Datasets:

happybusinessperson

/

leftarticles

like 0

Despite both secretly receiving their COVID-19 vaccinations last month, former President Donald Trump and former first lady Melania Trump were curiously absent from a new public service campaign released on Thursday featuring every living former president and first lady. In a commercial called "It's Up to You," every living president and first lady encourages the American public to get the COVID-19 vaccine as soon as they can. Advertisement: Featured in the video are Presidents Jimmy Carter, Bill Clinton, George W. Bush, Barack Obama, and former first ladies Rosalynn Carter, Hillary Clinton, Laura Bush and Michelle Obama, all underscoring the immense importance of getting vaccinated as the current administration steers the country out of the pandemic. "We urge you to get vaccinated when it's available to you," Obama says in one of the two ad spots, while Bush tells Americans to "roll up your sleeve and do your part." "This is our shot," says Bill Clinton, an admittedly lackluster pun. "They could save your life." Advertisement: "I'm getting vaccinated because we want this pandemic to end as soon as possible," Mr. Carter added, though he does not appear in the video. The ad campaign was put together by the Ad Council and COVID Collaborative as part of their Covid-19 Vaccine Education Initiative and began production back in December. Absent from the ad, however, was former President Donald Trump and former first lady Melania Trump. Although the Trumps reportedly received a COVID-19 vaccine in January, they did not make their vaccinations public until weeks after leaving the White House. The PSA is not the first time the Trumps have forgone traditional gestures of bipartisanship post-presidency. Advertisement: Back in January, as a part of President Joe Biden's inaugural proceedings, Obama, Bush, and Clinton released a video welcoming Biden to the Oval Office and encouraging bi-partisanship. The three men also attended Biden's inauguration ceremony. Donald and Melania Trump, however, did not partake in either event. Biden has called Trump's vaccine rollout –– which failed to deliver on its goal of administering 20 million vaccinations by 2021 –– a "dismal failure." Under President Biden, the pace of vaccinations has increased significantly, and the administration appears to be on track to meet his 100-day goal. Although distribution has been rolling out for months now, reticence and uncertainty about the efficacy and safety of the vaccine still linger within the American public. Surveys show that 60 percent of the American public is willing to get the vaccine, a number that President Biden expects to rise as he ramps up his goal to get 100 million American vaccinated in the first 100 days of his term. Advertisement: Days before Biden took office, White House press secretary Jen Psaki tweeted that the new administration would be "phasing in a new structure" for Operation Warp Speed, "which will have a different name than OWS. Many of the public servants will be essential to our response, but urgent need to address failures of the Trump team approach to vaccine distribution."

Citation From the February 25, 2021, edition of Fox News' The Ingraham Angle LAURA INGRAHAM (HOST): Is it just that they’re bad messengers or is there something else going on here with Collins on the issue of the masks and the vaccines? DR. HARVEY RISCH (GUEST): Honestly, I don’t know how he could say the masks are a lifesaving measure when there’s no evidence to suggest that. Whether there’s benefit or not scientists argue about, that’s fine. But to call them a lifesaving measure is totally beyond the pale of anything that is scientific and knowable. I think they’re selling vaccines basically. INGRAHAM: Well, so you’re saying that the push here is to -- and you can pick this up, Paul, Dr. Alexander -- this is about pushing more vaccines, like more booster shots even after you get the vaccines, you might have to keep getting boosters every year like, you know, like other things like the flu?

Fox News personality Tucker Carlson, who network attorneys recently convinced a federal judge is not expected to make factual claims, told his viewers to be "nervous" that the new coronavirus vaccine was a form of social control and dismissed efforts to promote the long-awaited drug as "false" and "too slick." Carlson, who broadcasts his top-rated program from a garage in Maine while Fox News keeps on-air talent out of studio, compared the "glitzy" media coverage of the first inoculations to "a corporate image campaign" for "Hollywood blockbusters or the new iPhone." Advertisement: "Suddenly the COVID vaccine is on the morning shows, it's being touted on celebrity Twitter accounts, and the news about it is uniformly glowing," he said, adding derisively: "This stuff is just great. A lot of famous people say so. Just the other day, the guy who played Gandalf in The Lord of the Rings series got the vaccine. As on any media tour, the paparazzi were there for the dramatic moment when they stuck the needle in his arm." Carlson contrasted the enthusiasm to news that a health care worker in Alaska recently endured a severe allergic reaction to Pfizer's vaccine, casting an Orwellian shadow over the reports. "It was all a fantastic experience, according to doctors who treated her," Carlson said before quoting one of the woman's doctors from a CNN article: "'During the whole time, she was still enthusiastic she got the vaccine and the benefits it would give her in the future.'" Advertisement: "What a cheerful patient she must be," Carlson scoffed, before turning conspiratorial. "We've got to assume she is, in any case, because we can't really know. The authorities did not release her name. All we know is she is a highly satisfied customer. Yet another." "Have a vaccine and a smile," he added. "Just do it!" Carlson, speaking as health officials reported the most deadly day of the pandemic in the U.S., told viewers that they should be "nervous" about the vaccine because these promotional efforts were "false." Advertisement: "So, how are the rest of us supposed to respond to a marketing campaign like this? Well, nervously," he said. "Even if you are strongly supportive of vaccines, and we are, even if you recognize how many millions of lives have been saved over the past 50 years by vaccine, and we do, it all seems a bit much, it feels false, because it is, it's too slick." The heir to the Swanson's frozen dinner empire demanded that public figures "stop with the slogans," before comparing the vaccine to abortions. Advertisement: "In this country, we control our own bodies. They're always telling us that. But no. Suddenly, the rules have changed," he said. "On the question of the corona vaccine, our leaders are definitely not pro-choice. Their view is do what you're told, and don't complain, and no uncomfortable questions. Those aren't just suggestions, they're rules and Silicon Valley claims to enforce them." Carlson then turned to complain about Twitter and allege that the government would use the vaccine as a form of social control. "Among other things, Twitter is censoring any claim that this vaccine might be used to quote, 'control populations.' So, whatever you do, don't say this is social control, because if you do, the richest and most powerful people in the world will act in perfect coordination to shut you down immediately," he said. Advertisement: "So, to repeat, there is no social control going on here — none. And if you suggest otherwise, Twitter's social controls will censor you," the host groused. From there, Carlson leapt to accuse Bill and Melinda Gates, who for months have been implicated in baseless conspiracy theories about vaccines. "Why is she weighing in on an international health emergency?" Carlson wondered about Gates, who leads the world's largest private charity organization. Advertisement: "Melinda Gates is married to a billionaire," Carlson explained, adding that "in 2020 that's enough to give you control over an entire country." "So [Melinda Gates] is demanding the tech companies censor anyone who contradicts the official storyline on the COVID vaccine, and she is getting her wish," he said. "None of this inspires confidence. Censorship will not convince a single person to take the coronavirus vaccine. In fact, it will have the opposite effect." The day before Carlson's rant, Fox News owner Rupert Murdoch, 89, received the COVID-19 vaccine in England after being notified he was eligible. Watch Carlson's segment at Media Matters.

The Biden Administration announced this month that every adult who wants to be vaccinated against COVID-19 will be able to do so by the end of May. With millions of Americans already receiving the vaccine each day and case numbers plummeting across the country, there is increasing optimism about the economy reaching its pre-pandemic peak even before the summer ends. Public-health officials, as well as members of the Biden Administration, have expressed serious concern about states such as Texas and Mississippi ending mask mandates and other restrictions too soon. At the same time, the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention had been criticized for not clearly explaining to Americans which activities they can do once they have been vaccinated. On Monday, the agency released new guidelines, saying that fully vaccinated people could visit one another indoors in small groups without masks or distancing, while still calling for mask-wearing and distancing in public settings. I recently spoke, by phone, with Dr. Ashish K. Jha, the dean of the School of Public Health at Brown University, and one of the country’s leading experts on the coronavirus. During our conversation, which has been edited for length and clarity, we discussed which restrictions should remain in place, how often to wear a mask once you have been vaccinated, and whether public-health officials should do a better job of talking up the vaccines. What should be the message to states contemplating lifting, or already in the process of lifting, restrictions or mask mandates? I think the short message is don’t do it. And that’s for two reasons. One is that there are still a lot of very vulnerable people who have not got their vaccine but will in the next four to six weeks. And this is, in part, about how good the states are at getting people vaccinated, so that’s a bit on them. The second is that the variant B.1.1.7, originally from the United Kingdom, the one I am most worried about, is going to become dominant in the next two or three weeks, and every place it has become dominant it has caused a spike in cases. So we aren’t talking about extended restrictions here. You really can start relaxing some public-health restrictions, but more in mid-April onward, once we have the vulnerable people covered. Doing it now risks a lot of people getting infected and dying unnecessarily, when we are this close to the end. Is there a contradiction there? Why would we assume that the rates won’t continue spiking? Should we be less confident that we are near the end? Let me lay out the scenarios. You have people who say the next fourteen weeks are going to be the worst of the pandemic. There is a viewpoint out there that says every time you saw B.1.1.7 become the dominant strain, you saw not a twenty-per-cent increase in cases but a three- or four-hundred-per-cent increase. So if that happens off a base of sixty thousand or seventy thousand cases a day, we are looking at several hundred thousand a day, which of course is horrible and may surpass our worst days. So that’s the concern a lot of public-health people bring up. I think that is unlikely. I think you could see a bump, but I think that it will be much smaller, for two reasons. One is that we have a lot more population immunity and we are vaccinating people. And, second, seasonality. These spikes largely happened in countries during the holiday season. But even now, in Europe, in some countries, you are starting to see B.1.1.7 take off, and starting to see a real bump in cases. So that’s the concern. So now the contradiction: Why am I so confident about middle to late April? I feel comfortable that we will not see a massive spike but, rather, a small-to-medium spike, because we keep vaccinating, vaccinating, vaccinating. And, by mid-April, we should have vaccinated all the high-risk people—we should see hospitalizations plummeting, even if case numbers are somewhat high—and the most vulnerable people will be covered, so we should not see large numbers of infections by then. Some experts think I am being too optimistic. So what I am saying to the governors is “How lucky do you feel?” The nice part of waiting a few more weeks is we will get a sense of how this is likely to play out. What restrictions are you most worried about lifting? I think we have very good evidence that bars and night clubs are major sources of spread. Restaurants, too, if they are at full capacity. At very low capacity, they can be O.K. Mask mandates are interesting. I think there is reasonably good data that, when you have a mask mandate and require masks when people go inside retail stores, that can make a big difference. Does that mean you should get rid of the outdoor mask mandate? That mandate probably is less important. But I do believe that indoor gatherings where people are going to be maskless are really risky. Why should there be outdoor mask mandates? States have put them in because what they have seen is that large numbers of people will gather outdoors and not wear masks. I have never thought this was a particularly important public-health measure. If I had to peel off one, I would peel off outdoor mask mandates. We just don’t think there is a lot of spread in outdoor gatherings. But there is some data, like at some of the Trump rallies, that, when large numbers of people are gathered in tight quarters and are stationary for many hours, it probably can spread. So I think a lot of governors have thought that they will just put in an outdoor mask mandate. I think that’s fine, but understand: every night, around ten o’clock, I take my dog out for one more walk, and I put on a mask. Do I need to put on a mask at that hour? No. But I do, because we have a mask mandate and I believe in it, so I support it. But there are things we do publicly that probably don’t make a big difference. When restrictions get lifted and cases go up, do you think that is happening because people are going to bars and restaurants and engaging in specific public activities that have just been allowed? Or is your perception that the rise occurs because, when restrictions are lifted, people engage in riskier private behavior, like going to see their parents unmasked indoors? I think it’s both. We don’t have great contact-tracing data, but we have some from over the summer, et cetera. It is hard to sort out because, when people do this contact tracing, you see things like five people gathering at a restaurant, and they have dinner, and one of them picks it up, and then they are home, and they think that, if they can go to a restaurant with friends, sure, they can have people over. I think, in general, it is much more the signalling that things are safe than the activities themselves. But bars are particularly dangerous. I feel that we should not have them open until we are in a very different place. I’m in California, and some of the restrictions strike people as silly. In certain parts of the state, you weren’t supposed to even go on socially distanced walks with people outside of your pod, for example—and then, at other times, people have said that outdoor dining is risky. That makes sense if you assume that, as you are saying, when more things are allowed behavior generally gets worse. But, at another level, silly restrictions could destroy trust. People are told being outside is safe, and then outdoor things are banned. What do you think about this problem? Let me say what I think, and then let me say how these conversations have gone with policymakers. I believe we should have done a much better job, and still need to do a better job, with nuance in our policy. The idea that you would say to someone not to go on a walk with someone who is not in your pod—that makes no sense. We should not have that policy. Walking is a good thing, and mental-health issues in this pandemic are real. So I’ve pushed policymakers to focus on things that are the highest risk and then be much more relaxed about things that are low risk. People have to do stuff and see friends. So I have said to keep outdoor dining open and shut down indoor dining when case numbers get bad. What I hear back from policy folks is “We get your message, but we need to give a broader signal that things are really bad and need to stop, and that is why we are doing what we are doing.” I am sympathetic to that, but I wish we could have policy that is much more nuanced, that really encouraged outdoor dining, because people want to get together with other people and have a meal, which is a deeply human thing. If you shut down all dining, then people will do it inside their homes, which is obviously much less safe than outdoor dining. So I wish we could focus on the things that really matter, and realize people can make good decisions otherwise. But I have had a lot of conversations where policymakers feel like they need an on-or-off switch. Do I think that is the right thing? No. Do I understand it? I suppose I do, and will comply with it. We are in for a new test, which will be the updated guidance the C.D.C. gives to vaccinated adults. Other than waiting for more data on transmission, is there any reason why we can’t give people more guidance on their behavior? I think it is essential that we give guidance to people. And I think we should give guidance to people on what they can do safely once they are vaccinated. People say, “Can your behavior change?” My answer is: absolutely! That’s a major motivation for getting vaccinated. First of all, what’s very clear to me is vaccinated people hanging out with other vaccinated people is pretty darn close to normal. You don’t have to wear a mask. You can share a meal. The chance that a fully vaccinated person will transmit the virus to another fully vaccinated person who then will get sick and die . . . I mean, sure, people get struck by lightning, too. But you don’t make policy based on that. And we need to remind people that there is a huge benefit to getting vaccinated, which is that you are safe enough to do the things you love with other vaccinated people.

President Joe Biden is advocating for states to prioritize COVID vaccinations for teachers in an effort to expedite the full reopening of schools, nationwide. However, a new editorial published by NBC News explains how limited the president's powers are when it comes to enforcing such proposed initiatives, according to the U.S. Constitution. The publication noted that under the laws of the Constitution, "the powers of the federal government are far-reaching but not all-encompassing." Despite being largely under the rule of the federal government, the text also specifies that states "have always retained control over public health and safety, from policing crimes to controlling infectious disease, including distribution of coronavirus vaccines that Washington helped create and whose supply it controls." But despite the laws in place, the United States' staggering COVID death toll has opened the door for discussions about the seemingly negative impacts of the federalist system which grants individual states the power to govern as they see fit. The variances in laws from state to state have led to different outcomes that may have largely contributed to the country's rising death toll. Donald Kettl, author of "The Divided States of America: Why Federalism Doesn't Work" and professor of a professor at the University of Texas's Lyndon B. Johnson School of Public Affairs, weighed in with his concerns about states' leadership and possible contribution to the staggering COVID death toll. "There's a pretty strong argument that the confusion we've created has, in fact, cost human lives," Kettl said. "We pay a pretty high price sometimes for letting states go their own way." He added, "The founders were very conscious of the fact that it was a collection of states that had succeeded in winning the Revolutionary War. If you roll that forward, you end up with this patchwork of different vaccine priorities, mask mandates, and lockdown rules, because the federal government cannot force states to do things." When the president toured the Pfizer plant in Michigan, he also made similar remarks about states' vaccine prioritization. While he noted that he does not have the power to enforce executive orders in this area, he did specify that he could offer recommendations. "I can't set nationally who gets in line, when and first — that's a decision the states make," Biden said. "I can recommend." As states work to improve vaccine distribution, coronavirus continues to spread in the United States. As of Tuesday, Feb. 23, the country has reported more than 28.3 million cases since the onset of the pandemic. The COVID-related death toll has now surpassed 500,000.

The fact checkers at Politifact are being criticized after claiming Vice President Kamala Harris was "wrong" when she said the Trump administration had no national plan or strategy to distribute the coronavirus vaccine. As many on social media pointed out, Politifact wrongly edited her remarks, and her remarks were not wrong at all. Here's what the Vice President told Axios: "There was no national strategy or plan for vaccinations, we were leaving it to the states and local leaders to try and figure it out." Here's what Politifact did: Clearly, the VP said "we were leaving it to the states and local leaders to try and figure it out." Nothing about that claim was wrong. She didn't even name the Trump administration, which she easily could have. But more importantly, Politifact claimed sending vaccines to whatever address the states designated and then letting them figure everything else out qualifies as a "national strategy or plan" is, many felt, ridiculous. Take a look:

Larry Kudlow is returning to cable news after a nearly three-year stint in the Trump White House as the president's economic advisor, and he kicked off his first day at his new job with an expletive-filled attack on Vice President Kamala Harris. Harris has been under fire for her recent – and entirely taken out of context – comments about vaccine distribution, taken from an interview with Axios that aired on HBO over the weekend. First, what she actually said. "There was no national strategy or plan for vaccinations. We were leaving it to the states and local leaders to try and figure it out," Harris said, speaking about when the Biden administration took office. "And so in many ways, we're starting from scratch on something that's been raging for almost an entire year." Tuesday afternoon Fox News played a short excerpt of Vice President Harris' coronavirus vaccine distribution comments, setting off Kudlow. First, what she actually said. "There was no national strategy or plan for vaccinations. We were leaving it to the states and local leaders to try and figure it out," Harris said, speaking about when the Biden administration took office. "And so in many ways, we're starting from scratch on something that's been raging for almost an entire year." Tuesday afternoon Fox News played a short excerpt of Vice President Harris' coronavirus vaccine distribution comments, setting off Kudlow. There was no national strategy or plan for vaccinations when the Biden administration took office less than four weeks ago. Vaccines were shipped to states, and then they and local leaders were forced to try to figure it out. Distribution, transport (which requires sub-zero temperatures), how to administer the vaccine, who should get it first, how to schedule, whether or not to have mass vaccination sites, how to pay for it all, everything. Zero help, including basics like exactly when to expect how many doses, from the federal government. Kudlow was reacting to Fox News' out-of-context quote, but he's absolutely wrong on the facts. Listen:

The Republican Party has devolved into nothing more than a culture war slogan dispenser, spending all of its time and energy contriving faux outrage and divisiveness. They have no discernible policies to promote and are relying on the cult appeal of Donald Trump to sustain them until the next election. Consequently, The GOP's Ministry of Propaganda (aka Fox News) is focused tightly on critical issues like Dr. Seuss and Mr. Potato Head. And they're tired of hearing about all the dead Americans due to the COVID pandemic that Trump ignored and/or botched. Meanwhile, Republicans in Congress voted unanimously against the American Rescue Plan, the most popular legislation in generations. This callous disregard for the welfare of the nation is integral to the Republican agenda going forward. But since they have no affirmative plans, they are reaching back to distort recent history and claim victories that exist only in their fevered imaginations. For instance, Ronna Romney McDaniel, the chair of the Republican National Committee, tweeted Saturday morning that "As President Trump was delivering results on the vaccine, Joe Biden was sowing doubt about its efficacy..." Let's set aside that McDaniel is still referring to the former guy as "President," but the current president as "Joe." The more salient point is that there is nothing resembling the truth in that twantrum. What Biden actually said last July in the video that McDaniel posted is that... "We've got to make sure vaccines are produced and distributed safely, efficiently, and fairly, with independent FDA transparency. And the full FDA public report made public. Because people are already saying 'If we get a vaccine I'm not sure I'm going to take it. This guy's lied to us about everything else.'" Clearly President Biden was not sowing doubts about the vaccine. He was recognizing that the American people already had fully justifiable doubts about Trump's honesty. All Biden was calling for was full disclosure of the data that would lead to the vaccine's approval. The fact that so many people don't trust Trump is what Biden was concerned about. And his remarks were intended to resolve any hesitancy to getting vaccinated, not sow doubts about it. McDaniel was also wrong about Trump "delivering results on the vaccine." He had done nothing productive other than inventing a PR campaign that he dubbed "Operation Warp Speed," which was just another sham that accomplished nothing. In reality, last July Trump was still downplaying the severity of the pandemic, while boasting about phony "achievements" ... "Why does the a Lamestream Fake News Media REFUSE to say that China Virus deaths are down 39%, and that we now have the lowest Fatality (Mortality) Rate in the World. They just can't stand that we are doing so well for our Country!" Trump was bragging about "doing so well" when the death toll for the coronavirus was at 150,000. That was horrible. But it's more than tripled since then. And in light of that, McDaniel thought it would be useful to post a tweet that lied about Trump's negligence and incompetence, while inadvertently affirming Biden's honesty and foresight. Thanks, Ronna. NOTE: Twitter recently suspended the News Corpse account after 11 years without giving a reason. So if anyone wants to tweet articles from my website, please feel free to do so often and repeatedly. Also, Be sure to visit and follow News Corpse on Instagram. Thanks for your support.

With Covid-19 vaccine distribution ramping up in the United States, many project that we'll soon get to a point where our supply outstrips demand. Though right now, we have more people that want the vaccine than we have vaccines and appointments to give out, we may find ourselves with more vaccines ready to go than people willing to take them. That's because, in part, a significant portion of the population distrusts vaccines or is hesitant to take them. Republicans and former Trump voters are among those most likely to resist calls to trust the vaccines, surveys have consistently found, despite the fact that they were developed under his administration and he has previously touted them as an accomplishment. So those worried about distributing the vaccines as widely as possible throughout the population have zeroed in on the question of how to persuade this group to sign up. In a new piece on Monday for the Washington Post, reporter Dan Diamond recounted a recent online focus group of vaccine-skeptical Trump supporters conducted by GOP consultant Frank Luntz. Luntz tested a range of messages on the group and gauged their reactions. By far the most effective at seeming to convince the Trump supporters to consider taking the vaccine, Luntz found, was direct facts about the vaccine provided by an expert: Another lesson: Trump voters, like other vaccine-wary groups, were reassured by doctors explaining that years of research helped tee up the vaccine + that it was tested with tens of thousands of people. Watch @DrTomFrieden rattle off five quick facts that seemed to change minds. pic.twitter.com/RTArE9menf — Dan Diamond (@ddiamond) March 15, 2021 Dr. Tom Frieden, a former director of the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, quickly ran through a list of facts cited in favor of the vaccine for the group: "One: If you get infected with the virus, it will go all over your body, and stay there for at least a week, and be much more likely to cause you long-term problems than the vaccine. Two: If you get the vaccine, it will prime your immune system, but then that vaccine is gone. It will not be with you anymore. Three: More than 95 percent of the doctors who have been offered this vaccine have gotten it as soon as they can. Four: The more we vaccinate, the faster we can get back to growing our economy and getting jobs. And five: If people get vaccinated, we're going to save at least 100,000 lives of Americans who would otherwise be killed by Covid." After hearing those facts, a significant portion of the group raised their hands to say they were impactful on their decision about the vaccine. But another message landed with a thud. When the group was shown the widely circulated clips of former presidents — but not Trump — talking about the importance of the vaccine, they were not impressed: Perhaps unsurprisingly, a widely hailed pro-vaccine ad with former presidents Obama, Bush, Clinton and Carter (but not Trump) was roundly panned by the focus group. You can watch the Trump voters watching it in real-time and getting frustrated by the message. pic.twitter.com/3bnzWQV6nA — Dan Diamond (@ddiamond) March 15, 2021 "It feels kind of like propaganda, honestly," said one person identified as Ryan from Florida. But perhaps most surprisingly, the group suggested that they wouldn't care much if Trump himself appeared in an ad advocating the vaccine. The participants said "that their spouse or doctor would be more influential on their decision than hearing from the former president," Diamond reported There is a significant caveat on all of this: Using focus groups is not exactly a precise science. There's no guarantee the group is representative of the larger population you're trying to understand, and how people claim to be reacting may not be entirely accurate. It's possible, for instance, that the people in the group really would be more likely to get the vaccine if Trump were publicly endorsing it, but they prefer to present themselves as the kind of people who are more persuaded by experts and facts. But when dealing with complex questions such as these, it may be that focus groups provide useful insights into how public health officials should address the soon-to-be pressing problem.

States, Tribes, and territories will receive a 5 percent supply increase this week, and Americans will soon have easier access to vaccinations through local pharmacies As the U.S. surpasses 26 million COVID-19 infections, President Biden took additional steps today to implement his comprehensive National Strategy to combat the COVID-19 pandemic. These steps include increasing the vaccine supply to states, Tribes, and territories and increasing funding to jurisdictions to help turn vaccines into vaccinations. And, the President announced that starting next week, the first phase of the federal pharmacy program will launch and select pharmacies nationwide will start offering vaccinations for their communities. These new steps will help meet the President’s goal of administering 100 million shots in 100 days and expand access to vaccines to more Americans in the coming weeks. The President is taking the following actions today: Expanding Vaccine Supply: Building on last week’s announcement, the Biden-Harris Administration will increase overall, weekly vaccine supply to states, Tribes, and territories to 10.5 million doses nationwide beginning this week. This is a 22% increase since taking office on January 20. The Administration is committing to maintaining this as the minimum supply level for the next three weeks, and we will continue to work with manufacturers in their efforts to ramp up supply. Launching First Phase of the Federal Retail Pharmacy Program for COVID-19 Vaccination: As part of the Biden-Harris Administration’s efforts to increase access to COVID-19 vaccines, starting on February 11, those eligible for the vaccine will have the opportunity to be vaccinated at select pharmacies across the country through the Federal Retail Pharmacy Program for COVID-19 Vaccination. This program is a public-private partnership with 21 national pharmacy partners and networks of independent pharmacies representing over 40,000 pharmacy locations nationwide (listed below). It is a key component of the Administration’s National Strategy to expand equitable access to vaccines for the American public. As the first phase of this program launches, select retail pharmacies nationwide will receive limited vaccine supply to vaccinate priority groups at no cost. The Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) worked with states to select initial pharmacy partners based on a number of factors including their ability to reach some of the populations most at risk for severe illness from COVID-19. Americans should check their pharmacy’s website to find out if vaccine is available as supply will be limited in the initial phase. More information is available at cdc.gov/covid19. Increasing Reimbursements to States: Central to the Biden-Harris Administration’s COVID-19 National Strategy is ensuring states, Tribes, territories, and jurisdictions have the resources they need to defeat the virus. That’s why, in his second day in office, President Biden directed the Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) to fully reimburse states for the cost of National Guard Personnel and emergency costs. Today, President Biden is announcing that the administration will go even further, retroactively reimbursing states fully for FEMA-eligible services – including masks, gloves, emergency feeding actions, sheltering at risk populations, and mobilization of the National Guard – back dated to the beginning of the pandemic in January 2020. This reimbursement is estimated to total $3-5 billion and is only a small share of the resources that states need to fight this pandemic — including for testing, genomic sequencing, and mass vaccination centers. To fully support states, Tribes, and territories’ needs to contain the pandemic and vaccinate their populations, President Biden is requesting $350 billion from Congress in American Rescue Plan. Participating Federal Pharmacy Partners (not all will be active in every state in initial phase) Chain Pharmacies • Walgreens (including Duane Reade) • CVS Pharmacy, Inc. (including Long’s) • Walmart, Inc. (including Sam’s Club) • Rite Aid Corp. • The Kroger Co. (including Kroger, Harris Teeter, Fred Meyer, Fry’s, Ralphs, King Soopers, Smiths, City Market, Dillons, Mariano’s, Pick-n-Save, Copps, Metro Market) • Publix Super Markets, Inc. • Costco Wholesale Corp. • Albertsons Companies, Inc. (including Osco, Jewel-Osco, Albertsons, Albertsons Market, Safeway, Tom Thumb, Star Market, Shaw’s, Haggen, Acme, Randalls, Carrs, Market Street, United, Vons, Pavilions, Amigos, Lucky’s, Pak n Save, Sav-On) • Hy-Vee, Inc. • Meijer Inc. • H-E-B, LP • Retail Business Services, LLC (including Food Lion, Giant Food, The Giant Company, Hannaford Bros Co, Stop & Shop) • Winn-Dixie Stores Inc. (including Winn-Dixie, Harveys, Fresco Y Mas) Network Administrators • Topco Associates, LLC (including Acme Fresh Markets, Associated Food Stores, Big-Y Pharmacy and Wellness Center, Brookshire’s Pharmacy, Super One Pharmacy, FRESH by Brookshire’s Pharmacy, Coborn’s Pharmacy, Cash Wise Pharmacy, MarketPlace Pharmacy, Giant Eagle, Hartig Drug Company, King Kullen, Food City Pharmacy, Ingles Pharmacy, Raley’s, Bel Air, Nob Hill Pharmacies, Save Mart Pharmacies, Lucky Pharmacies, SpartanNash, Price Chopper, Market 32, Tops Friendly Markets, ShopRite, Wegmans, Weis Markets, Inc.) • CPESN USA, LLC • GeriMed (long-term care and retail pharmacies) • Good Neighbor Pharmacy and AmerisourceBergen Drug Corporation’s pharmacy services administrative organization (PSAO), Elevate Provider • Health Mart Systems, Inc. • Innovatix (long-term care pharmacies) • LeaderNET and Medicine Shoppe, Cardinal Health’s PSAOs • Managed Health Care Associates (retail and long-term care pharmacies) ###

In an interview with the Idaho Statesman's Audrey Dutton, 63-year-old long-haul trucker Paul Russell admitted his career is over because he didn't take the COVID-19 pandemic seriously, believing it would simply disappear after the November election. After contracting the virus and nearly dying, he now admits he was a "jackass" who will have to spend the rest of his life on oxygen due to the damage inflicted on his body by the novel coronavirus. According to Russell, he wasn't taking precautions on a trip from Florida back to Boise -- with a stop in Houston -- when he thinks he was infected and felt ill before he got home. Speaking with Dutton he recalled, "I didn't know if I was infected with COVID or what. My buddy was about an hour behind me. He caught up with me in Twin Falls. … He told me I didn't look very good at all."Russell explained that he holed up in a trailer to protect his wife, adding that he felt "really, extremely miserable" before he had to be taken to a hospital in Boise where he spent 16 days, including four or five days -- he described the time as a "blur" in intensive care receiving oxygen. Now he claims, "I'm gonna be on oxygen the rest of my life, according to my doctor." The Idaho man faults himself for getting sick one week after the election, saying he bought into conspiracy theories about the coronavirus. "Before I came down with the virus, I was one of those jackasses who thought the virus would disappear the day after the election. I was one of those conspiracy theorists. All these people that are saying that it's fake, blah blah blah, they're lying to themselves," he said. Prior to the election, then-President Donald Trump wrote on Twitter that "you won't be hearing so much about" COVID-19 after November. His son, Eric, had also claimed on Fox News that the coronavirus would "magically, all of a sudden go away and disappear and everyone will be able to reopen" after election day. Russell suffers from "foggy memory" now and sometimes has trouble speaking he told the Statesman's Dutton. She added that he still feels the after-effects of his infection which include, "pain in different parts of his body. He has dizzy spells. His heart races when he gets up to do anything." Russell summed up his condition in his interview, telling the reporter , "Life is no good right now. Except for one thing: I'm alive." Read more here.

In 2020, then-President Donald Trump drew a great deal of criticism for resorting to anti-Asian rhetoric when discussing the COVID-19 pandemic. But Washington Post columnist Josh Rogin, during a March 9 appearance on MSNBC's "Morning Joe," stressed that before Trump "used racism" and Anti-Asian "fear" during the pandemic, he was afraid of saying anything that would offend Chinese leader Xi Jinping. Rogin is the author of the new book, "Chaos Under Heaven: Trump, Xi, and the Battle for the Twenty-First Century," which addresses, among other things, Trump's bungling of the pandemic during its early months. Discussing his book on "Morning Joe," Rogin told hosts Joe Scarborough and Mika Brzezinski that in January and February 2020, Trump and Jinping had something in common: both of them downplayed the severity of COVID-19. Rogin explained, "Part of it is Trump's fault, and part of it is the Chinese president's fault…. It was just devastating." In January and February 2020, Rogin recalled, Trump was "getting bad information from China" about COVID-19 — and he was happy to echo Jinping's claims because he didn't want to endanger his "bromance" with the Chinese leader. Trump, at that point, was still "trusting his authoritarian friends" in China and wrongly claiming that COVID-19 didn't pose a major threat to the United States. Rogin told Scarborough and Brzezinski, "Trump was getting a lot of conflicting information in those first weeks. But rather than listen to U.S. health officials — rather than listen to his national security officials — he listened to his good friend Xi Jinping, who plied him with a lot of happy talk. And we don't really know if Trump believed him or if he just wanted to believe him. But you can see why he wanted to believe Xi. He wanted his trade deal to succeed. He wanted the economy to stay good so he could get reelected. So, he went along with it." But after the "bromance" with Jinping ended, Rogin explained, Trump resorted to anti-Asian rhetoric and xenophobia to rally his base. In the months leading up to the 2020 presidential election, Trump repeatedly referred to COVID-19 as "the China virus." You can watch the video below. Rogin's interview begins around the 6:15 mark.

New reporting from journalist Josh Rogin adds more evidence to the theory that the novel coronavirus actually escaped containment from a lab in Wuhan, China, where it was being studied. Politico has published a new excerpt from Rogin's upcoming book -- titled Chaos Under Heaven: Trump, Xi, and the Battle for the Twenty-First Century -- in which the journalist cites United States State Department cables sent in 2018 warning that scientists were conducting risky coronavirus experiments in a Wuhan lab that was not equipped to contain the virus. The scientists in the Wuhan lab had been exploring the origins of the SARS coronaviruses that ripped through Asian countries starting in 2002, and they had discovered new variants of coronaviruses in a bat cave that they had brought back to the lab with them. "These scientists had discovered three new viruses that had a unique characteristic: they contained a 'spike protein' that was particularly good at grabbing on to a specific receptor in human lung cells known as an ACE2 receptor," writes Rogin. "That means the viruses were potentially very dangerous for humans." After viewing the State Department cables, Rogin called around to other government sources he trusted and discovered that "a large swath of the government already believed the virus had escaped from the WIV lab, rather than having leaped from an animal to a human at the Wuhan seafood market or some other random natural setting, as the Chinese government had claimed." Even more trouble, found Rogin, is that the United States government has evidence that the lab was conducting large-scale gain-of-function research where "the virulence or transmissibility of dangerous pathogens is deliberately increased" in order to help humans better predict the behavior of viruses in future outbreaks. In the end, however, Rogin acknowledges that there is still no concrete evidence that the novel coronavirus came from the Wuhan lab -- although the circumstantial evidence surrounding the disease's initial outbreak is enough to warrant further investigation. Read the whole report here.

by Alec MacGillis, photography by Celeste Sloman ProPublica is a Pulitzer Prize-winning investigative newsroom. Sign up for The Big Story newsletter to receive stories like this one in your inbox. This article originally appeared on ProPublica. Everything looks the same on either side of the Texas-New Mexico border in the great oil patch of the Permian Basin. There are the pump jacks scattered across the plains, nodding up and down with metronomic regularity. There are the brown highway signs alerting travelers to historical markers tucked away in the nearby scrub. There are the frequent memorials of another sort, to the victims of vehicle accidents. And there are the astonishingly deluxe high school football stadiums. This is, after all, the region that produced “Friday Night Lights." The city of Hobbs, population just under 40,000, sits on the New Mexico side, as tight to the border as a wide receiver's toes on a sideline catch. From the city's eastern edge to the Texas line is barely more than two miles. From Hobbs to the Texas towns of Seminole and Denver City is a half-hour drive — next door, by the standards of the vast Southwestern plains. In the pandemic year of 2020, though, the two sides of the state line might as well have been in different hemispheres. Texas's response to the coronavirus was freewheeling. Most notably, it gave local school districts leeway in deciding whether to open for in-person instruction in August, and in conservative West Texas, many districts seized the opportunity to do so, for all grades, all the way up through high school. Students wore masks in the hallways and administrators did contact tracing for positive cases of coronavirus, but everything else went pretty much as usual, including sports. On Friday nights, high schools still played football, with fans in the stands. New Mexico's response last year was the opposite. The state, led by Democratic Gov. Michelle Lujan Grisham, took one of the most aggressive lockdown stances in the country, and issued stringent guidelines for school reopening, so stringent that Hobbs was allowed to bring back only a sliver of its students for in-person instruction. For high school junior Kooper Davis, whose family lives 10 minutes west of the border, this meant no school and no football. This was a problem, because he loved both of them. Kooper had always gotten straight A's, despite a tendency to leave big assignments to the last minute. He charmed classmates and teachers alike with his playful ebullience. His natural high spirits had carried him through his life's primary challenge to date, his parents' breakup when he was a small child. He started playing organized football at age 5 and could not get enough of it. He played basketball, too, but football had his heart. When the youth minister at church once apologized for missing one of his high school games, Kooper reassured him that it was okay, that he did not depend on an audience: “I play for myself," he said. Kooper started heading off to quarterback camps and private training — in Atlanta, New Orleans and Tucson, among other cities — hoping to better his odds of getting to play in college, an aspiration that became more feasible as he sprouted to 6 feet, 4 inches tall, ideal for throwing over linemen, if only he could get his agility and coordination to catch up with his height. His parents encouraged him to aim for the Ivy League, but he knew its football was middling. Instead, he set his sights on Stanford, which excelled in sports and academics, and which he had visited for another football camp. For student-athletes aspiring to play in college, junior year is key. It's that year's video that recruiters will look at, and that year's grades that admissions officers will scrutinize. Kooper already had a highlight reel, and it included some nice-looking throws, but it was from his sophomore season on the junior varsity team. Junior year was everything: He would be vying for the starting QB slot on varsity and taking a fistful of Advanced Placement courses. He would, in general, be getting to enjoy the experience of being Kooper Davis, a well-liked kid in a small city where the admiration flowed even from the youngsters he helped out at church, one of whom, a 9-year-old boy, was overheard gleefully reporting to his father that Kooper Davis knew his name. But the start of the school year arrived, and there was no school. Kooper and his classmates would take their courses at home using an online program, with barely any contact with teachers or each other. His teammates would be allowed to practice only in small pods, which left them mostly doing just weightlifting sessions and agility drills. There would be no actual games. The hope was that all this would be temporary. That was what the kids heard from the adults in charge, and they tried to believe it. The coronavirus pandemic has been not only a health catastrophe, but an epic failure of national government. The result of the abdication of federal leadership in 2020 was an atomization of decision-making that affected the lives and well-being of millions of people. States, and frequently individual school districts — sometimes even individual schools and sports leagues — have been forced to grapple with emerging and occasionally conflicting science that has sought to decode the mysteries of a newly discovered virus. Local governmental and educational officials — the vast majority of whom aren't epidemiologists or experts on indoor airflow — have had to formulate policy under intense time pressure while being buffeted by impassioned constituencies on every side and facing the reality that any decision would impose costs on somebody. One of the few aspects of this terrible pandemic to be grateful for is that it has taken a vastly lesser toll on children and young adults than its major precursor of last century, the flu pandemic of 1918-1920. That earlier pandemic's victims tended to be in the prime of life, withmortality peaking around age 28. The novel coronavirus, by contrast, has hit the elderly the hardest. Themedian age for COVID-19 fatalities in the U.S. is about 80. Of the nearly 500,000 deaths in the U.S. analyzed by the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention as of early March, — five hundredths of a percent of the total. The CDC has also recorded about 2,000 cases of aninflammatory syndrome that has afflicted some children after they contracted the virus, resulting in about 30 additional deaths. Doctors are still uncertain whether children who survived that syndrome will experience long-term heart issues or other health problems. Plenty of parents continue to worry for their children's health amid the pandemic. But the primary concern from a public health standpoint has been the role that children and young adults might play in transmitting the disease to others. A growing body of evidence suggests that younger children are the to transmit the virus, but that as children older, their capacity for transmission approaches that of adults. This has posed a conundrum from early in the pandemic: How much should children be prevented from doing outside the home, to keep them from contributing to community transmission of a highly contagious virus? Or to put it more broadly: How much of normal youth should they be asked to sacrifice? It has been a difficult balance to strike, on both a societal and family level. In many parts of the country, particularly cities and towns dominated by Democrats, concerns about virus spread by children has resulted in all sorts of measures: closures of playgrounds, requirements that kids older than 2 wear masks outdoors, at colleges that reopened. “We should be more careful with kids," wrote Andy Slavitt, a Medicare and Medicaid administrator under President Barack Obama who was named senior advisor for President Joe Biden's coronavirus task force, in a . “They should circulate less or will become vectors. Like mosquitos carrying a tropical disease." In Los Angeles, county supervisor Hilda Solis, a former Obama labor secretary, urged young people to stay home, noting the risk of them infecting older members of their households. “One of the more heartbreaking conversations that our healthcare workers share is about these last words when children apologize to their parents and grandparents for bringing COVID into their homes for getting them sick," she . “And these apologies are just some of the last words that loved ones will ever hear as they die alone." As time has gone on, evidence has grown on one side of the equation: the harm being done to children by restricting their “circulation." There is thewell-documented fall-off in student academic performance at schools that have shifted to virtual learning, which, copious evidence now shows, is exacerbating racial and class divides in achievement. This toll has led a growing number ofepidemiologists,pediatricians andother physicians to argue for reopening schools as broadly as possible, amidgrowingevidence that schools are not major venues for transmission of the virus. As many of these experts have noted, the cost of restrictions on youth has gone beyond academics. The CDC found that the proportion of visits to the emergency room by adolescents between ages 12 and 17 that were mental-health-related during the span of March to October 2020, compared with the same months in 2019.A study in the March 2021 issue of Pediatrics, the journal of the American Academy of Pediatrics, of people aged 11 to 21 visiting emergency rooms found “significantly higher" rates of “suicidal ideation" during the first half of 2020 (compared to 2019), as well as higher rates of suicide attempts, though the actual number of suicides remained flat. Doctors are concerned about in childhood obesity — no surprise with many kids housebound in stress-filled homes — whileaddiction experts are warning of the long-term effects of endless hours of screen time when both schoolwork and downtime stimulation are delivered digitally. (Perhaps the only indicator of youth distress that is falling — reports of child abuse and neglect, whichdropped about 40% early in the pandemic — is nonetheless worrisome because experts suspect it is the reporting that is declining, not the frequency of the abuse.) Finally, the nationwide surge in gun violence since the start of the pandemic has included, in many cities, a sharp rise incrimes involving juveniles, including many killed or arrested during what would normally be school time. In Prince George's County, Maryland, a Washington, D.C., suburb where school buildings have remained closed, in just the first five weeks of this year. “An entire generation between the ages of 5 and 18 has been effectively removed from society at large,"wrote Maryland pediatrician Lavanya Sithanandam in The Washington Post. “They do not have the same ability to vote or speak out." It has, instead, been left largely up to parents to monitor their children for signs of declining mental health as they determine whether to allow their kids to return to college or summer camp, to have a friend over, to go to the mall. My family was among those facing these decisions. Our sons, now 16 and 13, have had fully remote learning in their Baltimore public schools for nearly a year now. For them, the primary release from the hours staring at the laptop screen would be sports, and for us, the answer was clear: My wife and I would let them play. The boys' respective high school and rec-league baseball seasons were canceled last spring, but their club teams were still playing through the summer and fall. This proved a godsend, a way for the boys to keep being active outdoors and around other kids, doing something they loved to do. For my older son, the baseball meant frequent traveling to tournaments out of state, in Virginia and Pennsylvania. Almost every weekend, we'd be back on near-empty highways, staying in near-empty motels, subsisting on endless takeout chicken sandwiches whenever we couldn't find an outdoor place for a meal. This all started before the resumption of Major League Baseball and other professional sports, and it sometimes seemed as if our tournaments were the only serious competitive sports happening in the country, a sort of speakeasy baseball. Some precautions were taken, such as umpires calling balls and strikes from behind the mound instead of behind the catcher at home plate. The boys and their parents wore their masks inside the motels; at games, the parents spread out in the bleachers or on the sidelines. The parents ran the political gamut: liberals from Baltimore, conservatives from rural towns in Pennsylvania. But there was an implicit agreement that we were fortunate that our kids could keep playing, and we wouldn't do anything to screw it up. Those weekends remain for me some of the only redeeming moments of an awful year. Football at the teenage level differs from baseball in a crucial respect: It is based almost entirely around high schools, without a parallel universe of clubs and tournaments. If high school teams aren't playing football, there is no football being played. In New Mexico, Gov. Lujan Grisham that football and soccer would be prohibited for the fall season. “No contact sports are going to be permitted this fall," she said. “These contact sports are just too high-risk. If we do well, if we work hard, it is possible we could just be delaying them and they could be played later in the year and later into the season. Fingers crossed, and I believe in you that we can get this done." As the hot Southwestern summer dragged on, Kooper Davis and his teammates placed faith in that possibility. In August, they were allowed to hold practice sessions capped at nine players each — not enough for a real practice, with offense running plays against defense, but better than the July sessions, which had been capped at five players. Kooper was vying against three other players for the starting quarterback spot. His arm strength had improved in the past year, so much so that his best friend Sam Kinney, a wide receiver, jokingly complained about the passes starting to hurt. And Kooper was a great student of the quarterback position; he had “the intangibles," his coaches said. But he knew he needed to work on his agility, which is one reason he took the practices so seriously. He was the first to come, and last to leave. Even with fall sports canceled, the Hobbs school district, with almost 10,000 students, was still hoping to open the new school year for as much in-person instruction as possible. More than just scholastic considerations were driving this. In late April, six weeks into the spring's pandemic lockdowns, the community had been stunned by the suicide of an 11-year-old boy, Landon Fuller, an outgoing kid who loved going to school and had, his mother said, struggled with the initial lockdowns. New Mexico has consistently had one of the highest in the country — it's roughly twice the national average — and preliminary state statistics would later show the 2020 rate as unchanged. Nationwide, increased by half between 2007 and 2018, a trend that has been linked to multiple factors, from the growing availability of guns to the spread of smartphones and social media. In New Mexico, mental health experts say, the factors also include high rates of depression on Native American reservations, and rural isolation in general. Still, the news of an 11-year-old taking his life — after riding his bike to a field near his house — had the power to shock in Hobbs. “I think the big question we all have is why, and we will never know the reason why," his mother, Katrina Fuller, told an Albuquerque TV talk show in July. “The only thing that I was able to find was in his journal, was that he had wrote that he was going mad from staying at home all the time and that he just wanted to be able to go to school and play outside with his friends. So that was the only thing that I can imagine what was going through his head at that time." Hobbs is heavily conservative. Lea County, of which it is part, would vote 79% for Trump in 2020. And unlike in many other, more Democratic parts of the country, the city's school administrators had the support of many teachers when it came to reopening: A survey in late summer found more than 70% of teachers in favor of in-person instruction. But the district's push to reopen was rebuffed by the state education department. After initially barring any schools from reopening in August, the state released “gating criteria" for districts that wanted to resume in-person instruction in the fall. They were among the strictest in the country. They allowed only for elementary-school instruction, and required a district to stay below an average of eight new cases per day per 100,000 residents over a two-week period. For Hobbs and the rest of Lea County, population 70,000, that meant no more than five new cases per day in the whole county. (By , Kentucky's daily threshold was 25 cases per 100,000 people and Oklahoma's was 50 cases. Hawaii, one of the states least affected by the pandemic, put its threshold at 360 cases over a 14-day period.) Statewide in New Mexico, the restrictions resulted in zero high schools or middle schools reopening anywhere in the state. This confounded Hobbs school officials, especially because they could see open schools across the border in Texas. “We've got districts 30 miles away doing it safely," associate superintendent Gene Strickland said. “I get the fear level, but we see models that show it can be done. Allow us that opportunity." Kooper Davis had always thrived in school. He liked his teachers, and they liked him. He had won over his ninth-grade English teacher, Jennifer Espinoza, with his willingness to engage on the works they were reading: “The Outsiders," “Romeo and Juliet," “To Kill a Mockingbird." “He was very opinionated about why a character did this, or whatever something meant," Espinoza said. “Even if he was wrong or going in the wrong direction, he wasn't afraid to put his thoughts out there." It was a great class in general, she said: “Those kids fed off each other. They would come out with amazing answers." Kooper and Sam Kinney ribbed her about her tendency to lose her phone and took daily attendance for her. When Kooper was the only boy at Hobbs to make the Junior National Honors Society alongside 20 girls, Espinoza asked him if it felt weird. He grinned. “No, I like it!" But Kooper hated virtual school. There were no friends to cajole, no teachers to charm. Hobbs wasn't even holding synchronous classes online for older high schoolers. They mostly watched video lessons on their own, using an online curriculum called Edgenuity. Kooper procrastinated, as usual, but now also found it harder to focus when deadlines hit. His grades started slipping from his usual all-A's. And these were the grades that colleges were going to be looking at. As it was sinking in with Kooper and his classmates that school would remain remote for the rest of the fall, they got word in early October of an additional setback on the sports front. Not only would New Mexico remain one of a handful of states to bar high school sports, but practices would now be limited to just four players per coach. This meant they would mostly just be lifting weights, never mind that this often meant having many players in the weight room at a time (albeit in four-player pods), seemingly a riskier proposition than a regular practice outdoors. The football coach, Ken Stevens, could sense the morale plunging. “I seen a lot of disappointment," he said. “Lost hope." Some players stopped showing up. Making it especially tough, he said, was the nearby contrast. “That's the frustration," he said. “How come 10, 15 miles away, these kids can compete, can live a somewhat normal life?" Kooper was despondent. “Man, this ," he told his teammates. “We need to be back on the field." He missed football so much that, on some Friday evenings, he headed across the state line to Texas to watch a game. The schools in Denver City, population 5,000, had shut down amid the coronavirus lockdowns in the spring of 2020, but there wasn't really any question about whether the 1,700-student district would reopen schools in the fall. The Texas Education Agency was letting districts make the decision. The Texas Classroom Teachers Association had nowhere near the sway of unions in other states. This didn't keep many large urban districts in the state from starting the school year with remote learning. But Denver City and nearby small cities in West Texas opened schools. Students could choose a virtual option, but only a few dozen of Denver City's 492 high school students took it. As for teachers, there was no option: Their job was in the classroom. Denver City is a humble-looking town, with a Family Dollar and no Walmart, but oil-and-gas revenues had allowed it to build a new high school two years ago. The building has good ventilation, and enough space that it wasn't hard to spread desks to allow for 4 to 6 feet between them, even in a class of 20 or more. Students were attending five days a week, without the hassle of hybrid schedules used in much of the country. They were required to wear masks in the hallways or while moving around a classroom, but many teachers allowed them to take their masks off at their desks, judging the spacing sufficient, though the teachers kept their own masks on. Lunch was still served in the cafeteria, but it never got crowded because many students went into town for lunch, at the McDonald's drive-through or elsewhere. The school did not administer coronavirus tests on its own, but if a student or teacher tested positive locally, the school conducted contact tracing to determine if any other teacher or student had been exposed to them for 15 minutes or more, unmasked, within six feet. Anyone who fit that definition had to quarantine at home, initially for two weeks, eventually only for 10 days, in line with CDC guidelines. The district, which offered daily and weekly tallies of cases on its website, determined that the vast share of transmissions seemed to be happening outside school, as to be the case in other places, too. “The weekends is where they're getting it," said principal Rick Martinez. “If we could have them all week, this is the best place for them to be." Over the course of the fall semester, about a dozen of the 70 staff members in the Denver City school missed time for quarantine, mostly after testing positive themselves, forcing the district to find substitutes — no easy task, but not insurmountable. All of the teachers returned. There were other challenges, such as the time in August when a player on the girls volleyball team tested positive and the school made the decision to shut down the team for two weeks, just in case another player had been exposed. Overall, though, the fall was going so relatively well that many students who had chosen the remote option at the outset decided to come back to school, to the point where only about half a dozen were still learning at home. “It's been stressful at times," said the district superintendent, Patrick Torres. “It's taken a lot of time and effort, but our kids are getting instruction face to face." Football went forward, too. The school capped attendance at its field, and required people to register for tickets online. The team in Seminole, 20 miles south, needed to cancel some games as the result of player quarantines, but Denver City managed to get through the fall without any cancellations, though there were some weeks where the roster got thin. Kooper Davis came across the border once with a friend to see a game in Levelland, northeast of Denver City, and another time with his father, Justin, to see a game in Seminole. Justin, who works for a company that services oil-field equipment and runs a lawn care business on the side, noticed the reaction his tall, athletic son was getting in the Seminole stands. “People looked at us, like, 'Who is this kid and why is he not playing?'" Kooper's father and his stepmother Heather, who had been together since Kooper was nine, had considered transferring him to a school in Texas, as other families were doing. This would have entailed sending Kooper to live with Heather's brother. (Kooper had limited contact with his biological mother.) They were even considering sending Kooper and Heather to Atlanta to live near one of the coaches he'd trained with. But Heather and Justin had just had newborn twins. Plus, Kooper wanted to play with team, his friends. His parents began to notice how much the disruption and uncertainty was wearing on their normally buoyant son. On Oct. 9, Heather went on Facebook and posted a plea for reopening. “So honestly when do we stand up for our kids?? When do we all protest and say this is enough, do we wait until our kids lose life completely?" she wrote. “So many kids are turning to the wrong things to fill a void. Sad, it's so sad. Let's respect the ones who wanna stay home and respect the ones who are ready to go back!!" Two days later, the town learned of another life lost: an 18-year-old who had graduated from Hobbs High that spring at a local park after receiving a medical discharge from the Navy. Kooper did not know him well, but went out to join friends who had gathered to mourn him. The next day, a Monday evening, Kooper and his classmates held a demonstration for reopening school and school sports, one of several across the county that day. They held theirs at the high school football stadium, a hulking edifice that can seat 15,000. The students wore masks and sat spaced apart on the stands, holding signs that said “Let Us Play" and “SOS Save Our Students." They had the tacit support of their coaches and many of their parents, some of whom had helped shoot a testimonial video that was going to be shown on the scoreboard screen. But the video wouldn't load right, so several students went onto the field to give impromptu speeches before the 175 or so people who were gathered there. Kooper was among the speakers, which surprised his friend Sam Kinney. “I knew he was pretty brave, but didn't know he was that brave," Sam said later. At the microphone, Kooper introduced himself, then said, “I play football and basketball and those sports make up a big part of my life, and when I'm not here every day doing something with those sports, honestly, I feel really lost in life. Since I'm a junior, college is starting to cross my mind, and without this essential year of learning, I feel completely unprepared for college. I know I've still got another year, but time goes faster than you really think." He continued, “I just believe we should be here at school and we should be here playing football. It's crazy to think that just down the road, they're playing a football season — they're almost with their football season. It's honestly ridiculous. And I'm willing to keep my teammate and classmates in line, minding whatever rules, just so I can be back here doing the stuff I love." Mental health experts struggle to identify a precedent for the challenge this pandemic is producing for many Americans. In prior pandemics where the technology was not available for remote work or remote schooling, lockdowns and social isolation were not as extreme and did not last as long as what we've lived through this past year. And the psychological stress that the pandemic has produced for so many Americans of all ages is unlike so many more acute crises that we might experience in life, said Nick Allen, a professor of clinical psychology at the University of Oregon. “There's a difference between a stressor that makes your life unpleasant and intolerable and a stressor that takes away good things," he said. “For a lot of people, the stressor that COVID represents is one that takes away good things. You can't go to sporting events, you can't see your friends, you can't go to parties. It's not necessarily that you're experiencing abuse, though some may be. What's happening is that we're taking away high points in people's lives that give them reward and meaning. That may have an effect over time. The initial response is not as difficult as something that's stressful, but over time, the anhedonia, the loss of pleasure, is going to drive you down a lot more." Even before the coronavirus arrived, teen mental health was a cause for growing concern. Researchers and mental health professionals had come to the conclusion that, as David Brent, a University of Pittsburgh psychiatry professor, put it to me, “One thing that's protective against it is connection to school and family and peers. We know that participation in sports and a connection to school can have a profound protective effect." That social connection has been attenuated in the parts of the country that have largely shuttered school buildings and associated activities. The closures have also inhibited young people's striving for independence, youth mental health experts say. “A key developmental task of adolescence is autonomy-building," said Jessica Schleider, an assistant psychology professor at Stony Brook University. “That is what teens are driven to do: to grow self-esteem and a strong sense of who they are." With school and so much else closed off to them, and daily life mostly limited to the home, “the little bit of self-directedness they had before is gone. A lot are stuck in environments they didn't choose. The futures they had been working toward aren't options anymore." As the pandemic carried through the summer, worrisome signals started appearing across the country. In addition to the on the rising share of visits to emergency rooms by teenagers in distress, a University of Wisconsin survey of more than 3,000 high school athletes during the summer found that more than two-thirds reported high levels of anxiety and depression, . For Kooper, autumn brought no relief. Every weekday morning except Wednesday, he got up at 6:30 a.m., drank a protein shake, then drove to McDonald's for more breakfast, before arriving at school at 7 a.m. for a weightlifting session. On the way back, he'd pick up some Burger King breakfast for his two younger sisters, ages 11 and 5. The younger one would ask why he couldn't get McDonald's, which she preferred, on the way back, and he'd explain that traffic made it easier for him to do them in this order. Kooper would chat a bit with Heather and then shower and get to work on the computer. There were signs that mental health was on his mind. On Oct. 16, Kooper shared a grim claim from a state representative on his Facebook account, which he seldom used: “The New Mexico Athletic Association reports there have been 8 student-athlete suicides since March 20." Kooper looked so alone and hunched over as he worked that Heather one day posted a picture of him online to share his struggle with others. “I know my kid isn't the only one hurting," she wrote. “How is this life that they are living." The Davises were sufficiently attuned to the mental health challenges of the pandemic that they held regular family visits with a therapist, and Kooper had gotten a couple of solo sessions as well before he and the therapist decided that was no longer necessary. For a while, Kooper went to do some of his schoolwork at the Starbucks near the local Walmart, just to get out of the house, but then it closed down again when state restrictions tightened further. On some Tuesdays and Thursdays, he'd head to school for an afternoon session with the other quarterbacks, learning how to read defensive coverage. Some afternoons, he'd head over to the church his family belongs to, Christian Center Church, which is led by Sam's father, Jotty Kinney, who set up a small weight room for the boys to use. On Sunday mornings, Kooper would be back at the church for his youth-group service and to help lead sessions for the younger kids. And one weekend late afternoon in November, when it was below 30 degrees out, two dozen boys went to school to play touch football, the closest they had come to having a game. On Sunday, Dec. 6, as semester finals were getting underway for school, Kooper was at church as usual, dressed as a baby for a monthly skit he and Sam did for the little kids. Later that day, he put up another Facebook post, his first since the one in October: “With these tough times going around, I know there are many of those in need, and I want to give back to my community," he wrote. “If any of y'all know anyone unable to leave their homes, I am willing to wait in line and pick up their groceries for them, or even run simple errands. Please pm me if you or anyone you know could use a helping hand." The next morning, Dec. 7, Kooper went to his Monday weightlifting session. As he left, he told Sam, in typically unabashed fashion, “Love you." “Love you, too," Sam responded. On the way out of the athletic building, Kooper swung by to see the basketball coach, Eddy Martinez, to tell him he thought he might be able to play with that team, too, if the schedule that the state had floated the previous week actually came to pass: a truncated football season in February, followed by a truncated basketball season. Martinez said he'd be glad to have Kooper and that he was welcome to join one of their four-person practice pods that very day. Kooper said he didn't have his basketball shoes, but he would come the next day. Coach Stevens got the news from the school principal that afternoon. Like others in Hobbs, he was not unprepared for such calls: There had been at least six suicide attempts by Hobbs students during the pandemic, according to district officials. But when he heard the name, Stevens was stunned. He asked, “Are you sure you got the name right?" The principal said he thought he had, but that he'd double-check with the school's designated police officer. He called back five minutes later to say that yes, he had gotten the name right. Jennifer Espinoza got word from fellow teachers, one of whom asked her, “Hey, did you have Connor Davis?" The name meant nothing to her, but, she asked, did they mean Kooper Davis? No, they said. “Good," she said, “because Kooper would be out of the question." It had happened while Heather was at the grocery store picking up baby formula and something for dinner. At about 1 p.m., Kooper had texted Sam on Snapchat: “Love you, bro." “Love you, too," Sam wrote back. That was the last he heard from his friend. The next day, Coach Stevens gathered his players and assistant coaches in the team meeting room to discuss Kooper's death. There were counselors on hand, as well as Pastor Kinney, Sam's dad. The adults encouraged the players to speak about what they were feeling, not to hold things in. But the players ended up just wanting to go lift weights together. The day after that, Wednesday, a fleet of empty school buses arrived at the high school from other towns, one from as far as Clovis, 130 miles away. The buses had condolence messages painted on the windows: “We are here for you," read the writing on the bus from Portales. “Pray for Hobbs," said the bus from Eunice. “Artesia loves you," said the bus from Artesia. I reached Justin Davis on the phone that Saturday, after learning of Kooper's death from a mother in northwestern New Mexico whose daughter had also struggled with the absence of school and sports. Justin, as I would soon learn, is a large and taciturn man, but he was eager to talk, and urged me to come to New Mexico to learn more about what Kooper and his friends had been through. He was at a loss over what he and Heather might have missed. “I had an open relationship with my son," he said. “It's baffling to us to figure out why he didn't come to us." Suicide is ultimately an unfathomable act, but Justin said he was sure of one thing. “No doubt, if my son had been in school on Monday this wouldn't have happened," he said. “He would've had an adult standing next to him, a coach saying, 'Kooper, quit being a dummy.'" The only way he could make sense of it, Justin said, was that “for about fifteen seconds of Kooper's life, he let his guard down and the devil came in and convinced him of something that was wrong." His only solace was seeing the effect the loss had on Kooper's classmates, who were, he said, turning their lives over to God, sending letters to the governor, and generally spreading word of his son's goodness far and wide.“I believe God needed him now," he said. I arrived in Hobbs two days later, just in time for the memorial inside Christian Center Church. The parking lot was jammed with oversized pickups, and the sanctuary was standing room only. The stage was dominated by balloons in black and yellow, the Hobbs High colors, and large white letters and numbers, aglow with lights, that spelled KD 10, Kooper's jersey number. His home and away jerseys, his school backpack and a school photograph were also displayed. I found an empty space to stand in the back. There were many kids in the audience, and some were wearing raspberry-colored shirts with Kooper 10 written on them. Few people were wearing face masks. A four-person band with two backup singers played “Another in the Fire," a stirring song by the Australian worship band Hillsong United: “There was another in the fire/ Standing next to me/ There was another in the waters/ Holding back the seas…" Stevens was one of several coaches and trainers who spoke via a recorded feed played on the big screen over the stage. “I have no doubt that God is not done using Kooper," he said. “He is going to continue to use him to impact those around him, and God's glory will shine through." Then the screen played a long loop of photos and videos of Kooper: wearing a Halloween costume, holding his younger sister on the beach, wearing braces, buried in sand, grinning behind Justin and Heather as they kissed at their wedding, attending a Dallas Cowboys game, singing in a school musical, holding a newspaper with his name in a sports story, sitting on a hay bale, holding the newborn twins, wearing a tux for a dance. Heather came to the stage with Kooper's sisters. She began by reading some lines Kooper had written in his journal, including his paraphrase of a verse of Scripture, “If your enemy is hurting give him food. If he's thirsty, give him water," and his interpretation of it: “No matter who it is, no matter who the person is, if they're in need, help them. Help them. I don't know who it is, but you need to help them." She talked about Justin's love for his son: “That's his boy. Kooper's been Justin's rock." She recounted all their morning chats together, after his workout sessions. “I want him to come in from football practice and tell me how practice went. I want him to tickle the babies while I go eat," she said. “But that's me being selfish. And I want his happiness more than I want mine." Pastor Kinney spoke last. “When you'd see him smile, you didn't know what was going on under that mop of hair he had," he said. “He was one of the most driven people I have known." He described Kooper's “protective loyalty," how he once ran in from the outfield of a church softball game to confront someone who was having words with Heather. He joked about Kooper letting one of his sisters sleep in one of his shirts, his willingness to dress up as a baby during the church skit for the little kids, and how Kooper was the only one of the young people he knew who would actually call him on the phone sometimes, just to talk. “No other kid in this day and age called," he said. “He didn't text you or put it on Snap. He called you." When the service ended, people stayed on for a while to talk and hug each other. It was unnerving to watch: lots of people, few masks, no windows. The event was in gross violation of the state rules on indoor gatherings, which were supposed to be capped at 40 people, but no sheriff's deputy was about to intervene on this day. (The mass exposure did not lead to any reported local outbreaks.) The people of Hobbs had for months been barred from letting their kids go to school or letting them play football and soccer. And now, after the death of a boy that many of them saw as linked to those restrictions, they were effectively, saying, screw it. I chatted with some of Kooper's teammates, asking them how they were handling remote learning. “It's trash," said one, Kevin Melissa. “It's crazy," said another, Carter Johnson. “Everyone tells us to keep positive, but it's been almost a year. It's hard to be positive." Before the event broke up, someone encouraged all of Kooper's classmates to get together on stage for a group photo. They eagerly did so, several dozen of them bunched together, beaming for the camera. The smiles were jarring in the context of a memorial service until one remembered the broader context: It was the first time they had all gotten to be together since March. The next morning, I met Katrina Fuller, the mother of 11-year-old Landon, in the windswept parking lot of a strip mall. She had come to bring her teenage daughter to an outdoor kids' workout session that had been arranged hastily a few days earlier, after the news of Kooper's death. Despite the cold, two dozen kids, most in their early teens, had come out to the parking lot and were now doing various kickboxing exercises — spaced apart and with masks on — under the guidance of some martial arts instructors. Katrina, a prenatal educator, had been trying for months to draw attention to the mental health needs of Hobbs' young people. She had been writing and calling elected officials and state bureaucrats and finally, with the help of the local state senator, Gay Kernan, had gotten the state to provide some training for local teachers in recognizing youth mental health troubles. More resources had belatedly started pouring into the state: a $10 million federal grant for school-based mental health services, plus $500,000 in CARES Act funds. The challenge was less the lack of money than the lack of people to administer it: the state education department has only a single behavorial health coordinator, Leslie Kelly, who was struck by the rising concern about youth suicide during the pandemic given that the problem had existed for years in New Mexico. “I'm glad we care about this now, but our state was high pre-pandemic," Kelly said. Even if New Mexico's overall numbers were holding steady, to those in Hobbs, three youth suicides plus a half-dozen other attempts by students in a matter of months in a population of 39,000 felt like its own epidemic. Shivering in the parking lot, Fuller told me about Landon, who had “just wanted to be everyone's friend." He was the sort, she said, who always went over to any kid sitting by themselves on the playground. And Fuller told me about the difficult weeks of the initial lockdown in the spring, when both she and her husband were feeling the stress of a loss of income. They had tried to make things as nice as possible in those weeks, with an online birthday party for the two kids, and an Easter egg hunt. But it was still hard. “All of our moods changed," she said. And it was so hard for someone of Landon's age to grasp time; the six weeks of closure seemed like forever. I asked if she thought school should have opened in the fall, and she hesitated. She took the coronavirus seriously, she said. Her grandfather recently died of COVID-19. She was heartened by the launch of the exercise class but knew the town needed to come up with more, “just to let them know that we love them and they're so wanted and they're not alone." She started to cry. She said she had started hearing from many other families around the country whose kids were struggling, including a mother who'd discovered her 6-year-old's plans for how to end her own life. “These are kids without mental health issues, with good families, kids that are loved," she said. Definitive explanations were, of course, impossible to come by. “I've heard it all," Fuller said. “I've blamed myself." She had done a lot of reading on youth suicide since Landon's death, and had learned that rates were especially high in indigenous communities, like the Aboriginal community of Australia. In reading that, she had drawn a connection to American children who were being forced into a whole different way of life during the pandemic. “The theory is they're reacting to modern society," she said of the Aboriginal children. “Well, we're introducing them to a new society here, and they're rejecting it." Recently, Fuller told me, she had received an envelope in the mail from the New Mexico education department. She opened it and found a letter demanding to know why Landon had been truant from his online classes during the fall semester. The bureaucratic oversight stunned her. “He would be in school if he wasn't dead," she said. After my meeting with Fuller, I went back to the church. Sam was lifting weights with another friend in the small workout room that his father had set up. After I chatted with Sam, I walked with his father back to his office. He told me that he had been running through his last interactions with Kooper, over and over, searching for a warning sign, to no avail. All he knew was that Kooper had been upset about the closures. “When you put most of your things into achieving scholastic, and achieving athletic, and those things aren't available to you, your whole life, every goal you wanted to achieve is being taken away from you," he said. Kinney said he and the Hobbs school superintendent had been talking a few days earlier about the need to get kids back in school. “Like Texas, we have to learn to live with it," he said. “You know, marginalizing our teens for other people that are high-risk, what do you pick? You know? Because, I mean, we're losing them. Not only that, we're losing years of their educational development." Kinney said his brother-in-law, also a pastor, had become seriously ill with coronavirus, and he did not doubt its danger. But, he said, the current generation of kids “are the people that are going to be running our country one day. We're losing their leadership. They're going to be taking care of us one day, and this is how we're treating them?" He noted that one student at the October protest had carried a sign that read, “I'm able to vote in your next election." “They'll remember these times," he said. That night, I went to meet with Kooper's father and stepmother at their house, which sits out on the edge of town, near a small cattle farm. Meals cooked by friends covered the island in the kitchen. Justin and Heather told me how much comfort they were taking in the outpouring over Kooper, especially among his classmates. But they said they were thinking of all the other kids in another way, too. If normally lighthearted Kooper, despite a loving family and natural gifts, had been struggling so much, what about all the others? How much distress was invisible to parents? “He was a kid who had everything, and this is where we're at," said Justin. “What's going on with those other kids?" On my final day in Hobbs, I made the short drive across the Texas border to Denver City. It was startling to pull into the high school parking lot and see dozens of teenagers strolling out of the school building, wearing masks and carrying backpacks, on their way to lunch. Even more startling was hearing from school administrators about how well the football season had gone — the Denver City team made it to the second round of the playoffs — and about the great event of the night prior: the holiday band concert. To avoid dense crowds, the band had held three performances, with several hundred people attending each. In the large band hall, the band director showed me the dots he had taped on the floor to keep the 70-odd musicians spaced 7.5 feet apart even as they marched, and the cloth covers that one student's grandmother had made, decorated with the school's mustang logo, to go over the tubas, to keep them from emitting moisture. It was hard not to be impressed by the ingenuity, the determination to try to make things work, even now. “Whatever it takes," said Rick Martinez, the principal. After being in Denver City, things seemed emptier than ever at the Hobbs high school complex — in normal times, the center of communal life in Hobbs. I was there to meet with Coach Stevens, who had also been wracking his mind trying to think of clues he hadn't picked up from Kooper. He could think of nothing, other than the fact that he had noticed that one of Kooper's grades had slipped below his norm. But he also knew how adolescents had the natural tendency to magnify troubles. “I fear for all the kids," he said. “One thing that maybe our decision makers don't remember is that when you're in high school or you're a kid, thinking you're the only one dealing with something. That's what you think when you're 16: Nobody is dealing with what I'm dealing with." Not to mention, he said, that the closures have simply given kids too many empty hours. “They've got so much time on their hands," he said. “I don't care how good a kid you are, if you have so much time on your hands, you're going to find mischief." He told me how dearly he hoped the state stuck to its plan for a football season, truncated though it was. “My biggest fear is, you pull the rug on these kids," he said. “All we've been doing is trying to sell hope and belief to these kids that it's going to happen, but at some point, they're going to quit believing in you." My last visit in Hobbs was to the home of Jennifer Espinoza, Kooper's favorite teacher. When I entered her bungalow, Espinoza, a friendly woman in her 40s, said that I should feel welcome to take my mask off, because she had already been through a serious case of COVID-19, several weeks earlier. This startled me, but not nearly as much as what she told me next: that soon after her own illness, her partner of 18 years, Abe, had died of what had strongly resembled COVID-19, though his initial test had come back negative. He had been away from Hobbs at the time, working an oil-field job in Odessa, Texas, and a co-worker he had shared a truck with later tested positive. Abe died on Nov. 30, at 49, before she could see him. And then Kooper had died, a week later. It had been a terrible month, and it had left her uncertain about the best course for the Hobbs schools and sports teams. As the school year started, she had been among the majority of teachers who were willing to return to classrooms. This had only been confirmed for her as she saw how poorly the remote learning was going: not only did most students leave their cameras off, some wouldn't even turn on their microphones. “I can't see them, I can't even hear them," she said. “They didn't want to talk." But then she herself had gotten the virus — she wasn't sure where — and its severity had hit home, even before her partner's death. She had swung the other way on reopening. Now Kooper's death was making her reconsider again. “If it would prevent another Kooper, then definitely, yes," she said. “We just have to weigh the good and the bad. Do we fear everyone coming back and possibly getting COVID, or do we fear losing another student more?" In late January, Gov. Lujan Grisham would announce that schools could reopen for all ages on Feb. 8, but at maximum 50% capacity, which meant only a couple of days per week, and under the condition that they would close if cases rose again. Sports could start a few weeks after that, with masks and without fans. Nationwide, meanwhile, President Biden's push to reopen schools was explicitly leaving out high schools, leaving millions of teenagers with the likelihood of remote learning through the end of the school year. In the same week as Lujan Grisham announced her reopening plan, I made another check of the coronavirus toll in Hobbs' Lea County. The county had suffered 112 deaths attributed to COVID-19, which worked out to a per capita rate slightly lower than that in the three Texas counties abutting Lea. New Mexico as a whole had lost 3,145 people, two-hundredths of a percentage point higher than Texas in per capita terms. The overall per-capita case numbers in Lea County were slightly higher than the three counties across the border, while the case numbers in Texas were slightly higher than in New Mexico. Numerous factors had affected these outcomes, needless to say. The states had taken very different approaches with regard to their young people, but ended up in almost identical places as far as their coronavirus tolls. Other tolls would be harder to assess, in a year of so much damage done, in so many ways. “There's too much hurt," Espinoza said as I headed out of her house after our conversation. “There always seems like there's something new to cry about."

