Society

Subterms

    More stories

    • 138 Shares169 Views

      in US Politics

      Low-income Americans face a ‘hunger cliff’ as Snap benefits are cut

      by

      Gina Melton is facing a dilemma. Like millions of other Americans, Melton and her family relied on food assistance benefits boosted by Congress to help them through the pandemic. Now that extra cash is gone.The reduction has hit them hard. Three of her family members are disabled and one of her daughters works to take care of them through an agency. They had already relied on credit cards to pay for medical equipment that wasn’t covered by the federal health insurance schemes Medicare or Medicaid but have had to stop paying a couple of them in order to afford food.“When you have to choose between feeding your family and paying a credit card bill, you have to choose food,” said Melton, 62.Around 42 million Americans are currently enrolled in Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program (Snap) benefits. Congress increased Snap benefits in response to the Covid-19 pandemic in March 2020. The last extra payments went out at the end of February in the remaining 32 states that were still issuing them, in addition to the District of Columbia, Guam and the US Virgin Islands.The emergency allotments were authorized in tandem with the Covid-19 emergency declaration in March 2022, but in December 2022, Congress passed a law to end the allotments.The lapse in the additional benefits will reduce Snap allotments for the average recipient by $90 a month, with some households losing $250 a month or more. Older adults at the minimum benefit level will see their monthly Snap benefits drop from $281 a month to $23.Though Melton’s husband, a diabetic, is still recovering from a recent surgery, he has been considering going back to work part time at the age of 65 as the family struggles to afford basic necessities, including healthy food. They’ve cut back on food purchases and buy what’s on sale or in reduced-price bins.“The extra food allotment was helping us a lot,” said Melton. “We’ve started shopping at lower-priced stores that don’t bag your groceries, but for a disabled person like myself, that requires me to go with a helper. We’ve also cut back on some more expensive necessities and are relying on the local food pantry more.”The end of the expanded benefits comes at a time when US consumer debt has been on the rise, with 20.5 million Americans currently behind on their utility payments and nearly 25 million behind on credit card, auto loan or personal loan payments, the highest number since 2009. Low-wage workers in the US, who make less than $20 an hour, have experienced drops in wage growth compared with other workers in recent months.Food prices have and are expected to continue to significantly rise in 2023 as well. The US Department of Agriculture estimated that all food prices will increase by 7.9% in 2023 – and they were already 9.5% higher in February 2023 compared with February 2022.With so many Americans receiving Snap benefits because of low wages, unemployment and underemployment, the sudden end of the emergency allotment has been characterized as a “hunger cliff”.Ellen Vollinger, Snap director for the nonprofit Food Research and Action Center, said: “The cliff is aptly named because this a very abrupt change in what people are going to have in their food budget and it’s affecting tens of millions of people.“When the federal government doesn’t provide as much support for food, it doesn’t mean that hungry people all of a sudden are better off, or no longer need assistance, or they go away. The hunger is still there, people are still there, the need is there, but the federal government is too abrupt in shifting the burden and costs of dealing with that downstream, to states [and] localities, and puts a greater burden on charities.”Vollinger noted that the end of emergency allotments leaves low-income families facing difficult choices around food, from forgoing meals and purchasing less to buying cheaper food.“There’s a lot of stress, that’s why we call it a hunger cliff. It’s very precipitous,” she added.Food banks have been bracing for a surge in demand as the expanded Snap benefits expire, with state agencies directing recipients to food pantries to help cope with the reduction in benefits.Studies have shown that the extra payments worked. The Urban Institute found that the increased Snap benefits during the Covid-19 pandemic kept 4.2 million Americans out of poverty in the fourth quarter of 2021, reducing poverty by 9.6% and child poverty by 14% in states with emergency allotments. They also have a wider economic benefit. Every $1 invested in Snap benefits yields between $1.50 and $1.80 in economic activity during economic downturns.A 2022 survey conducted by Propel found that among Snap recipients, there was a significant level of higher food insecurity in states where emergency allotments were cut off. In a January 2023 survey, there was an increase in the number of Snap recipients who reported skipping meals, eating less, visiting food pantries or relying on family or friends for meals compared with December 2022.The end of the emergency Snap allotments also coincides with a push from Republicans in Congress to cut regular Snap benefits this year, despite the majority of Americans having favorable views of the benefits. A January 2023 survey conducted by Purdue University found that seven out of 10 respondents supported permanent expansions of the Snap program.But an expansion looks very unlikely in the current Congress. In the meantime, recipients are facing tough choices.“I just received the last one last week,” said Patricia Ameral, 67, of Massachusetts, referring to the Covid emergency benefits. “I am certain it will mean the difference between consuming less fresh produce and less meat, fresh or frozen.” More

