Spring Sale: Get 1 Year, Save 58%

Ted Cruz says he doesn’t want to join the Supreme Court after being shortlisted by Trump

U.S. Sen. Ted Cruz, R-Texas, is making clear that he’s not interested in serving on the U.S. Supreme Court, despite President Donald Trump recently naming him to a group of potential nominees.

When Trump announced Cruz as part of the 20-name list Wednesday, the senator issued a statement suggesting he was satisfied with remaining in Congress. He more explicitly said he wasn’t interested during a Fox News interview Sunday.

“Do you want the job?” host Maria Bartiromo asked.

“I don’t,” Cruz responded. “It is deeply honoring, it’s humbling to be included in the list … but it’s not the desire of my heart. I want to be in the political fight.”

Cruz, the former solicitor general of Texas, has been mentioned before as a possible Supreme Court pick, and he’s given a similar answer. He also said in 2016 that serving on the high court was “not the desire of my heart.”

Trump also named a second Texan, James Ho, to his list of potential Supreme Court picks. Ho is a judge on the 5th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals and former Texas solicitor general.

Cruz has written a book about the Supreme Court that is due out Oct. 6. Cruz promoted the book Monday as part of a tweet where he said Democrats were trying to “steal” the presidential race, responding to the newly reported formation of a legal operation focused on ensuring the integrity of the November election.

Shunning masks is a central sacrament of the Trump cult: Reason can’t compete with faith

Within the next few days, we will pass a grisly benchmark: more than 200,000 Americans dead from the coronavirus. Public health experts predict that number may rise to 400,000 by the end of the year. If the Trump administration pursues a “herd immunity” strategy, where the disease is allowed to spread unchecked throughout the country, then millions of people may die.

During Tuesday night’s ABC News town hall broadcast, Donald Trump admitted that allowing the coronavirus to infect the American people en masse is his preferred strategy.

It is clear that wearing a mask that covers one’s mouth and nose is the easiest way to slow the transmission of the coronavirus. If a national mask mandate had been instituted across the United States in March, many thousands of lives would have been spared, and the country’s economy might not now be in ruins.

Why then do so many Americans refuse to wear masks during this pandemic?

Social scientists and other researchers have reached several preliminary conclusions.

People with lower cognitive abilities find it difficult to follow directions about when to wear a mask and when it is appropriate and safe not to do so. Moreover, when the rules about wearing a mask are inconsistent, it becomes even more difficult for people with lower cognitive abilities to wear masks consistently and correctly.

Researchers have also found that people who exhibit the “dark triad” of behavior and personality traits (Machiavellianism, narcissism and psychopathy) are also more likely not to wear masks as compared to others.

Among men, a refusal to wear a mask is connected to a sense of fragile and embattled masculinity, in which masks are viewed as being “weak” and “feminine” and “not cool.” For such men who lack confidence in their sense of self and overall identity, not wearing a mask is a selfish act which they view as strength and perhaps as evidence that they are “alpha males” who can win a primitive test of “survival of the fittest.”

In Scientific American, Emily Willingham suggests that masks are also viewed as a “condom of the face” by men who are afflicted with “toxic masculinity”:

So, they go maskless. In doing so, they expect that their masculine ideology group will accept them, respect them and not reject them.

The irony is that these men think they’re manifesting the ideal of the rugged, individualistic American, when their refusal really traces in part to a fear of what other people will think about them. Drunk on a toxic brew of self-interest and that masculine ideology, they mistake their refusal to protect themselves and others as a mark of character when instead, it’s a mark on their characters.

Moving from the general to the specific, what is known about the relationship between wearing a mask during the coronavirus pandemic and a person’s political values and beliefs?

Unsurprisingly, political partisanship and support for Donald Trump and the Republican Party is highly correlated with refusal to wear a mask and opposition to other public health initiatives which are intended to stop the pandemic.

Such thinking and behavior also reflect the fact that Trump supporters, Republicans, and other conservatives exist in a media echo chamber which has assured them that the pandemic is a “hoax” or “fake news” crafted by liberals and intended to hurt the Trump administration. As has been repeatedly shown by media scholars and other researchers, the right-wing echo chamber is a system ruled by epistemic closure in which incorrect information, outright lies and conspiracy theories dominate. As is often cited, viewers of Fox News actually know less about empirical reality and the world as it relates to current events than people who watch no news programs at all.

The politicized quality of wearing a mask is the result of extreme asymmetrical polarization in which movement conservatives, leading Republicans, right-wing news media, white right-wing evangelical churches, and other influential figures on the right have politicized broad areas of public and private life — to the point where basic questions of public health and the common good are transformed into partisan issues of personal identity and the self.

Donald Trump leads an authoritarian cult of personality. Given that, his ability to influence the thinking and behavior of his followers is extreme.

Trump’s repeated suggestions that his followers should not wear masks, should feel free to ignore social distancing rules and attend his rallies, and should even take up arms against Democratic officials such as Gov. Gretchen Whitmer of Michigan have a direct and measurable impact on public health by encouraging the spread of the coronavirus.

But Trump’s power over his followers reveals something much more dangerous and troubling about American society than “just” the coronavirus and its season of death — and even more than the underlying social inequalities and pathologies that made this pandemic so much worse than it should have been.

Beginning in the 1980s, American conservatism has morphed into a type of religious politics in which fact and reason have been subsumed by faith. This manifests in many ways: anti-intellectualism and anti-rationality, racism and white supremacy, hostile sexism and misogyny, a worship of ignorance and greed, right-wing Christian fundamentalism, a disregard for truth and empirical reality, and contempt for expert knowledge.

At its root, faith is a belief in that which cannot be proven by empirical or other ordinary means. The Republican Party’s policies on taxes, the environment, social inequality, education, public health and other issues (tax cuts pay for themselves!) are rooted in faith. They are easily refuted and disproved by the empirical data. In practice, that makes no difference to those who are true believers.

If today’s American conservatism is a type of religious politics, then Trumpism is one of its most dangerous sects and a de facto cult. In the age of Trump, refusing the mask is a form of sacrament, a political-religious symbol that signifies loyalty to Donald Trump and his movement.

Authoritarianism and other fake populist movements gather power through their ability to transfer the leader into a type of godhead, an extension of an embattled and fearful self that is made immortal through loyalty to the Great Leader. Moreover, authoritarianism — and fascism in particular — is a type of death cult where the followers will willingly sacrifice themselves for the greatness of the Leader. Trump’s followers, as their predecessors did in Germany, Italy and elsewhere, are prepared to kill or die for their leader. 

At the heart of Trumpism is a form of existential angst, what is a fundamental crisis of meaning and human value.

Writing at the Metta Center for Nonviolence, UC Berkeley professor emeritus Michael Nagler explains this:

Because of my background in ancient religion and culture I have special reason to be alarmed by the frequent references to the psychopathology of the president and his followers as a “cult.” Not that I find these references misleading — on the contrary, they contain a truth that’s more dangerous than we may realize.

I’m old enough to remember “the Jonestown massacre” of November, 1978, in which some 900 Americans committed what they called “revolutionary suicide” at the behest of a deranged demagogue. After the horrific event sunk in, I could not stop asking myself, “How could 900 presumably educated, mature adults, poison themselves — and in some cases their own children — and do it for such an obvious egotist? What was wrong with them? What were they lacking?”

Strangely no one seemed to be asking this obvious question.

The question, Nagler continues, “has come back to haunt us with greater urgency. But this time it’s not just a circle of deluded followers — it’s the whole country that’s at the mercy of an egotistical demagogue. … And the cup he’s offering is not cyanide but ecocide: the extinction of all life on earth. … As we know from the nightmare of Nazism, when the ‘leader’ supports the delusions, the conspiracy theories of a deluded element in the society, as the current president is doing, the combination can reach extremely dangerous proportions.”

At the Wire, cultural theorist Sibaji Bandyopadhyay explained the role of collective narcissism and sadism in attracting profoundly damaged people to neofascist movements and political cult leaders like Trump:

It is therefore quite feasible to imagine that at certain historical conjunctures there may arise situations in which the vacuous ego of one megalomaniac succeeds in superimposing itself on many an ego by the conduit of primary narcissism. And indeed, the ‘art’ involved in the deal offered by Donald Trump is squarely predicated upon what may be termed transactional narcissism. In this scenario, to use the formula of Freud, people accept Trump as their “high ego-ideal” and “exchange [their] narcissism for homage to [it]”. In short, it is not a tale of isolated, solitary self-love but that of interdependence and reciprocity: rising to the level of being a fully-exposed syndrome, Trump’s Other-abjuring narcissistic persona both feeds on and flares up the mostly latent similar sort of narcissism of the mostly forgotten masses.

But, this is not all.

Whoever courts an ego-ideal, secretly pines for the tantalizing interplay of pleasure and pain. By transferring primary narcissism to the safe-keeping of some supposed strongman, more often than not, s/he automatically takes on the role of being passively active in some theatre of sadomasochism.

As journalist Bob Woodward has recently revealed, Donald Trump knew from the beginning that the coronavirus was lethal, not a hoax. Trump simply chose to lie to the American people about the pandemic, as well as to actively sabotage relief efforts, and in doing so committed a crime against humanity. Trump’s political cult members are not moved by these facts. They continue to gather at his command at rallies where thousands huddle together unmasked to bask in the glorious revelation of his presence. At Trump’s rally last Sunday in Nevada, thousands of his followers actually ran into the arena, as though they were on fire with joy.

It was perhaps too irresistible to liberal schadenfreude, this image of Trumpists enthusiastically running into a pandemic petri dish as though it was the healing fountain at Lourdes.

Journalist Carl Bernstein told CNN’s Anderson Cooper,  “We are witnessing a homicidal president convening ― purposefully ― a homicidal assembly to help him get re-elected as president of the United States instead of protecting the health and welfare of the people of the United States, including his own supporters whose lives he is willing to sacrifice.”

To those outside the Trump cult such behavior makes no sense and is just further proof that Trump’s followers are human “deplorables” – in this example fulfilling their role as human bioweapons for Trumpism. 

But such an analysis ignores the power of Trumpism and today’s version of “conservatism” as a type of religious politics. Trump’s followers run toward death because he and his movement are providing them with emotional nourishment and meaning in their lives.

Trump’s neofascist movement will not disappear even if the Great Leader is voted out of office on Election Day and decides to step down. Such people will just latch onto another American fascist and demagogue, in whatever form he or she may take. Decent Americans may see the Trumpists and others of their ilk as tainted, but they themselves feel touched and empowered. In living the faith of their right-wing political religion, Trump’s followers have found “salvation” through a leader who is simultaneously “like them” but is also a type of semi-divine prophet whose example they aspire to imitate or emulate.

The super-rich — you know, people like the Trumps — are raking in billions

Ponder that.

For each additional dollar you earned in 2018 compared to 2016, each of the Platinum-Premiere crowd got an additional $2,215.

The bottom line: with Trump as president it’s good to be rich.

The average Platinum-Premiere American enjoyed is $7.1 million more income under Trump in 2018 than in 2016, the last year that Barack Obama was president. For the Ninety-Nine-Percenters, in contrast, average income rose just $3,360 with most of that gain among those making $200,000 to $500,000.

Not widely reported

You haven’t heard these numbers on the nightly news or read them in your morning newspaper because no one announced them. I distilled them from an official government report known as IRS Table 1.4, a task I’ve repeated annually for a quarter-century.

At DCReport we don’t attend press conferences, we don’t rewrite press releases and we don’t depend on access to officials because other journalists do that just fine. Instead, we scour the public record for news that oozes, news that no one announced.

Last week I reported my preliminary analysis of Table 1.4, showing that 57% of American households were better off under Obama. That contradicted Trump’s naked claim, repeated uncritically and often in news reports, that he created the best economy ever until the coronavirus pandemic.

This week’s focus is on the big changes in how the American income pie is being divvied up.

More for the top

The rich and super-rich are enjoying a bigger slice of the American income pie.

On the other hand, this is a truly awful time to be poor. Trump policies are narrowing the pockets of the poor, the third of Americans make less than $25,000. In 2018 their average income was just $12,600, a dollar a day less than in 2016.

Trump & Co. has numerous plans afoot to reduce incomes of the poor even more and take away government benefits, as we have been documenting at DCReport.

Less for the bottom

The poor saw their slice of the national income pie shrink by 1 percentage point from 6.5% to 5.5%. In a mirror image of that change, the super-rich saw their share of income pie grow by the same 1 percentage point, from 4.5% to 5.7% of all income.

That means the richest 22,122 households now collectively enjoy more income than the poorest 50 million households.

What these huge disparities make clear is that the sum of all Trump policies not only makes the poor worse off, but their losses are transformed into the gains of the super-rich.

The economic growth that began in early 2010 when Obama was president continued under Trump, albeit at a slower pace as DCReport showed last year. Pre-pandemic Trump underperformed Reagan, Clinton, Carter and the last six years of Obama, who inherited the worst economy in almost a century.

The continuing upward trajectory for the economy meant that overall Americans made more money in 2018 than in 2016 even after adjusting for inflation of 4.1% over two years. Total income grew by almost $1 trillion to $11.6 trillion.

