Spring Sale: Get 1 Year, Save 58%

Wall Street titan gloats over pandemic profits from rentals as eviction tsunami looms

As the December 31 expiration date on the CDC’s federal eviction moratorium nears in the midst of the surging Covid-19 pandemic and freezing weather, an estimated 30 to 40 million working-class households in the United States are bracing for the possibility of eviction — but at least one Wall Street investor looking to capitalize on the crisis is bragging about what he sees as a golden opportunity to expand his real estate empire. 

“You always have winners and losers — Blackstone was a huge winner coming out of the global financial crisis, and I think something similar is going to happen,” said the billionaire CEO Stephen Schwarzman.

Schwarzman — chief of the world’s largest private equity firm and landlord, top Republican donor, and confidant of President Donald Trump — made these comments at last week’s Goldman Sachs Financial Services ConferenceThe Daily Poster’s David Sirota and Andrew Perez reported.

After recounting how Blackstone profited in the wake of the 2008 financial crash by gobbling up tens of thousands of foreclosed homes for pennies on the dollar and converting them into reportedly substandard rental properties — and intensifying the affordable housing crisis by funding campaigns against rent control even after receiving public subsidies—Schwarzman “indicated his firm is positioning itself for a similar jackpot,” wrote Sirota and Perez.

While Schwarzman alluded to the future when discussing the potential to make a killing from the worsening economic crisis, “his firm is generating big revenues today,” the pair continued.

“We’re the largest owner of real estate in the private world,” said Schwarzman. “And that asset class has boomed with huge increases in rents.” He added that much of Blackstone’s rental income comes from commercial real estate, especially the logistics sector, with warehouse space accounting for over one-third of the property owned by the investment firm. 

As Sirota and Perez explained, “that gives Blackstone enormous power to jack up rents and potentially bankrupt pandemic-battered small businesses.”

The pair warned of “a cautionary tale” from Britain, where Blackstone has become “small businesses’ largest landlord—and the company has been accused of jeopardizing the viability of those businesses by refusing to waive rent when they were forced to shut down during the pandemic.”

Given that there are “congressional proposals to use government money to bail out the commercial real estate industry,” the private equity firm could benefit even further.

But that doesn’t mean Blackstone is no longer involved in the residential real estate industry. Despite “selling off its single-family residential rental business” in November 2019, Sirota and Perez reported that the financial giant has since ventured into apartment buildings and mobile homes, in addition to making an August return to the suburban housing market.

“If you would have asked me in April whether anything like this would have been possible, you’d have to say no,” Schwarzman told his Wall Street colleagues last week.

Assuming Blackstone does “buy up even more residential real estate to try to squeeze even more revenue out of renters in the pandemic-ravaged economy,” as Sirota and Perez put it, working people across the country will pay a hefty price—with both their pocketbooks and health taking a hit.

As Common Dreams reported in October, corporate landlords, including Blackstone subsidiary Invitation Homes, have been among the worst offenders when it comes to evicting tenants during the coronavirus crisis, even after the CDC ordered a temporary halt on displacement in September.

Recent studies confirm that housing security is a matter of life-and-death. As Common Dreams reported last month, researchers found that between the onset of the pandemic in mid-March and the implementation of a national eviction moratorium in early September, the premature lifting of statewide protections in the spring and summer caused more than 433,000 excess Covid-19 infections and 10,700 excess deaths.

Considering how coronavirus cases, hospitalizations, and deaths have soared this fall and are set to keep rising this winter, it is all but certain that throwing people onto the streets or forcing them into overcrowded conditions in the coming weeks will exacerbate mortality and inequality.

James Parrott, an economist at the New School, told Politico that the pandemic has generated “the most lopsided economic event imaginable.”

“Low-wage workers who work those hourly paid jobs in the face-to-face service industries are most affected by this,” Parrott explained. And “the problems with mounting levels of unpaid rent are going to be most severe” in the neighborhoods where low-income and unemployed workers live.

Because Black and Latino households are overrepresented among the poor, the negative effects of the coronavirus crisis are especially acute for workers and tenants of color.

Diane Yentel, president of the National Low-Income Housing Coalition (NLIHC), said in a statement released Monday that “the consequences of congressional inaction will be deadly and costly—for children and families, for communities, and for our country’s ability to contain the pandemic.”

Sirota and Perez laid out the prospects for extending a nationwide eviction moratorium for the duration of the crisis:

In October, House Democrats passed legislation that would create a one-year eviction moratorium, which could limit the power of Blackstone and other Wall Street landlords to throw people out of their homes during the pandemic.

The bill, though, is being blocked by Senate Republicans, whose political machine has received $35 million from Schwarzman in the 2020 election cycle. Schwarzman donated another $15 million in late November, as the GOP group ramped up spending in the two January runoff races in Georgia that will decide which party controls the Senate.

Blackstone also has ties to Democrats who could block or limit any eviction moratorium legislation in 2021. Seven Blackstone executives, including chief operating officer Jon Gray, each donated $50,000 to a super PAC that backed President-elect Joe Biden. Gray raised money for Biden’s campaign and also donated $2 million to Senate Democrats’ super PAC.

The compromise coronavirus relief bill crafted by a bipartisan, bicameral group of lawmakers would extend the CDC’s federal eviction moratorium by one month and provide $25 billion in emergency rental assistance.

The NLIHC urged Congress to “quickly enact this emergency legislation—and return in January to work on a broader, more comprehensive package.” According to the NLIHC, keeping renters stably housed during the pandemic will require at least $100 billion in emergency rental assistance, while homeless shelters and service providers need an additional $11.5 billion to keep the unhoused healthy and safe while trying to rapidly find permanent housing. 

“While extending the CDC eviction moratorium for one month is insufficient to keep people housed for the duration of the pandemic,” Yentel said, “the extension provides essential and immediate protection for millions of renters on the verge of losing their homes in January.”

She noted that “extending the moratorium through January provides time for emergency rental assistance to be distributed, and for Biden to improve and further extend the moratorium immediately after being sworn into office.”

“While $25 billion in emergency rental assistance is clearly not enough to meet the estimated $70 billion in accrued back rent or the ongoing need for rental assistance to keep families stably housed, these resources are essential and desperately needed,” Yentel added. “Targeting the funds to the lowest-income people will help ensure those most at risk of eviction are assisted first.”

John Pollock, a staff attorney at the legal advocacy nonprofit Public Justice Center, said that if Congress refuses to help the American people, “I don’t see how it’s possible that we’re not going to see more evictions on January 1 than we’ve ever seen in a month.”

Donald Trump and the politics of victimhood: From winning to whining

“We’re all victims,” Donald Trump claimed at his first rally after the presidential election, on Dec. 5 in Georgia “We’re all victims. Everybody here. All these thousands of people here tonight. They’re all victims. Every one of you.” That was quite a change from his 2016 election campaign, when he promised “So much winning you’ll get bored.” Liberals were supposed to be the “snowflakes,” right? What happened? How did the once-proud party of masculine self-reliance and “personal responsibility” become such a bunch of whiny snowflakes? 

There are lots of reasons one could point to, but in truth it’s pretty much a blind-men-and-the-elephant situation. We have an abundance of particular insights, with different bits and pieces of the answer. But surprisingly little is known about the role of victimhood in politics in any organized sense, even though particular examples are well-known, some of them quite broad.  A passage on white Southern victimhood in the conclusion of “The Long Southern Strategy” (author interview here) is a case in point, drawing together some of the major themes developed earlier in the book. But there is no shared empirical framework for comparing levels of Southern victimhood with victimhood levels elsewhere — unlike with other measures, such as modern sexism, which is used to great effect in that book. All kinds of political attitudes have been measured and studied over the years—enough to fill a whole volume, more than 20 years ago, but no one’s ever studied victimhood with the same kind of rigorous scrutiny. 

Until now, that is — in a new paper by Miles Armaly and Adam Enders, “‘Why Me?’ The Role of Perceived Victimhood in American Politics” (forthcoming in the journal Political Behavior.) Given how much of a role victimhood plays in politics, it’s remarkable that this appears to be the first attempt ever to develop a way to measure it, and thereby open up a whole new realm of inquiry. By measuring perceived victimhood, the authors show that it’s “largely unrelated to political predispositions or sociodemographic characteristics,” but is related to, but various views of government, society and the world (especially with regard to perceived corruption and conspiratorial thinking) and personality traits such as narcissism and a sense of entitlement. 

While the authors didn’t set out to explain how Republicans became the victim party, Armaly told me in a recent interview, that makes a lot of sense in terms of what they did find. “The idea of many Trump supporters being ‘victims’ is borne out in our work,” he said. “Inasmuch as cueing from political elites is responsible for some of these feelings, victimhood is currently manifesting in Trump supporters in large part because of ‘we are the victims’ messages,” such as Trump’s speech in Georgia. 

The combination of two processes — top-down elite cues and bottom-up pre-existing attitudes — is one of three major distinctions drawn in this paper that clarify our understanding of victimhood, and how it helps shape the political landscape.  “It’s bottom-up in the sense that many psychological traits are. It’s top-down in that elites can cue feelings of victimhood,” Armaly put it. Neither of those things by itself can explain how victimhood functions in politics; both need to involved. But even to begin we need the help of another distinction — between objectively-defined victimhood and a subjective sense of victimhood — in order to focus on the common psychological factors shared by differently situated political individuals and groups. 

Finally, “Why Me” develops a highly-clarifying twofold construct of subjective victimhood: It is egocentric, involving a tendency to agree with statements like “I am the victim because I deserve more than I get,” and it involves a sense of systemic unfairness, reflected in sentiments like, “I am the victim because the system is rigged against me.” The two are strongly correlated but distinct, with egocentric victims more likely to be Trump supporters, for example, while systemic victims are less likely to be.

In an added wrinkle, the paper’s conclusion suggests the existence of a third form of victimhood, “an other-oriented, or accusatory one,” and goes on to note: 

Modern right-wing rhetoric, for instance, decries liberal “snowflakes,” “safe spaces,” and political correctness culture. In each of these instances, victimhood is projected onto others. This mobilizes the projectors because the “victims” are illegitimate — they are not deserving of victim status in the eyes of those doing the projecting.

If every accusation is a confession, this third form of victimhood offers a very big clue as to how Trump’s base has turned snowflake. 

Each of these distinctions is worth considering in turn. But first let’s note three key points from the paper’s conclusion. First, the centrality of victimhood: 

Victimhood is central to politics. If politics is, as Lasswell (1936) famously described, about “who gets what, when, how,” there are going to be victims. Some will be perceived as victims when they are not, others just the opposite. Political communication is, in no trivial sense, tasked with making some feel like victims, and others look like victims.

Second, victimhood in politics isn’t necessarily pernicious:

That victimhood plays such a central role in politics is not necessarily troubling.

It is intuitive that politicians would make their case to constituents in such a way that victimhood is cued. Indeed, we want representatives that work to realize our values, fill our pockets, and facilitate a happy and healthy life.

Third, what’s troubling is when a sense of victimhood fuels extremism:

Rather than the mere appeal to victimhood, it is the lengths one is willing to go in order to mobilize victimhood that poses the greatest potential normative threat to a civilized democratic political system. Speaking historically, it is precisely a feeling of hypervictimization that has caused people to turn to authoritarian regimes for relief.

Subjective vs. objective

Let’s turn to the three distinctions described above: The objective/subjective distinction comes first. One reason perceived victimhood hasn’t been systematically studied, Armaly told me, is because “there are actual political victims.” In the course of getting the paper published, he said, “People were talking about ‘How are Black people different from white people? How are women different from men?’ Because people were stuck in the idea of genuine victims of the political process. I think that’s one of the reasons that we haven’t had this direct focus on perceived victimhood in political science or similar fields.” 

In fact, the paper itself notes: “Men seem to be slightly higher in perceived victimhood across the board. … Such an observation underscores our claim that victimhood — as a self-perception — does not require relative disempowerment or subjection to injustices.” 

In conversation, Armaly was more blunt. “It doesn’t matter what’s true,” he said. “It matters what people think and what they feel.”

A broader public understanding of this could be helpful, he said: “If people understand that these are perceptions, that they can be made to feel this way — and that’s a powerful source for political elites.” Indeed, promoting this kind of awareness was the underlying insight behind the race-class narrative project developed by Ian Haney López, Anat Shenker-Osorio, and Demos, which I wrote about here in June 2018. I described it as a suite of narratives “that call out scapegoating by greedy, wealthy special interests, and that call on people to unify across racial lines for the common good.”

Armaly expressed the promise he sees in more general terms. “If an individual can recognize that perhaps they are being told they’re victims when indeed they’re not, maybe there’s something there that people can learn from: ‘Hold on, I’m not really the victim here.””  

The race-class narratives didn’t specifically discuss victimhood, but they did confront the dynamic. For example:

California’s strength comes from our ability to work together – to knit together a landscape of people from different places and of different races into a whole. For this to be a place of freedom for all, we cannot let the greedy few and the politicians they pay for divide us against each other based on what someone looks like, where they come from or how much money they have. It’s time to stand up for each other and come together. It is time for us to vote for leaders who see all of us as equal, whether we are white, black, or brown, who respect all of our families, and who will govern for all of us.

Armaly’s work suggests that other elite manipulations of victimhood could be countered with similar kinds of messages. Recognizing victimhood as a subjective state is the first step toward breaking its spell.

Egocentric vs. systemic 

This distinction is the most fully elaborated of the three. What both poles have in common is that victimhood is “attractive,” Armaly explained, “because it’s placing the blame for one’s lot in life on somebody else: ‘It’s not my fault.’ It’s a psychologically pleasing thing. I don’t have to be blamed, because somebody else is doing this.” From there, the two types diverge. “With the systemic, people are placing the blame with specific higher entities if you will, and with egocentric, people feel this way, they have the internal feelings of victimhood, but again, it’s not their fault. It’s always nice to lay blame somewhere else. That’s the way to eliminate psychological pressure on oneself.”

The difference between the two might seem subtle, and only emerged gradually over time. “We were discussing how to measure victimhood, and we have these ideas central to what we thought victimhood entailed,” Armaly explained. “At a certain point we realized these are kind of tapping different things. So if you look at the items we use, four of them refer to the self, or ‘me’ or ‘I’ or something like that, and the other four are referring to outward sources.”

The paper itself puts it this way: “The major distinction between egocentric and systemic victimhood is blame attribution. Systemic victimhood is a manifestation of perceived victimhood whereby the self defined victim specifically attributes blame for their victim status on systemic issues and entities.” By contrast, “Egocentric victimhood … is less outwardly focused. Egocentric victims feel that they never get what they deserve in life, never get an extra break, and are always settling for less. Neither the ‘oppressor,’ nor the attribution of blame, are very specific.”

Indeed, the difference is striking: As mentioned above, egocentric victims are more supportive of Trump, while systemic victims are less likely to be. This makes intuitive sense, in terms of Trump’s vague, self-centered language way — about victimization and pretty much everything else. The lack of evidence of voter fraud or any irregularities in the 50-plus election-related lawsuits Trump and his allies have filed does not matter nearly as much to egocentric victims as it potentially would to systemic victims. But the differential support could also reflect the fact that Trump was president when the study was done, Armaly noted. On top of that, “Trump is the establishment, he’s wealthy, he’s been around forever. So people who see wealth and maybe other systemic issues as victimizing don’t support Trump.”

There was a similar difference with regard to a set of racial issues, including affirmative action. “Somebody who thinks that they’re the victim, an egocentric victim [is] going to view something like affirmative action as taking away possibilities that they think they rightfully deserve,” Armaly explained. “Whereas a systemic victim seemingly recognizes that there are systemic forces that need to be corrected, and affirmative action is a correction for that type of systemic racial issue.” 

A similar logic applies with respect to anti-political-correctness attitudes, Armaly said. “The egocentric victim sees it like, ‘I’m being told what I can and can’t say. This is an infringement of My First Amendment rights.’ Of course it’s not. It’s not coming from the government. But they perceive society as censoring them.”

By contrast, people with a high sense of systemic victimhood “would think you really shouldn’t speak to each other the way we do sometimes. Maybe some of this political correctness language is a good thing, because it’s more inclusive, It helps people not feel so bad about how other people speak about them,” Armaly explained.

But even as the two kinds of victimhood systematically produce opposite effects in some ways, the attitudes remain strongly correlated — more strongly than with any of six theoretically-related psychological constructs that the authors investigated, including three kinds of narcissism: individual trait-based narcissism, in-the-moment state-based narcissism, and group-based collective narcissism. The point of that analysis was “to show that our concept isn’t just narcissism,” Amay explained. “We think one way of conceptualizing victimhood is other concepts in the psychological literature plus something else. So, for instance, entitlement plus not getting what you deserve. … It’s narcissism, plus something else.”

Top-down meets bottom-up

With this more detailed understanding of systemic and egocentric victimhood in hand, we are better able to appreciate the significance of the third distinction, between the top-down and bottom-up aspects of victimhood. The primary focus of the paper (and the discussion above) is on the latter: Bottom-up aspects provide the primary data. But top-down elite messaging is central to the political process. There’s no way to understand victimhood’s political significance (not just potential) without it. 

Subjects were presented with identical victimhood narratives attributed to Trump or Joe Biden, according to their partisan identification. “One thing we know from decades of political science research is people only respond to cues from sources they trust,” Armaly noted. “Republicans are going to support Trump, Democrats are going to support Biden. Let’s see if they can cue victimhood in their followers.” The message was simple:

You, the middle class and working people, have been the victims of so much. You never seem to catch a break, and always seem to pay the steepest price. It’s sad, it really is. And I’m going to keep fighting for you no matter what.

The result, the paper noted, was that “both egocentric and systemic victimhood increase as a result of hearing Trump or Biden describe the average people’s inability to catch a break.” In short, Armaly said, “This is not a Trump phenomenon. This is not a Republican or conservative phenomenon. It cuts across ideological lines and partisan lines. But Trump is very effective at it. And it seems like he’s weaponizing this victimhood to adhere people to him, to the party, to certain policies. This is a powerful force and it’s a powerful feeling. If people feel like victims, it’s unlikely that they’re going to see the other party as a way to fix victimhood.

“So Republicans who agree with Trump that ‘Hey, we are the victims,’ they’re never going to turn to Joe Biden for the remedy. They’re only going to turn to Republicans in the future, maybe even continuing to support Trump. So one consequence of this, we think, is entrenching polarization, furthering extremity in beliefs about politics, and making people set up more in their existing camps.”

Of course, Trump election loss and his subsequent behavior has further intensified feelings of victimhood: “That’s precisely what the ‘Stop the Steal’ thing is about,” Armaly said. “‘We’re the victims of fraudulent elections,’ even though there’s no evidence pointing there and they keep losing in court. But that is definitely a victimhood-cueing rallying cry.”

In a way, this helps makes sense of the decades-long thrust of “The Long Southern Strategy.” Threatened identities — first around race, and then gender and religion — were key to the whole enterprise. As co-author Angie Maxwell told me, “They didn’t have infrastructure in a lot of places for the Republican Party. So they had to create this sense of urgency, and you do that by tapping into things that people feel are fragile and are being threatened.” In short, they had to promote feelings of victimhood. 

I asked Maxwell to comment on the theme of victimhood for this story. She responded: 

In an effort to cut an electoral map path to victory, starting in the 1960s, Republican strategists pushed individualism against the collective — against collective bargaining, protest, organizing. Individualism creates blinders that can deny systemic racism, sexism and privilege. Simultaneously, these GOP strategists, in order to shake Southern whites lose from their long-term connection to the Democratic Party, manufactured a sense of urgency about everything from the “war on Christmas” to the welfare queen bankrupting the taxpayer.  That combination creates a self-focused, faux victimhood, reminiscent of the Lost Cause in the South but with a national appeal.

This is how, under the “Stop the Steal” banner, we get a majority of House Republicans supporting an utterly frivolous lawsuit before the Supreme Court that flies in the face of decades of GOP “states’ rights” rhetoric. Surprise! The Southern strategy was never about states’ rights, any more than the Civil War was. (The Dred Scott decision and the Fugitive Slave Act had already made a mockery of those Southern claims.)

On the role of narcissism

It’s worth highlighting how significant Trump’s narcissism is in this dynamic. He is utterly incapable of ever admitting he’s been wrong. When finally forced to recant his support for birtherism, he double-falsely claimed, “Hillary Clinton started birtherism, and I ended it.” Now, having lost an election by more than 7 million votes he claims the election is being stolen from him.

So even though narcissism is only related to victimhood statistically, it’s still important to consider the role it plays. For this, I reached out to therapist Elizabeth Mika, whose chapter in “The Dangerous Case of Donald Trump” on “Tyranny as a Triumph of Narcissism” explained how tyranny is a “three-legged beast,” encompassing the tyrant, his supporters and the society as a whole. 

“A sense of victimhood — as opposed to real victimhood — is always based in narcissism: the erroneous, corrosive and inherently destructive belief that we are special — somehow better than others — and thus we deserve special treatment, perks and privileges,” Mika said.  

There’s a logical connection, she continued. “Narcissists are eternal victims, as perpetual victimhood is the other side of the narcissistic coin. It can’t be otherwise, because if you believe yourself to be special and the world does not reflect this back to you, as is always the case sooner or later, you are going to feel victimized by the lack of special treatment.” 

A similar logic applies to groups as well. “You can expect the members of historically privileged classes and groups to have a sense of specialness ingrained in them by the virtue of being part of that class,” Mika said. “When their sense of privilege is threatened and/or eroded, by, for example, expanding the privilege to others, members of previously disenfranchised and thus ‘inferior’ groups, they react with anger and rage that seek suitable scapegoats, more often than not from among those who are seen as ‘stealing’ their privilege or otherwise responsible for its loss. For narcissists, the loss of privilege feels like oppression.”

This description is a near-perfect fit for Trump’s white, Christian nationalist base. That base easily delivered landslide re-election victories for Richard Nixon in the 70s and Ronald Reagan in the 80s, but has only managed one popular-vote victory since 1988. Its privileged position has been eroding for at least 30 years now, and has only survived this long because of multiple anti-democratic features of our politics: the Electoral College, gerrymandering, voter suppression, the Senate filibuster and ideologically-stacked courts. The longer that power has been sustained on such a fragile, illegitimate foundation, the more crushing its loss would seem. Hello, snowflakes! 

