Helen H. Moore's Blog, page 95

The census will officially count same-sex couples for the first time ever — but that’s not enough

AP Photo/Michael C Corder

This article was originally published on The Conversation.

Although LGBT people are becoming more visible in society, federal data reveal little about the U.S. LGBT population and its needs.

In a first in U.S. history, the U.S. Census Bureau will explicitly count same-sex couples living together in the 2020 census.

The decision to ask about same-sex relationships, announced on March 29, is an important change that will improve the quality of the data.

Yet the 2020 census and most federal surveys don’t ask people to disclose their sexual orientation or gender identity. That means there’s no official count of LGBT people in the country, and most government data sets cannot be used to assess the LGBT population at the national, state or local level. Such information would help policymakers, researchers and advocates understand the particular needs of this population and design effective policies and programs.

As a legal scholar who studies federal sexual orientation and gender identity data, I know that currently there are many unanswered questions about LGBT people’s employment, housing and family circumstances; their health and well-being; and the discrimination and disparities they face.

If the census and other federal surveys included sexual orientation and gender identity, we would know so much more.

What the 2020 census will capture

The decennial census is one of the nation’s most important data collections. It’s the constitutionally mandated official headcount of people living in the U.S. and is the principal way to determine political representation throughout the nation.

Although the census is collected only every 10 years, the U.S. Census Bureau regularly conducts numerous other surveys, including the American Community Survey and the Current Population Survey. The data from these and other federal surveys are often used in conjunction with decennial census data to influence law and policy. These data also determine the annual distribution of more than US$675 billion of federal funding.

In the past, demographers analyzing U.S. Census Bureau data had to use complicated and imperfect systems to estimate the number of cohabiting same-sex couples living in the U.S. The current estimate is that are 646,500 same-sex couples living together in the U.S.

The 2020 census will allow respondents to describe their relationship to members of their household using the categories “same-sex husband/wife/spouse” and “same-sex unmarried partner.” In the past, this was not the case.

The 2020 census will better count the number of married and unmarried same-sex couples living together. Respondents’ answers will provide a wealth of information about same-sex couples’ diversity, their children and living arrangements, employment rates and incomes.

Gaps in the data

By capturing distinct data only on same-sex couples living together, however, the 2020 census will tell us nothing about the entire LGBT population, including LGBT people who are single or bisexuals in different-sex relationships. Nor will it capture specific data on transgender youth and adults.

During the Obama administration, the Department of Justice and other federal agencies asked the U.S. Census Bureau to collect sexual orientation and gender identity information. However, the Trump administration withdrew these requests, against the objection of members of the U.S. Senate, LGBT rights groups, researchers and others.

The U.S. Census Bureau’s director stated in a blog post that “there’s no federal data need” nor any statutory requirement to collect sexual orientation and gender identity data.

It’s true that Congress has failed to pass legislation that would require the census to add sexual orientation and gender identity questions. However, as the U.S. Census Bureau has acknowledged, various questions are included on the decennial census or other surveys because “the data are needed for program planning, implementation or evaluation” even though “there is no explicit mandate or requirement.” Moreover, the Department of Justice and other agencies’ requests to the U.S. Census Bureau clearly articulated the federal need for this data.

Only a few federal surveys currently capture information about sexual orientation and gender identity. That suggests that such items could easily be added to the census and other federal surveys that ask about people’s demographics.

Beyond the decennial census, the Trump administration has rolled back sexual orientation and gender identity data collection in other federal surveys.

Why it matters

Businesses, government agencies, journalists, researchers and others use U.S. Census Bureau data to understand the socioeconomic characteristics of the nation. Without an accurate count, many public and private programs and services may not effectively reach vulnerable LGBT populations.

Moreover, there are federal laws and programs in place designed to increase access to employment, housing, health care and other services. But without inclusive data, policymakers, social service providers and others can’t know if these activities meet the needs of LGBT people and help them thrive. Without this information, stereotypes and myths may drive policies that impact LGBT people.

For example, despite the popular stereotype of LGBT affluence, studies suggest that some LGBT people are more likely than their non-LGBT counterparts to be in poverty. Also, despite the belief that marriage equality would result in full societal acceptance, many LGBT people throughout the nation continue to face persistent and pervasive discrimination.

What’s more, the LGBT population faces numerous health disparities compared to the non-LGBT population, such as higher rates of substance use, depressive symptoms and suicide attempts.

Existing data show that the LGBT population is remarkably diverse and that the experiences of LGBT people are shaped by many factors, including race, age, socioeconomic status and education level. But existing data are not enough. The U.S. Census Bureau’s failure to ask sexual orientation and gender identity questions makes it hard to know much about the intersections between LGBT status and other characteristics.

In my view, if policymakers want to truly understand and attempt to meet the diverse needs of LGBT people, then more inclusive data ought to be collected. And the U.S. Census Bureau — with its vast surveys, strict confidentiality and expertise — is the ideal agency to lead the way.

Akiesha Anderson, Law Fellow, Williams Institute, University of California, Los Angeles

Sen. Bernie Sanders to introduce guaranteed jobs program: Report

Getty/George Frey

You have to hand it to Sen. Bernie Sanders (I-Vt.): he's persistent. Now, reports have surfaced that Sanders is preparing to release a plan that would guarantee a job for every American.

According to the Washington Post report, Sanders’ federal proposal will encompass every American “who wants or needs [a job],” with a guaranteed minimum pay of $15 an hour and health-care benefits.