    • 150 Shares169 Views

      in US Politics

      Republicans push wave of bills that would bring homicide charges for abortion

      by

      Republicans push wave of bills that would bring homicide charges for abortionProliferation of bills in Texas, Kentucky and elsewhere ‘exposes fundamental lie of anti-abortion movement’, experts sayFor decades, the mainstream anti-abortion movement promised that it did not believe women who have abortions should be criminally charged. But now, Republican lawmakers in several US states have introduced legislation proposing homicide and other criminal charges for those seeking abortion care.‘Sanctuary cities for the unborn’: how a US pastor is pushing for a national abortion banRead moreThe bills have been introduced in states such as Texas, Kentucky, South Carolina, Oklahoma and Arkansas. Some explicitly target medication abortion and self-managed abortion; some look to remove provisions in the law which previously protected pregnant people from criminalization; and others look to establish the fetus as a person from the point of conception.It is highly unlikely that all of these bills will pass. But their proliferation marks a distinct departure from the language of existing bans and abortion restrictions, which typically exempt people seeking abortion care from criminalization.“This exposes a fundamental lie of the anti-abortion movement, that they oppose the criminalization of the pregnant person,” said Dana Sussman, the acting executive director of Pregnancy Justice. “They are no longer hiding behind that rhetoric.”Some members of the anti-abortion movement have made it clear the bills do not align with their views, continuing to insist that abortion providers, rather than pregnant people themselves, should be targeted by criminal abortion laws.“[We] oppose penalties for mothers, who are a second victim of a predatory abortion industry,” said Kristi Hamrick, the chief media and policy strategist for Students for Life of America. “We want to see a billion-dollar industry set up to profit by preying on women and the preborn held accountable. The pro-life movement as a whole has been very clear on this.”A spokesperson for Susan B Anthony Pro-Life America echoed the same sentiment: that the organization unequivocally rejects prosecution of the pregnant person.The bills are likely to be controversial as they proceed, even within conservative circles: Republicans have frequently hit walls when trying to pass anti-abortion legislation, with lawmakers at odds over exactly how far bans should go.The reproductive justice organization If/When/How points out these bills are an indication of the different wings and splinter groups in the anti-abortion movement, increasingly evident since the Dobbs decision last year that overturned Roe v Wade.“What we’re seeing, post-Dobbs, is a splintering in tactics that abortion opponents are using, and emboldening on the part of more hardline” factions within the movement, said Farah Diaz-Tello, senior counsel and legal director at If/When/How.“That has always been an undercurrent” in the movement, Diaz-Tello added. “As we see other abortion opponents declaring their opposition to criminalization of people who end their pregnancies, this is the opportunity for them to really step up and put those principles into action.”The bills being introduced in Arkansas, Texas, Kentucky and South Carolina look to establish that life begins at conception. Each of these bills explicitly references homicide charges for abortion. Homicide is punishable by the death penalty in all of those states.Bills in Oklahoma, South Carolina and Texas also explicitly target medication abortion, which so far has fallen into a legal grey zone in much of the country.A bill in Alabama has also been announced, although not yet been introduced, by Republican representative Ernest Yarbrough, that would establish fetal personhood from conception and repeal a section of Alabama’s abortion ban that expressly prevents homicide charges for abortion. The state’s current law makes abortion a class A felony, on the same level as homicide, but exempts women seeking abortions from being held criminally or civilly liable.Laws that establish fetal personhood also bring the risk of opening pregnant people up to battery and assault charges for endangering a fetus. Such charges have already been documented in hundreds of cases, using criminal laws championed in recent decades by the anti-abortion movement that recognize fetuses as potential victims.“It never starts or stops with abortion,” said Sussman of the far-reaching effects of fetal personhood laws.“That means that not getting prenatal care, not taking pre-natal vitamins, working a job that is physically demanding – all of those things could impose some risk to the fetus – and that could be a child neglect or child abuse case.”Such laws have been used to target pregnant people who have taken prescribed medication, taken illegal drugs or drunk alcohol while pregnant, even when there has been no adverse outcome on the fetus.Some of the bills, such as the one in Arkansas, allow a partner to file an unlawful death lawsuit against a pregnant person who has had an abortion.“The ways in which pregnant people could become a mere vessel for an entity that has separate and unique rights is becoming closer and closer to reality. And there are ways in which this could be used that we haven’t even contemplated yet,” said Sussman.TopicsUS newsAbortionLaw (US)Reproductive rightsRoe v WadeUS politicsnewsReuse this content More

