Helen H. Moore's Blog, page 80

More judges order administration to restore pregnancy prevention funds

Getty/Photo montage by Salon

This article originally appeared on Reveal from The Center for Investigative Reporting

Two more federal judges have ordered the Trump administration to restore funding for teen pregnancy prevention programs that were abruptly eliminated.

U.S. District Judge Catherine C. Blake ruled Wednesday that the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services’ decision was “arbitrary and capricious” when it axed $5 million in funding for the city of Baltimore and the Baltimore nonprofit Healthy Teen Network.

Another federal judge issued a similar order last week, ruling that the Department of Health and Human Services unlawfully cut the funding of four other programs. And on Tuesday, a judge ordered the department to restore the funding of three Planned Parenthood teen pregnancy programs that had filed suit.

In July, Reveal from The Center for Investigative Reporting reported that after the high-level appointment of Valerie Huber, an abstinence-only advocate, the administration axed $213.6 million nationwide for the last two years of five-year grants.

The Teen Pregnancy Prevention Program grants had been awarded to 81 institutions and groups that target many high-risk teens. Some 1.2 million teenagers in 39 states received education and services, mainly through public schools.

In her ruling, Blake wrote, “HHS may have had a sufficient, lawful reason, for terminating the plaintiffs’ project period early, but because it failed to provide a reason in this case, or to meaningfully explain the factors it considered relevant to its decision, it is impossible to determine what was motivating the agency and whether that motivation was relevant at all. HHS’s decision was, therefore, arbitrary and capricious.”

Baltimore City Health Commissioner Dr. Leana Wen said the judge’s decision means that “we will be able to continue our work in reducing teen birth rates, which fell 61 percent in Baltimore City from 2000 to 2016.” She said the grants ensure teens receive “evidence-based teen pregnancy prevention education delivered by teachers specially trained.”

The Department of Health and Human Services expressed disappointment in the rulings and countered that the programs are not successful in reducing teen pregnancies.

“Continuing the program in its current state does a disservice to the youth it serves and to the taxpayers who fund it,” the department said in a statement. “Communities deserve better, and we are considering our next steps.”

Federal health officials have declined to say whether the funds would be restored to only the nine plaintiffs or whether it would restore all 81 grant holders.

On Friday, the department announced a new set of grants meant to replace the ones it had tried to eliminate. These grants will focus on programs stressing abstinence-only, with no specific requirements for providing evidence that the programs work.

Democratic Senators plan last stand to restore net neutrality

Getty/Zach Gibson

When the Federal Communications Commission voted to repeal net neutrality rules, few were surprised. The issue was a partisan one, in which there was little hope of the left succeeding. The charge to end net neutrality was led by a few Republicans, like FCC chairman Ajit Pai, who oversaw the committee, and the final 3-2 outcome fell along party lines among the FCC commissioners, who are appointed by presidents.

However, some Democrats have come together to attempt to use a congressional maneuver to overturn the FCC's decision. Sen. Ed Markey, D-Mass., and 32 other Democrats have  filed a discharge petition, which, under the Congressional Review Act, would allow for a Senate vote. With that vote, a simple Senate majority would restore net neutrality.

I just officially filed the petition to force a vote on #NetNeutrality on the Senate floor. A vote is imminent. Make your voices heard before it’s too late.#OneMoreVote pic.twitter.com/OR6OZ2aM8P

— Ed Markey (@SenMarkey) May 9, 2018

Reuters reported on Tuesday that the filing would happen on Wednesday, which it did. According to the report, 47 Democrats, two independents, and one Republican Senator — Susan Collins, R-Maine — are in support of reversing the rollback. If that’s true, supporters could win 50-49 vote, counting the likely absence of Sen. John McCain, R-Ariz., due to his illness.

Yet if it does pass through the Senate, as Reuters reports, there will additional obstacles for proponents of the measure to overcome. The measure would have to go through a vote in House of Representatives — which is controlled by Republicans, so unlikely to pass — and then it would have to go to the Oval Office.

Still, the move is symbolic and important in and of itself. The widely-reported net neutrality rollback, which many thought would go into effect on April 23, was evidently a miscommunication. If and when it does go into effect, the end of net neutrality would mean that internet service providers could slow, speed, or throttle the content that flows through their wires depending on their whims, theoretically giving some sites preferential treatment while limiting others.

President Donald Trump has long been an opponent of net neutrality rules. In 2014, he called the rules a “power grab” by Former President Barack Obama.

Obama’s attack on the internet is another top down power grab. Net neutrality is the Fairness Doctrine. Will target conservative media.

— Donald J. Trump (@realDonaldTrump) November 12, 2014

That was the year Obama passed an order that classified the Internet as a Title II entity under the Communications Acts, which ultimately established restrictions for Internet providers that inhibited them from blocking content, accessing content, and throttling Internet content — which is when ISPs (Internet service providers) intentionally slow (or speed) a specific Internet service. As Obama explained during the initial debate a few years ago, “no service should be stuck in a 'slow lane' because it does not pay a fee.”

The U.S. has 62 ISPs, including big names like AT&T Wireless, Sprint, T-Mobile, Xfinity (a Comcast product) and U.S. Cellular.

Democrats aren’t the only ones rooting to reverse the rollback, though.

Major internet websites, such as Reddit, Pornhub, and Tumblr, are supporting the upcoming Senate vote with a new publicity campaign, which has been splashing red banners across the internet.

 

The belly fat battle: A wider waist is dangerous for reasons we don’t fully grasp

Kzenon via Shutterstock

This article was originally published by Scientific American.

Among the indignities of aging is a creeping tendency to put on weight, as our resting metabolism slows down — by roughly 1 to 2 percent every decade. But what's worse, at least for women, is a shift, around menopause, in where this excess flab accumulates. Instead of thickening the hips and thighs, it starts to add rolls around the belly — a pattern more typical of men — which notoriously reshapes older women from pears into apples.

