Shared posts

14 Jul 18:04

Politics Podcast: COVID-19 Deaths Are Rising. What Will The U.S. Do?

by Galen Druke, Clare Malone, Perry Bacon Jr. and Nate Silver
James.galbraith

Fiddle while the country burns, if you're the GOP

After more than two months of decline, the number of Americans dying from COVID-19 is increasing. In this installment of the FiveThirtyEight Politics podcast, the crew discusses how Americans think the U.S. should respond to this crisis and whether President Trump and other politicians are in agreement. They also explore a lesson some Democrats took away from the 2016 election — that the party should focus less on identity politics.

FiveThirtyEight Politics Podcast: COVID-19 deaths are rising. What will the U.S. do?

You can listen to the episode by clicking the “play” button in the audio player above or by downloading it in iTunes, the ESPN App or your favorite podcast platform. If you are new to podcasts, learn how to listen.

The FiveThirtyEight Politics podcast publishes Mondays and Thursdays. Help new listeners discover the show by leaving us a rating and review on iTunes. Have a comment, question or suggestion for “good polling vs. bad polling”? Get in touch by email, on Twitter or in the comments.

14 Jul 17:53

Abbreviated pundit roundup: White House attacks Fauci instead of dealing with the pandemic

by Georgia Logothetis
James.galbraith

Lots going on here, and the GOP is entirely at fault

We begin today’s roundup with reaction to the opposition research the White House has released attacking Dr. Anthony Fauci, who has been sidelined from the White House’s coronavirus response messaging because he dares to speak the truth about the pandemic raging across America. 

First up, Michael D'Antonio at CNN:

Note the difference between Fauci and Trump: One man, a dedicated public servant, offered his best analysis and, when new data emerged, corrected himself without hesitation so that lives might be saved. The other dug in to a don't-worry-about it position and has refused to budge as the passing months have led the US to become the leading global hotspot
Just as the pandemic has revealed Trump's tragic limitations, his abuse of Fauci confirms the President's deep character flaws. Fauci's lifelong devotion to science has been guided by a commitment to facts and a focus on helping others. Trump's lifelong devotion, on the other hand, has been to himself. This has led him to consistently deny facts that conflict with his ends, while he seeks credit for all that is good and blames others for everything that goes wrong. Along the way he keeps a mental scoresheet, noting who places Trump above all else, and who might value, say, human life more.

Greg Sargent at The Washington Post highlights how outrageous it is that the White House is attacking Dr. Fauci by selectively and misleadingly quoting his early advice:

It’s insane that the White House is editing claims from Trump’s own top health official to create the deceptive impression that he has not actually been far more correct about the coronavirus than Trump has. [...]

In drawing attention to all this, Trump’s advisers have reminded us that all these things — communicating with the public in good faith about an urgent matter; learning from new information even if it sheds unflattering light on earlier conduct; prioritizing public health over Trump’s perceived short-term political interests — are precisely what Trump himself will not do.

Karen Tumulty, also at The Washington Post:

That the Trump White House is treating the nation’s leading infectious-disease expert like some kind of political opponent tells you a lot about why the United States is doing worse than so many other countries in the battle to contain the novel coronavirus.

Joel Mathis at The Week argues that Fauci should quit:

Quitting would allow Fauci to speak to the public more freely about the ongoing health crisis than he can now. Even without an official portfolio, he would almost certainly still be welcome on any news network, podcast, YouTube channel, or newspaper op-ed page to sound the alarm and make the case for what he believes is the correct approach to containing the pandemic. He wouldn't even have to criticize Trump directly, since he clearly seems averse to doing so. But he would have the freedom to offer his best advice to the American public, who right now seem more willing than the president to take Fauci seriously.

Meanwhile, the White House is also putting pressure on states to reopen schools without any plan at all to protect the safety of students, teachers, and staff. As Paul Krugman explains at The New York Times, highlights the dilemma we face:

So we’re now facing a terrible, unnecessary dilemma. If we reopen in-person education, we risk feeding an out-of-control pandemic. If we don’t, we impair the development of millions of American students, inflicting long-term damage on their lives and careers.

And the reason we’re in this position is that states, cheered on by the Trump administration, rushed to allow large parties and reopen bars. In a real sense America drank away its children’s future.

On a final note, Michelle Goldberg notes that in other countries, schools are open and life has returned to almost normal, and calls for the president to resign:

The country’s international humiliation is total; historians may argue about when the American century began, but I doubt they’ll disagree about when it ended. [...]

Yet somehow there’s no drumbeat of calls for the president’s resignation. People seem to feel too helpless. Protesters can make demands of governors and mayors, especially Democratic ones, because at the local level small-d democratic accountability still exists. Nationally such responsiveness is gone; no one expects the president to do his job, or to be held to account when he doesn’t. That’s how you know the country was broken before coronavirus ever arrived.

14 Jul 17:50

‘Here’s your check’: Trump’s massive payouts to farmers will be hard to pull back

by Ryan McCrimmon
James.galbraith

The GOP can't get enough of welfare. They just object if Black people receive any.


Government payments to farmers have surged to historic levels under President Donald Trump as the Agriculture Department floods the industry with cash to stem the financial losses from Trump’s tariff fights and the coronavirus pandemic.

But as agriculture grows more reliant on unprecedented taxpayer support, farm policy experts and watchdog groups warn the subsidies are growing too big and too fast, with no strings attached and little oversight from Congress — and that Washington could have a difficult time shutting off the spigot.

Direct farm aid has climbed each year of Trump’s presidency, from $11.5 billion in 2017 to more than $32 billion this year — an all-time high, with potentially far more funding still to come in 2020, amounting to about two-thirds of the cost of the entire Department of Housing and Urban Development and more than the Agriculture Department’s $24 billion discretionary budget, according to a POLITICO analysis. But lawmakers have taken a largely hands-off approach, letting the department decide who gets the money and how much.

The massive payments have been a political boon to Trump in farm country — he tweeted in January that he hoped the money would be “the thing they will most remember” — but risk creating a culture of dependency, as farmers and ranchers work the bonus subsidies into their financial plans when making large, up-front investments in seed, feed and farm machinery.

“It’s a big problem for agriculture because it’s not sustainable,” said Anne Schechinger, senior economics analyst at the Environmental Working Group, a nonprofit watchdog organization. “It’s really difficult once you’re giving farmers this much money to then take away those [payments].”

It’s a problem for taxpayers, too: The size, speed and lack of scrutiny of the payments should concern the public, says Neil Hamilton, emeritus professor and former director of Drake University’s Agricultural Law Center.

“It’s just, ‘Here’s your check.’ There’s an incredible amount of trust that [farmers] will use it wisely,” he said. “But at the end of the day, it’s your and my tax money. It’s not a crazy idea to ask what the public’s getting from this, or could the public expect more for it.”

The spending surge began in mid-2018 when USDA started writing checks to farmers and ranchers to pay for the damage from Trump’s trade war, which brought about higher tariffs that crushed agricultural exports and commodity prices. Farm sales to China plummeted from $19.5 billion in 2017 to just $9 billion the next year; as producers continued to hemorrhage profits in 2019, farm bankruptcies jumped nearly 20 percent last year.

The trade bailout has now spanned three years and surpassed $23 billion, even though it was never appropriated by Congress. Instead, the money was funneled through USDA’s Commodity Credit Corporation, a Depression-era agency that can borrow from the U.S. Treasury to stabilize the farm economy.



“The administration picked these trade fights promising agriculture that this would lead to some better world at some point,” Hamilton said. “Rather than suffering any consequence for the ill-conceived strategy, they just said, ‘Hey, let’s tap the bank. We’ll buy our way out of this.’”

Because agriculture is both high-risk and vital to the food supply, the government has long been in the business of helping farmers and ranchers manage economic downturns, natural disasters and other headwinds; Congress routinely passes farm bills that include a suite of subsidies, conservation incentives, crop insurance and other safety net programs. Under the Obama administration, total direct payments to farmers ranged from $9.8 billion to nearly $13 billion per year.

But under Trump, the trade bailout and coronavirus relief efforts have pushed farm spending to more than twice that level, with far more in the pipeline.

USDA is currently distributing $16 billion in farm rescue payments, on top of standard farm bill subsidies, plus another round of trade bailout checks earlier this year. But bipartisan lawmakers are now calling for adding as much as $50 billion to Agriculture Secretary Sonny Perdue’s arsenal in the next stimulus package to help producers stung by supply chain disruptions.

Farm industry groups and their allies on Capitol Hill argue the money is needed to stem the steep losses after many of the biggest food purchasers, like schools and restaurants, stopped buying. Even as the cost of beef climbed at grocery stores during the pandemic, for example, the money wasn’t reaching cattle ranchers who received unusually low prices for their livestock from meatpackers.

Perdue himself has said there wasn’t enough aid to go around, forcing USDA to leave entire sectors out of its coronavirus relief program, like ethanol producers who shuttered half of their nationwide operations because of plunging fuel consumption.

A USDA spokesperson defended the aid programs as necessary to offset other nations' “unfair and illegal trade retaliation” against farmers. The spokesperson said Trump is trying to “fix broken trade deals and ensure all Americans enjoy free and fair trade with countries around the world,” touting the new USMCA pact, partial agreements with China and Japan and ongoing negotiations with the European Union and the United Kingdom.

“Recent estimates indicate damages to the U.S. agricultural sector from the pandemic alone could be as much as $50 billion over the next two years,” the spokesperson said in an email. “The president has issued billions of dollars of support to ensure American agriculture remains financially viable.”

Even before the pandemic, the industry was already in a vulnerable spot after a seven-year downturn in agriculture and farm debt rising to historic levels. The trade aid and coronavirus relief programs have been a critical lifeline for the hardest-hit producers. But the growing reliance on massive, one-off bailout packages could leave a painful hangover as soon as next year.

“It’s hard rolling back these things,” said Joseph Glauber, senior fellow at the International Food Policy Research Institute and former USDA chief economist. “The headlines are going to scream when [USDA] puts out a February 2021 farm income forecast that doesn’t show any ad hoc payments. Those will be ripped out of the balance sheet.”


For example, the University of Missouri’s Food and Agricultural Policy Research Institute in June released its baseline estimates, showing government farm payments falling from at least $32.8 billion this year to $16.6 billion in 2021. Barring a strong economic recovery, the drop-off would leave a gaping hole in many farmers’ bottom lines: According to FAPRI’s analysis, net farm income would sink from $90.6 billion in 2020 to $79.4 billion next year, a far cry from the 2013 peak of $139 billion.

For some farmers, the lost income could be the difference between staying in business or closing up shop. With less money coming in amid Trump’s trade war, a growing number of farmers started falling behind on their loans; the rate of delinquencies hit an eight-year high in the first quarter of 2020, according to S&P Global Market Intelligence.

That’s also a problem for the broader rural economy, from community banks and farm equipment makers to non-agricultural businesses that still rely on the sector to keep money flowing to the area.

The heartland’s reliance on steady farm income means the recurring debates in Washington over extending farm rescue payments for yet another year are likely to continue.

“There will obviously be political pressure to make sure the sector is as financially healthy as possible,” said Patrick Westhoff, FAPRI’s director. “If we’re looking at a sharp downturn in farm income in front of us without additional payments, you can bet there will be a lot of pressure for payments to occur.”

While most farmers and ranchers welcomed the sorely needed trade aid and coronavirus relief payments, ad hoc payments are seen as less reliable than established subsidies, crop insurance and other programs that producers can count on year in, year out. And the mixed messages from Washington each year about whether more bailout payments are on the way can leave farmers guessing as they try to make critical business decisions like securing farm loans or choosing which crops to plant.

“It’s one more source of uncertainty, and this is a time of a lot of uncertainty,” Westhoff said. “How much more complicated can we make this for producers?”

Pressure for more farm payments

Early this year, before the coronavirus started spreading in the U.S., industry groups and farm-state lawmakers were already calling for USDA to extend the trade bailout program for a third year — even though Trump had just signed a phase one pact with China that he touted as a historic win for U.S. agriculture, effectively voiding the main reason for another bailout.

Among those seeking another round of tariff relief payments in 2020 was the American Farm Bureau Federation. The powerful farm lobby group, which welcomes Trump as a regular guest at its annual gatherings, came out in support of more payments after some internal debate about whether the aid was still needed this year.

“We feel like we’ve crossed the deep part of this [trade war], but let’s trust but verify,” Dale Moore, the Farm Bureau’s executive vice president, said of the group’s thinking at the time.

Perdue repeatedly urged farmers not to plan on any more trade aid, arguing that the direct payments weren’t meant to become a permanent price-support program. But he was overruled by a Trump tweet promising farmers more bailout money if the agreement with China and the NAFTA 2.0 deal with Canada and Mexico didn’t soon pan out.

Once the coronavirus hit the U.S., any hopes for a farm rebound in 2020 were dashed, and the need for a surge of government payments to keep farmers afloat was widely accepted in Washington. Schools, restaurants and meatpacking plants shut down, and producers left without buyers were forced to start dumping milk, euthanizing livestock and plowing fruits and vegetables into the ground.



Between the coronavirus, trade headwinds and severe flooding in the Midwest last year, Moore said, “things are so far out of whack” that farmers need more financial help than the annual safety net programs can provide.

“Right now, that safety net is chock full of holes,” he said. “We’re headed into our seventh year of a down farm economy. Is that trendline going to change? Forget all the other factors that occurred in the last two or three years.”

November elections could shape future farm payments

Starting next year, the flood of government payments to farmers could be up in the air with a new Congress and potentially a new administration. Recent polls have shown former Vice President Joe Biden with a large lead over Trump.

“You have an election in November that could put a very different dynamic in the White House on this,” said Glauber, the former USDA chief economist.

