Dr. Anthony Fauci assures Americans they can trust credibility of COVID-19 vaccine process

Dr. Anthony Fauci downplayed concerns about the safety of a COVID-19 vaccine during a conversation Tuesday at the 2020 Texas Tribune Festival.

Fauci, the director of the National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases and a leader in the U.S. response to the novel coronavirus, said Americans should feel confident in the development and efficacy of a vaccine. This comes as a growing majority of people say they are not likely to be immunized as soon as a vaccine is available.

It’s “disturbing” that so many people are reticent to get a vaccine, he said, blaming “mixed messages that have come out of Washington” for waning public trust.

Some public officials, including President Donald Trump, have questioned the credibility of agencies such as the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention and the Food and Drug Administration during the pandemic.

Others have viewed Trump’s forecast that a vaccine could be ready by Election Day as politically motivated and expressed fears that the president might sidestep the regulatory process.

Fauci stressed that officials must reach out to their communities to “regain the confidence … that this is being done to protect them as individuals and to protect our society.”

To reach herd immunity — the point at which enough people are immune to a disease that it doesn’t spread — the community must meet a certain threshold either through vaccination or from previously contracting the virus. Experts worry that if enough people refuse a vaccine, the coronavirus will continue to spread.

Fauci said five companies have vaccines that are in advanced clinical trials, nearing the final step before seeking FDA approval.

Two companies, Moderna and Pfizer, are the furthest ahead and have shown early promising results. Moderna appears set to deliver a report to regulators by November. Pfizer, which has already begun to manufacture its vaccine so doses will be ready should it win FDA approval, could deliver its report by the end of October.

The data from each trial and at each stage is closely guarded and shared only with an independent board of scientists, statisticians and clinicians. The board decides whether a potential vaccine shows promise and should advance to the next stage.

“I feel cautiously optimistic, as a scientist, that we will have a safe and effective vaccine,” Fauci said. “I believe it will happen, and it will happen likely by this end of the calendar year.”

Even if a vaccine is ready by the year’s end, it likely will not be widely available until late 2021, experts say, because of the massive logistical challenges that come with distributing hundreds of millions of doses to every corner of the country. The first people likely to receive a vaccine are health care workers and those most at risk of contracting the virus, such as older people and those with preexisting conditions.

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

Trump’s hope for a COVID vaccine before the election? It’d take a miracle

Despite President Donald Trump’s promises of a vaccine next month and pundits’ speculation about how an “October surprise” could upend the presidential campaign, any potential vaccine would have to clear a slew of scientific and bureaucratic hurdles in record time.

In short, it would take a miracle.

We talked to companies, regulators, scientific advisers and analysts and reviewed hundreds of pages of transcripts and study protocols to understand all the steps needed for a coronavirus vaccine to be scientifically validated and cleared for public use. As you’ll see, it’s a long shot in 38 days.

There are three key milestones that must be met:

A clinical trial would need to observe enough infections to demonstrate that the vaccine is better than a placebo. Right now, Pfizer’s trial is the furthest along. Pfizer has said it expects results by the end of October, but analysts who follow the company aren’t so sure it’ll be that soon or whether the results will be conclusive.
Pfizer would have to turn its trial data into an application to the Food and Drug Administration. The company could either apply for full approval — a very high bar for proving the vaccine is safe, effective and able to be reliably manufactured by the millions of doses — or for an emergency use authorization, which is more flexible. Pfizer has said it could submit its application almost immediately.
The FDA has to review the data and decide whether the vaccine is ready to go to market. That could take several weeks to a month, said Dr. Mark McClellan, who led the FDA from 2002 to 2004.

“All of this put together makes it more likely that it’ll be a late 2020 availability,” McClellan said.

None of this is to say that Trump couldn’t suddenly call a White House press conference to try to grab headlines and declare victory. But knowing all the steps that would have to come first can help the public discern between a true, scientifically validated vaccine and a mere political stunt.

Yes, Pfizer could have trial results by the end of October.

Results from ongoing trials are closely guarded so that researchers (and investors) have no opportunity to mess with them. Under strict trial rules that vaccine makers and the FDA set up in advance, there are only a few predetermined times when a data monitoring board is scheduled to look at the data. The purpose of those check-ins (known as “interim analyses”) is to see if there’s already enough evidence to conclude that the vaccine either works or doesn’t.

According to the trial rules that Pfizer released last week, it has four of these check-ins before the final analysis. The first one occurs when 32 people in the trial get sick with COVID-19.

Yes, that is a tiny number in a study designed to enroll 30,000 participants. But it could be enough to show that the vaccine works if far more of the infections occur in people who took the placebo than in those who got the vaccine, so much so that it’s probably not random.

The vaccine “would have to be way, way better to meet an interim stopping boundary,” said Frank Harrell Jr., professor of biostatistics at Vanderbilt University.

If six or fewer of the first 32 cases are people who got the vaccine, that suggests the vaccine reduced COVID-19 cases by 76%. Under Pfizer’s trial rules, the company can then conclude that its vaccine is effective enough to submit its application to the FDA. If, on the other hand, 15 or more of the first 32 infections are people who got the vaccine, it would mean the vaccine doesn’t work and the study ends.

The better the vaccine works, the longer it would take to reach 32 cases, because fewer vaccinated people would get sick and more of the infections would have to occur in the placebo group.

So when exactly will Pfizer get to 32 cases?

Analysts at JPMorgan estimate that this first readout would occur on Oct. 31 if the vaccine is 70% effective, or on Nov. 2 if the vaccine is 80%. Their model also estimates that Pfizer is more than twice as likely to be able to file for approval at 80% effectiveness vs 70% effectiveness.

The JPMorgan analysts’ prediction is roughly in line with official public statements from Pfizer, though the company has projected even more confidence. “We have a good chance that we will know if the product works by the end of October,” CEO Albert Bourla said Sept. 13 on CBS’ “Face the Nation.”

The key thing we don’t know is how fast people in Pfizer’s trial are getting sick. The trial doesn’t intentionally expose people to the virus; it waits to see who catches it on their own. Even though the pandemic is far from under control, the coronavirus is not spreading as fast as it was a few months ago. The study started with a baseline assumption that just 1.3% of participants would be infected over the course of a year.

It’s possible that the thousands of people who signed up for Pfizer’s study could be getting sick faster or slower than that, depending on how bad the outbreak is where they are. If Pfizer’s trial infection rate is 1.5 to 2 times faster than publicly reported case counts, then Pfizer’s first readout could be Oct. 12-19 with a 70% effective vaccine, or Oct. 14-22 with 80% efficacy, according to JPMorgan’s model.

“When the trials started there were a lot more cases in the U.S. at that time,” said Dr. Vamil Divan, an analyst at the bank Mizuho. “That’s a key unknown. How many of these participants are enrolled in hotter areas versus New York or Boston?”

To protect the integrity of trials like this, the drugmakers running them aren’t supposed to know what the data is showing as it comes in. And yet, company executives have led some observers to believe they know how many people have tested positive for COVID-19.

“They’re making projections based on how rapidly they’re accruing data, and they probably know the total number of events,” said Susan Ellenberg, professor of biostatistics at the University of Pennsylvania.

“When they say things like that, first of all, it does some wonders for their stock prices,” she added.

In a statement, Pfizer said that it expects results “as early as the end of October” based on current infection rates. The trial, the company said, “was designed to evaluate the safety and efficacy of the vaccine candidate as fast as possible.”

“Having said that,” the company added, “neither Pfizer nor the FDA can move faster than the data we are generating through our clinical trial.”

It’s highly unlikely that the next front-runner, Moderna, could have results before the election. The JPMorgan analysts’ model suggests that infection rates would have to be four times the publicly reported rate for Moderna to be able to report results before Nov. 3.

Dr. Tal Zaks, Moderna’s chief medical officer, told investors on Sept. 17 that “some time in November is sort of a reasonable base case” for the first look at Moderna’s results. (ProPublica’s board chairman, Paul Sagan, is a member of Moderna’s board and a company stockholder.)

Other developers are further behind. AstraZeneca’s trial is paused in the U.S. while the company investigates what happened with a participant who had a bad reaction. Johnson & Johnson is just beginning its large-scale, end-stage trial, months behind the other three.

So Pfizer is the only company with a shot at results before the election. And if the company has results to share, it’s unlikely to let political implications get in the way. The company has an ethical obligation not to delay a product that is ready to save lives, despite the risk that a vaccine announced on the eve of a contentious election could stoke partisan perceptions.

“Once you have signs of a vaccine’s effectiveness, it’s very difficult to argue anything is ethical other than making it available to those most at risk,” Dr. Mani Foroohar, an analyst with the investment bank SVB Leerink, said. “But it’s also very difficult to make the argument that you should do anything that undermines public trust. That’s one of the problems when you introduce powerful political pressures into what is meant to be a boring, dry, unemotional process.”

Once Pfizer gets results, it’s poised to seek the FDA’s go-ahead swiftly.

As soon as Pfizer has conclusive data, it will submit an application to the FDA. The application will include data from all previous trials as well as proof that the company can consistently manufacture millions of vaccine doses.

Pfizer’s CEO has indicated that the company is ready to turn around its application in a flash, if not on the same day it has results. “We will try to be able to be ready to submit with the speed of light, once we have the results ready,” Bourla said at an investor presentation on Sept. 16.

Pfizer has two options when submitting its FDA application. It can apply for an EUA or a full approval, known as a biologics license application, or BLA. An EUA would only allow Pfizer to market its vaccine for the pandemic’s duration — during the declared “emergency” period that we are currently in. If the company receives full licensure, on the other hand, its product can remain on the market forever. In its statement, Pfizer said it plans to continue its study after a possible EUA to collect more long-term data.

The bar for an EUA is lower than for full approval. By law, an EUA can be issued so long as “the product may be effective in diagnosing, treating, or preventing” the disease and “the known and potential benefits of the product … outweigh the known and potential risks.” In contrast, the standard for a full approval requires a drugmaker to prove not only that the product is safe and effective, but also that the product is pure and can be consistently made, because vaccines are biological products made from living materials.

For the COVID-19 vaccine, the FDA has said that it is going to raise the bar for an EUA, going beyond the usual requirements. Previously, the FDA has said a vaccine should be at least 50% effective. The FDA is reportedly close to announcing new standards to include at least two months of monitoring the health of trial participants after they receive their second shot. That could end up being the biggest hurdle to authorizing a vaccine before the election. Trump said on Wednesday that he might reject the new guidelines, but companies and FDA officials might still choose to observe them.

In a statement, the FDA said that “for a vaccine for which there is adequate manufacturing information,” an EUA “may be appropriate once studies have demonstrated the safety and effectiveness of the vaccine but before the manufacturer has submitted and/or the FDA has completed its formal review of the biologics license application.”

Pfizer said in a statement that it anticipates providing the agency safety data, including the median of two months safety information after the second dose, on a rolling basis. The trial has enrolled more than 31,000 participants, and 19,000 have received the second dose so far, the company said.

“The standards FDA is reportedly considering for a covid vaccine EUA represent appropriate balance between speed and safety in a crisis,” Dr. Scott Gottlieb, who led the FDA earlier in the Trump administration and serves on Pfizer’s board, tweeted on Thursday. “Even under EUA; you want higher assurance of safety and benefit for vaccine given to healthy people vs. drug given to those already sick.”

“Any political effort to shortcut [the] process or degrade reasonable standards will be [a] Pyrrhic victory if people lack confidence in a vaccine,” Gottlieb added.

The FDA will thoroughly review the application, and that’ll take a while.

Once the FDA receives a company’s submission, the agency’s review process consists of several steps which, put together, could take weeks to complete.

The FDA is the only health regulator in the world that asks drugmakers for raw data files and does its own analysis, said Dr. Joshua Sharfstein, the FDA’s former principal deputy commissioner from 2009 to 2011. “Now would not be the moment to stop” that practice, he said, despite the urgent need for a vaccine.

Besides reviewing clinical trial data, the FDA also inspects vaccine developers’ manufacturing capabilities to ensure that every vaccine batch can be made consistently and that the process is squeaky clean, so that no impurities can make their way into a vial of product. This process involves a lot of paperwork sent from the companies to the agency and also, usually, on-site inspections at manufacturing plants. The agency declined to comment on whether it had already completed on-site inspections for Pfizer and Moderna.

After the FDA finishes its assessment of the company’s application, it typically presents the data to an external advisory committee in a public meeting. Dr. Peter Marks, director of the Center for Biologics Evaluation and Research, has said that the agency is committed to holding advisory committee meetings to review individual vaccine candidates.

Those meetings will take time to schedule, but it’s an essential step, according to experts both inside and outside the agency.

“How will [the public] know that we’re not, like, holding something in and sweeping something under the rug? Well, the way they’re going to know that is because any vaccine that we issue an emergency use authorization for will go to a public advisory committee meeting,” Marks said in a Sept. 10 webinar hosted by the Duke Margolis Center for Health Policy. “It’ll be critical for people to see what’s in the briefing packages, they’ll be able to see the discussion among an impartial group of advisers, they’ll see the committee recommendation and they’ll see the public dialogue that will take place at that committee.”

Advisory committee members vote on whether they recommend product approval. While the FDA does not have to follow the committee’s recommendations, the votes are public.

“It protects against political interference — it’s important,” Sharfstein said.

We contacted every advisory committee member and interviewed six of them about how they would evaluate an EUA application for a COVID-19 vaccine. These members (speaking for themselves, not for the FDA) indicated they would expect to see a level of evidence that could be tough to meet in the next 38 days.

One factor in their caution is that a premature EUA could make it harder to definitively evaluate an effective vaccine, because subjects in ongoing trials may drop out and new enrollments in trials with placebos would no longer be feasible.

“If an EUA came too soon where we don’t have sufficient clinical efficacy data, it would make it very hard to actually complete the study as written,” Dr. Paul Spearman, director of infectious diseases at Cincinnati Children’s Hospital, said. “You would want to have enough clinical efficacy data by the time of an EUA to be pretty darn certain.”