    • 188 Shares189 Views

      in US Politics

      Dining across the divide US special: ‘We were on the brink of an uncomfortable conversation’

      by

      Dining across the divide US special: ‘We were on the brink of an uncomfortable conversation’They are both Democrats, but what subjects – from Ukraine to defunding the police – would leave them at odds?Jordan, 30, Providence, Rhode IslandOccupation Works at the progressive Jewish Liberation Fund, which aims to make Jewish philanthropy more effective. Captain of the US cross-country running championship teamVoting Record Progressive Democratic – about “as far left as you can go, but stopping short of radical or revolution”Amuse bouche Regularly meets up with a couple of Japanese housewives to practise his JapaneseJudith, 65, Branford, ConnecticutOccupation Retired professor of contemporary literature at Yale. PoetVoting record DemocratAmuse bouche Designs pocket parks in her home townFor starters Jordan I had duck confit, lobster pasta, chocolate cake, chamomile tea. We found a lot of common ground on teaching more about slavery in schools. Judith thinks we should focus on how humans have been cruel to each other over time, but for me it’s more important to focus on the history in America and how that helps us understand the world we live in now. In a lot of places slavery wasn’t so racially codified as it was here.Judith I had nougat de foie gras, bass, Grand Marnier souffle for dessert. It was delicious. He was more focused on contemporary discussions of the American experience that I was. The longer, worldwide historical context was more important to me.Jordan It’s important to teach about chattel slavery. I’m not saying it was worse for us than, say, the Japanese enslaving Koreans, but the racial codification of slavery in America still affects what our world looks like and the narratives that equate people of a certain race to negative habits and stereotypes.The big beef Judith Jordan believes we should take money from the police and give it to other types of social workers to help deal with crime. I don’t. If you want a society based in law that has arisen out of constitutional democracy, you need some way of enforcing the law. The combination of underfunding and lack of respect for the law has exacerbated tendencies we don’t like in the police.Jordan It doesn’t feel like lack of resources is the issue. I’m from St Louis. Look at Ferguson. Look at Milwaukee. The police that killed Tyre Nichols in Memphis were part of one of these highly trained units. The police should be in a public safety department so they aren’t self-supervised.Judith We should increase police funding, but it should be based on more stringent training and education, to make it a profession with salaries to match. I would have national regulation of local police. The police who killed Tyre Nichols were Black, so there’s something else going on. Those officers were totally unqualified for a job that puts the power of life and death in their hands. That’s not a racial issue.Jordan We were on the brink of an uncomfortable conversation. Judith was saying we live in a violent society and there are cultural differences between groups. Judith grew up in a more working-class background; mine is more bourgeois. But I don’t think she experienced a reckoning of concentrated poverty and trauma, and how that affects and drives people.skip past newsletter promotionafter newsletter promotionSharing plateJudith My grandparents fled Ukraine during the pogroms. We need to look at Ukraine as fighting for the ideals we have now and give them support.Jordan It’s complicated. I don’t think we should be diverting funds, and Russia is clearly a bad actor. But I find the lack of dissent a little surprising. The left-wing progressive space is generally anti-war, so we should be thinking about this.For aftersJudith We got into some interesting things, like do you want a national police force so you don’t have these little islands of police where the culture is leaning toward violence? That makes me uncomfortable because wherever there is a national police force, there is a potential for danger.Jordan Whatever our public safety force looks like, it shouldn’t be the free-for-all it is now. As Jewish people, we agreed a national public force could be a scary thing. It doesn’t feel like police forces have a lack of resources. I don’t qualify as a police abolitionist but I have serious questions about police departments and what they look like right now.TakeawaysJordan Judith reminded me of my grandma, which I loved. But I disagreed with this idea of cultural differences being one of the causes of crime.Judith Jordan is a very delightful person. These questions are complex, and we need more context and nuance. We’re always focused on the minute-to-minute catastrophe. Additional reporting: Kitty Drake Jordan and Judith ate at Union League Cafe, New Haven, Connecticut. Want to meet someone from across the divide? Find out how to take partTopicsLife and styleDining across the divide US specialSocial trendsUS politicsUS policingDemocratsSlaveryfeaturesReuse this content More

