vox--2020-02-21--Odd Job: What’s it like to be a real-life Disney princess?

Kristen Sotakoun had to learn Pocahontas ’ s signature .
It starts with a strong crisscrossing “ P ” and ends with a scythe-like “ S ” that swoops below the base of the script .
Compared to Cinderella ’ s frilly cursive , Tarzan ’ s closed-fist scrawl , and the paw print serving as an “ O ” in Pluto , Pocahontas ’ s autograph looks as if she painted it with all the colors of the wind .
Sotakoun worked at Disney World for four years , starting in 2008 when she was just 18 .
Today @ @ @ @ @ @ @ in the video game industry , she says she looks back at her princess era with only good memories .
Sotakoun , who is half Laotian and half white , went through an intensive crash course for each of the characters she played in Disney ’ s “ entertainment ” division , which refers to the iconic costume characters that cheerfully reside in the amusement parks .
At the beginning of her shift , she ’ d enter the bowels of the Magic Kingdom and be costumed as either Pocahontas , Mulan , @ @ @ @ @ @ @ of East Asian appearance who first appeared in the Disney Fairies direct-to-DVD films ) .
Afterward , she was let loose on the campus so she could briefly lose herself in the “ happiest place on earth.
” In that time , Sotakoun became familiar with every curveball the Disney World Resort was capable of throwing at her .
From crying children to leery grandpas , she ’ s seen it all .
Nothing fazes a Disney princess .
Sotakoun hasn ’ t worked at Disney World in nearly a decade , but @ @ @ @ @ @ @ former princesses who ’ s willing to share her experiences candidly with anyone curious .
The company discourages its entertainment staff to talk openly about their time working at the parks , and asks all of its Ariels , Belles , and Snow Whites never to acknowledge that they play their namesake characters .
Instead , if she ’ s recognized by a park-goer at Target , Sotakoun and her former coworkers are urged to say something like , “ Yes , I ’ m friends with Pocahontas.
” Sotakoun and I talked @ @ @ @ @ @ @ parks , the after-hours scene with the cast members , and what it was like to be asked to play Pocahontas with no Native American heritage .
So how did you get your foot in the door at Disney World ?
I wish I could tell you that I glamorously walked in and they said , “ We love you.
” But I was in high school in 2008 [ in Illinois ] , and Disney came to our school and talked about the Disney CareerStart program .
Basically , you graduate school @ @ @ @ @ @ @ think it was to try and get kids into the workforce .
I immediately told my mom that I wanted to do this , and she said , “ Okay , maybe for a couple months.
” I didn ’ t start as a princess ; you ’ re not allowed to audition for entertainment in that program .
So I worked at the Honey , I Shrunk the Kids playground first .
It was glorified babysitting — you watch kids climb over this giant ant , and that was a lot of @ @ @ @ @ @ @ program , after three months , they held auditions for entertainment .
They pulled me after the audition and told me I would be Pocahontas .
Being half Asian and half white , that was a surprise .
I put on the costume ; they had me read a prewritten line .
I ’ m from outside of Chicago , and they said , “ Could you read that again , and this time don ’ t say ‘ Poca-HAHN-tus.
” They took pictures of me , and they said , “ You @ @ @ @ @ @ @ ’ re working at the Honey , I Shrunk the Kids playground , is getting into entertainment the holy grail ?
Oh , it feels like a hierarchy .
Walking backstage in my yellow polo with khaki shorts , if Peter Pan would pass me , I would go quiet .
It ’ s not like they say , “ Listen , these people are so much better than you.
” You just feel it .
You feel like this is an iconic Disney character walking past you .
When you got to @ @ @ @ @ @ @ regimen ?
It may be different now , but for me , the training was five days .
When you ’ re accepted in entertainment , nobody is just a princess or just a prince .
You have to be trained and approved in fur characters first .
The first three days of training is sitting and watching videos of what you can or can ’ t do .
Learning autographs .
There ’ s a really creepy portion where you wear just the head and hands of the character .
So you @ @ @ @ @ @ @ and head of Chip and Dale .
The last two days of training you go out into the park with character attendants , and meet people .
It was wild to me , I thought the training would last about a month .
And once you ’ re approved for fur , it ’ s two days of training for each “ face character ” [ characters like Belle or Princess Jasmine that don ’ t wear a mask ] .
I was so stoked when I got through training , and then @ @ @ @ @ @ @ of just Winnie the Pooh .
I had no idea that there might be a woman underneath the mask of Winnie the Pooh at Disneyland .
So the gender of the performer doesn ’ t matter much ?
Yeah , so Mickey and Minnie , their heights are 4-foot-11 to 5-foot-1 , so Mickey and Minnie are usually women .
I have a friend who is a heterosexual cis male .
He was Queen of Hearts for the first time ; he did his set .
I asked him how it was , @ @ @ @ @ @ @ , my god , it was so fun .
I was having dads kneel and kiss my hand .
And I just walked back in here and took off my head and thought , ‘ What the hell did I just do ?
’ ” So did you get a crash course in specifically Pocahontas ?
Or is the training more general than that ?
Oh , yeah , there ’ s a much higher chance of you accidentally doing something “ non-Disney ” as a face character .
You can speak ; @ @ @ @ @ @ @ first day of training for Pocahontas , we ’ d sit and watch the movie and work on the different ways that she poses .
And the trainers are usually people who ’ ve been the characters before .
That ’ s really fun .
So Pocahontas has a couple of go-to poses for pictures ?
Yeah , for some reason they didn ’ t want me to put hands on my hips .
They wanted me to put my hands on my side and make a fist .
It ’ s kinda @ @ @ @ @ @ @ you remember about your first day as a face character , out in the park , where the training wheels are off ?
It was wild .
My first time walking into the park as Pocahontas , I was at Epcot .
You come out of the door , and you ’ re just like , “ Oh , my god.
” It ’ s weird , I got so nervous .
So I didn ’ t pass training my first go-around .
I had to do it again , because I was @ @ @ @ @ @ @ So when did the job start to feel normal to you ?
Where you weren ’ t intimidated by being out there ?
It ’ s so weird to look back on that job and think it was a normal part of my life for four years .
Once I was trained as Pocahontas , I was her five days a week for three months straight .
At a certain point , just like any job , you [ would ] wake up in the morning and be like , “ Ugh , @ @ @ @ @ @ @ to work today.
” I had to remind myself that I was saying , “ I don ’ t want to put on makeup and hug kids all day.
” One of my distinct memories of being at Disneyland as a kid is crying in front of a giant Mickey .
That ’ s a quintessential experience at Disneyland : Kids cry in front of the mascots .
Did you deal with any crying kids ?
Was there a protocol to deal with them ?
Definitely a lot of crying children .
A @ @ @ @ @ @ @ with face characters , but more with , “ Oh , there ’ s Winnie the Pooh , that character is a sticker on my wall !
” And now he ’ s a 5-foot-8 bear staring at me .
Whatever character you are , you can kinda mold your reaction to what that character would do .
As Winnie the Pooh , I would cover my eyes and turn away like I was scared .
You can engage the situation and be within your voice .
I ’ ve seen some performers @ @ @ @ @ @ @ calm down .
You just got ta roll with the punches .
I would imagine that there must be a backstage community at Disney .
You ’ re all kids , you ’ re all working this weird job in this surreal environment .
Did you guys go out together ?
Did you guys tease each other in the dressing room ?
What ’ s the after-hours scene like ?
I think people think that there are a bunch of people going wild , like , “ What ’ s Cinderella do in @ @ @ @ @ @ @ pretty normal , but I can tell you some of the raunchier things that have happened .
I was Silvermist , the fairy at Magic Kingdom and Toon Town .
The fairies share their break room with the princesses as well , so it ’ s one big break room .
One of the Cinderellas was like , “ Guys , I just got a boob job !
” And then Belle , was like , “ Okay , not to be weird but can I feel it ?
” Cinderella says , @ @ @ @ @ @ @ this train of all the princesses and fairies feeling Cinderella ’ s boobs and saying , “ Oh , my god , they ’ re so real !
” Some women have said that being a face character at Disney can lead to guys getting kinda handsy at the park .
Did you have any experience with that ?
So I played Mulan , who is fully covered .
She ’ s dressed head to toe .
I would get comments from the dads that were like , “ Oh , you ’ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ numbers written on Disney World napkins .
Pocahontas , though , was wearing the least amount of clothes , so it was always the older grandpas .
… I ’ ve never been , like , groped , but it definitely does happen .
I think the people who do say things to the princesses have real balls .
You ’ re at Disney World .
There are so many children around respecting this character .
We mentioned this earlier , that Disney was clearly playing it pretty fast and loose with race @ @ @ @ @ @ @ were asked to play a Native American ?
Does it feel more weird now , years later , in a more sensitive cultural environment ?
When I got the role as Pocahontas , I thought it was so funny .
But then I met the other Pocahontases who are also not Native American .
A lot of the Pocahantases were also Princess Jasmines .
I was Mulan as well , and I was like , “ Well , I ’ m not Chinese , but this is closer.
” But one of the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ s wild .
Out of the eight Mulans , none of us were Chinese .
I worked there eight years ago , but what I can tell you is that there ’ s a base pay .
Fur characters are making a certain amount of money .
It ’ s minimum wage , maybe a little bit above .
But when you ’ re a face character , you get a premium because it ’ s a skill .
Same with the parade — if you ’ re in the parade , you @ @ @ @ @ @ @ on the CareerStart program , I was the only one of my friends who was a princess , so I knew I was making three or four dollars more than my friends .
But it fluctuates depending on your schedule .
If you ’ re scheduled as Winnie the Pooh , that is going to be a different paycheck than the next week if I get all Pocahontas .
Sign up for The Goods ’ newsletter .
Twice a week , we ’ ll send you the best Goods stories exploring what we @ @ @ @ @ @ @ and why it matters .