Another committee member is Dr. Archana Chatterjee, dean of the Chicago Medical School at Rosalind Franklin University of Science and Medicine. She also expressed caution about basing a hugely consequential decision on such a small number of cases, like the 32 in Pfizer’s first look.

“It’s hard for me to say with these small numbers will we have meaningful data to make a decision on,” Chatterjee said. “I have not made up my mind on any of this because I need to see and discuss with colleagues what the data are and what the implications might be.”

One option would be for the FDA to grant an EUA for a specific group of people, such as health care workers or the elderly, who are more vulnerable to COVID-19.

The data would have to support a specific vaccine use that aligns with a recognized unmet medical need, said Dr. Michael Kurilla, an advisory committee member and the director of the Division of Clinical Innovation at the National Center for Advancing Translational Sciences, part of the National Institutes of Health. For example, it’s possible a vaccine could work well in young people but not so well in older people. In that case, it might not be that beneficial, because older people are much more vulnerable to serious disease.

“It’s not simply a matter of saying we will EUA this product,” Kurilla said. “We have to be very careful to define what it is we’re trying to address.”

Dr. Paul Offit, director of the vaccine education center at the Children’s Hospital of Philadelphia, said he would like to see robust safety data, to make sure there are no neurological side effects, from Pfizer and Moderna. Both companies are developing so-called mRNA vaccines, a type of vaccine technology that has never been approved before. He noted that most people who get vaccines are healthy, so the bar for letting a vaccine go to market is necessarily much higher than for treatments intended for severely ill COVID-19 patients.

Finally, the FDA considers the committee’s advice and makes its final decision on whether it will greenlight the product. Normally, the FDA aims to review applications for full approval within 10 months for standard reviews and six months for priority reviews.

It’s unclear exactly how quickly an EUA review can be completed for the COVID-19 vaccine. The only other vaccine that has ever received an EUA was an anthrax vaccine, but it’s not a useful comparison because the vaccine was already in use and the 2005 authorization was granted to allow the US. Department of Defense to resume giving the shots to military personnel after the mandatory vaccination program had been suspended.

Some steps could potentially be skipped when doing a review for an EUA as compared with a full approval, according to McClellan, the former FDA commissioner. For example, any vaccines needed for this pandemic won’t need long-term storage, because they’ll all be used quickly, so companies won’t need to run tests and demonstrate to the agency that their vaccines can be stored for months on end. But to receive full approval, the agency might require that.

Still, McClellan estimated, the agency’s review process from the time it receives an application to issuing an EUA could take up to a month.

All of this is just to get to yes on a vaccine. Getting shots in millions of people’s arms is another story. The two vaccine front-runners from Pfizer and Moderna pose additional logistical challenges because they have to be kept frozen.

What could go wrong?

Having read through all these steps, you can start to see the points where the process could break down and how the public might find out about it.

If a company lowers the bar for efficacy. The first four vaccine contenders have all released their clinical trial rules (Pfizer, Moderna, AstraZeneca and Johnson & Johnson), so the public should be able to assess whether the shots have met the companies’ own standards to prove it works. If they unexpectedly change their schedules or the standards, that’s concerning.
If the FDA backtracks on its commitment to consult the independent advisory board, or if the agency’s leaders reject the committee’s advice, it would be a sign that they’re acting under political pressure without scientific support.
If FDA career scientists get overruled by political appointees, that would also be a major sign of political pressure. The decision on whether or not to authorize a vaccine will fall on Marks, head of the biologics division. FDA Commissioner Stephen Hahn, however, has authority to overrule Marks’ decision, and Secretary Alex Azar of the Department of Health and Human Services has the right to further overturn Hahn’s call.
If FDA officials quit. Marks has said he’d resign if the agency authorizes an unproven or unsafe vaccine.

Ultimately, the FDA and everyone involved in vaccine development are seeking the perfect balance between speed and caution: Faced with a deadly virus that’s taken the lives of more than 200,000 Americans and upended life, devastating the economy and tearing away the livelihoods of so many, of course there is an imperative not to waste any time and an urgent desire for a vaccine.

Yet a bad vaccine could do more harm than good, and even the perception of a vaccine that is not thoroughly vetted could be just as bad, if the public doesn’t feel confident in taking it.

“A vaccine only works if it’s safe, effective and administered,” meaning people have to be willing to take it, said Bruce Mehlman, a political adviser to companies at the lobbying firm Mehlman Castagnetti Rosen & Thomas. (He doesn’t represent any pharmaceutical clients.) “If it becomes another culture war football like masks, it will not help us get past the virus and return to normal.”

It’s unlikely we’ll see a vaccine authorized in October, but to ensure the shot is safe, effective, pure and trustworthy, waiting a little longer with the knowledge that no steps have been skipped may be well worth it.

ProPublica is a nonprofit newsroom that investigates abuses of power. Sign up to receive our biggest stories as soon as they’re published.

Right-wing trolls Jacob Wohl and Jack Burkman charged with felony voter intimidation

Right-wing provocateurs Jacob Wohl and Jack Burkman were charged Thursday with multiple felony counts of voter intimidation for allegedly executing a series of robocalls designed to suppress vote-by-mail turnout in Michigan, according to authorities in the state.

Michigan Attorney General Dana Nessel charged Wohl, 22, and Burkman, 54, with four counts of voter intimidation and conspiracy, including using a computer to commit the crime of conspiracy. Each charge carries a sentence of between five and seven years, with a maximum combined total of 24 years in prison.

State officials alleged that the duo “attempted to discourage voters from participating in the general election by creating and funding a robocall targeted at certain urban areas, including Detroit.” The calls, which warned people about getting “BS’d into giving your private information to the man,” reached nearly 12,000 residents when they were placed last month, according to a statement.

The recordings falsely told recipients that mail-in ballots could be used to “track down old warrants,” “collect outstanding debt” and “track people for mandatory vaccines.”

“Stay safe and beware of vote by mail,” the calls concluded.

“Any effort to interfere with, intimidate or intentionally mislead Michigan voters will be met with swift and severe consequences,” Nessel’s statement said. The calls, she said, pose “grave consequences for our democracy and the principles upon which it was built,” pointing out that Wohl and Burkman had specifically targeted minority voters.

“Michigan voters are entitled to a full, free and fair election in November and my office will not hesitate to pursue those who jeopardize that,” Nessel said.

Michigan Secretary of State Jocelyn Benson said in a statement that she has “zero tolerance” for anyone who tries to mislead voters, and that the state “will use every tool at our disposal to dispel false rhetoric and seek justice on behalf of every voter who is targeted and harmed by any attempt to suppress their vote.”

Neither Wohl nor Burkman are Michigan residents, and while no arrests have been made, Nessel said her office was prepared to enlist local law enforcement in other states in order to bring the men into custody.

The statement added that investigators had also been in touch with authorities in Illinois, Ohio, New York and Pennsylvania, who had all reported a spate of similar calls in their states, also targeting “urban areas with significant minority populations.”

In all, officials say, around 85,000 calls went out nationally, though they could not offer a numerical breakdown for each location.

In February, Wohl pleaded not guilty to two charges of felony securities fraud in California district court. At a settlement hearing in late July he was served with an amended criminal complaint, and a hearing is scheduled for Oct. 27. Salon reported in May that the Arizona attorney general is coordinating with California officials in pursuit of tens of thousands of dollars in fines and court fees assessed to Wohl in a separate securities fraud case.

Burkman denied involvement to the Daily Beast in August, questioning the fact that his own phone number had been linked to the calls. “No one in their right mind would put their own cell on a robocall,” he said.

Last week the Beast reported that Wohl and Burkman were targets of the FBI’s investigation into leaked juror questionnaires and grand jury testimony in the trial of Roger Stone, the longtime Republican operative and ally of President Trump. The leaks outed a juror who had concealed her bias against the president, which Stone’s attorneys used to argue for a dismissal, but were denied.

Trump attacked that juror in a February tweet:

“There has rarely been a juror so tainted as the forewoman in the Roger Stone case. Look at her background,” the president wrote. “She never revealed her hatred of ‘Trump’ and Stone. She was totally biased, as is the judge. Roger wasn’t even working on my campaign. Miscarriage of justice. Sad to watch!”

In April all 12 Stone jurors submitted anonymized statements to the court saying that they felt harassed and afraid, and did not want more information about them revealed to the public.

Wohl and Burkman rose to online infamy through a series of failed attempts to tag their political enemies with absurd allegations of sexual impropriety, in which they convinced, coercing or paid a number of real people to make the accusations. One ill-devised but elaborate plot to smear former special counsel Robert Mueller collapsed in spectacular fashion, and might well have sparked an FBI investigation.

A pitch document from January 2019 shows that Wohl had created a group called the Arlington Center for Political Intelligence, which he said would “make shit up” in order to manipulate political betting markets and suppress Democratic turnout in 2020.

Wohl was asking for $1 million to fund the project. Whether anyone invested is unclear.

Wohl and Burkman did not immediately respond to Salon’s requests for comment.

Trump’s mask hypocrisy: How COVID memos contradict the White House’s public face

While the president and vice president forgo masks at rallies, the White House is quietly encouraging governors to implement mask mandates and, for some, enforce them with fines.

In reports issued to governors on Sept. 20, the White House Coronavirus Task Force recommended statewide mask mandates in Iowa, Missouri and Oklahoma. The weekly memos, some of which have been made public by the Center for Public Integrity, advocate mask usage for other states and have even encouraged doling out fines in Alaska, Idaho and, recently, Montana.

Masks, a political flashpoint since the beginning of the coronavirus pandemic, are considered by public health officials to be a top safeguard against spreading the COVID-19 virus as the country awaits a vaccine. But the president’s own actions on masks have wavered: He has called them “patriotic” but often doesn’t wear one himself and has contradicted the advice of the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention director. During the presidential debate Tuesday, the president said masks were “OK” and then mocked Democratic presidential candidate Joe Biden’s mask-wearing habits. In the audience, some Trump family members and staffers were not wearing masks, despite the rules set by the Cleveland Clinic, which hosted the debate.

The mixed messages and ensuing confusion leave governors, and often state and local health officials, holding the bag of political consequences.

“At some point, we have to turn the corner on this ridiculous separation of what we’re being told is best practice and being guided by science and data, and what the actual practices are by the people who issue them,” said Lori Tremmel Freeman, CEO of the National Association of County and City Health Officials.

So far, 16 states have yet to enact mask mandates for the general public — all of them are run by Republican governors. Three out of 4 Americans support enacting state laws to require mask-wearing in public at all times, according to an August NPR/Ipsos poll.

To be sure, messaging and the science on masks have evolved: U.S. public health officials did not recommend mask-wearing until April. And the White House argues the president has been clear.

“He recommends wearing a mask when you cannot socially distance,” White House spokesperson Brian Morgenstern told KHN. “He has worn masks on numerous occasions himself when appropriate and regularly encourages others to do so, as well, when social distancing is not possible.”

The pandemic task force sends weekly memos to states to share data and recommendations with leaders to help them make decisions, Morgenstern added. “They’re free to share that information as they see fit.”

Courtney Parella, a spokesperson for the Trump campaign, said that the staffers check the temperature of every attendee before admission to rallies, provide masks and encourage attendees to wear them, and offer hand sanitizer.

However, c ampaign events that President Donald Trump and Vice President Mike Pence attend often feature crowds of maskless attendees.

On Sept. 14, Pence stood before a crowd of hundreds in Belgrade, Montana, to stump for the state’s Republicans, including Sen. Steve Daines, gubernatorial candidate U.S. Rep. Greg Gianforte and congressional candidate Matt Rosendale. Photos show that most who attended went without masks, including the vice president, despite a mask order in effect for the surrounding county.

Montana calls on everyone to wear masks at outdoor gatherings of 50 or more people in counties with at least four active cases when attendees don’t stay 6 feet apart.

Photos show people sitting and standing close together at the event in southwestern Montana. Pence signed hats as people gathered shoulder to shoulder by the rails of a crowd divider.

Six days later, the White House coronavirus reports recommended Montana officials issue fines for those who ignore mask mandates in places the disease is spreading fast.

“What would be helpful from the White House is consistency in their recommendations and their actions,” said Matt Kelley, health officer for the Gallatin City-County Health Department. “It’s one thing to make a recommendation to state and local health officials to fine people. It’s made more difficult to do that when we have the vice president coming here to a rally where no one, very few people, were wearing masks.”

During a press call last week, Montana Gov. Steve Bullock said he didn’t plan to follow the White House advice to punish those without masks. The Democrat, who is running for Senate, said it’s better to encourage people to use masks than rely on fines.

But Bullock said the point of the White House’s request was clear. “Even the federal government says we need to be taking wearing masks seriously,” he said. “It’s not just governors saying that we should do this and it’s not just health experts saying we should be wearing masks.”

Missouri Gov. Mike Parson is among the Republican governors who have resisted a statewide masking order, despite the White House’s recommendation.

“You don’t need government to tell you to wear a dang mask,” Parson said in July at a Missouri Cattlemen’s Association steak fry, according to the Springfield News-Leader. “If you want to wear a dang mask, wear a mask.”

Parson and his wife, Teresa, tested positive for COVID-19 last Wednesday.

Spokesperson Kelli Jones said last Thursday that the governor does not plan to enact a mask order, based on an assessment of current COVID data. She added state officials consider the White House reports “really more of an FYI” than a mandate.

“It’s kind of a bizarre document, truthfully,” she said. “We read them and look at them — and make our own policy.”

The reports, which are sent to the governors, also leave local and state public health officials in the dark, said Freeman, of NACCHO.

“If the White House were truly serious about making these — what sounds like solid, scientific-backed, data-backed recommendations — if they were truly serious about it, tell the world, share them, be transparent,” she said.