Half-trillion for the one-percenters

Almost half of the increase went to the 1%. They enjoyed $487 billion more money. The rest of America, a group 99 times larger, divvied up $511 billion.

The big winners, though, were the super-rich, the $10 million-plus crowd. That group consists of just one in every 7,000 taxpayers yet they captured every sixth dollar of increased national income, a total gain of $157 billion.

So, if you are among the 152 million American taxpayers in the 99% ask yourself whether Trump administration policies are good for you. Do you want a government of the rich, by the rich and overwhelmingly for the rich? Or would you prefer a government that benefits all Americans?

And see what you can do to make sure more Americans know about the big shifts in the way America’s income pie is being sliced up.

 

Surveillance drones come home from war: Is the “eye in the sky” looking for you?

“Gorgon Stare will be looking at a whole city, so there will be no way for the adversary to know what we’re looking at, and we can see everything.” That same persistent eye in the sky may soon be deployed over U.S. cities.

When Maj. Gen. James Poss made that comment, he was the U.S. Air Force’s top intelligence officer and was discussing the use of surveillance drones over Afghanistan. Poss was preparing to leave the Pentagon and move over to the Federal Aviation Administration. His job there was to begin executing the plan to allow those same surveillance drones to fly over American cities. 

This plan was ordered by Congress in the 2010 National Defense Authorization Act. It directed the Departments of Defense and Transportation to “develop a plan for providing expanded access to the national airspace for unmanned aircraft systems of the Department of Defense.” Gen. Poss was one of nearly two dozen ex-military officers who, starting in 2010, were put into positions at the FAA to oversee drone integration research. With little public scrutiny, the plan has been moving forward ever since.

If you’re thinking that this is a partisan issue, think again. This plan has been enacted and expanded under presidents and congressional leadership of both parties. If you’re uncomfortable with a President Joe Biden having the ability to track the movements of every Tea Party or QAnon supporter, you should be. Just as we should all be concerned about a President Trump tracking … well, everybody else.

Along with civil liberties, a major concern must be safety. The military and the drone manufacturers, principally General Atomics, are arguing that the technology has advanced far enough that flying 79-foot wingspan, six-ton drones over populated areas and alongside commercial air traffic is safe. We have one response: self-driving cars. Self-driving cars present a technological problem that is an order of magnitude simpler than aircraft flying hundreds of miles per hour in three dimensions. Yet they still can’t keep these cars from plowing into stationary objects like fire trucks (or people) at 60 miles an hour in two dimensions.

Are we really comfortable with pilotless aircraft operating in the same airspace as the 747 at 30,000 feet that is bringing your children home for Christmas? These drones have a troubled history of crashing and, unfortunately, the process for determining whether they are now truly safe has been compromised by allowing the military, which wants this approval, to remain largely in charge of the testing.

Which brings us to San Diego. Last October, General Atomics announced it they would be flying the company’s biggest, most advanced surveillance drone yet, the SkyGuardian, over the city of San Diego sometime this summer. Its stated purpose was to demonstrate potential commercial applications of large drones over American cities. In this case, the drone would be used to survey the city’s infrastructure. 

But when General Atomics first began preparing for the flight, the goal was very different: Back in 2017, military technology analysts were predicting that by 2025, drones similar to those used in Afghanistan and Iraq would be hovering above U.S. cities, relaying high-resolution video of the movement of every citizen to police departments (and who knows who else). When there was public pushback to this police department drone use — even a pro-industry reporter called the idea “dystopian” — General Atomics changed the stated purpose of the flight from providing data to the police to mapping critical infrastructure” in the San Diego region.

The FAA, which is responsible for granting permission to General Atomics, has kept the process secret. When the Voice of San Diego asked for more information, the FAA refused — on the grounds that this supposed commercial demonstration was actually “military.” The Voice of San Diego is now suing to get answers and the ACLU has also expressed concern about the flight. Amid the scrutiny, General Atomics quietly announced that the flight had been canceled, but this is certain to be a small hiccup in their long-term plan.

In fact, General Atomics’ drones are already being used domestically. U.S. Customs and Border Protection (CBP) flies Predators over parts of the Mexican and Canadian borders. Recently, CBP has expanded their reach, using these drones to assist police in such cities as Minneapolis, San Antonio and Detroit in the wake of protests against police brutality. Deeply concerned, members of Congress wrote to federal agencies denouncing the chilling effect of government surveillance on law-abiding Americans and demanding an immediate end to the surveillance of peaceful protests. 

The concerns of these members of Congress should be echoed by the general public. What are the possible effects on our civil liberties of having high-tech surveillance platforms circling over millions of Americans, gathering information about our every move? We know from past experience that every government surveillance technology that can be abused has been abused. Allowing this powerful technology to be taken from overseas wars and turned inward on American citizens isn’t something that should happen without robust public debate. The implications for civil liberties are too profound.

Republicans tell the truth about Biden probe: “It would certainly help Donald Trump win re-election”

Democrats accused Sen. Ron Johnson, R-Wis., of abusing his position after he publicly admitted that his investigation into the party’s presidential nominee Joe Biden would “certainly” help President Donald Trump’s re-election chances.

Johnson, the chairman of the Senate Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs Committee, has led a probe into Obama-era intelligence activities and Biden’s alleged ties to Ukraine for months after a similar effort by Trump attorney Rudy Giuliani led to the president’s impeachment last year. Johnson acknowledged during an interview first flagged by Politico that his probe would “certainly” damage Biden’s electoral hopes.

“The more that we expose of the corruption of the transition process between Obama and Trump, the more we expose of the corruption within those agencies, I would think it would certainly help Donald Trump win re-election and certainly be pretty good, I would say, evidence about not voting for Vice President Biden,” Johnson said in a radio interview on Tuesday.

Johnson claimed during another radio interview this week that the evidence his committee had found was so “outrageous” that “it should completely disqualify Biden from president.”

RELATED: Invisible company owned by Rudy Giuliani got taxpayer-backed PPP money — but where did it go?

Democrats compared Johnson’s admission to House Minority Leader Kevin McCarthy’s, R-Calif., 2015 boast that the Republican-led Benghazi investigation was aimed at hurting former presidential nominee Hillary Clinton’s poll numbers.

“This damning acknowledgment totally exposes that Ron Johnson’s disgraceful conduct is the definition of malfeasance,” Biden spokesman Andrew Bates told Politico. “It is beyond time for him to end this embarrassing and deeply unethical charade once and for all — as a number of his Senate Republican colleagues have long wanted.”

The criticism was not limited to Democrats, however. Johnson on Wednesday pulled a planned vote on a subpoena related to Burisma, a Ukrainian energy company which once employed Biden’s son Hunter, after criticism from Sen. Mitt Romney, R-Utah.

Romney said during a committee meeting that the investigation into Burisma was a “political exercise.”

“Obviously, it’s the province of campaigns and political parties, opposition research, the media to carry out political endeavors, to learn about or dust up one’s opponent. But it’s not the legitimate role of government for Congress or for taxpayer expense to be used in an effort to damage political opponents,” Romney said. “Therefore, I am pleased that our votes today do not include additional authorizations relating to the Biden-Burisma investigation.”

The committee did, however, authorize 40 subpoenas related to the FBI’s investigation into Russian election interference.

“I will continue that support as long as it does not fall in the realm of rank political undertaking,” Romney said. “I do believe it’s very important that that the committees of Congress — and ours in particular — not fall into an increasing pattern that we’re seeing, which is using taxpayer dollars and the power of Congress to do political work.”

The investigations have been repeatedly pushed by Trump, who has made numerous baseless allegations about Hunter Biden’s work in Ukraine and the Obama administration’s efforts to “spy” on his campaign. Many of the Biden claims were debunked by career officials during the impeachment hearings. The FBI probe has also been investigated by Congress and the Justice Department, which found no evidence of Trump’s claim that the Obama administration had “spied” on him and concluded that there was ample reason for the probe.

Johnson rejected the bipartisan criticism of his investigation during the Tuesday interview.

“There’s a coordinated effort now,” he claimed, “to destroy me.”

Angry Americans: How political rage helps campaigns but hurts democracy

As the 2020 presidential election draws near, one thing is clear: America is an angry nation. From protests over persistent racial injustice to white nationalist-linked counterprotests, anger is on display across the country.

The national ire relates to inequality, the government’s coronavirus response, economic concerns, race and policing. It’s also due, in large part, to deliberate and strategic choices made by American politicians to stoke voter anger for their own electoral advantage.

Donald Trump’s attempts to enrage his base are so plentiful that progressive magazine The Nation called him a “merchant of anger.” Meanwhile, his opponent, Joe Biden, elicits anger toward the president, calling Trump a “toxic presence” who has “cloaked America in darkness.”

Anger-filled political rhetoric is nothing new. From Andrew Johnson and Richard Nixon to Newt Gingrich, politicians have long known that angry voters are loyal voters. People will support their party’s candidates locally and nationally so long as they remain sufficiently outraged at the opposing party.

While inciting voter anger helps candidates win elections, research from my book, “American Rage: How Anger Shapes Our Politics,” shows that the effects of anger outlast elections. And that can have serious consequences for American democracy’s long-term health.

Trust in government

Political anger lowers citizens’ trust in the national government, causing people to view it with hostility, skepticism and outright contempt. Due to the increasingly national focus of politics, that anger is often directed squarely at the federal government, not state or local officials.

That creates a governance problem. As previous scholars have demonstrated, trust facilitates bipartisan lawmaking and support for social welfare programs that seek to make society more equitable, among other policies.

Americans’ trust in government has been declining for six decades.

Scholars have argued that party affiliation determines trust in government. When one’s preferred party controls government, that trust is high; when the opposing party has power, it’s low.

While partisanship does affect people’s trust in various political institutions, it cannot explain why overall faith in the U.S. government has been dropping for decades. After all, party control of Washington switches frequently.

My research finds sustained anger is a more likely suspect for Americans’ diminished trust in government.

Though American political anger has many sources, it was Ronald Reagan’s 1981 assertion that “government is not the solution to our problem, government is the problem” that really began to solidify Republicans’ anger at the federal government.

This statement, rooted in the conservative preference for individualism and free markets over government intervention, crystallized latent Republican anger with what many considered to be an activist federal government. That anger is in full bloom today.

Anger with the government is not simply a conservative phenomenon. Liberals are mad, too — usually because they believe the government is not doing enough to address racial and social inequalities. That anger, too, is in full bloom today.

Angry people tend to negatively judge the source of their anger. So when politicians continually label each other with crude epithets and infuriate people by taking — or not taking — certain actions, the public responds by lowering their evaluations of Washington.

Eventually, they question what government is even capable of.

Health of American democracy

Anger causes Americans to adopt attitudes that run contrary to the democratic ideals of the nation, my research shows.

It makes Americans see supporters of the opposing political party as less intelligent than themselves. Arguably more harmful for democracy, anger also makes people see supporters of the opposing political party as a threat to the country’s well-being.

These findings help explain why both Democrats and Republicans tend to hold a dim view of each other. Recent polling data finds that nearly two-thirds of Republicans see Democrats as “closed-minded,” while approximately half of Democrats see Republicans as “immoral.” In 2016 only half of Republicans and a third of Democrats held these views. Partisan antipathy is rising.

Angry people generally want to blame somebody — or some group — for their problems, whether they are the real or perceived cause. Political campaigns, logically, work to elicit anger at the opposing party. This means that their supporters are quick to blame those who disagree with them for the country’s shortcomings.

Consequently, voter anger causes politics to move beyond a competition of ideas and philosophies and into a zero-sum game in which each side’s gain is the other’s loss. That weakens people’s commitment to the democratic norms and values that have long been the linchpin of the U.S. political system, such as tolerance and a respect for minority opinions.

In 2018 the Pew Research Center found that 40% of Americans believed democracy was working “not too well” or “not at all well.” This year 62% of Americans surveyed by Pew agreed that the structure of the U.S. government needs “significant changes.”

Democracy may not disappear because candidates keep stoking Americans’ ire at each other and at the political system. My work finds that discontented Americans don’t want an entirely different form of government, despite global concerns that the U.S. is “backsliding” toward authoritarianism.

But anger is corrosive. It diminishes the quality of American democracy well after the politicians who used anger as a campaign strategy have won and left office.

Steven Webster, Assistant Professor of Political Science, Indiana University

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

Trump executive order on drug prices denounced as election year charade

Advocates for lowering drug prices in the United States are raising alarm over an executive order issued by President Donald Trump on Sunday that the White House purports would challenge the nation’s pharmaceutical industry but which critics say is just an election year ploy to make it look like the president is finally following through on a 2016 campaign promise he has neglected throughout his term.

The executive order itself would require that the secretary of Health and Human Services to “immediately” explore implementing a payment model for Medicare to pay “no more than the most-favored-nation price,” which means the lowest price paid in other developed countries, for specific “high-cost” prescription medicines. While Trump celebrated the order as a far-reaching game-changer, experts said the move will likely have any little if any meaningful impact.

