How Long Do You Need To Be Exposed To A COVID-19 Patient To Be At Risk? : Goats and Soda – NPR

Outdoor dining in Bonn, Germany. Indoor dining is riskier than outdoor meals, experts say. Outdoor air can disrupt viral particles that have been expelled. Andreas Rentz/Getty Images hide caption

Outdoor dining in Bonn, Germany. Indoor dining is riskier than outdoor meals, experts say. Outdoor air can disrupt viral particles that have been expelled.

Each week, we answer "frequently asked questions" about life during the coronavirus crisis. If you have a question you'd like us to consider for a future post, email us at goatsandsoda@npr.org with the subject line: "Weekly Coronavirus Questions."

How long do you need to be exposed to someone with COVID-19 before you are at risk for being infected?

The question was brought to the forefront this week after the White House announced it would only perform contact tracing for people who had spent more than 15 minutes within 6 feet of President Trump, who tested positive for the coronavirus on Oct. 1. That "15-minute rule" is the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention's guideline for defining a close contact of an infected person.

But experts say the risk of infection is a lot more nuanced than that guidance might imply.

The 15-minute rule does not necessarily put you at zero risk if your exposure to an infected person was of a shorter duration. "It doesn't mean that you're getting off scot-free, nor does the '6-foot rule,' " says Dr. Joshua Barocas, an infectious disease specialist at Boston University School of Medicine.

"There is no magic number when it comes to distance or duration," says Emily Gurley, an epidemiologist and contact-tracing expert at the Johns Hopkins Bloomberg School of Public Health.

The coronavirus spreads when an infected person releases infectious particles while talking, coughing, singing, sneezing or even just breathing. Some of these particles are released as droplets, which generally fall to the ground within a few feet of the person who exhaled them. That's where the 6-foot guideline comes from though it's just a guideline, not a shield of impenetrability.

A person can also expel smaller infectious particles that linger in the air for minutes or even hours and travel farther than 6 feet in a room, Barocas notes. In a poorly ventilated, enclosed space, these smaller particles can build up in the air over time. If you're in a crowded room with lots of unmasked people talking, "whether you're [in contact for] 15 minutes or within 6 feet, it may not actually be that important anymore because there's so much virus in the air," Barocas says.

Gurley says in some jurisdictions, contact tracers also look for so-called proximate contacts people who were in an enclosed room with an infected person at greater than 6 feet away though they aren't considered close contacts under CDC guidance.

So where did that 15-minute part of the guideline come from? Gurley says it's based on earlier data from China on who was being infected and how infections occurred. "Even when they found lots and lots of very casual, quick contacts, that's not where they saw evidence of transmission," she says.

Instead, she says, infections were occurring when people had "meaningful" amounts of close contact such as traveling, dining or living together that had a higher probability of resulting in transmission. She says the 15-minute guideline is a way to help contact tracers quantify which types of interactions were long enough to be meaningful in this context.

But again, it's just a guideline, not a hard and fast rule. "We don't have strong evidence for exactly what the right distance or the right duration is, or else we'd use that," Gurley says.

And lots of variables can affect the risk of infection from close interactions, experts say.

"Certainly, if you're in very close contact with somebody who's shedding a lot of virus, and you happen to get a droplet on your hand and then wipe your nose, that could take far less than 15 minutes" to infect you, says Angela Rasmussen, a virologist at Columbia University Mailman School of Public Health.

How you interacted also matters a great deal, Barocas says. For example, was the infected person coughing? Was the person wearing a mask, which can help contain a lot of the infectious particles someone might be breathing out? Were you indoors or outdoors, where airflow would quickly disperse any infectious particles the person might have exhaled? How infectious was the person at the time of interaction? (Studies have shown that people with the coronavirus are most infectious just before and in the first few days after they start to show symptoms.) If an infected person were to cough on you while walking past, that would constitute a high-risk interaction even if it was brief, he says.

"All of those [factors] go into what I would think of as a combined likelihood or combined probability" of getting infected, Barocas says.

Conversely, not every type of lengthy interaction is equally risky, he says. Talking outdoors on the beach on a windy day for longer than 15 minutes with someone who is asymptomatic at the time is going to be less of a risk, he says.

While indoor settings are generally higher risk than outdoor ones, the context is key, Rasmussen says. An indoor bar where people are drinking, which requires unmasking, and possibly shouting to be heard over loud music (thus emitting more particles as they talk) is going to be riskier than a trip to a hair salon where everyone is masked and only a limited number of clients are in the room at the same time.

"I finally got my first pandemic haircut a couple of weeks ago," Rasmussen notes. "And I was there for two hours." But she wouldn't dine indoors, she says, because you can't eat while wearing a mask.

Rasmussen says because so many variables can influence the risk of transmission, it's important to focus on doing all the things we know can reduce the risk of infection wearing a mask, washing your hands, keeping your distance, trying to keep interactions outdoors as much as possible, avoiding crowds and poorly ventilated spaces. You might not always be able to do all of these things all of the time, she says but the more of them you can do at once, the more you'll reduce your risk of infection.

Read more:

How Long Do You Need To Be Exposed To A COVID-19 Patient To Be At Risk? : Goats and Soda - NPR

‘I shouldn’t be here’: Oshkosh bar owner in ICU with COVID-19 angry with Trump over out-of-control pandemic – Milwaukee Journal Sentinel

Since the coronavirus pandemic started, the United States has recorded more than 7.6 million cases of COVID-19 and 213,000 deaths. USA TODAY

Mark Schultz has been hit on both sides of this pandemic.

For six months it was his Oshkosh bar and restaurant, both of which are closed for now afterbeing hammered under state coronavirus restrictions.

Now it is Schultz himself, infected with COVID-19, lying in a hospital intensive care unit, laboring to breathe, unsure of when or whether he'll go home.

"I dont worry much about me, but I got a 10-year-old son and my fiance thats all I care about," he said through tears. "Myfamily is all at home. They are all worried about me. I dont want them to worry about me."

As he spoke by phone, he struggled with short breaths and was interruptedat timesby fits ofcoughs.

"I dont want them to go through this," he toldthe Milwaukee Journal Sentinel."Ihope I get to go home."

Schultz, 64, is the co-owner of Oblio's, a bar in Oshkosh that is beloved by a city that now has the highest rateof COVID-19 infection in the country, according to aNew York Times analysis.

At Oblio's, Schultz said he has three simple rules before people can belly up to the bar: Don't talk about politics. Don't talk about religion. And don't talk about someone's wife.

Now, as hereceives oxygen from a machine,Schultz says he has beenpushed to break thatfirst rule by President Donald Trump.

"I just want to punch him," Schultz said. "I always had to keep my politics to myself, but from where I'msitting now? Those days are over.

"Ishouldn'tbe here."

Trump, he said, should have been more upfront with the public from the beginning about the dangers of the coronavirus,should have acted quicker, promoted wearing face masks. If he had, Schultz believes, maybe the pandemicwould not have struck his community so hard, might not have wound up at his door.

Schultz says he started to feelsick last Friday, the same day the White House revealed Trump tested positive forCOVID-19.

On Monday, Trump told Americans"Don't be afraid of COVID."On Tuesday, Schultz checked into the hospital.

"Im just frustrated with the president the nonchalantnessof this virus," he said. "They should be afraid. It's nothing to mess with."

Schultz thinks it's likely he and his fiance, Sandy Ashenbrenner, caught the virus from his business partner. But he hopes, God willing, it hasn't been passed to his 10-year-old son, who hasn't received his test results yet.

"I couldnt breathe anymore," Schultz said about his decision to go to the hospital. "I couldnt breathe and I had a fever. I had aches and pains. I had headaches I never get headaches.

"Andthe tightness in my chest ..."

After arriving atthe hospital Tuesday,doctors told Schulzhe had developed double pneumonia, affecting both his lungs. He is now in anegative pressure ICU room receiving supplemental oxygen.

At times, Schultzlies on his stomach to help reduce his symptoms and blows into a machine to exercise his lungs. He tries to go without oxygen, but when he does, alarms attached to a blood oxygen monitor ring, then the tubes must go back into his nose.

He said he'sbarely slept in five days.

"I cough or I get the sweats and the chills," Schultz said Thursday. "I just get these hot flashes. I stay hot for hours, then last night when my oxygen thing went off, I couldnt get warm. I couldnt get enough covers on me."

Thursday was the worst night.

"I just can't sleep," he said Friday. "If you can't breathe, you can't sleep."

Schultz is on steroids, Tylenoland blood thinners.He said his oxygen has been more than doubled, and if he continues to need more, his doctor is going to try experimental treatment, including the Ebola drug Remdesivir and convalescent plasma therapy.

Schultz spoke to a Journal Sentinel reporter during what he called a "good spell coughinghard a few times but generally was able to chat.

"This lasts about an hour," he said. "Itcomes and goes and when it comes back, it hits you hard."

His blood oxygen level has at times dipped below 85% normal is at least 95% but generally, he's feeling the same, which he hopes, at least, is not bad news.

"Im just kind of floating along," Schultz said. "The doc says thats better than going the other way."

But Schultz is not sure he's going to leave the hospital. His voice shakes when he talks about his family being at home, worrying about him, but unable to see him.

Ashenbrenner, his fiance, has been battling COVID while their son attends school at home.

She said Friday she's feeling OKbut worried.

"My symptoms are nothing like what hes going through," she said. "Its very scary sometimes I talk to him and he seems a little better. Other times Im very worried hes not going to make it,"

Schultz isdocumenting his time in the hospital through a series of videos taken by phone and shared on YouTube. They're titled "Covid 19 ramblings of a pissed off Armenian."

The first begins with this message, aimed at Ashenbrenner:"Sandra Jean. I don't know if I'm going to make it."

He takes a few breaths.

"This s---- real. I want people to know that."

The videos are part diary and part therapy. Schulz airs his grievancesagainst the president and calls on viewers to support efforts to eliminate racial discrimination and the Black Lives Matter movement. Especially, he calls on them to take the threat of the virus seriously.

"Youve gotta wear masks. You'vegottasocial distance. You'vegotta wash your hands. You've gotta sanitize. You have to follow the rules. They're very simple."

Schultz's newfound activism does not appear partisan just angry.

In March, he hosted an event for Axios co-founder and Oshkosh native Jim VandeHei for a taped interview with Donald Trump Jr. but stayed in the back.

"I wouldn't have done it for anyone else," he said of VandeHei. "I don't like playing politics."

Schultz backs Democratic Gov. Tony Evers' mask mandate but doesn't agree with his orderto require restaurants and bars like his to limit customers to 25% of their capacity. Schultz said business at both his bar and restaurant is down 60%.

"These people do not have a concept of running a business," he said. "Its unbelievably hard right now. ...You'retrying to keep people employed and now I got two places that are closed.

"These people are out of work right now. Theyve got families."

Schultz said Evers' orders are suggesting to the public that the problem is with the service industry: "They put too much blame on bars or restaurants."

But Schultz also wants people to follow the safety rules put forward by Evers and public health experts.

"You've got to follow their guidelines," he said. "People have to feel comfortable going out. I dont blame anybody for not going out.

"I kind of commend it its being safe."

You can find out who your legislators are and how to contact them here.

Contact Molly Beckat molly.beck@jrn.com. Follow her on Twitter at @MollyBeck.

Read or Share this story: https://www.jsonline.com/story/news/politics/elections/2020/10/09/oshkosh-bar-owner-icu-coronavirus-blames-trump-crisis-covid-19-oblio/5936996002/

View original post here:

'I shouldn't be here': Oshkosh bar owner in ICU with COVID-19 angry with Trump over out-of-control pandemic - Milwaukee Journal Sentinel

A paternal state that thinks it can decide for the people is to be feared not cheered – The Times of India Blog

We are on slippery ground. The state, hiding behind the thin patina of good intentions, is making us fear our freedoms. This time the fetters have been placed by the Supreme Court. Its decision to restrain Sudarshan TV from telecasting future episodes of its show Bindaas Bol will only strengthen the states ability to exercise greater control over freedom of expression.

Indeed this is a case where while the apex court appears to have acted in the interest of upholding liberal values it is also paradoxically further eroding the liberal outlook of the Constitution. While our laws allow for prior restraint on free speech as a rule, they should be applied only in the exception. There are any number of laws and regulations on the books that could have been invoked against Sudarshan TV for violating the programming code, the peace of the land and the rights of a community.

There is an argument to say there are already one too many criminal laws regulating hate speech in this country. The allegedly vile provocations contained in the show it reportedly depicts Muslims in a derogatory light that could arouse a backlash against them would have easily attracted some of these stringent penal provisions.

Perhaps, the Supreme Court could have considered events in France. There, a few weeks ago the magazine Charlie Hebdo, known for what some describe as tasteless takes on Muslims, decided to reprint the same set of cartoons of the Prophet that invited an unpardonable terror attack on its office in 2015. Few know that in 2007, when it originally printed the cartoons, the decision to publish the depiction of the Prophet was challenged in French courts as a blasphemous act of reckless provocation, but the judge ruled in favour of the magazine.

The court said that it was upholding the Constitutions abiding commitment to free speech. Just like in 2007, even now the decision taken by the magazine to republish the contentious cartoons has been fiercely criticised. France, like India, has seen protests by civil liberties groups against the perceived discrimination and villainisation of minorities. France is widely thought to be succumbing to an insular impetus. Despite a call by the organisation that represents all French Muslims to condemn the act of extreme intolerance by the magazine, no one has moved to restrain Charlie Hebdo from republishing the cartoons. As in most robust democracies, trust has been placed in the publics ability to make the right distinctions.

But here in India, in the days following the Supreme Courts order restraining Sudarshan TV, much self-congratulatory commentary has erupted in liberal circles. Is it the liberal case that censorship, that too prior restraint, is praiseworthy? If it is, would they also support the recent Andhra high court order placing prior restraint on the media from reporting a case of alleged corruption involving a Supreme Court Justices daughters?

In all honesty, the liberal establishment has shown that it selectively champions free speech. Just ask the prominent RSS affiliated lawyer Monica Arora and her co-authors who found that a leading publishing house suddenly pulled their book on the 2020 Delhi riots after their work was deemed to be pushing an anti-Muslim narrative. According to reports, a cabal of self-proclaimed liberal writers persuaded the editor of the publishing house to cancel the contract with the bigoted author for painting Muslims as the sole protagonists of the riots.

If this Bloomsbury sect has any genuine concern for freedom and democracy they must restart a conversation around the first amendment to the Constitution. The founders of our Constitution were clearly free speech absolutists who had faith in the ability of the public to discern right from wrong. But in 1951 Nehrus government amended the Constitution to limit the scope of free speech and expression.

Since then, the first amendment has been used to forbid dozens of books, publications, articles, political parties, citizens groups and used to jail intellectuals, cartoonists, activists, politicians and journalists. Over the decades, the interventions based on the first amendment, particularly by the state, have acquired a worrying frequency and ferocity. A paternal state that thinks it can decide for the people is to be feared not cheered.

DISCLAIMER : Views expressed above are the author's own.

More here:

A paternal state that thinks it can decide for the people is to be feared not cheered - The Times of India Blog

Beaver County signs letter to Trump, Biden in support of natural gas – The Times

Chrissy Suttles|Beaver County Times

Beaver County Commissioners lauded the economic benefits of oil and natural gas in an open letter to both major-party presidential candidates.

The commissioners, joined by Butler County and Washington County leadership, signed a letter Tuesday addressed to President Donald Trump and Democratic candidate Joe Biden asking them to support natural gas and manufacturing in any future policy decisions ahead of the November election.

As elected leaders representing communities across the western Pennsylvania region, we know that political campaigns often highlight our differences on policies and approach and not the areas where we share common ground, the letter begins. We want to see a level playing field set for people and businesses to succeed.

That common ground, according to the letter, is a shared recognition of the natural gas industry's impact on regional job growth and affordable energy. Natural gas, elevated by the Marcellus and Utica Shale reservoirs, has filled the economic void left by steel and coal, commissioners said. This includes attracting jobs in manufacturing and petrochemicals.

Trade unions facing the prospect of their halls being emptied by demand for skilled labor have built modern training centers to supply a new generation of workers, the letter read. Good paying jobs arent a partisan issue. Lower energy bills are good for both Democrats and Republicans.

The letter also called the abundant supply of natural gas the backbone of a sustainable energy grid by helping the region reduce carbon emissions and meet climate goals, adding that $2 billion collected in impact fees over the past decade has supported environmental programs, trail building, infrastructure improvements and conservation.

Natural gas supporters laud the industry's role in lowering Pennsylvania's power sector carbon emissions by double digits as it replaces coal, although drillers risk leaking methane, a more potent greenhouse gas, into the air.

As presidential candidates vie for Pennsylvanias coveted electoral votes, the issue of fracking has been a primetime topic. President Trump throughout his campaign has repeated claims that Biden would eliminate fracking and kill up to 600,000 Pennsylvania jobs by doing so. The states job statistics identify roughly 20,000 jobs in the oil and gas industry.

Biden has routinely denied Trumps claims, saying he would ban only new oil and gas permits on federal land. This, he said, would not apply to existing permits or fracking performed on private or state-owned land, where the majority of fracking happens.

The letter comes days after a Progressive Policy Institute poll that found the majority of Pennsylvania and Ohio voters, or 74 percent, oppose an immediate ban on natural gas extraction, although 71 percent of voters said climate change is a real and very serious problem. Fifty-five percent of voters polled said the country should use fossil fuels as a bridge to renewable energy sources.

A recent survey conducted by Climate Nexus found 76percent of Pennsylvanian voters consider climate change to be a serious problem, with nearly half of voters saying it is very serious.

More than 70 percent supported the state updating and strengthening regulations to restrict the release of methane from natural gas wells, pipelines and storage facilities.

Progressive Policy Institute, a centrist Democratic think tank, commissioned ALG Research to focus on swing state attitudes about energy and climate change last month. Even among liberal-leaning groups, theres little support for a fracking ban right now, the poll suggests, with most worrying about potential job loss and higher energy costs.

Amajority, however,hope the country phases out the use of natural gas in the coming decades and replaces it with renewable energy sources to preserve the environment. This compares to an August CBS poll of Pennsylvanians showing a slight majority of the state opposes fracking 52percent of voters were opposed and 48percent were in favor of it.

Despite Bidens lead in the poll, voters were nearly equally split on who they trust on energy issues.

Original post:

Beaver County signs letter to Trump, Biden in support of natural gas - The Times

Torbay Council approves strategy to build hundreds of homes on its land – Devon Live

Torbay Council has approved up to 23million support for its housing company to build around 150 homes on fields near Paignton.

Councillors also voted in favour of selling another housing site at Collaton St Mary on the open market which has been zoned for 180 homes.

The strategy was approved at a meeting on Thursday night to progress the schemes on council-owned land given 3million by the Government to prepare for housing.

The money from the Land Release Fund was accepted in 2018 and a deal has to be in place with developers by December or it will have to go back.

The council, which is run by a partnership of Liberal Democrats and Independents, rejected an alternative from the Conservative opposition group to split the sites into smaller plots to be sold off.

The Conservatives said their option would mean local firms could be involved and there was not enough information available to make a decision about the administrations proposals.

But the leadership said its plans were the best way to deliver the housing schemes within the timescale.

The council has already spent 2.4million to regain control of the land which had been leased to the Torbay Coast and Countryside Trust.

The council voted to give 10 acres either side of Preston Down Road at Paignton to its housing company TorVista or another council company to develop.

The strategy involves the authority receiving at least the amount it has already spent to get back the sites.

It will borrow or provide a guarantee of up to 23million to cover the development costs.

Profits would then be split between the council and the housing company to be invested in more social housing.

Councillors were told the benefits would include control over social housing and the number of job placements and apprenticeships.

