Spring Sale: Get 1 Year, Save 58%

Mitch McConnell is no more credible than Donald Trump — but the press sucks up to him

Now that Donald Trump is down and almost out, our major media news organizations seem to have finally acknowledged that nothing that comes out of his mouth can be trusted. They no longer consider him credible — not only about the election results, but also about the pandemic and its devastating economic consequences. His astonishing lack of empathy is now accepted as a given, as is the fact that he is exclusively interested in himself.

But what of Mitch McConnell? Yes, after six weeks, the Senate majority leader finally acknowledged the results of the election. But is what he is saying about the pandemic and the economy any more credible than what Trump is saying? Are his utterly transparent motives any less venal?

Unlike Trump, McConnell really matters right now. After singlehandedly holding up a second stimulus package for seven agonizing months (the House passed a big one in May) McConnell is suddenly responding to political expediency (Republican Senate races in Georgia upon which his hold on power depends) by allowing a vote on a wildly meager one.

It’s not Trump who is holding the country hostage to his whims any more, it’s McConnell. (Well, it’s always been McConnell, right behind him, backing him every step of the way.)

But the press coverage?

The press coverage is everything that’s wrong with modern political journalism.

Rather than “taking sides,” elite political reporters are focusing their attention on the game-playing, and presumptively afford both sides equal amounts of credibility regardless of the reality or the history. The “problem” is not caused by anyone or anything in particular, it is simply “dysfunction.” And the only thing that matters is movement.

Most of the articles about the debate over stimulus legislation, for instance, shed no light on how we got to such a sorry state of affairs, who’s responsible, what is actually needed or what the bill actually does. It’s a whole lot of both-sides stenography, murmurs about compromise, and speculation about what yard-line we’re on.

Congressional leaders try to clear final hurdles in sprint to finish coronavirus relief package,” says the Washington Post headline. “Final stretch on COVID-19 economic relief, but no deal yet,” says the Associated Press. The fine folks at Politico call it “the latest evidence Washington is broken: at the peak of the worst public health crisis in a century, the White House and Congress are struggling to deliver another round of relief.” On NPR, when Scott Simon asked senior political editor Ron Elving why the relief bill was taking so long, Elving replied: “I still can’t give you a reason, Scott, other than gridlock politics.” As time goes by, he said, “that just makes both sides a little less reasonable.”

Amazingly, it doesn’t even seem to matter to congressional reporters that McConnell has provided no cogent argument for why he’s blocking desperately needed aid. He doesn’t need to explain! It’s just taken as a given. As I wrote last week, the absolutely unparalleled, truly radical obstructionism by McConnell and his caucus has become normalized — even internalized — by the congressional press corps.

It’s not that reporters don’t know better. It’s just that whatever the facts are, they continue to shoehorn them into the age-old congressional reporting tropes about both sides slogging it out to the finish line.

The enabling by congressional Republicans of Trump’s four-year reign of malign, anti-democratic incompetence goes unmentioned. This is the party that literally has no platform other than whatever-Trump-says. These are the members of Congress who lied about the “middle-class tax cut” and defended Trump during the impeachment trial, against all evidence. Just two weeks ago, only 27 congressional Republicans were willing to admit to the Washington Post that Biden had won the election. Even now, McConnell is trying to avoid a congressional vote to overturn the election results not because it’s ridiculous, but because if some members voted for reality it would infuriate Trump.

Political reporters need to shift some of their toxicity from Trump to McConnell and the party he now effectively leads. He’s not as public or impulsive as Trump. But he’s equally devoted to spreading misinformation. And while he is not as personally narcissistic as Trump, he is equally single-minded and devoted to a personal goal that has nothing to do with governing well: In McConnell’s case, as has been amply documented, that goal is keeping the money flowing in order to take and retain power for the Republican Party.

He is as shameless as Trump in projecting his own conduct onto the opposition. He declared on Sept. 30, “The American people are still hurting. Layoffs are still mounting. Families need more help and the healthcare fight needs more resources. One side voted to supply all that help. The other side decided to block it.” He declared on Dec. 9 that “we can’t do a thing unless the Democrats decide they want to make law.”

His level of cynicism is almost hard to believe. As Timothy Noah wrote for the New Republic:

Meanwhile, a framework that McConnell proposed on December 1 … consisted mostly of business subsidies — including, in a nice touch of self-parody, an expansion of the business-meal deduction to 100 percent, up from the Cares Act’s already hard-to-defend increase to 50 percent in March. Before Covid-19, the so-called three-martini-lunch deduction was 30 percent.

At no point has McConnell made any secret of his true intentions. From the get-go, the only issue that has animated him has been his demand to protect companies from liability for infecting workers and customers. He warned of a “second pandemic” of “lawsuits against doctors, nurses, hospitals and brave business people who are opening up” — although that pandemic is entirely mythical.

His real goal has been obvious to anyone paying attention. Amee Vanderpool, who writes the “Shero” newsletter, explained “What McConnell’s Corporate Immunity Really Means“:

At the center of the McConnell induced stalemate is the concept of granting corporations total immunity from civil and criminal liability, even if they recklessly endanger consumers and workers during the pandemic. This would mean that no employee or consumer could sue a business for any intentional or negligent harm caused, even in the most egregious of cases. This is a protective shield, being pushed in Congress by corporate lobbyists, who are committed to ensuring the cash flow for corporate business at any cost, including ensuring that Mitch McConnell is richly rewarded in exchange for selling out America.

Sarah Jones at New York magazine asked “Why Is Mitch McConnell So Obsessed With Liability Shields?” Timothy Lytton, a law professor at Georgia State University, explained:

“In most areas of public policy, there are groups that advocate for certain reforms,” he said. “Then they wait around for some crisis to come along where they can present their reform as a solution to the problem of the day.” With just such a crisis at hand, representatives for the hospital and nursing home industries have lobbied hard for liability protections at the state and federal level.

Sen. Sheldon Whitehouse, D-R.I., offered his own answer to Jones’ question on Twitter:

Jeff Sovern, a law professor at St. John’s University, wrote in the New York Daily News:

The reality is that Republicans seem to be trying not to let a good pandemic go to waste by achieving long-held goals of insulating businesses from liability for their own carelessness. They are risking public health to do it. Congress shouldn’t let them.

In an outlier story from a major news organization, Sarah D. Wire and Jie Jenny Zou of the Los Angeles Times did an admirable job of describing how it might affect the public:

Frontline California workers could lose protections if Republican efforts to limit corporate liability is included in a new stimulus package, advocates warn.

But despite the centrality of liability to the entire drama, most mainstream media news articles about the stimulus negotiations barely even mention liability or, when they do, employ dry, utterly non-descriptive language.

Democrats were so overwhelmingly opposed to McConnell’s liability provisions that he simply blocked any movement on the stimulus bill at all for over half the year — until he realized that the two vulnerable Georgia Republicans, Kelly Loeffler and David Perdue, were “getting hammered” on the lack of federal aid. Rather than give up, McConnell split off liability and the element of the stimulus he despises the most — relief to struggling state and local governments — into a separate bill to be considered later.

The need for a second stimulus has been manifestly urgent since the House passed its bill in May, but media interest while McConnell balked was minimal. It picked up in some places as a deadline approached, but even then, the broadcast networks weren’t interested. As Media Matters for America reported on Dec. 15:

And they pretty much ignored the liability issue:

When the networks got the chance to interrogate lawmakers, they questioned only Democrats, rather than members of the party insisting billions of dollars be put toward protecting businesses from being sued for mishandling the pandemic.

Andy Slavitt, who ran the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services under Barack Obama, laid out the compelling anti-McConnell argument in a tweetstorm in early December. It went in part:

Not enough attention has been played to the villainous role of Mitch McConnell and the Senate in this pandemic…

Congress has broken the most significant compact with the public in my lifetime…..

In failing us, the Congress has helped turn the country against one another. Has made us more cynical in our politics. Less trusting of our government.

None of those things strike me as things that bother Mitch McConnell in the least.

Even some NeverTrump Republicans have realized that McConnell is the big problem going forward. It was funny to watch New York Times columnist David Brooks the other day start by complaining that the legislative branch is so broken “it can’t address even our most glaring problems,” but ultimately find himself forced to admit it is McConnell who broke it.

It’s long past time for the Washington press corps to stop covering up for Mitch McConnell. But it’s particularly urgent now.

As pandemic rages on, analysis finds 1 in 5 people in U.S. prisons infected with COVID

Amid swelling calls to reduce the nation’s incarceration rates in light of the ongoing pandemic, The Marshall Project and The Associated Press released a new analysis Friday finding that one in five state and federal prisoners has tested positive for COVID-19.

That rate is “more than four times as high as the general population,” the analysis noted. More than 1,700 prisoners have died from the virus, the data also showed.

The figures are based on data collected weekly in prisons since March, and account for cases and deaths as of Tuesday. The Marshall Project and AP have been tracking COVID-19 data in prisons since March. 

So far, they found, at least 275,000 prisoners have been infected with the virus — though the tally is likely an undercount.

The analysis cites Homer Venters, former chief medical officer at New York’s Rikers Island jail Homer Venters, who said, “I still encounter prisons and jails where, when people get sick, not only are they not tested but they don’t receive care.”

Included in the analysis are 24 state prison systems that had even higher rates than one in five. In South Dakota, for example, three out of five prisoners have been infected with COVID-19 — the highest rate. Arkansas had the second highest prisoner infection rate, with four of every seven having tested positive.

The analysis further noted:

Racial disparities in the nation’s criminal justice system compound the disproportionate toll the pandemic has taken on communities of color. Black Americans are incarcerated at five times the rate of whites. They are also disproportionately likely to be infected and hospitalized with Covid-19 and are more likely than other races to have a family member or close friend who has died of the virus.

Human rights groups and public health experts have been urging states to roll out plans for the early release of prisoners. Calls began as early as March for compassionate releases. The months since have seen soaring infection rates and prison officials being accused of mishandling the response to the virus and denying basic necessities to stop its spread.

Over 200 health experts this month said that prison population reductions “would save lives and help limit the spread of the virus to communities nationwide.”

“Physical distancing is unattainable in overcrowded and unsanitary carceral facilities, making viral outbreaks especially likely among a population with disproportionately high numbers of people who are medically vulnerable,” the group wrote.

The pleas for early releases, however, have largely fallen on deaf ears.

“In the first three months of the pandemic, more than 10,000 federal prisoners applied for compassionate release,” The Marshall Project and AP found. “Wardens denied or did not respond to almost all those requests, approving only 156 — less than 2 percent.”

The new figures on COVID-19-infected prisoners align with those of the ACLU, which warned back in April that the nation’s “unique obsession with incarceration has become our Achilles heel when it comes to combating the spread of COVID-19.”

The ACLU has accused local and state officials of failing to take adequate measures to reduce the spread of the virus in jails. And in October, the right groups sued the Trump administration to demand “the immediate release of improperly withheld agency records related to federal government’s failed response to the spread of COVID-19 in prisons in jails.” 

The ACLU, along with the UCLA School of Law’s Prison Law and Policy Program, has been maintaining a “death by incarceration” database.

According to that tool, which covers state, federal, and local jails, as well as ICE detention facilities, there have been 266,993 COVID-19 cases and 1,778 virus-related deaths.

In the U.S. more broadly, the virus also continues its grip, even as vaccines are being given to healthcare workers this week. According to data from Johns Hopkins University, the U.S. has had over 17.2 million cases and over 311,000 deaths. “The country’s average number of daily cases across a week was 215,729 on Wednesday,” CNN reported, a figure that’s “more than three times what the daily case average was during a summer peak in July.”

Zodiac’s cipher codebreaker speaks out: Killer was his own self-defeating “publicist”

Sam Blake, an Australian mathematician, first learned of the Zodiac Killer’s unsolved ciphers — a series of encrypted messages — from a documentary in the 1990s. His interest marginally increased in 2007 after the release of David Fincher’s “Zodiac,” but it wasn’t until last year that it completely was cemented while watching code-breaking expert David Oranchak’s “Let’s Crack Zodiac” YouTube series. 

The series was dedicated to solving the codes the Northern California serial killer sent in letters to newspapers in the late 1960s and early 1970s. One of the ciphers, called the 408 cipher, was solved in 1969 by a schoolteacher and his wife, but it did not reveal the killer’s identity; the additional three puzzles remained unsolved for over 51 years, despite advances in computer technology. 

“[Oranchack] put together some really good videos where he did a deep dive into the analysis of the 408 cipher, then he did a couple of talks at the American Cryptogram Association on the unsolved 340 cipher,” Blake said. “I really liked his approach, it was very analytical. And when I saw his presentation, I thought there were probably a couple of things I could suggest, to see if he’d tried before.” 

Blake’s suggestions snowballed into him and Oranchak formally working together, along with Belgian programmer Jarl Van Eycke, to solve the cipher, which is organized as a grid of 63 unique, mysterious symbols. 

Two weeks ago, they succeeded after spending a year using Van Eycke’s code-breaking computer program and more than 650,000 variations written by Blake. The cipher roughly translates to say: 

“I HOPE YOU ARE HAVING LOTS OF FUN IN TRYING TO CATCH ME
THAT WASN’T ME ON THE TV SHOW
WHICH BRINGS UP A POINT ABOUT ME
I AM NOT AFRAID OF THE GAS CHAMBER
BECAUSE IT WILL SEND ME TO PARADICE ALL THE SOONER
BECAUSE I NOW HAVE ENOUGH SLAVES TO WORK FOR ME
WHERE EVERYONE ELSE HAS NOTHING WHEN THEY REACH PARADICE
SO THEY ARE AFRAID OF DEATH
I AM NOT AFRAID BECAUSE I KNOW THAT MY NEW LIFE IS
LIFE WILL BE AN EASY ONE IN PARADICE DEATH” 

On Dec. 11, the FBI verified the cipher had been solved by “private citizens.” 

“The Zodiac Killer case remains an ongoing investigation for the FBI San Francisco division and our local law enforcement partners,” the organization said in a statement. “The Zodiac Killer terrorized multiple communities across Northern California and even though decades went by, we continue to seek justice for the victims of these brutal crimes.” 

According to Blake, the 340 cipher was much more complex than the 408 cipher because of its organization. It not only required decoders to work out the key for the letters, but the direction that the letters ran as well.

“I’ve been asked before if I thought the Zodiac understood how much more difficult he made it by doing this and I doubt he did, because otherwise he wouldn’t have put such contemporary material in the contents of the cipher,” Blake said. “Like ‘that wasn’t me on the TV show,’ that’s something you would have probably wanted to come out sooner than 51 years about he wrote it in there.” 

There are a lot of theories about who the Zodiac is or was, and numerous online groups and subreddits dedicated to investigating and picking them apart. Blake believes that the enduring interest in the case is that he was very much “his own self-publicist.” 

“He didn’t just send ciphers into newspapers,” Blake said. “He sent multiple, multiple letters, communications, cards and drawings. Threats to blow up busses and all sorts of things. He really kept himself in the public eye doing that.” 

The mysterious nature of those ciphers, as well as the fact that the crimes remain unsolved, cemented the Zodiac Killer as a kind of dark pop culture symbol that has endured through the true crime boom. “Dirty Harry,” which stars Clint Eastwood, is very loosely based on the Zodiac case and features a killer (Andrew Robinson) who calls himself “Scorpio.” Fictional killers who send messages like the Zodiac ciphers have appeared in everything from “Criminal Minds” to the anime series “Death Note.” 

Just last year, FX aired “The Most Dangerous Animal of All,” a four-part documentary series that explored Gary L. Stewart’s search for his biological father, Earl Van Best Jr., only to uncover evidence that perhaps suggests his father was the Zodiac Killer. 