Trump counts farmers and ranchers as some of his most loyal supporters, and he’s quick to talk up his trade bailout in stump speeches and on Twitter. “Our great farmers will receive another major round of ‘cash,’ compliments of China tariffs, prior to Thanksgiving,” Trump tweeted last November, even though U.S. businesses and consumers are paying for the duties rather than China.

That has bought the president significant support in rural America.

“The crossbar that President Trump’s team set, in terms of the number of times I’ve heard the president say ‘farmer, rancher,’ is fairly unusual,” Moore said. “Whether or not a different president would pay as much attention to agriculture as President Trump has, I can’t answer that question.”

Democrats have also stepped up their outreach to rural voters since being almost wiped out across the Midwest in 2016. It’s unclear if their renewed focus on farm policy would carry over into the White House if Biden wins in November.

So far, Biden's campaign has laid out an agriculture and rural policy platform that includes boosting farm exports and avoiding the tariff fights that have battered the industry under Trump. Biden has also hit the president specifically for the bailout payments in campaign ads. One spot features an Iowa farmer who says of Trump’s trade policy: “We’re going to screw you over and pay you off with somebody else’s money.”

The Trump administration has also faced accusations of using the trade bailout to shore up the president’s political standing with a key constituency.

“There’s definitely a connection between his supporters and the people who are getting the money from these huge payments,” said Schechinger of the Environmental Working Group. “I’m not going to say that he created [the trade bailout] to give money to his voters, because we can’t really prove that. But we do know that his base was largely in rural areas, and that is where this money has gone.”


Hamilton, the former Drake Agricultural Law Center director, said it’s “hard to see it as anything but political vote-buying” in battleground states like Iowa and Wisconsin that have received the bulk of the payments.

“Iowa’s kind of ground-zero in terms of the impact on soybean sales to China, or half of our ethanol plants being offline,” he said. “Look at where the payments are going. … Iowa’s probably a fairly important state in terms of the president’s hopes and plans for how he gets reelected.”

On the other hand, he said, there appears to be widespread support for the farm payments in Congress, including among farm-state Democrats. “They’re not going to say, ‘Stop the payments,’ right?” Hamilton said. “Everybody’s happy to receive them.”

The swelling of farm bailout program stands out as the defining feature of Trump’s farm policy. The record payments have overshadowed the president’s efforts to rewrite agricultural trade deals, rebalance biofuel policies between farmers and oil interests and overhaul clean water protections, meatpacking regulations and more.

“The top [issue] has to be the fact that you had record farm spending over these years,” Glauber said. “Most of it — the non-Covid stuff, the trade war in particular — was self-inflicted.”

Glauber, who spent more than three decades at USDA until 2014, said he doesn’t fault farmers who sorely need the financial help — or Perdue and the agency officials who were directed by the White House and Congress to quickly come up with complex farm rescue plans. But he said the aid should be considered “in a more rational way,” including more direction from lawmakers about how to divvy up the money among the many sectors of agriculture.

“They’re essentially giving [USDA] a blank piece of paper and saying, ‘Here’s a bunch of money. You decide how to spend it,’” he said. “The bigger question is, if you’re spending all this money, how do you wean yourself off it?”

14 Jul 17:07

Perfect Conditions

Click for full size
Perfect Conditions
<p>About the previous comic.</p> <p>While 8-bit pixel art doesn't look good on screenshots and they don't inspire or awe, they work for me and for many others. While I'll not have a poster of 8-bit hachi on my room my mind fill the blanks and I picture a lovable corgi doing lovable corgi things.</p> <p>It helps I played my fair share of NES games so I am used to it. Plus nostalgia is a thing.</p> <p>Also, I always find pixel art easier on the eyes. Many times on the 3d Bloodstained I felt the screen overloaded and busy with enemies full of details I could not really read because they were so small.</p> <p>My point is there are advantages on pixel art and if it all fails, there is always nostalgia.</p>
14 Jul 01:05

If fundraising is any gauge, Senate Republicans could get swamped in November

by Kerry Eleveld
James.galbraith

Here's to hoping

Senate Republicans are panicking. Not only did Democratic candidates crush the fundraising of Senate GOP incumbents and challengers by a collective $30 million in the first quarter of 2020, but Democrats' fundraising advantage has accelerated since then, according to Politico.

A slideshow prepared last month by the National Republican Senatorial Committee (NRSC) for GOP chiefs of staff and obtained by Politico ended on an image depicting a man on train tracks watching an oncoming freight train bear down on him.

The main driver of Democrats' advantage is a superior online game boosted mostly by the platform ActBlue. That and the fact that Democratic voters appear to be focused like a laser on ousting Republicans from power is reportedly imperiling the cash advantage that incumbents often ride to reelection.

During the meeting for chiefs of staff, the NRSC urged Republican senators to use a new online tool called WinRed, saying that failing to cut into Democrats' fundraising advantage could doom them.

Eric Wilson, a Republican consultant who led Florida Sen. Marco Rubio’s digital strategy in the 2016 election, called the situation a "slow-moving trainwreck," adding, "The warning signs are flashing right now, and they’re ignoring it."

Second quarter results aren't out yet, but many Democratic challengers have already announced sizable cash hauls while Republican senators have mostly kept their cards close to their chests. From April through June, for instance, Kentucky Democratic Senate candidate Amy McGrath, a retired fighter pilot challenging Majority Leader Mitch McConnell, raised $17.4 million; South Carolina Democrat Jaime Harrison raised nearly $14 million in his bid to unseat longtime GOP Sen. Lindsey Graham; and Iowa Democrat Theresa Greenfield raised $6 million in her race against Republican Sen. Joni Ernst. And those are in races that weren’t originally on the radar as particularly competitive.

Some GOP strategists are already chalking up the cycle to a learning experience for Republicans, saying 2022 GOP candidates should take note. "They have a simple choice: Adapt immediately or find a new job," Kevin McLaughlin, executive director of the NRSC, said in a statement.

Oof, stark. Also sounds like someone doesn’t want to be on the hook for a potential rout in November.

13 Jul 23:45

Mulvaney calls U.S. coronavirus testing abilities 'inexcusable,' breaking from Trump

by Caitlin Oprysko
James.galbraith

And yet every republican races to excuse it


Former White House chief of staff Mick Mulvaney on Monday criticized the U.S. coronavirus testing process, calling his family’s difficulties in obtaining tests and delays in the results “inexcusable” in the seventh month of the pandemic, splitting from his former boss’ repeated boasts about testing.

“I know it isn’t popular to talk about in some Republican circles, but we still have a testing problem in this country,” Mulvaney wrote in an op-ed for CNBC.

Mulvaney, who served in Congress before leading the White House budget office and becoming chief of staff, said that his son had recently been tested for the virus and had to wait up to a week for the results, and that his daughter was turned away from getting a test before she went to visit her grandparents.

“That is simply inexcusable at this point in the pandemic,” Mulvaney said.

Mulvaney’s anecdote comes as the Trump administration — and especially President Donald Trump — have touted the ramped-up testing capacity in the country since serious missteps early on hamstrung testing operations.



In an interview Friday with Telemundo’s José Díaz-Balart, the president declared that “our testing is far superior to anybody,” and just days earlier, he had proclaimed that “the U.S. is, by far, number one in testing” in the world.

And the White House initially tried to dismiss a new surge in cases throughout the South and West over the last month by attributing the new crush of cases to increased testing availability. But local leaders in areas where the new outbreaks are cropping up have raised concerns about the need for better testing, and the White House was forced to reverse course on a plan to wind down federal support for testing sites in Texas.

On Sunday, the administration’s testing czar Adm. Brett Giroir acknowledged that commercial labs, which he said conduct half of the nation’s testing apart from point-of-care tests, were experiencing delays in test results.

“We need to decrease the time to turn around those results, and we have a number of efforts,” he said on NBC’s “Meet the Press.”

In a press briefing Monday, White House press secretary Kayleigh McEnany brushed aside Mulvaney’s concerns, noting that the U.S. had conducted more than 40 million tests thus far and asserting that “we lead the world in testing,” while emphasizing that testing capability has improved significantly since the pandemic first erupted in the spring.

“So leading the world in testing, I would say that means we are doing a pretty good job,” McEnany said.

The editorial from Mulvaney, who now serves as the administration’s special envoy for Northern Ireland, was centered on his suggestions for lawmakers as Congress works to pass a fourth stimulus package later this month.

“Any stimulus should be directed at the root cause of our recession: dealing with Covid,” he wrote, focusing on money for research, temporary hospital beds or therapeutics rather than fiscal stimulus including travel incentives — though tens of millions of Americans remain out of work.


The statement from Mulvaney that the health crisis is still raging comes as the White House seeks to push forward with its plans to reopen the economy, taking the form in recent weeks of an aggressive push for schools to reopen in the fall, despite parts of the country reporting record numbers of infections.

Most of the president’s allies have adopted that line of thinking, arguing that Americans must learn to live with the virus before a vaccine can be developed, and Trump has even begun to wage a public campaign questioning his health officials offering dire evaluations of the pandemic.

Mulvaney wasn’t always so alarmist about the health crisis — at the CPAC conference at the end of February, the then-chief of staff accused the media of over-hyping the virus because “they think this is going to be what brings down” the president. Though he conceded the virus might be dangerous enough to shutter schools and public transportation, he sought to reassure attendees that the White House was equipped to handle the issue.

13 Jul 23:44

4 takeaways from Duda’s reelection as Polish president

by Zosia Wanat
James.galbraith

Stay way the fuck away


RZESZÓW, Poland — Andrzej Duda's reelection as Poland's president after a knife-edge runoff vote clears the way for the ruling Law and Justice party (PiS) to push ahead with reforms that have put it on collision course with Brussels.

Duda's narrow victory on Sunday, with 51.21 percent versus 48.79 percent for Warsaw's centrist Mayor Rafał Trzaskowski of the Civic Platform (with 99.97 percent of polling stations reporting), gives him five more years as head of state, with the power to reject legislation that he doesn't like.

More significantly, it means the PiS — which backs Duda — has at least three more years, until the next general election, to push its radical reform program and cement its place as Poland's dominant political power. It has a majority in the lower chamber of parliament, while the opposition-controlled Senate doesn't have the power to stop bills proposed by the right-wing party.

Duda's supporters say his reelection ensures stability in challenging times, not least because of the coronavirus crisis. His opponents say the head of state will yet again lack the independence to provide checks and balances on Polish politics.

POLITICO took a look at the specific consequences for domestic politics and Poland's relationship with the European Union:

1) Continued hard line on media and society

Duda and high-level PiS politicians, including the party’s powerful leader Jarosław Kaczyński, used the campaign to set out some of their priorities for the next three years of almost untrammeled power.

High on the agenda will be their continued reform of media laws to consolidate government control, in a country where state-owned television functions as a mouthpiece for the ruling party in a manner reminiscent of Communist times.

Duda and other PiS politicians complained bitterly of foreign interference when news outlets in Poland owned by foreign media companies reported stories that were critical of the ruling party.

Regarding its wider agenda to create a conservative, Catholic society, Duda and the PiS also used the campaign to whip up anti-LGBTQ sentiment and propose a constitutional amendment that would bar same-sex couples from adopting children. Kaczyński said he hopes the Constitutional Court, which the PiS has brought under its control, will ban abortion in cases where the fetus has suffered irreparable damage in the womb.

The party will also continue with its two flagship infrastructure projects — a mega airport in central Poland and digging a canal through a Vistula Split — which Trzaskowski firmly opposed.

2) Defying Brussels on courts and climate

Law and Justice's ambitions for bringing wider society under centralized state control also spread to other public institutions, including local government and, crucially, the judiciary.

PiS's sweeping reforms of Poland's legal system over the past five years, largely with Duda's support, have been at the heart of the clashes between Warsaw and Brussels. The European Commission has launched four legal procedures over concerns about the rule of law in Poland, going so far as to trigger the so-called Article 7 disciplinary process on charges that Warsaw is breaching the EU's fundamental values. If that process went all the way, it could see Poland stripped of its voting rights in the EU.

The tone during the campaign remained defiant: Asked about priorities for the second term, the powerful Justice Minister Zbigniew Ziobro said “finishing the judicial reform in the country is coming to the fore” in the ruling party's agenda.

Other reforms that could prompt clashes with Brussels include the ruling party's opposition to the EU’s climate neutrality target, where Poland is the only member country not to commit to drastically limiting carbon emissions across the bloc by 2050.

During the campaign, however, Duda insisted he has "an absolutely positive" attitude toward the European Union and that Poland would not be leaving the bloc under his rule.

3) Opposition licks its wounds

The PiS and Duda promised that his reelection would mean three more years of political stability, but the noxious tone of the four-month campaign has taken its toll on many alliances and partnerships in Polish politics.

It's still unclear what will be the future of the ruling coalition, made up of PiS and smaller right-wing groups: One junior partner, Porozumienie, didn’t approve of the first planned date of the presidential election in May because of concerns about coronavirus, even though Duda was then on a clear path to a first-round victory. PiS needs a coalition party to maintain its majority in the parliament but might start looking elsewhere, such as the far-right Konfederacja or the conservative Polish People’s Party.


There are also many question marks over the future of Civic Platform, the biggest opposition party. This is the sixth consecutive election in which it has lost to the PiS, and recently it has been shedding supporters rather than gaining new ones. Trzaskowski — who joined the race late in mid-May as a substitute for Małgorzata Kidwa-Błońska, who was doing very poorly in the polls — was seen by many as the last resort to reverse Civic Platform's decline.

His defeat may prompt a reshuffle in the leadership and/or a shift in its focus. At the same time, Trzaskowski attracted almost 10 million votes on Sunday — a much higher number than any other opposition candidate has received in recent years. The party may decide it cannot waste that political capital.

4) Divided society

Political and social divisions in Polish society have become so deep that exit polls were too close to call in the lead-up to Sunday's second round of voting. They portrayed a country split down the middle between young and old, rural and urban, east and west. Duda attempted to address such divisions during the campaign, saying he “respects all Polish people regardless of their views.”