Channeling the New Deal, Sanders's plan would fund projects across the country, and be part of a bigger vision that seeks to tackle issues including infrastructure, education, environmental issues and more.

A representative from Sanders’ office told the Post that planning for what is being called a “jobs guarantee program” is still in its early stages, and the way in which it will be funded has yet to be determined.

According to the report, more details from an early draft are the following:

“Under the early draft of Sanders's job guarantee, local, state and American Indian tribe governments in every section of the country would send proposals for public works projects for their areas to 12 regional offices that encompass the country. These 12 regional offices would act as a clearinghouse for these projects, tasked with sending recommended projects to a new national office within the Labor Department office for final approval.

Once approved, the projects would hire workers at a minimum salary of $15 an hour with paid family and medical leave, and offer the same retirement, health, and sick and annual leave benefits as other federal employees.”

“The goal is to eliminate working poverty and involuntary unemployment altogether,” Darrick Hamilton, an economist at the New School, told the Washington Post. “This is an opportunity for something transformative, beyond the tinkering we've been doing for the last 40 years, where all the productivity gains have gone to the elite of society."

Sen. Cory Booker, D-NJ, has also announced that he will introduce a separate legislation “that seeks to establish a model federal jobs guarantee program in up to 15 high-unemployment communities and regions across the United States,” according to the announcement.

“The federal jobs guarantee is an idea that demands to be taken seriously. Creating an employment guarantee would give all Americans a shot at a day’s work and, by introducing competition into the labor market, raise wages and improve benefits for all workers,” Booker said in a statement. “My bill will seek to create a model federal jobs guarantee program by piloting it in up to fifteen high-unemployment communities across the country. Not only would this have a positive impact on the lives of potentially hundreds of thousands of Americans right away, but the valuable data gathered would help us learn lessons, assess its effectiveness, and perfect the idea.”

The idea for many leftists seems visionary: if America were to build a society where everyone is guaranteed a job, an income, and health benefits—jobs that were contributing to the greater good of society—there would surely be less suffering, socially and economically. The idea also overlaps with the ideology of Universal Basic Income, which one up and coming politician has been advocating for: Michael Tubbs, as recently reported by Politico.

Tubbs is a 27-year-old mayor of Stockton, California, who has launched a universal basic-income pilot program which will give dozens of low-income families $500 a month for a year, and will measure the social and economic impact on the program.

“There’s this interesting conversation we’ve been having about the value of work,” Tubbs told Politico. “Work does have some value and some dignity, but I don’t think working 14 hours and not being able to pay your bills, or working two jobs and not being able—there’s nothing inherently dignified about that.”

Tubbs raises a good point, one that has recently been echoed in Jeffrey Pfeffer’s new book, “Dying for a Paycheck." Pfeffer, who is a Professor of Organizational Behavior at the Graduate School of Business, examines the toxic way in which a majority of the world approaches work. A swift Google search on “studies on how work is killing Americans” will find plenty to validate the theory that Americans are overworked and overstressed.

Sanders has long been an advocate of similar social welfare policy ideas, including Medicare For All, a universal healthcare policy initiative he championed during the 2016 election. Sanders’s ideas, once considered to be too progressive for traditional Democrats, have been held to a new resolve by some in the blue party. Rep. Keith Ellison, D-Minn., said in March that his party was slowly uniting around the issue of Medicare For All.

Critics are weighing in with strongly opposing opinions. Adam Ozimek, a senior economist at Moody's Analytic, wrote in Forbes that the idea of a jobs guarantee program is “absurd.”

“Here is my argument: nationalizing a quarter or more of the labor market is such an obviously bad and absurd idea that it's more interesting to talk about what it's [sic] popularity is saying than actually debate the economics,” he wrote.

However, as The Guardian recently reported, if America were to implement such a program, it wouldn’t be the first: President of South Korea Moon Jae has pledged to create 810,000 public sector jobs over five years — such as teaching jobs, police, and social workers.

“A jobs guarantee would likely boost wages in the private sector, where consolidation has killed competition and monopolies dominate the landscape. Competing with the government, the private sector would feel pressure to increase pay and benefits,” Ross Barkan wrote in The Guardian.

Sanders’s office hasn’t released an official statement yet, but he has in the past discussed his stance on Universal Basic Income, and nodded to why he’s been a long advocate of not cutting social security benefits, universal healthcare, free education, and increasing minimum wage in the America.

The jobs guarantee program takes many of the causes he has been championing and ties them up in a neat bow.

Our president ignores an American hero: Trump’s silence on the Waffle House murders is deafening

Getty/Jason Davis

During the early morning hours last Sunday, a 29-year-old white man named Travis Reinking allegedly used an AR-15 rifle to kill four people and injure two others at a Waffle House restaurant in Nashville. Reinking is reportedly a member of the Sovereign Citizens, a right-wing extremist movement that is heavily influenced by white supremacist political ideology. It is likely not a coincidence that all of Reinking's victims were nonwhite.

A 29-year-old black man named James Shaw Jr. disarmed Reinking by grabbing the barrel of his AR-15. Shaw is the true definition of a hero. He acted selflessly, without training or compensation, and at great personal risk.

Like most real heroes, Shaw refused any special praise or honor. As Shaw explained at a press conference on Sunday, “I’m not a hero. ... I’m just a regular person. I think anybody could have did what I did if they’re pushed. You have to either react or fall. I chose to react because I didn’t see any other way to live.”

During those few minutes last Sunday morning in a Waffle House, a mini-drama of American life in the age of Trump took place.

