vox--2020-06-12--How protesters are turning the tables on police surveillance

The way the Buffalo Police Department tells it , 75-year-old Martin Gugino “ was injured when he tripped and fell ” during a June 4 protest .
This statement was quickly contradicted when footage from a nearby journalist ’ s phone showed that Gugino fell after two police officers pushed him .
The man ’ s head hit the ground with a sickening crack and blood poured out of his ear .
Most of the officers then walked on by him .
The video swiftly went viral .
In the past , the Buffalo police ’ s claim might have @ @ @ @ @ @ @ by the news media .
But as multiple versions of the video spread across social media , outrage grew to a tipping point .
Both officers were swiftly suspended without pay and charged with assault .
As local politicians and the police union tried to defend the rule of law , tens of millions watched one of the videos of the cops pushing Gugino , who is a longtime peace activist , to the ground .
On Tuesday , President Trump tweeted , without evidence , that Gugino “ could be an ANTIFA @ @ @ @ @ @ @ police communications and possibly faked his own fall .
These conspiratorial claims were quickly debunked .
Trump ’ s tweet does , in a roundabout way , shed light on a dynamic unfolding as anti-police brutality protests sweep the nation .
Typically , you think of police as the ones doing surveillance during a protest ; they are aggressively monitoring the demonstrations around the country .
Law enforcement even flew a Predator drone over protesters in Minneapolis last month .
But now , with these protests , the president is paranoid that it @ @ @ @ @ @ @ the police .
He ’ s not entirely wrong .
The Gugino video is just one of many recent incidents where activists , journalists , and bystanders have caught police responding to anti-police brutality protests with more police brutality .
An NYPD officer was charged with assault after a video of him beating a protester went viral on social media , where he was identified .
An array of video evidence proved that , ahead of a Trump photo op , police used chemical agents on peaceful protesters near the White House , @ @ @ @ @ @ @ .
And the video of George Floyd ’ s death is perhaps the most powerful example of a bystander ’ s footage swiftly disproving the police narrative .
There will surely be more videos like these that hold police to account .
Internet-connected cameras are everywhere , and many people have them built into the phones in their pockets .
These magical gadgets capture increasingly high-quality images that can be shared to countless apps and websites immediately .
And because of the public ’ s burgeoning surveillance capabilities , the media has been @ @ @ @ @ @ @ that contradict videos and photos from multiple sources .
This , combined with a new generation of apps that protesters can use to organize , is creating a new dynamic in these marches .
As always , the police are watching the protesters .
But now , more than ever , the protesters are watching them right back .
An app for every action As long has smartphones have existed , they ’ ve been important tools for activists .
But there are a few notable innovations in how protesters are using apps @ @ @ @ @ @ @ a public safety app is chief among them .
Once derided as a problematic neighborhood watch service , Citizen is experiencing a surprising renaissance as an organizing and broadcasting tool for activists .
The app is sort of a police scanner on steroids , as it uses proprietary AI to identify incidents from hundreds of first responder radio channels and then plots those activities on a map .
Users can get alerts about things happening near them , including marches , protests , or police presence .
There ’ s also a visual @ @ @ @ @ @ @ during a protest .
Anyone can submit their own incident or add comments , images , or live video from the scene to an existing events .
While police scanner apps have also experienced an explosion in popularity , Citizen is becoming an effective way to monitor not only what ’ s happening with protests but also how police are responding .
In the first week of June , more than 600,000 new users signed up for Citizen , which was shaping how they took to the streets .
“ Having that level @ @ @ @ @ @ @ police presence was like made me comfortable enough to participate , ” Jorge Cueto , a new Citizen user , told the Wall Street Journal .
“ I felt like I had enough information to make an informed decision.
” Another category of app that ’ s seeing a surge in new users is secure messaging apps .
Signal , a service that offers end-to-end encryption among other security-focused features broke into the top 10 most downloaded apps overall for the first time , likely because protesters are concerned about cops intercepting their @ @ @ @ @ @ @ media , police can ’ t read messages sent on Signal unless they have access to the physical phones sending the messages , which explains why these kinds of apps are such valuable organizing tools .
This week , Signal also added new features for secure photo and video sharing , including the ability to blur faces to protect identities .
Then there ’ s Instagram , which has become a powerful broadcasting platform .
Along with Twitter and the power of the retweet , Instagram and its Stories feature have become a @ @ @ @ @ @ @ images and videos that they want the world to see .
Even with Instagram ’ s limited functionality , activists have been using the platform to spread messages , launch global campaigns against racism , and share countless images of people protesting and police , acting as counterprotesters , beating the protesters .
While protesters are finding new , more secure ways to navigate and document demonstrations , police still employ militant surveillance strategies .
This is not a new thing , but one has to wonder how effective it will be this @ @ @ @ @ @ @ caught surveilling legal , peaceful demonstrations , including Occupy Wall Street and Black Lives Matter protests .
They ’ ve also been known to monitor people who have participated in protests and store that information in intelligence databases .
Surveillance technology has also advanced significantly in the past few years , giving police the ability to target activists in real time .
As documents from the American Civil Liberties Union show , during the demonstrations following the killing of Freddie Gray , the Baltimore County Police Department used a location-tracking , social media-monitoring @ @ @ @ @ @ @ people that were posted online .
Police ran the images through facial recognition technology “ to discover rioters with outstanding warrants and arrest them directly from the crowd.
” The growing list of advanced police surveillance technology also includes body cameras , automatic license plate readers , mobile surveillance towers , and drones .
The week that George Floyd was killed , in fact , law enforcement flew a Predator drone , courtesy of Customs and Border Patrol , over protests in Minneapolis .
Together , these tools enable police to collect data @ @ @ @ @ @ @ even if those people aren ’ t suspected of or engaged in criminal behavior .
Privacy advocates have long been concerned about the lack of regulations or laws around how police departments use surveillance technologies as well as the lack of transparency cops provide .
Police body cameras , specifically , have been propped up as a tool that can promote police accountability , but the reality has been complicated .
Since police departments ultimately maintain a lot of control over what footage is collected — if it ’ s collected at all @ @ @ @ @ @ @ to the public , the extent to which body cams promote the greater good is questionable .
Police have also been caught planting evidence for the benefit of body camera videos .
There are several cases of officers ’ body cameras not being turned on or falling off during incidents when they are needed most , and access to that footage behind law enforcement is often limited .
Body cameras can also be used to gather footage of everyone who is at the scene , giving law enforcement a permanent record of any @ @ @ @ @ @ @ lens .
Protesters ’ phones may also act as an unintentional surveillance camera for police .
Photos or video of protests posted on social media provide law enforcement with another means of identifying who was at a certain place at a certain time , and even who they happened to be with .
If you don ’ t want your photos to potentially be used against someone , be strategic in what you capture , either by angling your camera so no one ’ s identifying information is shown , or using blur @ @ @ @ @ @ @ consider what you ’ re posting and why .
This goes both ways .
Protesters , journalists , and bystanders are also increasingly recording the actions of police officers .
In a way , the people ’ s cameras are doing the jobs that body cams were designed to do .
As police surveillance technology becomes more sophisticated , there are well-founded fears that any images taken of you during the protests can still be analyzed by police after the fact .
Police departments often have access to sophisticated AI and facial recognition @ @ @ @ @ @ @ yet know the extent to which law enforcement responding to the current demonstrations will use the technology , we do know that facial recognition has been used to identify people who have been at similar demonstrations in the past and that some have expressed interest in using it now .
At the same time , backlash to police use of facial recognition has become so fierce that companies like IBM , Amazon , and Microsoft recently announced that they would stop selling the technology to law enforcement .
Post-facto analysis also works both @ @ @ @ @ @ @ sheer attention span , law enforcement is almost certainly outnumbered by the general public who are watching and sharing countless hours of footage from protests .
This kind of crowdsourced action has helped identify officers in cases where badge numbers are being obscured during clashes .
That was the case with NYPD officer Vincent D ’ Andraia , who was identified by social media users and charged with assault after video of him shoving a protester made the rounds .
Witness videos also played a crucial role in debunking the Trump administration ’ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ enforcement cleared an area near the White House before the president ’ s now notorious photo op in front of St. John ’ s Church .
Officers from an assortment of agencies cleared DC ’ s Lafayette Square of largely peaceful protesters to give Trump safe passage from the White House to a church .
Multiple videos showed officers in riot gear attacking journalists , shooting pepper balls at crowds , and throwing various exploding grenades .
The incident quickly devolved into a familiar debate about what the government said happened and what @ @ @ @ @ @ @ true .
Attorney General Bill Barr denied that the crowd was peaceful and that tear gas was used .
But almost simultaneously with the government ’ s denials , videos emerged showing police violently attacking relatively calm protesters .
Meanwhile , evidence found at the scene confirmed that tear gas was indeed present , though that fact could also be confirmed from videos shot by protesters and news outlets .
The government ’ s behavior as well as its duplicitous denials of what happened at Lafayette Square has not been well received .
@ @ @ @ @ @ @ some members of the National Guard who were there following orders .
The Arlington County police also pulled its forces out of the city after the event , saying their “ health and safety ” was jeopardized “ for a purpose not worthy of our mutual aid obligations.
” This trend in speaking truth to power represents a meaningful shift .
For years , the narrative around police brutality has been frustrated , at least to some degree , by police being able to make false claims about reality and get away with @ @ @ @ @ @ @ National Police Accountability Project , Michael Avery , recently told the Associated Press that “ what is happening now with video , this is getting out into the larger world , into the media , into white communities , suburban communities , and people outside the affected communities are becoming more aware of what ’ s going on.
