Spring Sale: Get 1 Year, Save 58%

Two cheers for the Never Trumpers: At least they’re speaking up now

The lunatic antics of the Trump legal team continued unabated over this past weekend. After his mysteriously oozing press conference last Thursday, Donald Trump’s personal lawyer Rudy Giuliani kept an uncharacteristically low profile. Jenna Ellis, his partner in the “elite strike force,” took to Twitter to insult longtime Republican pollster Frank Luntz, accusing him of “micropenis syndrome,” but beyond that she too stayed quiet. They left the public appearances to Sidney Powell, the member of the team best known as former national security adviser Michael Flynn’s least competent attorney.

Powell made a Saturday appearance on Newsmax that was downright historic. She vowed to deliver a “biblical” voter fraud case this week in the state of Georgia, claiming there were massive pay-for-play kickbacks from voting machine companies to public officials, including Bernie Sanders and Georgia’s Republican governor and secretary of state. The Trump faithful immediately began a campaign to boycott the Senate runoff races in January to pay back the GOP for failing their Dear Leader, which set off alarm bells in Washington.

On Sunday night, somebody apparently whispered in the Trump campaign’s ear that they needed a human sacrifice to calm things down. So Giuliani and Ellis distributed a statement insisting that Powell was not on their team after all. It remains to be seen, however, if Trump will try to help get out the vote in Georgia. He’s not known for helping anyone if it doesn’t immediately benefit him.

Once again we’ve heard mostly crickets from the Republican establishment. A handful of senators, such as Lisa Murkowski of Alaska, Kevin Cramer of North Dakota and Lamar Alexander of Tennessee (who is retiring), have timidly stepped forward to say that maybe it might be best if the administration didn’t try to pressure Republican officials to overturn a legal election. Some, like former New Jersey governor Chris Christie and Ari Fleischer, a White House press secretary under George W. Bush, have suggested ever so politely that Trump’s legal team might not be up to snuff. But for the most part, Republicans have maintained their usual passivity in the face of Trump’s latest assault on democracy.

There are some erstwhile Republicans who are becoming apoplectic however: the Never Trumpers. This post-election gambit is driving them ever farther from their former party. I’m now doubtful they will ever find their way back.

We’ve all observed the usual suspects among this crowd throughout the campaign, from the Cicero of Never Trumpers, Steve Schmidt, to the cutting wit of Rick Wilson and the soulful self-analysis of Stuart Stevens (whose political memoir “It Was All a Lie” is one of the rawest mea culpas I’ve ever read.) There are plenty of others, and they understandably inspire a lot of cynicism and suspicion among liberals and leftists. Their life’s work, after all, was electing Republicans and laying the groundwork for Donald Trump.

But thanks to social media we are watching the veil fall from their eyes in real time. I find that fascinating because it’s just so rare to see anyone in politics ever change their minds, much less people whose careers have been built around not doing so. Take, for example, this incredible Twitter thread from Michael Gerson, a conservative evangelical Christian, former Heritage Foundation fellow, and speechwriter and foreign policy adviser to George W. Bush. He now writes opinion pieces for the Washington Post and has been appalled by Trump from the beginning. But until recently, Gerson has resisted the idea that the Republican Party itself is corrupt. On Sunday he tweeted:

We are witnessing the attempt by an American president to maintain power by overturning a fair election. We are seeing the persecution of public officials for the crime of doing their evident duty. And we are seeing most GOP legislators become bystanders or cheerleaders during a frontal attack on American ideals.

It is a good thing we are wearing masks, because the stench of GOP hypocrisy is overwhelming. ..

Elected Republicans who speak of patriotism can’t be bothered to speak up for American traditions, beliefs and institutions…Those who frown but say nothing are especially disgraceful. Knowing better does not exculpate, it incriminates.

Their conscience has ceased to be a guide and become an accomplice. At some point, patience with iniquity becomes complicity.

We are not asking much of elected Republicans. The fear of being targeted by a presidential tweet and gaining a primary opponent is real enough. But it is hardly the risk of a young soldier on D-Day, or a protester at a segregated lunch counter.

I like many Republican members of Congress. But those who sacrifice their ideals to the ambitions and insecurities of a single corrupt ruler have ceased to serve the country. Their failure to defend democracy at this moment of testing can’t be excused and won’t be forgiven.

That is quite an indictment. Then Gerson concludes, “I know this judgment is harsh. But I am angry with elected Rs because I believed in many of them. Because I know they can be better. Losing a public office is ultimately a small matter in the soul’s long adventure. And losing office in a just cause is one of history’s honors.” He asks them to remember who they are.

In fact, those people have showed who they were by collaborating with Donald Trump for the past four years in order to maintain power and achieve their own goals by exploiting his ignorance, ineptitude and depravity. The years before that were little better as they cynically obstructed every move by Barack Obama and acted in bad faith over and over again.

A few spoke out against Trump and retired or left the party, people like Sen. Jeff Flake of Arizona, Sen. Bob Corker of Tennessee and Rep. Justin Amash of Michigan. But most of them cynically took advantage of the power Trump conferred and offered cover for his obvious unfitness for their own ends.

The Republican Party has been dedicated to the degradation of American democracy for a very long time. Its commitment to total obstruction and the delegitimization of their opponents was laid out in detail by former House Speaker Newt Gingrich many years ago. The will to power was never hidden and the methods Gingrich employed were right out in the open. Once the racists and the nationalists all gathered in one party, Trumpism — with or without Donald Trump — became inevitable.

It would be easy to dismiss the Never Trumpers outright and tell them to take a hike for having been part of this degradation of our politics. I think that’s foolish. Whatever they may have done to contribute to what the GOP has become, they were not willing to take that final step and submit to the insanity of Donald Trump. That’s not something you can say about the rest of the Republicans in power, who will still be here after Trump is gone and will be more powerful than ever, having discovered that there are no limits, no boundaries and no consequences.

People like Gerson and the Lincoln Project, their own former colleagues, are holding a mirror up to the Republican Party and showing them what they have become. That is a valuable thing and they seem to be serious about continuing that project:

As we can see with the Republican establishment’s acquiescence to Trump’s crude but dangerous attempts to overturn the election and Mitch McConnell’s determination to sabotage the incoming Democratic administration, this isn’t over. Donald Trump isn’t the real problem. His army of cynical enablers is. If the Never Trumpers want to devote themselves to fighting them, I’m certainly not going to wave them away. It’s a dirty job, but somebody’s gotta do it. 

Presto Chango: How flood map revisions allow building in risky areas

Homeowners moving into the brand-new Spring Brook Village subdivision in northwest Houston enter their neighborhood through a gate on Preservation Lane. The freshly paved street is  lined with tiny saplings, and a sign posted at the entrance displays dozens of little red “sold” labels on a map of the many lots inside. Buyers might have been persuaded by the attractive single family townhouses, two-car garages and the seller’s promise of “clear pricing and no surprises.” 

But what might surprise them is that before it became a neighborhood, this land was smack in the 100-year floodplain — limiting the development potential. During big storms in hurricane-prone Houston, a gully just north of the neighborhood often overflows, and water runs through the area “in a sheet,” according to one expert. Thousands of homes near the gully flooded in 2017’s Hurricane Harvey, the Houston Chronicle reported.

So before real estate developer MetroNational put the land on the market, it did what U.S. developers routinely do: it made a request to change the federal flood map. In July 2015, over objections from community members, the Federal Emergency Management Agency approved it. The land was no longer deemed to be in the floodplain, and building eventually commenced on hundreds of homes. 

Across the country, developers regularly use flood map changes to build in areas vulnerable to flooding after getting FEMA to approve measures such as elevating homes, building retention ponds and raising the land with fill. FEMA requires such changes if development will raise the flood level in the floodplain by more than a foot. From October 2019 through September 2020, FEMA considered 3,128 map change requests that involved developers using fill, an agency spokesperson told FairWarning. About 90 percent were approved.  

But flood experts and community groups argue that promises from developers and permission from FEMA are not always enough to prevent flood risk. In many cases, they say, these former floodplains can also increase the risk nearby. The problem is even more urgent against a backdrop of increased heavy rains and more intense flooding across much of the United States, aggravated by climate change.

Developers often use FEMA map changes to “maneuver around floodplain management standards,” said Joe Rossi, a flood specialist with insurance company RogersGray who serves as a consultant to the National Flood Insurance Program and co-chairs the National Flood Association’s legislative committee. “The result is developed areas with increased flooding.”

In the case of the Houston subdivision, the land had previously been a golf course. In Texas in 2016, there were restrictions on using fill for housing construction in the 100-year floodplain. So to make the land more attractive to potential buyers MetroNational hired engineering firm Jones & Carter to generate new flood models of the area to submit to FEMA with the request for a map change. 

According to an investigation by the community group Residents Against Flooding, Jones & Carter used false information to get the map change. For example, the residents claim the model the engineering firm generated showed a nonexistent channel funneling water uphill to prevent floodwaters from ever reaching Preservation Lane. 

“This is pretty frightening,” said Steven Emerman, a consultant and retired Utah Valley University hydrologist hired by the group to review its research, in a presentation to flood victims. “How do we ever know when the FEMA flood zone map is based on science and when it’s been revised to suit needs of a developer?”

A FEMA spokesperson said the agency “found nothing false or fraudulent” in the map change after re-reviewing it. They also emphasized that there are opportunities for community input on map change requests.

MetroNational declined to comment to FairWarning on the residents’ claims. The engineering firm didn’t respond to requests for comment. A Meritage Homes spokesperson said in an email that all 900 homes planned for the community “are being built outside of the revised flood plain.” 

Developers elsewhere also rely on FEMA map changes to build in flood prone areas.

Despite the 2019 “bomb cyclone” in Nebraska that caused more than $2.5 billion in flood damage, “People migrate to our rivers. They want to live by them,” said Katie Ringland, the state’s chief of floodplain manager and National Flood Insurance Program coordinator. 

When developers in Nebraska build in the flood hazard areas, she said, “they’ll elevate it one foot [with fill dirt]. Then they’ll get it outside of the floodplain” with a request for a FEMA map change. 

Just because the land is technically removed from the floodplain, Ringland still advises residents whose properties were removed from the floodplain to carry insurance. 

Joe Rossi, the flood specialist with insurance firm RogersGray, agrees.

“It’s obviously troublesome when somebody’s two inches above the flood elevation to say ‘Oh you don’t need flood insurance’,” he said. “The requirement’s not there, but now your flood insurance is cheaper and you should definitely continue to purchase it.” 

For its part, the National Association of Home Builders has no blanket policy on changing flood maps, said Tamra Spielvogel, who heads the organization’s environmental policy program. 

“If a local government deems an area fit for residential building,” she added, flood insurance and mitigation measures allow people to live “in a location of their choice, even when the home lies in or near a floodplain.”

There are non-controversial reasons to request a FEMA map change. Individual homeowners might do it to avoid the priciest flood insurance rates if the flood maps didn’t pick up, for example, that their property sits on a minor land elevation.

But, said Rossi, larger-scale map revisions are generally aimed at making more development possible. “I don’t think I’ve ever seen a [map revision request] that proposes” expanding the flood zone, he said, “because that usually goes against the goal.”

FEMA has a history of altering its maps for the benefit of high-dollar real estate. A 2014 NBC News investigation uncovered more than 500 instances of FEMA removing waterfront properties along all three U.S. coasts from the highest-risk flood zone, cutting owners’ insurance premiums by up to 97%. In 2017, the Department of Homeland Security’s Office of Inspector General found in an audit that the agency needed to improve its oversight of flood mapping programs.

Environmentalists and community coalitions such as Higher Ground have long opposed map changes based on elevating land with fill, arguing that it disrupts ecosystems and amplifies flood runoff, endangering neighboring areas. 

In 2000, Frank Thomas, former deputy associate director of FEMA’s mitigation directorate, recommended barring flood map changes for developments that use fill. He called it “egregious,” and akin to “a cancer eating at the foundation” of the National Flood Insurance Program. Thomas argued that the use of fill merely displaced flood risk to surrounding communities, “who, unaware, accrue the transferred flood risk without receiving protection from or compensation for the additional risk.”

Nevada resident Tammy Holt-Still fears that’s what will happen with the new development proposed in her rural community of Lemmon Valley. In this closed-in basin north of Reno, snowmelt from nearby mountains funnels down to town. In times of heavy rain, a shallow playa called Swan Lake in the middle of Lemmon Valley fills up and floods the surrounding neighborhoods.

It happened in 2017, when a string of nine rainstorms caused millions of dollars in damage and wrecked dozens of homes. Victims had to live in trailers, bought porta-potties to replace their damaged bathrooms and live still in houses with sinking foundations and walls separated from ceilings. The floodwater had nowhere to go, and much of it still stands today. 

The Reno Gazette Journal later found that overdevelopment contributed to increased water volume in Swan Lake after local officials ignored recommendations to implement flood mitigation projects. Today, a major housing and industrial development called Prado Ranch is planned for more than 1,500 acres of Lemmon Valley — including parts that are still underwater.

The developer, Lansing Companies, initiated a FEMA map change based on plans that included the use of fill. Holt-Still, a member of a resident group called the Lemmon Valley Swan Lake Recovery Committee, wrote the group’s report opposing it.

“To get [the land] out of the flood plain means they’ve got to bring in fill,” she told FairWarning, essentially creating “a wall” of elevated homes in front of her own. “When the water comes down the hill and towards the lake, the water is not going to have any place to go except to backwash onto my property.” 

Flood map change requests are required to include sign-off from local officials, who may or may not listen to the residents who are most affected.

Despite pushback from local groups like the Lemmon Valley Swan Lake Recovery Committee, the city’s director of public works signed off on the community acknowledgement form for the Prado Ranch map change request. But local officials believe the developer never sent it to the agency. Lansing Companies did not respond to interview requests, but city officials told FairWarning they expect the developer will submit a new map change request.

Back in Houston, once the flood map was revised to bring the old golf course out of the floodplain, the builder used fill for construction. Meritage Homes told FairWarning that its fill was excavated from the site itself, and said that its 26-acre drainage system will handle as much water as the golf course did. 

Meanwhile, groups like Residents Against Flooding are increasingly hiring experts like Steve Emerman, the retired hydrology professor. Though he started his consulting firm working with South American communities affected by mining projects, he has a growing list of U.S. clients concerned about development in floodplains. 

“They’re all versions of the same story,” Emerman said. “Taking someplace that’s currently wetland or forest, putting a development on it, putting in fill dirt, and raising the area a few feet with the clear potential to flood out the neighbors, and denying that.”

Biden rushes in where Clinton failed to tread

Imagine for a moment that Hillary Clinton had won the presidential election in 2016.

Imagine, in other words, that the “blue wall” of Michigan, Wisconsin, and Pennsylvania had held firm four years ago. Claiming election fraud, Donald Trump would have insisted on a recount and Election Day would then, too, have stretched into election week and election month. Eventually, Trump would have given up, though not without insisting that the “deep state” had stolen his victory.

Once in office, Clinton would have set to work building on the Obama legacy. The United States would have remained in the Paris climate accord, the Iran nuclear agreement would still be in force, and perhaps a more robust health-care plan might even be in place. Competent civil servants would have taken charge of federal agencies, a tax cut for the wealthy wouldn’t have gone into effect, and the Democrats would have been well positioned in 2020 to reelect the first woman president and build a stronger congressional majority.

America wouldn’t have gone down the rabbit hole of Trumpism. Civic discourse wouldn’t have been coarsened. The country wouldn’t now be in such complete and utter…

Hey, wake up!

If Hillary had somehow managed to eke out a victory in 2016, she would soon enough have faced a Republican Party as hostile to compromise as the one that hamstrung Barack Obama. Opposition from Congress and Republican-controlled states, combined with her own centrist instincts, would have kept the country mired in a failing status quo: an increasingly unequal economy, crumbling infrastructure, a growing carbon footprint, a morbidly obese Pentagon, and other signs of a declining superpower that we’ve come to know so well.

Now, imagine what would have happened when the pandemic struck in 2020. Clinton would have responded more competently than The Donald because virtually anyone over the age of 12 would have been better suited to handle the emergency than he was. Indeed, if the United States had managed Covid-19 with anything faintly approaching the competency of, say, Germany under Angela Merkel, the country would have had, by my calculations, 2.6 million infections and about 45,000 deaths on the eve of the 2020 elections.

That obviously would be better than the 10 million infections and more than 245,000 deaths the United States is currently experiencing.

Keep in mind, however, that Americans wouldn’t have known just how bad the situation could have been. Quite the opposite: having set up a bully pulpit in an alt-right Fox News-style media conglomerate after his loss in 2016, Donald Trump would have led the charge on Clinton’s “mismanagement” of the pandemic and her direct responsibility for all those deaths. He would have assured us that the resulting economic downturn, with striking numbers of Americans left unemployed, could have been avoided, and that he as president would have prevented both those deaths and business cutbacks by immediately closing all borders and deporting any suspicious foreigners. He would have labeled the president “Killer Clinton” and, given the misogyny of significant parts of the American electorate, the name would have stuck.

In 2020, Donald Trump would have run on a platform of making America great again and won in a landslide.

Don’t, however, think of this as just some passing exercise in alternative history. Substitute “Joe Biden” for “Hillary Clinton” in the passages you’ve just read and you’ll have a grim but plausible prediction of what could happen over the next four years.

On the road to 2024

Hillary Clinton would have faced challenges of every sort if she’d won the presidency in 2016. They nonetheless pale in comparison to what now awaits Joe Biden and Kamala Harris.

