thenation--2020-03-31--How Trump Is Going to Get Away With a Pandemic

In the early days of the coronavirus outbreak in Wuhan , the Trump administration and right-wing commentators were only too keen to condemn the Chinese government ’ s secrecy about the epidemic and to proclaim themselves immune to such blatant coverups .
“ Citizens of democratic nations , ” one observer wrote in a late February Atlantic story , “ can reasonably expect a higher level of candor and accountability from their governments.
” By now , the administration ’ s failure to test Americans at scale and in a timely fashion—ensuring that the virus ’ s spread among us @ @ @ @ @ @ @ is less known are all the other ways the administration has tried , and may continue to try , to massage the data to obscure the reality of the coronavirus pandemic in the United States .
Contagions are commonly understood as quantifiable biological phenomena that render certain brute facts .
Either the test was conducted or not ; either the result was positive or not ; either the victim is alive or not .
A consensus has formed that these material facts will be decisive in the post-epidemic political reckoning .
Trump suggested @ @ @ @ @ @ @ a tally of 100,000 deaths would be proof of his success ; Democratic candidate Joe Biden acknowledged the inescapable decisiveness of the facts of the epidemic , noting that “ the proof , you know , is going to be in the pudding.
” But the long history of secret contagions , and the opportunities to manipulate data to which the Trump administration is already availing itself , suggest otherwise .
Consider the testing fiasco .
Not only did the administration bungle the rollout of testing for the virus , but , for @ @ @ @ @ @ @ the data that might have tracked that failure from the official record .
The problem began earlier this month .
As soon as it became clear that testing had gotten off to an embarrassingly slow and muddled start , the administration attempted to wash its hands of the business of collating the total number of Americans tested .
On March 2 , the Centers for Disease Control excised information about the number of people who had been tested from its website .
“ All of a sudden , ” Wisconsin Representative Mark Pocan @ @ @ @ @ @ @ ” When Pocan complained to the CDC , he was told the agency would be “ trying ” to collate the state data and “ might ” share it publicly .
The administration justified this lack of transparency by pointing to its decision to decentralize coronavirus testing and allow private companies and labs to use their own test kits .
That meant that collating the total number of people tested required collecting data from a wide range of untracked , disparate sources .
It also meant that any comprehensive accounting of the number @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Strapped for resources , several states—including Maryland , New Jersey , Texas , and Louisiana , for examples—announced that they would no longer collect data on the number of people tested for the virus at all .
On March 10 , the testing data finally re-materialized on the CDC website , but there was still a problem : The agency listed the number of “ specimens ” tested—an inflated and confusing figure , since at least two ( and sometimes more ) specimens are required for each person tested .
In this breach @ @ @ @ @ @ @ the Covid Tracking Project to attempt to piece together testing data , but they found the available data “ incomplete ” and “ not useful to citizens or political leaders.
” Still , their effort revealed that less than a quarter of the diagnostic tests promised by Trump ’ s FDA commissioner had been conducted , more than two weeks after they ’ d been promised—and that US testing has lagged far behind that of other countries .
Weeks after the virus took hold in this country , tracking remains compromised and incomplete @ @ @ @ @ @ @ been free to disseminate exaggerated claims about the speed and scale of testing , obscuring both spread of the virus and the failure of their containment efforts .
As a result , we may not know for months , if ever , the full extent of the virus ’ s spread among us .
The political incentive to manipulate data is baked into contagions .
For many outbreaks , containment requires painful and certain short-term economic disruptions , in exchange for outcomes that are uncertain , long-term , and invisible .
The most @ @ @ @ @ @ @ form of an absence of excess deaths and illness .
There is no triumphal victory .
Nothing happens at all .
Massaging the data alleviates political pressure for any unpalatable trade-offs .
And , as history shows , it ’ s surprisingly easy to do , because assessing the toll of any infectious pathogen is an exercise in estimation .
Take one of our oldest known contagions , malaria .
People who can ’ t access health care , or who don ’ t seek it out because they aren ’ t that @ @ @ @ @ @ @ think they ’ ll get any useful help , regularly go uncounted .
Experts estimate that as much as 90 percent of the world ’ s malaria cases go unreported , as a result .
But along with this vast amount of so-called “ underreporting , ” there ’ s also over-reporting .
Clinicians aware of malaria ’ s ubiquity or eager for the ease of paperwork may simply presume their fever cases are caused by malaria , whether they take the trouble to spy malaria parasites in their patients ’ blood or @ @ @ @ @ @ @ cases depends almost entirely on “ assumption built on assumption built on assumption , ” as one expert put it , providing ample opportunities to inflate or diminish statistics on the size of the contagion .
Estimates on the number of malaria cases worldwide can vary by the hundreds of millions .
That ’ s why , far from being the sole province of authoritarian governments , conspiracies to conceal outbreaks in democratic societies go back centuries .
In the face of an outbreak of cholera in New York City in 1832 , @ @ @ @ @ @ @ and the mayor refused to notify the public about the spread of the disease , instead issuing vague reports about “ sudden deaths ” from “ unknown disease.
” Hospital records where cholera patients were quarantined , which would have revealed the extent of the epidemic , mysteriously disappeared .
Enraged local physicians who were coping with dying patients called it “ criminal neglect , ” and issued their own bulletins instead .
The conspiracy helped protect the shipping industry , which continued to ferry cholera-infected passengers down canals and across oceans throughout @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Italy hid its 1911 cholera outbreak , which killed 18,000 people , from the press , historians , and the international community for over 80 years .
The disease had inconveniently erupted on the eve of the country ’ s 50th-anniversary celebrations .
The prime minister sent a telegram to his public health authorities informing them to “ obtain and maintain the greatest possible secrecy ” about the outbreak .
Officials stopped tallying cases diagnosed by physicians and coroners , as they ’ d done in the past , opting to report instead @ @ @ @ @ @ @ , a shift that did nothing to change the course of the outbreak but slashed the official caseload in half nonetheless .
Government officials also secretly paid newspaper reporters to avoid mentioning the disease ; censored telegrams that mentioned the scourge ; and conducted nighttime raids on medical societies that dared to distribute cholera education materials , as the historian Frank Snowden described in his 1995 book , Naples in the Time of Cholera .
Even as cholera spread and felled thousands of Italians , the Italian government manufactured the medical fiction that @ @ @ @ @ @ @ which had been quickly contained .
The German novelist Thomas Mann , who visited Italy during its secret contagion , called it a kind of “ nameless horror.
” Today , more than a century later , another contagion manifests , its contours not fully known , as untold numbers of Americans across the country suffer through mysterious illnesses , chalked up to the flu , allergies , or “ some bug.
” Just how the administration might continue to cook the data as the Covid-19 outbreak progresses is a critical question .
@ @ @ @ @ @ @ statistics is to tinker with the way cases are defined .
Overly restrictive criteria for defining hurricane-related deaths , for example , allowed government officials in Puerto Rico to obscure the massive death toll from Hurricane Maria .
For months , they counted only the 64 deaths directly caused by the storm , rather than the thousands of other deaths that independent analyses showed followed in its wake .
The state updated its death toll a year later after being forced to by a court ruling , but by then national attention to @ @ @ @ @ @ @ disaster had long faded .
Think Exotic Animals Are to Blame for the Coronavirus ?
Think Again .
The Coronavirus Will Test Whether We ’ ve Learned Anything From 9/11 The Postal Service Is Breaking Down How might the Trump administration tinker with the criteria in the case of the new coronavirus ?
One possibility : by counting only those deaths that result directly from Covid-19 infection , as opposed to those deaths brought on by the cascading collapse of hospital systems , emergency response services , and the safety net more broadly @ @ @ @ @ @ @ kits could have a similar effect .
Critics say users are unlikely to get an accurate result with such kits , since doing so requires an uncomfortable swab deep into the back of the nose or throat where the virus lurks .
More likely , users will take a shallow swab , miss the virus , and obtain a happy but false negative result—contributing to a rosy and politically expedient underestimate of the epidemic .
Along with hastily approving such self-testing kits , the administration ’ s top officials have touted the discomfort @ @ @ @ @ @ @ President Pence called his “ kind of invasive.
” If hospitals were to muzzle their staff by , say , preventing them from sharing their work experiences—as anecdotal reports suggest some are—they might help conceal the extent of the outbreak , too , by obscuring the carnage unfolding in their wards .
For now , exaggerated claims abound .
FEMA administrator Peter Gaynor , for example , said in an interview with ABC News on March 22 that the agency was “ prepared to go to zero ” in the national stockpile of @ @ @ @ @ @ @ citing “ hundreds of thousands of millions of things ” being shipped to desperate hospitals .
But when pressed , Gaynor admitted he couldn ’ t , in fact , provide even the “ rough number ” of masks shipped by the agency .
Meanwhile , Trump has been busing making inflated claims about data on the effectiveness of new treatments .
A study on Covid-19 patients treated with hydroxychloroquine and azithromycin that Trump called “ one of the biggest game changers in the history of medicine ” in fact involved just 36 @ @ @ @ @ @ @ small and hastily designed even by the standard of Phase 1 studies.
” But the president tells us not to worry .
He has said that ordinary car accidents are far worse than the untreatable , exponentially spreading pathogen .
He has said that he doubts New York state needs 30,000 ventilators , because some major hospitals get along fine with just two .
He has said he ’ d love to have the country “ opened up by Easter.
” As the papers blared during Italy ’ s secret contagion , “ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ was !
”

