Spring Sale: Get 1 Year, Save 58%

Donald Trump, Fox News grandpa: TV tells him what to do, and he does it

Donald Trump is a Fox News grandpa. He watches the TV and it tells him what to do.

Trump is not special or unique in that regard. As Jen Senko showed in her compelling documentary “The Brainwashing of My Dad,” there are tens of millions of mostly older white people who live in the deranged alternate reality created by Fox News (and the broader right-wing echo chamber).

But Donald Trump has a terrible power and titanic responsibilities that the other lost souls in the Fox News Universe do not: He is president of the United States of America. In that way Donald Trump is unique in his ability to follow the horrible commands given to him by Fox News and then inflict them on the American people.

During his one-person White House Rose Garden campaign rally last Tuesday, Donald Trump continued his public downward spiral of mental decompensation as he spouted more lies and conspiracy theories, made vicious attacks on Joe Biden and Rep. Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez, engaged in more self-aggrandizement, undermined the country’s public health with his lies about the coronavirus, claimed that Biden and the Democrats want to destroy “the suburbs,” and overall behaved as though he was auditioning for the role of Mad King in a made for TV movie.

Writing at The Bulwark, Charles Sykes described the scene:

The president of the United States, ladies and gentlemen, was in full Mad King mode, rambling, confused, disjointed, parading his grievances with barely a wave from afar at coherence. It was as if a hive of buzzwords exploded in his head: statues, boats, vandalism, socialism, suburbs.

It is hard to write about this display without using the word “impaired.” Because it wasn’t just the disjointed word salad. It was the delivery. Trump was somnolent, as if he’d pulled an all-nighter watching Fox & Friends or maybe his VCR tapes of Shark Week.

Imagine the covfefe tweet come to life.

The Rose Garden event was ostensibly about China, but quickly disintegrated into something between one of his improvisational stump performances, a stream of broken consciousness, and a rambling oppo dump. Perhaps the president really misses campaign rallies. Or maybe he just got confused.

Someone on his staff gave him a summary of horrible things that he might someday be able to craft into a campaign attack on Joe Biden . . . and so he just stood there and read the whole thing.

Trump did not pull words and ideas out of the ether during his Rose Garden “press conference.”

He was reciting talking points from Fox News and other elements of the right-wing disinformation machine.

For those rational people who do not live in that echo chamber, Trump’s Rose Garden “press conference” was all conspiratorial madness, lies and assorted right-wing pablum. But for those people who live in the Fox News Universe what Trump said was verifiable fact and a type of special privileged knowledge only available to people like them.

On Wednesday, Trump again showed the power that Fox News has over his mind. Like a broken computer in a movie, spitting out the same information over and over again, Trump declared:

Joe Biden and the Radical Left want to Abolish Police, Abolish ICE, Abolish Bail, Abolish Suburbs, Abolish the 2nd Amendment – and Abolish the American Way of Life. No one will be SAFE in Joe Biden’s America!

Donald Trump continues to behave like the equivalent of a drunken, Fox News-addicted bigot at the hotel bar. He is Archie Bunker, with more money and less decency. Unlike his close adviser Stephen Miller, an overt white supremacist, Trump has no political ideology. Fox News, however, does. It is the country’s largest and most successful white supremacist propaganda machine, if not the world’s. Fox News can make that vile vision become reality through its symbiotic relationship with Donald Trump and his Republican Party.

While Trump’s Rose Garden “press conference” was despicable, the president’s interview with CBS News on the same day revealed even more how Fox News has provided him with a narrative framework for his racism and white supremacy.

When asked by CBS News’ Catherine Herridge about police thuggery and brutality against black people, Trump exclaimed, “So are white people. So are white people. What a terrible question to ask. So are white people. More white people, by the way. More white people.”

Because he wants to be a 21st-century version of Jefferson Davis, Trump defended the Confederate flag and tried to suggest it was somehow equivalent to the Black Lives Matter movement.

He told CBS that, “I know people that like the Confederate flag, and they’re not thinking about slavery. I look at NASCAR. You go to NASCAR. You had those flags all over the place. They stopped it. I just think it’s freedom of speech, whether it’s Confederate flags or Black Lives Matter or anything else you want to talk about. It’s freedom of speech.” When asked about slavery and the pain that the Confederate flag causes Black people (and other people of conscience) Trump replied, “People love it.”

In Trump’s mind and the collective mind of the Fox News Universe, Black people who do not want to be treated as second-class citizens in America are the moral equivalent of white supremacist terrorists, murderers, rapists, torturers, enslavers and other evildoers.

The claims Trump has made recently do not require great skill in semiotics and sociolinguistics to decode and rebut.

Social scientists and other researchers have repeatedly shown that America’s police are more likely to use lethal or brutal force against unarmed Black people than against white people. Police are also much more likely to escalate their levels of violence against Black and brown people than against white people.

Of note: In 2015, then-candidate Donald Trump retweeted white supremacist propaganda about “black crime” against white people.

The Confederate flag is not just a matter of “free speech.” It is a symbol of white supremacy and a cause dedicated to enslaving, murdering, abusing, torturing and otherwise denying the human rights of black people. Political scientists have shown that support for the Confederate flag is highly correlated with anti-black animus and racial resentment.

While many white Americans — at least in these weeks of the George Floyd protests — are showing a positive change in their racial attitudes and feelings towards Black Americans and other nonwhites, Donald Trump and his regime have instead chosen fanatical loyalty to their white supremacist counterrevolution against multiracial America.

What are Donald Trump and his followers and allies fighting so desperately to defend?

In her book “White Identity Politics,” political scientist Ashley Jardina offers this answer:

For a number of whites, these monumental social and political trends — including an erosion of whites’ majority status and the election of America’s first black president — have signaled a challenge to the absoluteness of whites’ dominance. These threats, both real and perceived, have … brought to the fore, for many whites, a sense of commonality, attachment, and solidarity with their racial group. They have led a sizeable proportion of whites to believe that their racial group, and the benefits that group enjoys, are endangered. As a result, this racial solidarity now plays a central role in the way many whites orient themselves to the political and social world.

Fox News is one of the main redoubts for this white supremacist counterrevolution. In that role, Fox News takes explicit white supremacy from fringe voices in American society (and around the world) and repackages it for “mainstream” consumption. This process is known as “narrative laundering.” Fox News host Tucker Carlson and his staff are experts at it.

On his prime-time show, Carlson routinely repeats white supremacist talking points about nonwhite “invaders” in America, or about how white people are being “replaced,” nonwhite immigrants are disease carriers, “diversity” is dangerous, white supremacy is a “myth” and the Black Lives Matter movement is “coming for” white people, among other lies.

During his Rose Garden one-man rally last Tuesday, Donald Trump repeated, almost verbatim, Carlson’s falsehoods about the Democrats wanting to “abolish” the suburbs.

Carlson’s head writer was forced to resign last week after his white supremacist threats against Black people, Jews and other ethnic and racial minorities were recently discovered on an online forum. Carlson’s head writer also targeted women and gay people with his hatred.

Such comments routinely appear on Carlson’s show, to be sure, but laundered to be slightly more “polite.” Predictably, last Monday Tucker Carlson announced that he would be taking a “long-scheduled vacation,” effective immediately.  

In all, America’s democracy and political culture are imperiled by both Fox News as well as Donald Trump’s relationship to it. When the television talks to Donald Trump it is telling him to do horrible things — and he slavishly follows the commands.

Writing at the Guardian, Bobby Lewis describes how Fox News poisons its viewers, and the United States as a whole:

Fox News is ridiculous, stupid, and — when it doesn’t mean to be — hilarious. Most importantly, it’s an extremely influential stream of conservative misinformation. And the president’s favorite show, Fox & Friends, encapsulates the totality of the rotten network’s inherent conflicts and contradictions.

It shows how news and opinion is blurred — but opinion wins — and the lengths the network goes to ensure a devoted audience. Fox is a shameless counterfeit of a news organization, and Fox & Friends leads the fraud bright and early every morning.

People who begin watching Fox News “with an open mind,” Lewis continues, “can find themselves sucked into a destructive and alienating lifestyle.” He details the examples collected by the writer Luke O’Neil, “of families, his own included, divided by Fox News’ partisan garbage fire.” One family spoke of no longer sending their children to see their grandparents because “their toxic anger and resentment is slowly becoming their entire identity.”

I can tell you from personal experience that when I say Fox poisons minds, I’m not being that hyperbolic. While watching Fox & Friends every morning, I struggle to unearth or at least assemble even shadows of fact-based arguments from the unhinged nonsense that is vital to the brand.

It can be so intense on Fox & Friends that I sometimes have what could be called propaganda hangovers – after finishing the show, I feel as though I’m trapped in a fog of disinformation, and my mental processes feel sluggish for a few more minutes.

As he has repeatedly demonstrated to America and the world, Donald Trump, the corner bar drunk and Archie Bunker bigot, is a prisoner of the Fox News worldview. This would almost be comical if Trump were not president of the United States in a time of plague and economic disaster, for which he is largely responsible. Families of those who have died or been rendered destitute are not laughing. America is now a pitiful nation led by a pathetic Mad King who will apparently do anything to stay in power.

How the pro-choice movement’s big win at Supreme Court might prove to be a huge loss

When the Supreme Court handed down its ruling striking down a Louisiana law that would have limited abortion access in that state, progressives celebrated. Their reasoning on June 29 was simple: By joining the court’s liberal justices, Chief Justice John Roberts had proven his commitment to the principle of precedent.

But the court had also sent several cases – all big wins for abortion rights – back to lower courts for reconsideration.

Those moves, and a closer look at the decision in the Louisiana case, called June Medical v. Russo, made it far less clear who won. In my recent book “Abortion and the Law in America: Roe v. Wade to the Present,” I explore the history of the incremental attack on abortion that June Medical has supercharged. People who object to the landmark 1973 Roe ruling legalizing abortion have long planned to deal the decision a death of a thousand cuts, and June Medical makes that much easier.

What comes next

There is no shortage of abortion cases that might well land at the Supreme Court next – at least 16 are already in the pipeline. Let’s start with the ones that the court just sent back for reconsideration. The 7th Circuit Court of Appeals now has to take a second look at its decisions striking down two restrictions in Indiana.

One required abortion providers to show a pregnant woman her ultrasound, let her listen to her fetus’s heartbeat and then wait 18 hours before having an abortion – unless the patient refused in writing.

The second state law beefed up the restrictions that applied to minors, requiring a judge to notify a young woman’s parents even when a court had already found that abortion would be in her best interests – or that she was mature enough to make her own decision.

Telling the lower court to look again at the case and reach a better result usually means the court was wrong – signaling that the regulations are likely constitutional. It also indicates that Chief Justice Roberts actually relaxed the rules governing abortion restrictions and just made it much easier for states to pass them. But the Indiana cases are not the only ones likely to land at the Supreme Court.

The aftermath of June Medical

Since the court’s 1992 ruling in Planned Parenthood v. Casey, the ultimate question in abortion cases is whether any particular law unduly burdens a woman’s right to abortion.

Before this most recent decision in June Medical, courts answering that question had to balance the costs and benefits of abortion restrictions. That meant that useless laws often failed challenges in court. In 2016, for example, the court struck down a law requiring abortion clinics to meet the standards set for ambulatory surgical centers.

A Supreme Court majority saw no point to the law. After all, many early abortions required a woman to take pills, not have surgery. And even when a woman did suffer complications after an abortion, that usually happened much later, and well after she had left a clinic. The decision told legislators who wanted to restrict abortion they needed to prove that their laws served a useful purpose.

Roberts changed all that in June Medical. Now, the court will no longer consider whether a law has any benefit. And Roberts seems to have a very different – and much narrower – idea about what a burden is.

That may well mean that it will be harder for women to prove that an abortion restriction – rather than some other force – caused an abortion clinic to close and thereby caused an undue burden. It may mean that the court no longer cares if a woman has to travel hundreds of miles or leave the state to get an abortion, or if she receives a lower quality of care as the result of an existing law. Roberts has seemed skeptical that these burdens cross the line. As the court’s new swing justice, his opinion on the matter will be the one that counts.

Alternative anti-abortion strategies

Several other restrictions bear watching. Seventeen states ban abortions after 20 weeks, based on the hotly contested theory that fetal pain becomes possible at that point in pregnancy. Others outlaw dilation and evacuation, the most common procedure after the first trimester. Both types of laws build on abortion foes’ last major win, Gonzales v. Carhart, a 2007 decision upholding a federal ban on dilation and extraction, a specific technique that Congress called partial-birth abortion.

In Gonzales, the court claimed that whenever there was scientific uncertainty, lawmakers had more freedom to maneuver. Now, abortion foes use scientific uncertainty to justify much broader restrictions. That leeway could give Roberts the kind of cover he needs to chip away at abortion rights. Rather than ignoring precedent, the court could claim to extend it, all while continuing down a path to eliminating Roe.

Recently, states have bet on laws that bring together abortion politics and explosive questions about racial justice. Mississippi and Tennessee became the latest states to ban abortions based on the fetus’s race, sex or disability. The Supreme Court dodged considering the legality of one of these laws, allowing the issue to percolate longer in the lower courts.

Overturning Roe?

It’s still possible that the court would uphold a far more sweeping ban. Last year, after President Donald Trump seemed to have created a conservative Supreme Court majority, states rushed to pass laws outlawing abortion at the sixth week of pregnancy, when a doctor could detect fetal cardiac activity.

To uphold such a law, the court would have to overturn Roe and Casey, which both prohibit any abortion ban before viability. But red state lawmakers want to force the court to reconsider Roe. Roberts declined to overturn either one in June Medical, but he stressed that no one had asked him to. He might be game if the question comes up directly. And I believe it’s only a matter of time until someone makes a specific request.

June Medical doesn’t look to me like a win for abortion rights. The fate of Roe is more uncertain than ever. In my view, the threats to abortion have hardly diminished, and John Roberts, the deciding vote in June Medical, may well be the one to carry them out.

Mary Ziegler, Stearns Weaver Miller Professor, College of Law, Florida State University

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

Why we’re striking for Black lives: It’s time for a reckoning

On April 3, 1968, Dr. Martin Luther King Jr. stood up at the Mason Temple in Memphis and spoke in support of the city’s 1,300 sanitation workers. The workers were on strike to fight for the ability to unionize, put better safety standards in place, and their right to a livable wage. They had stopped work, partially in response to the deaths of Echol Cole and Robert Walker, who had been crushed to death by a garbage truck while on the job.

On that day, on the eve of his assassination, Dr. King said, “We’ve got to give ourselves to this struggle until the end. Nothing would be more tragic than to stop at this point, in Memphis. We’ve got to see it through. And when we have our march, you need to be there… Be concerned about your brother. You may not be on strike. But either we go up together, or we go down together.”

Today, workers across the country are planning to leave their posts, together. 

In this moment of economic precarity for so many of us, what could motivate people to strike, or walk out of work? 

Exasperation, and a desire for reckoning. 

The current pandemic of COVID-19 and the generational pandemic of violence against Black lives have brought some truths into sharp relief. As tens of millions of people have worked without personal protective equipment or paid sick time, it has become clear to us all: Workers, those we have recently taken to calling “essential,” are the cornerstone of our social and economic well-being. These are disproportionately Black and brown workers.  As we enter further and further into an economic depression, it’s become clear that for so many communities, it is time to take action that pushes elected officials and CEOs to dismantle racism and white supremacy in the workplace. Our fights for racial, economic, health care, gender, climate and immigration justice are all connected. We are connected, as well. 

So today, we #StrikeForBlackLives. 

In the spring we saw action after action to demand personal protective equipment (PPE) in the midst of a global pandemic. In the summer, unprecedented uprisings and protests happened all over the country to defend Black lives. We can’t stop. On July 20, tens of thousands of workers will take action. The strike comes in the middle of a summer focused on building political power. At the end of August, the Black National Convention will channel the energy from the streets into a meeting place for hundreds of thousands of Black folks and our allies to build Black political power and make a plan to shape the national agenda.

Our aim is clear: By bringing together workers of all races to exercise our power together, we are linking our racial and economic justice demands. We are demonstrating the power of people who organize and join together in unions. We are the backbone of this country, and we are calling for a reckoning. 

What are we calling for, as we strike?

We are calling for justice for Black communities, with an unequivocal declaration that Black Lives Matter. This is the first step in winning justice for all workers. All these issues, from economic rights to education, housing and criminal justice reform, must start by listening to Black workers and leaders.

We are calling on elected officials and candidates at every level to use their executive, legislative and regulatory authority to begin to rewrite the rules and reimagine our economy and democracy. We need fair and safe voting in-person and by mail so everyone can fully participate in our democracy. As we continue to address the COVID-19 pandemic, we must protect the health and safety of all workers, returning people to work and into public spaces with a rational, safe, well-managed plan designed with workers and community stakeholders.

We are calling on corporations to take immediate action to dismantle racism, white supremacy and economic exploitation wherever it exists, including in our workplaces. This includes corporations raising wages, allowing workers to form unions, providing health care, sick leave and expanded health care coverage to people who are uninsured or have lost coverage as the result of losing their jobs during the COVID-19 pandemic, child care support and more.

And finally: Every worker must have the opportunity to form a union, no matter where they work. Every worker in America must have the freedom that comes from economic security and equity in opportunity. 

The time of ignoring the deadly impacts of structural racism in America’s economy and democracy is over. We are striking and walking out together, as people of different backgrounds and races, to challenge greedy and corrupt corporate power, and all the elected officials who side with corporations over their own constituents. We are demanding solutions from government that center communities of color and dismantle racist policies to make sure every family is healthy, safe and secure, no matter our race, our immigration status, our job or where we live.

Meet Jaime Harrison, the South Carolina Democrat taking the fight to Lindsey Graham

Jaime Harrison is the South Carolina Democrat running against Sen. Lindsey Graham this fall. He’s overperforming in the polls and blowing Graham out of the water in fundraising, topping the 25-year incumbent in both reporting periods this year. Last Wednesday, Harrison announced a $14 million haul, while Graham pulled in $8.4 million.

Democrats are typically reluctant to put hope in a state like South Carolina, even with a focused campaign and a charismatic candidate. The buckle of the Bible Belt, South Carolina voted for Democrats all the way from Reconstruction into the 1960s, flipping Republican, like most of the Deep South, in response to the civil rights movement. In 1964, South Carolina was one of just six states to vote for Barry Goldwater, the godfather of the modern conservative movement. It has gone red in every election since then, with the sole exception of 1976, when it went for Jimmy Carter, a moderate Democrat from neighboring Georgia. In 2016, Donald Trump beat Hillary Clinton in the Palmetto State by 14 points, 55 to 41%.

Still, Harrison inspires hope. It doesn’t hurt that Graham has disappeared from the state almost entirely, seen now by many constituents as just another club in Donald Trump’s golf bag. Though that obeisance has played well to the gallery on the right, many South Carolinians, including traditional Republicans, feel that Graham has gone MIA when they need him most. The acute crisis of the coronavirus pandemic seems to have driven home an old lesson: Distance can have real consequences, especially at the state level.

