democracynow--2020-09-15--Headlines for September 15, 2020

Headlines for September 15, 2020

The total number of global COVID-19 infections has topped 29 million with nearly 930,000 dead .
The CEO of the @ @ @ @ @ manufacturer — Serum Institute of India — has told the Financial Times it might take @ @ @ @ @ vaccinate everyone in the world — once a COVID-19 vaccine is approved , if it @ @ @ @ @ In other COVID-19 news , infection levels are spiking in the Midwest as North Dakota @ @ @ @ @ and Iowa report record levels of infections .
In New York City , at least @ @ @ @ @ recently tested positive for COVID-19 .
One New York City public school in the Bronx @ @ @ @ @ , before students even entered the building for the new school year , after two @ @ @ @ @ .
Meanwhile , the American Academy of Pediatrics and Children ’ s Hospital Association is @ @ @ @ @ the United States have tested positive for the virus since the beginning of the pandemic @ @ @ @ @ U.S. death toll approaches 195,000 — the highest in the world .

The total number of global COVID-19 infections has topped 29 million with nearly 930,000 dead. The CEO of the world’s largest vaccine manufacturer — Serum Institute of India — has told the Financial Times it might take up to five years to vaccinate everyone in the world — once a COVID-19 vaccine is approved, if it is a two-dose vaccine.
In other COVID-19 news, infection levels are spiking in the Midwest as North Dakota, South Dakota, Missouri and Iowa report record levels of infections.
In New York City, at least 55 public school staff have recently tested positive for COVID-19. One New York City public school in the Bronx was forced to close temporarily, before students even entered the building for the new school year, after two coronavirus cases were confirmed there.
Meanwhile, the American Academy of Pediatrics and Children’s Hospital Association is estimating nearly 550,000 children in the United States have tested positive for the virus since the beginning of the pandemic. This comes as the U.S. death toll approaches 195,000 — the highest in the world.


democracynow--2020-09-18--Trump Calls Howard Zinn's Work "Propaganda." Hear the Legendary Historian in His Own Words.

This is a rush transcript .
Copy may not be in its final form .
AMY GOODMAN : We end today ’ s show with the words of the late historian Howard Zinn .
On Thursday , President Trump lashed out at educators who teach about the U.S. history of slavery and racism , announcing a so-called patriotic education plan to combat what he called “ toxic propaganda ” in schools .
Trump called the teaching of critical race theory a “ form of child abuse , ” lashed out at the 1619 Project , the Pulitzer Prize-winning series by @ @ @ @ @ @ @ legacy of slavery .
Trump also directly criticized Howard Zinn during his speech at the National Archives Museum in Washington , D.C. AMY GOODMAN : So , we ’ re turning back now to 2009 , Howard Zinn appearing on Democracy Now !
less than a year before he died .
He just published A Young People ’ s History of the United States .
I asked him to respond to a question he had frequently been asked about his work : Is it right to be so critical of the government ’ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ of the country ?
HOWARD ZINN : It ’ s true that people have asked that question again and again .
You know , should we tell kids that Columbus , whom they have been told was a great hero , that Columbus mutilated Indians and kidnapped them and killed them in pursuit of gold ?
Should we tell people that Theodore Roosevelt , who is held up as one of our great presidents , was really a warmonger who loved military exploits and who congratulated an American general who committed a massacre @ @ @ @ @ @ @ young people that ?
And I think the answer is : We should be honest with young people ; we should not deceive them .
We should be honest about the history of our country .
And we should be not only taking down the traditional heroes like Andrew Jackson and Theodore Roosevelt , but we should be giving young people an alternate set of heroes .
Instead of Theodore Roosevelt , tell them about Mark Twain .
Mark Twain — well , Mark Twain , everybody learns about as the author of @ @ @ @ @ @ @ when we go to school , we don ’ t learn about Mark Twain as the vice president of the Anti-Imperialist League .
We aren ’ t told that Mark Twain denounced Theodore Roosevelt for approving this massacre in the Philippines .
No .
We want to give young people ideal figures like Helen Keller .
And I remember learning about Helen Keller .
Everybody learns about Helen Keller , you know , a disabled person who overcame her handicaps and became famous .
But people don ’ t learn in school and @ @ @ @ @ @ @ school what we want them to learn when we do books like A Young People ’ s History of the United States , that Helen Keller was a socialist .
She was a labor organizer .
She refused to cross a picket line that was picketing a theater showing a play about her .
And so , there are these alternate heroes in American history .
There ’ s Fannie Lou Hamer and Bob Moses .
There are the heroes of the civil rights movement .
There are a lot of people who @ @ @ @ @ @ @ .
We have it in this Young People ’ s History .
We have a young hero who was sitting on the bus in Montgomery , Alabama , refused to leave the front of the bus .
And that was before Rosa Parks .
I mean , Rosa Parks is justifiably famous for refusing to leave her seat , and she got arrested , and that was the beginning of the Montgomery Bus Boycott and really the beginning of a great movement in the South .
But this 15-year-old girl did it first @ @ @ @ @ @ @ lot of — we are trying to bring a lot of these obscure people back into the forefront of our attention and inspire young people to say , “ This is the way to live.
” AMY GOODMAN : That ’ s Howard Zinn appearing on Democracy Now !
in 2009 .
Howard Zinn was attacked by President Trump on Thursday .
The Zinn Education Project criticized Trump ’ s call for “ patriotic education.
” The project tweeted , “ So what explains the rebellions in 1676 , 1680 , 1786 , @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Native Americans , enslaved Africans , coal miners , & more ?
# HowardZinn wasn ’ t alive then , ” unquote .
To see our full interview with Howard Zinn , you can go to democracynow.org , as well as all of our interviews with Howard Zinn over the years .
And that does it for our broadcast .
Democracy Now !
is produced with Renée Feltz , Mike Burke , Deena Guzder , Libby Rainey , Nermeen Shaikh , María Taracena , Carla Wills , Tami Woronoff , Charina Nadura , @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Hamilton , Robby Karran , Hany Massoud and Adriano Contreras .
Our general manager is Julie Crosby .
Special thanks to Becca Staley , Miriam Barnard , Paul Powell , Mike DiFilippo , Miguel Nogueira , Hugh Gran , Denis Moynihan , David Prude .
I ’ m Amy Goodman .
Thanks so much for joining us .

This is a rush transcript. Copy may not be in its final form.
AMY GOODMAN: We end today’s show with the words of the late historian Howard Zinn. On Thursday, President Trump lashed out at educators who teach about the U.S. history of slavery and racism, announcing a so-called patriotic education plan to combat what he called “toxic propaganda” in schools. Trump called the teaching of critical race theory a “form of child abuse,” lashed out at the 1619 Project, the Pulitzer Prize-winning series by The New York Times which reexamines the legacy of slavery. Trump also directly criticized Howard Zinn during his speech at the National Archives Museum in Washington, D.C.
PRESIDENT DONALD TRUMP: The left-wing rioting and mayhem are the direct result of decades of left-wing indoctrination in our schools. It’s gone on far too long. Our children are instructed from propaganda tracts, like those of Howard Zinn, that try to make students ashamed of their own history.
AMY GOODMAN: So, we’re turning back now to 2009, Howard Zinn appearing on Democracy Now! less than a year before he died. He just published A Young People’s History of the United States. I asked him to respond to a question he had frequently been asked about his work: Is it right to be so critical of the government’s policies, of the traditional heroes of the country?
HOWARD ZINN: It’s true that people have asked that question again and again. You know, should we tell kids that Columbus, whom they have been told was a great hero, that Columbus mutilated Indians and kidnapped them and killed them in pursuit of gold? Should we tell people that Theodore Roosevelt, who is held up as one of our great presidents, was really a warmonger who loved military exploits and who congratulated an American general who committed a massacre in the Philippines? Should we tell young people that?
And I think the answer is: We should be honest with young people; we should not deceive them. We should be honest about the history of our country. And we should be not only taking down the traditional heroes like Andrew Jackson and Theodore Roosevelt, but we should be giving young people an alternate set of heroes.
Instead of Theodore Roosevelt, tell them about Mark Twain. Mark Twain — well, Mark Twain, everybody learns about as the author of Tom Sawyer and Huckleberry Finn, but when we go to school, we don’t learn about Mark Twain as the vice president of the Anti-Imperialist League. We aren’t told that Mark Twain denounced Theodore Roosevelt for approving this massacre in the Philippines. No.
We want to give young people ideal figures like Helen Keller. And I remember learning about Helen Keller. Everybody learns about Helen Keller, you know, a disabled person who overcame her handicaps and became famous. But people don’t learn in school and young people don’t learn in school what we want them to learn when we do books like A Young People’s History of the United States, that Helen Keller was a socialist. She was a labor organizer. She refused to cross a picket line that was picketing a theater showing a play about her.
And so, there are these alternate heroes in American history. There’s Fannie Lou Hamer and Bob Moses. There are the heroes of the civil rights movement. There are a lot of people who are obscure, who are not known. We have it in this Young People’s History. We have a young hero who was sitting on the bus in Montgomery, Alabama, refused to leave the front of the bus. And that was before Rosa Parks. I mean, Rosa Parks is justifiably famous for refusing to leave her seat, and she got arrested, and that was the beginning of the Montgomery Bus Boycott and really the beginning of a great movement in the South. But this 15-year-old girl did it first. And so, we have a lot of — we are trying to bring a lot of these obscure people back into the forefront of our attention and inspire young people to say, “This is the way to live.”
AMY GOODMAN: That’s Howard Zinn appearing on Democracy Now! in 2009. Howard Zinn was attacked by President Trump on Thursday. The Zinn Education Project criticized Trump’s call for “patriotic education.” The project tweeted, “So what explains the rebellions in 1676, 1680, 1786, 1831, 1859, & more by Native Americans, enslaved Africans, coal miners, & more? #HowardZinn wasn’t alive then,” unquote.
To see our full interview with Howard Zinn, you can go to democracynow.org, as well as all of our interviews with Howard Zinn over the years.
And that does it for our broadcast. Democracy Now! is produced with Renée Feltz, Mike Burke, Deena Guzder, Libby Rainey, Nermeen Shaikh, María Taracena, Carla Wills, Tami Woronoff, Charina Nadura, Sam Alcoff, Tey-Marie Astudillo, John Hamilton, Robby Karran, Hany Massoud and Adriano Contreras. Our general manager is Julie Crosby. Special thanks to Becca Staley, Miriam Barnard, Paul Powell, Mike DiFilippo, Miguel Nogueira, Hugh Gran, Denis Moynihan, David Prude. I’m Amy Goodman. Thanks so much for joining us.


