Spring Sale: Get 1 Year, Save 58%

White House “concocted a positive feedback loop” to trick Trump into thinking he’s doing a good job

President Donald Trump’s chaotic White House resulted in “a lost summer” in the battle against coronavirus, according to a new in-depth report by The Washington Post.

The newspaper interviewed “41 senior administration officials and other people directly involved in or briefed on the response efforts” for the story, with multiple former officials offering anonymous quotes.

The report explains the skepticism of science and experts by White House chief of staff Mark Meadows.

“Meadows is not alone in being skeptical of medical expertise, part of the politics-first, science-second attitude that has become pervasive inside the White House this summer — and which has been championed foremost by Trump,” The Post noted.

“If the administration’s initial response to the coronavirus was denial, its failure to control the pandemic since then was driven by dysfunction and resulted in a lost summer,” the newspaper explained.

“Under mounting pressure to improve the president’s reelection chances as his poll numbers declined, the White House had what was described as a stand-down order on engaging publicly on the virus through the month of June, part of a deliberate strategy to spotlight other issues even as the contagion spread wildly across the country,” The Post reported. “It was only in July, when case counts began soaring in a trio of populous, Republican-leaning states — Arizona, Florida and Texas — and polls showed a majority of Americans disapproving of Trump’s handling of the pandemic, that the president and his top aides renewed their public activity related to the virus.”

The controversial White House coronavirus model has awful news for Trump as the election approaches.

“Yet the virus rages coast to coast, making the United States the world leader, by far, in the number of confirmed coronavirus cases and deaths. An internal model by Trump’s Council on Economic Advisers predicts a looming disaster, with the number of infections projected to rise later in August and into September and October in the Midwest and elsewhere, according to people briefed on the data,” the newspaper reported. “The forecast has alarmed the president and his top aides, even as some have chosen not to believe it, arguing that some previous projections did not materialize.”

According to a former administration official, White House chaos is “an unmitigated disaster.”

Amid the dysfunction, aides have found a way to trick Trump into thinking he’s an effective leader.

“What’s more, with polls showing Trump’s popularity on the decline and widespread disapproval of his management of the viral outbreak, staffers have concocted a positive feedback loop for the boss. They present him with fawning media commentary and craft charts with statistics that back up the president’s claim that the administration has done a great — even historically excellent — job fighting the virus,” the newspaper explained.

The newspaper quoted a “senior administration official involved in the pandemic response.”

“Everyone is busy trying to create a Potemkin village for him every day. You’re not supposed to see this behavior in liberal democracies that are founded on principles of rule of law. Everyone bends over backwards to create this Potemkin village for him and for his inner circle,” the official explained.

The newspaper flushed out who makes up that inner circle.

“Although Fauci, Birx and other medical professionals sit on the coronavirus task force, many of the more pressing decisions lately have been made by the smaller group that huddles in the morning and mostly prioritizes politics. The cadre includes Meadows, senior adviser Jared Kushner and strategic communications director Alyssa Farah,” the newspaper reported.

Trump’s presidency is a death cult

When President Donald Trump was challenged by Axios national political correspondent Jonathan Swan to respond to the fact that, “a thousand Americans are dying a day” due to COVID-19, the president responded as though the grim tally was perfectly acceptable, saying, “They are dying, that’s true. And it is what it is.” While observers were aghast at the callousness of his statement, it should not have surprised us. Trump had warned that the death toll would be high, and he had asked us months ago to get used to the idea. In late March, the White House Coronavirus Task Force had projected that 100,000 to 240,000 Americans would die from the virus. Rather than unveil an aggressive plan to tackle the spread and prevent the projected mortality figures, the president had said, “I want every American to be prepared for the hard days that lie ahead.”

The New York Times saw this warning as a contradiction to Trump’s stance in February and early March when he had said that “we have it totally under control” and “it’s going to be just fine.” The paper seemed to heave a sigh of relief that a few weeks later, “the president appeared to understand the severity of the potentially grave threat to the country.” But the report’s authors failed to grasp that Trump is willing to accept anything—including mass deaths—in service of his political career.

In fact, mass death appears to be part of Trump’s reelection strategy as per a July 30 Vanity Fair report on the administration’s strategy to contain the pandemic. The investigative piece explained that Trump’s adviser and son-in-law Jared Kushner was part of a group of White House staffers that corresponded frequently to discuss the rapidly spreading virus. According to a public health expert who was described as being “in frequent contact with the White House’s official coronavirus task force,” one of the members of Kushner’s team had concluded that, “because the virus had hit blue states hardest, a national plan was unnecessary and would not make sense politically.” The unnamed expert told Vanity Fair, “The political folks believed that because it was going to be relegated to Democratic states, that they could blame those governors, and that would be an effective political strategy.”

If it is true that Kushner embraced the idea of COVID-19 deaths as part of a political strategy for Trump’s reelection, there can be no clearer evidence that the Trump presidency fits the definition of a “death cult.”

But Trump’s team is also deeply inept, and its macabre tactics appear to have backfired. If Kushner expected a highly contagious virus to follow his political rules and relegate itself to Democratic-run states, he was proven very wrong, very quickly with Republican-run states like Florida, Texas, Alabama, Georgia, and Arizona being among the hardest hit.

For years, the Republican Party has cast itself as a self-righteous force for morality, embraced the “pro-life” movement, and claimed to align with “Christian values.” But just as Trump—arguably the most criminal of all U.S. presidents—has adopted a mantle of “law and order” with no hint of irony, the GOP as a whole has also shown time and again that its embrace of morality and law is a purely political tool. Now, as the nation grapples with mass deaths from a disease that a Republican president spectacularly and willfully failed to contain, conservative politicians appear willing to simply accept it. Their silence is deafening compared to the angry denunciations many Republican lawmakers hurled at President Barack Obama over his response to the Ebola epidemic—a crisis that resulted in a nationwide total of 11 infections and two deaths.

Ultimately it may be Trump’s own base that suffers as it internalizes the president’s mixed and confused messaging on ignoring social distancing guidelines, eschewing protective masks, swallowing hydroxychloroquine preventatively, and even accepting the inevitability of their own death (because “it is what it is” according to Trump). Even after more than 150,000 Americans have died from the virus, a majority of Republicans trust Trump’s coronavirus comments.

When Trump loyalist and former presidential candidate Herman Cain died of COVID-19, testing positive 11 days after attending Trump’s Tulsa, Oklahoma, rally without a mask on, his death did not change minds. The 74-year-old was reportedly on a ventilator during his last days, but conservatives are vehemently opposed to “politicizing” Cain’s death. Right-wing commentator and talk show host Ben Shapiroslammed those who made a connection between Cain’s refusal to take the virus seriously and his own infection and death. Shapiro said, “The kind of dunking on people after they die of COVID is pretty gross.” Certainly, Cain did not deserve to be vilified for his own sad fate. But his death offers a cautionary tale about the dangers of the Trump death cult—a point Shapiro of course refused to acknowledge.

We should hardly be surprised at this acceptance of death as inevitable. For years, conservatives have responded to gun violence with angry renunciations of any links to gun proliferation or lax gun control laws, offering instead “thoughts and prayers.” The one exception where Republicans express outrage is over the “death” of fetal cells inside women’s bodies—indicating that the fight is less about “murder,” as the anti-abortionists like to call it, than it is about controlling women’s bodies. By and large, the nation’s right-wing factions have for years wanted us to accept mass deaths and preventable mortality as a price for our “freedom.” They expect the same during a pandemic.

But we do not have to all be members of the death cult. According to a new study, states where people live the longest also have the strictest environmental laws, stronger gun control and stronger protections for minorities. These are also states that tend to be run by Democrats. California, for example, which has among the most stringent protections for minorities and the environment, also has one of the highest average life expectancy rates in the United States.

COVID-19 infections and deaths are hardly inevitable, and Americans are starting to see it. A Texas woman named Stacey Nagy penned an obituary for her late husband David that has garnered widespread attention. She wrote in her local paper that, “Family members believe David’s death was needless. They blame his death and the deaths of all the other innocent people, on Trump, [Gov. Greg] Abbott and all the politicians who did not take this pandemic seriously and were more concerned with their popularity and votes than lives.” Nagy also blamed “the many ignorant, self centered and selfish people who refused to follow the advice of the medical professionals, believing their ‘right’ not to wear a mask was more important than killing innocent people.”

Perhaps the only way out of Trump’s death cult is to speak out as Nagy has done.

The Washington Post, which interviewed Nagy, explained, “Feeling helpless, Stacey approached her husband’s obituary as a chance to speak out about how she felt her country had failed her family.” While Trump’s most loyal supporters might choose death in his service, the rest of us need not be bound by their blind, cultish and suicidal ideology.

Trump earns a new title: Terrorist-in-Chief

OK, we’ve managed to find ourselves in another governmental tempest in a substantial teacup: Donald Trump is working overtime to undercut the U.S. Postal Service just as he is railing on mail ballots.

It’s a pairing that just makes no sense.

As the Los Angeles Times editorialized this week: “Attacking the U.S. Postal Service before an election is something a terrorist would do.”

Or, more politely, perhaps, if there is something wrong with the Post Office that will keep it from working most efficiently in an election that clearly will be dependent on mailed ballots, do something to make it better, not worse.

Now we’re waiting to see only how much worse since it has become clear that “mail ballots” is the vehicle that Trump will be using to challenge the election results.

This week, Trump claimed that he has the authority to issue an executive order to halt the use of mail-in ballots, whose increasing use, he argues, could increase election fraud and uncertainty. As threatened, his campaign sued Nevada, whose legislature just authorized sending out mail ballot forms to all voters in an effort to provide a safe method for voting in a pandemic. The suit claims that the state is violating the Constitution by promising to count votes literally after Election Day, the postmark date for receiving mailed, completed ballots – a pretty weak argument in my view.

Of course, it is unclear what he could do to curtail the distribution of ballots, which is controlled by states, including those with Republican governors. “I have the right to do it,” Trump told reporters at the White House without explaining how.

Nearly all election procedures are governed on a state basis, with the remainder set by Congress or enshrined in the Constitution. There is no precedent or apparent authority for Trump to try to curtail the use of mail-in ballots by executive order.

The statement came days after he threatened, and then back down from, a delay in the November election for concern that Republicans will suffer more if more people vote.

Slowing the mail

Actually, Trump’s campaign against mail-in voting may backfire, according to Republican political organizers who are concerned about losing too much of their own party vote.

But in the meantime, perhaps Trump is unaware that the pandemic has prompted a huge switch in mail altogether:  Delivery of business-oriented mail is way down, but deliveries of on-line purchases is way up. In an economy which is changing to more and more digital business, the very thing that wrongly launched Trump’s ire – fees charged for delivery of on-line purchases is actually increasing.

As people are stuck at home, they are buying more online and also getting medications, checks and other necessaries through the mail.

Trump repeatedly has attacked fees charged for delivery as inadequate, though that statement, literally untrue, is believed to be an expression of Trump’s anger towards Jeff Bezos, head of Amazon and owner of The Washington Post, whose news coverage Trump detests. In truth, such fees are the biggest source of revenue for the Postal Service.

As a result, he named Louis DeJoy, a Republican fundraiser to take over the top job at the Postal Service in June. DeJoy has taken several moves that actually are slowing mail delivery, including eliminates overtime for hundreds of thousands of postal workers and orders that mail be kept until the next day if postal distribution centers are running late.

In other words, Trump’s administration is worsening the situation just as the pandemic is prompting vast use of mailed ballots.

Absentee ballots, yes, mail, no.

Enter Trump’s railing against mail ballots, though he reversed himself about Florida, where he votes remotely and where he says procedures are fine. Trump sees a difference between absentee ballots, requested by the voter, and mailed ballots, which are reviewed upon submission to guarantee validity.  Trump has called remote voting options the “biggest risk” to his reelection. His campaign and the Republican Party have sued to combat the practice, which was once a significant advantage for the GOP.

There is no evidence of widespread voter fraud through mail-in voting and the states that use it exclusively say they have necessary safeguards in place to ensure that a hostile foreign actor doesn’t disrupt the vote. Election security experts say voter fraud is rare in all forms of balloting, including by mail.

Indeed, the biggest problem to date is a lack of speed in counting the ballots. Some states count as they receive ballots, others only after the designated election day. So, “fraud” as seen by Trump seems to mean “delayed results” in real life.

Politico reports that private polling showed that Republican voters have become overwhelmingly concerned about mail balloting. A potentially decisive slice of Trump’s battleground-state base — 15% of Trump voters in Florida, 12% in Pennsylvania and 10% in Michigan — said that getting a ballot in the mail would make them less likely to vote in November. The same is not true for Democrats polled. Politico said the poll was part of a flurry of research trying to gauge swing-state voter attitudes as the coronavirus accelerates use of mail ballots.

Meanwhile the House Oversight Committee has asked the new postmaster general to appear at a September hearing to examine operational changes at the Postal Service that are causing delays in mail deliveries across the country.

Postal Service officials have warned they will run out of money by the end of September. The House voted more money for the Postal Service, as part of the overall coronavirus stimulus aid bill, which the Senate and Republicans have yet to embrace. Congress has approved a $10 billion line of credit for the Postal Service, but it remains unused amid restrictions imposed by the Trump administration. The bipartisan leadership met with DeJoy yesterday to see if any of this makes sense.

If you wanted to screw up this election, this seems a pretty good plan.

Joe Biden says he won’t stand in the way of a possible prosecution of Trump

Presumptive Democratic presidential nominee Joe Biden told NPR on Thursday that while he was unsure if it was “good for democracy,” if elected he would not stand in the way of a hypothetical Justice Department prosecution of President Donald Trump for crimes committed in office.

“Look, the Justice Department is not the president’s private law firm,” the former vice president said. “The attorney general is not the president’s private lawyer. I will not interfere with the Justice Department’s judgment of whether or not they think they should pursue the prosecution of anyone that they think has violated the law.”

The comments came in response to a question from NPR’s Lulu Garcia-Navarro on remarks made last year by Sen. Kamala Harris (D-Calif.), a frontrunner for Biden’s pick for vice president, that the Justice Department would have “no choice but to investigate Trump after his presidency.”

According to NPR:

Trump has been connected with alleged illegal activity by his former lawyer and fixer Michael Cohen and investigators working for former special counsel Robert Mueller. What isn’t clear is whether federal authorities are investigating the president or whether prosecutors might take action against Trump if he no longer enjoyed the privileges that protect him from being indicted as a sitting president.

Biden declared the idea of prosecuting a former president “very unusual” and said he would not weigh in on the decision and rather allow federal law enforcement officials to come to their own conclusions. 

“In terms of saying, ‘I think the president violated the law. I think the president did this, therefore, go on and prosecute him’—I will not do that,” Biden said.

Progressives have expressed concern that Biden could follow the lead of his former boss President Barack Obama, who said that the country should “look forward, not back” when it came to his predecessor, former President George W. Bush.