Beyond such words, however, the president did little to bury such differences in a campaign that politicians described as exceptionally brutal. Desperate to shore up conservative support, Duda launched an aggressive campaign against the LGBTQ community and urban elites, whose interests were defended by the Warsaw mayor.

PiS leader Kaczyński even attempted to appeal to latent anti-Semitic sentiment, using an interview with an ultra-Catholic broadcaster to accuse opposition candidate Trzaskowski of supporting the payment of restitution to Jews for property stolen during World War II.

Celebrating his apparent victory on Sunday night as the results came in, Duda made it clear that he "doesn't regret" any remarks made during the campaign.

13 Jul 23:38

A protester was shot by police in Oregon. Democrats should demand answers.

by Greg Sargent
James.galbraith

seriously

Why isn't it a bigger deal that Trump continues to make unhinged military threats?
13 Jul 23:37

Democrats have a plan to automatically expand health coverage in a pandemic

by Dylan Scott
Joe Biden and Bernie Sanders bump elbows after the Democratic debate on March 15, 2020. | Mandel Ngan/AFP via Getty Images

Here are the highlights of the task force’s proposal.

As many as 27 million Americans may have lost their employer-sponsored health insurance along with their jobs during the coronavirus pandemic, according to estimates from the Kaiser Family Foundation.

Many of them may be able to maintain health coverage through COBRA or the Obamacare marketplaces or Medicaid. But some number, likely several million people, could end up becoming uninsured in the middle of the public health emergency.

Democrats have come up with a plan to prevent that from ever happening again. The Biden-Sanders unity task force has proposed automatically expanding health coverage during the coronavirus pandemic and all future public health crises.

The task force’s recommendations, which have not yet been officially adopted by the Biden campaign, would set up automatic support programs. These provisions would be triggered by increases and decreases in the unemployment rate. They include an aggressive expansion of Obamacare premium subsidies and a more generous public option plan than previously proposed by the Biden campaign.

“Their recommendations reflected the fact that financial barriers to getting care are a particular problem during a public health emergency, when the interrelatedness between everyone’s health is especially important,” Katherine Hempstead, senior policy adviser at the Robert Wood Johnson Foundation, says. “The suggestions seem designed to immediately fill some giant holes in our safety net which currently leaves lots of people without an affordable offer.”

Here are the highlights of the task force’s proposal:

  • Covid-19 testing, vaccines, and treatment would be free to all Americans
  • A 90-day special enrollment period would be established for people to enroll in coverage through the marketplaces (the Trump administration has pointedly declined to open up enrollment during the pandemic)
  • A no-deductible public insurance plan, administered by the Medicare program, would be established
  • People with incomes at 200 percent of the federal poverty level or lower would be automatically enrolled in the public option with no premiums owed; people whose COBRA coverage expires would also be automatically placed in the government plan
  • Obamacare premium subsidies would be expanded: The subsidy would be pegged to platinum-level coverage (which covers 90 percent of medical costs; currently it’s linked to silver-level coverage that covers 70 percent) and the eligibility cutoff at 400 percent of the federal poverty level would be eliminated

There are a few other highlights, provisions meant to help states maintain their Medicaid programs during a budget crisis and additional federal funding to cover 100 percent of the cost of COBRA coverage for people who are laid off.

The very concept of automatic stabilizers would be a big step. It’s an idea that has started to edge into the mainstream Democratic policy debate — Sens. Jack Reed and Michael Bennet, along with Rep. Don Breyer, have proposed instituting triggers for expanded unemployment insurance and other federal assistance programs — but getting a place in a presidential platform would be the most significant step yet toward making the policy a reality. (The Biden campaign said in an email that it looks forward to reviewing the task force’s recommendations.)

“Policymakers have spent a lot of time trying to figure out how to respond to the crisis and reach political consensus, and many have suffered in the process,” Larry Levitt, executive vice president for health policy at the Kaiser Family Foundation, says. “We still don’t know how many waves of coronavirus are ahead of us, and this will probably not be our last pandemic.”

However, even if automatic stabilizers receive Biden’s imprimatur, they would still likely be politically contentious if a Biden White House and a Democratic Congress tried to pass them into law. House Speaker Nancy Pelosi said earlier this year that she would support the concept, and some House Democrats were pushing for them to be included in the most recent stimulus bill that was in effect a wish list for the House majority. But automatic stabilizers still didn’t make the cut.

And given the tenor of the Democratic primary debate over health care, there is no guarantee a Democratic Congress could pass a bill that creates a maximally generous public option that would automatically enroll potentially millions of people.

“There would be an enormous political fight over an idea like this, even if Democrats sweep the election,” Levitt, a former federal health official under President Bill Clinton, said.

This story appears in VoxCare, a newsletter from Vox on the latest twists and turns in America’s health care debate. Sign up to get VoxCare in your inbox along with more health care stats and news.


Support Vox’s explanatory journalism

Every day at Vox, we aim to answer your most important questions and provide you, and our audience around the world, with information that has the power to save lives. Our mission has never been more vital than it is in this moment: to empower you through understanding. Vox’s work is reaching more people than ever, but our distinctive brand of explanatory journalism takes resources — particularly during a pandemic and an economic downturn. Your financial contribution will not constitute a donation, but it will enable our staff to continue to offer free articles, videos, and podcasts at the quality and volume that this moment requires. Please consider making a contribution to Vox today.

13 Jul 23:34

Couple Arrested After Brutal Assault on Black Worker at Connecticut Quality Inn: WATCH

by Andy Towle
James.galbraith

jesus people, get a grip

quality inn assault

A white man and woman suspected in the brutal racially motivated assault of a black female hotel employee in Connecticut have been arrested in Brooklyn, New York.

WFSB reports: “According to Stonington police, Philip Samer and Emily Orbay were found in Brooklyn, NY and taken into custody by U.S. marshals. They will be in custody as fugitives until extradited to Connecticut. Sarner was charged with second-degree assault, third-degree assault and intimidation based on bigotry and bias. Orbay was charged with two counts of third-degree assault and intimidation based on bigotry and bias.”

The assault took place in late June after a verbal altercation over hot water not working, which the victim, Crystal Boyd, said had been fixed.

Boyd said the couple called her a “monkey” and said “you don’t belong here.”

The post Couple Arrested After Brutal Assault on Black Worker at Connecticut Quality Inn: WATCH appeared first on Towleroad Gay News.

13 Jul 22:42

Roger Stone and Jeff Sessions are meeting two very different fates

by Paul Waldman
James.galbraith

and yet the GOP is fine with this

No president has ever demanded more loyalty, or deserved less of it.
13 Jul 22:39

Saturday Morning Breakfast Cereal - Defuse

by tech@thehiveworks.com


Click here to go see the bonus panel!

Hovertext:
Why don't mad scientists make it so if you cut the wire it always blows up?


Today's News:
13 Jul 22:34

Trump’s rage at Fauci just boomeranged back on him

by Greg Sargent
James.galbraith

No shit

New efforts to undermine Anthony Fauci blow up in Trump's face.
13 Jul 22:33

Ted Cruz Photographed on ‘American Airlines’ Flight Without Mask

by Andy Towle

Senator Ted Cruz (R-TX) was photographed on an American Airlines flight on Sunday, and he was flouting the carrier’s mask policy.

The New York Daily News reports: “Earlier in the day, the right-wing lawmaker held a political rally with a conservative Texas legislative candidate that was attended by an estimated 200 people, few if any of whom wore masks or took any steps to observe social distancing. Cruz’s act of defiance came as Texas faces a record-breaking outbreak of COVID-19 infections. Nearly 10,000 new cases and 100 deaths have been reported daily in the past week as hospital intensive care units in Houston and other big cities near capacity.”

The post Ted Cruz Photographed on ‘American Airlines’ Flight Without Mask appeared first on Towleroad Gay News.

13 Jul 22:26

The federal agency that’s supposed to protect workers is toothless on Covid-19

by Nicole Narea
James.galbraith

Is anyone surprised?

A worker sets an outdoor table for the Cipriani restaurant on June 22, 2020, in the SoHo neighborhood in New York City. | Stephanie Keith/Getty Images

Workers are facing perilous conditions as states reopen. The Occupational Safety and Health Administration could have protected them.

When Nevada’s casino workers went back to work for the first time since March, many found that their employers weren’t doing enough to protect them from the coronavirus. Casinos, including the MGM Grand and the Bellagio, didn’t immediately inform employees if a new case was detected or shut down their work areas. And they didn’t even require their guests to wear face masks for weeks after reopening, and until the state made it mandatory.

“It’s wrong that they didn’t prepare for handling this,” Sixto Zermeno, a bellman at the MGM Grand who recently tested positive for Covid-19, said in a statement. Management “had three months to prepare, and they didn’t. None of our upper management had a clue what to do, and that’s unfortunate. They put a lot of us and our families at risk.”

Workers across industries face a frightening situation as the United States continues to reopen. Zermeno and his coworkers have one advantage that most workers across America lack: an army of union lawyers to advocate on their behalf. The Culinary Union, the state’s largest, representing 60,000 workers, has filed a lawsuit in federal court. (MGM Resorts, which owns both the MGM Grand and the Bellagio, said in a statement that the lawsuit was the first it had heard of any issues with worker safety and that the union should have first contacted management to “share information and collaborate to keep workers and guests safe.”)

Most American workers aren’t unionized. They depend on state and federal authorities to enforce laws about workplace safety. And right now, they’re largely on their own.

The federal Occupational Safety and Health Administration (OSHA) has taken a laissez-faire approach to the pandemic — issuing non-binding guidelines on keeping workers safe that bear few consequences for employers who break them.

“I am horrified at OSHA. I can’t even call it a response,” Nancy Lassen, a labor attorney based in Philadelphia, said. “They delegated their enforcement authority and their substantive authority to state and local entities, which leaves the typical non-organized, non-union worker who has no lion protecting them at the mercy of whatever their employer decides to do.”

OSHA has already received over 6,000 complaints nationwide about workplace safety issues related to the coronavirus, more than half of which are from the health care industry. Nevertheless, the vast majority of those workplaces haven’t faced inspections.

Some states, including Virginia and Oregon, are working on their own coronavirus regulatory framework to fill the gap in protections for workers and enforce them at local businesses. Just as with other parts of the pandemic response, the lack of leadership from the federal government has put the onus on state authorities.

But in states that are less willing to regulate, restaurants aren’t abiding by occupancy limits, social distancing isn’t being enforced in distribution centers where there are already a high number of positive cases, and grocery stores are allowing customers to go maskless. Workers, meanwhile, have nowhere to turn.

The federal government is abdicating responsibility for protecting workers

OSHA’s formal standards on things like systems to protect workers from falls or warning them about hazardous chemicals in the workplace come with citations and hefty fines for organizations that don’t comply. The agency’s coronavirus guidelines — which the agency started issuing on March 9, before most states issued stay-at-home orders — do not.

They call for employers to develop their own infectious disease preparedness and response plans; implement basic prevention measures, such as regularly cleaning the workplace and encouraging good hygiene; ensure that sick people are identified and isolated quickly; and provide protective equipment, ranging from plexiglass barriers to face masks and gloves. They also offer industry-specific guidance tailored to different kinds of workplaces, including those where social distancing is difficult.

But the guidelines are nonbinding and unenforceable, essentially toothless without repercussions for employers who don’t comply. They have consequently drawn criticism from leading Democrats, including Sen. Elizabeth Warren.

There are business incentives for employers to ensure workplace safety amid the pandemic. The coronavirus doesn’t discriminate based on pay grade: Everyone from the entry level to the C-suite has an interest in creating a safe work environment.

But many of those highly paid white-collar workers have been able to work from home. As essential workers have stayed on job sites, OSHA isn’t holding employers accountable.

Labor Secretary Eugene Scalia, who oversees the agency, told Congress on June 9 that it has issued only a single citation related to Covid-19, proposing a $6,500 fine against a Georgia nursing home for neglecting to report within 24 hours that six of its employees were hospitalized.

There are steps that OSHA could still take to improve workplace safety amid the pandemic. When OSHA finds that workers are in “grave danger” due to exposure to toxic or physically harmful substances or new hazards, it can issue an emergency standard. Developing new workplace standards usually takes years, but an emergency standard would take effect immediately and last for six months.

The novel coronavirus, which has killed more than 130,000 in the US and could leave those who recover with permanent lung damage, could qualify as such a new hazard, labor lawyers argue. As part of a litany of demands, the AFL-CIO, which represents 55 member unions and almost 13 million members, has been pushing the agency to implement an emergency temporary standard to protect workers from infection since at least April. It even sought a federal appeals court order in May mandating that the agency adopt one.

Scalia has defended OSHA’s decision not to issue an emergency standard, writing in an April letter to the AFL-CIO that the industry-specific guidance it has already provided is more effective than a one-size-fits-all approach in a single emergency regulation. The agency didn’t respond to a request for further comment.

But the pandemic is playing out against the backdrop of the White House’s broader push for deregulation. One of Trump’s earliest executive orders, issued in January 2017, demanded that, for every new regulation proposed, at least two prior regulations should be slated for elimination.

Trump has since killed many Obama-era regulations, including a proposal to create a safety standard for health care workers facing airborne pathogens like influenza and tuberculosis. The standard would have required every health care employer, including nursing homes and hospitals, to develop and implement an airborne infection control plan and ensure that its stockpile of personal protective equipment, such as N95 masks, was adequate before the outset of the coronavirus pandemic, which created shortages of such equipment, David Michaels, the former head of OSHA and a professor at the George Washington University School of Public Health, said.