democracynow--2020-09-18--As Fires Rage Across the West, Trump Bails Out Big Oil & Picks Climate Denier for Top Role at NOAA

This is a rush transcript .
Copy may not be in its final form .
AMY GOODMAN : This is Democracy Now !
, democracynow.org , The Quarantine Report .
I ’ m Amy Goodman .
As Hurricane Sally batters the Gulf Coast and climate-fueled wildfires continue to ravage the West , we turn to look at how a well-known climate change denier has been tapped for a top position at NOAA — that ’ s the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration .
University of Delaware professor David Legates has written papers calling for more fossil fuel emissions , has @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Mercer-funded Heartland Institute and Koch Industries , as well as major gas companies .
In 2011 , he was pushed out of his role as Delaware ’ s state climatologist for his views on climate change , which go against the scientific consensus .
In 2018 , the same year the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change warned humanity had only a dozen years to mitigate climate change or face global catastrophe , David Legates spoke on at a Heartland Institute conference on a panel called , quote , “ Why CO2 Emissions Are @ @ @ @ @ @ @ LEGATES : We ’ ve all heard that carbon dioxide , of course , is a pollutant .
It drives climate .
It is the single most important factor that determines what the climate is going to be in the future and what the temperature is going to be and how much precipitation there ’ s going to be , so much so that we have to put a danger sign on carbon dioxide .
But the question I really want to ask is : Is it really a benefit ?
Not just @ @ @ @ @ @ @ , but is it really something that we could do with a little bit more ?
… So , the answer to my question , “ Is carbon dioxide a pollutant or a benefit ?
” it clearly isn ’ t a pollutant .
It is definitely a benefit , and we can do with a little bit more of it .
AMY GOODMAN : David Legates will serve as NOAA ’ s deputy assistant secretary of commerce for observation and prediction .
Top climate scientist Michael Mann told NPR he could not @ @ @ @ @ @ @ misguided decision ” than the appointment .
Well , for more , we ’ re going to New Jersey , where we ’ re joined by a climate scientist who spent his career at NOAA , David Goodrich .
He is the former director of the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration ’ s Climate Observations Division .
Since his retirement , he ’ s spent his time chronicling the effects of the climate crisis from his bicycle .
He ’ s the author of A Hole in the Wind : A Climate Scientist @ @ @ @ @ @ @ and , most recently , just published , A Voyage Across an Ancient Ocean , in which he takes a bike journey from the Alberta tar sands in Canada to the Bakken oil fields of North Dakota .
Welcome to Democracy Now !
, Dr. David Goodrich .
It ’ s great to have you with us .
We want to talk about your book in a minute and your journey , but start with David Legates , what it means to have a top fossil fuel company-funded scientist as the head — @ @ @ @ @ @ @ , where you used to work ?
DAVID GOODRICH : Well , first of all , thanks very much for having me on , Amy .
It ’ s a pleasure to be here .
I think the appointment of Dr. Legates , you ’ re basically — if you look at the science community , you have about 97 % of the scientists disagreeing with the position of Dr. Legates , that carbon dioxide is a big problem and a big issue in climate .
So , it is disappointing , to @ @ @ @ @ @ @ American Geophysical Union , which is sort of the — one of the biggest scientific organizations for geology and geophysics and oceanography in the U.S. , has called for this appointment to be pulled back .
So , it ’ s an issue .
I ’ d also point out that it ’ s certainly not the first time .
I mean , once , when I was working with NOAA back in 2002 , there was White House interference where our government reports documenting climate change had — were reedited to say @ @ @ @ @ @ @ of this .
And it ’ s actually been better than 30 years since James Hansen testified before Congress that we have detected a human signal in climate change .
It ’ s kind of time for the fog machine to stop , if you will .
AMY GOODMAN : I ’ m wondering if you can talk about the whole issue of climate catastrophe .
Right now we ’ ve got the hurricanes that are battering the Gulf Coast , and we ’ ve got this massive , unprecedented fires along the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ your latest book and your latest bicycle journey , as you followed what you call the “ ancient ocean , ” illustrates what ’ s going on .
DAVID GOODRICH : Well , what I tried to do on this bicycle trip — first time , after I retired , I rode across the country , from Oregon to — or , from Delaware to Oregon , and looking at climate change along the way .
And I thought maybe I could go ride to a place where climate change is coming from @ @ @ @ @ @ @ the ground .
So I figured I would start in the tar sands of northern Alberta , which is one of the most carbon-intensive mining operations on the planet , and ride across the Alberta-Saskatchewan-North Dakota prairie to the Bakken oil fields of North Dakota , so I could see it sort of from two different sides of the border .
And before I started , from the town of Fort McMurray in Alberta , which is where the tar sands mining is centered , I chartered a plane .
And you can @ @ @ @ @ @ @ from the air .
You ’ re seeing — you know , from , say , 5,000 feet , which is where the plane was flying , you can see these , what look like small pickup trucks , but they ’ re actually the biggest dump trucks on the planet , going to and from the face of the tar sands mines .
And then , basically , to take — this oil is essentially boiled down with chemicals to where it can flow through pipelines .
That takes an enormous amount @ @ @ @ @ @ @ it takes to melt tar in a 40-below Alberta winter .
So , it takes a huge amount of energy just to get this oil out of the ground .
And then I rode through the northern boreal forest and across the plains to the Bakken fields of North Dakota .
And that ’ s a different landscape .
I mean , I was riding in on a really hot day .
It was pushing 95 degrees .
And on the horizon , you ’ re seeing oil flares , fires .
It @ @ @ @ @ @ @ of the Rings .
And there is a tremendous amount of fire going — of flaring going on in the Bakken .
So , it ’ s sort of two different sides of the same coin .
In North Dakota , that ’ s hydraulic fracturing , or fracking , going on , rather than basically digging it out of the ground as you see in Alberta .
AMY GOODMAN : You write in your book , roughly 80 % of currently known stocks of fossil fuels need to stay in the ground @ @ @ @ @ @ @ limits , yet fossil fuel industries are still being incentivized to keep producing oil and have received massive bailouts during COVID , even as the oil industry is failing and prices are falling .
Can you talk about this ?
DAVID GOODRICH : Sure .
I mean , we ’ ve known for quite a while that burning fossil fuels is a major way that climate change is going on .
And the idea that a large amount of the fossil fuel resistance — excuse me , the fossil fuel extraction is being @ @ @ @ @ @ @ me .
What needs to happen is going to more renewable energy .
In fact , policies have gone against support for wind and solar over the last couple of years .
So , it ’ s something that is disappointing , but I liken the changing climate to sort of turning a ship , that there ’ s a lot of momentum .
Nobody is going to turn off fossil fuels tomorrow , but we need to start getting serious about it and stop supporting the — stop subsidizing the production of @ @ @ @ @ @ @ world .
AMY GOODMAN : You know , we spent time in North Dakota covering the Indigenous struggles to protect the planet .
And I was wondering if you can talk about how significant they were , you know , people , for example , leading the charge to oppose the Dakota Access pipeline , which , of course , ultimately was built , along with the Keystone XL , that President Trump greenlighted in both cases .
DAVID GOODRICH : Well , I think the protests actually have been very significant .
@ @ @ @ @ @ @ .
There is still legal action going on against the Dakota Access Pipeline .
And the Keystone has yet to be built .
There is still legal action going on there .
And I think what ’ s happened is that the protests that came about , from Standing Rock and from the environmental community at large , have made building pipelines and moving fossil fuels around a far more difficult and expensive proposition .
And I believe that ’ s a good thing .
You ’ re basically trying to reduce the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ And pipelines are the way that that happens .
So , there is still a lot of push to build pipeline capacity out of the tar sands in Alberta .
And that is actually limiting how much — how much activity is going on in the tar sands and in the Bakken , as well .
It ’ s also — AMY GOODMAN : And , David Goodrich , we just have 30 seconds , but the link to what we ’ re seeing on the West Coast , the unprecedented fires ?
@ @ @ @ @ @ @ has resulted in the drying out of the forests , basically setting them up to burn .
There has been certainly issues with long-term forest management , but even in very well-managed forests , they have burned .
And it ’ s because it ’ s gotten warmer , it ’ s gotten drier , and it takes almost nothing to get the fires burning .
AMY GOODMAN : Well , David Goodrich , we want to thank you for being with us , climate scientist , former director of the National Oceanic @ @ @ @ @ @ @ NOAA ’ s Climate Observations Division .
His new book , A Voyage Across an Ancient Ocean : A Bicycle Journey Through the Northern Dominion of Oil .