The proposal for the 45-acre site at Little Blagdon Farm off the A385 Totnes Road at Collaton St Mary is for the council to sell it to a developer on the open market.

The deal would include a condition for 30 per cent of the homes to be affordable housing sold to TorVista.

Cabinet member Swithin Long said giving both sites to TorVista to be developed had been considered.

But officers advised the size of the overall project with around 400 homes was too big for a start-up social housing provider.

He said there would be tax implications if a site was split into smaller parcels to be sold individually.

Deputy leader Darren Cowell said: We are where we are. It is a situation we have inherited and we have been trying to resolve it in the best way possible.

Conservative group leader Dave Thomas said his groups proposals were based on ideas from the Paignton Neighbourhood Forum and would allow the council to achieve all its aims within the required timescale.

After the opposition move was rejected, Cllr Thomas described the meeting as Torbay Councils darkest day.

He said: It is absolutely bizarre. We have got no plan, there is no business plan.

He said an extra 23million loan would mean a total of 61million invested by the council in TorVista Homes.

Conservatives argued there were too many unanswered questions about the administration's strategy.

James ODwyer said the lack of information such as a business plan made it impossible to decide if the proposals were good value.

More here:

Torbay Council approves strategy to build hundreds of homes on its land - Devon Live

By Attacking the Mughals, Adityanath Is Erasing the History of His Own Nath Samprady – The Wire

Despite what newspapers and politicians today may project, there is a vast difference between the veracity of history and propaganda. History employs evidence, facts, and reasoning, while propaganda aims to distort even basic truths.

Yogi Adityanaths recent comments questioning how any Mughal could be considered a hero in India and comparing Mughal rule to slavery amounts to a distortion of history. The chief ministers recent public decision to rename the upcoming Mughal Museum after Chhatrapati Shivaji Maharaj, militant Hinduisms most beloved symbol of Hindu nationalism, is little more than the usual anti-Islamic propaganda marketed for his Hindutva followers and dog-whistle political rhetoric allowed in an increasingly intolerant India.

However, while Adityanath, the mahant of Gorakhpurs Gorakhnath mah or temple complex, has been making these inflammatory claims, he is also actively erasing intrinsic parts of own sampradys history. Ironically, his recent comments not only downplay the complexities of Indias multi-religious history but actively attempt to ignore the complexity of his own religious community, the Naths, a diverse community of yogis who for centuries were recipients of patronage from various Mughal rulers.

Also read: BJPs Icons Reflect How It Imagines Indias History

It is of course not surprising that most people in India today are better acquainted with Yogi Adityanaths right-wing Hindu politics and incendiary rhetoric than with the history of the Nath samprady of which he is a leader.

Yogi Adityanath. Photo: PTI

Adityanath is constantly in the news, on television, and in our Twitter feeds, whereas the history of the Nath yogis is, for the most part, buried in obscure archives. However, if we disinter and examine those archives we can see at once that Yogi Adityanaths ideologies are not representative of the pre-modern beliefs of the Nath yogis, and in fact, often run directly counter to the teachings of the early-modern samprady.

The influence of Islam on Nath yogis

The Nath yogis are a heterogenous community of ascetics that dates back to around 13th century and whose beliefs overlapped with Jain, Tantric, Muslim, and Sikh communities. Centred around the teachings of Guru Gorakhnath, the community interacted with a variety of other religious groups and often incorporated and adapted their teachings to their own system of beliefs. Although the community named and recognised as the Nath samprady did not completely coalesce until 16th century, we can recognise elements of their lineage much earlier. The intellectual exchange between these early Nath yogis and other ascetic orders, particularly Muslim holy men, led the community to display an openness to Islamic ideas. Often the ideas of Sufi mystics and Nath yogis overlapped with one another as they continued their dialogue.

By the early 16th century, the beginning of the Mughal rule, the Nath yogis existed as a part of the larger multi-religious society of Indian asceticism that spoke the same cultural language.

Also read: The Erased Muslim Texts of the Nath Samprady

Like many other heterodox religious orders at that time, the Nath samprady eschewed an emphasis on Hindu or Muslim identity and instead highlighted in their Hindi teachings, attributed to Gorakhnath, the Gorakhbn, a personal interaction with the divine.

A statue of Gorakhnath. Photo: Wikipedia/CC BY-SA 4.0

In the case of Nath yogis, the goal was not only to reach god, but through yogic practice, become one with god. The ultimate aim of Nath doctrine was the transcendence of all paradoxes and to become immortal gods on earth. The sampradys teachings on the one unseen god, their interaction with Muslim ascetics, and their acceptance of various Islamic rituals into their repertoire, as well as the belief at large in their yogic siddhis or otherworldly powers allowed them to fit into many different environments, including, at times, Mughal and Islamic realms.

The plurality of the community and inclusiveness of their message, propagating a message that allowed for Hindu and Muslim rituals but aimed at transcendence of all worldly divisions, appealed to many Mughal emperors. Just as importantly, it also garnered the Nath yogis important financial support from these same rulers.

As early as the very first Mughal emperor, Babur himself recounts in his Bburnma that he had heard of the yogis at Gorkhatri, one of the most famous Nath centres at the time, and desired to visit the famous pilgrimage site. While the Mughal was unable to access the mah during his first visit, he remained eager to return and see the holy place for yogis and Hindus, who came from faraway places to cut their hair and beards.

He returned on a second occasion in 1519 and, at that time, was able to visit the Nath yogis of the mah.

Also read:Yogis Sarkari Deepawali Has Made Ayodhya Feel as Alone and Abandoned as Sita

Although Babur was not particularly enamoured of Gorkhatri when he visited, he does not attribute this to religious differences. Rather the Mughal emperor stated that he was disappointed by the disarray and cramped quarters of the yogis. Unsurprisingly, Baburs grandson Akbar (who later produced exquisite paintings detailing his grandfathers visit to Gorkhatri) was far more impressed with the Nath yogis, not only at Gorkhatri, but also at Balnath Tilla and Jakhbar, both Nath centres which he came to patronise.

Babus visit to Gorkhatri sourced from Vakiat-i Baburi (The Memoirs of Babur). Photo: The British Museum.

It is perfectly in keeping with Akbar, whose spiritual eclecticism has become something of a legend itself, that he was known to have patronised this samprady of yogis, and we can see from the paintings he commissioned of his grandfathers visit to Gorkhatri that Akbar had a more generous vision of the mah than that found in Babars narrative.

These illustrations were painted after Akbars own journey to Gorkhatri, and likely depict a perception that was more Akbars than Baburs own. However, it is not just these representations that illustrate Akbars attitude towards the Nath centres that he visited; written accounts of those who accompanied him on his trips do so as well.

According to reports from Abul Fazl and the Jesuit priest Antonio Monserrate, the builder of Jogipura and the creator of his own imperial religion, Dn-i-Ilahi, first visited and enjoyed the company of the Nath yogis at Gorkhatri and Balnath Tilla in Jhelam in 1581. It is clear from both sources that Akbar visited and was deeply engaged with the yogis at these centres. It is later recorded that Akbar gave a madad-i-mash of gift of land to the Balnath Tilla and, according to colonial gazetteers, the mah maintained possession of Akbars written note at least until the early 20th century.

Nath yogis and the patronage of Mughal rulers

Akbars patronage, however, did not end with the Nath yogis at Balnath; throughout his reign, he also continued to patronise other Nath centres. In addition to the many ascetics and holy men who gathered in Jogipura and with whom Akbar interacted and supported, the Nath monastery at Jakhbar (near Jhelum) also received significant patronage.

While Mughal documentation of land grants and patronage can often be incredibly difficult to trace today, the landmark discovery by B.N. Goswamy and J.S. Grewal attests to four generations of Mughal patronage of the Nath yogis at Jakhbar, beginning with Akbar and lasting through to the rule of Aurangzeb. According to these documents, this patronage was first bestowed in 1571, when Akbar visited the Jakhbar mah. In his letter, he grants the mahant of the temple, Yogi Udant Nath, a madad-i-mash of two hundred bigahs land in the village of Bhoa. When the land grant was lost due to a natural disaster that affected Panjab, the next Mughal Emperor, Jahangir, issued a new farmn to the yogis. The emperor Shah Jahan also continued this conferment providing the Nath samprady the same amount of land in 1642. And, perhaps most out of keeping with what many have been brought to believe about Emperor Aurangzeb, he too patronised the Nath yogis at Jakhbar for much of his life.

Also read:Gandhi and the Cowardice of Hindutva

While documentation indicates that Aurangzeb shifted his religious policies over the years, at least in the beginning of his reign, he was more liberal than many colonial and modern histories would have us believe. Part of his early stance on institutions that were not strictly Muslim involved his continued patronage of the Nath yogis at Jakhbar, and more astonishingly, his reverence toward Anand Nath, the mahant of yogis.

Following in the footsteps of his imperial predecessors, in 1661, Aurangzeb contacted Anand Nath for transactional if not completely religious purposes. According to a now-oft cited letter, reproduced and discussed in Goswamy and Grewals The Mughals and Jogis of Jakhbar, Aurangzeb not only offered payment to the yogis for quicksilver or mercury, but also ensured that during his reign that he would continue to give protection to themah. The missive states:

The possessor of the Sublime Station, Shive Mrat, Guru Anand Nath Jo!May Your Reverence remain in peace and happiness ever under the protection of Sri Shiv (?) Jio!In strict confidence:

The letter sent by Your Reverence has been received along with [sic] twotolahsof quicksilver. However, it is not so good as Your Reverence had given us to understand. It is desired (by us) that Your Reverence should carefully treat some more quicksilver and have that sent, without unnecessary delay. A piece of cloth for the cloak and a sum of twentyfive [sic] rupees which have been sent as an offering will reach (Your Reverence). Also, a few words have been written to the valiant Fateh Chand to the effect that he should always afford protection. Your reverence may write to us whenever there is any service which can be rendered by us.

Two additional letters bearing the seal of Aurangzeb have been preserved at the Jakhbar mah. The second document, dated 1682 and thus after Aurangzeb had re-imposed a jizya or tax on non-Muslim subjectsstates that the mah, in accordance with the previous farmn issued by Jahangir, would be have its madad-i-mash reinstated and the Nath yogis at the temple would be given an annual revenue of one hundred and six rupees on a fixed basis.

Gorakhpur Math and the Muslim rulers

Even more remarkable is the relationship that Yogi Adityanaths own mah in Gorakhpur professes to have had with different Muslim rulers. Historically, the Goraknath mah had very little interaction with Mughal rulers until the 18th century. Even the Nawabs of Awadh regarded its location as the backwaters of the Mughal empire. This documented lack of Mughal concern over Gorakhpur, however, has not deterred the Gorakhnath mahs modern literature from glorifying the temples antiquity and asserting that its spiritual fame attracted the attention of many Muslim enemies who repeatedly destroyed its structure.

Also read:A Statue that Shows India Has No Room for its Tired, Huddled Masses

Despite such misrepresentations, even in-house historian and devotee of the Nath samprady, Akshaya Kumar Banerjea, writes about the plausibility of this legend being false. Banerjea states, It is quite probable that it [the Gorakhnath mah] had been of the nature of an old Tapoban or hermitage of all renouncing Yog

The Yogis at Gorkhatri sourced from Vakiat-i Baburi (The Memoirs of Babur). Credit: The British Museum

is, and there might not have been any older stone structure or brick structure here in the olden time. Yet, although not historically documented, several sources suggest that the Nath yogis at Gorakhpur garnered significant financial attention from wealthy elites associated with the Mughal empire by the end of 18th century.

According to the work of Shashank Chaturvedi, David Gellner and Sanjay Kumar Pandey, it is widely believed within Gorakhpur that the Gorakhnath temple in the district was built on land provided to the yogis by an Awadhi Nawab named Asaf-ud-Daula, a Muslim ruler who was, at least, nominally affiliated with the Mughals. As we have seen, a gift of this type was certainly not unusual during this era.

Strikingly, the official temple literature published by Mahant Digvijaynath and the Gorakhnath mah appears to confirm this story as fact. Banerjea writes that an unnamed Nawab from Awadh gave the yogis at Gorakhpur an abundance of land and wealth to build the temple and on which the temple is now situated.

These books continue to be sold at Yogi Adityanaths own mah in Gorakhpur thus attesting to the chief ministers distortion of history for his own political gain.

With these publications themselves asserting that the modern Nath temple was constructed, at least in part, on a bedrock of respect and generosity from a Muslim ruler affiliated with the Mughal rule, the question asked by Yogi needs to be reversed.

The issue is not how a Mughal can be considered a hero in India, but more accurately with such extensive patronage as this how can he not?

And more, to what extent will Yogi Adityanath go in order to reconstruct history to advance a Hindutva agenda for denigrating and destroying the countrys Muslim citizens?

Christine Marrewa-Karwoski is a former Fulbright Fellow and has a doctorate from the Columbia University in the City of New York. She specialises in Hindi literature and religious politics in North India.

Read more from the original source:

By Attacking the Mughals, Adityanath Is Erasing the History of His Own Nath Samprady - The Wire

Ontario government ramps up use of special orders to rezone land without appeals – NiagaraFallsReview.ca

The Ontario government has significantly ramped up its use of special orders that eliminate the requirement to give public notice before changing the way land can be developed.

Ministers zoning orders, or MZOs, were once considered a tool only for extraordinary cases. They allow the minister of municipal affairs currently Steve Clark to set aside local planning processes and public consultations, and designate land use without the possibility of appeals.

The Star reported in June that Doug Fords Progressive Conservative government had used the tool eight times since taking office in 2018; the previous government had filed just two MZOs throughout 2016 and 2017. The Ford governments count has more than tripled since, hitting 26 MZOs by early October.

The tally includes a flurry of orders related to long-term-care developments this summer two in Toronto, and many others across the GTA. Several of the orders were connected to pandemic-era efforts to speed up development of nursing homes that meet modern standards.

Not all the MZOs are solely for nursing home beds: some permit uses from food and retail to offices and retirement homes. A piece of provincially owned land in Torontos Thistletown will also permit a wide range of residential development. The province declined to detail its plans for that site, saying no final decisions have been made since it scrapped a plan developed by the former Liberal government.

Other MZOs issued in Toronto this summer expedited construction on a pair of modular housing projects for the homeless.

While critics acknowledge that MZOs, in some cases, can be appropriate and serve the public interest, several argue that the Ford governments escalated use since taking office in 2018 is unprecedented, reduces government transparency and undermines local planning processes.

What it does is send a signal to the development world that, hey, this is possible. We can just sidestep the development process and go straight to the Minister, said Tim Gray, executive director of Environmental Defence.

The Ontario Federation of Agriculture wrote to Clark in August and expressed concern with the uptick of MZOs in municipalities with robust planning systems, arguing that doing so short-circuited planning principles and policies, while depriving affected people of consultations.

The Greenbelt Council, in a report sent to Clark in July, recommended MZOs be used sparingly. Where they were deemed necessary, it urged greater transparency through a detailed and specific explanation of the proposals urgency, size and nature.

But the province said its orders this summer kickstarted critical projects, and that any MZOs filed for non-provincially owned land were requested by municipalities.

Torontos chief planner, Gregg Lintern, said the city still held consultations for the modular sites granted MZOs, though he acknowledged that not everyone may be satisfied by its efforts.

For the modular sites, MZOs meant not having to turn to Torontos committee of adjustment, which has been in a backlog, he said.

COVID-19 demanded an accelerated response to issues like homelessness, which the new supportive housing units could address, said Lintern.

Victor Doyle, a retired bureaucrat who spent decades in Ontarios housing ministry, acknowledged that efforts to increase long-term-care beds or supportive housing were hard to take issue with.

If (the pandemic) is the rationale for expediting them, then thats all that should be allowed, Doyle said.

Loading...Loading...Loading...Loading...Loading...

He was skeptical of zoning orders allowing for other uses as well.

My biggest concern is these things are promoted as cutting red tape, he added. But the red tape theyre cutting is basically the cutting out of any citizen participation.

With files from Noor Javed

Here is the original post:

Ontario government ramps up use of special orders to rezone land without appeals - NiagaraFallsReview.ca

Judges Tell Trump His Officials Are Serving Illegally. He Does Nothing. – The New York Times

In March, a judge for the United States District Court in Washington declared unlawful the appointment of Kenneth T. Cuccinelli II to lead the United States Citizenship and Immigration Services. Mr. Cuccinelli, an immigration hard-liner, was unlikely to win Senate confirmation after he headed a conservative SuperPAC that backed candidates challenging Republican incumbents, including the Senate majority leader, Mitch McConnell

Mr. Cuccinelli is now the acting Deputy Secretary of Homeland Security.

A different federal judge in Maryland later ruled that Chad F. Wolf is likely serving unlawfully as acting secretary of the Department of Homeland Security, a conclusion the Government Accountability Office had arrived at in August. The court temporarily barred the Trump administration from enforcing new directives Mr. Cuccinelli and Mr. Wolf had issued imposing restrictions on asylum seekers.

But both men remain in their positions.

In the case of the Bureau of Land Management, the ruling was definitive. Late last month, Brian Morris of the United States District Court for the District of Montana, who was appointed under the Obama administration, found that Mr. Pendley had served unlawfully for 424 days as acting director of the bureau.

Any function or duty Mr. Pendley performed during that time, Judge Morris ruled, would have no force and effect and must be set aside as arbitrary and capricious.

He ordered briefs from all parties regarding which of Mr. Pendleys policies should be overturned, due this week.

Mr. Pendley, a former oil-industry lawyer, has ridiculed the established science of climate change and called for the sale of public lands. He has led the agency since August 2019 as deputy director for programs and policy, a title that David Bernhardt, the Interior secretary, augmented with, exercising the authority of director.

The White House formally withdrew his nomination in August, a tacit acknowledgment that he could not win Senate confirmation.

More here:

Judges Tell Trump His Officials Are Serving Illegally. He Does Nothing. - The New York Times

Former Liberal MP Raj Grewal, charged by RCMP, has case adjourned to January – Kamloops This Week

Help Us Help Kamloops. Support Local Media.

In response to the COVID-19 crisis, Kamloops This Week is now soliciting donations from readers. This program is designed to support our local journalism in a time where our advertisers are unable to due to their own economic constraints. Kamloops This Week has always been a free product and will continue to be free. This is a means for those who can afford to support local media to help ensure those who cant afford to can get access to trusted local information. You can make a one-time or a monthly donation of any amount and cancel at any time .

NEW: For every donation of $25 or greater, we will offer a digital advertising package to the local non-profit group of your choice.

Click on https://support.kamloopsthisweek.com for more information or to make your donation.

Thank you in advance for your support.

Read more from the original source:

Former Liberal MP Raj Grewal, charged by RCMP, has case adjourned to January - Kamloops This Week

Gladys Berejiklian called to give evidence at corruption commission inquiry into former MP – The Guardian

Gladys Berejiklian has said she is pleased to be giving evidence at a NSW Independent Commission Against Corruption investigation into disgraced former Liberal MP Daryl Maguire.

An Icac witness list issued on Thursday revealed the premier had been summonsed and is the only person scheduled to appear on Monday, when the anti-corruption bodys hearing enters its fourth week.

Im pleased to be assisting with those inquiries, she told reporters. And it wouldnt be appropriate for me to elaborate.

Maguire was forced to quit the Berejiklian government in 2018 after a separate Icac inquiry heard evidence he sought payments to help broker deals for property developers.

The current inquiry has heard evidence Maguire sought payments to help broker deals for Chinese property developers.

It is investigating whether Maguire breached the public trust by using his public office and parliamentary resources to improperly gain a benefit for himself or for G8way International, a company he effectively controlled.

The premier was dragged into the saga this week when the commission heard Maguire gave a western Sydney landowner, Louise Waterhouse, Berejiklians email address to help her lobby for rezoning changes that would benefit her parcel of land.

