Spring Sale: Get 1 Year, Save 58%

J.Crew president-turned-“Stylish” star Jenna Lyons offers advice on reinventing yourself: “Be open”

What’s someone like style icon Jenna Lyons, who spent over 20 years at J.Crew and worked her way up to president of the company, to do after such an impressive tenure? Start a design brand, of course. I spoke with Lyons this week on “Salon Talks,” where she shared her favorite Christmas gifts for 2020, some of the pains and joys of reinvention, and how she sourced the diverse young talent featured in her new HBO Max original series “Stylish with Jenna Lyons.”

Lyons, who left J. Crew in 2017, says she found the process of sorting out where she would land next freeing, if scary, but took all different kinds of meetings, even if they weren’t directly related to her area of expertise. When she was asked to design a couch series for a company in upstate New York, she took the meeting. “I don’t know?” she laughed. A meeting with a TV executive a few years ago has actualized into “Stylish,” which is part documentary, part competition revolving around the practice of mentoring younger stylists, designers and creatives who are vying for a coveted spot on Lyons’ design team. The rest is meant to look verite, with Lyons candidly sharing her ups and downs as a newly minted business owner.

After struggling as a young person who was tall, awkward, and beset by a genetic disorder that altered her appearance, Lyons found a kindred home in fashion and design, where her six-foot height was an asset. First she learned to draw, then sew. The clothes she made allowed her to disappear into the silhouettes, and after college, she started at J. Crew. Fast forward to 2020, where she’s redesigning home interiors, advising entrepreneurs in the design space, and actively involved in marketing lifestyle products new to market. It’s clear that Lyons has found her footing anew. Watch my “Salon Talks” episode with Lyons below or read a Q&A of our conversation.

The following interview has been lightly edited for clarity and length

Thank you for coming, Jenna. Well, thank you for coming to my attic on Zoom. I’ve done a number of interviews, in semi-quarantine or wherever in the process we are at this point, and it’s so interesting to me because people are doing interviews from their closets or their basements. Folks have gotten really creative with it.
At this point, I just go where the light is. The light’s better in my bathroom during some parts of the day.

Where do you sit in the bathroom?
I kind of have a big bathroom. There’s a window right over my tub, and so I just put a chair right in front of it and the light streams in and it’s actually quite nice. The only problem is it’s a lot of marble, so it echoes a little.

It’s also customary now for me to ask people if they’re wearing pants. 
Most of the time I’m not. I’m wearing sweatpants.

I love it. So this is a little bit of a strange way to get into talking about style and your new HBO Max show, “Stylish with Jenna Lyons,” and your expertise in fashion, but I have to ask, have you finished your Christmas shopping, and in pandemic times, how did you do it?
I had a little bit of help because the final episode of the show was always designed to be a pop-up shop. We’ve had the pop-up shop live on Instagram for about two weeks since the show launched and I basically did 80% of my shopping at the pop-up shop. It was great because it’s all things I love, it was all things I’d already picked. So I was like, “Well, I want this so maybe someone else would want it.”

That’s great. Do you have a big list?
I don’t really have that many friends, so it wasn’t so bad.

First of all, I can’t imagine that’s true. It has been such a rough year for so many. What kind of gifts do you think are appropriate this year and what makes for the best and most thoughtful things?
I’ve been focusing mostly on things that people can use in their home because that’s where people are. I’m a huge fan of candles, whether they’re candlelight or scented candles. I think it’s such an easy thing to give as a gift. It may not be the most exciting thing but it was the thing that we sold the quickest. We had a bunch of vintage candlesticks that were just with taper candles. And then all of the scented candles, they were one of the biggest things that people were looking for, which I get. I think I’ve also been, I don’t know, trying to do things that would make somebody look a little better or feel like they look better at home. I don’t know.

Nice. What are some examples of that?
There’s a woman who makes clothes called Suzie Kondi and she made this gorgeous, cozy cashmere sweater, which is a splurge for sure. But she also just came out with this new line of velour sweatpants, which I was the receiver of one the other day and I’m totally into them. It’s like the old school Juicy Couture. You remember when that craze came?

Oh, my God, yes.
It’s got a totally different cut. The colors are sort of a little bit more modern, and I feel cute in it.

But like Juicy, do they make your a** look good?
I don’t know if anything could make my a** look good.

Oh, come on, stop being so modest. You have no friends, you’re a** doesn’t look good . . . 
It really doesn’t.

If I could swivel this screen, you would see that I’m sitting next to my a** builder — my Peloton bike.
You bought one?

I did get one at the beginning of pandemic. But disclosure, I’m a spin instructor on the side. I love to teach people. I just said to my husband, I’m like, “I have to get this fricking thing. I understand it feels culty, but it’s the best.”
I’m so impressed. That’s so cool. Literally I just started doing Zoom call workouts a couple of months ago. And it was only because I saw a picture of myself from the back, mainly on the show and I was like, “Wow, wow. My backside resembles a rectangle. I have a hotline to the editor, I’m like, “Listen, I will . . .”

Cut those back shots out! Good for you for the Zoom workouts. So the show, let’s talk about it. “Stylish with Jenna Lyons” is part documentary with some really entertaining graphic asides. I liked them a lot.
We really worked hard on that.

Did you write the scripts for those?
It’s amazing you don’t realize how much your own personal voice is connected to things. They would write things at the beginning and I was like, “No, that would not make any sense.” And so yes, we’ve spent a lot of time really touching all of the graphics and really trying to make the words make sense with what was up on the screen.

And part of the show is competition and it appears to have been shot pre pandemic. Is that correct to assume?
The first seven episodes [were], and then the final episode we filmed in the middle of the pandemic. When we were in the pandemic we had a very tight crew because there was only a certain number of people that were allowed on set and we also kept the set very closed. So only the people that needed to be on set were allowed, and in a lot of ways it was better. It was more intimate. There were less mess ups and somebody dropping something or coughing and us having to start over again. And it just felt more, I don’t know, intimate. So I think it’s going to definitely impact the way that we would move forward if HBO Max wants us back.

Was styling homes something that was completely new to you?
It wasn’t new to me in the sense that I’ve done so many stores and I’ve done renovations on my own and have had them photographed. And I feel comfortable. I had never done it for another person, but I knew that I would only do it if the person would let me do whatever I wanted.

I want to get into the themes that we see a lot in “Stylish”: reinvention, creativity, and really courage, and the courage, in fact, to reinvent oneself. How did they become the hallmarks of your show and what did you hope to gain by documenting your experience as sort of a newly minted entrepreneur having left J. Crew?
I mean, it wasn’t calculated. Honestly, the whole thing kind of happened, I don’t want to say by accident, but it just sort of happened. I didn’t have a job. I was not sure what I was going to do. Someone asked if I wanted to do TV, and I said no. And then he said, “Well, let’s just talk.” And then he’s like, “Can I just put you in front of a network executive?” And then I had a really nice conversation with them. And then all of a sudden we were doing this show and it sort of evolved on its own. I mean, I think we wanted it to feel authentic. 

We wanted it to not feel so reality. We wanted it to feel warm and inviting for people and also not intimidating. We wanted people to have a takeaway where they were actually going to learn something and maybe come away with some tips that could actually help them in the process. And so, yeah, I wish I could say it was really strategic and we set out to do X, Y, and Z, and we accomplished it. But it really wasn’t like that. It was really an evolutionary process, which, like I said, now that I know, I’ve seen also the feedback, I understand what people are responding to and what we could do better.

Exactly, learning comes in what you can improve. Part of the show revolves around this practice of mentoring younger stylists and designers and creatives. Was that a big part of your experience earlier in your career, and then later as management at J. Crew? And if I could ask who was your greatest mentor?
I think I have two that stand out to me. One is Mickey Drexler, who I learned a tremendous amount from and will always have the utmost respect and regard for. And Scott Formby, who was the other person who was really my first boss and I think really taught me how to see in a different way and also how to find my voice, which I had not done and came into the company very shy and not sure of myself. Both of them gave me a lot of learnings mostly about confidence, honestly, and how important that is and how sticking to your word and understanding your voices. And I think it’s also nice, one of the things I loved about working with Mickey especially towards the end, is that he invited everyone to the table.

It wasn’t just the senior management that he was getting information from. He wanted to hear from everyone. He wanted to know what everyone in the company thought about X thing, whether it was an item of clothing or where we should put our next store. I think he was good at really bringing people to the table and making sure that the voices were varied that were at the table. And that is important. You know, I’m a 52-year-old white woman. I have the experience that I have. I shouldn’t be speaking for everyone. I need people at the table to give me information and feedback and guidance so that I can talk to an audience wider than just myself. And that’s super important. I believe in having people who have something different to say. That’s amazing and that’s where collaboration really happens.

You certainly see a manifestation of that philosophy by the younger creatives that you chose to appear in the show. What was the casting process like?
We talked a lot about diversity and representation. It was important mostly because I think I wanted anyone who watched the show to feel like they would have a chance. We talked a lot about it and it was important. It was hard because I was casting for people I could potentially hire. And of course the network was like, “Well, is this person good TV?” And I’m like, “I don’t know. I don’t know.” But I can look at this person’s resume and say, “Oh, I really want to meet this person and this person sounds really interesting.” And so, yeah, it was very considered, it was intentional, and I feel great. The team was incredible.
    
You spoke about confidence. A lot of people are seeking a fresh start in their careers and lives, especially now with the pandemic. You’ve done reinvention at many steps of your career and probably other areas of your life as well. What are your top three tenets of successful reinvention?
I think the most important thing is I didn’t have a preconceived idea. I was actually not getting calls in the industry that I knew and so it did make me much more open. And I think I took calls and did have conversations I never would have had. So just be open. You never know where something is going to lead. I had calls with people who . . . I mean, one call was some random person is like, “Do you want to design a line of furniture out of Rochester, New York?” I’m like, “I don’t know. That sounds like fun.” I went to the lunch and now I’m doing a hotel in the Bahamas because it led to something else. So I think just being open and listening and seeing. I wasn’t before. I really thought I knew it all, thought I know exactly where I was going to end up and the kind of job I was going to have. And it just didn’t happen at all. That’s the biggest one.

“Stylish With Jenna Lyons” is streaming on HBO Max.

Who’s Jennifer Granholm, Biden’s pick for energy secretary?

Throughout the Demoratic primaries and the run-up to the presidential election, one of Joe Biden’s most consistent climate pitches was his plan to own the electric vehicle market and build 500,000 charging stations across the country. Now, with President-elect Biden’s expected pick of former Michigan Governor Jennifer Granholm to lead the Department of Energy, he’s making a down payment on that goal.

The Energy Department is a key funder of battery technology research and will likely play an important role helping the country drop gas-powered cars for electric ones under the Biden administration. The former governor of Michigan knows the auto industry intimately and is a longtime champion of making the United States a hub for electric vehicle manufacturing. During her eight years in office, she worked with the Obama administration on the auto industry’s 2009 bailout and expanded incentives for carmakers to develop and manufacture batteries for electric vehicles. Those measures helped to push U.S. automakers like General Motors and Ford to get into the electric vehicle market.

“Granholm’s deep knowledge of the auto industry will be just what America needs as we begin building these clean trucks, buses and cars of the future,” said Fred Krupp, president of the Environmental Defense Fund, in a statement.

Biden’s climate-focused cabinet has come into focus this week with a flurry of new appointments. On Tuesday, he tapped Pete Buttigieg, former mayor of South Bend, Indiana to run the Department of Transportation and former Environmental Protection Agency administrator Gina McCarthy to be his domestic “Climate Czar,” running counterpoint to John Kerry, who will oversee climate policy abroad. He has yet to name his pick for EPA administrator or Interior Department, though Representative Debra Haaland from New Mexico, is a likely contender for the latter role.

Granholm’s green bonafides go beyond cars. As governor, she also backed tax credits and incentives for wind and solar, and signed legislation requiring Michigan to get 10 percent of its energy from renewable sources. (Reflecting on that bill years later, Granholm reportedly said she had hoped for a more ambitious goal, but that it was the best she could do without more support from the state legislature.)

Granholm will have her work cut out for her. The Energy Department is expected to go through a dramatic transformation under the Biden administration. Today, two-thirds of the agency’s budget is dedicated to nuclear security. But its new mandate will likely include guiding the country to Biden’s goal of getting the electrical grid running on 100 percent clean energy by 2035, including funding new research and setting electricity policies.

“The Department of Energy needs to reorient its research and development agenda to find groundbreaking climate solutions and get them used widely,” said Steven Nadel, the executive director of the American Council for an Energy-Efficient Economy, in a statement. Nadel called for updating standards for appliances — the Trump administration has demolished energy efficiency standards for everything from lightbulbs to showerheads — and requiring buildings to be more energy efficient. “I’m confident that Jennifer Granholm can realize this agenda and much more, and that the White House will support her every step of the way. Time is of the essence.”

Granholm also has experience in another one of Biden’s core climate and energy objectives: job creation. Green New Deal supporters will be happy to learn that as governor of Michigan, Granholm fought for green jobs and created a successful “No Worker Left Behind” training program for displaced manufacturing workers.

“Granholm has a long history supporting a just transition to a renewable energy economy,” said Natalie Mebane, 350.org associate director of policy, in a statement.

Jamie Oliver’s apple crumble and custard is the perfect comfort food dessert

We all have different ways of seeking comfort, but our personal favorite will always be to indulge in a soul-warming meal. Comfort food comes in various different forms and looks different for everyone. Most of our favorite chefs can relate. One even blessed us with an entire cookbook on Comfort Food (Shoutout to our queen Ina Garten)! And now, Jamie Oliver‘s latest dessert is the perfect way to end our day: Apple Crumble and Custard. It’s a spoonful of sugar and comfort all in one bite.

“I think we all need a bit of extra comfort right now and that to me is a big ol’ serving of apple crumble and custard. This is the humblest crumble ever…so homely, so simple and so delicious!” wrote the British chef.

If there’s one thing we know about Oliver, is that he always delivers incredibly easy-to-follow, delicious recipes. Being that we raved for days about his most recent apple concoction, we know this dessert will be divine.

You’ll begin by peeling and coring apples, before continuing to chop them into 3cm chunks. Then, place your apple chunks into a saucepan with 100g of sugar and a few fine gratings of lemon zest. The apples will be cooked until they have noticeably softened.

In the meantime, cube the butter and add to a mixing bowl with flour. Using your fingertips, you’ll rub the mix together until it resembles breadcrumbs For added texture, you’ll scrunch in the remaining sugar.

Once the apples have cooked, place them onto a baking dish and sprinkle over your crumble topping. Finally, bake your dish until it’s golden and serve with vanilla custard.

You can get Jamie Oliver’s Classic Apple Crumble recipe here. We recommend eating your delicious dessert while watching a movie in your favorite cozy PJs for maximum comfort. Enjoy!

Read more SheKnows:

  1. The Best Ina Garten-Approved Kitchen Gifts for Foodies
  2. 17 Holiday Main Courses You Can Make Right in Your Slow Cooker
  3. Don’t Miss These Incredible Ina Garten Holiday Recipes & Gift Ideas

In private, McConnell is trying to convince Republicans to give up on Trump’s election challenge

Although the Electoral College confirmed on Monday that President-elect Joe Biden won 306 electoral votes in the 2020 presidential election, some allies of President Donald Trump are hoping that Republicans in Congress will refuse to acknowledge Biden’s victory during the Jan. 6 joint session. But according to Axios’ Alayna Treene and Politico’s Jake Sherman, Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell is urging fellow Republicans in the U.S. Senate to accept Biden’s certification that day.

On Tuesday, Sherman tweeted that McConnell, Sen. Roy Blunt of Missouri and Senate Majority Whip John Thune, “all pleaded with Senate Rs to NOT object to the election results Jan. 6” during a phone conversation:

Treene, in response to Sherman’s tweet, confirmed his reporting:

In an article published by Axios on Tuesday afternoon after those tweets, Treene explained, “Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell and his leadership team urged fellow Republicans on a conference call today not to participate in any efforts to object to certifying Joe Biden’s presidential election win in the January 6 joint session, two sources on the call tell Axios.”

