the mob carrying Trump banners was beating cops and breaching perimeters… the president sent a further tweet attacking his vice president,” McConnell said.

What was established in the U.S. Senate trial, and supported by a 57-43 bipartisan vote to convict, is a fact pattern far more treacherous and lethal than a bid to delay the certification of the Electoral College. Rather it was a near-successful bid to murder the two elected officials in the direct line of succession after the president.

Add into this crucible the recent disclosure that when the Trump-activated rioters breached the Capitol and sent Pence scrambling for safety, his entourage, which that was sent into rapid retreat, included an Air Force officer who carried the “nuclear football” — a suitcase that contains the nuclear weapon launch codes.

As the House managers’ prosecution of the case against ,Trump demonstrated, facts can move minds which accounts for the decision by seven Republicans to go against their party’s partisan interests to vote with their Democratic colleagues.

What was clear was that for a number of those senators, it was what Trump did not do after the Capitol riot got underway that helped convince them of his guilt.

What we need now is for the Secret Service to be compelled to disclose publicly what its agents knew, when they knew it, how they sorted it out in real time and whether they saw this coming.

For a few hours there, we had one executive security detail protecting Pence while another was protecting Trump — who, even after he learned Pence was on the run, used his tweet artillery to further incite the mob that was pursuing him.

In terms its trajectory the Jan. 6 insurrection bears a striking similarity to the strategic arc of the assassination of Abraham Lincoln by John Wilkes Booth on April 15, 1865. That plot also targeted Vice President Andrew Johnson, Gen. Ulysses S. Grant and Secretary of State William Seward, who survived a gruesome knife attack.

When Johnson took office after Lincoln’s death, he ordered that the several suspects in the conspiracy be tried not by an Article III court, but by a military tribunal.

Four people were hanged for their participation in the conspiracy. (Booth refused to be captured alive and was shot dead by Union soldiers. Meanwhile, Jefferson Davis, a former senator from Mississippi, who became the so-called president of the so-called Confederacy, was arrested and charged with treason in May of 1865. He was never tried.

Two years later, Davis was released on bail raised mostly by prominent Northern abolitionists, including Horace Greeley, publisher of the New York Tribune, who all “advocated for a speedy trial or release of Davis in order to heal the country.”

Ultimately, federal prosecutors blinked and never pursued the treason case against Davis for fear that he “would either prove to a jury that secession was legally permitted under the U.S. Constitution or he would be transformed into a martyr if convicted and executed.”

Davis remained resolute that his course of action was correct, telling the Mississippi Legislature in 1884, “It has been said that I should apply to the United States for a pardon. But repentance must precede the right of pardon, and I have not repented. … If it were all to do over again, I would again do just as I did in 1861.”

In the final analysis it was the North that blinked: In 1978, President Jimmy Carter signed legislation passed by Congress that restored Davis’ U.S. citizenship.

In substance we know that from Andrew Johnson onward, the federal government would betray the nation’s enslaved African Americans and their descendants by letting the South, driven by its racist paranoia and passion, dismantle the ephemeral gains of Reconstruction.

“One of the great mistakes we have made in the country historically is that in the aftermath of the Civil War we did not hold insurrectionists — rebels — accountable for what they did,” observed Meacham on MSNBC.

That’s precisely the thought I had when I saw an FBI flyer depicting the Trump insurrectionist who carried the Confederate flag inside the U.S. Capitol, something that had never happened before Jan. 6.

We have no bandwidth to make that mistake again.

Decolonizing species names

What’s in a species name?

In some cases, the answers include paternalism, colonialism, sexism and racism.

Take the Townsend’s warbler (Setophaga townsendi), for example. This small, bright yellow North American bird was first scientifically described at Fort Vancouver in Washington state, just a few miles from where I live. We get a ton of them in our backyard every year.

But the Townsend’s warbler, beautiful though it may be, is a bird whose name has a dark history. It was named by American naturalist John Kirk Townsend, who described dozens of species in the early 19th century — right around the same time he was stealing human remains from Native American grave sites and shipping the skulls back East to help support a friend’s racist theory that Indigenous peoples were actually separate species.

As you might expect, in these more enlightened times, several experts have proposed renaming the Townsend’s warbler, along with dozens of other North American birds that bear the names of other ethically dubious researchers or historical figures.

And North American birds are not alone.

Around the world, taxonomists and conservationists say we need to address similar species-naming issues, although most aren’t as glaring as the Townsend case.

An example comes from biodiversity-rich New Caledonia, an archipelago in the southwest Pacific Ocean about 750 miles east of Australia.

Like many islands, New Caledonia’s remoteness allowed unique species to develop and thrive. Hundreds of unique plants and animals call the islands home, including the world’s largest gecko, the 14-inch Leach’s giant gecko (Rhacodactylus leachianus), known by many as “the Leachie” and named after English zoologist William Elford Leach, who never set foot on the islands.

“The Leachie” is just one example. A new paper published in the journal Biological Conservation, “The inequity of species names: The flora of New Caledonia as a case study,”  examines the names of more than 650 plants native to New Caledonia that have been named after particular people — usually botanists or collectors. It found that just 7% of the species were named after people born on the islands. Further, only 6% of these plants were named after women (and some of those women were the wives or daughters of the botanists).

This isn’t just a function of decisions made centuries ago, either. Most of the species were named by researchers in the past 50 years.

“We should be more inclusive in our taxonomic practice and think about the consequences for the conservation of the species that are newly named,” says Yohan Pillon, the author of the study and a biologist with Institut de Recherche pour le Développement in Montpellier, France.

Of course, naming a plant species in New Caledonia is, at best, challenging due to their stunning variety.

“The flora of New Caledonia is extremely diverse and complex,” Pillon says. “There are over 100 species in the genus Phyllanthus, over 90 species in the genus Psychotria. Few people on Earth can tell them apart.”

Even beyond that challenge, purposefully identifying taxonomic names based on more culturally relevant identifiers poses a few problems. New Caledonia, now a territory of France, was originally inhabited by the Kanak community, who currently represent about 41% of the total population. They’ve been joined over the centuries by people from Polynesia, Europe and southeast Asia. French is the dominant language, and while the dozens of Indigenous Kanak languages are still spoken and taught, they’re not as strong as they once were.

“There are 30 Indigenous languages, some spoken by very few people or poorly studied,” Pillon says, “which makes ethnobiological surveys complex compared to places like Hawai’i. You need both acute botanical and linguistic knowledge for that. Vernacular names are therefore a very difficult information to collect in New Caledonia and often not very reliable. In New Caledonia, few endemic plants have a known common name.”

But despite any challenges that might come in determining a species’ taxonomic moniker, picking the right name can have conservation benefits. Pillon points out a case from earlier this year in which local people expressed support for naming a new plant species after its sole remaining habitat.

A similar situation occurred last month in Guiana, where an orchid newly described by scientists had its name chosen by the Pemón Arekuna Indigenous community. Polish researcher Mateusz Wrazidlo told Mongabay that this was an example of “decolonizing science nomenclature and giving more representation to Indigenous [and] local languages.”

Pillon echoes that sentiment. “Conservation science needs to be more inclusive,” he wrote in his paper, “and the naming of new species offers an excellent opportunity to acknowledge more broadly the diversity of individuals who have contributed to our understanding of the natural world. Areas of high biodiversity often overlap with areas of high linguistic diversity, but the links among biodiversity and cultural and linguistic diversity are often underappreciated. To promote the preservation of biodiversity, species should be named with an eye toward how these names will be perceived by the local communities involved.”

And it’s not just plants and animals that should be named more thoughtfully or renamed to reverse an inequity. Place names also matter. Last year in the United States, Rep. Deb Haaland — currently on track to be the Biden administration’s secretary of the Interior — introduced a bill to reexamine geographic places or features currently known by offensive or racist names, which often belittle Native peoples or erase longstanding Indigenous place names.