Kristen Sotakoun had to learn Pocahontas’s signature. It starts with a strong crisscrossing “P” and ends with a scythe-like “S” that swoops below the base of the script. Compared to Cinderella’s frilly cursive, Tarzan’s closed-fist scrawl, and the paw print serving as an “O” in Pluto, Pocahontas’s autograph looks as though she painted it with all the colors of the wind.
Sotakoun worked at Disney World for four years, starting in 2008 when she was just 18. Today, at 30 and with a job in the video game industry, she says she looks back at her princess era with only good memories.
Sotakoun, who is half Laotian and half white, went through an intensive crash course for each of the characters she played in Disney’s “entertainment” division, which refers to the iconic costume characters that cheerfully reside in the amusement parks. At the beginning of her shift, she’d enter the bowels of the Magic Kingdom and be costumed as either Pocahontas, Mulan, or Silvermist (a Peter Pan fairy of East Asian appearance who first appeared in the Disney Fairies direct-to-DVD films). Afterward, she was let loose on the campus so she could briefly lose herself in the “happiest place on earth.” In that time, Sotakoun became familiar with every curveball the Disney World Resort was capable of throwing at her. From crying children to leering grandpas, she’s seen it all. Nothing fazes a Disney princess.
Sotakoun hasn’t worked at Disney World in nearly a decade, but she’s one of the few former princesses who’s willing to share her experiences candidly with anyone curious. The company discourages its entertainment staff to talk openly about their time working at the parks, and asks all of its Ariels, Belles, and Snow Whites never to acknowledge that they play their namesake characters. Instead, if she’s recognized by a park-goer at Target, Sotakoun and her former coworkers are urged to say something like, “Yes, I’m friends with Pocahontas.”
Sotakoun and I talked about the sliding pay scale at Disney parks, the after-hours scene with the cast members, and what it was like for her, a woman with no Native American heritage, to be asked to play Pocahontas.
So how did you get your foot in the door at Disney World?
I wish I could tell you that I glamorously walked in and they said, “We love you.” But I was in high school in 2008 [in Illinois], and Disney came to our school and talked about the Disney CareerStart program. Basically, you graduate school, go straight to Disney. I think it was to try and get kids into the workforce. I immediately told my mom that I wanted to do this, and she said, “Okay, maybe for a couple months.”
I didn’t start as a princess; you’re not allowed to audition for entertainment in that program. So I worked at the Honey, I Shrunk the Kids playground first. It was glorified babysitting — you watch kids climb over this giant ant — and that was a lot of fun. At the end of the program, after three months, they held auditions for entertainment. They pulled me after the audition and told me I would be Pocahontas. Being half Asian and half white, that was a surprise. I put on the costume; they had me read a prewritten line. I’m from outside of Chicago, and they said, “Could you read that again, and this time don’t say ‘Poca-HAHN-tus.” They took pictures of me, and they said, “You’re in!”
When you’re working at the Honey, I Shrunk the Kids playground, is getting into entertainment the holy grail?
Oh, it feels like a hierarchy. Walking backstage in my yellow polo with khaki shorts, if Peter Pan would pass me, I would go quiet. It’s not like they say, “Listen, these people are so much better than you.” You just feel it. You feel like this is an iconic Disney character walking past you.
When you got to entertainment, how long was the training regimen?
It may be different now, but for me, the training was five days. When you’re accepted in entertainment, nobody is just a princess or just a prince. You have to be trained and approved in fur characters first. The first three days of training is sitting and watching videos of what you can or can’t do. Learning autographs. There’s a really creepy portion where you wear just the head and hands of the character. So you’re in business-casual but the hands and head of Chip and Dale. The last two days of training you go out into the park with character attendants, and meet people. It was wild to me, I thought the training would last about a month. And once you’re approved for fur, it’s two days of training for each “face character” [characters like Belle or Princess Jasmine that don’t wear a mask].
I was so stoked when I got through training, and then I did three weeks in a row of just Winnie the Pooh.
I had no idea that there might be a woman underneath the mask of Winnie the Pooh at Disneyland. So the gender of the performer doesn’t matter much?
Yeah, so Mickey and Minnie, their heights are 4-foot-11 to 5-foot-1, so Mickey and Minnie are usually women. I have a friend who is a heterosexual cis male. He was Queen of Hearts for the first time; he did his set. I asked him how it was, and he was like, “Oh, my god, it was so fun. I was having dads kneel and kiss my hand. And I just walked back in here and took off my head and thought, ‘What the hell did I just do?’”
So did you get a crash course in specifically Pocahontas? Or is the training more general than that?
Oh, yeah, there’s a much higher chance of you accidentally doing something “non-Disney” as a face character. You can speak; they can see your face. The first day of training for Pocahontas, we’d sit and watch the movie and work on the different ways that she poses. And the trainers are usually people who’ve been the characters before. That’s really fun.
So Pocahontas has a couple of go-to poses for pictures?
Yeah, for some reason they didn’t want me to put hands on my hips. They wanted me to put my hands on my side and make a fist. It’s kinda like that Arthur meme.
What do you remember about your first day as a face character, out in the park, where the training wheels are off?
It was wild. My first time walking into the park as Pocahontas, I was at Epcot. You come out of the door, and you’re just like, “Oh, my god.” It’s weird, I got so nervous. So I didn’t pass training my first go-around. I had to do it again, because I was so caught up in the moment.
So when did the job start to feel normal to you? Where you weren’t intimidated by being out there?
It’s so weird to look back on that job and think it was a normal part of my life for four years. Once I was trained as Pocahontas, I was her five days a week for three months straight. At a certain point, just like any job, you [would] wake up in the morning and be like, “Ugh, I don’t want to go to work today.” I had to remind myself that I was saying, “I don’t want to put on makeup and hug kids all day.”
One of my distinct memories of being at Disneyland as a kid is crying in front of a giant Mickey. That’s a quintessential experience at Disneyland: Kids cry in front of the mascots. Did you deal with any crying kids? Was there a protocol to deal with them?
Definitely a lot of crying children. A lot, all the time. Less with face characters, but more with, “Oh, there’s Winnie the Pooh, that character is a sticker on my wall!” And now he’s a 5-foot-8 bear staring at me. Whatever character you are, you can kinda mold your reaction to what that character would do. As Winnie the Pooh, I would cover my eyes and turn away like I was scared. You can engage the situation and be within your voice. I’ve seen some performers who are just incredible with making kids calm down. You just gotta roll with the punches.
I would imagine that there must be a backstage community at Disney. You’re all kids, you’re all working this weird job in this surreal environment. Did you guys go out together? Did you guys tease each other in the dressing room? What’s the after-hours scene like?
I think people think that there are a bunch of people going wild, like, “What’s Cinderella do in her off-hours?” Backstage is pretty normal, but I can tell you some of the raunchier things that have happened. I was Silvermist the fairy at Magic Kingdom and Toon Town. The fairies share their break room with the princesses as well, so it’s one big break room. One of the Cinderellas was like, “Guys, I just got a boob job!” And then Belle, was like, “Okay, not to be weird but can I feel it?” Cinderella says, “Go ahead!” It becomes this train of all the princesses and fairies feeling Cinderella’s boobs and saying, “Oh, my god, they’re so real!”
Some women have said that being a face character at Disney can lead to guys getting kinda handsy at the park. Did you have any experience with that?
So I played Mulan, who is fully covered. She’s dressed head to toe. I would get comments from the dads that were like, “Oh, you’re so beautiful!” Or phone numbers written on Disney World napkins. Pocahontas, though, was wearing the least amount of clothes, so it was always the older grandpas. … I’ve never been, like, groped, but it definitely does happen. I think the people who do say things to the princesses have real balls. You’re at Disney World. There are so many children around respecting this character.
We mentioned this earlier, that Disney was clearly playing it pretty fast and loose with race. What was your reaction when you were asked to play a Native American? Does it feel more weird now, years later, in a more sensitive cultural environment?
When I got the role as Pocahontas, I thought it was so funny. But then I met the other Pocahontases who are also not Native American. A lot of the Pocahantases were also Princess Jasmines. I was Mulan as well, and I was like, “Well, I’m not Chinese, but this is closer.” But one of the Mulans was Puerto Rican. It’s wild. Out of the eight Mulans, none of us were Chinese.
What’s the pay range for Disney characters?
I worked there eight years ago, but what I can tell you is that there’s a base pay. Fur characters are making a certain amount of money. It’s minimum wage, maybe a little bit above. But when you’re a face character, you get a premium because it’s a skill. Same with the parade — if you’re in the parade, you get a premium. When I was on the CareerStart program, I was the only one of my friends who was a princess, so I knew I was making three or four dollars more than my friends. But it fluctuates depending on your schedule. If you’re scheduled as Winnie the Pooh, that is going to be a different paycheck than the next week if I get all Pocahontas.
Sign up for The Goods’ newsletter. Twice a week, we’ll send you the best Goods stories exploring what we buy, why we buy it, and why it matters.


vox--2020-02-21--How does the new coronavirus spread? These new studies offer clues.