“We’re now getting more of these MIS-C kids, but this time, it just seems that a higher percentage of them are really critically ill,” said Dr. Roberta DeBiasi, chief of infectious diseases at Children’s National Hospital in Washington, D.C. During the hospital’s first wave, about half the patients needed treatment in the intensive care unit, she said, but now 80 to 90 percent do. The reasons are unclear. The surge follows the overall spike of Covid cases in the United States after the winter holiday season, and more cases may simply increase chances for severe disease to emerge. So far, there’s no evidence that recent coronavirus variants are responsible, and experts say it is too early to speculate about any impact of variants on the syndrome. The condition remains rare. The latest numbers from the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention show 2,060 cases in 48 states, Puerto Rico and the District of Columbia, including 30 deaths. The median age was 9, but infants to 20-year-olds have been afflicted. The data, which is complete only through mid-December, shows the rate of cases has been increasing since mid-October. While most young people, even those who became seriously ill, have survived and gone home in relatively healthy condition, doctors are uncertain whether any will experience lingering heart issues or other problems. “We really don’t know what will happen in the long term,” said Dr. Jean Ballweg, medical director of pediatric heart transplant and advanced heart failure at Children’s Hospital & Medical Center in Omaha, Neb., where from April through October, the hospital treated about two cases a month, about 30 percent of them in the I.C.U. That rose to 10 cases in December and 12 in January, with 60 percent needing I.C.U. care — most requiring ventilators. “Clearly, they seem to be more sick,” she said.

Scientists and doctors who study infectious disease in children largely agreed, in a recent New York Times survey about school openings, that elementary school students should be able to attend in-person school now. With safety measures like masking and opening windows, the benefits outweigh the risks, the majority of the 175 respondents said. In some ways, they were more supportive of broad reopening than the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention was in recently published guidelines. But the experts pointed to the large share of schools in the United States and worldwide that have opened with minimal in-school spread while using such precautions. Below are a representative range of their comments on key topics, including the risks to children of being out of school; the risks to teachers of being in school; whether vaccines are necessary before opening schools; how to achieve distance in crowded classrooms; what kind of ventilation is needed; and whether their own children’s school districts got it right. In addition to their daily work on Covid-19, most of the experts had school-aged children themselves, half of whom were attending in-person school.

The COVID-19 pandemic is among the worst public health crises of our lifetimes. Over the past 10 months, healthcare and public health professionals have worked tirelessly to overcome the unprecedented challenges COVID-19 has presented. The magnitude of cases and deaths related to COVID-19 has been devastating, and we are still far from the finish line in ending this pandemic. Another serious consequence of this pandemic is the effect it has had on school-age children. Opinion The educational, psychological and financial hardships of remote learning have had serious consequences for our children and their families, and those children with educational or behavioral challenges have been even more seriously affected. We cannot understate the serious psychological harm that prolonged virtual school has had on many children. We are seeing an epidemic of serious psychological illness that has reached a crisis point. Furthermore, lack of daytime structure and lack of access to school amenities such as hot lunches, especially for younger students from disadvantaged communities, has had significant health consequences. Opinion This Week A weekly overview of opinions, analysis and commentary on issues affecting Chicago, Illinois and our nation by outside contributors, Sun-Times readers and the CST Editorial Board. Subscribe In March 2020, Chicago and Illinois recognized the immediate threat that the community spread of COVID-19 posed. At that time, we were a facing a new virus with very little understanding of how it spread, how to prevent it and what risks the virus posed to children. This was compounded by limited access to personal protective equipment, diagnostic tests and medications to treat and prevent COVID-19. For that reason, most schools went virtual. However, we have learned a lot over the last 10 months about children safely returning to the classroom. For example, we have discovered that in-school spread of COVID-19 is rare when proper precautions are taken. Furthermore, we know now that children, and especially young children of elementary school age, are much less likely to transmit infection to adults than the other way around. The American Academy of Pediatrics and many of the world’s most prestigious children’s hospitals published guidelines over the summer in an attempt to keep schools open. Such rules have enabled many public, parochial and private schools in neighborhoods across Chicago and its suburbs to remain open for in-person learning over the last three months. In our collective experience, there have been few, if any, schools that have fully enforced public health mitigation guidelines that had to close because of secondary transmission. Simply put, layered mitigation strategies at schools have been proven effective. The mitigation strategies are by now familiar to all. Masks are worn by all individuals at school. Students and teachers are spaced three- to six-feet apart. Hand hygiene is consistently performed and environmental controls such as adequate ventilation are assured. Children are kept together as much as possible in small classes (pods), so that if there is an exposure, it is limited to a single class and not the entire grade or school. Transition of children between classrooms and crowding of hallways is limited. Lunch time is staggered, and lunches are often eaten in classrooms quickly and quietly. Recess has been modified. Parents are instructed not to send children with any COVID-19 compatible symptoms to school and are required to fill out a daily screener. Contact tracing and quarantining of exposed children and family members is strictly enforced, and proper behavior outside of school is reinforced. Access to testing for those who require it (such as symptomatic students or family members), either at school or locally, is also crucial. The reality is that these strategies have been successfully implemented at many schools across Chicagoland. Understanding that our children’s education is of vital importance, with the support of administration, teachers, students and parents, these schools have safely been open for in-person learning all school year. The past few weeks have brought a ray of hope. With vaccines being distributed to healthcare workers and high-risk adults, and soon to follow to the general public, we now have a tool that has high potential to lead us back to the lives we knew before COVID-19. As vaccines become more widely available over the coming weeks to months, vaccination campaigns will also help maintain a safe school environment. It is widely agreed upon by the medical community that in-person classroom learning is both optimal and safe using the layered mitigation strategies described above. The healthcare professionals authoring this op-ed strongly advocate for schools to return to some form of in-person learning as soon as possible. We would be happy to help schools implement this vital and time sensitive recommendation for the benefit of our children. Michael Angarone, DO, Division of Infectious Disease, Northwestern Medicine Allison H. Bartlett MD, Section of Pediatric infectious Diseases, University of Chicago Comer Children’s Hospital Virginia DePaul MD, pediatrician, North Suburban Pediatrics Cathy DiVincenzo MD, pediatrician, Kids First Pediatric Partners Mary Dobbins MD, president, Illinois Chapter of the American Academy of Pediatrics (representing the chapter) David Dobkin MD, pediatrician, North Arlington Pediatrics Daniel Evans MD, Internal Medicine, Northwestern Medicine Shannon Galvin MD, Division of Infectious Disease, Northwestern Medicine Mary C Hall MD, pediatrician, Kids Health Partners Daniel Johnson MD, Chief, Section of Pediatric infectious Diseases, University of Chicago Comer Children’s Hospital Ben Katz MD, Pediatric Infectious Disease, Lurie Children’s Hospital Valerie Kimball MD, pediatrician, Chicago Area Pediatrics Latania K. Logan MD, MSPH, Chief, Pediatric Infectious Diseases, Rush University Children’s Hospital James Mitchell MD, pediatrician, Section of Academic Pediatrics, University of Chicago Comer Children’s Hospital James Olson MD, pediatrician, Kids Health Partners Bruce Rowell MD, pediatrician, Lawndale Christian Health Center Dov Shapiro MD, pediatrician, Associated Pediatric Partners Send letters to [email protected].

Open schools. Close indoor dining. When to keep schools open, and how to do so, has been an issue plaguing the response by the United States to the pandemic since its beginning. President Biden vowed to “teach our children in safe schools” in his inaugural address. On Tuesday, federal health officials weighed in with a call for returning children to the nation’s classrooms as soon as possible, saying the “preponderance of available evidence” indicates that in-person instruction can be carried out safely as long as mask-wearing and social distancing are maintained. But local officials also must be willing to impose limits on other settings — like indoor dining, bars or poorly ventilated gyms — in order to keep infection rates low in the community at large, researchers at the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention said in the journal JAMA and in a follow-up interview. School administrators must limit risky activities such as indoor sports, they added. “It’s not going to be safe to have a pizza party with a group of students,” Margaret Honein, a member of the C.D.C.’s Covid-19 emergency response team and the first author of the article, said in an interview. “But outdoor cross-country, where distance can be maintained, might be fine to continue.”

“I think there’s a pretty good base of evidence now that schools can open safely in the presence of strong safety plans, and even at higher levels of case incidence than we had suspected,” he said. Dr. Rubin and his colleagues have devised new guidelines for when to close and reopen schools as the virus continues to march through much of the United States. The decisions should depend not on absolute numbers — for example, 5 percent of tests turning up positive — but on the trend in case numbers, he said. “If you’re really trying to keep kids in school, you have to do this in a much different way,” he said — with an expectation not of zero risk, but of risk managed by safety measures. Rather than closing schools where community transmission is high, businesses like restaurants, bars or other indoor spaces where adults congregate should be shuttered, Dr. Rubin said. Facing an immense second wave, some countries in Europe, like the Netherlands, have instituted restrictions on indoor dining, private gatherings and public transportation. “And they said none of this applies to schools, because education is too important,” Dr. Nichols said. “It’s just such a different priority.” While a vast majority of studies suggest that children are not superspreaders, the data is far from perfect. Few schools are routinely testing students or staff and, even when they identify cases, it’s difficult to trace the infection’s origins. Random testing in schools can provide a glimpse of trends within a school or a city, but may miss early signs of a cluster. Perhaps the biggest issue in studies of children has been a failure to consistently account for age. Many studies classify anyone under 18 as a child, said Helen Jenkins, an infectious disease expert at Boston University.

Childhood obesity has been a growing issue in the U.S., and now doctors say the pandemic may be making it worse. Many adults had joked about gaining the “COVID 19,” meaning extra pounds, but local pediatricians say children are too. If the problem is not addressed now, doctors fear it could lead to long-term health issues. READ: Appointments book up fast as COVID-19 vaccination site debuts at Oviedo Mall When the world shut down, it impacted adults and children, even Belinda Windbish’s children who are homeschooled. “The word of the Lord in 2020 is refinement,” she said. " We have found ourselves not around our people, play dates, sports -- activities that allowed us to be around other people and moving.” Nine months later, Windbish’s pediatrician wanted to discuss her son’s and daughter’s weight. One was gaining, another was losing. READ: Florida adds almost 8,200 new COVID-19 cases, 99 virus-related deaths as vaccinations continue “We all gained something and lost something, but I’m just not looking at weight,” Windbish said. Dr. Angela Fals is the director of AdventHealth’s pediatric Healthy Weight and Wellness program. She said children usually gain about four pounds for every inch of growth, but now they’re gaining more. “There’s a good amount of children or teens gaining about 10 to 20 pounds,” Fals said. READ: Second stimulus check: With bill signed, who gets $600 checks; could it be more? And now, her program is in more demand. “We actually see that we have a two-to-three month wait period to join our program,” Fals said. The program provides support that tackles weight and the root causes of weight change, like if children are eating from stress or boredom, if they’re depressed, or sleeping more or less, all of which sometimes manifests in weight gain. READ: Coronavirus vaccine: Where do you stand in line for a COVID-19 vaccine? “If we notice that weight is going up, it could lead to Type 2 diabetes or heart disease cardiovascular disease liver disease,” Fals said. Dr. Loyd Werk with the Nemours Children Hospital’s Healthy Choices clinic said parents can take charge. If children are overeating, make a plan and get kids engaged in sports, even if they’re not organized sports. Doctors said the first move for concerned parents is to talk with your child’s pediatrician. Before the pandemic, the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention reported more than 18% of children were considered obese.

Over all, children’s screen time had doubled by May as compared with the same period in the year prior, according to Qustodio, a company that tracks usage on tens of thousands of devices used by children, ages 4 to 15, worldwide. The data showed that usage increased as time passed: In the United States, for instance, children spent, on average, 97 minutes a day on YouTube in March and April, up from 57 minutes in February, and nearly double the use a year prior — with similar trends found in Britain and Spain. The company calls the month-by-month increase “The Covid Effect.” Children turn to screens because they say they have no alternative activities or entertainment — this is where they hang out with friends and go to school — all while the technology platforms profit by seducing loyalty through tactics like rewards of virtual money or “limited edition” perks for keeping up daily “streaks” of use. “This has been a gift to them — we’ve given them a captive audience: our children,” said Dr. Dimitri Christakis, director of the Center for Child Health, Behavior and Development at Seattle Children’s Research Institute. The cost will be borne by families, Dr. Christakis said, because increased online use is associated with anxiety, depression, obesity and aggression — “and addiction to the medium itself.” Crucially, the research shows only associations, which means that heavy internet use does not necessarily cause these problems. What concerns researchers, at a minimum, is that the use of devices is a poor substitute for activities known to be central to health, social and physical development, including physical play and other interactions that help children learn how to confront challenging social situations. Yet parents express a kind of hopelessness with their options. Keeping to pre-pandemic rules seems not just impractical, it can feel downright mean to keep children from a major source of socializing. “So I take it away and they do what? A puzzle? Learn to sew? Knit? I don’t know what the expectations are,” said Paraskevi Briasouli, a corporate writer who is raising four children — ages 8, 6, 3 and 1 — with her husband in a two-bedroom Manhattan apartment. Device time has replaced sports on weekday afternoons and soared 70 percent on weekends, she said.

By DAVE COLLINS, Associated Press HARTFORD, Conn. (AP) — Connecticut police chiefs on Friday expressed concern about a spike in juvenile crime they believe is related to the coronavirus pandemic, as teens spend more time away from school because of remote learning and canceled after-school activities. Police are seeing an alarming increase in car thefts and robberies involving juveniles, as well as a troubling increase in shootings involving teens and young adults, the police chiefs of New Haven and Waterbury told Gov. Ned Lamont and other administration officials during a video conference discussion about law enforcement issues arising during the pandemic. “We have an issue where a lot of our young folks are not in school,” New Haven Police Chief Otoniel Reyes said. “These are young folks that need that structure ... that school provides them. Many of them are making bad decisions. ... Every week we’re dealing with robberies and stolen vehicles. We’re dealing with juveniles that are committing robberies. And it's very concerning.” Crime rates dropped significantly during the 10 years ending in 2019, but violent crime has increased in many cities across the country this year, the chiefs said. In New Haven, there were 19 murders in the city as of Nov. 8, up nine during the same period in 2019. Assaults with firearms were up 39%, and robberies with firearms increased 23%, according to the city's latest data. In Hartford as of Nov. 28, there were 22 murders this year, down one from the same period last year, but shooting incidents increased 58% to more than 200 this year. Aggravated assaults were up 20% and car thefts were up 58%. The number of new juvenile criminal court cases in the state has been declining in recent years. But as of Nov. 30, there were nearly 1,950 pending juvenile cases, more than the 1,905 pending cases in the fiscal year that ended June 30, 2019, according to the state Judicial Branch. Police in Connecticut's cities have been working with Project Longevity and other groups, as well as community leaders and activists, to try to curb violence through programs offering therapy, housing and employment assistance, education and social services. Lamont announced Friday that New Haven and Waterbury police will be receiving grants of $125,000 apiece from federal coronavirus-related aid to help quell the violence. In other coronavirus-related developments in Connecticut: ___ MORE DEATHS Lamont said Friday that 36 more people in the state died from the coronavirus since Thursday, bringing total deaths to more than 5,360 since the pandemic began. The number of people hospitalized dropped by four, to 1,210. Nearly 3,800 more people tested positive for the virus since Thursday. Over the past two weeks, the seven-day rolling average of daily deaths in Connecticut has risen from about 17 to 31. Hospitalizations are nearly quadruple what they were at the beginning of November. The seven-day rolling average of new daily infections has increased over the past two weeks from about 1,396 to 2,400. ___ INMATES ORDERED RELEASED A judge has ordered the release of 17 inmates from a federal prison in Connecticut by Saturday, saying government officials have been too slow in moving medically vulnerable prisoners to home confinement or furlough to protect them from the coronavirus. U.S. District Judge Michael Shea in Hartford issued the order Thursday night as part of a lawsuit by inmates at the Federal Correctional Institution in Danbury. A settlement of the lawsuit in July requires the federal Bureau of Prisons to promptly identify prisoners who are low security risks and have a greater chance of developing serious complications from the virus and release them to home confinement. The settlement calls for prisoners to be released within 14 days of being approved. But lawyers for the inmates say some of them have been waiting nearly three months to be released after being approved for home confinement. In court documents, prison officials cited several reasons for the delays in releasing the inmates, including required 14-day quarantines due to the virus and new Bureau of Prisons guidelines in releasing inmates to the community. The inmates' attorneys say they are representing about 450 medically vulnerable prisoners at Danbury, which houses about 1,000 male and female inmates. The Bureau of Prisons says there are 30 Danbury inmates and two staff members now infected with COVID-19. Since the pandemic began, 81 inmates and 67 staff members have recovered from the virus, and one inmate has died.

AD Decades of systemic racism have left minority neighborhoods and their academic support structures already weakened, and virtual learning is worsening the learning loss in students from these communities. First-quarter MCPS grades revealed alarming differences in the failure rates between White and minority students. African American and Hispanic students from low-income families failed classes at rates 5 to 6 times more compared with last year, whereas White students had minimal increases. AD Minority students often lack access to tutors, pods or expensive learning centers, and they sometimes have to juggle child-care responsibilities, jobs and learning in more challenging home environments. Their parents are more likely to be essential workers who are unable to supervise the day-to-day demands of their children’s education. Some do not have access to quality Internet services. Students report they find distance-learning platforms inherently stressful and have stopped logging on altogether. In my clinic, we are seeing children who were already having difficulty in school now failing classes, and honors students barely passing. English-language learners are struggling with maintaining language skills because of their lack of daily interaction with native English speakers. One Haitian immigrant teen recently told me that she used to be fluent in English, but “now I only speak Creole at home, so I am forgetting my words.” AD I am also seeing patients who could be the first in their family to attend college decide to forgo their dreams of higher education. Without in-person access to counselors and teachers, they are finding it extremely difficult to navigate the challenging college application process. Maintaining high grades, for which they have worked harder, and in the face of greater head winds than their wealthier peers, has also presented challenges. Inside Higher Ed found that college applications for first-generation students and those eligible for application fee waivers were down 16 percent this year, with many colleges reporting a decrease in Latino and Black college applications. AD In addition to academic challenges, children and teens are desperate for social interaction. A recent report by the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention revealed pediatric emergency room visits related to mental health were up 24 percent for children ages 5 to 11 and 31 percent for children ages 12 to 17. In my practice, we have documented a 30 percent increase in mental health referrals since the start of the pandemic for conditions such as depression, anxiety and suicidal ideation. Social isolation affects children from all communities, but minority children, who are particularly vulnerable to mental health crises, are at higher risk. Furthermore, there has been a 40 percent decrease in reporting of child neglect and abuse because educators are typically the main source to report. This leads to fewer interventions and worsening outcomes. We now have convincing data that schools are safe and should be open for in-person learning. Even in minority communities where coronavirus rates may be higher, data has shown that schools are not superspreader locations, and that, with mitigation such as masking and distancing, schools are safe places for students and teachers. The CDC, World Health Organization, American Academy of Pediatrics and numerous respected public health leaders acknowledge schools are safe and should remain open. AD The harm of prolonged school closure is just too devastating to keep schools closed. And the knowledge from the thousands of schools that safely reopened in the fall demonstrates masking and social-distancing protocols are effective and sufficient. AD And herein lies the rub. MCPS knows this. But, because of outside pressure, it is keeping school officially closed while providing subsidies for low-income children to attend in-person, privately run “equity hubs” where they can learn remotely, sitting in school alongside other students. Proctors replace teachers. This is a clear recognition that in-person learning is possible despite rising coronavirus rates in the community. But this is an unnecessary, inferior alternative. Sadly, a county that has typically been at the forefront of addressing inequities is not adequately addressing learning loss and the ever-widening opportunity gap that results from remote learning. Contrary to the false claims that minorities don’t want to return to in-person learning, the presence of minority-filled equity hubs and results from the recent MCPS survey demonstrate that Latino and African American interest for school return is significant. This interest will continue to grow as schools reopen and it becomes clear that the health risks are minimal. In my practice, which is 90 percent minority, there is a universal desperation among students to return to school. AD If MCPS is genuinely concerned about equity for its students, particularly students of color, it must reopen to provide desperately needed additional resources that can only be delivered through in-person learning. School failure has been linked to poor lifelong health consequences through decreased employment and earning capacity, higher risk of incarceration and even premature death from substance abuse and preventable diseases. AD An entire generation between the ages of 5 and 18 has been effectively removed from society at large. They do not have the same ability to vote or speak out, so it is high time for children’s advocates, including teachers and parents, to raise their voices for a return to school. Read more:

The COVID-19 pandemic has claimed the life of another U.S. politician: Rep. Ron Wright of Texas. The Republican congressman, who had been battling lung cancer, died of COVID-19 on Sunday night, February 7, according to the Dallas Morning News. The 67-year-old Wright, according to the Morning News, was admitted to Baylor Hospital in Dallas two weeks ago along with his wife Susan Wright. Wright had been reelected in November. In July 2019, Wright announced, on Facebook, that he had been diagnosed with lung cancer. And his COVID-19 diagnosis came in January following the storming of the U.S. Capitol Building. Others who were inside the Capitol Building during the January 6 siege have tested positive for COVID-19 as well, including Rep. Pramila Jayapal of Washington.

Although COVID-19 has been the deadliest global health crisis in more than 100 years, many Republicans have resisted mask mandates in red states — including Missouri, where a former employee of the Missouri House of Representatives has filed a lawsuit and alleges he was fired for raising concerns about the lack of a mask mandate in the statehouse. The former employee, Tad Mayfield, filed his lawsuit on March 1 in Cole County Circuit Court — and he alleges that in 2020, he voiced his concerns to his supervisor as well to leaders in the Missouri House and the Missouri Senate. Mayfield, according to Missouri Independent reporter Jason Hancock, believes he was fired because he "exercised his rights guaranteed by the 1st Amendment by speaking out before all of the defendants upon matters of public concern." Mayfield, in his lawsuit, is asking the court to put him back in his former position and award punitive damages. The defendants named in Mayfield's lawsuit include Missouri House Human Resources Director Judy Kempker, Missouri Assistant House Clerk Emily White and former Missouri House Speaker Elijah Haahr. Hancock explains, "Last March, all employees of the House were placed on administrative leave due to the COVID-19 pandemic. Two months later, House employees were instructed to fill out an alternative interim work plan form to facilitate working from home. According to the lawsuit, Mayfield was contacted by White via e-mail on July 28, 2020, and asked to fill out another alternative interim work plan that would include one day a week of covering the office in person with the remaining four days working from home. He responded, copying both Miller and Haahr, laying out why he didn't want to work in person even one day a week." Mayfield wrote, "I assume, since I haven't heard otherwise, that the House is still not requiring face masks in the Capitol? This is disappointing since the single most important thing people can do to help stop the spread of an airborne virus is to wear a face mask. At the risk of sounding confrontational, which I in no way wish to convey, I think it is important to state unequivocally, by not requiring face coverings, the House has become a hostile work environment." Later, on August 3, 2020, Mayfield e-mailed Haahr and Missouri Senate President Pro Tem David Schatz and wrote, "For the health and wellbeing of all who enter the Capitol, I am requesting that you, as leadership of the House and Senate, adhere to CDC guidelines and implement a mandatory face mask policy for all spaces in our Capitol, excluding personal office spaces of members." In his lawsuit, Mayfield alleges that three days after he sent that e-mail, Miller told him that his employment was ending and that he could submit a resignation. Mayfield, who is requesting a jury trial, refused to resign and was fired. "Earlier this year," Hancock notes, "the House voted, 46-105, against requiring legislators to follow Centers for Disease Control guidance for controlling the coronavirus, including wearing masks. Shortly after that vote, House leadership cancelled a week of session due to a COVID-19 outbreak in the Capitol. Rising infections among lawmakers and staff ultimately caused GOP leaders to refuse to allow Gov. Mike Parson to deliver his annual State of the State address in the House chamber." The COVID-19 pandemic has turned out to be the deadliest global health crisis since the Spanish flu pandemic of 1918/1919. According to researchers at Johns Hopkins University in Baltimore, COVID-19 has killed over 2.5 million people worldwide and more than 525,000 people in the United States — which continues to be the coronavirus hotspot of the world. But 2021 has brought some good news about the pandemic. The U.S. Food and Drug Administration has approved three COVID-19 vaccines: one from Pfizer, one from Moderna, and now, a single-dose vaccine from Johnson & Johnson. Millions of people have been vaccinated, and President Joe Biden has promised that vaccines will be available to all Americans by the end of May.

As President-elect Joe Biden's lead over President Donald Trump continues to grow in both the electoral vote and the popular vote, many pundits are analyzing the reasons for Biden's victory. At the top of the list of reasons is Trump's response to the COVID-19 pandemic, which Biden has repeatedly slammed as disastrous. MSNBC's Chris Hayes clearly shares Biden's view, and during an angry, scathing commentary on his Wednesday night show, the news host argued that Trump and other Republicans have failed their country miserably during the worst pandemic in over 100 years. Hayes opened his commentary by noting the current popular vote count, pointing out that Americans of all political stripes are suffering because of the pandemic. "This is an enormous, complicated country," Hayes explained. "72 million people voted for Donald Trump, and 77 million and counting — that will go up — voted for Joe Biden in the tallying completed so far. And Trump voters and Biden voters, we share this country together. What it means to be American is to share this place." Hayes added, "The best form of patriotism is that you love your country not because it's better than other counties — you love it the same way you love your family: because it's yours. And you fight for it because it's yours. And this country, our country we all share together, is in unbelievable distress right now." The MSNBC host went on address the fact that in the U.S., the pandemic has been going from bad to worse in one state after another. "Americans are all being thrashed by this virus," Hayes angrily noted, adding that per-capita, the U.S. has some of the worst COVID-19 infection rates in the world. The U.S. clearly leads the world in the number of COVID-19 deaths, according to Johns Hopkins University in Baltimore. But on a per-capita basis, the infection rates in the U.S. are — as Hayes pointed out — also appalling. And Hayes slammed not only Trump, but also, other Republicans who continue to hold superspreader events that ignore social distancing guidelines. Hayes told viewers, "There are more than 150 countries doing better than us…. We should be demanding the best of our country and our leadership. But instead, this corrupt, defeated government has surrendered." Watch the video below:

In the spring of 2020, inside the U.S. government, some officials began to see and collect evidence of a different, perhaps more troubling theory—that the outbreak had a connection to one of the laboratories in Wuhan, among them the WIV, a world leading center of research on bat coronaviruses. To some inside the government, the name of the laboratory was familiar. Its research on bat viruses had already drawn the attention of U.S. diplomats and officials at the Beijing Embassy in late 2017, prompting them to alert Washington that the lab’s own scientists had reported “a serious shortage of appropriately trained technicians and investigators needed to safely operate this high-containment laboratory.” But their cables to Washington were ignored. When I published the warnings from these cables in April 2020, they added fuel to a debate that had already gone from a scientific and forensic question to a hot-button political issue, as the previously internal U.S. government debate over the lab’s possible connection spilled into public view. The next day, Trump said he was “investigating,” and Secretary of State Mike Pompeo called on Beijing to “come clean” about the origin of the outbreak. Two weeks later, Pompeo said there was “enormous evidence” pointing to the lab, but he didn’t provide any of said evidence. As Trump and Chinese President Xi Jinping's relationship unraveled and administration officials openly blamed the Wuhan lab, the U.S.-China relationship only went further downhill. As the pandemic set in worldwide, the origin story was largely set aside in the public coverage of the crisis. But the internal government debate continued, now over whether the United States should release more information about what it knew about the lab and its possible connection to the outbreak. The January 15 statement was cleared by the intelligence community, but the underlying data was still held secret. Likely changing no minds, it was meant as a signal—showing that circumstantial evidence did exist, and that the theory deserved further investigation. Now, the new Joe Biden team is walking a tightrope, calling on Beijing to release more data, while declining to endorse or dispute the Trump administration’s controversial claims. The origin story remains entangled both in domestic politics and U.S.-China relations. Last month, National security adviser Jake Sullivan issued a statement expressing “deep concerns” about a forthcoming report from a team assembled by the World Health Organization that toured Wuhan—even visiting the lab—but was denied crucial data by the Chinese authorities. But more than four years ago, long before this question blew up into an international point of tension between China and the United States, the story started with a simple warning. *** In late 2017, top health and science officials at the U.S. Embassy in Beijing attended a conference in the Chinese capital. There, they saw a presentation on a new study put out by a group of Chinese scientists, including several from the Wuhan lab, in conjunction with the U.S. National Institutes of Health. Since the 2002 outbreak of SARS—the deadly disease caused by a coronavirus transmitted by bats in China—scientists around the world had been looking for ways to predict and limit future outbreaks of similar diseases. To aid the effort, the NIH had funded a number of projects that involved the WIV scientists, including much of the Wuhan lab’s work with bat coronaviruses. The new study was entitled “Discovery of a Rich Gene Pool of Bat SARS-Related Coronaviruses Provides New Insights into the Origin of SARS Coronavirus.” These researchers, the American officials learned, had found a population of bats from caves in Yunnan province that gave them insight into how SARS coronaviruses originated and spread. The researchers boasted that they may have found the cave where the original SARS coronavirus originated. But all the U.S. diplomats cared about was that these scientists had discovered three new viruses that had a unique characteristic: they contained a "spike protein” that was particularly good at grabbing on to a specific receptor in human lung cells known as an ACE2 receptor. That means the viruses were potentially very dangerous for humans—and that these viruses were now in a lab with which they, the U.S. diplomats, were largely unfamiliar. Knowing the significance of the Wuhan virologists’ discovery, and knowing that the WIV’s top-level biosafety laboratory (BSL-4) was relatively new, the U.S. Embassy health and science officials in Beijing decided to go to Wuhan and check it out. In total, the embassy sent three teams of experts in late 2017 and early 2018 to meet with the WIV scientists, among them Shi Zhengli, often referred to as the “bat woman” because of her extensive experience studying coronaviruses found in bats. When they sat down with the scientists at the WIV, the American diplomats were shocked by what they heard. The Chinese researchers told them they didn’t have enough properly trained technicians to safely operate their BSL-4 lab. The Wuhan scientists were asking for more support to get the lab up to top standards. The diplomats wrote two cables to Washington reporting on their visits to the Wuhan lab. More should be done to help the lab meet top safety standards, they said, and they urged Washington to get on it. They also warned that the WIV researchers had found new bat coronaviruses could easily infect human cells, and which used the same cellular route that had been used by the original SARS coronavirus. Taken together, those two points—a particularly dangerous groups of viruses being studied in a lab with real safety problems—were intended as a warning about a potential public-health crisis, one of the cable writers told me. They kept the cables unclassified because they wanted more people back home to be able to read and share them, according to the cable writer. But there was no response from State Department headquarters and they were never made public. And as U.S.-China tensions rose over the course of 2018, American diplomats lost access to labs such as the one at the WIV. “The cable was a warning shot,” one U.S. official said. “They were begging people to pay attention to what was going on.” The world would be paying attention soon enough—but by then, it would be too late. The cables were not leaked to me by any Trump administration political official, as many in the media wrongly assumed. In fact, Secretary of State Pompeo was angry when he found out about the leak. He needed to keep up the veneer of good relations with China, and these revelations would make that job more difficult. Trump and President Xi had agreed during their March 26 phone call to halt the war of words that had erupted when a Chinese diplomat alleged on Twitter that the outbreak might have been caused by the U.S. Army. That had prompted Trump to start calling it the “China virus,” deliberately blaming Beijing in a racist way. Xi had warned Trump in that call that China’s level of cooperation on releasing critical equipment in America’s darkest moment would be jeopardized by continued accusations. After receiving the cables from a source, I called around to get reactions from other American officials I trusted. What I found was that, just months into the pandemic, a large swath of the government already believed the virus had escaped from the WIV lab, rather than having leaped from an animal to a human at the Wuhan seafood market or some other random natural setting, as the Chinese government had claimed. Any theory of the pandemic’s origins had to account for the fact that the outbreak of the novel coronavirus—or, by its official name, SARS-CoV-2—first appeared in Wuhan, on the doorstep of the lab that possessed one of the world’s largest collections of bat coronaviruses and that possessed the closest known relative of SARS-CoV-2, a virus known as RaTG13 that Shi identified in her lab. Shi, in her March interview, said that when she was first told about the virus outbreak in her town, she thought the officials had gotten it wrong, because she would have guessed that such a virus would break out in southern China, where most of the bats live. “I had never expected this kind of thing to happen in Wuhan, in central China,” she said. By April, U.S. officials at the NSC and the State Department had begun to compile circumstantial evidence that the WIV lab, rather than the seafood market, was actually the source of the virus. The former explanation for the outbreak was entirely plausible, they felt, whereas the latter would be an extreme coincidence. But the officials couldn’t say that out loud because there wasn’t firm proof either way. And if the U.S. government accused China of lying about the outbreak without firm evidence, Beijing would surely escalate tensions even more, which meant that Americans might not get the medical supplies that were desperately needed to combat the rapid spread of SARS-CoV-2 in the United States. Arkansas Senator Tom Cotton seemed not to have been concerned about any of those considerations. On February 16, he had offered a totally unfounded theory of his own, claiming on Fox News that the virus might have come from China’s biowarfare program—suggesting, in other words, that it had been engineered deliberately to kill humans. This wasn’t supported by any known research: To this day, scientists largely agree that the virus was not “engineered” to be deadly; SARS-CoV-2 showed no evidence of direct genetic manipulation. Furthermore, the WIV lab had published some of its research about bat coronaviruses that can infect humans—not exactly the level of secrecy you would expect for a clandestine weapons program. As Cotton’s speculation vaulted the origin story into the news in an incendiary new way, he undermined the ongoing effort in other parts of the U.S. government to pinpoint the exact origins and nature of the coronavirus pandemic. From then on, journalists and politicians alike would conflate the false idea of the coronavirus being a Chinese bioweapon with the plausible idea that the virus had accidentally been released from the WIV lab, making it a far more politically loaded question to pursue. *** After I published a Washington Post column on the Wuhan cables on April 14, Pompeo publicly called on Beijing to “come clean” about the origin of the outbreak and weeks later declared there was “enormous evidence” to that effect beyond the Wuhan cables themselves. But he refused to produce any other proof. At the same time, some members of the intelligence community leaked to my colleagues that they had discovered “no firm evidence” that the outbreak originated in the lab. That was true in a sense. Deputy national security adviser Matthew Pottinger had asked the intelligence community to look for evidence of all possible scenarios for the outbreak, including the market or a lab accident, but they hadn’t found any firm links to either. But absence of evidence is not evidence of absence. There was a gap in the intelligence. And the intelligence community didn’t know either way. Large parts of the scientific community also decried my report, pointing to the fact that natural spillovers have been the cause of other viral outbreaks, and that they were the culprit more often than accidents. But many of the scientists who spoke out to defend the lab were Shi’s research partners and funders, like the head of the global public health nonprofit EcoHealth Alliance, Peter Daszak; their research was tied to hers, and if the Wuhan lab were implicated in the pandemic, they would have to answer a lot of tough questions. Likewise, the American scientists who knew and worked with Shi could not say for sure her lab was unconnected to the outbreak, because there’s no way they could know exactly what the WIV lab was doing outside their cooperative projects. Beijing threatened Australia and the EU for even suggesting an independent investigation into the origins of the virus. In May, Chinese CDC officials declared on Chinese state media that they had ruled out the possibility that the seafood market was the origin of the virus, completely abandoning the original official story. As for the “bat woman” herself, Shi didn’t think the lab accident theory was so crazy. In her March interview, she described frantically searching her own lab’s records after learning of the coronavirus outbreak in Wuhan. “Could they have come from our lab?” she recalled asking herself. Shi said she was relieved when she didn’t find the new coronavirus in her files. “That really took a load off my mind,” she said. “I had not slept a wink in days.” Of course, if she had found the virus, she likely would not have been able to admit it, given that the Chinese government was going around the world insisting the lab had not been involved in the outbreak. *** A key argument of those Chinese and American scientists disputing the lab accident theory is that Chinese researchers had performed their work out in the open and had disclosed the coronavirus research they were performing. This argument was used to attack anyone who didn’t believe the Chinese scientists’ firm denials their labs could possibly have been responsible for the outbreak. But one senior administration official told me that many officials in various parts of the U.S. government, especially the NSC and the State Department, came to believe that these researchers had not been as forthcoming as had been claimed. What they were worried about was something called “gain-of-function” research, in which the virulence or transmissibility of dangerous pathogens is deliberately increased. The purpose is to help scientists predict how viruses might evolve in ways that hurt humans before it happens in nature. But by bypassing pathogens’ natural evolutionary cycles, these experiments create risks of a human-made outbreak if a lab accident were to occur. For this reason, the Obama administration issued a moratorium on gain-of-function experiments in October 2014. The Wuhan Institute of Virology had openly participated in gain-of-function research in partnership with U.S. universities and institutions. But the official told me the U.S. government had evidence that Chinese labs were performing gain-of-function research on a much larger scale than was publicly disclosed, meaning they were taking more risks in more labs than anyone outside China was aware of. This insight, in turn, fed into the lab-accident hypothesis in a new and troubling way. A little-noticed study was released in early July 2020 by a group of Chinese researchers in Beijing, including several affiliated with the Academy of Military Medical Science. These scientists said they had created a new model for studying SARS-CoV-2 by creating mice with human-like lung characteristics by using the CRISPR gene-editing technology to give the mice lung cells with the human ACE2 receptor — the cell receptor that allowed coronaviruses to so easily infect human lungs. After consultations with experts, some U.S. officials came to believe this Beijing lab was likely conducting coronavirus experiments on mice fitted with ACE2 receptors well before the coronavirus outbreak—research they hadn’t disclosed and continued not to admit to. In its January 15 statement, the State Department alleged that although the Wuhan Institute of Virology disclosed some of its participation in gain-of-function research, it has not disclosed its work on RaTG13 and “has engaged in classified research, including laboratory animal experiments, on behalf of the Chinese military since at least 2017.” That, by itself, did not help to explain how SARS-CoV-2 originated. But it was clear that officials believed there was a lot of risky coronavirus research going on in Chinese labs that the rest of the world was simply not aware of. “This was just a peek under a curtain of an entire galaxy of activity, including labs and military labs in Beijing and Wuhan playing around with coronaviruses in ACE2 mice in unsafe labs,” the senior administration official said. “It suggests we are getting a peek at a body of activity that isn’t understood in the West or even has precedent here.” This pattern of deception and obfuscation, combined with the new revelations about how Chinese labs were handling dangerous coronaviruses in ways their Western counterparts didn’t know about, led some U.S. officials to become increasingly convinced that Chinese authorities were manipulating scientific information to fit their narrative. But there was so little transparency, it was impossible for the U.S. government to prove, one way or the other. “If there was a smoking gun, the CCP [Communist Party of China] buried it along with anyone who would dare speak up about it,” one U.S. official told me. “We’ll probably never be able to prove it one way or the other, which was Beijing’s goal all along.” Back in 2017, the U.S. diplomats who had visited the lab in Wuhan had foreseen these very events, but nobody had listened and nothing had been done. “We were trying to warn that that lab was a serious danger,” one of the cable writers who had visited the lab told me. “I have to admit, I thought it would be maybe a SARS-like outbreak again. If I knew it would turn out to be the greatest pandemic in human history, I would have made a bigger stink about it.”