” There ’ s reason to believe that the positive change will continue .
While laws are being proposed that would curb or limit police surveillance , Americans ’ right to record the police can @ @ @ @ @ @ @ It ’ s considered a right under the First Amendment to film government officials doing their jobs in a public space .
But it does seem that police officers are finally starting to realize that not only are they being filmed , but that they may be held accountable for their actions in the resulting video .
The National Lawyers Guild accused police across the nation of targeting its legal observers in violent attacks and arrests ; Gothamist reported one observer said he was accused of “ illegal counter-surveillance against police.
” This @ @ @ @ @ @ @ police can ’ t win .
They no longer control the narrative , and it ’ s hard to imagine that they ’ ll get it back .
Cameras are everywhere , they ’ re here to stay , and even children know how they can be used to bear witness .
George Floyd ’ s killing was filmed by Darnella Frazier .
She ’ s only 17 years old .
Open Sourced is made possible by the Omidyar Network .
All Open Sourced content is editorially independent and produced by our journalists @ @ @ @ @ @ @ aim to answer your most important questions and provide you , and our audience around the world , with information that has the power to save lives .
Our mission has never been more vital than it is in this moment : to empower you through understanding .
Vox ’ s work is reaching more people than ever , but our distinctive brand of explanatory journalism takes resources — particularly during a pandemic and an economic downturn .
Your financial contribution will not constitute a donation , but it will enable our staff @ @ @ @ @ @ @ videos , and podcasts at the quality and volume that this moment requires .
Please consider making a contribution to Vox today .

The way the Buffalo Police Department tells it, 75-year-old Martin Gugino “was injured when he tripped and fell” during a June 4 protest. This statement was quickly contradicted when footage from a nearby journalist’s phone showed that Gugino fell after two police officers pushed him. The man’s head hit the ground with a sickening crack and blood poured out of his ear. Most of the officers then walked on by him. The video swiftly went viral.
In the past, the Buffalo police’s claim might have been taken at face value and echoed by the news media. But as multiple versions of the video spread across social media, outrage grew to a tipping point. Both officers were swiftly suspended without pay and charged with assault. As local politicians and the police union tried to defend the rule of law, tens of millions watched one of the videos of the cops pushing Gugino, who is a longtime peace activist, to the ground. On Tuesday, President Trump tweeted, without evidence, that Gugino “could be an ANTIFA provocateur” who was “scanning” police communications and possibly faked his own fall. These conspiratorial claims were quickly debunked.
Trump’s tweet does, in a roundabout way, shed light on a dynamic unfolding as anti-police brutality protests sweep the nation. Typically, you think of police as the ones doing surveillance during a protest; they are aggressively monitoring the demonstrations around the country. Law enforcement even flew a Predator drone over protesters in Minneapolis last month. But now, with these protests, the president is paranoid that it’s the people who are surveilling the police. He’s not entirely wrong.
The Gugino video is just one of many recent incidents where activists, journalists, and bystanders have caught police responding to anti-police brutality protests with more police brutality. An NYPD officer was charged with assault after a video of him beating a protester went viral on social media, where he was identified. An array of video evidence proved that, ahead of a Trump photo op, police used chemical agents on peaceful protesters near the White House, despite the government’s official denial. And the video of George Floyd’s death is perhaps the most powerful example of a bystander’s footage swiftly disproving the police narrative.
There will surely be more videos like these that hold police to account. Internet-connected cameras are everywhere, and many people have them built into the phones in their pockets. These magical gadgets capture increasingly high-quality images that can be shared to countless apps and websites immediately. And because of the public’s burgeoning surveillance capabilities, the media has been less willing to blindly accept police statements that contradict videos and photos from multiple sources. This, combined with a new generation of apps that protesters can use to organize, is creating a new dynamic in these marches.
As always, the police are watching the protesters. But now, more than ever, the protesters are watching them right back.
An app for every action
As long has smartphones have existed, they’ve been important tools for activists. But there are a few notable innovations in how protesters are using apps to assist in their efforts. Appropriating a public safety app is chief among them.
Once derided as a problematic neighborhood watch service, Citizen is experiencing a surprising renaissance as an organizing and broadcasting tool for activists. The app is sort of a police scanner on steroids, as it uses proprietary AI to identify incidents from hundreds of first responder radio channels and then plots those activities on a map. Users can get alerts about things happening near them, including marches, protests, or police presence.
There’s also a visual aspect that makes using Citizen extra interesting during a protest. Anyone can submit their own incident or add comments, images, or live video from the scene to an existing events. While police scanner apps have also experienced an explosion in popularity, Citizen is becoming an effective way to monitor not only what’s happening with protests but also how police are responding. In the first week of June, more than 600,000 new users signed up for Citizen, which was shaping how they took to the streets.
“Having that level of granularity and information about what the police presence was like made me comfortable enough to participate,” Jorge Cueto, a new Citizen user, told the Wall Street Journal. “I felt like I had enough information to make an informed decision.”
Another category of app that’s seeing a surge in new users is secure messaging apps. Signal, a service that offers end-to-end encryption among other security-focused features broke into the top 10 most downloaded apps overall for the first time, likely because protesters are concerned about cops intercepting their communications. Long known to monitor social media, police can’t read messages sent on Signal unless they have access to the physical phones sending the messages, which explains why these kinds of apps are such valuable organizing tools. This week, Signal also added new features for secure photo and video sharing, including the ability to blur faces to protect identities.
Then there’s Instagram, which has become a powerful broadcasting platform. Along with Twitter and the power of the retweet, Instagram and its Stories feature have become a primary way for protesters to make viral images and videos that they want the world to see. Even with Instagram’s limited functionality, activists have been using the platform to spread messages, launch global campaigns against racism, and share countless images of people protesting and police, acting as counterprotesters, beating the protesters.
Police heavily armed with spy tools
While protesters are finding new, more secure ways to navigate and document demonstrations, police still employ militant surveillance strategies. This is not a new thing, but one has to wonder how effective it will be this time around.
Law enforcement has been caught surveilling legal, peaceful demonstrations, including Occupy Wall Street and Black Lives Matter protests. They’ve also been known to monitor people who have participated in protests and store that information in intelligence databases. Surveillance technology has also advanced significantly in the past few years, giving police the ability to target activists in real time. As documents from the American Civil Liberties Union show, during the demonstrations following the killing of Freddie Gray, the Baltimore County Police Department used a location-tracking, social media-monitoring tool called Geofeedia to find photos of people that were posted online. Police ran the images through facial recognition technology “to discover rioters with outstanding warrants and arrest them directly from the crowd.”
The growing list of advanced police surveillance technology also includes body cameras, automatic license plate readers, mobile surveillance towers, and drones. The week that George Floyd was killed, in fact, law enforcement flew a Predator drone, courtesy of Customs and Border Patrol, over protests in Minneapolis. Together, these tools enable police to collect data on thousands of people at once, even if those people aren’t suspected of or engaged in criminal behavior. Privacy advocates have long been concerned about the lack of regulations or laws around how police departments use surveillance technologies as well as the lack of transparency cops provide.
Police body cameras, specifically, have been propped up as a tool that can promote police accountability, but the reality has been complicated. Since police departments ultimately maintain a lot of control over what footage is collected — if it’s collected at all — and whether it’s released to the public, the extent to which body cams promote the greater good is questionable. Police have also been caught planting evidence for the benefit of body camera videos. There are several cases of officers’ body cameras not being turned on or falling off during incidents when they are needed most, and access to that footage behind law enforcement is often limited. Body cameras can also be used to gather footage of everyone who is at the scene, giving law enforcement a permanent record of any participants captured by the camera’s lens.
Protesters’ phones may also act as an unintentional surveillance camera for police. Photos or video of protests posted on social media provide law enforcement with another means of identifying who was at a certain place at a certain time, and even who they happened to be with. If you don’t want your photos to potentially be used against someone, be strategic in what you capture, either by angling your camera so no one’s identifying information is shown, or using blur tools to obscure it, and carefully consider what you’re posting and why.
This goes both ways. Protesters, journalists, and bystanders are also increasingly recording the actions of police officers. In a way, the people’s cameras are doing the jobs that body cams were designed to do.
The power of crowdsourcing
As police surveillance technology becomes more sophisticated, there are well-founded fears that any images taken of you during the protests can still be analyzed by police after the fact. Police departments often have access to sophisticated AI and facial recognition software. While we don’t yet know the extent to which law enforcement responding to the current demonstrations will use the technology, we do know that facial recognition has been used to identify people who have been at similar demonstrations in the past and that some have expressed interest in using it now. At the same time, backlash to police use of facial recognition has become so fierce that companies like IBM, Amazon, and Microsoft recently announced that they would stop selling the technology to law enforcement.
Post-facto analysis also works both ways, though. In terms of sheer attention span, law enforcement is almost certainly outnumbered by the general public who are watching and sharing countless hours of footage from protests. This kind of crowdsourced action has helped identify officers in cases where badge numbers are being obscured during clashes. That was the case with NYPD officer Vincent D’Andraia, who was identified by social media users and charged with assault after video of him shoving a protester made the rounds.
Witness videos also played a crucial role in debunking the Trump administration’s constantly changing account of how law enforcement cleared an area near the White House before the president’s now notorious photo op in front of St. John’s Church. Officers from an assortment of agencies cleared DC’s Lafayette Square of largely peaceful protesters to give Trump safe passage from the White House to a church. Multiple videos showed officers in riot gear attacking journalists, shooting pepper balls at crowds, and throwing various exploding grenades.