A third kind of victimhood

As mentioned before, a third form of victimhood is proposed in the paper, an other-oriented or accusatory one typified by right-wing attacks on liberal “snowflakes” and political correctness in which victimhood is projected onto others. “This mobilizes the projectors because the ‘victims’ are illegitimate — they are not deserving of victim status in the eyes of those doing the projecting.”

This is clearly more complicated than egocentric or systemic victimhood. But more than projection is likely going on. It may be a process known as “projective identification,” discovered by British psychoanalyst Melanie Klein, which I wrote about here in late 2015. It involves “introjection (imagining another — or aspects of another — inside oneself) as well as projection—or even both, simultaneously.” The first example Klein gave was a specific form known as “envious reversal,” in which the projector’s unwanted inner states (thoughts, feelings, etc.) are projected (into what Klein called the “container”) while the projector steals some desirable state of the “container.” 

If one is not a victim but claims to be, that’s very likely an example of envious reversal. But if one is a snowflake and has spent years attacking others as snowflakes, that’s also an example of envious reversal. So, too, if you believe that others are unfairly claiming victim status, when in fact that’s been your go-to move ever since Brown v. Board of Education. So there’s a potential for this kind of victimhood to lead into a hall-of-mirrors fantasy situation. But remember: This is still subjective victimhood. Questions about how subjective and objective realities align are incredibly important, but to fully address them we need to understand the subjective side as well as can.

The first step in studying “other-oriented victimhood,” Armaly said, would be to examine whether the “correlates” are “similar to egocentric or systemic victimhood, or whether we are talking about a third, totally unique type?” His intuition is that such people “would reject the idea that they’re victims, most of the time,” but might also “reject the idea that others are victims. Other-oriented victimhood doesn’t ever seem to be saying, ‘Oh yeah, those people are victims of the political process,’ It’s usually used as a way to say they’re not.”

The notion of other-oriented victimhood can also have significance for the public as citizens in a democracy, helping us to see things more clearly. “The bleeding heart in me wants to talk about  empathy,” Armaly said. “Maybe let’s not think about victimhood in terms of who is and isn’t a victim. Maybe there’s another way to approach it. Also, I think victimhood is not zero-sum. Multiple people can be victims — it’s not mutually exclusive and not dichotomous in that way.” 

As a big-picture thought about victimhood as whole, Armaly raised a fundamental question. “We should be asking ourselves, ‘Are we comfortable giving victims increased status to make social and political claims?'” he said. “And then, similarly, ‘Are we comfortable judging the veracity of different claims?’ We don’t have a way to do this. Society isn’t cohesive. We don’t have the same mores and the same norms, necessarily, across all facets of society.” He went on to note that, “Elevating some claims over others incentivizes these feelings of victimhood, and that’s one of the reasons people are attracted to them. I think we have to consider whether incentivizing that feeling is a good thing.”

Recalling the three points from the conclusion of “Why Me?” cited above, the answer may be that victimhood is inevitably central to politics and isn’t necessarily pernicious, but that our capacity to deal with it without falling prey to hyper-victimization may be at a historically low ebb. That recognition could help orient us toward civic repair. Eliminating both actual victimhood and a sense of victimhood is not within our power. But continuing to be a victim of victimhood just might be. If, as Armaly argues, victimhood is not zero-sum, the best way to help any professed victims might be to help them all. Yes, even the snowflakes-in-denial who can’t let go of their damaged and defeated president. 

Experts push for new cancer drug dosing recommendations

When chatting at cocktail parties about his job, Mark Ratain, an oncologist and pharmacologist at the University of Chicago, often asks a short riddle: “Your doctor gives you a prescription for a new drug. The pharmacist says, ‘Make sure you take it on an empty stomach, twice a day.’ What do you think would happen if you took it with food?”

Most don’t get the answer right. “Nobody would ever say, ‘Well, I could die from an overdose,'” Ratain says.

That’s exactly what could happen to anyone taking the drug nilotinib — approved by the U.S. Food and Drug Administration in 2007 to treat the blood cancer chronic myelogenous leukemia. The drug is among the most effective cancer therapies; a patient taking it may have a 96 percent chance of surviving the cancer for at least six years, according to one of the most recent long-term studies. But the FDA-approved label for nilotinib carries a black box warning: Take it on an empty stomach and don’t eat for two hours before or one hour after each dose. A high-fat meal ramps up the drug’s active ingredient in the blood and may cause a fatal overdose.

Nilotinib’s dosing schedule is unrealistic, according to Ratain, since most patients take the drug twice daily for years. Other common oral cancer drugs are also prescribed to be taken while fasting despite studies suggesting that lower doses might be just as effective and less risky; ingesting more drug than necessary can not only be dangerous, he says, it is also wasteful.

What began as Ratain’s curiosity about cancer drug labeling has evolved into a small movement of oncologists aiming to improve patient care and also to cut costs for both patients and insurers. Cancer drugs are expensive. In 2018, worldwide spending for such treatments was around $150 billion and had gone up by at least 10 percent each year during the previous five years, according to the data analytics company IQVIA.

In the U.S., pharmaceutical companies largely set their own drug prices — a process that is not always transparent. Members of Congress, and more recently the House Committee on Oversight and Reform, have tried for a decade to introduce legislation to rein in drug prices. One roadblock is that in the U.S., the idea of studying value in health care has been taboo, said Clifford Hudis, CEO of the American Society of Clinical Oncology, in a talk given at the First International Summit on Interventional Pharmacoeconomics earlier this year. Medicare, which insures about 62 million Americans, is legally prohibited from negotiating drug prices, for example, and the U.S. Patient-Centered Outcomes Research Institute, established under the Affordable Care Act, isn’t allowed to consider cost comparisons or cost-effectiveness in its recommendations. Companies also have little incentive to slash dosing — and their bottom line — on their own.

Until Ratain began drawing attention to the issue of cancer drug dosing over a decade ago, few oncologists had voiced much of an opinion about it publicly, says oncologist Peter Clark, of England’s National Health Service. Now, Clark says, “clinicians are opening their eyes and ears to this.”

* * *

Ratain’s criticism of cancer drug labels came largely by accident. At a meeting in 2007, he struck up a conversation with another researcher who had been studying the food effect of an oral breast cancer drug called lapatinib, which the FDA had approved earlier that year. Manufactured by GlaxoSmithKline (GSK), the drug’s label states to take it on an empty stomach. But “there’s a huge food effect,” Ratain says: A high-fat meal could increase the total amount of the drug that enters the blood by as much as 325 percent.

At the time, lapatinib cost $2,900 a month. A common side effect was debilitating diarrhea. Not long after the meeting, Ratain wrote a commentary for the Journal of Clinical Oncology arguing that the drug should be studied at lower doses with food, with potential savings of 60 percent and fewer side effects.

The commentary provoked an unanticipated response. “The company went ballistic,” Ratain says. Both the FDA and GSK wrote letters to the editor defending the drug’s dosing schedule. Their primary argument was that food would increase variation in how much drug the body absorbs — potentially undertreating the cancer in some people. That food can either decrease or increase blood concentrations of drugs is well-known in drug research. While the exact interaction depends on the specific type of food — fat content, for instance, has a large effect — research has long shown that food doesn’t affect how the body absorbs all drugs and the effect is highly variable.

Ratain countered in his own letter to the editor that there wasn’t sufficient evidence available to conclude that food would make that much of a difference and implored the company to study the issue. Now, more than a decade later, the studies haven’t happened and the drug’s label remains unchanged.

The experience got Ratain thinking about dosing schedules of other cancer drugs. He mined publicly available FDA databases and the scientific literature. In a 2010 study, he found that during the decade prior, eight out of every nine non-cancer drugs had been FDA approved to be taken with food, but all oral cancer drugs required fasting. Ratain had spent much of his academic career studying how people absorb and metabolize drugs; this did not make sense to him.

Here was an important public health issue, he thought, but he needed more evidence to convince his peers. He teamed up with Russell Szmulewitz, an oncologist and professor of medicine at the University of Chicago, to conduct a small study of a drug for metastatic prostate cancer called abiraterone, which was approved by the FDA in 2011. Abiraterone prescriptions require fasting, and food increases its concentration by 5- to 10-fold or more. In a trial of 72 patients published in 2018, Ratain and Szmulewitz showed that a quarter of the recommended dose taken with a low-fat breakfast was as effective as the full dose in delaying the disease from progressing.

The lower dose would also slash cost. The full dose of the brand version is more than $9,000 per month, and a generic introduced in 2018 costs about $3,000 per month or less — following the study’s lowered dosing would save the health care system thousands of dollars per month per patient.

A small controversy erupted over the study’s design and whether the results were significant enough to change clinical practice. Nevertheless, Ratain scored a small victory in 2019: The National Comprehensive Cancer Network — a non-profit alliance of 30 U.S. cancer centers that issues evidence-based treatment guidelines — now includes low-dose abiraterone with food as an alternative treatment option. The guidelines note that reduced costs could help save families from financial ruin and discourage patients from skipping doses to save money.

Ratain’s research appears to have influenced drug regulators. In 2019, the FDA issued a draft guidance document for industry specifically outlining how companies should test their drugs for food effects. Among the recommendations is the following: “Sponsors should test the effect of food on a new drug in clinical trials […] before conducting the pivotal safety and efficacy trials to provide informed decisions regarding dosing with respect to food.” The FDA is currently evaluating comments on the draft, but does not have a specific deadline to issue a final guidance document, according to Chanapa Tantibanchachai, an FDA spokesperson.

While oncologists welcome the new guidelines, they aren’t enough, says Ratain. “Even if companies get the food effect right, they’re still getting the doses wrong.”

* * *

While pressure from industry and lax regulation may contribute to the dosing issues in oral cancer drugs, the main culprit is an outdated clinical research model, says Daniel Goldstein, an oncologist at the Rabin Medical Center in Petah Tikva, Israel. Twenty years ago, chemotherapy was the primary drug treatment for most cancer patients — and it bypassed the food issue since it is intravenous. Chemotherapy also took a grenade bomb approach to cancer, killing both cancer cells and some normal cells, such as those in hair and the gut. The mantra was always to give patients the maximally tolerated dose; only then could doctors be sure all the cancer cells were killed, says Goldstein.

New oral oncology drugs are designed to target and destroy cancer cells, leaving normal cells unharmed. Researchers need to rethink the logic of dosing studies, says Goldstein. We don’t give the maximally tolerated dose of antibiotics or antivirals when we are targeting infected cells, he adds. It doesn’t make sense to give the maximally tolerated dose for cancer drugs.

Still, companies and regulators have been slow to adapt. A 2016 study from the Institute of Cancer Research in London found that for 28 approved cancer drugs, almost all of which are taken orally, 45 percent of patients in the final phases of clinical studies required dose adjustments. Companies had tested 86 percent of these drugs in final clinical studies with exactly the same dose and schedule that was defined in earlier trials.

The problem has not gone unrecognized. Starting in 2015, the FDA office then known as the Office of Hematology and Oncology Products, along with the American Association for Cancer Research and representatives from both industry and academia, conducted a series of workshops for better dosing in oncology drugs. The results were published to help industry plan and design better dose finding studies when developing cancer drugs. Industry typically abides by FDA guidelines and recommendations to ensure a smooth path to market when applying to the agency to market their new drugs.

* * *

Reforming the way drugs are studied and developed might help improve side effects from new drugs. But it won’t improve dosing schedules of drugs that are already on the market.

Take ibrutinib, which treats various blood cancers. A 2019 study published in the Journal of the American College of Cardiology analyzed a World Health Organization database of severe side effects from over 130 countries and found that ibrutinib likely caused 303 cardiac deaths and substantially increased the risk of hypertension and bleeding compared to conventional chemotherapy. Because the database did not report how many people were taking the drug, the researchers could not calculate the exact risk, which is important when patients and their doctors weigh treatment plans based on balancing side effects with benefits, explains Javid Moslehi of Vanderbilt University Medical Center, one of the study’s authors . “I think it’s pretty clear” that it’s the drug that’s causing the cardiovascular symptoms, he says. Other clinical studies have compared ibrutinib to other cancer treatments and have found a higher risk of cardiac events linked to the former, Moslehi adds.

The FDA first approved ibrutinib in 2013 to treat mantle cell lymphoma and later, several other blood cancers. In a 2013 FDA review, the agency recommended that the company evaluate lower doses, citing the company’s own evidence that a dose of almost three times less for the average patient than the approved dose still achieved a maximum response. In practice, some patients stop and restart treatment because of side effects.

Research has shown that when patients interrupt treatment, it reduces the drug’s effectiveness and leads to poorer outcomes, says Ratain. It’s likely that lower doses would actually be superior to the labeled doses, he adds. Fewer side effects would mean more patients would take the drug as prescribed and without pause, which could save lives.

The FDA does investigate reports of adverse events after a drug is marketed and takes action if the agency finds a threat to public health, says Tantibanchachai. But the FDA did not answer Undark’s questions about plans the agency may have to review reports of cardiovascular deaths caused by ibrutinib specifically. A representative of Pharmacyclics, a company owned by ibrutinib’s manufacturer, AbbVie, told Undark via email: “We monitor and evaluate the safety and efficacy of [ibrutinib] on an ongoing basis, and no new safety concerns have been identified.”

From the company’s drug application and FDA documents, Ratain and his colleagues have found no explanation for why the company ignored FDA advice. Unless the FDA steps in, there is no financial incentive for the company to voluntarily study ibrutinib at lower doses, says Ratain. The current non-discounted annual list price of ibrutinib is $174,000. If oncologists were to prescribe the drug “off label” at the lower dose, it could cut the drug’s cost by up to 75 percent.

Oncologists, however, may be “nervous to do something against the FDA label,” Goldstein says, because they are afraid of litigation. “Most people don’t even want to take the risk,” he adds.

Changing practices would require clinical evidence. Three years ago Ratain and others founded the Value in Cancer Care Consortium with the goal of “improving the value of existing treatments to cancer patients and society through rigorous science.” Studying alternative dosing schedules of existing cancer drugs to reduce toxic side effects and cut costs is one way to achieve that goal. But with little federal or industry support, funding for studies of alternative cancer drug dosing schedules has been tough to find, says Goldstein, although there has been some interest from health care payers.

* * *

Other countries do address cost and are starting to study dosing issues. In the U.K., for instance, the National Institute for Health and Care Excellence (NICE) evaluates all new drugs based on value. The formula for assessing drugs is complex, explains Clark. But simply stated, NICE assesses the cost relative to the additional benefit of a given drug. A drug maker can have its new drug appraised at the openly available list price or at a reduced price, which is confidential. NICE then issues a final recommendation to the country’s National Health Service on whether to pay for any particular drug.

Recently, agencies in the U.K. have made funding available for clinical trials aimed at making cancer treatments less intense, Clark says. Such trials could reduce the frequency of dosing, use lower doses, or cut the duration of time a person must take a drug. A large U.K. study of a common breast cancer drug called trastuzumab published in 2018, for example, showed that six months on the drug was just as effective as 12 months. Patients would benefit from a shortened treatment period that let them get on with their lives, Clark says. For health care payers, such trials could be financed from the money saved from the reduced doses. The economic tradeoff of using that money for other health benefits is significant, Goldstein says.

In the U.S., the current dysfunctional health care system could profit from such studies on two levels, Hudis said in his talk at the First International Summit on Interventional Pharmacoeconomics. Apart from the obvious potential benefits to patients, studies of value also might put pressure on the pharmaceutical industry in setting prices, he adds. It would be a form of pushback since the U.S. system mostly leaves it up to companies to assign their new drugs a price tag.

But the problem of high drug prices runs deeper and is more complex. “We have never answered the question about whether health care and access to health care is a right or a privilege,” Hudis says in the talk. What’s more, as a society we haven’t agreed on how to define value in health care, he adds. Through such alternative dosing studies, we can “build some efficiency into this existing system.” But, he adds, “this is a trimming around the edges of what is a more fundamentally problematic challenge in the United States.”

* * *

Gunjan Sinha is a science writer based in Berlin, Germany.

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

Challenging patriarchal practices makes “House of Ho” more than just a Vietnamese Kardashians clone

Judy Ho has been letting her parents down since she was born, just by being female

My family is Vietnamese but loves being American. My brothers are named Washington and Reagan,” she says in a trailer for HBO Max‘s new reality series “House of Ho.” “I was a disappointment ’cause I was a girl . . . so I’m named Judy.”

Such favoritism is an open and accepted part of patriarchal Vietnamese culture. As my cousin once told me: “Men are the head of the household; women are the neck.”

And that appears to have been the intended structure for “House of Ho,” HBO Max’s Vietnamese American answer to the Kardashians. Judy’s younger brother Washington was the one producers heard about and approached first, and it’s easy to see why. He has all the makings of a colorful reality show character – a rich and feckless wastrel given to sporting designer sunglasses and smoking jackets while partying in Houston’s tony neighborhood of River Oaks. 

“House of Ho” isn’t necessarily unique in the “rich folks” docusoap genre, but it’s the first to show an American family of Southeast Asian descent and everything that entails – from sibling rivalries and going Christmas shopping to wearing the traditional áo dài and celebrating the Lunar New Year. It’s also a relief to watch a show about Vietnamese people that isn’t an outsider’s take on the trauma of the Vietnam War. Take a look at the trailer below:

Washington looms large in the center of the “House of Ho” poster, flanked by Judy and his wife Lesley. He’s the guy who speaks up the most in a Q & A for the show’s premiere. He’s also the one publicists were pitching to me for an interview. (As a second-generation Vietnamese daughter who also has two brothers and grew up in Houston, I decided to speak to Judy instead.)

“Washington got me to sign on to this because he said the show was about him, and I was just gonna be in the background,” Judy said in an interview with Salon. 

Even though she’s the firstborn child, by virtue of his gender Washington is the heir to the family’s Texas banking and real estate business, which was built up by immigrant parents Binh and Hue from nothing. 

“Washington’s the golden child, he’s the oldest son. It’s up to him to carry on the legacy. I’m just there to support him,” she continued. “That’s just something that I’ve grown up with, that’s how my mom was with my dad. My parents are very conservative, very Catholic, Vietnamese, very traditional. I’ve internalized all this.”

Ho money, Ho problems


“House of Ho” key art (HBO Max)

As advertised, the show is filled with sequences of the Ho family living in luxury, spending freely, and hopping private jets. The theme song even boasts, “I’ve got three commas in my bank account.” However, it becomes apparent that while the older Ho family members are happy with their American dream, their children are caught in a generational struggle that they still haven’t quite resolved, partly because of differing values and partly because of dependence on their parents’ wealth.

In the first episode, Judy announces her intentions to divorce, which does not go over well with her parents and fuels a season-long conflict of stubborn silences and outright denials.

“It’s hard to balance the more American modern ideals that we see on TV and the way we grew up. And our parents – they’re still thinking we’re back in Vietnam,” said Judy. “My dad, whatever he says goes, even to this day. You can see the way he talks to me and his expectations of me. So when I was going through divorce, to him I was a disappointment.”

When Judy broaches divorce, this act of autonomy is challenging the expectations and values instilled in her. But there’s even more at play here. Acknowledging problems in a culture that does not speak about uncomfortable feelings is bad enough, but the ultimate taboo is to speak about them publicly. To use the filming of a reality show to break one’s silence and work through longstanding issues? That’s radical. 

“At that point in my life, I was in a very unhappy marriage. I was about to turn 40, I was contemplating divorce, and the show happened to be filming at the same time,” said Judy. “I felt like once I committed to the show, I was like, ‘I have all these emotions that have been bottled up and I just want to let it out.’

“In this next chapter of my life I didn’t want to live in fear of my parents anymore. They just have to believe that I’m not doing this lightly, that I’m thinking of my future. I have my own children. Now I have a duty to them,” she said. “It was really scary. Even watching that scene when I tell them, I see my mom crying, and I feel it again.”

There’s one more factor that makes Judy’s rebellion significant: financial security. In the past, her father has used money to control her actions, and when Judy defies him about the divorce, she doesn’t have a safety net. Judy had quit her job so she could raise her three children with the intent to begin working again as a lawyer specializing in title insurance and real estate.

“That was my plan,” she confirmed. “Once they started school full time, I thought I’d go back to work. My youngest one just started full time school this past fall, but obviously with coronavirus, if I started working and then going back home where they’re in quarantine, it would just be too hard.”

Instead, the divorce made her reliant on her parents again – first to accept the house that her father had built for her, and then for income during the pandemic while she acted as daycare for her children and her nieces and nephews.

To have and to Ho . . . 


Lesley Ho in “House of Ho” (HBO Max)

Judy had fulfilled a role that is unique to the Southern Vietnamese family: chị hai, the oldest sister. It’s a dubious honor – not really one of respect but of responsibility – essentially acting as a second wife and mother. By marrying, Judy was able to trade this role for running her own household.

That vacancy, however, was filled by Washington’s beleaguered wife Lesley, the second sympathetic character on “House of Ho.” Not only does she work full time as a pharmacist from home, but she raises their two children, coddles Washington, and takes on the duties he can’t seem to handle. There’s a telling scene in the kitchen when she discovers that he’s done nothing to plan his father’s retirement party, and she reluctantly shoulders the duty even though she’s already stretched to her limits.

“When he married Lesley, she took on that burden for me. I’m very grateful for that,” said Judy. “And she has a lot of pressure from my parents. It’s hard being their daughter; I can’t imagine being their daughter-in-law because expectations are even higher, especially because she’s married to Washington. So she is expected to pretty much be like my mom.”

The treatment Lesley endures from her in-laws is tantamount to gaslighting. On the show whenever Washington and Lesley fight – usually over some duty that he’s shirked or spending money he doesn’t have – he runs to his mother. Instead of setting him straight, she’ll chide Lesley to do more for Washington, like cook for him, or to take calming herbs so that she’ll talk less. 

The ultimate example of how she’s burdened instead of Washington occurs when she shows Binh the ballroom of the St. Regis Hotel, the proposed venue for his retirement party. It’s at that moment that he reveals he’s not ready to retire yet because he feels his son is too immature. But he can’t tell his son this directly, so Lesley is weighted by this secret until she finally breaks it to her husband.