According to Treene, “This is about politics as much as about doing the right thing. Strategists are concerned any public vote could hurt GOP incumbents up for reelection in 2022…. ‘McConnell said ‘there’s zero sentiment’ for an objection, according to sources.”

Thune, Treene reports, told fellow Republicans, “It would be great if there were no members that took up that issue.”

Tuesday on the Senate floor, McConnell finally acknowledged Biden as “president-elect” and Sen. Kamala Harris as vice president-elect and congratulated them on their victories.

Several House Republicans are committed to challenging the results of the election on Jan. 6 when Congress counts slates of electors. For a challenge to succeed, a senator must join in. But even with a congressperson and a senator, the challenge proceeds to deliberations by both the House and the Senate chambers, both of which are nearly guaranteed to reject any chance to overturn Biden’s win. So while the hard-core Trump supporters want to create chaos to show their loyalty to the president, the likely result of any challenge is likely to just be more embarrassment and discord in the GOP.

The mysterious origins of grandma’s mushroom puffs

Big Little Recipe has the smallest-possible ingredient list and big everything else: flavor, creativity, wow factor. That means five ingredients or fewer — not including water, salt, black pepper, and certain fats (like oil and butter), since we’re guessing you have those covered. This week, we’re baking up a family favorite.

* * *

When I asked my grandma when she started making her family-famous mushroom puffs, she started counting backward by husbands. In total, there were three, all of whom have been dead for years. She didn’t make them for Jerry and probably not Bob, but definitely Arnie, which shakes out to (give or take) 30 years.

Grandma knows she stumbled on the recipe in a magazine and first tried it as a Thanksgiving appetizer. But the publication, let alone the year and issue, are long gone: “No idea!”

Still, this fact, that the recipe came from somewhere, means that as it traveled to her home in New Jersey, it also ventured to many other homes in many other states, where toddlers like myself ate mushroom puffs by the fistful and eventually had trouble recognizing a family gathering without them.

There is comfort in knowing that a tradition is as unique as it is universal — that this recipe is just as cherished by people I’ve never met.

If I Google “mushroom puffs,” one of the top results is a doppelganger of my mom’s scribbled recipe card. The photo is uncanny. Every ingredient is the same. Even some of the instructions.

Except for one. Grandma included the lemon juice (a measly half-teaspoon, barely a squeeze) for years. Eventually, though, she ditched it. “Supposedly lemon juice brings out the flavor in something. But these have enough flavor without it.”

Indeed, mushroom puffs are just what they sound like: a shattering bite of puff pastry, giving way to a filling that can only be described as cream of mushroom soup-but-not-soup. It’s suspiciously simple — just diced mushroom and onion, sauteed in a lot of butter, thickened with flour, simmered with cream — and impossible to eat just one.

Because I write and edit recipes for a living, I couldn’t help but change a couple things. (“You better not!” Grandma warned. But I hope she’ll forgive me.) I increased the small onion to medium for surplus savoriness. And I swapped in louder baby bellas, instead of soft-spoken buttons.

Otherwise, these are indistinguishable from the mushroom puffs that my grandma has made for Thanksgivings and Hanukkahs and Sunday suppers for decades. Who knows, maybe your grandma has too.

Grandma’s Mushroom Puffs

Prep time: 30 minutes

Cook time: 40 minutes

Makes: about 50

Ingredients

  • 1/4 cup unsalted butter
  • 1 medium (or 2 small) yellow onion, finely diced
  • 12 ounces baby bella mushrooms, finely diced (stems included!)
  • 2 tablespoons all-purpose flour
  • 1/2 cup heavy cream
  • Kosher salt and freshly ground black pepper
  • 1 (17.3-oz / 490-gram) package puff pastry, thawed but still cold

Directions

  1. Heat the oven to 400°F. 
  2. Melt the butter over medium heat, then sauté the mushrooms and onions, stirring occasionally, until all the liquid evaporates, about 8 minutes. 
  3. Generously sprinkle with salt and pepper. Add the flour and cook for 30 seconds to 1 minute, stirring constantly, to get rid of the raw flour taste. 
  4. Add the cream and simmer, stirring often, until thickened, 1 to 3 minutes. Season with salt and pepper to taste. Let cool to room temperature (spreading on a plate and popping in the fridge or freezer speeds this up).
  5. Roll each puff pastry sheet into a 10-inch square. Cut each into 2×2-inch squares (yielding about 50 total — it’s OK if they’re not perfect). Fill each with 1 teaspoon of the mushroom mixture, then bring the corners together and squeeze shut to create a bundle. Place into a mini muffin pan.
  6. Bake for 25 to 30 minutes, until golden brown. (Bake for an additional 5 minutes or so if baking from frozen.) 
  7. Serve hot, warm, or at room temperature.

From political party to conspiracy cult: How Donald Trump sped up the devolution of the GOP

It’s been happening for decades — but the transformation is now complete. 

It started with the Whitewater investigation, went through all of the Benghazi investigations, and ramped up in recent years when Republicans turned around to falsely claim that the investigation into Donald Trump’s ties with a Russian conspiracy to interfere with the 2016 election was as a “hoax,” ignoring the overwhelming evidence of rampant collusion. On Wednesday, the transformation of the GOP from a real political party to a conspiracy theory cult was finally fully completed.

Wednesday was the day Senate Republicans spent hours and a hefty chunk of taxpayer money to bolster the lie that Democrats “stole” the 2020 election, with their only evidence being the say-so of a narcissistic sociopath whose only spoken language is lying. No one, especially no Republican politician, sincerely believes that Trump was the “real” winner of the 2020 election, or that there’s any evidence whatsoever of voter fraud or election irregularities of any real importance. As Sen. Gary Peters, D.-Mich., the ranking member of the Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs Committee declared during his opening remarks, “this hearing gives a platform to conspiracy theories and lies” and ” is a grave threat to the future of our democracy.”

Of course, that is the point.

As the committee chair, Sen. Ron Johnson of Wisconsin, and his fellow Republicans understand, their party can no longer win fair elections or campaign on ideas, since the public rejects most policies the GOP stands for. So the party’s only recourse is to dish out a steady stream of conspiracy theories meant to distract from the policy debate while leveraging their power to undermine democracy. 

As the mainstream news coverage of the hearing dutifully noted, no evidence of voter fraud was presented during Wednesday’s hearing and Democrats on the committee repeatedly emphasized that Trump’s claims of “fraud” have been presented before the courts dozens of times and thrown out for lack of evidence. Indeed, anyone who actually watched the hearing or read responsible coverage of it would walk away with the impression that the Republicans were a bunch of raving madmen and the Democrats were the only people speaking any sense. 

What the Republicans running the hearing understand, however, is that their audience, the Republican base, neither watched the hearing nor consumed the mainstream media coverage of it. Instead, the purpose of the hearing is to generate footage that can be edited, often misleadingly, into clips that are fed into right-wing media sources and circulated through social media.

Evidence is not needed, nor is proof, nor convincing arguments. All that’s needed are clips of the Republican senators, looking officious in the trappings of a Senate hearing, railing about “stolen” elections and defending the honor of those who purport to believe that Joe Biden stole the election. And all those poignant and convincing rebuttals from Democrats? Those can be chopped and edited to make the Democrats look “crazy” and like they’re unleashing “unhinged” attacks on the noble Republicans. 

None of this is about keeping Trump in office.

Senate Republicans not only understand that he lost, but that his coup efforts are failing. Their crusade now is about exploiting his lies of a “rigged” election for their own political purposes. Feeding the GOP base’s victim complex and riling them up with conspiracy theories keeps them too busy obsessively hating Democrats to notice that the Republicans have run the country into the ground. Sen. Josh Hawley of Missouri showcased the strategy perfectly, with a maudlin speech about how actual evidence of a rigged election wasn’t the point, because “the constituents back at home” told him “they felt they had been disenfranchised.”

“These are normal, reasonable people. These are not crazy people,” he said. 

For someone actually watching the hearing, this is maddening. The folks Hawley is talking about are just rabid Republicans who back Trump’s coup and are willing to stand by outrageous bad faith arguments to defend their belief that certain voters — namely Black voters in big cities — simply shouldn’t have the same right vote. 

But when Hawley’s remarks about are inevitably cut into a video that removes all this context and fed into right-wing disinformation channels, all that audiences will see is Hawley defending his voters as “normal, reasonable people” who are “not crazy”. It will read as him defending the honor of conservatives against those elitist, condescending liberals who are always calling them “crazy”, instead of what actually happened, which was that Hawley said conservative “feelings” about the election matter more than the fact of who actually won. 

Similarly, Sen. Rand Paul of Kentucky declared during the hearing that the election “in many ways, was stolen.” He did not offer evidence, much less proof for this claim, which was a blatant lie. But it doesn’t matter. He knows that his statement will be cut into a video and disseminated. He doesn’t need evidence, so much as a quick clip with him looking authoritative as he offers this lie without rebuttal. 

That’s what GOP politics is all about these days. It’s not about making a policy case to voters, since Republican politicians know that will never fly. Instead, it’s about identity politics and stirring up hate, however ridiculous, against liberals. Hawley is hoping his constituents be so angry at the alleged liberals calling them “crazy” that they focus on getting their revenge by voting Republican, rather than asking hard questions about, say, why the Republican-run Senate has abandoned them to economic devastation during this pandemic. 

This is all the Republican Party is these days: A propaganda engine churning out fake “scandals” meant to send their voters down conspiracy theory rabbit holes or stir irrational right-wing grievances. Anything, really, but ever talk about actual policy or governance, which Republican politicians know is territory they will always lose on. 

That’s why Republicans have fully committed to Trump’s lies about the 2020 election. It’s not that they care one whit about Trump — I suspect many of them are glad to see him go since he’s a miserable person to be around — but because this conspiracy theory is so useful. Republicans can now focus their voters, ideally for four years, on nursing a grudge over losing an election they “should” have won, if only the votes of those meanie Democrats had been thrown in the trash. 

After all, what’s the alternative?

Republicans know they’d lose a reasonable debate about policy differences with Democrats. So this is what they’ve turned themselves into: A conspiracy theory cult that is always dashing from one mad lie to another, stirring up the base with nonsense and hoping the voters will never catch onto what a con the whole thing is. 

Ina Garten just shared her homemade vanilla recipe and it’s astonishingly easy

Why buy the world’s smallest vial of vanilla for an astronomical price when you can make a clamp-lidded storage jar-sized portion of it at home? And thanks to a special video segment for The New York Times, Ina Garten shared the recipe for just that: her homemade vanilla extract.

After giving viewers the 411 on her favorite, go-to salts and doling out her best kitchen organizing tips, Garten waltzed over to her kitchen pantry and grabbed a jar filled to the brim with her homemade vanilla. And because she’s the culinary saint she is, the Barefoot Contessa host did us all a solid and shared her astonishingly easy recipe.

“This has been going for 35 years,” Garten says of her homemade vanilla.

The “Modern Comfort Food” author continues to say that because the seeds inside the vanilla beans become liquid, you should snip off the top and squeeze the beans out.

“So, if you’re making something like a vanilla pudding or a vanilla cake, you can see the seeds in it, and it’s just so flavorful. It’s like that kind of bitter thing that’s great with something sweet,” Garten says, adding that the homemade vanilla also makes for a great Christmas gift — and we couldn’t agree more.

Our mission at SheKnows is to empower and inspire women, and we only feature products we think you’ll love as much as we do. Please note that if you purchase something by clicking on a link within this story, we may receive a small commission of the sale and the retailer may receive certain auditable data for accounting purposes.

 

Read more SheKnows:

  1. The Best Ina Garten-Approved Kitchen Gifts for Foodies
  2. 17 Holiday Main Courses You Can Make Right in Your Slow Cooker
  3. Don’t Miss These Incredible Ina Garten Holiday Recipes & Gift Ideas

Trump admin to cut $200 million in health care funding to punish California for 2014 abortion rule

The Trump administration announced plans to cut at least $200 million in health care funding to California — after President Trump leaves office — in protest over a 2014 state regulation requiring insurers to cover abortions.

Health and Human Services Secretary Alex Azar, who has proclaimed his agency is the “Department of Life,” announced the move against California during a White House event on Wednesday celebrating the administration’s “work to fight abortion.”

“Unless California amends its policies we will seek to withhold an additional $200 million every quarter until it complies,” he threatened.

Roger Severino, the anti-abortion activist who heads the Office for Civil Rights at the Department of Health and Human Services, declared ahead of January’s anti-abortion March for Life that the state regulation requiring employers and private insurance companies to cover abortion costs violates the Weldon Amendment, which protects medical providers from being forced to cover the procedure — even though the Obama administration already determined that California’s rule does not violate federal law.

On Wednesday, Severino explained that HHS will respond by withholding $200 million in federal funding for California’s Medicaid program as the state becomes the epicenter of the latest coronavirus outbreak. The funding will begin to be withheld in the first quarter of 2021 — after Trump leaves office.

“Entities that receive HHS funds should think twice before flouting federal law and refusing to come into compliance,” Severino said in a statement. “Whatever one thinks of the legality of abortion, no one should be punished for declining to pay for or assist in the taking of human life.”

HHS said it would withhold an additional $200 million for each quarter that the state does not drop its requirement even though President-elect Joe Biden, who takes office in five weeks, can reverse the decision. Severino told reporters on Wednesday that “conscience rights aren’t up for partisan debate,” according to CNN. “It should not matter who is president. It should not matter who’s the director of the office for civil rights, whether it’s me or somebody else — the laws that Congress has passed on a bipartisan basis deserve to be enforced,” he said.

The Trump administration’s move comes after Biden announced that he will nominate California Attorney General Xavier Becerra, a strong supporter of reproductive rights, to head HHS. As California’s top prosecutor, Becerra sued the Trump administration over its abortion funding restrictions last year and vowed to “protect our families’ access to health care, including women’s constitutional right to abortion” after the January threat.

“California is already in compliance with the Weldon Amendment,” Becerra wrote in a letter to Severino earlier this year, citing the Obama administration’s investigation.

Becerra said Severino’s threat “contradicts” the agency’s previous findings, “ignores the legal limits of the Weldon Amendment [and] exacerbates the Trump Administration’s prior defiance of those same limits.” Cutting off funds “is not in accordance with the law, and raises new constitutional concerns, including impeding California’s sovereignty,” Becerra argued. 

Gov. Gavin Newsom, a Democrat, has called the administration’s demand a ploy to “score cheap political points” with evangelicals and said the health care cuts would put millions of people at risk.

Newsom’s office said on Wednesday that it “will continue to stand up for reproductive health and push back against this extreme presidential overreach.”

Sara Rosenbaum, a former health care adviser to Bill Clinton and professor of health law at Georgia Washington University, told CNN that “politically, practically, it’s an empty threat, but legally it’s a real threat.”

“When you’re starting up a whole brand new agency, standing up whole divisions, they’re walking into a deluge of issues,” she explained. “It may be justifiable to seek (court) protection so that nothing can happen. Because turning the wheels and turning off the wheels and reversing course inside an agency is a complicated thing procedurally and legally to do.”

Trump has called for banning all abortions with few exceptions and his administration has backed multiple efforts seeking to restrict abortion rights. He has appointed dozens of anti-abortion judges, including to the Supreme Court, and filled his administration with longtime abortion opponents. His administration banned taxpayer-funded clinics from making abortion referrals and banned global health funds from going to foreign groups that provide or discuss abortion.

Jodi Hicks, the CEO and President of Planned Parenthood’s California affiliates, vowed to fight the Trump administration’s “tyrannical withholding of critical funds” after Wednesday’s announcement.

“The Trump Administration’s latest political stunt to punish California for ensuring coverage for abortion services, in the middle of a global health crisis, is nothing short of cruel and oppressive,” Hicks said.

The American Civil Liberties Union of Northern California argued that the Trump administration’s policy was the one that violated the Constitution.