Republicans panicked after “contentious” Trump phone call with top GOP donor Sheldon Adelson

According to a report from Politico, Donald Trump may have alienated one of the Republican Party’s top donors last week after complaining to Las Vegas businessman Sheldon Adelson that he didn’t think that billionaire was doing enough to bolster his faltering re-election campaign.

That phone call — described as “contentious” — has Republican Party officials panicked that Adelson may hold back million-dollar contributions to the party in an election year where GOP candidates are already struggling to hang onto their seats.

According to the report, Trump “connected by phone last week with Republican mega-donor Sheldon Adelson — perhaps the only person in the party who can cut a nine-figure check to aid his reelection — the phone call unexpectedly turned contentious.”

Politico goes on to note that Adelson wanted to talk about the latest round of coronavirus aid being negotiated in Congress, but the president turned the conversation to his re-election prospects and the need for more support.

According to one insider who was privy to the call, “it was apparent the president had no idea how much Adelson, who’s donated tens of millions of dollars to pro-Trump efforts over the years, had helped him. Adelson chose not to come back at Trump.”

Word of the turn the call took has shaken up high-ranking Republican officials who have previously been able to count on major contributions from the billionaire, with Politico reporting, “They rushed to smooth things over with him, but the damage may have been done.”

“The president needs the money. With less than three months until the election, he is overwhelmed by a flood of liberal super PAC spending that his party has failed to match. Since this spring, outside groups supporting Joe Biden have outspent their pro-Trump counterparts nearly 3-to-1, an influx that’s helped to erase the president’s longstanding financial advantage,” the report notes. “Now, Republican leaders are pleading to billionaires for help. Trump advisers are pining for new outside groups to form, and the White House is growing anxious to see what Adelson, who has pumped hundreds of millions of dollars into Republican super PACs over the past decade, will do.”

According to Dan Eberhart, a Republican donor, the possible loss of big donations from the likes of Adelson could not have come at a worse time.

“We are getting clobbered,” he explained. “The left-leaning super PACs are bringing a lot more air support to team Biden than the ones on the right are bringing to team Trump, unfortunately.”

You can read more here.

 

Kanye West, bipolar disorder and me: When I hear Kanye’s rants, I remember my own delusions

I was spooked, running around New York City trying to dodge death. Little blue men were falling from the sky trying to kill me. I’m from the hood, where violence is as normal as crack addiction, and crack houses. I’ve had knives held to my neck. Once, I fought off an armed robber. I’ve found safe hiding places during shootouts. I even saw some New Orleans body snatchers hogtie Bobbie, a local dope boy, and throw him in the trunk. I’ve seen and participated in a lot of violence, and folding wasn’t an option. Yet, here I was losing my mind over some Force that came to me in the form of little blue men. I was bugging.  

Had I really lost my mind? I’m reminded of that day now as the controversy around Kanye West’s recent erratic actions continues to swirl. 

Recently, West shared an extensive monologue at an event after he announced his presidential bid. He touched on everything from abortion to Harriet Tubman, and after even accused his wife, Kim Kardashian, of trying to “lock him up.” West’s disquisition came on the heels of announcing his upcoming album, “Donda,” which led many to believe that he’s simply creating publicity for himself in the name of album sales. Others say that he’s “going crazy.” But I believe it’s neither of the former. After hearing this latest monologue, I teared up because I understand what I think Kanye is going through. It’s no secret that Kanye was diagnosed with bipolar disorder back in 2016. I know how scary it is to fall into a trance and exercise manic behavior that can be harmful to yourself and to those you love. 

It was summer 2017, when Future’s “Mask Off” bullied the Billboard charts. Maybe the little blue men falling from the sky weren’t trying to kill me, but instead were attempting to unmask me. Either way, I wasn’t trying to find out. My agenda was to stay alive.

Midtown Manhattan was bright-eyed with sunshine, and smoldering The City with disrespectful loads of heat. At 1 p.m., the Big City of Dreams was busy with taxpayers’ speed-walking to their respective destinations, quietly cussing the tourists making sudden stops to snap pictures and stare at landscapes. Grill smoke emanated from food trucks like crack smoke filtering out of smokers’ rooms into the living rooms of crack houses, where hustlers lounged in sinking sofas with guns, weed, rusty razors, and frontos sitting on dusty coffee tables. If it wasn’t for a vicious cocaine addiction depriving me of my sense of smell, I would describe the fumes from the food trucks, but I can’t.

I felt invisible, akin to the high school basketball game when I cashed in on 31 points. I felt alone on the court, and I moved as such, unbothered by defenders. The stupor experienced on this particular day in Manhattan operated on demon time, an accumulation of years of cocaine use, violence, manipulation and dishonesty, as well as a family history of mental illness. At 2 a.m., I was still in the streets, frantically watching the sky and holding back tears.

This manic, euphoric, hyperactive trance that I was in is what an episode of bipolar disorder looks like. I wasn’t high on cocaine, either. But I was dealing with a lot. I’d been grinding as an intern for years and had recently graduated college, but I hadn’t landed a job yet. I had been accepted into a graduate program at Fordham University after being turned down by every Ph.D. program I applied to. After so many rejections, I wondered if I was intelligent enough to prosper at a competitive Ph.D. program. I’d recently had a fight with a guy from my neighborhood. I wasn’t sure if the situation would escalate to gun violence. Also, my cocaine habit was weighing on me. I’d been carrying that secret for nearly 15 years. Stress, drug use, or things as simple as rain, taking a break from work, could trigger a bipolar episode for me. Literally, anything can be triggering. 

“Darryl, where are you,” my friend Shannon texted. “What’s happening? Send us your location, so we can send the police to help you.”  

I ignored the text.  

Shannon and her mother Sylvia had been concerned about me. I showed signs of sickness. I started talking about death. I’d disappear for days, and weeks at a time. When I feared death, I’d seclude myself. When I used cocaine, I’d disappear with one of the girls that I used cocaine with. 

“Hey Darryl, you need help right now. Where are you? We’re going to get you some help. But you have to tell us where you’re at?  “

In 2015, Anthony Hill, a U.S. Air Force veteran, had  a bipolar episode. He was running around his apartment complex naked. The police arrived. Hill, naked and unarmed was shot twice. 

“Darryl,” my friends texted. “Where are you? We want to help you. We will send the police to help you. They will get you the help you need.”

In 2017, Muhammad Muhaymin was at a local community center with his dog, what he used for emotional support. Wanting to use the restroom the manager blocked him, an argument ensued, and the police were called. At the conclusion of the police presences, Muhammad died as a police knelt on his Muhammad’s neck.  

I felt like Shannon and Sylvia were conspiring with the Force to kill me. So, I fired off a fusillade of belligerent texts and threats. My text messages were non-stop, similar to Kanye’s tweets when he goes on a rant. I was totally convinced that people wanted me dead. So, I zeroed in on that. At the time, I hadn’t been diagnosed with bipolar disorder, so none of us understood what was really going on.

Bipolar disorder is a mental health condition characterized by distinct changes in mood, energy, and activity levels. People diagnosed with bipolar disorder can experience shifts in mood, hallucinations, depressive and/or manic episodes. When triggered, an episode can last for days or weeks at a time. 

When Kanye’s bipolar disorder is triggered, as he told David Letterman“I ramp up, and I go high,” and sometimes we get those long musings from him as a result. For whatever reason, he zeros in on controversial language. “It can even take you to a point where you can even end up in the hospital,” which it did in a 2016 episode which he describes as “hyper-paranoid.” As for me, I turn my focus on death. Another person may focus on dogs, or birds, or become afraid of getting punched in the face. Looking back, there was a time where Kanye would end his concerts with long-winded rants. It was shortly after these rants that Kanye was diagnosed with bipolar disorder. 

* * * 

“You gangbang? You Billy?”

Tizz, shirtless, and standing 6’2″ with an upper frame ripped like a He-Man action figure, greeted me at the entrance of 4 Upper, a cell block at Rikers Island’s O.B.C.C. unit. He wanted to know if I was in the Blood gang. My threats to Shannon, a fight, and a missed court date landed me on Rikers Island. 

“Nah, I don’t gangbang,” I answered. 

“Aight, let me show you how shit goes around here,” Tizz said, leading me through the 60-man open dorm. Shirtless men with hard stares, unaddressed trauma, and untold stories watched me closely, looking for signs. Any clue as to what I’m about.

“This phone, right here, is Blood’s phone. This is the Spanish phone. This is Mase’s phone. And this is a neutral phone, it’s open until slot time. Slot time is at 7 p.m. After 7, nobody gets on these phones, unless you ask one of the brothers.” 

Tizz did the same thing for the televisions and chairs inside the day room. After getting settled, another inmate asked if I wanted a knife. I was confident that I’d be safe without a weapon, so I said no. Also, I recognized that I had a lot to lose. I later became friends with the guy who asked me if I wanted a knife. He told me where he kept it hidden in case I ever needed it.

I was honest with the medical staff at Rikers about my disorder. In return, they offered medicine, but I refused. Being doped up in a violent environment like Rikers Island was not part of the plan. 

The cellblock, 4 Upper, was alive with the everyday mundanity of the Island. Inmates draped in beige Bob Barker-made tops and bottoms engaged in a heated dice game in the back corner near the window. Scottie, a chocolate-complexioned, solid-built, Brooklyn-bred man who took special care of his waves shook the dice with his hand just above his ears. With his other hand he pointed at each man wanting a side bet. Inside the dayroom, two men focused on their chess game as inmates yelled at the television. One guy was on the phone yelling at his girl. Across the cell block, toward the back, near the opposite window where the dice game took place, a group of men shared K2 and weed. The C.O. sat glued to this chair, looking bored.  

Peeping the scene from my bed, I grew fearful thinking about the 2-4 year prison sentence the assistant district attorney recommended. Paranoia followed fear before the little blue men appeared on the ceiling. They had come to kill me. My fellow-inmates started looking like ghouls who were trying to kill me also. Go get the shank from the bathroom, I thought to myself. Instead, I hopped on the phone to call my ex-girlfriend. She provided comfort until she couldn’t. 

Vincent wasn’t as lucky as me. While in Rikers, his mental illness took over, leading him to strip naked in the wee hours of the morning, sexually assaulting men while they were asleep. As opposed to getting Vincent help, or putting him solitary confinement, he was moved to another cell block. The night he was moved, he stripped naked and assaulted a woman correctional officer. He’s facing multiple felonies. He was initially charged with the violation of an order of protection. 

There is difficulty acknowledging mental illness. Negative stigmas associated with bipolar disorder lead many people to believe that people with bipolar are seeking attention, or we’re “crazy.” Mental illness is also perceived as a personal weakness due to negative stereotypes of instability. To be fair, it’s not always clear when one needs help for a mental illness. This can be confusing, and adds to the difficulty of acknowledging the illness. 

For fear of being called crazy, laughed at, or being seen as someone “looking for attention,” my bipolar disorder has been a secret to 99 percent of the people in my life. 

Although Kanye has been open about his diagnosis, it’s not clear if he’s fully accepted what it means. Since my release from Rikers, I have freaked out on a former lawyer and his colleague, as well as their families. Once I finally accepted the fact that I may make unhealthy decisions during an episode, my loved ones and I developed a plan to take away my phone during an episode. Bipolar disorder isn’t anyone’s fault. It’s a combination of genetics, and physical changes in the brain. In managing bipolar disorder, it’s important to reduce stress, have open conversations, and accept the facts that come with the diagnosis. It’s totally fine for consumers not to support Kanye’s business endeavors, because he has said hurtful things to people who have supported his career. But people who are uninformed about bipolar disorder should be mindful when discussing Kanye’s public rants. As stated earlier, anything can trigger a bipolar episode. 

Why I’m OK with my kids “falling behind” in school during the pandemic

If being born into Generation X ever gave me anything, it has been a lifetime of training in lowered expectations. And as we chaotically hurtle toward the start of a new school year in the midst of a still explosive health crisis, my slacker parenting technique has never been stronger.

Earlier this week, the New York Times ran a feature on a now all-too-familiar theme. “Worried your kid is falling behind?” the headline blared. “You’re not alone.” As the Times explained, “As kids start school with more online learning, parents wonder whether they’ll ever catch up. Here’s how to set them up for success.” Granted, the article advised moms — surprise, no fathers were interviewed — on “creating fun, low-key learning opportunities,” but the phrase “falling behind” nevertheless appeared three times in the body of the article. 

It was the same day my younger daughter’s high school scheduled a virtual town hall to discuss plans for the new academic year. The school’s invitation added, “This will help us in planning the most successful learning opportunities for your kids and providing you with what you need.” 

There was that word again. Success. I’ve spent nearly two decades now shepherding my children from nursery school to university, and I have never gotten a satisfying answer to the basic question of how our educational system defines success. I sure as hell have even less of a concept of what constitutes success for our students right now. I only know that as far as I’m concerned, I believe what Bill Murray taught us in “Meatballs”: It just doesn’t matter. It just doesn’t matter

A generation ago, I spent my third year of college in England, interning for a music weekly and trying not become totally awestruck at the rock stars passing through. The current best-case junior year scenario for my older daughter will be mostly self-quarantining in her dorm room, attending classes and participating in her student clubs online. My younger daughter, meanwhile, is gearing up for SAT prep and band practice, both of which will be taking place within a few feet of where both my spouse and I do our own work.

And then what? My older daughter graduates college into a nonexistent workforce? My younger one starts shopping around for colleges that will pressure her — and her parents — to take out hundreds of thousands of dollars in student loans so that she too can graduate into a dystopia in a mountain of debt? Is it any wonder I’m having a hard time right now really giving a crap about maintaining academic rigor, or what activities will look good on resumes and college applications?

I am aware of the numerous privileges that come with my laissez-faire stance. My daughters are older, which means they work independently and communicate directly with their teachers. I don’t have to be the middlemom who manages their homework packets, interpreting the assignments for them. They likewise haven’t been as academically hard hit as students in other economic groups — an April Pew Research Center survey found that while “[a]mong middle-income parents, 44% say their children have received a lot of online instruction from their school… about three-in-ten lower-income parents (29%) say their children’s school has provided not much or no instruction.” 

Even with all our advantages, I can’t fully fathom — any more than my Gen Z daughters can — how our new reality will affect their future personal, professional and educational aspirations. What I do know is that the Jenga tower of higher ed was tottering well before this mess, and that my priorities right now are not what happens with SAT scores or the Dean’s List. What I don’t need is a bumper sticker that reads “Proud Parent of an A Student at Apocalypse High.” 

From our different vantage points, my daughters and I look at our millennial comrades and see what the shabby bill of goods they and their boomer parents were sold has wrought. A year ago, millennials were facing “$497.6 billion in outstanding student loan debt for about 15.1 million borrowers,” according to data from the U.S. Department of Education. That was before the country’s worst economic quarter on record. We’ve watched college tuition skyrocket well out of pace with inflation, with in-state tuition increasing 65 percent  over just ten years. We witnessed the unfolding of a very public criminal scandal that revealed how easily admissions can be bought, and the sham idea of meritocracy. We know that last year, one-third of Harvard’s incoming freshman class were legacies.