EDITOR’S NOTE: The Nation believes that helping readers stay informed about the impact of the coronavirus crisis is a form of public service. For that reason, this article, and all of our coronavirus coverage, is now free. Please subscribe to support our writers and staff, and stay healthy.
In the early days of the coronavirus outbreak in Wuhan, the Trump administration and right-wing commentators were only too keen to condemn the Chinese government’s secrecy about the epidemic and to proclaim themselves immune to such blatant coverups. “Citizens of democratic nations,” one observer wrote in a late February Atlantic story, “can reasonably expect a higher level of candor and accountability from their governments.”
If only.
By now, the administration’s failure to test Americans at scale and in a timely fashion—ensuring that the virus’s spread among us is virtually invisible—is well known. What is less known are all the other ways the administration has tried, and may continue to try, to massage the data to obscure the reality of the coronavirus pandemic in the United States.
Contagions are commonly understood as quantifiable biological phenomena that render certain brute facts. Either the test was conducted or not; either the result was positive or not; either the victim is alive or not. A consensus has formed that these material facts will be decisive in the post-epidemic political reckoning. Trump suggested as much in his recent announcement that a tally of 100,000 deaths would be proof of his success; Democratic candidate Joe Biden acknowledged the inescapable decisiveness of the facts of the epidemic, noting that “the proof, you know, is going to be in the pudding.” But the long history of secret contagions, and the opportunities to manipulate data to which the Trump administration is already availing itself, suggest otherwise.
Consider the testing fiasco. Not only did the administration bungle the rollout of testing for the virus, but, for a period, it also effectively expunged the data that might have tracked that failure from the official record.
The problem began earlier this month. As soon as it became clear that testing had gotten off to an embarrassingly slow and muddled start, the administration attempted to wash its hands of the business of collating the total number of Americans tested. On March 2, the Centers for Disease Control excised information about the number of people who had been tested from its website. “All of a sudden,” Wisconsin Representative Mark Pocan told CNN, “those stats vanished.” When Pocan complained to the CDC, he was told the agency would be “trying” to collate the state data and “might” share it publicly.
The administration justified this lack of transparency by pointing to its decision to decentralize coronavirus testing and allow private companies and labs to use their own test kits. That meant that collating the total number of people tested required collecting data from a wide range of untracked, disparate sources. It also meant that any comprehensive accounting of the number of Americans tested could become impossible. Strapped for resources, several states—including Maryland, New Jersey, Texas, and Louisiana, for examples—announced that they would no longer collect data on the number of people tested for the virus at all. Popular "swipe left below to view more authors"Swipe → The Evisceration of a Public University The Evisceration of a Public University Lisa M. Corrigan The Patronizing Moralism of David Brooks The Patronizing Moralism of David Brooks Chris Lehmann “The Blind Side” Was Always Trash “The Blind Side” Was Always Trash Dave Zirin My Homeland Is Being Ruled by Terror. The World Must Pay Attention. My Homeland Is Being Ruled by Terror. The World Must Pay Attention. Manny Maung Popular "swipe left below to view more authors"Swipe → The Evisceration of a Public University The Evisceration of a Public University Lisa M. Corrigan The Patronizing Moralism of David Brooks The Patronizing Moralism of David Brooks Chris Lehmann “The Blind Side” Was Always Trash “The Blind Side” Was Always Trash Dave Zirin My Homeland Is Being Ruled by Terror. The World Must Pay Attention. My Homeland Is Being Ruled by Terror. The World Must Pay Attention. Manny Maung Current Issue View our current issue
On March 10, the testing data finally re-materialized on the CDC website, but there was still a problem: The agency listed the number of “specimens” tested—an inflated and confusing figure, since at least two (and sometimes more) specimens are required for each person tested. In this breach, journalists launched a volunteer-driven effort called the Covid Tracking Project to attempt to piece together testing data, but they found the available data “incomplete” and “not useful to citizens or political leaders.” Still, their effort revealed that less than a quarter of the diagnostic tests promised by Trump’s FDA commissioner had been conducted, more than two weeks after they’d been promised—and that US testing has lagged far behind that of other countries.
Weeks after the virus took hold in this country, tracking remains compromised and incomplete. In the vacuum, officials have been free to disseminate exaggerated claims about the speed and scale of testing, obscuring both spread of the virus and the failure of their containment efforts. As a result, we may not know for months, if ever, the full extent of the virus’s spread among us.
The political incentive to manipulate data is baked into contagions. For many outbreaks, containment requires painful and certain short-term economic disruptions, in exchange for outcomes that are uncertain, long-term, and invisible. The most perfectly “contained” outbreak takes the form of an absence of excess deaths and illness. There is no triumphal victory. Nothing happens at all. Massaging the data alleviates political pressure for any unpalatable trade-offs.
And, as history shows, it’s surprisingly easy to do, because assessing the toll of any infectious pathogen is an exercise in estimation. Take one of our oldest known contagions, malaria. People who can’t access health care, or who don’t seek it out because they aren’t that ill or because they don’t think they’ll get any useful help, regularly go uncounted. Experts estimate that as much as 90 percent of the world’s malaria cases go unreported, as a result. But along with this vast amount of so-called “underreporting,” there’s also over-reporting. Clinicians aware of malaria’s ubiquity or eager for the ease of paperwork may simply presume their fever cases are caused by malaria, whether they take the trouble to spy malaria parasites in their patients’ blood or not. The sum total of malaria cases depends almost entirely on “assumption built on assumption built on assumption,” as one expert put it, providing ample opportunities to inflate or diminish statistics on the size of the contagion. Estimates on the number of malaria cases worldwide can vary by the hundreds of millions.
That’s why, far from being the sole province of authoritarian governments, conspiracies to conceal outbreaks in democratic societies go back centuries. In the face of an outbreak of cholera in New York City in 1832, for example, the Board of Health and the mayor refused to notify the public about the spread of the disease, instead issuing vague reports about “sudden deaths” from “unknown disease.” Hospital records where cholera patients were quarantined, which would have revealed the extent of the epidemic, mysteriously disappeared. Enraged local physicians who were coping with dying patients called it “criminal neglect,” and issued their own bulletins instead. The conspiracy helped protect the shipping industry, which continued to ferry cholera-infected passengers down canals and across oceans throughout the 19th century pandemics of cholera.
Italy hid its 1911 cholera outbreak, which killed 18,000 people, from the press, historians, and the international community for over 80 years. The disease had inconveniently erupted on the eve of the country’s 50th-anniversary celebrations. The prime minister sent a telegram to his public health authorities informing them to “obtain and maintain the greatest possible secrecy” about the outbreak. Officials stopped tallying cases diagnosed by physicians and coroners, as they’d done in the past, opting to report instead only those cases confirmed by lab tests, a shift that did nothing to change the course of the outbreak but slashed the official caseload in half nonetheless.
Government officials also secretly paid newspaper reporters to avoid mentioning the disease; censored telegrams that mentioned the scourge; and conducted nighttime raids on medical societies that dared to distribute cholera education materials, as the historian Frank Snowden described in his 1995 book, Naples in the Time of Cholera. Even as cholera spread and felled thousands of Italians, the Italian government manufactured the medical fiction that only a minor outbreak had occurred, which had been quickly contained. The German novelist Thomas Mann, who visited Italy during its secret contagion, called it a kind of “nameless horror.”
Today, more than a century later, another contagion manifests, its contours not fully known, as untold numbers of Americans across the country suffer through mysterious illnesses, chalked up to the flu, allergies, or “some bug.” Just how the administration might continue to cook the data as the Covid-19 outbreak progresses is a critical question.
One politically expedient way to manipulate the statistics is to tinker with the way cases are defined. Overly restrictive criteria for defining hurricane-related deaths, for example, allowed government officials in Puerto Rico to obscure the massive death toll from Hurricane Maria. For months, they counted only the 64 deaths directly caused by the storm, rather than the thousands of other deaths that independent analyses showed followed in its wake. The state updated its death toll a year later after being forced to by a court ruling, but by then national attention to the government’s mishandling of the disaster had long faded. More on COVID-19 Think Exotic Animals Are to Blame for the Coronavirus? Think Again. Sonia Shah The Coronavirus Will Test Whether We’ve Learned Anything From 9/11 Elie Mystal The Postal Service Is Breaking Down Jake Bittle
How might the Trump administration tinker with the criteria in the case of the new coronavirus? One possibility: by counting only those deaths that result directly from Covid-19 infection, as opposed to those deaths brought on by the cascading collapse of hospital systems, emergency response services, and the safety net more broadly.
Wide use of at-home Covid-19 self-testing kits could have a similar effect. Critics say users are unlikely to get an accurate result with such kits, since doing so requires an uncomfortable swab deep into the back of the nose or throat where the virus lurks. More likely, users will take a shallow swab, miss the virus, and obtain a happy but false negative result—contributing to a rosy and politically expedient underestimate of the epidemic. Along with hastily approving such self-testing kits, the administration’s top officials have touted the discomfort of more accurate lab tests. Vice President Pence called his “kind of invasive.” If hospitals were to muzzle their staff by, say, preventing them from sharing their work experiences—as anecdotal reports suggest some are—they might help conceal the extent of the outbreak, too, by obscuring the carnage unfolding in their wards.
For now, exaggerated claims abound. FEMA administrator Peter Gaynor, for example, said in an interview with ABC News on March 22 that the agency was “prepared to go to zero” in the national stockpile of masks and other protective medical gear, citing “hundreds of thousands of millions of things” being shipped to desperate hospitals. But when pressed, Gaynor admitted he couldn’t, in fact, provide even the “rough number” of masks shipped by the agency.
Meanwhile, Trump has been busing making inflated claims about data on the effectiveness of new treatments. A study on Covid-19 patients treated with hydroxychloroquine and azithromycin that Trump called “one of the biggest game changers in the history of medicine” in fact involved just 36 patients. STAT called the study “small and hastily designed even by the standard of Phase 1 studies.”
But the president tells us not to worry. He has said that ordinary car accidents are far worse than the untreatable, exponentially spreading pathogen. He has said that he doubts New York state needs 30,000 ventilators, because some major hospitals get along fine with just two. He has said he’d love to have the country “opened up by Easter.”
As the papers blared during Italy’s secret contagion, “There is no cholera, and never was!”