In a recorded phone call aired at the commission, Maguire passed on the email address and suggested the premier would be able to provide a tickle from up top.

Waterhouse told the inquiry Berejiklian never responded to her email, and no zoning changes were made to her property.

Berejiklians former chief of staff Sarah Cruickshank is scheduled to give evidence at the inquiry on Friday.

Maguire will also give evidence from next Tuesday to Thursday.

See the original post here:

Gladys Berejiklian called to give evidence at corruption commission inquiry into former MP - The Guardian

Shypitka lists priorities as wilflife and land access, health and education – Fernie Free Press

Tom Shypitka of the BC Liberals say his top priorities for Kootenay East and the Elk Valley for the current election are wildlife and land access management, healthcare access for Kootenay East residents and education.

Shypitka, who served at the MLA for Kootenay East in the previous parliament was nominated as the BC Liberals pick to re-contest the seat a second time.

I got in to (politics) because I care about the region, said Shypitka.

When I was asked to take over the helm from Bill Bennett (in 2017) I jumped at the chance and got into it. Within the four years Ive really fallen in love with the job. I love the people of Kootenay East and I really enjoy fighting for their concerns and I want to continue that.

Shypitka explained that wildlife and land access management was his number one priority, citing decreases in populations of ungulates, land access conflicts and increased interest in the area. We have really got to get this under control here.

According to Shypitka the main problem was with funding for the sector.

We are so far behind other jurisdictions such as Wyoming and Colorado and Montana and Idaho for that matter in funding that they make us look pretty sad.

He said that his solution was to rustle up more funding for the sector by ensuring the money from tags and licences came back to the region and revenues through taxes on resources (such as coal) that could kick in over a certain commodity price.

If we can all get together on it, we can protect our wildlife, enhance our land access and rebuild our habitat.

We put a value on our timber, we put a value on our coal, we put a value on our oil and gas, but we dont put a value on our wildlife, and I think thats got to change, big time.

Another big priority for Shypitka is access to healthcare something he said residents in the Elk Valley and Kootenay East were getting the short end of the stick on due to being supposedly shut out of Alberta.

In the last three or four years were seeing a real shutdown of our access to (Alberta) healthcare and thats really troubling to the people of Kootenay East, because the alternative now is to go to Vancouver or Victoria and thats not acceptable.

Theres a lot of theories in why this access has been shut down, Ive got a couple of firm beliefs on why it is, but government really hasnt been able to help me at all clear the confusion on why were seeing this access being denied.

The third big local issue was education.

Shypitka pointed to Isabella Dicken Elementary School as a priority, saying the number of portable classrooms wasnt good enough for the community.

Isabella Dicken has the unfortunate distinction of being the school in BC that has the highest amount of portables in it eight. And now they just added another one. The NDP platformed on reducing portables, that was their big thing, but weve seen an increase in Kootenay East so Id really like to get a handle on that.

Shypitka also listed various BC Liberal campaign promises in senior care and taxation/revenue as a major focus.

On senior care, he said that with an aging population in the Elk Valley it was important that seniors could stay in their homes longer and enjoy the comfort and support theyre accustomed to, highlighting a $1 billion support plan announced by BC Liberal leader Andrew Wilkinson.

On taxes, Shypitka took aim at the NDPs record. Weve seen over 21 new or increased taxes by this NDP government, and yet nothing on the revenue side as far as business is concerned, in fact quite the opposite.

He highlighted the provincial party promise to put the provincial services tax (PST) on hold for 12 months if elected, saying it would be fantastic for the bottom line of businesses struggling in COVID-times.

I really believe the BC Liberals initiate to remove PST for a year is really going to restart our economy and get people back to feeling confident.

Shypitka will go up against the NDPs Wayne Stetski and the BC Greens Kerri Wall in the upcoming election to be held on Oct. 24.

READ MORE: Nominations close for BC election

BC politics

Read the rest here:

Shypitka lists priorities as wilflife and land access, health and education - Fernie Free Press

Ashkenazi Jews face a higher cancer risk because of the BRCA gene. It means ‘scanxiety’, surgery and empowerment – ABC News

Sarah was 23 when she found out that, most likely, over the next 20 years everything that "made me a woman" would have to be surgically removed.

Her breasts and ovaries were "tainted in some way" and put her at risk.

Sarah has up to a 70 per cent chance of developing breast cancer and up to 40 per cent chance of ovarian cancer, due to a BRCA gene fault the genetic condition made famous by Angelina Jolie.

"I definitely have had moments of anger about it. It's inconvenient. It's upsetting. The thought of the surgeries is scary," Sarah says.

For the general population, the risk of inheriting a BRCA gene fault is around one in 400.

Ashkenazi Jews, like Sarah, are 10 times more likely to inherit the fault, meaning their risk of cancer is much higher.

Marrying within the community over generations has led to genetic issues like the BRCA gene mutation and diseases like Tay-Sachs and cystic fibrosis, among others.

It means making difficult decisions about surgery, screening and how far to go to prevent passing the gene fault on to the next generation.

This is how four Ashkenazi Jews are navigating those decisions.

When Sarah was in high school, an aunt developed breast cancer. It came a few years after her paternal grandmother was diagnosed with ovarian cancer.

A large number of family members have since tested positive as carriers, so Sarah knew there was a possibility that she might have the gene fault too.

She was 23 when she went with her two sisters for the blood test, and describes how her pessimistic viewpoint steeled her.

"My relationship to the test was, 'I should think that I'll probably test positive because then it'll just be confirming what I already thought'. And then I was correct."

Out of Sarah's three siblings, one has tested positive, one negative, and one is yet to take the test.

Sarah is still deciding how she will manage her personal risk for breast cancer, which increases from the age of 30, and ovarian cancer, which increases from 40.

Then there's the question of undergoing IVF to remove the gene fault from her future children an expensive and uncomfortable possibility.

Sarah always thought she'd have children naturally, a topic she is now reconsidering with her fiance.

But overall, she says knowing her positive status is a privilege.

"It's really incredible that it's information that you can know and you can plan for in advance and that you can actually be empowered to make choices that avoid danger," she says.

These developments have come relatively recently.

In the 1990s, we knew much less about the BRCA gene fault which meant a diagnosis of breast cancer came as a complete shock to Sydney man Geoff Wolf.

"I was told I had more chance of winning the lottery, which unfortunately hasn't happened yet, than of developing breast cancer," he says.

Geoff was a young father of two when he visited an after-hours medical clinic. He wanted the doctor to lance what he thought was a cyst over his left breast.

"Thanks to the astuteness of that doctor, I was sent for tests and very quickly to surgery," he says.

He had a mastectomy and lymph nodes removed from his left side, followed by 30 sessions of radiotherapy.

Earshot is about people, places, stories and ideas, in all their diversity.

Geoff says at the time he felt "unique and a little bit embarrassed" when he was waiting for a mammogram.

"They'd call out 'Mr Wolf!' and I was the male in the room amongst all of the women."

Soon after finding out he had breast cancer, he took part in a research project within Sydney's Ashkenazi Jewish community, looking into the familial BRCA1 and 2 genetic mutation.

Because his children were already born by the time he found out he was a BRCA2 carrier, he knew there was a risk he had passed the gene fault onto either one or both of his daughters, Tamara and Sarah.

"I was most hurt for the girls," he says.

"Could we have done anything? No. Do I wish I didn't have it? Probably, but knowledge is power."

Tamara, now 29, says she always knew about the existence of BRCA in her family, inherited from her father.

She was in her early 20s when she started a six-monthly scan regime, undergoing an ultrasound and mammogram each February and an MRI in July.

When she was 27 she decided to do the blood test to find out whether she had inherited the BRCA2 gene mutation from her dad.

It came back positive.

"It wasn't even so much about what that meant for me. But having to tell my parents, that was my biggest fear because I knew that they were so worried about it," she says.

"I was incredibly emotional."

Both her mum and her younger sister tested negative.

The Donnells had never heard of Sanfilippo Syndrome. Then both their children were diagnosed with it.

After several years of screening, Tamara didn't want to live with what she calls "scanxiety" anymore, so she started the process of having a preventative double mastectomy and breast reconstruction.

After returning home to Sydney from London, where she lives and works, and having her surgery rescheduled three times due to coronavirus, she's recovering well.

She's confident that her choice to remove her risk of breast cancer was the right thing for her, comparing it to the risk of flying.

"If your plane had a 60 to 80 per cent chance of crashing, would you get on that plane?" she says.

"My risk is 68 per cent chance of getting breast cancer ... I'm going to do something about it and I'm going to find an alternative route."

Jill Levy has a different view of managing risk and anxiety.

The 65-year-old BRCA1 carrier hasn't had a preventative mastectomy yet.

She has, however, had an oophorectomy the surgical removal of her ovaries.

Because there's no effective screening for ovarian cancer, Jill decided that she wasn't willing to risk her health in that regard.

"Whereas for breast cancer, the screening is extremely effective, so it was a no-brainer for me," she explains.

Jill says living with an 84 per cent chance of developing breast cancer is something she takes in her stride it still means there's a 16 per cent chance of not getting cancer.

Jill says a holistic view of her health has allowed her to manage the anxiety that comes with having a genetic fault like BRCA.

"Not only is the body a sacred thing, but the body-mind is one entity ... the lifestyle aspect, healthy diet, healthy lifestyle, healthy attitude and outlook play a part in this."

Jill says emphatically that she is not over-confident about avoiding breast cancer thus far, but that being flexible in her approach to her health has been a freeing experience.

"The second I'm diagnosed with one cell of breast cancer, that is when I'll do a mastectomy," she explains.

"And maybe I'll change my mind about that.

"As I say, it's an ongoing decision that I make. But at the moment, that's how I feel."

Get more stories that go beyond the news cycle with our weekly newsletter.

Read more:

Ashkenazi Jews face a higher cancer risk because of the BRCA gene. It means 'scanxiety', surgery and empowerment - ABC News

What to Watch at the Miami Film Festival’s Gems and Popcorn Fright’s Nightstream – Miami New Times

If youve been missing South Florida cinemas and festivals, this weekend may just be the ultimate smorgasbord for any cinephile in the city looking for a treat. The Miami Film Festival's Gems series and Popcorn Frights nationwide collaborative festival, Nightstream, are here to provide a wealth of films to stream from your very home.

With dozens of films, panels, conversations, and more to choose from, it isnt an easy endeavor for anyone who wants to dive into what both festivals have to offer. Gems has works like Shiva Baby, The Sound of Metal, and Night of the Kings, while Nightstream offers everything from Justin Benson and Aaron Moorheads Home Movies to features like Frank & Zed, My Heart Cant Beat Unless You Tell It To, and Honeydew.

The list of films may seem endless, but film fans can relax and take the opportunity to read through some of what weve seen here at New Times and hopefully make their own decisions on what kind of wild film festival theyd like to have by combining tickets from the two.

Aubrey Plaza and Christopher Abbott in Black Bear

Photo courtesy of Momentum Pictures

Those fond of Aubrey Plazas ability to stretch beyond comedy and into darker territory (as she has done brilliantly in FXs Legion, among other works) should seek out Lawrence Michael Levines Black Bear immediately. The film, which follows a female filmmaker at a creative impasse heading to a rural retreat to write and relax, is an intriguing little work, split into two chapters that feel like mirror images of each other in the best way. Plaza joins Christopher Abbott and Sarah Gadon in an exquisite trio of performances, shifting roles between each half in a way that defies easy description without spoiling.

In a way, Black Bear exists as both a thriller and a dark comedy, as a piece of fiction as well as its own metafiction, analyzing the story its telling, and the way filmmakers and actors engage in storytelling. It is playful in how it approaches these things, and Levine seems to draw much pleasure from exploring the toxicity of relationships, both personal and creative, and how it distinctly impacts the mental state of all those involved. While the investigation itself may be the slightest bit shallow and could arguably use an extension to further dive into its characters' psyche, the ride that the film provides is otherwise delightful. Juan Antonio Barquin

Thursday, October 8, and Sunday, October 11, via Gems; includes a prerecorded Q&A with director Lawrence Michael Levine moderated by Lauren Cohen. Tickets are $9.99. Sunday, October 11, through Wednesday, October 14 via Nightstream; includes prerecorded a Q&A with director Lawrence Michael Levine. Tickets are $13.

Mariana Di Girolamo in Ema

Photo courtesy of Music Box Films

Pablo Larrans Ema is the most unhinged piece of bisexual cinema since Paul Verhoevens Basic Instinct. Hyperbolic as that statement may sound, the two films share more in common than one might expect, including a penchant for indulging in pulp while critiquing societal standards and the placement of a sociopathic queer blonde at the film's core.

Emas opening act is designed to disorient by offering glimpses into a woman's life the audience doesn't understand. Fights between dancer Ema (Mariana Di Girolamo) and choreographer Gastn (Gael Garca Bernal) are purposely obscured, emphasizing the relationship's toxicity through references to their adopted child, the fire he started, and who's to blame. The perverse way the two lob insults at each other is reminiscent of the vitriolic onslaught shared between George and Martha in Whos Afraid of Virginia Woolf? The exchanges are as brutal as they are hilarious.

Larrans brand of filmmaking is also in tune with Verhovens each can elevate material that might seem trashy at first (Guillermo Caldern and Alejandro Morenos delicious script wades dangerously close into depraved bisexual tropes) into something far more introspective and critical of the status quo than one would expect. Di Girolamo brings to Ema the same energy Sharon Stone brought to Basic Instinct's Catherine Trammell sexy, calculating, and unpredictable. Shes a woman constantly in motion, and cinematographer Sergio Armstrongs gaze approaches her body as though its torn between forces that she has no command over, even as her eyes indicate otherwise.

Though many viewers might consider Ema an unsympathetic figure, watching the story's deceitful machinations unfold is riveting. Though advertised as a film about a reggaeton dancer, the movie is less interested in dance only occasionally sliding into music video-inspired editing to show both sound and movement and more in the freedom that music signifies against the constraints of normalcy. Both the film and the title character exist to burn down the patriarchy, figuratively and literally, handing the audience everything from flamethrowers to queer orgies. Juan Antonio Barquin

Thursday, October 8, through Wednesday, October 14, via Nightstream. Tickets are $13.

Still from Jumbo

Photo courtesy of Dark Star Pictures

Zo Wittocks first feature, Jumbo, offers a peculiar twist on the conventional girl meets boy. More romance than horror, the film explores objectophilia when a lonely amusement park janitor, Jeanne (Nomie Merlant), develops an attraction to the parks latest attraction, Jumbo. Provocative and intriguing, Jumbo is best when Wittock applies the Hitchcockian principles of pure cinema to explore the erotic connection between human and machine. Using light, sound, and movement, Wittock anthropomorphizes Jumbo and creates a heady expansion into the theme of l'amour fou.

The film is wonderfully subversive in taking a traditional horror setting (an abandoned amusement park) and theme (mans relationship with machine) and exploring the liminal space between intimacy and mechanics. Despite this thrilling potential, the film struggles to find its tone. The courtship between Jeanne and Jumbo is the films strongest section, but the remainder of the film struggles under the weight of its daring premise. Perhaps the film would improve upon leaning into its own queerness rather than attempt to explain Jeannes erotic desires.

Jumbo soars when it invests in the sentient sensuality and electric eroticism of the sexual connection between Jeanne and Jumbo, where metal and flesh converge, and Jeanne experiences the total abandonment one experiences on such a ride. Though the films middle section and conclusion struggle to find themselves tonally, the style and performances by Merlant, last seen in the excellent Portrait of a Lady on Fire, and the scene-stealing stalwart Emmanuelle Bercot, as Jeannes wonderfully tacky mother Margarette, make Jumbo a pleasant ride. Wittock establishes herself as a filmmaker to watch, and while it doesnt always fire on all cylinders, Jumbo is definitely worth a (tilt-a-)whirl. Trae DeLellis

Friday, October 9, through Wednesday, October 14, via Nightstream. Tickets are $13.

Still from Lapsis

Photo courtesy of Film Movement

Lapsis, the debut feature by Noah Hutton, is a sci-fi satire that mines the horrors of modern capitalism and corporate culture. Its a clever takedown of our current gruesome gig economy as well as a rebuke of an economic system stacked against the working class. In short, it is a perfect cinematic entry for the year 2020 that should become required viewing in high school econ classrooms.

A new technology, Quantum (think something like 5G), has taken over the world, causing equal parts excitement and anxiety. To maintain and grow the Quantum network, a faceless corporation is beholden to cablers, independent contractors who hike through the forest connecting cables between power sources. Ray (Dean Imperial) decides to earn some quick cash to help his brother who suffers from a new disease, Omnia (akin to Epstein-Barr), desperate for the best treatment available, which allows the film to skewer the American healthcare system/scam as well. But in the woods he works, he encounters a mysterious and dangerous corporate society, fueled by exploitative labor, automated surveillance, and a cutthroat competitive marketplace.

Lapsis plays much like a top-notch episode of The Twilight Zone or Black Mirror with a self-assured tone and distinct point of view. Hutton has crafted an incredibly timely film to our current cultural zeitgeist while mining the classic trope of man versus machine. It also doubles as a great takedown of companies like Amazon or Uber, reflecting current court cases regarding their independent contractor system, while exposing the rot within capitalism. In the film, an app (think the perky cousin of Hal 9000) pesters workers to challenge the status quo, and Lapsis practices what it preaches in this highly amusing and thoughtful walk through the woods. Trae DeLellis

Sunday, October 11, through Wednesday, October 14, via Nightstream; includes a prerecorded Q&A with director Noah Hutton and actor Dean Imperial. Tickets are $13.

Still from My Prince Edward

Photo courtesy of Cheng Cheng Films

One of the best parts of the Miami Film Festivals pared-down fall offering is the opportunity to find a smaller film that could be lost in a larger festival and this is the case for the wonderful My Prince Edward. The first feature film by Norris Wong has that rare feeling of being deeply personal while expansively universal simultaneously, following Fong (adeptly played by Stephy Tang), an adrift woman working at a one-stop wedding shop in Hong Kong. She is feeling the societal pressure, but none of the desire to be married to her long-term boyfriend, Edward, and passively accepts his proposal when it comes. But before she can get hitched, there is one major hitch: a previous sham marriage that she entered in her youth for some quick cash.

Despite seeming heavily plotted, these events dont detract from the film, which won best new director at the Hong Kong Film Awards and heralds the arrival of a sensational new filmmaker. My Prince Edward is a poignant and wry look at the marital-industrial complex through the prism of a late-in-life, coming-of-age tale and could easily be marketed as an heir apparent to a film like The Farewell, with one easily imagining some studio might want it for an American remake of the film sooner rather than later.

Wongs film plays like a slightly subversive and smarter take on the romantic comedy, with its best moments involving the minutiae of long term relationships, like the particular emphasis on something as mundane as a pair of nail clippers. It is a subtle but wonderfully thought out and intelligent film about its exploration of marriage, freedom, and self-discovery. By asking what any modern rom-com should, questioning the institution of marriage, and emphasizing the importance of self-hood before coupling, My Prince Edward makes a terrific film to watch either with a significant other or by yourself. Trae DeLellis

Thursday, October 8, through Sunday, October 11, via Gems. Tickets are $9.99.

Paula Beer in Undine

Photo courtesy of IFC Films

Undine, the latest from Christian Petzold, is a tremendous romance from one of contemporary cinemas greatest and most underrated filmmakers. Despite his last film, Transit, being directly adapted from the novel that has served as his inspiration for much of his oeuvre, Undine feels as fresh as it does familiar for the filmmaker.

Petzold unites with his stars from Transit, the superb Franz Rogowski and Paula Beer (the latter of which won the Best Actress prize at the Berlin Film Festival) to dive into an altogether different tale of two souls crossing paths. In Undine, Petzold turns to the titular mythological character think a water nymph or Hans Christian Andersens The Little Mermaid more than Disneys version who becomes human when she falls in love but is doomed to die if he is unfaithful to her. But instead of focusing on this aspect of the myth, Petzold is more preoccupied with the nuances of falling in love and building oneself back up after a relationship.