The change is not just cosmetic. A high waist-to-hip ratio portends a greater risk of heart disease, stroke, diabetes, metabolic syndrome and even certain cancers — for both men and women. The shift helps to explain why, after menopause, women begin to catch up to men in their rates of cardiovascular disease. And those potbellies are costly. A 2008 Danish study found that for every inch added to a healthy waistline, annual health care costs rose by about 3 percent for women and 5 percent for men.

Researchers have been investigating “middle-aged spread” for decades, but there is still debate about why it happens, whether it is a cause or merely an indicator of health risks, and what can be done to avoid it. As we grow older, we deposit relatively more excess fat around our abdominal organs as opposed to under the skin —  where most of our body fat sits. There are some ethnic and racial differences, however, notes endocrinologist Robert Eckel, director of the Lipid Clinic at the University of Colorado Hospital. For a given waist circumference, African-Americans tend to have less of this “visceral fat,” and Asians tend to have more. Visceral fat differs from subcutaneous fat in that it releases fatty acids and inflammatory substances directly into the liver rather than into the general circulation. Some experts believe this may play a direct role in causing the diseases linked to abdominal obesity.

But not everyone agrees. Samuel Klein, who heads the Center for Human Nutrition at the Washington University School of Medicine in St. Louis, has published data showing that key factors in those diseases — such as insulin sensitivity and triglyceride levels — are more tightly linked to the amount of fat inside the liver rather than outside it, although the two tend to track one another. Belly fat, he believes, is a marker of risk, not a cause, but it is an important indicator and a whole lot easier to size up than liver fat. Just use a tape measure.

Another area of uncertainty is why we pack on visceral fat with aging. Clearly, sex hormones are involved, given that the change occurs in women around menopause. But it is more complicated than just a drop in estrogen. Consider, for instance, that young women with polycystic ovary syndrome tend to have the apple shape and insulin resistance, although their bodies produce plenty of estrogen. Such women do, however, have high levels of androgens. Or consider that when transgender males—who are biologically female—take androgens to masculinize their body, they, too, develop more visceral fat and glucose intolerance. Both examples suggest that “a relative imbalance” of male and female hormones may be at work, says endocrinologist Margaret Wierman of the University of Colorado Denver. The same might also be true of healthy women at menopause.

But this isn't settled science. A newer theory made a splash last year after researchers reported in Nature that they could radically reduce body fat — including visceral fat — and raise metabolic rates in mice by blocking the action of follicle-stimulating hormone (FSH), a substance better known for its role in reproduction. Could FSH be the key to the midlife weight puzzle? The researchers had previously shown that blocking FSH could halt bone loss, raising the intriguing prospect of a medical twofer: one drug to combat obesity and osteoporosis. “The next step is to take this to humans,” says senior author Mone Zaidi of the Icahn School of Medicine at Mount Sinai.

Of course, many a thrilling discovery in mice has fizzled in humans, and combating the evolutionary programming for storing fat is particularly difficult. Klein, for instance, has tested whether removing body fat with liposuction or surgically excising visceral fat in obese patients would reduce risk factors for diabetes and heart disease. No dice. “They looked better,” he says, but in terms of metabolic benefits, “it was a bust.”

As far as we know, there's only one way to fight nature's plan for a thickening middle and its attendant risks — and you know where this is going. Eat less or exercise more as you age, or do both. Adding more muscle will also keep your metabolic rate perky, so best to hit the gym.

Applying live bacteria to skin improves eczema

SvetlanaFedoseyeva via Shutterstock

This article was originally published on The Conversation.

With two decades of medical education, training, and research under my belt, I have finally reached the stage in my career when I can proudly state that I intentionally spray people in the face with live bacteria.

Atopic dermatitis, more commonly known as eczema, is an inflammatory skin disease that makes skin dry and itchy, causes rashes and leads to skin infections. The cause is unknown, but earlier studies conclude that the skin microbiome — the community of all the bacteria and other microorganisms living on the surface of the skin — plays a major role.

Yet all current eczema treatments ignore the microbiome. Furthermore, almost every current treatment, like topical steroid creams or lotions are time-intensive and must be applied to the skin at least once a day. Other effective treatments such as the Dupixent, which is injected twice per month, requires fewer applications but is extremely expensive. Our team at the National Institutes of Allergy and Infectious Diseases decided to develop a different approach, with the skin microbiome in mind.

Why bacteria?

The first step in looking into whether bacteria could impact eczema was to evaluate past studies that revealed which bacteria make up a healthy skin microbiome. When we compared the locations on the body where patients typically have eczema outbreaks, such as the elbow folds and the back of the knees, with the healthy skin microbiome map, we noticed an intriguing pattern. Body zones prone to symptoms were the same locations where Gram-negative bacteria liked to grow.

Gram staining is a general laboratory method for distinguishing bacteria; Gram-positive organisms like Staphylococcus aureus can separated from Gram-negative organisms like Escherichia coli. The primary reason to separate these types of bacteria is to help physicians understand which types of bacteria are present on a person, so they can select the most effective antibiotic.

We suspected that having the “wrong” kind of Gram-negative bacteria on the skin could lead to eczema. To test the hypothesis we used one particular strain of Gram-negative bacteria, Roseomonas mucosa, collected from the skin of healthy people, to see whether this microbe would calm irritated skin.

We studied R. mucosa in petri dishes, and discovered that it directly killed Staphylococcus aureus– a nasty species of bacteria that is common to skin infections, increases inflammation, and worsens symptoms. In mice, R. mucosa from healthy humans improved the barrier function of the mouse’s skin — the ability to seal in moisture so the skin does not get dry, and the ability to keep allergens like pollen out to protect against becoming allergic. The microbe also improved eczema-like rashes in mice.