Harrison doesn’t have the national name recognition that Graham does, but he’s demonstrated the political chops to run a cagey, powerful campaign. He also stands to benefit as a Black man up against a white institutionalist in a revolutionary year for racial justice.

He also knows the race he wants to run. Harrison’s rhetoric is polished, inclusive and relentlessly on message, and he knows he needs to put in the legwork. While he says he’s trying to build a coalition “like Lindsey Graham 1.0,” a bird’s-eye view suggests something more like Beto O’Rourke 2.0: a blue streak in a red state, against tall odds (although the pandemic has blunted Harrison’s plans for county-by-county barnstorming).

But while Harrison has pulled off the newcomer look, he’s a total insider. His trajectory is the stuff of American myth: He grew up poor in rural Orangeburg, but went to Yale, followed by Georgetown Law. After graduation he signed on as a staffer to South Carolina Rep. Jim Clyburn, where Harrison worked on the Affordable Care Act and eventually rose to executive director of the House Democratic Caucus.

After five years in Clyburn’s office, Harrison moved to the Podesta Group, now defunct but at the time among the largest Democratic lobbying shops in Washington. His personal client list, however, would give many left-liberal voters pause: Walmart, Boeing, General Dynamics, Merck, Lockheed Martin, Wells Fargo, Bank of America, Harrah’s Casinos, the pro-coal special interest group American Coalition for Clean Coal — it’s a lot to take in at once.

Such a résumé might be enough to tank him in a liberal stronghold or a national race (it might have derailed his 2017 bid for chair of the Democratic National Committee), but it’s no poison pill in a place like South Carolina.

Harrison arrived at Clyburn’s office $160,000 in debt, he says, and over the next few years put his salary toward paying that down and helping his mother meet her financial obligations at home. His latest available financial disclosure form, filed in August 2019, lists between $1.1 million and $3.5 million in personal assets. He’s come a long way from Orangeburg.

But throughout his time in D.C., Harrison has kept one foot in South Carolina. In 2013 he became the state Democratic Party chair, and in 2016 left Podesta Group for good. He ran for DNC chair, but dropped out to endorse Tom Perez, who went on to win.

Harrison married Marie Boyd, a graduate from Harvard and Yale Law who now teaches at the University of South Carolina School of Law. She’s one of the country’s top experts in food and drug regulation, and, according to her university biography, her research focuses on cosmetics regulation and the regulation of insects as human food.

Salon’s interview with Harrison will publish in two parts. This, the first, will focus on the race against Graham in South Carolina; the second will address policy and his experience in Washington. This transcript has been edited for length and clarity.

I’d like to start with your background growing up in Orangeburg, which was ground zero for civil rights and also for police violence. How did that experience shape you, in terms of your professional trajectory and the way you see the world today? Especially in the context of the social justice movement sweeping the country these last months.

Well, listen. Growing up in Orangeburg was tough. There were a lot of days that we worried about how we’re going to get our next meal. A lot of nights doing homework in the dark because we couldn’t pay the electric bill. I even remember mornings when I got up and had to eat my cereal with water because we couldn’t afford a carton of milk. Despite all that, despite not having much in terms of material wealth, my family was just rich in terms of their character and their values and they taught me the importance of working hard. They taught me the importance of giving back.

I couldn’t achieve what I have achieved in life without the love and support of my family and mentors and the community. What I see that I’m doing now is repaying that debt to Orangeburg and the people there. That’s why I went back home and taught high school. That’s why I worked at College Summit, which is a nonprofit to help low-income kids get into college. It’s why I worked on Capitol Hill and tried to do all that I could in order to make South Carolina a better place for all families, including my own.

This is about bringing hope back to folks. It was hope that helped me get through the hard times that I experienced growing up. I know how important hope is for a lot of these folks in these communities. The sad thing to say about that is, there are a lot of folks that I’ve met and talked to who just don’t have much hope anymore.

What have they lost hope in?

That things are going to get better. That the lives of their kids will be better than their own. There are folks who’ve been stuck in poverty for generations here and, instead of things getting better, they’ve actually gotten worse.

Now the coronavirus has just made it worse. This is a state with huge health disparities, where four of our rural hospitals had to close over the past few years. There’s 200,000 people who don’t have health care, but they would have had health care if they lived in any place under Medicaid expansion. One statistic that just continues to blow me away: Two years ago, 14 of our 46 counties had no OB-GYN.

Education is a huge issue in many communities here. Our Department of Education says there have been 17,000 kids that their schools have not heard from since March. And many of these kids, we know, are low-income, minority, rural, and they live in communities that have no access to broadband.

In South Carolina, 30% of our rural communities have no broadband access. And some of the communities that do have access, it’s so slow that it’s slower than what you would find in places like Cuba and Venezuela. 

There are fundamental issues and problems that the coronavirus is exacerbating, but have been here because we just don’t have leadership in South Carolina. We have leaders who don’t have a vision and are more concerned with their own own political Washington needs or their own — to use Lindsey Graham’s language — “political relevance,” rather than the list of things that people are struggling with here on a daily basis. That’s why we got to bring hope back. That’s why they need something else to believe in, that things will get better. You just got to bring back the leadership in order to make it better.

What you’re pointing out is that South Carolina is a complicated state. A lot of things overlap in weird, inverted ways, especially when it comes to race. The state is seen as a kingmaker for the Democratic Party. It was Joe Biden’s firewall, where Bernie Sanders’ progressive momentum was stopped by the nod of James Clyburn, who you worked for. But when you’re running for a statewide position, you have to face a broader population, which is majority white and overwhelmingly conservative.

You speak about appealing to rural voters. I’d like to know how you approach that strange Venn diagram overlap and how you plan to appeal to white independents or even white Republicans who, as you say, are suffering too.

Listen. One of the very first things I said on this campaign, and it is the gospel of Jaime, is that, at the end of the day, this race is not about Democrats versus Republicans. This is not about progressive versus conservative. It is about doing what is right versus what’s wrong.

That’s really what I fundamentally believe, because, when you look at these issues in South Carolina, these issues aren’t partisan. When a rural hospital closes, it doesn’t matter whether you’re a Democrat or Republican if you live in that community. It is just not about that. It’s about an issue of life and death.

Don’t you think it’s still an issue of black and white, though? To put it bluntly.

No. No. It is not.

In South Carolina? Really?

Part of the reason why it’s not is because rural South Carolina is just as diverse as urban South Carolina. I’ve lived in a rural community. I went to school with white folks and Black folks. I went to the grocery store with white folks and Black folks. I went to the flea market with white folks and Black folks. If our hospital closed in Orangeburg, who will it impact? White folks and Black folks. Folks that vote for Democrats, folks that vote for Republicans.

Some of these issues aren’t partisan issues and they shouldn’t be partisan issues. They should just be about right versus wrong.

Look, if you live in these communities that don’t have internet, it doesn’t matter if you voted for Donald Trump or voted for Hillary Clinton, if you’re voting for Joe Biden or Jaime or Lindsey Graham. You live in a community that doesn’t have access to the internet, so how can you expect your kids to be successful and compete with the rest of the world, when they can’t even connect with the rest of the world? That is not a partisan issue. That is not a Washington, D.C., Democrat, red-versus-blue type thing. It’s just the fundamental issues about what people need in order to be successful.

What do they need in order to live the American dream? That’s what I’m fighting for and that’s how I’m trying to talk to the people in South Carolina. Don’t allow people to put you in these camps when, at the end of the day, you just need a job or you need your hospital to be open or you just need internet coming into your household. That should not have to be a partisan issue, but some of our folks are making it one.

I understand the aspirational stuff there. I lived in Milledgeville, Georgia, for four years. It was, as you describe, diverse, with a majority Black population, rural and very poor. But there’s a stark split between white and Black communities. White and Black funeral homes. White and Black colleges, even. There are no signs, but it’s still that way. And that racial split also follows partisan lines. Do you view white voters in those communities as not just seeing the same problems that you do, but seeing them the same way you do? Does that aspirational message really transcend party and race in practical terms?

It does. Listen, I was in Lancaster County, South Carolina, right before the coronavirus. This is a county that, I think, went for Donald Trump 61 to 35. Lancaster’s right on the border of North Carolina and South Carolina, right across from Charlotte. I was going to talk to a group of seniors, and I pull into the parking lot and we had about 30 RSVPs for the event. 

I walk into this senior facility and, man, I almost fell over. There were well over 200 people in the room. And the vast majority, I would say 95% of them, were white. That has not been the demographic historically for a Democrat in South Carolina.

When I walked into the room — and I came in through the back and their backs were turned to me when I was walking in — somebody noticed me and said, “Oh, there he is.” And they all turned around and they stood up and they all started clapping and chanting, “Send Lindsey home. Send Lindsey home.”

I know a lot of folks outside South Carolina don’t want to believe in hope for what they call “ruby-red South Carolina,” but the winds of change are blowing and they’re blowing through the South. Just a few days later, I go down to Beaufort County. That’s where Hilton Head is. As you know, a lot of retirees, a lot of non-Democrats. Donald Trump won the county overwhelmingly.

And we went to church: Jam-packed, man. There were people out in the hallway waiting to get in. Again, overwhelmingly non-African-American group there, seniors and retirees very interested in seeing some change. And what I hear from some of them is, “I don’t know who this Lindsey Graham is.” They say the same thing that I’ve said in the past: I respected Lindsey Graham. 

When John McCain was alive, I thought Lindsey was one of those people who, even though I didn’t agree with him on everything policy-wise, I thought he was someone who could rise above the political frame, do what was in the best interest of our state and our country. But the constant refrain I hear about Lindsey Graham is, “What happened to Lindsey?” I hear that from Democrats, I hear that from independents and I hear it from Republicans as well. We’re starting to see some shifting in the sand here, and that’s why I know that this is different.. This New South that I’ve been talking about is starting to emerge.

What’s your operational strategy? Both getting out the Democratic vote and also trying to wrangle people who might be on the fence, Republicans who might be open to leaving Graham?

When you look at Barack Obama in 2012, he performed a single point lower here than he did in Georgia, despite zero investment here by the presidential campaign. And we saw with Stacey Abrams in Georgia, we saw with Andy Beshear in Kentucky and Doug Jones in Alabama, where Democrats have shown in recent years that a strong campaign with a big candidate and the right types of messages can be extremely competitive in the South.

And we’ve already seen change here. Folks told us that we couldn’t pick up a congressional district, and guess what we did in 2018? Joe Cunningham won a district that we hadn’t won in 20, 30 years. And we won a state Senate race that year that we hadn’t won in 20, 30 years. For the first time, we have a Democratic-controlled city council in Greenville, the heart of the conservative vote.

We saw this energy on full display in February, because we broke the primary fundraising record from 2008. We’ve gotten donations from all 46 counties here in South Carolina. We have recruited an army of volunteers. I think we’ve gotten over 5,000 volunteers that have signed up in the state in order to help. And I can tell you, I’ve been working on elections since I was 16 years old. I have never seen that type of energy on the ground. This is a grassroots movement like we have never seen before.

I know a lot of people love to point back to history and they say, “Well, a Democrat hasn’t won in 20 years.” Whatever. There has never been a race like this in South Carolina. You can’t look at history to dictate where we’re going to go in November because we’re writing the history right now.

My entire life, people have told me that I couldn’t do certain things. They told me I couldn’t go to college. They told me I couldn’t go to Yale, Georgetown, couldn’t end up doing much on Capitol Hill. Couldn’t be party chair. And my response has always been, “Watch me.”

When I got into this race on Feb. 10, 2019, folks said, “You’re not going to beat a 25-plus year incumbent, chair of the Senate Judiciary Committee, golf partner of the president. It’s nice that you’re trying.” They’d pat me on the shoulder. And I said to myself, “Watch me.”

Not only will we compete, but we are going to win this race. The numbers are demonstrating that. We’re just going to keep pushing and folks can continue to watch. They’ll believe us on Nov. 3.

Is part of your strategy that the Republican Party is possibly fracturing in the state? That maybe Republicans who feel disaffected with Graham won’t go for you, but they might pull for a Libertarian, or even someone who’s running an insane far-right campaign?

My grandma always taught me, “Jaime, you control what you can control and the rest you just leave out there.” I’m focused on my race, on appealing to Democrats and independents — and I’d say I’m beating Graham among independents in some of the recent polls. I’m appealing to Republicans, too.

In essence, I’m trying to build a coalition, one like Lindsey Graham 1.0 had, one he used to have, but that’s a little modified to fit me. That’s what I’m trying to do.

Republicans are doing their best to cast doubt on the electoral system, to undermine public confidence in the institutions that will safeguard the exchange of power. Do you anticipate something dirty in South Carolina? If I were in your position, that would be at the front of my mind, especially given the firestorm around politics of race and social justice right now.

Yeah. Listen, there’s a history of voter suppression in the South and, statistically, here in South Carolina. You remember Lee Atwater was from South Carolina. I’m fully aware of the tricks that are often played in elections here in South Carolina. And we’re going to be proactive because this is the thing that I believe in, to the core of who I am, that probably the most fundamental right that we have as American citizens is our right to vote. I will go with every breath in my body to make sure that we never infringe upon that right of any American, Democrat or Republican. 

We have sent our sons and daughters overseas to risk their lives for that right for other people in other nations, so I’d be damned if I’m a leader in this country and I sit on the sidelines and allow people to infringe upon that right, the rights of folks here in South Carolina or across the country. Too many people have lost their lives, particularly in the African-American community, for the right to vote. I stand in their shadows and I am standing on their shoulders. When I’m in the United States Senate, that will be some of the first legislation that I will push for, in terms of protecting the right to vote for all Americans.

Trump sued over use of secret police in Portland

The American Civil Liberties Union Foundation of Oregon sued the Trump administration late Friday over its deployment of federal agents to Portland, where unidentified officials from the Department of Homeland Security and the U.S. Marshals Service have been detaining Black Lives Matter protesters without explanation and using indiscriminate force to crush demonstrations.

“This is a fight to save our democracy,” Kelly Simon, interim legal director with the ACLU of Oregon, said in a statement. “Under the direction of the Trump administration, federal agents are terrorizing the community, risking lives, and brutally attacking protesters demonstrating against police brutality. This is police escalation on top of police escalation.”

“These federal agents must be stopped and removed from our city,” Simon added. “We will continue to bring the full fire power of the ACLU to bear until this lawless policing ends.”

The lawsuit (pdf) against DHS and the U.S. Marshals Service—filed on behalf of legal observers and journalists who were recently assaulted by federal agents in Portland—aims to “block federal law enforcement from dispersing, arresting, threatening to arrest, or using physical force against journalists or legal observers.” One of the plaintiffs, freelance photographer Matthew Lewis-Rolland, was shot in the back ten times with impact munitions during a recent demonstration.

The ACLU said the suit is “one of many” it plans to file against the Trump administration over its deployment of federal agents to Portland against the wishes of state and local political leaders, who have demanded the withdrawal of all federal law enforcement.

Federal officials have reportedly been patrolling Portland in unmarked vehicles and arresting demonstrators since at least July 14.

 

Vera Eidelman, staff attorney with the ACLU’s Speech, Privacy, and Technology Project, said “what is happening in Portland is an unconstitutional nightmare.”

“This is not law and order. This is lawlessness,” said Eidelman. “The ACLU will not let the government respond to protests against police brutality with still more brutality. We will continue to hold law enforcement at all levels of government accountable, just as we have nationwide.”

The Pentagon found a loophole to ban the Confederate flag over Trump’s objections

President Donald Trump, in an obvious effort to rally his MAGA base, has been vigorously defending the display of Confederate images. But on Friday, the Pentagon officially listed what types of flags can be displayed on U.S. military installations — and the Confederate flag, according to New York Times reporter Helene Cooper, does not appear to be allowed.

Cooper reports that under the “guidance” issued by Defense Secretary Mark Esper, “appropriate flags include those of American states and territories, military services and other countries that are allies of the United States. The guidance never specifically says that Confederate flags are banned, but they do not fit in any of the approved categories.”

A Defense Department official, who spoke to the Times on condition of anonymity, said of the list, “Problem solved, we hope.”

Cooper reports, “That senior military leaders are contorting themselves to such an extent shows the gap that has developed between the White House and the movement for racial justice that has swept across the country since the killing of George Floyd by the Minneapolis police in May. As protests ignited, senior Defense Department officials began grappling with the legacy of racism in the military.”

Trump has defended having military installations named after generals who fought against the U.S. Army in the Confederate Army during the Civil War of the 1860s. But when Gen. Mark Milley appeared at a U.S. House of Representatives hearing last week, the chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff recommended that the Pentagon take “a hard look” at renaming military bases that are presently named after Confederate officers.

At the hearing, Milley told members of Congress, “There is no place in our armed forces for manifestations or symbols of racism, bias or discrimination.”

Many of Trump’s critics have argued that having military bases named after Confederate officers is not only racist, but also, unpatriotic — as the Confederate Army wanted to separate from the United States and have a different government from the one in Washington, D.C. Pro-slavery Confederate leaders like Gen. Robert E. Lee and Gen. Stonewall Jackson, Trump’s critics have been pointing out, fought against the U.S. Army, not with it.

According to Cooper, the memo Esper issued on Friday, “goes after the many American soldiers, Marines and airmen who display Confederate flags and other symbols in their barracks and in parking lots on military installations.”

Esper said in the memo: “Flags are powerful symbols, particularly in the military community for whom flags embody common mission, common histories and the special, timeless bond of warriors…. The flags we fly must accord with the military imperatives of good order and discipline, treating all our people with dignity and respect, and rejecting divisive symbols.”

Impeach him again — this time over Zoom

Welcome to another edition of What Fresh Hell?, Raw Story‘s roundup of news items that might have become controversies under another regime, but got buried – or were at least under-appreciated – due to the daily firehose of political pratfalls, unhinged tweet storms and other sundry embarrassments coming out of the current White House.

Let’s talk about a scenario that’s wildly unrealistic because of the Democratic Party’s institutional culture but would probably come to pass if the GOP held the House of Representatives and a Democratic president’s negligence led to over 100,000 avoidable deaths.

In normal circumstances, it would in fact be political suicide to impeach a president for a second time just 100 or so days before an election. Anyone who proposed it would be admonished that they must beat that president at the ballot box, and that the opportunity to do so will be before us in short order. But in present circumstances, there is an incredibly powerful counter-argument: If we do not get competent leadership, tens of thousands more will almost certainly die lonely, unpleasant deaths during both the lead-up to the election and the 15 weeks between Election Day and the the inauguration of Joe Biden if he wins in November.

In mid-April, the University of Washington’s oft-cited Covid-19 model projected 62,000 US fatalities from the pandemic through August 4. At the end of that month, they revised their projection up to 73,000, then to 134,000 in early May. We are still weeks away from that date, have already suffered 140,000 deaths and they recently revised their projection up to 225,000 deaths by Election day. (They also project that we could avoid 45,500 of those fatalities if Trump hadn’t helped make masks a dopey front in the culture wars and everyone wore one for the next three-and-a-half months.)

