Lily Salter's Blog, page 205

Who said it: Republican congressman or Christmas villain?

Jim Carrey as Scrooge in "A Christmas Carol."

There’s something familiar about the way the GOP talks about the poor. If you’ve been paying close attention to Republicans in the House and Senate, they may strike you as being eerily reminiscent of other curmudgeons we normally hear from this time of year—infamous villains like Ebenezer Scrooge from Dickens’ “A Christmas Carol.” Between defenses of their ruthless attempts to dismantle the Affordable Care Act and their ludicrous justifications for passing a bill that slashes taxes for the rich while hiking costs for the poor and middle classes, Republican politicians are sounding more and more like the grumpy, selfish antagonists from our favorite stories of the season.

Don’t believe it? Take this quiz to see if you can tell the difference between real people and fictional characters. Check your answers at the bottom.

When it comes to the poor, Mitch McConnell’s views are virtually the same as Mr. Potter’s from “It’s a Wonderful Life.” P hoto Credit: Liberty Films (Potter, left); Wikimedia Commons (McConnell, right)

1. “I am an old man and most people hate me. But I don’t like them either, so that makes it all even.”

a) Mitch McConnell

b) Orrin Hatch

c) Mr. Potter (It’s a Wonderful Life)

2. “We don’t want to turn the safety net into a hammock that lulls able-bodied people into complacency and dependence.”

a) Paul Ryan

b) Ebenezer Scrooge

c) Mitch McConnell

3. “Are you running a business or a charity ward? Not with my money!”

a) Paul Ryan

b) Mr. Potter

c) Sen. Chuck Grassley

4. “I think not having the estate tax recognizes the people that are investing as opposed to those that are just spending every darn penny they have, whether it’s on booze or women or movies.”

a) Sen. Chuck Grassley

b) The Grinch

c) Mr. Potter

5. “Oh, bleeding hearts of the world, unite!”

a) The Grinch

b) Ebenezer Scrooge

c) Orrin Hatch

6. “Are there no prisons? And the union workhouses, are they still in operation? Those who are badly off must go there.”

a) Mitch McConnell

b) Ebenezer Scrooge

c) The Grinch

7. “I have a rough time wanting to spend billions and billions and trillions of dollars to help people who won’t help themselves, won’t lift a finger, and expect the federal government to do everything.”

a) Mr. Potter

b) Paul Ryan

c) Orrin Hatch

8. “Those people who lead good lives, they’re healthy, they’ve done the things to keep their bodies healthy. And right now, those are the people who have done things the right way that are seeing their costs skyrocketing.”

a) Mr. Potter

b) Mo Brooks, Alabama congressman

c) Ebenezer Scrooge

9. “We have got this tailspin of culture, in our inner cities in particular, of men not working and just generations of men not even thinking about working or learning to value the culture of work, so there is a real culture problem here that has to be dealt with.”

a) The Grinch

b) Ebenezer Scrooge

c) Paul Ryan

10. “Uh-huh. You see, if you shoot pool with some employee here, you can come and borrow money. What does that get us? A discontented, lazy rabble instead of a thrifty working class.”

a) Chuck Grassley

b) Paul Ryan

c) Mr. Potter

# # #

Answer key: 1:C, 2:A, 3:B, 4:A, 5:A, 6:B, 7:C, 8:B, 9:C, 10:C

George Zimmerman threatens to “beat Jay-Z,” feed him to alligators over Trayvon Martin series

IMAGE DISTRIBUTED FOR PARKWOOD ENTERTAINMENT - Beyonce and JAY Z performs during the On The Run tour at Mercedes-Benz Superdome on Sunday, July 20, 2014 in New Orleans. (Photo by Robin Haper/Invision for Parkwood Entertainment/AP Images) (Credit: Invision For Parkwood Entertainm)

George Zimmerman has threatened to physically assault Jay-Z over the docuseries the hip-hop star is producing about Trayvon Martin, 17-year-old Zimmerman shot and killed.

As HuffPost reports, Zimmerman said the production team for the series “harassed” his family, and showed up to his parents’ house and uncle’s house unannounced to get them to participate in the show. He also claims, the crew trespassed, and that he will “beat Jay-Z” and “anyone who fucks with my parents will be fed to an alligator.”

“What I said is I would beat him as if I was Solange, and he would find himself coming out of the south side of a gator if he comes to Florida and bothers my family,” Zimmerman told the Orlando Sentinel.

Martin also said, “I know how to handle people who fuck with me, I have since February 2012.” Zimmerman killed Martin on February 26, 2012.

Rapper Snoop Dogg responded to Zimmerman’s threats with one of his own: “If one hair on Jays hair is touched that’s when the revolution will b televised. . . Trayvon Martin Gone but not forgotten.”

If one hair on jays hair is touched that’s when the revolution will b televised We one

What it will take for Democrats to take back the House?

(Credit: AP)

What a difference one special election makes! Following Tuesday’s historic victory by Democrat Doug Jones in Alabama’s Senate race, Democrats and Republicans, to say nothing of pundits and election data-crunchers, have been revisiting old assumptions about 2018 and 2020.

Most visibly, the radical reactionary Republicans who backed Roy Moore, led by white nationalist and Breitbart News chief Steve Bannon, are on the defensive. Bannon, who never stopped himself from throwing mud before, complained about the Democrats’ “new model” of smearing his Breitbart-branded patriots. Of course, mainstream media had a villainous role.

“I think the new model is they’re going to come at people with personal attacks and just overwhelm them with media — and you got to remember this wasn’t supported, this was triggered by the establishment,” Bannon said Wednesday night on his national radio show, referring to the Washington Post‘s reporting of Moore’s past habit of preying on teenage girls. “They’re the ones that triggered all this stuff on Moore.”

His guest on Breitbart News Tonight, Pat Caddell, went even further into the us-versus-them, real patriots-versus-establishment shills divide that is likely to resurface in 2018’s GOP congressional primaries. (Caddell is a pollster who four decades ago helped elect Democrat Jimmy Carter, but in recent years has backed Donald Trump and white-America centered populism.)

“Understand this,” he intoned. “We’re watching how they are developing to handle the revolt, if you will, or the rebellion; you put it down. And that is to work in concert with the mainstream media. Even Republicans are doing this, as well as the Democratic establishment, to squeeze this out, and they will use it to attack candidates who are unworthy . . . But as people come forth to take back their country, we’re going to have to find ways to protect, to give cover to these people . . . [from others] trying to take them out.”

The Bannon mob isn’t usually this defensive. But after Alabama, they have plenty to worry about, even if it’s not what they’re fixating on. Alabama saw an unprecedented numbers of whites — especially those under 44 and suburban women — vote for a Democrat, instead of reflexively for a Republican.

That is a break-the-mold political development. It was one of many metrics from the Alabama election that leads to a new landscape of blue hope and red dread. Another is Alabama counties with majorities of registered Democrats showed up in much larger percentages to vote than GOP majority counties.

This raises a question some of the country’s best respected election data crunchers and forecasters have been debating since Tuesday: How big of a popular vote majority do Democrats need in 2018 to win back the House?

At Sabato’s Crystal Ball, named after Larry Sabato, who decades ago took the helm at the University of Virginia Center for Politics, a rather dense post by Alan Abramowitz concluded, “a popular vote margin of between three and four points would be large enough for this purpose.”

The reason Democrats cannot win elections simply with 50 percent plus one is because many House districts have been gerrymandered, which means their boundaries were drawn based on segregating each party’s most reliable voters. The GOP did this in a dozen states in 2011 that resulted in Congress and state legislatures being under their control for most of this decade. So Abramowitz is saying that 53 to 54 percent of registered Democrats must vote in November 2018 for their party to win 24 seats to take the House.

Other election data nerds quickly pounced on that figure as being too slim in Twitter posts.

“I thought it was more?” replied David Leonhardt, a New York Times columnist.

“This is way too low. More like 7-8%,” tweeted David Wasserman, the U.S. House editor for the Cook Political Report.

“Totally agree. I don’t have numbers in front of me but I’ve looked at this specific w before. It’s basically 7.25% by which Dems need to win national vote for Congress in order to overcome gerrymandering. Chew on that,” tweeted Jeremy Kalin, a former Minnesota legislator.

Then came FiveThirtyEight.com’s Harry Enten, who tweeted, “Lots of discussion in nerd Twitter on just how much Dems need to win House vote by in order to win majority of seats. Here’s what I wrote in Feb 2017.”

That analysis is worth reposting, because it says Dems need an 8-point popular vote edge to breach the GOP’s gerrymander advantage.

