Helen H. Moore's Blog, page 143

How the devastating 1918 flu pandemic helped advance US women’s rights

(Credit: AP Photo/National Museum of Health, File)

When disaster strikes, it can change the fabric of a society — often through the sheer loss of human life. The 2004 Indian Ocean tsunami left 35,000 children without one or both parents in Indonesia alone. The Black Death killed more than 75 million people worldwide and more than a third of Europe’s population between 1347 and 1351.

While disasters are by definition devastating, sometimes they can lead to changes that are a small silver lining. The 2004 tsunami ended a civil conflict in Indonesia that had left 15,000 dead. The 14th century’s plague, probably the most deadly disaster in human history, set free many serfs in Europe, forced wages for laborers to rise, and caused a fundamental shift in the economy along with an increased standard of living for survivors.

One hundred years ago, a powerful strain of the flu swept the globe, infecting one third of the world’s population. The aftermath of this disaster, too, led to unexpected social changes, opening up new opportunities for women and in the process irreversibly transforming life in the United States.

The virus disproportionately affected young men, which in combination with World War I, created a shortage of labor. This gap enabled women to play a new and indispensible role in the workforce during the crucial period just before the ratification of the 19th Amendment, which granted women suffrage in the United States two years later.

Why did the flu affect men more than women?

Known as the Spanish flu, the 1918 “great influenza” left more than 50 million people dead, including around 670,000 in the United States.

To put that in perspective, World War I, which concluded just as the flu was at its worst in November 1918, killed around 17 million people — a mere third of the fatalities caused by the flu. More American soldiers died from the flu than were killed in battle, and many of the deaths attributed to World War I were caused by a combination of the war and the flu.

The war provided near perfect conditions for the spread of flu virus via the respiratory droplets exhaled by infected individuals. Military personnel — predominantly young males — spent months at a time in close quarters with thousands of other troops. This proximity, combined with the stress of war and the malnutrition that sometimes accompanied it, created weakened immune systems in soldiers and allowed the virus spread like wildfire.

Overcrowding in training camps, trenches and hospitals created an ideal environment for the 1918 influenza strain to infect high numbers of people. In fact, the conditions of war helped the virus perfect itself through several waves of infection, each more deadly than the last.

Many troops were doomed before they even reached Europe, contracting the flu on the packed troop ships where a single infected soldier could spread the virus throughout. When soldiers returned to the U.S., they scattered to every state, bringing the flu along with them.

It was more than just male conscription in war, however, that led to a greater number of men who were infected and died from the flu. Even at home, among those that were never involved in the war effort, the death rate for men exceeded that of women. Demographic studies show that nearly 175,000 more men died than women in 1918.

In general, epidemics tend to kill more men than women. In disease outbreaks throughout history, as well as almost all of the world’s major famines, women have a longer life expectancy than men and often have greater survival rates.

The exact reason why men tend to be more vulnerable to the flu than women continues to elude researchers. The scoffing modern term “man flu” refers to the perception that men are overly dramatic when they fall ill; But recent research suggests that there may be more to it than just exaggerated symptoms.

Flu brought more women into the workforce

The severity of the epidemic in the U.S. was enough to temporarily shut down parts of the economy in 1918. In New England, coal deliveries were so severely affected that people, unable to keep their homes heated, froze to death at the height of winter. During the 1918 flu outbreak, researchers estimate businesses in Little Rock, Arkansas, saw a decline of 40 to 70 percent.

The worker shortage caused by the flu and World War I opened access to the labor market for women, and in unprecedented numbers they took jobs outside the home. Following the conclusion of the war, the number of women in the workforce was 25 percent higher than it had been previously and by 1920 women made up 21 percent of all gainfully employed individuals in the country. While this gender boost is often ascribed to World War I alone, women’s increased presence in the workforce would have been far less pronounced without the 1918 flu.

Women began to move into employment roles that were previously held exclusively by men, many of which were in manufacturing. They were even able to enter fields from which they had been banned, such as the textile industry. As women filled what had been typically male workplace roles, they also began to demand equal pay for their work. Gaining greater economic power, women began more actively advocating for various women’s rights issues — including, but not limited to, the right to vote.

How the flu helped change people’s minds

Increased participation in the workforce allowed many women to obtain social and financial independence. Leadership positions within the workforce could now be occupied by women, especially in the garment industry, but also in the military and police forces. The U.S. even got its first woman governor, when Nellie Taylor Ross took her oath of office, in 1923, in Wyoming. An increased ability to make decisions in their personal and professional lives empowered many women and started to elevate their standing.

With the war over and increased female participation in the labor force, politicians could not ignore the critical role that women played in American society. Even President Woodrow Wilson began to argue in 1918 that women were part of the American war effort and economy more broadly, and as such, should be afforded the right to vote.