Blake wouldn’t classify himself as a huge fan of true crime, but he is interested in documentaries that detail the strides in science that are enabling investigators to catch series killers. 

“For example, I really enjoyed watching different presentations given by Paul Holes about how they used familial DNA and genealogy to catch the Golden State Killer,” Blake said. “I believe many cases have been solved using that technology which is amazing. My interest in them is more the methods of catching them than the actual underlying perpetrators.” 

There are still two Zodiac Killer ciphers that remain unsolved, called the Z13 and Z32 ciphers. The Z13, in particular, has fascinated researchers for over 50 years because it is immediately preceded by the phrase, “My name is . . .”

Blake said that he and his team are interested in turning their attention to those, and he’s currently going to see if the university where he works would be willing to finance their research. 

“At the moment, it’s been sort of a side project,” Blake said. “But now that we’ve had this success and it’s looking like we’re heading in the right direction in terms of solving these, I’d like to certainly devote more time to it.”

Barack Obama’s favorite songs of 2020: Springsteen, Bad Bunny, Dua Lipa

Barack Obama has shared his favorite songs of 2020, a list that includes artists like Bob Dylan, Bruce Springsteen, Bad Bunny, Phoebe Bridgers and Dua Lipa.

Here are some of my favorite songs of the year,” the former president tweeted. “As usual, I had some valuable consultation from our family music guru, Sasha, to put this together. I hope you find a new song or two to listen to.”

Read more from Rolling Stone: Meet the paramedic whose OnlyFans was outed by the New York Post

Like previous favorite songs on his annual lists, Obama’s musical taste spans many genres, from rock (Bruce Springsteen’s “Ghosts,” Bob Dylan’s “Goodbye Jimmy Reed,” Jeff Tweedy’s “Love Is the King”) to pop (Dua Lipa’s “Levitating,” Jessie Ware’s “Remember Where You Are”) to rap (J. Cole’s “The Climb Back,” Travis Scott’s “Franchise,” Lil Baby’s The Bigger Picture”) to country (Chris Stapleton’s “Starting Over,” Ruston Kelly’s “Brave”).

Read more from Rolling Stone: Congratulations to Mitch McConnell for successfully shrinking COVID relief checks

Obama’s picks also include a pair of Best New Artist Grammy nominees, Megan Thee Stallion and Beyonce’s “Savage Remix” and Phoebe Bridgers’ “Kyoto” — which happened to be the only two tracks Obama’s picks shared in common with Rolling Stone‘s 50 Best Songs of 2020 list — plus emerging artists like Lido Pimienta, Waxahatchee, Faye Webster and Little Simz.

Read more from Rolling Stone: Aaron Dessner on how his collaborative chemistry with Taylor Swift led to “Evermore”

Check out Obama’s full list — which also included Bad Bunny, Mac Miller, H.E.R. and Goodie Mob — below:

On Friday, the former president shared the list of his favorite TV shows and films that he watched while in lockdown.

Will rising temperatures make superweeds even stronger?

Around 10 years ago, in the fierce heat of the Kansas summer, many of the noxious kochia weeds invading Phillip Stahlman’s research fields simply wouldn’t budge when sprayed with a mixture of two widely used herbicides, glyphosate and dicamba. Just a few months earlier, in the cooler spring weather, the herbicide mixture had easily triggered the weed’s small thin leaves to curl up and turn brown, signaling the plant’s demise.

Now the stalwart weed had Stahlman stumped. Stahlman, then a weed scientist at Kansas State University, had never encountered this problem with herbicides before. He initially assumed that he had applied the agrichemicals incorrectly. But year after year, the same thing happened. Stahlman knew something was up. He kept a close watch on the weeds in his fields. He also conferred with local farmers who reported seeing similar problems. “The light didn’t come on for a while until the issue kept reoccurring. It was like putting together a puzzle,” says Stahlman.

Eventually, Stahlman, who has since retired, decided that the problem was likely temperature: Something about spraying in high heat was rendering the herbicides less effective.

Stahlman is not alone in making this observation. Today, mounting evidence suggests that temperatures of around 90 degrees Fahrenheit or above can make some herbicide-resistant weeds even more resistant, and cause other weeds to be less sensitive to certain chemicals.

Some farmers say they know high temperatures can mess with some herbicides, so they try to avoid spraying in the heat of the day. “A good rule of thumb is if it’s 85 to 90 degrees Fahrenheit, just don’t spray,” says Curt Gottschalk, a farm manager in Hays, Kansas.

Not all experts agree that this pattern, largely demonstrated in lab experiments, poses a problem for farmers. And some herbicides appear to work even better at high temperatures. But if heat is boosting many weeds’ resistance to major herbicides, the implications could be significant. Left unchecked, weeds can devastate harvests and income — if farmers didn’t make an effort to control weeds, they could wipe out around half of all corn and soybean yields across the U.S and Canada, according to the Weed Science Society of America, a nonprofit society of academic and industry scientists. The loss could cost farmers around $43 billion annually.

Farmers are already battling against epidemics of weeds that have developed genetic resistance to multiple herbicides, including glyphosate and dicamba. Stahlman and other weed researchers argue that temperature could be an overlooked second factor strengthening weeds’ defenses against herbicides. Although most farmers now understand that temperature affects herbicides, to the untrained eye it could look just like herbicide resistance, Stahlman says.

These researchers also fear the issue could worsen in the future as climate change raises temperatures and extreme weather events, including heat waves, become more frequent.

“We already know that herbicide resistance is the most problematic issue in chemical weed control,” Maor Matzrafi, a weed scientist at Israel’s national Agricultural Research Organization, wrote in an email to Undark. “Maybe reduced sensitivity due to climate change is next in line.”

* * *

Farmers used to rely less on herbicides, instead controlling weeds using laborious methods such as tilling and manual removal. But, starting in the mid-1990s, biotechnology companies began debuting genetically modified crops that were resistant to common, powerful herbicides. The new seeds allowed farmers to liberally spray their fields with agrochemicals to kill weeds while their GM crop flourished. The technology made most manual weeding unnecessary, and herbicide use surged globally. But weeds evolved in response, and herbicide resistant varieties emerged. That has set off a new battle between farmers and weeds, with farmers increasingly using combinations of chemicals, as well as additional doses, to try to knock off weeds.

After Stahlman’s experience with kochia weeds, though, he began to examine whether temperature could be affecting herbicide performance more than was widely recognized. (Stahlman, like many academic weed scientists, has received research funding from agrochemical companies in the past.)

To decipher how heat helps weeds fend off herbicides, Stahlman teamed up with KSU colleagues Mithila Jugulam, a weed physiologist, and Junjun Ou, a research assistant. The team grew seedlings from kochia populations that originated in Kansas, in chambers kept at temperatures ranging from 63.5 to 90.5 degrees Fahrenheit — representative of the state’s spring and summer daytime heat. The temperature in the chambers dropped every 12 hours to mimic cooler nighttimes. When the seedlings reached around 4 inches high, the researchers dosed some with glyphosate and others with dicamba. At weekly intervals, the team examined the weeds for signs of injury. After one month, they cut down the weeds and dried and weighed them.

The team found that, at high temperatures, they needed more than twice the amount of glyphosate and dicamba to control weeds. They published their results in 2016.

To understand why heat reduced sensitivity, the researchers tracked the herbicides’ paths through the weeds using mildly radioactive versions of glyphosate and dicamba. The former previously manufactured by Monsanto, and the latter produced by BASF Corp. (BASF Corp. provided a graduate student assistantship to Ou for a different project.)

The team found that the leaves absorbed less glyphosate at higher temperatures. They’re not sure why, but Jugulam thinks the heat may encourage the kochia to develop thicker cuticles — a protective layer on the leaf surface — which then boost the weeds’ defenses against the herbicide. The team discovered a different process at work when the weeds encountered dicamba. Temperature did not affect the amount of dicamba that the weeds’ absorbed, but it did hinder the herbicide’s movement through the plant so that less reached its target — the tissue developing at the tips of new shoots and leaves.

In another study, published last year, Jugulam turned her attention to the herbicide 2,4-D, one of the ingredients of agent orange, an infamous defoliant used in the Vietnam War. Today, it’s one of the most widely used herbicides. Jugulam tested how temperature affected the herbicide’s ability to control common waterhemp, a broadleaf weed found encroaching on Midwestern corn and soybean fields.

In the tests, Jugulam examined some common waterhemp that had developed genetic resistance to 2,4-D, and some that had not. She found that it took more than three time as much herbicide to kill the resistant weed under hot, dry conditions than at cooler temperatures. She found a similar but smaller effect in the susceptible weeds.

Herbicide-resistant waterhemp survives exposure to 2,4-D by quickly breaking the chemical down into nontoxic substances before it can reach its targets at the tips of roots, stems, and leaves. When the temperature is high, Jugulam found, waterhemp breaks down those molecules faster.

Jugulam also noted that under high temperatures, some herbicide resistant weeds appear to become more resistant and some susceptible weeds may require more herbicide for their control.

Not all weeds and herbicides respond to temperature the same way. For example, Jugulam has also found that 2,4-D and glyphosate work better at higher temperatures against common and giant ragweed, two other weeds common in U.S. farmers’ fields. Jugulam also says that, even in cases where heat does hinder herbicides, the impacts appear to be mostly limited to dry conditions. Areas with high humidity and rainfall might not see the same effects.

But some experts say evidence is growing in a variety of species and agrochemicals that temperature, and in some cases high carbon dioxide levels, affect weed control, at least in the laboratory.

In tests published in 2016, Matzrafi found that at high temperatures four different species of grass weeds stood up against diclofop-methyl, an ingredient in an herbicide manufactured by Bayer, significantly better than they did at lower temperatures. Matzrafi also found that high temperatures made another herbicide, pinoxaden, less able to curb growth of the invasive grass false brome. Moreover, the grass thrived even when it was switched from cooler conditions to a hotter environment up to two days after the herbicide treatment. (The research was partially funded by ADAMA Agricultural Solutions, an agrochemical company based in Israel.)

“Our findings, and many other studies since the ’90s, suggest that post-application environmental conditions may also affect herbicide sensitivity,” explained Matzrafi in an email. Even if farmers spray during cooler temperatures, that might not be enough to avoid the effects of heat.

Those conditions, experts fear, will worsen under climate change. Already, many U.S. states important for agriculture, as well as other major food producing regions around the world, regularly experience temperatures topping 90 degrees Fahrenheit during growing seasons. Some researchers say that problems with heat and herbicide performance are coming to the fore now partly because of more frequent episodes of extreme heat over the past few decades.

However, it is hard to pin the effects seen today on recent climatic changes, Lewis Ziska, a plant physiologist at Columbia University in New York, wrote in an email to Undark. But, noting that weeds are “the greatest constraint for food production,” Ziska warns that “they will be a formidable challenge for farmers in a more extreme environment.”

In the Midwest, for example, temperatures could rise by an average of 8.5 degrees Fahrenheit by the end of the century, with longer and more frequent stretches of extreme heat, according to federal government projections. And in South Asia, including India — a globally important region for producing rice, pulses, nuts, and cotton — the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change projects that average annual temperatures will rise by nearly 6 degrees Fahrenheit by 2100.

In the first experiment of its kind, the results of which were reported last year, Matzrafi studied the joint effect of heat and raised carbon dioxide levels on two different weed species and found that the combination boosts weeds’ herbicide defenses beyond that by either factor alone.

It’s not clear whether herbicide manufacturers are prepared for the coming challenges of a warming planet. Many do not recommend optimal spraying temperatures to ensure efficacy in the guidelines they distribute to farmers.

In a written statement Clark Ouzts, a spokesperson for Sygenta, the manufacturer of pinoxaden, says the company has not studied the potential effects of climate change on the herbicide’s activity, but that “field research and commercial applications have not shown temperature to have a significant impact on the activity of Pinoxaden.”

Charla Lord, a spokesperson for Bayer, wrote in a statement that the company’s herbicides are “extensively tested to meet all regulators’ requirements” and “labeled so applicators know how to apply for them for optimal control and success.” The company did not respond to specific questions regarding the efficacy of their products under high temperatures, although the company has posted about the challenges of high-temperature spraying on its website.

Corteva, which makes herbicides incorporating 2,4-D, did not respond to requests for comment on how high temperatures affect the herbicide’s performance.

* * *

Not everyone is convinced that these experimental findings spell trouble for farmers. Some researchers and weed experts say that laboratory conditions differ radically from the field, making the results less pertinent. “I don’t think we could say for sure that this is having an impact at the real-world scale,” wrote Brad Hanson, a weed expert at the University of California, Davis, in an email to Undark. Hanson worked with Matzrafi on the research published last year.

Hanson, who works with California farmers as a researcher and extension specialist, also wrote that farmers typically use enough herbicide to overcome any small changes in weed sensitivity brought on by heat.

Kassim Al-Khatib, a crop physiologist at the University of California, Davis who has investigated how herbicides perform under heat and humidity, wrote in an email to Undark that the studies are carried out under carefully controlled laboratory conditions that farmers would never find in their fields.

“What happens under controlled conditions does not generally support what happens in field conditions,” he wrote.

In his own research, Al-Khatib has studied the effect of temperature and humidity on a small number of herbicide types and weed species. In the cases he has studied, he says, herbicide efficacy generally improves at higher temperature and humidity, unless temperatures exceed 100 degrees Fahrenheit.

Matzrafi and Jugulam agree that the lab does not reflect the more complex farm environment.

“But I don’t think it lessens the importance of the results,” Matzrafi wrote. He, Stahlman, and others say they have seen the effect in the field for themselves.

“I think we are seeing something. Over the next 10 years I think we will see more. It’s going to be a major problem,” says Chuck Otte, a K-State Research and Extension agent in Geary County, Kansas, who primarily works with farmers.

The research findings are trying news for farmers who rely on herbicides to keep increasingly weaponized weeds at bay. For now, some farmers are striving to stave off some of the effects from heat by spraying herbicides during cooler periods of the day. In the heart of summer, Carie Moore says she sometimes wakes before dawn to spray her 650-acre farm in North Dakota before the heat climbs too high, occasionally topping 100 degrees Fahrenheit. But as the globe warms, farmers will face narrower windows during which temperatures are cool enough to spray, says Ziska. And Matzrafi’s research suggests that spraying during cooler periods doesn’t guarantee that herbicide efficacy isn’t affected by bursts of heat that come later in the day or even the following day.

And sometimes farmers can’t avoid spraying herbicides in the heat, particularly on huge farms with several thousand acres.

Otte says that skeptics might not realize their herbicides are not working because heat has given weeds a helping hand. They might first assume that an array of other common factors are at fault, such as herbicide resistance, lack of rainfall, or too little herbicide. “There are so many confounding factors it is difficult to sort it all out,” he says.

In the long-run, farmers will need to lessen their reliance on herbicides and instead use other techniques more often used in organic farming today to keep weeds at bay, many experts say. For example, planting cover crops such as spring oats or crimson clover helps stop weeds taking root in bare soil and growing a variety of crops in rotation can wrong-foot weeds helping to suppress populations. Moore is already moving in this direction. She rotates soybeans with wheat, barley, and a couple of other crops and plants a variety of additional cover crops including rye and peas.

She also occasionally tills the soil to help stifle weed growth. “The less we have to spray chemicals the better,” she says.

Yet, to keep up yields, farming can’t entirely abandon herbicides, says Ziska. With very few new chemicals on offer, farmers will need to be more careful with the herbicides they have now to ensure they continue to work in the future. Manufacturers need to provide farmers with better advice on when and how to use herbicides, adds Matzrafi.

“Farmers can no longer just spray and pray,” says Otte.

* * *

Natasha Gilbert is a freelance reporter in Washington, D.C., who has spent over a decade covering the environment, agriculture, and sustainability.

