Senior Women Web

Author: SeniorWomenWeb

  • Jill Norgren Writes: Did Women in the US Campaign for Elective Office Fully Invested in the Prospect of Winning? “I cannot vote, but I can be voted for”

    Jill Norgren delivered this short talk at the “Nevertheless, She Persisted: 30 Years of Women Writing Women’s Lives Conference (Zoom), that celebrated the 30th Anniversary of the Women Writing Women’s Lives Seminar (New York City). She spoke on the “Nevertheless, Our Foremothers Persisted: Reflections on the 100th Anniversary of US Women’s Suffrage” panel.national park service poster

    In 2008 I published the biography of Belva Lockwood, one of the first women lawyers in the United States and, in 1884, the first woman to run a full campaign for the US presidency. Lockwood was ambitious and would have loved to win the office but, in fact, hers was a symbolic campaign meant to show that women were interested in politics. During the campaign she repeatedly said, “I cannot vote, but I can be voted for.”

    The fact of Lockwood’s campaign prompted several of my colleagues to ask:  Did other women seek elective office in the 19th and early 20th century in order to promote the discussion of women’s rights while not expecting to win? Or, equally radical, in these years did women in the United States campaign for elective office fully invested in the prospect of winning?

    Poster from Grand Rapids Americanization Society, c. 1924, from the collections of the National Museum of American History

    The answer to each question is a resounding YES! Between 1853 when Maine resident Olive Rose won a county political office and ratification of the 19th Amendment in 1920 at least 4000 women ran for political office in the United States, primarily at the town, county, or state level.

    The existence of these 4000 women was uncovered through research conducted by members of the HerHatWasintheRing Project.  Historian-biographers Wendy Chmielefski, Kristen Gwinn-Becker, and I founded the project, and its website — viewed at HERHATWASINTHERING.ORG — a decade ago. We guessed our sleuthing would bring to light 100 or 200 such women.  Believe me when I say that we did not expect thousands.

    So, briefly, who were these women, where did they live, and what offices did they run for? And how was it that they could run for office when many could not vote?

    These female candidates were primarily Caucasian and Christian. We do not find Jewish women or women of color appearing as candidates until a few years before 1920. Some came from modest economic circumstances; others were solidly middle class. Women candidates ran for office in their 20s and as seniors, but most were middle aged. They campaigned in states and territories all over our country — although very little in the South and Southwest.

  • Jill Norgren, They Made Good Trouble: U.S. Women Who Ran for Office 1853-1920

    Jill Norgren delivered this short talk at the “Nevertheless, She Persisted: 30 Years of Women Writing Women’s Lives” Conference (Zoom), that celebrated the 30th Anniversary of the Women Writing Women’s Lives Seminar (New York City). She spoke on the “Nevertheless, Our Foremothers Persisted: Reflections on the 100th Anniversary of U.S. Women’s Suffrage” panel.WWWL initials

    In 2008 I published the biography of Belva Lockwood, one of the first women lawyers in the United States and, in 1884, the first woman to run a full campaign for the U.S. presidency. Lockwood was ambitious and would have loved to win the office but, in fact, hers was a symbolic campaign meant to show that women were interested in politics. During the campaign she repeatedly said, “I cannot vote, but I can be voted for.”

    The fact of Lockwood’s campaign prompted several of my colleagues to ask:  Did other women seek elective office in the 19th and early 20th century in order to promote the discussion of women’s rights while not expecting to win? Or, equally radical, in these years did women in the United States campaign for elective office fully invested in the prospect of winning?

    The answer to each question is a resounding YES! Between 1853 when Maine resident Olive Rose won a county political office and ratification of the 19th Amendment in 1920 at least 4000 women ran for political office in the United States, primarily at the town, county, or state level.

    The existence of these 4000 women was uncovered through research conducted by members of the HerHatWasintheRing Project. Historian-biographers Wendy Chmielefski, Kristen Gwinn-Becker, and I founded the project and its website (see above) a decade ago. We guessed our sleuthing would bring to light 100 or 200 such women.  Believe me when I say that we did not expect thousands.