Outside of work, women also became more involved in community decision-making. Women’s changing social role increased support for women’s rights. In 1919, the National Federation of Business and Professional Women’s Clubs was founded. The organization focused on eliminating sex discrimination in the workforce, making sure women got equal pay and creating a comprehensive equal rights amendment.

The 1918 influenza pandemic was devastating. But the massive human tragedy had one silver lining: It helped elevate women in American society socially and financially, providing them more freedom, independence and a louder voice in the political arena.

Christine Crudo Blackburn, Postdoctoral Research Fellow, Scowcroft Institute of International Affairs, Bush School of Government and Public Service, Texas A&M University ; Gerald W. Parker, Associate Dean For Global One Health, College of Veterinary Medicine & Biomedical Sciences; and Director, Pandemic and Biosecurity Policy Program, Scowcroft Institute for International Affairs, Bush School of Government and Public Service, Texas A&M University , and Morten Wendelbo, Lecturer, Bush School of Government and Public Service; Research Fellow, Scowcroft Institute of International Affairs; and, Policy Sciences Lecturer, Texas A&M University Libraries, Texas A&M University

Sam Nunberg melts down on live TV

During the campaign Trump said over and over that he was going to hire “only the best people,” that he was going to “surround myself only with the best and most serious people.”

Well, he hired them, and he’s paying for it every single day. One of the best people Trump hired was the wife-beater Rob Porter, stripped of his security clearance and fired from the White House. Another was Michael Flynn, who pled guilty to perjury and faces jail time. Another was George Papadopoulos, also guilty of perjury, also being fitted for an orange jumpsuit. Then there were Paul Manafort and Rick Gates, the laundry twins, who pirated tens of millions out of the Ukraine, both charged on multiple counts of bank fraud, money laundering, and tax evasion. Gates pled guilty and his whispering in Mueller’s ear. Manafort is hanging tough, so far. All of them were among Trump’s best and most serious people. More than 40 of them have departed the Trump administration, few leaving with anything more than tattered reputations and burgeoning legal bills, most looking forward to interviews with Mueller’s investigators and appearances before his grand jury.

The most recent of Trump’s best people to stick his head out of the foxhole was Sam Nunberg, his former campaign aide who went on no less than five cable television shows on Monday to complain about the grand jury subpoena he had recently been served with by Special Counsel Robert Mueller. Pundits quickly labeled Nunberg’s TV appearances “bizarre,” “unhinged,” “surreal” and “bonkers.” Nunberg may have appeared to be coming apart at the seams, but if you listened closely, he was on a mission to protect his friend and mentor Roger Stone, whom Nunberg described as “family, like a father to me.”

Nunberg had already been interviewed by Mueller’s agents in February. He described the interviews to Ari Melber in a recent appearance on “The Beat” as “very professional and productive. They’re not wasting taxpayers’ money.”

But he changed his tune on Monday. The subpoena issued to Nunberg on February 27 wasn’t for another chatty sit-down with Mueller’s investigators. He was ordered to appear before a grand jury on Friday and produce all of his emails, text messages and other correspondence going back to November 1, 2015 with a long list of Trump aides and factotums including his pal Roger Stone, Hope Hicks, Paul Manafort, Carter Page, and get this! Donald J. Trump himself. Former federal prosecutors interviewed on Monday speculated that the subpoena for so many records was intended to camouflage who their actual target is. Prosecutors will frequently ask for way more information than they are actually seeking in order to confuse a witness about their intentions.

They didn’t fool Nunberg. “I think they have something on Trump,” Nunberg told Ari Melber and anyone else who would listen on Monday. He told Katy Tur he thought Trump “may have done something illegal” during the campaign. “But I don’t know.”

But in every interview, Nunberg returned again and again to defending Roger Stone. Speaking from a taxicab on his way to yet another cable news interview, Nunberg told Yahoo! News “I’m doing this to defend Roger I’m not going to let them just hurt Roger for no reason.” Nunberg met with Mueller’s team in an interview for more than five hours in February. “They asked about if I knew about Roger’s business, what Roger does, which I didn’t like. I don’t think it’s fair,” Nunberg said. In yet another interview, Nunberg accused Mueller of setting up a “perjury trap” for his friend Roger Stone. He told MSNBC, “I’m not going to go in there for them to set up a case against Roger. Roger did not do anything. Roger and I were treated like crap by Donald Trump, okay?”

Nunberg and Stone go back at least to 2014 when Trump hired them to consult when he was thinking about sticking his toe into the 2016 presidential waters. Nunberg set up an interview with Trump for Buzzfeed which backfired spectacularly on the nascent candidate, and Trump fired him. But he was rehired in February of 2015 as Trump’s “communications director” and once again linked up with Stone working for Trump.