This notion of rebuilding and reflecting on our damaged histories comes into play beautifully with Undines dual role as a mythological creature and lecturer on Berlins history and architecture, offering an especially poetic way to look at the films themes and the complex life of the central figure. Undine is as much a continuation as it is a departure from the Berlin School, Germanys film movement known for social realism and a focus on interpersonal relationships, by injecting German romanticism and magical realism for an intoxicating and refreshing piece of romantic melodrama. Juan Antonio Barquin and Trae DeLellis

Saturday, October 10, through Sunday, October 11, via Gems. Tickets are $9.99.

Link:

What to Watch at the Miami Film Festival's Gems and Popcorn Fright's Nightstream - Miami New Times

The Socialist Moment, and How to Extend It – The American Prospect

While Joe Biden has been making it unmistakably clear that hes nobodys socialist tool, the American socialist movementmost of whose adherents will be voting for Bidenhas continued to expand. The Democratic Socialists of America (to which Ive belonged since the Neolithic Age) now has more than 70,000 members and has launched a campaign to raise that number to 100,000. At its current rate of growth, its membership rolls may well surpass that of the Debs-era Socialist Party, which claimed 118,000 dues-payers at its early-20th-century zenith.

The rebirth of American socialism has come complete with any number of explanatory and exhortatory books, the best of which was published late last month: The Socialist Awakening: Whats Different Now About the Left, a brief, incisive volume by veteran political journalist, longtime democratic socialist, and sometime American Prospect contributor John B. Judis. The book is Judiss third in a series published by Columbia Global Reports. In it, as in its two predecessors The Populist Explosion and The Nationalist Revival, Judis tracks the consequences of the failures of globalized capitalism to sustain working- and middle-class prosperity and stability since the 2008 collapse, and the concomitant rise of both left and right in the wake of those failures. As is not the case in the other two volumes, however, Judis writes not merely as an analyst of an ideologys return but as an advocate for its necessity, with particularly shrewd assessments of how the new American socialism can advance, and, alternatively, how it may marginalize itself into irrelevance.

More from Harold Meyerson

Judis focuses on two periods in American socialisms long history: the Debs Era of 1900 through 1920, and the Bernie Sanders Surge, which began to incubate with the Occupy movement of 2011 but didnt really take off until Sanders began running for president in 2015. Both were periods in which capital concentrated wealth and power, in which little of either trickled down to most Americans, in which the New Deals semisocial democratic reforms had either not yet been enacted or had been discarded in the post-1970 turn toward laissez-faire.

Sanders has always made it plain that socialist leader Eugene V. Debs was his hero, but in Judiss telling, the key to Sanderss zeitgeist-changing success was his move away from the socialist insularity that Debs espoused. While nominally remaining a political independent, Sanders won election to Congress on a social democratic platform of greater regulation of capital, greater power for workers, an expansion of social welfare and economic rights, and a pledge that hed caucus with the Democrats. When he began running for president in 2015, Sanders made clear his model of socialism was the Scandinavian mixed economy. But as Judis recounts, after Columbia University historian Eric Foner sent him an open letter that emphasized a more American pedigree for socialist initiatives, Sanders took the hint. As I recounted in the Prospect, in Sanderss two speeches that he billed as his definition of socialismone given at Georgetown University in 2015, the second at George Washington University in 2019he cited Franklin Roosevelt and Martin Luther King as his forebears in the struggle for socialist reforms.

Your donation keeps this site free and open for all to read. Give what you can...

SUPPORT THE PROSPECT

In keeping with that expansive definition, Judis emphasizes the broad socialist network thats emerged today, which extends well beyond DSA card-carriers. It includes a range of progressive think tanks (like the Economic Policy Institute and the Roosevelt Institute) and magazines; most importantly, it includes not just the avowed socialists in elected office but a host of progressives whose politics are indistinguishable from the socialists politics, as Elizabeth Warrens were from Sanderss.

Expanding that network, as socialists like union leaders Sidney Hillman, A. Philip Randolph, and Walter Reuther did during the New Deal and the postwar period, will be as important, if not more important, to the social democratization of todays United States than the growth of DSA per se, Judis contends. What could retard that growth, he continues, would be continuing the hold that a relatively small group of orthodox Trotskyists now have over DSAs leadership. The majority of DSA members, he argues, are Berniecrats, happy to work for socialist and other progressive candidates seeking office as Democrats. (I believe hes right about this.) They understand, as Sanders does and as DSA founder Michael Harrington did, that third-party politics are a dead end in the current configuration of the American electoral system, and that socialists have won power in democracies only when allied with other progressives on behalf of social democratic programs. Such an approach is anathema to the neo-Trotskyist cadres in DSA, for whom a kind of socialist identity politics eclipses both class politics and that of a 21st-century popular front.

Judis also makes the case for a socialist version of nationalism, at which many in todays socialist movement will look askance. So long as democratic nations offer the one kind of government where majority rule holds sway, though, I think Judis has a point. While capitalism has had no trouble going global (in part to escape the regulations enacted by democratic nations), socialism cannot yet call on any planetary democratic body to reform the global economy. Moreover, peoples support for welfare states funded with their taxes, Judis points out, seldom extends beyond their nations borders. To advance a slightly different viewpoint, its worth noting that the nation that has given the highest share of its GDP in foreign aidsometimes to insurgent movements, like the African National Congresswas Sweden under the Social Democrats. Of course, that was when Sweden also had the worlds most expansive welfare state for its own citizens.

Judis writes not merely as an analyst of an ideologys return but as an advocate for its necessity.

As events would have it, the publication of Judiss book coincides with the premiere of a film that seeks to introduce and normalize socialism to American viewers. Indeed, The Big Scary S Word, a film by documentarian Yael Bridge, will have its first festival screening later today.

In Judiss terminology, The Big Scary S Word is a film about the broad socialist network, and broad left history, rather than a look at, say, the American Socialist and Communist Parties, or at DSA today. The focus is on progressives in motion, then and now, and their connection, explicit or implicit, to socialists and socialism, as distinct from the substance of their involvement in the socialist movement as such. Rather than disentangle the socialist and nonsocialist threads that came together to make the civil rights movement, for instance, the picture simply documents the socialism of Martin Luther King. Some of the environmental protests it shows may not have been populated by socialists, but theyre juxtaposed with interviews with Naomi Klein in which she connects a socialist perspective to any serious effort to save the planet. Theres a marvelous segment, replete with old films and photos, on the socialists 40-year control of Milwaukees city government, but no discussion of the social democratic meliorism of Victor Berger, the Milwaukee socialist leader and a contemporary of Debs who did not share Debss antipathy to reformist socialism. For that, you need to consult Judiss book, which is pitched at a narrower audience than Bridges film.

Your donation keeps this site free and open for all to read. Give what you can...

SUPPORT THE PROSPECT

Just as Eric Foner plays a key role in Judiss account of the Americanization of Bernie Sanderss socialism, so Foner plays a key role in explaining the contributions of socialists to American struggles for justice in Bridges picture. In this task, he is joined by Klein, Cornel West, The Nations John Nichols, and a host of others. In documenting the rise of socialism today, the picture focuses on Lee Carter, a DSA member and the one socialist in the Virginia legislature, as well as on a teacher who assumed a leadership role during the Oklahoma teachers strike and became a socialist in the process.

As its title suggests, The Big Scary S Word makes a broad and pointedly reassuring case for socialism as the remedy to our towering inequities. Judiss book makes a compelling case for what it will take to roll the revived socialist movement on, and offers a pointed critique of how sectarianism could derail it. The former is essential viewing for a broad audience; the latter essential reading for progressives and socialists.

Original post:

The Socialist Moment, and How to Extend It - The American Prospect

MAGA and the White Nationalist Agenda – CounterPunch.org – CounterPunch

Photograph by Nathaniel St. Clair

The Make America Great Again MAGA slogan is nothing new. On the evening of March 21, 1915, President Woodrow Wilson attended a screening of The Birth of a Nation. The blockbuster film was based on The Clansman, a novel written by Wilsons good friend Thomas Dixon. As in the novel, the film presented a resurgent view of the South and its glorification of the Ku Klux Klan. Wilson endorsed the film wholeheartedly, only to embolden a KKK white nationalist reign of terror on African Americans. The Klan created a shibboleth to accompany their resurgence and terrorism: Make America Great Again.

Ronald Reagan and the Republicans used the theme successfully throughout Reagans presidency. Decades later Tea Party Patriots, white nationalists, the alt-right and conservative Republicans proclaim the same MAGA. Only this time the invocation conveys more of an urgency and vitriol. They fear the growth of multiculturalism, socialism and leftists and a country the white majority is becoming a minority.

The leader of the emergent white nationalist movement, the one who gives voice to their fears, is none other than the billionaire and star of the reality show TheApprentice, Donald Trump, forty-fifth POTUS. With Mussolini aplomb and stand-up comedy theatrics, Trump has drawn out a subterranean cast of characters. Trump has been successful in using concepts, terms and colloquialisms easily understood by the deplorables. In fact, it appears that they enjoy each others company and Trumps political rallies. They have become a fun fest of character assignation and blatant lies about political rivals and their ridiculous policy positions.

Trump, acting as a CEO Master of Ceremonies, salutes his loyal assistants in the context of doing a good and then turns on former assistants, usually if they snipe publicly at Trump. While at rallies Trump has people in the crowd stand for ovations when they participate extemporaneously with favorable shouts. He is at this best when he departs from script to lampoon a political rival. Sometimes his is blunt in his criticism when he describes former security advisor, John Bolton, an idiot.

For those at rallies who have showered affection on Trump, when his fan base shouts I love you Trump responds in kind, I love you more. On the other hand, during his campaigns in 2016 and 2020, Trump had no problem telling people at his rallies to shut up hecklers, or punch them in the mouth, and he would pay their legal fees. Most importantly, Trump knows that as ringmaster of his own circus, media ratings will be high with such theatrics which translates into political exposure and advertising from big business.

However, with Trumps recent Covid revelation, and stock market drop, the jury is out on whether or not the media industrial complex will pull the plug on Trump. Revenues from advertising may decline if viewers show displeasure looking at a Covid president on the big screen in their houses. Clearly Trumps right-wing big show has been profitable for business according to a November 18, 2019 article in Fortune Magazine, by Alan Murray and David Meyer, all of this is in terms of GDP growth. But while productivity of an economy is one thing, wages and purchasing power is another. Yet Trump s able to sell the public on a good economy even though the Fed has been bailing out the multinationals by the trillions of dollars.

Underneath this sham is a personality likened to the megalomaniacs of 20th century Germany, Italy and Spain. This makes no difference to Trumps followers; they are energized and entertained by Trumps comical remarks, reminders of his multi-billion dollar success, and his lampooning of political rivals in both parties Low Energy Jeb (Jeb Bush), Lyin Ted Cruz, Crooked Hilary Clinton, Wild Bill Clinton, Little Marco Rubio, Crazy Bernie Sanders, Shifty Adam Schiff, Mr. Magoo (Jeff Sessions), Mini Mike (Michael Bloomberg), Fake Tough Guy (John Bolton), Nervous Nancy Pelosi and a litany for Sleepy Joe Biden, Sleepy Creepy Joe Biden, Slow Joe Biden, Basement Biden, OHiden, and Joe Hiden Biden.

No one indignity is spared, not even Mike Pounce aka Mike Pence Trumps Vice President.

Mocking insults go to the Fake News such as the Clinton News Network (CNN Time Warner), CON-cast (Comcast MSNBC), Amazon WaPo (Jeff Bazos owned Amazon and Washington Post), and Jeff Bazos himself as Jeff Bozo. Media personalities are also a target, Sour Don Lemon, Psycho Joe (Joe Scarborough), Wacky Glenn Beck. Television media programs are not exempt, Deface the Nation (Face the Nation), Meet the Depressed (Meet the Press) and Morning Joke (Morning Joe). Heads of State are made into cartoon characters such as Rocket Man or Little Rocket Man (Kim Jung-un, Supreme Leader of the Democratic Peoples Republic of Korea), My Favorite Dictator (Abdel Fattah el-Sisi, President of Egypt) and Animal Assad (Bashar al-Assad, President of Syria).

Trump is admired, for all intents and purposes, by dictators such as Turkeys Erdogon, Russias Putin, Philippines Duterte, and Saudi Arabian Crown Prince, Mohammed bin Salman, who the CIA has identified as directly responsible for the brutal murder of Jamal Khashoggi, Saudi journalist and dissident. Trumps adoring public could care the least, and have never cared even with his shady alleged criminality in real estate, taxes, relationship to Jeffrey Epstein, impeachment, and sexual manhandling of women. Nor are they concerned about his former staff indicted and sentenced, and countless turnover within his administration.

Benjamin Netanyahu of Israel, though enthusiastically supportive of Trump, appears to be guarded with his praise of Trump, especially with the Presidential elections within a month.

Most interesting are conservative Christians and Catholics who not only dismiss Trumps checkered past and present, but distort and manipulate scripturally comparisons of Trump to Cyrus the Great, a pagan Babylonian king who freed the Jews from captivity in Babylon to reclaim Israel. Point being that God can carry out her/his will in the unchurched like Trump, in the same way that God can work through pagan kings like Cyrus the Great to free Israel from captivity and bondage. Cyrus, as their argument goes, is the archetype of the ironic vessel (vessel theology) in which God carries out her/his plan of salvation, despite the superficial inconsistencies.

For conservative Catholics, as long as Trump is against abortion, anything he does on a personal level or supports as public policy contrary to Catholic social teaching can be justified. Ignored in this form of ethical triumphalism, is the fact that Catholic ethics calls for its faith community to form their consciences on Church teaching (Scripture and Tradition) based on the continuum of life ethics. This means that no one single overarching issue should take priority over others, unless ones conscience directs them in good faith otherwise. Nevertheless, both groups revel in the fact that with three Supreme Court picks, Trump will be able to overturn abortion and follow through on a complete list of conservative and libertarian public policies that the Right have been dreaming of for the last forty years. In all, the vessel theology for conservative Christians appears to be a scriptural form of money laundering while conservative Catholic antiabortion triumphalism appears to be a gaslighting technique, intended as a diversion from other highly import ethical concerns.

Arguably, both conservative Christians and Catholics might agree on vessel theology and the primacy of abortion in their support of Trump. This would justify their manic identity as both Christian and Republican; Democrat not being much better. Unarguably they both agree that the continuum of life issues such as the Churchs preferential option for the poor, the avoidance of environmental extinction, the end to endless wars and global economic domination of the world (PNAC), the elevated status of the military industrial complex, the development of a Space Force, unfettered neoliberal capitalism, increased poverty in the midst of exponential wealth, elite control of government, the threat to democratic freedoms through the new surveillance state, threats to civil liberties and rights in the Patriot Act and the National Defense Authorization Act, extrajudicial murders, secret FISA courts, CIA orchestrated coups in Ecuador and attempted in Venezuela, illegal and harmful economic sanctions placed on Venezuela, racial and class disparities in the criminal justice system, police lawlessness and brutality, economic devastation in all levels of education, neglect of infrastructure development in inner cities, lack of affordable housing and universal health care, capital punishment as justice, nuclear proliferation and the targeting of innocent civilians, nuclear annihilation of all known life on the planet, and the corruption of the two major political parties are of little importance or even sadistically supported or dissented upon relative to the issues.

Yet in all of this, Trump appears to be impervious to the assaults of his political foes. He never lets on that he is bothered by them, at least not in public. Even though he is behind in the polls Trump came off like a brawler. The debate became a hoot and then into a donnybrook which included Trump, Biden and moderator Chris Wallace. Trump took on both simultaneously; Biden putting in a few swings, while Chris Wallace was unable to reign in Trump unhinged. When Biden tried to go on the offensive explaining the advantages of the Green New Deal, Trump asked if Biden supported the GND to which Biden responded in the negative. Trumps counterpunch to Biden? You just lost the Left. Clearly the intensity of Trump was felt and his anger apparent, an anger that reflected a wounded animal.

After the debate the media agreed that the debate was a disaster, but nevertheless concluded that Biden was the marginal winner. Two more debates will tell more. But Trump has some help coming. If Trump can undermine voting, for example in Texas, by having governor Abbott limit ballot drop off ballots one per county as is being discussed, then Trump could very well win Texas and a huge number of electoral votes. And watch conservative governors go to work on this same strategy. Making it difficult to vote has proven to be highly successful for Republicans. Long waits in line, sometimes several hours in predominately poor districts, has proven to frustrate these voters. Suffice it to say, no Republicans in Congress have dissented from this tactic. And no Republicans have dissented at all from Trumps usurpation of the Republican Party. The exceptions of Jeff Flake, who resigned from the Senate, and House member Justin Amash who is now a Libertarian are few and far between. Others like Bob Corker have resigned quietly. In short, Trump will not be ruled out for a second term.

None of this feels right, as in reading Upton Sinclairs, It Cant Happen Here. Sinclair writes about a fictitious 1930s America where a deceptively polite group of individuals marketing the concept of Americanism takes over the country. It parallels 1930s Nazi Germany, and for that matter, the fascist takeovers of Italy and Spain, all democracies at the time. But the It Cant Happen Here scenario is not without actual historical context. In fact, during the 1930s a thriving Nazi Party was alive and well in the United States. Footage of a Nazi Party convention at Madison Square Garden, February 20, 1939, with 20,000 people in attendance, reveals a frightful scene of a rabid crowd, gathered under the pretense of a pro-Americanism rally, were automaton-like saluting allegiance to a massive image of a George Washington portrait with swastikas on each side. This is not insignificant given the zeitgeist then and the zeitgeist now. Known as the German American Bund, the pro-Hitlerorganization in the United States promotedNazi propaganda, combining Nazi imagery with American patriotic history. The largely decentralized Bund, as they were self-described, was active in a number of regions, but attracted support only from a minority ofGerman Americans.The Bund was the most influential of a number of pro-Nazi German groups in the United States in the 1930s; others included theTeutonia SocietyandFriends of New Germany(also known as the Hitler Club). Alongside allied groups, such as theChristian Front, these organizations were virulentlyantisemitic.

When Trump ran for office and was elected president there was a perception of a fascist coup and the appearance would have been cemented, had not Trump been talked down from a military parade on his inauguration. Now the perception is reality. During the debate Tuesday, Trump would not agree to a peaceful transition if he was voted out of office. The rationale was that with the mail in ballots and scattered locations to drop off ballots voter fraud would result which did not obligate him to relinquish the Office of the President, Moreover, when Chris Wallace asked Trump if he would denounce the Proud Boys, Trump instead told the Proud Boys and other alt-right groups to stand back and standby implying that their help might be needed. Thus, Trump refused to unequivocally condemn white supremacists and far-right groups who have respondedto ongoing protests against police brutality and racial injustice, instead pinning the blame for violent clashes on the left wing.Antifa is just as bad even though FBI reports indicate the direct opposite as reported to congressional committees by Director Christopher Wrey. The perception of fascism is now reality. The mask is off and the faade of a democratic society has been exposed.

Most disturbing is the fictional account of the Antifascists (Antifa) as a violent leftist terrorist group. Nothing could be farther from the truth. In an internal memorandum, FBI Director Christopher Wrey, found no evidence of Antifas involvement in national unrest, specifically with the George Floyd protests and riots as falsely reported by The Nation, June 2, 2020. The Washington Field Office memo states that no intelligence indicating Antifa involvement was initiated during the protests, as erroneously stated from Trump, Attorney General Barr, and various right-wing news outlets such as FOX News. On June 12, 2020, the New York Times in Federal Arrests Show No Sign That Antifa Plotted Protests, cleared Antifa and on June 22, 2020, the New York Times, 41 Cities, Many Sources: How False Antifa Rumors Spread Locally, described how propaganda against Antifa was spread through the media community, most likely form conservative politicians and political action committees. The attempt was to falsely blame the uprising on an orchestrated group such as Antifa, according to Glenn Kirschner, former FBI, counterintelligence. Blaming a left-wing group was a ruse created to gaslight the public and divert attention from the right-wing police tactics condoned by the Trump administration.

