Spring Sale: Get 1 Year, Save 58%

Americans’ inability to cope with boredom is spurring the spread of coronavirus

Disaster movies like “Contagion” and “Outbreak” depicted pandemics as dramatic, even action-packed. It turns out the opposite is true: a nascent real-life pandemic problem, it seems, is that Americans are experiencing an uptick in boredom. In June, researchers at the University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill and Harvard released “The US National Pandemic Emotional Impact Report,” which found that 53% of Americans surveyed reported being more bored than before the advent of COVID-19.

Perhaps that’s why many are disregarding rules about quarantines and crowds as they go off in search of fun; indeed, a July study just published suggested boredom might be undermining health precautions such as social distancing and self-isolating. Another recent study indicated that Americans were drinking more alcohol during the pandemic; it was seen as a way to cope with boredom. “We are entering a new age of boredom,” Wired magazine opined, adding, “almost none of the sources of fulfillment we relied on . . . [in the past] are easily accessible.”

In the midst of the pandemic, Americans are having to learn how to deal with dullness — something they have been little accustomed to in recent decades. Our culture and our technologies have left us ill-equipped to deal with the monotony of staying home — of skipping parties, movies, amusement parks, and vacations, of cancelling the traditional excitements of summer, and instead accepting the repetitious routines of quarantine life.

Yet our current struggle with boredom would puzzle our ancestors, for boredom was not always a problem feeling. After all, boredom did not even exist as a word until the mid-19th century. (Bore and boring entered English only a little earlier.) While previous generations used words like dull and monotonous to describe tasks, days, and sermons, they did not have a word for the inner emotional state of under-stimulation until the 1850s; tedium and repetition were more expected parts of life, and less surprising. Indeed, they were regarded as the necessary cost of virtuous hard work.  Little wonder that books with titles like “Blessed Be Drudgery” were popular reads in 1890.

It was only in the late 19th and early 20th centuries, with the rise of a consumer economy that promised excitement with every purchase, that boredom began to be framed as a problem. Phonographs, movies, radios all promised to solve that problem. “Banishes Boredom” proclaimed ads for Victrola phonographs, while the motion picture industry described its movie theaters as “happy haven[s]” to which “millions may confidently come for freedom from boredom and care.” Even Kellogg’s cereal variety pack vowed to end “breakfast boredom.”

As expectations for constant excitement and stimulation spread, psychologists reinforced the message that entertainment was an entitlement. In the 1930s, psychoanalyst Otto Fenichel claimed individuals had “the right to expect” some diversion from the world at large. By 1957, a Scientific American article was labeling boredom a “pathology.” The article’s author, Woodburn Heron, maintained that “Prolonged exposure to a monotonous environment . . . has definitely deleterious effects,” and endorsed the idea that humans needed variety. The willingness and ability to tolerate dullness and sameness was eroding. Over the course of the 20th century, advertisers, the entertainment and travel industry, and psychologists began to prime Americans to expect constant diversion, and to worry when it was lacking from their lives. By the 1980s, psychologists were developing a “Boredom Proneness Scale,” which would allow them to better identify and treat patients afflicted with the condition.

Boredom had become a problem emotion by the late 20th century. In the last few decades, as our digital technologies have offered us games, apps, music, and social media, our intolerance of monotony and our fear of boredom has only grown. The Onion famously mocked this distinctly modern sentiment in 2014, in a satirical piece titled “Americans Demand New Form of Media to Bridge Entertainment Gap while Looking from Laptop to Phone.” “According to reports from across the country, citizens are loudly calling for a device or program capable of keeping them captivated as they move their eyes from a computer screen to a smartphone screen, arguing that a new source of video and audio stimulation is vital to alleviating the excruciating boredom that currently accompanies this prolonged transition,” the authors wrote.

Or, as a twenty-one- year-old college student told us, “I think having technology at my fingertips makes boredom feel much more dangerous…. It’s like if you’re bored, fix it fast.”

None of these changes in American sentiment might seem to matter. Except that they do. Instead of tolerating a little monotony, we’ll gamble more than we should to avoid it. We’ll look at our smartphones while we drive—even though we know for darn sure that we shouldn’t. For the sake of a momentary jolt of dopamine, social media users will tweet away reputations that took years to build. And as the novelty of the first couple months of COVID-19 isolation have worn thin, that risk-taking, and that aversion to boredom, have only grown. Bars are filling up. Pictures of crowded beaches are making the news. Amusement parks have unlocked their gates. Resisting this is a slew of epidemiologists who have been advising us that the coronavirus pandemic is an occasion to spend time apart. But, in our boredom, the pandemic has all too often turned into an occasion to party.

We’re afflicted by a virus of recent origin. But our response to it is shaped by emotions that originate in the 19th century.  Until we get a better handle on that past, and learn to cope with boredom, the epidemic is unlikely to go away.

Make this horchata cold brew to add some sugar and spice to your morning

During the height of summer, I tend to drink iced coffee from sunrise to just before dinner. While I tend to like my cold brew like jet fuel on ice, occasionally I want something to cut both the bitterness and the caffeine. Enter the horchata cold brew. 

Horchata de arroz — which is a traditional drink in Mexico and Guatemala — is made by soaking, straining, and sweetening rice and water. Mixed with cold brew concentrate, it adds a little sugar, spice, and creaminess to the blend (don’t forget to add your cold brew ice cubes, too!). 

Plan ahead. Both the horchata and the cold brew concentrate need time to sit overnight, but trust me, it’s worth the wait. 

Horchata Cold Brew

Horchata

1 ½  cups of uncooked long grain white rice
¼ cup of sliced almonds, toasted
2 cinnamon sticks 
3 ½ cups of lukewarm water
½ cup of brown sugar
2 cups of milk — whole or almond 

Cold Brew Concentrate

1 ½  cups coffee beans, coarsely ground
4 ½ cups of water

For the horchata, place the rice, 1 cup of water sliced almonds, and cinnamon sticks in a high-powered blender or spice mill and pulse until the mixture is coarsely ground. You can also use a mortar and pestle if you prefer, but it’ll just take a little extra time and elbow grease. Transfer to a large bowl, add the remaining water, and cover — allowing the mixture to chill in the refrigerator overnight. 

The next morning, add the milk and brown sugar to the mixture, then strain it through a cheesecloth or fine-mesh sieve into a pitcher for storage. 

For the cold brew concentrate, combine the ground coffee beans and water in a large mixing bowl and allow it to sit, covered, for at least 12 hours. Use a cheesecloth or similar fabric to line a fine-mesh sieve, then strain the mixture into a large pitcher. 

Add ice to a glass, followed by ½ cup of horchata and ½ cup of cold brew concentrate. Give it a quick stir then garnish with powdered cinnamon. 

 

FLASHBACK: Republicans attacked Biden for predicting Trump would delay this year’s elections

Former Vice President Joe Biden this past April predicted that President Donald Trump would try to delay the 2020 election in order to avoid a humiliating loss — and now the president has proven Biden’s prediction to be very prescient.

Trump on Thursday floated delaying the 2020 election until the end of the novel coronavirus pandemic so that Americans could “properly, securely and safely vote.”

This came months after Biden told a fundraiser that he believed the president would try to come up with some excuse to postpone the election until a time when the political climate was more favorable.

“Mark my words I think he is gonna try to kick back the election somehow, come up with some rationale why it can’t be held,” Biden said.

At the time, many conservatives attacked Biden for being alarmist and suggested that was trying to dishonestly instill unfounded fears among voters about the president’s authoritarian ambitions.

“Former vice president Joe Biden’s unfounded accusation Thursday that President Trump wants to delay November’s election was not only clearly over the line but also unmasks how low the supposedly moderate Biden will go to win,” wrote Henry Olsen in the Washington Post.

“Some within Democratic Party circles hold fervently to the idea President Trump will arbitrarily decide to postpone the election,” scolded columnist Byron Williams of the Winston-Salem Journal. “This belief fits neatly into a narrative ascribed to the president. As they see it, his penchant for authoritarianism makes him America’s Hitler incarnate.”

“Joe Biden is off his rocker to make such an irresponsible allegation without any evidence,” wrote GOP Rapid Response Director Steve Guest.

And Trump-defending attorney Jonathan Turley chided Biden for fanning a “conspiracy theory” about Trump delaying the election in a column for The Hill.

“The ultimate conspiracy theory was declared by the presumptive Democratic nominee, Joe Biden, who warned that he was certain Trump plans to delay the election this fall,” Turley wrote. “It is a conspiracy theory utterly without factual or constitutional support, yet his warning was deemed a ‘prediction’ by Politico in a recent article.”

Trump shares op-ed by Fox News’ Napolitano warning that federal police in Portland are totalitarian

On Wednesday morning, as he often does, President Donald Trump started his day by sharing a series of links and tweets on Twitter — always more obsessed with shaping public perceptions than actually governing.

But one tweet, in particular, caught some observers’ eyes and stood out from the rest.

Trump retweeted the following post from the Washington Times:

Unlike much of the propaganda the president usually shares, this piece was sharply critical of his administration. In the op-ed, Andrew Napolitano excoriated the president’s federal troops and their treatment of civilians in Portland, Oregon:

Last weekend, with no notice or local consent, the U.S. Department of Homeland Security sent teams of agents — untrained in crowd control and wearing military fatigues — onto Portland‘s streets. Their uniforms bore no governmental, administrative or personal names, just the word “Police” on masking tape. They descended upon the city in unmarked SUVs and began grabbing people indiscriminately off the streets, without regard to the person’s lawful presence or personal behavior.

According to the account of one victim, he was walking peacefully in the downtown area, observing the chaos, when five masked men in fatigues exited an unmarked SUV, grabbed him and pulled him into the car. They tied his hands with plastic behind his back. They pulled his cap over his face. They kept him for two hours and then released him. They filed no charges against him.

They had no basis for this kidnapping.

It was a kidnapping, not an arrest. An arrest is a lawful restraint by a legitimate government authority pursuant to a warrant issued by a judge specifically naming the person to be arrested, or pursuant to probable cause of crime personally observed by the arresting officers. Neither of these was the case in Portland.

And some victims were even less fortunate than those kidnapped. They were assaulted with pepper spray and hit with nonlethal exploding bullets that stun, hurt and disorient. The bullets can harm the eyes, heart and liver. I saw a video of a young man riding a bicycle away from the chaos. Yet, he was attacked by five of these feds.

Napolitano tied these actions directly to Trump, noting: “On Monday, the DHS acknowledged that these thugs are its police and said their behavior somehow will bring stability to downtown Portland. The phrase that Acting DHS Secretary Chad Wolf used — mimicking his boss — was ‘law and order.'”

He concluded: “This is how totalitarianism begins. The feds claim that federal property needs protection and the folks assigned to do so need help. When help arrives, it does so by surprise, under cover of darkness and shielded by anonymity. Then, the reinforcements beat and arrest and harm protesters because their bosses in Washington do not approve of the protesters’ message.”

It was a harsh, persuasive diatribe about the present administration. So why did the president share it?

It’s possible had no idea what he was doing. He may have misunderstood the headline and not read the article. It’s not clear if there’s anyone in the White House who would notice or attempt to correct the president for mistakenly sharing a tweet.

But there’s another disturbing possibility. The president might have shared the story knowingly, on purpose. It is, after all, still on his Twitter feed at the time of this writing, hours after he first shared it. Perhaps he shared it as a warning or a threat. He likes being seen as a strongman. He may have seen Napolitano’s sharp denunciation of his authoritarian tactics and thought: “This is someone who gets me.”

 

GOP lawmaker who attended KKK leader’s birthday party rejects calls to resign

Alabama GOP Rep. Will Dismukes, who appeared at a celebration for Confederate general and Klu Klux Klan leader Nathan Bedford Forrest, has resigned from a church where he served as pastor but still plans to keep his job as a politician, despite calls from Democrats for him to resign, the Alabama Baptist reports.

Dismukes delivered an invocation at a birthday celebration for Forrest, a prominent leader in the KKK and a Confederate general, this past weekend. In a Facebook post this Sunday, Dismukes shared a photo of himself at the event behind four of the flags of the Confederate States of America.

Lead mission strategist for Autauga Baptist Association, Mel Johnson, said in a statement that he’s grateful that Dismukes stepped down from the church.

“Scripture is clear that all people are created in God’s image and therefore equal in every way before Christ and our personal need of Him as Savior and Lord,” Johnson said.

One Republican calling for Dismukes to resign was Sen. Clyde Chambliss, who said in a Facebook post that “the real problem is that an elected official in 2020 would attend a celebration of the life of someone that led a group that terrorized and killed other human beings.”

“Black Is King” continues Beyoncé’s immortalizing of the Black American experience through art

There are times when a person doesn’t realize how drained, hot and thirsty she is until she sees water. “Black Is King” triggers that realization in its opening with a wide shot of a river, its gentle current carrying a basket. The biblical allusion to the story of Moses is plain to see, only in this context the untethered basket is a visual metaphor for a people . . . but also, for escape.

Filming for “Black Is King,” Beyoncé Knowles-Carter’s visual album accompaniment to her 2019 release “The Lion King: The Gift,” took place in the second half of last year after the film’s release but before the culture at large erupted with protests in the name of Black Lives Matter.

It arrives at a time of unfortunate inevitability for any social justice movement, when forces align against it to disrupt its progress, at a moment when demonstrations of empathy are teetering over the line into something like an obsession with footage of Black suffering.

That river answers all of this along with the surrounding images of lush forests cutting to shots of people in bright colors, faces tilted skyward; a tight shot on the visage of an elegant elder; then an aerial gaze from over the ocean, floating in to shore where Beyoncé awaits in a diaphanous white gown. “Bless the body, born celestial,” she says in voiceover, “beautiful in dark matter.”

A few beats later she adds, “You are welcome to come home to yourself. Let Black be synonymous with glory.”

Here, one of the world’s most recognizable artists uses the framework of an established story created by one of Earth’s most recognizable brands to create, as the press materials read, “a celebratory memoir for the world on the Black experience.” But its arrival at the end of a particularly brutal July for the planet and for Black Americans in particular provides a much-needed reminder that abundance and greatness is as much our birthright as anyone else’s.

The Disney+ debut of “Black Is King” comes at the end of a month that opened with the debut of the movie version of “Hamilton,” and though they may be thematically dissimilar what they have in common is a familiarity of story and sound. Those most likely to be drawn to see “Hamilton” probably had every line and verse of the soundtrack memorized before seeing the play.

The BeyHive and “Lion King” obsessives have had a year to listen to “The Gift,” not to mention embrace and uplift the empowerment themes beating in the heart of songs like “Brown Skin Girl,” which became last summer’s tribute to women whose complexions have long been diminished by a colorism- infected culture – and by that I mean Eurocentric Western culture as a whole – that favors fairer skin tones.

But it’s another experience to see its melody and poetry informing a debutante’s ball where women with deep cocoa-toned complexions spin in elegant floor-length gowns as Beyoncé herself playfully swans around in a separate scene that also features Lupita Nyong’o, Naomi Campbell, models Aweng Ade-Chuol, and Adut Akech alongside her former Destiny’s Child bandmate Kelly Rowland and her daughter Blue Ivy.

This is a loving embrace of a segment of women popular culture tends to overlook, evocative of the film as a whole.

“Black Is King” zooms between South Africa and Western Africa as well as leaping between New York, Los Angeles, and locations in London and Belgium. And if this stylistic jet-setting feels dizzying, then you haven’t been keeping up with the ubiquitous nature of Black culture. Beyoncé may be highlighting an international roster of artists in her music on an album that pulses with Afro-pop vibes, but the seamless intermingling of tradition, present and future tells the viewer: Black is worldwide and like the jaunty song says, it is “a mood 4 eva.”

Given the disparate styles with which “The Lion King” is transformed into a metaphor for a people’s story, and the fact that its story drives the plotting of “Black Is King,” there will no doubt be some temptation to deem it less original in execution than 2016’s “Lemonade.” That visual album took the world by surprise and became that spring’s anthem for Black womanhood, as well as a means of metabolizing and voicing the long subsumed anger that Black women are forced to hold back.