How does the new coronavirus disease , Covid-19 , spread ?
That ’ s just one of many basic , unanswered questions about this latest pandemic threat .
The virus that causes Covid-19 — known as SARS-CoV-2 — has already infected more than 75,000 people in two months .
( Of them , 2,130 have died . )
And the best explanation for this rapid spread is that it ’ s being passed through droplets from coughing or sneezing .
When these virus-laden droplets from an infected person reach the nose , eyes , or mouth of another , they @ @ @ @ @ @ @ there other ways SARS-CoV-2 moves between people ?
And what do they tell us about why this disease seems to be even more contagious than SARS and MERS ?
The latest science on the virus offers possible answers to these questions — and why Covid-19 might be particularly difficult to stop .
Here ’ s what we know so far .
People have lots of virus in their bodies early on in illness — or even when they have no symptoms Respiratory illnesses generally fall into two categories : upper respiratory — infections @ @ @ @ @ @ @ larynx , like the common cold and seasonal influenza ; and lower respiratory illnesses , like pneumonia , which infect the lungs .
The original SARS virus that spread around the world in 2003 was thought to be a lower respiratory infection : It replicated in the cells deep within the lungs and caused the pneumonia .
People also seemed to only spread the virus days into their illness , when it was already clear they were sick .
This made SARS more difficult to pass on to others and the job of @ @ @ @ @ @ @ virus that causes Covid-19 disease appears to be a different beast : While it also can eventually lead to pneumonia , the virus does a great job of replicating in the upper respiratory tract , even when people don ’ t have any symptoms or just begin to feel sick .
Check out this new New England Journal of Medicine paper .
Chinese researchers monitored how much virus could be found in the upper respiratory tracts — noses and throats — of 18 patients in Guangdong , China .
One of the 18 @ @ @ @ @ @ @ finding ?
The way people shed this virus , potentially exposing others , looked a lot more like the flu than the first SARS , which might help explain why Covid-19 appears to be more infectious .
You can see why in this chart from the study , focused on the patients who experienced symptoms : Just as they were starting to feel ill , they had the highest concentrations of virus in their noses : What ’ s more , the one person who was asymptomatic carried a similar amount of virus @ @ @ @ @ @ @ suggests the transmission potential of asymptomatic or minimally symptomatic patients , ” the researchers wrote .
In a separate , newly published New England Journal of Medicine paper , researchers in Germany were also able to isolate the virus from patients ’ upper respiratory tract even before they showed any symptoms or were very mildly symptomatic — more evidence of the potential for spread of the virus from the nose and throat when people barely know they ’ re sick .
So what does this imply about the contagiousness of Covid-19 and stopping @ @ @ @ @ @ @ pretty closely related to SARS , it shows very effective person-to-person transmission , something nobody really expected , ” Stephen Morse , a professor of epidemiology at Columbia University Mailman School of Public Health , told Vox .
Researchers currently believe one infected person generally infects two to more than three others , which would make the new coronavirus more contagious than seasonal flu , SARS and MERS .
Second , it means stopping the outbreak might be more difficult , since people start to become infectious early on in their disease or @ @ @ @ @ @ @ ’ re asymptomatic .
But to confirm these two findings , we ’ ll need more science , said Jennifer Nuzzo , an infectious disease expert and senior scholar at the Johns Hopkins Center for Health Security .
“ We still don ’ t know to what extent people without symptoms can infect , ” she pointed out .
It ’ s also possible that transmission early in the illness or from asymptomatic people won ’ t end up being important contributors to the outbreak , said Marion Koopmans , who studies emerging @ @ @ @ @ @ @ virology at the Erasmus Medical Center in Rotterdam , Netherlands .
In most parts of the world where travelers with Covid-19 turned up , she added , the spread of the disease has been contained by only testing people with symptoms .
But , she added , “ both of these statements can coexist : Asymptomatic shedders could spread the virus , but it probably is not the main driver of this epidemic.
” The virus might spread through feces Another way viruses can spread is through poop .
Think of the norovirus @ @ @ @ @ @ @ be passed along by ingesting the stool of an infected person , often through food or touching a contaminated surface .
This is known as the “ fecal-oral ” route of disease transmission .
Now there ’ s some suggestion in the emerging literature that Covid-19 could be passed through exposure to virus-laden feces , too .
In this new paper from the Chinese Center for Disease Control and Prevention , researchers managed to isolate live virus from stool samples of Covid-19 patients .
And they ’ re not the first to find @ @ @ @ @ @ @ norovirus , this means the disease could be passed around when there ’ s less than optimal hygiene .
“ If true , it would not be surprising , ” Morse said .
“ A number of other coronavirus are excreted from the intestines , and infectious virus can be found in stool.
” That ’ s why the China CDC recommended taking measures to stop the spread of the virus this way , including : But just because the virus is found in stool doesn ’ t mean that ’ s how @ @ @ @ @ @ @ again , more research is needed to figure out how important the fecal-oral route is in the spread of this disease .
Airborne transmission : One more thing to watch out for Poop was also implicated in the first SARS outbreak , when a large housing estate in Hong Kong called Amoy Gardens became ground zero of a public health nightmare .
More than 300 people were infected with the disease through yet another viral transmission route : airborne transmission of virus-ridden feces aerosols .
Airborne spread happens when the residue from evaporated @ @ @ @ @ @ @ air and indirectly infects those who breathe it in .
It ’ s different from droplet transmission , since droplets are too large to float through the air and need to get sprayed directly on someone ’ s eye , nose , or mouth in order to infect them .
In the case of Amoy Gardens , researchers learned SARS was capable of going airborne , spreading through the building ’ s faulty plumbing and ventilation systems to the people who lived on the estate .
“ The infections [ were ] officially @ @ @ @ @ @ @ thought to have aerosolized patients ’ virus when the toilet was flushed , allowing dispersal of the virus to other residents , ” Morse explained .
“ This has been demonstrated with SARS and MERS and others , and therefore is plausible , although we currently lack good evidence.
” So researchers and doctors are looking into whether the news SARS virus spreads this way — and taking precautions in case it can .
Vito Iacoviello , chief of the vision of infectious diseases at Mount Auburn Hospital in Cambridge , Massachusetts , @ @ @ @ @ @ @ that the US Centers for Disease Control and Prevention is recommending people admitted to hospitals with Covid-19 be put in an airborne isolation room .
“ That ’ s the precaution we use for TB , measles , and chickenpox , ” he said , and it suggests health officials are preparing for the possibility that this virus is capable of airborne spread .
But again , for now , there ’ s no good evidence of Covid-19 ’ s airborne transmission .
It ’ s just another thing to watch out for @ @ @ @ @ @ @ and how it moves through populations , evolves .

How does the new coronavirus disease, Covid-19, spread? That’s just one of many basic, tricky questions about this latest pandemic threat.
The virus that causes Covid-19 — known as SARS-CoV-2 — has already infected many people around the world in just a few months. And the best explanation for this rapid spread is that the virus is being passed through droplets from coughing or sneezing. When these virus-laden droplets from an infected person reach the nose, eyes, or mouth of another, they can transmit the disease.
But are there other ways SARS-CoV-2 moves between people? And what do they tell us about why this disease seems to be even more contagious than SARS and MERS? The latest science on the virus offers possible answers to these questions — and why Covid-19 might be particularly difficult to stop. Here’s what we know so far.
People have lots of virus in their bodies early on in illness — or even when they have no symptoms
Respiratory illnesses generally fall into two categories: upper respiratory — infections in the nose, pharynx, or larynx, like the common cold and seasonal influenza; and lower respiratory illnesses, like pneumonia, which infect the lungs.
The original SARS virus that spread around the world in 2003 was thought to be a lower respiratory infection: It replicated in the cells deep within the lungs and caused the pneumonia. People also seemed to only spread the virus days into their illness, when it was already clear they were sick. This made SARS more difficult to pass on to others and the job of containing it relatively easy.
The new virus that causes Covid-19 disease appears to be a different beast: While it also can eventually lead to pneumonia, the virus does a great job of replicating in the upper respiratory tract, even when people don’t have any symptoms or just begin to feel sick.
Check out this New England Journal of Medicine paper. Chinese researchers monitored how much virus could be found in the upper respiratory tracts — noses and throats — of 18 patients in Guangdong, China. One of the 18 never had any symptoms.
The big finding? The way people shed this virus, potentially exposing others, looked a lot more like the flu than the first SARS, which might help explain why Covid-19 appears to be more infectious. You can see why in this chart from the study, focused on the patients who experienced symptoms: Just as they were starting to feel ill, they had the highest concentrations of virus in their noses:
What’s more, the one person who was asymptomatic carried a similar amount of virus as the symptomatic patients, “which suggests the transmission potential of asymptomatic or minimally symptomatic patients,” the researchers wrote.
In a separate New England Journal of Medicine paper, researchers in Germany were also able to isolate the virus from patients’ upper respiratory tract even before they showed any symptoms or were very mildly symptomatic — more evidence of the potential for spread of the virus from the nose and throat when people barely know they’re sick.
A yet-to-be published paper, also from German researchers, looked at nine of the country’s earliest confirmed Covid-19 patients. They too found evidence of the virus replicating in the upper respiratory tract — but that wasn’t the most interesting takeaway. The researchers discovered people generally aren’t infectious after about 10 days, and people with mild symptoms stop shedding the virus after about a week. But, unlike much of the data from China to date — which suggests most people present with fever and a dry cough — symptoms for many people in this group resembled a cold. So only two of the nine had a fever and seven had a cough, but just as common were symptoms like stuffy nose, runny nose, and sneezing.
What this means for stopping Covid-19
What does this imply about the contagiousness of Covid-19 and stopping the outbreak? “For a virus pretty closely related to SARS, it shows very effective person-to-person transmission, something nobody really expected,” Stephen Morse, a professor of epidemiology at Columbia University Mailman School of Public Health, told Vox.
Researchers currently believe one infected person generally infects two to more than three others, which would make the new coronavirus more contagious than seasonal flu, SARS and MERS.
Second, it means stopping the outbreak might be more difficult, since people start to become infectious early on in their disease or may even spread the virus when they’re asymptomatic or after symptoms go away.
But to confirm these findings, we’ll need more science, said Jennifer Nuzzo, an infectious disease expert and senior scholar at the Johns Hopkins Center for Health Security. “We still don’t know to what extent people without symptoms can infect,” she pointed out.
It’s also possible that transmission early in the illness or from asymptomatic people won’t end up being important contributors to the outbreak, said Marion Koopmans, who studies emerging infectious diseases and heads the department of virology at the Erasmus Medical Center in Rotterdam, Netherlands. In most parts of the world where travelers with Covid-19 turned up, she added, the spread of the disease has been contained by only testing people with symptoms. But, she added, “both of these statements can coexist: Asymptomatic shedders could spread the virus, but it probably is not the main driver of this epidemic.”
The virus might spread through feces
Another way viruses can spread is through poop. Think of the norovirus, the extremely contagious bug that can be passed along by ingesting the stool of an infected person, often through food or touching a contaminated surface. This is known as the “fecal-oral” route of disease transmission.
Now there’s some suggestion in the emerging literature that Covid-19 could be passed through exposure to virus-laden feces, too.
In this new paper from the Chinese Center for Disease Control and Prevention, researchers managed to isolate live virus from stool samples of Covid-19 patients. And they’re not the first to find the virus in stool.
As with norovirus, this means the disease could be passed around when there’s less than optimal hygiene. “If true, it would not be surprising,” Morse said. “A number of other coronavirus are excreted from the intestines, and infectious virus can be found in stool.”
That’s why the China CDC recommended taking measures to stop the spread of the virus this way, including:
maintaining environmental health and personal hygiene; drinking boiled water, avoiding raw food consumption, and implementing separate meal systems in epidemic areas; frequently washing hands and disinfecting of surfaces of objects in households, toilets, public places, and transportation vehicles; and disinfecting the excreta and environment of patients in medical facilities to prevent water and food contamination from patients’ stool samples.
But just because the virus is found in stool doesn’t mean that’s how it’s transmitting. And, again, more research is needed to figure out how important the fecal-oral route is in the spread of this disease.
Airborne transmission: One more thing to watch out for
Poop was also implicated in the first SARS outbreak, when a large housing estate in Hong Kong called Amoy Gardens became ground zero of a public health nightmare. More than 300 people were infected with the disease through yet another viral transmission route: airborne transmission of virus-ridden feces aerosols.
Airborne spread happens when the residue from evaporated, infected droplets gets suspended in the air and indirectly infects those who breathe it in. It’s different from droplet transmission, since droplets are too large to float through the air and need to get sprayed directly on someone’s eye, nose, or mouth in order to infect them.
In the case of Amoy Gardens, researchers learned SARS was capable of going airborne, spreading through the building’s faulty plumbing and ventilation systems to the people who lived on the estate. “The infections [were] officially attributed to faulty toilet traps which were thought to have aerosolized patients’ virus when the toilet was flushed, allowing dispersal of the virus to other residents,” Morse explained. “This has been demonstrated with SARS and MERS and others, and therefore is plausible, although we currently lack good evidence.”
So researchers and doctors are looking into whether the new SARS virus spreads this way and taking precautions in case it can. Vito Iacoviello, chief of the division of infectious diseases at Mount Auburn Hospital in Cambridge, Massachusetts, and an editor at Dynamed, noted that the US Centers for Disease Control and Prevention is recommending people admitted to hospitals with Covid-19 be put in an airborne isolation room. “That’s the precaution we use for TB, measles, and chickenpox,” he said, and it suggests health officials are preparing for the possibility that this virus is capable of airborne spread.
For now, there’s no good evidence of Covid-19’s airborne transmission. It’s just another thing to watch out for as our understanding of this virus, and how it moves through populations, evolves.