This is a rush transcript. Copy may not be in its final form.
AMY GOODMAN: This is Democracy Now!, democracynow.org, The Quarantine Report. I’m Amy Goodman. As Hurricane Sally batters the Gulf Coast and climate-fueled wildfires continue to ravage the West, we turn to look at how a well-known climate change denier has been tapped for a top position at NOAA — that’s the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration.
University of Delaware professor David Legates has written papers calling for more fossil fuel emissions, has had his work supported by the Robert Mercer-funded Heartland Institute and Koch Industries, as well as major gas companies. In 2011, he was pushed out of his role as Delaware’s state climatologist for his views on climate change, which go against the scientific consensus. In 2018, the same year the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change warned humanity had only a dozen years to mitigate climate change or face global catastrophe, David Legates spoke on at a Heartland Institute conference on a panel called, quote, “Why CO2 Emissions Are Not Creating a Climate Crisis.”
DAVID LEGATES: We’ve all heard that carbon dioxide, of course, is a pollutant. It drives climate. It is the single most important factor that determines what the climate is going to be in the future and what the temperature is going to be and how much precipitation there’s going to be, so much so that we have to put a danger sign on carbon dioxide. But the question I really want to ask is: Is it really a benefit? Not just simply has it gotten a bad rap, but is it really something that we could do with a little bit more? … So, the answer to my question, “Is carbon dioxide a pollutant or a benefit?” it clearly isn’t a pollutant. It is definitely a benefit, and we can do with a little bit more of it.
AMY GOODMAN: David Legates will serve as NOAA’s deputy assistant secretary of commerce for observation and prediction. Top climate scientist Michael Mann told NPR he could not imagine, quote, “a more misguided decision” than the appointment.
Well, for more, we’re going to New Jersey, where we’re joined by a climate scientist who spent his career at NOAA, David Goodrich. He is the former director of the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration’s Climate Observations Division. Since his retirement, he’s spent his time chronicling the effects of the climate crisis from his bicycle. He’s the author of A Hole in the Wind: A Climate Scientist’s Bicycle Journey across the U.S. and, most recently, just published, A Voyage Across an Ancient Ocean, in which he takes a bike journey from the Alberta tar sands in Canada to the Bakken oil fields of North Dakota.
Welcome to Democracy Now!, Dr. David Goodrich. It’s great to have you with us. We want to talk about your book in a minute and your journey, but start with David Legates, what it means to have a top fossil fuel company-funded scientist as the head — one of the top people at NOAA, where you used to work?
DAVID GOODRICH: Well, first of all, thanks very much for having me on, Amy. It’s a pleasure to be here.
I think the appointment of Dr. Legates, you’re basically — if you look at the science community, you have about 97% of the scientists disagreeing with the position of Dr. Legates, that carbon dioxide is a big problem and a big issue in climate. So, it is disappointing, to be sure. I know that the American Geophysical Union, which is sort of the — one of the biggest scientific organizations for geology and geophysics and oceanography in the U.S., has called for this appointment to be pulled back. So, it’s an issue. I’d also point out that it’s certainly not the first time. I mean, once, when I was working with NOAA back in 2002, there was White House interference where our government reports documenting climate change had — were reedited to say there’s significant uncertainties in all of this. And it’s actually been better than 30 years since James Hansen testified before Congress that we have detected a human signal in climate change. It’s kind of time for the fog machine to stop, if you will.
AMY GOODMAN: I’m wondering if you can talk about the whole issue of climate catastrophe. Right now we’ve got the hurricanes that are battering the Gulf Coast, and we’ve got this massive, unprecedented fires along the West Coast. And talk about how your latest book and your latest bicycle journey, as you followed what you call the “ancient ocean,” illustrates what’s going on.
DAVID GOODRICH: Well, what I tried to do on this bicycle trip — first time, after I retired, I rode across the country, from Oregon to — or, from Delaware to Oregon, and looking at climate change along the way. And I thought maybe I could go ride to a place where climate change is coming from, where the carbon is coming from the ground. So I figured I would start in the tar sands of northern Alberta, which is one of the most carbon-intensive mining operations on the planet, and ride across the Alberta-Saskatchewan-North Dakota prairie to the Bakken oil fields of North Dakota, so I could see it sort of from two different sides of the border.
And before I started, from the town of Fort McMurray in Alberta, which is where the tar sands mining is centered, I chartered a plane. And you can really only see the extent of this from the air. You’re seeing — you know, from, say, 5,000 feet, which is where the plane was flying, you can see these, what look like small pickup trucks, but they’re actually the biggest dump trucks on the planet, going to and from the face of the tar sands mines. And then, basically, to take — this oil is essentially boiled down with chemicals to where it can flow through pipelines. That takes an enormous amount of energy. Think about how much it takes to melt tar in a 40-below Alberta winter. So, it takes a huge amount of energy just to get this oil out of the ground.
And then I rode through the northern boreal forest and across the plains to the Bakken fields of North Dakota. And that’s a different landscape. I mean, I was riding in on a really hot day. It was pushing 95 degrees. And on the horizon, you’re seeing oil flares, fires. It reminds you of Mordor out of Lord of the Rings. And there is a tremendous amount of fire going — of flaring going on in the Bakken.
So, it’s sort of two different sides of the same coin. In North Dakota, that’s hydraulic fracturing, or fracking, going on, rather than basically digging it out of the ground as you see in Alberta.
AMY GOODMAN: You write in your book, roughly 80% of currently known stocks of fossil fuels need to stay in the ground to keep climate change within somewhat manageable limits, yet fossil fuel industries are still being incentivized to keep producing oil and have received massive bailouts during COVID, even as the oil industry is failing and prices are falling. Can you talk about this?
DAVID GOODRICH: Sure. I mean, we’ve known for quite a while that burning fossil fuels is a major way that climate change is going on. And the idea that a large amount of the fossil fuel resistance — excuse me, the fossil fuel extraction is being supported by the government is amazing to me. What needs to happen is going to more renewable energy. In fact, policies have gone against support for wind and solar over the last couple of years.
So, it’s something that is disappointing, but I liken the changing climate to sort of turning a ship, that there’s a lot of momentum. Nobody is going to turn off fossil fuels tomorrow, but we need to start getting serious about it and stop supporting the — stop subsidizing the production of fossil fuels both here and around the world.
AMY GOODMAN: You know, we spent time in North Dakota covering the Indigenous struggles to protect the planet. And I was wondering if you can talk about how significant they were, you know, people, for example, leading the charge to oppose the Dakota Access pipeline, which, of course, ultimately was built, along with the Keystone XL, that President Trump greenlighted in both cases.
DAVID GOODRICH: Well, I think the protests actually have been very significant. I mean, Dakota Access was built. There is still legal action going on against the Dakota Access Pipeline. And the Keystone has yet to be built. There is still legal action going on there. And I think what’s happened is that the protests that came about, from Standing Rock and from the environmental community at large, have made building pipelines and moving fossil fuels around a far more difficult and expensive proposition. And I believe that’s a good thing.
You’re basically trying to reduce the flow of carbon into the atmosphere. And pipelines are the way that that happens. So, there is still a lot of push to build pipeline capacity out of the tar sands in Alberta. And that is actually limiting how much — how much activity is going on in the tar sands and in the Bakken, as well. It’s also —
AMY GOODMAN: And, David Goodrich, we just have 30 seconds, but the link to what we’re seeing on the West Coast, the unprecedented fires?
DAVID GOODRICH: Sure. The warming has resulted in the drying out of the forests, basically setting them up to burn. There has been certainly issues with long-term forest management, but even in very well-managed forests, they have burned. And it’s because it’s gotten warmer, it’s gotten drier, and it takes almost nothing to get the fires burning.
AMY GOODMAN: Well, David Goodrich, we want to thank you for being with us, climate scientist, former director of the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration — that’s NOAA’s Climate Observations Division. His new book, A Voyage Across an Ancient Ocean: A Bicycle Journey Through the Northern Dominion of Oil.


democracynow--2020-09-18--Trump vs. Masks: Attacks on CDC, Doctors & Scientists Undermine a "Pillar of Pandemic Control"