    So, briefly, who were these women, where did they live, and what offices did they run for? And how was it that they could run for office when many could not vote?

    These female candidates were primarily Caucasian and Christian. We do not find Jewish women or women of color appearing as candidates until a few years before 1920. Some came from modest economic circumstances; others were solidly middle class. Women candidates ran for office in their 20s and as seniors, but most were middle aged. They campaigned in states and territories all over our country although very little in the South and Southwest.

  • Judiciary Committee Hearings on Supreme Court Nominee, Amy Coney Barrett; Unlike most other congressional documents, hearings are not available from the Senate or House Document Rooms

    Amy Coney Barrett 

    Discover U.S. Government Information: https://www.govinfo.gov/

    Amy Coney Barrett 
    Rachel Malehorn / CC BY (https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/3.0)

    Read Ms. Barrett’s Opening Statement to the Committee

    Monday, Oct 12, 2020 9:00 AM – SH-216 Judiciary Hearings to examine the nomination of Amy Coney Barrett, of Indiana, to be an Associate Justice of the Supreme Court of the United States.

    Tuesday, Oct 13, 2020 9:00 AM – SH-216 Judiciary Hearings to examine the nomination of Amy Coney Barrett, of Indiana, to be an Associate Justice of the Supreme Court of the United States.

    Wednesday, Oct 14, 2020 9:00 AM – SH-216 Judiciary Hearings to examine the nomination of Amy Coney Barrett, of Indiana, to be an Associate Justice of the Supreme Court of the United States.

    Thursday, Oct 15, 2020 9:00 AM – SH-216 Judiciary Hearings to examine the nomination of Amy Coney Barrett, of Indiana, to be an Associate Justice of the Supreme Court of the United States.

    How to Find Committee Hearing Transcripts Titanic Hearings

    Report Published hearing transcripts contain all witness testimony, the question-and-answer portion of the hearing, and any other material requested of the witness by the committee. It may take several months, or even years, for a hearing to be published. Unlike most other congressional documents, hearings are not available from the Senate or House Document Rooms.

    Unpublished Congressional Hearings: 

    You may be able to locate a hearing from the Government Publishing Office’s govinfo website, from a committee website, or from a federal depository library. For more tips, read the guide How to find committee hearings.

    Related Links Senate Judiciary Committee: John Roberts confirmation hearing, Caucus Room, 2005 • Sitting Presidents & Vice Presidents Who Have Testified Before Congressional Committees • https://www.senate.gov/legislative/nominations/SupremeCourtNominations1789present.htm

  • The Electoral College: How America Chooses Its President; They’re Really Voting for the Slate of Electors Put Forward by the Political Party their Candidate Belongs To

    By , Journalist’s Resourcevote by mail, california

    Americans have never voted directly for president. The U.S. Constitution specifies that state electors — not everyday citizens registered to vote — elect the president and vice president. It’s those presidential electors registered voters choose on Election Day. Together, those electors make up the Electoral College.

    Right: On May 8, 2020, Governor Gavin Newsom issued Executive Order N-64-20, which, among other things, orders that a vote-by-mail ballot be mailed to each voter prior to the November 3, 2020 in addition to offering in-person voting locations.

    When registered voters choose President Donald Trump or former Vice President Joe Biden or another candidate on Nov. 3, what they’re really doing is telling nominated electors, “I want you to vote for this person for president.”

    Whichever candidate wins a state’s popular vote, it’s their party’s slate of electors who get to then vote for president. The candidate who receives a majority of electoral votes — 270 out of 538 — wins the presidency. The varied suite of state laws governing how presidential electors are nominated and cast votes is available from the National Association of Secretaries of State.

    Winner take all (electors)

    h Pederson / Unsplash)

    Thirty-two states require that their electoral votes go to the candidate who wins the statewide popular vote. Electors who snub the popular preference face fines or criminal charges in a few states. Electors typically vote for president at their state capitol roughly a month after Election Day. Individual secretary of state offices can answer questions about whether voting by presidential electors is open to the public.