vox--2020-02-21--The Harvey Weinstein jury deliberations so far, explained

In the afternoon of their fourth day of deliberations , the jury in producer Harvey Weinstein ’ s sexual assault trial sent a note to the judge .
They wanted to know if they could deliver a verdict on some of the charges but fail to reach a decision on the others .
The judge told them to keep deliberating .
“ It is not uncommon for a jury to believe that they will never be able to reach a unanimous verdict , ” he wrote .
“ But , after further deliberations , most juries are able to reach @ @ @ @ @ @ @ s request highlighted what ’ s become increasingly clear over the past week : that jurors have serious concerns over at least some of the charges brought against Weinstein .
The prospect of a decisive conviction that would send Weinstein to prison for life seems less likely than it did when the jury began its task four days ago .
“ It ’ s taking the jury a long time because they ’ re grappling with very weighty issues , ” Cheryl Bader , a law professor at Fordham University and former assistant @ @ @ @ @ @ @ at least as of now , some of the weightiest questions before the jury remain undecided .
The jurors will go home for the weekend and start deliberating again on Monday .
The jurors are undecided on ( at least ) two of the five charges against Weinstein Weinstein faces five charges in his trial in New York : two counts of predatory sexual assault , one of a criminal sexual act , one of rape in the first degree , and one of rape in the third degree .
The counts of @ @ @ @ @ @ @ , of 25 years to life in prison .
Relatively speaking , the counts of rape and criminal sexual act are simpler .
The rape charges involve one woman , Jessica Mann , who testified that Weinstein raped her in 2013 .
The criminal sexual act charge also involves one woman , Miriam Haley , who says that Weinstein forcibly performed oral sex on her in 2006 .
The predatory sexual assault charges are more complex because they require the prosecution to prove that Weinstein had a history of sexual assault .
To @ @ @ @ @ @ @ witness actress Annabella Sciorra , who testified that Weinstein raped her in the 1990s .
The statute of limitations on that allegation has passed , so prosecutors could not charge Weinstein in connection with Sciorra ’ s report alone .
But in connection with Haley ’ s or Mann ’ s accusations , they used it to bring charges of predatory sexual assault .
Those are the charges on which the jury remains undecided , according to the note sent to the judge on Friday .
Under the judge ’ s instructions , @ @ @ @ @ @ @ more serious charges unless they are ready to convict on the lesser ones .
So the note may suggest that the jurors have already decided Weinstein is guilty of rape or a criminal sex act .
While we can never be sure what a jury is thinking , “ the fact that they are deliberating over the predatory sexual assault charges suggests that they are inclined to convict on some of the lesser charges , ” Michelle Madden Dempsey , a former prosecutor and law professor at Villanova University , told Vox .
@ @ @ @ @ @ @ we don ’ t know the jury ’ s process.
” Jury deliberations are secret , so we don ’ t know what the jurors are thinking or saying to one another .
We don ’ t know if they ’ re following the judge ’ s instructions or if they ’ re approaching the charges in a systematic way that would be easily understandable to outsiders .
From the questions they have sent to the judge , however , we can tell that they have a lot of interest in Sciorra ’ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ cross-examination be read back to them , along with testimony by actress Rosie Perez , who said that Sciorra told her in the 1990s that she had been raped by Weinstein .
It ’ s not clear why the jury had so many questions about Sciorra — and it ’ s worth noting that jurors had follow-up questions about Haley ’ s testimony as well .
But Sciorra ’ s testimony is different from Haley ’ s and Mann ’ s in that the latter two women describe maintaining ongoing professional or personal @ @ @ @ @ @ @ , while Sciorra does not ( she does say that he stalked and harassed her for years after raping her ) .
Experts — including the forensic psychologist called by the prosecution — say it ’ s common for survivors to maintain a relationship with an attacker after a sexual assault .
Sciorra ’ s testimony thus may be easier for the jury to “ understand within their concept of a rape victim , ” Bader said .
Jurors may be “ finding more common ground in her testimony and focusing on that @ @ @ @ @ @ @ , however , that jurors asked to review Sciorra ’ s testimony because some of them don ’ t find it credible — Jan Ransom of the New York Times reported that the note on Friday “ suggested that one or some jurors did not believe Ms. Sciorra.
” Whatever the case , one thing is clear : the jury deliberations have already been a long , drawn-out process .
They have gone on longer than the deliberations in Bill Cosby ’ s second sexual assault trial in 2018 , which ended in @ @ @ @ @ @ @ .
( The judge in Cosby ’ s first trial declared a mistrial after the jury failed to reach a verdict in six days of deliberations . )
While it ’ s still possible that the jury will return next week and find Weinstein guilty of predatory sexual assault , the prospect of a quick conviction on all counts has disappeared .
Regardless of what happens , the trial will have an impact on Americans ’ understanding of sexual assault .
“ It ’ s important that the prosecutors pursued this case , @ @ @ @ @ @ @ knew they would have to contend with misconceptions about how survivors behave after they are attacked , especially when Haley and Mann were cross-examined .
Prosecutors should be taking cases like the one against Weinstein even if they ’ re not guaranteed a win , Dempsey said .
By taking such cases forward , “ they allow not only the victims to have a day in court and the possibility that a perpetrator will be brought to justice , but they allow the broader community to engage in conversations about what behavior is @ @ @ @ @ @ @ still faces rape and sexual battery charges in Los Angeles , regardless of what happens in New York .
But the events of this week show that there ’ s a difference between a public reckoning and a criminal conviction .
Even though the allegations against Weinstein helped propel the Me Too movement into its current place of prominence and launch a nationwide conversation around sexual assault , the process of actually meting out criminal consequences for those allegations is far from simple .