A young black man protected the public from a white man hell-bent on committing mass murder. In America, black men are all too often subjected to harassment, official violence and racial profiling. By comparison, white men -- even when they are mass murderers or domestic terrorists -- are described by default as "nice" and "normal" people who are "lone wolves" or suffer from mental illness. Their crimes come as a surprise and not indicative of a broader "cultural problem" among the "white community."

The patrons at the Nashville Waffle House were lucky that James Shaw Jr. was not arrested and kicked out for trespassing like the two black men in a Philadelphia Starbucks store last week. If the manager in Nashville had a case of "negrophobia" like his peer in Philadelphia, more people might have died.

On the same day that Shaw saved lives in a Nashville, a black woman was arrested, stripped almost naked, and brutalized by police at a different Waffle House, a few hundred miles away in Alabama. Her crime? She complained to the manager about why her party had been charged for plastic utensils, when on a previous visit they had not been.

America's police routinely claim that they were in fear for their lives and "had no choice" after they kill unarmed or otherwise vulnerable black and brown people. James Shaw Jr., who had neither weapons nor police training, disarmed a killer with his bare hands.

And once again a white man who commits mass murder is captured alive, while black and brown people who are unarmed, talking on telephones, sitting in their cars, sleeping or generally minding their own business are killed by America's police nearly as a matter of routine. Reinking, who is accused of four murders, was even offered bond by a judge -- although in the face of public outrage this has since been revoked. Do you believe that a black or brown person credibly accused of mass murder would be given the opportunity to go free while awaiting trial?

Then there is Donald Trump. A president who finds countless hours to watch Fox News, play golf, and rage via Twitter about such important matters as the cartoon character Mr. Magoo has not made any public statement about the massacre in Nashville. (During a press briefing on Monday, White House press secretary Sarah Huckabee Sanders offered a routine statement of condolences for the victims and praise for Shaw on the president's behalf.)

Speaking personally and directly about Shaw's heroism and the mass shooting in Nashville might seem like a political slam dunk. But Trump's White House has demonstrated a remarkable gift for causing controversy where none is necessary. Could the president's near-silence on the Nashville shooting be another example of his supposed political incompetence? Unlikely.

The National Rifle Association and the single-issue voters it commands have Trump and the entire Republican Party in a vise grip. The Trump administration, for instance, rescinded common-sense rules put in place under Barack Obama meant to prevent mentally ill people from buying firearms. If such rules were actually enforced, they could have potentially stopped Reinking from obtaining the guns he apparently used to kill four people last Sunday. Perhaps Donald Trump has chosen not to speak directly about the mass murder in Nashville because his political masters demand it?

Given Trump's level of narcissism one would also think he would celebrate Shaw for stopping Reinking, who was detained by the Secret Service last July after attempting to breach the grounds of the White House.

The explanation for Trump's relative silence is obvious. Trump, his advisers, his political party and their media allies have thrived on their contempt for the humanity, dignity, and freedom of black and brown people. Honoring a black man for stopping an armed white man during what may have been a racially motivated killing spree runs counter to Donald Trump's political worldview and personal morality.

Let's recall that Trump has slurred black athletes (and others) who have exercised their constitutional rights to protest police brutality and racism. He has repeatedly attacked black journalists and elected officials, especially women, as stupid and ignorant. Trump has suggested that the people of Puerto Rico, who are United States citizens, have been lazy about their recovery from one of the worst natural disasters in recent history. Trump has repeatedly demonized Latin American immigrants as rapists and murderers. He has consistently refused to apologize to the Central Park Five, the group of black and Latino teenagers who were unjustly imprisoned for raping a white woman in 1989, and whom Trump longed to see executed.

The American right has engaged in a coordinated effort, over many years, to deny black Americans and other nonwhites the right to vote through gerrymandering and voter suppression. Trump and his Republican allies long to change our immigration laws to ensure that white people remain a permanent majority and that nonwhites are deported or otherwise removed whenever possible.

Trump has stated that black people live in hellish conditions, and therefore (for unclear reasons) they should support his presidency. He infamously described some of the neo-Nazis and white supremacists who gathered last August in Charlottesville, Virginia, as "very fine people."

Instead of focusing on the threat to public safety posed by right-wing extremist groups such as the Sovereign Citizens movement (which law enforcement officials have consistently identified as more dangerous than Islamic terrorist groups) Donald Trump's administration has defunded the programs targeting them. It is no surprise that the Ku Klux Klan and other overtly racist organizations have claimed Donald Trump as their leader.

It takes no special insight or powers of political prestidigitation to know that if a Muslim, an "illegal alien," a "Dreamer" or a black person had committed mass murder in Nashville on Sunday, that Trump and his media followers would be howling about "extremism" and "terrorism."  But when right-wing Christian conservatives commit mass murder or other acts of terror, such events are shrugged off as unfortunate curiosities. They are never understood as evidence of a systemic cultural problem caused by toxic white masculinity and white male privilege.

In another reality, James Shaw Jr. would have already been flown to the White House and celebrated as a national hero. The president of the United States has many responsibilities. These include formal obligations such as being the commander of the military and chief legislator. There are informal obligations as well, including serving as the country's cheerleader and providing moral leadership both on a day-to-day basis and during times of crisis and tragedy. As shown once again by his near-total silence after the mass shooting in Nashville, Donald Trump has spectacularly failed in this regard.