For several weeks in a row, COVID-19 in the United States has taken a dramatic retreat, with reports of new infections, new hospitalizations, and new deaths from the virus all dropping significantly from previous record highs. The COVID Tracking Project recently summed up the encouraging trends: Nationally, all signs point to continued rapid easing of the pandemic's deadly winter surge. Cases are down 23 percent from the previous week and down 57 percent from the country's all-time peak in early January when the US recorded 1.7 million new cases in a single week. Hospitalization numbers confirm this rapid decline: There are about 77,000 people hospitalized with COVID-19 in the US as of February 10, down 42 percent from the country's January 6 record of about 132,000 people. Reported deaths dropped for the second week in a row, with 19,266 deaths reported this week—almost 10 percent fewer than were reported in the previous week. Still, the numbers are still horrifically high, with thousands reportedly killed every day, even if the trends are going in the right direction. Some of the recent turnaround in the trends may be due to the fact that people around the country have responded to the reports of the winter surge by increasing mask-wearing and social distancing. Winter holiday gatherings likely contributed to the spike in cases in January, but personal behavior seems to have become more cautious in the subsequent weeks, giving the virus fewer opportunities to spread. Immunity from both vaccines and previous infection may also be playing a role in the decline of outbreaks. Nevertheless, it's not clear how much the seriousness of the latest wave of the pandemic has sunk in across the country. While the first spike in the spring of 2020 evoked national horror, especially as New York City found itself overwhelmed and struggling to cope with its wave of infection and death, denialism and dismissiveness about the impact of the disease has since pervaded much of the country. This is particularly true on the right wing, led by former President Donald Trump's downplaying of the pandemic. But even among more neutral or left-wing observers, the sense of urgency that was initially so gripping seemed to weaken in the winter, even as the pandemic became more severe than ever. This may not be anyone's fault — one can only maintain shock and horror for so long until the horrors become the status quo — but it may give us a distorted sense of reality. That's why a recent horrifying graph from ABC News is so illuminating. While we've become accustomed to looking at daily or weekly rates of death — an important measure when assessing the impact of policies and the direction outbreaks are taking — this graph shows the acceleration in cumulative deaths, emphasizing the toll the virus has taken on the country: The graph clearly illustrates the sharp acceleration of the death toll in the recent winter months, beginning in December. According to Worldometer, more than 500,000 people have now been reported dead because of COVID-19, more than double the White House's worst-case prediction for the death toll of 240,000 in March of 2020. What's particularly notable about the graph is that throughout the recent acceleration, Trump spent little time focused on fighting the pandemic. After the Nov. 3 election, he turned his attention to contesting Joe Biden's victory in increasingly desperate and dangerous ways (culminating in a historic insurrection that was, among many other things, a superspreader event). All the reporting and his public actions suggest he had little interest in combatting the virus, which he had long seemed bored of anyway. The new administration has blasted its predecessor for leaving behind no substantive national plan for vaccine distribution, leaving the responsibility to the states. As outbreaks accelerated worse than ever before, he was asleep at the wheel. Denialists about COVID criticized the ABC News graph, claiming that these reported deaths are merely attributed to the virus but likely would have happened anyway. But this is not so. While it will take a long time before the data is complete, initial studies found that there was a significant spike in mortality in the U.S. in 2020 — exactly what we should expect if the coronavirus was as deadly as the experts say. The CDC has similarly estimated that there were a total of about 500,000 excess deaths from February 2020 to the end of January 2021. USA Today reported last month: Final figures aren't yet in, but preliminary numbers show 2020 is on track to become the deadliest year in U.S. history, with more than 3.2 million totaldeaths – about 400,000 more than 2019 – a sharp increase that public health experts attribute to COVID-19 and aligns with reported deaths from the disease. The Centers for Disease Control and Prevention reported 2,835,533 U.S. deaths in 2019. Before the pandemic, models projected a slightly higher number, about 2.9 million deaths, for 2020, said Dr. Jeremy Faust, an emergency physician at Brigham and Women's Hospital. It's not a coincidence, he said, that the 400,000 excess deaths closely resemble the number of coronavirus deaths in the U.S., which reached 401,796 as of Wednesday, according to Johns Hopkins data. There is finally much reason for optimism. As I reported at the beginning, the virus is in retreat. Vaccinations are accelerating around the country, and the initial studies suggest they should be highly effective at blocking the virus, mitigating disease, and reducing the spread. Still, serious dangers remain. Mutant versions of the coronavirus abound, which may spread more easily or partially evade our vaccines. Many Americans are skeptical of the vaccine and may refuse to take it even when it's available, undermining our ability to stop the virus and prevent more mutant strains from arising. But even if the optimists are vindicated and the virus's days as a major public health threat are numbered, there's no undoing the damage that's been done. It's a national tragedy that must be reckoned with as such.

As autumn fades and winter looms, the dire predictions public-health experts made about Covid-19 have, unfortunately, proven all-too-accurate. On October 27th, 74,379 people were infected in the United States; less than a month and a half later, on December 9th, that number had soared to 218,677, while the 2020 total has just surpassed 15 million, a number no other country, not even India, which has a population three times that of the U.S., has surpassed And now, it seems, the third wave of the virus has arrived. As recently as late October, the embattled Dr. Anthony Fauci, the nation's leading infectious disease expert, warned that "we are in for a whole lot of hurt" and that infections could reach 100,000 a day. As it happens, he was wildly optimistic. A little more than a month later, there were more than twice that many. Is it possible, however, that the current surge is due in part to increased testing, as President Trump and others have regularly claimed? Here's the problem. Even if that theory were true, it can't account for the spiraling death toll, which is now more than 300,000 and could hit 450,000 by February, according to Robert Redfield, the head of the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. Nor can it explain the daily Covid-19 hospitalizations, the first round of which peaked at 59,712 on July 23rd, dropped pretty steadily to a low of 28,606 on September 20th, and then started to soar, reaching 106,671 on December 9th. Though big-picture statistics like these should help us grasp the staggering magnitude of our current public-health crisis, what they don't reveal is the searing effects it's had on the lives of millions of Americans, even those who have managed to evade the virus or haven't seen friends or family fall ill or die from Covid-19. The pandemic has been especially hard for those on the front lines: doctors, nurses, and other hospital workers who experience battle fatigue and despair while besieged by suffering and deaths, visceral reminders of their own vulnerability. In society at large, precautions -- lockdowns, social distancing, limits on festive gatherings -- necessary to keep Covid-19 at bay have increased loneliness and social isolation. Contrary to early expectations, reports of abuse and violence within families haven't actually spiraled, but experts suggest that may be because the victims, confined to their homes alongside their tormentors, are finding it harder to seek help and fear reporting what's happening to them. As for children, teachers are no longer seeing their pupils in person as regularly and so are less able to spot the typical warning signs of mistreatment. Thankfully, the pandemic has yet to increase this country's already alarming suicide rate, but the same can't be said for levels of stress and depression, both of which have risen noticeably. School closures and the move to online learning have forced parents, particularly women, to scramble for childcare and to work less, even though many of them were barely getting by while working full-time, or stop working altogether, often a genuine disaster in poor families. Not surprisingly, people who have been laid off or had their work hours reduced have fallen behind on their mortgage and rent payments. Although various federal and state moratoriums on such payments, as well as on evictions and foreclosures, were enacted, such protections will eventually end. And the moratoriums don't negate renters' or homeowners' obligations to settle accounts with their bankers and landlords somewhere down the line (which for many Americans may, in the end, prove an impossibility). Food and the Pandemic Apart from the illness and death it causes, perhaps the most poignant consequence of Covid-19 has been the way it's increased what's called "food insecurity" across the United States. That ungainly term doesn't refer to the chronic food scarcity and undernourishment, which afflicts more than 800 million people in poor countries, but rather to the disruption of people's typical food-consumption patterns. The U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA) distinguishes between what it calls low food security ("reduced quality, variability, or desirability of diet") and the very low version of the same ("multiple indications of disrupted eating patterns and reduced food intake"). Surveys by the USDA and the Census Bureau show that both variants have risen steeply during the pandemic. Just before the coronavirus struck, 35 million Americans, 11 million of them children, experienced food insecurity, the lowest figure in two decades. This year, those numbers are projected to reach 54 million and 18 million respectively. In 2018, 4% of American adults reported that at least some members of their family did not have enough to eat; by July 2020, that figure had hit 11%, according to a study by Northwestern University's Food Research and Action Center, and will only increase as the pandemic worsens. Income supplements provided by the $2.2 trillion CARES Act that Congress passed in March in response to the economic problems created by Covid-19, increases in the government's Supplementary Nutritional Program (SNAP), and the Pandemic Electronic Benefit (P-EBT), which helps parents whose children no longer get free or subsidized school lunches, have made a difference -- but not enough to make up for lost or reduced income, lost homes, and other disasters of this moment. And sadly, any follow-up to the CARES Act, assuming Congress reaches some kind of agreement on its terms before the current legislation expires at the end of December, will almost certainly be far less generous than the original law. The SNAP increases already excluded the poorest seven million households that were then receiving the maximum amount, and the new increases now under discussion in Congress would add less than one dollar to a four-person family's maximum daily benefit. P-EBT expired in most states at the end of September, in some as early as July. That food insecurity has "skyrocketed," as the Center for Budget and Policy Priorities puts it, during the pandemic despite government assistance shouldn't come as a surprise. Millions of people have lost their jobs. Some have seen their earnings diminished because of furloughs, wage cuts, freezes, or reduced working hours. Others have looked for jobs in vain and finally given up (but aren't included in official unemployment statistics). Millions of adults have children who no longer receive those free or subsidized lunches because of the switch, in whole or part, to online teaching. Worse yet, as pandemic-induced firings, layoffs, and wage cuts have reduced incomes, and so consumer purchasing power, food prices, especially for meat, fish, and eggs, have only risen. Such costs have increased for other reasons as well. The pandemic has disrupted supply networks, national and international. Leery consumers, anticipating shortages or seeking to reduce trips to grocery stores to avoid being infected by Covid-19, have also resorted to panic buying and the stockpiling of food and other necessities. Who You Are and Where You Live Matters Most Of course, not everyone has been hit with equal force by rising food prices. Americans high on the income ladder can absorb such extra costs easily enough and, in any case, spend a substantially smaller portion of their income on groceries. According to the USDA, adults with incomes in the top fifth of society spent 8% of their income on food last year; for the bottom fifth, it was 36%. The first group also obviously has a lot more money available to stock up on food than that bottom fifth, so many of whom have also become jobless or seen their paychecks diminish since the pandemic started. In March, for example, 39% of those making less than $40,000 had already lost their jobs or had their paychecks reduced, but only 13% of those who earned $100,000 or more, and that gap continued into the fall. Not surprisingly, then, the bigger the hit people took from the Covid-19 recession, the more likely they were to experience food insecurity, which is why aggregate statistics on the phenomenon and other societal problems attributable to the pandemic can be misleading. They tend to mask the reality that its effects have been felt primarily by the most vulnerable, while the others have been touched much more lightly, or not at all. The variations are rooted in ethnicity and location as well as income level (and the three tend to be closely linked). A USDA report classified 19% of Black households and 16% of Hispanic households as food insecure in 2019, compared to 8% of their white counterparts. By this summer, food insecurity had increased significantly across the board, afflicting 36% of Black, 32% of Hispanic, and 18% of white households. While the pandemic has certainly made matters worse, African Americans had the highest rate among those three groups even before it started. This was especially true of counties -- the U.S. has more than 3,000 of them -- in which they were in the majority. In 2016, those particular counties accounted for a mere 3% of the national total, but 96% of them had "high food insecurity," as the Department of Agriculture defines it, as well as a poverty rate more than twice the national average (12.7% that year). Native Americans have had the worst of it, however, since many of their families lack access to running water and plumbing (58 per 1,000 households compared to three per 1,000 for whites). Nearly 75% of Native Americans must travel more than a mile to reach a supermarket, compared to 40% of the population as a whole, and the disruption of supply chains has only diminished their food security further relative to other ethnic communities. Even prior to the pandemic, counties in which they (or Native Alaskans) constituted a majority were among those with the highest levels of food insecurity. Not coincidentally, in 2016, the poverty rate in nearly 70% of Native American-majority counties averaged a whopping 37%. In other words, while every group has suffered in this pandemic year, race matters -- a lot -- when it comes to the degree of suffering. So does income. In coronavirus-stricken America, only 1% of adults with an annual income exceeding $100,000 surveyed by the Census Bureau this summer responded that, during the preceding week, their household "sometimes or often did not have enough to eat." Compare that to 16% of those making $25,000-$35,000 and 28% of those earning less than $25,000. Finally, food insecurity during the pandemic has varied by location as well. Ten states (and the District of Columbia) had the highest rates, ranging from Mississippi (33.5%), which stood atop this group, to Alabama (27%), which had the lowest. In between, in descending order, were Washington, D.C., Nevada, Louisiana, New York, New Mexico, Florida, Tennessee, and North Carolina. Food Banks and Pantries: On The Front Lines The other day, a close friend described to me the daily scene at a food distribution center in New York City's Harlem neighborhood. Well before trucks laden with food pulled up early in the morning, he said, the lines had already started forming, hundreds of people waiting patiently in a queue that encircled the block. And that's just one of many neighborhoods in New York where this is all too typical these days. In Queens, for instance, one pantry regularly faces a demand so steep that lines can extend for eight blocks. Try to imagine what the waiting time must be. All told, 1.5 million people in the city, unable to buy the groceries they need, rely on food pantries, and New York is anything but unusual. Photographs abound of cars lined up by the hundreds, even thousands, at food pantries in major cities around the country. Feeding America, a non-profit organization that supports 200 food storage centers and 60,000 pantries nationwide, reports that the country's food banks have provided the equivalent of more than 4.2 billion meals since March, a 50% increase compared to a year ago and 40% of the people who come to such pantries are first-time visitors. A Consumer Reports survey of grocery shoppers found that nearly a fifth of them had turned to a food pantry since the pandemic began (half of whom hadn't sought such help at all in 2019). In March, before the first wave of Covid-19 began to peak, 18 million Americans already used food pantries; by August, that number had climbed to 22 million, even though an additional 6.2 million people had received benefits from SNAP (the food-stamp program in common parlance) between March and May alone. By early July, 37.4 million people had signed up for SNAP compared to 35.7 million for all of last year. Little wonder, then, that food banks, facing a tsunami of demand, have struggled to stay stocked amid rising prices, shortages, reduced donations from big chain supermarkets, and disrupted supply chains. It's also become even harder for them to raise the money they need to operate. Not a few have buckled under the strain and many have been forced to shut down. Pantries have also had a hard time mustering volunteers, in part because seniors, particularly vulnerable to the virus, made up a significant segment of such helpers. Not surprisingly, then, food banks and pantries have battled to function or simply survive in these months, while also having to implement an array of cumbersome and costly safety measures to keep volunteers, staff, and clients infection-free. Despite their heroic role, such food banks and pantries are the equivalent of the proverbial finger in the dike. For Covid-induced food insecurity and hunger to decline significantly, the third wave of infections will have to subside and Congress will have to offer more effective aid. The Trump administration's recent proposal, blessed by Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell, to provide a one-shot $600 check to all adults (whether they're unemployed or not) certainly isn't. At the same time, vaccines will have to be produced in sufficient quantities and distributed rapidly. (We are far from ready on that front.) All this in a country where striking numbers of people look askance at vaccination -- in a December survey only 63% of Americans said they would be willing to get vaccinated against Covid-19 -- and are also drawn to conspiracy mongers whose appeal has grown, thanks in part to social media. Once the virus is vanquished or at least brought under reasonable control, the economy can be reopened. Then, many of the nearly 11 million at-present unemployed people will perhaps have a shot at working again or having their employers end reduced hours and cut wages. Here's hoping that these various stars align by summer 2021. We can then revert to pre-pandemic normalcy, even though that state of affairs was marked by substantial poverty -- 34 million people last year -- and rising inequality. Rajan Menon, a TomDispatch regular, is the Anne and Bernard Spitzer Professor of International Relations at the Powell School, City College of New York, senior research fellow at Columbia University's Saltzman Institute of War and Peace Studies, and a non-resident fellow at the Quincy Institute for Responsible Statecraft. His latest book is The Conceit of Humanitarian Intervention. Follow TomDispatch on Twitter and join us on Facebook. Check out the newest Dispatch Books, John Feffer's new dystopian novel (the second in the Splinterlands series) Frostlands, Beverly Gologorsky's novel Every Body Has a Story, and Tom Engelhardt's A Nation Unmade by War, as well as Alfred McCoy's In the Shadows of the American Century: The Rise and Decline of U.S. Global Power and John Dower's The Violent American Century: War and Terror Since World War II. Copyright 2020 Rajan Menon

As Colorado celebrates its annual "MeatOut Day" in an effort to encourage meat-eaters to consider plant-based cuisine, the state of Nebraska is now doing the exact opposite. According to AP News, Nebraska Gov. Pete Ricketts (R) pushed back against the pro-vegetarianism holiday being celebrated in the neighboring state. On Saturday, March 13, Ricketts appeared united with the support of Nebraska's top meat, agricultural and restaurant industry officials as he declared the day "Meat on the Menu Day" in his state. The decision was reportedly a response to Colorado Gov. Jared Polis' (D) support of vegetarianism advocation efforts backed by an animal rights group. Although Polis has supported the group's efforts, he has also faced backlash for eating meat, himself. Ricketts also argued the benefits of meat consumption as he noted that it is "a nutritious, protein-rich food source." With Nebraska having the largest beef production industry in the country, meat consumption is a vast profit spectrum for the state. The Republican governor also insisted that the initiative is "a direct attack on our way of life here in Nebraska." Nebraska Department of Agriculture Director Steve Wellman also reiterated the state's financial advantages where meat production and agriculture are concerned. He noted that "agriculture supports one out of every four jobs in-state and generates $21 billion each year. Meat products alone generate about $12 billion annually, and the industry has continued to grow." "When agriculture does well, Nebraska does well," Wellman said. "Agriculture is the heart and soul of Nebraska, and our 45,700 farm and ranch families keep our state going year after year." Ricketts went on to discuss the importance of meat in his state, which has the largest beef production industry in the United States. "If you were to get rid of beef in our country, you would be undermining our food security, an important part of a healthy diet, and also destroying an industry here in our state that's very important," Ricketts said. "MeatOut Day" in Colorado began back in 1985 by the Farm Animal Rights Movement. The group continues to raise awareness about the health benefits of living vegan and vegetarian lifestyles as evidence has shown that vegan diets can "reduce the risk of heart disease, stroke, cancer, diabetes, and other chronic illnesses."

DENVER (CBS4)– Gov. Jared Polis is drawing fire after declaring March 20 “Meatout” day in Colorado. He’s asking Coloradans to eat only plant-based products that day. State Sen. Jerry Sonnenberg, a third-generation Colorado rancher, is among those who are outraged. He took the floor of the state Senate Friday and took the governor to task over the proclamation that he says could impact The National Western Stock Show. Sonnenberg says words have consequences especially when they’re the words of the governor. “We can’t have leadership in this state throw the number two industry in this state under the bus…that’s unacceptable!!” It’s not the first time the governor, whose partner is vegan, has snubbed the beef industry. Sonnenberg recalled how Polis plugged Burger King’s meatless burger when it came out, even sending a bunch of them to the Department of Agriculture. “This contributes to his war on rural Colorado and creates an even bigger divide and it is a slap in the face.” It could also have economic ramifications. Sonnenberg says the National Hereford Association is now threatening to leave the National Western, saying the proclamation is the last straw. Polis isn’t backing off and is, in fact, downplaying the controversy, “We do hundreds of these proclamations.” He suggests everyone’s overreacting, noting that he’s expanded markets for Colorado beef and he likes meat or, at least, he likes cooking it. “One of my quarantine holidays learning to cook some of the underappreciated cuts including flanks and round steak and I’ll put my brisket against anybody’s brisket in the state.” Sen. Rhonda Fields suggests the governor is tone-deaf, “Have you seen the lines in reference to people getting boxes of food? And we want to have a day of no meat?” Sonnenberg also isn’t amused and asked his Senate colleagues to join him in sending a message, “Members, I’m asking you to stand up for ag, be vocal for ag.” The National Western released a statement saying the proclamation is disappointing but wouldn’t say whether it might hurt the stock show. Meantime, the Colorado Cattlemen’s Association is holding a “Meatin” day March 20, the same day as “Meatout” day. It has posted a list of beef barbeques planned across the state and restaurants and stores that will be offering meat specials on its website.

Steak will be on the menu in conservative strongholds across Colorado on March 20, thanks to a proclamation from the governor’s office urging just the opposite. Late last month, word started to get out that Gov. Jared Polis has proclaimed the 20th as MeatOut Day. The day, which was started in 1985 by the Farm Animals Rights Movement, is meant to encourage non-vegetarians to consider moving toward a plant-based diet. When asked about the designation, Conor Cahill, the governor’s spokesman, said the office “gets hundreds of requests for proclamations throughout the year and rarely declines these non-binding ceremonial proclamations that get auto-penned by the Governor.” Polis himself eats meat, although his fiance, first gentleman Marlon Reis, is a vegan and animal rights advocate. While the declaration has no binding impact on what Coloradans choose to eat on the 20th, the suggestion that the governor would elevate an effort to get people to say goodbye to beef, if only for a day, quickly rankled Colorado’s ranching sector and its defenders. The Colorado Cattlemen’s Association responded by urging people to celebrate a “Meat In” on the 20th. “On this day, CCA encourages Colorado to meet in a restaurant and order your favorite meat dish, meet your family and friends for a meal featuring meat!” states the group’s announcement. Already, numerous conservative groups — and Weld County’s Board of Commissioners — have answered that call, pledging to hold cookouts heavy on the animal protein. Nebraska Gov. Pete Ricketts issued his own proclamation, declaring March 20 “Meat on the Menu” day for his state.

Last week, two federal agencies decided that sustainability concerns didn’t have a place in the government’s determination of what makes a healthy diet, rejecting an advisory panel’s recommendation that the government consider the environmental cost of agriculture in nutrition programs and limit the consumption of meat. But if environmentalists want to sell a plant-based diet to the masses, they may be better off talking about grocery bills instead of animal agriculture’s contribution to climate change: A new study published in the Journal of Hunger & Environmental Nutrition found that eating a vegetarian diet is cheaper. According to the research, by eating a plant-based diet that uses olive oil — instead of lean animal protein — as a healthy source of fat, you could save nearly $750 a year compared with the average cost of a 2,000-calorie diet that follows the federal MyPlate nutrition guidelines. Not only was the meatless diet cheaper than eating meat, but it provided more of the fruits, vegetables, and whole grains that are generally considered to be integral to a healthy diet. The one discrepancy between the two diets, which both met minimum nutrition standards, is that the plant-based diet contained less protein — 60 grams, compared with the 96 grams in the MyPlate meal plan. However, plenty of research suggests that despite our obsession with adding more protein to absolutely everything, there’s no need to pack more into our diet. For a seven-day meal plan, the MyPlate diet cost $53.11, with 21 percent of that money spent on meat—a number that would surely rise if you sought out meat from animals that are free range, antibiotic-free, or reflect any other concerns about meat production you might have. The plant-based diet would increase in cost, too, if you were to buy organic ingredients. Still, the point of the research has less to do with what the upper end of spending is and more with showing that the vegetarian diet’s financial barrier to entry is rather low. “Healthy diets are perceived to be expensive due to vegetables, fruits, whole grains, and low-fat animal protein,” the authors write, but as this study suggests, cost is not a good argument against eating meals centered on plant foods instead of meat. YOU MIGHT ALSO LIKE The Fake Meat Market Is Surging 8 Vegetables That Are Better to Eat Raw Horse Meat in the U.S. Food Chain? Neigh It Ain't So 18 Foods You Don't Need to Buy Organic 6 Fruits and Vegetables You Can Easily Grow Indoors

All over the United States — from Georgia to Iowa to Arizona — Republicans in state governments have been pushing voter suppression bills designed to make it harder to vote. Conservative Washington Post opinion writer Max Boot examines the GOP's voter suppression efforts in a March 17 column, stressing that much of his former party has abandoned traditional conservatism in favor of outright "authoritarianism." "When I was growing up in the 1980s," the 51-year-old Boot explains, "the Republican Party stood for freedom — freedom from big government at home and from communist tyranny abroad. It was why I, as a young refugee from the Soviet Union, became a Republican in the first place. I am, therefore, agonized and appalled to see the GOP rapidly metamorphosing into an authoritarian party that has more in common with the Law and Justice Party in Poland or the Fidesz Party in Hungary than with mainstream center-right parties such as the Christian Democrats in Germany." Boot adds that according to a newly declassified report from the National Intelligence Council, allies of Russian President Vladimir Putin falsely accused Democrats of promoting voter fraud and engaged in a smear campaign against now-President Joe Biden — hoping that their actions would help get then- President Donald Trump reelected. Putin supporters in Russia, Boot notes, pushed "the same narratives" as Trump's sycophants at Fox News and One America News. "This was the second election in a row where Trump and his supporters were serenely untroubled by the help he received from a hostile authoritarian regime," Boot writes. "The Russian effort to influence our election didn't succeed this time, but even after Trump lost, he kept pushing the Big Lie that he had actually won and continued to demand that either the courts or Republican lawmakers overturn the results…. Even after a Trump mob stormed the Capitol (on January 6), 147 Republicans in both houses (of Congress) voted to toss out electoral votes. In other words, nearly 60% of Republicans were willing to subvert democracy to win power." Despite Trump's "unprecedented assault on our democracy," Boot adds, the Republican Party is not "renouncing" the former president. And the Never Trump conservative notes that now, the GOP is "renouncing democracy" and pushing voter suppression bills left and right. The Democratic majority in the U.S. House of Representatives recently passed House Resolution 1, a.k.a. the For the People Act — which faces an uphill battle in the U.S. Senate. Boot notes that Republican Sen. Mike Lee of Utah said of HR 1, "This is a bill as if written in hell by the Devil himself." "What are its hellish provisions?," Boot writes. "Proposals such as automatically registering citizens to vote, allowing same-day voter registration, expanding voting by mail and early voting, making it harder for states to purge registered voters from the rolls, and banning partisan gerrymandering. These are all provisions that would strengthen our democracy. But the GOP is increasingly invested in authoritarianism as the best route to power." Boot continues, "The only way this bill, or any version thereof, can pass the Senate is if the Democrats eliminate or amend the filibuster rule that demands 60 votes to pass most legislation. Unfortunately, there aren't ten Republicans in the Senate who can be counted upon to support voting rights. It is hard to imagine a more damning indictment of the party once led by freedom fighters such as Abraham Lincoln, Theodore Roosevelt, Dwight D. Eisenhower, Ronald Reagan and George H.W. Bush."

Photos of would-be Georgia voters standing—and, in some cases, sitting—in long lines after 11 pm to cast their ballots in the state's primary on Tuesday encapsulated what rights groups and lawmakers decried as a disastrous day for democracy and an entirely predictable result of years of deliberate voter suppression efforts by Republican lawmakers and the U.S. Supreme Court. The myriad issues that plagued Georgia's primary Tuesday—malfunctioning new voting machines, an insufficient number of paper ballots, too-few poll workers, polling places opening late—are hardly unheard of in the state, given that similar problems threw the 2018 midterm contests into chaos, sparking calls for better preparation and stronger protections against disenfranchisement. The coronavirus pandemic added another layer of hurdles, and provided Republicans with additional opportunities to limit ballot access. "The ACLU warned that insufficient resources were allocated for polling places, machines, in-person election staff, and staff to process absentee ballots and that this would result in the disenfranchisement of voters in 2020," Andrea Young, executive director of the ACLU of Georgia, said in a statement. "It gives us no pleasure to be proven right." "Whether it is incompetence or intentional voter suppression," Young added, "the result is the same—Georgians denied their rights as citizens in this democracy." In response to drone footage showing long lines outside of a polling place in Atlanta, Rep. Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez (D-N.Y.) suggested it's more of the latter, writing, "This is by design, and it's their test run for November." "Republicans don't want vote by mail because it chips away at their ability to do exactly this: target and disenfranchise black voters and people of color," Ocasio-Cortez wrote. "These scenes are specifically happening in black communities, not white ones." Rep. Pramila Jayapal (D-Wash.), co-chair of the Congressional Progressive Caucus, echoed Ocasio-Cortez. "This is no accident," Jayapal said. "Black and brown people have been kept out of our elections—100% on purpose and by design. We must end racist voter suppression efforts, restore, and expand voting rights, and build a democracy that ensures every voice is heard." As Ari Berman of Mother Jones noted late Tuesday, Georgia—which is poised to play a major role in the 2020 presidential election in November—"closed 214 polling places after the Supreme Court gutted the Voting Rights Act" in 2013. "There were 80 fewer polling places for the June primary in metro Atlanta, where a majority of black voters live," Berman tweeted. "Mitch McConnell is blocking legislation passed by House Dems to restore the VRA." Georgia's Republican Secretary of State Brad Raffensperger, who ignored repeated warnings that the state's new voting system would not be ready by 2020, was quick to point fingers at individual counties—particularly DeKalb and Fulton, which both have large black populations—for the voting problems, vowing to in a statement to launch an investigation to "determine what these counties need to do to resolve these issues before November's election." Michael Thurmond, Chief Executive Officer of DeKalb County, fired back. "It is the Secretary of State's responsibility to train, prepare, and equip election staff throughout the state to ensure fair and equal access to the ballot box." "Those Georgians who have been disenfranchised by the statewide chaos that has affected the voting system today in numerous DeKalb precincts and throughout the state of Georgia deserve answer," Thurmond added. With the results of the statewide primary contests still rolling in, Common Cause Georgia executive director Aunna Dennis said in a statement that "the obstacles that Georgia's voters have faced in this election are simply unacceptable." "It's also unacceptable that the officials entrusted with administering the elections have spent the day dodging blame, rather than accepting responsibility," said Dennis. "Today's problems were avoidable—and they disenfranchised voters. That must not be allowed to happen again."

Subscribe to The Nation Subscribe now for as little as $2 a month! Subscribe now for as little as $2 a month! Get The Nation’s Weekly Newsletter Fridays. A weekly digest of the best of our coverage. You will receive occasional promotional offers for programs that support The Nation’s journalism. You can read our Privacy Policy here. Fridays. A weekly digest of the best of our coverage. Thank you for signing up for The Nation’s weekly newsletter. Join the Books & the Arts Newsletter Enter your email to get the best of The Nation’s Books & the Arts section in your inbox biweekly. You will receive occasional promotional offers for programs that support The Nation’s journalism. You can read our Privacy Policy here. Enter your email to get the best of The Nation’s Books & the Arts section in your inbox biweekly. Thank you for signing up. For more from The Nation, check out our latest issue Subscribe to The Nation Subscribe now for as little as $2 a month! Subscribe now for as little as $2 a month! Support Progressive Journalism The Nation is reader supported: Chip in $10 or more to help us continue to write about the issues that matter. The Nation is reader supported: Chip in $10 or more to help us continue to write about the issues that matter. Sign up for our Wine Club today. Did you know you can support The Nation by drinking wine? At the beating heart of the Big Lie—the deranged fantasy that the 2020 election was stolen from its loser, Donald Trump—is the Republican belief that the votes of Black people shouldn’t count. In lawsuit after lawsuit after the election, Republicans asked the courts to throw away votes that had been cast in predominantly Black communities. In Michigan, they literally singled out Detroit and threatened to refuse to certify its votes. The GOP’s entire postelection strategy was to reinstitute race-based voter disenfranchisement all the way up to January 6, when 147 Republican lawmakers voted to straight-up overturn the results because Black people had overcome the white supremacy baked into the Electoral College. While the failed Capitol insurrection has stymied at least some of these efforts, the very serious work of preventing Black people from voting in the future continues apace. The Brennan Center for Justice reports that state legislatures have already prepared three times as many voter restriction bills this year as were proposed during the same period of time last year. The numbers are staggering: “Twenty-eight states have introduced, prefiled, or carried over 106 restrictive bills this year (as compared to 35 such bills in fifteen states on February 3, 2020).” In Pennsylvania, for instance, the Republican-controlled legislature has proposed 14 new restrictions. New Hampshire’s legislature has put forward 10. (They should change their state motto to “Vote Republican or Die.”) Senator Josh Hawley’s home state of Missouri has nine voter suppression bills kicking around, while 11 are on the docket in Georgia, which seems determined to suppress its way back to being a red state after Democrats won the presidential election and two Senate runoffs there. The new laws cover everything Republicans could think of to make it harder for people to cast a vote. Many of the proposals are laser-focused on absentee ballots: Republicans want to make those harder to get, easier to reject, and impossible to fix. Other laws make it harder for people to register to vote. Still others want to make it easier to purge registered voters from the rolls. Republicans don’t have to succeed in all of these attempts—and, ultimately, they don’t have to suppress that many additional votes—to throw future elections their way. Despite Joe Biden whupping Trump by over 7 million votes nationwide, his margin of victory in the Electoral College came down to about 43,000 votes across three states. The college is already rigged to produce Republican victories despite the will of popular majorities. If Republicans can make it just a little harder for the multiethnic coalition united against them to vote against them, then the Electoral College will do the rest. The Republican candidate for president has lost the popular vote in seven of the last eight elections. What’s wild is that the GOP has no plans to address this problem, no strategy to broaden its appeal beyond the insular white racists and wealthy white business interests that represent a stagnant and aging minority of the country. There will be no reckoning, no autopsy, no self-reflection about what their party has become. For them, it’s voter suppression or bust. The Democrats’ response to the Jim Crow–style policies being unashamedly pushed by Republicans appears to be the John Lewis Voting Rights Advancement Act. The bill, renamed for the famed Georgia congressman after his death, seeks to restore elements of the 1965 Voting Rights Act eviscerated by Chief Justice John Roberts in 2013 and add additional protections against discriminatory voter ID laws. Current Issue View our current issue The problem, somewhat obviously, is that the Supreme Court could strike down this voting rights act just as easily as it did the original. There’s no guarantee that Roberts will view Congress’s new law more favorably—and even if he does, the court today is very different from it was in 2013. To withstand a legal challenge, the Lewis Act would have to be upheld by Roberts, the three remaining liberals on the court, and at least one member of the ultraconservative wing: Clarence Thomas, Samuel Alito, Neil Gorsuch, Amy Coney Barrett, or alleged attempted rapist Brett Kavanaugh. None of these conservatives have ever shown the slightest inclination to protect voting rights, and I’m not particularly hopeful they’ll start now. But the rot goes deeper than that. Conservatives on the lower courts are in on the voter suppression game as well, since they also realize that denying the franchise to Black voters is the best way to ensure continued white dominance. Historically, white people have always been creative when it comes to dreaming up new ways to disenfranchise Black people—never mind the 15th Amendment’s prohibition on race-based voter restrictions—and white courts have always been willing to look the other way. Whether it’s forcing Black voters to count jelly beans in a jar or insisting that formerly incarcerated people pay fines before they’re allowed to vote again, the forces of white supremacy always find their muse when Black people try to exercise political power. No legislation can anticipate all of their maneuvers. As currently written, the Lewis Act doesn’t have strong protections for mail-in ballots, because such ballots weren’t a big issue until a few months ago. This means the act is already outmoded, and while I’m sure it will be rewritten and strengthened, it does go to show that, when it comes to voter suppression, Republicans practice the kind of racism that never sleeps. That’s why it’s critical to have judges who will uphold the principle of voting rights, even in new situations. The problem is that Republicans have stacked the courts with conservatives who clearly won’t. Don’t be fooled by the judiciary’s resistance to the Big Lie: Asking judges to throw out votes that have already been cast, as the Republicans did, is different from asking them to make it harder for votes to be cast in the first place. As we saw in the last election, conservative judges were perfectly happy to knock down laws that would have made it easier and safer for people to vote during a pandemic. The most important thing Democrats can do now to secure voting rights is to expand the courts and flood them with judges who will fiercely protect access to the ballot box. We need judges who will counteract whatever the Republicans do next to disenfranchise Black folks. Voter suppression is an attack on our democracy that is happening right now, in broad daylight, and it’s being carried out by the same forces of white supremacy that stormed the Capitol. And like the Capitol insurrectionists, the voter suppressionists must be met and defeated.

FILE - In this Nov. 3, 2020, file photo, people wait in line to vote at a polling place on Election Day in Las Vegas. Republican efforts to restrict voting access are taking shape in statehouses across the country with a flurry of legislation aimed at limiting measures that led to record turnout in the 2020 presidential election. (AP Photo/John Locher, File) FILE - In this Nov. 3, 2020, file photo, people wait in line to vote at a polling place on Election Day in Las Vegas. Republican efforts to restrict voting access are taking shape in statehouses across the country with a flurry of legislation aimed at limiting measures that led to record turnout in the 2020 presidential election. (AP Photo/John Locher, File) AUSTIN, Texas (AP) — Republican lawmakers in statehouses across the country are moving swiftly to attack some of the voting methods that fueled the highest turnout for a presidential election in 50 years. Although most legislative sessions are just getting underway, the Brennan Center for Justice, a public policy institute, has already tallied more than 100 bills in 28 states meant to restrict voting access. More than a third of those proposals are aimed at limiting mail voting, while other bills seek to strengthen voter ID requirements and registration processes, as well as allow for more aggressive means to remove people from voter rolls. ADVERTISEMENT “Unfortunately, we are seeing some politicians who want to manipulate the rules of the game so that some people can participate and some can’t,” said Myrna Pérez, director of the voting rights and elections program at the Brennan Center. The proposals are advancing not only in Texas and other traditional red states but also in such places as Arizona, Georgia and Pennsylvania that supported Donald Trump four years ago, only to flip for Joe Biden in November. Many Republicans have said the new bills are meant to shore up public confidence after Trump and his GOP allies, without evidence , criticized the election as fraudulent. Those claims were turned away by dozens of courts and were made even as a group of election officials — including representatives of the federal government’s cybersecurity agency — deemed the 2020 presidential election the “the most secure in American history.” Trump’s former attorney general, William Barr, also said he saw no evidence of widespread fraud that would have changed the election results. In last year’s presidential election, nearly 70% of all ballots cast nationwide came before Election Day, with an estimated 108 million people voting through the mail, early in-person or by dropping off absentee ballots. The surge came after states expanded access to mail voting and early voting, with a few states sending absentee ballots to all registered voters in response to the coronavirus pandemic that raised safety questions about large crowds at the polls. ADVERTISEMENT In Texas, the nation’s largest Republican-controlled state, the 2020 presidential election was considered a resounding success by almost any measure. Millions took advantage of early in-person voting to shatter the state’s turnout record. There were no reports of widespread system meltdowns, voter disenfranchisement or fraud. But some GOP lawmakers there are seeking new criminal offenses to deter voter fraud, even though actual fraud is exceedingly rare. Other bills would prohibit independent groups from distributing application forms for mail-in ballots and clarify who can request an application. In September, the state sued Harris County, home to Democratic-leaning Houston, to stop officials from sending mail ballot applications to the more than 2 million registered voters there. Texas Rep. Jacey Jetton, a Republican, said he hopes lawmakers will pass new regulations for verification of voters’ identity for mail-in voting to ensure “elections are accurate and that people feel it is conducted in such a way they are getting a fair, accurate election result.” Absentee voting already is limited in Texas, mostly allowed for voters who can’t make it to the polls on Election Day because they will be out of town or have a medical condition. Thomas Buser-Clancy, senior staff attorney for the ACLU of Texas, said the state already is known as a “voter suppression state,” noting that Texas does not allow online voter registration or broad mail voting. “I think it is fair to call Texas a voter suppression state where election laws are largely aimed at making it harder, more difficult and scary for individuals to exercise their fundamental right to vote,” he said. Buser-Clancy said laws such as prohibiting online voter registration or requiring certain forms of ID create burdens that “disproportionately fall on poor communities and communities of color,” where some individuals may not have the resources and ability to go out and get or fix specific necessary items to exercise their right to vote. A bill to eliminate no-excuse mail voting has been introduced in Pennsylvania, though the proposal would need approval from the state’s Democratic governor. In Arizona, Republicans have introduced bills that would eliminate the state’s permanent early voting list, require mail ballots to be notarized, require mail-in ballots to be hand-delivered to a voting location and allow lawmakers to overturn presidential election results. In Georgia, where Biden’s win was verified in three separate tallies, Republicans in the GOP-controlled Legislature are gearing up to impose new barriers on mail voting, which was used heavily by Democrats in the presidential and Senate run-off elections. A Republican senator has introduced a bill that would require voters to make copies of their photo ID and mail it to election officials twice in order to cast an absentee ballot. The state’s Republican governor, lieutenant governor and secretary of state have backed the idea of requiring a photo ID for mail voting, though it’s unclear if they support that specific bill. “Despite the fact that Republicans know and understand there was no fraud, they are scared of their base,” said Georgia Democratic Rep. Debra Bazemore. “That’s the base that is loyal to Donald Trump. If they do not do anything, if they go against him, they might not be in office long.” ___ Izaguirre reported from Lindenhurst, New York. ___ Associated Press coverage of voting rights receives support in part from Carnegie Corporation of New York. The AP is solely responsible for this content. ___ Acacia Coronado is a corps member for the Associated Press/Report for America Statehouse News Initiative. Report for America is a nonprofit national service program that places journalists in local newsrooms to report on undercovered issues.

For Clarke, the right-wing outrage machine had to go back to her college days. When she was a 19-year-old sophomore at Harvard University in 1994, “The Bell Curve” was published and sparked a furious debate over race and IQ. Black students at Harvard, feeling besieged and smeared, organized rallies, wrote letters and held talks to debunk a race-based theory of intelligence. Tony Martin, a Black Wellesley College professor, offered to come speak at Harvard. Clarke, not aware he had recently written an anti-Semitic book, accepted the invitation as president of the Black Students Association. When a furor erupted over The Bell Curve, she and another student, Victoria Kennedy, wrote a letter to the Harvard Crimson attempting, in Jonathan Swift fashion, to mock race-based claims to superiority. After listing some obviously baseless theories that Black people are superior to Whites, she explained, “We can readily admit that an abused child is less likely to achieve academically than a child that has grown up in a supportive atmosphere.” She added, “Black children, whether rich or poor, grow up with an added abuse which white children never have to face. Imagine the message that misguided information like The Bell Curve would send to a Black child who is trying to find her place in school. It’s degrading, belittling and outrageously false.” AD AD Right-wing groups pillorying Clarke now take the parody in her 1994 letter as a true expression of her views and fail to cite the complete Crimson letter, which goes on to distinguish the parody from the authors’ actual views. The Crimson made this clear in its reporting on the controversy in 1994: “Their own views on the book, Clarke and Kennedy said, are contained in the letter’s last few paragraphs. ‘It seems that whites have grown tired of hearing about racism,’ [Clarke and Kennedy] write. ‘So some have turned to measures such as The Bell Curve to [relieve] themselves of blame.’" Conservative smear artists also ignore a letter sent to the Crimson at the time by Elie G. Kaunfer, chair of the coordinating council of the Harvard-Radcliffe Hillel, the school’s Jewish student organization. “I took the time to talk to Clarke and realized that she did not share those views,” Kaunfer wrote. “The point of Clarke’s letter, as explained to me, seemed to be that racist opinions of white Harvard ‘scholars’ are publicly debated while racist opinions of Black ‘scholars’ are categorically rejected.” The letter also noted that Clarke’s critics “did not take the time to understand that Clarke is not a racist. In fact, the news story which ran on the same day as Clarke’s letter said. ‘Clarke … said those views are not offered as her own.’” I also spoke to former Harvard student Michael Goldenpine, a Hillel student leader who ran an interfaith committee at the time and was a representative to the minority student alliance. He said the Black Students Association did not go looking for a controversial speaker to debunk “The Bell Curve.” He recalled, “Tony Martin invited himself.” In contrast to earlier years at Harvard in which there had been a complete breakdown in relations between the Jewish and Black communities on campus, Goldenpine recalls that under Clarke, the BSA agreed to meet soon after Martin spoke. Goldenpine recalled, “She participated. She committed to build the relationship.” He told me, “We were listened to. That doesn’t happen without her leadership.” As for the letter to the Crimson, Goldenpine says, “I don’t believe Kristen Clarke was advocating Black supremacy any more than I believe Jonathan Swift was advocating eating Irish babies.” AD AD These contemporaneous recollections support Clarke’s comments to the Forward in January. “Giving someone like [Martin] a platform, it’s not something I would do again,” Clarke said. The Forward’s report continued: Clarke, who is president of the Lawyers’ Committee for Civil Rights Under Law, previously headed the civil rights bureau at the New York Attorney General’s office, under Eric Schneiderman. Clarke noted that during her tenure there she had advanced a religious-rights initiative that she said promoted religious accommodation, combated religious discrimination and ensured that Jewish employees were given flexibility so that they could observe the Sabbath. “Fighting antisemitism, racism, white supremacy and all forms of bias are principles and values that have animated my career every step of the way,” she said. As for the Crimson letter about “The Bell Curve,” The Forward reports that Clarke said the book was “generating wide acclaim for its racist views” and that the intention of the letter’s absurd claims was to “hold up a mirror to reflect how reprehensible the premise of Black inferiority was set.” She reiterated, just as the Jewish students at the time understood, “It was meant to express an equally absurd point of view — fighting one ridiculous absurd racist theory with another ridiculous absurd theory.” This may be the lamest right-wing smear campaigns to date. Considering their risible claims of racism all occurred when Clarke was a teenager, it is questionable any of it is relevant. What is outrageous is that her actions and words are being taken out of context and distorted, that her work with the Jewish community is ignored and that false charges of anti-Semitism are used to bring down an eminently qualified woman. Perhaps Republicans should focus on the real racism in their own midst — starting with censuring Johnson and ending their efforts to disenfranchise Black voters. Post Senior Producer Kate Woodsome talks to Americans who voted for Trump, or simply don't feel like denouncing him, about why they feel wrongly scorned. (Kate Woodsome, Joy Yi/The Washington Post)

Back in July of 2016, not long after he had clinched the nomination, Donald Trump made an important declaration. "We must maintain law and order at the highest level or we will cease to have a country, 100 percent. We will cease to have a country. I am the law and order candidate." Lest you think he was advertising himself as a hardcore authoritarian, he set us straight by adding, "not only am I the law and order candidate, but I am also the candidate of compassion, believe it. The candidate of compassion." That was very reassuring. As I have discussed here many times, Trump has never had an original idea when about politics so that catchphrase, "law and order," like all of his, came from a previous president: Richard Nixon used it in his 1968 campaign. Trump probably had no idea that it had that association but he would have been fine with it in any case. Nixon's "law and order" theme was a thinly veiled appeal to white, conservative voters angry about the Vietnam protest movement, the social unrest in the inner cities and the counterculture that was challenging all the existing mores of bourgeois American life. Trump was also planning to "clean up the streets," particularly focusing on undocumented immigrants and cities with large Black populations. But he was doing something else, as well. He was openly courting the support of law enforcement as a political constituency. While politicians often make appeals to order and express support for law enforcement, Trump's level of blatant pandering was unusual. And it wasn't really necessary. Police unions have been increasingly supporting Republicans over the past few decades and would have been expected to endorse Trump in any case. But Trump made it clear that he thought of law enforcement as part of his MAGA movement from the very beginning — and many of them were eager to join. There were exceptions. The National Organization of Black Law Enforcement Executives, for instance, and plenty of individual Black police officers didn't feel the call, for obvious reasons. And some police departments strongly discouraged partisan activity, such as the wearing of red Trump hats while in uniform. But there was little question that members of law enforcement, from local precincts to the Border Patrol and ICE to some members of the FBI, were MAGA enthusiasts. Trump had always been very pro-cop, and in particular, very pro-police violence. You will recall that one of his earliest forays into politics was the buying of the infamous full-page ad back in the 1980s entitled "Bring Back the Death Penalty, Bring Back Our Police!" He made it clear that he believed they should be allowed to take off the gloves and deliver street justice at their discretion. What has happened to law and order, to the neighborhood cop we all trusted to safeguard our homes and families, the cop who had the power under the law to help us in times of danger, keep us safe from those who would prey on innocent lives to fulfill some distorted inner need... Let our politicians give back our police department's power to keep us safe. Unshackle them from the constant chant of "police brutality" which every petty criminal hurls immediately at an officer who has just risked his or her life to save another's... He kept it up as president. In 2017, Trump even gave a speech to cheering cops in uniform and told them "please, don't be too nice," suggesting that when they put suspects in the back of their cruisers, they crack the heads of the handcuffed arrestee on the roof of the car. Trump's always had an affinity for vigilante justice as well, as long as the vigilante targeted people Trump believed needed to be dealt with harshly. During the 2016 campaign, he used to reminisce fondly about the movie "Death Wish" a 1970s revenge movie. By the summer of 2020, during the George Floyd protests, he was encouraging vigilantes. He tweeted, "when the looting starts, the shooting starts" and defended a 17-year-old armed, "Blue Lives Matter" counter-protester, Kyle Rittenhouse, who shot dead two protesters and seriously wounded another in Kenosha, Wisconsin. At that same protest, police told armed militia members "we appreciate you guys, we really do." They were all MAGA now, Trump, the militia and cops alike. This explains why, as the New York Times reported on Sunday, some of the president's biggest fans — the violent, far-right, neo-fascist, Proud Boys — have been repeatedly protected by the police all over the country in altercations with protesters for years. The thugs would violently assault protesters and instead of being arrested, the cops would arrest their victims and let the Proud Boys go. According to the Times, federal law enforcement was aware of them but saw them as "street brawlers" who didn't have a political ideology or present an organized threat. For non-ideological street brawlers, however, they seemed to enjoy "hyper-nationalist chants about immigration, Islam and Mr. Trump" and had a strange affinity for violent right-wing Chilean dictator, Augusto Pinochet. The Times interviewed one Proud Boys member who is a police officer himself and Fresno police in California just suspended an officer who was featured in protest footage posted by a Proud Boys member who filmed himself raiding the Capitol. The founder of the group, Gavin McInness, is quoted saying, "I have a lot of support in the N.Y.P.D. and I very much appreciate that." Cops in Philadelphia were observed hanging out with Proud Boys after a Mike Pence rally last year. In fact, according to their leader, Enrico Terrio, the FBI would contact them and warn them of "leftist" threats against law enforcement. Trump confidante Roger Stones has been using the Proud Boys as "bodyguards" for several years and is credited with bringing some of the leadership together. As journalist Marcy Wheeler has reported, when he stepped in to help Stone evade justice, former Attorney General Bill Barr dismissed concerns about Stone's involvement with the Proud Boys and threats they made against a federal judge, behavior that would undoubtedly have been taken very seriously if they weren't MAGA. With Trump gone, President Biden's Department of Justice, led by Merrick Garland, is finally taking these people seriously now. After all, they turned on the police themselves. You have to wonder what the rank and file police are thinking these days. Donald Trump unleashed a violent mob on the Capitol and they assaulted police at every turn. The great defender of law and order took hours to say anything and when he did all he had to offer was a weak little tweet that said "Please support our Capitol Police and Law Enforcement. They are truly on the side of our Country. Stay peaceful!" The "law and order" president later released a video telling the thugs who were beating cops over the head with flagpoles that they should go home. And then he told those violent rioters he loved them and believed they were "very special." When push literally came to shove, there was no doubt which side the "law and order" president was really on — and it wasn't on the side of the police.

President Biden and the Justice Department have asked U.S. attorneys appointed by former President Trump to resign from their posts by the end of the month, Fox News has learned. A senior Biden administration official told Fox News Tuesday that 56 U.S. attorneys have until Feb. 28 to resign. BIDEN DOJ WANTS DC'S ACTING US ATTORNEY TO STAY ON IN SPECIAL PROSECUTOR ROLE TO CONTINUE CAPITOL RIOT PROBE "We are committed to ensuring a seamless transition," Acting Attorney General Monty Wilkinson said in a statement. "Until U.S. Attorney nominees are confirmed, the interim and acting leaders in the U.S. Attorneys’ Offices will make sure that the department continues to accomplish its critical law enforcement mission, vigorously defend the rule of law, and pursue the fair and impartial administration of justice for all." The Justice Department said that earlier this year, "nearly all presidential appointees from the previous administration offered their resignations, though U.S. Attorneys and U.S. Marshals were asked to temporarily remain in place." The DOJ said that before the beginning of the transition process, approximately one-third of the U.S. Attorneys’ Offices were already led by acting or interim leadership. The Justice Department said that the president will make an announcement regarding nominations to the Senate "as that information becomes available." The U.S. attorneys will begin transitioning out of their roles, with the exception of the prosecutor overseeing the federal tax investigation into Hunter Biden, David Weiss for Delaware. John Durham, the U.S. attorney for Connecticut, will resign from his position as U.S. attorney but will stay on as special counsel to continue his now years-long investigation into the origins of the Trump-Russia probe. US ATTORNEY HANDLING HUNTER BIDEN PROBE ASKED TO STAY ON, OFFICIALS SAY White House Press Secretary Jen Psaki on Tuesday was asked about Weiss and Durham, and said that those "decisions were made in order to fulfill his promise of maintaining independence." A well-placed government source told Fox News that Hunter Biden is a subject/target of the grand jury investigation. According to the source, a "target" means that there is a "high probability that person committed a crime," while a "subject" is someone you "don't know for sure" has committed a crime. The source also told Fox News that this investigation was predicated, in part, by Suspicious Activity Reports (SARs) regarding suspicious foreign transactions. Another source familiar with the investigation told Fox News that the SARs were regarding funds from "China and other foreign nations." The investigation, according to a source familiar with the matter, began in 2018. Fox News has also learned that the Justice Department wants acting U.S. attorney for the District of Columbia Michael Sherwin to leave his post at the U.S. Attorneys’ Office in D.C., but to transition to main Justice to serve in some type of special prosecutor capacity to continue overseeing the Capitol breach investigation. Sherwin has had oversight of the prosecutions stemming from the Capitol riot on Jan. 6. Sherwin has vowed to "bring the most maximum charges we can based upon the conduct." Overall, federal authorities have charged more than 150 people in the Capitol siege. Last week, South Carolina Sen. Lindsey Graham, the top Republican on the Senate Judiciary Committee, urged acting Attorney General Monty Wilkinson to "refrain from interfering" in Durham’s investigation and the federal investigation into Hunter Biden’s "tax affairs" while the Senate works to confirm Biden’s nominee to lead the Justice Department. The Senate is currently processing the nomination of Judge Merrick Garland to the position of attorney general.