But “Black Is King” is as carefully realized a construct as Beyoncé’s previous videos and visual albums with the sort of vibrant cinematography and international scope tailor made for the Disney brand. (Her Netflix film “Homecoming” provides a revealing window into her process, and could be useful prerequisite viewing for this new work.)

The film further burnishes Beyoncé’s reputation as a thoughtful visual artist alongside her unmatched skills as a stage performer. And while “Black Is King” demonstrates a vision of crystalline precision, its tamed sprawl of dancers, actors, musicians and scenery demonstrates the artist’s curation prowess above all.

Although she is listed as the director, Beyoncé credits longtime collaborator Kwasi Fordjour as co-director alongside Ghanaian-Dutch filmmaker Emmanuel Adjei, hip-hop artist and filmmaker Blitz Bazawule and Belgian artist Pierre Debusschere.

But from the opening frames the true superhuman of the piece is costume designer Zerina Akers who, it must be noted, shares her credit with no one. (Surely it must have taken a legion of hands to string countless pearls into crowns and transform Beyoncé into a singular galaxy of sparkle rendered in sequined, beaded, and rhinestone-encrusted bodysuits and gowns. And this only references a couple of outfits among scores of them.)

Few individuals can pull together a diaspora’s worth of imagery, music and styles, and unify them in a way that reads one way to the wider audience and can be viewed very differently to another. But what we see and hear only works because an army of talent coalesces around a single creative force.

Indubitably in the coming days there will be a cascade of analysis of the hidden symbolism and cultural references embedded within “Black Is King.” One obvious tip of the hat is a Busby Berkeley homage placing the performer at the center of a spinning mandala of synchronized swimmers in a pool outside of a mansion. The entire scene is a gaudy flex, and as if to drive that point home, the diva’s husband Jay-Z co-stars in that sequence.

But its materialist opulence is precisely the point – this kind of Hollywood Golden Era grace was never afforded to Black people back in the day, and if Beyoncé can make that part of her visual festivity alongside rapier-sharp rhymes and Afro-futurist tableaux, then why not?

A dust storm comes into play near the end of the film’s 85-minute run, an acknowledgement of trials and shadows Black folks have always faced, endured and come through. As it is filmed and staged even this has a stunning beauty to it and is an appropriate segue into a climactic resolution that fits the Disney story, and it would feel equally as appropriate if “Black Is King” weren’t connected to that existing intellectual property.

But so what if it is? “The Lion King” is a tale of stolen legacy, mending, and restoration – the same motifs that color the history of the people to and of whom “Black Is King” speaks.  

“We have always been wonderful. I see us reflected in the world’s most heavenly things. Black is king . . . we were beauty before they knew what beauty was.”

To see this is to witness that truth take shape, and it is a proud and beautiful sight.

“Black Is King” is now streaming on Disney+.

The second pandemic: Pollution

The links between the global coronavirus pandemic and ecological issues — particularly pollution — have given rise to much speculation and many controversies. Air pollution has been blamed for aggravating COVID-19 symptoms and for promoting the spread of the disease. One North American study shows a correlation between chronic levels of particle matter and mortality from COVID-19.

Although sanitation measures have increased the use of disposable and plastic products, the scale of the epidemic crisis and the massive halt in production and transportation of material goods has contributed to a significant reduction in pollution, which no public policy has managed to achieve before. For several weeks, everyone was taking in — through sight and breath — noticeably cleaner air. The global collapse of GDP is parallel with reduced emissions of CO2 and climate-change-causing substances.

Despite the daily morbidity counts of COVID-19 deaths, other indicators reported that lives had been saved through reduced economic activity. It should be remembered that, according to the World Health Organization (WHO), air pollution is responsible for the premature death of 5 to 9 million people a year in the world. Yet it’s been reported that greenhouse gas emissions and pollution have fallen sharply in the major industrial regions, by 30 to 40% in China, Northern Italy, Paris, and more widely in Europe. Marshall Burke of Stanford University has attempted to quantify how decreased pollution in China has influenced the reduction in mortality, and estimates that two months of confinement reduced the excess mortality due to pollution by about 75,000 individuals. History offers examples of large-scale crises that interrupted ordinary polluting activities. During the Second World War, for example, it again became possible to catch salmon in the River Seine even though these fish had been gone for at least 50 years.

It is, of course, too early to make an accurate assessment of the effects of the decrease in pollution linked to the pandemic. Moreover, the global aggregates are not very significant — and probably inaccurate — at the scale of regions heavily affected by the virus. And while the atmospheric pollution decreases, people stuck at home by the confinement measures are suffering from poor air quality due to chemicals contained by furniture, textiles, and cleaning products, a paradox in itself. It would be audacious to make a definitive judgement on the overall impact of the policies of containment and reduction of economic activity.

This unprecedented episode has proven that proactive and robust actions can transform our daily behaviors and environments, from city to the countryside, invalidating decades-worth of arguments that there’s no alternative to neoliberal globalization and its frenzied consumerism. Public policy still exists, and is not powerless in the face of the ideology of growth.

The response to the global coronavirus crisis has given us a lesson in how we could plan to deal with the public health danger of pollution in the future, with equally if not more deadly effects. The coronavirus has certainly stunned with its violence; it replays the plague narrative and the great epidemic fears of the past such as cholera or the “Spanish flu“, and it has struck people’s minds by its suddenness. Although in comparison its effects may not be immediately apparent, pollution is indeed a global scourge, but one that could be curbed by ambitious and long-term policies, including public education.

Everyone is aware of the cyclical nature of the decrease in pollution resulting from the policies to contain the virus. It isn’t difficult to anticipate that once the danger has apparently passed, governments would revive their stance on certain polices: support for economic activity and technological surges. Numerous historical examples show how periods of crisis and the cessation of certain pollutions during these times — particularly during wars — were followed by even more dramatic revivals afterwards. It was the case during what the French call the “glorious thirty” (1945-1975) – perhaps more aptly dubbed the “polluter thirty” – when economic growth, whatever its consequences on the environment, was seen as synonymous with progress and liberty. Similarly, after the 2008 financial crisis and the Chinese rebound, economic activities restarted with renewed verve and provoked new pollutions, erasing the progress made in reducing pollutions as a result of the recession. History shows how much the path taken by our societies over the last two centuries, based on policies that intended to be progressive, has led to the destruction of our planet.

However, a structural overhaul of this paradigm must emerge. We must rethink our economic and social structures, as well as our production methods, to limit our deleterious footprints on the world. This would lead us to a newfound relationship with nature, allow us to abandon extractivism, and begin to approach new and better resources. This would also lead to dismantling many industries that are not essential, especially chemicals that supply luxury consumption. The new paradigm would subject the economic to the social and cultural spheres. It would create a way of life that uses less energy and is more respectful of all forms of life. It would no longer tolerate the degradation of the environment and would finally put an end to the chronic pandemic of pollution.

Donald Trump is doomed, and he knows it: But will he go out with a whimper or a bang?

Donald Trump is doomed, and he knows it — in the limited, animalistic way he ever knows anything. His electoral prospects are dwindling toward the mathematical vanishing point, and his historical legacy is now sealed. There is no possible future in which he will not be remembered as the most catastrophically corrupt and incompetent U.S. president of the past 100 years, and quite possibly ever. If it’s any consolation to him, the damage he has done is enormous, and as Paul Rosenberg explored for Salon this weekend, it may never be undone.

No, I will not pause to listen to your sermon about “overconfidence,” or your superstitious lamentations about the lingering trauma of 2016. I was there too, and it was nothing like this. In fact, I wrote two articles that year — after attending the Republican and Democratic conventions, respectively — arguing that it felt like Trump was winning and that the Hillary Clinton campaign seemed clueless

But all of us who covered that campaign were torn between what we could feel was happening, on a sort of electrical level, and the normative logic that suggested only one plausible outcome. So the first response to your demand for wolfsbane and incantations is that the dynamics of 2020 are completely different, and the second is that I’m not running Joe Biden’s campaign — which is a good thing for both of us — and if the Democrats find a way to screw up an election that’s been handed to them on a silver platter, wrapped in crinkly designer paper with a Godiva chocolate on top, then the whole party should definitely be sold off for scrap but it won’t be my fault.

Everything about Trump’s behavior in recent weeks or months speaks to this dawning, if childlike, half-awareness that he is staring right in the face of doom, defeat and failure. He has played chicken with those things his entire life, and has convinced himself — and to a large extent, the rest of us — that he can evade them through sheer cunning and the most brazen, shameless forms of salesmanship, which he mistakes for intelligence. None of that is working now, and his desperation is palpable. 

It seems clear that Trump believed he could suppress or prevent the coronavirus pandemic through sheer force of will, and when that failed he believed he could use his dipshit Jedi mind-tricks to convince people that it either didn’t exist or didn’t matter. He believed that the Black Lives Matter protests were playing into his hands, and that out there in what he regards as “real America,” people remained hypnotized by the same provincial, racist anxiety and terror that was so potent from the late 1960s well into the ’90s. (To be fair, numerous mainstream observers shared that view at first, and I don’t mean to suggest that political current no longer exists.)

He believed his ludicrous Bible-clutching photo-op in front of St. John’s Church would cause patriotic moms and dads in the heartland to weep and swoon at his godly power. (In fact, I believe a great many devout Christians, including some conservative evangelicals, felt profoundly insulted, and not for the first time.) He believed his Keystone Kops pseudo-military intervention in Portland, Oregon — mail-order fascism on the cheap, as Salon columnist Lucian K. Truscott IV has put it — would be a display of macho dominance that would make the notional “suburban housewives” he both desires and despises go wobbly in the knees. 

Donald Trump still believes that he can grab ’em by the you-know-what, and until now has avoided coming to grips with the reality that he is a morbidly obese 74-year-old man with a spray-on tan and an ingeniously structured hairdo that could be dubbed the Sat-on Beehive. At this point, his erotic allure is limited to sad-sack middle-aged men with expensive divorces, expensive pickups, lowered expectations and too many guns. He may hold the title of commander in chief, for now — and let’s not underestimate the danger in that — but he’s more like the incel in chief.

None of it’s working even a little, and after last week’s report that the U.S. economy contracted at an annual rate of nearly 33 percent in the second quarter — which is three times worse than the second-worst quarter recorded in the 73 years that such statistics have been collated — the Trumpian narrative has been reduced to shameless buck-passing and whining about the unfairness of fate, which is the behavior of losers, and of abuse victims who have grown up into abusers. A massive economic recession, more likely a depression, and what could well be 180,000 to 200,000 Americans dead by Election Day are not the kinds of headlines from which a presidency recovers. Trump and his shrinking band of courtiers can blame Barack Obama and Tony Fauci all they want, but the delusional zeal of the early Trump era has vanished, and what’s coming off those people now is the flop-sweat of desperation.

Trump’s supposed Republican allies, while still fearful of his fanatical voter base, have begun to back away from him, none too subtly. Needless to say, that has nothing to do with any version of political principle or any respect for “democratic norms”; the Republican Party left those things by the roadside a generation ago. For so-called leaders like Mitch McConnell and Kevin McCarthy, the issue now is simply survival: Their immediate task is to limit the damage of what they clearly understand will be a November bloodbath, and then to position themselves amid the ugly intra-party power struggle that is sure to follow. Their union with Trump was always a marriage of convenience, and they always knew no actual loyalty was involved on either side. Now that the convenience has evaporated, it probably feels good — in a small-minded, sadomasochistic register — to be the ones dumping Trump rather than the other way around.

I’m quite sure that McCarthy and McConnell, along with many other prominent Republicans, cannot wait to be rid of Donald Trump and are already rehearsing various death-of-Stalin monologues that range from “well, he expressed the true greatness of America but” to “honestly, I never really knew the guy.” What they may discover, however, is that the Republican Party after Trump is something like John Hurt’s character in “Alien” after the face-hugger falls off. He seems fine and normal! But as the robot scientist knows, he’s been impregnated with something awful, and once it gets a decent feed down there in the gummy darkness, it’s bustin’ out. 

The remaining questions about Donald Trump are all much larger than he is, which is nothing new. One of the most striking peculiarities of this bizarre era is that such a small person, with such a limited understanding of reality, could command the national stage and a massive proportion of the media’s attention for the better part of five years. All by itself, that fact does not speak well of the condition of American civil society, let alone “democratic discourse.” Yet at the same time, the monotonous narcosis of the Trump years has also provoked a vigorous reaction, visible in different parts of society in different ways: #MeToo feminism, Black Lives Matter, the 2018 midterms, the upsurge of left-wing or “socialist” politics catalyzed by the Bernie Sanders campaign, which the Democratic Party has been startled to discover it cannot control or contain.

Will Trump try to delay or cancel the election? Will he try to rig the election by sabotaging the Postal Service or claiming premature victory based on partial results, or both? If and when he loses, will he protest that the whole thing was rigged and unfair, and announce that he’s staying in the White House indefinitely while Bill Barr investigates Democratic voter fraud? I don’t want to underestimate the inherent danger of this situation: We have a deeply wounded and profoundly delusional person at the head of the federal government, who is convinced that the world is unfairly stacked against him and does not care whether the things he says have any relationship to reality.

So, yes, Trump could try to do any or all of those things. But remember that he’s a “sniveling coward,” in the immortal words of Ted Cruz (who arguably turned out to be an even bigger one), not to mention profoundly ignorant and totally incompetent. Ultimately, I don’t think Trump has anywhere near the courage, the confidence or the means to pull off any version of a coup with success. He’d need a posse of powerful allies — not just Barr, who might enjoy giving it a whirl, but Republican leaders in Congress, the military brass, the Secret Service and the FBI, the Supreme Court and, most important of all, the top one-tenth of the one percent in the investment and banking class.

You won’t catch me claiming that “democratic institutions” or the “rule of law” will rescue us from Donald Trump. That manifestly has not happened, and any such hope rested on a set of charmingly old-fashioned assumptions in the first place. None of the people I just mentioned are greatly concerned with that stuff, but all of them — especially the last group, the financial and corporate overlords who control all the wealth and most of the power in our society — do not much care for chaos and disorder, and have seen about enough of it over the last four years. 

No doubt Wall Street feels some collective concern about the potential cost of a Democratic presidency, especially under current social conditions — but Joe Biden, the longtime “senator from MasterCard,” was the Democrat the Mr. Monopoly crowd wanted all along. After the disastrous meltdown of the Trump presidency, they’ll welcome Biden with open arms, along with helpful dossiers of potential Cabinet nominees.

As Donald Trump has secretly known all along — stupid, injured manchild that he is — none of the people in the privileged classes of New York or Washington or California who pretended to love and admire him truly understood his greatness, and now that the waves are crashing over the bow they’re scurrying off the deck. He’ll be left at the end with the losers and incels and rubes in the red hats — stricken, lonely people who looked to him as a savior and for whom he feels only contempt. People he probably hates more than he hates Muslims or Mexicans or Black people, and possibly even more than he hates himself.

How COVID-19 could upend geopolitics

I don’t trust you.

Don’t take it personally. It doesn’t matter whether you’re a friend or a stranger. I don’t care about your identity or your politics, where you work or if you work, whether you wear a mask or carry a gun.

I don’t trust you because you are, for the time being, a potential carrier of a deadly virus. You don’t have any symptoms? Maybe you’re an asymptomatic superspreader. Show me your negative test results and I’ll still have my doubts. I have no idea what you’ve been up to between taking the test and receiving the results. And can we really trust that the test is accurate?

Frankly, you shouldn’t trust me for the same reasons. I’m not even sure that I can trust myself. Didn’t I just touch my face at the supermarket after palpating the avocados?

I’m learning to live with this mistrust. I’m keeping my distance from other people. I’m wearing my mask. I’m washing my hands. I’m staying far away from bars.