“I understand why my dad did that. It’s hard for my parents to talk to us directly,” said Judy. “If they want a message to get to my brother, they’ll tell me, and I funnel it over. It kind of softens it, you know what I mean? He knew that if he told us directly, there’ll probably be tears and there’ll probably be some anger, resentments that would be coming out. So I felt like by telling Lesley, that would kind of soften the blow.”

For Washington. Lesley, however, is deemed strong enough to take that blow.

It’s this kind of convoluted behavior that shows just how bold Judy’s move to confront her parents head-on was. In a way, the show was an ambush for Binh and Hue, who thought they were participating in a documentary about achieving the American dream. Instead, they got rebellious children talking about messy feelings . . . in public! 

Washington certainly has an easier time dealing with his parents than his sister or wife do, but perhaps it’s been too easy. As the golden child, he could do no wrong – but this backfires on the show when he tries to get his alcoholism under control. While his sister and wife support his sobriety, his parents and aunt would either deny there’s a problem or continue to offer him alcohol. 

A Ho by any other name . . . 


Judy Ho and her children in “House of Ho” (HBO Max)

It’s clear that names are meaningful for the Ho family. That surname holds weight in Houston’s Vietnamese community, and the show emphasizes it featuring episodes with cheeky titles such as “Ho Sweet Home” and “The Big Four-Ho,” among others. That external label is as much a part keeping up appearances as it is the family’s identity.

The same could be said about the practice of using presidential monikers, which continues for the next generation. In an act of filial piety, Judy named her three kids according to the new American Ho tradition: Kennedy, Truman and McKinley. Washington’s kids are named Lincoln and Roosevelt – making three-quarters of Mount Rushmore. (When asked about how much the family members differ politically, Judy said, “We all have different opinions, especially in the last election. After a while, my mom tells all of us to be quiet.”)

As for youngest brother Reagan, who’s unmarried and therefore without offspring to inflict such names, there’s a reason he’s not an active part of the show.

“Reagan was very adamant: ‘I’m not gonna be a part of this. This is not what I want to do,'” said Judy. “He’s the opposite of Washington. He’s in jeans and a t-shirt. He’s out hunting and fishing in his big old truck with a mud all over it – a Texas kind of cowboy. 

“I feel like he has less pressure. He’s not chị hai; he’s not the oldest son. So I feel like he’s been allowed to be a little bit more independent and not follow the family line. And he’s never been afraid to speak his mind when it comes to my parents. That’s why I respect him because he’s always lived his life the way he thought was best for him.”

Characterizing “House of Ho” as feminist or thumbing its nose at patriarchal practices may be an overstatement. But how the problems were addressed on the show – and the subsequent resolutions – certainly feels more transformative for its participants than for most in the docusoap genre.

A year after beginning the project, Washington is still sober, the Ho parents are being more proactive about their relationships with their children, and Judy’s new relationship with Dr. Nate Nguyen – who proposed to her in the season finale – is still going strong. Seeing how much good was accomplished by accepting the show’s format that encouraged openness, Judy is eager for a second season. 

“I bet you if we [hadn’t done] the show my parents would still asking me to go back to my ex at this point. The fact that I was open about my new boyfriend – I can’t tell you how many years of my life I’ve wasted hiding that I was dating someone,” said Judy. “If there is a Season 2 hopefully there’d be a wedding. And I also would like to show a trip back to Vietnam with the whole family.”

Despite all the drama, ultimately Judy is proud of who she is . . . even if she’s not named after a president.

“I’m named after the lady who sponsored my family to America and taught them English to help them start their life here. So obviously, I was named after someone who is very important to them,” she said. 

As for marriage, Judy doesn’t see herself taking on Nate’s last name.

“I’m very proud to be a part of my family. I’m proud of everything my parents have achieved and everything that we are showcasing in the show, I will always be a Ho.”

“House of Ho” is currently streaming on HBO Max.

US on pace for slowest population growth since Spanish Flu and economic impact is already evident

The United States is on pace for the slowest population growth in a century amid the coronavirus pandemic, according to analysts, and economists worry it will hamper economic recovery.

The number of American residents is expected to increase by just 700,000, or about 0.2%, in 2020, according to Moody’s Analytics. That would put the country on its slowest pace since 1918, when the country faced a Spanish Flu pandemic and World War I, according to USA Today.

The trend could “make the economy less dynamic,” Moody’s chief economist Mark Zandi told the outlet. “Fewer people means fewer homes (purchased), fewer cars, fewer vacations.”

Zandi estimated that about a quarter-percentage point of this year’s projected 3.5% decline in the US economy was attributed to the drop in population growth.

The coronavirus has already killed more than 310,000 people in the U.S. and is projected to cost nearly 540,000 lives by April, according to the Institute for Health Metrics and Evaluation at the University of Washington. But the virus has also been linked to a predicted decline in birth rate, potentially resulting in up to 500,000 fewer births next year, according to the Brookings Institution. The pandemic has also resulted in an unprecedented decline in immigration, with new visa issuances down 84% from last year, according to State Department data.

The confluence of rising mortality and declining birth and immigration rates threatens to exacerbate the country’s years-long decline in population growth and threatens to impact the economy.

“Economic growth is driven by a combination of productivity and population, the number of workers,” Michael Graetz, a former senior Treasury Department official and co-author of “The Wolf at the Door: The Menace of Economic Insecurity and How to Fight It,” told Salon. “So when you’ve got a smaller number of workers, you’re going to have a smaller economic growth.”

U.S. population growth has been in decline for years. The Census Bureau estimated that the country’s population has grown just 8% over the last decade, the slowest rate since the 1930s, when the Great Depression and immigration restrictions slowed population growth to 7.2%, according to The Wall Street Journal. And the problem is hardly limited to the U.S., with many European and Asian countries seeing even slower growth rates. The long-term trend has resulted in an aging population, with the number of retirees rising by an estimated 37% over the last decade, while the fertility rate fell to its lowest level since the government began tracking it in the early 1900s.

Economists are concerned about “dependency ratios,” said Graetz, who is now a professor at Columbia University. “Retirees and children are not producing wage income. So the decline in the birth rate reduces the dependency ratio because it reduces the number of children.”

With the ratio of retirees to workers increasing, “more of the workers’ income will have to go to support expenditures on retirees unless those expenditures are dramatically cut,” he said, referring to Social Security benefits and health care expenses.

The most obvious way to address the slowdown is to increase immigration, Graetz argued. But President Donald Trump’s immigration restrictions already reduced net migration into the country from around 1 million to fewer than 600,000 last year, and the coronavirus is likely to slash that figure by another 250,000, Zandi estimated.

The USA Today report noted that President-elect Joe Biden is expected to reverse many of the Trump administration’s immigration restrictions. And fertility rates are expected to grow slightly by 2028, while still falling below the replacement-level rate. The Congressional Budget Office estimates that the U.S. population will hit 374 million by 2046, down by 10 million from its estimate two years earlier.

The slowed population growth’s economic impact is just one long-term implication of the pandemic. The closure of businesses and social distancing restrictions have resulted in an accelerated transition to technology, Graetz noted.

“We’ve seen this with remote work. We’ve seen it with companies that have substituted technology for workers, and they’re doing that more rapidly than they had,” he said. “The transformation of technology has accelerated because of the pandemic. Which means that technology’s threats to economic security of those workers has also accelerated.”

The import of industrial robots increased by 5% through the first eight months of the year even as other imports fell by more than 10%, according to the U.S. International Trade Commission.

The pandemic “has accelerated the use of robotics and other technologies to take on tasks that are more fraught during the pandemic” Elisabeth Reynolds, the head of the Massachusetts Institute of Technology’s Task Force on the Work of the Future, told the Financial Times. “It is fair to assume that some firms have learned how to maintain their productivity with fewer workers and they will not unlearn what they have learned.”

A recent paper by researchers at MIT and Boston University found that robots could replace as many as 2 million people in manufacturing alone by 2025. Many telecommunications firms, call centers, customer service firms, and food-service companies have already downsized their workforces by thousands by deploying robots and artificial intelligence systems, Time reported. AI firms have seen business boom since the pandemic began, according to Wired.

The pandemic could also expand the gig economy and the number of part-time and temporary jobs, particularly with the decline of union power across the country.

“The combination of that, with the fact that an adult in the United States today can expect to change jobs maybe a dozen times over their lifetime, creates a lot of insecurity for people who are not well equipped to deal with it,” Graetz explained. “Temporary and part-time work doesn’t supply a living, doesn’t enable you to know that you’re going to be able to pay for food, clothing, all the things that your family needs.”

The gig economy has already expanded by millions of workers since 2010, and the tens of millions of layoffs early in the pandemic led to a flood of new contractors at companies like Amazon, Instacart, Uber Eats, Door Dash, and Upwork, according to Time. For gig workers already earning low wages without benefits, this surge of new workers has cut into their incomes even more. 

All of these factors have raised concerns that the economic recovery after the mass vaccine rollout may not be as swift as some optimistic predictions.

“What the pandemic has done… is to shine a spotlight on just how precarious workers’ and their families’ connections are to the workforce and to jobs. And how quickly jobs can disappear unexpectedly,” Graetz said. “A lot of those jobs that have disappeared, and a lot of the businesses that have gone, that have closed as a result of the pandemic, and are not coming back. So I think we’re going to see a fairly slow return to the kind of prosperity that we had in February before the pandemic hit.”

Nolan “glad” “Tenet” isn’t a part of HBO Max shift, but studio says “Tenet” Box Office led to it

Following Christopher Nolan’s heated reaction to the news Warner Bros. will release its entire 2021 slate in theaters and on HBO Max for 31 days, the director told The Associated Press he is “very glad” that his most recent directorial effort, “Tenet,” is not “caught up in the mess” that’s been created by the studio’s polarizing decision. “Wonder Woman 1984” will kick off Warner Bros.’ hybrid release strategy on Christmas Day, and the rollout will be applied in 2021 to the likes of “Dune,” “Godzilla vs. Kong,” and “The Matrix 4.”

“We will be accessible through Roku and Amazon Prime and iTunes and be everywhere all at once for people to enjoy,” Nolan added about the upcoming home video and VOD launch of “Tenet” beginning next week.

Read more Indiewire: Buried on Netflix, Taiwanese Crime Epic ‘A Sun’ Demands Serious Oscar Consideration

While Nolan expressed relief over “Tenet” not being included in the HBO Max hybrid release model, WarnerMedia chair and CEO Ann Sarnoff told CNBC that “Tenet’s” U.S. theatrical release. is part of the reason why the studio decided to adopt the the hybrid release model in the first place. Warner Bros. opened “Tenet” in the U.S. over Labor Day weekend and it has since grossed $60 million, widely viewed as a box office disappointment.

“We learned a lot about the inclination of people to go to theaters when they’re open, obviously,” Sarnoff said about the “Tenet” release, noting the film’s international grosses were far stronger in markets where theaters were more open. “What we learned through ‘Tenet’ is that the U.S. is not quite ready yet to fully reopen and have full engagement of fans back into theaters, hence this new strategy.”

Read more Indiewire: Chris Pine Is Ready for Tarantino’s ‘Star Trek’: ‘It Would Be Tremendously Entertaining’

Sarnoff said the hybrid release model is only being utilized for 2021 movies at this time. WarnerMedia will be looking closely at “theatrical box office as well as how many people watch the movies on HBO Max” before determining if and how the strategy might continue in 2022. Sarnoff stressed the hybrid model was being utilized because the pandemic has caused a pile up of Warners Bros. content.

“We have movies which are ready to go and they’ve been sitting on shelves,” Sarnoff said. “We thought this was the most creative and win-win situation to bring them out not only in theaters, but simultaneously for 31 days on HBO max so that people who don’t have access to theaters in the U.S. are able to see the movies and we’re able to market them more fully.”

Read more Indiewire: Sundance 2021 Is All About Acquisitions as Distributors Resist Virtual Fest Launchpad

At press time, a representative for Warner Bros. had not yet responded to IndieWire’s request for comment.

“Tenet” will be available to purchase on Roku, Amazon Prime, and iTunes on December 15.

In secret-ballot vote, House Democrats overwhelmingly deny AOC a powerful committee seat

In an early indication of which ideological faction of the Democratic Party will control the policy agenda in the upcoming Congress, a House body tasked with deciding committee assignments overwhelmingly voted Thursday to deny progressive Rep. Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez a spot on the powerful Energy and Commerce panel, instead handing the seat to centrist Rep. Kathleen Rice.

The landslide 46-13 vote in favor of Rice by the House Steering and Policy Committee—which is chaired by House Speaker Nancy Pelosi (D-Calif.)—was viewed as establishment backlash against Ocasio-Cortez over her willingness to publicly break with the party brass on key policy matters and criticize Pelosi’s leadership, as she did in an interview with The Intercept released this week.

But Ocasio-Cortez, a supporter of the Green New Deal and Medicare for All, did receive significant support from the New York congressional delegation in her push for the coveted slot on Energy and Commerce, which has jurisdiction over a broad array of policy areas including climate and public health. House Judiciary Chair Jerry Nadler (D-N.Y.), dean of the New York delegation, signed a letter in support of Ocasio-Cortez, as did more than a dozen other members.

Rice — a New York Democrat who, unlike Ocasio-Cortez, voted against Pelosi for speaker last year — received some support from the state delegation as well.

Reporting on Thursday’s secret-ballot vote indicates that Ocasio-Cortez’s support for Medicare for All and the Green New Deal, both of which would come under the purview of the Energy and Commerce Committee, was a factor in the vote to hand the seat to Rice, who does not support either progressive policy.

“Some senior Democrats, including on the Energy and Commerce panel, had privately voiced concerns about Ocasio-Cortez landing the seat,” Politico reported. “Some feared that the firebrand Democrat, who backs progressive priorities like the ‘Green New Deal’ and ‘Medicare for All,’ could cause issues as Congress attempts to draft bipartisan health and climate policies next year.”

As The American Prospect‘s Alexander Sammon wrote Friday:

Most vocal in his opposition to Ocasio-Cortez’s candidacy was Texas’ Henry Cuellar, the caucus’s most conservative member. After Ocasio-Cortez was nominated and seconded, Cuellar opposed, commenting: “I’m taking into account who pays their dues and who doesn’t work against other members whether in primaries or in other contexts,” according to a source with knowledge of the meeting…

Many of the representatives that came out most forcefully against Ocasio-Cortez have close ties to oil and gas, especially Cuellar. But perhaps more important was Cuellar’s personal opposition to AOC, as evidenced by his statement. Ocasio-Cortez backed Cuellar’s primary challenger, 27-year-old progressive Jessica Cisneros, in March’s primary. Cuellar won narrowly, with backing from the Koch political network and some last minute campaigning from Speaker Pelosi herself.

Ocasio-Cortez was not the only progressive rejected by the Steering Committee in favor of a moderate, business-friendly Democrat. In addition to Rice, the committee also gave Energy and Commerce spots to Reps. Lori Trahan (D-Mass.), Angie Craig (D-Minn.), Kim Schrier (D-Wash.), and Lizzie Fletcher (D-Texas).

“It is very clear the party leadership is working to shut out progressives and has no intention of working with the left to ‘build back better,'” argued journalist Walker Bragman, a contributor to The Daily Poster.

As The Intercept‘s Lee Fang pointed out on Twitter, all five of the Democrats chosen for Energy and Commerce seats “are pro-business New Dem caucus members, all beating progressives vying for seats.”

“The moderate and conservative Dems are winning these early battles,” noted Fang, “which will set the legislative agenda for the next two years.”

CORRECTION: This story has been updated to reflect a change to The American Prospect’s reporting, which originally misstated the nature of a report on fracking co-authored by Rep. Diana DeGette (D-Colo.).

 

Trump and the Republicans want to turn losing into winning — and it might work

Raise your hand if you remember the invasion of Grenada. Anyone? You mean to tell me you don’t recall the morning 37 years ago when two battalions of the 75th Rangers, units from the 82nd Airborne Division, Navy Seals and Army Delta Force, along with elements of the Jamaican military and Regional Security System forces of the Eastern Caribbean — something like 7,600 troops altogether — swarmed the tiny island nation of Grenada?

I’m shocked … shocked so few of you recall that glorious day, because the invasion of Grenada was the only war this country has won since World War II. Not that you’d be expected to see our great victory over Grenada in that way, because of course we didn’t exactly lose the war in Vietnam, and we didn’t lose the Iraq war, and we haven’t yet lost the war in Afghanistan, even as the number of our soldiers there is scheduled to dwindle from 4,500 to 2,000 by Jan.15, and none of the remaining troops are, in fact, fighting.

Indeed, this country has a long history of turning losing into winning, beginning with the South’s century long “Lost Cause” revision of the surrender at Appomattox into a noble victory celebrated across the land with the erection of glorious statues honoring the great generals who led the South to its great victory, including within the halls of the U.S. Capitol, the headquarters, if you will, of the very Union they betrayed, against which they fought, which in fact defeated them. 

It’s almost as if losing wars and turning those losses into victories is what prepared the ground for the way Donald Trump and the Republican Party are currently treating his defeat in the presidential election of 2020. We didn’t lose the war in Vietnam! Why, just have a look at the body count! It wasn’t Trump who lost the election, the thinking among Republicans goes. It was all those damn illegitimate votes by the other side.  

 “Mitch, 75,000,000 VOTES, a record for a sitting President (by a lot). Too soon to give up,” Trump tweeted on Wednesday after the Senate majority leader finally recognized Joe Biden’s victory in a speech on the Senate floor. “Republican Party must finally learn to fight. People are angry!” 

It’s as if Trump simply can’t believe that he got 75 million votes and lost. (Actually, he didn’t: Trump received 74,222,958 votes, according to ABC News, while Biden received 81,283,098 votes.)

This has created a certain amount of, shall we say, cognitive dissonance among Republicans. Politico reported this week that the Republican Party “has ditched election post-mortems. For the final act of his showman-like presidency, Donald Trump has convinced the Republican Party that despite losing the White House by 7 million votes — and despite seeing five states flip in 2020 — things could hardly be better inside the GOP.” 

Why should you study the reasons you lost an election when you didn’t lose? It makes a sick kind of sense, when you think about it. The whole election came down to Donald Trump. Seventy-four million people voted for him. Eighty-one million people voted against him. And that was what it was, in the end. Trump was the issue, and if you’re not going to get rid of Trump and what he stands for — if, in fact, you’re going to remake an entire political party in his image and dedicate it to him — then why analyze anything at all? They already know the answer: It wasn’t Trump’s fault. It was the fault of the election itself. 

“It wasn’t a matter of our candidate,” Bill Pozzi, chair of the Republican Party in heavily Republican Victoria County, Texas, told Politico. “It was a matter of the process.” 

In other words, too many damn people voted. Republicans aren’t worried about why women voted against them in the suburbs, or why they lost the votes of young people by record-breaking margins, or even why their support among the elderly, long a bulwark of the party, eroded. They are preparing to turn Trump’s endless whining about voter fraud and stolen votes and Hugo Chavez’s supposed Dominion voting machines into a campaign to turn back the clock to the years of Jim Crow. If you want to control the results at the ballot box, then you’ve got to control who gets to drop the ballots in the box. Fifty years of scamming, by way of the “Southern strategy,” has taught them that much.

Kentucky Sen. Rand Paul said it out loud when he told Fox Business host Maria Bartiromo, “I’m very, very concerned that if you solicit votes from typically non-voters, that you will affect and change the outcome. So I’m very worried Democrats will control all three branches of the government and really truly transform America, but not for the better.”

Bingo, Rand! Come on down and pick up your big prize!

Seemingly in answer to Paul’s “concerns,” Republicans have filed three lawsuits in Georgia, two in federal court and one in state court, seeking to make it more difficult to vote by mail ahead of the runoff election in January for the two Senate seats currently held by Republicans David Perdue and Kelly Loeffler. Georgia is one of two traditionally Republican states — the other is Arizona — that Biden narrowly won in this year’s election. Republicans are understandably worried that the same thing will happen to Perdue and Loeffler that happened to Trump in November. They’ll lose.

Judges in Georgia threw out the two federal lawsuits this week. One challenged Georgia’s signature verification process on absentee ballots, and the other sought to block the use of drop-boxes for returning absentee ballots. The state lawsuit also wants to restrict the use of drop-boxes and seeks to change the rules for election observers. A hearing on that suit is scheduled for Christmas Eve.

Republicans in other states where they control state legislatures are also planning on tightening the rules regarding absentee ballots. Republican legislators in North Carolina, Alaska and Pennsylvania have already announced they will introduce bills intended to reduce absentee voting. Michael Whatley, chair of the North Carolina Republican Party, told Politico, “I think nationally there’s going to be a huge focus on absentee voting and election integrity. There has to be a significant tightening of the rules around absentee balloting, and we need to have that conversation with state legislatures all around the country.”

It all comes down to who gets to vote and how you count their votes. That’s why Republicans were so happy with Shelby County v. Holder, the 2013 Supreme Court decision that made it easier for states to impose voter ID laws, purge voter lists and restrict the number of polling places, all rules that disproportionately affected Democratic voters. That’s why they’re trying, in both courts and state legislatures, to limit absentee voting with petty rules about applications and signatures and witnesses and what kind of envelopes you mail your ballot in. 

Republicans want elections to be like wars where they get to use guns and bullets, but Democrats don’t. That’s why you haven’t heard a single one of them denounce the death threats against governors and election officials who refuse to go along with their attempts to reverse the results of elections in Georgia and Michigan and Pennsylvania. They don’t care how they win. They’ll be happy to “win” the same way we “won” in Vietnam, Iraq and Afghanistan: with alternative facts. This ain’t the invasion of Grenada, folks. We’re in a war for democracy itself.

Inside the effort to plug hazardous oil and gas wells abandoned by companies

Bobby Wright says the seed of the idea was planted about a year and a half ago when he and his dad, Bob, were out on his grandparents’ ranch in Carter County, Oklahoma. Wright’s grandfather, Troy Lewellen, once grew pecans and raised cattle on the ranch, but at 83, he was retired and wanted to tie up any loose ends in his affairs. And sitting on his property, about a quarter of a mile from his house, were some very loose ends: three old oil wells.

One was still in operation with a pumpjack attached. The other two hadn’t been touched in years. They looked like rusty old pipes sticking out of the ground. A few feet away from one were three large tanks with oil still pooled inside. If any leaked out, it would run down the hill and into a nearby lake. Lewellen wanted the whole mess cleaned up. So he called his grandson and son-in-law, who work in the oil and gas industry helping companies acquire leases and negotiate with landowners.