When Trump announced his candidacy in June of 2015, Nunberg took credit along with Stone for convincing Trump to make building a wall along the border with Mexico a centerpiece of his campaign. By August, however, Trump had Corey Lewandowski on board as campaign manager. Lewandowski apparently didn’t get along with either Stone or Nunberg, and someone leaked racist Facebook posts from Nunberg’s account to the press, and he was fired. Nunberg returned to his hatred of Lewandowski over and over again during his roundelay of interviews on Monday. “I didn’t steal from the campaign,” he told Erin Burnett on CNN, apparently referring to Lewandowski. “I didn’t have an illicit affair with a married man,” he said, referring to Hope Hicks, who took over his job as head of communications for the campaign and was known to have had an affair with the married Lewandowski.

But it was to Roger Stone that Nunberg returned to again and again on Monday. He had apparently concluded from the tenor of his first interview with Mueller’s agents that they were interested in what Stone’s connections were with the Russian hacker Guccifer 2.0, as well as his contacts with Julian Assange of WikiLeaks. Nunberg was focused like a laser on one thing: protecting Roger Stone.

MSNBC’s Katy Tur spoke to Nunberg on the phone on Sunday night, and he emailed her a copy of his subpoena. At that time, he was unperturbed at the prospect of going before the grand jury. But something happened between Sunday night and Nunberg’s phone call into Katy Tur’s show on Monday afternoon that made him not only wary of Mueller’s investigators, but defiant. He swore he wouldn’t honor the subpoena, and for the next eight hours or so proclaimed to anyone who would listen that Mueller could put him in jail, but he wasn’t going to testify before the grand jury.

The only difference between Nunberg’s February interview with Mueller’s investigators and his subpoena this week was the formal demand for emails and other documents. Nunberg told Ari Melber he and Roger Stone emailed each other “fifteen times a day.” Going all the way back to November 1, 2015, that’s a lot of emails. When he spoke to Katy Tur at 2 p.m. on Monday, Nunberg told her that he had just been going back over his emails. Then he launched into his defense of Roger Stone that would last for eight hours over more than seven interviews. By 10 p.m. on Monday, he was somewhere in Manhattan in the company of his father and others and had changed his mind. He would comply with the subpoena after all.

By Tuesday evening, Roger Stone was live on “MTP Daily” with Chuck Todd doing the rhetorical boogaloo trying to make light of both Nunberg’s meltdown and Mueller’s investigation. He sounded like Hannity’s hand-puppet, denying collusion, spinning the usual conspiracy theories about Hillary and the spurious uranium deal. But where he really came alive was when Todd focused on his contacts with Guccifer 2.0 and Julian Assange and WikiLeaks.

Suddenly Stone turned crafty, carefully spelling out that Assange wasn’t a “Russian asset” but rather a legitimate “journalist.” Being in contact with Assange during the campaign wasn’t in any way “treason,” Stone said. You could have pushed Chuck Todd off his studio stool with a feather. It was Roger Stone who brought up “treason,” not Todd.  When the interview was over, all Todd talked about with his guests was how careful Stone had been to deny Assange’s connections to the Russians. Todd reminded him that no less a Trump defender than Central Intelligence Agency Director Mike Pompeo had called WikiLeaks and Assange Russian assets, but Stone held his ground. “He’s really moving the goal posts,” said Chuck Todd. The new Roger Stone position is that colluding with Assange wasn’t colluding with the Russians.

Here’s the problem with guys like Roger Stone and Sam Nunberg. It’s not that they’re obnoxious loud-mouths and egotistical maniacs. They are. So are Paul Manafort and Carter Page and Michael Flynn and a whole bunch of Trump’s other “best people.” Remember Flynn at the Republican National Convention leading the crowd in the “lock her up” chant? Remember Carter Page grinning and dissembling on Chris Hayes’ MSNBC show about what he had done in Moscow and who he had talked to? Remember Manafort telling George Stephanopoulos on ABC that nobody on the Trump campaign had ever met with Russians? The whole lot of them are inveterate liars who couldn’t keep their mouths shut or their stories straight.

Trump’s campaign operated like he was running for president of his 11th Grade class, instead of the highest office in the land.  Emails and texts flew around like confetti in a hurricane. The end result was that instead of knowing too little, Trump’s “best people” know too much. In the case of Sam Nunberg and his pal Roger Stone, they know plenty about what was done with the Democratic emails the Russians hacked and turned over to Julian Assange and WikiLeaks. Stone couldn’t keep his mouth shut about them during the campaign. He was always tweeting ahead of the next release of emails from the DNC,  then predicting that next, it would be “Podesta’s time in the barrel.” Now he’s trying to split hairs and wiggle out of what he did during the campaign because he realizes that Mueller has him in the cross-hairs.

Mueller turned a corner last week. He didn’t just issue a subpoena to Sam Nunberg for his emails and other correspondence with Roger Stone and the rest of them. Prosecutors don’t go after communications between people from one direction only. Mueller has obviously subpoenaed others on that list, although Roger Stone told Chuck Todd he hadn’t been served yet. Which should give Stone something new to worry about.