Senate Republicans, you’ll recall, didn’t really try to defend Trump’s clumsy attempts to strong-arm Ukraine into assisting him in his re-election campaign. The either babbled about the Deep State or said that what he had done was wrong but didn’t rise to the level of impeachment. This would be a prosecution for a very different kind of crime. This time, there are bodies–so many that in their worst days, cities have needed refrigerated trucks to hold them all.

This time, they would be forced to defend Trump spending vital weeks calling Covid-19 a Democratic hoax that was no worse than the flu. They’d have to explain the regime sending tons of PPE to other countries and then confiscating the equipment states and private hospitals acquired on their own. They’d have to defend his constant bragging about shutting down travel from Asia and Europe when he never actually did those things. They’d have to defend his blather about the outbreak going away on its own, his claim that he had slowed down testing because it produces more cases or his obsession with unproven medications and speculation about ridding the body of the virus with bleach injections.

Trump is abandoning even the pretense of managing this crisis, according to The Washington Post. An adviser told the paper that he “is not really working this anymore. He doesn’t want to be distracted by it. He’s not calling and asking about data. He’s not worried about cases.” It’s hard to say precisely where the line between awful governance and criminal negligence falls, but clearly we blew past it over 100,000 deaths back. Democrats could make Senate Republicans defend that crime in a remote impeachment, via Zoom, because it’s too dangerous for them to return to Washington. And who knows, maybe we could save another 100,000 lives in the process.

If the partisan roles were reversed, this would be exactly what we would see happen in the coming months.

*****

The Associated Press reports that “a new plan from Senate Republicans to award businesses, schools, and universities sweeping exemptions from lawsuits arising from inadequate coronavirus safeguards is putting Republicans and Democrats at loggerheads as Congress reconvenes next week to negotiate another relief package.”

According to NBC, “Donald Trump on Friday continued muddying his administration’s messaging on the use of masks to combat the spread of the coronavirus, saying he disagreed with his CDC director about how effective they would be in stopping COVID-19 and that masks ’cause problems too.'” (A small number of people do have medical conditions that make masks problematic but according to a mountain of scientific evidence, this is, broadly speaking, a lie.)

And ProPublica reports that hospitals are facing a shortage of doctors in part because the Trump regime put “their visas… on hold indefinitely.”

A proclamation issued by President Donald Trump on June 22, barring the entry of most immigrants on work visas, came right as hospitals were expecting a new class of medical residents. Hundreds of young doctors were unable to start their residencies on time.

*****

WaPo:

The co-director of President Trump’s Operation Warp Speed can maintain extensive investments in the drug industry and avoid ethics disclosures while he continues to make decisions about government contracts for promising coronavirus vaccines under a decision this week by the Health and Human Services inspector general.

Monday’s ruling by the Office of Inspector General came in response to a complaint filed by the advocacy groups…[that] said the Trump administration has carved out an improper exception to federal conflict of interest rules for Moncef Slaoui, a venture capital executive and former high-ranking official at drug giant GlaxoSmithKline.

*****

Related, via Politico:

A top Trump administration health official violated federal contracting rules by steering millions of taxpayer dollars in contracts that ultimately benefited GOP-aligned communications consultants, according to an inspector general report released Thursday.

*****

This regime is just a giant honeypot for corporate America.

“Steven Mnuchin suggested Friday that the government should consider forgiving all taxpayer-backed small loans under the federal Paycheck Protection Program without verifying how the funds were used, a decision that could wipe away debt for millions of small businesses but would also substantially increase the risk of fraud,” reports the WaPo.

Recall that large companies got a lot of these “small business loans.”

*****

This is fascism…

As unmarked feds snatch protesters off the streets in Portland, memo leaked to me shows they’ll be deployed indefinitely and in undisclosed locations, with drones “on standby to assist as needed”

Deputy DHS head Ken Cuccinelli told NPR that they are expanding this seige to other cities.

In early March, “a federal judge ruled… that Ken Cuccinelli’s appointment to a top immigration position in the Trump administration was unlawful.”

Speaking of fascism…

*****

Reuters reports that “Donald Trump is expected to soon issue an executive order that would ban undocumented immigrants from being included in the 2020 census count of every person living in the United States.”

Reuters does not report that there’s no way to exclude undocumented immigrants without asking people about their about citizenship status, which the regime lost a high-profile court case over last year. Also not mentioned in the report is that who gets counted in the Census is outlined in the Constitution.

Trump’s trying to intimidate immigrant communities into not participating in the Census and this kind of reporting helps.

*****

Finally, we’ll leave you with something to worry about. Trump’s lies about voting by mail may lead to a victory among in-person votes on his way to a crushing loss weeks later, when all the absentee ballots are counted. In the interim, he will declare victory, fight tooth-and-nail to reject every absentee ballot and his cultists may commit scattered acts of terror. It’d be a nightmare.

And there’s also the postal service itself to worry about.

The pandemic is making us question the connection between work and money. That’s a good thing

“Money always wears the face of the boss.”
—Antonio Negri

An odd thing is happening during the COVID-19 crisis and its attendant economic collapse: the familiar relationship between money and work is disappearing. Most right-thinking Americans are more or less sure that money has some kind of intrinsic value that we possess when we earn it through work. As John Houseman said in the infamous television commercials made in the 1980s for the investment firm Smith Barney, “They make money the old fashioned way: they earn it.” This is tautological gibberish.

We think of money as if it were a durable good, like a car. Certainly, you can buy a car with money, so why aren’t they the same? The only difference, we imagine, is that you can’t put the car in your pocket. Money is an equivalent and a convenience. But we don’t stand before the car, and we shouldn’t look at money as if it were a thing, a bank ledger sitting upon a desk. Rather, we are inside the world of money and commodities.

And how are we brought inside? It used to be that our immersion in money came through weekly allowances for lawn mowing or through newspaper delivery. It shouldn’t surprise you to learn that we’ve teched-up those old fashioned procedures. As Guardian reporter Sally Weale wrote in 2018:

Leading [London] institutions are urging the government to include financial education in the primary school curriculum after a pilot scheme found it helped young people learn to delay gratification and enjoy the benefits of saving.

Twenty of the UK’s leading savings and investment firms have set up a financial education initiative called KickStart Money to test the effectiveness of teaching primary school children about money management.

“Get ’em while they’re young!”

But in the heels-over-head chaos of the national economic shutdown, something strange happened—money blinked. It confessed something that threatened its legitimacy, something that a television commercial couldn’t paper over. The federal government buried any notion of value as the result of work (the idea that so much work produces so much value). The assumption that “money” was related to “work” was seen for what it was: illusory.

In broad daylight, in front of God and everybody, the Treasury Department and the Federal Reserve created money-for-nothing, as the appropriately-named band Dire Straights sang. Billions upon billions, trillions, falling from the sky, most of it for the purpose of keeping the banking system right side up. But some modest fraction of this money was direct deposited into personal bank accounts, if you were lucky enough to have one. Many people on unemployment discovered that they were now making more money than they had been when they were actually doing something, showing up at nine, taking their place on the conveyor belt at the meat packing plant or in the Share Spaces of the information economy. It made us wonder just what money is and how the rewards for work were now to be understood. It was plain to see: this money was Magic Money, money pulled out of an alchemist’s hat. Money was the mysterium, the matéria prima, the occult substance that turned what was base (labor) into something noble (gold). But where was its nobility now?

This new state of affairs seemed both bad and good. The bad thing was the sense of vertigo Magic Money created. Money seemed unmoored to any solid thing. If money had no dependable value, something that we “earned” through work, what about the money gathered away in our bank accounts? Could that go dancing off magically like something sprinkled with malignant pixie dust? We looked at the numbers in our bank statement and they quivered unstably, like a hallucination, like Scrooge’s worst nightmare shown to him by the Ghost of Christmas in Chapter 11. In the Dickens’s story, Scrooge learns to be generous with his money, but he does not learn that the stuff is unreal — a “pure semblance,” as Marx called it.

The possible good in this situation was that with our normal world now standing on its head, the crisis became an opportunity to reconsider what we once thought to be solid and holy. We asked, “If Magic Money can be showered upon us this year, why not other years, why not every year? Maybe that’s what socialists mean by ‘minimum basic income.'” Could money change its color and become the means for assuring universal wellbeing where individuals are not entirely at the mercy of circumstance, at the mercy of their zip code? Could we make the greenback a blueback, blue as the sky?

The reason that most members of Congress resist such notions, especially the idea of a universal basic income, is because of what it reveals about money: it is a scam, a ploy, a ruse, a confidence trick performed by people who don’t care if we live or die. Well. Aren’t we in on the con now? Perhaps we should take to the street with chants of “What do we want?” “Magic Money!” “When do we want it?” “Now!”

* * *

Another obvious, and obviously peculiar, spectacle of the COVID-19 pandemic was that it brought into full public view an unsuspected relationship between the disease and money. For some inscrutable reason, it feels as if the disease and money are two facets of one dark thing. That thing is death, and its facets are virus-death and money-death. The co-mingling of the two is no secret to the workers who have to choose between risking infection and paying the rent. It is no secret to the family of Guadalupe Olivera, a butcher at a Tyson beef-packing plant in Richland, Washington. When his daughter asked him what special precautions were in place at the plant, he replied, “There was nothing. It was business as usual.” So, did he die because of a virus, or did he die because of money? Was he a warrior hero, as Trump claimed? Or was it more like what John Ruskin saw when he wrote, “Labor is that quantity of our toil which we die in.”

There is an existential side to money-death, as when we wonder, “With the absence of work, of the dependable flow of numbers into my bank account, will I exist? I’ll look in my mirror, if I still have a mirror to call my own, and the face there will be full of worried self-scrutiny. Can’t buy anything, can’t measure my relation to others, won’t know who I am!

In response to this anxiety, most of us say, “Work is in my blood. It’s our way of life, and I’m proud of it. It provides me with a steady income so that I can put bread on the table for my family.” We reassure ourselves with clichés. But now we can see the irony because it was never hidden: work/money is in our blood, all right, but it is in our blood like an “invisible enemy,” in Trump’s phrase, that regularly kills us. Money is “bleeding us dry.”

Money is a killer far more deadly than a biological virus. The plague driving climate change is money. Profit. Rent seeking. “Natural resource extraction,” as our statesmen drily put it. Through the single-minded pursuit of profit, humanity becomes what Reg Morrison called a “plague species.” All the industrial toxins released on land, water, and air, all the wasted forests and wetlands, all the petro-dollars poured into the same few pockets while animals of every kind wither where they stand and fall where they stood, disconsolate. Inconsolable. Cheerless. All murdered by money. As Albert Camus wrote in The Plague, “[The] social order around me was based on the death sentence.”

According to the medical journal The Lancet, 9 million people died of air and water pollution in 2015. And on May 4, 2020, the Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences predicted that by 2070 between 2 and 3.5 billion people across the globe would be trying to live in places that had become unlivable. In an interview in the Guardian, Michael Pollan commented:

As terrible as the [Corona] virus is, the heatwaves, droughts, fires and floods driven by an overheated planet have killed many more people. And if current trends persist, the death toll will increase exponentially through the end of the century.

We die, animals die, so that money may thrive. It’s a joke fit for a Marx Brothers routine, like this one from “Coconuts”, which came out in 1929 (the year of the Wall Street crash):

Chico: Right now I’d do anything for money. I’d kill somebody for money. I’d kill you for money.

[Harpo looks dejected.]

Chico: Hahaha. Ah, no. You’re my friend. I’d kill you for nothing.

One of the enduring images to come out of the pandemic was the pitiless spectacle of super-yachts floating off-shore, as far away as possible from us, the “huddled masses.” This shouldn’t be a surprise: the rich have always self-isolated. They’ve always practiced social-distancing. So much so that they’re not quite sure that the rest of us actually exist. They’ve seen us on TV, read about our problems in newspapers, but they are never among us. We are a rumor to them, something that they’ve “heard about.” We are not quite real, and certainly not as real as the people in the next yacht over.

The wealthy among us try to protect themselves against disease not by hoarding toilet paper or freeze-dried pad thai; they protect themselves by hoarding money. They save money in order to protect themselves from money. They gather money to themselves hoping for warmth, but it only provides, as we say, cold comfort. They hoard money with no idea how much is enough. They want to feel safe, but at what point does that happen?

But it’s not just “them,” because everyone is forced to think in these anxious ways. You say, “I have some money saved, so I’m good. I think it’s enough. Is it enough?” Better phone your investment planner and find out.

Or let’s say your company, or your annuity with MetLife, does send money to you regularly — and the economy is back on track, stuff is getting made, oil is trading over $100 per barrel, it’s normal, until it gets so hot one Manhattan Sunday that all of MetLife’s computers melt into the street. And now you know that playing it safe, investing that little nest egg in this golden chance and that, for thirty, forty, fifty years, that was the straightest road to hell. The economy you were so worried about is okay now, except that it’s killing you.

In coming decades many more millions, perhaps billions of people will be running from the next plague or running from a “country of origin” with average summer temperatures of 115° and up. (In late April of 2020, Las Vegas and Phoenix registered five consecutive days of record heat of 100-115 degrees. This was accompanied by record lows in the high 70s. In April.) This is what’s coming: there will be population die-offs for every species, and there will be extinction for most if not all of them. The autopsy reports will state, laconically, “Death due to complications of environmental heat exposure.”

But our really primal fear is that “they might take it away from me.” They? The crooked bankers and politicians, the Deep State, or the “gubmint”? Or perhaps it’s your neighbors that will take it all away with their extensive collection of guns that they’ve been hoarding instead of money, knowing that the Law of the AK is, in the end, the more dependable law. It’s Aesop’s grasshopper turned Rambo, banging on the ant’s door with the butt of an assault rifle. Marx called such grasshoppers the “dangerous class”:

The social scum, that passively rotting mass thrown off by the lowest layers of old society, may, here and there, be swept into the movement by a proletarian revolution; its conditions of life, however, prepare it far more for the part of a bribed tool of reactionary intrigue.

Thus our own Trump-loving, MAGA-hat-wearing, belly-thumping, face-mask-hating, and gun-crazy countrymen.

* * *

Through all of this, money remains unmoved. Like Ozymandias, money still says, “submit,” even though its head is rolling around on the ground. It can’t say anything other because it is afraid. Afraid of what happens if we don’t submit. Afraid of what happens when we refuse its work regime and begin to self-organize and self-develop in order to create our own satisfactions—just as we are doing now in many ways. We are beginning to reclaim what Marx called our “rich individuality” in a new way—through local and regional autonomy.

For example, the pandemic has done us the favor of stimulating the growth of “Mutual Aid” organizations that grow through local fund raising in order to meet entirely local needs. (The Black Panthers’s “survival programs”—including a free Breakfast for Children Program and health care services—were among the earliest experiments in radical localism, that is, localism outside of money.) In addition, there are grocery co-ops all over the country selling local products, and many, many CSA (Community Supported Agriculture) groups, delivering boxes of fresh produce to neighbors. CSAs are “building a new world in the shell of the old,” as the Wobblies said. It is true that gun sales are “through the roof” now, but so are the sales of chicken coops.

In short, our survival depends on flourishing local autonomy, wayward but enlightened communities enlarging their capacities within progressive regions, all with the hope that more and more places around the country and around the world will see these communities and like what they see. Working in this way, we will be enacting what Carl Boggs called “prefigurative” politics: creating now the “forms of social relations, decision-making, culture, and human experience that are the ultimate goal.” Occupy Wall Street was prefigurative, and so was Seattle’s short-lived CHOP/CHAZ, the Capital Hill Autonomous Zone: they were theatrical and earnest introductions to autonomy. CHAZ residents planted a vegetable garden. Did they imagine that they’d stay long enough to harvest? No, but that wasn’t the point. It was a demonstration garden.

So we should not merely hunker down with our hoarded food and money, hoping that we can wait it out until the economy “returns to normal.” The money on Wall Street is betting big that normal is on the way, but let’s see if we can offer an alternative wager. No more normal if it only means death. Let our alternative be what Buddhist dharma teacher Thanissara calls the “Samadhi of the Collective.” This is a homely enlightenment in a place of mutuality and generosity. Because samadhi is not only about individual release from suffering; it is also about life thriving. Samadhi is solidarity.

As jazz Arkestra leader Sun Ra said, “Heaven is where you’ll be when you are okay right where you are.”

Widespread PFAS chemical pollution will likely make COVID-19 worse

The COVID-19 crisis has been practically defined by uncertainty – uncertainty about its transmission, why it impacts some people more than others, and how to mitigate risk in our daily lives.  

On June 11, the US Centers for Disease Control (CDC) acknowledged one more uncertainty: we have no idea how a potent family of chemicals, called PFAS (per- and polyfluoroalkyl substances), is impacting our risk for COVID-19. What we do know about PFAS makes this acknowledgement very worrisome. Because of their unique chemical properties that allow them to repel both oil and water, PFAS are everywhere, appearing in Teflon frying pans, stain-resistant carpeting, outdoor gear, and fire-fighting foam, to name just a few.

PFAS are potent immunotoxicants, meaning they impair immune responses in both humans and animals. Research tells us PFAS reduce vaccine efficacy and antibody response in humans, at concentrations readily found in our blood. This was first documented in a study on efficacy of tetanus and diphtheria vaccines in relation to PFAS levels in children from the Faroe Islands. Infants exposed to high PFAS levels in utero had reduced antibody levels at five years old. With each doubling of PFAS in the children’s blood, the overall antibody response was cut by almost 50%. Some children were found to have antibody levels at age five that clinically qualified them for further vaccination, meaning they weren’t adequately protected from diphtheria or tetanus, even though they had already been vaccinated for these diseases as a baby. 

Further research has confirmed the association between reduced antibody responses and PFAS for multiple diseases, in mice as well as in multiple human populations

The lead author of the Faroe Islands study, Dr. Philippe Grandjean from the Harvard T.H. Chan School of Public Health, sees the link between PFAS and COVID-19 based on his previous work. “Given that PFAS are toxic to the immune system, exposure to these persistent chemicals may well worsen the consequences of a COVID-19 infection. Just like recent studies have shown that areas with more severe air pollution have more severe COVID-19 cases and greater mortality, we should also examine if the same applies to communities with PFAS-contaminated drinking water.”

Epidemiological studies reveal that PFAS exposure is associated with other immune-related maladies. These studies suggest people with higher PFAS levels have a harder time fighting off illness, get sicker than folks with lower PFAS levels, and are more likely to suffer from an autoimmune disease. 

However, we aren’t exactly certain how PFAS can cause all these immune outcomes. The immune system is complex, and many facets of its form and function are areas of active research. Our incomplete comprehension of the immune system makes pinning down how chemical exposure influences immune outcomes a challenge. Right now the best solution to mitigate the impacts of PFAS on our immune systems is to remove them from the environment. 

But, as we stare down a continually deteriorating global pandemic, our lives are practically saturated with these immune system saboteurs. Decades of reckless chemical deregulation mean that most people in the US have these compounds in their blood. PFAS are used in everyday consumer products, industrial processes, and military applications, and they make their way out of these intended uses into drinking water, agricultural products, packaged foods, air, soil, surface water, and wildlife. And they remain in the environment or living organisms indefinitely once there. PFAS have never been formally regulated at a federal level, even today. The US Environmental Protection Agency offers unenforceable drinking water guidelines, forcing states to act independently to implement their own regulations. But at a federal level we keep allowing the creation of new PFAS, even as we learn more about the toxic effects of older formulations. 