Lewellen was lucky — the company that owned the wells on his property were still in business. Wright and his father worked with state regulators to get the company to plug the two idled wells with cement and remediate the property. But old wells are everywhere in southern Oklahoma, and Wright and his dad knew that other landowners might not be as lucky. They might have uncapped wells and old equipment on their property, abandoned by companies that went bankrupt long ago. “They have no recourse to have anyone other than the state to come in and clean it up,” Wright said.

In that case, a landowner might be waiting a long time. The state currently has just over 800 wells on its list of plugging projects, according to a spokesperson for the Oklahoma Corporation Commission, the state agency that regulates the oil and gas industry, and more than 12,000 more on its list of “orphaned” wells. (In Oklahoma, that term refers to abandoned wells that could technically be “adopted” and pumped again — but the spokesperson said “many of them” are fated to move over to the state’s plugging list.) In 2019, the state plugged just 138 abandoned wells.

This isn’t just a problem for Oklahoma. There were more than 50,000 wells on state cleanup lists across the country in 2018, and states estimated there were somewhere between 200,000 to 750,000 more abandoned wells that weren’t in their records. If you include wells that are “idle,” meaning they may still have an owner but haven’t produced any oil or gas in years — and are at risk of getting thrust into state hands if their owners go bankrupt — the count reaches around 2.1 million, according to the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency.

When wells are left unsealed, they can become pathways for oil, gas, or briny water to migrate into groundwater and soil. The equipment is a hazard for wildlife, livestock, and unsuspecting humans. But increasing attention is being paid to another risk — an unknown number of unplugged wells leak methane, a powerful greenhouse gas, 86 times more effective at heating up the planet than carbon dioxide over the first 20 years it’s in the atmosphere. At high enough concentrations, methane carries a risk of explosion, and it’s often accompanied by other chemicals that are dangerous to human health, like benzene, a known carcinogen linked to leukemia and low birth weights.

After helping Lewellen, the Wrights became interested in the problem of abandoned wells — which started to look, to them, like an opportunity. Plugging them was something they had the skills and contacts to facilitate, if they could raise the money to do it. It would also be a way for them to give back to their community and the environment after careers working in oil and gas. In April, they filed for nonprofit status. But they weren’t the first. At least two other nonprofits, Native State in Texas and the Well Done Foundation in Montana, both also founded by oil and gas industry insiders, have formed in the past year with the same mission. The Wrights named their organization OAP Fund, short for “Orphaned and Abandoned well Plugging Fund.”

“In hindsight,” Wright said, “maybe we should not have put it as ‘fund.’ That tends to make people think we already have the money.”

Money is at the heart of the abandoned wells problem. The number of wells has already ballooned far beyond what state budgets and manpower can handle, and experts say it’s on the verge of multiplying. “The numbers are staggering,” Greg Rogers, a senior advisor at the financial think tank Carbon Tracker, told Grist. “There’s no war chest at the corporate level or the state level to pay for that.”

There’s interest in bankrolling solutions at the federal level, but it’s unclear whether the money will ever come through. In July, the House of Representatives passed a bill that would provide states with $2 billion over five years to create jobs plugging abandoned wells. Its approval came with almost no Republican support, and the legislation has since stalled in the Senate.

In the meantime, the Wrights and others like them are searching for other funding streams to support their mission — and they’re trying to figure out whether there may still be ways to extract value from the holes themselves.

Curtis Shuck used to be president of an oilfield services company in North Dakota. But it wasn’t until he had left the industry to start his own consulting firm that he got his first glimpse of the abandoned well problem. He was visiting farmers in Toole County, Montana, trying to source grain for the Port of Northern Montana — an inland logistics hub where trains and tractor-trailers exchange goods and machinery — when he learned that they were dealing with hazardous old oil equipment left behind on their land.

“This is not right at any level,” he thought. So last fall, Shuck started the Well Done Foundation with the goal of raising money to plug wells. Knowing some of them were leaking methane, he thought he might be able to fund the projects, at least in part, through the carbon market. That thinking led him to Eric Ripley at the American Carbon Registry.

The American Carbon Registry, or ACR, is a nonprofit that develops standards for carbon offsets and maintains a list of accredited projects. Companies or individuals looking to neutralize their contribution to climate change can purchase credits through the registry, helping to fund projects that reduce emissions, like forests that are managed to store more carbon, or dairies that capture the methane from their manure pits. Ripley, ACR’s director of industrial programs, had already been thinking about abandoned wells before connecting with Shuck. He wasn’t convinced that the potential revenue from carbon credits — which are tied to the amount of methane a project mitigates — would be enough to cover the cost of the project itself. But Shuck’s nonprofit, mission-based model changed that math, since Shuck could raise the rest of the required funding through donations. “The carbon finance piece could just be one leg of a stool to get these projects financed,” Ripley said.

Now ACR is developing a new methodology that will standardize the way abandoned well projects can participate in the registry, enabling the Well Done Foundation, OAP Fund, and others to sell credits through it. Well Done has already plugged three wells in Toole County through a mix of early fundraising success and some out-of-pocket spending by Shuck. But he has ambitions to expand to other states, and thinks the carbon offset market could be a game-changer. “We’re hopeful that by this time next year we’ll be out there doing our thing under a carbon finance program,” Shuck said. “Our vision is to be able to do this at a much larger scale.”

How useful the carbon offset program will be in addressing the scale of the problem is unclear. The cost of plugging an oil or gas well varies, but states report average costs between $3,500 and $80,000 per well. (Wright said the average cost of plugging in Oklahoma is around $25,000.) Shuck’s goal is to raise $30,000 per well in Montana, which includes the cost of remediating the land afterward. These numbers are for mostly older, shallower wells — there’s little data on the cost of plugging modern shale wells, where the holes tend to be deeper and may even cut horizontally under the earth. Based on a small handful of plugging reports for deeper wells in Wyoming, Ohio, and Australia, Carbon Tracker found that costs grew exponentially with well depth.

Wright’s father told Grist he knew of a recent plug job in Oklahoma that ended up costing $800,000. “Each well is kind of a one-off,” Bobby, or the younger Wright said. “You don’t know what’s going to happen down in the hole until you get in it.”

You also don’t know how much methane is coming out of the hole until you measure it — and that’s what will determine the amount of funding Shuck or others might be able to raise through carbon credits. Many projects won’t be eligible, since not all abandoned wells leak methane. Of those that do, many are emitting at such low rates that they wouldn’t generate enough credits to make sense as an offset project. Ripley said the best candidates will be the abandoned wells that researchers call “super emitters.” About 16 percent of leaks account for 98 percent of emissions from abandoned wells, according to one study.

Based on published emissions data and current offset prices, Grist estimates that the credit sales from even the largest emitters may only generate a few thousand dollars. However, Ripley told Grist that based on unpublished field data, ACR believes it’s possible some wells could be worth tens of thousands.

Scientists Grist interviewed for this story agree that it’s possible there are much larger emitters out there that they haven’t discovered yet. Mary Kang, a leading researcher on abandoned wells who is also helping ACR develop its offset methodology, told Grist that there are only about 600 published measurements of methane from abandoned wells in the U.S. and Canada. Considering there are millions of wells nationwide, “You can see how small that sample is and how likely it is that we might be missing some information,” she said. There are not yet any published measurements from Texas or Kansas, states that are home to a large percentage of the nation’s abandoned wells.

A carbon offset program could create a market-based incentive to find the wells that are the worst emitters and plug them up. It could also prove to be a boon for science, helping to scale up monitoring of abandoned wells and improve greenhouse gas emissions models. And despite its limited application, there’s hope that it might also help stanch the tide of new abandoned wells ending up on state plugging lists to begin with.

Originally, Brett Bennett’s plan for Native State, the Texas-based nonprofit, was to create a “Drill One Plug One” campaign. The idea was that companies that were actively drilling in a community could donate to plug abandoned wells in that same community, as a way to give back. Bennett currently works as vice president of an oil and gas operating company. In his mind, abandoned wells should not be the legacy that the industry leaves behind. He wants it to lead on fixing the problem. “One of our tag lines is, ‘Texas has been good to us, let’s return the favor,'” he said.

But just when he was starting to engage with companies about Drill One Plug One, COVID-19 hit. The downturn in the industry made that model unviable, at least for now. Bennett is still optimistic that it could work, but in the meantime he’s also worried about the problem getting worse. He said he’s watched as, even before the pandemic, the state plugging program essentially treaded water, plugging wells at about the same rate new ones were being added to the list, and never chipping away at the total.

Technically, oil and gas companies are required by state and federal law to plug their own wells after they’re done pumping them. Thousands of the uncapped wells sitting around predate those rules, and the number continues to grow due to several major flaws in present-day regulations. When a company applies for a permit to operate a well, state and federal laws require that it put up a deposit, or bond, to ensure there’s money to eventually plug the hole and remediate the land. But the companies pay so little upfront that the bonds don’t incentivize cleanup or come close to covering the costs of plugging. For many operators, it’s easier to let their wells sit idle, leaving open the distant possibility that they might decide to pump them again, or sell them to another operator, than to pony up the rest of the cash to plug them. Rules vary, but many states allow operators to keep their wells idle without plugging them for years.

One of two things can happen next: The company might go bankrupt. Or the company might eventually have more “idle” wells than producing ones, making it basically impossible to earn enough revenue to cover the costs of plugging. Either way, the state ends up on the hook. In a recent overview of the issue, Carbon Tracker found that reduced demand for oil and gas due to the COVID-19 pandemic has led companies to temporarily idle tens of thousands of wells. They predict that because the transition to cleaner sources of energy is also speeding up, many of them will never be reactivated. The number of abandoned wells could be on the verge of exploding.

Perhaps the most obvious regulatory solution, and one that environmental advocates are pushing, is for governments to increase bond requirements. However, that would likely only apply to new leases. Daniel Raimi, a senior research associate at the nonprofit think tank Resources for the Future, said it’s possible new bonding rules could be applied retroactively, but that efforts to do so could get tied up in court.

As far as preventing the explosion of new abandoned wells that Carbon Tracker warned about, Raimi said he was interested in an approach California is testing to get companies to plug more of their idled wells. In 2016, the state adopted new regulations requiring operators either to pay an annual fee for each of its idled wells or instead to adhere to a management plan requiring them to plug a certain percentage of them each year. During the first year the rules were in place, about 7 percent of the state’s idled wells were plugged, and 76 operators opted to follow management plans, out of more than 1,000 operators with idled wells.

Bennett noted that oil companies are starting to make commitments to reduce their methane emissions to net-zero, citing Occidental Petroleum’s recent pledge to get to net-zero, which will create more of an incentive for firms to get some of these idled, methane-emitting wells off their books. He’s also optimistic that the carbon market could help stem the flow of wells falling into state hands.

Ripley told Grist that ACR’s offset standards will primarily target older wells that have already become a government liability. But he said it’s also considering ways to include some subset of idle wells that still have a solvent operator associated with them. This option would be reserved for those wells that have been idle for years, and operators would likely have to transfer ownership to an entity like Native State that would plug them right away.

“I fully expect to get some degree of criticism for this,” Ripley said. That’s because the potential standards impinge on a slippery rule for carbon offsets called additionality: When you purchase a carbon credit, the idea is that you’re making up for your own emissions by reducing them somewhere they wouldn’t otherwise be reduced. But if the project you’re paying for is something that would have happened anyway — say, because the government says it’s supposed to — then no new reduction is being made.

But to Ripley, governments are falling woefully short, demonstrating that they’re simply not requiring these wells to be plugged in a timely manner, and leaving them to potentially emit methane for decades. “I think people have to look at this realistically and say, ‘Do you want to achieve methane mitigation, or do you want the status quo?’ This is where the environmental community needs to ask itself a question about, ‘Do we want the perfect to be the enemy of the good?'”

The rules and standards for ACR’s new carbon offset program for abandoned wells will go through a public comment period, followed by a peer review by academic and industry experts, before anyone can sign on. Ripley expects it to be ready by next June.

For now, Bennett and the Wrights are exploring any and every potential solution for the wells. Both spoke about the possibility of repurposing some wells to tap into geothermal energy, the latent heat beneath the earth’s surface, to generate electricity. Bennett said there may also be a way to turn wells into energy storage systems, which will be needed to store excess solar and wind energy that can then be fed back into the grid when the sun isn’t shining and the wind isn’t blowing. Some companies are developing novel ways to store energy by pumping water underground at high pressure, and then releasing it back to the surface to spin a turbine and generate electricity later.

While the technology to retrofit abandoned wells for the energy transition may be years away, groups like Native State and OAP Fund could work with landowners and oil companies to help researchers and start-ups gain access to abandoned and idled wells for demonstration projects. Amy Townsend-Small, an assistant professor at the University of Cincinnati who studies abandoned wells told Grist that access is a major barrier for scientists to learn more about them. And there’s still so much we need to learn about abandoned wells that could help inform solutions — like how many there are, a better understanding of the risks they pose, how much methane is coming out of them, and how effective plugging them with cement actually is.

For Bobby Wright, that’s part of what drives him to work on this problem. “Not just anybody’s going to be able to walk in and know how to go about doing what we and the Well Done Foundation and Native State are trying to do,” he said. “It takes people that are within this industry, that have an understanding of not just the technical aspects of it, but of how the industry works, to get it done.”

It’s unclear how much of a dent groups like OAP Fund will be able to make on the abandoned wells problem, but one thing is clear: If they do manage to raise enough money to get started, there’s enough work to last a lifetime.

“The scale of this problem is what I think doesn’t get translated real well sometimes — people just can’t really wrap their head around it,” Wright said. “Even if all of us were doing 100 or 200 or 300 or 500 wells a year, we’re still not gonna … you know, my grandkids could be doing this.”

Can “earmarks” fix Washington dysfunction? A former symbol of corruption is now a sign of hope

Both parties spent years decrying congressional “earmarks” and “pork-barrel spending” as organized “bribery.” But a growing number of lawmakers think that bringing back these controversial legislative tactics could be an answer to Washington’s hyper-partisan gridlock.

Earmarks are approximately the least sexy aspect of Washington dealmaking, but it’s important to grasp their significance. The term means provisions added to spending bills that typically direct funding to lawmakers’ pet projects to gain their support. They were widely criticized during the George W. Bush and Barack Obama presidencies as wasteful, sometimes illegal and frequently corrupt. The infamous Alaska “bridge to nowhere,” a $223 million project to connect a remote town of 8,000 people to an airport that was pushed by the state’s Republicans, became the epitome of government waste. A separate earmarking scandal led to the 2005 conviction of former Rep. Randy “Duke” Cunningham, R-Calif., who was accused of accepting millions in bribes from defense contractors in exchange for steering projects their way. More than a dozen others were convicted in a Bush-era scheme by former lobbyist Jack Abramoff, who was accused of bribing Republican lawmakers in exchange for securing earmarks for his clients.

Democrats introduced new transparency requirements after winning a House majority in 2006. House Republicans, after regaining power with the Tea Party wave in 2010, banned earmarks altogether the following year, with support from Obama. The Senate also adopted a temporary earmark ban that Republicans voted to make permanent last year.

Lawmakers from both parties, along with President Trump, have since complained that these bans have hamstrung legislation and increased partisanship. Others have criticized the bans, on the other hand, because they did not exactly end earmarks. Rather, they forced powerful lawmakers to make stealthier funding grabs, buried deep in spending bills.

Discussions about bringing back earmarks ultimately faltered earlier this year. But House Majority Leader Steny Hoyer, D-Md., Nancy Pelosi’s chief lieutenant, announced a plan last month to bring back earmarks with transparency and funding restrictions in the next term.

Numerous moderate and progressive House members have already endorsed the effort.

Rep. Peter DeFazio, D-Ore., a co-founder of the Congressional Progressive Caucus, has said that earmarks are “absolutely critical” to push through legislation like an infrastructure bill.

Rep. Mark Pocan, D-Wis., co-chair of the Progressive Caucus, previously told Roll Call that as much as 90% of House members privately support restoring earmarks, as long as both parties agree “not to politicize it.”

It’s unclear whether Senate Republicans would reverse their position after last year’s vote, though powerful leaders like Appropriations Committee chairman Richard Shelby, R-Ala., have called for bringing back earmarks.

“I don’t expect it to be a partisan effort. Now that doesn’t mean that everybody does participate,” Hoyer told Roll Call. “But I know there are a lot of Republicans on our side and a lot of Republicans on the Senate side who want to … have the ability to invest in their states.”

The bipartisan Select Committee on the Modernization of Congress, established by Democrats after they won control of the House in 2018, recommended that lawmakers bring back earmarks.

“Earmarks were painted as a coven for corruption, a practice reserved for the funding of needless projects to benefit the friends, supporters and donors of members of Congress. Much of this was hyperbole, as earmarking was only abused by a handful of members in the past,” John Hudak, a senior fellow at the Brookings Institution and the author of “Presidential Pork,” testified to the committee.

Many government experts agree that although the earmarks process is far from perfect, it could help break the partisan fever that has gripped Washington for the past decade.

“We are in a time of historic negative partisanship,” Josh Huder, a senior fellow at the Government Affairs Institute at Georgetown University, told Salon. “And there’s very little within the political process that is creating incentives or reasons for the two parties to work together or communicate in a way that is not overtly negative and overtly, negatively partisan. And I think earmarks is one of those things that cuts across that general trend. It’s not about making negative policy statements or ‘owning the libs’ or really going after the ‘fascists’ or anything like that.”

Earmarks, Huder said, can create incentives for lawmakers to “communicate with one another in a way that’s not totally awful.”

“There’s an understated political effect here, that to the extent we want processes that facilitate compromise and cooperation across the party aisle, this is a good thing,” he argued. “It should be viewed as something that is maybe long overdue within the last decade, where we’ve just seen some outright bad, awful, negative partisanship.”

Huder cautioned that earmarks are not a magic bullet that will fix Congress overnight, noting that they would primarily aid in the passage of appropriations or funding bills but are unlikely to help pass something like a coronavirus relief bill or a large infrastructure package.

Allowing earmarks “could get the appropriations process moving potentially because all of a sudden you’re allowing individual members to have a special carve-out in a bill that actually brings something back to their district,” he said.

But there’s a problem. “We’re pretending this is a world where appropriations bills pass and become law and there’s some sort of regular routine funding of the government that doesn’t involve a [continuing resolution] or a shutdown threat,” Huder continued. “We’re pretending that a budget exists. And that’s a huge problem, because budgets have not existed to a significant degree over the past decade. … So Congress doesn’t even have step one, much less step two through 13, to pass all these appropriations bills and fund the government on time.”

Budget groups remain concerned about the potential for waste and abuse. Stephen Ellis, head of the budget watchdog Taxpayers for Common Sense, said that lawmakers must enact numerous reforms if they want to bring back earmarks.

“Congress needs to create a downloadable, searchable database of all earmark requests, all earmark awards, their beneficiaries, their intended purpose,” he said in a statement to Salon, arguing that Congress should also reduce the funding available for earmarked projects and restrict the types of projects eligible for earmark funding. Earmarks should be barred in competitive or merit-based or formula funding programs, he said, and there should be penalties for private entities that try to get around the proposed ban. The Government Accountability Office should audit 5 to 10% of earmarks each year to make sure they have achieved their goals, Ellis added.

Democrats say they plan to include provisions requiring each earmark’s sponsor to be identified and published online, banning private sector entities from receiving earmarked funds, and barring members who have a financial stake in a project from earmarking funds for it. Earmarks would also be capped at 1% of the spending level in the annual funding bill.

“Proponents think earmarks are a magic pixie dust that makes everything work better,” Ellis said in an email. “That’s simply not the case, major legislation like transportation bills, water project bills, tariff relief, even the 2017 tax cut (which we opposed) have been enacted during the moratorium.

“It requires work and leadership. Since the budget process was established, all the spending bills have been completed on time precisely four times. The last time they were all done individually and on time was in 1994. So don’t expect Congress to operate like a well-oiled machine with earmarks.”

Huder agreed that earmarks would not magically restore the once-normal function of Washington but argued that concerns over “frivolous projects in communities” were overblown because “there are projects that aren’t out there for the national good that nonetheless serve a purpose within a parochial locality or state.”

Earmarks were never quite as bad as their reputation suggested, Huder said. “It was typically not an abusive thing, especially near the end of earmarks. Democrats had transparency controls in there. You had to announce how much money you were asking for. You had to label the project, what it was being requested for. All of this stuff was pretty solid back in the day.”

Concerns over possible abuse are legitimate, he continued. “But I don’t think it’s nearly as widespread as many people would assume it to be. It’s a much smaller fraction of the budget than people assume it to be. It doesn’t increase the deficit the way many people assume. There are a lot of negative labels and stigmas that are associated with earmarks that earmarks simply aren’t responsible for.”

The New York Times editorial board, which came out in favor of restoring earmarks last month, noted that earmark funds typically make up less than 1% of the budget, adding up to “little more than a rounding error.” Many earmark opponents have criticized them, the editorial argued, because they can make legislation these groups oppose easier to pass. Furthermore, in the absence of congressional direction on how to spend taxpayer funds, the executive branch often steps in to direct spending to its own pet projects.

“Presidents — and their appointees — engage in pork-barrel politicking (earmarking) in the same way Congress does,” Hudak, the Brookings fellow, wrote after Democrats won back the House in 2018. “Reforming the process in Congress by curtailing the practice of earmarking simply shifts that power more explicitly to a president and a cadre of unelected bureaucrats in government. Eliminating earmarking is a serious abdication of power by Congress which empowers a branch of government beyond what the Founders intended.”

Earmarks have also been described as biased because powerful lawmakers and their allies tend to gobble up a lot of the earmark spending. But Huder noted that earmarks are likely to be fairer than the current process, in which congressional committee chairs “have much more leeway to influence where money is directed.”

“The real big secret in Washington is that people with power tend to get the better earmarks. … it does put the thumb on the scales of many of the members that are in power,” he said. “There’s an argument also that they bias the decision-making away from those in power,” because the powerful legislators who write most bills have far more control over spending than “other members in the rank and file.”

Many Republican lawmakers have opposed bringing back earmarks. Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell, R-Ky., was noncommittal when asked about the House push.