Prosecutors don’t usually subpoena the targets of their investigations. Last week, Mueller went from politely asking for cooperation from witnesses to ordering them to produce documents and appear before grand juries. Last week, he dragged a big-time financial adviser to the United Arab Emirates into his grand jury looking for goodies on Jared Kushner and Blackwater founder (and Betsy DeVos brother) Erik Prince and their connections to a Russian fund manager for Vladimir Putin. He has made clear that he’s running a criminal investigation and he is backing up his demands with the force of the law.

He’s sweating Sam Nunberg to pressure Roger Stone, and then he’ll sweat Roger Stone for everything he knows about Donald Trump and his connections to the Russian hacking of the Democrats’ emails in 2016. Stone and Trump both have admitted that even after he was fired from the campaign in 2015, they talked on the phone throughout the campaign. Stone was Trump’s cut-out to Julian Assange. Assange was the cut-out to the Russian hackers.

Mueller isn’t tightening the noose around the White House anymore. He’s got a magazine-load of subpoenas, and he’s aiming them straight at the man in the Oval Office. If they don’t flip and cooperate, he’s going to indict Roger Stone, he’s going to indict Jared Kushner, he’s going to indict Donald Trump Jr., he’s going to indict everyone surrounding Trump, and then he’s going to indict Donald J. Trump. He’s going to bring down the President of the United States, and all of Trump’s “best and most serious people” are going to help him.   

Sweet Jesus, with out of control lunatics  like Sam Nunberg, Roger Stone, and Carter Page, and alleged money-launderers like Paul Manafort working on his campaign, Trump needed help from the fucking Russians.

North Carolina’s human trafficking problem

Human trafficking is often the plotline of a dark and twisted story with characters who live in foreign countries and only interact in back alleys. But the harsh reality is that it is happening much closer to home — and for some, it’s hiding in plain sight.

The term “human trafficking” encompasses both sex and labor trafficking, and in North Carolina numbers of reported cases are growing. The most recent data shows 258 reported cases in 2017, which is a dramatic increase from the 182 reported cases in 2016.   

North Carolina Attorney General Josh Stein, along with representatives of non-profits, law enforcement and local North Carolina government agencies, released these numbers on January 4 of this year. The day coincided with National Human Trafficking Awareness Day.  

When asked his thoughts on the increase in number of reported cases throughout the state, Stein was quick to note the silver lining. He said, “I think that’s actually a good thing because we know that there are thousands of people who are suffering from this crime here in North Carolina right now.” He added, “Those people need to know that there are resources there to help. So please just reach out to law enforcement, reach out to service providers like the Salvation Army, because there is a way out of what seems like a hopeless situation.”

While the number of reported cases is able to shine a light on this modern-day epidemic, the frightening statistic is the number of cases that are not reported. In 2016, 598 calls of alleged trafficking in North Carolina were made, but only 182 were ever reported and investigated. And 96 of those calls came from the reported victim or survivors themselves.

The specific location of North Carolina plays a major role in why these numbers continue to climb. The state is located in a prime position between Atlanta, GA, Washington D.C., and the largest city in North Carolina for human trafficking, Charlotte. The interstate systems that run through the state also allow for victims to be transported at a quick and efficient rate, and ultimately make it harder to track where the victims are because of the constant transit.

Another factor is the types of industries that make up the business ecosystem of North Carolina. Agriculture and home furnishings require extensive manual labor, and the trucking industry that runs in parallel to these systems is known for attracting illegal sex work. The large sporting events that North Carolina hosts —like professional football games and the annual collegiate basketball tournament, the Atlantic Coast Conference— are known for being gold mines for illegal sex work as well.

So, what does all this mean, and where do we go from here?

Partners Against Trafficking Humans in N.C., a partnership of concerned citizens and organizations who are directing their efforts to end human trafficking in North Carolina, suggests that first and foremost, become informed.  Patricia Witt, co-founder of PATHNC told WRAL last year, “All citizens can make a difference in preventing this crime once we are aware.”       

And becoming aware means knowing what you’re looking for.  On an international scale, 24.9 million individuals are currently victims of trafficking, according to HumanRightsFirst.org. The organization suggests keeping your eyes peeled for suspicious behavior. More importantly, if you see something, say something.  Using your vote as your voice is also a way to fight back. Their website urges citizens to vote for candidates who are working tirelessly to implement legislation that makes perpetrators of trafficking face severe penalties and punishment, which ultimately reduces the overall number of victims of trafficking.

You can visit NCCASA.org to learn more about resources that help fight human trafficking. 