OSHA already has safety standards to protect health care workers from blood-borne pathogens, such as HIV or Ebola, but no such standard exists to protect them from airborne pathogens. A growing body of research suggests that the coronavirus is airborne — transmitted via respiratory droplets and, in some circumstances, aerosols, both of which are expelled while breathing, sneezing, or coughing — so the existing blood-borne pathogens standard does little to ensure workers are protected during this pandemic.

OSHA identified the need for an airborne pathogen standard after H1N1, a strain of influenza, spread to the US in 2009, and it became clear that many health care providers did not comply with the agency’s safety guidelines. The standard went through an extensive six-year review process and was on the agency’s agenda of regulations scheduled to be implemented in October 2017. But the Trump administration decided not to move forward with it.

“The Trump administration made it very clear: They don’t want new regulation,” said Michaels, who oversaw the development of the standard prior to stepping down in January 2017. “They want to get rid of regulation, no matter what the cost to the public in terms of their health and safety. The Trump administration appears to be opposed to regulation on principle.”

OSHA has also chosen to selectively enforce some of its existing standards amid the pandemic, including a record-keeping standard that would require employers to report new coronavirus cases among their employees.

Under normal circumstances, employers are required to report work-related illnesses and injuries and resulting hospitalizations and deaths in a timely manner to OSHA. But the agency has argued that it is difficult to determine that an employee actually contracted the coronavirus in the workplace, given current levels of community spread, and that nationwide contract tracing is still in a nascent stage. Employers are therefore not obligated to report every employee who tests positive for the coronavirus.

Unionized workplaces have been demanding that their employers provide that information anyway. But workers in non-unionized workplaces, who have nothing to rely on but those OSHA reports, could be left in the dark about the amount of risk they’re taking on when they choose to go to work and whether they might have been exposed to the virus.

“OSHA had an opportunity, to our collective benefit as a nation, to require that you report all persons in your workplace with this illness,” Lassen said. “OSHA is a driver of federal government response and could and should have been out there enforcing legal standards from the beginning of the pandemic.”

But even if OSHA were taking meaningful steps to enforce its standards during the pandemic, the problem remains that the federal government as a whole has failed to communicate that worker protection must be a top priority. Employers have been incentivizing employees to show up for work by offering them hazard pay and pandemic bonuses, including in meatpacking plants, which President Donald Trump has ordered to stay open despite them becoming hot spots of infection. Instead, employers should be incentivizing workers to stay home for their own safety and that of their community, Michaels said.

Employers need to feel pressure to do so from the highest levels of government — and that’s not the message coming from the White House right now, he added.

“That requires the president to say it’s unacceptable to allow unprotected workers to be exposed to the virus,” he said. “Simply having more enforcement would be useful, but it’s not enough.”

Some states are stepping up to protect workers instead

With OSHA refusing to issue new standards or enforce existing ones with respect to the coronavirus, some states are developing their own emergency standards.

Virginia was the first to do so in June, with the state’s health and safety board voting to approve a new emergency standard and creating a template for other states to follow suit.

Commissioned by Gov. Ralph Northam, the standard will apply to every business in the state, requiring them to develop plans for handling workers exhibiting coronavirus symptoms, bar employees with coronavirus symptoms from showing up to work, and notify workers who may have been exposed to an infected coworker within 24 hours. It also codifies basic infection prevention measures, such as regular cleaning, social distancing, and hand-washing, and shields workers from retaliation should they call for better safety measures, privately or publicly, or wear protective equipment.

While employers face no penalties for failing to comply with OSHA’s coronavirus guidelines, Virginia’s standard will be enforced by state inspectors who could levy fines of up to $124,000 or force businesses to close if they fail to comply, according to the Washington Post. Some employers, however, have consequently denounced the standard, saying it imposes new burdens on businesses that are already stretched thin and trying to stay afloat during the pandemic.

Oregon has also recently clamped down on businesses with hazardous working conditions. Ahead of the July 4 weekend, Gov. Kate Brown said Oregon would be stringently enforcing the state’s standards mandating face coverings, physical distancing, and occupancy limits for businesses. She sent out staff from the Oregon Liquor Control Commission and the state’s Occupational Safety and Health division to conduct inspections statewide and issue citations, fines, and warning notices to businesses that fail to comply.

How workers can demand better protection

Workers can easily file a complaint online with OSHA if they feel unsafe in the workplace. But even in the best of times, it isn’t necessarily the best way for workers to pressure their employers to adopt better safety measures. The agency has limited resources: It can’t conduct a thorough investigation of every workplace where a complaint has been filed and, even if it does investigate, the process will take months, which is little consolation to workers who are facing imminent risk due to the pandemic.

“In most cases, OSHA is, at best, sending a letter or an email or a phone call to employers when they get a complaint from a worker and requesting that the employer respond, but OSHA rarely follows up to see if that response is accurate or if workers are protected,” Michaels said.

Filing complaints with state Occupational Safety and Health divisions and health departments is also an option. Those agencies are more active in some states, including Massachusetts, Virginia, Pennsylvania, and New York, than others.

Lassen, who represents a number of unions in Pennsylvania, recommends workers collectivize and, if need be, unionize. She has seen that strategy work in the grocery and food-processing industries and among public employees during the pandemic.

“The first thing I always tell people is, ‘Gather your fellow workers together and act as a group,’” she said. “People acting as a group tend to get a lot more attention from employers than squeaking wheels. Individual employees can get marginalized and isolated and retaliated against. But there truly is strength in numbers. Workers that are willing to say we rise together and we fall together have become less of a target and acquire more credibility.”

The National Labor Relations Act protects workers from retaliation should they engage in any concerted activity with respect to their hours, wages, and terms and conditions of employment. So workers who stage a walkout or picket over the lack of personal protective equipment available in the workplace and publicize their dispute with local media, for example, can’t be penalized for doing so.

Lassen says the pandemic could present an opportunity for the labor movement if workers can collectivize around their fear, get the likes of the United Food and Commercial Workers or the United Auto Workers Union to advocate on their behalf, and demand better working conditions through the collective-bargaining process. Workers only need to gather five employees to form a union.

“Go get yourself a lion,” she said. “You just need someone who has a bigger voice and will bring it to bear on your behalf.”


Support Vox’s explanatory journalism

Every day at Vox, we aim to answer your most important questions and provide you, and our audience around the world, with information that has the power to save lives. Our mission has never been more vital than it is in this moment: to empower you through understanding. Vox’s work is reaching more people than ever, but our distinctive brand of explanatory journalism takes resources — particularly during a pandemic and an economic downturn. Your financial contribution will not constitute a donation, but it will enable our staff to continue to offer free articles, videos, and podcasts at the quality and volume that this moment requires. Please consider making a contribution to Vox today.

13 Jul 22:16

Decades later, these remakes haven’t fixed their racial representation issues

by Ars Staff
James.galbraith

Yeah it's really not a good look

Barret was a complex character in <em>Final Fantasy VII</em>. Then you hear him speak in the remake...

Enlarge / Barret was a complex character in Final Fantasy VII. Then you hear him speak in the remake...

April saw the release of both Final Fantasy VII Remake (FF7R) and Trials of Mana, two 20-plus-year-old roleplaying games recreated for modern times. These re-imaginings have received solid receptions from both critics and players and introduced these titles to a new generation of potential fans.

But despite all the changes introduced in the intervening decades, both remakes unfortunately still include some of the same issues present in their original inspirations. Specifically, these games still do a poor job portraying people of color, via Barret in Final Fantasy and Kevin in Trials of Mana.

Blaxpoitation Barret

In the Final Fantasy VII Remake, Barret Wallace is many things: he is a good parent, a vigilante, a commanding officer, a robust party member, and a hero. He is shown to be an interesting and endearing person in a number of different ways. Through him we learn of how dedicated Avalanche is to stopping Shinra. He’s the first character to fully accept that their eco-terrorism has serious consequences, such as harm to innocents. Barret also reminds players of the hypocrisy in working for an evil corporation.

Read 21 remaining paragraphs | Comments

13 Jul 22:12

‘Radio Host Karen’ Has Been Fired as More Ugly Videos Turn Up: WATCH

by Andy Towle
James.galbraith

There's never just one video. Horrible people have been horrible for a long time.

Diana Ploss

Diana Ploss, the New Hampshire radio host who filmed herself harassing a group of Nashua landscaping workers because she heard them speaking Spanish to one another, has been fired from her job at WSMN Nashua.

Ploss was seen in a video shared over the weekend, yelling at the workers: “It is America. English. English. English. Is anybody here illegal?”

And arguing with a man who came to defend them: “Okay, so this guy decided he’s gonna come over here and be a social justice warrior. Because he’s a black man. He’s gonna protect the brown man from this white woman … white privilege, because she happened to walk by and heard this guy talking to all of these guys doing this work, in Spanish.”

Watch the video HERE.

ICYMI: ‘Radio Host Karen’ Harasses City Landscaping Workers for Speaking Spanish: WATCH

Wrote the station in a statement: “Dianna Ploss is no longer associated or affiliated in any way with WSMN or Bartis-Russell Broadcasting, LLC. We at WSMN value freedom of speech, freedom of expression and assembly. We will not tolerate discrimination, racism or hatred. We continue to present and offer on air opportunities for discussion, education and the exchange of opinions and ideas.”

Another video of Ploss harassing Black Lives Matter protesters has turned up.

The post ‘Radio Host Karen’ Has Been Fired as More Ugly Videos Turn Up: WATCH appeared first on Towleroad Gay News.

13 Jul 22:01

‘He Is and Always Will Be a Terrified Little Boy’

by Michael Kruse
James.galbraith

Historians will love this


Donald Trump is the damaged product of an absent mother and a sociopathic father.

That’s in essence Mary Trump’s assessment in her ultra-anticipated instant bestseller that’s due out Tuesday—Too Much and Never Enough: How My Family Created the World’s Most Dangerous Man.

For anybody who’s done the reading these past five years—from Wayne Barrett’s biography that was published in 1992 to Gwenda Blair’s multigenerational study from 2000 to psychology experts’ more recent efforts to explain this president—it’s a takeaway that’s not altogether unfamiliar. And the glut of books about Trump and his aberrant administration has contributed almost inevitably to a tendency to treat even the most hyped fresh releases as cash-grab ephemera to speed-read for damning tidbits and just as quickly forget amid the ruthless whirl of crises.

But hold up here for a sec—for the most devastating, most valuable and all-around best Trump book since he started running for president. In the vast Trump literature, this one is something new.

That’s because of the unprecedented access, and its pathos, which is because of the source—the president’s only niece, the 55-year-old daughter of his oldest brother, who died at 42 in 1981 in her estimation as a result of a pathological, decades-long destruction at the hands of his own twisted kin.

Mary Trump, to be sure, is a partisan (a registered Democrat who’s expressed public admiration for Hillary Clinton) with an ax to grind (she and her brother were all but excised from passed-down riches), and she writes, too, with palpable sadness and anger stemming from the long-ago loss of her father. The White House, meanwhile, predictably has dismissed her account as rife with “falsehoods” and “ridiculous, absurd allegations.” But she also holds a Ph.D. in psychological studies. And in these taut 211 pages, she puts us in new rooms, shows us new scenes with new details and lets us hear from members of the president’s nuclear family who have been conspicuously and obstinately mum. She is, after all, and by blood still, one of them—and “the only Trump,” as she puts it, “who is willing” to dish on what she calls “my malignantly dysfunctional family.”

Too Much and Never Enough (at least on its own) is not likely to hurt the president politically. (There’s plenty else at this point that’s doing that.) It’s not going to lead immediately to any legal jeopardy he doesn’t already face. It’s almost certainly not going to “take Donald down,” either, as she characterizes her impetus—first, she reveals, by having been foundationally helpful to a Pulitzer Prize-winning New York Times investigation, then by writing the rest of what she herself has written. But what this book does do is help us understand him, offering the most incisive rendering yet of why he is the way he is.

No matter what happens in November, historians will have to contend with the influences that forged the personality of one of the most consequential presidents ever—and in Mary Trump’s telling, the current occupant of the Oval Office, the man just shy of 63 million voters thought was the most preferable choice to lead their nation, is “a narcissist” whose “pathologies are so complex and his behaviors so often inexplicable that coming up with an accurate and comprehensive diagnosis would require a full battery of psychological and neuropsychological tests that he’ll never sit for,” whose “deep-seated insecurities have created in him a black hole of need that constantly requires the light of compliments that disappears as soon as he’s soaked it in.” She says he is “a petty, pathetic, little man.” She says he is “ignorant” and “incapable” and “lost in his own delusional spin.” She says deep down he “knows he has never been loved.” She says his reelection “would be the end of American democracy.”

I asked Trump biographers—people who’ve spent extended periods of their lives attempting to plumb his psyche—what they thought of her book.

Michael D’Antonio told me he found it “chilling.”

And Tim O’Brien? He believes it’ll be “indelible.”

“There were a lot of mob movies before ‘The Godfather,’ but ‘The Godfather’ gave us a very specific understanding of being in a mob family because it was this rich, detailed, inside account of how a family dysfunctioned together,” he said. “There was nothing new in ‘The Godfather’ about how mobsters rolled, but the portrait it painted was so searing and rich and authentic that it defined our understanding of a criminal family. And, yes, there have been other books about the Trump family—Wayne’s, mine, Gwenda’s—but none of us captured his family life in the way that she has.” O’Brien predicted Mary Trump’s work will have “a seismic imprint.” “It gives,” he said, “the deepest understanding of his family dynamics that anyone has provided, and how that shapes his psychosis, and why he’s such a dangerous leader.”


I was especially interested in the book because of a story I wrote in 2017. It was about the president’s mother—and why he had talked about her so much less than he had talked about his father.