So to whom, exactly, should I be concerned my daughters are falling behind? The kids who were born on third base and whose parents let them believe they’re hitting triples? Or the ones who have played by the rules their whole lives, who’ve done all the enrichment and the test prep, and are at the epicenter of a quantifiably shocking rise in rates of suicide and depression? In the past few years, my children have faced life-threatening illnesses and serious mental health challenges. And they didn’t go through all they’ve been through without developing priorities that I can throw my full weight behind. Those priorities are simple — stay sane and stay alive. The rest will get figured out. If that means that more of their time is spent noodling around on the keyboard or watching old movies or just talking with their friends than mastering trigonometry, then I say, whatever.

It seems like only yesterday I was touring a preschool for my then two-year-old daughter when a parent asked what the science curriculum was. It really hasn’t been that long since we were getting letters from prestigious, $70K a year colleges asking, “What will your degree from us tell the world?” I think often of Lily Tomlin’s decades-old observation: “Even if you win the rat race, you’re still a rat.” And I just don’t believe my kids are supposed to be freaking out now about what happens next to their chances to make a handful of billionaires richer.

I was one of the first in my working class family to go to college. I’m — perhaps foolheartedly — starting a master’s degree program in the fall. I’m not anti-intellectual. I am, however, increasingly anti-pointless busywork. I am anti-test taking while the world burns. And I am definitely anti-anybody else’s vague concept of “success,” which as far as I can tell is defined solely by monetary “return on investment.” It’s certainly not measured in personal satisfaction, mental health, service to others, or even actual learning

I have anxiety to spare. I worry about what happens to my older daughter, with her history of health problems, when she returns to college — even though I know that she’s learning to care for herself. I worry about my younger one, with her OCD, getting back on public transportation. I worry about all our kids and their futures. But I don’t for a second worry that they haven’t been learning.

I think of what I knew of the world at their age, with my good grades and my glee club practice, and I realize that I knew nothing. Northing of social injustice, of protest, of voting rights, of gun control, of resilience and coping skills. I certainly didn’t know how to wash my hands like I’m preparing to perform surgery, or to have a productive conversation about consent, or to make a beautiful dinner from the dregs of the produce drawer, or manage my meager finances. My daughters are experts at all of those things. I look at the kids of Gen Z, who have experienced so much and managed to stay weird and hormonal while fighting climate change and punking MAGA rallies, and they don’t look like they’re falling behind at all. They look really smart, actually. And every day, they’re they ones leading me forward.

This easy ice cream sundae recipe inspired by Chrissy Teigen will get you through summer’s dog days

I judge cookbooks the same way I judge meals: by the desserts. However gloriously crunchy, salty, savory, spicy and cheesy all the other the content may be, if there isn’t something resembling cake at the end, I become very crabby.

So when a few years ago I received the first cookbook from America’s sweetheart, Chrissy Teigen, I gasped when it abruptly ended with a recipe for stuffed chicken breasts. As Teigen explains in the introduction to “Cravings,” she wanted her book to have everything — “except dessert.” This to me is like ending a rom-com before someone runs to the airport to declare their love in front of a TSA agent.

But something changed along the way to Teigen’s second cookbook, “Cravings: Hungry for More.” This time around, the mother of two includes a modest but impressive chapter devoted to sweets, thus enabling me to now feel free to emulate her lifestyle in my own small, EGOT-free home.

When it’s too hot for anything baked, my family and I still scream for ice cream. Teigen’s recipe for a magic shell topping is well-known — I first discovered it via Cook’s Illustrated. It typically is made with coconut oil, but my daughters share a vehement loathing of all things coconut.

It turns out, however, that you can create your own Klondike Bar experience efficiently with any neutral oil. I think it’s even better — and more authentic tasting — this way than with the coconut option. Then, dress up that bowl of ice cream even further with a salty, nutty cereal crackle from Teigen’s chocolate mousse recipe. While you may never appear in the swimsuit issue of Sports Illustrated, you’ll definitely have a damn fine sundae to see through the dog days of August.

***

Recipe: Twitter Famous Ice Cream Sundae, adapted from Chrissy Teigen’s “Cravings: Hungry for More”

Makes approximately four servings

For the sundae:

  • 1 pint of your favorite ice cream

For the magic shell:

  • 1/2 cup of bittersweet chocolate chips
  • 6 tablespoons of vegetable oil
  • Generous pinch of salt

Instructions:

  1. Add oil, chocolate and salt to a microwave-safe bowl.
  2. Microwave at high power for 30 seconds, or until just melted.
  3. Stir well to combine, and let come down to room temperature.

For the nutty cereal crackle

  • 1/3 cup of sugar
  • 2 teaspoons corn syrup
  • 1 tablespoon of water
  • 1/8 teaspoon baking soda
  • 1/2 cup Rice Krispies, or cereal of your choice
  • 2 1/2 tablespoons chopped roasted peanuts, or nuts of your choice
  • Generous pinch of salt

Instructions:

  1. Line a cookie sheet with parchment paper and lightly oil it.
  2. Add sugar, corn syrup and water to saucepan and bring to a boil over medium heat. Let the mixture get bubbly and dark, swirling occasionally.
  3. Remove from heat, and add baking soda and salt.
  4. Add cereal and nuts, stirring quickly with a wood spoon.
  5. Immediately spread out on your pan to harden and cool.
  6. When it’s set, break into pieces.
  7. To serve, scoop ice cream into bowls. Drizzle on chocolate topping, and sprinkle with crackle. Enjoy immediately.

Larry Kudlow whines after CNN’s Poppy Harlow fact-checks him: “I resent your little nitpicking”

President Donald Trump’s National Economic Council director Larry Kudlow struggled to justify why the jobs numbers are “good” after seeing the unemployment rate at 10.2 percent, down from 11.1 percent. At the same time, another 1.2 million people filed for unemployment for the first time this week, taking the numbers to 21 million Americans still unemployed.

Trump celebrated the numbers because jobs added were slightly greater than expected, but the numbers are a far cry from where they were in May and June, which set records with jobs coming back amid states reopening. This month just 1.8. million jobs were added in July, where in June there were 4.8 million. It was a number that prompted CNN’s Poppy Harlow to ask Kudlow if he is concerned about a slow-down.

“Well, I don’t know that there’s a slow-down,” said Kudlow, ignoring the significant decrease in new jobs added compared to the previous 4.8 million. Kudlow said it would be “uneven as it always is.

Kudlow then said that the coronavirus, which has now claimed over 160,000 lives, is slowing down.

“Two final questions for you, Larry, because when you talk, people listen,” said CNN’s Poppy Harlow. “Everyone in America listens on the economy when you talk, Larry, and — and I’m wondering why you have consistently downplayed the severity of the pandemic. Back on February 25, you said, ‘It’s pretty close to airtight.’ February 28: ‘It’s not going to sink the American economy.’ March 6: ‘Let’s not overreact America should stay at work,’ and just on June 12: ‘There is no emergency, there is no second wave,’ but since June 12, 45,978 Americans have died from COVID.”

“If I can answer those. On June 12, when I said that, is what I also said it’s not a second wave, it’s part of the first wave, and that comes from our health scientists, so that’s –” Kudlow said before Harlow cut in.

“You said it’s not an emergency,” Harlow replied.

“And in — in late February, I didn’t make a forecast, I said it would — I said at that time, as a matter of fact, there were only — there were fewer than 20 cases and a lot of people across the spectrum, doctors and others, who made the same case,” claimed Kudlow, ignoring that there wasn’t a COVID-19 test broadly available in the US in Feb.

“There were even people who said it wouldn’t be worse than an ordinary flu,” Kudlow continued. One of those people was President Donald Trump. “My point is there were fewer than 20 cases. Now, as those numbers deteriorated rapidly, I, of course, changed my mind and, of course, with the facts. I was not making a forecast. I kind of resent your little knit-picking here because I don’t know what that has to do with today’s job numbers.”

“I’m not nitpicking, Larry,” Harlow responded. “I think people listen to you.”

“I will defend my statement,” Kudlow cut in while Harlow talked over him, saying that the president clearly listens to him on economic suggestions.

“There were fewer than 20 cases, Poppy!” Kudlow said, again forgetting that there was no testing to confirm if there were more cases and people dying had the virus. At the time, people who died and were suspected of having COVID-19 were also not tested to see if it was from the virus. There was an uptick in deaths in February from the flu or “lower respiratory diseases,” all of which could have been coronavirus related.

“As you look at mortality rates as you move through February into March, anything documented as flu, you have to wonder is it truly viral-tested flu or just people thinking it was flu when maybe that was all Covid?” said Dr. Thomas McGinn, author of the study.

“I will defend my statement,” Kudlow claimed, insisting there were only 20 cases.

“Well, on June 12 there were a lot of cases, and you said it’s not a second emergency, and even your friend Kevin Hassett said to me ‘We’re looking at a second wave in certain places and we should have some shutdowns,'” Harlow noted.

Watch the full interview below:

Part 1:

Part 2:

4 reasons why Richard Nixon would be too liberal for Trump Republicans

It was 46 years ago, on August 8, 1974, that President Richard Nixon — overwhelmed by the Watergate scandal — announced his resignation. And the following day, Vice President Gerald Ford was sworn in as president of the United States. Nixon, in his day, was considered arch-conservative, promoting anti-communist hysteria, a “law and order message” and the War on the Drugs. And in 2020, President Donald Trump’s reelection campaign is responding to the George Floyd protests by echoing the paranoia and divisiveness of Nixon’s 1968 presidential campaign. Yet in many respects, Nixon was to the left of today’s GOP.

Here are some reasons why Nixon, as right-wing as he was, would be way too liberal and nuanced  for the Trumpistas and the Republican Party of 2020.

1. Nixon favored universal health care

When President Barack Obama was working on a health care reform package in 2009 and 2010, one of the people he consulted was Stuart Altman — who was Nixon’s consultant on health care reform in the early 1970s. Nixon was a proponent of universal health care, and the health care reform plan he had in mind almost half a century ago was quite comparable to what is now known as Obamacare — and it some respects, it was more aggressive. Nixon opposed the type of government-operated single-payer program that Sen. Bernie Sanders and Rep. Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez now describe as “Medicare for all,” but he favored universal health care via the private sector.

2. Nixon championed the launch of the EPA

Trump has a terrible environmental record, undermining the Environmental Protection Agency at every turn and expressing his love of fossil fuels and disdain for green energy. But the EPA started under Nixon’s watch, and by today’s Republican standards, Nixon would be considered a “tree hugger.” If Nixon were alive today and ran on the environmental platform that he favored in the early 1970s, Trumpistas would consider him hostile to energy companies.

3. Nixon supported Medicare

Trump, the Tea Party and many other far-right Republicans have favored harsh cuts to Medicare and Medicaid — both of which came out of President Lyndon B. Johnson’s Great Society in the 1960s (Trump was lying when, in 2016, he insisted he would protect Medicare). But Nixon, in the late 1960s and early 1970s, made it clear that he supported Medicare. Nixon vehemently attacked Democrats on many occasions, slamming them as a party of lawlessness and moral decay. But when it came to safety net programs, there were times when he wasn’t shy about agreeing with them.

4. Nixon favored elements of the New Deal and the Great Society

Newt Gingrich, a devoted Trump supporter, has stressed that one of his political goals is the total destruction of President Franklin Delano Roosevelt’s New Deal and LBJ’s Great Society. But Nixon, like President Dwight D. Eisenhower in the 1950s, stressed that he wanted to protect parts of the New Deal and the Great Society. And arguably, it was Nixon’s paranoid anti-communism that inspired him to support programs like Social Security, Medicare and Medicaid: he believed, one could argue, that allowing a certain amount of socialism and having a strong social safety net would discourage the spread of communism in the United States. And unlike the Tea Party wingnuts of 2020, he had no desire to privatize Social Security.

A taste of Tuscany: Chef Gabriele Bertaccini shares his grandmother’s recipe for eggplant parmigiana

Chef Gabriele Bertaccini has become a household name following the success of his smash-hit Netflix show “Say I Do,” in which he crafts real-life weddings with Jeremiah Brent and Thai Nguyen in less than a week.

In a recent interview, the chef shared the recipe for his Nonna’s eggplant parmigiana with Salon Food. His love of food and his childhood in Tuscany are intertwined. Here Chef Gabe explains it, in his own words: 

I was, I think, very fortunate that my child playground was a place like Tuscany — and Italy, more generally. It’s a country of amazing foods with one of the most important culinary heritages in the world, and a country where we are very deeply connected to the food that we cook and the food we eat. I always say that if you want to understand something about Italians, you may want to join them at the dinner table. When I take people to meet some of my friends, I tell them all the time — it’s the first thing — we’re going to go for dinner. We’re going to sit down, we are going to bring a couple of friends and we’re going to spend two or three hours. And then usually, three hours into dinner, my friends are like, “Oh, I get it. I understand here what’s going on.” You start understanding more and more about us.

I personally grew up in a beautiful place in the countryside of Tuscany called Chianti, which is one of the most amazing wine regions in the world. And I was extremely fortunate and lucky to be able to open up my door and have eggs that were still warm from the chickens in the morning, and go and pick out the vegetables with my grandmother and then take all of that back into the kitchen and create some amazing magic with my grandmother and my mother.

I always say I wasn’t attached to the outcome of things. I was attached to the process. It made me understand that the process — the cooking and food in general — it’s really not so much about the final dish you get at the dinner table. It’s really about what happened before. It is about where the food comes from. It’s about the connection you have with the animal that you might be cooking and eating at the dinner table. It is about where these ingredients come from. It is about the process of it. What I fell in love — I fell in love with that. I fell in love with the process of it.

So really, all my childhood memories are connected to food. Whether it’s smells, whether it’s cooking, whether it’s sounds, but they are all connected to the kitchen. It was a very beautiful childhood. It was a childhood that gave me some amazing moments to look back to — and it clearly inspired me to do this for others, as well.

This interview has been lightly edited for clarity and length. 