    Maine and Nebraska are exceptions to the winner-take-all-electors rule. Those states have what’s called a “district system.” Two electoral votes go to the statewide popular vote winner. Then there’s one electoral vote for each congressional district, appointed based on the vote winner within the district. There are three congressional districts in Nebraska and two in Maine. In 2016, three of Maine’s electoral votes went to Hillary Clinton and one electoral vote from its 2nd congressional district went to Trump.

    The U.S. has what’s called “decentralized” voting. That means while there are federal agencies that do things like enforce campaign finance laws, there’s no federal agency or bureau that runs presidential elections. That job is left to individual states.

    The national census taken every 10 years determines each state’s number of representatives in the House of Representatives — as well as each state’s number of electors who vote for president. The number of presidential electors in a state equals the state’s total number of representatives and senators. The District of Columbia gets three electors.

    Processes vary for nominating electors

    The Constitution doesn’t say how state legislatures should nominate electors, and each state determines how it does so. In modern presidential elections, political parties in each state nominate electors through a variety of formal and informal processes during the spring and summer of an election year. Electors are usually active and loyal party members, so they’re expected to vote along party lines.

    The way it works oftentimes is that the major party organizations within a state — Republican and Democratic — nominate a slate of electors prior to Election Day and send those names to the secretary of state’s office. Some states require that electors be eligible voters, or registered to vote, or that they take an oath to honor their state’s popular vote results.

    Members of Congress cannot serve as presidential electors, but they choose the president and vice president if no ticket reaches the 270 threshold.

    Electors are not free agents: A longstanding tradition

    (Internet Archive)

    Historical practice dictates that presidential electors vote for president according to their state’s popular vote results. “Faithless electors” — those who vote contrary to the popular vote count — have never decided the presidency. Five times the Electoral College winner and eventual president lost the national popular vote: 1824, 1876, 1888, 2000 and 2016. Electors in Michigan and Utah who vote contrary to their state’s popular vote results automatically lose their position and are replaced. Faithless electors in New Mexico risk felony criminal charges.

    The U.S. Supreme Court affirmed in July that states have the right to put in place enforcement measures to ensure electors vote for their party’s nominee, if she or he wins the popular vote. Chiafalo v. Washington centered on three electors in Washington who violated their pledges to support Hillary Clinton in 2016, voting instead for former Secretary of State Colin Powell. The state fined each elector $1,000.

    Justice Elena Kagan wrote the opinion of the court, offering that the fines reflected “a longstanding tradition in which electors are not free agents; they are to vote for the candidate whom the State’s voters have chosen.”

    To recap: When voters make their choice for president on Election Day, they’re really voting for the slate of electors put forward by the political party their candidate belongs to. States don’t typically put nominated electors’ names on presidential ballots — but those names are a matter of public record.

    Know your electors

    In most presidential election years, the presidential candidate who wins the popular vote in a state is virtually guaranteed to get that state’s electoral votes.

    In 2000, Florida’s then-25 electoral votes weren’t certain to go to former Texas Gov. George W. Bush until mid-December. In a ruling that legal scholars would hotly criticize — and analyze — for years, the Supreme Court halted a recount in the state, reasoning it would have been impossible to continue the recount while meeting a key electoral deadline required by federal law. (More on electoral deadlines below.) The ruling allowed to stand the Florida secretary of state’s certification of the election in favor of Bush. Florida’s 25 Republican presidential electors were the ones elected following the court’s ruling. They then voted for Bush, who prevailed in winning the presidency with a total of 271 electoral votes.

    Who electors are becomes relevant during an election season like the current one, in which the president refuses to agree to a peaceful transfer of power if he loses, and during which at least one of his campaign advisers appears to be gaming scenarios to replace electors in politically friendly states — after the Nov. 3 election and contrary to the will of the voters — according to reporting from The Atlantic’s Barton Gellman.

    In The Atlantic piece, “The Election That Could Break America,” there’s a specific focus on Pennsylvania, where “three Republican leaders told me they had already discussed the direct appointment of electors among themselves, and one said he had discussed it with Trump’s national campaign,” Gellman writes.