“I haven’t given any real thought to that,” he said earlier this month. “That’s a decision obviously the majority has decided to make over there and it’ll be interesting to see how the Republicans in the House respond to it.”

But some Republicans have pushed to restore earmarks out of frustration with the status quo.

“I can tell you many members are so frustrated because they’re like: ‘All I do here is maybe vote three or four times a year on anything that’s relevant, and actually I have no input on what that package looks like,'” Rep. Tom Reed, R-N.Y., co-chair of the bipartisan Problem Solvers Caucus, told USA Today. “‘It’s just a “yes” or “no” vote and I really don’t even know what’s in it and none of my priorities get addressed because it’s all done in the front office.’ But with congressionally directed spending, your priorities — why you ran to be a member of Congress — you’re actually doing the work you were sent to D.C. to do.”

As Trump continues killing spree, Ayanna Pressley leads call for abolition of death penalty

More than 40 Democratic lawmakers joined Rep. Ayanna Pressley late Tuesday in calling on President-elect Joe Biden to immediately abolish the federal death penalty upon taking office next month, bringing an end to a period of six months in which President Donald Trump has overseen more federal executions of people “than the total number executed over the previous six decades.”

Biden is opposed to capital punishment and has pledged to abolish its use at the federal level. In Pressley’s letter, the lawmaker emphasizes that Biden must make the policy change a top priority after January 20, when he will take office.

“With a stroke of your pen, you can stop all federal executions, prohibit United States Attorneys from seeking the death penalty, dismantle death row at [Federal Correctional Complex] Terre Haute, and call for the resentencing of people who are currently sentenced to death,” Pressley wrote.

The letter was signed by lawmakers including Reps. Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez, D-N.Y., Ilhan Omar, D-Minn., Rashida Tlaib, D-Mich., Gerry Connolly, D-Va., and Raul Grijalva, D-Ariz. Recently elected Reps.-elect Jamaal Bowman, D-N.Y., Mondaire Jones, D-N.Y., and Cori Bush, D-Mo., also signed the document.

The president is in the midst of what The Guardian called an “execution spree,” having killed three people — Orlando Hall, Brandon Bernard, and Alfred Bourgeois — since losing the presidential election on November 3. Before Biden takes office, Trump is planning to put to death inmates Lisa Montgomery, Corey Johnson, and Dustin Higgs. 

Trump is the first president to carry out the death penalty during a lame-duck session since 1889, when President Grover Cleveland executed a Native American named Richard Smith. 

Pressley sent the letter to Biden as the Death Penalty Information Center (DPIC) released a year-end report showing that Trump has killed more people in 2020 than all states that have carried out executions, combined — an unprecedented use of the death penalty by the federal government. 

Seven state executions were carried out in Alabama, Georgia, Missouri, Tennessee, and Texas this year, while the president has killed 10 people since July, when he resumed the use of the federal death penalty after 17 years. 

“The sheer number of executions set the Trump administration apart as an outlier in the use of capital punishment, compared both to the historical practices of American presidencies and the contemporary practices of the states in the Union,” the DPIC wrote. “In addition, the details of the cases and the highly politicized manner in which they were carried out revealed significant problems in the application of the federal death penalty.”

The people Trump has put to death and plans to execute before his term is over — five Black men and one white woman — have been the subject of calls by global human rights advocates, prosecutors, and former jurors who have pleaded with the administration for clemency. 

Montgomery is the survivor of lifelong sexual and physical abuse and was experiencing psychosis, according to her lawyers, when she commited a murder in 2004. Bernard was 18 when he was involved in a kidnapping and killing of a couple in Texas, did not fire the gun that killed the victims, and has shown remorse for his crime. Bourgeois’s lawyers argue that he has a severe intellectual disability.

“Capital punishment is unjust, racist, and defective,” Rep. Connolly said in a press release on Tuesday. “The United States stands alone among its peers in executing its own citizens, a barbaric punishment that denies the dignity and humanity of all people and is disproportionately applied to people who are Black, Latinx, and poor. For example, Black people make up less than 13% of the nation’s population while accounting for more than 42% of those on death row.” 

Trump’s executions have sparked outcry on social media in recent weeks.

National polls in recent years have seen support for capital punishment fall to record lows; 60% of respondents told Gallup in a survey in October 2019 that they preferred the use of life prison sentences over the death penalty, and a year earlier only 49% of Americans said they believed the death penalty was applied fairly.

“Your historic election with record turnout represents a national mandate to make meaningful progress in reforming our unjust and inhumane criminal legal system,” wrote the lawmakers to Biden. “Ending the barbaric practice of government-sanctioned murder is a commonsense step that you can and must take to save lives.”

Robert Reich: Joe Biden’s biggest challenge is avoiding “back to normal”

“Life is going to return to normal,” Joe Biden promised in a recent address to the nation. He was talking about life after Covid, but he might as well have been making a promise about life after Trump.

But a return to “normal” would be disastrous. We can’t give in to the allure of “normal” — because normal is what got us here. Normal led to Trump. 

It’s not an exaggeration to say that the last four years have been traumatic for the nation. After Trump’s abuses of power, human rights violations, blatant racism, and maliciously incompetent response to the pandemic, people are understandably exhaling a sigh of relief. 

But we can’t return to “normal” because “normal” was four decades of stagnant wages and widening inequality when almost all economic gains went to the top. 

The Republican Party’s core response has been stoking division and hate while suppressing the votes of communities of color. And the Democratic Party abandoned the working class. 

Another reason we can’t go back to normal is that “normal” led to our staggering Covid death toll and devastating economic fallout that have most brutally harmed lower-income Americans, especially communities of color. 

That’s because normal in this case has been decades of systemic racism as well as shredded safety nets for everyone in need, the most expensive but least adequate healthcare system in the modern world, and a growing climate catastrophe that’s steadily undermining public health.

Unless these trends change, the pandemic and economic crisis America is experiencing will be nothing compared to what’s to come. And after Biden, we could have Trumps as far as the eye can see

The only way to avoid this is to fundamentally change course.

It’s a mistake to see this task as placating the progressive wing of the Democratic Party. Fighting these systemic problems is not a matter of ideology. It’s a matter of morality and common sense. 

If we don’t address them now, they will be even more destructive in the years to come.

In other words — back-to-normal complacency would be deadly. Joe Biden’s great challenge is to restore America to sanity after four years of Trumpian chaos while at the same time offering bold solutions to the crises of our time.

Our task must be to ensure he finds the energy and political will to do so.

Tucker Carlson warns Fox viewers to be “nervous” about the “glitzy” COVID vaccine

Fox News personality Tucker Carlson, who network attorneys recently convinced a federal judge is not expected to make factual claims, told his viewers to be “nervous” that the new coronavirus vaccine was a form of social control and dismissed efforts to promote the long-awaited drug as “false” and “too slick.”

Carlson, who broadcasts his top-rated program from a garage in Maine while Fox News keeps on-air talent out of studio, compared the “glitzy” media coverage of the first inoculations to “a corporate image campaign” for “Hollywood blockbusters or the new iPhone.”

“Suddenly the COVID vaccine is on the morning shows, it’s being touted on celebrity Twitter accounts, and the news about it is uniformly glowing,” he said, adding derisively: “This stuff is just great. A lot of famous people say so. Just the other day, the guy who played Gandalf in The Lord of the Rings series got the vaccine. As on any media tour, the paparazzi were there for the dramatic moment when they stuck the needle in his arm.”

Carlson contrasted the enthusiasm to news that a health care worker in Alaska recently endured a severe allergic reaction to Pfizer’s vaccine, casting an Orwellian shadow over the reports.

“It was all a fantastic experience, according to doctors who treated her,” Carlson said before quoting one of the woman’s doctors from a CNN article: “‘During the whole time, she was still enthusiastic she got the vaccine and the benefits it would give her in the future.'”

“What a cheerful patient she must be,” Carlson scoffed, before turning conspiratorial. “We’ve got to assume she is, in any case, because we can’t really know. The authorities did not release her name. All we know is she is a highly satisfied customer. Yet another.”

“Have a vaccine and a smile,” he added. “Just do it!”

Carlson, speaking as health officials reported the most deadly day of the pandemic in the U.S., told viewers that they should be “nervous” about the vaccine because these promotional efforts were “false.”

“So, how are the rest of us supposed to respond to a marketing campaign like this? Well, nervously,” he said. “Even if you are strongly supportive of vaccines, and we are, even if you recognize how many millions of lives have been saved over the past 50 years by vaccine, and we do, it all seems a bit much, it feels false, because it is, it’s too slick.”

The heir to the Swanson’s frozen dinner empire demanded that public figures “stop with the slogans,” before comparing the vaccine to abortions.

“In this country, we control our own bodies. They’re always telling us that. But no. Suddenly, the rules have changed,” he said. “On the question of the corona vaccine, our leaders are definitely not pro-choice. Their view is do what you’re told, and don’t complain, and no uncomfortable questions. Those aren’t just suggestions, they’re rules and Silicon Valley claims to enforce them.”

Carlson then turned to complain about Twitter and allege that the government would use the vaccine as a form of social control.

“Among other things, Twitter is censoring any claim that this vaccine might be used to quote, ‘control populations.’ So, whatever you do, don’t say this is social control, because if you do, the richest and most powerful people in the world will act in perfect coordination to shut you down immediately,” he said.

“So, to repeat, there is no social control going on here — none. And if you suggest otherwise, Twitter’s social controls will censor you,” the host groused.

From there, Carlson leapt to accuse Bill and Melinda Gates, who for months have been implicated in baseless conspiracy theories about vaccines.

“Why is she weighing in on an international health emergency?” Carlson wondered about Gates, who leads the world’s largest private charity organization.

“Melinda Gates is married to a billionaire,” Carlson explained, adding that “in 2020 that’s enough to give you control over an entire country.”

“So [Melinda Gates] is demanding the tech companies censor anyone who contradicts the official storyline on the COVID vaccine, and she is getting her wish,” he said. “None of this inspires confidence. Censorship will not convince a single person to take the coronavirus vaccine. In fact, it will have the opposite effect.”

The day before Carlson’s rant, Fox News owner Rupert Murdoch, 89, received the COVID-19 vaccine in England after being notified he was eligible.

Watch Carlson’s segment at Media Matters.

“Guardians of the Galaxy” trends after U.S. Space Force members are named “guardians”

Members of the U.S. Space Force will now be called “guardians” — and of course, the internet had a field day.

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

Vice President Mike Pence made the announcement on Friday, and the United States Space Force tweeted that the name was settled on “by space professionals, for space professionals” after a yearlong research process.

“The opportunity to name a force is a momentous responsibility,” the U.S. Space Force tweeted. “Guardians is a name with a long history in space operations, tracing back to the original command motto of Air Force Space Command in 1983, ‘Guardians of the High Frontier.'”

The agency added that the name Guardians connects the organization to its “proud heritage and culture,” as well as its main mission of protecting the people and interest of the U.S. and its allies.

Created under President Donald Trump‘s administration last year as the first new armed service since 1947, the Space Force was established with the mission of protecting U.S. interests in space from potential adversaries.

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

Though Trump champions the initiative, he has done little to ensure it has the funding, staffing and authority to succeed. When he exits the White House next month, the Space Force’s future remains unclear.

While the organization has gained control of some space operations, many others are still spread throughout the nation’s other military branches, such as the Army, Air Force and Navy.

Read more from VarietyThe worst films of 2020

Twitter immediately had jokes, and “Guardians of the Galaxy,” Marvel’s 2014 hit about intergalactic heroes, trended on the social media platform. One tweet also pointed out the Space Force symbol’s similarity to the “Star Trek” logo.

Read some of the reactions below:

“Flight Attendant” boss on Cassie and Megan’s parallel journeys and a potential Season 2

SPOILER ALERT: Do not read if you have not yet watched the full season of “The Flight Attendant,” streaming now on HBO Max.

Since HBO Max’s “The Flight Attendant” was inspired by Chris Bohjalian’s 2018 novel of the same name, it was originally designed to close out the mystery the titular flight attendant Cassie (Kaley Cuoco) finds herself in after waking up next to her murdered one-night stand in Bangkok.

And that it did, explaining who killed that man, Alex (Michiel Huisman), and why, as well as who was now after Cassie because she was a loose end. But, the show was not simply a whodunnit thriller, and its finale episode, “Arrivals & Departures,” left its characters in places that are arguably ripe for a follow-up.

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

After becoming an armchair detective of sorts to get to the bottom of Alex’s murder, the CIA came calling for Cassie through her undercover airline colleague Shane (Griffin Matthews). She also finally faced some harsh truths about her childhood, forgave her past self for some bad choices and decided to get sober. Meanwhile, one of the people who was originally after her, Miranda (Michelle Gomez), absconded with a significant amount of money but also found a newfound appreciation of Cassie. And Cassie’s other close colleague Megan (Rosie Perez) fled after federal agents caught wind of the secrets she helped the North Korean government obtain.

“There’s plenty of story out there if we decide to move forward with it, but right now it’s still in the discussion phase,” showrunner Steve Yockey tells Variety of a potential second season. “We’d want it to be as exciting as the first one.”

Here, Yockey talks with Variety about the journey he took characters from Cassie to Miranda and Megan in the first season of “The Flight Attendant” and what that potential second season could look like.

Kaley has been talking about wanting to do a second season for awhile, and you did throw a line in the finale about the CIA wanting to talk to Cassie. How much of a potential second season do you already have mapped out, should HBO Max renew the show?

Our initial mission was to create an adventure for Cassie that had a beginning, middle and an end. So my main concern was that her character arc — her journey, her internal journey and her investigation into what happened to Alex — had a complete, dramatic, satisfying ending in Episode 8. So I think that the way forward, really, for us if we decide to do another one is that it would be another adventure for Cassie, much like a Hitchcock character: how did she stumble into another misadventure and get caught up in it? That’s the fun of it for us. It’s not as if getting drunk and sleeping with a guy in Bangkok means you deserve to wake up next to a dead body; she’s not being morally punished for her behavior. It may look a little different because she’s really trying to live a sober life and make better choices, but you saw in the show she chooses the crazy thing a lot of the time and that doesn’t all have to do with alcohol.

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

Would you want to write that second season from scratch, or could there be a possibility of working with Chris Bohjalian on a new story, similar to how HBO’s “Big Little Lies” handled extending their story beyond the one book source material?

Chris has been incredibly supportive of the changes that we made from the story. We veered quite a bit from the source material. The important thing to us, in terms of the original book, was maintaining fidelity to the character of Cassie, and so I think that we would probably use our writers’ room to branch out on a new journey for the character that we created for the show.

To look more closely at some of those changes in the season, Miranda was not a dual narrator, but she still did become an ally for Cassie at the end. What inspired keeping that piece where they willingly enter each other’s orbit at the end, even with the prior changes?

It was clear really early on because of the depth we wanted to get out of Cassie’s story [that] it was really going to be mostly in her point of view. So, by making that choice, it eliminates the dual-narrator function and we couldn’t be cutting away. Cassie’s stumbling through this, so it’s hard to cut away to a character who knows what she’s doing, and so that was one of the considerations. Then we decided [Miranda] is going to be this looming threat and then we’ll slowly, over the back-half of the season, reveal her and in Episode 7 they can have this adventure together. She’s much more complicated in the book in terms of being a double agent and all of her internal stuff and things with her family and her relationship with her handler, but for us it was, if we have to simplify this character because we don’t have as much real estate as the book does, then we’re going to basically choose to make her a bad guy that we fall in love with. Ultimately Episode 7 is called “Hitchcock Double” because we’re putting these two characters together — Cassie, who is a good person but lying to herself, not ready to face the truth about things and having a lot of trouble; and Miranda, who is inherently a bad person but is completely fine with that and very comfortable in her life — and it creates this crazy friction.

How much did you want them to rub off on each other or learn from each other at the end to then inform changes they make in their own behavior?

I felt it was important that they pin-balled off of each other and are changed by each other. Right before they walk into the AA meeting in Episode 7, when they’re upstairs in church and Miranda says, “You don’t get to say goodbye to everyone” and Cassie says, “Well, maybe I’m not ready for that,” Miranda says, “Oh please, you already live your life like you’re on the run.” Cassie is hit in the face with that: There are things Miranda has seen by observing her over six episodes that she says that really land on Cassie as she’s spiraling. And in terms of the effect that Cassie has on Miranda, she really says it in Episode 8: “I have no idea why this woman has this effect on me.” But I do think it’s because Cassie is so wildly charismatic and is really struggling to do the right thing, and it’s been a long time since Miranda has had to think about doing the right thing.

You mentioned the dichotomy between how Miranda knew what she was doing and Cassie didn’t — but all throughout the season you also had Megan stumbling in her own ways and doing all the wrong things, too. How did you want her journey to parallel Cassie’s, and what does it say that when Cassie is finally getting it together, Megan is the one who runs?

We always pitched Megan as the star of her own little movie that’s running inside of her head. In a traditional thriller, you’re like, “When is this Megan story going to cross with the A story? When are we going to find out that Megan is actually part of the weapons-smuggling or that she works for Lionfish?” But our choice in the writers’ room, because we were playing fast and loose with these thriller tropes, was, “What if her story never crosses with the plot? What if instead it crosses in an emotional way?” So that’s why we ended up with the two of them sitting with each other in the finale. And really out of that conversation they realized all of the ways that they are the same, and they realized they have to fix this for themselves. And Megan, in talking to Cassie, really cements the decision that she’s going to run away and figure out how to make this better. They leave that conversation changed. But from the beginning Cassie didn’t want to be involved in this at all and was stumbling through it [while] Megan, on the other hand, really went into this with her eyes opened and really thought she had a handle on it, and then it spun wildly out of control for her.

Read more from Variety: The worst films of 2020

And then there’s the Buckley [Colin Woodell] aspect to it. When did you decide it was him who was tracking Cassie and what did that do to how much of their quote-unquote-relationship was real versus him playing a part to get close to her to make his job easier?

The plan always from the beginning was to have it be Buckley. He was with us in the very beginning when we shot in Bangkok; he was really in all of those scenes. So it was always him, and it was always Cassie’s journey towards that realization. And also, we just loved the idea that this hitman became obsessed with her and instead of killing her, dated her, and when she breaks up with him he decides to do his job.

Cassie has lied to herself and others for so long, how honest is she being at the end of the season when she pulls out that sobriety chip?

It’s going to be difficult, and she owns that; she says it’s really fucking hard. She’s in a place where she’s had a real, personal breakthrough, but the show isn’t a journey of recovery where she’s better at the end; the show is a journey to recovery where she hits rock bottom and decides she has to make a change. The hope is at the end of the finale you’re on her side and hoping for the best, because that’s what she’s doing, too: She’s trying for the first time and hoping for the best.

Her initial reaction from the trauma was to run, as she had been doing her whole life, so how complicated was it to craft a way to get her to that real breakthrough?

You are watching her react to trauma for eight episodes, but I do think that [the trauma of finding Alex dead] also mirrors the trauma from her childhood, and we see what that was and what that did to her as a person. So I feel like by reconciling when she hugs her younger self at the end and says, “Look, you’re going to do a lot of things,” she’s willing to own it. She’s like, “you’re going to make a lot of mistakes that are your fault, but this one thing is not your fault.” And so, it was getting her to come to terms with that and saying it to her younger self and mean it. If she can do that, then I think that everything that springs forward from that will probably be positive.

Any good writer wants the main character to have the longest journey possible because it means the audience gets to go on the longest journey. So you want to start them as far away from a self-actualization as possible. So we started Cassie in a place where she’s late to things and falling asleep on trains and the plates are spinning and her brother keeps his distance. She’s in this world where everyone thinks they’re close enough. She had a pretty long journey to go on, but across the episodes, we really wanted to break down her emotional journey into a series of realizations and actualizations to earn the reveal of the memory of her dad. It’s the only memory we revisit twice. She goes to that memory in [Episode 7] but she isn’t ready to face it, and then in [Episode 8] she makes the choice: Instead of being assaulted by the memory, as with most of her memories that come to the surface over the season, she makes the choice to go there and interact with the memory and engage. And that, I think, is the biggest signpost that she’s on the right track.

That whole backstory of what she went through and what she blamed herself for in her childhood is such a dark place to have in the back of a character’s mind, yet she often presents herself as a light-hearted, fun-time person. How did you calibrate how to showcase how defined by these events she really was?

Genre-blending is one of my favorite things to do as a writer, but it is a question of tone. I think the trick is, you just have to keep a really firm grip on what your show is trying to say. So if our show is an exploration of Cassie’s life, it can be funny and it can be wild and it can also be really dark when it needs to be, because this is something that she’s buried inside her. I’m a big believer that people can keep secrets of anything, and you’ve got a character at the beginning of this season who is lying to herself. She does it in the hotel room, and then she echoes it in Episode 7 — she says, “It didn’t happen.” And that’s the same thing she decided when she was a little girl, and that’s why her memories are so different from her brother’s — she’s constructed this safer version of her childhood, and it all comes crashing down when she finds Alex murdered beside her. It’s OK for something to be emotional and fun; it’s OK for something to be serious and fun. All of the people in the writers’ room shared that sentiment.

And that does allow it to be escapist, as opposed to if it was just a dark journey into a damaged woman — people might think it was too much.

I would be like that. When I first read the book, what Chris does so beautifully is trap you in this woman’s paranoia and anxiety and tension, and she really goes on this journey of, “Could I have done this?” It’s dark, especially for a thriller read you might pick up at the airport. Kaley’s the one who found the book; Kaley got the show set up, and then I came on board. And so, when I was talking with Kaley, I realized this character could be dark because she brings this openness and charisma to it.

Barack Obama’s favorite films of the year include “Nomadland,” “Mank,” and “Time”

Whether he was breaking into an emotional rendition of “Amazing Grace” or bending over to let a five-year-old touch his hair, there’s no doubt that Barack Obama was the coolest president we’ll ever have. And while we know he has excellent taste in partners, every year Obama likes to remind us that his taste in film and TV is also impeccable. The former president has had much more time on his hands since leaving The White House, and he’s taken it upon himself to flex his cinephile leanings. This year he expanded his annual top ten list to include film and television, even including a diplomatically worded explanation about the changing nature of the industry.

