Spring Sale: Get 1 Year, Save 58%

Analysis: These eight battleground states that will decide the 2020 presidential election

The 2020 presidential election in the United States will not be decided by predictably blue states like California, Massachusetts, Oregon and New York or by deep red states like Utah, Alabama and Mississippi, but by swing states that can go either Democrat or Republican. President Donald Trump is unlikely to win the popular vote this year, but it is entirely possible that he could pull off a narrow Electoral College victory if he carries enough swing states. And Politico examines eight battleground states in a series of articles written by its team of reporters and published after Labor Day weekend.

The eight states that Politico focuses on include four northern states (Pennsylvania, Wisconsin, Michigan, Minnesota) and three southern states (Florida, Georgia, North Carolina) as well as Arizona. Collectively, these eight states have 127 electoral votes, and Politico has published an article for each state.

“Within each of these swing states,” Politico’s staff explains, “the roadmap ahead for President Donald Trump and Joe Biden is clear. The president must max out his performance with rural voters. Biden needs a robust turnout in the big cities, particularly among African-American voters. Trump must halt his erosion in the suburbs, and turn out white working class voters who didn’t vote in 2016.”

If a state went from George W. Bush in 2000 and 2004 to Barack Obama in 2008 and 2012 to Donald Trump in 2016, it most definitely qualifies as a swing state or a battleground state — and that is exactly how Florida has voted over the years. Politico’s Marc Caputo says of Florida, “Biden has a marginal lead over Trump in polls here. Last month, for the first time in at least a decade, more Florida Democrats cast primary election ballots than Republicans. Democrats also dominated voting by mail and became competitive in several red districts where they didn’t have a prayer before.”

Most of the eight states that Politico examines are states that Trump won in 2016. The exception is Minnesota, which Democrat Hillary Clinton carried. And Minnesota is the one Clinton state that pundits believe Trump has a chance of flipping.

Politico’s David Siders notes, “It’s been so long since Minnesota voted Republican in a presidential election that many Democrats suspected a head fake when Trump first boasted about his intent to compete there. But two months before the general election, the race has tightened — and both Trump and Biden are pouring millions of dollars into the state.”

After the 1980s, Pennsylvania went Democratic in every presidential election except 2016 — when Trump narrowly defeated Clinton in the Keystone State. Politico’s Philadelphia-based Holly Otterbein reports that Biden “currently enjoys a solid, though not overwhelming, lead of about 4 percentage points in the state, according to polling averages” and that former Philadelphia Mayor Michael Nutter, a Democrat, predicts, “The election is going to be close in Pennsylvania. It always is.”

The three Rust Belt states that Trump unexpectedly won in 2016 were Pennsylvania, Michigan and Wisconsin. Trump’s victory in Ohio didn’t come as a shock, as it was known for being a Bush/Obama swing state.

Arizona, in the past, was a deep red state and was synonymous with the conservatism of Sen. Barry Goldwater and his successor, Sen. John McCain. But Arizona has evolved into a swing state, and it is clearly in play for Biden in 2020. Politico’s Laura Barrón-López notes that in Arizona, Biden “has more than $17 million currently reserved on the airwaves between now and Nov. 3.”

Georgia, like Texas, is a light red state where polls are showing Biden to be competitive. Politico’s Elena Schneider observes, “The prospect of turning Georgia blue for the first time since 1992 is a stretch. For Joe Biden to win the state, Democrats will need something close to a blowout win in the Atlanta suburbs and a surge in black voter turnout. It’s a tall order, but the party took significant steps in that direction in 2018, when Stacey Abrams only narrowly lost her bid for governor in 2018 and Democrats flipped one suburban congressional seat.”

Meghan McCain shames Sarah Sanders over Trump’s attacks on her dad: Character and principle “matter”

“The View” returned Tuesday with a new season and welcomed former White House press secretary Sarah Huckabee Sanders, who is promoting her new book about her time in the White House.

Co-host Meghan McCain was quick to begin the conversation about her belief that the Atlantic expose on President Donald Trump’s insults of fallen soldiers is real. McCain walked through all of the reasons that the stories are likely true.

“My first instinct was to question the reporting,” McCain confessed. “You went on record saying he has the greatest amount of respect for the men and women of our armed forces. The problem, as I said, the president has a pattern of saying incendiary things about my father, the Vindmans or the Khans. I want your perspective on it and I want to know if you understand mine and other people’s perspectives. It might not matter. He got a big chunk of the veteran vote, but I think character and principle still matter.”

Mccain had spoken previously on the long history of Trump’s attacks on veterans, soldiers, Gold Star families and more.

Sanders dodged the question, instead promising that in her experience the president was a prince when it came to showering the troops with his love.

You can watch the video below via YouTube:

 

Trump campaign pushes bogus conspiracy theories and misinformation as Joe Biden leads in the polls

Reporter Ashley Parker, in an article published in the Washington Post over Labor Day Weekend, discusses some of the ways in which President Donald Trump’s campaign and its allies have been aggressively promoting disinformation — from “doctored and misleading videos” to bogus conspiracy theories.

For example, Parker notes, Trump recently “retweeted footage of a black man violently pushing a white woman on a subway platform under the caption, ‘Black Lives Matter/Antifa’ — but the man was not affiliated with either group, and the video was shot in October (2019).” And according to Parker, “White House Social Media Director Dan Scavino shared a manipulated video that falsely showed Democratic presidential nominee Joe Biden seeming to fall asleep during a television interview, complete with a fake TV headline.”

In addition to those things, Parker notes that House Minority Whip Steve Scalise — a Louisiana Republican and Trump ally — “released a video splicing together quotes from activist Ady Barkan — who has Lou Gehrig’s disease and uses computer voice assistance — to falsely make it sound as if he had persuaded Biden to defund police departments.”

Whitney Phillips, a communications professor at Syracuse University, told the Post, “When you have this disinformation and it’s introduced to one side of the forest, for example, it can travel so quickly through so many different communities and does so many unintentional things before you can even do a fact-check. He’s able to muddy the waters so thoroughly that democracy wilts on the vine.”

Trump, Parker points out, has “repeated a false claim that just 6% of the nation’s death toll” in the coronavirus pandemic “was actually caused by the novel coronavirus itself — part of his ongoing effort to portray the virus as less deadly or pervasive than it actually is.” That conspiracy theory has been promoted by QAnon and has no basis in reality, but that hasn’t prevented Trump and other Republicans from promoting it.

Trump is hardly the first candidate to play hardball during a presidential race. From President Lyndon B. Johnson’s infamous “daisy ad” of 1964 to President George H.W. Bush’s racist Willie Horton ad of 1988 to the Swift Boat Veterans ads that helped President George W. Bush defeat Democrat John Kerry in 2004, presidential candidates — both Democrats and Republicans — have dealt some harsh blows to their rivals over the years. But Lily Adams, a Democratic National Committee senior adviser, argues that Trump’s campaign is taking disinformation to another level.

Adams told the Post, “Spin has been something that folks in politics have come to expect, but this is the invention of a totally new reality. Because they can’t run on the reality that every American is seeing, they’re inventing a new one.”

Labor’s lost power: Why were union warnings on COVID danger ignored?

With Labor Day just behind us, we face an unprecedented socioeconomic crisis brought on by a once-in-a-century public health crisis that has reduced a “superpower” into a global pariah.

What has been reported by the media as a public health story is now, months in, more of a story about how workers’ lives have been devalued because they are supposed to “suck up” the additional risk they face if they must work outside their home in the midst of a pandemic.

On the fly, the risk of COVID infection has radically altered how the labor market defines the acceptable risks that workers are compelled to take if they have no choice but to work outside of their home. And this “oh, by the way” requirement comes without even the basics of universal health care as a safety net, even as essential workers also put their family at risk for infection.

Labor’s clout has been on the decline for decades. The consequences have been dire not just for workers put for the broader community, which benefits when unions speak up on issues like occupational health. Such is the circumstance in our current COVID crisis, where some unions spoke out early about their members’ vulnerability to the virus but were dismissed or ignored.

Had those warnings been heeded, we’d likely have a much different reality on the ground.

A half-century ago, one third of workers were represented by a labor union. By the early 1980s, thanks in part to President Ronald Reagan’s mass firing of striking air traffic controllers, it dropped to 20 percent. Today, it’s down to just over 10 percent.

As multiple research studies have confirmed, as the percentage of unionized workers dropped, so have wages in general. Since the 1970s, wages in constant dollars have either declined or remained flat, even as the concentration of individual and corporate wealth accelerated dramatically.

But what the pandemic has now brought into sharp relief, as we approach 200,000 dead Americans, is that the diminishment of organized labor’s clout meant that it could largely be ignored when unions sounded early alarms that the Trump administration’s failed response to COVID would not just cause illness and death for their members but for the public at large.

Even before New York was in lockdown mode, in mid-March the New York State Nurses Association warned that the CDC’s emergency guidance that nurses should reuse N95 masks, rather than dispose of them after each clinical encounter, would result in their members catching COVID and dying — and that in the process the hospitals where they worked would become vectors for the deadly disease.

Both things happened.

A reporting collaboration between the Guardian and Kaiser Health News has estimated that one-fifth of known coronavirus cases are health care workers on the job in hospitals and other congregate-care facilities like nursing homes. The study identifies 922 such occupationally related deaths, like that of 56-year-old emergency room nurse Pamela Orlando, who worked at Valley Hospital in Ridgewood, New Jersey, and spent the last weeks of her life using video to document her losing battle with COVID.

The seasoned nurse’s poignant video diary starts with her upbeat about her efforts to treat herself at home at the end of March, according to press reports. By the end, she has lost a sense of what day it is. Orlando died on April 16, 24 days after she had been diagnosed.

Even now, several months into the pandemic, we have yet to fully come to terms with how it has forever altered the social contract implicit in employment. It’s been rationalized into our brutal market economy as part of the price to be paid for the return to “normalcy, much as the horrific loss of life of Africans to the Middle Passage was incidental to the economics of slavery.

Historically, it’s been workers in sectors like the construction trades or mining that we associate with an elevated risk of death or severe injury on the job.

Yet because of the catastrophic failure of President Trump to lead a national public health response to COVID, nurses are not the only victims. Now, every first responder, EMT, doctor, respiratory therapist, corrections officer or other essential worker faces an elevated risk of dying or becoming disabled long-term.

Talk of hazard pay, when New York was reporting the worst of the daily COVID death count and dozens of New York City Transit employees were dying, has faded since the Trump-McConnell axis of avarice blocked House Speaker Nancy Pelosi’s proposal to extend it. Republicans’ primary objective was to reduce the flow of local federal aid to households by ending the $600 weekly unemployment supplemental benefit and force more workers to end their personal lockdown and join the workforce in time to pick up the economy in time for the election. Whether they lived or died was immaterial.

There were isolated instances like the Stop & Shop grocery chain, which extended a 10% pandemic pay premium for their workers. That inducement was suspended on July 4, even though the chain’s workforce all had to continue wearing masks as the pandemic continued to rage.

In Donald Trump’s 21st-century America, these workers and their families are just as expendable as the dozens of U.S. Secret Service agents sidelined by COVID thanks to the president’s selfish campaign antics.

The man running the government believes that soldiers who die in combat are “suckers” and “losers.” He has also demonstrated by his actions a reckless disregard for the well-being of the essential workers who put themselves at risk to protect public safety and health.

In the process, Trump accelerated the spread of the deadly virus in all 50 states because — as the self-appointed CEO of the federal government — he bears ultimate responsibility for the well-being of every federal employee and contractor on the payroll.

This only becomes apparent if you have been doing what I have been doing almost 24/7 since the pandemic hit, in my job at the Chief-Leader (a New York labor publication): tracking down every report I could find documenting COVID-related deaths of civil servants across the country.

There is no central data collection on this information. When it does get reported, it usually shows up in local newspapers. Generally, national news organizations have robust benches dedicated to covering the ups and downs of the stock market, but don’t have labor reporters.

It’s only by piecing together these local accounts that you get the essential COVID tick-tock of death and misery that has blown up the lives of thousands of these essential workers and their families from coast to coast. Tragically, the numbers will only get worse as Trump takes aim at FEMA money being used to provide PPE to protect them.

Every step of the way as the virus spread, the unions that represented these front-line workers did their best to get the word out about the implications of Trump’s Malthusian strategy of playing the states off each other while slowing down testing.

On April 2, 39-year-old Frank Boccabella, who worked at Newark Liberty Airport as a security dog handler, was the first Transportation Safety Administration’s COVID fatality.

At that point there were just 4,700 COVID-related deaths.

Weeks before COVID-19 got traction in states like New York and the nation’s congregate-care facilities, it showed up in the air transportation sector, even as Trump repeatedly downplayed the seriousness of the virus, comparing it to the flu.

On March 10, the TSA used a tweet to announce that “three Transportation Security Officers who work at Mineta San Jose International Airport have tested positive for the COVID-19 virus.”

Four days earlier, officials confirmed that two British Airways baggage-handlers at London’s Heathrow Airport had tested positive for coronavirus, requiring the testing of their co-workers.

On March 12, the American Federation of Government Employees blasted the TSA for not doing enough to protect officers and the flying public from COVID-19. The union called upon TSA Administrator David Pekoske to provide workers on the front line with N95 protective masks.

“Despite our union’s numerous requests for adequate masks and protective equipment, TSA has failed to properly equip our officers with the resources they need to prevent infection,” Everett Kelley, AFGE president, said in a statement at the time.

The agency denied the request. It was not until May 7, after several TSA screeners had died, that the agency implemented an on-the-job mask requirement, a policy that private-sector airline carriers began adopting weeks earlier.

On April 3, the CDC rescinded its initial COVID-19 guidance against members of the public wearing masks, noting that additional research had revealed that 25 percent of those with the coronavirus showed no symptoms but could easily spread the disease. (That proportion is now believed to be significantly higher.)

“This means that the virus can spread between people interacting in close proximity — for example, speaking, coughing or sneezing — even if those people are not exhibiting symptoms,” the agency said in a statement. “In light of this new evidence, CDC recommends wearing cloth face coverings in public settings where other social-distancing measures are difficult to maintain.”

In an interview, Kelley said his union had entered the kind of fight it had with the TSA over personal protective equipment, but this round was about getting the tens of thousands of TSA workers tested for the COVID-19, something he claimed the agency still resisted, even as transit agencies like New York’s MTA and New Jersey Transit had embraced it.

“These airport screeners might be infected and not know it because they are not testing them,” he told me. “This means that as the flying public comes through every day that passes, the virus can get passed on that way.”

To this day, there is no federal mask requirement in the nation’s airports and terminals.

The AFGE has had to fight similar battles across the nation with multiple federal agencies, Kelley added. Meanwhile, as the Trump administration ignored the unions, the death and infection rates rose exponentially.

Congregate-living facilities operated by the VA and the U.S. Bureau of Prisons have been hotbeds for the deadly virus, which is particularly lethal for those with pre-existing health conditions. There have been well over 1,000 veteran and inmate COVID-19 deaths, and dozens of federal workers had already died by the time of my May interview with AFGE’s president.

There’s no requirement that the government disclose these deaths. “It appears that they [i.e., the Trump administration] don’t want to know the truth at this point,” Kelley said. “It has come to the point where in this administration where we have agency heads telling their subordinates, ‘I don’t want you to tell me how many deaths there are,’ which continues to put our members and their families’ lives at risk.”

He contended that “denial as a strategy” was not confined to the Federal Government. In Nebraska, Kelley said, Republican Gov. Pete Ricketts has refused to disclose the COVID-19 employee infection rates in meatpacking plants even though across the country such plants have proven to be incubators for to the virus.

“He was hiding the infection rate from the public and that does not make the infection go away,” Kelley said. “If anything, it helps this deadly virus spread, by giving the public a false sense of security.”

The USDA finally disclosed that as of May 5, 197 federal meat inspectors had been infected, with deaths reported in New York, Illinois, Mississippi and Kansas.

What would have happened if, after President Trump signed the Defense Production Act — which allowed meat producers to ignore local public health officials’ concerns over the COVID outbreaks in their plants — we had all decided in solidarity not to buy the meat they produced? What if truckers had refused to take their loads, and grocery workers had refused to stock it in supermarket cases? 