 

Coca-Cola is muscling into the booze biz

(Credit: Getty/George Frey)

Into every generation, a flashy, probably dubious alcoholic beverage is born. The eighties gave us wine coolers, which to this day remain the training wheels of drinking for legions of teens. The nineties contributed Zima, the instantly mockable malt concoction whose greatest enticement to consume it was that it’s… clear. The earlier part of this century brought the potent, caffeinated Four Loko, which enjoyed a brief moment of media attention before everybody realized that a “blackout in a can” is actually a really horrible idea. Now, it’s Coke’s turn to flirt with the spirt world.

The stalwart soda company is planning to launch an “alcopop-style” new beverage in Japan — the company’s first alcoholic beverage in its 125 year history. As the BBC reported Wednesday, the product that a company spokesman calls a “modest experiment for a specific slice of our market” will be its own riff on Chu-Hi — canned sparkling beverages flavored with shochu, a distilled drink. In recent years, Chu-Hi has proven a popular alternative to beer in the female market. 

In its announcement, Coke called itself “a total beverage company” — and that statement is evidenced by a roster of brands that include Dasani water, Honest Tea and Odwalla juice. But alcohol, with its traditionally heavier regulation and age restricted consumers demographic, is something even the corporate monolith acknowledges as “unique in our history.”

Demand and ease of implementation make the company’s expansion to alcohol in one regional market logical. Japan president Jorge Garduño noted to Fortune Wednesday that “It’s not uncommon for non-alcoholic beverages to be sold in the same system as alcoholic beverages,” adding, “I don’t think people around the world should expect to see this kind of thing from Coca-Cola.” But speaking to CNN last month, he did’t rule out a boozy US beverage someday, saying, “Never say never.” For now, however, if you want some alcohol in your Coke, you’ll have to get it the old-fashioned way — by pouring rum in it.

Lawyers quit USS Cole case after finding mic in the client meeting room: report

Camp 6 detainee cells at the U.S. detention center at Guantanamo Bay, Cuba. (Credit: AP/Ben Fox)

Declassified documents obtained by The Miami Herald reveal why three defense attorneys abruptly quit the death penalty case of USS Cole bombing mastermind suspect Abd al Rahim al Nashiri. According to the report, a microphone was discovered in the special client meeting room at Guantánamo Bay, suggesting the government could have been listening in on them. At the time, the lawyers weren’t allowed to discuss or investigate the microphone, thus causing them to jump ship on the case, the Miami Herald reports.

Lawyers Rick Kammen, Rosa Eliades and Mary Spears resigned in October 2017 when they resigned, feeling collectively “gobsmacked” at the revelation of the microphone, according to Kammen, who was the original defense attorney on the case. The USS Cole bombing in 2000 killed 17 U.S. sailors off the coast of Yemen. Nashiri is facing the death penalty at Guantánamo Bay. While the case has been notoriously slow moving, it was abated in February. According to the report, the court filing to declassify the documents — obtained by the Miami Herald — is a move to get the review panel to order a military judge to get the case back on track.

According to the Herald report:

The narrative, contained in a 15-page prosecution filing obtained by the Herald, is the first authoritative description of the episode that caused three civilian defense attorneys to resign from the death-penalty case of Abd al Rahim al Nashiri on ethical grounds: Rick Kammen, a seasoned death-penalty defender, and Rosa Eliades and Mary Spears. In fact, the prosecution says the listening device that lawyers discovered in an early August inspection of their special meeting room was a legacy of past interrogations — and, across 50 days of ostensibly confidential attorney-client meetings, was never turned on.

The description, an eight-paragraph, declassified version of something the public was not allowed to know until this week, was contained in a prosecution filing at the U.S. Court of Military Commissions Review signed by the chief prosecutor for military commissions, Army Brig. Gen. Mark Martins, and three appellate lawyers on his staff.

It says that, after the three lawyers quit the case in October, prison workers “removed flooring, walls, and fixtures” in an attorney-client meeting site exclusively used by Nashiri and his lawyers and “confirmed that legacy microphones, which were not connected to any audio listening/recording device nor in an operable condition, were removed.”

Kammen told the Miami Herald the prosecution account was “really grotesque selective declassification” and suggested that the details don’t reveal the entire truth. He told the Herald that it allowed “some portion of the truth to seep out, but only in ways that the government feels will help it.”

“It’s good to see the truth beginning to come out,” Kammen told The Miami Herald. “But the reality is more than what they’ve declassified.”

“This begs at least three immediate questions,”Hina Shamsi, the director of the American Civil Liberties Union’s National Security Project, posed in a tweet. “[W]hy was this info ever classified & kept secret from public? [W]hy were defense counsel denied investigation? [And] if this is ‘really grotesque selective declassification, as [lawyer Rick Kammen] says, what else is being kept secret?”

This begs at least three immediate questions:
(1) why was this info ever classified & kept secret from public?
(2) why were defense counsel denied investigation?
(2) if this is “really grotesque selective declassification” as @Kammenlaw says, what else is being kept secret? https://t.co/hiI725V9Js

— Hina Shamsi (@HinaShamsi) March 7, 2018

After CFPB drops investigation into payday lender, former CEO lobbies Mick Mulvaney for a job

Mick Mulvaney (Credit: AP/Susan Walsh)

A recently discovered email from the former CEO of a payday lender is raising questions about the closeness of her relationship with the official who is supposed to regulate companies like the one she used to lead.