Read more from IndieWireThe podcasts of 2020: A tribute

“Like everyone else, we were stuck inside a lot this year, and with streaming further blurring the lines between theatrical movies and television features, I’ve expanded the list to include visual storytelling that I’ve enjoyed this year, regardless of format,” Obama tweeted.

His list included one project from Higher Ground, the production company started by Barack and Michelle Obama in 2018. That was James Lebrecht and Nicole Newnham’s “Crip Camp,” a moving documentary about a summer camp for teens with disabilities, which appeared with an asterisk lest he be accused of favoritism.

Read more from IndieWireBest Christmas gifts for movie lovers

On the narrative side, Obama singled out Chloé Zhao’s Frances McDormand-starrer “Nomadland,” David Fincher’s “Mank,” and the August Wilson adaptation “Ma Rainey’s Black Bottom.” Venerated indie distributor Kino Lorber was quick to follow-up with a Tweet thanking the former President for choosing three of its films — “Beanpole,” “Bacurau,” and “Martin Eden” — all foreign-language features that have landed on many film critics’ top ten lists.

Read more from IndieWireGal Gadot says experience with Joss Whedon “wasn’t the best one”

Obama’s TV picks are just as on point, with Michaela Coel’s groundbreaking “I May Destroy You” getting some much-deserved love. Obama also enjoys some old standbys like “Better Call Saul” and “The Good Place.” Unsurprisingly for a basketball fan, ESPN’s Michael Jordan docu-series “The Last Dance” also made the list.

Jared Kushner signed off on $617 million company to ease Trump’s paranoia about Brad Parscale

Top White House adviser Jared Kushner, son-in-law to outgoing President Donald Trump, helped create a shell company which made it impossible to know who received nearly $620 million of the Trump campaign’s 2020 expenses. Campaign lawyers devised the company to increase Trump’s own insight into his campaign’s expenses, a former top-level campaign staffer confirmed to Salon. 

The company, American Made Media Consultants (AMMC), was launched in spring of 2018 and mostly served as a conduit for the campaign to pay media and advertising vendors. The entity also made it impossible for the public to see which vendors the campaign hired and how much they were paid. In all, the Trump campaign and sister committee Trump Victory reported that of the $1.2 billion spent on Trump’s failed re-election bid this year, AMMC took about $617 million, or nearly half, according to Federal Election Commission filings. 

AMMC looks to have essentially taken over the place of former campaign manager Brad Parscale’s group, Parscale Strategy, after aides repeatedly voiced concerns to the president that Parscale was not being forthright about how he spent the campaign’s money, according to a person familiar with the arrangement. While Kushner was not a driving force behind AMMC, the source who spoke on a condition of anonymity explained, the joint effort was led by campaign lawyers to reassure a paranoid Trump that no one was taking secret cuts. Parscale, it was thought, should not hold dual roles as head of a company serving as a campaign clearinghouse and campaign manager. Parscale and Kushner both signed off the arrangement, the source confirmed.

Campaign lawyers then suggested putting Trump’s daughter-in-law Lara Trump and Vice President Mike Pence’s nephew, John Pence, on the board, the only family members on the campaign, as a gesture to further calm the president. They became president and vice president, respectively — in an echo of the administration itself — and Sean Dollman, the campaign’s chief financial officer, was brought on as treasurer, as Business Insider reported.

The campaign and its Trump Victory affiliate paid AMMC far more than it ever paid Parscale Strategy — about $617 million all told, according to FEC records. In comparison, the Trump campaign spent $690 million, total.) And while reports have suggested that AMMC was primarily a bonanza for Parscale, the spending increased dramatically after he stepped down as manager on July 15: Eight out of the campaign’s top ten single-sum payments to AMMC came after that date, when Bill Stepien took over and the presidential race heated up. The campaign then reported paying AMMC more than $200 million after Parscale departed for good in late September, when police released video of his arrest on a domestic disturbance call at his south Florida home.

The campaign has paid Parscale as recently as late November, per FEC records.

AMMC also allowed Trump family members Lara Trump and Kimberly Guilfoyle, girlfriend of the president’s eldest child, Don Jr., to take a regular salary but stay off the campaign’s books. Previously the two women had been on the payroll at Parscale Strategy, which received regular payments from the campaign in the tens of thousands of dollars. White House sources had previously claimed that the digital mastermind paid the women each $15,000 a month, equivalent to a top White House salary; a campaign source has told Salon that number was not accurate, but would not elaborate further.

The Campaign Legal Center (CLC), a watchdog group that advocates for campaign finance transparency, alleged in a complaint filed with the FEC this summer that the Trump campaign was using AMMC to illegally evade federal reporting requirements.

While it is not unusual for campaigns to leave out some third-party vendor payments, such as a media company paying an independent videographer to do a shoot, the CLC’s Brendan Fischer previously told Salon that AMMC was “a well-orchestrated scheme designed to undermine laws and transparency requirements.”

“Trump took it to another level,” Fischer said. “Those recipients weren’t simply sub-vendors. They didn’t take directions from Parscale’s companies. They took directions directly from the Trump campaign. They worked for the Trump campaign, and the campaign tried to hide it.”

Furthermore, Salon has reported that the campaign even hid payments to its own top officials. It has not disclosed any payments to top strategist Jason Miller, who makes $35,000 a month — effectually a $420,000 salary, or more than the presidency pays. Instead, Miller takes those payments through Jamestown Associates, a video production vendor for the campaign.

And while the campaign reports salary payments to chief of staff Stephanie Alexander and senior adviser Katrina Pierson, each of whom earn $20,000 a month, it does not appear to report paying any salary for COO Jeff DeWit or senior advisers Bob Paduchik, Bill Shine and Lara Trump, federal records show.

(Lara Trump resigned from the AMMC board in October 2019, as did John Pence, according to Trump campaign communications director Tim Murtaugh.)

A former senior campaign official previously told Salon that Kushner directed the campaign to pay Miller through Jamestown, and that the president was usually made personally aware.

Miller presents a particularly strange case: The campaign pays him through a vendor that exclusively handles video production, but Miller himself makes the calls for the campaign’s media buys and placement, as well as how the campaign uses the vendor that pays him. The media placement payments are farmed out to vendors contracted through AMMC, but the campaign, for whatever reason, does not hide its payments to Jamestown — at least, not all of them.

A Trump campaign spokesperson did not reply to Salon’s request for comment.

Ex-Texas cop arrested for violent attempt to prove election conspiracy was hired by GOP activists

HOUSTON — A former Houston police captain was arrested after allegedly running a man off the road and threatening him at gunpoint — what prosecutors say was part of an elaborate attempt to find evidence for a false conspiracy theory of widespread voter fraud in Harris County.

Mark Aguirre was working on behalf of a powerful Republican megadonor’s group to investigate unsubstantiated claims of widespread voter fraud when, in October, he allegedly pulled a gun on a man described by the Harris County district attorney’s office as an “innocent and ordinary” air conditioner repairman.

Aguirre was arrested Tuesday, according to the Harris County district attorney’s office.

Prosecutors say Aguirre’s election fraud claims were baseless and that he was paid $266,400 by the group Liberty Center for God and Country, whose CEO is prominent Texas right-wing activist Steven Hotze.

Hotze was among a group of Republicans who unsuccessfully sued to have nearly 127,000 Harris County ballots tossed out this year. He was also among Republicans who tried — and failed — to stop Gov. Greg Abbott from extending early voting during the coronavirus pandemic, a suit for which Aguirre had provided an affidavit, stating that he was involved in an investigation into a “wide-ranging and fraudulent ballot harvesting scheme” in Harris County.

Jared Woodfill, a spokesperson and attorney for Hotze, confirmed that the Liberty Center hired a company led by Aguirre to investigate voter fraud ahead of the 2020 election. The company contracted approximately 20 private investigators to work on claims of fraudulent ballots in Harris County and other places in Texas. Woodfill said he was aware of Aguirre’s arrest but had not yet heard Aguirre’s side of the story.

“[Hotze] did not direct or lead any of the investigations,” Woodfill said, noting that Hotze instead sent tips and information to the team of investigators to decide how to follow up. “The [Liberty Center] employed the investigation team that looked into the allegations.”

Hotze is an active GOP donor and is one of the most prolific culture warriors on the right. He’s a fierce opponent of same-sex marriage and was a key figure in the unsuccessful push for the 2017 “bathroom bill” in the Texas Legislature. This summer, he infamously left a voicemail for Abbott’s chief of staff telling him to shoot and kill people protesting the in-custody death of George Floyd.

President Donald Trump, along with the Texas GOP and some key Texas officials, has been pushing thus-far unproven claims of widespread voter fraud both before and after President-elect Joe Biden won the presidential election. Trump recently latched on to Texas Attorney General Ken Paxton‘s failed lawsuit to challenge 2020 election results in four key battleground states. The Electoral College affirmed that Biden won, but 34 of Texas’ 38 electors defiantly urged the legislatures of four swing states to overrule the will of their voters and appoint their own electors. And a large number of GOP members of the Texas congressional delegation still have not acknowledged Biden’s victory.

While working on behalf of Hotze’s group, which has been attempting to find evidence for the GOP’s allegations of election fraud, Aguirre surveilled the air conditioner technician for four days with the help of at least two other unidentified people before the Oct. 19 incident. He later told authorities that he believed the technician was behind a huge voter fraud scheme in the Houston area, according to an affidavit by the Houston police officer who responded to the incident. Aguirre told police that he believed the technician to be transporting fake ballots in his vehicle and to have as many as 750,000 in his possession.

“There were no ballots in the truck,” according to a Harris County district attorney’s office press release. “It was filled with air conditioning parts and tools.”

According to the Houston Chronicle, Aguirre was fired from his job as Houston police captain in 2003 after a controversial raid at a Houston Kmart parking lot.

After the October altercation with the technician, Aguirre also told authorities that he and other unidentified suspects had set up a “command post” at a Marriott hotel in Pearland for days ahead of the incident. He refused to identify the other people he worked with, according to the Houston police report.

Aguirre ran his black SUV into the back of the technician’s truck to get the man to stop and get out, according to a court document describing probable cause for the charge of aggravated assault with a deadly weapon. He pointed a handgun at the technician and forced him to the ground, according to the affidavit. One of the other people Aguirre was with allegedly stole the technician’s vehicle after searching it; police later found the abandoned truck a few blocks away.

A few days before Aguirre allegedly assaulted the man, he called Lt. Wayne Rubio with the Texas attorney general’s office, requesting help with the investigation. Rubio declined and reported the call. Days later, he got another call from Aguirre, who was upset that police would not intervene based on his uncorroborated accusations, according to the affidavit, which referred to a phone call and email from Rubio reporting the call to authorities. Aguirre allegedly told Rubio he had been in a car wreck with “a voter fraud suspect.”

“We are lucky no one was killed,” Harris County District Attorney Kim Ogg said in a statement. “His alleged investigation was backward from the start — first alleging a crime had occurred and then trying to prove it happened.”

Aguirre was arrested by Houston police Tuesday and charged with aggravated assault with a deadly weapon, a second-degree felony punishable by up to 20 years in prison.

The Texas Tribune is a nonprofit, nonpartisan media organization that informs Texans — and engages with them — about public policy, politics, government and statewide issues. 

Where do we go from here?

Let’s be honest: This has been a truly exhausting year.

We started 2020 already worn thin by three years of the Trump administration, with its constant assaults on the environment and human decency on display almost every single day — and it got worse from there.

In February the coronavirus pandemic hit and took off like a wildfire, killing hundreds of thousands of people in this country and leaving millions underemployed or without jobs, healthcare, homes or beloved family and friends.

The virus would have been bad enough on its own, but the willful, outrageous failure of the Trump administration to address it, and the failure of many state and local elected officials as well, made it all much worse — and so much more exhausting.

But then, that failure shouldn’t have come as a surprise. The denial of climate science from just about everyone on the far right — fueled by corporate influencers, Fox News, social-media platforms and their soul-draining ilk — had already showed us that science denial could rear its ugly head the next time we faced a crisis.

And it did, in spades.

Of course, COVID-19 wasn’t the only thing to sap our strength this year. The pandemic came alongside seemingly countless racial injustices, angry protests, violence and intimidation by right-wing extremists, and the worst election season this country has ever seen — one characterized more than anything else by a bloviating, habitual liar seeking reelection.

His performance in the first presidential debate — like watching a rabid dog on stage — may be what pushed my own exhaustion past the breaking point. From then on the election kept going downhill, my doomscrolling went into hyperdrive, and our collective grief continued to swell while more and more people got sick and died.

And yet it kept getting worse. Spurred on by Trump’s lies about the virus, people and communities “debated” whether they should or should not wear masks, stay home, stop partying, stop coming to the office — an endless fuel of “free-dumbness” driven once again by the increasingly righter-than-ever right-wing media and what passes for leadership in the Grand Old Party.

And through it all, the world experienced record temperatures, species went extinct, millions were displaced by the world’s worst hurricane season and endless fires, and…and…and…

…and a record 81 million people stood up and voted for Joe Biden and Kamala Harris. More voters turned out this year than any election in history, and many of us had to fight to get our votes and our voices recognized.

Maybe we weren’t so exhausted, after all? Or maybe we tapped into some final reserve of strength, saved for just such an emergency.

So here’s where we are now: Although the shockwaves of 2020 will be felt for a long time, and we’re all obviously still exhausted, this devastating year is nearly over. Now’s the time to heal, to rest, and to take all the energy we would normally have poured into the holidays and pour it into taking care of ourselves and our loved ones.

And while we’re at it, stay safe and physically distant, wear masks, share scientifically accurate information, and help others to recover from the ravages of the pandemic so we can get back to the greater task of saving the planet.

And the Biden win — assuming it’s not stolen at the last minute by Trump operatives and Republican legislators committed to a coup — sets us up for a lot of success.

“Biden has put forward a bold climate plan with ambitious targets for reducing carbon emissions and support for both regulatory and market-driven policy measures,” climate scientist Michael C. Mann tells me. “If Democrats take back the Senate, there is real opportunity for meaningful climate action by the U.S. — and not a moment too soon. A Biden win will stop the hemorrhaging, but there is a lot of work that will need to be done in repairing our reputation on the world stage.”

Heck, there’s still a lot of work and repairing to do in general — more than ever, in fact, since we’re now four years behind where we should have been by this point.

But that work won’t be possible without taking care of ourselves. That’s why our team here at The Revelator is about to take a couple of weeks off to recuperate and recharge. We’ve published hundreds of articles and commentaries over the past year and we’re going to do it again next year — but if we don’t rest up now, we won’t make it very far.

I sincerely hope you also get a chance to rest the final few weeks of the year. I know that kind of rest is a privilege not everyone has.

So do our best to reboot and meet back here the first week of January. We already have a lot of good stories in development for the New Year, and we’re excited to share them with you.

Of course, before we get that far, we’ll have one more source of exhaustion to contend with: the drawn-out, sore-loser end of the Trump era. Just as the post-election period was filled with Trump shenanigans, malarkey and the attempted reversal of the election, so will the very last weeks be a chance for the outgoing White House occupants and their enablers to tear every bite they can out of the government and the environment.

So keep an eye out for tomfoolery — we will, too.

Rest up, exhausted readers. The fight to save our planet and everything that lives here will keep up in 2021 — and far beyond.

I think Dan Brown turned my parents into QAnoners

If you haven’t heard of the far-right conspiracy theory QAnon by now, perhaps it’s irresponsible of me to tell you about it. Essentially, a member of a sketchy Internet forum alleged that he is a high level government official with secret information about a satanic cult run by Democrat pedophiles and their sex-trafficking associates. It’s the same old antisemitic dogwhistle all over again, but with a fun new twist: President  Donald Trump has surreptitiously dedicated his career, not to shady business practices, but to taking them down. And you can help him, if you can find and figure out the unspecified clues, such as the “strategic” spelling errors in the President’s tweets (covfefe!). Despite being widely regarded by experts and intelligence officials as at best baseless and at worst a source of domestic terror, the QAnon movement continues to accrue members at an alarming rate. A recent article stated that roughly one-third of Republicans who had heard of QAnon believe it has merit. 

How can so many disregard the clear and obvious facts printed in mainstream media in order to believe in an improbably vast conspiracy? For the same reasons that they fell in love with “The Da Vinci Code” 17 years ago. A palace intrigue of epic proportions. Codes and puzzles hidden in plain sight, with a mysterious man acting as the augur. A shadowy organization involved in dark rituals with global stakes. And you, reader, are breathlessly tasked with solving the riddle in real time, using the clues, your natural intuition, and perhaps your internet search engine of choice. 

When “The Da Vinci Code” was published in 2003, it f**king blew my 13-year-old mind. I was dazzled by Dan Brown‘s ability to create elaborate, heart-racing puzzles that were self-contained and yet felt like they reframed the world around me. Dan Brown also pioneered short chapters and constant cliffhangers, analogous to the techniques later used by social media companies to hopelessly addict us all (endless scrolling, intentionally delayed notifications, etc.).  

Beyond that, Dan Brown asked plausible questions about familiar aspects of Western culture. Take, for instance, the lady on the iconic cover: I dare you to name a more renowned painting than the Mona Lisa. With a few pieces of obscure trivia or alleged historical interpretations, he could make compelling  arguments that “things aren’t always what they seem,” especially when it comes to Catholicism. This struck me hard: a teenage boy trying to reconcile my own lack of faith within a pervasively theistic culture, as well as a burgeoning alienation from a power structure that seemed so self-serving. As my fiancée put it, “I think . . . I think Dan Brown taught me critical thinking.”  

And Dan Brown was successful by any given metric. “The Da Vinci Code” received a glowing review in the New York Times, sold 80 million copies worldwide (outsold that year only by “Harry Potter and the Order of the Phoenix”), and launched an immensely lucrative film franchise. Dan Brown himself earned spots in the Times 100 Most Influential People and Forbes Celebrity 100. The book exceeded traditional notions of literary success in a way that few do. You can probably find a copy of an “unauthorized guide” to “The Da Vinci Code” on all of your parents’ bookshelves, with a title along the lines of “Decoding Da Vinci” or “Secrets of the Code” (I found two!). In fact, it’s hard to  think of a book that necessitates a compulsory explainer companion book outside  of Ulysses, widely lauded as the best book of the century. “The Da Vinci Code” was an Important Book. 

This is why I was shocked to find upon revisiting the book as an adult that it is absolute, unadulterated trash. Just really poor, from top to bottom. Let’s start with the basics: the actual quality of the writing. Not plot (we’ll get there), the words themselves. 

“The Knights Templar were warriors,” Teabing reminded, the sound of his aluminum crutches echoing in this reverberant space.

Teabing reminded . . . Teabing reminded who? REMINDED WHO? Who is he reminding in this space that is so reverberant, it has echoes? 

I am not the first to point out what a clumsy, awful writer that Dan Brown is. I am just maybe the last and most surprised to realize it. Unsophisticated 13-year-old me did not notice. I didn’t have a frame of reference. I had not read the Pulitzer Prize winner that year (Jeffrey Eugenides’ “Middlesex”), or maybe from any year. I had not even read other less literary, but nonetheless well-regarded books published that year, like “The Kite Runner,” “The Time Traveler’s Wife,” and  “The Curious Incident of the Dog in the Night-Time.” Maybe the book that I missed that  year that would’ve been the most useful to reassessing my opinion of “The Da Vinci Code” was Lynn Truss’s humorous take on grammar, “Eats, Shoots, and Leaves.” 

Reading the book as an adult, I couldn’t wrap my mind around the success of the book. Presumably, many of the adults who kept “Da Vinci Code” a bestseller for 20 weeks in 2003 and well into 2004 had read some of these books, or really any book not for sale at the supermarket, and decided to look past the truly awful quality of the writing because of . . . the plotting?

Let me remind (“He  reminded…”) anyone who hasn’t picked the book up in several decades, the plot  is . . . also bad. Spoilers ahead. An art curator is murdered in the Louvre. With his dying breath, he leaves a long, long trail of clues to lead his granddaughter to her long-lost grandmother in order to find out *gasp* that she’s a descendent of Jesus Christ and that her grandfather and his freaky sex cult have been hiding her! Robert Langdon, our everyman hero, but also an expert in . . .  symbols . . .  is enlisted to solve the “historical” and “challenging” riddles along the way. For  instance, Langdon determines that the code to open the first safe is . . . the granddaughter’s first name! Revealing that inside that safe is a slightly smaller safe. Riveting.  

This isn’t a knock on Dan Brown, or at least this isn’t his greatest fault. He built a clumsy labyrinth based on half-heard conspiracy theories, well known hoaxes, and misunderstood speculation that came up in his most cursory of research to form the basis for a very modest pulpy thriller. He initially described the book as just “an entertaining story that promotes spiritual discussion and debate.” Many authors have made more money doing less. 

What confused me is how “The Da Vinci Code” became a cultural phenomenon in its own right, even transcending Dan Brown himself. Take “Harry Potter,” for instance. I think you’d be hard pressed to find a primer on traditional English magic practices with any of your friends’ copies of “Harry Potter.” Of course “Harry Potter” spun up a cottage industry of its own, but these were all dedicated to the world J.K. Rowling built, not the one she referenced. If “Harry Potter and the Cursed Child” didn’t feature the guy’s name in the title (and a very liberal writing credit to J.K.), there would have been as much interest in it as in any “Harry Potter” fan fiction, which is to say, marginal and within a very specific community of “Harry Potter” fans. Yet the lowercase “Da Vinci code” became a standalone icon – the very idea that the  art and institutions around us are filled with clues that have secret meanings (look at the eye on the dollar bill!). Dan Brown was just a cipher. He revealed that everything was connected, from Leonardo da Vinci to Isaac Newton to Jesus Christ (to the Illuminati, *gasp*, in the prequel), in a huge global conspiracy that is actively being covered up by the Catholic Church. 

This idea was so pervasive that it overshadowed any attempts at objectivity. It didn’t matter that “The Da Vinci Code” was actually Dan Brown’s fourth book (not including the Boomer humor marriage books he wrote with his ex-wife), with themes generally including conspiracies, shadowy organizations, assassins, and sometimes aliens. It didn’t matter that Dan Brown had none of the qualifications of his surrogate, Harvard University professor of “symbology,” and had in fact been making children’s music prior to his big success. It didn’t matter that expert after expert chimed in, disputing every element of Christianity, art, history, and  even some very easily verifiable geography. We still bought into the idea that Dan Brown’s book revealed some sort of truth. 