The lives of essential workers should matter. But in Trump’s America they don’t. We fancy ourselves as evolved, far beyond the infamous barbarism of the Triangle Shirtwaist fire in lower Manhattan in 1911, when 146 garment workers perished, most of them young immigrant women. But are we really?

“Thugs!”: Trump blasts Black Lives Matter movement shortly after “Fox & Friends” covers protests

President Donald Trump on Tuesday went off on an angry rant against “thug” Black Lives Matter protesters shortly after “Fox & Friends” aired a segment showing demonstrators harassing diners.

“BLM Protesters horribly harass elderly Pittsburgh diners, scaring them with loud taunts while taking their food right off their plate,” Trump wrote on Twitter. “These Anarchists, not protesters, are Biden voters, but he has no control and nothing to say. Disgraceful. Never seen anything like it. Thugs!”

As Media Matters’ Bobby Lewis documents, “Fox & Friends” on Tuesday devoted an entire segment to demonstrators harassing diners.

Trump then went on to claim that demonstrators feel emboldened to act as they do because Biden won’t say the words “law and order.”

“Because of weak and pathetic Democrat leadership, this thuggery is happening in other Democrat run cities and states,” he wrote. “Must shut them down fast. Biden and his most Liberal in Senate running mate, Kamala, won’t even talk about it. They won’t utter the words, LAW & ORDER!”

In fact, Biden has condemned violence and harassment multiple times, and specifically said this week that he condemned any violence by antifa and other left-wing protesters.

Meanwhile, Trump’s own supporters were caught on camera Monday brutally beating up demonstrators and the president has yet to condemn them for their actions.

The banality of evocation: Remembering a feminist movement that hasn’t ended

On August 26, 2020, Alice in Wonderland will get some company. She will be joined in New York City’s Central Park by Susan B. Anthony, Elizabeth Cady Stanton, and Sojourner Truth, the first statues there of women who, unlike Alice, actually existed. The monument is a gift to the park from Monumental Women, a non-profit organization formed in 2014. The group has raised the $1.5 million necessary to commission, install, and maintain the new “Women’s Rights Pioneers Monument” and so achieve its goal of “breaking the bronze ceiling” in Central Park.

Preparations for its unveiling on the centennial anniversary of the ratification of the 19th Amendment, which granted suffrage (that is, the right to vote) to women, are in full swing. Celebratory articles have been written. The ceremony will be live-streamed. Viola Davis, Meryl Streep, Zoe Saldana, Rita Moreno, and America Ferrera have recorded monologues in English and Spanish as Stanton, Anthony, and Truth. The Pioneers Monument, breaking what had been a moratorium, is the first new statue placed in Central Park in decades.

As statues topple across the country, the Pioneers Monument is a test case for the future of public art in America. On the surface, it’s exactly what protesters have been demanding: a more diverse set of honorees who better reflect our country’s history and experience. But critics fear that the monument actually reinforces the dominant narrative of white feminism and, in the process, obscures both historical pain and continuing injustice.

Ain’t I a Woman?

In 2017, Monumental Women asked artists to propose a monument with statues of white suffragists Anthony and Stanton while “honoring the memory” of other voting-rights activists. In 2018, they announced their selection of Meredith Bergmann’s design in which Anthony stood beside Stanton who was seated at a writing desk from which unfurled a scroll listing the names of other voting rights activists.

Famed feminist Gloria Steinem soon suggested that the design made it look as if Anthony and Stanton were actually “standing on the names of these other women.” Similar critical responses followed and, in early 2019, the group reacted by redesigning the monument. The scroll was gone, but Anthony and Stanton remained.

The response: increasing outrage from critics over what the New York Times’ Brent Staples called the monument’s “lily-white version of history.” The proposed monument, wrote another critic in a similar vein, “manages to recapitulate the marginalization Black women experienced during the suffrage movement,” as when white organizers forced Black activists to walk at the back of a 1913 women’s march on Washington. Historian Martha Jonesin an op-ed in the Washington Post criticized the way the planned monument promoted the “myth” that the fight for women’s rights was led by Anthony’s and Stanton’s “narrow, often racist vision,” and called for adding escaped slave, abolitionist, and women’s rights promoter Sojourner Truth.

Although the New York City Public Design Commission had approved the design with just Anthony and Stanton, Monumental Women did indeed rework the monument, adding a portrait of Truth in June 2019. The sculptor would later make additional smaller changes in response to further criticism about her depiction of Truth, including changing the positioning of her hands and body to make her a more active participant in the scene. (In an earlier version, she was seated farther from Stanton’s table, her hands resting quietly as if she were merely listening to the white suffragists.)

Their changes didn’t satisfy everyone. More than 20 leading scholars of race and women’s suffrage, for instance, sent a letter to Monumental Women, asking it to do a better job showing the racial tensions between the activists. Their letter acknowledged that Truth had indeed been a guest in Stanton’s home during a May 1867 Equal Rights Association meeting. They noted, however, that this was before white suffragists fully grasped the conflict between the fight for the right of women to vote and the one for the political participation of African Americans, newly freed by the Civil War, in the American democratic system. Stanton and Anthony came to believe that, of the two struggles, (white) women’s votes should take precedence, though they ultimately lost when Congress passed the 15th Amendment in 1870, extending the vote to Black men.

The tensions between race and women’s rights arose again when, in 1919, Congress finally passed the 19th Amendment, intending to give women the right to vote. Its ratification, however, was delayed largely because Southern states feared the very idea of granting the vote to Black women. During the summer of 1920, realizing that they still needed to convince one more Southern state to ratify the amendment, white suffragists began a campaign to remind white southerners that the Jim Crow laws already on their books to keep Black men from voting would do the same for Black women. Tennessee then voted to ratify.

The white suffragists would prove all too accurate. When southern Black women tried to exercise their new right to vote, they would be foiled by discriminatory literacy tests, poll taxes, or just plain violence. In 1926, for instance, Indiana Little, a teacher in Birmingham, Alabama, led a march of hundreds of African Americans on the city’s voter registration office. They were not, however, permitted to register and Little was both beaten and sexually assaulted by a police officer. (Meanwhile, Native American women remained without American citizenship, much less the right to vote, until 1924.)

For Black women, according to Martha Jones, author of the forthcoming book “Vanguard: How Black Women Broke Barriers, Won the Vote, and Insisted on Equality for All,” the 1965 Voting Rights Act would prove to be the “15th and 19th Amendments rolled into one.” It would give teeth to what had been merely a promise when it came to granting them the vote. And they would prove a crucial part of the fight to make it a reality. Amelia Boynton Robinson, the first Black woman in Alabama to run for Congress (her campaign motto: “A voteless people is a hopeless people”), even turned her husband’s memorial service into Selma’s first mass meeting for voting rights. She then became a key organizer of the 1965 march from Selma to the state capital, Montgomery, during which an Alabama state trooper beat her brutally as she tried to cross the Edmund Pettus Bridge. A widely published photograph of her lying on the ground, bloody and unconscious, would form part of the campaign that led to the passage of the Voting Rights Act a few months later.

Glamour Shots in bronze

With its gentle portraits of Stanton, Anthony, and Truth, the Women’s Rights Pioneers Monument is far from that image of a bloodied protester. In following the model of the very kind of traditional monument it means to replace, it leaves out the pain and the struggle of the women’s movement.

It didn’t have to be that way. In 2015, one of Monumental Women’s leaders told the New York Times that they wanted a memorial that wouldn’t be “old-fashioned.” Nonetheless, the design they ultimately selected, with its realistic, larger-than-life portrait statues on a pedestal, would prove to be in precisely that traditional style.

The group has claimed that just such a stylistic compromise was necessary because the New York Parks Department refused to allow an “overtly modern” monument in Central Park. (That department disagrees that it should be blamed for the monument’s style. Its press officer told me that they “encourage innovative contemporary art” and pointed to a number of examples of modern, abstract monuments that “grace our parks” in QueensManhattanStaten Island, and Brooklyn.) The Pioneers Monument sits on a leafy promenade nicknamed “Literary Walk” because of its statues of authors like William Shakespeare and Robert Burns. It fits in perfectly there, and would go hardly less well with the future “National Garden of American Heroes” President Trump demanded in response to Black Lives Matter protests. In his executive order to make it so, he specified that the statues in his garden must be realistic, “not abstract or modernist.”

Monumental Women’s style choice conveys important messages. For one, monuments traditionally show the people they honor in the most flattering form imaginable and this one is no exception. Bergmann has sculpted the women as attractively as possible (while being more or less faithful to the historical record). If the monument represents the moment in 1857 when the three women were together, Truth would have been 70 years old and Anthony, the youngest, in her late 40s. Yet all three are shown with unwrinkled faces, smooth hands, and firm necks. Stanton’s hair falls in perfect curls. While they may not look exactly young, neither are they aging. Think of the monument as the equivalent of Glamour Shots in bronze.

As historian Lyra Monteiro, known for her critique of the way playwright Lin-Manuel Miranda erased the slave past in his Broadway hit “Hamilton” — even as he filled the roles of the founding fathers with actors of color — pointed out to me, the monument makes the three women into feminists of a type acceptable even to conservative viewers. Besides portraying them as conventionally attractive, the sculpture uses symbols that emphasize the more traditional feminine aspects of their lives: Truth’s lap full of knitting; Stanton’s delicate, spindly furniture; and Anthony’s handbag. Who could doubt that their armpit hair is also under control?

The women’s faces are, by the way, remarkably emotionless, which is unsurprising for a monument in the traditional style. Since Greco-Roman antiquity, heroic statuary has famously sported faces of almost preternatural calm. Such expressions, however, only contribute to what Monteiro called the concealment of “the struggle” that marked feminism from its first moments.

Sojourner Truth, for instance, was known for speeches like “Ain’t I a Woman?” in which she drew deep and emotional reactions from listeners by describing the sufferings she experienced before escaping from slavery. The triumphalist calm of the Pioneers Monument avoids those emotions and so belongs to a long tradition in American statuary that celebrates revolutionary deeds as, in Monteiro’s words, “very old and very, very done.” Such monuments ask viewers to offer thanks for victory instead of spurring them on to continue the fight.

Monteiro also points out that the choice of commemorating universal suffrage is telling in itself. No matter how many fierce debates it once inspired, the idea that women should have the right to vote is today uncontroversial. But other women’s rights issues remain hotly debated. Imagine statuary celebrating the fight for the right to abortion or to use the bathroom of your choice.

As an example of monuments that energize viewers in an ongoing fight instead of tranquilizing them into thinking victory has been won, Monteiro pointed to Mexico City’s antimonumentos (anti-monuments), large if unofficial displays aimed at calling out government negligence. A typical one, made of metal and portraying the international symbol for women with a raised fist at its center, installed during a 2019 protest march in one of that city’s main squares, bears an inscription indicating that protestors were not going to shut up when it came to the gender-based violence that then continued unchecked in their country. City officials have let such antimonumentos remain in place, undoubtedly fearing negative publicity from their removal. So they continue to act as reminders that the government’s actions are both questionable and being scrutinized. 

The triumphalism of the Pioneers Monument suggests that the problem of women’s rights is oh-so-settled. But of course, in the age of Donald Trump in particular, the kinds of oppressions that Truth, Stanton, and Anthony fought couldn’t be more current. Many feminists of color feel that white feminists still tend to ignore racial issues and seldom have the urge to share leadership in activism.

And today, despite Democratic presidential candidate Joe Biden’s recent choice of Kamala Harris as his running mate, the voting rights of women of color remain imperiled. Since a 2013 Supreme Court decision struck downone of the Voting Rights Act’s key protections, minority voters have found it ever more difficult to exercise their theoretical right to vote amid growing efforts by Republican officials to suppress minority (and so Democratic) votes more generally. The fight for women’s votes is hardly over, no matter what the Pioneers Monument might have to say about it.

Todd Fine, a preservation activist, told me that he wishes Monumental Women had focused their discussions on what a truly diverse community might have wanted for such a commemoration rather than responding to bursts of criticism with modest tweaks of their proposed statue.

One explanation for the group’s resistance to change is that it is led by exactly the type of well-off, educated, white women whose right to vote hasn’t been in question since 1920. In the same period that they were reacting to criticism of their proposed monument’s exclusion of women of color, I found that Monumental Women’s tax filings reveal that they added three women of color to their board of directors. Diversification of leadership is certainly a positive step, but the organization’s president and other officers remain the same. And at least two of the new directors had already raised funds for the planned Stanton and Anthony monument, writing and speaking positively about the organization and its goals, and so could be expected to be at best modest critics of its path.

Historic lies and scented candles

One reaction to the debate around the Pioneers Monument is to think that Monumental Women simply didn’t make the best decision about whom to honor or how to do it. But historian Sally Roesch Wagner has no doubt that searching for the right honoree is itself not the right way to go. She told me that, when it comes to the feminist movement, monuments to individuals are “a standing historic lie” because women’s rights have been won “by a steady history of millions of women and men… working together at the best of times, separately at the worst.” Wagner believes that to honor individuals for such achievements today is to disempower the movement itself.

Early feminists horrified the public. The Pioneers Monument is designed to soothe. It invites you to light a scented candle rather than to burn your bra. Bronze is long-lasting, but perhaps it’s no longer the best material for monuments. In a moment when a previously almost unimaginable American president is defending traditional Confederate monuments in a big way, perhaps something else is needed.

The playwright Ming Peiffer will premier “Finish the Fight,” an online theatrical work, as August ends. She aims to let us listen to some of the Black, Asian, Latinx, and Native American activists whose roles in the fight for the vote have been forgotten. Perhaps in 2020, the best monuments to the fight for women’s rights — for all our rights — may look nothing like what most of us would imagine.

Copyright 2020 Erin L. Thompson

Erin L. Thompson is a TomDispatch regular and a professor of art crime at John Jay College (CUNY). An expert on the deliberate destruction of art, she is the author of the forthcoming Smashing Statues: The Rise and Fall of America’s Public Monuments (Norton, 2021). Follow her on Twitter @artcrimeprof.

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

More than 550,000 mail ballots rejected so far: Here’s how to make sure your vote gets counted

Election officials are working to make sure voters are not disenfranchised in November after an unprecedented number of mail-in ballots have been rejected in primary elections so far this year.

A Washington Post analysis found that more than 534,000 mail ballots were rejected in primaries in 23 states this year and a separate NPR analysis found more than 558,000 ballots rejected in 30 states. By comparison, less than 318,000 ballots were rejected in the 2016 general election, raising concerns that ballot issues could tip the election. After all, the 2016 presidential race was decided by about 77,000 combined votes, spread across in three states.

“We’ve been worried about this problem,” said Ellen Kurz, a veteran of several presidential campaigns who co-founded iVoteFacts, a nonprofit that seeks to educate voters about new voting options amid the pandemic. “New York’s [21%] rate was crazy and New Jersey was 10%. And one of the big problems is the fact that voting by mail is going to be new in a lot of these states.”

“You can’t have 10% of voters disqualified because of a technicality,” she told Salon in an interview. “That’s nuts.”

Twenty states have expanded mail voting amid the pandemic this year, resulting in many voters casting mail ballots for the very first time. A recent study found that first-time mail voters in Florida were twice as likely to have their ballots rejected than voters who had previously voted by mail. The issue is particularly concerning in key battleground states like Michigan, Wisconsin and Pennsylvania, the three states that tipped the race to President Trump in 2016. Election officials in those states alone “tossed out more than 60,480 ballots” during the primaries, according to the Washington Post. More than 60,000 more votes were rejected in swing states such as Florida, Ohio, North Carolina, Nevada and Maine.

“If the election is close, it doesn’t matter how well it was run — it will be a mess,” Charles Stewart III, an election data expert at MIT, told the Post. “The two campaigns will be arguing over nonconforming ballots, which is going to run up against voters’ beliefs in fair play.”

Some states expect to see a tenfold increase in the number of mail ballots cast this year. While some states have long held elections by mail, in some cases exclusively, others are unprepared to handle the influx.

“In states like Colorado or Washington, where they’ve been implementing vote by mail for a long time, or at least over several cycles, you don’t see that signature spoilage rate. So it’s the newness of the process,” Kurz told Salon. “When you first implement vote-by-mail, a lot of things can go wrong.”