    • 225 Shares199 Views

      in US Politics

      Dining across the divide US special: ‘She said there are no leaders in the Republican party, just idiots’

      by

      Dining across the divide US special: ‘She said there are no leaders in the Republican party, just idiots’Neither of them likes Donald Trump, but would they agree on the economy, healthcare or immigration?Lali, 62, Chicago, IllinoisOccupation Now retired, Lali worked in international accounting and mergers and acquisitionsVoting record Always DemocratAmuse bouche Lali lives in Chicago, but has an organic farm and an off-grid house in Wisconsin. She’s also lived on four different continentsJozsef, 68, Waterloo, IowaOccupation Business consultant, now semi-retiredVoting record Jozsef is registered as an independent, but considers himself conservative and mainly votes Republican. He “held his nose” and voted for Trump in 2016, but now hates him “with a passion”. In 2020 he voted for BidenAmuse bouche Jozsef moved to the US from Hungary as a toddler and is a foodie. He makes a mean goulash – the secret is homegrown Hungarian paprikaFor startersJozsef I had grilled grouper – of all the things to eat in Iowa! They had a nice Reuben sandwich on the menu, but I’m diabetic and have a heart stent. The rule from my doctors is that if your food has flavour, you’re not allowed it.Lali I had sweet-potato soup, a Reuben sandwich with a salad, a craft beer and tiramisu. He ate the fish that goes in the fish tacos. I had a huge dish of food and he had a teeny thing on a teeny plate.Jozsef Lali was outgoing and friendly. We started off talking about the weather – that’s the typical greeting in the midwest. Then we started denigrating Trump for about 10 minutes. And it went on from there.The big beefJozsef We didn’t have a large disagreement about a major issue. We were loud, but polite. Especially as she was a woman. If it was a guy, it might have been different. That’s being sexist, but that’s because I’m old. Men are afraid to argue with women, let’s face it.Lali We agreed on a lot of the symptoms and many of the causes, but had very different solutions. He thinks capitalism is the answer to everything, but it has been messed up in this country. We agreed there should be more education funding. I think it has been deemphasized by Republicans because there have been so many studies that show the better educated you are, the more likely you are to vote Democrat.Jozsef She’s very black and white about Republicans. I would describe her as a typical Democrat – she spouts a lot of talking points from that side of the aisle: “All Republicans do this. All Republicans are jerks.” She claimed they are out to dumb down America, because that’s their voting block: dumb people. I totally disagree. I said: “It would take really smart people to come up with that complex a plan.” I don’t think the Republicans are smart enough to come up with something like that.Lali He kept trying to say Democrats and Republicans are both messed up. I said: “No, there’s a degree of difference in how messed up they are.” Republicans have a lot more whack-jobs than we do.Jozsef She said there are no leaders in the Republican party. Just idiots. And I said: “Show me a good leader in your party. For the last eight years you have not been able to produce one.” Biden’s a nice guy, but he’s a doddering old man.skip past newsletter promotionafter newsletter promotionSharing plateJozsef We agreed that something has to happen with healthcare in America. It’s a disgrace that the richest country in the world can’t keep people healthy. She said the government should control healthcare. I said I’d be afraid for our government, as it stands, to run it.Lali In my view, healthcare should not be a for-profit enterprise. His view was that it shouldn’t be for profit, but it could be in the private sector. I didn’t fully understand what that meant.For aftersJozsef We talked about immigration as we’re both immigrants. She wants an open policy: “Let’s get ’em all in here.” I said: “I want to build a 1,000-mile wall on the southern border with a five-mile gate and put Transport Security Administration machines in the gate.” Whoever wants to come over and work can come in, but let’s make them go through the security turnstile like at the airport. Let’s have stronger security.Lali We overlapped on the need for immigrants. Where we disagreed was on his views about immigrants being forced to work. He said his father had been forced to work in a coalmine in Belgium. I pointed out that all immigrants need sponsors to make sure they’re not a public charge. And he was like: “You’re probably right about that. But they should be made to work.”TakeawaysJozsef When we were leaving, she accused me of being a closet liberal. And honestly, I am getting to be a pinko as I want a woman to be president next. It’s time somebody used their brain instead of their testosterone.Lali I really enjoyed the lunch, but was a little frustrated that he didn’t have more fact-based rejoinders to what I was saying. I was working with a set of facts; he was working with a set of views.Additional reporting: Kitty Drake Lali and Jozsef ate at La Rana Bistro in Decorah, Iowa.Want to meet someone from across the divide? Find out how to take partTopicsLife and styleDining across the divide US specialUS politicsSocial trendsUS healthcareUS immigrationfeaturesReuse this content More