thenation--2020-03-31--Margaret Atwood’s Dystopian Imagination

Margaret Atwood’s Dystopian Imagination

What possesses writers to revisit their previously published material ?
Walt Whitman famously composed Leaves of Grass for much of his life , adding , cutting , renaming , and regrouping poems across nine editions from 1855 to 1892 .
In 1925 , Virginia Woolf gave the titular Mrs. Dalloway—a flat , conservative minor character from her first novel , The Voyage Out—a radical interiority .
And late last year , Margaret Atwood delivered a sequel to her best-known novel , The Handmaid ’ s Tale.1 Published in 1985 , The Handmaid ’ s Tale depicts life in the authoritarian @ @ @ @ @ @ @ United States ) , a place where the female intellect is violently repressed and fertile women , such as the narrator , Offred , are separated from their families and forced to bear children for the barren elite .
The novel introduces her in the throes of daily life , denied even the right to read , and ends with her in the back of a van , in the hands of either the secret police or the underground liberation movement .
( She doesn ’ t know for sure which . )
@ @ @ @ @ @ @ Offred ’ s fate is not disclosed—an appropriate ending for a novel in which isolation and uncertainty are the dominant conditions.2 Now , more than three decades after refusing closure , Atwood seeks resolution , returning to the landscape of her iconic dystopia in The Testaments .
There are obvious commercial reasons for this .
Widely assigned in high schools and universities for years , The Handmaid ’ s Tale is now a hit TV series with nearly ubiquitous imagery and nomenclature .
Liberal activists and pundits invoke Gilead as a warning for @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Handmaid ’ s uniform—a formless red gown with a winged white bonnet—has been used at women ’ s marches and abortion ban protests throughout the world .
The discourse surrounding the book is far more literal than the novel itself , with many commentators going so far as to declare Atwood a prophet and Donald Trump ’ s America Gilead.3 Atwood used to dismiss the notion that her fiction was “ secretly telling the truth , ” but The Testaments suggests she ’ s changed her mind .
“ Dear Readers , ” @ @ @ @ @ @ @ “ Everything you ’ ve ever asked me about Gilead and its inner workings is the inspiration for this book .
Well , almost everything !
The other inspiration is the world we ’ ve been living in.
” In exposing those inner workings , The Testaments offers a tour of the power structures that Offred , in her confinement , can ’ t see .
Yet its vision of those structures , provocative though it is , flattens both her fiction and our shared reality , doubling down on the original novel @ @ @ @ @ @ @ its most interesting speculations.4 The Testaments revisits the form of The Handmaid ’ s Tale as well as its setting .
Both novels style themselves as primary sources written by women , and both end with a male historian describing those sources from the perspective of a restored liberal democratic order .
Whereas Offred ’ s isolated account describes the early days of Gilead , The Testaments offers a rotating cast of three narrators chronicling its end .
The first is Gilead ’ s chief female enforcer , Aunt Lydia , a notorious @ @ @ @ @ @ @ who turns out to despise the regime .
Approaching the end of her life , she writes her tell-all account in secret .
The others are new characters , teenagers speaking from somewhere beyond Gilead ’ s reach : Agnes , the daughter of a Sons of Jacob commander , and Daisy , who lives in Atwood ’ s native Canada .
Neither has memories of a pre-Gilead world.5 We understand immediately that each of these narrators offers an important perspective on Gilead ’ s decline and fall .
Lydia takes us inside @ @ @ @ @ @ @ structures and ideologies in the ominous ( and clichéd ) tone of an all-knowing sorceress : “ Gilead is a slippery place : accidents happen frequently.
” Agnes and Daisy , for their part , are introduced as innocents with radical potential .
Agnes is a dutiful child who generally accepts Gilead ’ s anti-feminist orthodoxy .
Of her dad ’ s off-limits study , she remarks , “ What my father was doing in there was said to be very important—the important things that men did , too important for females to @ @ @ @ @ @ @ that were incapable of thinking large thoughts , according to Aunt Vidala , who taught us Religion.
” Even so , she ’ s prone to asking the right questions , opening up space for a new set of answers .
Daisy , meanwhile , grows up in a free society outside the borders of the Christian Republic .
Hanging around her parents ’ secondhand shop , she absorbs the bygone idealism of anti-fascism and has questions of her own about her parents ’ secretive behavior.6 Soon enough , a bomb explodes , @ @ @ @ @ @ @ off a convenient series of plot twists that eventually brings our three malcontents together .
Daisy ’ s parents turn out to have been operatives in the Mayday resistance , supporting the “ Underground Femaleroad ” that spirits refugees to Canada .
Their deaths , the work of Gilead ’ s Gestapo , the Eyes , send Daisy into hiding .
Harbored by Mayday , she learns the truth of her existence : Her parents were not her biological parents , nor is Daisy her real name .
She is , in fact @ @ @ @ @ @ @ ” the child smuggled out of Gilead as an infant , whom TV viewers will recognize as Offred ’ s daughter.7 The assassination of Daisy ’ s parents has implications for Lydia as well .
Though she never explicitly admits it , it ’ s clear to the reader that she is Mayday ’ s source in Gilead , preparing a cache of confidential documents that will expose Gilead ’ s crimes to the world .
The only acceptable messenger for these documents—a messenger whom both Gilead and the resistance want to keep @ @ @ @ @ @ @ With her lines of communication broken , Lydia has to protect herself from suspicion while reworking her plot.8 Agnes , meanwhile , has lost her innocence .
Shortly after her mother dies , she learns via schoolyard gossip that her real mother was a “ slut ” who tried to take her to Canada but was arrested and impressed into service as a Handmaid—a giant wink to the reader that she , too , is a daughter of Offred .
After she ’ s molested by the family dentist and betrothed to the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ takes the only out that isn ’ t suicide : She can train as an Aunt , joining Lydia in the inner sanctum at Ardua Hall.9 Now our three narrators are poised to meet as the novel moves toward its great act of feminist heroism .
A refugee named Jade arrives with missionaries from Canada , and Lydia asks the young Aunt Victoria to oversee her reeducation .
But Jade is Daisy in disguise , and Aunt Victoria is Agnes , both newly enlightened with the knowledge they were previously denied .
Lydia @ @ @ @ @ @ @ last , with an eye toward sending them together on a mission to save the world.10 Formal symmetries aside , Atwood ’ s method in The Testaments departs significantly from her approach in The Handmaid ’ s Tale .
The original novel is a portrait of confinement , following Offred ’ s delimited gaze as she sits around waiting to get pregnant : “ There ’ s time to spare .
This is one of the things I wasn ’ t prepared for—the amount of unfilled time , the long parentheses of nothing.
@ @ @ @ @ @ @ dystopian fiction , but Atwood consistently defies this expectation .
When another Handmaid invites Offred to join the resistance , she is hopeful but demurs .
Her passivity calls our attention to the effects of surveillance on the subject and to the insidious endurance of gender roles in our own society .
It is also , somewhat surprisingly , an argument for the mind as a space for resistance .
“ I sit in the chair and think about the word chair .
It can also mean the leader of a meeting .
@ @ @ @ @ @ @ execution .
It is the first syllable in charity .
It is the French word for flesh .
None of these facts has any connection with the others.
” Denied action , we ’ re reduced to thought , yet it ’ s in thought that we retain our autonomy .
This is the Handmaid ’ s paradox.11 Is the ‘ Handmaid ’ s Tale ’ Sequel Anything but Fan Service ?
The Testaments , by contrast , is all heroic action .
This is , in part , because Atwood has widened @ @ @ @ @ @ @ But it ’ s also because she ’ s grown less interested in speculation .
In The Handmaid ’ s Tale , Atwood offered a future spun with liberty from our past .
“ The deep foundation of the United States , ” she argues in her introduction to a 2012 edition , was “ not the comparatively recent 18th-century Enlightenment structures of the Republic , with their talk of equality and their separation of Church and State , but the heavy-handed theocracy of 17th-century Puritan New England—with its marked bias against women—which @ @ @ @ @ @ @ period of social chaos to reassert itself.
” Following this notion , Handmaid imagines a modern society governed by strict gender roles , state surveillance , and other historical methods of social control .
If there is fun to be had in reading the original , it is in the discovery of this grim alternate world and its bricolage of strange yet familiar mores.12 All this The Testaments takes for granted .
What ’ s new is so on the nose—Lydia hangs out in the “ Forbidden World Literature ” section of the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Schlafly Café—that nothing competes with the plot for our attention .
Whereas Handmaid is interested in the minds of Offred and the women and men who surround her , in The Testaments we are presented with one-sided characters .
The women of Gilead are either innocent or conniving , and the men are all cartoonish sadists , literal wife killers , and child rapists .
The problem goes beyond flat writing .
In The Testaments , Atwood is no longer speculating about a possible future so much as commenting on what she believes @ @ @ @ @ @ @ in which men are simpleton oppressors whom women can either enable or resist .
Yes , Atwood seems to be telling us , it could happen here ; in fact , it ’ s happening under Trump , just as she predicted it would .
And without great feats of courage , we will never drive the bastards out.13 Over the course of six decades—her first collection of poetry , Double Persephone , appeared in 1961 and her first novel , The Edible Woman , in 1969—Atwood has made a name for herself @ @ @ @ @ @ @ She has alternately been embraced by feminists and castigated as anti-feminist , often for the very same gestures .
Her novels and stories have sampled from every conceivable genre , from psychological realism ( The Edible Woman ) and folklore ( Bluebeard ’ s Egg ) to the speculative modes of dystopian fiction ( The Handmaid ’ s Tale ) , historical fiction ( The Blind Assassin ) , and science fiction ( the MaddAddam trilogy ) .
Yet no matter the genre or cultural moment , Atwood remains interested in the strictures @ @ @ @ @ @ @ , generally of rigid belief systems and particularly of Christianity , permeates her work , with imprisonment and environmental degradation also appearing as regular themes .
Her best novels playfully refuse answers , especially when it comes to the behavior and motivations of “ bad ” women , like the shape-shifting man-eater in The Robber Bride and the alleged murderess in Alias Grace .
We never get the satisfaction of learning the “ truth ” about either , having to content ourselves with the inevitability of their lies.14 The same might once have @ @ @ @ @ @ @ any sympathetic contextualization in The Handmaid ’ s Tale , she ’ s a reminder that all patriarchal systems require the willing collaboration of women .
But in The Testaments , we get her backstory , which disappointingly serves to rehabilitate her .
It turns out that Lydia is not a true believer in Gilead ’ s orthodoxy , nor is she anti-feminist .
She ’ s just a regular , brilliant coward , determined to get revenge and recover her honor.15 Before the advent of Gilead , Lydia was a professed “ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ overachiever ” who put herself through school to become a women ’ s rights lawyer and family court judge .
Recounting the period after the Sons of Jacob took power , she describes how she and her female colleagues were rounded up , thrown into vans , and herded into an old stadium , where they were deprived of toilets , barely fed , and forced to watch group executions by firing squad .
After a period of torture , she breaks and joins the all-female team charged with crafting Gilead ’ s @ @ @ @ @ @ @ hate the structure we were concocting ?
On some level , yes : it was a betrayal of everything we ’ d been taught in our former lives , and of all that we ’ d achieved .
Was I proud of what we managed to accomplish , despite the limitations ?
Also , on some level , yes .
Things are never simple.
” She spends much of the new novel installing hidden cameras and microphones , manipulating dimwitted Commanders and Aunts , and offering ironic , wistful commentary in a manner @ @ @ @ @ @ @ admire her.16 Lydia is not the only character to get a revision in The Testaments .
Offred does , too , via her daughters .
Agnes and Daisy both begin life as ordinary , sheltered girls , not unlike their mom in Handmaid , but by the end of the novel , they ’ ve undertaken a dangerous mission to bring Gilead ’ s criminals to justice .
It ’ s almost as though Atwood discovered she prefers the TV series ’ version of Offred to her own—or thinks her readers do .
@ @ @ @ @ @ @ overtaken the pensive prisoner ; action has conquered rumination.17 The educated woman—the hardworking , “ brainy overachiever ” confronted with a sexist culture—is Atwood ’ s favorite protagonist .
We meet this educated woman first as the newly engaged market researcher in The Edible Woman .
She appears again , in far more extreme circumstances , to narrate the Gilead novels : Offred , Lydia , Agnes , and Daisy are four variations on the theme .
The centering of these perspectives compels us to consider how women who thought they were free @ @ @ @ @ @ @ their willingness to play by the rules ) are themselves vulnerable to the violence of misogyny .
Perhaps , the Gilead novels suggest , educated women are even more vulnerable .
Having defied gender norms all their lives , they ’ re the women men most want to control.18 Atwood ’ s revised Lydia certainly sees it this way .
Brutalized by the Sons of Jacob for daring to advance the cause of women , she corrects her error under the new regime , acting as a flatterer , caregiver , and servant @ @ @ @ @ @ @ ’ s the perfect setup for an examination of female misogyny ( and an earlier Atwood novel might have gone there ) , but The Testaments is more interested in celebrating Lydia ’ s ingenious long con .
A woman in power is ultimately good for all women , the novel argues , however reactionary her methods.19 Literal readings of Atwood have already given her novels pride of place in the opposition to Trump .
“ Make Margaret Atwood fiction again !
” reads a popular protest sign .
“ The Handmaid ’ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ !
” reads another .
These are signs that cry out not for richer fiction but for better instruction manuals , which The Testaments is all too eager to provide .
Bring an aging leader together with a couple of feisty teens ; use the enemy ’ s own logic to expose the truth of their crimes .
If only it were so simple .
The Testaments , in the end , is too much a fantasy to offer us much guidance in the age of Trump and too literal to offer space @ @ @ @

