Spring Sale: Get 1 Year, Save 58%

Trump mulls skirting regulatory procedures in order to rush coronavirus vaccine by election: report

President Donald Trump has mulled skirting regulatory procedures in order to fast-track the authorization of a coronavirus vaccine before Election Day, according to The Financial Times.

The administration has considered speeding up the availability of an experimental coronavirus vaccine being developed in the U.K. by Oxford University and the pharmaceutical giant AstraZeneca via an “emergency use authorization” from the Food and Drug Administration, three people briefed on the plan told The Times.

The AstraZeneca vaccine is undergoing testing in a trial with 10,000 volunteers, though U.S. health agencies have said a vaccine must be studied on at least 30,000 people to meet authorization standards.

“Each vaccine needs to be tested on about 30,000 volunteers,” Dr. Francis Collins, the director of the National Institutes of Health, told CNN in June. “We don’t believe that we have enough power in the analysis to be able to document the vaccine works unless you get to roughly that number.”

White House chief of staff Mark Meadows and Treasury Secretary Steven Mnuchin told Speaker of the House Nancy Pelosi, D-Calif. and Senate Minority Leader Chuck Schumer, D-N.Y., on July 30 that an emergency use authorization for the vaccine might come as early as September, according to the report. The vaccine may also be authorized for emergency use prior to full approval.

A Treasury spokesperson denied that Mnuchin had made the remarks.

“Secretary Mnuchin did not make any comments regarding AstraZeneca, nor is he familiar with the specifics of the AstraZeneca vaccine candidate. He is also not aware of any plans the FDA may have regarding any emergency use authorization for any potential vaccine beyond what he has heard publicly stated,” the spokesperson told The Times. “The secretary believes, and has always believed, that any decision on vaccine candidates and any possible EUA is up to the FDA.”

Michael Caputo, a spokesperson for the Department of Health and Human Services, told the outlet that any claim that the FDA would issue an emergency use authorization before the election was “absolutely false,” and the administration hopes a vaccine will be developed by early 2021.

“We have always been working towards that goal. I’ve never been told at any point in time that that goal has changed,” he said. “Talk of an October surprise is a lurid resistance fantasy. Irresponsible talk of an unsafe or ineffective vaccine being approved for public use is designed to undermine the president’s coronavirus response.”

Robert Redfield, the director of the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, added that “although we have talked about doing this at ‘warp speed’, it is not through any cuts in our efforts for vaccine safety or scientific integrity.”

A spokesperson for AstraZeneca told The Times that it had “not discussed emergency use authorization with the U.S. government,” and the company “would be premature to speculate on that possibility.”

The administration likewise denied that politics had anything to do with the FDA’s abrupt decision to issue an emergency use authorization for the use of convalescent plasma from recovered coronavirus patients to treat the newly infected. The move came after Trump publicly alleged that so-called “deep state” forces inside the FDA were slowing the development of vaccines and treatments “until after” the election.

Trump praised the FDA after Sunday’s announcement — and hinted at a coming announcement on vaccines.

“We’re years ahead of approvals than we would be if we went by the speed levels of past administrations. We would be two years, three years behind,” he said. “That includes vaccines that you’ll be hearing about very soon.”

The abrupt announcement came after Collins and Dr. Anthony Fauci, the director of the National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases, warned that there was not enough data to support authorization of the plasma treatment. The World Health Organization, for its part, said the data backing the use of convalescent plasma was “very low-quality evidence.”

The FDA similarly issued an emergency use authorization for the use of hydroxycholoroquine under pressure from Trump earlier this year before revoking it soon after numerous studies showed the drug was not effective in treating the coronavirus and could be dangerous for some patients.

Pelosi criticized Trump for politicizing health regulations ahead of the election.

“The FDA has a responsibility to approve drugs judging on their safety and their efficacy — not by a declaration from the White House about speed and politicizing the FDA,” she said in a statement. “This was a very dangerous statement on the part of the president. Even for him, it went beyond the pale in terms of how he would jeopardize the health and wellbeing of the American people.”

Other countries, such as Russia and China, have bypassed large clinical trials in order to rush their own vaccines to the public, only to be met with skepticism and warnings from scientists.

Only 24% of Russian doctors said they would take the vaccine, according to one survey, and four of the country’s trade unions representing doctors and teachers have warned against taking it.

“It can be dangerous to start vaccinating millions — if not billions — of people too early, because it could pretty much kill the acceptance of vaccination if it goes wrong,” German Health Minister Jens Spahn told reporters earlier this month. “So I’m very skeptical about what’s going on in Russia.”

Any move to rush the vaccine to the public could trigger a series of resignations at the country’s top health agencies.

Peter Marks, the director of the FDA’s Center for Biologics Evaluation and Research, told Reuters and government officials that he would resign if the agency approved a vaccine before it was shown to be safe and effective.

“You have to decide where your red line is — and that’s my red line,” he told the outlet. “I would feel obligated (to resign), because in doing so, I would indicate to the American public that there’s something wrong.”

Falwell Jr resigns from Liberty after former pool attendant alleges love triangle with wife: reports

Jerry Falwell Jr. denied reports that he had resigned as the president of Liberty University on Monday after a business associate alleged a seven-year consensual sexual relationship involving the influential evangelical figure and his wife.

Falwell Jr. had taken a leave of absence from the university earlier this month after he posted — and later deleted — an Instagram photo of himself on a yacht with his pants unzipped and his arm around a young woman whose pants were similarly opened. Falwell later said the picture was an attempt at a joke.

Giancarlo Granda told Reuters that he first began the alleged affair with Jerry Falwell Jr. and his wife Becki Falwell in March 2012. Granda claimed that he met the Falwells that month at the Fontainebleau Miami Beach hotel, where he had been working as a pool attendant. Granda, now 29, alleged that the relationship involved having sex with Becki Falwell while Jerry Falwell Jr. watched.

“Becki and I developed an intimate relationship, and Jerry enjoyed watching from the corner of the room,” Granda told the outlet in an interview. He further claimed that the trio would meet “multiple times per year,” allegedly rendezvousing at hotels in Miami and New York in addition to the Falwells’ Virginia home.

Granda said the trio’s friendship went south in 2018 amid a business dispute. That year, BuzzFeed News first reported that the couple had enjoined Granda in a business venture when they bought Alton Hostel, a Miami Beach youth hostel, in 2013. At the time of that report, a Falwell representative told BuzzFeed that Granada lived in the area and would manage the property. Granda still holds a stake in the venture, according to Reuters.

Michael Bowe, an attorney for Jerry Falwell Jr., told Reuters ahead of publication that the Liberty University president “categorically denies everything you indicated you intend to publish about him.”

However, on Sunday, the night before the report was published, Jerry Falwell Jr. gave a statement to the Washington Examiner in which he revealed that his wife had carried on an affair with Granda. Jerry Falwell Jr. alleged that Granda had subsequently tried to extort money from his family. Granda denied the allegation to Reuters but acknowledged that he had attempted to “negotiate a buyout from a business arrangement.”

Reuters said it reviewed emails, texts and “other evidence” which Granda claimed were evidence of the alleged love triangle’s sexual nature. The material included screenshots from what Granda said had been a FaceTime call with the Falwells last year. Granda said Becki Falwell had been naked, and that they “discussed their relationship” as Jerry Falwell watched on from behind a door. Reuters said it was able to verify Granda’s descriptions of the call.

In a recording from a 2018 phone call obtained by Reuters, Granda and the Falwells discussed what Granda characterized as Becki Falwell’s jealousy about his dating other women.

“Gian’s been very busy,” Becki Falwell reportedly said at the beginning of the recording, adding that Granda had driven her to tears “for a whole freakin’ day” when he described “hooking up” with another woman.

“You’re going to make her jealous, Gian,” Jerry Falwell Jr. said.

“I’ve taken a lot. I’ve moved on. I’ve matured — matured,” Becki Falwell, 53, said. “I’m not as crazy as I used to be, I would think. I don’t think.”

“No, you’re — you’re perfect,” Granda said.

“Yeah, got to keep that up,” Becki Falwell replied.

Falwell’s statement to The Examiner did not implicate himself in the affair. “Becki had an inappropriate personal relationship with this person, something in which I was not involved,” the statement said.

Liberty University — founded in 1971 by Falwell Jr.’s father, the popular televangelist Rev. Jerry Falwell, who handed the reins to his son in 2007 — is one of the nation’s largest private, non-profit schools, enrolling about 94,000 students online in addition to the 15,000 who attend the Lynchburg, Va., campus. The school holds students to a famously rigid honor code, which extends to sexual relationships.

“Sexual relations outside of a biblically-ordained marriage between a natural-born man and a natural-born woman are not permissible at Liberty University,” the code reads. “In personal relationships, students are encouraged to know and abide by common-sense guidelines to avoid the appearance of impropriety. Activities inconsistent with these standards and guidelines are violations of the Online Student Honor Code.”

The Falwells have wielded enormous influence over the evangelical community, and Jerry Falwell Jr.’s 2016 endorsement of Donald Trump is widely credited with locking down the conservative Christian vote, without which the twice-divorced real estate mogul would likely have had little hope of carrying the election. A 2018 Gallup survey found that about 41% of Americans identify as evangelical or born-again Christian, a number which has held steady for decades.

Politico published an exposé last September on Jerry Falwell Jr.’s so-called “dictatorship” at Liberty University, citing employees who claimed that he had sent racy photos of his wife to male friends and was “very, very vocal” about his sex life. However, restrictive non-disclosure agreements and a pervading sense of fear allegedly prevented individuals from speaking out against the leader, according to the report. 

“Fear is probably his most powerful weapon,” one former senior university official told Politico.

Two months earlier, The New York Times ran a longform story built around Falwell, Granda, former Trump attorney and “fixer” Michael Cohen and allegedly compromising sexual photos involving the Liberty University president.

The Times reported that Cohen, in a recorded conversation with comedian Tom Arnold, said he had made efforts to buy and bury such photos before bringing Falwell “to the table” for Trump. Until that point, “none of the evangelicals wanted to support Trump,” Cohen told Arnold.

Becki Falwell served on the advisory board of Women for Trump, an affiliate of Women Vote Smart PAC, which supports the president’s re-election campaign. Trump floated Jerry Falwell Jr.’s name to lead a task force charged with deregulating higher education in the early months of the administration.

In recent texts between Granda and the Falwells, the former pool attendant appeared to be frustrated, Reuters reported.

“Since you’re okay with ruining my life, I am going to take the kamikaze route,” reads a text Granda allegedly sent this June to Jerry Falwell Jr. “It really is a shame because I wanted to reach a peaceful resolution and just move on with our lives but if conflict is what you want, then so be it.”

“You should by now understand that I will not be extorted,” Jerry Falwell Jr. allegedly replied. “I have always treated you fairly and been restrained in response to your threats because I did not wish to ruin your life. Going forward, stop contacting me and my family.”

Though Granda admits to being a willing participant in the alleged sexual relationship, he told Reuters that he now feels exploited.

“Whether it was immaturity, naïveté, instability or a combination thereof, it was this ‘mindset’ that the Falwells likely detected in deciding that I was the ideal target for their sexual escapades,” he claimed. 

Justin Lehmiller, a research fellow at the Kinsey Institute, recently surveyed 4,175 Americans about their sexual fantasies. While Republicans and Democrats fantasized at the same rate, Republicans were more likely than Democrats to fantasize about sex outside of marriage, Lehmiller found.

“Think things like infidelity, orgies and partner swapping, from 1970s-style ‘key parties’ to modern-day forms of swinging,” Lehmiller wrote in Politico in 2018.

“Republicans also reported more fantasies with voyeuristic themes, including visiting strip clubs and practicing something known as ‘cuckolding,’ which involves watching one’s partner have sex with someone else,” he added.

As of Monday evening, Liberty University and Jerry Falwell Jr were negotiating over his possible resignation, The Washington Post reported.

Liberty University, Jerry Falwell Jr., and Giancarlo Granda did not respond to Salon’s requests for comment.

“Election Day asteroid” has a small chance of hitting Earth — but it definitely won’t hurt anyone

As if 2020 needed another bout of apocalyptic news, reports circled this weekend that an asteroid is headed toward Earth right on Election Day. “Just in Time for the Election: An Asteroid?” the New York Times reported. “Asteroid heading our way right before Election Day,” the CNN headline blared as the topic trended on social media.

It would certainly be the cherry on top of a not-so-sweet year. But just as headlines about the murder hornets were overhyped, this asteroid is nothing to fret about — this year.

“It currently has a 0.41% chance of entering our planet’s atmosphere, but if it did, it would disintegrate due to its extremely small size,” NASA’s Planetary Defense Coordination Office tweeted on Aug. 23.

2018 VP1, which is the name of the asteroid, is about 6.5 feet in diameter. While November 2, 2020 is the day that it has a 1 in 243 chance of hitting Earth, the asteroid wouldn’t cause any damage even if it does strike us. It’s far too small. In fact, it’s not uncommon for asteroids of this size to burn up in the atmosphere.

For context, the asteroid that researchers believe wiped out the dinosaurs was roughly 6 miles wide. Its impact radically changed the climate and atmosphere, which led to a mass extinction event.

Dr. Ed Lu, executive director of the Asteroid Institute and a three-time NASA astronaut, told Salon it will be like “a shooting star in the sky” if it enters Earth’s atmosphere.

“This is ridiculously small, meaning even if it hits the Earth it’s a bright show and that’s it,”  Lu said. “It would look like a fireball in the sky. It’s the kind of thing that happens every few weeks on Earth.”

In 2018, astronomers discovered the asteroid using a robotic telescope called the Zwicky Transient Facility in California. Its trajectory has a high uncertainty, since it hasn’t been seen since its discovery, but it has a two-year orbital period which means it is on its way back to us. While it is expected to be near Earth on Nov. 2, 2020, the day before the United States’ Election Day, it is more likely to pass a few thousand miles away from our planet.

Lu said it’s possible that this Near-Earth Object (NEO) could swing back and make an appearance in Earth’s atmosphere at a later date, but emphasized it still wouldn’t do any damage on Earth because of its size.