The Republicans are already gunning for the new president. They’re blockingthe transition process to handicap the incoming administration. President Trump has forbidden federal agencies from even cooperating with the Biden-Harris team. The 2020 presidential election forms part of the Republican Party’s denialism trifecta: the pandemic, climate change, and now Biden’s victory are all simply liberal “myths.”

The Republican Party will either control the Senate — pending the outcome of two run-off races in Georgia — or, at least, be able to disrupt any major pieces of legislation. The Biden administration will be hard-pressed to roll back the tax cuts the Republicans handed out to the wealthy in 2017, pass a major green infrastructure bill, or expand affordable health care.

When Biden tries to implement a nationally cohesive program to combat Covid-19 through more testing, tracing, and investment in medical equipment, he’s guaranteed to face resistance from a number of Republican governors who have refused even to mandate the wearing of masks. And then there are all those Republican-appointed judges just itching to rule on any legal challenges to Biden’s executive orders, not to speak of a Supreme Court now located in the bleachers beyond right field that will serve as an even greater constraint on an activist agenda.

And those are just the political obstacles. The pandemic is clearly spiraling out of control. The economy has yet to crawl out of its hole. And Donald Trump has a couple of more months to scorch the earth before his army of incompetents are driven out of Washington, D.C.

Then there are the 71 million Americans who just voted for him despite his criminal conduct, gross mismanagement, and near-psychotic view of the world. Short of a nationwide deprogramming campaign, the adherents of the Trump cult will continue to cling to their religion (and their guns). In the Biden years, they’re sure to form an industrial-strength Tea Party opposed to any move the federal government makes. And let’s be clear: their resistance will not be exactly Gandhian in nature.

At the same time, it’s essential to separate their illegitimate complaints laced with racism and misogyny from their all-too-legitimate grievances concerning the American economy. Much of Trump’s base sees that economy, quite correctly, as unfair and the elite as not sharing the wealth. Unless the Democrats succeed in proving themselves to be the party of the 99% and successfully show how the Republicans are the 1% club — by, for instance, publicizing the true impact of Trump’s tax cuts for the rich — the Biden administration will fall victim to charges of elitism, which is a political death sentence these days.

Everything that Hillary Clinton faced during her hypothetical first term in office will apply to Joe Biden in his very real first term. Trump will never give up on the fantasy that the 2020 election was stolen from him. He’ll continue to rally his followers through social media as well as Breitbart and the One America News Network. Even if he doesn’t have the fire in his 78-year-old belly to run in 2024, other true believers will eagerly pick up his torch, whether from his own family or a pool of loyalists that includes Florida Congressman Matt Gaetz, Missouri Senator Josh Hawley, and Arkansas Senator Tom Cotton.

No matter how well President Biden does in dealing with Covid-19 and how quickly a vaccine comes on line, he’ll be saddled with the responsibility for everyone who dies in the pandemic from January 20th on. Ditto with future economic problems, no matter that they were quite literally dropped in his lapas he entered the Oval Office. All the faults that Trump’s followers refused to see in their own candidate will suddenly be magnified in their vision of Biden.

Trump, in their eyes, was a man who could do no wrong. Biden will be the man who can do no right. A significant percentage of those 71 million Americans will want to make sure that Biden, too, is a one-term president.

Unfortunately, several international examples can serve as models.

The liberal interregnum

Beware the right-wing revolutionary movement thwarted.

Donald Trump promised to turn the world upside down: to throw out the Washington elite, radically shrink government, close off borders, bolster white privilege, and restore American unilateralism. As a platform, it wasn’t much more than the photo negative of Barack Obama’s agenda, but it was a clarion call to shake things up that thrilled his followers.

Thanks to a mixture of bureaucratic inertia, liberal resistance, and his own managerial ineptitude, Trump failed to carry out his revolution — and now the elite has struck back. The newspapers are full of columnists, Democrats and former Republicans alike, delirious with anti-Trump triumphalism: “Loser!,” “You’re Fired!,” “Our Long National Nightmare Is Over.” The Dow Jones is celebrating and Hollywood has popped the bubbly, while the foreign-policy mandarins are looking forward to the return of predictability and their version of stability. Even the Pentagon, particularly after the shocking post-election dismissal of Defense Secretary Mark Esper, will be relieved to see the end of the Disrupter-in-Chief.

But the celebrations may prove premature. Just consider recent examples of right-wing populist revolutions elsewhere that were stopped in their tracks by elections.

The Trumpian Viktor Orban was the prime minister of Hungary from 1998 to 2002. His time in office was marked by corruption scandals, tax cuts, and efforts to concentrate power in the hands of the executive. In the 2002 elections, a coalition of the Socialist and Liberal parties ousted him and, governing for eight years, seemed to have put Orban’s brand of authoritarian politics in an early grave.

In the 2010 elections, however, he returned from the political dead and he has since transformed his country from a bastion of liberalism into an autocratic, intolerant, uber-Christian friend of Vladimir Putin. In the process, the Socialists became synonymous with a corrupt, economically unjust status quo and the Liberals simply disappeared as a party.

Nor is the Hungarian experience unique. In Poland, the Law and Justice Party has moved the country’s politics steadily rightward since achieving a parliamentary majority in 2015. But it, too, had an earlier experience (from 2005 to 2007) as part of a governing coalition. In between, the more liberal Civic Platform Party took charge, but did little to improve the livelihoods of the bulk of working Poles, ultimately driving ever more voters into the arms of the right-wing Law and Justice Party. In its second crack at power, those right-wing nationalists did indeed push through a number of economic reforms that began to redistribute wealth in a way that fulfilled their populist promise.

In Japan, right-wing Prime Minister Shinzo Abe had a brief opportunity to govern in 2006-2007, only to return in 2012 after a failed effort by the opposition Democratic Party to reform Japanese politics. As the country’s longest-serving prime minister — Abe stepped down for health reasons in August — he succeeded in making Japan “great” again as an inward-looking, jingoistic power.

Right-wing nationalists certainly learned something about wielding power from their first experiences of leadership, while their liberal successors, by failing to offer fully transformational politics, prepared the ground for the return of the right. After a period of tumultuous rule, most people don’t want to jump from a bucking bronco onto another wild horse. So the prospect of Joe Biden and Kamala Harris appointing a competent cabinet and returning to the status quo ante by, among other things, rejoining the World Health Organization, signing onto the Paris climate accords, and welcoming back the Dreamers seems reassuring to many Americans. It won’t, however, be faintly enough to drive a stake through the heart of Trumpism.

Apocalypse later?

In “The View from 2016,” an essay I wrote for TomDispatch in 2007, I predicted that Barack Obama would win the 2008 election and serve two terms, but also that his administration would make only half-hearted gestures at reform — abiding by the Kyoto protocol on climate change, but not committing to deeper cuts in carbon emissions; canceling a few weapons systems, but not transforming the military-industrial complex; tweaking the global war on terror, but not ending it; and so on.

Apocalypse, I concluded,

“comes in many different forms. There are the dramatic effects of sword and fire and famine. And then there’s the apocalypse of muddling through. That’s what happens when you just carry on with the same old, same old and before you know it, poof, end of the world. It’s an apocalypse that’s neither too cold nor too hot, neither too hard nor too soft. It’s the apocalypse of the middle, the Goldilocks apocalypse.”

In 2016, a hungry bear named Donald Trump emerged from the woods and took out Goldilocks. (Don’t say I didn’t warn you.)

After four years of bracing for a more conventional apocalypse precipitated perhaps by Trump’s itchy nuclear trigger finger, we’re back in Goldilocks territory. More than half the country craves a return to normalcy by dumping Donald Trump and then defeating Covid-19. Under the circumstances, it’s easy enough to forget that the pre-Trump normal wasn’t actually very good. The world was already in the midst of a climate crisis. The global economy was providing anything but a fair shake to everyone and so generating a politics of resentment that propelled Trump and his cohort to power. Countries continued to spend almost $2 trillion a year collectively on war and preparations for it, leaving societies ill-equipped to handle an onrushing pandemic’s war on the health of humanity.

Joe Biden should learn this key takeaway from the Obama years: muddling through not only speeds us toward a Goldilocks apocalypse but makes it so much more likely that another bear will come out of the woods to “reclaim” its house.

Let’s face it: Biden and Harris are card-carrying members of an elite that’s enamored of the Goldilocks middle ground. The only way they could pivotfrom that position would be by implementing a full-blown green economic renewal that benefited America’s blue-collar workers while satisfying environmentalists as well. The blue bloods of the Republican Party will inevitably call such a jobs approach “socialism.” The next administration has to push forward nevertheless, appealing over the heads of the Republican leadership to a base that desperately wants prosperity for all.

Remember: other bears are lurking out there and they seem to have acquired a certain taste for cautious politicians. Sure, a few disgruntled ursine types will go into hibernation after the 2020 election. But when the hoopla dies down, others will venture out, angry, resentful, and looking for their next big meal.

Copyright 2020 John Feffer

To stay on top of important articles like these, sign up to receive the latest updates from TomDispatch.com here.

What doctors aren’t always taught: How to spot racism in health care

Betial Asmerom, a fourth-year medical student at the University of California-San Diego, didn’t have the slightest interest in becoming a doctor when she was growing up.

As an adolescent, she helped her parents — immigrants from Eritrea who spoke little English — navigate the health care system in Oakland, California. She saw physicians who were disrespectful to her family and uncaring about treatment for her mother’s cirrhosis, hypertension and diabetes.

“All of those experiences actually made me really dislike physicians,” Asmerom said. “Particularly in my community, the saying is, ‘You only go to the doctor if you’re about to die.'”

But that changed when she took a course in college about health disparities. It shocked her and made her realize that what her Eritrean family and friends saw was happening to other communities of color, too. Asmerom came to believe that as a doctor she could help turn things around.

Faculty members and student activists around the country have long called for medical schools to increase the number of students and instructors from underrepresented backgrounds to improve treatment and build inclusivity. But to identify racism’s roots and its effects in the health system, they say, fundamental changes must be made in medical school curriculums.

Asmerom is one of many crusaders seeking robust anti-racist education. They are demanding that the schools eliminate the use of race as a diagnostic tool, recognize how systemic racism harms patients and reckon with some of medicine’s racist history.

This activism has been ongoing — White Coats for Black Lives (WC4BL), a student-run organization fighting racism in medicine, grew out of the 2014 Black Lives Matter protests. But now, as with countless other U.S. institutions since the killing of George Floyd in Minneapolis in May, medical schools and national medical organizations are under even greater pressure to take concrete action.

Debunking race as a diagnostic tool

For many years, medical students were taught that genetic differences among the races had an effect on health. But in recent years, studies have found race does not reliably reflect that. The National Human Genome Research Institute notes very little genetic variation among races, and more differences among people within each race. Because of this, more physicians are embracing the idea that race is not an intrinsic biological difference but instead a social construct.

Dr. Brooke Cunningham, a physician and sociologist at the University of Minnesota Medical School, said the medical community is conflicted about abandoning the idea of race as biological. It’s baked into the way doctors diagnose and measure illness, she said. Some physicians claim it is useful to take race into account when treating patients; others argue it leads to bias and poor care.

Those views have led to a variety of false beliefs, including that Black people have thicker skin, their blood coagulates more quickly than white people’s or they feel less pain.

When race is factored into medical calculations, it can lead to less effective treatments and perpetuate race-based inequities. One such calculation estimates kidney function (eGFR, or the estimated glomerular filtration rate). The eGFR can limit Black patients’ access to care because the number used to denote Black race in the formula provides a result suggesting kidneys are functioning better than they are, researchers recently reported in the New England Journal of Medicine. Among another dozen examples they cite is a formula that obstetricians use to determine the probability of a successful vaginal birth after a cesarean section, which disadvantages Black and Hispanic patients, and an adjustment for measuring lung capacity using a spirometer, which can cause inaccurate estimates of lung function for patients with asthma or chronic obstructive pulmonary disease.

In the face of this research, medical students are urging schools to rethink curricula that treat race as a risk factor for disease. Briana Christophers, a second-year student at Weill Cornell Medical College in New York, said it makes no sense that race would make someone more susceptible to disease, although economic and social factors play a significant role.

Naomi Nkinsi, a third-year student at the University of Washington School of Medicine in Seattle, recalled sitting in a lecture — one of five Black students in the room — and hearing that Black people are inherently more prone to disease.

“It was very personal,” Nkinsi said. “That’s my body, that’s my parents, that’s my siblings. Every time I go into a doctor’s office now, I’ll be reminded that they’re not just considering me as a whole person but as somehow physically different than all other patients just because I have more melanin in my skin.”

Nkinsi helped in a successful campaign to exclude race from the calculation of eGFR at UW Medicine, joining a small number of other health systems. She said the achievement — announced officially in late May — was largely due to Black students’ tireless efforts.

Acknowledging racism’s adverse effects on health

The Liaison Committee on Medical Education, the official accrediting body for medical schools in the U.S. and Canada, said faculty must teach students to recognize bias “in themselves, in others, and in the health care delivery process.” But the LCME does not explicitly require accredited institutions to teach about systemic racism in medicine.

This is what students and some faculty want to change. Dr. David Acosta, the chief diversity and inclusion officer of the American Association of Medical Colleges, said about 80% of medical schools offer either a mandatory or elective course on health disparities. But little data exists on how many schools teach students how to recognize and fight racism, he said.

An anti-racist curriculum should explore ways to mitigate or eliminate racism’s harm, said Rachel Hardeman, a health policy professor at the University of Minnesota.

“It’s thinking about how do you infuse this across all of the learning in medical education, so that it’s not this sort of drop in the bucket, like, one-time thing,” she said. Above all, the courses that delve into systemic racism need to be required, Hardeman said.

Edwin Lindo, a lecturer at the University of Washington School of Medicine, said medicine should embrace an interdisciplinary model, allowing sociologists or historians to lecture on how racism harms health.

Acosta said the AAMC has organized a committee of experts to develop an anti-racism curriculum for every step of medical education. They hope to share their work publicly this month and talk to the LCME about developing and implementing these standards.

“Our next work is how do we persuade and influence the LCME to think about adding anti-racist training in there,” Acosta said.

Recognizing racism in medical education’s past and present

Activists especially want to see their institutions recognize their own missteps, as well as the racism that has accompanied past medical achievements. Dereck Paul, a student at the University of California-San Francisco School of Medicine, said he wants every medical school to include lectures on people like Henrietta Lacks, the Black woman who was dying of cancer when cells were taken without her consent and used to develop cell lines that have been instrumental in medical research.

Asmerom said she wants to see faculty acknowledge medicine’s racist past in lessons. She cited an introductory course on anatomy at her school that failed to note that in the past, as scientists sought to study the body, Blacks and other minorities were mistreated. “It’s like, OK, but you’re not going to talk about the fact that Black bodies were taken out of graves in order to have bodies to use for anatomy lab?” she said.

While Asmerom is glad to see her medical school actively listening to students, she feels administrators need to own up to their mistakes in the recent past. “There needs to be an admission of how you perpetuated anti-Black racism at this institution,” Asmerom said.

Asmerom, who is one of the leaders of the UCSD Anti-Racism Coalition, said the administration has responded favorably so far to the coalition’s demands to pour time and money into anti-racist initiatives. She’s cautiously hopeful.

“But I’m not going to hold my breath until I see actual changes,” she said.

Kaiser Health News (KHN) is a national health policy news service. It is an editorially independent program of the Henry J. Kaiser Family Foundation which is not affiliated with Kaiser Permanente.

Why Trump’s election fraud claims aren’t showing up in his lawsuits challenging the results

There seems to be a real disconnect between the claims of widespread fraud, a stolen election and illegal voting made by President Donald Trump and his allies and the actual claims formally made by his lawyers in court.

Both Trump in his Twitter feed and White House Press Secretary Kayleigh McEnany in her press conferences have made allegations of broad-based election fraud. But under questioning from judges in Arizona and Pennsylvania, Trump’s lawyers have backed away from actually asserting fraud. Despite Trump’s allegations to the contrary, his lawyers have acknowledged that they are not claiming that dead people voted or that occasional computer glitches were part of a deliberate conspiracy.

In one of several Pennsylvania cases, Trump attorneys actually signed a legal document in which they stated,

“Petitioners do not allege, and there is no evidence of, any fraud in connection with the challenged ballots; Petitioners do not allege, and there is no evidence of, any misconduct in connection with the challenged ballots; Petitioners do not allege, and there is no evidence of, any impropriety in connection with the challenged ballots; Petitioners do not allege, and there is no evidence of, any undue influence committed with respect to the challenged ballots.”

The attorney backpedaling is not surprising.

It’s one thing to speculate via tweet, but quite another for an attorney, who is an officer of the court, to make representations to a judge. Trump’s lawyers are constrained in what they can assert by three major restrictions that apply to lawyers: professional ethics, rules of civil procedure and rules of evidence.

Legal ethics apply

As members of the bar association – the state entity that grants attorneys their license to practice law – lawyers have a professional ethics obligation “not to abuse legal procedure” by filing “frivolous” claims. Rule 3.1 of the Model Rules of Professional Conduct, some version of which applies in all states, forbids a lawyer from bringing a claim or argument “unless there is a basis in law and fact for doing so that is not frivolous.”

The bar requires lawyers to “inform themselves about the facts of their clients’ cases and the applicable law” and “determine that they can make good faith arguments” supporting their clients’ positions.