This article was originally published on Undark. Read the original article.

Ted Cruz’s former aide slams some of the worst Trump enablers of 2020 — including her ex-boss

Although Amanda Carpenter formerly served as communications director for Sen. Ted Cruz, the Never Trump conservative and CNN pundit has made no secret of her total disdain for President Donald Trump — who she believes has been a curse for the Republican Party and the conservative movement. Carpenter discusses the Trumpication of the GOP in a scathing article published by The Bulwark on December 18, and one of the people she lambasts is her former boss: Sen. Ted Cruz of Texas.

Carpenter served as Cruz’ communications director in the past, and she is up-front about that fact: the mini-bio at the end of her Bulwark articles mentions that she worked for Cruz as well as for former Republican Sen. Jim DeMint. Regardless, Carpenter doesn’t cut Cruz any slack in her Bulwark piece, and the other Republicans she slams as Trump’s worst enablers of 2020 range from White House Press Secretary Kayleigh McEnany to Sen. Lindsey Graham of South Carolina to Sen. Susan Collins of Maine.

Carpenter recalls that on July 22, Cruz shamelessly politicized the COVID-19 pandemic — making the ridiculous claim that if Joe Biden were elected president, Democrats would no longer favor social distancing restrictions. Cruz viewed social distancing as nothing more than a way for Democrats to hurt Trump.

Biden, of course, is now president-elect, and Democrats haven’t abandoned social distancing as Cruz predicted they would — they are as pro-social distancing as ever. On July 22, Cruz was obviously much more concerned about Trump’s political wellbeing than the wellbeing of all the Americans who were dying left and right from COVID-19.

Carpenter attacks Graham for his total hypocrisy with Supreme Court nominees, noting that he joined Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell in opposing President Barack Obama’s nomination of Judge Merrick Garland for the U.S. Supreme Court in 2016 only to demand, in 2020, that Trump’s High Court nominee, Amy Coney Barrett, be confirmed by the U.S. Senate as quickly as possible.

McEnany, according to Carpenter, repeatedly debased herself in the name of Trumpism in 2020 — especially after the election.

Carpenter explains, “Kayleigh McEnany — the Top Tribune of Trumpism, White House press secretary, Trump campaign advisor, and catch-all surrogate of whatever gets her on TV — unlocked new levels of toadyism while mouthing Trump’s lies about the election. Earlier this month, citing the same pseudo-scientific nonsense used by Texas Attorney General Ken Paxton, McEnany proclaimed to the masses that the chances of Trump losing key swing states were ‘one in a quadrillion to the 4th power’…. Dual dishonors go to Paxton and McEnany.”

According to Carpenter, the “most unintentionally hilarious political moment of 2020” came when GOP activist Kimberly Guilfoyle, who is Donald Trump, Jr.’s girlfriend and, ironically, the ex-wife of Democratic California Gov. Gavin Newsom, spoke — or rather yelled — at the 2020 Republican National Convention.

“In August, MAGA’s favorite former Fox News leg-chair occupant delivered an unforgettable speech at the Republican National Convention that shall forever and always remain unmatched in its disturbingly unbridled enthusiasm for all things Trump,” Carpenter recalls. “After some par-for-the-course mendacity, like referring to ‘Biden, Harris, and the rest of the socialists,’ she yelled, ‘President Trump believes in you! He emancipates and lifts you up to live your American Dream’ and warned Republicans not to let the Democrats ‘kill future generations because they told you and brainwashed you and fed you lies that you weren’t good enough.’ Then came her big finish that truly must be watched to appreciate all its mortifying grandeur.”

To illustrate just how embarrassing Guilfoyle’s RNC 2020 speech was, Carpenter used this infamous video with her article:

Collins isn’t nearly as Trumpian as some of the other Republicans Carpenter slams in her article. In fact, Trumpistas repeatedly attack the Maine senator as a RINO: Republican in Name Only. But Carpenter notes that during Trump’s impeachment trial, Collins lacked the courage to vote “guilty.”

“Maine Sen. Susan Collins expressed various degrees of concern about Donald Trump throughout his presidency — while somehow managing to support him with her votes every step of the way,” Carpenter writes. “In February, during the impeachment trial, Collins voted to acquit Trump, justifying her decision this way in an interview with CBS News: ‘I believe that the president has learned from this case’ and that Trump ‘will be much more cautious in the future.’ Which he, of course, did not and was not.”

Is it too late to save “America’s Amazon”?

When longtime environmental journalist Ben Raines started writing a book about the biodiversity in Alabama, the state had 354 fish species known to science. When he finished writing 10 years later, that number had jumped to 450 thanks to a bounty of new discoveries. Crawfish species leaped from 84 to 97 during the same time.

It’s indicative of a larger trend: Alabama is one of the most biodiverse states in the country, but few people know it. And even scientists are still discovering the rich diversity of life that exists there, particularly in the Mobile River basin.

All this newly discovered biodiversity is also gravely at risk from centuries of exploitation, which is what prompted Raines to write his new book, Saving America’s Amazon: The Threat to Our Nation’s Most Biodiverse River System.

The Revelator talked with Raines about why this region is so biodiverse, why it’s been overlooked, and what efforts are being made to protect it.

What makes Alabama, and particularly the Mobile River system, so biodiverse?

The past kind of defines the present in Alabama.

During the ice ages, when much of the nation was frozen under these giant glaciers, Alabama wasn’t. The glaciers petered out by the time they hit Tennessee. It was much colder but things here didn’t die.

Everything that had evolved in Alabama over successive ice ages is still here. We have a salamander, the Red Hills salamander, that branched off from all other salamander trees 50 million years ago. So this is an ancient salamander, but it’s still here because it never died out.

The other thing you have here, in addition to not freezing, is that it’s really warm. Where I am in Mobile, we’re on the same latitude as Cairo. So the same sun that bakes the Sahara Desert is baking here.

But we also have the rainiest climate in the United States along Alabama’s coast. It actually rains about 70 inches a year here. By comparison, Seattle gets about 55 inches. It makes for a sort of greenhouse effect where we have this intense sun and then plenty of water. Alabama has more miles of rivers and streams than any other state.

Things just grow here.

The pitcher plant bogs of Alabama, for example, are literally among the most diverse places on the planet. In the 1960s a scientist went out and counted every species of flowering plant in an Alabama pitcher plant bog. He came up with 63. That was the highest total found on Earth in a square meter for a decade or more.

For a long time the Great Smoky Mountains National Park was thought to be the center of oak tree diversity in the world because they have about 15 species of oaks in the confines of the park. Well, two years ago scientists working in this area called the Red Hills along the Alabama River found 20 species of oak trees on a single hillside. It’s just staggering.

Why is Alabama’s rich biodiversity not well known or studied?

The state was never known for being a biodiverse place until the early 2000s, when NatureServe came out with this big survey of all the states. It surprised everyone because it showed Alabama leading in aquatic diversity in all the categories — more species of fish, turtles, salamanders, mussels, snails.

This blew everybody away because Alabama in everybody’s mind is the civil rights protests of the 1960s, the KKK, steel mills and cotton fields. But that’s not what’s in Alabama, that’s what we’ve done to Alabama since we’ve been here.

I think part of it also has to do with being a long way from Harvard and Yale and Stanford and the great research institutions that were sending biologists all over the world. Alabama just wasn’t really studied or explored.

Again and again, the story in Alabama is that nobody has ever looked.

That’s one of E.O. Wilson’s big messages about Alabama. He is our most famous living scientist, I would say, or certainly biologist. He grew up here, and now in his twilight years his big mission has become trying to save Alabama. And he describes it as less explored than Borneo and says we have no idea what miracle cures and things we may find in the Mobile River system, which is what I call “America’s Amazon.”

As you write about in your book, all this newly discovered biodiversity is at risk. What’s happening?

Alabama is in a very precarious situation. We have the worst environmental laws in the country and the state environmental agency has been the lowest funded of any state going back decades. So there’s very little enforcement. Maybe that’s because nobody realized how rich this place was in terms of diversity, so there was no move to protect it.

But Alabama’s early history, from the discovery of coal, which happened in the 1800s, has been one of exploitation. Massive amounts of forests were taken down in the 1800s for cotton fields. This state produced more cotton than any other back then, and that took a huge natural toll. And typically it’s people from other places, or even other countries, coming here to harvest the natural resources.

When I was born in Alabama in 1970, there were 15 steel mills in Birmingham going full blast. The air and water pollution from the steel mills and the coal mines were on a scale that’s almost unbelievable.

So even when we talk about the biodiversity we have now, we can’t even imagine what we’ve already lost. And this history of exploitation is still going on today. The largest factory built in the United States in the last 25 years was built in Alabama.

Alabama is inviting industry — and industry is coming because you can get a permit here in 30 to 60 days from the state environmental agency. That same permit in California would probably take 10 to 20 years to secure.

One example is the way Alabama does water permits: There’s no limit on how much water industries can take, no matter what environmental havoc may occur.

A couple of years ago we had droughts so bad we actually saw some of the state’s major rivers run dry. The Cahaba River is 150 miles long and it has 120 fish species — more than in the entire state of California.

And during this drought, the industries and golf courses were allowed to suck so much water out of the river it went dry. It only started flowing again downstream from a sewage plant. The entire flow of one of the most diverse rivers in America was the outfall from a sewage plant. It’s the kind of thing you can’t imagine happening in the United States, but it happened here and there were no laws to stop it.

Are there forces pushing back against this, and are people beginning to see the value of Alabama’s biodiversity?

Environmental groups here are having an amazing growth spurt. Twenty years ago our Baykeeper group, which is part of the Riverkeeper alliance, was a one-woman show.

Now it has about a dozen employees and a huge membership. There are many other environmental groups now that have appeared and are doing good work all over the state.

That’s a big change.

As ecotourism is spreading across the country, it’s starting to happen here, too. The state is quickly catching up. There was great outrage among the populace when I wrote a story about the rivers running dry and now there’s an effort at the state level to make a water plan and to actually limit how much water industry can take.

It sounds like there’s still a long way to go for Alabama to catch up with environmental regulations — what else would you like to see happen?

I write a lot in the book about wetlands because so much of our diversity is in these edges where water and land meet. I would like to see the edges protected, but of course the problem is that’s where people want to be. They want to live on the river, on the bay, on the beach. When you couple that with rising sea levels, there’s a collision that’s coming between people and the edges.

We have to protect that intertidal habitat now and then buy the uplands behind it to get ready for sea-level rise because otherwise our coastal habitats will have nowhere to go.

I would also really like to see Alabama adopt the pollution standards that you see in the surrounding states. For reasons that escape me, the levels of PCBs in fish we allow people to consume before we issue a warning is 10 times higher than any other state. There’s no scientific reason why we would be so far out of step with our neighboring states.

And then there’s the extinction issue. The rate of extinctions in Alabama is roughly double that seen anywhere else in the continental United States. It has more extinctions than Louisiana, Mississippi, Georgia, Florida and Tennessee put together.

We’re going to go from being the king of diversity to the king of extinctions. And that’ll be a terrible thing not just for Alabama, but for what we know about nature. Alabama has more than twice as many species per square mile as any other state. And if we start losing that diversity, we’re going to have no idea what we’ve lost.

What do you hope people do after reading your book?

I would hope they come to Alabama to see some of these things, because that’s what will make the powers that be care — when ecotourism becomes an industry that can rival industrial manufacturing, then ecotourism will carry as much weight among the lawmakers.

I’ve been here about 20 years, much of that time as the environment reporter for the state’s three biggest newspapers. Those papers were the environment’s best friend. But they’ve been basically destroyed. The papers are just too anemic. In Mobile, we had a newsroom with 90 people in it, and now they have three reporters. The last thing you’re going to see is an in-depth environmental story anymore.

So the book is a love letter and it’s a call to arms, and it’s saying, “love this place, but help.”

I guess at the end of the day, the story in Alabama about the natural world has been a story of taking and never giving back or appreciating what was here in the first place. That’s what has to change. Because if you just keep taking, you know how it will end. There’ll be nothing left.

Dialysis industry spends millions, emerges as power player in California politics

SACRAMENTO — The nation’s dialysis industry has poured $233 million into California campaigns over the past four years, establishing its leading companies as a formidable political force eager to protect their bottom line and influence state policy.

Most of the money the industry spent from Jan. 1, 2017, through Nov. 30, 2020, funded the defeat of two union-backed ballot measures that would have regulated dialysis clinics — and eaten into their profits. But the companies and their trade association also stepped up their offense, dedicating about $16.4 million to lobbying and political contributions during the same period, a California Healthline analysis of state campaign finance records shows.

Nearly every member of the legislature, Democratic Gov. Gavin Newsom and his predecessor, former Gov. Jerry Brown, the Democratic and Republican parties, and dozens of political campaigns — including some local school board and city council races — received a contribution from a dialysis company.

“These are very large, very profitable companies,” said Mark Stephens, founder of Prima Health Analytics, a health economics research and consulting firm. “They have a lot to lose. The fear would be that if some of this stuff passed in California, the union would certainly try to get similar measures on the ballot or in the legislatures in other states. The stakes are higher than just California for them.”

Staking ground in Sacramento

California has about 600 dialysis clinics, which are visited by an estimated 80,000 patients each month, typically three times a week. At the clinics, patients are hooked up to machines that filter toxins and remove excess fluid from their blood because their kidneys can no longer do the job.

Medicare, which covers most dialysis patients, pays a base rate of $239.33 for each dialysis treatment.

DaVita and Fresenius Medical Care North America are the largest dialysis providers in the state and country, operating roughly 80% of clinics nationwide. Last year, DaVita reported $811 million in net income, on revenue of $11.4 billion. Fresenius posted $2 billion in operating income on revenue of $13.6 billion.

DaVita was responsible for about $143 million — or more than three-fifths — of the political spending in the past four years, and Fresenius gave about $68 million.

Until four years ago, the dialysis industry’s political spending was relatively modest compared with that of the hospital, physician and other health care associations so well known in Sacramento. In those days, dialysis lobbyists focused on regulatory issues and health care reimbursement rates, and companies gave minimal campaign contributions.

The industry’s transformation into one of the biggest spenders in California politics began in 2017, the first of four years in which it faced ballot or legislative threats. In 2017, a Democratic lawmaker introduced a bill that would have set strict staff ratios at dialysis clinics. The bill, SB-349, which failed, had faced opposition from the California Hospital Association, the California Chamber of Commerce and the dialysis industry.

The SEIU-United Healthcare Workers West union (SEIU-UHW) followed the next year with Proposition 8, a ballot initiative that would have capped industry profits.

DaVita and Fresenius were forced to defend their huge profits and allegations of subpar patient care, turning the competitors into allies — at least in politics.

The industry spent $111 million to successfully defeat the measure, breaking the record for spending by one side on an initiative.

“I think it’s very natural for these private chains to spend millions to make billions of profits,” said Ryan McDevitt, associate professor of economics at Duke University. “They’re lobbying to protect their profits.”

Last year, the industry fought AB-290, a bill that aimed to stop a billing practice dialysis companies use to get higher insurance reimbursements for some low-income patients. But the legislature wasn’t swayed, and Newsom signed the bill into law, which is now tied up in federal court.

And this year, the industry spent $105 million to block Proposition 23, which would have required every clinic have a physician on site and institute other patient safety protocols.

Kent Thiry, the former chairman and CEO of DaVita, said the industry had no choice but to spend heavily to defeat the ballot measures, which he said would have increased costs and harmed patient care.

“When someone does that, you have to use some of your money to defend yourself, your patients and your teammates,” Thiry said in an interview with KHN, which publishes California Healthline. “It forces companies to allocate precious resources to do something that never should have been brought up to start with.”