Janet Matricciani, who served as CEO of a payday lender named World Acceptance, sent an email to President Donald Trump’s budget director Mick Mulvaney about being appointed as head of the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau, according to the Associated Press. Mulvaney is currently serving as the interim head of that organization until a lasting replacement can be found.

“I would love to apply for the position of director of the CFPB. Who better than me understand the need to treat consumers respectfully and honestly, and the equal need to offer credit to lower-income consumers in order to help them manage their daily lives?” Matricciani argued to Mulvaney.

She added, “I have indepth (sic) experience of what a CFPB investigation is like, and so I am in an unparalleled position to understand the effect of various CFPB actions on a company, its workforce, its customers and the industry.”

Marticciani’s email was sent to Mulvaney only two days after the CFPB had closed an investigation into World Acceptance’s lending practices that had been initiated under Mulvaney’s progressive predecessor, Richard Cordray. This was part of Mulvaney’s larger policy of dropping investigations and lawsuits conducted by the bureau and does not automatically indicate that there was any connection between Marticciani’s letter and the CFPB’s favorable decision.

Nevertheless, Matricciani’s email will raise serious questions about the relationship between Mulvaney and the businesses he is supposed to regulate. In January Mulvaney declared that he believed his job was to prevent the CFPB from “interfering with capitalism.” That same month, he told the Federal Reserve that he didn’t want any new money to fund the agency for the upcoming fiscal quarter.

James Comey to appear on “Late Night With Stephen Colbert”

Former FBI Director James Comey (Credit: Getty/Chip Somodevilla)

One of the Trump administration’s numerous ex-employees is set to make a public appearance and — hopefully — reveal more details about his bizarre experience working under the president.

James Comey, the former FBI director who was publicly fired by Trump, is scheduled to appear on “Late Night With Stephen Colbert” on April 17 at 11:35 p.m. ET/PT. Colbert announced the news on Tuesday night — joking that he might have to get a new chair to accommodate Comey, who is six foot eight inches tall.

“I just found out April 17 my guest, sitting in that chair will be former FBI director James Comey,” Colbert said. “We’re going to have to get a bigger chair and I’m going to need a step ladder to interview the guy.”

BREAKING NEWS: Former FBI Director James Comey will be Stephen's guest on #LSSC on April 17th. Set your DVRs everybody! @Comey #JamesComey #Colbert pic.twitter.com/oY3f00Jfvm

— The Late Show (@colbertlateshow) March 7, 2018

Trump fired Comey in May 2017, claiming that he was dismissed over Comey’s handling of the investigation into Hillary Clinton’s emails. However, it has been widely speculated that Comey’s firing was likely due to Trump’s fury over the FBI’s investigation into allegations of Trump’s collusion with Russian agents seeking to undermine democracy in the United States. Comey testified in front of the Senate Intelligence Committee in June 2017, an event that became a must-see TV event, with many people in liberal cities like Washington, D.C. taking the day off work to spectate. In his testimony, Comey alleged Trump tried to get Comey to take a loyalty oath, and also that Trump directed him to drop the FBI’s case against Michael Flynn.

It is unclear what Comey will reveal in his interview with Colbert, but is likely that Comey’s appearance is timed to promote his forthcoming book, “A Higher Loyalty: Truth, Lies and Loyalty,” which will be released on April 17, 2018. The book is set to cover Comey’s decades-long career in politics. He was appointed by former President Barack Obama to serve as FBI director in 2013, and previously served as the U.S. deputy attorney general in the administration of President George W. Bush.  The book will detail some of his “never-before-told experiences from some of the highest-stakes situations,” according to its publisher.

Comey is also scheduled for an interview in an ABC special with George Stephanopoulos to discuss the forthcoming book.

Looking forward to my exclusive interview with James Comey for the launch of his book “A Higher Loyalty” — pub date April 17 pic.twitter.com/siYV4bsG1v

— GeorgeStephanopoulos (@GStephanopoulos) February 16, 2018

Comey has been vocal on Twitter, sharing his excitement about his book.

Book is finished. I’m looking forward to sharing it with everyone and talking about it on ABC. https://t.co/ksBZqIgVkH

— James Comey (@Comey) February 16, 2018

Even if Comey doesn’t open up about his time in the White House and his strange encounters with Trump, there will likely be many “lordy” moments; indeed, Comey’s fondness for the folksy phrase made him into a minor meme in 2017.

“Sex and the City” star considers New York gubernatorial run

Cynthia Nixon (Credit: Getty/Angela Weiss)

Cynthia Nixon, an Emmy Award-winning actress best known for her starring role as Miranda Hobbs on “Sex and the City,” is positioning herself for a potential challenge to incumbent Gov. Andrew Cuomo in New York’s Democratic primary this fall.