That’s no small challenge — there are more than 1,400 of these questionably named locations in the United States alone — but names have power. Renaming something or thoughtfully identifying it in the first place offers one more tool for helping to protect the world’s threatened species and habitats — while they still exist for us to name.

Falsetto: The enduring love affair with the soaring male voice

In this dreary COVID-19 winter, there are some high points — and high notes — available to people cooped up at home.

The documentary “The Bee Gees: How Can You Mend a Broken Heart,” which premiered on HBO in December, explores the musical significance of the group and is interwoven with performance footage. At the Super Bowl on Feb. 7, the halftime performer will be Canada’s The Weeknd.

What kind of sound do these singers share? And what on Earth do they have in common with the Monty Python comedians in sketches where they portray women?

All these artists use the falsetto voice, a specialized sound that features amazing high notes. Falsetto is associated particularly with the male voice singing in the range normally used by women and children.

Historically, perhaps most famously, beautiful high notes are often associated with opera roles originally written for a particular group of male singers known as “castrati,” who were castrated. Today, opera roles originally written for castrati are sung by countertenors. These singers go beyond the higher “normal” range associated with the tenor voice while singing in falsetto.

Of course, beyond these classically based countertenor singers, the falsetto sound is heard in innumerable beloved pop singers. While standout artists have learned to develop their voices into something quite fascinating, anyone can find a falsetto sound.

HBO trailer for Bee Gees documentary, “How Can You Mend a Broken Heart.”

“False” voice

Falsetto is an extension of our normal voices that we use every day — beyond the voices we use in all those Zoom meetings of late. The word falsetto refers to a “false” voice, so called because the voice uses only part of the vocal apparatus in our throats, rather than the full vibratory sound used in regular singing and speaking.

The normal vocal sounds we make are created by the vibrations of our vocal folds (or vocal cords). These tiny folds are controlled by an intricate system of muscles and cartilage in the throat.

The vocal folds function basically by the rate of air movement, or pressure, from the lungs. With more air pressure, the folds will vibrate more quickly and will produce a higher pitch. Less air, and the pitch will be lower. You can feel the vibrations for yourself if you say or sing “ooh,” thinking of a lower pitch, while placing a hand on your throat.

But if you use only the edges of the vocal folds, without allowing the whole mechanism to vibrate, then you can achieve that high, floaty sound that is your “false” voice — your falsetto.

Falsetto in classical music

The falsetto sound can still be heard in various forms of classical music — a vestige of the ban on women performers in earlier centuries. The traditional English church choir includes men singing in their falsettos to provide the alto line in hymns and anthems. (The soprano line was sung by boys, not women.)

In some classical music, as in the perennial December favourite, Handel’s “Messiah,” a countertenor will sing the alto solos — more usually sung by a woman. Canada’s Daniel Taylor is one of the best countertenors in the world.

Today’s opera roles sung by countertenors were originally written for the castrati who were superstars in the 17th and 18th centuries. Castration caused a physical difference in the way these voices functioned — and in the body shape and size of the castrated men — but the resultant sound was much the same as today’s countertenor sound.

You can hear an attempted re-creation of the sound of a castrato, rendered by electronically fusing the voices of a female singer and a countertenor, in the 1994 movie Farinelli, a cinematic take on the great 18th-century castrato opera singer Farinelli (born Carlo Broschi).

The only aural record of a castrato is of nine recorded selections of castrato Alessandro Moreschi, believed to be the last singer of his kind.

Scene from “Farinelli.”

Falsetto in popular music

Some scholars have explored falsetto sounds in Black popular and “soul” music including through genre-bending musical fusion.

Falsetto is found widely in popular music styles today from from The Weeknd and Justin Timberlake. If you listened to the concert celebrating Joe Biden’s presidential inauguration in the United States, you would have heard Timberlake singing “Better Days” with Ant Clemons. Timberlake’s naturally high voice works seamlessly into an effective falsetto sound.

Justin Timberlake with Ant Clemons. Listen for Timberlake’s regular voice at about 3:40, then hear him switch into falsetto at 4:00.

Floating beauty

Is there a female falsetto voice? Yes! The process for making the sound is the same as in men. But because women’s voices are already higher, it’s harder to hear a different quality. You can hear it some singers, including Christina Aguilera.

Christina Aguilera sometimes sings in falsetto. Her voice changes at about the one minute mark in this song from “Mulan.”

However, the allure of the falsetto voice remains more compelling in men than in women. Perhaps it is the attraction of the natural lower male voice contrasted with the high notes: maybe we are waiting for a crack or admiring the physical effort. Or perhaps we simply enjoy the floating beauty of the sound of high notes.

Whatever the reason, male high notes and the falsetto voice remain fascinating.

Helen Pridmore, Associate Professor of Music, University of Regina

This article is republished from The Conversation under a Creative Commons license.

Could my blood type affect my chances of getting COVID-19?

It was the first time the doctor and I had seen each other in a year. This was in December; I was in for my annual scans and blood work. We made small talk, catching up on the various ways 2020 had ravaged us both. I learned she’d been caught in the city’s first wave of COVID-19 cases, back in March. She’d been seriously ill, and her sense of taste and smell were still not back to normal. Then she asked if I’d been sick. No, I told her. I’d stayed home, and I wasn’t in a high risk group. “Well,” she said, her eyes flicking down on the results of my latest labs, “and your blood type.”

I made it through nearly a full year of this pandemic before hearing the theory that certain blood types seem to be less susceptible to the coronavirus than others. Then again, I’ve never thought much about blood type at all. Until that recent day at the hospital, the extent of my understanding of my own blood — Type O negative — is that it’s ineligible to donate, because I spent a college year in England. (Really.) Now, I admit I was intrigued that my blood type might make me at lower risk for severe COVID-19.

The search to root out mitigating factors for both vulnerability and resistance to the coronavirus started as soon as the crisis emerged. Back in March of 2020, early research out of China speculated on the “Relationship between the ABO Blood Group and the COVID-19 Susceptibility.” Those researchers found that the number of COVID-19 patients with blood type A “was significantly higher than that in normal people, being 37.75% in the former vs 32.16% in the latter” . . . whereas the proportion of blood type O “in patients with COVID-19 was significantly lower than that in normal people, being 25.80% in the former vs 33.84% in the latter.”

Other studies, from a variety of institutions, followed. A July report on the popular genetic testing site 23andMe updated the public on its own research, noting that “the preliminary data suggest that O blood type appears to be protective against the virus when compared to all other blood types. Individuals with O blood type are between 9-18% percent less likely than individuals with other blood types to have tested positive for COVID-19, according to the data.” And an October update from the American Society of Hematology announced similar findings, stating that “Blood type O may offer some protection against COVID-19 infection.”

But even in the most hopeful reports, the advantage of Type O blood appears to be slim. And the deluge of conflicting, inconsistent, misleading and constantly changing information out there about the virus makes that slight edge questionable.

There’s another factor to consider, too, when looking at the virus across any population — the ways in which the pandemic has disproportionately affected different racial groups. 70 percent of African-Americans have type O and B blood. Yet the CDC reports that Black or African American, Non-Hispanic persons are 2.8 times more likely to die of COVID-19 than white people. Whatever advantage blood type may bestow, compared to socioeconomic factors, it doesn’t seem to be making much of a dent in actual outcomes.

I spoke about blood types and COVID-19 with Michael N. Zietz of the Department of Biomedical Informatics, Columbia University Irving Medical Center. Last April, Zietz was a co-author on a study “Testing the association between blood type and COVID-19 infection, intubation, and death.” The study, which reported “modest but consistent risk differences between blood types,” had attracted my attention because it tried to separate out confounding variables in blood type studies. “Blood type frequencies vary across ancestry groups, so we evaluated the confounding effect of ancestry by adjusting for race/ethnicity,” the study notes. 

Blood is a fairly straightforward concept for those of us in the public to grasp, which is no doubt why mainstream media outlets like Reuters, AARP and Discover have all run stories on the potential blood type-COVID connection. But the deeper mystery — one of them, anyway — is in how it ties to our genes.