“Asteroids in general that come back to Earth do swing back at later times,” Lu said, adding that it could be a “teaching moment” for researchers and the public in part because of how hit or miss asteroid tracking is at the moment.

“You don’t have perfect data, because you have a limited number of observations, so therefore you’re just sort of a range of possibilities that are all consistent with those few data points that we have,” Lu said. 

If it isn’t a big deal, then why did this story go viral? Nobody knows, but it could be the funny timing — coming right on the same day as a pivotal election.

“This story should have been cut on the newsroom floor before it went viral,” Danica Remy, President B612 Foundation, told Salon. “Clearly someone went digging for this non-news story on the JPL Sentry page for sensationalized drama and clicks”. 

Notably, last week a small asteroid also flew by very close to Earth; an asteroid named 2020 QG. According to NASA’s Jet Propulsion Laboratory, it is now the closest known non-impacting asteroid. Like the Election Day asteroid, there was no concern about it impacting Earth because it would have likely have become a fireball as it entered Earth’s atmosphere.

“It’s really cool to see a small asteroid come by this close, because we can see the Earth’s gravity dramatically bend its trajectory,” Paul Chodas, director of the Center for Near-Earth Object Studies (CNEOS) at NASA’s Jet Propulsion Laboratory in Southern California, said in statement. “Our calculations show that this asteroid got turned by 45 degrees or so as it swung by our planet.”

Kirsten Dunst wants to know why she’s on Kanye West’s presidential campaign poster

Kanye West‘s presidential bid has been one of pop culture’s wildest rides in a year already filled with many. Beginning with a bombastic rally in South Carolina back in July, West has inserted himself into an already fractious political race to much controversy and many head scratches. But it’s not looking good for the outspoken artist, who was rejected from the ballot in Illinois, Montana, Ohio, West Virginia, and Wisconsin on account of negligent filing. Still, he’s plunging ahead, and in the latest development, West revealed a puzzling campaign poster via Twitter, and it includes the face of Kirsten Dunst, among others. The actress, who tweeted in response, wants to know why she’s part of his promotional materials to begin with.

Read more from IndieWire: “Brooklyn Nine-Nine” star Melissa Fumero blast Canadian remake’s whitewashed casting

“What’s the message here, and why am I apart [sic] of it?” Dunst tweeted. Anna Wintour is also among the faces included on the poster, below. The photo of Dunst, it turns out, was taken by Mario Testino for a 2002 Vanity Fair shoot. Ahead of the primaries, Dunst publicly endorsed Vermont Senator Bernie Sanders, who recently gave remarks at the 2020 Democratic National Convention. Dunst was last seen in the Showtime dark comedy series “On Becoming a God in Central Florida,” which aired in the fall and was picked up for a second season shortly thereafter. Next up, she will star in Jane Campion’s “The Power of the Dog,” stepping in for Elisabeth Moss, who had to withdraw from the film.

Read more from IndieWire: “Hoops” review: Netflix’s animated airball substitutes profanity for jokes

West has filed to be on the ballot in several other key states, including Louisiana, Mississippi, Tennessee, and Virginia, but it’s unknown yet whether he will qualify for candidacy. West has been the target of scrutiny since the presidential rally, which saw him pontificating on everything from Harriet Tubman’s role in the Underground Railroad to his views on abortion, led to a significant discussion on social media about West’s state of mind; West has admitted to being bipolar. His wife, Kim Kardashian West, later came out asking for empathy as the family dealt with West’s mental health.

Read more from IndieWire: Here are the cameras and lenses that shot the year’s best TV shows

The FDA just approved using blood plasma from recovered patients to fight COVID-19

The US Food and Drug Administration (FDA) announced Sunday that it is issuing an emergency use authorization for using convalescent plasma — a substance extracted from the blood of those who have recovered from coronavirus — to treat patients suffering from COVID-19. The announcement marks a novel new treatment for COVID-19, and one that was long heralded as a possible avenue for treating the often-deadly virus. 

As the FDA and other scientists note, the blood of patients who have contracted and recovered from coronavirus is apt to contain antibodies that could fend off the coronavirus. Via blood plasma, these coronavirus antibodies can be injected into patients whose bodies have yet to create their own antibodies, or whose immune systems are struggling to cope with the invading foreign viral particles. This takes advantage of the fundamental way that the human body’s immune system works, namely, by continuing to create antibodies to destroy viral intruders even long after those viruses have been cleared.

On their official website, the FDA explains that the emergency use authorization covers individuals infected with COVID-19 who are currently in hospitals. They note that convalescent plasma “is being investigated for the treatment of COVID-19 because there is no approved treatment for this disease.”

Plasma, although a part of blood, is not the same thing as blood itself. Plasma is a yellowish liquid which comprises more than half of total blood fluid and is itself mostly water. Antibodies, or proteins created by the body in order to fight infections, are contained within the plasma. Notably, giving a patient antibodies does not actually give their own immune system the ability to combat the virus — it merely provides some antibodies that can do so for a short period until they run out.

Preliminary studies suggest that there is a slight drop in mortality rates among those administered convalescent plasma. In a non-peer reviewed study run by the Mayo Clinic and sponsored by the National Institutes of Health, researchers recruited 35,000 patients and found that patients who were administered convalescent plasma saw a notable drop in mortality. The seven day mortality rate was 8.7 percent for patients who received transfusions within three days of diagnosis and 11.9 percent for those who received plasma after four or more days. Because there was no control group receiving a placebo, however, it is unclear whether these results offer truly meaningful hope when it comes to the ongoing fight against the coronavirus.

President Trump touted the FDA’s decision to issue an emergency use authorization for convalescent plasma. During his Sunday press briefing, Trump stated: “this is a powerful therapy that transfuses very, very strong antibodies from the blood of recovered patients to help treat patients battling a current infection. It’s had an incredible rate of success.” Though because the procedure has not yet been implemented on a wide scale, it is impossible to know whether it will have an “incredible rate of success,” as Trump declared that it would.

Trump also used his press conference to take a swipe at President Barack Obama.

“This is the only possible — and it’s only made possible because of Operation Warp Speed that has everybody working together,” Trump added. “We’re years ahead of approvals. We would be — if we went by the speed levels of past administration, we’d be two years, three years behind where we are today, and that includes in vaccines that you’ll be hearing about very soon, very shortly.”

Despite Trump’s claims, public health experts are in widespread agreement that his administration has generally acted slowly in responding to the pandemic. Trump waited for more than 10 weeks after being initially informed of the situation before declaring a national emergency, and prior to that had pushed for defunding the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. He also disbanded a global health national security team in 2018 that had been created in part to help America cope with a possible pandemic, and has given inaccurate health advice including promoting an ineffective drug as treatment, suggesting that the public inject themselves with disinfectant to stop the virus’ spread, and downplaying the importance of wearing masks.

Justin Townes Earle, Americana singer-songwriter, dead at 38

Justin Townes Earle, the singer-songwriter known for his mix of old-timey roots music and modern-day Americana, has died at age 38. A rep for Earle’s label New West Records confirmed the musician’s death to Rolling Stone, though a cause of death was not immediately revealed.

Earle was raised in Nashville, but also lived in New York and, recently, in Portland, Oregon. According to a spokesperson, he died at his home in Nashville.

Read more from Rolling Stone: Bruce Springsteen on making “Born to Run”: “We went to extremes”

“It is with tremendous sadness that we inform you of the passing of our son, husband, father and friend Justin,” a post on Earle’s Instagram page read. “So many of you have relied on his music and lyrics over the years and we hope that his music will continue to guide you on your journeys. You will be missed dearly Justin.”

Earle, a tall and gangly figure with a from-another-time aesthetic, was a captivating presence onstage, where he’d sometimes address the crowd in a carnival barker style. But it was his albums, like 2010’s soulful “Harlem River Blues,” 2017’s introspective “Kids in the Street,” and last year’s shuffling, ominous “The Saint of Lost Causes” that best summed up his man-out-of-time appeal. A favorite in Americana music circles, he was named Emerging Act of the Year at the 2009 Americana Honors & Awards, and nominated as Artist of the Year in 2012.

“Had a lot of good times and made a lot of good music with JTE. So sad for his family tonight,” Jason Isbell tweeted. “He was always kind to me and he’s gone too soon,” wrote Margo Price.

“In a year that’s already taken too many from our small community, yet another light ascends and takes its place among the heavens,” Lucinda Williams posted on Instagram. “Our deepest condolences can only skim along the surface of this grief, and yet we send them — along with a promise to shine a bit brighter ourselves in his memory.”

Read more from Rolling Stone: How YouTube reaction videos are changing the way we listen

Born January 4th, 1982, Earle was the son of the country-rocker Steve Earle, who named him after his friend, the songwriter Townes Van Zandt. His mother, Carol Ann Hunter, never cared for the name, Earle told Rolling Stone last year.

“My mother hated Townes Van Zandt. My first name was supposed to be Townes; mother would not have it,” he said. “She hated him because of the trouble that Dad and him got into, but she still played his music.”

Earle first came on the scene with the 2007 EP “Yuma,” and would release a string of albums on the Bloodshot Records label. The title track to his 2010 project for the label, “Harlem River Blues,” won Song of the Year at the 2011 Americana Honors. He performed the song during an appearance on the “Late Show With David Letterman,” with Jason Isbell backing him up on guitar.

In 2017, Earle began working with New West Records, who released his last two albums, starting with the LP “Kids in the Street.”

Like his father, Earle battled drugs and alcohol during his career. But as he told Chris Shiflett on the “Walking the Floor” podcast in 2017, he was sober when he began making records. “I got all my craziness out of the way as a coffeehouse musician and a roadie,” he said.

Along with his solo work, Earle produced Wanda Jackson, marking his first time producing another artist. At Earle’s suggestion, the rockabilly legend revisited her classic, raucous Sixties sound for 2012’s “Unfinished Business.”

Read more from Rolling Stone: Lily Cornell Silver’s Eddie Vedder interview: 10 things we learned

In 2019, Earle recalled his first time performing with his famous father, when he was just 17. “Me and my dad played a few Doc Watson songs,” he told Rolling Stone. “We’re Earles, we’re arrogant, and we always feel good about what we do, but it was intimidating. I’ll tell you, the second time we played together, I had to play with him and Guy Clark at MerleFest, in front of Doc Watson. It scared the shit out of me.”

Earle was on the road in support of “Saint of Lost Causes” up until pandemic-induced lockdowns began in March. A private service will be held for the musician next week, with a public memorial planned for 2021.

So much tear gas has been sprayed on Portland protesters that officials fear it’s polluted the water

Police in Portland peppered protesters with tear gas on Monday as they assembled outside of a police station, following a weekend of ongoing demonstrations against police racism and in favor of defunding the police. Their actions continue a history of Portland police using tear gas on demonstrators tracing as far back as May. Portland made headlines last month after federal law enforcement began detaining protesters, even though it was unclear if all of those detained had been involved in illegal activity.

Protesters and activists alike are fearful for the long-term effects of being exposed to chemical weapons. As the Oregon Department of Environmental Quality noted previously, there is no scientific precedent for the long-term exposure of tear gas on humans, as it is not meant to be used often. And the amount of the caustic gas, reportedly the variant known as CS gas (which one Portland police official insisted was different than tear gas), sprayed in downtown Portland is similarly unusual — nearly every night since the week of George Floyd’s death on May 25, tear gas has coated the sidewalks and drains. 

That’s been stoking fears among local watchdogs agencies, including those who oversee Portland’s water infrastructure, about the effect of pollution from the constant gassing. Alarmingly, it appears little is publicly known about the environmental effects of the chemicals in the tear gas itself.

Then, on July 30, environmental regulators in Oregon sent a message to the city of Portland: In response to the “unprecedented” amount of tear gas used by the city’s police against the civil rights protesters who assembled there in May and June, the officials wanted a thorough investigation to make sure the chemicals did not cause lasting harm to the environment.

After acknowledging Portland’s ongoing efforts to “manage municipal stormwater discharges,” the Oregon Department of Environmental Quality (DEQ) sent a letter to Portland’s Bureau of Environmental Services. “Due to the unprecedented amount of tear gas products used within the downtown area over the last 90 days,” the letter read, “DEQ is requiring the City to conduct additional water quality monitoring.” They added that the city must submit a monitoring plan within three weeks of the letter’s date (which was August 20).  

The DEQ called for Portland officials to identify areas where stormwater containing tear gas might enter the Willamette River, which runs from Eugene to downtown Portland where it merges with the Columbia River and then flows out to the Pacific Ocean.

In addition, the authorities required Portland to engage in “water quality monitoring” at areas where heavy rain may cause tear gas to discharge into the Willamette River, as well as monitor “at the closest upstream and downstream outfalls that do not collect stormwater from the downtown area during the first flush, but do discharge stormwater.”

The Oregon DEQ also wanted Portland to inform them of pollutants in the water including lead, copper, barium, zinc, perchlorate, total chromium and hexavalent chromium.

Salon reached out to DEQ for comment, and will update this story if and when they respond.

Following the monitoring event, the Oregon DEQ ordered Portland to submit a summary within two weeks that revealed the results of their investigation and compared the 2020 data with data from previous years at the same locations, assuming that they had been monitored for pollutants in the past.

“If a rain event that is likely to result in a discharge to the Willamette River occurs prior to plan approval by DEQ, the City must contact DEQ and conduct the monitoring described above,” the letter concluded.

A spokesperson for the city’s sewer and stormwater agency told reporters at the time that, although Portland already “regularly” tests near the river, it would now test near the Justice Center, the courthouse and two parks because police used tear gas on protesters in those areas. The spokesperson also noted that there is likely tear gas residue already in the areas near the courthouse and Justice Center but that the city does not know very much about tear gas or tear gas residue.

Earlier this month it was reported that the Portland Bureau of Environmental Services studied six storm drains around a building with a police station and jail, as well as a federal courthouse. A spokesperson said at the time that there was no evidence of tear gas residue reaching the river, although she added that “it’s also hard to say because there is so much unknown about the materials and so much unknown about the quantities.”