I’m not sure, however, that society can live with this level. Let’s face it: trust makes the world go around. Protests break out when our faith in people or institutions is violated: when we can’t trust the police (#BlackLivesMatter), can’t trust male colleagues (#MeToo), can’t trust the economic system to operate with a modicum of fairness (#OccupyWallStreet), or can’t trust our government to do, well, anything properly (#notmypresident).

Now, throw a silent, hidden killer into this combustible mix of mistrust, anger, and dismay. It’s enough to tear a country apart, to set neighbor against neighbor and governor against governor, to precipitate a civil war between the masked and the unmasked.

Such problems only multiply at the global level where mistrust already permeates the system — military conflicts, trade wars, tussles over migration and corruption. Of course, there’s also been enough trust to keep the global economy going, diplomats negotiating, international organizations functioning, and the planet from spinning out of control. But the pandemic may just tip this known world off its axis.

I’m well aware of the ongoing debate between the “not much” and “everything” factions. Once a vaccine knocks it out of our system, the coronavirus might not have much lasting effect on our world. Even without a vaccine, people can’t wait to get back to normal life by jumping into pools, heading to the movie theater, attending parties — even in the United States where cases continue to rise dramatically. The flu epidemic of 1918-1919, which is believed to have killed at least 50 million people, didn’t fundamentally change everyday life, aside from giving a boost to both alternative and socialized medicine. That flu passed out of mind and into history and so, of course, might Covid-19.

Or, just as the Black Death in the fourteenth century separated the medieval world from all that followed, this pandemic might draw a thick before-and-after line through our history. Let’s imagine that this novel virus keeps circulating and recirculating, that no one acquires permanent immunity, that it becomes a nasty new addition to the cold season except that it just happens to kill a couple of people out of every hundred who get it. This new normal would certainly be better than if Ebola, with a 50% case fatality rate if untreated, became a perennial risk everywhere. But even with a fatality rate in the low single digits, Covid-19 would necessarily change everything.

The media is full of speculation about what a periodic pandemic future will look like. The end of theater and spectator sports. The institutionalization of distance learning. The death of offices and brick-and-mortar retail.

But let’s take a look beyond that — at the even bigger picture. Let’s consider for a moment the impact of this new, industrial-strength mistrust on international relations.

The future of the nation-state

Let’s say you live in a country where the government responded quickly and competently to Covid-19. Let’s say that your government established a reliable testing, contact tracing, and quarantine system. It either closed down the economy for a painful but short period or its system of testing was so good that it didn’t even need to shut everything down. Right now, your life is returning to some semblance of normal.

Lucky you.

The rest of us live in the United States. Or Brazil. Or Russia. Or India. In these countries, the governments have proven incapable of fulfilling the most important function of the state: protecting the lives of their citizens. While most of Europe and much of East Asia have suppressed the pandemic sufficiently to restart their economies, Covid-19 continues to rage out of control in those parts of the world that, not coincidentally, are also headed by democratically elected right-wing autocrats.

In these incompetently run countries, citizens have very good reason to mistrust their governments. In the United States, for instance, the Trump administration botched testingfailed to coordinate lockdowns, removed oversight from the bailouts, and pushed to reopen the economy over the objections of public-health experts. In the latest sign of early-onset dementia for the Trump administration, White House Press Secretary Kayleigh McEnany declared this month that “science should not stand in the way” of reopening schools in the fall.

Voters, of course, could boot Trump out in November and, assuming he actually leaves the White House, restore some measure of sanity to public affairs. But the pandemic is contributing to an already overwhelming erosion of confidence in national institutions. Even before the virus struck, in its 2018 Trust Barometer the public relations firm Edelman registered an unprecedented drop in public trust connected to… what else?… the election of Trump. “The collapse of trust in the U.S. is driven by a staggering lack of faith in government, which fell 14 points to 33% among the general population,” the report noted. “The remaining institutions of business, media, and NGOs also experienced declines of 10 to 20 points.”

And you won’t be surprised to learn that the situation hadn’t shown signs of improvement by 2020, with American citizens even more mistrustful of their country’s institutions than their counterparts in Brazil, Italy, and India.

That institutional loss of faith reflects a longer-term trend. According to Gallup’s latest survey, only 11% of Americans now trust Congress, 23% big business and newspapers, 24% the criminal justice system, 29% the public school system, 36% the medical system, and 38% the presidency. The only institution a significant majority of Americans trust — and consider this an irony, given America’s endless twenty-first-century wars — is the military (73%). The truly scary part is that those numbers have held steady, with minor variations, for the last decade across two very different administrations.

How low does a country’s trust index have to go before it ceases being a country? Commentators have already spent a decade discussing the polarization of the American electorate. Much ink has been spilled over the impact of social media in creating political echo chambers. It’s been 25 years since political scientist Robert Putnam observed that Americans were “bowling alone” (that is, no longer participating in group activities or community affairs in the way previous generations did).

The coronavirus has generally proven a major force multiplier of such trends by making spontaneous meetings of unlike-minded people ever less likely. I suspect I’m typical. I’m giving a wide berth to pedestrians, bicyclists, and other joggers when I go out for my runs. I’m not visiting cafes. I’m not talking to people in line at the supermarket. Sure, I’m on Zoom a lot, but it’s almost always with people I already know and agree with.

Under these circumstances, how will we overcome the enormous gaps of perception now evident in this country to achieve anything like the deeper basic understandings that a nation-state requires? Or will Americans lose faith entirely in elections, newspaper stories, hospitals, and public transportation, and so cease being a citizenry altogether?

Trust is the fuel that makes such institutions run. And it looks as though we passed Peak Trust long ago and may be on a Covid-19 sled heading downhill fast.

Globalization unravels

The global economy also runs on trust: in financial transactions, the safety of workplace conditions, the long-distance transport of goods, and the consumer’s expectation that the purchased product will work as advertised.

To cause a breakdown in the global assembly line, Covid-19 didn’t have to introduce doubt into every step in this supply chain (though it would, in the end, do something like that). It only had to sever one link: the workplace. When the Chinese government shut down factories in early 2020 to contain the pandemic — leading to a 17% decline in exports in January and February compared to the previous year — companies around the world suddenly faced critical shortages of auto partssmartphone components, and other key goods.

The workplace proved a weak link in the global supply chain for another reason: cost. Labor has traditionally been the chief expense in manufacturing, which, from the 1990s on, led corporations to outsource work to cheaper locations like Mexico, China, and Vietnam. Since then, however, the global assembly line has changed and, as the McKinsey consulting firm explains, “over 80% of today’s global goods trade is [no longer] from a low-wage country to a high-wage country.”

Labor’s centrality to the location of manufacturing had been further eroded by the growth of automation, which, according to economists, tends to surgeduring downturns. As it happens, both artificial intelligence and robotization were already on the rise even before the pandemic hit. By 2030, up to 20 million jobs worldwide will be filled by robots. The World Bank estimatesthat they will eventually replace an astounding 85% of the jobs in Ethiopia, 77% in China, and 72% in Thailand.

Then there are the environmental costs of that same global assembly line. Moving freight contributes 7% to 8% of global greenhouse gas emissions, with air transport being the most carbon intensive way to go. (Add to that, of course, the carbon footprint of the factories themselves.)

If all that doesn’t change the minds of CEOs about the benefits of globalization, then national security considerations might. The pandemic exposed how vulnerable countries are in terms of key commodities. Because China is responsible for producing more respirators, surgical masks, and protective garments than the rest of the world combined, countries began to panic when Covid-19 first hit because they no longer had sufficient national capacity to produce the basic tools to address the spreading pandemic themselves. The same applied to essential drugs. The United States stopped producing penicillin, for instance, in 2004.

The threat of infection, the spread of automation, the environmental impact, the risk of foreign control: the global assembly line just doesn’t seem to make much sense any more. Why not relocate manufacturing back home to a “dark factory” that’s fully automated, doesn’t need lights, heating, or air conditioning, and is practically pandemic-proof?

The current pandemic won’t spell the end of globalization, of course. Corporations, as the McKinsey report points out, will still find compelling reasons to relocate manufacturing and services overseas, including “access to skilled labor or natural resources, proximity to consumers, and the quality of infrastructure.” Consumers will still want pineapples in winter and cheap smart phones. But capitalists eyeing the bottom line, in combination with Trump-style nationalists insisting that capital return home, will increasingly disassemble what we all took for granted as globalization.

The world economy won’t simply disappear. After all, agriculture has persisted in the modern era. It just employs an ever-diminishing segment of the workforce. The same will likely happen to global trade in a pandemic age. In the early part of the last century, surplus labor no longer needed on the farms migrated to the cities to work in factories. The question now is: What will happen to all those workers no longer needed in the global assembly line?

Neither the international community nor the free market has a ready answer, but authoritarian populists do: stop all those displaced workers from migrating.

Wall world

From the moment he descended that Trump Tower escalator into the presidential race, Donald Trump’s effort to seal off the U.S. border with Mexico has been his signature policy position. That “big, fat, beautiful wall” of his may be simplistic, anti-immigrant, xenophobic, and mistrustful of the world — and may never really be completed — but unfortunately, he’s been anything but alone in his obsession with walls.

Israel pioneered modern wall building in the mid-1990s by sealing off Palestinians in the Gaza Strip, followed by a 440-mile-long barrier to wall off the West Bank. In 2005, responding to a wave of migrants escaping wars and poverty in North Africa and the Middle East, Hungary built new bulwarks along its southern borders to keep out the desperate. Bulgaria, Greece, Slovenia, and Croatia have done the same. India has fenced off the Kashmir region from Pakistan. Saudi Arabia has constructed a 600-mile barrier along its border with Iraq.

In 1989, there were about a dozen major walls separating countries, including the soon-to-fall Berlin Wall. Today, that number has grown to 70.

In this context, the novel coronavirus proved a godsend to nationalists the world over who believe that if good fences make good neighbors, a great wall is best of all. More than 135 countries added new restrictions at their borders after the outbreak. Europe reestablished its internal Schengen area borders for the first time in 25 years and closed its external ones as well. Some countries — Japan and New Zealand, in particular — practically walled themselves off.

Even as the pandemic fades in certain parts of the world, many of those new border restrictions remain in place. If you want to travel to Europe this summer, you can only do so if you’re from one of a dozen countries on a European Union-approved list (and that doesn’t include Americans). New Zealand has had only a handful of cases over the last few months (with a high of four new cases on June 27th), but its borders remain closed to virtually everyone. Even a “travel bubble” with nearby Australia is off the table for now. Japan has banned entry to people from 129 countries, including the United States, but there’s an exemption for U.S. soldiers traveling to American military bases. A recent outbreak of coronavirus at such garrisons on the island of Okinawa may well prompt Tokyo to tighten its already strict rules further.

And such border restrictions are potentially just the beginning. So far, the pandemic has unleashed an everyone-for-themselves spirit — from export restrictions on essential goods to a feverish competition to develop a vaccine first. The United Nations has made various pleas for greater international cooperation, its secretary general even urging a “global ceasefire” among warring parties. The World Health Organization (WHO) attempted to organize a global response to the virus at its annual meeting. However, the Trump administration promptly announced that it would be pulling out of the WHO, very few combatants observed a Covid-19 ceasefire, and there is no coordinated international response to the pandemic outside of the community of scientists sharing research.

So, is this to be the future: each country transformed into a gated community? How long can a sense of internationalism survive in Wall World?

Rebuilding trust

Conservatives used to make fun of the left for its penchant for relativism, for arguing that everything depends on context. “If you ask me what the biggest problem in America is, I’m not going to tell you debt, deficits, statistics, economics,” former Republican House Speaker Paul Ryan said in 2011, “I’ll tell you it’s moral relativism.” Once upon a time, the rightwing railed against deconstructionists who emphasized interpretation over facts.

What, then, to make of the Republican Party today? So many of its leaders, including the president, don’t believe in the science behind either climate change or Covid-19. Many of them embrace the most lunatic conspiracy theories and some current congressional candidates even believe, by way of the far-right conspiracy theory QAnon, that a cabal of satanic child molesters in Hollywood, the Democratic Party, and various international organizations controls the world. In July, Donald Trump achieved the dubious milestone of telling more than 20,000 lies during his tenure as president. In other words, speaking of relativism, the Republican Party has put its trust in a man untethered from reality.

And then along came that pandemic like lighter fluid to a brushfire. The resulting conflagration of mistrust threatens to spread out of control until nothing is left, not the nation-state, not the global economy, not the international community.

In this pandemic era, a fire somewhere is a fire everywhere, for the virus cares nothing about borders. But the key to restoring trust must begin where the trust deficit has grown largest and that certainly is the United States. Not only have Americans lost faith in their own institutions, so, it seems, has everyone else. Since 2016, there has been a 50% drop in the world’s trust in the United States, the largest decline ever in the US News and World Report‘s Best Countries survey.

And the reason the United States has the worst record dealing with the coronavirus is quite simple: Donald Trump. He is the leader of an ever-diminishing proportion of the public that continues to believe the coronavirus is a hoax or refuses to comply with basic precautions to prevent its spread. A scofflaw president who refuses to mandate the use of facemasks (even after officially donning one for his Twitter feed) inspires a scofflaw minority that puts the majority at risk.

Restoring trust in this country’s public health system and governance must begin with a competent system of testing, contact tracing, and quarantine. Yet the Trump administration still refuses to take this necessary step. Senate Republicans have pushed for $25 billion to help establish testing and tracing systems at the state level, but the president actually wants to eliminate even this modest amount from the budget (along with additional funds for government agencies tasked with addressing the pandemic).

Americans increasingly mistrust their institutions because growing numbers of us believe that we derive ever fewer benefits from them. The Trump administration has typically done its best to make matters disastrously worse, only recently, amid the pandemic and with millions unemployed, demanding that the Supreme Court gut the health insurance provided by the Obama administration’s Affordable Care Act. The bulk of the stimulus funds passed by Congress went to wealthy individuals and corporations — and the president’s men didn’t even exercise due diligence to prevent nearly $1.4 billion in stimulus checks from being mailed to dead people.

The next administration (assuming there is one) will have a massive clean-up job restoring faith of any sort in such an unequal, broken system. After addressing the acute crisis of the pandemic, it will have to demonstrate that the rule of law is again functioning. The most dramatic proof would, of course, be to throw the book at Donald Trump and his closest enablers. They have violated so many laws that trust in the legal system will be further weakened unless they’re tried and punished for their crimes, including their willingness to sacrifice American lives in staggering numbers in pursuit of The Donald’s reelection.

In 1996, Bill Clinton spoke of building a bridge to the twenty-first century. Two decades into this century, Donald Trump has effectively torn down that bridge and replaced it with a (still largely unbuilt) wall reminiscent of the fortifications of the Middle Ages. Covid-19 has only reinforced the insular paranoia of this president and his followers. The path back to trust, at both a domestic and international level, will be difficult. There will be monsters to battle along the way. But in the end, it’s possible for us to take this country back, create a just and sustainable global economy, and rebuild the international community.

You and I can do this. Together.

Trust me.

Copyright 2020 John Feffer

Public health experts fear a hasty FDA signoff on vaccine

The vaccine trial that Vice President Mike Pence kicked off in Miami on Monday gives the United States the tiniest chance of being ready to vaccinate millions of Americans just before Election Day.

It’s a possibility that fills many public health experts with dread.

Among their concerns: Early evidence that any vaccine works would lead to political pressure from the administration for emergency approval by the Food and Drug Administration. That conflict between science and politics might cause some people to not trust the vaccine and refuse to take it, which would undermine the global campaign to stop the pandemic. Or it could lead to a product that is not fully protective. Confidence in routine childhood vaccinations, already shaken, could decline further.

“The fear is that you wind up doing to a vaccine what [Trump has] already done with [opening] school,” said Dr. Joshua Sharfstein, a former FDA deputy commissioner and a professor at Johns Hopkins University in Baltimore. “Take an important, difficult question and politicize it. That’s what you want to avoid.”