This is a rush transcript .
Copy may not be in its final form .
AMY GOODMAN : This is Democracy Now !
The Quarantine Report .
I ’ m Amy Goodman .
As the official U.S. death toll from COVID-19 approaches 200,000 , with more than 6.6 million reported cases , The Washington Post has revealed the White House scuttled a plan to distribute 650 million cloth face masks to every residence in the United States during the early weeks of the coronavirus pandemic .
Vice President Pence and other officials rejected the proposal because , quote , “ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ ” A draft press release about the plan from the U.S .
Postal Service reads , “ The first shipments are expected to reach U.S. households as early as April xx ” — with the date left incomplete .
One study by the Center for Economic Policy Research found widespread mask use across the United States would have saved 40,000 lives in the months of April and May alone .
This comes as the head of the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention warned Wednesday U.S. residents should not expect to receive a @ @ @ @ @ @ @ mid-2021 , contradicting President Trump ’ s claim at least 100 million doses could be distributed by the end of 2020 .
Dr. Robert Redfield was speaking at a Senate hearing on the federal government ’ s response to the pandemic .
AMY GOODMAN : President Trump lashed out at Dr. Redfield ’ s testimony , telling reporters in the White House press briefing room the top U.S. public health official misspoke .
AMY GOODMAN : Trump also contradicted the CDC director over masks , saying a vaccine would be much more effective @ @ @ @ @ @ @ of the coronavirus .
His comment came after Dr. Redfield estimated a potential coronavirus vaccine might only be 70 % effective at generating an immune response , making widespread mask use critical to ending the pandemic .
During a town hall event Tuesday on ABC hosted by George Stephanopoulos , Trump again downplayed the use of masks .
AMY GOODMAN : Well , for more , we ’ re joined by Dr. Monica Gandhi , an expert in infectious diseases , professor of medicine and associate division chief of the Division of HIV @ @ @ @ @ @ @ UCSF , San Francisco General Hospital .
Welcome to Democracy Now !
, Dr. Gandhi .
It ’ s great to have you with us .
AMY GOODMAN : If you can respond to what President Trump is saying and how important you think masks are ?
DR. MONICA GANDHI : Yes , I think this is great that you ’ re talking about this on this program , because masks are a pillar of pandemic control .
They ’ re incredibly important .
And there is no country in the world right @ @ @ @ @ @ @ this , especially at the presidential level .
And if we could have started mask wearing , consistent mask wearing , at the beginning , we would have averted deaths and cases .
And , you know , one thing I do have to say , because I remember this day very well , the day that the CDC recommended population-level mask wearing , which was April 3rd , and the way it was told to us as the American public was by the president of the United States .
And he came @ @ @ @ @ @ @ — held it up and said , “ I think these are optional .
I think it ’ s voluntary .
And I ’ m not going to wear it.
” And that way of messaging to the American public , including what you just said , over the last couple of months , has been very detrimental to our attempt to get universal mask wearing .
AMY GOODMAN : Why is it so critical what Trump has failed to do , and in so doing , puts out a very strong message @ @ @ @ @ @ @ wear a mask , only a few times in all of the months of the pandemic .
And the last time was in a hospital , so , you know , people do wear masks in hospitals .
President Trump refuses to wear a mask .
When questioned about whether he was endangering the thousands of people who come to see him at a rally who are largely maskless , he says , “ Look at me .
I ’ m socially distancing .
I ’ m fine up here , ” which @ @ @ @ @ @ @ not .
They are not social distancing .
They are not wearing masks .
Explain , though it may be intuitively obvious to people , why masks make a difference , and when you came to this conclusion .
DR. MONICA GANDHI : You know , masks make a huge difference .
I really — I don ’ t think I could stress how important I think this is as a pillar of pandemic control .
So , there are two reasons that masks work so very well .
One is that , @ @ @ @ @ @ @ , the coronavirus , so quickly , at January , February , March , people were like , “ What could be happening ?
” People started talking about surfaces , fomites .
You know , there was such confusion .
And then really what happened is that it turns out — and we haven ’ t seen this for a long time in infectious diseases — that even though you feel well , you can shed the virus at high rates from your mouth and nose , even when you feel fine @ @ @ @ @ @ @ spread means that if you cover your mouth and nose , which is where it ’ s coming out , that you can protect others .
That ’ s one point about masking , that you protect others .
I think there was a problem at the beginning of the pandemic that we just messaged that these can protect others .
We are not in a stage in our country that civic duty is working out really well for us .
And to be honest , we should have probably messaged that it @ @ @ @ @ @ @ where did we get the idea that it protects yourself ?
From decades of literature with other respiratory viruses that putting on a mask protects you .
We had actually — totally , completely commonsense , actually .
But the idea that it protects you is that you block the areas in which you ’ re most likely to imbibe the virus : your nostrils and your mouth .
And so , we ’ ve actually started messaging in California , in San Francisco , where I live — we ’ ve changed @ @ @ @ @ @ @ , and protect others.
” So , there ’ s two huge imports of masks , which is that it protects others , it protects you .
And if we could just wear this — and I really commend Dr. Redfield for saying it so forcefully , the clip that you just played on your program , two days ago to the Senate .
If we could just do this consistently , we can get through this pandemic .
There are other strategies , of course , but this is a pillar of @ @ @ @ @ @ @ mean , this is quite amazing , what Dr. Redfield said .
He said this could be more effective — not just a supplement , more effective — than a vaccine .
Talk about the effectiveness of masks — AMY GOODMAN : — and why it matters , the whole issue of asymptomatic versus people who die .
DR. MONICA GANDHI : Yes , it means so much to mask .
Now , there ’ s another theory that ’ s being propounded that it also helps decrease the severity of disease , @ @ @ @ @ @ @ get less viral particles in , and if you get less viral particles in — say that you are unlucky to get infected — you get less viral particles in , there is evidence from animal models and outbreak investigations and even country-level data that you ’ re less likely to get sick .
Of course it ’ s important to drive up the proportion of those who have asymptomatic infection .
This is a deadly disease for some , and then , for others , they ’ re completely well .
It @ @ @ @ @ @ @ in its manifestations .
Dr. Fauci has said this many times .
How do you get people being completely well and some people being so ill ?
And so , anything that we can do to drive up the proportion of people who feel well , that ’ s exactly what we should be doing .
And the important part about that is they can also spread it if they feel well .
So masking is so incredibly important for the response .
There has never been a country where mask guidelines are @ @ @ @ @ @ @ someone who doesn ’ t model mask wearing .
I can ’ t really stress the importance of modeling by public health leaders , by presidents , by mayors , by governors , to convince the populace that this is important .
Raising questions on masks six months into the pandemic , when we have been the epicenter of the pandemic since March 26 — we have not moved from that dubious position .
Literally , the pandemic actually was declared by the WHO on March 11th , because , before that , @ @ @ @ @ @ @ emergency.
” March 11th , pandemic ; March 26th , the United States becomes the epicenter .
And we haven ’ t budged from that position .
We ’ re clearly doing many things wrong .
But this mask wearing , if we could have just modeled it from the beginning — I ’ ve seen Trump and Pence in mask , I think , twice or thrice — it is so important .
I really don ’ t know how to stress how important it is to model that for people in @ @ @ @ @ @ @ , you mentioned other countries .
Can you talk about what has been done in other countries and the proof that masks make a difference ?
DR. MONICA GANDHI : Yes .
I mean , actually , it ’ s so interesting , because no other country , hands down , has fought mask wearing like we have in the United States .
And so , I give you two good examples , because I really like these examples .
Taiwan , March 6 , very early in the pandemic , they have @ @ @ @ @ @ @ pandemic is still raging , which is China .
They literally pull out all the stops and make factories and industry convert to mask wearing , because they knew about mask wearing since SARS , which was the pandemic in 2003 .
They mass-produced masks , and the populace wears them without debates like this , because it ’ s such an important pillar of control .
And they have had a handful of deaths in a country of 23 million people .
They hand out masks .
They provide masks .
They @ @ @ @ @ @ @ wearing .
They have billboards with mask wearing .
It just wasn ’ t an issue .
Same with actually many Asian countries — Vietnam , Thailand , Japan , Singapore , South Korea .
From SARS , they knew how to mask .
And then , I like talking about the Czech Republic , because they weren ’ t affected by SARS in 2003 , but they just figured it out , put out a mandate for mask wearing on March 23rd , also quite early in the pandemic .
And they @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Everyone wore cloth face coverings .
And by May 11th , they were like , “ OK , we ’ re done .
You can start taking off your face coverings.
” They had such low death rates and such a good response .
No one has fought it , though , like the United States .
No one .
So I can name many , many other countries where it ’ s not an issue .
AMY GOODMAN : So , your family is from India .
AMY GOODMAN : Can you @ @ @ @ @ @ @ India , both the catastrophic numbers of cases and how that compares to the death toll — for example , in Mumbai ?
DR. MONICA GANDHI : Yeah , that ’ s a very interesting question about India .
And India is — it is catastrophic in terms of number of cases , because it is a very dense population , and it is a transmissible virus .
It is very transmissible .
The one cheap , easy thing we have available to us is mask wearing .
And when we think about @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Mumbai has the largest slums in the world — there is an ability not to socially distance , unfortunately , not to test and treat our way out of the pandemic .
There is an ability to wear masks .
And there is a hypothesis that the relatively lower death rate compared to other places is that simple modality of taking a piece of cloth , which is very available to us in India , but — I mean , it ’ s part of the national costume — but taking the cloth @ @ @ @ @ @ @ I think that places that have had lower death rates , there ’ s lots of hypotheses , because we thought it would be higher .
And one is that there ’ s possibly cross-reactivity from other coronaviruses that people have been exposed to .
And the other is this simple act of covering the nose and mouth .
AMY GOODMAN : Do you recommend certain kinds of masks ?
DR. MONICA GANDHI : Yes .
I mean , this is a great question about what kind of masks .
The way that @ @ @ @ @ @ @ masks are very tight-fitting .
Those are the ones that we wear in the hospital .
They are most effective at blocking out viral particles , but they ’ re very uncomfortable .
I wore one the other day for like two hours , and it ’ s , like , really uncomfortable .
They are very comfortable , and they do not lend themselves to wearing all day .
We actually have to change our strategy , where we start thinking it is a piece of our clothing .
And beyond that @ @ @ @ @ @ @ masks to be preserved for personal protective equipment for healthcare workers .
So , there ’ s two options , really , that — at least , again , from modeling from other respiratory viruses .
We can never take people , you know , put masks on them and spray this virus into their face .
That would be totally unethical .
It ’ s a deadly virus .
So , from other modelings , from animal studies , it really is two options , I think .
One is a surgical @ @ @ @ @ @ @ get .
And then the second is a cloth face covering .
And I ’ d recommend cotton with two ply , so not one , but two ply , that you can pull apart .
Make it fit over your nose and mouth , so definitely have to bring it up over the nose , over the ears , and pretty snug fitting , if you can get it .
And make it something that becomes part of your — I actually just bought , like , really pretty masks yesterday , @ @ @ @ @ @ @ now have masks that I ’ m really , like , kind of into .
It ’ s increasing my compliance .
So , to be honest , like , we have to make it second skin for maybe a year .
I mean , when Dr. Redfield said what he said about vaccines , when we think about preventative modalities for any infectious diseases , we don ’ t know when we ’ re going to get a vaccine .
We have to do — we have to get to vaccines safely @ @ @ @ @ @ @ .
They are not going to be 100 % effective .
Some vaccine trials have 50 % as their vaccine efficacy standpoint .
Seventy percent is what Dr. Redfield said , that we may have some that are 70 % .
You may need two doses .
It may take a while to get to immunogenicity .
You need some time .
And we ’ re going to be wearing a mask that entire time .
So make it comfortable .
Make it cotton or a cloth .
AMY GOODMAN : Some researchers @ @ @ @ @ @ @ with infected people while wearing masks may receive a lower inoculum or dose of the virus , which could make them less likely to develop a severe case of COVID-19 .
DR. MONICA GANDHI : Yes .
That is really based on — it ’ s a theory , but I think it ’ s gaining a lot of observational evidence behind it , that the lower — that because a mask filters out the majority of viral particles , you get less in , if you do end up getting infected .
@ @ @ @ @ @ @ a less severe disease .
So , we get that idea from animal models .
Animal models , animals who get less virus in , they get less sick .
Get an idea from hamsters — even when you give them less of the COVID virus , they get less sick .
And then , as we ’ ve been watching outbreaks around the world , settings where you ’ re wearing a mask seem to drive down the severity of infection and drive up the rate of asymptomatic disease .
More study @ @ @ @ @ @ @ what about how often you wear the same mask ?
DR. MONICA GANDHI : Yes .
I mean , they shouldn ’ t get wet or soiled .
And really , I would wash them at least every other day .
And — DR. MONICA GANDHI : Yeah .
Yes , exactly .
So , paper , you can ’ t .
You can ’ t wash them .
So , take your , like , five or six cloth masks and wash them every day , keep them clean .
And make @ @ @ @ @ @ @ , make it part of your costume .
AMY GOODMAN : Finally , I wanted to ask you — this was that town hall meeting held by ABC , President Trump repeating his claim that the coronavirus would just go away .
AMY GOODMAN : A “ herd mentality , ” he said .
That was President Trump , speaking with George Stephanopoulos , appearing to reference herd immunity .
And so , I wanted to go then to what ’ s happening in your neck of the woods , nearby at Stanford @ @ @ @ @ @ @ , Marc Kasowitz , has threatened to sue scores of Stanford professors , epidemiologists , infectious disease docs , researchers , after they published an open letter denouncing the qualifications of Dr. Scott Atlas , a colleague at Stanford who is now advising Trump on the pandemic .
Atlas is a neuroradiologist with no expertise in infectious diseases .
He has pushed on Fox News for the controversial herd immunity strategy , which could result in deaths of millions of more Americans .
In an open letter to the Stanford docs [ sic @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Atlas , quote , “ The guidance he is giving to the White House does not reflect sound epidemiological reasoning , nor is it consistent with the current body of scientific knowledge about COVID-19 , ” unquote .
Attorney Marc Kasowitz , who ’ s now representing Atlas , has threatened to sue the signatories of the open letter , has demanded a retraction by today , saying the letter maliciously defames his client .
Stanford professor Michael Fischbach responded to the threat by writing on Twitter , “ I stand by everything @ @ @ @ @ @ @ science .
Less Kasowitz , ” unquote .
And full disclosure : My brother , Dr. Steve Goodman , is a dean at the Stanford School of Medicine , one of the signatories of the letter .
But , Dr. Gandhi , could you respond to this ?
No masks and herd immunity ?
DR. MONICA GANDHI : Yes .
So , I don ’ t think those two things go together — no masks and herd immunity .
So , what is herd immunity ?
It ’ s a true concept .
@ @ @ @ @ @ @ .
The concept is that when more of the population becomes immune to the coronavirus or to any infection , that it ’ s — the virus is bopping around , it can ’ t find anyone to infect , and it will start slowing its spread .
However , there are two ways to get to herd immunity .
One is letting natural infection rage .
That is not something that we would do with an infection that is deadly to so many people .
And the other is a vaccine that @ @ @ @ @ @ @ wearing , the reason it ’ s so important is , even if you get infected , if you get less of symptoms , then that would be another way that it ’ s possible that , with mask wearing , you have asymptomatic disease , and you can get to herd immunity .
But letting — no masks and herd immunity , put together , is going to result in many more deaths .
It ’ s just not sound .
DR. MONICA GANDHI : Possibly millions of deaths .
It is @ @ @ @ @ @ @ t understand being against masks and then being for immunity .
I think you have to be for both .
AMY GOODMAN : So , and then you President Trump ’ s personal lawyer threatening to sue scientists who are raising this concern ?
How does this interfere with the scientific process ?
DR. MONICA GANDHI : You know , at the moment , it is — actually , the beginning of the pandemic , I was excited that I ’ m an infectious disease doctor .
I was like , “ Wow @ @ @ @ @ @ @ I ’ m doing something that ’ s helpful.
” To be honest , this has been so politicized and so strange to be an infectious disease doctor in the middle of a pandemic in Trump ’ s America , that it is — I actually used to be on Twitter , and three days ago I got off because I was getting threats about my propounding mask wearing .
And I can ’ t — I couldn ’ t understand the threats .
By the way , masks don ’ t reduce @ @ @ @ @ @ @ it can get through masks .
So , it is really difficult to be right now just like speaking clearly about a pandemic and having attacks .
And so , these scientists are right that you have to just propound what ’ s right , what ’ s tried and true , public health principles , what we know about the infection .
And that ’ s how you have to put forth knowledge .
And the attacks and the conspiracy theories have been amazing .
I ’ ve not seen anything like @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Gandhi , we want to thank you so much for being with us , a professor of medicine — AMY GOODMAN : — and associate division chief of the Division of HIV , Infectious Diseases and Global Medicine at University of California , San Francisco .
That ’ s UCSF , San Francisco General Hospital .
Next up , as Hurricane Sally batters the Gulf Coast and climate-fueled wildfires continue to ravage the West , we ’ ll speak with David Goodrich , former climate scientist with NOAA — that ’ s the @ @ @ @ @ @