Reportedly, the type of tear gas used on Portland protesters — by both the police and, previously, unspecified federal law enforcement officers from the Department of Homeland Security sent in on orders from President Donald Trump — is a substance known as CS gas. CS is a chemical known as 2-chlorobenzalmalononitrile. A 2000 article in the British Medical Journal found that CS “causes epiphora [uncontrollable crying], blepharospasm [abnormal eyelid contractions], a burning sensation, and visual problems. Coughing, increased mucous secretion, severe headaches, dizziness, dyspnoea, tightness of the chest, difficulty breathing, skin reactions, and excessive salivation are common.”

Salon could not identify any scientific research on the long-term pollutant effects of CS or of other comparable cyanocarbons. One article published in the Journal of Environmental Analytical Chemistry proposed decontaminating tear gas using “calcum hypochloride, silbestrol or permanganate,” and noted that sulfur mustard, a different chemical tear gas, could remain in soil for 10 years. Yet that paper did not say anything specifically regarding CS gas’s environmental sustainability. 

 In terms of human health, medical literature has recorded reports of deaths from using the gas, including of 3 boys in Israel in 2010. 

“There are well-documented severe injuries and deaths from chemical irritants,” Dr. Michele Heisler, medical director of Physicians for Human Rights and professor of public health and internal medicine at University of Michigan, told Salon previously. “Despite the lack of research, we know that tear gas is inherently indiscriminate and law enforcement should only use this crowd-control weapon as an absolute last resort, when all methods of peaceful resolution have been exhausted.”

Dr. Rohini J. Haar, an adjunct professor of epidemiology at University of California, Berkeley School of Public Health who focuses on human rights issues, told Salon previously that one of the biggest problems with the use of tear gas is that law enforcement officials frequently do not disclose what is in the canisters. As a result, it can be difficult to assess whether they pose long-term health risks for people exposed to them.

“I think some transparency about what chemicals are in there would give us some insight into how they break down and what the degradation products are. We don’t have that information,” Haar told Salon.

Correction: This article referred to the Portland Bureau of Environmental Services as the Portland Bureau of Environmental Quality. It regrets the error.

The enduring resonance of Kate Bush’s “Running Up That Hill,” 35 years later

In early 2020, Meg Myers rose to No. 1 on Billboard‘s Rock Airplay chart with her cover of Kate Bush‘s “Running Up That Hill.” The milestone was a long time coming: As the magazine noted at the time, the song had been on that chart for 29 weeks. For good measure, right after topping the Rock Airplay chart, Myers also spent two weeks at No. 1 on the Alternative Songs chart.

This wasn’t the only “Running Up That Hill” cover to make waves this year. In June, the metal talk show “Two Minutes To Late Night” released a ferocious take on the song featuring searing lead vocals from Emma Ruth Rundle (Marriages, Red Sparowes); back-up singing from the show’s co-host, Jordan Olds; and instrumentation from members of Mastodon, Old Man Gloom and YOB. 

Sonically, the two versions of the song are quite different. Meg Myers’ approach is pop-leaning and hews close to the futuristic sounds of Bush’s take: The song surges forward thanks to booming drums, pulsating keyboards and Myers’ gutsy vocal delivery. The “Two Minutes To Late Night,” version, meanwhile, tapped into the original’s propulsive underbelly, swapping keyboards for jagged guitars and adding theatrical metal flourishes.

That malleability explains partly why “Running Up That Hill (A Deal With God)” — which was released 35 years ago, on August 5, 1985, and appears on the “Hounds of Love” LP — is one of the most enduring singles of the ’80s. It’s been covered and interpreted by dozens of other artists, including Tori Amos (who pairs Bush’s song with her own 1994 hit “God” during live performances), Placebo, Chromatics, First Aid Kit, and Jade Bird. Noted Kate Bush mega-fan Big Boi dissected the song for Pitchfork last year, praising the lyrics and production, while a remix of the song played in the closing ceremony of the 2012 Summer Olympics in London.

Bush’s catalog has many high points — and her songs “Cloudbusting” and “Hounds of Love” have also been covered quite a bit — but “Running Up That Hill” looms largest of all. It’s her lone U.S. top 40 hit, peaking at No. 30 in 1985, and one of her biggest global singles. The song’s origins date back to 1983, when Bush and then-boyfriend Del Palmer started working on the music that would emerge on “Hounds of Love.” 

Bush wrote the song using the cutting-edge Fairlight CMI, while Palmer contributed a Linn drum rhythm. Although these instruments were common in the ’80s, Bush’s production and songwriting approach elevates the song. “Running Up That Hill” is warm and enveloping, with galloping rhythms, those mysterious squiggly effects, and Bush’s sturdy, conspiratorial vocals. The song hovers between the physical and spiritual worlds, suspended in gauzy, hazy consciousness that’s akin to the dreams people have just before waking.

Perhaps unsurprisingly, “Running Up That Hill” was originally called “A Deal With God.” However, Bush’s label was worried about the commercial implications of the title’s religious overtones. “For me, that is the title — but I was told that if I insisted [on calling the song that], the radio stations in at least 10 countries would refuse to play it because it had ‘God’ in the title,” she told Q in 1989. “Spain, Italy, America, lots of them. I thought it was ridiculous.” 

Still, Bush was conscious of the lukewarm reception to her previous album, 1982’s “The Dreaming,” and didn’t want to pre-emptively undermine the chances of success for “The Hound of Love.”  “Although I was very unhappy about it, I felt unless I compromised that I was going to be cutting my own throat,” she said in an early ’90s interview. “I’d just spent two, three years making an album and we weren’t gonna get this record played on the radio, if I was stubborn. 

“I felt I had to be grown up about this, so we changed it to ‘Running Up That Hill.’ But it’s always something I’ve regretted doing, I must say. And normally I always regret any compromises that I make.”

This backstory certainly gives “Running Up That Hill” additional resonance. People who don’t conform to societal expectations or stereotypes often struggle to find their place in the world, or have to suppress parts of their personality to fit in. Bush’s uncompromising creative vision is legendary, and so it’s deeply relatable to read that even she grappled with reconciling her artistic intent with commercial forces. 

However, “Running Up That Hill” is no compromise: It’s a singular statement made by a strong, confident protagonist asserting their worth. “It’s very much about love, really — trying to keep it alive,” Bush told Blitz in 1985. “I don’t know that perfect love exists in any human being, but I don’t think it can be encouraged enough.” 

In a separate interview with The London Times that same year, she added: “It seems that the more you get to know a person, the greater the scope there is for misunderstanding. Sometimes you can hurt somebody purely accidentally or be afraid to tell them something because you think they might be hurt when really they’ll understand. 

“So what that song is about is making a deal with God to let two people swap place so they’ll be able to see things from one another’s perspective.”

Her assessment points to one reason “Running Up That Hill” endures: The desire to be heard and understood by other people — especially someone for whom you care deeply — is timeless, and transcends generations. No matter how old you are, it’s deeply meaningful to feel like you aren’t walking through life alone. 

Accordingly, the lyrics plea for understanding (“Tell me, we both matter, don’t we?”) and empathy (“Oh come on, angel / Come on, come on, darling / Let’s exchange the experience, oh”). However, Bush doesn’t specify gender pronouns, which is significant. On the one hand, the song can be interpreted as a monologue, or one partner pleading with the other; on the other side, the song can be interpreted as a conversation between two people. Or could it be that the song is what someone would like to say to a significant other — but they haven’t yet found the right moment to share?

That ambiguity goes a long way to explain why the “Running Up That Hill” covers have such disparate emotional timbres. For example, Placebo’s dirge-like take on the song, which was later used for a Wrestlemania match promo video, takes a more ominous tone, as if swapping places might expose dark secrets. The First Aid Kit take, however, is bare-bones and acoustic — and offers hope to those despairing over finding solace.

However, in Bush’s hands, “Running Up That Hill” is at its core an optimistic song. The lyrics assume that once the partners have knowledge of each other, the tide will turn. She emphasizes the phrases “It’s you and me” and “won’t be unhappy,” and concludes the song by asserting: “I’d be running up that road / Be running up that hill / With no problems.” 

That image is poignant: Running up a hill in other contexts could be difficult — but in Kate Bush’s world, understanding and empathy removes these barriers, and makes a challenge easier to manage. “Running Up That Hill” is about how connection can empower — and also transcend.

Don Jr. fears members of the Trump family will be prosecuted after father loses election: report

After former Special Counsel Robert Mueller delivered the final report for the Russia investigation in 2019, he noted that the U.S. Department of Justice has a longstanding policy against prosecuting a sitting president. But if former Vice President Joe Biden defeats President Donald Trump this November, he will no longer be a sitting president after Biden is inaugurated in January 2021. And according to a lengthy piece by journalist Jason Zengerle for the New York Times, Donald Trump, Jr. is worried about the possibility of members of his family facing criminal prosecutions if the president loses to Biden.

Zengerle’s article takes an in-depth look at the prominent role that Trump, Jr. is playing in the president’s reelection campaign. And an anonymous source described by Zengerle as a “prominent conservative activist” told the Times, “Don’s the only person who thinks they’re going to lose. He’s like, ‘We’re losing, dude, and we’re going to get really hurt when we lose.'”

Zengerle explains that by “really hurt,” that source means criminal prosecutions. The Times journalist reports, “An electoral defeat in November, Trump Jr. fears, could result in federal prosecutions of Trump, his family and his political allies. He has told the conservative activist that he expects that a Biden administration will not participate in a ‘peaceful transition’ and instead, will ‘shoot the prisoners.'”

Zengerle’s article describes, in detail, Trump, Jr.’s rise in prominence in Trumpworld.

“When Trump ran for president in 2016, Trump Jr. — who is now 42 — was involved but hardly central to the effort,” Zengerle notes. “His sister Ivanka and her husband, Jared Kushner, exercised sweeping influence over the campaign. Trump Jr., by contrast, was assigned small, discrete tasks, like putting his outdoorsmanship on display in a pheasant-hunting photo-op with his brother, Eric.”

But Zengerle emphasizes that four years later, Trump, Jr. is by no means a marginal figure in Trumpworld and has “grown into arguably his father’s most valuable political weapon.” Now, according to Jason Miller — a senior adviser on Trump’s reelection campaign — “Don, Jr. represents the emotional center of the MAGA universe.” And Zengerle points out that Trump, Jr.’s girlfriend, Kimberly Guilfoyle, is also a prominent figure in Trumpworld.

“Trump Jr. is now a key player in the Republican Party’s 2020 operation,” Zengerle observes. “He and Guilfoyle have become fund-raising powerhouses, coaxing large donations from high-dollar donors. Guilfoyle is reportedly paid $15,000 a month by the Trump campaign. E-mail solicitations sent out by the National Republican Congressional Committee, the House Republicans’ election arm, under Trump Jr.’s name have so far raised more than $3 million in small-dollar donations.”

Trump mega-donor Louis DeJoy’s testimony makes clear: He can’t be trusted with the post office

During Monday’s House Oversight Committee hearing on the dramatic slowdowns of the U.S. Postal Service under the leadership of Postmaster General Louis DeJoy, a major donor to Donald Trump who continues to have tight relationships to the Trump campaign, Republicans worked two contradictory claims. 

The first claim is that DeJoy is a major expert in logistics and that’s why he was appointed as postmaster general — not because he was useful to the Trump campaign’s efforts to sabotage mail-in voting.

The second claim is that Democrats are being unreasonable in expecting that DeJoy, this supposed expert on the mechanics of delivering stuff, should make sure the mail arrives on time, as it generally did before he was hired. 

Republicans had a litany of excuses for why DeJoy cannot be expected to accomplish the baseline goal of getting the mail delivered, even though he was supposedly appointed because of his deep knowledge of such things. GOP members of the committee blamed “anarchists” for supposedly slowing down the mail with “riots,” even though the mail slowdowns started in July, nearly a month after most of the unrest in American cities had died down. Republicans insinuated that postal workers are lazy and not showing up to work, even though, in reality, USPS employees are saying they’re prepared to work overtime to deliver the mail and are being denied the opportunity. They even shamelessly blamed the pandemic, which they otherwise like to pretend is not a serious problem, even though the pandemic was at its most severe in the spring, but the mail slowdowns really started in the summer, after DeJoy took over as postmaster general in mid-June. 

Democrats, who run the Oversight Committee thanks to their overall House majority, had quite a simple and compelling story about what’s going on at the post office: It was working fine until DeJoy took over. Now it’s falling apart, either because of DeJoy’s incompetence, or — as many Democrats on the committee suggested — because DeJoy is deliberately slowing down the mail in order to help Trump subvert an election in which most Americans are likely to vote by mail. 

On that front, the evidence is overwhelming, starting with this graph shared by committee chair Rep. Carolyn Maloney, D.-N.Y., who used it to demand answers from DeJoy. His response was to glower and blink and stumble his way to saying that it’s “unfair” to hold him accountable for the performance of an agency he’s running. 

These cold charts back up reporting from around the country about the horrors caused by slowed down mail: Boxes of dead chicks delivered to farmers, days too late. Packages of rotten food swarming with insects and rats, piling up at post offices. Americans facing severe health problems because their medications don’t arrive on time

The question, of course, is whether or not this disaster is being deliberately caused in order to help Trump undermine or rig the election. Slowed-down mail delivery could mean untold numbers of ballots, possibly in the millions, being rejected for arriving too late. A Washington Post report shows that already, half a million primary ballots have been tossed out for that reason, and that’s in elections that only see a fraction of the number of voters expected in November. 

DeJoy spent the hearing alternately claiming that his drastic changes to postal delivery that led to these delays were done in the name of “efficiency” and not to help Trump steal the election, and foisting as much blame as possible on unnamed underlings. He also feigned outrage every time a Democrat asked him about his obvious desire to make sure Trump is re-elected.

But there’s no reason to have much confidence in DeJoy’s honesty, and not just because of the company he keeps as a man firmly embedded in Trump’s political circles. And not even because of his belligerent, snarling attitude throughout the hearing, radiating the contempt for congressional oversight and the public good common to all Trump cronies. 