In an emailed statement, DaVita said it would continue to work to “educate lawmakers and defend against policy measures that are harmful to our patients.” Fresenius also defended its advocacy, saying the company needs to protect itself against special interests intent on abusing the political system. The company will “continue to support legislation that improves access to quality care and improves patient outcomes,” said Brad Puffer, a company spokesperson.

By comparison, SEIU-UHW, which sponsored the ballot measures, spent about $25 million to advocate for the initiatives, and $7.8 million on lobbying and political contributions. The union lobbies lawmakers on a wide array of health care issues

“They’ve got tons of money. We understand that,” said Dave Regan, the union’s president. “We’ve seen them spend a quarter of a billion dollars in a very short period of time. I hope they’re prepared to spend another quarter of a billion dollars, because we’re not going to go away until there’s legitimate commonsense reforms to this industry.”

From defense to offense

While most of dialysis companies’ political spending in California has been used to defeat ballot measures, several of the largest companies also dedicated about $16.4 million to lobbying and political contributions over the past four years.

The companies and their trade association, the California Dialysis Council, put almost three-fourths of that — nearly $12 million — into hiring veteran lobbyists to advocate for dialysis companies when lawmakers consider legislation that could affect the industry.

For instance, when Newsom took office in 2019, both DaVita and Fresenius added Axiom Advisors to their lobbying teams, paying it $737,500 since then. One of the firm’s partners is Newsom’s longtime friend Jason Kinney, whose close relationship with the governor was highlighted by the recent French Laundry dinner fiasco. Newsom came under intense criticism for attending the early November dinner at the exclusive restaurant, held to celebrate Kinney’s birthday, because he and his administration were asking Californians not to gather.

The industry has also given at least $4.6 million in contributions to political candidates and committees, both directly and to entities on behalf of a lawmaker or candidate.

All but five state senators and Assembly members who served during the 2019-20 legislative session received a direct contribution from at least one of the companies or the California Dialysis Council.

Most of the donations to individuals went to state lawmakers, but DaVita dipped into local races, too. For instance, it contributed $10,000 to a Glendale city council candidate in February, $7,700 to an El Monte school board candidate in October and $3,500 to a Signal Hill city council candidate last year.

Dialysis companies also gave to the state Democratic and Republican parties.

“They’re spreading it out. They’re doing the full gambit,” said Bob Stern, former general counsel for the California Fair Political Practices Commission, which enforces state political campaign and lobbying laws.

Legal loopholes

State law limits how much a company or person can give to a political candidate in an election, but there are legal loopholes that allow individuals and corporate interests to give more. The dialysis industry has taken advantage of them.

Under state campaign finance rules, lawmakers can accept only $4,700 from any one person or company per election.

But some lawmakers operate “ballot measure committees” so they can accept unlimited contributions. These committees are supposed to advocate for a ballot measure, but lawmakers often use them to pay for political consultants and marketing, and to contribute to state and local initiatives they support. Candidates can also get unlimited help from donors who independently pay for campaign costs, such as mailings and digital campaign ads.

For instance, DaVita chipped in $93,505 to help pay for a direct mail campaign on behalf of state Sen. Steve Glazer, D-Orinda, in this year’s primary election. Glazer also received $55,600 from DaVita, Fresenius and the California Dialysis Council in contributions to himself and his ballot committee, Citizens for a Better California.

In some cases, lawmakers such as Glazer who netted some of the biggest contributions from dialysis companies voted with the industry. That was the case last year when the legislature approved AB-290, the bill limiting the dialysis billing practice.

Glazer voted no, as did Assembly member Adam Gray, D-Merced, whose Valley Solutions ballot measure committee had received $112,500 from DaVita and Fresenius since 2017. Gray also received $36,900 in direct contributions from Fresenius, DaVita and U.S. Renal Care.

Gray issued a statement saying campaign contributions play “zero role” in how he represents his district. Glazer did not respond to a request for comment.

Targeting legislative adversaries

Assembly member Reggie Jones-Sawyer’s 84-year-old mother is on dialysis. The Los Angeles Democrat and SEIU-UHW member has called for improved staffing ratios at dialysis clinics and has voted repeatedly to regulate them.

DaVita wrote a $249,000 check in October to a political committee supporting Jones-Sawyer’s opponent, Efren Martinez, another Democrat, but one the industry considered more friendly. DaVita followed up with a $15,000 check the week before the election.

Jones-Sawyer, who won the race, said he’s frustrated dialysis companies aren’t willing to make changes to improve patient safety on their own, saying it would cost them far less than the nearly quarter-billion dollars they have spent on political contributions. So for now, he said, he will continue to push to improve conditions at dialysis clinics from the Capitol, despite the industry’s growing political clout.

“I think dialysis is saying, ‘Look, we can be the 800-pound gorilla now,'” Sawyer said. “It’s not just influence for a day; it’s longevity.”

Rae Ellen Bichell and Elizabeth Lucas of KHN contributed to this report.

Methodology

How California Healthline compiled data about dialysis companies’ political spending

Among the ways dialysis companies exert influence on the political process is by contributing money to campaigns; hiring lobbyists; and paying for advertising and marketing on behalf of candidates.

Opposition to ballot measures: Using the California secretary of state’s website, California Healthline downloaded the contributions made by DaVita, Fresenius Medical Care North America, U.S. Renal Care, Satellite Healthcare, Dialysis Clinic Inc. and American Renal Management to the campaign committees formed to defeat Propositions 8 and 23. This includes some non-monetary contributions.

Lobbying: We created a spreadsheet of expenses reported on lobbying disclosure forms, also available on the secretary of state’s website, by DaVita, Fresenius, U.S. Renal Care, Satellite Healthcare and the California Dialysis Council. We found details about how much the industry paid lobbying firms, what agencies it lobbied and which bills it tracked.

Political contributions: DaVita, Fresenius, U.S. Renal Care and the California Dialysis Council made direct contributions to more than 100 candidates, which we compiled from the secretary of state’s website. DaVita and Fresenius made other contributions, often large, to Democratic and Republican committees, and ballot measure committees led by lawmakers. The two companies also made contributions known as “independent expenditures” that benefited candidates’ campaigns and “behested payments,” which are donations to nonprofit organizations and charities in lawmakers’ names. Behested payments are disclosed on the California Fair Political Practices Commission website.

The SEIU-United Healthcare Workers West union uses two political committees for its giving. Its PAC contributes mostly to lawmakers and county and state Democratic parties while its Issues Committee gives to local hospital ballot measures. We did not tally spending for local hospital ballot measures for this story, but we did include contributions made by the Issues Committee to the California Democratic Party, which helps state lawmakers.

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.

So fascism came to America — but what was it wearing?

It has been said that when fascism comes to America, it will be wrapped in the flag and carrying the cross. 

This well-known line has been attributed to a number of people — most often to novelist Sinclair Lewis, but also to socialist leader Eugene V. Debs and even to populist Louisiana senator Huey Long — but none of them wrote or said it in precisely the way it has come down to us. It appears to be an aphoristic stone nicely polished by being handled by a lot of people.

To have it reflect our current situation, we need to roughen it up.

When Donald J. Trump was running for president in 2016, Lewis’s novel “It Can’t Happen Here,” written quickly in 1935 as authoritarian leaders were rising in Europe, started to sell out. In it, populist demagogue “Buzz” Windrip, a Democrat (i.e., a pre-Civil Rights Act Democrat, who would be a Republican today), wins the presidency. As Beverly Gage describes it in a 2017 essay for the New York Times, Windrip — who was based on both Long and the anti-Semitic radio priest Father Coughlin — is not exactly Trump, but he’s right “there” in a number of respects:

Like Trump, Windrip sells himself as the champion of “Forgotten Men,” determined to bring dignity and prosperity back to America’s white working class. Windrip loves big, passionate rallies and rails against the “lies” of the mainstream press. His supporters embrace this message, lashing out against the “highbrow intellectuality” of editors and professors and policy elites. With Windrip’s encouragement, they also take out their frustrations on Blacks and Jews. 

So, just a super guy — someone you could really rally around. And shriek. And chant about putting people behind bars.

Apparently, the first iteration of the saying just had the bit about the time-honored false patriotism of wrapping oneself up in the flag. Then the faux-religiosity gambit of cross carrying was added.

I think we must now edit and append it further:

When fascism comes to America, it will be wrapping itself around the flag and holding a Bible upside down. And riding in a golf cart.

Except this fascism is not so much “wrapping itself with” the flag but more like sexually assaulting it.

 

Trump, a man who received five deferments from military service, seems to think the Stars and Stripes is a great-looking lady he can molest. (“I don’t even wait!”) I suspect he is less handsy with the gal he clearly respects more, the good old Stars and Bars.

Oh, I forgot the tear gas and rubber bullets. So, we append further:

When fascism comes to America, it will be sexually assaulting the flag, carrying a Bible upside down, riding in a golf cart, and enjoying the fact that tear gas and rubber bullets are in use against peaceful protesters.

OK, that’s getting too long. But now, naturally, I’m remembering the time fascism was hiding in his bunker (no, not in 1945 Berlin — the more recent time, in Washington). No harm in trying it out, right? 

When fascism comes to America, it will be sexually assaulting the flag, carrying a Bible upside down, riding in a golf cart, and enjoying the fact that tear gas and rubber bullets are in use against peaceful protesters — and then scurrying away to hide in a bunker.

But it just becomes less elegant, more ungainly — and so less memorable. There is so much one could add, beyond hiding in that bunker — incessantly watching “Fox & Friends,” tweeting instead of working, lying like breathing — that the mind refuses to latch on to anything. There is no substance, just chaos.

Speaking of chaos, Trump and his gang of enablers have always reminded me of the year I spent in a fraternity. Somewhat to my surprise, I was elected pledge class president, and after a tumultuous year I tried my best to get a dozen young men through the seriously stupid, often dangerous and generally unhinged hazing of Hell Week, so they could, at last, become active members.

I don’t care whether they were ever actually in a fraternity or not, but people like Matt Gaetz and Jim Jordan and their boisterous, under-thinking ilk — really, nearly all of the Republicans in Congress — are precisely like a bunch of entitled and semi-educated frat boys who are simply used to getting their way. They insist on it, as toddlers will do. Donald Trump is the president of this house, which has to be Delta Iota Kappa, yes, the proud DIK House. To parrot a favorite Trumpian phrase, as everyone knows, those DIKs should have long ago been kicked off campus and had their charter revoked. 

OK, now I have to get the frat-boy concept in. It naturally rides with the golf cart, and it expresses so much—about white privilege, about entitlement, about binge drinking and barfing and “boofing” and generally being obstreperous and having one’s way with “the babes” — one way or another. (Ask Supreme Court Justice Brett Kavanaugh if you need explanation of any of that.)

When fascism comes to America, it will be sexually assaulting the flag, carrying a Bible upside down, riding in a golf cart with various frat-boy buddies, and enjoying the fact that tear gas and rubber bullets are in use against peaceful protesters — and then scurrying away to hide in a bunker. 

Oh, and crying about being a victim and about people not liking him. Well, the phrase is already unwieldy enough and even I’ve grown weary of it.

I know some of you would quibble with my calling this fascism. You might call this neo-fascism or proto-fascism. But I’m too exhausted at this point to look those up. Call it über-fascism or Kentucky Fried fascism or Adderall fascism, or whatever else you’d like. 

Of course none of this is funny. Well, maybe it’s mordantly humorous, the way you might laugh involuntarily as unmarked militarized police started shooting rubber bullets your way during a peaceful protest in the United States of America.

Though thwarted to date, the Republican assault on the votes of more than 81 million citizens continues. Eighteen 18 Republican state attorneys general, 126 Republican members of Congress, and a bunch of dead-silent Republican senators have proven themselves more than happy to go along with it. So much for their fervent belief in states’ rights, and that thing called the Constitution.

And, yes, for the past number of years all journalists writing op-eds about the dangers of putting the grandson of a man named Drumpf in charge of anything are a bunch of Sinclair Lewis’ Doremus Jessups, trying desperately to fight a tyrant with a mere pen. One does what one must. 

It’s an extended Hell Week in America, at least until this guy is out of office. So you better bone up on that Greek alphabet and be ready to “drop trou” (ask Brett about that one, too). Listen up, plebes, they want you to come out on the other end as active members of something bigly, something terrific — something that’s definitely not a democracy.

Jeff Bezos, Mitch McConnell and COVID capitalism

As a former secretary of labor, I often receive mail from workers with job complaints, who apparently believe I still have some authority. But the email I received a few days ago from a worker at Amazon’s Whole Foods delivery warehouse in Industry City, Brooklyn, New York, was particularly distressing.

She said that six of her co-workers had tested positive for COVID since Oct. 22, because “safe social distancing is not only being ignored but discouraged,” adding that “when we express our discomfort to management, we are yelled at about filling orders faster, or told that we can take a leave of absence without pay.”

She ended by noting “we work for a trillionaire.”

Well, not quite. Jeff Bezos is worth $180 billion, making him the richest person in the world. And his corporation, Amazon, which also owns Whole Foods, is among the world’s richest corporations.

Bezos has accumulated so much added wealth over the last nine months that he could give every Amazon employee $105,000 and still be as rich as he was before the pandemic.

So you’d think he’d be able to afford safer workplaces. Yet as of October, more than 20,000 U.S.-based Amazon employees had been infected by the virus. That estimate comes from Amazon, by the way. There’s been no independent verification, nor has Amazon revealed how many of them have died.  

Decades ago, employees in most large corporations could remedy unsafe working conditions by complaining to their union, which pressured their employer to fix the problems, or to the Occupational Safety and Health Administration (founded in 1970), which levied fines.

Alternatively, they could embarrass their companies by going public with their complaints. As a last resort, they could sue.

None of these routes is readily available to Amazon warehouse workers – nor, for that matter, to warehouse workers at Walmart, or to most workers in other super-spreader COVID workplaces such as meatpacking plants and nursing homes.

Amazon’s workers have no union to protect them. (Throughout its 25-year history, the corporation has aggressively fought union organizing.) Nor, for that matter, do 93.8 percent of America’s private-sector workers. Fifty years ago, more than a third were unionized.

And OSHA? Since the start of the pandemic, it’s been useless. Although receiving more than 10,000 complaints of unsafe conditions, it has issued just two citations.

Amazon employees who go public with their complaints are likely to lose their jobs. The corporation prohibits its workers from commenting publicly on any aspect of its business, without prior approval from executives. So far during the pandemic, it has fired at least two white-collar employees who publicly denounced conditions at its warehouses, as well as several warehouse workers who raised safety concerns to media outlets.

Amazon isn’t alone. A survey conducted in May by the National Employment Law Project showed that 1 in 8 American workers “has perceived possible retaliatory actions by employers against workers in their company who have raised health and safety concerns” about COVID.

The final option is to sue the company, but lawsuits against employers over COVID have been rare because of difficulties proving that the employee contracted the virus at work. A Washington Post analysis found that since the pandemic began, just 234 personal injury or wrongful death lawsuits have been filed due to the virus.

All of which reveals the utter fatuousness of Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell’s and his fellow Senate Republicans’ demand that any new COVID relief package must include a corporate “liability shield” against COVID cases.

Even if such lawsuits were successful, corporations already have limited liability. That’s what it means to be a corporation. In the unlikely event Amazon were sued and plaintiffs won, Jeff Bezos would remain comfortable. 

The heinous resurgence of COVID makes clear that corporations need more – not fewer – incentives to protect their workers from the virus.  

As millions of Americans lose whatever meager income they had, they should not have to choose between taking a risky job – such as in an Amazon warehouse – or putting food on their family’s table.