Antonio Banderas and the muddled portraiture of “Genius: Picasso”

National Geographic/Dusan Martincek

Whether the subject is Albert Einstein or Pablo Picasso, each installment of National Geographic’s “Genius” opens with a shot of the title character between a woman’s legs. Einstein’s introduction to the audience comes by way of an up-against-the wall interlude with his office assistant.

Our first glimpse of Picasso, meanwhile, shows his mother screaming as she pushes the future painter and sculptor into the world.

Separately these images would make it appear that the series portrays the women entangled in each man's life as crucial to informing their brilliance, as necessary as any whispers received from the universe. Not so much.

As posited by “Genius: Picasso,” debuting Tuesday at 9 p.m., vitality and seduction fuel the creative fires and passions of extraordinary men. Women are the flints sparking those flames. When they crash into one another. . . well. In Picasso’s story, the result is the mural-sized 1937 masterpiece “Guernica,” partly inspired by a catfight in his studio between his mistresses Dora Maar and Marie-Thérèse Walter.

And I use the term catfight intentionally here. History and Picasso himself refer to the confrontation as a wrestling match, but that connotes some version of agreed upon ground rules between the participants. As recreated in “Genius” by Samantha Colley’s Maar and Poppy Delevingne’s Walter, it’s a fiery fantasy observed and immortalized by the artist, sweeping his brush across a gigantic canvas as the women push and claw at one another.

“Genius: Picasso” builds upon the same architecture as the 2017 entry, right down to the same timeframe. A cuter production might have even left an Easter egg or two with Picasso glimpsing a photo of Geoffrey Rush’s Einstein. For all we know, that may yet happen; only four of the new season’s 10 episodes were made available to critics.

Repeating a tale of one span in history, specifically the late 1800s and early 1900s through the looming threat of fascism as the Nazis tore through Europe World War II, isn’t the most pointed criticism a person could make about this season. These new episodes do make a few references to Picasso’s role in battling tyranny and how deeply he valued liberty, and though it may be a stretch, one could see thematic parallels between his artistic acts of resistance and those of our time. But in "Genius," even these are obscured banal examinations of his many loves and personal losses, to say nothing of his famously enduring affection for himself.

It is not out of bounds to question why executive producers Brian Grazer and Ron Howard allowed “Genius” to profile two men, contemporaries of the same era, back-to-back. Surely they’re aware of how this redundancy looks, likely informing their announced selection of "Frankenstein" author Mary Shelley as the focus of season 3.

The producers chose well in casting Antonio Banderas as the older Pablo Picasso. Banderas lends a smooth and assured manner to a mature Picasso, right down to selling the man's  unfortunate late-in-life coif. The actor's ability to vacillate between quiet force and simmering displeasure conveys the artist’s legendary pride and ego in a way that doesn’t alienate the viewer.

Such an approach is necessary if the goal is granting some insight in a personality as dominated by artistic drive and aesthetics as he is devoted to his pursuit of carnal pleasures, as seen in this exclusive clip showing Picasso and Maar in one of their happier, sexier moments.

Less effective is Alex Rich’s embodiment of the younger Picasso, interspersed with Banderas' part of the day as the script saunters through the artist's formative years. As Johnny Flynn (who has a cameo this season as French actor Alain Cuny) does in season 1, Rich has the dual task of playing Picasso while matching the quirks and traits of Banderas’ take on Picasso. The net result is distracting, to put it kindly.

Basically Rich is imitating a famous guy emotionally invested in representing his fellow hometown hero as well as possible  — both Banderas and Picasso were born in Málaga, Spain — translating to a painful cartoon rendition of an Andalusian accent.

He’s not alone, actually. While several actors are merely punching up their natural inflections, others such as Seth Gabel woefully attempt to evoke some version of Parisian elocution that blows your wig off. Even this doesn’t reach the heights T.R. Knight’s astounding take on the poet Max Jacob: Just when you think he’s nailed the physicality of the man, he opens his mouth and out leap the linguistic stylings of Pepe Le Pew.

Picasso, by way of Banderas, is a charismatic guy whose bona fides as a genius are never in doubt. A woman could even understand why formidable talents such as Maar and later in Picasso's life, Françoise Gilot (Clémence Poésy) would be drawn to him. They hung on, despite his disregard for their emotions or any outward evidence of loyalty.

Nevertheless, not one of those strained romances tells us anything profound about Picasso’s progression as an artist or serve to explain the methods that went into his pioneering work or his founding of seminal genres, namely cubism.

Instead these hot-blooded affairs provide easy miniseries fluff for showrunner Ken Biller, who also directs several episodes, to mold into entertainment. More’s the pity. For if the expectation of “Genius” is to grant the viewer some sliver of enlightenment about the inner workings of complex minds, it has fallen down in its mission yet again.

This is especially apparent in Colley’s return for season 2. I have no problem with her performance, or Poésy’s or Delevingne’s; each funnels the frustrations of the women they play into their roles in singular and interesting ways, though Delevingne has fewer tones to work with as Walter, a woman Picasso says he liked “because she was sweet and gentle and did whatever I wanted her to.”

Maar, the subject of a number Picasso’s paintings, is an artist in her own right whose import and effect on her lover’s work, and his upon hers, is denied an expanded explanation within the four opening hours beyond establishing her as his muse. Colley stands out in this season in the same way that her portrayal of Einstein’s first wife Mileva Maric shines in the first, where she shows us why Maric was a scientist worthy of a full episode’s focus.