On Friday, during a Senate hearing hastily arranged by the Republicans who control that body, in order to get a Trump-positive message out before the House got a crack at him, DeJoy claimed that he had “never eliminated overtime” at the post office and that overtime has “not been curtailed by me or the leadership team.”

But as documents provided to Salon on Friday show, that simply wasn’t true. USPS employees received an internal memo declaring that the “new PMG” — that would be DeJoy — had instructed regional managers to eliminate paid overtime throughout the agency. This comports with reporting in the Washington Post a few weeks ago

During Friday’s Senate hearing, a number of Republicans harped on the fact that DeJoy hasn’t been in his position long, implying that he can’t be responsible for the service delays because of his short tenure. In fact, the timeline tells the opposite story, as Maloney demonstrated with her chart: Delays started shortly after DeJoy started implementing his drastic “reforms,” such as disconnecting mail-sorting machines, eliminating overtime, and putting drivers under onerous timelines that have led to trucks going out without being fully loaded with mail. 

More to the point, DeJoy was hired right around the time that Trump started ramping up his attacks on mail-in voting. Trump started declaring that mail-in voting led to “FRAUD” and resisting efforts to make mail-in voting easier shortly after the pandemic reached the U.S. and numerous states began to move toward voting by mail in order to protect public health. Trump’s campaign has since waged an all-out legal war, suing state after state in hopes of making it harder for people to receive, fill out and deliver mail-in ballots in a reasonable timeframe. During April and May, while Trump was tweeting and ranting to reporters about the evils of mail-in voting, Treasury Secretary Steve Mnuchin was pushing for DeJoy’s appointment.

There is not a lot of wiggle room here: Trump and his Treasury secretary worked to install a Trump toady as postmaster general at literally the same time that Trump was waging a larger war against mail-in voting. And as soon as that toady assumed his post, he took measures whose immediate effect was to slow down the mail, putting the ability of people to vote in a timely fashion in grave jeopardy. And while DeJoy had made a big deal out of announcing that he would halt the changes until after Election Day, the reality — as he confirmed during the hearing, is that he has no intention of undoing the changes he’s already made, meaning that it’s mail delivery will stay sluggish right through the election. 

DeJoy’s repeated efforts to act offended at the implication that he has unsavory motives here are especially ridiculous. Consider that the Trump campaign blatantly colluded with a Russian conspiracy to interfere in the 2016 election, and has already made a number of efforts to cheat in 2020 as well. Some of those efforts are legal, such as the lawsuits aimed at making it harder for people to vote by mail, but those have been largely unsuccessful. At least one of those attempted cheats was likely a crime: Trump’s effort to blackmail the Ukrainian president into publicly smearing Joe Biden. As you may recall, Trump was impeached for that one and only got away with it because Senate Republicans covered for him, as they’re also doing now. 

Oh yeah, and Trump has also confessed on live TV that he views post office slowdowns as a way to prevent mail-in voting, which he has also said will hurt him and Republicans in general. 

DeJoy supported Trump throughout previous cheating efforts, so it’s stupid to play this game of claiming that any suggestion of a sinister plot is preposterous, and that DeJoy is clearly a person of conscience who respects free and fair elections. 

The only real question now is what can be done. DeJoy’s scowling performance on Monday did little to dissuade fears that he’s deliberately undermining the post office, either partially or entirely for the purpose of helping Trump steal the election. It also suggested he has no intention of changing course, since he has refused to let postal workers reinstall the 671 mail-sorting machines that have been disabled since he took office. And there’s no chance that the bill to inject $25 billion back into the Postal Service, which was passed by House Democrats over the weekend, will become law. 

But this hearing, with DeJoy playing the role of the glowering villain, could help Democrats reinforce the message that they were pushing during their last week: Vote as early as you can and, if possible, personally deliver your ballot to a drop box or election office instead of entrusting it to the post office. If word gets out widely enough, Democrats may be able to keep Trump from stealing this election by slowing down the mail. But counting on the postmaster general to do the right thing is clearly off the table. 

Hannity infuriated colleagues by pre-recording his Fox News show the night Trump was impeached: book

Sean Hannity infuriated his Fox News colleagues by pre-recording his prime-time television show on the night President Donald Trump was impeached.

The House of Representatives held its final vote Dec. 18 on two articles of impeachment against the president, but Hannity had another obligation that night and recorded his popular program hours earlier, reported CNN’s Brian Stelter in his new book, “Hoax: Donald Trump, Fox News, and the Dangerous Distortion of Truth.”

Hannity didn’t feel like missing his other obligation to tape his show live at 9 p.m., about an hour after the historic vote was taking place, and producers were tasked with making sure viewers didn’t know he’d phoned it in — even if his colleagues noticed.

“When people in the news division found out Sean taped his show, they flipped,” a DC source told Stelter.

Anchor Bret Baier, in particular, was angry that Hannity pre-recorded his show on one of the biggest political nights of the year instead of letting the news anchors cover the historic event live.

Apparently no one at Fox News urged Hannity to skip his canned commentary and hand over the hour to the news division, either.

“There’s no one in the building,” one Fox News executive told Stelter, “except maybe Rupert [Murdoch], who can tell Sean to knock it off.”

 

“Havana is . . . the fantasy of Americans”: Filmmaker on capturing the “utopia” of Cuba in new doc

“Epicentro,” director Hubert Sauper’s (“We Come as Friends“) fascinating, observational documentary about Cuba, opens with a man smoking a cigar the country is famous for. Yet the filmmaker, who was Oscar-nominated for “Darwin’s Nightmare,” is more interested in diving deeper into how people on this island country live. Sauper’s film, which won a World Cinema Grand Jury Prize for Documentary at this year’s Sundance Film Festival, and is available through Kino Marquee starting August 28, guides viewers to see the “real” Cuba. 

He follows Leonelis Arango Salas, a young girl he deems a “young prophet,” who wants to be an actress. He encounters Cuban musicians singing “Guantanamera” on the streets of Havana. He observes people drinking rum in bars (and gets drunk himself). He greets a woman named Clarita in her home and observes dance classes. “Epicentro” even visits an abandoned sugar factory that used to supply Coca-Cola

In addition, Sauper’s film offers thoughts about tourism, (including sex tourism), but it also travels back in time, to the sinking of the USS Maine in 1898, to explore American hegemony and imperialism, as well as ideas of utopia, freedom, and slavery. Of course, there is a discussion of Castro.

In “Epicentro” Sauper uses the “hypnotic prism” that is cinema to comment on all these socio-political themes. He films Cuban kids laughing at “The Great Dictator” among other Chaplin films, and has Oona Castilla Chaplin, Charlie’s granddaughter, performing songs and enacting a dramatic scene with Leonelis. 

What emerges is a vibrant portrait of a people and a nation that is trying to maintain its own identity without foreign interference. Sauper chatted with Salon about Cuba, the U.S. and his new film, “Epicentro.”

What prompted your fascination with Cuba and the creation of this documentary? 

Cuba is fascinating to most people on the planet. For centuries it has been the friction line between the new world and the old world, and the epicenter of the Spanish imperial entity. Havana was the first cosmopolitan, globalized city because people from all continents met there. It was the epicenter of slave trade, the Cold War, and Communist and Capitalist thinking structures. 

Had you been to Cuba before? Did you know what to expect to encounter? 

I was there 20-25 years ago. Cuba is a part of America and Europe, and culturally, there are things I knew from Africa that I found again in Cuba. I felt at home quickly there. Havana is, in a way, America at its best — it’s the fantasy of Americans. That’s why it’s so interesting — the cars, and this look into the past. For Europeans, too. Something I didn’t treat in the film was that Cuba, to me, is a window into the future because it’s a possible scenario of what happens when global structures and industries break down, like sugar. Life continues in a very different form in a post-industrial society.

How did you determine that you would follow subjects such as Leonelis or Clarita? Why did they make the best participants?

It’s hard to say. Why did I choose Mozart to open the film? The decisions are not conceptual. The ideas are, but the actual choice of characters is by encounter. How do I interact with people and what do I see in them in terms of archetypes and figures for a movie? Clarita is one of the millions of women in Cuba who are struggling. She has a kid and don’t know how to make a living. Some of these [women] are pushed into real poverty and prostitution. Clarita is one of the versions that the kids could become. The tension, I hope you have as a viewer, is that you live with the kids and try to figure out what is going to happen to them. Will they live in the street and give a massage to a German tourist, or study or live abroad? That tension is interesting to me.  

“Epicentro” examines the power of cinema to make impressions on people — the manipulation of cinema. Can you talk about the way your documentary both creates reality but also influences it? 

Yes, “Epicentro” is a movie. I, Hubert, am a part of the reality I’m describing. I’m obviously manipulating reality and try to enact something. But I’m also overwhelmed by what’s happening around me. I’m constantly playing with the question: What is reality, or fake, or true? I reflect on it in a playful and real-time way.

If I’m applying the same methods to the things I’m criticizing, I am playing with an open hand of cards. In the film, there is a scene of the kids in school watching a man talk over a silent movie being shown. That was a real school and real children reacting to what they saw. But they are bluffed by the real look of fake images. Any visually literate person understands that, and I’m playing with it. I’m not pretending to say that I walked into school and someone was talking about cinema from the 1890s. It’s staged, but it doesn’t take away from the reality of what is happening or being shown. What I’m documenting is what I see — the Cuba I see. But I am there with my own questions and my own confusion and the paradox of me being in that situation and understanding that history. 

You feature Oona Chaplin and show several Chaplin films to the Cuban children. Why did you include her in your documentary? 

It was a strange situation. I shot the scene where the kids are trying to get my phone and make a film on the rooftop of a house. They knew how to work fast forward and slow motion — which I didn’t know myself, by the way — on my phone. They made these films in front of me. And suddenly Chaplin appeared. It was ghost-like in a way. I called Oona, she’s a friend, and told her to come, and she fell in love with the kids. We created a scene — Leonelis wants to be an actress, so “Here’s an actress. Do a scene.” Oona has a Cuban background; part of her life was spent in Cuba.

Cuba is defined by symbols such as cigars, sugar, rum, but you focus more on Fidel and what he means to Cubans. Can you discuss that?

Places like Cuba are so overloaded from things that have been overstressed — images and clichés. It’s impossible to make a bad photo in Havana because everything looks amazing! But it is also full of clichés. Fidel died when I started to shoot the film, that’s why it’s in the film. I wasn’t going to treat the Castro aspect. It’s an important part of the Cuban history, but it’s been talked about too much. The man standing on the globe [it’s a floor design] says, “Cuba is a utopia, but I don’t know what utopia means.”

It’s not something I intellectualized. When you open a movie, you strike a contract with the audience. You are now in a cinema and follow a story you may not be used to following. Talking about something abstract gives you a film. You can sink into it, or you can refuse it. Both reactions are [legitimate]. The man with a cigar who opens the film is not a conceptual idea. It’s an idea to create a mood. He had a cigar because many people have cigars. The association you have is the right one. I don’t want to lead you to something specific. I want you to feel the rhythm and the story starting.

There’s a terrific scene of Leonelis and her friends admiring an expensive pen that costs more than $2,300 U.S. dollars. They talk about their families earning 4 pesos a day and work out how long it would take to buy that pen. What observations do you have about the inequality in a country that is modeled on a utopian premise where everyone is supposed to have what they need?

I think that’s what I wanted to produce. Utopia as a concept is unique, but we have to be aware of it. Utopian often turns into dystopian. What is strange is that when I studied Thomas More’s book “Utopia,” and I looked at the charter from the Cuban revolution, it basically quotes More’s book. The headlines of the revolution were pulled from “Utopia,” which was written 500 years earlier! 

I loved the thoughts in the film about tourism, and how it is “superficial.” There are scenes of a couple participating in sex tourism, and even a photographer trading a pen for a photograph of a young boy, perhaps exploiting his subject. Can you discuss these themes?

Tourism is a form of invasion, and all of us are tourists. We are the wave. I thought that the imagery of a soldier armed with guns plowing into a town is similar to tourists armed with cameras — a similar kind of invasion. The sheer image of the guy from New York giving away pen. He’s armed literally like a guy in Baghdad. Mass tourism was invented by a God-fearing half-crazy Thomas Cook, which is the name of a travel agency now in the UK. He Invented mass tourism and got rich people from Britain to discover the Nile in big boats.

There is considerable anti-Trump sentiment from the Cuban people. What do you want viewers to understand about American hegemony after seeing “Epicentro”?

I’m not American, but I grew up with Americans, and I know it is not much different than Europe; Europeans went to America to kill Apaches. It’s complex. There’s a dialectic in my films of haves and have-nots, North and South. In America and Europe, we have microphones and cameras, and we talk, so when you go to Sudan or Cuba, we can learn more about ourselves if we are listening carefully. It’s not about the others, it’s about what we are doing there. The hegemony is a fact, and the intervention is painful — Baghdad, Vietnam — the prototype was the Spanish-American war. That was the Beta version of a whole century of interventionism. It created a narrative of liberating Cuba.

“Epicentro” is available in virtual cinemas beginning Friday, Aug. 28.

“They saw a cop shoot their father”: Video shows Wis. police shoot Black dad in back multiple times

Two police officers in Wisconsin were placed on administrative leave after video showed a Black father being shot multiple times in the back at close range as he tried to enter a vehicle.

Protests broke out in Kenosha, Wis., a witness recorded the moment police officers followed a man identified by officials as 29-year-old Jacob Blake to a SUV after responding to a domestic incident. Neighbors said Blake was trying to break up a fight between two women, according to the Kenosha News.

One of the officers can be seen on the video grabbing Blake by the shirt as he tries to access the vehicle. Seven shots can be heard on the recording, though it remains unclear how many officers fired their weapons. Witnesses told the Kenosha News that officers used a Taser on Blake prior to the shooting.

Blake remains in serious condition after being airlifted to a Milwaukee hospital about 40 miles away, according to the Milwaukee Journal Sentinel.

Ben Crump, an attorney for Blake’s family, tweeted that Blake’s three sons were in the car when he was shot.

“They saw a cop shoot their father,” he wrote. “They will be traumatized forever. We cannot let officers violate their duty to PROTECT us. Our kids deserve better!!”