(CNN) Senate Republicans took aim at associate attorney general nominee Vanita Gupta's past tweets at a contentious confirmation hearing Tuesday, where Gupta was pressed on her previous comments and whether she supports defunding the police and decriminalizing drugs. The pointed questions directed at Gupta came as a conservative judicial group launched an ad campaign to try to defeat her nomination, while she touted the backing of numerous law enforcement organizations. Gupta is the latest non-White Cabinet nominee of President Joe Biden who's faced intense pushback from Republicans , following the pulling of Neera Tanden's nomination to be Biden's budget chief and Republican senators slowing the confirmations of Health and Human Services secretary nominee Xavier Becerra and interior secretary nominee Deb Haaland Gupta apologized for her prior tweets directed at Republicans, saying at Tuesday's hearing that she wished she could take back the harsh rhetoric. She vowed to take a nonpartisan approach to the No. 3 position at the Justice Department if she's confirmed. "I regret the harsh rhetoric that I have used at times in the last several years," Gupta said. "I can pledge to you today that if I am confirmed, you won't be hearing that kind of rhetoric for me." The Republican criticism of Gupta's tweets follows their successful efforts to sink Tanden's nomination to be Biden's budget chief. Tanden withdrew her nomination last week after her path to confirmation in the 50-50 Senate was closed off by West Virginia Democratic Sen. Joe Manchin's opposition. The Judicial Crisis Network, a group that's fought to confirm conservative judges, announced Tuesday a $1 million ad campaign against Gupta's nomination, accusing her of a "dark money assault on the Supreme Court" while she led the Leadership Conference on Civil and Human Rights. Sen. Chuck Grassley of Iowa, the committee's top Republican, argued that Gupta's tweets are relevant given that the position she's been nominated for is nonpartisan. "Ms. Gupta has in fact launched Twitter attacks on some (Republicans) directly," Grassley said. "Will that kind of partisan political advocacy affect her legal advocacy in a role where she represents all Americans?" Vanita Gupta Democrats defended Gupta, who led the Justice Department civil rights division in the Obama administration, accusing Republicans of distorting Gupta's views. "Ms. Gupta, you've been a victim of a smear campaign, a despicable and rancid campaign to discredit you," said Sen. Richard Blumenthal, a Connecticut Democrat. Sen. Mazie Hirono, a Hawaii Democrat, charged that her Republican colleagues were guilty of "mansplaining" Gupta's positions on race and policing. After Gupta was accused by Republicans of supporting defunding the police -- which she said she did not -- Democratic Sen. Chris Coons of Delaware read from letters by law enforcement groups supporting her nomination, as well as conservatives like Grover Norquist, the fiscal conservative who worked with Gupta on criminal justice reform. In her opening statement, Gupta cited letters of support from the National Fraternal Order of Police, the International Association of Chiefs of Police, the Federal Law Enforcement Officers Association and the National Sheriffs' Association. Gupta, who if confirmed would be the first woman of color to be associate attorney general, testified alongside Lisa Monaco, who has been nominated to be deputy attorney general. Monaco, who was homeland security adviser to President Barack Obama, faced some questions from Republicans, but the most pointed exchanges were reserved for Gupta. Sen. Tom Cotton, an Arkansas Republican, questioned Gupta's previous testimony as an advocate that everyone has biases, before trying to rebut criticism that the opposition to Tanden was motivated by racism and sexism. He asked Gupta whether her organization's opposition to several non-White Trump judicial nominees was due to race, and she said it was not. "So it's your position, then, you can oppose someone's nomination on the merits, without immediately and justly being accused of being racist or sexist because of their race or their sex?" Cotton asked, before turning back to Manchin's opposition of Tanden. "Some people accuse of Joe Manchin of being racist and sexist for opposing Neera Tanden's nomination. Can you oppose, can you oppose the nomination of a woman or a racial minority on the merits, without being racist or sexist?" Cotton continued. "Yes," Gupta responded. Sen. Ted Cruz, a Texas Republican, accused Gupta of being an "extreme partisan advocate" and an ideologue, peppering her with questions on abortion rights, the Second Amendment and whether she supported defunding the police. Cruz and other Republicans pointed to Gupta's testimony before the Senate Judiciary Committee as an advocate last year, in which she said she supported reallocating resources so there were alternatives to law enforcement handling issues like mental health problems. Cruz argued her comments amounted to support of defunding the police. "Respectfully, I disagree with how you're characterizing that. I don't support defunding the police. I've been very clear about that," Gupta said, pointing to her support from sheriffs and arguing that providing alternatives to families in crisis united law enforcement with civil rights advocates. Sen. John Cornyn, a Texas Republican, questioned Gupta on whether she supported the decriminalization of small possession of all drugs, as Republicans pointed to a 2012 op-ed she had written. Gupta responded that she did not support decriminalizing all drugs, only marijuana possession, saying her position had "evolved" since the time she had written the article. Gupta isn't likely to be the only Justice Department nominee to face sharp questions from Republicans. At Attorney General nominee Merrick Garland's confirmation hearing last month, Republicans asked Garland about both Gupta and Kristen Clarke, Biden's nominee to be the head of the Civil Rights Division, whose hearing has not yet been scheduled.

Ronna McDaniel is worried about the world. Mostly, as chair of the RNC, she's worried about the fact that Google is, based on her theory, suppressing right-wing voices. While there hasn't been a lot of actual proof of that—it's mostly anecdotal conspiracy theories—it doesn't stop the RNC chair from screaming it loudly and calling for the tech giant to be called to task. Don't get me wrong: I find it interesting and useful to have Republicans so interested in regulations, and, potentially, in breaking up monopolies. It would be an interesting discussion to have. While most of this boils down to programming and data modeling to show consumers in markets what they think will generate the most clicks, Republicans love the talking point. When the talking point meets a real, actual problem, however, they have absolutely no answer. When studied, The Washington Post pointed out that many conservative-leaning websites get more promotion and spread over liberal/progressive websites, so conservative complaints are a bit of a tiny violin problem. In one tweet, however, Chair Jaime Harrison points out a real, defined problem that one party is directly causing: voter suppression. Don't worry, Ronna. You can keep at this for the next few years—maybe you'll improve. Heads up: Next time, don't use the search term "DNC." You'll come up with DNC as a result.

But, if you look at what is clamped down on, you can see why more people from the right might get tangled up in moderation than those from the left.

Fox News host Neil Cavuto abruptly cut away from a press conference held by White House Press Secretary Kayleigh McEnany, along with Republican National Committee Chair Ronna McDaniel, on Monday. Cavuto warned that McEnany's attacks on Democrats and accusations that they tried to rig the 2020 election were completely baseless. She accused Democrats of opposing basic safeguards that verify voter eligibility, even though every jurisdiction in the United States verifies that voters are authorized to cast a ballot before it is accepted into the final tally. She also said the Democrats are trying to keep observers "out of the count room," even though Democratic and Republican observers have been allowed in election offices across the country. "You don't take these positions because you want an honest election," she said, gratuitously and maliciously trying to smear and discredit the party that has defeated her boss, President Donald Trump, in the race for the White House. (An open question in the outrageous performance is why McEnany, a White House staffer, was engaged in this performance on behalf of the Trump campaign.) "You take these positions because you are welcoming fraud, and you are welcoming illegal voting." The truth is, of course, that U.S. elections are highly robust against attempts to try to defraud the system, but Trump and his allies are refusing to accept the results in an attempt to delegitimize President-elect Joe Biden's win. "Whoa! Whoa! Whoa!" said Cavuto, cutting into the feed of her speech on Fox News. "I just think we need to be very clear. She's charging that the other side is welcoming fraud and welcoming illegal voting. Unless she has more details to back that up, I can't in good [conscience] continue showing you this. I want to make sure that, maybe they do have something to back this up. But that's an explosive charge to make, that the other side is effectively rigging and cheating. If she does bring proof of that, of course, we'll take you back." Watch the clip below:

(CNN) Ronna McDaniel, the chairwoman of the Republican National Committee, has tested positive for coronavirus, an RNC spokeman announced Friday. "After a member of her family tested positive for COVID-19, the Chairwoman was tested for the virus. On Wednesday afternoon, she got confirmation she was COVID-19 positive. She has been at her home in Michigan since last Saturday," RNC spokesman Mike Reed said in a statement. President Donald Trump announced overnight that he and first lady Melania Trump tested positive for the virus. McDaniel's positive test was first reported by The New York Times. As a top official, McDaniel frequently interacts with the President and other top Republican lawmakers. She was last with the President last Friday, according to the Times. Read More

The American Rescue Plan Act of 2021, the $1.9 trillion COVID-19 relief bill that has been signed into law by President Joe Biden, includes billions of dollars in agricultural support — and roughly half of it has been set aside for non-White farmers. Far-right pundit/comedian Steven Crowder and several associates, on the March 16 broadcast of his "Louder With Crowder" show, responded with a racist segment attacking and mocking Black farmers. Dave Landau, one of Crowder's co-hosts, scoffed, "I thought the last thing they would want to do is be farmers. Wasn't that a big problem for hundreds of years? Isn't that why Arsenio Hall called himself the urban man's Johnny Carson?" Crowder and his colleagues acted as though no Africans-Americans live in rural areas. The host asked, "Are people lining up out in the middle of cornfield Iowa for new dunks?," and Landau — mockingly — said, "I planted a Hennessy tree, but it's not growing…. I planted a VSOPXO tree. I'm getting into some niche esoteric cognac humor, motherfucker." Media Matters' Jason Campbell, reporting on the March 16 "Louder With Crowder" segment, explains, "Out of the 3.4 million farmers in the United States, only about 45,000 are Black. The purpose of the aid in the American Rescue Plan is to lessen the racial gap in the farming community and correct decades of discrimination from the U.S. Department of Agriculture toward Black farmers. Conservative media have been, predictably, smearing this aid provision, framing it as 'reparations' and discriminatory to White people."

Washington — President Biden signed the $1.9 trillion American Rescue Plan Act into law on Thursday, finalizing an early policy victory that will send much-needed aid to millions of Americans still struggling from the COVID-19 pandemic. "This historic legislation is about rebuilding the backbone of this country and giving people in this nation, working people, middle class folks, people who built the country, a fighting chance," Mr. Biden said before signing the bill, one day earlier than expected. The bill was narrowly approved by the House on Wednesday with a vote of 220 to 211, with one Democrat joining all Republicans in voting against it. It passed the Senate on Saturday with a 50 to 49 vote, also along party lines. Mr. Biden signed the bill hours before delivering his first prime-time national address to mark the one-year anniversary of the COVID-19 pandemic, which has since taken more than 529,000 American lives. The White House said the president and Vice President Kamala Harris will travel to Atlanta next Friday, part of what the White House is calling the "Help is Here" tour to tout the new relief bill in cities around the country. New CBS News polling shows that the bill is widely popular with the public, with three in four Americans approving of its passage. Two-thirds of Americans also say Mr. Biden is doing a good job in his handling of the pandemic. The American Rescue Plan provides $1,400 direct payments to individuals making up to $75,000 annually, $350 billion in aid to state and local governments and $14 billion for vaccine distribution. The bill also provides $130 billion to elementary, middle and high schools to assist with safe reopening. White House press secretary Jen Psaki said the first wave of direct deposit checks would begin hitting Americans' bank accounts as soon as this weekend. It includes an additional $300 billion in weekly jobless benefits through September and an expanded tax credit of up to $3,600 per child, initially distributed in monthly installments. The child tax credit could raise 4 million children out of poverty, according to an analysis by the Center on Budget and Policy Priorities. More than $50 billion will be distributed to small businesses, including $7 billion for the Paycheck Protection Program. The bill also provides $25 billion for relief for small and mid-sized restaurants, which have suffered significantly during the pandemic. The measure expands eligibility for subsidies to purchase health insurance to people of all incomes under the Affordable Care Act (ACA), a provision that was particularly controversial for Republicans who oppose the bill. It also incentivizes states to expand Medicaid under the ACA by having the federal government pay for new recipients. Several million people could save hundreds of dollars in health care costs once the bill becomes law.

Citation From the March 16, 2021, edition of Louder with Crowder, streamed on YouTube STEVEN CROWDER: Joe -- former vice president Joe Biden -- his America Rescue Plan includes farmer reparations. Now, what does that mean? It means -- and I don't know where you find this many farmers of color, but they did. And 5.2 billion are being allocated exclusively for colored farmers -- farmers of color, farmers of color. Roll the tape. ... CROWDER: Most happy about the new policy, these people. So, yeah. I'm gonna buy a plow man. CO-HOST: I'm going buy corn. CROWDER: I'm going to buy a John Deere. Barack Obama mother -- I'm the president of plowing that ass. DAVE LANDAU (CO-HOST): I thought the last thing they would want to do is be farmers. Wasn't that a big problem for hundreds of years? CROWDER: Isn't that why Arsenio Hall called himself the urban man's Johnny Carson? LANDAU: I think so. CROWDER: Yeah, I don't know, I don't know. Are people lining up out in the middle of cornfield Iowa for new dunks? ... LANDAU: I planted a Hennessy tree, but it's not growing. CROWDER: Well, technically it did grow, but that shit ain't XO -- LANDAU: I put it in the ground. CROWDER: I planted a VSOPXO tree. I'm getting into some niche esoteric cognac humor motherfucker.

Jeanine Pirro, host of Fox News’ “Justice with Judge Jeanine,” faced suspension from the right-wing cable news outlet earlier this year after attacking Rep. Ilhan Omar for wearing a hijab on the job. The 68-year-old Pirro has never shied away from controversy, and she was as inflammatory as usual this week during an hour-long appearance on C-SPAN’s “Washington Journal” (hosted by Steve Scully). After a friendly female caller from Tennessee brought up gun control and insisted that “Democrats are only attacking white people’s guns,” the 68-year-old Shapiro went into a tirade about “black-on-black crime.” “One of the biggest criminal justice issues in this country — and I’ve talked about it as a DA and as a judge — is black-on-black crime, which unfortunately, doesn’t get the attention it should,” Pirro told Scully. Pirro went on to discuss violence in Chicago — a city Republicans love to attack — and declared, “The problem with Chicago: guns are illegal in Chicago. So, everybody thinks if you make guns illegal in the United States, it’ll be nirvana — there won’t be any crime. Hogwash! The perfect example is Chicago.” Pirro added, “Now, the reason Chicago has so much gun crime is, number 1, the people who have the guns are all criminals — it’s all illegal weapons. The only way to resolve that is to prosecute gun crimes. And the last time I checked, in Chicago, their prosecution of gun crimes is extremely low. You’ve got gangbangers, and you’ve got all kinds of criminal elements with drugs who’ve got these guns…. Why is gun prosecution so low in that city?” During the interview, Scully asked Pirro about President Donald Trump’s recent criticisms of Fox News — which he complained is “not working for us anymore.” And Pirro replied, “You would have to ask him. I am not quite sure what that was about.” Not all of the callers were supportive. A caller from Colorado “congratulated” Pirro on her suspension from Fox News and asserted that Trump receives negative media covers because he “lies every single day.” The caller also accused Pirro of promoting the racist Replacement Theory for Fox News “predominantly white older audience.” Pirro responded with a lengthy rant, attacking “the venom that’s coming from the left…. When the left gets to the point where they want to shut down free speech, they don’t want us to speak at universities…. You’ve gotta ask yourself, ‘Where is the venom coming from here?’” Pirro went on to say, “And then, Antifa comes in — a bunch of bozos in ninja outfits who are cowards who cover their faces to attack people on the right. A domestic terrorist organization, and the police stand down and don’t make an arrest because they’re told by liberal mayors they cannot make arrests of people in Antifa. The Fox News host also attacked the left for being hostile to Justice Brett Kavanaugh, who she described as “the closest thing that I’ve seen to an altar boy in an adult male in my lifetime.” Watch the video here: <span data-mce-type="bookmark" style="display: inline-block; width: 0px; overflow: hidden; line-height: 0;" class="mce_SELRES_start"></span>

A California woman was berated by an employee at a Shell gas station this week for speaking Spanish to another woman who happened to be working there. Local news station ABC 7 reports that San Joe resident Grecya Moran went into a local Shell station last week and was greeted in Spanish by an employee working there. Moran responded in Spanish, and the two women had a brief conversation before they were interrupted by a white employee who was furious at them for not speaking English. “I even went up to her and I apologized,” Moran told ABC 7. “I said, ‘Excuse me, I’m sorry. All she was saying is– she was greeting me in Spanish. How my day’s going.’ And she said, ‘I don’t care, you talk in English because this is America.'” Moran then says that the woman told her that “Trump needs to hurry up and build the wall.” At this point, she took out her phone and started recording the employee’s behavior. The employee walked over to her and flashed her the middle finger before once again ranting about speaking Spanish. Moran informed the woman that she was born and raised in the United States, to which the woman replied, “Prove it to me, motherf*cker!” Watch the video below.

Fox News has joined the Associated Press and The Washington Post in confirming shocking details from the bombshell report in The Atlantic on President Donald Trump’s contempt for American troops. “The Atlantic Magazine is dying, like most magazines, so they make up a fake story in order to gain some relevance. Story already refuted, but this is what we are up against,” Trump claimed, falsely stating the story had been refuted. But now Fox News is confirming details in a thread posted on Trump’s favorite social media platform: &ref_url=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.rawstory.com%2F2020%2F09%2Ffox-news-confirms-shocking-story-on-trumps-contempt-for-american-troops-after-the-president-argued-it-was-fake%2F &ref_url=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.rawstory.com%2F2020%2F09%2Ffox-news-confirms-shocking-story-on-trumps-contempt-for-american-troops-after-the-president-argued-it-was-fake%2F &ref_url=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.rawstory.com%2F2020%2F09%2Ffox-news-confirms-shocking-story-on-trumps-contempt-for-american-troops-after-the-president-argued-it-was-fake%2F &ref_url=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.rawstory.com%2F2020%2F09%2Ffox-news-confirms-shocking-story-on-trumps-contempt-for-american-troops-after-the-president-argued-it-was-fake%2F

President Donald Trump was visibly agitated during a Saturday evening campaign rally outside Reno, Nevada. Trump bragged about having a huge crowd in spite of the COVID-19 pandemic. Neither MSNBC, CNN nor Fox News aired the rally live. In fact, C-SPAN didn't even air it live. Trump began by lashing out at Gov. Steve Sisolak (D-NV), but veteran Nevada political reporter Jon Ralson said was "pure fiction" and "delusional." Trump also repeatedly complained during the speech about an ad running on his contempt for troops, which had also triggered him on Twitter. Trump said the ad was so mean that he can now get more "vicious" and immediately began pushing conspiracy theories that Democrats are trying to "rig" the election. Trump got his supporters to chant "lock her up" during a rant on how his political adversaries should be imprisoned. And as usual, Trump repeatedly complained about coverage of his administration, falsely labeling reporters "fake news." "It's a rigged election, it's the only way we're going to lose," Trump claimed. He also complained about not being able to use Air Force One as a backdrop for his campaign rally. Trump didn't just attack Joe Biden, but went on rants against multiple candidates who sought the Democratic nomination and said that Sen. Kamala Harris (D-CA) would be president within a month of Biden being sworn-in. The leader of the free world also pondered out-loud whether he should shave his head like MSNBC anchor Ali Velshi. Here's some of what people were saying about Trump's rally:

EXCLUSIVE: Former President Donald Trump slammed President Biden as the border crisis further unravels. In an interview with Maria Bartiromo on "Fox News Primetime", Trump said he and Mexican President Andres Manuel Lopez Obrador had built a "great relationship" — with a joint interest in controlling illegal immigration and constructing an efficient border wall. "[Lopez Obrador] is a great gentleman. We had a very good relationship. They had 28,000 soldiers on our border while we were building the wall ... and they were also stopping them at their northern border by Honduras, El Salvador and Guatemala," Trump said. "Today, they are coming in. You take a look. They are coming in from foreign countries. I see they are coming in from Yemen. They are coming in from the Middle East. They are coming in from everywhere," he said. "They are dropping them off and they are pouring into our country. It is a disgrace." "They are going to destroy our country if we don't do something about it." BIDEN NOW TELLS MIGRANTS DON'T COME AS CRISIS SURGES Trump fumed that Biden has "eroded" the progress his administration made on the border in terms of national security and vetting asylum seekers. "Frankly, our country can't handle [the increase in migrants]. It is a crisis like we have rarely had and certainly we have never had on the border. But it is going to get much worse." During the interview, Bartiromo asked the former president if he would recommend his supporters voluntarily receive the coronavirus vaccine, noting that a sizeable swath of Republicans remain uneasy or opposed to getting the shot at this point. "I would," Trump responded. "I would recommend it and I would recommend it to a lot of people that don't want to get it and a lot of those people voted for me, frankly." "But again, we have our freedoms and we have to live by them and I agree with that also. But it is a great vaccine. It is a safe vaccine and it is something that works." Trump said pharmaceutical companies and the Food and Drug Administration have been working "around the clock" to develop the various vaccinations. During his interview, Trump also lambasted Biden and the Democrats over the near-$1 or more hike in gas prices since the new president's executive orders curtailing American energy production and transport. "When I look at what is happening, we were energy independent. Gas prices are going up at a far more rapid rate than anyone has seen in a long time. We had gas prices very low and yet we had more energy jobs than we have ever had," said Trump. Trump said that, while Biden and his party are seeking massive tax hikes, the spike in gas prices amounts to an even more onerous 'tax' in his mind. "[T]hey will be going up by $1, $2, $3, when you look at that, and it's bigger than a tax increase to the consumer," he contended. "[If] you get a dollar increase in gasoline, that is bigger than a big tax hike. So, it's a terrible thing that is happening." Trump predicted Democrats will raise taxes to the "highest number that we have ever seen" and that it will "devastating" for the economy. Prior to his interview, Trump recently spoke out against the mounting crisis at the U.S.-Mexico border, where illegal immigrants and asylum seekers have overwhelmed federal authorities, while the Biden administration put a halt to the construction of the ex-president's wall. "Our border is now totally out of control thanks to the disastrous leadership of Joe Biden. Our great Border Patrol and ICE agents have been disrespected, demeaned, and mocked by the Biden Administration," Trump said in a statement released earlier this month. "A mass incursion into the country by people who should not be here is happening on an hourly basis, getting worse by the minute. Many have criminal records, and many others have and are spreading covid. Interior enforcement has been shut down—criminals that were once promptly removed by our Administration are now being released back onto the street to commit heinous and violent crimes. "ICE officers are desperate to remove these convicted criminals, but Biden won’t let them," he continued. Trump also blasted the crisis as a Biden-caused "spiraling tsunami", pointing to border communities being "overwhelmed" by illegal immigrants that remain untested for coronavirus despite stiff federal restrictions on American citizens engaging in travel and commerce. "The Biden Administration must act immediately to end the border nightmare that they have unleashed onto our Nation. Keep illegal immigration, crime, and the China Virus out of our country!" Trump fumed in closing his remarks on March 5. Since leaving office, Trump has relocated from New York City to Palm Beach, Florida, and has established "The Office of the Former President." CLICK HERE TO GET THE FOX NEWS APP He has issued a handful of political endorsements ahead of the 2022 midterms, including for Ohio congressional hopeful Max Miller, a Republican seeking to unseat Rep. Anthony Gonzalez, R-Ohio. Gonzalez, a former Indianapolis Colts wide receiver, voted to impeach Trump in January. He has also pledged to visit Alaska to campaign for any Republican primary challenger to Sen. Lisa Murkowski, R-Alaska, for similar reasons. Trump also endorsed his former press secretary, Sarah Huckabee Sanders, who is running for governor of Arkansas.

U.S. Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell (R-KY) mounted his harshest attack yet on Democrats amid increasing support for the Senate to kill the 60-vote filibuster, a relic of the Jim Crow era used to block civil rights legislation. It did not go well for him. Some pointed to McConnell's infamous strutting back in 2017, after Donald Trump won the White House, and McConnell spent the next four years blocking hundreds of bills the Democratic House passed while confirming an unprecedented number of judges, including extremists the Bar Association rated as not qualified. "Winners make policy. Losers go home," McConnell retorted. But now that Democrats have control of the Senate, the House, and the White House, and McConnell is still working to block Democrats' legislation and President Joe Biden's cabinet nominees, McConnell is playing a different game: "scorched earth." "Breaking Senate rules to kill the filibuster would not open up an express lane to liberal change," he tweeted Tuesday, falsely characterizing using Senate procedures to kill or change the filibuster as "breaking the rules." "It would not open up an express lane for the Biden presidency to speed into the history books. The Senate would function more like a hundred-car pile-up. Nothing moving." He also took his "scorched earth" threat to the floor of the U.S. Senate: It's safe to say Democrats are furious, and have neither forgotten about nor forgiven McConnell for what they say is stealing a U.S. Supreme Court seat when President Barack Obama in March of 2016 nominated Merrick Garland. It sat open for 293 days and expired when the Senate concluded its session in January 2017. McConnell refused to allow hearing, much less a confirmation vote. Voting rights expert Ari Berman sums up the situation: Former Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid top aide explains what Democrats can do: This Democratic strategist offers Democrats some advice: And this former Obama Senior Advisor has had it with mincing words: Here's how others are responding to McConnell's latest power-hoarding tactic:

Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell on Thursday was photographed with what appear to be disturbing bruises on his face and hands, and with bandages on his hands as well, but he is refusing to share with voters what health issues he is suffering from. McConnell told CNN there are "no problems." When asked if he had any health problems the 78-year old said: "Of course not." The Kentucky lawmaker "did not respond when asked if he was being treated by a doctor. An aide to McConnell also declined to provide any additional details when asked multiple times about the majority leader's health." The Courier-Journal reports McConnell earlier this month "refused to say whether he had recently been tested" for coronavirus. "Have I ever been tested? Yes," he said after reporters repeatedly asked him about that. "But I'm not going to answer questions about when." McConnell, who has been blocking coronavirus legislation for months, is seeking re-election. He is challenged by Democrat Amy McGrath. He is nine points ahead of her according to a recent poll. On social media, many are speculating about the Majority Leader's heath since he refuses to share with voters what has caused his appearance. Some images and responses via Twitter:

The host of HBO's "Last Week Tonight with John Oliver" blasted Republicans and Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell (R-KY) on Sunday evening. The criticism of the GOP leader came during Oliver's recap of the passage of Joe Biden's stimulus package, which he described as the "biggest" news of the week. Oliver played clips of House Minority Leader Kevin McCarthy (R-CA), Rep. Matt Gaetz (R-FL), Rep. Marjorie Taylor Greene (R-GA), and McConnell attacking the package. "I think this is actually one of the worst pieces of legislation I've seen passed here in the time I've been in the Senate," McConnell said. "What?" Oliver asked. "I know that you've been in the Senate for 600 years, but giving struggling Americans barely-enough rent money after a year of a f*cking pandemic is one of the worst pieces of legislation that you have ever seen?" Oliver asked. "Are you absolutely sure about that Mitch?" he asked, be rattling off some of the legislation that has passed since McConnell first started serving in 1985. Watch:

During the Trump years, there was an excessive amount of hand-wringing over the fact that he and his administration were exploding all the "norms" that had previously held our government institutions together. His insulting behavior and crude lack of decorum woke up many a pundit to the idea that much of our system was dependent upon a good faith adherence to the spirit of democracy as much as any formal rules, regulations and laws. He came to Washington without any serious understanding of how government worked and he didn't care when it was pointed out to him. Many were left shocked at how feeble our institutions had turned out to be in the face of someone who had no respect for them. But let's not kid ourselves. Those norms had always only been as strong as the people who were charged with upholding them and those agreements were unraveling long before Trump entered politics. So we should have seen it coming. Sen. Mitch McConnell, R-Ky., had been making a mockery of Senate norms for years as Majority Leader and he had made it quite clear those old-fashioned notions were no longer operative. There was a time when elected officials would express their support for a new president of the opposite party, wishing them success for the good of the country. McConnell broke that norm during Barack Obama's first term when he openly admitted that he considered it his top priority to deny Obama a second term. He didn't believe it was in his interest to accommodate or negotiate in good faith and instead began a campaign of total obstruction so that the president and his administration would fail and the Republicans would take back the White House. While this sort of scorched-earth tactic wasn't unprecedented, it was unusual for a national political leader to flaunt his intentions so boldly. There used to be a penalty for being so openly ungracious but McConnell found that it didn't hurt him so he kept right on going, purposefully paralyzing the Obama administration, making it obvious that democratic norms were no longer functional. And left unable to confirm any members of the judiciary under McConnell's obstructive tactics, the Democrats had to eliminate the filibuster norm for everything but nominees to the Supreme Court. After he won the majority, McConnell brazenly blocked the nomination of Merrick Garland, Obama's choice for the high court, for months only to scrap the filibuster for the Supreme Court as well once Donald Trump won the White House and nominated a Republican to the seat. McConnell's excuse, which he made up out of whole cloth, was that in an election year the seat should stay empty because it should be up to the people to decide which president should choose the new justice. It was an unprecedented abuse of Senate norms, signaling that McConnell had decided that anything goes. He used every trick in the book to keep Democrats from bringing any bills to the floor. He ignored all legislation that came from the House. And he spent virtually every minute confirming massive numbers of unqualified conservative judges to lifetime appointments on the federal bench. And when he was asked what he would do if a seat on the high court became vacant during the upcoming presidential election in 2020, he took a long drink of water and smugly said, "Oh, we'd fill it." Sen. Mitch McConnell, R-Ky., had been making a mockery of Senate norms for years as Majority Leader and he had made it quite clear those old-fashioned notions were no longer operative. There was a time when elected officials would express their support for a new president of the opposite party, wishing them success for the good of the country. McConnell broke that norm during Barack Obama's first term when he openly admitted that he considered it his top priority to deny Obama a second term. He didn't believe it was in his interest to accommodate or negotiate in good faith and instead began a campaign of total obstruction so that the president and his administration would fail and the Republicans would take back the White House. While this sort of scorched-earth tactic wasn't unprecedented, it was unusual for a national political leader to flaunt his intentions so boldly. There used to be a penalty for being so openly ungracious but McConnell found that it didn't hurt him so he kept right on going, purposefully paralyzing the Obama administration, making it obvious that democratic norms were no longer functional. And left unable to confirm any members of the judiciary under McConnell's obstructive tactics, the Democrats had to eliminate the filibuster norm for everything but nominees to the Supreme Court. After he won the majority, McConnell brazenly blocked the nomination of Merrick Garland, Obama's choice for the high court, for months only to scrap the filibuster for the Supreme Court as well once Donald Trump won the White House and nominated a Republican to the seat. McConnell's excuse, which he made up out of whole cloth, was that in an election year the seat should stay empty because it should be up to the people to decide which president should choose the new justice. It was an unprecedented abuse of Senate norms, signaling that McConnell had decided that anything goes. He used every trick in the book to keep Democrats from bringing any bills to the floor. He ignored all legislation that came from the House. And he spent virtually every minute confirming massive numbers of unqualified conservative judges to lifetime appointments on the federal bench. And when he was asked what he would do if a seat on the high court became vacant during the upcoming presidential election in 2020, he took a long drink of water and smugly said, "Oh, we'd fill it." Mitch McConnell is not pleased. On Tuesday, he angrily declared that if the Democrats were to change the rules as he routinely does when he is in charge, the Republicans would respond by defunding Planned Parenthood and loosening gun restrictions as soon as they get the majority, which he will do in any case if it pleases him. Working himself up into a froth, McConnell warned that if the Democrats were to do this, there would be a "100-car pileup" and "nobody serving in this chamber can even begin, even begin to imagine what a completely scorched-earth Senate would look like." He threatened the Democrats with delaying tactics saying, "I want our colleagues to imagine a world where every single task, every one of them, requires a physical quorum, which, by the way, the Vice President does not count in determining a quorum." Senate Majority Whip Dick Durbin, D-Il, remained unfazed by the threat, however, pointing out that McConnell "has already done that. He's proven he can do it and they'll do it again, I assume." McConnell's extreme politicization of Senate norms, grinding the Obama administration to a halt and then confirming hundreds of extremist judges, including three onto the Supreme Court, demonstrated that he has absolutely no respect for democratic norms. He didn't try to hide it. And that was his big mistake. By being so smug and so flamboyant in wielding his power (remember "we'll fill it"?) he finally managed to get the Democrats to understand that they have nothing to lose by going around him to enact their agenda and letting the people decide if they like the results. If it works out they, will be re-elected. If not, they did their best. That's democracy, after all, the most important norm of all.

McConnell: 'I'm Not Impartial' About Impeachment Enlarge this image toggle caption J. Scott Applewhite/AP J. Scott Applewhite/AP Updated at 3:20 p.m. ET Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell, R-Ky., dismissed the impeachment process against President Trump as a political proceeding rather than a judicial one. "I'm not an impartial juror. This is a political process. There's not anything judicial about it," McConnell told reporters on Tuesday. "The House made a partisan political decision to impeach. I would anticipate we will have a largely partisan outcome in the Senate. I'm not impartial about this at all." The House could vote as early as Wednesday to impeach Trump on charges that he obstructed Congress and abused power. Whether Trump conditioned aid to Ukraine on a Ukrainian investigation into the Bidens is at the heart of the impeachment proceedings against the president. Trump has denied that any such link was made, and in a letter Tuesday to House Speaker Nancy Pelosi, Trump compared his impending impeachment to "subverting America's Democracy." McConnell's comments to reporters came after the majority leader rejected Democrats' request to call witnesses for Trump's Senate trial. Democrats had hoped to establish rules for evidence and witnesses well before a trial starts, possibly in January. McConnell said on the House floor earlier Tuesday that it was not the Senate's job to build a case against the president. "The House chose this road," McConnell said. "It is their duty to investigate. It is their duty to meet the very high bar for undoing a national election." The speech was a response to a letter sent Sunday by Senate Minority Leader Chuck Schumer, D-N.Y. In the letter, Schumer asked McConnell to agree to a set of rules similar to those used to govern the 1999 impeachment trial of then-President Bill Clinton. At the time, Senate leaders Tom Daschle, D-S.D., and Trent Lott, R-Miss., reached a bipartisan accord on the basic schedule ahead of the trial. A second set of rules was later approved along party lines to govern the handling of witnesses and evidence. Politics How Rules For Impeachment Trials Are Negotiated How Rules For Impeachment Trials Are Negotiated Listen · 8:08 8:08 Democrats want to call four administration officials, including former national security adviser John Bolton and acting White House chief of staff Mick Mulvaney, as witnesses. Schumer told NPR's Morning Edition this week that Democrats chose that list to establish additional information from individuals who have not yet testified in the House impeachment inquiry into Trump. "These four witnesses have direct knowledge of why the aid to Ukraine was delayed," Schumer said in his letter. "We're not interested in dilatory tactics. We're not interested in introducing our own conspiracy theories. Just the facts, ma'am. And that's what these four witnesses will produce." McConnell rejected Schumer's letter in its entirety. He said he would like to meet with the minority leader directly to resume talks on the structure of a trial. "If this [impeachment trial] ends up here in the Senate, we certainly do not need 'jurors' to start brainstorming witness lists for the prosecution and demanding to lock them in before we've even heard opening arguments," McConnell said. "I look forward to meeting with the Democratic leader very soon and getting our important conversation back on the right foot." McConnell told reporters Tuesday afternoon that he was "optimistic" that he and Schumer could agree on the first phase of the trial, which would include House managers and White House counsel presenting their cases to senators. But on Phase 2, which would be related to witnesses, McConnell said he expects that the two sides will have to disagree. Even if McConnell and Schumer do not come to an agreement, senators can still try to call witnesses once a trial has begun. Those requests would be subject to a simple majority vote. Some Republicans want Hunter Biden, the son of former Vice President Joe Biden, to be called as a witness.

When Trump ran for President, he frequently derided “the corrupt political establishment,” saying that Wall Street titans were “getting away with murder” by paying no taxes. In a furious campaign ad, images of the New York Stock Exchange and the C.E.O. of Goldman Sachs flashed onscreen as he promised an end to the élites who had “bled our country dry.” In interviews, he denounced his opponents for begging wealthy donors for campaign contributions, arguing that, if “somebody gives them money,” then “just psychologically, when they go to that person they’re going to do it—they owe him.” McConnell, by contrast, is the master of the Washington money machine. Nobody has done more than he has to engineer the current campaign-finance system, in which billionaires and corporations have virtually no spending limits, and self-dealing and influence-peddling are commonplace. Rick Wilson, a Never Trumper Republican and a former political consultant who once worked on races with McConnell’s team, said, “McConnell’s an astounding behind-the-scenes operator who’s got control of the most successful fund-raising operation in history.” Former McConnell staffers run an array of ostensibly independent spending groups, many of which take tens of millions of dollars from undisclosed donors. Wilson considers McConnell, who has been Majority Leader since 2015, a realist who does whatever is necessary to preserve both his own political survival and the Republicans’ edge in the Senate, which now stands at 53–47. “He feels no shame about it,” he said. “McConnell has been the most powerful force normalizing Trump in Washington.” Al Cross, a columnist and a journalism professor at the University of Kentucky, who is considered the dean of the state’s political press corps, believes that McConnell’s partnership with Trump “is the most important political relationship in the country.” He had hoped that McConnell would push back against Trump. After all, past Republicans have crossed party lines to defend democracy—from censuring Joe McCarthy to forcing the resignation of President Richard Nixon. “But Trump and McConnell have come to understand each other,” Cross said. “The President needs him to govern. McConnell knows that if their relationship fell apart it would be a disaster for the Republican majority in the Senate. They’re very different in many ways, but fundamentally they’re about the same thing—winning.” In a forthcoming book, “Let Them Eat Tweets,” the political scientists Jacob S. Hacker and Paul Pierson challenge the notion that the Republican Party is riven between global corporate élites and downscale white social conservatives. Rather, they argue, an “expedient pact” lies at the heart of today’s Party—and McConnell and Trump embody it. Polls show that there is little voter support for wealthy donors’ agenda of tax cuts for themselves at the expense of social-safety-net cuts for others. The Republicans’ 2017 tax bill was a case in point: it rewarded the Party’s biggest donors by bestowing more than eighty per cent of its largesse on the wealthiest one per cent, by cutting corporate tax rates, and by preserving the carried-interest loophole, which is exploited by private-equity firms and hedge funds. The legislation was unpopular with Democratic and Republican voters alike. In order to win elections, Hacker and Pierson explain, the Republican Party has had to form a coalition between corporatists and white cultural conservatives who are galvanized by Trump’s anti-élitist and racist rhetoric. The authors call this hybrid strategy Plutocratic Populism. Hacker told me that the relationship between McConnell and Trump offers “a clear illustration of how the Party has evolved,” adding, “They may detest each other, but they need each other.” Although the two men almost always support each other in public, several members of McConnell’s innermost circle told me that in private things are quite different. They say that behind Trump’s back McConnell has called the President “nuts,” and made clear that he considers himself smarter than Trump, and that he “can’t stand him.” (A spokesman for McConnell, who declined to be interviewed, denies this.) According to one such acquaintance, McConnell said that Trump resembles a politician he loathes: Roy Moore, the demagogic former chief justice of the Alabama Supreme Court, whose 2017 campaign for an open U.S. Senate seat was upended by allegations that he’d preyed on teen-age girls. (Moore denies them.) “They’re so much alike,” McConnell told the acquaintance. McConnell’s political fealty to Trump has cost him the respect of some of the people who have known him the longest. David Jones, the late co-founder of the health-care giant Humana, backed all McConnell’s Senate campaigns, starting in 1984; Jones and his company’s foundation collectively gave $4.6 million to the McConnell Center. When Jones died, last September, McConnell described him as, “without exaggeration, the single most influential friend and mentor I’ve had in my entire career.” But, three days before Jones’s death, Jones and his two sons, David, Jr., and Matthew, sent the second of two scorching letters to McConnell, both of which were shared with me. They called on him not to be “a bystander” and to use his “constitutional authority to protect the nation from President Trump’s incoherent and incomprehensible international actions.” They argued that “the powers of the Senate to constrain an errant President are prodigious, and it is your job to put them to use.” McConnell had assured them, in response to their first letter, that Trump had “one of the finest national-security teams with whom I have had the honor of working.” But in the second letter the Joneses replied that half of that team had since gone, leaving the Department of Defense “leaderless for months,” and the office of the director of National Intelligence with only an “ ‘acting’ caretaker.” The Joneses noted that they had all served the country: the father in the Navy, Matthew in the Marine Corps, and David, Jr., in the State Department, as a lawyer. Imploring McConnell “to lead,” they questioned the value of “having chosen the judges for a republic while allowing its constitutional structures to fail and its strength and security to crumble.” John David Dyche, a lawyer in Louisville and until recently a conservative columnist, enjoyed unmatched access to McConnell and his papers, and published an admiring biography of him in 2009. In March, though, Dyche posted a Twitter thread that caused a lot of talk in the state’s political circles. He wrote that McConnell “of course realizes that Trump is a hideous human being & utterly unfit to be president,” and that, in standing by Trump anyway, he has shown that he has “no ideology except his own political power.” Dyche declined to comment for this article, but, after the coronavirus shut down most of America, he announced that he was contributing to McConnell’s opponent, Amy McGrath, and tweeted, “Those who stick with the hideous, incompetent demagogue endanger the country & will be remembered in history as shameful cowards.” McConnell also appears to have lost the political support of his three daughters. The youngest, Porter, is a progressive activist who is the campaign director for Take On Wall Street, a coalition of labor unions and nonprofit groups which advocates against the “predatory economic power” of “banks and billionaires.” One of its targets has been Stephen Schwarzman, the chairman and C.E.O. of the Blackstone Group, who, according to the Center for Responsive Politics, has, since 2016, donated nearly thirty million dollars to campaigns and super PACs aligned with McConnell. Last year, Take On Wall Street condemned Blackstone’s “detrimental behavior” and argued that the company’s campaign donations “cast a pall on candidates’ ethics.” Porter McConnell has also publicly criticized the Senate’s confirmation of Justice Kavanaugh, which her father considers one of his greatest achievements. On Twitter, she accused Kavanaugh’s supporters of misogyny, and retweeted a post from StandWithBlaseyFord, a Web site supporting Christine Blasey Ford, one of Kavanaugh’s accusers. The husband of McConnell’s middle daughter, Claire, has also criticized Kavanaugh online, and McConnell’s eldest daughter, Eleanor, is a registered Democrat. All three daughters declined to comment, as did their mother, Sherrill Redmon, whom McConnell divorced in 1980. After the marriage ended, Redmon, who holds a Ph.D. in American history, left Kentucky and took over a women’s-history archive at Smith College, in Massachusetts, where she collaborated with Gloria Steinem on the Voices of Feminism Oral History Project. In an e-mail, Steinem told me that Redmon rarely spoke about McConnell, and noted, “Despite Sherrill’s devotion to recording all of women’s lives, she didn’t talk about the earlier part of her own.” Steinem’s understanding was that McConnell’s political views had once been different. “I can only imagine how painful it must be to marry and have children with a democratic Jekyll and see him turn into a corrupt and authoritarian Hyde,” she wrote. (Redmon is evidently working on a tell-all memoir.) Steinem’s comment echoed a common belief about McConnell: that he began his career as an idealistic, liberal Republican in the mold of Nelson Rockefeller. Certainly, McConnell’s current positions on several key issues, including campaign spending and organized labor, are far more conservative than they once were. But when I asked John Yarmuth, the Democratic congressman from Louisville, who has known McConnell for fifty years, if McConnell had once been idealistic, he said, “Nah. I never saw any evidence of that. He was just driven to be powerful.” Yarmuth, who began as a Republican and worked in a statewide campaign alongside McConnell in 1968, said that McConnell had readily adapted to the Republican Party’s rightward march: “He never had any core principles. He just wants to be something. He doesn’t want to do anything.” For months, I searched for the larger principles or sense of purpose that animates McConnell. I travelled twice to Kentucky, observed him at a Trump rally in Lexington, and watched him preside over the impeachment trial in Washington. I interviewed dozens of people, some of whom love him and some of whom despise him. I read his autobiography, his speeches, and what others have written about him. Finally, someone who knows him very well told me, “Give up. You can look and look for something more in him, but it isn’t there. I wish I could tell you that there is some secret thing that he really believes in, but he doesn’t.” The notion that McConnell started out as an idealist is a staple of most versions of his life story, including his own autobiography, “The Long Game,” published in 2016. He describes his awe, as a young congressional intern, at seeing crowds gather on the Washington Mall for Martin Luther King’s “I Have a Dream” speech, in 1963. McConnell, who was on summer break from the University of Louisville, writes that he recognized he “was witnessing a pivotal moment in history.” McConnell was born in Alabama in 1942, and grew up in the segregated Deep South. He spent much of his childhood in Georgia before moving with his family to Louisville, Kentucky, just before his high-school years. His mother, the daughter of Alabama subsistence farmers, was a secretary in Birmingham when she met McConnell’s father, a mid-level corporate manager who had grown up in a more prosperous family but had dropped out of college. McConnell, in his autobiography, describes his mother’s wedding dowry as little more than “an apple corer and a can opener.” But his parents, he writes, gave him a comfortable middle-class childhood and “instilled me with a deep-seated belief in equal and civil rights, which, given their own upbringing in the Deep South, was quite extraordinary.” He quotes a moving letter from his father celebrating the passage of the 1964 Civil Rights Act, and writes that he, too, supported the legislation. That year, McConnell even voted for Lyndon Johnson for President. McConnell’s book does not mention that his father, who worked in the human-resources department at DuPont, was deposed by lawyers for the N.A.A.C.P. Legal Defense and Educational Fund in a historic racial-discrimination case. Kerry Scanlon, one of the lawyers, told me, “The leadership at that plant seemed to define racism. There was a plantation system in which the black employees did the hardest jobs, like working in front of these open fires where they got burned—and they got the worst pay. There was a systemic pattern of racism.” After years of litigation, the company settled the case, for fourteen million dollars. McConnell writes that the formative experience of his early life was contracting polio at the age of two, ten years before Jonas Salk developed his vaccine. McConnell’s father was away, having joined the military after the start of the Second World War, and so for the next two years his mother, largely alone, confined him to bed except for a painful daily regimen of exercises. His first memory is of his mother’s purchase of a pair of saddle shoes that allowed him to look like other kids once the doctors finally allowed him to walk. He emerged unimpaired, other than having a weak left leg. He credits the experience, and his mother’s determination, with giving him the focus and drive that have propelled him throughout his career. Beating polio, he writes, was the first in a lifetime pursuit of hard-fought “wins.” In recent weeks, as McConnell has contended with the coronavirus challenge, he has said that it brings back “this eerie feeling” of “fear that every mother had” during a polio epidemic. Facebook Twitter Email Shopping Cartoon by Roz Chast An only child, McConnell remained close to his mother, who shared his flinty personality. He also remained devoted to the idea that grit and preparation could beat even the longest odds. He keeps on his office wall a framed copy of a quotation often attributed to Calvin Coolidge, which begins, “Nothing in the world can take the place of Persistence.” (Some people who knew of this found it ironic when, in 2017, in the Senate, he criticized Elizabeth Warren for refusing to yield the floor, complaining, “She persisted.”)

Fox News host Tucker Carlson is being accused of promoting coronavirus vaccine skepticism and anti-vaxxer talking points when he posed questions Monday night as if they were unanswered and legitimate – questions that have been very publicly answered for months. "So all of this should prompt some pretty tough questions for our public health experts in this country," Carlson insisted to several hundred thousand viewers. "And one of those questions is, how effective is this coronavirus vaccine? How necessary is it to take the vaccine? Don't dismiss those questions from 'anti-vaxxers,'" he said scornfully. "Don't kick people off social media for asking them, answer the questions." "The administration would like you to take this vaccine. Joe Biden told you last week if you don't you can't celebrate the Fourth of July. But it turns out there are things we don't know about the effects of this vaccine — and all vaccines by the way." Americans generally agree that the job of a journalist is to inform, to deliver news and information, not to ask basic questions that are easily answered because – in this case – the federal government and the vaccine manufacturers have already answered them. These are not state secrets, but as many on social media noted, when you posed them as if they were, you're promoting anti-vaxx skepticism, and during a pandemic, that is potentially deadly. Watch Carlson from his Monday night show: Last year CNN reported Carlson makes $10 million a year. And while the combined annual salaries of everyone I know don't reach that staggering umber, let's do Tucker's job for him. Just going to Google and entering "how e" literally gave me the answer: And, as most Americans already know, the vaccines range between about 85% effective (Johnson & Johnson, one dose shot) to about 95% effective (Moderna and Pfizer, two-dose shots.) But Carlson thinks the government is hiding this information. It's not. Media Matters has a longer clip here. Here's how some are reacting:

New York (CNN Business) To understand why Tucker Carlson seems immune from consequences, despite constant controversy and condemnation, follow the millions. This week he sparked outrage, once again, when he appeared to justify the killing of two people during protests in Kenosha, Wisconsin. "How shocked are we that 17-year-olds with rifles decided they had to maintain order when no one else would?" Carlson asked viewers. Social media lit up with denunciations and calls for Carlson's firing. But if history is any guide, there will be no internal fallout as a result of his latest shocking statement. Carlson is one of the Fox News Channel's most valuable assets and he is compensated accordingly. In my new book "Hoax," I report that he makes about $10 million a year. Why? Because his 8 p.m. program "Tucker Carlson Tonight" attracts a big audience that feels alienated from the rest of the media landscape. Last month Carlson averaged four million viewers a night, nearly doubling the show on Fox that airs one hour earlier, "The Story." Carlson is the right-wing equivalent of must-see-TV. As a result, he has the backing of Fox Corporation CEO Lachlan Murdoch and a huge amount of autonomy. This is why it is important to follow the millions. During my research for "Hoax," which is subtitled "Donald Trump, Fox News, and the Dangerous Distortion of Truth," I interviewed numerous correspondents and producers who said they wished management would rein Carlson in. They cited examples like his December 2018 comment that mass immigration "makes our country poorer, and dirtier, and more divided" and his August 2019 assertion that white supremacy is a "hoax." But Carlson has an alliance of sorts with Murdoch, eldest son of Rupert, the Fox patriarch. It was Rupert who picked Carlson to succeed Bill O'Reilly in 2017, sources at the company said. And it was Lachlan who backed Carlson amid controversy after controversy in the Trump era, they said. The sources said there are a couple of factors at play: Lachlan shares his father's contempt for being bullied by the "liberal media." He never wants to appear to give in to left-wing ad boycotts. And he thinks Carlson's overarching messages are worth protecting. Both men fancy themselves to be contrarians and enjoy philosophical conversations. They are only two years apart in age. And, pre-pandemic, they dined together when they happened to be in the same city. Lachlan Murdoch's priority, according to sources and his own public statements, is the company's profits. Murdoch is not especially engaged in the editorial side of Fox News. His interest is in growing the business, which is on a path to $2 billion in annual profits. "You know," a Fox executive joked during my reporting, "we print money in the basement." Fox profits through subscriber fees and advertising sales. Carlson's program has turned off many advertisers, due to a litany of scandals and offensive segments, but he still garners support from some key sponsors. Earlier this summer the analytics firm iSpot.tv estimated that Carlson "accounts for 16% of Fox News ad revenue." His biggest advertiser by far is MyPillow, the manufacturing company founded by Mike Lindell, who is closely aligned with President Trump. Lindell underwrites Fox's programming by spending tens of millions of dollars on ads for pillows and other products. According to iSpot.tv, "nearly half MyPillow's annual spend of $75 million was spent on Carlson's show," twice its investment in 9 p.m. host Sean Hannity or 10 p.m. host Laura Ingraham. In some ways MyPillow has propped up Carlson as other advertisers have fled. Fox spokespeople have called past boycott campaigns "agenda-driven intimidation efforts." In private, executives told me it was "economic harassment" designed to put Fox News out of business. "We don't hang talent out to dry," an executive told me in a moment of candor, "because once you cave to these lunatics, you won't have any shows left." And what about the rank-and-file Fox staffers who said they loathed Carlson? They're just "social justice warriors," this executive said, using the pejorative term for progressives that was in vogue among conservatives. As for Carlson, he did not respond to requests for comments from CNN Business about the criticism of his Wednesday segment.

