Spring Sale: Get 1 Year, Save 58%

Trump “has never been very actively involved” in COVID-19 vaccine: top Operation Warp Speed adviser

President Donald Trump has never really been involved in the COVID-19 vaccine, chief adviser for Operation Warp Speed Dr. Moncef Slaoui told MSNBC on Monday. 

Upon news that another vaccine has promise in inoculating people from the coronavirus, Trump rushed to take credit, saying he hopes historians recognize that it happened under his watch.

Apparently, Trump had nothing to do with the efforts.

Dr. Slaoui, who previously served as a researcher and former head of GlaxoSmithKline’s vaccines department, revealed that Trump has been missing in action on Operation Warp Speed. 

Aside from the press conference on Friday, “the president has never been very actively involved,” he said. “As I’ve said many times, we’ve had no interference one way or the other. We have informed him from time to time.” 

Dr. Slaoui also said that he hopes to reach out to President-elect Joe Biden’s transition so that he can ensure a seamless transition amid the final stages of vaccine testing, but that he can’t do so without permission from the administration. Right now they’re blocking that.

Dr. Anthony Fauci explained it as being like a relay race, where a runner wouldn’t stop and then hand off the baton, they continue running during the handoff. 

“From day one, I said the key for success of this is two things one is to have a laser-sharp focus on our objective, this is to save people’s lives,” said Dr. Slaoui. “The second is to minimize any political interference. I made sure to keep out of that. Having said that, it’s our focus to make sure we save people’s lives. Anything that may slow that process or create any disruption is something that worries us appropriately.”

MSNBC’s Andrea Mitchell cited X-ray doctor Scott Atlas, who called on Michigan to “rise up” against new COVID-19 restrictions as the pandemic reached record levels in the state for the fifth week in a row.

“I think it’s very important that everybody understands their behavior impacts not only themselves and their infection but others around them and people they love,” said Dr. Slaoui. “I hope people use judgment to, indeed, wear a mask, wash their hands, and keep their distance.”

Mitchell cut in to say she wanted to “re-emphasize” what he said. “Even as they get distributed to the frontline and elderly and other vulnerable people first, that does not mean for months to come we shouldn’t be wearing masks, washing hands and keeping a safe distance.”

Dr. Slaoui explained that it will take a while to get back to normal. Other doctors have predicted at least a year before the vaccine will reach the majority of Americans. 

You can watch the interview below via YouTube

Trump COVID-19 adviser Scott Atlas calls for citizens to “rise up” in response to Michigan lockdown

A member of outgoing President Donald Trump’s coronavirus task force posted a tweet on Sunday that urged Michiganders to “rise up” against their governor, who has already faced threats of violence after taking public health measures to stop the rapid spread in the state, which now faces its fifth straight week of record-breaking case numbers. 

“The only way this stops is if people rise up. You get what you accept. #FreedomMatters #StepUp,” Dr. Scott Atlas tweeted in response to a report that Michigan Gov. Gretchen Whitmer has ordered a three week freeze to begin Wednesday on in-person learning in high schools and colleges as well as indoor theaters, dining, stadium events and non-professional organized sports.

Whitmer responded to Atlas’ tweet on Sunday by telling CNN’s Wolf Blitzer that “we know that the White House likes to single us out here in Michigan, me out in particular. I’m not going to be bullied into not following reputable scientists and medical professionals.” One day later, she told MSNBC’s Joe Scarborough that Atlas’ comments “actually took my breath away, to tell you the truth.”

She also threw shade at Atlas’ shaky scientific reputation, noting that she listens to “people that actually have studied and are well respected worldwide on these issues . . . not the individual that is doing the President’s bidding on this one.”

Atlas, a Stanford University neuroradiologist appointed to Trump’s coronavirus task force, is not an epidemiologist and has no expertise on infectious disease. Whitmer’s latter remark references how Atlas has taken a number of public health positions that go against the scientific consensus. These include claiming that masks do not help prevent infection; this is wrong, as masks have been repeatedly proved to prevent the spread of aerosol droplets that contain the novel coronavirus. Atlas also seemed to push for reducing lockdowns on the premise that this would strengthen herd immunity, arguing that “when you isolate everyone, including all the healthy people, you’re prolonging the problem because you’re preventing population immunity. Low-risk groups getting the infection is not a problem. In fact, it’s a positive.” Yet there are doubts as to whether herd immunity is even possible for those who are infected by coronavirus and later recover, as viral infection appears to confer only temporary immunity that lasts twelve months at most.

Last month, faculty at Stanford University discussed imposing sanctions on Atlas for spreading pseudoscience. They also reconsidered the university’s ties with the Hoover Institution, a conservative think tank located on the university’s campus that has long incubated the careers of prominent conservatives like former Republican Secretaries of States Condoleezza Rice and George Shultz. Atlas is a senior fellow at the Hoover Institution.

Atlas’ comments are particularly unsavory given that Gov. Whitmer, a Democrat, has already been the target of potential violence. Last month it was revealed that six men had been arrested for allegedly plotting to kidnap Gov. Whitmer and launch a coup against Michigan’s state government. The individuals reportedly surveilled Whitmer’s vacation home on two occasions and considered bringing her to a remote area of Wisconsin to try her for “treason.” As FBI agent Richard Trask explained in his complaint, “Several members talked about murdering ‘tyrants’ or ‘taking’ a sitting governor. The group decided they needed to increase their numbers and encouraged each other to talk to their neighbors and spread their message.”

Despite the implications of his earlier tweet, Atlas walked it back on Sunday night, tweeting that “Hey. I NEVER was talking at all about violence. People vote, people peacefully protest. NEVER would I endorse or incite violence. NEVER!!”

From Guy Fieri to yogurt cups with abs, how “dude food” is presented and affects what we eat

Think about the phrase “dude food” for a minute. What comes to mind? Likely double-stacked burgers topped with heaps of bacon, slabs of ribs with pints of beer, piles of chicken wings dripping with radioactively red hot sauce. 

But, as author Emily J. H. Contois writes in her new book, “Diners, Dudes and Diets: How Gender and Power Collide in Food Media and Culture,” there’s more to the phenomenon of “dude food” than what’s on the plate. There are entire industries — production, advertising, television, sales — that have bolstered and reinforced the ideas of what makes a food register culturally as masculine or feminine. 

Contois, an assistant professor of media studies at The University of Tulsa who studies the intersection of food and gender, spoke with Salon about how the gendered world of food production and consumption has influenced the way we eat, the strange invention of yogurt cups decorated with shredded abs, and the polarizing appeal of Guy Fieri.

So, before we get into the book — I’ve followed your work for several years and I was hoping we could talk a little bit about the “Hot Ones” incident that took place in 2018-ish. You were the victim of some pretty severe online backlash from male trolls. I was curious if you could talk about what happened and if that taught you anything different about the intersection of food and gender? 

I wrote a short commentary piece analyzing “Hot Ones,” a First We Feast YouTube series. I’d been watching it with my husband and we both thought it was a fun show, but because this is what I researched, I couldn’t help but notice that there was a competitive element to the pain and the particular ways folks performed celebrity. Then, there was the fact that there weren’t a lot of women. 

So, I was less interested in that underrepresentation than showing how and why that happens on a show that’s about eating spicy chicken wings in public. I wanted to look at how these layered ideas about flavor, about foods that we eat in public, about our gendered ideas about how we’re supposed to be supposedly masculine and feminine. So, that plays out differently — I mean, men and women on the show “win” or “lose” differently. That’s what I was interested in analyzing. 

But then outlets like Breitbart, all they wanted to talk about is the idea that I’m smashing this show because it doesn’t have enough women on it, right? This is despite the fact that there was only one sentence [in the piece] to demonstrate the lack of representation. But, intellectually, that wasn’t what I was interested in at all. 

But that’s not how that media machine works. It’s about outrage, and not actually engaging ideas. So some of it felt very impersonal – it’s what many academics, especially women academics and academics of color go through. But some of it was very personal; there were attacks about me, my husband and my work.

Some of the attacks were food-based, which I thought was interesting. Like, “Get back in the kitchen where you belong,” or “Go make me a sandwich, Emily.” Did that surprise you? 

No, I think I wish that it surprised me. I think, even as it was happening — and I wrote about this in a piece for Nursing Clio — it was  thrilling, a little bit. People could literally see my argument play out. None of it changed the way I wrote my book. It only proved my point. 

Guy Fieri and his “Diners, Drive-Ins and Dives” is obviously sort of a jumping-off point for much of this book. Why did he as a character intrigue you? 

I’m actually a lot less interested in him as a person than how deeply polarizing the reactions are to him. I was so enthralled with why people love him and hate him. That teaches us a lot about race and class, particularly social class and ideas about populism. So, it’s not him himself that’s necessarily interesting, but the ways people perceive him. It becomes even more interesting when you consider that he was fully fileted in the New York Times, quite brutally, by Pete Wells. For some people, that would be the end of them, but he was fully recuperated, right? Into this “good dude.” Like, “He’s a good guy, how dare you,” right? 

It was interesting seeing how men’s magazines in particular played a role in publishing pieces like that and just seeing this sort of rise, which I argue has something to do with the “dude-ish” shift. If he’d been this sort of overly masculine character in a conventional way, that may have played out differently, but the fact that he has sort of this laid back, “don’t try too hard, resist the rules” sense to him, he was able to weather that sort of criticism from the food establishment. 

This leads to a question I had. For the purposes of this book, what is a “dude”? Because it seems like it implies more than just being a man. 

That’s a good question because, linguistically, it’s kind of synonymous with “guy.” But I spend pages historicizing the dude and delving into the specifics of “dude masculinity.” 

I’m really interested in how the concept of “dude” gave some men who already had significant privilege — white, able-bodied, cisgender, straight and in a particular class — the opportunity to be able to push back against some of the demands of conventional manhood. I talk about hegemonic masculinity and the dominant forms of masculinity at a particular time. So, the dude resists some of that. 

Taking a step back from Guy, I was fascinated to read that the co-founder of the Food Network said that “Sociologically, I think the biggest thing we did was Emeril.” What was he talking about there? 

It’s interesting, I had a section that I ultimately took out that sort of talks about the “dude chef” lineage. The bones are still there, though. You have, for instance, “The Galloping Gourmet.” He was obviously more of a gourmet chef than Guy Fieri, but he’s going to jump over tables and play around a little bit. You know, this rule-breaking man. 

Then there’s Emeril Lagasse. In the history of the Food Network, they needed to expand their viewership to maintain viability and Emeril does this. He appeals to men. He has “Bam!” and flames. It’s more of a conventional masculinity, but he paves the way for Guy to be possible. 

I want to talk about yogurt cups. You mention in your book that sort of otherwise innocuous items like these can actually tell us a lot about our culture. What did you find when you were taking a look at how yogurt was marketed differently to men and women? 

There’s so much to it! Even if we just start with packaging, color, the typography, the symbols. Oh, even the weight of the plastic. If you’re getting a yogurt marketed for women, it just collapses in your hand. But then, I wrote about the Dannon Oikos Triple Zero one. It’s such a heavier weight. Then there was Powerful Yogurt that had six-pack abs literally chiseled on every cup. 

So, it starts there, but you also see it in flavor names. They’re often more simple and direct when intended for a male audience. For women, they’re often standing in for desert, right? It’s key lime pie, instead of just key lime. For men, it’s a post-workout snack they recodified. 

The chapter that really fascinated me was the fourth: “Marketing Diets to Dudes.” I think most women know what it feels like to have a diet marketed to them, but what were some of the ways you found messaging was different when it was aimed at men? 

You know, the messaging, which was straight out of Charles Barkley’s mouth, was that it’s “man food.” You can eat pizza and tacos and drink beer. The message is that you’re not going to have to give up anything. You won’t have to count calories or points. You’re not going to have to retrain your diet or be hungry. If you’re a man, you’re just going to track what you eat, just going to be a little smart, and the pounds are going to fall off. 

You don’t have to be constantly tracking everything or thinking about your body or feeling bad about yourself, right? Like none of the therapeutic work or negative surveillance is anywhere in the messaging for men, while that has been so profoundly, poignantly and painfully part of the message for women for decades. 

I think as a society we are understanding more about how gender identity and presentation is a spectrum. There’s something beyond and between “masculine” and “feminine.” Do you think food marketers are better understanding that in their advertisements? 

It’s my hope, right? I wrote in my conclusion that I have my hand held out to the advertising industry. We can do this better, and I’m happy to help. I think it’s definitely the direction they have to move for younger consumers as we think about gender and inclusion, and the fact that not only does the gender binary damage, it doesn’t even resonate with a growing demographic of eaters. But I wish we were already there. 

This interview has been edited slightly for clarity and length. “Diners, Dudes and Diets” is now available for purchase. 

 

Megyn Kelly: Leftists “think you’re a white supremacist if you’re white”

Former NBC News host Megyn Kelly complained over the weekend that President-elect Joe Biden is asking the country to unify after liberals spent the last four years calling supporters of President Donald Trump racists.

Kelly made the remarks while appearing on Sinclair’s America This Week with host Eric Bolling.

“All of the sudden they want unity on the left when they’ve spent the last four years calling everyone who’s a Trump supporter misogynists or homophobic or xenophobic or bigoted or the list goes on and on,” Bolling prompted.

“I also want all the kittens and all the puppies to be adopted and world peace, but it’s not going to happen,” Kelly opined. “The country is very divided. Yes, in part, because of what President Trump has done over the last four years but also because of what the Democrats have said and done over the last four years.”

“Let’s get real. When you tell 71 million Americans they’re racists, bigots, homophobes, transphobes and sexists year after year, you’re going to make enemies lists of anybody who supported Trump, they’re not really feeling unified with you,” she said.

According to Kelly, liberals “think you’re a white supremacist if you’re white.”

“The only thing you can try to do is be less white,” she complained. “So that’s who you are dealing with. You cannot listen to these people call names anymore. I think the average Americans get very jarred when they hear these nasty terms, which are meant to silence you.”

Kelly argued that the “only real choice you have is to stand up not be silenced and not think you have to unify with the people who have been calling you the awful thing and trying to shut you up.”

“Maybe now is not the time for unity, maybe now is the time for liberty,” she remarked. “You know, for fighting to maintain your right to think what you want, say what you want, to do what you want, to hold the ideals that are important to you.”

Kelly went to claim that liberals want to punish people who enabled Trump’s presidency.

“They are threatening people’s jobs!” she exclaimed. “They’re going to stop corporate America from hiring you.”

In one case, Kelly claimed that book publishers were being asked not to support authors who enabled Trump.

“And at the same time unity,” she said sarcastically.

“Isn’t that kind of the same thing as racism?” Bolling asked. “If you group a whole group of people the same way, that may not be racist — or whatever ‘ist’. They are doing the same thing.”

“That’s the same thing!” Kelly agreed. “They are trying to silence you. Maybe they are just that vindictive.”

“They are trying to find a way to scare that 71 million into silence,” she said. “It’s about what you stand for. You know, do you want Joe Biden to reintroduce critical race theory mandatory sessions in your federal agencies. You know, DHS and Treasury and elsewhere, where you’re told you just have to sit in the silence of your racism if you’re white and just let somebody berate you.”

Kelly concluded by lashing out at “woke B.S.”: “That’s the crazy cancel culture that — again — the established left is pushing is worth fighting against.”

You can watch the video below via YouTube:

Fox News host debunks “baseless” Trump voter fraud claims amplified by his own colleagues

Fox News host Eric Shawn fact-checked the baseless fraud claims made by President Donald Trump which have been amplified by his network colleagues on Sunday during an in-depth segment.

Shawn questioned whether viewers would believe “baseless claims” of a “rigged election” or “your own government election officials across the country” who say “it’s not true.” 

The false claims, he added, were “designed to undermine your faith in American democracy.”

Shawn, a longtime reporter, called out the false claims only hours after colleague Maria Bartiromo devoted most of her Sunday Fox News show to a widely debunked conspiracy theory that a software system used by Dominion voting machines switched votes from Trump to President-elect Joe Biden. Trump has baselessly alleged that Dominion machines “deleted 2.7 million Trump votes nationwide,” and he shared clips from Fox News hosts Jeanine Pirro and Jesse Watters to push the claim on Twitter.

Bartiromo raised questions about the machines on Sunday as she hosted Trump attorneys Rudy Giuliani and Sidney Powell. Giuliani claimed to have proof of fraud related to the software, but he told Bartiromo that he “can’t really disclose that.” 

Powell baselessly claimed that Dominion had changed “millions of votes.” When asked how he could “prove this,” Powell replied: “I’ve got lots of ways to prove it, Maria but I’m not going to tell on national TV what all we have. I just can’t do that.”

Shawn fact-checked the claim by airing a clip of election security official Ben Hovland declaring that the election was “the most secure election we’ve ever had” and warning against conspiracy theories aimed at sowing doubt in the system. Shawn also read a statement from Dominion refuting the allegations of vote-switching and right-wing attempts to link the company to Venezuela and Democratic politicians like Speaker of the House Nancy Pelosi, D-Calif.

“Prosecutors say any voter or election fraud allegation will be thoroughly investigated. And if a fix were in — if there was wrongdoing — we will know about it,” Shawn added. “But election officials across the country insist, as of today, there is no evidence of any widespread fraud affecting the outcome of the presidential election, that our precious democracy was not tampered with and that such baseless and false claims are an insult to the thousands of election officials and workers across the country who we have seen dedicating themselves 24/7 to ensure a fair and free election for all of us.”