Washington state, which has held all-mail elections for years, has a rejection rate of between 1% and 2%, Kylee Zabel, a spokeswoman for Washington Secretary of State Kim Wyman, told Salon.

“Ballots are most commonly rejected for late postmarks, or missing or mismatched signatures,” Zabel explained.

Voters in at least 20 states, including Washington, can address signature issues until Election Day, though although the processes for doing so vary by state.

“In order for their completed ballot to be processed, voters must sign and date the exterior of their (postage prepaid!) return envelope,” Zabel said. “Those signatures are checked against the signatures on file in their voter registration records. If a signature does not match, the county elections office reaches out to the voter with a form they can sign and return to attest to the validity of their signature. This enables the voter to correct or update their signature on file and, if the voter did not return a ballot, notify election officials that a ballot may have been returned fraudulently on their behalf.”

Kurz’s organization aims to educate voters, with the goal of avoiding having their ballot ensnared in the system.

“Depending on the state, we have legal redress for ballots… but who wants to go through that?” she said. “It would be so much better if people just were informed and educated and reminded about the proper way to fill their ballot out, the proper time to return it and the place to put your signature.”

In some states, stray marks on a ballot can lead to disqualification. In others, slight tears in the envelope can invalidate a ballot.

Kurz is planning to launch an advertising campaign to educate voters about how to properly fill out their ballot and iVoteFacts will soon launch an app that will help voters in a half-dozen states that are adopting expanded mail voting systems get all the information they need.

“Sometimes the instructions are really simple, just reminding voters to sign their ballot,” she said. “It’s literally that people fill the ballots out wrong.”

Democratic lawyers and election officials in more than 30 states are pushing to limit the number of reasons that ballots can be rejected. Studies have found that these rejections disproportionately affect voters of color and young people.

A nationwide mail slowdown at the U.S. Postal Service also threatens to delay the arrival of ballots. The USPS recently warned 46 states that ballots may not arrive in time for election deadlines.

Each state has a “unique system,” a spokesperson for the National Association of Secretaries of State told Salon, but “overall, every state is encouraging their voters to mail back or deliver ballots as early as possible.”

Some states, like Michigan, are pushing for the legislature to extend deadlines and allow ballots that are postmarked by Election Day to be counted even if they arrive several days later.

“If that doesn’t change and if there are no other changes, we’re facing a scenario where we could have to reject a number of otherwise valid votes sent through the mail that are delayed through no fault of the voter, because of the Postal Service or some other snafu,” Michigan Secretary of State Jocelyn Benson recently told voting rights activists. “So those voters could be disenfranchised, and that number could exceed the margin of victory for a number of races, statewide and local.”

Many states are also adding ballot drop boxes so that voters don’t have to rely on the USPS to send back their ballot.

Kurz said that secretaries of state have led the charge on trying to educate voters on how to make sure their vote is counted.

“I call them the first responders because nobody should lose their vote or their voice because they put their signature or marked the envelope in the wrong way,” she said. “There’s a hundred reasons that are just ridiculous. And then you add to that the post office troubles and Trump’s campaign, and you could see a disaster really happening. We’re trying to avoid that. I think the secretaries [of state] are really going to be really focused on this ballot spoilage issue.”

While secretaries of state and Democratic lawyers have sought to ease restrictions that can lead to a ballot being rejected, Trump and many Republican elected officials have launched a legal campaign of their own, arguing that strict signature-matching requirements and voter identification are necessary to prevent fraud. Numerous studies have found that mail-ballot fraud is virtually nonexistent.

“Overhauling the way Americans vote less than 80 days out will only spread chaos and confusion,” Mandi Merritt, a spokeswoman for the Republican National Committee, told the Post.

Kurz described the ballot rejection issue as a “potential hanging chad on steroids,” referring to an infamous issue that arose during the controversial Florida recount in the 2000 presidential race between George W. Bush and Al Gore.

“Anything that is going to decrease people’s voices being heard is just terrible for the country,” she said. “So in a pandemic, whether you’re a Republican or a Democrat, you should be trying to solve these problems, not throw wrenches into the problem. That’s absurd. There’s a global pandemic and, more than ever, people need to vote on who their leaders should be to see us out of this. So we should not be doing things to stop people from voting. It’s un-American. Any issue where you’re trying to stop eligible citizens from voting, you’re just wrong.”

Trump’s EPA gives power plants a pass on deadly coal ash

Retiree Julie Pease and her husband moved into their modest lakefront home near Herrington Lake in Kentucky eight years ago, but she won’t eat the fish because the lake is polluted by coal ash from the nearby power plant.

Team Trump recently pushed back the deadlines for utilities to close an estimated 523 leaking, unstable or dangerously-sited coal ash ponds. Kentucky Utilities, which operates the E.W. Brown power plant in Harrodsburg, Ky., closed its main coal ash pond in 2008, but the six million tons of coal ash that remain at the site has polluted Herrington Lake.

“The fact that we could retire from New Jersey and buy a home on the lake was very appealing to us,” said Pease who didn’t know about the pollution when they bought their house.

Coal-burning power plants produce about 100 million tons of coal ash a year. Arsenic, lead and mercury lace the ash. Companies mixed the ash with water and stored it in unlined pits called coal ash ponds, often near rivers or lakes such as Herrington Lake which was built in the 1920s.

About a third of power plants with coal ash dumps are in the southeast. About 41% are in the Midwest, and about 10% are in the Southwest.

Under the law, the EPA is required to ensure that there is “no reasonable probability of adverse effects on health or the environment.” EPA Administrator Andrew Wheeler, who previously lobbied for a coal company, maintains that allowing coal ash ponds to stay open longer still meets this standard because the agency will require some utilities to submit risk mitigations plans and “meet the baseline level of acceptable risk.”

“Extending closure deadlines delays necessary cleanup, allows ongoing contamination to worsen, and puts communities at risk from the catastrophic harms that happen when impoundments fail or flood,” said Lauren Piette, an attorney for Earthjustice.

A spokesperson for Kentucky Utilities did not respond to an email from DCReport.org.

Court cases

A coal ash rule passed under former President Barack Obama allowed power companies to put coal ash in unlined ponds indefinitely, until their operators determined they were leaking. Federal judges threw that out in a 2018 decision, Utility Solid Waste Activities Group v. EPA.

Wheeler used that decision and a 2019 decision, Waterkeeper Alliance Inc. v. EPA, to rewrite regulations to benefit utilities. The Trump EPA initially gave power companies until Oct. 31, 2020 to stop receiving waste and start closing unlined, leaking ponds.

Eight more years

Wheeler’s new rule says power plants have until April 11, 2021 to stop sending coal ash ponds and start the closure process. Plants can get extensions until 2023, 2024 and even 2028.

Wheeler’s new rule is expected to save utilities $26.1 million a year.

At Herrington Lake, selenium, an element that is concentrated in coal ash, is poisoning fish and causing deformities in juvenile largemouth bass. Kentucky Waterways Alliance and the Sierra Club have sued Kentucky Utilities over pollution in the lake, and the state recently held a hearing.

Pease, who used to work at a Habitat for Humanity, and her husband, a retired high school math teacher, get their drinking water from the lake, but they filter it. They like to kayak on the lake with their dogs and go swimming.

“We were absolutely drawn by the beauty of the place where we live,” Pease said.

Pressure mounts on Louis DeJoy after exposé suggests he broke campaign-finance laws

With less than two months before the general election in November and amid demands for his immediate firing, Postmaster General Louis DeJoy faces calls for investigations from both congressional Democrats and the attorney general of North Carolina. This comes after explosive reporting on Sunday afternoon alleging that DeJoy, a Republican mega-donor now in charge of the U.S. Postal Service, may have criminally violated campaign finance laws.

First reported by the Washington Post, Sunday’s story included claims from former employees of DeJoy’s logistics company, New Breed, most notably its onetime human resources director, David Young, who said that DeJoy — a major donor to the Republican Party and President Trump — had reimbursed his employees for political donations by using payroll bonuses. Such an arrangement would be illegal under both federal law and in North Carolina, where New Breed is located.

North Carolina Attorney General Josh Stein responded to the news Sunday evening by backing an investigation.

“It is against the law to directly or indirectly reimburse someone for a political contribution,” Stein said in statement on social media. “Any credible allegations of such actions merit investigation by the appropriate state and federal authorities. Beyond this, it would be inappropriate for me as Attorney General to comment on any specific matter at this time.”

While Rep. Gerry Connolly, D-Va., called for DeJoy — who has been described as “Trump’s crony” — to be fired on Sunday afternoon in response to the allegations, Senate Minority Leader Chuck Schumer endorsed the idea of an immediate investigation. Schumer pointedly said that the Justice Department, under U.S. Attorney General William Barr, should be left out.

“These are very serious allegations that must be investigated immediately, independent of Donald Trump’s Justice Department,” Schumer said. “The North Carolina Attorney General, an elected official who is independent of Donald Trump, is the right person to start this investigation.”

Speaking on behalf of the Democratic Association of Attorneys General (DAGA), co-chairs Maura Healey of Massachusetts  and Ellen Rosenblum of Oregon said that with the election fast approaching — and DeJoy’s role as postmaster general so pivotal in terms of securing the integrity of the vote — the best option would be for DeJoy to step down while a thorough investigation is conducted.

“The allegations that Postmaster DeJoy engaged in an extensive scheme to violate federal and state campaign finance laws are profoundly troubling,” Healey and Rosenblum said in a joint statement. “If true, they call into question DeJoy’s leadership and compliance with the law yet again, this time revealing a pattern of potentially criminal misconduct. This matter will require time to resolve — time that DeJoy does not have with the election just 60 days away. Postmaster DeJoy should immediately step aside, pending an independent investigation.”

Common Cause — which along with other groups recently filed a lawsuit against DeJoy alleging that his actions to undercut the delivery of mail amount to a constitutional violation of Americans’ right to vote — said the revelations of his alleged campaign finance violations are only the latest reason DeJoy cannot be trusted during such a crucial time.

“Mega-donor Louis DeJoy seemingly broke multiple campaign finance laws, continuing a dangerous pattern of turning our institutions of government upside down, from the Postal Service to our election campaigns,” said Karen Hobert Flynn, president of Common Cause. “It is extraordinarily disturbing that DeJoy is abusing his power as postmaster general to help President Trump win re-election, meanwhile apparently demonstrating disregard for key campaign finance laws designed to promote the integrity of our democratic elections.”

Hobert Flynn said her organization was considering legal action to hold DeJoy accountable for these alleged criminal violations.

Bob Phillips, executive director of Common Cause North Carolina, added that if proven true, “the fundraising scheme allegedly perpetrated by Louis DeJoy is extremely troubling.”

Such “big money in politics” operations, he added, erode “public confidence in the integrity of our political system and fuels cynicism. Concealing the source of campaign donations is even worse, because it deprives voters of information they could otherwise use to inform their votes.”

“These are serious allegations of illegal activity that warrant a thorough investigation,” said Phillips, “and there must be full accountability from Mr. DeJoy.”

From Donald Trump to John Wayne: How to become a hero of the Christian Right

The Research Brief is a short take on interesting academic work.

The big idea

White evangelical support for Donald Trump has long puzzled observers. To many, it seems hypocritical that Christians who have long touted “family values” could rally around a thrice-married man who was accused by several women of sexual assault. Scholars have commented on his crassness, defined by historian Walter G. Moss as “a lack refinement, tact, sensitivity, taste or delicacy.” Others have observed how he has broken rules of civil political engagement.

But in my research on evangelical masculinity, I have found that Trump’s leadership style aligns closely with a rugged ideal of Christian manhood championed by evangelicals for more than half a century.

As I show in my book “Jesus and John Wayne: How White Evangelicals Corrupted a Faith and Fractured a Nation,” conservative evangelicals embraced the ideal of a masculine protector in the 1960s and 1970s in order to confront the perceived threats of communism and feminism.

Believing that the feminist rejection of “macho” masculinity left the nation in peril, conservative white evangelicals promoted a testosterone-fueled vision of Christian manhood. In their view, America needed strong men to defend “Christian America” on the battlefields of Vietnam and to reassert order on the home front.

Culture has played a critical role in shaping and sustaining this rugged vision of Christian manhood. In fashioning their masculine ideal, evangelicals have drawn liberally on Hollywood heroes – on mythologized warriors like Mel Gibson’s William Wallace in the movie “Braveheart” and on the heroic cowboys and soldiers played by John Wayne.

Reflecting the onscreen heroism portrayed by men like Gibson and Wayne, this masculine ideal condoned violence in the pursuit of righteousness and justified a vigorous, even ruthless assertion of power.

Why it matters

In 2016, exit polls revealed that 81% of white evangelicals voted for Donald Trump, a number higher than any other religious demographic.

I argue that the language evangelicals used to defend their support for Trump suggests that they were not betraying their values, rather that Trump embodied well the rugged and even ruthless ideal of evangelical masculinity.

“I want the meanest, toughest son of a you-know-what I can find,” explained Robert Jeffress, pastor of First Baptist Dallas. In their book “The Faith of Donald J. Trump,” Trump’s evangelical biographers David Brody and Scott Lamb concurred: Trump would “protect Christianity”; he would be their “ultimate fighting champion.”

With his poll numbers flagging, maintaining white evangelical support is critical to the president’s reelection efforts.

That support is likely to hinge not on his presumed morality or Christian virtue, but rather on his ability to project rugged strength and masculine power.

How I do my work

As a historian, I approach evangelicalism not as a set of abstract theological beliefs, but rather as a historical and cultural movement.

In order to understand American evangelicalism, I surveyed popular evangelical teachings on masculinity, sexuality and family values as revealed not only through sermons but also through Christian radio, film and the Christian publishing industry.

Collectively, books on Christian manhood have millions of copies, sending the message of an aggressive, testosterone-driven ideal of Christian manhood and affirming the new evangelical identity.

What still isn’t known

The relationship between evangelical consumerism and formal religious authorities is a fruitful area for further research. More work, too, can be done to explore how conflicting ideas of Christian manhood coexist within white evangelical communities and how conceptions of Christian masculinity vary across racial divides.

What’s next

I am beginning work on a project that is in many ways a counterpoint to Jesus and John Wayne, tracing the cultural and political ramifications of evolving ideals of white Christian womanhood.

Kristin Kobes Du Mez, Professor of History, Calvin University

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

Trump again claims he’s bringing down drug prices, but details of how are skimpy

President Donald Trump has long considered lowering the high cost of prescription drugs to be one of his signature issues, and it is likely to be a talking point he relies on throughout the upcoming campaign.

During his afternoon speech Monday ― delivered on the first day of the Repubublican National Convention after delegates had unanimously renominated him to seek reelection ― he returned to this theme.

“Now, I’m really doing it,” he said, referring to a series of four executive orders he issued in July. These orders touched on a range of issues, including insulin prices and drug importation. He focused on two specifically.

“But the fact is that we signed a favored nations clause and a rebate clause, and your numbers are going to come down 60, 70%,” he said.

However, those executive orders are far from being implemented, and multiple experts told us it’s unlikely the measures would pass along drug-pricing discounts to a majority of Americans. And the text of one, the favored nation executive order, has not yet been made public ― making it hard to know how exactly the initiative would work.

“Details are a bit murky,” Matthew Fiedler, a health care fellow with the Brookings Institution, wrote in an email.

We checked in with the White House to find out more details about the favored nation order and when the text might be released. However, we did not get a response. Still, we decided to dig in.

What we know

The favored nation executive order was supposed to match U.S. prices for a certain class of drugs with the lower amount paid in certain European countries, which negotiate drug prices. It reportedly would have applied only to drugs covered by Medicare Part B ― those that patients receive at their doctors’ offices, such as infused cancer drugs ― but not those purchased at the pharmacy counter. Drug companies criticized the executive order, and the Trump administration offered to consider an alternative plan if the firms offered it by Aug. 24. So far, the industry has not made a counter offer.

A spokesperson for PhRMA, the lobbying group that represents major drugmakers, said in a statement that “the most favored nation executive order is an irresponsible and unworkable policy that will give foreign politicians a say in how America provides access to treatments and cures for seniors and people struggling with devastating diseases.” The group did not confirm on the record whether an alternative drug-pricing plan had been discussed with the White House.