Right now, this grim set of circumstances has no happy ending. We know little about COVID-19 on its own, though this is rapidly evolving. And as the CDC acknowledges, we know very little about the interaction of PFAS exposure and COVID-19. But we do know that neither COVID-19 nor PFAS are going to “fade away”, and every ounce of new information about risk or impacts is vital to keep our communities healthy. More research about the relationship between PFAS and COVID-19 is desperately needed. 

But here there is some hope. We already possess tools to figure out the relationship between COVID-19 and PFAS. “PFAS exposures can be determined from the analysis of a blood sample, and we should therefore compare blood-PFAS concentrations in hospitalized patients with those who were infected but escaped any serious disease development,” says Grandjean. Now is the time to leverage these tools, particularly in support of those communities that continue to wrestle with high levels of PFAS exposure with no resolution in sight.

These resources provide more information if you’re concerned about PFAS contamination in your community:

Make this boozy creamsicle-inspired treat to feel like an indulgent kid again

You’re just four ingredients away from a grown-up version of the summer staple that is the Creamsicle (or Dreamsicle, depending on where you’re from). This hits all the notes of the original sweet treat. It’s sugary, creamy, and citrusy, but the addition of Aperol — which contains 11% alcohol content by volume — adds just a little booze and bitterness. 

If you want to up the alcohol content even more, I’ve tried these popsicles with both coconut rum, which adds a slightly tropical flair to the mix, or whipped cream vodka. Both are delicious ways to add extra boozy-smoothness.

Boozy Creamsicle 

½  cup of Orange Soda 

¼  cup of Aperol

½  cup Heavy Whipping Cream

3 tablespoons sugar

Optional: ¼ cup of coconut rum or whipped cream vodka 

Add the heavy whipping cream to a large saucepan over medium. Once it begins to gently simmer, reduce the heat to low and add the sugar, stirring constantly until the sugar has dissolved. Remove the mixture from heat and pour it into a large mixing bowl. 

Once cooled, add the remaining ingredients to the mixing bowl and stir vigorously until combined. Using a funnel or a ladle — or just a large kitchen spoon— pour the mixture into your popsicle molds. Depending on the size of your molds, you should end up with 6 to 10 popsicles (I used these and ended up with 8). 

Pop them in the freezer and wait. Depending on the thickness of your popsicles, as well as the settings of your freezer, it should take between 4 and 6 hours. Once completely frozen, carefully remove them and enjoy! 

Gordon Ramsay’s salty-sweet seared, hand-dived sea scallops were inspired by his journey to Norway

On this weekend’s season finale of “Uncharted” on Nat Geo, master chef Gordon Ramsay travels to Norway to learn about the cuisine of the country’s western region and its Viking roots. Ramsay’s guide is chef Christopher Haatuft, who has risen to prominence as the inventor of “Neo-Fjordic” cuisine. It is December, and Haatuft challenges Ramsay to an epic Christmas dinner cook-off, which includes delicious hand-dived sea scallops. 

But before he can pick up his chef’s knife, Ramsay must set off on a quest to meet with local experts to learn the story behind the plate. That includes diving for shellfish in the ice-cold waters of the fjords, eating a sheep’s head, fermenting fish and herding reindeer with the Sami people on a snowmobile. 

Watch an exclusive clip below, and tune in Sunday, July 19, at 10/9 CT to watch:

 

***

Shaped by its 63,000-mile coastline, its long winters and brief summers, and the forests that cover a third of its surface, Norway has boasted cuisine that has traditionally focused on preservation techniques — like salting, smoking, drying and fermenting — to make fresh food last longer. The salty-sweet seared, hand-dived sea scallops, paired with a pickled shallots and a seaweed beurre blanc, highlight the wealth of Norway’s seafood options.

***

Recipe: Gordon Ramsay’s Hand-Dived Sea Scallops 

with Aquavit and Seaweed Butter Beurre Blanc and Pickled Shallots

Yields: 4 servings of 3

For Seaweed Butter

  • 2 piece of kobmu seaweed
  • 1 lb softened butter
  • salt, to taste 
  • black pepper, to taste

For Beurre Blanc

  • 1 tsp grapseed oil
  • 2 shallots, diced very finelt
  • 1/2 cup aquavit
  • 8 oz. seaweed butter, cut into cubes and kept very cold
  • 1 lemon, zest and juice
  • salt, to taste
  • black pepper, to taste

For Pickled Shallots 

  • 4 shallots, peeled and sliced thinly
  • 1 cup water
  • 1 cup champagne vinegar
  • 4 juniper berries, toasted
  • 1 tsp mustard seeds
  • 1/2 cup sugar
  • 1 tbsp kosher salt

For Scallops

  • 12 hand-dived sea scallops (reserve shells for plating)
  • 1 tbsp grapseed oil
  • 1 pink ground pink peppercorns
  • 1 tsp fresh dill leaves
  • kosher salt, to taste

Method—Seaweed Butter

1. To rehydrate kombu, place it in hot water; let it sit for 10-15 minutes until seaweed is fully rehydrated.

2. Cut seaweed into a very fine dice. 

3. Combine seaweed and butter in a bowl, season with salt and pepper to taste, and mix until fully incorporated. 

4. Wrap mixture in parchment paper or plastic wrap and roll into a cylinder.

5. Place mixture in refrigerator until firm. 

Method—Beurre Blanc

1. In a shallot sauce pot, sauté shallots in grapseed oil until translucent, then season with a pinch of salt.

2. Add aquavit and cook for 1-2 minutes, just until liquor has started to reduce. 

3. Over low heat, slowly add the cold cubed butter a few pieces at a time, constantly swirling the pan to ensure the sauce doesn’t get too hot and break. 

4. Once all butter has been incorporated, season mixture with pepper, lemon zest and a splash of lemon juice. 

5. Keep warm until ready to serve. 

Method—Pickled Shallots

1. Place sliced shallots in a bowl. 

2. Combine all other ingredients in a sauce pot and bring to a boil. 

3. Pour this pickling liquid over the shallots and cover with plastic wrap. 

4. Let shallots sit for 20 minutes. 

5. Remove plastic wrap and place shallots in refrigerator to cool.

Method—Scallops

1. In a very hot sauté pan, add grapseed oil and sear scallops until golden brown on each side, about 2-3 minutes. 

2. Season with salt to taste. 

3. Place seared scallops inside scallop shells.

4. Spoon over seasweed beurre blanc.

5. Garnish with pink peppercorns, pickled shallots and dill. 

 

 

“The Alienist” returns, but strains against its beautiful but oh-so-serious corsetry

Watching a period piece strain to meet the present’s political and social circumstances can be painful. Doubters only need to sit through an hour or two of “The Alienist: Angel of Darkness,” the follow-up to TNT’s 2018 adaptation of Caleb Carr’s “The Alienist,” to understand the meaning of that. In fact, you don’t even need to take in that much.

Within the first few minutes that Dakota Fanning’s Sara Howard lands in the story – first as she speeds her carriage through the main thoroughfare of turn-of-the-20th century New York City, then as she stiffly addresses the staff at her detective agency – her performance and those of the women surrounding her struggle against the production’s corsetry.

Sara Howard, now out on her own and determined to make a name as a female detective, is a serious woman who is serious about the world taking her seriously. In a roomful of men watching a wrongfully convicted woman about to be executed, she objects and spitefully quotes Thomas Jefferson at them. Alas, the argument is pointless as her dispirited colleague Dr. Laszlo Kreizler (Daniel Brühl), reminds her with stiff formality. The only man in the place that has a whiff of life and sanguine emotion about him, as always, is journalist John Moore (Luke Evans), but only because he’s an educated man with a bit of rough around the edges.

Viewers got to know these characters in the original season of the series, a drama that was in many respects years too late to the serial killer mystery party but draped itself in enough Victorian-era atmosphere and opulent set design as to intoxicate the viewer to stick around for at least a few episodes. The team of sleuths, led by the analytical, dispassionate alienist Kreizler, moved within that world’s beauties and grotesqueries quite smoothly.

Initial episodes met the challenge Carr set with regard to his 1994 novel’s descriptiveness, where it was simple enough for a reader to get as lost as in the elaborate formality of the rooms these characters traversed and even their lengthy dining excursions. But I did not plow through all of its 10 episodes enthusiastically. The title’s enthusiasts seemed to like it well enough, given the steady ratings; at any rate, TNT picked up “Angel of Darkness” months later after an angry summer largely defined by #MeToo.

The choice is a natural given both the steady viewership and the appeal of the second story’s focus on Sara as she battles to make headway in her profession and to help the cause of women’s rights and suffrage. Against this backdrop is a lurid eight-episode mystery involving the ritualistic kidnapping and murder of infants – one of which turns up, most gruesomely, in a place marked by innocence.  

“Angel of Darkness” may be set in 1897 but the script’s intentional highlighting of the similarities between then and now are obvious. Like Carr’s introduction to this world and its familiar characters, the disparity between the wealthy and the poorest of the poor is draw with a razor’s sharpness and made tangible by way of a difference in lighting and filth levels.

Not a bit of the original’s atmospheric quality is lost in the years that have passed between the two seasons; it’s still a gloriously lovely and brutal series to take in. But the seriousness of evoking the parallels between the sensationalist journalism of turn-of-the-20th century America and today’s version appears to have gone to the heads, and the bodies, of its actors. If Fanning’s relative stiffness was excusable in “The Alienist” owing to the idea that Sara’s confidence in her intellect was new and constantly being assaulted in this man’s world, here she’s calcified her emotions. Brühl’s Kreizler feels even stiffer, to the point of making Ted Levine’s still-crooked Thomas Byrnes, the former police chief, achieve Snidely Whiplash levels of hamminess.

He’s only one character among a bevy of side players who come off as cartoonishly two-dimensional which is good news for Evans, who comes off OK in the midst of this. No matter. The entire cast could behave as cold and stiffly as corpses, and as long as we’re also wheeled through brocaded beauty and inspired grotesquery, this follow-up will have done its job.

If the goal of “Angel of Darkness” is to speak to the now and make us think, however, that trail only leads to a dead end. 

“The Alienist: Angel of Darkness” premieres Sunday, July 19 at 9 p.m. ET on TNT.

Mitch McConnell drags his feet as 30 million are set to lose unemployment benefits in days

The $600 weekly boost in unemployment benefits that more than 30 million laid-off Americans are relying on to endure the coronavirus-induced recession is set to expire in just 10 days without action from Congress—but Republican Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell appears to be in no hurry to negotiate a solution.

With the Senate currently on recess and not expected to return until July 20, McConnell told reporters Monday that he doesn’t plan to begin formal stimulus talks with his Democratic counterparts until next week at the earliest. Senate Minority Leader Chuck Schumer (D-N.Y.) reportedly told his caucus Tuesday that he has not heard from McConnell regarding Covid-19 negotiations.

McConnell’s timeline for the talks would leave the Senate and House with less than a week to hash out and pass legislation before unemployment benefits begin reverting to their pre-pandemic rate, which in some states maxes out at less than $300 per week.

“Mitch McConnell may already have doomed the tens of millions of American workers who depend on enhanced federal unemployment benefits to a sudden, sharp decline in income at the end of July,” Rep. Don Beyer (D-Va.) said in a statement late Tuesday.

“Because state unemployment benefits need to be extended by July 25 in order to be processed by states administering their programs, McConnell’s announcement that the Senate will not even begin drafting or negotiating legislation until next week effectively makes a lapse in those expanded payments unavoidable,” Beyer added. “We may already be out of time to avoid the iceberg.”

xx

Economists have repeatedly warned that allowing the enhanced unemployment benefits to expire at the end of July would slash the incomes of more than 30 million Americans by 50-75%. According to Josh Bivens of the Economic Policy Institute, such a steep income cut could also cause massive job losses and a decline in economic growth.

Sen. Ron Wyden (D-Ore.), one of the architects of the boosted unemployment insurance, tweeted Wednesday that “30 million Americans will be left in the lurch without this critical lifeline.”

“It’s time for the Trump administration and Senate Republicans to get their act together and extend supercharged unemployment benefits,” said Wyden. “Our whole economy depends on it.”

The Democrat-controlled House of Representatives passed a bill in May that would extend the $600 weekly unemployment insurance boost through January of next year, but McConnell has refused to allow a vote on the legislation.

After previously opposing any extension of the enhanced unemployment insurance, Trump administration officials in recent days have signaled openness to approving smaller weekly payments.

“Despite some new consensus that the additional $600 in federal unemployment benefits shouldn’t disappear entirely, Republicans and Democrats are still far apart on an actual deal,” HuffPost reported Wednesday. “Republicans are looking at a number closer to $200, and Democrats are pushing for benefits closer to $500.”

Though the program got off to a rough start as an unprecedented flood of unemployment applications created massive backlogs and delays, the enhanced benefits have been lauded by progressives as on the whole one of the most successful components of the federal government’s Covid-19 response.

Supporters of the program argue it would be catastrophic to let the benefits to expire as coronavirus infections surge across the U.S., thousands of workers are laid off for a second time as states roll back their reopenings, and tens of millions of Americans face possible eviction.

“This is the real fiscal cliff,” tweeted Bharat Ramamurti, a member of the congressional committee tasked with overseeing the Trump administration’s handling of Covid-19 funds.

In less than two weeks, Ramamurti said, “30+ million will experience huge cuts in income—a shock that will force such an enormous drop in consumer spending that it will cause 3 million further job losses.”

George Wentworth, senior counsel at the National Employment Law Project, told The American Prospect Monday that “with the virus still not under control and more states reinstating Covid-related restrictions on many sectors of the economy, health and economic conditions are still far too volatile to end this supplement.”

“Now is not the time to pull the rug out from under workers who are not able to return to work because of the damage done by the pandemic,” said Wentworth.

Is this what democracy looks like? With federal goons in the streets, history hangs in the balance

Let’s have the decency not to pretend we weren’t warned about this, shall we? Since virtually the day Donald Trump was elected, if not before that, people like journalist Masha Gessen and historian Timothy Snyder have told us that his presidency would be a sustained assault on democracy, and that America stood at a historical fork in the road, with at least one of the paths leading into darkness. We began to talk about “fascism” and “authoritarianism,” and maybe those terms seemed metaphorical or melodramatic, for a while. Do they seem that way now?

It didn’t feel like the end of democracy, did it? To use Gessen’s language, did it feel like the dangerous moment between the “autocratic attempt” and the “autocratic breakthrough”? Not the way that alarming news reports from Hungary and Russia and Turkey and the Philippines do. The problem is, as history informs us, that we’re not likely to notice such dangerous moments while they’re happening. So the insults and outrages piled up and the news cycle grew ever more discordant and surreal, but there was still takeout and Netflix and Amazon. Life was about the same, for most people most of the time. Maybe it was all an “aberrant moment in time,” in Joe Biden’s immortal phrase. There was no Reichstag fire. There were no troops in the street. Not until now. 

We can argue about whether Trump is simply the vector through which the authoritarian current flows — the Forrest Gump of fascism — or is, after his stupid-brilliant fashion, a very small Great Man of History. Both things can be true, which is effectively what Gessen argues in her new book “Surviving Autocracy.” We can argue that this is all part of a larger global pattern of democratic crisis, which is clearly true, and that the United States had already become a degraded and dysfunctional pseudo-democracy in 2016, because only such a society could have allowed Trump to rise to power. Bernie Sanders literally went red in the face telling us that, over and over again, during his 2016 campaign. He sounded more like an Old Testament prophet than a presidential candidate, and made way too many normal people uncomfortable. 

So, yes, a lot of us — probably all of us — should be called to account for how we got here. Because whatever we believe we did or didn’t do, it wasn’t enough, and here we are: Fourteen weeks before a presidential election, there are troops in the streets.

OK, we’re not supposed to call them “troops.” They’re not members of the military. I don’t think that improves matters. For the last week, armed men in camouflage uniforms marked as “POLICE,” who do not seem to have recognizable insignias or badges, and do not have names on their uniforms, have been battling Black Lives Matter protesters in Portland, Oregon. But even the language we use to describe these events grows slippery — another consequence of encroaching authoritarianism, which drains the meaning out of ordinary words. These police are not real police, and the protesters in Portland (and many other places) have moved past the Black Lives Matter agenda to something much larger and more difficult to define. They are standing up against autocracy, I think we can say, while these so-called police are trying to enforce it.

These federal paramilitaries or pseudo-cops have reportedly been seeking or inflaming confrontations with Portland protesters since at least July 14, using tear gas or pepper spray and what are described, in Orwellian cop-speak, as “less-than-lethal munitions.” One protester suffered a fractured skull after being shot in the head with one of these not-quite-bullets. These federal forces have also been driving around downtown Portland in unmarked vans, according to multiple reports, sometimes pulling suspected protesters off the street for questioning without making formal arrests. 

Customs and Border Protection, one of the alphabet-soup agencies apparently supplying troops or officers or whatever we choose to call them to this effort, explained one such incident to the New York Times by claiming that “agents who made an arrest had information that indicated a suspect had assaulted federal authorities or damaged property and that they moved him to a safer location for questioning.” CBP would not identify the agents in question or the suspect, and did not explain what its forces are doing in an American city 375 miles from the nearest international border.

Describing all this, Mary McCord, a Georgetown Law professor and former Department of Justice official — in other words, probably not a raging Marxist — told the Times, “This is the kind of thing we see in authoritarian regimes.”

Indeed it is, which might raise the question of what kind of country this is in the summer of 2020. Let’s give the big dogs of the mainstream press some credit here — after three-plus years of ceding rhetorical and political ground to the Trump regime, they have seized on the Portland story with evident alarm. (“Trump regime,” by the way, is a term Salon’s Chauncey DeVega frequently employs and that, as his editor, I often take out. This is not one of the times to take it out.) Both the New York Times and the Washington Post have made clear that these shadowy federal forces are on the streets of Portland under dubious legal authority, and against the objections of Mayor Ted Wheeler, Oregon Gov. Kate Brown and both of the state’s U.S. senators, Jeff Merkley and Ron Wyden.

All those officials are Democrats, of course, which makes them illegitimate in the eyes of the Trump regime’s toadies and defenders. One of the minor ironies embedded in this moment is that Wheeler and Brown are not exactly allies of Portland’s protest movement, and over the preceding several weeks had alternately tried to placate the protesters and shut them down. Brown has repeatedly argued that “the presence of federal officers has inflamed the streets” rather than calming the situation, and says she told acting Homeland Security Secretary Chad Wolf to withdraw the troops: “I said it’s like adding gasoline to a fire.” 

Wolf refused, and has issued statements that sound as if they were dictated by his boss in the White House, claiming that Portland “has been under siege for 47 straight days by a violent mob,” and that “each night, lawless anarchists destroy and desecrate property.” Brown’s conclusion, as she told the Washington Post, is that federal forces are deliberately provoking confrontation, “purely for political purposes.”