Bezos, as well as every major employer in America, can easily afford to protect their workers. And as Mitch McConnell and his fellow Senate Republicans should know, the richest nation in the world can easily afford to provide every American adequate income support during this national emergency. 

That they’re not doing so is disgraceful.

Puerto Rico wants statehood — but only Congress can make it the 51st state in the U.S.

Puerto Ricans requested statehood on Nov. 3, 2020, with 52.3% of voters asking to change the island’s status from unincorporated territory to U.S. state.

This is the sixth time statehood has been on the ballot since Puerto Rico ratified its Constitution in 1952. Voters rejected the status change in 1967, 1993 and 1998.

The 2012 election results were unclear because some voters did not answer both parts of a two-part statehood question. In 2017 statehood won decisively, albeit with very low turnout of around 23%.

Puerto Rico didn’t become the 51st state then, and it is unlikely to achieve statehood any time soon. Only Congress can add new states to the Union, via an Admission Act or House Resolution that requires approval by a simple majority in the House and Senate.

Territorial status

The United States wrested Puerto Rico from Spain in the 1898 Spanish-American War, along with Cuba, the Philippines and the Mariana Islands.

Shortly after, a series of Supreme Court rulings called the “Insular Cases” — made by the same court that found racial segregation constitutional in Plessy v. Ferguson — deemed most of America’s new territories to be inhabited by “alien races,” ungovernable by “Anglo-Saxon principles.”

These cases labeled America’s island territories as incorporated or unincorporated, each with a different set of rights. Puerto Rico is an unincorporated territory. It is similar to U.S. states in many ways but its taxpaying residents lack voting representation in Congress, cannot vote for president and do not enjoy all the same constitutional rights as other Americans.

Without a vote in Congress, Puerto Rico’s needs are not well represented in Washington.

Puerto Rico’s legal status all but defines politics on the island.

Rather than offering clear left- or right-wing policies, Puerto Rico’s two main political parties are traditionally defined by their stance on statehood. The Popular Democratic Party generally favors keeping Puerto Rico a territory; the New Progressive Party is pro-statehood. Both have Democratic- and Republican-aligned members.

The New Progressive Party’s grip on the statehood cause loosened in 2020. Some 215,000 Puerto Ricans who voted for statehood voted against its pro-statehood gubernatorial candidate, Pedro Pierluisi Urrutia, who won his race very narrowly. The New Progressive Party’s candidate for resident commissioner — Puerto Rico’s nonvoting delegate to the U.S. House of Representatives — received 132,000 fewer votes than statehood did.

Statehood in 2020

All these split tickets reflect a broader political upheaval taking place in Puerto Rico after a rocky half-decade.

Since 2015, Puerto Rico has defaulted on parts of its debt, undergone a fiscal crisis, been ravaged by Hurricane Maria and survived a rare series of “cluster earthquakes.” Economic recovery has been weak and disaster recovery since Maria was botched by local corruption and federal indolence.

Discontent with Puerto Rican leadership, aggravated by the fiscal austerity imposed by a Washington-controlled federal board, culminated last year in massive protests. Gov. Ricardo Rosselló Nevares stepped down in August 2019.

After Rosselló’s resignation, his New Progressive Party had a very public fight regarding the succession process. A chaotic primary pitted its Republican- and Democrat-aligned factions against each other.

All the drama and corruption seems to have left many statehood supporters in Puerto Rico fed up with the New Progressive Party, and politics in general.

By the 2020 election, new parties with clearer ideological offerings — like the progressive, populist Citizen Victory Movement and the right-wing, religiously based Dignity Project — had cropped up. These upstart parties — along with Puerto Rico’s longstanding third party, the independence-minded, social-democratic Independence Party — pledged to make government work better, and some outsider candidates actually won.

Puerto Rico’s new parties mostly did not endorse a particular choice on the 2020 statehood referendum, promising to respect whatever the result was.

Some third-party candidates did float alternatives to Puerto Rico’s frequent, nonbinding referenda on statehood. The New York Democratic representative Alexandria Ocasio Cortez has championed a proposal to create a “status assembly,” a convention of delegates who would craft concrete proposals on statehood, independence and a looser “free association” relationship with the U.S. Those proposals would then be negotiated with Congress and voted on by the Puerto Rican electorate.

In 2020, however, statehood was the only option on the ballot, and Puerto Ricans voted “yes.”

All eyes on Georgia

Any hope of congressional followup on this referendum hinges almost entirely on Georgia’s Senate runoff on Jan. 5, 2021.

If the Democrats win both Georgia Senate seats to gain a Senate majority, Sen. Chuck Schumer has vowed to pursue Puerto Rican statehood. If the Republicans retain the majority, however, Senate Leader Mitch McConnell and other Republican senators would almost certainly block any effort to make Puerto Rico a state.

Puerto Rican voters on the mainland usually vote Democratic, so most Republicans perceive statehood as a political threat, although Pew Research finds Puerto Ricans on the island are a socially conservative crowd. Only a few Republican officials, such as Florida’s Marco Rubio and Rick Scott, say they would support Puerto Rican statehood.

For now, all eyes are on Georgia.

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

Going home for the holidays? For many Americans, that’s a risky decision

Vivek Kaliraman, who lives in Los Angeles, has celebrated every Christmas since 2002 with his best friend, who lives in Houston. But, this year, instead of boarding an airplane, which felt too risky during the COVID pandemic, he took a car and plans to stay with his friend for several weeks.

The trip — a 24-hour drive — was too much for one day, though, so Kaliraman called seven hotels in Las Cruces, New Mexico — which is about halfway — to ask how many rooms they were filling and what their cleaning and food-delivery protocols were.

“I would call at nighttime and talk to one front desk person and then call again at daytime,” said Kaliraman, 51, a digital health entrepreneur. “I would make sure the two different front desk people I talked to gave the same answer.”

Once he arrived at the hotel he’d chosen, he asked for a room that had been unoccupied the night before. And even though it got cold that night, he left the window open.

Scary statistics trigger strict precautions

Many Americans, like Kaliraman, who did ultimately make it to Houston, are still planning to travel for the December holidays, despite the nation’s worsening coronavirus numbers.

Last week, the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention reported that the weekly COVID hospitalization rate was at its highest point since the beginning of the pandemic. More than 283,000 Americans have died of COVID-19. Public health officials are bracing for an additional surge in cases resulting from the millions who, despite CDC advice, traveled home for Thanksgiving, including the 9 million who passed through airports Nov. 20-29. Hospital wards are quickly reaching capacity. In light of all this, health experts are again urging Americans to stay home for the holidays.

For many, though, travel comes down to a risk-benefit analysis.

According to David Ropeik, author of the book “How Risky Is It, Really?” and an expert in risk perception psychology, it’s important to remember that what’s at stake in this type of situation cannot be exactly quantified.

Our brains perceive risk by looking at the facts of the threat — in this case, contracting or transmitting COVID-19 — and then at the context of our own lives, which often involves emotions, he said. If you personally know someone who died of COVID-19, that’s an added emotional context. If you want to attend a wedding of loved family members, that’s another kind of context.

“Think about it like a seesaw. On one side are all the facts about COVID-19, like the number of deaths,” said Ropeik. “And then on the other side are all the emotional factors. Holidays are a huge weight on the emotional side of that seesaw.”

The people we interviewed for this story said they understand the risk involved. And their reasons for going home differed. Kaliraman likened his journey to see his friend as an important ritual — he hasn’t missed this visit in 19 years.

What’s clear is that many aren’t making the decision to travel lightly.

For Annette Olson, 56, the risk of flying from Washington, D.C., to Tyler, Texas, felt worth it because she needed to help take care of her elderly parents over the holidays.

“In my calculations, I would be less of a risk to them than for them to get a rotating nurse that comes to the house, who has probably worked somewhere else as well and is repeatedly coming and going,” said Olson. “Once I’m here, I’m quarantined.”

Now that she’s with her parents, she’s wearing a mask in common areas of the house until she gets her COVID test results back.

Others plan on quarantining for several weeks before seeing family members — even if, as in Chelsea Toledo’s situation, the family she hopes to see is only an hour’s drive away.

Toledo, 35, lives in Clarkston, Georgia, and works from home. She pulled her 6-year-old daughter out of her in-person learning program after Thanksgiving, in hopes of seeing her mom and stepdad over Christmas. They plan to quarantine for several weeks and get groceries delivered so they won’t be exposed to others before the trip. But whether Toledo goes through with it is still up in the air, and may change based on COVID case rates in their area.

“We’re taking things week by week, or really day by day,” said Toledo. “There is not a plan to see my mom; there is a hope to see my mom.”

And for young adults without families of their own, seeing parents at the holidays feels like a needed mood booster after a difficult year. Rebecca, a 27-year-old who lives in Washington, D.C., drove up with a roommate to New York City to see her parents and grandfather for Hanukkah. (Rebecca asked KHN not to publish her last name because she feared that publicity could negatively affect her job, which is in public health.)

“I’m doing fine, but I think having something to look forward to is really useful. I didn’t want to cancel my trip completely,” said Rebecca. “I’m the only child and grandchild who doesn’t have children. I can control my actions and exposures more than anyone else can.”

She and her two roommates quarantined for two weeks before the drive and also got tested for COVID-19 twice during that time. Now that Rebecca is in New York, she’s also quarantining alone for 10 days and getting tested again before she sees her family.

“I think, based on what I’ve done, it does feel safe,” said Rebecca. “I know the safest thing to do is not to see them, so I do feel a little bit nervous about that.”

But the best-laid plan can still go awry. Tests can return false-negative results and relatives may overlook possible exposure or not buy into the seriousness of the situation. To better understand the potential consequences of the risk you’re taking, Ropeik advises coming up with “personal, visceral” thoughts of the worst thing that could happen.

“Envision Grandma getting sick and dying” or “Grandma in bed and in the hospital and not being able to visit her,” said Ropeik. That will balance the positive emotional pull of the holidays and help you to make a more grounded decision.

Harm reduction?

All of those interviewed for this story acknowledged that many of the precautions they’re taking are possible only because they enjoy certain privileges, including the ability to work from home, isolate or get groceries delivered — options that may not be available to many, including essential workers and those with low incomes.

Still, Americans are bound to travel over the December holidays. And much like teaching safe-sex practices in schools rather than an abstinence-only approach, it’s important to give out risk mitigation strategies so that “if you’re going to do it, you think about how to do it safely,” said Dr. Iahn Gonsenhauser, chief quality and patient safety officer at the Ohio State University Wexner Medical Center.

First, Gonsenhauser advises that you look at the COVID case numbers in your area, consider whether you are traveling from a higher-risk community to a lower-risk community, and talk to family members about the risks. Also, check whether the state you’re traveling to has quarantine or testing requirements you need to adhere to when you arrive.

Also, make sure you quarantine before your trip — recommendations range from seven to 14 days.

Another thing to remember, Gonsenhauser said, is that a negative COVID test before traveling is not a free pass, and it works only if done in combination with the quarantine period.

Consider your mode of transportation as well — driving is safer than flying.

Finally, once you’ve arrived at your destination, prepare for what might be the most difficult part: to continue physical distancing, wearing masks and washing your hands. “It’s easy to let our guard down during the holidays, but you need to stay vigilant,” said Gonsenhauser.

Minnesota Senator Jerry Relph dies from COVID-19 after attending large GOP dinner party

A Republican state senator has died from the coronavirus after being exposed to an outbreak at the State Capitol.

State Sen. Jerry Relph, of St. Cloud, died a month after testing positive for COVID-19 following a Republican caucus meeting Nov. 5 at the statehouse, reported WCCO-TV.

The 76-year-old Relph narrowly lost re-election to Democratic–Farmer–Labor Party candidate Aric Putnam before testing positive for the deadly virus.

DFL members called for the resignation of Senate Majority Leader Paul Gazelka after the Nisswa Republican, Relph and state Sen. David Senjem (R-Rochester) all tested positive for the virus but did not notify Capitol staff or DFL members of the outbreak.

“[Republican caucus members] engaged in high-risk behaviors,” said DFL Senate Leader Susan Kent. “[Gazelka] misled Minnesotans about their actions and they have made excuses instead of being accountable.”

Republicans held a large dinner party Nov. 5 with more than 100 attendees at an arena event center, and Relph went into self-quarantine Nov. 10 after learning of his exposure there and began experiencing symptoms three days later.

The Vietnam War veteran had not attended the most recent special sessions of the legislature.

Relph had voted along with all 35 Republicans and one Democratic state senator in July to suspend the peacetime emergency declared by Democratic Gov. Tim Walz to handle the pandemic.

“The emergency declaration was made so we could prepare for the projected surge and flatten the curve,” Relph said at the time. “Those goals have been accomplished and we no longer have any need for the emergency to be dealt with unilaterally by Gov. Walz.”

My American dreams and nightmares: On Mississippi streets, “Native Son” and Jeezy vs. Gucci Mane

Big Cripp stood 6’2″ with a dark caramel complexion, gangsta under his fingernails, and always strapped with the respect that comes from knocking n***as out, doing a murder bid, and surviving a murder attempt on his life. Cripp, who is also my cousin, sewed me into the fabric of a well-knitted crew, the All-Fam Team. Not only was I moving with a strong unit, but I finally had a plug that moved bricks of cocaine — as Nas said, this is a drug dealer’s destiny.

It was a few minutes after 8 a.m. in Jasper County, Mississippi. The sun was still rising, sitting just at the crowns of the oak, pecan and willow trees that populated the woods. The All-Fam Team lingered outside of Uncle’s home, a tidy white structure with brown trim. Uncle was “up the road” dropping off his baby daughter at a neighbor’s house. There were eight of us — a motley crew of blood brothers and cousins, and brothers through loyalty. The grass that we used as a driveway was more dirt than pasture. While waiting for Uncle to pull up, we leaned or sat on the hood of our cars, or sat on the driver’s seat with the door open, sitting sideways in the seat so our knees hung outside of the car. I was the youngest and newest member of the All-Fam Team, so I was reserved, listening for jewelry and hushed guidance from my drug-dealing mentors. 

I especially looked up to Yellow Boy. We were all independent and rebelled against the promises attached to general labor in the formal economy. There’s nothing wrong with making a living from general labor. In my opinion, working-class people are the real heroes of America. But we aspired to achieve a different type of agency than the freedom, or lack thereof, offered by working at one of the chicken plants in Jones and Jasper counties. I was attracted to Yellow Boy’s organic intellectualism. His individuality came naturally, and his thoughts were original. He didn’t follow trends, yet he was always freshly dressed. He greeted the world with curious suspicion, honestly questioning everything. And he was always interested in the books that I was reading. 

Inside Uncle’s house, which is not much bigger than a kitchenette, I was shook. Two kilos of cocaine sat on the kitchen counter. This was my first time seeing bricks of white girl. I was fully aware that kilos of coke came with heavy package deals. Along with the two bricks, garbage bags of marijuana lined the kitchen wall. There were a couple of Pyrex bowls and boxes of baking soda. I kept thinking to myself: If the Feds come here right now, we’re going away for a long time. 

While the chef ice water-whipped cocaine into crack, we bounced around theories centered on hip-hop lyrics, songs and our favorite MCs. We discussed the current fashion trends, sneakers, basketball, and the latest street gossip. On the surface — based on our conversations and illegal activities — we colored in the stereotypical views of Black men that ran the gamut of America’s media outlets as well as the minds of white suburbia. Some may say that these topics are not intellectually challenging. For one, they don’t have to be; and two, it was through these theorizing sessions where I gained a deeper glimpse into the minds of the men that I admired. These crack-cooking sessions also gave me a peek into what these guys did when they were ducked off from the flash of street cameras.