  • Chair Jerome H. Powell: A Current Assessment of the Response to the Economic Fallout of this Historic Event

    Jerome Powell

    Federal Open Market Committee (FOMC) participants meet via video conference for a two-day meeting held on June 9-10, 2020

    Good morning. It has been just eight months since the pandemic first gained a foothold on our shores, bringing with it the sharpest downturn on record, as well as the most forceful policy response in living memory. Although it is too early for definitive conclusions, today I will offer a current assessment of the response to the economic fallout of this historic event and discuss the path ahead.

    Governor Jerome H. Powell testifies before the Senate Committee on Banking, Housing, and Urban Affairs

    ng>The Pre-COVID Economy
    As the coronavirus spread across the globe, the US economy was in its 128th month of expansion — the longest in our recorded history — and was generally in a strong position. Moderate growth continued at a slightly above-trend pace. Labor market conditions were strong across a range of measures. The unemployment rate was running at 50-year lows. PCE (personal consumption expenditures) inflation was running just below our 2 percent target.

    The economy did face longer-term challenges, as all economies do. Labor force participation among people in their prime working years had been trending down since the turn of the millennium, and productivity gains during the expansion were disappointing. Income and wealth disparities had been growing for several decades. As the expansion continued its long run, however, productivity started to pick up, the labor market strengthened, and the benefits of growth began to be more widely shared. In particular, improved labor market conditions during the past few years encouraged more prime-age workers to rejoin or remain in the labor force. Meanwhile, real wage gains for all workers picked up, especially for those in lower paying jobs.

    Most economic forecasters expected the expansion and its benefits to continue, and with good reason. There was no economy-threatening asset bubble to pop and no unsustainable boom to bust. While nonfinancial business leverage appeared to be elevated, leverage in the household sector was moderate. The banking system was strong, with robust levels of capital and liquidity. The COVID-19 recession was unusual in that it was not triggered by a buildup of financial or economic imbalances. Instead, the pandemic shock was essentially a case of a natural disaster hitting a healthy economy.

    Given the condition of the economy, in the early stages of the crisis it seemed plausible that, with a rapid, forceful, and sustained policy response, many sectors of the economy would be able to bounce back strongly once the virus was under control. That response would need to come from actions across all levels of government, from health and fiscal authorities, and from the Federal Reserve.

    It also seemed likely that the sectors most affected by the pandemic — those relying on extensive in-person contact— would face a long and difficult path to recovery. These sectors and people working in them would likely need targeted and sustained policy support.

    Some asked what the Fed could do to address what was essentially a medical emergency. We identified three ways that our tools could help limit the economic damage from the pandemic: providing stability and relief during the acute phase of the crisis when much of the economy was shut down; vigorously supporting the expansion when it came; and doing what we could to limit longer-run damage to the productive capacity of the economy.

    The Recession and Nascent Recovery
    When it became clear in late February that the disease was spreading worldwide, financial markets were roiled by a global flight to cash. By the end of the month, many important markets were faltering, raising the threat of a financial crisis that could exacerbate the economic fallout of the pandemic. Widespread economic shutdowns began in March, and in the United States, with many sectors shut down or operating well below capacity, real GDP fell 31 percent in the second quarter on an annualized basis. Employers slashed payrolls by 22 million, with those on temporary layoff rising by 17 million. Broader measures of labor market conditions, such as labor force participation and those working part time for economic reasons, showed further damage.

    In response, we deployed the full range of tools at our disposal, cutting rates to their effective lower bound; conducting unprecedented quantities of asset purchases; and establishing a range of emergency lending facilities to restore market function and support the flow of credit to households, businesses, and state and local governments. We also implemented targeted and temporary measures to allow banks to better support their customers.

    The fiscal response was truly extraordinary. The unanimous passage of the CARES Act and three other bills passed with broad support in March and April established wide-ranging programs that are expected to provide roughly $3 trillion in economic support overall — by far the largest and most innovative fiscal response to an economic crisis since the Great Depression.