Greg Sargent and Paul Waldman of the Post took this a step further in an opinion article published Friday, observing “that the bigger picture is that it’s plainly obvious that the government is trying to inflame the situation”:

We know Trump wants these scenes to be playing out on people’s televisions in faraway states, such as — to select a few at random — Wisconsin, Michigan, Pennsylvania, Arizona and Florida.

And given that his homeland security chief is actively ignoring local officials’ demands that he pull out federal law enforcement — in a manner that those officials say is inflaming the situation — it’s reasonable to surmise that escalation is the whole point of these exercises in the first place.

It’s entirely sensible to perceive nearly everything Trump does as cynical showmanship calculated (whether rightly or wrongly) to improve his dwindling chances of re-election. But it may not be sufficient. The president and his sniveling retinue of “acting” factotums up and down the national security chain may not have a coherent master plan to rip out the rest of American democracy by the roots and replace it with something more to their liking. But that is unquestionably what their collective hive-mind desires, and there are people behind them, just out of view, who are willing and able to articulate such an agenda clearly.

That’s generally how fascism seems to work. This is a disputed historical point, but it doesn’t appear that even the Nazi regime articulated a clear and explicit policy of exterminating as much of Europe’s Jewish population as possible. That was a decision that emerged gradually, and almost inevitably, from that regime’s insane internal logic.

Is it an irrelevant side note to mention how many key posts in the Trump administration are held by acting officials? I don’t think so: That speaks to the feudal or monarchic or fascistic character of the Trump regime, and no president in recent history has conducted his affairs in remotely similar fashion. Wolf, the acting DHS secretary, has not been confirmed by the Senate; neither has his acting deputy, Ken Cuccinelli, who is also the acting director of Citizenship and Immigration Services. Neither has Mark Morgan, the acting director of CBP. Neither has Matthew Albence, the acting head of ICE, or his acting deputy, Derek Benner. (Albence’s chief of staff does not require congressional approval, but for some reason he’s “acting” too.)

What exactly are all these wormy white men in temporary posts under a cratering presidency up to? It isn’t something good. What’s happening in Portland is distinctive in various ways — a small city, far from the media capitals, known, with some justification, as a hotbed of anarchist activism — but not isolated. We first saw these ambiguous “federal police,” seemingly operating under the direct authority of Attorney General Bill Barr, on the streets of Washington in early June, before and after President Trump’s famous photo-op sojourn across Lafayette Park. 

There are numerous reports that these goons, drawn from a laundry list of federal law enforcement agencies most of us had never previously heard of, have been seen on the ground in other cities, including Buffalo, Las Vegas, San Diego and Seattle. Less clear accounts suggest they have been used in numerous other places as well: For instance, the New York Times mentioned on Friday, almost in passing, that CBP “drones, helicopters and planes” have been used to conduct surveillance of BLM protesters in at least 15 cities. 

We can, I think, discern a pattern here without venturing too far into paranoia. As has happened throughout the Trump presidency, the so-called norms are being stretched to the breaking point. This paramilitary, fascist-curious crackdown is being beta-tested — on the thinnest possible legal and constitutional grounds — in a series of middle-sized, second-tier cities, where national media may not notice right away and local activists may be viewed as radical hotheads. 

To this point, Wolf and Cuccinelli and Morgan and their underlings have eagerly dialed up the rhetoric, vowing not just to crush the Portland protests but to bring down the hammer of so-called federal authority with even more enthusiasm in more places. That too is part of the beta test: Trump needs them to play Mouth of Sauron, both because he lacks the courage or conviction to say those things flat out, and because he requires the latitude to throw those guys overboard if this flirty little coup-experiment blows up in his face.

What’s the endgame strategy here? Is all of this “purely political,” as Kate Brown said, aimed at terrifying a few white suburbanites in “battleground states” into believing that only Trump can save them from rampaging antifa hordes who want to steal their homes for government-funded Black Marxist communes? Or is this an ingenious backdoor attempt at imposing martial law, Keystone Kops-style (since the actual military wouldn’t do it), with a hopeful eye toward canceling or nullifying the election and declaring democracy on hold?

As I said above, when it comes to Donald Trump and the dangerous currents that flow through him, both things can be true. Either way, there are “paramilitary squads,” in Sen. Ron Wyden’s words, on the streets of an American city. History will judge us for how we respond.

 

How police are causing a public health crisis

“If a cop is going to kill you anyway, what’s a little bit of COVID?” Dr. Melody Goodman asks pointedly. Goodman is the Associate Dean of Research at New York University’s School of Global and Public Health, where she focuses on improving health in Black and brown communities. She clarifies her earlier pithy statement, adding, “when your life and health is constantly in danger … you’re willing to risk COVID to see real change happen in our country.”

Goodman’s blunt words speak to a reality for many Black and brown Americans: the risks of COVID-19 are real, but perhaps pale in comparison to the day-to-day fear of violence at the hands of law enforcement — an omnipresent mental and physical health threat that predates the virus and may outlast it. Yes, the pandemic is killing Black Americans, but so are the police.

This connection between race and public health has led some local legislatures to propose plans to declare racism a public health crisis. But what does that mean?

To those unfamiliar with the term, public health is the science of studying, protecting, and improving the overall well being of a population. Notably, race has long been considered one of the key social determinants of health — social conditions that determine health status — and the reason isn’t because of genetics. Rather, it’s a result of systemic issues, namely that many communities of color are underserved in many ways.

There’s a psychological reason, too, that the connection between race and health is apt: just as the mind and body are connected, the mental stress of experiencing oppression on a daily basis has a tremendous impact on an individual’s health, and can lead to shorter life spans and more health problems. Hence, in multiple ways, declaring racism a public health crisis makes a lot of sense.

Public safety is public health

Law enforcement is often present in health settings like hospitals. Indeed, police are seen as key partners on many public health programs — they regulate violence against women, public disorder, mental illness, alcohol and drug use, and much more.

“Part of your social well being is feeling safe in your environments,” said Dr. Anna Nolan, a pulmonologist at New York University currently treating COVID-19 patients. Public safety in the workplace, schools, and neighborhoods are all key elements of public health. “Police are first responders,” notes Dr. Goodman, “so they’re part of our public health infrastructure.”

Communities of color “have a lot of police presence, but what are the police doing for public safety?” asks Dr. Rod Brunson, a professor of public life at Northeastern’s School of Criminal Justice and Criminology. While protests have raised awareness of the dangers of over-policing, there are also dangers of “under-policing” which leaves individuals underserved and unsafe in their neighborhoods, as a result of law enforcement’s inability to improve public safety.

Police aggression and ineptitude aren’t mutually exclusive. “There are simultaneous dynamics of under- and over-policing,” said Dr. Brunson. Black, brown, and low-income neighborhoods “get the worst of both worlds.”

Now, law enforcement has been deployed across the country to manage the pandemic. Police and national guards enforce stay-at-home orders, patrol supermarkets, subways, parks, and facilitate food drives. When recounting her experience on the front lines, Nolan notes that “law enforcement are integral to getting people safely to the hospital. Getting them the care that they needed when they needed it.”

Though law enforcement is part of the public health infrastructure, the criminal justice system upholds coercive policing, retributive sentencing, and mass incarceration that contributes to adverse health outcomes.

Violence is a public health issue

Individuals in the criminal justice system have far higher rates of chronic health problems, substance use, and mental illness than the general population. Racial discrimination in policing has shown to increase risk of chronic disease and early mortality.

Fatal force is the most direct way in which the criminal justice system impacts health. In the past year, 1,000 people have been reportedly shot and killed by police. Both Black and Hispanic Americans are killed by police at a disproportionate rate, with Black Americans being killed at double the rate of their white counterparts. The numbers show that police killings increase population-specific mortality rates.

Commonplace arrest tactics can also cause long-term health issues. According to MedPage Today, a clinical and policy resource for health care professionals, poorly performed chokehold techniques can increase risk of anoxic brain injury, stroke, cardiac arrhythmia, or trauma to neck structures.

The violence does not stop upon arrest. Injuries and death are commonplace while in police custody. In many cities, cops have physically harassed detainees while on the ride to the booking station — as was the case with Freddie Gray, whose “rough ride” in a police van proved fatal.

A risky combination: COVID-19 and police brutality

Government response to protests have raised heightened concerns about public health, especially in the wake of COVID-19. Law enforcement have been deployed to demonstrations with full riot gear, including tear gas, pepper spray, and rubber bullets.

As Salon previously reported, tear gas can cause a host of health problems, ranging from eye damage, blindness, nerve damage or even respiratory failure for those who have certain preexisting conditions. The effects of exposure “aerosolize the virus … and that initiates the possible increase in transmission,” Nolan told Salon.

Research conducted by the U.S. Army in 2012 found that personnel exposed to tear gas have a high risk of acute respiratory illness after exposure. These effects, combined with the distress that COVID-19 has on our respiratory system, are apt to be harmful, though there are no conclusive studies on the combination.

Even without the heightened risk created by these “de-escalation” tactics, protests are risky environments. Proximity, whether voluntary or as a result of “being herded or pushed closer together by crowd control, increases risk of being exposed to the virus,” said Nolan.

In other words, law enforcement tactics can raise the risk of coronavirus transmission during and after protests.

Psychological violence

The criminal justice system has its own negative health side effects, and can cause long-term trauma and stress.

In New York City, police report that 20% of stops involve the use of “physical force,” while approximately half of recorded stops involve frisking. Studies suggest physical violence, racial degradation, and homophobia are commonplace in such stops. Critics believe that stop-and-frisk tactics have taken a new, digitized form in what is known as “predictive policing,” a practice that reinforces racial bias through algorithms and big data.

Even in the absence of physical force, police interactions that seem unfair, discriminatory, or intrusive are correlated with negative mental health outcomes. One study finds that nearly all forms of police victimization were associated with psychological distress, anxiety and depression. Police killings of Black Americans were also associated with poor mental health conditions among the general Black population throughout the U.S.

Not only can police cause psychological trauma, they may even target individuals with mental health struggles. Though mental health is not a strong predictor of criminal behavior, two million arrests each year involve people with serious mental illnesses.

Jason Tan de Bibiana, a research associate at Vera Institute of Justice, told Salon that “police are the de facto first responders, jails and prisons have become the de facto mental health hospitals or substance use disorder treatment facilities.” In this system, people are not getting the quality treatment that they need. Brunson added that preexisting conditions before incarceration are only “intensified and worsened by relying on mass incarceration.”

Socioeconomic status is a key determinant of health, and formerly incarcerated individuals earn less than half the income they would receive, had they not been to jail. Entire communities bear economic burdens by taking time off to grieve, go to trial, or organize action. Individuals who report financial strain as children and as adults are more likely to be physically disabled, have more depressive episodes, and have lower cognitive functioning than their counterparts.

Make every community a healthy place to live”

Cries for police and criminal justice reform — and in some cases, abolition — have been heard around the world. Citizens and experts have advocated for defunding the police and reallocating the funds to social programs instead. Others worry that abolition will cause Black, brown, and low-income neighborhoods to suffer. Debate on how to address corruption in our justice system is ongoing.

“Police are symptomatic of the systemic racism that exists in our society,” Brunson told Salon. Understanding police brutality as a public health problem requires looking beyond the notion of “one bad apple,” and instead examining how the criminal justice system perpetuates systemic disempowerment that has serious health consequences.

When asked how to decrease health disparities, Goodman says, “Make every community a healthy place to live. We have healthy communities in this country. We’ve just chosen to systematically disinvest in certain ones.” Making a community healthy doesn’t mean more police. It means adequate physical and mental health care, well-funded schools, after-school programming, living-wages, and affordable housing.

The question isn’t can we fix health disparities and racism in our criminal justice system, says Goodman — “it’s, ‘do we want to.'”

Trump administration waives federal regulations to expedite border construction in Rio Grande Valley

The Trump administration said Friday that it is waiving several environmental regulations in order to proceed with border-security projects in South Texas.

The announcement was posted in the federal register and states the waivers are necessary to advance the building of new roads near the border in Starr County. The county is part of the Rio Grande Sector of the U.S. Border Patrol, which remains one of the busiest areas for unauthorized crossings in the country.

“Congress provided that the Secretary of Homeland Security shall take such actions as may be necessary to install additional physical barriers and roads (including the removal of obstacles to of illegal entrants) in the vicinity of the United States border to deter illegal crossings in areas of high illegal entry into the United States,” the notice states.

It waives provisions included in several federal statues, including the National Environmental Policy Act, the Federal Water Pollution Control Act, the Clean Air Act, the Archeological Resources Protection Act, the Paleontological Resources Preservation Act and the Federal Cave Resources Protection Act, among others.

A group of advocacy organizations said the announcement is the latest in a series of ill-advised plans that will destroy environmentally sensitive areas, endangered species and historical burial sites.

“Trump wastes billions of dollars on his pet political project instead of investing in the direly needed life-saving resources we need to survive this [COVID-19] pandemic,” Norma Herrera, the rapid response organizer with the Rio Grande Valley Equal Voice Network, a coalition of nonprofit advocacy groups. “To further rub salt in our wounds, this latest waiver of crucial protections will further threaten our families, our constitutional rights, our natural spaces, and the Rio Grande River, the lifeblood of our community.”

Friday’s announcement comes two months after a similar decision that waived several of the same regulations in order to rapidly build nearly 70 miles of border barriers and roads in Webb and Zapata counties, which are just north of Starr County. The projects are part of Trump’s election-year push to have hundreds of miles of fencing or wall in place by the end of the year.

But lawmakers along the border have refused to sit idle and have filed multiple lawsuits intended to halt or at least stall construction of any barriers, roads or other projects. Earlier this month landowners and government officials in Laredo and Zapata County alleged that the construction of the barrier is driven by racism and politics and is therefore unconstitutional.

A separate lawsuit filed in June is challenging the Department of Homeland Security’s right to access land in Zapata County that would allow the Army Corp of Engineers to survey the area for possible construction projects.

Although the Rio Grande Valley continues as one of the busiest sectors, the number of unauthorized crossings has plummeted this year compared to last. From October 2019 through June apprehensions of unaccompanied minors and family units in the Rio Grande Valley have dropped by 74% and 94% respectively, according to Customs and Border Protection statistics. And apprehensions of single adults in the sector have dropped by 42% during the same time frame.

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

“Outright lies”: Voting misinformation flourishes on Facebook

On April 3, Terrence K. Williams, a politically conservative actor and comedian who’s been praised by President Donald Trump, assured his nearly 3 million followers on Facebook that Democrats would light ballots on fire or throw them away. Wearing a red “Keep America Great” hat, Williams declared, “If you mail in your vote, your vote will be in Barack Obama’s fireplace.” The video has been viewed more than 350,000 times.

On May 8, Peggy Hubbard, a Navy veteran and police officer who this year sought the Republican nomination for a U.S. Senate seat from Illinois, warned on Facebook that the country was heading toward civil war. “Your democracy, your freedom is being stripped away from you, and if you allow that then everything this country stood for, fought for, bled for is all in vain.” The cause? California’s recent expansion of voting by mail: “The only way you will be able to vote in the upcoming election in November is by mail only,” Hubbard said. The video has attracted more than 209,000 views.

On June 27, Pamela Geller, an anti-Muslim activist with nearly 1.3 million followers, weighed in. “Mail-in ballots guarantee that the Democrats will commit voter fraud,” she said on Facebook.

There’s no evidence for any of these statements. While California will mail absentee ballots to all registered voters, polling places will also be available. Voter fraud is exceedingly rare, including with mail-in ballots. A recent Washington Post analysis analyzed three states with all-mail elections — Colorado, Oregon and Washington — and found just 372 potential irregularities among 14.6 million votes, or 0.0025%.

Facebook’s community standards ban “misrepresentation of who can vote, qualifications for voting, whether a vote will be counted, and what information and/or materials must be provided in order to vote.” But an analysis by ProPublica and First Draft, a global nonprofit that researches misinformation, shows that Facebook is rife with false or misleading claims about voting, particularly regarding voting by mail, which is the safest way of casting a ballot during the pandemic. Many of these falsehoods appear to violate Facebook’s standards yet have not been taken down or labeled as inaccurate. Some of them, generalizing from one or two cases, portrayed people of color as the face of voter fraud.

The false claims, including conspiracy theories about stolen elections or outright misrepresentations about voting by mail by Trump and prominent conservative outlets, are often among the most popular posts about voting on Facebook, according to a review of engagement data from CrowdTangle, a Facebook-owned analytics tool.

On Facebook, interactions — the number of comments, likes, reactions and shares that a post attracts — are a proxy for popularity. Of the top 50 posts, ranked by total interactions, that mentioned voting by mail since April 1, 22 contained false or substantially misleading claims about voting, particularly about mail-in ballots.

“We have a long history in this country of voter suppression that goes all the way back to our founding,” said Jessica Gonzalez, the co-CEO of Free Press, an advocacy group focused on media and technology. “This is a new way to suppress the vote, and I don’t know why Facebook wants any part of it.”

In an email, Geller said that “what I wrote was factual and accurate” and that the contention that voter fraud is rare “is ridiculous on its face.” She added: “You’re trying to deceive your readers into not believing what they see with their own eyes.”

Hubbard and Williams did not respond to questions. After ProPublica flagged their posts to Facebook, it deleted them.

A Facebook spokesperson said that the company is “running the largest voting information campaign in American history,” including aiming to register 4 million voters. It plans to create a Voting Information Center — a box on top of user feeds — “to connect people with authoritative information about the elections” and add labels that link voting-related posts to official election information.

“Making sure people have accurate information about voting is especially critical during the COVID crisis,” the spokesperson said.

From March to May 2020, Facebook removed more than 100,000 pieces of content from Facebook and Instagram for violating its policies against voter suppression, according to the company’s website. CEO Mark Zuckerberg said last month that he stands against “anything that incites violence or suppresses voting.”

ProPublica and First Draft tracked Facebook posts using voting-related keywords — including the terms “vote by mail,” “mail-in ballots,” “voter fraud” and “stolen elections” — since early April, when Trump began attacking voting by mail. Mentions of these voting-related terms nearly tripled on Facebook, with interest in the topic spiking after Twitter attached a fact-checking label to Trump’s false tweets and directed users to a fact-check page on May 26. Twitter’s intervention prompted Trump to claim that Twitter is “interfering in the 2020 Presidential Election” and “stifling FREE SPEECH.” Facebook has refused to take down Trump’s false claims about voting by mail.

Facebook’s inaction on Trump’s posts spurred pushback over misinformation on the site. Gonzalez helped organize an advertising boycott of Facebook that now includes more than 1,000 companies and some of the platform’s biggest advertisers. Among other demands, they’re calling on Facebook to remove voting misinformation.

In a long-awaited assessment of its civil rights record, Facebook was faulted last week for being “far too reluctant to adopt strong rules to limit misinformation and voter suppression.” Also last week, civil rights groups met with Facebook executives, including Zuckerberg, to push their demands and came away disappointed.

“It was all talk, no action,” Gonzalez said. “We hear words like ‘We know we need to do better’ and ‘We’re working on this,’ and yet misinformation still seems to be quite pervasive on the site.”

Facebook expects to meet one of the groups’ demands by hiring a vice president to coordinate civil rights issues internally, according to the company.