    • 288 Shares159 Views

      in US Politics

      Dining across the divide US special: ‘I got the impression he felt all Democrats were horrible. He made us sound like Bond villains’

      by

      Dining across the divide US special: ‘I got the impression he felt all Democrats were horrible. He made us sound like Bond villains’One votes Democrat and the other wants Donald Trump to win in 2024. Where does that leave them on immigration, abortion or Ukraine?Jason, 51, Crestview, FloridaOccupation Middle-school principalVoting record Normally votes Democrat and considers himself a centristAmuse bouche As a “military brat”, Jason lived in lots of exciting places around the world growing up, including Ipswich. He also lived in Idaho for a time, which was a culture shock after Europe. “You should absolutely never go there”Paul, 70, Destin, FloridaOccupation Pathologist, partially retiredVoting record Has always voted Republican. Wants Trump to win in 2024Amuse bouche Paul was drafted into the South African army in his early 20s. One of his hobbies is wineFor startersJason I had a tuna salad. Normally I’d have gone crazy with the food, but I had open-heart surgery in September and I’m trying not to die. I had a glass of wine, and he had a pinot. He was classy and knew exactly what wine he wanted. I said: “Gimme the house wine.”Paul I had a tuna salad as an appetizer. Then a “wine bar salad”, which was excellent. Jason was a lot more like me than I had expected. In his general outlook, there’s a lot of similarities.Jason Paul was really nice. Very educated. Very opinionated. He said that at Thanksgiving last year there were people who had different views from him and they got up from the table and left. He has very strong opinions, but that doesn’t mean his opinions don’t have value.The big beefJason I feel very strongly that we should be involved in Ukraine; he does not. I think America can’t be isolationist. We have to look after our allies because they look after us. He said the money being spent on Ukraine should be spent in America. I said that’s a different pot. Just because we’re spending money on Ukraine doesn’t mean we can’t spend on other things.Paul The only agreement we came to on Ukraine was that there’s currently no endgame. Without a solution, I believe we are drifting towards world war three.Jason We also disagreed on the southern border. I don’t have answers, but I don’t think walls and more security will fix it.Paul He said it is impossible to secure a border; I believe it’s totally possible. There should be a wall. Throughout history, going back to the Great Wall of China, walls have proved effective. We also talked about why immigrants don’t stay in their own country and fix it. We never got any agreement on that.Jason He said that illegal immigrants get better healthcare benefits than poor Americans. And I said: “I’m not sure that’s true.” That upset him. He said: “Well, you gotta trust that I know what I’m talking about.” That was when he said that Obama has a social security number from a state he never lived in. I said: “Is that true? I’ve never read that.” He said it’s public knowledge.skip past newsletter promotionafter newsletter promotionSharing plateJason We found some common ground on abortion. My argument was that it shouldn’t be legislated; it’s a woman’s right, and I can’t tell a woman what she can or can’t do with her body. His response was that it’s not just her body; there’s another being in there. But he did believe in early term abortion.Paul We agreed there has to be a cut-off time. You can’t kill the baby at birth. The question that wasn’t resolved was what that cut-off should be. I’d draw a very firm line in the sand at 12 weeks. Jason wasn’t sure where he’d draw that line.For aftersPaul We talked about Trump. I went to the same church as him before he was president. Some people implied he only went to church after he was running for president, which was not true. I think Trump created a world of stability. I don’t think we got an agreement there.Jason His view was that Trump kept us safer and that foreign powers didn’t act out when Trump was president because of his effectiveness. I don’t think we were better off with Trump.TakeawaysJason We talked about critical race theory, and he thinks children are being taught to be ashamed about being American. That’s not the case. We have flags in every classroom. We start each day with the pledge of allegiance.Paul We realised we had a lot more in common when we really talked than we first thought. The only thing he changed my mind about was that some people on his side of the fence are probably open to discussion. The country is so polarised that I’m pessimistic about the ability of the union to stay together. But if more people talk to each other as human beings there may be more common ground.Jason I don’t think either of us changed the other person’s opinion. Except maybe when it comes to the fact that not all Democrats and Republicans are horrible. I don’t think all Republicans are horrible, but I got the impression he felt that all Democrats were. He made us sound like Bond villains. Additional reporting: Kitty Drake Jason and Paul ate at The Wine Bar in Destin, Florida.Want to meet someone from across the divide? Find out how to take partTopicsLife and styleDining across the divide US specialUS politicsSocial trendsUS immigrationDonald TrumpfeaturesReuse this content More

    • 263 Shares99 Views

      in US Politics

      Dining across the divide US special: ‘I read an article he wrote about being attacked at a Black Lives Matter protest’