Nixon has insinuated an interest in a gubernatorial bid for months. Now she is consulting veteran New York City political operatives Bill Hyers and Rebecca Katz, who successfully helped elect Bill de Blasio on his first attempt to become mayor in 2013, NY1 first reported.

Vogue threw its support behind Nixon in August 2017, but as a longtime education and LGBTQ activist, her political roots date back much further. And the implications of a successful run for governor would be historic – New York has never had a female or openly bi-sexual governor.

“Many concerned New Yorkers have been encouraging Cynthia to run for office, and as she has said previously, she will continue to explore it,” Nixon’s publicist, Rebecca Capellan said in a statement on Tuesday. “If and when such a decision is made, Cynthia will be sure to make her plans public.”

“It’s time to take our government back,” Nixon, who campaigned for De Blasio in 2013, wrote in an op-ed for CNN in January. She has also been openly critical of Cuomo, who often spars publicly with de Blasio, in recent months.

“We’ve got a real problem on our hands in New York state,” she said on the Today Show in August. “And Gov. Cuomo likes to say that we spend more per pupil than any other state. And that is actually true, but the only reason that’s true is because we spend so much on the kids in our wealthiest districts.”

Nixon is a mother of three, and all of her children currently attend or have attended New York public schools. “Between our 100 richest schools and our 100 poorest schools, there’s a $10,000 gap on what we spend per pupil,” she said. “The gap between our richest schools and our poorest schools is wider under Gov. Cuomo than it has ever been before, and that’s got to stop.”

Cuomo, who was first elected in 2010 and is currently seeking a third term, did not seem phased by the potential challenge. “In this business,” he told reporters on a conference call, “you can’t let these things bother you. Otherwise, you won’t last long.”

But that didn’t stop the incumbent from placing blame for a potential primary fight on his political foil. “I think it was probably either the mayor of New York or Vladimir Putin,” Cuomo said, referencing de Blasio, according to Politico. “I’m going to leave it to you great investigative reporters to follow the facts and ferret out the truth.” (A spokesperson later clarified that Cuomo was joking.)

But in 2014, a largely unknown primary challenger named Zephyr Teachout won nearly 34 percent of the vote, which to some, indicates a potential vulnerability if Cuomo is forced to face off against another notable and well-funded contender. “If it’s just about name recognition, I’m hoping that Brad Pitt, Angelina Jolie and Billy Joel don’t get into the race,” the governor said on his call with reporters.

In addition to growing education and wealth disparities in New York, Cuomo has also come under fire throughout the past year over New York City’s failing subway system. Still, rumors of a potential 2020 presidential run by the governor remain rampant.

While various celebrities have sprouted up recently announcing bids for elected office, there is speculation that, because of Nixon’s name recognition and record of progressive political engagement, she would be a viable challenger to Cuomo should she ultimately decide to run for office.

Betsy DeVos visited Stoneman Douglas, but students weren’t thrilled

U.S. Education Secretary Betsy DeVos speaks to the news during a press conference about her visit to Marjory Stoneman Douglas High School. (Credit: Getty/Joe Raedle)

After visiting Marjory Stoneman Douglas High School, the site of one of the worst mass shootings in history, Education Secretary Betsy DeVos defended President Donald Trump’s proposal to arm school teachers. She said that her meeting with students went well, but they had a different opinion of what happened.

In a brief news conference, DeVos said the visit was “very sobering and very inspiring.” She added that she met with “a small group of students that are having a particularly tough time,” along with teachers and students who worked for the school newspaper.

“I was just there to be there, to be with them,” DeVos said, according to CNN.

When asked about Trump’s floated proposal to arm educators, not many specifics were given. DeVos’ visit was also closed to the press.

“I think that the concept is to, for those schools and those communities that opt to do this,” DeVos said of arming teachers, “to have people who are expert in being able to defend and having lots and lots of training to do so.”

She acknowledged that it “should be an option” but that “it’s certainly not one that needs to be required or mandated for every community.”

When asked if she had promised the students anything during her visit, DeVos replied that she told student journalists she’d sit down for an interview with them on a more appropriate date at a later time.

During the news conference, DeVos did not elaborate on further specifics about Trump’s proposal to bolster school security and allow faculty to arm themselves. She also did not express support for several measures students who have turned into activists as a result of the tragedy have requested, such as an assault weapons ban.

Some students quickly took their frustration to Twitter and expressed they had wanted more than just a photo-op.