This article appears in the April 13, 2020 issue.
What possesses writers to revisit their previously published material? Walt Whitman famously composed Leaves of Grass for much of his life, adding, cutting, renaming, and regrouping poems across nine editions from 1855 to 1892. In 1925, Virginia Woolf gave the titular Mrs. Dalloway—a flat, conservative minor character from her first novel, The Voyage Out—a radical interiority. And late last year, Margaret Atwood delivered a sequel to her best-known novel, The Handmaid’s Tale.1 Books in Review The Testaments By Margaret Atwood Buy this book
Published in 1985, The Handmaid’s Tale depicts life in the authoritarian Christian Republic of Gilead (formerly the United States), a place where the female intellect is violently repressed and fertile women, such as the narrator, Offred, are separated from their families and forced to bear children for the barren elite. The novel introduces her in the throes of daily life, denied even the right to read, and ends with her in the back of a van, in the hands of either the secret police or the underground liberation movement. (She doesn’t know for sure which.) There is a historical coda, but Offred’s fate is not disclosed—an appropriate ending for a novel in which isolation and uncertainty are the dominant conditions.2
Now, more than three decades after refusing closure, Atwood seeks resolution, returning to the landscape of her iconic dystopia in The Testaments. There are obvious commercial reasons for this. Widely assigned in high schools and universities for years, The Handmaid’s Tale is now a hit TV series with nearly ubiquitous imagery and nomenclature. Liberal activists and pundits invoke Gilead as a warning for the real world, and the signature Handmaid’s uniform—a formless red gown with a winged white bonnet—has been used at women’s marches and abortion ban protests throughout the world. The discourse surrounding the book is far more literal than the novel itself, with many commentators going so far as to declare Atwood a prophet and Donald Trump’s America Gilead.3
Atwood used to dismiss the notion that her fiction was “secretly telling the truth,” but The Testaments suggests she’s changed her mind. “Dear Readers,” she writes in a promotional letter. “Everything you’ve ever asked me about Gilead and its inner workings is the inspiration for this book. Well, almost everything! The other inspiration is the world we’ve been living in.” In exposing those inner workings, The Testaments offers a tour of the power structures that Offred, in her confinement, can’t see. Yet its vision of those structures, provocative though it is, flattens both her fiction and our shared reality, doubling down on the original novel’s least compelling arguments while abandoning its most interesting speculations.4
The Testaments revisits the form of The Handmaid’s Tale as well as its setting. Both novels style themselves as primary sources written by women, and both end with a male historian describing those sources from the perspective of a restored liberal democratic order. Whereas Offred’s isolated account describes the early days of Gilead, The Testaments offers a rotating cast of three narrators chronicling its end. The first is Gilead’s chief female enforcer, Aunt Lydia, a notorious figure in The Handmaid’s Tale who turns out to despise the regime. Approaching the end of her life, she writes her tell-all account in secret. The others are new characters, teenagers speaking from somewhere beyond Gilead’s reach: Agnes, the daughter of a Sons of Jacob commander, and Daisy, who lives in Atwood’s native Canada. Neither has memories of a pre-Gilead world.5 Popular "swipe left below to view more authors"Swipe → The Evisceration of a Public University The Evisceration of a Public University Lisa M. Corrigan The Patronizing Moralism of David Brooks The Patronizing Moralism of David Brooks Chris Lehmann “The Blind Side” Was Always Trash “The Blind Side” Was Always Trash Dave Zirin My Homeland Is Being Ruled by Terror. The World Must Pay Attention. My Homeland Is Being Ruled by Terror. The World Must Pay Attention. Manny Maung Popular "swipe left below to view more authors"Swipe → The Evisceration of a Public University The Evisceration of a Public University Lisa M. Corrigan The Patronizing Moralism of David Brooks The Patronizing Moralism of David Brooks Chris Lehmann “The Blind Side” Was Always Trash “The Blind Side” Was Always Trash Dave Zirin My Homeland Is Being Ruled by Terror. The World Must Pay Attention. My Homeland Is Being Ruled by Terror. The World Must Pay Attention. Manny Maung
We understand immediately that each of these narrators offers an important perspective on Gilead’s decline and fall. Lydia takes us inside its halls of power, describing its structures and ideologies in the ominous (and clichéd) tone of an all-knowing sorceress: “Gilead is a slippery place: accidents happen frequently.” Agnes and Daisy, for their part, are introduced as innocents with radical potential. Agnes is a dutiful child who generally accepts Gilead’s anti-feminist orthodoxy. Of her dad’s off-limits study, she remarks, “What my father was doing in there was said to be very important—the important things that men did, too important for females to meddle with because they had smaller brains that were incapable of thinking large thoughts, according to Aunt Vidala, who taught us Religion.” Even so, she’s prone to asking the right questions, opening up space for a new set of answers. Daisy, meanwhile, grows up in a free society outside the borders of the Christian Republic. Hanging around her parents’ secondhand shop, she absorbs the bygone idealism of anti-fascism and has questions of her own about her parents’ secretive behavior.6
Soon enough, a bomb explodes, killing Daisy’s parents and setting off a convenient series of plot twists that eventually brings our three malcontents together. Daisy’s parents turn out to have been operatives in the Mayday resistance, supporting the “Underground Femaleroad” that spirits refugees to Canada. Their deaths, the work of Gilead’s Gestapo, the Eyes, send Daisy into hiding. Harbored by Mayday, she learns the truth of her existence: Her parents were not her biological parents, nor is Daisy her real name. She is, in fact, the famous “Baby Nicole,” the child smuggled out of Gilead as an infant, whom TV viewers will recognize as Offred’s daughter.7 Current Issue View our current issue
The assassination of Daisy’s parents has implications for Lydia as well. Though she never explicitly admits it, it’s clear to the reader that she is Mayday’s source in Gilead, preparing a cache of confidential documents that will expose Gilead’s crimes to the world. The only acceptable messenger for these documents—a messenger whom both Gilead and the resistance want to keep alive—is none other than Baby Nicole. With her lines of communication broken, Lydia has to protect herself from suspicion while reworking her plot.8
Agnes, meanwhile, has lost her innocence. Shortly after her mother dies, she learns via schoolyard gossip that her real mother was a “slut” who tried to take her to Canada but was arrested and impressed into service as a Handmaid—a giant wink to the reader that she, too, is a daughter of Offred. After she’s molested by the family dentist and betrothed to the aged Commander of the Eyes, Agnes takes the only out that isn’t suicide: She can train as an Aunt, joining Lydia in the inner sanctum at Ardua Hall.9
Now our three narrators are poised to meet as the novel moves toward its great act of feminist heroism. A refugee named Jade arrives with missionaries from Canada, and Lydia asks the young Aunt Victoria to oversee her reeducation. But Jade is Daisy in disguise, and Aunt Victoria is Agnes, both newly enlightened with the knowledge they were previously denied. Lydia has reunited the daughters of Offred at last, with an eye toward sending them together on a mission to save the world.10