Here’s how I started it:

“When Donald Trump moved into the Oval Office in January, he placed on the table behind the Resolute Desk a single family photo—of Fred Trump, his father. Sometime in the spring, White House communications director Hope Hicks told me recently, the president added one of his mother, Mary Trump. When, exactly, and why, Hicks couldn’t or wouldn’t say.“

On the fourth page of her book, this Mary Trump supplies the answer. She visited the White House the first week of April of that year, invited to a dinner to celebrate the birthdays of the president’s sisters, Maryanne (who was turning 80) and Elizabeth (75). The gathered clan entered the Oval.

“Maryanne,” the president said, “isn’t that a great picture of Dad?”

“Maybe,” she responded, “you should have a picture of Mom, too.”

“That’s a great idea,” the president declared—“as though,” writes Mary Trump, “it had never occurred to him.”

Reporting in 2017, I had tried to zero in on a distinct window of time when Donald Trump was a toddler, considering it not only an important moment for the purposes of my story but potentially one of the most important moments in the totality of his life. He was born in 1946, and his little brother, Robert, arrived two years later, their mother’s fifth and final child—final because she suffered severe complications after the birth: hemorrhaging, an emergency hysterectomy, an abdominal infection and a series of subsequent surgeries. She almost died. It took many months for her to recover and in some ways she never did.

I was cautious in how I treated this because psychologists I talked to were cautious in how they talked about it. They steered clear of family specifics, sticking instead to what’s known about the salience of a mother’s love for any child at that critical, formative age, and the potential psychological havoc of the lack of it.

In this book, Mary Trump has no such restraints.

The first sentence of the first chapter is this: “Daddy, Mom’s bleeding!”—a 12-year-old Maryanne wailing for help upon finding her disoriented mother on a blood-covered floor in one of the upstairs bathrooms in the Trumps’ big house in Queens. “For the next six months, Mary was into and out of the hospital,” she writes, and the “long-term implications” included “severe osteoporosis from the sudden loss of estrogen” and “excruciating pain from spontaneous fractures to her ever-thinning bones.” This exacerbated what was her somewhat stony nature to begin with: “… she was the kind of mother who used her children to comfort herself rather than comforting them. She attended to them when it was convenient for her, not when they needed her to. Often unstable and needy, prone to self-pity and flights of martyrdom, she often put herself first.”

She was “emotionally and physically absent,” she writes.

“The five kids,” she says, “were essentially motherless.”

Similarly unsparing are her descriptions of the president’s father. The book actually reads at times like a portrait principally of him, sketching Fred Trump as a callous, sneering, domineering, lying, cheating, vindictive, workaholic bigot. (He didn’t rent apartments to die Schwarze, which is how he referred to Black people, employing his first language of German. He also frequently used the phrase “Jew me down,” a pejorative term for haggling for a lower price.) He was in the end, in the words of Mary Trump, a “torturer,” “an iron-fisted autocrat,” “a high-functioning sociopath” who equated kindness with weakness and favored his second son at the disastrous expense of his four other children—particularly his namesake, Fred Jr., or Freddy, who “wasn’t who he wanted him to be” and was “dismantled” because of it.

She reveals as well by far the most intimate, even poignant glimpses at his late-in-life Alzheimer’s, describing a wig-wearing husk, coming downstairs in the evenings in “a fresh dress shirt and tie but no pants, just his boxers, socks and dress shoes,” asking what’s for dinner over and over, steadily forgetting the names and faces of everybody in his family—everybody, evidently, except Donald. “I don’t know if he remembered Dad,” Mary Trump writes, “because I never once heard him mention my father in the years after his death.”

“Fred,” she writes, “dismantled his oldest son by devaluing and degrading every aspect of his personality and his natural abilities until all that was left was self-recrimination and a desperate need to please a man who had no use for him,” she continues. “Fred destroyed Donald, too, but not by snuffing him out as he did Freddy; instead, he short-circuited Donald’s ability to develop and experience the entire spectrum of human emotion. By limiting Donald’s access to his own feelings and rendering many of them unacceptable, Fred perverted his son’s perception of the world and damaged his ability to live in it.”

The upshot, in her judgment: “Having been abandoned by his mother for at least a year, and having his father fail not only to meet his needs but to make him feel safe or loved, valued or mirrored, Donald suffered deprivations that would scar him for life,” leading to “displays of narcissism, bullying, grandiosity,” she concludes. “The rigid personality he developed as a result was a suit of armor that often protected him against pain and loss.”

She calls her uncle—the 45th president of the United States—“an epic tragedy of parental failure.”


A few years back, on a reporting trip to New York, I rode the subway out to the end of the F line in Queens and walked the half a mile to Jamaica Estates to take a look at what in the book is dubbed “the House”—the more-than-4,000-square-foot, 23-room, red-brick manse, set showily atop a hill, the biggest home on the block.

Inside, it was “formal,” “stiff,” “staid” and “cold,” friends of Fred Jr. have told me, recollections Mary Trump confirms. “The House,” she writes, capitalizing it like this throughout, giving it a special, sort of sinister air, “seemed to grow colder as I got older.”

She takes us in, past the neglected cement slab of a porch, into the library with studio family photos on the shelves but no books, down into the basement with fluorescent lights and black-and-white tile, “an old upright piano that stood largely ignored because it was so badly out of tune it wasn’t even worth playing,” and “my grandfather’s life-sized wooden Indian chief statues that were lined up against the far wall like sarcophagi,” as she describes.

“When I was down there by myself,” she writes, in a quiet kind of interlude midway through the text, “the basement—half illuminated, the wooden Indians standing sentinel in the shadows—became a weirdly exotic place. Across from the stairs, a huge mahogany bar, fully stocked with barstools, dusty glasses, and a working sink but no alcohol, had been built in the corner—an anomaly in a house built by a man who didn’t drink. A large oil painting of a black singer with beautiful, full lips and generous, swaying hips hung on the wall behind it. Wearing a curve-hugging gold-and-yellow dress with ruffles, she stood at the microphone, mouth open, hand extended. A jazz band made up entirely of black men dressed in white dinner jackets and black bow ties played behind her. The brasses glowed, the woodwinds glistened. The clarinetist, a sparkle in his eyes, looked straight out at me. I would stand behind the bar, towel slung over my shoulder, whipping up drinks for my imaginary customers. Or I would sit on one of the barstools, the only patron, dreaming myself inside that painting.”

It’s these types of keen peeks into private places that give this book its oomph.

We’re in the House.

We see Freddy dump a bowl of mashed potatoes on the head of a 7-year-old Donald. We see Donald hide from Robert his favorite Tonka truck toys. We see Robert kick a hole in a door.

We see their restive, insomniac mother, wandering “at all hours like a soundless wraith,” her children sometimes finding her come morning “unconscious in unexpected places.”

We see Fred chide Freddy without mercy, mocking him for wanting a pet, for playing a practical joke—for saying he is sorry. We see him deputize Donald in the degradation. “You know,” the second son tells the first, “Dad’s really sick of you wasting your life”—at a time when Freddy was a pilot in his 20s for TWA, having chosen to not follow in his father’s footsteps in the real estate business, and Donald was barely out of military school. “Dad’s right about you; you’re nothing but a glorified bus driver,” Donald says. “He says he’s embarrassed by you,” Donald says. “Donald,” his father says to Freddy, “is worth 10 of you.”

We see Freddy’s drinking get worse. We see Fred tell him to simply stop. “Just give it a quarter of a turn on the mental carburetor.”

We see family members gather at the House but not at the hospital the day of his death. We see Donald leave to go to a movie.

We’re in the House, “colder still,” for Thanksgiving a couple months later, and we see Robert put a hand on Mary Trump’s shoulder and point to her new, month-old cousin, Ivanka, asleep in a crib. “See,” he says, “that’s how it works.”

“I understood the point he was trying to make, but it felt as though it was on the tip of his tongue to say, ‘Out with the old, in with the new,’” she writes. “At least he had tried. Fred and Donald didn’t act as if anything was different. Their son and brother was dead, but they discussed New York politics and deals and ugly women, just as they always had.”

And we listen in as they try to mostly erase her from the estate after Fred’s death in 1999.

“As far as your grandfather was concerned, dead is dead,” Robert says. “He only cared about his living children.”

“Do you know what your father was worth when he died?” her grandmother tells her. “A whole lot of nothing.”

Now, in the middle of this grim and pitiless summer, in the last year of the first term of the presidency of Donald Trump, here is this book by his niece.

She presents her uncle as fundamentally and profoundly incapable of an empathetic or merely effective response to the challenges of this or any other era. “Donald,” she concludes, “withdraws to his comfort zones—Twitter, Fox News—casting blame from afar, protected by a figurative or literal bunker. He rants about the weakness of others even as he demonstrates his own. But he can never escape the fact that he is and always will be a terrified little boy.”

13 Jul 21:41

Breathtaking Innovation

Free healthcare for everyone, don't @ me

13 Jul 19:13

Scripted crime TV shows give viewers a dangerously false perception of how cops operate

by Tamar Sarai Davis
James.galbraith

No shit

As the uprisings against police violence force a national reckoning with how Americans conceive of police, calls to closely examine the role of pop culture in valorizing cops have grown more pressing. While the first cultural tentpoles to fall have been reality-based shows like Cops and Live PD (which were recently canceled), that scrutiny is increasingly being extended to scripted crime dramas, like Law & Order: Special Victims Unit (SVU)shows that week after week drill home the narrative that police are heroes who almost always treat survivors with respect, solve the case, and provide a pathway for the victims’ healing.

Soon entering into its twenty-second season, SVU is the longest-running series within Dick Wolf’s successful Law & Order franchise. The show explores the personal lives and professional work of detectives within the New York Police Department’s Special Victims Unit, which solves sex crimes. The series has been credited with opening up public conversations about sexual violence and consent, and highlighting less explored issues such as the backlogs of untested rape kits that languish in departments across the country. In fact, a 2015 Washington State University study found that viewers of SVU had a better grasp of sexual consent than viewers of other crime dramas like CSI or NCIS

However, the elements that make SVU extremely easy to watch—the formulaic episode structure, the heroism of its detectives, and their success in tidily wrapping up cases—also seeds audiences with false ideas about how police operate in real life and how effectively the criminal legal system grants justice. Those depictions are particularly powerful given that a majority of Americans, many of whom live outside heavily policed low-income communities of color, don't have any personal contact with the police and rely on the media to shape their ideas around who and what ensures public safety.

Mikki Kendall, an author and cultural critic whose work focuses on feminism, media representation, and policing, told Prism that these shows reproduce false ideas about law enforcement that often contradict widely reported news about police misconduct.

“I've noticed that, because people are fans of fictional cops, they then talk about how difficult police officers' jobs are based on the mythical presentation of what they do,” said Kendall. “I had someone argue with me that ‘In New York, we take sexual assault seriously,’ and I had to point them to the articles about New York cops raping rape victims before they understood that TV is lying.”

Elite squads

Unlike shows like Cops and Live PD, scripted crime dramas often focus on cases handled by non-uniformed officers in specialized units as opposed to the everyday operations of uniformed street patrol officers. While there are notable exceptions such as Blue Bloods, Chicago PD, and 9-1-1, many scripted dramas center on specialized units like FBI critical response teams, forensic units, naval criminal investigative units, major case units, and as in the case of SVU, sex crimes units.

This focus on specialized departments produces seemingly opposing but related effects. First, they create the sense that police spend the majority of their time investigating and solving serious crimes like kidnapping, rape, and murder. In truth, serious crimes comprise less than 5% of arrests. A recent analysis conducted by The New York Times of 10 city police departments, including Baltimore and Sacramento, found that serious violent crimes comprised less than 1% of all calls for service (911 calls, calls to emergency operators, police radio, etc.) received so far this year.

Second, the focus on specialized units separates the show's protagonists from police who patrol the streets and more frequently garner public scrutiny. In fact, when shows like SVU depict police misconduct, it is often perpetrated by uniformed beat officers and framed as an aberration from normal police activity, or a bad action taken by otherwise “good officers.“

“Dedicated detectives”

Sex crime investigations are the narrative vehicle for SVU, and with most episodes featuring reported cases, it can be difficult for viewers to grasp that in reality, almost two in three rapes are not reported at all. Surveys from survivors note that many reasons contribute to the decision to not report, ranging from fear of being mistreated by police to past negative experiences with law enforcement. But those negative experiences barely show up in television portrayals, in large part because the police themselves are served up to viewers as the heroes of the stories.

Indeed, perhaps the most significant element setting scripted crime procedurals apart from reality TV police shows is the relationship that viewers develop with the protagonists—characters who become more complex and beloved with every weekly episode or weekend marathon. In a 2018 interview with Rolling Stone, Warren Leight, the SVU showrunner between 2011 and 2016, noted that after the season 13 departure of lead character Elliot Stabler, played by Christopher Meloni, the show revamped to focus more on the personal lives of the survivors as well as the detectives. “I thought it had gone as far as it could go with odd stories and kinks,” said Leight, “so I chose to focus more on the emotional toll on detectives, victims and their family members.”

In the eight seasons since, viewers have learned about the detectives’ pasts, their lives at home, their families, and their personal relationships. With that character development has also come the entrenchment of the idea that while these “dedicated detectives” are flawed, they ultimately want to bring justice and protect both survivors and their families.

Those portrayals don’t speak to the many times police have ignored or cast disbelief on reports made by survivors or other special victims, like young children or the elderly.

And that doesn’t even address survivors whose attackers were police themselves.

Obscuring police misconduct

While SVU storylines featuring internal investigations of police sexual misconduct or violence against women are treated as one-off very special episodes, they actually are closer to reality: Sexual misconduct is the second most common form of violence committed by police officers against civilians, and 40% of law enforcement homes experience domestic violence.

Kendall says that this prevalence of police sexual violence lays bare the problems within carceral feminism, which she defines as the assumption that the criminal legal system will adequately help address the issue of sex crime.  