***

Various media outlets and activist groups have documented the rise of alt-right white nationalist groups. The PBS News Hour, as reported by Kenya Downs (October 21, 2016), identified the growing attraction to rightist groups. The Southern Poverty Law Center compiled a report, White Nationalist, (https://www.splcenter.org/7-15-20/), in which they report that the MAGA have attracted the alt-right such as neo-Nazis, the Ku Klux Klan, Proud Boys, Boogaloo Bois, neo-Confederates, Racist-Skinheads, Christian Identity. The weirdest and most dangerous, arguably, appear to be the QAnon. They allege that a cabalof Satan-worshiping pedophiles running a global child sex-trafficking ring is plotting against PresidentTrump. They warn that a day of reckoning is at hand involving the mass arrest of journalists and politicians. In no uncertain terms, QAnons day of reckoning is aimed at liberals the Left, code for socialists, anarchists, antifa, and communists.

None of these rightest groups have foresworn the use of violence or vigilante tactics, nor have they ruled out the use of violence against local and federal government. The Boogaloo Bois and their movement have even called for a Second Civil War and the Order of the Nine Angels, a Satanic neo-Nazi group in England and the United States, deifies Adolf Hitler as the head of their Order. What has proven to be most disturbing is that hate groups have increased 55% since Trumps campaign and presidency, noted by Jason Wilson of The Guardian, March 18, 2020.

So if the alt-right White Nationalists have surfaced within society, could it be possible that they have also emerged within the rank and file?

Jason Stanley, How Fascism Works: The Politics of Us and Them, 2018, and Timothy Snyder, On Tyranny: Twenty Lessons from the Twentieth Century, 2017 argue that the eroding of human rights and civil liberties in the United States have, in effect, has transformed the United States into a quasi-fascist state, trending ever rightward. They cite policies and law such as the Patriot Act, 2001; National Defense Authorization Act, 2012, in which federal government agencies can spy and detain indefinitely suspects without signed judicial warrants or even probable cause. All of this rationalized as a result of the 9-11 event.

Expanding on their theses, Snyder and Stanley describe fascist movements, and societys attraction to them, based on the following: economic fears, immigrant xenophobia, the need for social stability and status quo, and above all the primacy of white Western European hegemony. Change with respect to diversity, pluralism, and collectivist economic arrangements frightens some people and thus creates forms of neurosis and paranoia to which fascist politics thrives. Examples of fascism include, but are not limited to, the absolute nature of the State, a militarist charismatic leader, and the eradication of diversity and multiculturalism. This has tremendous appeal to those who become emotionally destabilized by what postmodernists describe as the other. Moreover, a powerful dictatorial leader whose followers are drawn toward authoritarianism, is in essence the heart and soul of fascism itself.

Others such as Hannah Arendt in The Origins of Totalitarianism (1951) argue that fascism in Germany was based on an attraction to a mesmerizing leader who convinces followers that civil liberties and human rights have become excessive and therefore undermines social cohesion needed for the well-being if not survival of the state. The implication is that liberal democracy undermines the common good and that a constriction on democratic rights is thus justified. Arendt concludes that there is no guarantee that democracies will uphold human rights and civil liberties and that vigilance to these threats must be a permanent feature of any democratic government. Tragically, Germanys democratic Weimar Republic, 1918 1933, lost sight of this vigilance. Hitler and likeminded fascists lacking any real opposition, quickly weakened the democratic institutions in Germany which then cleared the way for the Nazi Third Reich.

The rapid decline of German democracy and the Nazi assault on the democratic foundations of the Weimar Republic, then focused on Jews, Left-wing politics (labor unionists, socialists, communists, and Marxists) and various social deviants as the enemies of the Third Reich and Aryan race. The mastermind behind this propaganda assault was Joseph Goebbels, the Reich Minister of Propaganda for the Third Reich. Sensing the disposition of the German people, Goebbels took advantage of Germanys humiliating loss of World War I, and Germanys economic collapse after theWall Street Crash of 1929 further intensified their collective humiliation. Germany was already compensating the Axis powers for WWI and with its dependence on American loans from 1924 onwards German, once a proud and wealthy country of Western Europe found itself in a psychotic downspin. Then as the loans were recalled by the United States, the economy in Germany sunk into an even deeper depression. Investment in business was reduced or eliminated completely. Wages fell by 39% from 1929 to 1932 and people once employed full-time, fell from twenty million in 1929, to over eleven million in 1933. In the same period, over 10,000 businesses closed every year and poverty increased dramatically.

Hitler and Goebbels were able to capitalize on the vulnerability of the German psyche. With the Great Depression, Goebbels was highly successful in associating the economic failure of the Great Depression with the Weimar democracy. When combined with the resulting political instability within Germany, Hitler and Goebbels vitriolic propaganda pushed Germans to become further disillusioned and even hostile to the Weimar Republic. Hitler was to be the unquestioned leader of the German people and purge the Aryan Nation of parasites such as Jews (appealing to German anti-Semitism and blaming Jews for Germanys problems), political rivals, and the eradication of genetic aberrations form the German Aryan race.

In Hitlers biography, Mein Kampf (1925), Hitler develops the Jewish Doctrine of Marxism. Hitler argued that the survival of Germany was threatened by Marxist intellectuals who were predominantly Jewish.Goebbels, seeing an opening for further promoting the cause of Nazism, gave a speech February 1926 titled Lenin or Hitler? in which he asserted that communism or Marxism could not save the German people and would only usher in Bolshevik tyranny such as that of Russia. In 1926, Goebbels published a pamphlet titled Nazi-Sozi which attempted to explain how National Socialism differed from Marxist socialism and economic collectivism. National Socialism (Keynesian social spending) would rejuvenate the German economy, not Marxist socialism which happen to be a popular alternative to the horrendous effects of the German depression. The Marxists scholars in Germany, intellectually attacked by the Nazis, were known as the Frankfurt School. They argued that Hitler and Goebbels were making a false comparison between their policy recommendation for a democratic economy, not a Bolshevik collectivist model implemented by the Soviet Union. In fact, the Frankfurt School rejected both Stalinism and Fascism.

In order to convince Germans of their superior status as a race, Goebbels insisted that Hitler promote himself as an ubermench or superman in his 1935 Triumph of the Will. Goebbels argued that Hitler must promote his own cause as the Fuhrerprinzip or Fuhrer (prince leader) and demonstrate the evils of the democratic Weimar Republic. The film would serve to denounce the legitimacy of the Weimar Republic, call for a resurgence of the German will to power, ignite passions of German patriotism and thus set the stage for a Nazi coup detat. The timing was perfect. With the death of President Paul von Hindenburg, Hitler as Chancellor, would step in and abolish the Office of the President and declare himself Fuhrer. Finally, the call to National Socialism is contrasted with propagandized subhuman Bolsheviks, who because of Stalinist collectivism, suffer as a nation. Marxism is therefore dismissed comically as a viable economic option. Competing collectivist economic arrangements urged by labor unionists, socialists, anarchists and Marxists would be dismissed in patronizing theatrics. With this the Weimar Republic and its democratic foundations were destroyed.

***

The white nationalists assert that white people are a unique race, and as such, seek to maintain its white identity or white pride within a majoritarian white nation such as the United States, United Kingdom, France, Germany, and other white dominated countries. They believe they are being pushed aside and headed toward a minority status. Their agenda, specifically in the United States, is to support the dominance of white culture and ensure the rights of besieged white people. The assimilation of minorities into white society is therefore perceived to be a threat to the survival of the white race and its cultural heritage. Resistance to the inclusion of minorities through miscegenation, multiculturalism and immigration is axiomatic. In compounding the issue, Donald Trump endorsed white nationalists when he stated (August 15, 2017) that white nationalist demonstrators and counter-protesters in Charlottesville, North Carolina, have very fine people on both sides. And with Trumps refusal to denounce David Duke, Grand Wizard of the Ku Lux Klan, Trumps political sentiments have surfaced. The MAGA slogan, nonetheless, identifies the white nationalist vision.

The, MAGA, was adopted by Adolph Hitler and the Third Reich, taken straight from the Klan, and translated into Make Germany Great Again (MGGA). In fact, the MAGA has re-emerged in Germany over the past two decades with the German alt-right. It has become a catchall phrase for a loose group of extreme right-wing individuals and organizations who promote the fascist values of white nationalism. These groups tend to exhibit at least three of the following five features: nationalism, racism, xenophobia, anti-democracy and a white nationalist state advocacy of white domination. In a study by Anne Applebaum, Peter Pomerantsev, Melanie Smith and Chloe Colliver, Make Germany Great Again: Kremlin, Alt-Right and International Influences in the 2017 German Elections, Institute for Strategic Dialogue (2017), the authors argue that the MAGA theme was established in Adolph Hitlers Mein Kampf and the fascist doctrines set forth inThe Manifesto of the Fasci of Combat (Fascist Manifesto, 1919), and further enumerated inThe Doctrine of Fascism, purportedly written byBenito Mussolini, but more than likely the intellectual formulation of fascist Giovanni Gentile in 1932.

In the German context the MGGA denotes those who seek to define and defend a true German national identity from elements deemed to be corrupting of that identity, for example, Jews, communists, socialists, gypsies, dissident priests and ministers, union leaders and trade unionists, and those persons opposed to authoritarianism. This phenomenon has also developed in dominant white European countries including Russia. The resurgence, whatever the shibboleth, clearly has deeper roots in authoritarian and fascist traditions as argued in Theodor Adornos The Authoritarian Personality, 1950. During and after World War II, Adorno examined the psychological causes of the development of European fascism. Adorno concluded that there was a distinct personality associated with prejudice and intolerance that led to racist and fascist policies. The authoritarian personality is fundamentally one that is inflexible, rigid, and intolerant of uncertainty. They reject unconventional behavior as immature, inferior, degenerate, or even deviant. Moreover, authoritarians, identify with authority figures and the power that accompanies such positions. Any anti-authoritarian behavior is perceived to be a threat to authoritarians themselves and society. As a consequence of the authoritarian mindset is one formulated upon a neurotic fear and therefore forms a reaction to dissident ideas from its own. It seeks to suppress these views and the people that possess them and their cultures an any outward expression of these differences.

In psychoanalytic terms what emerges is a form of reaction formation which provides a framework for which authoritarians need not question their own beliefs or values, that is, compared to that of unconventional ones. For Adorno, the authoritarian personality then believes that members of a minority group are inferior in relation to the authoritarian archetype, in that, failure to assimilate or comply to given standards, relative though they are, are projected on to others and viewed as defiant of the state. Difference and nonconformity translate to subversive activity and a threat to the survival of society itself. The authoritarian person and state then react to this defiance or deviance by assigning those to, not only an inherently inferior status, but one of danger or evil. This tends to perpetuate itself within authoritarian societies and accompanying institutions and traditions. Understanding the context for this recent emergence of the MAGA is in order.

White Privilege

Minorities and anti-racists point to white privilege as the basis of white hegemony in the United States. White privilege refers to the historical advantages white people have over people of color. Jesse Myerson in White Anti-Racism Must Be Based in Solidarity, Not Altruism, The Nation, February 5, 2018, addresses political scientist David Kaibs argument that there are two faces of privilege. One face is composed of a higher quality of life, education, employment, living wage jobs, homeownership, retirement benefits, healthcare, etc. The second face is the societal privilege to dominate narratives, initiate dialogue and discussions, and monopolize control of public spaces. Though they are referred to as privileges, Kaib asserts that privileges should be defined as rights. Suffice it to say, white people have more access to these two privileges than blacks, and though white people are more likely to find themselves in managerial positions with some institutional power over blacks, these are a far cry from the power to influence national and international government and institutions as noted by Derrick Bell, And We Are Not Saved: The Elusive Quest for Racial Justice, 1987. White privilege thus maintains a social, political, and economic advantage over people of color, and in doing so, pits white people against people of color, specifically African Americans. The privileges that come from membership in dominant white groups, is prioritized by whites in order to maintain their very privilege.

At times this is reinforced by anti-racists who, in realizing their privilege, prefer not to be active in racial resistance since they might be outed for latent racist attitudes as Robin Di Angelo identifies in White Fragility: Why Its So Hard for White People to Talk about Racism. This also carries over to an oppressor/oppressed binary which offers no incentives for white people to live differently. In this binary, white people can only fall on the side of the oppressor and the inherent privileges that accompany whiteness. This model erases the history of white people engaged in personal, interpersonal, cultural, and systemic work to promote racial, social and economic justice. There is no recognized, historical alternative to toxic whiteness in this binary despite there actually being a history of anti-racist white people struggling to create an alternative white identity. This false narrative of white only racism needs revision, e.g., John Brown, the Abolitionists, Rev. William Sloan Coffin, etc.

White privilege undermines the democratic gains of people of color. Since 1865, with the passage of the Thirteenth Amendment, African Americans have made some progress towards full democratic participation. White reaction has been to undermine and even rollback some of these gains. For example, at the end of the Civil War and Reconstruction Era, the Black Codes were unlawfully implemented while Jim Crow laws violated Reconstruction Era Civil Rights legislation. In overruling Plessy v. Ferguson, The Supreme Courts landmark 1954 Brown v. Board of Education decision was rejected by southern states by shutting down public schools throughout the South.

The Civil Rights Act of 1964 and Voting Rights Act of 1965 prompted states and local governments to intimidate and obstruct African Americans from voting. The Southern Strategy, orchestrated by Kevin Phillips and Richard Nixon intended to create dog whistle racist slogans to turn whites away from supporting civil rights and turning to regressive public policy supported by conservatives. The War on Drugs initiated by Bill Clinton and Joe Biden, disenfranchised millions of African American men through broken windows policing, racial profiling, stop and frisk police tactics, and three strikes legislation. All of this leading to a racist redux as described in recent scholarship by Michelle Alexander in The New Jim Crow and J. Michael Higginbotham in Ghosts of Jim Crow.

White Nationalism

The MAGA and white nationalists reject the white privilege argument and instead see themselves as the new oppressed minority. The philosophical underpinnings of white nationalism are, for the most part, derived from social Darwinism, Nazism, and fascism. Narrow cherry-picked passages by Christian fundamentalists use interpretations of Hebrew and Christian scriptures that support racist beliefs. White nationalists tend to believe that a conspiracy against whites is being promoted as part of an attempted white genocide. They usually base their evidence for this on a partisan activist government implementing public policies on behalf of minorities, and the declining birth rate among whites and the increasing birth rate among minorities and immigrants. Their white culture and traditions are dying. In response the white nationalists scapegoat minorities, progressive legislation, and if necessary, violence to protect themselves from extinction.

The alt-right (alternative right) has become a catchall phrase for a loose group of extreme right individuals and organizations who promote white nationalism. The alt-right, also describe themselves in terms of white power and white pride, is a movement in America who seek a resurgence or revolution in promoting the unique identity of the European heritage of white Americans. Its soldiers, as some describe themselves, are not lone wolves but highly organized cadres motivated by a coherent and deeply troubling worldview made up of white separatism, supremacy, virulent anticommunism, and Christian apocalyptic faith. In Bring the War Home, Kathleen Belew provides a history of a movement that consolidated in the 1970s and 1980s, around a potent sense of betrayal of American world domination only to be forced to retreat, specifically from the Vietnam War, a war they felt they were not allowed to win. According to Belew, government was to blame for Americas retreat as a world power and as a result, anti-government citizen groups and militia emerged, from Waco and Ruby Ridge, to the anti-government terrorist bombing on Oklahoma City, to a resurgence under President Donald Trump and the MAGA movement.

Many of the alt-right conclude, nonetheless, that waging war on their own country, the United States, was justified. They unified people from a variety of militant groups, including Klansmen, neo-Nazis, skinheads, radical tax protestors, veterans, and white separatists, to form a new movement of loosely affiliated independent cells to avoid detection. The white power and white pride movement operated with discipline and clarity, undertaking assassinations, armed robbery, counterfeiting, and weapons trafficking. Its command structure gave women a prominent place and put them in charge of brokering alliances and birthing future recruits. Belews disturbing and timely history recounts that war cannot be contained in time and space: grievances intensify and violence becomes a logical course of action.

Based on years of deep immersion in previously classified FBI files and on extensive interviews, American para-militarism and the birth of the alt-right has both overt and covert manifestations. This has become what historian Carol Anderson describes as white rage in White Rage: The Unspoken Truth of Our Racial Divide. She argues that it was white rage at work that sparked the riots and that the media and public at large ignored the kindling which stoked the flames. What fueled the unrest is a white backlash of resentment, anger, and even rage that African Americans and other minorities are being privileged over whites. This is clear in the tolerance of hyper policing and brutality directed at blacks. This has also enabled increasing displays of white rage in an insurgent white nationalist movement.

Critical Race Theorists such as Richard Delgado and Jean Stefancic, in Critical Race Theory argue that the compounding impact of marginalization felt by whites, as the dominant identity in the United States, further compounds resentment toward minority entitlement especially since this has resulted in financial loss for whites. There is some truth to this resentment. Cedric Robinson argues in Black Marxism: The Making of the Black Radical Tradition, that the wealth disparity as a result of a capitalist economic system, coupled with corrective measures by way of Affirmative Action and welfare policies, makes upward movement into a more equitable economic and social class all the more difficult, not only for blacks, but for whites as well. And this class struggle is one that elicits fear and anger. Anticipating this resentment Malcom X urges, I tell sincere white people, work in conjunction with us each of us working among our own kind. Let sincere white individuals find all other white people they can who feel as they do and let them form their own all-white groups, to work trying to convert other white people who are thinking and acting so racist.

The MAGA and White Nationalist movements emboldened by Trump have made fascism in the United States the acceptable norm. Hopefully with this election, the removal of Trump from office will quell the alt-right. Democracy is at stake.

NOTES

1. Malcolm X, The Autobiography of Malcolm X: As Told to Alex Haley (New York: Random House Publishing, 1964), p. 434.

Continued here:

MAGA and the White Nationalist Agenda - CounterPunch.org - CounterPunch

YG Shows Consistency And Growth On The Concise ‘My Life 4Hunnid’ – UPROXX

When YG first emerged on the scene five albums ago, certain elements of his artistry were more rough around the edges than many rap purists would have liked. But it wasnt his gift for wordplay or emmaculate cadences that drew listeners in. It was his honesty, at times blunt, brutal, and bombastic, that set him apart from well-practiced Compton cohorts like The Game or Kendrick Lamar or even Problem. His flows lacked polish and he hewed closely to familiar concepts, but there was an edge of lived experience that made his debut, My Krazy Life, and its follow-up, Still Brazy, so electric and engaging.

Now, six years removed and with much more experience, wisdom, and practice in the game and a lot more to lose than the scruffy, devil-may-care version of himself that once introduced the world to the concept of flocking and apologized to his mama for all his street-running shenanigans YG releases his fifth studio album (and last under his Def Jam deal), My Life 4Hunnid. The new album offers few surprises and while the rougher edges have been polished off, the music provides something else in exchange: A glimpse of a veteran at work one who has since mastered his craft and turns out to be pretty damn good at it.

While prior releases prompted some listeners to call YGs music one-dimensional due to his aforementioned tendency to stick to comfortable topics, My Life 4Hunnid arrives in a completely different context as did many other releases this year. Like the rest of us, YG has seen his plans derailed and his day-to-day existence upended by the arrival of the novel coronavirus and the resulting shutdown of his industry, both of which offered frustrating setbacks and promising opportunities for rebirth or renewal.