In the afternoon of their fourth day of deliberations, the jury in producer Harvey Weinstein’s sexual assault trial sent a note to the judge.
They wanted to know if they could deliver a verdict on some of the charges but fail to reach a decision on the others.
The judge told them to keep deliberating. “It is not uncommon for a jury to believe that they will never be able to reach a unanimous verdict,” he wrote. “But, after further deliberations, most juries are able to reach a unanimous verdict.”
NEW: Judge charges Weinstein jury with "deadlock charge" after they ask if they can be hung on the Predatory Sexual Assault charges but unanimous on the others. @ManhattanDA rejects a partial verdict. The jury will break for the week at 3p. Less than 20 minutes to go... @Law360 https://t.co/Aev81Q7QbN pic.twitter.com/96hIrvHZBd — Frank G. Runyeon (@frankrunyeon) February 21, 2020
The jury’s request highlighted what’s become increasingly clear over the past week: that jurors have serious concerns over at least some of the charges brought against Weinstein. The prospect of a decisive conviction that would send Weinstein to prison for life seems less likely than it did when the jury began its task four days ago.
“It’s taking the jury a long time because they’re grappling with very weighty issues,” Cheryl Bader, a law professor at Fordham University and former assistant US attorney, told Vox. And at least as of now, some of the weightiest questions before the jury remain undecided. The jurors will go home for the weekend and start deliberating again on Monday.
The jurors are undecided on (at least) two of the five charges against Weinstein
Weinstein faces five charges in his trial in New York: two counts of predatory sexual assault, one of a criminal sexual act, one of rape in the first degree, and one of rape in the third degree. The counts of predatory sexual assault carry the greatest sentence, of 25 years to life in prison.
Relatively speaking, the counts of rape and criminal sexual act are simpler. The rape charges involve one woman, Jessica Mann, who testified that Weinstein raped her in 2013. The criminal sexual act charge also involves one woman, Miriam Haley, who says that Weinstein forcibly performed oral sex on her in 2006.
The predatory sexual assault charges are more complex because they require the prosecution to prove that Weinstein had a history of sexual assault. To do so, they called as a witness actress Annabella Sciorra, who testified that Weinstein raped her in the 1990s. The statute of limitations on that allegation has passed, so prosecutors could not charge Weinstein in connection with Sciorra’s report alone. But in connection with Haley’s or Mann’s accusations, they used it to bring charges of predatory sexual assault.
Those are the charges on which the jury remains undecided, according to the note sent to the judge on Friday. Under the judge’s instructions, jurors are not supposed to consider the more serious charges unless they are ready to convict on the lesser ones. So the note may suggest that the jurors have already decided Weinstein is guilty of rape or a criminal sex act.
While we can never be sure what a jury is thinking, “the fact that they are deliberating over the predatory sexual assault charges suggests that they are inclined to convict on some of the lesser charges,” Michelle Madden Dempsey, a former prosecutor and law professor at Villanova University, told Vox.
In note to judge Weinstein jury says as of now it is hung on predatory sexual assault charges and unanimous on other two. They wouldn’t get to predatory sex assault charge without finding him guilty of one of the other charges. Suggesting he’s on verge of a conviction. — megan twohey (@mega2e) February 21, 2020
Still, as Bader notes, “we don’t know the jury’s process.” Jury deliberations are secret, so we don’t know what the jurors are thinking or saying to one another. We don’t know if they’re following the judge’s instructions or if they’re approaching the charges in a systematic way that would be easily understandable to outsiders.
From the questions they have sent to the judge, however, we can tell that they have a lot of interest in Sciorra’s testimony. They asked that her cross-examination be read back to them, along with testimony by actress Rosie Perez, who said that Sciorra told her in the 1990s that she had been raped by Weinstein.
It’s not clear why the jury had so many questions about Sciorra — and it’s worth noting that jurors had follow-up questions about Haley’s testimony as well. But Sciorra’s testimony is different from Haley’s and Mann’s in that the latter two women describe maintaining ongoing professional or personal relationships with Weinstein after he attacked them, while Sciorra does not (she does say that he stalked and harassed her for years after raping her).
Experts — including the forensic psychologist called by the prosecution — say it’s common for survivors to maintain a relationship with an attacker after a sexual assault. Sciorra’s testimony thus may be easier for the jury to “understand within their concept of a rape victim,” Bader said. Jurors may be “finding more common ground in her testimony and focusing on that first.”
It’s also possible, however, that jurors asked to review Sciorra’s testimony because some of them don’t find it credible — Jan Ransom of the New York Times reported that the note on Friday “suggested that one or some jurors did not believe Ms. Sciorra.”
Whatever the case, one thing is clear: the jury deliberations have already been a long, drawn-out process. They have gone on longer than the deliberations in Bill Cosby’s second sexual assault trial in 2018, which ended in a guilty verdict after about 14 hours. (The judge in Cosby’s first trial declared a mistrial after the jury failed to reach a verdict in six days of deliberations.)
While it’s still possible that the jury will return next week and find Weinstein guilty of predatory sexual assault, the prospect of a quick conviction on all counts has disappeared.
Regardless of what happens, the trial will have an impact on Americans’ understanding of sexual assault. “It’s important that the prosecutors pursued this case,” said Bader, even though they knew they would have to contend with misconceptions about how survivors behave after they are attacked, especially when Haley and Mann were cross-examined.
Prosecutors should be taking cases like the one against Weinstein even if they’re not guaranteed a win, Dempsey said. By taking such cases forward, “they allow not only the victims to have a day in court and the possibility that a perpetrator will be brought to justice, but they allow the broader community to engage in conversations about what behavior is appropriate,” she explained.
Weinstein still faces rape and sexual battery charges in Los Angeles, regardless of what happens in New York.
But the events of this week show that there’s a difference between a public reckoning and a criminal conviction. Even though the allegations against Weinstein helped propel the Me Too movement into its current place of prominence and launch a nationwide conversation around sexual assault, the process of actually meting out criminal consequences for those allegations is far from simple.


vox--2020-02-21--Bloomberg says his company will release 3 women from nondisclosure agreements

Mike Bloomberg ’ s slogan is that he can get it done .
But actually , maybe it ’ s Elizabeth Warren who can .
At least when it comes to forcing the former New York City mayor ’ s hand on releasing women who have complained about his past comments from nondisclosure agreements .
On Friday , Bloomberg announced that his company , Bloomberg LP , had identified three NDAs signed by women related directly to remarks he allegedly made and that it would release them if they wanted .
He also said that Bloomberg will no longer offer @ @ @ @ @ @ @ misconduct complaints .
“ I recognize that NDAs , particularly when they are used in the context of sexual harassment and sexual assault , promote a culture of silence in the workplace and contribute to a culture of women not feeling safe or supported , ” he said in a statement .
“ It is imperative that when problems occur , workplaces not only address the specific incidents , but the culture and practices that led to those incidents .
And then leaders must act.
” Bloomberg has come under increasing scrutiny over @ @ @ @ @ @ @ with women .
As Vox ’ s Anna North explained , there have been several reports in recent months examining allegations that Bloomberg ’ s company fostered a climate of sexual harassment and discrimination and that Bloomberg himself had “ set the tone with belittling , sexist , and objectifying comments about female employees.
” Bloomberg has acknowledged he ’ s told some “ bawdy jokes ” that he regrets and sought to minimize the issue .
But , he also refused to release women from NDAs so they could talk about their @ @ @ @ @ @ @ ’ s Democratic debate in Nevada , the issue came to a head , namely thanks to Sen. Warren , whose clear distaste for Bloomberg was evident throughout the evening .
After a moderator asked about Bloomberg ’ s past comments about women , the billionaire talked about his past of giving women top positions in his philanthropy operation , his company , and his mayoral office and said he has “ no tolerance for the kind of behavior that the Me Too movement has exposed.
” Warren wasn ’ t having it @ @ @ @ @ @ @ his defense was : ‘ I ’ ve been nice to some women.
’ That just doesn ’ t cut it , ” she said .
“ The mayor has to stand on his record .
And what we need to know is exactly what ’ s lurking out there .
He has gotten some number of women , dozens , who knows , to sign nondisclosure agreements both for sexual harassment and for gender discrimination in the workplace.
” Backed up by former Vice President Joe Biden , Warren called on Bloomberg @ @ @ @ @ @ @ on the debate stage , but he declined at the time .
And she didn ’ t let it go — during a town hall in Nevada on Thursday , Warren , a former law professor , brought up an NDA release she ’ d written up for Bloomberg if he wanted it .
” I used to teach contract law , ” she said .
“ And I thought I would make this easy .
I wrote up a release and covenant not to sue , and all that Mayor Bloomberg has @ @ @ @ @ @ @ ll text it — sign it , and then the women , or men , will be free to speak and tell their own stories.
” To be sure , Bloomberg releasing a handful of women from the requirements of nondisclosure agreements doesn ’ t solve the entire issue of his and his company ’ s past treatment of women , and it doesn ’ t ensure everyone who ’ s had problems will be heard .
In his statement , Bloomberg also said he had instructed his company and campaign to review @ @ @ @ @ @ @ policies .
He also said that as president , he would push for the passage of the Be Heard Act , a sweeping anti-harassment bill in Congress .
Perhaps more crucially to the Bloomberg campaign , his announcement also allows him to move past the issue somewhat and to set himself apart from President Donald Trump .
It seems like a win for people who work at Bloomberg LP — and for Elizabeth Warren .

Mike Bloomberg’s slogan is that he can get it done. But actually, maybe it’s Elizabeth Warren who can. At least when it comes to forcing the former New York City mayor’s hand on releasing women who have complained about his past comments from nondisclosure agreements.
On Friday, Bloomberg announced that his company, Bloomberg LP, had identified three NDAs signed by women related directly to remarks he allegedly made and that it would release them if they wanted. He also said that Bloomberg will no longer offer confidentiality agreements to resolve sexual harassment or misconduct complaints.
“I recognize that NDAs, particularly when they are used in the context of sexual harassment and sexual assault, promote a culture of silence in the workplace and contribute to a culture of women not feeling safe or supported,” he said in a statement. “It is imperative that when problems occur, workplaces not only address the specific incidents, but the culture and practices that led to those incidents. And then leaders must act.”
Bloomberg LP has identified 3 NDAs signed over the past 30+ years with women to address complaints about comments they said I had made.
If any of them want to be released from their NDAs, they should contact the company and they'll be given a release. https://t.co/bO9JpvSx1T — Mike Bloomberg (@MikeBloomberg) February 21, 2020
Bloomberg has come under increasing scrutiny over his and his company’s history with women. As Vox’s Anna North explained, there have been several reports in recent months examining allegations that Bloomberg’s company fostered a climate of sexual harassment and discrimination and that Bloomberg himself had “set the tone with belittling, sexist, and objectifying comments about female employees.”
Bloomberg has acknowledged he’s told some “bawdy jokes” that he regrets and sought to minimize the issue. But, he also refused to release women from NDAs so they could talk about their allegations — until now.
During Wednesday’s Democratic debate in Nevada, the issue came to a head, namely thanks to Sen. Warren, whose clear distaste for Bloomberg was evident throughout the evening. After a moderator asked about Bloomberg’s past comments about women, the billionaire talked about his past of giving women top positions in his philanthropy operation, his company, and his mayoral office and said he has “no tolerance for the kind of behavior that the Me Too movement has exposed.”
Warren wasn’t having it. “I hope you heard what his defense was: ‘I’ve been nice to some women.’ That just doesn’t cut it,” she said. “The mayor has to stand on his record. And what we need to know is exactly what’s lurking out there. He has gotten some number of women, dozens, who knows, to sign nondisclosure agreements both for sexual harassment and for gender discrimination in the workplace.”
Backed up by former Vice President Joe Biden, Warren called on Bloomberg to release women from the nondisclosure agreements on the debate stage, but he declined at the time. And she didn’t let it go — during a town hall in Nevada on Thursday, Warren, a former law professor, brought up an NDA release she’d written up for Bloomberg if he wanted it.
”I used to teach contract law,” she said. “And I thought I would make this easy. I wrote up a release and covenant not to sue, and all that Mayor Bloomberg has to do is download it —I’ll text it — sign it, and then the women, or men, will be free to speak and tell their own stories.”
If Mike Bloomberg is not willing to release the women from the NDAs, then he is disqualified from being president of the United States. #CNNTownHall — Elizabeth Warren (@ewarren) February 21, 2020
To be sure, Bloomberg releasing a handful of women from the requirements of nondisclosure agreements doesn’t solve the entire issue of his and his company’s past treatment of women, and it doesn’t ensure everyone who’s had problems will be heard. In his statement, Bloomberg also said he had instructed his company and campaign to review their harassment, discrimination, and promotion policies. He also said that as president, he would push for the passage of the Be Heard Act, a sweeping anti-harassment bill in Congress.
Perhaps more crucially to the Bloomberg campaign, his announcement also allows him to move past the issue somewhat and to set himself apart from President Donald Trump. It seems like a win for people who work at Bloomberg LP — and for Elizabeth Warren.