Instead, former CDC director Dr. Tom Frieden said, the White House has fueled the partisan breakdown on masks.

“One of the many failures of this administration is the politicization of masks, and that has really cost lives,” Frieden said. “There is no reason masks should be partisan.”

Meanwhile back in Montana, Gallatin County appears to be heading toward its third surge in cases since the pandemic began.

“I don’t really have a lot of time to worry about inconsistency of messaging from the White House,” health officer Kelley said.

The county now has outbreaks in nursing homes and several confirmed cases in schools, he said, and the county’s positivity rate is heading toward 10%.

Subscribe to KHN’s free Morning Briefing.

Federal judge orders Bill Barr to release redacted portions of the Mueller report

Although the U.S. Department of Justice under Attorney General William Barr publicly released the Mueller report on April 18, 2019, it has only been available to the public in redacted form. But on Wednesday, Judge Reggie Walton ruled that parts of the Mueller report were improperly redacted by Barr — and Walton has ordered the DOJ to release those parts of the report before Election Day.

According to BuzzFeed News, those parts of former Special Counsel Robert Mueller’s final report for the Russia investigation appear to deal with, among other things, Russian hacking of Democratic National Committee e-mails in 2016 and the Trump campaign’s interest in those e-mails.

The 71-year-old Walton’s ruling is in response to a legal complaint filed by BuzzFeed’s Jason Leopold, who has been arguing that Barr redacted the Mueller report improperly. Walton ordered some redacted portions of the Mueller report to be released by Monday, November 2, which is the day before the election.

Leopold and his BuzzFeed colleague Ken Bensinger report: “The ruling and an accompanying order mean the Justice Department will be obliged to unveil at least 15 previously blacked-out pages from Volume 1 of Special Counsel Robert Mueller’s 448-page report on the investigation into Russian interference in the 2016 election, on or before November 2. In addition to charging decisions, those pages appear to involve discussions related to the hack of e-mails from the Democratic National Committee in early 2016 and the Trump campaign’s interest in those documents when WikiLeaks released them that June.”

Leopold and Bensinger note that Walton “rendered his decision in response to an 18-month legal challenge by BuzzFeed News and the advocacy group Electronic Privacy Information Center (EPIC) to unredact the entire Mueller report under the Freedom of Information Act.”

Walton has been highly critical of Barr’s response to Mueller report, which Robert Mueller gave to Barr in March 2019 after completing his extensive Russia investigation. Earlier this year, in March 2020, Walton argued that Barr “failed to provide a thorough representation of the findings” of the Mueller report and wondered if Barr had made a “calculated attempt to influence public discourse” about Mueller’s investigation in favor of Trump.

Robert Mueller, now 76, had a long history with the U.S. Department of Justice. Before being appointed special counsel for the Russia investigation, Mueller served as director of the Federal Bureau of Investigation.

October surprise! A wave of panic overtakes Trump and the GOP

President Donald Trump’s supporters hoped his debate with former Vice President Joe Biden on Tuesday night would give his campaign a boost. But many pundits have argued that while Trump’s unhinged ranting and raving during the debate probably didn’t hurt his support among true MAGA diehards, it didn’t win over many swing voters who were on the fence. And two Washington Post opinion columnists, Never Trump conservative Jennifer Rubin and liberal Greg Sargent, are emphasizing that Trump has only made things worse for himself this week and that a mood of desperation and panic is evident in the Republican Party.

Tuesday night’s debate was followed by a MAGA rally in Minnesota, where Trump once again attacked Rep. Ilhan Omar. Trump’s campaign is hoping that he will be able to flip Minnesota, which Democratic presidential nominee Hillary Clinton won in 2016. But according to Sargent, the Minnesota rally only underscored how dysfunctional Trump’s reelection campaign is. Trump reignited his racist attacks on Rep. Ilhan Omar, trying to pull out the same bag of tricks that snagged him a Midwest victory in 2016, but it doesn’t look like it’s working this time around. Sargent explained:

Trump spent months on a “law and order” strategy to galvanize his core White supporters while frightening White suburbanites back to him. That failed.

Then, at the debate, Trump kept it up, falsely insisting Biden wouldn’t utter the words “law and order,” winking to right-wing extremists and white supremacists, and again rallying supporters to intimidate the opposition’s voters.

Yet Republicans believe this is failing for him, reports the New York Times. His racist backlash politics and threats of voter intimidation risk further alienating “women, moderates, suburban voters and people of color,” as the Times puts it. The people outside what he calls “our country.”

Republicans fear this approach is putting Trump and his party on track to a big loss. But as his Minnesota rally showed, he remains absolutely committed to winning only in this fashion.

Rubin, similarly, views Trump’s hysterical anti-Democrat rants as acts of “desperation.”

“In his desperation to discredit his opponent and an election that he looks likely to lose — potentially by a margin too large for him to plausibly scream ‘Fraud!’ — President Trump’s lies and outbursts are getting increasingly bizarre,” Rubin explains. “(Tuesday) night’s ‘debate’ showcased Trump at his most unhinged and out of control, unable to conduct a civil conversation or maintain a coherent train of thought.”

This week, Rubin writes, one “could practically feel the panic emanating from the White House.”

“Trump is becoming more frantic and unhinged by the day,” Rubin argues. “He is staring not only at a possible landslide defeat, but potentially, also economic ruin and criminal prosecution. And his kids’ inheritance may be going down the drain as well. Certainly, Trump’s presidency has been a four-year nightmare for the country, but for Trump, it may turn out to be devastating and permanent.”

Some red states, according to polls, are turning out to be surprisingly competitive for Biden, including Texas and Georgia: recent polls in those states have either shown Trump slightly ahead or Biden slightly ahead. But especially shocking is a new Quinnipiac poll that shows Biden trailing Trump by only 1% in South Carolina. While Texas and Georgia, truth be told, are light red at this point, South Carolina is known for being deep red: Trump won the state by 14% in 2016. And in South Carolina, Republican Sen. Lindsey Graham is facing a tough challenge from Democrat Jaime Harrison. Polls are also showing that race to be close.

Graham, during recent appearances on Fox News, has warned fellow Republicans that Harrison is being inundated with donations. And McClatchy reports that a Republican PAC, the Senate Leadership Fund, is planning to spend $10 million in a three-week ad blitz in the hope of saving Graham from being voted out of office.

The fact that the GOP suddenly seems extremely concerned about saving a Senate seat in South Carolina of all places shows what dire straits the party has found itself in.

Trump says he and Melania tested positive for COVID-19

On early Friday morning, President Trump tweeted that he and the first lady, Melania Trump, have tested positive for the novel coronavirus. The announcement followed news from Thursday that Hope Hicks, one of Trump’s senior advisers and someone who traveled with him this week, had also tested positive.

“Tonight, @FLOTUS and I tested positive for COVID-19. We will begin our quarantine and recovery process immediately,” Trump tweeted on Friday morning. “We will get through this TOGETHER!”

The news broke at a remarkable historical moment, less than five weeks before the presidential election and eight months into a pandemic that has infected over 7 million people worldwide and killed more than 207,000 Americans. As the self-quarantine period for the coronavirus can be many weeks long, it is unclear as of now if the remaining two scheduled presidential debates with Democratic nominee Joe Biden will go on as planned.

Currently, 20 percent of the world’s deaths from COVID-19, the disease caused by the novel coronavirus, have occurred in the United States. Throughout the pandemic, Trump has downplayed the severity of the coronavirus, saying it “affects virtually nobody” at a rally, and has dismissed science-based public health measures during the pandemic, including undermining the importance of wearing masks.

At 74 years old, Trump falls into the highest risk category for serious complications from the disease. A report in Nature noted that for every 1,000 people in their mid-seventies or older who are infected, about 116 will die. This implies that Trump has about a 12 percent chance of dying of COVID-19. Melania, who is 50, has a lower risk of having serious complications from the disease: only 5 in 1000 people in her age range die, on average, of COVID-19 after being infected.

Trump’s physician Sean Conley said Trump is doing “well” in a memo to reporters, according to CNN and the New York Times.

“The president and first lady are both well at this time, and they plan to remain at home within the White House during their convalescence,” Conley said in a statement. “The White House medical team and I will maintain a vigilant watch, and I appreciate the support provided by some of our country’s greatest medical professionals and institutions.”

“Rest assured I expect the president to continue carrying out his duties without disruption while recovering, and I will keep you updated on any future developments,” Conley added.

Prior to the announcement, Trump tweeted that he had planned to quarantine after news broke that Hicks had tested positive.

“Hope Hicks, who has been working so hard without even taking a small break, has just tested positive for Covid 19. Terrible! The First Lady and I are waiting for our test results. In the meantime, we will begin our quarantine process!” Trump tweeted.

Trump was last seen in public on Thursday afternoon. In a virtual dinner appearance on Thursday night, Trump claimed that the end of the pandemic was “in sight.”

According to CNN, Hicks traveled with Trump to the debate in Cleveland on Tuesday. Hicks also traveled to a campaign rally in Minnesota on Wednesday and was seen boarding Marine One. Notably, a person infected with COVID-19 may be contagious 48 to 72 hours before they start to experience symptoms. A source close to Hicks told CNN that she is currently feeling unwell and achy.

The diagnosis is the most serious infectious disease threat to a sitting American president in decades.

K-Pop fans infiltrate #ArmyForTrump after Trump recruits “army” to show up at polls on Election Day

Trump campaign senior adviser Justin Clark told a room of Republican lawyers during a closed-door meeting in Wisconsin last year that the organization saw a “huge, huge, huge, huge” opportunity in what it referred to as its “2020 Election Day Operations.”

“First and foremost is the consent decree’s gone,” he said.

Clark referenced a recently-expired court order barring Republican operatives from a number of voter-intimidation activities. After the Republican National Committee hired off-duty law enforcement to intimidate voters in minority communities in 1981, the consent decree was born.

Ruling there was no proof that Republicans had recently violated the decree, a federal judge dropped it in 2018. That set up Election Day in 2020 to be the first time in nearly four decades where the Republican National Committee will not be required to obtain advance approval for any planned “ballot security” measures at the polls. It was this opening that Clark dubbed a “huge” deal.

A few months after that closed-door meeting, the Trump campaign launched “armyfortrump.com” — an official website recruiting supporters to pitch in with voting operations, including on Election Day. Drawing on military language and iconography — an alternate URL is “defendyourballot.com” — the channel calls on supporters of the commander-in-chief to “enlist” in a number of election activities, working alongside “battle tested Team Trump operatives” on the “frontlines” of the campaign.

Though the website first launched in spring, Trump himself promoted again this week in a post-debate tweet Tuesday inviting supporters to become “a Trump Election Poll Watcher.”

Volunteer to be a Trump Election Poll Watcher. Sign up today! #MakeAmericaGreatAgain https://t.co/8m0dNPTtt6

— Donald J. Trump (@realDonaldTrump) September 30, 2020

Trump’s eldest adult son, Donald Trump Jr., also recently promoted the effort in a selfie video campaign ad calling upon “every able-bodied man and woman” to join “Army for Trump’s election security operation.”

Stark language in Don Jr.’s new “defend your ballot” ad: “We need every able-bodied man and woman to join Army for Trump’s election security operation…we need you to help us watch them” pic.twitter.com/qJwaQApptr

— Vera Bergengruen (@VeraMBergen) September 25, 2020

“The radical left are laying the groundwork to steal this election from my father,” Don Jr. alleged.

“Their plan is to add millions of fraudulent ballots that can cancel your vote and overturn the election,” he further claimed, without evidence. “We cannot let that happen.”

Don Jr. also suggested the importance of a physical presence at the polls as he urged supporters to “enlist” under the ballot defense URL.

“We need you to help us watch them not just on Election Day but also during early voting and at the counting boards,” he said. “Don’t let them steal it.”

Forbes reported last week that the Twitter hashtag #ArmyForTrump catalogued “a large number of posts promoting violence against the president’s opposition, in some cases specifically naming Biden and other leading Democrats as enemies.”

The hashtag, the outlet added, was used in posts attacking “a wide range of targets, including Jewish financier and philanthropist George Soros, Black Lives Matter leaders, Amazon founder Jeff Bezos and others.”

Some Trump supporters have already heeded the calls to action. Last week, for example, a crowd of the president’s supporters, some of whom were waving Trump flags, temporarily blocked access to an early voting location in Fairfax, Va.

But in the wake of the president’s recruitment tweet following his first debate against Democratic rival Joe Biden, the #ArmyForTrump hashtag appears to have been infiltrated by another army: fans of Korean pop music. The development echoed a prior troll from June, in which the same group inflated ticket requests, and campaign expectations, for Trump’s sparsely attended “comeback rally” in Tulsa, Okla.

Stan bts 💜💜💜 #ArmyForTrump pic.twitter.com/jRSZGgdPD0

— Jennifer Fabian (@Jennife13206073) September 30, 2020

First of all why is this foo trying to take our name away? ✨Anywhore✨ Stan BTS for clear skin #ArmyForTrump pic.twitter.com/YOw81mhAct

— Chiminie007 (@micah1vida) September 30, 2020

The president, who has been reported to have disparaged troops in public and private alike, often tries to associate himself with the language and imagery of the military and law enforcement — “my military” and “my generals” — in what is widely seen as an attempt to project strength. Trump has threatened to deploy active-duty troops against peaceful protesters, and often invokes Bikers for Trump, a niche group of supporters, as a similar threat.

“I can tell you I have the support of the police, the support of the military, the support of the Bikers for Trump. I have the tough people, but they don’t play it tough until they go to a certain point” the president said in 2019. “And then it would be very bad — very bad.”

The Trump campaign also leans on militarized language for fundraising efforts, such as an email in June, which read: “You’ve been identified as one of President Trump’s fiercest and most loyal defenders, and according to your donor file, you’d make an excellent addition to the Trump Army.”

The email sought to reward donors with “exclusive” camouflage campaign hats as something of a campaign uniform.