Zietz explained to me how blood type might relate to COVID-19 severity. “What I found helpful was thinking, let’s just assume there are some associations between blood type and COVID, dying of COVID or contracting the disease. What mechanism potentially could underlie this?. … Blood type is determined by a few positions within a certain gene. It’s possible that there are some true variants that are affecting COVID susceptibility within that gene. We don’t definitively know that blood type itself is causal, but it’s an indication something about this gene’s function is causal.” In other words, there’s still a lot to learn here.

While I’d like to think that maybe my blood type means I have even one, paper thin extra layer of protection against the virus, I don’t take my doctor’s offhand remark too seriously. There’s no magical protection spell, and until there is a solid, stable eradication of the virus I’ll just keep washing my hands, wearing a mask and avoiding indoor gatherings. “We have very solid evidence that people of any blood type can get sick and die from COVID and be intubated,” says Michael Zietz. “No one should think that they’re immune on account of blood type. The differences that we see are not very large in the grand scheme of things. And compared to something like age or serious comorbidities, heart disease or something, it’s not a large effect compared to those.”

Bon Appetit, Sqirl and the importance of food safety amid the home canning resurgence

Leni Sorensen, a home provisioning skills instructor who has been growing and processing her own food for almost 50 years, says that “canning has taken off volcanically” over the past year. 

It makes sense — we all know people who decided to join the informal urban homesteading movement that grew out of the pandemic. Some began baking bread, while others started practicing fabric crafts, purchasing baby chickens and setting up victory gardens. There was a collective desire to become more self-sufficient in the face of disruptions in food supply chains, which combined with panic buying, left many grocery shelves briefly empty. The fact that there was often an Instagram-worthy result — freshly-scored loaves and flourishing raised beds — likely bolstered the trend. 

Canning was an obvious next step, both as a way to preserve the food these urban homesteaders had grown and — to borrow a term from cultural anthropologist Sharon Macdonald — as “the fetishization of past everyday life.” There’s an undeniable hipster appeal to food in Ball jars; the plot of Simon Rich’s “American Pickle” and Portlandia’s “We Can Pickle That!” sketch are proof. As a result, there have been numerous, nationwide jar, lid and pressure canner shortages since last March. 

While Sorensen is encouraged by the increased interest in preserving food, she’s also worried that it will lead to an increase in foodborne illness, specifically botulism — a relatively rare but deadly illness caused by a poison produced by the germ known as Clostridium botulinum. Found in soil, the germ can survive, grow and produce a toxin in certain conditions, such as when food is improperly canned. You can’t smell or taste it, but it can cause severe nerve damage, resulting in paralysis — or even death. 

Sorensen is involved in several Facebook groups about canning. Membership has surged, as have posts and photos showing risky techniques. “Some people who are new to canning just don’t seem to have an idea of the potential dangers, because I don’t think botulism is as common a term in our lexicon as it used to be,” she said. 

Sorensen is correct — botulism outbreaks are less common than they used to be, but a deadly outbreak is what gave rise to America’s food safety system. As Anna Zeide wrote for Smithsonian Magazine, industrial canners worried about it deeply.  

“Their worst fears materialized in late 1919 and early 1920, when a series of deadly botulism cases struck unassuming consumers throughout the country, killing 18 people in Ohio, Michigan and New York, with smaller outbreaks in other states,” she wrote. “The deaths were traced back to canned black olives, a mainstay of hors d’oeuvre plates and a delicacy often reserved for special occasions. The olives had been packed in California and then shipped across the country to far-flung destinations, the result of a newly nationalized commercial food system.” 

This led to the formation of a Botulism Commission, which eventually resulted in strict regulations for the processing of various grocery items. 

But the term “botulism” was seen more in headlines in early February than likely over the last decade combined. On his popular “It’s Alive” series for the Bon Appétit Test Kitchen, host Brad Leone prepared canned mussels and lobster using a technique known as the water-bath method. 

The process is widely considered to be unsuitable for seafood preservation. A pressure canner must instead be used for the safe canning of meats and seafood, according to the Food and Drug Administration’s canning guidelines.

As The Washington Post reported, Bon Appétit initially kept the video online and added a comment that said the method in the video was only being used “for camera” to show viewers “how proteins coagulate and flavors change during the canning process.”

However, Bon Appétit admitted that the product wasn’t meant to be shelf-stable. It went on to delete the video, and issued an apology. 

“We know how important it is to show safe food handling for our audiences and realize this wasn’t a responsible way of demonstrating the process,” the statement reads. “We made a mistake, and we promise to learn from it.”

Leone released a similar statement on Instargram: “I apologize and if you did see the recent it’s alive episode—please don’t water bath your cans. I Apologize again and will do better as a teacher and student of food.”

Canning safety was also in the news last summer when Sqirl, a hip Los Angeles café, faced scrutiny after photos were posted online appearing to show a thick layer of mold on top of a bulk container of the restaurant’s signature jam. Allegations that employees were simply instructed to scrape the mold off the jam before serving ensued. 

“Some users claimed that the entire jam production and storage area was actually an unlicensed food facility that Koslow kept hidden from Department of Public Health inspectors, adding that workers would be ‘locked in the dark’ inside of the unlicensed area if they were already inside when an inspector showed up unannounced,” Farley Elliott, a reporter at Eater Los Angeles, wrote in July. 

Sqirl owner Jessic Koslow eventually released a statement. 

“We don’t use commercial pectin, sweeteners or stabilizers, and to highlight the fruit, we add a little sugar,” Koslow wrote on Instagram. “And put simply, a low-sugar jam is more susceptible to the growth of mold. The same types of mold that develop on some cheese, charcuterie, dry aged beef, and lots of other preserved foods.” 

As the LAist reported, Stephen Wade, a master food preserver, disagreed. If you see mold on your jam, “[it] must be assumed contaminated (unseen spores, release of toxins, secretions into the mix) at all levels, and destroyed,” he wrote.

Sorensen doesn’t want to dissuade new canners from the activity, but she recommends that they go beyond social media and YouTube videos for their safety information. In the absence of being able to attend classes with a master food preserver or extension agent, she points her students to resources like the U.S. Department of Agriculture’s Complete Guide to Home Canning and the Ball Blue Book Guide to Preserving.

She also wants to remind home cooks that there’s no rush

“It’s not a competition,” she said. “Take it slow, do your research and enjoy what you made safely.” 

Bringing art into your kitchen is a great way to add life to an otherwise utilitarian space

It’s practically undeniable at this point that kitchens are the beating heart of our homes. They’re where we gather to make delicious food, deepen our relationships, and forge new memories (not to mention, hold 3 p.m. corporate brainstorms and 11 a.m. art class). The fluidity of these spaces is of paramount importance. You have to have enough room to seat the whole family, a table that doubles as an eat/work zone, enough gizmos and gadgets to help you take on all the additional home cooking . . . the list goes on. But for as functional — and beautiful — as many of our kitchens are, are they truly reflective of our homes, and our style? I’d venture a guess and say, maybe not.

Ask any designer and they’ll tell you the biggest impact you can make in a space is often with art. Not only does it help tie a room together, but it’s a great way for homeowners to imbue their dwellings with their unique taste and point of view. Yet, oftentimes, the kitchen is the last place we add decor layers like artwork.

Luckily, there’s a new trend here to change all that: Designers and influencers alike are turning to framed paintings, unique sculptures, and old-school busts to add an artistic touch to a workhorse space. “Bringing art into the kitchen is a great way to add life to an otherwise utilitarian space,” says Rebecca Gibbs, owner and designer at Gibbs Design + Build. “Try not to overthink it, because perfect is not the goal — something that makes you smile is.”

Whether you style a sculpture alongside your favorite dishware on open shelving, or hang a vintage oil painting atop the hood of the stove, the result is the same: a cohesive, collected feel that brings an additional element of “hominess” to your space. Here’s how to make it work.