The incident quickly devolved into a familiar debate about what the government said happened and what evidence provided by the public suggested was true. Attorney General Bill Barr denied that the crowd was peaceful and that tear gas was used. But almost simultaneously with the government’s denials, videos emerged showing police violently attacking relatively calm protesters. Meanwhile, evidence found at the scene confirmed that tear gas was indeed present, though that fact could also be confirmed from videos shot by protesters and news outlets.
The government’s behavior as well as its duplicitous denials of what happened at Lafayette Square has not been well received. The incident has even been criticized by some members of the National Guard who were there following orders. The Arlington County police also pulled its forces out of the city after the event, saying their “health and safety” was jeopardized “for a purpose not worthy of our mutual aid obligations.”
This trend in speaking truth to power represents a meaningful shift. For years, the narrative around police brutality has been frustrated, at least to some degree, by police being able to make false claims about reality and get away with it. The board president of the National Police Accountability Project, Michael Avery, recently told the Associated Press that “what is happening now with video, this is getting out into the larger world, into the media, into white communities, suburban communities, and people outside the affected communities are becoming more aware of what’s going on.”
There’s reason to believe that the positive change will continue. While laws are being proposed that would curb or limit police surveillance, Americans’ right to record the police can’t be easily legislated away. It’s considered a right under the First Amendment to film government officials doing their jobs in a public space.
But it does seem that police officers are finally starting to realize that not only are they being filmed, but that they may be held accountable for their actions in the resulting video. The National Lawyers Guild accused police across the nation of targeting its legal observers in violent attacks and arrests; Gothamist reported one observer said he was accused of “illegal counter-surveillance against police.”
This looks to be a battle that the police can’t win. They no longer control the narrative, and it’s hard to imagine that they’ll get it back. Cameras are everywhere, they’re here to stay, and even children know how they can be used to bear witness. George Floyd’s killing was filmed by Darnella Frazier. She’s only 17 years old.
Rebecca Heilweil contributed reporting to this story.
Open Sourced is made possible by the Omidyar Network. All Open Sourced content is editorially independent and produced by our journalists.


vox--2020-06-12--It matters that police officers aren’t wearing masks

Over the past two weeks , tens of thousands of people have marched through American streets to protest over George Floyd ’ s death , police brutality , and systemic racism .
While these stories have dominated news coverage , the coronavirus pandemic is still far from over .
Public health experts have expressed their support for the demonstrations , but many are worried about the jump in Covid-19 cases , especially as outbreaks in states like Arizona , California , and Florida are on the rise .
Mass gatherings are risky , even if they are outside , as @ @ @ @ @ @ @ many protestors have arrived at these events masked , equipped with hand sanitizer , gloves , and sometimes extra personal protective equipment ( PPE ) for other protesters and even for on-duty police officers .
According to the online testimonies of on-the-ground protesters and reporters , many members of the police force at these protests don ’ t appear to be wearing masks .
Masks are an optional accessory for most officers on protest duty , HuffPost ’ s Alexander Kaufman reported , and some police departments allow cops to wear face coverings @ @ @ @ @ @ @ so long as the coronavirus continues to be a public health threat , it remains a valid question — one that protesters have voiced after being in close confrontations with unmasked police : Why are officers able to dress up in riot gear but not put on masks ?
Why are civilians expected to vigilantly mask up when cops , whose job it is to enforce the law , aren ’ t expected to do the same ?
“ Officers are encouraged to wear masks but it is voluntary , except in situations @ @ @ @ @ @ @ populations or entering places where the Mayor ’ s order has required face coverings , ” a spokesperson for the Metropolitan Police Department in Washington , DC , wrote to me in an email .
And while the city of Chicago ’ s policy generally requires all on-duty personnel to wear department-issued surgical masks and gloves , a spokesperson said : “ Given the heightened activity that officers have been responding to in the past week , there may be situations in which officers may not have masks and gloves on.
” New @ @ @ @ @ @ @ the need for officers to wear masks in public , saying at a press conference : “ I know you have a hard job but , you know — do unto others .
If we ’ re asking everyone else to follow the rules , social distancing , wear a face covering for the protection of all , you should do it too.
” Most police departments probably have the financial capacity to fully equip officers with masks , Kaufman noted , in light of the national scrutiny toward growing city police budgets @ @ @ @ @ @ @ of the country ’ s 20 most-populous cities found that most police departments had “ loose guidelines ” and virtually no measures to penalize officers for not wearing masks .
It doesn ’ t help that the US doesn ’ t have universal mask guidelines ; instead , guidelines vary by state and locale , which can be confusing .
Furthermore , the American medical community — and as a result the US — was late to encourage mask-wearing , in comparison to Asian countries like China , South Korea , and Japan @ @ @ @ @ @ @ many experts consistently told me that masks weren ’ t necessary and that Americans shouldn ’ t hoard surgical or medical-grade masks , like the coveted N95 , which should be reserved for front-line health care workers .
Some experts started walking back those statements in mid- to late March , and by early April , the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention had amended its guidelines to encourage the wearing of “ cloth face coverings ” in public settings where people could come into close contact with each other .
Because there @ @ @ @ @ @ @ masks in public , the decision to wear one ultimately falls on the individual .
It ’ s a simple choice , one that should be made for the sake of public health and the collective good of others in the community .
But given how the coronavirus — specifically how states and lawmakers have responded to it — has become so politicized , donning a mask can also be interpreted as a moral or political statement ; in some right-wing circles , it ’ s seen as an overreaction to the severity @ @ @ @ @ @ @ no clear laws in place mandating masks in public , the decision to wear one ultimately falls on the individual Our future will likely be masked , as Rachel Sugar wrote for The Goods , although there are detractors who still refuse to wear masks in public ( Exhibit A : President Donald Trump , who doesn ’ t “ want to give the press the pleasure of seeing ” him masked ) .
On Twitter , Trump shared a tweet that mocked Democratic presidential candidate Joe Biden for wearing a black mask @ @ @ @ @ @ @ that Trump believes masking up could ruin his presidential image .
While there are plenty of viral videos on social media of obstinate customers who refuse to put on a mask , this contrarian behavior actually runs counter to that of a majority of Americans , according to a survey conducted in early May by the Democracy Fund and the UCLA Nationscape project .
About 85 percent of the 4,500 Americans surveyed , which includes Democrats , Republicans , and independents , have worn a mask in public .
( About 89 percent @ @ @ @ @ @ @ said they ’ ve worn a mask to limit the spread of the coronavirus . )
” The idea that there is a sizable portion of the population who ’ s somehow violently opposed to this behavior that public health officials are advising just doesn ’ t seem to line up , ” Robert Griffin , research director for the Democracy Fund Voter Study Group , told USA Today .
However , these partisan divisions on a national level are difficult to measure , as the impact of the coronavirus varies by state @ @ @ @ @ @ @ swiftly change after a spike in cases .
As a result of these high-profile incidents , masks are seen as a symbolic shorthand for the partisan rift that has emerged from the coronavirus “ culture wars.
” In some cases , shop owners are refusing to serve those who do wear masks , the Washington Post reported .
But as shocking as these isolated incidents might seem , the number of Americans who mask up ( and the number of privately owned businesses that encourage mask-wearing ) appears to outweigh those who don @ @ @ @ @ @ @ , even the New York City Police Department ( which serves a city that is experiencing the worst of the coronavirus pandemic ) , are widely seen unmasked during patrols , while being expected to interact with civilians on a daily basis .
When I sent an email asking the NYPD to clarify its mask policy , I received an email that provided no clear answers from department spokeswoman Sgt .
Jessica McRorie : “ Perhaps it was the heat .
Perhaps it was the 15-hour tours , wearing bullet-resistant vests in the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ .
With everything New York City has been through in the past two weeks and everything we are working towards together , we can put our energy to a better use.
” There could be many reasons as to why police officers — a highly visible , organized group — are seemingly flouting these rules .
Most police forces consist largely of men , and according to a Gallup poll conducted in mid-April , women are more likely to wear a mask outside of the home than men .
A mask could be @ @ @ @ @ @ @ an affront to a person ’ s masculinity if they are seen wearing one , which could explain why Trump insists on avoiding cameras when masked .
Men and women “ absolutely ” think differently about wearing masks , Catherine Sanderson , a psychology professor at Amherst College , told the New York Times .
“ Men speed more .
Men engage in higher rates of binge drinking .
Men are less likely to wear seatbelts.
” For those in a high-risk profession like policing , the coronavirus might not seem to be @ @ @ @ @ @ @ say , rowdy protesters , which could make wearing masks less of a priority .
Regardless of the reason , these images of maskless police officers are only fueling the growing tide of anger and distrust toward law enforcement , adding to a narrative that officers don ’ t care about the health and safety of their own communities .
It bolsters the perception that cops are above the law , or that they are able to interpret and apply the law however they wish .
The optics of a maskless person can @ @ @ @ @ @ @ reminder that the person is exempt from the rules that apply to the general public .
As masks become more normalized in the public sphere , especially as many states ’ economies are expected to reopen , double standards for wearing them — among cops , civilians , and politicians alike — can put public health at risk .
It is perhaps ironic , then , that some police officers , who operate as agents of the state , are refusing to comply with the guidance set forth by the authorities that lend @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Vox , we aim to answer your most important questions and provide you , and our audience around the world , with information that has the power to save lives .
Our mission has never been more vital than it is in this moment : to empower you through understanding .