“That don’t make no sense to treat somebody like that, who is not armed, with the kids in the back screaming,” Blake’s fiance, Laquisha Booke, told WLS-TV.

The Wisconsin Department of Justice on Monday announced that the officers involved in the incident were placed on administrative leave. The Division of Criminal Investigation (DCI) said it would provide prosecutors with a report on the shooting within 30 days.

“DCI is continuing to review evidence and determine the facts of this incident and will turn over investigative reports to a prosecutor following a complete and thorough investigation,” the department said in a news release.

White House chief of staff Mark Meadows told reporters that Attorney General William Barr would be briefed on the shooting.

“The video tells a story that’s troubling, and yet at the same time, we’ll get a full briefing within the next couple of hours,” he said.

Wisconsin Gov. Tony Evers, a Democrat, condemned the shooting.

“Tonight, Jacob Blake was shot in the back multiple times in broad daylight,” he said. “While we do not have all of the details yet, what we know for certain is that he is not the first Black man or person to have been shot or injured or mercilessly killed at the hands of individuals in law enforcement in our state or our country.”

Dozens of residents gathered at the scene after the shooting, and dozens of squad cars converged on the neighborhood, according to the Kenosha News.

Protesters gathered outside of the Kenosha County Public Safety Building on Sunday night, chanting “no justice, no peace,” according to USA Today. The sheriff’s department announced that the Kenosha County had declared an emergency curfew to demand demonstrators disperse.

Authorities later deployed tear gas canisters after cars and dump trucks were set on fire, USA Today reported. 

“At this point in time I’m just trying to keep my neighborhood safe,” Anthony Kennedy, an alderman for the district, told The New York Times. “I understand why people are hurt. Why they are frustrated, but justice can’t be street justice. The process has to work out.”

Bernice King, the daughter of Martin Luther King Jr., appeared to refer to the shooting in a Sunday tweet.

“We shouldn’t have to see one more video of a Black human being brutalized and/or gunned down by police in a clear case of excessive or unwarranted force,” she wrote. “Anybody who doesn’t believe we are beyond a state of emergency is choosing to lack empathy and awareness.”

Conways take hiatus from politics as daughter reveals plan to seek emancipation over alleged “abuse”

White House counselor Kellyanne Conway on Sunday announced that she will leave 1600 Pennsylvania Ave. to focus on her family after her daughter said in multiple social media posts that she was seeking emancipation from her parents over alleged “trauma and abuse.”

Conway, one of President Donald Trump’s longest-serving aides who managed the tail-end of his 2016 campaign before coining the term “alternative facts” in her many TV appearances defending her boss, said in a statement that she would be “gratefully” and “humbly” leaving the White House at the end of the month. 

Her husband, attorney George Conway, also announced that he will withdraw from his role at The Lincoln Project, a big money group of conservative Trump critics, to “devote more time to family matters.”

“We disagree about plenty, but we are united on what matters most: the kids,” Kellyanne Conway said of her husband in her statement. “Our four children are teens and ‘tweens starting a new academic year, in middle school and high school, remotely from home for at least a few months. As millions of parents nationwide know, kids ‘doing school from home’ requires a level of attention and vigilance that is as unusual as this time.”

Conway, who is scheduled to speak at the Republican National Convention this week, said it was “completely” her choice to exit the White House. 

“For now, and for my beloved children, it will be less drama, more mama,” she wrote.

With George Conway increasingly vocal in his criticism of Trump, the Conways engaged in a media circus for years. Kellyanne Conway hit back at her husband as she loyally defended the president on issues like the administration’s family separation policy. Meanwhile, the couple’s 15-year-old daughter, Claudia Conway, has grown a social media following of her own, frequently posting TikTok videos and tweets criticizing the president and her parents.

The Conways’ decision this weekend came after Claudia Conway said she was “devastated” that her mom planned to speak at the GOP convention and “officially pushing for emancipation” from her family.

While her mother’s job allegedly “ruined” her life, Claudia Conway said she was not “getting emancipated” because of it. 

“It is because of years of childhood trauma and abuse,” she claimed.

Claudia Conway on Sunday night celebrated her mother’s resignation.

“Look what I did! Look at what I did, ladies and gentlemen,” she said in a TikTok video.

In another video showing her father’s tweet, she wrote, “the power that i hold. i – they think this is gonna stop me from getting emancipated?”

In a since-deleted TikTok video, the teen alleged that her dad “physically abused me a lot,” while her mom “is very physically abusive.”

The Conways have long been the subject of media fascination ever since George Conway, who interviewed for a top job at the Department of Justice early in Trump’s presidency, became a leading critic of his wife’s boss.

Trump recently called the Lincoln Project as a band of “LOSERS.”

“I don’t know what Kellyanne did to her deranged loser of a husband, Moonface, but it must have been really bad,” he tweeted in May.

Kellyanne Conway told The Washington Post in 2018 that she found her husband’s criticism “disrespectful.”

“It’s a violation of basic decency, certainly, if not marital vows,” she told the outlet, before trying to take the comment off the record.

Kellyanne Conway anticipated playing a “significant role” in Trump’s campaign, according to The Washington Post. Last week, senior advisers reportedly last urged her to stay on after a leave of absence, but she decided to step away.

Conway was accused of violating the Hatch Act, which prohibits federal employees from engaging in political activity, dozens of times. In 2018, the Office of Special Counsel said Conway had violated the federal law on two occasions, but the White House dismissed the findings.

Conway, a longtime Republican pollster, led a PAC that backed Sen. Ted Cruz, R-Texas, in the 2016 Republican primaries before joining Trump’s campaign.

As a Cruz supporter, Conway frequently criticized Trump for not releasing his tax returns and highlighting the “victims of Trump University” and “victims of Trump in Atlantic City.”

“He says he’s for the little guy,” she said in one 2016 interview, “but he’s actually built a lot of his businesses on the backs of the little guy.”

Get ready for TrumpFest, America — there’s no Republican Party anymore

Fox Business host Lou Dobbs must be feeling a little bit snubbed by his good friend President Trump. After all, according to the former chief of staff at Homeland Security, Miles Taylor, Dobbs has been “shadow chief of staff” of DHS for the past three and a half years, so you’d think he’d be invited to speak at the Republican convention. Taylor put it this way:

The president would call us and … he would say, “Why the hell didn’t you watch Lou Dobbs last night? You need to listen to Lou. What Lou says is what I want to do.”

So if Lou Dobbs peddled a conspiracy theory on late-night television or made an erroneous claim about what should be done … at the border … the president wanted us to be tuning in every night.

He’s not the only Fox News personality who has reason to feel hurt. According to CNN’s Brian Stelter’s new book “Hoax: Donald Trump, Fox News, and the Dangerous Distortion of Truth,” the person most people in the White House believe is the White House shadow chief of staff is Fox prime-time host Sean Hannity. Salon’s Roger Sollenberger quotes from Stelter’s book:

“Hannity counseled Trump at all hours of the day. One of his confidants said the president treated Hannity like Melania, a wife in a sexless marriage. Arguably, he treated Hannity better than Melania,” it continues. “Hannity’s producers marveled at his influence and access. ‘It’s a powerful thing to be someone’s consigliere,’ one producer said. ‘I hear Trump talk at rallies, and I hear Sean,’ a family friend commented.”

The theme of this week’s Republican National Convention will be “Honoring the Great American Story” which, since every member of Trump’s immediate family except Barron will speak, must refer to the great American tradition of inheriting great wealth for each successive, spoiled and inept generation to squander. (Unsurprisingly, Trump’s sister, former federal judge Maryanne Trump Barry, won’t be in attendance after tapes of her calling him a lying, cruel, unprincipled, untrustworthy, brat were given to the media by his niece Mary.)

With all that family in attendance, you’d think they could have made a little room for Trump’s consigliere and wife-in-a-sexless-marriage. But no.Trump’s most important advisers will be relegated to cheerleading on Fox after the show.

Not having your media brain trust speak is the only convention norm Trump is observing. The most egregious break from tradition — and possibly the rule of law — is that he will give his convention speech at the White House itself. Apparently, Melania Trump will also speak from there, and who knows who else? Back in the old days, before 2017, no one would have thought of staging the most blatantly partisan of all partisan speeches in the White House. It’s a grotesque violation of the notion that the presidency represents all the people. But then, under Trump, that ship sailed a long time ago.

He’s having Secretary of State Mike Pompeo address the convention from the Middle East, something that until now was considered much too political for America’s top diplomat. But perhaps he’s going to make a big “announcement” along the lines of Trump’s supposedly “historic” declaration on Sunday evening that he had strong-armed the Food and Drug Administration into granting emergency authorization to another unproven COVID treatment. After calling scientists members of the “Deep State” who were trying to sabotage him, it was quite a bootlicking spectacle, with FDA Commissioner Stephen Hahn and Health and Human Services Secretary Alex Azar further shredding their professional reputations as they stood by while Trump insulted their agencies as partisan enemies.

Other than Pompeo and all the Trumps, the lineup is what you would expect of a Trump convention. They have scheduled Rep. Matt Gaetz of Florida and Rep. Jim Jordan of Ohio, Donald Trump Jr.’s girlfriend, a couple of former NFL players, the couple who pulled guns on Black Lives Matter protesters in St. Louis, and Rudy Giuliani, along with Vice President Pence and his wife, former UN ambassador Nikki Haley, Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell and House Minority Leader Kevin McCarthy.

White House senior adviser Kellyanne Conway was slated to speak — but she abruptly announced her departure from the White House on Sunday night, allegedly to spend more time with her family, so it’s unknown if she will still be on the program. And it appears that the only endangered GOP senator to risk associating herself with this thing will be Joni Ernst of Iowa.

In case you were wondering if Republicans would even pretend to be a real political party, wonder no more. They are now a full-fledged cult of personality. The platform is no more:

The official story is that the party couldn’t write a new platform because the pandemic prevents all points of view of the “ever-growing Republican movement” from being represented. So they just decided to whine about the media and pledge their fealty to Dear Leader Trump and his “America First agenda.” This raises an important question: What is that, anyway?

Trump has been asked over and over again what he wants to do in a second term and he can’t answer the question. On Sunday night he appeared on Fox News personally, and when asked what he would do differently in a second term said, “I would strengthen what we’ve done and I would do new things.” That was actually more informative than usual.

Perhaps realizing that the platform had been punted to the president, at some point on Sunday the White House sent out a wish list of things Trump wants to do in his second term, ranging from a manned mission to Mars to “Return to Normal in 2021.”

According to this article in Politico, this convention is being launched on a wing and prayer, with people having little idea where they’re supposed to be or what they’re going to say. That doesn’t mean they can’t pull it off, but Trump made it harder on the planners by canceling two venues and then reportedly changing up the programming every nigh as he watched what the Democrats were doing. According to the New York Times, he called in a couple of obscure TV guys he knew from “The Apprentice,” but neither of them has experience with a complex live show from many different remote locations. Reality TV isn’t live, and isn’t even reality. So they have their work cut out for them.

The GOP company line over the past couple of days has been that the Democrats put on a grim and dark convention and the TrumpFest will be upbeat and inspirational by contrast, which would obviously mean that Donald Trump himself will not be participating. But is he ever.

Traditionally, the nominee just pops his or her head in once or twice during the first few days and then appears for the finale to make the big speech. Trump is having none of that. He will apparently take the 10 p.m. slot every night to speak to the country because, as the Times reported, “the president wants the opportunity to rebut charges made against him throughout the Democratic program … particularly on his handling of the coronavirus crisis.”

That does sound uplifting, doesn’t it? Feel the magic, America. 

“We’re being treated as guinea pigs”: Faculty members fear in-person return to universities

The July memo was blunt. Students at Sam Houston State University had been promised “direct contact” with faculty, and even in the grip of the coronavirus pandemic, the Huntsville school needed to deliver, Provost Richard Eglsaer told the faculty.

“Since students pay tuition to have in-person instruction, they are free to opt out of it by choosing the remote option,” Eglsaer wrote. “However, as faculty we are paid to teach in person and therefore the option of entirely remote instruction is not open to us.”

When fall classes resumed on campus, Eglsaer wrote, social distancing would not always be possible, and underlying health risks would not qualify faculty to teach only remote classes.

Students returned to campus this week, and the school will try to remain flexible, accommodating individuals with health risks or high-risk family members, university President Alisa White told faculty in a statement Friday. But she said she wasn’t comfortable starting the fall semester without in-person instruction, as faculty had requested. As it reopens, the university is reporting 99 COVID-19 cases among students, faculty and staff.

Like Sam Houston State, most Texas universities are plunging forward with varying degrees of in-person teaching this semester, eager to preserve some semblance of a normal academic year.

They’re asking reluctant instructors to cooperate, but some faculty members call the pressure to return to face-to-face instruction a callous decision that prioritizes money and the college experience over the safety of the university community.

“People are pretty upset and feeling like they’re being forced into a situation that’s really unsafe,” said Jay Ganz, a special education professor at Texas A&M University’s College Station flagship. “We’re being treated as guinea pigs.”

Ganz, who has tenure and was able to request remote work through the Americans With Disabilities Act, said faculty members received several emails from the Texas A&M administration in the early days of the pandemic pressuring them to return to campus for in-person instruction.

“There were a lot of emails saying we needed to sacrifice and volunteer to teach face-to-face and that the risk had to be shared,” Ganz said. “The university seems to be really focused on … pushing faculty to teach face-to-face to the limits of their liability.”

In an interview, Provost Carol Fierke said Texas A&M prioritized granting remote-only requests from individuals in the highest risk-categories designated by the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. If faculty members didn’t fit in those categories and still wanted to teach remotely, they were asked to have conversations with their department heads about specific accommodations.

“In order to do what was fair and transparent, we had to pick some medical guidelines, and that was what we chose,” Fierke said. “Our goals are twofold: to give students the best possible experience as safely as possible.”

Texas A&M will have around 1,800 faculty members teaching courses with an in-person component and 1,300 teaching online-only classes, Fierke said. Around 45% of the school’s credit hours this semester will offered in person.