But at its outset “Genius: Picasso” features no such equivalent examination of its women. This not only shortchanges them, it shorts Picasso himself. The glory of Colley’s work in the Einstein season is that it added an important caveat to the biography and legend surrounding the man in the title; as it wrote then, she allows us to witness Einstein’s inquisitive nature as it is filtered through intellectual attraction.

In the Picasso entry, Colley's Maar and other women are compelled to remain in the artist's orbit for barely fathomable reasons beyond the notion that talent is an effective attractant. Very quickly this view grows irritatingly facile.

Worse, “Genius: Picasso” recreates the life of one of the 20th century’s highest aesthetic innovators by utilizing cliché-riddled dialogue and commonplace scenery. Given Picasso’s lasting and very tangible legacy as an originator — his artwork graces cities around the world — this shortcoming feels acutely disappointing. One would think the spirit of the man would embolden the writers and directors to manifest the fundamentals of his oeuvre within each episode’s presentation.

The Einstein season achieves this, somewhat, by externalizing the cognitive mechanics of its subject’s theories, calling forth glimmering animations to show the audience his view of the universe. Regardless of that season’s numerous flaws, those touches of magic work well.

Oddly “Genius: Picasso” leans upon telling more than showing, resulting in a basic approach to Picasso’s world. He “sees” the subjects of his portraits, and poof! They are captured in oils and acrylics. Maar and Walter tussle and after the Nazis bomb the Basque village for which the painting is named, and boom! That’s how that happened.

Adapting such a literalist’s take on a life driven by the conceptual is baffling given the resources available to Biller to get this story right.  Presumably the narrative's creative possibilities weren’t bound by budgetary constraints but by the limits of creativity within the writers themselves.

“Genius: Picasso” is gorgeously filmed, no argument there. Production locations in France, Spain and Hungary do much of the heavy lifting, and the cinematography makes the most of each space’s unique light, streets and geography.

And if you’re searching for a clue as to how Picasso mastered and employed the art of wooing, winning and juggling so many love affairs at one time, this season has you covered. As for illuminating the hidden gifts that earned him the title’s designation that, sadly, is a work left unfinished.

Royal baby number three and Kate Middleton is still not your typical postpartum mom

KGC-22/STAR MAX/IPx

There's no doubt that being married to a future king of England and mother to the heir to his throne comes with an expectation of elegance. And Catherine, Duchess of Cambridge has exceeded all requirements throughout her seven years as a member of the royal family, exuding a confident style and shampoo commercial worthy hair. But she really upped the game on Monday, when as the Palace announced, she was "safely delivered of a son at 1101hrs" and then emerged from the hospital just a few hours later, looking goddamn flawless.

The former Kate Middleton left St. Mary’s Hospital Monday to an elated throng of press and well-wishers with her husband by her side and her newborn son in her arms. She wore a red Jenny Packham dress that nodded to the crimson frock her late mother-in-law Princess Diana wore to debut Prince Harry nearly 34 years ago, nude pumps and full hair and makeup. A planet full of humans who don't look that pulled together when they haven't pushed out an eight-pound child earlier in the day was impressed (My current status: bagel crumbs on pants).

This isn't the Duchess's first rodeo — the new prince is her third child, and she's looked utterly radiant with each post-hospital appearance. But when Prince George was born five years ago, she waited a full day before stepping out before a public already eager to speculate on her "post-baby bod." The efficiency with which Her Royal Highness managed to transform herself this time — even with a likely formidable beauty squad — seemed record setting. It's also as wildly atypical as say, having your face on commemorative plates.

I have given birth twice in my life and in my first photos with my babies, I look like an actual monster. A monster who has just been taken by surprise. But even if I'd managed the small dignities of running a comb through my hair and applying some lip balm in the immediate aftermath of labor and delivery, I would still have been up against the somewhat gruesome realities of the postpartum form. Let me get real with you for a moment on that front.

Whether or not you're a duchess, the time following birth includes a decent amount of bleeding and clotting — sometimes for weeks. It's not uncommon for a new mom, who is wearing about four maxi pads in her granny panties, to pass stuff that looks like raw liver. Her vaginal area will feel like it is on fire. The mere thought of peeing will make her cry, and her doctor will hand her stool softeners and an inflatable donut because she's positive right now that never wants to attempt pooping again. She may, however, sneeze and pee herself anyway. Is she familiar with the term "sitz bath"? She will be! Her breasts, alert to someone nearby who desires a nosh, will begin to ache and tingle. Her hands, face and feet may immediately begin to swell — I left the hospital with my babies not in fashionable high heels but skid-proof socks, because none of my shoes fit my edema-swollen feet anymore.

The new mom is also experiencing cramping, possibly intense, as her uterus begins to retreat back to its pre-pregnancy dimensions. BabyCenter notes that "Afterpains are typically mild for first-time moms (if you feel them at all) and don't last long. But they can be quite uncomfortable after a second delivery and usually get worse with each successive delivery." And then there are the mood swings from the sudden hormonal changes. Kate, how are you even smiling?

Royal childbirth has evolved over time, but one constant is that it's often been an example to others. After Queen Victoria discovered the "blessed" joy of twilight sleep — aka chloroform — for the birth of her eighth child, she set a style among fashionable mothers-to-be for similar knockout tactics. Queen Elizabeth carved a new path by being the first monarch to have her spouse in the delivery room with her. Princess Diana ushered in an era of royals not retreating from the public eye during pregnancy, and of giving birth in the hospital. When she and Prince Charles showed Prince William to the world a day after he was born, Diana declared her son "in excellent form, thank goodness – and looking a bit more human this morning." As surely was she. Now, Kate has set the standard for appearing as polished as a local news anchor at a time when most women can still barely stand up. There's a reason lots of new moms get rolled out of the hospital in a wheelchair. She reflects the popular desire for an Instagram-worthy first image of motherhood, one that's serenely, effortlessly pretty.