At least outside the context of criminal defense, lawyers must be able to honestly represent to the court that they have a basis for believing they have a path to getting relief either based on existing law or “a good faith argument for an extension, modification or reversal of existing law.”

Violating this requirement could expose the lawyer to sanctions from the state bar, which could range from a reprimand to a fine to a license suspension. More practically, it can erode courts’ confidence in the lawyer’s reliability and damage the lawyer’s professional reputation.

In Trump’s case, this means his attorneys can only say the election was stolen if they know of actual, credible reports of systematic fraud.

Sanctions can be imposed

Formal disciplinary administrative proceedings against lawyers by the bar for this kind of misconduct are rare. But less rare are motions by opposing parties for sanctions under a different rule.

Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 11 allows an opposing party to move for sanctions against a lawyer who files a frivolous claim or makes a frivolous argument. Most states have an analogous rule for their courts.

Rule 11 provides that when making a claim before the court, the attorney certifies, “after an inquiry reasonable under the circumstances,” that:

  1. it’s not being made for an improper purpose, such as to harass or delay;
  2. the claims are warranted by existing law or a nonfrivolous argument for a change in the law; and
  3. the factual assertions have evidence to support them, or will likely have such support after a reasonable opportunity for investigation and discovery.

For example, if a corporation’s lawyer files an antitrust complaint that she knows to be a stretch, just to block a rival’s merger deal and give her client time to complete its own merger deal first, that would be a violation of Rule 11.

The rule allows any opposing party to ask for sanctions, or for the court to order sanctions on its own initiative. Frequently, such sanctions include paying the other side’s attorney fees for having to do the work to oppose the frivolous claim or argument.

Put up or shut up

As an election law scholar and practitioner, I believe that perhaps the most compelling rule keeping lawyers cautious is the practical consideration that making unsubstantiated claims of fraud is not only unethical but also a waste of time.

Eventually — and, under the accelerated time frame of these cases, that means pretty quickly — the lawyers are going to have to present actual evidence to judges. Without such evidence, judges will dismiss the claim.

And a lawyer making fraud claims without evidence runs the risk that an impatient judge might dismiss an entire case, even if other, legitimate claims are being made.

When it comes to the election fraud claims, watch what the lawyers do, not what the politicians say.

Steven Mulroy, Law Professor in Constitutional Law, Criminal Law, Election Law, University of Memphis

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

Trump administration rushes to auction off Arctic Refuge drilling rights before Biden inauguration

In what critics are calling a parting gift to the fossil fuel industry, the Trump administration on Tuesday will ask oil and gas companies to choose which areas of the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge in Alaska—which is the sacred homeland of the Gwich’in Indigenous people—they would like to drill. 

The Washington Post reports the administration’s call for nominations is a key part of a rush to lock in drilling rights before President Donald Trump leaves office on January 20. The president has made drilling on public lands and waterways a key component of what he calls his “America First” energy agenda, while President-elect Joe Biden has said he opposes such action. 

The Republican-controlled Congress approveddrilling in the massive, pristine ANWR in 2017. The reserve is home to the Gwich’in people, who call it “Iizhik Gwats’an Gwandaii Goodlit,” or, “the sacred place where life begins.” ANWR boasts some 270 species, including all of the world’s remaining South Beaufort Sea polar bears, 250 musk oxen, Arctic foxes, and hundreds of thousands of snow geese and other birds which fly there from all 50 states and around the world. 

The Gwich’in rely on the region’s rich biodiversity, especially its 200,000-strong porcupine caribou herd, for their survival. “What impacts the caribou, impacts the Gwich’in,” Bernadette Demientieff, executive director of the Gwich’in Steering Committee, told Yes!.

In addition to opening ANWR to oil and gas drilling, the Trump administration is also redefining what constitutes a “critical habitat” for endangered species, as well as when corporations are deemed liable for killing migrating birds. 

While the Iñupiat—another Alaska Native people who call ANWR their home—cautiously welcome the possibility of drilling and the economic benefits they believe it will bring, the Gwichin’in and their allies, which include environmental groups and progressive lawmakers, have vowed to fight any attempts to defile the unspoiled land.

House Natural Resources Committee Chairman Raúl Grijalva (D-Ariz.) strongly opposes drilling, telling the Post that “this administration is ending as it began, with a desperate push for oil drilling regardless of the human or environmental costs.”

Rep. Donald McEachin (D-Va.) tweeted that drilling in the refuge “would threaten the climate, wildlife, and Indigenous rights.”

“Despite a last-second push to complete oil leases, it is no wonder major banks are pledging not to finance these destructive drilling projects,” he added. 

Indeed, after decades of grassroots pressure from environmentalists and Indigenous activists and in the face of an ever-worsening climate crisis, numerous major banks, including JPMorgan Chase and Goldman Sachs, have announced they will not finance ANWR drilling projects. 

The Gwich’in and several environmental groups including the National Audobon Society, Center for Biological Diversity, Friends of the Earth, and Natural Resources Defense Council (NDRC), have sued the administration in a bid to stop drilling plans from proceeding. Erik Grafe, deputy managing attorney at Earthjustice, an environmental law firm representing the plaintiffs, condemned what he called a “midnight effort to sell off irreplaceable lands in the refuge before a new day dawns.”

“We are already in court challenging the administration’s decision to open the whole coastal plain to leasing, and we’ll hold the line against this rushed attempt to implement the unlawful program,” Grafe said in a statement. “As the majority of Americans know, the Arctic Refuge is no place to drill.”

Ellen Montgomery, public lands campaign director for Environment America, issued a statement asserting that “there is no way to do massive, industrial-level oil and gas drilling in the Arctic Refuge without damaging vital habitat.”

“Building roads and bringing in heavy equipment disfigures the landscape before the drilling even begins,” she said. “Once ruined, the refuge cannot be restored.” Montgomery called on fossil fuel companies to “read the tea leaves and take a pass” on ANWR drilling. 

However, it is the Gwich’in who are standing the firmest in the face of the administration’s attack on their sacred land. 

“Any company thinking about participating in this corrupt process should know that they will have to answer to the Gwich’in people and the millions of Americans who stand with us,” Demientieff told the Post. “We have been protecting this place forever.”

What will American politics be like after Trump? First of all, he’s not going away

Over the last couple of weeks, the media caste has been indulging in extensive literary meditation in how and whether we can break our addiction to Donald Trump. “We” in this case is a large category: There’s no question that everyone from tabloid-TV talking heads to Ivy-educated columnists has flocked to Trump like ants to a sticky-bun picnic, but also that our readers and viewers have enabled and encouraged us at every step. 

When people asked me, during the first year or two of the Trump phenomenon, why Salon didn’t simply ignore him, I would mildly reply, “Well, you should see the numbers.” It was and remains true that stories about the awfulness of the Trump regime — about its total fascist victory, its impending downfall or anything in between — outperform every other category of reporting, commentary or analysis we can possibly offer. (In fairness, over the past few months recipes and food stories have been doing well too. I wonder why!)

But I also recognize there is something of the collaborator about that answer, something of the Nuremberg defendant assuring the court that he was only following orders, and had no particular investment in what did or didn’t happen. Faced with the likely and then certain victory of Joe Biden in the presidential election, those of us in the defendant’s box began to mop our brows in relief, mixed with no small amount of confusion: Whatever will we do, now that he’s gone?

That has turned out to be a rhetorical question, at least so far. Like so many addictions or goblins or villainous specters in horror movies (full credit to Democratic strategist Chris Marshall for his marvelous and terrifying Salon article last week), Donald Trump has no intention of going anywhere. He has spent the last week — which felt like a year — shamelessly and unapologetically trying to overturn the results of an election that appears to have gone relatively smoothly and has yielded a clear and certain verdict.

Thank God for that, I guess, because if the result actually had been close, we’d probably be sweating this out right up to the Electoral College vote. It’s an enormous national humiliation that our so-called president is eagerly attempting to find a pseudo-constitutional loophole through which to stage a coup that would end even the pretense of democracy in America. It might, through the long lens of history, be an even worse humiliation that the attempt is so amateurish, conducted by a deranged alcoholic lawyer with motor oil leaking out of his head and an assemblage of hacks and crackpots who allege, in the ever-quotable words of John Bolton, a conspiracy “so vast and so successful that apparently there’s no evidence of it.”

Trump’s coup attempt is falling apart, do not doubt that. If the sniveling quislings of the Republican Party are reluctant to openly confront the massive edifice of unreality in TrumpWorld, they at least recognize that it will eventually collapse on its own, and sooner rather than later. Even Trump himself appears to understand that, after his own animalistic fashion.

As the New York Times reported on Sunday, Trump apparently intends to retain control of the Republican National Committee after he leaves office. This is, to say the most tedious thing possible, unprecedented — ex-presidents tend to retreat to the back of the room and stay quiet, and defeated ex-presidents even more so. You certainly didn’t see Jimmy Carter or George H.W. Bush trying to wield any clout in their respective parties; they didn’t have any.

Ronna McDaniel, the RNC’s current chair, apparently intends to run for re-election on the premise that she’s not as much of a Trump sycophant as those who might succeed her, such as Donald Trump Jr. or his dazzlingly evil girlfriend, Kimberly Guilfoyle, who struck terror in the hearts of children of all ages with her impromptu monologue from Roald Dahl’s “The Witches” at this year’s Republican convention. Maybe Trump wants to keep the party apparatus in his stubby grasp to freeze out potential opponents in a 2024 presidential campaign, Grover Cleveland-style, and maybe it’s just a new iteration of the lifelong Trumpian con game. Honestly, what’s the difference?

So the plaintive questions about what we will possibly do with ourselves after Trump leaves the scene are the wrong questions, or at least they’re far too small to match the scale of our predicament. As fables and fairy tales always make clear, conditions had to be ripe for the evil giant or the dark queen, Sauron or Voldemort, to rise to power in the first place. The story about Eve, the apple and the serpent is a classic example of misogynistic blame-shifting, no doubt. But at least it puts the blame on an ambiguous human weakness we can all identify with: Of course she wanted to know; you or I would have done the same. And who is to say it didn’t turn out better this way, and that no other pathway was even possible?

Who or what will Americans be after Trump? We will be the same flawed people and depleted, crisis-addled nation we were before, with the conflicts laid bare and no longer avoidable. It sounds incredibly callous to say that Trump did us a favor, and I certainly don’t mean that anything about his presidency was beneficial to human life or the survival of the planet. But his cruelty, his vulgarity and his open contempt for democracy, the rule of law and constitutional order woke many of us up — and I don’t entirely exclude his voters and supporters — to the deep wounds in our society, the lack of any shared understanding of reality and the profound apprehension about the future. (That, along with Netflix, is perhaps the only thing all Americans share.)

As for what politics will be like after Trump, the only possible answer is that we don’t know yet and it’s also too small a question. Politics will be like it was before, only more so: Mired in contradiction, with the two-party system deeply entrenched yet both established parties headed for the rocks. When you look at Trump’s 74 million votes — nearly 12 million more than he got in 2016 — and robust Republican victories from the Senate and House on down, there’s no doubt that the supposedly-doomed GOP has found a new lease on life on the worst possible terms, as the party of white grievance, “traditional” masculinity, unalloyed authoritarianism and paranoid conspiracy theory. 

It doesn’t seem as if Trump’s toxic but undeniable charisma is the only factor driving this undead Republican revival, but whether anyone else can create a modified or improved “Trumpism without Trump” remains an open question, as well as an academic one, for the time being. Many people have their eyes on that prize — we could start the list with Tucker Carlson of Fox News, Sen. Josh Hawley of Missouri and Gov. Kristi Noem of South Dakota — but whoever follows Trump as the next Republican nominee may quite literally have to wrest the party from his cold, dead, aspartame-infused fingers.

And then there are the Democrats. Oh, the Democrats! What do you want me to say that hasn’t been said a thousand times? They just elected a 78-year-old president, and the top three Democrats in the House leadership are all over 80. Chuck Schumer, who still has a mathematical chance of becoming Senate majority leader early next year, turns a relatively sprightly 70 this week. (Happy birthday, you plodding nonentity!) More to the point, the Democrats just conducted yet another campaign based on the stirring claim that the other party is crazy and evil and they’re not — which has the admitted benefit of being more true than ever before — which concluded, as usual, with mixed and disputed results.

Anyone who has ever read anything I have written will probably conclude that I’m inclined to favor one side over the other in the Democratic Party’s endless factional warfare between “progressives” and “moderates,” or whatever terms of art you prefer. But I don’t claim to know what would have happened if Bernie Sanders had been this year’s nominee — that’s a bit in the same category as “If my grandmother had wheels,” isn’t it? Whether Democrats lost seats in the House, and couldn’t win winnable seats in the Senate, because of too much “socialism” and “defund the police” or because of not enough Medicare for All and Green New Deal — or because they ran anodyne, message-free candidates who declined to stand for anything in particular — entirely depends on where you’re standing when you ask the question. To repeat myself, it’s also too small a question.

Historically speaking, the Democratic Party has been an unstable electoral coalition since at least the Civil War, when it represented both native-born white Protestants in the South and immigrant white Catholics in the North. Those groups disliked and distrusted each other, but at least perceived a common enemy in the bankers and patrician classes of Boston and New York (and also, less salubriously, in Black people attempting to assert their right to citizenship). 

While the Democratic coalition has been broken up and reassembled several times since then — most Southern whites, and a whole lot of Northern ones too, have fled to the other party — it remains, shall we say, less than stable. I’m not convinced the current intra-party struggle is so much about ideology as about literal class conflict and differential views of “economic justice.” Maybe this is one of those cases where classical Marxist theory is correct and the former serves as a proxy for the latter. 

To take two House Democrats seen as emblematic of the warring factions, it’s possible to imagine a cautiously constructed policy agenda that could bring together Rep. Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez, a “progressive” who represents a working-class, majority-minority district in New York City, and Rep. Conor Lamb, a “moderate” who represents a working-class, predominantly white district in western Pennsylvania. Improved health care access (however we label it), a higher minimum wage, a government infrastructure program and free or low-cost public college would be immensely helpful to people in both those places. 

But what do their constituents have in common with those of Rep. Abigail Spanberger, the former CIA agent who represents an affluent suburban district outside Richmond, Virginia? I’m not saying there’s nothing. A desire to resist the vicious bigotry of Trump and his acolytes is not nothing. Defending reproductive rights for women, equal rights for LGBTQ people and civil rights for Black people and immigrants, in the face of determined right-wing pushback, is decidedly not nothing. 

We can’t possibly absorb the lessons of the 2020 election in two weeks, especially not while the defeated incumbent half-heartedly tries to stage a coup and the COVID pandemic grows more critical every day. But here’s one lesson: Rhetorical gestures toward abstract ideals of justice, equality and democracy may have been just about enough to defeat a widely despised and famously incompetent president, but they are not nearly enough to defeat a surging fascist movement built on white nationalism, cultural dispossession, economic stagnation and anti-elite rage. 

One political party in America now has a clear agenda and a loyal following, and has now taken a low-risk dry run at seizing and holding power without regard for laws or rules or standards of decency or those famous “democratic norms.” That party didn’t go all-in on that effort this time around, but it now sees that with the right leader and adequate planning — not to mention the necessary level of force — the task can probably be managed. The other party is against all that, gosh darn it! But it still doesn’t know what it wants to be when it grows up, and it may not get the chance.

Epidemiologist warns of “contagion” of violent speech coming “from the White House”

A doctor who has long advocated using an epidemiological approach to treat violence says his group’s efforts to respond to gang violence can be replicated to deal with the growing threat of violence in American politics — including from President Trump’s supporters.

Dr. Gary Slutkin is an epidemiologist who spent years working with the World Health Organization to respond to the AIDS crisis and epidemics in Africa and Latin America. After returning to the United States in the 1990s, he “saw the problem that the U.S. was having with violence.” He soon launched a project that eventually became Cure Violence, a non-governmental organization that “stops the spread of violence in communities by using the methods and strategies associated with disease control.”

Slutkin said in an interview with Salon that a dangerous “contagion” stemming from the White House has “empowered” certain groups to commit acts of violence. Slutkin, who avoided discussing Trump and the Republican Party by name, said that the election and the president’s impending departure from the White House are critical in reducing “exposure” to the rhetoric that has fueled anger around the country, but that it will require significant “intervention” to reduce the threat of violence that the country has seen in cities like Washington, D.C., Portland, Oregon, and Kenosha, Wisconsin.

Slutkin spoke to Salon about how Cure Violence has helped reduce violence in cities by responding to the problem as a contagious disease, and how that approach can be replicated to prevent political violence.

Talk about why you launched Cure Violence?

I saw how much violence the country has in the communities and I asked people questions like, “What are you doing about it?” Nothing anyone said made any sense to me at all. They’re talking about punishment and they were talking about having to solve every problem. I started to look at charts and graphs and maps of violence, just like any epidemiologist would. They looked to me exactly like the charts and graphs of maps of any epidemic disease, so I began to explore treating it like an epidemic or contagious disease. The first time we tried this was in West Garfield Park in Chicago, which was the worst police district in the country at the time. We had a 67% drop in shootings and killings through a non-policing intervention, through outreach workers which we hired from West Garfield.

The funders said, “Well, sure, it must be a fluke. Do it again.” We did it five more times, got an average of 45% drop in shootings and killings. Since then, we’ve been working in a hundred communities in the U.S., Latin America, a little bit of Africa, a little bit of Europe, and we’ve had about eight or 10 independent evaluations of this method of treating violence like any epidemic health problem through, essentially, behavior change and outreach of community, people doing the work themselves, since all epidemics are managed in this way. It was a 40 to 70% drop in shootings and killings.