This is a rush transcript. Copy may not be in its final form.
AMY GOODMAN: This is Democracy Now! The Quarantine Report. I’m Amy Goodman. As the official U.S. death toll from COVID-19 approaches 200,000, with more than 6.6 million reported cases, The Washington Post has revealed the White House scuttled a plan to distribute 650 million cloth face masks to every residence in the United States during the early weeks of the coronavirus pandemic. Vice President Pence and other officials rejected the proposal because, quote, “receiving masks might create concern or panic.” A draft press release about the plan from the U.S. Postal Service reads, “The first shipments are expected to reach U.S. households as early as April xx” — with the date left incomplete.
One study by the Center for Economic Policy Research found widespread mask use across the United States would have saved 40,000 lives in the months of April and May alone.
This comes as the head of the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention warned Wednesday U.S. residents should not expect to receive a vaccine for the coronavirus until at least mid-2021, contradicting President Trump’s claim at least 100 million doses could be distributed by the end of 2020. Dr. Robert Redfield was speaking at a Senate hearing on the federal government’s response to the pandemic.
DR. ROBERT REDFIELD: The face masks, these face masks, are the most important, powerful public health tool we have. And I will continue to appeal for all Americans, all individuals in our country, to embrace these face coverings. I’ve said that if we did it for six, eight, 10, 12 weeks, we’d bring this pandemic under control. These, actually, we have clear scientific evidence they work, and they are our best defense. I might even go so far as to say that this face mask is more guaranteed to protect me against COVID than when I take a COVID vaccine, because the immunogenicity may be 70%, and if I don’t get an immune response, the vaccine is not going to protect me. This face mask will.
AMY GOODMAN: President Trump lashed out at Dr. Redfield’s testimony, telling reporters in the White House press briefing room the top U.S. public health official misspoke.
PRESIDENT DONALD TRUMP: I think he made a mistake when he said that. It’s just incorrect information. And I called him, and he didn’t tell me that. And I think he got the message maybe confused.
AMY GOODMAN: Trump also contradicted the CDC director over masks, saying a vaccine would be much more effective than facial coverings at stopping the spread of the coronavirus. His comment came after Dr. Redfield estimated a potential coronavirus vaccine might only be 70% effective at generating an immune response, making widespread mask use critical to ending the pandemic. During a town hall event Tuesday on ABC hosted by George Stephanopoulos, Trump again downplayed the use of masks.
PRESIDENT DONALD TRUMP: There are a lot of people think the masks are not good. And there are a lot of people that — as an example, you have —
GEORGE STEPHANOPOULOS: But what are those people?
PRESIDENT DONALD TRUMP: I’ll tell you who those people are: waiters. They come over, and they serve you, and they have a mask. And I saw it the other day, where they were serving me. And they’re playing with a mask. I’m not blaming them; I’m just saying what happens. They’re playing with a mask. So, the mask is over, and they’re touching it, and then they’re touching the plate. That can’t be good.
AMY GOODMAN: Well, for more, we’re joined by Dr. Monica Gandhi, an expert in infectious diseases, professor of medicine and associate division chief of the Division of HIV, Infectious Diseases and Global Medicine at UCSF, San Francisco General Hospital.
Welcome to Democracy Now!, Dr. Gandhi. It’s great to have you with us.
DR. MONICA GANDHI: Thank you.
AMY GOODMAN: If you can respond to what President Trump is saying and how important you think masks are?
DR. MONICA GANDHI: Yes, I think this is great that you’re talking about this on this program, because masks are a pillar of pandemic control. They’re incredibly important. And there is no country in the world right now who has been fighting masks like this, especially at the presidential level. And if we could have started mask wearing, consistent mask wearing, at the beginning, we would have averted deaths and cases.
And, you know, one thing I do have to say, because I remember this day very well, the day that the CDC recommended population-level mask wearing, which was April 3rd, and the way it was told to us as the American public was by the president of the United States. And he came out at a press conference and said — held it up and said, “I think these are optional. I think it’s voluntary. And I’m not going to wear it.” And that way of messaging to the American public, including what you just said, over the last couple of months, has been very detrimental to our attempt to get universal mask wearing.
AMY GOODMAN: Why is it so critical what Trump has failed to do, and in so doing, puts out a very strong message? He refuses, consistently, to wear a mask, only a few times in all of the months of the pandemic. And the last time was in a hospital, so, you know, people do wear masks in hospitals. President Trump refuses to wear a mask. When questioned about whether he was endangering the thousands of people who come to see him at a rally who are largely maskless, he says, “Look at me. I’m socially distancing. I’m fine up here,” which is probably true. But they are not. They are not social distancing. They are not wearing masks. Explain, though it may be intuitively obvious to people, why masks make a difference, and when you came to this conclusion.
DR. MONICA GANDHI: You know, masks make a huge difference. I really — I don’t think I could stress how important I think this is as a pillar of pandemic control.
So, there are two reasons that masks work so very well. One is that, you know, when this started spreading, the coronavirus, so quickly, at January, February, March, people were like, “What could be happening?” People started talking about surfaces, fomites. You know, there was such confusion. And then really what happened is that it turns out — and we haven’t seen this for a long time in infectious diseases — that even though you feel well, you can shed the virus at high rates from your mouth and nose, even when you feel fine. And by definition, that asymptomatic spread means that if you cover your mouth and nose, which is where it’s coming out, that you can protect others. That’s one point about masking, that you protect others.
I think there was a problem at the beginning of the pandemic that we just messaged that these can protect others. We are not in a stage in our country that civic duty is working out really well for us. And to be honest, we should have probably messaged that it protects others and protects yourself. And where did we get the idea that it protects yourself? From decades of literature with other respiratory viruses that putting on a mask protects you. We had actually — totally, completely commonsense, actually. But the idea that it protects you is that you block the areas in which you’re most likely to imbibe the virus: your nostrils and your mouth. And so, we’ve actually started messaging in California, in San Francisco, where I live — we’ve changed our messaging to say “protect you, and protect others.”
So, there’s two huge imports of masks, which is that it protects others, it protects you. And if we could just wear this — and I really commend Dr. Redfield for saying it so forcefully, the clip that you just played on your program, two days ago to the Senate. If we could just do this consistently, we can get through this pandemic. There are other strategies, of course, but this is a pillar of pandemic control.
AMY GOODMAN: I mean, this is quite amazing, what Dr. Redfield said. He said this could be more effective — not just a supplement, more effective — than a vaccine. Talk about the effectiveness of masks —
DR. MONICA GANDHI: Yes.
AMY GOODMAN: — and why it matters, the whole issue of asymptomatic versus people who die.
DR. MONICA GANDHI: Yes, it means so much to mask. Now, there’s another theory that’s being propounded that it also helps decrease the severity of disease, because if you mask up, you get less viral particles in, and if you get less viral particles in — say that you are unlucky to get infected — you get less viral particles in, there is evidence from animal models and outbreak investigations and even country-level data that you’re less likely to get sick.
Of course it’s important to drive up the proportion of those who have asymptomatic infection. This is a deadly disease for some, and then, for others, they’re completely well. It’s actually really confusing and protean in its manifestations. Dr. Fauci has said this many times. How do you get people being completely well and some people being so ill? And so, anything that we can do to drive up the proportion of people who feel well, that’s exactly what we should be doing. And the important part about that is they can also spread it if they feel well. So masking is so incredibly important for the response.
There has never been a country where mask guidelines are announced by someone with reluctance, by someone who doesn’t model mask wearing. I can’t really stress the importance of modeling by public health leaders, by presidents, by mayors, by governors, to convince the populace that this is important. Raising questions on masks six months into the pandemic, when we have been the epicenter of the pandemic since March 26 — we have not moved from that dubious position. Literally, the pandemic actually was declared by the WHO on March 11th, because, before that, it was called a “global health emergency.” March 11th, pandemic; March 26th, the United States becomes the epicenter. And we haven’t budged from that position. We’re clearly doing many things wrong. But this mask wearing, if we could have just modeled it from the beginning — I’ve seen Trump and Pence in mask, I think, twice or thrice — it is so important. I really don’t know how to stress how important it is to model that for people in the country.
AMY GOODMAN: So, you mentioned other countries. Can you talk about what has been done in other countries and the proof that masks make a difference?
DR. MONICA GANDHI: Yes. I mean, actually, it’s so interesting, because no other country, hands down, has fought mask wearing like we have in the United States. And so, I give you two good examples, because I really like these examples. Taiwan, March 6, very early in the pandemic, they have a country near them in which the pandemic is still raging, which is China. They literally pull out all the stops and make factories and industry convert to mask wearing, because they knew about mask wearing since SARS, which was the pandemic in 2003. They mass-produced masks, and the populace wears them without debates like this, because it’s such an important pillar of control. And they have had a handful of deaths in a country of 23 million people. They hand out masks. They provide masks. They model mask wearing. They message mask wearing. They have billboards with mask wearing. It just wasn’t an issue. Same with actually many Asian countries — Vietnam, Thailand, Japan, Singapore, South Korea. From SARS, they knew how to mask.