On Monday at 6:45 a.m., the first volunteer in the landmark phase 3 trial for the Moderna Therapeutics vaccine received a shot at a clinic in Savannah, Georgia. Clinicians at 88 other sites, stretching from Miami to Seattle, were also preparing to deliver the experimental shot in a trial that aims to enroll 30,000 people.

Dr. Anthony Fauci, the country’s leading infectious disease expert, told reporters he hoped 15,000 could be vaccinated by the end of the week, although he provided no information about progress toward that goal. All volunteers would receive a second shot 29 days after their first inoculation. (Half will receive a placebo containing saline solution.)

Another vaccine, produced by Pfizer with the German company BioNTech, also entered a large phase 3 U.S. trial this week. It’s being tested independently of the National Institutes of Health, which is partially funding the Moderna trial as well as tests for an Oxford University/AstraZeneca vaccine trial, and others in the future. AstraZeneca has said some doses of its vaccine might be ready as early as September.

Fauci said he expects the Moderna trial to provide an answer about whether that vaccine works by the end of the year — and it’s “conceivable” an answer could come in October. “I doubt that, but we are leaving an open mind that it is a possibility.”

Such a fast pace worries some experts.

“I don’t see how that’s remotely possible unless the thing I most fear happens, a truncated phase 3 trial with just an idea of efficacy, an idea of common side effects, and then it rolls out,” said Dr. Paul Offit, director of the Vaccine Education Center at Children’s Hospital of Philadelphia.

Pence downplayed such fears Monday, telling reporters: “There will be no shortcuts. There will be no cutting corners.”

Officials are pressing for an open and transparent process.

Rep. Raja Krishnamoorthi (D-Ill.), chairman of the House Oversight and Reform Subcommittee on Economic and Consumer Policy, is preparing to release a bill requiring the FDA to have an expert panel review any COVID vaccine and issue a recommendation before FDA Commissioner Stephen Hahn makes a decision.

With past vaccines, the FDA has generally relied on such a committee, made up mostly of vaccine experts and appointed by the FDA commissioner. They typically conduct a painstaking examination of all evidence before voting on whether the FDA should approve a vaccine. The commissioner has rarely, if ever, gone against the committee’s decisions.

Hahn undercut confidence in the FDA’s independence earlier in the year, many observers felt, when he issued an Emergency Authorization Use declaration for hydroxychloroquine, a drug used to treat malaria that President Donald Trump and members of his administration have continued to tout, erroneously, as a cure for COVID-19. The FDA later revoked the authorization, which was made without consulting an independent committee.

“FDA’s independence has been threatened, no question, by the hydroxychloroquine issue,” said Dr. Jesse Goodman, a Georgetown University professor who led the FDA’s biologics division and later was chief scientific officer.

The agency must give outside scientists and the public the opportunity to see the data and the FDA’s reasoning before coming to such a decision, he said.

Concerns about political interference arose recently when Trump talked excitedly about a vaccine, and Treasury Secretary Steven Mnuchin confidently told reporters there would be a vaccine by the end of the year for emergency use.

To be sure, it’s unlikely the FDA would be tempted to issue an emergency release without data that showed a vaccine was working and not causing serious side effects.

The massive coronavirus outbreaks in Texas and other hard-hit areas where the Moderna vaccine is being tested should provide an answer, although exactly when is an open question.

In theory, scientists might get a handle on a vaccine’s efficacy before all 30,000 people are enrolled, vaccinated and studied.

In fact, an answer could become clear after only 150 to 160 cases of disease are reported among the trial participants, Fauci said. If roughly two-thirds of those cases occurred in non-vaccinated people, it would show statisticians that the vaccine had above-60% efficacy, he said.

If the vaccine is 80% to 90% effective and the annual rate of infection in the places where it’s being tested is above 4%, scientists could get a signal of efficacy in such a trial with just 50 cases, or in as little as three months, said Ira Longini, a University of Florida biostatistician who designs vaccine trials.

The Moderna vaccine trial would hit that three-month threshold on Oct. 27.

The trial’s fate is partly in the hands of its 30-member Data and Safety Monitoring Board, whose members can see unblinded data about the participants in real time — pinpointing who was vaccinated with the actual vaccine and got sick, for example. The board will alert the NIH and vaccine maker if it sees surprising data — either dangerous side effects or powerful efficacy. Some fear that if the vaccine seems to work in an early review, the FDA would be pressured to stop the trial.

Offit said NIH should not accept anything less than a completed trial of 30,000 people. Fifty cases “is a very small number” to use as evidence for releasing a vaccine that could be administered to tens of millions, he said.

The public might clamor for the release of any vaccine that seemed to work. Moderna said it has already begun producing millions of doses of vaccine “at risk,” banking on the vaccine’s success. The FDA could release those under powers provided when the country declared a public health emergency in March.

With more than half the country deeply mistrustful of Trump, according to recent polls, any federal decision could be resisted and lead to widespread rejection of even a promising vaccine. Sharfstein worries about a “knee-jerk” reaction against the vaccine by Democrats if Trump touts it before the election.

Experts also worry about releasing a vaccine that shows some positive effects but isn’t robustly protective. A slide presented by FDA deputy director Philip Krause at the World Health Organization earlier this month said a weak vaccine could fail to protect the public adequately, leading to a false sense of security in those who’ve received it, while making it harder to test future vaccines.

This KHN story first published on California Healthline, a service of the California Health Care Foundation.

Kaiser Health News (KHN) is a national health policy news service. It is an editorially independent program of the Henry J. Kaiser Family Foundation which is not affiliated with Kaiser Permanente.

“On the golf course — I gotta go”: Republicans on the run after Trump’s call to delay the election

After President Donald Tweeted that he wanted to put off the election, it became clear that not only was it not going to happen, but even Republican officials were against the idea. At least, some of them were, others were far too busy to speak out against the unconstitutional plot.

Rick Santorum, a former Republican senator and CNN pundit, was among those who couldn’t be bothered.

“I’m on the golf course. I gotta go,” he told the New York Times.

Sen. Joni Ernst (R-IA), who is in a difficult reelection bid, also couldn’t take a moment to indicate whether she supports stopping the election.

“Not answering any questions,” she told CNN’s Manu Raju.

Sens. Lindsey Graham (R-SC), Ted Cruz (R-TX), Thom Tillis (R-NC) and Marco Rubio (R-FL), as well as Rep. Michael Whatley (R-AL), all agreed it was a bad idea. Rubio specifically said he wished that Trump hadn’t said it.

“The election is going to be held in November. Absentee ballots in North Carolina are strongly encouraged, as has the president encouraged them,” said Tillis.

Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell (R-KY) agreed it’s not happening.

Rep. Kelli Ward (R-AZ) wasn’t informed because she was in the Fox New bubble: “I haven’t seen anything because I was on ‘Fox and Friends.'”

Rep. Andrew Hitt (R-WI) refused to speak on the record: “I haven’t seen it. I would be happy to talk off the record.”

Rep. Terry Lathan (R-AL) gave Trump a pass on the statement, claiming it was just a suggestion, not a demand. “The president was asking a question on this topic, not making a statement.”

More will likely follow, proudly proclaiming to the world that they have somewhere else to be and can’t possibly comment.

Which hot dog are you? The enduring appeal of regional food in the global digital age

On July 4th — just a few hours after competitive eater Joey Chestnut downed 75 Nathan’s hot dogs in ten minutes, four more than his record the year prior — a screenshot of a poster featuring different regional hot dogs started making the rounds on social media. “Tag yourself,” the caption would read, “which hot dog are you?” 

Some respondents leaned whimsical (who wouldn’t want to be a hot dog cut to look like an octopus?), while others took a more philosophical bent in their selections. My college roommate chose the bagel dog because it kind of looks like it’s wrapped in a comforter, which has been her default pandemic state. But the majority of respondents chose the hot dog that most aligned with where they grew up or were currently living.

From slaw and chili-smothered Carolina dogs, to the Chicago dog which nestled next to a pickle spear in a poppy seed bun, home state or country pride was strong in the comments section. 

This hot dog chart isn’t the only interactive food meme in recent memory. A few months ago, it was a screenshot of an “Encyclopedia of Sandwiches” graph. Each sandwich was numbered, so people simply responded with their number like it was some kind of bread-wrapped enneagram test. (For what it’s worth, I’m a 36/37 hybrid). There have been charts of regional barbecue preferences, pizza chains, and soft drinks. Most start their lives as wall art or infographics, but once they hit Twitter, their future is clear: “Tag yourself. What are you?’

In a culinary landscape that feels increasingly globalized, it may seem odd that these memes — which are often built upon regional identity and foodways — pop up with such regularity, but according to food historian Sarah Wassberg Johnson, our collective fascination with state-specific dishes is almost as old as the country itself.

“We have a very individualistic culture,” she said. “So, I’ve done some research on the history of cookbooks, and there’s a period of time — really in like the 1820s to just before the Civil War — where there’s this rash of American cookbooks, and they are all very distinct to the state or region the author was writing from.” 

One of her favorites is the 1842 cookbook “Everybody’s Cook and Receipt Book,” which is subtitled: “But more particularly designed for Buckeyes, Hoosiers, Wolverines, Corncrackers, Suckers and All Epicures who wish to live with the present times.” The nicknames, of course, reference individuals living in Ohio, Indiana, Michigan, Kentucky and Illinois. 

It features recipes like “Hoosier Pickles,” which is a vinegar relish featuring cauliflower, white cabbage and root vegetables, and “Buckeye Pudding,” made with milk, molasses, ginger and sifted cinnamon. 

“I don’t think staking claim to regional recipes is just an American thing,” Johnson said. “But I do think that’s part of how we kind of build our individualistic identities.” 

According Emily Contois, a food historian and author of “Diners, Dudes, and Diets: How Gender and Power Collide in Food Media and Culture,” maintaining regional foodways in an increasingly industrialized — and thus, in some ways, homogenized — country, was one of the impetuses of the “America Eats” project, a Works Progress Administration effort undertaken by the Federal Writers’ Project (FWP) from the mid-1930s until 1942. 

“Writers were tasked with capturing what editors viewed as ‘authentic’ American regional food cultures, conjured in distinctly nostalgic terms,” Contois said. “The editors viewed these regional foodways as increasingly at risk of disappearing due to the proliferation of industrialized food and of nutrition science food rules. Eaters today also express such concerns about ‘processed foods,’ for example, changing what and how we eat, although it’s fascinating how many regional foods incorporate such ingredients, from Velveeta cheese to Cool Whip.” 

In the ensuing decades,  various regional dishes would get their respective moments in the spotlight — in magazine features, travel programs and Instagram posts. It was almost inevitable that they would join the meme age because, as digital rhetoric scholar Heather Woods points out, inherent to memes is an invitational quality. Anyone from anywhere can create one, and anyone can respond. 

“They invite people to participate,” Woods said. “That is one of the sort of basic characteristics of means, and one reason that they’re a very powerful form of communication, because they invite individuals to engage with them. To recreate them, or to remix them, and that is the way that they move across digital cultures or across platforms or across communities.” 

It’s also really common for things that weren’t originally made in the digital space to become memes — Woods, for example is part of a Facebook group specifically centered around identifying objects that were offline and made into memes. That’s why she’s not particularly surprised that a poster of regional hot dog toppings would find new resonance and new audiences on the internet. 

She’s also not surprised that people are using memes as a means of describing and asserting their regional identities. 

“Memes are powerful forms of communication, but they don’t seem like it because they seem silly, You know, ‘Tag yourself, are you a Kentucky hot brown or not.’ That’s not to trivialize anything. In fact, it’s to make it very serious that people are doing identity-building in meme format that shows the importance, right?.” 

It’s the Twitter analogue of the cookbook for Hoosiers, Buckeyes and Wolverines in a culinary and digital world that feels increasingly vast; not to mention a world that currently may leave individuals feeling particularly lonely and nostalgic.

Eaters often cling to local specialties and regional foods, Emily Contois said, given how our globalized food system makes almost any food available anytime and anywhere.

“While that has brought for some eaters convenience and a sense of limitless freedom in food choices, it also dilutes a sense of time and place, of roots and connections, which people are likely seeking all the more now given how COVID-19 separates us,” she said. 

In light of the pandemic, it makes sense that these memes have cropped up again and again over the last several months. All across the country, people are isolated and perhaps wistful for better times and the dishes we ate during them. So, until you can go home again, tag yourself as the food that evokes those feelings the most. 

Support from a distance: How to find and see a remote therapist

If you are anxious, stressed, or depressed about the coronavirus pandemic, you’re in good company. Many of us could use some professional counseling right now, but social isolation practices have made therapists’ offices inaccessible just about everywhere. The solution? Teletherapy. 

Teletherapy (or “telemental health”) is therapy conducted through video conferencing. Right now, it may be the safest way to receive counseling.  Typically, you won’t need to purchase any special equipment or software; if your computer or phone has a front-facing camera and a microphone, you have everything you need.

But talking to a therapist in front of a screen may seem weird, especially for those of us who are used to in-person healthcare. As a clinical psychologist, part of my work lately has been helping assuage concerns and answer questions about teletherapy, and letting people know what to expect. I’ve assembled a list of common questions I hear from patients about the process.

Is teletherapy as good as face-to-face therapy?

Overall, the science says yes. In several studies comparing teletherapy and face-to-face therapy, clients’ symptoms improved equally with both types of treatment for a variety of problems. These may include depression, trauma, and panic attacks.

Clients sometimes wonder whether they’ll be able to bond with a new therapist through video chat. Fortunately, research indicates that ­the so-called working alliance – the strength of the emotional bond and working relationship between therapist and client – is equally strong in teletherapy and face-to-face therapy.

Will my insurance cover it?

Possibly. Some insurance companies covered teletherapy before the pandemic and others are adding coverage in response to it. To find out if you’re covered, check your benefits booklet and look for a section labeled “telehealth.” If you need help, call the customer service or member services number on the back of your health insurance card.

How do I find a therapist if I do have insurance coverage?

I recommend Psychology Today, a search tool that can filter therapists by clinical specialty, therapy modality, insurance network participation, and availability for online sessions. This site will suggest therapists near your zip code, but for teletherapy, you will likely be able to see anyone licensed in your state. Feel free to expand your search beyond your zip code.

Personal referrals to therapists can also come from friends, neighbors, colleagues, or your primary care doctor. Avoid seeing your best friend or family member’s therapist, however. Therapists will typically decline to work with new clients who are close with their existing or recent clients.

You can also use the provider search tools on your health insurance company’s website or call the company’s member services number and ask for their assistance.

How do I find a therapist if I don’t have insurance coverage?

If you don’t have health insurance, or if your plan does not cover teletherapy, you can pay out of pocket. If money is tight, you can often find private practitioners who offer lower prices based on client need; look for terms like “reduced fee,” “sliding scale,” or “scholarship sessions” on their websites.

Open Path Psychotherapy Collective lets you search online for therapists offering sessions between $30 and $60, after paying a one-time $60 membership fee. They ask that clients only use their service if they are either uninsured or unable to afford their in-network mental health benefits.

Some community resources also provide inexpensive or free counseling to those with financial limitations. To learn about options in your area, call 2-1-1 or visit 211.org. The National Alliance on Mental Illness also offers a huge list of resources for free and low-cost services, including online/teleconference support groups, crisis lines, and warmlines (for non-emergency support).

What if I don’t have a private space to talk?

For those who live with family members or roommates, social distancing has made privacy scarce. You can collaborate with others in your household, or get creative with your living space, to reserve a time and place for therapy. If you don’t have a room to yourself, you can use a walk-in closet, a basement, or even a parked car. To create sound insulation in any space, do what therapists do: place a white noise source outside the door. You can use a fan or any device with a free white noise app. Person Centered Tech offers additional advice about preparing your space for teletherapy.

What are the downsides?

Technology glitches can interrupt sessions occasionally, especially if you don’t have a strong internet connection. It can also be harder for therapists and clients to see each other’s body language and facial expressions.