Formal symmetries aside, Atwood’s method in The Testaments departs significantly from her approach in The Handmaid’s Tale. The original novel is a portrait of confinement, following Offred’s delimited gaze as she sits around waiting to get pregnant: “There’s time to spare. This is one of the things I wasn’t prepared for—the amount of unfilled time, the long parentheses of nothing.” Heroic action is the norm in dystopian fiction, but Atwood consistently defies this expectation. When another Handmaid invites Offred to join the resistance, she is hopeful but demurs. Her passivity calls our attention to the effects of surveillance on the subject and to the insidious endurance of gender roles in our own society. It is also, somewhat surprisingly, an argument for the mind as a space for resistance. “I sit in the chair and think about the word chair. It can also mean the leader of a meeting. It can also mean a mode of execution. It is the first syllable in charity. It is the French word for flesh. None of these facts has any connection with the others.” Denied action, we’re reduced to thought, yet it’s in thought that we retain our autonomy. This is the Handmaid’s paradox.11 Related Article Is the ‘Handmaid’s Tale’ Sequel Anything but Fan Service? Sarah Jones
The Testaments, by contrast, is all heroic action. This is, in part, because Atwood has widened her purview to three non-Handmaid narrators. But it’s also because she’s grown less interested in speculation. In The Handmaid’s Tale, Atwood offered a future spun with liberty from our past. “The deep foundation of the United States,” she argues in her introduction to a 2012 edition, was “not the comparatively recent 18th-century Enlightenment structures of the Republic, with their talk of equality and their separation of Church and State, but the heavy-handed theocracy of 17th-century Puritan New England—with its marked bias against women—which would need only the opportunity of a period of social chaos to reassert itself.” Following this notion, Handmaid imagines a modern society governed by strict gender roles, state surveillance, and other historical methods of social control. If there is fun to be had in reading the original, it is in the discovery of this grim alternate world and its bricolage of strange yet familiar mores.12
All this The Testaments takes for granted. What’s new is so on the nose—Lydia hangs out in the “Forbidden World Literature” section of the library and takes her tea in the Schlafly Café—that nothing competes with the plot for our attention. Whereas Handmaid is interested in the minds of Offred and the women and men who surround her, in The Testaments we are presented with one-sided characters. The women of Gilead are either innocent or conniving, and the men are all cartoonish sadists, literal wife killers, and child rapists. The problem goes beyond flat writing. In The Testaments, Atwood is no longer speculating about a possible future so much as commenting on what she believes to be an inescapable present, one in which men are simpleton oppressors whom women can either enable or resist. Yes, Atwood seems to be telling us, it could happen here; in fact, it’s happening under Trump, just as she predicted it would. And without great feats of courage, we will never drive the bastards out.13
Over the course of six decades—her first collection of poetry, Double Persephone, appeared in 1961 and her first novel, The Edible Woman, in 1969—Atwood has made a name for herself as an iconoclastic thinker and writer. She has alternately been embraced by feminists and castigated as anti-feminist, often for the very same gestures. Her novels and stories have sampled from every conceivable genre, from psychological realism (The Edible Woman) and folklore (Bluebeard’s Egg) to the speculative modes of dystopian fiction (The Handmaid’s Tale), historical fiction (The Blind Assassin), and science fiction (the MaddAddam trilogy). Yet no matter the genre or cultural moment, Atwood remains interested in the strictures of gender and cultural myths. Skepticism, generally of rigid belief systems and particularly of Christianity, permeates her work, with imprisonment and environmental degradation also appearing as regular themes. Her best novels playfully refuse answers, especially when it comes to the behavior and motivations of “bad” women, like the shape-shifting man-eater in The Robber Bride and the alleged murderess in Alias Grace. We never get the satisfaction of learning the “truth” about either, having to content ourselves with the inevitability of their lies.14
The same might once have been argued about Aunt Lydia. Denied any sympathetic contextualization in The Handmaid’s Tale, she’s a reminder that all patriarchal systems require the willing collaboration of women. But in The Testaments, we get her backstory, which disappointingly serves to rehabilitate her. It turns out that Lydia is not a true believer in Gilead’s orthodoxy, nor is she anti-feminist. She’s just a regular, brilliant coward, determined to get revenge and recover her honor.15
Before the advent of Gilead, Lydia was a professed “mulish underclass child” and “brainy overachiever” who put herself through school to become a women’s rights lawyer and family court judge. Recounting the period after the Sons of Jacob took power, she describes how she and her female colleagues were rounded up, thrown into vans, and herded into an old stadium, where they were deprived of toilets, barely fed, and forced to watch group executions by firing squad. After a period of torture, she breaks and joins the all-female team charged with crafting Gilead’s sphere for women: “Did I hate the structure we were concocting? On some level, yes: it was a betrayal of everything we’d been taught in our former lives, and of all that we’d achieved. Was I proud of what we managed to accomplish, despite the limitations? Also, on some level, yes. Things are never simple.” She spends much of the new novel installing hidden cameras and microphones, manipulating dimwitted Commanders and Aunts, and offering ironic, wistful commentary in a manner that all but begs the reader to admire her.16
Lydia is not the only character to get a revision in The Testaments. Offred does, too, via her daughters. Agnes and Daisy both begin life as ordinary, sheltered girls, not unlike their mom in Handmaid, but by the end of the novel, they’ve undertaken a dangerous mission to bring Gilead’s criminals to justice. It’s almost as though Atwood discovered she prefers the TV series’ version of Offred to her own—or thinks her readers do. Either way, the role model has overtaken the pensive prisoner; action has conquered rumination.17
The educated woman—the hardworking, “brainy overachiever” confronted with a sexist culture—is Atwood’s favorite protagonist. We meet this educated woman first as the newly engaged market researcher in The Edible Woman. She appears again, in far more extreme circumstances, to narrate the Gilead novels: Offred, Lydia, Agnes, and Daisy are four variations on the theme. The centering of these perspectives compels us to consider how women who thought they were free (often because of class privilege and their willingness to play by the rules) are themselves vulnerable to the violence of misogyny. Perhaps, the Gilead novels suggest, educated women are even more vulnerable. Having defied gender norms all their lives, they’re the women men most want to control.18
Atwood’s revised Lydia certainly sees it this way. Brutalized by the Sons of Jacob for daring to advance the cause of women, she corrects her error under the new regime, acting as a flatterer, caregiver, and servant to the powerful male Commanders. It’s the perfect setup for an examination of female misogyny (and an earlier Atwood novel might have gone there), but The Testaments is more interested in celebrating Lydia’s ingenious long con. A woman in power is ultimately good for all women, the novel argues, however reactionary her methods.19
Literal readings of Atwood have already given her novels pride of place in the opposition to Trump. “Make Margaret Atwood fiction again!” reads a popular protest sign. “The Handmaid’s Tale is not an instruction manual!” reads another. These are signs that cry out not for richer fiction but for better instruction manuals, which The Testaments is all too eager to provide. Bring an aging leader together with a couple of feisty teens; use the enemy’s own logic to expose the truth of their crimes. If only it were so simple. The Testaments, in the end, is too much a fantasy to offer us much guidance in the age of Trump and too literal to offer space for solace and speculation.20