However, on a personal note, YG also faced turmoil, seismic upheaval, and the reevalution of his own emotional state early this year, which inform the self-effacing tone and anxieties expressed on tracks like lead single/album closer Laugh Now Kry Later. He began 2020 demonstrating personal growth by apologizing to the LGBTQ community for previous ignorant statements and views, a sign that his relationship with Bay Area artist Kehlani had left a positive impact on him. Unfortunately for YG, he also faced the disintegration of that relationship, which he touches on in the lyrics to multiple songs on the album, albeit in an oblique way that suggests hes looking at things from her point of view as much as his own.

You be wantin more from me, he confesses on the melancholy Thug Kry, Tryna make me strong when Im weak / You be wantin more from me / But I like you more as a friend. On Laugh Now Kry Later, he addresses his errors in the third person: Baby got her heart broken, need labor / He cheated, like head, so the n*** played her / Now she anti-dick, she a dick hater / Got her in her house playin with the vibrator. The flashes of his devious humor remain evident, but hes also smiling to keep from crying, just like the title of the song a favorite axiom among gangster types says.

Likewise, YG has been observing the months of civil unrest directed at police who continue to abuse, harass, and murder Black people at a disproportionate rate. Hes spoken on the subject before; Still Brazy contained Police Get Away With Murder, a self-explanatory examination of the phenomenon. This time, though, he taps into the zeitgeist from a different angle with FTP, reflecting the transformation of the peoples exasperation with polices invulnerability into fury and action. Its no surprise that FTP has not only become the soundtrack of the movement, but reverberates that energy in its protest footage-fueled video.

With just 11 songs, not including the two Traumatized interludes recording his own childrens reactions at having police officers guns pointed at them during a raid on YGs house early this year, there was less room for missteps. Unfortunately, the Chris Brown and Tyga-featuring Rodeo counts as one that started with a good idea calling back to Tupacs How Do You Want It? and executing it poorly, speeding up the beat to an arhythmic rattle that doesnt suit either YG or Tygas usually dependable flows. Meanwhile, YG does continue to stick to the usual subject matter, which limits the perception of his growth. Nothing here is particularly high-concept, although the expansive range of instrumentals will undoubtedly widen his appeal beyond the sun-soaked streets of Los Angeles.

My Life 4Hunnid isnt quite the superstar effort that YGs first two projects were. Back then, we were watching a rookie coming into the game and blowing us all away with highlight play after highlight play. Now, we sort of know what to expect from him, and when we get it, its harder and harder to feel impressed after all, familiarity breeds contempt. But taking a step back, the timeline of YGs development as an artist and a craftsman becomes clearer. When a rookie-of-the-year candidate doesnt quite become the perennial all-star we all thought hed be, its easy to view his career trajectory as a disappointment. But in a game where the average career doesnt last more than two years/albums, to see him still here, still consistent, and building his business as a label owner while owning up to past mistakes, YGs persistence and longevity reveal an artist coming into his own. Thats more than enough to satisfy.

My Life 4Hunnid is out now via Def Jam. Get it here.

Read the rest here:

YG Shows Consistency And Growth On The Concise 'My Life 4Hunnid' - UPROXX

An exhibition all about New York’s iconic Studio 54 is coming to Toronto – blogTO

Nightclubs in Toronto may be a no-go, but party-goers will soon be able torelive the zeitgeist of peak New Yorknightlife at the Art Gallery of Ontario.

The Art Gallery of Ontario has announced they'll be bringing an exhibit dedicated to Studio 54: the revolutionary NYC nightclub and creative disco hub that rocked the globe for a few short years in the late 1970s.

Studio 54: Night Magic will open to the public on Dec. 26.

The exhibition is currently at the Brooklyn Museum, and is being organized by the museum in collaboration with Spotify.

Visitors will be able to see hundreds of mementos, includingphotos, films, sketchesand fashion pieces. It will be organized chronologically and set to the sounds of disco.

Studio 54 opened in 1977 in an old Manhattan theatre at the height of social unrest, amidst the Civil Rights Movement, the fight for LGBTQ+ rights, women's rightsand at the tail end of the Vietnam War.

In three years, the space had transformed into a gathering space for designers, performers, artists, writers like Truman Capote and musicians such as Andy Warhol, Michael Jacksonand Cher.

More information on the exhibit is on the way. AGO Members and AGO Annual Pass Holders will be able to view the exhibit for free, as can visitors 25 and under.

See the original post here:

An exhibition all about New York's iconic Studio 54 is coming to Toronto - blogTO

Born on a Meat Hook: On Andr vredal’s Scary Stories to Tell in the Dark (2019) – Bright Lights Film Journal

We grow up, but do we ever forget how afraid of ourselves we are?

* * *

The books parents protest about are the best at converting children into bookworms. They create a lightbulb moment for art as an outlet. Adults arent plagued by anything sweeter: the hunt for a spine to crack, the subversion of a dream explored in its fullest context before responsibility disenchants. We have entered Black Mirror and made it mundane. Hackers are getting younger by the app. Fetuses might as well edit their own genome from the womb. The I-Ching ka-chings across big tech. The pillow talk of smartphones, helicopter parents the size of a satellite, tattletale culture these will soon delete slightly inappropriate finds like Alvin Schwartzs Scary Stories to Tell in the Dark.

Tweens kneel, as if in prayer, squinting at Steven Gamells hellish tracings. His lines, left incomplete, torment the imagination. Scary Stories to Tell in the Dark (the film) is packed with Easter eggs, agonized frames referencing the text, in search of those courageous enough to stay haunted decades later. Like the book series, the film is toned down for children, but nostalgia carries it past its faults as a stand-alone work. Such seminal horror for eighties and nineties kids can be sustained on the application of one archaic thing: style.

Monstrous sculptures are brought to cinematic life at twenty-four sketches per second the pale-faced woman from The Dream, Jangly Man, Harold (the scarecrow), and the woman searching for her big toe. Its hard to pinpoint practical effects from CGI. Animation has become quite crisp right alongside our increasingly digitized lives. Actors were painted inside the body of each demon. The spinal twist, scuttling backwards on all fours, was shot in real time by men in intricate costume Gamells iconic images recreated in 3D. We shift to the early retro: 1968 what Guillermo del Toro calls the end of innocence. American kids go missing in Vietnam while their ghosts scream at the red scare hoax that stole their essence.

The first act begins with an awkward, bookish Stella (Zoe Colletti) and her geeky friends donning costumes to trick-or-treat, knowing that Tommy (Austin Abrams), the neighborhood bully, will steal their pillowcases of candy. Instead of filling up the sack with goodies, each bags stuffed with pungent dad underwear. Tommy crashes his car as the children light a bag of shit on fire and crown his tight-jeaned crotch with it. The neighborhood scarecrow, Harold, steps in and quickly dispatches Tommy with a pitchfork. Its not blood but straw emerging from each wound fortifying Tommys flesh, pouring from his mouth as he claws at his throat, expanding and growing blue. His eyes pop in recognition that hes become mulch much quicker than decomposition allows. The audience might have a hard time identifying with this plastered jerk of a character, but the excitement and expectations of the movie trailer, in anticipation of this ceremonial adaptation, is slowly undermined.

Stella and Ramn (Michael Garza) share a pockmarked romance, pimples popped in the rearview mirror closer than they appear. The roller-coaster thrill of their conundrum is too fast-tracked. Tell her the truth! Ramon shouts to Stella through a supernatural veil. Truth and bravery are the golden tickets for most of these Stranger Things wannabe revival flicks. Children have a stand-up-to-the-goblin moment at the end, and the spiders legs shrink back into its body. But the clutter of characters that also clogged the narrative drain of the It remake is sadly the driving force of Scary Stories. The film is choked by transitions. Spectacular moments pale-faced lady pulling the curly-haired kid into her belly are embittered by their follow-through. Why make a family-friendly film for the generation who grew up with the book? In some ways, del Toro and director Andr vredal (Trollhunter) stay faithful to the text. Their few departures are cringeworthy. Our zeitgeist depression sure needs redirecting from the self-help section (the poop emoji made readable) to Dostoyevsky and Rimbaud, but the earths been flat since identities were solidified and hauled into the cloud. Suspended in a bionic bubble, now even scientists are trolls, explaining Doritos, laughing out Mountain Dew.

Stella flips through Sarah Bellowss notorious book. The pages color themselves in, much like Pans Labyrinth. Both films include a little girl holding the key to unlock imaginary worlds. Its her compulsive lexicon that will save her, disbelievers draining into the black hole off-screen. True to life, reading harms and saves in equal proportions. The tiny intellectuals open the magic marbled paper an old-school technique to ensure each print is its own monotype. Some methods of marbling use childrens blood. These misfits are certified organic. Two million new cells leak red to fill out a prepubescent will and testament. Their deaths have been stripped of blood to write their end. A gold leaf fate. Leather binding stretched over the eyes. A sky that stinks of iron holds tight between each meme-like layer of plot.

The pairing of the often-quirky stories with the excruciating illustrations is lighthearted. Calls to ban the book from school libraries echo through the decades, but children have experienced and imagined worse. For years the people in this town told lies about me. Locked me away. Called me a monster. This sentiment from Sarah Bellows the ghost of a girl tormented by her family for going against the grain, a watery expos is trending. Why do we need an audience for our lives? Does every breath of air need attention? Cancel culture continues to snake its way through the world of filmmakers and writers. But the effect of canceling is kin to bans, which makes readers and cinephiles all the more excited to witness whatever is withheld. It should go without saying that repression only causes more of what is supposedly being repressed, but those YouTube comment warriors tune in less from moral exasperation and more for likes and comments.

For the generation who retold each section of these books verbatim, thumbs dragged through the mist of youth the Scary Stories franchise busted a few childhood bones that wont grow back. It has been rotoscoped with fractured fingers. Luckily, many of the strange things that happened to us as children we only read. Dont reread childhood books if you want to keep the dollhouse version of yourself from crumbling whether This Little Light of Mine is a burning building or a namaste. The Gamell drawings changed some of us for the worse, Francis Bacon style. Bacon quipped that he unloaded his violence into the viewer via their cornea. We are born with a scream love is a mosquito net between the fear of living and the fear of death. And like the folktales Alvin Swartzs stories are based on (stories keep us violent; stories keep us silent or however the nursery rhyme goes), the parasite of art is willing to derange its host to bulk itself into tendril-like afflictions. There are many books from grade school that turned flashlight readings beneath the sheets into an outburst. Besides Scary Stories, there was anything written by Stephen King. His books turned into playground myths, children daring each other to read something more heinous, bullying one another, lying that each tortured climax didnt prescribe its own set of sleep paralysis.

Sarah Bellows is a myth. This is echoed by all the teenage book junkies in the film. Cinema is the best backdrop for our fables to electroshock to life. 2D drawings grow legs, sprout movement, while the amniotic surround sound cradles us. We grow up, but do we ever forget how afraid of ourselves we are? In his The Ordinary Man of Cinema, Jean Louis Schefer writes, At the heart of cinema (in its most ancient condition for us, and most brutal) subsists the vague terror or fear that links our entire childhood to one film or another. He draws scattered lines between children and the theater. The atmosphere these spaces wield are thunderous and profound. Suspension of disbelief is a valuable talent the young possess. Scary Stories is concocted with fabled ingredients. The open-ended logic of Winnebago legends is somewhat explored here, since each child hollowed out and stuffed with straw, fused into the belly of an obese mental patient, or dragged into a place between the floor and wall does not return. No answers exist. A loop between folklore and war. Tarsal claws crunching out a future, were all stunted by the trauma of birth. Uncured meat, hunting for a hook that fits who we are, that fills the holes in our heart.

In response to the challenge of its censors, for reasons such as, insensitivity, occult Satanism, and violence, children read more. Del Toro has rekindled a feeling adjacent to the original magic, but we need more than looks that kill. For every self-important moralist, a rebellious child. For every splotchy, watercolor trauma, a time-lapse culture skinning itself alive, husk balanced on the top of a silo, crisping in the shine.

* * *

Images are screenshots from the film.

More:

Born on a Meat Hook: On Andr vredal's Scary Stories to Tell in the Dark (2019) - Bright Lights Film Journal

Strength in Numbers: Using Data to Track Diversity and Inclusion – ProMarket

Recent protests against racism and police brutality, along with the #MeToo movement, have increased pressure on businesses to measure and improve their recruitment and promotion of women and people from underrepresented racial groups. Chicago Booths Marianne Bertrand, the Chris P. Dialynas Distinguished Service Professor of Economics and Willard Graham Faculty Scholar, and Mekala Krishnan, a senior fellow at the McKinsey Global Institute, discuss with Caroline Grossman, executive director of the Rustandy Center for Social Sector Innovation, how businesses use data to track diversity and inclusion.

Editors note: To mark the 50-year anniversary of Milton Friedmans influentialNYTpiece on the social responsibility of business, we are launching a series of articles on the shareholder-stakeholder debate. Read previous installmentshere. The following is an edited and condensed transcript of a panel discussion held during the Corporate Social Responsibility Revisited conference hosted by Chicago Booth.

Caroline Grossman:

Research and data must play arole when it comes to implementing Diversity and Inclusion (D&I) strategythat actually moves the needle on equity. If you dont collect data, its hardto diagnose how your company is performing. If you dont track data, you wontknow how youre improving. A necessary complement to putting a diversity andinclusion plan in place is using research and data to ensure change is actuallyhappening. Our two panelists today offer that complementarity a two-way lens:Chicago Booth Professor Marianne Bertrand and Mekala Krishnan, Senior Fellow atMcKinsey Global Institute.

Much of Marianne Bertrandsresearch on this topic uses data to quantify the effects of racial and genderbias and to understand which mechanisms work better than others. Because manyfirms are in early stages with these topics and may not have great data, itsalso useful to have Mekalas voice on what this looks like in practice today.

One possible lever to pull that may make sense for some industries more than others is the question of quotas. On the topic of hiring, quotas have been adopted in a few countries, especially here, for those of us who are in Europe as theyre tuning in, and recently in the US in the State of California. Proponents see quotas as mechanisms to increase gender and racial diversity, but they can also lead to concerns like tokenism. Research, including some by you, Marianne, suggests that quotas arent a panacea. Based on the data youve seen, whats your take?

Marianne Bertrand:

We studied, a few years back,the first gender quota policy that was adopted in Europe, and that was inNorway back at the beginning of the millennium. I think the main way tosummarize what we saw in the data is that quotas didnt really do anything bad,but they are not the kind of transformative tool that I think companies may belooking for if theyre really trying to improve diversity.

Just so everybodys on the same page, Norwayvery similar to a lot of other European countries after itpassed a law that forced publicly traded corporations to have 40 percent of women on their board. There was a lot of pushback by corporations that were basically saying, Were never going to be able to find women with the kind of talent that is required to be on those corporate boards.

What we found was that corporationswere clearly wrong when making that statement. We were able to document thequalifications of the women that were appointed to the board once the companieswere forced to find 40 percent of women on the board. These women were, ifanything, more qualified than the very few women that were on the board priorto the quotas being put in place.

So those companies managed to find highly qualified women to serve on these boards, which means that once you force the companies to look beyond the standard network that they have, lets call it the old boys network, there are a lot of qualified women to fill in those positions. So thats really, I think, the good news about what we found in the context of this quota reform.

What is, I think, the less optimisticmessage is that if you believe that this is a policy that is really going tomake a difference, thats going to be transformational for womensopportunities inside of corporation, you really have to hope that there will bespillovers of these quotas beyond the corporate boards. Corporate boards arevery, very few individuals. So the idea theoretically is by appointing movementto the boards, you may have more women joining the C-suites, more women risingin the operational ranks of the organization. And then what we do is basicallycheck the data to see whether that was happening. And there was really no signof that.

So the bottom line is: by forcing companies to look for women, theyre going to be able to find highly qualified women to serve on the board. But you should not expect that this kind of policy will be transformational in terms of bringing more talented women at the top of organizations. So the main takeaway for me is that there was a sense in a lot of European countries that, Okay, we have these quotas in place. Thats it. Our job is done, and weve achieved gender diversity in the corporate sector. And that would be a really, really big mistake.

I think gender is quite different for me than racial minorities and their representation. When it comes to gender and the representation of women in the corporate sector or in the higher-paying jobs, in many ways I think that the key difficulties are not so much biases but really have to do with the structure of work, really have to do with what just happened today. Kids are walking around the home and the other responsibilities that women may have that make it very difficult for them to succeed at balancing the work and the family responsibilities.

Mekala Krishnan:

Just to add a couple of thoughts, Marianne, because I completely agree with what you just said. I feel like with quotas, people arrived at quotas as a panacea, as the silver bullet. And its great that it has led to increase representation on boards, but thats really not had the kind of spillover effects that people had hoped. And in fact, our research would suggest two things that I think are of interest to this conversation. The first is there is a lot of work out there including boards that correlates representation in leadership positions with corporate outcomes. And of course, its correlation, not causation. But interestingly, that correlation is not as strong compared with women in top management positions when you look at women in boards. If you think about appointing women in boards as a corporate performance driver, it may be less helpful than having women in top management positions.

People arrived at quotas as a panacea, as the silver bullet. And its great that it has led to increase representation on boards, but thats really not had the kind of spillover effects that people had hoped.

I think the second is when you look at the corporate pipeline, its really interesting to see that as quotas have been implemented, you see this funnel go down way from entry level to C-suites and then a jump up at the end for boards as weve put quotas in place. But really, that funnel, if you look at the data carefully from our survey of North American companies, where you see the funnel drop off is really that first promotion. So from the entry level to that first manager role is where you see most women fall off. And of course, for some companies, it might be the end of the funnel. But on average, if youre focusing your efforts at the end of the funnel, youre not really solving the issue, which is enabling women to make that first promotion.

I think the second thing that was really interesting with that data is that that first promotion, people came to us to say, Okay, the reason that women are dropping off at that first promotion point is that thats the age where they want to leave the workforce to have children, and so its women leaving companies. But actually, when we looked at the data, attrition rates for women and attrition rates for men were essentially the same. It was the promotion rates that were quite different. So whats happening is that women are getting stuck at that first entry level. They arent progressing through the funnel, whereas the common zeitgeist is that women want to leave the workforce to have kids. But we arent really seeing that, at least when we look at data in North America and Europe. It may be different than other countries, but in those two regions, we arent really seeing that in the data. And this, again, emphasizes why data is so important.

Marianne Bertrand:

So thats super interesting, and this is about data to study diversity and inclusion. This is the call out for more corporations to make the study of the funnel and how it evolves available because absent the ability to look inside of corporations and see the funnel that youre able to see by your consulting work, its really hard for us researchers to bring additional insights. One more thing I will say is that what you described is somewhat different from what Ive seen in other data set. So theres a lot of really, really good research that documents that its not so much women want to leave the workforce to have children, but really documents the dramatic effect that having children, the birth of a first child has on the career opportunities of women. So it is not being done, unfortunately, focusing solely on the kind of woman that would have the potential to lead corporations. Its done on a much broader side of the populations, but the data is remarkably striking You see the career of men and women evolving really in parallel with one another up to the point of the birth of a first child. And this is really the point where women start experiencing very rapid losses and really never fully recover.

Mekala Krishnan:

I completely agree with that, actually. Weve done some work again, simple correlation analysisbut it correlates the time that women versus men spend on unpaid care work, what we call unpaid care work, things like childcare and household work, and correlate that with labor force participation rates, correlate that with relative rates in leadership positions. And theres very, very strong relationships between the two. One of the things that our surveys of employees have also found is the number one challenge that women cite is what they call the double burden syndrome or the fact that theyre working both in the workplace as well as in the home. So I think it is significantly impacting womens experience in the workplace. I think its just that the idea that women prominently drop out is not true its that they are struggling to manage both work in the workplace, work in the home. It may be limiting how many hours that women work. It may be limiting the types of opportunities they reach out for. It may be impacting their own aspirations for their career.