The posts identified by ProPublica and First Draft offer outright false claims about voting, blend opinion and factual errors, or mislead users about the reliability of voting methods. Facebook has said it is committed to both free speech and to providing reliable information about voting, but those goals may sometimes conflict.

Facebook has removed more than 90% of false posts referred to it by VoteSure, a 2018 initiative by the state of California to educate voters and flag misinformation, Secretary of State Alex Padilla said. In VoteSure’s first election, the 2018 midterms, 272 of 276 posts and tweets reported to social media platforms were taken down.

Still, VoteSure only identifies a small portion of misinformation, and Facebook needs to do more, Padilla said. The platform, he said, has made progress but still has “baseless outright lies, claims about massive voter fraud, and posts that are clearly wrong, or clearly erroneous.”

Trump’s false attacks on voting by mail had a total of 3.8 million interactions on Facebook. Among them, a Trump post that falsely claimed Nevada had illegally sent out ballots had the most interactions of any post that has mentioned vote by mail in the last 12 months in the U.S. Trump’s false claim that California is sending ballots to “anyone living in the state, no matter who they are or how they got there” drew the third most interactions of any post that mentioned voting over the same period, ranking behind a post from Obama and a pro-Trump meme.

In recent months, Trump has also claimed on Facebook that “mail-in ballots will lead to a “RIGGED ELECTION!” and falsely said they are “substantially fraudulent“; he made false statements about the legality of actions taken by election officials in Michigan and Nevada; and he misrepresented his own power to deny funding to states that expand vote by mail. Trump continued those false claims last week, arguing a debunked distinction between mail-in voting and absentee voting.

“What is frustrating is that Trump can post or tweet whatever he wants without the proper checks and balances,” Padilla said. “What keeps me up at night is that he’s clearly setting the stage to question election results that he might not like in November.”

Breitbart, a conservative website that has long championed Trump, has had more engagement on its voting-related stories than any other publisher from April until July 1, according to our analysis. In fact, voting-related stories on Breitbart have garnered more interactions since April than equivalent articles by The Washington Post, The New York Times and NBC News combined. Many of the Breitbart posts are misleading at best. “Obama ratchets up Democrats’ Cheat-by-Mail scheme!” read one post, linking to a story that misleadingly framed how often voter fraud occurs. Another post declared: “Flooding the nation with ballots that can be stolen, sold, discarded, and forged — THAT’s the path to Leftist victory in November.”

In a video by Fox Nation, Fox News’ streaming service, that has been viewed nearly 500,000 times, host Tomi Lahren said, “I firmly believe the only way Donald Trump loses in November is because of voter fraud.” In the video, Lahren falsely claims that voter fraud is rampant in California. “You think coronavirus is a crisis, wait till you see the voter fraud epidemic we have here in California. And mark my words it’s heading to your state like a diseased bat out of hell.” (There’s no evidence that voter fraud is rampant in California, or in any other state.)

“This is an editorial video, not a news report, which is very clear to any Fox Nation viewer,” said John Finley, executive vice president of development for Fox News Media. The White House, the Trump campaign and Breitbart did not respond to requests for comment.

In a Facebook group dedicated to fans of Candace Owens, a conservative commentator, one post circulated a 2016 video that describes a widely debunked conspiracy theory linking billionaire investor and philanthropist George Soros to “rigged” voting machines. The post has received more than 16,000 shares. Soros’ Open Society Foundations donate to ProPublica.

Claims of “stolen elections” were common across the political spectrum. A post by the left-leaning page Ridin’ With Biden contended that Trump and Kanye West were trying to steal the election. A clip of Joe Biden saying that his “single greatest concern” is that Trump would try to “steal the election” was touted as evidence of a conspiracy by Republicans. Other claims of stolen elections have come from Secure America Now, quoting Newt Gingrich; Trump’s former White House doctor Ronny Jackson, now running for Congress; and liberal accounts like StandWithMueller and Occupy Democrats.

Facebook is reportedly considering banning political ads in the days before the election. But our review showed that misinformation or false claims about voting by mail on Facebook are rarer in paid political ads than in posts. The vast majority of ads that used voting-related terms were factual and promoted voter participation broadly, including ads from Democratic and Republican groups, nonpartisan voting organizations and state election offices. However, we did find a handful of ads that pushed questionable claims about voting by mail.

A group called Morning in Nevada PAC, created by supporters of Adam Laxalt, the state’s former Republican attorney general, has launched a handful of ads attacking voting by mail, spending between $14,800 and $20,998 this year, according to a search of Facebook’s political ad library. Some of these ads make unsubstantiated claims that House Speaker Nancy Pelosi is trying to fix the election using mail-in voting.

A similar ad from the Oklahoma Council of Public Affairs describes absentee ballots as the “‘tool of choice’ for those who are engaging in election fraud.”

Several posts identified by ProPublica and First Draft seized on isolated incidents to link people of color to voter fraud, a tactic reminiscent of the 1988 George H.W. Bush campaign ad that featured mug shots of Willie Horton, a Black felon who committed a rape while on a weekend furlough, to paint Michael Dukakis as weak on crime. One meme-like post has appeared on at least 136 Facebook pages and groups, including Hubbard’s, as well as groups like “2nd Amendment Hotties” and “Dullards for Trump,” which have produced 100,838 interactions. The post features a headshot of Sherikia Hawkins, a former Southfield, Michigan, clerk. Text on the image reads:

“THE DEMOCRAT CLERK OF SOUTHFIELD, MICHIGAN IS FACING TRIAL ON 6 FELONY COUNTS OF VOTER FRAUD FOR EDITING HUNDREDS OF BALLOTS. PRESIDENT TRUMP HAS BEEN RIGHT ALL ALONG ABOUT DEMOCRATS’ ELECTION TAMPERING AND VOTER FRAUD.”

The post is inaccurate. Hawkins was not charged with editing ballots themselves. She was charged in state court with altering voter records used to track ballots. No voters were disenfranchised. Hawkins, who has not yet entered a plea, is expected to face trial this year.

In June, a Patterson, New Jersey, city councilman and a councilman-elect, along with two other men, were charged with illegally collecting ballots from voters and delivering them to an election office. New Jersey prohibits anyone from delivering more than three ballots on behalf of voters. The case is pending, and the councilman and councilman-elect have said they will plead not guilty. On Facebook, Breitbart and several other conservative pages have displayed mugshots of the defendants, all of whom are people of color, to suggest that voter fraud is rampant.

“There is already a sense in the Black community that our votes will be lost and that the election won’t be fair,” said Brandi Collins-Dexter, a senior campaign director at Color of Change, a civil rights group organizing the ad boycott. “What this stuff does is just confuse people and sow distrust.”

Though vote by mail was less controversial before the pandemic, misinformation about other aspects of voting also plagued Facebook in 2016. Before Rhode Island’s presidential primary that year, Bernie Sanders supporters wrongly accused its secretary of state, Nellie Gorbea, on social media of suppressing turnout, based on a news report that the number of open polling places would be considerably less than in a November general election.

However, it’s common for states to have fewer polling locations during a primary, when turnout is lower. Rhode Island actually had 15 more locations available than in the 2012 presidential primary. In any case, the state Board of Elections, not Gorbea, was in charge of polling places.

“In 24 hours, we received thousands of comments on Facebook and Twitter,” Gorbea said. “Nothing would quell it.” Her office received angry messages from 36 states and three countries, but just one message from a Rhode Island constituent. Her office has since hired a full-time employee to monitor social media.

Exaggerating the prevalence of voting fraud can backfire. In a study released in June, researchers showed respondents a series of tweets. Some were actual 2018 tweets by Trump, Florida Gov. Rick Scott and Republican Sens. Lindsey Graham and Marco Rubio that put forth unfounded claims of voter fraud; others were more generic “placebo” tweets. The false claims reduced confidence in elections for everyone, the researchers found, especially Republicans and those who approve of Trump. Those groups “reported significantly lower confidence in elections after exposure to a low dose of voter fraud allegations even when those claims were countered by fact-checks.”

As a result, Trump’s rhetoric may cause fewer Republicans to vote by mail than Democrats, said Brendan Nyhan, one of the authors of the study and a political scientist at Dartmouth College. Still, Nyhan is worried about broader effects of misinformation. “The problem has clearly gotten worse in terms of elite rhetoric,” Nyhan said. “We’ve seen what happens in other countries when there isn’t a shared trust in the rules of the game in democracy and it’s not good.”

For now, misinformation may be difficult to stop before it goes viral. On July 13, conservatives on Facebook pounced on a video in which an unidentified Trump supporter said she was denied the right to vote, apparently in Louisiana. Many of these pages framed it as evidence of voter fraud and a Democratic plot to steal the election. By the time the post was deemed false by PolitiFact, a Facebook fact-checking partner, it had received more than 3.7 million views and been shared more than 170,000 times.

Rory Smith, research manager at First Draft, contributed reporting.

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

Controversial e-cigarette company Puff Bar says it’s suspending U.S. sales

A shadowy e-cigarette company that has reaped millions of dollars by exploiting a loophole to sell kid-friendly, flavored nicotine products says it is suspending sales in the U.S following revelations about its owners.

Puff Bar, a California-based marketer of disposable e-cigarettes, announced the sales suspension Monday on its website. In a phone call with FairWarning, the company’s Chief Financial Officer Patrick Beltran confirmed that U.S. sales were being halted until further notice, but said that international sales would continue for the time being. Beltran would not give a reason for the move. Despite the announcement, as of late Monday the company website still listed other outlets that sell Puff Bar products.

For months, Puff Bar had cultivated a sense of mystery about its ownership and operations. But as FairWarning reported on July 9, a new document filed with the California Secretary of State named Beltran and Nick Minas, both in their twenties, as CFO and CEO, respectively.

The document was filed shortly after FairWarning began an investigation of the company, which was originally registered to a house owned by Minas’ mother in the North Hollywood area of Los Angeles. FairWarning’s story documented Minas’ and Beltran’s history of bending rules on e-commerce websites to sell e-cigarette products.

Even with the disclosure, it’s uncertain who really is in control of Puff Bar, which appears to be connected with other companies in the U.S. and China. In an interview, Minas and Beltran said that despite their titles, their job was running the Puff Bar website. They refused to say who hired them, and claimed not to know anything about another company that owns trademarks for some of the Puff Bar products.

Beginning in 2019, Puff Bar rapidly gained popularity with its wide variety of fruity flavors and sleek design. The company got a giant boost in January, when the Food and Drug Administration banned most flavored e-cigarettes but carved out an exemption for disposable vape devices. Puff Bar, along with a handful of other brands, quickly capitalized. By April, the company was reportedly making millions of dollars in sales each week.

Public health advocates, upset by the regulatory loophole, have asked lawmakers to take action against Puff Bar and other disposable e-cigarette makers. In June, Rep. Raja Krishnamoorthi, an Illinois Democrat, demanded that the FDA ban sales of Puff Bar products because the company has allegedly targeted children.

Puff Bar is currently the target of at least two lawsuits. On July 1, the Boston-based Public Health Advocacy Institute sued Puff Bar and its distributor, Cool Clouds Distribution Inc., for allegedly promoting and selling e-cigarettes to children in Massachusetts. On the same day, a Florida law firm filed a class action against Cool Clouds in New Jersey. The complaint alleged that a 17-year-old became addicted to nicotine by using Puff Bar products. A few days after FairWarning’s story was published, the New Jersey lawsuit was amended to add Puff Bar, Minas and Beltran as individual defendants. Beltran said he hadn’t seen the latest lawsuit against his company.

While the Puff Bar website is suspending U.S. sales, Puff Bar products are still for sale on various e-commerce websites. One of those is eliquidstop.com, a site owned by Minas and Beltran. On Reddit, a user who claims to represent the Puff Bar company has directed confused customers to make purchases at eliquidstop.

Mark Gottlieb, executive director of the Public Health Advocacy Institute, said he was pleased to learn of the sales suspension, but worried that “those same highly addictive products will soon be available under another brand name and the public health community will be forced into a game of Whack-A-Mole. Ideally, the FDA’s loophole for disposable flavored e-cigarettes should be closed and closed now, before another disposable brand gains the traction that Puff Bar managed to do in less six months.”

Minas and Beltran appear to have done well for themselves in recent months. According to public records, they purchased a home in Los Angeles in early June, and took out a nearly $927,000 mortgage on the property.

Trump administration’s sudden shift on COVID data leaves states in the lurch

Just as the number of people hospitalized for COVID-19 approaches new highs in some parts of the country, hospital data in Kansas and Missouri is suddenly incomplete or missing.

The Missouri Hospital Association reports that it no longer has access to the data it uses to guide state coronavirus mitigation efforts, and Kansas officials say their hospital data may be delayed.

The Trump administration this week directed hospitals to change how they report data to the federal government and how that data will be made available.

In an email, Missouri Hospital Association spokesperson Dave Dillon called the move “a major disruption.”

“All evidence suggests that Missouri’s numbers are headed in the wrong direction,” Dillon said. “And, for now, we will have very limited situational awareness. That’s all very bad news.”

The absence of the data will make it harder for health and public officials, as well as the general public, to understand how the virus is spreading.

“It’s hugely problematic,” said Dr. Karen Maddox, a public health researcher at Washington University in St. Louis. “The only way that we know where things are going up and where things are going down and where we need to be putting resources and where we need to be planning is because of those data.”

The White House instructed hospitals to report data to the Department of Health and Human Services through a new system created by a Pennsylvania-based company, TeleTracking, instead of to the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention.

The directive came as a surprise to hospitals, according to Kansas Hospital Association spokesperson Cindy Samuelson.

“From our perspective, these changes are big,” Samuelson said. “We only found out Tuesday, and we had to update the data by Wednesday night — so, less than 48 hours.”

The Missouri Hospital Association currently does not have access to the new HHS system, according to Dillon. He said the new system is also significantly different from the CDC system.

“The new datasets for reporting are not identical and in several cases are ill-defined,” Dillon said. “That has complicated hospitals’ efforts.”

In the wake of the announcement, the Missouri Department of Health and Senior Services posted a notice on its website this week that the daily and weekly updates on hospitals, including the numbers of people hospitalized and the availability of standard hospital beds, ICU beds and ventilators, would be temporarily halted.

“Missouri Hospital Association (MHA) and the State of Missouri will be unable to access critical hospitalization data during the transition. While we are working to collect interim data, situational awareness will be limited,” the notice on the department’s website says.

Dillon said the hospital association hopes to have “within a few days or weeks” hospital and coronavirus data that had been available through the CDC.

“However, in the short term, we’ll be very much in the dark,” Dillon said.

The hospital association will create an alternative reporting system for hospitals, according to Dillon, and plans to continue producing weekly reports, despite the uncertainty about data.

The Missouri Department of Health and Senior Services did not respond to inquiries regarding the data.

Kansas health officials are still able to access hospital and coronavirus data through the CDC and TeleTracking, according to Kansas Department of Health and Environment spokesperson Kristi Zears.

However, Kansas Hospital Association spokesperson Samuelson said the Kansas hospital data may be delayed if it is incomplete.

“If we’re not able to get a bulk of our members converted and uploading, I’m not sure we want to show it because then it will look like things have gotten a lot better,” Samuelson said.

The most recent data shows that as of July 12, 875 Missourians were hospitalized with COVID-19, among the highest reported numbers since an early May peak of 984. Kansas’ most recent data shows 1,393 people have been hospitalized with the disease.

The Trump administration said the reporting change was needed due to reporting delays and other problems with the CDC.

But the move has been widely criticized for being disruptive, especially as COVID-19 infection numbers reach new highs and hospitals in some areas of the country are reaching capacity.

“By now, we should have a foolproof, streamlined reporting system for COVID,” Maddox said. “And this change — midstream — is not going to do anything to help our ability to fight the disease.”

This story is part of a reporting partnership that includes KCURNPR and Kaiser Health News.

Safe, socially distanced interior design without risking the health of your household

“Your Home Made Perfect,” a BBC Two renovation show, debuted in 2019, but its new second season has found particular relevance in the pandemic era.

Hosted by Angela Scanlon, the basic pitch of the program is that it allows two architects to use virtual reality to present homeowners with a fully formed, interactive version of their designs that allows them to “walk” through their potential new home without anyone ever having to pick up a hammer. Homeowners then pick the design that most appealed to them virtually, which inspires a real-life home renovation. 

“They essentially step into their home as it was, pop goggles on, and they are standing in their kitchen,” Scanlon said in an interview with Build. “And then our architect begins to take them through the plan for the new home, and the walls come down.” 

The concept was deeply appealing to me as I, like the rest of the country, have spent the vast majority of my time locked in my home since March; and when you spend that much time in your living space, it becomes clear what works — and what doesn’t. 

That’s when it’s revealed that the tiny pantry that presented no problems when you were able to hit the grocery store more often fills up really quickly when you’re stocking up for weeks at a time, or that the home office that is perfectly quiet when you’re the only one occasionally working from home is actually an echo chamber for barking dogs and your spouse’s conference calls in the next room. 

However, we’re also living through a time period where having a stranger come into your home for any reason — like an interior design consult, for instance — feels inherently risky, so the idea of being able to pop on that pair of goggles or look at a computer screen in order to visualize your new space seems like a smart solution. 

But that concept isn’t just a reality on programs like “Your Home Made Perfect.” According to Matt Langan, the founder and CEO of stuccco, the concept of virtual interior design has gained new momentum during the pandemic. 

Stuccco is a nationally recognized virtual interior design company based in Louisville, Ky. They employ a roster of freelance designers who help homeowners and real estate agents with two main services: virtual staging and virtual room redesigns. 

“We think that by designing homes, using the latest technology, married with the best talent is the best solution,” Langan said. “So both of these offers attempt to accomplish the same mission, which is being able to design spaces as fast and as beautifully as possible.” 

Virtual staging is primarily used by real estate agents who take photos of empty rooms in a home they have listed. Those are sent to a stuccco designer who, within 24 hours, will present the agent with a rendering of what the space would look like with furniture or specific amenities. For example, they could show a spare bedroom staged as both an office or a nursery. These photos average around $29 per rendering. 

“And then the other component of our business is the online interior design side of the business,” he said. “That’s where we are matching up homeowners with one of our designers to collaborate, one-on-one, with any space in our home. The goal there is to have that space designed within 14 days of initiating the project, and our current price is $399 per room for the service.” 

Stuccco’s services are entirely interior design-based, meaning that architectural changes like knocking down walls or building a new closet aren’t within the scope of the designer renderings. However, the designers are able to work with existing furniture and offer recommendations on online outlets that fit within the customers budget. 

Currently, stuccco collaborates with brands like West Elm, Nordstrom, Etsy, Food 52, Arhaus, and Target. Customers are given a shopping list, which is filled with items that can be ordered online. This reflects a trend that developed pre-pandemic of more consumers purchasing furniture online than ever before. 

According to a 2019 consumer report by Storis — a national retailer of software for furniture, bedding, and appliance industries —  it is projected that by 2021, 27% of total revenue will come from online sales (compared to just over 11% last year), while current data shows that over 90% of customers start their furniture purchasing process by browsing online, regardless of where they ultimately purchase. 