It would be unrealistic to expect a royal to step out with her brand new baby looking like Nick Nolte's mugshot. The duchess is the beautiful mother of three beautiful children, and also a lady who lives in a palace. And while I wish every new mother as much as ease and comfort as possible, I am also happy to provide the reality check that birth involves blood and exhaustion, and that nobody looks that glamorous when they get home and park on that inflatable donut.

Trump just hung his VA nominee out to dry

AP/Alex Brandon/Evan Vucci/Salon

In the latest example of President Donald Trump surrounding himself with the "best people," he acknowledged on Tuesday afternoon that his nominee to lead the Department of Veterans Affairs has a "lack of experience."

But, nevertheless, the president still went on to boast that Dr. Ronny Jackson is "one of the finest people" he's ever met.

Jackson has faced new allegations from whistleblowers "that have told the panel about Jackson's questionable behavior including excessive drinking and a 'toxic' work environment under his leadership," CNN reported this week.

"I don’t want to put a man through a process like this," Trump said, hinting that his nominee may ultimately withdraw, during a press conference with the French president, according to CNN.

"I told Admiral Jackson just a little while ago, what do you need this for? This is a vicious group of people, they malign ... what do you need it for?" he said. "He's an admiral, he's a great leader, and they question him for every little thing."

He added, "He is a high-quality person. It's totally his decision. So he'll be making a decision. I don't want to put a man through a process like this. It's too ugly and too disgusting."

"If I were him, I wouldn't do it," Trump said.

Trump also railed against the Democrats for their growing concerns about Jackson's past to lead the office, even though those concerns have been bipartisan. Last week the Senate Veterans Affairs committee began a probe into Jackson and his nomination hearing — which was scheduled for Wednesday — was postponed without a rescheduled date.

"The Senate Committee on Veterans' Affairs is postponing the hearing to consider the nominee to be secretary of the U.S. Department of Veterans Affairs in light of new information presented to the committee," Sens. Johnny Isakson, R-Ga., and Jon Tester, D-Mont., said in a statement that did not elaborate on the allegations.

"I'm looking forward to rescheduling the hearing and getting the process moving," says VA Sec. nominee Dr. Ronny Jackson, whose nomination hearing was postponed this morning amid scrutiny. https://t.co/nUAOyccJla pic.twitter.com/lhz4JPl2xm

— ABC News (@ABC) April 24, 2018

Still, Trump used his half-hearted defense of Jackson as an opportunity to take shots at the Democrats for having largely resisted his secretary of state nominee, former CIA head, Mike Pompeo. "They failed to stop him, so now they say 'who’s next?'" Trump said, according to The New York Times.

"I have very serious questions that need to be addressed, and they should be addressed right now, like today," Sen. Richard Blumenthal, D-Conn., said, the Times reported.

Just In: 2 sources confirm to @nancycordes and @edokeefe Sen Vet Affairs Comm is reviewing allegations against Ronny Jackson which include a hostile work environment, excessive drinking on the job and improperly dispensing meds.

— Steve Dorsey (@steve_dorsey) April 24, 2018

Jackson is the White House physician who gave Trump his annual physical. The White House said afterward that the president was in "excellent" health, a claim that was criticized by other medical experts. It's also become clear that the White House did no vetting of Jackson, or of his background, prior to Trump selecting him as the nominee.

This Week on SalonTV: Molly Ringwald, Ralph Macchio, “The Handmaid’s Tale” and more

Shutterstock/Salon

The Tribeca Film Festival has arrived in New York this week and several actors and filmmakers are stopping by SalonTV with their hottest new projects. Molly Ringwald will appear on “Salon Talks” with her latest film “All These Small Moments,” in which she plays a mother of two teenage boys and is dealing with a crumbling marriage. Ralph Macchio is back in the character of “karate kid” Daniel LaRusso and up against his high school adversary, Johnny Lawrence, in the new YouTube Red Original Series “Cobra Kai.” Macchio will talk to Salon revisiting karate kid 30 years later.

Director Dawn Porter, whose 2016 documentary film “Trapped” about doctors who perform abortions won acclaim and a special jury social impact prize at the 2016 Sundance Film Festival, will share her latest project “Bobby Kennedy for President.” The four-part Netflix original series, which launches globally on April 27, features rare and never-before-seen archival footage of Bobby Kennedy and new interviews with those who knew RFK well.

We'll spotlight another inspiring culture icon who left too soon, comedian Gilda Radner. Lisa D'Apolito, director of "Love, Gilda," a new documentary from CNN Films about the comedic trailblazer will present her film, which examines Radner’s life through journal entries, never-before-heard audio recordings and interviews with Amy Poehler, Maya Rudolph, Lorne Michaels and Melissa McCarthy.

And as Hulu’s “The Handmaid’s Tale” debuts its second season this week, Amanda Brugel, who plays Rita in the drama alongside Elisabeth Moss, Joseph Fiennes, Yvonne Strahovski and Alexis Bledel, will visit “Salon Talks.”

Plus, we’ll talk politics with Stacey Abrams, who is running for governor of Georgia. If she wins, she would make history as the country’s first black woman governor. Her new book, “Minority Leader: How to Lead from the Outside and Make Real Change,” takes on how she rose from humble roots to leadership.