“The proposed executive order would appear to be of limited immediate effect,” reported the Wall Street Journal. “Experts see the order as the administration’s effort to show it is taking steps to lower drug pricing, as the president seeks reelection. Drug-pricing experts say that the best way to lower prices under Medicare is to grant the agency the legal authority to directly negotiate prices with drug companies. This measure wouldn’t do that.”

While much of the reporting on Trump’s order focused on how “controversial” the bill was due to its cold reception by the powerful drug industry, Peter Maybarduk, director of the global access to medicines program at Public Citizen, was critical of the order precisely because Big Pharma will likely walk all over it by voicing the kind of challenges it issued upon Trump’s announcement on Sunday.

According to Maybarduk, “European countries pay less because they negotiate and set basic disciplines on the prices that drug monopolists can charge. A direct way to lower medicine prices in the U.S. would be to give Medicare negotiation powers, as candidate Trump pledged back in 2016.”

As NPR reports:

The new executive order repeals the original and expands the drugs covered by Trump’s proposed “most favored nations” pricing scheme to include both Medicare Part B and Medicare Part D. The idea is that Medicare would refuse to pay more for drugs than the lower prices paid by other developed nations.

“It is unacceptable that Americans pay more for the exact same drugs, often made in the exact same places,” the executive order declares.

Maybarduk warned in a tweet that the pharmaceutical industry “isn’t going to suddenly start playing ball. Pharma will challenge rules that come out of the order. Also, the EO indicates what USG should pay, but does not appear to regulate what corporations charge.”

“This is a massive win for the drug industry and another broken drug pricing promise by President Trump,” said Eli Zupnick, spokesman for Accountable Pharma, in a statement Monday. “The drug industry is going to act like this weak executive order is a horrific injustice but the reality is that they were wildly successful in lobbying their former colleagues in the Administration to delay and water down this executive order to the point where it almost certainly won’t save a single American a single penny on their prescription drugs.”

Other critics of the move said it reeked of election year politics, with some suggesting that it should do more to expose how little Trump has done on the issue—and the low priority its been given by an administration that has shown little regard to protecting public health or improving access to more affordable medications.

“President Trump’s executive order on drug pricing does not by itself do anything. It has to be followed up by regulations, which will take time,” warned Larry Levitt of the Kaiser Family Foundation in a tweet. “Trump has a history of bold talk on drug prices, only to pull back when it comes to putting actual regulations in place.”

Lower Drug Prices Now, an advocacy coalition of national and state-level affiliates which calls for lower and affordable drug prices for all Americans, warned that Trump’s order should be seen for the reelection ploy by Trump that it is.

“No one should be fooled by President Trump’s latest charade on drug prices,” the group said in a Sunday night statement. “After three and a half years of endless empty rhetoric, Americans have seen their prescription drug prices go up, not down.”

The group called the order nothing more than a public relations stunt “intended to distract Americans from the president’s broken promises to seniors and the 200,000 Americans that have died from the coronavirus as a result of his failed Covid-19 response policies.”

According to Axios‘ reporter Caitlin Owens, “given that he’s had four years already to act on what was also a big issue in 2016, there’s plenty of reason to be skeptical of this ever translating into official policy.”

In December of last year, House Democrats passed H.R. 3, The Elijah Cummings Lower Drug Costs Now Act, by a vote of 230 to 192. While Senator Majority Leader Mitch McConnell refused to take it up in the Senate—and received no support from the Trump White House—the legislation would have led to dramatically lower prescription drug costs nationwide and much further-reaching protections and benefits for Americans overall.

“A serious proposal to lower RX prices & take away drug corporations’ monopoly power to charge whatever they want requires coordinated action from Congress—like the Medicare negotiations bill that President Trump rejected last year which included international price indexing,” said Lower Drug Prices Now in its statement, referring to HR 3. “It’s clear that this President is more interested in photo ops than passing laws to take on Big Pharma.”

Peter Morley, a patient advocate, similarly met the announcement by the Trump administration with both anger and heartbreak.

“A PR stunt designed as an executive order on the affordability of prescription drugs does NOTHING,” Morley tweeted. “Critical and chronically ill patients can still die by the lack of accessibility. It’s just a game to this Administration. Sickening, LITERALLY.”

In California, we need to fight fire with fire

In more than 20 years of living in Southern California, I have never been in a potential fire evacuation zone—until now. The entire state is seemingly on fire with a record-breaking 2 million acres already burned this year alone, with months to go before the end of fire season. The situation is so dire that the state’s fire officials are warning they “simply do not have enough resources to fully fight and contain every fire.” Fires are burning from the northern-most part of the state down to the border with Mexico, and tens of thousands of Californians are under evacuation orders. While fire is normal in California, the sort of out-of-control wildfires that spread rapidly and burn ferociously every few weeks are neither natural nor inevitable. Most importantly, there are long-term solutions available if we would only implement them.

Currently, media and public focus is on how the fires begin, as if wiping out every source will solve the underlying problems of a perfect storm of fire-ready conditions. A “gender-reveal” party on one of the hottest days of the year that relied on pyrotechnics to reveal the gender of an anticipated baby set off what is being called the El Dorado Fire. That fire burned more than 10,000 acres in an area about 70 miles East of Los Angeles. Although there has been much-deserved vitriol aimed the perpetrators and at such parties in general, the fact is conditions are perfect for massive wildfires and it matters little what sparks them.

In California’s Bay area, more than 10,000 lightning strikes triggered hundreds of fires in August. In November 2018, the worst wildfire in the state’s history burned more than 150,000 acres and killed dozens of people, wiping out the retirement community of Paradise. The devastating Camp Fire was sparked by the utility company PG&E’s faulty power lines. Unless long-term actions are taken to address the conditions under which such fires burn, the causes of future fires could be illegal fireworks, an unauthorized barbecue or even a spark from a cigarette. The more pressing matter is why there are conditions for such extreme fires in the first place.

Climate change is one of the culprits. Wetter weather earlier in the year results in greater brush growth which then dries out when hotter-than-usual weather later in the year turns it into fuel. Climate scientists predicted that “a much greater number of extremely wet and extremely dry weather seasons,” will “have a major effect on the lives of Californians.”

The other culprit is the abundance of fuel in a state that has always had wildfires. Ali Meders-Knight is a Mechoopda tribal member from Chico in the northern part of California. For more than 20 years, she has practiced what is now called Traditional Ecological Knowledge(TEK) and has worked as a liaison for tribal forestry programs addressing precisely the problem of California’s mismanaged land and fuel that end up giving rise to out-of-control deadly fires. In an interview, she explained to me that “The plants and the land are adapted to fire. [The area is] used to fire; it wants fire.”

Greenpeace explained that “A ‘put out every fire’ approach to wildland fire management for decades has left us with a fire deficit which can fuel unusually big, hot fires.” California’s unique ecosystem has evolved based on a cycle of periodic fires that certain species of wildlife and flora depend upon. But Western colonization of the state resulted in the wiping out of Indigenous knowledge of fire management. According to Meders-Knight, “you have the option of having a little bit of fire, or a whole lot of fire. But you never have the option of having no fire.”

California Senator Dianne Feinstein has taken the lead on fuel management in the state but has done so in an entirely wrong-headed fashion. Claiming to “protect communities from wildfires,” the Democratic senator’s bill was apparently meant to, “improve management and speed up restoration of forest landscapes in California.” But in reality, it offers a convenient cover for the logging industry that has been part of the problem in the first place.

Greenpeace summarized that “Heavy-handed fire suppression is strongly supported by the logging industry whose spokespersons now, ironically, call for more aggressive logging to remedy the mistake they helped perpetrate in our forests for decades.” Meders-Knight denounced Feinstein’s bill as “primitive,” “extremely uneducated,” and akin to “disaster capitalism.” The logging industry is interested only in tearing down trees for profit and has no interest or expertise in land management and restoration, or watershed management.

For decades, the state banned the Native cultural practice of burning fires in California. Now, Meders-Knight is part of a new generation of tribal leaders training and certifying people in the Indigenous wisdom that for generations informed the management of wildfires. In a nutshell, the idea is to fight fire with fire—literally. The training begins with identifying and understanding the state’s natural flora and fauna and the role each species play in the ecosystem. Indigenous fire management uses controlled fires to manage fuel that has built up, but such fires are not implemented during the hottest part of the year. Rather, they are done during slightly wetter seasons when winds are also low.

How would such ancient technology work in our modern setting? Meders-Knight explained that the optimal days for controlled fire burns are hard to predict weeks or months in advance, which means that the state’s permitting process needs to be far more flexible. And firefighters, whose job it is to put out every fire during the hottest months of the year, could be trained as “fire technicians” to manage fire in other months—thereby making their jobs less dangerous and overwhelming than they are now. She sees this as a “workforce development initiative” that could be part of a “green jobs” project in the state, especially at a time of mass unemployment and a housing crisis. Prison inmates who are recruited to fight California’s fires could also benefit from such a program.

What is remarkable is that Indigenous techniques of firefighting could also help mitigate climate change. In Australia, similar Aboriginal technology for fighting wildfires has already been implemented on a small scale. The program has proven invaluable for the short-term goal of reducing deadly fires, and the long-term goal of reducing carbon emissions that fuel global warming. According to the New York Times, “an Aboriginal burning program started seven years ago has cut hot and destructive wildfires in half and reduced carbon emissions by more than 40 percent.” Just as in California, “in Australia, fire was a crucial tool in managing the land before the arrival of Europeans.”

The solutions to California’s horrendous and deadly fires have been around for centuries. It is not inevitable for the world’s fifth-largest economy to succumb to the devastation of deadly fires. The difference between Feinstein’s approach to fire management and Indigenous fire technology is that the former has simply not worked, and is based on a Western capitalist, profit-based model of short-term financial gains by an extractive industry. Meanwhile, the latter approach is grounded in painstaking work that does not inflate a corporate bottom line and instead results in a collective benefit to the state’s inhabitants. What path will we choose?

Fox News announces layoffs as it undergoes corporate restructuring with record ratings

Fox News Media will lay off employees across multiple divisions as it undergoes a corporate restructuring of various lines of its business amid a profitable time for the network.

A Fox News spokesperson described the layoffs to Salon as a corporate realignment geared to sharpen several corporate functions and streamline a number of divisions “in order to position all of our businesses for ongoing success.”

A person familiar with the plans told Salon that the downsizing will impact employees at all ranks, except on-air talent. While it is unclear if the layoffs will touch every department, in total less than of 3% of the company’s workforce is likely be affected. Laid off employees will receive severance and a benefits package, the source added.

The downsizing was not related to the coronavirus pandemic, except for the department which will be hit the hardest: hair and makeup, whose job has been the most disrupted by the pandemic. About 90% of that department has not been working for months but continued to take a salary, the individual said, adding that those artists who stay on will work only with on-air talent — a service previously extended to guests.

Ironically, Fox News has turned in some of its strongest numbers during the pandemic. “Tucker Carlson Tonight,” for example, drew the highest cable news ratings of all time during the widespread lockdowns from April to June.

While it remains unclear how the network plans to invest whatever savings it accrues from the cuts, it is worth noting that the media company has expanded its offerings in recent years.

In 2018, the network launched the domestic streaming service Fox Nation, which carries content fronted by a number of Fox News hosts, as well as additional programs not available with a cable subscription.

Last month, it launched Fox News International, a new digital subscription streaming service, at $6.99 per month. The service, which streams existing Fox News content to international markets, requires minimal production overhead.

Fox News has also reported strong advertising gains, clocking an 8.2% increase from 2019 to 2020, according to market analytics firm Kagan. (Advertisers have recently fled Carlson’s show amid a series of heavily-criticized race-baiting screeds.) Network executives announced in early August that Fox Nation had more than doubled its subscriptions over the last year, according to The Wall Street Journal.

Taking into account the network’s record-breaking success last quarter, as well as the increased consumer appetite for long-form viewing amid lockdowns, the pandemic appears to have altered consumer habits in a way which could incentivize expansion — not layoffs. As the election approaches, with key patron President Donald Trump facing long odds, the network may be bracing itself for a possible political sea change.

Top corporate executive Lachlan Murdoch said in an interview last week during a Bank of America virtual conference that the company believes its business will not be much affected after a possible Democratic victory.

“Look, I don’t think it does. If you look at Fox News, you look at how we’ve not only been strong, but we’ve grown ratings in multiple administrations from both political parties,” he said, saying that Fox News Media’s multiplatform setup offers durability. “It’s a tremendous business and it’s not just around one linear channel, it’s how we keep our viewers and fans in that ecosystem,” Murdoch said.

But reports suggest that the network might have to worry about more than keeping its viewers and fans.

Fox News primetime host Laura Ingraham, for instance, reportedly has her eyes on the microphone of Presidential Medal of Freedom honoree and former Sleep Number mattress advocate Rush Limbaugh if Trump comes up short in November.

“Laura’s really interested in Rush’s job,” an individual close to Ingraham told Vanity Fair. A Trump loss may compel the Murdochs — the network’s more liberal successors to the late Fox News kingpin and alleged sexual assaulter Roger Ailes — to make major changes.