“The median congressional district was 5.5 percentage points more Republican-leaning in the presidential race than the nation as a whole in 2016, meaning Democrats are essentially spotting the GOP 5.5 points in the battle for control of the House,” Enten wrote. “And even that may be underestimating Republicans ability to win a majority of seats without a majority of the vote. Since 2012 (or when most states instituted the current House district lines), Republicans have won, on average, 51 percent of the two-party House vote and 55 percent of House seats. If that difference holds for 2018, Democrats would need to win the House popular vote by about 8 percentage points to win half the House seats.”

Why do these figures matter? Because as some of these same election data crunchers pore over the exit polls and other results from Alabama and every other big election in 2017, it appears that the Democratic wave is right on the brink of closely winning (like in Alabama) or losing (as Jon Ossoff did by a few points in Georgia’s sixth congressional district last spring).

“In six 2017 special elections, Dems have been outperforming their @CookPolitical PVI-suggested share of the vote by an average of 9%,” tweeted Wasserman on Friday.

So, if Democrats have been turning out by 9 percent more than expected, how come they haven’t swept every race this year, you might ask? The answer is the gerrymandering advantage, which these analysts have been debating, is at the starting line of the process. But there are other intentional barriers that await Democrats at the finish line, where Republicans have passed laws and regulations to undermine turnout. The biggest is stricter voter ID requirements to get a polling place ballot, which congressional analysts have said peels off 2 to 3 percent of likely turnout. (Academics say it’s more.) There are other tactics too, such as limiting early voting opportunities, complicating registration and illegally purging infrequent voters.

Alabama’s senate election was the perfect capstone to a year when Democratic candidates and voters increasingly were getting their mojo back. Bannon and his right-wing rabble should be worried, because as Dems are getting organized and more optimistic, the Republicans are rife with intra-party strife, deeply unpopular policies and an unstable president.

However, Democrats, progressives and independents need to know the scale of the barriers that await in 2018. Because as much as the opposition party turned around and regained momentum in 2017, more will be needed next year to retake Congress and put a big red stop sign before the GOP.

 # # #

Steven Rosenfeld covers national political issues for AlterNet, including America’s democracy and voting rights. He is the author of several books on elections and the co-author of Who Controls Our Schools: How Billionaire-Sponsored Privatization Is Destroying Democracy and the Charter School Industry (AlterNet eBook, 2016).

Bitcoin futures trading could burst its own bubble

A new wave was added to the never-ending Bitcoin mania when the Chicago Board of Exchange (CBOE) became the first major derivative exchange to launch Bitcoin futures on December 10. Such was the euphoria among early investors that trading was halted twice due to CBOE speed breakers, which slow or pause trading when price movements are excessive.

The launch of Bitcoin futures at CBOE is set to be followed by its cross-town rival, the Chicago Mercantile Exchange (CME) Group, which plans to launch its own version of Bitcoin futures trading on December 18. And Nasdaq is preparing for a similar launch in the second-half of 2018.

Bitcoin futures allows traders to speculate on what the Bitcoin price will be at a later date. For instance, at the time of writing this article, the January contract for Bitcoin was trading around US$18,300, up from an opening price of US$15,000. Traders bet on this and profit accordingly.

Such was the excitement at the launch of futures that the Bitcoin price touched an all-time high of US$17,382.64 after one day of CBOE trading. This might sound good for Bitcoin lovers, but it could yet spell doom for the cryptocurrency in the long run.

Bitcoin futures could actually end up reducing the price of Bitcoin. Futures trading gives new investors the choice to bet against Bitcoin and also allows them to settle contracts in dollars, boosting their liquidity. Plus, Bitcoin futures allows investors to trade off the cryptocurrency without actually owning it. This protects them from any volatility in the real-time spot market. This could reduce the demand for Bitcoin, pushing down prices.

Futures lessons

Even though crypto futures are new to the market, futures contract trading dates back to ancient times. In 1750BC in Mesopotamia the Babylonian king, Hammurabi, introduced a legal code, which included stipulations for trading goods at a future date for an agreed-upon price.

A futures contract, in its simplest form, is an agreement to buy or sell an asset at a future date at an agreed-upon price. One party to the contract agrees to buy a given quantity of securities (such as stocks or bonds) or commodities (oil, gold, Bitcoin), and take the delivery on a future date while the other party agrees to deliver the asset.

Futures markets involve hedgers and speculators. Hedgers are concerned with protecting themselves from future price drops. Hedgers will buy or sell their commodity to lock in a price against future risks of it dropping in value. Speculators assume the risk, often borrowing a substantial amount of money to buy contracts that they hope will go up in the future. If the market moves against them, they will lose more than they invested.

One key requirement of futures contracts is that they must be traded on standardised exchanges such as the CBOE or CME. The arrival of Bitcoin futures at an established and well-regulated derivative exchange will encourage more investors to trade in digital currency, giving Bitcoin a place among mainstream finance. Even household names including Goldman Sachs have said they plan to clear Bitcoin futures on behalf of some clients.

This will fuel the cryptocurrency’s price rise, as crypto traders and dealers can hedge their positions based on the future market. For example Bitcoin miners will benefit from futures contracts as they can use them to hedge against their mining cost, getting money in advance from speculators hoping to make a future profit.

On the flip side, the launch of Bitcoin futures will attract greater scrutiny from the regulators which will cast a shadow on the fate of the Bitcoin in the long run. In this regard, the trade association for the futures markets, the Futures Industry Association warned the US regulator that not enough risk evaluation has been done on Bitcoin and the risks it poses to financial stability.

The launch of Bitcoin futures has aggravated other regulators, with scrutiny beginning to encircle the cryptocurrency. Hong Kong’s regulator issued a warning that only licensed firms can offer such products within Hong Kong. In Korea, the Financial Services Commission financial regulator issued a directive that bans securities firms from taking part in Bitcoin futures transactions.

Perhaps more worryingly, the levels of futures trading has not been as high as the initial flurry of excitement may suggest. The volume of trading since bitcoin’s launch on CBOE has been relatively low, especially compared with more established currencies futures.

So, although Bitcoin has the added legitimacy of being traded on futures exchanges, the relatively low levels of interest from big institutional investors is indicative. If history is anything to go by, the tulip bubble burst in February 1637 – not long after the Dutch created a futures market for buying bulbs in 1636 at the peak of tulip mania. The advent of futures trading may well further inflate the “Bitcoin bubble” and push it to its bursting point.

Nafis Alam, Associate Professor, University of Reading

Experts tell Congress how to cut drug prices. We give you some odds

(Credit: AP Photo/Chris Post)

The nation’s most influential science advisory group was set to tell Congress on Tuesday that the U.S. pharmaceutical market is not sustainable and needs to change.

“Drugs that are not affordable are of little value and drugs that do not exist are of no value,” said Norman Augustine, chair of the National Academies of Sciences, Engineering and Medicine’s committee on drug pricing and former CEO of Lockheed Martin Corp.

The report, “Making Medicines Affordable: A National Imperative,” identifies eight steps to cut drug prices. It also provides a list of specific “implementation actions” for various federal agencies, including Congress, the Federal Trade Commission and the U.S. Departments of Justice and Health and Human Services.

Tuesday’s hearing, which is the third in a series by the Senate Health, Education, Labor and Pensions Committee, comes as Americans across the political spectrum say lowering the price of prescription drugs is a top priority. Nationwide, dozens of cities, counties and school districts have turned to drug importation as a solution to high prices. And legislators from both parties have also supported  importation of drugs from countries where list prices are cheaper.  While individual states have passed laws for more transparency and price controls and President Donald Trump has publicly called for lower drug prices, Congress has stalled.

So, will the committee’s recommendations spur action? Kaiser Health News takes the political temperature, talks to experts and rates their chances:

Recommendation No. 1: Allow the federal government to negotiate drug prices

Current law prohibits the U.S. Health and Human Services secretary from directly negotiating drug prices, and the committee says that’s ridiculous.

The committee recommends Medicare and other agencies negotiate which drugs are placed on a list of covered drugs and, when necessary, exclude some drugs. This is not a new idea.

Some states are already restricting high-priced drugs in Medicaid, the state-federal insurance program for low-income Americans. But federal efforts to change Medicare are more complicated.

Just two months ago, top House Democrats introduced another Medicare negotiation bill. But don’t hold your breath, Trump hasn’t responded to multiple letters sent from Rep. Elijah Cummings (D-Md.) — including one after the most recent bill was introduced in late October. That bill hasn’t moved past the health subcommittee.

Recommendation No. 2: Speed approvals of safe and effective generics and biosimilars

This recommendation has a strong ally at the Food and Drug Administration.