It appears that there were two drivers at work here: the first was great marketing. Dan Brown wrote “The Da Vinci Code” on the basis of some interesting idea he’d maybe heard or read in a conspiracy book that fit neatly within whatever thriller plot was already boiling in his brain. It’s nothing more than what Michael Crichton has done dozens of times (although “Jurassic Park” was more likely to lead a younger reader into a STEM career than to spark a manhunt  for the secret lab where scientists are cloning dinosaurs). At some point during the burgeoning success of the book, however, the marketing team at the publisher decided it would be more lucrative to lean into the demonstrably false idea that maybe, just maybe the tiniest amount of actual research had gone into validating any of the “historical” elements underlying the plot. I think this  probably resonated with Dan Brown himself, who now started telling reporters that “the background [of the book] is all true,” including all the secret societies and rituals, and that “The Da Vinci Code” could nearly stand alone as a piece of nonfiction. 

The second element that catapulted “The Da Vinci Code” was the advent of Google. By 2003, the internet had made its way into the majority of American homes, and I would imagine that a Venn diagram of “The Da Vinci Code” readers crossed with internet users had very little space outside of the union. Additionally, by 2003 Google was quickly becoming “the internet,” with 200 million searches conducted every day by the time of its highly anticipated IPO in 2004. Google transformed our relationship with the published word. What was once the domain of research experts was now public domain. Anyone could investigate any topic to their heart’s content. Simultaneously, what had once  needed to pass through layers of gatekeeping (editors, publishers, etc.) could now be posted for millions to read with the click of a button. Due to the workings of mysterious algorithms, that self-published diatribe may be presented on the front page of Google search results, alongside other works of known and unknown repute. Not only was it hard to tell the difference, but older generations coming to the internet didn’t have the learned skepticism of my  generation, who were constantly reminded that Wikipedia was not a reliable source. And so Joe Public gained the resources of the experts without the critical eye and training. 

The reader no longer needed to rely on the experts to determine whether the book was a gimmick (and maybe couldn’t trust the experts either, if the conspiracies are correct!). The reader could go to Google and find articles of undetermined quality and unverified accuracy in order to form their own  opinion. The ultimate genius of “The Da Vinci Code” wasn’t in its bad writing or its poor plotting; it was in the book’s ability to allow the reader to LARP being an investigator and religious scholar to uncover arcane knowledge that “they” don’t want you to know. This intent was further evidenced by the Internet forum ready codes and puzzles hidden within the book dust jacket itself, and was further validated by the Google-led cross-promotional “WebQuest” advertising campaign designed for the movie. 

The QAnon phenomen has frequently been referenced as a bad Dan Brown plot. In fact, it is more than that; it is exactly a Dan Brown plot, where dumb and obvious codes are meant to mimic intellectualism. Like “The Da Vinci Code” readers, QAnoners don’t want to feel like they’re being told what to believe, especially not by a media that would have to be complicit for the conspiracy to be true in the first place. Instead, they use the critical thinking espoused by Dan Brown, which is that veracity can be defined by the existence and confirmation of sources, rather than the credibility of sources. This time, our parents aren’t going to Google to sleuth for political sex cults, at least not initially. They’re finding their information on Twitter and Facebook, the modern bastions for fantasy “confirmation bias” bait that corroborates what they already know, which is that  conspiracies can be found if you’re “woke” to them and “savvy” enough to disregard obvious truths. By the time their heart-racing hunt leads to Google, it doesn’t matter that they’re only finding references within references to since deleted forum posts or Alex Jones videos about lizard people, they’ve already gotten the dopamine rush of being in the know, of solving the challenging, obscure puzzle. 

Unfortunately, the stakes are now quite larger than a book series  outperforming the skill of its writer. A person who is just mildly receptive to the QAnon ideology may find themselves disillusioned with their inability to reconcile fact and fiction, leaving them further exposed to dishonest charges of “fake news” and unable to trust any subject matter expert who has dedicated their career to approaching as closely as possible to an objective truth. Whereas a QAnon enthusiast may become further entrenched in a destructive fantasy far removed from any shared reality, a vicious cycle that alienates them from anyone with an opposing viewpoint. 

I am by no means suggesting that Dan Brown is exclusively responsible for problems inherent to the Age of Misinformation. However, the parallels between “The Da Vinci Code” and QAnon are hard to overlook. It’s high past time, looking at my collector’s edition Mickey Mouse wristwatch that had been a gift from my parents on my tenth birthday (as mentioned every 10 pages of “The Da Vinci Code”), for Dan Brown to make a statement.

Does your Christmas tree have pesticides?

Each winter, millions of Americans buy Christmas trees — but not everyone is privy to the intense process behind growing one.

In fact, the tree sitting in your living room right now is probably around 10 to 12 years old, or maybe older, depending on the species and the size of it. Throughout its lifetime, depending on the year and conditions on the farm, it’s likely that it’s been sprayed with pesticides — perhaps even the herbicide in Roundup – to prevent damage from insects or other substances that can stunt a tree’s growth and yellow the foliage.

Insecticides have been linked to affecting the human nervous system, so does this mean the Christmas trees are a threat to a person’s health inside the home, or your pet’s health? We asked Chal Landgren, Oregon State University’s Christmas tree specialist, who also has a seven-acre Christmas tree farm, to find out.

First, can you briefly explain the process of growing a Christmas tree?

Yeah, it’s a long process. Most of the seedlings that are planted are anywhere from 2 to 4 years old. So they’re 2 or 4 years old when they’re planted. And depending on the species, it can take up to 10 or 11 years before you get a tree that’s a harvest size.

How are pesticides used to keep Christmas trees looking young and healthy?

Well pesticides is a general term. It includes herbicides and insecticides and fungicides so Christmas tree growers don’t use them unless they’re, you know, indicated by certain problems or certain situations. And it depends on the species. For example, Douglas Fir tends to get a fungus problem called Swiss needle cast (SNC). So, growers spray in the springtime to protect the new foliage from contracting the disease. That’s one use of the fungicides. For things like insecticides, the most common problem might be something like aphids, and the aphids will basically suck the juices out of the trees so they’re looking anemic and needles die. Those would be sprayed in the springtime after the new growth has emerged, sometime around June, Herbicides would be used for grass control, if needed, to keep moisture in the soil and to keep some of the rodents from getting up close to the standard and girdling trees. Those are examples of how the three different kinds of pesticides are used.

Are all herbicides and pesticides and fungicides equally a threat to human health and or tree health?

They’re all quite different. The EPA will, on the label of the pesticide, have a rating about toxicity. The toxicity will be rated for different things, whether there’s some concerns about getting it in your eyes or maybe there’s a concern about ingesting. Growers have to follow the rules based on the side label.

Should Christmas tree buyers be concerned? Why or why not?

I would say no, for a couple of reasons. I’d be the most worried as a consumer about insecticides because they’re designed to work on insect metabolism. The insecticides that are used are typically used right as the new growth is coming out in June and July, and by the time Christmas rolls around they’re pretty well degraded. They’re the same pesticides or insecticides that are used on items that you eat. I mean, in the case of apples and oranges. The residues are so low by the time they’re harvested though. For Christmas trees, we’re not eating them. There are lots of little things like spiders and stuff that crawl around the needles on the Christmas tree, and they’re not concerned about the insecticides after two or three months. They’re crawling around the needles and doing just fine.

Are there efforts underway for farmers to cut down on their pesticide use?

We have a program on certification that kind of rewards farmers for not just, it’s not an organic certification, but there are provisions that suggest that the growers only use pesticides when they’ve done some scouting, and they find that they really need to use them. There are trees that we very seldom have to use insecticides on. For example, some of the newer species like the Nordmann and Turkish fir. We haven’t had insect problems on those trees, so a grower doesn’t have to worry about using insecticides or fungicides.

I was going to ask if there is a specific species of Christmas tree that is likely to have fewer pesticides than others?

For us, that would be the Nordmann and Turkish fir, and a new one called Trojan fir. Fingers crossed, and I’m sure there’ll be insects and fungi that will learn to like those species, but right now you can grow those trees through an entire rotation and never have to use a fungicide or an insecticide. It’s not something that growers want to use, even on the native species, but there are years, say for example that there might be a severe aphid attack. And, and if you want to have something that you can harvest you need to be doing some spraying. It may be only once in a season, but it becomes necessary.

What advice do you have for people buying Christmas trees this year who don’t want to bring pesticides into their homes?

That’s a good question because it’s pretty much invisible. I would talk to the grower of the tree to see when they’ve used pesticides, or what they’ve used if that’s a concern for people. But generally speaking, the last insecticide they would have probably been used, if they used it at all, was probably five months before the trees were harvested. So, there are very few insecticides that will hang around. Most of them are active for only about a month or so. But it’s not something you can see, so it’s better to ask the grower about what they’re doing. There may be some growers that are counting their trees as being organic, if that’s a big concern for consumers they could look for some of those farms if they still have any trees left at this late stage.

For the poor and disenfranchised, higher hurdles to transplants

David White was first evaluated for a kidney transplant in 2011, but it would be four years before he got the call that his turn had come. In between undergoing various forms of dialysis to do the job his kidneys couldn’t and attending medical appointments to ensure he was healthy enough to survive the four-to-six-hour surgery, White busied himself with reading, exercise, and even trying to learn a new language to keep his mind off the fact that his kidneys were failing.

During his initial evaluations, the then 49-year-old consulted with social workers and completed a test to measure his heart function. Although White’s high blood pressure and kidney failure had taken a toll on his health, he says he sailed through the physical health checks with ease.

Even meeting with the financial planners at George Washington University Hospital seemed to go off without a hitch. Before the hospital would put White on the transplant list, they needed, among other things, to make sure that he would be able to afford the pricey anti-rejection medication that he would need for the rest of his life. And while it was true that it had always been a challenge for White and his wife to make ends meet — even before he went on disability following his kidney failure  — the suburban D.C. couple had done the math and they were sure they could find a way to cover the transplant and associated medication.

Then, at a 2015 evaluation, his transplant team told him that he would also need to have some long overdue dental work completed before the hospital would add him to the kidney transplant list. The immunosuppressants used to ensure a successful transplant would leave him vulnerable to infections, and hidden pockets of bacteria in the mouth were a leading cause of problems. If White didn’t get the work done, the microbes in his mouth could proliferate and possibly kill him. But it was one hurdle too many, and White says he just couldn’t afford the procedure, which he estimates was between $1,500 and $2,000.

“I didn’t really have the financial means at the time,” he said.

The journey to that roadblock was a long one. White didn’t know his kidneys had failed until 2009, when weight loss and what he thought were cold symptoms eventually prompted his wife to insist he go to the emergency room. He was quickly transferred to the intensive care unit and would not leave the hospital for three weeks. He stopped producing urine several days after his arrival, and he wouldn’t urinate again for six years. During that stay in the hospital, he also began dialysis, and doctors told him he would have to continue to dialyze for the rest of his life — or until he got a transplant.

Making ends meet was hard even before David White’s kidneys failed, but he and his wife felt certain they could cover the costs of a transplant. Then he needed dental work.

After nearly six years on dialysis and finally getting so close to a new kidney, he was being stymied by a dental procedure. He didn’t have good credit at the time and even though he knew that some people with kidney disease had made ends meet with fundraisers and other forays for community support, it wasn’t something he was comfortable doing. And even if his own family wanted to help, White says, he wasn’t sure they’d be able to.

Organ transplants remain some of the most expensive medical procedures in the U.S. The international actuarial and consulting firm Milliman estimates that the average billable cost for a kidney transplant in 2020 is $442,500. If White didn’t have a so-called Medigap health insurance plan — a private insurance product meant to cover costs that other insurance plans don’t — he could have been on the hook for a substantial part of the cost. But even with top-notch insurance, transplant recipients may still have to cover what can be thousands of dollars in associated costs, including transportation, food, lodging, and lost wages. Then there’s the ongoing expense of anti-rejection medication, which Medicare only covers 80 percent of for the first three years post-transplant.

“If you didn’t have the money, you didn’t get on the waiting list,” said Clive Callender, a transplant surgeon who founded the Howard University Hospital Transplant Center in 1973.

The high price tag is one reason that low-income kidney failure patients, who are disproportionately Black or Hispanic, face a tougher path to transplants. Although organizations like the American Kidney Fund can help low-income families defray some of the costs of kidney disease and transplant care, and a 2014 policy change has reduced a longstanding bias in the allocation of deceased-donor kidneys to patients already on a waiting list, Black and Hispanic patients remain less likely to be referred for transplant in the first place, and they will have been on dialysis for far longer when they arrive on a waiting list. While they are four times more likely to experience kidney failure than White Americans, Black patients like White will also spend an average of 2.5 months longer waiting for a transplant, and their bodies are significantly more likely to reject their new kidney in the five years following transplant, according to a 2016 study in Kidney International, the journal of the International Society of Nephrology.

Indeed, racial and economic disparities permeate every aspect of kidney disease, from diagnosis to transplant outcomes. Poor and working class Americans, along with those from racial and ethnic minorities, are more likely to have diabetes and hypertension — the country’s two leading causes of kidney failure. They are less likely to see a nephrologist before starting dialysis, and they progress more quickly from kidney disease to renal failure.

The disparities also spill over into living-donor kidneys, whereby donors provide one of their two healthy kidneys to help an ailing family or community member. While national data from the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services Organ Procurement and Transplantation Network (OPTN) shows that Black Americans are more likely to be deceased donors on a per capita basis than White Americans, barriers of cost, education, and higher rates of other medical issues in would-be living donors mean that Black kidney disease patients are far less likely to find such a compatible donor than their White counterparts — and a January 2018 analysis in the Journal of the American Medical Association suggests that this gap is growing, too. According to the study, rates of living donor transplants among Black patients two years after getting on the waiting list dropped from 3.4 percent in 1995 to 2.9 percent in 2014. For White patients, they rose from 7 percent to 11.4 percent during this time.

Even some of the fundamental science that has traditionally informed modern diagnosis of kidney failure, some experts now say, is built on earlier, low-quality studies that made flawed assumptions about Black physiology. This means that even when under the care of competent doctors, a White patient may have higher odds of having an as-yet undiagnosed kidney problem discovered, and that they’ll be referred for treatment earlier in the course of their disease.

 

All of this means that, for minority patients like White, the kidney disease gauntlet — from diagnosis to dialysis, and from donation to transplant — is often filled with roadblocks that other patients, by dint of a higher income or, as many critics note, lighter skin, are less likely to face.

“Institutionalized racism is the elephant in the room that has not been addressed,” said Callender.

It is “an obstacle to everything that we do,” he added, “and we pay the price.”

* * *

The disparities in kidney failure start long before the pair of fist-sized organs have started to decline. In the U.S., the two conditions that contribute to more kidney disease than anything else are diabetes and hypertension. Both conditions can damage the tiny, delicate blood vessels in the kidney’s nearly 12 miles of glomeruli that filter waste from the blood. Over time, kidneys become less and less able to do their job. If the damage gets bad enough, the kidneys stop working completely.

Black Americans are 40 percent more likely to have hypertension, also known as high blood pressure, compared to White Americans, and are 60 percent more likely to be diagnosed with diabetes, according to data from the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services Office of Minority Health. Those who identify as Hispanic or Latino are also 1.7 times as likely to have a diabetes diagnosis. Already, this places those with Black and Brown bodies at higher risk of developing kidney problems. Although scientists have found similar or even lower rates of early-stage kidney disease in Black patients compared to White patients, several studies have shown that Black Americans are more likely to progress to kidney failure, and that they do so more quickly than their White counterparts.

According to data from the 2018 U.S. Renal Data System annual report, the latest year for which detailed information is available, the prevalence of kidney failure was 3.7 times higher in Black Americans compared to White Americans.

Meera Harhay, a transplant nephrologist at Drexel University in Philadelphia, says that many of her patients report they only learned of their kidney disease when they arrived at the emergency room and were told they urgently needed dialysis to survive. Up until a person is in overt kidney failure, the symptoms are often silent, according to information from the National Kidney Foundation. It’s why only 31.1 percent of those with kidney failure received 12 months of nephrologist treatment before they started dialysis, according to a data analysis published in JAMA Network Open in August. Both Black and Hispanic patients were less likely to receive this care compared to White patients.

“It’s really kind of a question of the haves and have nots,” Harhay said. “These disparities that exist in health and in society are kind of amplified in our disease course because so much hinges on early diagnosis and treatment, so you really kind of see when it goes right and when it goes wrong, and it’s starkly different.”

To Laura Plantinga, an epidemiologist at the Rollins School of Public Health at Emory University, the racial disparities among patients waiting for transplant are obvious at many Atlanta-area dialysis clinics. “You walk in there and it’s very clear,” she said. “You rarely see White people, honestly.”

For professionals like herself, it’s not always easy to understand the sheer number of barriers they face. “We live in a different world from a lot of these patients,” Plantinga said.

The first steps towards a kidney transplant begin long before someone is wheeled into the operating room. For Patrick Gee, a former corrections officer, those steps began in flip-flops on his way into his nephrologist’s office. Unlike many whose kidneys fail, Gee wasn’t diagnosed in the emergency room. Instead, an appointment with his endocrinologist for diabetes management in April 2013 first alerted him that his kidneys were operating at about 35 percent of their normal function. The doctor referred Gee to a nephrologist, who recommended monitoring his kidney function and cutting out certain foods like dairy, nuts, and chocolate. “But eventually,” Gee recalled the nephrologist telling him, “you’re gonna be on dialysis.”

By November, Gee’s weight had ballooned to 378 pounds. When he walked into his nephrologist’s office with his wife Tina, the only clothes Gee could wear were his sandals, white socks, a pair of black sweatpants, and a white t-shirt.

“I didn’t have no shoes to wear, didn’t even have a coat big enough to fit me. It had gotten so bad that I couldn’t even lay down in my bed and sleep at night. I would have to sit up in a chair and sleep,” Gee said.

When Patrick Gee, a former corrections officer, was diagnosed with kidney failure in 2013, no one discussed a transplant with him. It wasn’t until 2016 that he got on a transplant waiting list.

Gee delivers a guest sermon at the Mountain Movers Ministry in Richmond, Virginia. Before his transplant, Gee and his wife depended on at-home peritoneal dialysis to keep him alive.

Gee at home in North Chesterfield, Virginia with his wife, Tina, and 3-year-old granddaughter, Ariya. After receiving a kidney transplant in 2017, Gee has been educating the public, hospitals, and governments about the challenges of life with kidney failure.

At the appointment, Gee’s wife asked the nephrologist about dialysis and the couple opted for an at-home treatment called peritoneal dialysis, which uses the lining of the abdomen and a cleaning fluid called dialysate to filter blood inside the body. Gee started dialysis in December 2013. There was no discussion of a transplant at that time; Gee didn’t get on the waiting list until February 2016.

Many patients are in such shock from having to start dialysis that they can’t begin to think about transplant, Plantinga says, but it’s up to the physicians to continue to bring up the topic. A preemptive transplant — done before a patient begins dialysis — can improve patient survival and their quality of life.

Because the government — via Medicare — pays for so much of kidney failure treatment, Mara McAdams-DeMarco, an epidemiologist at the Johns Hopkins Bloomberg School of Public Health, says there’s a vested interest in figuring out which treatments work best for which patients, especially when many of them have other chronic diseases, too. “I see nephrology patients as really being the underdogs,” she said. “You don’t see the level of NIH support or public knowledge or public awareness relative to the burden of kidney disease in the United States.”

Indeed, the Organ Procurement and Transplantation Network recommends transplant referrals take place before stage 5 of chronic kidney disease (when the kidneys are severely compromised but have not yet failed, and so a person is not yet on dialysis) rather than when they begin dialysis. But a preemptive transplant requires that patients see a specialist before their kidneys have completely failed, which doesn’t happen for the 23 to 38 percent of patients who “crash” onto dialysis, with little to no prior care from a nephrologist. Those in this group, such as White, are overwhelmingly low-income minorities who are un- or under-insured. As a result, the 2.5 percent of end-stage renal disease patients treated with a preemptive transplant were significantly less likely to be Black or Hispanic, according to a study in the journal Transplantation.

Johns Hopkins epidemiologist Dr. Mara McAdams-DeMarco, photographed on a recent video call. McAdams-DeMarco says the government has an incentive to improve kidney failure treatments because Medicare often foots the bill.

According to Lilia Cervantes, an internal medicine hospitalist at Denver Health, in addition to potential language barriers, many low-income Hispanic patients are too pre-occupied with what they perceive as more pressing priorities — paying bills, making rent — that make it difficult for them to properly navigate themselves toward kidney transplant — even with the best of care. “Those are the things that you wake up thinking about and you go to bed thinking about,” Cervantes said. “And so they may not be able to sort of even consider anything outside of just having food on the table.” For many undocumented patients, the challenges can be even more insurmountable. Without access to health insurance, Cervantes said, these patients likely can’t “pay for the medications and surgery, [or] the follow-up appointments that are necessary for anyone to receive a kidney transplant.”

Harhay says that Black patients like Gee and White face an additional challenge in being diagnosed with kidney failure. The kidneys’ job is to filter waste from the blood through the blood vessels that make up the glomeruli. A person’s glomerular filtration rate (GFR) can’t easily be measured directly, but a blood test that measures creatinine — a compound which is produced by muscles during everyday activity and filtered by the kidneys — is often used as a proxy. In 1999, a team of experts from across the country sought to improve GFR estimates. The researchers used a group of 1,628 patients with chronic kidney disease who were part of a study called the Modification of Diet in Renal Disease, which provided detailed measurements of renal function in these individuals. The mathematical formula that resulted calculates an estimated GFR (eGFR) based on a variety of factors, including age and sex. It also uses a so-called “race co-efficient,” which adjusts eGFR for Black patients based on the assumption that they have more muscle mass. While researchers developed a refined equation in 2009, race remained a factor.

In a presentation during the American Society of Nephrology’s (ASN) Kidney Week in October 2020, University of Pennsylvania nephrologist Nwamaka Eneanya said that the race co-efficient is the legacy of three small, flawed studies that were published between the 1970s and 1990s. The scientists who developed the eGFR failed to question these findings, as have researchers who refined this formula and the physicians who continue to use it, she says.