Speaking privately to a group of dinner guests at the Palm Beach mansion of his widow, Elizabeth Ailes, Ingraham reportedly said she had already been in talks to take Limbaugh’s place should Stage 4 lung cancer force him to hang up his mic.

We have to be prepared for Trump losing.”

DeJoy gave $600,000 to GOP after USPS job opened. Should the focus be on his wife’s ambassador nod?

Lisa Graves, the former executive director of the Center for Media and Democracy, testified this week to Congress that Postmaster General Louis DeJoy had donated $600,000 to Republicans after his future job opened up.

Though DeJoy donated the six-figure sum, the inaccurate timeline laid out by Graves obscured the alignment with his wife’s nomination to be the next U.S. ambassador to Canada. President Donald Trump nominated Dr. Aldona Wos to the coveted role, and her confirmation is currently pending before the Senate.

“This level of partisanship,” Graves said in written testimony to the House Oversight Committee, “undermines public trust in the Postal Service as an institution.”

Chairman Gerry Connolly, D-Va., said the hearing would help paint a more complete picture of DeJoy, who has been under near-constant fire over allegations of election mail meddling. Connolly described DeJoy as a “crony” who was “rife with conflicts of interest and potential violations of law.” But those alleged conflicts of interest appear to instead be aligned with his wife’s political ambitions. 

Graves inaccurately claimed in her testimony that DeJoy had given lavishly “to GOP Senate races since last December, when Megan Brennan announced her intention to resign as postmaster general after Trump had enough appointees to get her replaced.”

She also said incorrectly stated that “DeJoy suddenly gave the president’s campaign and the RNC more than $600K over the span of just eight weeks after the postmaster general opening was announced.”

That timeline was not correct. The looming vacancy was first made public two months earlier, when Brennan first announced her retirement on Oct. 16, 2019 — not December, as Graves claimed. At the time, Brennan said her retirement would be effective Jan. 31. However, she later postponed that timetable pending a replacement.

DeJoy did not make any donations in the eight weeks after Brennan announced her retirement, according to Federal Election Commission records. On Dec. 10, he gave the National Republican Senatorial Committee (NRSC) $35,000 — the maximum annual amount — which he had regularly given in previous cycles.

Federal filings also show DeJoy made his first max-out donations to Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell, R-Ky., that month, as well as to Senate candidate John James who, if victorious in 2020, would not take office until more than one year later.

A recent corporate filing revealed that Robert “Mike” Duncan, the chairman of the U.S. Postal Service (USPS) Board of Governors, which unilaterally appointed DeJoy, also serves as a director of McConnell’s $130 million super PAC.

While the Senate would have had no say in a prospective DeJoy appointment, it would have been charged with confirming his wife, who had made her ambitions for the Canada post clear not long after Trump took office.

On Jan. 6, 2020, Brennan postponed her planned retirement, which at the time was seen as the first signal that the USPS Board of Governors was considering nominating an outsider in the agency’s top leadership role. 

That same day, the ambassador position opened up. The Trump administration announced that it would move Charges de Affairs Richard Mills, who had filled the office temporarily since August, to the United Nations. 

Less than ten days later, DeJoy donated $150,000 to Trump Victory, in two separate chunks, on Jan. 15 — which until that point was his largest single-day contribution. Trump, as president, nominates ambassadors.

Then, on Feb. 11, the White House announced that Trump would soon be naming Wos as the next U.S. ambassador to Canada. The following day, DeJoy made another maximum donation of $35,000 to the NRSC, FEC flings show. (The NRSC is dedicated to electing Republicans to the Senate, the body which confirms ambassadors.)

Finally, on Feb. 19, 2020, the week after the White House announcement and the NSRC donation, DeJoy made his biggest single donation to Trump Victory to date: $210,600.

Six days later, in the wake of that $435,600 blitz — $360,000 to Trump Victory; $70,000 to the NRSC; and $5,600 max-outs to McConnell — Trump officially nominated Wos.

DeJoy did not donate again until April. When he did, it went to House GOP candidates and entities, according to campaign filings

DeJoy, a top Trump donor and the former head fundraiser for the Republican National Convention, gave generously to Trump in 2016, and ambassadorships are frequently awarded to high-dollar donors. That practice is certainly not limited to the Trump administration, though it offers plenty of examples. Former Ambassador to the European Union Gordon Sondland, for instance, who became a key figure in the Ukraine impeachment scandal, was accused of having “bought” his position after he gave $1 million to Trump’s inaugural committee.

Wos, though, may actually stand out as one of the more qualified among Trump’s political appointees. In 2004, she was named ambassador to Estonia under former President George W. Bush. However, that appointment was dogged by the same pay-for-play questions as a result of DeJoy’s major financial support of Bush ahead of the 2004 election. Wos filled the post for 18 months, or less than half of one presidential term.

This go around, the timing may suggest something beyond the cynical Washington norm of a campaign megadonor reaping a reward, campaign finance experts previously told Salon. DeJoy gave big to Trump’s campaign and inauguration — and then he kept giving.

In June 2017, Trump named Kelly Craft — who along with her husband gave Trump’s campaign efforts more than $2 million — as U.S. ambassador to Canada. Days before that announcement — on June 6 — DeJoy and Wos made twin donations to Trump Victory, of $100,000 and $2,700, respectively. (Wos’ contribution was the maximum.) DeJoy, for his part, had not contributed to Trump since a $4,000 donation to Trump Victory in Oct. 2016.

In the end, Craft was named. She served until 2019, when on Feb. 22, Trump announced his intention to nominate her to replace former U.N. Ambassador Nikki Haley. Around that time, DeJoy significantly ramped up his giving to Trump Victory, FEC records show.

DeJoy and Wos each donated $35,000 to Trump Victory on Jan. 22, 2019, according to FEC filings. Following the Feb. 22 announcement that the Canadian ambassadorship would be open, DeJoy poured in hundreds of thousands of dollars, giving a total of $320,000 to Trump Victory in the space of three months, culminating in his largest single donation to the fund to date on June 17: $120,000. A few days later, Trump was said to be considering Wos for the position.

Trump, however, did not nominate anyone at the time, and Mills filled the position until the president moved him. DeJoy’s $360,600 Trump Victory blitz ensued, culminating with Wos’ nomination — which came well before DeJoy’s appointment by the USPS Board of Governors.

The Republican-controlled Senate Foreign Relations Committee — chaired by the head of the NRSC, as previously Salon reported, whose colleagues include multiple beneficiaries of DeJoy’s political giving, such as Lindsey Graham  — voted in favor of Wos this summer. Now, she awaits confirmation from the full Senate. 

However, following a bombshell Washington Post report containing allegations that DeJoy had once run a criminal straw donor scheme, Democrats on the Senate Foreign Relations Committee announced a probe into the events surrounding Wos’ nomination.

As Graves accurately said, DeJoy’s Office of Government Ethics (OGE) form was approved by David Apol, a controversial OGE official who also signed off on Jared Kushner’s ethics forms. Apol, Graves pointed out, also signed off on Wos’ ethics forms.

“Although it is not a surprise that a person nominated to serve as an ambassador is a large campaign donor, these donations are remarkably close in time with the nomination process,” Kedric Payne, general counsel and senior director of ethics at the Campaign Legal Center, told Salon.

“Generally, you would expect an attempt to at least avoid the appearance of a quid pro quo with suspiciously timed contributions,” Payne said. “This may strain the public’s trust, to assume that the contributions during the nomination process are coincidences.”

Kayleigh McEnany reveals there’s finally a Trump healthcare plan — but the details are secret

President Donald Trump’s ABC town hall event teased a healthcare plan that he has been promising for months. The plan was then confirmed Wednesday by White House press secretary Kayleigh McEnany, who acknowledged the plan but said that Americans and the press couldn’t have access to it.

In 2015, Trump promised that the GOP would repeal and replace the Affordable Care Act, known as Obamacare. In an appearance on Sean Hannity’s radio show, he claimed the replacement would be “something great,” but five years later, the plan still hasn’t been revealed to the public.

Once Trump took office in 2017, he complained that the Senate must confirm former Health and Human Services Secretary Tom Price because the “repeal and replacement of ObamaCare is moving fast!”

There was another promise during his State of the Union Address later that month when the president promised, “The way to make health insurance available to everyone is to lower the cost of health insurance, and that is what we are going to do.”

But after Price was confirmed and over three years after that announcement, the proposal from Trump’s White House still wasn’t revealed.

Trump’s plan seemed to evolve later that year when the GOP failed to repeal Obamacare because there was no plan introduced to replace it. It was a deal-breaker for Sen. John McCain (R-AZ), who voted down the measure.

“ObamaCare is a broken mess. Piece by piece we will now begin the process of giving America the great HealthCare it deserves!” Trump announced.

Despite promises from the president in 2019, the plan still has not been unveiled.  

“The Republican Party will become ‘The Party of Healthcare!'” Trump promised.

In April, however, Trump pulled back on his healthcare efforts explaining that he never planned to pass a new GOP healthcare law so early. According to the president, he wanted to wait closer to the election.

“I was never planning a vote prior to the 2020 Election on the wonderful HealthCare package that some very talented people are now developing for me & the Republican Party. It will be on full display during the Election as a much better & less expensive alternative to ObamaCare…”

“We’re going to produce phenomenal health care,” Trump said of his plan in June 2019. “And we already have the concept of the plan. And it’ll be much better health care,” Trump told George Stephanopoulos. When Stephanopoulos asked if he was going to tell people what the plan was, Trump responded: “Yeah, we’ll be announcing that in two months, maybe less.”

“You’ll have health care the likes of which you’ve never seen,” he promised later that year in October.

Finally, as 2020 began, Trump gave Americans a timeline of “two weeks” for the plan.

“We’re signing a health care plan within two weeks, a full and complete health care plan that the Supreme Court decision on DACA gave me the right to do,” Trump promised in a July 19 interview with Fox News.

After two months, Trump teased the plan again in the town hall. It matches his criteria of being closer to the election and certainly more than two weeks after his July promise. McEnany confirmed the White House’s proposed law is ready to go, but she told reporters that Americans and the press aren’t allowed to see it. It’s unclear why the plan is a secret since the president talked about it for so long. Still, McEnany didn’t clarify why the plan will remain a secret.

“I’m not going to give you a readout of what our health care plan looks like and who’s working on it. if you want to know, come work here at the White House,”  McEnany told CNN’s Kaitlan Collins. 

Watch the video revealing the secret plan below:

As wildfire smoke chokes the West Coast, people are making DIY air purifiers. But do they work?

Do-it-yourself culture usually involves hobbyists tinkering around as a means of creating a fun diversion: Making jam, knitting, or building furniture, perhaps. But as the West Coast chokes in apocalyptic wildfire smoke, a more dystopian hobbyist project has been gaining traction.

Meet the DIY air purifier.

Google searches for “DIY air purifier” skyrocketed in the last month, a majority of them from California, Oregon and Washington. Search the hashtag #diyairpurifier on Instagram and Twitter, and you’ll find photos of hacked-together box fans and filtration tools. Unlike baking your own bread, building your own air purifier is a project many are turning to as a means of survival, as the air quality index (AQI) has lingered in the “hazardous” range for days or even weeks for many West Coast citizens. And in cities like Portland, the descent of the wildfire smoke made industrial air filtration appliances hard to find, as residents bought out local supplies.

Roxy Rosen, who lives in Pacifica, California, built her own air purifier and posted about it on Instagram. In an interview with Salon, she said she turned to the project because she found that commercial air purifiers didn’t work as well. After Rosen bought an air sensor to see herself what the air quality in her neighborhood and house was like, she found that commercial ones weren’t working. 

“I tried a Honeywell, a Molekule, a little tiny mini air purifier and they couldn’t really do a good job, and then I did more research,” Rosen told Salon. “I ended up getting the Blue Air air filter which does a pretty good job up to about 300 or 400 square feet, but a lot of these models can do a room — they can’t do a whole house.”

Rosen said she’d still walk through the house with her air quality sensor and find bad air in the house, which is when she got the idea to build her own by taping a Filtrete 25x20x1 HEPA filter to a fan.

“It cleaned the air so fast,”Rosen said. “It was more powerful than these commercial ones.”

Rosen now has a few of them in her house.

“One of my friends in LA was suffering really badly, they’ve got it really bad right now, so yesterday I coached her on how to do this at her house with her old box fan, and she put it together and got it going,” Rosen said. “I got a text from her then around 10 o’clock at night. She was like, ‘It’s great, it’s helped so much.'”

Experts in the air quality world agree with what Rosen found to be true — specifically, that the DIY purifiers can work just as well as industrial ones, if not better.

“The data on DIY purifiers is very clear: they work,” Thomas Talhelm, Associate Professor of Behavioral Science at University of Chicago Booth School of Business told Vice. “They can even rival the $1,000 purifiers.”

Another reason behind the trend is that popular and affordable air purifiers made by companies like Honeywell, Vornado and Holmes are sold out at many hardware stores like True Value and Home Depot. The shortage isn’t because of the wildfires, but because of COVID-19. As reported by Fortune magazine, in July, leaders in the air filter industry warned about an air filter shortage. They noted that if the Centers for Disease and Control made it a regulatory requirement for large indoor spaces to use MERV-13 rated air filters — a filter rating that is the best for reducing contaminants — the industry would not be able to meet the demand.