Keep the style simple

When choosing a piece of art to work into your kitchen, focus on picking something simple and a bit understated — the goal is for the artwork or objects to blend into your decor, not visually clog an already busy room. Stick to a palette that compliments the existing finishes in your space and avoid anything too eye-catching — vintage oil portraits or still-life scenes typically work great. And don’t forget to have fun with your selection! “Choosing the right piece can add poetry to a place of utility,” explains Katie Bogart of Bogart Interiors. “In selecting pieces for the kitchen, it’s important to choose art that’s not too precious.”

Pick the right size

The key to this look is keeping it feeling small and collected. Stay away from using oversized pieces, clunky frames, or word art. Instead, opt for smaller pieces and natural finishes — flea markets and estate sales are great places to find well-loved artwork at a petite size (and price). And remember, one or two hits of art is all it will take to upgrade your kitchen.

Find the perfect spot

Hanging your artwork is a no-brainer, of course — but it’s not your only option. When selecting where to display your piece, consider unexpected locations like the hood of your oven, an open shelf, or even the countertop. “I like to find little corners or small spaces to tuck an unexpected piece of art and capture the eye,” says Bogart. The goal is to add dimension and interest to your space, so the more “ah-ha” the spot, the more impactful your piece will be.

Think outside the frame

The best part about art? It is totally subjective, and is about whatever speaks to you and your style — and that may not be a framed painting or photograph. If you think your kitchen is the perfect place for a beloved tapestry, memorialized hand-written recipe from your grandma, or vintage bust, go for it. At the end of the day, your kitchen — and the artwork in it — should be something you love and enjoy.

“Why can’t you be normal?”: How the neurodivergent are mocked for being different

Terra Vance was a teacher who had no idea she was autistic. But one day, during a full-day meeting in a small conference room, other colleagues noticed Vance’s atypical behavior. Vance told Salon that, prior to that meeting, a principal told her “to stop rocking and folding my arms” because she “looked like a ‘crackhead,'” in the administrator’s words. During that meeting in the cramped quarters, however, “several times people kept asking me what was wrong. I didn’t know why they kept asking that. Someone then asked me if I hated being there. I asked them why everyone was asking me, and they said it was because I seemed impatient. I told them that I was ADHD, and they acted like it was an excuse.”

“I knew the material and had more to contribute than anyone there (because I’d had specialized training), but my presence kept making everyone else so uncomfortable,” Vance added. “I could tell they just wanted me to leave.” Vance said these kinds of incidents “happened all the time.”

I can very much identify with Vance’s experience. I am also autistic. From both firsthand experience and hearing stories from other people on the spectrum, I’ve observed that autistic individuals and other people who are “neurodiverse” — a term which means that your brain is wired a little bit differently and, as a result, you display traits that are classified by conditions like autism and ADHD — are often pressured to be “normal.” Likewise, we are frequently socially ostracized when we fail to meet that standard.

Many of our struggles are relatable to those who may not be neurodiverse, but merely socially awkward. Perhaps you struggle in social situations, failing to read people’s nonverbal cues or talking incessantly about specific subjects that interest you. Perhaps you find that you can’t pay attention for more than a few minutes at a time, and so you’re told that you’re “lazy.” It could be that you find it difficult to make or sustain eye contact, or abhor physical touch, or are simply described as ineffably “weird” even though no one (yourself included) can understand why.

But it shouldn’t matter. There is nothing wrong with any of these things. That is why the phrase “neurodiversity” is so important. It rejects the idea that people with these or other autistic/ADHD characteristics are in some way “sick,” instead flipping the script and pointing out that neurodivergent individuals are simply different. The sickness is with a society that attaches a stigma to people unless their brains are wired in a way considered “normal” — hence the term “neurotypical.”

If you’re neurodivergent, the neurotypical demand to be “normal” can contaminate every aspect of your life.

To be clear, not all neurodivergent people experience the same issues; as the old saying goes, “When you’ve met one person with autism, you’ve met one person.” Take Daniel Smeenk, a 29-year-old public relations professional and former journalist based in southern Ontario. Smeenk told Salon by email that he although he doesn’t have “high support needs” — and, as such, people often don’t realize he isn’t “normal” — he still has struggled in specific situations, such as job interviews.

“I have a set of friends who I went to college with who strongly argued that what I did in job interviews would cost me jobs,” Smeenk wrote to Salon. “The problem I have is that I’m an instinctively honest person, which sounds self-serving but is also true of many autistic people. My friends were arguing that being too honest was a problem. My family has often argued the same. Honesty, though crucially important to me, can often be frowned on when the other person doesn’t like what you’re saying.”

Smeenk clarifies that he has been described as “quite polite and friendly,” but he has an instinct to be candid even in contexts where bluntness is not rewarded. Like other neurodivergent people, this is not a trait he can turn on and off like a switch, and that becomes a serious issue for him. As he quickly learned, job interviews are “biased in favor of certain kinds of presentation: well-dressed, confident, charismatic, etc.”

“Humans are also bad at detecting liars, so what it often becomes is ‘does this feel like one of our guys,’ which for many autistic people is often ‘no,'” Smeenk wrote.

As Smeenk’s story typifies, many people who are neurotypical have unknowingly made life hell for someone who is neurodivergent.

Jen Elcheson, a 39-year-old paraeducator and published author living in western Canada, told Salon by email about experiences “with so-called friends who tried to ‘help’ me in unhelpful ways.” She described one person who “was always telling me that my eye contact was poor, which isn’t fully true, as some days it is better than others. I can mask.” (This is a term, along with “camouflage,” that describes neurodivergent people trying to adopt neurotypical traits so they won’t face mistreatment.) Elcheson recalled how this supposed friend “would mock me for looking down during lectures at school, saying that I looked like I was looking at my boobs!” She added that there was one male teacher “who was problematic in himself, so it was hard for me to look right at him because he was creepy! I was protecting myself.”

She recalled a second “so-called friend” who works with disabled individuals and would sometimes go for walks with Elcheson. “She would make annoying comments about getting me out of my comfort zone and my house when going out for walks isn’t a challenge for me at all,” Elcheson recalled. “I felt like she was treating me like a client.” She emphasized that, while these issues weren’t “major,” she “considered them to be microaggressions because they were unhelpful and uncalled for.”

An anonymous 22-year-old woman in the United Kingdom, who is also on the autism spectrum, told Salon by email that people try to get her to act “normal” in a number of ways. As one example, she talked about what has happened when she starts “stimming,” or a ritual that some autistic individuals practice in which they repeat certain sounds, movements or behaviors.

“I’ve been told to ‘just act normal’ at every stage of my life, by almost every type of individual I’ve interacted with,” this individual wrote to Salon. “Whether it’s a romantic partner who gets annoyed with a strange stim I use during a date, a professor who couldn’t understand why I applied myself unreservedly to some classes and tanked in others, or housemates who could not fathom why something as deceptively simple as washing dishes could trigger an autistic meltdown.”

She speculated that women and minorities who are neurodiverse may be told to act normal and otherwise face discrimination more frequently, expressing sympathy for individuals who may not be able to receive an official diagnosis or even know how to identify their condition. Her conclusion was that “society would certainly benefit if more people critically examined their idea of a ‘weird person’ and how they interact with them.”

She added, “Normal is the apex of perfection that I’ve wanted all my life. That I’ve spent thousands of hours and thousands of pounds and millions of spikes of cortisol on trying, ill-fatedly, to achieve. Regardless of whether I have a diagnosis to justify neurotypicals’ reactions to me, ‘weird’ is the one descriptor I’ve held throughout school, into university and employment. If I could ‘just be normal.’ I would be. Despite now knowing that I can’t be — I don’t think I’ll ever stop hoping or trying.”