And then, I like talking about the Czech Republic, because they weren’t affected by SARS in 2003, but they just figured it out, put out a mandate for mask wearing on March 23rd, also quite early in the pandemic. And they got through their pandemic so quickly. Everyone wore cloth face coverings. And by May 11th, they were like, “OK, we’re done. You can start taking off your face coverings.” They had such low death rates and such a good response. No one has fought it, though, like the United States. No one. So I can name many, many other countries where it’s not an issue.
AMY GOODMAN: So, your family is from India.
DR. MONICA GANDHI: Yes.
AMY GOODMAN: Can you talk about what’s happened in India, both the catastrophic numbers of cases and how that compares to the death toll — for example, in Mumbai?
DR. MONICA GANDHI: Yeah, that’s a very interesting question about India. And India is — it is catastrophic in terms of number of cases, because it is a very dense population, and it is a transmissible virus. It is very transmissible. The one cheap, easy thing we have available to us is mask wearing. And when we think about Mumbai — and, of course, Mumbai has the largest slums in the world — there is an ability not to socially distance, unfortunately, not to test and treat our way out of the pandemic. There is an ability to wear masks.
And there is a hypothesis that the relatively lower death rate compared to other places is that simple modality of taking a piece of cloth, which is very available to us in India, but — I mean, it’s part of the national costume — but taking the cloth and covering the face and nose. I think that places that have had lower death rates, there’s lots of hypotheses, because we thought it would be higher. And one is that there’s possibly cross-reactivity from other coronaviruses that people have been exposed to. And the other is this simple act of covering the nose and mouth.
AMY GOODMAN: Do you recommend certain kinds of masks?
DR. MONICA GANDHI: Yes. I mean, this is a great question about what kind of masks. The way that I think about it is that N95 masks are very tight-fitting. Those are the ones that we wear in the hospital. They are most effective at blocking out viral particles, but they’re very uncomfortable. I wore one the other day for like two hours, and it’s, like, really uncomfortable. They are very comfortable, and they do not lend themselves to wearing all day. We actually have to change our strategy, where we start thinking it is a piece of our clothing. And beyond that, we really do ask for N95 masks to be preserved for personal protective equipment for healthcare workers.
So, there’s two options, really, that — at least, again, from modeling from other respiratory viruses. We can never take people, you know, put masks on them and spray this virus into their face. That would be totally unethical. It’s a deadly virus. So, from other modelings, from animal studies, it really is two options, I think. One is a surgical mask, which is pretty easy to get. And then the second is a cloth face covering. And I’d recommend cotton with two ply, so not one, but two ply, that you can pull apart. Make it fit over your nose and mouth, so definitely have to bring it up over the nose, over the ears, and pretty snug fitting, if you can get it. And make it something that becomes part of your — I actually just bought, like, really pretty masks yesterday, and I was very excited that I now have masks that I’m really, like, kind of into. It’s increasing my compliance.
So, to be honest, like, we have to make it second skin for maybe a year. I mean, when Dr. Redfield said what he said about vaccines, when we think about preventative modalities for any infectious diseases, we don’t know when we’re going to get a vaccine. We have to do — we have to get to vaccines safely. We have to make them effective. They are not going to be 100% effective. Some vaccine trials have 50% as their vaccine efficacy standpoint. Seventy percent is what Dr. Redfield said, that we may have some that are 70%. You may need two doses. It may take a while to get to immunogenicity. You need some time. And we’re going to be wearing a mask that entire time. So make it comfortable. Make it cotton or a cloth.
AMY GOODMAN: Some researchers suggest that people who come into contact with infected people while wearing masks may receive a lower inoculum or dose of the virus, which could make them less likely to develop a severe case of COVID-19.
DR. MONICA GANDHI: Yes. That is really based on — it’s a theory, but I think it’s gaining a lot of observational evidence behind it, that the lower — that because a mask filters out the majority of viral particles, you get less in, if you do end up getting infected. And getting less in may lead to a less severe disease. So, we get that idea from animal models. Animal models, animals who get less virus in, they get less sick. Get an idea from hamsters — even when you give them less of the COVID virus, they get less sick. And then, as we’ve been watching outbreaks around the world, settings where you’re wearing a mask seem to drive down the severity of infection and drive up the rate of asymptomatic disease. More study is needed.
AMY GOODMAN: And what about how often you wear the same mask?
DR. MONICA GANDHI: Yes. I mean, they shouldn’t get wet or soiled. And really, I would wash them at least every other day. And —
AMY GOODMAN: That’s if they’re not paper.
DR. MONICA GANDHI: Yeah. Yes, exactly. So, paper, you can’t. You can’t wash them. So, take your, like, five or six cloth masks and wash them every day, keep them clean. And make it part of your day. Like, make it part of your costume.
AMY GOODMAN: Finally, I wanted to ask you — this was that town hall meeting held by ABC, President Trump repeating his claim that the coronavirus would just go away.
PRESIDENT DONALD TRUMP: We’re going to be OK. And it is going away. And it’s probably going to go away now a lot faster because of the vaccine. It would go away without the vaccine, George. But it’s going to go away a lot faster with the vaccine.
GEORGE STEPHANOPOULOS: It will go away without the vaccine?
PRESIDENT DONALD TRUMP: Sure, over a period of time. Sure, with time, it goes away.
GEORGE STEPHANOPOULOS: And many deaths.
PRESIDENT DONALD TRUMP: And you’ll develop — you’ll develop herd — like a herd mentality. It’s going to be — it’s going to be herd-developed.
AMY GOODMAN: A “herd mentality,” he said. That was President Trump, speaking with George Stephanopoulos, appearing to reference herd immunity.
And so, I wanted to go then to what’s happening in your neck of the woods, nearby at Stanford. President Trump’s personal lawyer, Marc Kasowitz, has threatened to sue scores of Stanford professors, epidemiologists, infectious disease docs, researchers, after they published an open letter denouncing the qualifications of Dr. Scott Atlas, a colleague at Stanford who is now advising Trump on the pandemic. Atlas is a neuroradiologist with no expertise in infectious diseases. He has pushed on Fox News for the controversial herd immunity strategy, which could result in deaths of millions of more Americans. In an open letter to the Stanford docs [sic] — the doctors wrote of Dr. Atlas, quote, “The guidance he is giving to the White House does not reflect sound epidemiological reasoning, nor is it consistent with the current body of scientific knowledge about COVID-19,” unquote.
Attorney Marc Kasowitz, who’s now representing Atlas, has threatened to sue the signatories of the open letter, has demanded a retraction by today, saying the letter maliciously defames his client. Stanford professor Michael Fischbach responded to the threat by writing on Twitter, “I stand by everything we said. More facts, more science. Less Kasowitz,” unquote.
And full disclosure: My brother, Dr. Steve Goodman, is a dean at the Stanford School of Medicine, one of the signatories of the letter.
But, Dr. Gandhi, could you respond to this? No masks and herd immunity?
DR. MONICA GANDHI: Yes. So, I don’t think those two things go together — no masks and herd immunity. So, what is herd immunity? It’s a true concept. It’s a very valid concept. The concept is that when more of the population becomes immune to the coronavirus or to any infection, that it’s — the virus is bopping around, it can’t find anyone to infect, and it will start slowing its spread.
However, there are two ways to get to herd immunity. One is letting natural infection rage. That is not something that we would do with an infection that is deadly to so many people. And the other is a vaccine that will make us immune.
And mask wearing, the reason it’s so important is, even if you get infected, if you get less of symptoms, then that would be another way that it’s possible that, with mask wearing, you have asymptomatic disease, and you can get to herd immunity. But letting — no masks and herd immunity, put together, is going to result in many more deaths. It’s just not sound.
AMY GOODMAN: And possibly millions of deaths?
DR. MONICA GANDHI: Possibly millions of deaths. It is not sound advice. I don’t understand being against masks and then being for immunity. I think you have to be for both.
AMY GOODMAN: So, and then you President Trump’s personal lawyer threatening to sue scientists who are raising this concern? How does this interfere with the scientific process?
DR. MONICA GANDHI: You know, at the moment, it is — actually, the beginning of the pandemic, I was excited that I’m an infectious disease doctor. I was like, “Wow! This is important. Like, I’m doing something that’s helpful.” To be honest, this has been so politicized and so strange to be an infectious disease doctor in the middle of a pandemic in Trump’s America, that it is — I actually used to be on Twitter, and three days ago I got off because I was getting threats about my propounding mask wearing. And I can’t — I couldn’t understand the threats.
By the way, masks don’t reduce oxygenation. Oxygen is really tiny; it can get through masks.
So, it is really difficult to be right now just like speaking clearly about a pandemic and having attacks. And so, these scientists are right that you have to just propound what’s right, what’s tried and true, public health principles, what we know about the infection. And that’s how you have to put forth knowledge. And the attacks and the conspiracy theories have been amazing. I’ve not seen anything like this.
AMY GOODMAN: Dr. Monica Gandhi, we want to thank you so much for being with us, a professor of medicine —
DR. MONICA GANDHI: Thank you.
AMY GOODMAN: — and associate division chief of the Division of HIV, Infectious Diseases and Global Medicine at University of California, San Francisco. That’s UCSF, San Francisco General Hospital.
Next up, as Hurricane Sally batters the Gulf Coast and climate-fueled wildfires continue to ravage the West, we’ll speak with David Goodrich, former climate scientist with NOAA — that’s the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration.