vox--2020-02-21--The reports about Russian meddling in the 2020 election, and Trump’s response, explained

Russia favors President Donald Trump to win the 2020 election — and , according to one report , is already interfering in order to help reelect him .
That ’ s the US intelligence community ’ s assessment , which was delivered to members of Congress in a classified briefing last week , five people familiar with the matter told the New York Times in a Thursday report .
The Washington Post on Friday morning corroborated that the briefing on election security happened and that Shelby Pierson , the chief election security adviser for the Office of the Director of @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Russia had “ developed a preference ” for Trump over any of his 2020 rivals .
A Democratic lawmaker in the room also told Vox ’ s Alex Ward the evidence was “ very compelling ” that Moscow favored Trump .
The Post , however , noted that “ it was not clear what specific steps , if any , US intelligence officials think Russia may have taken to help Trump.
” And Moscow quickly denied any meddling .
“ These are new paranoid reports , which , to our deep regret , @ @ @ @ @ @ @ the election day approaches , ” Dmitry Peskov , a spokesperson for Russian President Vladimir Putin , said .
“ Naturally , they have nothing to do with the truth.
” So we don ’ t know what , if anything , Russia has already done .
But US intelligence officials , who have repeatedly warned lawmakers that foreign interference in US elections will continue , were concerned enough about Moscow ’ s stance to brief the House Intelligence Committee — and they drew Trump ’ s ire in doing so .
The @ @ @ @ @ @ @ “ berated ” the then-acting director of national intelligence , retired Vice Adm. Joseph Maguire , over the briefing and its conclusions .
Per the Times , he was incensed that Congress had received the briefing at all , and worried that Democrats might “ weaponize ” the news for political purposes ahead of the 2020 election .
Trump wasn ’ t the only one to have a sharply politicized response .
According to the Washington Post , Republicans on the committee “ accused some of the briefers from other agencies of being @ @ @ @ @ @ @ ’ s reelection.
” And that skepticism isn ’ t a good sign heading into 2020 : Axios noted in a story last month that “ the public ’ s confidence is so low in key people and institutions that no one is likely to be a trusted referee ” on the outcome of the 2020 election if it is contested .
What we know the US intelligence community has told Congress about Russian meddling According to the New York Times , the briefing included another new detail about Russia ’ s plans @ @ @ @ @ @ @ to target not just the general election in November , but the ongoing 2020 Democratic presidential primary .
While it ’ s unclear from the two main reports on the briefing what kind of election interference tactics Russia might specifically be pursuing in 2020 , Pierson spoke more generally about her election security concerns with NPR last month .
She described the problem as “ broader and more diverse ” than in 2016 in a January interview , and warned that Russia might not be the only threat in 2020 .
“ We @ @ @ @ @ @ @ in 2016 , ” Pierson said , “ and we might be looking at different inroads — not just necessarily capitalizing on social media , but also interfering in networks or the vote count.
” But while the Times report emphasizes that , according to intelligence officials , Pierson was “ delivering the conclusion of multiple intelligence agencies , not her own opinion ” in last week ’ s briefing , her account has nonetheless been contested by at least one national security official .
On Friday , CNN ’ s Jake Tapper @ @ @ @ @ @ @ s conclusion , saying the reality was “ a step short of that.
” “ A more reasonable interpretation of the intelligence is not that they have a preference , ” the official told Tapper .
“ It ’ s more that they understand the president is someone they can work with , he ’ s a dealmaker.
” A bias in favor of Trump wouldn ’ t be unprecedented , however .
In 2017 , US intelligence agencies concluded definitively that not only did Putin direct a campaign of election interference in @ @ @ @ @ @ @ a clear preference for President-elect Trump.
” A 2019 report by the Republican-led Senate Intelligence Committee drew the same conclusion .
So while details about the exact nature of Russia ’ s meddling remain unclear , there ’ s good reason to believe the underlying premise of the Times and Post reports — that Russia plans to interfere in the 2020 election — despite lingering questions .
Republicans are worried about the politics of the briefing Trump , however , appears more concerned about the politics of the briefing than its substance .
@ @ @ @ @ @ @ the acting DNI job in favor of a Trump loyalist , Richard Grenell .
Some Trump administration officials have argued that the timing of Maguire ’ s ouster following the briefing was sheer coincidence ; however , Vox ’ s Alex Ward reports that , according to a senior White House official , Maguire was “ absolutely ” removed in retaliation for the election security briefing .
“ Anyone from here on out that opposed POTUS will get fired , ” the official said .
Grenell , who is currently the US ambassador @ @ @ @ @ @ @ for many reasons , not least of which is his lack of an intelligence background .
His selection has worried many veterans of the intelligence community , who view him as a partisan actor above all else .
Former acting DNI David Gompert is one such skeptic .
He told NPR ’ s Morning Edition host Rachel Martin on Friday that “ the administration would just as soon these stories and this intelligence go away , as evidenced by the fact that the president has put in place in my old job an @ @ @ @ @ @ @ ’ s sympathetic to the president politically.
” Gompert also described reports on Russia ’ s plans to interfere in 2020 as “ exceedingly grave , ” though unsurprising .
Democratic Intelligence Committee Chair Adam Schiff , who has been a particular target of Trump ’ s over his role in the impeachment trial , said the president ’ s conduct regarding the briefing was worrying .
“ We count on the intelligence community to inform Congress of any threat of foreign interference in our elections , ” Schiff tweeted .
“ If @ @ @ @ @ @ @ interfering with that , he is again jeopardizing our efforts to stop foreign meddling.
” Republicans , however , have cast doubt on the briefing ’ s conclusions .
Rep. Chris Stewart , who sits on the Intelligence Committee , told the Times in an interview that , despite Russia ’ s past support for Trump , he ’ d “ challenge anyone to give me a real-world argument where Putin would rather have President Trump and not Bernie Sanders.
” According to the Times , some intelligence officials felt that the briefing @ @ @ @ @ @ @ “ could have been delivered in a less pointed manner or left out entirely to avoid angering Republicans.
” If Russia or any other country does have ambitions of meddling in the 2020 election , however , the US might not be ready for it .
An extensively reported story by Rolling Stone ’ s Andy Kroll last month found that “ We ’ ve made progress since the last election — but we ’ re much less secure than we should be .
”

Russia favors President Donald Trump to win the 2020 election — and, according to one report, is already interfering in order to help reelect him.
That’s the US intelligence community’s assessment, which was delivered to members of Congress in a classified briefing last week, five people familiar with the matter told the New York Times in a Thursday report.
The Washington Post on Friday morning corroborated that the briefing on election security happened and that Shelby Pierson, the chief election security adviser for the Office of the Director of National Intelligence, repeatedly told lawmakers that Russia had “developed a preference” for Trump over any of his 2020 rivals. A Democratic lawmaker in the room also told Vox’s Alex Ward the evidence was “very compelling” that Moscow favored Trump.
The Post, however, noted that “it was not clear what specific steps, if any, US intelligence officials think Russia may have taken to help Trump.”
And Moscow quickly denied any meddling. “These are new paranoid reports, which, to our deep regret, will continue to grow in number as the election day approaches,” Dmitry Peskov, a spokesperson for Russian President Vladimir Putin, said. “Naturally, they have nothing to do with the truth.”
So we don’t know what, if anything, Russia has already done. But US intelligence officials, who have repeatedly warned lawmakers that foreign interference in US elections will continue, were concerned enough about Moscow’s stance to brief the House Intelligence Committee — and they drew Trump’s ire in doing so.
The New York Times reports that the president “berated” the then-acting director of national intelligence, retired Vice Adm. Joseph Maguire, over the briefing and its conclusions. Per the Times, he was incensed that Congress had received the briefing at all, and worried that Democrats might “weaponize” the news for political purposes ahead of the 2020 election.
Trump wasn’t the only one to have a sharply politicized response. According to the Washington Post, Republicans on the committee “accused some of the briefers from other agencies of being part of an effort to sabotage Trump’s reelection.”
And that skepticism isn’t a good sign heading into 2020: Axios noted in a story last month that “the public’s confidence is so low in key people and institutions that no one is likely to be a trusted referee” on the outcome of the 2020 election if it is contested.
What we know the US intelligence community has told Congress about Russian meddling
According to the New York Times, the briefing included another new detail about Russia’s plans for 2020: The Kremlin reportedly intends to target not just the general election in November, but the ongoing 2020 Democratic presidential primary.
While it’s unclear from the two main reports on the briefing what kind of election interference tactics Russia might specifically be pursuing in 2020, Pierson spoke more generally about her election security concerns with NPR last month.
She described the problem as “broader and more diverse” than in 2016 in a January interview, and warned that Russia might not be the only threat in 2020.
“We might have more actors than we had in 2016,” Pierson said, “and we might be looking at different inroads — not just necessarily capitalizing on social media, but also interfering in networks or the vote count.”
But while the Times report emphasizes that, according to intelligence officials, Pierson was “delivering the conclusion of multiple intelligence agencies, not her own opinion” in last week’s briefing, her account has nonetheless been contested by at least one national security official.
On Friday, CNN’s Jake Tapper reported that the official refuted Pierson’s conclusion, saying the reality was “a step short of that.”
“A more reasonable interpretation of the intelligence is not that they have a preference,” the official told Tapper. “It’s more that they understand the president is someone they can work with, he’s a dealmaker.”
3/ “The problem is Shelby" -- Pierson, the elections threats executive in the intelligence community -- "said they developed a preference for Trump. A more reasonable interpretation of the intelligence is not that they have a preference, it's a step short of that.... — Jake Tapper (@jaketapper) February 21, 2020
A bias in favor of Trump wouldn’t be unprecedented, however. In 2017, US intelligence agencies concluded definitively that not only did Putin direct a campaign of election interference in 2016, but that he had “a clear preference for President-elect Trump.” A 2019 report by the Republican-led Senate Intelligence Committee drew the same conclusion.
So while details about the exact nature of Russia’s meddling remain unclear, there’s good reason to believe the underlying premise of the Times and Post reports — that Russia plans to interfere in the 2020 election — despite lingering questions.
Republicans are worried about the politics of the briefing
Trump, however, appears more concerned about the politics of the briefing than its substance.
On Wednesday, he ousted Maguire from the acting DNI job in favor of a Trump loyalist, Richard Grenell. Some Trump administration officials have argued that the timing of Maguire’s ouster following the briefing was sheer coincidence; however, Vox’s Alex Ward reports that, according to a senior White House official, Maguire was “absolutely” removed in retaliation for the election security briefing.
“Anyone from here on out that opposed POTUS will get fired,” the official said.
I asked a senior White House official if Trump really removed Maguire over the Russia briefing. Official didn’t mince words.
“That’s absolutely why. Anyone from here on out that opposed POTUS will get fired.”
That bad, I asked?
“Yup,” official said. “He’s not f***ing around.” — Alex Ward (@AlexWardVox) February 21, 2020
Grenell, who is currently the US ambassador to Germany, is a controversial choice for many reasons, not least of which is his lack of an intelligence background. His selection has worried many veterans of the intelligence community, who view him as a partisan actor above all else.
Former acting DNI David Gompert is one such skeptic. He told NPR’s Morning Edition host Rachel Martin on Friday that “the administration would just as soon these stories and this intelligence go away, as evidenced by the fact that the president has put in place in my old job an individual whose only qualification is that he’s sympathetic to the president politically.”
Gompert also described reports on Russia’s plans to interfere in 2020 as “exceedingly grave,” though unsurprising.
Democratic Intelligence Committee Chair Adam Schiff, who has been a particular target of Trump’s over his role in the impeachment trial, said the president’s conduct regarding the briefing was worrying.
“We count on the intelligence community to inform Congress of any threat of foreign interference in our elections,” Schiff tweeted. “If reports are true and the President is interfering with that, he is again jeopardizing our efforts to stop foreign meddling.”
Republicans, however, have cast doubt on the briefing’s conclusions. Rep. Chris Stewart, who sits on the Intelligence Committee, told the Times in an interview that, despite Russia’s past support for Trump, he’d “challenge anyone to give me a real-world argument where Putin would rather have President Trump and not Bernie Sanders.”
According to the Times, some intelligence officials felt that the briefing was a misstep and that certain conclusions “could have been delivered in a less pointed manner or left out entirely to avoid angering Republicans.”
If Russia or any other country does have ambitions of meddling in the 2020 election, however, the US might not be ready for it.
An extensively reported story by Rolling Stone’s Andy Kroll last month found that “We’ve made progress since the last election — but we’re much less secure than we should be.”