Vox ’ s work is reaching more people than ever , but our distinctive brand of explanatory journalism takes resources — particularly during a pandemic and an economic downturn .
Your financial contribution will not constitute a donation , but it will @ @ @ @ @ @ @ free articles , videos , and podcasts at the quality and volume that this moment requires .
Please consider making a contribution to Vox today .

Over the past two weeks, tens of thousands of people have marched through American streets to protest over George Floyd’s death, police brutality, and systemic racism. While these stories have dominated news coverage, the coronavirus pandemic is still far from over. Public health experts have expressed their support for the demonstrations, but many are worried about the jump in Covid-19 cases, especially as outbreaks in states like Arizona, California, and Florida are on the rise. Mass gatherings are risky, even if they are outside, as the protests are.
This is why many protestors have arrived at these events masked, equipped with hand sanitizer, gloves, and sometimes extra personal protective equipment (PPE) for other protesters and even for on-duty police officers.
FWIW I’ve noticed that protesters have done a much better job distributing masks and hand sanitizer in the past week than the government has in five months — Radio Free Amanda 余美娜 (@catcontentonly) June 7, 2020
According to the online testimonies of on-the-ground protesters and reporters, many members of the police force at these protests don’t appear to be wearing masks. Masks are an optional accessory for most officers on protest duty, HuffPost’s Alexander Kaufman reported, and some police departments allow cops to wear face coverings at their own discretion. Still, so long as the coronavirus continues to be a public health threat, it remains a valid question — one that protesters have voiced after being in close confrontations with unmasked police: Why are officers able to dress up in riot gear but not put on masks? Why are civilians expected to vigilantly mask up when cops, whose job it is to enforce the law, aren’t expected to do the same?
“Officers are encouraged to wear masks but it is voluntary, except in situations in which they are interacting with vulnerable populations or entering places where the Mayor’s order has required face coverings,” a spokesperson for the Metropolitan Police Department in Washington, DC, wrote to me in an email. And while the city of Chicago’s policy generally requires all on-duty personnel to wear department-issued surgical masks and gloves, a spokesperson said: “Given the heightened activity that officers have been responding to in the past week, there may be situations in which officers may not have masks and gloves on.”
New York City Mayor Bill de Blasio emphasized the need for officers to wear masks in public, saying at a press conference: “I know you have a hard job but, you know — do unto others. If we’re asking everyone else to follow the rules, social distancing, wear a face covering for the protection of all, you should do it too.”
Most police departments probably have the financial capacity to fully equip officers with masks, Kaufman noted, in light of the national scrutiny toward growing city police budgets. However, HuffPost’s survey of the country’s 20 most-populous cities found that most police departments had “loose guidelines” and virtually no measures to penalize officers for not wearing masks.
It doesn’t help that the US doesn’t have universal mask guidelines; instead, guidelines vary by state and locale, which can be confusing. Furthermore, the American medical community — and as a result the US — was late to encourage mask-wearing, in comparison to Asian countries like China, South Korea, and Japan. In February, for example, many experts consistently told me that masks weren’t necessary and that Americans shouldn’t hoard surgical or medical-grade masks, like the coveted N95, which should be reserved for front-line health care workers. Some experts started walking back those statements in mid- to late March, and by early April, the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention had amended its guidelines to encourage the wearing of “cloth face coverings” in public settings where people could come into close contact with each other.
Because there are no clear laws in place mandating masks in public, the decision to wear one ultimately falls on the individual. It’s a simple choice, one that should be made for the sake of public health and the collective good of others in the community. But given how the coronavirus — specifically how states and lawmakers have responded to it — has become so politicized, donning a mask can also be interpreted as a moral or political statement; in some right-wing circles, it’s seen as an overreaction to the severity of the pandemic.
Because there are no clear laws in place mandating masks in public, the decision to wear one ultimately falls on the individual
Our future will likely be masked, as Rachel Sugar wrote for The Goods, although there are detractors who still refuse to wear masks in public (Exhibit A: President Donald Trump, who doesn’t “want to give the press the pleasure of seeing” him masked). On Twitter, Trump shared a tweet that mocked Democratic presidential candidate Joe Biden for wearing a black mask in public, and some reports say that Trump believes masking up could ruin his presidential image.
While there are plenty of viral videos on social media of obstinate customers who refuse to put on a mask, this contrarian behavior actually runs counter to that of a majority of Americans, according to a survey conducted in early May by the Democracy Fund and the UCLA Nationscape project. About 85 percent of the 4,500 Americans surveyed, which includes Democrats, Republicans, and independents, have worn a mask in public. (About 89 percent of Democrats and 81 percent of Republicans said they’ve worn a mask to limit the spread of the coronavirus.)
”The idea that there is a sizable portion of the population who’s somehow violently opposed to this behavior that public health officials are advising just doesn’t seem to line up,” Robert Griffin, research director for the Democracy Fund Voter Study Group, told USA Today. However, these partisan divisions on a national level are difficult to measure, as the impact of the coronavirus varies by state and region, and public attitudes could swiftly change after a spike in cases.
As a result of these high-profile incidents, masks are seen as a symbolic shorthand for the partisan rift that has emerged from the coronavirus “culture wars.” In some cases, shop owners are refusing to serve those who do wear masks, the Washington Post reported. But as shocking as these isolated incidents might seem, the number of Americans who mask up (and the number of privately owned businesses that encourage mask-wearing) appears to outweigh those who don’t.
Yet entire police forces, even the New York City Police Department (which serves a city that is experiencing the worst of the coronavirus pandemic), are widely seen unmasked during patrols, while being expected to interact with civilians on a daily basis. When I sent an email asking the NYPD to clarify its mask policy, I received an email that provided no clear answers from department spokeswoman Sgt. Jessica McRorie: “Perhaps it was the heat. Perhaps it was the 15-hour tours, wearing bullet-resistant vests in the sun. Perhaps it was the helmets. With everything New York City has been through in the past two weeks and everything we are working towards together, we can put our energy to a better use.”
There could be many reasons as to why police officers — a highly visible, organized group — are seemingly flouting these rules. Most police forces consist largely of men, and according to a Gallup poll conducted in mid-April, women are more likely to wear a mask outside of the home than men. A mask could be internalized as a sign of weakness and an affront to a person’s masculinity if they are seen wearing one, which could explain why Trump insists on avoiding cameras when masked. Men and women “absolutely” think differently about wearing masks, Catherine Sanderson, a psychology professor at Amherst College, told the New York Times. “Men speed more. Men engage in higher rates of binge drinking. Men are less likely to wear seatbelts.” For those in a high-risk profession like policing, the coronavirus might not seem to be as of an imminent threat as, say, rowdy protesters, which could make wearing masks less of a priority.
Regardless of the reason, these images of maskless police officers are only fueling the growing tide of anger and distrust toward law enforcement, adding to a narrative that officers don’t care about the health and safety of their own communities. It bolsters the perception that cops are above the law, or that they are able to interpret and apply the law however they wish. The optics of a maskless person can be jarring, serving as a stark reminder that the person is exempt from the rules that apply to the general public.
As masks become more normalized in the public sphere, especially as many states’ economies are expected to reopen, double standards for wearing them — among cops, civilians, and politicians alike — can put public health at risk. It is perhaps ironic, then, that some police officers, who operate as agents of the state, are refusing to comply with the guidance set forth by the authorities that lend their actions legitimacy.


vox--2020-06-12--The Trump administration will now allow doctors to discriminate against LGBTQ people

The Trump administration has finalized a Department of Health and Human Services administrative rule rolling back health care discrimination protections for LGBTQ people , according to an HHS press release .
The rule was released Friday , June 12 , the fourth anniversary of the Pulse shooting , which left 49 victims , including many queer and trans people , dead in an Orlando , Florida , nightclub .
First proposed in May 2019 , the rule reverses an Obama-era interpretation that sex discrimination under Section 1557 of the Affordable Care Act applied to discrimination against queer and trans people @ @ @ @ @ @ @ seeking or have had an abortion .
“ HHS will enforce Section 1557 by returning to the government ’ s interpretation of sex discrimination according to the plain meaning of the word ‘ sex ’ as male or female and as determined by biology , ” reads the agency ’ s press release .
Democratic lawmakers were quick to condemn the rule change , which is set to go into effect by mid-August .
“ No one should ever have to fear seeking health care because they may be discriminated against based on @ @ @ @ @ @ @ seek , ” said a joint statement by leaders of the Congressional LGBTQ+ Equality Caucus , Congressional Asian Pacific American Caucus , Congressional Hispanic Caucus , Congressional Black Caucus , and Congressional Pro-Choice Caucus .
Trans people especially face overwhelming levels of discrimination from health care providers .
According to a 2010 study , almost one in five trans people said they had been denied care by a medical provider because of their gender identity , and 28 percent were subjected to harassment in a medical setting .
It was that reality the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ LGBTQ people under the definition of sex discrimination , conforming to an increasing wave of state and federal court rulings .
The Obama-era rule made it illegal for doctors , hospitals , and other health care workers to deny care to someone whose sexual orientation or gender identity they disapproved of .
The new Trump administration rule allows health care providers to deny care to anyone they perceive as trans or gay .
It will allow hospitals to house trans women and men according to their birth-assigned sex , or condition emergency treatment @ @ @ @ @ @ @ It would also allow insurance companies to reinstate blanket bans on transition-related care like gender-affirming surgery or hormone replacement therapy .
The Human Rights Campaign has already announced its plan to sue the Trump administration over the rule .