Our Company NEW BRUNSWICK, N.J., February 27, 2021 – Johnson & Johnson (NYSE: JNJ) (the Company) today announced that the U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA) has issued Emergency Use Authorization (EUA) for its single-dose COVID-19 vaccine, developed by the Janssen Pharmaceutical Companies of Johnson & Johnson, to prevent COVID-19 in individuals 18 years of age and older. This decision was based on the totality of scientific evidence, including data from the Phase 3 ENSEMBLE study that demonstrated the vaccine was 85 percent effective in preventing severe disease across all regions studied, and showed protection against COVID-19 related hospitalization and death, beginning 28 days after vaccination. The terms of the EUA allow use of the vaccine while more data are gathered. The Company plans to file for a Biologics License Application (BLA) with the FDA later in 2021. “This milestone follows a year of incredible work by our dedicated teams and unprecedented collaboration with health leaders around the world – all of whom shared a goal of bringing a single-shot vaccine to the public,” said Alex Gorsky, Chairman and Chief Executive Officer at Johnson & Johnson. “We will do everything we can to help bring this pandemic to an end, in the United States and throughout the world.” “We believe the Johnson & Johnson single-shot COVID-19 vaccine is a critical tool for fighting this global pandemic, particularly as it shows protection across countries with different variants. A vaccine that protects against COVID-19, especially against the most dire outcomes of hospitalization and death, will help ease the burden on people and the strain on health systems worldwide,” said Paul Stoffels, M.D., Vice Chairman of the Executive Committee and Chief Scientific Officer, Johnson & Johnson. “We look forward to our continued efforts around the world as we collectively aim to change the trajectory of this global pandemic.” Johnson & Johnson is committed to making its COVID-19 vaccine available on a not-for-profit basis for emergency pandemic use. The Company has begun shipping its COVID-19 vaccine and expects to deliver enough single-shot vaccines by the end of March to enable the full vaccination of more than 20 million people in the U.S. The Company plans to deliver 100 million single-shot vaccines to the U.S. during the first half of 2021. The U.S. government will manage allocation and distribution of the vaccine in the U.S. This will be prioritized according to the populations identified by the CDC’s Advisory Committee on Immunization Practices (ACIP) guidelines. Johnson & Johnson also recently announced its submission of a European Conditional Marketing Authorisation Application to the European Medicines Agency as well as its filing for an Emergency Use Listing (EUL) with the World Health Organization for its COVID-19 vaccine candidate. In addition, rolling submissions for the single-dose COVID-19 vaccine candidate have been initiated in several countries worldwide. The EUA follows a unanimous vote by the U.S. FDA’s Vaccines and Related Biological Products Advisory Committee (VRBPAC) on February 26, 2021. “We are thankful for the efforts of all those who have volunteered to participate in our clinical trials, our scientists, collaborators, clinical trial sites and investigators. Through the combined commitment of everyone involved, we have been able to discover, develop and manufacture a single-shot COVID-19 vaccine to protect people around the world,” said Mathai Mammen, M.D., Ph.D., Global Head, Janssen Research & Development, Johnson & Johnson. Manufacturing and Supply Chain Information The Johnson & Johnson COVID-19 single-dose vaccine is compatible with standard vaccine storage and distribution channels with ease of delivery to remote areas. The vaccine is estimated to remain stable for two years at -4°F (-20°C), and a maximum of three months at routine refrigeration at temperatures of 36-46°F (2 to 8°C). The Company will ship the vaccine using the same cold chain technologies it uses today to transport treatments for cancer, immunological disorders and other medicines. The COVID-19 vaccine should not be re-frozen if distributed at temperatures of 36°F–46°F (2°-8°C). Johnson & Johnson’s COVID-19 Vaccine The Company’s COVID-19 vaccine leverages the AdVac® vaccine platform, a unique and proprietary technology that was also used to develop and manufacture Janssen’s European Commission-approved Ebola vaccine regimen and construct its investigational Zika, RSV, and HIV vaccines. The Janssen COVID-19 vaccine has not been approved or licensed by the U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA), but has been authorized by FDA through an Emergency Use Authorization (EUA) for active immunization to prevent Coronavirus Disease 2019 (COVID-19) in individuals 18 years of age and older. There is no FDA-approved vaccine to prevent COVID-19. The FDA EUA Fact Sheet for Healthcare Providers Administering Vaccine (Vaccination Providers) and full EUA Prescribing Information are available at: www.janssenlabels.com/emergency-use-authorization/Janssen+COVID-19+Vaccine-HCP-fact-sheet.pdf. Phase 3 ENSEMBLE Study Design The Phase 3 ENSEMBLE study is a randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled clinical trial in individuals 18 years of age and older. The study was designed to evaluate the safety and efficacy of the Company’s vaccine candidate in protecting against both moderate and severe COVID-19 disease, with assessment of efficacy as of day 14 and as of day 28 as co-primary endpoints. The study enrolled a total of 43,783 participants. The trial, conducted in eight countries across three continents, includes a diverse and broad population including 34 percent of participants over age 60. The study enrolled 44 percent of participants in the United States. Seventy-four percent of participants in the U.S. are White/Caucasian; 15 percent are Hispanic and/or Latinx; 13 percent are Black/African American; 6 percent are Asian and 1 percent are Native American. Forty-one percent of participants in the study had comorbidities associated with an increased risk for progression to severe COVID-19. Research and development activities for the Company’s COVID-19 vaccine, including the ENSEMBLE clinical trial and the delivery of doses for the U.S., has been funded in part with federal funds from the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services, Office of the Assistant Secretary for Preparedness and Response, Biomedical Advanced Research and Development Authority (BARDA), under Contract No. HHSO100201700018C, and in collaboration with the National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases (NIAID), part of the National Institutes of Health (NIH) at the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services (HHS). Johnson & Johnson has worked with BARDA since 2015 on innovative solutions for influenza, chemical, biological, radiation and nuclear threats and emerging infectious diseases such as Ebola. For more information on the Company’s multi-pronged approach to helping combat the pandemic, visit: www.jnj.com/coronavirus. Authorized Use The Janssen COVID-19 vaccine is authorized for use under an Emergency Use Authorization (EUA) for active immunization to prevent coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) caused by severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) in individuals 18 years of age and older. Important Safety Information WHAT SHOULD YOU MENTION TO YOUR VACCINATION PROVIDER BEFORE YOU GET THE JANSSEN COVID-19 VACCINE? Tell the vaccination provider about all of your medical conditions, including if you: · have any allergies · have a fever · have a bleeding disorder or are on a blood thinner · are immunocompromised or are on a medicine that affects your immune system · are pregnant or plan to become pregnant · are breastfeeding · have received another COVID-19 vaccine WHO SHOULD NOT GET THE JANSSEN COVID-19 VACCINE? You should not get the Janssen COVID-19 Vaccine if you: · had a severe allergic reaction to any ingredient of this vaccine. HOW IS THE JANSSEN COVID-19 VACCINE GIVEN? The Janssen COVID-19 Vaccine will be given to you as an injection into the muscle. The Janssen COVID-19 Vaccine vaccination schedule is a single dose. WHAT ARE THE RISKS OF THE JANSSEN COVID-19 VACCINE? Side effects that have been reported with the Janssen COVID-19 Vaccine include: · Injection site reactions: pain, redness of the skin, and swelling. · General side effects: headache, feeling very tired, muscle aches, nausea, fever. There is a remote chance that the Janssen COVID-19 Vaccine could cause a severe allergic reaction. A severe allergic reaction would usually occur within a few minutes to one hour after getting a dose of the Janssen COVID-19 Vaccine. For this reason, your vaccination provider may ask you to stay at the place where you received your vaccine for monitoring after vaccination. Signs of a severe allergic reaction can include: · Difficulty breathing · Swelling of your face and throat · A fast heartbeat · A bad rash all over your body · Dizziness and weakness These may not be all the possible side effects of the Janssen COVID-19 Vaccine. Serious and unexpected effects may occur. The Janssen COVID-19 Vaccine is still being studied in clinical trials. WHAT SHOULD I DO ABOUT SIDE EFFECTS? If you experience a severe allergic reaction, call 9-1-1, or go to the nearest hospital. Call the vaccination provider or your healthcare provider if you have any side effects that bother you or do not go away. Report vaccine side effects to FDA/CDC Vaccine Adverse Event Reporting System (VAERS). The VAERS toll-free number is 1-800-822-7967 or report online to https://vaers.hhs.gov/reportevent.html. Please include “Janssen COVID-19 Vaccine EUA” in the first line of box #18 of the report form. In addition, you can report side effects to Janssen Biotech, Inc. at 1-800-565-4008. About Johnson & Johnson At Johnson & Johnson, we believe good health is the foundation of vibrant lives, thriving communities and forward progress. That’s why for more than 130 years, we have aimed to keep people well at every age and every stage of life. Today, as the world’s largest and most broadly-based healthcare company, we are committed to using our reach and size for good. We strive to improve access and affordability, create healthier communities, and put a healthy mind, body and environment within reach of everyone, everywhere. We are blending our heart, science and ingenuity to profoundly change the trajectory of health for humanity. Learn more at www.jnj.com. Follow us at @JNJNews. About the Janssen Pharmaceutical Companies of Johnson & Johnson At Janssen, we're creating a future where disease is a thing of the past. We're the Pharmaceutical Companies of Johnson & Johnson, working tirelessly to make that future a reality for patients everywhere by fighting sickness with science, improving access with ingenuity, and healing hopelessness with heart. We focus on areas of medicine where we can make the biggest difference: Cardiovascular & Metabolism, Immunology, Infectious Diseases & Vaccines, Neuroscience, Oncology, and Pulmonary Hypertension. Learn more at www.janssen.com. Follow us at @JanssenGlobal. Cautions Concerning Forward-Looking Statements This press release contains "forward-looking statements" as defined in the Private Securities Litigation Reform Act of 1995 regarding development of a potential preventive vaccine for COVID-19. The reader is cautioned not to rely on these forward-looking statements. These statements are based on current expectations of future events. If underlying assumptions prove inaccurate or known or unknown risks or uncertainties materialize, actual results could vary materially from the expectations and projections of the Janssen Pharmaceutical Companies, and/or Johnson & Johnson. Risks and uncertainties include, but are not limited to: challenges and uncertainties inherent in product research and development, including the uncertainty of clinical success and of obtaining regulatory approvals; uncertainty of commercial success; manufacturing difficulties and delays; competition, including technological advances, new products and patents attained by competitors; challenges to patents; product efficacy or safety concerns resulting in product recalls or regulatory action; changes in behavior and spending patterns of purchasers of health care products and services; changes to applicable laws and regulations, including global health care reforms; and trends toward health care cost containment. A further list and descriptions of these risks, uncertainties and other factors can be found in Johnson & Johnson's Annual Report on Form 10-K for the fiscal year ended January 3, 2021, including in the sections captioned “Cautionary Note Regarding Forward-Looking Statements” and “Item 1A. Risk Factors,” and in the company’s most recently filed Quarterly Report on Form 10-Q, and the company’s subsequent filings with the Securities and Exchange Commission. Copies of these filings are available online at www.sec.gov, www.jnj.com or on request from Johnson & Johnson. None of the Janssen Pharmaceutical Companies nor Johnson & Johnson undertakes to update any forward-looking statement as a result of new information or future events or developments. ###

General information Name: mRNA-1273 Manufacturer: ModernaTX, Inc. Type of vaccine: mRNA Learn more about how COVID-19 vaccines work and get a better understanding of COVID-19 mRNA vaccines. Number of shots: 2 shots, one month (28 days) apart How given: Shot in the muscle of the upper arm Does not contain: Eggs Preservatives Latex For a full list of ingredients, see Moderna’s COVID-19 Vaccine Fact Sheet for Recipients and Caregivers [314 KB, 5 pages]external icon.

General information Name: BNT162b2 Manufacturer: Pfizer, Inc., and BioNTech Type of vaccine: mRNA Learn more about how COVID-19 vaccines work and get a better understanding of COVID-19 mRNA vaccines. Number of shots: 2 shots, 21 days apart How given: Shot in the muscle of the upper arm Does not contain: Eggs Preservatives Latex For a full list of ingredients, see Pfizer’s COVID-19 Vaccine Fact Sheet for Recipients and Caregivers [200 KB, 6 pages]external icon

Citation From the March 15, 2021, edition of Fox News' Tucker Carlson Tonight TUCKER CARLSON (HOST): So, all of this should prompt some pretty tough questions for our public health experts in this country. And one of those questions is, “How effective is this coronavirus vaccine?" “How necessary is it to take the vaccine?" Don't dismiss those questions from anti-vaxxers. Don't kick people off social media for asking them. Answer the questions -- especially now. The administration would like you to take this vaccine. Joe Biden told you last week if you don't, you can't celebrate the Fourth of July. But it turns out there are things we don't know about the effects of this vaccine and all vaccines by the way -- it's always a trade-off. But in this specific case, Germany, France, Italy and Spain -- these are not third world countries -- have just suspended the distribution of AstraZeneca's vaccine. They're saying it could be linked to deadly blood clots. A month ago, The New York Times reported that the FDA and the CDC were looking into reports that Moderna and Pfizer's coronavirus vaccines could be causing blood clots as well. ... So, should this scare you? We don't know. But the rest of us deserve an answer.

Fox News host Tucker Carlson met Twitter's wrath when he decided to mock Rep. Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez's (D-N.Y.) grim experience inside the U.S. Capitol. She and other members of Congress hid for their lives on Jan. 6 as angry Trump supporters stormed the federal building to prevent lawmakers from certifying the Electoral College vote for President-elect Joe Biden. On Thursday, Jan. 14, Carlson tried to manipulate and twist the facts about the siege as he downplayed the disturbing incident that led to the deaths of five people, including one Capitol Police officer. "It was not an act of racism. It was not an insurrection. It wasn't an armed invasion by a brigade of dangerous white supremacists. It wasn't. Those are lies," Carlson falsely exclaimed. After diminishing the severity of the angry mob's actions, Carlson went on to mock Ocasio-Cortez. Describing the lawmaker as a "vacuous little totalitarian moron," the conservative host criticized Ocasio-Cortez's praise of officers for their efforts to combat the violent mob at the Capitol. In a video clip posted to Instagram, the Democratic lawmaker offered details about the harrowing series of events that took place inside the U.S. Capitol. At one point in the video clip, she revealed she "narrowly escaped death." "I had a pretty traumatizing event happen to me," Ocasio-Cortez described. "And I do not know if I can even disclose the full details of that event, due to security concerns. But I can tell you that I had a very close encounter where I thought I was going to die." That portion of her video is what Carlson sarcastically aimed to mock. "Narrowly escaped death," Carlson sarcastically declared. "When the most harrowing thing you've done in life is pass freshman sociology at Boston University, every day is a brand new drama! Sandy's heart is still beating fast!" "But she likes the cops now despite the fact they're white supremacists," he smirked. "What a difference a day makes." Twitter users were not pleased with Carlson's attack on the Democratic lawmaker. John Iadarola, host of the progressive show "The Damage Report," slammed Tucker's remarks describing his words as "despicable." "Tucker Carlson and Fox have spent 2 years whipping their viewers into a murderous frenzy against anything [Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez] or [Ilhan Omar] say or do," Iadarola tweeted, "Then, when the inevitable happens and the mob tries to attack them, Tucker mocks them for fearing the violence he sent their way. Despicable." Another Twitter user wrote, "Ah [Tucker Carlson], someday I'll tell the whole story of what you said to me that night -- what was that low-rent White House/Capitol dinner we went to? You didn't see yourself going to Fox back then. Keep persecuting @AOC and others. It won't end well for you." David Folkenflik, NPR media correspondent also tweeted, "Deflection, disparagement, diversion - Fox's Tucker Carlson has moved on to mocking lawmakers for fears of a mob howling for blood on their corridors, especially if it's AOC." Carlson has yet to respond to the criticism he is facing for his remarks.

CNN anchor Brianna Keilar is making a high-level attack one Fox News' low-life "propaganda host" Tucker Carlson, blasting the conservative cable network's star for his comments attacking women, especially pregnant women, in the U.S. Military. Keilar expanded her attack to include all of Fox News, intelligently noting that not only is Carlson, the face of the Rupert Murdoch propaganda machine, "denigrating honorable female service members" but it has been defending their male counterparts who have been accused of committing crimes, including war crimes – in quite the "double standard." Calling Fox News "a highly rated propaganda arm that usually professes to support the men and women who wear the uniform of the United States Armed Forces," she slammed Carlson for taking "aim at service members who not only fight for this country, but schedule the growing of human beings around deployments off into war zones." She also played Carlson's response to the countless social media posts berating him for attacking women who wear the uniform of their country to defend it – including his right to free speech attacking them. "Today, Department of Defense launched a large and coordinated public relations offensive against this show," Carlson said on-air Thursday night. "Pentagon brass issued hostile statements, people in uniform set up videos on social media. The DoD even issued a news release attacking us. 'Press Secretary Smites Fox News Host'," he said, mocking a Dept. of Defense article on its own website. "'Smites,' like we're a hostile foreign power," Carlson complained. "This is bigger than a feud with some flak at the Pentagon. This is genuinely worrisome. The Department of Defense has never been more aggressively or openly political," he claimed. Keilar then gave it all context. "Carlson had to respond because the backlash was fierce, so he chose to respond by pretending the backlash was just the Pentagon, just Biden political appointees rebuking him, but that is not what this is. The military at every level is rebuking Carlson's comments because they're sexist and because they're anti-military. Military spouses rebuked Carlson," she noted. "Active Duty women and men skewered Carlson, it was extraordinary that they spoke up, but Carlson ignored that trying to say he was just focusing on making sure the military is strong." She then played another clip of Carlson: "Nothing matters more than the job it does to our US military. Our military is the last functional institution of any size in this country, is the last institution most people trust and respect. It is by far the most important, a weak military means no country, period." "Now," she continued, "if Tucker Carlson thinks that, then why is he actively trying to weaken it by denigrating essential members of the armed services for no reason other than that they are women? Maybe he doesn't realize his comments are weakening the military, after all he wouldn't know deployment from a trip to Nantucket or a rocket launcher from a lacrosse stick, but that's what he is doing maligning pregnant service members." In response to Carlson defending himself, his show, and Fox News as "pro-pregnancy" after attacking flight suits and uniforms for pregnant women, Keilar, frustrated, asked: "What is he talking about?" "Pregnant pilots are just pilots who are pregnant. They are no worse or better because they're pregnant. They are just highly-qualified women, and in an all volunteer force in a country where most people wouldn't qualify to join, the military needs highly qualified women. It's not surprising that Tucker Carlson doesn't understand that, or that Fox doesn't. The network has a double standard, they have used their platform to effectively lobby for the pardons of male service members and military contractors convicted, or accused of war crimes." "Tucker Carlson's predictable play would be to make this about free speech," she continued, wrapping up her prosecution of Carlson and Fox News. "Well, he is free to say whatever the hell he wants. He is free to wake up in the morning and figure out who he wants to insult and what nutso thing he wants to rant about to get the attention he seems to need. But keep in mind the highest rated show on the network is Carlson's. He is Fox, and as Fox tries to right its rating ship, its Tucker rising its other programming, as well. Laughlan Murdoch said out loud that his network would be the 'loyal opposition' to the Biden administration. Well. Is he cool with his top rated host acting like the loyal opposition to the rank and file of the US military that the network says it champions? What say you? Fox can come to the aid of convicted war criminals, but denigrate honorable female service members? We tried to find out more about this contradiction from Fox, they've had more than 24 hours to respond to our questions and they have not." Watch:

You Literally Can't Believe The Facts Tucker Carlson Tells You. So Say Fox's Lawyers Enlarge this image toggle caption Chip Somodevilla/Getty Images Chip Somodevilla/Getty Images Tucker Carlson appears to be made of Teflon. Fox News' top-rated host has been repeatedly accused of anti-immigrant and racist comments, which have cost his political opinion show many of its major advertisers. Yet Carlson endures in his prime-time slot. Carlson even attacked his own network's chief news anchor on the air, with no real consequences. That anchor, Shepard Smith, quit mid-contract shortly after Carlson went after him. Now comes the claim that you can't expect to literally believe the words that come out of Carlson's mouth. And that assertion is not coming from Carlson's critics. It's being made by a federal judge in the Southern District of New York and by Fox News's own lawyers in defending Carlson against accusations of slander. It worked, by the way. Just read U.S. District Judge Mary Kay Vyskocil's opinion, leaning heavily on the arguments of Fox's lawyers: The "'general tenor' of the show should then inform a viewer that [Carlson] is not 'stating actual facts' about the topics he discusses and is instead engaging in 'exaggeration' and 'non-literal commentary.' " She wrote: "Fox persuasively argues, that given Mr. Carlson's reputation, any reasonable viewer 'arrive[s] with an appropriate amount of skepticism' about the statement he makes." Vyskocil, an appointee of President Trump's, added, "Whether the Court frames Mr. Carlson's statements as 'exaggeration,' 'non-literal commentary,' or simply bloviating for his audience, the conclusion remains the same — the statements are not actionable." Vyskocil's ruling last week, dismissing a slander lawsuit filed against Carlson, was a win for Fox, First Amendment principles and the media more generally, as Fox News itself maintains. As a legal matter, the judge ruled that Karen McDougal, the woman suing Carlson, failed to surmount the challenge. But in the process of saving the Fox star, the network's attorneys raised the journalistic question: Just what level of fact-checking does Fox News expect, or subject its opinion shows to? Media lawyers note this is not the first time this sort of defense has been offered. A $10 million libel lawsuit filed by the owners of One America News Network against MSNBC's top star, Rachel Maddow, was dismissed in May when the judge ruled she had stretched the established facts allowably: "The context of Maddow's statement shows reasonable viewers would consider the contested statement to be opinion." In the Fox case, Carlson was presenting his own narrative, not even one extrapolating from known facts. During the 2016 presidential campaign, McDougal, a former Playboy model, had sought to tell her account of an earlier affair with Trump. The National Enquirer tabloid bought McDougal's story for $150,000 during the 2016 campaign and then buried it to protect Trump from any fallout. More than two years later, in December 2018, Carlson began presenting Trump as the victim of extortion. Seeking to discredit former Trump attorney Michael Cohen's tale of hush payments — and alleged campaign finance law violations — Carlson first told viewers, "Remember the facts of the story. These are undisputed." But they aren't undisputed. They're not even facts. He then proceeded to say, "Two women approach Donald Trump and threaten to ruin his career and humiliate his family if he doesn't give them money. Now that sounds like a classic case of extortion." Pictures of former adult film star Stephanie Clifford, known as Stormy Daniels, and McDougal flashed on screen. Cohen paid Daniels $130,000 on behalf of Trump, who denies that either affair occurred. In reality, McDougal never approached Trump. She and her representative had spoken to ABC News and to the National Enquirer because, she said, she feared word of the affair would leak out during the campaign anyway and she preferred to be the one to tell the story. It wasn't publicly known that David Pecker, then the CEO of the tabloid's parent company, had promised Trump he would help keep stories about extramarital affairs from seeing the light of day. Carlson and Fox never corrected that significant error, as The Washington Post's Erik Wemple underscored. Not to worry, Carlson's lawyers said. In written briefs, they cited previous rulings to argue Carlson's words were "loose, figurative or hyperbolic." They took note of a nonjournalist's use of the word "extort," which proved nondefamatory because it was mere "rhetorical hyperbole, a vigorous epithet." Carlson has been accused of hyperbolic, vicious and unfounded claims about women, people of color and immigrants in the past. This year, his audiences have made his show the top-rated program in the history of cable news. He maintains the backing of Fox Corp. Executive Chairman and CEO Lachlan Murdoch. The Daily Beast reported Tuesday that Fox recently slashed its research team, cutting it by about one-fourth during modest networkwide layoffs. Fox News said that is overstating the size of the cut to the unit. It said it eliminated duplication and those functions are conducted elsewhere throughout its newsroom and programs. In Carlson's defense, Fox's attorneys, from Kirkland & Ellis LLP and Hunton Andrews Kurth LLP, noted that meeting the standard of "actual malice" requires more than just showing someone should have researched or investigated a subject before popping off, thanks to U.S. Supreme Court rulings. The Fox team's legal briefs compared Carlson's show to radio talk-show programs hosted by ex-MSNBC and Fox Business star Don Imus, who won a case more than two decades ago because an appellate court ruled that "the complained of statements would not have been taken by reasonable listeners as factual pronouncements but simply as instances in which the defendant radio hosts had expressed their views over the air in the crude and hyperbolic manner that has, over the years, become their verbal stock in trade." In sum, the Fox News lawyers mocked the legal case made by McDougal's legal team. She alleged "a reasonable viewer of ordinary intelligence listening or watching the show ... would conclude that [she] is a criminal who extorted Trump for money" and that "the statements about [her] were fact." "Context makes plain," Fox's lawyers wrote, "that the reasonable viewer would do no such thing." The judge fully agreed.

The top writer for Fox News host Tucker Carlson has for years been using a pseudonym to post bigoted remarks on an online forum that is a hotbed for racist, sexist, and other offensive content, CNN Business learned this week. Just this week, the writer, Blake Neff, responded to a thread started by another user in 2018 with the subject line, "Would u let a JET BLACK congo n****er do lasik eye surgery on u for 50% off?" Neff wrote, "I wouldn't get LASIK from an Asian for free, so no." (The subject line was not censored on the forum.) On June 5, Neff wrote, "Black doods staying inside playing Call of Duty is probably one of the biggest factors keeping crime down." On June 24, Neff commented, "Honestly given how tired black people always claim to be, maybe the real crisis is their lack of sleep." On June 26, Neff wrote that the only people who care about changing the name of the NFL's Washington Redskins are "white libs and their university-'educated' pets." And over the course of five years, Neff has maintained a lengthy thread in which he has derided a woman and posted information about her dating life that has invited other users to mock her and invade her privacy. There has at times also been overlap between some material he posted or saw on the forum and Carlson's show. CNN Business contacted Neff for comment Thursday night. After he or someone acting on his behalf passed that email to Fox News spokespeople, a network spokesperson on Friday morning told CNN Business that Neff had resigned. A Fox News spokesperson said on Friday that Carlson could not be reached for comment. Neff did not respond to multiple requests for comment. In a memo sent to employees Saturday afternoon, after this story was first published, Fox News CEO Suzanne Scott and President Jay Wallace condemned "horrific racist, misogynistic and homophobic behavior." "Neff's abhorrent conduct on this forum was never divulged to the show or the network until Friday, at which point we swiftly accepted his resignation," Scott and Wallace wrote. "Make no mistake, actions such as his cannot and will not be tolerated at any time in any part of our work force." Scott and Wallace said that Carlson would address the matter on his Monday show. Neff worked at Fox News for nearly four years and was Carlson's top writer. Previously, he was a reporter at The Daily Caller, a conservative news outlet that Carlson co-founded. In a recent article in the Dartmouth Alumni Magazine , Neff said, "Anything [Carlson is] reading off the teleprompter, the first draft was written by me." He also acknowledged the show's influence, telling the magazine, "We're very aware that we do have that power to sway the conversation, so we try to use it responsibly." When asked in a 2018 appearance on Fox's "The Five" about the writing process for his show, Carlson said he spends hours working on scripts, but referred to Neff by name, saying he was a "wonderful writer" and acknowledging his assistance. And Carlson credited Neff in the acknowledgments of his book, "Ship of Fools," for providing research. In the acknowledgments, Carlson said that Neff and two others who helped with the book "work on and greatly improve our nightly show on Fox." During the years that Neff wrote for him at Fox, Carlson has hosted one of the most influential shows on cable news. In the last quarter, Carlson had not only the highest-rated program in cable news, but the highest-rated show in the history of cable news . Carlson also counts President Trump among his most loyal viewers. On multiple occasions, the President has tweeted out videos of Carlson's program. Which is to say, the scripts that Neff likely helped write and shape were being shared by the President of the United States. JUST WATCHED Fox's Carlson called veteran a 'moron.' A closer look at his target Replay More Videos ... MUST WATCH Fox's Carlson called veteran a 'moron.' A closer look at his target 03:27 While working at Fox News, and while a reporter at The Daily Caller, Neff was a frequent poster on AutoAdmit. Also known as XOXOhth, it is a relatively unmoderated message board like 4chan aimed at lawyers and law school students in which racism and sexism run rampant. The board's vulgar content was previously the subject of much criticism, and two Yale students sued anonymous posters on the site in 2007 alleging they had defamed them and made threatening remarks. The Hartford Courant reported in 2009 that the lawsuit was quietly settled after some of the posters were identified. Neff, who posts on the board under the username CharlesXII, is widely revered on the forum, with many posters knowing the person behind the account works on Carlson's show. He has spent years posting about history, offering his political opinions, and detailing aspects of his personal life. After learning of Neff's posts on the board through an email from an anonymous tipster, CNN Business was able to positively identify CharlesXII as Neff by reviewing messages he has posted throughout the years on the forum and matching them up with publicly available information about him. Among the details which make clear that CharlesXII and Neff are the same person: CharlesXII indicated on the board that he had gone to Dartmouth; Neff is an alumnus. CharlesXII said he had been working for nearly four years in his current journalism job in Washington DC; Neff has been working for Carlson at Fox in Washington since February 2017, according to his LinkedIn profile, which appears to have been removed after his resignation from Fox News. CharlesXII said on the board that he got his start in journalism after he turned down law school and instead took a fellowship; Neff told the Dartmouth Alumni Magazine that he took a fellowship with the Collegiate Network. CharlesXII also wrote a parody version of the song "We Didn't Start The Fire" and posted about it on the board, including a screen shot of an email he received from Carlson praising a lyric in the song. Neff sang the parody song at a Daily Caller Christmas party a few years ago, according to a person familiar with the event. The Daily Caller declined to comment. And in a 2017 Washington Post Date Lab article featuring Neff, he dropped a number of Easter eggs for the board, including referencing an "alcohol is poison" meme that he has repeatedly posted about and carrying a book on Catherine the Great to a date. His username on the forum, CharlesXII, is a reference to Charles XII of Sweden, a king known for his military victories and who abstained from sex and alcohol. Neff, a history buff interested in wars and military battles, has repeatedly disclosed on the forum that he rarely drinks and The Post story said he rarely dates. Even more clearly identifying, however, were photos that CharlesXII posted to the forum in 2018 to the forum after visiting a museum in Egypt. In three of the photos, a reflection of Neff is visible snapping the pictures in the artifacts' glass enclosures. While at Fox News, Carlson has been accused by critics of making racist and inflammatory comments on air. His show has long appealed to extremists who agree with his hardline views on immigration, his emphasis on the preservation of Western culture, and his commentary on topics of race. Carlson has at several points in his Fox News career found himself in hot water when commenting on such topics. In August 2019, for instance, Carlson became engulfed in controversy when he said the very real problem of white supremacy in America was a "hoax." Most recently, Carlson saw more advertisers — including Disney and T-Mobile — flee his program in June after he said the Black Lives Matter movement was "not about black lives" and warned viewers to "remember that when they come for you." (A Fox News spokesperson later said Carlson was referring to Democratic leaders, not Black Lives Matter protesters, when he made the comments.) Carlson himself has in the past pushed back against allegations of racism. He told The Atlantic in December 2019 that such accusations are "so far from the truth" that it has "no effect at all other than to evoke in me contempt for the people saying it" because he thinks "it's that dishonest." Bigotry and vitriol In 2015, Neff started a thread on AutoAdmit mocking a woman, with whom he was friends on Facebook and whom he described as an "Azn megashrew," sharing posts she had written about her dating life. He has continued to post to the thread and mock the woman, whom CNN Business is not identifying, as recently as late last month. In his first post in 2015 starting the years-long thread, he explained that "through circumstances" he couldn't "quite recall," he became Facebook friends with the woman and thought her posts about dating were amusing. "So, I thought I'd post them," Neff wrote. "I won't put up a pic but it's probably relevant to say that she's a slightly overweight Azn woman who is in her mid-30s and definitely looks it." Through the years, the thread has generated nearly 1,000 comments — many of which used vulgar racist, sexist, and dehumanizing language to mock the woman. Neff also said he did not want other posters to harass her, but did not stop them from identifying her and posting links to her account. He also posted some photos from her account that did not show her face and continued posting about her dating life for years after the other posters had identified her. Reached for comment, the woman told CNN Business, "When I was recently made aware of Blake's posts about me on racist websites, I was overcome with disappointment which eventually mixed with bewilderment that he spent years dedicated to creating a false narrative based on my satirical writing about my life. The nature of online media is that your identity, while nominally under your control, is vulnerable to being misused. Any public figure can attest to this problem." In March 2020, Neff started another lengthy thread mocking a separate woman with whom he was connected on social media. The woman had posted about freezing her eggs, and Neff apparently found that worth deriding in the AutoAdmit forum. He began posting about her in March of this year, in a thread he titled "Disaster: WuFlu outbreak endangers aging shrew's quest to freeze eggs." Neff posted to the thread, which racked up dozens of comments as users ridicule the woman, as recently as June 28. I was overcome with disappointment which eventually mixed with bewilderment that he spent years dedicated to creating a false narrative based on my satirical writing about my life. Anonymous On the forum, Neff has also expressed bigoted views. In 2014, he joked about "foodie faggots." And in the same year, he started a thread titled, "Urban business idea: He Didn't Do Muffin!" He joked one item could be, "Sandra Bland's Sugar-free Shortbreads!" In August 2019, a user started a thread titled, "We should just buy Canada and kick the Canadians out." Neff commented, "Okay but what do we do with the millions of Chinese people." More recently, in February 2020, Neff called Mormonism "an inherently cucky religion." On June 5, a user on the forum commented in a thread, "Didn't Michael Brown rob a store and attack a police officer? And wasn't [George Floyd] a piece of shit with a long criminal record? Jfc libs." Another person commented, "It doesn't matter to these people." Neff then replied, "It does. The violent criminals are even MORE heroic." On June 16, a user started a separate thread about a video showing a Black man assaulting an elderly white woman in New York. Neff commented on the thread, "And to think, if this guy got killed in some freak incident while being arrested, we'd have to endure at least three funerals in his honor." On the Fourth of July, Neff started a thread in which he jokingly "rated" members of the community using images from a 1990s video game from the makers of "Oregon Trail" that was pulled from the market due to its racist depictions of slaves. In the game, users play as slaves trying to break free and escape north. Neff assigned users on the forum images from the game, many of which depicted Black slaves using racist stereotypes. For instance, Neff assigned one user an image of a slave catcher, to which the user replied "[thank you] massa Charles for dis." On May 27, Neff wrote that Reps. Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez, Ilhan Omar, Ayanna Pressley, and Rashida Tlaib — known collectively as "The Squad" — want to "MAKE YOUR COUNTRY A DUMPING GROUND FOR PEOPLE FROM THIRD WORLD SHITHOLES." Responding to a thread on June 27 about whether "whites fear what's going to happen to them in 10-20 yrs," Neff wrote that he has "no plans to stay" in the country "that long." In December 2019, he said that "once Democrats have the majorities to go full F**K WHITEY, things are going to get really wacky really quickly." He argued at the time that there is a "large minority of whites who are fully supportive of a F**k Whitey agenda" and that "there's a suicidal impulse to Western peoples that honestly feels almost biological in origin." When not making his own bigoted comments, Neff has shown a willingness to respond to others who were, without expressing any hesitation, much less disgust, about what they've said. For instance, in 2016 he replied to a thread with the title, "Mary Poppins getting raped by a pack of wild ni***rs at the park; kids watching." That same year, he commented on a thread titled, "DIKES get wrong CUM at CUMBANK. N****R pops out." Just last month, Neff replied to a comment on the thread that said, "And the n**s are always honor students or some bullshit." (The language on both posts was not censored on the forum.) Last month, Neff mocked a user who said they were leaving the board over concerns about the rampant racism on it. In a now-deleted comment, the user implored others to "consider the current environment," writing, "The country is undergoing a great awakening to racist injustices throughout society. Maybe you should take this opportunity to consider whether continuing to post here is morally defensible at all, even if you aren't posting deranged shit? I don't think it is defensible, which is why I am leaving." On June 16, Neff responded by quoting the user's words and adding, "LMAO if you think this shit will save you when the mob comes for you. Good riddance." The language notably echoed Carlson's comment, eight days before, when he had said "remember that when they come for you." In February 2018, a user on AutoAdmit posted, "At some point in the future, all ur xo posts (w/IRL name) will be public record." One person commented, "I stand by every poast." Neff upvoted that comment. Easter eggs When he had just started working at Fox News, Neff was apparently less cautious and more willing to risk exposing his identity for a chance to show off to his fellow posters. One night in February 2017 -- which, according to his LinkedIn, would have been Neff's second month with Carlson at Fox News — Carlson tripped over his words as he introduced a guest. The phrase Carlson was trying to say was, even for the host's florid style, a little out of place: "Sweet treats of scholarship." Within minutes, Neff was posting to AutoAdmit about Carlson's use of the phrase, which other posters gleefully noted was a reference to something said on the forum. Neff's caution since then may have resulted in fewer Easter eggs being slipped into Carlson's scripts. But there has still been at least some overlap between the forum and the show, including in recent weeks. Sometimes, material Neff encountered on the forum found its way on to Carlson's show. For instance, on June 25, Neff responded to a post that quoted a news story about coronavirus-related interest in Montana real estate. He wrote on the forum, "Interest in real estate in Bozeman, Missoula, and the Flathead Valley has been on the rise for years." That night, in his monologue, Carlson said, "You're starting to consider maybe moving to Bozeman, and why wouldn't you?" In some cases, language Neff used on the forum ended up on the show. The night of June 15, in commenting on a football coach who was the subject of controversy over a sweatshirt he'd worn, Neff wrote on the forum, "[I]t is your f***ing right as an American to wear whatever T-shirt you want, and hold whatever political views you want. Christ." The next night on his show, Carlson said, "And they can wear whatever shirts they want. You thought that was true. You thought that was your right as an American." Other times, Neff may have used knowledge he had gained in his job at Fox News to post to the board. On the afternoon of July 1, Neff started a thread titled, "Two GOP senators propose replacing Columbus Day w/Juneteenth." In the thread, he wrote, "Coming out this afternoon if it isn't out already." That afternoon, it was public; that night, the proposal was discussed on Carlson's show. -- Additional reporting by CNN's Sergio Hernandez.

New York (CNN Business) In an extraordinary rebuke, the Pentagon and several senior members of the US military called out Fox News host Tucker Carlson on Thursday for a sexist segment in which he mocked women serving in the armed forces. Carlson, who is effectively the face of Fox and hosts the top show on the right-wing channel, ridiculed President Joe Biden Tuesday for saying that the US military had created uniforms to fit women properly, created maternity flight suits for those who are pregnant, and updated requirements for hairstyles. "So we've got new hairstyles and maternity flight suits," Carlson snarked. "Pregnant women are going to fight our wars. It's a mockery of the US military." Carlson's comments have prompted severe backlash from some of the most senior members of the US military who took to Twitter on Wednesday and Thursday to call Carlson out for what they described as harmful and divisive rhetoric. Speaking to reporters Thursday, Pentagon spokesperson John Kirby said the Secretary of Defense Lloyd Austin shared the same "revulsion" that many military leaders have expressed about the comments Carlson made. Read More

Flash forward to the present day, as the art of cinema is being systematically devalued, sidelined, demeaned, and reduced to its lowest common denominator, “content.” As recently as fifteen years ago, the term “content” was heard only when people were discussing the cinema on a serious level, and it was contrasted with and measured against “form.” Then, gradually, it was used more and more by the people who took over media companies, most of whom knew nothing about the history of the art form, or even cared enough to think that they should. “Content” became a business term for all moving images: a David Lean movie, a cat video, a Super Bowl commercial, a superhero sequel, a series episode. It was linked, of course, not to the theatrical experience but to home viewing, on the streaming platforms that have come to overtake the moviegoing experience, just as Amazon overtook physical stores. On the one hand, this has been good for filmmakers, myself included. On the other hand, it has created a situation in which everything is presented to the viewer on a level playing field, which sounds democratic but isn’t. If further viewing is “suggested” by algorithms based on what you’ve already seen, and the suggestions are based only on subject matter or genre, then what does that do to the art of cinema? Curating isn’t undemocratic or “elitist,” a term that is now used so often that it’s become meaningless. It’s an act of generosity—you’re sharing what you love and what has inspired you. (The best streaming platforms, such as the Criterion Channel and MUBI and traditional outlets such as TCM, are based on curating—they’re actually curated.) Algorithms, by definition, are based on calculations that treat the viewer as a consumer and nothing else. The choices made by distributors such as Amos Vogel at Grove Press back in the Sixties were not just acts of generosity but, quite often, of bravery. Dan Talbot, who was an exhibitor and a programmer, started New Yorker Films in order to distribute a film he loved, Bertolucci’s Before the Revolution—not exactly a safe bet. The pictures that came to these shores thanks to the efforts of these and other distributors and curators and exhibitors made for an extraordinary moment. The circumstances of that moment are gone forever, from the primacy of the theatrical experience to the shared excitement over the possibilities of cinema. That’s why I go back to those years so often. I feel lucky to have been young and alive and open to all of it as it was happening. The cinema has always been much more than content, and it always will be, and the years when those films were coming out from all over the world, talking to each other and redefining the art form on a weekly basis, are the proof. In essence, these artists were constantly grappling with the question “What is cinema?” and then throwing it back for the next film to answer. No one was operating in a vacuum, and everybody seemed to be responding to and feeding off everybody else. Godard and Bertolucci and Antonioni and Bergman and Imamura and Ray and Cassavetes and Kubrick and Varda and Warhol were reinventing cinema with each new camera movement and each new cut, and more established filmmakers such as Welles and Bresson and Huston and Visconti were reenergized by the surge in creativity around them. At the center of it all, there was one director whom everyone knew, one artist whose name was synonymous with cinema and what it could do. It was a name that instantly evoked a certain style, a certain attitude toward the world. In fact, it became an adjective. Let’s say you wanted to describe the surreal atmosphere at a dinner party, or a wedding, or a funeral, or a political convention, or for that matter, the madness of the entire planet—all you had to do was say the word “Felliniesque” and people knew exactly what you meant. In the Sixties, Federico Fellini became more than a filmmaker. Like Chaplin and Picasso and the Beatles, he was much bigger than his own art. At a certain point, it was no longer a matter of this or that film but all the films combined as one grand gesture written across the galaxy. Going to see a Fellini film was like going to hear Callas sing or Olivier act or Nureyev dance. His films even started to incorporate his name—Fellini Satyricon, Fellini’s Casanova. The only comparable example in film was Hitchcock, but that was something else: a brand, a genre in and of itself. Fellini was the cinema’s virtuoso. By now, he has been gone for almost thirty years. The moment in time when his influence seemed to permeate all of culture is long past. That’s why Criterion’s box set, Essential Fellini, released last year to mark the centennial of his birth, is so welcome. Fellini’s absolute visual mastery began in 1963 with 8½, in which the camera hovers and floats and soars between inner and outer realities, tuned to the shifting moods and secret thoughts of Fellini’s alter ego, Guido, played by Marcello Mastroianni. I watch passages in that picture, which I’ve gone back to more times than I can count, and still find myself wondering: How did he do it? How is it that each movement and gesture and gust of wind seems to fall perfectly into place? How is it that it all feels uncanny and inevitable, as in a dream? How could every moment be so rich with inexplicable longing? Sound played a big part in this mood. Fellini was as creative with sound as he was with images. Italian cinema has a long tradition of nonsync sound that began under Mussolini, who decreed that all films imported from other countries must be dubbed. In many Italian pictures, even some of the great ones, the sense of disembodied sound can be disorienting. Fellini knew how to use that disorientation as an expressive tool. The sounds and the images in his pictures play off and enhance one another in such a way that the entire cinematic experience moves like music, or like a great unfurling scroll. Nowadays, people are dazzled by the latest technological tools and what they can do. But lighter digital cameras and postproduction techniques such as digital stitching and morphing don’t make the movie for you: it’s about the choices you make in the creation of the whole picture. For the greatest artists such as Fellini, no element is too small—everything counts. I’m sure that he would have been thrilled by lightweight digital cameras, but they wouldn’t have changed the rigor and the precision of his aesthetic choices. It’s important to remember that Fellini began in neorealism, which is interesting because in many ways he came to represent its polar opposite. He was actually one of the people who invented neorealism, in collaboration with his mentor Roberto Rossellini. That moment still astonishes me. It was the inspiration for so much in cinema, and I doubt that all the creativity and exploration of the Fifties and Sixties would have occurred without neorealism to build on. It was not so much a movement as a group of film artists responding to an unimaginable moment in the life of their nation. After twenty years of Fascism, after so much cruelty and terror and destruction, how did one carry on—as individuals and as a country? The films of Rossellini and De Sica and Visconti and Zavattini and Fellini and others, films in which aesthetics and morality and spirituality were so closely intertwined that they couldn’t be separated, played a vital role in the redemption of Italy in the eyes of the world. Fellini co-wrote Rome, Open City and Paisà (he also reportedly stepped in to direct a few scenes in the Florentine episode when Rossellini was ill), and he co-wrote and acted in Rossellini’s The Miracle. His path as an artist obviously diverged from Rossellini’s early on, but they maintained a great mutual love and respect. And Fellini once said something quite astute: that what people described as neorealism truly existed only in the films of Rossellini and nowhere else. Bicycle Thieves, Umberto D., and La Terra Trema aside, I think Fellini meant that Rossellini was the only one with such a deep and abiding trust in simplicity and humanity, the only one who worked to allow life itself to come as close as possible to telling its own story. Fellini, by contrast, was a stylist and a fabulist, a magician and a teller of tales, but the grounding in lived experience and in ethics he received from Rossellini was crucial to the spirit of his pictures. I came of age as Fellini was developing and blossoming as an artist, and so many of his pictures became precious to me. I saw La Strada, the story of a poor young woman sold to a traveling strongman, when I was about thirteen, and it hit me in a particular way. Here was a film that was set in postwar Italy but unfolded like a medieval ballad, or something even further back, an emanation from the ancient world. This could also be said of La Dolce Vita, I think, but that was a panorama, a pageant of modern life and spiritual disconnection. La Strada, released in 1954 (and in the United States two years later), was a smaller canvas, a fable grounded in the elemental: earth, sky, innocence, cruelty, affection, destruction. For me, it had an added dimension. I watched it for the first time with my family on television, and the story rang true to my grandparents as a reflection of the hardships they’d left behind in the old country. La Strada was not well received in Italy. To some it was a betrayal of neorealism (many Italian pictures at the time were judged by this standard), and I suppose that setting such a harsh story within the framework of a fable was just too odd for many Italian viewers. Around the rest of the world, it was a massive success, the film that really made Fellini. It was the picture for which Fellini seemed to have labored the longest and suffered the most—his shooting script was so detailed that it ran to six hundred pages, and near the end of the extremely difficult production he had a psychological breakdown and had to go through the first (I believe) of many psychoanalyses before he was able to finish shooting. It was also the film that, for the rest of his life, he held closest to his heart. Nights of Cabiria, a series of fantastic episodes in the life of a Roman streetwalker (the inspiration for the Broadway musical and Bob Fosse film Sweet Charity), solidified his reputation. Like everyone else, I found it emotionally overpowering. But the next great revelation was La Dolce Vita. It was an unforgettable experience to see that film alongside a packed audience when it was brand-new. La Dolce Vita was distributed here in 1961 by Astor Pictures and presented as a special event at a legitimate Broadway theater, with reserved mail-order seating and high-priced tickets—the kind of presentation we associated with biblical epics such as Ben-Hur. We took our seats, the lights went down, we watched a majestic, terrifying cinematic fresco unfold on the screen, and we all experienced the shock of recognition. Here was an artist who had managed to express the anxiety of the nuclear age, the sense that nothing really mattered anymore because everything and everyone could be annihilated at any moment. We felt this shock, but we also felt the exhilaration of Fellini’s love for the art of cinema—and, consequently, for life itself. Something similar was coming in rock and roll, in Dylan’s first electric albums and then in The White Album and Let It Bleed—they were about anxiety and despair, but they were thrilling and transcendent experiences. When we presented the restoration of La Dolce Vita a decade ago in Rome, Bertolucci made a special point of attending. It was difficult for him to get around at that point because he was in a wheelchair and in constant pain, but he said he had to be there. And after the film, he confessed to me that La Dolce Vita was the reason he turned toward the cinema in the first place. I was genuinely surprised, because I’d never heard him discuss it. But in the end, it wasn’t so surprising. That picture was a galvanizing experience, like a shockwave that passed through the whole culture.

© Malcolm Gladwell, 2000 For Hush Puppies, the Tipping Point - that one dramatic moment in an epidemic, when everything can change all at once - came somewhere between late 1994 and early 1995. The brand had been all but dead until that point. Sales of the classic American brushed-suede shoes with the lightweight cr*pe sole were down to 30,000 pairs a year, mostly to backwoods outlets and small-town family stores. Wolverine, the company that makes Hush Puppies, was thinking of phasing out the shoes that made them famous. But then something strange happened. At a fashion shoot, two Hush Puppies executives - Owen Baxter and Geoffrey Lewis - ran into a stylist from New York, who told them that the classic Hush Puppies had suddenly become hip in the clubs and bars of downtown Manhattan. "We were being told," Baxter recalls, "that there were re-sale shops in the Village, in Soho, where the shoes were being sold. People were going to the little stores that still carried them." Baxter and Lewis were baffled at first. It made no sense to them that shoes that were so obviously out of fashion could make a comeback. By the autumn of 1995, things began to happen in a rush. First, the designer John Bartlett called. He wanted to use Hush Puppies in his spring collection. Then another Manhattan designer, Anna Sui, called, wanting shoes for her show. In Los Angeles, the designer Joel Fitzgerald put a 25ft inflatable basset hound - the symbol of the Hush Puppies brand - on the roof of his Hollywood store and gutted an adjoining art gallery to turn it into a Hush Puppies boutique. In 1995, the company sold 430,000 pairs, and the next year it sold four times that, and the year after that still more, until Hush Puppies were once again a staple of the wardrobe of the young American male. In 1996, Hush Puppies won the prize for best accessory at the Council of Fashion Designers awards dinner, and the president of the firm stood up on the stage with Calvin Klein and Donna Karan and accepted an award for an achievement that - as he would be the first to admit - his company had almost nothing to do with. How did that happen? Those first few kids, whoever they were, weren't deliberately trying to promote Hush Puppies. They were wearing them precisely because no one else would wear them. Then the fad spread to two designers, who used the shoes to peddle something else - high fashion. The shoes were an incidental touch. No one was trying to make Hush Puppies a trend. Yet, somehow, that's exactly what happened. The shoes passed a certain point in popularity and they tipped. How does a $30 pair of shoes go from a handful of downtown Manhattan hipsters and designers to every mall in America in the space of two years? The best way to understand the Hush Puppy boom, or the transformation of unknown books into bestsellers, or the rise of teenage smoking, or any number of the other mysterious changes that mark everyday life, is to think of them as epidemics. Ideas, products, messages and behaviours spread just like viruses do. Their chief characteristics - one, contagiousness; two, the fact that little causes can have big effects; and three, that change happens not gradually but at one dramatic moment - are the same three principles that define how measles moves through a school or flu attacks every winter. A world that follows the rules of epidemics is a very different place from the world we think we live in now. We have a very specific, biological notion of what contagiousness means. But, if there can be epidemics of crime or epidemics of fashion, there must be all kinds of things just as contagious as viruses. Have you ever thought about yawning, for instance? Yawning is a surprisingly powerful act. Just because you read the word "yawning" in the previous two sentences - and the two additional "yawns" in this sentence - a good number of you will probably yawn within the next few minutes. Even as I'm writing this, I've yawned twice. If you're reading this in a public place, and you've just yawned, chances are that a good proportion of everyone who saw you yawn is now yawning, too. Yawning is incredibly contagious. If you play an audiotape of a yawn to blind people, they'll yawn, too. And finally, if you yawned as you read this, did the thought cross your mind - however unconsciously and fleetingly - that you might be tired? I suspect that for some of you it did, which means that yawns can also be emotionally contagious. Simply by writing the word, I can plant a feeling in your mind. The second of the principles of epidemics - that little changes can somehow have big effects - is also a fairly radical notion. We are heavily socialised to make a kind of rough approximation between cause and effect. We are trained to think that what goes into any transaction or relationship or system must be directly related, in intensity and dimension, to what comes out. Consider, for example, the following puzzle. I give you a large piece of paper, and I ask you to fold it over once, and then take that folded paper and fold it over again, and then again, and again, until you have re-folded the original paper 50 times. How tall do you think the final stack is going to be? In answer to that question, most people will fold the sheet in their mind's eye, and guess that the pile would be as thick as a phone book or, if they're really courageous, they'll say that it would be as tall as a refrigerator. But the real answer is that the height of the stack would approximate the distance to the sun. And if you folded it over one more time, the stack would be as high as the distance to the sun and back. This is an example of what in mathematics is called a geometric progression. Epidemics are another example of geometric progression: when a virus spreads through a population, it doubles and doubles again, until it has (figuratively) grown from a single sheet of paper all the way to the sun in 50 steps. To appreciate the power of epidemics, we have to abandon any expectation about proportionality. The possibility of sudden change is at the centre of the idea of the Tipping Point. It is the moment of critical mass, the threshold, the boiling point. I remember once as a child seeing our family's puppy encounter snow for the first time. He was shocked and delighted and overwhelmed, wagging his tail nervously, sniffing about in this strange, fluffy substance, whimpering with the mystery of it all. It wasn't much colder on the morning of his first snowfall than it had been the evening before. It might have been 1ºC the previous evening, and now it was minus 1ºC. Almost nothing had changed, in other words, yet everything had changed. Rain had become something entirely different. Snow! We are all, at heart, gradualists, our expectations set by the steady passage of time. But the world of the Tipping Point is a place where the unexpected becomes expected, where radical change is more than possibility: it is - contrary to all our expectations - a certainty. Why is it that some ideas or behaviours or products start epidemics and others don't? ***** In the mid-90s, the city of Baltimore was attacked by an epidemic of syphilis. In the space of a year, from 1995 to 1996, the number of children born with the disease increased by 500%. What caused Baltimore's syphilis problem to tip? According to the Centres for Disease Control, the problem was crack cocaine. Crack is known to cause a dramatic increase in the kind of risky sexual behaviour that leads to the spread of things such as HIV and syphilis. It brings far more people into poor areas to buy drugs, which then increases the likelihood that they will take an infection home with them to their own neighbourhood. John Zenilman of Johns Hopkins University in Baltimore, an expert on sexually-transmitted diseases, has another explanation: the breakdown of medical services in the city's poorest neighbourhoods. "In 1990-91, we had 36,000 patient visits at the city's sexually-transmitted disease clinics," Zenilman says. "Then the city decided to gradually cut back staff because of budgetary problems. Patient visits dropped to 21,000." When there were 36,000 patient visits a year in the STD clinics of Baltimore's inner city, in other words, the disease was kept in equilibrium. At some point between 36,000 and 21,000 patient visits a year, according to Zenilman, the disease erupted. Suddenly, people who might have been infectious for a week before getting treated were now going around infecting others for two or three or four weeks before they got cured. There is a third theory, which belongs to John Potterat, one of the US's leading epidemiologists. His culprits are the physical changes in those years affecting East and West Baltimore, the heavily depressed neighbourhoods on either side of Baltimore's downtown, where the syphilis problem was centred. In the mid-1990s, he points out, Baltimore embarked on a highly-publicised policy of dynamiting the old 1960s-style public housing high-rises in East and West Baltimore. Two of the most publicised demolitions were huge projects, housing hundreds of families, that served as centres for crime and infectious disease. At the same time, people began to move out of the old terrace houses in East and West Baltimore, as those began to deteriorate as well. Potterat says, "For years, syphilis had been confined to a specific region of Baltimore, within highly confined socio-sexual networks. The housing dislocation process served to move these people to other parts of Baltimore, and they took their syphilis and other behaviours with them." What is interesting about these three explanations is that none of them is at all dramatic. The CDC thought that crack was the problem. But it wasn't as if crack came to Baltimore for the first time in 1995; it had been there for years. Zenilman, likewise, wasn't saying that the STD clinics in Baltimore were shut down; they were simply scaled back. Nor was Potterat saying that all Baltimore was hollowed out. All it took, he said, was the demolition of a handful of housing projects and the abandonment of homes in key neighbourhoods to send syphilis over the top. It takes only the smallest of changes to shatter an epidemic's equilibrium. In other words, there is more than one way to tip an epidemic. Epidemics are a function of the people who transmit infectious agents, the infectious agent itself, and the environment in which the infectious agent is operating. And when an epidemic tips, it tips because something has happened, some change has occurred in one (or two or three) of those areas. These three agents of change I call the Law Of The Few, the Stickiness Factor, and the Power Of Context. When we say that a handful of East Village kids started the Hush Puppies epidemic, or that the scattering of the residents of a few housing projects was sufficient to start Baltimore's syphilis epidemic, what we are really saying is that, in a given process or system, some people matter more than others. This is not, on the face of it, a particularly radical notion. Economists often talk about the 80/20 Principle, which is the idea that, in any situation, roughly 80% of the "work" will be done by 20% of the participants. In most societies, 20% of criminals commit 80% of crimes. Twenty per cent of motorists cause 80% of all accidents. When it comes to epidemics, though, this disproportionality becomes even more extreme: a tiny percentage of people do the majority of the work. The second factor, the Stickiness Factor, ensures that a message doesn't go in one ear and out the other. Stickiness means that a message makes an impact. You can't get it out of your head. When Winston filter-tip cigarettes were introduced in the spring of 1954, for example, the company came up with the slogan "Winston tastes good like a cigarette should". Within months of its introduction, on the strength of that catchy phrase, Winston tipped, racing into second place in the US cigarette market. Within a few years, it was the bestselling brand in the country. The Power Of Context demonstrates how even the smallest and subtlest and most unexpected of factors can affect the way we act. One of the most infamous incidents in New York City history, for example, was the 1964 stabbing death of a young Queens woman by the name of Kitty Genovese. Genovese was chased by her assailant and attacked three times on the street, over the course of half-an-hour, as 38 of her neighbours watched from their windows. During that time, however, none of the 38 witnesses called the police. The case provoked rounds of self-recrimination. It became symbolic of the cold and dehumanising effects of urban life. Abe Rosenthal, who would later become editor of the New York Times, wrote in a book about the case: "Nobody can say why the 38 did not lift the phone while Miss Genovese was being attacked, since they cannot say themselves. It can be assumed, however, that their apathy was indeed one of the big-city variety. Indifference to one's neighbour and his troubles is a conditioned reflex in life in New York as it is in other big cities." This is the kind of environmental explanation that makes intuitive sense to us. The truth about Genovese, however, turns out to be a little more complicated - and more interesting. Two New York City psychologists subsequently conducted a series of studies to try to understand what they dubbed the "bystander problem". They staged emergencies in different situations in order to see who would come and help. What they found was that the one factor, above all else, that predicted helping behaviour was how many witnesses there were to the event. In one experiment, for example, they had a student alone in a room stage an epileptic fit. When there was just one person next door, listening, that person rushed to the student's aid 85% of the time. But when subjects thought that there were four others also overhearing the seizure, they came to the student's aid only 31% of the time. In other words, when people are in a group, responsibility for acting is diffused. They assume that someone else will make the call, or they assume that because no one else is acting, the apparent problem isn't really a problem. In the case of Kitty Genovese, then, social psychologists argue, the lesson is not that no one called despite the fact that 38 people heard her scream; it's that no one called because 38 people heard her scream. Ironically, had she been attacked on a lonely street with just one witness, she might have lived. ***** On the afternoon of April 18, 1775, a young boy who worked at a livery stable in Boston overheard one British army officer say to another something about "hell to pay tomorrow". The stable boy ran with the news to Boston's North End, to the home of a silversmith named Paul Revere. Revere listened gravely; this was not the first rumour to come his way that day. Earlier, he had been told of an unusual number of British officers gathered on Boston's Long Wharf, talking in low tones. As the afternoon wore on, Revere and his close friend, Joseph Warren, became more and more convinced that the British were about to make the major move that had long been rumoured - to march to the town of Lexington, northwest of Boston, to arrest the colonial leaders John Hancock and Samuel Adams, and then on to the town of Concord to seize the stores of guns and ammunition that some of the local colonial militia had stored there. What happened next has become part of historical legend, a tale told to every American schoolchild. At 10 o'clock that night, Warren and Revere met. They decided they had to warn the communities surrounding Boston that the British were on their way, so that local militia could be roused to meet them. Revere was spirited across Boston Harbour to the ferry landing at Charlestown. He jumped on a horse and began his "midnight ride" to Lexington. In two hours, he covered 13 miles. In every town he passed through along the way - Charlestown, Medford, North Cambridge, Menotomy - he knocked on doors and spread the word, telling local colonial leaders of the oncoming British, and telling them to spread the word to others. Church bells started ringing. Drums started beating. The news spread like a virus as those informed by Paul Revere sent out riders of their own, until alarms were going off throughout the entire region. When the British finally began their march toward Lexington on the morning of the 19th, their foray into the countryside was met - to their utter astonishment - with organised and fierce resistance. In Concord that day, the British were confronted and soundly beaten by the colonial militia, and from that exchange came the war known as the American Revolution. Paul Revere's ride is perhaps the most famous historical example of a word-of-mouth epidemic. A piece of extraordinary news travelled a long distance in a very short time, mobilising an entire region to arms. Not all word-of-mouth epidemics are this sensational, of course. But it is safe to say that word of mouth is - even in this age of mass communications and multimillion-dollar advertising campaigns - still the most important form of human communication. But why does it not always work? Why is it that some ideas and trends and messages "tip" and others don't? In the case of Paul Revere's ride, the answer to this seems easy. Revere was carrying a sensational piece of news: the British were coming. But if you look closely at the events of that evening, that explanation doesn't solve the riddle either. At the same time that Revere began his ride, a fellow revolutionary - a tanner by the name of William Dawes - set out on the same urgent errand, working his way to Lexington via the towns west of Boston. He was carrying the identical message, through just as many towns over just as many miles as Paul Revere. But Dawes's ride didn't set the countryside afire. The local militia leaders weren't alerted. In fact, so few men from one of the main towns he rode through - Waltham - fought the following day that some subsequent historians concluded that it must have been a strongly pro-British community. It wasn't. The people of Waltham just didn't find out the British were coming until it was too late. If it were only the news itself that mattered in a word-of-mouth epidemic, Dawes would now be as famous as Paul Revere. He isn't. So why did Revere succeed where Dawes failed? The answer is that the success of any kind of social epidemic is heavily dependent on the involvement of people with a particular and rare set of social gifts. Revere's news tipped and Dawes's didn't because of the differences between the two men. This is the Law Of The Few. Paul Revere was a Connector. He was, for example, intensely social. When he died, his funeral was attended, in the words of one contemporary newspaper account, by "troops of people". He was a fisherman and a hunter, a card player and a theatre-lover, a frequenter of pubs and a successful businessman. He was active in the local masonic lodge and was a member of several select social clubs. He was also a doer. It is not surprising, then, that when the British army began its secret campaign in 1774 to root out and destroy the stores of arms and ammunition held by the fledgling revolutionary movement, Revere became a kind of unofficial clearing house for the anti-British forces. He knew everybody. He was the logical one to go to if you were a stable boy and overheard two British officers talking. Nor is it surprising that when Revere set out for Lexington that night, he would have known just how to spread the news as far and wide as possible. When he came upon a town, he would have known exactly whose door to knock on, who the local militia leader was, who the key players in town were. But William Dawes? Clearly he had none of the social gifts of Revere, because there is almost no record of anyone who remembers him that night. ***** In 1996, Rebecca Wells, a sometime actress and playwright, published a book entitled Divine Secrets Of The Ya-Ya Sisterhood. Its arrival in the book stores was not a major literary event. Wells had written one previous book - Little Altars Everywhere - which had been a minor cult hit in and around her hometown of Seattle. But she was not Danielle Steel. When Wells gave a reading in Greenwich, Connecticut, soon after her book was published, there were seven people in the audience. She had a smattering of reviews, mostly positive, and in the end her book sold a very respectable 15,000 copies in hardback. A year later, Ya-Ya Sisterhood came out in paperback. The first edition of 18,000 copies sold out in the first few months, exceeding expectations. By early summer, total paperback sales had reached 30,000, and both Wells and her editor began to get the sense that something strange and wonderful was about to happen. "I'd be signing books and there would be groups of women who would come together - six or seven women - and they would have me sign anywhere between three and 10 books," Wells remembered later. The publishers bought one ad, opposite the contents page of the New Yorker magazine and, in the space of a month, sales doubled to 60,000. Going from one reading to the next, across the country, Wells began to see changes in the composition of her audience. "I started noticing mothers and daughters coming. The daughters would be in their late 30s, early 40s. The mothers were of the generation who went to high school during world war two. Then I noticed that there started to be three generations coming, twentysomethings as well. And then, to my total delight - and this didn't happen until later - there would be teenagers and fifth-graders." Through the power of word of mouth, her book had tipped. "The turning point for me was probably in northern California, the winter after the paperback came out," Wells said. "I walked into a situation where there were 700 and 800 people at my readings." Why did Ya-Ya Sisterhood turn into an epidemic? In retrospect, the answer seems fairly straightforward. The book itself is heartwarming and beautifully written, a compelling story of friendship and mother-daughter relationships. It spoke to people. It's sticky. Then there's the fact that Wells herself is an actress. She didn't read from her novel as she travelled across the country so much as she acted it out, turning her readings into performances. Wells is a classic Salesman. But there is a third, less obvious, factor here, which has to do with the last of the principles of epidemics. The success of Ya-Ya is a tribute to the Power Of Context. More specifically, it is testimony to the power of one specific aspect of context, which is the critical role that groups play in social epidemics. In a way, this is an obvious observation. Anyone who has ever been to the movies knows that the size of the crowd in the theatre has a big effect on how good the movie seems: comedies are never funnier and thrillers never more thrilling than in a packed movie house. The first bestseller list on which Ya-Ya Sisterhood appeared was the Northern California Independent Bookseller's list. Northern California, as Wells said, was where 700 and 800 people first began showing up at her readings. It was where the Ya-Ya epidemic began. Why? Because the San Francisco area is home to one of the country's strongest book-group cultures, and from the beginning Ya-Ya was what publishers refer to as a "book-group book". It was the kind of emotionally sophisticated, character-driven, multi-layered novel that invites reflection and discussion. The groups of women who were coming to Wells's readings were members of reading groups, and they were buying extra copies not just for family and friends but for other members of their group. Women began forming Ya-Ya Sisterhood groups of their own, in imitation of the group described in the book, and bringing Wells pictures of their group for her to sign. The lesson of Ya-Ya is that small, close-knit groups have the power to magnify the epidemic potential of a message or idea. That conclusion, however, still leaves a number of critical questions unanswered. If we are interested in starting an epidemic - in reaching a Tipping Point - what are the most effective kinds of groups? Is there a simple rule of thumb that distinguishes a group with real social authority from a group with little power at all? As it turns out, there is. It's called the Rule of 150, and it is a fascinating example of the strange and unexpected ways in which context affects the course of social epidemics. The case for a social capacity has been made, most persuasively, by the British anthropologist Robin Dunbar. "The figure of 150 seems to represent the maximum number of individuals with whom we can have a genuinely social relationship, the kind of relationship that goes with knowing who they are and how they relate to us. Putting it another way, it's the number of people you would not feel embarrassed about joining uninvited for a drink if you happened to bump into them in a bar." Dunbar has combed through the anthropological literature and found that the number 150 pops up again and again. For example, he looks at 21 different hunter-gatherer societies for which we have solid historical evidence, from the Walbiri of Australia to the Tauade of New Guinea to the Ammassalik of Greenland to the Ona of Tierra del Fuego, and found that the average number of people in their villages was 148.4. The same pattern holds true for military organisation. It is still possible, of course, to run an army with larger groups. But at a bigger size you have to impose complicated hierarchies and rules and regulations to try to command loyalty and cohesion. So, if we want groups to serve as incubators for contagious messages, we have to keep groups below the 150 Tipping Point. Above that, there begin to be structural impediments to the ability of the group to agree and act with one voice. If we want to, say, develop schools in disadvantaged communities that can successfully counteract the problems of their surrounding neighbourhoods, this tells us that we're better off building lots of small schools rather than one or two big ones. That is the paradox of the epidemic: that in order to create one contagious movement, you often have to create many small movements first. To make sense of social epidemics, we must first understand that human communication has its own set of very unusual and counter-intuitive rules. What must underlie successful epidemics, in the end, is a bedrock belief that change is possible, that people can radically transform their behaviour or beliefs in the face of the right kind of impetus. We are actually powerfully influenced by our surroundings, our immediate context, and the personalities of those around us. If there is difficulty and volatility in the world of the Tipping Point, there is a large measure of hopefulness as well. Merely by manipulating the size of a group, we can dramatically improve its receptivity to new ideas. By tinkering with the presentation of information, we can significantly improve its stickiness. Simply by finding and reaching those few special people who hold so much social power, we can shape the course of social epidemics. In the end, Tipping Points are a reaffirmation of the potential for change and the power of intelligent action. Look at the world around you. It may seem like an immovable, implacable place. It is not. With the slightest push - in just the right place - it can be tipped This is an edited extract from The Tipping Point: How Little Things Can Make A Big Difference, by Malcolm Gladwell, published on May 11, 2000 by Little Brown, priced £14.99.