vox--2020-02-21--Amazon’s Hunters, starring Al Pacino, is an exploitative Holocaust vengeance fantasy

Near the end of “ In the Belly of the Whale , ” the first episode of Amazon ’ s surreal new series Hunters , a Nazi in a Washington , DC-based laundromat ominously tells the black woman doing laundry next to him that “ when you don ’ t separate the whites from the colors , the colors always bleed.
” It ’ s the kind of heavy-handed , weakly written , cringe-inducing moment that recurs throughout this uncomfortable new vengeance fantasy , which focuses on a covert society of Nazi hunters .
Executive produced by Jordan Peele , @ @ @ @ @ @ @ heavily stylized ’ 70s aesthetic places it squarely within the mode of “ Jewsploitation ” popularized by similar stories of semi-satirical Jewish revenge ( like Quentin Tarantino ’ s Inglourious Basterds ) , it takes its storyline too seriously to be effective as a pastiche .
Instead , in its eagerness to depict its subject through the pivoting lenses of gleeful satire and high melodrama , Hunters usually shifts into empty provocation .
Hunters ’ creator , TV newcomer David Weil , based Hunters in part upon his grandparents ’ experiences as Holocaust @ @ @ @ @ @ @ for powerful storytelling .
But as I watched Hunters , I worried that the show might be far more effective at titillating and arousing Nazi sympathizers than it is at speaking to the Jewish community .
For all of its emphasis on Jewish traditions , rites , storytelling , and myth-making , Hunters gives its villains ample room to argue their points .
Each and every Nazi character is a buffoon , a variant of the evil speech-making Nazis of Marathon Man or Schindler ’ s List .
But there are only so @ @ @ @ @ @ @ those caricatures and let them verbalize their warped ideologies , anti-Semitic slurs , and digs about Jewish people and ovens before it ’ s completely undermined its point — if the show ever really had one .
Hunters starts out distorting our sense of reality Hunters tests the viewers ’ sense of reality from its opening scene , when we learn — in a deeply disturbing moment — that the US secretary of state is , in fact , a high-level Nazi , the former “ butcher ” of a concentration camp .
@ @ @ @ @ @ @ removed from any historically accurate depiction of Nazis after the war — Nazis who most certainly came to America but who lived lives of “ anonymity and no scrutiny ” — that it ’ s completely impossible to take seriously .
Yet Hunters presents it straightforwardly , as the start of the strange dance between gravitas and absurdity that the show performs for the rest of the season .
Hunters deliberately channels the grand , mythic spirit of Golden Age comic books .
Legendary comic creators like Stan Lee , Jack Kirby , @ @ @ @ @ @ @ immigrant Jewish families , created many of comics ’ most larger-than-life superheroes to fight larger-than-life battles .
Hunters ’ main character Jonah ( Logan Lerman , somehow playing a 19-year-old a decade after he was a teen Greek god in Percy Jackson ) has no superpowers , but he slots right into place among these heroes as a Jewish Peter Parker-type .
His quest to find answers for the mysterious murder of his grandmother leads him to discover a shocking secret : His grandmother , a Holocaust survivor , was part of a @ @ @ @ @ @ @ and punished Nazis who infiltrated post-War Western society .
The ringleader of the spies is “ Meyer , ” played by the quintessentially Italian Al Pacino doing a muddled Yiddish accent .
Meyer takes a grandfatherly interest in Jonah as he lures him into the spy ring .
The introduction of the spies , most of whom are self-taught and unextraordinary , moves us into the realm of pastiche and comedy .
In one fourth wall-smashing montage , they ’ re lavishly introduced to us like action heroes .
( For instance , @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Kane and Saul Rubinek , masters who manage to work wonders with this show ’ s bland writing ) is described as “ a couple of Chabad-asses.
” ) The spies ’ work , however , is deadly serious : They ’ re trying to sniff out and punish Nazis who ’ ve assimilated into American society after the war , as they attempt to slowly build power and start “ the fourth Reich.
” It ’ s all very S.H.I.E.L.D .
versus Hydra .
But within this hyperbolic , cartoonish backdrop , @ @ @ @ @ @ @ mythology of Holocaust survival — and if you ’ re unsure whether these are things that play well against each other , you ’ re not alone .
Hunters ’ casual ultraviolence , its far-fetched spy shenanigans , and its rambling villain speeches get paired with Holocaust flashbacks and contemporaneous genocide , and the tonal whiplash perpetually undercuts an already weak plot .
Of course , in an age where right-wing extremism is on the rise , where Nazis get profiles in the New York Times , maybe Hunters is the heavily ironic @ @ @ @ @ @ @ a backdrop , is it even possible to have a depiction of ethnic conflict that ’ s too cartoonish ?
Maybe .
And I ’ d love to make that argument about a better show .
But Weil and his co-showrunner , veteran writer-producer Nikki Toscano ( Revenge ) , haven ’ t made it easy for me .
In many ways , what Hunters is trying to do is ambitious .
Its characters frequently break the fourth wall ; its narrative style often abruptly shifts tone ; it mixes all kinds of @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Rabbit , Jackie Brown , the mid-2000s cult British comedy series Blackpool , and the 2010s spy show Leverage .
None of these things are remotely alike , and trying to find a through line between them is impossible .
The tonal shift from episode to episode , and often from scene to scene , is infuriating ; Hunters tries to be a Kavalier & Clay-esque fantasia on Jewish-American life , a comedic spy romp , and a very serious Kaddish for the Holocaust all at once .
It doesn ’ t work @ @ @ @ @ @ @ it were cleverer .
Hunters ’ scenes of implausible revenge seem teleported in from an unbelievable fever dream of over-the-top Nazi sadism and Jewish heroics — and thanks to the overly saturated color palette , they often look that way , too .
The touch of surrealism could be an interesting starting point for a story that complicates its own elements of wish fulfillment with a more self-aware look at the difficulty of unraveling personal vendettas from systemic abuse .
That ’ s particularly possible in the case of real-life Nazis after the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ whose prosecution often created more mystery than answers .
Instead , the show vacillates wildly between tongue-in-cheek comedy and straightforward , dull drama .
For as slowly as Hunters moves its much-vaunted chess pieces around , we learn very little about who they are to each other or themselves .
Characterizations don ’ t so much develop as abruptly appear — like when mild-mannered weakling Jonah suddenly morphs into a code-reading , intel-gathering , stone-cold badass prodigy before our eyes or when characters start having moving heart-to-hearts that aren ’ t moving at @ @ @ @ @ @ @ met them .
( Only Jerrika Hinton , who plays the show ’ s quiet FBI detective Millie Morris , deserves a nod here for adding a thoughtful watchfulness to her character that makes her the sole textured presence in a show full of penciled-in tropes . )
Weil ’ s writing throughout is cloying and bland — consider lines like , “ Batman ?
Right now I ’ m Fatman , ” and , “ You think he ’ s Shylock Holmes , Jew Detective ?
” Now consider five episodes ’ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ is given to lofty speech-making about Jewish identity , coming from both Jewish characters and Nazi characters , that the plot often feels less like a storyline and more like a setup for dueling sermons .
And when one of those sermons is coming from a cohort that wishes to systemically annihilate the other cohort , patience for sitting through the lecture grows very thin , especially when the larger point gets frequently lost in a wash of violence .
Throughout the five episodes made available for review , there are depictions of @ @ @ @ @ @ @ mythologize cultural survival and resistance .
They become some of the show ’ s more frustrating parts because there ’ s a strong element of torture porn involved in the framing of these scenes ; they ’ re deeply melodramatic and unforgiving in their displays of sadism , violence , and dehumanization .
More than any other aspect of the show , they toe the line between disquieting violence and lurid entertainment .
It ’ s certainly possible to portray the appalling and horrific nature of Nazi violence without sensationalism ; Roman Polanski @ @ @ @ @ @ @ mind .
And it ’ s also worth being clear that my critical instincts here war with my knowledge that others might view these scenes much differently .
I am not Jewish .
Others might have a dramatically different response .
But these are questions we ’ ve been asking about depictions of white supremacist propaganda for a while now .
In 2016 , for example , Vox TV critic Emily VanDerWerff called Amazon ’ s previous attempt at doing Nazis , Man in the High Castle , “ deeply irresponsible television ” @ @ @ @ @ @ @ , VanDerWerff argued , had “ devolved into plot-heavy Nazi kitsch.
” Four years later , Hunters starts out fully embracing the kitsch .
In the end , exhausted and aggrieved , I simply gave up trying to figure out who stood to derive the most edification from Hunters .
I realized I ’ d reached my limit halfway through episode five after yet another mention of “ ovens.
” The show ’ s far-fetched conceit that Nazis were behind most of the conspiratorial diplomatic tragedies of the Cold War era , the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ , and the wan pull of their wacky spy hijinks weren ’ t enough to justify the ideological Nazi parade on display .
The 10-episode first season of Hunters is now streaming on Amazon Prime .