Teletherapy isn’t a good fit for every problem or every person. Clients who are uncomfortable and unfamiliar with video conferencing technology may find the experience less valuable. And many (though not all) therapists also advise against telehealth for more severe mental health conditions, like psychosis.

* * *

Humans are social animals, so it’s natural that social distancing will take a toll on us.

But remember that distancing need only be physical, not mental. Your support network, friends and therapists alike, are still there for you — in many cases, just a few clicks away.

7 disturbing new revelations from a National Guard officer about Trump’s Lafayette Square disaster

An officer in the D.C. National Guard delivered a damning account of the events surrounding the federal crackdown on protesters in Lafayette Square in testimony released by the House of Representatives on Monday.

Adam DeMarco, a senior officer tapped to serve as a liaison between the National Guard and the Park Police, was on the scene during the June 1 assault on protesters, as his opening statement for a planned hearing on Tuesday explained. While the president gave a speech to reporters at the White House, federal officers, including the Park Police, violently cleared demonstrators, the media, and others from the nearby area. Shortly thereafter, the president walked across the street that had been cleared for a photo-op at St. John’s Church.

Though presumably intended to bolster Trump’s political standing, the optics of the events clearly backfired, as Vanity Fair reported:

In the days that followed, Trump’s approval ratings tumbled to their lowest point in over a year, and their lowest point of the coronavirus pandemic, according to FiveThirtyEight’s poll tracker. The first two weeks of June also saw Trump fall even further behind his Democratic rival, Joe Biden. Before June, Biden steadily held a four-to-six-point lead over Trump in national polls, fueled in part by massive support among the independent voters whom Trump won in 2016. Shortly after Lafayette Square, though, Biden began to open up an even bigger lead, a nine-point average lead over the president, with a Washington Post — ABC News poll this week showing Biden winning by as many as 15 points.

Many Trump administration officials have tried to downplay the assault on protesters and dismiss the criticisms, but DeMarco’s account provides disturbing details about what was going on behind the scenes. His conclusion about the events is scathing:

Having served in a combat zone, and understanding how to assess threat environments, at no time did I feel threatened by the protestors or assess them to be violent. In addition, considering the principles of proportionality of force and the fundamental strategy of graduated responses specific to civil disturbance operations, it was my observation that the use of force against demonstrators in the clearing operation was an unnecessary escalation of the use of force. From my observation, those demonstrators — our fellow American citizens — were engaged in the peaceful expression of their First Amendment rights. Yet they were subjected to an unprovoked escalation and excessive use of force.

Here are seven key details from the statement.

1. DeMarco had no indication that protesters would be moved prior to 7 p.m., which was when the city’s curfew would be in place

Defenders of the president, including Attorney General Bill Barr, have said that the protesters weren’t specifically cleared for the benefit of his photo-op. Instead, they said the purpose was to expand the perimeter around the White House. DeMarco confirms that there were plans to expand the perimeter, but he didn’t expect it to happen until nightfall:

I understood that a curfew imposed by the D.C. Mayor was not going into effect until 7:00 pm, so I was not expecting any clearing operation to commence before then.

At around 6:20 pm, after the Attorney General and General Milley departed Lafayette Square, the Park Police issued the first of three warning announcements to the demonstrators, directing them to disperse. I did not expect the announcements so early, as the curfew was not due to go into effect until 7:00 pm, 40 minutes later.

2. Federal officials didn’t even set up a new barrier until much later

This fact suggests that DeMarco was correct to believe assume there was no plan to expand the perimeter until after the curfew was in place:

As for the new security barrier, whose installation was the stated purpose of the clearing operation, the materials to erect it did not arrive on the scene until around 9:00 pm, and it was not completed until later that night.

This supports the conclusion, as many critics of the president have argued, that the violent clearing of the square was for the purpose of his photo-op.

3. The warnings given to the protesters were entirely insufficient

Some have defended the abuse of the protesters by claiming that they were defying the warnings of federal officials, who announced plans to clear the protesters. But DeMarco’s account confirms the reporting of journalists on the ground that these warnings were insufficient and inaudible:

The warnings were conveyed using a megaphone near the statue of President Jackson, approximately 50 yards from the demonstrators. From where I was standing, approximately 20 yards from the demonstrators, the announcements were barely audible and I saw no indication that the demonstrators were cognizant of the warnings to disperse.

4. As others who were on the scene have said, the protesters were peaceful

Journalists on the ground have said that the protesters who were removed were behaving peacefully. There have been some who have claimed water bottles or possibly other objects were thrown by protesters at some point, but DeMarco did not report anything like this:

A few minutes before 6:00 pm, I was standing near the statue of Andrew Jackson in the middle of Lafayette Square as DC National Guard personnel formed up behind Park Police units positioned in a line behind the perimeter fence on the H Street side of the square, facing demonstrators on the other side of the fence. From what I could observe, the demonstrators were behaving peacefully, exercising their First Amendment rights.

General Milley walked towards the area where I was standing. As the senior National Guard officer on the scene at the time, I gave General Milley a quick briefing on our mission and the current situation. General Milley asked for an estimate of the number of demonstrators, and I estimated 2,000. General Milley told me to ensure that National Guard personnel remained calm, adding that we were there to respect the demonstrators’ First Amendment rights.

5. DeMarco provides direct evidence that CS tear gas was used by officials on the scene, despite repeated denials from the Trump administration

I did not know what orders or rules of engagement had been issued to the Park Police concerning the use of force against the demonstrators. I asked my Park Police liaison if tear gas would be used because I had observed tear gas cannisters affixed to Park Police officers’ vests, and I knew that tear gas had been used against demonstrators the previous evening. The Park Police liaison told me that tear gas would not be employed.

As the clearing operation began, I heard explosions and saw smoke being used to disperse the protestors. The Park Police liaison officer told me that the explosions were “stage smoke,” and that no tear gas was being deployed against the demonstrators. But I could feel irritation in my eyes and nose, and based on my previous exposure to tear gas in my training at West Point and later in my Army training, I recognized that irritation as effects consistent with CS or “tear gas.” And later that evening, I found spent tear gas cannisters on the street nearby.

6. DeMarco described extreme and excessive violence being used against civilians

From my vantage point, I saw demonstrators scattering and fleeing as the Civil Disturbance Unit charged toward them. I observed people fall to the ground as some Civil Disturbance Unit members used their shields offensively as weapons. As I walked behind the Civil Disturbance Units pushing westward on H Street, I also observed unidentified law enforcement personnel behind our National Guardsmen using “paintball-like” weapons to discharge what I later learned to be “pepper balls” into the crowd, as demonstrators continued to retreat.

7. Even DeMarco was unaware of all the federal agencies involved

 

One emerging crisis from the Trump administration is the use of unnamed, unidentified federal officers with unclear jurisdiction or rules of operation. It’s disturbing that, in an operation in which DeMarco was involved as a senior National Guard officer, even he was unaware of the full range of federal agents present:

At approximately 6:30 pm, the Park Police began the clearing operation, led by Civil Disturbance Units and horse-mounted officers. The Secret Service, and other law enforcement agencies I was unable to identify, also participated in the push. No National Guard personnel participated in the push or engaged in any other use of force against the demonstrators.

How the fossil fuel industry drives police brutality

Police violence and pollution are more connected than you might realize — and they have financial ties too. A new investigation documents how the fossil fuel industry finances police groups in major U.S. cities while polluting majority Black and brown communities.

The report from the Public Accountability Initiative and LittleSis, a nonprofit corporate and government accountability research institute, details how oil and gas companies are funding police foundations around the country, from New Orleans to Detroit. In some states, the fossil fuel industry has also supported laws to criminalize pipeline protests.

According to the report, the oil giant Chevron is a “Corporate Partner of the Police” for the New Orleans Police & Justice Foundation and a board member of police foundations in Houston and Salt Lake City. Meanwhile, community members in Richmond, California, a city that is disproportionately Black, have been fighting against pollution produced by one of Chevron’s biggest refineries.

It’s not just oil and gas companies; the report also looks into private utilities and financial institutions with fossil fuel investments. Exelon, the country’s largest utility company, which in 2019 settled a pollution lawsuit in the Chesapeake Bay for $200 million, has donated to police foundations in Baltimore, Philadelphia, Chicago, and Washington, D.C. JPMorgan Chase, the top global bank financing fossil fuels, is also a corporate partner for the New Orleans Police & Justice Foundation, and in 2011 donated $4.6 million to the NYC Police Foundation. Wells Fargo, the second biggest financier of fossil fuels, has ties to police foundations in Charlotte, Seattle, Atlanta, and Salt Lake City.

Chevron told the Guardian that the firm is a “good neighbor” and invests money into various community programs and partnerships. Meanwhile, Exelon told HuffPost that just “a fraction” of its overall donations to nonprofits went to police foundations.

These police foundations raise money to buy weapons, equipment, and surveillance technology for police departments. That funding comes on top of the $100 billion spent nationally on policing every year; major cities in America typically spend 20 to 47 percent of their general budgets on police departments. Because they’re nonprofits, police foundations generally receive less scrutiny — the lack of transparency around these donations makes it hard to tell exactly which companies are giving to police foundations and how much. The new report is based on information from companies’ charitable giving reports, press releases, tax forms, and materials from police foundations.

The report comes as the ongoing COVID-19 pandemic exacts a disproportionate tollon Black, Latino, and Native communities, fueled in part by environmental racismand disparities in pollution exposure. The authors state that “divesting from fossil fuels and fighting to end environmental racism goes hand in hand with defunding the police in the fight for racial justice and reinvestment in Black and Brown communities.”

As the protest movement against anti-Black racism and police brutality continues, activists are pointing out more of the connections between policing, pollution, and climate change. “From policing to financial violence, the road to solving the climate crisis includes addressing connected predatory systems,” Tamara Toles O’Laughlin, the North America director of the climate group 350.org, told the Guardian. “We support the demand to defund and divest from the police and fossil fuels, and to reinvest in the resilience of people and planet for a just recovery.”

Jefferson Davis behind bars: Lessons from a locked-up Confederate

An Italian marble likeness of Jefferson Davis stands within an iron-gated cage on the grounds of the Old Capitol Museum in Jackson, Mississippi. The Mississippi Confederate Monument was built as a crypt for “the most famous son of Mississippi.” The president of the Confederacy was actually buried in Richmond, the capital of that secessionist pseudo-republic, but the crypt in Jackson was erected in 1891 to house Davis’ symbolic body, while also memorializing the other Mississippians who died as “martyrs of their creed.” The four sides of the crypt were left open, so the public could step inside and inspect the effigy. One of Davis’ hands was chopped off a few years following the dedication. Soon the statue had been repeatedly “mutilated,” as one newspaper reported in 1923.

When I was home visiting my family in Mississippi recently, I found the statue of Davis to be in immaculate condition. Through the iron filigree, the gossamer figure stood regal in bow tie and tailored coat, his form strikingly reminiscent of a whitewashed Frankenstein.  

The history of the Davis statue is one of repetitive repair, the effort so relentless the state ultimately had the statue locked up for its own protection. Glass behind the iron bars adds an otherworldly glare to the spectacle. The encasement suggests that something within that crypt is seriously contagious.   

The many restorations had created a monster. Rather than protecting the statue, the entombment now illustrates the massive effort it took to contain whatever Jefferson Davis and his creed might, at least symbolically, still stand for. Something sinister was locked away not only within our history, but also within the ongoing nature of being human. Some threat is still here. 

The small park set around the Davis crypt is a pleasant square, with manicured lawn and well-tended trees. The hulking crypt disrupts the peaceful setting. Of course, some visitors may see the crypt-themed monument as a symbol of tenacity to the point of martyrdom. Many others might recognize it as a rallying marker of white supremacy. The perspectives would likely skew toward an urgent desire to bulldoze the structure, smooth the ground and plant pleasing turf instead. Yet what I saw behind the bars was evil. The encrypted effigy gives evil a form that suggested it once was and might still be human. The iron bars hold the lesson, not from the past but for the present. 

In the early 1900s, Sigmund Freud asked the philosopher Carl Jung for help in understanding the role of symbols in human nature. Jung answered with an opinion: “Symbol formation, it seems to me, is the necessary bridge to the rethinking of long familiar concepts.” 

Rethinking the innumerable Confederate symbols throughout our nation is the charge of a long-overdue enlightenment. Abolition of the statues can feel exhilarating to the removers, and encouraging to those of us who share their perspectives. Still, too much cleansing can prompt forgetfulness, even a sense of perfection. A beautiful lawn may well reflect the achievements of an enlightened world, but it offers no reminder of our ongoing vulnerability to the contagion of a dehumanizing creed.

In this sense, Mississippi’s iron-barred imprisonment of Jefferson Davis presents a unique example. Rather than removing all the statues, perhaps we should entomb the key offenders in place within firm structures, locking them away forever in a readily visible spot. Of course destruction would be easier, but widespread destruction of offensive symbols risks creating a symbol of destruction itself — and perhaps a more dangerous symbol, given a superficially pleasing replacement. Archival of these figures within museums seems a wise compromise, but the stuff inside a museum is all too easily avoided. As is the museum itself. To dethrone an effigy from its pedestal and imprison it on the public square leaves a hard lesson. No longer would the monument stand as a memorial to a cruel creed. Instead, the reconfiguration would stand as evidence of the effort it takes to keep some human potential for evil contained.

In his letters to Freud, Jung expresses dismay at the behavior of Americans. “American culture really is a bottomless abyss,” he writes, adding that “such conditions have never existed in the world before.” If Jung was correct, a record of American thought and deed is important to preserve as a rethinking tool, with the most important lessons tactfully displayed in some public squares. 

You can touch the iron bars in Mississippi. You can look through the glass that conceals Jefferson Davis, and sometimes see yourself in the reflection. When I was there, it felt good to walk away from this monstrosity. I felt a great freedom in that decision, even if the lesson of the crypt says I was only out on probation.

Where mask-wearing isn’t gospel: Churches grapple with reopening in a socially distant world

COLORADO SPRINGS, Colo. — The lights dimmed. Guitars thrummed. And a nine-piece band kicked off what amounted to a rock concert inside an amphitheater of a church. “Shout for joy to the Lord,” one musician called out, quoting Scripture.

Any such shout could release the coronavirus to congregants. With some 500 people singing along, though, any concern about a deadly virus circulating was hard to find other than the spaced-out chairs in the 6,000-person hall. Although Colorado’s governor had issued a statewide order days earlier mandating masks, hardly anyone at this service at New Life Church obeyed.

“I’m finding this to be true at churches all over America: If they’re told they have to wear a mask, they’ll stay home,” said Brady Boyd, senior pastor of the 15,000-member New Life Church, a nondenominational megachurch that meets in five locations across the Pikes Peak region.

Long considered one of the country’s evangelical strongholds, Colorado Springs returned to church in ways both guarded and full of gusto after the state lifted lockdowns June 4 with limitations on how many people could gather. But as the county’s coronavirus cases and hospitalizations climb to their highest levels in months, many of the city’s largest and most well-known congregations remain undeterred — openly flouting the new statewide mask order and, in at least one instance, threatening not to stop holding in-person services again if ordered.

It all comes as church leaders across the nation navigate a growing set of political pressures: For months, President Donald Trump urged them to resume services despite pleadings from public health officials for caution and orders by some governors to stay home.

That pressure is particularly acute here at the base of Pikes Peak. Long the conservative bastion of Colorado, this city and surrounding El Paso County, home to about 720,000 people, overwhelmingly voted for Trump in 2016. (The county last voted for a Democratic candidate for president in 1964.)

The Republican sheriff has vowed not to enforce the statewide mask order that Democratic Gov. Jared Polis issued July 16. And several churches are as openly defiant.

But any indoor activities, such as worship services, pose a particularly high risk for coronavirus transmission even with masks, especially when they include singing, said Dr. Jonathan Samet, the Colorado School of Public Health’s dean. While coughing or sneezing can spread larger respiratory droplets, singing and talking release smaller infectious particles that can hang in the air and circulate in enclosed spaces.