Faculty members at some of the A&M System’s 10 other campuses have expressed fears in an open letter to the A&M System that asks for the flexibility to move to online-only classes. The letter has garnered over 900 signatures, many from faculty members at the system’s San Antonio and Corpus Christi campuses, who say their communities cannot risk any surges in COVID-19 cases linked to campus returns.

They point to system officials including Chancellor John Sharp as the source of the pressure to reopen. Sharp has long maintained that the campus experience is invaluable and has championed normal campus activity.

“You can get a degree online, but it’s very hard to become an Aggie online,” Sharp said during a board of regents meeting earlier this summer.

In a statement responding to the petition, Sharp and Elaine Mendoza, chair of the A&M System board of regents, stressed the measures the system has taken to ensure a safe return, including monthly distribution of 15,000 COVID-19 tests across all institutions.

“The Texas A&M System leadership and our university presidents have worked for months on reopening plans that emphasize the safety of our students, faculty and staff, while also recognizing the educational benefits of in-person instruction when feasible,” the statement reads. “It is inevitable that people will differ on how best to respond to this pandemic. We recognized that by providing online and remote choices while also responding to those students and faculty members who value the classroom experience.”

The University of Texas at Austin, meanwhile, is anticipating that students in nearly 75% of class seats and over 60% of faculty members — or 1,859 instructors — will be learning and teaching online only this fall. The school provides accommodations based on CDC guidelines and is working with faculty seeking course delivery changes, spokesperson J.B. Bird said in an email.

“If an instructor can demonstrate to their supervisor that their class can be taught online, then accommodations would be made and necessary resources provided to adjust the coursework delivery to remote instruction,” Bird said.

Nationally, most universities are allowing faculty to request accommodations under federal disability laws if they are at high risk, said Robert Kelchen, a higher education professor at Seton Hall University in New Jersey who has been tracking university responses to COVID-19. To a lesser extent, colleges are allowing faculty with high-risk family members to do the same.

But allowing faculty members to work from home because of individual safety concerns does not seem to be the norm, Kelchen said.

“Administrators are in a tough spot,” Kelchen said. “There are enough students who want to be in person that if they don’t offer it, they may lose those students and revenue. But if you don’t work with your faculty to find solutions, you’ve alienated your faculty. And that may take a generation to heal.”

At Texas A&M-Corpus Christi, sociology professor Isabel Araiza will be teaching more than 35 students in the same room beginning Thursday, her first of two in-person classes this semester.

Araiza lives down the street from her mother, who has cancer and has spent the pandemic indoors. Araiza had been keeping herself indoors too — until she learned that her university’s reopening plan relied heavily on in-person instruction and she would need to return.

“I am incredibly anxious, to be honest,” Araiza said. “Logistically, I don’t think the university has thought through everything. And it seems problematic — they’re catering to a very small, privileged group that are thinking about the college experience as opposed to learning in the midst of a pandemic.”

In an email, Provost Clarenda Phillips said that safety measures had been put in place and that faculty members with health risks wanting to change course delivery were able to go through “official university procedure.” The school will have 296 instructors teaching some portion of their courses in person, representing 66% of faculty.

At Texas A&M-Corpus Christi, the problem is compounded by the devastating effects of the virus, which has ravaged the surrounding region. Corpus Christi and four other predominantly Hispanic communities in South Texas — Brownsville-Harlingen, Eagle Pass, Rio Grande City and Laredo — have the highest rates of new coronavirus cases per capita in the country, according to an analysis by The New York Times.

“It feels like passive genocide. You know that you’re going to kill people, make people sick, affect their life chances, cause emotional strain and financial ruin to families in Corpus,” Araiza said. “You know that, but you’re still going to do it because of this ‘college experience.'”

Earlier this summer, Texas State University’s faculty senate released survey results that expressed “serious concerns” about the San Marcos school’s plan to return to campus in late August.

Over 700 faculty members responded to the survey, with 91% indicating they were concerned about adherence to guidelines for wearing masks and social distancing, and 88% saying they are concerned about the risk of contracting COVID-19 while working on campus.

The university has long pushed for an in-person return. In July, administrators scheduled in-person summer classes, later backtracking and curtailing class capacity as COVID-19 conditions in surrounding Hays County worsened.

Now, the Texas State faculty is asking the university to afford greater flexibility in switching to online classes before school begins Aug. 24. In an email, a university spokesperson said administrators have reevaluated several requests that were previously denied and granted more faculty members the online-only option. There will be around 1,200 faculty members teaching courses with an in-person component.

At some universities, public pressure drove the administration to relax policies around working from home.

At the start of the summer, Texas Christian University had a strict standard for remote teaching: Faculty and staff had to file requests under ADA guidelines, then wait for approval.

When Jason Helms, an English professor at TCU, put in a request to teach online because of his young daughter’s heart condition, he was denied because it was a family member who was immunocompromised, not him. His tweet about the situation later went viral and garnered sympathy as well as media attention.

In an email, a TCU spokesperson said all instructors were later able to request online courses, a reversal of previous policy that allowed Helms to stay home this semester.

“This was because of public pressure. That’s what really pushed it,” Helms said.

Disclosure: Sam Houston State University, Texas A&M University, the Texas A&M University System, Texas Christian University, Texas State University, the University of Texas at Austin and The New York Times have been financial supporters of The Texas Tribune, a nonprofit, nonpartisan news organization that is funded in part by donations from members, foundations and corporate sponsors. Financial supporters play no role in the Tribune’s journalism. Find a complete list of them here.

This article originally appeared in The Texas Tribune at https://www.texastribune.org/2020/08/19/texas-universities-coronavirus-pandemic/.

 

Robert Reich on how billionaires are profiteering off the pandemic

Since the start of the pandemic, American billionaires have been cleaning up. As more than 50 million Americans filed for unemployment insurance, billionaires became $637 billion richer. Facebook’s Mark Zuckerberg’s wealth has ballooned 59 percent. Amazon’s Jeff Bezos’s, 39 percent. Walmart’s Walton family has added $25 billion.

Big drug company CEOs and their major investors are doing nicely, too.  Since the start of the pandemic, Big Pharma has raised prices on over 250 prescription drugs, 61 of which are being used to treat Covid-19.  

Apologists say this is the “free market” responding to supply and demand — the barons of Big Tech, online retailing, and Big Pharma merely providing what consumers desperately need during the pandemic.   

But the market also operates under laws that ban profiteering, price gouging, and monopolizing, and that tax excess profits in wartime. Where did they go? 

The Trump administration hasn’t enforced them.

Trump is also ignoring laws that ban trades on insider information. The White House is distributing billions in subsidies and loans to select corporations — enabling CEOs and boards to load up on stocks and stock options just before deals are announced, then rake in fat profits after stock prices surge. 

Insiders from at least 11 companies have sold shares worth over $1 billion after such announcements, according to an analysis by the New York Times. 

In late June, a San Francisco company called Vaxart announced that the Trump administration had selected it to develop a coronavirus vaccine. Presto. The value of stock options distributed to company insiders just weeks before increased six-fold. Stock options held by Vaxart’s CEO went from $4.3 million to more than $28 million.

Moderna, based in Cambridge, Mass., has never brought a vaccine to market, but company insiders have sold some $248 million of shares — most of them after the company was selected in April to receive Trump funding. (Moderna plans to sell its vaccine for profit although taxpayers have footed its research and development.)

The most blatant involves the venerable old camera and film maker, Kodak. On July 28, Trump announced a $765 million deal with the firm to bring drug production back to the United States. He called it “one of the most important deals in the history of the U.S. pharmaceutical industries,” even though Kodak isn’t even a pharmaceutical company. 

Before the announcement, Kodak had handed its board of directors 240,000 stock options, and just the day before had given its CEO 1.75 million stock options. After Trump’s announcement, Kodak shares shot up more than 2,757 percent. Suddenly, the board’s stock options were worth about $4 million, and the CEO’s, about $50 million

Is this sort of insider trading against the law? You bet. The Securities and Exchange Commission is looking into the deal, now temporarily on hold. 

But the SEC’s co-director of enforcement, Steven Peikin, who had been investigating several of the deals involving the White House and corporate insiders — including Kodak — has resigned, without explanation. Another in the lengthening list of independent regulators and inspectors general forced out by Trump? 

This much is clear: Trump and his Republican enablers won’t provide $600 per week to tens of millions of Americans who need the money to survive the pandemic, because Trump and the GOP believe the money undermines incentives to work. 

Yet Trump has no problem letting billionaires illegally profit off the pandemic. He thinks that as long as they buoy the stock market, they’re helping the American economy. 

That’s pure rubbish. The stock market is not America. The richest 1 percent of Americans own half the value of all shares of stock held by American households. The richest 10 percent owns 92 percent. For years now, stock prices have risen largely because profits have been siphoned from the wages of ordinary workers. 

In the worst economic crisis since the Great Depression, stock prices are almost back to where they were before the pandemic began. Big corporations and major investors are doing fine. Billionaires are doing better than ever. But most Americans are sinking fast. 

This isn’t just unfair. Much of it is illegal.

Why they hate her: Kamala Harris, Black bodies and the white right

The 2020 Republican National Convention, which opens on Monday night, will be an effort to counteract the effects of the just-concluded Democratic Party convention. This year’s GOP gathering has already been described as a“circus of hate” and a parade of “ghoulish clowns.”

Donald Trump has not tried to broaden his base of support or that of the Republican Party in any way. That party remains the world’s largest white identity organization. To that end, Trump’s 2020 re-election campaign is a celebration of white supremacy, white victimology and  American apartheid.

As branding and marketing expert Donny Deutsch explained in a recent interview on MSNBC, Donald Trump’s appeal to his voters and his 2020 election strategy rests upon one statistic:

“One in three Americans are racists,” Deutsch said. “One in three Americans are terrified that this country, by the year 2040, is not going to be majority white. That the black man or brown man or the yellow man or woman are going to come and take their jobs and take away their suburbs and scare them.”

Donald Trump is an authoritarian who can only destroy and not create. His first term in office has led to a ruined economy, more than 176,000 dead from the coronavirus with relief efforts sabotaged, and continuous assaults on democracy, human decency, the Constitution and the rule of law. Trump has transformed the United States from the world’s leader to a pitiable and pathetic pariah nation. Yet of course the Republican convention will be a work of Orwellian theater in which reality is inverted and Trump will be presented as a flawless, godlike and beneficent leader.

As in other authoritarian regimes and failing democracies, Trump’s wife and children will be presented as natural heirs to and extensions of his power and greatness, heirs to intergenerational fascist dynasty.

In many ways this week’s RNC will literally be the meeting of a death cult. A new poll from CBS News and YouGov shows that 57 percent of Republicans believe that the death toll from the coronavirus pandemic has been “acceptable.” USA Today offers this context:

More than 176,000 people in the U.S. have died from COVID-19. According to the poll, a 57% majority of registered Republican voters think that number is “acceptable,” compared with 31% of voters overall. Ninety percent of Democrats and 67% of independents said the death toll was “unacceptable.” …

Among Republicans, the number saying the president has done a good job jumped to 86%, while 92% of Democrats said he has performed badly. Forty-four percent of independents said the president has done a good job with the outbreak and 56% said he hasn’t. 

The Democratic Party’s national convention was a celebration of diversity as strength, presenting a case that multiracial democracy is the country’s future and something to be embraced rather than feared. The Republican convention will be very different, a call to defend the battlements and walls of white privilege, male entitlement and Christian nationalism, as well as an effort to rally Trump’s rage-powered foot soldiers.

There will be mountains of lies. Speakers will attack Black Lives Matter, antifa and other supposed radicals — as well as liberals, “evil” Democrats, and other Americans who dare to disagree with Donald Trump and his regime — as anti-American traitors and de facto “terrorists.” 

Joe Biden’s personal character will be slurred, his record of public service misrepresented, and disproved conspiracy theories about his son Hunter will be flung around as gospel truth.

But Sen. Kamala Harris, now the Democratic vice-presidential nominee, will be the target of some of the ugliest and most vile attacks.

When Donald Trump, the Republicans and the white right more generally, looks at today’s Democratic Party they see an existential threat, a black and brown bogeyman who wants to dominate and control white people. Kamala Harris will be the focal point of their rage and racism.

Donald Trump is recycling his white supremacist “birther” smears and using them against Harris.

Tucker Carlson and other Fox News personalities have repeatedly attacked Harris‘ personhood, while suggesting that she is some type of radical who does not like white people and is in league with forces who want to destroy “the American way of life.” Rush Limbaugh has repeatedly suggested that Kamala Harris is a “hoe” and a human “mattress,” who has used “sex to get ahead.” Sarah Palin has accused Harris of being a political “prostitute.”

Eric Trump, the president’s son, shared a message on Twitter last week that described the California senator as “whorendous.”

This exaggerated malice is an example of what social theorist Colin Crouch describes in his new book “Post-Democracy After the Crises” as “politicized pessimistic nostalgia”:

Mainstream political parties do not have much time for nostalgia, as they are constantly urging us to embrace change and what they see as progress. The new conservative movements fill the space that has been left by this process, embracing a golden view of a past, not necessarily an historical one, and presenting it as being threatened by invaders of a world that the nostalgic believe rightly belongs to them. … In each case liberal attitudes are blamed for allowing the invasion, because liberalism implies the willing acceptance of diversity, and a liberal elite is attacked for fostering these attitudes and imposing them on an unwilling conservative people.

The hostility (if not outright hatred) aimed at Kamala Harris from the far right is a function of racism and hostile sexism.

Racism and sexism are also foundational to authoritarianism and neofascism.  

As historian Federico Finchelstein neatly summarizes in his book “A Brief History of Fascist Lies,” a principal goal of fascism is “to leave reason behind and return to prejudice.”

That desire helps to explain Donald Trump and the Republican Party’s embrace of the white supremacist treasonous Confederacy and its legacy. By doing so, Trump and other Republicans are not “merely” using white supremacy and racial resentment to win over white voters. They are offering those voters a political dream world based upon “racial patriarchy.”

In that dream world, white men rule over women and all nonwhite people. Men rule over women, white people rule over Black and brown people, and White men rule over everyone. Other identities such as ethnicity, class, sexual orientation and religion can also be overlaid on such a system.