Near the end of “In the Belly of the Whale,” the first episode of Amazon’s surreal new series Hunters, a Nazi in a Washington, DC-based laundromat ominously tells the black woman doing laundry next to him that “when you don’t separate the whites from the colors, the colors always bleed.” It’s the kind of heavy-handed, weakly written, cringe-inducing moment that recurs throughout this uncomfortable new vengeance fantasy, which focuses on a covert society of Nazi hunters.
Executive produced by Jordan Peele, Hunters is a conundrum. Though its heavily stylized ’70s aesthetic places it squarely within the mode of “Jewsploitation” popularized by similar stories of semi-satirical Jewish revenge (like Quentin Tarantino’s Inglourious Basterds), it takes its storyline too seriously to be effective as a pastiche. Instead, in its eagerness to depict its subject through the pivoting lenses of gleeful satire and high melodrama, Hunters usually shifts into empty provocation.
Rating: 2 out of 5 vox-mark vox-mark vox-mark vox-mark vox-mark
Hunters’ creator, TV newcomer David Weil, based Hunters in part upon his grandparents’ experiences as Holocaust survivors. That seems like a set-up for powerful storytelling. But as I watched Hunters, I worried that the show might be far more effective at titillating and arousing Nazi sympathizers than it is at speaking to the Jewish community.
For all of its emphasis on Jewish traditions, rites, storytelling, and myth-making, Hunters gives its villains ample room to argue their points. Each and every Nazi character is a buffoon, a variant of the evil speech-making Nazis of Marathon Man or Schindler’s List. But there are only so many times a show can cut to those caricatures and let them verbalize their warped ideologies, anti-Semitic slurs, and digs about Jewish people and ovens before it’s completely undermined its point — if the show ever really had one.
Hunters starts out distorting our sense of reality
Hunters tests the viewers’ sense of reality from its opening scene, when we learn — in a deeply disturbing moment — that the US secretary of state is, in fact, a high-level Nazi, the former “butcher” of a concentration camp. This discovery prompts a situation so far removed from any historically accurate depiction of Nazis after the war — Nazis who most certainly came to America but who lived lives of “anonymity and no scrutiny” — that it’s completely impossible to take seriously.
Yet Hunters presents it straightforwardly, as the start of the strange dance between gravitas and absurdity that the show performs for the rest of the season.
Hunters deliberately channels the grand, mythic spirit of Golden Age comic books. Legendary comic creators like Stan Lee, Jack Kirby, and Joe Simon, all children of immigrant Jewish families, created many of comics’ most larger-than-life superheroes to fight larger-than-life battles. Hunters’ main character Jonah (Logan Lerman, somehow playing a 19-year-old a decade after he was a teen Greek god in Percy Jackson) has no superpowers, but he slots right into place among these heroes as a Jewish Peter Parker-type. His quest to find answers for the mysterious murder of his grandmother leads him to discover a shocking secret: His grandmother, a Holocaust survivor, was part of a network of vigilante spies that tracked down and punished Nazis who infiltrated post-War Western society.
The ringleader of the spies is “Meyer,” played by the quintessentially Italian Al Pacino doing a muddled Yiddish accent. Meyer takes a grandfatherly interest in Jonah as he lures him into the spy ring. The introduction of the spies, most of whom are self-taught and unextraordinary, moves us into the realm of pastiche and comedy. In one fourth wall-smashing montage, they’re lavishly introduced to us like action heroes. (For instance, a pair of Holocaust survivors — Carol Kane and Saul Rubinek, masters who manage to work wonders with this show’s bland writing — is described as “a couple of Chabad-asses.”)
The spies’ work, however, is deadly serious: They’re trying to sniff out and punish Nazis who’ve assimilated into American society after the war, as they attempt to slowly build power and start “the fourth Reich.”
It’s all very S.H.I.E.L.D. versus Hydra. But within this hyperbolic, cartoonish backdrop, the show also layers in an atonally weighty mythology of Holocaust survival — and if you’re unsure whether these are things that play well against each other, you’re not alone. Hunters’ casual ultraviolence, its far-fetched spy shenanigans, and its rambling villain speeches get paired with Holocaust flashbacks and contemporaneous genocide, and the tonal whiplash perpetually undercuts an already weak plot.
Of course, in an age where right-wing extremism is on the rise, where Nazis get profiles in the New York Times, maybe Hunters is the heavily ironic Nazi show we deserve. Against such a backdrop, is it even possible to have a depiction of ethnic conflict that’s too cartoonish?
Maybe. And I’d love to make that argument about a better show. But Weil and his co-showrunner, veteran writer-producer Nikki Toscano (Revenge), haven’t made it easy for me.
Hunters vacillates ineffectively between a stylized vengeance fever dream and a plodding, empty mystery
In many ways, what Hunters is trying to do is ambitious. Its characters frequently break the fourth wall; its narrative style often abruptly shifts tone; it mixes all kinds of cinematic languages, hovering somewhere between Jojo Rabbit, Jackie Brown, the mid-2000s cult British comedy series Blackpool, and the 2010s spy show Leverage. None of these things are remotely alike, and trying to find a through line between them is impossible. The tonal shift from episode to episode, and often from scene to scene, is infuriating; Hunters tries to be a Kavalier & Clay-esque fantasia on Jewish-American life, a comedic spy romp, and a very serious Kaddish for the Holocaust all at once. It doesn’t work.
Maybe it could work, if it were cleverer. Hunters’ scenes of implausible revenge seem teleported in from an unbelievable fever dream of over-the-top Nazi sadism and Jewish heroics — and thanks to the overly saturated color palette, they often look that way, too. The touch of surrealism could be an interesting starting point for a story that complicates its own elements of wish fulfillment with a more self-aware look at the difficulty of unraveling personal vendettas from systemic abuse. That’s particularly possible in the case of real-life Nazis after the war, who often evaded justice and whose prosecution often created more mystery than answers.
Instead, the show vacillates wildly between tongue-in-cheek comedy and straightforward, dull drama. For as slowly as Hunters moves its much-vaunted chess pieces around, we learn very little about who they are to each other or themselves. Characterizations don’t so much develop as abruptly appear — like when mild-mannered weakling Jonah suddenly morphs into a code-reading, intel-gathering, stone-cold badass prodigy before our eyes or when characters start having moving heart-to-hearts that aren’t moving at all because we’ve barely even met them. (Only Jerrika Hinton, who plays the show’s quiet FBI detective Millie Morris, deserves a nod here for adding a thoughtful watchfulness to her character that makes her the sole textured presence in a show full of penciled-in tropes.)
Weil’s writing throughout is cloying and bland — consider lines like, “Batman? Right now I’m Fatman,” and, “You think he’s Shylock Holmes, Jew Detective?” Now consider five episodes’ worth of them. So much emphasis is given to lofty speech-making about Jewish identity, coming from both Jewish characters and Nazi characters, that the plot often feels less like a storyline and more like a setup for dueling sermons. And when one of those sermons is coming from a cohort that wishes to systemically annihilate the other cohort, patience for sitting through the lecture grows very thin, especially when the larger point gets frequently lost in a wash of violence.
Throughout the five episodes of Hunters made available for review, there are depictions of concentration camp stories that seem designed to mythologize cultural survival and resistance. They become some of the show’s more frustrating parts because there’s a strong element of torture porn involved in the framing of these scenes; they’re deeply melodramatic and unforgiving in their displays of sadism, violence, and dehumanization. More than any other aspect of the show, they toe the line between disquieting violence and lurid entertainment.
Stories that accurately reflect the horror of life under the Nazi regime or more vital than ever. But in a real-world context where extremist anti-Semitic acts are on the rise, stories that sensationalize historical violence against Jewish people rather than emphasize the human dignity and strength of those who survived it — as I felt several of Hunters’ concentration camp scenes did — can arguably send the wrong message to the wrong audience. The repeated attention given to speeches in which Nazis literally dehumanize Jewish people by philosophically framing them as dogs, pigs, and meat doesn’t help either. I understand that real Nazis actually do this, but why air their side of the story? It’s hard not to fear that these details, as Hunters presents them, spread the Nazi ideology more than they edify and elucidate Jewish people and their allies.
It’s certainly possible to portray the appalling and horrific nature of Nazi violence without sensationalism; Roman Polanski’s The Pianist instantly springs to mind. And it’s also worth being clear that my critical instincts here war with my knowledge that others might view these scenes much differently. I am not Jewish. Others might have a dramatically different response. But these are questions we’ve been asking about depictions of white supremacist propaganda for a while now. In 2016, for example, Vox TV critic Emily VanDerWerff called Amazon’s previous attempt at doing Nazis, Man in the High Castle, “deeply irresponsible television” for very similar reasons. That show, VanDerWerff argued, had “devolved into plot-heavy Nazi kitsch.” Four years later, Hunters starts out fully embracing the kitsch.
In the end, exhausted and aggrieved, I simply gave up trying to figure out who stood to derive the most edification from Hunters. I realized I’d reached my limit halfway through episode five after yet another mention of “ovens” by gleeful Nazis. The show’s far-fetched conceit that Nazis were behind most of the conspiratorial diplomatic tragedies of the Cold War era, the thin mystery of the characters’ relationships, and the wan pull of their wacky spy hijinks weren’t enough to justify the ideological Nazi parade on display.
The 10-episode first season of Hunters is now streaming on Amazon Prime.