Shawn also debunked the president’s claims that Republicans had been blocked from observing ballots being counted in Pennsylvania. He played a clip of the top Republican election official in city calling the allegation “totally untrue” and noting that observers from both parties had been allowed to monitor the process.

Shawn similarly fact-checked that claim during an appearance in the wake of Election Day.

“That’s not true,” he told host Dana Perino at the time. “That’s just not true. The election poll watchers — they’re called canvass watchers. Republicans have been in this room — in that room — where they are supposed to be standing alongside with the Democrats.”

Later on Sunday, the Trump campaign dropped the false claim that its poll observers were not allowed to monitor the counting process from its lawsuit in Pennsylvania.

While hosts like Bartiromo and Pirro have amplified Trump’s unfounded claims, the network’s news side has been more adamant about pushing back on the baseless allegations of fraud.

On Saturday, anchor Leland Vittert hammered Trump campaign spokeswoman Erin Perrine over her inability to explain how Trump’s dubious election-related legal challenges would find enough “fraudulent” votes to change the outcome of the election.

“I’m trying to ask you, very simply, where are you going to find the votes?” Vittert pressed. “You say you want to count every vote, conceivably because you think you’re going to pull ahead. Where are the votes in a path to 270? Where?”

“We are taking every legal avenue that exists in these states to make sure that legal votes are counted and illegal votes are counted,” Perrine replied, appearing to misspeak. “For every Democrat and every talking head on the news, how much fraud is OK? How many dead people can vote, and you’re OK with that?”

“Am I OK with it?” Vittert laughed before criticizing Perrine for attacking “everybody if they don’t agree with you” and cutting off the interview.

Even “Fox & Friends” host Steve Doocy pushed back on the Dominion conspiracy theory when it was pushed by Jonathan Turley, a law professor at George Washington University, who claimed that “thousands of votes” had been switched from Biden to Trump.

“I looked into it,” Doocy replied. “With that Dominion software, five counties in Michigan and Georgia had problems. And the Dominion software was used in two of the counties. And, in every instance, largely it was human error — a problem — but the software did not affect the vote counts.”

Doocy appeared to cite a New York Times investigation of the claim, which found no evidence that Dominion machines had switched votes.

“Many of the claims being asserted about Dominion and questionable voting technology is misinformation at best and, in many cases, they’re outright disinformation,” Edward Perez, an election-technology expert at the OSET Institute, a nonprofit that studies voting systems, told The Times. “I’m not aware of any evidence of specific things or defects in Dominion software that would lead one to believe that votes had been recorded or counted incorrectly.”

You can watch the video below via Fox News:

Lock him up! If Trump refuses to leave the scene after his defeat, there’s an obvious solution

The national celebrations after Joe Biden decisively defeated Donald Trump in this month’s election focused heavily on the image of Trump being pushed out the door. People took to the streets and boogied down to Steam’s 1969 hit “Na Na Hey Hey Kiss Him Goodbye.” Signs carried by celebrants tended to focus more on Trump’s loss than Biden’s victory. During Saturday’s underwhelming MAGA march in Washington, counter-protesters chanted, “Trump, pack your shit! You’re illegitimate!”

Alas, like Freddy Krueger or the shark from “Jaws,” Trump will not be easy to get rid of. It’s not just that he refuses to concede and keeps telling his supporters he will find some legal miracle to invalidate the election, a ruse that stopped being serious several days ago and is now mostly the mercenary pitch of a con man. 

“Donald Trump may not be president much longer, but he still wants to run the Republican Party for the foreseeable future,” David Jackson and Phillip M. Bailey write in USA Today. “From setting up a political action committee to suggesting he might run again in 2024, Trump is already working to keep his hold on the GOP after his term ends.”

And as Maggie Haberman reported in the New York Times last week, “Mr. Trump is talking seriously about announcing that he is planning to run again in 2024.”


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


Trump likes to talk, of course, and most of what he says is hot air. As Haberman writes, Trump is merely “trying to survive from one news cycle to the next” — as if “surviving” the news cycle somehow means anything after losing an election — and his energies are focused on not losing his grip on “his Republican base,” the cow he milks for endless attention and vast amounts of cash. 

Still, Trump’s desperation to keep his name in the headlines — and to keep money and adoration flowing from his gullible supporters — is bad news. While it’s true that Trump’s divisiveness and authoritarianism is a symptom of the country’s increasingly toxic culture war, and not the principal cause, it’s also true that he’s throwing gasoline on the fire and making things worse. By keeping up a constant stream of lies and conspiracy theories, Trump is training nearly half the country to believe that lying in the service of MAGA is no sin. He’s helping to radicalize conservatives who might otherwise have had some attachment to reality and common sense, and creating permission for the right to be openly anti-democratic and bigoted in ways it largely shied away from before. 

Biden ran on a campaign of unity and healing, which rightfully drew skepticism from those who believe that’s impossible in our current climate. But if Biden has any hope of even moving toward those goals, Trump himself is a major obstacle. With Trump out there daily, generating conspiracy theories and trying to get press attention — or worse, running yet another four-year campaign, this time against a Democratic incumbent — unity and healing will be not just elusive, but impossible. 

The only solution to this problem is for Trump to be too busy trying to stay out of jail — or too busy sitting in jail — to be the forever-candidate. To save America, Biden’s Department of Justice and state prosecutors in New York should focus on holding Trump accountable for all the various alleged or apparent crimes he’s committed. Trump’s executive privilege ends on Jan. 20 at noon Eastern time. That’s when the prosecutions should begin. 

The list of such crimes is so long that the only real question should be where to start.

There’s campaign finance fraud involving the illegal payoff to Stormy Daniels to cover up a sexual encounter, for which Trump’s former lawyer, Michael Cohen, was already sent to prison. Because of the shield of executive privilege, Trump was merely called “Individual 1” in the court documents for that case. Now he can be unveiled and, ideally, serve his own stint in prison for that crime. 

There’s also the extensive obstruction of justice Trump committed in office, which, again, would have been prosecutable but for executive privilege. Special counsel Robert Mueller’s report on the investigation of Russian interference in the 2016 election documented at least 10 instances of potential obstruction of justice. As Mueller testified in a congressional hearing in 2019, Trump can still be indicted for these offenses when he leaves office. 


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


Trump could also be hit with charges related to obstruction of justice in the Ukraine probe. As the Democratic-controlled House of Representatives amply demonstrated in their articles of impeachment against Trump, the president repeatedly abused his power to block subpoenas and other information that Congress had a right to access. The Republican-controlled Senate may have acquitted Trump for political reasons, but the Justice Department under Biden would be free to throw the book at Trump. 

There are so many more probably or plausibly illegal things Trump has done that a hard-working prosecutorial office could likely draw up charges for. There are more than two dozen accusations of sexual assault, some of which may still fall within the relevant statute of limitations. There’s the extensively documented likely tax fraud — and now there’s no Trump to get in the way of releasing Trump’s tax returns. There may also have been prosecutable crimes associated with the incident that got Trump impeached, which was extorting the Ukrainian president in an attempt to force him to defame Biden in the press. 

One can already hear the objections, of course: Unleashing the DOJ to go after a defeated ex-president could make Biden appear vindictive and divisive. There have even been calls for Biden to pardon Trump so the country can “move on. (Fortunately, Biden has promised not to do that.) 

Biden himself is on the fence about this issue, saying that prosecuting a former president would be “very unusual thing and probably not very good for democracy” but also that he wouldn’t “interfere with the Justice Department’s judgment” on this front.

The good news is there are ways for Biden to let the Trump prosecution proceed in a less political way. As Renato Mariotti writes in Politico, the new attorney general can appoint a special counsel who “should be a career prosecutor who has no connection to Biden or his team” to run the investigation. That wouldn’t stop all criticism, of course, but could blunt it significantly. 

Whatever the details, the grim truth is there is no “moving on” unless Donald Trump faces real accountability. For one thing, Trump won’t let the country move on. He’ll be running for president all over again, exploiting his status and power to continue stoking right-wing anger and spreading conspiracy theories. To make it worse, watching Trump get off scot-free will encourage a thousand mini-Trumps to bloom, as more GOP politicians realize they can break whatever law they desire without consequence. It could also have the impact of demobilizing the left, just when Biden needs their support the most, because so many progressives will be angry at Biden and the Democrats for failing to hold Trump to account. 

No, in order to heal the nation, Trump needs to be prosecuted. Biden will have to swallow the unpleasant pill of weathering bad-faith accusations and negative media commentary, by both hiring people who have the guts to do it and letting them loose to do their job. Unity cannot be achieved by letting bad people get away with crimes. We need a reckoning, and real justice, before the process of healing can begin. 

Trump Org. may be forced to sell properties to retire debt as legal probes spook lenders: report

According to a report from the Wall Street Journal, Donald Trump will be walking into a financial morass when he leaves office and resumes control of the Trump Organization that is deeply in debt and will likely see revenues decrease with the president no longer able to count on tax dollars flowing into his properties to pay for his entourage when he visits.

With the New York Times previously reporting that the president is facing over $400 million in debt coming due soon — some of it personally guaranteed by Trump — the Journal is reporting a cash crunch may force the family to sell off some properties to retire debt at a time when lenders will likely keep their distance with the Trump Organization facing investigations in New York.

“The Trump Organization might soon slim down. Several properties are for sale, including its Washington hotel and two skyscrapers in New York and San Francisco that are part-owned by the Trump Organization. The organization also has been considering selling its Seven Springs estate outside of New York City,” the report states, adding, “Any sales could help the family avert a lending crunch. The Trump Organization has more than $400 million of debt due in the next few years and many lenders have indicated they are wary of doing business with Mr. Trump.”

Reporting that “Republican spending at Trump properties has topped $23 million since 2015 compared with less than $200,000 in the five years prior, ” the Journal notes the president will be losing an income stream at a time when he will also lose $37,000 a month of rent payments as the Trump campaign shuts down their office in Trump Tower in New York. 

“The office tower, where the Trump Organization is based, has suffered from falling occupancy rates since Mr. Trump took office,” the report added.

Then there are Trump’s legal problems that are expected to explode once he is no longer protected by the office of the presidency and will put a massive strain on his finances.

“Financial challenges facing the Trump Organization are compounded by long-running legal issues, with New York probes of Mr. Trump’s businesses set to continue after he leaves office. Mr. Trump has also been contending with an Internal Revenue Service audit of his finances,” the Journal reported. 

According to Jeffrey Engel, a presidential historian at Southern Methodist University, “The fact that Trump thought he could run for president and be president with potential clear irregularities in his financial background and not be discovered, that’s the most surprising part to me. It reinforces that he did not fully appreciate what it meant to be president.”

Also dogging the family are the challenges of expanding internationally with the report stating, “The Trump Organization recently lost a series of legal battles over the exclusive use of the Trump name in the European Union’s 27 countries. The continuing trademark challenges could complicate the Trump Organization’s ability to use the Trump brand across a variety of business areas, including real-estate development, gambling, golf equipment and alcohol.”

You can read more here (subscription required).

Sarah Palin claps back at President Obama for linking her to the “anti-intellectual” wing of the GOP

In an interview with the right-wing Newsmax TV, former Gov. Sarah Palin (R-AK) attacked former President Barack Obama for calling her out as part of the Republican Party’s “anti-intellectual” wing.

“It’s kind of pleasurable to know that I’ve been living rent-free in his head for 12 years,” said Palin. “The movement that he still cannot accept nor understand . . . that movement was all about giving the voiceless a voice, empowering people who are fed up, want accountability in their government, want a smaller, smarter government, things that he just hasn’t been able to grasp.”

She added that neither party cared for her, or Trump, because they were “rogue” figures who challenged the establishment.

Obama’s book had this to say: “Through Palin, it seemed as if the dark spirits that had long been lurking on the edges of the modern Republican Party — xenophobia, anti intellectualism, paranoid conspiracy theories, an antipathy toward Black and brown folks — were finding their way to center stage. She had no idea what the hell she was talking about.”

You can watch the video below via YouTube:

Winter COVID surge is upon us — Trump and the Republicans are just ignoring it

Last summer, Gov. Kristi Noem of South Dakota welcomed bikers from across the country to the annual rally in the town of Sturgis. Hundreds of thousands showed up and they partied like there was no tomorrow. Noem, a rising Republican star, didn’t cancel the state fair and refused to issue much guidance on how to avoid spreading COVID-19. As the state’s caseload rose quickly throughout the fall, Noem spent $5 million of federal COVID relief money creating ads to encourage tourism.

She has rejected all advice from the CDC and has made it clear that she will defy any mandates coming from the new administration as well. She says she leaves it up to her people to do what’s best for their families because she values freedom. Apparently, she believes these people should have the freedom to infect innocent bystanders as well.

Tomorrow has arrived. The state is now considered to be one of the worst COVID hotspots in the world and hospitals are in a desperate situation. Over the weekend a South Dakota nurse wrote this disturbing dispatch on Twitter:

I have a night off from the hospital. As I’m on my couch with my dog I can’t help but think of the Covid patients the last few days. The ones that stick out are those who still don’t believe the virus is real. The ones who scream at you for a magic medicine and that Joe Biden is going to ruin the USA. All while gasping for breath on 100% Vapotherm. They tell you there must be another reason they are sick. They call you names and ask why you have to wear all that “stuff” because they don’t have COViD because it’s not real. Yes. This really happens.

I’m sure it does. Here are some Americans who simply refuse to take the threat seriously, even when a family member has succumbed to the virus:

Noem is already being mentioned as a possible presidential candidate in 2024 or beyond, which makes sense. She is one of Donald Trump’s natural heirs, even using his patented lies and happy-talk approach to the virus, telling lawmakers recently that “in South Dakota, we didn’t take a one-size-fits-all approach and the results have been incredible.” Incredible yes. Incredibly horrific.

What she’s done to her state, Trump and the Republican Party are doing to the entire country. The winter surge that all the scientists predicted is upon us and it’s very bad. The president and his administration are obsessively trying to convince their voters that the election was stolen from them (which is a lie) so they aren’t even pretending to be interested in the rapidly spreading pandemic. Republican officials are missing in action on everything, with senators even refusing to appear on the Sunday morning shows in case they might be asked to explain why their president and their party are tilting at electoral windmills while refrigerator trucks are being commandeered in some states because the morgues are all full.

Well, there are some who are happy to continue to spread reckless disinformation:

The Washington Post reported that despite official protestations to the contrary, “many administration officials paint a portrait of chaos, with senior advisers enabling some of Trump’s most questionable instincts on the pandemic.” As an example they point to White House chief of staff Mark Meadows’ apparent belief that “one of the main ways the virus is spread is through waiters touching the cups of different people at restaurants.” (As I have pointed out earlier, Meadows is not the sharpest tool in the shed.)

And they’re doing this as the White House itself may be the most famous hotspot in the world, having been the site of two super-spreader events that sickened numerous members of the staff, Republican officials, Trump family members and even the president himself. More than 130 Secret Service members are reportedly in quarantine due to Trump’s reckless campaign travel.

And according to the Post, the health agencies have not been allowed to cooperate with the Biden transition team amid a worsening public health crisis. They no longer even ask for health expert advice before they plan events anymore.

Much of this is reportedly attributable to Jared Kushner, who was responsible for persuading Trump not to bother pretending to care about the virus anymore and who brought on the most pernicious “adviser” of all, Dr. Scott Atlas, a radiologist from the conservative Hoover Institute and a regular on Fox News. There is no one more responsible for spreading a crude “herd immunity” theory without understanding that it can only happen without a mass loss of life when combined with a vaccine and mitigation strategies over time.

Atlas is still at it. After Michigan Gov. Gretchen Whitmer announced some new restrictions to try to contain the rapid spread of the virus in her state on Sunday night, Atlas tweeted, “The only way this stops is if people rise up. You get what you accept. #FreedomMatters #StepUp” He was highly indignant when it was suggested that he should not incite violence in a state where armed militia members were recently arrested for plotting to kidnap and execute the governor over COVID restrictions.

Numbers are climbing exponentially. The U.S. has reported 11 million total COVID cases as of Sunday, and it was 10 million just a week ago. One in 400 people have tested positive since then. With the lax attitude found among roughly half the population, hospitalization and death rates are going to start climbing quickly as well.

Ed Yong of the Atlantic tweeted out a chilling reminder for the country:

He continued with a reminder not to forget about the long-haulers. “A lot of the 1.5 million Americans who were infected this month — many young & prev healthy — will still be sick well into 2021.”

In North Dakota, officials are allowing COVID-positive health care workers to continue working. They have no choice. There is a shortage, and unlike in the spring when health care workers came from all over the country to help out in the Northeast, the whole country is affected this time and they can’t be spared. In fact, while federal and state governments have been playing games and we’ve all been distracted by the Trump show, those front-line workers have been going to work every single day, month after month, dealing with this deadly disease. The burn-out rate is growing rapidly as well.

As Yong writes in this article: “The most precious resource the U.S. health-care system has in the struggle against COVID-19 isn’t some miracle drug. It’s the expertise of its health-care workers — and they are exhausted.” There is no help on the way. The federal government is paralyzed because the president is even less competent than he was before he lost the election and most Republican governors have more or less washed their hands of the problem. Everyone else is struggling along on their own. We are in for a rough few months.

New Yorkers knew Donald Trump first — and they spurned him before many American voters did

Donald J. Trump was a president from, but not of, New York.