Commissioner Scott Gottlieb announced a “drug competition action plan” in June and followed it up two months ago with a new set of policies aimed at speeding the drug approval process for complex generics. More changes are expected, too, as Gottlieb wrote in his blog post: “If consumers are priced out of the drugs they need, that’s a public health concern that FDA should address.”

But the pharmaceutical world knows which games to play to keep competition at bay. The committee specifically recommends the U.S. Department of Justice and the Federal Trade Commission should watch for anti-competitive tactics, such as pay-for-delay and extending exclusivity protections. The U.S. Supreme Court weighed in on pay-for-delay, saying settlements between brand-name drugmakers and generic rivals warranted antitrust review. The total number of these deals has fallen in recent years.

To further encourage generic approvals, Congress could include several proposed bills, such as the so-called CREATES Act, in a final year-end package, said Chip Davis, president of the generics and biosimilars lobby Association for Accessible Medicines.

“People are starting to pay more attention” to anti-competitive patent tactics, Davis said.

Recommendation No. 3: Transparency

The committee takes direct aim at drug prices by saying that Congress should make manufacturers and insurers disclose drug prices, as well as the rebates and discounts they negotiate. It also asks that HHS curate and publicly report the information.

States have taken the lead on price transparency, with Vermont the first to pass a law, which requires an annual report on up to 15 drugs that cost the state a lot of money and have seen price spikes. In Congress, Sen. Ron Wyden (D-Ore.), introduced a bill in June that would impose price-reporting requirements on some drugs. It now sits in the Senate Finance Committee. The pharmaceutical industry has fended off most price disclosure efforts in the past.

Notably, the committee also recommends that nonprofits in the pharmaceutical sector — such as patient groups — disclose all sources of income in their tax filings. That’s a move that would reveal exactly how much the pharmaceutical companies are supporting advocacy groups.

Recommendation No. 4:  Discourage the pharmaceuticual industry’s direct-to-consumer advertising

The U.S. is only one of two developed countries in the world to allow direct-to-consumer pharmaceutical advertising (the other is New Zealand, and doctors there have called for a ban). And U.S. taxpayers support the tax breaks with a deduction that politicians have tried to eliminate in the past.

Now, the committee recommends Congress eliminate the tax deduction pharmaceutical companies are allowed to take on direct-to-consumer advertising.

This is an idea that should have wide support. Polls show that most Americans favor banning the ads and federal lawmakers have tried to change the rules on so-called DTC for years. The American Medical Association (AMA) called for a ban on pharmaceutical advertising directly to patients in 2015, saying there were concerns that the ads were driving up demand for expensive drugs. The FDA provides guidance for the advertising and, in August, FDA Commissioner Gottlieb said he may reduce the number of risks manufacturers must reveal when advertising a medicine.

In a sign of just how entrenched the tax break is in D.C. politics, Sen. Dick Durbin (D- Ill.) introduced a bill last month that doesn’t eliminate the break but takes a step to rein in the advertising. Durbin’s bill would require manufacturers to provide the wholesale price of a drug in their advertisements.

Recommendation No. 5: Limit what Medicare enrollees pay for drugs

The committee ticks off a to-do list for Congress when it comes to what older Americans and those with disabilities are paying for drugs.

Their recommendations include asking Congress to establish limits on total annual out-of-pocket costs for Medicare Part D enrollees and telling Congress to make sure the Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services efforts to guarantee enrollee cost sharing is based on the real price of the drug as well as how well the drug works.

Turns out, there is already some limited movement on this one.

Medicare allows negotiations between the corporate insurers and pharmacy benefit managers who help administer the Part D program. CMS announced last month that it is exploring how to pass on the behind-the-scenes manufacturer rebates to patients, though it warns premiums may rise if they make this move.

Recommendation No. 6: Increasing oversight of a very specific federal drug discount program

The committee is stepping into a hot-button political issue by recommending increased transparency and oversight of a program that Congress created in 1992.

The program, known as 340B, requires pharmaceutical companies to sell drugs at steep discounts to hospitals and clinics that serve high volumes of low-income patients. Congress held two hearings this year, questioning who is benefiting from the discounts, and CMS recently announced it was slashing Medicare reimbursement to some hospitals enrolled in the program.

Hospitals are fighting back, filing a lawsuit over the reimbursement cut. The committee, echoing concerns from House Republicans, recommends making sure the program helps “aid vulnerable populations.”

Recommendation No. 7: Revise the Orphan Drug Act

The committee wants to make sure the 1983 Orphan Drug Act helps patients with rare diseases.

The law, intended to spur development of medicines for rare diseases, provides financial incentives for drugmakers such as seven years of market exclusivity for drugs that treat a specific condition that affects fewer than 200,000 people.

The program has been under fire this year after Kaiser Health News, whose investigation is cited by the committee, reported that approved drugs often gamed this system and won blockbuster sales for more common diseases. The Government Accountability Office has begun an investigation into the program after receiving a request from top Republican senators and FDA’s announced “modernization” plan for the agency this summer.

The committee’s requests include limiting the number of exclusivity periods a drug can receive and making sure drugs that win the financial incentives really do treat rare disease. Finally, the committee says HHS should “obtain favorable concessions on launch prices, annual price increases,” and more.

Recommendation No. 8: Make sure doctors prescribe drugs for the right reasons

Medical practices, hospitals and doctors should “substantially” tighten restrictions on office visits by pharma employees, and the acceptance of free samples, the committee recommends.

This isn’t the first time the national group has recommended controlling drug samples and visits. In 2009, the then Institute of Medicine said doctors and medical schools should stop taking free drug samples. It may have worked — to some extent. A study this year found that academic medical centers that limited visits saw changes in prescribing patterns.

Now, the National Academies committee says doctors in private practice should also stop taking free samples and welcoming pharmaceutical visits. The AMA, which is the nation’s largest membership group of doctors, supports physicians using samples on a voluntary basis, particularly for uninsured patients.

Kaiser Health News (KHN) is a national health policy news service. It is an editorially independent program of the Henry J. Kaiser Family Foundation which is not affiliated with Kaiser Permanente.

Top 10 films of 2017 that didn’t play it safe

(Credit: Paramount Pictures)

“Now you’re in the sunken place,” that line from Jordan Peele’s phenomenal success, “Get Out,” may be the mantra for 2017. The year sunk from low to lower to still even lower what with Trump, the sexual harassment scandals that rocked Hollywood and politics, and more Trump. Did anyone else feel like they’d had a cup of Missy Armitage’s tea? Or wanted one?

Thankfully, there were some films to distract me from the relentless horrorshow. Maybe it is a sign of the terrible times, but I gravitated to idiosyncratic films that didn’t play things safe; films that made me uncomfortable as Chris Washington (Daniel Klauuya) in “Get Out.”

Looking back on films in 2017, there were two movies in particular that were so far-out and fucked-up they made me itchy and giddy. They are simultaneously flawless and flawed — but that is why I loved them so much. There were at least half dozen other films that also got under my skin in ways that wowed me and disarmed me, made me think, laugh, and cry at the same time. Those are the Best Pictures of the year for me; the films I will remember and watch again. Because I think films should generate a reaction — even if it’s anger.  

Here is my totally personal, take-no-prisoners Ten Most Memorable Films of 2017:

1. The most polarizing, thought-provoking, argument-starting, dizzying, dazzling, love-it-or-hate-it you can’t shake it from your system film this year was Darren Aronofsky’s allegorical “mother!” Whether viewers see all the biblical references, or think it’s about the desecration of mother earth, or believe it to be a stinging social commentary, the film is absolutely thrilling, eye-popping, head-scratching, and riotous at the same time. Mother (Jennifer Lawrence), a pregnant woman, and Him (Javier Bardem, typecast as God), is a writer in a creative slump. They live in a big old, possibly crumbling house in the middle of nowhere. When an uninvited guest (Ed Harris) and his wife (a hilarious Michelle Pfeiffer) drop by and stay over, they destroy everything, especially His’ precious perfect crystal. Then things get seriously weird, and Aronofsky’s film gets as unhinged as its title character. “mother!” goes wildly off the rails with ecstatic gonzo sequences that need to be experienced.

Not everyone loved “mother!” It was a flop at the box office, and earned that rare F from Cinemascore in an audience exit poll. But it begs viewers to engage with it even as it challenges them. Jennifer Lawrence is shot in intense close-up for almost half the film that it becomes hypnotic or hateful. Bardem is both seductive and irritating as a writer who refuses to listen to his wife; you love to hate him. And the house, which Mother never gets to leave, is pretty fabulous.