* * *

Recently, rappers Jeezy and Gucci Mane squared-up with their musical catalogs during a Verzuz battle. With nearly 2 millions viewers, the Atlanta rappers finally put a lid on a fifteen-year feud that left Jeezy’s friend, Pookie Loc, dead. But the most striking is Jeezy’s maturity. The now-slimmer “Trap or Die” rapper is slowly revealing that he finally understands that The Street is a myth created by power structures and is also one of America’s most profitable folk tales. 

The creation of The Street is a tag-team effort between local, private, federal, and state power structures to confine cultural and physical Blackness. When juxtaposed to the construction of white suburbia, Black physical spaces, which have been legally excluded from homeownership and wealth, have become alienated from national belonging. And within these respective spaces, ideals about Blackness become inscribed on the minds of both Blacks and whites, and tossed into The Street or urban categories. 

Outside of the tag-team efforts between government agencies, marketing has also been an effective tool used in sustaining The Street fable. Ironically, Ebony magazine played a major role in tying Blacks to The Street narrative. At the height of Ebony, 75 percent of its pages consisted of advertising. White advertising companies marketed food, clothing, cosmetics and other forms of entertainment to Black publications, whereas white consumers were marketed home goods and luxury products, as well as encouraged to invest in homeownership, which is tied to the American Dream narrative.

Many of us, whether consciously or unconsciously, have subscribed to these subtle ideals, as we saw during the Jeezy vs. Gucci battle. During the Verzuz battle, Gucci bragged about his jewelry and outfit, topics that the All-Fam Team always ran over. “I want y’all to praise my outfit,” Gucci said. “It cost 10 bands. Look at my opponent! Look at my opponent!” 

Jeezy replied, “I didn’t know this was a fashion show,” before mentioning that he owns massive amounts of real estate in Atlanta. Here, with land and homeownership, Jeezy places himself outside of The Street narrative. Since the slave era, owning property has been the demarcation for American and The Other. 

After Gucci performed the Jeezy diss “Truth,” Jeezy took a moment to explain why he invited Gucci to take T.I.’s place in the Verzuz battle. “I tell you what though—when I called you and extended this invite to you, my n***a, I did it as a real man,” Jeezy said. “It’s been 20 motherf**kin’ years.” Gucci corrected him that their feud had been going for 15 years. “OK, well however many, you’re still talkin’ the same shit.”

The two interrupted each other repeatedly. “I told you straight off the dribble, n***a, we can’t do nothin’ if it ain’t street,” Gucci said. “If I can’t perform the truth we ain’t doin’ it.” Jeezy assured him it was “all good.”

“When I said I wanted to do this shit for the culture, that’s what I wanted to do, n***a,” he continued. “I wanted to show you that the world care about what the f**k we got going on, because we are the culture, you feel me. Me, and you, where we come from, what we been through, n***a. Us. Me and you. All these kids out here doing what the f**k they do because they saw what went on with us, dawg.” 

The exchange between keeping it street and enlightenment was also displayed in Richard Wright’s “Native Son.” Bigger Thomas, the book’s main character, grew upset, and cussed his friend Gus for allegedly being afraid to rob a white man, when in actuality, Bigger was afraid. Bigger was hoping that Gus would back out, so he’d have a reason to not go through with the planned robbery, but Gus was thinking about it, and that made Bigger afraid. Instead of de-characterizing, and admitting that he was afraid, Bigger stayed in The Street character, and acted out his fears with violence against his friend. When confronted with internal struggle, both Gucci and Bigger tapped into what they learned in The Street, boasting about fashion or inviting violence. These are perfect examples of how The Street narrative controls our behavior. 

* * *

The moon cast a dim light inside of the ’85 box Chevy. I was sitting shotgun. Big Cripp blew loud, and maneuvered the four tires on the box like the footwork of a young Floyd Mayweather. The moonlight bounced off Cripp’s battlescar-covered face, which was in full view, because his royal blue L.A. Dodgers fitted was turned to the back, and slightly tilted to the left. It was 3 a.m. in Laurel, Mississippi, me and Big Cripp were wide awake, driving through the city making crack sales. 

“Cuz, I know these n***as think that I’m gonna be out here selling dope forever,” Cripp said between pulls of his blunt. When Cripp was high, he’d reveal his most inner self, stuff that we rarely talked about while in The Street character. “But I’m not. I be thinking about what my life will be like when I stop selling dope.” 

I was taken aback, amazed, and inspired all at once. Up until then, I never gave thought to my future. I never truly saw myself making a living outside of the ‘hood. However, for as long as I could remember I had wanted to enroll in college and become a writer. But my mind was inundated with life inside of my confined neighborhood. I thought you had to be smart and come from a middle-class family to attend college. Becoming an educated writer was the stupidest shit I could make myself believe, or so I thought. So, I kept my writing dreams to myself.  

Days turned into weeks, and weeks turned into months as I continued pondering my future.  Meanwhile, Yellow Boy and All-Fam Team member Snow opened corner stores, and Red Man, a fellow team member, opened a sports bar in Gulfport, Mississippi. I felt like a failure. I was finally getting money, but I felt smothered, trapped, and useless. I was going to die in the streets, and this mental discomfort boiled my spirits like I was constantly stepping into a tub of scalding hot bath water. I began having nightmares of being murdered or going to prison. I was so torn on the inside that I wouldn’t sleep for days. Even those closest to me started having nightmares about me. My grandmother told me that she had a nightmare that I was in prison.  A woman that I was romantically involved with at the time once called me while I was out of town doing business to tell me that she had a nightmare that someone had murdered me. 

I was totally lost. However, for the first time in my life I understood that I was adrift, and sincerely looking for answers. 

The guys I looked up to were moving on to legal enterprises. As I was trying to catch up to them on the highway of life, undercover agents spotted me on Mississippi’s Interstate 59, where they violently pulled me out of a car before finding more than a half-ounce of heroin, which resulted in a prison sentence at the notorious Mississippi State Penitentiary in Parchman. It was in Parchman’s Unit 26 B, D Zone, bed No. 45, where I decided to pursue a career as a writer and historian. 

I was lied to and America’s false ideological culture of Blackness continues to praise The Street fable.  

Big Cripp never did figure out how to change his situation. Today, he’s pushing 40 years old, and eking out a living as best as he can.

Gingersnap and eggnog cream cookie sandwiches are here to brighten up the holidays

If there’s one dessert that reminds Salon resident pastry chef Meghan McGarry of the holidays, it’s gingersnap cookies. They’re exactly what you crave when it’s cold outside and you need something to warm you up on the inside. Brown sugar, cinnamon and clove all combine with ginger to bring you a cozy hug of flavor. 

The Buttercream Blondie owner, who is known for making over classic desserts with spirits, reimagined the gingersnap cookies she baked as a kid when creating her holiday baking workshop last year. The first recipe McGarry selected for the special day was her red wine cupcakes, which taste great at any time of the year. The pastry chef wanted to pair the chocolatey treats with a new cookie inspired by a seasonal cocktail, and that’s when Gingersnap and Eggnog Cream Cookie Sandwiches were born.

They’re the third and final cookie featured in McGarry’s holiday series for Salon Food. First, she took traditional Raspberry Almond Thumbprints to new heights with an amaretto glaze. Next, she gave us the best option to gift to loved ones in tins: sprinkled and spiked confetti cookies

Related: Cookies make the best holiday gifts: Here are a top pastry chef’s tips for shipping your baked goods

McGarry’s gingersnap recipe, which yields cookies that are soft and chewy on the inside and crispy around the edges, was developed over years of baking for her family and friends. McGarry elevates the timeless cookies by adding a splash of bourbon to her batter, which adds another layer of warmth and flavor. Two finished cookies are filled with a layer of eggnog buttercream to create a sandwich, which is rolled in festive sprinkles for a polished finish. 

Aside from the whole whiskey thing, what McGarry loves the most about these cookies is that her recipe provides home chefs with plenty of options. You can choose your own adventure by swapping out the bourbon for the whiskey or dark spiced rum already sitting on your bar cart. If you’re short on time in the kitchen, the pastry chef also has instructions for creating a beautiful finish without the buttercream filling that uses sparkling sugar. If you want to make your cookies extra merry and bright, you can also swap out the red and green sprinkles for rainbow sprinkles.

Related: How to make eggnog. Truly good, light, frothy eggnog.

Whatever adventure you choose, McGarry has one piece of advice to save you time: Make your cookies a day ahead, and put them in an air tight container to keep them fresh. If you’re looking for some last-minute gift ideas, the pastry chef recently shared her pro-tips for shipping homemade baked goods to loved ones. She also recently launched her first cookie collection, which is now available for nationwide shipping. 

***

Recipe: Gingersnap and Eggnog Cream Cookie Sandwiches

Yield: 22-24 sandwich cookies (or 44-48 1/2 ounce cookies)

Ingredients: 

Gingersnap Cookies

  • 2 cups all-purpose flour
  • 1/4 tsp. salt
  • 1 tsp. baking soda
  • 1 tbsp. ginger
  • 1 tsp. cinnamon
  • Pinch of cloves
  • 4 ounces (1 stick) unsalted butter, room temperature
  • 1 cup light brown sugar
  • 1 egg
  • 1/4 cup molasses
  • 1 tbsp. bourbon

Instructions:

  1. Preheat oven to 350 degrees and line 2 cookie sheets with parchment paper.
  2. In a medium bowl, mix together flour, salt, baking soda, ginger, cinnamon, and cloves.
  3. In the bowl of an electric mixer, cream butter and sugar on medium speed until light and fluffy. Add egg and molasses, followed by bourbon, and continue to mix until combined.

Click here to access the remainder of Meghan McGarry’s gingersnap and eggnog cream cookie sandwiches. And don’t forget to follow @ButtercreamBlondie on Instagram for more ways to bake through the holidays. 

 

Read more from our bar cart: 

  1. These sprinkled and spiked butter cookies melt in your mouth — and they make the best holiday gift
  2. Win the holiday baking swap with this spirited new take on classic raspberry thumbprint cookies
  3. This cranberry crumb cake with orange liqueur glaze is the best boozy addition to any holiday brunch

8 easy ways to fancy up your holiday cocktails at home

Unwinding my scarf and sinking into a warm dive-bar booth for a long-overdue happy hour with old friends, the soft glow of neon transforming us into the people we were when we first met. Popping into that tavern with the good Hot Toddy next to the little shop that always has the perfect gift as I go over my shopping list one last time. Selecting the right signature drink for the holiday party. Ordering an elaborate concoction for no other reason than Mariah Carey and Wham! songs are playing in this hotel lounge, and I’m early for once and the menu makes it sound like a liquid cookie. 

Cocktails might not command as much space in our holiday imaginations as baked goods and elaborate family meals, but they can add a bit of sparkle to the holiday season, especially when yesterday’s snow has turned to dirty slush and the windchill dips as the sun sets before the workday is even done. 

There are some basic ways to treat your drink well for the holidays that also work any time of the year — order a fancy cocktail delivery from a local purveyor, stock up on your favorite wine for meals, upgrade your house cocktail bases (my suggestions: Bacardí Ocho, their 8-year aged rum; the versatile Four Roses Single Barrel bourbon; a Copper & Kings specialty gin like The Ninth). But sometimes it’s nice to play bartender and put some party pants on an everyday drink, even if it’s just to show off at your next Zoom party

If you just want to add a little holiday spirit to your spirits, here are some easy, seasonal ways to level up your regular drink — just a bit — this year. I’ve split them into two broad categories: things to make and things to buy. 

Things to make:

Clove-studded orange wheel
When I’m feeling nostalgic for old-fashioned homemade Christmas decor, I channel the pomander ball — those traditional hanging decorations made from oranges studded with cloves, strung up on ribbons to dry. The combination of orange and clove smells amazing, and it pairs well with one of my go-to drinks: the Old Fashioned (muddle bitters with a sugar cube, then stir in a shot of bourbon and some ice, serve with orange peel and cocktail cherry). You can garnish a drink like the Old Fashioned with a clove-studded orange wheel instead of a peel: slice the fruit, stick a few whole cloves into the orange flesh or the rind edge and slide it in after the ice. The aroma and flavor intensify as you drink, adding a spicy dimension to the Old Fashioned’s classic flavors. Pomander wheels also fancy up a glass of spiked hot cider, mulled wine or other seasonal hot spiced drinks. You can also dry the orange slices first — see the next item. 

Sweet dried orange slices
Another way to add a zip of citrus to your winter drinks is to dehydrate orange slices with a shake of sugar to give your garnish a homemade hygge touch. I wouldn’t think it out of place in a Christmas margarita, either. Blood oranges look particularly dramatic when dried. Slice some oranges, arrange them on a lined baking sheet and dust them with confectioner’s sugar. Bake at 200 degrees for 2 to 2.5 hours, or until they look done.  (Here’s a “Things to Buy” crossover: You can also buy sweetened dried orange slices at Trader Joe’s, and your local fruit market probably sells them, too.)

RELATED: How to make a perfect Hot Toddy, the whiskey cocktail to keep you warm this winter

Candied rosemary
With a bit of sugaring, a sprig of rosemary becomes a nod to a frosted evergreen. As a garnish, it can turn any number of simple cocktails into “special menu” seasonal fare. Make over your basic Cape Codder (the perennial favorite vodka-cran), Greyhound (gin or vodka + grapefruit juice) or various “this is already open” spritzers or mimosas with a garnish that looks way fancier than it actually is. Take one sprig of rosemary — think about what size glass you’re going to use it in before you cut — spray or dip in water, then dust with superfine sugar. Let it dry for at least an hour. 

Infusions
Cocktails made with infused spirits sound fancy, because they require a waiting period. Other than that, they’re the easiest craft on this list. All you need is the foundation spirit, a mason jar, items to flavor and a way to sift them out (you can tie the flavorings into cheesecloth bundles or those linen mulling spice bags, or just freeform it and then strain through any fine-mesh sieve or cloth at the end of the infusion period). Then add time. You’re pretty much only limited by your imagination and willingness to experiment. Try infusing a rum like Don Q Gold or Havana Club Añejo Clásico with cacao nibs for a hint of chocolate in your eggnog, or play around with a rosemary-infused gin to make a wintery Negroni

Infusions also make great gifts, as I learned recently when my friends Greg and Abigail dropped off some homemade vanilla chai bourbon. Greg was kind enough to share his method: In a jar, add a split vanilla bean (or a hint of extract, if you’re raiding your cupboards) and 2 to 3 teaspoons of loose chai blend (or open and empty 2 teabags) to 3 cups of bourbon (he used Old Forester). Shake it up, and let it steep in the dark for about a week. Some infusions take longer; you have to taste-test and see. I used Greg’s vanilla chai bourbon as a base for an Old Fashioned Fun Family Christmas — that’s my at-home fancy holiday version of an Old Fashioned, which is made with with a clove-studded orange wheel, the good cherries and smoked cinnamon bitters (see below). 

Things to buy:

Specialty bitters
In addition to your standards — Angostura, Peychaud’s bitters — I’ve found one of the best ways to add a seasonal nod to a cocktail is to change up the bitters. My little bottle of Old Forester’s Smoked Cinnamon bitters, inspired by Master Taster Jackie Zykan’s memories of her grandmother’s Christmas “whiskey cookies,” gets a workout this time of year. The classic paper-wrapped Fee Brothers bottle comes in an Aztec Chocolate flavor and Boker’s Cardamom Bitters, which reminds me of the Scandinavian baked goods I crave this time of year. Boutique bitters are also a joy to discover — look around at your favorite local purveyors, and see what they have in stock. If you can think of a flavor profile, there’s probably a bitters out there to help slant your favorite cocktail in that direction. 