“The circumstances of having large groups of people together without masks and doing things like singing is a setup that people talk about for superspreading events,” Samet said.

In Arkansas, for example, at least three people died and dozens of others tested positive in March after two people showed up at a church function with COVID symptoms. And in Washington state, dozens of choral group members were infected after a single symptomatic person attended a 2½-hour practice. Two people died.

The New Life Church, where at least 9 in 10 parishioners went without masks on the first Sunday after Colorado’s order began, was certainly not unique. Nearly all of the roughly 100 people gathered at Church for All Nations also skipped masks.

Pastor Mark Cowart kicked off his sermon there by questioning statements about masks from Dr. Anthony Fauci, the nation’s top infectious disease expert with the National Institutes of Health.

“We are not the mask police,” Cowart said, before warning state officials against trying to restrict their gatherings.

“If they come trying to tell us we can’t meet anymore, or we can’t sing, or we can’t have a Bible study anymore, that’s not going to go,” Cowart said to applause at the nondenominational church. “God does not want us to allow that to happen.”

Colorado health officials recently warned several counties that large worship services could be restricted if the rise in infections doesn’t ease. Average daily confirmed cases across the state more than doubled in July, rising from 215 a day in June to 451 as of last week, according to a state database.

The rise in COVID cases comes as residents disregard social-distancing guidelines. A recent report by the Colorado COVID-19 Modeling Group found that the share of Coloradans complying plummeted from 87% in May to 41% in late June.

Across the Pikes Peak region, dozens of pastors and parishioners described an intense and deeply spiritual desire to return to worship with their fellow believers. Meeting in person provides a unique opportunity to hug, to know they are not alone during such trying times.

“The church isn’t really a place — it’s a gathering of people,” said Brian Bone, while meeting with a dozen others at Woodmen Valley Chapel, where masks were common on a recent visit. “We get comfortable coming to a place we call church, but really it’s being with other people physically that’s important.”

And some ministers fear that not meeting regularly in person could lead to apathy among parishioners, causing them to drift away.

Not all congregations in Colorado Springs have been averse to the state’s new mask order. And the myriad approaches to reopening highlight the difficulty of placing a single label on churchgoers during the pandemic.

For the Rev. Jeremiah Williamson, masking up is the Christian thing to do.

“A lot of this stuff has been caught up in partisan politics, and I’m not interested in that,” Williamson said. “I’m interested in keeping our people safe. We’re one of those churches that believes science.”

At Grace and St. Stephen’s Episcopal Church, Williamson has forsaken his pulpit for the front lawn. There, on a recent Sunday, dozens of church members sat in folding chairs spaced 6 feet apart, inside white circles painted on the grass. No congregants sang. Everyone wore masks.

Nearby on North Tejon Street, more parishioners sat in parked cars, listening with their radios as the service was broadcast via a shortwave transmitter.

And, before attending, everyone was urged to provide their names and phone numbers, in case someone tests positive and public health contact tracers need to find those who may have been exposed.

“It just seems, as religious people, Christians, we would want to do our best for the common good, for the greater good,” Williamson said.

Across town, Payne Chapel AME Church also has opted not to gather indoors out of concern for its predominantly Black congregation, because Blacks have been experiencing higher rates of hospitalization and death from the coronavirus. Church members recently met in their vehicles in the church’s parking lot, waving to one another through car windows and singing hymns together on a teleconference line.

For that 300-member African Methodist Episcopal church, to have met indoors also would have been “between ridiculous and stupid,” said Pastor Leslie White, who heads the congregation.

However, Calvary Worship Center, which has a racially diverse congregation, is meeting indoors and not enforcing the mask order, even though two staff members were confirmed to have COVID-19. Instead, the church, led by a team of Black and white pastors, only recommends they be worn.

For Joshua Stephens, 29, the key to staying healthy is his faith.

The pandemic hit just as he wrapped up earning a degree from Charis Bible College, headquartered in Woodland Park. The local religious school received a cease-and-desist letter in early July from the Colorado Attorney General’s Office for hosting a conference with 300 to 500 people in violation of the state’s lockdown orders that limited gatherings to 175 people. Nevertheless, the college’s pastor had vowed to ignore the order.

Stephens, who attends Church for All Nations, said his belief in God informs his approach to the pandemic, after saying he was miraculously cured of cancer four years ago.

“My personal conviction is, I don’t get sick,” said Stephens, who was not wearing a mask.

Kaiser Health News (KHN) is a national health policy news service. It is an editorially independent program of the Henry J. Kaiser Family Foundation which is not affiliated with Kaiser Permanente.

In a rare move, Republicans tell President Trump “no” after he calls for delaying the election

WASHINGTON — In a rare moment in the Trump era, several Texas Republicans pushed back against President Donald Trump on Thursday when he floated in a tweet the idea of delaying the presidential election in November. The president does not have the legal authority to move Election Day; that power resides with Congress.

Trump’s tweet came just 16 minutes after the U.S. Commerce Department released data showing the nation’s gross domestic product had fallen 33% in the second quarter of 2020. In it, he said, “With Universal Mail-In Voting (not Absentee Voting, which is good), 2020 will be the most INACCURATE & FRAUDULENT Election in history. It will be a great embarrassment to the USA. Delay the Election until people can properly, securely and safely vote???!”

Like voter fraud overall, examples of fraudulent voting using mail-in ballots remain rare. And there’s no difference between mail-in voting and absentee voting, despite the framing in the tweet.

Democrats and Republicans respond

Democrats have long worried that Trump would move in that direction. Former Vice President Joe Biden, Trump’s Democratic rival, predicted as much in April. “Mark my words, I think he is gonna try to kick back the election somehow, come up with some rationale why it can’t be held,” he said at the time. “That’s the only way he thinks he can possibly win.”

Republicans, however, were privately stunned. Publicly, a cascade of Texas GOP officeholders pushed back against the president’s suggestion.

Most notably, the state’s junior senator — who devoted much of his childhood years studying the Constitution — responded immediately. CNN quoted U.S. Sen. Ted Cruz as saying that, while election fraud is a “serious problem” that needs to be fought, “the election should not be delayed.”

U.S. Sen. John Cornyn downplayed the president’s remark.

“I think it’s a joke, I guess, I don’t know how else to interpret it,” he told reporters. “Obviously he doesn’t have the power to do that.

“So, I mean, so, all you guys in the press, your heads will explode and you’ll write about it. I don’t know what his motivation is. He can’t do it,” he said.

There are few documented cases of absentee voting fraud in Texas in recent years, representing a minuscule sample in a state where millions of legitimate votes are cast in every general election. The Texas Legislature has taken action to reduce the likelihood of fraud even further. In 2017, state lawmakers passed a measure to widen the definition of mail-in ballot fraud, boost penalties for certain offenses and strengthen rules for signature verification on those ballots. The legislation, which Gov. Greg Abbott signed into law, also requires local election officials to notify voters when their ballots are rejected and limits who can assist voters using the vote-by-mail option.

Abbott asserted the integrity of the Texas election system in a statement. “Texas has adopted procedures and guidelines to ensure safe and fair elections, including extending the early in-person voting period, and the elections in Texas will occur on November 3rd,” he said.

In the House, U.S. Rep. Lloyd Doggett, D-Austin, pressed his Republican colleagues to clarify where they stood on the issue.

“An urgent question for every Republican officeholder and candidate: Do you support President Trump’s unconstitutional effort to postpone the November election for the first time in American history in order to continue his march to tyranny?” Doggett tweeted early Thursday.

“No, it’s not even a question. No delays. We should demand safe and secure elections. If you requested an absentee ballot, you should use it. And states should not use universal mail-in, which is indeed vulnerable to mistakes and abuse,” U.S. Rep. Dan Crenshaw, R-Houston, tweeted in response to Trump.

GOP state legislators also weighed in.

“No sir. @realDonaldTrump this is not even up for discussion,” tweeted state Rep. Matt Schaefer, R-Tyler.

“We must do all we can to ensure election integrity. Absolutely. But, no way we should entertain delaying the election. Should not even be up for discussion,” tweeted state Rep. Matt Krause, R-Fort Worth.

State Rep. Dade Phelan, R-Beaumont, responded to Trump’s tweet with a GIF that read, “That’s not how this works! That’s not how any of this works!”

Privately, Texas Republicans expressed more pointed astonishment and worry that the president’s comments reinforced Democratic charges that Trump is trying to unduly influence the election. One exasperated Texas GOP delegation staffer compared the moment to World War II and noted that even then, the country was able to conduct elections.

Can Trump legally delay Election Day? 

Setting the date for Election Day is not within the presidential powers. The Constitution empowers Congress to set the election date. That tradition stretches back to 1845, when Congress first established that Election Day would be the first Tuesday after the first Monday of November in every fourth year.

Elections are overseen by state officials but mostly run by local election officers who are responsible for managing polling places and counting votes. Their responsibilities include fielding applications from absentee voters and processing those ballots.

Democrats and civil rights organizations openly fear that statements like the one Trump made Thursday will undermine the legitimacy of the November election, when an increased number of voters are expected to vote by mail during the pandemic.

“Suggesting the possibility of moving the General Election is an extraordinary statement from a sitting President and is sure to create confusion amongst voters about presidential powers in relation to the election,” Trevor Potter, president of Campaign Legal Center, said in a statement. “The country has voted in general elections in the middle of a Civil War, two World Wars and the Spanish flu epidemic of 1918, not to mention the Great Depression.”

While universal mail-in voting has been in use in other states for many years, absentee voting is typically lightly used in Texas. People who are registered to vote in Texas must meet strict eligibility criteria to apply for a ballot they can fill out at home and mail in. The option is generally reserved for voters who are 65 and older, those who cite a disability or an illness, and those who will be out of the county they’re registered in during the election period.

As voters grapple with the risks that could come from casting their ballots in person, the pandemic has ushered in a growing debate over whether to expand the parameters of who qualifies to vote absentee. In other states that also require voters to present an “excuse” to obtain a mail-in ballot, Democratic and Republican officials have either moved to expand absentee voting due to the pandemic or allowed voters to use the coronavirus as a reason to vote by mail during the upcoming elections. Texas’ Republican leaders, by contrast, have refused to budge on the issue and have successfully fought off efforts by state Democrats and civil rights groups to force an expansion through the courts.

Patrick Svitek contributed to this report.

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

Road trip to Powder Keg City: The collapse of Seattle’s autonomous zone

Day 1: Powder Keg City 6/22/2020

“We fought a good fight,” a man yelled into a megaphone at the end of a conciliatory speech. A group of roughly 25 people sat on their knees listening on the edge of the occupied zone in Capitol Hill, Seattle’s formerly cool, currently hip neighborhood.

Had we just driven 21 hours, from Southern California to Seattle’s autonomous zone, for nothing? 

Across the street was Cal Anderson Park. A congregation of people stood in the middle of its fenced field. Perhaps they had a different take.

“That day I learned something so divine and so incredible,” an activist named David Lewis spoke into the megaphone, “that a seemingly random group of human beings, all founded together with the same vision, with the same drive, of simply justice for the death of George Floyd, and beyond that the passion that Black lives truly do matter, could unite and create something beautiful.”

Around the edge of the field, occupiers packed up their tents. A man named Dragon pleaded, “Why are you leaving?” He was almost in tears. “Stay!” he cried. 

The megaphone was handed off to a lanky man in slippers named Karim.

“I want you to know that you are standing in a war zone. Whether it’s a park, a street, or up the street, you have witnessed people disenfranchised your entire existence, and the moment that they stand up, they got a foot on they fucking necks for everything they’ve been through.”

Seattle Mayor Jenny Durkan had announced that police would disband the occupation “in the near future”, and most likely that night. It was clear that a line was drawn within the zone. Stay and fight, or leave in peace. The group we saw upon arriving, and those packing up their tents, had chosen the latter. The meeting ended with a call to defend the precinct from the imminent raid. 

As the crowd marched up to the police station, we ran back to the car. This was it. We stripped down in the street and geared up for the worst — two pairs of overlapping jeans, a sweatshirt, and a $5 pair of safety goggles.

Back at the precinct, a disorganized mass of delinquents, rebels, anarchists and activists writhed and argued amongst each other. Different alleged organizers roared defense strategies into megaphones. 

“Any white people willing to lay down [on the road in front of the precinct] please come over here,” one of them yelled. 

Another woman stood atop a repurposed police barricade giving a speech. Sirens sounded around the perimeter of the occupation.

Within minutes of arriving at the precinct, an hour after setting foot within the occupation, we stood locking arms with other protesters, creating a human chain around the precinct — our purest intentions of objective coverage out the window. The almighty they had been replaced with we

We didn’t know much. The problem with a scene like this is that most news outlets don’t want to touch it. It leaves you scrolling through endless Twitter threads — a landfill of he-said-she-said, rumors and trolls. 

What we had pieced together during our journey up the West Coast was that, concurrent with uprisings across the country in the wake of George Floyd’s murder, Seattle’s East Police Precinct had become a zone of daily protest. On June 8, the city had abandoned the precinct. 

Around the police station, a six-block police-free zone, guarded by heavily armed activists, anarchists, leftists and the like, was formed. A community grew out of this spontaneous takeover, as various activists set up a coordinated network of services — a food coop, a medic tent, an art department, a security team. Indigenous artists painted and Black musicians performed. Teach-ins and movie nights were held. The Capitol Hill Autonomous Zone (CHAZ) was born.

Tense hours passed, and as police did not show up, we milled around the zone, wading between ski-masked men, eavesdropping on conversations, trying to figure out what was happening. Groups of people ran every which way. A living organism composed of other living organisms, tentacles extending and connecting to form a network so far obscured to the casual observer that it was nearly impossible to tell it was connected at all. A hive mind of uncertainty. 

We introduced ourselves to Rick, an older gentleman with two pistols strapped to his body, a can of mace in his back pocket, black slacks, leather loafers and a sweat-stained tank top under an unbuttoned white shirt loosely concealing the firearms. 

We walked quickly from one side of the street to the other and back, as he briefed us on what was going on. “The organizers are behind the scenes,” he said, preferring to stay underground and strategize. 

“The police are not stupid,” Rick warned, “This is their house, and they’ll take it.” Rick had publicly proposed retreating from the precinct, but continuing to hold the streets. Nobody listened. “Majority rules, and it’s time for me to step back,” Rick chuckled, leaning against a barricade, coffee in hand. 

Across the street at the food coop, a man named Kwan bagged nuts. He asked if we were Youtubers or vloggers. We were writers, we explained, masking our wounded pride with amusement. He told us that when the precinct was abandoned, a power vacuum was created, leaving a number of groups within the area competing for control — who would dictate the narrative, negotiate with city officials, strategize, mobilize the protesters? A recent contentious decision had been the renaming of CHAZ as CHOP, for Capitol Hill Organized Protest.

A brass orchestra assembled behind us, kicking into a blaring version of Pete Seeger’sSolidarity Forever.”

Against the backdrop of the boarded-up police station, a legless man rolled past. “We’re in Powder Keg City,” he shouted.

Kwan described CHOP as different from other protests in Seattle’s past. While focused on police violence against the Black community, the central goal of defunding Seattle’s police and funding impoverished communities expanded toward all members of the working class. 

The muted clap of a fist to a face and the subsequent crack of head to asphalt rang out. “Solidarity Forever” ground to a halt. Rick stood over a limp body, bald head glistening in the streetlights. “No violence! No violence!” he screamed.

A man had attempted to light a gasoline soaked umbrella on fire, and in doing so had broken an unwritten rule of CHOP: No fires. Fires create panic, fires distract, fires signal destruction. For this transgression, Rick had crushed the man’s jaw. Justice was swift and brutal.

A crowd formed, hurling insults at Rick. “He was lighting a fire!” Rick asserted in defense. As witnesses backed him up, the argument was settled. After all, the man had been attempting to light a fire.