“mother!” deliberately did not please everyone — after the film, my friend Jimmy quipped, “’mother!,’ may I have my $10 back?!” — but as I said, the best films polarize viewers.



2. The other deliriously insane film I saw this year was “The Book of Henry.” When it ended, I said to my friend Keith, “There’s one thing I didn’t understand: What the fuck was that?!” To which he replied, “I thought it was a comedy!” Director Colin Trevorrow’s film, based on a script by Gregg Hurwitz, is relentlessly and unintentionally hilarious. It’s a quirky teen film that features brain tumors, child abuse, and suicide. Henry Carpenter (Jaeden Lieberher), is a boy genius. He plays the stock market well so his single mother Susan (Naomi Watts), can quit waitressing and get rid of the beat up old car she loves. He develops elaborate Rube Goldberg contraptions that his bullied younger brother Peter (Jacob Tremblay), admires. Henry also discovers that his neighbor Glenn (Dean Norris) is abusing his daughter Christina (Maddie Ziegler). So Henry creates a book that outlines an elaborate plan for his mother to execute to save Christina from more abuse. It’s already far-fetched and credulity straining, but “The Book of Henry” goes for broke repeatedly. From a sequence where Susan follows Henry’s pre-recorded plans — which include him anticipating her confusing right and left — to a has-to-be-seen-to-be-believed climactic sequence where Trevorrow cross-cuts between the school talent show and Susan speeding off to take out Glenn with a rifle. Yes, this is a film that features teens and pre-teens burping and dancing on stage one minute, and crackerjack-timed “La Femme Nikita” hit-man suspense the next. But wait, there’s more! A touching pieta scene is meant to jerk tears from viewers. Instead, I welled up with tears when Sarah Silverman, as Susan’s wacky bestie, fights-flirts with Henry in a hospital room. The film is also not without romance, as the dreamy Lee Pace plays a dreamy doctor who meets, cares for, and is patient with Susan. “The Book of Henry” deals with grief and trauma in unusual — extremely unusual! — ways, which is both headscratching and heartrending. I’ve never seen anything like it. This child’s fever-dream of a film is wrongheaded in all the right ways.

3. “Columbus” by writer/director Kogonada, was the most satisfying, heartbreaking film I’ve seen all year. Shot in Columbus, Indiana (yes, VP Pence’s home town), every image is freighted with meaning. The story has Jin (John Cho in a leading man role he deserves) arriving from Korea to care for his ailing father. He meets Casey (Haley Lu Richardson in a breakthrough performance), a young woman whose dreams are on hold as she is stuck in town, caring for her mother. The pair develops an intense friendship. They talk. They listen. They discuss architecture. When Jin asks Casey why she likes a particular building, the exchange is breathtaking. It may sound dull or didactic, but trust me, it is neither. Koganada and his two leads make “Columbus” hypnotic and moving. This quietly powerful film is achingly beautiful both visually and emotionally. For me, it was extraordinary.



4. If “Columbus” was a minimalist masterpiece, “Endless Poetry” was a maximalist one. Alejandro Jodorowsky’s latest semi-autobiographical film was a vivid, sensorial experience from which I’ve still not recovered. And I don’t want to. The film has Alejandro (Adan Jodorowsky, the director’s own son) forging his way as a poet in 1940s Chile against his father’s Jaime’s (Brontis Jodorowsky’s) wishes. This is a film where writing and self-determination is perhaps more important that a father’s love. Jodorowsky creates such vivid and impassioned work of art — everything here is beautiful even when it is so gleefully over the top — it becomes impossible not to be seduced by the fantasia. From eye-popping street parades, to the frequent full-frontal nudity, to the remarkable opera singer Pamela Flores in a double role as Alejandro’s mother as well as a flame-haired woman who inspires and seduces him, the film is endlessly entertaining. And the exchange between father and son in the end is as powerful as the one in “Call Me by Your Name.”



5. “Good Time” I don’t think I had a better time in the theatre this year than during the 100 harrowing minutes of Benny and Joshua Safdie’s white-knuckled thrill-ride called “Good Time.” An exceptional Robert Pattinson (who proved that his turn in “Cosmopolis” was no fluke) plays Connie a not-to-bright bank robber who makes one bad decision after another trying to raise enough money in one night to save his disabled brother (Benny Sadie) from jail. Tightly plotted, darkly funny, nasty, nasty, nasty, and featuring at least one plot twist that viewers will never see coming, “Good Time” delivered on the promise of its title.  



6. “Lady McBeth” William Oldroyd’s film debut was a shocking, stunning drama aided in no small part by Florence Pugh’s astonishing performance. A young bride (Pugh) rebels against patriarchy by having an affair with Sebastian (Cosmo Jarvis), a worker on the estate. How things play out  — hint, there is murder. More than one, really — is spellbinding. Oldroyd shoots his film in vibrant color but with minimalist design. Pugh practically rips your heart out as you watch her suffer, become empowered, and then wreck havoc on those who have wronged her. It’s both devastating and fabulously satisfying.



7. “The Wound” by John Trengove, infected me more than any other film this year. This was an intense, exceptional film about an unusual topic — male initiation rituals in the Xhosa culture — and it featured a helluva performance by Nakhane Touré as a gay man trapped in a love triangle. “The Wound” took me to a world I’d never seen before, and I found it fascinating and unforgettable. I’ve been championing the film since I saw it at a fest in April, through it’s theatrical release in August, and its Oscar campaign for Best Foreign Language film; it’s presently on the shortlist of nominees. It is now on DVD and blu-ray. I can’t encourage viewers enough to see it.



8. “The Human Flow” Ai Weiwei’s epic documentary about the refugee crisis was an outstanding, immersive experience. It makes you feel small and uncomfortable. You watch hundreds of people trekking through rivers and streets or living in camps or detention centers for months on end, all because they need to leave their homelands. You wonder how do they do it? How would I do it? And why does anyone have to? Ai captures the resilience of these people in a way that is full of empathy and understanding. Ai’s film is a staggering, astonishing achievement.



9. “Raw” Julia Ducournau’s squirm-inducing thriller, about a vegetarian who becomes a carnivore after eating a raw kidney, was one of the most assured and daring film debuts of the year. It’s a body-horror drama full of uncompromisingly gory and ferocious scenes — that botched Brazilian wax YIKES! Ducournau offers a literally primitive metaphor for coming-of-age and female sexuality. “Raw” is a film to be seen at your own risk, but it is absolutely rewarding.



10. “Debris” I did not see a more unsettling short film this year than Julio Ramos’ “Debris.” This 14-minute gut-punch has migrant laborers getting into trouble on a construction site. It left me speechless when it screened at the Telluride Film Festival. (Fun fact: the program was curated by “Moonlight” director Barry Jenkins). It spoke volumes on greed, immigration, and ethics. It was short, sharp, and shocking. I hope more people can see it.

Will the “Star Wars” magic soon wear off?

Daisy Ridley and Mark Hamill in "Star Wars: The Last Jedi" (Credit: Walt Disney Studios Motion Pictures)

George Lucas’s “Star Wars” is one of the most successful film franchises in history. His original film, “Star Wars: A New Hope,” was released in 1977 as an auteur project. Forty years later, Lucas’s original vision has spawned countless numbers of comic books, novels, video games — and of course — sequels and other TV and film projects that would help to define the very idea of a Hollywood blockbuster film and collectively be worth billions of dollars.

The newest installment in the “Star Wars” film franchise is “The Last Jedi.” Debuting last Thursday in the United States, it has already broken box office records. “The Last Jedi” has also received near universal praise from critics who describe it as “amazing,” “bold,” “exciting” and “thrilling.” While serious fans of “Star Wars” are much more divided in their feelings towards “The Last Jedi” and its predecessor, “The Force Awakens,” the box office success of those two films — the first since the widely despised “Star Wars” prequels more than ten years ago — shows that the Force is still strong among the general viewing public.

This week’s episode of “The Chauncey DeVega Show” celebrates all things “Star Wars” and the release of the newest installment in the saga “The Last Jedi.”

Physicist Patrick Johnson joined me on this episode. He is a professor at Georgetown University and the author of the new book “The Physics of ‘Star Wars': The Science Behind a Galaxy Far, Far Away.”

In our conversation, Johnson explains how science can help us to understand the Force, the physics behind lightsabers, the engineering involved in building the Death Star and yes, whether Han Solo could have made the Kessel Run in less than 12 parsecs.