In the final months of his presidency, Trump attacked New York as a lawless “ghost town,” and got attacked right back. At least 73% of New Yorkers citywide voted against their hometown candidate in election 2020, with absentee ballots still being counted. In Manhattan, where Trump lived before becoming president, every single voting district went for Joe Biden.

When Trump was elected in 2016, it was his first serious venture into electoral politics. In the half-century before his election, the then 70-year-old Trump had been a real estate developer, serial entrepreneur and reality television star.

Back then, Trump’s personal story and style were deeply intertwined with New York. After winning the election, he floated the idea of remaining at least part-time in his home in Trump Tower on Manhattan’s Fifth Avenue rather than moving entirely into the White House.

As a New Yorker whose mother and grandparents were also born here, I have long observed Donald Trump’s strange relationship with our shared hometown. Trump may seem like a quintessential New Yorker, but he is in some respects a non-New Yorker’s idea of a New Yorker. He is brash, speaks his mind and is not given to unnecessary politesse, all stereotypes about this city.

But Trump was always difficult to place into New York’s cultural geography.

A WASP from Queens

New York is the biggest, most diverse and most cinematic of all American cities. People worldwide are familiar with the different types of New Yorkers: the hard-working immigrant, the Wall Street banker, the gruff blue-collar Brooklynite, the African American Harlemite a few generations removed from slavery or, like me, the Jewish Upper West Sider.

Donald Trump is none of those.

White Anglo-Saxon Protestants born to money are a well-known New York type as well, but Donald Trump is not your classic New York WASP, either. He is from the Jamaica Estates neighborhood of Queens, a wealthy enclave in a working-class borough that’s home to New Yorkers of all races and nations – not the tony Upper East Side.

The brash loudmouth from Queens or Brooklyn is also a pop culture stereotype: Think John Travolta in “Saturday Night Fever” or Fran Drescher in “The Nanny.” But these “outer borough” characters are usually Italian American, Jewish or African American, and almost always working-class.

Trump was also a secular Protestant in real estate, a heavily Jewish business in New York.

This background makes Trump unusual in New York. He defies the standard categories.

More gadfly than player

Though he is the scion of a wealthy real estate family, the city’s old aristocracy never quite accepted Trump. In a tribal city, Donald Trump has no real tribe.

Since he began running for office, much has been made of Trump’s often failed efforts to gain approval from the Manhattan elite. That hardly made him unique: Many strivers never gain entrance into New York high society.

Nonetheless, Donald Trump’s life in the late 1970s through the 1990s was like a cartoon version of wealthy New York: gaudy apartments on Fifth Avenue, deal-making, nightclubs, gallivanting with models and schmoozing with the rich, famous and powerful – all made possible by inherited wealth.

For many of those years, the city’s real estate market only went up. Real estate is a very serious business in New York – roughly 50% of the city’s tax revenue comes from the real estate sector – and those who were deep in that business understood that Trump was always more a gadfly than a player.

Steve Kaufman, president of the Kaufman Organization, which manages around 20 Manhattan office buildings, has been in the business for almost half a century.

Trump has “made a couple of good deals in his career, but he’s not regarded as a serious real estate investor,” Kaufman told me in an October 2020 interview for this story.

“People in real estate are afraid to do business with him because he and his family and his organization are not honest people,” he added, referring to, among other things, Trump’s reputation for not paying his contractors.

Trump’s good deals included the purchase of 40 Wall Street and the purchase and renovation of the Grand Hyatt Hotel on 42nd Street. But serial bankruptcies reveal his many failed ventures.

Everyday New Yorkers could see Trump wasn’t such a big deal just from walking around the city and seeing its buildings. Unlike other major New York real estate investors, such as Rudin and Tisch – whose family names grace hospitals, cultural institutions, schools and NYU’s School of the Arts – few buildings and cultural institutions bear the Trump name.

A genius brand-builder

As a young adult in Manhattan during the 1960s and 1970s, Donald Trump was not trying to “make it,” become rich or leave a mark on New York’s cultural or philanthropic communities.

Rather, Trump came from Queens to Manhattan to build up his name – what we would now call “brand” – and to have some fun. At that he was pretty successful.

For decades, the tabloids covered his wealth, romances and life on the city’s perpetual party circuit. The journalist Michael D’Antonio described Trump during these years, observing the time he spent at the fashionable Le Club.

“The whole point of Le Club was to be noticed as powerful or beautiful and to be photographed alongside a celebrity and thereby become one yourself,” he wrote.

As he was living the socialite life, Trump was also building a national image as a smart businessman and dealmaker who navigated the tough world of New York City real estate and finance. That story, as New Yorkers knew, was mostly spin – but Trump was so good at it that he spun it into a successful television show, “The Apprentice,” and then all the way to the White House.

Howard Rubenstein, a prominent New York public relations man, noted over a decade ago, “In my whole life, I have never met anybody who’s as brilliant as Donald is at building a brand … He’s an absolute genius at it.”

Not a New York president

While Trump fit into New York’s generic urban wealth image, he was never part of the other New York, the one in which the majority of its roughly 9 million people live.

New York has long been a gateway to freedom and prosperity for millions of immigrants, their children and grandchildren. Yet President Trump campaigned on radically limiting immigration into the U.S., which may help explain why New York also voted against Trump by a margin of 4-1 in 2016.

As president he followed through on his immigration threats. He abandoned his hometown when it became the center of the U.S. coronavirus pandemic, simultaneously downplaying the severity of the outbreak while contemplating an “enforceable quarantine” of the New York metropolitan area.

Some would-be New York tycoons grow up in a diverse multilingual neighborhood and walk the gritty streets trying to get their start in business. Many love being around the city’s intellectual and cultural life, or are part of its old aristocracy.

Those are New York stories, but they are not Donald Trump’s story. He didn’t even enjoy his city’s variety of ethnic food, according to reporting on his diet.

Donald Trump was always a well-done steak guy in a bagels-and-lox, or slice-of-pizza, or arroz con pollo or soup dumplings town.

Lincoln Mitchell, Associate Adjunct Research Scholar, Arnold A. Saltzman Institute of War and Peace Studies, Columbia University

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

Author and radio host Thom Hartmann on the “struggle for democracy” and the road ahead

America is in limbo.

There is the good: Joe Biden is president-elect. He has defeated Donald Trump, winning the highest percentage of eligible voters since Richard Nixon in 1972. Biden also received the highest number of votes in American history — approximately 77 million. It is clear that the American people have given Biden a mandate to lead the country into a better future. 

As expected, Donald Trump continues to claim, against all evidence to the contrary, that the 2020 election was “stolen” from him through “voter fraud” and is attempting to use the courts to overturn the election results. To this point these efforts have completely failed. Biden has announced a committee of esteemed experts who will lead the country’s efforts to defeat the coronavirus pandemic. Pfizer recently announced that it has developed a vaccine against the coronavirus which should be ready for mass distribution in 2021. Despite all of Donald Trump and his movement’s assaults on the country’s democracy, social cohesion and even its future, there is a sense that President Biden could both return the country to “normalcy” and then make it better and stronger.

Then there is the bad. Donald Trump received approximately 72 million votes in the 2020 election, about 10 million more than he did in 2016. The ideology of Trumpism, built on white supremacy, nativism, collective narcissism, misogyny, greed, corruption, right-wing Christian extremism, anti-intellectualism, cruelty and other pathologies were enthusiastically endorsed, rather than rejected, by tens of millions of Americans. 

Trump is also attempting an obvious slow-motion coup, in which he is purging senior national security officials who have shown themselves unwilling to do his bidding, for example, by turning the country’s military against the American people. Trump’s coup plot is part of a much bigger effort to delegitimize the very idea of democracy and free elections in America. Breaking from centuries of tradition in the United States, Trump has refused to concede defeat or assist in the lawful transfer of power to Biden. Trump’s right-wing paramilitaries and other political thugs remain “standing by” to engage in acts of violence against his “enemies.” Trump will not surrender his efforts to remain president for life. The coronavirus pandemic continues to spread uncontrollably. The country’s economy is still in ruins.

Joe Biden is a much better human being than Donald Trump. That fact is indisputable. But just because Biden is a good person does not mean that he will have any advantage in successfully managing the deeply entrenched forces of social inequality, injustice, societal alienation and loneliness, plutocracy, gangster capitalism, white supremacy and pathocracy.

At the Nation, Tom Engelhardt describes the myriad challenges Biden will soon inherit:

Trumpism has split America in two in a way that hasn’t been imaginable since the Civil War. The president and the Senate are likely to be in gridlock, the judicial system a partisan affair of the first order, the national security state a money-gobbling shadow empire, the citizenry armed to the teeth, racism rising, and life everywhere in an increasing state of chaos.

Welcome to the (Dis)United States. Donald Trump led the way and, whatever he does, I suspect that this, for at least the time being, is still in some sense his world, not Joe Biden’s. He was the man and, like it or not, we were all his apprentices in a performance of destructive power of the first order that has yet to truly end.

How should the American people navigate such a state of personal and national limbo and the feelings and emotions which come from such a deep lack of certainty about the future of the country?

Thom Hartmann, a radio host, bestselling author, and leading progressive voice counsels that the American people — and liberals and progressives in particular — should be both optimistic and cautious about Joe Biden’s presidency.

Hartmann’s newest book is “The Hidden History of Monopolies: How Big Business Destroyed the American Dream.” The Thom Hartmann Show can be heard from 12 to 3 p.m., Eastern time, via the nonprofit Pacifica Network and on commercial radio stations all across the United States.

In this conversation, Hartmann explains that Joe Biden and Kamala Harris have the potential to enact a progressive policy agenda if they are sufficiently pressured and held accountable. Hartmann also explains that the Democratic Party has for too long run away from its winning message on the economy by embracing neoliberalism instead of the history and legacy of the New Deal and Franklin D. Roosevelt. Such bad habits still linger after Biden’s victory over Trump, as even now some mainstream Democrats are complaining that the party has gone too far left, which is why it lost seats in the House and failed to win the Senate.

Hartmann also issues an ominous warning: Biden’s presidency may be the last opportunity to save American democracy from the Republican Party and a global right-wing authoritarian movement.

You can also listen to my conversation with Thom Hartmann on my podcast “The Truth Report” or through the player embedded below.

As usual, this conversation has been edited for clarity and length.

Is this what victory feels like?

This is like a moment when the child in the story says, “But the emperor has no clothes!” We got rid of the emperor, but the empire is still here, in the form of the Republican Party and conservatives.

There is also a worldwide coalition of governments run by strongman leaders who do not like democracy and see it as a threat to their rule, wealth and power. That group will continue to do everything they can to destroy democracy.

Right now, their useful idiots are the Republican Party and particularly these Republican senators who are feeding the whole Trump narrative that “Our democratic institutions have been corrupted” and “You can’t trust democratic institutions, you can’t trust democracy.” These are messages carefully calibrated to destroy our faith in democratic institutions. And yes, it is absolutely true that America is not so much a democracy any longer, we are an oligarchy.

Republican senators represent about 25 percent of the American people. The Electoral College is not reflective of America as a whole. The Supreme Court has handed over to billionaires and big corporations the keys to the kingdom, essentially. They can own and buy and sell politicians and they do so every day..

There is a struggle for democracy in this democratic republic. This is the last gasp of that struggle.

I keep trying to remind people that the 2020 election and Biden’s victory was a battle and not a war. Declaring victory is premature. Do you think that the American people are going to stay engaged, or are they so exhausted that they have convinced themselves that they won and Trumpism is defeated?

I suspect that we are going to see the normal drop-off that one sees after a presidential election. The runoff in Georgia is probably going to be more like a midterm. That having been said, people want a return to normalcy, or at the very least not having to compulsively check their news sources five times a day to see what new, fresh hell Donald Trump just rolled out.

I think that all the elections going forward are going to be somewhat different than elections in the past few decades. Up until the 2020 election, the Republican Party had been successful, starting with the Reagan revolution, in arguing that they had new ideas. They knew what would work and what wouldn’t work. They were good at governing. They were prepared to take leadership. The Republicans were going to campaign on their ideas. In this election, people figured out that the principal tool that the Republican Party uses to win elections is not ideas, it is voter suppression.

The spectacle of the 24/7 news media and the commentariat is always something to behold. They seemed to be shocked and dismayed at how much support for Donald Trump there is in America. They could not believe how close this election was. One would think that the mainstream news media and its commentators would understand the reality of the sheer amount of rage and white supremacy there is in the country.

I was expecting a tighter race than the polls were predicting, although I was expecting Biden to win. I think that a lot of us, particularly a lot of whites of goodwill, had completely misread the level of malevolence or toxicity of white racism in America. I was guessing that the really hardcore white racist vote in the United States was 10%, 15% or maybe 20%. I am now thinking it is more like 35% or 40%, which horrifies me. I do not know how else to explain this. I understand that Trump’s populist economic message was very successful after 40 years of neoliberalism and shipping our jobs to China. The tragedy is that it is a process begun by Reagan and Bush.

Democrats never talk about that because Clinton continued it and nobody wants to trash Bill Clinton. But I believe that it is really time that we trash Bill Clinton and reject the neoliberalism that he introduced into our party. The other issue that must be confronted is how extraordinarily toxic Facebook is. Mark Zuckerberg and his colleagues have used algorithms in a way that has really amplified the hard-right echo chamber and hate message.

Instead of becoming more progressive and forward-thinking, the Democrats over the last few decades have too often retreated from those ideas. I worry that will be the lesson of the 2020 election.

They have to recognize the economic component. And that is the problem: the Democrats have the winning economic message. Consider those places around the country where a $15 minimum wage was on the ballot — it typically won. Economic messages are great for Democrats, but the Democratic Party does not want to run on them because there is this internal debate between the corporate Democrats who want to protect the oil industry and the banking industry and the insurance industry, and the people-funded Democrats, the progressive Democrats, who are perfectly willing to take those industries on because the latter are basically parasites.

We pay twice as much for health care as any other country in the world. That is a $3,000 to $5,000 a year tax on the average American family. We pay more than twice as much than any other country in the developed world for internet, for telephone service, for cable TV, for health insurance, and for airfare.

The average family in America pays $5,000 a year more than in other developed countries just because our business systems have become so monopolized. We are in the grip of this neoliberal corporate monster that has just been draining the wealth out of the middle class, out of working-class people’s pockets, and putting it into the top 1%. And Democrats are perfectly positioned to talk about that.

But oddly, Donald Trump has been the one for the last five years talking about that issue. The Democratic Party is leaving so many voters behind by not taking on these economic issues.

I want Joe Biden to succeed and be a great president. How do we hold Joe Biden accountable, given his track record as a corporate Democrat?

The fact that Kamala Harris is his running mate, and that Karine Jean-Pierre is her chief of staff — she is one of the best progressives out there, and also one of the most well-informed progressives I’ve ever seen in the media. That gives me a lot of hope.

But Biden did run on a far more progressive platform than Obama or Clinton. We really need to get back to the values of the Great Society and the New Deal. I am not expecting any big initiatives to come until after the inauguration and possibly until after the election in Georgia.

Biden has been openly reaching out to Trumpists and other Republicans with his language about “healing” and saying we are not “enemies” of one another here in America. There are also the persistent discussions of Biden perhaps even including Republicans in his new administration. What about accountability? I am deeply concerned about Biden’s temperament and willingness to compromise with Republicans and in doing so betraying the American people and the mandate they have given him.

I suspect that if Joe Biden reaches out to Republicans, he is going to get his hand slapped. And once again, much is going to depend on the election in Georgia. We just have to keep the pressure on him. I am not willing to prejudge Biden on how he is going to govern. I am willing to give it a couple of months and then let us see what happens. We can’t just go to sleep. We can’t just go on vacation. This is the immediate, small but noisy cancer that may have been excised from our republic or will be hopefully by Jan. 20.

But the metastasis of it, all the thousands of cancer cells throughout the body, they’re still there. And we really need the chemotherapy of an aggressive progressive agenda, the Green New Deal, eliminating student debt and Medicare for All, as a starting point.

Will the corporatists and plutocrats and other members of the financial elite have more or less power after Trump?

They are to a certain extent above it all. They are going to continue making their money no matter. The system has been so rigged to the advantage of very wealthy people since the 1980s. They have not seen any real serious challenges to their power.  

For example, with Medicare for All, the only rich people who are going to be hurt are the multi-millionaires in the insurance industry. Good riddance. It’s a relatively small number of people.

The Green New Deal is actually going to be a money-making opportunity for people in business.

Eliminating student debt can be done by using government funds. If we can hand a trillion and a half dollars to the top 15% of Americans in a Trump tax cut and the republic survives, there is only a trillion and a half dollars worth of student debt and we could just literally pay it all off and say, “That’s it, no more, nor in the future.”

And nobody would be hurt. The main battle in that regard is going to be against the libertarian billionaires, the Charles Kochs of the world who are funding all these groups, the state policy groups, ALEC, FreedomWorks and the like in what is an ideological battle between libertarians and people who believe in democracy.

There will be opposition. There will be people screaming, “Socialism!” — but they were screaming “Socialism!” around Medicare. They screamed “Socialism!” around Medicaid. They screamed “Socialism!” around Social Security. I think we can get past that.

What does accountability and reckoning look like for the Trump regime?