  • Frida Kahlo: Appearances Can Be Deceiving: Exceptional Garments Alongside 34 of Her Drawings and Paintings

    If I have wings to fly” – Frida Kahlo

    Press Release in Spanish here.La Casa Azul

    In 1930, Frida Kahlo left Mexico for the first time and traveled to San Francisco. This experience was deeply influential, shaping Kahlo’s self-fashioned identity and launching her artistic path. In Spring 2020, she returns to San Francisco with the intimate exhibition Frida Kahlo: Appearances Can Be Deceiving at the de Young museum. Offering a perspective on the iconic artist unknown to most, the exhibition reveals the ways in which politics, gender, disability, and national identity informed Kahlo’s life, art, and multifaceted creativity.

    Making its West Coast premiere, Frida Kahlo: Appearances Can Be Deceiving will feature a selection of Kahlo’s possessions from her lifelong home, La Casa Azul, now the Museo Frida Kahlo in Mexico City. Locked away following Kahlo’s passing in 1954, these poignant items were unsealed in 2004, fifty years after her death. The exhibition presents these personal belongings — including photographs, letters, jewelry, cosmetics, medical corsets, and exceptional garments — alongside 34 of Kahlo’s drawings, paintings, and a lithograph that span Kahlo’s entire adult life.

    Right, Nickolas Muray, Frida on White Bench, New York City, 1939. Nickolas Muray Photo Archives

    “Reinforcing our institution’s long-standing close ties to Mexico, we are infinitely honored and thrilled to present Frida Kahlo: Appearances Can Be Deceiving at the de Young museum,” states Thomas P. Campbell, Director and CEO of the Fine Arts Museums of San Francisco. “The landmark exhibition paints a multifaceted portrait of one of the most innovative artists of the 20th century; whose vivid work provides an important window into Mexican culture, and whose extraordinary persona continues to be a source of inspiration to so many.” 

    Today, Kahlo is known for her distinctive personal style as much as for her extraordinary art. She took great care with her appearance and constructed her personal image as meticulously as her paintings. Her image, immortalized in her own self-portraits and through the lens of such photographers as Nickolas Muray, Imogen Cunningham, Edward Weston, Gisèle Freund, and Lola Álvarez Bravo, is now instantly recognizable. Since her death, Kahlo has become an icon, her likeness reproduced in books, murals, shopping bags, socks, and even a controversial Barbie doll by Mattel.

    “The exhibition gives a very personal experience with deeply individualized objects on view. Kahlo never allowed her disabilities define her — she defined who she was in her own terms,” states Circe Henestrosa, guest curator of exhibition. “Kahlo decorated and painted her corsets, making them appear as though she had explicitly chosen to wear them. She included them in her art and in the construction of her style as an essential wardrobe item, almost as a second skin.”

  • FactCheck.org: Q&A on Trump’s COVID-19 Diagnosis

     Dr. Walter Reed's birthplace


















    Dr. Walter Reed, conqueror of yellow fever, was born in 1851 in this cottage at Belroi, a Gloucester County crossroad. The tiny house, a rural, one room vernacular dwelling, is typical of a dwelling type once prevalent throughout Virginia’s Tidewater and Piedmont; The Reeds were using it as a temporary home until a parsonage could be completed for Reed’s father, the local Methodist minister; photo by Mytwocents at English Wikipedia

    By  and , FactCheck.org

    Posted on October 2, 2020 | Updated on October 3, 2020

     

    On Oct. 2, President Donald Trump revealed that he and First Lady Melania Trump had tested positive for COVID-19. Here we answer common questions about the risks of the disease, treatments available and the shortcomings of testing.

    What do we know about Trump’s risk of developing serious COVID-19?

    Without knowing all of Trump’s medical history, it is difficult to know how dangerous his SARS-CoV-2 infection might be. On the morning of Oct. 2, news outlets reported — and White House Chief of Staff Mark Meadows confirmed — that the president was experiencing only mild symptoms. 

    White House Press Secretary Kayleigh McEnany reiterated the symptoms were “mild” in the afternoon, though Trump was taken to Walter Reed National Military Medical Center and would be “working from the presidential offices at Walter Reed for the next few days,” McEnany said. 