Meanwhile , National Women ’ s Law Center President and CEO Fatima Goss Graves said the organization has teamed up with the Transgender Law Center , the Harvard Center for Health Law and Policy Innovation , and the Transgender Legal Defense and Education Fund to challenge the rule as well .
“ This sanctioning @ @ @ @ @ @ @ and immoral , and doing so while our country loses thousands of lives daily and health inequities across the board persist is especially egregious , ” said Graves in a statement Friday .
“ No one should fear being turned away by a medical provider because of who they are or the personal health decisions they have made.
” In the age of Covid-19 , the rule could also mean the life of a sick trans person is quite literally at the whim of a doctor ’ s personal beliefs about trans people @ @ @ @ @ @ @ trans community before news of the finalized rule was released .
“ I ’ m scared to say this out loud , but I ’ m afraid that trans people will face things like being deprioritized for ventilators or for care , ” Bre Kidman , a nonbinary candidate for US Senate in Maine , told Vox in April .
Gillian Branstetter , a spokesperson for the National Women ’ s Law Center , criticized the administration ’ s timing for moving forward with the rule in the middle of a pandemic .
@ @ @ @ @ @ @ are losing 3,000 Americans a day to an unprecedented public health emergency and a top priority of the Trump administration is making sure doctors can turn away trans people , ” she told Vox in April .
“ We already know that trans people face a patchwork of health inequities that leaves them at risk for any number of health concerns .
This rule threatened the well-being of trans people before this pandemic .
During this pandemic , it is beyond immoral to worsen any group ’ s access to health care.
” @ @ @ @ @ @ @ trans health care began more than a year ago The fight over the rule began in December 2016 with a nationwide injunction on the Obama interpretation .
It was issued by conservative favorite , federal Judge Reed O ’ Connor , who has issued numerous rulings overturning Obama-era rules regarding the Affordable Care Act , abortion access , and access to birth control .
That ruling was finalized in October 2019 by O ’ Connor .
It ’ s that ruling , an HHS spokesperson told Politico back in April , with which @ @ @ @ @ @ @ of civil rights Roger Severino defended that agency ’ s treatment of marginalized communities to Politico .
“ As we have shown in our recent efforts to protect persons from disability and age discrimination during the pandemic , HHS will vigorously enforce civil rights laws as passed by Congress , before , during , and after any rulemaking , ” he said in a statement .
Before his stint as HHS civil rights chief , Severino was a fierce critic of the Obama administration ’ s efforts to protect LGBTQ people from discrimination @ @ @ @ @ @ @ pushed the false notion that doctors were being forced to perform gender-affirming surgeries that they were uncomfortable with .
In reality , transgender surgical care is highly specialized , and trans people are unlikely to go to a doctor who isn ’ t experienced in the procedure .
With the new rule , the US trans community is now looking at a possible return to a health care environment that allowed oncologists to deny cancer care to Robert Eads , a trans man who developed ovarian cancer and was never notified of his @ @ @ @ @ @ @ it , his doctor said his first instinct was to send Eads to a psychologist rather than treating his cancer .
Eads died in 1999 .
Or Tyra Hunter , who died in 1995 after an EMT discovered her trans status following a car accident and refused to touch her on the trip to the hospital , mere miles from the White House .
Aside from the new rule , the LGBTQ community also awaits two Supreme Court decisions on whether queer and trans people are protected under sex discrimination provisions of federal @ @ @ @ @ @ @ are terrified of the [ Supreme Court ] case , ” Branstetter said .
“ Behind a lot of that fear is the understanding that the Trump administration has been hard at work instilling long-term damage to LGBTQ rights .
It ’ s not just the Trump administration , it ’ s an entire sphere of right-wing organizations who have made their primary goal the erasure of trans people from public life.
” Conservatives haven ’ t let the pandemic slow down their political agenda In many ways , the coronavirus pandemic has @ @ @ @ @ @ @ several political priorities while the nation ’ s attention is on the virus and gatherings are strongly discouraged .
At the state level , Idaho enacted two anti-trans laws in late March , while South Carolina held a hearing on a bill that would ban transition care for trans minors while the state was under a shelter-at-home order .
Additionally , Trump ’ s DOJ filed a statement of interest in a federal lawsuit seeking to ban trans girls from high school girls ’ sports in Connecticut .
The anti-trans moves join multiple @ @ @ @ @ @ @ pandemic , with some conservative states moving to ban or restrict the procedure under bans on “ nonessential surgeries.
” Texas eventually eased its ban on nonessential surgeries , while three states saw most of the attempted bans stopped in federal court .
According to the Kaiser Family Foundation , only Arkansas ’ s partial ban remained in place as of May 19 .
Flying a bit further under the radar have also been several attempts to use the pandemic to justify loosening environmental and business regulations , long a goal of the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ the Environmental Protection Agency issued a directive saying it would “ not expect to seek penalties for violations of routine compliance monitoring , integrity testing , sampling , laboratory analysis , training , and reporting or certification obligations in situations where the EPA agrees that Covid-19 was the cause of the noncompliance.
” The move allows air polluters to flout federal law without fear of penalty , right when clean air is perhaps most important for the health and safety of everyday Americans .
Then , in early April , the administration finalized @ @ @ @ @ @ @ fuel efficiency .
Several conservative groups , including the Heritage Foundation , also released plans for the administration to pursue deregulation of business and environmental rules .
Among the Heritage plans the White House found intriguing was a call for the president to ask agencies not to enforce small business regulations altogether .
“ A presidential call for a wide-scale policy of non-enforcement would send a very strong signal to businesses that the government is not going to come down hard on them as they try to get back up and running , @ @ @ @ @ @ @ policy experts disagree .
“ This sounds exactly like the type of opportunistic political move that absolutely should not be attempted right now , ” Jared Bernstein , a former adviser to presumptive Democratic presidential nominee Joe Biden , told the Washington Post in April .
“ Correlations between regulations and economic activity are far shakier than they assume , and I don ’ t believe this idea will help at all.
” It ’ s been clear since the pandemic started that there is no bad time for the Trump administration to @ @ @ @ @ @ @ that means costing Americans — LGBTQ or not — their lives .
Every day at Vox , we aim to answer your most important questions and provide you , and our audience around the world , with information that has the power to save lives .
Our mission has never been more vital than it is in this moment : to empower you through understanding .
Vox ’ s work is reaching more people than ever , but our distinctive brand of explanatory journalism takes resources — particularly during a pandemic and an @ @ @ @ @ @ @ not constitute a donation , but it will enable our staff to continue to offer free articles , videos , and podcasts at the quality and volume that this moment requires .
Please consider making a contribution to Vox today .

The Trump administration has finalized a Department of Health and Human Services administrative rule rolling back health care discrimination protections for LGBTQ people, according to an HHS press release. The rule was released Friday, June 12, the fourth anniversary of the Pulse shooting, which left 49 victims, including many queer and trans people, dead in an Orlando, Florida, nightclub.
First proposed in May 2019, the rule reverses an Obama-era interpretation that sex discrimination under Section 1557 of the Affordable Care Act applied to discrimination against queer and trans people, as well as people who are seeking or have had an abortion.
“HHS will enforce Section 1557 by returning to the government’s interpretation of sex discrimination according to the plain meaning of the word ‘sex’ as male or female and as determined by biology,” reads the agency’s press release.
Democratic lawmakers were quick to condemn the rule change, which is set to go into effect by mid-August. “No one should ever have to fear seeking health care because they may be discriminated against based on who they are or the care they seek,” said a joint statement by leaders of the Congressional LGBTQ+ Equality Caucus, Congressional Asian Pacific American Caucus, Congressional Hispanic Caucus, Congressional Black Caucus, and Congressional Pro-Choice Caucus.
Trans people especially face overwhelming levels of discrimination from health care providers. According to a 2010 study, almost one in five trans people said they had been denied care by a medical provider because of their gender identity, and 28 percent were subjected to harassment in a medical setting. It was that reality the Obama administration attempted to address by including LGBTQ people under the definition of sex discrimination, conforming to an increasing wave of state and federal court rulings.
The Obama-era rule made it illegal for doctors, hospitals, and other health care workers to deny care to someone whose sexual orientation or gender identity they disapproved of. The new Trump administration rule allows health care providers to deny care to anyone they perceive as trans or gay. It will allow hospitals to house trans women and men according to their birth-assigned sex, or condition emergency treatment on the stoppage of cross-sex hormones. It would also allow insurance companies to reinstate blanket bans on transition-related care like gender-affirming surgery or hormone replacement therapy.
The Human Rights Campaign has already announced its plan to sue the Trump administration over the rule. Meanwhile, National Women’s Law Center President and CEO Fatima Goss Graves said the organization has teamed up with the Transgender Law Center, the Harvard Center for Health Law and Policy Innovation, and the Transgender Legal Defense and Education Fund to challenge the rule as well.
“This sanctioning of discrimination in health care is unlawful and immoral, and doing so while our country loses thousands of lives daily and health inequities across the board persist is especially egregious,” said Graves in a statement Friday. “No one should fear being turned away by a medical provider because of who they are or the personal health decisions they have made.”
In the age of Covid-19, the rule could also mean the life of a sick trans person is quite literally at the whim of a doctor’s personal beliefs about trans people. That fear was already permeating the trans community before news of the finalized rule was released. “I’m scared to say this out loud, but I’m afraid that trans people will face things like being deprioritized for ventilators or for care,” Bre Kidman, a nonbinary candidate for US Senate in Maine, told Vox in April.