If you could invest in superheroes the way you can invest in stocks or commodities, 1998 would have been the time to buy. Back then, superhero movies — the entire genre — seemed left for dead. Marvel Entertainment was a shell of its former self; having emerged from Chapter 11 bankruptcy, the cash-desperate comic-book publisher offered to sell most of its character roster to Sony for $25 million. As the Wall Street Journal reports, Sony thumbed its corporate nose at the chance to buy the full complement. It only wanted one property: Spider-Man. Whoever at Sony turned down the chance to buy most of Marvel's superhero movie rights at a bargain-basement price is probably still losing sleep over it. Over the past two decades, studios have fallen all over themselves to acquire superhero properties, which are now worth hundreds of millions. Disney spent $4 billion to acquire Marvel in 2009, though due to complicated contracts, movie rights for certain superheroes remained in the hands of Fox (X-Men, Fantastic Four) and Sony (Spider-Man and his universe). Recently, Disney bought most of 21st Century Fox for a cool $52.4 billion, bringing nearly all the Marvel superheroes under the Mouse's thumb. Sony continues to milk its Spider-Man properties for all they are worth; in addition to an upcoming movie based around the supervillain Venom, the studio reportedly considered making a whole film about Spider-Man's aunt, who has no superpowers whatsoever. (Not that that should be perceived as a slight against Aunt May; it merely shows the mundane depths of the corporate imagination.) Advertisement: Something strange has happened since Marvel's 1998 nadir. Superhero movies didn't just increase in popularity; they did so in a specific way that is intimately tied to our political situation. Moreover, everyone in the past 20 years who predicted that pop culture had finally hit "peak superhero" turned out to be wrong. Indeed, it's not just that superhero movies are popular; they are actually accelerating in popularity. To analogize to finance, superhero stocks are experiencing a long bull market. Consider the evidence: In 2017, seven of the 20 highest-grossing domestic films were superhero movies. As of this week in April, 26 percent of all domestic box office revenue thus far in 2018 had gone to a single superhero movie, "Black Panther." This inequality in box office receipts is astounding: There have been 735 movies released in 2018 so far, and slightly more than one-fourth of all the box-office receipts went to a single one. It's a new-ish trend: go back in time more than a decade or two, and the popularity quickly diminishes. I built a chart, going back to 1980, counting how many superhero movies ranked in each year's top 20 for box office revenue. Note the remarkable arc upward: Advertisement: [Chart shows the number of superhero films each year that ranked among the top 20 highest grossing films in the domestic box office. "Superhero" is interpreted liberally, and includes a few films, like "The Matrix" trilogy, that featured many of the tropes of the genre (flying superhumans with special powers!) and other movies that were clearly superhero movies yet which lacked the history of comic book serials (e.g., "Megamind" and "The Incredibles"). Note that the exponential-seeming arc would look even more dramatic without "The Matrix" trilogy (released 1999, 2003 and 2003) included. Data via BoxOfficeMojo.] I don't think the trend toward superhero movies — or the acceleration of their production — is mere coincidence. It is not simply that superhero movies are growing ever more popular; it is that their content and their themes are the ultimate reflection of this era in economic history, which we might call neoliberal capitalism. Moreover, I would argue that superhero movies, and their increasingly expensive productions and complicated universes, are more than just reflective of our world: They are necessary to the perpetuation of neoliberal capitalism. Though the studios that pump them out almost certainly don't know this, these movies are the political equivalent of an immune system response to a growing populist tide. The superhero genre embeds within itself the values and beliefs that make neoliberalism function. Advertisement: Governance by supermen If you have read one too many thinkpieces on the oft-hazy term "neoliberalism," you can skip the next three paragraphs. If not, the term neoliberalism (sometimes called late capitalism, depending on the critic) refers to the specific epoch of Western capitalism that became ascendant in the 1980s, and especially so after the collapse of the Soviet Union. Specifically, it means an economic and cultural system characterized by sweeping privatization, the financialization of the economy, the rise of technocracy over democracy, and the normalization of itself as the only possible system of organizing society. Advertisement: "So pervasive has neoliberalism become that we seldom even recognise it as an ideology," writes George Monbiot in the Guardian. "We appear to accept the proposition that this utopian, millenarian faith describes a neutral force; a kind of biological law, like Darwin's theory of evolution." Thus, the social welfare state in neoliberal economies becomes increasingly privatized, while politics consigns itself to debates over identity that mirror consumption habits. Websites like BuzzFeed, stores like Whole Foods, and social media and dating sites (all of them) epitomize the neoliberal notion of a "marketplace of identity," where the consumer views their consumption as an innate part of their identity, and eventually even starts to see themselves as a consumable brand. "Neoliberalism construes even non-wealth generating spheres — such as learning, dating, or exercising — in market terms, submits them to market metrics, and governs them with market techniques and practices," scholar Wendy Brown said in an interview published in Dissent. "Above all, it casts people as human capital who must constantly tend to their own present and future value." Advertisement: In neoliberal economies, this obsession with individual consumer choice dramatically weakens democracy, as the market becomes the "real" place where politics are litigated — people vote with their dollar rather than with ballots. (You can see one glaring flaw already: If dollars are votes, it means those with more dollars have more say.) Moreover, individual consumers learn to obsess over their purchases and said purchases' implications: Buying this product makes me more "green," this product more of a "conservative," etc. In the 2010s, these culture wars play out constantly in the internet-mediated media sphere, where every corporate decision, public figure or new product is immediately consigned to one "side" of an imagined debate. Neoliberalism "holds that the social good will be maximized by maximizing the reach and frequency of market transactions, and it seeks to bring all human action into the domain of the market," writes David Harvey in his seminal book "A Brief History of Neoliberalism." The doctrine of individualism played itself out in an attack on labor unions and a concomitant shrinking of the middle class. Historically, the percentage of unionized workers is directly correlated with income distribution. Hence, you can see through charts and graphs how neoliberalism has changed the economy. For instance, observe the evolution of CEO pay through the neoliberal epoch: Advertisement: Or, consider income inequality and its relationship to union representation. Note the corresponding increase in income inequality that accelerated with the dawn of neoliberal economics: The charts have intriguing parallels to the graph of high-gross superhero movie volume. In any case, the result of the inherent income inequality that stems from neoliberal economic policies is that private actors gain more political power and are viewed almost as demigods by ordinary people. Politics are partly achieved by appealing to the largesse of the rich, the Gateses and the Musks and the Clinton Foundations of the world, rather than through voting or democratic participation. Advertisement: Benjamin Kunkel, in a 2008 essay for Dissent, mused over neoliberalism's predilection for producing dystopian narratives. "Every other month seems to bring the publication of at least one new so-called literary novel on dystopian or apocalyptic themes," Kunkel wrote. Likewise, as scholar Fredric Jameson wrote in the New Left Review, "someone once said that it is easier to imagine the end of the world than to imagine the end of capitalism. … We can now revise that and witness the attempt to imagine capitalism by way of imagining the end of the world." Here I diverge from both Jameson and Kunkel. It's not just dystopian art that neoliberalism generates; it produces its own utopian narratives too. Those find their fullest expressions in superhero movies. You can probably already see how the tenets of neoliberalism fit perfectly into the superhero genre. First, the anti-democratic view of society: In both neoliberalism and superhero movies, politics and big political decisions happen because the elite (politicians or superpeople or supervillains) make them happen. Society is ruled over by benevolent philosopher-kings (plutocrats or superheroes or both) who watch over us and aid only when needed; much of the superhero-movie narrative is devoted to litigating the benevolent philosopher-king's specific ideals ("with great power comes great responsibility"), and how they might work out best for the people at large. Obversely, this is precisely how politics functions in neoliberalism: Both Hillary Clinton and Donald Trump were presented as branded superheroes, who believed they knew what was best for us, and sought to install their elite wonks to enact their benevolent (to them) policies. There's a relatively two-dimensional view of the world at work: there are good and bad people; they are generally born that way and seldom change. The state in neoliberalism and superhero movies is almost entirely devoted to oppression and surveillance. If the state overreaches, heroes must fix its excesses; if it fails to protect its citizenry, heroes must make up for its shortcomings. In either case, its social welfare function is invisible: because people are innately good or evil, there are no social workers or teachers or other welfare-state employees whose duties might prevent villainy (or supervillainy) through social work. Superheroes are, by definition, more powerful and more important than the state. Advertisement: More importantly, the superheroes' work may save lives, but it never inherently changes the relationships of production: If the people are poor, they're likely to stay poor. They don't participate in redistributive politics except to attack the sort of universally detested social relationships about which there is broad consensus — for instance, slavery. Superheroes can't and won't save the middle class; many of them are rich anyway and stand to benefit from the kinds of inherent economic injustices that, say, Bernie Sanders or Jeremy Corbyn fight against. Evidently we never tire of these movies, even as they trot out the same old tired tropes about human nature, criminality, justice and the relationship of the elites to the rest of us. Regardless of the studio or the brand in question, superhero films all follow the same arc: a lone, self-made superhero, or a hero and their band of allies, will face an evil villain. Mid-movie, they will come close to defeating the villain and fail. The look of the villain may change slightly in the process, perhaps move to an ancillary character, or the villain will be humanized in a novel way. There is a "hope is lost" moment where things look impossible for the hero: He or she is lying face-down in a trash truck ("Deadpool") or has lost his throne ("Black Panther") or is about to die in space ("Guardians of the Galaxy Vol. 2"). The villain comes back to face the hero, sometimes with an army ("Black Panther" or "Captain America: Civil War" or the new Avengers movie), but somehow the villain and the hero will face each other alone, one-on-one, in the end. It must be this way. In an era defined by individualism and our individual identities, there is no "we," only "I," to paraphrase Ayn Rand or Margaret Thatcher. We have to do things alone, just as we are the superheroes of our own imagined story arcs. Likewise, within superhero movies, there are a series of right-wing, Thatcherite myths about society that flicker through the script, as predictable as the sun's arc through the sky. There will be a scene in which one character dangles off a (sometimes metaphorical) ledge at some point, symbolizing the individual's struggle and perseverance. The United States government will sometimes have internally complicated politics within the movie, but is always ultimately a force for good. The moral of the superhero story always fits into a weak, inherently problematic liberalism: People are capable of living together in harmony — strong and weak, rich and poor, super- and non-supermen — though the innate antagonisms between the aforementioned classes are ignored. The democratic whims of the populace are ancillary at best; the big political and social decisions in the superhero narrative are made by elites — politicians or superheroes themselves or the royalist societies from which they spring. This is why so many superheroes spring from nobility: from "Wonder Woman" to "Superman" to "Thor" to "Black Panther," super-ness and individualistic societies are interlinked; there will never be a superhero who originates from a robust democracy or an anarchist commune, because those societies don't create individual hero myths. Those kinds of societies favor collectivism over individualism — and collectivism is anathema to the superhero genre. Advertisement: Big, sweeping changes in the world occur because of the superheroes and supervillains' battles; the rest of us are window dressing, doomed to die randomly at the hands of super-evil. When the non-super populace appear in superhero movies, they're useless. In "The Avengers: Age of Ultron," the people of the city of Sokovia would die without the heroes' abilities to save them; ditto the fleeing Russian peasants in "Justice League"; ditto the hapless masses in "The Avengers: Infinity War," whom we see only for maybe 30 seconds. Darkest of all, superhero movies posit that humans need authority figures — that we cannot survive without policing. It is a troubling moral in an era in which a militarized police force routinely carries out sprees of racist violence on people of color. In "The Dark Knight Rises," a version of Gotham City purged of police becomes a site of chaos and horror. I'm not sure why the Blue Lives Matter crowd didn't rejoice more at that film's script, as it reified Spencerian, 18th-century sociological beliefs, long since disproven. Without hyperbole, one can say that Christopher Nolan's fairytale is totalitarian with a capital T, inasmuch as it hints that humans need authority to function at all, though there are plenty of societies, both Western communes and indigenous cultures, that attest to the untruth of that. Finally and most importantly, the heroes always labor to make their gear and technology themselves, or with minimal help; a normalized trope of the superhero film is that the labor force is invisible. Superman's ice castle, Iron Man's suit, Wakanda's intricate mining system, Batman's gear and vehicles -- in the real world, these things might take decades to construct, and would require the collective labor of thousands if not millions of human beings. There is an exception to the rule of labor being invisible, and that is when the villain needs labor to produce something. Villains are allowed to use coercive labor, which the viewer may see on the screen: toiling orcs or slave armies building weaponry or Thanos' cruel treatment of Eitri. Not so for the heroes; they pull themselves up by their bootstraps, design things themselves, or with the help of assistants who are well-treated or are themselves computers (e.g., Iron Man's Jarvis), or in other cases are made by superpowers and/or magic (e.g., the temple in "Doctor Strange"). I would argue this is by design: The fact that heroes must work alone while villains use coerced labor is a dodge that intentionally misrepresents the nature of capitalist civilization at large, which is that there are always those who toil for the rich and those who profit from their labor. Superhero movies are obscurantist: in presenting the myth of the self-made (super)man, they conceal the hard economic facts of the labor that, in reality, such supermen would require. Some readers may object to my painting of superhero films as universally embodying conservative ideals. After all, wasn't "Black Panther" a paragon of diverse casting? Wasn't "Wonder Woman" equally empowering for women? Indeed. The socioeconomic moral and the cultural politics of superhero films are like Superman and Iron Man: they exist in separate universes. In our everyday reality, progressive identity politics and authoritarian politics already exist separately; that's how the left was able to win the culture war in the United States while losing the political war. Superhero movies may be great on identity politics — reflecting the larger culture-war arena where the progressive left continues to win — but terrible on economic ideas. Superheroes of Silicon Valley There's a strange reflection between the superhero myths and the myths at work that drive Silicon Valley. Elon Musk, Steve Jobs, Mark Zuckerberg and other techies are depicted in mass media and pop culture in the same reverent tones normally reserved for superheroics, as though they alone toiled to produce their companies' products. Musk doesn't single-handedly design his Teslas, of course — huge armies of workers, who have documented the horrors of working for him, are the ones who create cars, rockets and solar panels. Like many of Silicon Valley's übermenschen, Musk likes to present others' ideas as his own; when he proposed his evacuated tube transit system, the so-called Hyperloop, he was hailed as a genius — even though comparable designs have been floating around for decades and a near-identical system was conceived by the RAND corporation in the 1970s. No matter: RAND didn't have the mythic status of Musk, so no one noticed that he stole its idea. The relationship between superheroism and Silicon Valley is more apt than you might think. Mark Zuckerberg designed a digital personal assistant to resemble the A.I. assistant in "Iron Man." Robert Downey Jr. has said that he based his Iron Man character in the Marvel movies on Elon Musk. These men imagine themselves in the mold of superheroes, and society at large imagines them just the same — the screenwriters insert their tropes into their films. Do an internet search for "Elon Musk will save the world" if you want to rot your brain with thinkpiece after thinkpiece about his singular brilliance. The technological triumphalism that Silicon Valley extols — believing "tech" to be synonymous with human progress, without a closer examination of what that means — is innate to all movies in the genre. Wakanda is supposed to be in Africa, but the way its people bandied about the word "tech" — as in "sharing their tech," etc. — was pure Silicon Valley, a Western understanding of the phrase. "Tech" is what makes civilization better, whether you're in central Africa or San Jose. As Eliran Bar-el writes in the Los Angeles Review of Books' blog, the "real ideological message" of "Black Panther" "is the fantasy that only 'technology will save us,' coupling ancient wisdom of a benevolent king with communal science outreach." Likewise, just as tech critics suffer scorn for being luddites, neoliberalism has its own immune-system response against those foreign bodies who buck the precepts of superhero politics. I'm always amazed by the reaction and vitriol that arises, like a white blood cell attacking its host, whenever someone online is critical of superheroes both metaphorical and literal. Last year I wrote a short take arguing that superhero films are bad for democracy that was met with more vitriol than anything I had ever published; I had naively believed that the idea that cultural products have symbols and politics of their own that rub off on us was relatively uncontroversial. Liberals' current culture war over representation in television and film is undergirded by an assumption that culture matters, that what we see on TV has an ideological and political and self-esteem effect on us. And whatever they may claim to believe, conservatives clearly feel the same way, and value seeing conservative tropes about patriotism, militarism and so forth in movies or on TV. This is agreed upon on both sides, and it is also the fundament of much of the humanities — the idea that politics and culture are intertwined, inseparable. I thought it was pretty obvious that superhero movies' common politics were, in a sense, undemocratic — characterized by hierarchy, nobility, a myopic view of crime and criminality, and libertarian notions of entrepreneurialism and self-realization. Saying this out loud, though, rankled the internet. The conservative vitriol was understandable, as the inconsistent philosophies of the right are not generally rooted in rhetorical logic; but many self-respecting liberals joined in to hate on a pretty self-evident hot take that an undergraduate English major could have written. I see the same gut reaction whenever anyone online dares to criticize our modern superheroes, the tech elite. The scions of Silicon Valley are particularly tied to the superhero trope; criticizing Musk results in a reaction from neoliberalism's autonomic nervous system, lashing out to quash its critics. This isn't necessarily the fault of those who are angry at critics. The trolls are as much neoliberal subjects as anyone, and they hold no fault for being raised in a society that teaches them that there is no alternative (to paraphrase Thatcher) to a sort of privatized, inherently unequal liberal faux-democracy. You have to look far outside the margins to see any alternative. Indeed, most pop culture nowadays posits that there is no alternative future: either we will meet our untimely end soon (something foreshadowed by the current glut of dystopian art), or we let a few benevolent "supermen" — be it Bill Gates or Donald Trump — lead us unilaterally to a world they control and manage. I'd like to propose an alternative way of viewing superhero movies: They are the sustaining creation myths of neoliberalism. They celebrate and rehash the underlying tenets that keep neoliberalism's subjects from revolting. These include the idea that technology is inherently progressive; that the elite can be trusted to regulate and rule over us; that police are ultimately good; that some people are born or created superior and that we should trust in them; that there are benevolent rich people who can undemocratically rule over us, a situation that is made OK because they donate to charity sometimes; and finally, that democracy isn't always good, because some people are inherently criminal or evil, and thus the commoners need strong leaders to control and rule over us. Superhero movies are like a fount, springing forth from a dying economic model ever-faster as it nears an inevitable collapse. If, as French critic Jean-François Lyotard wrote, postmodernism is defined by a lack of guiding social or biblical myths ("metanarratives," in his pleonastic prose), then superhero movies are the closest we get; they are a full expression of the sociological myths of capitalist empires. Neoliberalism spits out superhero movies because they epitomize the only means by which neoliberalism posits that society will progress: The good-natured elite rise up and conquer an ethereal, politically confusing evil — but on a private basis, without interference from the people. Likewise — and perhaps in an admission to those who understand that such a dictatorial utopia is a fairytale — neoliberalism simultaneously generates dystopian movies and literature, as the only other future its subjects can realistically envision. By providing these two poles and these two poles only, neoliberalism traps its subjects by repeating the myth that the future will consist of either A) more neoliberalism, managed by figurative supermen, or B) the apocalypse. It's a trap. Just as a child who has not tasted chocolate does not crave it, these poles limit our imagination and stifle us, preventing dissent or even a means of imagining an alternative. Stock up on kryptonite. Kill the supermen.

No, this not a bad dream. You really did just wake up in these "great" United States to find that no matter where you live, your freedom of movement is now constricted. Not by the military, but by the fear of the invisible — a virus you never heard of before it shackled you and your family in a form of self-imposed lockdown. Advertisement: The power dynamic here is merely a biological progression of what we feel when some malignant cyber-force zeros in on our laptop computer and takes control of it, holding us hostage. If you are a regular consumer of the corporate news media this unprecedented national public health crisis is being covered through the partisan prism over the incompetence and malevolence of the current occupant of the Oval Office, Donald Trump. What is being avoided meticulously is any broader and essential discussion about how this precarious planetary moment is a gift to us from late-stage vulture capitalism , which rents our national government as it subordinates public health and the public interest to the accumulation of wealth. Advertisement: To start the coronavirus meltdown narrative with Trump's efforts to deliberately play down the risks we faced, which hobbled the U.S. response and will lead to potentially thousands of deaths, is to miss the reality that this systemic failure has been decades in the making. Subjugation of labor As the concentration of wealth accelerated and the income gap opened up to a canyon, the balance of political power tilted increasingly to the forces of capital, costing organized labor its leverage. Over that time the world was increasingly made safer for U.S. multinationals who successfully played labor markets off of each other as they captured the regulatory and taxation regimes of sovereign nations. Advertisement: Everything was measured and governed by what encouraged economic growth and the amassing of wealth. Other vital spheres, from the environment to the public health, became secondary to the private pursuit of profit. Consider how hard it was to overcome the entrenched interests of the tobacco industry to provide the public health warnings on cigarettes. After the Second World War in the early fifties, over a third of the U.S. workforce was represented by a labor union . Though unions have had their issues with corruption, on the whole they offer countervailing pressure to the potential predations of capitalism. Advertisement: By the time President Reagan fired all of the Air Traffic Controllers (PATCO) in 1981, organized labor represented just a fifth of American workers. By 2019, it was just barely over 10 percent. What has followed as a consequence is the massive growth of a contingent workforce hovering by the phone or checking their email to see if they have a "gig" or work for the day. This ability of capital to so greatly limit its social contract with workers creates a race to the bottom and leaves tens of millions without health care, unemployment or disability insurance. It also puts employers and small businesses at a distinct competitive disadvantage if they choose to provide those basic benefits to their employees. Advertisement: This is where there is an intersection with labor's marginal circumstance and our current national crisis —in which so many Americans will hesitate to get tested for coronavirus or stay home if they are sick. Millions upon millions of Americans cannot afford the expense or the loss of wages; they have absolutely no safety net in the event the test comes back positive and they are sidelined without work for 14 days, much less left with a hospital bill. The essential role of labor unions as a countervailing pressure against the predations of unfettered capital is most clearly apparent in the airline industry, which is ground zero for many pandemics including this one. Unions in the public interest Advertisement: John Samuelsen is the president of the Transport Workers Union International (TWU) that represents 150,000 members in the airline, railroad, transit, university, utilities and service sector. Last week, TWU had to back up the decision by a flight crew for a major national air carrier to refuse the orders they were given to go right back to work after they had successfully removed a passenger who had disclosed to crew after his flight landed that he had the coronavirus. As reported by the Daily News , a Long Island man flew from New York to Florida while he had a test pending for the coronavirus. Upon landing in West Palm Beach, he got the call informing him of his status. "Our crew facilitated the passenger's removal in a very sophisticated way that limited everyone's potential exposure out the back door of the plane with the help of medical professionals that escorted him off the flight," said Samuelsen. "But the crew was ordered back to work by the air carrier to crew up another flight and they rightfully refused because they knew they were now potentially carriers of the virus." Advertisement: He continued. "They were still in shock and understandably concerned about their own health and when they were ordered to get back on another flight, they said no. The carrier had said the crew could work because they were asymptomatic and that's when the union stepped in." Samuelsen recounted how, after the union's intervention, elected officials called the air carrier, as did the Daily News. "We negotiated a package for the crew that guaranteed their economic security with paid sick leave. Ironically, in the process of doing what was right by our members we helped preserve the public health, which was the original goal of the flight crew. Without the union. we would have had another few planes loads of hundreds of unsuspecting members of the public exposed to the virus." As Samuelsen sees it, proposals that were considered as radical ideas pre-coronavirus, like Senator Bernie Sander's universal health care plan or former presidential candidate Andrew Yang's proposal for a universal basic income, are no longer radical. Advertisement: "Can you imagine how much less anxiety all American workers would feel right now if things like this were already in place," he said. "It would be a 365 day-a-year economic stimulus plan." Public health versus private profit? Such a realignment of the balance of power, where private capital's interest and the public interest could be potentially reconciled in the face of something like our current existential crisis, is already happening elsewhere on the planet. Professor Richard Wolff is an economist who teaches at the New School. He says there is no better example of harmonizing these tensions then in China and South Korea, which have gotten their public and private sectors to collaborate in the face of the current pandemic. Advertisement: "Look at the percentage of the population that has been tested in these two places and you can see the results of the close coordination between the government and the private sector which we don't have, and our testing numbers reflect that," he said. Wolff says that the current crisis brings into sharp relief the fundamental divergence between American capitalism and the public health. "There was just no profit incentive for the big drug companies to produce a million of these kinds of tests," he added. He continued: "Looking at the Center for Disease Control's own press releases we see as of Jan. 17 they publicly acknowledged they were following this virus in China . . . . what we have seen since is this ad hoc, last-minute, under-the-gun response with one eye looking out for the interests of the profit making medical industrial complex and the other eye looking out for the re-election of the President." If there is a silver lining in the coronavirus moment, it is that it can serve as a teachable moment for our entire civilization. It can help us muster the will to make the lifestyle and economic changes required to face up to the challenge of global warming.

If the United States isn't a failed state in 2020, it is rapidly on its way toward becoming one. Economists, historians and public health experts I spoke to would generally agree with that sentence, even if they might disagree on some of the details or the severity of the crisis. Since 2000 we have had two major economic crashes, the related issue of persistent income inequality and an environmental crisis that threatens the future of civilization. In 2020 we are also facing a pandemic and a social uprising against institutional racism, made worse President Trump's incompetence and the apparent threat he poses to democracy. One might say the real question isn't whether the U.S. is a failed state, but how we can pull ourselves out of the muck before it is too late. Advertisement: When it comes to the economy, the problems are relatively obvious, even if the solutions are not. "The American economic system has waltzed itself into a network of problems in large part because it really lived a charmed life," said Dr. Richard D. Wolff, professor emeritus of economics at the University of Massachusetts Amherst. "But the charmed life ended around the 1970s, after which it went on a kind of extended life support." Americans have maintained the illusion of prosperity by accruing massive debt, Wolff told Salon, comparing the nation's situation to that of "a patient who has had a really bad cancer or a heart attack, and is now kept alive with tubes and chemicals and all the rest of it. He is not dead, but is in deep trouble. That problem is compounded, Wolff said, "by the fact that this is a society cannot, to this day, face what I just said." Advertisement: As Wolff explained, one important element of our national dilemma is that the U.S. economy expanded at an extraordinary rate for roughly 150 years, a period of "ascendant capitalism" from about the 1820s through the 1970s. "If you look at the numbers, real wages in the United States, the average amount of goods and services a working man or woman could buy with what they got, went up every decade," Wolff said. "It's an amazing story. And it produced in the United States, this euphoria — there is no other way to describe it — this really strange notion that other people don't have." It was, specifically, the belief now called "American exceptionalism," which Wolff described as the conviction "that God likes you and so has put you in this great place where you can start off poor and end up rich. And there was something to it. It wouldn't have burrowed so deeply in the consciousness of the American if there wasn't something to it." That period, however, is clearly over, for reasons that economists still vigorously debate to this day. The most likely culprits, as Lawrence Mishel of the Economic Policy Institute wrote in 2015, are the decline of labor unions, the abandonment of full employment as a policymaking priority, globalization and "the superlative growth of compensation of CEOs and other top managers, and excessive salaries in the expanding financial sector" — all which came at the expense of poor and working-class people. Advertisement: Coincidentally or otherwise, the end of the boom in the late 1970s was also the same period when American policymakers first became aware of the global threat posed by climate change — and could have worked to halt it. As Penn State climatologist Michael E. Mann told Salon last year, our society has failed to address this problem because "in George W. Bush's own words, we are 'addicted to fossil fuels.' Carrying the metaphor one step further, fossil fuel interests and the politicians and front groups who do their bidding are the drug pushers, while we are the victims." Kevin Trenberth, a distinguished senior scientist in the Climate Analysis Section at the National Center for Atmospheric Research, told Salon last month that inaction on the climate crisis was inextricably linked to the corrupting influence of money in politics. Advertisement: "Politicians are supposed to be the ones who assimilate all the information, including the science, and also all the possible consequences in all ways, shapes and forms, including health, economics and society," Trenberth explained. "I don't think most politicians actually recognize their role, and it's much worse in the United States than it is in many other countries. And the reason it's much worse is because of advocacy, because of money in particular, because of Citizens United and the nasty politics that gets involved with using so-called dark money." This year, of course, has exposed the failures of the American state like none before. Leaving aside political concerns, Trump's handling of the coronavirus pandemic has been a disastrous failure. The virus is a global phenomenon, but other nations have been far more successful in containing their outbreaks. They have manufactured and distributed coronavirus tests on a large scale, enforced mandatory quarantine on infected or exposed individuals, organized assertive contact-tracing programs, implemented worker protections and made sure that health professionals have adequate supplies of PPE. Perhaps most important, they have injected massive amounts of government funds into the economy, whether through direct payments to individuals, unemployment benefits or subsidies to employers and local government agencies, while the U.S. Congress continues to bicker over a relatively stingy stimulus package. There is also the looming possibility that Trump will provoke a constitutional crisis by making good on his veiled threats to attempt to remain in power if he loses the presidential election. The last time a contested election appeared to endanger the democratic order was the 1860 race in which Abraham Lincoln defeated Democrat Stephen Douglas, setting the nation on the path to the worst conflict in our history. Advertisement: "The run-up to the Civil War had similar characteristics minus the virus," Columbia University historian Eric Foner told Salon by email. "I hope that is not an omen. We were certainly a failed state in 1860." As Foner explained, "the 1850s witnessed not only intense partisan and ideological division but also the collapse of one party and rise of another; stalemate and violence in Congress; hostility to immigrants (the Know-Nothing party); federal officials battling in the streets with people resisting the Fugitive Slave law; and ultimately civil war. Even more of a failed state than now." American University political scientist Allan Lichtman expressed similar thoughts, comparing the current period to the chaotic era from the 1830s through the outbreak of civil war after the 1860 election. He mentioned the cholera pandemic, widespread civil unrest over slavery, the censuring of President Andrew Jackson, the collapse of the Whig Party — and the brief rise of the xenophobic Know Nothing Party — and the economic panic in 1857, all of which led to the election of Lincoln and the national implosion that followed. Lichtman added, however, that he does not believe things are quite that bad now. "Despite Trump's unrelenting assaults on our democracy, our institutions are still stronger than in the 1850s, I don't think we will have another Civil War in the era of modern weaponry. I don't think Trump will be able to sustain any challenge to the election and will be escorted out of the White House, especially if the election is not close. The much greater worries are posed by voter suppression — and perhaps even the dispatch of unidentified federal troops to Democratic cities on Election Day — and Russian interference, which Trump will again welcome and exploit." Advertisement: Admitting that the period of endless American expansion has ended, and that much of this was the result of poor economic and political decision-making, is the first step. How do we begin to repair these failures? For one thing, said American University economist Gabriel Mathy, the U.S. should implementing either true universal health care "or a good public option that rapidly becomes universal." He also argued that some form of universal basic income, even on a modest scale, is needed to alleviate poverty, and that "unemployment insurance should be federalized and the system modernized, and benefits should be made more generous and extended to more workers." More radical measures may be necessary to address climate change. Speaking to Salon last month, ecological economist Julia K. Steinberger of the University of Leeds argued that we need am "all hands on deck" approach "that allows our economies to be completely transformed in order to literally allow human survival. That's what's at stake in terms of the gravity of the situation and the rapidity with which the climate crisis is unfolding." Steinberger says she favors "a full Green New Deal that focuses entirely on renewable and low carbon energy— which does not include natural gas [or] any fossil fuels going forward — and makes a clear signal that all fossil fuels will be ramped down to nothing within the scope of the next 10 years." By tying this into creating high-paying jobs, one could create an economic future for many people and begin to reverse the catastrophic effects of climate change at the same time. Advertisement: Joe Biden, who may well become president in January, has advocated creating a Pandemic Testing Board comparable to Franklin D. Roosevelt's famous War Production Board, establishing a 100,000-plus worker Public Health Jobs Corps and passing stimulus legislation "a hell of a lot bigger" than the $2 trillion Congress has already spent to support struggling families. These are common sense measures that at the very least will help America survive the current crisis. Other Biden proposals, such as requiring businesses to provide paid emergency sick leave, increasing the size of family relief payments (aka "welfare") increasing Social Security checks by up to $200 and adding a public option to Obamacare seem like modest but constructive steps. Whether democracy itself can be saved lies outside the scope of this article, although it's obviously a troubling question. Lichtman may be right that our system can resist Donald Trump's chicanery, but even the fact that our national condition in 2020 bears comparison with the pre-Civil War era bespeaks a grave problem. If Americans lose faith in our government and our political system entirely, then solutions proposed by economists, scientists and public health experts are not likely to work.

The populist wave in politics on both sides of the Atlantic is a defensive reaction against the technocratic neoliberal revolution from above that has been carried out in the last half century by national managerial elites. Over the last half century, the weakening or destruction by neoliberal policy makers of the intermediary institutions of mid-twentieth century democratic pluralism, particularly labor unions, has deprived much of the working class of effective voice or agency in government, the economy, and culture. Populist demagogues can channel the legitimate grievances of many working-class voters, but they cannot create a stable, institutionalized alternative to overclass-dominated neoliberalism. Only a new democratic pluralism that compels managerial elites to share power with the multiracial, religiously pluralistic working class in the economy, politics, and the culture can end the cycle of oscillation between oppressive technocracy and destructive populism. That is the thesis of this article. It is a minority viewpoint within overclass circles in the US and Europe. A far more common view among transatlantic elites interprets the success of populist and nationalist candidates in today's Western democracies not as a predictable and disruptive backlash against oligarchic misrule, but as a revival of Nazi or Soviet-style totalitarianism. One narrative holds that Russian president Vladimir Putin's regime, by cleverly manipulating public opinion in the West through selective leaks to the media or Internet advertisements and memes, is responsible for Brexit, the election of Trump in 2016, and perhaps other major political events. A rival narrative sees no need to invoke Russian machinations; in this view, without aid from abroad, demagogues can trigger the latent "authoritarian personalities" of voters, particularly white working-class native voters, many of whom, it is claimed, will turn overnight into a fascist army if properly mobilized. These two elite narratives, promulgated by antipopulist politicians, journalists, and academics, can be called the Russia Scare and the Brown Scare (after earlier "brown scares" in Western democracies, with the color referring to Hitler's Brownshirts). Advertisement: The reductio ad absurdum of this kind of mythological thinking is the adoption of the term "Resistance" by domestic opponents of President Donald Trump, which implies an equation between Democrats and anti-Trump Republicans and the heroic anti-Nazis of the French Resistance. The anti-fascist theme also provides the name for the Antifa movement which, like the earlier "black bloc" anarchist movement, is made up chiefly of the privileged children of the white overclass who abuse leftist ideology as an excuse to dress up as movie-style ninjas, vandalize property, and harass people. It is no doubt emotionally satisfying for members of the embattled managerial overclass to identify antiestablishment populism with pro-Russian treason, fascism, or both. But this kind of paranoid demonological thinking has the potential to be a greater danger to liberal democracy in the West than any particular populist movements. To begin with, both the Russia Scare and the Brown Scare betray a profound contempt on the part of members of technocratic neoliberal national establishments for voters who support populist causes or candidates. These voters are assumed to be gullible dimwits who are easily manipulated by foreign propaganda or domestic demagogues. Even worse, attributing populism to the irrational impulses of maladjusted voters prevents embattled establishments on both sides of the Atlantic from treating specific grievances of those voters as legitimate. Advertisement: Worst of all, the myth that Russia swung the 2016 US presidential election from Clinton to Trump, and endlessly repeated comparisons of current events to the rise of the Nazis in Germany's Weimar Republic, provide the managerial overclasses in Atlantic democracies with excuses to increase their near-monopoly of political, economic, and media power by freezing out political challengers and censoring dissident media. If most opponents of neoliberalism are Russian pawns or potential Nazis, then mere disagreement with neoliberal policies on trade, immigration, taxation, or other subjects can be equated with rejection of liberalism or democracy, if not outright treason. Confronted with peaceful challenges via the voting booth to neoliberal orthodoxy from outsiders on both the populist right and the socialist left, the instinctive reflex of many in the besieged establishment is to call for censorship and repression. Advertisement: * * * In the 1950s, McCarthyism on the right took the form of conservatives accusing establishment liberals of being pawns of Soviet Russia. Today, a new McCarthyism of the center takes the form of establishment neoliberals accusing populists of being pawns of post-Soviet Russia. Advertisement: If the Russia Scare version of the establishment's anti- populist story line is to be believed, the government of Russian president Vladimir Putin successfully used Western social media platforms like Facebook, Instagram, and Twitter to hypnotize substantial numbers of citizens of North America and Europe into voting against their natural inclinations for Brexit or Donald Trump or Bernie Sanders in 2016. Even the French yellow vest protests and the gains made by Jeremy Corbyn's Labour Party in the British general election of 2017 have been attributed to Russian machinations online. The "Russiagate" scandal began before Trump's election as the Clinton campaign, some anti-Trump Republicans, elements in the Obama administration, and various members of the US law enforcement and national security establishments spread rumors of alleged links between Russia and the Trump campaign to the media, including the false story that Trump was being blackmailed by Moscow with a videotape of him consorting with Russian prostitutes. When Trump won, his political enemies in the Democratic and Republican parties claimed that Russia had swung the election against Clinton. Putin had installed his puppet in the White House, it was widely asserted, by one of two methods (or both). One was Russian assistance to the website WikiLeaks, which leaked material damaging to Clinton and her allies. The other method of Russian interference in the 2016 election took the form of propaganda on Facebook, YouTube, and other social media platforms to suppress black voters and encourage some white voters who had voted for Obama in 2012 to vote for Trump in 2016. In Spring 2019, after a two-year investigation, Special Counsel Robert Mueller found no evidence that the Trump campaign conspired with Russia to influence the 2016 presidential election, leaving many Americans who had believed that the president would be exposed as a traitor disoriented and depressed. However, Mueller and his team, in addition to indicting some Trump campaign officials on unrelated charges, did charge a number of Russians with criminal interference in the 2016 election, allowing Trump's opponents to salvage the thesis that Clinton would have become president of the United States but for Putin's interference. Advertisement: Like any detective thriller movie or novel, this narrative seeks to achieve realism by weaving facts into a formulaic conspiracy-based plot. It is a fact that Putin, like many Russians, resents the treatment of Russia by the West after the Cold War, symbolized by the incorporation of former Russian satellites into the European Union and the expansion of NATO. Russian nationalists and many populists in Europe and the US share a common hostility to the transnational European Union as well as contemporary transatlantic social liberalism. In addition, Western intelligence authorities claim that Russian intelligence operatives have engaged in trying to promote conflict in the US and other countries by helping whistle-blowers like WikiLeaks and Edward Snowden leak stolen or classified information and by bombarding carefully targeted audiences with Internet memes and ads. Let us stipulate that this is all true. It was also true in the 1950s that there really were a small number of communists in the US, including a few high-ranking government officials, who spied for the Soviet Union, as well as many more Soviet sympathizers. There were also genuine Soviet disinformation campaigns in the Cold War West. But only the lunatic fringe of the anticommunist right during the Cold War drew the conclusion that the president was a Soviet agent or that main- stream politicians were secret communists. In contrast, influential members of today's American establishment, not only marginal conspiracy theorists, in order to absolve Hillary Clinton of blame for losing the 2016 election, have promoted the claim that the forty-fifth US president was installed by a foreign government and does its bidding. A Gallup poll in August 2018 showed that 78 percent of Democrats believed not only that Russia interfered in the election but also that it changed the outcome, denying Hillary Clinton the presidency. It is not enough to demonstrate that Putin hoped that Hillary Clinton would be defeated. Great numbers of Americans hoped that she would be defeated as well. It is necessary therefore to demonstrate that the Internet activity of Russian trolls, rather than purely domestic opposition to her candidacy, was the decisive factor in the outcome of the 2016 presidential election. Advertisement: In the context of election-year advertising, the quantity of Russian memes was negligible. According to Facebook, only 1 in 23,000 pieces of content on its platform could be traced to Russian sources. Facebook ads linked to Russia cost $46,000, or 0.05 percent of the $81 million that the Clinton and Trump campaigns themselves spent on Facebook ads. Is it possible that the Russian memes, although mere drops in the ocean of advertising by the Clinton and Trump campaigns, were disproportionately effective in influencing American voters because of their unique sophistication? One anti-Clinton ad on Facebook attributed to Russian trolls showed a photo of Bernie Sanders with the words: "Bernie Sanders: The Clinton Foundation is a 'Problem.'" A pro-Trump meme, presumably targeting religious conservatives, showed Satan wrestling with Jesus. Satan: "If I win Clinton wins!" Jesus: "Not if I can help it!" To believe the Russia Scare theory of the 2016 US presidential election, we must believe that the staff of Russia's government-linked Internet Research Agency and other Russian saboteurs understood how to influence the psychology of black American voters and white working-class voters in the Midwest far better than did the Clinton and Trump presidential campaigns. The Russians knew which memes or leaked memos would cause black Democrats to vote in lower numbers for Clinton in 2016 than they had voted for Obama for president in 2008 and 2012 and also knew exactly what material would motivate a significant minority of white working-class Obama voters to vote for Trump. In addition to being very flattering to the intelligence of Russian Internet trolls, this is very condescending to those two groups of voters, to say the least. As it happens, the US election results can be explained with no need to posit the ability of the Russian government to alter the outcomes of US elections by brainwashing American voters, even if it sought to do so. In December 2015, the progressive documentary filmmaker Michael Moore told Busi­ness Insider: "Donald Trump is absolutely going to be the Republican candidate for president of the United States." In July 2016, after Trump won the nomination to become the presidential candidate of the Republican Party, Moore wrote an essay on his website, "5 Reasons Why Trump Will Win." Advertisement: Russian meme warfare on the Internet was not one of Moore's five reasons. According to Moore, who had achieved fame by documenting the industrial decline of the Midwest, the most important reason why Trump would defeat Clinton was the regional economy: Midwest Math, or Welcome to Our Rust Belt Brexit. I believe Trump is going to focus much of his attention on the four blue states in the rustbelt of the upper Great Lakes—Michigan, Ohio, Pennsylvania and Wisconsin. Four traditionally Democratic states— but each of them have elected a Republican governor since 2010 (only Pennsylvania has now finally elected a Democrat). . . . Trump is going to hammer Clinton on this and her support of TPP and other trade policies that have royally screwed the people of these four states. . . . From Green Bay to Pittsburgh, this, my friends, is the middle of England—broken, depressed, struggling, the smokestacks strewn across the country- side with the carcass of what we use to call the Middle Class. . . . What happened in the UK with Brexit is going to happen here. . . . And this is where the math comes in. In 2012, Mitt Romney lost by 64 electoral votes. Add up the electoral votes cast by Michigan, Ohio, Pennsylvania and Wisconsin. It's 64. All Trump needs to do to win is to carry, as he's expected to do, the swath of traditional red states from Idaho to Georgia (states that'll never vote for Hillary Clinton), and then he just needs these four rust belt states. He doesn't need Florida. He doesn't need Colorado or Virginia. Just Michigan, Ohio, Pennsylvania and Wisconsin. And that will put him over the top. This is how it will happen in November. Moore was not the only observer who pointed out that Trump had a possible path to victory in the electoral college. In February 2016, the progressive political analyst Ruy Teixeira told MSNBC that even if Trump alienated black and Latino voters, he might win by sweeping the upper Midwest: "You could see a situation where someone like Trump could carry Ohio, Iowa, Wisconsin, maybe Pennsylvania." In the event, Trump got a higher share of the black vote and the Latino vote than Romney in 2012. For what it is worth, on May 24, 2016, at a forum in Los Angeles on "Populism Past and Present" hosted by Ian Masters that featured me and the historian Michael Kazin, I was asked if I thought Trump could win. I replied, "I think it's possible. I wouldn't bet on it." I noted that sometimes "a big chunk of the former electoral college presidential majority migrates to the other party." I said that I doubted there would be a "big enough chunk of people who formerly voted Democratic moving over to put Trump in the White House" but I hedged my bets by saying, "I may look foolish in November." The political scientist Alan I. Abramowitz has observed that Trump actually performed less well than might have been expected in 2016 in Michigan, Pennsylvania, and Wisconsin, given shifts already under way from the Democrats to the Republicans in those states: "There is no evidence here that Russian interference, to the extent that it occurred, did anything to help Trump in these three states." Advertisement: In 2018, Hillary Clinton told Britain's Channel Four News: "The real question is how did the Russians know how to target their messages so precisely to undecided voters in Wisconsin or Michigan or Pennsylvania–that is really the nub of the question." No, the real question is why so much of the US and European establishment accepted and promulgated Clinton's alibi for her failure to follow her husband into the office of president of the United States. A Clinton or a Bush was president, vice president, or secretary of state in every year between 1981 and 2013, an era in which working-class incomes stagnated, offshoring devastated US and European manufacturing, the world suffered the worst economic collapse since the Great Depression of the 1930s, and the US plunged into multiple disastrous wars in the Middle East and Central Asia. Trump became president by running against a Bush in the Republican primaries and a Clinton in the general election. The desire of many American voters to disrupt the quarter-century cycle of nearly identical versions of technocratic neoliberalism under alternating Bushes and Clintons is quite sufficient to explain the presidential election of 2016. # # # Advertisement: Adapted from "The New Class War: Saving Democracy from the Managerial Elite" (Portfolio; January 21, 2020) by Michael Lind. © 2020 Portfolio Books.