Good versus bad bacteria

In humans, R. mucosa boosted the immune system in human skin cells. In contrast, when R. mucosa was collected from people with atopic dermatitis and tested in the same manner, it had no impact or made the eczema worse. This suggests that replacing “bad” strains of R. mucosa with “good” ones might be the key to treating patients.

What distinguishes the “bad” strains of R. mucosa from the bad? That’s a tricky question. To date we have learned that “bad” strains of R. mucosa produce skin irritants – specifically the histamine relative, histidinol, and monomethylgluterate. In contrast, the “good” bacteria make fatty molecules, lipids, that are known to protect the skin from dryness and S. aureus. It appears that the “good” and bad" the strains differ due to subtle changes in their DNA, but more research is needed.

What we do know is that it appears that all the R. mucosa found on healthy people is the “good” kind, while all the R. mucosa on eczema patients is “bad.” While some of the molecular details separating R. mucosa strains are unclear, our results gave us enough actionable information to design an early stage clinical trial to assess the safety and efficacy of applying a mix of three live R. mucosa strains collected from the skin of healthy volunteers and proven to be “good.”

This was the first study to ever evaluate if directly treating the bacteria on the skin could improve skin disease.

Microbial medicines

As part of a small Phase I/II trial, we treated patients who suffer from eczema with a spray containing sugar water and live R. mucosa. First, 10 adults applied the bacteria twice a week for six weeks.

The most important finding was that no one suffered any complications. However, the most exciting discovery was that the majority of participants noticed that their rash and itch subsided. Some reported needing fewer topical steroid applications to control their symptoms. After the adults completed the study, we enrolled five children aged 9 to 14 years.

Just like in adults, no one suffered ill effects and most saw their eczema improve. These kids then reduced the number of days they needed to use topical creams. The bacteria treatment also reduced the population of S. aureus.

Seeing such profound results left me with a mixture of emotions. On one hand, it was extremely gratifying to hear patients and parents relay how much better they or their children felt and to see such amazing differences in both their skin and disposition after treatment.

However, no one on our team, myself included, could feel fully satisfied seeing the disappointment in the patients for whom the treatments failed. Every volunteer expressed enjoyment in participating in the study, learning about their disease, and contributing the medical knowledge. However, anything less than 100 percent improvement in 100 percent of patients suggests we still have more work to do.

Probiotics for the skin?

Since our results support the growing understanding that disruptions in the bacterial balance on the skin directly contribute to eczema, we also explored whether chemicals in common skin care products might aggravate the condition by altering the growth of R. mucosa or S. aureus. Many products with parabens, a common preservative in cosmetics and soaps, and select topical moisturizers, blocked the growth of helpful R. mucosa from healthy skin but did not have the same effects on the growth of S. aureus or eczema-linked R. mucosa. These findings imply that certain products may worsen atopic dermatitis by blocking the growth of the protective R. mucosa.

By using this approach, we hope to offer a way to reduce symptoms and the need for daily treatment — at a reasonable cost. If the good bacteria are capable of colonizing the skin and making it their home, then there is a chance that these microbes could provide long-term benefits long after active treatment stops.

This first phase of our study involved just 15 patients. But based on our results, we plan to launch a bigger trial, likely to include hundreds of patients, to gauge the power of this new treatment. And just as you now buy yogurts that adjust the types and numbers of bacteria in your gut to improve your digestive health, it’s conceivable that we will be using probiotic skin creams to boost the health of the body’s largest organ, the skin.

Ian Myles, Assistant Clinical Investigator, National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases

What “Roseanne” doesn’t say about race speaks volumes

ABC/Adam Rose

To get an accurate gauge on where “Roseanne” stands America’s on cultural phobias, don’t look at what the show is explicitly discussing. Rather, keep an eye on what Dan (John Goodman) and Roseanne (Roseanne Barr) discuss in passing, or what the producers show us without specifically talking about it.

On Tuesday ABC debuted “Go Cubs,” the highly-publicized “Roseanne” episode about a Muslim family that moves in next door.

“Go Cubs” also marks the first time we see the return of James Pickens Jr., reprising his role as Dan Conner’s buddy Chuck, joined by his wife Anne-Marie (Adilah Barnes). Chuck previously appeared in 19 episodes of “Roseanne” as part of Dan’s group of poker buddies, and for the most part his race isn’t part of the conversation. That is, until the guys actually talk about it in the season 7 episode “White Men Can’t Kiss.”

“Go Cubs” is this era’s version of that episode, and evidence of the deficit of nuance, thoughtfulness and bravery in the 10th season’s overall writing. One of the most frequently quoted observations about this season comes from NPR’s Linda Holmes, who tweeted that the series “treats politics as an emotional issue for white people, something that they need to work out with each other, but not as something that makes anyone’s lives better or worse.”

This week’s episode proves this. Not explicitly, though. Returning to “White Men Can’t Kiss,” an episode about D.J.’s initial refusal to kiss a black girl (who viewers are to presume is the same Geena to whom he’s married), the story gave Roseanne the opportunity to dissolve assumptions that working-class white people are prejudiced.

But there are layers of inspection of that topic within the episode. Good guy Dan, for example, doesn’t consider himself to be racist but sees nothing wrong with kids wanting to stay with “their kind,” for instance. Even Roseanne herself is made to reflect upon her own internalized racism when, after she reproves her son’s action, she fearfully denies entry to a black man coming by her diner right before its closing time.

In the 14 years since that episode first aired, Lanford’s discriminatory view towards black people has apparently been solved. Now the main problems are the “illegals” snaking a contracting job out from under Chuck and Dan, a loss that leaves Dan and Roseanne unable pay their bills.

Only that last bit has anything to do with the main plot of “Go Cubs,” which begins with Roseanne suspiciously eyeing her new neighbors through a rake.

Basing her reaction to her new neighbors on fearmongering news reports linking Islam to terrorism, Roseanne is particularly alarmed by the large amount of fertilizer the family appears to be stockpiling.