Gillian Branstetter, a spokesperson for the National Women’s Law Center, criticized the administration’s timing for moving forward with the rule in the middle of a pandemic. “It’s egregious that we are losing 3,000 Americans a day to an unprecedented public health emergency and a top priority of the Trump administration is making sure doctors can turn away trans people,” she told Vox in April. “We already know that trans people face a patchwork of health inequities that leaves them at risk for any number of health concerns. This rule threatened the well-being of trans people before this pandemic. During this pandemic, it is beyond immoral to worsen any group’s access to health care.”
The Trump administration’s war on trans health care began more than a year ago
The fight over the rule began in December 2016 with a nationwide injunction on the Obama interpretation. It was issued by federal Judge Reed O’Connor, a conservative favorite who has issued numerous rulings overturning Obama-era rules regarding the Affordable Care Act, abortion access, and access to birth control. That ruling was finalized in October 2019 by O’Connor.
It’s that ruling, an HHS spokesperson told Politico back in April, with which the department is complying. HHS head of civil rights Roger Severino defended that agency’s treatment of marginalized communities to Politico. “As we have shown in our recent efforts to protect persons from disability and age discrimination during the pandemic, HHS will vigorously enforce civil rights laws as passed by Congress, before, during, and after any rulemaking,” he said in a statement.
Before his stint as HHS civil rights chief, Severino was a fierce critic of the Obama administration’s efforts to protect LGBTQ people from discrimination. Proponents of the new rule have pushed the false notion that doctors were being forced to perform gender-affirming surgeries that they were uncomfortable with. In reality, transgender surgical care is highly specialized, and trans people are unlikely to go to a doctor who isn’t experienced in the procedure.
With the new rule, the US trans community is now looking at a possible return to a health care environment that allowed oncologists to deny cancer care to Robert Eads, a trans man who developed ovarian cancer and was never notified of his diagnosis. When he finally learned of it, his doctor said his first instinct was to send Eads to a psychologist rather than treating his cancer. Eads died in 1999. Or Tyra Hunter, who died in 1995 after an EMT discovered her trans status following a car accident and refused to touch her on the trip to the hospital, mere miles from the White House.
Aside from the new rule, the LGBTQ community also awaits two Supreme Court decisions on whether queer and trans people are protected under sex discrimination provisions of federal civil rights law.
“Trans people are terrified of the [Supreme Court] case,” Branstetter said. “Behind a lot of that fear is the understanding that the Trump administration has been hard at work instilling long-term damage to LGBTQ rights. It’s not just the Trump administration, it’s an entire sphere of right-wing organizations who have made their primary goal the erasure of trans people from public life.”
Conservatives haven’t let the pandemic slow down their political agenda
In many ways, the coronavirus pandemic has provided convenient cover for conservatives to enact several political priorities while the nation’s attention is on the virus and gatherings are strongly discouraged.
At the state level, Idaho enacted two anti-trans laws in late March, while South Carolina held a hearing on a bill that would ban transition care for trans minors while the state was under a shelter-at-home order. Additionally, Trump’s DOJ filed a statement of interest in a federal lawsuit seeking to ban trans girls from high school girls’ sports in Connecticut.
The anti-trans moves join multiple state-level attacks on abortion access during the pandemic, with some conservative states moving to ban or restrict the procedure under bans on “nonessential surgeries.” Texas eventually eased its ban on nonessential surgeries, while three states saw most of the attempted bans stopped in federal court. According to the Kaiser Family Foundation, only Arkansas’s partial ban remained in place as of May 19.
Flying a bit further under the radar have also been several attempts to use the pandemic to justify loosening environmental and business regulations, long a goal of the Trump administration.
On March 26, the Environmental Protection Agency issued a directive saying it would “not expect to seek penalties for violations of routine compliance monitoring, integrity testing, sampling, laboratory analysis, training, and reporting or certification obligations in situations where the EPA agrees that Covid-19 was the cause of the noncompliance.” The move allows air polluters to flout federal law without fear of penalty, right when clean air is perhaps most important for the health and safety of everyday Americans.
Then, in early April, the administration finalized its rollback of Obama-era requirements for vehicle fuel efficiency.
Several conservative groups, including the Heritage Foundation, also released plans for the administration to pursue deregulation of business and environmental rules. Among the Heritage plans the White House found intriguing was a call for the president to ask agencies not to enforce small business regulations altogether.
“A presidential call for a wide-scale policy of non-enforcement would send a very strong signal to businesses that the government is not going to come down hard on them as they try to get back up and running,” the Heritage plan said.
Left-leaning policy experts disagree. “This sounds exactly like the type of opportunistic political move that absolutely should not be attempted right now,” Jared Bernstein, a former adviser to presumptive Democratic presidential nominee Joe Biden, told the Washington Post in April. “Correlations between regulations and economic activity are far shakier than they assume, and I don’t believe this idea will help at all.”
It’s been clear since the pandemic started that there is no bad time for the Trump administration to push their political agenda, even if that means costing Americans — LGBTQ or not — their lives.


vox--2020-06-12--In This Time of Social Change, Can a Brand Also Be an Ally?

A symptom of brands sounding more and more like people is that we more frequently look to companies to mirror our ideologies .
Coconut water is expected to clap back at people who pronounce a distaste for it on Twitter , it ’ s not surprising when Steak-Umm ’ s social media accounts rant about cognitive dissonance , or for Popeyes and Chick-fil-A to fight publicly and pettily about who has the better fried chicken sandwich .
But , no matter how surreal it is to watch companies pivot their voice in the hopes of seeming more human , what @ @ @ @ @ @ @ ’ re not .
Brands are not people , and few things demonstrate that stark contrast like brands responding to this generation ’ s civil rights uprising .
For the past two weeks , brands have released somber graphics and carefully workshopped statements referencing “ systemic racism ” across corporate social media accounts in response to protests sweeping the nation .
Social media silence became complicity ; not posting ( or posting too flippantly ) became seen as tantamount to siding with the machinations of white supremacy that have subjugated , killed , @ @ @ @ @ @ @ , Breonna Taylor , and Ahmaud Arbery for centuries .
In poured statements from streaming platforms , tech conglomerates , burger chains ( hell , even Gushers ) .
“ Popeyes is nothing without Black lives , ” the fried-chicken chain tweeted , before deleting the tweet and replacing it with one that references injustice and equality .
“ I will not pretend to understand the weight of the years of injustice and inequality that our Black friends and colleagues have experienced , ” Taco Bell ’ s CEO Mark King wrote in @ @ @ @ @ @ @ comes to people ’ s lives , there ’ s only one way to have it .
without discrimination , ” tweeted Burger King in all lowercase , against all odds finding some way to shoehorn a reference to its slogan into its anti-discrimination messaging .
And then there was Ben and Jerry ’ s , which threw down a Cherry Garcia-flavored gauntlet with the decisive proclamation , “ We must dismantle white supremacy.
” On its blog , the company wrote , “ What happened to George Floyd was not the result @ @ @ @ @ @ @ the predictable consequence of a racist and prejudiced system and culture that has treated Black bodies as the enemy from the beginning.
” Four calls to action — oriented around policy and lawmakers — follow .
As Rob Walker wrote for Marker , it reads more like “ a full-throated manifesto from an activist group ” than anything you might expect from an ice cream maker .
Reactions to Ben and Jerry ’ s statement were overwhelmingly laudatory in the news and on social media .
The brand ’ s posts racked up @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Twitter .
Fans called it “ the only corporate messaging worth reading ” and “ true corporate responsibility , ” welcoming the brand as “ REAL allies ” and pointing to its values-driven mission , track record — dating back years — speaking out about Black Lives Matter and criminal justice reform , and the progressive politics and civic engagement of co-founders Ben Cohen and Jerry Greenfield ( who sold the company to multinational conglomerate Unilever in 2000 , but remain closely associated with the brand in consumers ’ minds ) .
Compare @ @ @ @ @ @ @ McDonald ’ s received for its message , which names Black victims of police and racist violence and includes the promise of a donation to the National Urban League and the NAACP .
“ Do Black lives matter when they work in your restaurants ?
” the ACLU tweeted .
“ You are not ‘ one of us , ’ ” the workers ’ movement Fight for $ 15 wrote , accusing the fast-food giant of “ a culture of white supremacy .
There is no such thing as good , moral corporations @ @ @ @ @ @ @ profit .
But as New York Times critic Tejal Rao points out , fast food — which “ runs on cheap food and cheap labor ” — requires a particular “ suspension of disbelief from the viewer , ” one which involves overlooking a troubled history of racism , putting profits ahead of workers ’ safety , ignoring sexual harassment , and fighting unionization efforts that would help Black and other workers of color .
No matter how often such businesses tweet “ BlackLivesMatter ” or post a well-designed graphic , you ’ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ so readily willing to betray its own reason for existence : to extract labor and natural resources as cheaply as possible , to earn as much as possible , in an unjust and inequitable system ( hello , capitalism ) that rewards that kind of “ entrepreneurship.
” So what should the public demand of these companies in times like this ?
To “ open your purse , ” for one , as Terry Nguyen writes for The Goods .
Indeed , some food brands have dipped into their coffers these past two @ @ @ @ @ @ @ $ 1 million to the National Urban League , Starbucks $ 1 million to organizations nominated by employees ( while also banning employees from wearing anything in support of Black Lives Matter ) , Wendy ’ s $ 500,000 to the Thurgood Marshall College Fund .
It ’ s mere pocket change , compared to these brands ’ tens or hundreds of millions of dollars in profits , but still preferable to empty platitudes .