I can identify with those words more than I would like to, as I’ve written about previously. Indeed, there is an underlying cause for this type of behavior towards the neurodivergent. Because we live in a society where there are certain groups which have privilege — of race, sex, gender, religion, economic status or other factors — they get to set the rules about what is and is not allowed. If you happen to not be privileged, and then break those rules, society tries to “teach” you a valuable lesson.

Fortunately people from marginalized groups are starting to stand up for themselves. They are met with resistance and resentment from those who thrive under the status quo — or at least believe they do — but slowly people who are marginalized are forcing the rest of the world to listen to them. They’re making it clear that we do not owe it to the privileged to change for them; they owe it to be understanding toward, and show empathy for, us.

Based on these interviews and other conversations I’ve had with neurodivergent people, I believe that we are heading toward a point where we will do likewise. If a neurodivergent person isn’t harming you, you do not have the right to impose any penalties on them for simply being different.

No one owes you their “normalcy.” You owe them your understanding.

Biden administration surprised by the true nature of Trump’s COVID-19 response “plan”

In an interview with Axios on HBO, Vice President Kamala Harris claimed ‘there was no national strategy or plan for vaccinations’ in the Trump administration’s COVID-19 plan. Harris claims what many in the Biden administration have surmised after taking over governing.

‘We were leaving it to the states and local leaders to try and figure it out,” Harris told reporter Mike Allen.

President Joe Biden made a similar claim when he announced the next steps for the vaccine plan.

“There is nothing for us to rework. We are going to have to build everything from scratch,” one Biden source told CNN in January.

“In many ways, we are starting from scratch on something that’s been raging for almost an entire year,” Harris told Axios.

Sources told CNN the same thing after the inauguration, saying that during the transition it became clear to the Biden science team that they would have to essentially begin from “square one” because the Trump administration hadn’t developed a plan. “Wow, just further affirmation of complete incompetence.”

“The process to distribute the vaccine, particularly outside of nursing homes and hospitals out into the community as a whole, did not really exist when we came into the White House,” White House chief of staff Ron Klain said in an interview with NBC’s “Meet the Press.”

Trump announced in August that his administration was purchasing 100 million vaccinations from Moderna and 100 million of the Pfizer vaccine. Trump was offered more vaccines by both pharmaceutical companies but refused it, said NBC NewsIt prompted questions about why Trump hadn’t purchased enough to fully cover all Americans, which would be over 660 million doses.

“The suffering is so immense in terms of both the public health crisis, the number of people who have died, the number of people who’ve contracted it, and the economic crisis,” the vice president also said.

See the Harris interview clip below:

PBS’ ambitious & fraught “Black Church” takes a tour of America’s complex history, music and faith

The Black Church: This Is Our Story, This Is Our Song” opens with a gospel hymn sung by a familiar voice. . .  that of Dr. Henry Louis Gates Jr., its creator, host and narrator. Gates has fine pitch, and I don’t believe wouldn’t be insulted by the observation that his stylings pale next to that of Jennifer Hudson, one of Gates’ interviewees, or executive producer John Legend, who closes the first night with a tender melody.

But Gates isn’t singing to showcase some hidden talent. He’s demonstrating the democratizing nature of Black religious music, song steeped in cultural tradition and meaning. By the end of this two-night, four-part special we fully understand his editorial choice to begin this work with his song, that it is meant to evoke the lyric “lift every voice and sing.”

Gates believes that the latest chapter in his ever-expanding study of the Black American experience may be his most important. Immediately you can sense what a personal experience it is for him, but he also makes the viewer part of that by tying American history to the evolution of the Black church.

“The Black Church” is a celebratory tour of American history, examining the regional contributions to the larger culture of worship, and the churches themselves. Some of my favorite moments in the documentary series are the pensive views inside churches across the country interspersed throughout, with the camera work ensuring that even the most modest praise houses glow.

In this way Gates presents individual churches as distinct personalities evocative of the community history from which they sprang. If there is a designated star among them it is Charleston, South Carolina’s “Mother Emanuel” African Methodist Episcopal Church.

Gates speaks of Mother Emanuel with awe, citing that the church was rebuilt by the son of abolitionist and African Methodist Episcopal co-founder Denmark Vesey, after Vesey was murdered and the original church was burned down by a white mob.

Early in “The Black Church” he points out that the building sits in a place of pride on a street named after former vice president John C. Calhoun, a staunch defender of slavery. These grace notes lends themselves to helping us absorb the church’s meaning as symbol of defiance and resilience.

We remember it acutely when the documentary inevitably arrives at 2015, when a white supremacist murdered nine people engaging in a Bible study.

Gates lays bare his intent to dig into our souls with “The Black Church” even as he follows the structure of a standard PBS non-fiction film, peppering us with academic commentary and input by significant artists and celebrities. In one moment we’re listening to a minister thoughtfully explain the part his church plays in community life, and in the next we’re listening to Oprah rave about the preaching talents of The Potter’s House’s pastor T.D. Jakes.

“Sometimes I will just get on my plane and fly to Dallas to hear those sermons!” she declares with signature Oprah enthusiasm.

Such celebrity testimonials are on brand for Gates, and there are quite a few of them; just as one can’t imagine an examination of the Black church without Oprah, one probably knows to expect Al Sharpton to have his say, which he does.

Gates provides a clear view of Martin Luther King Jr.’s efforts on behalf of the working class, scrubbing some of the popular whitewash off of its legacy to remind viewers of the substance behind the dream. The doc similarly reminds viewers that Malcolm X was much closer to King’s philosophical outlook near the end of his life, and walks us through Jesse Jackson’s political heyday.

He also talks to Jakes, eliding references to the pastor’s past homophobic statements in the process. But he also spends time with transformational religious figures such as Rev. Dr. William J. Barber of The Poor People’s campaign and Trinity United Church of Christ pastor emeritus Rev. Jeremiah Wright.

Barber is a recognizable figure to many, having emerged during the Trump administration as one of the leading figures of non-violent progressive resistance during the Trump years. Wright, however, is largely remembered as a bête noire owing to an old inflammatory sermon that was unearthed and made the rounds in the run-up to the 2008 presidential election.

Gates’ conversation with him takes us beyond the fiery soundbites to delve into the influence Black liberation theology had in revitalized the church after the Civil Rights movement and explains the basis of Wright’s influence upon former President Barack Obama’s oratory style and moral philosophy.

Many of the subjects covered in “The Black Church” are common knowledge, especially at this time of widespread protests about economic inequality and regular coverage of voter suppression. The church has always been the political center of Black life and key to attaining and expanding the right to vote.

It’s still useful to be reminded of the role the church played in the abolitionist movement or of its function as the original educational system for emancipated Black people, giving rise to Historical Black Colleges and Universities.

The Black church’s foundational role in the birth of rock n’ roll via Sister Rosetta Tharpe, hip-hop as the natural evolution of street preaching – and, indeed, the fact that Black church music is the foundation of every popular American music form – receives a lot of play. Interviews with Legend, Hudson, Kirk Franklin and many others uplift the ebullience in Gates’ presentation.

But it is when he’s in the presence of regular church folks and community ministers, as opposed to during his interactions with the famous and familiar, that Gates is at his most radiant. Some of the best scenes are the candid moments he shares with parishioners who have captivated them with a story or by performing a song.

While foregrounding the community support and acceptance the Black church emphasizes, these hours don’t glide over aspects of various denominations that have sparked controversy.

Gates calls out the fact that faith communities continue to wrestle with a history of homophobia and sexism that remains entrenched and will likely be for the foreseeable future. He also does this while featuring church communities that tend to LGBTQIA+ members and cites gospel’s influence in the work of such gay music legends as Sylvester.  The foundation of the Black church, he says, is propped up by women and gay men.

He also looks closely at post-civil rights era rise of “prosperity theology” as popularized by the flamboyant Reverend Ike, a practice adopted by white evangelical ministers such as Joel Osteen and financial gurus like Dave Ramsey, people who contribute to the right-wing notion that poverty has little to do with flaws in the larger capitalist systems and everything to do with the individual failing to seek out blessings.