    Update, Oct. 3: “The president’s vitals over the last 24 hours were very concerning and the next 48 hours will be critical in terms of his care,” a source familiar with the president’s health told a White House pool reporter in a pool report issued at about noon. “We’re still not on a clear path to a full recovery.”

    The president’s doctor Navy physician, Sean P. Conley, gave a more upbeat assessment at a press conference Oct. 3, describing the president as being fever-free and “doing great.”  At 74 years old, Trump is at higher risk of developing a more severe case of COVID-19 than younger people. Figures from the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, based on data available through Aug. 6, show that people ages 65 to 74 are five times as likely as 18- to 29-year-olds to be hospitalized and 90 times more likely to die.

    Other CDC data show that for the month of August, 6.5% of people between the ages of 70 and 79 who were diagnosed with COVID-19 died, and 18% were hospitalized, although some data on death or hospitalization is missing or unknown.

    Trump is also a man — and males have consistently had worse outcomes, on average, than females — and his last physical showed he was mildly obese, with a body mass index of 30.5 (30 is considered obese). 

    According to the CDC, obesity increases the risk of a severe illness from COVID-19 and may triple the risk of hospitalization. It’s not entirely understood why this is, but carrying too much extra weight has been linked to impaired immune function and fat tissue can also push up on the diaphragm, making it more difficult to breathe.

    Most people, however — even those with risk factors — do not get seriously ill, so the president’s chances for a mild infection may still be good. He is also not known to have many of the other risk factors for serious disease, such as diabetes or kidney disease, and is likely to receive the best possible medical care. 

    Scientists are just beginning to understand why certain people fare so poorly with a SARS-CoV-2 infection while others never develop symptoms or only get mildly ill. Recent research suggests that one difference, which may apply to about 14% of severe cases, is that some people don’t produce enough type I interferons early in infection. The proteins are key players in fighting off viruses and help kick off a robust immune response, although too much of them later on could be detrimental.

    In some cases, a poor interferon response may result from people having antibodies that inappropriately target and cripple the interferon, whereas others may be due to faulty genes. The offending antibodies are much more common in males. Older people may also have defects in how their bodies mount this type of early, or innate, immune response.

    Other research also indicates that older people are less likely to produce a sufficient T cell response to SARS-CoV-2. T cells are part of the body’s later, more specific immune response, and assist with producing antibodies and also kill off infected cells. With fewer of these cells, older patients don’t create a coordinated response to fight off the virus and are more likely to have poor outcomes.

    What do we know about the president’s health?

    The president’s doctor provided the latest update on Trump’s health on June 3. He said the president “remains healthy.” Trump was 6’3″ and weighed 244 pounds; his cholesterol was 167, lower than the previous physical. (A reading below 200 is considered desirable.) His blood pressure was normal: 121/79.

    About six months prior to that report, in November 2019, Trump made an unannounced visit to Walter Reed National Military Medical Center, which he and his staff later said was to conduct part of his annual physical. Conley’s memo said his summary included information both from November and an April exam Conley conducted.

  • The Mask Hypocrisy: How COVID Memos Contradict the White House’s Public Face

    By Lauren Weber and Katheryn Houghton, October 1, 2020, Kaiser Health News

    toy bear wearing mask

    While the president and vice president forgo masks at rallies, the White House is quietly encouraging governors to implement mask mandates and, for some, enforce them with fines.

    Photo credit: Volodymyr Hryshchenko  at lunarts

     
    In reports issued to governors on Sept. 20, the White House Coronavirus Task Force recommended statewide mask mandates in Iowa, Missouri and Oklahoma. The weekly memos, some of which have been made public by the Center for Public Integrity, advocate mask usage for other states and have even encouraged doling out fines in Alaska, Idaho and, recently, Montana.

    Masks, a political flashpoint since the beginning of the coronavirus pandemic, are considered by public health officials to be a top safeguard against spreading the COVID-19 virus as the country awaits a vaccine. But the president’s own actions on masks have wavered: He has called them “patriotic” but often doesn’t wear one himself and has contradicted the advice of the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention director. During the presidential debate Tuesday, the president said masks were “OK” and then mocked Democratic presidential candidate Joe Biden’s mask-wearing habits. In the audience, some Trump family members and staffers were not wearing masks, despite the rules set by the Cleveland Clinic, which hosted the debate.