The second guest on this week’s podcast is Bill Slavicsek. He is one of the world’s foremost experts on “Star Wars.” Slavicsek helped to perfect the classic “Star Wars” role-playing game from West End Games, wrote the highly regarded and beloved “A Guide to the Star Wars Universe” as well as the “Star Wars Sourcebook.” His work continues to influence the writers and creators of the new “Star Wars” films, including “Rogue One” and the TV show “Rebels.” Slavicsek is also one of the principle game designers for the role-playing game Dungeons and Dragons and the online video game Elder Scrolls.

I also share my thoughts about all of the people who now claim to love black women, after the latter helped to defeat Roy Moore in Alabama. And I offer my preliminary review of “Star Wars: The Last Jedi” — hint: this movie is not the great creative success that many reviewers and others are claiming it is.

Is FCC Chairman Ajit Pai a closeted alt-right sympathizer?

FCC commissioner Ajit Pai presents his dissent during a Federal Communications Commission (FCC) hearing at the FCC in Washington. (Credit: AP Photo/Susan Walsh)

On Thursday, the Federal Communications Commission voted 3-2 along party lines to repeal an Obama-era regulation to preserve net neutrality, defying Silicon Valley executives and consumer advocacy groups, not to mention the will of the people. A recent University of Maryland survey finds that more than 80 percent of registered voters oppose the FCC‘s plans.

The move will fundamentally transform the internet as we know it, allowing corporate behemoths like Verizon and Comcast to manipulate loading speeds and charge customers a premium for access to individual websites and apps. Adding insult to democratic injury, circumstantial evidence suggests the man who cast the deciding vote, Ajit Pai, sympathizes with the so-called alt-right.

Back in November, the Trump appointee for FCC chair unveiled his plans to junk the net neutrality rules established in 2015, arguing that websites and social media platforms, rather than internet service providers (ISPs), posed the greatest threat to an open internet. At the time, Pai singled out Twitter for blame.

“The company has a viewpoint and uses that viewpoint to discriminate,” he told the R Street Institute, a libertarian-minded think tank. “And to say the least, the company appears to have a double standard when it comes to suspending or deverifying conservative users’ accounts as opposed to those of liberal users. This conduct is many things, but it isn’t fighting for an open internet.”

It’s difficult to know exactly who Pai had in mind, but Slate’s April Glaser notesthat Twitter recently deverified the accounts of several prominent white supremacists, including Laura Loomer and Jason Kessler. The former is a YouTube sensation on the alt-right who was recently banned from Uber and Lyftfor her Islamophobic tweets, while the latter was one of the organizers of the Unite the Right rally in Charlottesville. In October, Kessler was indicted on a felony perjury charge after falsely accusing a man he’d assaulted of attacking him first.

“What’s weird about Pai’s comments is that while these are all figures on the right, conservatives don’t typically count them among their ranks,” Glaser writes. “And while conservatives do sometimes cast themselves as ideological victims of Silicon Valley’s overreach, there have been no recent deverifications of prominent right-wing figures, ‘conservative’ or otherwise, not known for promoting hate. In other words, according to Pai, the demotion of racists on a social network is a bigger deal than an action that could radically change the architecture of — and who succeeds on — the internet.”

Weirder still is the video Pai released Wednesday in conjunction with the Daily Caller assuring millennials that they can still “gram their food” and “post photos of cute animals” if net neutrality is scrapped. (In May, he made a separate appealto America’s youth by reading aloud the meanest tweets about his proposals, a nod to the popular segment on “Jimmy Kimmel Live!”) When he’s not wielding a fidget spinner and assuring viewers they can still binge-watch “Game of Thrones,” he can be seen doing the Harlem Shake next to a woman named Martina Markota, a far-right conspiracy theorist who has speculated that Hillary Clinton’s former campaign chair ran a child sex ring out of the basement of a Washington pizzeria.

Before joining the Daily Caller, Markota appeared in a video for the Proud Boys, a self-described “Western Chauvinist” men’s club with ties to the alt-right, where she claimed that the (thoroughly debunked) Pizzagate was real. “This is not something I’m making up because I’m trying to…put in my fantasy version of what’s going on and interject it into these email scandals,” she says at one point. “This is independent of the campaign. I know what cheese pizza is.”

Pai, the son of Indian immigrants, has been a subject of racist attacks himself in recent months, some of them bearing the hallmarks of the alt-right. “We all have the power to murder Ajit Pai and his family,” an FCC commenter wrote in May. “Jk jk.” No one stands to lose more from the repeal of net neutrality rules than the patrons of websites like 4chan and Reddit, which internet service providers will soon be able to slow to a crawl, so it’s difficult to imagine white nationalists embracing Pai as an ally, and vice versa.

And yet. After the FCC chairman pleaded his case that social media networks were suppressing free speech, he earned the effusive praise of far-right radio host Matt Forney and Andrew Torba of Gab, a platform where users “are generally free to be as racist or anti-Semitic as they’d like without fear of being reprimanded or censored,” according to Slate.

It’s possible, even probable, that Pai was unaware of Martina Markota’s history before he recorded his latest video for the Daily Caller. But the fact remains that Jason Kessler got his start as a contributor for the right-wing publication, and Pai had no reservations about lending it his imprimatur. With a White House that has excused and enabled white nationalists at every turn, no one in the Trump administration has earned the benefit of the doubt.

Jacob Sugarman is a managing editor at AlterNet.

How to heal from the toxic triangulation of narcissists

(Credit: Pressmaster/Shutterstock)

Survivors of intimate relationships with malignant narcissists are often put through the psychological wringer. This is not surprising, as they have been chronically mistreated, demeaned and diminished by character-disordered individuals who are masters of interpersonal exploitation and who show severe deficiencies in their ability to empathize.  Dr. George Simon asserts that grandiose, malignant narcissists feel entitled to abuse and exploit empathic individuals for their own gain because they truly believe in the delusion of their own superiority.

Abusive narcissists are contemptuous, haughty, condescending and cruel beyond words. They are also insatiable attention-seekers, constantly looking for validation from the outside world to bolster their grandiose egos.

We’ve all heard the saying, “Never trust the date that is rude to the waiter,” but what about the partner who is overly flirtatious with the waitress, each and every time? Survivors of intimate relationships with narcissists can attest to the insatiable attention-seeking that a narcissistic abuser exhibits as he or she tries to gain narcissistic supply (ex. attention, praise, admiration, sex, status, etc.) from anyone and everyone they meet.

Toxic triangulation – what is it?

This leads us to talk about one of the common ways malignant narcissists demean their victims and retain narcissistic supply: triangulation. Triangulationin the context of narcissistic abuse is the act of bringing another person or a group of people into the dynamic of a relationship or interaction to belittle the victim and make the victim “vie” for the attention of the narcissist.

This method is often used to create love triangles among the people that the narcissistic abuser depends on for his or her daily “fix” of attention. Triangulation is one of the most insidious, heartbreaking tools malignant narcissists use to manipulate their former partners, their current partners, their harem members as well as their new sources of supply.

Narcissists enjoy using triangulation as a mind game that enables them to gain a sense of power and control over multiple people simultaneously.  It confirms to them their own grandiosity – after all, aren’t they superior if they have all these people competing for their approval and validation? They certainly think so.

The ways narcissists triangulate include but are certainly not limited to: flirting with others in front of their partners, emotional and physical infidelity, as well as comparing their partners to others as a way to manufacture insecurities in them. They may also report back falsehoods about what one person is saying about another, in order to pit their victims against each other so that neither one of them approaches the other about the abuse taking place.

This form of triangulation can enables victims to doubt the reality of the abuse (ex. “My ex never had this problem with me!”) and serves to make the victim feel unworthy and doubtful of their own experiences. As survivors who have met the ex-partners of their narcissistic abusers and have had honest conversations with them can testify, these claims are far from the truth. You will find that malignant narcissists deplete and drain each and every one of their victims, who all have similar horror stories about the relationship.

Triangulation also has the added “reward” of allowing narcissists access to resources from each and every victim – whether that resource be wealth, status or simply the delicious compassion of an unsuspecting empath. The need for narcissistic supply can be almost gratifyingly sadistic – a way to punish victims for seeking to be independent agents and to keep them reliant on the narcissist’s approval.

You may be wondering: why would anyone fall into this trap? It’s because triangulation can happen in covert, underhanded ways meant to subtly make victims question themselves. The narcissist’s false mask helps to reinforce his or her charming presence, which lures both potential victims as well previous partners into a horrific abuse cycle filled with love-bombing idealization, cruel and callous devaluation and a comfort-punishment dynamic that creates trauma bonding between victim and predator.