The Trump administration floated a similar idea in 2018, which met with swift criticism from some of its usual supporters, such as Americans for Tax Reform, a right-leaning advocacy group that opposes tax increases. The criticism was marked by TV ads warning that this approach to drug costs was a step toward socialism. We found that claim to be Mostly False. The Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services estimated at that time the resulting savings from such a plan would be 30%, but it was never enacted.

Multiple experts questioned Trump’s claims about how much costs would come down as a result of the more recent proposal.

That’s in part because the full text of the executive order has not been published, and so classifying the president’s statement as true “requires a leap of faith,” said Benedic Ippolito, a resident scholar who studies health care costs at the American Enterprise Institute.

Ippolito allowed that because some drug prices in other countries are far below those in the U.S., a reduction of 60% or 70% could be plausible for an individual product. But, in order for that to happen, the policy would have to be implemented.

Seeing this 60% to 70% decrease “relies on the idea that this policy ever happens. And I think there is reason to be very skeptical there,” Ippolito wrote in an email.

Rachel Sachs, an associate professor of law at Washington University in St. Louis, who has analyzed the drug-pricing executive orders, agreed there’s no solid foundation to support those percentages.

“I don’t know about the 60 or 70%,” she said. “I don’t know what he’s talking about.”

Another executive order attempted to address the rebates paid to pharmacy benefit managers within Medicare by directing that these payments instead be used as discounts for beneficiaries within the Part D program, the plans that pay for prescription medications.

However, experts pointed out that those discounts usually go toward lowering insurance premiums for seniors. Without applying the discount there, premiums would likely go up. And, in order to keep premiums down, the federal government would need to spend more on subsidies.

Analyses from the Congressional Budget Office and other groups predicted that Trump’s rebate proposal would lower drug prices for some seniors, but would also increase federal spending and increase seniors’ premiums.

There is also a stipulation in the text of the order, which says the order cannot be implemented if it leads to increased government spending or higher premiums for beneficiaries. Thus, it’s unclear how such a proposal would be implemented.

“The executive order on the rebate is internally contradictory, which makes you wonder how they can do this,” said Sachs.

Why it matters

Trump is likely to continue saying he has reduced drug prices, not only during the Republican National Convention but for the remainder of the 2020 campaign.

Trump likes to present proposals in the works as having been implemented, and we’ve fact-checked him twice before on similar drug-pricing statements.

In May 2019, he claimed he brought down drug prices for the first time in 51 years, which we found to be Mostly False. And in early August of that year, we fact-checked a claim about another of his drug-pricing executive orders that inflated his efforts to reduce insulin prices, which we also found to be Mostly False.

This time, Trump referenced two different drug-pricing executive orders. While it is true that he signed both of them (though the text of only one is publicly available), experts have expressed skepticism about whether these proposals will be implemented, as well as whether they would lower drug prices significantly for Americans.

And this isn’t the first time Trump has made this promise to the American people.

“He promised to lower drug prices as part of his campaign in 2016 and has done absolutely nothing of substance about drug prices at all while he’s been in office,” Aaron Kesselheim, a professor of medicine at Harvard, wrote in an email.

WATCH: Proud Boys brutally beat Black Lives Matter protesters after Trump rally

Graphic video was posted on Twitter on Labor Day by Oregon Public Broadcasting.

“Hundreds of pro-Trump demonstrators gathered in Oregon City on Labor Day for a planned vehicle rally,” Jonathan Levinson and Sergio Olmos reported. “The rally’s organizers did not lead the caravan into Portland, as happened at the previous week’s event. Instead, vehicles drove from Oregon City and headed south on Interstate 5. Some drivers traveled with their vehicle doors open on the highway, or with people perched on top of vehicles as they drove.”

The caravan officially ended in Woodburn.

“Members of the Proud Boys, an extremist group that regularly engages in street violence, and other demonstrators traveled to Salem after the official rally concluded. They congregated at the Oregon State Capitol Building, where some carried firearms and baseball bats,” the network reported. “In one clash between the groups, members of the pro-Trump group attacked a counterprotester with a baseball bat and pepper spray. After a second similar attack, Salem police officers and Oregon State Police troopers arrested at least two men with the conservative demonstrators.”

Videos recorded by Olmos show a protester being struck by a stick, another punched in the head while he was face down in the ground and show a protester being spray while down with a pepper spray-like gas.

7 details from new exposé on financial turmoil — and bitter backstabbing — in the Trump campaign

President Donald Trump’s campaign is having money trouble, according to a New York Times report, while former Vice President Joe Biden’s team is flush with cash.

Biden announced a record-breaking sum of nearly $365 million in fundraising for the month of August, swiftly outpacing the president’s best month. And the report Monday from the Times exposed just how deep and sordid the story behind the Trump campaign’s depleted coffers and revealed signs of animosity brewing with its ranks.

Here are seven key details from the report:

1. The big takeaway: Trump has poured $800 million down the drain with little to show for it

“If you spend $800 million and you’re 10 points behind, I think you’ve got to answer the question ‘What was the game plan?'” said Ed Rollins, a veteran Republican strategist who runs a small pro-Trump super PAC, and who accused [former Trump campaign manager Brad] Parscale of spending “like a drunken sailor.”

Of course, one of the biggest problems is that Trump has always been an unpopular president never interested in appealing to a broad majority of the country rather than his narrow base. You can’t spend your way out of that problem.

2. Parscale, meanwhile, is trying to spread the blame around

Unusually for a Trump campaign official, Parscale seemed to be willing to comment extensively for the Times piece. In the comments printed, he appeared desperate to deflect blame for overspending to the Trump family and the RNC.

For example:

“I ran the campaign the same way I did in 2016, which also included all of the marketing, strategy and expenses under the very close eye of the family,” said Mr. Parscale, who was the digital director, not the campaign manager, in 2016. “No decision was made without their approval.”

Mr. Trump’s son-in-law, Jared Kushner, who has overseen the campaign from his position as a senior White House aide, had posed for a Fortune magazine cover as the person who ran the 2016 campaign soon after the election.

“Any spending arrangements with the R.N.C. since 2016 were in partnership with Ronna McDaniel,” Mr. Parscale said, referring to the party chairwoman, “who I consider a strategic partner and friend.” [emphasis added]

And also:

The Trump campaign has undertaken its own financial review of spending under Mr. Parscale. Among the first changes implemented was shutting down an ad campaign that had used Mr. Parscale’s personal social media accounts to deliver pro-Trump ads. More than $800,000 had been poured into boosting Mr. Parscale’s Facebook and Instagram pages; those ads ceased the day after he was removed as campaign manager.

Mr. Parscale said the Facebook page was “not my idea” and the “family’s direct approval” had been sought on the program.

“I built an unprecedented infrastructure with the Republican Party under this family’s leadership since 2016,” Mr. Parscale said in a statement to The Times. “I am proud of my achievements.” [emphasis added]

The fact that campaign officials were willing to talk — off the record, it seems — negatively about Parscale for this story also suggests someone or some group is trying to throw him under the bus.

3. Trump is a big part of the problem

Some of the wasteful spending reported in the piece seemed designed specifically to soothe Trump’s ego. For example, the Times reports that the campaign has nixed a Parscale idea to sponsor a NASCAR car. The $3 million expenditure would certainly have pleased Trump, but it’s hard to see how it would sway voters.

The reporters also note that ad spending during the Superbowl and in Washington, D.C., also seems to have been designed to please Trump specifically, even though the buys had little strategic value. Even if Trump didn’t push for these expenses, he shows terrible leadership by cultivating employees who decide to put his personal preferences over long-term strategic interests.

4. The campaign spent nearly half of its spending on more fundraising

It’s hard to imagine this was cost-effective, given the fact that the campaign has recently felt the need to cut back on ads.

“Under Mr. Parscale, more than $350 million — almost half of the $800 million spent — went to fund-raising operations, as no expense was spared in finding new donors online,” the report said.

5. A lot of money is covering campaign-adjacent legal bills

Republicans, for instance, have been saddled with extra legal costs, more than $21 million since 2019, resulting from the many investigations into Mr. Trump and, eventually, his impeachment trial. The R.N.C. also paid a large legal bill of $666,667.66 to Reuters News & Media at the end of June. Both Reuters and the R.N.C. declined to discuss the payment. It was labeled “legal proceedings — IP resolution,” suggesting it was related to a potential litigation over intellectual property.

6. The pandemic — and Trump’s refusal to adapt to it — has repeatedly thrown a wrench into the gears

Unlike Biden, Trump reportedly hasn’t taken to online fundraisers that can be extremely efficient and productive:

One of the reasons Mr. Biden was able to wipe away Mr. Trump’s early cash edge was that he sharply contained costs with a minimalistic campaign during the worst months of the pandemic. Trump officials derisively dismissed it as his “basement” strategy, but from that basement Mr. Biden fully embraced Zoom fund-raisers, with top donors asked to give as much as $720,000.

These virtual events typically took less than 90 minutes of the candidate’s time, could raise millions of dollars and cost almost nothing. Mr. Trump has almost entirely refused to hold such fund-raisers. Aides say he doesn’t like them.

And Trump’s failed attempt to hold the in-person convention to Jacksonville, Florida, reportedly ended up wasting hundreds of thousands of dollars.

7. Much of the money remains mysteriously unaccounted for

Many of the specifics of Mr. Trump’s spending are opaque; since 2017, the campaign and the R.N.C. have routed $227 million through a single limited liability company linked to Trump campaign officials. That firm, American Made Media Consultants, has been used to place television and digital ads and was the subject of a recent Federal Election Commission complaint arguing it was used to disguise the final destination of spending, which has included paychecks to Lara Trump and Kimberly Guilfoyle, the partners of Mr. Trump’s two adult sons.

Millions more followed to firms tied to R.N.C. and Trump-linked officials, including more than $39 million to two firms, Parscale Strategy LLC and Giles-Parscale, controlled by Mr. Parscale since the beginning of 2017.

New research uses CRISPR gene editing to grow new neurons in diseased brains

The brain is a marvel of evolution, but in some animals, it has a few limitations. Unfortunately for humans, our brains are mostly incapable of generating new neurons. This inability becomes particularly problematic when the brain is affected by neurodegenerative disorders.

To treat neurodegenerative diseases, scientists can create new neurons from stem cells. In no time, new neurons can replace lost ones, and take over their job. A glaring drawback of this method is that these cells are formed outside the body and need to be transplanted into the brain. To date, this is the preferred method to repopulate lost neurons, but it’s far from ideal.

Transferring lab grown neurons into animal brains reduces the cells’ viability — their chances of integrating well into the tissue — and the efficiency with which they can restore function. So scientists at Shanghai Research Center for Brain Science and Brain-Inspired Intelligence fashioned a methodto regenerate neurons inside the brain. The method is similar to how one would revive a dying plant: by nurturing it with the right conditions for it to grow new leaves.

Building up on a previous study, Haibo Zhou, a postdoctoral researcher in Hui Yang’s lab, and colleagues, set up a method to convert non neuronal brain cells called “glia” into neurons. They did this by turning down a gene called PTBP1in glia of different parts of the mouse brain, using the gene-editing tool CRISPR. Depending on which brain region was targeted, the glia gave rise to different kinds of neurons.

Reducing PTBP1 levels presumably reverted glia to unspecified stem cells, which adopted varied neuronal identities based on which glia were targeted and the environmental signals they received. This was evident from the team’s successful attempts at restoring two different types of neurons and alleviating the symptoms associated with the loss of each.

Parkinson’s disease occurs due to loss of dopamine-producing neurons and manifests as tremors, stiffness, and loss of balance. To test their method in rejuvenating this group of neurons, the team first got rid of them using a toxic compound in mice. The authors then converted glia into dopamine-producing neurons, and the new cells showed the same activity as their original counterparts. 

This rescue was not limited to just the neuron population. It also partially restored the normal motor behavior of the animal. This is a huge step forward from drug induced alleviation of symptoms because it puts forth a more permanent solution.

The team also tackled retinal diseases caused by death of retinal ganglion cells, or RGCs, which leads to permanent blindness. Turning down PTBP1 in glia of the retina transformed them into RGCs. Astoundingly, these renewed neurons not only responded to light independently, but also sent their projections to the visual cortex correctly, restoring circuit function. This led to a partial recovery of eyesight in the treated mice.

The outcomes from this study are surprising in many ways. Neurons in different regions of the brain vary a lot in their shapes, activity, function, and connectivity. Neurons in young animals acquire these characteristics because of the multitude of developmental signals they receive. These cues might or might not be present in the adult brain. How do the reprogrammed neurons pull this off in the absence of such cues? 

“Maybe the signals still exist in the mice at 8 weeks old. It’ll be very interesting to identify the instructive signals underlying glia-to-neuron conversion in the future”, Yang said in an email. Looking at natural regeneration in animals like zebrafish, where a similar mechanism of glia-to-neuron transformation is observed, could give us hints to what these signals might be.

The high efficiency and flexibility of this technique are appealing. But, given the notoriety CRISPR-based gene editing has garnered in the recent years, the safety of translating the technology into other methods is an open question. How will researchers ensure the system only edits the correct gene? How would one stop the editing once neurons are regenerated?

The authors chose to reduce the levels of PTBP1 by targeting the RNA, rather than DNA. For this they chose Cas13d because it’s small, easy to deliver to the cells, yet highly specific and efficient in its action. Compared to conventional tools like Cas9, it’s a significant improvement.

According to Yang, CRISPR RNA editing is safer than DNA editing since expression of Cas13d is turned down once neuronal conversion is complete. Unlike DNA editing, which alters the genetic makeup of an animal permanently, RNA editing affects the expression levels of specific genes, temporarily.

“We are now working on monkey model using this approach,” Yang says. “Hopefully, we could apply this approach in humans in three to four years.”

If meticulously designed experiments provide evidence for safe therapeutic use in humans, it might open doors for using this method to generate various other cells of the body as well. Treatment options for disease like diabetes and sickle cell anemia could be well within reach. But that is a story for another time.

Why giant watermelon growers get hooked on their hobby: “We grow to push the limits”

Sweet, drippy, and a tad crunchy, a bite of a watermelon evokes nostalgic feelings of balmy beach days and summer barbecues. But for a subset of amateur farmers across the country, watermelons are much more than a beloved juicy snack. They’re also the center of a competitive and passionate hobby: growing giant watermelons.

Hobbyist Todd Dawson discovered what would soon become his passion when he visited the North Carolina State Fair in 2009. He was amazed by the State Fair Weigh-Off competition, where farmers show off their giant pumpkins and watermelons.

“We were there and I saw the giant watermelons, and I jokingly said to my wife, ‘I’m gonna grow one of those next year, and I’m going to win the blue ribbon,'” Dawson tells Salon. “The next year I grew one, and you would have thought it was the biggest watermelon in the world — I mean I was just tickled to death with this melon.”

A first-place winner receives $6 for each pound of watermelon, plus a $2,500 bonus if the world record is broken. Last place, which Dawson found himself in, usually gets 50 cents a pound.

“Nobody grows for the money, because you’re gonna go broke if you did that,” Dawson said. “You grow just for the pure enjoyment of — I’m going to say, ‘pushing the limits,’ and seeing how far you can push them.” 

But despite his loss, Dawson was hooked. For the next two years, he spent time honing his skills at giant watermelon growing by learning from other growers in the giant watermelon world. It paid off: in 2011, he won the North Carolina State Fair’s Weigh-off with a 282-pound watermelon. In 2017, he tied for second place, with a 316-pound watermelon.

According to the Guinness Book of World Records, the heaviest watermelon ever was grown by Chris Kent  in 2013. It weight 350.5 pounds. Hobbyists say that it was uncommon to see watermelons over 300 pounds until the last decade, but the hobby itself goes back about a century. The Encyclopedia of Arkansas claims that the country’s first watermelon competition took place in 1916. In 1925, an Arkansas farmer named Hugh Laseter grew the state’s first 136-pound watermelon. While growing giant watermelons over 300 pounds isn’t “natural,” there are a few hacks hobbyists have learned to grow these green giants. 

How to grow your own giant watermelon

Dr. Todd Wehner, a distinguished professor of Horticultural Sciences at North Carolina State University who specializes in melon and gourd breeding, said so-called giant watermelons are technically defined as any watermelon weighing over 32 pounds that has been grown in a field. However, when growing these massive mutants for a contest like the North Carolina State Fair, the process looks a little different.