“That’s how they make bombs!” she declares, adding as proof of her fears, “Anytime somethin’ bad happens, it’s always somebody who lives next door to somebody! . . . I’m telling you, this is what people from Eye-Rack or Talibanistan do!”

Even for “Roseanne,” that’s a lot of extremity to jam into the first minute and 15 seconds. But let’s unpack what’s going on in the background: Anne-Marie is clipping coupons in the living room with Jackie (Laurie Metcalf) and Roseanne while Dan and Chuck discuss that drywall job they don’t realize they’re about to lose to “illegals.”

Chuck and Anne-Marie’s presence, along with the Conners’ new Muslim neighbors, make this the most diverse episode of this season if you don’t count the child actor extras we see in Mark’s homeroom. And the realization that the first time we’re seeing them happens to be in an episode that makes Roseanne’s bigotry central to the story should not go unnoticed.

A recurring flaw in season 10 is the writers’ usage of people of color as a kind of cover for their inability to discuss race. We see Mary mostly in the credits, and this particular episode she gets more lines than she has all season. And like Mary, Anne-Marie and Chuck exist to make the Conners seem more misguided than intolerant. When Jackie chastises Roseanne on her assumptions about her neighbors, she invites Anne-Marie to jump in, leading Anne-Marie to reply, “Oh, because I’m black, I’m the expert on racism?” See, not even the liberal white person knows how to handle the subject.

But then, we can see that Anne-Marie, Chuck and Mary are inside Roseanne and Dan’s home. They are instruments of deflection, proof that although Roseanne harbors odious views she’s not an entirely bad person. They also enable the writers to allow “Roseanne” to have it all ways, politically speaking. Its characters can claim people of color as friends and family while explaining why they support political machinery that would take away their rights.

Actually, this is one way “Roseanne” handles race with a crumb of subtlety. Dan can mourn losing his job to “illegals,” forwarding the narrative of undocumented immigrants taking American jobs — “It ain’t right, Rosie,” Dan says, “Those guys are so desperate they’ll work for nothing, and we’re getting screwed in the process.” But the writers stop short of endorsing deportation by explaining that it’s not the fault of the immigrants, but the guy who hires them. “He’s taking advantage!” Roseanne responds.

And eventually the writers do enable Roseanne and Jackie to engage in their own version of “extreme vetting,” forcing them to meet the neighbors instead of just talking about them. D.J. (Michael Fishman) entrusts Roseanne to help his daughter Mary connect with her mother Geena, who’s deployed in Afghanistan, via Skype. The catch is that the call needs to be on Geena’s time, meaning the call has to go through at 2 a.m.

Right before the connection can happen, the Conners’ internet provider cuts their Wifi. Their only hope is to see if their neighbors, who hopefully aren’t terrorists, are willing to share their password. So in the middle of the night, Roseanne and Jackie venture to the door of strangers — Jackie holding a plant, Roseanne clutching a baseball bat. Amazingly, their neighbors Samir (Alain Washnevsky) and Fatima (Anne Bedian) answer the door – and Samir, too, has his baseball bat in hand.

Point being, everyone’s afraid of each other. That much is established during the strained, stilted exchange that follows. And while the stack of fertilizer can be explained by Samir’s overzealous shopping on Amazon, Roseanne and Jackie have no answer to stories of threats and harassment the family endures. Lanford has caused them so much anxiety, Fatima explains, that their young son sleeps in a bulletproof vest.

As one might expect, the morning-after parsing of “Go Cubs” split between liberal and conservative views. Depending on one’s viewpoint, “Go Cubs” represented either a bold statement in support of tolerance or a trite, hackneyed effort for the writers to check a box on some predetermined list of social issues.

Barr reportedly advocated for the episode in order to allow her character, and maybe herself, to receive some version of a comeuppance for her own prejudices. Certainly the episode achieves this mission, albeit in the most ham-fisted way imaginable.

Roseanne, in that 2 a.m. confrontation, realizes that her new neighbors have more to fear than she does, a breakthrough enabled by seeing Fatima and Samir’s sleepy son come to the door and watching them dote on him lovingly. Suddenly she realizes Fatima and Samir are not some disembodied threat. They’re a family, just like her.

And isn’t this just America right now? Through its title character, “Roseanne” mirrors the American practice of parroting the schismatic headlines or politically marginalizing entire groups of people while taking pride in treating the minorities with whom they interact the same as their white friends. The people who pass muster are somehow different than the strangers who slightly resemble a small number of other strangers who mean us harm.

It’s not OK, “Go Cubs” seems to be saying, although our fears are kind of justified.

At the end of the episode Roseanne gets the opportunity to play the heroic bystander at the local grocery store: She just happens to be in the checkout line behind Fatima, who is wearing her hijab and who happens to be $30 short, and who happens to get an outspoken racist for a cashier.

Not only does Roseanne lend Fatima enough money to cover the difference, she gives the cashier the kind of tongue-lashing that passes for woke in her world. Just like that, Fatima and Samir rise to the level of “all the shows about black and Asian families” in the Conners’ view. They’re “just like us.” They’re not part of the problem.

Those “illegals,” though, are an issue for left for another time.

Why Democrats need unity now

The Grifter in Chief has an administration full of thieves, fixers and money grubbers

AP/Getty/Salon

Have you taken a flight and had a look at the accommodations in first class? These days, many of the major airlines are featuring what they call “suites.” These are comfy spaces with lie-flat seats that convert into beds, in walled-off enclosures with sliding doors and private 20-inch screens featuring the latest in first-run movies, television series, and other video delights. Not to mention culinary selections from celebrity chefs including caviar, Dom Perignon champagne, and a night-night service where flight attendants make up your bed, help you with your airline-branded jammies, and tuck in your down-filled comforter so you don’t get a chill.