***

Recipe: Chef Gabe’s Nonna’s Eggplant Parmigiana 

Ingredients:

Marinara

  • ¼ cup olive oil
  • 1 head of garlic, cloves crushed
  • 1 large red onion, chopped
  • 3 oil-packed anchovy fillets (optional)
  • ½ teaspoon crushed red pepper flakes
  • 1 tablespoon tomato paste
  • ¼ cup dry white wine
  • 2 28-ounce cans whole peeled tomatoes
  • ¼ cup torn basil leaves
  • ½ teaspoon dried oregano
  • Kosher salt

Eggplant and Assembly

  • 4 pounds Italian eggplants (about 4 medium), peeled, sliced lengthwise ½–¾ inch thick
  • Kosher salt
  • 3 cups panko (Japanese breadcrumbs)
  • 1½ teaspoon dried oregano
  • 1 teaspoon freshly ground black pepper
  • 1½ cups finely grated Parmesan, divided
  • 1½ cups all-purpose flour
  • 5 large eggs, beaten to blend
  • 1⅓ cups olive oil
  • ½ cup finely chopped basil and parsley, plus basil leaves for serving
  • 6 ounces low-moisture mozzarella, grated (about 1⅓ cups)
  • 8 ounces fresh mozzarella, thinly sliced

Recipe Preparation:

Marinara

1. Preheat oven to 350°. Heat oil in a large heavy ovenproof pot over medium. Cook garlic, stirring often, until golden, about 4 minutes. Add onion, anchovies (if using), and red pepper flakes and cook, stirring often, until onion is translucent, about 5 minutes. Stir in tomato paste and cook, stirring often, until slightly darkened, about 2 minutes. Add wine, bring to a boil, and cook until almost completely evaporated, about 1 minute. Add tomatoes, breaking up with your hands, and their juices; add basil and oregano and stir to combine. Swirl 1½ cups water into one tomato can, then the other, to rinse, and add to pot; season with salt. Transfer pot to oven; roast sauce, stirring halfway through, until thick and tomatoes are browned on top and around edges of pot, 2–2½ hours.

2. Let sauce cool slightly. Pass through the large holes of a food mill or process in a food processor until mostly smooth. Taste and season with salt.

Do Ahead: Sauce can be made 2 days ahead. Cover and chill.

Eggplant and Assembly

1. Lightly season eggplant slices all over with salt; place in a single layer on several layers of paper towels inside a rimmed baking sheet. Top with another layer of paper towels and more slices; repeat as needed. Top with a final layer of paper towels, then another rimmed baking sheet; weigh down with a heavy pot. Let eggplant sit until it has released excess liquid, 45–60 minutes. This step gives the eggplant a creamy texture when baked.

2. Meanwhile, pulse panko, oregano, pepper, and ¾ cup Parmesan in a food processor until very finely ground. Transfer to a shallow bowl.

3. Preheat oven to 350°. Place flour in another shallow bowl and eggs in a third shallow bowl. Working one at a time, dredge eggplant slices in flour, then dip in egg, allowing excess to drip off. Coat in breadcrumbs, packing all around, then shaking off excess. Place on wire racks.

4. Heat ⅔ cup oil in a large skillet, preferably cast iron, over medium-high. Cook as many eggplant slices as will comfortably fit in pan, turning once, until deep golden, about 5 minutes. Transfer to paper towels and immediately press with more paper towel to absorb oil. Working in batches, repeat with remaining slices, adding remaining ⅔ cup oil and wiping out skillet as needed. Let cool. Taste and season with more salt if needed.

5. Toss chopped herbs, low-moisture mozzarella, and remaining ¾ cup Parmesan in a medium bowl. Spread 1 cup sauce over the bottom of a 13×9″ baking pan; top with a layer of eggplant slices (trim as needed). Drizzle 1 cup sauce over and sprinkle with one-third of cheese mixture. Add another layer of eggplant, followed by 1 cup sauce and half of remaining cheese mixture. Repeat layers with remaining slices, sauce, and cheese mixture. Cover with foil and bake on a rimmed baking sheet until eggplant is custardy, 45–60 minutes. 

6. Remove from oven and arrange fresh mozzarella over eggplant. Increase oven temperature to 425° and bake, uncovered, until cheese is bubbling and browned in spots, 15–20 minutes longer. Let rest 30 minutes. Top with basil leaves just before slicing.

Do Ahead: Eggplant Parmesan can be made 2 days ahead. Let cool; cover with foil and chill. Reheat in a 350° oven, uncovering halfway through, until bubbling gently at edges.

The problem with Ellen DeGeneres is that she made “be kind” the unattainable goal of her brand

When the ultimate moral of the Ellen DeGeneres story is written many years from now, it may include counsel to be careful about mantras.

“Be kind” may seem like an easy phrase to live by and a surefire winner with the daytime talk show audience. In reality, it is an impossible bar for anyone to consistently meet or exceed.

Think about it. When was the last time you had to be demonstratively kind for a sustained amount of time in public? Can you be kind to everyone who interacts with you on the worst day of your life? Can you smile and dance while you’re being dogged by rumors that you are actually, to quote one of the tweets that may have kicked off the daytime talk show host’s reputation plummet, “notoriously one of the meanest people alive“?

None of this is said to empathize with the eponymous star of “The Ellen DeGeneres Show,” a woman who has zero need for my empathy or anyone else’s. I don’t have any emotional attachment to Ellen one way or another, and in the court of public opinion case of The People v. the Queen of Nice, I find in favor of her former and current staffers alleging that DeGeneres’s “be kind” motto is just for show.

Instead, whatever fascination there is to be had in this evolving story has to do with its status as a collision point between the industry’s recent push to excise volatile, abusive leadership from its ranks – which may also be just for show when all is said and done – and a litmus test for the double standards powerful women contend with when a scandal lands on their doorsteps.

Until a July 16 BuzzFeed News story and its July 31 follow-up brought to light reports depicting DeGeneres’s workplace as a toxic pool of racism, sexism, sexual misconduct and garden-variety cruelty, rumors about the talk show host’s not-so-niceness were occasional blips a person stumbled across on Twitter, one of those chin-scratchers to be shared as party gossip.

Now, Ellen DeGeneres joins an illustrious line of women in Hollywood rumored to be difficult to work with or for at best, monstrous at worst. That she’s risen to the level of being a subject of an unknown quantity of quintessentially Los Angeles horror stories puts her in the same league as the legendary Faye Dunaway, whose notorious rampages left such an impressive trail of terror in her wake that for a time it seemed like everybody knew somebody who had survived one of the actress’ unpredictable mood maelstroms.

But the “Mommie Dearest” actor wasn’t the boss in charge of a series employing tens of producers, writers and assistants, or a living, walking name brand with an estimated net worth of $330 million.

Neither did she ever build her empire on a foundation of cheerful dancing, charity, and calls for kindness, as DeGeneres does in her syndicated series that’s been airing since 2003.

And, this is important, if DeGeneres does indeed deserve her badge of meanness – and I have no proof that she doesn’t – she’s done a bang-up job of keeping her ill temper out of public view, whereas Dunaway paraded it before the great unwashed with aplomb. Such toxicity is commonplace across entertainment, a hierarchical industry that rewards lucrative products and the people who create them with undue tolerance of abusive behavior.

This is an extension of the longstanding myth that genius and volatility go hand and hand; it probably goes without saying that such behavior is excused, even praised, in men while equivalent behavior in women brings out the pitchforks.

Save, that is, in extraordinary cases like that of DeGeneres and her syndicated daytime show. As my colleague Gary Levin pointed out in a recent USA Today story, “Ellen” is the No. 3 talk show in syndication, averaging 2.4 million viewers per episode last season. It also runs in markets across the country in a variety of timeslots and on stations affiliated with various networks.  

Meaning, regardless of the inspired host suggestions under the #ReplaceEllen hashtag, ranging from the credible (James Corden, Aisha Tyler) to the entertainingly ludicrous (Eric Andre, Space Ghost), DeGeneres probably isn’t going anywhere until she decides she’s going.

On the flipside, there’s that impossible bar of “be kind” that set her up to fail spectacularly, even when she may have been on her best behavior, whenever that may have been. During the pandemic DeGeneres hired a non-union tech company to record her show remotely from her palatial home while leaving her core staff in the dark about their employment status and pay for more than a month, according an April report in Variety. When the 30 or so employees finally heard from executives nearly all were told to expect a 60% reduction in wages.

Finding joy in felling giants is one of the peculiar flaws of the human condition, even if we don’t necessarily care about the great one being kneecapped. But it is that mask of cheerful kindness and those years of dancing that makes DeGeneres a ripe, luscious target.

This was true long before she invited Kevin Hart onto her show shortly after he bowed out of hosting the 2019 Academy Awards host due to controversy over a track record of homophobic tweets and jokes, voicing her support while calling his critics “haters” and even contacting the Academy of Motion Picture Arts and Sciences to speak on his behalf. The October 2019 photo showing her being friendly at a football game with former president George W. Bush, a vocal supporter of banning gay marriage, wasn’t a good look either.

All of that would have been forgivable if DeGeneres were otherwise true to the word she urged her audience to live by: kind. Based upon the numerous reports about the shoddy way that the daytime talk show host and her producers treated her staff,  DeGeneres is falling spectacularly short of practicing her own advice. That much has been established.

Although the show’s producing and distributing studio Warner Bros. is investigating the workplace misconduct claims revealed in BuzzFeed’s coverage, and one of its senior producers, executive producer Ed Glavin, has been ousted, there are no stated plans for DeGeneres herself to leave the show, especially given the two-year contract extension she signed last spring.

What about the toll of so-called (but actually impotent) “cancel culture”? This is where the view gets interesting. Although the number of former staffers coming forward with their accounts number in the dozens, there’s little specific anecdotal reporting that the nastiness emerged directly from DeGeneres herself, even though a few celebrities have said that was the case.

And yet. Here is a woman who survived one of the earliest and most evident instances of cancellation in 1997, when she came out on her ABC sitcom and was rewarded by becoming persona non-grata in the industry for years afterward; also, here is a powerful woman. The closest albeit imperfect equivalent I can think of to DeGeneres’ situation is Martha Stewart’s fall in 2004, when she served a five-month prison sentence for lying to investigators concerning the ImClone stock trading case.

Stories about Stewart’s abusive, demanding behavior behind the scenes of her successful daytime series followed her like mean spirits until she was carted off to jail – the only person associated with the case (other than ImClone founder Samuel Waksal) to serve time. But was her punishment lying to the Feds . . . or being the fun-to-hate Martha Stewart?

“Like Tina Brown, of the defunct Talk magazine, or Carleton S. Fiorina, the chief executive of Hewlett-Packard, Ms. Stewart, who is 60, has become a Rorschach test of women’s and men’s anxieties about female success,” declared a 2002 New York Times story. It goes on from there:

Her fans have long known, and do not mind, that Martha Stewart is a lot tougher than she looks. But in the long run, this latest refraction of her image could prove more damaging to her reputation than complaints that she is an über-perfectionist who turns chilly and imperious once the kitchen door closes. The Martha Stewart media and marketing empire is intimately woven around her persona. Greed or the misuse of privileged information, if proven, was never part of the package.

And the public punished her for this. Martha Stewart Omnimedia, whose stock nearly tripled in value on the day it went public in 1999, was “sold for parts” in 2015. “Now, one share of Martha Stewart Living Omnimedia isn’t worth the price of a Martha Stewart-branded meat tenderizer or a small Martha Stewart food storage container at Macy’s, or even eight ounces of Martha Stewart garlic hot sauce on eBay,” quipped a Washington Post write-up.

These days Stewart isn’t exactly hurting for cash, having resurrected her image with a Snoop Dogg glow-up. A recent Instagram thirst trap she posted proves she’s still determined to live her best life. She’s still very, very wealthy – just not as wealthy as she used to be.

Bringing us back to DeGeneres, who has her own lifestyle brand, ED by Ellen, and a vast audience that I’m betting probably doesn’t care much about behind-the-scenes reports of meanness in the Queen of Kind’s kingdom. A share of viewers likely expects her to do some public mea culpa when her show’s new season debuts on Sept. 9, but whatever sword she falls upon likely will be the size of a cocktail pick.

In the world of entertainment, few burns are more painful that those resulting from spilled tea brewed from a bag of veracity, and DeGeneres is smarting from precisely that kind of agony right now.

But she wasn’t the handsy one at the center of Warner’s sexual misconduct reports; that guy has been fired. In the allegations of racism and managers firing people after taking medical leave, supervisors and managers committed those transgressions, not the Queen herself. Is this precisely how a well-oiled toxic workplace runs? Of course. The boss never sullies her hands with the not-so-nice stuff. She has people for that.

But the new season of “The Ellen DeGeneres Show” won’t debut for another month – more than enough time for more dirt to come out, for damage control, and just as likely, for her millions of fans to forget this ever happened.

DeGeneres gave a rare interview to the New York Times in 2018 to promote her Netflix stand-up special “Relatable,” a routine that among other subjects, revolves around the truth that living up to her image of always being nice is exhausting.

You might watch that special now and search for clues betraying the “real” Ellen behind the mask of kindness, if you like. You might take in an episode of “Ellen’s Game of Games” and search her face for flickers of sinister glee as she sends losing contestants screaming down vacuum tubes to places unknown.  

You can read that New York Times piece’s opener that declares “Ellen DeGeneres got sick of dancing, and really can you blame her?” and find an excuse for the meanness, that maybe this is a person burned out, collapsing under the imposition of the motto that made her a fortune and won her a spot in millions of hearts.

Or you can read a little further, to the reporter recounting a moment in which the host is tempted to make a cruel joke at the expense of a little girl singing to her father, and look at DeGeneres’ insight as to why she held back. Speaking of her show, DeGeneres said,”It’s escapism for what’s going on, one hour of feeling good . . . At the core it’s a comedy show. But if it’s not funny, at least it feels good.”

The people who aren’t feeling good about Ellen DeGeneres these days will be all too happy to come for her, and they will not be kind. Left open is the question of whether, when this all blows over, she’ll feel the need to be.

At any rate . . .

The new season of “The Ellen DeGeneres Show” debuts on Sept. 9.

Many states have travel quarantines. Few are being enforced

As a federation of many different states, the borders between the U.S. have always been somewhat porous; rarely do states have any kind of entry checkpoint outside of those for agriculture or commercial freight. So the announcement that New York City intends to set up quarantine “checkpoints” at “key entry points” along main bridges and tunnels seems like a new precedent for public health and safety amid the pandemic.

While many states have formally limited travel between other states, there has been little in the way of intra-state enforcement — until recently. That raises the question as to what travel quarantines really mean, which states are actually enforcing them, and how.

In the case of New York, the city intends to screen travelers coming in from 35 states with coronavirus outbreaks.

“Travelers coming in from those states will be given information about the quarantine, they will be reminded that it is required, not optional,” New York City Mayor Bill de Blasio said in an announcement. “They’ll be reminded that failure to quarantine is a violation of state law and it comes with serious penalties.”

Specifically, according to the new order, drivers from one of the 35 states that meet New York’s quarantine requirements have to fill out a form asking for personal contact information and an itinerary. Those who violate their required 14-day quarantine can be subject to a fine of up to $10,000 depending on how many times the quarantine is violated. A refusal to fill out the form will result in a $2,000 penalty. The checkpoints began on Wednesday. On Thursday, according to Gothamist, over 200 cars were stopped.

But unlike countries like New Zealand who have been able to slow the spread of the coronavirus with the help of government isolation centers (designated places for travelers to quarantine) these American states’ mandates operate on a combination of the honor system and the chance of a person individually getting “caught.” Or in some cases, like in New York City, quarantine rules won’t be enforced beyond the checkpoints, as reported by The New York Times.