“To refuse to provide insurance coverage for people who choose to end their pregnancies while providing coverage for those who choose to give birth would be discriminatory and a violation of fundamental constitutional rights,” the group argued. “It is outrageous that in the height of the pandemic, [HHS]– an agency that is supposed to protect patients’ rights—would withhold needed health care funds, jeopardizing the health and safety of millions of Californians, based solely on the political agenda of abortion opponents.”

Rep. Barbara Lee, D-Calif., slammed the administration for trying to “undermine reproductive freedoms” on “their way out the door.”

“This is shameful at any time,” she added, “but especially cruel during a pandemic.”

Judge orders the Trump Organization to cooperate with NY attorney general’s fraud investigation

A New York state judge just ordered the Trump Organization to turn over all documents regarding a property at the heart of a civil investigation by New York Attorney General Letitia James into the company’s financial and tax practices.

New York Supreme Court Judge Arthur Engoron told the Trump Organization to give James’ office all communications involving Ralph Mastromonaco, an engineer who had worked on Trump’s Seven Springs estate in Westchester County, outside of New York City. Tuesday’s decision is a reversal for Engoron, who in October agreed with the Trump Organization’s argument that the documents in question were shielded under attorney-client privilege because Mastromonaco was providing expertise to a company attorney. Engoron now says that a lawyer’s involvement is no longer reason enough to shield business documents.

“The mere presence of an attorney on an email chain amongst an organization’s employees does not trigger the cloak of attorney-client privilege,” he wrote. “Moreover, a client waives the privilege if communications are made in the presence of a third party.”

The ruling is remarkably broad.

Not only did Engoron order the company to hand over all communications with Mastromonaco, he also said that “all respondents are ordered to produce all communications to, from, or on which third-party non-lawyers are copied to petitioner.” This means that the Trump Organization must give the attorney general’s office all communications with any outside experts hired for the case by its law firm, Morgan Lewis, because, according to Engoron, Morgan Lewis never claimed that those consultants were necessary to its work.

“Of the many experts and consultants hired by Morgan Lewis on behalf of [the Trump Organization], there is no claim by anyone with personal knowledge at Morgan Lewis that any such consultant was necessary to its provision of legal services,” Engoron wrote.

Such a wide net could sweep up information that contradicts evidence Trump’s attorneys presented in court. Because the order covers any outside experts consulted in the case — even if they were passively included on an email chain — it could include possible communications with other appraisers Morgan Lewis hired, but whose assessments undercut their case.

James’ office has been investigating whether the Trump Organization inflated the values of assets in order to get more favorable deals on loans and insurance, while at the same time giving the government deflated values in order to reduce real estate taxes. The probe has centered in part on a “conservation easement” that the company established in 2015 on Seven Springs, which the Trumps purchased in 1996.

To create that easement, President Donald Trump had to promise he would preserve the forest around the mansion. In return he got a $21.1 million tax break, the size of which was determined by a 2016 appraisal that valued the estate at $56.5 million. James is trying to determine whether Trump inflated the land value to maximize his tax rebate: Trump’s appraisal was more than double assessments from the three neighboring towns that contain slices of the property. Eric Trump tried to dodge a deposition over the summer, but the court forced him to testify in October.

Mastromonaco, the engineer whose communications were in question, had been hired to develop the estate, and the Trump Organization fought hard to keep the documents out of James’ hands.

Trump Organization attorney Amy Carlin argued Tuesday that the company had “every expectation that those communications would be confidential.” The attorney general’s office countered that the documents were not privileged because they did not meet the standard of being “necessary” to the work of Trump’s legal team, adding that the Trumps had so far not disclosed “literally everything other than the final appraisal value.”

Anne Champion, a first amendment law expert with Gibson Dunn, told Salon that while it may appear as if Trump’s attorneys bungled their handling of communications, it is difficult to assess without more facts of the case.

“I will say that it is not sufficient to protect the privilege that a lawyer hire the non-lawyer. The lawyer also needs to direct the non-lawyer’s work, and it has to be for the purpose of enabling the lawyer to provide legal advice,” Champion said. “Lawyers interact with third party consultants, experts, accountants, all the time, and the mere involvement of the lawyer does not make things privileged,” she added, echoing Engoron’s decision.

Champion also said that attorney-client privilege in legal matters might not cover a lawyer’s work on business issues.

“This comes up frequently with in-house lawyers who tend to have both legal and business roles,” she said. “Observance of formalities to protect the privilege can be a key distinction: Privileged communications need to be labeled as such, and should clearly state that they are for the purpose of soliciting or providing legal advice, or providing analysis or information to enable the lawyer to provide such advice. And you should keep the circle small.”

While Champion could not say whether the famously litigious outgoing president might sue his own attorneys for malpractice, she did expect an appeal — though it may present a tough case to prove.

Andrew Weissmann, a former prosecutor for special counsel Bob Mueller, predicted that the case could “quickly turn into a criminal inquiry.” Last week reports broke that the Manhattan district attorney’s office has interviewed employees at Trump’s bank and insurance broker in a similar criminal tax fraud case, a signal that the investigation has intensified mere weeks before the president leaves office. The presidential pardon power does not extend to convictions at the state and district levels.

Trump’s wrong. 15% “herd immunity” is not on par with strength of a vaccine

During a Dec. 8 press conference about Operation Warp Speed, President Donald Trump likened the spread of the coronavirus throughout the population — which experts agree bestows some immunity on the people who became ill — to having a COVID-19 vaccine.

“You develop immunity over a period of time, and I hear we’re close to 15%. I’m hearing that, and that is terrific. That’s a very powerful vaccine in itself,” said Trump, who was responding to a reporter’s question about what his message to the American people was as the holidays approach and levels of COVID cases in the U.S. continue to rise.

It wasn’t the first time Trump had given credence to the idea that if enough people in a population gain immunity to a disease by being exposed to it, the illness won’t be able to spread through the remainder of the population — a concept known as “herd immunity.

However, experts have warned that attempting to achieve herd immunity naturally, by allowing people to get sick with COVID-19, could result in more than a million deaths and potentially long-term health problems for many. A better way to achieve protection across the population, experts say, is through widespread vaccination.

So, we thought it was important to check whether 15% is anywhere close to the herd immunity threshold, and whether this level of natural immunity could be considered “as powerful as a vaccine.”

15% Is Nowhere Close

The White House did not respond to our request for more information about the comment or about Trump’s 15% figure.

It may be derived from a Nov. 25 Centers for Disease Control and Prevention report using mathematical models to estimate that 53 million Americans — about 16% of the population — have likely been infected with COVID-19. Those models took into consideration the nation’s number of confirmed cases, and then used existing data to calculate estimates of the number of people who had COVID-19 but didn’t seek medical attention, weren’t able to access a COVID-19 test, received a false-negative test result or were asymptomatic and unaware they had COVID-19.

It’s important to note this estimate is based on data from February through September — and it’s now mid-December, so the share of Americans who have been infected with the coronavirus would likely be much higher. For instance, an independent data scientist, Youyang Gu, estimated that 17.5% of Americans have had COVID-19 as of Nov. 30. His estimate is published on his website, COVID Projections.

Experts have said that a 15% infection rate among Americans is nowhere close to the threshold needed to reach herd immunity against COVID.

“To get to herd immunity, an estimated 60-80% of people need to have immunity (either through natural infection or through the vaccine),” Dr. Leana Wen, an emergency physician and visiting professor at George Washington University, wrote in an email. “We are a very long way off from that.”

Also, Wen said, scientists still don’t know enough about how effective natural immunity is in defending against COVID-19. It appears that once someone has had COVID-19 and recovered, the antibodies their body produced can protect them for at least several months. But, there have also been reports of COVID-19 re-infection.

That’s why medical experts urge everyone to get vaccinated, whether they have had COVID-19 or not.

Dr. Anthony Fauci, the director of the National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases, recently set the saturation level for herd immunity even higher — between 75% and 80% — in an interview with Axios.

At that point, he said, “you create an umbrella of herd immunity — that even though there is virus around, it is really almost inconsequential because it has no place to go, because almost all of the people are protected.”

Both the Pfizer and Moderna COVID-19 vaccines have shown 95% effectiveness at protecting people from developing COVID-19 in clinical trials. The Food and Drug Administration on Friday authorized Pfizer’s vaccine for emergency use. This Thursday, an independent panel will consider whether to recommend that the FDA authorize the emergency use of Moderna’s COVID-19 vaccine.

So, that leads to the next question: Is 15% natural immunity among the American population anywhere close to a “powerful vaccine,” as Trump alleges?

No, said the experts. And there’s nothing “terrific” about that level of infection within the community.

“Fifteen percent ‘natural immunity’ is nowhere close to as powerful as a vaccine,” Dr. Rachel Vreeman, director of the Arnhold Institute for Global Health at the Icahn School of Medicine at Mount Sinai, wrote in an email.

Assuming that natural immunity is effective, reaching a level of 15% of the population would prevent only those individuals who have had COVID from getting sick again, said Stephen Morse, an epidemiology professor at Columbia University.

“But [it] won’t do much to prevent virus spread in the community, because there are still so many susceptible people,” Morse wrote in an email. Plus, 15% of the American population having had COVID-19 “has come at a high cost,” Morse wrote. To achieve 15% natural immunity, more than 300,000 people in the U.S. have been sacrificed.

Our Ruling

Though Trump was in the ballpark when he referenced the share of Americans who have been infected with the coronavirus, his overall point — that the natural immunity these people acquired is a powerful vaccine — does not hold up. Experts repeatedly have warned that not enough is known about the immunity people appear to gain after recovering from a COVID-19 infection to know how effective or lasting it is. And there have been reported cases of COVID re-infections.

Also, experts agree more than 70% of the U.S. population needs to be vaccinated in order to reach herd immunity. Fifteen percent is nowhere close to that threshold and should not be considered as effective as a COVID-19 vaccine. Moreover, that 15% statistic brought with it hundreds of thousands of deaths.

We rate this claim False.

Subscribe to KHN’s free Morning Briefing.

Nine cream of tartar substitutes you probably have in the kitchen

Where would we be without grapes? Think of all the culinary marvels the fruit yields: Jelly, balsamic and red wine vinegars, and of course wine. But lofty cakesethereal meringues, and chewy snickerdoodles also owe their existence to another child of the grape: cream of tartar. The white powder is most often found in baked goods, where it serves as a stabilizer, a leavening agent, or a crystallization inhibitor (more on this later).

If you’ve just embarked on some baking endeavor only to find your jar of cream of tartar empty, there’s no cause for alarm. There are plenty of substitutions for cream of tartar, you just have to decide which purpose that sub needs to serve.

But first, what is cream of tartar?

Cream of tartar forms as crystals (rather glamorously known as “wine diamonds”) on the walls of wine barrels during fermentation, before it’s refined and crushed to the white powder probably sitting in a jar in your pantry. Chemically speaking, this powder is potassium bitartrate, a salt of mild tartaric acid, with a whole range of useful kitchen applications, from stabilizing beaten egg whites to keeping caramels smooth and chewy. Should you run out, replacing cream of tartar seems daunting at first, but there are actually a number of cream of tartar substitutes — many of which are probably already in the kitchen.

Short of harvesting your own wine diamonds, here are nine cream of tartar substitutes, divided up by use.

Stabilizers

When egg whites are whipped to form peaks, their proteins gradually denature, stretching and linking to form an open lattice that transforms liquid whites into airy foam. But once proteins start linking, they can get carried away, turning the foam into a weepy mess. Cream of tartar is often added to whipped egg whites in recipes like meringues or angel food cake to keep whipped egg whites stable. But there are plenty of other ways to achieve the same fluffy result.

Lemon juice

Like cream of tartar, lemon juice helps achieve lofty beaten egg whites. The general rule is 1/8 teaspoon cream of tartar or 1/2 teaspoon lemon juice per egg white, so if a recipe calls for a teaspoon of cream of tartar, just multiply by four. Of course, unlike cream of tartar, lemons come with a distinctive, but bright and zingy, flavor.

Vinegar

Other acids, like vinegars, help egg whites hold their peak in exactly the same way, but their harsh flavor can spoil a delicate confection. Try distilled white vinegar for the least overbearing flavor; substitute four times the amount of vinegar, by volume, for cream of tartar.

A copper bowl

Though it sounds like Dadaist word art, you can actually replace cream of tartar with a copper bowl. The French have used copper bowls to beat egg whites for centuries, but it wasn’t until author of “On Food and Cooking” Harold McGee became curious about this odd habit, that anyone understood the science. Molecular copper, McGee discovered, forms strong bonds with sulfur groups, which, like with acids, prevents them from bonding with each other and squeezing out air and water. As you beat eggs in a bowl, minute amounts of copper are freed from the surface of the vessel and mixed into the eggs. I haven’t tested this, because copper bowls are expensive, but apparently whites whipped in copper take on a faint pink hue.

A silver bowl

Silver works similarly to copper, but with a more ruinous effect on your wallet. Don’t debase a silver bowl by whisking eggs in it unless your meringue is very, very important.

Leavening agents

When cream of tartar is mixed with baking soda, it creates a fantastic raising agent. So fantastic, in fact, the combination is a typical pantry ingredient: baking powder. Baking soda reacts with cream of tartar, releasing clouds of carbon dioxide, making a cake rise. If you’re out of cream of tartar, here are a few other ways to get a rise out of your baked goods.

Baking powder

As noted above, technically if you have baking powder, you do have cream of tartar. It’s just mixed with baking soda, in a ratio of one part baking soda to two parts cream of tartar. That means that for a recipe that calls for cream of tartar and baking soda, you can leave out the baking soda and substitute 1 teaspoon of baking powder for every 2/3 teaspoon cream of tartar.

Lemon and vinegar

If you’re out of baking powder too, consider acidic ingredients like lemon or vinegar to create a rise in your bakes. Try double the volume of cream of tartar called for in the recipe, but note the added liquid might alter the texture a bit.

Buttermilk

Fluffy buttermilk biscuits and pancakes rely on the sour dairy product’s acidity for leavening. But because buttermilk is much less acidic than vinegar or lemon, you’ll need to use a lot of it to replace even a small amount of cream of tartar. Unless you have the leeway to do some recipe testing, your best bet is to find a recipe that already uses buttermilk for leavening.

Crystallization inhibitors

When you sink your teeth into a rich caramel or a chewy cookie like a snickerdoodle, you’re enjoying the absence of crunchy sugar crystals. As sweets cool, the dissolved sugar tends to return to crystal form, ruining the smooth texture. Cream of tartar’s acidity disrupts this process by hydrolyzing some of the sugar into its component parts, glucose and fructose, keeping your sweets satisfyingly smooth. You can achieve this same effect in a few other ways.

Corn syrup

Corn syrup is almost pure glucose, and it does an excellent job disrupting sugar crystal formation. Just replace some of the sugar in your recipe with corn syrup and skip the cream of tartar for the desired effect.

Butter

Everything’s better with butter — often chewier, too. Like glucose and fructose, fat molecules help disrupt the formation of sucrose crystals, preventing unwanted sandy cookies and crunchy caramels. This is obviously not a one-for-one substitution with cream of tartar, and there may be some trial and error involved before you find the right balance. But generally, when it comes to butter, the more the merrier.

And next time you’re grocery shopping, buy an extra jar of cream of tartar to have on hand for your next baking project. You don’t have to worry about them going bad. As they say, wine diamonds are forever.

Richard Painter: Trump is an “incompetent dictator” — but a “shrewder” plot might have worked

Joe Biden’s victory in the 2020 presidential election was (once again) confirmed by the Electoral College on Monday. Congress will meet in early January to certify Biden’s victory, and on Jan. 20 he will be sworn in as the 46th president of the United States.

Donald Trump has been vanquished — but unfortunately, either does not believe that or refuses to admit it. As some general, somewhere, once observed in a war long forgotten, it is hard to truly defeat an enemy who does not know he has been beaten.