Good cherries
An evergreen suggestion, but quality cocktail cherries also remind me of my late Grandma Tillie, a woman of few requests who loved getting a box of chocolate covered cherry cordials at Christmas. Thanks to their ubiquity on sundaes and in Shirley Temples, a cherry does add a pop of childhood nostalgia — always welcome at the holidays — to any drink. But we’re not kids anymore, so one way to help these little dudes make the leap to adulthood too is to throw out the jar of sickly-sweet day-glo grocery store maraschinos that’s squatted in the back of the fridge for years. Luxardo Maraschino Cherries are gold standard for a reason, but you also can’t beat the classic packaging of Amarena Fabbri Italian sour cherries if you want to feel fancy. I’m also partial to Griottines, a French brand of Morello cherries macerated in Kirsch and other liqueurs. It’s as much about the cherry as the swirl of liqueur that comes with it in the spoon — the richer and deeper the flavor, the better. 

RELATED: From chartreuse to vermouth: David Lebovitz’s cocktails will take you on a sensory journey to France

Gingerbread mug hangers
Here, stick this little gingerbread man or house on the rim of your glass. Just do it. It’s a cookie! Hanging off your drink! It’s whimsical, super low-effort and a little forced! Like you’re drinking in the TGI Friday’s at the mall by your mom’s house! I mean, it’s weird the things we miss now that we can’t do them, right! We’re fine, really! (This is also a “Thing You Can Make” — search for “mug hanger cookie cutters” — if you also want to make your kitchen smell like your mom’s before the annual cookie exchange. No, really, we’re fine!)

Drinkable glitter
Want to look fancy on screen with near-zero effort? Or maybe your Instagram feed desperately misses its portraits of lovingly-constructed themed cocktails from branded pop-ups? Normally I’m not one for adding things to a cocktail just to make them look impressive. But when you just want a regular drink (but make it fashion), this absurd cocktail accessory is a tasteless (literally) and tasteful (well, debatable) addition. I sprinkled Signature Drink Labs’ Shimmer Glitter Dust into a good Manhattan (gothy!) and a lackluster canned sauvignon blanc (sparkles!), and I can confirm that it will not leave a ring of glitter around your mouth as I initially feared. What does it do? It’s glitter. For your drink. Take it from there. Happy New Year!

Read more from our bar cart: 

  1. Upgrade your at-home cocktails easily with these basic kitchen ingredients
  2. I am a bartender who loves rum and Coke. Here’s why you should, too
  3. How the signature cocktail at Paris’ Combat bar got its name

Melania’s Christmas card might be photoshopped with an old Trump picture

Palace intrigue over the first couple took off after Melania Trump posted the official White House Christmas portrait on Twitter.

“‘Merry Christmas from President Donald J. Trump and First Lady Melania Trump,’ FLOTUS tweeted on Friday, adding that the photo of the couple wearing matching tuxedos on the Grand Staircase — which was decorated for holidays — was taken on Dec. 10 by photographer Andrea Hanks. However, the internet immediately began to question the authenticity of the snap, accusing the Trumps of Photoshop,” In Style magazine reported.

“It makes sense why the Trumps would fake their holiday portrait, as Melania herself has admitted she isn’t a fan of her White House Christmas duties,” the magazine noted. “Luckily, this is the last year Melania will have to worry about “Christmas stuff” — holiday portraits, included.”

Here are some of the examples of people arguing the photo was manipulated:

Martha Stewart’s Mexican hot chocolate cookies are the right mix of spicy and sweet

We’re pretty big fans of routinely sipping on our hot chocolate during the cold-weather season. One of our favorite signature hot chocolate flavors? Mexican hot chocolate. There’s nothing quite like its rich and creamy taste that promises to leave your soul satisfied and warm. We’re always looking for new delicious treats that will replicate this feeling and give us the comfort we need. Which is why we love this new recipe from Martha Stewart that transforms Mexican hot chocolate into another snack that we love: cookies. Not only does it taste like our favorite hot chocolate but it also has an added kick of spice. Leave it to the queen of desserts to gift us with the perfect recipe that we will make over and over again. Sorry Santa, these cookies are all for us!

Sharing her recipe on Instagram, Stewart wrote, “With all of the spicy, chocolate-y flavors of Mexican hot chocolate in cookie form, you’re going to love making (and eating!) these flavorful cookies. Grab the full recipe at the link in bio and make a batch for your virtual cookie swap.”  It’s a fan-favorite recipe, and one look at that picture and it is not hard to tell why. 

So what exactly gives these cookies their spicy twist? Chile powder. Yep, you’ll use a teaspoon of chili powder in your mixture along with your other ingredients. Tell your tastebuds to get ready for this flavorful rollercoaster, one bite and you’ll be hooked.

Not convinced? Excited Stewart fans flooded the comments of the post saying how much their family loved these cookies. Many other people responded in the comments saying that it is a recipe that have made in their kitchen multiple times.

One user wrote, “I’ve been using this recipe for the last couple years! Everyone loves them!”

Get Martha Stewart’s Mexican Hot-Chocolate Cookies recipe.

Read more SheKnows:

  1. Costco’s Bakery Section Is Severely Underrated — Here Are the Items You Need to Try
  2. Bobby Flay & Giada De Laurentiis Have a New Show Together & 2021 is Already Better
  3. Jamie Oliver’s Make-Ahead Gravy Recipe Has the Most Unusual Secret Ingredient We’ve Ever Seen

Jim Carrey resigns from Joe Biden duties at “Saturday Night Live”

The nation has a president-elect. But who will play him on “Saturday Night Live” as he prepares to be sworn into office?

The question is open anew after actor Jim Carrey took to Twitter Saturday to tell fans he was leaving behind the impression of Joe Biden he has offered over the course of the  first six episodes of the show’s 46th season. Carrey has not appeared in sketches in “SNL’s” last two broadcasts, nor has Alec Baldwin, who has portrayed President Donald Trump for the past four seasons and the early part of the current one.

Read more from Variety“Grey’s Anatomy” showrunner confirms Patrick Dempsey will be back – again!

“Though my term was only meant to be 6 weeks, I was thrilled to be elected as your SNL President,” the actor said via Twitter. ” I would love to go forward knowing that Biden was the victor because I nailed that **t. But I am just one in a long line of proud, fighting SNL Bidens!”

Carrey’s announcement opens the part to someone else. While “Saturday Night Live” did not immediately offer insight as to who might pick up the impression, Carrey’s departure could allow a cast member to take over or give the show a chance to find a different contributor. Former cast member Maya Rudolph has been playing Vice President-elect Kamala Harris in recent episodes.

Playing the role of the U.S. president on “SNL” can be overwhelming. In press reports, Baldwin has suggested he’s grappled with some of the response his Trump impression has sparked. Chevy Chase is still remembered for playing a clumsy, stumbling President Gerald Ford in the show’s earliest days, and Dana Carvey’s impression of President George H.W. Bush was recognized by the Commander-in-Chief himself.

Read more from VarietyNetflix renews “Virgin River” for Season 3 (TV news roundup)

Others have played Biden in the past. Former cast member Jason Sudeikis for many years offered a version of Biden whose brio often overtook an ability to stay on message. Woody Harrelson played Biden during a hosting stint on “SNL” in 2019, and returned to play him once again. John Mulaney played him last season. The first “SNL” cast member to portray Biden was Kevin Nealon, who provided an impression in 1991, when the show lampooned the U.S. Senate’s confirmation hearings of Justice Clarence Thomas’ nomination the Supreme Court.

Carrey’s portrayal took “SNL” to new places. Opening sketches featuring Carrey as Biden were longer and more involved than usual — one was more than 13 minutes in length — and often featured Carrey tangling with Baldwin’s Trump; being assisted by Rudolph’s Harris; or accompanied by Heidi Gardner’s Dr. Jill Biden.

Read more from VarietyThe worst films of 2020

In one of these “cold opens,” the ersatz former Vice President transformed himself into a fly and traveled to the national debate between Senator Harris and current Vice President Mike Pence. In the process, Carrey went from imitating Biden to aping actor Jeff Goldblum, who had the starring role as an eccentric scientist in the 1986 film, “The Fly.” In another broadcast, Carrey’s Biden used a remote control device to turn off Baldwin’s President Trump and give the nation a moment of peace.  “Isn’t that satisfying?” Carrey’s politician asked.

“SNL” viewers will no doubt be eager to see who might play Biden for the next period of time. Given Carrey’s resignation, it’s certainly possible a new impersonator could be revealed soon. The next broadcast of “SNL” appears tonight on NBC at 11:30 p.m. eastern.

Oh joy! Kristen Wiig comes home to “SNL” for a holiday edition rife with promise and peril

Whether the year in which they air has been defined by soaring highs or miserable flops, the holiday episodes of “Saturday Night Live” are . . . consistent. People who keep up with the long-running late night sketch series approach each December’s jaunt with an air of anticipation if not outright excitement, particularly its year-ending episodes.

For those, Lorne Michaels brings in the big gun hosts: Matt Damon left tinsel-sparkled memories in the wake of his 2018 appearance. Last year Eddie Murphy made headlines with his return to “SNL” and revived a number of his old hits, including Gumby; Mister Robinson, the down-on-his-luck double for Mister Rogers; and Buckwheat. Nightmarish as 2020 has been, 2019 wasn’t exactly all strippers and parades either, making Murphy’s return welcome if not a shoot-the-moon performance. That his stint was largely composed of retreads was beside the point – we were simply happy for a visit from a friendly face from way back when.

That brings us to Kristen Wiig, the latest returning “Saturday Night Live” alumnus to tuck the show into its midseason nap. Since exiting the sketch show, Wiig has expanded her repertoire to include bonafide dramas, and on Christmas Day she’ll be tearing into Wonder Woman as The Cheetah in “Wonder Woman 1984.” Our expectations for her this weekend are much simpler.

Wiig is her “SNL” class’ Kate McKinnon equivalent, the clutch player with dozens of characters and impressions under her belt. This all but guarantees a troop through past seasons and a few clapter-inspiring cameos from her famous cohorts. Maya Rudolph is already nearby, what with her impression of Kamala Harris saving Jim Carrey‘s disastrous Joe Biden parody on the regular. Tina Fey and Amy Poehler might pop in too.

As likely are signature character revivals that fit the season: Gilly? Target Lady? Dooneese? They can climb down that list like a ladder, and they will. In the way of all half-glass empty optimists, I am bracing to be underwhelmed with the expectation that Wiig will clear the middle rung where I’ve placed the bar. It’s also 2020, and I’m not in the mood to be taxed by anything anymore. Bring on Wiig’s Judy Grimes playing “Black Jeopardy,” why not? Like everyone else I’ll be watching with my head on a pillow from a prone and deflated position.

Closing out the year with old friends coming back to “SNL” isn’t a regular gift, but they have done it a few times over its 46 seasons, and it’s an easy win. Among the alums who came back to ring in the holiday with viewers are Bill Murray (in 1981), Jimmy Fallon (2011 and 2013), Martin Short (2012) and Fey and Poehler in 2015. Murphy has seen out the old year three times now, hosting in 1982 and 1984 when he was at the height of his powers. One imagines these homecomings to be something of an easy walk for the writers, particularly with a host like Wiig. Hand her some doll arms and an off-putting elf suit and you’ve got a fine way to kill 10 minutes.

We’re all due an easy win, a bit of midwinter’s rest. And surely many of us are curious as to how “Saturday Night Live” will enter 2021 now that the man Alec Baldwin has been clowning for years now is getting booted from the White House and – fate willing – our screens, newsfeeds and subconscious.

Baldwin’s Donald Trump facsimile was tremendous for “Saturday Night Live” in the administration’s early years and a simple magnet for giggles before the novelty wore thin. The sketch show’s fall return did not ignore the election but retrained the spotlight on Carrey and Rudolph’s Biden/Harris ticket, a dicey proposition since the audience loves Rudolph and was less enamored of Carrey’s Biden. But as of Saturday we won’t have the “Kidding” star to kick around anymore: he announced his retirement from portraying the president-elect on Twitter.

Over the last few episodes the creative stagnation in the scripts has become tougher to countenance but forgivable; the cast, crew and writers lived through the same year as everyone else, and if the skits were flat, no one could blame them.

Bringing back Wiig at the end of this stretch is a good thing. Her appearance also underscores the promise and peril of these alumni returns, though – they spark our nostalgia for what was and make us notice the ways in which the present cannot live up to the past.

This weekend, though, Wiig also has an opportunity to remind us that the time will soon be here when we may not be wrung out on a Saturday night following a week of processing multiple acts of dangerous, heartless stupidity committed by our leaders. Maybe she’ll be able reassure us that a shift in our mood lurks but a few weeks away instead of years. 

Perhaps whatever goodwill she can engender will inspire everyone at “Saturday Night Live” to aim to be something beyond imitative and reactionary. Wiig once observed, “When you go out of your comfort zone and it works there’s nothing more satisfying.” She’s not wrong . . .  and we so badly want to be satisfied by “Saturday Night Live” in the coming year.

The final “Saturday Night Live” episode of 2020, hosted by Kristen Wiig, airs Saturday, live at 11:30 p.m. ET/ 8:30 p.m. PT on NBC.

“Greenland” review: Gerard Butler stars in a disaster movie that’s better than 2020 deserves

After the hellscape of a year that was 2020, it stands to reason that a disaster movie about a regular guy and his family trying to stay alive as the world goes to shit around them would feel redundant and/or too close to home. Either way, it seems like something that wouldn’t be worth paying for when you can get the real thing for free by looking at your window, turning on the TV, or — and this one is extra fun — just thinking about literally any single aspect of your life as it’s been since March.

And yet it’s precisely because Ric Roman Waugh’s mid-budget “Greenland” eschews Hollywood expectations of its “craggy man vs. a planet-destroying comet” premise and drills in on that human-sized helplessness we’ve all come to know so well that its most effective moments remind us why these movies ever resonated with people in the first place. The universe is a cold and indifferent place where inanimate objects will travel hundreds of thousands of lightyears across the stars just to kill you and everyone you love, but the pathetic smallness of our mortal existence — the silly lives we lead and the people we’re lucky enough to share them with — is precisely what makes them so precious. Maybe that sentiment is too facile to put into words, but it’s just facile enough to build a satisfyingly bone-stupid Gerard Butler vehicle around.

Read more Indiewire: ‘The Vigil’ Trailer: An Orthodox Jewish Ritual Gets a Haunted Twist in IFC’s New Horror Movie

Butler stars as John Garrity, a Scottish-born structural engineer so ordinary that “everyman” feels a little too edgy a term to describe him. If his marriage to Allison (the ever-appealing Morena Baccarin) were one of the skyscrapers he built, it might not be falling apart. We don’t learn the reason behind their recent separation until toward the end of the film, but it comes as a shock when we do; not because the reveal itself is surprising, but rather because “Greenland” is so light on character detail that you almost can’t believe that it doubles back to fill in that blank. All you really need to know about the Garritys is that the growing distance between them is still bridged by their mutual love for their diabetic seven-year-old son Nathan (Roger Floyd), whose regular need for insulin — to the great shock of anyone who’s never seen a movie before — will very much come up again. (Among other things, “Greenland” is a nail-biter for anyone who’s ever worried about how they’d fare without their respective crutches during an emergency.)

The other thing about Nathan is that he’s super-obsessed with the comet that’s speeding towards Earth. He talks about the interstellar object — dubbed “Clark” — so familiarly that it sounds like his best friend. Maybe it is, the poor kid. He loves Clark. Alas, Clark does not love him back. Clark zapped into Earth’s neighborhood from an unknown solar system in a way that caught NASA flat-footed (and might inspire you to wonder if something more sinister is afoot), and it has no intention of politely burning up in our atmosphere or sinking into the ocean as scientists predict that it will. Please forgive the polling error, but it turns out that Clark is composed of fragments big enough to kill millions of people with each strike, and one particularly hefty chunk — set to make landfall some 48 hours after first impact — will cause what “Deep Impact” fans know as an E.L.E., or extinction-level-event. There’s no stopping it. Robert Duvall is too old to go up there and nuke it from the inside out, and NASA spent too much on Space Force to afford Bruce Willis’ daily rate of one million dollars. The horrifying scene where the Garritys and their neighborhood friends gather around the TV and watch a piece of the comet decimate Tampa confirms what we already feared: Clark kind of sucks.