As reported by Air Conditioning, Heating & Refrigeration News, there is a bit of a debate as to whether the so-called shortage is actually a shortage or just a production delay. “Most higher-MERV filters use electrostatically charged meltblown synthetics, the same as N-95 masks,” editor Ted Craig writes. “This means the filters being prescribed for buildings and the masks required for hospitals are competing with each other.” 

The shortage of air purifiers and filters extends beyond the West Coast. In Massachusetts, NBC Boston reported that a school has delayed in-person learning because of an air purifier shortage.

Cost is another reason many have turned to DIY air purifiers. In Oakland, California, organizers like Tracey Corder have been crowd-funding for the cost of air purifiers to give them to people who cannot afford them.

“We’re still in a pandemic. People have lost their jobs. There’s a loss of wages,” Corder told Marketplace. “And it’s a pandemic that targets our respiratory system, so this only makes it worse.”

In the future, the market for air purifiers is only expected to grow. According to a market report, the space is “anticipated to be driven by the rising prevalence of airborne diseases along with rising pollution levels in urban areas.”

That means that even for those who don’t live on the West Coast, purchasing an air purifier or making your own may be a good idea.

“It’s just incorrect”: Trump contradicts CDC director’s testimony to Congress about COVID-19 vaccine

As the administration faced doubts about the integrity of its approval process for a coronavirus vaccine, President Donald Trump went on the attack Wednesday against CDC Director Robert Redfield’s claims on the topic in a congressional hearing.

Trump contradicted Redfield’s remarks about the timeline for distributing the vaccine, saying one should be approved in October or November and distributed rapidly and widely thereafter. He also disputed Redfield’s claim that a mask could be more protective against catching the coronavirus than a vaccine.

There’s no reason to believe Trump has superior knowledge over his administration’s own experts — instead, it’s much more likely that he is intentionally lying about the vaccine’s potential for his own political advantage. He has made it clear that he wants to see a vaccine approved before the November election, which has triggered fears that the administration will inappropriately and dangerously allow these political considerations to shape the approval process. Trump and his aides have already been steering and reshaping the administration’s actions and messaging on the coronavirus to reflect his preferred rhetoric rather than the science.

Redfield told Congress on Thursday that a vaccine may be approved by the end of the year, but it will only be available at that time for a narrow group of people.

“There will be a vaccine that will initially be available sometime between November and December, but very limited supply and will have to be prioritized,” he told lawmakers. “If you’re asking me when is it going to be generally available to the American public so we can begin to take advantage of vaccine to get back to our regular life, I think we’re probably looking at late second quarter, third quarter 2021.”

He also stressed why a mask can be superior to a vaccine: “I might even go so far as to say that this face mask is more guaranteed to protect me against COVID than when I take a COVID vaccine, because the immunogenicity may be 70%. And if I don’t get an immune response, the vaccine is not going to protect me. This face mask will.”

But Trump didn’t like these answers, telling reporters Wednesday evening that Redfield was “confused” — even though his answers were clear and straightforward.

“I think he made a mistake when he said that,” Trump said. “It’s just incorrect information.”

He added: “As far as the mask is concerned, he made a mistake.”

Trump tried to cast doubt on the usefulness of masks, saying they have “problems” too. While this was initially claimed by public health experts, the scientific consensus has now decisively shifted toward the conclusion that masks are one of the best tools for preventing spread of the virus. By refusing to acknowledge that, Trump is helping the virus spread.

A reporter pushed back on Trump’s contradictions of the CDC director, and the president lashed out.

“I told you — I don’t have to go through this,” Trump said. “I think he misunderstood the questions. But I’m telling you, here’s the bottom line: Distribution’s going to be very rapid. He may not know that.”

“Under no circumstances will it be as late as the doctor said,” he claimed.

Dr. Scott Atlas, a new coronavirus adviser Trump brought on because he’s an ideological ally, appeared at the press conference and tried to lend support to the president’s distortions. But in fact, he contradicted the president. While Trump said the vaccine would “immediately” get “full” distribution as soon as it was approved, Atlas acknowledged that high-risk groups would be prioritized first. (Though it should be clear that all of this remains hypothetical because no vaccine has yet been approved, even though experts are hopeful.)

Former Vice President Joe Biden, who has been saying he’s concerned about the politicization of science but would trust expert opinion on vaccines, responded to Trump’s dangerous attack on the CDC:

Coronavirus immunity may not last more than 12 months, study finds

Coronaviruses, as a group, encompass far more viruses than the one causing the pandemic, dubbed SARS-CoV-2 or the “novel coronavirus” (so named because it is new to science as of 2019). Having previous knowledge of the behavior of other coronaviruses has been a boon to scientists, as it allows for some predictions as to SARS-CoV-2’s likely behavior. 

On this premise, a study published on Monday in the scientific journal Nature Medicine reached a troubling conclusion about SARS-CoV-2 — namely, that people who contract the virus and then become immune to it may not stay that way for long. The scientists reached their conclusion by studying whether those infected with previous seasonal coronaviruses retained their immunity. Unfortunately, they didn’t.

“A key unsolved question in the current coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) pandemic is the duration of acquired immunity,” the scientists — who hailed from Belgium, the Netherlands and Spain — wrote in their abstract. “Insights from infections with the four seasonal human coronaviruses might reveal common characteristics applicable to all human coronaviruses. We monitored healthy individuals for more than 35 years and determined that reinfection with the same seasonal coronavirus occurred frequently at 12 months after infection.”

The study went on to explain that there are four species of seasonal coronaviruses that can cause respiratory infections, including HCoV-NL63, HCoV-229E, HCoV-OC43 and HCoV-HKU1. Because these species are “otherwise genetically and biologically dissimilar,” the scientists operated from the hypothetical premise that “characteristics shared by these four seasonal coronaviruses, such as the duration of protective immunity, are representative of all human coronaviruses, including SARS-CoV-2.”

Unfortunately, the scientists learned through their research that “in a few cases, reinfections occurred as early as 6 months (twice with HCoV-229E and once with HCoV-OC43) and 9 months (once with HCoV-NL63), but reinfections were frequently observed at 12 months.” They added that “caution should be taken when relying on policies that require long-term immunity, such as vaccination or natural infection to reach herd immunity” as reinfections “can occur only when protective immunity (cellular and/or humoral) is insufficient.”

The scientists concluded, “We show that reinfections by natural infection occur for all four seasonal coronaviruses, suggesting that it is a common feature for all human coronaviruses, including SARS-CoV-2. Reinfections occurred most frequently at 12 months after infection, indicating that protective immunity is only short-lived.”

The findings have huge repercussions for public health globally, as well as for the application and distribution of vaccines

There have been previous hints that immunity to the novel coronavirus may not last. Last month brought new of three known cases of patients who had previously been sick with COVID-19 who contracted the virus on a second occasion. One of the cases occurred in Hong Kong, one in the Netherlands and one in Belgium. Dr. Georges Benjamin, executive director of the American Public Health Association (APHA) and former secretary of health in Maryland, told Salon at the time that the re-infections showed how the “the immune relationship between humans and this virus is still poorly understood.”

He added, “What we do know is the human immune response to infection has a wide spectrum which includes resistance to infection (kids who get infected but not sick); people that get sick and recover; people that get sick then recover and then get very, very sick; the recurrence of disease as represented in this single case; and evidence that vaccination will yield partial or full protection.”

Although it is unclear if — and, if so, how — people can develop immunity to the novel coronavirus, it has been proven that wearing a mask both reduces the likelihood of being infected and makes it less likely that infected people will spread the virus to others. A study released earlier this month found that people who wear masks routinely will feel less sick if they are infected.

Idris Elba drama “Concrete Cowboy” brings audience along for a crowd-pleasing ride

There is a warmth among the Black men and women that form the horseback riding community in North Philadelphia, and the appealing drama “Concrete Cowboy” lets viewers sit around a campfire with these characters as they drink, smoke, and talk about the whitewashing of Black history, real estate development, and other forces threatening their heritage. But this film, which premiered during last fall’s Toronto International Film Festival, does not sit back and relax very often.

The story opens with Cole (Caleb McLaughlin of “Stranger Things“) being expelled from school in Detroit. His mother drives him to North Philadelphia to spend the summer with his father Harp (Idris Elba), a sanitation worker who is active with the nearby Fletcher Street stables. Cole is more than reluctant; he barely knows his father and does not get along with him when they do talk.

But after spending a night sleeping in the stables — out of necessity, not desire — Cole comes to meet and appreciate the local group of riders. These include Nessi (Lorraine Toussaint), Paris (Jamil “Mil” Prattis) and Esha (Ivannah Mercedes), among others. (Both Prattis and Mercedes are real-life Fletcher Street riders; they talk about riding horses in the city during the film’s sweet closing credit sequence). And at the stables, Cole learns how to shovel manure — a blunt metaphor, of course, especially when he goes to clean the stalls wearing new sneakers.

Cole also reconnects with Smush (Jharrel Jerome), who is involved in drug running. Smush is hoping to get enough cash to head out west and find some quiet from the tough city streets. “Concrete Cowboy,” therefore, is a familiar morality play where hard work competes against easy money, and Harp and Smush fight for Cole’s soul.

Elba, who produced, lends the film gravitas with his assured, world-weary performance, and McLaughlin carries the film with his sympathetic turn as Cole, a teen trying to find his place in the world. The supporting cast provides some verve, especially Toussaint and Mercedes, along with Method Man as local cop Leroy. Jharrel Jerome does what he can to add some shading to Smush, to make this stock character his own.

Filmmaker Ricky Staub, a white man making his feature directorial debut, cowrote the screenplay, an adaptation of Greg Neri’s novel, “Ghetto Cowboy,” and focuses on Cole’s journey to wisdom. Staub uses a handheld camera to give the story some intimacy, and he also provides a strong sense of place, occasionally cutting to shots of sneakers hanging from telephone wires.

The filmmaker does not rush the story. Cole’s coming-of-age is less a loss of innocence — though there is that — and more of a search for home. He bonds with Boo, the wildest horse in the Fletcher Street stables, and is told, “Horses are not the only thing that need breaking ’round here,” suggesting that he needs to fix his attitude. That does not necessarily mean having his spirit crushed; Cole has life lessons to learn about playing by the rules and how “hard things come before good things.” His father’s tough-love approach does not make that easy.

“Concrete Cowboy” features only a handful of moments between Harp and Cole, but one is particularly heartfelt. When Cole is frustrated that the horses seem to get more love than he does, Harp puts on some John Coltrane and tells his son about fatherless youth, the incarceration of Black men, and how you can’t become a man overnight. It is a beautiful scene and illustrates why Harp is a role model for the other riders.

Smush is the opposite, playing the ends against the middle in the local drug scene, and putting Cole in a difficult position as his accomplice. The friendship between these two teens is interesting in that they rely on each other mostly out of circumstance. It is as if they each need the other to prove something and define themselves. That thread could have been developed more, because this storyline telegraphs every beat to the obvious. It also reinforces a point Paris makes earlier about the senselessness of gun violence.

“Concrete Cowboy” is best when its characters are on horseback. There is a nice scene at a cookout where Harp races his horse, and an amusing bit has Cole playing basketball with Esha astride a horse, trying to block his shot. (There’s a hint of romance between them, but lightly done.) 

Staub may be trying to cram too many points in the drama that makes some key elements feel shortchanged. A first-act discussion of the conditions in the stables leads to a third-act scene with local authorities. There is also a storyline involving Leroy, who gets involved not just in the Smush subplot but also in the stable narrative. A nice moment depicts Leroy taking Cole to a racetrack to talk to him, and show him what these city cowboys can become.

As the film trots to its conclusion and the plots tie up in unsurprising ways, “Concrete Cowboy” goes for the symbolic rather than the sensible. But even as Harp and Cole break rules to do the right thing, viewers cannot help but root for them.

Addressing issues of Black masculinity, as well as racism and discrimination, Staub’s film uses its crowd-pleasing approach to teach its values. “Concrete Cowboy” works best as a vehicle into the little-known and -seen world of the riders, and it is most enjoyable when it is in that world.

“Concrete Cowboy” rides into Netflix beginning Friday, April 2.

Scientific American endorses a presidential candidate for the first time in its 175-year history

Scientific American, the oldest continuously published monthly magazine in the United States, announced on Tuesday that it is endorsing Democratic nominee Joe Biden for president — the first time in its 175-year history that the publication has endorsed any presidential candidate. The surprise endorsement signifies a growing rift between the political right and the scientific community.

The editors at Scientific American began their endorsement by condemning President Donald Trump’s bungling response to the coronavirus pandemic. “Trump’s rejection of evidence and public health measures have been catastrophic in the U.S.,” they argue, ticking off as examples Trump ignoring warnings in January and February about the disease and failing to “develop a national strategy to provide protective equipment, coronavirus testing or clear health guidelines.” They also criticize Trump for not encouraging people to wear protective masks, pointing out that “if almost everyone in the U.S. wore masks in public, it could save about 66,000 lives by the beginning of December, according to projections from the University of Washington School of Medicine. Such a strategy would hurt no one. It would close no business. It would cost next to nothing.”