democracynow--2020-09-18--Headlines for September 18, 2020

Headlines for September 18, 2020

President Trump ’ s personal lawyer Marc Kasowitz has threatened to sue scores of Stanford professors and researchers after they published an open letter denouncing the qualifications of Scott Atlas , a colleague at Stanford who is now advising Trump on the pandemic .
Atlas is a neuroradiologist with no expertise in infectious diseases .
The Washington Post recently reported Atlas is pushing Trump to promote a controversial herd immunity strategy which could result in the deaths of millions of more Americans .
In an open letter , the Stanford doctors wrote of Dr. Atlas , “ The guidance he @ @ @ @ @ @ @ not reflect sound epidemiological reasoning , nor is it consistent with the current body of scientific knowledge about COVID-19.
” Attorney Marc Kasowitz , who is now representing Atlas , has threatened to sue signatories of the open letter and has demanded a retraction , saying the letter “ maliciously defames ” his client .
Stanford professor Michael Fischbach responded to the threat by writing on Twitter , “ I stand by everything we said .
More facts , more science .
Less Kasowitz.
” Full disclosure : Amy Goodman ’ s brother @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Stanford School of Medicine and one of the writers of the letter .

President Trump’s personal lawyer Marc Kasowitz has threatened to sue scores of Stanford professors and researchers after they published an open letter denouncing the qualifications of Scott Atlas, a colleague at Stanford who is now advising Trump on the pandemic. Atlas is a neuroradiologist with no expertise in infectious diseases. The Washington Post recently reported Atlas is pushing Trump to promote a controversial herd immunity strategy which could result in the deaths of millions of more Americans.
In an open letter, the Stanford doctors wrote of Dr. Atlas, “The guidance he is giving to the White House does not reflect sound epidemiological reasoning, nor is it consistent with the current body of scientific knowledge about COVID-19.”
Attorney Marc Kasowitz, who is now representing Atlas, has threatened to sue signatories of the open letter and has demanded a retraction, saying the letter “maliciously defames” his client.
Stanford professor Michael Fischbach responded to the threat by writing on Twitter, “I stand by everything we said. More facts, more science. Less Kasowitz.” Full disclosure: Amy Goodman’s brother Steven Goodman is a dean at the Stanford School of Medicine and one of the writers of the letter.


democracynow--2020-09-21--"A National Tragedy": Ruth Bader Ginsburg's Friend & "Favorite Client" Remembers the Legal Icon