If you took a long-haul flight to North Africa or Rome recently, you might have run into Environmental Protection Administrator Scott Pruitt up there in first class, because that’s where he’s been traveling on the taxpayer dime since he took office. Nothing but the best rarified air for our Scotty at 35,000 feet while down here on earth he’s been “relaxing” the clean air standards established under the Obama administration for the rest of us.

Trump was the first president in memory to take office without divesting himself of his business assets, or at least putting them beyond reach in trust. While Trump has been taking meetings with world leaders, his sons Eric and Donald Jr. have been flying around the world making deals for the Trump Organization. He also maintained ownership of the Trump International Hotel, just down Pennsylvania Avenue from the White House, where foreign governments regularly house their diplomats and hold lavish parties, seeking to curry favor with the president. Trump makes money every time some dictator’s factotum orders room service or calls a lobbyist.

Hey! Scotty’s just slipstreaming along in the wake of the Grifter in Chief! So was former Health and Human Services Secretary Tom Price, who in the 231 days he spent in office before being unceremoniously shown the door spent over $1 million in taxpayer dollars on travel in private jets and government aircraft. Price splurged some $300,000 of those dollars on two trips on Air Force C37B aircraft, military-speak for the Gulfstream 550, a luxurious private jet often flown by corporate presidents and Hollywood studio chiefs. At least Price included his staff on his luxury trips by government Gulfstream. When our boy Scott Pruitt was up there flying first class to Rome and Morocco, his staff was stuck back in coach banging their knees on the seats in front of them.

And what a gaggle EPA Administrator Pruitt took along with him! Traveling in first class with Pruitt was his chief of security, Pasquale “Nino” Perrotta, while the other nine staffers and his security detail flew back in coach (Previous EPA administrators did not travel with their own personal security details).

But what’s a little trip to Rome or Morocco anyway, in the greater scheme of things? Pruitt’s Rome trip cost an estimated $120,000, according to documents obtained by the AP. His trip to Morocco cost at least $100,000, according to the Washington Post, including $16,217 for Pruitt’s first class airfare on Delta Airlines, and $494 for a luxury hotel when he overnighted in Paris, the Champs Elysees being a regular stop on the way to Morocco, of course. Pruitt traveled with a staff of eight and his security detail on that trip, too.

None of the costs associated with any of Pruitt’s luxury travel around the world would have come to light without freedom of information requests and lawsuits filed by news outlets and other organizations. The conservative legal group Judicial Watch obtained documents showing that President Donald Trump spent $13.5 million in his first year in office on travel to his club, Mar-a-Lago in Palm Beach, Florida and his golf resort in Bedminster, New Jersey, according to CNBC.

One trip alone to Bedminster in June of last year cost $44,783. The flight cost $15,994 per hour. The Pentagon estimates that travel on Air Force One when the president is aboard costs $206,000 per hour, according to the Washington Post. As of this week, Trump has spent a total of 111 days on his golf courses, amounting to nearly one quarter of the time he has been president.

Other presidents have spent time golfing, and other cabinet secretaries have traveled to distant lands on business that was allegedly government-related. But none have scratched the golfing itch like Trump has, and cabinet secretaries in previous administrations, including those of Presidents Obama and Bush, have traveled coach on government business.

EPA Administrator Pruitt is currently facing no less than 11 investigations into his spending habits and living arrangements. The EPA inspector general and the House Oversight Committee are both investigating Pruitt’s use of government funds for first class air travel. His use of a 20-person security detail cost the taxpayers $832,000 in his first three months as the head of the agency, according to documents obtained by the AP through a freedom of information request, and is the subject of three inspector general investigations.

The Government Accountability Office and the White House Office of Management and Budget are both investigating the expenditure of $43,000 for the construction of a sound-proof booth in Pruitt’s EPA office. The House Oversight Committee and the EPA inspector general are both investigating Pruitt’s rental of a room last year in a Capitol Hill townhouse for $50 a night from a lobbyist with business before the EPA. And new questions were raised this week about Pruitt’s use of a lobbyist working for the government of Morocco to make arrangements for his trip to that country.

Secretary of the Treasury Steven Mnuchin has been keeping up with his fellow grifters, spending more than $1 million on flights on military aircraft during the last year, according to a report released by Citizens for Responsibility and Ethics obtained by Politico. The sum includes more than $183,646 spent for a trip to the Middle East last October, and more than $800,000 spent on government aircraft that was previously unreported.

One trip to Miami cost $40,000, and half of the money spent on Mnuchin’s air travel went for government planes on trips within the United States to cities like Miami, which are well served by commercial airlines with plenty of flights to meet the needs of Mnuchin’s schedule. Mnuchin and his wife Louise Linton were famously photographed last year fingering a sheet of newly-minted dollar bills at the U.S. Mint on the first day that the bill’s featured Mnuchin’s signature as Treasury Secretary.

It’s not just Trump’s cabinet secretaries who are living high on governmental largess. Former Trump campaign manager Corey Lewandowski set up a “consulting firm” called Lewandowski Strategic Services last year and quickly signed a contract for $20,000 a month working for Community Choice Financial, a payday lender based in Ohio. Lewandowsky quickly called for the firing of Richard Cordray, head of the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau, which had issued strict guidelines regulating the payday lending industry. Cordray was forced out of the CFPB three months later.

Most recently, Lewandowski showed up in Belgrade, Serbia, with two former Trump campaign aides who run Turnberry Solutions, a lobbying firm headquartered in the Capitol Hill townhouse where Lewandowski resides. Lewandowski denies any connections to Turnberry Solutions, which is named after a golf course in Scotland owned by President Trump. He also denies that he is engaged in lobbying for foreign governments, despite reports that he attempted to set up a phone call between Trump and Serbian President Aleksander Vucic, according to sources in a Serbian opposition party cited by Mother Jones.