Trump’s coup attempt is on-going. Despite being rejected by state officials and the country’s highest courts, Trump and his agents are continuing their seditious and treasonous attempts to overthrow the results of the 2020 election — and, in effect, overthrow American democracy. These efforts to stop Biden from becoming president have extended to the use of stochastic terrorism and other provocations, to murmurs about martial law, political violence and a second civil war.

Because Trump yearns to be a neofascist strongman, his campaign to remain in power indefinitely will not stop. Michael D’Antonio, a CNN contributor and author of “The Truth About Trump”, warned Salon about this during a recent phone conversation:

There is no quit in him…. This is the reality that we’re going to face until he becomes disabled or deceased…. The storyline is going to be that there is a pretender in the White House and that Washington is more corrupt than it was when Trump arrived there, and that there needs to be a crusade to restore the leader. This is far from over.

Even after he is forced from office in January, Donald Trump will likely continue to claim that he is America’s “real president” and try to rule in “exile,” ginning up violence and other social upheaval by his political cult leaders and other deplorables. The power of this group of dead-enders to cause mayhem is not to be underestimated: Trump received 74 million votes in this election, 11 million more than in 2016.

The professional centrists and others desperate for a return to “normalcy” in the mainstream news media and the political class continue to downplay the damage already done by Donald Trump’s fascist and authoritarian regime and by the reality of his coup attempt.

Why is that happening? Because the hope-peddlers, stenographers of current events, and other members of the Church of the Savvy are emotionally, financially, cognitively and professionally committed to the fictions of American folk democracy. These include the disproved belief that the American people are fundamentally good, and that fascism is something that only happens “over there.” They are applying an outmoded and obsolete framework that fails to grasp how fascism and authoritarianism have evolved to fit 21st-century society.

Writing at the Atlantic, sociologist Zeynep Tufekci explores the problematic terminology of this moment: 

Coup may not quite capture what we’re witnessing in the United States right now, but there’s also a danger here: Punditry can tend to focus too much on decorum and terminology, like the overachieving students so many of us once were, conflating the ridiculous with the unserious. The incoherence and incompetence of the attempt do not change its nature, however, nor do those traits allow us to dismiss it or ignore it until it finally fails on account of that incompetence.

Our focus, she continues, should not be “a debate about the proper terminology,” but rather “the frightening substance of what we’re facing”:

If the Republican Party, itself entrenching minority rule on many levels, won’t stand up to Trump’s attempt to steal an election through lying and intimidation with the fury the situation demands; if the Democratic Party’s leadership remains solely focused on preparing for the presidency of Joe Biden rather than talking openly about what’s happening; and if ordinary citizens feel bewildered and disempowered, we may settle the terminological debate in the worst possible way: by accruing enough experience with illegitimate power grabs to evolve a more fine-grained vocabulary.

Act like this is your first coup, if you want to be sure that it’s also your last.

What will the long-term impact of Trump’s coup attempt be on American democracy and the rule of law? Is this attempted coup and abuse of the legal and political system a trial run for more effective and efficient efforts to overturn future elections? Are Trump and his allies guilty of sedition and treason as defined by the Constitution and the law? How should Joe Biden’s administration proceed in terms of investigating or prosecuting Trump and members of his administration?

In an effort to answer these questions I recently spoke with Richard Painter, a longtime Republican lawyer who was White House chief ethics counsel under George W. Bush. Painter’s new book, co-authored with Peter Golenbock, is “American Nero: The History of the Destruction of the Rule of Law, and Why Trump is the Worst Offender.”

Painter is a frequent political commentator and analyst on CNN, MSNBC and other news networks. He is also a professor of corporate law at the University of Minnesota 

This conversation has been edited, as usual, for clarity and length.

Donald Trump has no respect the rule of law and has engaged in a coup attempt against democracy by trying to overturn the 2020 presidential election. Even if he fails, the precedent is a threat to the United States and a type of victory for fascism in this country. As an expert on constitutional law, how are you making sense of these events?

The jig is up. Trump is not going to try a real coup. But the message, the warning to the United States, is that we better get our act together pretty damn fast. The next person who follows Trump’s example is going to be much smarter. He’s an incompetent dictator. On Twitter, for example, he is always talking about himself well over half the time. Whereas a real dictator is always talking about “the people.” The next person who has Trump’s aspirations to power may be a lot shrewder, more manipulative and therefore more effective.

Trump is also transparent as a self-centered crybaby. As a country we have to figure out: Do we believe in facts? We can have ideological differences. We can have different preferences and different views on public policy. But we should be able to look at facts and then have an opinion based on roughly the same reality. Of course, there will be some differences of opinion. But are we going to have wild deviations from the truth? If we do, I believe that the United States is going to be very vulnerable to a dictatorship or a successful coup.

There’s all this celebration of the courts and the law and the country’s “institutions” because even Republican judges have dismissed Trump and his allies’ scheme to overturn the 2020 election. That is premature and misguided. They made those decisions not out of principle but out of pragmatism, because Biden won by such a large margin. If the election were closer, I have no doubt that Republican judges from the Supreme Court on down would have sided with Trump against Joe Biden.

What Trump and his attorneys have been trying is so ridiculous that I do not think even the most conservative court would have gone for it. What we are seeing is not a Bush v. Gore situation — and I do not agree with what the court did in Bush v. Gore. The Supreme Court should have left it alone. But what Trump is trying with the 2020 election is so far out that you would have had to have Supreme Court justices who were subject to removal by the president, or in fear of the president, for it to have worked.

In a close-call election, however? Yes, they probably would have given the election to Trump and the Republicans. But they were not going to give him the 2020 election. If the country keeps going in this direction, we are going to have someone in the future who is much shrewder than Donald Trump, who gets more respect from the military and the like, who could engineer a coup quite easily. That is my ultimate concern.

Trump’s coup attempt is an effort to overthrow the people’s will in the context of a decades-long extremist push by the Republicans to take total control by ending democracy and replacing it with one-party rule. The Republican Party knows that they cannot win if they allow everyone to vote.

We’re either committed to democracy or we are not. We are committed to one person, one vote, or we are not. But what is happening now is that Trump and the Republicans are just trying to further polarize our society.

There are legal scholars, historians and other political observers who are warning that Trump’s coup attempt, however ridiculous it may look to some people, is a test run, a prototype for the future. Republicans and other elements of the right wing see what works now and then perfect it for later. What is your assessment?

What is happening is a test of how much can one get away with in the courts. Moreover, how much can one get away with in the court of public opinion by distorting facts and reality? 

Donald Trump and his Republican Party’s coup attempt has been described by some people as sedition or treason. What does the law actually say on these matters?

I don’t think you can prosecute him. If you ask, “What is treason, in the broader sense of the word?” Donald Trump is betraying his country. He has held the highest office in the land for four years. If he were smart, Trump would consider that an honor. I think he wasted those four years. He is a narcissist with an obsession about himself and his own ego.

He tried to undermine and attack the government. I am not a big fan of using sedition statutes and so forth, because that is what Joe McCarthy did. The problem with Trump and the Republicans now is that we are dealing with people who really do believe that there is this “deep state.” They want to completely transform the United States government and country to make it conform to their ideology. This is all very dangerous, because through Trump they have power at the highest levels of the government.

Are Trump and his agents engaging in sedition as defined by the Constitution?

I would not use that kind of criminal statute. But I would certainly use obstruction of justice and the false statements statutes. I think there are crimes which are yet to be prosecuted. If you want to talk about what sedition is, in a broader sense, it is a repudiation of our republican form of government and of the country’s Constitution and history of constitutional rule.

Many House Republicans have participated in Trump’s coup attempt. Should Speaker Nancy Pelosi not allow them to be seated, under the 14th Amendment?

I would not do it. I would just go ahead and let them be seated and shoot their mouths off. The Republicans are trying to use the power that you have as president, and in other high government positions, to suppress dissent by the Democrats and others. This is what the Republican Party wants to stand for? Filing crazy lawsuits, writing crazy letters, and saying things that are completely false? We have had people in the Congress who have said crazy things in the past. Unfortunately, there are an awful lot of them now. 

Joe Biden wants there to be “healing.” He wants us to put this dark episode behind us. I fundamentally disagree. I am of the thinking that Trump and his administration, as well as their supporters and allies, should be investigated, and if merited, punished for their crimes. What advice would you give Biden on that question?

If Joe Biden wants to pardon Trump, he can pardon Trump. The only discretion the president has is a pardon. Otherwise, the Justice Department should prosecute anyone who committed a crime. I don’t care if it’s Donald Trump or if it’s the guy next door. We’re all equal. The mandate for the attorney general is that we prosecute anyone who committed crimes.

I think if there are accusations made against high-ranking people in the Trump administration, or high-ranking people in the Biden administration, or any members of the president’s family, have an independent counsel investigate it and make the professional decision with professional prosecutors. It should never be a political decision as to whether someone gets prosecuted or not.

Trump and his administration are actively trying to sabotage Biden’s presidency by putting key Trump agents in positions at the highest levels throughout the United States government. What can be done by Biden to remove them?

Many of these people are presidential appointees. Biden can remove an awful lot of people. Trump and his people are trying various games by putting people into career slots. It is called “burrowing,” where you take a political appointee and stick them into career slots. It is hard to get rid of them.

Why are the Republican attorneys general, members of Congress and others going along with Trump’s coup attempt? Especially since it appears doomed to fail in the short term.

It is money. Trump has raised a lot of money for them. It is all about ideology and appealing to the right wing and getting airtime on right-wing talk radio. They are going along to not be targeted by other right-wingers. Now Republicans will do one of two things. They’ll lay low and try to have nothing to do with it — those are the smart ones. There are other Republicans, such as Ted Cruz, who will play along and go for the ride. Cruz is trying to get Trump’s supporters to love him so he can be the leading candidate in 2024.

Should the attorneys general who tried to overturn the election be disbarred?

They may want to run for Senate. Texas Attorney General [Ken] Paxton, he probably wants to run for senator. State attorneys general always have political ambitions. It’s a steppingstone to the next and more powerful job. These attorneys general want attention. They know that they are not going to be disbarred. They probably should be, but the Texas bar is not going to disbar Paxton.

How do you think this coup attempt, and Trump’s authoritarian behavior more generally, has impacted the United States?

It is polarizing our country. We have got much work to do to bring the United States back together. I trust Joe Biden is going to be able to do that. I’m a political independent: Biden was never my favorite candidate in the primaries, but he is a good guy. We as Americans need to realize that we have so much more to benefit from being together in this country. We may disagree on some things, but our political system has worked for over 200 years.

Yes, we had the Civil War. Yes, we have been through great challenges. But we do have a system that works. I was never a big fan of Ronald Reagan, I was a moderate Republican. But the one thing I liked about Reagan was his optimism and how much he believed in America. Reagan never had the cynicism that underlies Trumpism with this idea of the “deep state” and that somehow “the establishment” is evil. With Trumpism, I see too many similarities with the fascist movements in Europe in the 1930s.

Decades of inequality shadow voter turnout in rural Georgia

Commerce Street, once the heart of downtown Hawkinsville, Georgia, is easily overlooked. A visitor following state highways through the Pulaski County seat would glance at a row of faded brick buildings, awning-covered storefronts and dusty windows. Parking and getting out feels like stepping into an old postcard. In the sunlight’s glare and morning quiet, you might not know that Black businesses were once barred from the street. Or that the Ku Klux Klan held some of its largest rallies in America nearby. Or the street’s cluster of Black-owned businesses as a small-town triumph.

But quick assessments are out of sync with the rhythm of life and pace of change here. Below buildings painted in pastels, antique-style streetlamps and blue banners labeling Hawkinsville as a “Historic River Town” are two barbershops, a Southern bar and grill, a Caribbean takeout restaurant, clothes and gift shops, a small accounting firm, and a tobacco vape store. Most intriguing of all is what lies below the street’s largest sign, “The Newberry Foundation.”

The Hawkinsville African American Heritage Center is a Black history museum with a faded pine board saying “COLORED ENTRANCE” above its door. Next to it is the Plough and the Pew Reading Room, a ballroom-size space with a dozen large tables and shelves of leather-bound books. Its volumes range from Jet magazine, to the Journal of Negro Education, to The War of the Rebellion: A Compilation of the Official Records of the Union and Confederate Armies. A block away is the county courthouse and its large Confederate monument.

On a recent Saturday before the December 7 registration deadline and the December 14 start of early voting, this crossroad of past and present rural Georgia was the setting for a voter registration drive for the upcoming Senate runoffs on January 5. That contest will determine which political party holds the Senate’s majority and with it, the fate of legislation proposed by President-elect Joe Biden. While the biggest concentrations of Democratic voters surround Atlanta, voting rights groups believe that rural communities of color could tip the balance or cement Democratic wins, if they voted.

A small colorful caravan drove to the center of Pulaski County, where the early unofficial results showed that 4,081 of its 5,687 registered voters cast ballots in the November 3 election. Most were white voters backing Republicans. Like the 1960s’ Freedom Riders, whose buses crossed the South to register voters, the registration drive had a similar task: engage and turn out voters.

The drive was led by Fenika Miller, a calm and focused activist who has been working for decades to empower nearby communities of color and women. Miller runs Black Voters Matter’s middle-Georgia office, whose colorful van was parked in front of the museum. Its eye-catching red, green and black exterior announced the We Got the Power tour, with the words “Black Voters Matter” and “Love” printed on the side of the van. Parked behind them was a purple Winnebago from Vote Equality, a group that promotes the Equal Rights Amendment. It had come from Virginia to boost the drive’s visibility.

Both teams, mostly women, set up tables and chairs on a brick sidewalk. They laid out registration forms, flyers, and cards with voting information. They had gifts, such as T-shirts and other items saying, “Black Voters Matter,” “It’s About Us” and “Vote Equality!” to give to anyone registering or who pledged to talk to friends and family about voting. Then they waited. Mid-morning on a Saturday was not Commerce Street’s busiest hour.

A deputy sheriff arrived and pretended to be irked that he did not know about this event. He was happy to stick around. A few Black women quietly found seats in the shade below the awnings. They knew each other, were active locally and supported the cause. Within 15 minutes, a tall, broad, affable middle-aged man with a professorial manner brought a tray of McDonald’s coffee and introduced himself. He was Julius Johnson, the Newberry Foundation’s founder, museum’s creator, reading room curator and former U.S. State Department worker. He returned from overseas with his family to Hawkinsville, his ancestral hometown, after his father died.

When I spoke with Johnson, he lit up when I said I had come to town to see people working on voter outreach for the runoffs and not just report on it via Zoom. “You know, we have 159 counties in Georgia,” he said. “And each county has different population numbers. And if you look at the results of the last election, it will tell you a story in terms of voter participation, and that might be a starting point.”

Miller chose Hawkinsville because of Pulaski County’s turnout numbers, she explained while setting up. “I caught that 1,026 Black people… [were eligible to vote] in this town, but over 800 still did not,” she said, referring to the presidential election. “We have a lot of work to do here, in small towns.”

Other organizers eyeing the Senate runoffs reached similar conclusions. But they believed that overlooked rural voters of color could be an unexpected force in the runoffs, which are historically low-turnout races. Johnson, who briefly introduced himself after serving coffee, did not mention that he had just run for Georgia’s state senate. He received 31,000 votes but did not win. Johnson listened to a summary of this runoff strategy.

“There’s not a lot of time,” he replied, cutting to the heart of the matter. “How do you activate those voters? One of the keys is to lean on the existing stimuli, like the churches, or this [drive], or other efforts.”

The challenge is turning out historically marginalized voters, he said. It was too late for a big registration drive, especially as pastors and ministers were delivering Sunday sermons online in response to the pandemic. That meant that fewer people would hear announcements about voting. Johnson said that he had invited some parents to bring their children to register and had urged younger people to bring older relatives. That strategy seemed like scratching the surface. Was that going to work? He looked up.

“In rural Georgia, cultural norms and things are pretty entrenched,” he said. “When you get down to these smaller counties, they are less subjected to the influences of the national sort of influencers. They still have community. They’re getting their information on their porches. They get their information from their pastors, from neighbors at the supermarket, from the clubs they belong to. They pretty much know the way they’re going to vote.”