What survivors must understand is that triangulation is not an indication of anyone’s worth or desirability. Nor are the narcissist’s new victims immune to encountering this tactic. It is ammunition and leverage to devalue former victims to new partners (ex. “My ex was so crazy!”) or re-idealize old partners while devaluing new ones (ex. “My last girlfriend/boyfriend got my jokes, why can’t you?”). It is also used to annihilate a former partner’s sense of self by flaunting the new source of supply shortly after a discard.

This is something narcissists are prone to doing publicly post-breakup, especially if you discarded them first. It is done in order to regain power over your emotions, hoover you back into the abuse cycle or provoke you into breaking No Contact.

How to heal from triangulation

There are many excellent resources in the survivor community about the methods of triangulation and its effects. What is lacking are more tips on how to best address the wounding that can result from triangulation and how to begin healing from it. Rejection on its own is hurtful enough, but manipulative, deliberately damaging comparisons set up by an emotional terrorist is quite another affair.

This can be a complex and daunting undertaking, as narcissists not only trigger old wounds, they also manufacture new ones – creating what I like to call “simultaneous wounding.”  It is important that in resisting triangulation, one minimizes as much contact as possible with the narcissistic abuser (even in a co-parenting situation where Low Contact is more appropriate). This entails blocking the abuser on all social media platforms, cutting off contact with the abuser’s harem members to ensure peace of mind as well as taking any steps you can to legally protect yourself from potential stalking and harassment after the break-up.

Healing from the effects of toxic triangulation is not an easy task, but gaining self-mastery, self-confidence and learning how to self-validate is essential to the recovery journey.  You may also require professional support to address any symptoms of trauma in addition to these methods, as well as any other traditional or alternative healing modalities that can assist you in the healing journey.

Here are three powerful ways survivors of abuse can begin to heal from the impact of toxic triangulation and rise in their authentic, glorious selves:

1. Know that you are irreplaceable and learn exactly why.

Toxic partners work hard to instill in us a belief that we can be easily replaced with another source of supply. This is why survivors of narcissistic abuse can be so devastated after they’ve been abused, devalued, discarded and not too soon after, seemingly replaced by a shiny new target. They reminisce about the ways their narcissistic partners treated them in the idealization phase, wondering if the new person in the abuser’s life is being treated better.

We all know logically that narcissists put each and every partner through this cycle of abuse regardless of who that person is. The fantasy relationship they display on Facebook or in public spaces is an illusion – you know that for a fact because they concocted the same fantasy with you, posting happy images on social media or bragging about you to their friends even when they began abusing you behind closed doors.

The abuser’s lack of empathy and sense of entitlement carries forward in every relationship – even the person they eventually seem to ‘settle down’ with (and let’s all say a collective prayer for this person). Yet on a subconscious level, we may still be plagued by victim-shaming ideas cultivated by the blameshifting, projection and gaslighting that we endured throughout the relationship.

Our abusers, after all, have brainwashed and conditioned us over time into believing that we were the problem, and this is an ingrained belief system that needs to be addressed at its core in order for healing to take place.

It is this belief that arises not only during toxic triangulation in the relationship, but after the ending of it. Not only do trauma bonds with the narcissist need to be severed, our cognitive distortions need to be replaced with healthier, more realistic beliefs about the toxic nature of the narcissistic ex-partner, the reality of the abuse we experienced as well as the integrity of our identity that the abuser attempted to erode, erase and diminish.

That’s where the power of self-appreciation and self-validation come in. Combating triangulation requires knowing that you are truly irreplaceable and why. I am sure you’ve heard it before, but the fact of the matter is, your particular “package” cannot be replicated. The dynamic combination of your unique inner and outer beauty, success, talents, skills, can never be found in another.

Remember also that narcissists see their victims as objects, not as individual beings, making them unlikely to even appreciate the complexity of the various identities they work hard to erase. Additionally, you as a person can never be ‘copied.’

It is interesting to note that narcissistic abusers may also triangulate their victims with targets that are “surprising” to say the least – people that victims did not realize the narcissist would ever have an interest in due to the narcissist’s so-called “preferences.” This can get us wondering whether the narcissist even liked our “type.” The truth is – the narcissist’s preferences quickly go out the window because they are overridden by the need for supply. It is just further evidence that narcissists don’t discriminate when they need sources of supply after the ending of a significant relationship…they’ll gain attention, praise, adulation and validation from whoever offers it to them.

The fact that the abuser has seemingly ‘replaced’ you only means that they have replaced you with who they see as yet another object to cater to their needs. They do not see their new sources of supply as human beings nor do they truly appreciate the intricacies of who they are beyond a shallow representation.

The narcissistic abuser is so self-absorbed that they rarely ‘know’ the true personalities of their victims – only the aspects that can be used to serve them and their image. They may know that their partner Sally is a talented, good-looking musician, but they don’t truly ‘know’ Sally as a person. You’ll discover that even after a long-term relationship, asking a narcissist what they liked about their ex-partner will elicit only baffled looks. Even asking a narcissist what they like about you while in the idealization phase will only result in shallow responses. That’s because throughout the abuse cycle, the narcissistic abuser focuses on the traits of the victim that could be used to prop up the narcissist’s ego – not on the deeper qualities that defined who they were. Therefore, it is a waste of time to ever compare yourself to a narcissist’s old or new sources of supply or their harem members.

This can be difficult to accept when the narcissist is pulling out all stops to create a happy public image of his or her new or old relationship – but remember that appreciating what makes you who you are can act as an antidote to their poisonous efforts to diminish you.

How to stop idealizing the new source of supply 

When a narcissistic abuser moves onto a new target, survivors may begin to ‘idealize’ the target! They may begin to compare themselves unfavorably with the new source of supply, nullifying who they are in the process. They forget that they can never truly be replaced – with anyone. Sure, narcissistic Brad can date new target Melissa who is attractive and sporty, but they can’t get you. Not only are you attractive, you may also be intellectual, have a successful career, a passion for helping others, a quirky sense of humor, and a penchant for making the best dirty jokes. You could be a head-turner on the dance floor, be financially stable, deeply spiritual and have an active lifestyle. What are the cool and interesting things you’re forgetting about yourself? There are so many incredible things about you and your life that you tend to dismiss or minimize because you’re so busy focusing on the new victim.

You have all sorts of quirky facets to your identity that fit together in a scrumptious way that frankly, no one could mirror even if they tried. Maybe I am drawn to Cory with the six-pack and smooth pick-up lines, but at the end of the day it might be Zach with the sweet smile, who is not only smooth but also emotionally validating, empathic, mature beyond his years and has a deep voice that would probably make me melt in the long run.

Attractiveness is not a one-dimensional thing: it is a kaleidoscope of factors. It is not just one or two qualities that define us and make us desirable to people. It is a whole spectrum of nuanced attributes and larger-than-life traits that are stirred to make the magical potion that is your essence.

Everything from your intelligence, passions, hobbies, interests to the twinkle in your eye – beautiful qualities and attributes that anyone who is not a narcissist will be sure to cherish about you. So ask yourself: what is the potent cocktail of qualities that make you extra delicious and irreplaceable?

I am serious – there is something absolutely yummy about your particular mind, body and spirit – about your soul. There are parts of us – sometimes even the very ones we’d rather hide from society – that make us unique in ways people wouldn’t expect. Maybe the way you laugh is captivating; there might be something about your energy that is magnetic or your strong stride that catches the eye of everyone in the room. People pick up on those things about you because they’re seeing you with fresh eyes – and now it’s time for you to value these things in yourself too.

Remember, this rule of people being multifaceted applies to your abuser too, but in a way that gives survivors the advantage in moving forward. The once appealing and charming narcissist gets pretty boring in the long run when we factor in the attributes of their true selves – their flat affect, their inability to be happy for others, their cruelty, their pathological envy and a number of other undesirable traits. Who are they to compare or triangulate your badass self to anyone? No one.

That is why it helps, after we’ve addressed any wounds left behind by blameshifting, to cultivate and reinforce our own strengths rather than needlessly emphasizing any perceived weaknesses, flaws or deficiencies that the abuser has pushed us to internalize. It is a waste of your beautiful, divine self to diminish or nullify your qualities just because of the petty and immature games that narcissists play. I find that when survivors of narcissistic abuse begin to compare themselves to new targets or old ones, they begin to feed right into the narcissist’s desire to see their survivors sabotage themselves. It’s emotional rape and murder without a trace – and it’s done by your own hand!

Here are some ideas on how to embrace our irreplaceability and celebrate ourselves:

Make an epic “love list” and refer to it daily. This will get you in the habit of waking up in the morning with an attitude of being grateful for all that you are and have, rather than feeling lacking in any way.