“The President wants YOU and every other member of our exclusive Trump Army to have to something to identify yourselves with, and to let everyone know that you are the President’s first line of defense when to come to fighting off the Liberal MOB,” it said.

Recently, multiple senior Pentagon officials told The New York Times that there had been discussions of the possible resignations of top department brass — starting with Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff General Mark Milley — should Trump try to deploy troops on U.S. streets during the election following criticisms of his handling of the Black Lives Matter protests in June.

After the president posted the recruitment tweet, General Michael Hayden, director of the CIA and NSA under former President Barack Obama, warned on Wednesday that state governors themselves should develop plans to counter Trump’s army of supporters — with the national guard.

twitter.com/GenMhayden/status/1311302135531868162

“Saturday Night Live” releases first look at Jim Carrey’s Joe Biden impression

“Saturday Night Live” shared a clip of Jim Carrey and Maya Rudolph transforming into former Vice President Joe Biden and Sen. Kamala Harris, respectively, on Thursday.

Read more from Variety: “South Park” pandemic special delivers 7-year ratings high

NBC‘s sketch comedy show, which returns for season 46 on Saturday, has a long history of humorous depictions of political figures played by notable actors and comedians, and this year is no exception. With Election Day looming just over a month away, “SNL” released a trailer via Twitter, showing Carrey in his Biden costume for the first time — with the Vice Presidential nominee by his side, of course.

Ladies and gentlemen…
Joe Biden and Kamala Harris. #SNLPremiere pic.twitter.com/khYgAvXKpw

— Saturday Night Live – SNL (@nbcsnl) October 1, 2020

In the 18-second clip, wigs are placed on Carrey and Rudolph before they suit up into their presidential wardrobes. A member of the crew can be seen in the background, wearing both a face mask and a face shield as she preps Rudolph’s hair to complete the transformation.

The initial announcement that Carrey would play the Democratic presidential candidate came in September. He becomes the most recent star to don the persona, following Woody Harrelson, who portrayed Biden earlier this year. Former “SNL” cast member Jason Sudeikis also portrayed an affable version of the presidential candidate in past seasons.

Read more from Variety: BTS reflects on songwriting, inspiration and artistry

“SNL” has also added three new featured players — Lauren Holt, Punkie Johnson and Andrew Dismukes — returning with one of the larger groups of “Not Ready for Prime-Time Players” in the recent history of the show.

Returning to studio production in New York’s Rockefeller Center, the live show will invite a limited audience for the upcoming season. The producers will also work closely with authorities to stay abreast of health and safety concerns amidst the COVID-19 pandemic.

Read more from Variety: “Gilmore Girls”: The 30 best episodes, ranked

The season premiere will be hosted by Chris Rock and feature musical performances from Megan Thee Stallion.

George R.R. Martin picks least favorite “Game of Thrones” scene, says low budget is to blame

The final episodes of “Game of Thrones” reportedly cost around $15 million each, a huge sum by television standards that puts the final season of the HBO blockbuster series at a $90 million budget. Compare that to the show’s debut season, where each episode cost roughly $6 million, and one gets a sense at just how massive “Thrones” became over its eight-season run. The show’s first season episode budget was far from cheap, but it wasn’t big enough to fully satisfy creator George R.R. Martin. The “Thrones” author reveals in the new book “Fire Cannot Kill a Dragon” (via EW) that a lack of budget contributed to his least favorite scene in the show’s history.

“Where we really fell down in terms of budget was my least favorite scene in the entire show, in all eight seasons: King Robert goes hunting,” Martin said. “Four guys walking on foot through the woods carrying spears and Robert is giving Renly shit. In the books, Robert goes off hunting, we get word he was gored by a boar, and they bring him back and he dies. So I never did [a hunting scene].”

Martin continued, “But I knew what a royal hunting party was like. There would have been a hundred guys. There would have been pavilions. There would have been huntsmen. There would have been dogs. There would have been horns blowing — that’s how a king goes hunting! He wouldn’t have just been walking through the woods with three of his friends holding spears hoping to meet a boar. But at that point, we couldn’t afford horses or dogs or pavilions.”

The hunting scene as depicted in the first season is a small affair, but viewers would’ve been treated to a more epic hunting party had the budget for the series bit a bit bigger from the get go. The show stayed in the $6-million-per-episode ballpark for much of its run. Starting in Season 6, the episode budget rose to $10 million.

Read more from IndieWire: Embracing the reality of Mark Burnett’s America

“Fire Cannot Kill a Dragon” will be released Tuesday, October 6 and tells the behind-the-scenes story of the making of “Game of Thrones.” Author James Hibberd spoke with Martin, showrunners David Benioff and D.B. Weiss, and all of the show’s cast members to get a complete look at how “Thrones” was created, produced, and released.

“My bad”: McEnany falsely claims Barrett is a “Rhodes Scholar” days after incorrect Fox News segment

White House press secretary Kayleigh McEnany on Thursday repeated the false claim made days earlier on Fox News that Supreme Court nominee Amy Coney Barrett was a Rhodes Scholar. Barrett attended Rhodes College, and there is a difference between the two.

Touting Barrett’s credentials, which were compiled in her infamous briefing binder, McEnany claimed that Barrett “also is a Rhodes scholar.” McEnany later acknowledged the mistake after a reporter corrected her.

Her explanation? “That’s what I have written here.”

“My bad,” the top White House spokesperson added.

The Rhodes Scholarship is a prestigious international postgraduate scholarship to study at Oxford University in the U.K. Recipients include former President Bill Clinton, former Ambassador to the United Nations Susan Rice and Sens. Cory Booker, D-N.J., and John Kennedy, R-La. Journalists Ronan Farrow and Rachel Maddow are also members of the elite group.

Barrett earned her B.A. at Rhodes College, which is not located in Europe but rather in Tennessee. The homonyms apparently provide for a cheeky play on words for students at the University of Memphis, a state school in the same southern city.

Barrett graduated summa cum laude from Notre Dame School of Law, where she was the top student in her class, according to the university. She currently teaches there. (A Rhodes scholarship also was awarded to former Democratic presidential contender Pete Buttigieg, who was the mayor of South Bend, Ind., where Notre Dame is located.)

While the source of McEnany’s confusion remains unclear, the same mistake appeared in a Sept. 25 Fox News segment about Barrett’s background.

⁦@FoxNews⁩ actually claims tonight that Judge Amy Coney Barrett was a Rhodes Scholar ! Seriously ? Was she a Rhodes Scholar or did she graduate from Rhodes College in Memphis ? Who are their editors at Fox News? pic.twitter.com/TdpW9PK3y6

— Jeff (@23JAM_23) September 25, 2020

It is unclear whether the president, known to be sniffy about Ivy League educations, was aware of the difference. Trump reportedly made a degree from Harvard or Yale a prerequisite for his 2018 Supreme Court nominee. Though Barrett made Trump’s short list that year, the president nominated Brett Kavanaugh, a Yale alum who taught law at Harvard. (Trump was also rumored to have been “saving [Barrett] for Ginsburg.”)

Trump often boasts that he graduated from the Wharton School of Finance at the University of Pennsylvania, an Ivy League institution, where he had transferred after two years at Fordham University in the Bronx. That feat was called into question earlier this year in a tell-all book by the president’s niece. Per The New York Times:

As a high school student in Queens, Ms. Trump writes, Donald Trump paid someone to take a precollegiate test, the SAT, on his behalf. The high score the proxy earned for him, Ms. Trump adds, helped the young Mr. Trump to later gain admittance when he transferred as an undergraduate to the University of Pennsylvania’s prestigious Wharton business school.

Trump additionally appears to prize distinguishing Wharton from Penn itself. The university’s student newspaper, the Daily Pennsylvanian, reported that Trump name-dropped “Wharton” 52 times between June 2015 and January 2018. The president has called it “the hardest school to get into” and “super genius stuff.”

A Penn official told The Washington Post that the school did not have a record of its acceptance rate for 1966, the year Trump entered. But the school’s website says the acceptance rate in 1980 was “slightly greater than 40%.” The school announced that its admissions rate for the class of 2023 was 7.4% — or five times more exclusive.

“It was not very difficult,” an admissions officer who interviewed Trump for the slot previously told The Post.

“I certainly was not struck by any sense that I’m sitting before a genius,” the officer added. “Certainly not a super genius.”

The Biden-Harris Democratic national ticket will be the first since 1984 to not include a candidate without an Ivy League degree. Presidential nominee Joe Biden attended the University of Delaware, while vice presidential nominee Kamala Harris attended Howard University, a historically Black college.

Salon.com and Microsoft News Enter Multi-Year Content Licensing Agreement

NEW YORK, NY / ACCESSWIRE / October 1, 2020 / Salon.com, LLC, an independent digital media company, today announced a new content licensing agreement with Microsoft News. As part of the agreement, news and editorial content from Salon.com will be distributed on Microsoft properties, including MSN.com, a popular web portal and home page for millions of Internet users.

Salon.com reaches a growing audience of more than 10 million monthly readers. Beyond covering the 2020 elections and news within the White House, Salon’s newsroom broadly covers current events and entertainment and is also developing original content in the food and culture verticals.

“Salon has progressively increased its unique audience quarter over quarter in the last two years and has been profitable every quarter since our acquisition,” says Chief Revenue Officer Justin Wohl. “Our new relationship with Microsoft News is a testament to the momentum Salon has generated built from our original content and investigative, independent journalism.”

Founders of header bidding solutions and the website monetization platform operated by Proper Media, Chris Richmond and Drew Schoentrup acquired Salon.com in August 2019, bringing their technological expertise and independence into the company while also establishing a flagship publishing partner for Proper Media. Since being acquired, Salon’s website infrastructure, tools, and hosting system have been dramatically improved, unlocking new bandwidth and potential for editorial endeavors.

“We’re proud of the stories we’ve been able to tell this past year, and I look forward to seeing Salon’s content reach an ever-wider audience with Microsoft News as we continue developing and expanding our content operations,” says Chief Executive Officer Chris Richmond.

View source version on accesswire.com:
https://www.accesswire.com/608700/Saloncom-and-Microsoft-News-Enter-Multi-Year-Content-Licensing-Agreement

Republican Senate candidate’s law firm set bankruptcy of mass shooting victim’s family into motion

After ammunition and body armor retailers were unsuccessfully sued by the parents of Jessica Ghawi, who was killed in a 2012 mass shooting, the companies sought to recoup their legal fees. According to the victim’s mother, her family declared bankruptcy after it was ordered to pay more than $200,000 by a judge. Now, Corky Messner, the Republican whose law firm represented one of the retailers, is running for a U.S. Senate seat in New Hampshire on a staunchly pro-gun platform.

Messner told WMUR last month that he opposed any gun control measures, and he would support rolling back some existing gun safety laws already on the books. Messner has touted his endorsement from the National Association of Gun Rights, which has attacked the National Rifle Association (NRA) for being “soft” and has called for “absolutely NO COMPROMISE on gun rights issues.” The group has spent “more on pro-gun lobbying than the NRA in the aftermath of the Sandy Hook mass shooting in 2012,” according to Politico.

Messner’s law firm, Messner Reeves, was previously involved in a case which led to the eventual bankruptcy of the family of one of the victims of a mass shooting at a movie theater in Aurora, Col. It was the first-ever case where a plaintiff was forced to pay defendants’ legal fees under a Colorado law shielding ammunition and weapons retailers from most liability.

James Holmes was sentenced to 12 life sentences and an additional 3,318 years after he was convicted of killing 12 people and wounding 70 others during a screening of “The Dark Knight.” One of the dead was Ghawi, a college student pursuing a career in sports journalism who had narrowly escaped another mass shooting a month earlier.

Sandy and Lonnie Phillips, Ghawi’s parents, sued the retailers which sold Holmes ammunition and body armor in 2014 in spite of laws shielding them from liability. The lawsuit argued that Lucky Gunner, which sold Holmes more than 4,000 rounds of ammunition; The Sportsman Guide, which sold him a 100-round magazine and 700 rounds; BTP Arms, which provided the tear gas canisters used in the attack; and Bullet Proof Body Armor negligently sold Holmes weapons used in the attack online without assessing his state of mind.

“A crazed, homicidal killer should not be able to amass a military arsenal, without showing his face or answering a single question, with the simple click of a mouse,” the Brady Center, the gun control advocacy group which filed the lawsuit on behalf of the family, said at the time. “If businesses choose to sell military-grade equipment online, they must screen purchasers to prevent arming people like James Holmes.”

The lawsuit did not seek any monetary damages but rather asked a court to order the retailers to change the allegedly “negligent and dangerous business practices” which allowed Holmes to purchase his weapons.

Sandy Phillips later told Time that the case was “dismissed before it was ever heard.” The retailers asked a judge to order the family to pay the more than $200,000 in attorney fees incurred as a result of the lawsuit.

One of the firms pushing for attorney fees was Messner Reeves, which defended BTP Arms in the Phillips’ lawsuit. Bruce Montoya, an attorney at the firm, filed a motion asking a court to order Ghawi’s family to pay. Montoya submitted an affidavit showing the hours he worked on the case, for which he charged $300 per hour for himself and $225 per hour for two other associates with the firm.

Denver Judge Richard Marsch ultimately sided with Messner Reeves and the other attorneys involved in the case, ordering Ghawi’s family to pay $203,000 to BTP Arms, Lucky Gunner and The Sportsman Guide. Brian Platt, the owner of BTP Arms, was awarded more than $30,000 in legal fees, including those from Messner Reeves.

“Even though Matsch’s decision apparently marks the first time that fees have been granted under Colorado’s law shielding gun and ammo dealers from liability, the judge didn’t provide any explanation of his reasoning,” according to Reuters.

A spokesman for Messner Reeves said the firm did not collect the $9,854 in legal fees to which it was entitled after Salon reached out to the campaign.