    The mixed messages and ensuing confusion leave governors, and often state and local health officials, holding the bag of political consequences.

    “At some point, we have to turn the corner on this ridiculous separation of what we’re being told is best practice and being guided by science and data, and what the actual practices are by the people who issue them,” said Lori Tremmel Freeman, CEO of the National Association of County and City Health Officials.

    So far, 16 states have yet to enact mask mandates for the general public — all of them are run by Republican governors. Three out of 4 Americans support enacting state laws to require mask-wearing in public at all times, according to an August NPR/Ipsos poll.

    To be sure, messaging and the science on masks have evolved: U.S. public health officials did not recommend mask-wearing until April. And the White House argues the president has been clear.

    “He recommends wearing a mask when you cannot socially distance,” White House spokesperson Brian Morgenstern told KHN. “He has worn masks on numerous occasions himself when appropriate and regularly encourages others to do so, as well, when social distancing is not possible.”

    The pandemic task force sends weekly memos to states to share data and recommendations with leaders to help them make decisions, Morgenstern added. “They’re free to share that information as they see fit.”

    Courtney Parella, a spokesperson for the Trump campaign, said that the staffers check the temperature of every attendee before admission to rallies, provide masks and encourage attendees to wear them, and offer hand sanitizer.

    However, campaign events that President Donald Trump and Vice President Mike Pence attend often feature crowds of maskless attendees.

    On Sept. 14, Pence stood before a crowd of hundreds in Belgrade, Montana, to stump for the state’s Republicans, including Sen. Steve Daines, gubernatorial candidate U.S. Rep. Greg Gianforte and congressional candidate Matt Rosendale. Photos show that most who attended went without masks, including the vice president, despite a mask order in effect for the surrounding county.

    Montana calls on everyone to wear masks at outdoor gatherings of 50 or more people in counties with at least four active cases when attendees don’t stay 6 feet apart.

    Photos show people sitting and standing close together at the event in southwestern Montana. Pence signed hats as people gathered shoulder to shoulder by the rails of a crowd divider.

    Six days later, the White House coronavirus reports recommended Montana officials issue fines for those who ignore mask mandates in places the disease is spreading fast.

  • Jo Freeman: How to Debate a Bully

    sign for debate

     

    By Jo Freeman

    How to debate a bully? That was the question Tuesday night at the first Presidential debate of 2020. This was not Trump’s first appearance as a schoolyard bully. What was surprising was that he didn’t leave that persona in the closet in favor of wearing one more appealing to a large and diverse audience. Did he choose to act like a bully, or could he just not help himself?

    Trump’s need to dominate has made its appearance many times. He created a popular “reality” show around the theme of “You’re Fired.” He teargassed demonstrators in order to do a photo-op. He told the mayors of cities with BLM protests to “dominate the streets.” On September 29, he exceeded himself. He looked more like he was auditioning to be the dominant male in a baboon tribe than running for President.

    The civil rights movement had a lot of experience in confronting bullies, if not exactly debating them. Commissioner Bull Connor and Sheriff Jim Clark put it on the map with their bullying behavior. The response which made them and the ideas they representing look so bad was steely non-violence. Don’t respond in kind, but don’t back down. Don’t beg. Don’t wimper. Don’t move.

    Dr. King called it redemptive suffering. That worked in a religious context. In a political context you need a bit more. You need to stand up to a bully without being a mirror. Ultimately, bullies are weaklings who are trying to hide it. Non-violence requires real strength.

    Editor’s Note: 
    Jo is watching the debates from her home in Brooklyn.

  • In the We Couldn’t Resist Category: Just Icing on the Cake, Part One, by Roberta McReynolds

    Editor’s Note: Perhaps you’re tired of doing all your cooking? Want a change of aspect from a culinary point of view? Hold on for Roberta’s pastry experience… this is a diversion we need. 