What sort of miracles in your life, in your personality and in your abilities could you be missing out on as you waste time comparing yourself to another person? This is all about moving forward with the determination to refocus on what you do well and to celebrate the most attractive and desirable qualities about yourself. Every day, honor the qualities, traits and attributes that you are proud of – even if the narcissist put them down.

What successes did they downplay? Reminisce lovingly about them, knowing that the reason they were diminished in the first place were because they evoked the narcissist’s pathological envy. What intellectual, spiritual, emotional and physical attributes do you find people most notice about you and are captivated by? Your abuser probably tried to idealize you with them, only to later devalue them so that you wouldn’t feel as confident about yourself or your ability to get a better partner. Now it’s your turn to see these qualities again with fresh eyes. What do you see within yourself that you know makes you special and unique? Make an entire list if you have to, about the things you like and love about yourself and your life. Also make another list for your goals, dreams and anything you want to enhance in your life and brainstorm the steps to do so (such as your existing financial success or good health).

Tackle things that you need to breed more confidence in head-on. Use whatever the narcissist diminished you in as motivation or fuel to celebrate, improve or enhance loving that specific part of yourself.

If you have insecurities about your appearance, do some heavy-duty mirror workeach morning and night before going to sleep. Find joy in the various characteristics that make you beautiful and breed acceptance for any perceived flaws. What you might see as a flaw, another person might see as a treasured part of you. If you find this exercise difficult, start with staring into your own eyes in the mirror and saying, “I love you and I care about you, and goddamnit, I am going to fight for you. You are THAT worth it.” If you struggle with harmful messages about your body, do some yoga to increase appreciation for what your body is capable of rather than engaging in judgments about what it looks like. You will find that when you focus more on appreciating and honoring your body, you’ll also begin to treat it more mindfully and everything else you want will fall into place naturally.

According to research, yoga is also helpful for releasing trauma from the body – it’s a win-win! You may also want to engage in daily exercise to release endorphins and increase an overall sense of joy and well-being – meeting your fitness goals will just be the icing on the (gluten-free?) cake.  If your narcissistic abuser insulted your intuition or intelligence, get mindful and attend a meditation workshop to reconnect with your sacred inner guidance or pursue any academic goals you put on the back burner – ones that reconnect you with your brilliance. Those are just some ideas for how to use the bullying messages of your abuser to get you moving in a positive direction.

Don’t hold back on celebrating yourself – even if the voices of society, your abuser or your own inner critic seems to interfere.

If you normally shy away from complimenting yourself, it’s time to heap on some healthy self-appreciation and self-praise. If you’re one to belittle or judge everything you do or say, it’s time to take a step back and observe the inner critic without engaging the negative self-talk or feeding into it. You may think that I am asking you to get somewhat “narcissistic” in the process of loving yourself – but don’t worry, this is not about being cocky, shallow or self-aggrandizing like the narcissist is prone to being. It’s about appreciating yourself more fully and increasing your sense of self-efficacy, power and agency. It’s about recognizing your own desirability (inside and out) and foregoing the dark voices of your abusers and bullies saying otherwise. It’s about owning your strength and your ability to validate who you really are, not what the abuser tried to make you out to be. If the voice of your abuser arises and tries to squash your burgeoning confidence, learn how to distinguish that voice from those who truly love and care about you. Check in with yourself and say explicitly, “That’s not what I truly think and feel. That’s what the abuser tried to make me believe about myself.”

Do something to ‘interrupt’ the pattern of negative self-talk and get yourself back into the habit of nourishing yourself with empowering affirmations.

Think of hypercritical feedback from the narcissist as criticism from an angry, jealous toddler – it is not valid nor has it been given to you with the best intentions. It is a pathological defense mechanism and has very little to do with your worth or value. Realize that feedback from grounded, emotionally stable individuals as well as your own inner voice are the anchors and true testaments to your character and potential.This is all about getting the focus off of the narcissist and onto the magic that is within you.

Pull in some healthy external feedback when you need to and distinguish it from the harsh words of your abuser.  

These exercises are all about what you enjoy in yourself, but don’t be afraid to also pull in positive feedback from healthier past partners, friends, family members, co-workers and acquaintances about what they cherish and positively regard about you as well. Keep a running document of any and all compliments you’ve ever received in your life that you can refer to whenever you’re feeling especially low or find yourself getting into a space of self-doubt.

2. Eradicate subconscious wounding that says you’re not enough and cultivate new seeds of self-worth.

Many (but not all) survivors who have been in unhealthy, abusive relationships in adulthood also come from unhealthy family dynamics. Childhood is where many survivors first learn to dim their own light.

Survivors of childhood abuse by narcissistic parents may have been pitted against a sibling or a group of siblings growing up. Your parents may have tried to “bury” your gifts because they were abusive narcissists and wanted to see you fail. They knew your potential, but they worked hard to stifle it to meet their own selfish agendas.

That being said, there are a variety of circumstances that can lead to a child growing up believing that he or she is not meant to shine. Maybe you always had a more athletic brother or a “prettier” sister (at least from society’s perspective). Perhaps you had a best friend that tended to outshine you in social circles. It’s possible you were bullied or were made to feel invisible by toxic teachers who paid more attention to their favorite students. You may have also endured complex trauma and were the victim of all of these scenarios and more.

Whatever your situation was growing up, even if it was a healthy and happy childhood where you were nourished and supported, there may still be beliefs lingering about not being good enough – whether it is from the influence of society, culture or childhood programming. Identifying these experiences and the associated beliefs that came with them can go a long way in tackling any wounding that is being reinforced when triangulation is used as a method to provoke or further diminish you.

After you’ve identified the ways in which you have been brought down in the past, ask yourself the following questions and explore:

In what ways can I embrace my visibility? For example, is there a dream you’ve been holding off on pursuing due to self-doubt or sabotage from your abusive partner? Now is the time to start working on or rebuilding that dream to make it come to life, bigger and brighter than ever – it represents an authentic desire you’re meant to fulfill.

What parts of myself and what gifts have I resisted showcasing as a way to hide myself the way I’ve been taught to hide? We were taught to minimize our talents and desirable traits due to the pathological envy of the narcissist and their put-downs, as well as any childhood programming. Perhaps you’re an incredible artist and your abuser told you negative things about your potential for achieving your dreams because it took the spotlight off of them. Now it’s time to embrace those again and remember the gifts that made us who we truly were before the abusive relationship.

What ways has being invisible protected me from what I’ve been taught to fear (such as criticism) and how can I cultivate the type of confidence that allows me to overcome those fears? Childhood abuse survivors can learn to fear success of any kind due to being punished for daring to succeed by their their abusive caretakers. Similarly, survivors of narcissistic abuse in adulthood can be taught that with success comes punishment via the callous put-downs of their intimate partners whenever they were daring to achieve something that enabled them to become independent of the narcissist. You may have developed an extreme fear of ‘displaying’ who you are as a person and the things that make you truly special. Beneath this fear is an underlying need to protect yourself.

Perhaps your five year-old self still fears being noticed by others because your abusive mother taught you weren’t worthy of being acknowledged or instilled a deep fear in you about the dangers of being too pretty or smart. Or maybe your 23-year-old self is still reeling from that abusive ex who told you that you were too ‘damaged’ to find anyone better – this is a common fear these toxic types try to convince their partners of in order to hold them back from pursuing healthier relationships.

Suppressing or acting on these fears might have been a go-to coping mechanism for you, but now it’s time to unravel these fears and invite curiousity about what they are protecting you from as well as what they’re preventing you from obtaining. These lingering fears may come with protective intentions, but they are ultimately holding you back from what is meant to flourish within you.

How can I rise above the people who tried to keep me behind the curtain,when I really deserved my chance at the spotlight too? If you find yourself fearing criticism or envy from others as a result of outshining them, remember that everyone deserves recognition – and that there’s plenty of it to go around. Unlike predatory narcissists, survivors of abuse know deep down that they don’t ever have to rob someone else of their light in order to be seen.

We can celebrate the accomplishments of others as well as our own – in fact, we take special joy in it. So why not extend that same courtesy of being happy for others to ourselves? We don’t have to be made to feel ashamed or guilty about being proud of who we are. What are more ways you can allow yourself to be in the spotlight and truly enjoy yourself? For example, your abuser may have pushed you to be quiet in social groups whenever you were with them so you wouldn’t get attention from anyone else – now is the perfect time to relearn how to speak out and show off your personality.