The downstream effects of such a miscalculation, Harhay suggests, aren’t academic, either. A Black patient and a White patient could have the exact same serum creatinine levels, but because of the race co-efficient, she says, the Black patient would be seen as having higher kidney function. That could mean the White patient is eligible to be listed for a transplant, while the Black patient is not.

An October 2020 study in the Journal of General Internal Medicine quantified this impact. When Salman Ahmed, a nephrologist at Brigham and Women’s Hospital, and colleagues removed the race multiplier from their eGFR calculations for 2,225 African American patients who had chronic kidney disease in one health care system, they found that one-third would be re-assigned to a more severe stage of disease. Indeed, the adjusted eGFR values would be enough to bump as many as 3.1 percent of African American patients higher up on the donor waiting list.

While some medical systems have already done away with the race co-efficient, and while the ASN and the National Kidney Foundation have formed a joint task force to review it — with a final report planned for spring 2021 — for now it remains widely used.

The inclusion of race in the formula, critics say, is one of the many reasons that Black people with kidney disease experience delays in care. Indeed, according to an analysis of data from 1990 to 2009, Black patients waited an average of 2.5 months longer than White patients for a kidney transplant. And while that gap has narrowed in more recent years, experts suggest that studies like this don’t even capture the full picture, because until 2014, time on the waitlist was measured based on when a person had formally been deemed eligible for transplant, not when their kidneys had failed. And other analyses have routinely shown that minorities wait far longer on dialysis before being referred for transplant in he first place.

In December 2014, the Organ Procurement and Transplantation Network formally changed the kidney allocation system rules to begin marking time on the waiting list not by the date a person qualified for transplant but by the date they began dialysis. A primary goal of the new rule was to reduce racial disparities in kidney transplantation, and while multiple studies have found the change did just that, a 2019 paper in the American Journal of Kidney Diseases suggested that the new rules may have created other problems.

In any event, getting on the transplant list at all still requires patients to mount numerous hurdles, as patients like White have discovered.

* * *

Looking back at his first six months on dialysis in 2009, White had to admit that he didn’t look like an ideal kidney transplant candidate. He struggled to find transportation to and from the dialysis center, and he often skipped appointments. White also found it hard to adjust to the strict dietary and fluid restrictions prescribed to him by the dietitian at the dialysis center. Then there were the handfuls of medications he had to take each day. White found it tough to afford them and to stay on top of filling his prescriptions.

“I was like the rebel in my dialysis clinic,” White said of his behavior. But beneath the surface layers of rebellion and indifference lay an intense internal struggle. White’s diagnosis of kidney failure had turned his life upside down. Although he had retired prior to his diagnosis, he was looking for work again when his kidneys failed. The physical health challenges that dialysis patients like White face often lead to mental health issues in addition to financial ones. As a result, the first few months of dialysis treatment tend to focus on stabilizing patients and helping them adjust to their new reality, whether it’s traveling to a dialysis center three times each week or dialyzing at home. In all these challenges, discussions about transplant or any type of long-term treatment often get lost, says Plantinga. “Maybe that conversation about transplant occurs, but it occurs a couple months later,” she said.

Whether or not patients bring up the topic of transplant when they start dialysis, Harhay says that dialysis providers have regulatory requirements to educate them about the potential benefits of kidney transplantation. Patients who are interested in transplant must then be evaluated at a transplant center, where numerous factors are considered in assessing their candidacy, including a patient’s overall health, how well they can follow their treatment plan for kidney disease and co-occurring conditions like diabetes and hypertension, their ability to take medications as prescribed and show up for dialysis, and their insurance coverage for everything from the transplant itself to anti-rejection medications. If a patient has a consistent record of missed dialysis treatments or chooses not to take their medications, Harhay says, transplant physicians are likely to worry about their ability to take care of their transplanted organ, because post-transplant, missing medications can lead to organ rejection.

Transplant nephrologist Dr. Meera Harhay says adequate support for patients is critical. “You can imagine why these challenges would be that much more overwhelming if a patient’s support system or financial resources were limited,” she wrote.

There are “subjective pieces that are really hard to measure. They make decisions about who’s a good candidate, which tends to happen behind closed doors,” Plantinga said.

In Harhay’s experience, patients with fewer financial resources certainly have larger hurdles to overcome when trying to achieve optimal health care, she says. “To ‘comply’ with dialysis treatment means attending all treatments (usually at least three, four-hour treatments per week), restricting fluid intake, avoiding certain foods, and taking a lot of medications,” Harhay explained in a follow-up email. Similarly, to “comply” with transplant means being able to attend regular clinic appointments and take medications, some of which have bothersome side effects or require high out-of-pocket costs, even with insurance coverage.

“You can imagine why these challenges would be that much more overwhelming if a patient’s support system or financial resources were limited,” Harhay wrote, adding that when her patients are provided with adequate support, they do well.

A report from the Transit Cooperative Research Program shows that lack of reliable transportation to and from dialysis clinics is a major problem for patients. Researchers from Fresenius Medical Care, one of the country’s two leading dialysis providers, found that patients who missed dialysis appointments were more likely to be non-White, according to a 2014 study in the Journal of the American Society of Nephrology. Adherence to diet and medication regimes also vary by race, and studies suggest that non-White kidney failure patients have greater difficulties in these areas. Research also shows that low rates of health literacy disproportionately affect those in lower socioeconomic brackets and non-Whites, which a Clinical Nephrology paper showed can impact crucial measurements of kidney disease management.

While Harhay says she doesn’t know the role implicit bias plays in assessing transplant candidates, a 2018 study by Plantinga and others showed little awareness among nurse managers and other providers about racial and ethnic disparities in transplant waitlisting, especially those in the U.S. South and among White employees. A 2015 focus group study by McAdams-DeMarco found that Black patients reported concerns about medication, fear of organ rejection, and a lack of information about transplantation. A separate study that same year, led by Melissa Wachterman at Brigham and Women’s Hospital in Boston, found that misconceptions about the risk of transplantation and concerns about the quality of donor kidneys appeared to temper many Black dialysis patients’ enthusiasm for transplant.

What White heard were the horror stories from his fellow patients, about transplants that had failed, and people who had died. It didn’t sound any better than being on dialysis, which gave him little motivation to change. White says he struggled to come to grips with his kidney failure diagnosis for about six months, and it wasn’t until the clinicians at the dialysis clinic and his wife sat him down in April 2010 for a chat that he was able to grasp what his kidney failure diagnosis meant. The social worker provided him with the information necessary to apply for disability and get hooked up with public transit assistance and the local food pantry. From then on, White went to dialysis three times a week, took his medication religiously, and made an effort to stay within limits of sodium, potassium, phosphorous, and water in his diet.

“I learned the more effort that I put into creating a better life for myself, the more it actually comes true,” White said.

As White’s mental and physical health improved, he began to chafe at the restrictions dialysis placed on his life. Having switched to nighttime dialysis, he found it difficult to sleep and thought “there’s gotta be a better way.” In 2011, two years after his kidneys had failed, White asked his social worker about getting a transplant. But when he called the first transplant clinic on his list (White declined to say which one), the very first thing the receptionist said was that they wouldn’t see him unless he could prove that he could pay for the transplant. While White acknowledges all clinics want to make sure patients can afford the procedure and follow-up care, he was put off by the tone of the response he got. A 2018 analysis of more than 3,200 dialysis patients in Chicago published in Clinical Transplantation revealed that Black end-stage renal disease patients were one-third less likely to be placed on the transplant waitlist than White patients. In a 2015 study, scientists from the University of Illinois at Chicago found that White men have twice the chances of completing an evaluation for a kidney transplant than Black men.

Because he lives in a suburb of Washington, D.C. White could find three other hospitals with transplant programs, something not available to those living in more rural areas. Since White doesn’t have a car, he relied on public transit not only to get to and from dialysis but also to attend the countless medical appointments needed to qualify for a transplant. It’s a dizzying process that even well-resourced, health literate people can struggle with, says Amy Waterman, a transplant educator at the University of California, Los Angeles.

“The key is where is it breaking down for someone who would love to get a kidney transplant but never knows about it, is scared of it, didn’t make it through all the evaluation process, didn’t have a car to get to the transplant center to get evaluated, got ruled out for something that they could have changed, but never changed it,” Waterman said.

David White says that during his first six months on dialysis, he was not the ideal transplant candidate, often skipping appointments. “I was like the rebel in my dialysis clinic.”

White was able to change his behavior and stick to a regular schedule of dialysis and medication, and a strict diet. But even then, he had another hoop to jump through before getting a kidney.

Simply referring a patient to transplant may not be enough to ensure that someone gets the medical care that they need. Other barriers exist, too. Spanish speakers may find other problems with transplant referrals, such as receptionists who don’t speak the language or no translators available at appointments, says Cervantes.

Once they begin the transplant process, patients must not only qualify medically for a transplant, they must also qualify financially. Callender calls this the “green screen.” The purpose of the screening is simple, he says. To prevent their bodies from rejecting their new organs, transplant recipients have to take daily immunosuppressant medications. They also need to cover the cost of associated appointments and expenses that insurance doesn’t. With demand for organs far outstripping the supply (in the U.S., nearly 92,000 people are currently waiting for a kidney), transplant clinics don’t want to give an organ to someone at high risk of losing it because they can’t afford medication.

After overcoming so many obstacles, White knew he had to find a way to get the dental work he needed prior to his transplant done. Keeping him on dialysis would cost Medicare an estimated $90,000 each year for the rest of his life, but if White couldn’t afford to pay $1,500 to $2,000 to have his teeth fixed, a transplant would be out of the question. On a Friday evening in 2014, White saw a segment on the news about a Catholic charity providing free care in nearby Columbia, Maryland. He paid nearly $400 to rent a car and drove to Columbia the next day.

To Callender, the ability to break down these barriers is much of what drew him to medicine more than a half century ago. Born in New York City in 1936, Callender became interested in medicine as a child, when he heard a sermon about caring for bodies as well as souls. Hospitalized for 18 months as a teenager for tuberculosis treatment, Callender spent his time reading the Merck Manual — a medical textbook — from cover to cover. After graduating from medical school, Callender pursued surgery. Following a residency at Howard University, he then moved to Nigeria to fulfill his dream of becoming a medical missionary. While there, however, he lost 40 pounds and decided to return to the United States. He ultimately completed a transplant surgery fellowship at the University of Minnesota before returning to Howard University, where he’s been ever since.

Callender had lived and breathed health disparities over his multi-decade career, but one of the issues that stuck with him was how few Black individuals signed up to be kidney donors.

In a pilot study funded by a $500 grant from Howard University Hospital, he and colleagues conducted interviews with 40 Black men and women and found that many participants lacked awareness of the need for organs by Black patients. Many of those interviewed also had religious concerns about donating, even after death. By providing education and answering questions, Callender found he could get most people to sign up by the end of the interview process.

Drawing on the information gathered during this initial study, in 1982, Howard University Hospital and the National Kidney Foundation created the District of Columbia Organ Donor Project (DCODP). In just seven years, the DCODP had increased the signing of donor cards by the city’s Black residents from 25 per month to more than 750.

With funding from the Dow Chemical Company, Callender took his program on the road, speaking about the need for Black organ donors in cities across the country. Callender’s efforts had helped transform the racial and ethnic landscape of kidney donation. Between 1990 and 2008, the proportion of deceased donor organs that came from minorities increased from about 18 percent to 33 percent, and the number of organs donated by African Americans nearly quadrupled. By 2010, according to a study by Callender, organ donation rates by Black Americans exceeded that of White Americans, where they have remained. In 2020, data from the Organ Procurement and Transplantation Network through the month of October showed that nearly 16 percent of deceased organ donors were African American, whereas they comprise only 13.4 percent of the population.

“What we’ve seen is something that is also miraculous in that ethnic group that people said would not donate has actually become the number one donor ethnic group in the United States of America,” Callender said.

Dr. Clive Callender founded the Howard University Hospital Transplant Center in Washington, D.C. in 1973. Due in part to his efforts, organ donation rates by Black Americans have increased in recent years.

Despite such changes in organ donation, Black patients on dialysis are still far less likely than White patients to receive a living donor kidney. Some of that is due to the nature of the social networks from which people try to find donors. Given the country’s stark racial divides, Americans tend to have more friends from a similar racial and ethnic background. Black patients, then, tend to reach out to fellow Black family and friends. The higher burden of kidney disease in that population, Waterman says, along with co-occurring conditions such as hypertension, diabetes, and obesity, makes it harder for acquaintances to qualify to become living donors. Then add on other burdens, such as difficulty taking time off work, paying lost wages, and concerns about medical and life insurance, and it’s not surprising that the disparity exists, she concludes.

A lower number of minority living kidney donors also creates its own disincentive as people thinking about donating don’t see kidney donation as an activity done by people who look like them. It’s why Waterman developed a campaign to share stories of people from all walks of life who have acted as living kidney donors. Potential donors need to be able to put themselves in the shoes not just of those who need a transplant, but of those who are willing to help.

“It just needs to be normal. You can donate blood, right? You can donate a kidney,” Waterman said.

In June 2015, after nearly six years on dialysis, White got the call he was waiting for. The George Washington University transplant center had a kidney for him. It took 10 days for his kidney to start functioning after the transplant. He didn’t realize he had regained the ability to produce urine until it began leaking out of his catheter.

“It was impossible to measure but it was impossible not to smell, and that was a pretty good smell, all things considered,” he said. “I hadn’t made urine in almost six years, so I didn’t mind the smell one bit.”

Meanwhile, when Gee finally received a deceased donor kidney in April 2017, he was so grateful for his gift that he has since devoted his life to advocating for the Black kidney disease community. Besides educating the public on end-stage renal disease, he also speaks to hospitals and governments about policy and the realities of life with kidney disease. Gee’s new goal is to live long enough to see his youngest grandchild (currently just over 1 year old) graduate from high school.

“My worst day with a transplant,” he said, “is better than my best day on dialysis.”

This story was produced in partnership with Scientific American.

* * *

This series was supported in part by the National Institute for Health Care Management Foundation.

Carrie Arnold is an award-winning freelance science journalist based in Virginia. In addition to Undark, her work has appeared with Scientific American, STAT, National Geographic, Wired, and The New York Times, among other publications.

Larry C. Price is a two-time Pulitzer Prize-winning documentary photographer and multimedia journalist based in Dayton, Ohio. He previously produced award-winning photography and video footage for Undark’s Breathtaking series on air pollution, which won a George Polk Award for Environmental Reporting in 2018.

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

Giada De Laurentiis’ creamy baked pasta is the ultimate comfort food

We’re not food snobs around these parts —Kraft mac and cheese in a box (or, let’s be real, the Target brand) is a regular staple, and we always have some in the pantry. But we also acknowledge that sometimes easiest isn’t always best, and when we’re really craving cozy comfort food, we like to make cheesy pasta dishes from scratch. Well, okay, not the pasta itself, but the cheese part just tastes so much better when it’s made with actual cheese than with powder from a packet. One of our recent cheesy pasta obsessions? This creamy baked Parmesan pasta from Giada De Laurentiis. It tastes totally gourmet, but what no one eating it would know is that it actually only takes 15 minutes of prep time to throw together.

The recipe calls for par-cooked medium shell pasta, which we love — it’s one of the best shapes for scooping up creamy sauces. And the sauce itself is everything our comfort food dreams are made of. It starts by making a roux of butter and flour in a large braising dish (one that can go from stovetop to oven, like this Le Creuset dish on Amazon), then has milk and cream added. Next, grated Parmesan (two full cups of nutty, funky Parm, which adds a TON of flavor) and grated Provolone are stirred into the cream sauce until it all becomes smooth and melty.

Fold in your pasta, and some broccoli florets for a bit of green (we also think this would be great with some tomatoes stirred in for a pop of acid), then scatter a panko breadcrumb and grated Parm mixture on top.

The whole dish is placed right in the oven, where it bakes until bubbly, melted, and golden brown on top.

It’s totally the type of creamy, dreamy comfort food that kids and adults will both love. The pasta and cheese sauce are familiar enough for the little ones, while the bold flavors of Parmesan and Provolone elevate the meal to the next level.

It’s also a pretty flexible recipe. If shells aren’t your thing, swap them out for a different pasta shape; if broccoli is a no in your household, just add another green veggie instead. You could also add chicken, sausage, or their vegetarian counterparts to add more protein.

Any way you make it, you’ll have a warm and hearty dinner on the table in just over an hour, and it only takes 15 minutes of hands-on time to boot. That’s a weeknight win for us.

Read more SheKnows:

  1. Giada De Laurentiis is the Queen of Pasta & These Are Her Best Recipes
  2. Ina Garten Just Shared Her Homemade Vanilla Recipe & It’s Astonishingly Easy
  3. Costco Is Selling Marshmallow Hot Cocoa Toppers & They’re the Perfect Cold-Weather Treat

“Ma Rainey’s Black Bottom”: Chadwick Boseman’s finale performance is stunning

How strange and wonderful it is to notice that even though Viola Davis’ true face is hidden under a layered cake of makeup and gleam in Netflix‘s “Ma Rainey’s Black Bottom,” her co-star Chadwick Boseman is equally unrecognizable at first. In the late actor’s final performance for the screen – he succumbed to cancer last summer at the age of 43 – everything we have come to associate with him disappears inside Levee, a gifted trumpeter demanding recognition in a world that would have him scrape for leftovers.

Levee is ravenous for fame, but every stage he shares with Ma Rainey is by her grace; every recording session is an extension of her queendom. Levee and the rest of the band are there to back her up, although she might say their job is to stay out of her way. Davis’ Ma is a hurricane commanding the center of attention. She takes up space and makes demands, the very definition of what lesser men would call difficult.

She knows how the world works. The bulk of the play’s action takes place in a Chicago recording studio where two white men are intent upon pressing a record of her song, and a session that should be captured in a single take drags on for hours.

But this is how Ma takes care of herself and her own.

The black bottom is a dance that white flappers appropriated from Black Southerners in the 1920s. This makes “Ma Rainey’s Black Bottom” a double entendre; it’s about the dance, but it’s also about the singer’s flesh and the plans white people have to erase her skin and soul from the subsequent products they’ll derive from her toil.

“All the boys in the neighborhood/They say your black bottom is really good/
Come on and show me your black bottom/I wanna learn that dance,” the lyrics tease.

Appropriation is the rule of the music market, as it would be for decades, as it is today. Ma knows that when the recording session is over the white people who run the recording industry will take whatever she gives them, toss her and the band a pittance for their time and make thousands more from ripping off their work.

Her bandmembers Toledo (Glynn Turman), Cutler (Colman Domingo) and Slow Drag (Michael Potts) know that too. They weather Ma’s moods with a seen-it-all patience, understanding that when she gets her way everyone gets paid. If she refuses to sing before she has that bottle of cold cola her manager promised to provide as part of the deal, so be it. They will suffer her before they write her off with a $25 goodbye.

In August Wilson’s portrait of the blues singer, Ma’s stubbornness isn’t some easily uprooted weed with roots freely swimming in liquid ego, but a vine that wills its way between bricks, hangs on and proliferates. It is attuned to the promise and toil inherent to the Great Migration, which director George C. Wolfe visually acknowledges through illusory still frames, brought to life by occupants through a smile or small movements.

Under Wolfe’s direction Davis seizes that natural force, filling the close space with the character’s heat and sweat. Cinematographer Tobias Schliessler’s camera accentuates the dankness of these surroundings, lighting even the sunnier rooms to produce an aura of drag. Nevertheless, Wolfe never downgrades Wilson’s language to a secondary character, which would be unwise.

He and writer Ruben Santiago-Hudson teamed up before for “Lackawanna Blues,” and in the same way that Santiago-Hudson shapes Wilson’s script with a light touch, Wolfe maintains the play’s integrity while using cinematic technique to heighten the stagecraft Wilson carefully employs in his pieces. Branford Marsalis’s stirring score further emphasizes this sense of place.

Wilson’s work offers actors a chance to dance with his signature dialect, the foundation of his work. The best interpreters of his work don’t “act” through the seemingly easy vernacular written throughout his dialogue but tap into it and let it flow through them, as if comprehending that the man wrote with some combination of ink and soil.

For any actor bringing his work to the screen the challenge is to find a middle way between the force Wilson imbued into his work ensuring its potency radiated all the way to the back row and the intimacy the camera affords. Denzel Washington (one of “Ma Rainey’s” producers) achieves this in the cinematic adaptation of “Fences,” as does Davis, although by plugging into another type of power.

Ma’s makeup is always runny, but it is Davis’ magma boil of a performance that ensures the black shadow cloaking her eyelids never had a chance to quietly stay in place. She makes her character a being composed of sensuality, ire and perspiration. Like Ma demanded in her time, Davis claims every scene in which she’s centered without dimming her performances of her co-stars. As if that were possible.

Turman is granite solid whenever the camera settles down on him, meeting Davis’ might with a forbearance descended from years of living under Jim Crow, giving us a Toledo who is fair-natured but sublimating a keen disappointment about the world. In a metaphor-laden speech explaining the lot of Black people in America he vacillates from wonder to sorrow in the space of a few beats, and his expressiveness stretches the moment into years. This grace is a generous partner to Boseman’s sharpness.

What we witness here is Boseman becoming not merely Levee, a man, a trumpeter craving renown and respect, but the very essence of starved volition. As Levee he drinks in the world with his eyes, speaks through a crooked grin stretching his lips across his teeth. In a monologue that should win him an Oscar if Academy voters use their eyes and common sense, his Levee recounts a nightmarish crime that left him scarred, burning up the oxygen it the closed space where he and the rest of the band wait as he does so.

Across the film’s 94 minutes Boseman transforms Levee from a man hurtling into the midst of contentious conversation into someone tangling in on himself until inevitably, his parched pridefulness consumes him.

People watching Boseman’s Levee may be tempted to view its excellence as something driven by a recognition of his looming mortality, but I don’t think that’s right. Nobody can truly know if that played a role in its ferocity; more to the point, that qualifies the abilities of a man possessing talent the extent of which we’ll never know. That we get a view into what could have been, if we had more years, if he had more time, is enough. What a farewell performance it is, and what a way to seal a legacy, ensuring that both he and Wilson will live vibrantly in culture and memory for years to come.

“Ma Rainey’s Black Bottom” is currently streaming on Netflix.