Usually, it starts with a giant watermelon transplant, although seeds can be bought on websites like Etsy or from growers directly. Growers who win competitions usually sell the seeds of their award-winning melons, too, which helps make up some of their expenses. These transplants can be put on a non-watermelon rootstock —like a squash — to get a bigger plant. After growing several plants, a grower will decide which one is doing best, and thin them down to the one that looks most promising. As watermelons are native to the temperate regions of west Africa, they need warm temperatures during the day and a long growing season to succeed.

“You end up with a few plants in a really large area that are growing well, with one fruit each that’s growing well,” Wehner explains. “A lot of times they’ll put the fruit up on something to protect it from the ground — a well-trained mound of soil with plastic over it or something — [then] they’ll usually put a tent over the fruit that shades the fruit from sunburn, and keep the water off of it.”

Key to the watermelon’s size is its roots. The branch for the fruit can be rooted multiple times. Watermelons are notoriously heavy feeders, meaning that they require more nutrients than average plants.

“They’ll take the branch and put a brick on it or cover it with soil so the stem will root in multiple places, so it’s not really just one plant, it’s a huge plant with multiple branches rooted in multiple places,” Wehner says. “And all of those branches are feeding a single fruit.”

Genetics play a role in the success of a giant watermelon’s size, too. Similar to growing giant pumpkins, seeds that have been bred from giant watermelons carry the genetic code for enormity. Regulating the amount of water that goes to the plant is also moderated.

“Too much water will cause the fruit to split,” Wehner says. “It’s a very well cared for fruit.”

Indeed, it is.

Back in North Carolina, Dawson explains that a lot of effort goes into one watermelon plant. “They are pampered literally from day one,” Dawson says, explaining that sometimes growers will do “a tissue test where we take the sample from the plant, send it in, and it tells us the nutrient levels that are in that plant at that day.” It’s a bit like taking the watermelon’s daily vitals. 

Dawson, who now leads the Giant Watermelon Growers Club, which has about 100 members in the United States, says one year when he built a wooden structure to protect the watermelon from a tropical storm.

“That one plant gets treated like a queen,” Dawson says.

Come for the melons, stay for the friends

Andrew Vial grew a 341-pound watermelon in 2019 — the second-largest watermelon ever grown. The same year, he placed first at the North Carolina State Fair. But that incredible achievement didn’t come without hard work: Vial tells Salon it took six months of his life. 

“Literally I spend 40 to 60 hours a week taking care of plants after my day job,” which is remodeling, Vial says. One year of hard work doesn’t guarantee success the next year; there could be bad weather, or a natural disaster. But it’s the community that keeps him coming back. 

“You just meet so many people and make so many more friends — the giant growing community friends are better friends than your regular friends,” Vial says.

In a twist that wouldn’t surprise Sigmund Freud, the giant melon–ogling community is mostly “male-dominated,” but there are some women growers like Susie Zuerner, a 62-year-old living in North Carolina. Like Dawson and Vial, Zuerner’s interest in growing huge watermelons piqued after seeing them at the North Carolina State Fair. In 2010, Zuerner grew a 239-pound watermelon. She hasn’t been able to match her record yet, but for her it’s not about the competition.

“It is the anticipation of what you can do, and how that plant will perform, that keeps me here,” Zuerner says. “Most growers have a competitive nature to them, but they also have an intense sense of curiosity about what makes these things grow.”

This year, the North Carolina State Fair was cancelled due to the coronavirus pandemic. Certainly, it’s affected all of the growers’ morale. September is usually the month when giant watermelon growers in North Carolina are preparing for the much-anticipated State Fair Weigh-Off competition.

“The big pushes of growth are finished by the first part of September, and now they’re just doing incremental gains, maybe a couple pounds a day if you’re lucky,” Zuerner says. “It’s not like when watermelons are young and they can grow anywhere from 3 to 8 pounds a day.”

Zuerner says it’s the community that keeps her participating in the time-intensive hobby though. 

“There’s the friendships, there are the meetings, the service, learning, and aspirational aspects of it,” Zuerner says. ” It’s just woven into the fabric of our lives, growing these things.”

“We’re in survival mode”: How the pandemic hurts immigrant women who clean houses

Nina Gonzalez, 42, immigrated to the United States from Guatemala in 1997 and lives in the San Francisco Bay Area with her husband and teenage son. She owns a cleaning business that employs ten other immigrant women, but the pandemic has severely impacted the flow of available work. Note: Nina’s name was changed to protect the privacy of her employees.

* * *

The reason I came to the United States was to save my life. When I was six years old, my father started sexually and physically abusing me. Eventually he came to the United States and then something happened that got him deported. I was 18 at that time and when he came back home, I said, “No, you’re not going to keep abusing me.” One night he almost killed me and I ran out of my house. 

I had a cousin who was living in San Francisco and she said, “If you want, you can borrow money and come to where I am.” And I was thinking San Francisco was another part of Mexico. When I made it to San Francisco at 19, that’s when I realized the United States is another country. Two years ago I was able to get asylum. It was life-changing because for many, many years I lived in the shadows and now I feel a little bit more comfortable. I have a social security number, I have a driver’s license. I don’t have to fear anything.

I started my cleaning business in 2008 and now I have ten girls who help me on a regular basis, Monday through Friday. We used to be very busy. We’d work from 8:00 a.m. to 4:30 p.m., but when COVID-19 hit in the first week of March most of my clients canceled the service and said they would reach out when the shelter-in-place order was lifted. A lot of clients sent me links and said, “Oh, you can apply for a loan and continue paying your employees,” but they don’t understand the situation.

Most of the women I employ don’t really speak Spanish. It’s really hard for them to communicate, because their first language is either Mam or some other Mayan dialect. They are all undocumented. I have to pay them cash and this is their main source of income. Most people who have a social security number can apply for unemployment. But the women who work for me, the most they can get is help with food from nonprofit organizations. We tried seeking help for rent for some of them with a local aid organization, and we were all denied. The women are really scared of being evicted. Most of these women have two or three kids. I feel the burden, because I feel that they are under my wing. It’s really just heartbreaking, because as a human being, you want to do as much as you can. Each week I’m trying to see what I can do to help them a little bit, but it’s really not much.

A lot of people were canceling having us come clean, but on March 6 I had to stop everything. I have about 20 clients total and they live all over the place, from San Francisco to Redwood City. There are good people out there, but there are also a lot of very selfish people. I’ve found that not a lot of people appreciate what we do. I have clients who said, “We’ll reach out to you when the shelter in place is lifted.” I sent them text messages saying, “I’m thinking about you. I hope you and your family are okay.” They didn’t even respond. They see cleaning as something that isn’t important. They just don’t care. We do things that nobody else wants to do. We deep clean the bathrooms, the toilet bowls, and the floors. We deep clean the kitchen, the countertops. We vacuum, we dust, we wipe all of the surfaces, we disinfect. They see it like it’s nothing, but I think we are an essential business because we keep things clean. We work in people’s homes for years and we care about their families. And then for us to be treated like this—it’s kind of sad.

All the women who work for me are from Guatemala. I’m from Guatemala and I never intended to hire just from there, but I noticed that these women are really hard-working and they really love what they do. They’re very smart and they’re pretty fast learners. They’re not friends at first, but then once they get to know each other, they become close. They text or call each other. Even if they don’t know how to communicate because they speak different dialects, they figure it out. When we’re all working together, they have a big smile on their faces because they see each other.

It makes me very happy that I can provide jobs for them. I also teach them Spanish and I encourage them to learn and not to be shy. Some of the women lived in very remote areas in Guatemala. When I came to the United States, I didn’t have any support. I didn’t have anybody telling me, “You can go to school, you can do things differently.” I wish it had happened. And now I’m trying to teach them that they can do more and achieve more in their life. They cannot live in fear.

I’ve been hired to clean two empty houses during this time. And it broke my heart when I saw these women who work for me. They’ve lost their smiles. It seems like they have no hope. I remember us laughing together in the car, talking about their kids, and now everything is so quiet. Nobody talks about anything.

My own family is doing OK. We stay home a lot. My husband works for a paper shredding and recycling company, but he isn’t working now because of the pandemic. The cost of living in this area, it doesn’t make any sense sometimes. It’s really difficult. Every dollar that we make, I make sure that I pay the girls and then everything else goes to our rent, and then food. A lot of things at this moment we cannot keep paying. We cannot pay for cable; we cut it off. We take shorter showers. We’re trying to use less water, less power, all those things. We’re in survival mode right now.

My business means a lot to me. I do it because I love it. I love to help others. And I can support my family through this. You know, somebody working for a tech company, they take it really seriously. I take my job seriously, too. These last few weeks, it was really worrying because I feel that all these families are depending on me and there’s not much I can do. I lost my appetite. I wasn’t able to sleep. All this time, you know, you just keep thinking and thinking and thinking. I felt like I was going to go crazy.

On May 18, we got good news. San Mateo County entered Stage 2 for the coronavirus, so we were authorized to go back to work. We still have to wear masks and gloves and only two people at a time can go inside each home, but at least we’re doing something. So for this week I have five houses, which is great. I’m just hoping that, day by day we get more clients and then we start working a little more. If some of my clients keep losing their jobs or something else happens, then we’re going to be in big trouble.

The business may not close completely, but eventually I will have to let go of more people. And I really don’t want to do that. I had to let go of the two girls who started working for me most recently, and it was really, really hard. As much as I wanted to keep them, there’s really not much I can do. And you know, I had to be honest with them because I cannot lie and say, “Oh, you’ll be back.” And then the days go by and nothing is happening. I told them that if they’re going to stay in the area and if things get better, I’m happy to hire them back. But it’s really hard to say what’s going to happen.

Labor Day celebrates earning a living, but remember what work really means

The impact of the COVID-19 pandemic on U.S. employment is dire. Economists estimate that 1 in 5 workers have lost their jobs. As a result, many people are finding it difficult to keep a roof overhead and put food on the table. Yet there can be more to work, and Labor Day provides an opportunity to see how through the writings of a woman who thought especially deeply about it, Simone Weil.

Weil looked at work as more than an exchange of money for labor. She argued that people need to work not only for income but also for the experience of labor itself. From her perspective, money does not solve the core problems of joblessness. Instead, work provides vital opportunities to live more fully by helping others.

Weil’s life and work

Simone Weil was born in Paris in 1909 and died of tuberculosis when she was just 34. The Nobel laureate novelist Albert Camus called her “the only great spirit of our time.” Weil’s father was a well-off physician and her mother ensured that their two children received a first-class education. Her brother, Andre, became one of the great mathematicians of his day.

The Weil children were both prodigies, and Simone graduated first in her class from one of Paris’ most prestigious graduate schools. She became a political activist and championed workers’ rights. She accepted a job teaching philosophy but also chose to work for a farming family and later took a year’s leave to labor in factories. She lived frugally, believing that it would help her better understand workers’ experiences. Later, she left France to fight in the Spanish Civil War.

Weil underwent several conversion experiences, including one in a church where Saint Francis of Assisi had once prayed. Thereafter, her work took on a more religious character. She believed that Greek, Hindu and Buddhist teachings offered genuine truths along with Christianity, which profoundly shaped her understanding of work.

With the German occupation of France in World War II, she fled first to the U.S. and then to England, where she later died.

Why work matters

Though Weil understood that people need work to live, she argued that labor fulfills other equally essential functions. One is the opportunity it offers to become more fully focused and present in living. To multitask is to live superficially, but those who are completely present with another can give fully of themselves. She called attention “the rarest and purest form of generosity.”

Weil believed that humans are not cut out for lives of idle pleasure. It is through work, whether in agriculture, manufacturing, the service industry or maintaining a home and raising children that people contribute to the lives of others. Work reminds us, she wrote, that individuals are part of something greater and provides a larger purpose to live for. She wrote of the calling to serve others:

“Anyone whose attention and love are really directed towards the reality outside the world recognizes at the same time that he is bound, both in public and private life, by the single and permanent obligation to remedy, according to his responsibilities and to the extent of his power, all the privations of soul and body which are liable to destroy or damage the earthly life of any human being whatsoever.”

Work must be seen in its larger context, for if it isn’t, laborers may soon feel like cogs in a machine, winding a nut onto a bolt or moving papers from an inbox to an outbox. To do work well, people need to understand the context of work and how it makes a difference in the lives of others.

Imagine, Weil wrote, that two women are each sewing clothes for a baby. One woman is pregnant and, while sewing, thinks about the child she is carrying. The other woman is a convict engaged in prison labor. She, too, is careful, but out of fear of being punished. Each woman appears “to be doing the same work,” she wrote, “but a whole gulf of difference lies between one occupation and the other.”

I have learned from Weil that good work enables us to be fully present, to be active creators rather than mere spectators, to develop the spiritual side of our natures, to gain insights into the larger purposes of our existence and to come more fully to life. In these ways, Labor Day isn’t just about earning money but an occasion to celebrate an essential human capacity.

Richard Gunderman, Chancellor’s Professor of Medicine, Liberal Arts, and Philanthropy, Indiana University

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

Why Trump’s generals are remaining silent on story of fallen soldiers

In a Labor Day column, conservative David Frum wondered why none of President Donald Trump’s generals are racing to defend him against allegations about his insults of fallen soldiers.

It was reported last week that Trump called fallen soldiers “losers” and “suckers,” consistent with Trump’s attacks on POWs during the 2016 campaign and late Sen. John McCain.

“Amid the clamor, it’s easy to overlook those who are not yelling, those who are keeping silent,” wrote Frum. “Where are the senior officers of the United States armed forces, serving and retired—the men and women who worked most closely on military affairs with President Trump? Has any one of them stepped forward to say, ‘That’s not the man I know?'”

It was a similar question to one dodged by Trump aide Jason Miller during a CNN appearance Sunday evening in which he was asking why Gen. John Kelly hasn’t come out to defend Trump. Miller claimed it was because Kelly likes to stay out of politics. That flies in the face of Kelly coming out to oppose Trump’s use of the armed forces to fight protesters.

“How many wounded warriors have stepped forward to attest to Trump’s care and concern for them? How many Gold Star families have stepped forward on Trump’s behalf? How many service families?” asked Frum. “The silence is resounding. And when such voices do speak, they typically describe a president utterly lacking in empathy to grieving families, wholly uncomprehending of sacrifice and suffering.”

Frum then remembered the incident when Trump promised the widow of a fallen soldier he would send her $25,000. It was only until the Washington Post reported that Trump reneged on the promise that he actually wrote the check.

Trump was then heartlessly dismissive of the death of Sgt. La David Johnson in a call to his wife. Trump called at the worst possible moment, Democratic Rep. Frederica Wilson, a close family friend, was visiting the Johnson family at the time.

Then there was the time Trump attacked the parents of a fallen soldier, the lies about the Veterans Choice Act, and the lie that he would donate money from a charity event to the charities cited. Trump had to be forced to actually give up the money.

Read the full rundown of the horrific things Trump has done to veterans and soldiers in Frum’s list.

How Jerry Falwell helped pave the way for the white nationalist horrors of the Trump era

In August, Jerry Falwell, Jr. became the most recent far-right white evangelical to become caught up in a sex scandal — one that led to his resignation as president of Liberty University. Falwell has been one of President Donald Trump’s most ardent Christian Right supporters, often expressing extreme views and drawing criticism for being quick to overlook the president’s extramarital affairs. But extremism in the Falwell family did not start with the former Liberty University president. Falwell is the son of the late Liberty University founder and Moral Majority co-founder, Jerry Falwell, Sr., and to understand Trumpism and the extremism of the Christian Right in 2020, one must understand the role that the older Falwell played in the rise of the Christian Right.

Born in Lynchburg, Virginia on August 11, 1933, Falwell, Sr. was very much a product of the Jim Crow era of the Deep South. The older Falwell was a rabid segregationist in the 1950s and 1960s, railing against Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr. and insisting that Jim Crow laws were God’s will. Falwell, Sr. defended racism from a Christian fundamentalist perspective, and he wasn’t shy about expressing his disdain for the U.S. Supreme Court’s 1954 ruling in Brown v. the Board of Education.