      by

      Dining across the divide US special: ‘I read an article he wrote about being attacked at a Black Lives Matter protest’One is centre-right, the other 100% Democrat. Where do they stand on immigration, defunding the police, and closing Guantánamo?Atam, 74, San Francisco, CaliforniaOccupation Retired nuclear engineerVoting record 100% Democrat for the past 40 yearsAmuse bouche Atam is a lifetime member of both the Sierra Club (a conservation organization) and the American Nuclear SocietyDon, 38, the Bay Area, California, and Reno, NevadaOccupation Freelance journalist and urban studies studentVoting record Mostly centre-right. Was Republican, but now identifies as independentAmuse bouche Voted for Trump in 2020 because he didn’t want him to win – “I have a tendency to vote for the loser, so I hoped that would help”For startersAtam My first impression was that he was 30 minutes late and didn’t say sorry. But I was happy waiting at the restaurant; my daughter-in-law had been the pastry chef there.Don By default, I like to listen to what people have to say. He talked about his family and how he liked to travel. We talked about Reno, where I’m from, and how he used to go there to ski.Atam I had two starters: a crab salad and some trout. Most of the food on the menu I try to avoid for health reasons.Don I had crab salad and fried chicken.The big beefAtam We talked about Guantánamo Bay. He thinks it should remain open and that the detainees shouldn’t be put on trial. He believes that if one of them gets released, they’ll go back and start another war against us.Don These people are enemy combatants. I don’t believe they are due a trial because of their special criminal status. Atam said everyone should be allowed a trial regardless of status.Atam Don’t we have a system where we presume innocence until proven guilty? I said we’re causing more harm in the world than good by holding people without trial. There were 750 detainees and there are 30 or 40 left and we’re spending half a billion a year to hold them.Don He was very knowledgable on the numbers, but I stuck to my position. These are wartime combatants and it’s not a normal situation.Atam There didn’t appear to be any facts behind his position; it seemed to be all based on feeling.skip past newsletter promotionafter newsletter promotionSharing plateAtam A country needs immigrants from all different backgrounds – that’s what’s given the US its strength.Don Immigration is a good thing when it’s done correctly. But our southern border is porous and broken; we need to stop the influx of people from South and Central America. We need more immigration judges and personnel to track those who come across. People from other countries must wait in line.Atam It’s partly our policies in Central America that have given us the drug lords and dictatorships that people are fleeing from. We should be more open to those leaving. There’s also a huge shortage of workers in our country.For aftersAtam I looked Don up before we met, and read an article he wrote about being attacked at a Black Lives Matter protest. I wanted to know more about it and understand how it had affected him. I went to three protests myself. One was in my neighbourhood, which I will say is the whitest neighbourhood in San Francisco, and there was not a single Black person in the protest. The message from that was that all of society had woken up and realised something was wrong.Don I was covering a BLM protest for a local news outlet and it turned violent. A pair of hooligans who were ransacking Reno city hall beat me up for filming them. I understood why they were protesting, but I didn’t think it was necessary for them to turn to violence. The incident softened me to both the protesters and the police. It also made me aware of the fact that I’m Black in America. Atam understood why I didn’t support the Defund the Police movement.Atam To me, Defund the Police means we need to spend more money on the root causes of crime rather than putting more people with guns on the street. San Francisco has more than 20 police for every 10,000 people and crime is still high.Don The intentions behind Defund the Police are good, but the follow-through is not. I get what they are trying to do – fund services that help minority communities – but I’m not in favour. It won’t work, it’s too extreme.TakeawaysAtam It was a very civil conversation, but I don’t think we clicked. He suggested we share contact details, but I don’t think we’ll be meeting up.Don We got on very well. We didn’t find common ground, but I got an understanding of where he was coming from on a few issues.Additional reporting: Kitty Drake Atam and Don ate at Nopa in San Francisco.Want to meet someone from across the divide? Find out how to take partTopicsLife and styleDining across the divide US specialSocial trendsUS politicsUS policingBlack Lives Matter movementUS immigrationfeaturesReuse this content More

    • 250 Shares99 Views

      in US Politics

      Dining across the divide US special: ‘He said it was my opinion that humans caused climate change. No, it’s science’