Langan also says there has been a definite uptick in business over the last six months. 

“We’re growing every single month, and part of that is because people are cost-conscious,” he said. “Part of that is also the appeal of contactless service; they don’t want people to invade their space.” 

He is also seeing more requests from realtors asking his designers to virtually stage homes coming onto the market in a way that shows the potential for home offices and home gyms. Additionally, he’s also received an influx of queries from freelance designers asking if he has space open on his team for new virtual designers. 

“Big, big uptick,” he said. “We are currently not actively taking on more designers, but I expect that may change as we go forward, so right now, we’re getting a lot of applications.” 

Independent designers who typically work physically in homes or commercial spaces have also migrated online amid the pandemic. Natalie Officer, a designer based in Louisville who owns Natalie O Design, said she finished projects in Bushwick, New York, and in Northern California over the last several months by moving her services online, while G. Reyes, an architecture student who splits time between Nashville and Miami, said they have started taking on new projects that are organized completely online through emails and Skype sessions. 

“I’ve started working with clients outside my immediate area,” said Reyes. “By doing more virtual work during all this, it makes me realize I can really expand my business.” 

According to Matt Langan in Louisville, the way business is being conducted as a novel coronavirus workaround will likely shift the industry permanently. 

“I think that there will always be demand for in-person services, and I’d like to believe that we’ll be able to taste normalcy to some degree in the not too distant future,” he said. “But I think that digital interior design is the best way of going about it for the vast majority of people who have to be cognizant of their time, money and also just want to leverage the best visual tech out there.” 

He continued: “So I think what COVID has done is simply compressed the timeline of the inevitable, which is a shift toward digital.” 

“Your Home Made Perfect” is currently streaming on Hulu.

 

An eviction and foreclosure crisis is looming

Come autumn 2020, the convergence of disease, death and economic misery across our wounded nation will likely be without living precedent.

And the damage that’s being done and will be done by the time the November general election rolls around will be most keenly felt in the nation’s poorest and least secure neighborhoods.

These are the very places that we have ignored for decades. But in the wake of Black Lives Matter and COVID-19, the corporate news media has finally shown some interest.

While much has been made of the depression-esque spike in unemployment, it needs to be put in economic context. Note that just last year, when the economy was supposedly doing well, 40 percent of Americans said they would not be able to come up with $400 in the event of an emergency, according to the Federal Reserve.

The post-depression economic disaster took a few years to play out after the 1929 crash. This time, it happened in less than two fiscal quarters. It’s the scale and the velocity that’s different this time, with a global pandemic in the mix.

In just a few months, the New York Times reported 5.4 million American workers lost their employer-linked health insurance. When the Kaiser Family Foundation extrapolated the precipitous drop in coverage to include family members, they estimated 27 million Americans had been stripped of their health coverage in the midst of a once-in-a-century pandemic.

Disposession blues

As Salon’s Igor Derysh recently reported, by the end of September more than 20 million Americans —roughly one-in-five of the nation’s 110 million renters — will face eviction.

The closest approximation to our current moment might be the summer into the autumn of 1932, just before Franklin Delano Roosevelt trounced Herbert Hoover in that year’s election. Hoover got only got 59 electoral votes to FDR’s 472.

There’s a striking historical parallel here. Hoover’s complete disconnection from the depression-misery of tens of millions of impoverished Americans is similar to that of the current occupant of the White House and the attitude of the Republican-controlled Senate.

As recounted by Howard Zinn in his book A People’s History of the United States,” four years after the 1929 crash, President Herbert Hoover’s failure to grasp the deterioration in the circumstance of the American people became readily apparent. In 1932, tens of thousands of impoverished World War I veterans converged on Washington D.C. with their families, demanding that Congress redeem their bonus bonds that were years away from maturity.

Nothing left to lose

These unemployed veterans were the 1930s-version of the Occupy Wall Street movement or the Poor People’s Campaign.

As Zinn recounts, they created an extensive makeshift encampment for that Spring and Summer in and around Capital Hill. And while the House of Representatives, controlled by the Democrats, responded by voting for the Wright Patman Bonus bill, the measure was rejected by the Republican-controlled U.S. Senate.

On July 29, 1932, Hoover ordered General Douglas MacArthur to forcibly clear the veteran encampments, which he did with four troops of calvary, a machine gun squadron, and six tanks near the White House. He used tear gas, and the U.S. military also set fire to the encampments.

According to Zinn, two veterans were fatally shot and 1,000 veterans were injured by the deployment of the tear gas.

Add COVID-19 and stir

Here we are, some 88 years later, with so many of our fellow Americans waiting on yet another clueless Republican president and senate to act in the national interest. Yet all they have ever done historically is act in the interest of the nation’s wealthiest and largest corporations.

Across our nation, the COVID-19 body count continues to mount as the Trump administration and GOP governors promote its spread in the delusional belief that letting it “run its course” will confer a herd immunity that will restore our economy.

They are dead wrong on the science, as multiple medical experts have observed and our collective lived experience has demonstrated.

Not only is medical science yet to fully understand this killer virus, but health experts are undercounting the toll it is exacting. In one estimate, CDC reporting is only catching 10 percent of the actual cases.

Back in April, the Financial Times reported that, based on a comparative excess death analysis comparing the death rates of previous years, the world was undercounting the pandemic related deaths by as much as 60 percent.

Moreover, we have no feel for just how many Americans will suffer from life-long disabilities even if they survive a bout with it. This is particularly problematic for the health care workers and first responders we are churning through like cannon fodder — and our nation is not even keeping an accurate casualty list of so we can commemorate their sacrifice.

COVID-19 is far more insidious than has been reported. According to a study in the Annals of Internal Medicine, CT scans of the 76 asymptomatic passengers on the infamous Diamond Princess cruise ship indicated 54 percent of them “showed significant lung abnormalities.”

This could be a slow-moving mass death event for which we have no historical reference.

TV versus reality

So, for the welfare of yourself and your family, don’t let the latest top-of-the-hour COVID-19 stats be your situational awareness guide about just how late it is in the arc of our haughty but clueless republic.

Their advertisers invest in the reassuring tick-tock of you continuing, if you can, to buy the consumer goods that keep late stage vulture capitalism alive.

For millions of Americans their economic dislocation is well underway, and for them Joe Biden’s January swearing in — assuming he wins and gets to be sworn in — will come too late. They will be homeless, in their car, or shacked up with their extended family.

Across the country people are organizing to block the evictions of their friends and neighbors in the here and now. In the midst of a pandemic it’s the only thing we can do to slow the spread — not just of the virus, but the misery it feeds off of.

In recounting one such recent community effort in Brooklyn, the Nation’s Nawal Arjini reminds us that there’s precedent for Americans taking their own fate in their hands by taking collective direct action. 

“During the Great Depression, neighborhood eviction defenses like the one at 1214 Dean Street [Brooklyn] were common and organized. In the century since, blockades have popped up now and then in cities across the country,” writes Arjini. “The Los Angeles Tenants Union reversed a lockout in May. But as the few protections tenants have been granted during the pandemic expire, as many as 28 million renters are at risk of eviction in the next few months.

In this context, the phrase “shelter in place” must be a battle cry that puts capital on notice that, at this perilous juncture, we must uphold the well-being of humanity over the continued enrichment of the few.

We can sort it all out when the plague lifts.

COVID cuts a lethal path through San Quentin’s death row

The old men live in cramped spaces and breathe the same ventilated air. Many are frail, laboring with heart disease, liver and prostate cancer, tuberculosis, dementia. And now, with the coronavirus advancing through their ranks, they are falling one after the next.

This is not a nursing home, not in any traditional sense. It is California’s death row at San Quentin State Prison, north of San Francisco. Its 670 residents are serial killers, child murderers, men who killed for money and drugs, or shot their victims as part of their wasted gangster lives. Some have been there for decades, growing old behind bars. One is 90, and more than 100 are 65 or older.

Executions have been on hold in California since 2006, stalled by a series of legal challenges. And they won’t resume anytime soon: In 2019, two months after taking office, Gov. Gavin Newsom declared a moratorium on executions and ordered that San Quentin’s death chamber be dismantled. But death has come to San Quentin nonetheless.

In recent days, five death row inmates have died after contracting COVID-19. Almost 200 others are thought to be ill with the virus, according to a Newsom administration official not authorized to speak publicly. Scores more are refusing to be tested. For now, there is no clear remedy and no end in sight.

“San Quentin’s staff — especially medical staff — is simply drowning among the chaos,” State Public Defender Mary McComb said in a letter last week to the state Senate Public Safety Committee. “San Quentin desperately needs a significant number of additional personnel, and quickly.”

Correctional officers are working double and even triple shifts. Doctors have been working 12-plus-hour days, seven days a week, for the past six weeks, McComb wrote: “Men (including some who have tested positive) report not having access to doctors, not receiving medication for symptoms such as coughs, and not receiving regular oxygen-level or blood pressure checks.”

San Quentin’s coronavirus outbreak could prove to be the worst at any prison in the nation. It began in mid-June, shortly after the California Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation transferred 121 inmates to San Quentin from the state prison in Chino, east of Los Angeles, in a failed effort to stem an outbreak there. At least 20 of the Chino transfers subsequently tested positive for the disease.

Now, more than 1,400 San Quentin inmates have the virus, or more than a third of the prison’s 4,000 inmates. And death row has been hit particularly hard. Of the six inmate deaths that prison authorities have formally attributed to the coronavirus, three were on death row. Two more death row inmates who died in recent days also tested positive for the virus, though the official cause of death is pending.

San Quentin, which opened in 1852, is renowned for its rehabilitative programs. Most San Quentin inmates are classified as minimum or medium security risks and will be released one day. They take college courses and participate in job-training programs. Some work on the prison’s award-winning podcast and newspaper.

An additional 670 at San Quentin are condemned, and ineligible for release, no matter how old or infirm.

About 500 of them are housed in East Block, a hangar-size structure that is five tiers high. They live one to a cell, 10.5 feet by 4.75 feet. The doors are steel mesh. They cannot help but breathe one another’s air. Sixty-four of the best-behaved inmates are housed on the traditional death row, known as North Seg. There’s a Mickey Mouse clock in the officers’ area emblazoned with the words “The Happiest Place on Earth.” North Seg, East Block and a third unit for condemned inmates, Donner, were built in 1934, 1930 and 1913, none with a pandemic in mind.

COVID-19 has infiltrated 20 of California’s 34 prisons, though it has been especially bad at nine. As of Tuesday, more than 5,300 inmates statewide had tested positive for the virus and 29 had died.

The plague raging inside San Quentin’s walls is spreading into the outside world. Dozens of San Quentin inmates are being treated in community hospitals, including at least 20 death row inmates as of last week. Each is guarded by two correctional officers round-the-clock.

The exact number of death row inmates who have the virus is not known. Complicating matters, about 40% have refused to be tested, McComb and others said. By law, they cannot be compelled to undergo the test unless they are deemed mentally incompetent.

McComb addressed the refusals in her letter, saying some of the condemned inmates worry they will be moved to a segregated unit typically reserved for discipline if they test positive, while others fear the procedure is unsafe.

“And third, a general hopelessness has set in among the population; there is no reason to be tested when medical staff, despite their best efforts, are stretched too thin to respond to those in need of care,” McComb wrote.

One who refused to be tested was Richard Stitely. He was found dead in his cell the night of June 24. The Marin County coroner found he was infected with the coronavirus, though the exact cause of death is still to be determined.

Stitely, 71, was sentenced to death in 1992 for the murder of Carol Unger, a 47-year-old mother. The two had met in a San Fernando Valley bar, and he offered to drive her home. Her body was found in the valley in January 1990.

Andrew R. Flier was a 28-year-old L.A. County deputy district attorney who prosecuted Stitely for the rape and murder of Unger, and for the previous rape of a 16-year-old girl. Now in private practice, Flier said evidence suggested Stitely could have choked Unger for five minutes, first with a cord and then with his hands. He sees Stitely’s apparent death from a disease that deprives victims of their breath as “poetic justice.”

“A terrible disease is infecting our world, and it found someone terrible to infect,” Flier said. “I shed no tears. Evil is evil, and I thought he was evil.”

Over the years, the California Supreme Court had upheld the death sentences of Stitely and the four other condemned inmates who died after contracting the virus. Two of the men had killed children, including a 75-year-old convicted of a 1979 murder. Three of the inmates were in their late 50s.

No matter their crimes, some people say, inmates don’t deserve to die of COVID-19, especially after it likely was introduced by the ill-fated decision to transfer infected inmates from Chino to San Quentin.

“It is the death penalty by other means. It is a miscarriage of justice,” said Assembly member Marc Levine, a Democrat whose district includes San Quentin.

In a hearing last week, U.S. District Court Judge Jon S. Tigar in San Francisco, presiding over a long-running suit challenging California prison conditions, urged the state to release elderly and infirm inmates who pose no public safety threat — and are not on death row — to free up cells so infected prisoners could be isolated and the COVID-19 spread slowed.

“These releases need to happen immediately. There simply is no time to wait,” Tigar said, directing his comments at Newsom.

On Monday, Newsom said San Quentin’s population would be reduced to about 3,000 in coming weeks. “We’ve been working on this every single day for the last three weeks,” he said.

Corrections spokesperson Terry Thornton said the department has installed six tents to treat San Quentin inmates and “is working closely with health care and public health experts on all isolation and quarantine protocols recommended by the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention to address COVID-19 in correctional settings.”

While the virus infects death row, California’s capital punishment law is in a state of limbo. With executions on hold, Levine last year introduced legislation to place a measure on the statewide ballot to abolish capital punishment. That measure has stalled.

Last month, the California Supreme Court indicated it is weighing the legality of one aspect of the state’s death penalty statute: Must jurors agree on aggravating factors that led them to recommend death? As it is, jurors need not be unanimous.

The justices posed the question based on a single case involving a 2004 killing, though a decision could set a precedent that would affect the sentences of scores of condemned inmates. Any decision is likely months away, presumably after the COVID-19 rampage has run its course on San Quentin’s death row.

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.

Top US airlines plan to cut thousands of workers when CARES Act ban on layoffs expires

Leading US airlines are warning workers of massive cuts when a provision in the federal airlines bailout prohibiting layoffs expires in September.

Congress approved a $25 billion bailout fund for hard-hit airlines earlier this year as part of the $2.2 trillion CARES Act package in response to the coronavirus pandemic. Under the deal, airlines that accepted federal grants agreed not to lay off or furlough workers or cut pay until September 30. But the country’s top airlines are already itching to make major cuts when the ban is lifted.

There is no doubt airlines have been among the hardest hit by the economic shock of the pandemic. The number of people passing through Transportation Security Administration checkpoints was down 73% from last year in the first two weeks of June. The International Air Transport Association estimated last month that airlines around the world would lose $84 billion this year and see a 50% drop in revenue.

American Airlines, which took about $4.1 billion in grants and nearly $6 billion in loans from the government, warned staff in a memo that about 25,000 frontline employees, or about 29% of its US workforce, could be laid off or furloughed in October, CNBC reported. That includes nearly 10,000 flight attendants, 2,500 pilots, and 7,700 maintenance workers.

Airlines are required to inform employees of mass layoffs 60 to 90 days ahead of time.

CEO Doug Parker and President Robert Isom told employees that June revenue was down more than 80% from last year and, due to rising infections across the country, “demand for air travel is slowing again.”

The memo urged workers to take extended leaves, which can stretch up to two years, or accept early retirement packages in order to reduce the number of layoffs.

“From the time the CARES Act was signed in March, we had a stated goal of avoiding furloughs because we believed demand for air travel would steadily rebound by Oct. 1 as the impact of COVID-19 dissipated,” the memo said, according to the Dallas Morning News. “That unfortunately has not been the case.”

The company has already cut its management and support staff by about 5,000 workers through a “mix of involuntary and voluntary layoffs,” the outlet reported.

The two American Airlines executives said they support a union-led effort to lobby Congress to extend relief and the layoff ban through March 2021 because of the “much longer impact of the pandemic than was anticipated when the CARES Act was enacted.”

“We are hopeful that we can mitigate the overages and avoid involuntary Flight Attendant furloughs,” said Julie Hedrick, the president of the Association of Professional Flight Attendants. “In partnership with other labor Unions, we are calling on Congress and the current administration to extend the Payroll Support Program (PSP) within the CARES Act to help keep aviation front-line workers connected to their pay and benefits as we deal with reduced demand as a result of the pandemic.”

That effort could help tens of thousands of worker at other airlines.

United Airlines warned 36,000 frontline workers, or about 38% of its workforce, of potential layoffs and furloughs earlier this month. That includes about 15,000 flight attendants, 2,250 pilots, 11,000 customer service and gate agents, and more than 5,000 maintenance workers.

The airline said the number of workers ultimately affected by the cuts would depend on how many agree to take voluntary leave or buyout packages.

The airline said in a Securities and Exchange Commission filing that it expected August demand to drop about 65% from last year “resulting from reduced demand to destinations experiencing increases in COVID-19 cases and/or new quarantine requirements or other restrictions on travel.”

The airline announced on Friday that it reached a deal with a union representing its 13,000 pilots that could reduce the number of involuntary layoffs. The deal includes early retirement packages for older pilots, voluntary furlough offers that will allow workers to keep health insurance, and arrangements that allow pilots to fly a reduced number of hours, CNN reported.

The airline said it hopes to reach a similar deal with unions representing its other workers.

“We’ll be taking time in the months ahead to work with our union partners on creative ideas that would involve reduced hours and leaves of absences instead of furloughs,” said United CEO Scott Kirby. “I recognize that even though those options are difficult and will need to be widely shared by everyone here at United, it would save jobs, and most importantly, it would allow us to bounce back quickly, which is the best way to ensure everyone’s jobs and stability for our company for years into the future.”

Delta Airlines has stated that it wants to avoid layoffs but says it is still overstaffed, even after 17,000 employees agreed to take voluntary buyouts and early retirements. About 45,000 of the company’s 90,000 employees have also taken voluntary unpaid leaves, according to the Atlanta Journal-Constitution, and as many as 35,000 of those are still on leave.

“We will continue to need more volunteers to take leaves for the upcoming fall months,” CEO Ed Bastian said in a memo to staff. “These monthly leaves will continue to be critical to reducing the risk of involuntary furloughs.”

Delta posted a $5.7 billion loss between April and June, its biggest since the Great Recession. Its June revenue was down 88% from last year. The airline projects to earn less than a quarter of last year’s $12.5 billion haul in the third quarter of this year.

“Demand has stalled as the virus has grown, particularly down here in the South, across the Sun Belt, coupled with the quarantine measures that are going in place in many of the Northern states,” Bastian told CNBC. “Those two factors are causing consumers to pause.”

Southwest Airlines has yet to warn employees about potential layoffs, but CEO Gary Kelly told employees in a memo obtained by Reuters that it would take a massive improvement to avoid mass cuts. Kelly said the airline would have to triple its number of passengers by the end of the year to avoid staff reductions.

“Although furloughs and layoffs remain our very last resort, we can’t rule them out as a possibility obviously in this very bad environment,” he said in the memo, adding that spikes across the country “aren’t positive developments for our business, and we are concerned about the impact on already weak travel demand.”