“When we're talking about carceral feminism, it's the idea that the criminal justice system works the same for all women, that if you just call the police they'll come help you,” said Kendall. “Well, SVU feeds into that because if you watch SVU, for the most part [detectives] believe every victim and they're nice to them. Sometimes they detour from that formula, but for the most part they're working hard every day and they're going to catch him and they're going to help put him away and they're pushing for people to testify because in TV land there might be a conviction.”

Those small screen depictions diverge from the realities of certain populations more than others. Police sexual violence is particularly prevalent for sex workers, for example, who are already criminalized and routinely report being approached by police for sexual favors. A 2002 study found that 24% of street-based sex workers who had been raped identified a police officer as the rapist. When sex workers do file reports of domestic or sexual violence to the police, law enforcement’s negative perceptions of them can often result in their cases not being believed or handled with the appropriate level of sensitivity.

Alternatives to the ineffective, harmful carceral system

Even when the police themselves aren’t responsible for an attack, the criminal legal system routinely fails to meet survivors’ needs in other ways that don’t show up on the small screen. A 2019 lawsuit from survivors in New York City alleges that the NYPD and its Special Victims Unit operate under a “male-dominated culture” and that the department ignored or mishandled their reports of rape by either not taking their allegations seriously or not keeping the victims updated on the status of their investigations.

Across the country, police are also not particularly efficient at resolving sex crimes when they are reported. Kendall noted that less than 15% of those accused of rape are ever even arrested because of the backlog of unprocessed rape kits.

“I understand on the surface level the idea that if a rapist gets arrested and prosecuted then it's a deterrent,” said Kendall, “except what we've seen is that rapists are not arrested for the most part.”

Further, as one of the few mainstream cultural products where sexual violence is deeply considered, shows like SVU don’t—and perhaps cannot—help viewers understand that there are avenues outside of the carceral system for seeking redress. Thus, for people uncomfortable with the criminal legal system—including those who see it not as a site of justice but rather a place where harm is compounded—few, if any, other options remain.

That’s not an idle concern, as illuminated by a 2007 report by the New York City Alliance Against Sexual Assault examining the obstacles sexual violence survivors experienced navigating rape crisis centers, hospitals, and aspects of the criminal legal system after an assault. When asked why she chose not to go to law enforcement following her assault, one respondent replied, “I didn’t want to arrest my best friend.”

Her words echoed a common sentiment, particularly in communities who’ve been most impacted by mass incarceration, where survivors who know their abuser may choose not to report because they don’t want them to be arrested and ultimately incarcerated given the significant harms of the criminal legal system.

The gap between television and truth

Even in the midst of the current uprising against police violence, though, Black survivors and Black families have sought out help from law enforcement. But all too often, their experiences do not reflect what is portrayed on shows like SVU.

That was the case for Oluwatoyin Salau, a 19-year-old Black activist from Tallahassee who went to the police on June 5 after being sexually assaulted only to be told that they would need more evidence before they could investigate her case. Two days later, Salau went missing, and on June 13, she was found dead at the home of a man who ultimately admitted to raping her multiple times. In the days following Salau’s death, her friend Ashley Laurent—one of the last people to see her alive—expressed both anger and frustration that the police chose not to do more when given the chance. "I personally feel like they could have investigated and gotten DNA," Laurent told the Tallahassee Democrat. "That's where they failed her. She could still be alive." 

Pieces of Salau’s story were echoed weeks later in Milwaukee, where police failed to investigate the case of a Black 13-year-old girl and a Black 15-year-old girl who had gone missing. When the young girls’ parents went to law enforcement with fears that their children had been kidnapped by sex traffickers, police declined to investigate, stating that the girls did not meet the criteria for an Amber Alert. Ultimately, members of the community formed their own search patrol and found the girls along with two other missing children at the home of a child predator who was running what appeared to be a sex trafficking ring.

In both of these cases and countless others, justice was denied not because of a failure to report, or a snag that was hit over the course of the investigation, but because of law enforcement's refusal to do the job they are purportedly designed to perform—a job that TV has conditioned us to believe we can entrust them with.

 Tamar Sarai Davis is Prism’s criminal justice staff reporter. Follow her on Twitter @TheRealTamar.

Prism is a BIPOC-led nonprofit news outlet that centers the people, places and issues currently underreported by our national media. Through our original reporting, analysis, and commentary, we challenge dominant, toxic narratives perpetuated by the mainstream press and work to build a full and accurate record of what’s happening in our democracy. Follow us on Twitter, Facebook, and Instagram.

13 Jul 16:44

The Goya Foods free speech controversy, explained

by Zeeshan Aleem
James.galbraith

Let me get this straight: GOP pushing to boycott Nike is Freedom, but Goya's being repressed? There's a theme here, but it's not a coherent view of speech.

A Black man in a hair net stacks yellow and blue boxes of Goya’s “Spanish Style” yellow rice on a pallet. Goya rice being packed for distribution at the company’s Secaucus, New Jersey, factory in 2013. | Yana Paskova/The Washington Post/Getty Images

Goya Foods’ CEO says his speech is being suppressed by a boycott. It’s not.

Goya Foods CEO Robert Unanue said on Friday that a growing boycott of his company in response to his recent praise of President Donald Trump amounts to a “suppression of speech,” tapping into the president’s ongoing narrative that liberals are proponents of an oppressive “cancel culture” that punishes those who exercise their right to free speech.

Calls for a boycott emerged after Unanue said that Trump was an “incredible builder” and that the US was “blessed” to have him as president at a White House event on Thursday meant to highlight a new advisory commission on creating economic opportunities for Latinx Americans. The praise elicited criticism from progressives, and a boycott campaign of Goya Foods backed by prominent political and cultural leaders like Democratic Rep. Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez and Hamilton creator and star Lin-Manuel Miranda rapidly spread across social media.

In an interview on Fox & Friends, Unanue argued that the online campaign revealed a double standard, pointing to the fact that he attended a healthy eating initiative at the invitation of former President and First Lady Barack and Michelle Obama in 2012.

“So you’re allowed to talk good or to praise one president, but you’re not allowed, when I was called to be part of this commission to aid in economic and educational prosperity and you make a positive comment, all of a sudden that’s not acceptable,” Unanue said.

“So, you know, I’m not apologizing for saying — and especially if you’re called by the president of the United States, you’re going to say, ‘No, I’m sorry, I’m busy. No thank you.’ I didn’t say that to the Obamas, and I didn’t say that to President Trump,” he added.

Conservative politicians and pundits have leapt on the boycott, popularized online as the #Goyaway campaign, as another sign of the existence of an extremist left seeking to obliterate discourse — and to enact punitive measures against those they disagree with.

“The Left is trying to cancel Hispanic culture and silence free speech. #BuyGoya,” Sen. Ted Cruz (R-TX) tweeted on Friday. Fox News contributor and former governor of Arkansas Mike Huckabee tweeted: “Cancel-culture leftists don’t need beans. Their speeches & whining already produce all the gas the planet can take.”

But while Unanue and his supporters on the right are decrying the boycott as an attack on his right to speech, in reality, it’s simply criticism of his political gestures.

“‘Buycotting’ is not suppressing speech. In fact, it is the opposite,” Jaime Settle, a scholar of American political behavior at the College of William and Mary, told me. “Corporate leaders have a choice: if they choose to publicly disclose their political views, they should expect people to respond by expressing their own, even if the public channels that speech through consumer habit.”

Unanue’s right and capacity to express his ideas about the president — or any other matter — remain intact even if profit margins at Goya, a multibillion-dollar company, take a hit due to pushback from boycott campaigns. Instead of free speech, the core issue is the social consequences that accompany taking a political position in a highly polarized political climate.

Unanue’s comments have turned Goya Foods into a left-right proxy war

Unanue, the head of the largest Hispanic-owned food company in the US, appeared at the White House on Thursday to announce that Goya Foods would be donating a million cans of chickpeas as well as a million pounds of food to food banks as part of the Hispanic Prosperity Initiative, a new advisory commission created by Trump which is tasked with increasing Hispanic access to economic and educational opportunities.

When Unanue spoke at the Rose Garden event at a podium just feet away from Trump, he did not just announce his donation, but also offered praise of the president, likening him to his own grandfather, a Spanish immigrant who founded Goya in 1936.

“We’re all truly blessed at the same time to have a leader like President Trump, who is a builder,” he said. “And so we have an incredible builder. And we pray. We pray for our leadership, our president, and we pray for our country, that we will continue to prosper and to grow.”

Unanue‘s decision to laud the president resulted in sharp blowback among Latinx progressives, who argued that Unanue’s celebration of the Trump presidency marked a betrayal of the Latinx community that buys his company’s products.

@GoyaFoods has been a staple of so many Latino households for generations. Now their CEO, Bob Unanue, is praising a president who villainizes and maliciously attacks Latinos for political gain,” tweeted former Secretary of Housing and Urban Development Julián Castro. “Americans should think twice before buying their products.”

Miranda, the creator of Hamilton, tweeted, “We learned to bake bread in this pandemic, we can learn to make our own adobo con pimienta. Bye.”

United We Dream, an immigrant youth-led organization, created a petition slamming Unanue for aligning with Trump and calling for a boycott of the company; #Goyaway and #BoycottGoya trended on Twitter after the remarks.

Commentators on the right responded to the boycott campaign with their own hashtag: #BuyGoya. Conservative pundits and politicians described the boycott as an attack on Unanue’s freedom of speech, and advocated for pushing back by stocking up on Goya products.

Amid the blowback, Unanue decided to appear on Fox News and Fox Business on Friday.

On Fox & Friends — one of Trump’s favorite television shows and a bastion of far-right thinking — Unanue began the interview by saying, “It’s good to be with some friends.” During the interview, he said the boycott constituted a “suppression of speech;” that he would not apologize for his remarks; and that the reaction to his praise of Trump revealed a double standard since his appearance at the Obama White House in 2012 garnered no controversy.

Later on Fox Business — during an interview he began by telling the host that he was doing a “great job” — he said the boycott was “a reflection, I believe, of the division that exists today in our country ... this great divide is killing our nation — we’re tearing down statues of Jesus Christ.”

“Abraham Lincoln had the great quote, ‘A house divided against itself cannot stand.’ And this can be the destruction of our nation, we are at that point,” he said.

In adopting this language, Unanue and his supporters have framed the boycotts as the latest example of an overzealous left that seeks to suppress the expression of everything it doesn’t like. Unanue’s comment about statues of Jesus being attacked evokes Trump’s talk of statue-toppling as a sign of a “merciless campaign to wipe out our history, defame our heroes, erase our values, and indoctrinate our children.”

Trump has, in recent months, portrayed efforts by antiracist protesters to pull down or criticize memorials commemorating historical figures who supported slavery, white supremacy, or colonialism as an attack on American values. (There are no signs that statues of Jesus are generally being targeted by protests, but there has been criticism of Eurocentric depictions of his image.) While protesters see these symbols as inappropriate celebrations of America’s history of white supremacy, Trump has tried to argue in highly racialized and nativist language that efforts to remove them represent a “totalitarian” crackdown on expression of identity.

But this language obscures the issue at hand. Antiracist protesters aren’t disputing the right of people to discuss Confederate leaders, they’re protesting their celebration. And similarly, Unanue is not having his views suppressed — he’s receiving criticism for signaling support for policies that boycotters see as unjust.

The boycotts aren’t suppression. They’re just more speech.

Freedom of speech as defined by the First Amendment in the Bill of Rights refers to restrictions on state action (specifically Congress’s ability to make laws) on the freedom of the public and the press to express their views. Boycotts led by consumers, experts say, fall under protected speech.

“Calls for economic boycotts are clearly speech, not the suppression of speech. Consumers have long tied politics to purchasing, and advocating business boycotts is undoubtedly protected speech,” Timothy Zick, a professor of government and citizenship at the College of William and Mary Law School, told me. “Mr. Unanue runs a large corporation, so it rings hollow to suggest that individual consumers are in any way suppressing his speech.”

One relevant precedent here is a 1982 Supreme Court ruling that an NAACP boycott of white merchants in Mississippi seeking to secure “compliance by both civic and business leaders with a lengthy list of demands for equality and racial justice,” was protected by the First Amendment.

Given that the boycott does not represent an infringement on his First Amendment rights, Unanue’s more substantive grievance might then appear to be that it’s unfair for his company to be penalized for his appearing at a presidential event, something he’s done before. But this line of thinking is flawed for a number of reasons.

The political climate is vastly different than the last time Unanue appeared at a presidential event: Trump has successfully worked to dramatically polarize American politics for the entirety of his presidency — even turning a public health emergency into a partisan war — and thus voluntary affiliation with his administration is rarely, if ever, perceived as neutral.

That polarization has been accomplished in part through Trump’s denigration of the US’s Latinx community, from the moment he kicked off his first presidential campaign by calling Mexicans rapists and criminals to his recent inability to address record high Latinx unemployment. And Trump’s immigration policy has targeted Latinx people in particular — featuring, for example, harsh detainment policies like child separation that violate international human rights standards.

“This is only one small chapter in a much wider problem of polarization over a host of issues,” Mugambi Jouet, a professor who specializes in polarization at McGill University, told me, noting that “the fundamental issues at play here are the question of immigration and xenophobic discourse and agenda of the Trump administration.”

Unanue has chosen to jump into the political fray at every juncture of this episode. Crucially, he chose not only to affiliate with Trump, but also praised the president in strong terms. And then Unanue went on to do two distinctly chummy interviews on Fox News where he said people criticizing him were the real source of division in the country.

The speed and intensity at which the backlash came is a function of this polarization — after three years of the Trump administration, very few Americans have ambivalent feelings about the president — but the boycotts themselves are an outgrowth of anger at the policies and behavior Jouet outlined.

Gustavo Arellano, author of Taco USA: How Mexican Food Conquered America, told the New York Times Unanue’s comments were a “betrayal” for many in the Latinx community who “see Trump as the antithesis of Latinos, in fact, as the enemy.”