So are these quarantine rules effectively meaningless? Not in every jurisdiction.

In the U.S., Hawaii has one of the strictest and most enforced travel quarantine mandates since the pandemic began. Since March, travelers— both residents and visitors — have been mandated to do a 14-day self-quarantine. According to a July 17th report, 182 people have been arrested by state or county law enforcement officers for violating quarantine rules since the mandated quarantine began. However, this week the governor tightened restrictions and announced that a two-week inter-island travel quarantine will be in place starting August 11, which had previously been lifted, as coronavirus cases are increasing. The island state briefly appeared to have control over the virus compared to other states, which experts attributed in part to its geography. But even with enforced travel quarantines, a second wave is still underway.

In Alaska, travelers have been given a choice throughout the pandemic: self-quarantine or get tested for COVID-19. But starting August 11, nonresidents will be required to be tested before they arrive in Alaska. If their results are still pending, visitors have to upload proof of the test and self-quarantine until the results are in.

Yet after leaving the airport, the self-quarantine relies on voluntary cooperation, not enforcement. The same goes for the city of Chicago, regarding enforcement of a travel quarantine. The Chicago Tribune said “enforcement of the order so far has been nonexistent, save for some billboards and signs that [Mayor Lori] Lightfoot said were intended to ‘educate’ people to comply.”

In June, New Zealand prime minister Jacinda Adern announced that the country had beat coronavirus. The World Health Organization (WHO) attributes New Zealand’s success to the speed and severity of their lockdown in the beginning of pandemic, but also their sustained vigilance which includes isolation centers managed by the military. While they have contributed to New Zealand’s success story, there have been reports that they are under stress and far from perfect. In July, a man reportedly escaped to go to a liquor store. But as reported by Time magazine, New Zealand’s strategy is unlikely to be replicated in other countries partly because of the high level of trust its citizens have in the government.

Indeed, opinions on the effectiveness of mandated travel quarantines vary based on concerns. In the U.S., there is very low public trust in government which is why some groups have spoken out against mandated travel quarantines. In New York, the privacy group Surveillance Technology Oversight Project (S.T.O.P.) issued a statement condemning de Blasio’s new order, raising concerns that the new order comes at a time when New Yorkers have been demanding to defund the police.

“This is a ludicrous, invasive, and deeply dangerous plan,” Surveillance Technology Oversight Project Executive Director Albert Fox Cahn said in statement. “Rather than addressing the city’s backlog in testing capacity and struggling contact tracing program, the Mayor is transforming this pandemic into a policing issue.”

Notably, the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention endorses state-mandated travel quarantines. “To control the spread of disease within their borders, states have laws to enforce the use of isolation and quarantine,” the federal agency said.

Researchers say that China’s success in controlling coronavirus was due to a mix of “early detection and isolation of cases,” which was more effective “than travel restrictions and contact reductions.”

However, as John Barry, author of “The Great Influenza: The Story of the Deadliest Pandemic in History,’ wrote: “For interventions to work, people have to comply and they have to sustain that compliance; most of that depends on voluntary efforts and individual behavior.”

Certainly, if everyone complied with the mandated travel quarantines, they would be more effective. But for now, they have many people wondering if the government should be doubling down on enforcement, or rather focusing on other strategies to stop the spread of the virus.

WATCH: Crowd at Bedminster erupts after Trump praises them for refusing to social distance

Donald Trump received loud applause from the members at his private club who had gathered as an audience for his presidential address.

Trump was asked why the audience at Bedminster Golf Club was not social distancing, with many seen without masks.

The leader of the free world replied that the event — officially announced by the White House — was a political rally and a peaceful protest.

The audience cheered his comments, as he complained about fake news.

Art museums will never be the same. That’s a good thing

In response to the Covid-19 pandemic, many art institutions have expanded online programming, transforming themselves into what French art theorist André Malraux called “museums without walls.” But moving beyond their physical galleries has not dissolved a second type of intractable barrier within museums: racial injustice. In the wake of George Floyd’s murder, a flood of open letters and social media posts have shed light on such cultural boundaries, recounting both micro-aggressions and systemic racism among prestigious American arts professionals.

Museums are thus facing a double crisis: unprecedented limitations to their physical operations and vocal calls to redress their complicity in racial injustice. This has led to a moment of profound questioning: What exactly should a museum be, and what counts as diversity and inclusion in such institutions?

In this era of meager public funding for the arts, and the consequent dependence on private philanthropy, most American museums are supported by a small class of extremely wealthy donors. By and large, the more prestigious the museum, the richer the donors who serve on their Boards of Trustees. Consequently, civic responsibility and diversity are inevitably filtered through the lens of the one percent (or in many cases the .001 percent).

It is worth remembering that the modern European Encyclopedic Museum — the kind of institution that exhibits work across a broad spectrum of geographic regions and eras — began as a revolutionary institution meant to consecrate a newly republican social body. The prototype of today’s European or American “Universal Museum,” the Louvre, was founded in 1793 as the Muséum Français with collections appropriated from the secular and church ruling classes of the French ancien régime. This art was made available to all, as a way of insisting that the power to represent and to be represented is a basic right of citizenship. Analogously, in early 19th-century Great Britain, some theorists considered museums as companion institutions to libraries which together would afford the educational resources necessary to “improve” communities.

In my book, “Heritage and Debt: Art in Globalization,” I explore how, since the 1990s, museums outside the West have attempted to combat the Eurocentrism at the core of these once revolutionary Universal Museums by collecting and exhibiting aesthetic forms of knowledge that break down imperial and neo-colonial perspectives underlying their utopian claims. Such an emphasis on decolonizing has also been essential to recent American activism aimed at democratizing museums. An example includes the group Decolonize This Place successfully pressuring the Vice Chairman of the Whitney Museum Board, Warren Kanders, to resign on account of his company’s sale of products like tear gas that had reportedly been used against migrants at the southern border of the United States.

But what do civic responsibility and diversity really mean in the museum today, and how do we dismantle structural racism within these institutions? I believe there are three dimensions that must be addressed: the program, thepatrons, and access for various constituencies. In “Heritage and Debt” I consider, for example, how some non-Western and Indigenous or First Nation curatorial strategies have sought to revise or decolonize museum programs, most promisingly by arranging for curatorial collaborations between community experts (such as knowledgeable elders in a Native American context). When it comes to patrons, Decolonize This Place, in its actions against the Whitney and other museums, reveals how the values of funders can pervert and contradict the stated values of an institution. Less attention, however, has been paid to the question of access by considering how the 21st-century “museum without walls” might suggest effective strategies for democratizing museums.

My first proposal is that, like libraries, museums should be free. The fact that admission to them is generally quite expensive in the United States has been so taken for granted that people seldom stop to consider it seriously. The standard admission price for the Museum of Modern Art is $25, children under 16 enter free, students pay $14, and those over 65 pay $18. Let’s imagine a family outing with two adult parents, one 13-year-old child and one 17-year-old student, accompanied by a grandparent. This visit would cost $82 in admission — in a city where the minimum wage is $15 per hour. It doesn’t take an economist to conclude that many working New Yorkers would be hard pressed to take advantage of MoMA, despite its tax-exempt status. Imagine having to pay $25 to enter a public library.

The closure of museums due to the pandemic has prompted a host of free programming, including Instagram talks and virtual tours; these are good things, but they are still directed largely to the art world. Imagine the changes in museology that free access would introduce — new, larger, more diverse audiences would compel changes in programming and installation procedures. But since it won’t be possible to invite larger crowds into museums until the pandemic is under control, online programming — with all of the impediments that it entails, particularly access to the internet — can become a laboratory for how to engage a broader audience, not limited by the price of admission.

My second proposal is that access should lead to collaboration. Many museums have done a great service in digitizing their collections — which are largely held in storage away from public view — giving free access to information about their holdings. But access alone isn’t enough. Access without interchange will never decolonize museums. As I mentioned above, Native American museology has spearheaded forms of community collaboration in which different kinds of expertise are valued as highly as academic art-historical knowledge.

Museums can be places — and should be places — where many kinds of experience and ways of knowing are given space and afforded equal legitimacy and authority. After all, as long as knowledge is understood as the exclusive possession of one group of experts or another, there will never be racial justice.

* * *

David Joselit is Professor of Art, Film and Visual Studies at Harvard University. He is the author of several books, including “Infinite Regress: Marcel Duchamp 1910–1941,” “Feedback: Television against Democracy,” and, most recently, “Heritage and Debt: Art in Globalization.”

When a contagion comes, women bear a heavy burden

Suganya Prakash, 21, left at 8 a.m. from her home in a crowded area of Chennai, a city of 7 million in South India. After a quick breakfast and a visit to the offices of the Chennai Corporation, the civic body governing the city, she donned a surgical mask and, carrying a notebook and a ballpoint pen, walked to the first of 250 houses on her list. It was already 90 degrees and her mask hung askew as she climbed a flight of stairs to the second floor of a turquoise-painted duplex in Mylapore, a well-to-do neighborhood. The front door was open.

“I’m from the Corporation and I’ve come for a survey,” Suganya said in Tamil to the old man seated near the door. She opened her notebook. Five people — three generations — crowded around her. She didn’t fix her mask. “How many members? How old is everyone? Does anyone have any disease? Any fever?”

Suganya was part of a 16,000-strong surveillance team in Chennai that, in April, was going door-to-door with minimal personal protective equipment to find people infected with Covid-19. Most of these census takers are women, often poor, who are attracted to the risky job by its salary of 15,000 rupees ($200) a month — a good wage at a time when more than 100 million in India are without work. And it’s not just in India. In Bangladesh’s Cox’s Bazar, home to the world’s largest refugee camp, Rohingya women are going door-to-door to educate people on the importance of washing hands and maintaining social distancing. In China’s Hubei Province, where the novel coronavirus originated, women make up 90 percent of the health care workforce.

“With the Covid crisis, we’re seeing that women are bearing the social and economic impacts to a disproportionate degree,” said Julia Smith, a research associate at Simon Fraser University in British Columbia, who is part of a global team examining the gendered effects of Covid-19. “They are also on the front lines responding to the outbreak.”

To be sure, the virus itself takes a greater toll on men, who are statistically more likely to die from Covid-19 once infected — two times more likely, according to some studies. Precisely why remains unclear.

Still, that grim statistic belies a complicated situation on the ground, where the impacts of the pandemic ripple through women’s lives in profound ways. From nurses and doctors to contract tracers and community volunteers, women are disproportionately represented on the front lines of health care delivery and management for the millions of cases of Covid-19 around the world. Meanwhile, women-dominated industries like service and personal care have suffered some of the greatest job losses during the economic contraction. In turn, across the world — in rich countries as well as developing ones — women have been more likely to shoulder the burden of caring for children and elderly family members during widespread lockdowns, as well as suffering higher rates of domestic violence and higher levels of anxiety and stress.

Gendered patterns have surfaced amid other contagions, from HIV to Ebola, but experts say the disparate impacts on women in the midst of a fast-spreading disease are only now being studied in earnest — and none too soon. They warn that the long-term impacts of Covid-19 on the lives of women could roll back gains made over decades, in part because in the mad rush to address the looming public health crisis, most nations have failed to consider gender when planning their responses. “We need to understand those things,” Smith said, “if we’re going to make sure that those most in need get the help they need.”

* * *

The HIV/AIDs epidemic first revealed to researchers in the 1990s the importance of the fact that men, women, and non-binary people experience infectious diseases differently, and that cultural expectations about appropriate male and female behavior matter. “At different levels, gender affects your risk exposure,” said Sara Davies, professor at the School of Government and International Relations at Griffith University in Australia. “It affects how your body will react, and it also affects the consequences of getting infected.”

Davies was in Thailand in the late 2000s, at the tail end of the H5N1 — avian influenza — outbreak across Southeast Asia. Between 2003 and 2009, there were 468 confirmed infections resulting in 282 deaths worldwide. Davies noticed that most workers monitoring H5N1 on the ground were women, while men dominated all the policy workshops that Davies attended. Even the messaging seemed biased to Davies. Men were told about impacts on the job, while women — who also often worked — received instructions about household care, such as how to check for fever or sanitize surfaces.

The dominance of men at the top echelons of health policy has meant that the male body is considered the default in these discussions, said Anna Purdie, program manager for Global Health 50/50, an initiative focused on gender equality in global health based at University College London. For example, most clinical trials have a male bias. Heart attacks in women, which can cause atypical symptoms such as jaw pain, often go unrecognized because the default understanding is the male experience. On the flip side, men tend to seek medical care later than women due to cultural norms.

When Ebola broke out in in Liberia, Sierra Leone, and Guinea in 2014, these nations in West Africa were already struggling with lack of access to school for girls, teenage pregnancy, domestic violence, and adequate maternal health care. In the Kailahun and Kenema Districts of eastern Sierra Leone, for example, there was only one hospital for about 670,000 people, so the sick were often cared for at home by women.

But as authorities scrambled to respond, gender was still mostly ignored, said Sophie Harman, a professor of international politics at Queen Mary University of London. She found that out of some 61 publications on the outbreak in the year ending February 2015, only two spoke of women and acknowledged their risk as primary caregivers.

The World Health Organization (WHO) did not publish gender-disaggregated data until a year after the outbreak began, and the data, when it was published, suggested that Ebola equally impacted men and women.

But global health experts on the ground could see that the statistical gender parity in the sparse data hid a world of nuance. Some research has found that women who survived Ebola disproportionately suffered secondary and long-term social impacts, such as being more likely to experience community stigma and ostracization. In Sierra Leone, as the health care system become overwhelmed with cases, 30 percent fewer women accessed routine health care, and pregnant women came to clinics only after facing obstetric complications because they worried about catching the disease. In Liberia, more women gave birth without the attendance of a health care professional of any kind. And among the women who did make it to the hospital, maternal mortality and stillbirth increased.

Women were also more likely to lose their jobs and remain out of work as economies contracted during the crisis. A 2015 World Bank report found that 60 percent of women in Liberia remained unemployed a year after the outbreak began, compared to 40 percent of men. In one micro-finance group set up to empower women in Kailahun in Sierra Leone that Smith of Simon Fraser University worked with, nine out of 35 women died of Ebola.

“The wide, rippling effects were just almost too much to comprehend,” Smith said.

Experts published papers on gender and infectious disease in academic journals, but Harman suggested these findings were largely ignored until women in Europe and the United States began experiencing negative impacts during the Covid-19 pandemic. “Gender has historically flown under the radar when it comes to infectious disease,” she said. “That’s because it has mostly affected women in the global south. But Covid is different; it has affected women in the north.”

* * *

During her rounds in April, Malathi Sasikumar was frazzled; as part of the team knocking on doors in Chennai, she was responsible for managing 75 surveillance workers in the area in addition to making her own visits. She stopped outside a cramped three-story apartment building where a woman had reported Covid-19 symptoms and rang the doorbell. The vendor at the milk depot next door, which was permitted to operate during the lockdown, said in Tamil, “I don’t know how you do this. I’d be scared. You are very brave.”