But if food brands really wanted to stand for change , they would provide living wages , benefits @ @ @ @ @ @ @ workers and their rights ; they would allow dissent and unions ; they would fight for sustainability , environmental justice , immigration reform .
It would mean ceasing the millions spent lobbying and influencing policymakers to protect companies from having to do those things .
In other words , it would require dismantling everything that allows many of these brands to exist and profit the way they have for decades .
No amount of social media solidarity or one-off acts of philanthropy can change that .

A symptom of brands sounding more and more like people is that we more frequently look to companies to mirror our ideologies. Coconut water is expected to clap back at people who pronounce a distaste for it on Twitter, it’s not surprising when Steak-Umm’s social media accounts rant about cognitive dissonance, or for Popeyes and Chick-fil-A to fight publicly and pettily about who has the better fried chicken sandwich. But, no matter how surreal it is to watch companies pivot their voice in the hopes of seeming more human, what remains is that, well, they’re not. Brands are not people, and few things demonstrate that stark contrast like brands responding to this generation’s civil rights uprising.
For the past two weeks, brands have released somber graphics and carefully workshopped statements referencing “systemic racism” across corporate social media accounts in response to protests sweeping the nation. Social media silence became complicity; not posting (or posting too flippantly) became seen as tantamount to siding with the machinations of white supremacy that have subjugated, killed, and marginalized Black people like George Floyd, Breonna Taylor, and Ahmaud Arbery for centuries.
In poured statements from streaming platforms, tech conglomerates, burger chains (hell, even Gushers). “Popeyes is nothing without Black lives,” the fried-chicken chain tweeted, before deleting the tweet and replacing it with one that references injustice and equality. “I will not pretend to understand the weight of the years of injustice and inequality that our Black friends and colleagues have experienced,” Taco Bell’s CEO Mark King wrote in an open letter. “when it comes to people’s lives, there’s only one way to have it. without discrimination,” tweeted Burger King in all lowercase, against all odds finding some way to shoehorn a reference to its slogan into its anti-discrimination messaging.
And then there was Ben & Jerry’s, which threw down a Cherry Garcia-flavored gauntlet with the decisive proclamation, “We must dismantle white supremacy.” On its blog, the company wrote, “What happened to George Floyd was not the result of a bad apple; it was the predictable consequence of a racist and prejudiced system and culture that has treated Black bodies as the enemy from the beginning.” Four calls to action — oriented around policy and lawmakers — follow. As Rob Walker wrote for Marker, it reads more like “a full-throated manifesto from an activist group” than anything you might expect from an ice cream maker.
The murder of George Floyd was the result of inhumane police brutality that is perpetuated by a culture of white supremacy. https://t.co/YppGJKHkyN pic.twitter.com/YABzgQMf69 — Ben & Jerry's (@benandjerrys) June 2, 2020
Reactions to Ben & Jerry’s statement were overwhelmingly laudatory in the news and on social media. The brand’s posts racked up 29,000 likes on Facebook and 319,000 on Twitter. Fans called it “the only corporate messaging worth reading” and “true corporate responsibility,” welcoming the brand as “REAL allies” and pointing to its values-driven mission, track record — dating back years — speaking out about Black Lives Matter and criminal justice reform, and the progressive politics and civic engagement of co-founders Ben Cohen and Jerry Greenfield (who sold the company to multinational conglomerate Unilever in 2000, but remain closely associated with the brand in consumers’ minds).
Every other company has issued a fairly safe and inoffensive statement meanwhile Ben and Jerry are out here like "bro white supremacists can suck my dairy free cherry garcia cock and choke on it" https://t.co/pQpo0n77PT — Connor (@Prod1gal_Son) June 3, 2020
CALL IT WHAT IT IS OR DON’T TALK AT ALL COMPANIES https://t.co/q5Zlyjsf20 — Janelle Monáe, Cindi Mayweather (@JanelleMonae) June 3, 2020
Compare that warm reception to the response that McDonald’s received for its message, which names Black victims of police and racist violence and includes the promise of a donation to the National Urban League and the NAACP. “Do Black lives matter when they work in your restaurants?” the ACLU tweeted. “You are not ‘one of us,’” the workers’ movement Fight for $15 wrote, accusing the fast-food giant of “a culture of white supremacy. There is no such thing as good, moral corporations, for they are inherently driven by profit. But as New York Times critic Tejal Rao points out, fast food — which “runs on cheap food and cheap labor” — requires a particular “suspension of disbelief from the viewer,” one which involves overlooking a troubled history of racism, putting profits ahead of workers’ safety, ignoring sexual harassment, and fighting unionization efforts that would help Black and other workers of color. No matter how often such businesses tweet “BlackLivesMatter” or post a well-designed graphic, you’ll be hard pressed to find one so readily willing to betray its own reason for existence: to extract labor and natural resources as cheaply as possible, to earn as much as possible, in an unjust and inequitable system (hello, capitalism) that rewards that kind of “entrepreneurship.”
They were one of us:
Trayvon Martin. Michael Brown. Alton Sterling. Botham Jean. Atatiana Jefferson. Ahmaud Arbery. George Floyd. pic.twitter.com/s1UhP5vncv — McDonald's (@McDonalds) June 3, 2020
So what should the public demand of these companies in times like this? To “open your purse,” for one, as Terry Nguyen writes for The Goods. Indeed, some food brands have dipped into their coffers these past two weeks: Chipotle announced a donation of $1 million to the National Urban League, Starbucks $1 million to organizations nominated by employees (while also banning employees from wearing anything in support of Black Lives Matter), Wendy’s $500,000 to the Thurgood Marshall College Fund. It’s mere pocket change, compared to these brands’ tens or hundreds of millions of dollars in profits, but still preferable to empty platitudes. But if food brands really wanted to stand for change, they would provide living wages, benefits, healthcare; they would protect their workers and their rights; they would allow dissent and unions; they would fight for sustainability, environmental justice, immigration reform. It would mean ceasing the millions spent lobbying and influencing policymakers to protect companies from having to do those things.
In other words, it would require dismantling everything that allows many of these brands to exist and profit the way they have for decades. No amount of social media solidarity or one-off acts of philanthropy can change that.


vox--2020-06-12--Recording the Company cast album was infamously hellish. This cult favorite doc captured it all.

“ My phone rang .
It was Danny Melnick from David Suskind ’ s office with another idea.
” Thus runs the delightfully smug opening line of 1970 ’ s Original Cast Album : “ Company , ” in a text crawl for maximum gravitas .
You ’ re not supposed to know anyone referenced here ; in fact , none of these people actually have anything to do with the making of the original cast album of Company , which the documentary sets out to capture .
But that opening sentence is enough to imply that if you were @ @ @ @ @ @ @ know , which is just the kind of secret handshaking you ’ d expect from a wildly obscure cult classic .
For decades , D.A .
Pennebaker ’ s documentary has been nearly unknown except to true theater zealots , surfacing only as rare YouTube clips and the occasional esoteric reference .
The most famous of these is the 2019 Documentary Now episode “ Original Cast Album : Co-op !
” , which suddenly popularized the documentary no one had seen and exploded calls for its wider distribution .
It ’ s now @ @ @ @ @ @ @ the first time ever , through Criterion — and it ’ s marvelous .
As the title suggests , Pennebaker ’ s film is an hour-long documentary about the process of recording the cast album for another cult classic : Company , Stephen Sondheim ’ s now-beloved 1970 musical about a commitment-phobic 30-something having an existential crisis as all their friends get married .
Company is simultaneously one of the most hit-or-miss Sondheim shows and one of the most popular Sondheim shows , which might just make it the most quintessentially Sondheim of @ @ @ @ @ @ @ a few decades to garner the broad appeal of his later shows like Sweeney Todd or Into the Woods , Company ’ s score is well known today , probably thanks to the way songs like “ Being Alive ” and “ Ladies Who Lunch ” have gained anthem status over time .
2019 in particular was a gala year for Sondheim songs going mainstream , with “ Being Alive , ” Company ’ s climactic non-conclusion about love , getting a showcase performance from Adam Driver in the Oscar-nominated Marriage Story as @ @ @ @ @ @ @ relationship anxieties .
2020 was set to witness a gala 50th-anniversary Broadway revival of Company , starring Katrina Lenk as a gender-bent take on the main character , before the Covid-19-induced closing of this theatrical season left it to an uncertain fate .
The Criterion release of the documentary at this moment is a welcome palliative — though the Broadway company of Company also just reunited to perform the song ’ s opening number , “ Company ” : Pennebaker , known for chronicling countercultures and musicians and plenty of countercultural musicians , @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Company ” as a pilot for a TV show about musical cast recordings .
The show never happened .
Thus the documentary ’ s existence itself is a minor miracle , an accident of timing that led to a glimpse of greatness .
Pennebaker ’ s esoteric opening line sets us up for a bit of egocentrism — and the studio where Company was recorded was swimming in it .
At the time , Sondheim and Company ’ s director Hal Prince , then 40 and 42 , respectively , were both already @ @ @ @ @ @ @ .
Sondheim was a prodigy who grew up under the mentorship of his father figure , legendary musical lyricist Oscar Hammerstein ; he learned his craft so well that his musical theater debut was writing the lyrics to West Side Story when he was just 27 .
Prince , by contrast , spent decades grinding his way up the directorial ladder before making a name for himself staging the innovative original production of Cabaret in 1966 .
Their formidable partnership , which began with Company , would span most of the next decade @ @ @ @ @ @ @ .
Company ’ s cast included theater icons like Donna McKechnie , Dean Jones ( who briefly originated the role of Company ’ s main character , Bobby , before leaving the production early on ) , and Our Lady of the Theatre Elaine Stritch .