thenation--2020-03-31--As the Covid-19 Crisis Deepens, Grassroots Organizers Take Action

Let ’ s start with the Noise .
With the United States now the epicenter of the Covid-19 pandemic , Trump , who ought to be meeting 24/7 with titans of ( bailed out ) industries to demand that they produce medical supplies at speed , is instead spending a good part of his time picking fights with governors he doesn ’ t like .
A couple weeks ago , when Washington was the most impacted state , Trump thought it appropriate to call Governor Jay Inslee a “ snake.
” Now he has taken to juvenile name-calling against Michigan @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Half Whitmer , ” and demanding that state governors show him fealty in return for his granting their requests for federal assistance .
Because Trump ’ s blathering has such huge consequences , it morphs into the Signal as well .
In the middle of a cascading public health crisis , in which Detroit is a new hot spot , this is what Trump tweeted : Excuse me for asking , Mr. President , but to borrow a question once lobbed the way of the demagogic Senator McCarthy , have you no sense @ @ @ @ @ @ @ no , you are not doing a great job .
The United States now has far more coronavirus infections than any other country ; doctors and nurses are having to ration and reuse personal protective equipment ; there is a critical shortage of ventilators ; and hospitals systems are close to being overwhelmed , with horrific numbers of fatalities , within weeks .
If that ’ s your definition of a great job , I shudder to think what your notion of failure looks like .
The Good , the Bad , and @ @ @ @ @ @ @ reported that she had heard from medical suppliers that they were being urged by the White House to divert shipments away from her state .
This is so grotesque that it would be hard to believe , but it ’ s part of a pattern : In a fit of pique , this same president withheld vital recovery assistance to hurricane-hit Puerto Rico , and several times he ’ s threatened to withhold aid from fire-ravaged California .
It ’ s also of a pattern with the way Trump and Secretary of State @ @ @ @ @ @ @ score political points overseas , most recently by denying civil war–torn Yemen vital medical assistance , and by pressuring the IMF to deny Venezuela an emergency loan to beef up its pandemic response .
It ’ s on a par with the cruel opportunism with which the administration has used the emergency as an excuse to lock out refugees and deport asylum seekers without any semblance of due process—a depressing contrast with Portugal , which has granted asylum seekers temporary residency status during the crisis so they can get medical care .
And @ @ @ @ @ @ @ ’ s wanting to take advantage of the chaos in virus-ravaged , economically embargoed Iran—where hundreds of people have died after drinking industrial alcohol that the rumor mill suggested would render people immune to Covid-19—by pushing the Pentagon to begin planning massive strikes against an Iranian-backed militia in Iraq .
Meanwhile , as people around the world are confined to their homes , creative political organizing continues .
Behind those closed doors , seeds are taking root .
Organizers in Montreal , where protesters are refusing to pay rent while the economy has @ @ @ @ @ @ @ urging rent-strikers to hang white sheets from their windows .
Since then , similar rent-strike movements have cropped up in New York and other US cities—and in turn , many cities and states have attempted to address tenant concerns by mandating temporary moratoriums on evictions .
Representative Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez , along with local politicians in New York , have started to push for not only a national eviction moratorium but also , more daringly , a three-month freeze on economically hard-hit tenants ’ even having to pay rent .
That ’ s all @ @ @ @ @ @ @ on housing , health care access , wage subsidies , and more are entering the mainstream at a startling pace .
Those ideas will be vital in helping to forge a new and fairer social compact as we emerge from the crisis .
Meanwhile , stay healthy , stay safe , and , with the election only seven months away , find ways to stay engaged .

EDITOR’S NOTE: The Nation believes that helping readers stay informed about the impact of the coronavirus crisis is a form of public service. For that reason, this article, and all of our coronavirus coverage, is now free. Please subscribe to support our writers and staff, and stay healthy.
Let’s start with the Noise. With the United States now the epicenter of the Covid-19 pandemic, Trump, who ought to be meeting 24/7 with titans of (bailed out) industries to demand that they produce medical supplies at speed, is instead spending a good part of his time picking fights with governors he doesn’t like. A couple weeks ago, when Washington was the most impacted state, Trump thought it appropriate to call Governor Jay Inslee a “snake.” Now he has taken to juvenile name-calling against Michigan Governor Gretchen Whitmer, calling her “Half Whitmer,” and demanding that state governors show him fealty in return for his granting their requests for federal assistance.
Because Trump’s blathering has such huge consequences, it morphs into the Signal as well. In the middle of a cascading public health crisis, in which Detroit is a new hot spot, this is what Trump tweeted:
I love Michigan, one of the reasons we are doing such a GREAT job for them during this horrible Pandemic. Yet your Governor, Gretchen “Half” Whitmer is way in over her ahead [sic], she doesn’t have a clue. Likes blaming everyone for her own ineptitude! #MAGA.
Excuse me for asking, Mr. President, but to borrow a question once lobbed the way of the demagogic Senator McCarthy, have you no sense of decency, sir? And, no, you are not doing a great job. The United States now has far more coronavirus infections than any other country; doctors and nurses are having to ration and reuse personal protective equipment; there is a critical shortage of ventilators; and hospitals systems are close to being overwhelmed, with horrific numbers of fatalities, within weeks. If that’s your definition of a great job, I shudder to think what your notion of failure looks like. More Signal:Noise The Good, the Bad, and the Ugly With Covid-19 Sasha Abramsky Covid Catastrophe: Trump Fiddles While America Burns Sasha Abramsky
Meanwhile, Whitmer reported that she had heard from medical suppliers that they were being urged by the White House to divert shipments away from her state. This is so grotesque that it would be hard to believe, but it’s part of a pattern: In a fit of pique, this same president withheld vital recovery assistance to hurricane-hit Puerto Rico, and several times he’s threatened to withhold aid from fire-ravaged California. It’s also of a pattern with the way Trump and Secretary of State Mike Pompeo have used the pandemic to score political points overseas, most recently by denying civil war–torn Yemen vital medical assistance, and by pressuring the IMF to deny Venezuela an emergency loan to beef up its pandemic response.
It’s on a par with the cruel opportunism with which the administration has used the emergency as an excuse to lock out refugees and deport asylum seekers without any semblance of due process—a depressing contrast with Portugal, which has granted asylum seekers temporary residency status during the crisis so they can get medical care.
And it’s up there with Trump’s wanting to take advantage of the chaos in virus-ravaged, economically embargoed Iran—where hundreds of people have died after drinking industrial alcohol that the rumor mill suggested would render people immune to Covid-19—by pushing the Pentagon to begin planning massive strikes against an Iranian-backed militia in Iraq. Current Issue View our current issue
Meanwhile, as people around the world are confined to their homes, creative political organizing continues. Behind those closed doors, seeds are taking root. Organizers in Montreal, where protesters are refusing to pay rent while the economy has been put on hold, recently began urging rent-strikers to hang white sheets from their windows. Since then, similar rent-strike movements have cropped up in New York and other US cities—and in turn, many cities and states have attempted to address tenant concerns by mandating temporary moratoriums on evictions. Representative Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez, along with local politicians in New York, have started to push for not only a national eviction moratorium but also, more daringly, a three-month freeze on economically hard-hit tenants’ even having to pay rent.
That’s all part of the Signal. Progressive ideas on housing, health care access, wage subsidies, and more are entering the mainstream at a startling pace. Those ideas will be vital in helping to forge a new and fairer social compact as we emerge from the crisis.
Meanwhile, stay healthy, stay safe, and, with the election only seven months away, find ways to stay engaged.