Lewandowski appears to have arranged a contract between the BGR Group, a lobbying firm chaired by veteran Republican political operative Ed Rogers, and Poland’s state-owned arms contractor, Polska Grupa Zbrojeniowa (PGZ), a conglomerate of 60 Polish defense companies. The contract is worth $70,000 a month, according to the Daily Beast. Two months after the lobbying contract was signed, BGR Group made a subcontracting agreement with Jason Osborne, one of the two lobbyists for Turnberry Solutions, headquartered in Corey Lewandowski’s townhouse.

And then there’s Matt Schlapp, Chairman of the American Conservative Union, and his wife, Mercedes Schlapp, the director of strategic communications at the White House. These two griftoids are also making out like bandits riding on Trump’s money train. Schlapp’s political consulting and communications firm, Cove Strategies, nearly doubled its income from $600,000 a year to over $1 million after Schlapp decided to back Trump in 2016 and invited him to the annual CPAC Convention, the annual gathering of wingnuts put on by the American Conservative Union in Washington.

Schlapp and his wife were pictured on the front page of the New York Times recently in their new $3 million home in Alexandria, Virginia. The Times reported that the happy couple also owns a 30-acre vacation retreat in the Blue Ridge Mountains they call Victory Farm.

You would think that the legal difficulties of Paul Manafort, Rick Gates and Michael Flynn would have gotten the attention of the grifters, fixers, and money grubbers inside and outside the Trump administration by now, but apparently not. It’s really a perfect system, isn’t it?

The favorite hang-out of lobbyists and fixers these days is the “lobby bar” at the Trump International Hotel in Washington. Conveniently, the President of the United States, who maintains ownership of the hotel while in office, pockets a percentage of every dime they spend there.

In confrontational hearing, Gina Haspel won’t say if torture was “immoral”

Getty/Alex Wong

Controversy ensued when President Donald Trump nominated Gina Haspel to be the next director of the Central Intelligence Agency replacing Mike Pompeo, who has moved to assume the position of Secretary of State. The contention reportedly caused Haspel to consider withdrawing her nomination.

On paper, Haspel appears to have the credentials to be a qualified candidate. A veteran of 33 years in the agency, she would be the first woman to lead it. In fact, there’s been little talk about her being inexperienced.

Yet when you take a look at her dark history — like that time in the early aughts when she oversaw a secret "black site" in Thailand where suspected terrorists were subjected to torture techniques, such as waterboarding — and her credentials seem more questionable.

Does she support torturing tactics? Or does she think they’re immoral? These are questions she was pressed to answer during today’s CIA confirmation hearing.

At first, Haspel began by addressing the elephant in the room.

"I understand that what many people around the country want to know about are my views on CIA’s former detention and interrogation program," Haspel said to the Senate Intelligence Committee. "Having served in that tumultuous time, I can offer you my personal commitment, clearly and without reservation, that under my leadership CIA will not restart such a detention and interrogation program.”

In the hearing, Haspel shed light on her early days as a spy. She joined the CIA in 1985 as an operations officer in the Clandestine Service.

"From my first days in training, I had a knack for the nuts and bolts of my profession. I excelled in finding and acquiring secret information that I obtained in brush passes, dead drops, or in meetings in dusty back allies of third world capitals," she said.

Immediately, Senators jumped in with tough questions. When asked by Sens. Susan Collins, R-Maine, and Martin Heinrich, D-N.M., if she would restart a detention and interrogation program—even if ordered to do so by President Trump—she said no.

“I would not restart, under any circumstances, an interrogation program at CIA," Haspel said.

Tensions flared when Democratic Sen. Kamala Harris of California had her few minutes of interrogation.

"One question I've not heard you answer is, do you believe the previous interrogation techniques were immoral?" Harris asked.

Haspel started to answer by talking about the tactics' legality.

"I'm not asking do you believe they were legal, I'm asking do you believe they were immoral,” Harris interrupted.

“Senator, I believe that CIA did extraordinary work to prevent another attack on this country given the legal tools,” Haspel responded.

“Please answer yes or no. Do you believe in hindsight that those techniques were immoral?” Harris pressed.

“What I believe sitting here today is that I support the higher moral standard we have decided to hold ourselves,” Haspel said.

Harris asked Haspel to “please answer the question,” to which Haspel responded: “I think I've answered the question.”

Harris’s urgency to press for an answer seemed to echo what other Democratic senators were wondering.

“I know you believed it was legal,” Sen. Martin Heinrich, D-N.M., said. " I want to trust that you have the moral compass you said you have. You're giving very legalistic answers to very moral questions.”

According to CNN, protesters repeatedly interrupted Haspel throughout the hearing, one of them even yelled, "Bloody Gina!" Eventually a protester was removed from the hearing after interrupting Haspel while she was answering a question.

Haspel also noted that her gender gives her a leg up with her allies.

”It is not my way to trumpet the fact I am a woman for the top job in the CIA, but I would be remiss in not remarking on it, not least because of the outpouring of support from young women in the CIA and across the [intelligence community], because they consider it a good sign for their own prospects,” she said.

Yet critics are taking a very strong stance against her nomination—in the Senate, and outside.

Some Democratic senators on the Intelligence Committee wrote a letter to the director of national intelligence, Daniel Coats, asking information related to Haspel’s involvement in the interrogation program.

“The American people deserve transparency regarding the background of a nominee who will be asked to represent them, and their values, around the world,” they wrote.

A group of over 100 career and non-career senior diplomats, also wrote a letter to the Senate expressing “serious concern.”

“We have no reason to question Ms. Haspel’s credentials as both a leader and an experienced intelligence professional. Yet she is also emblematic of choices made by certain American officials in the wake of the attacks of September 11, 2001 that dispensed with our ideals and international commitments to the ultimate detriment of our national security,” the letter stated. “What we do know, based on credible, and as yet uncontested reporting, leaves us of the view that [Ms. Haspel] should be disqualified from holding cabinet rank.”