In our sleep-deprived minds, we tried to make sense of what we were witnessing. This wasn’t the street fair that Seattle mayor Jenny Durkan had described, nor the anarchist Shangri-La we had envisioned. It was something darker, more hopeful, angry and violent. Think Occupy Wall Street with a “Pulp Fiction” adrenaline needle shot straight into the heart of an open-carry state. 

Day 2: A beautiful day for a psy-op 6/23/2020

We recognized familiar faces from the night before as we approached the precinct. David Lewis stood tepidly on the corner. A few feet away, Rick reclined in a lawn chair. 

A shooting had occurred within the occupation while we slept. The fourth in four days. 

Caught up in the madness of the night before, we hadn’t fully explored the occupied area. Leaving the police station, we walked down East Pine Street and onto Cal Anderson Field. Lining the edges of the turf were 20 or so tents. Extending off the field, the turf turned to grass, and around 50 more tents spread through the wooded area. A long-haired man who looked like he had been birthed from a Luna bar stirred some mulch.

We sat down on a bench to drink coffee. Two men shadow-boxed in the middle of a drained fountain. One of them, tanned with thick leathery skin, wore a cowboy hat and no shirt, cigarette dangling from his mouth. 

As we watched the men spar, a kid in his early 20s walked up to us. “Can I get a smoke?” he asked. We handed him a cigarette and lighter.  

Within a minute, another man approached. “Any chance I can get a cig?” 

“Sure thing.” We chatted with him for a few minutes, before he made up an excuse to leave. 

Both men seemed to have no political affiliation with the camp. It dawned on us that many whom we had mistaken for anarchists and protesters the night before were in fact a contingent of unhoused people, a large portion of whom had been living in the park well before the inception of CHOP.

While some resented the unhoused residents, blaming them for violence and crime, most welcomed them as comrades within the occupation. Free food and services provided by the food coop and other tents were enthusiastically provided to anyone within the zone.

As we took in the scene, a man darted by, pulling something from his satchel. Screams. To our right, someone dressed in black snapped a radio from their belt. 

“Hatchet… Man with hatchet!”

The man swung the weapon in circles above his head, emitting a pulsating cry: “Eight, seven, six, five …” Before he hit zero, the CHOP security team swarmed in, disarming him. 

Later that night, we caught word of an important meeting at Cal Anderson Field. Walking over, we heard a man named Malcolm speak to a group of 40 people sitting on the synthetic grass. A car with body-armored men hanging off the windows circled the group. Someone ran screaming through the field. We moved in closer to listen. 

“CHOP is moving.” We scribbled in our notebooks attentively. “CHOP is moving forward. CHOP is moving to … the Space Needle.” 

A deafening silence engulfed the crowd as people processed what we considered the worst idea we’d heard in a long time. 

“Hell no, I’m not going anywhere,” one lady yelled, and as others joined in, the meeting devolved. We recognized David Lewis, a man who had spoken the night before, and went over to hear what he had to say. 

“The problem is capitalism,” a gap-toothed shirtless man, angry red nipples standing in stark contrast to a pasty chest, said to David. He went on, “We have enough people here to occupy all of the vacant apartments in Capitol Hill.”

“To what end?” David asked. 

“To abolish capitalism,” the man fired back.

“Listen, I’m here because of police violence against the Black community,” David replied with restraint. 

Interjecting and aiming a question at David, we asked, “Why is moving to the Space Needle a better strategy than staying here?”

“It’s not,” he replied. 

As we finished talking, a tall slender man in his late 20s, prickly beard poking out from his face mask, pulled us aside. 

“You know David Lewis is an informant?” he told us.  

“How do you know this?” we asked.

“Trust me, it’s just known,” he said ominously, in a way that deterred us from asking additional questions.

It didn’t make any sense. David Lewis, just a day earlier, had pleaded for people to stay — to defy the mayor’s orders. “I will stand with you all these days, if you stand with me,” he had said. 

We began to piece together what was going on. In recent days, paranoia had begun oozing through the camp. Rumors spread that 17 women had disappeared, and many suspected that the far-right Proud Boys, or gangs involved in human trafficking, might be responsible. 

It was true that Proud Boys had beaten a man on the outskirts of CHOP, but the nomadic nature of many residents made it impossible to verify if anyone had actually gone missing.

Four days earlier, a group of teenagers had discovered the chopped-up remains of a body stuffed into a suitcase on the bank of a nearby river. Warnings sounded within the camp: “There’s a new serial killer in Seattle, y’all.”

As for political organization, whispers that even previously trusted leaders were undercovers or informants became commonplace. 

Earlier in the day, a man in a beret had sat on the field joking on a megaphone. “It’s a beautiful day for a psy-op, ladies and gentlemen!” 

It was clear that morale had shifted: Daily meetings had turned into yelling matches between political factions. After midnight, the camp became an uncontrollable zone, leading the CHOP security team to dissolve out of fear for their own safety. 

Whether or not the rumors were true, they, along with the verifiable tensions and the physical threats, had been accepted into the camp’s psyche. CHOP was a skeleton of what it had been just the night before — most tents, including the food coop, were suddenly gone. The movement was collapsing. Cannibalizing itself. 

Just after midnight, we walked over to the precinct. Rick was recounting an incident from the previous night. Hearing shouts from a tent, he went over to investigate. A man was attempting to assault a woman in Cal Anderson Park. Rick took out his gun and fired two shots into the air. The man fled. 

“Gangs have guns, police have guns,” he said. “If I’m not armed, I’m going to lose every time.”

Instinctively, we felt for the Swiss Army knives in our pockets. A 1.5-inch blade. Maybe Rick was right. Or maybe we just needed some sleep.

Day 3: Reformation 6/24/2020

We gathered for the daily meeting at the center of Cal Anderson Field.

A number of prominent activists in the camp formed a line to speak. David Lewis was among them. One by one, the speakers advocated a renewed focus on the original goals of the occupation — cut funding for the city police budget, redistribute those funds into the community, ensure amnesty for protesters. 

To negotiate with the city, control over the precinct was the strongest leverage CHOP had. Instead of occupying the seven-acre expanse of the park, leaving the camp vulnerable to a police raid and other violence, they advocated consolidating around the precinct.

Since arriving, we had witnessed three groups battle for control over the mainstream narrative and ground strategy of the occupation. One was an anarchist contingent, looking for an experiment in a police-free society. Another was a Black Lives Matter movement-focused group, critical of CHOP’s occupational nature, but using the zone as a rallying point to stage marches. Thirdly, there was an Occupy contingent, whose main focus was holding the precinct hostage until their demands were met. 

As the occupiers presented, the crowd listened with an energy we had not seen before. They had a clear set of demands, and a clear strategy of how to meet them. People sat on a set of bleachers, chatting excitedly. It seemed this group was taking control.

After the meeting finished, the People’s Assembly, an anarchist remnant of CHAZ, commenced. Three separate circles were formed: long-term planning, short-term planning and a “vibe check” circle. For some unjustifiable reason, we joined the vibe check circle. 

Sitting opposite us was a man in his early 20s with a thick mustache and curly hair held back by a red bandana. He looked like a well-rested David Crosby. The man explained that CHOP’s goals were too small. We needed to think bigger than Seattle, bigger than Earth … we needed to change the universe.

Fearing that staying in the vibe check circle any longer would trick us into attending some sort of Rainbow Gathering, one of us left to join the short-term strategy circle. 

A man held the megaphone. He had a buzzcut, a camo bandana and oversized brownish-orange aviator shades. His black hooded sweatshirt displayed an AK-47-wielding militant — a memorial to a fallen revolutionary. 

“I can teach you how not to die,” he said. 

He was ex-military, he said, and spoke of the need to reform our security force. He would offer training he had learned when deployed overseas. 

As he spoke, a group of organizers from the BLM movement marched up to us. A young black woman led a chant: “This looks like a bureaucracy.” The crowd echoed in sing-songy antagonism. “Enough talk,” they demanded. They were marching two miles to Seattle’s Western precinct. With the People’s Assembly wrapping up, we joined them.

Day 4: The revolution will be comfortable 6/25/2020

On the morning of the fourth day, we walked into camp around 11 a.m. Shouts could be heard as we approached, and on the corner of the precinct, four people sat in lawn chairs holding their faces. A lady poured milk into one man’s eyes. Down the street, a giant of a man, strode around the camp screaming. 

Behind him, Rick was in hot pursuit. 

“Don’t mace him!” a woman yelled. More cries for nonviolence were shouted into the morning air. 

Rick maced him. 

We took a seat on a concrete barricade. A man with Karl Marx tattooed on his tricep served vegan breakfast burritos. More tents had appeared since the night before. People were coming back. 

The four men gripping their faces had been collateral damage from when Rick had maced the giant 10 minutes before this most recent instance. Among them was Karim, whom we had heard speak the first night. He was in good spirits and we got to chatting.

“The revolution will not be televised, but it will be comfortable,” he said, gesturing to the newly arranged living room on the sidewalk under the precinct. “I like all this shit, so I made it happen,” he said with a handsome smile. 

A few hours later, the giant, along with Karim and a number of others, were sitting around having beers in their makeshift lounge. 

We made a trip to the store and came back with an 18-case of Rainier and a box of smokes. We joined the group. 

Wizard, an “almost full empath,” said he grew mushrooms that could decompose plastics. An EMT kid looking to start a hardcore band chatted up a man in an ICP shirt. Karim joked about the five pillars of society. One of them was yogurt. 

Nobody checked Instagram for their latest cultural homework assignment or book recommendation. Copies of “White Fragility” were replaced with dime bags and cushions. We sat there in front of a police precinct, held hostage until SPD’s ungodly budget was reallocated to communities in need. There was a bag of weed on the table and a case of beers. An act of insurrection. An act of solidarity. 

Outro: Eggs Benedict in San Francisco 6/26/2020

We took Interstate 5 south out of Washington, through Oregon and all the way to San Francisco, where we stopped for the night at a friend’s apartment. There was not a soul in the Haight-Ashbury. People in masks went about their days as we ate eggs Benedict and drank coffee at an outdoor café. 

“I think the almond milk in the latte is bad.”

“Oh shit. Send it back.”

A day’s drive north, a war raged. Here, there was no sign of the revolution. 

We drank and laughed like mad men at the absurdity.

A week before, we had left home expecting to witness a feudal struggle of serfs against kings. We wanted to write a Homeric war song, but instead of facing us in an epic clash, the forces of power lobbed rotting carcasses over the walls and waited for sickness and starvation to run their course. They thought people would tire, put down their weapons and go back to their daily lives. They were wrong. 

If you only read internet news stories, CHOP might have seemed like a hyper-violent test case validating the police state. But shootings happen every day in Seattle, a testament to communities with no economic mobility, left to fight among themselves over the scraps. When they happen in a zone occupied by protesters, they make the news.

In regular Seattle, in the regular United States, the howling giant we saw get maced would have been shot instead. A hammer sees a nail.

CHOP was an imperfect system set up spontaneously in a number of days, but while we were there, we saw people feed each other and support each other. There was no monetary gain for those who cooked or the medics who stayed up all night on patrol. People traveled from all over the country to build a different world, a kinder world. In CHOP, at least for a few days, they did. 

Portland protesters no longer being banned from attending protests to win release from jail

Federal defenders and prosecutors in Portland, Oregon, have teamed up to try to end a court practice of releasing arrested protesters only after they have agreed not to attend protests — a restriction that legal experts called a clear violation of the constitutional right to free assembly.

There are early signs that the effort is working. After the joint request, a federal magistrate judge released two protesters without including restrictions on their attendance at protests or other mass events — or imposing a blanket curfew on them during evening hours. The same magistrate, Jolie A. Russo, had signed some of the release orders since July 23 that included protest bans.

ProPublica reported Tuesday that at least 12 protesters who had been held on federal charges in recent days had been instructed not to attend “protests, rallies, assemblies, or public gathering” (in the words of one order) between their release from jail and their trials. While the Trump administration has repeatedly said its involvement in Portland is targeted at violence and property destruction rather than peaceful protest, many of the affected defendants were being charged with petty offenses, such as “failure to obey a lawful order.”

A spokesperson for the U.S. attorney’s office in Oregon, Kevin Sonoff, notified ProPublica on Wednesday evening about the joint request.

Before ProPublica’s article, defendants had often been barred from going within five blocks of the Mark O. Hatfield U.S. Courthouse at any hour of the day and from leaving their homes at night. However, the orders signed Wednesday allow defendants to move freely in the city at night, although they are prohibited from going near the courthouse between 10 p.m. and 6 a.m.

The new restrictions are consistent with standard conditions of release before trials, according to experts, which often include “stay-away orders” preventing defendants from returning to the scene of the alleged crime.

The 12 defendants who were barred from protests between July 23 and July 27 will need to have modified release orders issued by the U.S. Pretrial Services, the office of the U.S. Courts that recommends release conditions.

Those modified orders are supposed to come out in the coming days, but ProPublica is not yet aware of any previously released protesters being told they are now free to protest.

The federal government deployed more than 100 agents of the Department of Homeland Security to Portland in early July to protect the federal courthouse from ongoing protests that had included some violence and property damage. State and local officials accused the federal government of overreach and blamed it for escalating tensions in the city.

On Wednesday, Oregon and DHS came to an agreement that cleared the path for federal officials to withdraw from the city in exchange for stepped-up enforcement by the state police.

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

Senate Republicans push the country off a cliff — and then head for the hills

Despite the pandemic-induced recession, millions of jobless Americans have been kept afloat by an uncharacteristically generous act of Congress. In addition to their state’s usual unemployment payments — usually a fraction of their previous wages — Americans have been eligible to receive and additional $600 a week, desperately needed support for people who saw their incomes crater.

But Republicans have been outraged that the payments were so generous, so they objected to legislation the Democrats passed in May to extend the program. They proposed a number of different ideas to extend the program on a more limited basis, but all these ideas came at the last minute and the GOP caucus couldn’t agree on a single plan. So on Friday, the program officially expires — meaning unemployed Americans who had been receiving a boost of $2,400 a month from the government will suddenly see those payments slashed to zero.

And now, the Senate has gone home for a long weekend.

Politico reported:

The Senate left town knowing that failed negotiations would ensure the expiration of enhanced jobless benefits for millions of Americans laid off and furloughed amid the coronavirus pandemic. Speaker Nancy Pelosi and Senate Democratic Leader Chuck Schumer met late into the night Thursday with White House chief of staff Mark Meadows and Treasury Secretary Steve Mnuchin, hoping to break the impasse. But they got nowhere and emerged with acrimony and finger-pointing.

Per our colleagues at Playbook: “Meadows made an offer to extend enhanced unemployment at $600 per week for four months as a stand-alone bill. This is a new offer from the White House, and further than Republicans have gone thus far. It’s an extension of current law — something the GOP has railed against. Pelosi and Schumer rejected the offer, and countered with extending enhanced unemployment insurance at the same rate — $600 per week — through the first quarter of 2021.”

All of this was foreseeable, of course. When the CARES Act, which included the bonus unemployment payments, was first passed, it was set to expire at the end of July. Yet Congress — mostly through the GOP’s inaction, and because of the White House’s notable lack of leadership — let the country go off a cliff.

In fact, it had probably already gone off the cliff last week. As the Washington Post’s Jeff Stein has reported, for technical administrative reasons, Congress would have had to pass an extension of the program much earlier in order to avoid a gap in the payments:

Oh, and at the same time as the benefits are running out, Congress’s eviction moratorium on federal housing has expired, meaning people struggling to make ends meet could be vulnerable to being kicked out of their homes.

And it’s not just the individual families who suddenly see the checks dry up that will feel the pain. Inflicting this level of suffering on unemployed people will be devastating for the economy as a whole, as the New York Times Editorial Board explained:

Even with the infusion of trillions of dollars in federal aid since March, many Americans are struggling to ride out the crisis. Almost 40 million people do not expect to be able to make their next rent or mortgage payment. Almost 30 million Americans said they did not have enough to eat during the week ending July 21. Last week, for the 19th straight week, more than a million people filed fresh claims for unemployment benefits.

Grim as those numbers may be, the United States is on the verge of an even deeper crisis.