NEW YORK (Reuters) - It sounds like the start of a parable: Investors stuck inside during a pandemic begin to bid up an asset until its price becomes untethered to reality. The value soars until one day the market runs out of buyers and freezes, causing prices to plummet and some unlucky few to lose fortunes more than ten times their annual incomes in the span of a few hours. FILE PHOTO: A GameStop store is pictured amid the coronavirus disease (COVID-19) pandemic in the Manhattan borough of New York City, New York, U.S., January 27, 2021. REUTERS/Carlo Allegri The date: February 3, 1636. On that day, the infamous Dutch tulip bubble burst during an outbreak of the bubonic plague, illustrating that asset prices can plummet just as quickly as they soar, leaving only pain behind. Now, almost exactly 385 years and another pandemic later, Wall Street waits to see how long it will take for history to repeat itself. Shares of video game retailer GameStop Corp have soared 1,625% since the start of January. Driving the rally are individual investors who have been stuck at home for the last ten months. Many have turned to online forums like WallStreetBets on Reddit and are buying the stock, some as a form of protest against hedge fund managers who wagered that it would fall. These amateur investors are buoyed by savings built up over the coronavirus pandemic, two rounds of stimulus payments and near zero interest rates. Some, such as billionaire entrepreneur Elon Musk, have referred to the phenomenon as ‘Gamestonk’, a play on the intentional misspelling of the word ‘stock’ on social media. The stock price rally to above $300 per share has emboldened some small investors to pour even more money into a company that Wall Street analysts tracked by Refinitiv believe is worth slightly more than $13 per share. The surge increases the risk that individuals will get caught up in the euphoria and look past the warning signs and consequences of an eventual crash. "I dumped my savings into GME, paid my rent for this month with my credit card, and dumped my rent money into more GME (which for the people here at WSB, I would not recommend)," a Reddit user with the handle ssauron here wrote Thursday on WallStreetBets. "And I'm holding. This is personal for me, and millions of others." A form of class warfare waged through the shares of a video game retailer is notably different than financial market manias, such as the dotcom bubble in 2000 or the U.S. real estate bubble that culminated in the 2008 financial crisis, both which were fueled by assumptions of broad economic growth. Yet for those who buy GameStop at the wrong time, the results will likely be the same. “The reality is that GameStop doesn’t hurt Wall Street. It might hurt a couple of hedge fund managers out there, but no one is going to cry for them. The people who will be losing their life savings are small retail investors,” said Ben Inker, head of asset allocation at GMO. The total value of short positions in Reddit-favored stocks such as GameStop is about $40 billion, limiting the pain among professional investors to a handful of hedge funds, according to Barclays. Slideshow ( 2 images ) Overall, GameStop shorts were down about $5 billion for the year through Tuesday, according to S3 Partners. By comparison, Tesla Inc, another heavily-shorted stock among professional investors, caused short sellers $245 billion in losses in 2020, the firm noted. “While we expect some more deleveraging, ultimately the scale of the problem appears quite limited,” Barclays said. The likelihood that most of the losses from the rally in GameStop will come among the same group of retail investors who prodded it higher is leaving many on Wall Street baffled as the bubble continues to grow. GameStop surged 67.9% higher Friday to close at $325 per share. “GameStop is not worth $500, not worth $400, not worth $300, not worth $200, not even worth $100, not even worth $50,” billionaire investor Leon Cooperman said on CNBC Thursday. “I’m not damning them. I’m just saying from my experience, this will end in tears,” he added. BURSTING BUBBLES The dotcom bubble peaked in March 2000 and over the next two years the tech-heavy Nasdaq Composite Index slid nearly 77% as companies that were touted as can’t miss investments ran out of financing. By the time the Nasdaq bottomed in October 2002, some $6.2 trillion in household wealth had been destroyed, according to Amir Sufi, a professor at the University of Chicago. The 2008 financial crisis, meanwhile, wiped away approximately $16.4 trillion from American households through a combination of steep stock market losses and plummeting home equity, according to the Federal Reserve. No one expects that the GameStop bubble will cause anything close to the same levels of economic pain as the financial crisis or dotcom bust before it, in part because the company has a low share count and was not widely held by institutional or retail investors prior to the start of the year. With $6.5 billion in revenues in its last fiscal year and fewer than 53,000 employees worldwide, it does not have an outsized economic impact. Yet a fall will be concentrated on those who helped upend Wall Street’s notion of what retail investors can do. “There’s going to be some blood on the floor when this is all over, but that’s going to be some hedge fund blood and a lot of retail blood,” said Donald Langevoort, a professor at Georgetown Law who studies retail investors and securities regulation. Melvin Capital and Citron Research, two prominent GameStop short-sellers, said earlier this week that they had already closed out their positions. Securities laws that typically protect smaller investors from fraud may be of little help for investors who buy shares of GameStop at elevated levels, Langevoort said. “I don’t know if there is an organization or orchestrator that is using deceit and trickery, especially when the motivation seems to be ‘Let’s support GameStop and show them,’” he said. “The SEC has to take a deep breath and ask itself whether it has a strong enough case to put a stop to this.” ‘LIFE OF ITS OWN’ The outsized rally in GameStop is happening at a time when valuations across financial markets appear to be stretched. The S&P 500 index trades at a forward price to earnings ratio of 23.1, near its peak during the dotcom bubble, while the cryptocurrency bitcoin jumped 14% Friday after gaining 265% over the past 12 months. The rise of commission-free trading platforms such as Robinhood have helped inflate asset market bubbles by lowering the bar for retail investors to trade, said Ronnie Sadka, a finance professor at Boston College. “Retail investors are becoming a systemic risk,” that the SEC is ill-prepared to handle, he said. “The challenge with regulation is that this is not a case where Wall Street is squeezing the mom and pops, this is a case where the short-sellers are getting squeezed.” The surging value of GameStop shares is luring investors who will most likely be burned in the end, said Michael Pachter, an analyst at Wedbush Securities who has a $16 price target for the company. “This is the tulip bubble all over again,” he said, adding that he received a call from a friend who bragged that he put $1,000 into Reddit favorites such as GameStop, AMC Entertainment Holdings Inc and BlackBerry Ltd and was now up $400,000 in two weeks. “He doesn’t even know what GameStop sells,” Pachter said. How will the GameStop mania end? If it is like the original tulip bubble, it could lead to a “short-term crisis of trust” in financial markets, said Anne Goldgar, a professor at the University of Southern California. Every jump in the price of GameStop, meanwhile, brings in more short-sellers enticed by ever-growing potential gains and more buyers looking to stick a thumb in the eye of Wall Street, causing the cycle to continue, Pachter said. “This thing has a life of its own,” Pachter said.

The following contains spoilers from "Joker." Writer-director Todd Phillips’ “Joker” is a dark, enthralling, challenging, and seductive film about how a cruel and indifferent world can create a human monster. Joaquin Phoenix gives an Oscar-worthy performance in the starring role of Arthur Fleck, the man who eventually becomes the comic book superhero Batman’s archrival.“Joker” deftly weaves in elements of Martin Scorsese’s “Taxi Driver” and “King of Comedy” as well as “Network” and other films to great effect.“Joker” also rejects the simple storytelling conventions and archetypes of good and evil, or right and wrong, that are typical of the Hollywood superhero genre. The first signal to this comes early in the film when the city of Gotham — which is in the midst of a sanitation workers strike — is described as a place where “super cats” may have to be used to stop a plague of “super rats.” Many critics have condemned “Joker” as messy, boring, problematic, irresponsible, overly violent or perhaps even “dangerous.” This hectoring is a function of many things. But it is primarily rooted in how Phoenix and Phillips have offer an empathetic portrayal of a psychotic, antisocial character. “Joker” is an especially challenging film because, for some viewers and critics, any effort to empathize or sympathize with Arthur Fleck and/or the Joker feels like an indictment of their own sense of virtue and self-righteousness. “Joker” causes other discomforts as well: Phoenix’s character is an unreliable narrator who exists in his own subjective reality. This disconcerting effect subverts simple expectations of closure (and perhaps of catharsis) which by design most Hollywood films give their audience. Of course, critics have filtered their critiques of “Joker” through concerns about the infectious power and violence of the New Right in Donald Trump's America, and the worry that a movie about a socially alienated, mentally ill, violent white man may somehow inspire or legitimate right-wing domestic terrorism and other evils. The error in such logic is that right-wing domestic terrorists do not need any justification for their crimes or other vile behavior. Those who have been seduced by such a repugnant ideology will act (or not act) independent of what a film supposedly “tells" or permits them to do. “Joker’s” narrative explores a basic narrative question: How does an ordinary if profoundly alienated man such as Arthur Fleck eventually become a supervillain? But “Joker” is much more than a character study of one of the greatest villains in American and popular culture. The film is also a powerful indictment of neoliberalism and gangster capitalism, and a culture of cruelty that is causing great harm around the world. As presented in this version of his origin story, Phoenix’s Arthur Fleck (who will eventually evolve into the Joker) is a clown by vocation. He lovingly cares for his infirm mother (Frances Conroy). Fleck suffered severe emotional and physical abuse as a child from his mother and her boyfriend, and was institutionalized for many years. He is repeatedly harmed by strangers and society as a whole. He initially wants to be “well” and “happy” and to not “feel so bad anymore” before concluding that it is the world, and not him, that is truly broken. At one key point in the story, Fleck kills three entitled white predator types in a subway car, who menace and assault him after he intervenes to aid a young woman who had become a target for their harassment. As "Joker" proceeds, Fleck grows from being a sad-clown wannabe comedian to a killer seeking vengeance against those he sees as transgressors. Through this journey of awakening, the Joker as vigilante inspires a violent uprising by other dispossessed and rage-filled people, who disgusted by the behavior of their “social betters,” including billionaire Thomas Wayne, the father of Bruce Wayne (aka Batman). Such rich people hide behind philanthropy and noblesse oblige as they slur the working class and poor people of Gotham as “clowns.” But did any of these events really happen? Arthur is a supremely unreliable narrator. His mind is medicated, programmed through the distorted, mediated realities presented by modern mass media. He is pathologically narcissistic, bending and interpreting events to put himself at their center. To great effect, this lack of narrative intelligibility challenges the implicit bargain between the film and viewer regarding the nature of the truth. There are numerous examples: Is Arthur actually locked inside of Arkham Asylum or some other mental health facility the whole time? Are the events of the film just his imagination being poured out on the screen? Could Thomas Wayne, the one-percenter, be his real father? That is suggested by a prized photo of Wayne with Arthur's mother in their youth, which is signed, "Love your smile — TW.” At the end of the film, is the Joker really saved from the police by an army of “jokers” — all wearing clown masks in a lumpenproletariat uprising — and then lifted on their shoulders like a savior and martyr? Is this Joker the same character from the Batman comic books — or did Arthur Fleck inspire some other “Joker” to kill Bruce Wayne’s parents? Does the Joker in fact kill his psychiatrist and then dance down the hallway in a macabre parody of the famous scene in Charlie Chaplin’s "Modern Times"? Or is that another delusional fantasy? “Joker” offers no answers. The city of Gotham is one of the most important characters in the film. It provides the social milieu and therefore the context for interpreting the political meaning of "Joker." This story is set during the early 1980s, when Ronald Reagan in the United States and Margaret Thatcher in the United Kingdom are forcing neoliberalism and its policies of austerity, “trickle-down economics” and the "free market" onto all areas of public life. Neoliberalism as a form of gangster capitalism sells the lie that destroying the Commons, the social safety net, social democracy and a sense of shared human obligation — and cutting taxes on the rich — will somehow create economic growth, prosperity and “freedom” for all people. After several decades of failed experiments, such economic and social policies have been disproved. In reality, neoliberalism is “socialism” and “welfare” for the richest individuals and largest corporations — and “survival of the fittest” for everyone else. To maintain control of a public that is often despondent, suffering, at times near rebellion but also cowed by learned helplessness – neoliberal policymakers and other elites use the punitive and punishing power of the state to quell dissent. Precarious economic circumstances also help to suppress resistance and even the act of imagining alternative, more democratic political possibilities and outcomes. Mass media, schools, and other agents of political socialization have convinced many Americans (and other people around the world) that consumerism, capitalism and democracy are the same thing. People who live in societies dominated by neoliberalism and gangster capitalism are told that they are ultimately responsible for their own suffering and lack of success, even as income and wealth inequality soar, life chances are truncated, and meritocracy is exposed as a sham. But perhaps the greatest power of neoliberalism and gangster capitalism is the control they assert over people’s emotional lives. Neoliberal elites must create emotionally self-regulating subjects if “the system” is to remain stable and not collapse into chaos. Achieving that goal is advanced through various means, including "narco-capitalism" and the dopamine hits delivered by the internet and social media, whose success is predicated on loneliness and social atomization. The technology of “mindfulness” also does the work of enforcing neoliberalism’s need for emotionally self-regulating subjects. Joaquin Phoenix’s Joker character rejects that order of things. Indeed, he rejects the entire regime of training and discipline demanded by neoliberalism. In their new book “Manufacturing Happy Citizens,” Edgar Cabanas and Eve Illouz explain the role of “happiness scientists” in enforcing neoliberalism’s power over its subjects: Questioning the existing state of affairs, defamiliarizing the familiar, and inquiring in the processes, meanings and practices that shape our identities and everyday behaviour are fundamental endeavours of social critical thinking…. That happiness scientists have often been belligerent towards critical social thinking is no secret, calling it negative, deceptive, and even dishonest. These scientists believe that we should get rid of this kind of negativity because it only fuels pointless and fruitless claims for social and political change. The character of the Joker is forced into being by neoliberalism’s assault on public services and its indifference to real human needs — and also by the way neoliberalism and gangster capitalism create a feeling of social isolation and loneliness among people around the world. In the film, Arthur Fleck is denied mental health care by public hospitals and other programs, which are being “downsized” or terminated. Fleck is economically insecure. He is not paid a living wage for his work as a clown. He has no health insurance or other benefits. His mother is in dire need of medical assistance. The city of Gotham is suffering through a sanitation workers strike, events that were relatively common in the 1970s and '80s, as sanitation and other public workers were engaged in collective action to fight for a living wage and safe working conditions. Neoliberalism, of course, views unions and collective action as wasteful and unproductive. The incidents of emotional stress and physical assault that turn Arthur Fleck into the Joker take place on dilapidated public transit, on dirty streets and in under-resourced public hospitals and mental health care facilities. There are few if any visible police officers, except those who victimize and abuse the public. Neoliberalism’s gutting of public services and neglect of public spaces creates the literal "spaces of encounter" where Arthur is traumatically forced along his journey of transformation. Neoliberalism even attempts to regulate happiness itself. Arthur genuinely wants to make people happy, internalizing his mother’s wish that he should “smile and put on a happy face.” But Arthur is not allowed that form of self-actualization. This horrible state of frustration, disappointment and futility is described by cultural theorist Lauren Berlant as a state of “cruel optimism”. Here is Berlant in an interview from The Point: One of the things that excites me about comedy is the comic disturbance of the shared object. Like, you think you know what it is but you don’t, and you get to delight in that. It allows in the room a multiplicity of kinds of possible effects and affects, and that flooding itself is funny. ... I’m also interested in thinking about politics as comedic, by which I don’t mean delightful or funny in the easy Schadenfreude sense. I’m interested in the comedic dictum, which is that disturbance doesn’t kill you, it forces you to live on. The thing about trauma, as I always say to my [Literature of] Trauma students, is that it doesn’t kill you and you have to live with it. And that’s the thing about comedy, too. The comedy is that you get up again after you fall off the cliff, and have to keep moving. You have to live with the brokenness, and you have to live with surprise, and you have to live with contingency. And you have to live with the pleasure of not knowing, if you can bear it. But how you have to live with it is another story. Comedy is a lot about the question of whether you can bear it, in a way that tragedy isn’t. Because in tragedy the world can’t bear you. Later in that interview, Berlant argues that "America tries to be a comedic force, in the sense that it tries to organize a kind of optimism about living politically. About a greatness, about a transcendence, about the practical or concrete utopia." Our "constant disappointment" about that failure, she concludes, "is a lot like the constant repetition in a comic sequence of a slapstick event. Except the violence of the disappointment is not funny! And it has really bad, painful effects on people’s lives." Arthur Fleck, after his transformation into the Joker, speaks to this futility when he tells his mother, while smothering her to death, “I used to think my life was a tragedy. But now I realize, it's a comedy.” For decades, neoliberal elites and other policy makers have tried to create “healthy” self-regulating subjects. They have failed. The Joker is the representation of that outcome — and also the story of Arthur Fleck's "liberation" as a villain. In many ways, neoliberalism and gangster capitalism are making the individuals and groups who suffer under their rule literally mad. Because the color line intersects all areas of American life, racism and racial animus were and continue to be used as a tool for creating the neoliberal nightmare. Reagan and other conservatives used the image of the black “welfare queen” to convince the American public that cutting food stamps, welfare and other public assistance for the neediest Americans was good public policy. Stereotypes of “lazy” black people who could only get jobs with the federal government continues to prime white hostility to the very idea of government itself and the safety net. This reaches back to racist associations from the Civil War and Reconstruction, where “big government” was imagined as protecting black people by "stealing" from “self-reliant” and “disciplined” white Americans. In America, black women have been special targets of the neoliberal war on democracy and the public sphere, because they are strongly associated with government jobs and the bureaucracy. Black Americans, in the White American imagination, are still seen as anti-citizens who are not “self-reliant” or “productive.” The Joker, however, is “race neutral” and “colorblind" (in his own twisted way). The Joker’s mob of protesters is interracial. Black people seem omnipresent, even hyper-visible in the Joker’s world. Why? This is the neoliberal reality of Gotham and the social and political moment it represents. Arthur’s social worker is a black woman. On the bus, he tries to entertain a black child by doing his clown routine. The child’s mother tells Fleck to leave her child alone. The medical clerk (Brian Tyree Henry) who has Fleck’s mother’s medical records is a black man. Black and Latino street ruffians assault Arthur, stealing his placard, robbing him and leaving him laid out in an alley. The psychiatrist questioning the Joker at the end of the film — whom he apparently kills — is a black woman. Yet the Joker never summons racial invective or other signs that he is angry that black people have caused him harm. His real enemies are the rich, white authority figures like Thomas Wayne who rule over Gotham and the world. Phillips blunts the accusation that the Joker is somehow “racist” through the character of Arthur's neighbor Sophie played by Zazie Beetz. He imagines them having a whirlwind romance, but he is actually stalking and terrorizing Sophie: The “relationship” is entirely in his mind. Using this character in such an obvious way is one of the few missteps in an otherwise excellent film. What of the Joker’s politics? In the film, he explicitly rejects politics, describing himself as a nihilist. But given his narrative unreliability, such claims must be viewed with suspicion. What is clear is that the Joker’s vigilantism, as responded to by Thomas Wayne’s insults toward the working people of Gotham, sparks a “populist” uprising. The people’s uprising in “Joker” is the worst type of populism. It is blind rage, lacking ideology, which is liberating in the moment but does little if anything to address social inequality or to offer an alternative vision of the future. Like the comic book character on which he is based, Joaquin Phoenix’s Joker offers a form of permission: He ultimately does what he wants, without guilt or restraint. Most people do the opposite: They are “civilized,” which is defined by subjecting oneself to social norms even when they make you miserable. Before fully and finally becoming the Joker on his hero Murray Franklin’s late-night variety show (a cameo role for Robert De Niro) — and then killing him on air — Arthur Fleck carries a small card in his wallet which explains his medical condition (known as “pseudobulbar affect”). On the bus, Fleck gives this card to the parent of the child he is trying to entertain as a way of explaining his odd behavior. It reads: "Forgive my laughter. I have a condition (more on back). It's a medical condition causing sudden, frequent, uncontrollable laughter that doesn’t match how you feel. It can happen in people with a brain injury or certain neurological conditions." This is a perfect summation of the insane absurdity of neoliberalism and what it does to the people who live under it. As the movie progresses and Arthur more fully becomes his "true" self, the Joker, he stops laughing involuntarily. The affliction appears to be gone. Perhaps there is a little bit of the Joker in all of us who live under the cruel logic of neoliberalism and gangster capitalism. But to consider such a possibility is too unsettling and difficult for many people — including those who are reacting negatively to "Joker" and its damning indictment of the current order of things.

Nicholas Pileggi, who wrote the screenplay for director Martin Scorsese’s hit gangster movie “Goodfellas,” has noted the parallels between President Donald Trump’s rhetorical style and the type of rhetoric used in that 1990 favorite — and Pileggi isn’t the only one to make that analogy. With attorney Lanny Davis (who represents Trump’s former personal attorney Michael Cohen) having announced that his client wants to delay his testimony before Congress because of “threats against his family,” two leading Democratic congressmen have accused Trump of using “textbook mob tactics.” In a joint statement released on January 23, Rep. Elijah Cummings (who heads the House Oversight Committee) and Rep. Adam Schiff (who chairs the House Intelligence Committee) described Cohen’s safety concerns as “completely legitimate”—although they noted that they still expect him to testify before Congress at some point. Cummings and Schiff wrote, “Efforts to intimidate witnesses, scare their family members or prevent them from testifying before Congress are textbook mob tactics that we condemn in the strongest terms. Our nation’s laws prohibit efforts to discourage, intimidate or otherwise pressure a witness not to provide testimony to Congress.” Meanwhile, John Dean, who served as White House counsel under President Richard Nixon before he agreed to cooperate with federal prosecutors during the Watergate scandal, has asserted that Trump “thinks, acts and sounds like a mob boss.” The more Special Counsel Robert Mueller’s Russia investigation angers him, the more Trump’s rhetorical style sounds like a character in “Goodfellas” and other Scorsese films. However, the type of rhetoric Trump uses during his tirades against Mueller not only echoes the characters in Scorsese’s films, but also, the black-and-white gangster films that James Cagney and Edward G. Robinson were famous for in the 1930s and 1940s. Here are some infamous movie characters that Trump often sounds like when discussing Mueller’s probe and other legal threats to his presidency. Don Corleone in ‘The Godfather’ (1972) In his book “A Higher Loyalty,” Former FBI Director James Comey (who Trump fired in 2017) recalled that the first time he visited Trump Tower in Manhattan to meet Trump, he felt like he was visiting a Mafia godfather. “I thought of the New York Mafia social clubs, an image from my days as a Manhattan federal prosecutor in the 1980s and 1990s,” Comey wrote. And the imagery Comey employed sounded a lot like someone going to meet Don Corleone (played by Marlon Brando) in Francis Ford Coppolla’s 1972 gem “The Godfather.” Tom Powers in ‘The Public Enemy’ (1931) James Cagney’s reputation for portraying mobsters was cemented by his portrayal of Tom Powers in 1931’s “The Public Enemy,” one of the grittiest gangster films of the Great Depression. The character was based, in part, on the notorious Chicago mob boss Al “Scarface” Capone. And Trump used a Scarface reference when he insisted that his former campaign manager, Paul Manafort— who was convicted on eight criminal counts in federal court on August 22 — has received worse treatment than Al Capone. Tommy DeVito and Jimmy the Gent in ‘Goodfellas’ (1990), Nicky Santoro and Ace Rothstein in ‘Casino’ (1995) In real life, Robert De Niro is a staunch Democrat who has no use for President Trump’s policies and would much rather see Hillary Clinton in the White House. But when Trump shows his utter contempt for Mueller’s investigation, he sounds a lot like the characters that De Niro and Joe Pesci played in 1990’s “Goodfellas” and 1995’s “Casino” (another Scorsese film). Trump denounces Cohen as a “rat” but praises long-time ally and GOP operative Roger Stone for refusing to be a “rat” and declaring that he will not cooperate with Mueller. Cody Jarrett in ‘White Heat’ (1949) Cagney reemerged from a hiatus when, in 1949, he portrayed sociopathic mob leader Cody Jarrett in director Raoul Walsh’s classic “White Heat.” Two types of people Jarrett absolutely hated were “coppers” and “rats,” and he was furious to learn that his criminal gang had been infiltrated by a federal agent (played by Edmond O’Brien). As Jarrett saw it, he treated the agent “like a kid brother” only to find out he was really a “copper”—and Trump sounds very Jarrett-like when he complains that he accepted Michael Cohen (his former personal attorney) into his organization only to be betrayed by a “rat.” Trump also echoes Cagney’s famous “White Heat” line, “Made it, ma—top of the world!” Even with Mueller’s probe closing in on him more and more, Trump never shows a trace of humility. Rico Bandello in ‘Little Caesar’ (1931) and Johnny Rocco in ‘Key Largo’ (1948) Edward G. Robinson had an incredibly broad range as an actor, playing everything from nerdy college professors (1944’s “The Woman in the Window”) to insurance agents (1944’s “Double Indemnity”) to ruthless gangsters—and two of the most ruthless he portrayed were Rico Bandello in 1931’s “Public Enemy” and Johnny Rocco in 1948’s “Key Largo” (which also starred Humphrey Bogart and Lauren Bacall). Bandello and Rocco demanded total obedience from employees, which was very Trump-like. And Trump echoed both characters when, on Twitter, he asserted that former White House Counsel Don McGahn would never betray him in the manner of a “John Dean-type rat.” Legal scholars and presidential historians typically praise Dean for flipping on Nixon and cooperating with Watergate prosecutors, but to Trump, Dean is a “rat.”

The climax of “Strangers on a Train” is a feat, but it’s the interplay between the two principal characters and Robert Walker’s profoundly unsettling performance that resonate now. Some say that Hitchcock’s pictures had a sameness to them, and perhaps that’s true — Hitchcock himself wondered about it. But the sameness of today’s franchise pictures is something else again. M any of the elements that define cinema as I know it are there in Marvel pictures. What’s not there is revelation, mystery or genuine emotional danger. Nothing is at risk. The pictures are made to satisfy a specific set of demands, and they are designed as variations on a finite number of themes. They are sequels in name but they are remakes in spirit, and everything in them is officially sanctioned because it can’t really be any other way. That’s the nature of modern film franchises: market-researched, audience-tested, vetted, modified, revetted and remodified until they’re ready for consumption. Another way of putting it would be that they are everything that the films of Paul Thomas Anderson or Claire Denis or Spike Lee or Ari Aster or Kathryn Bigelow or Wes Anderson are not. When I watch a movie by any of those filmmakers, I know I’m going to see something absolutely new and be taken to unexpected and maybe even unnameable areas of experience. My sense of what is possible in telling stories with moving images and sounds is going to be expanded. So, you might ask, what’s my problem? Why not just let superhero films and other franchise films be? The reason is simple. In many places around this country and around the world, franchise films are now your primary choice if you want to see something on the big screen. It’s a perilous time in film exhibition, and there are fewer independent theaters than ever. The equation has flipped and streaming has become the primary delivery system. Still, I don’t know a single filmmaker who doesn’t want to design films for the big screen, to be projected before audiences in theaters. That includes me, and I’m speaking as someone who just completed a picture for Netflix. It, and it alone, allowed us to make “The Irishman” the way we needed to, and for that I’ll always be thankful. We have a theatrical window, which is great. Would I like the picture to play on more big screens for longer periods of time? Of course I would. But no matter whom you make your movie with, the fact is that the screens in most multiplexes are crowded with franchise pictures. And if you’re going to tell me that it’s simply a matter of supply and demand and giving the people what they want, I’m going to disagree. It’s a chicken-and-egg issue. If people are given only one kind of thing and endlessly sold only one kind of thing, of course they’re going to want more of that one kind of thing.

The stereotype of "ugly Americans" who are blatantly disrespectful of people in the places that they visit serves as a guidebook on how not to behave when one is away from the continental United States. And according to an article published by The Guardian this week, the U.S. territory of Puerto Rico is being inundated with stereotypical ugly Americans. Of course, Puerto Ricans are themselves Americans — but that doesn't mean they can avoid the ugly habits of their fellow citizens indulging in a vacation. Reporter Coral Murphy Marcos reports that Puerto Rico has experienced a surge in tourism recently, explaining, "The combination of U.S. residents wanting to escape cold weather, cheap flight tickets and easing restrictions on the island has been bringing tourists en masse." And Brad Dean, CEO of Discover Puerto Rico, told The Guardian, "We are certainly seeing the effects of increased traveler confidence coinciding with vaccine distribution in the U.S." Unfortunately, Marcos notes, some of the tourists have been terrible about wearing protective face masks and taking other COVID-19 precautions. Marcos, reporting from San Juan, Puerto Rico, explains, "For José Silva, owner of El Chicharrón Restaurant, tourists arriving in the last weeks have put him on edge due to the large crowds without face masks forming on the weekends. His restaurant is located in La Placita de Santurce, a popular tourist area. Silva says the police close the streets around the area on weekends, making it hard for Ubers or taxis to pick up tourists after bars and restaurants close." Cristina Colón, a waitress at Pirilo Pizza in San Juan, told The Guardian she is worried about all the maskless tourists she is seeing. Colón noted, "I'm not only concerned with my physical health, but my mental health too. I'm nervous about myself, and for the friends and family I surround myself with, because I have no idea where this person who doesn't want to wear a mask is coming from." The term "ugly American" has been around since at least the 1940s, typically used to describe American tourists who behaved badly when they traveled — for example, becoming angry because someone speaks to them in French in Paris or because a waiter starts a conversation in Italian in Venice or Rome. Marcos, in her article, cites examples of disrespectful tourists complaining about Spanish being spoken in San Juan. "In February, one video showed tourists assault a woman in a wheelchair after they were told to wear masks," Marcos observes. "The women, who were staying at an Airbnb in San Juan, threw their drinks at the resident's face and told her to speak English. Airbnb removed the guest from the platform due to the incident." It isn't that Puerto Rico doesn't welcome tourism. The island's tourism industry, in 2020, suffered a great deal because of the COVID-19 pandemic. But tourists, Marcos stresses, need to be respectful. Christian Correa, who works at the Condado Vanderbilt Hotel in San Juan and is a 24-year-old student at the University of Puerto Rico, told The Guardian, "The tourists think they can do whatever they want. We've seen fights, parties in the rooms and aggressive behavior."

At the Condado Vanderbilt hotel in San Juan, Puerto Rico, Christian Correa clocked in to work the night-shift as a doorman and braced for the worst. Correa, who is also a bellman at the hotel, has seen a surge in American tourists coming to the US territory in the last three months and the hotel has been busy. Although he used to enjoy high season before the pandemic, recently, many tourists arriving to Puerto Rico have enraged local residents and hospitality workers as the island eases its Covid-19 restrictions. “The tourists think they can do whatever they want,” says Correa, 24, who is also a student at the University of Puerto Rico. “We’ve seen fights, parties in the rooms and aggressive behavior.” Should you book a holiday for 2021 yet? And what about refunds? Read more Low-cost flights to Puerto Rico have enticed many travelers to choose the island as a vacation spot during the pandemic. A one-way flight to Puerto Rico from Florida booked two days in advance could be as low as $62. Hotel occupancy reached 60% during Presidents’ Day holiday weekend in February, according to the island’s destination marketing organization, Discover Puerto Rico. It was the highest number since Christmas, and hotels expect to reach the same occupancy rates for the forthcoming spring break. “We are certainly seeing the effects of increased traveler confidence coinciding with vaccine distribution in the US,” said Brad Dean, CEO of Discover Puerto Rico. Facebook Twitter Pinterest Tourists take pictures in front of the governor’s mansion in San Juan, Puerto Rico. Photograph: Ricardo Arduengo/AFP/Getty Images For José Silva, owner of El Chicharrón restaurant, tourists arriving in the last weeks have put him on edge due to the large crowds without face masks forming on the weekends. His restaurant is located in La Placita de Santurce, a popular tourist area. Silva says the police close the streets around the area on weekends, making it hard for Ubers or taxis to pick up tourists after bars and restaurants close. “We’ve asked the police to help keep everyone distanced and look for an alternative for this area,” says Silva. In Old San Juan, another popular tourist area, Cristina Colón has been questioning whether her job as a waitress in Pirilo Pizza is worth the money as she sees a rise in clientele who refuse to abide by the Covid-19 precautions. “I’m not only concerned with my physical health, but my mental health too,” says Colón. “I’m nervous about myself, and for the friends and family I surround myself with, because I have no idea where this person who doesn’t want to wear a mask is coming from.” Puerto Rico went into lockdown last March. Though restrictions were eased slightly over the summer, and the former governor Wanda Vázquez reopened beaches fully in September, they were closed again from November until January. Those restrictions hit the hospitality industry hard. “The executive orders implemented by Wanda Vázquez put the hotel industry under threat,” said Joaquín Bolívar, the president of Puerto Rico’s Hotel and Tourism Association. Several hotels fluxed within single-digit occupancy percentages. “Some hotels were questioning their survival,” says Bolivar. Now, Puerto Rico is under curfew from 12am to 5am and indoor establishments can operate at 50% capacity as the newly elected governor, Pedro Pierluis, has increasingly been easing restrictions since January. Beaches are also open for recreational use. The combination of US residents wanting to escape cold weather, cheap flight tickets and easing restrictions on the island has been bringing tourists en masse. Facebook Twitter Pinterest People enjoy Pine Grove beach in Isla Verde, Puerto Rico. Photograph: Jorge Muniz/EPA With restrictions having relaxed, Bolivar admits hotels have experienced issues with some guests, but said many incidents, such as large gatherings and excessive noise, occur mostly in Airbnbs. “We’re seeing a lot of tourists in the streets not wanting to cooperate with the executive order,” says Bolivar. “The association has brought the claim to the government, municipal government and the police.” Videos circulating on social media show aggressive tourists starting fights, disrespecting local workers and residents, and disregarding Covid-19 precautions, including not wanting to wear face masks and having large gatherings as the travel influx to the island continues. In February, one video showed tourists assault a woman in a wheelchair after they were told to wear masks. The women, who were staying at an Airbnb in San Juan, threw their drinks at the resident’s face and told her to speak English. Airbnb removed the guest from the platform due to the incident. Another incident includes an alleged sexual assault by a US tourist against a 23-year-old resident in Rincón, located in the western region of Puerto Rico. Last month, the Sex Crimes and Child Abuse Division in Puerto Rico filed charges against the North Carolina resident, Devin Sanders. The Guardian tried to reach Sanders’ lawyer for comment, but the number for his office was disconnected. With spring break coming up and the spread of new variants still on the rise, Discover Puerto Rico is encouraging travelers to participate in outdoor activities, such as visiting El Yunque national rainforest or the beaches. Bolivar expects hotel rooms to sell out. Correa, at the Condado Vanderbilt, says he has not seen any reduction of guests at the hotel since Presidents’ Day weekend and thinks it will stay that way for spring break. He expects to keep running into misbehaving guests and continue calling the guests’ attention for walking the halls without a mask and reminding them there’s a curfew in place. “They never believe me when I tell them there’s a curfew,” says Correa. “Minutes after they go outside late at night looking for a party, they come back and ask, ‘Is the curfew thing actually real?’”

The April 15, 1933 issue of Newsweek, one of the first in the magazine’s history, contains a remarkable cover headline: Bill cutting work week to 30 hours startles the nation. Indeed only nine days earlier, on April 6th, the Black-Connery Bill had passed in the United States Senate by a wide margin. The bill fixed the official American work week at five days and 30 hours, with severe penalties for overtime work. In his new book, Free Time, labor historian, Benjamin Hunnicutt of the University of Iowa, explains that the bill originally had broad support as a means of increasing employment during the recession and maintaining full employment in the future. “We stand unflinchingly for the six-hour day and the five-day week in industry,” thundered AFL president William Green to a labor meeting in San Francisco that spring. Franklin Roosevelt and Labor Secretary Frances Perkins also initially endorsed the idea, but the president buckled under opposition from the National Association of Manufacturers and dropped his support for the bill, which was then defeated in the House of Representatives. In its place, Roosevelt advocated job-creating New Deal spending and a forty-hour workweek limit, passed into law on October 24, 1938, as part of the Fair Labor Standards Act. But we came that close to an official thirty-hour workweek in America. Close, but no cigar… KELLOGG’S SIX-HOUR DAY Nonetheless, many American companies did go to a 30-hour workweek during the depression, most prominently, the Kellogg Cereal Company, which established five-day, six-hour, shifts in December, 1930. Kellogg’s and the workers split the pay loss resulting from the cut in hours; Kellogg’s initially paid his workers for seven hours a day, but upped that to the amount they had previously received for eight-hours work two years later, when he saw that hourly productivity had soared. In his earlier books, Work Without End and Kellogg’s Six-Hour Day, Hunnicutt reports that the measure added 400 new jobs to Kellogg’s Battle Creek, Michigan, work force, while improving family and community life dramatically. After World War II, Kellogg’s began abandoning the six-hour shifts in favor of eight hours, largely because increasing benefit packages made it cheaper to hire few workers and keep them on the job longer. But the end of the six-hour shifts didn’t come until 1985, when the last six-hour workers were told that if they didn’t accept the longer work days, Kellogg’s would leave Battle Creek. The six-hours workers were angry but there was little they could do to prevent the change. They held a “funeral,” complete with a mock coffin, for the six-hour day at Stan’s Place, a local Battle Creek pub, and Ina Sides, an African-American woman who had worked most of her life at the plant, wrote a eulogy: Farewell, good friend, oh six hours! Tis sad, but true, Now you’re gone and we’re all so blue! Get out your vitamins, give the doctor a call, Cause old eight hours has got us all. In 1992, I traveled with Hunnicutt to interview former thirty-hour week workers in Battle Creek. They spoke movingly of the free time they had when they worked shorter hours—“you weren’t all wore out when you got home,” one man told me. One couple, Chuck and Joy Blanchard, who had both worked at the plant, claimed that the six-hour day made Chuck a “feminist” long before the women’s movement. He and his wife shared the housework and he was a “room parent” at his children’s school. The Blanchards spoke to us about how crime had gone up and volunteering down in Battle Creek after the six-hour day ended, as people had less time to look out for their neighborhoods. The Blanchards said they had little materially, but their lives, blessed with abundant leisure, were happier than those of young families today, who seem to have so much more stuff, but never enough time. NO VACATION NATION If the idea that the thirty-hour work week almost became the law of the land EIGHTY years ago comes as a shock, consider a New York Times headline on July 31, 1910: HOW LONG SHOULD A MAN’S VACATION BE? PRESIDENT TAFT SAYS EVERY ONE SHOULD HAVE THREE MONTHS At a time when workers produced a tenth of what they do today, William Howard Taft, a conservative Republican, argued that all workers needed two or three months of holiday time each year to improve health, family connections and productivity. Yet, more than a hundred years later, Americans average two weeks of paid vacation and a quarter of us get none at all. When the organization I represent, Take Back Your Time worked with Florida Congressman Alan Grayson to propose a very modest paid vacation law in 2009, we were practically accused of plotting the end of western civilization as we know it, and of “trying to turn our America into a 21st Century France,” as if we were going to force everyone to appreciate good food and wine. All this, when the evidence shows that stress from overwork plays a role in five of the six leading causes of death in the US and that workers who don’t take vacations are twice as likely to have heart attacks as those who do. How is it that the world’s richest country is one of only a handful (the other five are tiny and poor) of countries with no law requiring paid vacations (although residents of Puerto Rico are guaranteed 15 days off each year)? How is it that we understood the need for shorter hours of work in 1910 and 1933 but have forgotten it today? REMEMBRANCE AS A CALL TO ACTION Progressives who want to end unemployment in a way that improves health and limits unsustainable economic growth should be advocating that America provide real vacation time and shorten working hours. Although workers often say they’d prefer more money to more time, the evidence shows they appreciate the time off when they get it. A recent experiment with a compressed four-day workweek (albeit with ten hour days) was extremely popular in Utah. More importantly, in Amador County, California, workers voted 71 to 29 percent to retain a reduced work-week of four nine-hour days rather than return to a five-day, forty hour week with higher pay. See “Life Away From the Rat-Race: Why One Group of Workers Decided to Cut Their Own Hours and Pay” (AlterNet, July 2, 2012). Undoubtedly, for poor workers, shortened hours would need to be combined with a higher living wage minimum, as they would otherwise take on extra jobs to make up for reductions in pay that usually accompany shorter work-time. But in fact, there is no reason why a nation (the US) where the median worker has seen almost no pay increases since the 1970s despite a doubling of worker productivity, should not reduce working hours without a pay cut, at least for the middle-class and the poor. Eighty years ago, the American Federation of Labor and the United States Senate understood that the healthiest and most sustainable way to reduce unemployment was to sharply reduce working hours. The anniversary of the Black-Connery’s bill passage in the Senate marks a time to pause and ask why progressives aren’t raising this issue again.

Here are some things to enjoy while you’re there: Soak up the sun, sand, and surf at Condado and Luquillo beaches. Hike through the El Yunque National Forest and enjoy the waterfalls. Shop, dine, and study Old San Juan’s rich cultural history. Go on a sunset sail around the island. Learn the classic taste of San Juan with a mixology class or rum tasting tour. Southwest Vacations® packages to San Juan, Puerto Rico offer a wide variety of hotels and activities with some of the best Puerto Rico deals around. Additional information on San Juan activities: Experience all the famous things to do in Puerto Rico. Combine casinos, spas, and old world charm with beautiful beaches and all the natural beauty throughout the island of Puerto Rico for a perfect San Juan vacation. Puerto Rico is an excellent choice for a Caribbean island vacation destination where you can revel in the warm waters at the tropical beaches, experience entertaining nightlife, and win big at lavish casinos. The rich culture of old San Juan can be found in the Spanish architecture, charming cobblestone streets, and the sturdy forts guarding the city. Explore El Yunque National Forest where plenty of hiking trails take you to see the numerous resident species of birds and native orchids throughout the rain forest. Within the San Juan area, visit Luquillo Beach where huge plantations of majestic coconut palms shade the soft sandy beach. Thirsty for rum? Tour the Bacardi distillery and learn how the world-famous local rum manufacturer produces their tasty and popular product. Include these San Juan activities and tours in your fun-filled vacation to Puerto Rico. Flight service to San Juan (SJU) may vary based on departure date and origin city. View our flight information, so you can vacation with ease.

What do witches have to do with your favorite beer? When I pose this question to students in my American literature and culture classes, I receive stunned silence or nervous laughs. The Sanderson sisters didn't chug down bottles of Sam Adams in “Hocus Pocus." But the history of beer points to a not-so-magical legacy of transatlantic slander and gender roles. Up until the 1500s, brewing was primarily women's work – that is, until a smear campaign accused women brewers of being witches. Much of the iconography we associate with witches today, from the pointy hat to the broom, may have emerged from their connection to female brewers. A routine household task Humans have been drinking beer for almost 7,000 years, and the original brewers were women. From the Vikings to the Egyptians, women brewed beer both for religious ceremonies and to make a practical, calorie-rich beverage for the home. In fact, the nun Hildegard von Bingen, who lived in modern-day Germany, famously wrote about hops in the 12th century and added the ingredient to her beer recipe. From the Stone Age to the 1700s, ale – and, later, beer – was a household staple for most families in England and other parts of Europe. The drink was an inexpensive way to consume and preserve grains. For the working class, beer provided an important source of nutrients, full of carbohydrates and proteins. Because the beverage was such a common part of the average person's diet, fermenting was, for many women, one of their normal household tasks. Some enterprising women took this household skill to the marketplace and began selling beer. Widows or unmarried women used their fermentation prowess to earn some extra money, while married women partnered with their husbands to run their beer business. Exiling women from the industry So if you traveled back in time to the Middle Ages or the Renaissance and went to a market in England, you'd probably see an oddly familiar sight: women wearing tall, pointy hats. In many instances, they'd be standing in front of big cauldrons. But these women were no witches; they were brewers. They wore the tall, pointy hats so that their customers could see them in the crowded marketplace. They transported their brew in cauldrons. And those who sold their beer out of stores had cats not as demon familiars, but to keep mice away from the grain. Some argue that iconography we associate with witches, from the pointy hat to the cauldron, originated from women working as master brewers. Just as women were establishing their foothold in the beer markets of England, Ireland and the rest of Europe, the Reformation began. The fundamentalist religious movement, which originated in the early 16th century, preached stricter gender norms and condemned witchcraft. Male brewers saw an opportunity. To reduce their competition in the beer trade, these men accused female brewers of being witches and using their cauldrons to brew up magic potions instead of booze. Unfortunately, the rumors took hold. Over time, it became more dangerous for women to practice brewing and sell beer because they could be misidentified as witches. At the time, being accused of witchcraft wasn't just a social faux pas; it could result in prosecution or a death sentence. Women accused of witchcraft were often ostracized in their communities, imprisoned or even killed. Some men didn't really believe that the women brewers were witches. However, many did believe that women shouldn't be spending their time making beer. The process took time and dedication: hours to prepare the ale, sweep the floors clean and lift heavy bundles of rye and grain. If women couldn't brew ale, they would have significantly more time at home to raise their children. In the 1500s some towns, such as Chester, England, actually made it illegal for most women to sell beer, worried that young alewives would grow up into old spinsters. [Get the best of The Conversation, every weekend. Sign up for our weekly newsletter.] Men still run the show The iconography of witches with their pointy hats and cauldrons has endured, as has men's domination of the beer industry: The top 10 beer companies in the world are headed by male CEOs and have mostly male board members. Major beer companies have tended to portray beer as a drink for men. Some scholars have even gone as far as calling beer ads “manuals on masculinity." This gender bias seems to persist in smaller craft breweries as well. A study at Stanford University found that while 17% of craft beer breweries have one female CEO, only 4% of these businesses employ a female brewmaster – the expert supervisor who oversees the brewing process. It doesn't have to be this way. For much of history, it wasn't. Laken Brooks, Doctoral Student of English, University of Florida This article is republished from The Conversation under a Creative Commons license. Read the original article. Editor's note: This article has been updated to acknowledge that it isn't definitively known whether alewives inspired some of the popular iconography associated with witches today. It has also been updated to correct that it was during the Reformation that accusations of witchcraft became widespread.

Sierra Nevada Brewing is introducing two IPAs made with hop strains that are so new, they’re identified only by numbers. The Harvest Single Hop IPA is brewed with Yakima #291. (Sierra Nevada Brewing Co.) “Just the kiss of the hops.” In its World War II-era advertising, Schlitz tried to entice drinkers by promising the barest hint of the bitter herb in its beer. A slogan like that would leave modern craft beer drinkers cold. They don’t want a peck on the cheek; they crave intimacy. Heck, some devotees would walk a hop vine down the aisle if the law allowed. To no one’s great surprise, the market research group IRI recently announced that India pale ale has become the top-selling craft beer style. Ordinary pale ale used to hold that distinction. In another 10 years, one can imagine the even more hop-forward imperial IPA unseating its progenitor. But love doesn’t always come at first sight . . . or first sip. This romance took more than 1,000 years to kindle. Hops, the seed cones of a perennial vine related to marijuana (they both belong to the family Cannabinaceae), have been cultivated since the Middle Ages. Brewers have long recognized the utility of hops: They add a little kick to the bland sweetness of the malt, and their antibacterial properties help preserve beer from spoilage. But for centuries, it was more a marriage of convenience than an affair of the heart. The Abbess Hildegard von Bingen, whose 12th-century pharmacopeia “Physica Sacra” was perhaps the first document to record the use of hops in brewing, didn’t exactly give them a ringing endorsement. She claimed that they induce melancholy and weigh down one’s insides. Nor were hops welcomed with open arms when they crossed the Channel. Henry VIII is reported to have given the royal ale brewer strict orders to use neither hops nor brimstone in the king’s libations. As late as the 1990s, centuries after the hop had become universal in commercial brewing, one major American brand proclaimed its lack of hops to be a virtue, using the tagline, “No more bitter beer face!” So how did the hop — essentially a seasoning, like parsley or black pepper — nudge barley off center stage and grab the limelight? How did Jim Koch, chairman of Boston Beer, come to the conclusion, solemnly intoned in his commercials, that “hops are the soul of beer”? Koch markets a “Hop-ology” six-pack containing a half-dozen variations on the IPA style. He’s rolling out still another: Rebel IPA. In terms of international bitterness units, this is the weakling of the bunch, registering only 45 IBUs. (Those units measure alpha acids, the main bittering chemical in hops. Claims of 100 IBUs and above are common in the industry.) And yet, this is Boston Beer’s most successful attempt to date to mimic the no-holds-barred hop character of West Coast IPAs, an explosion of pine resin, grapefruit, orange and peppercorns. The genius of American craft brewers — and hop growers — lies in the realization that “bitterness is just one component of hop character,” suggests Koch. Newer varieties are being bred to minimize that bitterness and to eliminate a defect called “cattiness,” the waft of unchanged litter box that emanates from some ales aggressively hopped with high-alpha American strains. At the same time, they’re emphasizing the volatile oils that give different hop varieties their distinctive perfumes. A little mystery can spice up a relationship. Sierra Nevada Brewing in Chico, Calif., as part of its new Harvest series, plans to introduce two IPAs this year hopped with strains so new and experimental that they’re identified only by numbers. The first, which is shipping in 24-ounce bottles and kegs even as you read this, employs a hop dubbed 291. Tom Nielsen, Sierra Nevada’s R&D man for raw ingredients, flirted with more than 70 new cultivars before consensus was reached on this strain, says communications manager Ryan Arnold. “It really stood out for what we picked up as strong blueberry and blackberry flavors,” he elaborates. What’s more, “it imparts a really mousselike smooth, white head.” Toward the end of the year, Sierra Nevada will release an IPA hopped with a wild subspecies of hop called Humulus lupulus neomexicanus. Drinkers should pick up a fiesta of “fresh dill, as well as papaya, orange rind and citrus,” comments Arnold. Brewers are constantly seeking new ways to romance the hop. Atlanta-based SweetWater Brewing — no relation to the Sweetwater Tavern brewpub near Merrifield — plans to release a “hop hash” IPA, salvaging the green gunk that accumulates in the machinery used to process raw hops into pellets. SweetWater contracted with a hop supplier to scrape off the residue, press it into bricks and send it to the brewery. Months after the autumnal harvest, it’s still “very concentrated stuff,” states SweetWater’s “minister of propaganda,” Steve Farace. “It’s got a very resiny mouth feel, a potent aroma and a unique, almost silky, bitterness, if that doesn’t sound like a contradiction in terms.” Look for the yet-unnamed IPA to debut in April as part of the brewery’s “Dank Tank” series of limited releases. Far from being a solitary curmudgeon, the hop is surprisingly social, meshing well with other ingredients. SweetWater, which just began marketing in the Washington area, also offers a year-around IPA called LowRyeder with 25 percent rye in the grist. Harpoon Brewing in Boston just introduced the Long Thaw, an IPA mixing hops with coriander and orange peel. (Called a “white IPA,” this American take on Belgian witbier has become a style in its own right.) Magic Hat Brewing teamed up with neighboring beermaker Vermont Pub & Brewery to release Steven Sour, an IPA blended with tart passion fruit juice. California’s Stone Brewing has dabbled with coffee and coconut IPAs. That’s a lot of love for an herb that makes up far less than 1 percent of the brew, volume-wise. My Bitter Valentine? “Hops Are a Many-Splendored Thing” might be a better anthem to sing its praises. Kitsock is the editor of Mid-Atlantic Brewing News.

About 30 years ago, Bruce Williams had a homebrew supply shop in Alloa, Scotland. Now and again, customers would travel in from far-off places like the Outer Hebrides or isolated parts of the Scottish Highlands, bringing with them stories about old beers that they remembered their grandparents brewing – made from recipes that had been handed down through the generations. Many were hoping to use all sorts of ingredients that Williams had not thought of putting in beer before. One was heather. It gives the beer a sort of astringency – a dryness, especially when you open your mouth after taking a sip – and adds a herby woodiness to the flavour. Millions of acres of heather have blanketed the country's moors since the Stone Age, so it is quite conceivable that, if brewers experimented with local plants and other resources thousands of years ago, they would have used it as an ingredient to flavour ale. Few would dispute that heather ale has been made for centuries in Scotland. It has even been romanticised in a poem by Robert Louis Stevenson. We are also more or less certain that British brewing of some form was going on as far back as the Romans and that mead – a fermented honey drink – has been quaffed here for hundreds of years. But how far back, specifically, does beer-making go in Britain? Do archaeological records reveal what beverages Britons were drinking as far back as the Neolithic – the era roughly between 6,000 and 4,500 years ago? Famously, one 1980s archaeological dig at Kinloch on the Outer Hebrides' Isle of Rhum found apparent residue from a long-evaporated beverage. The pottery it came from dated back about 4,000 years. Microscopic analysis detected pollen grains, which suggested high levels of heather, and some meadowsweet and royal fern. Meadowsweet may simply have been added in order to counteract the smell of decaying flesh "If you regarded them as a recipe, then you can ask 'what would they make'," says Caroline Wickham-Jones, one of the excavation's archaeologists. "And one of the things was heather ale as a fermented drink – but it might easily have been a mouthwash or something." Still, Wickham-Jones and her team enlisted the help of a Glenfiddich distillery to brew a new ale inspired by this potential recipe. "It was fabulous," she says. Traces of meadowsweet have also been found in Neolithic beakers at Aberdeenshire and Fife. Still, the Fife specimen was found in a burial site and Alison Sheridan, the early prehistory curator at National Museums Scotland, notes that meadowsweet may simply have been added in order to counteract the smell of decaying flesh. Meanwhile, large pots and evidence of heat-cracked stones have been found at Skara Brae, a 5,000-year-old settlement in the Orkney islands just north-east of Scotland. Local archaeologist Merryn Dineley believes that pottery was once used for heating malt – the germinated and heated cereal grains that ferment to produce alcohol. Dineley has experimented with Neolithic-style equipment and argues that malting of grains could have occurred in this period. If you've got sprouted barley, that's good evidence for beer production But proving, conclusively, that specific alcoholic beverages were drunk as far back as the Neolithic is extraordinarily difficult if not impossible, says Jessica Smyth, an archaeologist and chemist at University College Dublin. For example, chemical analysis of residues can never provide complete proof that an alcoholic beverage was once held in a vessel. Alcohol can evaporate within days or weeks, never mind millennia. "You get lots of generic molecules, lipid compounds for example, but you find them in everything – you can't generally say it comes from this specific product," says Smyth. Sometimes barley lipids appear to be present in old earthenware, for instance, but Smyth says the concentrations are so small that tying the lipids to that specific plant becomes tricky. Consider calcium oxalate, which is often cited as evidence for alcohol because it is a by-product of the brewing process. "Mineral salts are extremely common," says Smyth. "You just can't say that that is definitely part of an ancient brewing process." Other finds are more persuasive. "If you've got sprouted barley, that's good evidence for beer production," says Oliver Craig, an expert in biomolecular archaeology at the University of York. But such confirmation is difficult to find at pre-Roman sites in Britain. The find has been described as the first written record of brewing in London There is even a theory that during the Neolithic period, Britons had a shortage of cereal grains for several hundred years due to climatic changes between 5,300 and 4,400 years ago. This is according to University College, London archaeologist Chris Stevens. But aside from ales brewed with fermented grain, it is entirely possible that early Britons were fermenting honey to make early forms of mead. In fact, the heather "ale" that may have been drunk at Kinloch would more likely have been of this type, Wickham-Jones says. Once the Roman era arrives, more evidence begins to crop up to support the idea that ales were widely brewed in the British Isles. At a building site in London, 2,000-year-old wooden writing tablets have been discovered. They mention a "maltster" or "brewer" named Tertius. The find has been described as the first written record of brewing in London. A lot of time, effort and wealth were put into these vessels – they clearly just weren't drinking water out of them There are also references to brewing at a famous Roman site, Vindolanda, in the north of England. "There's a letter from an officer asking for more ale for his troops – it's hard to tell whether he's drinking with them or not," says Joshua Driscoll, a PhD student in anthropology at the University of Wisconsin-Milwaukee. It is widely believed that Romans were importing wine to British forts in amphorae. "Some people might extrapolate from that that you had officers drinking wine and soldiers drinking ale," says Driscoll. The design of drinking vessels also hints that Roman and Medieval Brits were drinking alcoholic beverages, says Jonathan Horn, an archaeologist at the University of Edinburgh. Horn has studied tankards dating from the British Iron Age, the period from roughly 2,800 to 1,900 years ago. The tankards have interesting forms. Some are like little barrels, for instance, and are often ornamented with intricate metalwork and small handles. It is easy to imagine why early societies would have made the effort to produce alcoholic drinks "A lot of time, effort and wealth were put into these vessels – they clearly just weren't drinking water out of them," says Horn. "We see basically an uptake of these native vessels, specifically, within the Roman army. They're clearly taking on the native drinking culture." By about 1,600 years ago, ale drinking was widespread. Excavations have revealed the remains of 800-year-old malting ovens and other brewing apparatus. And alcoholic beverages are routinely mentioned in some of the great poetry of the era – including the Anglo-Saxon epic Beowulf, written over the period from 1,300 to 1,000 years ago. As part of his home-brewing experiments, Bruce Williams spent hours poring over records in Glasgow University's Scottish Brewing Archives, getting inspiration for other types of beer. The earliest recipes he could find dated back to the 12th and 13th Centuries. He says heather is mentioned in some of the oldest records. But it was only at the very end of the medieval period that hops began to be widely used for the drink that we recognise today as beer. For thousands of years, other ingredients must have provided the basis for flavour. Even if we cannot be sure what they were, it is easy to imagine why early societies would have made the effort to produce alcoholic drinks in the first place. "Alcohol was intimately tied up with celebration," says journalist and beer historian Martyn Cornell. It was only at the very end of the medieval period that hops began to be widely used There are records of specialty brews being made for weddings, birthdays, harvest festivals, Christmas and other social events. Medieval poetry that references ale frequently associates it with feasting paraphernalia – such as the "ale-benches" described in Beowulf, which could have hosted many revellers. "One of the things I've come across in the last few years is the idea of the coming-of-age ale," Cornell says. This was brewed on large estates from the early 18th Century. "Very often, when the heir was born to the lord, a hugely strong beer was brewed to be drunk 21 years later at his coming-of-age party," he adds. This tradition, along with many others, was eventually lost. But it is a good example of how alcohol gained a ceremonial status within the culture. The mists of time lie thick around the earliest booze once drunk in these islands – whatever it might have been. But the successful marketing of historic ales in the 21st Century suggests we have an innate fascination with our ancestors' drinking habits. As well as Williams' brewery, Innis & Gunn have also tried it, and a handful of Manchester breweries made special edition historic ales for a festival in June 2016. There is also a growing trend for beers with an aura of being somehow traditional and local, notes Cornell. "Brewers are literally walking into fields near the brewery and pulling out plants, putting them into the beer," he says. That is just what their ancestors would have done. Correction: An earlier version of this story referred to the type of analysis done to detect pollen grains as chemical analysis; it is microscopic analysis. It also incorrectly identified an image of meadowsweet; the previous photo has been replaced with the correct one. We regret the errors. This story is a part of BBC Britain – a series focused on exploring this extraordinary island, one story at a time. Readers outside of the UK can see every BBC Britain story by heading to the Britain homepage; you also can see our latest stories by following us on Facebook and Twitter.