Diplomats who signed the letter have served under both Democratic and Republican administrations.

 

Whoopi schools Meghan McCain on GOP opposition to Iran nuke deal: “You guys don’t have another plan”

YouTube/The View

It seems like there was nothing that could have stopped the inevitability that President Donald Trump would nullify the Iran nuclear deal, one of the hallmark foreign policy achievements of his predecessor Barack Obama. Ultimately, Trump decided to fulfill one of his most vocal campaign promises despite the urgings of his national security advisers and international peers.

In case you did not notice, Trump has a larger pattern of pulling out of Obama's deals, which he consistently insists are "bad."

"He pulled out of TPP, which Obama was into. He pulled out of the Paris Accords, which Obama was down with," co-host Joy Behar said on ABC's "The View" Wednesday. "He's pulling out of Iran, which Obama was down with."

So, what is Trump's deal?

"It's almost like I can't believe anything he does, because it seems to me based on a personal antagonism to Obama – and a jealousy," the comedian said – and she was not joking.

Behar's brutal truth telling, which did not take into account the consistent racial tensions that Trump has stroked throughout his presidency, was too much for the show's lone conservative panel member, Meghan McCain, to handle.

"We sent $400 million in unmarked bills to the largest state sponsor of terror," McCain said. "And I don't care who you are, but we shouldn't be giving money to a country where people go out in the streets and yell, 'Death to Israel, death to America.'"

Invoking Russia, McCain, who is the daughter of John McCain, one of the Senate's chief foreign policy hawks, then doubled-down on her militaristic views.

"So now you're telling me that we should do what Russia does, as well?" McCain asked.

"I am sorry," she continued. "It is difficult for me to sit here and accept that we should be funding terror. I cannot get behind it."

What McCain never offered was a solution to the problem – a frequent criticism of many congressional lawmakers in the Republican Party. That is why Whoopi Goldberg, who is the moderator of "The View," interjected to point out that "everybody b*tches" without going the extra mile.

"Here's what's hard for me to accept: You guys don't have another plan," Goldberg said. "You don't have a way to get Iran to comply."

In case the GOP's shortcomings were not crystal clear to McCain in this case, Goldberg reiterated, "You didn't have jack. That's why it happened."

But, does Trump's decision to pull out of the Iran nuclear deal stretch beyond what co-host Sunny Hostin labeled as "campaign policy politics"? As my colleague Heather Digby Parton asked in her column for Salon on Wednesday, is a war in fact brewing with the Middle Eastern country? Now that the deal has been ripped into shreds, it is possible that Trump could push for regime change:

Trump is often understood as an old-time isolationist who just wants the U.S. to withdraw from the world so he can concentrate on mass deportations and graft. But that does not describe Bolton or Giuliani or anti-Muslim zealot Mike Pompeo, now the secretary of state, or any of the other hawks Trump has surrounded himself with. They are looking for a war. They are always looking for a war.

Really, Trump is too. He's a bully. It's his nature.

You can watch the full exchange between the co-hosts of "The View" below.

TRUMP WITHDRAWS FROM IRAN DEAL: The co-hosts discuss Pres. Trump announcing that the U.S. is withdrawing from the Iran nuclear deal, keeping a campaign promise — but ignoring the advice of America’s allies. https://t.co/f8u2wc159S pic.twitter.com/GHtsKdJQNu

— The View (@TheView) May 9, 2018

Picasso’s nude painting of young girl sells for $115 million in the #MeToo era

Getty/Hector Retamal

Pablo Picasso's 1905 painting "Fillette à la corbeille fleurie" sold for $115 million at Christie’s auction house on Tuesday night. Breaking several world auction records, the purchase has been described by some experts experts as "the sale of the century."

But little is known about the young girl at the center of the nude Picasso portrait. In the era of #MeToo, the enormous sale – and its subject's lack of identity and age – raises important questions about where we draw the line between consent and exploitation in esteemed art.

"Many critics call this painting a masterpiece, and that may be true. But it poses a question: Why we are willing [to] overlook inhumane, monstrous behavior when it comes to artists?" Mia Merrill, director of talent at The Wing, wrote in an email to HuffPost. "We want to know why Picasso chose to paint this naked child and what he was trying to convey by doing so."

"Fillette à la corbeille fleurie" was painted during Picasso's Rose Period, the years between 1904 and 1906 in which the Spanish artist used a palette of oranges and pinks in contrast to more somber tones, such as blues. The subject's pale, naked body jumps out from the subdued, periwinkle backdrop. Her eyes are like darts, and her face is stern, frustrated even – aged far beyond her pubescent body. She carries a basket full of bright red flowers. The famous painting was mentioned in Ernest Hemingway's "A Moveable Feast" and was also once owned by Gertrude Stein.

Picasso referred to the young girl as "Linda," according to Christie's website. Linda was a poor, teenage girl, who supported herself through the selling of flowers and her body, the auctioneer writes. Her exact age is unknown, but in the painting, her body is childlike: flat-chested, thin and hairless.

But Picasso was 21 years old when he painter Linda. In a feature essay about Picasso on Christie's site, she is believe to have "died sadly young. We do not know what became of Linda, but the long-term odds of evading a similar fate were not in her favor."

"Linda’s is a paradoxical position many women deemed 'muses' occupy, their images iconic and their identities irrelevant," HuffPost reported. "For centuries, women like Linda, who pose for and collaborate with powerful male artists, have been seen but not heard, objectified rather than humanized."

When Antonio Banderas, who plays Picasso in the second season National Geographic's anthology series, "Genius," recently stopped by Salon, the actor said that it is important to contextualize the nature of one's "genius."



"It could be a pathological problem," he said on Salon Talks, "because you are very good for certain things. But, at the same time, you can be very awkward and be very bad for the people that are surrounding you."