“I don’t know who won after 1968, Dr. King or Reverend Ike,” one subject observes.

Each hour returns to the shifting meaning of “respectability politics,” initially demonstrating the term though the example of choirs performing for white audiences to raise money for HBCUs.  In this context the concept is viewed as something of a net positive light, but Gates takes another view later on that reflects upon the detrimental and insulting classism the term implies.

You’ve probably noticed as well that “The Black Church” almost entirely refers to the Protestant tradition. Muslims and the National of Islam’s rise and history receive the briefest of looks, and other denominations and faiths are passed over entirely.

I get why that is given that entire episodes could be devoted to the history of Black Jewish people in the United States, for instance. Many modern Black Catholic churches draw enough influence from gospel and African Methodist Episcopal traditions to make a side tour redundant, perhaps. Still, it’s worth keeping this in mind as we interpret the title.

“The Black Church” probably could have done more to explore why younger people have stopped attending services, too. While this is reflective of an overall decline in religious affiliation in America, surely there are reasons unique to young Black Americans that merit an expanded airing.

Little of this takes away from “The Black Church” due to Gates’ inviting take on the subject – cemented in the end by his circling back to his song. This time we see where he sang it, in the pulpit of the West Virginia Church he attended as a child, Waldon United Methodist as he shares a personal story about where his life with the Black church begins. It’s a simple place of worship, small and humble. When he launches into song and is joined by people sitting in the pews, we watch it grow into  something monumental.

Parts 1 and 2 of “The Black Church” premiere Tuesday, Feb. 16 at 9 p.m. followed by Parts 3 and 4 on Wednesday, Feb. 17 at 9 p.m. on PBS.

Here’s why Trump’s potential criminal prosecution wasn’t brought up during impeachment

Rep. Jamie Raskin (D-MD) revealed in an interview with the Washington Post’s Jennifer Rubin that President Donald Trump’s second impeachment trial was an emotional experience.

“We could have lost it all,” he said, talking about the attack on the Capitol. “There were people calling their children to say goodbye.”

Raskin said that he would not censor the emotion that people experienced during the attack while presenting a “lawyerly case.”

He understood the problems that Americans faced is that we’ve spent four years banning “critical thinking, science and reason” over “propaganda. It’s a profound challenge to democracy.”

Rubin noted that Raskin held back about questions on Trump’s eventual prosecution.

“I believe in prosecutorial independence,” Raskin said. He remarked that such a thing “was another casualty of the Trump administration.” Still, “there are a lot of criminal statutes being used” to prosecute Capitol attackers who went from the Trump rally to the Capitol.

“He is a profile in absolute cowardice,” Raskin also said. “He betrayed the Constitution, the country and his people.”

Raskin also explained that the decision to put Vice President Mike Pence at the center of their argument wasn’t part of a big strategy, it just happened that way.

“There was a method to all [his] madness. This was the counting of the electoral votes,” Raskin said. Trump assumed that if he could convince Pence to throw the vote, it would somehow hand him the election and “he could deny the election to Joe Biden.”

If the election outcome went to the House, Trump would then “declare martial law” to put down the violence. “Vice President Pence became the linchpin” in that plot. That’s why Trump told Pence that morning: “You can either go down in history as a patriot” or obviously as a victim to the attack.

Read the rest of the interview at the Washington Post.

LAPD opens investigation into cops who posted racist George Floyd “Valentine” card

The New York Times reported Sunday that a fake “inappropriate” Valentine’s Day card featuring George Floyd is being investigated after being “passed around” on social media by cops in the LAPD.

The card said, “You take my breath away,” with photos of Floyd, who was killed by a police officer kneeling on his neck in an infamous incident that took place in 2020.

According by LAPD Chief Michael Moore, in an internal memo, the image was posted on Twitter.

“The department is aware of the inappropriate post and a complaint has been initiated, and, due to personnel matters, we are unable to comment further,” said Los Angeles Police Department spokesperson, Officer Rosario Cervantes.

Another spokesman, Stacy Spell, confirmed to the Times that “an administrative personnel investigation has been initiated,” but they couldn’t discuss any internal matters.

How to have more productive conversations about racism: Stop focusing on individual intent

So, someone said they thought something we said or did was racist. Our first impulse is to say we aren’t racist, and therefore we could never have intended to do or say something racist. And, therefore, what we said or did can’t have been racist. But racism doesn’t require that somebody consciously decide to do something racist.

Racism can be built into systems even without there being any individuals who have the conscious intent to be racist. Think about this in terms of how some people are physically excluded from some older buildings because the buildings are anti-accessible. I teach in a building that was designed to have heavy doors that are hard to open, stairs all over the place (often just for aesthetics), a ramp that is much too steep, one small elevator that doesn’t go to one of the floors (where some instructors have office hours). The building was designed such that anyone who used a wheelchair, scooter, or even crutches or a cane was physically excluded. That exclusion was probably not conscious on the part of the architects or builders, but it was a manifestation of the beliefs at the time about what sorts of bodies were imagined to be part of the university community. There was no good reason to exclude people in wheelchairs and so on—they were perfectly capable of contributing to the university as much as anyone, except for the ways the university structures and institutional practices excluded them from doing so. That kind of cruel and unnecessary exclusion was the consequence of a sort of bigotry that is so widespread that participating in it doesn’t require conscious thought—it can rely on thoughtlessness.

We are in a new era, and my university has done a lot of work to renovate the building, but there are still those stairs, that small elevator and unsafe ramps. That exclusion, and the physical barriers to success, hurt more than just feelings. Students, staff, faculty, and visitors to the building face physical obstructions to their being able to get to class, work, meetings, office hours, and events on time, and sometimes even at all. It’s harder for them to succeed. The exclusion of the building hurts everyone (albeit to different degrees) because it means that staff and faculty can’t do their jobs as well, students can’t contribute as much to class. We lose the voices of people who are physically prevented from being part of our community.

So, what should we do?

Is the solution to this problem of exclusion for people to be consumed with shame and guilt? Not really. The people who designed the building are probably long dead; the people who use the building now feeling shame wouldn’t make the building any more accessible. It’s useful for people not inconvenienced by the building’s failings to recognize the advantage they have as the primary act for working on practices and policies that would solve that problem of exclusion. The goal is inclusion, and shame is, at best, a way to motivate people to prioritize inclusion. Whether the exclusion was intentional or not doesn’t change the reality that the building is exclusive; it was designed to exclude people, even if unconsciously or thoughtlessly.

We live and work within figurative structures that were designed to be racist, perhaps consciously, perhaps unconsciously—the intentions of the designers don’t change the reality that the design is racist. The end goal of activism about accessibility is not to make those without disabilities feel shame and guilt; it’s to motivate people to make the university more accessible. Indifference is as much a problem as hatred.

The most extreme manifestation of racism is genocide, and genocide happens not just because of the people who hate, but because of the people who don’t care. As Ian Kershaw, a prominent historian of Nazi Germany, famously said, “The road to Auschwitz was built by hate, but paved with indifference.” People can engage in racism by failing to object to racism.

The notion that racism is always and only the consequence of people who plan to be racist doesn’t make sense. As Ijeoma Oluo says,

racism is not the work of a bunch of random white people waking up each morning and saying to themselves, “Today I will do what I can to oppress a person of color.” . . . We cannot look at a society where racial inequity is so universal and longstanding and say, “This is all the doing of a few individuals with hate in their hearts.” It just doesn’t make sense.

When racism is built into the system, racist actions and policies don’t require a conscious intention to do harm on the part of individuals, let alone hatred. We won’t solve racism if we only focus on the conscious intentions of individuals, or even their feelings.