Tune in live on Salon's Facebook page. Click on any segment for the option to add it to your calendar and receive reminders.

Tune into SalonTV’s live shows, “Salon Talks” and “Salon Stage” daily at 12 p.m. ET / 9 a.m. PT and 4 p.m. ET / 1 p.m. PT, which stream live on Salon, Facebook and Periscope.

About SalonTV

SalonTV is the online destination for in-depth, informative and revealing conversations with leading newsmakers, cultural icons, musicians and more. From celebrity interviews and roundtable discussions on current events to live music performances, SalonTV lets you watch the content you already love to read. Just hit play. 

Corporate welfare state: GOP tax plan showers millionaires with $17 billion tax break

Shutterstock

The biggest winners of the Republican tax plan are — surprise, surprise — the richest earners in the country.

In news that should surprise nobody, the Joint Committee on Taxation report released on Monday showed that the wealthiest earners in America will rake in more cash and reap the majority of the benefits in 2018 as a result of the tax plan passed last December.

The overhaul to the nation's tax code, which was led by the Trump administration and Congressional Republicans, included a deduction that ranges up to 20 percent for "pass-through" businesses. As The New York Times explained:

While “pass-throughs” is a term often used to refer to small businesses, a Treasury Department analysis found that many are not actually businesses at all. And 69 percent of pass-through income goes to the top one percent of households.

In total, owners of these structures will be showered with $40.2 billion in tax breaks. Of that, $17.4 billion, or 44.3 percent, "will go to roughly 200,000 Americans making $1 million or more," NBC News reported. "Another $3.6 billion, or 8.9 percent, will go to a similar number of taxpayers who earn $500,000 to $1 million."

But wait, there's more. Further down the line, the wealthiest earners will be showered with even more generous tax cuts. "By 2024, the tax deductions will amount to $60.3 billion, and those making $1 million or more will account for $31.6 billion (52.4 percent) of that," NBC noted.

While it's true that other taxpayers, such as roughly 9.2 million who earn between $100,000 and $500,000 "will account for $15.7 billion in deductions, and roughly 9.7 million filers in that income range will get $19.6 billion in 2024," it's worth pointing out that the tax plan is still vastly disproportionate.

Of course, President Donald Trump and his fellow GOP lawmakers marketed the new tax plan as a major overhaul that would improve the lives of middle and working class Americans. Some Republicans expressed regret after voting for it — but it was too late.

"None of us have covered ourselves in glory," Sen. Bob Corker, R-Tenn., said recently at a Senate Budget Committee hearing, according to the Tennessean. "This Congress and this administration likely will go down as one of the most fiscally irresponsible administrations and Congresses that we’ve had."

He added, "If it ends up costing what has been laid out here, it could well be one of the worst votes I’ve made."

A new Wall Street Journal/NBC News poll highlighted that only 27 percent of all adults believed the tax plan was a good idea, while 36 percent said they believed it was a bad idea. To no surprise, Republicans were the only majority to believe it was a good idea, 56 percent. Still, that sentiment is not at all indicative that Republicans won't dare to enact even more tax cuts this year.

Meanwhile, the Trump administration has made efforts to gut billions from welfare and social services programs, which will hurt the poorest Americans. Departing House Speaker Paul Ryan, R-Wis., has also touted the same, as he has aimed to slash Medicare, Medicaid and Social Security.

Turn your iPhone into a DSLR camera with this case

Fancy photos are popping up everywhere these days, whether they land themselves in a portfolio, a blog or on an Instagram profile. Taking great pictures can earn you income in a straightforward way (winning you work as a freelance photographer) or as a means towards developing your brand (whether you have a small business, a blog or promote products through a forum like Instagram). If you want to invest in your photography skills without investing in an expensive, bulky DSLR, just use this Ztylus Revolver M Series iPhone Lens Kit instead.

It's a case and smartphone camera attachment that's so effective at turbocharging your phone's natural photo taking abilities, it's received several awards, including a 2015 CE Week Best in Show Award, and 2016 and 2018 CES Innovation Award Honoree. This one gadget delivers several different functionalities: it's a case, a screen protector and six new lenses in an attachment that's about the size of an Oreo. The "Revolver" is aptly named because of how quickly you can switch between the lenses — the system is built off a magnetic connection and a slim, light spring-loaded mechanism that lets you not only install the Revolver Lens with total ease but lets you quickly swap lenses to capture that perfect shot.

Since the lenses are already durable and protected when not in use, there's no cumbersome lens cap to get in the way of your shoot — thanks to  QuickFlip technology, the lenses flip out and automatically align with your phone without needing any manual adjustment (unlike a finicky DSLR). That way you'll never have to worry about missing the moment, whether it's your nephew's first steps or a gorgeous sunset since you can attach and change lenses in seconds. All it takes is a quick flip and you're ready to go, with your choice between two telephoto lenses, a macro, super macro, wide-angle and fisheye lens to enhance your phone camera's capabilities.

The Revolver is also multi-use: there's an embedded metal plate on the back that lets you attach it to other kinds of accessories — and more and more are in development every day. Plus, the cutouts on the case make all your usual ports and controls readily accessible.

So if you were curious about investing in a sophisticated camera, you might want to try this lower-cost alternative instead — after all, we usually always have our phones on hand, and that's not necessarily the case with an expensive camera. Usually, this Ztylus Revolver M Series iPhone Lens Kit is $70, but you can get it now for $49.99.