I want prosecutions. Kellyanne Conway should be facing jail for breaking the Hatch Act. Ivanka Trump should be facing jail. They knew that what they were doing was illegal. They flaunted it intentionally. The campaign finance violations. I also believe that we really need to be looking into Wilbur Ross playing the stock market with inside information. It is time that the rule of law has to apply to rich white people.

A convergence of calamities

I saw them for only a few seconds. One glimpse and they were gone. The young woman wore a brown headwrap, a yellow short-sleeved shirt, and a long pink, red, and blue floral-patterned skirt. She held the reins of the donkey pulling her rust-pink cart. Across her lap lay an infant. Perched beside her at the edge of the metal wagon was a young girl who couldn’t have been more than eight. Some firewood, rugs, woven mats, rolled-up clothing or sheets, a dark green plastic tub, and an oversized plastic jerry can were lashed to the bed of the cart. Three goats tied to the rear of it ambled along behind.

They found themselves, as I did, on a hot, dusty road slowly being choked by families who had hastily hitched up their donkeys and piled whatever they could — kindling, sleeping mats, cooking pots — into sun-bleached carts or bush taxis. And they were the lucky ones. Many had simply set out on foot. Young boys tended small herds of recalcitrant goats. Women toted dazed toddlers.  In the rare shade of a roadside tree, a family had stopped and a middle-aged man hung his head, holding it in one hand.

Earlier this year, I traveled that ochre-dirt road in Burkina Faso, a tiny landlocked nation in the African Sahel once known for having the largest film festival on the continent. Now, it’s the site of an unfolding humanitarian catastrophe. Those people were streaming down the main road from Barsalogho about 100 miles north of the capital, Ouagadougou, toward Kaya, a market town whose population has almost doubled this year, due to the displaced. Across the country’s northern stretches, other Burkinabe (as citizens are known) were making similar journeys toward towns offering only the most uncertain kinds of refuge. They were victims of a war without a name, a battle between Islamist militants who murder and massacre without compunction and armed forces that kill more civilians than militants.

I’ve witnessed variations of this wretched scene before — exhausted, upended families evicted by machete-wielding militiamen or Kalashnikov-carrying government troops, or the mercenaries of a warlord; dust-caked traumatized people plodding down lonesome highways, fleeing artillery strikes, smoldering villages, or towns dotted with moldering corpses. Sometimes motorbikes pull the carts. Sometimes, young girls carry the jerry cans on their heads. Sometimes, people flee with nothing more than what they’re wearing. Sometimes, they cross national borders and become refugees or, as in Burkina Faso, become internally displaced persons, or IDPs, in their own homeland. Whatever the particulars, such scenes are increasingly commonplace in our world and so, in the worst possible way, unremarkable. And though you would hardly know it in the United States, that’s what also makes them, collectively, one of the signature stories of our time.

At least 100 million people have been forced to flee their homes due to violence, persecution, or other forms of public disorder over the last decade, according to UNHCR, the United Nations refugee agency. That’s about one in every 97 people on the planet, roughly one percent of humanity. If such war victims had been given their own state to homestead, it would be the 14th largest nation, population-wise, in the world.

By the end of June, according to the Internal Displacement Monitoring Center, an additional 4.8 million people had been uprooted by conflict, with the most devastating increases in Syria, the Democratic Republic of Congo, and Burkina Faso. Yet, as dismal as these numbers may be, they’re set to be dwarfed by people displaced by another signature story of our time: climate change.

Already, shocking numbers have been put to flight by firesderechos, and super storms, and so much worse is yet to come, according to experts. A recent forecast suggests that, by the year 2050, the number of people driven from their homes by ecological catastrophes could be 900% greater than the 100 million forced to flee conflicts over the last decade.

Worse than World War II

Women, children, and men driven from their homes by conflict have been a defining feature of modern warfare. For almost a century now, combat correspondents have witnessed such scenes again and again. “Newly routed civilians, now homeless like the others with no idea of where they would next sleep or eat, with all their future lives an uncertainty, trudged back from the fighting zone,” the legendary Eric Sevareid reported, while covering Italy for CBS News during World War II. “A dust-covered girl clung desperately to a heavy, squirming burlap sack. The pig inside was squealing faintly. Tears made streaks down the girl’s face. No one moved to help her…”

The Second World War was a cataclysmic conflagration involving 70 nations and 70 million combatants. Fighting stretched across three continents in unparalleled destructive fury, including terror bombingcountless massacrestwo atomic attacks, and the killing of 60 million people, most of them civilians, including six million Jews in a genocide known as the Holocaust. Another 60 million were displaced, more than the population of Italy (then the ninth-largest country in the world). An unprecedented global war causing unimaginable suffering, it nonetheless left far fewer people homeless than the 79.5 million displaced by conflicts and crises as 2019 ended.

How can violence-displaced people already exceed World War II’s total by almost 20 million (without even counting the nearly five million more added in the first half of 2020)?

The answer: these days, you can’t go home again.

In May 1945, the war in Europe came to an end. By the beginning of September, the war in the Pacific was over, too. A month later, most of Europe’s displaced — including more than two million refugees from the Soviet Union, 1.5 million French, 586,000 Italians, 274,000 Dutch, and hundreds of thousands of Belgians, Yugoslavs, Czechs, Poles, and others — had already returned home. A little more than a million people, mostly Eastern Europeans, still found themselves stranded in camps overseen by occupying forces and the United Nations.

Today, according to UNHCR, ever fewer war refugees and IDPs are able to rebuild their lives. In the 1990s, an average of 1.5 million refugees were able to return home annually. For the last 10 years, that number has dropped to around 385,000. Today, about 77% of the world’s refugees are trapped in long-term displacement situations thanks to forever wars like the conflict in Afghanistan that, in its multiple iterations, is now in its sixth decade.

War on (of and for) terror

One of the most dramatic drivers of displacement over the last 20 years, according to researchers from Brown University’s Costs of War project, has been that conflict in Afghanistan and the seven other “most violent wars the U.S. military has launched or participated in since 2001.” In the wake of the killing of 2,974 people by al-Qaeda militants that September 11th and the decision of George W. Bush’s administration to launch a Global War on Terror, conflicts the United States initiated, escalated, or participated in — specifically, in Afghanistan, Iraq, Libya, Pakistan, the Philippines, Somalia, Syria, and Yemen — have displaced between 37 million and 59 millionpeople.

While U.S. troops have also seen combat in Burkina Faso and Washington has pumped hundreds of millions of dollars of “security assistance” into that country, its displaced aren’t even counted in the Costs of War tally. And yet there’s a clear link between the U.S.-backed overthrow of Libya’s autocrat, Muammar Qaddafi, in 2011 and Burkina Faso’s desperate state today. “Ever since the West assassinated Qaddafi, and I’m conscious of using that particular word, Libya has been completely destabilized,” Chérif Sy, Burkina Faso’s defense minister, explained in a 2019 interview. “While at the same time it was the country with the most guns. It has become an arms cache for the region.”

Those arms helped destabilize neighboring Mali and led to a 2012 coup by a U.S.-trained officer. Two years later, another U.S.-trained officer seized power in Burkina Faso during a popular uprising. This year, yet another U.S.-trained officer overthrew yet another government in Mali. All the while, terrorist attacks have been ravaging the region. “The Sahel has seen the most dramatic escalation of violence since mid-2017,” according to a July report by the Africa Center for Strategic Studies, a Defense Department research institution.

In 2005, Burkina Faso didn’t even warrant mention in the “Africa Overview” section of the State Department’s annual report on terrorism. Still, more than 15 separate American security assistance programs were brought to bear there — about $100 million in the last two years alone. Meanwhile, militant Islamist violence in the country has skyrocketed from just three attacks in 2015 to 516 in the 12 months from mid-2019 to mid-2020, according to the Pentagon’s Africa Center.

Compounding crises to come

The violence in Burkina Faso has led to a cascade of compounding crises. Around one million Burkinabe are now displaced, a 1,500% increase since last January, and the number only keeps rising. So do the attacks and the fatalities. And this is just the beginning, since Burkina Faso finds itself on the frontlines of yet another crisis, a global disaster that’s expected to generate levels of displacement that will dwarf today’s historic figures.

Burkina Faso has been battered by desertification and environmental degradation since at least the 1960s. In 1973, a drought led to the deaths of 100,000 people there and in five other nations of the Sahel. Severe drought and hunger struck again in the mid-1980s and aid agencies began privately warning that those living in the north of the country would need to move southward as farming became ever less feasible. By the early 2000s, despite persistent droughts, the cattle population of the country had doubled, leading to increasing ethnic conflict between Mossi farmers and Fulani cattle herders. The war now tearing the country apart largely divides along those same ethnic lines.

In 2010, Bassiaka Dao, the president of the confederation of farmers in Burkina Faso, told the United Nations news agency, IRIN, that the impacts of climate change had been noticeable for years and were getting worse. As the decade wore on, rising temperatures and new rainfall patterns — droughts followed by flash floods — increasingly drove farmers from their villages, while desertification swelled the populations of urban centers.

In a report published earlier this year, William Chemaly of the Global Protection Cluster, a network of nongovernmental organizations, international aid groups, and United Nations agencies, noted that in Burkina Faso “climate change is crippling livelihoods, exacerbating food insecurity, and intensifying armed conflict and violent extremism.”

Sitting at the edge of the Sahara Desert, the country has long faced ecological adversity that’s only worsening as the frontlines of climate change steadily spread across the planet. Forecasts now warn of increasing ecological disasters and resource wars supercharging the already surging phenomenon of global displacement. According to a recent report by the Institute for Economics and Peace, a think tank that produces annual global terrorism and peace indexes, two billion people already face uncertain access to sufficient food — a number set to jump to 3.5 billion by 2050. Another one billion “live in countries that do not have the current resilience to deal with the ecological changes they are expected to face in the future.” The report warns that the global climate crisis may displace as many as 1.2 billion people by 2050.

On the road to Kaya

I don’t know what happened to the mother and two children I spotted on the road to Kaya. If they ended up like the scores of people I spoke with in that market town, now bulging with displaced people, they’re facing a difficult time. Rents are high, jobs scarce, government assistance all but nil. People there are living on the edge of catastrophe, dependent on relatives and the kindness of new neighbors with little to spare themselves. Some, driven by want, are even heading back into the conflict zone, risking death to gather firewood.

Kaya can’t deal with the massive influx of people forced from their homes by Islamist militants. Burkina Faso can’t deal with the one million people already displaced by conflict. And the world can’t deal with the almost 80 million people already driven from their homes by violence. So how will we cope with 1.2 billion people — nearly the population of China or India — likely to be displaced by climate driven-conflicts, water wars, increasing ecological devastation, and other unnatural disasters in the next 30 years?

In the decades ahead, ever more of us will find ourselves on roads like the one to Kaya, running from the devastation of raging wildfires or uncontrolled floodwaters, successive hurricanes or supercharged cyclones, withering droughts, spiraling conflicts, or the next life-altering pandemic. As a reporter, I’ve already been on that road. Pray you’re the one speeding by in the four-wheel-drive vehicle and not the one choking in the dust, driving the donkey cart.

Copyright 2020 Nick Turse

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

What’s the future of American democracy? More inequality, polarization and violence

In January 2017, the Economist Intelligence Unit’s Democracy Index downgraded the state of democracy in the United States from “full democracy” to “flawed democracy.”

The demotion of a country that has constantly prided itself, not only on being democratic but also on championing democracy throughout the world, took many by surprise. Some U.S. pundits challenged the findings altogether. 

However, judging by events that have transpired since, the accuracy of the EIU Index continues to demonstrate itself in the everyday reality of American politics: extreme political and cultural polarization; growing influence of armed militias and police violence; the mistreatment of undocumented immigrants, including children; the marginalization of the country’s minorities in mainstream politics, and so on. 

The EIU’s Democracy Index has, finally, exposed the deteriorating state of democracy in the U.S. because it is based on 60 different indicators which, aside from traditional categories — i.e., the function of government — also include other indicators such as gender equality, civil liberties and political culture. 

Judging by the number, diversity and depth of the above indicators, it is safe to assume that the outcome of the U.S. general elections this month will not have an immediate bearing on the state of American democracy. On the contrary, the outcome is likely to further fragment an already divided society and continue to turn the country’s state-run institutions — including the U.S. Supreme Court — into battlegrounds for political and ideological alliances.

While the buzzword throughout the election campaigns has been “saving American democracy,” the state of democracy in the U.S. is likely to worsen in the foreseeable future. This is because America’s ruling elites, whether Republicans or Democrats, refuse to acknowledge the actual ailments that have afflicted American political culture for many years. 

Sadly, when the campaign of Sen. Bernie Sanders, former Democratic presidential candidate, insisted that massive structural adjustments were necessary at every level of government, he was dismissed by the Democratic establishment as unrealistic, and altogether “unelectable.”

Sanders was, of course, right, because the crisis in American democracy was not initiated by the election of Donald Trump in 2016. The latter event was a mere symptom of a larger, protracted problem. 

These are some of the major issues that are unlikely to be effortlessly resolved by the outcome of the elections, and thus will continue to downgrade the state of democracy in the U.S. 

The inequality gap: Income inequality, which is the source of socio-political strife, is one of the United States’ major challenges, spanning over 50 years. Inequality, now compounded with the COVID-19 pandemic, is worsening, affecting certain racial groups — African Americans, in particular — and women, more than others. 

According to a study conducted by the Pew Research Center in February 2020, “income inequality in the US is the highest of all the G7 nations,” a major concern for 78 percent of Democrats and 41 percent of Republicans. 

Political polarization: The large gap between the wealthy few and the impoverished many is not the only schism creating a wedge in American society. Political polarization — although, interestingly, it does not always express itself based on rational class demarcation — is a major problem in the U.S. 

Both Republicans and Democrats have succeeded in making their case to enlist the support of certain strata of American society, while doing very little to fulfill the many promises the ruling establishments of these two camps often make during election campaigns. 

For example, Republicans use a populist political discourse to reach out to working-class white Americans, promising them economic prosperity. Yet there is no evidence that the lot of working-class white American families has improved under the Trump Administration. 

The same is true with Democrats, who have, falsely, long situated themselves as the champions of racial justice and fairer treatment of undocumented immigrants.

Militarization of society: With socio-economic inequality and political polarization at their worst, trust in democracy and the role of the state to fix a deeply flawed system is waning. This lack of trust in the central government spans hundreds of years, thus, the constant emphasis on the Second Amendment of the U.S. Constitution regarding “the right of the people to keep and bear arms.”

Indeed, U.S. society is one of the most militarized in the world. According to the FBI, two-thirds of all local terrorism in the US is carried out by right-wing militias, who are now more emboldened and angrier than ever before. According to an October Southern Poverty Law Center report, there are about 180 active anti-government paramilitary groups in the U.S.

For the first time in many years, talks of another “American Civil War” have become a daily discussion point in mainstream media. 

It would be entirely unrealistic to imagine that democracy in the U.S. will be restored as a result of any given election. Without a fundamental shift in U.S. politics that confronts the underlying problems behind the socio-economic inequality and political polarization, the future carries yet more fragmentation and, quite possibly, worsening violence. 

The coming weeks and months are critical in determining the future direction of American society. Alas, the current indicators are hardly promising.

Trump won Florida after running a false ad tying Biden to Venezuelan socialists

In Florida, where President Donald Trump gained crucial support among Latino voters, his campaign ran a YouTube ad in Spanish making the explosive — and false — claim that Venezuela’s ruling clique was backing Democratic nominee Joe Biden.

YouTube showed the ad more than 100,000 times in Florida in the eight days leading up to the election, even after The Associated Press published a fact-check debunking the Trump campaign’s claim. Actually, Venezuelan President Nicolás Maduro expressed opposition to both presidential candidates.

The video was part of a broader Trump campaign strategy in heavily Latino South Florida that sought to tie Biden to Socialist leaders like Maduro and the late Cuban President Fidel Castro. Trump won Florida by about 375,000 votes, the largest margin in a presidential election there since 1988. He carried about 55% of the Cuban American vote, according to exit polls by NBC News.

“Latinos who live here in the U.S. have left socialist or communist regimes,” said Diego Scharifker, a Venezuelan American lawyer, former city councilor in Caracas and co-founder of the pro-Biden group Venezolanos Con Biden. “There is of course a big impact or fear or scarring in the Latino community in the U.S. from communism. Trump with his false accusations and false information was fearmongering and playing on the pain to promote his agenda.”

The ad illustrates gaps in the policing of misinformation by Google, which owns YouTube. While Google nominally prohibits all false claims in advertising, it rarely takes down political ads. In addition, shortcomings in its transparency tools make it harder for watchdogs and fact-checkers to scrutinize ads.

Google’s political ad rules are “trying to have it both ways” with respect to fact-checking, said Bridget Barrett, a political communication researcher at the University of North Carolina. “In reality, basically everything stands.” Google sees claims like the one about Maduro as being “within the public arena that should be contested by Biden’s campaign or fact-checked by journalists,” Barrett added.

YouTube approves ads by both human and machine review. Its policies prohibit any advertiser from making “a false claim — whether it’s a claim about the price of a chair or a claim that you can vote by text message, that election day is postponed, or that a candidate has died.”

Charlotte Smith, a company spokeswoman, told ProPublica in an email that “we don’t make any special exceptions for politicians.” Nevertheless, YouTube takes down only a “very limited” number of political ads making “demonstrably false claims that could significantly undermine trust in democratic or electoral processes,” she said.