A woman appeared on a second-floor balcony and gestured to Malathi to come upstairs. She climbed up and paused on the tiny landing. The woman gestured for her to enter. Malathi, who was wearing a surgical mask and white cloth gloves, hesitated. “No, we just want to ask you about your fever,” she said. But the woman insisted, and Malathi removed her sandals and went in. The room smelled musty; there were no windows. A surgical mask hung on a nail; the woman’s face was uncovered. A muted television played the day’s news.

The woman asked Malathi to sit next to her on the sofa. Malathi hesitated again before sitting down to hear the woman better. The woman said she worked for the government and was constantly around people. She was worried that she had the virus and wanted to get tested. Malathi assured her a doctor would check on her that evening.

Back on the street, Malathi explained her thinking. “I was very scared,” she said of entering the woman’s home. “But the woman wouldn’t listen, and I had to go in.”

Data on Covid-19 shows that men are more likely to die once infected. In some parts of the world, such as South Asia and the Middle East, men are also more likely to be confirmed as infected. “We don’t know whether that’s because more men have access to testing, or because more men are getting more infected than women because they are outside more,” said Purdie of Global Health 50/50.

But within the health care sector, women are faring worse. This is unsurprising as women make up 70 percent of the world’s health care workers. In Spain, Italy, and the United States, between two thirds and three quarters of infections in health care workers are in women.

In almost all nations, nurses have complained about unsafe conditions. In India, where 90 percent of nurses are women, some hospitals require staff to work up to 12-hour shifts while wearing stifling personal protective equipment (PPE), said Joldin Francis, general secretary of the United Nurses Association’s New Delhi chapter. The women cannot take toilet breaks while wearing PPE, and they complete weeklong assignments in Covid-19 wards, only to return home and worry about transmitting the virus to their families. They are under great mental strain, he said.

It’s been difficult to fully understand the impact of Covid-19 on men and women because gender-disaggregated data are not easily available. Only 60 out of 194 member nations of the WHO are supplying such data consistently, Davies of Griffith University said.

“It’s been really shocking,” she said. “I’m on a project and we’re trying to collect it, and it’s really hard. We have a suspicion that sometimes it probably is being collected, but it’s just not being shared.”

Experts say policymakers must go beyond infection and mortality statistics while crafting policies. There have been knock-on effects on women, but getting relevant data on issues such as domestic violence has been challenging, said Tara Cookson, a postdoctoral research fellow at the University of British Columbia in Vancouver and co-founder of Ladysmith, a feminist research consultancy.

“It’s really hard to collect data on this at the moment because you’re not sending around someone to do a household survey,” she said.

* * *

Kamalam John’s occupation is snipping away excess threads from hemmed garments, putting in drawstrings, and other piece work for the garment industry. She had taken up this job a decade ago as it allowed her to earn from home while taking care of her family. And when Covid-19 hit, she was on the lowest rung of a garment supply chain in Tiruppur, a city 250 miles southeast of Chennai, which supplies domestic companies as well as major international fashion brands such as Zara.

Kamalam, 45, usually earns at least a quarter of a rupee (a fraction of a cent) per garment she processes, but as of early July, she hadn’t worked for three months. Her husband, a full-time tailor at the local firm AKR Textiles, had also lost his job. They hadn’t paid the rent on their house for the previous three months. Like many women here, Kamalam had taken out a microfinance loan and the representative was clamoring for dues. She estimated that half of the home-based workers in Tiruppur like her were still unemployed, and even the work that still trickled in paid lower rates.

“We don’t have work,” she said in Tamil. “Instead of being able to plan out our lives, suddenly, there’s this problem in nature. We cannot handle the shock.”

Janhavi Dave, international coordinator of HomeNet South Asia, an NGO that represents 900,000 home-based workers, the majority women, said that most have not earned a wage since March. “They’re almost desperate for work, for an income,” she said.

Economists say that women have been more likely than men to lose their jobs during the pandemic, as the sectors dominated by women, such as retail and hospitality, have been hit hard. Globally, an estimated 220 million women are employed in at-risk sectors.

Women are also handing much of the burden of caring for children, as well as ill and elderly relatives, in both the developed and developing world. “The only place [many women] used to work, which is their own home, is gone because now a lot of people are there,” Dave said.

As nations locked down, some women were stuck with violent partners. Helplines around the world noted an uptick in distress calls. In France, domestic violence reports increased by 30 percent. In Cyprus and Singapore, calls increased by even more. In India, some helplines shut down at the beginning of the lockdown, leaving women with nowhere to turn, according to Dave.

“They reached out to police, but the police were too busy, you know, implementing the lockdown and asked them to manage it on their own,” she said.

While there has been a growing outcry over the disparate impacts of the pandemic on women, nations haven’t really applied a gender lens to their policymaking, according to Harman. If they had, they would have known that domestic violence would increase during a lockdown and devoted resources to addressing the spike.

Women have also been mostly absent at the topmost levels of outbreak response. In the United States, the White House Coronavirus Task Force, for example, has only two women among its 27 members. This mirrors the absence of women in the decision-making roles across the health care sector worldwide, where less than one-third of organizations have equal numbers of men and women, according to an analysis by Global Health 50/50.

While the WHO does have a gender unit, Davies noted, their research does not always surface in the work of the health emergencies program. “There’s not a lot of consistent international level policy,” Davies said, “on the gendered impacts of pandemics.”

* * *

Gayathri Vaidyanathan is an independent, India-based journalist writing about the environment, science, and society.

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

As the pandemic has made clear, America has no welfare state — but we sure have a warfare state

The animating force of American government is war. Every year, the United States bombs multiple countries, conducts special forces raids across several continents and spends hundreds of billions of dollars to maintain a military presence in 70-plus countries, either in the form of occupying armies or large bases. Now that the U.S. is widely seen as a bungling, belligerent pariah, even allied nations no longer want American troops on their territory. The Japanese complain that U.S. military personnel sexually assault women without consequences and spread the coronavirus, while Italian villagers object to the aesthetic and sonic assault of a foreign military installation on their otherwise quiet country lifestyle.

Regardless of who is president or which party holds power, the federal government spends more than half its annual discretionary budget — roughly $721 billion in fiscal 2020 — on so-called “defense,” which translates into weaponry and technology that benefits no one but the major corporations that gratuitously profit from massive defense contracts.

There is no possible way to fund social services adequately without reducing the military budget, and no matter the good intentions of Democrats who advocate for aggressive policies to combat climate change, their credibility cannot withstand scrutiny if they refuse to discuss the toxic effect of the U.S. military. According to multiple studies, including a particularly detailed report from Brown University, the Department of Defense is the biggest polluter in the world.

At the conclusion of the Second World War, free nations faced a choice whether to construct a welfare state or a warfare state. The United States alone — or, one might say, “exceptionally” — decided to go the way of warfare. In 2020, when the coronavirus pandemic began killing thousands of people, forcing the closure of countless businesses, citizens of welfare states could take for granted that government-funded health care, unemployment compensation and public health infrastructure would help sustain them through the crisis. Here in the warfare state, people can take nothing for granted.

Nurses do not have adequate personal protective equipment, recovering COVID-19 patients receive bills totaling thousands of dollars, small business owners are compelled to lay off workers while multinational corporations receive large tax breaks, and many impoverished families have not even received disaster relief funds to cover the cost of burying their loved ones.

Despite widespread death and deprivation, the warfare state marches on without interruption. Two weeks ago, Congress, including most Democrats, voted overwhelmingly to defeat a measure sponsored by the Progressive Caucus that proposed reducing the “defense” budget by 10 percent and reallocating those funds to COVID-19 testing and relief programs.

The absurd fact that the world’s richest country spends more money on bombs, missiles and tanks than medicine in the middle of a pandemic is made even more blatant by the failures of the warfare state to “defend” itself. How effective was the world’s largest military on Sept. 11, 2001, when 19 terrorists armed with box-cutters murdered nearly 3,000 Americans? How indestructible does the United States look as its coronavirus death toll climbs toward 200,000, while welfare states have largely gotten the crisis under control?

Political campaigns and cable-news pundits ignore these questions,, and refuse to deal with the consequences of militarism. The one issue most elected officials or candidates of both parties refuse to discuss is also the most important. Warfare is the water in the political version of the old “fish don’t notice the water” adage.

With Donald Trump at the helm of a leaky ship, America is beginning to drown. The two catastrophes that confront America during the current campaign season are closely connected, especially if one considers the destructive influence of the military-industrial complex, and how America’s successive investment in empire, rather than democracy, has set the table for both fascism and a pandemic. 

Historians identify the birth of the national security state in the years after World War II, when under President Harry Truman’s direction, the United States increased its military budget and created several military and intelligence agencies, including that international philanthropic organization whose  handiwork is visible everywhere from Chile to Iran — the CIA. 

After 9/11, both political parties eagerly injected steroids into the warfare state, enabling its extension into every aspect of American life. The Department of Homeland Security and Immigration and Customs Enforcement began to closely monitor domestic “threats,” and the PATRIOT Act made a mockery of the Fourth Amendment of the Bill of Rights.

When Barack Obama became president, too many liberals acted as if the dangers of the warfare state had evaporated into thin air because an intelligent and charismatic Black Democrat was in the White House. Drone strikes, NSA surveillance and the president’s ability to marshal federal forces against protesters no longer seem innocuous when the man calling the shots is irredeemably narcissistic, power hungry and — according to the expert testimony of hundreds of psychiatrists, psychologists and clinical social workers — probably insane.

During his 2016 campaign, Trump confounded observers by declaring within the same paragraph of non-sequiturs that he would “end stupid wars in the Middle East” and that he was the “most militaristic person” to ever run for the presidency.

Even though Trump has somehow avoided starting a major war, he is the apotheosis of the warfare mentality in American politics. The governing philosophy of his administration is to identify enemies and then devote the power of the state to their eradication or expulsion.

To justify the creation of a massive national security apparatus, Sen. Arthur Vandenburg advised Truman he would have to “scare the hell out of the American people.”

That tactic has proved successful for a series of presidents, all of whom oversaw the propagation of what Gore Vidal mockingly called the “enemy of the month club.” Without a credible enemy overseas, Trump has opened his kennels of rabid supporters against enemies at home. Immigrants, Black activists, “left-wing mobs,” and the simultaneously everywhere and nowhere threat of antifa promise the death of the “real America” — a mythical utopia where “suburban housewives” till their gardens in a lily-white neighborhood, bikers for Trump rev up their Harleys in church parking lots, and children play hide-and-seek around statues of John Wilkes Booth.

In 2016, two-thirds of Trump voters viewed the presidential race as America’s “last chance to survive,” as if the racist TV pitchman’s opponent was Osama bin Laden. With the same mentality giving him justification, Trump has taken a brazen leap from secretive persecution of dissenters, as with COINTELPRO in the 1960s and ’70s, to openly ordering federal military-style officers, with no clear insignia or nametags, to treat Portland, Oregon, as enemy territory. In an American city, ostensibly tasked with protecting a federal courthouse, these Keystone Kops fascists have seized peaceful protesters off the streets, attacked journalists and clubbed ordinary citizens for asking them questions.

Such outrageous defiance of democratic norms in an American city would have seemed unthinkable even during the Bush-Cheney years. Americans are beginning to learn that the warfare state will eventually turn its guns against its own people. 

The first sign of Trump’s escalation of the warfare state was his family separation policy at the border, which Benjamin Ferencz, the last living Nuremberg prosecutor, condemned as a “crime against humanity.”

Now, Trump and the Republican Party, having already mastered voter suppression schemes in key states, are committed to debilitating the Postal Service, with the apparent goal of making mail-in voting difficult or impossible. After making the world decidedly less secure by rescinding the Iran nuclear deal, backing out of nonproliferation treaties, and refusing to take even minimal action to address the existential crisis of climate change, Trump is implementing his strongman techniques to make the American election less secure.

If current polls are accurate, and Joe Biden manages to overcome the Republicans’ cheat-to-win strategy, the left will have to exert pressure on the Democrats to diminish the warfare state, adopt a less belligerent posture toward the rest of the world, and at last begin to embrace the policies of a welfare state. There are promising signs that Biden, in the words of Noam Chomsky, “is an empty can you can kick the right direction.”

Faced with demands from the burgeoning progressive faction of the party, Biden has delineated surprisingly aggressive proposals on climate change, environmental justice and child care. He has also moved, albeit at a snail’s pace, toward a progressive higher education plan for student debt forgiveness and tuition subsidies for low-income students.

The former vice president’s record on foreign policy, however, is alarming. As the highest ranking Democrat on the Senate Judiciary Committee, he was a champion of the war in Iraq, and as the American Prospect reports, he has had a “lifelong love affair with the CIA.”

It is worth acknowledging, however, that when the Obama administration was considering war with Syria after its president, Bashar al-Assad, crossed Obama’s “red line” with a chemical weapons attack against civilians, Biden was one of the most persistent and persuasive anti-war voices in the White House.

Just as Democrats have forced their nominee to re-evaluate his positions on issues of domestic policy, they will have to influence him to act more as he did during the Syria debate than when he warned the American people about the “imminent threat” of Saddam Hussein’s imaginary weapons of mass destruction.

Unfortunately, early indicators are not encouraging. With little to no opposition, Trump has significantly increased drone strikes in multiple countries, and has even revoked the measures that Obama enshrined in his second term to minimize civilian casualties. If Democrats will not “resist” Trump’s unlawful assassinations of foreign nationals, one cannot expect them to demonstrate opposition to a Democratic president overseeing the same policy. Innocent passersby are nothing more than “collateral damage,” to evoke the ugly language of the warfare state.

The warfare ethos now inflicts damage at home, as American citizens, especially the elderly and infirm, become COVID-19 collateral damage in the Republican zeal to “reopen” businesses, reduce unemployment aid and force children back to school.

It is hard to imagine anything more instructive than a pandemic when determining the failures of the warfare state. As Americans find themselves confused and frustrated with the incompetence of their country, perhaps they should reflect on the words of one of its great sages, George Carlin:

We like war! We like war, because we’re good at it. And it’s a good thing we are. We’re not good at anything else anymore. We can’t build a decent car. We can’t make a TV set worth a fuck. We’ve got no steel industry left. We can’t educate our young people. We can’t get health care to our old people. But we can bomb the shit out of your country.

It was easy to laugh when the late comedian made those remarks in 1992. Nearly three decades later, it is easier to cry.

Going back to school? Don’t forget to ditch gender norms

Much of the talk about going back to school focuses, understandably and necessarily, on safety and equity. But a new study from the University of Cambridge suggests we keep something else in mind as school resumes, in one form or another: gender norms. That is, we should avoid them, explode them and encourage kids to reject them.

Why? Because kids who defy gender stereotypes did better. Boys who resisted pressures to be traditionally masculine got better grades. Girls who were marked as tomboys by researchers did better in math, while those who were traditionally feminine risked falling behind.