Here’s a truth-bomb for the people-pleasers out there: you’re allowed to take up space and own that space without apologies. You’re allowed to speak your voice. You’re allowed to be beautiful (or handsome) inside and out, brilliant, worthy, valuable, seen and heard. You’re allowed to be successful and be proud of yourself in a healthy way. You’re allowed to accept compliments. You’re allowed to compliment yourself. You’re allowed to set boundaries and say “no” when you mean no and say “yes” to the things your heart and soul say “hell yes” to. You’re allowed to realize that the narcissistic abuser who put you through this mess is just another incredibly flawed (and dysfunctional) human being who has no say on your worth or abilities. You’re allowed to see the new source of supply as also another flawed human being who is not worth any of your time, energy or competition.

Yep, you heard me. You never have to compete with anyone – and a healthy partner would never want anyone who they truly love and cherish to feel like they’re competing with anybody anyway. Narcissists want us to compete for their love and attention but what we’re pulled in to fight for is ultimately meaningless, as narcissists don’t even have the capacity to love anyone in a healthy manner.

Let the new source of supply get the consolatory prize: the abusive narcissist who will make them compete with others too – while you move onto bigger and better things. Your biggest prize is your new life of freedom and a path back to your true, authentic self – and, if you’re looking for it, an open space for true, authentic love to enter your life – the kind with empathy, compassion and respect. The kind that is so deliciously appreciative of everything that makes you so beautiful and worthy.

3. Minimize unnecessary comparisons and reprogram negative self-talk.

One of the most damaging lies we can learn from narcissistic parents or partners is that we have to compete with others in order to prove our worth. Whether it be the golden child or the new source of supply, victims of narcissistic abuse are made to feel deficient and worthless by the toxic, destructive conditioning of the relationship. They begin to compare themselves to others as a form of self-sabotage, continuing the abuse even after the relationship has ended.

If we spent our lives comparing ourselves to every person we came across, we would drive ourselves certifiably insane. Similarly, the last thing we want to be doing on our journey to healing is to make unnecessary comparisons to someone a toxic person has triangulated us with.

Narcissistic abusers are masters of triangulating us with people who may be very different from us – this is done intentionally to provoke a sense of unease and self-questioning about qualities we may “lack.” Yet what you have to remember is that down the line, your narcissistic ex-partner will start to compare their new supply to you – talking nonsense about how their ex (you) did this or that and suddenly putting you back on the pedestal.

They don’t discriminate on who they criticize and for what – they’re looking to feed off of the emotional reactions they get with all of their sources of supply and they will continue the same cycle of triangulation with their new partners as well.

The truth is that we are not lacking in any shape, way or form. We are “full” of the very things we need. We are absolutely sufficient in what we have now, because within that unique brand of quirks, flaws, strengths – is exactly who we are and who we need to be. We are already whole and we need to work on the negative self-talk and inner critic that may pounce to detract from our own wholeness.

There are many ways to reprogram this negative voice in your head. Some ideas might be:

Engaging in a daily habit of positive affirmations customized to your unique needs and triggers. This is especially helpful when your abuser’s voice comes up. You may want to record these affirmations in your own voice and play them back (or have a trusted, loving friend do these for you). If you have severe anxiety over hardcore affirmations, start small. Maybe you don’t start with “I am beautiful,” but begin with “Everyone has beauty and I have beauty in me too.” instead. Do whatever it takes to make the affirmation believable to you before moving onto bigger and better confirmations of your value.
A weekly meditation practice (best to do this on a day you are most vulnerable to cravings to break No Contact) to help you to  listen and observe your train of thoughts rather than become increasingly reactive to them. Mindfully approaching these cravings or ruminations can help to ease the ‘addictive’ pull we often develop to keeping tabs on an abusive ex. This addiction is formed by the trauma bond and needs time, space, effort and practice in order to heal.
Emotional Freedom Technique, EMDR and/or hypnotherapy to clear negative thought patterns and target subconscious beliefs from the trauma that we may not even be aware of that are holding us back.

Breaking the triangle and integrating wholeness.

You might be catching on that this part of the journey is not about the love triangle itself but what the triangle represents, the core wounds it reveals and learning how to navigate the pathway to deeper, richer self-love. Don’t get me wrong – triangulation hurts no matter what sort of wounding you may have, because no matter what insecurities you have, triangulation is still abuse. It is a form of devaluation from a toxic partner that no one should ever have to go through. Narcissistic abuse erodes our identity, our self-esteem and threatens to destroy the dreams we’re meant to fulfill. As survivors heal, triangulation comes up as a common way they’ve been dehumanized and traumatized.

However, as you begin to work on core wounds, self-sabotaging beliefs and any issues with self-confidence in conjunction with No Contact, you’ll find that your emotional resonance with the narcissist’s ploys is not as heightened as before. You’re able to move on a bit more quickly rather than tethering yourself to comparisons or creating new ones in your mind. On some level, even subconsciously, we feel trapped to remain within the toxic triangle because we have forgotten to honor our wholeness and we’re still attached to the abuser through traumatic bonding.

Regardless of whichever context you might be facing triangulation, it’s important to remember and honor that wholeness. Comparing ourselves is a dishonor to the very things that make us who we are. If you have a need to constantly compare yourself to the people your abuser pitted you against, why not compare yourself to who you used to be in the abusive relationship or to a healthy role model that you aspire to be more like?

Now that you’ve paved the path to freedom, you’re probably stronger, more resilient, and more determined to succeed. You’ve grown a great deal since the abuse. You’ve survived the worst moments of your life and are now on your way to thriving. Don’t allow the narcissist’s attempts to make you feel less than detract you from the independence you’ve worked so hard to achieve. Post-breakup triangulation is deliberately staged to get you off of your journey to freedom and right back into the narcissist’s trap. Instead, “reverse triangulate” the narcissist with a new support network, a new flourishing life and a new sense of confidence that births your revolution and victory after abuse.

Fox Business host declares war on Trump’s tax plan: “I’m disgusted with our government right now”

(Credit: AP)

Donald Trump’s tax plan is historically unpopular. Nevertheless, Republicans are on the precipice of passing the first major restructuring of the American tax code in thirty years thanks to one-party control of Congress and a relative lack of public outrage. The president will likely end his first year in office with a major tax cut for corporations as his only domestic achievement — and at least one host on his favorite television channel is not impressed.

“Yes, I love the idea of lower corporate taxes,” Fox Business Network host Trish Regan said of the Republican plan on her show last week, “but I really do not like what they’re doing on the individual side.” The normally pro-Trump pundit who regularly guest-hosts on Fox News explained that savings that businesses will see would be offset by individual taxpayers. “My concern here is it’s going to hurt the individual. And so, effectively, individuals are carrying the water for these corporations — they get that great tax cut on the corporate side, but people are not gonna get it on the individual side.”

The Republican plan cuts the corporate tax rate nearly in half. In order to pay for the permanent 21 percent corporate tax rate without increasing the deficit after 10 years, per Senate rules, Republicans allowed the tax cuts on individuals to expire.

Noting that while campaigning the president promised a tax cut for the working and middle-class Americans who supported him, Regan blasted the bill. “I don’t think it’s gonna be much of a Christmas present, it’s more like getting coal in your stocking because your tax bill is gonna go up.”

President Trump promised a HUGE tax cut for Christmas. This bill is good for CORPORATIONS, but for individuals, this is more like an ugly piece of coal! C’mon, you guys can do better! pic.twitter.com/PRCgHYUleB

— Trish Regan (@trish_regan) December 12, 2017

She continued her pointed assault against the bill on Monday, as the last reluctant Republicans in the Senate lined up in support of the final legislation. (Republicans leaders say they are confident they will be able to get the bill passed in both chambers and on Trump’s desk by Wednesday.)

“The president keeps touting this as the biggest tax cut ever,” Regan said. “And it’s also great for a lot of fat cat private equity investors, and there is something wrong with that.”

Despite his impassioned campaign pledge to get rid of the “carried interest” loophole that allows wealthy private equity fund managers to claim a lower capital gains rate on much of their income from investments, Trump’s tax bill does nothing of the sort.

“The president promised to fix this, remember?” Regan posed to her Fox Business viewers.

Regan then went off on Trump’s Finance Secretary Steve Mnuchin, who explained to her in a Dec. 10 interview that the “carried interest” loophole was not eliminated as promised because “it is a complicated issue. It’s not that much money.”

An astounded Regan then asked a question that would normally be unspeakable on Trump-era Fox stations: “I’m beginning to wonder if our country is ungovernable?”

How is it fair that a private equity investor has a LOWER tax bracket than a NYC Cop?! This is just WRONG! Wasn’t the President supposed to CLOSE these special interest loopholes? Seems like our country is becoming ungovernable. #taxreform#TrishIntel pic.twitter.com/EZ6hzOb2l8

— Trish Regan (@trish_regan) December 18, 2017