The Trump campaign ad “doesn’t meet that bar,” she said. “This video does not violate our policies. … Political ads are known for being hyperbolic, and we’re not going to attempt to adjudicate every claim or counterclaim.”

Other platforms are at least somewhat more restrictive. While Facebook doesn’t fact-check campaign ads, it banned new ones within a week of the election. (The Trump ad does not appear to have run on Facebook, according to its ad library. If it had, the ban may not have applied to it, because it began running on YouTube on Oct. 26, eight days before the Nov. 3 election.) Facebook’s fact-checking partners do vet ads by political action committees and other third-party groups, some of which get removed. Twitter banned all political advertising. Although broadcast television stations aren’t allowed to choose candidate ads by content, cable networks can, and sometimes do, reject ads. The Trump ad didn’t appear on TV, according to Advertising Analytics, an ad-tracking firm.

The Trump campaign saw YouTube as a key to its strategy, according to a Politico report in September. It ran more than 18,000 video ads on YouTube this year. The campaign spent $106 million, including $37.2 million in the last month of the campaign, on Google’s platform, including both YouTube ads and Google search ads.

The questionable video begins by describing Biden as “the candidate of Chavismo,” referring to the brand of socialism associated with Hugo Chávez, the late leader of Venezuela, and Maduro’s government. It then shows Diosdado Cabello, a Maduro ally and Venezuela’s second-most powerful politician, saying on his television program that the “brisa Bolivariana,” or the “Bolivarian breeze” of Latin American socialism, “is blowing, blowing, blowing, blowing. … Let’s see what happens. Maybe the Bolivarian breeze will reach the United States. In how much time? In 13 days until the elections.” The term “Bolivarian” is an allusion to Simón Bolívar, the 19th-century revolutionary, claimed as an inspiration for many Latin American socialist movements.

Then the text on the screen reiterates that “the Chavistas” — the political party that controls Venezuela — “want Joe Biden to win.” The video concludes with a statement that it was paid by the Trump campaign and Trump saying that he approved the message.

There’s little doubt that the relationship between the Trump administration and the Maduro government is tense. Trump has imposed sanctions on Venezuela and on Maduro and Cabello personally. The U.S. government indicted both Maduro and Cabello on narco-terrorism and drug trafficking charges in March. Venezuelan state-run television has struck a “completely anti-Trump” tone, said Daniel Acosta-Ramos, an investigative researcher at First Draft, a nonprofit that tracks misinformation and an Electionland partner.

Yet Maduro said in late September that he didn’t care who was elected. “If Trump wins the elections, we will confront him and defeat him, and if Biden wins, we’ll confront him and defeat him too,” he said. An AP fact-check of a video that resembles the one in the Trump campaign ad concluded that neither Biden nor Maduro “has declared that there is any kind of affinity between them or between their national projects.”

In the television segment from which Cabello’s “Bolivarian breeze” remark was clipped, he didn’t explicitly mention Trump, Biden or the Democratic or Republican parties. While the remark could be interpreted as hoping that Biden would be elected and promote the agenda of his party’s progressive wing, Cabello has a reputation for being a provocateur and saying unclear things on purpose, according to Acosta-Ramos. “That ambiguity creates an environment ripe for misinfo,” he said.

The ad, Acosta-Ramos said, was “micro-targeted for people who know what the ‘brisa Bolivariana’ means. Not just Venezuelans, but also Cubans and Colombians.”

Other YouTube ads from the Trump campaign reinforced the false message. They showed clips of Maduro referring to Biden as “Comrade Biden” in a 2015 speech. Although it was only a passing reference, and Maduro accused Biden shortly afterward of plotting to overthrow him, Donald Trump Jr. framed it as evidence that Biden was weak on socialism.

The Trump campaign’s official bilingual Twitter account also claimed that Maduro’s regime supported Biden. A tweet from President Trump called Biden a “PUPPET of CASTRO-CHAVISTAS.” Trump ads on Facebook called Biden a “socialist” and pictured him with Rep. Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez and Sen. Bernie Sanders, both of whom refer to themselves as democratic socialists.

“There was a concerted effort by the Trump campaign and their allies to misrepresent Joe Biden and his values because they knew they couldn’t win on Trump’s disastrous record,” a Biden campaign official told ProPublica.

Florida’s Venezuelan population has grown to about 200,000, of whom an estimated 50,000 are registered to vote. In Doral, a city in Miami-Dade County that’s home to many Americans of Venezuelan, Cuban and Colombian descent, Trump pulled in roughly 49% of voters in 2020, up from 29% in 2016. Overall, in Miami-Dade, Trump garnered nearly 200,000 more votes than he had in 2016, shaving the Democratic margin from 29% to 7%.

The Trump campaign, the White House and the Venezuelan Embassy did not respond to requests for comment.

The Trump ad may have attracted relatively little notice during the campaign because of inadequacies in the political ad report that Google established in 2018 to improve transparency. Unlike Facebook’s political ad archive, Google’s doesn’t group identical ads together if, for instance, they were shown over different time periods. Google’s transparency tools showed three different copies of the “brisa Bolivariana” ad, giving separate data for each. Google also doesn’t make videos searchable or any ad content downloadable in bulk.

The design doesn’t allow opponents, journalists or watchdogs to meaningfully analyze the 263,000 political video ads (and 361,000 other ads) that Google sold in 2020, Barrett said.

“You’re just drowning in content and overwhelmed by these individual pieces of advertising content, and really many of them are the same, you’re stuck trying to swim through this overwhelming sea of ads,” Barrett said. Ads “can disappear into the depths of the ad library.”

Google has said that it only allows advertisers to target political ads by users’ location, age and gender, and that it discloses these targeting choices on its transparency website. The three copies of the “Bolivarian breeze” ad were targeted by location to Florida users.

Although it’s not disclosed in Google’s transparency tools, YouTube ads also may be targeted by language, for example to Spanish speakers, Smith said.

It’s unclear exactly how much the Trump campaign spent on the ad and how many times it was shown. Google’s data show that the Trump campaign spent between $1,000 and $5,000 on one copy of the ad; between $100 and $1,000 on another; and less than $100 on the third. Two of the copies were shown fewer than 10,000 times, and the third was shown between 100,000 and 1 million times. Facebook publishes more precise information.

Trump supporters amplified the campaign’s message, professing to connect Biden and other Democrats to “Castro-Chavismo,” a term linking Venezuelan socialism to Cuba’s. False posts on social media, of undetermined origin, purported to show Jill Biden, Joe’s wife, standing next to Fidel Castro. It was actually Jacqueline Beer, the wife of a Norwegian explorer.

“We saw a huge number of WhatsApp messages being shared in Venezuelan, Cuban groups, saying the governments of these countries that we escaped, [they] want Biden — so we should vote Trump,” Acosta-Ramos said.

What a Biden staffer described as a flood of information put the Democrat’s campaign on the defensive. The Biden campaign mounted its own fact-checking effort to push back against the claims about Biden and socialism. It invested heavily in outreach to Florida Latinos, including six-figure media buys in the last two weeks of the campaign targeting the community, a staffer said. At an early October rally in Miami, Biden said, “Maduro, who I’ve met, is a dictator, plain and simple, and he’s causing incredible suffering among the Venezuelan people.”

Ronny Rojas of Noticias Telemundo, Derek Willis and Ivette Leyva contributed reporting.

* * *

ProPublica is a nonprofit newsroom that investigates abuses of power. Sign up to receive our biggest stories as soon as they’re published. Having issues voting? You can tell us about it or read ProPublica’s voting guides in English and Spanish.

This story was co-published with Noticias Telemundo.

Youth activists will push for climate action — even with a divided Congress

On Saturday, Joe Biden declared victory over Donald Trump in the 2020 presidential election, and youth climate activists rejoiced. Though President-elect Biden wasn’t the top choice for many of them, his victory opens the door for climate action that’s been unthinkable under the Trump administration. And Biden has shown himself to be responsive to youth climate activism, updating his climate platform over the summer to embrace a more aggressive and expensive approach to climate action. “I want young climate activists, young people everywhere, to know: I see you. I hear you,” he said at a virtual fundraiser in July. “I understand the urgency, and together we can get this done.”

But Biden will have to navigate a treacherous path in order to accomplish the kind of comprehensive climate action he campaigned on. The Senate, a branch of government whose cooperation Biden will need to pass major climate legislation, is likely to remain in Republican control. (Two runoff elections in Georgia could change the game, but they’re both long shots.)

Young climate activists say they’re not deterred by the congressional layout. Two youth climate groups Grist spoke to — one on the left, one on the right — say Operation Make the U.S. a Climate Leader is powering full steam ahead.

The Sunrise Movement, a youth-led climate activist network that rose to climate-world fame after a sit-in in House Speaker Nancy Pelosi’s office two years ago, has a track record of taking the Democratic establishment to task. It plans to do more of the same for the foreseeable future.

“We would rather be friendly than be aggressive right now, but we are ready to mobilize to back this agenda,” Garrett Blad, a member of the Sunrise national press team, said, noting that the group is willing to support Biden however it can if he makes climate action a priority. “We’re going to focus on pushing Biden to do everything that he can do through executive orders and through the executive office.”

The group will put pressure on Biden to establish a White House office of climate mobilization that would be tasked with coordinating and aligning various agencies across the federal government in the service of implementing the parts of Biden’s Build Back Better plan that don’t need congressional approval. (Biden is reportedly already considering creating such an office.) It will also closely watch who the president-elect appoints to key cabinet and agency positions.

Sunrise expects Biden to wrap some of his climate plan into a stimulus bill — which they hope will get through the Senate — sometime after he officially takes office. Following that package, the group wants to see the Biden administration champion a second wave of climate-related legislation. Sunrise knows that it’s unlikely that a Biden administration will be able to deliver on that with a Republican Senate, Blad said. The idea is to try to get a climate package through the House anyway, and, when it’s blocked by McConnell, make a case to voters in 2022. “We’re going to push him to make the case to the American people that this is going to make their lives better, and if the GOP under McConnell doesn’t want to support that, then let that be clear for the 2022 elections,” Blad said.

Sunrise won’t shy away from falling back on well-worn tactics to put Biden’s feet to the fire. That means large demonstrations, civil disobedience, and other actions from the organization’s nearly 500 chapters scattered across the country.

On the other side of the aisle, young Republicans with the conservative environmental group the American Conservation Coalition (ACC) think a Biden presidency paired with a Republican-controlled Senate actually opens up a unique window of opportunity for climate legislation. The split control of Washington will rein in overly eager Democrats and pave the way for climate-curious Republicans in Congress to start coming to the table with ideas, said Quillan Robinson, vice president for government affairs for ACC.

“Frankly, I think that if there had been a blue wave as was predicted, it would actually be kind of counterproductive because Democrats would shoot for the moon and end up falling short,” Robinson told Grist. “I don’t think doing a huge, massive climate package that includes all of Biden’s priorities on climate change is the strategy for success. I think breaking it up into different areas can be really conducive to success.”

Robinson is placing his hope in moderate Republicans with a climate record, like Senator Susan Collins of Maine, who prevailed against the Democratic state house speaker, Sara Gideon, on Tuesday. Robinson said centrists like Collins might actually vote for a climate agenda if it’s introduced one piece at a time. Some of the moderate Republicans who flipped state houses on Tuesday might do the same at the state level. ACC plans to encourage a step-by-step approach to climate legislation that starts with natural solutions like planting trees, followed by investments in energy innovation like carbon capture and renewable energy infrastructure.

But first, Robinson says, the GOP needs to develop a Republican climate plan. That way, Republicans who decide to come to the bargaining table won’t have to arrive empty handed. That might sound like a tall order for a party that has made a habit of denying basic climate science for the past few decades, but Robinson pointed to legislation introduced by Republican moderates like Collins and Senator Lisa Murkowski of Alaska, as well as a raft of bills introduced by Republicans in the House, as proof that the GOP is starting to change its tune on the issue. Once Republicans coalesce around a central plan, “it’s just a matter of each side coming to the table and saying, ‘Here’s our approach and here’s where there’s overlap in terms of policy priorities,'” Robinson said.

Sunrise activists and ACC activists don’t see eye to eye on many things, including the best way to bring down emissions. For example, the name of the game for Sunrise is still the Green New Deal. For ACC, that progressive proposal is a flashy distraction that has the potential, Robinson says, to genuinely harm the advancement of climate policy in the U.S. by alienating moderate members of Congress as well as moderate Americans. But the two groups are, in effect, working on opposite sides of the same coin. It stands to reason that If ACC successfully nudges the Republican establishment to even half-heartedly embrace climate policy and Sunrise succeeds in pressuring the Democratic establishment to take immediate action on the issue, the two sides could be forced to meet somewhere in the middle.

But finding middle ground, even between the two climate groups, will take time and effort to foster. Robinson expressed skepticism that ACC and Sunrise had a common goal. “They’re a movement trying to push the center of gravity among Democrats to the left,” Robinson said of Sunrise. “What we’re going to need is not pushing Biden to the left but establishing what that fertile ground is for real climate policy is in the middle.”

Blad is also dubious that Sunrise and ACC are fighting different heads of the same hydra. Within Sunrise, Blad said, “there’s a lot of distrust of the GOP, but if people are willing to come on board, we’re willing to have it!”

ICE deports immigrants who alleged medical abuse at detention facility

The advocacy groups representing the Immigration and Customs Enforcement whistleblower who earlier this year revealed horrific abuse of imprisoned migrant women—including forced surgical sterilizations—on Friday condemned ICE’s deportation of victims of the coerced procedures in retaliation for speaking out. 

Earlier this week, the Associated Press reported ICE has already deported six women who came forward to report that Dr. Mahendra Amin performed medically unnecessary operations including forced hysterectomies on them, destroying or jeopardizing their ability to have children. At least seven other women who have accused the doctor are also facing deportation, according to their attorneys. 

In September, Dawn Wooten, a longtime licensed nurse at the Irwin County Detention Center in southern Georgia, filed a whistleblower complaint alleging unsanitary conditions and practices that threatened to accelerate the spread of Covid-19, as well as an alarming number of non-consensual hysterectomies performed by Amin, who she called “the uterus collector.” Wooten’s disclosure shocked the nation and the world and prompted 173 congressional lawmakers to call for an investigation

Azadeh Shahshahani, legal and advocacy director for Project South and a lawyer for Wooten, responded to the actual and pending whistleblower deportations by issuing a statement calling ICE’s actions “shameful” and accusing the agency of “actively [trying] to erase the evidence of human rights violations and get rid of the survivors and witnesses, instead of aiding in the investigation.”

“Congress must investigate and immediately put an end to this injustice,”  Shahshahani stressed.

Dana Gold, senior counsel at the whistleblower advocacy organization Government Accountability Project, also represents Wooten. 

“By deporting these women, the government is risking—indeed facilitating—the loss of critical witnesses if law enforcement is unable to reach them in a different country,” Gold said in a statement. “Like Ms. Wooten, they are now suffering retaliation for speaking up about unconscionable abuses suffered by immigrants in ICE detention in a seeming effort to both punish and hide evidence of medical misconduct.”

“We condemn these actions and demand that DHS stop all further deportations of those impacted by this investigation,” added Gold, referring to the Department of Homeland Security, which includes ICE. 

The forced sterilzation of migrant women is, along with the seizure of thousands of migrant children from their parents—with some 666 children still separated from their families—arguably the most egregious domestic human rights violation to occur during the presidency of Donald Trump, who launched his successful 2016 White House bid by calling immigrants “rapists” and “criminals.” 

Trump’s tenure has been characterized by enmity and bigotry toward immigrants—especially people from Muslim countries and refugees fleeing deadly perils largely resulting from decades of U.S. policies and actions in Latin America and beyond.

When objects become extensions of you

When a tool in your hand “becomes part of you,” it’s not just a metaphor. And it’s not just a statistical description of the motions of your body and the motions of the tool. It’s real. Your brain makes it real.

Remarkably, neurons that respond specifically to objects that are within reach of your hand will also respond to objects that are close to a tool that’s in your hand. Cognitive psychologists Jessica Witt and Dennis Proffitt found that when they asked people to use a reaching tool (a 15-inch orchestra conductor’s baton) to reach targets that were just out of range, the targets looked closer than when they intended to reach without the tool.

For their study, they briefly flashed a spot of light on a table and then asked people to touch or point to where the spot had been. Interspersed among those touch/point trials were some trials where the person was simply asked to estimate how far away the spot was (in inches). There was a fair bit of variation in their guesses, but on average they were pretty close to accurate, except when they were holding the baton. When they were holding the baton and prepared to use it, a spot that had been 39 inches away was perceived as having been only 35 inches away — a 10 percent reduction in perceived distance just because they were holding a tool in their hand.

Witt and Proffitt theorized that this effect was a result of the brain generating a mental simulation of the reaching movement and thus tricking itself into thinking the object was closer and therefore more accessible when a reaching tool was held. To test this idea, they did a follow-up experiment where they showed the baton to participants and told them to merely imagine using it to reach for the spot of light. When these participants reported the perceived distance of the spot of light, once again there was a substantial compression of that estimated distance. They didn’t even have a tool in their hands. They merely imagined reaching toward the spot with the baton, and that motor simulation caused them to underestimate the distance of the spot. Even if the brain just pretends that the tool is part of its body, then the tool is part of its body.