Marianne Bertrand:

And the point that you justmade about this double burden and not being able to work as long hours I thinkalso ties back to another fact that is in the data, which is that in thecorporate sector there is massive reward, financial reward, for the ability towork very, very long hours. So thats really the massive difficulty that womenface is that in order to succeed, you have to work these long hours.

Caroline Grossman:

I actually want to go back to something you said on quotas Mekala, you said that data doesnt indicate that having more women on boards actually has an effect on corporate performance. What is the time horizon on that? We know performance is measured on a quarterly basis, but when would you expect to see the impact of diversity on boards on corporate performance? I know this is an issue we talked about a lot relative to the environment, that if a company makes decisions around sustainability, will you see it on a quarterly basis? Maybe not. Well, is it an important long-term strategy? I think certainly. So how do you see this play out?

Mekala Krishnan:

A corollary to that question is also, if companies are putting in certain D&I practices, when do you actually expect to see those practices pay off in representation data? So maybe with something like hiring, you expect to see it relatively near term. But on inclusion practices, for example, promotion practices, maybe it takes time for things to actually peter through the dataset. We havent really looked at timeline analysis of this kind just because these data sets are all relatively new. What I will say is that when we work with corporationsnot so much on this topicon broader organizational transformations, so culture shifts that kind of work in companies, what we find is that for change to really start to peter through the organization can take anywhere from five to seven years.

So really, true culture shifts,mindset shifts, norm shifts, practice shifts happening in a way that the entirepsyche of a company changes can take time. And so I agree that maybe this is,again, a plea for more research and data as these data sets become available,that the ability to do more analysis that is over time and allows us to dotimeline analysis is super important.

So as we think about data, theres almost two flavors of data that we need more of. The first is data on actual outcomes, gender-disaggregated data on outcomes both in labor markets more broadly but also within corporations. And then data on what works. How do you actually drive change?

Marianne Bertrand:

When I think about therelationship between the diversity inclusion agenda and corporate performance,I think theres really two ways I think about it. And that also ties back toFriedman, which is what this event is all about. There may be really valuehaving more diversity in management for corporate outcomes. So theres justmore ideas, different ideas. People are going to talk about different things,and thats valuable. It is just remarkable to me that thats an argument wehear very often, that diversity per se is going to help corporate outcomes.This is an area where theres essentially no research that I can think about.Theres really not a good piece of research that can point out thatconvincingly shows that diversity is valuable for corporate outcomes.

But theres another angle toit, which is that if you are focusing all of your recruitment on one half ofthe population because youre only looking at men, theres absolutely no waythat youre on the frontier in terms of the talents that you bring within yourorganization. And that in itself I think doesnt even need to be demonstratedin data. That seems pretty sensible that by limiting your search to half of thelabor market you cannot be at the frontier. So I just want to make this pointbecause theyre really the two ways I think about the relationship betweendiversity and inclusion and corporate performance and why there would be apositive relationship. The second one is pretty straightforward to me. Thefirst one is one that we hear a lot of corporations talking about, thatdiversity is good for corporate outcomes, that we really dont have the kind ofresearch I would like to be able to point at to say, Yes, heres theproof of that.

Mekala Krishnan:

Yeah. And I think the other argument you were making, Marianne, its especially true in a world where in many developed countries now women are graduating from college at exactly the same rates, maybe higher rates, than men. So its not on just innate talent. Its also learned skills that women are actually possessing at maybe higher rates than men. So its just such an economically inefficient argument to not be tapping into that talent pool. So fully agreed.

Caroline Grossman:

One place I think there is some data is on parental leave policies and the effect that those have. Marianne, could you speak to that?

Marianne Bertrand:

Theres lots of discussionabout the value of giving women longer maternity leave to be able to havechildren but remain in the workforce. The research there, I think, says prettyclearly that longer maternity leaves are not going to be beneficial to women,especially the more educated women.

What you find in the data,which is typically put all of UCD together, study economic outcomes for women,and look at the correlation with these economic outcomes and the lengths ofmaternity policies that these countries have in place, you will find that amongthe more educated women, longer maternity leave policies associate with abigger gender wage gap, so lower wages for these educated women compared tomen.

I think what is behind thisresult is really that as you make this maternity leave longer, women becomekind of separated from the labor market for longer, and theres a price forthat. Companies like to keep their employees. They want to have them kind ofcontinuously, and the longer you let the mothers out of the labor force, themore difficult it is for women to reenter these corporations on the same trackas the one they were in before.

Thats, I think, one of theexplanations. The other one is really just strategically, corporations may notwant to put women, single women, in important positions knowing that thesewomen will leave the company for an extended period of time when they becomemothers.

That is, I think, kind of areally important finding which sometimes people find counterintuitive, butlonger maternity leave policies are not a silver bullet to help women in laborforce, especially the more educated women.

Now, what is, I think, muchmore promising to the extent that children will keep on appearing is policiesthat try to change the norm, moving away from maternity leave policies toparental leave policies and paternity leave policies.

In this regard, the Scandinavian countries, I think, have been the most frontier in terms of trying to put in place policies and incentivize fathers to stay at home and share the burden with mothers when kids are born. Its still to be determined whether these policies will make a difference, but in many ways, I see them as really the directions we need to go into, because those policies are about trying to change the norms, trying to change the norms that say that the mother is going to have a disproportionate share of the burden when it comes to child rearing.

Mekala Krishnan:

You know, I think that yourlast point about changing the norms, I actually think these policies areimportant for such vital reasons. The first is the fact that they change normsabout who actually bears this burden. It actually signals that thisis not just the womans burden.

I think the second thing itdoes in terms of changing norms is in the company, now, you have both men andwomen taking leave. Its not just the women taking leave, so just from theequality that it creates in terms of career progression, in terms of normsrelated to performance reviews in terms of some of the mindsets that you talkedabout, about how companies perceive single women, it changes those norms, and Ithink thats also incredibly important.

Then, I think the third thing it does is for women, themselves. In one of the surveys we did about two, three years ago, surveyed employees about if an employer has maternity leave practices, they have flexible leave practices, a whole set of policies, whats the adoption rates? They were abysmal, like 10 percent.

I think the third thing itdoes, it actually makes it okay to adopt some of these policies, because peopledont feel like their careers are threatened. I think its important onmultiple fronts to think about these not as women policies but as peoplepolicies and make them ones that everyone in the organization feels comfortableadopting.

Marianne Bertrand:

I just cannot reinforce that last point you made enough. In many ways, when I think about good policies in that environment, they are not womens policies. They are human policies. The more we take gender out of these policies, the more we make them policies for all employees, the better it will be.

When I think about good policies in that environment, they are not womens policies. They are human polices. The more we take gender out of these policies, the more we make them policies for all employees, the better it will be.

Caroline Grossman:

Marianne, earlier in the conversation you said women are one side of it, but this is different when we talk about issue of race, and I want to come back to that question. I first want to ask, as you think about diversity and inclusion, and you think both about the questions of gender and race, what are some of the common themes you look at across, and where do you see them diverging?

Marianne Bertrand:

When I think about issues of race or ethnicity, thinking about Europe and European audience that we have here where they may not just be issues we have with African Americans in the US and compare that to women, in my mind, where I am right now based on my research and the research that Ive read is that I think that bias and discrimination is a much more important force when it comes to thinking about the under-representation of racial minorities in corporations than it is with respect to gender.

I am not saying that theres nogender discrimination going on, but I do believe the force that we just talkedabout are much more important than just discrimination per se to explain whywomen are underrepresented. I think when it comes to racial minorities, bias,whether it is implicit or explicit, is a much more important force.

I think the other big difference when I think about women versus racial minorities is that theres a lot that comes with being a racial minority in America or in Europe that is not associated with just being a woman. When you think about racial minorities in the US that goes hand in hand with economic disadvantage. That goes hand in hand with access to lower-quality schools, lower-quality public services, and lower quality amenities because of residential segregation.

Obviously, thats not forgender. Boys and girls are born in equally rich families. They are verydifferent conversations in my mind at least when I think about what we do interms of improving womens representation compared to when it comes toimproving racial minorities representation.

Caroline Grossman:

One complement to this conversation is the question of individual responsibility and action and Booth Professor Jane Risen teaches a course on this topic, and she weaves in research from behavioral economist Dolly Chugh from Harvard by really digging into the book, The Person You Mean to Be, How Good People Fight Bias. Chugh encourages us to acknowledge unconscious bias, take a stand, get involved, and be a builder.

What are things that each of us can do, and this is a question for Marianne, Mekala, the things that each of us can do in our day-to-day work, particularly in a virtual world where were feeling more disconnected, to check our unconscious bias, be advocates and allies, and drive forward meaningful change?

Mekala Krishnan:

I think the main unconsciousbias lever that we see companies implementing, and then I think employees andindividuals can complement that, theres a variety of trainings that companiesdo related to unconscious bias. Its to create awareness of unconscious bias.

I think the corollary here is step oneactually recognizing that you have unconscious biasesbut I dont think its necessary that every unconscious bias you have is a negative thing. The reason we have these biases is this is how its helpful to process the world in some ways, but recognizing where they exist and where they are really biases, so I think step one starts with that.

Just recognizing that you haveyour own world view and there may be others that are experiencing realchallenges that you may not be seeing or be aware of, so thats kind of stepone.

I think step two is having the conversation. As weve been surveying employers and employees, its really stark to me how much sometimes employers put in place policies and practices that employees dont really care about or want. One of the funny examples is weve done a survey now of Covid practices, and one of the things that so many companies have put in place is practices around open forums with senior leadership to create encouragement and lift morale, but when we surveyed employees, they dont see it as a high priority.

Im using that as a sillyexample, but the idea is I think we often make assumptions about what peoplewant and what people need and what is helpful, which may completely be a flawedassumption. I think really asking the question and having an authenticconversation coming from a place of curiosity and spirit of learning I think isreally important.

Then, I think there are a bunchof things that you could do structurally even as an individual. If youre amanager ensuring that a performance review has an unconscious bias check. Ifyou think about all the activities you engage in on a day-to-day level, findingways to embed that check on your biases through those day-to-day activities Ithink is important, too.

Marianne Bertrand:

Yeah, I agree with kind of allthat Mekala said. To go back to your original question, Caroline, Im inspiredby the work of psychologists that have studied particularly implicit bias andkind of tell us about the particular situations under which it is more likelyto creep in and drive our decisions. We know the implicit bias is more likelyto drive our decisions when we are rushed, when we are stressed, when we areangry, even when we are happy. So, when we are more emotional, we have moreimplicit bias.

Just that suggests that, andtaking it back to the corporations, taking it back to the HR process, the morewe can move away from HR decisions being made under those kind of, say, timepressures, the better probably it will be in terms of having HR managers reallytaking the time to review applications or be thinking about promotiondecisions.

Theres also lots of work,again in psychology, that tells us that we can train ourselves to be lessbiased. Same way that we have this increased association between seeing a blackface and feeling frightened, we can teach ourselves to engage in contrary tostereotypical thinking.

Theres good evidence from thelab, fairly short-term, that by forcing yourself to associate positive thoughtswith a black face rather than the negative thought you would have, you can makea difference. You can make people kind of less biased. We dont know how longthis lasts, but this matters.

Another thing that I thinkcomes strongly from the debiasing literature in psychology is to really moveaway from thinking in categories. That goes back to the point we were making,Mekala. Its not about men and women. Its about people.

One of the kind of methods thatpsychologists would use to debias people is to get them to think about theperson, individuating. Thinking about not this black guy, but think about him:Whats his life like? What does he do? Thinking beyond the category and tryingto imagine the person, putting yourself in the shoes of the person.

There are lots of tools thathave been shown, again, in lab experiments, to help in reducing bias. Im goingto make the same call as the one I made before. As Mekala said, Im suretheres lots of corporations that are using those kind of training to try toimprove bias inside the corporation. It would be fantastic to allow researchersto take a look at whether or not this makes a difference.

Besides the work in the lab, wereally dont have the kind of data to assess whether those kind of trainingprograms matter.

The other thing that I wouldstress, and I think Mekala also mentioned that, is that if you dont believethat those kind of training are really going to make a long-term difference, Ithink the other important step is really to have formal processes in place.

When I think about my ownorganization and how we do recruiting, I feel like over the two decades Ivebeen doing it, we are moving slowly towards having more and more structure. Asmuch as we dislike structure, because it feels like its bureaucratic andacademia shouldnt be bureaucratic, structures really help.

The most common examples that I always come back to is just rejecting someone for a promotion or for a job because he or shes not a good fit. That is just not the world that we should still be in. We should have explicit criteria ahead of time when we decide what are the kind of skills that were looking for in a person and not deviate from those, because we dont like the person that emerges after weve gone through these criteria. So I think formalizing a lot of the HR structure, even though it means more bureaucracy, is also, I think, another way to reduce the extent to which we have biases creeping in.

Mekala Krishnan:

Yeah. Just on the company training on unconscious bias, I mean, what were seeing, similar to the quota crutch, this is becoming the crutch where a company does an unconscious bias training with their employees once a year. And then they think theyre done and people are all set for the year. When really, I mean, its such a process. So you need to think about continuous nudges. You need to think about structural change, but its what I worry about is that this is now kind of the buzzword that everybodys using and its going to be the quotas of 2020 is going to be unconscious bias training.

You can view the entire panel discussion here:

Read more here:

Strength in Numbers: Using Data to Track Diversity and Inclusion - ProMarket

Dystopian plagues and fascist politics in the age of Trump: Finding hope in the darkness – Salon

Reality now resembles a dystopian world that could only be imagined as a harrowing work of fiction or biting political commentary. The works of George Orwell, Ray Bradbury and Sinclair Lewis now appear as an understatement in a world marked by horrifying political horizons a world in which authoritarian and medical pandemics merge. In this age of uncertainty, time and space have collapsed into a void of relentless apprehension and the possibility of an authoritarian abyss. The terrors of everyday life point to a world that has descended into darkness.

The COVID-19 crisis has amplified a surrealist hallucination that floods our screens and media with images of fear, trepidation, and dread. We can no longer shake hands, embrace our friends, use public transportation, sit inside a restaurant, go to a movie theater or walk down the street without experiencing real anxiety and stress. Doorknobs, packages, counters, the breath we exhale and anything else that offers the virus a resting place is comparable to a ticking bomb ready to explode resulting in massive suffering and untold deaths. Amid this collective terror, the architecture of fascist politics has resurfaced with a vengeance in the form of a waking nightmare with a cast of horrors. Surveillance technologies proliferate, armed militia defend groups refusing to wear protective masks, conspiracy theories originate or are legitimated by President Trump, right-wing federal judges are confirmed bya right-wing Senate at breakneck speed in order to destroy civil liberties.Republican politicians and reactionary media pundits use vitriolic language against almost anyone who criticizes Trump's destructive and death-dealing policies, including Democratic governors and liberal and progressive members of the press and media.

The current coronavirus pandemic is more than a medical crisis; it is also a political and ideological crisis. It is a crisis deeply rooted in years of neglect by neoliberal governments that denied the importance of public health and the public good while defunding institutions that made them possible. At the same time, this crisis cannot be separated from the crisis of massive inequalities in wealth, income and power that grew relentlessly since the 1970s. Nor can it be separated from a crisis of democratic values, critical education and civic literacy. With respect to the latter, the COVID-19 pandemic is deeply interconnected with the politicization of the social order through the destructive assaults waged by neoliberal capital on the welfare state and the ecosystem.

The pandemic has revealed the ugly and cruel face of neoliberalism, which has waged waron the social contract, public sphere and the welfare state since the 1970s. Neoliberalism is a worldview that takes as its central organizing idea that the market should govern not only the economy but all aspects of society. This is a worldview that vilifies the public sphere, rejects the social contract and public values; at the same time, it promotes untrammeled self-interest and privatization as central governing principles. In this logic, "individual interests are the only reality that matters and those interests are purely monetary."

Neoliberalism views government as the enemy of the market, limits society to the realm of the family and individuals, embraces a fixed hedonism and challenges the very idea of the common good. In addition, neoliberalism cannot be disconnected from the spectacle of fear-mongering, ultranationalism, anti-immigrant sentiment and bigotry that has dominated the national zeitgeist as a means of promoting shared anxieties rather than shared responsibilities. Neoliberal capitalism has created, through its destruction of the economy, environment, education and public health, a petri dish for the virus to wreak havoc and wide-scale destruction.

What is clear is that the COVID-19 plague must also be understood as part of a comprehensive political and educational narrative in which neoliberalism plays a central role. In this case, we cannot separate the struggle for public health from the struggles for emancipation, social equality, economic justice and democracy itself. The horror of the pandemic often blinds us to the fact that a range of anti-democratic economic and political forces have been grinding away at the social order for the last 40 years. As engaged citizens, it is crucial to examine the anti-democratic and iniquitous political, economic and social forces that have intensified the pandemic while failing to contain it.

This is especially true at a time when a growing number of authoritarian regimes around the globe replace thoughtful dialogue and critical engagement with the suppression of dissent and a culture of forgetting. This does not only include the usual suspects such as Turkey and Hungary, but also allegedly democratic countries such as England, where government officials recently "ordered schools not to use resources from organizations which have expressed a desire to end capitalism." This state act of censorship should remind us that fascism begins with language, the suppression of critical ideas, the undermining of institutions that support them, and finally with the elimination of groups considered undesirable and disposable.

How do we situate our analysis of white supremacy, nativism and the suppression of dissent as part of a broader discourse and mode of analysis that interrogates the promises, ideals and claims of a substantive democracy?What role does the legacy and continued force of systemic racism play in the virus disproportionately infecting and killing poor people of color? How do we fight against iniquitous relations of power and wealth that empty power of its emancipatory possibilities, and as Hannah Arendt has argued, "makes most people superfluous as human beings"? How might we understand how a society driven by the accumulation of capital at any costs, with its appropriation of market-based values and regressive notions of freedom and agency, uses language to infiltrate daily life? These are not merely economic and political issues but also educational considerations.

Oppressive forms of education have now become central elements of a society threatened by a number of pandemics that threaten human life and the planet itself. The propaganda machines of the right-wing media echo the Trump regime's support for conspiracy theories, lies about testing and fake cures for the virus, all the while engaging in a politics of evasion that covers up both Trump's incompetence and the machineries of violence, greed, and terminal exclusion at the core of a society that believes the market is the template for governing not just the economy but all aspects of society. One consequence is that truth, evidence and science fall prey to the language of mystification, which legitimates a tsunami of ignorance and the further collapse of morality and civic courage.

What the COVID-19 pandemic reveals in shocking images of long food lines, the stacking of dead bodies and the state-sanctioned language of social Darwinism and racial cleansing is that a war culture has become an extension of politics and functions as a form of repressive education in which critical thought is derailed, dissent suppressed, surveillance normalized, racism intensified, and ignorance elevated to a virtue. This pandemic has made clear the false and dangerous market-driven ideological notion that all problems are a matter of individual responsibility and that the state is simply the tool of the ruling financial elite.

Neoliberal ideology now works in tandem with corporate media conglomerates to produce identities defined narrowly by market values, while normalizing a notion of individual responsibility that convinces people that whatever problems they face, they have no one to blame but themselves.Right-wing media platforms such as Breitbart News, the Sinclair Broadcast Groupand the Rush Limbaugh podcast reproduce endlessly the falsehoods, misrepresentations and lies that sustain the conditions that disproportionately produce chronic illness among poor people of color and contribute to the acceleration rise of infections and deaths caused by the COVID-19 pandemic.