We can’t binge-watch “Brockmire,” and that’s a problem

IFC/Kim Simms

With increasing frequency, series producers are constructing their season arcs with an eye toward binging. A perfect example is IFC’s “Brockmire,” returning for its second season Wednesday at 10 p.m. Hank Azaria’s wildly crass, relentlessly dark comedy airs one new episode each week, like any typical series scheduled on a linear television channel. Minus commercials, seven of this season’s eight episodes clock in at under 22 minutes. The only one that doesn’t, the season finale, is under 24 minutes.

Brevity can be a blessing, don’t get me wrong. With prestige dramas churning out episodes that rival the length of many feature films, knowing that you can plow through an entire season of “Brockmire” in three hours is a relief.

Therein exists the main quibble I have with these new episodes. In order to really comprehend where the show’s writer, Joel Church-Cooper, is taking Azaria’s Jim Brockmire in this second season, a person really needs to watch the first. (Helpfully IFC is running a marathon during the daytime on Wednesday. The full first season is also available on Hulu.)

Then, in order to understand why “Brockmire” has already earned renewal for a third and a fourth season, you should probably watch the bleak but still good second season in a single pass.

The fact that I’m even thinking about how to watch “Brockmire” as opposed to whether to watch says a lot about our own TV habits and expectations, I guess. Plenty of TV series require me to defend them by assuring people they get better after the premiere, so keep watching. (Most of those shows, by the way, exist on streaming services.)

The new season of “Brockmire,” meanwhile, requires the warning that it gets darker very quickly but earns every bump on the way down.

“Brockmire” works because of the debased grandiloquence Azaria pours into the title character. Few comedies can pitch floridly foul yet intelligent dialogue and not only get away with it, but make it the backbone of the show's appeal.

Brockmire, a character Azaria originated in a 2010 Funny or Die video, is a man who reacts to life sucker-punching him by setting his career ablaze and hanging out in an assortment of third-world dives. In the show's first season, Church-Cooper devised a well-crafted, expediently delivered redemption tale about a big league broadcasting ego knocked back to the minor leagues — a comedic reflection of America itself.

Only when he lands in Morristown, a Pennsylvania hamlet leached of all hope by the gas industry, does he believe that he has hit bottom at last. Not quite. During the decade that he sequestered himself in a merry-go-round of calling cock fights and frequenting brothels, his on-camera meltdown made him a meme. His return to broadcasting, modest though it may seem, marks his comeback.

The new season proves how wrong Brockmire was to believe that the worst chapters of his life were behind him. Deceptively, though, Brockmire’s new setting is far more attractive than Morristown. Now he’s in the Big Easy, calling games for the New Orleans Crawdaddys by day and helming a highly popular podcast titled “Brock Bottom,”  which requires him to engage in the two other activities he enjoys as much as baseball, if not more: monologuing and drinking himself into a stupor.

Certainly “Brockmire” provides a surfeit of nihilistic giggles and libertine adventure in the first half of this new season. As for the episodes that close the season . . . how do I put this? They accurately capture what it feels like when an addict’s parachute fails and he spectacularly smashes on some canyon’s floor.

Outsized though his personality may be, Brockmire is a man whose frailties threaten to break him at any given moment. Throughout this new run of half-hours, Church-Cooper writes and Azaria prove that their guy isn’t one of those magical TV characters who can chug gallons of top shelf brown liquor and inhale drugs as if they are oxygen without consequence.

He remains single-mindedly focused on returning to the glory days of his career, even if that means alienating the people who care most about him.

And he’s still a middle-aged guy with a liver that’s been battered into submission.

So while the new season opens with Brockmire in full decadence, using a woman’s buttocks for a pillow while wearing a silky kimono, very quickly he slides out of this Elysium and into an ocean of excreta of his own making. Unlike the trajectory of his Morristown arc, in this season his downward spiral ceases to be funny about three-quarters into the season. Jim Brockmire devolves quickly and loudly and eventually he’s just gross.

Telling people to record “Brockmire” for a mass guzzling later on doesn’t help IFC in terms of viewership or, for that matter, any viewer who’s looking for a level and consistent weekly dose of comedy.

“Brockmire,” as the title hints, is a character-driven series, and that makes its serialized elements easier to jump into midstream than other series. Then again, since the comedy’s overall success is reliant on how strongly a viewer connects with Azaria’s character, forging that relationship is absolutely essential — especially in this new batch of episodes.

In New Orleans, Jim Brockmire isn’t consistently buoyed by supporting characters who collaborate to call forth the virtues of Brockmire vigorously attempting to waterboard with booze. Off the top you’ll notice the absence of Amanda Peet’s Jules, his season 1 love interest. Jules served to prevent Brockmire from becoming a two-dimensional parody of himself. But she is absent this year as the series retrains its focus on Azaria and Tyrel Jackson Williams’ Charles, the young social media guru who moves with Brockmire down to New Orleans.

Although Azaria and Williams make a potent comedy duo, there’s little of the tenderness and vulnerability in their partnership that the star has with Peet. Instead, Charles is a guy whose tolerance for his partner’s alcohol-fueled antics and self-involvement steadily diminishes as the story rolls forward. That’s the point, but it also makes me wonder how patient people will be to stick around to watch Brockmire expend the forbearance of everyone who surrounds him, one sip at a time.

But as Brockmire himself points out in the season premiere, witnessing the torment of the most vulnerable among us has the power to bring us all together.  In that regard, this new season is still pretty great nevertheless, though probably better without having to wait a week between progressively demented installments.