Twenty years ago, cognitive scientists Matthew Botvinick and Jonathan Cohen demonstrated that you can trick the brain into thinking a rubber hand is part of its body. They had people place their right hand palm-down underneath a table and then placed a rubber hand on the tabletop above the real hand. Then they stroked and tapped the knuckles and fingers of the rubber hand in synchrony with the stroking and tapping of the real hand, invisible under the table. When the experiment’s participants saw the touching of the rubber hand and felt the same places and timing of touching on their real hand, they began to feel a bit as if the rubber hand was part of their body.

In fact, when people are asked to indicate the location of their unseen real hand under these circumstances, their estimates are often shifted almost halfway to the location of the rubber hand. Psychologist Frank Durgin showed that it doesn’t even have to be actual touch on the hands. When a mirror is aligned just right to make the rubber hand look like it’s exactly where the real (hidden) hand is located, the light from a laser pointer traveling along the rubber hand is enough to give people an illusory sensation of warmth, and even touch, on their real hand.

This unusual observation actually has medical applications. Around that same time, neurologist Vilayanur Ramachandran was exploring this kind of phenomenon with amputees who experience phantom limb pain. Phantom limb pain is when an amputee feels excruciating pain in the limb that has been amputated. It might seem impossible, but it makes sense when you think about how the brain codes for that limb and how the brain reorganizes itself upon losing that limb.

For instance, if an arm is amputated just below the elbow, groups of neurons that used to code for the hand obviously no longer receive sensory input from the mechanoreceptors in that hand. Over time, some of those neurons gradually develop connections to nearby neurons that have been coding for the elbow, which is still receiving sensory input.

Sometimes those connections can cause the brain to think that the hand has somehow moved up right next to the elbow. Your brain knows full well that if your right hand were curled up so much as to be close to your right elbow, it would be incredibly painful. (Don’t try this at home.) So, the brain naturally generates a pain response. If the missing limb were still there, some movement of it would quickly allow the brain to figure out that the hand is not at all curled up like that. With the limb missing, there’s no way for the brain to use proprioception to figure this out. However, with visual input, it can.

Ramachandran had the genius idea to place a mirror next to the amputee’s intact limb. When the patient sits in the right position and the mirror is set at the proper angle, the reflection of the intact limb looks to the patient just like a copy of the missing limb, and in a location where that missing limb would naturally be. Movements of the intact limb are visually processed by the patient’s brain as copycat movements of the missing limb as well. Thus, if a patient is feeling pain in their phantom right arm, watching a mirrored reflection of their left hand clench and unclench a fist can train their brain to realize that the (missing) right arm is not at all contorted in a manner that should cause pain. For cramping and other muscular pain in the phantom limb, Ramachandran’s procedure is remarkably effective.

Whether they are tools, toys, or mirror reflections, external objects temporarily become part of who we are all the time. When I put my eyeglasses on, I am a being with 20/20 vision, not because my body can do that — it can’t — but because my body-with-augmented-vision-hardware can. So that’s who I am when I wear my glasses: a hardware-enhanced human with 20/20 vision.

If you have thousands of hours of practice with a musical instrument, when you play music with that object, it feels like an extension of your body — because it is. When you hold your smartphone in your hand, it’s not just the morphological computation happening at the surface of your skin that becomes part of who you are. As long as you have Wi-Fi or a phone signal, the information available all over the internet (both true and false information, real news and fabricated lies) is literally at your fingertips. Even when you’re not directly accessing it, the immediate availability of that vast maelstrom of information makes it part of who you are, lies and all. Be careful with that.

* * * 

Michael J. Spivey is Professor of Cognitive Science at the University of California, Merced, and the author of “The Continuity of Mind” and “Who You Are,” from which this article is adapted.

There are economic reasons that Trump’s coup attempt won’t work, experts say

Throughout history, coups and coup attempts are more often than not linked to economic distress: the coup’s leaders side with one group of industrialists or power-brokers, and opposition groups are supported by another. Now, Trump’s own refusal to concede in the 2020 presidential election after a legitimate election loss, and his machinations to remain in power, have led to public debate over whether he is trying to perform a coup — or if that’s even possible given the political and economic climate. 

Salon reached out to economists who explained the ways in which current America’s economic struggles have, and have not, created the climate in which Trump’s coup attempt is possible. The verdict? The situation may not be quite right for Trump to be successful — with some caveats.

Because of Trump’s political disposition, his coup d’etat would epitomize a right-wing coup — in which an authoritarian seizes control to consolidate their power on behalf of the ruling classes, from which Trump originates. Disregarding the legal and (possibly) military elements required for success, Trump could very well have popular support from his base were he to seize power. Indeed, polls show that 70 percent of Republicans accept Trump’s disinformation about the election not being “free and fair,” and seem willing and ready to turn against the concept of democracy

“As for the broader question, there are tensions,” Dr. Ioana Marinescu, assistant professor of economics at the University of Pennsylvania’s School of Social Policy & Practice, wrote to Salon. “Rising inequality and stagnation of wages among the less educated should have empowered the left, but the left has increasingly become the party of the educated elites so they were not able to fully capitalize on this.”

Marinescu noted that economist Dr. Thomas Piketty explored these themes last year in his book “Capital and Ideology,” then added that “the populist or conservative right has then been able in some cases to speak to disaffected workers (those for example who lost their jobs to the China shock) by showing more respect for them and their values, and by promising a return to the prior state of the world (bring back manufacturing, something that is pretty hopeless given the economics).”

Dr. Richard D. Wolff, professor emeritus of economics at the University of Massachusetts Amherst, talked to Salon about how economic factors can usually be found in coups and attempted coups, although it would be a mistake to assume they are the only relevant variables.

“These are always multi-causal, multi-dimensional events,” Wolff told Salon. “We can talk about the economics, but the economic aspects — and that’s what they are — are never alone, or are never the only significant factor. . . . Economics always contributes to the attempt to make a coup, whether or not it’s successful, and economics are always affected by a coup — again, whether it’s successful or not. It’s part of the story, but it’s never some kind of dominating part, at least not in my experience. . . . but it’s never absent either, and it wouldn’t be here in the United States.”

Wolff proceeded to explain to Salon that the United States “is in an extreme economic turmoil situation, fraught with enormous suffering coming at the end of a period of very profound changes and confronting [t]he upsurge in coronavirus cases all over the country.” He noted that these conditions can make people either more politically active or resign themselves to political inactivity. The last occasion when America faced levels of unemployment, income inequality and lack of economic opportunity for young people was during the Great Depression in the 1930s, Wolff pointed out.

“Interestingly, during that Great Depression, the reaction of the mass of people was to become more politically active, not less so,” Wolff said. “What struck so many of us was that, already at the period in 2008 and 2009 when we had the so-called Great Recession, was the level of non-activism. The fact that you didn’t have the rise of a massive union organizing movement, the way you did in the 1930s with the CIO. You didn’t have a mass upsurge of people joining two socialist and one communist party this time. You did have a bump up with the Democratic Socialists of America, but it was much smaller, much more modest, much more isolated, than what you had in the 1930s.”

He added, “Now we have record-breaking inequality before and during the COVID-19 crisis, at least since it hit in March. The Bezoses of the world have gotten way richer, the mass of people the opposite, et cetera, et cetera. I think you’ve had pretty much the resignation of the mass of people, with the exception of a few signs, but I don’t think they’ve congealed yet to give you the mass progressive upsurge that you had in the 1930s.”

By contrast, America is finding itself in a situation now where a far right-winger like Trump is able to undermine the core institutions of democracy, although Wolff stopped short of saying that it will amount to a full-fledged coup.

“The bottom line of what I’m telling you is that the things that make coups happen, that have any kind of traction, don’t seem to me to be present here,” Wolff said, pointing out how American right-wingers misread public sentiment when attempting to pull off recent coups in other countries like Venezuela and Bolivia.

“My reading of the United States — and I’m frightened by it all too, so I’m not sitting on some pedestal of of self-assuredness — but I don’t read a situation that would allow [Trump] to get away with anything more than either a quiet exit or, if that’s not available, a blustery exit,” Wolff explained. “If he’s not smart enough to see that’s his best option, some kind of coup-type event about which Stephen Colbert will have a lot of fun.”

Dr. Karl Widerquist, a professor of philosophy at Georgetown University–Qatar who has doctorates in political theory and economics, told Salon that economic factors were probably a “wash” in terms of the 2020 election, with some American voters likely blaming Trump for the current bad economy (and correctly so) while others may have blamed the COVID-19 lockdowns and supported Trump’s opposition to them.

“He’s taken advantage of being president to further his white nationalism, but I don’t think that’s his main goal,” Wilderquist told Salon. “I think Trump’s main goal for his entire life is to convince as many people as possible that he’s a winner that he wins and wins and wins, and that he’s the world’s biggest winner. And like a lot of us, he doesn’t want to be a loser. The way to step down without feeling like a loser is to convince his echo chamber that he didn’t lose. He won and that it was stolen from him. He doesn’t need a coup to do that. He just needs to complain a lot.”

Is mass incarceration driving racial disparities in the pandemic?

Drive about 20 minutes southwest of downtown Chicago and you will notice the change in landscape as you approach 26th Street and California Avenue. Just inside the Little Village neighborhood is a 25-foot concrete wall, many rows of razor-wire fencing, and, behind that, intimidating brick and concrete architecture. These are the conspicuous visual cues of an urban correctional institution. Encompassing nearly 100 acres, the Cook County Department of Corrections is one of the largest single-site jails in the country. The jail currently houses about 5,400 detainees daily, most of them awaiting trial, and employs more than 3,000 staff. The County, as it’s known across Chicago, has been cited for a laundry list of civil rights violations since the 1970s, including excessive use of physical force, rodent infestation, and periods when overcrowding was so severe that detainees were forced to sleep on floors.

This year, the County earned another dubious distinction: It was home to one of the country’s largest Covid-19 outbreaks at the height of the pandemic in the spring. By the end of April, 628 detainees and 279 staff had tested positive, according to a recent review by researchers from Cook County and the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. At least nine people died during the period.

* * *

In an effort to contain the virus that causes Covid-19, SARS-CoV-2, jail administrators undertook “aggressive intervention strategies,” according to the study. These strategies including universal mask wearing, rapid testing, and isolation of infected individuals. Further, about 1,600 detainees were released to relieve overcrowding. As of the most recent update, the outbreak is largely under control inside the jail. Twenty nine detainees are virus-positive, along with 44 employees.

Yet an underappreciated paper published in June suggests that the virus outbreak rippled far beyond those concrete walls. Appearing in Health Affairs, a leading journal of health policy research, the study assessed the effect of jail cycling — the constant traffic of detainees, staff, visitors, vendors, and law enforcement in and out of these facilities. The analysis showed that 16 percent, or about one in every six, of all Covid-19 cases in Chicago and across Illinois could be traced to people cycling in and out of Cook County Jail. As a result, the authors reveal a strong correlation between incarceration and Covid-19 cases in the region, especially in African American communities.

According to the researchers, this is the first paper to document community spread of Covid-19 from mass incarceration. More research is now underway to determine whether the findings will generalize widely, but given that so many jails and prisons have been the site of Covid-19 hotspots, the authors suggest that their findings will be broadly relevant. The study ties into a larger body of literature on incarceration as a public health crisis, which many say deserves renewed attention in light of the Covid-19 pandemic.

Indeed, prior studies show that the formerly incarcerated face a higher risk of premature death and are more likely to experience asthma, certain cancers, hypertension, substance abuse, mental illness, and infectious diseases such as tuberculosis and hepatitis C. Emerging literature suggests that the female partners and children of incarcerated men experience negative health effects, too. Because African Americans are incarcerated at five to six times the rate of Whites — and are sentenced more severely than Whites for similar crimes — these health disparities disproportionately impact Black communities.

Cook County Jail processes about 100,000 people each year. Early in the pandemic, the jail cycling exerted a “multiplier” effect on new infections, researchers believe. Former detainees were released to communities mostly across Chicago and Cook County, but many ranged farther. The data show that between February and April, each person who cycled through the jail was responsible for an average of 2.2 new Covid-19 infections across the state. People living in Peoria, for example, were indicated to be at increased risk of exposure to the novel coronavirus because of conditions at a jail more than 150 miles away, the findings suggest.

 

To document the role of jail cycling in Covid-19 community spread, the researchers utilized data broken down by zip code. They analyzed the relationship between jail cycling and the rate of Covid-19 by looking at the number of detainees released to each zip code and the corresponding number of infections, while also analyzing other variables that might have influenced transmission rates. Their findings were striking: “Jail-community cycling far exceeds race, poverty, public transit use, and population density as a predictor” of the spread of Covid-19 infections, the authors wrote.

African Americans comprise about 30 percent of Chicago’s population but are almost 75 percent of the detainee population at Cook County Jail. They also represent a plurality — 42 percent — of the city’s Covid-19 deaths. Jail cycling is much more common among residents living in African American communities because of hyper-policing and racial bias across the criminal justice system, said the Health Affairs paper’s lead author, Eric Reinhart, a fourth-year medical student at the University of Chicago Pritzker School of Medicine who is also completing a Ph.D. in anthropology at Harvard. This could account for the significant racial disparities in the spread and impact of Covid-19 across the country, he said.

The idea for the research came from observations made inside Cook County Jail while interviewing detainees as part of his doctoral research, Reinhart said. The jail processes about 300 people every day. They stand in line or sit and wait, sometimes for hours and always in crowded spaces. “If one of those people is infected with SARS-CoV-2,” Reinhart said, “by the end of that processing period, a lot of other people are going to be exposed.”

From his vantage point inside the jail, the problem was obvious: “I thought, this is definitely going to be an important driver of community spread of Covid-19.”

Spokespersons for the Cook County Sheriff’s Office have strongly criticized the paper, noting that the analysis wasn’t able to prove that infections inside the jail caused infections in the broader community. “It is equality plausible that Covid-19 positive people coming from the community introduced infection into the jail, or simply that these communities have high infection rates independent of the jail,” wrote Stephanie R. Black, a physician-epidemiologist with the Chicago Department of Public Health, in a June 19 letter to the executive editor of Health Affairs.

 

For his part, Reinhart doesn’t dispute that some positive cases came into the jail from the community: “The jail doesn’t create cases out of nothing. No one is saying that.” Instead, he said, “the jail seems to act as a multiplier” that ultimately leads to even more infections after detainees are released into communities.

The researchers have collected additional longitudinal data showing relatively low rates of Covid-19 infection in Chicago beginning in March. The neighborhood infection rates spiked three weeks later, he said, after the jail rapidly released hundreds of detainees.

More research will help determine how well the Health Affairs findings generalize to other regions, but there’s reason to believe this could be happening across the country. About 2.3 million people are detained in state and federal prisons, local jails, and juvenile detention facilities. Overcrowding, poor sanitary conditions, and inadequate health care have turned many jails and prisons into Covid-19 hotspots. As of October 20, more than 150,000 incarcerated people and more than 34,000 staff have tested positive, according to The Marshall Project. More than 1,300 people in total have died.


In an effort to slow the spread of the coronavirus, Illinois halted intakes from county jails to state prisons in late March, and officials in California and Oklahoma ordered similar measures. New York City released about 2,500 from Rikers Island. Up to 17,600 California inmates are expected to be released early, reports The Los Angeles Times.

The early releases are occurring alongside a broader movement to reduce the number of people held in custody from coast to coast.

“It’s shocking and shameful that they are doing what should have been done before,” said Rueben C. Warren, the director of Tuskegee University’s National Center for Bioethics in Research and Health Care, which is the first national bioethics institute to focus on medical care and clinical research in African American communities. “Why did you need a pandemic to do the right thing? African Americans are disproportionately incarcerated, and unfortunately, many are incarcerated who have not committed a crime.”

According to the Prison Policy Initiative, a nonprofit devoted to criminal justice reform, the overwhelming majority of people in local jails — about 74 percent — have not been convicted of any crime. They are awaiting trial and most cannot afford bail.

Warren predicted the pandemic’s significant racial disparities — and its likely spread across correctional facilities — in “The African American Petri Dish,” a paper he and Ronald L. Braithwaite of the Morehouse School of Medicine published in March in The Journal of Health Care for the Poor and Underserved. “Those citizens living in high density areas represent clusters of petri dishes,” they wrote, “much like the jails and prisons with disproportionately high numbers of Black and Brown people held captive (in yet another petri dish).”

The petri dish metaphor came up several times during my reporting for this column, including in an interview with Abdul El-Sayed, a physician-epidemiologist who led the Detroit Health Department from 2015 to 2017. El-Sayed has called on the CDC to pursue a national decarceration strategy during this pandemic.

 

“We know the most important way to prevent the spread of this disease is physical distancing and basic hygiene practices such as washing your hands regularly and using hand sanitizer. None of those things are possible in jails and prisons,” El-Sayed told me. “So, if you are serious about public health — which I know CDC is — then decarceration has to be a primary goal.”

The Health Affairs research, he added, “demonstrates exactly what happens when you fail to make decarceration — particularly in jails, but also in prisons — a priority. Because what happens in jails is you are creating a petri dish for the spread of this virus and then allowing people back into the world.”

To determine whether jail cycling could explain Covid-19 racial disparities nationwide, Reinhart and his co-lead author on the Health Affairs paper, Daniel L. Chen of the Toulouse School of Economics and the World Bank, are conducting a national data analysis. So far they are noticing similar trends and “a very significant association” between jail cycling and community spread, Reinhart said.