Because “am I racist?” is what cognitive psychologists call a “hot cognition” question—that is, it triggers a strong emotional reaction—this essay will make points about racism through analogies that aren’t about racism. Bear with me on that. By using a low-stakes example to make a point about how people think, and then showing how that particular way people think plays out when it comes to racism, I’m not equating the low-stakes situation and racism. It’s a strategy I’ve found helpful in teaching (not just me—I stole it from Aristotle). It’s hard to look at something a new way if hot cognition has been triggered, so it makes sense to try to talk about the principles in regard to low-stakes topics, and then move over to the high-stakes one.

For instance, Missy and Chester both said something that some people thought was racist, and the question quickly became focused on whether they were racist. Let’s step away from that high-stakes example. Imagine that we’re roommates, and I let dishes sit in the sink for days. You can make it an issue of who I am (“You’re a selfish pig for leaving dishes in the sink”) or what I’m doing (“Hey, I really need you to get to the dishes the same day”). If you make our disagreement about that first issue, what would it mean to “win” the argument? You’d succeed in persuading me that I’m an awful human being, and your “success” might actually reduce the chances of my doing the dishes more often. After all, if your goal in the disagreement is to persuade me to do the dishes, persuading me that my basic identity is that of a jerk gives me no place for improvement—it’s hopeless. I’m basically a terrible person.

If we keep the disagreement not on the issue of my worthiness as a human being but rather on the dishes, then we’ve got a lot of possible options for solving the problem—I could pay for a maid, pay you to do the dishes, do all the cooking, clean out the litter box, set an alarm to remind myself. If the problem is that I’m a horrible person, then it’s a hopeless problem; if the problem is something I’m doing, I can be hopeful about finding a solution. Keeping the issue on actions and not identity is more likely to enable us to solve the problem.

If you persuade me that I’m a racist and I think being a racist means that I’m a monster, then I’m just left in a world of self-loathing and I’m not any less racist—or any less likely to do racist things. If you persuade me that I’ve said or done something racist, then I can stop saying or doing that thing: not because this conversation should be framed in terms of actions rather than identities out of concern for being nice to racists—or even being particularly careful about the feelings of people doing racist things—but because it’s a more productive conversation to have overall.

In an advice column about workplaces that I often read, there was a long and fascinating comment thread in which people were sharing stories about times that very nice coworkers were using terms, avatars, or emojis that had sexual, scatological, or racist meanings of which they were unaware. One generally sweet person, for instance, was using as an avatar an image that she liked because it was an animal she really liked, but she didn’t know that it had been co-opted by the nastiest kind of white supremacist. There was no doubt that she didn’t know that, so the puzzle was how to tell her without sending her into a shame spiral. She never meant to appear to be endorsing an extremely racist group. But people who didn’t know her, especially customers, would assume that she (and therefore her company) was endorsing white supremacist groups and ideology. She didn’t intend to convey a racist message, but she did.

We can be racist without intending to. When it comes to having said or done something racist, that it was unintentional is not a “get out of racism free” card.

Imagine that I hit your car, and you wanted me to pay for the damage I did. Would you decide that I hadn’t actually hit your car if I didn’t intend to? You might be less mad at me, it might change your opinion on whether I’m a bad person, but it wouldn’t change anything about the damage to your car. Similarly, whether I intended to do something racist is relevant to the question of whether I’m a bad person, but it doesn’t change whether I did something damaging.

If I hit your car, it wouldn’t help solve the problem of your damaged car for you to leap out and yell at me that I’m a bad driver—even if that’s true—because raising the issue of my being a good driver means that it would appear relevant for me to show you my excellent results on the driving test, my good insurance score, affidavits from people who say they saw me drive well once. Just as it’s more productive to begin the conversation about your car with, “Hey, I think you hit my car” instead of “You’re a bad driver because you just hit my car,” it’s more productive to start the conversation about racism with, “Hey, I think that was a racist thing to say” rather than, “You’re a racist because you said that thing.” It’s also useful to try to hear “that was a racist thing” rather than “I’m racist.”

Jay Smooth has a really useful video about how we shouldn’t argue about whether someone is racist, but about whether someone did something racist, and he points out that, if someone stole his wallet, he would chase the person down, not to persuade them they’re a thief, but to get his wallet back.

Netflix’s pole dance therapy film “Strip Down, Rise Up” exploits trauma & is fixated on male gaze

Netflix’s new pole dancing film “Strip Down, Rise Up” begins with some promise. Finally, a documentary that could chronicle all of the beautiful things that pole can be: sport, artistry, performance, self-expression, eroticism.

But it quickly becomes something that pole is not: a trauma therapy group led by an unqualified layperson with an eerie bone to pick. 

Sheila Kelley, the founder of S Factor, a chain of pole dance studios, is the main character in “Strip Down, Rise Up” and is often credited with bringing pole to the mainstream, as the documentary shows with clips of Kelley’s appearances on every talk show from “Oprah” to “Conan.” The film, written and directed by Michèle Ohayon, follows Kelley as she leads a group of hesitant women with no prior pole experience through a six-month program at her Los Angeles-based S Factor studio. 

My trepidation kicked in early. As a practicing psychotherapist, I was wary when even the trailer presented women sitting around in a circle, many of them sobbing while telling horrific stories about trauma and abuse in an environment that did not seem appropriate for that kind of process. The image was troubling to me not only as a therapist, but also as someone with her own pole experience that looked very different from whatever it was that was being presented here. 

Out of curiosity, I had tried pole on a whim with a Groupon. In my first five years of classes, I worked through being unathletic, awkward, and uncoordinated to having four Pole Sport Organization competitions, three showcase performances, and two silver medals under my belt. I understand the transformational journey that pole can provide. I wanted a documentary about that kind of journey: the falls and self-doubt, elbow pains and calluses, the applause and pole family.

But Ohayon chooses to view pole through a different lens, focusing not even on S Factor itself, which is a popular boutique fitness trend in its own right, but on Kelley’s personal driving tenet that women do not have ownership over their own bodies. Kelley repeats the terms “male gaze” and “patriarchy,” referring to the ways women are judged on their appearances and made to compare their bodies to others’. This, she explains, was part of the impetus for creating S Factor, a pole dance method characterized apparently by a lot of hair-throwing and named for the S-like curves in a woman’s body (incidentally also for the owner’s first name). Kelley, an actress before she was a fitness mogul, found pole while researching for a role and was so impacted by it that she wanted to bring it to women. She asserts that pole dance is “overtly feminine,” forgetting history: the world’s first polers were in fact Asian men. 

The intention of the film is in conflict with itself. On the one hand, it makes efforts to illuminate an often misunderstood industry by telling some of the stories of women in it besides Kelley. But on the other, the narrative revolving around sexual trauma and Kelley’s group-commiseration about it veers from that arc in an almost opportunistic way. The women selected were not existing S Factor students — they were seemingly cherry-picked for their compelling stories for this odd therapy experiment. 

The underlying motivation seems to stem from deep feelings of resentment toward men that Kelley expresses. Early in the film, she says, “I am in a war to help women reclaim themselves.” It sounds like a noble pursuit, but the notion of this being at “war” brings hostility and animosity, pitting one side against another in a process she claims to be female-centric. There are many times her passion for female empowerment has more to do with dangling a female body in front of men . . . just to stick it to them. She and her husband (“The West Wing” and “The Good Doctor” actor Richard Schiff) in separate interviews cheekily argue about her bringing a pole into his gym/office to get his eyes off the Yankee game. In the film’s most bizarre scene, Kelley brings three men into the studio and essentially tells the women to do what they want with them, as if they’re male props to unload on. Any attempt to subvert the male gaze feels like lip service as the story keeps diverting back to men.

At one point, Ohayon presents the stories of survivors. But the stories are served fragmented in a cut-up montage of several women saying they were raped. It is jarring because previously, one or two women were being followed in depth. But here the women themselves are minimized in favor of highlighting a dark societal pattern and strengthening Ohayon and Kelley’s argument about men as enemy, rather than giving voice to the survivors. The montage is a fetishization of sexual trauma, as it passes over women’s identities and lumps their struggles together into what felt like a tasteless infomercial.