Speaking to Salon in July, Dr. Eric Feigl-Ding, Senior Fellow at the Federation of American Scientists, explained by email that “masks are important for catching droplets and microdroplet aerosols expelled while talking and breathing (not just sneezing or coughing), which was just recognized by WHO [World Health Organization] and 239 scientists.”

The Scientific American editors also note that Trump’s unscientific approach led to negative economic repercussions. “At every stage, Trump has rejected the unmistakable lesson that controlling the disease, not downplaying it, is the path to economic reopening and recovery,” the editors explain. They also mention the recent revelations from journalist Bob Woodward that Trump admitted on tape to “playing [the pandemic] down” even though he knew its gravity. Beyond Trump’s mishandling of the pandemic, the editors also criticize the president for trying to repeal the Affordable Care Act without offering an alternative, proposing cuts to government agencies that use science to help people (including by preventing future pandemics), attempting to eliminate health rules from the Environmental Protection Agency and denying climate change despite the recent proliferation of extreme weather events.

Indeed, a number of climate scientists have spoken out against Trump’s refusal to accept the reality of man-made climate change. Michael E. Mann, a distinguished professor of atmospheric science at Penn State University, told Salon last year that “any true climate solutions will have to go around him and almost certainly involve defeating him in the next election. Trump is the greatest impediment to climate action in the world right now.”

The Scientific American editors framed their endorsement of Biden as rooted in the former vice president’s acceptance of basic scientific facts.

“Joe Biden, in contrast, comes prepared with plans to control COVID-19, improve health care, reduce carbon emissions and restore the role of legitimate science in policy making,” the Scientific American editors write in explaining their endorsement of the Democratic candidate. “He solicits expertise and has turned that knowledge into solid policy proposals.”

They conclude, “Although Trump and his allies have tried to create obstacles that prevent people from casting ballots safely in November, either by mail or in person, it is crucial that we surmount them and vote. It’s time to move Trump out and elect Biden, who has a record of following the data and being guided by science.”

Invisible company owned by Rudy Giuliani got taxpayer-backed PPP money — but where did it go?

A payroll company owned by Rudy Giuliani, President Trump’s personal attorney, took between $150,000 and $350,000 in taxpayer-backed emergency small business loans this spring. It’s unclear what Giuliani did with the money.

The loan reveals a previously unreported, 18-year-old company owned by Giuliani. A Salon investigation offers new insight into mechanisms of the former New York mayor and federal prosecutor’s elaborate and purposefully obscure business, income and payment arrangements, which have reportedly been the subject of subpoenas from federal investigators in the Southern District of New York.

Giuliani initially told Salon he was ignorant of the purpose of this company, which has handled payroll needs across more than 18 years and lists him as CEO. Financial experts tell Salon that one of two scenarios is likely true: Either Giuliani directly employs a number of people through this unknown company, and pays them substantial salaries, or the company misrepresented its finances to the government when it applied for the loan — which would likely constitute fraud, a felony.

Independent journalist Wendy Siegelman appears to have been the first to report both the company and the loan.

According to government records, the loan, which was part of the Small Business Administration’s Payroll Protection Program coronavirus relief package, was awarded on April 28 to a company called World Capital Payroll Corp., a registered “S Corp” headquartered at 445 Park Avenue in Manhattan. Those records show that the company received between $150,000 and $350,000 in taxpayer-backed federal funds, which can be fully forgiven by the government if the company proves they were put toward payroll and related expenses. (Giuliani’s new private law firm is registered at that same address.)

Importantly, in order to receive a loan amount in that range, a company was required to prove that it spent between $720,000 and $1.68 million on payroll and employee benefits. Because the SBA caps eligible salary amounts at $100,000, this means that World Capital Payroll would have had to directly employ between seven and 16 people, roughly speaking, in 2019 — and paid them all $100,000 or more for their services.

In order to prove eligibility to their lender, applicants must submit official tax and payroll forms.

According to PPP databases, however, World Capital Payroll did not report having any employees or any jobs saved. That in itself is not entirely uncommon. It is unclear, however, who else the company may directly employ other than Giuliani himself, who did not reply when asked that question several times over several days through various points of contact.

Multiple financial experts and PPP lenders told Salon that business owners cannot use PPP money to pay employees of separate businesses they own. Owners would need to submit separate applications for each entity that has its own tax ID. It is not clear whether WorldCapital Payroll Corp has any subsidiaries with employees, and if so, it is not clear why Giuliani would not recall such a company.

World Capital acquired its loan through Signature Bank, which at one point came under scrutiny from financial officials  for loans made while it had ties to the Trump family as well as the family of Jared Kushner, the president’s son-in-law. 

World Capital Payroll classified itself under “other financial vehicle” on its loan application, even though PPP applications offer “payroll services” as an option. That choice puzzled financial experts who spoke with Salon, and one SBA official described it as “weird.”

(About three out of every 10,000 companies that applied for a PPP loan categorized themselves under “other financial vehicle.”)

New York state’s business registry lists WorldCapital Payroll Corp, with no space between the first two words, with Giuliani as CEO. In a call with Salon, Giuliani confirmed that it was the same company. The reason for the discrepancy in spelling was not immediately clear. The company lists different addresses on its official New York registry and its PPP loan: its New York address is at an office of Giuliani Partners; the PPP address is the office of Giuliani’s personal law firm.

Giuliani incorporated WorldCapital Payroll Corp in Delaware on Jan. 8, 2002, the same day he registered Giuliani Partners and Giuliani Safety & Security in New York, and just over a week after entering the private sector following two terms as mayor of New York City. Before that, Giuliani had worked at the Justice Department under Ronald Reagan for eight years, including more than five years as U.S. attorney for the Southern District of New York, where he became famous for prosecuting the mob and white collar crime.

Two days after incorporating in Delaware, on Jan. 10, 2002, Giuliani registered WorldCapital in the state of New York. According to the Delaware listing, WorldCapital Payroll is a stock corporation authorized for 1,000 shares.

Asked what he used the PPP loan for, Giuliani told Salon in a text message, “get lost.”

“Write whatever lie you want to it’s a waste of time to communicate with you,” he added. Salon, he said, “hates the president,” and he, Giuliani, was “just collateral target.”

“No need to discuss this. I am comfortable that I follow the law and ethical rules. Knock yourself out,” he wrote.

According to multiple reports and individuals familiar with the case, Giuliani’s business dealings have been under investigation as part of a broad federal probe led by the FBI and the Southern District of New York, the office Giuliani once led. Last October his former business associates Lev Parnas and Igor Fruman were arrested at Dulles International Airport outside Washington as they waited to board an overseas flight, leading to the investigation into Giuliani. Those arrests were on unrelated campaign finance charges, but came just one day after the duo met Giuliani for drinks, and just as impeachment hearings were heating up in Congress. 

Giuliani later called Salon back to offer more information, saying that he had in the meantime asked a corporate bookkeeper about WorldCapital.

In Giuliani’s telling, his bookkeeper had just explained to him the function of WorldCapital. This seems implausible, since Giuliani created and owns the company, and appears to have used it to process payroll to employees of a number of his global firms for the last 18 years. As stated above, to receive a PPP loan in the reported amount, the company was required to prove that directly employed between seven and 16 U.S. employees, at a minimum.

“It’s what’s called a ‘paymaster,'” Giuliani said, invoking a common term for a company that handles payrolls for multiple entities. Giuliani’s main known entity is his consulting firm, Giuliani Partners.

“We have three or four different companies,” he said. “A client will pay Giuliani Partners a fee and we’d keep it and run the business with it, and then we pay our employees with it, through the payroll company.”

WorldCapital “has no clients other than my companies or the people we subcontract with,” Giuliani said.

“I don’t take a salary from Giuliani Partners,” he added, explaining that he takes a cut of that firm’s profits after he pays his employees. His payments also go through WorldCapital Payroll, he said.

Giuliani may not draw a regular salary from Giuliani Partners LLC — which multiple reports have said has been the subject of federal investigation — but the law requires him to take one from WorldCapital Payroll. According to the SBA’s loan database, WorldCapital registered as an “S Corp” and is therefore required to pay all employees a “reasonable” salary tied to industry norms.

It’s unclear what salary Giuliani pays himself as CEO of WorldCapital Payroll. The PPP salary cap is $100,000 — any salary in excess of that amount must be reduced back to $100,000.

New York records show that the former LifeLock spokesman has a few active companies registered in the state: Giuliani Partners LLC and Giuliani Group LLC (both registered in January of 2002, around the same time as WorldCapital Payroll), Giuliani Security & Safety LLC (registered later that year) and two newer companies he formed last year, Giuliani Communications LLC (registered in November 2019) and what he described in a call as his personal law firm, Rudolph W. Giuliani PLLC (June 2019).

Giuliani said that he had established his personal law firm last year because a client at the time wanted money put in escrow. “I didn’t want Giuliani Partners to do it, because I know the ethical rules,” Giuliani said, declining to name the client or explain why it would be otherwise unethical.

“I’m just a country lawyer,” he added.

The Wall Street Journal and the Washington Post have independently reported that federal investigators have sought documents and correspondence in connection with Giuliani Partners — which Giuliani registered the same day he incorporated WorldCapital in Delaware — or “any related person or entity.” The Journal reported in November 2019 that a subpoena had targeted documents “related to any actual or potential payments, or agreements” with Giuliani. In May, Giuliani’s defense attorney, Robert Costello, told Rolling Stone he had seen “more than one subpoena with Giuliani’s name on it,” dismissing them as pressure tactics.

Giuliani denies any wrongdoing.

Giuliani also recalled to Salon, after the discussion with the bookkeeper, that his own paychecks are also processed through WorldCapital — the company he created and owns and has apparently used to process payments for a number of employees for nearly two decades. It’s unclear how Giuliani’s statements about WorldCapital, which he allegedly did not know much about, square with the fact that, as outlined above, the company would have had to prove to its lender that it had payroll expenses between $720,000 and $1.68 million in 2019 to qualify for the PPP loan it received.

Giuliani said last year that he had to borrow $100,000 from former colleague Marc Mukasey, because he needed help paying his taxes. He also settled an expensive divorce.

Brett Kappel, a top authority on lobbying and government ethics laws, told Salon that payroll companies often serve as a way to consolidate payments.

“An individual who owns multiple companies frequently sets up a separate payroll company to handle payments to individuals who may be employed by more than one company, particularly if the employees are overseas,” Kappel said.

He added that Giuliani’s setup struck him as unusual. “I see a couple of problems here,” Kappel said. “First, why this company is an S Corp, and not an LLC. And second, why the payroll company is the direct recipient of the loans when it might only have the one legally required employee.”

Another financial expert expressed surprise at the decision to register an S Corp in New York City, which uniquely puts an additional tax on those entities. “There aren’t many S Corps in the city,” he said.

S Corps, Kappel explained, are frequently sole proprietorships that offer revenue flexibility and income tax benefits. S Corps do not pay income tax — income and losses are divided among and passed along to shareholders, who report them individually on their personal tax returns. The arrangement provides an owner a number of “sliders” to manipulate when calculating annual tax liability.

“An S Corp is a pass-through entity — income passes through, typically to a single person, and it doesn’t give you the same level of liability protections as an LLC,” Kappel said.

Kappel’s second question — why Giuliani’s payroll company directly received a PPP loan — appears important. An SBA official and multiple financial experts told Salon that because PPP loans are allocated to a company by its tax identification number, a company can only put those funds toward paying its own employees. In other words, Giuliani could not legally use a loan received by WorldCapital to pay employees of his other companies.

Asked whether it would be feasible to misrepresent payroll information, a PPP expert at a national lender told Salon that “pretty much anything” was possible in the program’s first weeks.

“At the beginning, it was like a free-for-all,” the expert told Salon. “They tightened it up later, but in those early days you could basically just write your information down on a napkin and send it in.”

While it would be difficult for business owners to fraudulently represent themselves to a national lender, the employee said, such a scheme would be easier if they approached a small lender, especially one they were familiar with. That would be fraud, the expert said, a conclusion shared by all government and private financial experts consulted for this article.

For one example of known fraud, the employee pointed to federal prosecutions where PPP borrowers tried to defraud the government by creating fictitious companies out of thin air. It is unclear whether the spelling discrepancy between WorldCapital Payroll and World Capital Payroll is material or a mistake, though both companies share addresses with Giuliani entities. There is no World Capital Payroll in New York state records.

Giuliani did not respond to questions about how WorldCapital distributed its taxpayer-backed PPP money. If Giuliani does employ other individuals or contractors through WorldCapital, he did not divulge who those people or entities were, what payroll-processing services they provided for him, or what their salaries were.

When the SBA official was told that WorldCapital Payroll had categorized itself as “other financial vehicle,” not as a “payroll services” company, but as an “other financial vehicle,” the official called the decision “weird” and suggested a review of the lender.