Another paper by Reinhart and Chen currently under review finds that high levels of arrests and mass incarceration could reduce or even negate the positive benefits of social distancing and stay-at-home orders in some areas. The researchers developed a statistical model to analyze each county in the country and the most significant effects are seen in counties with larger African American populations, Reinhart said.

Researchers across disciplines have long argued that hyper-policing African American communities is counterproductive and can lead to unemployment and homelessness among the formerly incarcerated, for example, as well as negative individual and community health outcomes.

“When you have the concentrated levels of incarceration that you see in the Black community, for example, those things are going to cause real problems,” said Robynn Cox, a labor economist, speaking with me from her office at the University of Southern California. Cox specializes in the economic, health, and social effects of mass incarceration. More research should be done to study the formerly incarcerated, a vulnerable population whose health can impact communities, she added.

* * *

While some states and cities have released detainees and inmates early due to the pandemic, it is possible that these efforts will allow disparities to persist. New Jersey provides a case in point. State officials fast-tracked legislation and policies to reduce sentences. “We saw some rapid policy decisions in New Jersey in mass release programs in different jurisdictions across the state. We found it was reducing incarceration,” said April Frazier Camara, director of Defender Legal Service Initiatives at the National Legal Aid and Defender Association. But, she said, White prisoners were more likely to be released through the programs. “I have not seen any strategy that also reduces racial disparities,” she said.

Some decarceration and health advocates in Chicago have made similar claims about the early releases at Cook County Jail.

Frazier Camara co-authored a recent report that aims to address these disparities by calling for “racially responsive strategies and resources” during the pandemic. The report was developed by the Black Public Defender Association and the Center for Justice Research, a think tank focused around mass incarceration reform based at Texas Southern University, a historically Black university. The “Save Black Lives” report also advocates for more research, funding and, attention to be directed toward community, social, and public health investments.

Each year in Michigan, for instance, “it costs $33,000 to incarcerate someone,” said El-Sayed. “For $33,000 you can also send someone to the University of Michigan. I would much rather invest in the latter than the former.”

* * *

Rod McCullom is a Chicago-based science journalist and reports the “Convictions” column for Undark. His work has been published by Undark, Scientific American, Nature, The Atlantic, and The Nation, among other publications.

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

I miss airport food

The pandemic has made us appreciate so many things to miss about travel. The freedom to explore the world, to meet new people, to gain the fresh perspective that comes from a change of scenery. To savor that airport food.

To me, the journey really starts at some overpriced dining chain near the departure gate. Maybe it’s just a Cibo Express where my options are limited to a yogurt and a Snapple. Maybe it’s a sports bar where strangers with carry on luggage at their feet are hurriedly downing lagers. Maybe it’s a plastic clamshell containing a dubious panini. Maybe it’s a frequent flyer lounge that offers unlimited, so-so brownies. I’m into all of it.

I didn’t grow up traveling, and have spent most of my adult life on a tight enough budget that air travel has always been a relative novelty. For an infrequent traveler, maybe a romantic fascination with the Detroit Qdoba might be understandable. But in more recent years, as I’ve done more flying for work and pleasure, I’ve grown to realize that I am not alone in truly enjoying biding that time before boarding ordering wine off a tablet and eating a hastily purchased souvenir pack of Goo Goo Clusters.

I have a colleague in Los Angeles who will always allow extra time to enjoy the dining riches of LAX before flying out. I have a pal in Paris who can tell you where to get the best pastry at Charles de Gaulle. I know that while I live closest to LaGuardia, JFK has better restaurants. And as I find myself aching for the crush and chaos of flying, I appreciate more and more that sweet in-between time that an airport provides a wanderer.

Sometimes, it’s just the way the airport meal signals the transition from one space to another that’s the appeal. There is a Belgian restaurant at Newark International and a Cafe Nero at Heathrow, and both of those entirely okay venues light up my brain with the pure joy of getting closer and then closer still to London. There is Napa Farms Market, the breakfast spot at SFO that is always my last stop in the Bay Area before I head back home. There are all the weird islands where I can charge my phone and get a glass of wine, scattered throughout our major hubs. I have a sentimental attachment to those places, in the same way that I wouldn’t enter Philadelphia without going first directly to the Reading Terminal Market for a soft pretzel.

And when I find myself randomly somewhere unfamiliar, there is something grounding — so to speak — about the familiar rituals of simply slowing down, solo or with company, to savor food and drink. On one of my last trips before the quarantine, a colleague and I found ourselves stuck in a snowstorm at the Indianapolis airport, where we went for a beer (okay, two beers) at the 317 Tap Room as we waited for our respective planes to be de-iced. The work of the meeting behind us, we sat together as friends, speaking freely and more personally in the neutral space that oasis near the tarmac provided.

Sometimes, though, the airport represents one’s perhaps only shot at a local delicacy or outpost of a famed hometown restaurant. I may be an obsessive early arriver when I fly, but I have shown up breathless as the plane doors were ready to close while changing flights in Chicago, because I’m incapable of resisting the Rick Bayless’s Tortas Frontera. Likewise, when I tell you, as a New Yorker, that the bagels in Montreal live up to all the hype, I may neglect to mention that my Montreal bagel experience is entirely confined to its airport. My limited time in Madrid took place entirely in its airport; I could go on for days about the luscious ham sandwich I had there. I’ve had pralines at the New Orleans airport and cheese at the Madison, Wisconsin one. Give me the briefest time in a city I am not even actually stepping inside the limits of, or the chance at one more item to tick off a culinary bucket list on my way out of town, and I will take it.

The experience of airport dining was radically transforming before the COVID-19 crisis curbed all our travels. Not long ago, a plane ticket could grant you entry to some genuinely fine restaurants within the airports of LA, Nashville, Seattle and beyond. One Flew South, at Atlanta’s Hartsfield-Jackson airport, innovatively promised not just elegant food but even “luxurious” atmosphere. If flying had become increasingly unpleasant, cramped and amenities-free over the last several years, airports themselves were getting nicer. Maybe if you’re the type of person who likes to roll up at the last possible moment before departure, airport eating seems like a huge waste of time. But for the nervous, overprepared, or just stuck too many times in unpredictable traffic types among us, a nourishing respite between the TSA and the cattle call of flying seems remarkably sane and civilized.

I will admit however that even when airport dining is pretty trashy, I am still a fan. A giant bowl of Pinkberry somewhere near a moving sidewalk is my idea of a perfect breakfast. A bag of cocoa-dusted almonds from the Hudson News, is delectable. I have eaten sushi at the St. Louis Lambert airport; obviously, my standards are not as high as my tolerance for risk.

I suspect that for those of us who have struggled financially in life, eating and drinking at the airport feels almost recklessly indulgent, like not sneaking candy into a movie theater and buying it outright at the concession stand. “That’s right,” I think when I nosh at an airport, “I am a sophisticated citizen of the world who doesn’t have Raisinettes in her pocket.” I’m not just traveling, I’ve arrived.

I haven’t felt like that in a while, just like I haven’t torn off that first, folded square of toilet paper from a hotel room bathroom, or watched several episodes in a row of a mediocre HBO series I was only mildly curious about. All of those small, dumb things that used to make the journey more fun. I look forward to having all of them back. I can’t wait to be out in the world again with a boarding pass waiting to be scanned. And when it finally happens, you can believe I’ll remember once again that the journey of a thousand miles begins with a pit stop at Vino Volo.

Democrats didn’t get blue wave, but some of the fastest-growing suburbs in Texas are moving left

Although they didn’t get the blue wave they expected, Democrats narrowed the gap with Republicans in five of the most competitive and populous suburban counties in Texas.

An analysis of the presidential vote in solidly suburban Collin, Denton, Fort Bend, Hays and Williamson counties, plus partly suburban Tarrant County, showed that Republicans went from an advantage of more than 180,000 total votes in those counties in 2016 to less than a thousand votes in 2020, according to the latest data.

“This was not, on a whole, a good night for Democrats, it’s not what they hoped,” said Sherri Greenberg, a professor at the University of Texas at Austin’s LBJ School of Public Affairs. “But Democrats did see some gains and some success flipping areas in the suburbs.”

After the good results in the 2018 midterm elections, Democrats had hoped to flip 10 congressional seats in 2020 as some experts predicted that the female suburban vote and a younger, more educated and more diverse population could give them an edge.

But none flipped. Although gender data at a local level is not available at this time, the senior director of the University of Houston’s Hobby School of Public Affairs, Renée Cross, said that gains by those groups were offset by Republican turnout and an unexpected level of Hispanic support for President Donald Trump.

“The Republicans did an incredibly good job in getting out to vote,” Cross said.

Meanwhile, Democrats won over many voters like 28-year-old Rachel Copeland, who said she voted for Libertarian Gary Johnson in 2016. This year, she voted for Biden, explaining that management of the COVID-19 pandemic and the economy was a big factor, but not the only one.

“I feel like the rhetoric in general has been very harmful to women, I think it’s been very harmful to people of color,” said Copeland, who considers herself a moderate. “I’m also a big believer in a woman’s right to choose. … I’m genuinely scared as a working woman what another four years of a Republican in the White House and a Republican-controlled Senate could mean for me.”

Texas Democratic Party spokesperson Abhi Rahman said that while the results in this election didn’t favor his party, the long-term trend will.

“As more Texans continue to move into the state and as more Texans continue to enter the voting rolls, this gap is going to continue to get smaller,” Rahman said. “We know there is plenty of work to be done to reclaim some of our voters in the [Rio Grande Valley] and other areas, but we know that the suburbs and urban areas have trended towards us.”

Some of Democrats’ biggest gains happened in Central Texas. Williamson County, where Trump won by 9.7% four years ago, flipped in 2020 and went to Biden by just over 1%. Hays County, which Trump won by less than 1% in 2016, gave Biden a nearly 11% victory this year. Both counties also supported Democratic U.S. Senate candidate Beto O’Rourke in the 2018 midterm elections.

Greenberg said those two counties are a perfect example of the trend that is helping Democrats in the suburbs: a growing population, particularly in demographic groups that tend to be more left-leaning. Since 2010, Williamson County alone has added more than 160,000 people, according to the U.S. Census Bureau.

“You see a growing population, a younger population, highly educated. Those kinds of voters are moving towards the Democrats,” Greenberg said.

In the Greater Houston area, Fort Bend County, which supported Hillary Clinton in 2016, was even more favorable for Biden, who won by 37,000 votes, compared with Clinton’s roughly 17,000-vote margin in 2016.

Fort Bend’s population is 811,688, and 20% of the population is Asian, according to the U.S. census.

“That county has become pretty solidly Democratic, and that happened quickly,” Cross said. “And it’s because of these younger, more educated and more diverse voters. It’s an example of what the Asian American vote can change.”

In North Texas, in Denton and Collin counties, Republicans expanded their margins from the 2018 midterms, but compared with the 2016 presidential election, Democrats narrowed the gap: In Denton County, Trump’s 20% victory in 2016 shrunk to 8.1% this year, while his margin in Collin County fell from 16% to 4.6%.

Meanwhile in Tarrant County, where Fort Worth is surrounded by a tapestry of suburbs, counting is still ongoing, but the latest results show that Democrats might be able to flip the county.

Not all suburban counties became as competitive as Tarrant. In Montgomery County, north of Houston, where more than 270,000 people voted, Republicans still had a comfortable 44% margin in 2020, 7% less than in the 2016 presidential election.

Craig Lewellyn, who was the campaign manager for reelected U.S. Rep. Kevin Brady, R-The Woodlands, said Republicans in Montgomery County pushed the message of being a party that makes it easier for people to work, to buy a home and to start a family.

“The elected officials in the county, from Kevin Brady all the way to county commissioners, are very active in the community,” Lewellyn said. “A lot of lessons can be learned from the people in Montgomery County about how to stay present and not take your status as a red pillar for granted.”

The question that will hang over Texas politics for the near future is whether Democrats will continue growing their support in the suburbs or whether they have hit a ceiling.

“I think we need to rethink how we talk about the blue wave,” said Brandon Rottinghaus, political science professor at the University of Houston. “It’s more like a blue flood: It doesn’t come all at once, it comes steadily. And it’s unlikely to be something that just washes over everybody all at once. It’s going to affect some places more than others.”

But after those predictions of a blue wave failed to materialize this year, Cross said, Democrats will need to temper their expectations.

“Texas is a Republican state. It’s certainly changing, we saw it with how close Beto came in 2016, and the demographics have changed drastically,” Cross said. “But you can’t change a one-party state overnight. Some people’s expectations were too high.”

Disclosure: The University of Texas at Austin – LBJ School of Public Affairs and the University of Houston have been financial supporters of The Texas Tribune, a nonprofit, nonpartisan news organization that is funded in part by donations from members, foundations and corporate sponsors. Financial supporters play no role in the Tribune’s journalism. Find a complete list of them here.

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

“The Reagans” shows how the Gipper paved the way for political actors pretending they aren’t racist

Forty years after Ronald Reagan’s ascent to the presidency his legacy is still treated with kid gloves. Centrist Democrats seeking to find common ground with Republicans quote him as if he were a saint, the modern example of a conservative with bipartisan appeal save for, you know, a few mistakes he could not recall. In 2003 CBS was set to air a fictionalized miniseries that romanticized Ronald and Nancy Reagan but was hounded by the GOP until the network shunted it off to Showtime, the same network airing Matt Tyrnauer’s new docuseries “The Reagans,”

“The Reagans” doesn’t adequately dig into who Ron and Nancy were or tell us much of anything we don’t already know about them within its four hours. But at some point somebody should.

This missed opportunity is but one on a list that anyone seeking to understand Reagan’s presidency will lament after spending time with it. “The Reagans” isn’t terrible, but merely serviceable – not particularly flattering, but not all that enlightening either.

At least the premiere’s timing is fortuitous, given Tyrnauer’s focus on the Reagans as conduits for the Republican mission to bring the Southern strategy into full fruition within the Republican party. There’s also ample reason to presume that many people are ignorant as to the very basic facts about the less flattering side of Reagan’s history beyond the catchy aphorisms about “morning in America” or the shining city on the hill mythology.

From the very start, the director’s intention to link then to now is crystalline when journalist Lesley Stahl recalls a Reagan observation that stuck with her over the years. “‘If you are not a good actor, you cannot be a good president,'” she recalls him saying, “And it came to pass. If someone’s running for president and they are not willing to do what an actor does – look good, read your lines well – you cannot lead.”

This bit of implication plays well in 2020. Beyond it, much of the series’ early examination of Reagan’s rise in politics is relatively shallow, leaning heavily on shots from old Hollywood to reinforce the mythmaking nature of the actor’s initial forays into politics, and the similarities between Hollywood political machinery and the one grinding up Washington.

Observations from son Ron Reagan lend additional insight into the president and First Lady as parents and private people and serve to remind us that in spite of their flaws, they’re still human beings. Nevertheless, what Reagan lends is limited. His father enacted destructive policies that hurt America’s poorest even though he grew up in a family that benefited from many of the same government safety nets he ripped away. It would be fascinating to find out what fueled such a lack of empathy, but I regret to inform you that tax reform activist and right wing lickspittle Grover Norquist has no answers.

To watch “The Reagans” and hear Tyrnauer’s relatively limited gallery of experts describe the direct parallels between Reagan and Donald Trump without explicitly mentioning the latter is a reminder that Trump represents the apotheosis of a destructive political ideology as opposed to an aberration.

Reagan had moves way back when that are easily recognizable to anyone who spent the last five years drowning in Trumpland. “Make American Great Again” is directly cribbed from the Gipper; if you weren’t aware of that the series handily reminds us this is the case. As civil rights activist Maya Riley puts it, “Reagan’s genius was that he wrapped his racism in a façade of fatherly love. And it was something that Black people in this country understood was a façade. And we understood it from his words and his deeds.”

Several of the film’s experts use the term “genius” in reference to Reagan, but the documentary doesn’t adequately make the case for his genius. Instead “The Reagans” chips away at the veneer of folksy character surrounding the man by peeling back the rhetoric to spell out the true meaning behind noble sounding terms such as “small government,” which sounds like it’s preaching support for putting more money back into the pockets of regular Americans but is actually a cover for cementing power and privilege for the upper class.

Presumably if you’re reading this, you have survived the last 30 years of right wing partisan hackery and therefore you already know this. You might also know that Reagan is the first president to hoodwink the working class into voting against their best interests, because to do otherwise would also benefit non-white folks, which “The Reagans” also points out.

At least it’s a helpful reminder of the main difference between Reagan and America’s outgoing president: Trump dispensed with the racist subtext Reagan pushed in the ’80s and simply made white supremacy his main text.  

And while that isn’t as effective now as it might have been, given that Reagan won the presidency in 1980 with 489 of 538 electoral votes, and only received 14% of the African American vote, 73 million voters tell us that marketing racial animus to white voters is still pretty darn effective.

And while “The Reagans” leaves the viewer wanting in terms of adequately examining the extent of Nancy’s influence over Ronald and how that may have manifested in terms of the policies he enacted, where the series is at its best is in examining the method by which Reagan tweaked racist messaging into coded language that spoke to white Americans’ racist angst while allowing them to profess that they aren’t saying anything racist.

His earliest messages weren’t particularly well-disguised as the documentary shows in a commercial featuring Reagan describing California city streets as “jungle paths” and claiming “the jungle is closing in on this little patch that we’ve been civilizing” in the wake of the Watts riots. We’re still hearing some of it parroted back at us today. “Law and order,” anyone?