Ernie Tedeschi, an economist at Evercore ISI, a financial research firm, estimates that failing to resume the federal unemployment payments would cause a drop in consumer spending large enough to eliminate about 1.7 million jobs — roughly the magnitude of job losses during the recessions of the early 1990s and the early 2000s.

Other crucial issues, such as providing support to state and local governments that have seen their revenues plummet, also remain unresolved because the GOP refuses to address them.

The greatest mystery of all this is the Republicans’ motivations. From all appearances, this is electoral suicide. Control of the White House and the Senate are on the ballot in November, and the GOP’s prospects look grim regardless of the actions Congress takes. How much worse could it get if they force millions into financial distress and allow the economy to slide furth into a historic slump?

It’s shortsighted and needlessly cruel. But we’ve come to expect nothing else from the conservative elites.

Graduating from Berkeley, after prison: “Coronavirus disrupted everything in my life”

Hanima Eugene, 42, is a graduating college senior at UC Berkeley and a coordinator for the Underground Scholars Initiative, a student organization on the Berkeley campus that focuses on recruitment, retention, and advocacy for formerly incarcerated and system-impacted individuals. Note: Hanima’s name was changed to protect her identity.

* * * 

I’m sitting at my desk. I’m looking at my computer screen and my cat, Isis, is sitting over to my right on her little pillow. And there are some plants. It’s sunny, there are trees outside. It’s airy and bright. My husband is normally here, but he’s at work. He does construction, and all that work is continuing right now.

I’m born and raised in Oakland, California. And when I was younger, I went to schools in East Oakland. During the summertime they had a math, engineering and science program, which was held at UC Berkeley. I remember going to that campus and I always said, “Hey, when I get older, this is the college that I want to go to.” However, circumstances in my life led me to a violent domestic relationship and ultimately into prison for a term of 15 years to life. During that time I put my focus back on my education.

I earned my associate’s degree through a community college that offers courses to a number of California state prisons. One of the professors, Dr. Joan Parkin, basically challenged me and a friend. She said, “It’s Berkeley or bust.” And we were looking at her and looking at each other like, “What is she talking about?” She knew that incarcerated students were going to school at UC Berkeley. We couldn’t believe it. She said, “You could also have the opportunity to go to Berkeley if you get good grades.” She gave us a road map on what classes we needed to take, what we needed to do in order to get there. Three years later, I was up for parole.

And I made sure that I did all those things. So when I was released from prison in 2017, I immediately submitted my application to UC Berkeley and I was accepted.

I was sick on March 2, and there was notification that there was community spread in Solano County. I realized that COVID-19 was real. I don’t get flu shots, and I normally don’t suffer from the flu every year. But when I became sick for about seven days, I had all the symptoms. I had fever. I couldn’t keep anything down for two days. I had chills and night sweats. I had a headache. I called Kaiser Health around day four and explained my symptoms. And the doctor was like, “It’s just the flu.” But I’m watching the news and I’m seeing all of this unfold. I also knew doctors didn’t have tests and there was really nothing they could do. They told me, “Just stay home for two weeks. If it doesn’t get better, contact us again.” After that, there were signs of more people having infections or symptoms.

I’m a caregiver for my grandfather, who’s 88 years old. I don’t know if I had COVID-19 or not, but I’m mindful of my grandfather and other vulnerable people who are more susceptible. My grandfather has ADT security monitoring for his house. He lives about ten minutes away from me. Since the shelter-in-place orders, I use that to log in and make sure to see him. He sits in the same chair every day. So I can see, hey, he’s up and moving around. Or my husband and I go over there. We don’t enter his home but talk to him through the screen door, with our masks on. And he sits at the door and we talk. Just to check in and see if he needs anything: groceries, food, stamps, because he mails a lot of his bills. You know, making sure he’s OK. Before all this, he was already kind of isolated. A few of his friends would normally come by and visit, but they can’t do that anymore. So I know it’s extremely hard for him right now. And making sure that he doesn’t feel alone or he has somebody to talk to is important to me.

I do miss my peers at school and advocates that I work alongside. I miss creating and strategizing with them. USI is Underground Scholars Initiative, a student-run organization on the UC Berkeley campus that promotes educational opportunities and success for formerly and currently incarcerated students. Imprisonment is glamorized in the U.S. All the TV, reality shows, music, provide a false narrative of what it means to be incarcerated. This is reflected during this pandemic when people on the news are talking about “lockdowns,” “get out of jail free cards,” “isolation,” and “enforcement.” This type of language forces me to reflect on the way society has interpreted the very harsh realities of prison life.

USI has been a bedrock for me these last two years. I feel like people understand me because a lot of times sitting in the classroom, I’m looking around for other faces that look like me and there aren’t a lot. But being a member of USI dispels that feeling of being alone and lets me know, “Hey, I’m also supposed to be here on this campus.”

Because this is my last year, my senior year, we would’ve been planning for graduation. This has been my best semester there. I was able to be on campus and network and really absorb what I’ve been learning without having to juggle a full-time job in addition to a full-time course load, and then this hit. It threw me for a loop mentally.

I fear our economy is going to be a lot worse off. I’m thinking about people like me who are graduating this year and what the employment field will look like after this. I have a feeling it’s going to be really competitive. A lot of people are going to be looking for jobs, and I just have a lot of worry.

Before coronavirus, my typical day varied throughout the week. I had classes in the morning on campus. Then, from 1 to 2 p.m. I’d have another meeting. From 2 p.m. to 3:30 p.m., I go to the USI office, see if there are any letters from students who are incarcerated and need assistance. I help them with transcript analysis and data. And then, I have another class. After five o’clock, I’m normally off campus and headed home. I start preparing dinner, getting laundry done, getting ready for the next day. Sometimes I’m participating on coalition calls up until at least eight. And then off to bed. Then I wake up and do it all over again.

Now with COVID-19 and shelter in place, nothing is typical. I get restless. I’ve lost motivation. The university grading system defaulted to a pass/no pass model. So basically it’s extremely hard for a person to not pass a course right now. You have to really be trying to not pass and that makes it easier for students to relax their studying habits. I’m like, this is my last year, I need to absorb everything that I can. So I’m trying to remain motivated when others around me are like, “Screw it,” you know?

Yesterday I went out and purchased some plants and began rearranging, decorating and cleaning my home. Putting some love into it. My plan is to work with incarcerated women, doing research on law and social factors, especially California murder and domestic violence laws that remain on the books and denote women as property. There are a lot of criminalized survivors in prison, so I want to collaborate with those women to perform research to create reports and develop some policy recommendations to support and help free them. My main concern is what the country will look like in the next couple months. I thought I had everything planned out. I was going to graduate; I had interviews scheduled. I thought I had it pretty mapped out so I could transition back into full-time employment. But coronavirus disrupted everything in my life.

We’re in a moment where, you know, everybody needs help in some way. And how do we, with so many people needing help, prioritize? Folks can help by not forgetting that formerly incarcerated people are struggling and also have additional barriers.

During my incarceration, I found that people often forget, or fail to prioritize, people or things that are not part of their daily interactions. Therefore, speaking these “invisible” communities and people into spaces is a way of prioritizing them.

These four easy-to-make blueberry desserts are the comfort you need this summer

We’re going back to our comforts in the kitchen this summer. There’s nothing like revisiting classic baked goods to make you feel like you’ve reconquered the basics, and there’s no better time to experiment with fresh fruits than the final final month of this season. Have you seen the blueberries lately?

Salon Food‘s resident pastry chef Meghan McGarry of Buttercream Blondie, curated a list of four easy blueberry desserts, which will soon become summer staples in your home for years to come. From a lemony blueberry loaf, to nostalgic oatmeal cream pies, and cheesecake two ways, each is the baker’s equivalent of comfort food with a seasonal twist.

RELATED: Because summer isn’t over yet: Enjoy fresh peaches — with a hint of bourbon — while you still can

“Blueberries are gorgeous right now, and I love tying in local produce whenever possible to really highlight the season,” McGarry says of her inspiration. “While fresh blueberries take any dessert to a new level, they especially do with cheesecake by lightening things up.”

In addition to blueberries, almost all of these desserts has a second unifying ingredient in common: bourbon. If you don’t drink or you’re planning to bake for the kids, don’t worry. It’s always optional.

“Bourbon is a versatile ingredient that balances the sweetness while also adding another layer of flavor that will comfort you,” McGarry explains. “It really just pairs well with the blue berries. They make a great couple.”

Option 1: Blueberry Bliss Cheesecake Bars

Salon Food recently partnered with McGarry to help bakers of all skill levels conquer your fears about baking cheesecake. The result is a cheesecake recipe that yields everything you love about your favorite dessert with all of the hard work removed. That means no springform pan — all you need is an 8×8.

This recipe is the perfect description of what McGarry does: reinventing classic desserts and taking them to soaring new heights. Her easy-to-bake cheesecake actually makes over two comfort desserts, bringing them together in a whole new way. You may have missed it when you first looked at the photo, but the crust of this cheesecake is actually an oatmeal cookie.

Cheesecake bars more often than not have a graham cracker crust, but McGarry knows how to flirt with dessert. The added bonus of an oatmeal cookie has all of those flavors that you know and love: cinnamon, light brown sugar and vanilla. The addition of bourbon takes this cookie to the next level. Combined, these cozy flavors set the stage for the whole production.

Option 2: Blueberry Oatmeal Cream Pies

The cookie itself is exactly what you crave in an oatmeal cookie. Soft-baked and chewy, it will absolutely melt in your mouth. The cookie batter contains a hint of bourbon, which provides a cozy feeling against the sweet blueberries. The berries lend not only a fruity flavor to the cookie but also a bright pop of color. They look and taste like summer, providing a burst of freshness that really wakes the cookie up.

“I had to pry myself away from the cookies just to make the filling,” McGarry says. “But it’s worth it. I promise.”

McGarry wanted to upgrade the filling to match this beautiful cookie, which is why she chose mascarpone. Commonly used in tiramisu, mascarpone is at the same time creamy and satisfying. A hint of light brown sugar adds earthy sweetness that enhances the flavor of the blueberries.

“The filling is really what takes them up a notch,” McGarry adds. “I literally just used a mascarpone with a hint of brown sugar to sweeten it up, and that’s all you need to anchor this satisfying hand-held treat.”

Option 3: No-Bake Blueberry Gingersnap Cheesecake Pie

This is a dessert that’s perfect to break out at the beach or bring along to an outdoor barbecue or picnic — smiles on all who dig in, guaranteed.

An exceptional cheesecake is built on a strong foundation. For the crust, McGarry nods ahead to the fall baking season by replacing ordinary graham crackers with ginger snap cookie crumbs. Hints of cinnamon and spice instantly make the dessert more inviting and also provide balance to the sweetness of the filling, which is so light and airy that it almost resembles a mousse.

“I’m all about no-bake desserts in the summer,” McGarry says. “To elevate the no-bake factor of the cheesecake, I added a vanilla bean to the mix. Light brown sugar is another ingredient that adds to the overall warmth of this dessert, and of course, the bourbon.”

Option 4: Meyer Lemon Blueberry Loaf

This loaf is super adaptable, and not only in terms of ingredients. It’s a multi-functional crowd pleaser that’s great for breakfast with a cup of coffee, in the afternoon with tea or as a snack all on its own.

Citrus is a great way to add flavor to loaves, and the zest from the lemon packs a special punch in the flavor department. This particular recipe is powered by lemons, but you can use any citrus you have on hand. Blood oranges or limes work well, too. If you don’t have citrus in your fruit bowl? Just eliminate it. 

McGarry adds fresh blueberries to this loaf, but you can also sub any frozen berries, in particular blueberries or raspberries. So if you stocked up on frozen fruit, you’re in luck. For a pop of citrus-y flavor, McGarry finishes her loaf with Grand Marnier glaze. You can substitute any orange liqueur, or opt out, too.

Don’t forget to follow @ButtercreamBlondie on Instagram for more ways to bake through it.

Treat yourself to a four-ingredient, single-serving s’mores milkshake this summer

Of the many things the past few months have brought into my life, solitude hasn’t been one of them. On the same day in mid-March, my spouse marked one year since getting laid off, my older daughter’s college sent everyone home and my younger daughter’s high school did the same. 

We have passed the four-month mark now of confinement together in a very small New York City apartment of three meals a day, seven days a week, largely together. I’ve stewed vats of beans and simmered gallons of stock. I’e cultivated sourdough starters and slow cooked enormous cuts of meat. And I’ve baked everything from bundt cakes and cheesecakes, to cookies and brownies, to pies and merengues. Oh, and I’ve fried stuff covered in sugar. It’s been swell, but I would really like a break now. Thank you, very much.

To have loved ones close and relatively safe and healthy is a privilege I’m thankful for every day. The pleasure of feeding them, offering them even a little respite in the form of something sweet, is on many days the only thing that gets me out of bed in the morning. My friends who live on their own sometimes talk about missing family mealtime or the meditative act of making a cake for someone else. Meanwhile, I lately sometimes miss the feeling of being alone in a hotel room with only a packet of Biscoff and cable TV for company.

But living with others shouldn’t mean a person never gets to enjoy some solo pleasures any more than being alone should limit one’s dessert options to only single-serving Kozy Shack puddings (though they are sublime). I think that whatever the size of your household, you deserve something special and a little fancy that doesn’t have to be divvied up. Plus, this time of year, the whole oven and stovetop situation is entirely off-putting. This is why we have blenders.

I didn’t own a blender until fairly recently, because I believed they were for things you order and pay for, i.e. smoothies, margaritas and milkshakes. That was, of course, the kind of thinking one could afford to have when going out into the world and buying things was something people did. It’s 2020 now, and I’m a person who has tequila in her house and owns two different kinds of ice cream scoops. I’m a person who makes shakes. Low-key, apolitical shakes.

In the realm of trendy desserts, I’ve never been seduced by shake mania. I concur with my firstborn that Shake Shack is just “classy McDonalds,” and the cookie-encrusted frankenshakes from Black Tap don’t jibe with my minimalist culinary aesthetic. I’m generally more of a root beer float from an ice cream truck kind of gal.

But all that was disrupted when my daughters had a nostalgic evening watching “Enchanted” and making s’mores. Because my favorite flavor of anything is “burned,” I soon found myself down all kinds of recipe rabbit holes looking for a campfire-inspired frozen treat recipe for me — and only me.

Despite the presence of marshmallows and a dusting of graham cracker crumbs, I promise this is not a chunky shake. (I don’t understand why anyone would put anything in a glass which makes the straw’s job harder; fight me if you disagree.) There’s just a little texture to keep it interesting, but that caramelized, toasty flavor shines through.

Best of all, because of its proportions, this is a milkshake that won’t bring boys to the yard and Daniel Day Lewis had best steer clear of. It’s a luxurious treat, which requires exactly one straw. If you’re feeling magnanimous, you can double the quantities — but don’t feel obligated. Not everything has to be shared, and if anyone you live with wants a taste, tell them they can make their own.

***

Recipe: S’mores Milkshake for One, adapted from Martha Stewart and Dessert for Two

Makes approximately one serving

Ingredients:

  • 1 cup of milk
  • 2 generous scoops of chocolate ice cream
  • 5 large marshmallows
  • 1 graham cracker
  • Optional: chocolate syrup and whipped cream

Instructions:

  1. Preheat broiler.
  2. Line a cookie sheet with parchment or foil, and very lightly oil it.
  3. Place the marshmallows apart from each other on the pan, and broil them for approximately one minute. (Keep your eye on them until they reach your specific ideal of doneness.)
  4. Once out of the oven, let the marshmallows cool while you prep the shake.
  5. Put the graham cracker in a Ziploc bag, and finely crush it.
  6. Add the milk and ice cream to the blender and start. One at a time, add four marshmallows, reserving one for garnish.
  7. Pour your shake into a tall glass. Top with toasted marshmallow and graham cracker crumbs. Add whipped cream and/or chocolate syrup if you like. Savor your me time.