thenation--2020-03-31--Now Is Not the Time to Start an Arms Race

Economists generally agree that the $ 2 trillion-plus voted by Congress to help businesses and working people cope with the damage being wrought by the Covid-19 epidemic will prove insufficient to restart the economy and put unemployed people back to work .
Many trillions more in federal spending , it is believed , will be needed to restore public services ( especially the nation ’ s devastated health care system ) and sustain the recovery we all hope will soon commence .
This would seem , on the face of it , a perfect time to trim military spending and @ @ @ @ @ @ @ at home .
But no , while the attention of Congress and the media is focused elsewhere , the Department of Defense is undertaking its most ambitious—and dangerous—military buildup since the end of the Cold War .
To appreciate the dangers inherent in the new military buildup , it is necessary to look closely at Pentagon budget documents and the plans now being made for all-out combat against what are termed “ great-power competitors , ” i.e.
, Russia and China .
The net Department of Defense budget for fiscal year 2021 , @ @ @ @ @ @ @ than last year ’ s— $ 705 billion as compared to $ 718 billion ( these figures exclude funds allocated to the Energy Department for nuclear weapons fabrication and maintenance ) .
However , these numbers conceal a dramatic shift in priorities : The FY 2020 budget included $ 172 billion for “ overseas contingency operations ” ( namely , the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan ) , while the proposed FY 2021 budget includes only $ 69 billion for that purpose , meaning that this year ’ s request includes far more @ @ @ @ @ @ @ .
And there is no mystery about how the Pentagon wants to spend that money : on advanced nuclear munitions and super-sophisticated conventional weapons capable of penetrating deep into Russian and Chinese territory .
As Deputy Secretary of State David L. Norquist explained in announcing the new budget priorities , “ We are grappling with a new war fighting environment , given the re-emergence of great-power competition from Russia and China and the…rapidly changing nature of warfare.
” A World War Could Break Out in the Arctic How Rising Temperatures Increase the Likelihood @ @ @ @ @ @ @ legacy ” systems—armored vehicles and helicopters intended for counterinsurgency and other “ low-intensity ” operations—funds will now be allocated for what Norquist called the “ high-end fight ” with Russia and China .
To meet this new challenge , he indicated , the Pentagon is “ expanding investments in critical emerging technologies , such as hypersonic weapons , artificial intelligence , and autonomous platforms.
” Among the weapons systems being accorded highest priority by Norquist and other senior officials are new nuclear delivery systems and missile interceptors , along with hypersonic missiles with @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Nuclear Forces Treaty , which the Trump administration abandoned last August .
Large sums are also to be allocated for the rapid development of autonomous weapons systems—unmanned aircraft and ships , capable of operating independently of human oversight .
Under the proposed FY 2021 budget , Pentagon spending on nuclear arms modernization will increase by 27 percent over FY 2020 , jumping from $ 11.6 to $ 14.8 billion .
These funds will be used to procure the first in a new class of ballistic missile–carrying submarines and to accelerate the development of @ @ @ @ @ @ @ , and a new intercontinental ballistic missile called the Ground-Based Strategic Deterrent .
Equally large sums will be channeled through the Department of Energy for the fabrication of additional nuclear warheads for these new delivery systems .
All this investment—enough , it has been calculated , to finance 300,000 beds in intensive care units , 35,000 ventilators , and the salaries of 75,000 doctors—is supposedly needed to replace aging nukes now in the stockpile and provide the president with greater “ flexibility ” in choosing nuclear attack options .
Spending on advanced conventional @ @ @ @ @ @ @ , the allocation for hypersonic missiles—weapons that can fly at more than five times the speed of sound—jumps by 23 percent , from to $ 2.6 to $ 3.2 billion .
These missiles will be attached to a fleet of new rocket boosters being developed by the Navy , endowing them with the range to strike high-value targets deep within Russian and Chinese territory , especially enemy airbases , missile sites , and command bunkers .
As Norquist and other Pentagon officials have made clear , the acquisition of all these new weapons @ @ @ @ @ @ @ at defeating “ great-power competitors ” in what they call the “ high-end fight ” —meaning a war that will pit America ’ s most advanced and capable forces against the equivalent forces of Russia and China .
Pentagon documents clearly indicate that this fight will occur adjacent to and within Russian and Chinese territory , far from America ’ s shores .
The emerging strategy , dubbed multi-domain or all-domain operations , calls for every branch of the military , including space and cyber forces , to collaborate in high-intensity combat to @ @ @ @ @ @ @ anti-access/area denial ( A2/AD ) systems—and then penetrate into an enemy ’ s “ deep space ” where its critical military facilities are located .
Existing US weapons are said to lack the range and ability to accomplish such demanding missions ; hence , the alleged need for long-range missiles and other weapons capable of reaching far into enemy territory .
“ Our potential adversaries have created the A2/AD environment , ” the Army ’ s Gen. Neil Thurgood claimed in February .
“ In order to move forces into that , you @ @ @ @ @ @ @ penetration .
Hypersonics is a strategic weapon that does that.
” What should worry us about all this is not just the allocation of billions of dollars for high-tech weapons at a time when those funds are desperately needed to shore up America ’ s public health system and get people back to work , but also that Russian and Chinese leaders will fear US plans for offensive attacks on their homelands and so feel pressured to spend massive amounts on new or upgraded nuclear and non-nuclear weapons of their own .
Both @ @ @ @ @ @ @ of hypersonic and autonomous munitions , so any US drive to rush the deployment of such weapons will no doubt hasten similar moves by Moscow and Beijing , creating new dangers for American and allied forces .
Moreover , the new US strategy of preparing for “ high-end ” warfare will also force the Russians and Chinese to revise their own defense policies , possibly leading them to place greater emphasis on the early use of nuclear weapons to overcome superior US conventional forces .
This , in turn , will provide justification @ @ @ @ @ @ @ spend even more on advanced nuclear and nonnuclear weapons .
The inevitable result : a costly arms race between the United States and both Russia and China , consuming mammoth sums at a time of widespread economic hardship , while vastly increasing the risk of accidental or inadvertent nuclear war .
At this moment , Congress is understandably preoccupied with the coronavirus crisis and in finding ways to cushion its economic impact .
But it must not abrogate its responsibility to review the Pentagon budget request and to ask tough questions about the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ conventional weapons at this moment .
Indeed , with the nation ’ s vulnerability to a crippling pandemic and its attendant economic consequences so painfully evident , this is the ideal time to reassess national priorities .
The need for substantial investment in national health care , vital infrastructure , and high-quality public education could not be more self-evident , while the requirement for new nuclear weapons and hypersonic missiles appears , for now , far less urgent—especially given the fact that every other country , including China and Russia , will also @ @ @ @ @ @ @ the pandemic for some time to come .
Surely , at this time of global crisis , approval for these new weapons systems can be delayed until the pandemic has passed and lawmakers have greater opportunity to consider the potential risks of launching a new arms race with China and Russia .
We should allow time , moreover , for US , Russian , and Chinese leaders to meet and consider the adoption of multilateral restraints on hypersonic weapons and other emerging military technologies .
Let us not recover from the coronavirus only @ @ @ @ @ @ @ dangerous world , one menaced by an uncontrolled arms race and persistent fear of nuclear escalation .