JetBlue has also not sent warnings to employees but is working to reach a deal for thousands of workers to accept voluntary leave or buyouts, according to a memo obtained by Bloomberg News. The company also reached an agreement with its pilot union to avoid any involuntary furloughs until May 2021, CNBC reported.

Airline unions have asked Congress to provide another $32 billion to stave off the cuts and keep workers on the employed through next spring. The unions recently gained an ally in Rep. Peter DeFazio, D-Ore., the chairman of the House Transportation and Infrastructure Committee, who urged his colleagues to respond to the ongoing economic crisis.

“When we passed the CARES Act in March, there was an expectation that we would see a significant recovery in U.S. aviation by the fall,” he said in a letter to fellow lawmakers. “This is no longer the case. With the current resurgence of COVID-19 in several States across the country and a vaccine for the virus yet to be developed, passenger demand for air travel will not recover before the PSP (Payroll Support Program) expires on September 30. And without an extension of the PSP before then, hundreds of thousands of airline workers may be fired or furloughed starting October 1. We must extend the PSP as soon as possible.”

But while other aid efforts by Democrats have been met with opposition from Republicans, it may be the airlines themselves that foil any talk of an extension. Airlines for America, a trade group representing major US airlines, said that carriers would only accept more bailouts, but not any restrictions.

“If Congress opts to enact the labor-requested proposal,” a spokesperson told Reuters, “we would support our workforce’s decision to pursue a simple and clean extension of the grants as long as no additional or extraneous conditions are required.”

MSNBC’s Zerlina Maxwell on “The End of White Politics”

Zerlina Maxwell wants “white politics” to be a thing of the past. Before some people get upset by that, Maxwell doesn’t mean that white people won’t be elected to high office in the future. As Maxwell explains in her new book, “The End of White Politics,” it simply means with our nation’s changing demographics, politics will increasingly reflect what America looks like today—not the 1950s.

Maxwell, an MSNBC political analyst and SiriusXM radio host, explained during her recent appearance on “Salon Talks” that some on the right will be triggered by the idea that she’s cheering for white politics to end, but that is the reality of where our nation is heading. As she notes, in the 2020 election, only 55 percent of Generation Z voters, while voters of the baby boom generation are nearly 75 percent white. With each year going forward, there will be an increasing share of non-white voters in our electorate.

In our conversation, Maxwell pushed back on the notion that Democrats should be chasing the mythical white working-class voters at the expense of voters of color—rejecting the negative implication of “identity politics” spewed by the right. Rather, she urges Democrats to address the nuanced issues of concern to each community of color by understanding their lived experiences. This doesn’t mean ignoring white voters, but Maxwell made it clear that minority communities cannot ignore their own oppression in order to make it more comfortable for white Americans to engage.

Maxwell was a Hillary Clinton 2016 campaign staffer and points out that Trump has made white identity politics his exclusive focus for 2020, from addressing — or inflaming — white grievances to defending the racist status quo on everything from policing to Confederate memorial statues. America is changing, even though Trump and others like him are not. They want America to return to a time where white politics ruled the day without challenge.

Watch my “Salon Talks” episode with Maxwell here, or read a transcript of our chat below to hear more about her take on Joe Biden’s 2020 strategy with Black voters and why she thinks picking a Black woman as his running mate could help him win. As usual, this interview has been lightly edited for clarity and length.

The title of your book, “The End of White Politics” is aspirational, as you write in the book. What is white politics, so people understand what you mean by that?

Politics.

White politics is politics? That’s it?

I think what I’m trying to say is that we’ve been doing identity politics. So post 2016, let’s go back a bit. In 2016, there was a lot of focus on systemic racism, on gender because you had Hillary Clinton as the first woman nominee. You also were coming on the heels of the first Black president, Barack Obama. So, there was a lot of people who thought that Trump’s win was because identity politics is bad, and somehow it alienated white voters in the Midwest who flipped from Obama to Donald Trump. My thesis is that that’s wrong, and that we essentially have been doing identity politics the entire time America has been around.

Donald Trump won on identity politics, but what we left off was the word white. So, when I’m saying the end of white politics, what I’m saying is, the future shows us the demographics are shifting towards a majority country that is not white. Our politics need to reflect that. White politics are essentially politics, right? The way we’ve been doing it up to this point. What I’m saying is that, let’s do away with that and actually do an inclusive form of identity-based politics where everyone’s identities and the intersections of those identities are considered as we make policy. That’s where I think the disconnect is as we head into the future. That’s really because for the most part, we’ve only had white male leadership.

When white supremacy in any form is challenged in this country, it fights back. It doesn’t take a change to its power structure very easily. It even uses violence. How do you expect the conservative white world to respond? Is it worse than what we’re seeing with Donald Trump going forward as they get the sense of a demographic threat?

Well, I have two fears. One is more of a present fear, and the other is more of a hypothetical future possibility that I hope doesn’t happen. The first is that we need to focus on mail-in and voting access. Everyone needs to make sure that their congressperson is supporting the bill that includes the funding to go to scaling up the mail-in voting infrastructure on the state level so that everybody can do that in November.

The other piece of it that I’m a little bit nervous about, and I don’t know if this is going to happen, but certainly when you see the president retweeting things where people are saying, “white power,” or you see him retweeting things where white people in St. Louis are pointing guns at protesters, one of the other things that I’m afraid of is a backlash where there’s violence as the result of Black and brown people trying to assert their rights.

And so, on the one hand, we have to focus on the fact that Republicans are aware of the data. That’s why they’re trying to suppress our votes. They know the numbers are not on their side, and so what we need to do is understand the numbers are on our side if everyone’s able to access the ballot. The flip side of that is being very vigilant to ensure that that minority of people who hold these views, and really represent what I think is the past, aren’t able to inflict harm and commit acts of violence against communities of color because they are the ones that really like their guns.

In every presidential year, going back at least two or three decades, there’s been spikes of hate crimes around elections. With Trump in 2016, we saw more. In your book, you really don’t like incremental change. You’re actually advocating for more transformative change. I’m on board with that, but do you see positive sides in incremental change? I’m talking about AOC winning, or Jamaal Bowman, who will now be the Democratic nominee in an adjoining district, where he defeated Congressman Eliot Engel. There might be one or two other upsets out there, but even in the places where there wasn’t a victory, the gap was so small. Is that incremental change positive for you?

What I really think of incremental is when you propose moderate policy positions because you don’t want to offend white moderate voters that you mythically believe are the swing voter in elections, right? AOC and Jamaal Bowman actually represent transformative change. It’s incredibly important, not just to have inclusion in terms of representation, because I don’t think of diversity as a pretty picture. It’s nice to see all the diversity in the Democratic Caucus on State of the Union night when they’re all in white, and you see the other side is just navy and black suits of white men. And you realize that the Democratic Party represents really what America looks like. You want people in Congress who look like the American population—that’s how this works. I mean, that’s the only way this is going to work going forward. I think what we’ve done too often is gone with the leadership that we’re used to seeing, aka white men.

When I’m criticizing incremental change, what I’m saying is that you can be bold in your vision for the future and put out proposals that actually talk about big structural changes. And then, when you go in the room to negotiate that bill in Congress, I can trust you and the value set that you have. I’m not opposed to Obamacare just because it wasn’t the whole enchilada. I was one of the biggest supporters of Obamacare because, at the time, I did not have health insurance and I wanted to get it. It meant the difference between going to the doctor and not. So incremental change can be very transformational in a person’s life, but you still should push for a vision that’s bolder.

You mentioned diversity. In your book, you write about representation and the idea of having diverse voices at the table. In fact, you were one of the instrumental people in me getting my show at SiriusXM Radio because there was no Muslim Arab-American voice there. So, I really appreciate it. For you, it’s not just talk. You’ve committed in actions. Now, the flip side is, Donald Trump is so committed to stopping this.

He doesn’t have anything else to run on. He can only run on the racism. Because I think one of the epiphanies I’ve had in quarantine, is that the impact of Donald Trump’s presidency, it wasn’t felt equally throughout the American populace. He can only run on the racism, right? I mean, he can’t show that he has demonstrated what competent leadership looks like in a crisis. He can’t even show anymore that he has a successful economy because of the current state of the economy. That was really the only thing he had before. So, now he only has the racism. He is betting on the fact that he can suppress Black and brown votes and get enough of his hardcore base out to the polls in November. That’s how he wins.

He’ll thread the needle, in his view, and then he’s hoping that other countries like they did in 2016 interfere in some way, hopefully to his benefit. I mean, I guess in his calculation, he’s hoping it’s to his benefit. I think there are more of us, and I think we’re showing that each and every election, each and every special election. Every single time we see Democrats winning where they’ve never won before, where they haven’t won in 30 years, it’s important to note that that’s a seat change.

Additionally, you see turnout up in all of these elections, historic turnout. So, when you look at a race like the Stacey Abrams race in Georgia, we talk about the fact that the race was stolen from her. What we don’t talk about is that she tripled Latino turnout. She tripled AAPI turnout. She went to rural communities and spoke to those voters in addition to Black voters. And so, she created the coalition that I’m talking about, which is the new Obama coalition of the future, where you add on these suburban white women who are turned off by the president’s rhetoric and his tweets, and certainly probably his conduct during the pandemic, and you have a winning coalition for the future. And so, that only leaves a minority of people. And again, what I’m saying is that white people will be a minority. I’m just going to let that sit.

How do you define white privilege?

I think a really simple way I like to define it for college students when I’m talking about rape culture and male privilege, or white students when I’m talking about white privilege is, it’s the thing you don’t have to think about, like the things you don’t have to think about to keep yourself safe, to keep yourself from being accused of something, to keep yourself from being accosted by a police officer. It’s the things you don’t have to think about. For example, most white people do not have to talk to their kids about how to engage in interactions with the police for fear that their children will be murdered by the police.

And, this is an important point, no one gets in trouble. I think people forget that when we’re talking about police killings and we’re talking about the need for systemic changes, it’s not just the fact that the police department has a culture where they killed just as many Black people last year when we were not in quarantine as they did this year while we were all in quarantine. A culture like that isn’t one that is going particularly well and certainly is in need of reform. But additionally, it’s not just the killing itself. It’s the lack of accountability. It’s the demand that there be equal justice under the law and that promise not being kept every single time a person is killed by the police or vigilante and no one gets in trouble. That’s the second piece I think we leave off too often.

When I’m talking about privilege, it’s the thing you don’t have to think about. If you’re a white person, you probably never had to think about the fact that somebody would mistake you for a burglar and shoot you in broad daylight like they did Ahmaud Arbery in Georgia. You don’t think that when you’re walking from the convenience store with a Skittles and an iced tea that some adult named George Zimmerman with a gun will accost you and shoot you dead, and then be acquitted for that crime after they demonized you as a thug, when you were only 17 and your name was Trayvon Martin.

I just think that the way that we think about these issues needs to change, and part of that is recognizing the things you don’t have to think about, the things you don’t have to think about in terms of your identity that could put you in danger and in the line of harm, particularly by this administration.

I find that when conversations of white privilege come up, white people tend to get very, even some liberal ones. Conservatives respond to it differently. But even liberals will be like, “Where’s my privilege? I don’t get… My life is hard. I work really hard.” Why is it that there are certain white people who view the evening of the playing field, and even equality, as some kind of a threat to them?

One of the things I think some white people don’t want to admit is that there are benefits that they have that they didn’t earn. We don’t live in a meritocracy. If we did, things would look very different. I think that it’s hard to admit that the success or the safety and security that you have in your life is not the result of only your hard work and sacrifice; that it could be a part of your identity. It could be a part of the historic challenges and legal obstacles put into place by people who don’t look like you. So, for example, how are you going to sit there and say, “Well, Black people aren’t working hard enough to be able to have the American dream of homeownership,” when you don’t know anything about red-lining and the fact that Black people were systemically kept out of certain neighborhoods and blocked out of those same home loans that your grandparents got to live in their first home, and then gave you half of your first down payment so that you could afford a home? Those are the things that I think people don’t think about.

The reason why they’re defensive is because admitting it is actually admitting that you’re getting an advantage. People really want to believe that everything that they have in life is the result of just their hard work and their grit. I think that the more white people, instead of hearing someone call out their privilege and then the white person hearing, “You’re calling me a racist,” I need them to just pause before responding and think about perhaps, “Is there something that I have a blind spot for? Is there an area where I may not understand a certain experience because I never lived it?”

Too often, all of our media, all of our popular culture, is written and shot and created through the lens of a white man. Even when you’re consuming movies and TV, it’s important to think about, who are the writers that created this, and what could they be saying about these experiences that I’m seeing on this screen, particularly if there’s nobody in the room that created it that has lived that experience? I think when we’re talking in this moment about the need for cop dramas and TV reality shows featuring police officers to really rethink all of those things, and we’re renaming products because we realize… Well, we didn’t realize it. We knew Aunt Jemima was racist. I’m sure that person had the press release sitting in the drawer. But I think when we’re changing these smaller things, it’s important to always look towards the bigger systemic things, but the small things matter too. Because I think for too long, white people have sort of been the default identity. Remember the debate over Santa Claus being white?

Yes.

Jesus must be white, even though if you read the Bible… just saying. I think for too often, white people have enjoyed sort of the default identity being the one that matters, the one that’s considered seriously, the one that’s allowed nuance. And I think that it’s time for us to break that mold because other people deserve to be represented, other people’s interests deserve to be represented, and if we center the most marginalized, that benefits the white people, too. And I need them to see that.

Let’s talk about the 2020 race specifically. It’s wasn’t a slam of Joe Biden, but in your book you call for him to reckon with support of the crime bill and some of the language he’s used in the past. Do you think he’s done that yet?

No, not to my satisfaction. I do think he has an opportunity in this moment to really listen to community and grassroots organizers on the ground. I mean, Black Lives Matter has a huge moment right now, and they want to turn that into policy. I’m certain the campaign has been connected with many of those activists and will continue to meet with them so that they can inform their policy proposals as we head into the convention, and then through the debates. They’re definitely signaling the right thing, but I do think there’s a lot of reckoning that has to happen before November in terms of his support for the 1994 crime bill. Because anybody who has watched “13th” and read “The New Jim Crow,” which is pretty much every white American this week, because they got their book list and their TV watch lists. Every single streaming service has their list of Black films to help people get educated.

I feel like this is a moment where even white voters have the education that Black and brown voters, and certainly millennials and Gen Zs, had because of that education around criminal justice and the need for certain systemic reform. I think his electorate is now educated on the issue and the harmful consequences of the crime bill, and I say that as somebody who worked for Hillary Clinton, who, while she did not pass or sign the crime bill, just like to remind everyone of that, had been vocally supportive of the crime bill and was sort of tarred with having said, “super-predator,” even though that was in 1996, two years after the crime bill was passed, which is just sort of the current timeline on that. But it was all conflated. And I think even though she hired someone like Maya Harris out of the ACLU and a civil rights activist who is also Kamala Harris’s sister, and was the chair of her campaign.

Hillary hired her because of her expertise in criminal justice reform and policy, with an eye on making those reforms. Who is the person in Joe Biden’s ear that is ensuring that he’s saying the right things on these issues? And it really should be one of these grassroots leaders, or maybe a particular collection of them, so that as we go throughout the campaign, he can appropriately respond. Because, the police are probably going to brutalize somebody else next week. That was one of the things that happened on the 2016 campaign is that it wasn’t just Alton Sterling or Philando Castile. It just kept happening. And so, it’s important for Joe Biden to always be checking in with these grassroots leaders and movement leaders so that he can continually say the right things and reckon with the past, because that is the only way we can move forward.

The demographic group that’s been the most supportive of Democrats has been black women. It’s something you alerted me to years ago, and then I did research. I didn’t know that. In your book, you talk about it. And since then, I’ve talked about it on my show numerous times. Are Black women also the most taken for granted by the Democratic Party

Black women are the most taken for granted by society writ large, okay? Unfortunately, Black women often are the canary in the coal mine. I mean, you know me, right? You know that I have been, since day one of the Trump administration, basically being like, “We are all going to die pretty soon, any second. I hope everybody’s doing the fun things that they’ve always wanted to do because at any moment, it could be…” I mean, we’ve just been in danger for this long. And I think living in a Black woman’s body… And it’s not the only identity where you’re so vulnerable in this white supremacist society that you have almost like an innate feeling of danger and something sort of being an existential threat.

I think that Black women not only are loyal voters, but we understand that voting is a matter of survival. Literally, our survival depends upon our participation in a system that puts us at the bottom, often. Not the bottom, but amongst other groups that are at the bottom, depending upon the intersections of those identities. Because certainly, I am more privileged than many. But I think we are loyal voters. We’re finally stepping up into positions of leadership. I love… I mean, I can’t say enough about Congresswoman Ayanna Pressley, Congresswoman Ilhan Omar, Congresswoman Lauren Underwood of Illinois, who represents a very moderate district. She’s the first… youngest black woman ever elected to Congress. Those are the leaders of the future. As I like to say, the future of the Democratic Party looks like The Squad, and the people who win elections look like me.

Whatever we’re trying to build towards the future, we have to keep that in mind, that we’re the base, and that working-class voter in the Midwest, that’s 77,000 votes. I mean, forget about that. There were a million Black people who stayed home. And so, those people, one, need to be spoken to, need to be invested in, need to be communicated directly to, and we need to be not taken for granted going forward, because once you’re in power, you better have the round table just like you did during the campaign when you’re in the White House.

With the debate over Joe Biden’s VP pick, there are polls that show Black voters are split: some for Kamala Harris, some for Stacey Abrams, some for Elizabeth Warren. In your view, is it significant to pick someone of color, or is it objectively, politically, whoever helps them win, that’s all that matters?

Look, I want him to win, of course. But I do think that picking a Black woman would help him win. So, one of the things that Jess McIntosh, my Signal Boost co-host, says is that when we had historic turnout, we had history-making candidates on the ticket. It’s not that Hillary Clinton wasn’t history-making. People forget that she still got more votes. We forget that because she lost the Electoral College. So, when you want to make history, you better put people on the ticket who are making history and then can garner enthusiasm in the specific groups that you want to turn out. So, it would be very great not just to pick a black woman because it would make for a history-making candidacy that could generate that enthusiasm. But Joe Biden needs a black woman to be in that senior circle on the campaign as they go throughout the rest of these five months so that he can make sure that he’s staying held accountable and staying grounded in terms of how he talks about all these issues. If you have a black woman at your side, she’s going to tell you the truth.

Right.

They’re not going to sugarcoat it. They’re going to be direct. I mean, one of my mottos in life, honestly, is to be clear, calm, and direct. I rarely ever meet a Black woman who is not direct. It’s just a function of sort of how you have to move throughout the world in certain circumstances. And so, I think somebody who gets the level of being picked as vice president will not be shy in expressing her opinion to Joe Biden if he says or does something not great, but she’ll do so with that moral compass and that moral center that I think Black women, and particularly Black women leaders, always take with them as they go into public service. I think he needs a Black woman to win. It’s not just nice to have because we need diversity.