“Messner Reeves LLP did represent BTP Arms, a tear gas distributor. It was quickly determined by the respected and Honorable Richard M. Matsch at the time this lawsuit against our client was ‘pursued for the political purpose of the Brady Group, and lacked merit.’ While attorneys fees were awarded, they were not collected in exchange for the Brady Group voluntarily dropping any appeal,” Messner Reeves spokesman Andy Boian said in a statement.

The judge suggested that the family’s “sponsors” at the Brady Center pay the fees, but the decision reportedly forced the family into bankruptcy. Sandy and Lonnie Phillips held minor regional positions at Brady, but Sandy Phillips said they lost those after the lawsuit, too.

“We have lost everything that most people value . . . our jobs at Brady (two weeks before Christmas of that year) our financial security due to the Brady PLCAA lawsuit and broken promises on their part, our home, our lifestyle, and some friends along the way,” she said in a Facebook post earlier this year. “BUT nothing compares to having Jessi ripped from our lives by six AR 15 .223s turning her tiny body to hamburger meat.”

Sandy Phillips was “surprised” when former presidential candidate Hillary Clinton referenced her family on the campaign trail in 2015.

“One of the families of a young woman who was murdered by him sued to say, ‘You know, how can you have no accountability at all? No legal responsibility whatsoever to sell weapons and ammunition online?” Clinton said during an event in New Hampshire. “And they brought a lawsuit, and because of the law that the Congress passed giving immunity, they lost. And then to add insult to injury and to grief, under a state law, they were told they had to pay the NRA $200,000 for the legal defense of the guy they sued. This is crazy, folks.”

Sandy Phillips, a legal gun owner who supports the Second Amendment, has continued to campaign for gun safety reforms and the repeal of the law which prevented her lawsuit from moving forward.

“Everyone else in society has a duty to use reasonable care to not injure others — except gun and ammunition sellers,” she wrote in an op-ed. “We believe that the judge’s decision was wrong, and that it is unconstitutional to financially punish people for bringing a lawsuit, especially a public interest case that did not seek a dime.”

Vote or die? In its “Pandemic Special,” “South Park” presents a mixed message on the election

In October 2004 Salon published a conversation between “South Park” creators Trey Parker and Matt Stone and Heather Havrilesky, the site’s TV critic at that time. Parker and Stone were promoting “Team America: World Police” but the exchange that garnered most attention was the article’s kicker.

Well, in parting, do you have a special message for all those undecided voters out there?

Stone: Stay home.

Parker: Don’t vote!

Stone: And it’s no big deal. If you don’t want to vote, you don’t have to. F**k that vote or die s**t. I hate that.

Sixteen years later “South Park” is making election-related headlines with another kicker, this one near the close of “The Pandemic Special.” At the end of an hour in which quarantine tensions exploded into riots, government-sanctioned police murders and a pangolin kidnapping, the townsfolk find a reason to come together . . . and for a moment it looks like Trey Parker, who wrote and directed the special, is about to bestow a mote of optimism upon us, a line indicating some belief that sanity will eventually prevail.

“Now we have hope,” says a scientist who is researching a vaccine using the pangolin’s DNA. He holds the strange animal in his arms as he addresses the crowd. “We’ve learned that we might never get back to our old lives. But by working together, we might just find a new way to –”

That’s when his speech is cut off by an orange-faced Mr. Garrison stepping up and roasting the scientist, pangolin and hope with a flamethrower. Then the animated series’ Donald Trump stand-in breaks the fourth wall to glibly tell viewers, “Don’t forget to get out and vote, everybody! Big election coming up.”

“The Pandemic Special” marks the 308th “South Park” episode and is its first to run an hour, and between that and its debut in a season when many veteran series are figuring out when, how and if to go back into production automatically guaranteed it would attract an audience.

The episode also is a one-off. Comedy Central hasn’t announced a premiere date for the 24th season, and in the final moments of the special Stan Marsh’s father Randy announces to his wife Sharon that the entire depressing experience has made him consider only making “specials” from now on.

That off-handed line might tell us something about what “South Park” will look like for the foreseeable future, or it might mean nothing. Mr. Garrison’s act of violence, though, is the out-of-left-field shocker generating many a day-after headlines. That’s understandable.

The reliable ideology that forms the spine of “South Park” is that Parker and his co-creator Matt Stone aren’t on anyone’s side – politically, culturally or socially. We used to describe the show as an equal opportunity offender, and maybe that’s true in a sense. Where that label falls apart is in the show’s recurring proof that it actually has a moral center of sorts.

Equal opportunity offenders don’t tend to care about anyone or anything. Not so here. “The Pandemic Special” won’t be remembered as the finest hour of “South Park,” and I say this not as a pun but in acknowledgment that with Comedy Central running through its catalogue, you’re more likely to turn on back-to-back repeat episodes that are sharper, more coherent and outrageous than Wednesday night’s entry.

At the same time, it’s also very much evidence that the show’s producers feel as stuck in the mire as everyone else – and they do care. Parker and his team deserve credit for using the hour as a catch-all to poke fun at the absurdity of living our lives through Zoom screens, the bizarre direction that the mask debate has taken, and the vile absurdity of pouring enough funds into our police departments to enable them to afford military-grade equipment while teachers are left to choose between employment and their safety.

The overall message of this episode isn’t one of the “South Park” team feeling above it all to the point of comfortably rolling their eyes at madness gripping America. Instead it reflects a kind of frazzled incredulity and disillusionment about where we find ourselves.

The alternate title to “The Pandemic Special” easily could have been “How in the hell did we get here?” except for the fact that “South Park” already knows the answer; Parker and his producers have chronicled our descent across multiple seasons and lined it up neatly in the 19th and 20th seasons’ serialized arcs.

Even so, the attraction to decoding what Mr. Garrison’s statement about voting is understandable and a little odd in equal measure considering what else the episode had to say.

If the “South Park” team speaks through its creators, “The Pandemic Special” is both a self-deprecating work as well as a sympathetic one. “These are very serious times, and nobody wants or cares about your special right now!” Sharon Marsh spits after Randy announces his new product in an over-the-top promotion.

As the town’s main wrongheaded opportunist and gentleman pot farmer, Randy employs poorly thought-out schemes and spouts platitudes and virtues in the name of drumming up sales for his pot business, Tegridy Farms.

Rarely does Randy find an event, joyful or tragic, that he can’t spin into some type of special. His new strain is where the episode’s title come from and is a manifestation of corporate greed, tragedy profiteering, and empty signaling from brands. (We also find out that he played a key role in kicking off the pandemic that involves bestiality and a mind-altering substance-fueled bender with Mickey Mouse.)

Following that bit, “South Park” jogs through the land of everything that’s sucking right now: Zoom calls. The horror of dealing with wall-climbing children afflicted with cabin fever. Public institutions forcing workers back on the job despite failing to enact adequate safety measures. In the episode’s A-plot, Stan, Kenny, Kyle and Cartman all return to school, only to find that their old teachers have quit and been replaced by the town’s cops, who are in need of jobs after being defunded.

“I don’t want any unnecessary death,” the chief of police tells his officers before they enter the classrooms. Of course, the moment a fight breaks out between two white kids, the teacher cop whips out his gun, takes aim and fires . . . at Token, one of the few Black kids in South Park.

Soon after the police force realizes they’re not equipped to teach elementary school children math, so they transform the place into a prison.

We expected the eventual rampage the town’s police would be called in to quell, although the usage of Mötley Crüe’s aggro anthem “Kickstart My Heart” was a nice touch. (Honestly, the song’s lyrics rhyme “kickin’ ass” with . . . “kickin’ ass.” It’s no “America, F*ck Yeah,” but it’s close!)

But as on the nose as this subplot is, Mr. Garrison’s fiery executive action leaves a bit more open to debate. Lots of people wonder what that turn indicates about whether Parker (and perhaps Stone) have changed their minds about the necessity of voting. Another way to consider the scene is in terms of what they’re saying about the integrity of our democratic process, which isn’t terribly uplifting.

“South Park” loves to lampoon politicians and celebrities, but it reserves a special zest for lampooning the easily manipulated machinery that props up government and politics. Season 23’s finale, “Christmas Special,” skewers the righteous celebration of legalized marijuana by having Randy get the town hooked on his new product, “Christmas Snow,” a special strain of cocaine-encrusted cannabis.

When the Mayor frets that Randy will get them all put in jail for selling an illegal substance, he tells her not to worry and steams through the process – getting people to sign petitions, making his case before governing body after governing body until, bam, it’s the law of the land. Now everybody can get tweaked, and Tegridy Farms can keep making money hand over fist.

The speed from which the taboo flips from vilified and illegal to legal is ludicrous, but in “South Park” such absurdity has always been normal. So when the show’s version of Trump roasts a scientist alive in the street, it’s just another day in that cartoon Denver town.

Parker and Stone have been describing presidential elections in simple binary terms since 2004 when a character explained that “nearly every election since the beginning of time has been between some douche and some turd.” Every presidential election cycle resurrects this idea, pitting Giant Turd against Big Fat Douche, except with new faces each time. This election is no different in that respect.

But I also think Parker’s message isn’t revealing anything about his or Stone’s politics as much as hint that he doesn’t have much faith that we’re going to vote our way out of this. In short bursts of accelerant and fire Mr. Garrison roasts hope and hard logic into a crisp; in the next scene Randy stares out over his crop as the hills beyond burn unabated.

For the entire episode he’s watched businesses once taken for granted close and seen the Grim Reaper nearby; now Tegridy Farms has shut down, and the hooded figure lurks on the periphery of his property line . . . riding a tricycle. Randy’s greed has finally gotten the better of him, and now (to paraphrase another rock lyric) the whole world is stupid and contagious.

“I can’t take these shutdowns anymore and I’m scared of what it’s doing to me,” Stan says at one point, going on to confess that he just wants his life back. “The truth is I just want to have fun again.”

Don’t we all . . . but this “special” doesn’t necessarily leave us with the belief that can happen any time soon.

Uber-funded ballot measure in California would create “permanent underclass of workers,” expert says

Those who took high school civics may recall that our democracies lives on fractions. A majority vote — one-half plus one — is what it takes to pass a bill in most legislative bodies. The constitution requires a “supermajority,” meaning two-thirds of a governing body, for only the most important and crucial matters: to override a presidential veto, or remove an officer via impeachment, say.

If two-thirds seems like a high threshold for a congressional body, what about seven-eighths? That’s the super-duper-majority that would be required to overturn Proposition 22 — the Uber- and Lyft-funded ballot measure that will appear on California ballots this November — should it pass this fall.

You read that right: the astroturf ballot measure written by some of Silicon Valley’s biggest corporations, which is written to keep these companies’ contractors from achieving benefits or a stable, salaried job, would require a seven-eighths majority of state legislators in both state chambers in order to be overturned — such a difficult threshold to meet that experts say it would be effectively permanent.

The origin of Proposition 22

It all goes back to California’s Assembly Bill 5, which went into effect on January 1, 2020. The impetus for AB5 was to make gig economy work into more stable and reliable work, and reduce worker exploitation; currently, driver-contractors like those who work for Uber or Lyft are not guaranteed health care of any other benefits if they work more than 40 hours a week, as they are legally contractors rather than employees.

Likewise, such drivers and deliverypersons often make less than minimum wage after their own expenses are accounted for. AB5, which put into place a “test” to determine whether someone is a contractor or employee, was designed to lift these kinds of workers out of poverty.

Yet since AB5 passed through California’s state legislature, Uber and Lyft have refused to comply; instead, they chose to pour over $180 million into the astroturf campaign for Proposition 22. Similar gig worker-reliant companies have chipped into the campaign, too. DoorDash has donated $47.5 million; Instacart has donated $27.5 million, and Postmates has contributed a little over $10 million.

According to Ballotpedia, Proposition 22 is the most expensive ballot measure contest in California, and the United States — and if it passes, it will set an example for the corporations that funded it that they could use as a model in other states. Indeed, the companies are funneling so much money into this campaign because there’s a lot at stake. For example, Los Angeles and San Francisco are two of the five largest markets for Uber, which has stated in financial disclosures that new regulations in major metro areas could negatively affect their financials. Many of their workers have criticized these companies for pouring so much money into a campaign as they struggle to receive basic support, like personal protective equipment and hand sanitizer, from their employers during the pandemic.

Proposition 22 is more than just a determination of classification, though. Labor experts fear it will be a major setback for labor rights, the community at large, and that it will send the wrong signal to other states who have been exploring ways to regulate these companies.

“They have basically operated as though the law does not apply to them,” Ken Jacobs, the chair of the UC Berkeley Center for Labor Research and Education, told Salon. “And I think that signals to other states around the country, ‘Don’t try to enforce your laws because we have the political power and resources to defeat you if you do.'”

We spoke to experts about the fine print of Proposition 22, and how it will affect Uber and Lyft drivers in the state of California if passed.

1. Very few drivers will actually qualify for health insurance benefits

Uber and Lyft have positioned Proposition 22 as a “third way” solution to provide more benefits to drivers. The campaign states on its website that voting “yes” on Proposition 22 will provide drivers with “new benefits and protections in these tough economic times including a minimum earnings guarantee, access to health care benefits and insurance against illnesses and injuries acquired on the job.”

Yet this depends on a driver’s “engaged time,” according to the proposition, meaning the time between accepting a ride and completing the ride. This doesn’t factor the time a driver is waiting in between drives. For drivers who average 25 hour per week of engaged time during a calendar quarter, Uber and Lyft will provide “subsidies equal to 82% the average California Covered (CC) premium for each month.” For those who average between 15 and 25 hours of “engaged time” each quarter, the companies will provide healthcare subsidies equal to 41 percent the average CC premium for each month.

“They purport to have a healthcare reimbursement piece here, but it’s very weak and very few drivers would qualify, or at least qualify for the larger amount of it,” Jacobs said.