EDITOR’S NOTE: The Nation believes that helping readers stay informed about the impact of the coronavirus crisis is a form of public service. For that reason, this article, and all of our coronavirus coverage, is now free. Please subscribe to support our writers and staff, and stay healthy.
Subscribe to The Nation Subscribe now for as little as $2 a month! Subscribe now for as little as $2 a month!
Get The Nation’s Weekly Newsletter Fridays. The best of the week. Email By signing up, you confirm that you are over the age of 16 and agree to receive occasional promotional offers for programs that support The Nation’s journalism. You can read our Privacy Policy here. Fridays. The best of the week.
Thank you for signing up for The Nation’s weekly newsletter.
Repro Nation A monthly newsletter on the global fight for reproductive freedom. Email By signing up, you confirm that you are over the age of 16 and agree to receive occasional promotional offers for programs that support The Nation’s journalism. You can read our Privacy Policy here.
Thank you for signing up. For more from The Nation, check out our latest issue
Subscribe to The Nation Subscribe now for as little as $2 a month! Subscribe now for as little as $2 a month!
Support Progressive Journalism The Nation is reader supported: Chip in $10 or more to help us continue to write about the issues that matter. The Nation is reader supported: Chip in $10 or more to help us continue to write about the issues that matter.
Sign up for our Wine Club today. Did you know you can support The Nation by drinking wine?
Economists generally agree that the $2 trillion-plus voted by Congress to help businesses and working people cope with the damage being wrought by the Covid-19 epidemic will prove insufficient to restart the economy and put unemployed people back to work. Many trillions more in federal spending, it is believed, will be needed to restore public services (especially the nation’s devastated health care system) and sustain the recovery we all hope will soon commence. This would seem, on the face of it, a perfect time to trim military spending and channel the savings to job-creating infrastructure projects at home. But no, while the attention of Congress and the media is focused elsewhere, the Department of Defense is undertaking its most ambitious—and dangerous—military buildup since the end of the Cold War.
To appreciate the dangers inherent in the new military buildup, it is necessary to look closely at Pentagon budget documents and the plans now being made for all-out combat against what are termed “great-power competitors,” i.e., Russia and China. The net Department of Defense budget for fiscal year 2021, released this February, is actually lower than last year’s—$705 billion as compared to $718 billion (these figures exclude funds allocated to the Energy Department for nuclear weapons fabrication and maintenance).
However, these numbers conceal a dramatic shift in priorities: The FY 2020 budget included $172 billion for “overseas contingency operations” (namely, the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan), while the proposed FY 2021 budget includes only $69 billion for that purpose, meaning that this year’s request includes far more for investment in new weapons and programs. And there is no mystery about how the Pentagon wants to spend that money: on advanced nuclear munitions and super-sophisticated conventional weapons capable of penetrating deep into Russian and Chinese territory.
As Deputy Secretary of State David L. Norquist explained in announcing the new budget priorities, “We are grappling with a new war fighting environment, given the re-emergence of great-power competition from Russia and China and the…rapidly changing nature of warfare.” More From Michael T. Klare When AI and Robotics Combine August 9, 2023 The Future of AI Is War July 17, 2023 The US Versus China June 14, 2023
In place of “legacy” systems—armored vehicles and helicopters intended for counterinsurgency and other “low-intensity” operations—funds will now be allocated for what Norquist called the “high-end fight” with Russia and China. To meet this new challenge, he indicated, the Pentagon is “expanding investments in critical emerging technologies, such as hypersonic weapons, artificial intelligence, and autonomous platforms.”
Among the weapons systems being accorded highest priority by Norquist and other senior officials are new nuclear delivery systems and missile interceptors, along with hypersonic missiles with a range previously banned by the Intermediate-Range Nuclear Forces Treaty, which the Trump administration abandoned last August. Large sums are also to be allocated for the rapid development of autonomous weapons systems—unmanned aircraft and ships, capable of operating independently of human oversight.
Under the proposed FY 2021 budget, Pentagon spending on nuclear arms modernization will increase by 27 percent over FY 2020, jumping from $11.6 to $14.8 billion. These funds will be used to procure the first in a new class of ballistic missile–carrying submarines and to accelerate the development of a new stealth bomber, the B-21, and a new intercontinental ballistic missile called the Ground-Based Strategic Deterrent. Equally large sums will be channeled through the Department of Energy for the fabrication of additional nuclear warheads for these new delivery systems. All this investment—enough, it has been calculated, to finance 300,000 beds in intensive care units, 35,000 ventilators, and the salaries of 75,000 doctors—is supposedly needed to replace aging nukes now in the stockpile and provide the president with greater “flexibility” in choosing nuclear attack options. Popular "swipe left below to view more authors"Swipe → The Evisceration of a Public University The Evisceration of a Public University Lisa M. Corrigan The Patronizing Moralism of David Brooks The Patronizing Moralism of David Brooks Chris Lehmann “The Blind Side” Was Always Trash “The Blind Side” Was Always Trash Dave Zirin My Homeland Is Being Ruled by Terror. The World Must Pay Attention. My Homeland Is Being Ruled by Terror. The World Must Pay Attention. Manny Maung Popular "swipe left below to view more authors"Swipe → The Evisceration of a Public University The Evisceration of a Public University Lisa M. Corrigan The Patronizing Moralism of David Brooks The Patronizing Moralism of David Brooks Chris Lehmann “The Blind Side” Was Always Trash “The Blind Side” Was Always Trash Dave Zirin My Homeland Is Being Ruled by Terror. The World Must Pay Attention. My Homeland Is Being Ruled by Terror. The World Must Pay Attention. Manny Maung Current Issue View our current issue
Spending on advanced conventional weapons is also climbing. For example, the allocation for hypersonic missiles—weapons that can fly at more than five times the speed of sound—jumps by 23 percent, from to $2.6 to $3.2 billion. These missiles will be attached to a fleet of new rocket boosters being developed by the Navy, endowing them with the range to strike high-value targets deep within Russian and Chinese territory, especially enemy airbases, missile sites, and command bunkers.
As Norquist and other Pentagon officials have made clear, the acquisition of all these new weapons accords with a new US strategy aimed at defeating “great-power competitors” in what they call the “high-end fight”—meaning a war that will pit America’s most advanced and capable forces against the equivalent forces of Russia and China. Pentagon documents clearly indicate that this fight will occur adjacent to and within Russian and Chinese territory, far from America’s shores.
The emerging strategy, dubbed multi-domain or all-domain operations, calls for every branch of the military, including space and cyber forces, to collaborate in high-intensity combat to crush Russian and Chinese defensive capabilities—typically termed anti-access/area denial (A2/AD) systems—and then penetrate into an enemy’s “deep space” where its critical military facilities are located. Existing US weapons are said to lack the range and ability to accomplish such demanding missions; hence, the alleged need for long-range missiles and other weapons capable of reaching far into enemy territory. “Our potential adversaries have created the A2/AD environment,” the Army’s Gen. Neil Thurgood claimed in February. “In order to move forces into that, you’ve got to create lanes of penetration. Hypersonics is a strategic weapon that does that.”
What should worry us about all this is not just the allocation of billions of dollars for high-tech weapons at a time when those funds are desperately needed to shore up America’s public health system and get people back to work, but also that Russian and Chinese leaders will fear US plans for offensive attacks on their homelands and so feel pressured to spend massive amounts on new or upgraded nuclear and non-nuclear weapons of their own. Both countries have also been testing new types of hypersonic and autonomous munitions, so any US drive to rush the deployment of such weapons will no doubt hasten similar moves by Moscow and Beijing, creating new dangers for American and allied forces.
Moreover, the new US strategy of preparing for “high-end” warfare will also force the Russians and Chinese to revise their own defense policies, possibly leading them to place greater emphasis on the early use of nuclear weapons to overcome superior US conventional forces. This, in turn, will provide justification for those in Washington who want to spend even more on advanced nuclear and nonnuclear weapons. The inevitable result: a costly arms race between the United States and both Russia and China, consuming mammoth sums at a time of widespread economic hardship, while vastly increasing the risk of accidental or inadvertent nuclear war. Nuclear Weapons Making Nuclear Weapons Menacing Again Michael T. Klare
At this moment, Congress is understandably preoccupied with the coronavirus crisis and in finding ways to cushion its economic impact. But it must not abrogate its responsibility to review the Pentagon budget request and to ask tough questions about the purported need for new nuclear and high-tech conventional weapons at this moment. Indeed, with the nation’s vulnerability to a crippling pandemic and its attendant economic consequences so painfully evident, this is the ideal time to reassess national priorities. The need for substantial investment in national health care, vital infrastructure, and high-quality public education could not be more self-evident, while the requirement for new nuclear weapons and hypersonic missiles appears, for now, far less urgent—especially given the fact that every other country, including China and Russia, will also be dealing with the economic consequences of the pandemic for some time to come.
Surely, at this time of global crisis, approval for these new weapons systems can be delayed until the pandemic has passed and lawmakers have greater opportunity to consider the potential risks of launching a new arms race with China and Russia. We should allow time, moreover, for US, Russian, and Chinese leaders to meet and consider the adoption of multilateral restraints on hypersonic weapons and other emerging military technologies. Let us not recover from the coronavirus only to find ourselves in an even more dangerous world, one menaced by an uncontrolled arms race and persistent fear of nuclear escalation.


thenation--2020-03-31--Our Public Servants Maintain Normalcy by Being Regular Incompetent

Support independent cartooning : join Sparky ’ s List—and don ’ t forget to visit TT ’ s Emporium of @ @ @ @ @ book and plush Sparky !

Support independent cartooning: join Sparky’s List—and don’t forget to visit TT’s Emporium of Fun, featuring the new book and plush Sparky!