There are no other interventions that get this degree of effectiveness this reliably. It’s hard work on the part of the workers. So the workers are what we call violence interrupters, outreach workers, behavior change agents, hospital responders. So that’s the essence of it. So I formed an NGO. And almost simultaneous with the starting of the new NGO, just about a year and a half later, I brought all my team over, all our contracts, and then COVID came, then the social protests came, and now the social divisions of the U.S. became even more disastrously apparent. But we’ve had a rough year, as everybody has. We are listed as one of the top 10 NGOs in the world, along with Save the Children, Oxfam, Transparency, CARE. We never sought to have that kind of designation, but we had it for about five years straight, and we’re listed higher than any other organization on being able to reduce violence.

You’ve spent weeks warning of post-election violence on social media. We saw some clashes in D.C. after that MAGA March over the weekend. Was that the sort of violence you were concerned about, or are you more worried about something more dangerous?

Well, we’re not just worried about it, we’re working to prevent it and stop it. We have a number of partners for this. We are working with several other organizations and peace teams to keep cities calmer. We’ve done about 10 trainings on de-escalation and management of protests, on prevention of sabotage of protests, on staying safe. You can go to our website and see some of those trainings. So for the last two or three months, we’ve been training. We’ve been highly focused on Portland, D.C. and Atlanta.

I should tell you that we were expecting this as of two years ago, because of the political fragility of the country, because of the levels of inequity, the very deep sense of poor well-being, poor health, poor wages and the increases in rage-killings. All of those inflection points, the things I just mentioned and a few other things, began in the 1970s, but they’ve been invisibly kind of simmering, just as COVID was invisibly simmering, and now it’s on an escalating part of the curve.

It’s been a slower curve than COVID because it’s been simmering for decades, whereas COVID really was just simmering for a few weeks, but it’s been on a bad trajectory for the last several months. The election is just a dot on the graph of the deterioration in these indices and their gradual increasing in social divisions.

So post-election violence is part of a much larger threat.

Yeah. It’s been rough. I mean, the rage-killings, with these shootings in churches and synagogues, public places and Walmarts, and the social divisions, the hate speech, the level of anger. And then, of course the empowerment of groups that threaten or do violence publicly. The arming of the country that’s been going on for a while. But certainly elections, not just this election, often spark violence around the world.

All violence is contagious, and one event leads to another leads to another, just like one event of COVID leads to another, and leads to another. Violence behaves exactly like a contagious disease related to exposure and what your friends are doing. The best summary of this is probably the Institute of Medicine workshop called Contagion of Violence. I mean, violence has been misdiagnosed as more or less the problem, which obviously it looks like, just like leprosy and plague and other infectious processes were thought of as moral failings, but it’s largely contagious. But it’s contagious through the brain.

We have coping mechanisms in our brain and we do what other people do. Then, of course, trauma is an accelerator. So we hope to interrupt the spread of it through what we call violence interrupters. Basically, people can be cooled down. They can be, in a way, made to feel like it’s not the right thing to do, and they’re grateful to be assisted in getting a way out from whatever it is they were imagining doing, if they’re reached by people who they know are talking to them in their own interests, people who have access and credibility and trust. Vehavior change is the essence of this. It’s the essence of epidemic control, and it works. This is what I learned at the WHO.

So your group works in regional areas, primarily with gang violence. I’m wondering if these approaches would be applicable to responding to, let’s say, the growing recruitment of militias or some of these sort of dangerous groups like QAnon. Is it possible to replicate that on a larger scale with political ideologies that may lean into violence?

Yeah, we expect so. Everything we know about violence is that people are doing what their friends are doing, and there are reasons and explanations and beliefs that people adhere to that they give as the reasons, explanations and beliefs for their doing it. But essentially they really don’t want to be doing it and they don’t want it done to them, but they can be incited and riled up. It can be cooled down with people who can talk with people. It’s not a matter of arresting or hurting people or betraying their ideas or beliefs or anything like that. It’s just helping to cool down that particular behavior of the violence associated with it and, to a certain extent, the speech, which is relevant because they’re related.

It seems like the reverse is actually more effective right now, because you have a lot of election misinformation being amplified by people’s echo chambers on social media, and the same thing with coronavirus misinformation.

Yeah, you’re exactly right. What you’re touching on is susceptibility. So for any infectious process, let’s say there’s three main elements. One is exposure: So how much exposure do you have to COVID? You walk into someone who’s coughing right in your face, or at more of a distance. Or you’re wearing a mask or not. So what is the exposure? What is your exposure to violence? What is your exposure to misinformation?

And then, secondly: What is your susceptibility? Well, if you’re not wearing a mask, or if, let’s say, you did get infected, but you’re old or you have underlying conditions, you’re more susceptible to getting a severe form of disease. There’s susceptibilities for all of these things, for Ebola or cholera or anything. So the susceptibility here has a lot to do with your needs. What is your need? For acknowledgment or to belong. And I mean, not everyone would be happy to hear this, but how much does the anger help you? In other words, it’s therapeutic to be angry rather than dreadful or sad or something like that. So there’s a susceptibility, and again, that relates to your proximity to others who are doing this, whether it’s on social media because this is what your feed is giving you, or whether it’s your friends.

So then there’s the bit of both exposure and susceptibility relating to each other. So you have these two variables. And here I’m staying with infectious disease, not because it’s a metaphor, but because it’s actually scientific, the way it’s working. And the third variable, beyond exposure and susceptibility, is whether there’s intervention. Something that blocks the transmission and kind of alleviates or cools things down. So in the case of COVID, that would be the mask or the distance that people have from each other, which of course would be assisted by anybody talking to you and educating you as to why you would want to wear a mask or keep the distance.

And then, for violence, that intervention is largely about violence interrupters who can help you cool down from your anger, buy some time and then start to get into your rational brain, as well as giving you a different and better understanding, and who also allow you to get the credit and acknowledgment for the strong move of not doing the violence, and the acknowledgment by someone who matters to you, in real time. A violence interrupter who you respect and you would like to get their credit as well. So this is the way that infectious diseases work: exposure, susceptibility and the interruption of transmission. For every event where you interrupting its transmission, you’re preventing the knock-on transmissions, the additional transmissions, where what might have been one or two cases become 20 or 50.

How much of a role do you think Trump plays in fueling the misinformation that can fuels this violence? Do you think this situation might improve without him driving the national conversation?

This is a really good question. So our starting point is: We don’t talk about people or groups. We don’t name them. We’re talking about the process. But one particular side is a lot more — has a lot of incitement and approval of harsh speech and dangerous speech, the kind of speech that does lead to violence. There have been direct cases of violent events where the person has repeated something that was said from a high political place. So it’s shifted the norm towards violence being more normal, and groups now feel more empowered to do it publicly, to say it publicly, and to do things publicly they weren’t before. So there’s a contagion that has been going on from speech from the White House. Whether it’s from the White House or from anyone, it’s dangerous and harmful and negative.

No matter what you want politically or financially or socially, we all should recognize that speech that promotes violence is likely to cause violence. Speech has an effect on behavior. We know that. But to your point, if in the future there is less exposure to this speech, that’s a very positive thing, because it’s just like if you’re less exposed to COVID so there’s less exposure in the community, less people are going to get it. If there’s less exposure to cholera as the water is cleaned up, less people are going to get it. And if there’s less exposure to bias-promoting speech, this country is going to be better off. Everyone will be better off if there is less exposure to bias-promoting speech. It’s so clear that’s so scientifically, precisely the case in understanding the contagion of violence.

This interview was lightly edited for length and clarity.

Ohio lawmaker spins COVID hoax to justify legislation that would tamper with statistics on virus

An Ohio Republican lawmaker spun wild conspiracy theories to justify legislation that would tamper with the state’s coronavirus statistics.

State Rep. Diane Grendell, a retired judge from Geauga County, has introduced legislation that forces the Ohio Department of Health to publish the number of patients who died with COVID-19 and a comorbidity, reported Ohio Capital Journal.

“We believe the data has been corrupted,” Grendell told the Senate Government Organization Committee. “The CDC is in the process of going through every COVID-19 case and only three states have such, what they call, corrupt data: New York, Kentucky and Ohio.”

Grendell told the Journal that she learned of that investigation from one source at the CDC and another outside the agency, although she declined to identify them, and the ODH flatly denied the lawmaker’s claim.

“The claim made about CDC investigating Ohio’s COVID-19 data is false,” said ODH spokeswoman Melanie Amato. “The Ohio Department of Health remains committed to transparency when it comes to providing data and has consistently followed the CDC guidance on how that data is and should be reported.”

Grendell claims ODH manipulates the number of people who are infected but don’t require hospital care, but the state does publish the number of hospitalizations and the total number of cases — which allows the non-hospitalized cases to be subtracted with some simple math.

House Bill 624 also calls for the department to publish other statistics that it already publishes, such as the daily test positivity rate, the total number of tests and total number of deaths per day.

“The daily COVID death numbers are but a small fraction of the overall daily numbers,” Grendell said. “But the way they are reporting them makes it appear that COVID is the primary cause of death, and it clearly is not.”

The 75-year-old Grendell insisted Ohioans were more likely to die from the flu, which kills about 2,300 people each year in the state, than COVID-19, which has 5,900 in Ohio since March.

“Did you know they’re paying college students $20 to get tested?” Grendell told the committee, but declined to offer evidence. “Which, you know, I think that’s fine they’re getting tested, but you know, they’re making positives even though there are no symptoms and they aren’t sick.”

As Trump campaign challenges election results, El Paso has a different question: Where is our money?

EL PASO — Throughout November, President Trump’s reelection campaign has aggressively solicited donations to support its widely debunked claims of a rigged presidential election. Here in Texas, the president’s team still owes the city of El Paso a 2-year-old debt of more than half a million dollars.

In February 2019, Trump held a campaign rally at the El Paso County Coliseum that cost the city $470,000 in security and other related expenses. After that initial invoice went unpaid, city officials tacked on an additional $99,000 in late fees.

The city considered, and then decided against, suing the campaign earlier this year to recoup the funds. City Attorney Karla Nieman didn’t explain what led to that decision but said her office is still considering other ways to collect on the debt.

“We’re on unprecedented territory by having to collect an outstanding invoice from a sitting president,” she said in a statement. “We continue to explore various options.”

The Trump campaign did not respond when asked if or when the debt would be settled.

El Paso is one of several Texas cities facing operating budget shortfalls because of the COVID-19 pandemic, which has disproportionately affected the border area.

In September, Mayor Dee Margo told The Texas Tribune that the city’s 2021 budget would be reduced by $24 million compared with 2020. The size of that reduction is due, in part, to the city’s tax base coming primarily from residential properties and not the new commercial construction that has helped larger cities offset losses.

El Paso has also collected far less revenue from international bridge tolls as travel from Mexico into Texas has been limited to American citizens or to people traveling for essential businesses during the pandemic. That also means shoppers from Mexico, who were a reliable source of sales tax revenue, have been largely absent since March.

Margo said earlier this month that since the beginning of the year, about 26% of small businesses in El Paso have closed, and more than 15,000 jobs have been lost.

This article originally appeared in The Texas Tribune at https://www.texastribune.org/2020/11/19/el-paso-trump-rally-debt/.

The Texas Tribune is proud to celebrate 10 years of exceptional journalism for an exceptional state. Explore the next 10 years with us.

We asked American teachers how they teach kids about what Trump is doing

Civics is a fundamental part of every American primary school curriculum. Yet there is no living American who has experienced a political moment as polarized as this one, where even teachers cannot speak of Trump or Biden without accusations of impartiality from either direction. 

Particularly now, as America’s democracy itself is straining under the weight of a wanna-be authoritarian, teaching civics seems like a severe challenge, remaining neutral impossible. It is hard to explain this to children — and yet, our teachers must.

Nareissa Smith, a lawyer and former law professor who taught four classes for Varsity Tutors about civic fundamentals in October, two to students from Grades 2 to 5 and two for students from Grades 6 to 8, told Salon that her students were afraid that Trump would attempt to subvert democracy even before he actually did so.

“I will tell you that before the election, the students in my ‘Making Democracy Work’ course, in some of our exchanges, they were very, very afraid that he would be doing exactly what he’s doing now,” Smith told Salon. “Their questions were more like, ‘Well, you know, what, if he doesn’t [leave]? Can he just stay?’ There were a lot of questions around that. So if I were doing the course now I would approach it not in a partisan way, but I would approach it by saying that I will go back to the law, and say the concession is a nicety, but the Constitution doesn’t require it.”

“The conversations that I’ve had with kids are kind of like, ‘this is not normal,'” an anonymous teacher from Georgia, who teaches at a pod school with children ranging in age from 6 to 9, told Salon. “It’s like constantly putting out that, ‘this is what’s happening.’ We need to be aware this is not normal.”

The teacher also noted that her students are particularly interested in the fact that Georgia, which had not voted for a Democratic presidential candidate since Clinton in 1992, supported Democrat Joe Biden over Trump.

“All of my kids kind of sit around and just talk about how excited they are that Georgia turned blue,” the teacher told Salon. “That is an interesting thing too. If you’re talking about just party-wise, the families kind of agree, but then it was interesting to see how that like transferred over to these kids conversations’ about critical issues, because we didn’t all agree necessarily on these issues.”

Another anonymous educator and parent coach, who teaches children that range in age from kindergarten through second grade, told Salon that she stresses the importance of students not simply believing what they are told but instead of thinking for themselves.

“Really it’s about what is the bigger picture,” the teacher told Salon. “And for me, that’s teaching kids how to have critical thinking skills and to go seek the truth for themselves.”

The teacher added, “The way that I approach it is by talking about what we do know. We are in an election where we are still in a process where ballots are being counted. And even though this is an unprecedented situation, we still have checks and balances in place. And I think that again is the important piece here of talking about how our system works as a government, as opposed to getting into ‘He said this, or he did that.’ . . . And I think that’s important for me to convey, to say that it’s okay with not knowing.”

Meredith Essalat, principal of a K-8 school in San Francisco and author of “The Overly Honest Teacher,” also told Salon that one of the chief responsibilities of educators prior to elections themselves is “to make sure that our students are given all of the information they need to make sound decisions.”

“While we teach them about the essential qualities and characteristics of what makes a successful leader— empathy, strength, resilience, camaraderie, respect, wisdom— we do not overtly instruct them on where their political or civic viewpoints should lie,” Essalat wrote to Salon. “We must seek, in all circumstances, to instruct in the domain of neutrality. We present both sides to every argument, a ‘just the facts’ approach to discussing candidates, ballot measures, and political initiatives. Class-wide and small group conversations on the platforms of each candidate and the history and inner workings of the Electoral College help students to learn from one another’s perspectives and the questioning of systems.”

Bryan, who teaches 8th grade literature, also emphasized to Salon that they use politics to teach critical thinking.

“I use the election process to teach debate skills,” Bryan wrote to Salon. “We often don’t give children the credit and responsibility to have an academic discussion about politics, but I’ve found the elections are a perfect time to teach debate etiquette and allow them to talk about their concerns in a controlled matter.”

He added, “I did the same thing 4 years ago in the previous election, and I’ve found that they start out like most of us simply adopting their parents perspective. But I’ve never had it get out of hand, and we’ve often had more political discourse than what I’ve seen in the actual political debates. My students, at the very least, have never told each other to ‘shut up.'”

Here’s an easy lasagna you can make in a skillet using jarred sauce and no-boil pasta

I’m all for using smart shortcuts in the kitchen — something that Nadiya Hussain recommended to readers in her recent Salon Talk, as well — but I find that some of those time-savers need a little help. Case in point: jarred alfredo sauce. While I appreciate the ease, many varieties taste just a touch artificial and tend to just glom onto pasta. 

That’s where you need to invest in a snappy supporting cast of ingredients: spiced pork sausage, meaty mushrooms, a bright pop of lemon zest, fresh greens and fatty cheeses. Together, they elevate your jarred base into a restaurant-quality skillet lasagna. 

This recipe uses no-boil lasagna noodles (another time-saver!), which give a nice al dente bite to the pasta dish as well. If you’ve never used them before, don’t be intimidated, though as Epicurous’ Adina Steiman wrote in 2017, there are a few caveats. 

“Be sure the sauce and/or ricotta coats each spare inch of noodle — if it’s naked, it’s not getting cooked,” she said. “And follow the package instructions about covering and uncovering the lasagna as it bakes so it percolates properly and then browns beautifully.” 

Feel free to adapt the recipe based on what you have in your kitchen. Spinach and arugula swap well for kale; chicken sausage, spiced chickpeas or a ground vegan sausage — I like this recipe — is a nice substitute for pork. Or, for a simple vegetarian version, double the mushrooms and ditch the sausage all together. 

***

Recipe: Mushroom and Sausage Skillet Lasagna
Serves 6 to 8

  • 2 tablespoons of olive oil
  • 1 pound of hot or sweet Italian sausage
  • 1 pound of white or baby portobello mushrooms, roughly chopped
  • 2 cups of fresh kale, roughly chopped or torn
  • 1 ½ cups of whole milk ricotta cheese 
  • 2 tablespoons of fresh lemon zest, plus more for garnish
  • 1 tablespoon of salt, plus more to taste
  • 1 cup of shredded parmesan cheese 
  • 1 9-ounce box of no-boil lasagna noodles 
  • 3 ½ cups of alfredo sauce (this just under two 15-ounce jars)
  • ½ cup of fresh mozzarella cheese, torn into 2-inch pieces
  • Rough chopped Italian parsley for garnish

1. Preheat your oven to 375. In a large skillet, heat olive oil over medium heat. Add the sausage, chopped mushrooms and kale to the olive oil and cook, stirring occasionally, until the sausage is cooked through and the mushrooms are soft. 