Public opinion and other research have repeatedly showed that one of the defining features of conservatism and authoritarianism is the belief that, both consciously and subconsciously, there is a “natural order of things” to which people should adhere.

Moreover, in terms of realpolitik where raw power matters more than civic virtue, Donald Trump and the Republican Party are responding to the demands of their voters: Polling data suggests that nearly 20 percent of Trump supporters disagreed with the freeing of enslaved people. Republicans are also far more likely to possess racist values and beliefs than are Democrats.

Donald Trump won every category of white voters in 2016. He continues to be more popular than Biden among white voters in 2020.

But for all these explanations, on a fundamental level, it is Kamala Harris’ body and personhood as being Black and a woman that is the root cause of the white right’s contempt and rage. This backlash is a function of several things.

Here is the most general explanation: The white gaze views the black body, and especially the black female body, with feelings of disgust and contempt, mixed with desire and envy.

Then there is the specific example of Kamala Harris: The idea of a black woman, a Democrat, as the nation’s vice president, and potentially as president, triggers a rage response from white racists who long for a return to a mythical past of white male domination over, and exploitation of, Black women and girls.

Poet Caroline Randall Williams’ much-discussed New York Times op-ed “My Body is a Monument,” published in June, speaks to this history as lived in the present:

I have rape-colored skin. My light-brown-blackness is a living testament to the rules, the practices, the causes of the Old South.

If there are those who want to remember the legacy of the Confederacy, if they want monuments, well, then, my body is a monument. My skin is a monument. …

I am a black, Southern woman, and of my immediate white male ancestors, all of them were rapists. My very existence is a relic of slavery and Jim Crow. …

Among the apologists for the Southern cause and for its monuments, there are those who dismiss the hardships of the past. They imagine a world of benevolent masters, and speak with misty eyes of gentility and honor and the land. They deny plantation rape, or explain it away, or question the degree of frequency with which it occurred.

To those people it is my privilege to say, I am proof. I am proof that whatever else the South might have been, or might believe itself to be, it was and is a space whose prosperity and sense of romance and nostalgia were built upon the grievous exploitation of black life.

The dream version of the Old South never existed. Any manufactured monument to that time in that place tells half a truth at best. The ideas and ideals it purports to honor are not real. To those who have embraced these delusions: Now is the time to re-examine your position.

Kamala Harris is a black woman in America, a member of the Black Diaspora, and product of the Black Atlantic with all of the attendant complexities of blood, culture, kin, identity and memory which comes with those overlapping identities. Harris carries that history as simultaneously a burden, a source of great strength, a type of armor and fuel for her success.

Such power and dignity are why the white right both fears and hates Kamala Harris. They continue to hate and fear Barack Obama for the same reasons.

*  *  *

Because whiteness and white people are viewed by dominant American society as inherently benign and good, there is a tendency among the country’s news media and political leaders, and too many regular folks as well, to rationalize or make excuses for white racists.

Donald Trump and his supporters must somehow be “understood,” and the grievances of the so-called white working class must be recognized “be responded to” because they face “economic anxiety.” Of course, it is inconvenient for that narrative that Black and brown people, who for decades and centuries have been in worse economic pain than white Americans, have never embraced any version of racial chauvinism or “anti-white” behavior in large numbers.

Despite Trump’s obvious commitment to white supremacy, some people continue to look for the “racist bones” in his body.

Journalists on Twitter still claim to be “shocked” by Trump and his administration’s authoritarian tactics, law-breaking and other evil behavior. These same journalists breathlessly ask, “How can he do this?” or “Why do Republicans keep supporting Donald Trump?” The answers are clear. But asking the questions is more comfortable than confronting ugly truths.

Unfortunately, too many liberals and progressives still want to believe that class somehow can be made to supersede race entirely in American life. They want to believe that if the economic circumstances of Trump’s “deplorables” could be improved, and if the effects of neoliberalism and globalization could be attenuated, then Republican voters would ultimately abandon their investment in white supremacy and male supremacy.

A diverse Democratic Party is America’s future. Kamala Harris and other Black and brown people, especially women, are its torchbearers. But to win that future and keep it, liberals and progressives must take the white male power fantasies, wishes and fears of the white right seriously. Adherents of that worldview consider multiracial democracy to be an existential threat. They will do anything to stop it. They cannot be reasoned with or rehabilitated or convinced otherwise.

Families push for prisoner release as California wildfires engulf state

As wildfires rage in California, advocates are pushing for Gov. Gavin Newsom to evacuate prisons in the line of the fires.

“It’s disaster on top of disaster on top of disaster,” Kirsten Roehler, whose 78-year-old father, Fred Roehler, is imprisoned in Lancaster, California, toldThe Guardian.

The 2020 wildfire season is especially difficult for multiple reasons, including record high temperatures and extreme weather and, of course, Covid-19.

Flames burned through more than 770,000 acres in the Golden State within just one week, the Washington Post reported Friday, leaving five people dead and air quality continually decreasing. Some of the state’s prisons are located in areas under evacuation orders, including the California Medical Facility (CMF) and Solano State Prison, which are outside of Vacaville, California.

“They are breathing in fire and smoke, and they have nowhere to run,” Sophia Murillo, 39, whose brother is incarcerated at CMF in Vacaville told The Guardian. “Everyone has evacuated but they were left there in prison. Are they going to wait until the last minute to get them out?”

Civil rights advocates have called on the governor to release offenders since the Covid-19 outbreak began ravaging prison populations and staff throughout the United States. Newsom and other governors have released thousands of prisoners in light of the pandemic, but with the fires raging closer and closer to physical prison structures, the calls for more action are growing. 

In Vacaville, instead of releasing the nonviolent inmates, officials moved 80 prisoners “to sleep in outdoor tents instead of indoor cells” in a move meant to mitigate the spread of Covid-19 in its facility, The Guardian reported. But the wildfires have damaged air quality, prompting authorities to move the inmates back inside.

“I’m furious at the incompetence and severe inhumanity of this,” Kate Chatfield, policy director with the Justice Collaborative, a group that fights mass incarceration, told The Guardian. “Covid is allowed to rage through the prison system and kill people, and then they have tent hospitals set up … and now with wildfires, they take down the tents and put these people back in the Covid-infected building?”

In lieu of evacuating the Solano State Prison, authorities Thursday issued N95 masks to inmates and staff. Aaron Francis, a spokesman for the California Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation (CDCR), told the Guardian Thursday that officials were monitoring the Vacaville fires but that the two prisons were “not in immediate danger” and had no current orders to evacuate. 

“It shouldn’t come down to [Covid-19], uncontrollable fires, earthquakes, or other major crises for us to start releasing people,” Adbab Khan, founder of Re:Store Justice, a prisoner advocacy organization tweeted Friday. “Mass incarceration is the disaster.”

Kellyanne Conway snaps at reporter who questions White House misinformation

White House adviser Kellyanne Conway on Wednesday snapped at correspondent Brian Karem after he questioned the Trump administration’s attack on mail-in voting.

“Do you think you can be secure with a mail-in ballot?” Karem asked Conway during a Wednesday gaggle outside the White House.

“It depends,” Conway replied. “It can be but it depends.”

“On what?” Karem wondered.

“It depends on whether all the protocols are followed,” Conway asserted.

“If you’re going to make sure they’re being followed then [mail-in voting] should be safe,” Karem noted.

“No, that’s ridiculous on your part,” Conway fired back. “I just gave you examples of states where they had to disqualify ballots.”

Watch the video clip below.

Bannon is the latest Trump ally to “get fitted with a free pair of steel bracelets”: GOP pundit

This week, former Breitbart News Chairman Steve Bannon became the latest ally of President Donald Trump to face criminal charges when federal prosecutors for the Southern District of New York indicted him for allegedly defrauding donors to the “We Build the Wall” project. Bannon and his associates raised over $25 million in a crowdfunding campaign, but Acting U.S. Attorney Audrey Strauss alleges that they didn’t use the money for the construction of a U.S./Mexico border wall like they promised. Never Trump conservative and CNN pundit Amanda Carpenter, in an article published by The Bulwark on August 20, stresses that Bannon’s arrest shouldn’t be viewed as an anomaly, but as a pattern of widespread corruption and criminality in Trumpworld.

“Oh, what a summer it’s been for those salt-of-the-earth, God-fearing, Second Amendment-protecting, border-defending members of President Trump’s circle of trusted advisers,” Carpenter says with biting sarcasm. “You know, the people who are working day and night to protect your rights from the evil, money-sucking swamp monsters of Washington, D.C.? Well, if you believe that, you’re probably the perfect mark for the next grifter campaign led by another one of Trump’s con men.”

Carpenter goes on to say that Bannon, who served as White House communications director in the Trump Administration in 2017, is only the latest Trump ally to “get fitted with a free pair of steel bracelets.” The others, Carpenter notes, have ranged from veteran GOP operative Roger Stone to Paul Manafort (Trump’s 2016 campaign manager) to Rick Gates (his deputy campaign chairman in 2016) to Trump’s former personal attorney Michael Cohen.

“Bannon is going to be spending a lot of time with his lawyers this fall because prosecutors at the Southern District of New York allege he participated in a scheme to bilk people who wanted to privately fund the border wall,” Carpenter explains. “Under the premise of an online crowdfunding group, We Build The Wall, he helped rack up more than $25 million in donations from donors who were told, according to the indictment, that the founders would ‘not take a penny in salary or compensation.'”

Carpenter adds that Bannon’s We Build the Wall colleague Brain Kolfage, the indictment alleges, “used the money for home renovations, a boat, a luxury SUV, a golf cart, jewelry, cosmetic surgery, personal tax payments and credit card debt.”

“They’re grifters — and like magnets, they have a strange way of attracting other grifters,” Carpenter writes. “President Trump is like a galactic electromagnet that brings grifters together into a self-collapsing black hole of suckage.”

Carpenter wraps up her article with a sarcastic reference to Mike J. Lindell, the Trump ally and My Pillow founder who has been touting oleandrin — which comes from the poisonous oleander plant — as a coronavirus miracle cure and was recently denounced as a “snake oil salesman” by CNN’s Anderson Cooper.

“Oh, and while you have your wallet out, can I interest you in My Pillow Guy’s white oleander COVID cure?,” Carpenter writes. “There’s still time to get in on the ground level of the next big scheme.”

Republicans just copy and paste 2016 GOP platform for 2020 Republican Convention

The Republican Party announced in a press release Sunday that they would not pass a Republican Party Platform at their convention in 2020. Democrats had their regular committees and caucuses, which debated and handled the business of a political party. Republicans won’t be able to handle that with just a few weeks to set up the event.

To make it worse, the GOP also just copied and pasted their 2016 platform without editing it. It means that an attack on the White House and the current administration was left in the copy.

“The current Administration has exceeded its constitutional authority, brazenly and flagrantly violated the separation of powers, sought to divide America into groups and turn citizen against citizen,” the platform says.

See the excerpt below:

Birth of a nation: The unexpected past, the unknown future

Let me be blunt. This wasn’t the world I imagined for my denouement. Not faintly. Of course, I can’t claim I ever really imagined such a place. Who, in their youth, considers their death and the world that might accompany it, the one you might leave behind for younger generations? I’m 76 now. True, if I were lucky (or perhaps unlucky), I could live another 20 years and see yet a newer world born. But for the moment at least, it seems logical enough to consider this pandemic nightmare of a place as the country of my old age, the one that I and my generation (including a guy named Donald J. Trump) will pass on to our children and grandchildren. 

Back in 2001, after the 9/11 attacks, I knew it was going to be bad. I felt it deep in my gut almost immediately and, because of that, stumbled into creating TomDispatch.comthe website I still run. But did I ever think it would be this bad? Not a chance.

I focused back then on what already looked to me like a nightmarish American imperial adventure to come, the response to the 9/11 attacks that the administration of President George W. Bush quickly launched under the rubric of “the Global War on Terror.” And that name (though the word “global” would soon be dropped for the more anodyne “war on terror”) would prove anything but inaccurate. After all, in those first post-9/11 moments, the top officials of that administration were thinking as globally as possible when it came to war. At the damaged Pentagon, Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld almost immediately turned to an aide and told him, “Go massive — sweep it all up, things related and not.” From then on, the emphasis would always be on the more the merrier.

Bush’s top officials were eager to take out not just Osama bin Laden’s al-Qaeda, whose 19 mostly Saudi hijackers had indeed attacked this country in the most provocative mannerpossible (at a cost of only $400,000-$500,000), but the Taliban, too, which then controlled much of Afghanistan. And an invasion of that country was seen as but the initial step in a larger, deeply desired project reportedly meant to target more than 60 countries! Above all, George W. Bush and his top officials dreamed of taking down Iraqi autocrat Saddam Hussein, occupying his oil-rich land, and making the United States, already the unipolar power of the twenty-first century, the overseer of the Greater Middle East and, in the end, perhaps even of a global Pax Americana. Such was the oil-fueled imperial dreamscape of George W. Bush, Dick Cheney, Donald Rumsfeld, and crew (including that charmer and now bestselling anti-Trump author John Bolton).

Who Woulda Guessed?

In the years that followed, I would post endless TomDispatch pieces, often by ex-military men, focused on the ongoing nightmare of our country’s soon-to-become forever wars(without a “pax” in sight) and the dangers such spreading conflicts posed to our world and even to us. Still, did I imagine those wars coming home in quite this way? Police forces in American cities and towns thoroughly militarized right down to bayonets, MRAPs, night-vision goggles, and helicopters, thanks to a Pentagon program delivering equipment to police departments nationwide more or less directly off the battlefields of Washington’s never-ending wars? Not for a moment.

Who doesn’t remember those 2014 photos of what looked like an occupying army on the streets of Ferguson, Missouri, after the police killing of a Black teenager and the protests that followed? And keep in mind that, to this day, the Republican Senate and the Trump administration have shown not the slightest desire to rein in that Pentagon program to militarize police departments nationwide. Such equipment (and the mentality that goes with it) showed up strikingly on the streets of American cities and towns during the recent Black Lives Matter protests.