(Of the 645,220 small businesses to receive PPP loans of $150,000 or higher, only 210 of them were classified as “other financial vehicles.” Most of those appear to be either erroneous classifications or financial services companies such as investment firms and fund managers. Companies that engage in speculation, lending, investment or rental real estate are ineligible for PPP loans.)

WorldCapital Payroll’s lender was Signature Bank, established in 2001, which lists 31 offices in the New York metropolitan area, Connecticut and California. It is a small institution, not listed among the SBA’s top 100 most active lenders as of June 30, 2020.

Signature was featured in a lengthy 2018 New York Times article as the Trump family’s “go-to” bank, however. When Michael Cohen, the president’s former personal attorney, needed $17 million to purchase a Manhattan apartment building in 2015, he turned to Signature. Signature also backed Trump’s Florida golf course and lent money to Jared Kushner and his father, real estate developer Charles Kushner. Trump’s daughter, Ivanka Trump (who is married to Jared Kushner), sat on the bank’s board of directors when those loans were extended.

Notably, none of Giuliani’s other companies mentioned above received a federal PPP loan. It’s unclear why only WorldCapital — the one company he owns that does not have “Giuliani” in its name — applied for and received federal funds. (A number of websites allow you to search the PPP database by company name.)

Giuliani Partners, which is reportedly the subject of a federal criminal inquiry, has had several foreign clients over the years, including in Ukraine, as well as a gold trader connected to a Justice Department investigation into a Turkish bank.

“One of the things that Russians and other foreign actors are good at is moving money into the United States,” Naveed Jamali, national security expert and author of the book “How to Catch a Russian Spy,” told Salon in a call. “They can pay sole proprietor companies or send money to investment funds which can then hire or pay individuals.”

“It’s an indirect payment that skirts the line of legality. But while the illegality of that payment is questionable, the ethics isn’t,” Jamali continued. “Even if it’s legal for somebody like Rudy to have a company that does business with foreign actors, it’s unethical for the president’s personal lawyer to be doing that. But Trump, and we see this again and again, has created an incentive for people around him to put their hand out and sell their access to him.”

Another person familiar with Giuliani’s business dealings suggested to Salon that Giuliani might use WorldCapital not just to handle payroll expenses for Giuliani Partners and his other entities, but possibly to cover other payments as well.

In fact, Giuliani himself once provided a roadmap for how such a scheme would work during a live television appearance.

In a May 2018 Fox News interview, shortly after Giuliani took on President Trump as a client, he explained that Trump’s payments to porn actress Stormy Daniels did not qualify as a campaign finance violations because they went through a side channel. 

“It’s not campaign money. No campaign finance violation,” Giuliani told Hannity, who then suggested, “They funneled it through the law firm.”

Giuliani concurred. “Funneled it through the law firm, and then the president repaid it,” he said.

“That was money that was paid by his lawyer, the way I would do, out of his law firm funds,” Giuliani continued.

Giuliani elaborated on his personal experience with such an arrangement: “Michael [Cohen] would take care of things like this, like I take care of this with my clients. I don’t burden them with every single thing that comes along. These are busy people.”

Cohen later went to prison for those payments, which were campaign finance violations he committed on behalf of his client, who is now the president. Cohen is now out on house arrest.

This June, Giuliani brought the Stormy Daniels payments up again.

“That crime was complete bullshit,” he told the New York Daily News when discussing the sudden ouster of Geoffrey Berman as U.S. attorney for the Southern District of New York. At the time, Berman was apparently investigating Giuliani, until he was forced out at Attorney General Bill Barr’s request.

“We don’t prosecute people for personal sex things — you don’t do that shit,” Giuliani said, dismissing speculation that Trump would be tried for the same crime as Cohen after he leaves office.

Around the time of his 2018 remarks to Hannity, after which Giuliani abruptly left his position at the prestigious New ork law firm Greenberg Traurig, Giuliani met Ukrainian-born entrepreneur Lev Parnas. That connection was apparently made through Jon Sale, a South Florida attorney and former Justice Department colleague of Giuliani. Sale told Salon that he believed the connection happened in April or May 2018.

(Sale, who shares with Giuliani a Venezuelan client who is under investigation in a billion-dollar federal money laundering probe, briefly represented Giuliani during President Trump’s impeachment proceedings. He stepped aside shortly after Parnas and his business partner Igor Fruman were arrested at Dulles airport last October.)

Giuliani, who sustains a remarkably lavish lifestyle — and who last August hired a personal communications aide, Christianné Allen — says that he has represented Trump free of charge after leaving Greenberg. He also claims to have borrowed money to pay taxes, and concluded an extended, expensive and openly bitter divorce last December, shortly before Trump was impeached by the House of Representatives.

There are only a few known data points for Giuliani’s income. One is the PPP loan; another is a mysterious $500,000 investment he received in 2018.

Not long after Giuliani left his job at Greenberg gig, he received $500,000 related to a vague business arrangement with Fraud Guarantee LLC, an identity-protection business created by Parnas and Fruman, the two men currently under federal indictment.

Giuliani claims that he was contracted to act as the face of Fraud Guarantee, as he did in his previous role with identity protection firm LifeLock. For this service Giuliani supposedly charged Parnas and Fruman half a million dollars, which he received — but not through Fraud Guarantee.

Instead, a New York attorney paid Giuliani the $500,000 in September 2018, purportedly as a loan or investment on behalf of Fraud Guarantee, according to public reports and people involved, with the understanding that the money would be recouped in funds or stock in the company upon its success.

A lawyer and associate of Giuliani’s told Salon that around the time Giuliani accepted the money, he was warned in writing, and with evidence, that Fraud Guarantee — a company that essentially had never existed — should be vetted carefully. He took the money anyway.

Two months later, Parnas and Fruman began running political errands in Ukraine on Giuliani’s behalf. It is not clear whether or how Giuliani was paying them. His own $500,000 payment appears to have kicked off a series of events, many of them masterminded by Giuliani, that over the next year ultimately led to Trump’s impeachment.

All parties involved agree that Giuliani was not paid the $500,000 directly, but indirectly through his firm, Giuliani Partners. Those funds — if Giuliani claimed them — would then have been routed to him through WorldCapital Payroll.

Giuliani has not been charged with any crime. A lawyer for Lev Parnas did not reply to Salon’s request for comment. Jon Sale did not reply to Salon’s request for comment. Igor Fruman could not immediately be reached for comment.

“Senate majority is at risk”: GOP memo warns of looming losses as party struggles in key states

A memo sent out by the Senate Republicans’ campaign arm warns that control of the upper chamber is at risk of being handed over to the Democrats, The Guardian reports.

“The next few weeks will define the future of our country for generations to come,” the memo from the National Republican Senatorial Committee reads.

“Make no mistake: the Senate Majority is at risk. Beyond the four battleground states of Colorado, North Carolina, Arizona and Maine, Democrats are going on offense in historically red states like Montana, Iowa and Georgia,” the memo continues. “They’re even eyeing states like South Carolina, where [Democrat] Jaime Harrison just reported raising a staggering $10.6m in August alone.”

The memo lists four states, Iowa, Montana, Georgia and Kansas, which generally trend red but are now in Democrats’ sights.

Read the full report over at The Guardian.

Pennsylvania may be the “most important” swing state in this year’s election: expert

Pennsylvania — which Democratic strategist James Carville famously described as Philadelphia in the east, Pittsburgh in the west and Alabama in between — is among the swing states that could decide whether President Donald Trump wins a second term or former Vice President Joe Biden is inaugurated in January 2021. And pundit Nathaniel Rakich, in an article published by pollster Nate Silver’s FiveThirtyEight website on September 15, explains why Pennsylvania is such a make-or-break state in 2020’s presidential election.

“Right now, Pennsylvania looks like the single most important state of the 2020 election,” Rakich explains. “According to FiveThirtyEight’s presidential forecast, Pennsylvania is by far the likeliest state to provide either President Trump or Joe Biden with the decisive vote in the Electoral College: it has a 31% chance of being the tipping-point state. That’s what happens when you take one of the most evenly divided states in the union and give it 20 electoral votes.”

Rakich adds, “In fact, Pennsylvania is so important that our model gives Trump an 84% chance of winning the presidency if he carries the state — and it gives Biden a 96% chance of winning if Pennsylvania goes blue.”

Whether Pennsylvania goes Democrat or Republican in statewide races has a lot to do with who shows up on Election Day. While densely populated Philadelphia is overwhelmingly Democratic — the city hasn’t had a Republican mayor since the early 1950s — Central Pennsylvania, which Pennsylvanians jokingly refer to as “Pennsyltucky” is much more GOP-friendly. In 2016, Democrat Hillary Clinton underperformed in Philly and its suburbs, while Trump overperformed in Central Pennsylvania as well as Northeastern and Northwestern Pennsylvania — and Trump became the first Republican to carry the state in a presidential election since George H.W. Bush in 1988.

But Trump’s victory in Pennsylvania, as Rakich points out, was a narrow one: he carried the state by only 0.7%. Had Democratic voter turnout been better in Philadelphia — and had Republican turnout in Central Pennsylvania or “Pennsyltucky” been weaker — Clinton would have won Pennsylvania’s 20 electoral votes. Biden, in order to carry the Keystone State, needs to flip as many voters in Central Pennsylvania as he can, while making sure that there is a heavy voter turnout in Philadelphia.

Rakich explains why Pennsylvania demographics worked to Trump’s advantage in 2016, noting, “Non-Hispanic white people without bachelor’s degrees make up 55% of Pennsylvania’s population age 25 or older, and Trump accelerated their migration to the Republican Party in 2016. According to the Center for American Progress, the turnout rate among these voters increased from 53.0% in 2012 to 57.4% in 2016 — and they went from voting for Mitt Romney by 20.3 points to voting for Trump by 28.6 points.”

Rakich points out that Trump’s base is not only found in Central Pennsylvania, but also, in the northeastern part of the state. While Philly is in Southeastern Pennsylvania, Northeastern Pennsylvania includes places like Allentown, Scranton (Biden’s home town), Wilkes-Barre, Bethlehem and the Poconos.

“Campaigns have also been forced to reconsider their conception of Pennsylvania’s political geography,” Rakich explains. “The conventional wisdom was that Western and Eastern Pennsylvania were Democratic and Central Pennsylvania was solidly Republican, memorably summarized by Democratic strategist James Carville’s quote that, between Pittsburgh and Philadelphia, Pennsylvania was just Alabama. While this may have been true, at least politically, in, say, 2000, working-class Western and Northeastern Pennsylvania have slowly but surely been getting redder. As a result, Pennsylvania’s new geographic divide is between Southeastern Pennsylvania and the rest of the state — in other words, the parts of the state that are culturally northeastern and the parts that are culturally midwestern or Appalachian.”

CNN host John King calls Fox News “state TV” after Laura Ingraham rushes to defend Trump

After President Donald Trump answered questions from U.S. voters and moderator George Stephanopoulos at an ABC News townhall event in Philadelphia on Tuesday night, September 15, Trump supporters were quick to describe it as a gotcha event — including Fox News’ Laura Ingraham, who considered the townhall an “ambush.” But the following day on CNN, host John King found Ingraham’s claim laughable and described Fox News as “state TV.”

During the townhall, Trump answered questions on issues ranging from the coronavirus pandemic to racial justice.

“On Fox News, Laura Ingraham called this an ‘ambush’ by ABC,” King told reporter Josh Dawsey. “Yeah, ABC put the president of the United States, the leader of democracy, in a room with voters — where he had to answer questions from his citizens. I guess Fox News considers that an ambush. Does the Trump campaign think they should do more of this or, after last night, keep him away from voters?”

Dawsey  responded that Trump’s campaign is trying to “reintroduce him to voters in different scenes” and “draw a contrast with Joe Biden” — adding, “I don’t think the advisers that I talked to around the president necessarily saw it as an ambush or a bad evening, even though his answers on coronavirus were not particularly helpful to the president . . . The ambush sentiment that you mentioned is not one that I heard commonly cheered in Trumpworld.”

King interjected, “Just on state TV, not from Trumpland itself.”

You can watch the video below via YouTube:

Republican who promoted QAnon wins Delaware Senate primary despite opposition from GOP

Lauren Witzke, a conservative activist who has promoted the baseless QAnon conspiracy theory, won the Delaware Republican Senate primary on Tuesday despite opposition from the state party.

Witzke defeated Marine veteran Jim Demartino, an attorney who was endorsed by the Delaware GOP, 57-43, carrying each of the state’s three counties.

The Daily Beast’s Will Sommer noted that Witzke has promoted a QAnon hashtag. She also went to an event wearing a QAnon shirt, “making her the second QAnon supporter to win a Republican Senate nomination this cycle” alongside Oregon’s Jo Rae Perkins.

Witzke, who worked as an Iowa campaign operative for President Donald Trump, tried to distance herself from the inane conspiracy theory during the campaign.

She told the Associated Press that she “stopped promoting QAnon months earlier” and now claims to believe it is “mainstream psyops to get people to ‘trust the plan’ and not do anything.”

“I certainly think it’s more hype than substance,” she told the outlet.

Despite Witzke’s attempt to downplay her ties to the conspiracy theory, some Republican voters backed her specifically because of her support for QAnon.