    Just Icing on the Cake, Part Onelady's evening bag cake with frosting

    by Roberta McReynolds

    Imagine a ‘toy store’ dedicated to the decadent, culinary urges of pastry chefs (both professional and amateur) and the scene is set for a dieter’s nightmare. This store exists a mere four miles from my front door, and worse yet, within walking distance from my husband’s favorite hobby shop.

    The aisles are stocked with innovative gadgets for every conceivable special event and season, with a rich emphasis on wedding supplies. Cake pans, cookie cutters, and candy molds are strategically situated to catch and hold the attention of those who dare enter. Decorative sugars and sprinkles, fondant, specific types of icing supplies, pastry fillings, and candy making ingredients tempt taste buds and stimulate the imagination. Shoppers inevitably approach the checkout counter with more than they originally intended to purchase.

    Lady’s evening bag cake with edible frosting, right,  by Gandydancer in 2013, Wikimedia Commons

    I suspect that the sugar-laden atmosphere is delivered directly through the air-conditioning system to reduce any natural resistance, causing a hypnotic-like trance. I should know, because I’ve had my senses overwhelmed each time I walked through the door, but have yet to discover any effective defense against temptation. Most of my bouts with this phenomenon have concluded with a slightly bruised bank account. I’ve entered the store looking for unique laser-cut cupcake papers and cute sprinkles only to get sidetracked halfway down the first aisle. The next thing I know, I am entrapped by a display of fascinating bundt pans holding me firmly in place until a salesperson suddenly appears at my side.

    One of these episodes was the moment when I innocently became infected by the ‘cake decorating bug’. I’m not certain, because there were no witnesses to later explain to me how I ended up signing up for classes. The trunk of my car contained the irrefutable evidence: class schedule, a beginner’s decorating kit containing all I needed (you’ll recognize the humor in this later), and a receipt.

    How hard could this be, really? Three classes lasting three hours each and the first class was just a demonstration. I assumed that I would only have to work at the actual decorating process for a total of six hours. I could do that! It would be a fun new experience. If I should make a fool of myself, I could rest in the comfort that I’d never see the other students again; what happens in class, stays in class.

    I arrived to the first class early and strategically located a seat near the exit, just in case. I watched the other classmates arrive, trying to ascertain if they were more experienced or had the same uneasy appearance I was trying to mask. My anonymity was short-lived when a former neighbor, Cathy, waltzed in with several of her friends. Cathy the accomplished cook, of course. Instead of sitting off by myself, I was now part of group and seated further away from the door.

    The instructor was setting up and chatting with everyone. She seemed quite pleasant and created a relaxed environment. I took notes as she shared information, much of it making little sense to me, but I was positive it would be vital to successful decorating.

    Lori unwrapped two cake layers from their plastic cocoons and flipped them from palm to palm as she explained taking one cake from the pan after cooling and since it comes out upside down, the bottom is now the top. She turned the top (which was now on the bottom) back to the top to explain slicing the raised portion off to make it flat so it could now be a flat bottom and the bottom could be the smoother top for easier icing. Then you slice the cake into two, which she had already done, for a two layer cake. Got that?

    Someone in the back of the room bravely admitted, “What? The top is the bottom?”

    Lori began flipping the layers again. If she’d had a third layer, I suspect we would have been entertained with a juggling routine worthy of Ringling Bros. Circus. Furthermore, she’d end her performance without losing a single, wee crumb.

    “Torte the 3-inch deep cake into two layers, even off the top, turn them both over and the bottom becomes the perfect top!” Lori repeated. She beamed at us, confident we had it this time. The third time through the demonstration included reassembling the layers and inserting them back in the pan and walking us through each step very slowly.

    She tried to get back on schedule by whipping up a batch of special frosting and instructing us to make at least two batches for next week, divided in three different amounts and degrees of stiffness. There was something about adding butter flavoring, because butter-cream frosting doesn’t contain butter, along with portions of vanilla and almond flavorings.

    My hasty notes included cryptic reference to regular ‘shortening isn’t acceptable’ anymore, because the trans-fat is what made it work so well and all brands of confectioner’s sugar are not created equal. (Let’s keep it our little secret that I transgressed and purchased the type that contained cornstarch.)