Even in 2014, however, I couldn’t have imagined federal agents by the hundreds, dressed as if for a forever-war battlefield, flooding onto those same streets (at least in cities run by Democratic mayors), ready to treat protesters as if they were indeed al-Qaeda (“VIOLENT ANTIFA ANARCHISTS“), or that it would all be part of an election ploy by a needy president. Not a chance.

Or put another way, a president with his own “goon squad” or “stormtroopers” outfitted to look as if they were shipping out for Afghanistan or Iraq but heading for Portland, Albuquerque, Chicago, Seattle, and other American cities? Give me a break! How un-American could you get? A military surveillance drone overhead in at least one of those cities as if this were someone else’s war zone? Give me a break again. Never in my wildest dreams did I think I’d live to witness anything quite like it or a president — and we’ve had a few doozies — even faintly like the man a minority of deeply disgruntled Americans but a majority of electors put in the White House in 2016 to preside over a failing empire.

How about an American president in the year 2020 as a straightforward, no-punches-pulled racist, the sort of guy a newspaper could compare to former segregationist Alabama governor and presidential candidate George Wallace without even blinking? Admittedly, in itself, presidential racism has hardly been unique to this moment in America, despite Joe Biden’s initial claim to the contrary. That couldn’t be the case in the country in which Woodrow Wilson made D.W. Griffith’s Birth of a Nation, the infamous silent movie in which the Ku Klux Klan rides to the rescue, the first film ever to be shown in the White House; nor the one in which Richard Nixon used his “Southern strategy” — Republican presidential candidate Barry Goldwater had earlier labeled it even more redolently “Operation Dixie” — to appeal to the racist fears of Southern whites and so begin to turn that region from a Democratic stronghold into a Republican bastion; nor in the land where Ronald Reagan launched his election campaign of 1980 with a “states’ rights” speech (then still a code phrase for segregation) near Philadelphia, Mississippi, just miles from the earthen dam where three murdered civil rights workers had been found buried in 1964.

Still, an openly racist president (don’t take that knee!) as an autocrat-in-the-making (or at least in-the-dreaming), one who first descended that Trump Tower escalator in 2015 denouncingMexican “rapists,” ran for president rabidly on a Muslim ban, and for whom Black lives, including John Lewis’s, have always been immaterial, a president now defending every Confederate monument and military base named after a slave-owning general in sight, while trying to launch a Nixon-style “law and (dis)order” campaign? I mean, who woulda thunk it?

And add to that the once unimaginable: a man without an ounce of empathy in the White House, a figure focused only on himself and his electoral and pecuniary fate (and perhaps those of his billionaire confederates); a man filling his hated “deep state” with congressionally unapproved lackies, flacks, and ass-kissers, many of them previously flacks (aka lobbyists) for major corporations. (Note, by the way, that while The Donald has a distinctly autocratic urge, I don’t describe him as an incipient fascist because, as far as I can see, his sole desire — as in those now-disappeared rallies of his — is to have fans, not lead an actual social movement of any sort. Think of him as Mussolini right down to the look and style with a “base” of cheering MAGA chumps but no urge for an actual fascist movement to lead.)

And who ever imagined that an American president might actually bring up the possibility of delaying an election he fears losing, while denouncing mail-in ballots (“the scandal of our time“) as electoral fraud and doing his damnedest to undermine the Post Office which would deliver them amid an economic downturn that rivals the Great Depression? Who, before this moment, ever imagined that a president might consider refusing to leave the White House even if he did lose his reelection bid? Tell me this doesn’t qualify as something new under the American sun. True, it wasn’t Donald Trump who turned this country’s elections into 1% affairs or made contributions by the staggeringly wealthy and corporations a matter of free speech (thank you, Supreme Court!), but it is Donald Trump who is threatening, in his own unique way, to make elections themselves a thing of the past. And that, believe me, I didn’t count on.

Nor did I conceive of an all-American world of inequality almost beyond imagining. A country in which only the truly wealthy (think tax cuts) and the national security state (think budgets eternally in the stratosphere) are assured of generous funding in the worst of times.

The World to Come?

Oh, and I haven’t even mentioned the pandemic yet, have I? The one that should bring to mind the Black Death of the fourteenth century and the devastating Spanish Flu of a century ago, the one that’s killing Americans in remarkable numbers daily and going wild in this country, aided and abetted in every imaginable way (and some previously unimaginable ones) by the federal government and the president. Who could have dreamed of such a disease running riot, month after month, in the wealthiest, most powerful country on the planet without a national plan for dealing with it? Who could have dreamed of the planet’s most exceptional, indispensable country (as its leaders once loved to call it) being unable to take even the most modest steps to rein in Covid-19, thanks to a president, Republican governors, and Republican congressional representatives who consider science the equivalent of alien DNA? Honestly, who ever imagined such an American world? Think of it not as The Decameron, that fourteenth century tale of 10 people in flight from a pandemic, but the Trumpcameron or perhaps simply Trumpmageddon.

And keep in mind, when assessing this world I’m going to leave behind to those I hold near and dear, that Covid-19 is hardly the worst of it. Behind that pandemic, possibly even linkedto it in complex ways, is something so much worse. Yes, the coronavirus and the president’s response to it may seem like the worst of all news as American deaths crest 160,000 with no end in sight, but it isn’t. Not faintly on a planet that’s being heated to the boiling point and whose most powerful country is now run by a crew of pyromaniacs.

It’s hard even to fully conceptualize climate change since it operates on a time scale that’s anything but human. Still, one way to think of it is as a slow-burn planetary version of the atomic bombings of Hiroshima and Nagasaki. And by the way, if you’ll excuse a brief digression, in these years, our president and his men have been intent on ripping up every Cold War nuclear pact in sight, while the tensions between two nuclear-armed powers, the U.S. and China, only intensify and Washington invests staggering sums in “modernizing” its nuclear arsenal. (I mean, how exactly do you “modernize” the already-achieved ability to put an almost instant end to the world as we’ve known it?)

But to return to climate change, remember that 2020 is already threatening to be the warmest year in recorded history, while the five hottest years so far occurred from 2015 to 2019. That should tell you something, no?

The never-ending release of greenhouse gases into the atmosphere has been transforming this planet in ways that have now become obvious. My own hometown, New York City, for instance, has officially become part of the humid subtropical climate zone and that’s only a beginning. Everywhere temperatures are rising. They hit 100 degrees this June in, of all places, Siberia. (The Arctic is warming at twice the rate of much of the rest of the planet.) Sea ice is melting fast, while floods and mega-droughts intensify and forests burn in a previously unknown fashion.

And as a recent heat wave across the Middle East — Baghdad hit a record 125 degrees — showed, it’s only going to get hotter. Much hotter and, given how humanity has handled the latest pandemic, how will it handle the chaos that goes with rising sea levels drowning coastlines but also affecting inland populations, ever fiercer storms, and flooding (in recent weeks, the summer monsoon has, for instance, put one third of Bangladesh underwater), not to speak of the migration of refugees from the hardest-hit areas? The answer is likely to be: not well.

And I could go on, but you get the point. This is not the world I either imagined or would ever have dreamed of leaving to those far younger than me. That the men (and they are largely men) who are essentially promoting the pandemicizing and over-heating of this planet will be the greatest criminals in history matters little.

Let’s just hope that, when it comes to creating a better world out of such a god-awful mess, the generations that follow us prove better at it than mine did. If I were a religious man, those would be my prayers.

And here’s my odd hope. As should be obvious from this piece, the recent past, when still the future, was surprisingly unimaginable. There’s no reason to believe that the future — the coming decades — will prove any easier to imagine. No matter the bad news of this moment, who knows what our world might really look like 20 years from now? I only hope, for the sake of my children and grandchildren, that it surprises us all.

Copyright 2020 Tom Engelhardt

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

The partisan pandemic: Do we now live in alternative realities?

Politics can divide even friends and families. When this happens, we like to tell ourselves that the explanation lies in honest differences in values and preferences. From this standpoint, friends from different political parties won’t really disagree, for example, about the number of workers displaced in the pandemic, but they might differ on who should bear the costs. It’s another matter, however, if political conflict results from differences in information or attachments to alternative realities.

It’s possible to disagree — but still engage — with friends or fellow citizens who evaluate the benefits of test and tracing policies for COVID-19 differently, but how do we communicate with someone who — armed with the same public information — concludes that there is no pandemic?

We are behavioral economists who use controlled experiments in human decision-making to study political behavior. One of our current research programs finds that Americans who identify with a political party – that is, partisans — don’t always vote for what they believe to be correct. Rather, assuming their vote won’t matter much, they use it to express their partisan affiliation, even when their vote is anonymous.

COVID-19 may be the exception to this rule.

Political expression before COVID-19

In our 2018 paper, “Partisan Bias and Expressive Voting,” we found that differences arise along party lines even when people vote on the answers to factual questions about politics. Rather than reflecting sincere differences in belief, we found these responses were largely “expressive,” or a way of affirming political identity.

We conducted an online experiment in which we asked Democrats and Republicans a series of multiple choice questions about climate change, immigration and police shootings, among other topics.

Each question had an objectively correct answer. For example, participants were not invited to evaluate the importance of climate change, about which honest differences exist. Rather, they were asked how much mean global temperature had changed. By asking respondents to identify verifiable facts, we left no role for partisan interpretation. Instead, we focused on their willingness to acknowledge facts that may conflict with their party’s preferred views.

Participants answered multiple choice questions as “individuals” or as members of small groups of “voters.” Individuals received a cash bonus when their own answers were right. Voters got the bonus when a majority of their group was correct.

We speculated that someone affiliated with climate skeptical politicians or parties might choose one answer to the question about temperature change as a voter, but another, less partisan, answer as an individual. The reason is that voters who anticipate that their own response is unlikely to be decisive in determining the group’s answer may prefer to express opinions that are more favorable to their own party, while individuals know that their own answer will definitely determine whether they get the bonus.

We found that, despite the financial rewards for correct responses, a partisan gap did indeed emerge among voters. On most of the questions we asked, there were substantial differences between the choices of Democrats and Republicans, with voters tending to give answers more favorable to their own party’s position.

If these gaps were purely due to differences in beliefs, then we would expect to see similar differences when people answered these questions as individuals. Instead, we found that people answering as individuals were much less partisan than people voting as part of a group.

Additionally, individuals were far more likely than voters to correctly answer questions that challenged their party’s preferred views. This suggests that the partisan differences were primarily due to expression, or the desire to affirm party affiliation, rather than sincere differences in belief. On balance, we found that Republicans were more expressive than Democrats.

Cheering for your team

Our findings provide fresh perspective on a longstanding theory of how and why people vote. Citizens who recognize that their vote is rarely decisive may prefer to cast their votes, not to influence the outcome of an election, but to express themselves or reaffirm their political identities. In this light, voting has been compared to cheering for a favorite sports team. In most cases, we don’t actually believe we will influence the outcome by going to a game or screaming at our televisions, but we do it because it brings us joy and helps us feel connected to fellow fans.

The consequences of such expressive voting behavior can be serious. Polls indicated that the number of Leave voters who regretted their vote immediately after the learning the outcome of the June 2016 Brexit vote was similar to the margin of victory. This suggests that if voters had been less expressive, and had voted for the option they truly wanted, the course of European history might have been different.

Still, our initial research indicated that citizens shared a common set of facts about the world, and so provide some reason for optimism.

Unfortunately, our most recent research suggests that this isn’t the case for the COVID-19 crisis, and that at least some partisans seem to live in alternative realities.

COVID is different

This spring, we returned to the field with questions for more than 600 survey respondents in the U.S. about the COVID-19 pandemic. We expected to find that, despite sometimes heated rhetoric, Americans understood, or at least didn’t disagree about, the facts concerning estimates of the mortality rate and U.S. testing capacity.

What we found surprised us. We asked, for example, about the number of completed tests per million residents in the U.S. relative to Italy, one week after the White House announced its “historic public-private testing partnership” on April 13. At the time, Italy had conducted about 3,000 tests per million. Our participants were offered five options for how many tests had been completed in the U.S. per million residents. The correct answer, at the time, was between 100 and 2,000.

The participants who answered as part of a group were told that they would be rewarded if five or more in a random group of nine voted for the correct answer. Consistent with our previous work, voter responses varied with their political affiliation. More than 1 in 3 (34.2%) Republicans chose the answers most favorable to the Trump administration, and claimed that the U.S. performed as many or more tests than Italy. Fewer than 1 in 7 (14.2%) Democrats did. Overall, we found a large gap in the average response provided by Democrats and Republicans who voted.

The surprise was that these percentages did not change much, if at all, for individuals, who were rewarded when their own answer was correct. One in 3 Republicans (33.7%) still chose the incorrect options that were most favorable to President Trump, while the number of Democrats who did likewise fell a little, from 14.2% to 12.6%. Thus, unlike the patterns we observed for non-COVID-19-related questions, we found that little of the difference can be attributed to partisan expression.

We saw a similar pattern with our question regarding the COVID-19 mortality rate. Our research found that Democrats and Republicans held genuine but different beliefs, not just about values or policies, but about basic facts. To the extent that members of different parties evaluate differently the seriousness of COVID-19 and our government’s response to it in their voting decisions, our results indicate that this assessment is due to differences in beliefs rather than partisan expression.

While it is tempting to attribute these results to the polarization of television and radio audiences and the influence of social media — that is, to characterize the choices of our participants as somehow uninformed — it’s worth repeating that we did not see the same partisan gaps in 2016, when we asked questions that were no less salient to partisans.

We can only speculate as to the source of these differences. It may be that the COVID-19 threat overwhelmed our usual impulse for partisan expression, and that conflicting information in the earliest stages of the pandemic allowed separate narratives to take root. It also remains to be seen whether Democrats and Republicans will continue to live in these alternative realities, whether this division will extend to other issues, or what the consequences for the 2020 election will be. Until then, however, we may have to accept that some arguments among family and friends reflect the different worlds we now live in.

Andrea Robbett, Associate Professor of Economics, Middlebury and Peter Hans Matthews, Charles A. Dana Professor of Economics, Middlebury

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