2. Drain the mixture and transfer it to a large bowl to cool. 

3. Meanwhile, combine the ricotta, lemon zest, tablespoon of salt and parmesan cheese in a large bowl. Set aside. 

4. Grab your skillet again. Spread a layer of alfredo sauce on the bottom of the pan, followed by 3 or 4 no-bake lasagna sheets. Add sauce again, then a layer of meat. Add another layer of lasagna sheets, followed by sauce and a thin layer of the ricotta mixture. 

5. Continue alternating layers, finishing the meat and mushroom mixture on top. Top the lasagna with the fresh, torn mozzarella. 

6. Tent the skillet with aluminum foil and bake for 25 minutes. Remove the foil and bake for an additional 5 minutes, or until the cheese starts to brown. 

7. Remove from the oven and allow the lasagna to sit for 10 minutes. Garnish with chopped parsley and lemon zest. 

 

This pumpkin cheesecake is the result of James Beard winner Kelly Field’s dislike of pumpkin pie

This recipe is yet another result of my dislike of pumpkin pie (see my Pumpkin Pie with Roasted White Chocolate Cream, page 184). This cheesecake is really an innocent bystander in my attempt to make something at Thanksgiving that I would actually want to eat. The combination of pumpkin and espresso is like peanut butter and chocolate; they should just be together.

RELATED: Cookies can be chewy and crispy at the same time. James Beard winner Kelly Fields shares the secret

***

Recipe: Pumpkin Cheesecake

Makes one 9-inch cheesecake

Crust

  • 2 cups finely ground gingersnap cookies (approximately thirty-five 2-inch cookies)
  • 1⁄4 teaspoon cayenne pepper
  • 1⁄4 cup plus 2 tablespoons unsalted butter, melted

Filling

  • 2 1⁄4 pounds cream cheese, at room temperature
  • 1 1⁄2 cups firmly packed light brown sugar
  • 1 (28-ounce) can pure pumpkin puree (2 1⁄2 cups)
  • 1 tablespoon plus 1 teaspoon ground espresso
  • 1 teaspoon ground cinnamon
  • 1 teaspoon kosher salt
  • 4 eggs, at room temperature
  • 2 egg yolks, at room temperature

1. Make the crust. Preheat the oven to 350°F. Lightly coat a 9-inch springform pan with cooking spray and cut a piece of parchment paper to fit the bottom of the pan. Lightly spray the paper. Wrap the entire outside of the pan tightly in two layers of foil, all the way to the top. In a medium bowl, combine the gingersnaps and cayenne. Stir in the butter until evenly incorporated. Press the mixture into the bottom of the prepared pan and up the sides as far as you are able. Bake the crust for 10 minutes, or until golden and aromatic. Remove from the oven and set aside. Reduce the oven temperature to 325°F.

2. Make the filling. In the bowl of a stand mixer fitted with the paddle attachment or in a large bowl using a handheld mixer, whip the cream cheese with the brown sugar until very smooth, stopping the mixer and scraping down the bottom and sides of the bowl with a rubber spatula several times. Once the mixture is completely smooth, add the pumpkin, espresso, cinnamon, and salt and mix on medium-low speed until combined. Beat in the eggs and egg yolks, one at a time, incorporating well after each addition, just until evenly mixed. Continuing to mix past that point, even though the batter won’t look different, only incorporates extra air, which will cause the cheesecake to bubble excessively and the surface to crack as that air tries to escape during the baking process.

3. Set a roasting pan on the center rack in the oven. Pour the filling into the prepared crust and set the springform pan in the roasting pan. Carefully fill the roasting pan with hot water so it’s a little over halfway up the side of the springform pan. Bake the cheesecake for 1 to 11⁄2 hours, until the filling is set and slightly puffy. Once done, carefully remove the roasting pan from the oven and let the cheesecake cool before removing  it from the water bath. (You don’t want to try to grab the pan out of hot water if you can help it.) However, if you’re worried that your cheesecake might be slightly overbaked, you’ll want to pull it out rather quickly and let it cool at room temperature. Refrigerate for at least 3 hours before slicing. The cake can be refrigerated, covered, for up to 5 days.

Click here to purchase a copy of “The Good Book of Southern Baking.”

With “Belushi,” R.J. Cutler finds the soul behind the comedy legend’s chaos

A solid documentary illuminates its subject. A brilliant documentary like “Belushi” transforms how the viewer feels about something regardless of how much we already know. Much has been left unexamined about “Saturday Night Live” star John Belushi on purpose. In life he held journalists at arm’s length, preferring to let his audience draw their own conclusions based on his work.

As R.J. Cutler’s piece opens we see the Belushi at his height in 1978, the cool Blues Brother who at one point was starring in a box office smash, was the central draw of “Saturday Night Live” in its heyday and charted a Billboard hit. The late Harold Ramis says he contemplated this as Belushi performed live with a band before an audience of thousands.

“My first thought was, how great for him,” Ramis says in an audio recording. “My second thought was, knowing his appetites, I don’t think he’ll survive this.”

Ramis’ premonitory notion is a fairly succinct summary of what most people remember about the performer – that he was aggressively funny, a ball of jokester chaos with musical chops that augmented his comedic identity. And he died of a drug overdose in 1982 from injecting a combination of heroin and cocaine.

Cutler chooses to lead with the performer’s drive, artistry and devotion, easy enough to do given the wealth of material he has to work with. “Belushi” leads with the star’s humanity and frailty, letting the people who knew him best color in his life’s story through their experiences of living and working with him. Not all of it is honeyed memories; think of it instead as a bacchanalia where his revelry is celebrated but his self-destructive mania cannot be ignored.

Long before the hour and 48 minute film starts to travel Belushi’s decline, Cutler elevates the drive that made him come alive onstage in a way that a friend characterized as “a giant humanity that hooked into the collective consciousness of people’s funny bone.”

“Belushi” is a story told from multiple perspectives from the many friends and family members who sat with his wife Judith Belushi Pisano for interviews she conducted after the publication of a book authored by Bob Woodward that she considered sensationalist. It took decades for her to trust anyone with those recordings, but eventually she brought them to Tanner Colby to use as part of a planned oral history.

Colby conducted additional interviews with Lorne Michaels, Carrie Fisher, Robin Williams, Dan Aykroyd (of course), and others, and part of the treasure “Belushi” offers is the opportunity to hear the perspectives of actors like Ramis, Fisher and Williams – greats who are no longer living – being candid on a great whom they outlived.

In combining their testimonials with stylish animated scenes by Robert Valley and readings of letters Belushi wrote to Judy during their courtship and through their marriage, Cutler conjures a vision that evokes the performer’s vast creativity along with his self-doubt, impossible expectations for himself and inner torment. He was loving to his friends, but he could also be ruthless when he felt it served him. Above all, the documentary concludes that he broke himself on his own ego and insecurity.

In a confessional letter to Judy Belushi describes himself as “a basically happy person prone to occasionally melancholy despair.” If “Belushi” leaps, wails and sings that’s because Cutler found a way to expand that confession into a cinematic directive that makes the audience understand the man’s voracious appetite. His fatal flaw was that he could never be completely satisfied. Fortunately anyone watching this documentary is bound to be precisely that.

“Belushi” premieres Sunday, Nov. 22 at 9 p.m. on Showtime.

Wasp venom can save lives. But the supply chain is shaky

One morning in the fall of 2019, Zach Techner stepped into a heavily woven white beekeeper’s suit, pulled on rubber boots and thick orange gloves, and wrapped duct tape around his cuffs and along the zipper. He slid safety glasses over his eyes and a netted hood over his head and zipped it shut. He was preparing to collect one of the most dangerous wild creatures in the United States: yellow jackets.

Techner carried a portable vacuum he had MacGyvered into a wasp-sucking machine to a low thicket of blackberry brambles. A dozen of the flying insects made large descending loops towards their nest in the ground. Over the next 45 minutes, he siphoned the yellow jackets — uninjured but surely a little upset — into a plastic juice jug. He stored the trapped insects beneath a layer of dry ice in a cooler to kill them quickly — and avoid damaging the proteins in their venom.

Wasp collecting isn’t always so uneventful, Techner warned. Yellow jackets can attack — especially in the fall when colonies swell and food is scarce — with sharp stings or by contracting their abdomens to spray their venom in their assailant’s eyes. “When you’re in the middle of a nest and there are thousands of them attacking you, hitting the veil, the venom can still get into your eyes,” he said. “It hurts really bad. It can be blinding.”

Techner owns Cascadia Venom Collection, based in Rochester, Washington. Like dozens of other professional collectors across the country, he is paid by the pound to collect yellow jackets, wasps, and hornets, and ship them to medical manufacturing companies in the U.S. and Europe, where the venom is transformed into lifesaving medicine for those who have severe allergic reactions to stings. (Honeybee venom collection is a little different; due to their ecological importance as pollinators, beekeepers harvest the venom by inducing live bees to sting glass collection plates.) Each year, tens of thousands of people in the U.S. with venom allergies are deliberately injected with small doses of venom over three to five years to desensitize their immune systems to the allergen and, hopefully, eliminate their risk of anaphylaxis, a potentially lethal allergic reaction.

In a good season, Techner and his team will bag more than 400 pounds of stinging insects. European paper wasps, which nest together in small numbers, garner the highest price at about $2,000 per pound. Yellow hornets and yellow jackets, which have larger nests that can reach thousands of individual insects, might bring in closer to $600 per pound.

Yet despite a seemingly endless supply of stinging insects, the venom supply chain has been showing signs of strain. In countries and regions with a single supplier of venom extracts, including Canada, Australia, Southeast Asia, and South Africa, there has been, on occasion, a total lack of product available for patients to start or continue venom immunotherapy. And now due to recent changes in venom manufacturing, the U.S. could be equally vulnerable.

In a 2016 letter, the Food and Drug Administration cited problems with procedures put in place to prevent microbial contamination at a Denmark-based manufacturing facility owned by ALK-Abelló, which held about two thirds of the North American market for venom products at the time. Later that year, the company told those customers it was no longer able to fill orders for six venom extracts — honeybee, wasp, white-faced hornet, yellow hornet, yellow jacket, and a cocktail from several wasp species.

In early 2018, ALK announced it would eliminate the North American product line entirely. The line was not a high-profit one to begin with, and the upgrades its production facilities needed for FDA approval were too expensive, said Jeppe Ilkjaer, a company spokesperson. The three products ALK makes for Europe, on the other hand, experienced some disruptions but are back on the market today.

For several months, the only remaining North American manufacturer, HollisterStier Allergy, a division of Jubilant Pharma that is based in Spokane, Washington, struggled to meet the demand of the U.S. and Canadian markets. Wasp collectors had freezers full of ready-to-ship insects, but allergists in the U.S. and Canada scrambled to get their hands on venom extracts to treat their patients. They stocked up on the extracts they could find, rationed doses, borrowed from friends, tried to switch suppliers, and stretched the time between injections. Eventually, HollisterStier bumped up its output to fill the void in North America, and the FDA approved a second production line around the beginning of this year.

Aside from the microbial and mechanical problems that could shake up production, another risk, allergists say, is that HollisterStier could leave the business altogether. The U.S. market for venom immunotherapy is small (about $20 million per year) compared to other allergy drugs, such as nasal sprays, which exceeds $2 billion annually. Yet Chris Preti, president of HollisterStier Allergy, said the company is committed to producing venom extracts. It has shored up its supply of raw material by entering into agreements to buy wasps, hornets, and yellow jackets from their collectors for years out, and the company has invested in a third production line that should be running by 2024. “If we left there would be tens of thousands of patients that we service with no option,” he said.

Still, the North American market now relies on a single company for venom extracts, unlike European countries, which have a range of suppliers. HollisterStier temporarily ran into production troubles that interrupted the supply of several of its venom extracts, causing additional shortages this year in Canada, although not in the U.S. But the potential for a problem is there, said David Golden, an allergy expert and associate professor of medicine at Johns Hopkins University: “One day there is going to be no venom in the U.S.”

* * *

The sting of a yellow jacket, hornet, or wasp is sharp, searing, and hot. For most people, it causes redness, swelling, itching, and some pain, but is relatively uneventful. Yet for those allergic to insect venom, the first sting triggers an exaggerated and misplaced immune response that sets off a chain of events and can lead to a life-threatening anaphylactic reaction should they be stung again.

A single insect sting delivers a dose of venom so tiny that it would seem insignificant. Yet the complex mixture of allergens, toxins, and proteins can destroy cells, spread pain, overstimulate nerves, and drive down blood pressure for those who are allergic. The skin itches, hives erupt across the entire body, and the throat may begin to close. Dizziness and loss of consciousness can occur, along with stomach cramps, vomiting, and diarrhea. The body can collapse in as little as 10 minutes.

The rates of insect venom allergies typically fall into a range of 5 percent to 7.5 percent of the general population. One U.S. study found sting injuries from bees, wasp, hornets, and yellow jackets led to an estimated 200,000 trips to the emergency room annually between 2001 and 2010, and another found a 59 percent increase in ER visits for venom anaphylaxis between 2005 and 2014. A European study of severe allergic reactions found that one fifth of anaphylaxis cases among children and nearly half of those documented in adults were due to insect stings.

Even though insect stings are not usually fatal, they kill more people in the U.S. each year than any other wild animal, including bears and snakes. Data from the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention show 1,109 deaths due to hornet, wasp, or bee stings occurred between 2000 and 2017, an average of 62 deaths per year. Globally, these numbers are widely thought to be underreported, as allergic reactions to stings are sometimes mistaken for heart attacks or sunstroke. Allergists say there is far less public awareness about the risks that come from insect stings than from other allergens like peanuts.

Venom allergies have plagued humans for thousands of years. At the end of the 12th century, the philosopher and physician Maimonides offered tips on dealing with stings and bites of venomous animals, including bees and wasps, in his “Treatise on Poisons and Their Antidotes.” In another “Treatise on Poisons” first published in 1814, French toxicologist and chemist Mathieu Orfila gave an early account of death by wasp: In 1776, a gardener in Nancy bit into an apple in which a wasp was lodged and the sting “killed the poor unfortunate man within a few hours.” But it would take nearly a century more before physiologists Charles Richet and Paul Portier would describe anaphylaxis in their Paris laboratory.

Beginning in the 1930s, wasp and bee allergies were treated by injections of extracts from whole ground insects to desensitize the immune system. In the late 1940s, Mary Hewitt Loveless, an immunologist at Cornell University Medical College, challenged this approach, arguing that the allergens were concentrated in the venom. In 1956, Loveless ran a small uncontrolled study that showed that injecting progressively increasing doses of venom in her patients could eliminate future anaphylactic reactions. For years, she and her trainees would collect the insects with butterfly nets or nab entire hives and remove their venom sacs by hand. Loveless’ research, however, was largely ignored for two decades.

It wasn’t until 1979, following the results of a placebo-controlled study conducted on 59 soldiers, that the FDA approved venom immunotherapy. Venoms were the first standardized allergens to be used in medicine, and are considered to be as much as 98 percent effective — depending on the species — at eliminating venom allergies.

* * *

At HollisterStier’s manufacturing facility in Spokane, Washington, Pete Colomb, the associate director of manufacturing, strode through a maze of corridors in a white lab coat and blue hair net. In addition to making venom extracts, the company produces dozens of other allergens. In one storage room, glass jars full of pollens — red alder, mountain cedar, bottlebrush — dust mites, cockroach, cattle hair, aspergillus, and other allergens lined the shelves.

Outside the dissecting room, Colomb stepped into disposable booties and onto a tacky mat to avoid tracking in any dirt or debris. Three women — hair pulled back and fingers enclosed in black disposable gloves — sat behind piles of dead yellow jackets. One of the dissectors gently rolled an insect between her fingers to warm it and then bent it to separate the stinger from the body. She plucked the exposed venom sac, no bigger than a tomato seed, from the insect with a pair of sharp pointed tweezers and slid it into a plastic tube of cold preservative.

It takes these dissectors up to 520 hours of work and 130,000 insects to produce a batch of venom extract. The process has been slowed somewhat by restrictions put in place during the Covid-19 pandemic.

Many of those who are allergic to stinging insects aren’t even aware a treatment exists. After a sting in 1994 sent Julia Magnusson to the ER, dizzy and covered in hives, she assumed she had a bee allergy and tried to avoid them. It wasn’t until December 2018, more than 20 years after her initial sting, that her son’s allergist told her she could be tested and treated with venom immunotherapy. “Sixty percent of individuals who have fatal reactions have been diagnosed, but not treated,” said Vera Mahler, a dermatologist who also studies allergies at the Paul Ehrlich Institute in Langen, Germany, the federal research institute that assesses and regulates vaccines and biomedicines in the country.

It turned out Magnusson was allergic to yellow jackets, yellow hornets, and white-faced hornets, not bees, yet she still stalled her treatment for months, worrying about a bad reaction or anaphylaxis. But she had kids and spent a lot of time running and biking in the woods. During the first injections, her arm “would be swollen from shoulder to wrist, like a big fat elephant arm,” she said. Her reaction to the allergy shots eventually subsided, and she now has the confidence that if she’s stung again, she can “get out of the woods alive.”