Banderas continued, "You require their energy to fuel you own creative process."



The Spanish actor did not specifically name misogyny or the abuse of women as part of Picasso's legacy, although allegations against the artist have been raised. But, Banderas said Picasso's "personal life took him to very complicated places with his friends, with woman and with his own family."

Warning signs for the blue wave? Republicans shun Blankenship, pick strong contenders

AP/John Minchillo/Darron Cummings/Tyler Evert

Results of Tuesday’s Republican Senate primaries — the first significant data set of the 2018 midterms — suggest that the GOP is poised to repeat its successful 2014 midterm performance, and to avoid the weak Senate nominees that emerged from the 2010 and 2012 primaries in states like Indiana, Delaware, Missouri and Nevada.

Republicans went to the polls on Tuesday to choose nominees in three key Senate races on one of the biggest primary days of 2018 -- and they did not squander a trio of their best pickup opportunities. While ambitious House Republicans elected since the 2010 Tea Party wave did not fare well in their bids to move up, Republican primary voters stayed away from the problematic candidates who have already cost them several special elections since President Donald Trump took office. Most obviously, the nomination of accused sexual predator Roy Moore in Alabama allowed Democrat Doug Jones to win a Senate seat in one of the nation's most conservative states. Because of Moore’s loss, Republican only hold a 51-49 majority in the Senate heading into this fall’s midterms.

West Virginia

Despite all the talk of a "blue wave," it's worth remembering that Democrats must defend Senate seats in 10 states won by Donald Trump in 2016. In none of those was the margin greater than in West Virginia. Although Democratic Sen. Joe Manchin has won five statewide elections in his career, he is widely viewed as one of 2018's most vulnerable incumbents.

Manchin’s best chance of holding on to his seat was defeated on Tuesday, as wealthy coal executive Don Blankenship, who recently completed a prison term resulting from his role in a mine explosion that killed 29 people, finished a distant third in the Republican primary. Blankenship was convicted in 2015 of conspiring to skirt mine standards at Massey Energy’s Upper Big Branch mine, where the disaster occurred in 2010. He declared himself the victim of an Obama administration conspiracy and presented an unexpected challenge to two more traditional Republican candidates, Rep. Evan Jenkins and state Attorney General Patrick Morrisey.

Trump made an 11th-hour plea for voters to reject Blankenship after he seemed to surge, with two internal Republican polls showing him jumping into the lead over his two main rivals over the weekend. The president made no mention of Blakenship’s obvious ethical lapses in his tweet, simply warned West Virginia Republicans that he might cost them a winnable seat in November.

To the great people of West Virginia we have, together, a really great chance to keep making a big difference. Problem is, Don Blankenship, currently running for Senate, can’t win the General Election in your State...No way! Remember Alabama. Vote Rep. Jenkins or A.G. Morrisey!

— Donald J. Trump (@realDonaldTrump) May 7, 2018

West Virginia gave the president 68 percent of its vote in 2016. Blankenship, who calls himself "Trumpier than Trump,"  ran campaign ads that referred to Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell, as "Cocaine Mitch" and described Transportation Secretary Elaine Chao's parents as "China family." 

Perhaps Trump's intervention worked. In any event, the AP reports that Morrisey won the primary, with Rep. Evan Jenkins, a former Democrat, coming in second. Blankenship only got about 20 percent of the vote. Morrisey presents an excellent chance for Republicans to pick up this seat, although it's true that Manchin and his Democratic primary opponent got more votes than all the Republicans together.

Indiana

A three-way Republican race to challenge Democratic Sen. Joe Donnelly -- one of the GOP’s top Senate targets -- ended with a wealthy businessman and former Democrat the victor.

Mike Braun, a former state legislator turned businessman, beat out House Reps. Todd Rokita and Luke Messer. Braun funneled about $4.5 million of his own money into the race, in a campaign that saw more than $9 million in combined spending, making it one of the year's most expensive primary races of the year.

Rivals since college, Messer and Rokita left their seats in the House to run for the Senate. (Vice President Mike Pence’s brother won the GOP primary for Messer’s House seat on Tuesday.) They began attacking each other last year before either of them had announced his candidacy. While their battle hasn’t drawn much national attention, the relentless negative attacks drew Braun, who until recently had voted in Democratic primaries, into the race.

All three candidates attempted to out-Trump each other. Braun said Trump “paved the way” for a candidate who has spent most of his career in business. Rokita has been traveling the state with a cardboard cutout of the president and introduced a resolution to end special counsel Robert Mueller’s Russia probe. Messser introduced a resolution calling on Trump to be nominated for a Nobel Peace Prize.

Braun will certainly now win Trump's endorsement in his race against Donnelly, who has made little impression on the political world during six years in Washington and may be the Democratic incumbent least likely to succeed in 2018. Trump, who won Indiana by 20 points two years ago, plans to hold a campaign rally in the state on Thursday.

Ohio

The only GOP House member who managed to take a major step toward promotion to the Senate on Tuesday was Rep. Jim Renacci, who will now challenge Democratic Sen. Sherrod Brown in the fall.

But Ohio’s most-watched contest was the race to replace Gov. John Kasich, an anti-Trump Republican being forced out by term limits.

Richard Cordray, former head of the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau (now headed by Trump loyalist Mick Mulvaney), will be the Democratic nominee for Ohio governor. Cordray conclusively defeated Dennis Kucinich, the former congressman, presidential candidate and Cleveland mayor, winning every area of the state. The race was something of a proxy battle between two progressive leaders, pitting Sen. Elizabeth Warren, D-Mass., against the Bernie Sanders-aligned group Our Revolution. Cordray will now face former Sen. Mike DeWine, the Republican nominee, in a race likely to be seen as a national bellwether.

Guns and NRA will define midterms

Former U.S. Rep. Steve Israel, D-N.Y., says Democrats must stick together and settle their differences later.