Rey Fuentes, Skadden Fellow at the Partnership for Working Families, told Salon that drivers would essentially have to drive 40 hours a week to get that 25 hours of engaged time to qualify for the best offer. In a report Fuentes co-authored, he notes a second way in which drivers will be essentially cheated of quality healthcare options. “By using the definitions section to ensure that the maximum benefit is actually 82 percent of an average premium payment for the lowest-cost healthcare plan on the Covered California insurance exchange, not a worker’s actual premium expenses,” the report states.

2. Drivers won’t be guaranteed paid leave or paid sick days

Under the current California state and federal law, app-based workers are required to have a minimum of eight weeks of paid family leave, and three days of paid leave for illness or care of a family member. None of this is part of Proposition 22. In the report Fuentes co-authored, the researchers call this omission “glaring,” especially in the pandemic, in which many rideshare and delivery drivers are considered to be “essential workers.”

“Although some app-based companies have created limited sick leave benefits to respond to this crisis, these plans are voluntary and temporary, and cannot be added to this initiative before voters can weigh in on the ballot measure,” the authors write.

Fuentes says there are many drivers who drive to make money to help support a sick family member.

“They’re doing it because they’re caring for individuals who have illnesses and families, or they have an illness themselves that they can’t have traditional employment because your work arrangements are precarious,” Fuentes said. “That’s why it’s actually more important that those workers get things like paid sick leave or paid family leave.”

Since drivers have to work at least 40 hours a week to reach 25 hours of “engaged time,” taking a vacation will likely affect whether they qualify for healthcare benefits.

3. Drivers won’t be able to unionize

This year, more drivers have been organizing to protest unfair labor practices and the lack of protections during the pandemic. However, if Proposition 22 passes, drivers won’t be able to unionize and leverage the power of collective bargaining. Under federal law, according to the National Labor Relations Board (NLRB), app-based drivers are said to lack benefits of collective bargaining because they’re more like “entrepreneurs,” legally speaking. While the legality of this is disputed by various labor organizations, Fuentes said this leaves an opening for states to “establish a separate organizing statute that gives workers the lawful ability to form a union under state law.”

“The ballot initiative, however, would prevent the state legislature from ever considering a collective bargaining regime unless it gets a 7/8ths vote of the state legislature, which is an impossible threshold,” Fuentes said.

4. Proposition 22 reverses key worker benefit if there’s a car accident

“From a driver’s perspective this is actually one of the things we think is so harmful about the ballot initiatives,” Fuentes said. “California provides workers compensation protection to drivers injured on the job, and that benefit is covered through what is called no-fault coverage.”

Even if they are at fault for the accident or contributed to it, all workers in California are covered by the workers compensation statute. Fuentes said Proposition 22 “reverses that.”

“This suggests to us very clearly that workers could be denied coverage if they’re even partially at fault, which is not something that should ever happen with a workers compensation scheme,” Fuentes said. “And the broader part is that workers who are seriously injured and partially disabled or permanently disabled, you can access that up to a lifetime benefit through California’s Workers Compensations Temporary Disability Program, but the ballot initiative capped at two years.”

5. These reversals and precedents will be most likely permanent

Most astonishing is that Proposition 22, if passed, will be very difficult to amend, since that would require a seven-eighths (87.5%) vote in each chamber of the California State Legislature. Fuentes said this will “lock in” a “permanent underclass of workers.”

“All the historic workplace safety protections that California has enacted to protect workers, all of those things are still vitally necessary and even more so now during COVID-19,” Fuentes said. “From an abstract perspective, the idea that some of the richest companies in the world are passing a ballot initiative that would exempt their workers from basic labor protections is just, I think beyond the pale.”

Fox host Chris Wallace blames Trump for “awful” debate: He bears “responsibility” for what happened

Fox News host Chris Wallace on Thursday blamed President Donald Trump for what he admitted was an “awful” debate.

In his first TV appearance following Tuesday night’s debate, Wallace noted that Trump had interrupted either Democrat Joe Biden or himself 145 times.

“He bears the primary responsibility for what happened on Tuesday,” Wallace said. “At a certain point, 45 minutes in, I called a halt to the debate for a moment and said this really isn’t serving America and please stop the interruptions.”

Wallace complained that his team had spent “hundreds” of hours preparing for the debate only to have it spoiled by the president.

“I was really hoping for the debate that America wanted to see, which was a serious exchange of views,” he recalled. “I felt like I had gotten together all of the ingredients. I had baked this beautiful, delicious cake, and then, frankly, the president put his foot in it.”

“I guess I thought originally that the president was going to engage in a debate with Biden and let Biden answer,” Wallace added. “That was a misapprehension. Then I thought maybe the president is going to do this in the first segment — try to rattle Biden. When that didn’t work, I think he would have been well advised to pull back and let Biden talk more.”

“And then 45 minutes in, I realized what a total mess and disservice this was,” the Fox News host said. “Do I wish I had stepped in earlier? Yes. But, as I say, hindsight is 20-20.”

You can watch the video below via YouTube:

“Stop deflecting”: Fox News reporter erupts after Kayleigh McEnany won’t denounce white supremacy

Fox News’ John Roberts was enraged after the White House press briefing on Thursday in which Kayleigh McEnany refused to denounce white supremacy or explain why the president refuses to do so.

During Tuesday’s debate, Trump hammered former Vice President Joe Biden on denouncing violent protesters, which Biden did, saying that violence is not the answer and anyone who induces violence should be prosecuted. President Donald Trump, by contrast, refused to condemn white supremacists and militias who are trying to stir up more unrest to help Trump craft a narrative that Democrats are dangerous and create violence.

“All of you on Twitter who were hammering me for asking that question, I don’t care!” Roberts said after the contentious press briefing. “Because it’s a question that needs to be asked and clearly the president’s Republican colleagues, a mile away from here, are looking for an answer for it too. So stop deflecting! Stop blaming the media! I’m tired of it!”

You can watch the video below via Twitter:

On Fox News, @johnrobertsFox is visibly angry that @PressSec won't offer a clear denunciation of white supremacy: "Stop deflecting. Stop blaming the media. I'm tired of it. " pic.twitter.com/GcPcOsAHqJ

— Oliver Darcy (@oliverdarcy) October 1, 2020

Women’s empowerment is not “kicking ass in bikinis”: Julie Taymor on what real feminism looks like

“For me, it’s the circle of life,” says Julie Taymor. What else would anyone expect of her?

As the mind behind the groundbreaking, Tony-winning theatrical production of “The Lion King,” as well as films like “Frida,” “Across the Universe” and “The Tempest,” Taymor’s entire career has been steeped in storytelling.

Her new film, which she co-wrote and co-produced as well as directed, is no different. Based on Gloria Steinem’s memoir “My Life on the Road,” Amazon Prime’s “The Glorias” depicts one remarkable life told non-linearly and through four remarkable actresses, including Oscar winners Alicia Vikander and Julianne Moore. Bette Midler and Janelle Monae also star. The director appeared on “Salon Talks” recently about her latest larger than life project. You can watch the interview here or read the transcript of it below.

The following interview has been lightly edited for length and clarity.

I read an interview with you from about three years ago, talking about the process of beginning this film. You said then that it was not going to have too many fantasy or artistic elements in it. The movie I saw has its fair share of fantasy elements. Did it evolve, or is this your idea of a much more cinéma vérité movie?

The main key into making this sprawling, 80-year life was not just having a 6-year-old, a 12-year-old, and Alicia plays 20 to 40, and Julianne plays 40 to 80. The key was, what is going to glue all of these various locations together? It takes place in 50 or 60 cities in America and and India.

The bus out of time, I call it. We come back and forth to this bus, which is the archetype of Greyhound bus. That’s the bus that took the Freedom Riders to the South. It’s the bus that takes you to just granny’s house or your aunt’s or your daughter’s, or to the next demonstration, the next march on Washington, whatever it might be.

The idea was that I could put these four Glorias, sometimes one, sometimes two, three, four, sometimes with other women, on this bus out of time. They would be able to open up their inner landscapes — meaning talk to each other, support each other, criticize each other, reminisce with each other about their past or their future. This is what you’re calling one of my surreal moments, but it’s acted with reality. It’s shot in a bus. It’s in black and white so the audience knows, “Okay, this is not real now,” because we’re going to keep coming back.

Then there’s the other things. I do one level of reality, the acting and the flashbacks to her life with her father and mother on the road and the house, the incredible dancing parties her father would host when she was a little girl on the Michigan lake and the troubles she had as a teenager with her mother who had real mental breakdown for lack of self fulfillment and a lot of drugs and her father leaving.

You see that. You see young Gloria off in India learning about talking circles, riding third class trains. All of this is very much drama that we know, dramatic situations at Smith, at Ms. Magazine, at conventions.

The third, the next level, is archival footage, which I knew from the beginning would be part of it. I shot, four years ago, the election night with Gloria Steinem, Madeline Albright, Samantha Power and 40 female ambassadors. I did not use it because the material was depressing. But I did find something — it’s a spoiler alert so I don’t want to talk about what happens — but that footage can’t be replaced with acting or with drama. Our drama is interspersed with the archival footage, but you can’t have a 20 million people or 20,000 people convention or the 1963 March on Washington. We found color footage. No one’s ever seen color footage of that ever. Really good film quality.

And also there’s many, many backgrounds in the ’60s, ’70s, ’80s, ’90s, where they’re driving in taxis and buses and cars. We had to find the footage outside the windows. But to level back to your question of surreality or flights of fancy or the many, many different names for these moments — they’re not unlike the paintings coming alive in “Frida” or the musical numbers like “I Want You” or “Strawberry Fields” in “Across the Universe,” where you really are telling an inner landscape in an exterior way.

What is she thinking when that interviewer is asking her, “How does it feel to be called a sex object?” Well, our young Gloria, Alicia, at age 39 is speechless. The older Gloria sits right into that seat, and you start to see what could be behind her eyes. She’s got a nice Gloria Steinem smile. She’s not aggressive to him. She says, “My uniform is more comfortable than that one with the pinch tie.” But then you begin to see her imagination going through a whole answer that a lot of women don’t give to men, including Hillary Clinton. Remember that four years ago, the debate where [Trump] was stalking her?

We never knew what the movie was inside her head, because she knew that she couldn’t say it. A lot of women can’t say what they’re thinking. They know that they’ll lose their job. They know that a man will think that they’re aggressive. They might even think they’re a bitch. Look what happened to Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez, on the steps about a month ago, wasn’t the B word used? I wanted to play with this scene where I got to flesh out in a whimsical, imaginative menace, but it’s not really happening.

The way that I do things, that’s a dreamlike thing. And then there are numbers of others. Like the little girl wanted to go to Hollywood. So as she is being brought home in a police car — because her mother thinks that she’s been abducted or run away — she looks out the window of her very dark and very depressed and poor East Toledo neighborhood, and she sees the lights of Hollywood in a very, surrealistic, painterly way. And there’s Fred Astaire leaping off of a marquee and dancing on the frame of her window.

It’s really about what’s in our minds. I firmly believe that too many films have become very grounded in kind of a, as you said, cinéma vérité . But even more than that, just we’re showing what we see as opposed to what we don’t see. I think that the tools of theater, the tools of cinema, are there via animation, CGI. I used a lot of in camera techniques for what I do. It’s meant to look false. It’s not meant to look like, “Oh no, they’re now in a real tornado.” No, no, no. That’s why I color the whole thing red and play around with all kinds of layering, and then Elliot Goldenthal’s music just whoops it up to another level, another heightened level of reality.

When we come back, we drop to, “Oh, she didn’t say anything.” She was just there for two or three silent seconds looking at that man. In that moment, I transitioned from Alicia to Julianne, the bulk of the movie turns to Julianne Moore as Gloria. It’s also a very major, halfway through the movie transition piece.

The story is very much about her in conversation with herself, but it is also about her relationships with other women. There’s a moment where she says, “I am not going to contribute to this falsehood that women can’t get along with each other.”

That’s important. We see too many movies where women are at each other’s throats. The cat fight, mean girls, even “Mrs. America” was really about competition. It wasn’t really truthful in that sense. The fact is that this is a love story of women supporting women. It’s not about sex. It’s about women who love to work and argue occasionally. As Bette Midler says as Bella Abzug, “Of course we fight; we don’t always get along.” But if they’re on the same trajectory and they’re after the same objective, they work together. What I learned from [Steinem’s] book, and then what I wanted to share with everybody, was the women of color who are at the forefront of the woman’s movement.

Even if you go and watch on PBS, that extraordinary documentary on the vote, you’re going to watch how Black women [like] Ida B. Wells were right there. Yes, to a degree because of the hideous racism, they were disenfranchised for a moment when they shouldn’t have been. But now in a second wave of feminism, whether it’s Dorothy Pitman Hughes, who is played by Janelle Monae, or Flo Kennedy, who is played by Lorraine Toussaint, or Wilma Mankiller, the first elected female Cherokee chief of that Cherokee Nation, played by Kimberly Guerrero, and Dolores Huerta and Bella Abzug, who is of course Bette Midler. You see all these astounding women.

I was really amazed how, even at a young age, in that East Toledo neighborhood, Gloria told me about how the barber shop was where she would go when she’d get away from a very unpleasant home, a sad home, a mother who let her do what she wanted, but was so depressed all the time. Gloria tap danced with this other young African-American girl with great Black music playing in the barbershop, and nobody closed the door on her. From a very young age, she crossed over racial and cultural boundary lines. Then at age 20, she got a fellowship after Smith to go to India. I did too. When I was 21, I went to Indonesia for three months and stayed four years. I identify with this: Let’s leave our comfort zone. Let’s go out and really challenge our thoughts, our culture. Look at us from abroad.

From Gloria’s standpoint, she learned about the talking circles. She learned about listening. She couldn’t speak the language, number one, but also these women, these followers of Gandhi who say they taught Gandhi everything that he knew, they brought her to villages that had just had recent caste riots. She saw these women organize the village women around a fire and coax them to tell their stories. By telling their stories, they learned that they weren’t alone and they learned that they could make change. This has been Gloria’s emblem or motto or from the time she was in India, which is to listen and take in what people are saying. She is a grassroots organizer.