This is a rush transcript .
Copy may not be in its final form .
AMY GOODMAN : This is Democracy Now !
The Quarantine Report .
I ’ m Amy Goodman .
Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg died Friday at the age of 87 .
We now look at one of the cases for which she first gained fame in the '70s , when she co-founded the Women 's Rights Project at the American Civil Liberties Union and argued six gender discrimination cases before the Supreme Court .
The case ’ s name was Weinberger v. Wiesenfeld .
Justice Ginsburg @ @ @ @ @ @ @ explain the case in this clip from the award-winning documentary RBG .
We also hear from feminist icon Gloria Steinem .
But it begins with Justice Ginsburg .
AMY GOODMAN : That was Gloria Steinem .
Well , Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg called the Supreme Court win her favorite case .
The plaintiff , Stephen Wiesenfeld , became a lifelong friend .
She officiated both at his and his son ’ s weddings .
Well , Stephen Wiesenfeld joins us now from Asheville , North Carolina .
Welcome to Democracy Now !
, @ @ @ @ @ @ @ passing of your dear friend , and also the significance of this case ?
STEPHEN WIESENFELD : Good morning to you .
Thank you for having me here .
My grief was heavy on Friday night , and it still is today .
And it ’ s on two levels , one of course being the personal level , but more important is that it ’ s a national tragedy .
She was really the protector of the freedoms of — or , the problems that occur in society , ending gender-based discrimination @ @ @ @ @ @ @ between creeds .
Her belief was from the United States Constitution , where in the Preamble it says “ We the people.
” She considered everybody to be “ We the people.
” Everybody should be treated equally under the law .
And just to continue for a moment on what Julie was saying , the way the laws have been written , before 1970 , before Ruth Bader Ginsburg came along , the stereotypes are that males , they work , they pay money into their systems , they receive a salary @ @ @ @ @ @ @ .
Women stay home , they raise children , they take care of the house .
And she , between 1972 and 1978 , in just a six-year period , took the Warren Burger very conservative court and taught them that the stereotypes , when they hurt one gender , hurt the other gender , as well , and used my case to point that out .
There were three points of view that she dealt with the case , first one from the point of view of the woman .
Now , @ @ @ @ @ @ @ a schoolteacher before she gave birth and passed away .
And she paid money into the Social Security system .
A similarly situated male , working seven years at the school system , being paid the exact amount , paying money into the Social Security system , when he passed away , his wife would receive a Social Security benefit .
When a woman passed away , the male surviving husband did not receive a benefit .
And Ruth Bader Ginsburg felt that this made the woman ’ s money , the salary @ @ @ @ @ @ @ the male ’ s .
Her money got lost even though she was paying into the system .
It did not have an actual insurance benefit for the surviving spouse .
STEPHEN WIESENFELD : So , that was one — yes .
AMY GOODMAN : So , in these last few minutes we have , can you talk about when Ruth Bader Ginsburg contacted you , and what the decision meant for you , the Supreme Court decision that she won so overwhelmingly ?
STEPHEN WIESENFELD : She contacted me because I had @ @ @ @ @ @ @ that you just played .
And a woman named Phyllis Zatlin Boring , who worked at Rutgers University — she was a teacher there — and was friends with Ruth , who also was working at Rutgers University , and contacted me and asked me if I ’ d like to pursue this further .
And I said , “ That actually happens to be why I wrote the letter , is because I was looking for somebody to give me some direction and to point out this inequity in the law.
” @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Ruth Bader Ginsburg .
Ruth had just become co-founder of the Women ’ s Rights Project at the American Civil Liberties Union .
And they helped us along with the case .
AMY GOODMAN : And , Stephen , the day the Supreme Court handed down its unanimous decision in your favor ?
STEPHEN WIESENFELD : Was March 19th , 1975 .
And it came about 11:30 or so in the morning of — that was a Wednesday .
And a neighbor called me , told me about it .
A couple of @ @ @ @ @ @ @ .
I gave an interview .
As soon as I got off the phone , Ruth was on the phone .
She was on a highway .
There used to be pay booths on the highway at that time , pay phone booths .
And so she stopped at one and called me and gave me the news .
And her big question to me was : How did they vote ?
It was very important to her to know what the decision was .
So , at the next phone call , @ @ @ @ @ @ @ to nothing , Justice William Douglas being ill at the time .
AMY GOODMAN : So , finally , she then , decades later , would officiate over your second wedding and also the son who you raised at home , his wedding , too , Jason ’ s wedding ?
STEPHEN WIESENFELD : Yes .
In 1998 , my son Jason married at Coral Gables , Florida .
And she came to visit for the weekend .
And I married my second wife Elaine in 2014 .
And so , there , @ @ @ @ @ @ @ were married by her with our immediate families around us .
AMY GOODMAN : Well , again , condolences on this loss , that is personal for you , as well as global , Stephen Wiesenfeld , plaintiff in the 1975 Weinberger v. Wiesenfeld case .
Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg once called him her favorite plaintiff .
And this update : President Trump has just said he plans to announce his pick to replace Ruth Bader Ginsburg on Friday or Saturday .
He said his shortlist is down to five people .
And @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Democracy Now !
is produced with Renée Feltz , Mike Burke , Deena Guzder , Libby Rainey , Nermeen Shaikh , María Taracena , Carla Wills , Tami Woronoff , Charina Nadura , Sam Alcoff , Tey-Marie Astudillo , John Hamilton , Robby Karran , Hany Massoud and Adriano Contreras .
Special thanks to our general manager Julie Crosby , Becca Staley .
I ’ m Amy Goodman .
Stay safe .
Wear a mask .

This is a rush transcript. Copy may not be in its final form.
AMY GOODMAN: This is Democracy Now! The Quarantine Report. I’m Amy Goodman.
Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg died Friday at the age of 87. We now look at one of the cases for which she first gained fame in the '70s, when she co-founded the Women's Rights Project at the American Civil Liberties Union and argued six gender discrimination cases before the Supreme Court. The case’s name was Weinberger v. Wiesenfeld. Justice Ginsburg and her plaintiff, Stephen Wiesenfeld, explain the case in this clip from the award-winning documentary RBG. We also hear from feminist icon Gloria Steinem. But it begins with Justice Ginsburg.
RUTH BADER GINSBURG: A young man had a tragic experience. His wife had an entirely healthy pregnancy, and he was told that he had a healthy baby boy, but his wife had died.
STEPHEN WIESENFELD: The problem was an amniotic embolism. And at that particular point, nobody had ever survived that. They did keep her alive for about four hours. But by 3:30 in the afternoon, the code blue came along, and she died. Jason was a very easy child. My attitude toward raising a child is that a child is not there for me, I’m there for him. And that’s what my job was.
RUTH BADER GINSBURG: He determined that he was going to be a caregiving parent to that child. He went to the local Social Security office and asked about the benefits that he thought a sole surviving parent could get. And he was told that benefit is called a mother’s benefit, and he didn’t qualify. So he wrote a letter to the editor of his local newspaper, and he said, “I’ve heard a lot about women’s lib. Let me tell you my story.”
STEPHEN WIESENFELD: “To the editor: … It has been my misfortune to discover that a male can not collect Social Security benefits as a woman can. … Had I been paying into the Social Security system and had I died, she would have been able to receive a benefit, but male homemakers can not.” I wonder if Gloria Steinem knows about this?
GLORIA STEINEM: Ruth took a case in which a man was discriminated against in order to show the depth and the importance of sex discrimination. Very intelligent thing to do.
AMY GOODMAN: That was Gloria Steinem. Well, Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg called the Supreme Court win her favorite case. The plaintiff, Stephen Wiesenfeld, became a lifelong friend. She officiated both at his and his son’s weddings.
Well, Stephen Wiesenfeld joins us now from Asheville, North Carolina.
Welcome to Democracy Now!, Stephen. Your thoughts today on the passing of your dear friend, and also the significance of this case?
STEPHEN WIESENFELD: Good morning to you. Thank you for having me here.
My grief was heavy on Friday night, and it still is today. And it’s on two levels, one of course being the personal level, but more important is that it’s a national tragedy. She was really the protector of the freedoms of — or, the problems that occur in society, ending gender-based discrimination, difference between the races, difference between creeds. Her belief was from the United States Constitution, where in the Preamble it says “We the people.” She considered everybody to be “We the people.” Everybody should be treated equally under the law.
And just to continue for a moment on what Julie was saying, the way the laws have been written, before 1970, before Ruth Bader Ginsburg came along, the stereotypes are that males, they work, they pay money into their systems, they receive a salary, they take care of their families. Women stay home, they raise children, they take care of the house. And she, between 1972 and 1978, in just a six-year period, took the Warren Burger very conservative court and taught them that the stereotypes, when they hurt one gender, hurt the other gender, as well, and used my case to point that out.
There were three points of view that she dealt with the case, first one from the point of view of the woman. Now, my wife worked for seven years as a schoolteacher before she gave birth and passed away. And she paid money into the Social Security system. A similarly situated male, working seven years at the school system, being paid the exact amount, paying money into the Social Security system, when he passed away, his wife would receive a Social Security benefit. When a woman passed away, the male surviving husband did not receive a benefit. And Ruth Bader Ginsburg felt that this made the woman’s money, the salary that she earned, worth less than the male’s. Her money got lost even though she was paying into the system. It did not have an actual insurance benefit for the surviving spouse.
AMY GOODMAN: Talk —
STEPHEN WIESENFELD: So, that was one — yes.
AMY GOODMAN: So, in these last few minutes we have, can you talk about when Ruth Bader Ginsburg contacted you, and what the decision meant for you, the Supreme Court decision that she won so overwhelmingly?
STEPHEN WIESENFELD: She contacted me because I had written a letter to the editor, that you just played. And a woman named Phyllis Zatlin Boring, who worked at Rutgers University — she was a teacher there — and was friends with Ruth, who also was working at Rutgers University, and contacted me and asked me if I’d like to pursue this further. And I said, “That actually happens to be why I wrote the letter, is because I was looking for somebody to give me some direction and to point out this inequity in the law.” And she put me in touch with Ruth Bader Ginsburg. Ruth had just become co-founder of the Women’s Rights Project at the American Civil Liberties Union. And they helped us along with the case.
AMY GOODMAN: And, Stephen, the day the Supreme Court handed down its unanimous decision in your favor?
STEPHEN WIESENFELD: Was March 19th, 1975. And it came about 11:30 or so in the morning of — that was a Wednesday. And a neighbor called me, told me about it. A couple of minutes later, a radio station called. I gave an interview.
As soon as I got off the phone, Ruth was on the phone. She was on a highway. There used to be pay booths on the highway at that time, pay phone booths. And so she stopped at one and called me and gave me the news. And her big question to me was: How did they vote? It was very important to her to know what the decision was. So, at the next phone call, she found out that it was 8 to nothing, Justice William Douglas being ill at the time.
AMY GOODMAN: So, finally, she then, decades later, would officiate over your second wedding and also the son who you raised at home, his wedding, too, Jason’s wedding?
STEPHEN WIESENFELD: Yes. In 1998, my son Jason married at Coral Gables, Florida. And she came to visit for the weekend. And I married my second wife Elaine in 2014. And so, there, we went to the Supreme Court and were married by her with our immediate families around us.
AMY GOODMAN: Well, again, condolences on this loss, that is personal for you, as well as global, Stephen Wiesenfeld, plaintiff in the 1975 Weinberger v. Wiesenfeld case. Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg once called him her favorite plaintiff.
And this update: President Trump has just said he plans to announce his pick to replace Ruth Bader Ginsburg on Friday or Saturday. He said his shortlist is down to five people.
And that does it for our show. Democracy Now! is produced with Renée Feltz, Mike Burke, Deena Guzder, Libby Rainey, Nermeen Shaikh, María Taracena, Carla Wills, Tami Woronoff, Charina Nadura, Sam Alcoff, Tey-Marie Astudillo, John Hamilton, Robby Karran, Hany Massoud and Adriano Contreras. Special thanks to our general manager Julie Crosby, Becca Staley. I’m Amy Goodman. Stay safe. Wear a mask.