Read more Indiewire: Peter Jackson Reveals He Didn’t Write or Direct His Favorite ‘Lord of the Rings’ Trilogy Scene

The only sliver of hope — the only thing that stops “Greenland” from essentially becoming a Barstool-friendly “Melancholia” remake — is the special alert that John gets on his phone. Due to his expertise as an engineer, he and his family have been selected to join other valuable people from around the world in an underground bunker where they might survive the devastation to come. And where is that bunker? Well, our lives would be a lot easier if we knew what the movie about us was called. But hitching a government-operated ride to Greenland won’t be as easy as it sounds, especially once panic sets in and the general public gets wind of the plan.

So begins a resourceful disaster movie that maintains its lock on the intimate anxieties that underwrite our collective fear of city-sized asteroids, underground volcanoes, and Cloverfield monsters — mostly because Waugh can’t afford to divert his attention to the destruction itself. Shot on a shoestring budget relative to the rest of its genre, “Greenland” is able to leverage a blood-red aurora borealis, a handful of fireballs, and a few distant glimpses of space rocks blazing a trail through the night sky into a convincing portrait of a planetary death rattle. Things grow a bit squidgy whenever Waugh goes in for the money shots, but his eyes are seldom bigger than his wallet in a film that mines little suspense from the Garritys’ far-fetched race to safety, and a lot from their scramble to reunite whenever they get separated.

Read more Indiewire: Zack Snyder Says New ‘Justice League’ Should Earn R Rating for ‘Violence and Profanity’

If Waugh lacks the vision and/or resources to compete with something like Steven Spielberg’s “War of the Worlds,” the granular focus of Chris Sparling’s script encourages the director to seize on the moments that are too small for other, more spectacle-oriented disaster movies to accommodate. Show audiences an alien spaceship demolishing the White House and they might lose interest in the chain of command that’s involved in denying a diabetic child access to a military plane, but keep the action on the ground level and the life-or-death stakes of a desperate evacuation come to the fore.

That “Greenland” is able to keep things on a human level for almost the entire duration of its runtime is also made possible by the film’s quiet insistence on the kindness of strangers and the insidiousness that’s made possible by our own self-interest. En masse, the terrified hordes that John and his family encounter are as scary as the comet that’s whipped them into a frenzy, but most of them soften when faced with personal responsibility; the rest are forced into such immediate confrontation with the inhumanity of their actions that only the most desperate of the lot can see them through. One sequence involving Hope Davis and David Denman as a couple who offer Allison and Nathan help is particularly sickening for how it maps a Good Samaritan gone bad.

None of this stuff is rendered with the rigor or curiosity required to elevate “Greenland” too far above the Redbox expectations of its genre; the movie only gets dopier as it makes its way north, and some of the clumsier lines of dialogue underscore the moments in which the filmmakers’ lost faith in the story they were telling (upon learning that comet shards are heading for upstate New York, Allison turns to camera and asks “Isn’t that where we are!?”). But if none of the film’s main characters ever become more than stand-ins for the feelings they’re meant to evoke from us, the unflinching conviction with which “Greenland” commits to those feelings is enough to make it more harrowing than hokey, and more honest than it is far-fetched. At the end of a year full of awful surprises, a twist this inane almost qualifies as a legitimate silver lining: The creative team behind “Angel Has Fallen,” of all people, have inadvertently made only the second mainstream film of 2020 that captures what it felt like to live through it, and the first that doesn’t climax with Rudy Giuliani’s penis.

Grade: B

STX Films will release “Greenland” on VOD on Friday, December 18.

The pandemic is causing teachers to flee the profession

“I am sorry,” sighed the tree.  “I wish that I could give you something…but I have nothing left. I am just an old stump.  I am sorry.” — “The Giving Tree,” Shel Silverstein

Our public education system may be on the verge of collapse. Indeed, most families with children enrolled in public school find patchwork systems of in-person and virtual instruction underwhelming at best. Teachers are overwhelmed and unable to keep stitching it together. Something has to give, and without an infusion of urgently needed resources and some moral support from families and politicians, that something could be a mass exodus of teachers that our schools cannot afford to lose.

For the past six months, as part of an ongoing 12-state, 100+ district study on teachers’ unions’ response to COVID-19, my colleague Sara Dahill-Brown and I have been interviewing union representatives from urban, rural and suburban districts about their involvement in COVID decision-making and response.

In an ongoing wave of calls this fall a single theme has dominated — teachers are stressed and overwhelmed and, as one expressed, the profession is “teetering on the edge of a massive, massive shortage.” In small, rural and large urban districts, leaders tell us that teachers are retiring, questioning their commitment to the profession, and just leaving the job.  In many districts there were teacher shortages before the pandemic. Unfilled vacancies create additional burden as those who show up are forced to pick up the slack. Union leaders have told us they don’t know if they’ll ever recover, and huge shortages encourage fears that this “may be the final collapse of public education,” said one leader from an urban district in the Midwest.   

The stories of fear and pain that union leaders have shared are borne out in a growing body of survey research. From fall 2019 to spring 2020, scholars at Brown documented the pandemic’s initial affects on the profession. A majority of the 6,000 teachers from 9 states they surveyed reported a damaged sense of self-efficacy, their purpose and joy shattered when classrooms shuttered. An Education Week survey in August noted declines in teacher morale and an increased likelihood of teacher resignation.

There is emerging evidence that these expressions of distress are having real consequences. In Arizona, data from the Arizona School Personnel Administrators Association shows the number of public and charter school teachers leaving the profession doubled, and more than half cited COVID as their primary reason for exit. In a September survey field by the American Federation of Teachers in partnership with the NAACP and several other organizations, nearly one-third of teachers reported they were likely to leave the profession. And in a survey of teachers from my home state of Minnesota fielded last month, nearly 80% of teachers reported feeling stressed and almost 30% considered leaving the profession. 

The bad news keeps on coming. Last week’s press release on EdWeek Research Center’s fall survey shows 84% of teachers and administrators reporting teacher morale lower now than prior to the pandemic.

It’s clear that much of this overwhelm stems from overwork. Time and again union leaders stressed to me that we’re asking teachers to do two full-time jobs. They’re asked to use both in-person and virtual students (hybrid) sometimes simultaneously (multimodal). Teachers in both these nightmare scenarios report higher stress, frustration, and worry about their own mental health compared to those teaching fully virtual or in-person only. And this mountain of expectations is stacked atop other non-paid caregiving responsibilities which may disproportionately impact the education workforce given its majority female makeup. (The Department of Labor statistics notes that nearly four times as many women than men dropped out of the labor force in September, just as these new modes of instruction were getting up and running).

The union leaders we spoke with acknowledge well-documented challenges for kids and parents. Indeed, one quarter of the U.S. workforce has considered leaving a job; parents fear a detrimental effect on their jobs if schools stay closed; and working moms are leaving the workforce at astronomical rates and absorbing the mental stress and shock of this purgatory. The pandemic’s effect on the education workforce is likely more pronounced, however, because teachers care about feeding and educating their students, the toll this takes on the most disadvantaged, the increase in anxiety and depression, and the loss of stability and joy.  

A union steward from a mid-sized district in the northeast put it this way: 

“The problem is everyone is sandwiched between two rights. The administration is right to want this thing that they want. Okay, I could see it from their perspective. And my member is right for wanting what they want. I can see from their perspective. So, you know, I try and thread the needle. For years, we’ve always been able to thread the needle and come up with this thing. Whatever it is. But now, you can’t. Are parents of second graders right in wanting their kids in the building because remote instruction for six hours a day is terrible for their kids? Absolutely. Is the teacher right in saying that we have to adhere to department health guidelines, and she can’t do all of this? Absolutely.” 

Last summer, a diverse group of nearly 200 education researchers penned a public statement offering a range of recommendations to help schools navigate this moment. Their number one recommendation was that state and federal governments provide “substantial additional resources to prevent looming school budget crises.” They also called attention to teachers’ needs for support in making accessible materials for multiple modalities.

The federal government can and should step up with more funding. They’re the only entity really able to redistribute resources so that crushed state governments and inequalities in property values don’t further entrench students’ disparate fates. A massive increase in resources may convert an impossible situation into one more manageable, but it won’t magically save what’s broken here. In the years before the pandemic, study after study documented high, unsustainable levels of stress among teachers; as elsewhere, COVID-19 has exacerbated already-existing challenges.

We keep asking our teachers to give and give and give. They keep showing up, risking their physical and mental health. They answer 3000 emails a week and pay close attention to whether or not the face on the other side of a laptop camera looks hungry or overwhelmed. We’ve reduced our teachers to stumps, and stumps can’t grow back. They’re not easily replaced by seeds or saplings planted in hostile soil. When this is over, we need to rethink schools. We can be student-centered, anti-racist, justice-conscious and care about our caretakers.  

A different children’s book about trees speaks another important truth: “Unless someone like you cares a whole awful lot, nothing is going to get better. It’s not.” This holiday season, hug your family tight, call your member of Congress, and thank a teacher. Our future depends on it.

Giada De Laurentiis shared an easy, foolproof appetizer that’s perfect for the holidays

You don’t have to cook extravagant meals this holiday season to celebrate. In this abnormal year, you deserve to take a break from the stress that comes with your annual festivities. Sometimes, appetizers for dinner look great on your dinner table and are even better to eat. In between bites of your favorite finger food you can easily converse with friends or family (and isn’t that really the best part of the holidays?). The queen of no-fuss, no-mess mealsGiada De Laurentiis shared an appetizer recipe that’s perfect for any occasion: Baked Caprese Salad Crostini. Holiday gathering or not, it’s like the chef says, this appetizer will “never fail you.”

Sharing the scrumptious treat on her Instagram, De Laurentiis wrote, “This easy appetizer will never fail you: Baked Caprese Salad Crostini. The Caprese Salad flavors we know and love, on a cheesy and crispy crostini. What’s not to love? Grab the #recipe in the profile link!”

The recipe is the epitome of a “make-ahead” meal. If you’re looking to have your crostini prepped and ready to eat in a matter of minutes, the Italian chef notes on her site that you can toast the bread in advance (all it needs is a quick pop in the oven before serving).

But the meal prep doesn’t stop there, you can also have your mozzarella and tomatoes pre-sliced. Like the bread, it requires a short toast in your oven, and voila!

This quick and easy appetizer is perfect for any occasion; but honestly, the red, white, and green colored food really sold it for us. It mimics the ornaments we have adorned our Christmas tree with, and why stop at red and green decor when you can have holiday-themed food too?!

Get Giada De Laurentiis’ Baked Caprese Salad Crostini recipe.

Read more SheKnows:

  1. Jamie Oliver Shares the Perfect Sunday Dinner Recipe
  2. Ina Garten Swears by These 3 Salts & Uses Them In Everything
  3. The Best Online Baking Classes for You & Your Family to Try

“Modern Persuasion” review: Alicia Witt’s appealing presence powers half-hearted Jane Austen update

Back in 1995, in the midst of cinema’s brief fixation with Jane Austen, director Roger Michell made the definitive film of “Persuasion”: as literate and elegant as it was underestimated upon release. That same year, Amy Heckerling set the bar for modernized Austen adaptations with her lithely funny and era-defining “Emma” riff “Clueless.” A quarter-century later, the straightforwardly titled “Modern Persuasion” falls some way short of either benchmark. Refashioning Austen’s bittersweet final novel about love surmounting prickly English class politics as a peppy romantic comedy of missed connections among the moneyed New York media set, Alex Appel and Jonathan Lisecki‘s film is both too innocuous and too flatly imagined to stir much feeling either way.

What it does have going for it is Alicia Witt, a likable, spirited star too little used by Hollywood of late, but recently a leading mainstay of Hallmark holiday movies — from which “Modern Persuasion” perhaps counts as a modest promotion. Her game, slightly spacy screen presence goes some way toward making an actual character out of a protagonist otherwise drawn via romcom identikit: A klutzy, cat-doting singleton wedded to her job but only one mild makeover away from va-va-voom sexiness, Manhattan PR star Wren Cosgrove seems both entirely familiar and not entirely human.

Read more Variety: ‘Trial of the Chicago 7’ Honored With Inaugural Ensemble Tribute at Gotham Awards

Jane Austen certainly wouldn’t recognize her as an incarnation of her heroine Anne Elliot, though to be fair, Lisecki and Barbara Radecki’s sitcom-style script claims only faint allegiance to her novel. (The credits, for their part, don’t acknowledge the adaptation.) Still, it’s cheerfully peppered with “Persuasion” parallels and reference points, many of them of a throwaway nature: The publicity firm where Wren works is named Keller Keller Lynch, a nod to the novel’s key location of Kellynch Hall, while her crotchety cat is called Wentworth, after the novel’s romantic hero. That the name is assigned to her pet rather than her eventual love interest is a discouraging sign of where any frisson of chemistry in the film truly lies.

Three men vie for Wren’s affections in the course of the film, but those familiar with Austen’s tale will spot the Captain Wentworth proxy immediately. Just as Anne, pressured by family, broke off a youthful engagement with Wentworth in the novel, so did Wren ditch her college boyfriend Owen (Shane McRae) when he invited her to move with him to San Francisco. Urged by her high-flying aunt Vanessa (Bebe Neuwirth, classing up any scene she’s in with low-effort hauteur) to put her own career before that of a man, she chose the East Coast — and has apparently regretted her decision ever since.

Read more Variety: Carey Mulligan and Emerald Fennell on How ‘Promising Young Woman’ Sparked a Real-Life Fight

That Wren has found no romantic alternative in the 15 or so years since is hard to believe — but then she also occupies one of those peculiar movie vacuums where, despite being attractive, personable and well-connected, she appears to have no friends or acquaintances outside the office whatsoever. If she did, this 87-minute story might be even shorter: Any half-empathetic confidante could tell Wren what’s up when Owen, now the millionaire mogul behind a Twitter-type social media network, turns up at Keller Keller Lynch with a major marketing contract up for grabs.

Did he choose her firm by accident? Plainly not, but that doesn’t stop Wren stalling and dithering, accepting the shy advances of Owen’s colleague Sam (Dominic Rains) and the slicker ones of rival PR exec Tyler (Christopher O’Shea); Owen, meanwhile, is diverted by Wren’s younger, flirtatious assistant Kate (Daniella Pineda), whose social media expertise prompts some distinctly dated stabs at millennial-speak satire in the script. Inadvertently, phrases like “geek on fleek” render the film as specific a period piece as any Regency-era Austen narrative.

Read more Variety: How the Production Team Behind Poland’s Oscar Entry ‘Never Gonna Snow Again’ Massaged Movie’s Details

And so it goes, in its essentially harmless but frictionless way, full of liquid-soap dialogue and televisually bright lighting. Witt and McRae, both amiable individually, don’t strike so many sparks together as to make this love story especially urgent, until a denouement that anticlimactically substitutes a text message for the heart-spilling letter of the novel. (It has already cited New Wave pop lyrics where Austen used Romantic poets: Such updates are cute enough, but don’t do the present many favors.) What “Modern Persuasion” can’t find is an equivalent for the particular barriers of class and social bias that keep Austen’s lovers apart so long; in a well-dressed world of Hamptons weekends and buzzy media parties, all Wren and her soulmate really need is a spare moment to talk.