During one of his 1950s sermons, titled “Segregation or Integration: Which?,” Falwell, Sr. declared, “If Chief Justice (Earl) Warren and his associates had known God’s word and had desired to do the Lord’s will, I am quite confident that the 1954 decision would never have been made. The facilities should be separate. When God has drawn a line of distinction, we should not attempt to cross that line.”

Falwell, Jr. insisted, “The true Negro does not want integration…. He realizes his potential is far better among his own race.”

Racism has long been a part of the Christian Right, which is one of the reasons why, in 2020, far-right white evangelicals find Trump so appealing — and Falwell, Sr., in the 1950s and 1960s, was a Christian fundamentalist equivalent of Birmingham, Alabama Public Safety Commissioner Bull Connor and Georgia Gov. Lester Maddox (two of the leading segregationists). The Baptist minister later changed his mind about segregation and came out against it, but he continued to be an extremist when he founded Liberty University in 1971 and co-founded the Moral Majority in 1979. And in the 1980s, he played a key role in the Christian Right’s takeover of the Republican Party.

Thanks largely to Falwell, Jr., the Christian Right’s prominence in the GOP grew by leaps and bounds — much to the chagrin of the late Republican Sen. Barry Goldwater, who had no use for Falwell, Jim Bakker, Jimmy Swaggart, Pat Robertson and other far-right white evangelicals of the 1980s. Goldwater’s conservatism was more libertarian, and he believed that the Christian Right was terrible for the GOP and terrible for the conservative movement. But many other Republicans didn’t share Goldwater’s view and were more than happy to defend Falwell, Sr. when he railed against gays, feminists, liberals, Muslims and others he hated. Even after he changed his mind about segregation, Falwell, Sr. remained a master of white male grievance — one of the main ingredients of Trumpism.

During the Bakker and Swaggart sex scandals of the 1980s, Falwell, Sr. was quick to slam them for disgracing the Christian Right movement. And now, ironically, Falwell, Jr. is caught up in a sex scandal of his own.

After the terrorist attacks of September 11, 2001, Falwell, Sr. appeared on Robertson’s show, “The 700 Club,” and blamed liberals and progressives for the attacks — saying, “The pagans and the abortionists and the feminists and the gays and the lesbians who are actively trying to make that an alternative lifestyle, the ACLU, People for the American Way — all of them who have tried to secularize America. I point the finger in their face and say, ‘You helped this happen.'”

Instead of blaming al-Qaeda and Osama bin Laden for slaughtering 3000 Americans on 9/11, Falwell, Sr. blamed liberals, feminists and the American Civil Liberties Union. As he saw it, the ACLU might as well have flown those hijacked planes into the Twin Towers because they “helped” to make it happen.

Falwell, Sr., was 73 when he died on May 15, 2007. But 13 years after his death, his toxic influence on fundamentalist Christianity and politics remains — and that includes his son as well as President Donald Trump.

New engineering report finds privately built border wall will fail

It’s not a matter of if a privately built border fence along the shores of the Rio Grande will fail, it’s a matter of when, according to a new engineering report on the troubled project.

The report is one of two new studies set to be filed in federal court this week that found numerous deficiencies in the 3-mile border fence, built this year by North Dakota-based Fisher Sand and Gravel. The reports confirm earlier reporting from ProPublica and The Texas Tribune, which found that segments of the structure were in danger of overturning due to extensive erosion if not fixed and properly maintained. Fisher dismissed the concerns as normal post-construction issues.

Donations that paid for part of the border fence are at the heart of an indictment against members of the We Build the Wall nonprofit, which raised more than $25 million to help President Donald Trump build a border wall.

Former Trump chief strategist Steve Bannon, We Build the Wall founder Brian Kolfage and two others connected to the organization are accused of siphoning donor money to pay off personal debt and fund lavish lifestyles. All four, who face up to 20 years in prison on each of the two counts they face, have pleaded not guilty, and Bannon has called the charges a plot to stop border wall construction.

We Build the Wall, whose executive board is made up of influential immigration hard-liners like Bannon, Kris Kobach and Tom Tancredo, contributed $1.5 million of the cost of the $42 million private border fence project south of Mission, Texas.

Last year, the nonprofit also hired Fisher to build a half-mile fence segment in Sunland Park, New Mexico, outside El Paso.

Company president Tommy Fisher, a frequent guest on Fox News, had called the Rio Grande fence the “Lamborghini” of border walls and bragged that his company’s methods could help Trump reach his Election Day goal of about 500 new miles of barriers along the southern border.

Instead, one engineer who reviewed the two reports on behalf of ProPublica and The Texas Tribune likened Fisher’s fence to a used Toyota Yaris.

“It seems like they are cutting corners everywhere,” said Alex Mayer, a professor of civil engineering at the University of Texas at El Paso. “It’s not a Lamborghini, it’s a $500 used car.”

Since Fisher’s companies embarked on construction of the Rio Grande fence, the Trump administration has awarded about $2 billion in federal contracts to the firms to build segments of the border wall in other locations.

Fisher agreed to the inspection as part of ongoing lawsuits against Fisher Sand and Gravel filed last year by the National Butterfly Center and the International Boundary and Water Commission. They unsuccessfully sought to convince a federal judge to stop the construction of the project until the potential impacts of the wall on the Rio Grande could be determined.

Mark Tompkins, an environmental engineer hired by the wildlife refuge, noted in his report that widespread erosion and scouring occurred after heavy rain events such as Hurricane Hanna in July, but that the fence has yet to experience a flood of the Rio Grande.

“Fisher Industries’ private bollard fence will fail during extreme high flow events,” concluded Tompkins, who specializes in river management.

“When extreme flow events, laden with sediment and debris, completely undermine the foundation of the fence and create a flow path under the fence or cause a segment of the fence to topple into the river, unpredictable and damaging hydraulics will occur,” he added in an affidavit to be filed in court.

Experts have said the fence will face a never-ending battle with erosion given its proximity to the water and the sandy, silty material of the banks. In the Rio Grande Valley, the federal government usually builds sections of the wall miles inland on top of existing levees, partly due to erosion concerns.

A second report, based on a geotechnical and structural inspection by the Millennium Engineers Group of Pharr, Texas, also hired by the National Butterfly Center, found that the fence was stable for now, but that it faces a host of issues. They include soil erosion on the river side — in some areas gaps up to three feet wide and waist deep, concrete cracking, construction flaws and what the firm concluded was likely substandard construction material below the fence’s foundation.

The Millennium engineers called for a clay covering to protect the embankment from erosion, as well as closely monitoring the project.

Its conclusion: “The geography at the wall’s construction location in comparison to the river bend is not at a favorable location for long-term performance.”

According to a copy of an operation and maintenance plan, Fisher Sand and Gravel plans quarterly inspections of the fence as well as extra checkups after large storms. The company had also said it would plant grasses that better hold in place the sandy riverbank and add a layer of rocks to lessen erosion. New soil will also be “treated and seeded” to help fill ground cover.

Tompkins called the maintenance plan “completely inadequate” and a “haphazard and unprofessional approach to long-term maintenance.”

Tommy Fisher said Tuesday that he couldn’t comment on the reports because he hadn’t reviewed them. But he added that his company has fixed all of the erosion, in part by adding a 10-foot-wide road made out of rocks for the Border Patrol to drive over that his crew considered big enough so it wouldn’t be as easily displaced. He estimates it will cost up to $150,000.

“Bottom line, if you want border security on the border you have to think outside the box,” he said. “I feel very comfortable with what we’ve done.”

In July, Fisher appeared on a podcast hosted by Bannon, who called Fisher “kind of a mentor” who “taught me really about how you actually have to build a wall.”

Asked about the engineering concerns, which Bannon said were part of a “hit piece,” Fisher called them “absolutely nonsense.”

“I would invite any of these engineers that so-called said this was gonna fall over, I’ll meet ’em there next week. … If you don’t know what you’re talking about, you probably shouldn’t start talking,” he said. “It’s working unbelievably well. There’s a little erosion maintenance we have to maintain.”

But to experts, Fisher’s planned fixes are inadequate.

“To me, it’s almost like putting a Band-Aid on a gaping wound,” said Adriana E. Martinez, a Southern Illinois University Edwardsville professor and geomorphologist who reviewed the reports on behalf of ProPublica and The Texas Tribune.

Officials with the International Boundary Commission have said that they too have found “significant erosion,” but spokeswoman Sally Spener said she couldn’t elaborate on that or on mitigation plans due to pending litigation. The binational body regulates building in the floodplain between the U.S. and Mexico because structures can worsen flooding and alter the course of the river, potentially violating international water treaties.

The Mexican section of the commission has said it worries the wall could obstruct the river’s flow or be knocked down by the force of the water, according to Spener.

Trump tried to distance himself from the private fence after the ProPublica/Tribune stories, saying that he had never agreed with it and that it had been done to make him look bad. He again distanced himself from the project and We Build the Wall after the charges against Bannon and the others.

“When I read about it, I didn’t like it,” he said. “It was showboating and maybe looking for funds. But you’ll have to see what happens.”

Last November, We Build the Wall representatives met with Customs and Border Protection officials about donating the group’s first border wall project — a half-mile fence in Sunland Park, New Mexico, just outside El Paso. According to a memo obtained by The Nation, CBP called it an “overall positive meet and greet.”

But the federal agency identified several areas of concern with the Sunland Park project, including the possibility that it would require an environmental assessment, but also the fact that Fisher Industries had inflated the speed with which it could complete the project.

“Their performance on this small project shows that some claims may have been inflated due to lack of experience with this type of work,” the memo states.

Fisher has said he wants to donate the Rio Grande fence to the federal government as well, although it’s unclear whether the government will take it. The fence likely will come with a hefty tax bill if not donated, after Hidalgo County recently appraised the land’s value at more than $20 million, which Fisher said his company will fight.

The next court hearing regarding the pending federal lawsuits is scheduled for Sept. 10.

Who’s advising Joe Biden on climate? His former rivals

Over the past several months, Joe Biden has assumed the herculean task of bringing the progressive left under his banner while maintaining the support of the more moderate liberals who form his base. As a result, he’s revisited a number of his original campaign proposals, from college debt to health care to climate.

“I was convinced that I had to move further on some things that I hadn’t focused on,” Biden told New Yorker journalist Evan Osnos in a recent interview.

During the primary contest, advocates for climate action maligned Biden’s climate platform for not being ambitious enough, despite the fact that Biden had the longest legislative environmental record of all the 2020 Democratic candidates. He was one of the first members of Congress to introduce a climate bill in 1987 and oversaw implementation of the 2009 Recovery Act, which contained $90 billion in clean energy investments.

Today, Biden’s updated climate plan is viewed as evidence of his rapid evolution on climate, even as his campaign maintains that the vice president has remained consistent in his dedication to the issue over the years. But it’s clear his team has purposefully and publicly sought input from a fair number of high-profile climate and climate justice advocates — from former rivals to Obama administration alumni, union members, and activists who actively opposed his nomination.

“That’s part of the magic of Vice President Biden,” Stef Feldman, Biden’s policy director, told Grist in a statement. “He has an unparalleled ability to bring people together to get big things done.”

“The style of putting policy teams together is a window into how a candidate will govern,” Amanda Renteria, former national political director for Hillary Clinton’s 2016 campaign, told Grist. “There is no doubt that his team and especially his policy teams feel the heavy responsibility of being prepared should he win.”

Team of rivals

Tom Steyer has had a few careers in his life: hedge-fund manager, philanthropist, and an activist and leading voice in demanding President Donald Trump’s impeachment. The California billionaire was also a 2020 presidential candidate. His campaign, which ended in February, put climate action and environmental justice front and center.

At the fifth Democratic primary debate, in November 2019, he had a memorable exchange with the party’s current presidential nominee. Steyer proclaimed he was the only person on stage who would say that climate change was his No. 1 priority. Then he specifically called out Biden: “Vice President Biden won’t say it.”

“I don’t need a lecture from my friend,” Biden replied.

Turns out that Biden did end up needing something from his former rival. In July, the then-presumptive Democratic nominee announced the formation of a six-member Climate Engagement Advisory Council aimed at mobilizing climate-conscious voters. The council includes environmental justice advocates, the head of a labor union, the former director of the White House Office of Energy and Climate Change Policy, and a sitting member of Congress. Steyer, the council’s chairman, is harnessing the power of NextGen America, a progressive advocacy nonprofit he founded in 2013, to help accomplish the group’s goals, which include increasing youth turnout this fall.

“This council is really about connecting the vice president to different parts of the climate community, letting him hear from them and also letting them hear what I heard during the campaign, which is how much he knows and how much he cares,” Steyer told Grist.

Steyer isn’t the only one of the former Democratic primary candidates who is advising the Biden campaign. The former vice president is in regular contact with Senator Elizabeth Warren, of Massachusetts, who reportedly meets with Biden every 10 days to discuss a range of issues. When she dropped out of the race last March, she had more than a dozen different plans to address climate change — many of which drew significantly from ideas introduced by another former primary candidate, Washington Governor Jay Inslee.

Inslee, whose climate platform spanned more than 200 pages, was seen as the “climate candidate” early in the 2020 campaign season. Biden has been in touch with Inslee in recent months, and his campaign has heard from several of the governor’s former advisors, who started Evergreen Action, a climate policy and advocacy group that in April put out a set of recommendations for a green recovery from an economy ravaged by the COVID-19 pandemic.

“It seems like the campaign is trying to get information and advice wherever they can and [from] whoever can be most impactful,” said Jamal Raad, the co-founder and campaign director of Evergreen Action.

Show of unity

For Biden to successfully unite Democrats going into the general election, he had to win over the supporters of his most important former rival, Bernie Sanders. Sanders, who after two primary contests was the frontrunner in the race for the nomination, had put out a $16 trillion climate plan that he called “the Green New Deal.” It called for a 10-year mobilization to create 20 million jobs and move beyond the fossil fuel economy. He was endorsed by Congresswoman Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez and had the support of many young climate activists.

When Sanders suspended his campaign in April, he promised to push “progressive ideas forward” with the Biden campaign and to have a strong say in the eventual Democratic Party platform. That’s why, in May, Varshini Prakash, the co-founder of the youth climate group the Sunrise Movement, got a call from a former Sanders campaign official asking her to join a new Biden-Sanders Unity Task Force on climate change. (It was one of six such task forces; other topics included criminal justice reform and education.)

“I was like, ‘Oh, my God, that is wild,'” Prakash told Grist about the invitation.

Sunrise Movement backed Sanders in the primary and had been critical of Biden’s climate platform. But Prakash agreed to be part of the task force, which would be co-chaired by Ocasio-Cortez and former Secretary of State John Kerry. It also included former Environmental Protection Agency head Gina McCarthy, who now leads the National Resources Defense Council, environmental justice advocate (and Grist 50 Fixer) Catherine Flowers, and Conor Lamb, a moderate Democratic congressman who won in a Republican western Pennsylvania district and is a natural gas proponent.

The nine members of the task force met once a week for two hours on Zoom to hash out the particulars of a set of ideas they would send the Biden campaign to influence its climate policy. “Every week, we’d submit different policy recommendations and then week by week we’d go through [the campaign’s edits], line edit by line edit, and assess each one,” Prakash said.

The task force disbanded in early July, after submitting a raft of policy recommendations to Biden’s team. A week later, Biden announced a more ambitious climate plan to spend $2 trillion over four years to simultaneously strengthen the economy and combat climate change. The plan aims to achieve an emissions-free electricity sector by 2035.

Biden’s timeline for reaching 100 percent clean electricity had been slashed by 15 years, from the original 2050. And he had also promised to spend more money on climate sooner — his initial pledge was to spend $1.7 trillion over 10 years — and ensure that 40 percent of that money goes to disadvantaged communities.

“For me, going into the task force, the goal was never to walk out with Bernie Sanders’ Green New Deal in hand,” Prakash said. “But we were able to make some pretty significant strides forward.”

A question of optics

Despite the former EPA administrators, Congressional representatives, and high-profile activists — not to mention a former secretary of state — involved in both the Climate Engagement Advisory Council and unity task force, campaign insiders say those groups have operated independently from the team that’s actually writing Biden’s climate policy. In fact, the committees’ existence might have been more for the public and the climate left than for Biden himself. That’s because, for the Democratic nominee, the optics of how he approaches climate action are almost as important as the climate policy his team puts forward.