“She is a supporter of them, and so am I,” 18-year-old Dover student Maggie Kosior told the AP. “They’re condemning the right people, I think.”

QAnon is a conspiracy theory based on “clues” dropped online by a would-be government insider called “Q” about the “deep state” and an alleged child trafficking ring involving Trump’s political opponents. It has been labeled a domestic terrorism threat by the FBI.

Witzke, who claims she was once a drug-runner for “Mexican cartels,” used Trump’s “America First” slogan in her campaign and declared that God had “anointed” Trump.

She vowed during the campaign to push to ban immigration to the U.S. for 10 years and to support legislation to “incentivize marriage and child-bearing” while opposing any restriction on guns.

Despite supporting Demartino in the primary, Delaware GOP Chairwoman Jane Brady told Delaware Public Media that the party now fully supports Witzke.

Witzke will face Sen. Chris Coons, D-Del., who easily won his primary with 73% of the vote and is the heavy favorite in November.

Perkins, who won the Oregon Senate primary, is also widely expected to lose in her race against Sen. Jeff Merkley, D-Ore.

But Congress is expected to add at least one QAnon supporter this election after Marjorie Taylor Greene won a House primary in a heavily-Republican Georgia district despite opposition from party leaders.

Trump, who has embraced the backing of QAnon supporters, praised Greene as a “future Republican star.”

Though about 80 candidates — mostly Republican — linked to the QAnon conspiracy theory have run in this year’s primaries, most have been unsuccessful, according to Media Matters.

Still, the conspiracy theorists’ limited success has alarmed some Republican lawmakers.

Rep. Adam Kinzinger, R-Ill., called on Republican leaders to more forcefully condemn the conspiracy theory.

QAnon “could be Russian propaganda or a basement dweller,” he tweeted after Greene’s win. “Regardless, no place in Congress for these conspiracies.”

Rep. Denver Riggleman, R-Va., introduced a bipartisan bill last month with Rep. Tom Malinowski, D-N.J., which “condemns QAnon and rejects the conspiracy theories it promotes.”

“QAnon and the conspiracy theories it promotes are a danger and a threat that has no place in our country’s politics,” Riggleman said in a statement. “I condemn this movement and urge all Americans to join me in taking this step to exclude them and other extreme conspiracy theories from the national discourse.”

Ohio GOP sticks voters with $3 million bill after refusing to fund postage for mail-in ballots

Voters in Ohio will likely have to pay their own postage after a Republican-run budget board blocked the state’s plan to cover the costs of returning mail-in ballots.

The Ohio Controlling Board, which includes lawmakers from both chambers of the state legislature, voted 4-2 to reject Republican Secretary of State Frank LaRose’s request to provide $3 million to cover the cost of postage for the expected surge of mail-in ballots this fall.

The move will bar LaRose from using his office’s existing funding to pay for return postage. Republicans on the panel argued that it was not the board’s call to make and questioned whether the secretary of state had the authority to fund the cost of postage in the first place, CNN reported.

“I’m highly reluctant to change the rules of any election — let alone a presidential election — at the 11th hour,” state Rep. Scott Oeslager said.

The vote came as Republicans, led by President Donald Trump, push to limit mail voting this November over a baseless belief that it benefits Democrats. But even as Republicans angle for in-person voting, the controlling board’s meeting was held entirely over Zoom. One of the members, state Sen. Bob Peterson, the No.2 Republican in the chamber, announced that he had tested positive for COVID-19 less than an hour before the vote, according to the Ohio Capital Journal.

LaRose lamented his party’s decision as he urged voters to submit their ballots as early as possible.

“Ohio has a sound elections system, but today was another missed opportunity by the legislature to make a small change, without an impact on our state budget, that would yield a big improvement,” he said in a statement.

LaRose said he was concerned that many people do not have stamps lying around.

“It doesn’t benefit the Republicans. It doesn’t benefit the Democrats,” LaRose said, according to WEWS-TV. “What it does do is benefit voters as an added convenience, and it benefits our boards of elections by getting those ballots back in the mail very quickly.”

Though Republicans on the controlling board argued that the funding was a matter for the legislature to take up, the Republican-led House voted in May to bar the secretary of state from paying for return postage in future elections. LaRose himself testified in favor of the bill. The bill would go into effect next year if approved by the Senate.

The state legislature previously voted to approve return postage during the April primaries. LaRose argued that the pandemic still threatened the health of voters — as it did in the spring — and there is not enough time for an alternative approach.

“With today’s decision and because of the logistical deadlines of the USPS to obtain stamps and allow time for them to be applied to absentee ballots,” he said. “This was the latest realistic opportunity for the legislature to act on this request. The United States Postal Service as well as a major contractor of our county boards of elections have communicated to our office that three weeks were necessary to ensure ballots sent on Oct. 6 would have postage applied.”

LaRose has drawn both praise for acting quickly to expand mail-in voting in the state, as well as criticism for his decision to block counties from installing additional ballot drop boxes.

An Ohio judge on Tuesday called LaRose’s decision “arbitrary” as he threatened to block the move, which the secretary vowed to appeal.

“The secretary cannot slip new words into the law,” Franklin County Judge Richard Frye said. “Unless Ohio rearranges its government structure so that every county has roughly the same population and comparable geographic access to a drop box and places for voting, there will inevitably be serious inconvenience caused many voters by such an arbitrary rule.”

Trump campaign hiding payments to senior adviser in bitter child support battle: report

Far-right Republican activist Jason Miller, who became an informal adviser to President Donald Trump in 2017 and is now a senior adviser for his re-election campaign, has been involved in a bitter child support battle. And HuffPost is reporting that if Miller is shown to have more income than he has indicated, it could increase the amount of child support he is required to pay.

Miller, according to HuffPost’s senior White House correspondent S.V. Date, “has not once appeared in the 2020 campaign’s filings on its expenses with the Federal Election Commission.” Date notes, “Also absent from the filings is Miller’s firm, SHW Partners LLC, for which he describes himself as a ‘principal.'”

The former lover who has been suing Miller over child support payments is Miami resident A.J. Delgado. Miller lives in Virginia with his wife and daughters, while Delgado lives with Miller’s son. Delgado has alleged that Trump’s campaign is trying to help Miller “skirt obligations as much as possible, as his income is directly relevant not only to child support and child support arrears he owes our son, but even relevant to attorneys’ fees.”

Date explains that according to court filings in Florida, Miller “reported an income of $683,660 in 2019 ― but continued to argue that he could not afford to pay $3167 per month in child support for the son he fathered during the 2016 Trump campaign with a female colleague. For a period of six months early this year, he paid only $500 a month in child support ― despite reporting monthly personal expenses that included $1500 for food and ‘home supplies,’ $750 for meals out, $473 for maid service and $1517 in car payments.”

Date adds that in an August court filing in his child support case, Miller reported a “monthly income of $32,606 from his company but nothing from the Trump campaign” — noting that Miller has “resumed paying the $3,167 monthly in child support.”

HuffPost, according to Date, has made “numerous” queries about Miller, but neither Miller nor Trump’s campaign has responded to any of them.

“If Miller is being paid by someone else while he works on the campaign, that would constitute an illegal in-kind contribution,” Date observes.

Dr. Bleach-Injector and his death cult want you to get “herd developed”

Donald Trump was doing spectacularly bad science again, this time during a town hall in Philadelphia hosted by ABC’s George Stephanopoulos on Tuesday night. The event went about as well for the president as anyone who has been awake during the past four years could have predicted, which raises the important question: Wasn’t his new campaign manager supposed to be competent?

When asked about an audio clip captured by journalist Bob Woodward in which Trump talks about the coronavirus pandemic and how much he “wanted to always play it down,” Trump slid right into his don’t-believe-your-lying-ears mode, claiming that he, in fact, “up-played it.” Whatever that means. Then the “very stable genius” currently squatting in the Oval Office rolled out his brilliant plan to lick the coronavirus problem (as transcribed by the invaluable Aaron Rupar of Vox): 

TRUMP: It is going away.

STEPHANOPOULOS: Without a vaccine?

TRUMP: Sure. Over a period of time.

STEPHANOPOULOS: And many deaths.

TRUMP: It’s gonna be herd developed.

He also used the phrase “herd mentality.” 

Trump’s English comprehension is garbled by decades of being unable to listen to anyone speaking about any topic that doesn’t directly concern his greatness or his personal finances. But he appeared to be talking about the concept of “herd immunity,” which is generally understood to require 70 to 90% of the population to be immune to a given infectious agent. This “let everyone get it” plan has been a favorite of Trump’s from the beginning of the pandemic. Recently, he has hired a borderline quack named Dr. Scott Atlas — a radiologist with no expertise in virology or epidemiology — to keep telling him it’s a good idea. But even Atlas knows this is a crackpot plan, and has so far refused to admit to reporters that he’s the source of Trump’s incoherent muttering about “herd impunity” or “herd magnanimity” or “herd it on the grapevine.” (To be clear: Kidding! He hasn’t said any of those things. At least not yet.) 

Right now, somewhere around 2% of Americans have tested positive for the coronavirus — which is still a whopping 6.6 million people, more than any other nation on Earth — and of that group, just over 196,000 have died as of Wednesday afternoon. I leave it to readers — who, unlike Trump, didn’t pay someone to take their SATs for them — to figure out how many more people are likely to die if we go with Trump’s brilliant plan of infecting perhaps 35 times as many people with the virus as have now tested positive. 

(Or, skip the algebra and read this article from the Washington Post, which estimates that Trump’s “good brain” plan would kill nearly 3 million people.) 

Here I thought that Trump had crammed thousands of his followers, without masks, into an indoor rally in Henderson, Nevada, just because he’s a terminal narcissist who prioritizes his insatiable need for applause over the lives of the very swing-state voters he would need to win the election. But hey, it might also be that he’s using the bodies of his own supporters — who tend, on average, to be older and likelier to die of COVID-19 — for his grand experiment in “herd development.”

Move over, Burning Man: It’s time for a new desert festival! Donald Trump’s Coronafest 2020: The drugs aren’t as good, and you’re way likelier to end up dead. 

The wild thing is how many people turned up for the dubious pleasures of risking their lives to hear Dr. Bleach-Injector’s whiny, singsong cadence for more than an hour. Thousands of people showed up at the Henderson rally, putting it all on the line to show the world that they’re willing to get sick or even die rather than admit it was a bad idea to elect a racist reality-TV host with the moral compass of a serial killer to the highest office in the land. 

In the first year of Trump’s presidency, I wrote a piece warning about the powers of rationalization, and suggesting how far Trump supporters would likely go rather than admit they made a mistake in voting for the man in 2016. 

“[T]he answer to the question of when Trump voters will come around is somewhere between ‘a long, long time from now’ and more likely ‘never,'” I wrote in June 2017. 

I quote myself only to say that, holy yikes, did I understate the case. No matter how confident I was that Trump supporters would contort themselves into ridiculous pretzels or sign onto outrageous beliefs to justify their 2016 vote, even I had no idea how wacky things could get. Here we are, three years and change later, and this is the lengths Trump voters will go to avoid having to say, “Oops!”

Or check out this rally in the town of St. George, Utah, which happened a few weeks ago but has now gone viral, due to the I-can’t-believe-this-isn’t-satire aspect of it all. That report doesn’t come from a progressive media outlet of any kind, just the local news station. It features a bunch of angry white people comparing having to wear a face mask to George Floyd being killed by police in Minneapolis, or claiming that “most child molesters love” masks. 

No doubt it’s tempting to dismiss these examples as nut-picking, no different than when right-wingers grab the occasional anarchist-flavored vandal at a Black Lives Matter protest and use him to demonize the whole movement. But the difference is these loons don’t actually sound much different than their beloved president. 

Trump has also suggested that people only wear masks to spite him. He was clearly coached by his campaign staff to sound vaguely pro-mask during the Tuesday town hall, his true feelings came out when he kept repeating variations of “a lot of people think the masks are not good.” (When Trump says “some people” or “a lot of people” are saying something, he is just stating his own opinion and, like the incorrigible coward he is, refusing to own it.) And like that “child molester” lady, who is obviously a QAnon follower, Trump loves pushing Q-friendly conspiracy theories, even retweeting  a QAnon adherent who recently accused former Vice President Joe Biden of being a pedophile

Despite all this, Trump’s approval rating sits right around 42 to 44%, and is apparently immovable. The phrase “in for a penny, in for a pound” has never been more relevant. Apparently, anything is better than admitting that the liberals were right that voting for Trump was a bad idea — even getting COVID-19 is preferable to that. That’s why the conspiracy theories must get more baroque all the time, because trying to tell a story in which Trump voters are the good guys is harder than trying to explain to the cops why you have a freezer full of human body parts. 

Hell, maybe it was a smart idea for the campaign to throw Trump on TV, thereby guaranteeing that liberals would mock him and the fools who vote for him without mercy. As the past four years have demonstrated, it just makes Trump’s supporters more defensive, and more determined than ever to stick it to the libs one more time. Because heaven forbid that Trump’s 2016 voters should demonstrate a conscience by acting like real good guys would: Sucking it up, admitting they were wrong and making better choices this November.