What Johnson was saying was important to understand, especially for Americans who want to help in the runoffs. Rural Georgians, especially voters of color, were unlikely to trust people outside their circle of family, friends and faith leaders. Distrust of outsiders is real. He patiently answered more questions, responding with unusual candor and detail in a state where it could be hard to get past congenial conversation or curt talk when the subject turned to politics. I asked to see his museum, which led to a conversation that unexpectedly revealed what many Black residents thought, but would not say aloud, about voting, race and power in middle Georgia.

Unlocking the Unspoken

Johnson walked into the museum. Displays of local history stood next to recreations of iconic moments in the civil rights struggle. He created the museum and the reading room because he was a collector and historian, he said, adding that he was working on a PhD from Howard University. There was a need to preserve Black local history, create educational settings and have safe civic spaces “for events like this,” the voter drive.

“We want to be a model for other rural communities because in the rural South there aren’t many spaces for civic interaction and engagement,” Johnson explained. “It’s not like in Washington, D.C., or Massachusetts where you have coffee shops and bookstores. In the rural South, the only public space where people talk is primarily at church or in their homes. If they go to a restaurant, it’s really just to eat—they aren’t there for analytical reasoning or anything like that.”

In the few restaurants that were open on nearby streets, a handful of white diners were being served by Black employees. Miller said her canvassers went out in pairs—never alone. Johnson said that many people did not go out after dark. “There isn’t protection.” The resistance to change was present and lingering.

Inside the museum, Johnson passed a large basket of cotton and stopped before a memorial on a mantlepiece. He said that his full name was Julius Johnson Newberry and that this relic was his most prized possession. It was a tombstone eight inches wide and eight inches high that did not have a name on it. Its base read, “Mr. Charley Newberry, 1818-1880.” This was his grandfather, seven generations ago. Near the tombstone’s base were two dashes symbolizing chains from slavery. At the top were two stars above a line of dashes and dots, signifying broken chains and that he died a free man. In the 1870s, the Newberry family bought land from their former owners. “The worst 300 acres,” Johnson said. They cleared the stony soil and grew cotton. White families with 19th-century roots in Hawkinsville knew the Newberrys.

“It’s very complicated,” Johnson said, referring to how the past shadows the present in this town and rural Georgia. “It’s very complicated because there is a lot of trauma. There’s a lot of terror. And in many respects, there’s love, too, among some large groups in the rural South. I’m speaking of African Americans… But we also have a growing Spanish-speaking population here. They’ve been terrorized [by current authorities] and stay hidden.”

Johnson spoke of legacies that outsiders would not know or recognize: The town’s separate cemeteries for white people and Black people; family stories of how Black people who moved to the North were not permitted to unload their cars on Hawkinsville’s streets into the 1960s, lest the local Black residents see their relative poverty; that Black people were whipped on nearby farms as late at the 1970s and 1980s; the reason why many Black people still don’t swim in the nearby Ocmulgee River, as skeletons periodically surface or are dredged up.

“There’s a lot of trauma here, and people in these rural towns have not accessed the local power structure effectively to represent their interests,” Johnson said, returning to politics and elections. “They’ve been outsmarted by every trick in the book. And while people are resilient, they’re fatigued. And people have adjusted to a lot of the inequality that exists.”

Johnson’s work for the State Department included trying to sway “hearts and minds” in Afghanistan. Inequality could still be seen locally, he said, as most of the leadership posts in county government, law enforcement and education were held by white people. Illiteracy was a real issue, he said, citing Vietnam veterans who could not fill out benefit forms. So was race-based intimidation. Those cultural currents and a rural economy with limited opportunities left many people of color contained, cautious and wary of outsiders. Many people of color stayed in their lane and kept quiet.

“It’s like once you’re identified to do something here, especially if a white person gives you an opportunity, you stick with it,” Johnson said. “And to stick with it means you stay in your place and don’t get involved in things that will jeopardize your income because jobs are hard to come by.”

Johnson broke out of this mold. His roots, higher education, federal service and efforts to redevelop Hawkinsville’s former commercial center were not openly criticized in a small county 25 miles from the interstate highway. He confided that he did not have many close local friends. The conversation continued in his office in Hawkinsville’s first two-story brick building, where white lawyers, realtors and businessmen once worked. He and the other Commerce Street merchants were underwriting the voter drive and had invited people. He didn’t expect many to show up. But word would get around.

“Most people have things to do on Saturday,” Johnson said. “To ask them to come downtown for something like this is unusual. We have reached out to a cross-section of people and we’ll see who turns up. There’s a saying down here, ‘Every shut eye ain’t asleep.’ So, although you don’t see the numbers, [that] doesn’t mean the numbers aren’t seeing you.”

Johnson’s openness and insights were surprising. He explained what was widely understood but not often spoken in middle Georgia—and especially not spoken of to out-of-town journalists. His dissection of the culture had a direct bearing on how rural voters of color could—or should not—be reached for the Senate runoffs. His clear takeaway was that only known groups and people, relying on local volunteers or paying local people a small wage, would likely be effective messengers to motivate people who didn’t plan to vote.

As Johnson showed his visitors the rest of his building that he hoped would become a democracy center—a hub readymade for organizers—a younger man ran up the staircase and said, “Mr. Way is outside and wants to see you.” Johnson smiled and quickly headed down to Commerce Street.

The Way Forward

Sam Way, age 95, wore a flannel shirt, pressed jeans, and a surgical mask and walked with a cane. His Hawkinsville roots went back to pre-Civil War days. His family founded nearby banks that were still open and owned vast tracts of farmland and forests. Mr. Way, who is white, knew many leading Georgia politicians when Southern Democrats controlled the state, such as Jimmy Carter when he was governor and president. And Georgia’s politicians knew him.

The handful of Black people sitting in chairs on the sidewalk stood to greet Way: Mary Colson, the only Black Board of Elections member; Bernice Banks, who moved back to town five years ago and this fall became the deputy chair of a newly revived county Democratic Party; and Black Voters Matter’s Miller and her team.

Johnson greeted Way, who was surveying the colorful Black Voters Matter van and registration table and Vote Equality’s RV and its table. “We could use more of this,” Way said, pressing a folded $100 bill into Johnson’s hand.

Johnson introduced Way to the Vote Equality crew as “one of the founders of this town.” The women at the Vote Equality table said that they had come from Virginia to help the voter drive. Miller quickly organized a group photograph. Afterward, Way was asked what people could do to help efforts like this voter drive.

“The main thing you can do is identify people who live in this town who are not registered. And then follow it up and make sure they get to the polls on Election Day,” he said. “It’s that simple.”

“Was that hard to do around here?” he was asked.

“It’s not hard, if somebody is dedicated to get out there and work with it,” he replied. “Just like Stacey [Abrams] has done. She’s just gotten everybody to organize in Atlanta. Because 70 percent of the vote on November 3 was white in this county. Only 30 percent [of the vote] was Black. And yet the population is about 50-50. So that’s the challenge.”

After Way left, the registration drive continued. Miller felt that the trickle of people stopping by justified shifting to canvassing nearby streets. But Johnson’s assessment had been spot on. Not one of the dozen people who showed up to register to vote shared their full name or said much more than voting was “a good thing.”

Across the street inside Bryant’s Barber Shop, people felt a bit freer to talk. It was a safer space, especially after Johnson’s introductions. He praised Elgin Bryant as a “quiet guy who touches everybody’s head in this town.” Bryant’s ancestors had also been slaves in Hawkinsville. He was retired from work at a nearby military base and cut hair at his father’s old barbershop on weekends.

Bryant said he was pleased that Joe Biden had picked Kamala Harris as his running mate. He was pleased that Georgia’s voters chose Biden. People were paying attention, he said, especially younger people.

“It’s a great thing. I think it’s going to make people realize we need to get out and vote,” he said, cautiously optimistic. “I think the younger generation’s really getting it. The older generation, they kind of thought it didn’t matter… Over a period of years, you know, a lot of Black people have gotten less [than whites]. It’s time now. This needs to change.”

Shawn Nelson, a younger man and a truck driver in Bryant’s seat, was eager to talk. He seemed genuinely excited about the runoffs.

“The outcome of the January 5 election is going to have an impact on the United States for years,” he said. “We need to get those two Democrats in and start making a change. For health care, education…”

Nelson, too, wanted to believe that Biden’s victory meant change could come.

“That’s big progress for Georgia,” he said. “I’m 40 years old and as far as I can remember, Georgia has been known as a racist state. Even though it still probably is, I think with these Democrats that are getting in office, I think we can look forward to seeing some change.”

But back outside, the foot traffic had slowed as mid-afternoon approached. Elizabeth Small, who was sitting in a chair by the Black Voters Matter table and ready to help anyone register, seemed flustered. She was 79, and still a poll worker. She was not pleased with the Black turnout on November 3 and wanted to see more people show up for the registration drive.

“As you can see, there are not enough Blacks here for the event that’s coming up that’s so important,” she said. “Blacks need to participate more. They are not here. I don’t know where they are. Because they should participate… But we don’t often get asked to participate.”

Small admitted that she was frustrated. “Everything that you want to have happen takes too long,” she said. “And the ones that you see today are the ones [that] are always present, for whatever, especially for the voter registration. It’s always the same few people. Right? Always the same few.”

By 3 p.m. the registration drive was over. The local newspaper did not show up. The Black Voters Matter crew drove back to Warner Robins, a small city nearby. The Vote Equality crew followed Johnson to his house. The January 5 runoffs were more than a month away. Voter registration would close on December 7. Early voting would start on December 14.

While the national media has been concentrating on suburban Atlanta’s Biden voters who “tore down political fences,” there are thousands and thousands of voters of color in rural Georgia who could play an outsized role—if they vote. At first glance, Hawkinsville looks like it has barely changed in decades. But its once-white business center is now filled with Black-owned businesses. Looking toward January 5, there is an election where its long-suppressed voices—like others across Georgia—could ring from coast to coast.

This article was produced by Voting Booth, a project of the Independent Media Institute.

This hedge-fund billionaire is a huge fan of Sen. Kelly Loeffler — but why?

On Oct. 9, billionaire Ken Griffin, the head of a multinational financial services company, gave $2 million to a super PAC called Georgia United Victory (GUV), which had originally been launched by allies of Georgia Gov. Brian Kemp but at the time exclusively supported Sen. Kelly Loeffler’s election campaign. 

Griffin ranks among the richest people in America, and during the 2020 election cycle he spent at least $57 million to support conservative candidates, most of that on Republicans in tight U.S. Senate campaigns. He donated significant sums to support Sen. Susan Collins of Maine, Sen. Cory Gardner of Colorado, Sen. Martha McSally of Arizona and Michigan GOP candidate John James, among others. But his $2 million to GUV on Oct. 9 was one of his 10 largest contributions ever, and he had already given the Loeffler-centric PAC $1 million about five weeks earlier.

Most major Republican donors at that time were avoiding Loeffler’s race, a nonpartisan “jungle primary” in which she faced not just Democrats like the Rev. Raphael Warnock — her current opponent in the Jan. 5 Georgia runoff election — but also Rep. Doug Collins, a conservative Republican closely allied with President Trump. 

Furthermore, there was no indication that Loeffler needed the money. She is the richest member of Congress, with an estimated net worth of $800 million. After Kemp appointed her to the Senate last January to fill the seat left vacant by the retirement of Republican Sen. Johnny Isakson, she had promised to spend as much as $20 million funding her own campaign. She consistently told voters that her independent wealth conferred an advantage: She would not be bought by corporate interests.

Griffin’s donation to GUV on Oct. 9 also came one day after the Wall Street Journal reported that one of his companies, Citadel Securities — a separate entity from the Citadel hedge fund, which Griffin also runs — had reached an initial agreement to buy one of its competitors, a company called IMC, for a price “in the tens of millions of dollars.” 

Citadel Securities is one of the world’s leading “market makers” — meaning a company that quotes both a buy and a sell price for a trade, hoping to make a profit on the spread — and the proposed acquisition would make Citadel Securities the largest designated market maker, or DMM, on the New York Stock Exchange, with domain over trades for more than half of all securities listed on the exchange. 

But before that could happen, management at the world’s most famous stock exchange — a central institution in American capitalism since its founding in 1792 — had to approve the deal. That followed in due course, and according to a Citadel Securities press release, the acquisition of IMC was finalized on Nov. 18. 

As it happens, Kelly Loeffler’s husband, Jeffrey Sprecher, is chairman of the New York Stock Exchange — as well as founder and CEO of Intercontinental Exchange (ICE), the company that has owned the exchange since acquiring it in a $10.9 billion deal in 2013. Loeffler herself sits on a Senate committee that oversees Wall Street and the financial markets.

To be clear, there is no evidence of any illegality surrounding Griffin’s contributions to the Loeffler super PAC. As for the Citadel Securities/IMC deal, a spokesperson for ICE, Sprecher’s company, told Salon by email that NYSE approval “was a straightforward, staff-driven process that had zero involvement from Jeff.”

After considerable discussion off the record, Zia Ahmed, a spokesperson for Griffin, issued a statement placing Griffin’s donations to Loeffler in the larger context of his political giving in 2020: 

Ken supported several diverse and talented Republican candidates in highly-contested races for Senate this year, including Sens. Collins, [Joni] Ernst and McSally, as well as John James. Sen. Loeffler is a successful businesswoman and an exceptionally strong member of the Senate, and Ken supported both Sen. Loeffler and Sen. [David] Perdue in the general and runoff elections.

Still, the circumstances and timing of the Loeffler donations remain distinctive, and serve to illustrate the haze of money, power and influence that surround the newly-minted Georgia senator, who walked away from an immensely lucrative career as a top executive within her husband’s firm when she entered politics a little less than a year ago. Given Loeffler’s connections, as well as the government oversight she now exercises over those connections, almost every contact she has with her husband’s industry reverberates with potential conflicts of interest.

At the time of Griffin’s donations, this had been made clear in months of reporting about Loeffler’s wealth and corporate ties, as well as the widespread scrutiny she drew, along with several other senators, for a number of well-timed stock trades ahead of the coronavirus pandemic.

A Justice Department investigation later cleared Loeffler of criminal wrongdoing, but she and her husband liquidated all individual stocks — except for their shares of Sprecher’s firm, Intercontinental Exchange, the parent company of NYSE.

On Nov. 18, the same day that Citadel Securities formally announced its purchase of IMC, with the runoff campaign between Loeffler and Warnock underway, Griffin gave $5,600 to the Senate Georgia Battleground Fund, a PAC established to support both Loeffler and Perdue (who also faces a Jan. 5 runoff). That curious amount may reflect a misunderstanding: A PAC can accept much larger sums, but in this instance Griffin gave the maximum any individual could have donated directly to the two runoff candidates. 

The NYSE says that DMM firms like Citadel Securities are “the cornerstone of the NYSE market model.” DMMs analyze market data to match buyers with sellers, executing trades both manually and electronically in real time, sometimes in flashes of a second. Their matchmaking also helps limit volatility, such as during this year, which has proved a boom time for Citadel. In return, DMMs collect small fees on massive numbers of transactions, scrape potentially useful data and, to some degree, shape markets.

Citadel Securities, however, also excels in high-frequency trading, where nanoseconds can make a difference. The combination presents the firm with a virtually inimitable advantage that has vaulted it to the top of its industry.

Ben Edwards, a securities law expert and professor at University of Las Vegas Nevada School of Law, told Salon that Citadel’s purchase of IMC would give it a greater presence into the market, especially with the recent rise of app-based trading, an emergent focus for Citadel.

“As Citadel grows in size, its view of the market also expands — likely allowing Citadel to become even more efficient in market making and high-speed trading,” Edwards said. “As retail trading expands with apps like Robinhood, market makers should profit significantly by executing uninformed trades.”