For Unanue — the leader of a brand that “represents nurture and community and family and most importantly the kitchen” for Latinx Americans, according to Arellano — to endorse a president who has caused that community, and other communities of color, so much pain brings many a great deal of distress. Not only because Unanue said Trump himself was “incredible,” but because with his praise, Unanue seemed to endorse the president’s damaging policies.

Also of concern to those boycotting Goya are Unanue’s actions — not just his willingness to seek the friendly confines of Fox News, but his financial contributions to lawmakers who have enacted right-wing policies. Per CNN’s David Goldman:

Unanue has donated to Republicans in recent years, including $6,000 to the Republican National Committee and $1,000 to former New Jersey Governor Chris Christie in 2017 when he was running for president, according to the Center for Responsive Politics. Unanue also gave to $2,300 to New Jersey’s Democratic Senator Robert Menendez in 2010.

Robert’s brother Peter, who serves as Goya’s executive vice president, gave $100,000 to the anti-abortion National Right to Life Victory fund in 2012. And other Unanue family members who are shareholders of Goya have given thousands of dollars to other, mostly Republican candidates and politicians, including Trump.

Unanue remains free to express his political opinions. He took advantage of this freedom at the White House, and again on Fox News. What he’s witnessing with a boycott is not an agenda to prevent him from speaking his mind, but a rejection among a vocal set of fellow citizens of the ideas and endorsements he’s chosen to align himself with.


Support Vox’s explanatory journalism

Every day at Vox, we aim to answer your most important questions and provide you, and our audience around the world, with information that has the power to save lives. Our mission has never been more vital than it is in this moment: to empower you through understanding. Vox’s work is reaching more people than ever, but our distinctive brand of explanatory journalism takes resources — particularly during a pandemic and an economic downturn. Your financial contribution will not constitute a donation, but it will enable our staff to continue to offer free articles, videos, and podcasts at the quality and volume that this moment requires. Please consider making a contribution to Vox today.

13 Jul 16:42

As coronavirus pandemic rages on, fans don masks for Disney World's reopening

by Marissa Higgins
James.galbraith

No fucking way. Masks are hard enough without trying to get people to keep them on in Florida in July.

Disney World closed its Orlando, Florida theme parks and resorts in mid-March when the United States was finally starting to respond to the novel coronavirus pandemic in a significant way. In the last four months, as cases have continued to surge across the nation, a number of large-scale events and social gatherings have been canceled or closed, ranging from professional sports games to concerts, to movie theaters, to other theme parks, including Disneyland. Disney World has expressed interest in wanting to reopen in mid-July, however, and now that mid-July is here, the park has, indeed, reopened in part. There are reportedly a number of safety measures in place at the park, but as COVID-19 numbers continue to rise in Florida in particular, the decision to reopen the theme park has a lot of people horrified—and concerned for the long-term.

The Magic Kingdom and the Animal Kingdom reopened on Saturday, July 11. Epcot and Disney’s Hollywood Studios are set to reopen on July 15. And are people actually interested in going? According to local outlet NBC Miami, tickets for July have already sold out.

As Daily Kos has previously covered, Disney World revealed a number of changes it would make to the park in order to reopen. For example, park capacities will be limited, and guests will have to make reservations ahead of time for entry to the park. Character meet-and-greets aren’t happening, and neither are big crowd events, like parades and fireworks. Social distancing and mask use (for anyone over two-years-old) will be mandated inside the parks, with employees monitoring such usage. Guests and employees will also have temperature checks when they enter the parks.

“Hot or not, mask or not, we’re just happy to be here,” Diane Watkins told the Associated Press on Saturday. Watkins, who is a preschool teacher in Alabama, told the outlet: “I feel like everybody here is in the same frame of mind. Everybody is just so excited to be here.”

Now, Florida’s coronavirus numbers are important. On Saturday, state officials reported over 10,000 new cases, as reported by BuzzFeed News. To put that number into perspective, that’s the second-highest number of daily cases the state has seen so far. On Friday, the state reported 11,433 new cases. The other important note is that, according to state statistics, the number of coronavirus-related hospitalizations is going up, not down, with rising numbers in ICUs. 

"This is absolutely the busiest it's been since it all started," said ER physician Dr. Randy Katz, who works in Hollywood, Florida, when speaking to CBS News this week. He added they were seeing patients “come in on the hour.”

“What Disney is doing is really, I call it, akin to a living laugh because this is a wonderful experiment to figure out if we can reopen business and reopen our theme parks and do so in a safe manner,” Orange County, Florida Mayor Jerry Demings said in an interview on Saturday, as reported by local outlet FOX 11. It’s unclear how many people entered the park on Saturday, but CNN reports that “thousands” of people “walked through the gate.”

In the U.S. overall, more than 70,000 new coronavirus cases were reported on Friday. The total number reported in the U.S. is more than 3.2 million. 

People on Twitter have a lot to say about Disney’s move to reopen, too.

haven�t even made it in the gate yet and my heart is pounding out of my chest. just had to squeeze past a lane of opposite traffic while there�s this densely packed line for guest services. this is unacceptable � and I haven�t even made it into the park yet. pic.twitter.com/GTzsAjRlD2

� � carlye wisel (@carlyewisel) July 11, 2020

You won't find a bigger Disney fan than me. We had reservations for this week that we made 9 months ago. It wasn't a difficult decision to cancel. I was shocked they decided to move ahead. It's asinine that Disney World reopened today: greedy, reckless, and irresponsible.

� John Pavlovitz (@johnpavlovitz) July 12, 2020

Including lots of wry and dark humor.

Disney World just reopened and we already lost Goofy. pic.twitter.com/CggOsFli93

� Michael A. Balazo (@mbalazo) July 11, 2020

Hey kids! Are you sick of social distancing? Did you love Frozen? Well tell your parents to bring you to Disney World this Summer and you too can become an orphan like Elsa and Anna!

� The Volatile Mermaid (@OhNoSheTwitnt) July 12, 2020

Disney World reopening pic.twitter.com/I1riQZQ2WE

� Tom Zohar (@TomZohar) July 11, 2020

The new Disney World fastpass just sends you straight to the ICU

� shelb (@shelbytheclown) July 12, 2020

Opening DisneyWorld right now is just fucking Goofy.

� ChadLindberg (@ChadLindberg) July 12, 2020

Florida opening Disney World with record high numbers of COVID-19 pic.twitter.com/6qtYlQEL1f

� UnRooolie� (@unrooolie) July 12, 2020

​​​​​​In an interview with Reuters on Saturday, chairman of Disney’s parks, experiences and products division, Josh D’Amaro, told the outlet, “I feel really good about our environment.” D’Amaro added: “We’re taking this seriously.”  

13 Jul 16:34

My patient caught Covid-19 twice. So long to herd immunity hopes.

by D. Clay Ackerly
James.galbraith

well shit

Medical staff from myCovidMD provide free Covid-19 antibody testing in Inglewood, California, on June 19, 2020. The unknowns of immune responses to the coronavirus currently outweigh the knowns. | Mark Ralston/AFP/Getty Images

Emerging cases of Covid-19 reinfection suggest herd immunity is wishful thinking.

“Wait. I can catch Covid twice?” my 50-year-old patient asked in disbelief. It was the beginning of July, and he had just tested positive for SARS-CoV-2, the virus that causes Covid-19, for a second time — three months after a previous infection.

While there’s still much we don’t understand about immunity to this new illness, a small but growing number of cases like his suggest the answer is “yes.”

Covid-19 may also be much worse the second time around. During his first infection, my patient experienced a mild cough and sore throat. His second infection, in contrast, was marked by a high fever, shortness of breath, and hypoxia, resulting in multiple trips to the hospital.

Recent reports and conversations with physician colleagues suggest my patient is not alone. Two patients in New Jersey, for instance, appear to have contracted Covid-19 a second time almost two months after fully recovering from their first infection. Daniel Griffin, a physician and researcher at Columbia in New York, recently described a case of presumed reinfection on the This Week in Virology podcast.

It is possible, but unlikely, that my patient had a single infection that lasted three months. Some Covid-19 patients (now dubbed “long haulers”) do appear to suffer persistent infections and symptoms.

My patient, however, cleared his infection — he had two negative PCR tests after his first infection — and felt healthy for nearly six weeks.

I believe it is far more likely that my patient fully recovered from his first infection, then caught Covid-19 a second time after being exposed to a young adult family member with the virus. He was unable to get an antibody test after his first infection, so we do not know whether his immune system mounted an effective antibody response or not.

Regardless, the limited research so far on recovered Covid-19 patients shows that not all patients develop antibodies after infection. Some patients, and particularly those who never develop symptoms, mount an antibody response immediately after infection only to have it wane quickly afterward — an issue of increasing scientific concern.

What’s more, repeat infections in a short time period are a feature of many viruses, including other coronaviruses. So if some Covid-19 patients are getting reinfected after a second exposure, it would not be particularly unusual.

In general, the unknowns of immune responses to SARS-CoV-2 currently outweigh the knowns. We do not know how much immunity to expect once someone is infected with the virus, we do not know how long that immunity may last, and we do not know how many antibodies are needed to mount an effective response. And although there is some hope regarding cellular immunity (including T-cell responses) in the absence of a durable antibody response, the early evidence of reinfections puts the effectiveness of these immune responses in question as well.

Also troubling is that my patient’s case, and others like his, may dim the hope for natural herd immunity. Herd immunity depends on the theory that our immune systems, once exposed to a pathogen, will collectively protect us as a community from reinfection and further spread.

There are several pathways out of this pandemic, including safe, effective, and available therapeutics and vaccines, as well as herd immunity (or some combination thereof).

Experts generally consider natural herd immunity a worst-case scenario back-up plan. It requires mass infection (and, in the case of Covid-19, massive loss of life because of the disease’s fatality rate) before protection takes hold. Herd immunity was promoted by experts in Sweden and (early on in the pandemic) in the UK, with devastating results.

Still, the dream of herd immunity, and the protection that a Covid-19 infection, or a positive antibody test, promises to provide, have taken hold among the public. As the collective reasoning has gone, the silver lining of surviving a Covid-19 infection (without debilitating side effects) is twofold: Survivors will not get infected again, nor will they pose a threat of passing the virus to their communities, workplaces, and loved ones.

While recent studies and reports have already questioned our ability to achieve herd immunity, our national discourse retains an implicit hope that herd immunity is possible. In recent weeks, leading medical experts have implied that the current surge in cases might lead to herd immunity by early 2021, and a July 6 opinion piece in the Wall Street Journal was similarly optimistic.

This wishful thinking is harmful. It risks incentivizing bad behavior. The rare but concerning “Covid parties,” where people are gathering to deliberately get infected with the virus, and large gatherings without masks, are considered by some to be the fastest way out of the pandemic, personally and as a community. Rather than trying to wish ourselves out of scientific realities, we must acknowledge the mounting evidence that challenges these ideas.

In my opinion, my patient’s experience serves as a warning sign on several fronts.

First, the trajectory of a moderate initial infection followed by a severe reinfection suggests that this novel coronavirus might share some tendencies of other viruses such as dengue fever, where you can suffer more severe illness each time you contract the disease.

Second, despite scientific hopes for either antibody-mediated or cellular immunity, the severity of my patient’s second bout with Covid-19 suggests that such responses may not be as robust as we hope.

Third, many people may let their guard down after being infected, because they believe they are either immune or incapable of contributing to community spread. As my patient’s case demonstrates, these assumptions risk both their own health and the health of those near them.

Last, if reinfection is possible on such a short timeline, there are implications for the efficacy and durability of vaccines developed to fight the disease.

I am aware that my patient represents a sample size of one, but taken together with other emerging examples, outlier stories like his are a warning sign of a potential pattern. If my patient is not, in fact, an exception, but instead proves the rule, then many people could catch Covid-19 more than once, and with unpredictable severity.

With no certainty of personal immunity nor relief through herd immunity, the hard work of beating this pandemic together continues. Our efforts must go beyond simply waiting for effective treatments and vaccines. They must include continued prevention through the use of medically proven face masks, face shields, hand-washing, and physical distancing, as well as wide-scale testing, tracing, and isolation of new cases.

This is a novel disease: Learning curves are steep, and we must pay attention to the inconvenient truths as they arise. Natural herd immunity is almost certainly beyond our grasp. We cannot place our hopes on it.

D. Clay Ackerly, MD, MSc, is an internal medicine and primary care physician practicing in Washington, DC. He has served both as a faculty member of Harvard Medical School and as Assistant Chief Medical Officer at the Massachusetts General Hospital. He has also held positions in the government and private sector, including the White House, the Food and Drug Administration, and, most recently, as Chief Medical Officer of Privia Health. He can be reached at dclayackerly@gmail.com.


Support Vox’s explanatory journalism

Every day at Vox, we aim to answer your most important questions and provide you, and our audience around the world, with information that has the power to save lives. Our mission has never been more vital than it is in this moment: to empower you through understanding. Vox’s work is reaching more people than ever, but our distinctive brand of explanatory journalism takes resources — particularly during a pandemic and an economic downturn. Your financial contribution will not constitute a donation, but it will enable our staff to continue to offer free articles, videos, and podcasts at the quality and volume that this moment requires. Please consider making a contribution to Vox today.

13 Jul 16:32

‘Radio Host Karen’ Harasses City Landscaping Workers for Speaking Spanish: WATCH

by Andy Towle
James.galbraith

Of course she's a raving bigot

Diana Ploss

Diana Ploss, a New Hampshire radio host, filmed herself harassing a group of Nashua landscaping workers because she heard them speaking Spanish to one another.

“Are you speaking English?” Ploss yelled at the workers. “It is America. English. English. English. Is anybody here illegal?”

When confronted by a man about the harassment, Ploss grilled him: “They should be speaking English. Are they illegal aliens? Do they not speak the language? Why do you care? I’m not talking to you.”