There is a strong misconception that people living in medieval times would primarily drink alcohol as it was believed that water was unsafe to drink. This misconception has been interrogated (changed word) by historians, bloggers, period dramas; throughout historiography, social media platforms and TV drama’s respectively. When we turn to today’s medieval period dramas like ‘The Tudors’, ‘Vikings’ and ‘The Borgias’, there is an image portrayed of medieval European nobles and notable families drinking red wine or beer as if it were the norm in their day to day lives and meals. How accurate is this portrayal of their drinking lifestyle? It begs the question that historians are grappling with; did medieval Europeans really take alcohol as their ‘routine drink’? In addition, is even asking that question with the sources available able to access beyond a particular demographic? For instance if we turn to the peasantry – did they too drank wine, can we access this information? Adamson’s book on medieval food comes some way to addressing these disproportions in representation, defining alcohol as a type of beverage that was preferred by both upper class and lower class men. The nobles would drink wine and beer, wine being favourable, but the latter would only tend to be served during important celebratory occasions. More commonly, the majority of Europeans making up lower social class standings would consume drinks such as ale, fruit juice, cider and mead. In an attempt to distinguish themselves from the lower classes in society, the upper- middle classes would drink beer and wine as a distinguishable indication of their status, whether it be the deemed more nutritional value, they became more of a higher class hallmark drink. Monk wine taster (13th century). Illumination from a copy of Li livres dou santé by Aldobrandino of Siena. British Library manuscript Sloane 2435, f. 44v. Wikimedia Commons, Public Domain. Even though nobles and commoners alike chose alcohol over water, both more inclined to consume something less tasteless, water still remained essential to their daily lives. For the poor, water was used to make staple foods – indicating that water consumption cannot be measured only via the physical drinking, but too by its necessary use in food. In addition and to debunk a misconception said to indicate water was consumed less during the medieval period, written chronicle texts provide evidence to prove that medieval water was drinkable. One record detailed a traveller asking for water to hydrate himself. In addition, there is documented evidence of how water was used for religious ritual, one example being when a pious boy drank water to prove his devotion. However, there are cases where people were dissuaded against drinking water, for instance in the 15th century an Italian writer advised pregnant women to drink wine rather than the local water. He reasoned that water “is bad for the child in the womb and creates deaths for many girls”. Although there are oral traditions, medical and dietary practices indicating a culmination of positive and negative perceptions of water, Medieval Europe was predominantly rural in character, thus access via nearby wells, rivers and lakes was more common and thus attainable for commoners. The peasants had enough awareness on the quality of the water that they did boil it, shaping a more water-reliant character for the peasantry than misconceptions would have people believe. Members of the nobility are too worth exploring, as they would also consume water regularly, but this is hidden in that they would mix it with wine or beer for easier more diluted consumption.Though they preferred wine, evidence suggests that the wine they drank was distilled and not concentrated so not as strong as the wine we have today. Notorious concerns indeed existed, like the fear of contaminated water and was one of, but not the main reason as to why the noblemen and royals did not consume water in the same way as the peasants practiced, who relied on its convenience. Culturally, the also disseminated belief that water was a low-class beverage and was generally thought to lead to terrible stomach pains and poor digestion. Such ideas circulated within and beyond social class boundaries, and so too did the idea spread by many medieval writers, that wine had a higher nutritional value when compared to water. Like wine, beer is mostly imported from France, Italy and Germany, and involved with tax and transportation fees. To delve into these differences deeper, it has been revealed that the rich rarely drank beer as it was cheaper than wine due to the low labour production cost and thus considered less a sign of social prevalence. Therefore, the rich chose to consume alcohol for its market worth. Beer, for the peasantry, was usually consumed by farmers and labourers during this period, for a reason beyond the everyday experience of the nobility. As beer was heavily loaded with calories which helped the workers rapidly replenish a short term fix for energy required for their backbreaking physical labour. In the medieval period, people preferred to drink alcohol over water. Reasons such as safety and social status contributed to this prevalent mindset. However, historical records and articles all imply that this topic is difficult to give a concrete conclusion on. It is important to recognise that people living during the medieval era recognised the value of water as fundamentally essential to human survival. So, though medieval people chose alcohol as their beverage of choice, there is no doubt that they still regarded water as an important drink too. However, and has been important to my assessment, so to is their intricacies in regards to wine and beer, that an assessment of social classes, oral traditions, and local records can illuminate. References Adamson, Melitta. W. “Beverages”, Food in Medieval Times, pp 48 – 51 (Westport, Greenwood Press, 2004) About History. “Most Common Beverages in the Medieval Periods”, https://about-history.com/most-common-beverages-in-the-medieval-period/ . Davis, Lauren. [Review] No, Medieval people didn’t drink booze to avoid dirty water, i09, https://io9.gizmodo.com/no-medieval-people-didnt-drink-booze-to-avoid-dirty-w-1533442326. Dove, Laurie L. “Did Medieval people really drink beer instead of water”, History: How stuff works, https://history.howstuffworks.com/medieval-people-drink-beer-water.htm. Pictures

All this time, you thought witches were supposed to be brewing up potions in those big, bubbling cauldrons. But what if we told you that instead, those massive black pots were full of a more popular poison: beer? As far as Halloween decorations and elementary school literature is concerned, witches are frequently portrayed as a craggy old woman with wispy gray hair, a big hooked nose, a pointed black hat, and maybe a broom. Those latter two accessories have historically also been tools of the once-female-dominated ale brewing trade, a connection that historians have been puzzling out for decades. Yep—historically speaking, those ladies in big pointy hats might have actually been brewing ale. Illustration of a 17th century alewife by David Loggan, via Wikimedia Commons. Women who brewed ale at home were known in medieval Europe as “alewives,” and they did so as part of their normal routine of domestic duties. While in contemporary America, beer brewing is often dominated by hyper-masculine stereotypes and entrepreneurship, ale brewing—much like butter churning or bread baking—was considered well within the domain of the woman’s sphere of work within the home. It was as much of a necessity of life as any of those other chores, given that fermented beverages were often safer to drink than water. And like butter, cheese, or any other homemade foodstuffs, if a household could produce enough beyond their own immediate needs, the women of the house often took their goods to market to make a little extra money. In order to catch as many eyes as possible, and to signal from a distance what they were selling, these “brewsters” wore tall hats. As a cottage industry, there was very little oversight or regulation to the home-grown brewing businesses, according to Rod Phillips in the comprehensive text Alcohol: A History. But there were also large-scale commercial breweries, widely owned by men, which were leveraging new technologies and making larger quantities of product. As these operations grew and took on the appearance of a "real" profession, with guilds and trade associations, women were by and large excluded. In the 15th and 16th centuries, small-scale ale producers, mostly brewsters, began to face accusations of a whole host of immoralities that caused irreparable damage to their reputations. According to Judith Bennett, the preeminent historian of women brewers in this period of England’s history, both the public and the male-dominated brewing industry accused brewsters of diluting or adulterating their ale with cheaper brews, and thus of cheating customers. Brewsters were also accused of selling tainted ales that could make drinkers sick, perhaps intentionally. And generally speaking, at this time, a woman having a working knowledge of herbal concoctions and medicines was highly suspect, and might face rumors that she was using her knowledge for nefarious ends. Thus, the sign of the humble alewife’s hat came to be associated with all the same evil maliciousness of a poison-peddling witch. Some historians deny the veracity of this association, such as Dr. Christina Wade of the blog Braciatrix, devoted to the history of women in brewing and bartending. She argues that during the later Middle Ages, when images of brewsters in such tall hats come into the historical record, witches weren’t yet associated with them. (Let alone the fact that it's unlikely that brewsters across Europe, a rag-tag assembly of home-spun brewers to begin with, collectively agreed on the tall hats as a form of marketing.) Illustration of medieval alehouse, via Robbins Library Digital Projects. She also questions another common connection drawn between brewsters and witches: that the broomstick leaned against the outside door frame of a home signaled that there was a cauldron full of ale inside, ready for customers. While the signal to that effect—called an “alestick”—was definitely a thing and was intentionally used to flag down passersby, there’s little to suggest that it was unanimously agreed upon that such a stick would have to be a broom.

The dark history of women, witches, and beer The history of women in brewing goes back millennia where it was a respected profession. How did it help give rise to our modern image of witches?

Historically, the beer commercial has long been a male-dominated domain. When women were included, it was primarily as eye candy or a joke device—or both . Now, a new Heineken ad is aiming to challenge the stereotypes of both beer ads and beer drinkers by playing with the stereotypes of certain drinks. Here, the beer is for the ladies. Created by agency Publicis Italy, we see waiters and bartenders mistaking elaborate fruity cocktails and flutes of champagne for the woman’s drink when all she wants is a beer. It’s a notion that feels incredibly outdated, as a trip to just about any bar will tell you that drinks of all stripes know no gender boundaries. If actual field research doesn’t convince you, maybe the years-long sales trend that has seen beer’s overall market share slow while growth of wine and spirits grew will. According to Nielsen, spirits actually led all growth in the alcohol industry last year. The good news is, they didn’t make the bottle pink. Still, it’s an interesting time for Heineken to wade into the gendering of booze, particularly in the context of the skyrocketing rise of hard seltzer, where brands like White Claw and even the new Bud Light Seltzer are consciously avoiding gender-specific marketing, helping to feed the category’s 200% growth last year. Maybe Heineken should consider remaking their hit 2009 commercial that hinged on the exact gender stereotypes that it’s now trying to dispel.

What do witches have to do with your favorite beer? When I pose this question to students in my American literature and culture classes, I receive stunned silence or nervous laughs. The Sanderson sisters didn’t chug down bottles of Sam Adams in “Hocus Pocus.” But the history of beer points to a not-so-magical legacy of transatlantic slander and gender roles. Up until the 1500s, brewing was primarily women’s work – that is, until a smear campaign accused women brewers of being witches. Much of the iconography we associate with witches today, from the pointy hat to the broom, may have emerged from their connection to female brewers. A routine household task Humans have been drinking beer for almost 7,000 years, and the original brewers were women. From the Vikings to the Egyptians, women brewed beer both for religious ceremonies and to make a practical, calorie-rich beverage for the home. In fact, the nun Hildegard von Bingen, who lived in modern-day Germany, famously wrote about hops in the 12th century and added the ingredient to her beer recipe. From the Stone Age to the 1700s, ale – and, later, beer – was a household staple for most families in England and other parts of Europe. The drink was an inexpensive way to consume and preserve grains. For the working class, beer provided an important source of nutrients, full of carbohydrates and proteins. Because the beverage was such a common part of the average person’s diet, fermenting was, for many women, one of their normal household tasks. Some enterprising women took this household skill to the marketplace and began selling beer. Widows or unmarried women used their fermentation prowess to earn some extra money, while married women partnered with their husbands to run their beer business. Exiling women from the industry So if you traveled back in time to the Middle Ages or the Renaissance and went to a market in England, you’d probably see an oddly familiar sight: women wearing tall, pointy hats. In many instances, they’d be standing in front of big cauldrons. But these women were no witches; they were brewers. They wore the tall, pointy hats so that their customers could see them in the crowded marketplace. They transported their brew in cauldrons. And those who sold their beer out of stores had cats not as demon familiars, but to keep mice away from the grain. Some argue that iconography we associate with witches, from the pointy hat to the cauldron, originated from women working as master brewers. Just as women were establishing their foothold in the beer markets of England, Ireland and the rest of Europe, the Reformation began. The religious movement, which originated in the early 16th century, preached stricter gender norms and condemned witchcraft. Male brewers saw an opportunity. To reduce their competition in the beer trade, some accused female brewers of being witches and using their cauldrons to brew up magic potions instead of booze. Unfortunately, the rumors took hold. Over time, it became more dangerous for women to practice brewing and sell beer because they could be misidentified as witches. At the time, being accused of witchcraft wasn’t just a social faux pas; it could result in prosecution or a death sentence. Women accused of witchcraft were often ostracized in their communities, imprisoned or even killed. Some men didn’t really believe that the women brewers were witches. However, many did believe that women shouldn’t be spending their time making beer. The process took time and dedication: hours to prepare the ale, sweep the floors clean and lift heavy bundles of rye and grain. If women couldn’t brew ale, they would have significantly more time at home to raise their children. In the 1500s some towns, such as Chester, England, actually made it illegal for most women to sell beer, worried that young alewives would grow up into old spinsters. [Get the best of The Conversation, every weekend. Sign up for our weekly newsletter.] Men still run the show Men’s domination of the beer industry has endured: The top 10 beer companies in the world are headed by male CEOs and have mostly male board members. Major beer companies have tended to portray beer as a drink for men. Some scholars have even gone as far as calling beer ads “manuals on masculinity.” This gender bias seems to persist in smaller craft breweries as well. A study at Stanford University found that while 17% of craft beer breweries have one female CEO, only 4% of these businesses employ a female brewmaster – the expert supervisor who oversees the brewing process. It doesn’t have to be this way. For much of history, it wasn’t. Editor’s note: This article has been updated to acknowledge that it isn’t definitively known whether alewives inspired some of the popular iconography associated with witches today. It has also been updated to correct that it was during the Reformation that accusations of witchcraft became widespread.

The American flag has become a symbol of right-wing politics. Democrats can insist otherwise, but honest observers will concede that when they see a house, vehicle, or wardrobe adorned with the stars and stripes, it probably belongs to an American whose conception of patriotism allows everyone to have easy access to a firearm arsenal, but medicine to remain a high-priced luxury item. The success of the right wing in their co-optation of patriotic language and symbols reached its absurd zenith on Jan. 6 when a mob of domestic terrorists proudly waved the flag and chanted, "USA!" before assaulting police officers and attempting to murder elected officials in their aspiration to replace American democracy with a dynastic dictatorship. Beyond the ignorance of the Trump insurrectionists, it is essential for the left to evaluate how the far right monopolized patriotism and the hallmarks of Americana without much difficulty. The left has always demonstrated a healthy aversion to displays of national pride. Understanding the manipulative power of the flag, and that maudlin tributes to "God and country" typically shadow the ongoing injustices that take place under their invocation, progressives have largely neglected to offer a counterargument to operationally anti-American pundits and politicians who personify the words of Jewish activist and journalist James Wise, often misattributed to Sinclar Lewis: "If fascism comes to America . . . it will probably be wrapped up in the American flag and heralded as a plea for liberty." Despite a justifiable reticence surrounding pious displays of American pride, the left has made a critical error by not forcefully confronting the right's self-serving, deceitful, and hateful brand of chauvinism. Most Americans – left, right, and apolitical – desire to feel some affection toward their country, especially considering that people have the tendency to associate their own community with their country, distilling the abstract "America" into the concrete hometown of their youth. The late philosopher Richard Rorty brilliantly describes the contradictions of patriotism, and the self-inflicted wound of the left in refusing to cultivate a vocabulary of patriotism, in his prescient collection of lectures, "Achieving Our Country: Leftist Thought in Twentieth-Century America." Rorty begins with the assertion that "National pride is to countries what self-respect is to individuals: a necessary condition for self-improvement." "Those who hope to persuade a nation to exert itself," Rorty argues, "need to remind their country of what it can take pride in as well as what it should be ashamed of." The right wing is clearly childlike and delusional in its familiar refrain that any denunciation of American policy or history is tantamount to treason, but Rorty insists that by only associating patriotism with atrocity and oppression, the left disarms itself in debates about the identity of the country, and how best to advance a national construct that makes words like "liberty and justice for all" actionable and real. Rorty devotes most of his search for edifying patriotism to the beautiful and magisterial poetry of Walt Whitman, wisely celebrating the American bard's tributes to democracy, paeans to the working class, and lyrical advancement of the idea that the "password primeval" of America is in the voices of the "diseased, despairing, those whose rights others are down upon." In democratic practice, Martin Luther King famously argued that the civil rights movement was an effort to cash the "promissory note" of the Declaration of Independence and Bill of Rights. When I asked Jesse Jackson, who was one of King's aides, about the common sight of American flags at voting rights marches and Black freedom rallies in the 1960s, he said, "We used the flag and the cross for equality and justice. We made a convincing case that we represented a true form of patriotism because we had the Constitution on our side." The poetry of Whitman, and the leadership of King and Jackson offer insight into the distinction that the British poet and pamphleteer, Samuel Johnson, made in his essay on patriotism. Famous for the warning, "Patriotism is the last refuge of the scoundrel," Johnson wasn't condemning natural feelings of affection for one's country, but in his time and place, scoundrels like Donald Trump, Ted Cruz, and Tom Cotton, who are "self-professed patriots," more concerned with their own power and profit than any abiding sense of national prosperity or unity. "True patriotism," Johnson declared, is not only possible, but important. In recent years, as Trump invoked the flag to encourage hostility toward Black people, immigrants, and Muslims, and actually hugged and kissed the flag in a bizarre psychosexual display at a rally, more thoughtful and compassionate cultural figures have attempted to express "true patriotism" in rebuttal to "self-professed patriotism." No musician has a more all-American image than Bruce Springsteen. Committed to progressive causes since the late 1970s, he has consistently used his music to spotlight injustice, and as he puts it with no small measure of modesty, "measure the distance between the American reality and ideal." The widespread misinterpretation of "Born in the USA," for which he was partially responsible, is infamous, but the song itself is one of the most powerful explorations of an unjust war and societal neglect of working class veterans. In the past few months, Springsteen has made a concerted effort to communicate with his own predominantly white, Baby Boomer audience, seemingly with the awareness that many of his fans voted for Trump. First, there was a grievously ill-advised Super Bowl commercial for Jeep in which the rock and roll legend drives around a small town in Kansas in search of a chapel located at the geographic middle of the continental United States. While wearing a cowboy hat and impersonating Clint Eastwood, Springsteen suggests that Americans of diametrically opposed ideologies "find the middle." He offers no indication of how any Americans, irrespective of political persuasion, can find unity with the Trump cult that has not only rejected the possibility of compromise, but also empirical reality. Even more bothersome in terms of content is the replication of the imagery of Christian nationalism that is central to the far right fascist movement. Halfway into the Jeep ad, the camera zooms in on a cross hanging over a red, white, and blue map of the United States. Where this leaves Jews, Muslims, atheists and others who do not identify patriotism with Christianity is out of the realm of discussion. One should not expect too much from a multinational corporation making a major contribution to the climate crisis. It is disappointing at this late stage of his career, that Springsteen would shill for big business, breaking a record of integrity that dates back to when he rejected Chrysler's multimillion dollar offer of appear in one of their ads in the 1980s. Springsteen's investment in his own heroic myth seems to motivate his other recent attempt at rescuing patriotism from the anti-intellectual and anti-democratic sewer of right wing outrage. Together with his friend, former president Barack Obama, he has launched a podcast, "Renegades: Born in the USA." The two eloquent speakers explore American identity, race, and masculinity throughout the eight episodes of the series, but they do so in constant reference to themselves. They make a fine argument for social liberalism, and as the title would suggest, attempt to identify patriotism with diversity, acceptance of outsiders, and hospitality for those who are unconventional, but the larger message is lost in their unabashed egomania. During the first episode, Springsteen declares "My Hometown," his 1985 hit about communal conflict and loyalty, a "great song," and in the second episode, speaks at length about the "power of the idealism of the E Street Band." Not to let his friend outdo him, Obama, without any hesitation, offers as conclusion to part one, "People often ask me, 'What is your favorite speech'?" Then, proceeds to name one of his own speeches, and recite it verbatim. The natural question in response to such self-aggrandizement is "why?" Why is a former president squandering his authority and influence on a meandering podcast about his youth, and in the words of the Springsteen song, "boring stories of glory days?" It would appear that Bruce Springsteen and Barack Obama are coequal partners in the icon business. Believing that they can use their iconography to the advantage of liberalism, they are attempting to present their own stories as patriotic myths. As the banality of the podcast would illustrate, it is a poor political project; doomed to fail with anyone who does not already adore both the former president and rock and roll legend. The mission to become living and breathing icons is particularly fraught in an age of iconoclasm. In San Francisco, Chicago, and cities across the country there are various campaigns to rename schools and public buildings currently christened to honor everyone from George Washington to Abraham Lincoln. There is an opposition to the traditional icons of patriotism emanating out of a new focus on the injustices that they either ordered or observed without intervention. Indiscriminate slaughter of sacred cows also seems like poor politics, destined to alienate even those sympathetic with reinterpretations of American history. The campaign to, for example, remove a statue of Abraham Lincoln from a Chicago city park not only offers a narrow and boringly pious vision of history, but also further surrenders patriotism to the far right. If the left announces, "We don't want Lincoln," intentionally or not, they gift the author of the Emancipation Proclamation, and the president who saved the Union, to right wing demagogues. Howard Zinn, the brilliant historian and activist, once rebuffed a question about whether his classic exploration of U.S. history through popular movements, "A People's History of the United States," would influence young students to dislike their own country, and deprive them of patriotic heroes who could inspire them to strive to improve the conditions of their country. Zinn's response offers instruction to those who, like Rorty, are concerned about the future of critical patriotism on the left. We should be honest with young people; we should not deceive them. We should be honest about the history of our country. And we should be not only taking down the traditional heroes like Andrew Jackson and Theodore Roosevelt, but we should be giving young people an alternate set of heroes. Instead of Theodore Roosevelt, tell them about Mark Twain. Mark Twain — well, Mark Twain, everybody learns about as the author of Tom Sawyer and Huckleberry Finn, but when we go to school, we don't learn about Mark Twain as the vice president of the Anti-Imperialist League. We aren't told that Mark Twain denounced Theodore Roosevelt for approving this massacre in the Philippines. No. We want to give young people ideal figures like Helen Keller. And I remember learning about Helen Keller. Everybody learns about Helen Keller, you know, a disabled person who overcame her handicaps and became famous. But people don't learn in school . . . that Helen Keller was a socialist. She was a labor organizer. She refused to cross a picket line that was picketing a theater showing a play about her. And so, there are these alternate heroes in American history. There's Fannie Lou Hamer and Bob Moses. There are the heroes of the civil rights movement. There are a lot of people who are obscure, who are not known. We have a young hero who was sitting on the bus in Montgomery, Alabama, refused to leave the front of the bus. And that was before Rosa Parks. I mean, Rosa Parks is justifiably famous for refusing to leave her seat, and she got arrested, and that was the beginning of the Montgomery Bus Boycott and really the beginning of a great movement in the South. But this 15-year-old girl did it first. And so, we have a lot of — we are trying to bring a lot of these obscure people back into the forefront of our attention and inspire young people to say, "This is the way to live." The crucial insight that Zinn offers is that patriotism should spotlight virtuous behavior in service to justice within a shared community. Richard Rorty interprets Whitman according to that definition, and there are living artists who have employed their creativity in the discovery of ways to celebrate what is unique and good about America, without ignoring or lying about what is unjust and oppressive. Like Zinn, the poet Rita Dove locates patriotic profundity in the life of Rosa Parks. Her 1999 collection of poems, "On the Bus with Rosa Parks," makes the heroic activism of Parks central to American life. The bus not only rides through Montgomery, but all of American history, offering an invitation to anyone who would like to help push the passenger vehicle closer toward freedom, justice, and equality. "Pull the cord a stop too soon," Dove lyricizes, "And you'll find yourself walking a gauntlet of stares." The immediate impression is that she is describing the inhospitable response, possibly even violent, a Black American will receive in the "wrong" neighborhood, but the perspective soon widens to include the assassination of advocates for civil rights, and how those deaths continue to haunt American history: "Dallas playing its mistake over and over/ until even that sad reel won't stay stuck – there's still / Bobby and Malcolm and Memphis / at every corner the same / scorched brick, darkened windows." Dove advances an idea of patriotism that demands movement and insists upon forward progress. In her poem, "American Smooth," she not only pays tribute to the multicultural tapestry of American music, but also compares its sociopolitical life to a couple on the dance floor, finding its rhythm, continuing to dance to the sounds that surround them. The only error, Dove seems to warn, is to stop. As she herself implies with reference to the Kennedy brothers, Malcolm X, and Martin Luther King, tragedies and atrocities often leave mourners no choice but to stop, and in their pause, reflect on the gravity of the loss. In the immediate aftermath of the 9/11 terrorist attacks, there were many tributes to the victims, especially the firefighters and first responders who risked their own safety to save the lives of strangers. Martin Espada offers one of the most beautiful memorials of Sept. 11 in his poem, "Alabanza: In Praise of Local 100." It is dedicated to the 43 members of the Hotel Employees and Restaurant Employees 100 who died while working at the Windows of the World restaurant in the World Trade Center. Espada describes the wide range of countries where these workers – the dishwashers, the cook, the busboy – travelled from to make their home in America. With homage to Whitman's poem, "I Hear America Singing," he praises the majestic and soulful music of their labor, their voices, and their harmonious presence. Espada ends the poem with the imagery of war – "from Manhattan and Kabul" – and provides a dark, but profound insight into the separation between power and the people who are so often the victims of those who exercise it. Patriotism, like any feeling of affection, is only as useful as its ability to assist in the alleviation of human suffering, and the flourishing of human potential. In that respect, it is a localized iteration of compassion and justice, calling upon the best traditions of a particular country. A pandemic should have activated this form of patriotism throughout the United States, but the scoundrels most eager to wave the flag have little interest in helping the people who live underneath it. An entire set of policies – from voting rights to universal health care – should emerge out of the patriotic instinct. Otherwise, all the red, white, and blue gestures are nothing more than symbolism that is both empty and obfuscating. As John Prine sang in 1971 with eternal relevance: Well, I got my window shield so filled With flags I couldn't see. So, I ran the car upside a curb And right into a tree. By the time they got a doctor down I was already dead. And I'll never understand why the man Standing in the Pearly Gates said... "Your flag decal won't get you Into Heaven…"

Independence Day is America's birthday. This July 4 will be the first with Donald Trump as president of the United States. The country is in distress. Donald Trump and the Republican Party are largely responsible. They are trying to impose a "health care" bill that can reasonably be called a crime against humanity. It is likely to kill tens of thousands of Americans each year and leave millions more sick, suffering, miserable, homeless, in pain or in financial ruin. Advertisement: Trump and his 2016 presidential campaign are under federal investigation for conspiring with a foreign power to undermine American democracy (and thus disenfranchise millions of Americans) by stealing the 2016 election from Hillary Clinton. Whatever the investigation may reveal, this is an unprecedented event in American history. The social safety net and the very idea of the commons have been targeted for destruction by Donald Trump and the Republican Party. Their Malthusian politics have no use for the poor, the weak, the elderly and any other groups deemed to be "useless eaters." In all, America's citizens have been traumatized, the national mood is sour, racism and bigotry are publicly resurgent, and political violence is on the rise. The American people are also at war with themselves: Many of Trump's supporters appear to live in an alternate reality created by their Great Leader and the right-wing propaganda machine. For Trump's voters, up is down and day is night. Through Trump's presidency, they wish to impose their political cult on all other Americans. Advertisement: Ultimately, Donald Trump has debased the office of the presidency. The Republican Party and the corporate news media enable him. To a large extent, the United States has been made a mockery before the world in less than six months of the Trump presidency. The United States is a country that is truly in distress. I offer the following proposal. On this first Independence Day under President Trump, people of conscience and true patriots should fly the American flag upside down, as a collective signal of our national distress. This would signal that the United States is a country where the president is not above the law. Advertisement: This would signal that Donald Trump does not represent the majority of American people. This would signal that many Americans do not view Donald Trump as a legitimate president. This would signal that the American people stand against Donald Trump. More than that, it would symbolize that Americans, as individuals and as a people, are much better than Donald Trump and what he represents. Advertisement: Flying the American flag upside down in protest against Donald Trump's rule is an important act of symbolic politics. It signals to others that they are not alone and isolated in their opposition to Donald Trump. In fact, those who oppose Donald Trump and the Republican Party far outnumber their supporters. I am well aware that supporters of the Tea Party flew American flags upside down for several years, in what they perceived as patriotic protest against former President Barack Obama. But patriotism cannot be surrendered to the right-wingers, the zealots, the jingoists and the racists. It is time for the rest of us -- the vast majority, who support a pluralistic, forward-looking vision of America -- to reclaim it. Flying the American flag upside down in protest on this Fourth of July holiday can also help to sustain and inspire other types of political behavior, including protests, strikes, voting, organizing and the day-to-day corporeal politics of resistance that are necessary to protect American democracy from Trump and his allies. Advertisement: This Fourth of July, fly the American flag upside down. It is not anti-American or unpatriotic: It's the most patriotic thing you can do to celebrate our national independence. Tell anyone who asks, "Donald Trump is not my president. Not in my country. Not in my name."

Over the past year, COVID-19 has inundated the ICU where I work. Death and suffering have become the everyday norm. But I've also seen how our broken health care system amplifies the catastrophes caused by the virus. Last spring, one of my many gravely ill patients who required intubation, and who had to be put in a drug-induced coma while the ventilator breathed for her, turned the corner after many weeks. After the breathing tube was removed, her first words expressed panic – not about the constant din of alarms from cardiac and respiratory monitors or the critical illness that she had narrowly survived — but for fear of ruinous medical bills. Advertisement: She's not alone. One in 10 respondents to a Gallup survey in April said they'd avoid treatment if they thought they had COVID-19 because they feared the medical costs. Even before the pandemic, 30 million people were uninsured, 1 in 3 Americans struggled to pay medical bills, and illness and medical bills contributed to more than half a million personal bankruptcies annually. As our nation recovers from the horrifying second peak of COVID-19, and as it grapples with the most severe economic downturn since the Great Depression, it's time to eliminate the scourge of inadequate health coverage – forever. It's time to adopt Medicare for All. Today, in the medical journal The Lancet, I joined colleagues in providing the first comprehensive assessment of the Trump administration's impact on health, including in health care financing. We also make recommendations for action. Advertisement: As we document, health protections dwindled under President Donald Trump. Cuts to the Affordable Care Act's navigator and outreach programs, the growing red tape in Medicaid, and the administration's xenophobic "public charge" rule that frightened immigrants away from enrollment in nutrition and health programs caused the number of uninsured to swell by 2.3 million, including 700,000 children – and that's before the virus struck. When the pandemic hit, Congress moved to cover the costs of COVID-19 testing, treatment and vaccination for those without coverage. Yet some uninsured patients with COVID-19 have still received large bills. And many – including those with coverage – continue to face financial disaster from deductibles and copayments for non-COVID-19 illness. Meanwhile, gaps in coverage are growing. Millions of Americans have lost their jobs, and with it, their private health coverage. Many more have suffered income losses that will make copays and deductibles even more onerous. Advertisement: Make no mistake: Study after study has found that lack of health coverage is often fatal. Each year, tens of thousands of Americans die because they're uninsured and don't get vital care. But it's not just the uninsured who suffer; cost barriers of any kind are medically hazardous. Deductibles cause women with breast cancer to delay starting chemotherapy by 6 months or more. Insured heart attack victims who fear the costs delay going to the ER – a potentially fatal mistake. For heart attack survivors, copays and deductibles for medications increase the risk of future heart problems. High insulin prices kill young people unable to afford that life-saving medication. And many patients with asthma and emphysema suffer unnecessary exacerbations and hospitalization because they can't afford routine medications and care. Advertisement: As we show in our wide-ranging Lancet report, most deficiencies in our health care system predated Trump. His actions made those deficiencies more acute, however. It's therefore not enough to undo Trump's legacy. We need to go further. Urgent action to cover health care costs – including copayments and deductibles – for everyone is essential. Legislation introduced last year by Sen. Bernie Sanders (I-Vt.) and Rep. Pramila Jayapal (D-Wash.), the Health Care Emergency Guarantee Act, would cover medical costs for the uninsured, as well as copays and deductibles for those with insurance, for the duration of the pandemic. Advertisement: But a permanent solution – a Medicare for All reform – is needed in the pandemic's wake. Medicare for All would provide all Americans with comprehensive first-dollar coverage. It would improve health and save lives, even as it would save money. A recent analysis from the Congressional Budget Office estimated that such reform could reduce overall health spending by at least $42 billion each year; the $400 billion in annual savings from cutting out private insurer's waste would more than pay for the costs of expanding and improving coverage. The COVID-19 pandemic will, fortunately, end. But the ongoing suffering caused by our broken health care financing system will not – unless we take action. Nobody should ever awaken fearing medical bills, much less from a coma. The prescription is clear: Medicare for All.

Harley-Davidson was one of the president’s favorite companies less than six months ago. Now it’s the latest business to feel his wrath. That’s because on June 25, Harley-Davidson announced it will move some of its production overseas. The iconic American motorcycle brand said it was doing this to avoid retaliatory tariffs imposed by the European Union in response to U.S. import taxes. Advertisement: “A Harley-Davidson should never be built in another country — never!” President Donald Trump tweeted “Their employees and customers are already very angry at them. If they move, watch, it will be the beginning of the end.” Back in February, things were very different. At a meeting with executives at the White House, Trump praised Harley-Davidson for being “a true American icon, one of the greats,” and thanked them “for building things in America.” As an international relations expert who focuses on trade disputes, Trump’s anger at Harley’s announcement is understandable. He wants to promote Harley-Davidson for his “America First” agenda. The goal of this approach is to protect and create American manufacturing jobs. With Harley taking the production of its EU-bound bikes abroad, this does not look like a success for Trump. Advertisement: But this got me to thinking, in a world that depends on global supply chains, what makes a product truly “made in America”? Is a Harley really an all-American bike? Who even cares? What "made in America" means For consumers hoping to figure out if a product is made in the U.S., it’s trickier than you’d think. Advertisement: Products like American soybeans or corn are pretty clear-cut: They are grown and harvested in the U.S. by American farmers, in states like North Dakota and Iowa. The only inputs are seeds, land, fertilizer and water – all of which are easily found in the U.S. “American-made” clothing, on the other hand, becomes more ambiguous. Even when a garment is sewn in a factory in New York or Los Angeles, earning it its “Made in USA” tag, the fabric or thread may have been spun in Bangladesh or India with American-grown cotton. Advertisement: The Federal Trade Commission has a 40-page document that thoroughly explains what makes an item “Made in USA.” Basically, to earn that designation, a product has to be “all or virtually all” made in a U.S. state or territory. Only automobiles, textiles, fur and wool must disclose their U.S. content at the point of sale. Other products may use the tag as long as they follow the guidelines. Foreign or domestic Let’s take a closer look at vehicles. Advertisement: The parts that comprise “American-made” motorcycles and cars have been shuttled back and forth over North American borders ever since the North American Free Trade Agreement was signed in 1993. American auto manufacturers like Ford and Chevrolet depend on parts from Mexico and the EU and often assemble their cars in Canada. In 1994, Congress passed the American Automotive Labeling Act, requiring automakers to reveal the share of the parts that came from the U.S. or Canada, the country of assembly, and the engine and transmission’s country of origin. The aim was to encourage more patriotic consumerism on the premise that Americans would buy more of a product if they knew it was produced domestically. American University business professor Frank DuBois describes some of this data as misleading because it doesn’t break down what share of the parts came from the U.S. versus Canada. He created the 2016 Kogod Made in America Auto Index to track this and other information to come up with a more accurate indicator of how much of a car benefits the U.S. economy. His results reveal the fine line between foreign and domestic. Advertisement: For instance, Japanese carmaker Toyota assembled its 2017 Camry in the U.S. with an American-made engine and transmission. Three-quarters of the parts came from either the U.S. or Canada, giving it a “total domestic content” score of 78.5 percent. Similarly, Tokyo-based Honda built its Accord in the U.S. with an American engine, Japanese transmission and 80 percent U.S. or Canadian parts, giving it a score of 81 percent. General Motors’ Chevy Volt, on other hand, contains only 63 percent domestic content and half its parts are from outside the U.S. or Canada, even though its engine is American. The Ford Fusion is even lower: It has a U.K.-built engine, and only a quarter of its parts were made in the U.S. or Canada. A global bike As for Harley-Davidson motorcycles, they may be considered classic Americana, but the components of the bikes themselves come from many places outside the U.S., just like in the auto industry. Advertisement: Harleys sold in the U.S. are indeed assembled in one of four plants located in Wisconsin, Missouri and Pennsylvania. But the brakes and clutch are imported from Italy, the engine pistons are made in Austria, the bike suspension comes from Japan, and other electronic components originate in Mexico and China. While Harley-Davidson claims it attempts to use as many American parts as it can, the company is sometimes forced to go abroad to find the right parts in terms of cost and comparable quality. As for its plan to avoid the EU counter-sanctions, Harley plans to shift some production of bikes intended for European markets to facilities in other countries such as Thailand, where it’s building a new factory. But that won’t actually change anything for American consumers, no matter what Trump says. In other words, Harleys that Americans buy after its plans go into effect will still be as American as they were a year ago. And all the profits Harley makes will continue to flow to the U.S. Advertisement: Don’t go bananas So back to our original question, what does it really mean to be “made in America”? Since the 1980s, U.S. companies have been using this label in their advertising to push back against foreign competition as global production expanded into Asia and elsewhere. In this era of “America First,” the Trump administration has doubled down on this branding. But the truth is it makes little sense. Nor does attacking a U.S. company for moving some of its production – production intended for overseas markets and customers – to another country. Advertisement: In 2013 political scientist Mike Allison and I wrote an article that showed how the meaning of “domestic” can be very expansive. In the 1990s, for example, the U.S. filed a complaint with the World Trade Organization against the EU for quotas it set on bananas from Latin America. None of the products in the dispute were made in the U.S. or Europe, but two of the biggest growers of bananas — Chiquita and Fyffes — were headquartered in the U.S. and the U.K. respectively. Essentially, both the Clinton and first Bush administrations — as well as officials in the EU — fought over bananas made elsewhere because they figured corporate profits supported by a product mattered more than where it was made. Furthermore, consumers also look at other things besides where the product is made. In a 2017 poll, 69 percent of Americans surveyed said price is “very important” in considering the purchase of a product. Only 32 percent said not bearing a made in the U.S. label was a dealbreaker. So the problem with Trump’s tariff push is that other things matter more than where something is made. And companies will do what they have to do to stay competitive, even if it means moving overseas. Following Harley’s announcement, fellow bike maker Polaris said it was also considering moving some production from Iowa to Poland. Other companies in different industries will likely follow. While Trump may be following a hard line with tariffs against U.S. competitors, Americans will likely see negative effects from that move, either in the form of jobs being shipped overseas or prices rising due to reciprocal tariffs. Christina Fattore, Associate Professor of Political Science, West Virginia University

At the 1984 Republican National Convention, a young communist named Joey Johnson marched with a group of protesters through the streets of Dallas. Eventually the crowd stopped in front of city hall, where Johnson set fire to an American flag. He was arrested and convicted for breaking a Texas state law against flag desecration, and his case, Texas v. Johnson, eventually found its way to the United States Supreme Court. Texas, and many patriotic Americans, believed it was well within the state's power to punish such profound disrespect for an important national symbol. But Johnson and his legendary civil rights attorney, Howard Kunstler, argued that such a provocative style of protest was exactly the kind of expression the First Amendment was designed to protect. Burning the American flag did no harm to the United States. In fact, allowing it to be burned would reaffirm our national commitment to individual freedom. Advertisement: The Supreme Court, after one of the most memorable and entertaining oral arguments in its history, agreed with Johnson and Kunstler. But why? Can burning a flag really be considered "speech?" And if so, is the state's interest in protecting the very symbol of our nation really not important enough to ban a style of protest that very few Americans ever engage in? This episode explains why the Supreme Court reached the opinion it did, and why one of its most conservative members joined the majority in favor of flag burning. LISTEN: Heightened Scrutiny is a podcast about the landmark civil rights cases of the United States Supreme Court. Heightened Scrutiny is hosted and produced by Joe Dunman, assistant professor of legal studies at Morehead State University and one of the attorneys who represented the Kentucky plaintiffs in the landmark marriage equality case, Obergefell v. Hodges.

Does the right wing hate America? It has become a legitimate and important question to consider. Ambrose Bierce, in The Devil’s Dictionary, defined “patriot” as “the dupe of statesmen and the tool of conquerors.” Reasonable people should always view appeals to patriotism with skepticism, and even suspicion. When a political constituency emerges, however, that consistently demonstrates hatred for the essential spirit and character of a country, responsible citizens must collaborate to eradicate the influence of its members, and to minimize its political power. Advertisement: It seems like ancient history, even though in practical terms it was merely a moment ago, that the right wing appointed themselves as defenders of the flag and keepers of the American creed. Following the 9/11 attacks, supporters of the Bush administration, and even some of its smarmiest officials, created an environment of shame, threat and hostility for anyone critical of the “war on terrorism,” the PATRIOT Act, and the invasion of Iraq. Bill Maher lost his program on ABC after questioning the societal consensus that terrorists are “cowards,” and Ari Fleischer – then press secretary for President Bush – said that the post-9/11 era was one in which people had to “watch what they say.” When the Dixie Chicks ridiculed Bush’s foreign policy during a concert performance in London, right wing pundits organized a boycott, and many country radio stations cooperated. Filmmakers, writers, college professors, and even mainstream Democratic senators found themselves facing accusations of “anti-Americanism” for expressing dissent against the Iraq War. Phil Donahue, despite having the highest rated program on MSNBC, received an unceremonious dismissal from television, because his anti-war position presented “a difficult public face” for the network, especially given that its competitor, Fox News, was taking every opportunity to “wave the flag,” in the words of an internal memo leaked to the New York Times. The right wing would never accept anything less than triumphant declaration that the United States is the “greatest country in the world.” American superiority was the default doctrine, taken on faith, without any evidence or analysis necessary. Advertisement: In 2016, the right wing has elected as its party nominee for president a vaudevillian freakshow who routinely bashes and brands America as a “Third World country,” “nightmare,” “embarrassment,” and “hellhole.” The most significant change to occur in the interim period separating Bush jingoism from Trump anti-Americanism is the ascension of a black man with an Arabic-sounding name to the White House. Suddenly, in the eyes of right wing paranoiacs, America transformed from an Edenic paradise to an open-air torture chamber. Anyone so optically challenged as to not see the racist motivations for the extreme dislike of President Obama is intellectually blind, and likely an unhelpful citizen. The distortion of Obama – a moderate Democrat – into a monster has morphed into resentment toward the country that twice elected him. Dennis Miller, in his insipid remarks on the Bill O’Reilly show, regularly announces that “the country is gone.” The idea that an America worthy of love and respect has vanished – in a mere eight years – is a continual theme of conservative commentary. It is also the gust of flatulence that lifted Donald Trump into political prominence. His slogan, “Make America Great Again,” implies that the country is not great, but once was. Blacks, Latinos, women and gays – all of whom enjoy more opportunity and liberty now than ever before – would disagree, but their disagreement is largely irrelevant to the Trump movement. Making America great again is a nostalgic signal to feeble white voters, emotionally unequipped to deal with the reality that their story matters less and less to an American culture and economy where racial, ethnic and sexual minorities continue to gain power and authority. In their opposition to immigration, mockery of diversity and advocacy of theocracy, the right wing demonstrates that it not only hates what America has become, but has no understanding or appreciation for what America has always been. Advertisement: What has always made America great is its promise of freedom expansion and enlargement, its integration of various people with different beliefs and behaviors into a shared community, and its foundation as a secular republic with the ability to adapt to new information and make ethical improvements. The philosophy of the American Revolution was beautiful, but the brutality and hypocrisy of its implementation made the words of the Constitution seem like a cruel joke to those who could not vote, could not live in safety and freedom, and who could not even find a government willing to recognize their humanity. Martin Luther King saw those words not as cynical, but as a “promissory note,” and he, more than most, gave legitimacy and credibility to the American experiment in self-governance. Advertisement: America triumphs whenever it succeeds in extending freedom and opening opportunity. While still far from perfect, it has made magnificent progress in the expansion of freedom for women, blacks, Hispanics, gays and a variety of other people once locked in the basement of American institutions and culture. It is this exact measure of progress – the fulfillment of the American promise – that frightens and angers much of the right wing constituency. Consistently derisive toward women, supportive of voter suppression and indignant over the protection of rights for gay and transgendered Americans, the right wing illustrates nostalgia for an America that was still in the process of evolving into America. Walt Whitman believed that America was a new country in need of new poets. It was the first nation to make the possibility of human diversity, and unity through individuality, real and actionable. In Leaves of Grass, he writes that he “speaks the password primeval” and “gives the sign of democracy.” It, like he, contains multitudes, and includes the voices of slaves, prostitutes, deformed persons, the diseased, thieves and dwarfs. The egalitarian spirit of America is also a hospitable spirit. What defines America as a culture is its integration. Unlike most other nations, America is not, and has never been, homogenous. It is a blend of various peoples and practices. America’s vitality is directly attributable to its variety. Its excitement is a product of its diversity. Advertisement: When the right wing applauds a man who proposes the construction of a wall along the Mexican border, the deportation of 11 million immigrants, and the prohibition of Muslim entry into the United States, they reveal themselves as people fundamentally opposed to American culture and sociology. Recent studies from political scientists prove what everyone lucid has long suspected: Donald Trump’s supporters are motivated primarily and most powerfully by dislike for minorities, their belief that President Obama is a Muslim, and their outrage over how, according to their weird and warped interpretation of history and politics, the federal government is giving too much help to blacks at the expense of whites. Trump supporters, and other elements of the right wing, praise the Founding Fathers, but they seem most affectionate toward their worst aspects: racism, chauvinism and ethnocentrism. Advertisement: The best aspects of the founders do not seem to interest the right wing. In fact, the right wing routinely expresses disgust for the ideas that made the United States possible. As Matthew Stewart documents and explains in his fascinating account of the American Revolution, Nature’s God: The Heretical Origins of the American Republic, the Founding Fathers, with few exceptions, were secular men of the Enlightenment. Although they believed in religious freedom, they viewed organized religion with skepticism, if not outright contempt. The founders made a deliberate effort to separate church and state, and in doing so, hoped to minimize the influence theological precepts would have on public policy. As important as secular philosophy and governance is to American history and politics, the right wing would destroy it, and welcome a Christian Ayatollah as national leader. In February of 2015, a Public Policy Polling national survey found that 57 percent of Republicans would like to dismantle the Constitution, and establish Christianity as the State Religion. For all of America’s flaws and failures, it is a country vastly superior to the theocratic and ethnocentric nightmare the right wing envisions, and hopes to usher into reality: a country where clerical bullies regulate the private lives of citizens by fiat, immigrants are treated as enemy invaders, and blacks are kept under the white supremacist boot in fashion reminiscent of Jim Crow. Advertisement: The right wing often accuses liberals of disliking America, but upon scrutiny, this accusation reads like projection. While liberals have spent the last century making America more inclusive, just and loyal to its foundational promise of liberty and equality, the right wing has dreamt of living in an imaginary autocracy. The right wing nation looks nothing like the place that they clearly despise: the America that actually exists.

James Waterman Wise, an author, art dealer and lecturer who warned against Nazism before Hitler came to power, died in his sleep Monday at his home in Nice, France. He was 81 years old. Mr. Wise, the son of Rabbi Stephen S. Wise, wrote ''Swastika, the Nazi Terror'' in 1933, and, with Pierre Van Paassen, ''Nazism, the Assault on Civilization'' in 1934. He later covered the Spanish Civil War for The New York Post. Mr. Wise was an editor of Opinion, a journal of Jewish arts and letters, and a founder and research director of the Council Against Intolerance in America, which was active in the late 1930's and early 1940's. Writer and Editor He was also the author of ''Liberalizing Judaism'' and ''Jews Are Like That!'' Among his other publications, as writer or editor, were ''Mr. Smith, Meet Mr. Cohen,'' ''Our Bill of Rights'' and ''From Bigotry to Brotherhood.''

It has been said that when fascism comes to America, it will be wrapped in the flag and carrying the cross. This well-known line has been attributed to a number of people — most often to novelist Sinclair Lewis, but also to socialist leader Eugene V. Debs and even to populist Louisiana senator Huey Long — but none of them wrote or said it in precisely the way it has come down to us. It appears to be an aphoristic stone nicely polished by being handled by a lot of people. Advertisement: To have it reflect our current situation, we need to roughen it up. When Donald J. Trump was running for president in 2016, Lewis's novel "It Can't Happen Here," written quickly in 1935 as authoritarian leaders were rising in Europe, started to sell out. In it, populist demagogue "Buzz" Windrip, a Democrat (i.e., a pre-Civil Rights Act Democrat, who would be a Republican today), wins the presidency. As Beverly Gage describes it in a 2017 essay for the New York Times, Windrip — who was based on both Long and the anti-Semitic radio priest Father Coughlin — is not exactly Trump, but he's right "there" in a number of respects: Like Trump, Windrip sells himself as the champion of "Forgotten Men," determined to bring dignity and prosperity back to America's white working class. Windrip loves big, passionate rallies and rails against the "lies" of the mainstream press. His supporters embrace this message, lashing out against the "highbrow intellectuality" of editors and professors and policy elites. With Windrip's encouragement, they also take out their frustrations on Blacks and Jews. Advertisement: So, just a super guy — someone you could really rally around. And shriek. And chant about putting people behind bars. Apparently, the first iteration of the saying just had the bit about the time-honored false patriotism of wrapping oneself up in the flag. Then the faux-religiosity gambit of cross carrying was added. I think we must now edit and append it further: Advertisement: When fascism comes to America, it will be wrapping itself around the flag and holding a Bible upside down. And riding in a golf cart. Except this fascism is not so much "wrapping itself with" the flag but more like sexually assaulting it. Trump, a man who received five deferments from military service, seems to think the Stars and Stripes is a great-looking lady he can molest. ("I don't even wait!") I suspect he is less handsy with the gal he clearly respects more, the good old Stars and Bars. Advertisement: Oh, I forgot the tear gas and rubber bullets. So, we append further: When fascism comes to America, it will be sexually assaulting the flag, carrying a Bible upside down, riding in a golf cart, and enjoying the fact that tear gas and rubber bullets are in use against peaceful protesters. OK, that's getting too long. But now, naturally, I'm remembering the time fascism was hiding in his bunker (no, not in 1945 Berlin — the more recent time, in Washington). No harm in trying it out, right? Advertisement: When fascism comes to America, it will be sexually assaulting the flag, carrying a Bible upside down, riding in a golf cart, and enjoying the fact that tear gas and rubber bullets are in use against peaceful protesters — and then scurrying away to hide in a bunker. But it just becomes less elegant, more ungainly — and so less memorable. There is so much one could add, beyond hiding in that bunker — incessantly watching "Fox & Friends," tweeting instead of working, lying like breathing — that the mind refuses to latch on to anything. There is no substance, just chaos. Speaking of chaos, Trump and his gang of enablers have always reminded me of the year I spent in a fraternity. Somewhat to my surprise, I was elected pledge class president, and after a tumultuous year I tried my best to get a dozen young men through the seriously stupid, often dangerous and generally unhinged hazing of Hell Week, so they could, at last, become active members. Advertisement: I don't care whether they were ever actually in a fraternity or not, but people like Matt Gaetz and Jim Jordan and their boisterous, under-thinking ilk — really, nearly all of the Republicans in Congress — are precisely like a bunch of entitled and semi-educated frat boys who are simply used to getting their way. They insist on it, as toddlers will do. Donald Trump is the president of this house, which has to be Delta Iota Kappa, yes, the proud DIK House. To parrot a favorite Trumpian phrase, as everyone knows, those DIKs should have long ago been kicked off campus and had their charter revoked. OK, now I have to get the frat-boy concept in. It naturally rides with the golf cart, and it expresses so much—about white privilege, about entitlement, about binge drinking and barfing and "boofing" and generally being obstreperous and having one's way with "the babes" — one way or another. (Ask Supreme Court Justice Brett Kavanaugh if you need explanation of any of that.) When fascism comes to America, it will be sexually assaulting the flag, carrying a Bible upside down, riding in a golf cart with various frat-boy buddies, and enjoying the fact that tear gas and rubber bullets are in use against peaceful protesters — and then scurrying away to hide in a bunker. Oh, and crying about being a victim and about people not liking him. Well, the phrase is already unwieldy enough and even I've grown weary of it. Advertisement: I know some of you would quibble with my calling this fascism. You might call this neo-fascism or proto-fascism. But I'm too exhausted at this point to look those up. Call it über-fascism or Kentucky Fried fascism or Adderall fascism, or whatever else you'd like. Of course none of this is funny. Well, maybe it's mordantly humorous, the way you might laugh involuntarily as unmarked militarized police started shooting rubber bullets your way during a peaceful protest in the United States of America. Though thwarted to date, the Republican assault on the votes of more than 81 million citizens continues. Eighteen 18 Republican state attorneys general, 126 Republican members of Congress, and a bunch of dead-silent Republican senators have proven themselves more than happy to go along with it. So much for their fervent belief in states' rights, and that thing called the Constitution. And, yes, for the past number of years all journalists writing op-eds about the dangers of putting the grandson of a man named Drumpf in charge of anything are a bunch of Sinclair Lewis' Doremus Jessups, trying desperately to fight a tyrant with a mere pen. One does what one must. Advertisement: It's an extended Hell Week in America, at least until this guy is out of office. So you better bone up on that Greek alphabet and be ready to "drop trou" (ask Brett about that one, too). Listen up, plebes, they want you to come out on the other end as active members of something bigly, something terrific — something that's definitely not a democracy.