“Coalition building and party unity is paramount,” Renteria, Clinton’s former national political director, said. She noted that “policy is rarely the key driver to winning a Presidential campaign.”

Behind the scenes, a different group, many of its members actual campaign staff, works on putting out concrete policy proposals, like Biden’s updated $2 trillion climate plan, which was in the works even before the climate unity task force was formed, according to a campaign official. The Biden campaign confirmed five names to Grist (whose identities were recently reported to be influential climate advisers by E&E News). The list includes Feldman, who, according to E&E News, worked on climate issues with Biden during the Obama administration; Cristóbal Alex, a senior campaign adviser that E&E reported is a former board member of the environmental advocacy group League of Conservation Voters; and senior advisor Symone Sanders, who worked for Bernie Sanders’ 2016 presidential campaign.

Prakash knows she’s not a campaign insider. After all, it was Sanders, not Biden, who gave her a seat at the table. But she doesn’t regret joining the unity task force. “I don’t deny that there was probably a strong part of the task force that was about this narrative of unity,” Prakash said. “I think there were parts of it that legitimately impacted Biden’s policy.”

Regardless of who Biden’s campaign puts on various committees, Prakash says there’s no guarantee that the nominee will follow through on all of the things he’s pledged to do thus far, if he wins the presidency.

“We can’t bank on Joe Biden doing anything,” she said. “It is essential that the climate movement continues to build and wield power mightily and consistently work to put pressure on people like Joe Biden.”

“Ozzy changed everything”: Film examines the tumultuous life & legacy of the Prince of Darkness

A consistent thread throughout the new A&E documentary “Biography: The Nine Lives Of Ozzy Osbourne,” airing Labor Day, is the concept of duality. It’s framed in different ways: addiction and sobriety, promiscuity and devotion, loving father and the “f**king Prince of Darkness.” The dichotomous nature of Osbourne’s private and public lives is something that the rock star has grappled with for decades. One of the earliest scenes in the film is an archived clip of a very young Ozzy explaining to an interviewer that he “leaves Ozzy onstage and comes off as John.”  

But in this comprehensive retrospective, viewers are invited to engage with, alongside the Osbourne family, both Ozzy’s onstage persona and offstage, assess where they actually intersect and diverge, and discover how that propelled him through various “lives” — from growing up as a poor kid in Birmingham, England, to the frontman for “Black Sabbath,” to his career as a solo musician, to his turn as a reality television star. 

The documentary is organized in chronological order — and the chapter format makes it easy to follow, especially for viewers (like me) who aren’t necessarily Ozzy superfans. It is composed of a mix of current-day interviews with Ozzy and his wife Sharon, and kids Kelly and Jack Osbourne, simple and humurous animation, and archived footage.

The film opens on his early life in England. Osbourne’s family was poor, and he was the middle child of six siblings and was plagued by massive insecurities while growing up. 

He was a subpar student — later diagnosed with dyslexia — who was ashamed of the conditions in which he grew up. The Osbourne family didn’t have an indoor restroom and often didn’t have money for soap. 

“Always felt dirty, always felt unclean,” Osbourne said. 

His father, whom he adored, told Osbourne that he would either grow up to be something special or end up in jail (he did both). He’s the one who gave Osbourne a check for 250 pounds, with which he used to buy a Shure microphone, mic stand, and Vox speaker. 

This establishes the pacing for the front third of the 90-minute film, which mimics the “origin story” tone of other rock documentaries, like Brett Morgen’s “Kurt Cobain: Montage of Heck” and the 2009 “When You’re Strange: A Film About the Doors.” For devoted fans, some of the archived footage presented will surely be rehashed lore, like an early interview with Terence Michael Joseph “Geezer” Butler who describes how he and Osbourne wrote the lyrics for their song “Black Sabbath” after Butler had a vision of a “black silhouetted figure” standing at the foot of his bed.

Like those documentaries, director Greg Johnston also strongly establishes — through interviews with Black Sabbath bandmates and Ozzy’s own introspection — some of the driving desires and motivations, which sometimes coincided in unexpected ways with his rapidly expanding stardom. That’s where things get really interesting. 

For instance, a lot of Osbourne’s markers for success were fairly traditional: he spent one of his first paychecks on new socks, shoes and Brut cologne “to smell better” — a nod to some of his insecurities growing up. He got married to his first wife, Thelma, at 23, and they soon bought an adorable little starter home and had two children. It wasn’t the behavior you’d expect from a stereotypical rockstar. 

Not yet, at least. 

The middle section of the documentary whizzes through Osbourne’s initial struggles with drug and alcohol abuse, which coincided with a period of losses back-to-back-to-back. His father passed away, his first wife left him because of his “selfish, self-centered” behavior and he was kicked out of “Black Sabbath” because of his increasingly unpredictable behavior. 

“Being kicked out of Sabbath,” Osbourne tells the camera, “It was like another divorce.” 

The next chapter of his life — titled by filmmakers as “Diary of a Madman” — delves into some of the discrepancies between his personas. He starts dating Sharon, who was his manager at the time, and calls her his soul mate, but continues to cheat on her (she has a great line in the documentary when she said she told him, “When your d*** falls off, don’t  come complaining to me”). He wants to settle down and have a family again, but he’s at a point in his solo career where he’s at a pinnacle of success, bolstered by some of his more memorable antics. 

This is where the animation featured in the film is a deft choice. Artist Cameron Burr is able to capture moments like when Ozzy notoriously bit the head off of a bat, or was arrested for urinating on a cop car outside of Memphis (after having previously being banned from San Antonio after urinating on the Alamo), in a way that depicts them as upbeat, colorful road stories, and elevates them beyond straight interviews. 

This stylistic choice also serves as a poignant contrast to the dark turns Osbourne’s life was taking at that point. Because of his ongoing struggles with addiction, the darkness he embodied on stage paled in comparison to the darkness present in his home life. Initially, the onstage Ozzy began to blur with the off-stage John, but then he became something of a  Jekyll and Hyde character, something he and his family speak very candidly about. 

That willingness to be vulnerable displayed in “Nine Lives” makes it an essential watch for fans of the musician, also serves to illuminate Ozzy and Sharon’s shift in the early 2000s to television. He was one of the first musicians of his level of fame to transition into reality television with the 2002 MTV series “The Osbournes.” At that point, his family puts it, Ozzy crossed over from the guy on a poster in your son’s room to the guy on the TV set in the living room. 

He embodied the role of good father, husband and goofball (despite admitting to being “stoned during the entire filming of ‘The Osbournes'”), which transformed Osbourne into a household name — again — following his first farewell tour. 

In many ways, the final chapter of “Nine Lives” feels like just that. Osbourne is now 71 and was recently diagnosed with Parkinson’s disease. The documentary — which was executive produced by Ozzy, Sharon and Jack — is very obviously a legacy piece, a point that is driven home by the musician interviews, ranging from Post Malone to Marilyn Manson, that bookend the film. 

Selfishly, I would have liked to have heard more from the musicians about their views on Ozzy’s musical importance as the “originator of black metal,” but this isn’t their story. It’s Ozzy’s. And as such, it wouldn’t be complete without some contradictions. Osbourne maintains that despite his health, he isn’t done creating. Earlier this year, he released “Ordinary Man,” his first studio album in nearly a decade and is reportedly working on a follow-up. 

He’s also embraced a new familial role as grandfather to his eight grandchildren, all while maintaining his sobriety. Osbourne maintains that he is still the “Prince of Darkness,” but it looks a little different late in life. His son, Jack, perhaps summarizes both Osbourne’s life and the overall theme of the movie in this simple statement: “He’s done a lot of f**king weird things, but his contributions have been bigger than his faults.” 

“Biography: The Nine Lives of Ozzy Osbourne” airs on Labor Day, Monday, Sept. 7 at 9 p.m. ET on A&E.

John Lennon and Yoko Ono’s return to the studio: The story of their iconic Hit Factory photo

For John Lennon and Yoko Ono’s “Double Fantasy,” the big day finally arrived on Thursday, August 7, 1980. John had not recorded any new original music at a professional recording studio since July 1974, when he began working on his “Walls and Bridges” LP at the Record Plant. Recognizing the historic nature of the moment, Yoko had retained a Boston publicity agent, Charles J. Cohen, to capture the couple’s triumphant return to the recording studio on that hot August day.

To mark the occasion, Cohen dispatched photographer Roger Farrington to meet the Lennons at the Dakota and accompany them to the Hit Factory. “My job,” Farrington recalled, “was to get one photo of them to document their return to the music business.” When he arrived that afternoon, Farrington was instructed to wait in a room outside Yoko’s Studio One office.

For his part, Farrington was nervous, having not received much in the way of instructions for carrying out the photo shoot that day. Dressed in a summer suit, he was perspiring slightly when John entered the room, wearing a black cowboy outfit that included an embroidered shirt and wide-brimmed hat. In his hand was a black attaché case.

Moments later, Farrington and the Lennons made their way through the Dakota’s porte-cochère and onto the sidewalk that fronted the building on West 72nd Street. Farrington jockeyed for position in front of the couple so that he could document the occasion. Standing nearby was New Jersey native Paul Goresh. With his ever-present Minolta XG1, he captured a shot of the couple exiting the archway, with John’s eyes fixed squarely on the portly fan.

Farrington was surprised by the number of bystanders who had gathered outside the archway. As he recalled, “I remember hearing voices right behind and next to me as I clicked and backpedaled out of the entry tunnel and onto the sidewalk. I heard a woman say, ‘Oh wow! That’s John Lennon.’ . . . I remember thinking, ‘this crowd is wrecking my shots.'” Farrington would later recall feeling vulnerable as the crowd bunched up behind him, desperately attempting to catch a glimpse of the former Beatle.

After they made the short trip to the Hit Factory, Farrington hopped out onto West 48th Street so that he could photograph John and Yoko as they made their way towards the building’s entrance. Of the 31 shots he captured that day, Farrington believed that Yoko would most likely select the photo of the Lennons entering the Hit Factory just below the studio’s awning. After taking the elevator with John and Yoko to the private sixth-floor studio, Farrington snapped several pictures in front of the studio’s elaborate logo. “Are we doing PR for the Hit Factory?” John joked.

Inside the studio, Farrington followed John into the control booth, where he carefully opened up the attaché case, only to discover that he had unclasped it upside down, nearly spilling reams of sheet music onto the floor. After he righted himself, he carefully removed a photograph of his five-year-old son Sean, which he affixed inside the control booth above the mixing desk. As John later recalled in an RKO Radio interview, “I was guilty all through the making of ‘Double Fantasy.’ We had his picture pinned in the studio ’cause I didn’t want to lose contact with what I’d got. We had the picture up there all the time in between the speakers so whenever you’re checking the stereo, he was looking at me all the time.”

As the musicians began to arrive, Farrington realized his assignment was over, that it was time to hurry back to Boston, develop the photographs, and meet his deadline with Cohen. Before he took his leave, Yoko paused to offer him lodging that night at the Dakota, although he politely declined, knowing he had to make his flight that afternoon at LaGuardia Airport.

Within a week, Farrington’s prediction would come true. Yoko and the publicity agent had selected the photo of the Lennons standing below the awning of the Hit Factory’s 48th Street entrance. United Press International carried the press release, which announced the couple’s return to studio recording. In addition to reporting that “a label has not yet been selected, but a release date is set for early fall,” the press statement added that “the musicians are all excited over the new Lennon material,” which “is the best of Lennon to date.”

For Beatles fans, Farrington’s photograph and the accompanying press release set off waves of expectation. As was his wont, John was working quickly in the studio. By September, the Lennons and producer Jack Douglas would be working feverishly to put the album to bed for a November release. John and Yoko were back.

Decoding QAnon: From Pizzagate to Kanye to Marina Abramovic, this conspiracy covers everything

In the previous three installments of this series, I chronicled the attempts made by an old friend to convince me of an outlandish conspiracy theory being promoted by the group of rabid online Trump supporters known as “QAnon.” According to my friend, initiates of the Illuminati had teamed up with subterranean demons to torture, rape and eat kidnapped children in underground military bases ruled by the mortal enemies of Donald Trump. He insisted that when Trump is re-elected in November we can all look forward to the abolition of the income tax, the development of “free energy” for all and the public unveiling of thousands of grateful kidnapped children rescued by Trump’s private army of “white hats” from cages squirreled away in these Satanist-controlled underground dungeons.

One of the pieces of so-called “evidence” provided by my friend was a YouTube documentary called “Out of Shadows,” which took the internet by storm in April. Perhaps the most impactful propaganda film of the past few years, “Out of Shadows” is a thinly-disguised QAnon recruitment video that mixes small slices of truth with a whole lot of lies to confuse the viewer into believing various bizarre theories promoted by QAnon. In this next installment, we continue our analysis of “Out of Shadows” and take a deep dive into the embryonic or chrysalis form of QAnon known as Pizzagate.

Fun with pizza!

The real purpose of the “Out of Shadows” documentary is to promote Pizzagate — and, by extension, QAnon, which must be understood as the original source of the oft-debunked Pizzagate horror story.

I’ve studied a lot of conspiracy theories over the past three decades, and Pizzagate probably has the flimsiest evidence of them all. It’s based on almost nothing except the wet-dream fantasies of far-right loons addicted to delusions about naked kids locked up in subterranean cages while being sexually abused by homosexual Democrats. 

In case you don’t know this, the Pizzagate scenario began to bubble to the surface when the personal emails of former White House chief of staff John Podesta, then the chair of Hillary Clinton’s presidential campaign, were posted on the internet by WikiLeaks in November of 2016. According to the QAnon crowd, Podesta’s emails contain esoteric codes that link Hillary Clinton and other prominent Democrats with a vast network of pedophiles operating out of a Washington, D.C., pizza joint called Comet Ping Pong.

One particular QAnon acolyte, Edgar M. Welch, was so incensed by these revelations that he grabbed his trusty AR-15 rifle, drove six hours from his home in North Carolina to Washington, and pumped a fusillade of bullets into the floor of Comet Ping Pong, hoping to save the aforementioned children locked in those basement cages. Why he would aim his gun at the basement in order to save the children who were supposedly imprisoned there makes absolutely zero sense, but there you go. 

In December of 2016, Welch told the New York Times that “he had acted in haste and that, if he could, he would do a lot of things differently. ‘I regret how I handled the situation,’ he said.” He also told the reporter, “I just wanted to do some good and went about it the wrong way.” When asked what he thought when he discovered that there were no abused children in the pizzeria, Welch replied with the understatement of the year: 

“The intel on this wasn’t 100 percent,” he said. However, he refused to dismiss outright the claims in the online articles, conceding only that there were no children “inside that dwelling.” He also said that child slavery was a worldwide phenomenon.

If I were a devout Luddite, I would use the following passage from the New York Times interview with Welch in a nationwide pamphleteering campaign to discourage people from ever having internet service installed in their house:

After recently having internet service installed at his house, [Welch] was “really able to look into [Pizzagate].” He said that substantial evidence from a combination of sources had left him with the “impression something nefarious was happening.” He said one article on the subject led to another and then another. He said he did not like the term fake news, believing it was meant to diminish stories outside the mainstream media, which he does not completely trust. He also said he was not political. While once a registered Republican, he did not vote for Donald J. Trump. He also did not vote for Mrs. Clinton. But he is praying that Mr. Trump takes the country in the “right direction.”

If the “right direction” means encouraging people to commit felonies based on monumentally stupid disinformation campaigns spread through the internet, then Trump and his QAnon cohorts have been doing their jobs very well indeed. Welch isn’t the only gullible mark to end up in prison due to QAnon’s lies. 

The following is from Stephanie K. Baer’s June 17, 2018,  BuzzFeed article entitled “An Armed Man Spouting a Bizarre Right-Wing Conspiracy Theory Was Arrested After a Standoff at the Hoover Dam”:

An armed man was arrested Friday after driving an armored vehicle onto a bridge spanning the Hoover Dam and blocking traffic to demand the government “release the OIG report,” a call spouted by believers of an internet conspiracy theory, in a 90-minute standoff with authorities.

Images captured during the standoff showed the driver parking a black armored truck across the southbound lanes of the Mike O’Callaghan–Pat Tillman Memorial Bridge at the Arizona–Nevada border around noon, snarling traffic.