This was no surprise to me. After two years researching and writing a book about tomboys, and the science, psychology, history and future of gender nonconformity, I have indeed learned how lucky a child is if he or she or they don’t follow traditional patterns of gender development. While some might think gender nonconformity is a liability, I have found that, with an accepting family, having, and being, a gender nonconforming child can be an incredible boon and even a predictor of psychological health — and now, it seems, academic achievement.

Most boys and girls play together and act similarly until around age two. Then their brains begin to mature enough to understand our culture’s two main sex categories, and which they belong to (around 1 percent of kids don’t fall neatly into those biological categories).

By the time they hit preschool, most understand the stereotypes associated with those groups. As they divide themselves, and are divided, into boys and girls, most hew to the group they’ve been assigned to in how they play and with what and whom; psychologists call this “stereotype-behavior congruence.”

As Arizona State University child development professor Carol Martin noted in a 2011 study, “A young girl who thinks ‘dolls are for girls’ is likely to approach and become interested in playing with dolls and she would likely avoid playing with trucks if she stereotypes these as being ‘for boys.'” Most children stick to their sex-segregated script, embracing group rules, weeding out those who don’t; in preschool, kids start gender-policing.

But some kids start showing signs of resistance then. Some come out as trans, identifying with a different sex than the one they were assigned at birth. Some girls don’t comply with cultural traditions of pink and princesses, choosing to play with boys, or selecting trucks over or in addition to dolls. They don’t stick to the script. They’re stereotype-behavior incongruent.

Historically, we’ve called them tomboys, and research about them, and others kids who defy gender norms, has turned up some surprising findings. First, that kids who straddle the masculine/feminine divide are more creative.

In the 1960s, psychologist Ellis Paul Torrance showed that creative girls were seen as more masculine than girls who were less creative; creative boys were seen as more feminine. He wrote that, “Creativity, by its very nature, requires both sensitivity and independence,” acknowledging that many see independence as masculine and sensitivity as feminine.

As former tomboy Virginia Woolf said, a writer should be “woman-manly or man-womanly…. Some collaboration has to take place in the mind between the woman and the man before the art of creation can be accomplished. Some marriage of opposites has to be consummated.”

In the 1970s, psychologist Sandra Bem coined the term “psychological androgyny” for people who combined “feminine” traits like included being soft-spoken, affectionate, tender, sympathetic and warm, and “masculine” traits like being forceful, dominant, independent and competitive.

Bem thought this was the best way to be. “Masculinity and femininity may each become negative and even destructive when they are represented in extreme and unadulterated form,” she wrote. “For fully effective and healthy human functioning, both masculinity and femininity must each be tempered by the other, and the two must be integrated into a more balanced, a more fully human, a truly androgynous personality.”

Long before national discussions of toxic masculinity or the plagues of eating disorders and low self-esteem, Bem, Torrance and Woolf suggested that it’s best to straddle the masculine/feminine line—something tomboys have always done. Carol Martin found that both tomboys and non-tomboys liked the same number of traditionally “feminine” activities, like playing with dolls, or other girls. But tomboys liked “boy” stuff, too. They weren’t limited. Back in 1967, one reverend who spent a decade studying “the ideal woman” concluded that “all mature, intellectually creative women were tomboys when they were young.”

There are connections between tomboyism, psychological androgyny and situational flexibility, and psychological androgyny is correlated to marital satisfaction, high self-esteem and achievement motivation. The word that I saw over and over in studies of tomboys was “flexibility.”

Tomboys “show flexibility in their stereotypes concerning what girls do and do not like,” wrote Martin.

“Tomboys, rather than having rigidly gendered or masculine interests, may be more flexible,” wrote psychologist Sheana Ahlqvist and colleagues in a 2013 study. According to one study, tomboys with many male friends; almost no interest in dolls (though boys have always liked dolls); who assumed the role of boys while playing make-believe; and sometimes said they wanted to be a boy, still had happy friendships with girls. As the authors put it, “None of the tomboys were rejected by their peers.”

They were also far more accepting than many of their peers, less likely to engage in gender-policing and revealing less of what’s called in social psychology “in-group bias”: a preference for your own category.

This isn’t to say that tomboys and other gender nonconforming kids are automatically kinder, or have it easy. Many are teased. Others have unsupportive families. A sporty, pony-tailed girl in the occasional dress is more accepted than one with a super short “boy’s'” haircut, boy clothes and a gaggle of little boy friends. And a feminine boy almost always has a harder time finding acceptance and support than a masculine girl.

Still, childhood tomboyism can have lasting positive effects. One 2002 study detected a connection with degree of tomboyishness and level of confidence in career success. A 2006 book, “Alpha Girls,” revealed a connection between androgynous girls, lower anxiety and increased self-esteem. They were less promiscuous than their more feminine counterparts and less apt to abuse substances. Maybe being socialized as and/or with boys gave these girls access to a kind of male privilege.

It’s misguided to characterize traits like dominance, leadership and self-reliance as masculine, or kindness, empathy and compassion as feminine. They should go hand-in-hand: leadership meshing with empathy, dominance meshing with compassion. None of those things belong to one sex. But kids learn so early, and so falsely, that they do.

I often get notes from parents, worried and wondering what they should do if their kid is gender nonconforming. Celebrate, I tell them. It’s a gift. 

As we return to school environments, we can encourage all kids to be like those who are naturally resistant to gender norms. We don’t know yet how much online learning affects those norms, if the format is freeing or constricting. But it’s something we can watch out for as we all head back to school, in one form or another. 

The shift to working from home has increased the number of hours Americans work

A new study finds that employees are working longer hours since the shift to remote work amid the coronavirus pandemic began, even as companies across the country have cut wages.

The average work day is now 48.5 minutes longer, meaning employees are at work an average of four hours more per week, according to a study of 3.1 million workers by researchers at Harvard and New York University published by the National Bureau of Economic Research. Some cities, like Chicago and Los Angeles, have seen their average work day decrease since its peak in the spring, but longer hours remain the status quo in cities like New York, San Jose, and many European cities.

The study, which analyzed anonymous email and calendar data from workers at more than 21,000 companies in 16 global metropolitan areas, also found that the number of meetings has increased by 13%, though the length of meetings fell by about 11%.

The analysis looked at the amount of time people spent at work and meetings during eight-week periods before and after the coronavirus lockdowns.

“These lockdowns established a clear break point after which we could infer that people were working from home,” the authors said. “The earliest lockdown in our data occurred on March 8, 2020, in Milan, Italy, and the latest lockdown occurred on March 25, 2020, in Washington, DC.”

Though the shift to remote work has provided additional flexibility and allows workers to save time on commutes, workers are plugged in more than ever.

“People are afraid — the fear around your job and around the economy — I want to make sure [managers] know I’m constantly responding to emails and messages and am always on Slack,” Cali Williams Yost, the founder of workplace consultancy firm Flex Stategy, told The Washington Post. “It’s a toxic brew of burnout and overwhelm.”

Jeffrey Polzer, a Harvard Business School professor and one of the paper’s authors, cautioned that longer work days do not mean people are necessarily working more than before, noting that calendar and email data cannot account for unscheduled breaks and interruptions during the day. Either way, being at work longer can have negative effects as well.

“Is it working from home or living at work, or both?” Polzer told the Post. “As we try to manage our work from home environment, it’s very hard to turn off work. That’s always been true since our phones have followed us home, but that phenomenon has grown.”

Polzer predicted that the trend toward longer workdays is unsustainable.

“Organizations are trying to figure out what the capacity is to handle this type of work,” he said. “People will start burning out if we don’t rethink how they’re spending their time.”

Other analyses have found similar results. Microsoft found that its workers have been communicating more between 6 pm and midnight since the shift to remote work, according to the Harvard Business Review. A survey by the job search engine Monster found that 69% of workers have experience burnout as a result of working from home last month, a 20-point increase since May.

It’s too early to say whether this will be a long-term trend. But experts don’t expect the shift to remote work to end anytime soon.

“It’s not like we’re going back to normal times,” Polzer told Bloomberg.

Despite the longer work hours, millions of employees have seen their pay reduced amid the pandemic. While tens of millions of people have lost their jobs, at least another 4 million private-sector workers have had their pay cut since the pandemic began, according to researchers at the University of Chicago’s Becker Friedman Institute.

The average base wage in the US decreased by more than 5% between February and May, the researchers said in a study, and businesses have cut nominal wages for about 10% of employees still on the job while “forgoing regularly scheduled wage increases for others.” Some businesses have cut pay by up to 50%.

Workers are more than twice as likely to get a pay cut amid the pandemic than they were during the Great Recession, the study found.

Another analysis by payroll processor Gusto found that hourly workers were disproportionately affected by pay cuts, seeing an average of 23% less pay between February and May.

Millions of other workers have had their hours reduced, leaving them with smaller paychecks. More than 6 million workers have been forced to work part-time due to economic conditions despite wanting to work full-time, according to Labor Department data.

“I have Fridays off but I would rather have the money,” Denise Iezzi, a New Jersey accounting assistant, told the Post. “You go to work every day and just wonder when will this end. Surviving on three or four days a week just doesn’t cut it.”

The Gusto analysis found that hour reductions have been the biggest driver of wage reductions, cutting pay by an average of 32% to affected workers. The analysis also found that the cuts have affected virtually every sector, with industries like tech, finance, and law particularly affected.

“Businesses typically fire you before they cut your pay, so this is really atypical,” said Mark Zandi, chief economist at Moody’s Analytics. “There’s a real risk we would see actual nominal wage declines, which would be unprecedented.”

Some companies, like Tesla, have also cut executive pay, arguing that pay cuts should be a “shared sacrifice.” But a UK study found that the highly-publicized reports of executive pay cuts were largely “superficial or short-term,” noting that salaries typically make up a small part of executive compensation packages.

The media reports also ignore the size of executive pay compared to employee pay. A recent analysis by the New Hampshire Business Review found that the average CEO compensation package was just under $10 million while the median worker pay was around $56,000. An analysis of S&P 500 companies found that CEOs averaged $14.8 million in compensation, 264 times higher than the median worker pay at those companies.

“The salary reductions amounted to a small percentage of their compensation package, which is primarily based on equity and cash incentives,” the Business Review noted. “The stock market, while volatile, has been going up, increasing the worth of those packages.”

The New York Times noted that, in a survey of 3,000 public companies, “only a small percentage of the companies cut salaries for their senior executives at all.”

Economists also worry that the trend could reverse wage increase gains, which grew 3.4% last year after years of stagnation.

“It took us so long to see even the slightest acceleration in wage growth,” Martha Gimbel, a labor market expert and manager of economic research at Schmidt Futures, told the Post. “Watching that get undermined is devastating.”

Anti-government propaganda is a Republican ploy meant to disarm progressives

Social justice activists win myriad campaigns on specific issues each year, but when we step back, it still looks like we’re losing the broader struggle for a livable future.

Despite our best efforts, we still face unprecedented concentrations of wealth and power, expanding economic insecurity (the “gig” economy), environmental catastrophe and systemic racism.

Why have progressives failed to mobilize a force capable of governing the U.S.?

Recently, I found a compelling explanation — and a prescription for winning the long game. It’s a short, free booklet called Dismantling Democracy by Donald Cohen, executive director of the national nonprofit research and policy organization called In the Public Interest.

The booklet is divided into two sections — first, how our right-wing adversaries deliberately worked us into this mess over the last 50-plus years, and second, 10 things we could do together now to develop a long game, to “build a movement and a nation rooted in protecting and advancing the common good,” as Cohen writes. 

At its core, the right-wing agenda of the last 50-plus years has been an assault on government. They want us to believe that government is represented by potholes in our streets, long lines at the Department of Motor Vehicles, and “socialism” that creates a nation of “dependent moochers.” Their solution is to privatize government functions — schools, water departments, prisons, the military, and more, cutting taxes to “starve the beast” and shrink government so small they can drown it in a bathtub.

Why did the right wing spend decades demonizing government? There are three big reasons. 

First, negative attitudes toward government have allowed the right to sustain their agenda of austerity (cut taxes, then cut benefits), privatization (it’s so much more “efficient,” wink, wink) and deregulation of big corporations (unleash the “job creators”). Destroying faith in government has allowed the rich and powerful to take control of government and rewrite the rules to make themselves even richer and more powerful, eliminating “majority rule” from our political system, which they set out to do in the 1950s.

Second, bashing government convinced huge numbers of secret progressives and “undecideds” that voting is a waste of time — no matter who wins, all you get is more useless government. As a result, even in a presidential election, 40 percent of eligible voters don’t even bother to vote. In midterm elections, 60 percent don’t vote.

The third reason is that government plays an essential role in every issue that progressives and liberals care about. Discredit government, disarm progressives. As Cohen puts it, “living wage campaigns use the power of government purchasing to lift economic standards; inclusionary housing policies employ the land use power of government to increase the amount of affordable housing; mass-transit systems rely on public spending of tax dollars; Social Security and Medicare depend on the government’s unique ability to create universal social-insurance programs; the Clean Air Act and the Pure Food and Drug Act that protect public health rely on the regulatory powers of the state. These are the essential public powers that have created every policy victory from National Labor Relations Act to banking reform, and much more.” No wonder the right has spent more than five decades changing the public perception of government — government is the progressives’ friend if sympathetic people hold office and they work for the public good.

Corporate executives began campaigning in the 1950s to demonize government (they hated Roosevelt’s New Deal and set out to roll it back). Despite their best efforts, Social Security and unemployment benefits have survived (so far), but the right wing totally succeeded in destroying public faith in government. In 1964, during President Lyndon Johnson’s first term, 77 percent of Americans said they trusted the government to do what is right “just about always” or “most of the time.” Asked the same question in 2019, only 17 percent of Americans said they trusted their government.

Instead of focusing on taking control (by voting) and changing the all-important “who” in government, we progressives surrendered it to our adversaries, who were only too happy to turn the mighty power of government to their own narrow advantage using clever, consistent, concerted strategies. They made “government is hopeless” the conventional wisdom, and then they turned it into a self-fulfilling prophecy by gutting the capacity of government to promote the common good. As Paul Krugman wrote recently, “decades of conservative attacks on the idea that government can do anything good have left America with a unique case of learned helplessness” unable to control a pandemic that has killed more than 151,000 people — most of them unnecessarily — and is ravaging our economy

The only real antidote to decades of anti-government propaganda would be a long-game campaign to rehabilitate the idea that lifting up “public purpose” and “the public good” is how we can all thrive. 

The second half of Cohen’s little book spells out 10 strategies for building a coherent, powerful progressive movement to win the long game. It requires finding spaces and times for progressives to discuss and clarify their ideas, to develop “a clear and forceful restatement of the comprehensive case for effective government,” and to develop a clear statement of the kind of country we want to build. It means thinking creatively about how progressive groups are funded — as it is, they compete against each other for foundation and labor dollars. It means working through the racism, classism, sexism and other social issues within our own movements as well.