I thought she would at least give us her "thoughts and prayers," but she refused to even meet/speak with students. I don't understand the point of her being here

— carly (@car_nove) March 7, 2018

One student from each publication (tv prod./newspaper/yearbook) was able to see her and take pictures of her, no one followed her. We are part of a school publication and it's our job to report on a public figure visiting the school. https://t.co/zE48UAFZky

— carly (@car_nove) March 7, 2018

Lol pic.twitter.com/w1SPBbrHnr

— Lex (@lexforchange) March 7, 2018

https://twitter.com/Aly_Sheehy/status...

Literally no one asked for this https://t.co/79A54IbIht

— Sarah Chadwick// #NEVERAGAIN (@sarahchad_) March 7, 2018

Greg Pittman, a history teacher at the school, questioned why DeVos showed up to begin with.

“Is she here just for a photo op? Is she bringing us any money for security? Is she bringing any money for mental health? Is she bringing us any money for teacher pay?” he asked in a gathering with a small group of people in the school’s media center, according to CNN. “Is she bringing us any other things that we need help with in education, or is it just a photo-op to send her down, appear in front of some cameras, take some pictures that she was here, pretend they care and then fly back off to Washington?”

Since the Valentine’s Day tragedy, students have sprung into action and have led a movement and called for meaningful action. The students have also looked at the National Rifle Association as a prime target and released a video this week that mocked an NRA ad. The video delivered a firm and clear message to those opposed to change: “Your time is running out.”

Washington governor signs net neutrality bill into law

Washington Gov. Jay Inslee signs a bill March 5, 2018, that makes Washington the first state to set up its own net-neutrality requirements. (Credit: AP/Ted S. Warren)

Governor Jay Inslee, D-Wash., signed a bill today that made Washington the first state to pass a law to protect net neutrality. The move was seen as a response to the Federal Communications Commission’s wildly unpopular decision to scrap net neutrality laws late last year.

“Washington’s new law, House Bill 2282, protects those net neutrality rules at the state level, ensuring that internet providers cannot advantageously manipulate internet speeds and access to content,” wrote the governor’s office in a press release. The statement continued:

“The law will prohibit companies that offer internet services from blocking legal content, applications, services or nonharmful devices. It will prohibit them from impairing — or throttling — internet traffic based on the content internet users consume, or the apps, services and devices they use. And it will prohibit them from favoring certain traffic for the company’s own benefit, a practice referred to as paid prioritization.”

The new law marks an intriguing political reversal in recent years, as liberal states begin to use states’ rights to progressive ends. Historically, the doctrine of states’ rights — the anti-federalist notion that states have a high degree of sovereignty, one that may even snub federal law — was generally an ideological staple of the American right. The states’ rights argument was used to argue in favor of Southern states retaining legalized slavery and, later, Jim Crow laws. “For decades, ‘states’ rights advocates’ invoked the vertical separation of powers to help them subjugate blacks,” Conor Friedersdorf wrote in The Atlantic.

Yet starting in the 2010s, an increasing number of blue states and socially libertarian states, largely in the west coast, began to legalize marijuana for recreational use — a decision that explicitly violates federal law.

The federal government tolerating said states’ right to tax, sell and regulate recreational marijuana constitutes a de facto endorsement of the states’ rights view that states can pass legislation that tiptoes around federal law. This was the position under Obama: The administration largely turned a blind eye towards states’ recreational marijuana laws, though it remained illegal on the federal level.

Now, intriguingly, the net neutrality law in Washington state represents another potential win for liberals using states’ rights to justify bucking federal rules — provided the federal government doesn’t swoop in to stop it. For what it’s worth, Gov. Inslee is aware of the role reversal here; in an interview this morning, Monica Nickelsburg of GeekWire asked Inslee of Washington’s role in the burgeoning liberal states’ rights movement. “A role-reversal seems to be occurring where the Democratic establishment is trying to empower state and city governments, in defiance of the federal government… Is Washington at the forefront of that?” Nickelsburg asked Inslee. Inslee replied:

“Oh, we’re active. We’re resolute. We’re undaunted. We’re un-intimidated. Because of that, we frequently find ourselves in the van of this effort but I’m not alone. There’s a lot of governors, a lot of people across the country that are resisting in many ways, the depredations of this administration, and I’m glad to have an alliance in many ways. […] We have many people who are acting on — or several governors who’ve acted on — executive orders on net neutrality. […]We have a lot of states and governors who are joining me in an effort to stop the president’s discrimination and the immigration policies so, we’re not alone, but we certainly are the first here, I will say that. We get the gold medal here.”

During the debate over the federal repeal of net neutrality, it was widely reported that internet service providers (who largely lobbied for net neutrality to end) wanted FCC chairman Ajit Pai to enforce a policy of “preemption,” that would prevent states from passing laws like Washington’s that would enforce net neutrality on a statewide basis. “Ajit Pai has claimed the authority to preempt states and municipalities from imposing laws similar to the net neutrality rules his FCC is getting rid of,” Jon Brodkin wrote in Ars Technica. “ISPs that sue states to block net neutrality laws will surely seize on the FCC’s repeal and preemption order.”