Company ’ s musical director , Harold Hastings , was a celebrated composer in his own right , and the recording ’ s producer , Thomas Shepard , had also worked on his share of musical cast recordings .
After somehow , miraculously , captaining Company ’ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ for Best Musical Show Album , Shepard would go on to work with Sondheim many more times .
First , though , they all had to figure out together how to record and preserve the ephemeral magic of live musical theater .
On Broadway , the cast recording process was traditionally done in a single breezy day , where the actors simply repeated their onstage performances with some tweaks , cuts , and modifications for a recording .
But most musicals aren ’ t Sondheim musicals , which are notoriously complex even when @ @ @ @ @ @ @ , like Company .
And most musicals don ’ t feature lots of session musicians in a full live orchestra , trying to wrangle a Sondheim score , let alone Sondheim himself attempting to wring just a little more perfection from his exhausted crew .
What Pennebaker captures is all of the tension , humor , and frequent wry exasperation of a legendary creative team as they spend a long , grueling day wrestling with one of Broadway ’ s most famous and challenging musicals .
Eight hours stretch to 14 , then @ @ @ @ @ @ @ onscreen gets pushed to their creative and emotional limits .
You might think watching this marathon recording session would be emotionally exhausting , or at the least mildly depressing .
But despite the coldness of this sort of workhorse approach to the text , Pennebaker ’ s footage oozes something approaching gleeful smarm , and it ’ s the best .
America ’ s foremost musical theater composer slouches around giving incomprehensible directions and yowling at everyone like a sulky panther , while Shepard tries to gently coax everyone into even liking their @ @ @ @ @ @ @ , except for Madame Stritch , who is palpably too old for any of this bullshit .
Shepard drops perfectly timed one-liners , complete with dramatic pauses for extra comedic effect , and Prince and Sondheim snark at each other with the air of self-satisfied literati .
Friends , this is drama .
In an early musical set , while the mega-voiced Pamela Myers sings “ Another Hundred People , ” Pennebaker focuses on the orchestra , revealing the complex arrangements and multitude of clashing independent musical motifs running through each instrument section @ @ @ @ @ @ @ which Shepard announces with aplomb that they might be recording until 4 am , Pennebaker cuts back to the orchestra , now full-blown , with Myers belting her heart out , the cacophony suddenly an organic , harmonious whole .
The documentary culminates in the final song of the long day — Dame Stritch belting out “ Ladies Who Lunch , ” one of the greatest diva numbers in musical theater history , finally exasperated into an iconic performance , perhaps just to spite her tormentors .
It all reminds us that the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ arises from just this sort of delicious , cantankerous friction — and aren ’ t we glad it does ?
Everybody rise .
One Good Thing is Vox ’ s recommendations feature .
In each edition , find one more thing from the world of culture that we highly recommend .
Every day at Vox , we aim to answer your most important questions and provide you , and our audience around the world , with information that has the power to save lives .
Our mission has never been more vital than @ @ @ @ @ @ @ empower you through understanding .
Vox ’ s work is reaching more people than ever , but our distinctive brand of explanatory journalism takes resources — particularly during a pandemic and an economic downturn .
Your financial contribution will not constitute a donation , but it will enable our staff to continue to offer free articles , videos , and podcasts at the quality and volume that this moment requires .
Please consider making a contribution to Vox today .

One Good Thing is Vox’s recommendations feature. In each edition, find one more thing from the world of culture that we highly recommend.
“My phone rang. It was Danny Melnick from David Suskind’s office with another idea.”
Thus runs the delightfully smug opening line of 1970’s Original Cast Album: “Company,” in a text crawl for maximum gravitas. You’re not supposed to know anyone referenced here; in fact, none of these people actually have anything to do with the making of the original cast album of Company, which the documentary sets out to capture. But that opening sentence is enough to imply that if you were anybody worth your salt, you would know, which is just the kind of secret handshaking you’d expect from a wildly obscure cult classic.
For decades, D.A. Pennebaker’s documentary has been nearly unknown except to true theater zealots, surfacing only as rare YouTube clips and the occasional esoteric reference. The most famous of these is the 2019 Documentary Now episode “Original Cast Album: Co-op!”, which suddenly popularized the documentary no one had seen and exploded calls for its wider distribution.
It’s now finally been released in digital form for the first time ever, through Criterion — and it’s marvelous.
As the title suggests, Pennebaker’s film is an hour-long documentary about the process of recording the cast album for another cult classic: Company, Stephen Sondheim’s now-beloved 1970 musical about a commitment-phobic 30-something having an existential crisis as all their friends get married. Company is simultaneously one of the most hit-or-miss Sondheim shows and one of the most popular Sondheim shows, which might just make it the most quintessentially Sondheim of all Sondheim shows. Though it took a few decades to garner the broad appeal of his later shows like Sweeney Todd or Into the Woods, Company’s score is well known today, probably thanks to the way songs like “Being Alive” and “Ladies Who Lunch” have gained anthem status over time.
2019 in particular was a gala year for Sondheim songs going mainstream, with “Being Alive,” Company’s climactic non-conclusion about love, getting a showcase performance from Adam Driver in the Oscar-nominated Marriage Story as a symbol for all kinds of existential relationship anxieties.
2020 was set to witness a gala 50th-anniversary Broadway revival of Company, starring Katrina Lenk as a gender-bent take on the main character, before the Covid-19-induced closing of this theatrical season left it to an uncertain fate. The Criterion release of the documentary at this moment is a welcome palliative — though the Broadway company of Company also just reunited to perform the song’s opening number, “Company”:
Love is Company. The cast of Company Broadway reunite for a very special virtual performance of ‘Company’. “..and that’s what it’s all about, isn’t it?” pic.twitter.com/dS3lPp1wOz — COMPANY (@CompanyBway) June 12, 2020
Pennebaker, known for chronicling countercultures and musicians and plenty of countercultural musicians, originally filmed Original Cast Album: “Company” as a pilot for a TV show about musical cast recordings. The show never happened. Thus the documentary’s existence itself is a minor miracle, an accident of timing that led to a glimpse of greatness. Pennebaker’s esoteric opening line sets us up for a bit of egocentrism — and the studio where Company was recorded was swimming in it.
At the time, Sondheim and Company’s director Hal Prince, then 40 and 42, respectively, were both already big tall terrible giants of musical theater. Sondheim was a prodigy who grew up under the mentorship of his father figure, legendary musical lyricist Oscar Hammerstein; he learned his craft so well that his musical theater debut was writing the lyrics to West Side Story when he was just 27. Prince, by contrast, spent decades grinding his way up the directorial ladder before making a name for himself staging the innovative original production of Cabaret in 1966. Their formidable partnership, which began with Company, would span most of the next decade and help secure their mutual artistic legacies.
Company’s cast included theater icons like Donna McKechnie, Dean Jones (who briefly originated the role of Company’s main character, Bobby, before leaving the production early on), and Our Lady of the Theatre Elaine Stritch. Company’s musical director, Harold Hastings, was a celebrated composer in his own right, and the recording’s producer, Thomas Shepard, had also worked on his share of musical cast recordings. After somehow, miraculously, captaining Company’s cast recording to a Grammy win for Best Musical Show Album, Shepard would go on to work with Sondheim many more times.
First, though, they all had to figure out together how to record and preserve the ephemeral magic of live musical theater.
On Broadway, the cast recording process was traditionally done in a single breezy day, where the actors simply repeated their onstage performances with some tweaks, cuts, and modifications for a recording. But most musicals aren’t Sondheim musicals, which are notoriously complex even when they’re mainly light in tone, like Company. And most musicals don’t feature lots of session musicians in a full live orchestra, trying to wrangle a Sondheim score, let alone Sondheim himself attempting to wring just a little more perfection from his exhausted crew.
What Pennebaker captures is all of the tension, humor, and frequent wry exasperation of a legendary creative team as they spend a long, grueling day wrestling with one of Broadway’s most famous and challenging musicals. Eight hours stretch to 14, then 15, then beyond, as everyone onscreen gets pushed to their creative and emotional limits.
You might think watching this marathon recording session would be emotionally exhausting, or at the least mildly depressing. But despite the coldness of this sort of workhorse approach to the text, Pennebaker’s footage oozes something approaching gleeful smarm, and it’s the best. America’s foremost musical theater composer slouches around giving incomprehensible directions and yowling at everyone like a sulky panther, while Shepard tries to gently coax everyone into even liking their performances. All the actresses smile nervously, except for Madame Stritch, who is palpably too old for any of this bullshit. Shepard drops perfectly timed one-liners, complete with dramatic pauses for extra comedic effect, and Prince and Sondheim snark at each other with the air of self-satisfied literati. Friends, this is drama.
In an early musical set, while the mega-voiced Pamela Myers sings “Another Hundred People,” Pennebaker focuses on the orchestra, revealing the complex arrangements and multitude of clashing independent musical motifs running through each instrument section. Then, after a break in which Shepard announces with aplomb that they might be recording until 4 am, Pennebaker cuts back to the orchestra, now full-blown, with Myers belting her heart out, the cacophony suddenly an organic, harmonious whole.
The documentary culminates in Dame Stritch belting out “Ladies Who Lunch,” one of the greatest diva numbers in musical theater history, finally exasperated into an iconic performance, perhaps just to spite her tormentors. It all reminds us that the best theater somehow, however improbably, arises from just this sort of delicious, cantankerous friction — and aren’t we glad it does? Everybody rise.
Update: This article has been updated for clarity.