      by

      Dining across the divide US special: ‘He said it was my opinion that humans caused climate change. No, it’s science’He’s a Republican, she is a Democrat – can they find any common ground on the climate crisis, taxes or the truth about the Capitol attack?April, 48, Boulder, ColoradoOccupation Massage therapistVoting record Democrat. April says: “I have always had liberal views”Amuse bouche April has a dog “the size of a squirrel”. She’s an artist and does graphite illustrationsTed, 59, Boulder, ColoradoOccupation Sales managerVoting record Republican. Voted for Trump twice, but doesn’t defend him – “I think he was kind of a jackass, the way he carried himself in public”Amuse bouche Ted, who is one of April’s clients, almost died after jumping into a supposedly dry stream to retrieve a golf ball. He got stuck waist-deep in mud and his friends had to fish him out with a poleFor startersApril I don’t usually hang out with my clients, but it wasn’t awkward. I’ve known Ted for a few years and we’ve developed a comfortable relationship. Still, there’s a different power differential when the person’s naked on the bed and you’re not.Ted At the beginning, we were joking about whether this was going to be a cat fight. But it didn’t turn out to be; it was a lively debate. Before I left for the dinner, my wife told me: “Remember, it’s OK to have different opinions!” I went there with an open mind.April I had oysters on the half shell, half a steamed lobster, a cup of gumbo, key lime pie and a pinot grigio. I didn’t know you could get such good oysters in the middle of the country.Ted I had mussels and a bowl of gumbo.The big beefApril We got swept up in talking about the climate. He believes climate change is real but doesn’t believe humans are responsible.Ted She kept using the word “exponentially”. And I just don’t know for sure if humans are powerful enough to change the course of events on Earth to the extent she thinks we can.April I was emphasizing that if you look at history, the speed of climate change is unprecedented. It took thousands of years for the magnitude of change we’ve caused in one century. And he didn’t agree. He kept saying it was my opinion. I’m like, no, it’s science. There’s research.Ted Another point of contention was transitioning to green energy. I think we should continue to use fossil fuels until we get the clean energy ready to go and then transition, like the market would have you do. She’s ready to make the change now. She thinks the oil companies are profiteers. I think we’re in a capitalist society and they’re just making money. It’s very expensive to go out and find oil and gas. I don’t think they’re taking advantage of us.skip past newsletter promotionafter newsletter promotionSharing plateApril We agreed that politicians on both sides are insanely greedy. They all seem to think they should be allowed to invest in stocks while in office. We both think Washington is a swamp.Ted Neither of us have trust in politicians. They’re going to pander to whomever they’re trying to talk to, but it’s like professional wrestling: you’re arch enemies on TV, and then you go out and share drinks.For aftersApril We had a hard time understanding each other’s perspectives around inequality and taxation. He has more experience in economics, but I have more experience living at the lower end of those economics. I think corporations and top executives need to be taxed more and have their bonuses revamped.Ted There’s plenty of money to go around. Instead of just throwing money at an issue, we need to manage it better. Take education: I think there’s local corruption. The teachers’ unions are a problem. We should get the local people out of there and have it run by outsiders.April January 6 came up. We had very different views of what happened. We ended up steering away from the subject because we knew nothing productive was going to happen there. We would end up in a situation where he wouldn’t be coming back to see me ever again as a client if we continued on that subject.Ted Supposedly there’s a video they’re going to release that shows the FBI had a number of agents dressed as Trump supporters at the rally. I don’t think the whole thing was a setup, but my opinion is they’re trying to do anything they can to keep Donald Trump from being in office or running again.TakeawaysTed We had some common ground, but she was pretty adamant on her views and I wasn’t going to back down on mine. I think people pull themselves up, they work hard, and get successful. She has more of a victim mentality. That shapes how she sees things.April Ted’s a great guy and he’d give you the shirt off his back. But nothing will change his mind on the climate. There’s a lack of trust in anything that comes out of our side. That’s what he was calling it. He was like: “Your side, my side.” It became an argument rather than a debate at that point.Additional reporting: Kitty Drake April and Ted ate at Jax Fish House & Oyster Bar in Boulder, Colorado.Want to meet someone from across the divide? Find out how to take partTopicsLife and styleDining across the divide US specialSocial trendsUS politicsClimate crisisDonald TrumpfeaturesReuse this content More

    • 213 Shares169 Views

      in US Politics

      Feminism taught me all I need to know about men like Trump and Putin | Rebecca Solnit