The driver was identified as 30-year-old Matthew P. Wright of Henderson, Nevada, according to the Arizona Department of Public Safety.

In a statement, the department said Wright reportedly stood outside of the vehicle holding a sign that read “release the OIG report.” The demand appears to refer to an unredacted Justice Department inspector general report, which the bizarre right-wing conspiracy theory known as “QAnon” suggests will expose the “deep state,” a supposed shadowy network entrenched in the government.

In a video apparently filmed inside the vehicle and posted online by far-right activist Laura Loomer, the man says, “No more lies. No more bullshit. We the people demand full disclosure.”

Instead of attaining “full disclosure,” Wright was “booked into the Mohave County Jail on charges of obstruction of a highway, endangerment, unlawful flight from law enforcement, misconduct involving a weapon, and making terrorist threats.” Threatening to blow up Hoover Dam to topple the Deep State makes as much sense as spraying bullets into a pizzeria floor to save children who are supposedly trapped in the basement. (It’s worth mentioning that the above-mentioned “far-right activist,” Laura Loomer, is now the Republican nominee for a congressional seat in Florida — in President Trump’s official home district, in fact. Mercifully, she is unlikely to win in November.)

Like the not-quite “100 percent” intel Welch mentioned in the New York Times interview above, the entire purpose of “Out of Shadows” is to lure the viewer into the reality of Pizzagate by wrapping this modern American horror story in “intel” that’s partly accurate (e.g., Project Paperclip, the various sub-programs of MK-ULTRA mind control operations, unconstitutional experiments with psychoactive chemicals performed on unwitting U.S. citizens by an intelligence agency run amok, etc.) in order to make all the bullshit seem that much more reliable. In the privacy of your North Carolina home, while surfing your newly installed internet service, all this intrigue can seem dire and the Democrat-incited doom “100 percent” imminent. Meanwhile, if you were to use your God-given brains for even half a second (unlike these two guys), you can see pretty easily that all of this is pure jabberwocky.

Here’s an excerpt from Andy Kroll’s Dec. 9, 2018, Rolling Stone article entitled “John Podesta Is Ready to Talk About Pizzagate”: 

Speaking about the [Pizzagate] conspiracy theory and its impact on his life for the first time, Podesta tells Rolling Stone that he learned about it the old-fashioned way: from the news. As Clinton campaign chair, he had spent the final month of the 2016 race locked in hand-to-hand combat with reporters about the contents of his personal emails, which WikiLeaks was releasing in periodic batches to damage Clinton’s chances. He didn’t have time to reflect on the hack, let alone notice the conspiracy theories bubbling up about him on websites like Reddit and 4chan.

Searching for evidence of illegality or anything sinister in Podesta’s hacked emails, wannabe online sleuths decided that mentions of “pizza” were code for child pornography. An anonymous 4chan user posted a list of other supposed code words to search for in Podesta’s emails — “pasta” meant little boy, “ice cream” meant male prostitute, “sauce” meant orgy. Soon, the hashtag #Pizzagate appeared and spread like wildfire on social media.

Podesta claims he wasn’t overly concerned about his emails getting released: their contents, he now says, were “relatively much ado about nothing.” It wasn’t until after the election that he realized those emails had become fuel for a horrific conspiracy theory. In his career, he says he had never been on the receiving end of something like Pizzagate. “It’s painful and crazy,” he says. “I’m pretty grizzled. One big difference is you’ve got somebody sitting in the Oval Office stoking the conspiracy. That’s pretty different than what I’ve experienced in my years in politics.”

Podesta was only one strain of the conspiracy. Another thread formed around [businessman James] Alefantis and Comet Ping Pong. It appears to have begun with a 2008 email included in the WikiLeaks dump in which Alefantis asked Podesta if he would give a speech at an Obama fundraiser at Comet. From there, the trolls began mining every detail they could find about Alefantis and Comet, quickly concocting a parallel theory that said Alefantis, Podesta and Clinton ran a child sex-trafficking ring. Self-styled investigators claimed that symbols on Comet’s iconic sign (which had previously been used by a D.C. liquor store that had since closed) were linked to satanic rituals. They said a photo of an empty walk-in refrigerator was evidence of a secret kill room.

Let’s examine the evidence that “Out of Shadows” gives us. Given the fact that the documentary is only 118 minutes long, and the topic of Pizzagate occupies about 21 minutes of its running time, we can assume that the filmmakers had time to include only their very best evidence, correct? 

Journalist Liz Crokin tells us that, according to the FBI, “cheese pizza” is a common code used by pedophiles to refer to children. The image of a triangle is also used as a code for children, we are told. Let’s say that’s true. In the Podesta emails, he often uses sentences like “Would love to get a pizza for an hour.” 

In response to this, the narrator says with a completely serious tone of voice, “Who blocks out an hour of time to eat a slice of pizza?”

It was at this point that I wondered if I were watching an elaborate, Andy-Kaufman-style mockumentary. But the filmmakers are completely serious. Despite the fact that every labor union in America considers an hour to be the appropriate block of time in which to eat lunch, these people are absolutely baffled by the concept of Podesta meeting up with a family member to eat a slice of pizza for an hour. (Personally, I’ve met with friends for as long as two hours to eat pizza.) And if they’re not spending that entire hour eating pizza, the only reasonable conclusion is…

Yes, that they’re having sex with young boys. Perfectly logical. After all, there are only two available solutions to this conundrum of what is possible over the course of a single hour. An average human being can either: A) eat a pizza, or B) have sex with a child. There are no other possibilities.

Not only do the filmmakers lead off their Pizzagate segment with this less than convincing piece of evidence, but they state it twice. First, the narrator asks the question, “Who blocks out an hour of time to eat a slice of pizza?” Crokin then rephrases the question, this time cutting down the time in question to 30 minutes (despite the fact that the Podesta email they just flashed on the screen clearly contains the words “an hour”). Here’s Crokin again: “You can get a service for a half an hour. You can get a massage for a half an hour. But you can’t get food for half an hour. It just makes no sense!”

Only seconds earlier, the filmmakers implied that an hour is too long to eat a slice of pizza. This is immediately followed with the implication that 30 minutes isn’t enough time to eat a pizza. In QAnon’s coming dystopian Cloud-Cuckoo-Land, what exactly is the appropriate, Christian amount of time to eat a pizza without being accused of being a child rapist? 45 minutes? 38 minutes and 43 seconds? And why can’t you eat food within 30 minutes? I’ve had several jobs that only gave me a 15-minute break, and I discovered you could consume an adequate amount of sustenance within that amount of time. 

We then see footage of a former Baptist pastor named Ben Swann telling us that the triangular logo for Comet Ping Pong resembles the aforementioned shape used by pedophiles as a code for “boy love.” It never seems to occur to Swann or the filmmakers that there are a limited number of shapes in the universe, and that a triangle seems more logical for a pizza joint logo than an octagon or a parallelogram. (By the way, the filmmakers never mention the fact that Swann was fired from his news anchor job at WGCL-TV in Atlanta for delivering too many reports that “veered into alt-right conspiracy theories.”)

At one point Crokin yells into the camera, “[Pizzagate] has not been debunked! If it’s been debunked, explain the code words!”

She acts as if the existence of “code words” in Podesta’s emails have been verified in the first place. The fact is, I could easily comb through “Out of Shadows” and claim that every time the word “believe” appears, that’s actually a code word for “Hey, let’s off a hooker tonight.” So why hasn’t the FBI investigated the filmmakers for being murderers? After all, I said it was a code word, didn’t I? Why aren’t you investigating it?

Obviously, any word could be used as a code word for something else. Maybe every time I use the word “conspiracy” in this article, I’m actually signaling to my cultist friends to meet me at McDonald’s to lick the skin of an ancient psychedelic toad named Tsathoggua. I believe it. Do you believe it? If not, why not? Are you a sheeple? What do you believe is true? What do you believe is false? And why do you believe what you believe?

Celebrities = Satanists

The makers of “Out of Shadows” quickly shunt aside any useful information about actual government malfeasance (e.g., the CIA’s well-documented MK-ULTRA mind control program) to make room for the “Successful People Are Satanists” segment. The subtext of this part of the documentary is as follows: You don’t have to feel bad if you’re struggling under lower-middle-class conditions, because only degenerates who sell their souls to Satan become rich and famous. 

“Out of Shadows” wishes to leave its audience with the impression that the vast majority of Hollywood celebrities are involved in devil worship. If you believe “Out of Shadows,” every night in Los Angeles is an endless Satanic orgy, “Eyes Wide Shut”-style. The “evidence” provided, if viewed objectively, often makes the exact opposite point from the one intended by the filmmakers.

For example, we’re shown a brief excerpt from Jerry Seinfeld’s TV show “Comedians in Cars Getting Coffee,” in which Eddie Murphy tells Seinfeld a story about meeting Sammy Davis Jr. During this meeting, out of the blue, Davis told Murphy, “Satan is as powerful as God,” and only when Davis noticed Murphy’s bemused reaction did he start backing away from it. Rather than pointing toward the notion that Hollywood is overrun with covert Satanists, Murphy’s anecdote would seem to suggest the opposite: Casual discussions about Satan and his powers are sufficiently unusual that Murphy found this one strange and amusing. That’s why he chose to tell this story to Seinfeld on camera. That’s why they’re both laughing about it. If Satanism was so commonplace, neither Murphy nor Seinfeld would find this tale in any way unusual or humorous. Besides, Davis’ flirtation with Satanism in the 1970s was hardly a deep, dark secret. I first heard the rumor about Davis’ friendship with Anton LaVey, the head of the Church of Satan, when I was in high school during the 1980s. 

For some peculiar reason, one of the few Hollywood celebrities mentioned in the documentary who is not painted with this broad Luciferian brush is Kanye West. We see West strutting back and forth across a massive stage, screaming at his cheering audience like an evangelical Christian preaching to his parishioners in a Southern tent revival: “Y’all been lied to! Google lied to you! Facebook lied to you! Radio lied to you!”

Lied to you about what, exactly? The filmmakers don’t allow the clip to continue. Though vague, indeterminate esoteric symbolism in Lady Gaga and Katy Perry songs are shown and reshown in “Out of Shadows,” the filmmakers neglect to mention the fact that Kanye West wrote a song called “Lucifer Son of the Morning” for rapper Jay-Z. This is a case in which the “symbolism” is hardly covert, and yet this hit song written by West doesn’t even receive a brief mention. 

Let’s hand the mike over to rapper Professor Griff (formerly of Public Enemy and author of “The Psychological Covert War on Hip Hop” and “Symbology: The Psychological Covert War on Hip Hop Book 2“). The following quote is from an interview with Griff posted on YouTube on July 9, 2012, entitled “Professor Griff Discusses Occult Rituals in Hip Hop Part 2”:

If you want to operate in that $20 million club — and higher — the 100 million club these brothers were operating in … oh, you gotta pay the price. You gotta bond yourself to these [Luciferian] people forever. Look at some of the other people who bonded themselves to this demonic energy …. When Kanye West wanted to be up in that space so bad, he … signed on, became a Mason and took the oath, wrote “Lucifer Son of the Morning” for Jay-Z, and that was his initiation. And sure enough, he lost his mom….”  

You’d think a quote as incendiary as that would be gold to the makers of “Out of Shadows.” Why not include it? Is it because the filmmakers didn’t want to cast any aspersions on Kanye West? Is it because West has been such a vocal supporter of Donald Trump’s presidency and pledged to vote for Trump again this November, before abruptly announcing the possibility of throwing his own hat into the campaign (a strategic move seemingly aimed at siphoning off Black votes from Democratic candidate Joe Biden)?

Rather than connect the author of “Lucifer Son of the Morning” to Luciferianism, “Out of Shadows” tries to convince us instead that renowned performance artist Marina Abramović is a high priestess of the Church of Satan. As evidence, the filmmakers point toward Abramović’s 1987 work “Spirit Cooking,” which began as a portfolio of eight etchings illustrating 25 letterpress prints of what the artist refers to as “aphrodisiac recipes.” This portfolio is included in the permanent collection of the Museum of Modern Art, proof positive that demonic forces are at work.

Again, the filmmakers supply absolutely no evidence for the accusation that Abramović is a Satanist, much less a high priestess of the Church of Satan. I doubt if any of the QAnon followers had ever heard of this high-concept artist or her work before these rumors began circulating through the nooks and crannies of 4chan. I picture a couple of guys in their middle-American man cave, surfing the internet while knocking back Red Bull and/or Keystone Light, when they stumble across out-of-context photos of Abramović’s performance art, get mildly aroused while imagining her spreading her legs for Lucifer or Baphomet or Moloch or Tom Hanks or Bill Clinton, become overwrought with an extreme case of religious-based guilt, and then immediately rush to a chatroom to condemn Abramović for her seductress ways. “Oh my dear Lord, that Jezebel needs to be locked up and burned with the holiest of holy waters! Lock her up! Lock her up!” 

To anyone with an open mind who’s not already familiar with Abramović’s art, I suggest taking a look at Matthew Akers’ 2012 documentary “The Artist Is Present” to see what her work is actually all about. Most of these evangelical sleuths have seen a few photos of her 1997 multimedia installation “Spirit Cooking” (an outgrowth of her original 1987 portfolio), in which Abramović utilized pig’s blood to scrawl her “aphrodisiac recipes” on white walls, and conclude that she’s the mistress of the Dark One Himself. (Ironically, almost nothing Abramović has envisioned could come anywhere close to the senseless violence on full display in the Old Testament. Imagine a devout Catholic vampirically consuming the blood and flesh of Christ every Sunday morning, then turning around and being horrified by the faux ritualism of Abramović’s stunts.)

It would be nice to say that these allegations are the harmless nattering of brain-dead philistines. “Why not just ignore them?” one might say. But these allegations are now spilling out of the solipsistic confines of 4chan. This past April, Microsoft actually decided to delete Abramović’s advertisement for a device called the HoloLens 2 after QAnon-hypnotized right-wingers flooded the company with complaints about the artist’s alleged connections to Satanism. 

Here’s an excerpt from Alex Greenberger’s April 15 ARTnews article explaining this blatant act of censorship: 

Uploaded by Microsoft on April 10, the [YouTube] video was an advertisement for the HoloLens 2, a headset that allows users to see digital imagery with the outside world still in their view. (Mixed reality, unlike virtual reality, is not all-encompassing — viewers can see their surroundings while experiencing the headset’s moving images.) In the video, which is now deleted from YouTube, the artist discusses her new mixed reality work, The Life, and tells viewers, “I believe that art of the future is art without objects. This is just pure transmission of energy between the viewer and the artist. To me, mixed reality is this answer.”

There are no explicit mentions of Satanism in the video, which also features interviews with an official at Christie’s — which plans to sell The Life in October for more than $775,000 — and the work’s director. Also included is a demonstration of The Life.

When viewers don headsets, they can see Abramović wearing the red dress from her acclaimed 2010 performance The Artist Is Present. She slowly walks around, and her image sometimes appears to blink because of digital effects. The artist has described The Life, which debuted at London’s Serpentine Galleries in 2019, as being a performance accessible anytime, anywhere.

Shortly before the video was deleted earlier this week, it had been “disliked” by users more than 24,000 times …. As of Wednesday morning, a link listed on Google for Microsoft’s page dedicated to Abramović’s art redirected to a website for the tech company’s arts-related initiatives.

Abramović even felt the need to deny being a Satanist during a 2016 interview with ARTnews, soon after Trump’s supporters began spreading this rumor, but such a denial (a completely unnecessary one, of course) sidesteps the main issue of this cowardly act on Microsoft’s part. 

Let’s pause a moment, however, and say that Abramović is a Satanist. There’s this little thing called the First Amendment to the U.S. Constitution, with which “Christian Patriots” should be intimately familiar. It guarantees the freedom of religion. That includes Satanism. For Microsoft to discriminate against Abramović for being a high priestess of the Church of Satan (if she were one, which, once again, she is not) would be even more outrageous than the company pulling the video merely because it received 24,000 “dislikes” on the internet. 

Some evangelicals, of course, consider any religion other than Christianity to be Satanic. Why not start pulling down YouTube videos made by Muslims or Sikhs or Mormons? It doesn’t take long for a simple fallacy to snowball its way down a slippery slope into outright authoritarianism.