The good news is, despite decades of government-bashing, large majorities of the general public still believe government should play a “major role” in keeping everyone safe, healthy, educated and able to pursue happiness.

Even before the pandemic, a full 89 percent of Americans said public health plays an important role in the well-being of their community. In December 2017, 87 percent told the Pew Research Center that government should have a “major role” in “ensuring safe food and medicine.” And three-quarters favored a “major role” for government in protecting the environment (76 percent), “maintaining infrastructure” (75 percent) and strengthening the economy (75 percent). Fully two-thirds said the government should have a “major role” in “ensuring access to quality education” (68 percent), “setting standards for workplaces” (65 percent), “helping people get out of poverty” (67 percent) and “ensuring access to health care” (69 percent).

People know what they want, and they know they’re not getting it from government. That’s a huge opportunity for progressives. As George Goehl of People’s Action likes to say, government is not the problem, it’s the prize.

Copyright © Truthout. Reprinted with permission.

Mitch McConnell’s Republicans are destroying America

Senate Republicans’ shameful priorities are on full display as the nation continues to grapple with an unprecedented health and economic crisis. 

Mitch McConnell and the GOP refuse to take up the HEROES Act, passed by the House in early May to help Americans survive the pandemic and fortify the upcoming election. 

Senate Republicans don’t want to extend the extra $600 a week in unemployment benefits, even though unemployment has soared to the highest levels since the Great Depression. 

Even before the pandemic, nearly 80 percent of Americans lived paycheck to paycheck. Now many are desperate, as revealed by lengthening food lines and growing delinquencies in rent payments.    

McConnell’s response? He urges lawmakers to be “cautious” about helping struggling Americans, warning that “the amount of debt that we’re adding up is a matter of genuine concern.” 

McConnell seems to forget the $1.9 trillion tax cut he engineered in December 2017 for big corporations and the super-rich, which blew up the debtdeficit.  

That’s just the beginning of the GOP’s handouts for corporations and the wealthy. As soon as the pandemic hit, McConnell and Senate Republicans were quick to give mega-corporations a $500 billion blank check, while only sending Americans a paltry one-time $1,200 check.

The GOP seems to believe that the rich will work harder if they receive more money while people of modest means work harder if they receive less. In reality, the rich contribute more to Republican campaigns when they get bailed out.

That’s precisely why the GOP put into the last Covid relief bill a $170 billion windfall to Jared Kushner and other real estate moguls, who line the GOP’s campaign coffers. Another $454 billion of the package went to backing up a Federal Reserve program that benefits big business by buying up their debt.

And although the bill was also intended to help small businesses, lobbyists connected to Trump — including current donors and fundraisers for his reelection — helped their clients rake in over $10 billion of the aid, while an estimated 90 percent of small businesses owned by people of color and women got nothing.

The GOP’s shameful priorities have left countless small businesses with no choice but to close. They’ve also left 22 million Americans unemployed, and 28 million at risk of being evicted by September. 

For the bulk of this crisis, McConnell called the Senate back into session only to confirm more of Trump’s extremist judges and advance a $740 billion defense spending bill. 

Throughout it all, McConnell has insisted his priority is to shield businesses from Covid-related lawsuits by customers and employees who have contracted the virus.

The inept and overwhelmingly corrupt reign of Trump, McConnell, and Senate Republicans will come to an end next January if enough Americans vote this coming November.

But will enough people vote during a pandemic? The HEROES Act provides $3.6 billion for states to expand mail-in and early voting, but McConnell and his GOP lackeys aren’t interested. They’re well aware that more voters increase the likelihood Republicans will be booted out.

Time and again, they’ve shown that they only care about their wealthy donors and corporate backers. If they had an ounce of concern for the nation, their priority would be to shield Americans from the ravages of Covid and American democracy from the ravages of Trump. But we know where their priorities lie.

Let’s remember that along with everything else, Donald Trump’s a total pig

Can we put aside for the moment Trump’s corruption, ignorance, incompetence, arrogance, racism, stupidity, criminality, greed and buffoonery, and just deal with the fact that he’s a pig? You know what I’m talking about. Look at one of the photographs of Trump and his wife Melania alongside their good friends Jeffrey Epstein and Ghislaine Maxwell, and you’ve got the whole thing in a proverbial nutshell. I mean, do you have any photographs of yourself with a convicted sex offender and someone accused of procurement in a child sex ring?

Trump does. You’ve seen them. They’ve been all over the place, especially after Trump responded to a question at a White House press conference last month about Maxwell’s arrest for allegedly procuring, grooming and abusing teenage girls by saying, “I just wish her well, frankly. I’ve met her numerous times over the years … I just wish her well, whatever it is.”

Think about that. Trump said he was supportive of an accused sex offender the first day he returned to hosting daily coronavirus briefings in the White House after a three-month absence. It was supposed to be a reset for his campaign, a chance for Trump to seize the spotlight and make a stab at getting his poll numbers up. 

Hmmm … let’s see … I’m down in coal country in Pennsylvania, I’m down in Michigan’s Rust Belt,” I’m even struggling in Texas, so what’s my best move? Oh, I’ve got it! I’ll take the side of a billionaire’s daughter who’s accused of providing young girls to my good friend Jeffrey Epstein, who committed suicide in a Manhattan jail rather than face federal charges for sex trafficking minors. That’s the ticket!

Watch the tape of Trump’s press conference. He responded to the reporter’s question on automatic pilot. You know why he told the world he wished Ghislaine Maxwell well? Because he knew about what was going on with her and his friend Jeffrey Epstein all along. Because he couldn’t help himself. Because he’s a pig.

There are reports that Trump’s name shows up on the flight manifests of Epstein’s private jet (along with Bill Clinton and various other prominent men). Trump himself told New York Magazine in 2002, “I’ve known Jeff for 15 years. Terrific guy. He’s a lot of fun to be with. It is even said that he likes beautiful women as much as I do, and many of them are on the younger side.” That means Trump’s relationship with Epstein dated back at least until 1987. And 36 years later, in the middle of a campaign for re-election that by all accounts he is currently losing, Trump is still talking nice about Epstein’s pimp? He knew. He knew all along.

Think of your own life. Everyone has a circle of friends and acquaintances. You know people at work, you know people from your high school or college days, you know people from your neighborhood. You run into people in bars and restaurants, you see them where you vacation, where you mix socially at cocktail parties or dinner parties or art openings or promotional events. And everyone in your circle of friends knows if one of them is a notorious womanizer or a congenital liar or if somebody has affairs outside his or her marriage or if someone is a real asshole when he’s drunk. You know how it goes. Word gets around, and everyone knows. 

Now imagine you’re a multi-millionaire or even a billionaire, and you’re moving through the rarefied air of hotshot New York social circles, and you know a lot of people in that circle of big-timers, and you not only see them at movie premieres and museum fundraisers and charity dinners, you read about them alongside items about yourself on Page Six of the New York Post, they’re photographed next to you at fashion shows, you get followed by the same paparazzi who chase them coming out of East Side boites and hot downtown bottle clubs. 

Imagine, in other words, that you’re Donald Trump, back in the ’80s and ’90s, when he was chasing fame like it was wearing a tight miniskirt and a pair of thousand-dollar heels. You’re so obsessed you call gossip columnists and pretend to be a press agent, and you promote yourself into even more invitations and even more events so you can appear in even more gossip columns and get even more coverage for your fabulous lifestyle, for being seen with the hot babes you’re dating or the second wife you’re marrying because you’re trading up from the tired old first wife you’re abandoning because you’re moving so fast, you need a newer, faster, sleeker, hotter wife to climb the new, higher heights you’re scaling in the accelerating Manhattan fast lane.

There’s another rich guy in town, you see him around all the time. He’s at the parties, he’s at the openings, he’s at the fashion shows. You hang out with him. He’s a member of your club down in Palm Beach, Mar-a-Lago. You know him well enough to know that he likes his girls “on the younger side.” It’s kind of a joke in your crowd, that bit about Jeffrey liking them “on the younger side.” You have him to a party at your Palm Beach club for 28 “calendar girl” contestants, and there’s a camera crew there, and they get a shot of the two of you whispering in each other’s ears, watching the girls, pointing out the hot ones, just two dudes doing what dudes do, showing off, cracking each other up, like it’s all a game, because you’re important enough and you’re rich enough and you’re well-known enough that you can get these 28 young women to come to your club for some specious event, and you can goof on them with one another like a couple of frat boys at a keg party checking out the chicks. Have a look at this piece of tape from 1992

Listen to the generic “disco” playing in the background. Check out Epstein’s “cool” denim shirt and Trump’s pink tie and his “hip” bopping to the hideous music. You know what you’re watching? You’re watching a couple of pigs. 

Jeffrey Epstein? He’s going to turn into an indicted and convicted pig who gets indicted again and kills himself rather than face a wagon-load of charges that he trafficked and sexually abused dozens of teenage girls for a long, long time. 

And Donald Trump? He’s going to turn into an impeached pig who brags about grabbing women “by the pussy,” who pays hush money during his first campaign for president to at least two women to cover up affairs he was having outside his marriage, who is accused by more than two dozen women of various kinds of sexual harassment and abuse over a period of decades, who becomes known for his antipathy for strong women in politics because he simply cannot stomach women who stand up to him and refuse to take his misogyny and racism. 

If all Trump ever did in his life was to be friends with the likes of Jeffrey Epstein and Ghislaine Maxwell, that would be reason enough to consign him to the sixth ring of some kind of hell we haven’t even imagined yet. At the very least, he knew who they were and he knew the disgusting, illegal stuff they were doing with little girls. And you know what kind of man that is? 

A pig like Donald Trump.

Jerry Falwell Jr. announces leave of absence from Liberty University following leak of photos

After Liberty University President Jerry Falwell Jr. posted photos of himself with unbuttoned pants, holding up the shirt of a woman that wasn’t his wife, and holding a dark liquid in his hand, he was attacked for hypocrisy while breaking the code of conduct and ethics for the university.

It’s one of many decisions over the past several years that at least one Republican is calling questionable and encouraging him to step aside.

On Friday, the board of the University encouraged Falwell to step down entirely.

“The Executive Committee of Liberty University’s Board of Trustees, acting on behalf of the full Board, met today and requested that Jerry Falwell, Jr. take an indefinite leave of absence from his roles as President and Chancellor,” the statement said, in part, according to CNN’s Jim Acosta.

“Friday Night Massacre” at US Postal Service: Postmaster General boots top brass ahead of election

Government watchdogs, Democratic lawmakers, and pro-democracy advocates declared it a “Friday Night Massacre” for the U.S. Postal Service after news broke in a classic end-of-the-week dump that Louis DeJoy—a major GOP donor to President Donald Trump and the recently appointed Postmaster General—had issued a sweeping overhaul of the agency, including the ouster of top executives from key posts and the reshuffling of more than two dozen other officials and operational managers.

“Trump is actively sabotaging the election under our noses—this isn’t theoretical, it’s happening RIGHT NOW.” —Brian Tyler Cohen, political commentator. According to the Washington Post:

The shake-up came as congressional Democrats called for an investigation of DeJoy and the cost-cutting measures that have slowed mail delivery and ensnared ballots in recent primary elections.

Twenty-three postal executives were reassigned or displaced, the new organizational chart shows. Analysts say the structure centralizes power around DeJoy, a former logistics executive and major ally of President Trump, and de-emphasizes decades of institutional postal knowledge. All told, 33 staffers included in the old postal hierarchy either kept their jobs or were reassigned in the restructuring, with five more staffers joining the leadership from other roles.

Already under fire for recent policy changes at the USPS that mail carriers from within and outside critics have denounced as a sabotage effort to undermine the Postal Service broadly as well as disrupt efforts to carry out mail-in voting for November’s election amid the Covid-19 pandemic, the moves unveiled late Friday were viewed as an overt assault on democracy and a calculated opportunity to boost Republicans’ long-held dream of undercutting or privatizing the government-run mail service while also boosting their election prospects in the process.

“Another Friday night massacre by this administration—and this time dealing another devastating blow to our postal service,” said Rep. Mary Gay Scanlon (D-Pa.) “The American people deserve answers and we’re going to keep fighting for them.”

Scanlon was among more than 80 congressional lawmakers who sent a letter to DeJoy earlier in the day expressing “deep concerns” about operational changes he has made for mail carriers that have delayed deliveries and lowered standards.

“It is vital that the U.S. Postal Service not reduce mail delivery times, which could harm rural communities, seniors, small businesses, and millions of Americans who rely on the mail for critical letters and packages,” the letter stated. “Eliminating overtime and directing postal workers to leave mail on the floor of postal facilities will erode confidence in the Postal Service and drive customers away, resulting in even worse financial conditions in the future.”

As Common Dreams reported earlier Friday, Sen. Elizabeth Warren was among those who signed the letter and also called for DeJoy’s efforts to be investigated by the Inspector General of the USPS. Since 2016 alone, DeJoy has donated more than $2.5 million to the Republican Party and candidates. In 2020, prior to his appointment as Postmaster General by the GOP-controlled board of governors, DeJoy had already given approximately $360,000 to a Super PAC supporting Trump’s reelection.

As the Post notes in its reporting, the reshuffling of top managers and executives—as well as a hiring freeze and push for early retirements—”worried postal analysts, who say the tone of DeJoy’s first eight weeks and his restructuring have recast the nation’s mail service as a for-profit arm of the government, rather than an essential service.”

In a video posted to Twitter, Rep. Peter DeFazio (D-Oreg.) characterized DeJoy as a “political crony” of the president’s and also denounced the brazen efforts now on display as a “Friday Night Massacre” scenario:

Appearing Friday afternoon on Capitol Hill, DeJoy brushed off accusations that he is acting as a political bag man for Trump. “While I certainly have a good relationship with the president of the United States, the notion that I would ever make decisions concerning the Postal Service at the direction of the president or anyone else in the administration is wholly off-base,” DeJoy said.

But outside critics like Walter Shaub, former head of the Office of Government Ethics and a fierce critic of Trump’s behavior as president, said the latest move should be seen as nothing less than a direct effort by DeJoy to exploit his authority at the Postal Service to further the president’s political interests and reelection prospects.

According to Brian Tyler Cohen, a liberal commentator and podcast host, “Congressional Democrats need to do something about this” immediately.

“If we wait until October/November, it’ll be too late,” said Cohen. “Trump is actively sabotaging the election under our noses—this isn’t theoretical, it’s happening RIGHT NOW.” Cohen said this situation should be treated like a “fucking five-alarm fire” and said action must be taken by both lawmakers and the U.S. public without delay.

Rep. Gerald E. Connolly (D-Va.), chair of the House subcommittee which has oversight for the USPS, said what DeJoy is trying to pass off as simple organizational restructuring is actually “a Trojan Horse” designed to destroy one of the nation’s most trusted and valued institutions from within.

Connolly on Friday night called it, “Deliberate sabotage to disrupt mail service on the eve of the election—an election that hinges on mail-in ballots.”