Drug shortages have become persistent global problems over the past several decades. In 2018, the FDA reported a scarcity of more than 50 drugs and biologics, largely sterile injectable medications used for chemotherapy drugs and anesthetics. In the U.S. most shortages for biologics — such as vaccines or venom extracts — are related to quality problems at the manufacturing facility.

When there is an alternate drug available, patients are less likely to suffer. Germany, for example, saw no disruption during ALK’s manufacturing issues because the country has several other products from companies in the Netherlands and the U.K. approved for sale. Australia, which anticipates a non-critical shortage of several venom extracts until April 2021, has a provision in place that provides the temporary approval of select unregistered products to cover the gap.

Some allergists would like to see the North American market opened up to European products to avoid future shortages. Part of the barrier lies in the way the products are approved. The FDA has a U.S. reference standard for potency, which it distributes to manufacturers, whereas in Europe, products are compared to the company’s own in-house standard. As it stands, a product in use in Europe wouldn’t automatically be approved for use in the U.S. — a European company interested in entering the U.S. market would have to create a new product that adheres to the FDA standard. “There is no compromise between the two approaches,” said Stefan Vieths, who studies the molecular basis of allergies at the Paul Ehrlich Institute in Germany. “If you agree to one, it would mean a lot of work to try to meet the other.”

In addition, the FDA would likely require “multimillion-dollar clinical trials involving sting challenges,” said Golden, referring to the act of intentionally stinging people by holding a yellow jacket, for example, on the arm of a volunteer until it stings them, which comes with the risk of anaphylaxis. “So, we’re stuck,” he said.

“Some people think the FDA should relax their standards and accept some of the research that has been done in Europe, accept the results of the studies,” said J. Allen Meadows, an allergist in Montgomery, Alabama, and the outgoing president of the American College of Allergy, Asthma, and Immunology.

In a commentary published in the college’s medical journal in 2019, Meadows and his colleagues suggested specialists might target a federal program that provides incentives for companies to develop products called orphan drugs for rare diseases that usually affect less than 200,000 people in the U.S. Since the program was started in 1983, it has helped bring more than 600 drugs and products to market, including five snake, scorpion, and spider antivenoms.

Even so, the gap between the cost of treatment and the amount that allergists are reimbursed by insurance carriers and Medicare has forced some small practices to stop offering venom immunotherapy. “Immunotherapy is a substantial piece of our revenue, but venom is, month-to-month, the only therapeutic element that is consistently in the red,” said James Tracy, an allergist and immunologist in Omaha, Nebraska, who is a managing partner at what he says is a multi-million-dollar practice. “The harsh reality is that there are many practices that can’t afford it.”

Despite the shortage of doctors who are willing to take the financial hit, “in the short-term, we’re probably OK,” Tracy said. “But if there is another supply issue — it happened to ALK — if you had a double whammy, it would be a problem.”

* * *

Hannah Hoag is a Toronto-based science journalist and editor whose articles have appeared in Nature, Science, Biographic, Wired, and The New York Times, among other publications. She is allergic to wasps, hornets, and yellow jackets, and is currently undergoing venom immunotherapy treatment.

Good news for herd immunity: New study suggests coronavirus immunity could last more than 6 months

Stories of some unlucky patients contracting COVID-19 twice sent the world into a tailspin over fears that immunity to the virus might not last. Yet a new research report has encouraging news.

A preprint study published Monday on the online server bioRxiv argues that people who develop immunity from SARS-CoV-2, the virus that caused the disease COVID-19, may be able to remain immune for six months or longer. While previous studies have focused on aspects of how the human immune system responds to the virus — such as by analyzing protein components of the immune system or studying how antibodies respond to the virus — this new study researched a number of components of immune memory including B cells, T cells and antibodies.

The authors explain that “while immune memory is the source of long-term protective immunity, direct conclusions about protective immunity cannot be made on the basis of quantifying” the areas of the immune system components they had studied because scientists know very little about the “mechanisms of protective immunity against SARS-CoV-2 or COVID-19” in human beings.

With this caveat, the authors argued that because roughly 90% of the test subjects developed immune memory “consisting of at least three immunological compartments” more than five months after they initially displayed symptoms, there is reason to believe that last immunity against COVID-19 could be possible in most people.

Of particular note was the fact that memory B cells were found in nearly all of the COVID-19 cases and seemed to increase over time. “B cell memory to some other infections has been observed to be long-lived, including 60+ years after smallpox vaccination, or 90+ years after infection with influenza,” the authors of the study wrote. B cells are a type of white blood cell which, in mammals, mature in the bone marrow.

Although the study has not been either peer reviewed or published in a scientific journal, it offers hope as it was co-authored by a number of scientists from the Icahn School of Medicine at Mount Sinai in New York and the La Jolla Institute of Immunology at the University of California, San Diego. It examined 185 adults between the ages of 19 and 81, all of whom had recovered from COVID-19 (in most cases from mild manifestations of the disease), by collecting blood samples from various times after they first exhibited symptoms. In some cases, they collected blood samples more than six months after said patients initially displayed symptoms.

Previous studies have not been as hopeful when it comes to the prospect for long-term immunity from COVID-19. A July paper published in the preprint server medRxiv studied blood samples taken over time from 65 people who tested positive for the coronavirus — and whose conditions ranged from asymptomatic to severe — over a period of roughly three months after they were first diagnosed. Those scientists found that over time patients saw a drop in their antibodies that could neutralize the virus (nAbs).

“A wide range of SARS-CoV-2 neutralizing antibody (nAb) titres have been reported following infection and these vary depending on the length of time from infection and the severity of disease,” the study explained. “Further knowledge on the magnitude, timing and longevity of nAb responses following SARS-CoV-2 infection is vital for understanding the role nAbs might play in disease clearance and protection from re-infection (also called renewed or second wave infections).”

Another study, published in September in the scientific journal Nature Medicine, examined people who had been infected with four species of seasonal coronaviruses that can also cause respiratory infections, surmising that they could help predict immunity rates for the novel coronavirus. The study concluded that “reinfections by natural infection occur for all four seasonal coronaviruses, suggesting that it is a common feature for all human coronaviruses, including SARS-CoV-2. Reinfections occurred most frequently at 12 months after infection, indicating that protective immunity is only short-lived.”

Fear of flying is a COVID-era conundrum

The holidays are approaching just as COVID-19 case rates nationwide are increasing at a record-breaking pace, leading to dire warnings from public health experts.

The Centers for Disease Control and Prevention has issued cautions and updated guidelines related to family gatherings. Dr. Anthony Fauci, a White House coronavirus adviser and director of the National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases, said in interviews that his kids won’t be coming home for Thanksgiving because of coronavirus risks. “Relatives getting on a plane, being exposed in an airport,” he told CBS News. “And then walking in the door and saying ‘Happy Thanksgiving’ — that you have to be concerned about.”

Are Americans listening? Maybe not. Especially as airlines, reeling from major revenue blows since the pandemic took hold in March, tell passengers they can travel with peace of mind and sweeten the deal with special holiday fares.

The airlines argue more is now known about the virus and recent industry-sponsored studies show flying is just as safe as regular daily activities. They also tout policies such as mask mandates and enhanced cleaning to protect travelers from the coronavirus.

Time for a reality check.

Americans who do choose to fly will be subject to evolving COVID safety policies that vary by airline, a result of the continuing lack of a unified federal strategy. Under the Trump administration, government agencies such as the Federal Aviation Administration and the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention have failed to issue and enforce any national directives for air travel.

And, though President-elect Joe Biden has signaled he will take a more robust federal approach to addressing COVID-19, which may result in such actions, the Trump administration remains in charge during the upcoming holiday season.

Here’s what you need to know before you book.

Airlines say it’s safe to fly during the pandemic. Is it?

The airline industry pins its safety clearance to a study funded by its leading trade group, Airlines for America, and conducted by Harvard University researchers, as well as one headed by the Department of Defense, with assistance from United Airlines.

Both reports modeled disease transmission on a plane, assuming all individuals were masked and the airplane’s highly effective air filtration systems were working. The Harvard report concluded the risk of in-flight COVID-19 transmission was “below that of other routine activities during the pandemic, such as grocery shopping or eating out,” while the DOD study concluded an individual would need to, hypothetically, sit for 54 straight hours on an airplane to catch COVID-19 from another passenger.

But these studies’ assumptions have limitations.

Despite airlines’ ramped-up enforcement of mask-wearing, reports of noncompliance among passengers continue. Most airlines say passengers who outright refuse to wear masks will not only be refused boarding, but will also be putting their future travel privileges at risk. Recent press reports indicate Delta has placed hundreds of these passengers on a no-fly list. Some passengers may still try to skirt around the rule by removing their mask to eat or drink for an extended time on the flight, and flight attendants may or may not feel they can stop them.

And though public health experts agree that airplanes do have highly effective filtration systems spaced throughout the cabin that filter and circulate the air every couple of minutes, if someone who unknowingly has COVID-19 takes off their mask to eat or drink, there is still time for viral particles to reach others seated nearby before they get sucked up by the filter.

Public health experts said comparing time on an airplane with time at the grocery store is apples and oranges.

Even if you wear a mask in both places, said Dr. Henry Wu, director of Emory TravelWell Center and associate professor of infectious diseases at Emory University School of Medicine, the duration of contact in both locales can be very different.

“If it’s a long flight and you are in that situation for several hours, then you are accumulating exposure over time. So a one-hour flight is 1/10 the risk of a 10-hour flight,” said Wu. “Whereas most people don’t spend more than an hour in the grocery store.”

Also, both studies analyzed only one aspect of a travel itinerary — risk on board the aircraft. Neither considered the related risks involved in air travel, such as getting to the airport or waiting in security lines. And public health experts say those activities pose opportunities for COVID exposure.

“Between when you arrive in the airport and you get into a plane seat, there is a lot of interaction that happens,” said Lisa Lee, a former CDC official and associate vice president for research and innovation at Virginia Tech.

And while Wu said he agrees that an airplane cabin is likely safer than other environments, with high rates of COVID-19 in communities across the U.S., “there is no doubt people are flying when they’re sick, whether they know it or not.”

Another data point touted by the airline industry has been that out of the estimated 1.2 billion people who have flown so far in 2020, only 44 cases of COVID-19 have been associated with air travel, according to data from the International Air Transport Association, a worldwide trade group.

But this number reflects only case reports published in the academic literature and isn’t likely capturing the true picture of how many COVID cases are associated with flights, experts said.

“It’s very difficult to prove, if you get sick after a trip, where exactly you got exposed,” said Wu.

The low count could also stem from systemic contact-tracing inconsistencies after a person with COVID-19 has traveled on a flight. In a recent case, a woman infected with the coronavirus died during a flight and fellow passengers weren’t notified of their exposure.

That may be due to the decentralized public health system the U.S. has in place, said Lee, the former CDC official, since contact tracing is done through state and local health departments. The CDC will step in to help with contact tracing only if there is interstate travel, which is likely during a flight — but, during the pandemic, the agency has “been less consistently effective than in the past,” said Lee.

“Let’s say there is a case of COVID on a flight. The question is, who is supposed to deal with that? The state that [the flight] started in? That it ended in? The CDC? It’s not clear,” said Lee.

Is now the time to fly?

Most airlines have implemented safety measures beyond requiring masks, such as asking passengers to fill out health questionnaires, enhancing cleaning on planes, reducing interactions between crew members and passengers, and installing plexiglass stations and touchless check-in at service desks.

But many have also stepped back from other efforts, such as pledging to block middle seats. United relaxed its social distancing policy for allowing empty middle seats between customers at the end of May, though there were complaints from customers before then about flights being full. American Airlines stopped blocking middle seats in July. Other airlines plan to fill seats after the Thanksgiving holiday, with Southwest stopping the practice of blocking middle seats starting Dec. 1, and JetBlue planning to increase capacity to 85% on Dec. 2. In January, Alaska Airlines plans to stop blocking middle seats and JetBlue will fly at full capacity. Delta announced this week that it will continue to block the middle seat until March 30.

This policy change is a result of airlines’ lack of cash on hand, said Robert Mann, an aviation analyst. It also reflects a rising demand from consumers who feel increasingly comfortable traveling again, especially as holiday gatherings beckon.

“It was easy to keep middle seats empty when there wasn’t much demand,” said Mann.

Now, they’re instead hoping that new COVID-era services will calm passengers’ fears.

American, United, Alaskan and Hawaiian, among others, offer some form of preflight COVID test for customers traveling to Hawaii or specific foreign destinations that also require a negative test or quarantine upon arrival. JetBlue recently partnered with a company to offer at-home COVID tests that give rapid results for those traveling to Aruba.

Airlines are likely to expand their preflight COVID testing options in the next couple of months. “This is the new dimension of airline competition,” said Mann.

But is it a new dimension of travel safety?

Emory’s Wu said there is certainly a risk of catching the coronavirus if you travel by plane, and travelers should have a higher threshold in making the decision to travel home for the holidays than they would in years past.

After all, COVID case rates are surging nationwide.

“I think the less folks crowding the airports, the less movement in general around the country, will help us control the epidemic,” said Wu. “We are worried things will get worse with the colder weather.”

Subscribe to KHN’s free Morning Briefing.

House Democrat demands DOJ prosecution of Trump’s “innumerable crimes against the United States”

In stark contrast with President-elect Joe Biden—who is reportedly inclined against investigating and possibly prosecuting President Donald Trump for his many proven and alleged crimes—one Democratic congressman on Tuesday demanded that the president be brought to justice.

Citing an “unprecedented litany of misdeeds [that] must not be swept under the rug,” Rep. Bill Pascrell (D-N.J.)—a fierce critic of the president—released a statement calling for the prosecution of Trump and members of his administration, whom the 83-year-old congressman accused of committing “innumerable crimes against the United States.”

Pascrell’s statement said that:

[Trump] has endangered our national security. He ripped families apart. He poisoned the Census. He has personally profited from his office. He has attacked our elections and sought to throttle democracy. He was rightly impeached by the House of Representatives. He has engaged in treachery [and] in treason. He has all but given up on governing and protecting our nation and if he had a shred of dignity he would resign today.

“In 2021 the entire Trump administration must be fully investigated by the Department of Justice and any other relevant offices,” Pascrell asserted. “Trump along with his worst enablers must be tried for their crimes against our nation and Constitution. Importantly, any further abuse of the sacred pardon power to shield criminals would itself be obstruction of justice, and any self-pardons would be illegal.”

Pascrell, who serves as chairman of the Oversight Subcommittee of the House Ways and Means Committee, has pursued the president with dogged determination, especially on matters regarding his taxes. Upon his appointment as subcommittee chair, he vowed to be “relentless” in uncovering the president’s misdeeds.

“I’m going to use my chairmanship aggressively,” Pascrell said last month. Earlier this month, he successfully requested that the United States Special Counsel—an independent federal investigative and prosecutorial agency—investigate reports that Trump’s reelection team illegally used the White House’s Eisenhower Executive Office as a campaign “war room.” 

Pascrell’s call to prosecute the president is a major departure from Biden, who according to unnamed advisers cited in a Tuesday NBC News report believes that pursuing charges against Trump would further divide a deeply riven nation and distract from the incoming administration’s agenda. 

“He’s going to be more oriented toward fixing the problems and moving forward than prosecuting them,” said one Biden adviser, drawing comparisons to former President Barack Obama’s refusal to prosecute the Bush-era architects and perpetrators of CIA and U.S. military torture—and even to former President Gerald Ford’s 1974 pardon of his predecessor, the Watergate criminal Richard Nixon. 

While the Supreme Court deliberates on the ACA, Congress and the White House may act

For the third time in a decade, the U.S. Supreme Court has heard oral arguments on the constitutionality of the Affordable Care Act. The case of California v. Texas, heard on Nov. 10, is its most recent major legal challenge.

Taking place eight days after Justice Amy Coney Barrett’s first Supreme Court case and seven days after the 2020 election, Tuesday’s hearing focused on the ACA’s individual mandate, the requirement that most people need to have health insurance. After Congress “zeroed out” the mandate’s penalty in 2017, the challengers are arguing that the mandate is no longer constitutional under Congress’ tax-and-spend authority and must be struck down.

In the case, the court considered whether the individual plaintiffs and the challenging states had standing to sue, whether the “zeroed-out” individual mandate provision was constitutional and whether, if unconstitutional, that provision was severable from the rest of the law. It will likely be spring, and could be early summer, before we hear of the court’s decision.

As a health law professor who focuses on health care finance and delivery, I think it is important to ask, in addition to the legal arguments and tea-leaf reading of California v. Texas, what is next for the law and American health care policy?

Reading tea leaves from the oral arguments

Health care policy and legal experts are closely watching because the advancing litigation has mounted yet another existential threat against the ACA. This challenge was made more menacing when the Trump administration made clear that it was pushing for the invalidation of the entire law – not just the individual mandate – in a June 2020 brief.

Yet different scholars, those both supportive and unsupportive of the ACA, have noted that the challengers’ legal arguments are “unworthy,” “very weak” and “ridiculous.”

During the hearing Nov. 10, it appeared that Chief Justice Roberts and Justice Kavanaugh, two very important potential swing votes, were skeptical of the challengers’ legal arguments, particularly on the issue of severability, which allows for courts, if striking down part of a law, to “sever” and excise the unconstitutional part, leaving the rest of the law intact.