Citadel Securities’ buyout of IMC was a consequential transaction, according to the Wall Street Journal. It reduced the number of DMM firms on the world’s most famous stock exchange from four to three, and gave Citadel oversight of daily transactions for more than 60% of NYSE listings, “potentially raising concerns that the DMM business is becoming overly concentrated,” the Journal reported.

That consolidation was unlikely to impact the real-time experience of regular investors, Edwards told Salon, but the NYSE might see it as beneficial synchronicity.

“The NYSE may actually welcome Citadel’s acquisition of a market maker because it aligns their interests to a greater degree,” he said. “Although Citadel and NYSE may not always agree, Citadel’s purchase of a NYSE market maker likely means that Citadel isn’t going to undermine the NYSE or try to shift order flow away from the NYSE. If they did, it would result in less business for their market-making subsidiary.”

Last year Citadel joined a number of other major firms — such as Merrill Lynch, JPMorgan, Fidelity Investments and Bank of America — in opening its own exchange, MEMX, that would compete with the NYSE directly.

“We will not fight it,” Sprecher said on a call with investors after the MEMX announcement, a notably different approach than his purported detachment from Citadel Securities’ bid for IMC. “We think it has spillover benefits for the New York Stock Exchange.” 

Sprecher and Griffin were the top two donors to Georgia United Victory, the pro-Loeffler PAC. The third-biggest donor gave $500,000. Again, Griffin was one of the biggest individual donors of the 2020 election cycle, ranking sixth out of all Americans, according to data compiled by OpenSecrets. Sprecher, too, has spent tens of millions of dollars, much of it on his wife’s campaign.

But it’s also true that before the Nov. 3 general election, GUV apparently received contributions from only a few donors. In the four months between the PAC’s July launch and Election Day, Griffin and Sprecher were among only 26 contributors. Griffin’s $3 million was exceeded only by Sprecher’s $10.5 million, with all other GUV donors chipping in a combined total of about $3 million.

Otherwise, as mentioned above, major Republican donors mostly stayed away from Loeffler during the “jungle primary.” That wasn’t true of Griffin: Two of his 10 largest donations went to Loeffler, with the rest going to national Republican-oriented committees and to a PAC supporting John James, the Republican candidate taking on Democratic Sen. Gary Peters in Michigan.

In the period before the Nov. 3 election, GUV entirely deployed its resources in going after Rep. Doug Collins, Loeffler’s principal Republican opponent, and did not spend a dime attacking Warnock or any other Democrat. From Election Day onward, GUV raised only about $2 million — and that came from 850 individual contributions, which together account for less than Griffin’s two contributions before the election.

Collins attacked Loeffler’s wealth and her stock trading scandal throughout the fall campaign. “Raising money — especially from small donors — is a great barometer of support and it is clear that Doug has a dedicated grassroots army marching with him,” Collins campaign spokesperson Dan McLagan told ABC News in July. “Kelly Loeffler is mainly supported by Kelly Loeffler, her super wealthy stock-exchange-owning husband and a bunch of lobbyists. She leads a very small and lonely parade.”

Collins, however, had also vigorously supported President Trump’s 2017 tax bill, which disproportionately benefited corporate and financial interests and multinational firms. Between 2014 and 2016, Collins voted against multiple efforts to close offshore tax loopholes like the ones Loeffler and Sprecher have so successfully marketed through Intercontinental Exchange.

In other words, there are no obvious political or ideological reasons why Ken Griffin would value Kelly Loeffler so much higher than Doug Collins, or why he was evidently so much more invested in her success than were other GOP mega-donors. As noted above, however, Loeffler sits on the Senate committee that conducts oversight of stock trading.

“It’s safe to assume that the donations are being made because Citadel stands to benefit by keeping her in office,” Edwards told Salon. “It may be as simple as desiring to keep Republican control over the Senate. If Sen. Sherrod Brown [a liberal Ohio Democrat] gained control of the Senate Banking Committee, it could create political risk and increased oversight for the industry. Griffin may also believe that she’s more likely to understand and support their industry than most because of her prior work and husband.”

Loeffler estimated wealth of $800 million makes her by far the richest member of the Senate, but that’s only 4% of Griffin’s Bloomberg-estimated net worth of $20 billion, which makes him one of the 50 richest people in the U.S.

For millions of Americans, 2020 has been a financial nightmare, but for Griffin — who last year bought the most expensive home in the country, a Manhattan penthouse — it has been a bonanza. The acceleration in stock transactions has made Citadel Securities one of the financial world’s biggest winners of 2020: The firm doubled its profits in the first half of the year as compared to 2019, increasing Griffin’s personal net worth by about a third, or $5 billion, according to Bloomberg.

“Sen. Loeffler’s close familial ties to market makers and the NYSE may make it less likely that she’d consider policy reforms which might benefit the public and hurt Griffin’s business,” Edwards said. “For example, a transaction-based tax would likely significantly shrink overall trading volume. That isn’t something I’d expect her, Griffin or the NYSE to support.”

While Griffin’s $3 million might seem like pocket change for someone with his immense wealth, it is not paltry to most Americans, or to most political campaigns. Loeffler’s campaign, for instance, raised $28 million in total, and only $3.8 million of that amount came from individual contributions. Another $23 million came from the candidate herself.

The Loeffler campaign did not reply to Salon’s request for comment. Citadel Securities eventually provided a comment from Griffin’s spokesperson, printed above in full.

Here’s how we can neutralize Donald Trump during his last month in office

His diagnosis is clear. The remedies for his pernicious impact on America are clear as well.

In just over a month from now, Donald Trump — a malignant narcissist — will be removed from office by the will of the people and by the Constitution. Until then, his seditious, conspiratorial and corrupt influence will be front and center. He continues to promulgate the false narrative that victory in the election was snatched away from him by widespread voter fraud. He keeps filing baseless and frivolous lawsuits, even as high as the U.S. Supreme Court. He is ginning up his supporters, and at least 126 congressional Republicans have publicly supported him, out of a combination of misguided loyalty, opportunism and fear. Joe Biden will be our next president, but it is undeniable that Trump will exert a dangerous and destructive presence to his final day in office, and beyond.

It is unhealthy for us to sit back passively and allow this soon-to-be ex-president to continue to inflict damage on America. Trump’s abusive impact is not unavoidable. It can be stopped.

Ten remedies exist to deal with Trump in his final days.

  1. The media must stop giving him attention. They must stop covering his every utterance. No more videos, audios, print stories or interviews. Attention is Trump’s oxygen and lifeblood. He cannot negatively influence others if his visibility is curtailed or ended. If Trump organizes an alternative inauguration or a “campaign rally” on Jan. 20, it must not be broadcast or covered in any way. Bizarre and anti-American activities must not be given credibility. It must remain a part of his pathological fantasyland — not a part of our political and social reality.
  2. Americans can do their part by not watching or listening to him. Turn off the television and the radio. Do not watch him on social media. He is old news. He is irrelevant. His message must be abhorred and soundly repudiated.
  3. His Twitter account should be suspended. Stopping his Twitter activity would go a long way to neutralizing his impact. Trump tweets frequently — it is his most direct way to stay in contact with the public. His tweeting must be interrupted for the good of the country.
  4. Facebook and other social media platforms must do a better job of rooting out disinformation. Trump supporters have been ramped up by false and toxic rhetoric. That is unhealthy for them, and for the country. Making money as a business is one thing; contributing to seditious unrest in the country is another. Social media platforms must assume a more responsible role in our democracy.
  5. The mainstream media needs to allow mental health professionals to speak out. Experts have been almost entirely blocked out. It is long overdue to hear from professionals in the mental health field. Duty to warn the public is far more compelling than the outdated “Goldwater rule.” Let experts be at the forefront of the discussion about this destructive and irrational traitor.
  6. Congressional Republicans need to put country over party and begin to speak out — loudly and forcefully. They need to abide by their oath of office. They need to find courage and boldness in Trump’s final days. They must condemn his anti-democratic rhetoric and behavior. Loyalty to him is unacceptable. Fear of him is weakness.
  7. A small group of congressional Republicans need to speak with Trump in private and compel him to stop his rhetoric, concede the election and participate in the peaceful and orderly transfer of power. That’s what Sen. Barry Goldwater and other Republican leaders did with Richard Nixon at the end of his presidency. These Republicans would be remembered as heroes.
  8. If Trump does not heed the private warning, he should be publicly asked to resign. Invoking the 25th Amendment remains a viable option.
  9. Trump needs to resign and allow Mike Pence to finish out the last few weeks of his term. He may well do this anyway, so that Pence can pardon Trump and his entire family. Regardless of how distasteful that is, it would at least get him out of the Oval Office and extricate ourselves from his dictatorial maneuvers.
  10. Finally, Americans should speak out and contact their elected officials to let them know that it is time for Trump to either shut his mouth or resign. Let your opinions be known. Being a citizen in a representative democracy requires active participation. Make a phone call or send an email.

It’s fine that Trump does not want to attend the inauguration of Joe Biden and Kamala Harris. He does not deserve to witness it. We should demand that he slither away through the back door of the White House so that we do not have to endure his parting rants and raves.

The Trump nightmare is coming to an end. Let us hasten his exit from the scene. He has done too much damage to our institutions and to the collective psyche of America to tolerate this any longer.

Achieving a sense of closure from this man’s malevolence will take time. It will not happen overnight. His pathological impact will dwindle slowly as we go forward. Positive, optimistic and hopeful political discourse will lead the way. We cannot remain hostage to his era of divisiveness and regressive decay.

Trump must be held accountable. He must be prosecuted for his crimes. That is the only way to demonstrate to all Americans — both those who support him and those who do not — that his criminal behavior has serious consequences.

Trump has done this to himself. He is not the victim. He uses victimhood to garner sympathy and to enlist the support of others who feel aggrieved. Victimhood is a deeply cynical process when it is false, fake and manipulative. It always is for him.

Trump’s place in the history books is set. “Worst president in history” will be in every first and last paragraph. It will be his unchanging legacy.

So let us put Donald Trump in the rearview mirror sooner rather than later, where he belongs. As we do that, let us remember the 300,000 fallen Americans who will not be celebrating the holiday season, or our new dawn in America, with the rest of us. Their memories will be a constant reminder of what we have endured — and overcome.

Efforts to stop Trump’s border wall construction could extend long past Inauguration Day

When Carlos Flores filed suit against the Trump administration last summer, the Laredo-based attorney said he wanted to help his clients try to stave off border wall construction on their stretch of the Texas-Mexico border at least until the presidential election in hopes of seeing a new administration take over.

But with the election over and Trump set to give way to President-elect Joe Biden next month, Flores said the court battles over Trump’s signature promise could stretch well past next month’s inauguration.

“I could foresee that there are going to be some significant legal battles between now and at least Jan. 20 and possible further into 2021,” he said. “It depends on how quickly and how decisively the Biden administration reacts to what’s going on down here.”

Flores represents Zapata County and two South Texas landowners in a lawsuit challenging Trump’s 2017 executive order mandating construction of a physical barrier on the border. It also challenges a series of environmental waivers issued in May aimed at fast-tracking almost 70 miles of barrier from Webb County to Zapata County.

The lawsuit alleges the administration violated the Fifth Amendment’s due process clause, which provides for equal protection under the law. The executive order “creates a 2nd Class United States citizen at the southern border who can have their land seized wholesale based on racist and white nationalist motives,” the lawsuit states.

During the campaign, Biden said his administration would not build another mile of barrier should he win, and his campaign website states that during his first 100 days in office, he will end the “so-called National Emergency” that Trump declared in order to divert Department of Defense money to help build the barrier.

Still, Flores worries that the border barrier may not be among Biden’s immediate priorities, which could allow the Department of Homeland Security to continue moving forward until it gets new marching orders.

“The thing I am really concerned about is that as we head into the winter months, the pandemic is going to get worse,” Flores said. “And on day one he’s going to have an economic crisis.”

Jessica Bolter, a policy analyst with the Migration Policy Institute, said last month that Biden could immediately end Trump’s emergency declaration, but it’s unclear how that would affect ongoing construction projects and the money already dedicated to them.

“Ending the transfer of future funds doesn’t mean in itself that wall construction stops,” she said.

Meanwhile, the Trump administration shows no signs of slowing progress on one of his most high-profile campaign promises. A U.S. Customs and Border Protection online tracker of border wall construction indicates a 69-mile stretch of new barrier is under construction in Webb County, and another 52-mile project is in the “pre-construction” phase.

The government hasn’t built anything on the land that’s part of Flores’ lawsuit; court documents show that last month the federal government was granted more time to file documents seeking to dismiss the lawsuit, which would allow the project to proceed. Flores said hearings are possible as late as next month.

“It’s all going to depend how aggressive the feds are in moving forward with the construction,” he said. “I just don’t know why they would spend all this money. I guess people feel like they’re going to get fired by President Trump between now and Jan. 20, I don’t know.”

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

Hospitals scramble to prioritize which workers are first for COVID shots

If there’s such a thing as a date with destiny, it’s marked on Dr. Taison Bell’s calendar.

At noon Tuesday, Bell, a critical care physician, is scheduled to be one of the first health care workers at the University of Virginia Health System to roll up his sleeve for a shot to ward off the coronavirus.

“This is a long time coming,” said Bell, 37, who signed up via hospital email last week. “The story of this crisis is that each week feels like a year. This is really the first time that there’s genuine hope that we can turn the corner on this.”

For now, that hope is limited to a chosen few. Bell provides direct care to some of the sickest COVID-19 patients at the UVA Health hospital in Charlottesville, Virginia. But he is among some 12,000 “patient-facing” workers at his hospital who could be eligible for about 3,000 early doses of vaccine, said Dr. Costi Sifri, director of hospital epidemiology.

“We’re trying to come up with the highest-risk categories, those who really spend a significant amount of time taking care of patients,” Sifri said. “It doesn’t account for everybody.”

Even as the federal Food and Drug Administration engaged in intense deliberations ahead of Friday’s authorization of the Pfizer and BioNTech COVID vaccine, and days before the initial 6.4 million doses were to be released, hospitals across the country have been grappling with how to distribute the first scarce shots.

An advisory committee of the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention has recommended that top priority go to long-term care facilities and front-line health care workers, but the early allocation was always expected to fall far short of the need and require selective screening even among critical hospital workers.

Hospitals in general are advised to target the members of their workforce at highest risk, but the institutions are left on their own to decide exactly who that will be, Colin Milligan, a spokesperson for the American Hospital Association, said in an email.

“It is clear that the hospitals will not receive enough in the first weeks to vaccinate everyone on their staff, so decisions had to be made,” Milligan wrote.

At Intermountain Healthcare in Salt Lake City, the first shots will go to staff members “with the highest risk of contact with COVID-positive patients or their waste,” said Dr. Kristin Dascomb, medical director of infection prevention and employee health. Within that group, managers will determine which caregivers are first in line.

At UW Medicine in Seattle, which includes Harborview Medical Center, one early plan called for high-risk staff to be selected randomly to receive first doses, said Dr. Shireesha Dhanireddy, medical director of the infectious disease clinic. But the University of Washington hospital system expects to receive enough doses to vaccinate everyone in that high-risk tier within two weeks, so randomization isn’t necessary — for now.

“We are allowing people to schedule themselves,” Dhanireddy said, and encouraging staffers to be vaccinated near the end of their workweeks in case they have reactions to the new vaccine.

Trial results have shown the shots frequently produce side effects that, while not debilitating, could cause symptoms such as fever, muscle aches or fatigue that might keep someone home for a day or two.

“We want to make sure that not everybody has the vaccine on the same day so that if there are some side effects, we don’t end up being short-staffed,” said Sifri, of UVA Health, noting that guidelines call for no more than 25% of any unit to be vaccinated at once.

At UVA Health, once the initial 3,000 doses are distributed, the hospital plans to rely on what Sifri described as “a very strong honor code” to allow staff members to decide where they should be in line. They’ve been asked to consider professional factors, like the type of work they do, as well as personal risks, such as age or underlying conditions like diabetes.