Ohayon’s framing of the narrative in this way is a manipulation of women’s stories. “Trauma porn,” was a term being used by social media commenters in response to the film. It is an apt criticism. The voracity with which Kelley digs into her students’ issues makes her come off as a kind of cult leader, an exploiter of trauma and intense displays of emotion for at best self-promotion and at worst sadistic pleasure. 

The goals of Kelley’s six-month program are vague. The arbitrary timeframe made me wonder what exactly people were promised. The documentary begins with Kelley saying: “This is going to provoke you, and it’s going to make you surrender.” She goes on to make several more claims, like “this movement will bring you into such an incredible state of peace,” and that it “can bring you into a better place in life.” Before we know it, women are baring their souls and are then taught to swing their hips in an oozy “S walk.”

S Factor is hardly the only pole style in the mainstream. I spoke to Ashley Fox, the owner and founder of Foxy Fitness and Pole, the pole sport studio I attended that has locations in New York and New Jersey.  “The thing about pole is that it is very limitless. Every take on pole is not going to be resonating with everybody,” she said. 

According to Fox, there have been many who deserve recognition for their own unique contributions to the wide spectrum of pole iterations. Fox’s colleague, choreographer and studio manager Yumiko Harris, who has a BFA in Dance from the University of North Carolina, sees the differences that cause rifts in the industry as being similar to different styles of dance — all are valid and important. 

“Strip Down, Rise Up” takes a few side roads to feature other polers well known in the industry in segments that are a welcome respite from Kelley’s navel-gazing. San Francisco Pole and Dance owner Amy Bond is introduced as an example of a competitive poler who trains her students in performance and technique. But after showcasing Bond’s strength and athleticism, the film pivots to her revelation of her own traumatic past and career in the porn industry. Bond is meant to represent a significant slice of the pole pie, but her story only serves to reinforce the film’s thesis about female shame. 

If one were juding by Ohayon’s film, the prerequisite for polers is to have ties to the sex industry or a history of abuse. But this is a contradiction of the initial thrust of the documentary in which a woman laments the association between poling and the sex industry: “We like to talk about how forward thinking we are, but the truth of the matter is, the second you see pole dancing, they (sic) immediately think where men go, smoke cigars, drink, and women do lap dances for money.”

Not only does Ohayon’s contradiction present a myopic view of the multifaceted pole community, it also perpetuates stigmas about sex work being shameful and always derived from trauma and abuse. The film, however, does not take the opportunity to actually feature any sex workers as part of its survey on the pole industry. Therefore the voices of those most stigmatized are left out, a choice inconsistent with the film’s so-called feminist pursuit.


Evelyn in “Strip Down, Rise Up” (Netflix)

Unlike much of the messaging in the film, my pole practice has had nothing to do with my relationship to men or my sex life.

“It is way more fulfilling to do something that is for you and about you,” said Fox. She and Harris train women at Foxy Fitness and Pole to dance in several styles including exotic, but both were concerned by the “doing it for your man” narrative seen in the film.

“Men have nothing to do with what we’re doing at our studio,” says Harris. As with Bond’s studio, Foxy Fitness and Pole holds co-ed and private classes in which men are welcome, as there is a large contingent of men in the sport, with some of the biggest polebrities being men. But their focus is on training women to perform or compete. Instructors teach students to orient themselves not to a male voyeur but to an imaginary “audience” when learning moves, as though on stage, whether that stage is a theater, a bedroom, or a strip club. Never was I instructed to go home and give my husband a lap dance, as Kelley does with one of her students. 

Harris said, “I definitely would not feel fit to say, ‘All you have to do is writhe on the floor and let it out.’ It’s going to take a lot more than pole dancing to heal trauma.” 

Managing her students’ expectations should have been the first thing Kelley did. This activity is not a substitute for psychotherapy. This is not clinical treatment (what’s shown is barely even pole dancing). It is unclear what precautions the filmmakers took with participants in advance, but at one point in the film, Kelley warns the women that they will feel like quitting because it’s “too intimate.” Rather than strong-arming and shaming them for wanting to quit — as when she strangely proclaims, “This is not for sissies,”—she should have followed her warning with, “quitting is your decision and your right.”

To cover her bases, Kelley brings in a consulting psychologist who tells the S Factor instructors that reclamation of one’s body after trauma must happen at that individual’s pace – a therapeutic doctrine that Kelley ignores. 

When a woman named Evelyn who had recently lost her husband begins to sob in class, the camera cuts to Kelley, catching her in a deer-in-headlights stare, as she seems clearly at a loss for how to contain Evelyn. Then, she says, “Put your hand where he is right now on your body.” Evelyn, rightfully confused, says, “I’m sorry?” Kelley then has Evelyn caress herself in front of the other women, and soon she is writhing on the floor doing a sexy cat crawl in Sheila’s direction. It is an intervention I can’t say I’ve ever used. We discover later that Evelyn has conflicted feelings about her late husband. Maybe she really didn’t want him on or in her body in that moment that she was trying to work through complex emotions. 

Whatever Kelley was selling, it doesn’t seem to work. Not even midway through the program, one participant walks out because this was not what she had signed up for. Another woman expresses feeling bad about herself because all the other women seemed to have unlocked themselves within 13 weeks, while she still felt unchanged. The camera focuses on her shrinking to the side at a home pole party, on the outskirts of the action. 

This woman also happened to be one of the only two Black women in the group. Furthermore, I counted one Latinx woman and one Asian woman. The rest of Kelley’s room is white, as are the majority of other polers and studio owners Ohayon features. This is not reflective of my pole experience at a Black-owned studio with a racially and socioeconomically diverse student body. The strategic placement of the few women of color in the film smacks of tokenism.

For self-proclaimed anti-patriarchy feminism, so much of what Kelley does is still based on a male gaze. She is still telling women how they’re supposed to be. She tells them where and how to touch themselves. Rather than the changes being self-directed by the women themselves, they are directed by Kelley, which brings up issues of consent and coercion indicative of an abusive relationship. Even Kelley’s discussion about naming her studio after the S curves in a woman’s body excludes women who have straighter bodies and don’t identify as an “S.” In one scene, Kelley pushes a woman to remove her glasses and change her hairstyle from natural and curly to smooth and blown out. In another, she encourages an employee to lose 100 pounds so that she can “get on top” of her husband during sex. It is all antithetical to what female empowerment through pole is about.

Both the poler and therapist in me felt uncomfortable and misrepresented when watching “Strip Down, Rise Up.” It has been disappointing to see the therapy profession undermined by various snake-oil salesmen who still seem to think mental health work can be like the Wild West

It has been equally disappointing to see the media and filmmakers like Ohayon fail time after time to create both a comprehensive and nuanced depiction of polers in their respective worlds. A better expression is Katori Hall’s acclaimed Starz series “P-Valley” set in a fictional Mississippi strip club, in which the depth of the characters and the artistry, athleticism, and struggle inherent to poling are not glossed over in favor of the smut. But it’s still only one show, one kind of story. Responsible representation can be done, but it will take many more truly inclusive feminists to do it.

Rand Paul accused of not giving Officer Goodman a standing ovation — but video shows he did

Sen. Rand Paul (R-KY) on Saturday slammed “lying scum bags” after Twitter users circulated a misleading video that appeared to show him refusing to clap for Capitol Officer Eugene Goodman during a standing ovation.

Paul said that he supported the Capitol Police and “cheered” Goodman when the hero was honored at the Capitol for his bravery during January 6 insurrection.

Some on Twitter had claimed that videos showed Paul sat for most of the ovation and didn’t clap.

But the video appears to be selectively edited. Other videos from the event show that Paul did stand and clap along with his fellow lawmakers:

Many Twitter users accused Paul of being a “liar.” See the attacks in the tweets below:

(Correction: A previous version of this story failed to mention that Rand Paul did stand and clap for Eugene Goodman. Raw Story regrets the error.)