Still, some of Reagan’s greatest hits are breezed on by. “The Reagans” does a decent job of addressing how he sold out unions and dismantled social programs in the name of saving taxpayer dollars and progress while demonizing poor Black women as “welfare queens.”

But I would trade in the time spent galloping through Reagan’s early film career to receive more insight about his and Nancy’s abject ignorance to America’s LGBTQIA+ community’s cries for help when AIDS was tearing through the country during his administration. Indeed, many of the scandals we closely associated with Reagan are hastily shuffled into the fourth hour, along with the requisite “Tear down this wall” soundbite.

Eight years of Reagan produced a legacy we’re still grappling with. It’s a shame that four hours of “The Reagans” doesn’t do a better job of helping us to better understand what his part in reshaping America back then implies about our future.

The first episode of “The Reagans”  premieres Sunday, Nov. 15 at 8 p.m. on Showtime.

In a looking-glass world: Our work is just beginning

In the chaos of this moment, it seems likely that Joe Biden will just squeeze into the presidency and that he’ll certainly win the popular vote, Donald Trump’s Mussolini-like behavior and election night false claim of victory notwithstanding. Somehow, it all brings another moment in my life to mind.

Back in October 2016, my friends and I frequently discussed the challenges progressives would face if the candidate we expected to win actually entered the Oval Office. There were so many issues to worry about back then. The Democratic candidate was an enthusiastic booster of the U.S. armed forces and believed in projecting American power through its military presence around the world. Then there was that long record of promoting harsh sentencing laws and the disturbing talk about “the kinds of kids that are called superpredators — no conscience, no empathy.”

In 2016, the country was already riven by deep economic inequality. While Hillary Clinton promised “good-paying jobs” for those struggling to stay housed and buy food, we didn’t believe it. We’d heard the same promises so many times before, and yet the federal minimum wage was still stuck where it had been ever since 2009, at $7.25 an hour. Would a Clinton presidency really make a difference for working people? Not if we didn’t push her — and hard.

The candidate we were worried about was never Donald Trump, but Hillary Clinton. And the challenge we expected to confront was how to shove that quintessential centrist a few notches to the left. We were strategizing on how we might organize to get a new administration to shift government spending from foreign wars to human needs at home and around the world. We wondered how people in this country might finally secure the “peace dividend” that had been promised to us in the period just after the Cold War, back when her husband Bill became president. In those first (and, as it turned out, only) Clinton years, what we got instead was so-called welfare reform whose consequences are still being felt today, as layoffs drive millions into poverty.

We doubted Hillary Clinton’s commitment to addressing most of our other concerns as well: mass incarceration and police violence, structural racism, economic inequality, and most urgent of all (though some of us were just beginning to realize it), the climate emergency. In fact, nationwide, people like us were preparing to spend a day or two celebrating the election of the first woman president and then get down to work opposing many of her anticipated policies. In the peace and justice movements, in organized labor, in community-based organizations, in the two-year-old Black Lives Mattermovement, people were ready to roll.

And then the unthinkable happened. The woman we might have loved to hate lost that election and the white-supremacist, woman-hating monster we would grow to detest entered the Oval Office.

For the last four years, progressives have been fighting largely to hold onto what we managed to gain during Barack Obama’s presidency: an imperfect healthcare plan that nonetheless insured millions of Americans for the first time; a signature on the Paris climate accord and another on a six-nation agreement to prevent Iran from pursuing nuclear weapons; expanded environmental protections for public lands; the opportunity for recipients of Deferred Action for Childhood Arrivals — DACA — status to keep on working and studying in the U.S.

For those same four years, we’ve been fighting to hold onto our battered capacity for outrage in the face of continual attacks on simple decency and human dignity. There’s no need to recite here the catalogue of horrors Donald Trump and his spineless Republican lackeys visited on this country and the world. Suffice it to say that we’ve been living like Alice in Through the Looking Glass, running as hard as we can just to stand still. That fantasy world’s Red Queen observes to a panting Alice that she must come from

“A slow sort of country! Now, here, you see, it takes all the running you can do to keep in the same place. If you want to get somewhere else, you must run at least twice as fast as that!”

It wasn’t simply the need to run faster than full speed just in order to stay put that made Trump World so much like Looking-Glass Land. It’s that, just as in Lewis Carroll’s fictional world, reality has been turned inside out in the United States. As new Covid-19 infections reached an all-time high of more than 100,000 in a single day and the cumulative death toll surpassed 230,000, the president in the mirror kept insisting that “we’re rounding the corner” (and a surprising number of Americans seemed to believe him). He neglected to mention that, around that very corner, a coronaviral bus is heading straight toward us, accelerating as it comes. In a year when, as NPR reported, “Nearly 1 in 4 households have experienced food insecurity,” Trump just kept bragging about the stock market and reminding Americans of how well their 401k’s were doing — as if most people even had such retirement accounts in the first place.

Trump World, Biden Nation, or something better?

After four years of running in place, November 2016 seems like a lifetime ago. The United States of 2020 is a very different place, at once more devastated and more hopeful than at least we were a mere four years ago. On the one hand, pandemic unemployment has hit women, especially women of color, much harder than men, driving millions out of the workforce, many permanently. On the other, we’ve witnessed the birth of the #MeToo movement against sexual harassment and of the Time’s Up Legal Defense Fund, which has provided millions of dollars for working-class women to fight harassment on the job. In a few brief years, physical and psychological attacks on women have ceased to be an accepted norm in the workplace. Harassment certainly continues every day, but the country’s collective view of it has shifted.

Black and Latino communities still face daily confrontations with police forces that act more like occupying armies than public servants. The role of the police as enforcers of white supremacy hasn’t changed in most parts of the country. Nonetheless, the efforts of the Black Lives Matter movement and of the hundreds of thousands of people who demonstrated this summer in cities nationwide have changed the conversation about the police in ways no one anticipated four years ago. Suddenly, the mainstream media are talking about more than body cams and sensitivity training. In June 2020, the New York Times ran an op-ed entitled, “Yes, We Mean Literally Abolish the Police,” by Miramne Kaba, an organizer working against the criminalization of people of color. Such a thing was unthinkable four years ago.

In the Trumpian pandemic moment, gun purchases have soared in a country that already topped the world by far in armed citizens. And yet young people — often led by young women — have roused themselves to passionate and organized action to get guns off the streets of Trump Land. After a gunman shot up Emma Gonzalez’s school in Parkland, Florida, she famously announced, “We call BS” on the claims of adults who insisted that changing the gun laws was unnecessary and impossible. She led the March for Our Lives, which brought millions onto the streets in this country to denounce politicians’ inaction on gun violence.

While Donald Trump took the U.S. out of the Paris climate agreement, Greta Thunberg, the 17-year-old Swedish environmental activist, crossed the Atlantic in a carbon-neutral sailing vessel to address the United Nations, demanding of the adult world “How dare you” leave it to your children to save an increasingly warming planet:

“You have stolen my dreams and my childhood with your empty words. And yet I’m one of the lucky ones. People are suffering. People are dying. Entire ecosystems are collapsing. We are in the beginning of a mass extinction, and all you can talk about is money and fairy tales of eternal economic growth. How dare you!”

“How dare you?” is a question I ask myself every time, as a teacher, I face a classroom of college students who, each semester, seem both more anxious about the future and more determined to make it better than the present.

Public attention is a strange beast. Communities of color have known for endless years that the police can kill them with impunity, and it’s not as if people haven’t been saying so for decades. But when such incidents made it into the largely white mainstream media, they were routinely treated as isolated events — the actions of a few bad apples — and never as evidence of a systemic problem. Suddenly, in May 2020, with the release of a hideous video of George Floyd’s eight-minute murder in Minneapolis, Minnesota, systematic police violence against Blacks became a legitimate topic of mainstream discussion.

The young have been at the forefront of the response to Floyd’s murder and the demands for systemic change that have followed. This June in my city of San Francisco, where police have killed at least five unarmed people of color in the last few years, high school students planned and led tens of thousands of protesters in a peaceful march against police violence.

Now that the election season has reached its drawn-out crescendo, there is so much work ahead of us. With the pandemic spreading out of control, it’s time to begin demanding concerted federal action, even from this most malevolent president in history. There’s no waiting for Inauguration Day, no matter who takes the oath of office on January 20th. Many thousands more will die before then.

And isn’t it time to turn our attention to the millions who have lost their jobs and face the possibility of losing their housing, too, as emergency anti-eviction decrees expire? Isn’t it time for a genuine congressional response to hunger, not by shoring up emergency food distribution systems like food pantries, but by putting dollars in the hands of desperate Americans so they can buy their own food? Congress must also act on the housing emergency. The Centers for Disease Control and Prevention’s “Temporary Halt in Residential Evictions To Prevent the Further Spread of Covid-19” only lasts until December 31st and it doesn’t cover tenants who don’t have a lease or written rental agreement. It’s crucial, even with Donald Trump still in the White House as the year begins, that it be extended in both time and scope. And now Senate Republican leader Mitch McConnell has said that he won’t even entertain a new stimulus bill until January.

Another crucial subject that needs attention is pushing Congress to increase federal funding to state and local governments, which so often are major economic drivers for their regions. The Trump administration and McConnell not only abandoned states and cities, leaving them to confront the pandemic on their own just as a deep recession drastically reduced tax revenues, but — in true looking-glass fashion — treated their genuine and desperate calls for help as mere Democratic Party campaign rhetoric.

“In short, there is still much to do”

My favorite scene in Gillo Pontecorvo’s classic 1966 film The Battle of Algiers takes place at night on a rooftop in the Arab quarter of that city. Ali La Pointe, a passionate recruit to the cause of the National Liberation Front (NLF), which is fighting to throw the French colonizers out of Algeria, is speaking with Ben M’Hidi, a high-ranking NLF official. Ali is unhappy that the movement has called a general strike in order to demonstrate its power and reach to the United Nations. He resents the seven-day restriction on the use of firearms. “Acts of violence don’t win wars,” Ben M’Hidi tells Ali. “Finally, the people themselves must act.”

For the last four years, Donald Trump has made war on the people of this country and indeed on the people of the entire world. He’s attacked so many of us, from immigrant children at the U.S. border to anyone who tries to breathe in the fire-choked states of California, Oregon, Washington, and most recently Colorado. He’s allowed those 230,000 Americans to die in a pandemic that could have been controlled and thrown millions into poverty, to mention just a few of his “war” crimes. Finally, the people themselves must act.

On that darkened rooftop in an eerie silence, Ben M’Hidi continues his conversation with La Pointe. “You know, Ali,” he says. “It’s hard enough to start a revolution, even harder to sustain it, and hardest of all to win it.” He pauses, then continues, “But it’s only afterwards, once we’ve won, that the real difficulties begin. In short, there is still much to do.”

It’s hard enough to vote out a looking-glass president. But it’s only once we’ve won, whether that’s now or four years from now, that the real work begins. There is, indeed, still much to do.

Copyright 2020 Rebecca Gordon

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

Joe Biden is the PTSD president we need

I have a t-shirt that says “SETTLE FOR BIDEN.” I was an Elizabeth Warren supporter who who spent much of the past year baffled over how this often problematic elderly man whose chief allure seemed to have been proximity to Obama could possibly ascend to the presidency of the United States of America.

I wore that shirt all summer long, as it garnered approving nods from fellow wearily resigned voters here in New York City. I was wearing it on Saturday, in a small town upstate, as the news came in of Biden’s victory. But then on Saturday night, I watched Joe Biden give his socially distanced victory speech in a parking lot in Delaware. And suddenly, I was all in. This man, he’s our guy. Because what America needs right now isn’t charisma. It definitely isn’t a mandate of “F__k your feelings.” It’s someone who understands suffering. Knows it the way Joe Biden does.

Biden’s track record with personal catastrophe is an integral part of his public persona. On December 18, 1972, one month after his election to the Senate, his wife and baby daughter were killed in a car accident that also seriously injured his young sons Hunter and Beau. In 2015, Beau died of brain cancer at the age of 46. His surviving son Hunter has struggled with addiction. And as he’s faced each devastating crisis, Biden has carved his identity around it. As Delaware Senator Chris Coons told Politico in 2019, the president-elect “has almost a superpower in his ability to comfort and listen and connect with people who have just suffered the greatest loss of their lives.” In other words, basically everybody right now.

It would be fantastic enough just to have a leader who respects science and diplomacy and knows how to turn off caps lock; you could stop right there, and the world would exhale a sigh of relief. But what will guide the Biden era is the example of empathy. A presidency for our PTSD.

There are moments in history that require somebody with real world experience of being broken. Whatever you think of Bill Clinton (and I, too, have many thoughts), his presidency was in no small way won in 1992 on his oft-mocked “I feel your pain” position. “I understand that you’re hurting,” he told an audience at a campaign stop, “but you won’t stop hurting by trying to hurt other people.” He sealed the deal during the debates, when he elegantly answered a question about on how recession affected him personally. “When people lose their jobs, there is a good chance I know them by their name,” he said. “If the factory closes, I know the people who ran it.” George H.W. Bush simply did not.

Barack Obama similarly marked his presidency with his particular gift for understanding grief — the grief of parents, the grief of communities. “When Trayvon Martin was first shot,” he said in 2013, “I said that this could have been my son. Another way of saying that is, Trayvon Martin could have been me 35 years ago,” Obama said in a White House press briefing. “And when you think about why in the African-American community at least there is a lot of pain around what happened here, I think it’s important to recognize that the African-American community is looking at this issue through a set of experiences and a history that doesn’t go away.”

In contrast, when George Floyd was killed earlier this year, Trump called it “terrible,” but then replied to a journalist who asked, “Why are African Americans still dying at the hands of law enforcement?” by saying, “What a terrible question to ask. So are white people. More white people by the way. More white people.”

And you need only watch Trump’s dead-eyed performance after the 2018 mass shooting at Marjory Stoneman Douglas High School to see his fundamental inability to connect. “Answer hate with love; answer cruelty with kindness,” he read off the teleprompter, as if he were sounding out a foreign language. After the 2019 mass shooting in El Paso, Trump took the moment to praise heroic Army specialist Glendon Oakley — whose name he didn’t seem to recall — by noting, “You could be a movie star, the way you look. That’ll be next. Who knows, right?” It was as if he’d forgotten he wasn’t at a dinner party.

Empathy is a simple concept to grasp. Either you can put yourself in someone else’s place or you can’t. Either you can feel their pain or you can say “f**k your feelings.” Consider how John McCain’s five years as a prisoner of war guided his opposition to the use of torture as an interrogation tool. Donald Trump, meanwhile, called him a loser, on the rationale that he “like[s] people that weren’t captured.”

Joe Biden, a military dad, doesn’t see our service men and women in that light. If you want to see fired up Joe in action, watch him talk about the “unseen wounds” that veterans endure, the suicide rate among them. If you want to see him vulnerable, watch him with the parents who’ve lost their children in the armed forces. “Just when you think you will make it, you pass a field, or hear a tune on the radio, or look up at the night sky, and you feel the same as the moment you got the news,” he said in 2012. “You say, ‘Maybe I’m not going to make it.’ ” That blunt, stomach dropping, visceral re-experiencing of trauma? That’s PTSD. Biden can speak to it because he’s been there.

He likewise doesn’t do stigma, for himself or others. In the first presidential debate, Donald Trump mocked his son Hunter’s past, misleadingly claiming he’d been “thrown out” of the military for his drug use. Biden replied, ” My son, like a lot of people, like a lot of people you know at home, had a drug problem. He’s overtaken it. He’s worked on it. And I’m proud of him. I’m proud of my son.” And when Rudy Giuliani and his cronies attempted a Hunter-focused smear on Biden in October, part of the hot goods they had on the family was an alleged text from the elder Biden to Hunter while he was in rehab, telling him, “Good morning my beautiful son. I love you and miss you. Dad.” Can you seriously imagine anyone with the last name Trump sending a message like that?

I don’t need to idolize my president, because I’m not a cult member. I can vote for someone without unconditionally supporting everything he’s ever done. But I’m lately really, really grateful at the thought of someone sitting in the Oval Office who has cried, who has grieved, who felt the kind of pain that shakes you to your foundation and changes who you are. Someone who knows exactly what it feels the agony of, in his words, “an empty chair at the kitchen table this morning,” to be “that man or wife going to bed tonight reaching over to try to touch their wife or husband who is gone.” 

In a recent Harvard Business Review feature, author Nancy Koehn said that “Real leaders are not born; the ability to help others triumph over adversity is not written into their genetic code. They are, instead, made. They are forged in crisis.” Joe Biden knows about crisis. He knows that we are in crisis, and that you don’t get out of a crisis with “It is what it is” guy at the helm. Openly sobbing on CNN this weekend, Van Jones called this moment “a vindication for a lot of people who have really suffered,” a condemnation of the past four years and a recognition that “Being a good man matters.”

I think often about the scene in “Unbreakable Kimmy Schmidt” where Kimmy, an abduction and abuse survivor, is approached by a soldier who assumes she’s a veteran because “You’ve kind of got that look.” People who lived through hell, whatever that hell may be, often do that with each other. They recognize each other, they have a common language of survival. This collective pain of sickness, injustice, systemic racism and four years of psychological abuse while teetering on the precipice of destroying democracy for the whims of a tyrant is real. Thank God, it’s real to Joe Biden. He’s kind of got that look.