“Because you’re harassing them,” the man replied, before Ploss questioned him about why he was wearing a mask.

“Because there’s a global pandemic going on,” the man replied.

“Okay, so this guy decided he’s gonna come over here and be a social justice warrior,” Ploss said. “Because he’s a black man. He’s gonna protect the brown man from this white woman … white privilege, because she happened to walk by and heard this guy talking to all of these guys doing this work, in Spanish.

Ploss has a radio show on WSMN Nashua. There is a petition for her to be removed form their lineup.

Ploss, who in 2018 also served as press secretary for anti-gay bigot Scott Lively’s failed Massachusetts gubernatorial campaign, posted “I’m not backing down” to her Facebook on Saturday night after her video went viral.

The post ‘Radio Host Karen’ Harasses City Landscaping Workers for Speaking Spanish: WATCH appeared first on Towleroad Gay News.

13 Jul 08:51

Two months after infection, COVID-19 symptoms persist

by John Timmer
James.galbraith

yeah, those recovery numbers have been horrifying

Two months after infection, COVID-19 symptoms persist

Enlarge

As the COVID-19 pandemic continues unabated in many countries, an ever-growing group of people is being shifted from the "infected" to the "recovered" category. But are they truly recovered? A lot of anecdotal reports have indicated that many of those with severe infections are experiencing a difficult recovery, with lingering symptoms, some of which remain debilitating. Now, there's a small study out of Italy in which a group of infected people was tracked for an average of 60 days after their infection was discovered. And the study confirms that symptoms remain long after there's no detectable virus.

The study was incredibly simple in design. Patients being treated in Rome for COVID-19 were asked to participate in a tracking study. Overall, 143 patients agreed and were enrolled in the study following a negative test for the presence of the SARS-CoV-2 virus. The group ranged from 19 to 85 years old, with an average age of 57. Overall, they had spent an average of 13 days in the hospital while infected, and about 20 percent had needed assistance with breathing.

Roughly 60 days later, the researchers followed up with an assessment of these patients. Two months after there was no detectable virus, only 13 percent of the study group was free of any COVID-19 symptoms. By contrast, a bit over half still had at least three symptoms typical of the disease.

Read 4 remaining paragraphs | Comments

13 Jul 08:50

Saturday Morning Breakfast Cereal - Economist

by tech@thehiveworks.com


Click here to go see the bonus panel!

Hovertext:
Mike Munger tells me economists don't actually think this, but my preference for believing they do is tragically stable.


Today's News:
12 Jul 20:17

Soooo, Corona May Cause Brain Damage Too

James.galbraith

Because why not

By Dan Duddy  Published: July 09th, 2020 
12 Jul 06:03

Those right-wingers who praised Sweden's response to COVID-19 are looking pretty stupid now

by Dartagnan
James.galbraith

no shit

It seems 2020 was the year that the political right fell into a weird love affair with Sweden. This “high-tax, welfare-loving country” with a universal healthcare system took a unique, “hands-off” approach against the novel coronavirus, much to the delight of Libertarians and anti-vaxxers eager to sow distrust of governmental actions on Facebook. Even traditional “conservatives” such as Newt Gingrich and Tucker Carlson reflexively jumped at any chance to capitalize on the public’s discomfort with social distancing and inconvenient business lockdowns imposed in this country.

The Swedish model, as it became known, eschewed business closures and relied entirely on the personal responsibility of Swedish citizens to demonstrate appropriate risk-avoidant behavior during the pandemic. Essentially, in Sweden, large public gatherings were banned—but bars, restaurants, shops and many schools remained open, with no specific guidelines regarding social distancing, beyond voluntary “common sense” measures. So the protocol in Sweden was, in practice, not particularly different from those being put into place by Republican governors in states which relied on their citizens’ “good judgment,” rather than mandatory face mask orders and of the shutdown of certain businesses.

And for about two months, into late April, the rest of the world could still gaze with wonder at the carefree Swedes who had inexplicably beaten the virus through their own volition, without any irksome mandatory orders or restrictions. Though harshly criticized by many scientists and medical professionals within Sweden itself, the methodology chosen by Stockholm found some very visible champions. Folks like Anders Tegnell, that country’s chief epidemiologist, declared rather presumptuously at that time that “Many countries are starting to come around to the Swedish way.” In the same interview, Tegnell candidly disavowed any knowledge in the economic consequences of Sweden’s efforts.

Sweden’s champions in this country drew heavily from the Libertarian right, including Republican Senator Rand Paul who always seemed to include a favorable reference to Sweden in his scripted exchanges with Dr. Anthony Fauci. One would generally expect a snooty ignoramus like Paul to make an idiot of himself every time he opens his mouth, but in this particular circumstance he was hardly alone. Indeed, for a brief moment the Swedes seemed the victorious heroes in the global war against COVID-19.

Unfortunately, that is no longer the “enlightened consensus.” As reported by Peter Goodman for The New York Times, not only does Sweden now have a fatality rate six to 12 times higher than its Nordic neighbors Denmark, Finland, and Norway (all of which imposed mandatory lockdowns and enforced quarantines), it has virtually nothing to show for these sacrifices from an economic standpoint.

This is what has happened: Not only have thousands more people died than in neighboring countries that imposed lockdowns, but Sweden’s economy has fared little better.

“They literally gained nothing,” said Jacob F. Kirkegaard, a senior fellow at the Peterson Institute for International Economics in Washington. “It’s a self-inflicted wound, and they have no economic gains.”

As far as comparisons with the U.S., which at least managed to establish mandated lockdowns in Democrat-led states for significant time periods, the per capita Swedish death rate is now 40% higher than even the U.S.’s horrendous figures.

Sweden’s ICU capacity was stressed, but never overwhelmed, a fact that also figured heavily in the early praise heaped upon the country’s unique approach. However, as noted by Eric Mack, writing for Forbes, a recent study of the Swedish “experiment” suggests a rather disquieting reason for that. It seems that once patients arrived at a hospital in Sweden and diagnosed with COVID-19, that prognosis—together with the patient’s age—was factored into whether they’d be “allowed” an ICU admission at all. In other words, it appears that doctors were letting older COVID-19 patients simply die, without admitting them for ICU treatment, so as to not overstrain their hospital capacities.

As Goodman’s Times article points out, Sweden’s experience is relevant to what is now happening in the U.S., where Donald Trump and his Republican collaborators have constantly framed the issue as one of “economy versus safety,” urging states to reopen their businesses as much and as soon as possible. Sweden tried that—the result was that people still voluntarily chose to stay away from businesses for their own safety, they still chose not to dine out at the Swedish equivalent of Applebee’s or Olive Garden, and they still chose not to patronize shopping malls and stores unless it was necessary.

The result was predictable. In addition to experiencing an abnormally high death rate, the Swedish economy is now no better off than any of its neighbors.

The elevated death toll resulting from Sweden’s approach has been clear for many weeks. What is only now emerging is how Sweden, despite letting its economy run unimpeded, has still suffered business-destroying, prosperity-diminishing damage, and at nearly the same magnitude of its neighbors.

Part of the reason, Goodman explains, is human nature: The human will to survive is greater than their will to shop. And Sweden’s economy, just like the American economy, is intertwined with those of other countries in the region (even though, as The Times points out, Swedes and other Scandinavians can actually afford to spend more money than Americans can during this pandemic, since they are secure in the knowledge that health care will be provided). Another factor dragging Sweden down, Goodman notes, was the unwillingness of its leaders to change course once it became apparent that the economy was not going to suddenly bounce back. As an example, Norway’s economy is expected to revert to normality far more rapidly; Norway locked down drastically, contained the virus with quarantining and testing, and is now re-opening rapidly.

In short, Sweden’s great “experiment” didn’t work at all. In fact, it backfired. And it appears that those in the U.S. who are trying to portray reopening as some kind of necessary “economic trade-off,” with human lives as the bargaining chips, are leading us to a similar fate. 

12 Jul 04:58

Trump must be impeached and removed for commuting Roger Stone's sentence. Rule of law demands it

by Ian Reifowitz
James.galbraith

no shit

It’s very simple: By commuting Roger Stone’s sentence, The Man Who Lost The Popular Vote has sent a clear signal that anyone who does something illegal on his behalf, or who has knowledge of something illegal he has done and lies about it under oath, and/or to investigators, will never be punished. This an act that fatally weakens the constitutionally mandated checks and balances through which our democracy prevents a president from achieving dictatorial power.

Investigations cannot proceed toward any sort of justice if no one is required to tell the truth. That much should be apparent to any reasonable, objective observer, no matter their party. This president has now created a shield around himself so that he can—so long as he simply maintains the loyalty of his minions—do literally anything he wants and remain free of accountability or punishment. That cannot be allowed to stand. Our system offers but one remedy.

Thus far, only a single Republican office-holder of note has spoken out about Trump’s attack on the rule of law. All other Republicans must take a stand—either for the would-be Tyrant from Trump Tower, or for American constitutional democracy. There is no in-between.

Unprecedented, historic corruption: an American president commutes the sentence of a person convicted by a jury of lying to shield that very president.

— Mitt Romney (@MittRomney) July 11, 2020

We know the reasons we will hear from those who counsel against impeachment and removal: “but the election…..” You know what? Fuck that. This is about standing up for our Constitution. And not just the Second Amendment.

For far too long, Trump and Republican leaders in Congress, and in the states, have acted in ways that are technically within their rights (does Merrick Garland ring a bell?), but which violate fundamental constitutional norms. Commuting Roger Stone, however, goes far beyond violating norms. Even Richard Nixon didn’t pull anything like this. Trump’s corrupt actions represent a blatant attempt to destroy our democracy, and the only way to stop him is for Congress to take the one power the Constitution provides to rein in such a president.

Congress must impeach and remove Donald Trump. Now.

Ian Reifowitz is the author of The Tribalization of Politics: How Rush Limbaugh's Race-Baiting Rhetoric on the Obama Presidency Paved the Way for Trump (Foreword by Markos Moulitsas)

11 Jul 19:00

Where to get contraceptives after your employer (and the Supreme Court) refuses to give them to you

by AshleyWright
James.galbraith

Thanks, GOP

Well, it happened: The Supreme Court ruled Wednesday that U.S. employers can refuse to provide their employees with insurance coverage for contraception under the Affordable Care Act because of the employer’s religious or moral objection. This decision potentially deprives over 126,000 people of the option to get their birth control method of choice through their employer-provided health insurance coverage. If you’re one of the people affected by this decision, you’re probably wondering how you can avoid paying exorbitant out-of-pocket fees for your birth control method of choice, and/or how you’re going to renew your prescription without the aid of your doctor’s office.

Luckily there are many resources available for people who need birth control but have no health insurance or primary care doctor—and now, people who don’t share their employer’s objection to maintaining their bodily autonomy can take advantage of those resources too.

This roundup provides links to a few of the many, many contraceptive resources available online, as well as a brief breakdown of potential costs, any age limits in place for the service, and more. 

Even more contraceptive resources can be found on Free the Pill. Free the Pill is a campaign setting its sights on making the pill available over the counter in the United States. Until they accomplish that, they’re providing a wealth of information on where you can get your pill online.

Twenty-Eight Health

Age: Available to people 16+, depending on state law where they live.

Fees: This one has a one-time $20 consultation and prescription fee—which they’re waiving during COVID-19 if you put in a code provided on their website. Pill packs start at $16 a month without insurance, and you can get Plan B for $30 without insurance as well.

How it works: Fill out the health questionnaire, and a doctor will review it and write your prescription within 24 hours.

Auto refills? Yes. Prescriptions are valid for one year.

Free shipping? Yes.

What else? You can get up to 12 packs in one shipment with this company. You can also add Plan B to your first order. It’ll arrive within one to three business days and come straight to your door. You can also take advantage of their unlimited doctor follow-up messages if you have any questions. They offer many kinds of birth control, not just pills. They do accept insurance if you have it.

Nurx

Age: Available to people 13+ depending on state law where they live.

Fees: There’s a one-time consultation fee of $15, and pills start at $15 a month without insurance.

How it works: You just fill out a quick health questionnaire that is then reviewed by a doctor. They write a prescription, and your contraceptive method of choice is mailed to you. Medications come in a discreet, unmarked package straight to your door.

Auto refills? Yes. Prescriptions are valid for one year.

Free shipping? Yes.

What else: They provide Plan B and other methods of birth control as well. They do accept insurance if you have it.

The Pill Club

Age: Available to people 12+ depending on state law where they live.

Fees: There’s a one-time $15 consultation fee, and pill packs start at $7 a month without insurance.

How it works: This is another one that requires a health questionnaire, but no phone or video calls are required. The doctor writes your prescription, which is then sent directly to your door.

Auto refills? Yes. Prescriptions are valid for one year.

Free shipping? Yes.

What else? The best thing about The Pill Club is they also send you free goodies in your (discreet, unmarked) package every month, so you can try things like new candy, cute stickers, and a self-care product as well as getting the contraception you need. They do accept insurance if you have it.

Alpha Medical

Age: Available to people 13+, depending on state law where they live.

Fees: There’s a one-time consultation/prescription fee of $10. Prescriptions start at $15 a month for uninsured patients, but you’ll have to check on the specific price of the pill, patch, ring, etc. of your choice.

How it works: You fill out a health questionnaire and then message online with a doctor to find the right method for you, or they can prescribe you the product of your choice if you already know which brand works for your body. They write a prescription, and the contraceptive is mailed to you. It will arrive within one week.

Auto refills? Yes. Prescriptions are valid for one year.

Free shipping? Yes.

What else? They also provide things like at-home STI testing and endometriosis treatment. They do accept insurance if you have it.

There are at least 10 other resources outlined on Free the Pill, so if none of the ones above quite fit what you’re looking for, we recommend exploring the matrix on Free the Pill’s site.  

Go forth and maintain your right to do whatever the hell you want with your own body.