If the court were to find the ACA severable, then even a holding that the individual mandate was unconstitutional would not invalidate the entire law. Arguments these two justices made during their questioning of the litigants seemed to suggest this exact point.

https://twitter.com/sangerkatz/status/1326563958023741447
 
Life, and enrollment, go on

Regardless of the decision, it is likely months away. Previous ACA-related decisions have been handed down near the very end of the court’s term in late June, and there is no reason to think that this time will be different. That means that, over the next few months, the risk of judicial disruption to the inner workings of the ACA is minimal.

And, importantly, ACA open enrollment has begun. This is the period during which individuals can sign up for qualified health plans on healthcare.gov for 2021 coverage. The period runs through Dec. 15, 2020.

During last year’s open enrollment period, 11.41 million consumers selected ACA-compliant marketplace insurance plans, which was down 0.3% from 11.44 million consumers for 2019. According to the Kaiser Family Foundation, both of these numbers are down from the high of 12.68 enrollees in 2016.

Most consequentially, the ACA will still largely be subject to political wrangling. The incoming Biden administration has indicated a desire to build on the Affordable Care Act. But this is where things get tricky.

Georgia on everyone’s mind

Whether the Biden administration can make bigger structural changes, like adding a public option to the ACA (which is part of President-elect Biden’s health care plan), is likely to be a heavy lift. With Senate races in Alaska and North Carolina now being projected, Republicans are likely to occupy 50 seats in the Senate, compared to the 48 seats occupied by the Democratic caucus (including the two independent senators who caucus with Democrats), with two races outstanding.

This means that the two Georgia runoffs, between Jon Ossoff and Sen. David Perdue and between Rev. Dr. Raphael Warnock and Sen. Kelly Loeffler, will determine control of the Senate. Should these seats be won by Ossoff and Warnock in January, Democrats would control a chamber that is split 50-50 thanks to the tiebreaking vote provided by Vice President-elect Kamala Harris. This would give President-elect Biden a better chance to push for structural legislative reform to the ACA, like a public option, assuming he can hold all 50 votes. Indeed, the future of American health care policy runs right through Georgia.

Importantly, this outcome would also give Biden and the Democratic-controlled Congress the ability to pass a “legislative fix,” which could largely moot California v. Texas. This could include repealing the individual mandate from the ACA. As a result, the Georgia Senate races are all the more consequential if the Supreme Court strikes down the ACA.

Administrative fixes

Whether or not the Senate falls into Democratic control, the Biden administration can still use executive authority once in office to make changes to the ACA, just as President Trump has done.

This could include bolstering enrollment periods and support for ACA-compliant insurance plans to reverse Trump cuts, changing the guidance and approval standards for state waivers under the ACA and reinterpreting anti-discrimination provisions within the ACA to reinstate protections that were ended by the Trump administration, just to name a few.

Though the arguments are over, the battle over the future of the ACA will continue to be waged – both within the executive branch in Washington and in the political arena in Georgia – even while we await the decision from the Supreme Court on its most recent existential threat.

Zack Buck, Associate Professor of Law, University of Tennessee

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

Ivanka Trump calls NYT report on fraud investigations into family “harassment pure and simple”

Ivanka Trump echoed her father’s rhetoric on Thursday night after the New York Times broke a new story about the criminal and civil investigations surrounding the family business.

The Times reported:

Two separate New York State fraud investigations into President Trump and his businesses, one criminal and one civil, have expanded to include tax write-offs on millions of dollars in consulting fees, some of which appear to have gone to Ivanka Trump, according to people with knowledge of the matter.

“This is harassment pure and simple,” Ivanka said in a tweet linking to the story. “This ‘inquiry’ by NYC democrats is 100% motivated by politics, publicity and rage. They know very well that there’s nothing here and that there was no tax benefit whatsoever. These politicians are simply ruthless.”

Dismissing any legitimate legal scrutiny as “harassment” is exactly how the president has attacked those who have attempted to hold him accountable, including former Special Counsel Robert Mueller’s office. But previous reports have found that the family business, the Trump Organization, really has been involved in potentially corrupt and illegal behavior, but they have managed to escape serious consequences. Serious questions have also been raised about the legality of the Trump’s taxes, based on reporting and publicly available information. It may be that only now, with the family at the center of the U.S. politics and the media scrutinizing their history, that investigators have become bold enough to actually pursue serious charges.

Ivanka Trump’s comments are also highly hypocritical because her father has openly made the case that the Justice Department should pursue charges against his political enemies. He was impeached for pressuring Ukraine to investigate now-President-elect Joe Biden. And the Mueller Report revealed that he directed former Attorney General Jeff Sessions to reopen investigations into Hillary Clinton in 2017, which he did.

The Times reported that the Trump Organization probes have advanced recently.

“The inquiries — a criminal investigation by the Manhattan district attorney, Cyrus R. Vance Jr., and a civil one by the state attorney general, Letitia James — are being conducted independently,” the report found. “But both offices issued subpoenas to the Trump Organization in recent weeks for records related to the fees, the people said.”

Since the Trumps would be aware of such subpoenas, Ivanka’s tweet can be read as confirmation of the report. The report does also note that there’s “no indication that his daughter is a focus of either inquiry.”

Here are 10 things Joe Biden can do immediately to create a safer, better world

Donald Trump loves executive orders as a tool of dictatorial power, avoiding the need to work through Congress. But that works both ways, making it relatively easy for incoming President Joe Biden to reverse many of Trump’s most disastrous decisions. Here are 10 things Biden can do as soon as he takes office. Each one can set the stage for broader progressive foreign policy initiatives, which we have also outlined.  

1) End the U.S. role in the Saudi-led war on Yemen and restore U.S. humanitarian aid to Yemen. 

Congress already passed a war powers resolution to end the U.S. role in the Yemen war, but Trump vetoed it, prioritizing war-machine profits and a cozy relationship with the horrific Saudi dictatorship. Biden should immediately issue an executive order to end every aspect of the U.S. role in the war, based on the resolution that Trump vetoed.

The U.S. should also accept its share of responsibility for what many have called the greatest humanitarian crisis in the world today, and provide Yemen with funding to feed its people, restore its health care system and eventually rebuild this devastated country. Biden should restore and expand USAID funding and recommit U.S. financial support to the UN, the WHO and World Food Program relief programs in Yemen.

2) Suspend all U.S. arms sales and transfers to Saudi Arabia and the United Arab Emirates (UAE).

Both countries are responsible for massacring civilians in Yemen, and the UAE is reportedly the largest arms supplier to Gen. Haftar’s rebel forces in Libya. Congress passed bills to suspend arms sales to both of them, but Trump vetoed them too. Then he struck arms deals worth $24 billion with the UAE as part of an obscene military and commercial ménage à trois between the U.S., the UAE and Israel, which he absurdly tried to pass off as a peace agreement.   

While mostly ignored at the behest of the weapons companies, there are actually U.S. laws that require the suspension of arms transfers to countries that use them to violate U.S. and international law. They include the Leahy Law, which prohibits the U.S. from providing military assistance to foreign security forces that commit gross violations of human rights, and the Arms Export Control Act, which states that countries must use imported U.S. weapons only for legitimate self defense.

Once these suspensions are in place, the Biden administration should seriously review the legality of Trump’s arms sales to both countries, with a view to canceling them and banning future sales. Biden should commit to applying these laws consistently and uniformly to all U.S. military aid and arms sales, without making exceptions for Israel, Egypt or other U.S. allies.

3) Rejoin the Iran Nuclear Agreement (JCPOA) and lift sanctions on Iran.

After reneging on the JCPOA, Trump slapped draconian sanctions on Iran, brought us to the brink of war by killing its top general, and is even trying to order up illegal, aggressive war plans in his last days as president. The Biden administration will face an uphill battle undoing this web of hostile actions and the deep mistrust they have caused, so Biden must act decisively to restore mutual trust: immediately rejoin the JCPOA, lift the sanctions, and stop blocking the $5 billion IMF loan that Iran desperately needs to deal with the COVID crisis.

In the longer term, the U.S. should give up the idea of regime change in Iran — this is for the people of Iran to decide — and instead restore diplomatic relations and start working with Iran to de-escalate other Middle East conflicts, from Lebanon to Syria to Afghanistan, where cooperation with Iran is essential.

4) End U.S. threats and sanctions against officials of the International Criminal Court (ICC).

Nothing so brazenly embodies the U.S. government’s enduring, bipartisan disdain for international law as its failure to ratify the Rome Statute of the International Criminal Court (ICC). If Biden is serious about recommitting the U.S. to the rule of law, he should submit the Rome Statute to the U.S. Senate for ratification to join 120 other countries as members of the ICC. The Biden administration should also accept the jurisdiction of the International Court of Justice (ICJ), which the U.S. rejected after the Court convicted the U.S. of aggression and ordered it to pay reparations to Nicaragua in 1986.

5) Back President Moon Jae-in’s diplomacy for a “permanent peace regime” in Korea.

Biden has reportedly agreed to meet South Korea’s President Moon after he is sworn in. Trump’s failure to provide sanctions relief and explicit security guarantees to North Korea doomed his diplomacy and became an obstacle to the diplomatic process under way between Korean presidents Moon and Kim Jong-un. 

The Biden administration must start negotiating a peace agreement to formally end the Korean War, and initiate confidence-building measures such as opening liaison offices, easing sanctions, facilitating reunions between Korean-American and North Korean families and halting U.S.-South Korea military exercises. Negotiations must involve concrete commitments to non-aggression from the U.S. side to pave the way for a denuclearized Korean Peninsula and the reconciliation that so many Koreans desire — and deserve. 

6) Renew New START with Russia and freeze the U.S.’s trillion-dollar new nuke plan.

Biden can end Trump’s dangerous game of brinksmanship on Day One and commit to renewing Obama’s New START Treaty with Russia, which freezes both countries’ nuclear arsenals at 1,550 deployed warheads each. He can also freeze Obama and Trump’s plan to spend more than a trillion dollars on a new generation of U.S. nuclear weapons.

Biden should also adopt a long overdue “no first use” nuclear weapons policy, but most of the world is ready to go much further. In 2017, 122 countries voted for the Treaty on the Prohibition of Nuclear Weapons (TPNW) at the UN General Assembly. None of the current nuclear weapons states voted for or against the treaty, essentially pretending to ignore it. On October 24, 2020, Honduras became the 50th country to ratify the treaty, which will now go into effect on Jan. 22, 2021. 

So here is a visionary challenge for President Biden for that day, his second full day in office: Invite the leaders of each of the other eight nuclear weapons states to a conference to negotiate how all nine nuclear weapons states will sign onto the TPNW, eliminate their nuclear weapons and remove this existential danger hanging over every human being on Earth.

7) Lift illegal unilateral U.S. sanctions against other countries.

Economic sanctions imposed by the UN Security Council are generally considered legal under international law, and require action by the Security Council to impose or lift them. But unilateral economic sanctions that deprive ordinary people of necessities like food and medicine are illegal and cause grave harm to innocent citizens. 

U.S. sanctions on countries like Iran, Venezuela, Cuba, Nicaragua, North Korea and Syria are a form of economic warfare. UN special rapporteurs have condemned them as crimes against humanity and compared them to medieval sieges. Since most of these sanctions were imposed by executive order, President Biden can lift them the same way on Day One. 

In the longer term, unilateral sanctions that affect an entire population are a form of coercion, like military intervention, coups and covert operations, that have no place in a legitimate foreign policy based on diplomacy, the rule of law and the peaceful resolution of disputes. 

8) Roll back Trump policies on Cuba and move to normalize relations.

Over the past four years, the Trump administration overturned the progress towards normal relations made by President Obama, sanctioning Cuba’s tourism and energy industries, blocking coronavirus aid shipments, restricting remittances to family members and sabotaging Cuba’s international medical missions, which are a major source of income for its health system. 

Biden should start working with the Cuban government to allow the return of diplomats to their respective embassies, lift all restrictions on remittances, remove Cuba from the list of countries that are not U.S. partners against terrorism, cancel the portion of the Helms Burton Act (Title III) that allows Americans to sue companies that use property seized by the Cuban government 60 years ago, and collaborate with Cuban health professionals in the fight against COVID-19.

These measures would mark a down payment on a new era of diplomacy and cooperation, as long as they don’t fall victim to crass attempts to gain conservative Cuban-American votes in the next election, which Biden and politicians of both parties should commit to resisting.

9) Restore pre-2015 rules of engagement to spare civilian lives.

In the fall of 2015, as U.S. forces escalated their bombing of ISIS targets in Iraq and Syria to more than 100 bomb and missile strikes per day, the Obama administration loosened military rules of engagement to let U.S. commanders in the Middle East order airstrikes that were expected to kill up to 10 civilians without prior approval from Washington. Trump reportedly loosened the rules even further, but details were not made public. Iraqi Kurdish intelligence reports counted 40,000 civilians killed in the assault on Mosul alone. Biden can reset these rules and start killing fewer civilians on Day One.

But we can avoid these tragic civilian deaths altogether by ending these wars. Democrats have been critical of Trump’s often ad hoc pronouncements about withdrawing U.S. forces from Afghanistan, Syria, Iraq and Somalia. President Biden now has the chance to truly end these wars. He should set a date, no later than the end of December 2021, by when all U.S. troops will come home from all these combat zones. This policy may not be popular among war profiteers, but it would certainly be popular among Americans across the ideological spectrum. 

10) Freeze U.S. military spending, and launch a major initiative to reduce it.

At the end of the Cold War, former senior Pentagon officials told the Senate Budget Committee that U.S. military spending could safely be cut by half over the next 10 years. That goal was never achieved, and the promised peace dividend gave way to a triumphalist “power dividend.” 

The military-industrial complex exploited the crimes of Sept. 11, 2001, to justify an extraordinary one-sided arms race in which the U.S. accounted for 45% of global military spending from 2003 to 2011, far outstripping its peak Cold War military spending. The military-industrial complex is counting on Biden to escalate a renewed Cold War with Russia and China as the only plausible pretext for continuing these record military budgets.

Biden must dial back the conflicts with China and Russia, and instead begin the critical task of moving money from the Pentagon to urgent domestic needs. He should start with the 10 percent cut supported this year by 93 representatives and 23 senators. 

In the longer term, Biden should look for deeper cuts in Pentagon spending, as in Rep. Barbara Lee’s bill to cut $350 billion per year from the U.S. military budget, approximating the 50% peace dividend we were promised after the Cold War and freeing up resources we sorely need to invest in health care, education, clean energy and modern infrastructure.

No, there’s not a turkey shortage — but smaller birds are flying off the shelves

For Indiana farmer Luke Groce, this is set to be his most profitable Thanksgiving yet. “We’ve always been one of the few local farms catering to the small bird market, so it’s always been a big draw,” he said.  “But we definitely have more small turkey demand than in previous years.”

Small birds — which Groce defines as 9 to 15 pounds, compared to 30-pound “dinosaur turkeys” — are a hot item this holiday season as many home cooks are planning downsized Thanksgiving dinners following Center for Disease Control recommendations that Americans avoid travel and large gatherings amid a sustained spike in novel coronavirus cases. 

“Retail sales aren’t done yet, but we’re at about 40% above last year’s,” Groce said. “Plus, more wholesale sales, too.” 

As Salon reported in September, the pandemic has caused supply chain issues in the food and grocery industry; meat processing plants were hit incredibly hard as legions of industry workers were diagnosed with the novel coronavirus. From May to June, the number of Tyson Foods employees with the coronavirus exploded from less than 1,600 a month ago to more than 7,000, the Washington Post reported. 

Despite implementing increased safety measures — like protective gear and updated ventilation systems — employees work in close conditions and, some factories report, social distancing recommendations are nearly impossible to enforce. This had direct market implications. John Tyson, chairman of Tyson Foods wrote in an April blog post, “as pork, beef and chicken plants are being forced to close, even for short periods of time, millions of pounds of meat will disappear from the supply chain.” 

Additionally, as Salon’s Matt Rosza reported, wholesale turkey prices are going up, as the actual number of turkeys available to be consumed goes down; overall turkey production for 2020 has fallen by 2.7% compared to where it was in 2019.

As such, questions loomed about the coming holiday, namely whether there would be a shortage of turkeys available for purchase. The short answer is “no,” though many smaller turkeys have likely already flown off the shelves. 

According to a representative from the Butterball Turkey Talk Line, the company’s toll-free holiday hotline that was established in 1981, the general rule of thumb is cooks should plan on serving one pound of turkey per guest, which makes the average 15-pound Thanksgiving turkey too large for many planned gatherings this year. 

“Nine out of 10 people want the small birds,” Jered Standing, the owner of Standing’s Butchery in Hollywood, told the Los Angeles Times. “I tried to get more — people are calling every day. They’re just not available.”

Chefs and restaurant owners who are selling Thanksgiving packages have noticed the trend towards downsized birds as well. Chris Williams, the owner and chef of the Louisville pub Four Pegs, said that it has been a record year for their small to-go turkeys and breast meat by the pound. So far, they’ve sold 76 12- to 14-pound turkeys and 80 pounds of breast meat. 

“So a lot of people are getting a pound or two to feed their small group,” Williams said. 

A few miles over at Fork & Barrel, a Southern food restaurant, chef de cuisine Tina Dyer said they are ordering turkeys in 6, 12, and 18 pounds. “We did not have anyone order just turkey breast, but we had one request for the turkey to be deboned,” she said. 