      by

      Feminism taught me all I need to know about men like Trump and PutinRebecca SolnitLike all abusive men, dictators seek to control who can speak and which narratives are believed. The only difference is scaleAs the Russian invasion of Ukraine unfolded, I was reminded over and over again of the behaviour of abusive ex-husbands and boyfriends. At first he thinks that he can simply bully her into returning. When it turns out she has no desire to return, he shifts to vengeance.Putin insisted that Ukraine was rightfully part of Russia and didn’t have a separate existence. He expected his army to grab and subjugate with ease, even be welcomed. Now his regime seems bent on punitive destruction – of energy infrastructure, dwellings, historic sites, whole cities – and rape, torture and mass murder. This too is typical of abusers: domestic-violence homicides are often punishment for daring to leave.Everything I needed to know about authoritarianism I learned from feminism, or rather from feminism’s sharp eye when it comes to coercive control and male abusers. Sociologist and gender violence expert Evan Stark, in his book Coercive Control, defined the title term as one that subsumes domestic violence in a larger pattern of isolation, intimidation and control. (The book has been so influential that in the UK, coercive control is now recognised as a crime.) The violence matters, Stark writes, “but the primary harm abusive men inflict is political, not physical, and reflects the deprivation of rights and resources that are critical to personhood and citizenship”. This connects it directly to what dictators and totalitarian regimes do to the people under their rule – it’s only a matter of scale. And the agenda at all scales is to control not just practical matters, but fact, truth, history; who can speak and what can be said.The antithesis of this is, of course, democracy, which is likewise a principle that works at all scales. A marriage can be called democratic if both parties exercise power equally and are unconstrained and unintimidated by the other. Equally, a marriage can be a little tyranny in which one gains and the other surrenders rights and powers through the union, which was until recently how marriage was defined legally and socially. Likewise we call democratic those nations in which national decisions are (however imperfectly) made by representatives elected by, and accountable to, the public.At the very root of tyranny, no matter whether it’s personal or public life, lies the belief that the agency and agenda of others is illegitimate, that only the would-be tyrant should control the household or the nation. You can see this in authoritarian politicians’ rejection of the outcome of elections – Donald Trump, or in the Maga candidate Kari Lake’s unsuccessful run for Arizona governor, or the 8 January riot in Brasília to reject Lula’s victory.One term formerly used to describe relationships between an abusive man and a manipulated woman, gaslighting, became an indispensable word in public life when Trump became president. The gaslighting, the bullying, the fury to crush dissent, the assumption that he should be in charge of everything including facts, the rage, the insistence that every other power and voice is illegitimate: these are all hallmarks of dictators in the domestic and the political sphere. He began his presidency in the shade of a recording in which he infamously advocated grabbing women “by the pussy”; he ended it in the shadow of an insurrection that was a refusal to accept the verdict rendered by more than 80 million voters and the rules laid down by the US constitution.What’s striking about gaslighting is that it’s an attempt to push a lie or a distortion by using advantages of power, including credibility and social status, to overwhelm the gaslit person or people – or populace. It’s another kind of violence, not against bodies, but facts and truth. In stories of abusive households, the Trump administration and histories of authoritarianism, the men in charge regarded fact, truth, history and science as rival systems of power to be crushed or overwhelmed. And they are rival systems: a democracy of information means what prevails is what’s demonstrably true and substantiated, whether or not it’s convenient to whoever’s in power.That gaslighting was a staple of the Soviet Union is well known through the work of George Orwell and later historians (when I wrote about Orwell, I found a striking example cited by Adam Hochschild: that when Stalin’s demographers showed that the Soviet population was declining, he had them killed, causing the next round of demographers to offer more pleasing numbers). It’s also true in brutal households, where the first rule is that one must not say that it’s brutal, lest more violence transpire.Another way that studies of domestic abuse inform our political understanding is “Darvo”, an acronym that the domestic violence expert Jennifer Freyd coined in 1997 for how abusers respond in court or when otherwise challenged. It stands for deny, attack, reverse victim and offender. You insist that anyone mentioning what you’ve done is insulting you, is a liar, then insist that your accuser is the abuser and you are the victim, and keep shouting it until you believe it and maybe convince others. Freyd herself, with another psychologist, recently noted “a growing trend in the world of civil litigation: alleged perpetrators of interpersonal violence are filing defamation lawsuits against the individuals who have named them as abusers … For abusers, these lawsuits are an opportunity to enforce Darvo through civil litigation.”Trump is trying to make a comeback. It’s not working | Lloyd GreenRead moreDarvo happens all the time in political life. In the US, the Republicans have a pattern of claiming to defend what they’re attacking and to be the victims of what they’re perpetrating. Or as the New York Times columnist Charles M Blow put it in January, describing the agenda of the new Republican majority in the lower house of Congress: “Understanding that they can’t throw federal investigators off the trail of multiple conservatives – including, and perhaps principally, Donald Trump – they have decided to complicate those investigations by kicking up so much dust that the public has a hard time discerning fact from fiction.” The very mention of those crimes is treated as an insult and an outrage, with those complicit the offended parties, and so they shout down the evidence. Prolonged loud noise is an effective tactic.Blow mentions that the Republicans in the house are creating the select subcommittee on the weaponization of the federal government, which will label the pursuit of Republican crimes, notably Trump’s around January 6, as baseless political vendettas. It’s, of course, a cover-up masquerading as a crusade. He continues: “The Republicans are using a fundamentally Trumpian tactic, accusing others of that which one is guilty of. It was Donald Trump, not the Democrats, who attempted to weaponize the federal government against his enemies.” That’s Darvo at its purest.Individuals can be bullied into silence and obedience. So can whole populations. And so can facts and truth. Democracy matters at all scales.
      Rebecca Solnit is a Guardian US columnist
      TopicsDonald TrumpOpinionRepublicansVladimir PutinFeminismDomestic violenceUS politicscommentReuse this content More