“We’re going to ask team members, using the honor code, to determine what their risk is for COVID and to determine whether they need to have an early vaccine sign-up time or a later vaccine sign-up time,” he said.

That plan was chosen after health care staff members soundly rejected other options. For instance, few favored a proposal to allocate dosages via a lottery, like the chaotic birthday-based system depicted in the 2011 pandemic horror film “Contagion.” “That was the biggest loser,” he said.

Hospital officials also stressed they are trying to devise distribution plans that ensure vaccines are allocated equitably among health care workers, including the social, racial and ethnic groups that have been disproportionately harmed by COVID-19 infections. That requires thinking beyond front-line doctors and nurses.

At UVA Health, for example, one of the first groups invited to get shots will be 17 workers whose job is to clean rooms in the special pathogens unit where severe COVID cases are treated.

“We acknowledge that everybody is at risk for COVID, everybody is deserving of a vaccine,” Sifri said.

In many cases, it will be clear who should go first. For instance, although Dhanireddy is an infectious disease doctor who consults on COVID cases, she is happy to wait to be vaccinated. “I wouldn’t put myself in the first group at all,” she said. “I think that we need to protect our staff that are really right there with them most of the day — and that’s not me.”

But hospitals must remain vigilant about relying on workers to prioritize their own access, Dhanireddy cautioned. “Sometimes, self-selection works more for self-advocacy,” she said. “It’s great that some individuals say they would defer to others, but sometimes that’s not actually the case.”

For some health care workers, not being first in line for vaccination is fine. Because the vaccine initially has been authorized only for emergency use, hospitals won’t require employees to be inoculated as part of this first round. Between 70% and 75% of health care staff at UVA Health and Intermountain Health would accept a COVID vaccine, internal surveys showed. The rest are unsure — or unwilling.

“There are some that will be immediate acceptors and some who will want to watch and wait,” Dascomb said.

Still, hospital officials say they’re confident that those who want the vaccine won’t have to wait long. Enough doses for roughly 21 million health care personnel should be available by early January, according to CDC officials.

Bell, the critical care doctor, said he’s grateful to be among the first to receive the vaccine, especially after his parents, who live in Boston, both contracted COVID-19. He has posted about his upcoming appointment on Twitter and said he and other health care workers who are among the first in line should be public about the process.

“We’ll serve as an example that this is a safe and effective vaccine,” he said. “We’re letting it go into our bodies. You should let it go into yours, too.”

Biden’s victory was hardly a win for “democracy.” It was another win for the 1%

In light of a newly elected Biden administration, many have proclaimed that a triumph of democracy has taken place. But was Joe Biden’s win really a victory for democracy? The evidence suggests otherwise, by a wide margin. 

The 2020 election was the most expensive election on record, with Democrats outspending Republicans in both congressional and federal contests. Spending was just shy of $14 billion in total, an unprecedented record and double the amount of 2016. In fact, the Biden campaign brokemonthly and online campaign funding contributions of all time — boosted in large part by Wall Street donors. Biden’s campaign, in fact, became the first ever to raise over $1 billion in campaign donations. Donald Trump, on the other hand, finished second in total campaign contributions by a presidential candidate, beating out Obama’s 2008 record-shattering numbers. In fact, this characterizes the overall trends. 

The Financial Times writes that listed companies increased their donations to Democratic groups this year over the Republicans, noting that this was “a sign that executives are trying to win favour with liberals on expectations of conservative defeats nationwide in the November elections.” Furthermore, both presidential campaigns were “boosted by unprecedented outside spending by big-money super PACs and ‘dark money’ groups” that were bolstered by ultra-wealthy individuals. In fact, the greater the contributions, the less transparent the Biden campaign became with records, even going as far as declining to disclose the names of its most prominent fundraisers.

If we take an even closer look, the picture becomes even bleaker, revealing how undemocratic the United States really is. Political scientist Thomas Ferguson, an authoritative scholar on money and electoral politics, has a valuable and established political science theory called “the investment theory of politics.” He demonstrates that the U.S. is essentially controlled by coalitions of investors who come together around some mutual interest. Thus, “to participate in the political arena, you must have enough resources and private power to become part of such a coalition.” 

He argues that since the early 19th century, there has been a persistent struggle for power among these groups of investors. Moments of conflict come along when groups of investors have differing points of view on public policy, while on policies where large investors are in agreement, no party struggle takes place. Importantly, parties attempt to change the public’s opinion to match those of its investors. 

These findings are applicable elsewhere. In fact, further research by Ferguson and his colleagues on the effect of wealthy investors and money on election outcomes has shown that campaign expenditures are an excellent predictor of U.S. congressional races: “Money in American politics … suggests that analyses … of the American political system should begin by looking closely at money politics when they attempt to understand political change, especially political system’s steady shift to the right since the late nineteen sixties. Our tentative conclusion … is that seeing should, after all, be believing: the case in favor of the proposition that money drives US elections is significantly strengthened.”

Ferguson’s research on the political power of the rich is no outlier, either. A major study by Princeton scholar Martin Gilens and Northwestern University professor Benjamin Page reveals that the vast majority of the population — 70 percent on the lower end of the wealth and income scale — is essentially excluded from policy decisions and effectively unrepresented. They conclude that as you move up the scale, influence gradually increases. More importantly, when you reach the very top of the scale, these affluent groups essentially determine policy. 

The authors reveal that regardless of a Republican or Democratic head of government, the government follows the policy preferences of major lobbying or business groups rather than policy preferences of the general population. They determine that, “if policymaking is dominated by powerful business organizations and a small number of affluent Americans, then America’s claims to being a democratic society are seriously threatened.” 

Yet, even with these stark conclusions, the study had its limitations. One is that it didn’t show who among the rich and wealthy has the greatest influence. Additionally, it excluded major business groups such as the Business Council and the Committee for Economic Development, and neglected to note the importance of individual firms and investors. 

The latest research published this year by two analysts, Shawn McGuire and Charles Delahunt, fills these gaps and builds upon this work, reinforcing the observations even further. Utilizing artificial intelligence and machine learning, McGuire and Delahunt advance the thesis by showing it is actually worse than what others have found. Their study reveals and confirms that the top wealthiest 10 percent ultimately always win on policy — effectively showing that anyone else’s opinion outside of the top 10 percent rarely matters. 

Thus, the preferences of the top 10 percent along with the opinions of certain interest groups can effectively explain and determine how policy is hammered out with remarkable accuracy. As such, the opinions of those in the lower scale of income reduces the accuracy of prediction in accordance with Gilens and Page’s similar findings. 

McGuire and Delahunt’s objective was to examine to what degree legislative outcomes could be predicted based on the preferences of the rich, and to a lesser extent, business interest groups, by applying a machine learning tool to Gilens and Page’s dataset on 1,836 major U.S. federal government policies, policy opinions of the top 10 richest in income percentile, and interest group preferences, to build a predictive model of U.S. policy. Their conclusion was strong: policy outcomes were predictable with a 70 percent degree accuracy utilizing the policy preferences of those in the 90th income percentile, showing the rich speak with their wallets. 

In fact, they even note that while the 90th income percentile functions as a proxy for the opinions of elites, their results would probably fare even better if they had data on the opinions of the top 1 percent. They conclude what is generally suspected: The “likely lodestar variable affecting policy outcomes … is the transfer of large amounts of money to policy makers from the wealthiest sources focused intensely on particular policies.”

Every new study that concerns the power of the rich on U.S. democracy is more striking than the last. Biden’s election victory only adds more evidence to these overall trends. In fact, as we have seen, this isn’t at all surprising. U.S. society is dominated by the rich, who have the ultimate say on public policy and elections. If one wants to understand how policy is determined in our country, one will need to look at the opinions of the wealthy and how they invest their money. 

Our political system features inauthentic political parties that lack organized public participation, and where elite-run candidate selection institutions reflect the opinions and interests of the rich. As a result, the feelings of discontent are clear through the gradual rise of conspiracy theories, the rise of con artist politicians like Donald Trump, and the rise of religious fundamentalism and other social ills. (Yet, it is important to note that 82 percent of us, not unrealistically, hold the opinion that the rich have too much influence in politics. A majority of the population favor a wealth tax on the rich). 

Thus, recent proclamations of a “restoration of democracy” are nothing more than fallacy, contrary to recent mainstream pronouncements. In light of all of this, McGuire and Delahunt comment that it is “strange to observe the fight for ‘democracy’ currently playing out on screens across the country,” yet “the underlying disease — money-driven policy outcomes — leading to present-day symptoms goes mostly unspoken.” Additionally, “the current election is of critical importance, but a society that pins its hopes for democracy on quadrennial extravaganzas heavily funded by wealthy interests will be disappointed, as these players will perpetually win the game.” 

It is very important to note that this doesn’t mean that all is lost. In order for the general population to have a say in their affairs, they would need, as Page and Gilens advocate, a “social movement for democracy” to counter the extraordinary power of the wealthiest of society. This movement, they note, should be similar to the civil rights and New Deal-era movements. To this end, if the Biden administration were to cancel student and medical debt or pass extremely popular policies like Medicare for All, an authentic and organized mass movement is the only way to make progressive policies possible. 

Copyright © Truthout. Reprinted with permission.

George Lucas: Critics of “Star Wars” prequel dialogue “don’t understand” the franchise

George Lucas does not agree with the critics who have bashed his “Star Wars” prequels over the years due to what they claim is “pretty corny dialogue.” The script for “Star Wars: Attack of the Clones” is often singled out for ridicule due to the cringeworthy romance scenes between Anakin Skywalker (Hayden Christensen) and Padmé Amidala (Natalie Portman). Such Lucas-written lines as “I am haunted by the kiss that you should never have given me” have been widely mocked, but the writer-director says in the new book “The Star Wars Archives 1999-2005” (via NME) that such complaints miss the entire style of the space franchise.

Read more from IndieWireThe 50 best movies of 2020, according to over 230 film critics

“It is presented very honestly, it isn’t tongue-in-cheek at all, and it’s played to the hilt,” Lucas said of the “Attack of the Clones” dialogue. “But it is consistent, not only with the rest of the movie, but with the overall ‘Star Wars’ style. Most people don’t understand the style of ‘Star Wars.’ They don’t get that there’s an underlying motif that is very much like a 1930s Western or Saturday matinee serial.”

“It’s in the more romantic period of making movies and adventure films. And this film is even more of a melodrama than the others,” Lucas continued. “There’s a bit more soap opera in this one than there has been in the past, so setting the scenes up and staging them was more complex than it usually is.”

Read more from IndieWireHow to upgrade your home theater in time for “Wonder Woman 1984”

To more convincingly pull off the more soap opera dialogue in “Attack of the Clones,” Lucas and his crew would rehearse for individual weeks of filming at a time as opposed to one big rehearsal period ahead of the production (which was the norm on previous “Star Wars” films).

“On the previous Saturday, I would spend all day rehearsing with the actors and the cameraman, and we would stage the scene and rehearse it a couple times. So for the rest of the week, we would have a very clear vision of what we were doing, and didn’t have to spend time on the set trying to figure things out.”

Read more from IndieWireChris Pine is ready for Tarantino’s “Star Trek”: “It would be tremendously entertaining”

Hayden Christensen received significant critical scorn for “Attack of the Clones,” but many critics agree the actor did not have the best dialogue to work with at the time. Fortunately, Christensen is getting another shot at the “Star Wars” franchise as he is set to reprise Anakin/Darth Vader in the Disney+ Obi-Wan Kenobi series.

“The Boys” cast reacts to Barack Obama praising show

Superhero shows such as “The Boys” and “Watchmen” have received acclaim for subverting the superhero genre, and former President Barack Obama is among their most famous fans.

Read more from IndieWireThe 50 best movies of 2020, according to over 230 film critics

Obama discussed a handful of his favorite television shows during a recent interview with Entertainment Weekly. The former president, who published his “A Promised Land” memoir in November, noted that several recent shows helped him unwind while taking breaks from writing.

“‘Better Call Saul,’ because of its great characters and examination of the dark side of the American dream,” Obama told Entertainment Weekly. ‘The Good Place’ — it’s a wise and sweet combination of goofy comedy and big philosophical questions. And ‘Watchmen’ and ‘The Boys,’ for how they turn superhero conventions on their heads to lay bare issues of race, capitalism, and the distorting effects of corporate power and mass media. Oh, and the NBA playoffs — because it’s hoops.”

Read more from IndieWireHow to upgrade your home theater in time for “Wonder Woman 1984”

Obama’s comments excited “The Boys” series creator Eric Kripke and the show’s cast, who posted their reactions on social media.

Anthony Starr, who portrays Homelander, was similarly enthusiastic and quipped about Obama’s thoughts on the Season 2 scene where Mother’s Milk (Laz Alonso) is choked by a superpowered individual with a large penis. As for Alonso, he posted that “you never know who’s watching and who u have the ability to inspire.” Cast members Erin MoriartyJessie Usher, and Aya Cash also celebrated the news on social media.

“The Boys” has received acclaim for its relentless skewering of pop culture, corporations, and American politics, among other topics. The show’s second season honed in on White Supremacy, Nazism, and other forms of racism. IndieWire’s Ben Travers lauded “The Boys” Season 2 for its handling of right-wing extremism in his grade B review.

Read more from IndieWireChris Pine is ready for Tarantino’s “Star Trek”: “It would be tremendously entertaining”

Rarely has “the American way” been stripped so thoroughly of its historic infallibility, and rarely have those who demand unquestioning loyalty to the flag been so justly put in their place, Travers said in his review.”

As for Obama, he also praised “Watchmen” in 2019 as one his favorite television shows of the year— the others were “Fleabag” Season 2 and “Unbelievable” .

Obama’s full interview with Entertainment Weekly can be read here.

HBO Max finally coming to Roku as “Wonder Woman 1984,” “Dune,” and more prepare to stream

WarnerMedia and Roku have reached a deal to bring the HBO Max streaming service to Roku’s 46 million active users starting Thursday, December 17. The service will remain available at $15 per month. News of a WarnerMedia-Roku agreement comes at an opportune time for HBO Max, which will begin streaming Patty Jenkins’ comic book tentpole “Wonder Woman 1984″ on December 25. The movie is launching on HBO Max for 31 days on the same day it opens in select theaters.

Read more from IndieWire: The 50 best movies of 2020, according to over 230 film critics

“We believe that all entertainment will be streamed and we are thrilled to partner with HBO Max to bring their incredible library of iconic entertainment brands and blockbuster slate of direct to streaming theatrical releases to the Roku households with more than 100 million people that have made Roku the No. 1 TV streaming platform in America,” said Scott Rosenberg, Senior Vice President, Platform Business, Roku. “Reaching mutually beneficial agreements where Roku grows together with our partners is how we deliver an exceptional user experience at an incredible value for consumers and we are excited by the opportunity to deepen our longstanding relationship with the team at WarnerMedia.”

Roku joins Amazon Fire TV, Comcast, Apple TV, and Playstation 5 as services that offer HBO Max. Many Roku users were holding out hope for HBO Max arriving on the platform after WarnerMedia announced it would be moving its entire 2021 film slate to the hybrid theatrical-HBO Max release model. Similar to “Wonder Woman 1984,” tentpoles such as “Dune,” “Godzilla vs. Kong,” and “The Matrix 4” will stream on HBO Max for 31 days beginning on the same day they are set to open in theaters.

Read more from IndieWire: How to upgrade your home theater in time for “Wonder Woman 1984”

“HBO Max is an incredible product with an unparalleled content offering that puts the consumer at the center, and we’re thrilled that Roku users will be able to experience all the great stories HBO Max has to offer,” said Tony Goncalves, Chief Revenue Officer, WarnerMedia. “We’re breaking new ground in the months ahead, and we can’t wait to work with our longtime partners at Roku to build on our past successes and bring HBO Max’s best-in-class quality entertainment to Roku’s large and highly engaged audience.”