In Seattle, Eric Rivera, the chef and owner of addo, is selling 10- and 20-pound turkeys. 

“Mostly the 10-pound [turkeys] are selling,” he said. “I started working on orders two months ago and haven’t seen any interruptions. However, I know of a lot of other places seeing issues. I was expecting the s**t show.” 

Home cooks report shifting their holiday menus as well. Alex Luken, a Louisville resident, said she purchased 10 pounds of sliced turkey breast from a local restaurant, which she plans on serving with homemade sides for her family.

“We are staying home due to COVID this year, and I was going to roast two turkey breasts this year for four people,” she said. “This is the first year I’ve ordered out.” 

In Cleveland, Jean Garcia and their partner are doing a two-person Thanksgiving dinner. Initially, they considered cooking something unique for the holiday, like a turkey tikka masala or some homemade pizzas, but decided that “a traditional meal with the fixings would make this year feel more normal.” 

“So right now, I’m just looking for the tiniest turkey I can get,” they said. “If I could buy a one-pound turkey, I totally would.”

This is your brain on lies: Why liars get better at lying with practice

The last five years have been a master class in gaslighting. For those of us who came into the Trump Era with some personal experience with narcissists, emotional abusers and flat out liars, it has been a jarringly familiar time.

For those who previously had the luxury of expecting honesty of others, this has been a sharp learning curve. We all now know exactly what it feels like to be on the receiving end of untruth so blatant and shameless it makes us question ourselves. We know what it’s like to hear a falsehood repeated so insistently it almost becomes convincing. We get it from the highest levels of government, from cable news networks, from our radicalized relatives and neighbors. And we know the confusion, self-doubt and fear that come with long term exposure to what liars like to call “alternative facts.”

It feels pretty crappy. But what does it feel like for the liars? How can they keep spinning their BS with such shocking ease and conviction?

As with all things, it’s a matter of practice. We all bend the truth with some regularity — a 2003 University of California study found that participants reported lying on average twice a day. If “I’m fine” counts, the number must surely be higher. White lies are a social lubricant and a “get out complicated explanations” card. Dinner was delicious. I’m five minutes away. I wish I could help.

But toxic people, people with antisocial personality disorder, people with pseudologia fantastica (a.k.a. pathological liars) lie for other reasons, and they do it a lot. They lie to gain control in their relationships. They lie to self exonerate and to justify their behavior. And the more they do it, the better they get at it, and the bigger their lies can become.

A 2016 study published in Nature Neuroscience found that “Signal reduction in the amygdala,” the part of the brain associated with emotion, “is sensitive to the history of dishonest behavior, consistent with adaptation. . . .  the extent of reduced amygdala sensitivity to dishonesty on a present decision relative to the previous one predicts the magnitude of escalation of self-serving dishonesty on the next decision.”

In other words, “What begins as small deviations from a moral code could escalate to large deviations with potentially harmful consequences.” Hence, you can seemingly desensitize yourself to your own dishonesty.

This is especially handy for a narcissist, who, as psychiatrist Dr. Bandy X. Lee explained to Salon recently, perpetually “must overcompensate, creating for himself a self-image where he is the best at everything, never wrong, better than all the experts, and a ‘stable genius.'”

It’s not just the amygdala that gets a workout from lying: other parts of the brain get in on the act as well. A 2009 Harvard University study of volunteers — some of whom cheated on a simple coin toss game and some who didn’t — found that while the honest players had “no increased activity in certain areas of the prefrontal cortex known to be involved in self-control… those control regions did become perfused with blood when the cheaters responded.” And it happened even when the cheaters were telling the truth. Keeping your story straight takes work.

If you’re capable of knowing right from wrong, lying and cheating make you feel bad. And even if you don’t puke like Marta in “Knives Out,” you may have a “tell” — fidgeting, averting your gaze — that communicates that. But habitual liars don’t feel bad. This is why lie detector tests are such unreliable tools. The autonomic nervous system of a somewhat average person, with an average person’s anxiety about being caught in wrongdoing, will respond differently when telling the truth and when not. Their breath, blood pressure and heart rate may change. They may get sweaty. If you’re someone like Gary Ridgway or Ted Bundy, two of the most prolific and vicious serial killers in American history, you can pass a polygraph with ease.

The other key component of chronic lying is that it often resides in the same neighborhood as delusion. Individuals with delusional disorders have “fixed beliefs that do not change, even when presented with conflicting evidence,” and oh boy, there is no shortage of a spectrum of unchanging fixed beliefs here in our country right now. This is why gaslighting is so persuasive. It’s the blatant, brazen confidence that only people who really put in their ten thousand hours of bald faced lying and genuine dissociation from reality can deliver that sells it.

Can habitual liars change? Dr. Robert Feldman, who wrote “The Liar in Your Life: The Way to Truthful Relationships,” told Everyday Health in 2016 not to hold your breath, because they usually don’t want to. The only path forward is escaping their grip — and keeping our own amygdalas honest.

Grappling with a divided nation

In the two weeks since Election 2020, the country has oscillated between joy and anger, hope and dread in an era of polarization sharpened by the forces of racism, nativism, and hate. Still, truth be told, though the divisive tone of this moment may only be sharpening, division in the United States of America is not a new phenomenon.

Over the past days, I’ve found myself returning to the words of Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr., who, in 1967, just a year before his own assassination, gave a speech prophetically entitled “The Other America” in which he vividly described a reality that feels all too of this moment rather than that one:

“There are literally two Americas. One America is beautiful… and overflowing with the milk of prosperity and the honey of opportunity. This America is the habitat of millions of people who have food and material necessities for their bodies; and culture and education for their minds; and freedom and human dignity for their spirits… 

“But tragically and unfortunately, there is another America. This other America has a daily ugliness about it that constantly transforms the ebulliency of hope into the fatigue of despair. In this America millions of work-starved men walk the streets daily in search for jobs that do not exist. In this America millions of people find themselves living in rat-infested, vermin-filled slums. In this America people are poor by the millions. They find themselves perishing on a lonely island of poverty in the midst of a vast ocean of material prosperity.”

In Dr. King’s day, that other America was, for a time, laid bare to the nation through mass social unrest and political change, through the bold actions of the freedom fighters who won the Voting Rights Act and then just kept on fighting, as well as governmental programs like the “War on Poverty.” And yet, despite the significant gains then, for many decades since, inequality in this country has been on the rise to previously unimaginable levels, while poverty remained locked in and largely ignored.

Today, in the early winter of an uncurbed pandemic and the economic crisis that accompanies it, there are 140 million poor or low-income Americans, disproportionately people of color, but reaching into every community in this country: 24 million Blacks, 38 million Latinos, eight million Asians, two million Native peoples, and 66 million whites. More than a third of the potential electorate, in other words, has been relegated to poverty and precariousness and yet how little of the political discourse in recent elections was directed at those who were poor or one storm, fire, job loss, eviction, or healthcare crisis away from poverty and economic chaos. In the distorted mirror of public policy, those 140 million people have remained essentially invisible. As in the 1960s and other times in our history, however, the poor are no longer waiting for recognition from Washington. Instead, every indication is that they’re beginning to organize themselves, taking decisive action to alter the scales of political power.

For years, I’ve traveled this country, working to build a movement to end poverty. In a nation that has so often boasted about being the wealthiest and freest in history, I’ve regularly witnessed painful divisions caused by hunger, homelessness, sickness, degradation, and so much more. In Lowndes County, Alabama, for instance, I organized with people who lived day in, day out with raw sewage in their yards and dangerous mold in their homes. On Apache land in Oak Flats, Arizona, I stood with native leaders struggling to cope with generations of loss and plunder, most recently at the hands of a multinational copper mining company. In Gray’s Harbor, Washington, I visited millennials living in homeless encampments under constant siege by militia groups and the police. And the list, sadly, only goes on.

As the future administration of Joe Biden and Kamala Harris heads for the White House (no matter the recalcitrant loser still ensconced there), the rest of us must equip ourselves with both courage and caution, living as we do in a divided nation, in — to be exact — two very different Americas. Keep in mind that these are not the insulated, readymade Americas of MSNBC and Fox News, of Republicans and Democrats, of conservatives and liberals. All of us live in a land where there are two Americas, one of unimaginable wealth, the other of miserable poverty; an America of the promised good life and one of almost guaranteed premature death.

Unleashing the power of poor and low-income voters

One enduring narrative from the 2016 election is that poor and low-income voters won Donald Trump the White House, even if the numbers don’t bear it out. Hillary Clinton won by 12 points among voters who made less than $30,000 a year and by 9 points among voters who made less than $49,999; the median household income of Trump voters then was $72,000.

Four years later, initial estimates suggest that this trend has only intensified: Joe Biden attracted more poor and low-income voters than President Trump both in the aggregate and in key states like Michigan. Trump, on the other hand, gained among voters with annual family incomes of more than $100,000. Last week, the director of the MIT Election Data and Science Lab noted that this “appears to be the biggest demographic shift I’m seeing. And you can tie that to [Trump’s] tax cuts [for the wealthy] and lower regulations.”

In 2016, there were 64 million eligible poor and low-income voters, 32 million of whom did not vote. In 2020, it’s becoming clear that poor and low-income voters helped decide the election’s outcome by opting for a candidate who signaled support for key antipoverty issues like raising the minimum wage, expanding health care, and protecting the environment. In down-ballot races, every congressional member who endorsed Medicare for All won reelection, even in swing states. Imagine then how many dispossessed and disenfranchised voters might have turned out if more candidates had actually been speaking to the most pressing issues of their lives?

Seventy-two percent of Americans said that they would prefer a government-run healthcare plan and more than 70% supported raising the minimum wage, including 62% of Republicans. Even in districts that went for Trump, voters passed ballot measures that, only a few years ago, would have been unheard of. In Mississippi, people voted to decriminalize medical marijuana, while in Florida a referendum for a $15 minimum wage got more votes than either of the two presidential candidates.

If nothing else, Election 2020 revealed a deeply divided nation — two Americas, not one — though that dividing line marked anything but an even or obvious split. A startling number of Americans are trapped in wretched conditions and hungry for a clean break with the status quo. On the other hand, the rampant voter suppression and racialized gerrymandering of the last decade of American politics suggests that extremists from the wealthier America will go to remarkable lengths to undercut the power of those at the bottom of this society. They have proven ready to use every tool and scare tactic of racist division and subterfuge imaginable to stop poor Black, Latino, Asian, Indigenous, and white potential voters from building new and transformative alliances, including a new electorate.

It’s time to move beyond the defeatist myth of the Solid South or even the dulling comfort of a Midwestern “blue wall.” Across the South and the Midwest, there are voter-suppression states still to win, not for a party, but for a fusion movement of the many. The same could be true for the coasts and the Southwest, where there remains a sleeping giant of poor and low-income people yet to be pulled into political action. If this country is ever going to be built back better, to borrow Joe Biden’s campaign pledge, it’s time to turn to its abandoned corners; to, that is, the other America of Martin Luther King that still haunts us, whether we know it or not.

Fusion politics in the other America

When Dr. King gave his “Other America” speech, he was preparing for what would become the last political project of his life: the Poor People’s Campaign. At a time when the nation appeared to be fraying at the seams, he grasped that a giant social leap forward was still possible. In fact, he envisioned a protracted struggle that might catapult this country into a new era of human rights and revolution not through sanguine calls for unity, but via a rousing fusion of poor and dispossessed people from all walks of life. And that, as he imagined it, would also involve a recognition that systemic racism and other forms of hate and prejudice were crucial to the maintenence of the two Americas and had to be challenged head-on.

The idea of such fusion politics echoed earlier chapters of political reckoning and transformation in this country. From the post-Civil War era of Reconstruction into the 1890s, newly emancipated Blacks built unprecedented, if fragile, alliances with poor whites to seize governing power. Across a new South, fusion parties expanded voting rights, access to public education, labor protections, fair taxation, and more. In North Carolina in 1868, for instance, legislators went so far as to rewrite the state constitution to codify for the first time the right of all citizens to “life, liberty, and the enjoyment of the fruits of their own labor.”

For nearly 30 years, I’ve been part of a modern version of fusion organizing, even as I studied earlier examples of it — and this country’s history is rich with them. Indeed, the modern Poor People’s Campaign that I co-chair is itself inspired by such past fusion movements, including the version of politics I was first introduced to by multiracial welfare rights and homeless organizing in the 1980s and 1990s.

Organizations like the National Welfare Rights Union and the National Union of the Homeless first grew in response to the neoliberal politics of President Ronald Reagan and his attacks on the poor, especially the Black poor, or, as he put it, “welfare queens.” In response to such myths and deep, divisive cuts, out of shelters and from the streets, poor people began to organize projects of mutual aid and solidarity, including “unions” of the homeless.

By the 1980s, the National Union of the Homeless had been created and had upwards of 30,000 members in 25 cities. Meanwhile, organizers across the country soon escalated their efforts with waves of coordinated and nonviolent takeovers of vacant federally owned buildings at a time when the government had abdicated its responsibility to protect and provide for its poorest citizens. Those poor and homeless leaders also helped the Homeless Union secure guarantees from the federal government both for more subsidized housing and for protections of the right of the homeless to vote.

Today, in the middle of an economic crisis that could, in the end, rival the Great Depression, I’m reminded not just of those moments that first involved me but of the fusion movements of the early 1930s. After all, in those years, shanty towns called “Hoovervilles” — given that Herbert Hoover was still president — cropped up in cities across the country.

Not unlike the tent cities of the Homeless Union and the Welfare Rights Movement in the 1980s and the ones appearing today, those Hoovervilles were where masses of the unemployed and homeless gathered to survive the worst of that depression and strategize on how to resist its misery. Multiracial Unemployed Councils organized and fought for relief for workers without jobs then, preventing thousands of evictions and utility shutoffs.

Meanwhile, in the abandoned fields of the Southern Delta from Arkansas to Mississippi, groups like the Southern Tenant Farmers Union pioneered the dangerous work of organizing Black and white tenant farmers and sharecroppers. When the New Deal coalition bet its future on compromise with white Southern extremists, members of that union were among the last guardians of the rights of poor agrarian workers. Their lonely clarity on the significance of fusion politics in the South stood in stark contrast to the rise of an unmitigated politics of white reaction there.

Today, as top Democrats like Joe Biden and Senate Minority Leader Chuck Schumer claim the legacy of Great Depression-era President Franklin Delano Roosevelt, remember the fusion organizing that helped bring him to power and pushed him to enact change. I’m thinking in particular of the more than 40,000 unemployed veterans of World War I who arrived in Washington D.C. in 1932 to demand the early payment of promised bonuses, previously only considered redeemable after 1945. That Bonus Army, as the veterans called it, collected many of the fraying threads of the American tapestry, making camp, sometimes with wives and children, on seized public land just across the Potomac River from the capital’s federal office buildings, while holding regular nonviolent marches and rallies.

Eventually, President Herbert Hoover ordered the U.S. Army to tear down the camp in a violent fashion. The mistreatment of those poor and war-weary veterans in the process proved to be a lightning rod for the public and so Hoover lost to FDR in the presidential election later that year, setting the stage for a decade defined by militant organizing and major shifts in national policy.

The mandate of the poor today

There are already those in the media and politics who are counseling restraint and a return to the pre-Trump days, as if he were the cause, not the consequence, of a nation desperately divided. This would be nothing less than a disaster, given that the fissures in our democracy so desperately need mending not with nice words but with a new governing contract with the American people.

The battleground states that won Joe Biden the presidency have also been battlegrounds in the most recent war against the poor. In Michigan, hit first and worst by deindustrialization, millions have struggled with a failing water system and a jobs crisis. In Wisconsin, where unions have been under attackfor years and austerity has become the norm, both budgets and social welfare policies have been slashed by legislatures. In Pennsylvania, rural hospitals have been closing at an alarming rate and, even before the pandemic hit, the poorest large city in the country, Philadelphia, had already become a checkerboard of disinvestment and gentrification. In Georgia, 1.3 million renters — 45% of the households in that state — were at risk of eviction this year. And in Arizona, the climate crisis and Covid-19 have ravaged entire communities, including the members of Indigenous nations who recently turned out to vote in record numbers.

The people of these states and 15 more helped elect Joe Biden and Kamala Harris, and count on one thing: with their votes, they were calling for more than just an end to Trumpism. They were demanding that a new era of changebegin for the poor and marginalized. The first priority in such an era should, of course, be to pass a comprehensive relief bill to control the pandemic and buoy the millions of Americans now facing a cold, dark winter of deprivation. The House and the Senate have a moral responsibility to get this done as soon as the new administration takes office, if not before (though tell that to Mitch McConnell). The first 100 days of the Biden administration should then be focused, at least in part, on launching a historic investment in securing permanent protections for the poor, including expanded voting rights, universal healthcare, affordable housing, a living wage, and a guaranteed adequate annual income, not to speak of divestment from the war economy and a swift transition to a green economy.

That should be the mandate of our next government. And that’s why we, the overflowing millions, must harness the fusion politics that was so crucial to the election of Joe Biden and Kamala Harris and organize in the best tradition of our predecessors. Real social progress rarely comes slowly and steadily, but in leaps and bounds. The predictable stalemate of the next administration and its Republican opposition can’t be broken by grand speeches in the House or Senate. It can only be broken by a vast social movement capable of awakening the moral imagination of the nation.

It’s time to get to work.

Copyright 2020 Liz Theoharis

To stay on top of important articles like these, sign up to receive the latest updates from TomDispatch.com here.