That doesn’t mean she isn’t a shining beacon for all of us, and it’s not like she’s passing a torch. She’s going to keep her torch, but she’s also going to light a whole lot of other torches. That is kind of the opposite of what she would say is the patriarchal style where the big leader is at the top saying, “I can fix it. I, and only I.” That’s not who fixes it. It’s the people themselves. We the people — as you’ve been hearing over and over again — of course, is a big part of our film.

I think that these women not only bring tremendous gravitas, but humor. The humor. Gloria is one of the funniest persons. She’s sort of dry funny. Just like Ruth Bader Ginsburg, a sort of this dry wit. She’s not unlike Ruth in that I will call her a quiet, fierce warrior. With what’s happened with the loss of Ruth Bader Ginsburg, it’s even more important that these voices are louder, because if it Ruth hadn’t heard the voices, she couldn’t have made the laws. She didn’t pull it out of whole cloth. She heard the people. Then she looked at what was going on. She heard it from the women and she heard it from the men who said, “Listen, I’m a father who has a child, but I’m not having equal support by the government.”

Gloria is exactly the same. I must stress, this movie is for men, if not more so than for women. How often do men get to see women in the workforce where they’re not revolving around men or a movie that’s not revolving around men? Many men who’ve seen it have told me, they never understood what it felt like. This movie is an insight to that for men and for young people, if they don’t know what it took to get Roe v Wade, what it took to get equality, what it took for women to have their own bankbook and their own name and their own ability to be free and be able to have a job without having to be just a housewife. This is not anti-women at home at all. It’s just about choice. Choice is the big word. This is not pro-abortion, this is about pro-choice. People need to see the distinction.

“Mrs. America” came out earlier this year. We’ve also had the PBS adaptation of the play about Gloria Steinem. It feels like Gloria is so of this moment right now. She is obviously very mediagenic, very charismatic. She never goes out of style. But she feels particularly resonant right now, Julie. What do you think she means to us culturally, where we are literally talking about what’s going to happen to Roe v Wade?

I think she has perspective because of her age. At the women’s march, she said, “One good thing about being older is that you remember when things were worse.” I don’t know if she’d say that four years later, because I’m not sure that we aren’t at rock bottom with the Make America Hate Again motto, MAHA. It’s not MAGA, because it had great aspirations and great things written in our Constitution and great ideas and great people, but not for everybody. I think that if you’re of the mind of, “Let’s make America be what it’s supposed to be, let’s really do that,” then you understand what “great” could be. I think that she has perspective. I think she’s able to have distance and having gone through it, she can help us through these things.

The hope-aholic aspect of her is truly inspiring. “Always,” she’ll say, “let’s look for the upside of the downside.” She is about “don’t give up.” If you give up, you lose. It’s like if you don’t vote, you vote for Trump, basically. If that’s what you want, don’t vote. Or if you really aren’t into Biden, I say, “That’s not who you’re voting for. You’re voting for his cabinet. You’re voting for the environment, for equality, racial equality, gender equality, you’re voting for clean air. You’re voting for COVID to be really handled properly with science. These are the things you’re voting for now. You’re not voting for that man, but that man who’s smart enough, decent enough. He will put the people out there. He’s not going to say, ‘I can do it all.'”

Obviously Mr. I Can Do It All couldn’t do any of it. It’s very tragic right now that there is a cult hero out there for 30% of the population. But she will remind you that that’s only 30%. Let’s get those 70% to use their voice. The only thing we really, really do have in an equal way is the right to vote. If you support it, get rid of voter suppression.

I think Gloria knows all this. She’s tremendous at putting it out there. She has a manner that I’m trying to do now, which is to talk quieter, slower. Lower your voice so that people can hear. She says something beautiful. She says, “You don’t learn when you’re speaking, you learn when you’re listening.”

I don’t think that women show they’re empowered by kicking ass and using weapons in bikinis, which I see all the time. I don’t think that’s women’s empowerment. I think that they’ve been duped. Seriously duped to think that just being able to do your karate and your slicing and your dicing is equality.

No, equality is the prime minister of New Zealand. Angela Merkel is another one. All the women who run the countries in Scandinavia. There are a number of women who are leaders of their countries who have managed the COVID better than any other country. It’s because they don’t take it personally. It’s not a reflection of their ego or narcissism. That’s a huge difference in style.

I think Gloria has learned so much from Native Americans, from Indians, from India. She’s learned about the circle, not just the talking circle. For me, it’s the circle of life, which hearkens back to a piece I did 25 years ago. This movie, even if you just listen to how she speaks in some of the speeches, whether it’s to the Harvard Law School or to the Catholic church, she says things and she says them with humor, which I adore, but I’ve never heard anybody say these things. was very aware as a film director and as a dramatist that, okay it doesn’t have the normal three act structure.

It’s a road picture. That means it’s on a journey. Just get on the bus with her. I know many men, for instance, love the beginning. They love the relationship of her with her father and mother, which is fascinating. That’s what Gloria loves as well, because she really seeing her mother dramatized really got to her through that great actress, Enid Graham, who I did “M. Butterfly” with on Broadway with Clive Owen. It’s amazing how these different aspects of her life hit different viewers. A lot of people, “Who cares about the early life? I want to see the warrior. I want to see Ms. magazine. I want to see the icon I know.” A friend of mine, a filmmaker said, “You create an elevator with 16 floors, but the audience can get off on any floor.”

If you say, “I didn’t go past the sixth floor, I wasn’t interested. I really just liked the Bunny story,” fine. I don’t care. It’s just like “The Lion King.” If you just liked the costumes or the masks or you only liked the South African music and hated the Elton John, that’s all right. Four-year-olds can see it. People who hate Broadway can see it. I believe it’s just a Shakespearian worldview. I think I was brought up with Shakespeare. The groundlings, they love the body humor, they love the clowns, they love the love stories and the battles. And then the philosophers and kings and psychologists can talk about the poetry all they want and talk about the social philosophical ramifications.

I feel like if you watch “The Glorias” more than once, you’re going to keep getting more and more things because you don’t get everything. A good work of art should entertain you. I want people to have a good time and I want them to be moved.

Elliot, my other half, is the composer who did the score. I listened to the music without picture, and I burst into tears on about a three minute cue that I couldn’t even quite remember. And then I went, oh yeah, it’s around the death of Leo, her father.

There are melodies that you will hear played slow, fast. The one that’s for the father and the daughter in the beginning is the same music when Gloria is 50 and is dancing with her men. He slows it down into a slow saxophone jazz piece, but it’s the daddy’s melody.

I did not pick up on that.

Nobody’s going to, but now you get to go hear the score and you go, holy s*it, this guy. I’m amazed. But then that’s why I love him. I had a reason to fall in love. We’ve been together 35 happily unmarried years. I’m very proud of him. We fell in love working together.

This is a movie about collaboration and it’s also a product of collaboration. Julie, you are such an iconic figure in the theater. I can’t imagine what it feels like for you at this moment when the houselights are dim all over the world.

The world. I’m working on some screenplays now, but one of the screenplays I really would rather do is theater, but I’m not sure.

I was on my way to a reading in London for a musical that I was going to do in Germany at just the end of February, beginning of March. We canceled. They were going to build a theater for us in Germany, a special new kind of theater. Four months later. they called and said, “Will you do it when we have our vaccines and everything, but do it on a proscenium?” I declined because I really, firmly believe we need new kinds of theater experiences, new kinds of theaters.

I want to create new experiences, more immersive and also where theater and film combine. Our whole way of sitting and being entertained is going to have to change. I’d love to be at the forefront of building new kinds of architectural spaces, where film and theater are not just using film as projections for scenery replacement, but really moving in and out of stuff and making it in a safe environment, but also an environment where you feel the presence of other human beings. Because just streaming at home, I’m so sad with “The Glorias.”

We saw it with a thousand people at Sundance. Screaming, cheering, applauding, standing ovations. We did it one more time in LA, right before COVID, with five hundred women at the Makers Conference, and they went nuts. I encourage people, see it with families. See it with your 10-year-old daughter too. The rating we got is nonsense. There’s no sex, no nudity. I don’t think the F-word is really a problem for children. I don’t know why they did that because this movie should be seen by 10-year-olds. It’s really important, actually.

“The Glorias” is available on Amazon Prime.

Watch “Weird Al” Yankovic moderate presidential debate in “We’re All Doomed” video

“Weird Al” Yankovic teamed up with the Gregory Brothers for a comedic musical take on Tuesday night’s presidential debate between Donald Trump and Joe Biden with their video for the song “We’re All Doomed.” Yankovic and the Gregory Brothers’ satirical rendering accurately summed up the general consensus following the debate: “We’re all doomed,” Yankovic yells hysterically following a guttural scream to open the clip.

Read more from Rolling Stone: Mac Davis, country singer and Elvis Presley songwriter, dead at 78

The visual finds Yankovic stepping in for Chris Wallace to portray the moderator. He scats, mirroring some of the nonsensical responses that ensued during the event before getting to some topical questions.

Read more from Rolling Stone: In defending Hunter, Biden showed us his potential

“2020’s a raging hellscape,” he sings while asking the first question. “Any ideas on how to stop a worldwide plague?” Yankovic also addresses the economy, the Supreme Court and climate change as the candidates’ words are turned into auto-tuned, sung responses.

Read more from Rolling Stone: Miley Cyrus releases raucous live cover of “Heart of Glass”

Next month, Yankovic collaborator Jon Schwartz will release his new book, “Black & White & Weird All Over: The Lost Photographs of ‘Weird Al’ Yankovic ’83 – ’86,” which features never-before-seen black-and-white images that he took of Yankovic in video sets and recording studios during the artist’s rise into the mainstream. The pair recently shared 16 photographs from the upcoming book and discussed their back-stories with Rolling Stone.

Greenland’s rapid melting could mess with the oceanic “conveyer belt” — with drastic consequences

The ice sheet that covers most of Greenland, the world’s largest island, is on pace to start melting faster than it has in the past 12,000 years. The rate of melting is so fast that one scientist told Salon the potential consequences could be analogous to those of the 2004 global warming-themed disaster movie, “The Day After Tomorrow.”

The study — which was published in the scientific journal Nature and co-authored by researchers from the United States, Canada and Denmark — attempts to reconstruct the melting of the Greenland Ice Sheet (GIS) during the Holocene epoch, or the period of the last 11,700 years.

“Given the short-term nature of the observational record, it is difficult to assess the historical importance of this mass-loss trend,” the authors explained. “Unlike records of greenhouse gas concentrations and global temperature, in which observations have been merged with palaeoclimate datasets, there are no comparably long records for rates of [Greenland Ice Sheet] mass change.”

After studying the southwestern portion of Greenland Ice Sheet, the scientists predicted “mass loss of between 8,800 and 35,900 billion tonnes over the twenty-first century.” They note that the rate of ice loss is higher than it has been at any point in the past 12,000 years.

“Our results indicate, with high confidence, that the rate of mass loss from the [Greenland Ice Sheet] will exceed Holocene rates this century,” they wrote.

One likely consequence of this is that the global mean sea level will rise to dangerous levels. At the current rate at which it is melting, the Greenland Ice Sheet has contributed to a global sea level increase of 0.7 millimeters each year. If the scientists’ models are correct, however, global mean sea level could increase by between 2 and 7 millimeters each year. As global sea levels rise, human populations that reside along coasts will become increasingly vulnerable to flooding and other extreme weather conditions. In the United States alone, almost 40 percent of the population lives in densely populated areas that could be endangered by rising sea levels, including major cities like Boston, New York, Baltimore and Miami. Worldwide, eight of the planet’s 10 largest cities are near a coast.

Another problems with the accelerating melting of the Greenland Ice Sheet is the impact it will have on the Atlantic Meridional Overturning Circulation. The Atlantic Meridional Overturning Circulation is an ocean current that moves warm water from the tropic regions near the equator up to the north Atlantic, including much of western Europe. It forms a part of the larger circulation of water currents throughout the Earth’s oceans, a phenomenon known colloquially as the Global Ocean Conveyer Belt and formally as thermohaline circulation.

The Atlantic Meridional Overturning Circulation moves warm, salty water north through the Atlantic Ocean. The warmer water eventually begins to cool once it reaches the ocean near the United Kingdom, sinking to the bottom of the Labrador and Nordic Seas, settling to the ocean floor and flowing back to the Antarctic Southern Ocean. This system continues to move in what some scientists compare to a conveyor belt — and if it is slowed down or even halted entirely because of the infusion of melted icewater from Greenland, it could have unpredictable and disruptive consequences for humanity and the rest of life on Earth.

“That rate of Greenland melt is approaching or exceeding rates of melt during natural warming periods over the past 12,000 years is not surprising,” Michael Mann, a professor of atmospheric science at Penn State University who did not participate in the study, told Salon by email. “It’s what I would expect given the evidence we have already. This study however provides a better quantification of this matter using climate model simulations combined with long ice core records.”

Mann added that he and Kevin Trenberth, who works for the National Center for Atmospheric Research at the University Corporation for Atmospheric Research, produced a recent study which “shows evidence of the freshening of the sub-polar North Atlantic that we would expect as Greenland continues to melt. That freshening is reducing the stratification of the ocean and likely slowing down the ‘conveyor belt’ ocean circulation (the real-world equivalent of the ‘The Day After Tomorrow’ scenario) showing how these potentially threshold like climate responses are potentially linked.”

He concluded, “As I am fond of saying, uncertainty is not our friend. It’s cutting against us, not in our favor, as we see and learn more.”

“This was premeditated”: Netflix’s “American Murder” shows toxic masculinity at its deadliest

On Aug. 15, 2018, Chris Watts was arrested and subsequently confessed to killing his pregnant wife, Shanann, and their two daughters, Cece and Bella. The story became an immediate media sensation. Watts had spent the five weeks prior appearing on local television stations in Frederick, Colo., tearfully requesting the return of his family.