Read more from IndieWire: Chris Pine is ready for Tarantino’s “Star Trek”: “It would be tremendously entertaining”

Per an official Roku statement: “Roku users can get the new HBO Max channel or find it in the ‘New and Notable’ and ‘Movies & TV’ categories of the Roku channel store to add it to their Roku home screen. HBO Max uses Roku Pay, a fast and simple way to pay on Roku streaming devices. For users who have already subscribed to HBO through their Roku devices, the channel will automatically update to HBO Max.”

Public health officials weigh in on safer sex & dating during COVID – but will anyone listen?

Earlier this month, San Francisco implemented a new stay-at-home order banning city-dwellers from seeing another person outside of their households. While the act of dating wasn’t explicitly mentioned in the order, many took this opportunity to assume that dating was canceled. Nearly a week later, the city quietly updated its order stating that people were allowed to meet with one other person outside one’s household. Two people could take a walk, hang out at the park, or — according to the order’s wording — “play low-contact sports like golf, tennis, pickleball, and bocce ball (but don’t share equipment).”

Did this cryptic change mean dating was back on?

San Francisco Supervisor Matt Haney proceeded to tweet about the change and provide more transparency around what this meant in the realm of dating. “In-person dating is no longer banned in San Francisco, but you can only date outdoors and no double dates,” he tweeted. “You can kiss, but only if you move in together.”

Haney went on to explain that his tongue-in-cheek tweets, which were both “factual and sarcastic,” had a bigger point, which was to give people “more ways to interact with each other safely.” “Dating will happen,” he said. “People will spend time together. Acting as though it won’t is unrealistic, contradictory, and will backfire.”

Indeed, it’s unrealistic to expect people to be abstinent and not go on dates and try to find connection as we find ourselves nine months into quarantine. It’s happening, and some health experts say it’s in the best interest of the public to be as transparent and helpful as possible when it comes to offering guidance. In other words, public health officials should be offering guidance in the vein of harm-reduction strategies.

“If you give people an abstinence-only equivalence, they’re not going to follow that guidance, and you’re going to end up with a worse situation than if you would have given people a toolkit to be able to make better decisions,” Amesh Adalja, a senior scholar at Johns Hopkins Center for Health Security, told Salon in an interview. “If you don’t give people tools, then you’re going to see more transmission than you would otherwise.”

Adalja added: “We’ve been through this before with infectious diseases; people had the same conversations in the ’80s about HIV, when it comes to needle exchanges, and overdose prevention and NARCAN, so I think that it’s that same paradigm that has to be applied here.”

But during the coronavirus pandemic, there’s been little guidance from federal public health officials on dating and sex. One pamphlet by National Coalition of STD Directors (NCSD) and NASTAD states that the safest sex partners are those in your household. If you choose to have sex with someone outside your household, the organizations  provide a list of questions to assess the risk, such as: “Do I or my partner have any other sex partners at this time? Do I or my partner live in an area of high community transmission?” The “safest choice,” the pamphlet states, is “to not to have sex with a person outside your household at this time.”

COVID-19 spreads through particles in the saliva, mucus or breath of infected people, even when a person doesn’t have symptoms. Clearly, this makes sex and dating risky activities especially when it’s with someone outside your household. While the virus has been found in the semen and feces of infected people, scientists don’t know if it can be spread through vaginal or anal sex, but think it’s unlikely. 

As Salon’s Heather Digby wrote in March of this year, CDC director Robert Redfield and Dr. Deborah Birx are both evangelical Christians who have been associated with HIV research for many years. “Birx runs PEPFAR, George W. Bush’s global AIDS initiative, and both she and Redfield have been involved with Children’s AIDS Fund International, which lobbies for abstinence-only sex education around the world,” Digby wrote. It shouldn’t come as a surprise that harm-reduction sex and dating guidance hasn’t trickled down from the top of the Trump administration, but some city governments have taken matters into their own hands.

Over the summer, New York City health department updated its Safer Sex and Covid-19 fact sheet with descriptive advice. In the event that you do decide to have sex with someone outside your household, the health department stated a person should wear a mask or consider getting “a little kinky and creative with sexual positions and physical barriers, like walls, that allow sexual contact while preventing close face to face contact.” If a person wants to engage in group sex (which public health department discouraged), there are ways lower the risk of spreading or contracting COVID-19 — for example, choosing a larger, more open, and well-ventilated space, wearing a mask, and limiting the size of the guest list.

Oregon health officials took a more sex-positive approach, too, stating sex is still allowed, but said that people should avoid kissing those who aren’t part of their “small circle of contacts.”

At a time when Oregonians are spending more time than ever at home, we imagine you may be wondering “Is it still safe to have sex?”

In short – Yes. You can still have sex but with precautions. Here are some tips on practicing safe sex during this time. #COVID19 #sexed pic.twitter.com/mjUPQPZitk

— OR Health Authority (@OHAOregon) April 8, 2020

In The Atlantic, Julia Marcus, an epidemiologist and professor at Harvard Medical School, argued that Americans haven’t received the correct “harm-reduction approach” to reopening their lives during the pandemic. Marcus noted how public health officials in the Netherlands advised that people find a “seksbuddy,” a trusted person to have an exclusive sexual relationship with during lockdown. “Unlike abstinence-only messaging, which simply instructs people to stay home, a harm-reduction approach acknowledges that people will take risks for a variety of reasons, including a basic need for pleasure,” Marcus wrote.

Emily Smith, founder and CEO of Chorus, a matchmaking app where friends swipe for friends, told Salon via email that at first, dating in the spring was “strictly video and that was super clear.”

“But as the weather got warmer and we learned a little more, broaching the in-person, outdoor hangouts became more acceptable,” Smith said. “Now, it feels like a matter of personal preference, to an extent; everyone is careful and wearing masks but how that progresses is less clear.”

Smith said she had an “amazing first date” with her “now boyfriend” a few months ago. A few hours into it, they kissed.

“We had to assess each other’s comfort level but we both felt it was worth the risk and weren’t being physical with anyone else,” Smith said. “I think the biggest change right now is open communication.”

Nancy V., who asked to not publish her last name, lives in Los Angeles. She told Salon she got back into the dating app game in July, but felt like public health officials didn’t give people any guidance on how to date safely — especially in the beginning.

“It feels like they gave us nothing,” she said over email. “My close friends didn’t stop meeting up with new people. I wish we could have talked more about how to navigate the conversation with new people we’re meeting.”

The vaccine rollouts this week are certainly providing the country with a feeling of hope, but it will still be a few more months before the vaccine is available to the general public, which means a few more months of uncertainty. Gigi Engle, a certified sex educator and writer, told Salon via email she thinks that getting a COVID-19 test before meeting a date in person, or having proof of vaccination will “start to be as much a part of dating as presenting STI results.”

“We all need to protect ourselves, but we also need human contact,” Engle said.

Correction: A previous version of this article referred to “NASTAD” as the National Coalition of STD Directors. This was incorrect. The correct acronym for the National Coalition of STD Directors is NCSD. NASTAD is the National Alliance of State and Territorial Aids Directors.

 

“We want them infected”: Shocking email reveals top Trump appointee’s plan to spread COVID-19

According to a new report from POLITICO, a former top Trump appointee urged for health officials to adopt a “herd immunity” approach to the coronavirus pandemic, allowing for millions of people to be infected.

“There is no other way, we need to establish herd, and it only comes about allowing the non-high risk groups expose themselves to the virus. PERIOD,” then-science adviser Paul Alexander wrote on July 4 to his boss, Health and Human Services assistant secretary for public affairs Michael Caputo, and six other senior officials.

“Infants, kids, teens, young people, young adults, middle aged with no conditions etc. have zero to little risk….so we use them to develop herd…we want them infected…” he added.

The news sparked a wave of outrage from President Trump’s critics on Twitter.

 

 

“Education” culminates Amazon’s “Small Axe” film series, finding beauty in the necessary struggle

Elements of “Education,” the fifth installment of Steve McQueen‘s Amazon Prime “Small Axe” film anthology series, could have played as comedy if the circumstances weren’t tragic. One scene places its main character Kingsley (Kenyah Sandy) in a room with what will be one of his classmates at the school to which he’s been transferred, a big-eyed girl wearing a vacant expression who communicates by barking like a dog.

Later a teacher clumsily strums his guitar as he sings “House of the Rising Sun” off-key, eyes pinched closed, as his students deflate at their desks. This performance masquerades as a lesson since at the end of this criminal display, he asks the children who wrote the song. Of course they don’t know. “The Animals,” he says sagely, repeating it so they’ll remember.

But this is not a goofy blip in an otherwise upbeat coming-of-age tale. It’s the story of how bright children like Kingsley, a boy fascinated by astronomy and rockets, are written off early in their lives. Before he is shunted from his original school to one for “special” students, one of his white friends informs him that his dream to become an astronaut is impossible since Black people aren’t allowed to go to space.

We also learn that despite attending school he has somehow gotten to the age of 12 without anyone realizing or caring that he can’t read. His teachers punish his illiteracy as bad behavior, and when he acts out the headmaster exiles him to what his mother later is informed is a school for “educationally subnormal” students. In reality, it is a waystation for children to mature into adults whose options are more likely to be limited to menial labor or worse.

Out of the five films McQueen created for “Small Axe,” “Education” is his most autobiographically inspired. McQueen, a first generation West Londoner whose parents immigrated from Caribbean nations, lived parts of Kingley’s experience himself and grew up in a community where the stories told here took place.

“Education” also is a thoughtful summary of all the themes that came before it, capping off an anthology that explores with ample consideration how to evoke aspects of the Black experience without tearing at old wounds or afflicting anew the people who live that experience.

How and which stories about Black life rise to prominence in mainstream culture is a discussion that’s been running for decades, but this charnel house of a year gave it new life. McQueen’s anthology is the product of a vanguard of Black filmmakers and producers who have attained levels of power and prominence previously all but unknown in the industry and larger culture. Through “Small Axe” and works like it, they are steadily evolving our stories from ones eternally linked to suffering or overcoming to those defined by excellence and audacious joy in the face of struggle.

McQueen’s hybrid of serialized story and independent film captures a slice of Black West Indian experience in London between the late 1960s and 1980s, and in doing this he inventively acknowledges the balancing act between the struggle and exhilaration that must be reckoned with in these stories.

One is necessary, invigorating and the backbone of inspirational storytelling. There can be no progress or reckoning with injustice without honestly depicting struggle. The other is a choice people make to keep going in the face of grim adversity. Neglecting to explore this gives the viewer little reason to witness that struggle beyond the lesson of it; there must be, should be, the counterbalancing representation of felicity, and in large doses.

In each of “Small Axe” films McQueen consciously engages with this notion, even within the true stories that would not be famous if not for the violence committed against those at their center. “Mangrove,” the first film in the series, takes its name from a Notting Hill Caribbean restaurant whose owner made it to be a home away from home for locals. To Americans, the neighborhood is synonymous with Hugh Grant and Julia Roberts and the colorful sort of artsy that arrives in the wake of gentrification.

Here we see how it looks and feels in the 1970s – a place where Mangrove owner Frank Crichlow (Shaun Parkes) throws animated street parties that inspire dancing and music, where the restaurant itself is made lively by warm family banter about the food and gossip about the activism stirring the community. The Mangrove is more commonly associated with a famous trial involving Frank and eight others, including activists Altheia Jones-LeCointe (Letitia Wright) and Darcus Howe (Malachi Kirby). All were targeted by the local cops, wrongfully arrested and charged with incitement to riot after they mounted a protest against police harassment.

The violence that London police commit against the people in multiple scenes is infuriating. Distinguishing it from other such dramatizations, however, is the way that McQueen and his co-writer Alastair Siddons transform that agitation into a hot battery powering Kirby’s magnificent closing argument at the film’s climax.

Where this represents a departure from other such stories is McQueen’s willingness to steep us in the delectation of this story and his devotion to ensuring that does not take a backseat to struggle. This is most obvious in “Lovers Rock,” a fictional sway through a house party in 1980.

In this installment, a young woman named Martha (Amarah-Jae St. Aubyn) and her friend Patty (Shaniqua Okwok) sneak out of their houses to take part, and the camera accompanies them and everyone else from the pre-game preparations on through the night, imbuing the smallest details with import and thrill. (I defy anyone ever burned by a hot comb to hold back a simultaneous grin and cringe while watching Martha’s roommate take one to her head and hearing the sizzle as her steaming curls surrender to its sear.) That feeling is a star character unseen but perceived and it seizes the film’s focus when the ladies at the party dance and sing along to “Silly Games,” Janet Kay’s 1979 banger about desire and yearning.

The best house party anthems mainline those sensations until they take over the dance, thus creating the film’s gorgeous crown of a scene: the DJ plays Kay’s single, then fades it out as everyone present makes their own melody by stepping and singing along, hitting the high notes and whooping when they do.

McQueen could have presented this as the backdrop to some other narrative-forwarding action. Instead he deliciously lingers in this magic for what you may wish were an eternity. The energy shifts throughout the night as it does with all house parties, and there’s a tense, threatening departure from the vibe coaxed into fullness here, but the story returns us to the relief of the safety and bliss of celebration with sure footing.

Such house parties were common, by the way, because white London nightclubs shunned Black people. But “Lovers Rock” isn’t presented as a reaction to society but an extension of the welcoming world within it. As in “Mangrove,” you may wish to be transported into these moments, to live in them.

These films and the other two in the series, the biographically inspired “Red, White and Blue” starring John Boyega and “Alex Wheatle,” which tells part of the award-winning author’s life story (as portrayed by Sheyi Cole), build to the summarizing purpose of the final “Small Axe” installment, “Education.” I do not mean to short those other two films on their merits – and indeed, Boyega’s performance is one of his best – but in their respective ways they tells stories that ring familiar in this conversation’s context.

“Red, White and Blue” presents Boyega as Leroy Logan, a research scientist who leaves his profession to join the police force in 1983 after a pair of cops brutalize his father. The film lays bare Logan’s many experiences with discrimination from his white peers and being shunned by his own community, which deems him a traitor. This also is a story about the fraught journey any well-intentioned person faces when attempting to change a corrupt system from within.

McQueen chooses to end the story prior to Logan’s ascent to become superintendent of London Metropolitan Police, and in the same way ends the depiction of Wheatle’s early years spent in an uncaring foster care system and stint in prison before he embarks upon the writing career that would make him a known name.

Each is a fine piece, although “Red, White and Blue” is far and away the stronger of the two owing to the storytelling tension between Logan’s choice and the taxing slog his father endures in his interaction with the British justice system that lays charges upon him for a crime he didn’t commit.

While these films aren’t devoid of profound uplift, they draw from the too-typical source of endurance as their influence. But we have to absorb them to appreciate “Education” as a proportional amalgam of all of the emotions. “Education” may closely resemble McQueen’s experience but Kingsley represents all Black kids growing up in educational systems that antagonize children like him, if they don’t write them off entirely.

Quickly, though, “Education” takes on a delicate optimism when a woman (Naomi Ackie) shows up to the school, takes note of the children who are attending and reaches out to parents, including Kingsley’s mother, to alert them about their kids’ mistreatment, offering supplementary educational options the community created in response.

This is where “Education” harvests its main dramatic tension since Kingsley’s mother Agnes (Sharlene Whyte) is wary of going against the system that is on her neck for fear of what will happen to her son, while his older sister (Tamara Lawrance), who has ambitious dreams of her own, sees the brightness in her brother. For a time Kingsley’s future rests on the few pages of a pamphlet and the question of whether it gets into the right hands.

And the gladness arrives in a scene where a teacher who cares instructs students that the rest of the world chooses to ignore over a breakfast table laden with sausage and eggs, transforming a feast into an opportunity learn and grow.

Via this moment and other intimate scenes McQueen wields “Small Axe” as a bright instrument that opens a path to partaking in a state of being, not merely understanding, of celebrating instead of memorializing history through pain and sorrow. Those are parts of the whole as much as they are in any people’s history, in any life. But the joy he shows here is specific, and it’s that joy that keeps us moving.

“Education” premieres Friday, Dec. 18 on Amazon Prime, where the first four installments are currently streaming.