This is a strain of pernicious neoliberal common sense and public pedagogy that celebrates unchecked self-interest, disdains civic freedoms, scorns scientific evidence and turns away from the reality of a society with deep-seated institutional rot and the continuous unraveling of social connections and the social contract. Americans do not simply inhabit a deeply divided country, which has become the phrase of the day among the liberal media, but a war culture.

Everyday life has taken on the character of a war zone. The walls and cement barriers now surrounding Trump's White House signify a mode of governance wedded to both a warlike mentality and an expansive culture of cruelty and ruthlessness, most clearly visible in the police violence waged against poor people of color. The latter is a murderous violence enabled and encouraged by the white supremacist ideology at the center of the Trump administration. State violence hides behind the power of a badge as the police terrorize the spaces in which Black people drive, conduct their everyday lives, walk the streets and sleep.

What are the ideologies, institutions and spectrum of injustice in America that allow the police to kill, with impunity, Breonna Taylor while she slept in her own home? What allows a police officer to believe without a modicum of self-reflection that he could brutally kill George Floyd by pinning him to the ground and kneeling on his neck until he showed no signs of life? What order of injustice allows the police to shoot, on different occasions, Philando Castile and Jacob Blake while their children were in the back seat of their car? What is the connective tissue between the brazen forms of police brutality at work in American society, the violence Trump calls for and enables among his right-wing extremist followers, and the organizing principles of violence at work in Trump's policies?

The culture of violence runs deep in American society. For example, Attorney General Bill Barr allowed military forces to attack demonstrators in the streets outside the White House so that Trump could walk to a nearby church and pose for a photo op, while ironically holding up a Bible all the while giving new meaning to a display of fascist agitprop. It is worth noting that Trump referred to the right-wing extremists and neo-Nazis who marched in a hate rally in Charlottesville in 2017 in which Heather Heyer was killed as including"very fine people," while calling protesters who marched against racism and police violence "thugs," "terrorists" and "anarchists." Trump is not just deaf to the violence being provoked by vigilantes, armed extremists and right-wing militia groups around the country, he encourages their actions.

Such spectacularized violence cannot be abstracted from those political and economic forces driving hyper-capitalism, ultranationalism and the politics of racial sorting, spiraling poverty and soaring inequality. These rapacious economic structures extend from a predatory financial sector to big corporations that produce massive misery, engage in unchecked exploitation, plunder the public sector and concentrate wealth and power in the hands of a ruling elite. This war culture also assaults every element of the welfare state.

The current stage of hyper-capitalism has waged war on the social contract, public sphere and the public good for the last four decades. One consequence has been the publicly owned bones of society public education, roads, bridges, levees, water systems have been underfunded and in many ways pushed to the breaking point of disrepair and dysfunctionality. Moreover, this attack on the welfare state and common good is increasingly legitimated and normalized through tyrannical forms of education in a variety of sites, especially in the broader cultural sphere. This is a space in which perverse ignorance, the disdain of science, the repudiation of evidence and conspiracy theories are produced not only at the highest levels of government but also in the media and other cultural apparatuses such as conservative talk radio and Fox News in the U.S., which David Enrich describes as playing a "democracy-decaying role as a White House propaganda organ masquerading as conservative journalism." Fox News and a number of other conservative cultural apparatuses function ideologically and politically to objectify people of color, promote spectacles of violence, endorse consumerism as the only viable expression of citizenship, and legitimate a language of exclusion, bigotry and white nationalism.One consequence is a deep-seated anxiety, loneliness, cynicism and profound emptiness at the heart of American society, coupled with an accelerating culture of cruelty and white supremacy.

Unfortunately, the political, medical and economic crises Americans are experiencing has not been matched by a crisis of ideas that is, by a critical understanding of the conditions that produced the crises in the first place. Yet the U.S. and several other countries are in the midst of a medical, racial, political, economic and educational crisis that touches every aspect of public life. Fascist politics no longer hides behind the call for market freedoms, small government and individual expressions of freedom. For example, Trump's hatred of dissent not only reveals itself in his view of the free press as an "enemy of the people," but also in his disdain for any institution that does not promote the willful narrative of white nationalism. How else to explain his call for a commission to establish what he embarrassingly labeled "patriotic education," a term one associates with dictatorial and fascist regimes?

Trump's admiration for racial purity and "his ongoing eugenics fixation" has been expressed in his lavish praise for what he called the "good genes" of an overwhelmingly white audience in Minnesota. This is the menacing logic of a eugenicist rhetoric that disdains bad genes, and hence willingly labels some groups as undesirable and subject to terminal exclusion. There is more at stake here than an investment in racial purity; there is also the willingness to erase and rewrite historical memory, especially the history of racial oppression. This may be most obvious in Trump's criticism of the New York Times' 1619 Project, which teaches students about the history of slavery. There is more at stake here than the divisive rhetoric of a president who is "a gift to polarization." This is an ominous language that both echoes a horrifying and dangerous historical period and normalizes the mobilizing passions of an updated fascism. This is a language that, as Adam Weinstein of the New Republic observes, reveals a government that inflames partisan positions that creates chaotic contexts not unlike those that enabled fascist movements to come to power in Germany and Italy in the 1930s. He further argues that the Trump administration represents a gangster state that has "reached an important stage of fascist maturity":

It is time to embrace the parallels, to be unafraid to speak a clear truth: Whether by design or lack of it, Donald Trump and the Republican Party operate an American state that they have increasingly organized on fascist principles. It is also time to consider what else the fascists may yet do, during an unprecedented pandemic, amid unprecedented unemployment, faced with unprecedented resistance ahead of an unprecedented election.

As part of a broader autocratic maneuver, Trump has made clear that he will not agree to a peaceful transition of power if he loses the election. Not only has he questioned the legitimacy of the upcoming election, which the polls indicate he will lose, he has also nominated a prospective right-wing Supreme Court justice whose presence may play a crucial role in enabling him to secure his re-election if he contests it. Under such circumstances, fascist politics is now embraced by him, his sycophantic political alliesand his followers without apology. Antonio Gramsci's notion that as the old dies and the new order has yet to emerge, a new form of barbarism can appear, seems more prescient than ever and has become increasingly visible under a Trump era that mirrors a frightening reality.

It is worth repeating that most of the globe is experiencing a new historical period produced by a hyper-capitalist neoliberal system that is at odds with any just, prudent and equitable notion of the future. This is a system which, since the 1970s, with its tools of financialization, deregulation and austerity, has transformed American society, if not most of the world, in pernicious ways. We now live in an age in which economic activity is divorced from social costs, all the while enabling policies of racial cleansing, militarism and white nationalism along with staggering levels of inequality that have become the defining features of everyday life and established modes of governance. The economic brutality and barbarism of neoliberal capital has joined forces with the forces of white supremacy and white nationalism to create an updated form of neoliberal fascism.

We get glimpses of this new political formation in Trump's massive tax giveaway to the ultra-rich and his reversal of policy regulations designed to protect workers, the public and the environment. Trump's White House has become a monument to white nationalism. Consider Trump's defense of Confederate monuments and his support for racial sorting, his formulation of suburbs as white public spheres, his attempt to pass laws that deny citizenship to particular groups, and his definition of cities as dark enclaves of criminality, all of which echoes a history rooted in earlier forms of fascism. Most recently, in his first presidential debate with Joe Biden, Trump refused to denounce white supremacy while signaling his support to members of the Proud Boys, a right-wing extremist group, to "stand back and stand by."

His inflammatory remarks not only revealed his tribute to white supremacy and his willingness to stoke racial fears but also his support for right-wing extremist groups to continue using violence to promote social change. Trump has made it clear that he is a candidate for aggrieved white Americans and that he is willing to fan the flames of hatred and bigotry. His racist remarks reveal the degree to which he has turned democracy into ashes.

American fascism presents itself in the form of unabashed white supremacy, a defense of nativism, the longing for a strongman, a cult of ignorance that denies scientific evidence, the elevation of emotion over reason, a disregard for the law and civil liberties, an enthusiasm for using armed militias to attack protesters and a celebration of the enabling rhetoric of violence. Nativist populism as one register of an updated notion of American fascism has a long history in the United States. What is different today is that it occupies the center of power in the White House. Sarah Churchwell argues persuasively that fascism has resurfaced in America and that "it draws on familiar national customs to insist it is merely conducting political business as usual." She writes:

American fascist energies today are different from 1930s European fascism, but that doesn't mean they're not fascist, it means they're not European and it's not the 1930s. They remain organized around classic fascist tropes of nostalgic regeneration, fantasies of racial purity, celebration of an authentic folk and nullification of others, scapegoating groups for economic instability or inequality, rejecting the legitimacy of political opponents, the demonization of critics, attacks on a free press, and claims that the will of the people justifies violent imposition of military force. Vestiges of interwar fascism have been dredged up, dressed up, and repurposed for modern times. Colored shirts might not sell anymore, but colored hats are doing great.

Fascism in America has never gone away, it simply exists in different forms, often at the margins of society. In its updated form, American neoliberal fascism does not need to make a spectacle of swastikas, jackbootsor Nazi salutes, or to call for sending those considered disposable to concentration camps. Fascism today wraps itself in local customs, ultra-nationalism, the rhetoric of purification, the flagand Nuremberg-like spectacles and legitimates itself not by banishing the media but by controlling it. Moreover, the tropes of fascism are being mainstreamed in the midst of a plague that reinforces what Bill Dixon calls "the protean origins of totalitarianism loneliness as the normal register of social life, the frenzied lawfulness of ideological certitude, mass poverty and mass homelessness, the routine use of terror as a political instrument, and the ever growing speeds and scales of media, economics, and warfare."

As I have said elsewhere, talk of a fascist politics emerging in the United States and in the rise of right-wing populist movements across the globe is often criticized as a naive exaggeration or a misguided historical analogy. In the age of Trump, such objections feel like reckless efforts to deny the growing relevance of the term and the danger posed by a society staring into the abyss of a menacing authoritarianism. In fact, the case can be made that rather than harbor an element of truth, such criticism further normalizes the very fascism it critiques, allowing the extraordinary and implausible, if not unthinkable, to become ordinary. Under such circumstances, history is not simply being ignored or distorted, it is being erased. In this instance, the claim of moral witnessing disappears. Moreover, after decades of a savage global capitalist nightmare both in the United States and around the globe, the mobilizing passions of fascism have been unleashed unlike anything we have seen since the 1930s.

This is a fascism that not only grants impunity to the ultra-rich and big corporations, regardless of their criminogenic behavior, but also exhibits a disdain for weakness and a propensity for violence. It poisons the air we breathe and thrives on producing widespread misery. In its current forms, the checks and balances that liberals point to as an impregnable defense against fascism in America appear quaint if not delusional in the face of Trump's frontal assault on all the institutions that shore up a democratic society along with his increasing use of state violence to squash dissent. As Peter Maass points out in the Intercept:

... the accessories and devices of dictatorship have expanded with infectious ruthlessness in American cities. The police swinging batons wildly, the paramilitary forces refusing to identify themselves, the hysterical president trying to incite war, the vigilantes in league with the police, military helicopters clattering overhead, the general marching in the streets in combat fatigues, the state TV network loosing its tales of sabotage and mayhem it's all there, loud and clear.

Turning away from the horrors of an updated fascism can be both complicitous and dangerous. While there is no perfect fit between Trump and the historical fascist politics ofleaders such as Mussolini, Hitler and Pinochet, "the basic tenets of extreme nationalism, racism, misogyny, and disgustfor democracy and the rule of law" are too similar to ignore.

The COVID-19 plague cannot be separated from a broader plague of hyper-capitalism, right-wing populismand surging fascist politics around the globe. These forces represent the underside of the COVID-19 pandemic and relentlessly subject workers, the disabled, the homeless, the poor, children, people of color and, more recently, frontline hospital and emergency workers and all others considered at risk to lives of despair, precarity, massive danger and, in some cases, death. At the roots of this larger pandemic is an unbridled lawlessness and deep-seated disdain for critical thought, meaningful forms of education and any mode of analysis that holds power accountable. The pandemic has revealed the toxic underside of a form of neoliberal fascism with its assault on the welfare state, its undermining of public health, its attack on workers' rights and its prioritizing of the economy and the accumulation of capital over human needs and life itself.

The full-blown pandemic has revealed in all its ugliness the death-producing mechanisms of systemic inequality, deregulation, a culture of cruelty, the increasingly dangerous assault on the environment and an anti-intellectual culture that derides any notion of critical education. Beneath the massive failure of leadership from the Trump administration lies the long history of concentrated power in the hands of the one percent, shameless corporate welfare, political corruption, the legacy of racial violence, and the merging of money and politics to deny the most vulnerable access to health care, a living wage, worker protection and strong labor movements capable of challenging corporate power and the cruelty of austerity and right-wing policies that maim, cripple and kill hundreds of thousands, as is evident in the current pandemic.

The brutality of casino capitalism, with its hyped-up version of social Darwinism, is now openly defended by Trump and many Republican governors in their call to reopen the economy and undercut or eliminate protective measures that would slow the pace of the virus. Most at risk are those populations who have been considered disposable, such as poor people of color, undocumented immigrants, the racially incarcerated, the elderly warehoused in nursing homes and the working class. These populations are now told to sacrifice their lives in the interest of filling the coffers of the corporate elite.

At the same time, the claims of neoliberal capitalism have been broken and what was once unthinkable is now being said in public by large groups of people. Young people are calling for a new narrative to repair the safety net, provide free health care, child care, elder care and quality public schools for everyone. There are loud calls to address state violenceand the plagues of poverty, homelessness and the pollution of the planet. The spirit of democratic socialism is in the air. The pandemic crisis has shattered the myth that each of us is defined exclusively by our self-interest and as individuals are solely responsible for the problems we face. Both myths run the risk of breaking down as it becomes obvious that, as the pandemic unfolds, shortages in crucial medical equipment, lack of testing, lack of public investments and failed public health services are largely due to right-wing neoliberal measures such as regressive tax policies and bloated military budgets that have drained resources from public health, public goods and other vital social institutions such as public and higher education.

The pandemic has torn away the cover of a neoliberal economic system marked by what Thomas Piketty calls "the violence of social inequality." Inequality is a toxin that destroys lives, democratic institutions and civic culture and it is normalized through politicians and a right-wing media culture reduced to sounding boards for the rich and powerful. Former British Prime Minister Margaret Thatcher's infamous quip that "there's no such thing as society. There are individual men and women and there are families" no longer holds the status of neoliberal common sense in a society in which matters of social responsibility and strong, morally responsive government institutions are crucial in order to fight the pandemic and the economic and political conditions that worsen its effects.

If neoliberalism contributed to the unraveling of social connections and the institutions that support them, the pandemic has made clear how vital such connections are to both the public health of a society and its democratic institutions. As social spheres are privatized, commercialized and individualized, it becomes difficult to translate private issues into systemic considerations, inequality becomes normalized, and the pandemic crisis is isolated from the political, economic, social and cultural conditions that fuel it.

The ideological virus-plague has as one of its roots a politics of depoliticization and normalization. It attempts to rob people of their sense of agency, all the while making the unthinkable matters of alleged common sense. Through a variety of market-based assumptions and pedagogical practices, it works to undermine and normalize those ideas, values, modes of identification and desires that enable individuals to become critically engaged actors.

Crucial to any politics of resistance is the necessity to take seriously the notion that education is central to politics itself, and that social problems have to be critically understood before people can act as a force for empowerment and liberation. In the face of the COVID-19 pandemic, matters of criticism, informed judgment and critical modes of understanding are crucial in making a choice between democracy and authoritarianism, life and death.

The stark choices regarding what the future might look like appear to hang between the forces of despotism and democracy. Yet as ominous as this foreboding appears, history is open, and how it will unfold hangs in the balance. The pandemic is a crisis that cannot be allowed to turn into a catastrophe in which all hope is lost. While this pandemicthreatens democracy's ability to breathe, it should also offer up the possibility to rethink politics and the habits of critical education, human agency and elements of social responsibility crucial to any viable notion of what life would be like in a democratic socialist society. Amid the corpses produced by neoliberal capitalism and COVID-19, there are also flashes of hope, a chance to move beyond the contemporary resurgence of authoritarianism. Beyond the normalizing ideologies of a poisonous cynicism and a paralyzing conformity endemic to neoliberal capitalism, there is a growing movement to reclaim a collective political vision that is more compassionate, equitable, just and inclusive.

In spite of the ugly terror of a fascist abyss that lurks in the background of the COVID-19 crisis, the pandemic can teach us that democracy is fragile as "a way of life" and that if it is to survive, critical education, civic courage, historical consciousness, moral witnessing and political outrage must become central elements of a pedagogical practice capable of producing citizens who are informed, politically aware and willing to struggle to keep justice, equity and the principles of a socialist democracy alive. Rosa Luxemburg's once-celebrated claim that under capitalism humanity faces a choice between "socialism or barbarism" is more appropriate today than in her own time at the beginning of the 20th century.

The pandemic has done more than expose the cult of capitalism and its production of social inequities operating on a vast scale in the U.S. and around the globe. It has also revealed the inner workings of a Trump government that has been more concerned about the health of the economy than saving lives, especially the lives of those marginalized by color, class, age and pre-existing health conditions. Because of Trump's failure to address the crisis, the United States has been turned into a giant cemetery. Trump lied about the severity of the virus, calling it no more dangerous than the flu, even saying it would just disappear. He admitted to journalist Bob Woodward that the virus was deadly and airborne and that millions of people could get infected, sick and die. He flouted the advice of scientific experts and put incompetents in positions of power to shape health policies. Moreover, as the virus spread throughout the country, Trump disregarded the advice of medical and health expertsand held indoor rallies in cities around the United States, impervious to the danger large group gatherings posed to his followers.

After downplaying the virus since its inception while modeling behavior that promotes it, going so far as to treat mask-wearing as a weakness while ridiculing his Democratic opponent,Joe Biden, for wearing one, Trump and the first lady, Melania Trump, have now tested positive for COVID-19. For four years, this administration has lied, deceived the publicand undermined the health and safety of the nation. Events have now caught up with Trump's world of deceit, liesand willful ignorance,and he has to bear the fate of his own hypocrisy and moral failing.What is crucial here is that Trump is not the only victim ofhis own inept leadership and the disdain of health experts and the laws of science. More importantly, because of his lack of leadership the economy tanked, millions lost their jobs, at least 208,000 people have diedand more than 7.3 million are infected. Trump did not deserve this virus, but neither did the people who contracted it because of his irresponsible and vicious disregard for the lives of others. Trump has blood on his hands, and his failure to address the pandemic's reach, severityand danger is no longer an issue he can ignore.

Calls to remove Trump from office, raise the minimum wage, support decent and safe work, offer access to affordable housing, provide universal health care, lower prescription drug costs, provide free quality education to everyone, expand infrastructure, defund the police and military, and invest in community services are important.But they do not deal with the larger issue of eliminating a market-driven economic system structured in massive racial and economic inequalities. Renowned educator David Harvey is right to argue that the "immediate task is nothing more nor less than the self-conscious construction of a new political framework for approaching the question of inequality [and racism], through a deep and profound critique of our economic and social system." The battle against capitalism can only take place through a movement that unites its disparate movements for social justice, emancipation and economic equality.

This is a crisis in which different threads of oppression must be understood as part of the general crisis of capitalism. The various protests now evolving internationally at the popular level offer the promise of new global movements for the struggle for popular sovereignty and economic, racial and social justice. Central to this struggle is the challenge of destroying the neoliberal global order. In the current moment, democracy may be under a severe threat and appear frighteningly vulnerable, but with young people and others rising up across the globe inspired, energized and marching in the streets the future of a radical democracy is waiting to be reimagined, if not reborn. Democracy needs to breathe again, inspired by collective struggles to dismantle the machinery of social death at the heart of neoliberal fascist empire.

Read more here:

Dystopian plagues and fascist politics in the age of Trump: Finding hope in the darkness - Salon