“Shanann, Bella, Celeste, if you’re out there, just come back,” Mr. Watts said on Aug. 14 in an interview with Denver7. “If somebody has her, just bring her back. I need to see everybody.”

The details of the crime are sickening, but perhaps more so was the public response to the case. People flocked to Shanann’s Facebook page and proceeded to dissect the reasons Chris could have been driven to kill her — her costly fertility treatments, the copious amounts of personal videos online, her involvement in the multilevel marketing company Lev-el, which sold caffeine patches and supplements marketed as weight loss aids.

The narrative quickly turned from “How could he do this?” to “What did she do to make him do this?” But filmmaker Jenny Popplewell wants to flip the narrative yet again. In her new Netflix documentary “American Murder: The Family Next Door,” Popplewell uses both archival footage and Shanann’s personal videos to compile a portrait of a loving mother and wife — who was experiencing what she perceived to be typical relationship strains — and pushes against the idea that Chris “just snapped.”

Popplewell spoke with Salon about what it was like editing the “Pandora’s box” of footage, her views on the harassment Shanann’s family has received, and the horrifying reality of “family annihilators.”

When did you first become familiar with the story of Shanann Watts?

It was towards the end of 2018. It wasn’t front page news here in the U.K. because, obviously, this happened in another country and we were in the depths of Brexit chats. But I first saw the story in the paper and I wasn’t initially looking at it as a filmmaker. I was just shocked as a parent that this seemingly “normal” family could have this happen to them. I’ve followed the story to her Facebook page and that’s where I kind of went down the rabbit hole.

To that end, the backbone of this documentary is archival footage. Some of it is expected — interrogation tape, body cam footage. But there was also this huge wealth of really personal footage from Shanann’s social media and some of her text exchanges. When did you know that that existed and how did you procure some of it for the film?

I knew that a percentage of it existed. I’d seen the testimonials online where she had made these Facebook Live videos and described her life in a number of videos, talked about illness, talked about what a great dad Chris was, what a great husband, how much they love their children. There were a lot of happy family photos.

But it wasn’t until I went to North Carolina and met with her family where they were kind enough to show me the contents of her phone and her laptop drives, which had even more photos and videos. They also gave me her wedding video. So when I came back to the U.K. with this content, it was a “Pandora’s box.” Who knew what was in there? But it was just thousands and thousands and thousands of happy memories. So relatable. All the weekends revolved around the children; they did everything together.

[The videos] also caught private home videos during the last five weeks while she’s in North Carolina with the children, and while Chris is having an affair in Colorado. So, it was really all covered in the hard drive.

There’s an interesting point made in the documentary about how, after Shanann’s disappearance and death, people harassed her family. Did that impact your editing decisions at all knowing that was in the background?

I was really keen on that. You know, Netflix is a worldwide service, and I didn’t want to bring a whole new audience to her Facebook [which is still active] for them to fall down the same trap of victim-shaming. So instead, I needed to address it. . . . People will look at a victim and pick her apart to see if we can find something in her personality that drove somebody to kill her.

That’s only something ever levied against female victims. With Chris, you’ll find so much reporting on his good qualities. Then with Shanann, you will find ways to pick her apart. And I think it’s really important that we address that in the film — highlight that — because that’s not the place we want the audience to go. I want them to remember that she was a woman who loved her children, and not to pick her apart and try to shame her for anything that she really doesn’t deserve.

At the very end of the documentary, you include some statistics about domestic violence. Were you familiar with those statistics coming into the film, or is it something that you discovered in the midst of editing?

The “family annihilation” statistic I discovered during filmmaking because we wanted to look into Chris and find out how likely is what he did. Is this a completely unique occurrence? And domestic violence is actually increasing, especially with the lockdown.

Family annihilators are a certain type of killer. People report about what their wife was life — whether she was leaving him, whether she was having an affair, whether they were having financial issues. They are always looking for the trigger. Whereas, really, it’s just about that man’s image, his own personal self-image and how he deals with his own toxic masculinity and not what his partner does, because otherwise we are all in danger. These are everyday situations that people around the world deal with without resorting to murdering their family.

Statistics show that he’s not only in a large group — and growing group — of men who do this, but the statistics show that it’s most frequently a white male in his 30s that commits the crime on a Sunday in August.

That was Chris, though he committed this in the early hours of Monday, but he’s to type.

So, I watch and cover a lot of true crime stuff. I’ve seen things that are definitely gorier than “American Murder,” or perhaps seem more dark on the surface, but this documentary affected me emotionally in a way I wasn’t expecting. It was this visceral sickness that I think came from the dichotomy of Chris’ disgusting crime and how “normal” his life seemed. How were you emotionally affected by putting this documentary together?

I mean, it’s heartbreaking. I was heartbroken when I first read the story, then it only gets worse when you see even more photos and videos. That was every day for five months of my life, looking at Cece and Bella and this perfect, perfectly happy, relatable, normal American family. They’re so very alive in all these videos. One day we’re editing those, and the next day, you’re listening over and over again to Chris’ confession. So it was an emotional film to make and, as a mother myself, it’s just inconceivable that this is what he chose to do.

He likes to say in his confession that he thinks he “snapped,” but he’s not a credible witness. He was shown to lie for five weeks, he lied long before [the Monday he killed Shanann and his daughters]. I don’t believe his confession . . . I believe that this was premeditated, that he knew he was going to do this.

“American Murder: The Family Next Door” is now streaming on Netflix.

Ted Cruz: Senate must confirm Amy Coney Barrett so it can “resolve any cases” involving the election

Senate confirmation hearings for Judge Amy Coney Barrett, President Donald Trump’s far-right Supreme Court nominee, are scheduled to begin on Monday, Oct. 12 — and prominent GOP senators like Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell and Sen. Lindsey Graham (chairman of the Senate Judiciary Committee) are making it abundantly clear that they expect to see Barrett’s confirmation rammed through the Senate as soon as possible. Two of the main reasons why Republicans are so anxious to see Barrett confirmed are Roe v. Wade and Obamacare. But Sen. Ted Cruz of Texas is stressing that there is another reason to move quickly with her confirmation: Barrett could be a key vote on election disputes.

“The entire reason the Senate should act and should act promptly to confirm a ninth justice is so that the Supreme Court can resolve any cases that arise in the wake of the election,” Cruz told reporters.

Translation: If the 2020 presidential election is really close in key swing states such as Pennsylvania, Florida, North Carolina and Arizona and there any disputes with the vote count, Cruz would like to make sure that Barrett is on the Supreme Court so that she could rule on the case.

Prominent Democrats, however, are saying that if Barrett is confirmed and the Supreme Court does end up ruling on any election disputes, Trump’s nominee needs to recuse herself — and that not doing so would be unethical.

During an appearance on NBC News’ “Meet the Press” on Sunday, Sept. 27, New Jersey Sen. Cory Booker — a Democratic member of the Senate Judiciary Committee — said of Barrett, “If she does not recuse herself, I fear that the Court will be further delegitimized.”

Booker is among the Senate Democrats who has said that he is open to the possibility of expanding or “packing” the high court with additional seats if Barrett’s nomination is rammed through before Election Day, which is Tuesday, Nov. 3. Under the U.S. Constitution, the Supreme Court does not have to have nine justices — and Congress would have the power to vote to expand the number of justices to ten, 11, 12 or more. President Franklin Delano Roosevelt hoped to expand the number of Supreme Court justices during the 1930s but was unsuccessful and encountered opposition from members of Congress.

Sen. Chris Coons of Delaware told National Public Radio that if Barrett is confirmed so close to a presidential election, she “should recuse herself” from voting on any election-related matters.

Cruz, however, doesn’t see it that way. And Trump himself is making it clear that he believes Barrett should vote on election-related matters if she is confirmed by the Senate.

“I think this (election) will end up in the Supreme Court,” Trump said this week, “and I think it’s very important that we have nine justices.”

“Biden won”: Fox Business host gives Kayleigh McEnany a post-debate reality check on live TV

Following Trump’s presidential debate with former Vice President Joe Biden on Tuesday night, Sept. 29, Fox Business host Stuart Varney was honest enough to admit that Biden won the debate. And he was clearly in disagreement with White House Ppess secretary Kayleigh McEnany when she tried to convince him that Trump was the winner.

McEnany, appearing on Fox Business, told Varney that Trump was “in very good spirits” following the debate and “brought the fight that I think the American people wanted to see.” But Varney responded that Trump was much too abrasive for his own good during the debate, which was moderated by Fox News’ Chris Wallace.

“His style, the frequent interruptions — I mean, the insults came from Biden — but the frequent interruptions and the talking over everybody, that was a lot from President Trump,” Varney argued. “And I think that’s what the audience didn’t like and will turn off.”

After McEnany claimed that Trump’s “offense style” was necessary to get answers from Biden, Varney told her, “What’s your response to this? Biden won simply because he got through the whole 90 minutes — no gaffe, no senior moments, no lack of focus, and reasonable amount of energy all the way through. Therefore, he survived. He won.”

But McEnany maintained that Trump won the debate, resorting to bogus talking points about Biden and Antifa.

“No gaffes — that’s a really subjective interpretation,” McEnany told Varney. “I would consider it a pretty big gaffe when asked about antifa — an organization that has killed Americans and targeted police officers — and there’s no condemnation of that group. I consider that a pretty big gaffe, along with many others.”

Biden, in fact, has been stressing that he condemns violence from either the left or right. And Trump is drawing a great deal of criticism for, during the debate, expressing his solidarity the Proud Boys — a white nationalist group that openly promotes violence. Trump said, “Proud Boys, stand back and stand by.”

You can watch the video below via YouTube:

“Aswang” examines the horror of life under Duterte & the extra-judicial killings targeting the poor

The title of the harrowing documentary, “Aswang,” refers to the myth of “a shapeshifter that preys on humans and kills anyone who dares to look back.” It is a fitting metaphor for Rodrigo Duterte, the controversial President of the Philippines, whose “war on drugs” — he vows to kill drug users — has resulted in 31,232 deaths according to one source. Most of these deaths, which are dubbed “extra-judicial killings” (meaning not legalized), are innocent poor people. However, the film features a radio report of a police general giving an interview that says there is no evidence to support the claim that the government is behind these murders.

In “Aswang,” screening online at the Asian American International Film Festival, director Alyx Ayn Arumpac provides a chilling tour of these mean streets of Manila. A woman sweeps away a river of blood and the air is permeated with death. Someone in the film states that one can “taste the metal — not from bullets or knives — but blood.”

Most viewers will want a deep-cleaning shower after watching this worthwhile documentary. Arumpac fearlessly observes several crime scenes. She attends a meeting where she learns that a church program that provided funeral assistance for the poor saw the requests raise from 1-2 a week to 3-5 a day. One coffin, seen in the film, has a baby chick placed on top of it, signifying that the killer runs loose. The filmmaker also visits a morgue that puts unidentified bodies in a mass grave if they are unclaimed after three months. Another scene features a group of men, walking through the streets self-flagellating, and bloodying their backs in a prayer for forgiveness. These episodes are all vividly rendered with indelible images that give viewers a queasy “you are there” feeling of life on these unforgiving city streets.

Arumpac includes affecting interviews with family members of victims who have been murdered. A mother, whose son was killed, explains that the police report says he was shot while riding a motorcycle. But, she insists, not only did he not own a motorcycle, he did not know how to ride one. She wants justice for her son but acknowledges there will not be any consequences. A widow says she won’t file a complaint about her murdered husband because “It won’t bring him back,” adding, “Even if he were guilty [and it is implied he is not] why kill him?” Another man mourns his innocent brother, “What they did to [him] was wrong,” he acknowledges. But, oddly, he claims to be “for Duterte.” According to one remarkable statistic in the film, 85% of Filipinos support Duterte‘s antidrug campaign.

The government is seen mostly in statistics and reports. The film is showcasing the conditions of the poor who are seen laying like sardines in a can in one jail cell. As one subject in the film observes, “If a poor man commits wrongdoing, he is killed; A rich man goes to an air-conditioned jail.” There are scenes of people sleeping atop graves, and a man sifting through trash.

“Aswang” also follows Jomari, a young boy whose mother is in jail for drug addiction. Arumpac helps him get sandals and a Lakers jersey for a Saturday visit to his mom in prison. However, seeing Jomari, who dreams of being a policeman, play with his friend among trash, picking out empty packets which are used for drugs, steers the film into poverty porn. Jomari’s endangerment is echoed in a report that children are forbidden to go out because of the threats on their lives. This is borne out when Jomari disappears for a stretch of the film, and Arumpac tries to track him down, hoping he is OK.

“Fear is inevitable” is another line spoken in the film, and it is credited to someone doing drugs, who must trust their source and the people around them not to become a victim. Drugs are their vice, as it is for so many others, and “Aswang” captures the risk these folks are taking without judgment. Likewise, there are men who claim they work mostly to support their children and give them a future.

The film is a study in contrasts. The anguished wails of pain from mourners are numbing and juxtaposed with protesters urging to “stop the killings.” There are heartfelt testimonies and pleas for safety as well as the burning question, “Why does the war on drugs only target the poor?”

“Aswang” culminates in what may be the most shocking sequence as a woman who was kidnapped gives testimony about her experiences in a secret jail. She draws the cabinet that hides the door in the wall of a police station where folks were imprisoned; if they did not pay 100,000 pesos for their freedom, they would be charged with selling or using drugs. When a Commission on Human Rights uncovers the secret jail, one man interviewed describes being electrocuted. Arumpac’s camera enters the claustrophobic space and viewers can only imagine how 30 people were kept there in dehumanizing conditions.

Arumpac documents these moments in an unflinching manner. Her film is difficult, but its power is unshakable.

“Aswang” is available to watch on demand from Oct. 1-11 through the 43rd Asian American International Film Festival.